NC0087891_Application_20040416

pKp@j MCI rbr�A
F -JMc Gill
A S S O C I A T E S
April 16, 2004
Mr. Tom Belnick
North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Belnick:
- APR 2 0 2004
RE: East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Re -Submittal of NPDES Permit Application and
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Yancey County, North Carolina
In response to the NPDES permit application / NCO087891, Return No. 2210; please find
enclosed three (3) revised copies of the NPDES permit application form and Engineering
Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for the above referenced project. Please note that the original
application has been resubmitted because the request for a permit to discharge 400,000 gallons
per day to the South Toe River remains unchanged.
In accordance with our recent telephone conversation, we offer the following responses
to your letter dated March 8, 2004 (numbered to coincide with your numbered comments):
1. The 50% connection rate is based on random community septic system surveys that were
completed by McGill Associates within the District, and discussions with the Toe River
Health Department. Though the Health Department has not provided any data on the
current number of failing systems in the District, a letter from the Department is included
in Appendix A of the EAA describing permit denials and the potential for future
problems in the area. The results of the community surveys are discussed on pages 5 and
6 of the enclosed EAA. Based on this information, the 50% connection rate appears to be
a reasonable estimate.
2. As we discussed on the telephone, the flow projections in the EAA have been revised to
follow Constriction Grants and Loans (CG&L) guidelines for 201 Facilities Plans. Since
these guidelines do not include infiltration and inflow (I/1), additional estimates for 1/I
have been included in the flow projections. Please note that these revised calculations do
not affect the District's request for a permit to discharge 400,000 gallons per day (GPD).
3. The costs associated with the unit pricing in Table III -I are based on previous bid
tabulations and comparisons to construction costs of similar projects completed within
the State of North Carolina. Mobilization has been estimated at approximately 3% of the
total estimated construction cost.
Engineering
• Planning
• Finance
McGill Associates.
P.A.
• P.O.
Box 2259, Asheville,
NC 28802 • 55 Brood
Street. Asheville,
NC 28801
828-252-0575 •
FAX [phone]

Mr. Tom Belnick
a April 16, 2004
Page 2
4. In Alternative No. 2, the Town of Burnsville would implement a one-time capacity
depletion charge to the District in addition to monthly user fees for treatment of the
wastewater. A letter dated April 14, 2004 from Mr. Tom Storie, Director of Public
Works, is included in Appendix A of the EAA. Mr. Storie confirms the capacity
depletion charge of $3.00 per gallon (not $3.00 per 1,000 gallons as indicated in the
previous EAA). Additional information on the capacity depletion charge and monthly
user fees is included on pages 19 and 21 of the EAA.
5. An evaluation of utilizing a community subsurface system in the District has been added
to the EAA, including cost estimates. See pages 25 through 31 of the enclosed EAA.
6. Please note that the Table III-3 that you referenced in your letter is now Table III-6 in the
enclosed revised EAA. The costs associated with the unit pricing in Table III-6 are based
on previous bid tabulations and comparisons to construction costs of similar projects
completed within the State of North Carolina. Mobilization has been estimated at
approximately 3% of the total estimated construction cost.
7. Please note that the Table III-4 that you referenced in your letter is now Table III-7 in the
enclosed revised EAA. The costs associated with the unit pricing in Table III-7 are based
on previous bid tabulations and comparisons to construction costs of similar projects
completed within the State of North Carolina. Mobilization has been estimated at
approximately 3% of the total estimated construction cost.
8. The District has secured funding to construct the Phase 1 collection system improvements
and a new wastewater disposal facility. Based on engineering estimates, the available
funding will allow the District to construct a wastewater treatment plant with a capacity
of 150,000 GPD. Though flows in Phase 1 are estimated to be only 53,000 GPD, the new
WWTP is proposed to be a dual train system, giving the District the flexibility of treating
the flows with just one train in service.
Construction of a facility larger than 150,000 GPD does not appear to be economically
feasible at this time due to lack of funding. The District has secured a portion of funding
for the Phase 2 improvements, and is seeking funding for the remainder of the balance.
The Phase 2 project is proposed to expand the 150,000 GPD facility constructed in Phase
1 to a capacity of 400,000 GPD.
9. Mr. Curtis Weaver of the United States Geological Survey provided information relating
to the 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows of the South Toe River included in the EAA.
10. Please note that the Table III-6 that you referenced in your letter is now Table III-9 in the
enclosed revised EAA. The costs associated with the unit pricing in Table III-9 are based
on previous bid tabulations and comparisons to construction costs of similar projects
completed within the State of North Carolina. Mobilization has been estimated at
approximately 3% of the total estimated construction cost.

Mr. Tom Belnick
April 16, 2004
Page 3
The cost for the wastewater treatment plant in Table III-9 ($652,500) includes the total
construction cost in Table III-6 ($690,100) minus disinfection, the outfall line to the river,
and mobilization (3% mobilization is added to the total project cost in Table III-9). This
issue is discussed on page 41 of the EAA.
11. Please note that the Table III-7 that you referenced in your letter is now Table III-10 in
the enclosed revised EAA. The costs associated with the unit pricing in Table III-10 are
based on previous bid tabulations and comparisons to construction costs of similar
projects completed within the State of North Carolina. Mobilization has been estimated
at approximately 3% of the total estimated construction cost.
12. Please note that the Table III-9 that you referenced in your letter is now Table III-12 in
the enclosed revised EAA. The costs associated with the unit pricing in Table III-12 are
based on previous bid tabulations and comparisons to construction costs of similar
projects completed within the State of North Carolina. Mobilization has been estimated
at approximately 3% of the total estimated construction cost.
The cost for the secondary wastewater treatment plant in Table III-12 ($562,500)
includes the total construction cost in Table III-6 ($690,100) minus tertiary treatment,
disinfection, the outfall line to the river, and mobilization (3% mobilization is added to
the total project cost in Table III-12). This issue is discussed on page 46 of the EAA.
13. Please note that the Table III-10 that you referenced in your letter is now Table III-13 in
the enclosed revised EAA. The costs associated with the unit pricing in Table III-13 are
based on previous bid tabulations and comparisons to construction costs of similar
projects completed within the State of North Carolina. Mobilization has been estimated
at approximately 3% of the total estimated construction cost.
Tom, we hope that this letter and the enclosed EAAs respond to your comments in a
satisfactory manner. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to give me
a call. We look forward to your review of this important application.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Id.- a J, *Ae
MICHAEL S. APKE, P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Michele Lawhern (w/ enclosures)
Harry Buckner, P.E.
Projects/2001 /01743/npdespermit/letters/tb 16apr4.doc

pw �
rm
9"a
m
PWR
V"
fm
m"
ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
TO
EVALUATE WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
EAST YANCEY
WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL S. APKE, P.E.
OMcGH1
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
Post Office Box 2259
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
JANUARY, 2004
REVISED APRIL, 2004
01743
SEAS.
• 27394
�/41HtfiiM^A'f�

