NC0083925_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20010920

b4zv5
M
M
W
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FOR
NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT EXPANSION
FOR
SALEM GLEN GOLF AND RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE
DAVIDSON COUNTY, NC
Prepared for:
HEATER UTILITIES, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 4889
Cary, NC 27519
Prepared by:
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
219 E. Chatham Street
Cary, NC 27511
�\A CAR® '%
�F�SS3pC����'
SEAL

W
FM
M
INDEX
I. Engineering Alternatives Analysis Pg. 1-7
A. General
B. Summary of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Options
Considered
F" C. Narrative Description of the Proposed Treatment
Works
D. General Location Map
E. Scale Site Plan
F. Special Studies/Modelling
G. Financial Qualifications
H. Other Possible Combinations of Alternatives
I. Potential Acquisition of Additional Land
J. Conclusion
M-9
II. Appendix A Pg. A-1 through A-28
FM Detailed explanation of each alternative, its capital
cost, its operation/maintenance (O&M) costs, and its
present worth.
III. Appendix B Pg. B-1 through B-17
Re-examination of alternatives with the assumption that
additional land is available to allow the land -based
wastewater treatment alternatives to develop the same
number of lots as the treatment plant/discharge
alternative.
IV. Appendix C Pg. C-1 through C-8
Detailed infrastructure cost estimates for each
alternative.
FM

ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT
w. A. GENERAL:
w. 1. Introduction y` t
This Engineering Alt natives Analysis (E.A.A.) is submitted in
support of an appli ation for a modification of NPDES permit
NC0083925. The mo fication would be an increase in the permitted
flow, from .(14 MG to .20 MGD. This proposal has been prepared in
accordance w A NCAC 2H.105(c)(1) through (7) and the Division of
., Water Quality's (DWQ) "Guidance for the Evaluation of Wastewater
Disposal Alternatives" (ver. June 9, 2000).
The subject permit expansion is intended to serve 167 lots in the last
two phases of Salem Glen residential development. As detailed in
Appendix A, the wastewater flows have been estimated in accordance
with 15 NCAC 2H.0219. The wastewater will be domestic in nature.
2. Project Identification Information
_ Facility Name: Salem Glen WWTP
County: Davidson (Service area is located in both Davidson
and Forsyth Counties).
Facility Address: Heater Utilities, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 4889
Cary, NC 27519
Facility telephone number: [phone]
Engineering Alternative Analysis preparer:
John F. Phillips, P.E.
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
EAA preparer's address and telephone number:
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
219 E. Chatham St.
Cary, NC 27511
[phone]
3. Project Description
The project to be served is Salem Glen Golf Club and Residential
Village. The majority of the project is constructed. Of the
approximately 540 lots approved for construction, 373 are or will be
served under the existing NPDES permit. The flow from these houses,
plus the flow from the Racquet and Swim Club and the golf clubhouse
1

MM
will fully utilize the .14 MGD capacity of the existing NPDES permit.
This E.A.A. examines the possible ways to provide wastewater service
to the remaining 167 lots. The location of the remaining lots is
identified on Figure No. 1. These lots are located in Parcel 9 and a
�• portion of Parcel 8 on the Salem Glen masterplan.
4. Existing Facilities
Ma The existing WWTP is a 100,000 gpd extended aeration WWTP. The plant
includes:
V' Influent bar rock
Influent flow control and splitter box
20,000 gallon flow equalization basin
Duplex submersible flow equalization pumps
Dual 50,000 gallon aeration basins
Dual clarification
Tablet chlorinators and de -chlorinators, backup to ultraviolet
disinfection system
Ultraviolet disinfection unit
Dual return sludge airlift pumps
Dual skimmer airlift pumps
15,000 gallon sludge holding/thickening chamber
Swing -arm decant airlift pump
Effluent flow meter
One flow equalization blower
Dual centrifugal plant blowers
The plant is located entirely above ground. Effluent is pumped to
discharge point on the Yadkin River. A tertiary filter is not provided
because the current discharge limits do not require the use of a
filter.
The existing treatment plant does not have any known deficiencies. The
effluent has been compliant with the permit limitations. The
electrical service for the plant has a voltage that differs from the
voltage serving the effluent pump station. If the plant were expanded,
this would be corrected so that one standby generation could serve
�+ both facilities, which would improve the plant's reliability.
5. Phasing
IM
The Salem Glen project is being constructed in phases. The estimated
schedule to construct remaining phases is two to three years.
MR
B. SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The results of this study clearly indicate that an expanded 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:
2
M

n
s41UT MIR IAf I *c 1x
r(*SVMOUNTY: 5MWSFLOTS
vionity map Not to sod* 5041WAT 1,1=, ."k
17
did
417s, uo TH toUN'rv-34 20
sw cmwv-, 16 - 8 jxv s F t �,t y J, s AIL:j 1,
.7
I Jr,
v
Ns"
E TREAIMFNt'f
PLANT
54, - st(w sp
w
f.
Salem Glen
Gulf °Club & Residential Village
Clemmous, North Carolina
co
, AQ
RAKELALU?2ECvc
T 5$1t�ot�col
d1so
DAW)"COUNM
NTIAL smon.r.,
Ir wails veer . -wo Mrom�-,
tu nwet
Z,
Tr
STUDY AREA
(SEE FIGURES 3-9)
titri
PARCEL is ct2� Z__ "3-=-
WX3�+ -
ALL LOTS SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE ARE
EXISTING OR ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT
FIG URE No. 1
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200
1 1 1 1
IN,
I iq

ran
1. Connection to a publicly owned treatment plant and wastewater
collection system.
2. Connection to a privately owned treatment plant and wastewater
Ow collection system.
3. Individual subsurface systems on each lot
`-` 4. Central subsurface (conventional nitrification lines) system and
wastewater collection system.
OR 5. Central subsurface (drip irrigation) system and wastewater
collection system.
6. Central spray irrigation system and wastewater collection system.
7. Central drip irrigation (surface application) system and
wastewater collection system.
8. Treatment plant and discharge of treated effluent to the Yadkin
River, with wastewater collection system.
9. Reuse of treated wastewater (combination of golf course
irrigation and discharge to the Yadkin River) with wastewater
collection system.
The possible combinations of various alternatives are also discussed.
For all alternatives, the water supply will be through extension of
the public water distribution system of Davidson Water, Inc.
All of the alternatives are environmentally feasible options that are
routinely permitted in 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. An expanded discharge to surface waters is not as
environmentally desirable as a connection to a POTW, but an expanded
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.)
3

OR
r
M
M
The present worth values of the nine alternatives are:
Alt.
Description
Present
Number
Worth
1
Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
N.A.
2
Connection to Privately Owned Treatment Plant
N.A.
3
Individual Sub -surface Systems
$ 3,870,056
4
Central Subsurface Treatment System
$ 3,844,423
(Conventional Nitrification Lines) with
Wastewater Collection System
5
Central Subsurface Treatment System (Drip
$ 3,840,554
Irrigation) with WW Collection System
6
Central Spray Irrigation System with
$ 4,696,852
Wastewater Collection System
7
Central Drip Irrigation (Surface Applied) with
$ 4,501,729
Wastewater Collection System
8
Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (Discharge
$ 2,756,789
to Yadkin River) with WW Collection System
9
Re -Use of Treated Wastewater (Combination
$ 2,912,170
Spray/Discharge) with WW Collection System
For this project the installation of a new treatment plant discharging
r to the Yadkin River has a present worth cost that is only 720 of the
lowest present worth of the land based disposal systems. No other
alternative is reasonably cost effective when compared to the present
r worth costs of the new treatment plant. The reuse alternative (No. 9)
has a present worth that is only approximately 6% higher than the
discharge alternative, but it also relies on an expanded discharge to
the Yadkin River for all p' riods when golf course irrigation is not
feasible. The new treatmen[ plant and its discharge into the Yadkin
River is environmentally f asible, based on the rivers quantity of
flow, current DWQ rules and regulations, and the fact that DWQ has
r previously issued an NPDES permit for the existing plant. Therefore,
the only environmentally sound alternative of the reasonably cost
effective alternatives is the new treatment plant and surface
discharge, and in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.105 (c)(2), this
alternative is the selected alternative. The reuse alternative is not
as cost effective, but should be considered if it is determined that
the assimilative capacity of the Yadkin River is limited.
Appendix A includes a detailed explanation of each alternative, its
capital cost and operation/maintenance (O&M) costs, and its present
.a worth.
4
r

No
C. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WORKS:
The proposed 60,000 gpd treatment facilities would consist of:
1) . Influent screening.
OR 2). One 15,000 gallon aerated flow equalization basin (25% of average
daily flow (ADF)) .
3). Dual equalization basin pumps and flow control splitter box.
4). Dual train extended aeration plants, each containing one 30,000
gallon aeration basin, one clarifier with a minimum detention
time of 4 hours at ADF and a maximum surface overflow rate of 300
gpd/S.F.
Each clarifier shall have air lift type pumps to return sludge at
a rate up to 150t of ADF, to either the front of the aeration
zone or to waste sludge storage. Each clarifier shall also have
a skimmer and air lift scum pump.
Following the clarifier, the plant will have multiple -cell
tertiary filters with redundant backwash and surge pumps, if
warranted by the NPDES permit limitations. Filtration rate would
be limited to 1.25 m sf through the filter. For the
gP / g purposes of
this E.A.A., it is assumed that tertiary filters will be required
for the plant.
Following filtration the plant would have disinfection'by
ultraviolet light. A tablet chlorination/dechlorination system
would also be provided as a backup system to the W disinfection.
Following disinfection would be an indicating, totalizing flow
recorder, using a V-notch weir as the primary element.
5). Waste sludge would be stored in a 15,000 gallon aerated sludge
holding tank. Assuming a sludge production of 2,000 lbs per M.G.
of flow (dry solids basis), the plant would produce 120 lbs./day
of waste solids.
The sludge storage tank would have equipment to allow the clear
supernatant to be returned to the plant influent, thus thickening
the sludge. At 120 lbs./day of solids, the sludge storage tank.
would have a minimum of 42 days storage at 4% solids. The sludge
storage tank would have connections for the removal of thickened
�* sludge by a contract operator for land application.
Standby power generation and an automatic transfer switch would
be provided to serve the facilities. (The receiving stream is
currently classified as WS-IV.)
0M
5
no

No
P"
D. GENERAL LOCATION MAP: See Figure 1
E. SCALE SITE PLAN:
A site plan for each alternative is included in the appendix.
F. SPECIAL STUDIES OR MODELING WHERE DWQ CANNOT DETERMINE IMPACTS OF
DISCHARGE:
Fft Not required at this time.
G. FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS/ SUBSTANTIAL PREVIOUS COMPLIANCE
STATEMENT:
Applicant is a public utility company (Heater Utilities, Inc.), a
licensed utility company operating under the regulations of the
Utilities Commission. This utility company is in sound financial
condition and is in good standing with the Utilities Commission.
H. OTHER POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives No. 1 through No. 9 address the wastewater treatment and
disposal alternatives for the subject property, as required by the DWQ
Guidance for the Evaluation of Wastewater Disposal Alternatives. For
this E.A.A., the treatment systems proposed for the land based
disposal alternatives are the most cost effective for the design flows
of the alternatives. For example, it would not be cost effective to
use a package treatment plant for the relatively small wastewater
flows in Alternatives 4 through 7. The only combination of
alternatives that is feasible for this E.A.A. is represented by
Alternative No. 9, which is essentially a combination of Alternatives
No. 6 & 8.
I. POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND:
No
The potential acquisition of land to provide additional treatment
capacity for the land based disposal systems (Alternatives No. 3
through 7) was considered as a part of this E.A.A. Prior to contacting
OR any adjacent property owners about the possibility of purchasing
portions of their land, an economic evaluation was performed to
determine the effect of additional land for each alternative.
These economic analyses used the infrastructure costs in Alternative
No. 8, the treatment plant alternative (serving 167 lots), and then
�► scaled -up the land -based wastewater disposal system in each
alternative as required to serve 167 lots. The present worth of the
infrastructure, scaled -up wastewater disposal system, and increased
annual O&M costs was determined for each alternative and compared to
the present worth of Alternative No. 8. In each case the present worth
of the scaled -up land based treatment alternative exceeded the present
worth of Alternative No. 8, without including any cost for the

r
.r
r
r
additional land acquisition. Based on the results of these
it is apparent that acquisition of additional lands would
the present worth ranking of Alternative No. 8; therefore,
landowners were contacted.
analyses,
not change
no adjacent
The economic analyses that examine the scaled -up alternatives and
additional land acquisitions are presented in Appendix B.
J. CONCLUSION:
As demonstrated in the information included in this E.A.A. and the
Appendices, the selection of the expanded discharge alternative was
made only after extensive consideration of all the other alternatives.
Of the environmentally sound alternatives, an expanded 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. The reuse alternative that provides a
combination of golf course irrigation and discharge to the Yadkin
River is not as cost effective as the selected alternative, but may be
considered as slightly more environmentally sound. The reuse
alternative becomes the selected alternative if DWQ determines the
assimilative capacity of the Yadkin River cannot allow the
implementation of Alternative No. 8. On behalf of the applicant, we
request approval of the expansion of the existing discharge permit to
a total permitted flow of .20_MGD.
e�

7
APPENDIX A
DETAILED EXPLANATION OF EACH ALTERNATIVE, ITS CAPITAL COST, ITS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS, AND ITS PRESENT WORTH

sd
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
o. CONNECTION TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
The Salem Glen project is located approximately 4 miles (measured
along public roads) southwest of the Winston-Salem Utility
Commission's Muddy Creek WWTP. A wastewater connection to the Muddy
Creek WWTP can only be made with a pump station and forcemain, due to
the area topography. However, it has been a long-standing policy of
the Commission to not accept pumped wastewater flows from drainage
basins not served by their gravity sewer collection system. It was
confirmed in a conversation with Mr. Robert Huff of the City of
Winston-Salem that this policy is still in effect, and more
specifically, the City will not agree to accept wastewater from the
Salem Glen development.
Davidson County recently completed construction of the first phase of
the Northwest Davidson County sewer system. The flow from this service
area is treated at the Muddy Creek WWTP. Salem Glen is located three
to four miles west of the service area of this system. Davidson
County's consulting engineer has advised that the county will not
accept flows into their system from drainage basins other than Frye's
,�■� Creek and Miller Creek (Salem Glen is not located in either of these
drainage basins). It was specifically confirmed that any wastewater
flows from Salem Glen would not be accepted into their system.
Therefore, connection to a POTW is not an option for this project, and
this Alternative is examined no further.
am
Oft ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
CONNECTION TO A PRIVATELY OWNED TREATMENT PLANT
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 60,000 gpd flow from Salem Glen. Therefore, any
consideration of this option would require an increase in the NPDES
permit capacity for that facility. For these reasons, connection to a
privately owned wastewater treatment plant in not considered a viable
alternative for this E.A.A.
Oft
no
A-1

�ih��d s � S' tq 4� •y. t f� ''til f 3 �•r � ai t4 `' �
a�� .;+'` L.1' > t �r' r r• r a i1t ..6' �
p(� •�, S s .a a s �- ''f r� ae �^ • CLNr� 4 r^ � .� if �atY��°'� ��� f..� .., fir{ �'` 1 - f y '\ .' � � � F e ..^. .#i ! _�..v tom:. "1x ,r, •'_. �'ar,. f.. �� S�', j� _. i
� .�� i � � � ; � � '�`� � � i j }( i �: J [ s "''., l.�y a �\�... �`'4�r✓}r t' l iax•-.":y1'i� 3�w�'�� .. �rh. tk r.
✓' � ��,�i ��11�4t -'$ � t�#'.t�n �-..� �� _� a, `�C.�}\•'•,•...`"F j'(�d if ;'-.�,,�.,; �-
� , �, � . tEU..; .t ti�{, •!� dt� ��y. i a r .3t:�r � y ���r�T ,if�w ,��t �I ,; ''' ;� „ 1'__
w� li ;� ,r `'-{ a `•�f�, �" i�'y � �.�j� �:; r i �{�. fit'„ � t.� . �i �'� �.��C7��, r F� ,:•`�.ti1•
0 .�� ���•,y2, ;� f 4 <� ,�./ �r '�1 : i 7 "'� ti,� 1 �l7 f f j 'r�
S ,,.,.<-� ..✓; fi, r ,-- •-.. �; -� � _ { ;' +� � ,fir
i i"z- »,�„tnt� _ t•�- �lii:. ��� i y r•'S",
� s S "' [i � �f� 1,1 w•5�;' V '� i' V ,� � .0 'tivro° :'�'i� 1 r �. +� • � � i ar /!! t t ,.�'.Y � � 2+. 4 �„ :`fi$ J d -. `i 'lI � i 1 ' ^`u-"�'� .- .�
i�'
}, mar ��'k a aj. -'r fa �x ..f �,, l�p1 � •, ?� � -`>, �,r'1 _
:•- 64 ::y� Fg�j �., i`II i� ] �r_f �t i4 _ �' , '4 '.? j j;,r i �> .'�`i} .! i R � ��,;..� i .
•3 }
K'�".1. � �4 '-E.t �`` t * "� f Y I r,,,� '! •y .'4 'ea;� �4 y '�� � '+.i,;6" y � ""��
'jb' .' � r I� : � r� ILA': _ / //�I $ i . `'"" � . '�}•p,�'+ } - '. ii
iJ. a r ' t I `?r � � aF�c _ f :- � Is - i l ham'• I
f „r,:�i ';�zty d✓�. -=-'' 'I.�`t'"e': - .1• 'yi ,�' }} nf. �.�� `II a � * �
a ,
t ,.. � r r � _ .:x;, � i T i,. Fx�;"s_: ^^�^'�.r? �Y �.. ��•-`+e.,. � f �'- ¢. +� w. _-
Ls a
s`�I � s i�i x' , 4 -•r �. � 1r(' S's '. r� r"�d:_Ir-"°r. � =t '"
ivy.. mil )f
.^. ..<`-�rx ..r' �'!jt t j #,. _ %` x{"n�.,•, "'s*sf: 3 • r' a (_ # ; � t i "-s �� Y '
-:..�� '�' v' 3 t M1tl�i�. � l.' i ? J.�'F l•,.: - r y � r _ ya � �-� X:�.
FIG URE No. 2
GRAPHIC SCALE
2000 0 1000 2000 4000
I I

WO
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
INDIVIDUAL SUB -SURFACE SYSTEMS
This alternative considers the installation of a single-family septic
system on each lot. The economic benefits of this alternative include
the elimination of the sewage collection system and the central
treatment system, and a decrease in the length of streets required.
Each lot must have a minimum of 40,000 square feet of area when an
individual septic system is used, according to Davidson County zoning
and watershed regulations. The lots must be positioned at least
partially in suitable soils to allow the construction of a septic
system and a 100t repair area. A subdivision plan was developed using
40,000 square feet (minimum) lots with at least 10,000 square feet of
usable soil within each lot. A total of 47 lots are possible under
this alternative. The subdivision plan reflecting individual
subsurface systems is presented in Figure 3.
It should be noted that the basis for identifying the unsuitable and
suitable soil areas is the Davidson County soils maps, as published by
the Soil Conservation Service. The DWQ Guidance Document for
preparation of E.A.A.-indicates this mapping is to be used for
existing discharge facilities proposing an expansion. The long term
acceptance rate (LTAR) for each soil classification found in the
project area was determined by Mr. Kevin Martin, licensed soil
scientist, of Soil and Environmental Consultants. The LTAR's for
single family systems are presented in Table No. 1.
The majority of the single family wastewater systems would 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., a 4" corrugated pipe installed in a 12 inch deep layer of washed
stone. For a three -bedroom home and an LTAR (Long Term Acceptance
Rate) of .35 gpd/sf of trench bottom, approximately 343 LF of
nitrification trench is required for each single-family home. Based
on quotations from septic system installers in the Davidson and
Forsyth County areas, the typical installed cost for a system this
size is $2,400.00 to $3,000.00. 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 due to topography, shallow
soils, or other reasons. The pump -to -conventional systems and the LPP
systems would have a 50o to 1500W higher installed cost than the
gravity conventional system. However, since it cannot be definitely
established at this time how many lots might require pump systems or
LPP systems, it will be assumed that all lots can be served by the
less expensive gravity conventional system. The estimated
construction costs for the septic systems to serve the 47 lots would
therefore be:
AM
47 septic systems at $2,700 each = $ 126,900.00
go
we
A-2

R"
PM,
TABLE 1
Long Term Application Rates for Single
Family
Subsurface Wastewater Systems
Mapping Unit
Map
Conventional
Symbol
Trench
Chewacla loam,0%-2% slope
Ch
U
Pacolet fine sandy loam,2%-6% slope
PaB
.30-.40
Pacolet fine sandy loam,10%-15% slope
PaD
.30-.40
Pacolet fine sandy loam,15%-45% slope
PaF
.30-.40
e.r
Poindexter/Zion sandy loam,15%-25% sl.
PnE
.30-.40
�n
Poindexter/Zion sandy loam,15%-25o sl.
PnF
U
No
ow
M*
OW
am
so
Conventional trench bottom loading rates are expressed in
gallons per day per square foot of trench bottom
U - Unsuitable due to wetness, slope, or depth to rock or
expansive clays
A-3

M"
no Other Costs/Savings
Infrastructure cost is reduced due to not having to construct a
PM wastewater collection system and as much street, water mains, etc. as
required under the treatment plant alternative.
The infrastructure cost is: $ 562,289.30
ow (See Appendix C)
Lost opportunity cost due to developing 42 lots in lieu of the 167
IM lots under the treatment plant alternative:
110 multifamily lots lost at $25,000 each = $21750,000.00
am
10 single-family lots lost at $40,000 each = $400,000.00
PW Total $3,150,000.00
Operation and Maintenance Costs
F"
Septic tanks are assumed to require pumping once every three years at
a cost of $175.00 per pump -out.
M. The annual wastewater O&M costs for this alternative are summarized as
follows:
Pump out of residential septic system:
47 tanks x 1/3 per year x $175
no Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
oft Wastewater system construction
Infrastructure costs
Opportunity cost of lost lots
No Total Year 1 Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$ 2,742.00
$ 126,900.00
$ 562,289.30
$ 3,150,000.00
$ 3,839,189.30
$ 2,742.00
on Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 811; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
0+ present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $3,839,189 + 11.2578($2,742) _ $ 31870,058
am
A"
so
A-4
RM

Tax Block 4�03, Lot 8A
— J. Kerjw Essex, Jr.
ID$dtl Book 0 706 ®3129 w
! PaF i _r
4$
Tax Block 4203B, lot 102 �y \�.��•--___ - --� �� �r
j C. Wayne & K. F. Davis
I Deed Book 1644 ® 1723
���--------------+— --- c` _ /:oS011Tax Map 3, L,0�-
— - (l1 J. Kermit 46, - ( /
Clerk of 94
r wise' /fir r 3 1
30
_7
!g1
- J-
-I—_--
T
Tax Map.-4, Lot 1 _ — `—
William R. Lybrook-Esta-fe —' \ \
Deed Book 519 ® 751
` a �y
Tax map J, L044
\ �� \
\VR \\ \\
!\
� i I PaD
4\ Tax A�\3, Lot 12
\ Hood . Rhelps, Jr
\ \� \Deed qqk 432
Tax map 3, Lot 24
Kent F. Davis
Deed Book 549 ® 426
Tax Map 3, Lot 17
J. Kermit Essex, Jr.
� 4, Book 763 ®513
\\ Tax Map 3, Lot 20
\ —'V/F Martha F. Former
^-1, —Deed B¢ok 439 ® 487
i, Lor 4NO amnt +
,f Tax Map 3, Lot 8
f Deed Book 447 0 251
Tax Map 4, Lot 1
William R. Lybrook Estate
Deed Book 519 ® 751
ALTERNATIVE No. 3 DATA
SERVES 47 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH
MINIMUM AREA OF 40,000 S.F. AND A
MINIMUM OF 10,000 S.F. OF SUITABLE
OR PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE SOILS
UNSUITABLE SOILS
LOTS TO BE SERVED UNDER
EXISTING NPDES PERMIT
FIG URE No. 3
GRAPHIC SCALE
300 0 150 300 600
1200
I
r-,
i
r
T
6

am
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
CENTRAL SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (CONVENTIONAL NITRIFICATION LINES)
WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
A.•, Under this alternative one large subsurface disposal system would be
constructed to provide wastewater treatment for all the residential
lots. The individual lots can be smaller than 40,000 square feet and
contain no suitable soils because there will be no septic system on
the lots under this alternative. All wastewater will be collected by
a community sewerage system and piped to a main pump station. The
wastewater will then be pumped to the central subsurface system septic
tank. Following the septic tank, the effluent would flow to a pump
tank and subsequently be pumped into the nitrification trenches.
rM As previously noted, the Davidson County soils maps, as published by
the Soil Conservation Service, are the basis for determining the
suitability of the soils for community land -based disposal systems.
The DWQ Guidance Document for preparation of E.A.A. indicates this
"" mapping is to be used for existing discharge facilities proposing an
expansion. The long term acceptance rates (LIAR) for community land -
based systems are presented in Table No. 2.
The subdivision plan for this alternative is illustrated by Figure 4.
Under this alternative 64 single-family lots may be developed.
me The wastewater flows for this alternative are:
64 houses at 360 gal/day (3 bedrooms) 23,040 gpd
The minimum area required for the system is:
„R 23,040 gpd x SF trench bottom = 92,160 SF trench bottom required
.25 GPD
92,160 SF x LF = 30,720 LF of 3 foot wide trench required
3 sq. ft .
With the 9-foot minimum spacing, the minimum area required for the
�.., field is:
30,720 LF x 9 ft x 1 Acre = 6.35 Ac
aw 43,560 SF
6.35 AC X 1.40 = 8.89 Ac required due to layout inefficiencies.
MA 8.89 x 2.0 = 17.78 acres require to provide 100% repair area
Figure 4 shows 17.78 acres positioned in suitable soils plus
MW additional area as required to maintain the required system setback
from property lines.
am
MO
A-5

no
TABLE 2
Long Term Application Rates for Large On -site Wastewater Systems
am
Map Symbol
Conventional
Subsurface
Surface Drip/Spray
Trench
Drip
M+ Ch
U
U
U
PaB
.20-.30
.05-.10
.33-.50
IM
PaD
.20-.30
.05-.10
.33-.50
PaF
.20-.30
.05-.10
.33-.50/U
PnE
.20-.30
.05-.10
.33-.50/U
�., PnF
U
U
.33-.50/U
Conventional trench bottom loading rates are expressed in
gallons per day per square foot of trench bottom
Subsurface drip LTARs expressed in gallons per day per square
foot (area basis)
Surface drip and spray LTAR's are expressed in inches per week
(area basis). The designation .33-.50/U indicates soil mapping
unit is suitable for surface drip application at a rate of .33
to .50 inches per week, but not is not suitable for spray
irrigation application (due to slopes).
U - Unsuitable due to wetness, slope, or depth to rock or
expansive clays
MW
P"
F"
0"
a"
A-6
Ma

The components of this system and their estimated
installed cost are
as follows:
�+
One 24,000 gallon cast in place septic tank
$
29,000.00
(261L x 131W x 101H inside dimension,
8" reinforced concrete walls)
One 16,000 gallon precast pump tank
$
19,000.00
(201L x 101W x 121H inside dimension,
30,720 LF of nitrification trench at $5.40/LF
$
165,888.00
Duplex effluent pumps and control panel,
including automatic valve sequencer to
rotate nitrification fields being dosed
$
9,600.00
Six pressure manifolds for flow distribution
at $5,000/each
$
30,000.00
Six motorized 4" zone valves at $1,300 each
$
7,800.00
51900 LF of 3" PVC supply lines from manifolds
to nitrification lines at $3.60/LF
$
21,240.00
3j,500 LF of 411 PVC force main from effluent pumps
to pressure manifolds at $8.40/LF
$
29,400.00
One automatic dialer
$
2,000.00
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
$
38,000.00
Electrical
$
13,600.00
One 10 KW standby power generator and automatic
transfer switch
$
15,000.00
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$
380,528.00
Soil Scientist Fees (5%)
$
19,172.00
Engineering Fees (7%)
$
26,800.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
426,500.00
Other Costs/Savings
Under this alternative there would be less street,
water
line, sewer
line, and storm drainage construction required than
under
the
treatment plant alternative because there would be
fewer
lots
developed.
The infrastructure costs would be:
$ 704,135.45
( See Appendix C )
Lost opportunity cost due to developing 64 lots in
lieu
of the 167
lots under the treatment plant alternative:
110 multi -family lots lost at $25,000 each
$2,750,000.00
7 single-family lots gained at $40,000 each
($
280,000.00)
Net lost opportunity costs
$2,470,000.00
MW
MW
IM
A-7