M
SECTION I GENERAL INFORMATION
The East Yancey Water and Sewer District is located in the mountains of western
North Carolina, southeast of the Town of Burnsville. The District encompasses nearly
4,000 acres of land in the Micaville and Windom communities, and was created to
provide an area wide collection system to portions of the county without current reliable
water and sewer service. The District recently received a grant in the amount of
$3,000,000 from the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center's Unsewered
Communities Program to construct the first phase of the wastewater collection and
disposal system in this area.
Yancey County currently owns approximately eleven (11) acres of land along the
banks of the South Toe River and has designated the property as the proposed site for
wastewater disposal within the area. This tract of land is situated north of US 19 E, and
can be accessed from Wyatt Town Road (SR 1307). A location map of the District
boundaries and the 11-acre tract of land are included in Figure I-1 at the end of this
section.
This study evaluates alternatives for the treatment and disposal of wastewater
generated from within the District and is based on the assumption that costs to expand the
collection system, and to connect new consumers, are similar in price and scope for each
viable treatment option. Treatment alternatives have been evaluated on an estimated
construction cost basis as well as a present worth basis over a twenty-year operations
1

MR
� t
period, and have been conducted in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) guidelines.
am
The alternatives that have been evaluated are as follows:
IM
�,., • Alternative No. 1 - No Action
• Alternative No. 2 - Connection to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works
• Alternative No. 3 - Connection to a Privately Owned Treatment Works
Alternative 3 A — Connection to Mountain View Motel Treatment Works
Alternative 3-B — Connection to Taylor Togs Treatment Works
• Alternative No. 4 — Individual and Community Subsurface Systems
'�'" • Alternative No. 5 — Surface Water Discharge Through NPDES Permit System
• Alternative No. 6 — Drip Irrigation
• Alternative No. 7 — Spray Irrigation
�'" • Alternative No. 8 — Reuse
P"
ow
�, 2

rig
r
r
r
FIGURE 1-1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
EAST YANCEY
WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
S I_ j P�0�O [);'
VVH.z'I CVVN I rm,-� -
{ DISPOSACSR(E
ZA
r
ti r
l
s Ise
.I
\., •J/
YANCEY COUNTY / J
'r,
'AST Y EY
BORDER l
1 1
AT—EW&�EWI� DIS
cp
N SCALE: V= 15,000'
\
@McGiff
A S S O C I A T E S
-
ENGINEERINGPLANNINGFINANCE
55 BROAD STREST ASHE VII.I.E. NC PH-(KM252-05]5

SECTION II DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS
me
"" The service area created by the East Yancey Water and Sewer District currently
MR
includes approximately 490 homes and 34 businesses and institutions. The most current
U.S. census figures indicate that the population of the service area consists of
approximately 2.36 persons per household. Therefore, the population in 2003 within the
service area is estimated at 1,156 persons.
Information from the 2000 Census indicates that, during the decade from 1990 to
2000, Yancey County experienced an increase in population of 2,355 persons
countywide, to a total population of 17,774. This represents a 15.3% growth rate over
that period, or an effective rate of 1.43% per year. For the purposes of this report, it is
assumed that the population growth rate within the service area will be similar to that of
the preceding decade, therefore an annual rate of 1.43% has been used to project future
growth. Table II-1 indicates an incremental growth rate within the service area over the
twenty-year planning period of this study based on this assumption.
Table II-1
EAST YANCEY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
we SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SM
an
.e
v-aa _ -r�s^f t yyyy "3
S�F. � -�.�µm �� � � Y �.P'g�Y;i�
a s. 'aF y
_c{.x ] '�.-q" ey •r f
?.�,.! �� W� ��
�,:1.. 3��.I �f:r.,+ � ssxti
- .uifijif.t ..""^jy,�.t,;.�yjj`+ .f`I'xFj""lrti
R'41� �„ .. '^7� �...:_. �• ���
�t i��T; �.q.N.mzv$-•w-�i.` FlitE.,-ti«
1,156
r'Tyt�'i�i M � u 't'"R��� �f f'f s �! i:.
i1��� • ia1� ,�.�ri ��J �-j:!'+��:i Tt
i=.�, �
2003
2006 (Project Beginning)
11,206
2010
1,276
2015
1,371
2020
1,472
2025
1,580
oft 3

Due to the large area encompassed by the District, it is not cost effective to serve
M the entire area within the scope of one project. The most efficient manner to serve the
entire District with sewer service is to use a phased approach, as population density and
service needs vary widely across the area. A total of six (6) potential phases have been
identified to ultimately extend service to the entire District, with implementation
preliminarily scheduled to take up to twenty (20) years. The intended twenty-year phased
planning period requires the initial Phase 1 construction of a collection system and
disposal facility to act as the foundation of the collection system and future phases.
I" Figure II-1 shows the location of the six (6) phases proposed for this project.
aw Table II-2 summarizes the number of potential residential connections in 2003 in
am each of the six phases, and the year that the phase is proposed to be constructed. These
connections will be utilized to calculate anticipated wastewater flows within the District.
a"
The District has already secured full funding for the Phase 1 improvements, and partial
PM funding for the Phase 2 improvements. The remainder of the funding necessary for the
Phase 2 improvements is currently being sought by the District.
F04
No
go
OW
.r
Fft4 4