MR
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Septic tank to be pumped once every year at a cost of $1,320.00 or
no $.055 per gallon. There would also be a licensed subsurface system
operator required at an annual cost of $15,000.
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Grinder pump station No. 1:
Design pump rate:
M' 31600 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
= 6 GPM, use 25 GPM.
TDH: Static head of 45 feet plus friction losses of 8 feet
= 53 feet
3,600 gal per day/25 gal per min
144 minutes pumping per day = 2.40 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: .56 BHP (60t efficiency)
KW input to motor: .49 KW (85t motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
.49 KW x 2.40 hours per day = 1.18 KWH per day
�+ Power consumption per year: = 430 KWH per year
Power costs per year = $30.10
MN Grinder pump station No. 2:
Design pump rate:
23,040 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
so = 40 GPM
TDH: Static head of 55 feet plus friction losses of 10 feet
= 65 feet
,M 23,040 gal per day/40 gal per min
= 576 minutes pumping per day = 9.60 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 1.10 BHP (60o efficiency)
KW input to motor: .96 KW (85t motor efficiency)
no Power consumption per day:
.96 KW x 9.60 hours per day = 9.22 KWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 31364 KWH per year
go
Power costs per year = $235.00
Duplex effluent pumps:
23,040 gal per day/100 gal per min = 205 min pumping per day
= 3.84 hours per day
TDH estimated at 30 feet
Brake horsepower required: 1.26 BHP (60t efficiency)
KW input to motor: 1.11 KW (85t motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
,R 1.11 KW x 3.84 hours per day = 4.26 KWH per day
Power consumption per year = 11555 KWH per year
we Power costs per year = $109.00
MR
A-8

0"
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an
annual replacement charge of 6.67t (1/15) of equipment cost. Use
an additional 50 of equipment cost to represent the annual cost
of routine maintenance and repairs.
Approximate equipment costs are $ 39,000.00
Replacement costs at 6.67t of $39,000 = $ 2,601.00
Maintenance at 5.0!k of $39,000 = $ 1,950.00
Total annual replacement/repair charge = $ 4,551.00
Fuel Costs:
go Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power
outages.
52 hours x 1.75 gal. per hour LPG at $1.50 per gal. _ $ 136.50
($136.50 x 3 generators (2 at grinder pump stations = $ 409.50
and one at effluent dosing pump station)
The annual O&M costs for this alternative are summarized as follows:
Pump out septic tank
$
1,320.00
�'
Equipment/replacement repair
$
4,551.00
Licensed contract operations
cost $
15,000.00
Power costs
$
374.10
Fuel costs
$
409.50
Annual O&M Costs
$
21,654.60
Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $
426,500.00
Infrastructure construction
$
704,135.45
Opportunity cost of lost lots
$
2,470,000.00
Total Year 1 Cost
$
3,600,635.45
Annual O&M Costs
$
21,654.60
Present worth of this alternative
is the year 1
cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present
worth value.
The interest rate
used is 8t; the design life of the
facilities is
30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $3,600,635 +
11.2578($21,655)
_ $ 3,844,423
M"
M"
A-9
OR

Iry
A
.o
i
Tax Block 4�03, Lot BA j +� Tax J. Kermit Essex, 7
I f J. Ke t'E;sex, Jr.
r.
e 1 / d, Book 763 ®513
7 Died Book `706 ®3129+ `�� �) )� r°e4 ,
i
4 �\ ` _ Tax Map 3, Lot 20
f ) % 0- /_ 1 ^ 1V/F Martha F. Farmer
/ PaF aj+��D t r4 :yam )I� -:\ >__�d sjok 439 0 487
Tax Block 4203E lot 102
C. Wayne & K. F. Davis
Deed Book 1644 ® 1723 f ,` ��.
.� )
'----------- ---- c-- / �U1ITax Map J. Lpt-m — _ i
-->^' Vl�s J. Kermit d JF r \� 51��•�\ 40 _��- ��= 35 1
��a — Clerk o� a�fi�T � f ��. < —
Eli
TO EXISTING WWTP \I" \ r� t� — 4� �l \ 18 1 221231
`,. --� c g$ \
Clarke Davis y >F \ t �� - 17- ,L ; ( I j 26 "7 ' 4
�.+ •, �ok15570�}12 l 128
swl.:" ` �ak.Mflp '3,-IL'__� ��-`s ji. �,.. �vw�, <., r a'' �c i. *4.�. n"' -...,t ` �,, n.�. ' — �- ♦ ` V
\q � 12/sil
\ \ SEWER LINE FOR
LOTS TO BE SERVED
UNDER EXISTING
NPDES PERMIT
\ \ �a
Map 3, Lot 4
�'> YI ) 1CcafZnmy IkNiodst gxrrd�
115 I Deed Book 447 0 251 Tax MapMefhodmttCfw►di
agDeedOeed Book 447 0 251
131 14
Tax map 3, 0144
..�•• i 'N6rren/!'helps
ALTERNATIVE No. 4 DATA
PaDTax `\ \3, Lot 13 DESIGN FLOW - 23,040 GPD
Hood +Rhelps, Jr. SERVES 64 LOTS
Deed \ qqk 432 0152 AREA REQUIRED FOR SUBSURFACE SYSTEM AND
1007. REPAIR AREA = 17.78 AC.
\�
♦ Tax map J;e ot)Z6 \)`< `
/
♦ Charles Aayne Ondls
�.Q6et,8'ook 549 0 �427/ T,
7�
Tax map 3, Lot 24
\ \ PnE Kent F. Davis
Deed Book 549 0 426
Tax th`—
William R. Lybrook-stake — � N
Deed Book 519 0 75D
UNSUITABLE SOILS
Tax Map 4, Lot I
William R. Lybrook Estate ® SUBSURFACE SYSTEM AND
Deed Book 519 ® 751 100% REPAIR AREA
LOTS TO BE SERVED UNDER
EXISTING NPDES PERMIT
FIG URE No. 4
GRAPHIC SCALE
300 0 150 300 600
1200
Q
CL
W
raw
A
F
V2
dz
�U
w
z
Z0
C7
W
6

MW
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
CENTRAL SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (DRIP IRRIGATION) WITH WASTEWATER
FM COLLECTION SYSTEM
This alternative is generally the same as Alternative No. 4 except
that the wastewater is distributed in the ground using a drip
irrigation system rather than conventional nitrification trenches.
Subsurface drip irrigation systems are normally used on sites that do
not have the depth of suitable soils required for conventional
�+ subsurface systems. On the subject property much of the unsuitable
soil area was so identified because of reasons other than soil depth,
such as landscape position or surface drainage features. Subsurface
drip irrigation is still a viable system for this property due to its
ability to compensate for irregular topography.
The subsurface drip irrigation system utilizes pressurized emitters to
release a relatively constant flow, regardless of minor elevation
differences between the emitters. This allows a more efficient layout
with less wasted land. Therefore, a 10% inefficiency factor is used
to determine the land requirements rather than the 40t factor used for
the conventional system. As illustrated in Figure 5, 72 single family
lots may be developed.
Due to the small orifice size in the emitters, the wastewater must be
pretreated with a recirculating sand filter to prevent clogging. The
sand filter requires a pump tank, duplex pumps, and a control panel to
dose the filter on a timed basis. A portion of the filtered flow is
directed to a second pump tank, which supplies the drip irrigation
system.
The estimated flow for this alternative is 25,920 gallons per day,
using the same flow factors from the previous alternatives.
The minimum area required for the system is:
25,920 gpd x SF = 312,289 SF subsurface drip irrigation area
MM .083 GPD (areal basis) needed
M"
on
G"
7.17 Ac
7.17 AC x 1.1(inefficiencies) x 2.0 (100% repair) = 15.75 Ac required
due to layout inefficiencies and needing 100% repair area.
The 15.75 acres would be positioned in the suitable soils as indicated
in Figure 5, with the required setbacks from the property lines.
A-10

a"
ow The components of this system and their estimated installed cost are:
One 15 KW standby power generator set and automatic
FUN transfer switch
$
18,000.00
One 26,000 gallon cast in place septic tank
$
31,500.00
(261L x 131W x 111H inside dimension,
am 8" reinforced concrete walls)
Two 18,000 gallon cast in place pump tanks
$
43,000.00
(201L x 101W x 131H inside dimension,
Drip irrigation system including 156,150 LF
dripper line, 10 zone valves, 2 return flush
valves, supply & return piping, 12,900 SF
recirculating sand filter, irrigation pump
�. system, pump house, computer controller, control
wiring, electrical, etc.
$
427,000.00
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
$
34,000.00
FM
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$
553,500.00
Soil Scientist Fees (5%)
$
27,675.00
Engineering Fees (7%)
$
38,725.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
619,900.00
Other Costs/Savings
As was the case with the previous subsurface system alternatives, the
0M implementation of Alternative No. 5 would cause fewer lots to be
developed than the number possible with the treatment plant
alternative. There would also be less infrastructure required for
am this alternative, when compared to the treatment plant alternative.
The reduced infrastructure costs would be: $ 802,268.30
on ( See Appendix C )
The number of lots proposed under this alternative is 72, which is 95
lots less than possible under the treatment plant alternative. The
FM lost opportunity cost is:
110 multi -family lots lost at $25,000 each = $2,750,000.00
15 single family lots gained at $40,000 each = ($600,000.00)
Net lost opportunity lost $2,150,000.00
FM
Operation and Maintenance Costs
MR See Alternative No. 4 for derivations of costs that are modified below
to reflect the increased flow in Alternative No. 5:
Septic tank pumping: $ 1,430.00
Contract operator: $ 15,000.00
Grinder pump stations power costs: $ 265.10
A-11

The annual power costs for the other pumps are estimated as follows:
Recirculating sand filter pumps:
25,920 gal per day x 4 (3:1 recirculation ratio)/110 gal min
= 942 minutes per day = 15.7 hours per day
Brake horsepower required:
110 GPM (40 Ft. TDH) /3960 (. 60 ) = 1.85 BHP
KW input to motor: 1.62 KW ( 85 % motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
1.62 KW x 15.7 hours per day = 25.4 KWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 91283 KWH per year
FM
Power costs per year = $650.00
Drip irrigation pumps:
25,920 gal per day/60 gal per min
= 432 minutes per day = 7.2 hours per day
Brake horsepower required:
= 60 GPM(120Ft. TDH) /3960 (.60) = 3.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 2.63 KW (8501 motor efficiency)
By same calculations as above,
Power cost per year = $ 484.00
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, solenoid valves, computer
controller, and generator, yielding an annual replacement charge
of 6.67% (1/15) of equipment cost. Use an additional 5% of
equipment cost to represent the annual cost of routine
maintenance and repairs.
Om Approximate equipment costs are $ 48,000.00.
Replacement
costs at 6.67% of $48,000 =
$
3,201.60
Maintenance
at 5.0% of $48,000 =
$
2,400.00
Total annual
replacement/repair charge
= $
5,601.60
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52
hours per year run time for
exercise and
power
outages.
,AM 52 hours x 1.75 gal. per hour LPG at $1.50 per gallon = $ 136.50
($136.50 x 3 generators (two at grinder pump stations,= $ 409.50
one at drip system/filter)
FW The annual O&M costs for this alternative are summarized as follows:
Pump out septic tank $ 1,430.00
FM Licensed contract operations cost $15,000.00
Equipment replacement/repair $ 5,601.60
Power costs $ 1,399.10
we Fuel costs $ 409.50
Annual O&M Costs $23,840.20
lm
A-12

M
IM Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $ 619,900.00
Infrastructure construction $ 802,268.00
Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 2,150,000.00
Total Year 1 Costs $ 3,572,168.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 23,840.20
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 8s; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $3,572,168 + 11.2578($23,840) = $ 31840,554
MR
fm
MM
MR
M
FM
�,
MW
EM
A-13

M14
i
I
I �
I 7i
I �
PaF
fTax Block 4203B, lot 102
C. Wayne & K. F. Davis
i I Deed Book 1644 0 1723
i 1 t
----------------------� j000f�C
-�---
TO EXISTING WWTP !'\
�S
\ .I�
\ SEWER LINE FOR
LOTS TO BE SERVED
UNDER EXISTING
NPDES PERMIT
� I Y
I �
l \-
\�`�tlf
-
�r-noun
f
�Tax Map 3, tot-1$
J. Kermit Ede. JF f i
\ UnFl
Tax Map. 4. Lot 11-
William R. Lybrook-Eatafe - - \
Deed Book 519 0 751
Tax Block 4g03, Lot 8A
Tax map 3, Lot 24
Kent F. Davis
Deed Book 549 ® 426
i Tax Map 3, Lot 17
�•' J. Kermit Essex, Jr.
?Vfzd1, Book 763 ® 513
r / / f 1
�t 14' \ ^� \ _ Tax Map 3, Lot 20
N/F Martha F Farmer
k - _Oeed Book 439 0 487
-Tax map 3, Loo>14\
-Wtrnpn/�heFps -
t 4e- flier( @hook 6�`L ®8i8
1 PaD \\ \\
� �I
Tox h}L
3, Lot 1 �
HoodRhelps, Jr
'Deedk 432
Tax Map 4, Lot 1
William R. Lybrook Estate
Deed Book 519 ® 751
Tax Map 3, Lot 8
ALTERNATIVE No. 5 DATA
DESIGN FLOW - 25,920 GPD
SERVES 72 LOTS
AREA REQUIRED FOR SUBSURFACE RIP SYSTEM
AND 1009 REPAIR AREA = 15.75 AC.
UNSUITABLE SOILS
SUBSURFACE SYSTEM AND
1007. REPAIR AREA
LOTS TO BE SERVED UNDER
EXISTING NPDES PERMIT
FIGURE No. 5
GRAPHIC SCALE
300 0 150 300 600
1200
a
CL
w

am
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
CENTRAL SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
This alternative utilizes a central treatment system consisting of
solids screening, a facultative lagoon, and chlorine disinfection.
The disinfected wastewater is then surface applied through solid set
sprinkler heads to be furthertreated by the soils. The wastewater
i cannot be applied when there s a chance of runoff, such as when the
ground is saturated by rainfall. To address this problem the lagoon
is typically sized to provide the minimum volume required for
treatment (30 days), plus 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.
Spray irrigation systems utilize pressurized spray nozzles to emit a
relatively constant flow. The sprinkler layout is controlled by
regulatory setbacks from property lines (150 feet), off -site houses
(400 feet), streams, lakes, and similar considerations. The soil -
scientist has recommended an annual average irrigation rate of .33 to
.50 inches per week where the soils are suitable for spray. The
lagoon storage volume is recommended to be 45 to 90 days, at the
EM design wastewater flow.
.
For this study an average irrigation rate of .417 inches per week is
used. The lagoon volume utilized is 30 days (treatment) plus 45 days
M4 storage, or 75 days total. As indicated by Figure 6, 32 single-family
lots can be developed.
fm
W
IM
OW
The design flow for this alternative is 11,520 gpd. The irrigation
area required is:
11,520 gallons per day x 7 days a week x 1 cubic foot/7.48
gallons x 12 inches per foot x 1 week/.417 inches =
310,196 square feet = 7.12 acres irrigated area.
The 7.12 acres is positioned with the required setbacks, as indicated
by Figure 6.
The wastewater system components for this alternative include:
One influent bar rack structure with manually
cleaned bar rack at lagoon
One lined lagoon (75 days storage)
with bottom dimensions of 72 Ft x 144 Ft,
2:1 side slopes, 8 foot maximum water level,
and two feet of freeboard:
5,736 CY cut to fill at $3.50/CY
20,600 SF of 30 mil HDPE liner
at $1.20/SF installed
$ 18,000.00
$ 20,076.00
$ 24,720.00
A-14