` � _ ; - �" Y': � .� ./ �W^ _ - -,• r ,'fir_ •r
l w �'i �_ +ri ?� • "-`�{{ ~. ° " ~ x • �T ,r,'F vu -L -�'• ` •.1:. 4',/ s
�.� .t• SVILLE.v- f. e},.� .S?: •_ ter. •� �-•`ti `�� tif•�•
r'f {" LIWS�r : .7r - - � S� ' � .s � ti - - 1 'f cam+ • t • � _ _ _ ,� • Y
{ - + � 1 _}-� � c�~ .-� �'•'6LRY : - � i;"�'._ � _ •�� _ p� _ �, � '_e+•�_ ' �.`cT�'�-:'�'�i 4 i _ •'2'�'r n
Y_ - - �•: +E- •R- • Y. ,.��~r :"gyp �P}e •r ^'4
N - `�5 a' br �,:-_ � .� �sif � �• ',�� �• -,�, , fir, 1 j''•.�.
e- r
era" Sr' ` � �y. i � •�' r 1 •c. � >4� � ,,�+ r'.a, �'`�- i('� `t'
se
- ri y�:` - -f• � � .>• �'r.�_..J.: 'sir � - . 1 - � � p -
- •c.. • �`�• • �' +r r�: ,., � •fir K •.y '�' i�� '{�.
i..'Fr ��+, - p•S � ��. 'a ��� . I`-r _ -- ' A,' `� _ I r i.. �� �1, Y _ ' ��.' � �
�_ •+�- �„ rR� .I i• r,VhFAJ LOYY:.. 'r r v.i�a.�yr�in ->-a. a�•rS- , i - - .._ + i/ - _ .T!I�,rj� •r!.=:•�
y� r ., r k _ ' Y ��._. 4 '' • E[IV�LAFiY a r;�� _-e
r � V ~� ��• •! A �� Y -lam Y'� �, F• �`i •) [y�. � r 1
.0 -'r' `3r rY x-'+Y, _ +yam• - � r.. ....i ':�' � _ '-' W' i _ -.w •�-� ,� �` • 'I, �;y !
!,'- • { t • . _ .4
40
#F y. 11 ; r !• ►- `� � 3 �;- Gjsied Mfl,0F�iy;�: _ JAI
- _ y,• ! . frI _ w}
;,. _, _ - R:�: r,.. '} :' � ='i`� - ;�•;3,?;� �. ! �'.,-z Gravity .SeYue�°,l..t{a p .i+ :� -',�•, - � + Y' ;r
•a. yet _ �.i.•:r,. �
_ _�_. `a i.'F- '?''' _ _ i 'ti :-i .+:tir- .�+ - '-a "' '-' -` qr'. r •+� , � 'r ���i•�`.���rr'.�,�
r w
�• t 1 .� "r' p+9m--�• I,' r - �� •`rtr 7�• �:{ �y�•� ., 1 - —F..Y: V .r - r'!
:•. .# .z �� `- i r �'b. a1, • 't' � v ; �T-'� • 'j'�_ 7+ ,y.�r;+ 1 _ r ` i, k� .�+,7�
- r �Ir , i ' w� �",��*., i '� ..� ti'K _�. �r �'•, • l any iie�� Y � ' ,•�;. "�-�•�' ��,�:� '�,:'�l , ..��" ' ' .• ' ''i ••� F - q '�
-. �.. _may i y :.... f rr _ _.. . i'r '� : r y� r�:.` 'i i
hr a; r, •a y ' {- :'" I : f y - -'P��'F' Y-, - ,; �' ..� • SCR.'+ - - * — ' 9�.
' 1: ,,.p.1 . �s' �:,. �•c - �y- • =>G` . sr '� _ : �W � tir.., �4 ;;, 3 •} t- - . ri,
ja
,fir 1' •, • -� :�f'- �'� :. � - � _
..i- ` !• ✓ h v7 7• rY:
hArt,
# `;�`,`, .• * r•r - gi�p-" ,. �• 1�!
JLI
!r�tit• �• '1.'r. •c - � iL 4 �.nr �� <'a'li .��:.. t . k � 'r - 1 :'� 3 r y=. r . i:..�� '.af
•r tr• - - •'?i : � :sic+ •� i .- - "'1 � � ;ti.
` N SCALE. 1 = 1fi6D' .:s�.:,,:', - +r �.:"
N!F - _ __ .:f_ � ..E. T• .l� ..i �{ -.. -•� • " f f' / _ 'i � TtT i•T
.� - .7 A.'• •Y� "Y -� - "w- 'I Irk, - • 'L-
-
S` '-'�', �Y� rat i �•. � .,4 = *' ��� •�
F' L j, y
• :•c '=i'-s =Sw• .j: k - •{' f' ` TP ,St •A'ti �>,-' ► _
1 # ��::
-pry. - ';r `,], `.� . . r y-.r.. • •F' �... Al
i t ,
- FIGURE I I-1 = > cry county :�! C
.. te'r & Se
1N,8r District
PROPOSED;.:.. it Boundary,''@MC •
0 COLLECTION SYSTEM PHASES ' ` -ll
r
EAST YA�ICEY - ..� F` ! Y , -.�. ;r :^ti .. -; . ASSOCIATES
DISTRICT r� ENGINTRFFF A•PLANNFINANCE
ING
WATER & SEWER - s5 BROAD s,7SHEV SI I.E NC PH. [phone]

M
r
Table II-2
EAST YANCEY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER BASE — YEAR 2003
TENTLAL Nltl4'1BE
w PHASE DESCRIPTI N '
OF RESIDENTIAL .`
Phase 1 - Micaville /Taylor Togs /
Burnsville Elementary (2006)
172
Phase 2 - West Windom Area (2008)
74
Phase 3 - Georges Fork / Lower Georges
Fork(2010)
98
Phase 4 - Cane Branch Road (2015)
70
Phase 5 - Bear Wallow Road (2020)
45
Phase 6 - SR 1147 / The Reserve (2025)
31
Note: District also includes an additional 34 potential non-residential customers
As the wastewater collection system is constructed, connection to the system is
not expected to be mandatory unless a property owner is required to connect by the
County Health Department. It is therefore unrealistic to anticipate a 100 percent
connection rate during each phase of construction, but it is anticipated that as the
population of the area grows, the system is extended, and as property owners encounter
problems with their individual septic systems, more customers will choose to connect to
these facilities over time.
., It is currently estimated that 50 percent of the customers with service available to
them will actually connect to the system. This estimation is based on random individual
septic system surveys that were completed by McGill Associates within the District
boundary in July 2002 as part of a grant application package submittal to the North
Carolina Rural Economic Development Center's Unsewered Communities Program.
5

Following the Rural Center's requirements for these surveys, a minimum of I in 8 of the
a` potential 524 units (in this case, 66 samples) were required to be surveyed.
P"
The surveys consisted of on -site visits and discussions with local property owners
' problems that theproperty
. to determine the current condition of their septic systems, any p
M* owner has experienced with the system, and the presence of any straight piping in the
project area. A total of 72 surveys were conducted by McGill Associates within the
District boundaries. In completing these surveys, 25 instances of grey water straight
piping were confirmed (34.7% of surveys), 1 instance of a currently failing septic system
was confirmed (1.4% of surveys), 6 cases of property owners who have experienced
periodic problems with their systems were confirmed (8.3% of surveys), and 40 cases
M, where property owners do not have an adequate repair area for their septic systems were
confirmed (55.6% of surveys).
oft
„o It is anticipated that all property owners that are currently utilizing straight piping,
me
M
or currently operating a failing system will be required to connect to the new system.
Additional residents that have experienced problems with their systems or do not have an
adequate repair area may also elect to connect to the system to avoid future problems.
Based on this information, a 50 percent connection rate to the new system appears to be a
reasonable estimate.
In this report, future residential and commercial wastewater flows have been
estimated using criteria published by the NCDWQ Construction Grants and Loans
.e 6

can
FM
00
im
(CG&L) Section for State Revolving Fund (SRF) projects. These guidelines state that (f5o �
future residential flows shall be calculated utilizing a rate of 70 GPD per capita, and
future commercial flows shall be calculated using a rate of 15 GPD per capita. Industrial
and institutional flows that are anticipated to be generated in the District have been
.� estunated based on historical records and current NCDWQ criteria for determining
o V1 Oe
cP*") wastewater flows.
The flow values utilized by CG&L do not include infiltration and inflow (I/I) that
is typical to all gravity wastewater collection systems. According to the 3rd Edition of
Wastewater Engineering by Metcalf and Eddy, I/I typically ranges from 100 to 10,000
gpd/inch-mile of pipe within a collection system. Since the gravity sewer lines proposed
on this project will be newly constructed, I/I is expected to be minimal. An assumed I/I
value of 100 gpd/inch-mile of pipe is therefore implemented into the flow calculations.
The inch -miles of pipe were calculated for each of the six (6) Phases of the 20-year plan
based on the collection system map shown in Figure II-1.
The following sections provide a summary of the six (6) phases, and include
wastewater flow projections for each phase. A summary table of the total flows
generated by all phases is included at the end of this section.
Phase I — MicavillelTaylor Togs/Burnsville Elementary
The Phase 1 improvements will construct a collection system and disposal system
to serve the US Highway 19 E corridor from the 11-acre disposal site to Burnsville
7