Spray irrigation system including:
3 zones with 50 heads per zone (54'
grid spacing)
3 X 50 1" risers w/nozzles and
1W
support pipe at $60/each
$
9,000.00
3 x 2160 LF of 1" PVC pipe per zone
at $1.50/LF
$
9,720.00
3 x 54 LF of 1 1/2" PVC per zone
MW
at $2.40/LF
$
388.80
3 x 108 LF of 3" PVC per zone
at $6.00/LF
$
1,944.00
MR
3 x 162 LF of 4" PVC per zone
at $8.50/LF
$
4,131.00
3 x 162 LF of 6" PVC per zone
qW
at $12.00/LF
$
5,832.00
850 LF of 6" force main from
irrigation pump station to the
3 zones at $12.00/LF
$
10,200.00
3 motorized zone valves at $4,500 each
$
13,500.00
Irrigation pump station with duplex 200
gpm pumps and zone controller
$
130,400.00
One 6,000 gallon chlorine contact chamber
with hypochlorite feed system
$
18,000.00
700 LF chain link fence at $9.00/LF (lagoon area)
$
6,300.00
31450 LF barbed wire fence at $2.50/LF
(spray field area)
$
8,625.00
Electrical
$
16,000.00
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
$
20,000.00
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$
316,836.80
Soil Scientist Fees (501)
$
15,833.20
Engineering Fees ( 7 0 )
$
22,130.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
354,800.00
Other Costs/Savings
The number of lots possible under this alternative
is less than the
�.
number possible with a treatment plant. The smaller number of lots
requires less infrastructure than is required with
the treatment plant
alternative.
The reduced infrastructure costs would be: $362,898.52
(See Appendix C)
a° The number of lots proposed under this alternative is 32, which is 135
lots less than possible under the treatment plant alternative. The
lost opportunity cost is:
110 multi -family lots at $25,000 each $2,750,000.00
25 single-family lots lost at $40,000 each $1,000,000.00
M' Total lost opportunity cost $3,750,000.00
am
A-15

OW Operation and Maintenance Costs
Power costs for Grinder Pump Station No. 1:
am
Power costs per year = $118.00
(See Alternative No. 4 for example of calculation used)
QW Power costs for irrigation pumping:
Design pump rate: 200 gpm
TDH estimated at 100 feet (35 psi at sprinkler plus elevation
difference and friction losses) .
11,520 gal per day/200 gpm
= 58 minutes/day average pumping = .96 hours per day
A. Brake horsepower required: 8.42 BHP (60t efficiency)
KW input to motor: 7.39 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
7.39 KW x .96 hours per day x 365 days = 21589 KWH per year
Power costs per year = $181.00
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an
annual replacement charge of 6.670 (1/15) of equipment cost. Use
an additional 5t of equipment cost to represent the annual cost
'� of routine maintenance and repairs. (Generator at grinder pump
station only) .
Approximate equipment costs are $ 33,000.00.
Replacement costs at 6.670 of $33,000 = $ 2,200.00
Maintenance at 5.Oo of $33,000 = $ 1,650.00
Total annual replacement/repair charge = $ 3,850.00
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power
outages.
52 hours x 1.75 gallons per hour LPG at $1.50 per gal. _ $ 136.50
The annual O&M costs for this alternative are summarized as follows:
`W Contract operator $ 15,000.00
Grinder pump station power costs $ 118.00
Chlorination $ 1,070.00
Irrigation pumping power costs $ 181.00
Equipment Replacement/Repair $ 3,850.00
Fuel Costs $ 136.00
Annual O&M Costs
$ 20,355.00
WX
am
A-16
MN

MW Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $ 354,800.00
Infrastructure $ 362,899.00
Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 3,750,000.00
Total Year 1 Costs $ 4,467,699.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 20,355.00
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 8%; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
FM Present worth = $4,467,699 + 11.2578($20,355) _ $ 41696,852
ON
A.
ME
AA
MW
0
am
M
W
A-17
IM

1
Tax Block 4�03, Lot 8A
I — — J. K?gwt'E#sex, Jr.
DAed Book V 706 0 3129
PaF
f'
Tax Block 4203B, lot 102 �
j C. Wayne & K. F. Davis „L �• — _ -
♦ Deed Book 1644 0 1723 +
I ----,\ �1Dy��purih _
4— _ ---- — — — — ` X-0* S011Tax Map 3, Lot`t8
\�
— —�-- vlJ. Kermit fix, Jr. f i
Clerk ofo�irrt s� i
4
Tax Map 3, Lot 17
J. Kermit Essex, Jr.
/,Book 763 0 513
\^ `
_ ; Tax Map 3, Lot 20
1 _ �_ \\ . — W/F Martha F. Farmer
_ _Deed B¢ok 439 ® 487
18
\ 16 \-i°� \
TO EXISTING WWTP 6 \ , �`• \� r / J\` _ ' j j 5
\'Blak 4za Lot if11 7 18 1 `•� ��r
\8Clarke eed C Davis \ 1 � ���. 5 5 ` ^_t v` ��- �i� +� 1 9 il0 /11
�� -"+R?'i N� ^€'{.
1" a : rk
q vanq yw4 .
A`
\ \ SEWER LINE FOR
LOTS TO BE SERVED
UNDER EXIS77NG
NPDES PERMIT
�kl N"Ew - 91- -, I - - r
\\
i ,Tox Map 3, Lot 4
i 1 Ilethodst 1�xadi i Tax Mop 3, Lot 8
PaB f 1 Deed Book 447 ® 251 +
,4z'
\ — Deed Book 447 ® 251
=
—GRIAIDkR P.S.`
" —Tax PW3,'L�t,14
•
Brook 632 0 838
Tax map..
ALTERNATIVE No. 6 DATA
\
. I I P
aD\ \ \\\I
lax\�3, Lot 13
DESIGN FLOW — 11,520 GPD
Hood
`Rhefps, Jr.
SERVES 32 LOTS
'Teed
aqk 432 0 152
AREA REQUIRED FOR CENTRAL SPRAY
\
IRRIGATION = 7.12 AC.
Tax mop 3, Lot 24
\ Kent F. Davis
Deed Book 549 0 426
L
Tax Map 4, Lot I 1 \ _
Willlam R. Lybrook�stale — \
Deed Book 519 0 751
UNSUITABLE SOILS
Tax Map 4, Lot 1
William R. Lybrook Estate
Deed Book 519 ® 751 ® SPRAY SYSTEM AREA
LOTS TO BE SERVED UNDER
EXISTING NPDES PERMIT
FIG URE No. 6
GRAPHIC SCALE
300 0 150 300 60D
1200
F
Ii
ral
s

fm ALTERNATIVE NO. 7
CENTRAL DRIP IRRIGATION (SURFACE APPLIED) WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM
IM
This alternative is essentially a combination of Alternatives No. 5
and 6. The collected wastewater is stored in a lagoon and then
disinfected prior to application on the land surface. Rather than
utilizing sprinkler nozzles, a drip irrigation system is used to
distribute the treated wastewater. This system allows a higher lot
count than conventional spray due to the reduced regulatory set -backs;
"1e however, the larger system capacity also requires a larger lagoon for
wastewater storage. The wastewater must be filtered under this
alternative as the drip irrigation orifices are much smaller than
those found in conventional sprinkler nozzles.
The estimated number of lots for this alternative is 57, with a flow
of 20,520 gallons per day, using the same flow factors as previously
used.
The minimum area required for the application area is 12.70 acres,
based on an average irrigation rate of .417 inches per week. (See
Figure 7.) This minimum area does not include regulatory setbacks.
The wastewater system components for this alternative include:
One 15KW standby power generator with automatic
transfer switch $ 18,000.00
One lined lagoon (75 days storage)
with bottom dimensions
of 101 Ft x 202 Ft, 2:1 side slopes,
8 foot maximum water level, and two
feet of freeboard:
10,200 CY cut to fill at $3.50/CY $ 35,700.00
34,200 SF of 30 mil HDPE liner
at $1.20/SF installed $ 41,040.00
Drip irrigation system including 276,600 LF
dripper line, 16 zone valves, 3 return flush
valves, supply & return piping, 10,200 SF
4W recirculating sand filter, irrigation pump
system, pump house, computer controller,
control wiring, electrical, etc. $ 597,000.00
One 21,000 gallon cast in place recirculation
pump tank (251L x 121W x 101H inside dimension,
8" reinforced concrete walls) $ 25,400.00
One 2,000 gallon chlorine contact chamber with
hypochlorite feed system $ 7,000.00
1,000 LF of six ft . chain link fence for lagoon and
filter area at $9.00/LF $ 9,000.00
61300 LF of barbed wire fencing for application
area at $2.50/LF
$ 15,750.00
am
MM
A-18

�w
no
■.
Am
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
Soil Scientist Fees (5t)
Engineering Fees ( 7t )
Total Estimated Project Cost
Other Costs/Savings
The infrastructure cost for this alternative is:
( See Appendix C )
$ 20,000.00
$ 768,890.00
$ 38,440.00
$ 53,770.00
$ 861,100.00
$ 627,636.15
The number of lots possible under this alternative, 57, is 110 less
than the number possible with a treatment plant. The lost opportunity
cost is:
No 110 multi -family lots lost at $25,000 each $ 2,750,000.00
Operation and Maintenance Costs
"" Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an
annual replacement charge of 6.67°s (1/15) of equipment cost. Use
ON an additional 5t of equipment cost to represent the annual cost
of routine maintenance and repairs.
Approximate
equipment costs are $ 48,000.00.
FO
Replacement
costs at 6.67!k of $48,000 =
$
3,201.60
Maintenance
at 5.0% of $48,000 =
$
2,400.00
no Total annual
replacement/repair charge =
$
5,601.60
Fuel Costs:
00 Based on 52
hours per year run time for exercise
and
power
outages.
52 hours x 1.75 gallons per hour LPG at $1.50 per gal. _ $ 97.50
..
Contract operator $ 15,000.00
Grinder pump power costs $ 240.00
„o Recirculation pumping power costs $ 515.00
Chlorination costs $ 1,906.00
Equipment replacement/Repair $ 5f602.00
Fuel costs $ 98.00
''�' Annual O&M Costs $ 23,361.00
FM
P"
ew
OW
A-19

Mw
00
."
am
00
MR
MM
am
M
A"
MW
Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $ 861,100.00
Infrastructure costs $ 627,636.15
Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 2,750,000.00
Total Year 1 Costs $ 4,238,736.15
Annual O&M Costs $ 23,361.00
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 8t; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $4,238,736 + 11.2578($23,361) _ $4,501,729
A-20

w,
r-
i
Tax Ma 3, Lot 17
Tax Block 4�03, Jr. 8A , / , . J. Kermit Essex, Jr.
J. Ki Book V70, Jr. _ � *,Bak 763 ® 513
I/ l>�etl Book V 706 03129 _/�o'�i `i 1\ �/ / 1
! , \ >_
i \ -481
( _ \ � _nay- —' � � .� �/
PaF
J1/� F. Tax Block 4203B, lot 102
f
C. Wayne & K. Davis �j�. X ` _�«��'•
/J I Deed Book 1644 ® 1723 5— r 5-4—
56
— SD�Tax Map 3, LotB
-, J. Kermit s`�. JF f � _7_
_Clerk of—
J
/ ! 1 I
! ! \ `� Tax Map 3, Lot 20
�F' t ^ "N/F Martha F. Farmer
1L X _ _Deed B¢ok 439 ® 487
\ \\ 0$ 40
41 1 7 20 I,-
` 1
TO EXISTING WWTP \ �/ -�" \ ti \ 5, r ,� E �� ��. �I 18 `� I , 22(23 24
Tax Bbdc 42OJq Lot 7tjh � y' s t ' 1 1 j 25
< \Clarke Davis € ' 1J�' .w \ 9 I $- 1 7
1 8� IM7 9 1*� w v f I
° A
T Map 1 1r 'fiu„s°;s .� '`''
312 3C
16 Tax Map 3, Lot 4
Q 12/67 fP `
rs > Y 1 — 11 NeBbdist Tax Ma 3, Lot 8
R T p
15 I Deed Book 447 ®251 i Centenay lktho Lt,JRb
'a$ Deed Book 447 0 251
` I
L - GRR P.S. `No. 2
Tax map 3, LX44
POND _ ..—�>-�; � wmr��iP, -
\ �� ! !l z { i/ l I �•• � � • � � i It $$ook 671 0 838
SEWER LINE FOR
LOTS TO BE SERVED UNDER EXISTING `11 - • • 1 } 1 �� \ ��- _ PaDT`\ \\�3
I
, Lot 13NPDES PERMIT — R/ Hood Jr.
'Deed
Q4k 432 ® 152
�BPaF
PnE k AR 1 \ Tax map 3, 601
\ \ / I �� I \� Chars Wayne s r � —
teed Book 54�\ _ 42711
\ , PAD —= % Tax Map 4, Lot 1
\ \ 1 William R. Lybrook Estate
Deed Book 519 ® 751
Tax map 3, Lot 24
Kent F. Davis
—PnE_ 1 l\ y Deed Book 549 0 426
Tax Map -4. Lot 11 � �
William R. Lybrook-.Estate --
Deed Book 519 0 751
300
ALTERNATIVE No. 7 DATA
DESIGN FLOW — 20,520 GPD
SERVES 57 LOTS
AREA REQUIRED FOR SURFACE APPLIED
DRIP IRRIGATION = 12.70 AC.
UNSUITABLE SOILS
® SURFACE DRIP SYSTEM AREA
F 7 - � LOTS TO BE SERVED UNDER
:J EXISTING NPDES PERMIT
FIG URE No. 7
GRAPHIC SCALE
150 300 600
1200
z
O
P
z��
aa
�
VP

aw
ALTERNATIVE NO. 8
EXPANSION OF EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (DISCHARGE TO YADKIN
RIVER) WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Alternative No. 8 utilizes an expansion of the existing activated
sludge 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 167 lots. A detailed description of the
treatment facilities is presented in Section C. of this Engineering
Proposal.
The estimated flow for this alternative is:
IM
Am
..
40
am
No
am
FM
167 Houses at 360 gal. per day (3 bedrooms) 60,120 gpd
The wastewater treatment system components for this alternative and
their estimated installed cost are as follows:
One 60,000 gpd ultraviolet disinfection system,
installed
$
65,000.00
One 60,000 gpd WWTP, erected on
concrete base slab
$
170,000.00
One 60,000 gpd tertiary filter, erected on
concrete base slab
$
65,000.00
Excavation and construction of base slab
66' x 26' x 8" and 20' x 14' x 8"
$
26,000.00
One 35 KW standby generator and automatic
transfer switch
$
26,400.00
200 LF of chain line fence at $9.00/LF
$
1,800.00
Electrical connection to WWTP panel
$
15,000.00
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
$
5,000.00
seeding, etc.
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$
374,200.00
Soil Scientist Fees
$
0.00
Engineering Fees (711)
$
25,800.00
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 400,000.00
Other Costs/Savin s
Alternative No. 8 includes 167 lots. There is no lost opportunity cost
for this alternative as all the lots allowed by zoning can be
developed.
The infrastructure cost for this alternative is: $ 1,548,929.41
( See Appendix C )
A-21

am
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Power costs:
on Grinder Pump Station No. 1:
Power costs per year = $30.10 (refer. Alt. No. 4)
Am Influent pump station:(Exist.-prorate energy costs for .06 MGD)
Existing pumps are 9.2 HP, rated for 335 gpm at 46 ft TDH.
"" Daily Run Time = 2.98 hours for 60,000 GPD
KW input to motor: 8.10 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per year: 8.10 KW x 2.98 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 81810 KWH per year
Power costs per year = $616.78
Flow equalization pumps:
Design pump rate: 56 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: .33 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: .29 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per year: .29 KW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 11905 KWH per year
Power costs per year = $133.00
Flow Equalization Blower:
Design pump rate: 50 CFM at 4.7 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 2 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
a. Power costs per year = $809.00
Main Plant Blower:
Design flow rate: 300 CFM at 5.O PSIG
"" Blower horsepower: 11 BHP
KW input to motor: 9.66 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Main plant blower typically cycled by time clock; this
no analysis will assume worst case, i.e. 100% operation.
Power consumption per year: 9.66 KW x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 84.622 KWH per year
am
Power costs per year = $5,924.00
A-22

ON
Filter backwash pumps:
Design flow rate: 250 GPM
TDH: 12 feet
Brake horsepower required: 1.26 BHP (60t efficiency)
KW input to motor: 1.11 KW (85t motor efficiency)
Assume 10 minutes per day per cell, two cells total.
Pump run time is .33 hours per day.
�. Power consumption per year: 1.11 KW x .33 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 134 KWH per year
Oft Power costs per year = $10.00
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power consumption = .50 KW
"" Power consumption per year = 41380 KWH
Power costs per year = $307.00
Effluent pump station:(Existing-prorate energy costs for 60,000 gpd)
Existing pumps are 12 HP, rated for 370 gpm at 61 ft TDH.
Daily Run Time = 2.70 hours
for 60,000 GPD
KW input to motor: 10.53 KW (8501 motor
efficiency)
Power consumption per year:
10.53 KW x
2.70 hours per day
x 365 days per year =
10,377 KWH per
year
Power costs per year = $726.00
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps
$ 30.10
Influent pumps
$ 522.24
Flow equalization pumps
$ 133.00
Flow equalization blower
$ 809.00
+•�
Main blowers
$ 5,924.00
Filter pumps
$ 10.00
Ultra -violet disinfection
$ 307.00
Effluent Pumps
$ 726.00
~
Total
$ 8,461.34
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 $18
Weekly
$ 936
TSS $12
Weekly
$ 624
Fecal Coliform $22
Weekly
$1,144
Total N $15
Quarterly
$ 60
�+
Total P $15
Quarterly
$ 60
Conductivity $ 5
Weekly
$ 260
Annual Testing Costs
$4,228
A-23
0"

No
Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Sludge production rate for extended aeration is 2,000 lbs of dry
solids per million gallons treated. Sludge digestion/holding tank
will allow thickening to 4% solids concentration.
2,000 lbs/M.G. x .06 MG/Day x 365 Days/Year
= 431,800 lbs dry solids per year
= 131,450 gallons/year at 4% solids
"' Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization,
at $.15 per gallon = $ 19,718
,..., Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an
annual replacement charge of 6.67% (1/15) of equipment cost. Use
an additional 50-- of equipment cost to represent the annual cost
of routine maintenance and repairs.
Approximate
equipment costs are $ 85,000.00
Replacement
costs at 6.67% of $85,000 =
$
5,670.00
Maintenance
at 5.0% of $85,000 =
$
4,250.00
Total annual
replacement/repair charge =
$
9,920.00
�.
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52
hours per year run time for exercise
and
power
outages.
52 hours x 3.8 gallons per hour LPG at $1.50 per gallon = $296.40
,.. Fuel costs for generator at grinder pump station = $136.50
Total fuel costs per year = $432.90
Am Contract operations by licensed operator: $ 29,000.00
Summary of annual O&M costs:
Annual power costs $ 8,461.00
go Annual testing costs $ 4,228.00
Sludge disposal $ 19,718.00
Equipment repair/replacement $ 9,920.00
am Fuel costs $ 433.00
Contract operations $ 29,000.00
Total Annual O&M costs $ 71,760.00
0"
M
FM
am
A-24
an

►+"
M"
R"
on
am
aM
no
am
90
Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $ 400,000.00
Infrastructure costs $ 1,548,929.00
Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 0.00
Total Year 1 Costs $ 1,948,929.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 71,760.00
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 8%; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $1,948,929 + 11.2578($71,760) _ $ 21756,789
A-25

Tax Block 42038, lot 102
C. Wayne do K. F. Davis
Deed Book 1644 ® 1723 �t Sys .�, ��•
J
- on Tax Map 3, Lot- f8 T
Vl�s J. Kermit
Clerk of
TO EXISTING WWTP i' \� �r•�
-4f l'
N1
\ A. _ 4
\ \ SEWER LINE FOR
LOTS TO BE SERVED
UNDER EXISTING
NPDES PERMIT
\
\ C
1.
Tax Mpg4, Lot(1`-
William R. Lybrook-Estate
Deed Book 519 0 751
Tax Block 4203, Lot 8A
J. Kermit Essex. Jr.
Tax map 3, Lot 24
Kent F. Davis
Deed Book 549 0 426
Tax Map 3, Lot 17
J. Kermit Essex, Jr.
I 1 • I,De d l Book 763 ® 513
/
48 •4'� Tax Map 3, Lot 20
\ J
N/F Martha F. Farmer
> _ _Deed B¢ok 439 0 487
l `46
� 1 1 \- I F o-Y """""" a "u` Tax Map 3, Lot 8
,� \ 15 ` ( Book 447 ®151 wffay Akewdsf Ouch
f t 14 \\ T Deed Book 447 A 251
Tax Map 4, Lot 1
William R. Lybrook Estate
Deed Book 519 0 751
Tax map J.
Lg��14
/
,�� ! ®836
t�ofC6�'1
--,\\\t \
ALTERNATIVE No. 8 DATA
Tax �\3, Lot 13
DESIGN FLOW - 60,000 GPD
Hood. tRhe►ps, Jr.
SERVES 9 67 LOTS
Deed vqk 432 0152
1
LOTS TO BE SERVED UNDER
�I EXISTING NPDES PERMIT
FIG URE No. 8
a GRAPHIC SCALE
300 ,5a 300 600
1200
OF

ALTERNATIVE NO. 9
REUSE OF TREATED WASTEWATER (COMBINATION OF GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION AND
DISCHARGE TO THE YADKIN RIVER) WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
This Alternative examines the implementation of a reuse system as
described in 15 NCAC 2H.0219(k)(1)(B). Reuse as the only managed
option was previously examined in the land based treatment systems of
Alternatives No. 3 through No. 7. Alternative No. 9 examines a
combination of spray irrigation on the golf course as required by the
turf, and a discharge to the Yadkin River during periods of wet
weather, during the dormant season for the turf, or during periods
�+ when the plant effluent does not meet the reuse standards but meets
the discharge standards. The environmental benefits of a combination
reuse system have been previously established by the Environmental
p,. Management Commission's published intent to encourage the use of such
systems.
The infrastructure costs of this Alternative are identical to those
presented for Alternative No. 8, with 167 lots being developed. The
resulting 60,000 gpd of wastewater would be treated in a treatment
plant similar to the one described in Alternative No. 8. The plant
�•, would require several additional features to meet the reuse standards
and requirements. These features include:
1. A continuous on-line turbidimeter and recorder.
2. An effluent pump station to pump the reuse water to an
existing irrigation lake, where it would subsequently be
0" withdrawn by the existing golf course irrigation system.
3. Approximately 2,500 LF of 4 inch forcemain to convey the
OW treated effluent to the irrigation lake.
During periods when irrigation was desired, the plant effluent would
flow from into the reuse effluent pump station and be pumped to the
"" lake. If the turbidimeter measured an exceedance of the 10 NTU
standard, the reuse pumps would be automatically disabled. The
continued effluent flow from the plant would rise to an overflow level
•W in the station, then flow to the existing discharge pump station and
be pumped to the Yadkin River.
m` The golf course will typically require 200,000 to 300,000 gpd on days
that it is irrigated. The number of days with no irrigation will vary
with the amount of rainfall. However, it is likely that at least 40%
to 60t of the annual flow from the plant could go to irrigation.
so
M"
A-26

am
The estimated installed cost for the wastewater treatment and disposal
°" system components for this alternative are as follows:
Construction cost subtotal from Alternative No.
�. Reuse effluent pump station, rated for 105 gpm,
and recording turbidimeter
21500 LF of 4 inch forcemain at $12.00/LF
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
Soil Scientist Fees
Engineering Fees ( 7t )
No
N.
0"
aq
MW
Total Estimated Project Cost
Other Costs/Savings
8 $ 374,200.00
$ 105,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 509,200.00
$ 0.00
$ 35,644.00
$ 544,844.00
Because Alternative No. 9 includes 167 lots, it will have an
infrastructure cost equal to that of Alternative No. 8.
The infrastructure cost for this alternative is:
(See Appendix C)
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Power costs:
Reuse effluent pump station:
Assume six months per year operation
$ 11 548, 929.41
go Design pump rate = 105 gpm
TDH = No static head plus friction losses Of 28 feet
= 28 feet
„M 60,000 gpd/105 gpm = 571 minutes/day = 9.52 hours/day
Brake horsepower required = 1.24 BHP (60t efficiency)
KW input to motor = 1.09 KW (85t efficiency)
Power consumption per year = 1.09 KW x 9.52 hours/day x
183 days/year
= 1,899 KWH/year
•m Power costs per year = $133.00
Summary of annual power costs:
Total for Alternative No. 8 $ 8,461.34
Reuse effluent pumps $ 133.00
Reduction in use of discharge effluent
pumps $ (363.21)
Total $ 8,231.13
Summary of annual O&M costs:
Annual power costs $ 8,231.00
Annual testing costs $ 4,228.00
Sludge disposal $ 19,718.00
Equipment repair/replacement $ 11y086.00
Fuel costs $ 433.00
Contract operations $ 29,000.00
Total Annual O&M costs $ 72,696.00
am
A-27

am
I" Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
a.
Wastewater system construction $ 544,844.00
Infrastructure costs $ 1,548,929.00
.� Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 0.00
Total Year 1 Costs $ 2,093,773.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 72,696.00
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 8%; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $2,093,773 + 11.2578($72,696) _ $ 21912,170
I"
No
MR
IM
we
MW
FM
MR
a,
A-28

Old Me"
M3JDMT1AL TRIWA%
Mdnfty. Map Not to Bowe
w"AMAY
A
"ru 29,00 SF LOTS
SON M—'Nw: 16- uwOWTS(41-
7-
PARCEL#U-+—nAAQ
PORIMUC(AINTY: 54 20,Cft Sr LOT$
, t i —tt'
J
d
77N,
M
M
sm
ma Mxh.�i
N
4v
a
Salem Gle'n
Golf ry Club Residential Village
Ctcmmons; North Carolina
COX,,
. . . .
Co
. .
AQ yorsYt
lcotfNT
DAVIDSON COUNTY:
15 -2aw-1sFw, q
10 Y.00tj SF LM'S
ti,.3—AO
t
z
STE
(SEE F
1-*2 AQ
. . . . . . . . . .
'10
AGE TREATMENT
PLANT
00,000 QPD REUSE
WWTP & PUMP STATION
4" RE -USE FORCEMAIN
0
ALTERNATIVE No. 9 DATA
7,
DESIGN FLOW — 60,000 GPD
SERVES 167 LOTS
PARCE L-P-L—+—'LZAQ
DA*t'1D,s,oNvmN:ry- i5-8mjusr�bTs REUSE OF TREATED WASTEWATER WITH A
COMBINATION OF GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION
AND DISCHARGE TO YADKIN RIVER
FIG URE No. 9
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200

APPENDIX B
RE-EXAMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT ADDITIONAL LAND IS
atraTT.AMT_V

0"
0"
The Alternatives No. 3 through 7, the land -based treatment and
�• disposal alternatives, do not allow as many lots to be developed as
Alternatives No. S & 9, which utilize a wastewater treatment plant.
This is because the land based treatment systems use some of the
developable land for the wastewater disposal systems, unlike the
treatment plant alternatives. Consequently, the land -based
alternatives must include the lost opportunity cost of the undeveloped
lots. In this Appendix B Alternatives No. 3 through 7 are re-examined
to determine the economic effects of additional land being available
for the treatment systems. Additional land would allow development of
167 lots under each of these alternatives without the alternative
having to bear the lost opportunity costs. Each re-examined
alternative would have to include the increased infrastructure costs
associated with the development of 167 lots, and the increased
treatment system cost due to the treatment system being scaled -up to
~' serve 167 lots. The re-examination of alternatives will indicate if it
is financially feasible to attempt to acquire adjacent properties, or
if the revised present worth of the alternative is so great that the
purchase of additional lands would render the alternative economically
unreasonable.
OW
OW
FM
RM
am
FM
N,
B-1
OM