Elementary School, and along the NC Highway 80 corridor from the US 19 E
am intersection to the Hickory Springs manufacturing plant. Based on the existing
population in the area and the potential number of connections shown in Table II-2,
residential/commercial flows in Phase 1 are estimated as follows:
Residential Connections (2003) =172
Residential Connections (2006) = 179 (using 1.43% per year)
50% Connection Rate (2006) = 90
Residential Population (2006) = 90 connections X 2.36 people per connection (Based on
2000 Census Data) = 212
Total Residential/Commercial Flow = 212 people X (70 GPD/capita Residential + 15
GPD/capita Commercial)=18,020 GPD
N" In addition, five (5) industries or institutions have committed to connecting to the
a% new sewer system in Phase 1. These facilities include the Taylor Togs manufacturing
facility, Hickory Springs industrial plant, two (2) elementary schools, and one (1) middle
a" school. The Taylor Togs manufacturing facility is currently served by a 10,000 GPD
f" package type wastewater treatment facility, and is planning to abandon the facility upon
completion of the Phase 1 improvements. Wastewater flows for the Hickory Springs
a"
facility and three (3) schools have been estimated using NCDWQ criteria. The two (2)
�* elementary schools are estimated using 12 GPD/student (day school with cafeteria), and
the middle school is estimated using 15 GPD/student (day school with cafeteria, gym,
and showers). Calculations for institution and school flows are as follows:
+► Taylor Togs Industrial Facility=10,000 GPD (current capacity of WWTP)
Hickory Springs Industrial Plant = 220 employees X 25 GPD/emp. = 5,500 GPD
Micaville Elementary School = 235 students X 12 GPD/student = 2,820 GPD
Burnsville Elementary School = 404 students X 12 GPD/student = 4,848 GPD
East Yancey Middle School = 338 students X 15 GPD/student = 5,070 GPD
Total Industrial/Institutional Flow = 28,238 GPD
,m 8

I/I that enters the collection system during Phase 1 is estimated as follows:
Miles of 8-inch pipe = 2.52 miles = 20.16 inch -miles
Miles of 12-inch pipe _ 4.18 miles 50.16 inch -miles
Total inch -miles of pipe in Phase 1 (2006) = 70.32 inch -miles
Total Infiltration = 70 inch -miles X 100 gpd/inch-mile of pipe = 7,032 GPD
Total estimated flow generated in Phase 1 of the project is therefore:
No 1.89020 GPD + 28,238 GPD + 7,032 GPD = 53,290 GPD
Phase 2 — West Windom Area
The Phase 2 improvements proposed in 2008, involve the construction and
expansion of the collection and disposal systems constructed during Phase 1. The Phase
2 collection system is proposed to serve the US Highway 19 E corridor from Burnsville
Elementary School to the OMC pump station at the edge of Burnsville Town Limits.
Upon completion of these improvements, the OMC pump station is proposed to be
abandoned, and the flow that currently enters the pump station will enter the new gravity
"a collection system.
According to existing flow records, approximately half of the Town of
Burnsville's existing flow (0.231 MGD) currently enters the OMC pump station.
However, this flow includes wastewater generated at the Burnsville Elementary School
and East Yancey Middle School, which is proposed to be discharged into the District's
�+ collection system during Phase 1. Therefore, with the construction of the Phase 2
collection system, the wastewater flows from the OMC pump station can be estimated as
follows:
X"
Oft 9

am
ON
Existing P OMC Pump Station flow = 231 000 GPD
Burnsville Elementary School = (- 4,848 GPD) �u/ s►��
East Yancey Middle School = (- 5,070 GPD) al►�e
Total Flow From OMC Pump Station = 231,000 - 4,848 - 5,070 = 221,082 GPD
Based on the existing population in the area and the potential number of
connections shown in Table II-2, residential/commercial flows in Phase 2 are estimated
as follows:
Residential Connections (2003) = 74
Residential Connections (2008) = 79 (using 1.43% per year)
50% Connection Rate (2008) = 40
Residential Population (2008) = 40 connections X 2.36 people per connection (Based on
,.. 2000 Census Data) = 94
Total Residential/Commercial Flow = 94 people X (70 GPD/capita Residential + 15
GPD/capita Commercial) = 7,990 GPD
I/I that enters the collection system during Phase 2 is estimated as follows:
Miles of 8-inch pipe = 0.90 miles = 7.20 inch -miles
Miles of 12-inch pipe =1.29 miles =15.48 inch -miles
Total inch -miles of pipe in Phase 2 (2008) = 22.68 inch -miles
Total Infiltration = 22.68 inch -miles of pipe X 100 gpd/inch-mile of pipe = 2,268 GPD
Total estimated flow generated in Phase 2 of the project is therefore:
0" 221,082 GPD + 7,990 GPD + 2468 GPD = 231,340 GPD
go
Phase 3 — Georges Fork and Lower Georges Fork
"" The Phase 3 improvements proposed in 2010, involve the construction of a
MR
gravity sewer collection system along the George's Fork and Lower George's Fork
Roads. The gravity collection system is proposed to connect to the collection system
OR constructed during Phase 1 along US Highway 19 E and will primarily serve residential
areas. Based on the existing population in the area and the potential number of
AM 10

Mob
O
Im
connections shown in Table II-2, residential/commercial flows in Phase 3 are estimated
as follows:
Residential Connections (2003) = 98
Residential Connections (2010) =108 (using 1.43% per year)
50% Connection Rate (2010) = 54
Residential Population (2010) = 54 connections X 2.36 people per connection (Based on
2000 Census Data) = 127
Total Residential/Commercial Flow = 127 people X (70 GPD/capita Residential + 15
GPD/capita Commercial)=10,795 GPD
I/I that enters the collection system during Phase 3 is estimated as follows: r
Miles of 8-inch pipe = 2.25 miles =18 inch -miles
,.., Total Inch -miles of pipe in Phase 3 (2010) =18 inch -miles
Total Infiltration =18 inch -miles of pipe X 100 gpd/inch-mile of pipe =1,800 GPD
Total estimated flow generated in Phase 3 of the project is therefore:
10,795 GPD + 19800 GPD=12,595 GPD
OR
Phase 4 — Cane Branch Road
so The Phase 4 improvements proposed in 2015, involve the construction of a
go
gravity sewer collection system along Cane Branch Road. The gravity collection system
is proposed to connect to the collection system constructed during Phase 1 along US
Om Highway 19 E and will serve several residential areas. Based on the existing population
in the area and the potential number of connections shown in Table II-2,
residential/commercial flows in Phase 4 are estimated as follows:
MW
on