M"
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
INDIVIDUAL SUB -SURFACE SYSTEMS
Under this re-examined alternative 167 lots will be developed with
individual septic systems. The amount of infrastructure constructed in
the original Alternative No. 3 served a total of 42 lots, each with a
minimum size of 40,000 square feet. The infrastructure cost was
$562,289.30 for the original Alternative, but this amount did not
include the cost of the street, waterline, or storm drainage system
for Ryder Cup Lane. These items were not included in the original
economic evaluation because they were common to all alternatives, and
therefore did not affect the ranking of the alternatives. In trying to
establish a development cost per lot, it is now necessary to include
the construction cost for Ryder Cup Lane and its associated water and
storm drainage piping.
The length of Ryder Cup along the lots developed in the original
Alternative No. 3 was 1,350 LF. The applicable construction items and
costs are as follows:
.., Item Quantity Unit Cost Total
Clearing and grubbing
Grading
Paving
Curb & gutter
Seeding
�+ 8" PVC waterline
8" gate valve
Fire hydrant assembly
15 " RCP
15 " FES
Curb inlets
Rip -rap
Subtotal
M"
OR
OM
11350
LF
$ 8.57
11350
LF
$ 17.94
31294
SY
$ 14.05
21700
LF
$ 10.10
.93
AC
$1,610.00
11350
LF
$ 15.85
4
EA
$ 650.00
2
EA
$2,311.00
150
LF
$ 19.26
2
EA
$ 366.00
4
EA
$1,680.00
176
TN
$ 45.00
Infrastructure Cost from original Alternative No. 3
$ 11,569.50
$ 24,219.00
$ 46,280.70
$ 27,270.00
$ 1,497.30
$ 21,397.50
$ 2,600.00
$ 4,622.00
$ 2,889.00
$ 732.00
$ 6,720.00
$ 7,920.00
$157,717.00
$562,289.30
Total Infrastructure Cost $720,006.30
The total infrastructure cost can be divided by the number of lots
developed to estimate the development cost per lot:
$720,006.30/47 lots = $15,319 per lot
B-2
am

a"
IM Assuming a similar street, waterline, and storm drainage efficiency on
adjacent properties, it is reasonable to project an infrastructure
cost of
an $15,319 per lot x 167 lots = $2,558,273
FM
The individual septic systems were estimated to cost $2,700 each, or a
total septic system cost of
$2,700 per system x 167 systems = $450,900
The annual O&M cost associated with the pumping of the tanks would be
167 tanks x 1No /3 pumped annually x $175 = $9,742
RM
The above estimates indicate a Year 1 cost of $3,009,173, and an
annual O&M cost of $9,742, yielding a revised present worth of
$3,009,173 + 11.2578($9,742) = $3,118,846
This present worth exceeds the present worth of Alternative No. 8
without the cost of the required additional land being added to the
re-examined alternative. A minimum of 120 acres would be required for
the 120 lots that would be located on adjacent properties. Obviously,
'�► this re-examined alternative cannot be economically feasible and
therefore no adjacent property owners were contacted about selling
their land.
s.
MR
am
FM
MR
am
B-3

+MA
an ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
CENTRAL SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (CONVENTIONAL NITRIFICATION LINES)
WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
fm
Under this alternative one large subsurface disposal system would be
constructed to provide wastewater treatment for all the residential
„w lots. A total of 167 lots will be developed in a layout identical to
that presented under Alternative No. 8, the treatment plant
alternative. The central subsurface system will be located off -site,
on adjacent properties. A wastewater pump station will be required to
pump the collected wastewater from the 167 lots to the treatment
system. The central subsurface treatment system in the original
Alternative No. 4 will be scaled up for the additional flows. It
should be noted that a 60,000 GPD subsurface would not be viewed
favorably by the North Carolina Utilities Commission due to the
failures of several large subsurface systems owned and operated by
North State Utilities. However, this analysis will assume a 60,000 gpd
subsurface system is a viable option.
The infrastructure costs for this alternative is the same as
Alternative no. 8, or.
am
no
M"
MO
MR
so
0"
$1,548,929.00.
The wastewater flows for this alternative are:
167 houses at 360 gal/day (3 bedrooms) 60,000 gpd
The minimum area required for the system is:
60,000 gpd x SF trench bottom = 240,000 SF trench bottom required
.25 GPD
240,000 SF x LF = 80,000 LF of 3 foot wide trench required
3 sq. ft .
With the 9-foot minimum spacing, the minimum area required for the
field is:
80,000 LF x 9 ft x 1 Acre = 16.53 Ac
43,560 SF
16.53 AC X 1.40 = 23.14 Ac required due to layout inefficiencies.
23.14 x 2.0 = 46.28 acres require to provide 100o repair area
B-4
MR

no
The components of this system and their estimated
installed cost are
as follows:
One 60,000 gallon cast in place septic tank
$ 65,500.00
One 40,000 gallon cast in place pump tank
$ 47,500.00
80,000 LF of nitrification trench at $5.40/LF
$ 432,000.00
Duplex effluent pumps and control panel,
including automatic valve sequencer to
rotate nitrification fields being dosed
$ 9,600.00
Thirteen pressure manifolds for flow distribution
at $5,000/each
$ 65,000.00
Thirteen motorized 4" zone valves at $1,300 each
$ 16,900.00
12,800 LF of 3" PVC supply lines from manifolds
to nitrification lines at $3.60/LF
$ 46,080.00
7, 600 LF of 4" PVC force main from effluent pumps
to pressure manifolds at $8.40/LF
$ 63,840.00
One automatic dialer
$ 2,000.00
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
$ 82,300.00
Electrical
$ 13,600.00
One 10 KW standby power generator and automatic
transfer switch for septic system
$ 15,000.00
One 15 KW standby power generator and automatic
transfer switch for pump station
$ 18,000.00
One 105 gpm wastewater pump station
$ 105,000.00
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$ 982,320.00
Soil Scientist Fees (50-.)
$ 49,120.00
Engineering Fees (70)
$ 68,760.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$1,100,200.00
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Septic tank to be pumped once every year at a cost
of $3,300.00 or
owl
$.055 per gallon. There would also be a licensed
subsurface system
operator required at an annual cost of $15,000.
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Grinder pump station No. 1:
Design pump rate:
3,600 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1
day/1440 minutes
= 6 GPM, use 25 GPM.
TDH: Static head of 45 feet plus friction
losses of 8 feet
= 53 feet
3,600 gal per day/25 gal per min
= 144 minutes pumping per day = 2.40
hours per day
Brake horsepower required: .56 BHP (60%
efficiency)
KW input to motor: .49 KW (85t
motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
.49 KW x 2.40 hours per day = 1.18
KWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 430 KWH per
year
Power costs per year = $30.10
B-5
fm

ro
Wan astewater pump station:
Design pump rate:
60,000 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
= 105 GPM
No TDH: Static head of 55 feet plus friction losses of 10 feet
= 65 feet (assumed)
60,000 gal per day/105 gal per min
o, = 571 minutes pumping per day = 9.52 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 2.87 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 2.52 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
2.52 KW x 9.52 hours per day = 23.23 KWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 81479 KWH per year
Power costs per year = $594.00
M
rim
Duplex effluent pumps:
60,000 gal per day/100 gpm = 600 min. pumping per day
= 10 hours per day
TDH estimated at 30 feet
Brake horsepower required: 1.26 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 1.11 KW (8501 motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
1.11 KW x 10 hours per day = 11.10 KWH per day
Power consumption per year = 41052 KWH per year
Power costs per year = $284.00
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an
annual replacement charge of 6.67% (1/15) of equipment cost. Use
an additional 5% of equipment cost to represent the annual cost
of routine maintenance and repairs.
Approximate equipment costs are $ 39,000.00
Replacement costs at 6.67% of $39,000 = $ 2,601.00
Maintenance at 5.011 of $39,000 = $ 1,950.00
Total annual replacement/repair charge = $ 4,551.00
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power
outages.
52 hours x 1.75 gal. per hour LPG at $1.50 per gal. _ $ 136.50
($136.50 x 3 generators - 1 at grinder pump station, _ $ 409.50
one at wastewater pump station, and one
at effluent dosing pump station)
B-6

MR
W
The annual O&M costs for this alternative are summarized as follows:
Pump out septic tank
Equipment/replacement repair
Licensed contract operations cost
Power costs
Fuel costs
Annual O&M Costs
Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction
Infrastructure construction
Opportunity cost of lost lots
Total Year 1 Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$ 3,300.00
$ 4,551.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 908.10
$ 409.50
$ 24,168.60
$ 1,100,200.00
$ 11 548, 929. 00
$ 0.00
$ 21 649, 129. 00
$ 24,168.60
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 8t; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $2,649,129 + 11.2578($24,169) _ $2,921,219
MM This present worth exceeds the present worth of Alternative No. 8,
without the cost of the required additional land being added to the
re-examined alternative. A minimum of 46 acres, exclusive of land
IM required to provide the regulatory setbacks, would have to be
purchased to implement this alternative. This alternative cannot be
economically feasible and therefore it would serve no purpose to
40 contact the adjacent property owners about selling their land.
M"
IM
No
M
SM
OW
B-7

no
on
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
CENTRAL SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (DRIP IRRIGATION LINES) WITH
.. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Under this alternative one large subsurface drip irrigation disposal
system would be constructed to provide wastewater treatment for all
the residential lots. A total of 167 lots will be developed in a
layout identical to that presented under Alternative No. 8, the
treatment plant alternative. The central subsurface drip irrigation
system will be located off -site, on adjacent properties. A wastewater
pump station will be required to pump the collected wastewater from
the 167 lots to the treatment system. The central subsurface drip
irrigation treatment system in the original Alternative No. 5 will be
scaled up for the additional flows.
The infrastructure costs for this alternative is the same as
Alternative no. 8, or
$1,548,929.00.
The wastewater flows for this alternative are:
go 167 houses at 360 gal/day (3 bedrooms) 60,000 gpd
The subsurface drip irrigation system utilizes pressurized emitters to
release a relatively constant flow, regardless of minor elevation
differences between the emitters. This allows a more efficient layout
with less wasted land. Therefore, a 10% inefficiency factor is used
to determine the land requirements rather than the 40o factor used for
the conventional system.
Due to the small orifice size in the emitters, the wastewater must be
"� pretreated with a recirculating sand filter to prevent clogging. The
sand filter requires a pump tank, duplex pumps, and a control panel to
dose the filter on a timed basis. A portion of the filtered flow is
IM directed to a second pump tank, which supplies the drip irrigation
system.
SM The estimated flow for this alternative is 60,000 gallons per day,
using the same flow factors from the previous alternatives.
The minimum area required for the system is:
No
MO
60,000 gpd x SF = 722,892 SF subsurface drip irrigation area
.083 GPD (areal basis) needed
= 16.60 Ac
16.60 AC x 1.1(inefficiencies) x 2.0 (100% repair) = 36.52 Ac required
due to layout inefficiencies and needing 100o repair area.
MR
B-8

The components of this system and their estimated installed cost are:
One 15 KW standby power generator set and automatic
transfer switch
One 60,000 gallon cast in place septic tank
Two 40,000 gallon cast in place pump tanks
Drip irrigation system including 362,182 LF
dripper line, 24 zone valves, 5 return flush
..► valves, supply & return piping, 29,920,SF
recirculating sand filter, irrigation pump
system, pump house, computer controller, control
wiring, electrical, etc.
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
One 15 KW standby power generator and automatic
transfer switch for pump station
One 105 gpm wastewater pump station
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
MW Soil Scientist Fees (5%)
Engineering Fees (7%)
am
Total Estimated Project Cost
Operation and Maintenance Costs
$ 18,000.00
$ 65,500.00
$ 85,000.00
$ 850,000.00
$ 74,000.00
$ 18,000.00
$ 105,000.00
$1,215,500.00
$ 60,750.00
$ 85,050.00
$1,361,300.00
See Alternative No. 4(Re-examined) above for derivations of costs that
are presented:
Septic tank pumping: $ 3,300.00
Contract operator: $ 15,000.00
Grinder pump station power costs: $ 30.10
Wastewater Pump Station power costs: $ 594.00
The annual power costs for the other pumps are estimated as follows:
Recirculating sand filter pumps:
60,000 gal per day x 4 (3:1 recirculation ratio)/250 gpm
= 960 minutes per day = 16.0 hours per day
Brake horsepower required:
"' 250 GPM (40 Ft. TDH) /3960 (. 60) = 4.21 BHP
KW input to motor: 3.69 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
on 3.69 KW x 16.0 hours per day = 59.0 KWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 21,535 KWH per year
on Power costs per year = $1,508.00
M"
go
MW
B-9

Drip irrigation pumps:
60,000 gal per day/60 gal per min
= 1,000 minutes per day = 16.67 hours per day
Brake horsepower required:
on = 60 GPM(120Ft. TDH) /3960 (.60) = 3.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 2.63 KW (85t motor efficiency)
By same calculations as above,
MW
Power cost per year = $ 1,120.00
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, solenoid valves, computer
controller, and generator, yielding an annual replacement charge
of 6.6701 (1/15) of equipment cost. Use an additional 5% of
equipment cost to represent the annual cost of routine
maintenance and repairs.
Approximate
equipment costs are $ 48,000.00.
Replacement
costs at 6.670 of $48,000 =
$
3,201.60
Maintenance
at 5.Oo of $48,000 =
$
2,400.00
Total annual
replacement/repair charge =
$
5,601.60
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52
hours per year run time for exercise
and
power
outages.
52 hours x 1.75 gal. per hour LPG at $1.50 per gallon = $ 136.50
($136.50 x 3 generators (one at grinder pump station, _ $ 409.50
one at drip system/filter, and one at wastewater
pump station)
The annual O&M costs for this alternative are summarized as follows:
Pump out septic tank $ 3,300.00
Licensed contract operations cost $15,000.00
Equipment replacement/repair $ 5,601.60
Power costs $ 3,252.00
Fuel costs $ 409.50
Annual O&M Costs $27,563.10
g
OW
em
am
Am
B-10

MM
IM Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $ 1,361,300.00
Infrastructure construction $ 1,548,929.00
Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 0.00
Total Year 1 Costs $ 2,910,229.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 27,563.10
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
NM used is 811; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
MR Present worth = $2,910,229 + 11.2578($27,563) = $3,220,528
This present worth exceeds the present worth of Alternative No. 8,
without the cost of the required additional land being added to the
MR re-examined alternative. A minimum of 36 acres, exclusive of land
required to provide the regulatory setbacks, would have to be
purchased to implement this alternative. This alternative cannot be
economically feasible and therefore it would serve no purpose to
contact the adjacent property owners about selling their land.
No
no
ow-
FM
r
FM
Mr
ow
B-11