Residential Connections (2003) = 70
ON Residential Connections (2015) = 83 (using 1.43% per year)
50% Connection Rate (2015) = 42
Residential Population (2015) = 42 connections X 2.36 people per connection (Based on
Ow 2000 Census Data) = 99
Total Residential/Commercial Flow = 99 people X (70 GPD/capita Residential + 15
GPD/capita Commercial) = 8,415 GPD
I/I that enters the collection system during Phase 4 is estimated as follows:
Miles of 8-inch pipe = 1.65 miles = 13.20 inch -miles
Total Inch -miles of pipe in Phase 4 (2015) =13.20 inch -miles
Total Infiltration =13 inch -miles of pipe X 100 gpd/inch-mile of pipe =1,320 GPD
FM Total estimated flow generated in Phase 4 of the project is therefore:
81415 GPD + 11320 GPD = 9,735 GPD
No Phase 5 — Bear Wallow Road
M
The Phase 5 improvements proposed in 2020, involve the construction of a
gravity sewer collection system along Bear Wallow Road. The gravity collection system
is proposed to connect to the collection system constructed during Phase 1 along US
Highway 19 E and will serve several residential areas. Based on the existing population
in the area and the potential number of connections shown in Table II-2,
no residential/commercial flows in Phase 5 are estimated as follows:
Residential Connections (2003) = 45
Residential Connections (2020) = 57 (using 1.43% per year)
50% Connection Rate (2020) = 29
Residential Population (2020) = 29 connections X 2.36 people per connection (Based on
2000 Census Data) = 68
Total Residential/Commercial Flow = 68 people X (70 GPD/capita Residential + 15
GPD/capita Commercial) = 5,780 GPD
ON 12

r•�
I/I that enters the collection system during Phase 5 is estimated as follows: T6-
Miles of 8-inch pipe =1.44 miles = 11.52 inch -miles
Total inch -miles of pipe in Phase 5 (2020) = 11.52 inch -miles
„+ Total Infiltration = 11.52 inch -miles of pipe X 100 gpd/inch-mile of pipe =1,152 GPD
Im
A.
an
Total estimated flow generated in Phase 5 of the project is therefore:
59780 GPD + 1,152 GPD = 6,932 GPD
Phase 6 — The Reserve
The Phase 6 improvements proposed in 2025, involve the construction of a
gravity sewer collection system along SR 1147 (The Reserve). The gravity collection
system is proposed to connect to the collection system constructed during Phase 1 along
US Highway 19 E and will serve several residential areas. Based on the existing
population in the area and the potential number of connections shown in Table II-2,
residential/commercial flows in Phase 6 are estimated as follows:
Residential Connections (2003) = 3 1-
Residential Connections (2025) = 42 (using 1.43% per year)
50% Connection Rate (2025) = 21
Residential Population (2025) = 21 connections X 2.36 people per connection (Based on.
� 2000 Census Data) = 50
Total Residential/Commercial Flow = 50 people X (70 GPD/capita Residential + 15
GPD/capita Commercial) = 4,250 GPD
I/I that enters the collection system during Phase 6 is estimated as follows:
Miles of 8-inch pipe = 1.79 miles = 14.32 inch -miles
Total inch -miles of pipe in Phase 6 (2025) = 14.32 inch -miles
Total Infiltration = 14.32 inch -miles of pipe X 100 gpd/inch-mile of pipe =1,432 GPD
"" Total estimated flow generated in Phase 6 of the project is therefore:
41250 GPD + 19432 GPD = 5,682 GPD
am
TMO 13

FM
PM
MR
rMM
go
MM
oft
O�
�i
Table II-3 summarizes the estimated wastewater flows during the twenty-year
phased planning period. The table assumes a growth rate of 1.43% per year, and adds
flows due to connections anticipated during each of the phased projects outlined above.
TABLE II-3
PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOWS
EAST YANCEY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
YEAR
FLOW (in Gallons Per Day)
FLOW ADDED DURING
PHASED CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL FLOW WITH (1.43%
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE)
2006 - Phase 1
53,290
53,290 -
2007
--
- --
2008 - Phase 2
231,340
,165 j
2009
2903,257
2010 - Phase 3
12,595
3073,003
2011
3111,393
2012
3155846
2013
3203,362
2014
324,944
2015 - Phase 4
9,735
3392325
2016
3441178
2017
3495,099
2018
3543,092
2019
3593,155
2020 - Phase 5
61,932
3711,223
2021
3763,531
2022
3813,942
2023
3873,404
2024
3922917
2025 -Phase 6
53,682
04,213
14
Za0
452
�y 5-LS
,9,9 c
7011 t7
72/007,
13,031
BV611
�S' 009
b61-LIS
87,4Sb
8a 708
Q6t� Jq
I tl-zl 5
99,710'1:�
Io1,1Z6
jd2,S72.
109,72I
aPd.

SECTION III WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The following is a discussion of the wastewater treatment alternatives available to
IM the East Yancey Water and Sewer District. Included in this discussion are estimates of
the capital costs of each alternative as well as a present worth analysis for the twenty-year
MR
planning period. The costs will be used to compare the various alternatives, and to make
recommendations for wastewater disposal within the District.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1— NO ACTION
This alternative consists of no action being taken by the East Yancey Water and
Sewer District to provide wastewater treatment for the entire District. Without an
adequate method of wastewater disposal, the District would be unable to provide sewer
service to hundreds of residences and businesses. The residences and businesses would
therefore continue to use unreliable subsurface disposal systems to dispose of wastewater.
The development of the Water and Sewer District is expected to provide significant
economic growth to Yancey County by providing infrastructure for residents, industries,
FRI
and commercial businesses. In order to allow for this growth, and eliminate the existing
environmental concerns associated with the septic systems in use in the area, it is in the
best interest of the County to provide a method of wastewater disposal. Alternative No. 1
is therefore not a feasible alternative and will not be discussed in further detail.
No
am
OM
15

ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 — CONNECTION TO A PUBLICLY OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS
The Town of Burnsville's wastewater collection system is the only public sanitary
sewer system with a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located within a five (5) mile
radius of the East Yancey Water and Sewer District. The Town is located to the west of
No the District and operates a wastewater collection system and treatment facility that has a
permitted capacity to discharge 0.80 MGD of treated effluent into the Cane River.
MR
No Due to the natural topography of the area, connection to the Town of Burnsville's
collection system with a gravity sewer system is not feasible. Preliminary hydraulic
so calculations indicate that this alternative would require the construction of at least two (2)
�., lift stations and would also require upgrades to the Town of Burnsville's existing
collection system and OMC lift station. In this alternative, the existing 0.231 MGD of
MR wastewater currently being pumped by the OMC lift station to the Town of Burnsville
would continue to be collected and pumped in the same manner. Due to the substantial
length of force main necessary to construct these improvements, all facilities are assumed
to initially be designed to accommodate the projected 20-year flows in the District.
MR
The first lift station is proposed to be located on the 11-acre tract of land off of
Wyatt Town Road that is owned by the County. This lift station would transfer
wastewater through a 6-inch force main to an additional lift station located at the
Burnsville Elementary School. The Burnsville Elementary School lift station would then
transfer wastewater through an additional 6-inch force main into the existing OMC lift
RM
,�, 16

station located at Burnsville Town limits.
MR
OW Due to the existing capacity of the OMC lift station and the twenty-year projected
flows within the District, the OMC lift station would require an upgrade prior to adding
MO wastewater from the District. The OMC lift station is currently responsible for
,M transporting approximately half of the Town's wastewater flow, and would additionally
be required to transport all of the wastewater generated in the District.
MR
IM The OMC lift station currently pumps wastewater through an 8-inch force main to
an existing 10-inch gravity line in the Town Limits. The existing force main is not
expected to require an upgrade based on the anticipated wastewater flows in the District.
However, the Town's 10—inch interceptor line, which collects all wastewater generated in
the Town of Burnsville, will require replacement during Phase 1 of the collection system
F,
improvements. Preliminary hydraulic calculations conclude that the existing interceptor
line is currently not sized to carry the Town's existing wastewater flows plus the
projected Phase 1 flows within the District. Preliminary calculations are included in
Appendix C of this report.
M"
The Town currently operates and maintains a municipal WWTP located on the
west side of Town on the Cane River. The permitted capacity of the WWTP is 0.80
million gallons per day (MGD), and the current average daily wastewater flow treated by
the facility is approximately 0.45 MGD.
MW
MR 17