No
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
CENTRAL SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Under this alternative one large spray irrigation disposal system
would be constructed to provide wastewater treatment for all the
residential lots. A total of 167 lots will be developed in a layout
identical to that presented under Alternative No. 8, the treatment
plant alternative. The central spray irrigation system will be located
off -site, on adjacent properties. A wastewater pump station will be
required to pump the collected wastewater from the 167 lots to the
.. treatment system. The central spray irrigation treatment system in the
original Alternative No. 6 will be scaled up for the additional flows.
The infrastructure costs for this alternative is the same as
Alternative No. 8, or
so
MR
am
me
on
=a
.R
AW
RM
so
9"
..R
$1,548,929.00.
The wastewater flows for this alternative are:
167 houses at 360 gal/day (3 bedrooms) 60,000 gpd
For this study an average irrigation rate of .417 inches per week is
used. The lagoon volume utilized is 30 days (treatment) plus 45 days
storage, or 75 days total.
The design flow for this alternative is 60,000 gpd. The irrigation
area required is:
60,000 gallons per day x 7 days a week x 1 cubic foot/7.48
gallons x 12 inches per foot x 1 week/.417 inches =
= 1,615,820 square feet = 37.09 acres irrigated area.
The wastewater system components for this alternative include:
One influent bar rack structure with manually
cleaned bar rack at lagoon
$
24,000.00
One lined lagoon with bottom dimensions
of 180 Ft x 360 Ft, 2:1 side slopes,
8 foot maximum water level, and two
feet of freeboard:
28,300 CY cut to fill at $3.50/CY
$
99,050.00
88,000 SF of 30 mil HDPE liner
at $1.20/SF installed
$
105,600.00
Spray irrigation system including:
16 zones with 50 heads per zone (54'
grid spacing)
16 X 50 1" risers w/nozzles and
support pipe at $60/each
$
48,000.00
16 x 2,160 LF of 1" PVC pipe per zone
at $1.50/LF
$
51,840.00
16 x 54 LF of 1 1/2" PVC per zone
at $2.40/LF
$
2,074.00
so
B-12

no
16 x 108 LF of 3" PVC per zone
°�"
at $6.00/LF
$
10,368.00
16 x 162 LF of 4" PVC per zone
at $8.50/LF
$
22,032.00
o•
16 x 162 LF of 6" PVC per zone
at $12.00/LF
$
31,104.00
41540 LF of 6" force main from
irrigation pump station to the
M
16 zones at $12.00/LF
$
54,480.00
16 motorized zone valves at $4,500 each
$
72,000.00
Irrigation pump station with duplex 200
00
gpm pumps and zone controller
$
130,400.00
One 6,000 gallon chlorine contact chamber
with hypochlorite feed system
$
18,000.00
we
11450 LF chain link fence at $9.00/LF (lagoon area)
$
13,050.00
71000 LF barbed wire fence at $2.50/LF
(spray field area)
$
17,500.00
Electrical
$
16,000.00
no
One 15 KW standby power generator and automatic
transfer switch for pump station
$
18,000.00
One 105 gpm wastewater pump station
$
105,000.00
00
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
$
102,000.00
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$
940,498.00
Soil Scientist Fees (5t)
$
47,002.00
AM
Engineering Fees (7t)
$
65,800.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$1,053,300.00
am
am
Operation and Maintenance Costs
See Alternative No. 4(Re-examined) above for derivations of costs that
are presented below:
Contract operator: $ 15,000.00
Grinder pump station power costs: $ 30.10
Wastewater Pump Station power costs: $ 594.00
Power costs for irrigation pumping:
Design pump rate: 200 gpm
TDH estimated at 100 feet (35 psi at sprinkler plus elevation
difference and friction losses) .
60,000 gal per day/200 gpm
= 300 minutes/day average pumping = 5.00 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 8.42 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 7.39 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day:
7.39 KW x 5.00 hours per day x 365 days = 13,490 KWH/year
Power costs per year = $944.00
B-13

MR
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an
annual replacement charge of 6.67% (1/15) of equipment cost. Use
an additional 5% of equipment cost to represent the annual cost
of routine maintenance and repairs.
Approximate equipment costs are $ 43,000.00.
o. Replacement costs at 6.67% of $43,000 = $ 2,870.00
Maintenance at 5.0% of $43,000 = $ 2,150.00
Total annual replacement/repair charge = $ 5,020.00
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power
outages.
s.
52 hours x 1.75 gallons per hour LPG at $1.50 per gal. _ $ 136.50
(One generator at grinder PS, one at wastewater PS) _ $ 273.00
"m The annual O&M costs for this alternative are summarized as follows:
Contract operator $ 15,000.00
�+ Grinder pump station power costs $ 30.10
Wastewater Pump Station $ 594.00
Chlorination $ 5,585.00
Am Irrigation pumping power costs $ 944.00
Equipment Replacement/Repair $ 5,020.00
Fuel Costs $ 273.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 27,446.10
Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $ 1,053,300.00
Infrastructure $ 1,548,929.00
Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 0.00
Total Year 1 Costs $ 2,602,229.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 27,446.10
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual.
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 8t; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $2,602,229 + 11.2578($27,446) _ $ 2,911,211
fm
This present worth exceeds the present worth of Alternative No. 8,
without the cost of the required additional land being added to the
re-examined alternative. A minimum of 37 acres, exclusive of land
°~ required to provide the regulatory setbacks, would have to be
purchased to implement this alternative. This alternative cannot be
economically feasible and therefore it would serve no purpose to
no contact the adjacent property owners about selling their land.
B-14

No
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
CENTRAL DRIP IRRIGATION (SURFACE APPLIED) WITH WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM
Under this alternative one large drip irrigation disposal system would
be constructed to provide wastewater treatment for all the residential
lots. A total of 167 lots will be developed in a layout identical to
s" that presented under Alternative No. 8, the treatment plant
alternative. The central drip irrigation system will be located off -
site, on adjacent properties. A wastewater pump station will be
an required to pump the collected wastewater from the 167 lots to the
treatment system. The central drip irrigation treatment system in the
original Alternative No. 7 will be scaled up for the additional flows.
0M
The infrastructure costs for this alternative is the same as
Alternative No. 8, or
am
$1,548,929.00.
The wastewater flows for this alternative are:
..
167 houses at 360 gal/day (3 bedrooms)
60,000 gpd
AM
The minimum area required for the application area
is 37.10 acres,
based on an irrigation average irri rate of .417 inches
g 'g
per week. This
minimum area does not include regulatory setbacks
or area for a
storage lagoon or sand filter.
0M
The wastewater system components for this alternative
include:
am
One 15 KW standby power generator with automatic
transfer switch
$ 18,000.00
One lined lagoon (75 days storage)
with bottom dimensions
so
of 180 Ft x 360 Ft, 2:1 side slopes,
8 foot maximum water level, and two
feet of freeboard:
...
28,300 CY cut to fill at $3.50/CY
$ 99,050.00
88,000 SF of 30 mil HDPE liner
at $1.20/SF installed
$ 105,600.00
Drip irrigation system including 810,400 LF
dripper line, 48 zone valves, 9 return flush
valves, supply & return piping, 29,900 SF
recirculating sand filter, irrigation pump
�+
system, pump house, computer controller,
control wiring, electrical, etc.
$ 1,194,000.00
One 60,000 gallon cast in place recirculation
pump tank
$ 65,500.00
One 2,000 gallon chlorine contact chamber with
hypochlorite feed system
$ 7,000.00
11450 LF of six ft . chain link fence for lagoon and
filter area at $9.00/LF
$ 13,050.00
71000 LF of barbed wire fencing for application
area at $2.50/LF
$ 17,500.00
..R
B-15
MM

00
One 15 KW standby power generator and automatic
transfer switch for pump station
$
18,000.00
One 105 gpm wastewater pump station
$
105,000.00
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc.
$
60,000.00
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$
1,702,700.00
Soil Scientist Fees (5%)
$
85,000.00
Engineering Fees (7%)
$
118,300.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
1,906,000.00
Operation and Maintenance Costs
,.. Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and
generator,
yielding an
annual replacement charge of 6.6701 (1/15)
of equipment
cost. Use
an additional 5% of equipment cost to represent
the annual cost
of routine maintenance and repairs.
ow
AM
im
ow
a"
an
as
am
No
no
Approximate equipment costs are $ 58,000.00.
Replacement costs at 6.67% of $58,000 = $ 3,868.60
Maintenance at 5.0% of $58,000 = $ 2,900.00
Total annual replacement/repair charge = $ 6,768.60
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power
outages.
52 hours x 1.75 gallons per hour LPG at $1.50 per gal. _ $ 97.50
(One generator at wastewater pump station, one at = $195.00
drip irrigation system)
Contract operator
Grinder pump power costs
Wastewater Pump Station
Recirculation pumping power costs
Chlorination costs
Equipment replacement/Repair
Fuel costs
Annual O&M Costs
$ 15,000.00
$ 30.10
$ 594.00
$ 1,509.00
$ 5,585.00
$ 61 768. 00
$ 195.00
$ 29,681.00
B-16

am
Present Worth Analysis
Year 1 Cost
Wastewater system construction $ 1,906,000.00
Infrastructure costs $ 1,548,929.00
Opportunity cost of lost lots $ 0.00
ar
Total Year 1 Costs $ 3,454,929.00
Annual O&M Costs $ 29,681.00
Present worth of this alternative is the year 1 cost plus the annual
O&M cost discounted to its present worth value. The interest rate
used is 811; the design life of the facilities is 30 years. The
present worth factor is 11.2578.
Present worth = $3,454,929 + 11.2578($29,681) = $3,789,072
This present worth exceeds the present worth of Alternative No. 81
without the cost of the required additional land being added to the
re-examined alternative. A minimum of 37 acres, exclusive of land
required to provide the regulatory setbacks, would have to be
purchased to implement this alternative. This alternative cannot be
economically feasible and therefore it would serve no purpose to
contact the adjacent property owners about selling their land.
W
am
MR
am
RM
M
1A,
B-17
RM

APPENDIX C
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS

Appendix C contains the infrastructure costs for each of the
No evaluated alternatives. Infrastructure costs are defined in this
E.A.A. as the construction cost of the streets, waterlines, storm
drainage systems, and wastewater collection systems necessary to
allow the development of the residential lots included in each
am alternative.
The street, waterline, and storm drainage construction costs
associated with Ryder Cup Lane (refer to Figures No. 3 through 8)
have not been included in the infrastructure costs for each
alternative. This is because Ryder Cup Lane is a part of each of
the alternatives, and its construction cost is a constant value
that would not alter the present worth rankings of the
alternatives.
am
me
A.
Ma
am
MW
am
00
Am
ON
C-1
WO

Pm
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
No
we
am
am
mm
a"
no
P"
PM
No
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 : Individual
Septic S stems
DESCRIPTION
EST. QTY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Clearing and Grubbing
4,310
LF
$8.57
$36,936.70
Grading
4,310
LF
$17.94
$77,321.40
Paving (8" CABC, 2" 1.2)
10,516
SY
$14.05
$147,749.80
Curb & Gutter
8,620
LF
$10.10
$87,062.00
Sub -Total
$349,069.90
MISCELLANEOUS
Seeding
2.97
Acre
$1,610.00
$4,781.70
WATER
8" PVC
0
LF
$15.85
$0.00
6" PVC
4,310
LF
$13.85
$59,693.50
8" Gate Valve
0
Each
$650.00
$0.00
6" Gate Valve
9
Each
$480.00
$4,320.00
Fittin s
7
Each
$350.00
$2,450.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
9
Each
$2,311.00
$20,799.00
Water Service
47
Each
$428.00
$20,116.00
Sub-Tota I
$107, 378.50
STORM SEWER
15" RCP
160
LF
$19.26
$3,081.60
18" RCP
160
LF
$23.11
$3,697.60
48" RCP
200
LF
$71.60
$14,320.00
15" FES
2
Each
$366.00
$732.00
18" FES
2
Each
$439.00
$878.00
48" FES
4
Each
$1,205.00
$4,820.00
Curb Inlets
13
Each
$1,680.00
$21,840.00
Rip -Rap
334
TNS.
$45.00
$15,030.00
Sub -Total
$64,399.20
SANITARY SEWER
2" Force Main
0
LF
$5.40
$0.00
8" VCP 0' - 6' Deep
0
LF
$19.80
$0.00
8" VCP 6' . 8' Deep
0
LF
$21.83
$0.00
8" VCP 8' - 10' Deep
0
LF
$23.80
$0.00
8" VCP 10' - 12' Deep
0
LF
$28.00
$0.00
8" DIP 12' - 14' Dee
0
LF
$41.86
$0.00
8" DIP 14' - 16' Dee
0
LF
$43.91
$0.00
8" DIP 16' - 18' Dee
0
LF
$47.76
$0.00
Grinder Pump Sta. W/Gen,
0
Each
$125,000.00
$0.00
Creek Crossing
0
Each
$10,000.00
$0.00
Manhole
0
Each
$1,412.00
$0.00
Extra Depth
0
VF
$130.00
$0.00
Sewer Service
0
Each
$744.00
$0.00
Sub -Total
$0.00
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
47
Lots
$780.00
$36,660.00
Grand Total
$562,289.30
no
C-2

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
on
No
m"
m
m"
00
an
am
No
no
Im
am
me
am
a,
ON
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4: Central Subsurface
Septic System
DESCRIPTION
EST. QTY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Clearing and Grubbing
1,220
LF
$8.57
$10,455.40
Grading
1,220
LF
$17.94
$21,886.80
Paving (8" CABC, 2" 1-2)
2,982
SY
$14.05
$41,897.10
Curb & Gutter
2,440
LF
$10.10
$24,644.00
Sub -Total
$98,883.30
MISCELLANEOUS
Seeding
1.94
Acre
$1,610.00
$3,123.40
WATER
8' PVC
0
LF
$15.85
$0.00
6" PVC
1,370
LF
$13.85
$18,974.50
8' Gate Valve
0
Each
$650.00
$0.00
6" Gate Valve
4
Each
$480.00
$1,920.00
Fittings
4
Each
$350.00
$1,400.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
4
Each
$2,311.00
$9,244.00
Water Service
64
Each
$428.00
$27,392.00
Sub -Total
$58,930.50
STORM SEWER
15" RCP
80
LF
$19.26
$1,540.80
18" RCP
160
LF
$23.11
$3,697.60
48" RCP
100
LF
$71.60
$7,160.00
15" FES
1
Each
$366.00
$366.00
18" FES
2
Each
$439.00
$878.00
48" FES
2
Each
$1,205.00
$2,410.00
Curb Inlets
5
Each
$1,680.00
$8,400.00-
Rip-Rap
195
TNS.
$45.00
$8,775.00
Sub -Total
$33,227.40
SANITARY SEWER
2" Force Main
900
LF
$5.40
$4,860.00
8" VCP 0'- 6' Deep
1,890
LF
$19.80
$37,422.00
8" VCP 6'- 8' Deep
700
LF
$21.83
$15,281.00
8" VCP 8' - 10' Deep
288
LF
$23.80
$6,854.40
8" VCP 10' - 12'Deep
416
LF
$28.00
$11,648.00
8" DIP 12' - 14'Deep
568
LF
$41.86
$23,776.48
8" DIP 14' - 16' Deep
167
LF
$43.91
$7,332.97
8" DIP 16' - 18' Dee
0
LF
$47.76
$0.00
Grinder Pump Sta. W/Gen.
2
Each
$125,000.00
$250,000.00
Creek Crossing
2
Each
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
Manhole
20
Each
$1,412.00
$28,240.00
Extra Depth
54
VF
$130.00
$7,020.00
Sewer Service
64
Each
$744.00
$47,616.00
Sub -Total
$460,050.85
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
64
Lots
$780.00
$49,920.00
Grand Total
$704,135.45
we
C-3

am
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
no
PM
M*
M"
on
pm
mo
No
am
r•
f"
a"
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 : Central Subsurface
Dri
System
DESCRIPTION
EST. QTY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Clearing and Grubbing
1,870
LF
$8.57
$16,025.90
Grading
1,870
LF
$17.94
$33,547.80
Paving (8" CABC, 2" 1.2)
4,563
SY
$14.05
$64,110.15
Curb & Gutter
3,740
LF
$10.10
$37,774.00
Sub -Total
$151,457.85
MISCELLANEOUS
Seeding
1.94
Acre
$1,610.00
$3,123.40
WATER
8" PVC
0
LF
$15.85
$0.00
6" PVC
2,020
LF
$13.85
$27,977.00
8" Gate Valve
0
Each
$650.00
$0.00
6" Gate Valve
4
Each
$480.00
$1,920.00
Fittings
4
Each
$350.00
$1,400.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
4
Each
$2,311.00
$9,244.00
Water Service
72
Each
$428.00
$30,816.00
Sub -Total
$71,357.00
STORM SEWER
15" RCP
160
LF
$19.26
$3,081.60
18" RCP
160
LF
$23.11
$3,697.60
48" RCP
100
LF
$71.60
$7,160.00
15" FES
2
Each
$366.00
$732.00
18" FES
2
Each
$439.00
$878.00
48" FES
2
Each
$1,205.00
$2,410.00
Curb Inlets
6
Each
$1,680.00
$10,080.00
Rip -Rap
223
TNS.
$45.00
$10,035.00
Sub -Total
$38,074.20
SANITARY SEWER
2" Force Main
900
LF
$5.40
$4,860.00
8" VCP 0'- 6' Deep
2,190
LF
$19.80
$43,362.00
8" VCP 6'- 8' Deep
1,000
LF
$21.83
$21,830.00
8" VCP 8' - 10' Deep
288
LF
$23.80
$6,854.40
8" VCP 10' - 12' Deep
416
LF
$28.00
$11,648.00
8" DIP 12' - 14' Deep
568
LF
$41.86
$23,776.48
8" DIP 14' - 16'Deep
167
LF
$43.91
$7,332.97
8" DIP 16' - 18' Deep
0
LF
$47.76
$0.00
Grinder Pump Sta. W/Gen.
2
Each
$125,000.00
$250,000.00
Creek Crossing
2
Each
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
Manhole
22
Each
$1,412.00
$31,064.00
Extra Depth
60
VF
$130.00
$7,800.00
Sewer Service
72
Each
$744.00
$53,568.00
Sub -Total
$482,095.85
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
72
Lots
$780.00
$56,160.00
Grand Total 1
$802,268.30
me
C-4

d"
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
on
A"
M
M"
0M
MM
fm
o,
No
ON
f"
am
am
am
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6: Central S
)ray Irrigation System
DESCRIPTION
EST. QTY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Clearing and Grubbing
300
LF
$8.57
$2,571.00
Grading
300
LF
$17.94
$5,382.00
Paving (8" CABC, 2" 1-2)
732
SY
$14.05
$10,284.60
Curb & Gutter
600
LF
$10.10
$6,060.00
Sub -Total
$24,297.60
MISCELLANEOUS
Seeding
1.45
Acre
$1,610.00
$2,334.50
WATER
8" PVC
0
LF
$15.85
$0.00
6" PVC
300
LF
$13.85
$4,155.00
8" Gate Valve
0
Each
$650.00
$0.00
6" Gate Valve
1
Each
$480.00
$480.00
Fittings
1
Each
$350.00
$350.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
1
Each
$2,311.00
$2,311.00
Water Service
32
Each
$428.00
$13,696.00
Sub -Total
$20,992.00
STORM SEWER
15" RCP
0
LF
$19.26
$0.00
18" RCP
80
LF
$23.11
$1,848.80
48" RCP
0
LF
$71.60
$0.00
15" FES
0
Each
$366.00
$0.00
18" FES
1
Each
$439.00
$439.00
48" FES
0
Each
$1,205.00
$0.00
Curb Inlets
1
Each
$1,680.00
$1,680.00
Rip -Rap
28
TNS.
$45.00
$1,260.00
Sub -Total
$5,227.80
SANITARY SEWER
2" Force Main
750
LF
$5.40
$4,050.00
8" VCP 0' - 6' Deep
626
LF
$19.80
$12,394.80
8" VCP 6' - 8' Deep
686
LF
$21.83
$14,975.38
8" VCP 8' - 10' Deep
186
LF
$23.80
$4,426.80
8' VCP 10' - 12' Deep
503
LF
$28.00
$14,084.00
8" DIP 12' - 14' Deep
687
LF
$41.86
$28,757.82
8" DIP 14' - 16' Deep
202
LF
$43.91
$8,869.82
8" DIP 16' - 18' Dee
0
LF
$47.76
$0.00
Grinder Pump Sta. W/Gen.
1
Each
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Creek Crossing
2
Each
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
Manhole
15
Each
$1,412.00
$21,180.00
Extra Depth
58
VF
$130.00
$7,540.00
Sewer Service
32
Each
$744.00
$23,808.00
Sub -Total
$285,086.62
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
32
Lots
$780.00
$24,960.00
Grand Total
$362,898.52
am
C-5

lmo
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
on
mm
ow
an
fm
no
am
No
MR
an
me
ow
mm
am
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7 : Central
ip Irrigation (Surface A
lied) System
DESCRIPTION
EST. QTY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Clearing and Grubbing
1,070
LF
$8.57
$9,169.90
Grading
1,070
LF
$17.94
$19,195.80
Paving (8" CABC, 2" 1.2)
2,615
SY
$14.05
$36,740.75
Curb & Gutter
2,140
LF
$10.10
$21,614.00
Sub -Total
$86,720.45
MISCELLANEOUS
Seeding
1.29
Acre
$1,610.00
$2,076.90
WATER
8" PVC
0
LF
$15.85
$0.00
6" PVC
920
LF
$13.85
$12,742.00
8" Gate Valve
0
Each
$650.00
$0.00
6" Gate Valve
3
Each
$480.00
$1,440.00
Fittings
3
Each
$350.00
$1,050.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
3
Each
$2,311.00
$6,933.00
Water Service
57
Each
$428.00
$24,396.00
Sub -Total
$46, 561.00
STORM SEWER
15" RCP
80
LF
$19.26
$1,540.80
18" RCP
160
LF
$23.11
$3,697.60
48" RCP
0
LF
$71.60
$0.00
15" FES
1
Each
$366.00
$366.00
18" FES
2
Each
$439.00
$878.00
48" FES
0
Each
$1,205.00
$0.00
Curb Inlets
3
Each
$1,680.00
$5,040.00
Rip -Rap
84
TNS.
$45.00
$3,780.00
Sub -Total
$15,302.40
SANITARY SEWER
2" Force Main
1,200
LF
$5.40
$6,480.00
8" VCP 0' - 6' Deep
628
LF
$19.80
$12,434.40
8" VCP 6'- 8' Deep
688
LF
$21.83
$15,019.04
8" VCP 8' - 10' Deep
187
LF
$23.80
$4,450.60
8" VCP 10' - 12' Deep
505
LF
$28.00
$14,140.00
8" DIP 12' - 14' Deep
689
LF
$41.86
$28,841.54
8' DIP 14' - 16' Deep
202
LF
$43.91
$8,869.82
8" DIP 16'- 18' Dee
0
LF
$47.76
$0.00
Grinder Pump Sta. W/Gen.
2
Each
$125,000.00
$250,000.00
Creek Crossing
2
Each
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
Manhole
16
Each
$1,412.00
$22,592.00
Extra Depth
56
VF
$130.00
$7,280.00
Sewer Service
57
Each
$744.00
$42,408.00
Sub -Total
$432, 515.40
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
57
Lots
$780.00
$44,460.00
Grand Total
$627,636.15
OR
C-6

LL
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
am
m"
an
m"
fm
pm
an
am
s.
m
MR
mm
ALTERNATIVE NO. 8: Expansion of Existing WWTP and Discharge to River
DESCRIPTION
EST. TY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Clearing and Grubbing
6,720
LF
$8.57
$57,590.40
Grading
6,720
LF
$17.94
$120,556.80
Paving 8" CABC, 2" 1-2
16,426
SY
$14.05
$230,785.30
Curb & Gutter
13,440
LF
$10.10
$135,744.00
Sub -Total
$544,676.50
MISCELLANEOUS
Seeding
5.87
Acre
$1,610.00
$9,450.70
WATER
8" PVC
900
LF
$15.85
$14, 265.00
6" PVC
4,620
LF
$13.85
$63,987.00
8" Gate Valve
4
Each
$650.00
$2,600.00
6" Gate Valve
12
Each
$480.00
$5,760.00
Fittings
11
Each
$350.00
$3,850.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
15
Each
$2,311.00
$34,665.00
Water Service
167
Each
$428.00
$71,476.00
Sub -Total
$196,603.00
STORM SEWER
15" RCP
1,440
LF
$19.26
$27,734.40
18" RCP
660
LF
$23.11
$15,252.60
48" RCP
100
LF
$71.60
$7,160.00
15" FES
2
Each
$366.00
$732.00
18" FES
5
Each
$439.00
$2,195.00
48" FES
2
Each
$1,205.00
$2,410.00
Curb Inlets
34
Each
$1,680.00
$57,120.00
Rip -Rap
275
TNS.
$45.00
$12,375.00
Sub -Total
$124,979.00
SANITARY SEWER
2" Force Main
300
LF
$5.40
$1,620.00
8" VCP 0' - 6' Deep
2,876
LF
$19.80
$56,944.80
8" VCP 6'- 8' Deep
1,171
LF
$21.83
$25, 562.93
8" VCP 8' - 10' Deep
1,080
LF
$23.80
$25,704.00
8" VCP 10' - 12' Deep
970
LF
$28.00
$27,160.00
8" DIP 12' - 14'Deep
767
LF
$41.86
$32,106.62
8" DIP 14' - 16' Deep
262
LF
$43.91
$11,504.42
8' DIP 16' - 18' Deep
94
LF
$47.76
$4,489.44
Grinder Pump Sta. W/Gen.
1
Each
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Creek Crossing
3
Each
$10,000.00
$30,000.00
Manhole
45
Each
$1,412.00
$63,540.00
Extra Depth
116
VF
$130.00
$15,080.00
Sewer Service
167
Each
$744.00
$124,248.00
Sub -Total
$542,960.21
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
167
Lots
$780.00
$130,260.00
Grand Total
$1,548,929.41
.m
C-7

am
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
m"
m"
ow
a~
a=
om
am
r�
fm
am
am
fm
am
ALTERNATIVE NO. 9 : Combination Reuse Golf Course Irrigation and
Discharge to River)
DESCRIPTION
EST. QTY.
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
STREET CONSTRUCTION
Clearing and Grubbing
6,720
LF
$8.57
$57,590.40
Grading
6,720
LF
$17.94
$120,556.80
Paving (8" CABC, 2" 1.2)
16,426
SY
$14.05
$230,785.30
Curb & Gutter
13,440
LF
$10.10
$135,744.00
Sub -Total
$544,676.50
MISCELLANEOUS
Seeding
5.87
Acre
$1,610.00
$9,450.70
WATER
8" PVC
900
LF
$15.85
$14, 265.00
6" PVC
4,620
LF
$13.85
$63, 987.00
8" Gate Valve
4
Each
$650.00
$2,600.00
6" Gate Valve
12
Each
$480.00
$5,760.00
Fittings
11
Each
$350.00
$3,850.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
15
Each
$2,311.00
$34,665.00
Water Service
167
Each
$428.00
$71,476.00
Sub -Total
$196,603.00
STORM SEWER
15" RCP
1,440
LF
$19.26
$27, 734.40
18" RCP
660
LF
$23.11
$15,252.60
48" RCP
100
LF
$71.60
$7,160.00
15" FES
2
Each
$366.00
$732.00
18" FES
5
Each
$439.00
$2,195.00
48" FES
2
Each
$1,205.00
$2,410.00
Curb Inlets
34
Each
$1,680.00
$57,120.00
Rip -Rap
275
TNS.
$45.00
$12,375.00
Sub -Total
$124,979.00
SANITARY SEWER
2" Force Main
300
LF
$5.40
$1,620.00
8" VCP 0' - 6' Deep
2,876
LF
$19.80
$56,944.80
8" VCP 6'- 8' Deep
1,171
LF
$21.83
$25,562.93
8" VCP 8' - 10' Deep
1,080
LF
$23.80
$25,704.00
8" VCP 10' - 12'Deep
970
LF
$28.00
$27,160.00
8" DIP 12' - 14' Deep
767
LF
$41.86
$32,106.62
8" DIP 14' - 16'Deep
262
LF
$43.91
$11,504.42
8" DIP 16' - 18'Deep
94
LF
$47.76
$4,489.44
Grinder Pump Sta. W/Gen.
1
Each
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Creek Crossing
3
Each
$10,000.00
$30,000.00
Manhole
45
Each
$1,412.00
$63,540.00
Extra Depth
116
VF
$130.00
$15,080.00
Sewer Service
167
Each
$744.00
$124,248.00
Sub -Total
$942,960.21
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING
167
Lots
$780.00
$130,260.00
Grand Total
$1,548,929.41
C-8