Based upon this data, it appears that some excess capacity is available to treat the
approximately 150,000 gallons per day of wastewater flow generated from this project.
However, in order to preserve the current situation of excess capacity for the Town of
Burnsville citizen ; "a capacity depletion charge *11 be required to help the Town regain
the lost capacity that will be committed to the District. This will allow the Town to
FOR expand the capacity of their WWTP when it does reach capacity without penalizing those
citizens who had previously paid for the capacity utilized by the District. Furthermore,
M" the District will be required to negotiate a bulk user contract with the Town and pay
OM monthly usage charges for the flow actually generated.
Figure III-1 illustrates the proposed location of the two (2) new submersible lift
stations, the existing 4MC lift station, new and existing force mains and the gravity
interceptor line replacement necessary for Alternative No.2. All aspects of the proposed
alternative would be constructed in accordance with the current NCDWQ standards. This
would include lift stations constructed with concrete wet wells, control panels,
emergency generators, chain link fences, and the necessary sewer system appurtenances.
M"
M, With the construction of this alternative, the existing Town of Burnsville
wastewater collection system will expand and begin to create and regionalize a sewer
system within Yancey County. However, this alternative would increase the collection
system complexity due to the reliance on multiple, series pump stations to transfer
untreated wastewater over four miles to the Town of Burnsville. Based on the pumping
system complexity, maintenance constraints, and significantly higher capital costs
a"
rM 18

compared to other alternatives, this alternative is not considered to be a viable option.
Appendix A of this report includes two (2) letters from Mr. Tom Storie, Director
of Public Works for the Town of Burnsville, that summarize the Town's requirements for
a connection to their system. Mr. Storie confirms the upgrades required to the Town's
system, Ce:r:equire:ment of a $3.00 per gallon impact fee, d the negotiation of a bulk
user contract with the District. Costs associated with these items are included in either
the capital or operation and maintenance cost estimates for this alternative.
(T:hecapacity depletion charge ill be assessed as a one-time charge to allow the
District to utilize capacity at the existing plant, and preserve the current situation of
„M excess capacity for the Town's citizens. Since flow from the OMC lift station is
currently treated at the Town's WWTP, this wastewater should not be included when
R" determining the capacity depletion charge. Removing the OMC lift station flows from
IM the . flow projections in Table II-3 results in a 20-year flow of approximately 123,000 �0
I r
GPD within the District. The capacity depletion charge can therefore be calculated as
MR
123,000 GPD X $3.00/ga = $369,000.
FM
no
M
MR
The estimated capital costs associated with this alternative are included in Table
19

M
IIIIIIII
M
TABLE II1-1
CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 2
CONNECTION TO TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
1 Mobilization (3%) 1 LS
$ 124,500.00 $ 124,500
2
Wastewater Pump Station #1 - Micaville,
Complete, Including Site Work,
Electrical, Etc.
I
LS
$ 150,000.00
$ 150,000
3
Wastewater Pump Station #2 - Burnsville
Elementary, Complete, Including Site
Work, Electrical, Etc.
1
LS
$ 150,000.00
$ 150,000
4
Wastewater Pump Station #3 - OMC
Pump Station Upgrade, Complete
1
LS
$ 150,000.00
$ 150,000
5
6" Dia. Sewer Force Main W/ Washed
Stone Embedment
27000
LF
$ 30.00
$ 810,000
6
24" Gravity Interceptor Sewer Line W/
Washed Stone Embedment
11000
LF
$ 60.00
$ 660,000
7
Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked
4000
LF
$ 150.00
$ 600,000
8
Creek Crossings
3000
LF
$ 150.00
$ 450,000
9
Gravel Drive Repair
10000
TN
$ 18.00
$ 180,000
10
Pavement Repair
15000
1 SY
1 $ 20.00
$ 300,000
11
Rock Excavation
10000
CY
$ 60.00
$ 600,000
12
-Select
10000
CY
S 0.00
S OQ000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
b Contingencies
$ 4,274,500
$ 427,500
c
Legal and Administrative
$ 50,000
d
Capacity Depletion Charge ($3.00 per Gallon)
$ 369,000
e
Easement Acquisition
$ 25,000
f
Engineering Design
$ 265,000
8
Construction Administration and Observation Services
S 213,700
h
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
.,. ..... .. .:.... ........ o......J.., ob.. rin,
$ 5,624,700
in —tUr, and cmmnlcied
Nutc: umi om pncurg a vaau" Vrr ,,.,,,.. ............................._. __. _
within the State of North Carolina.
Operation and maintenance associated with this alternative will include those
tasks associated with typical gravity sewer system, pump station, and force main
maintenance, and are based on typical costs for these systems. Currently, it is planned
that the District will contract with the Town of Burnsville for operation and maintenance
of whatever facilities are constructed. In this case, the Town is already staffed and
equipped for these tasks.
20

W
ON
The District will be required to enter a bulk user contract with the Town of
Im Burnsville, and pay the Town a monthly fee for the treatment of the wastewater. The
,® Town's current sewer rates for customers outside the Town limits is $22.00 per 3,000
gallons. However, since the District will be considered a bulk user, a lower, more
rAw reasonable rate would need to be agreed upon. For this analysis, a bulk user charge of
r$2.00 per 1,000 GPD of wastewater generated has been used.
MR The average daily flow generated in the District over the 20-year period (i.e., the
average total flows in Table II-3 excluding the OMC lift station) is approximately 90,000
GPD. This equates to an annual bulk user charge of:
M 90,000 GPD X 365 days/year X $2.00/1,000 GPD = $65,700
mm
FM
ow
A summary of the estimated annual operations and maintenance costs is included
in the Table III-2 and calculations are included in Appendix C.
TABLE III-2
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 2
CONNECTION TO THE TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
Item
Annual Cost Over 20-Year
Planning Period
Power Requirements
$23,000
Pump Station Maintenance
$2,500
Force Main / Gravity Sewer Maintenance
$5,400
Sewer Use/Capacity Depletion Charges to Town of Burnsville
($3/1000 Gals.)
$65,700
Total
$96,600
,� 21

The twenty-year present worth cost of Alternative No. 2, using a discount rate of
Im 5.625% (per current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated
on as follows:
on
PW = $5,6241,700 + $96,600 x (PIA, 5.625%, 20 yr.)
,J, PW = $53,624,700 + $96,600 x (11.87)
am
PRESENT WORTH = $6,771,342
r"
Sm
m
MR
om
FM
MR
m"
mm
Sm
22

M,
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 — CONNECTION TO A PRIVATELY OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS
There are currently two (2) privately owned treatment works with NPDES
discharge permits within a five -mile radius of the East Yancey Water and Sewer District.
The treatment works are described as follows:
MM Alternative No 3 A — Connection to Mountain View Motel Treatment Facility
Alternative No 3-B — Connection to Taylor Togs, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facility
em
IM The Mountain View Motel is located near the Burnsville Town limits on US
Highway 19 E. The treatment facility has a current NPDES permit # NC0083282 to
am discharge 2,500 GPD of treated effluent to the headwaters of Little Crabtree Creek. The
sm facility operates a sand filter treatment and disposal system that is far .below the capacity
required to treat wastewater flows in the District.
OM
a+ The Motel is situated in an unsuitable location to provide treatment to the
District's wastewater flow, and the site does not appear to have adequate space for
expansion. The facility is located upstream of the proposed collection system and in
Ow close proximity to the Town of Burnsville limits. Provisions to pump the wastewater to
this location would therefore be similar to Alternative No. 2. Due to the permitted
am
capacity, lack of space, and insufficient location of the treatment facility, connection to
M the Mountain View Motel is not considered a feasible option and will not be discussed
further.
fm
so 23

� R
The second alternative for connecting to a privately owned treatment facility is
the possible connection to the Taylor Togs, Inc. treatment facility. This treatment facility
is currently permitted to discharge 10,000 GPD under NPDES permit # NCO023566 and
is located in an area that may be suitable to collect a majority of the District's flow with a
FM
gravity sewer system.
FM
Taylor Togs, Inc. was contacted regarding the treatment of wastewater generated
in the District at their facility, but correspondence indicates that the clothing
manufacturer is not interested in receiving and treating the flow for various reasons. A
letter from Mr. Sam Cook, Facilities Manager for Taylor Togs, Inc. is included in
Appendix A of this report. Due to this correspondence, the option of treating the
R, District's wastewater at the Taylor Togs, Inc. WWTP is not considered feasible and will
Em
ow
rim
M
am
not be discussed further.
Figure III-2 illustrates the locations of the two (2) privately owned treatment
works within a five -mile radius of the East Yancey Water and Sewer District.
24

�� A +�^,:.• �' , � ! „+A �'• T�'�� t _ - . � pi. 'Y �1 '�'i': .i �f Lr . +�'• - 7^.f-_r' , _ .
" 7 �.. #.,r• ?' i w; '!�- (` » siJbi L C : 1,•.5•.•
- 7. '; i = !i" .�/>I-a _ —.f �? =�i .,-y ` +���•` •�, _ •wrt, } � .tir ,�. , ;�}- L'.. .� - . L • - •ft- .
f S / �• .J•�., .1 �� Al �\ ! ? 'si" Yr� ^'. 't .I -a. _.t.�' •l�tn� .�`''. !
��/ :�
is + IT
. i •;
IEEE . I :4�• F�4t' t .'F' i •'tiS� •-,,.rr,. f •Y}r �s S- ir
rim
..r. •w. {��' • •- - V1,
% .7*:y , - t M1:rrr`'3 �VWASL JET
Y.,• J, 4 •y �4 •Pf C •' t�:r�
_ - ��'r .� w .Crifi•1HE - � �, ..� 1.:� f~ hT- ���, i`r-'cC �.. :'T.-•ra�� �. S ,e 'r�• rY �:?
y r {: i GT • ...1 • -. . r . 3iL s e aiaC •iz +.^ - +. r - P06r,�jr ► � 4w I'$ y e .'i" �. _ `• ' 1
� �;-�� 4' rl: ... �r�C i�c. �`R. ,•"'.'1 i� _ ,':.f _ {n�'N'•'='R ..;-.� .;•r 1-... __ '''- .s •-
� � • � {{ �;•' cw`�;-' �' � :..�:�, :_-:�• • -- _ �1 ,
��,,��•• s..� l:r • !• r� '1-m? _ i . ' � .4: �p: ' �'� r tiAY•� y 1— _•� ti .,,��' ..' - � 'tom r �i •4 •���'� �_ ._ .r.
`_"[fir+- •'' !' •: .•��w • .i_ - •r�k . - .,• ;:�� if_��,•w,r. - n • A¢� r1i.,'R '! ! _ d ry±x r •'y�'�." i' �y _ '� - �, .
.'.:'�j�` •-�:�%! .. i : s i� -2♦� rl• :<."F'•.. ''�+ d:
,�ASTYA`�+1G�°'
- �. . yr' •'v. Py�;, r r' -, I. g. � �' 1 � •: _ =i.r, i � \� . �- �.w
Or
�s•
�«+ _, .�•.•�i kxt ,es,� •wt. = � _ _ +� ` r•: � �. s � ` r'' O ��-:- ... _ � �'rr a�� i
1 J
411 V 1l yi .[ M--•i y ` t -•{ r}F �•^I - • _ - - 1�_-• F -� _ T �' � _ f -
+- s ,- Y .e f� AFC - •�*^:Y� ..,.,,4: a.°• '-'�7 •_l,,-�-'y� y� .� -+��' x.:. # .'#` }• ;r.s '� ,
.f, � . :�i i _ w:, 1. :f . R ►.c. _.:� -T �•'`C"" T4.. p , �+�' ■y - � .:a -.'� ...7�y-. .- 'i r-.•A .,r,y � - �,-.,:i 1r - �. � :�.� �k.. _ .i 4 . • + ,..
ji-
i ' "f ... E3S � i '►. �w: k�"r�� - WI(1-LQW. - ,rtr. � � w-. "` r i'• - - ,.� • ,,; ]�I�
pr
`T. 11 �.(
IF
Kv p
�F �4'y.• _ .'#.o I' .. pub _ �:� t,-' .4 i-» � �-�.'._�:,.. � � ,� T'.."1` 'r, ... I -
�. e:
V 1 �a i•, k r,. `s i• S
15.
. •e '' �'� �! '1 - - �+ 3 •gyp{', T �' v ; ,r-R - - _
-v t ..� .t:• .•��.. •i �.' fir ,� - . { ` - :.�,'.
SCALE: 1"= 1600, c •. ti* a ,'�� w.,� J
_ter+�
IT
.� .i.+ �f,•" rye - .. :.7r .. - --'_-,r�_• ''t•' l i' ',t - r': At
Or
FIGURE III -2 �� ', :,: _ _ � _ .. _ - _ ' _ -.. •
Y•_ $ I h
— .- - L•M -`� •r+ . '�..- Ixi.'.'Ly County
ALTERNATIVE No.3-A & ALTERNATIVE No.3 B
thr& SeVvgr District s
It
CONNECTION TO PRIVATELY OWNED' i'' _ '`' ;�-�`' "8ounda '
1 •n` 1 ry m 1 H'C.KDRY
TREATMENT FACILITY i� A-_,
* _ -S. RINGS
('Jill
EAST YANCEY'y" mc
A S S O C I A T E S
WATER &SEWER DISTRICT 1~ y• { _ ENGIN•PLANNING•FINANCE
•. t ;i . 55 BROAD STRFET TRP�T ASHF.VIId_F NC PH. [phone]

ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 — INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE
SYSTEM
Nearly all of the approximately 490 homes and 34 businesses in the District are
currently served by privately owned individual subsurface wastewater disposal systems.
During the septic system surveys that were previously performed, it was documented that
some property owners are currently experiencing problems with their systems, and many
property owners are utilizi * straight piping reduce the loading to their system.
Accordin to the Toe River Health epartment, additional property owners have been
denied improvement permits or repair permits due to restrictive soils or space limitations.
FE" For these reasons, the East Yancey Water and Sewer District recently received
am $3,000,000 in funding from the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center
through the Unsewered Communities Grants Program to develop a sewer collection and
I" treatment system, and allow the individual problematic septic systems in the area to be
Im abandoned. Continuing to utilize the individual systems would be similar to the "No
Action" alternative previously discussed (Alternative No. 1), and will not be discussed
further.
According to soils data provided by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), approximately 70 percent of
the soils in the District are either classified as "marginally suitable" or "unsuitable" for
subsurface septic systems. However, the soils report that was completed by Toney C.
Jacobs & Associates of Mooresville, North Carolina for this report states that the 11-acre
am
am 25

wastewater disposal site that is currently owned by the County contains soils that are
deep, well -drained, and permeable. The potential may therefore exist for a community
subsurface system to be constructed on this site.
To fairly compare this alternative to the other alternatives, the proposed
community subsurface system would be required to treat an average daily flow of
400,000 GPD. As with the surface water discharge alternative (Alternative No. 5), it is
proposed to evaluate the subsurface system in two (2) phases. The first phase would be
M sized to treat 150,000 GPD of flow, and the second phase would be sized to expand the
first phase to a capacity of 400,000 GPD.
I"
an Due to the significant flows that are being considered in this study, a conventional
subsurface system with a septic tank is not a feasible option. The wastewater would be
required to obtain some level of treatment prior to discharge into the subsurface system.
�+ Such treatment could be accomplished by a mechanical treatment facility or aerated
lagoon. Due to the large space requirements typically required for the construction of a
F, lagoon, and the lack of adequate space currently owned by the District, this alternative
�+ assumes that a WWTP using secondary treatment technology and no disinfection would
be included in the project. The subsurface system is assumed to require a pump station,
force main, distribution manifolds, splitter tees, infiltrator chambers, and automated
FM valves to control flow dosing to each of the zone manifolds.
MM
,o 26

Wn
M
It is estimated that the construction of the WWTP will consume approximately
five (5) acres of the current 11 acre tract of land owned by the County. Therefore, it is
assumed that six (6) acres remain on the County's existing property that could possibly
be used for subsurface disposal.
According to NCDENR guidelines for conventional onsite disposal systems, long-
term loading rates vary from 0.1 gallons per day per square foot (GPD/SF) to 1.0
GPD/SF depending on the type of soils encountered. Utilizing a long term loading rate of
0.5 GPD/SF, approximately 7 acres of effective area will be required for the 150,000
GPD of treated effluent in Phase 1, and approximately 18 acres will be required for the
400,000 GPD in Phase 2.
Also per these guidelines, the length of distribution lines are typically sized by
dividing the necessary area of land application by the trench' width. Using chamber
technology and a trench width of four (4) feet, the total length of distribution line is
approximately 75,000 linear feet in Phase 1 and 200,000 linear feet in Phase 2. Current
regulations require the separation of nitrification lines at approximately nine (9) feet on
IM centers and a repair area equal to 100% of the drainfield area.
IM
When applying the applicable soil loading rate, minimum trench separation, and
OW repair area requirements, a total of 14 acres is necessary for Phase 1, requiring
approximately 8 acres of additional property to be acquired. Phase 2 would require a
am
total area of approximately 36 acres and the purchase of an additional 22 acres. It is
am
IM 27

assumed in this estimate that suitable land could be obtained within the District for the
purposes of the subsurface system. The actual amount of acreage to be acquired may
vary depending on the soil, hydrological, and physical characteristics of the tract of land.
Appendix D contains a summary of the estimated average land cost per acre within
Yancey County ($3,250/acre) based on the MLS property listings in the area.
The capital costs associated with Phase 1 of this alternative involve secondary
treatment facility costs. Based on discussions with package plant manufacturers, the
costs of tertiary treatment for a 150,000 GPD facility is approximately $90,000 and the
cost of disinfection treatment is approximately $13,000.
Table III-3 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with Phase 1 of
Alternative No. 4. The total cost of the package plant is estimated at $562,500, and
FM includes all items included in the capital cost estimate for Phase 1 in Alternative No. 5
($690,100) minus tertiary treatment and disinfection ($103,000), the outfall line to the
river ($4,500), and mobilization ($20,100). Note that a 3% mobilization charge has been
added to the entire project in Table III-3.
MW
MR
MM
no
,�, 28

M
M
TAB -
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 4 - PHASE 1
WWTP AND COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE SYSTEM
:. to
Mobilization (3o/a)
Qty
Unit
Unit Price
$ 90,400
I
1
LS
S 90,400.00
2
150,000 GPD WWTP, Secondary
Treatment w/out Tertiary Filters
1
LS
$ 562,500.00
$ 562,500
3
Dosing Pump Station
1
LS
$ 125,000.00
$ 125,000
4
8" Effluent Piping to Manifolds
3000
LF
$ 30.00
$ 90,000
5
Distribution Manifold
10
EA
$ 5,000.00
$ 50,000
6
4" Sch. 40 PVC Pipe
66700
LF
$ 10.00
$ 667,000
7
4" Flow Divider Tee
375
EA
$ 40.00
$ 15,000
8
Infiltrator Chamber
75000
LF
$ 20.00
$ 1,500,000
9
Electrical
I
LS
S 10,000.00
$ 10,000
a
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$ 3,109,900
b
Contingencies
S 311,000
C
Legal and Administrative
$ 15,000
d
Soils Evaluation by Soil Scientist
$ 50,000
e
*Property Acquisition (8 Acres x $3,250/Acre )
$ 26,000
f
Engineering Design
$ 198,800
Construction Administration and Observation Services
S 155300
h
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
'$ 3,866,000
" Based on current MU, listing wmmn t'anccy r ounry tAce r�ppcuwz v)
NOTE: Unit bid pricing is based on recent certified bid tabulations or comparative costs for projects similar in nature and completed
within the State of North Carolina
Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the WWTP constructed in
Phase 1, and the upgrade of the subsurface system to a capacity of 400,000 GPD. The
costs associated with Phase 2 of this alternative involve treatment facility costs as shown
in Alternative No. 5 ($824,000) excluding tertiary treatment and disinfection costs.
Based on discussions with package treatment plant manufacturers, the cost of tertiary
treatment facilities and disinfection facilities in Phase 2 is approximately $172,000. The
$24,000 mobilization estimate that is included in the Alternative No. 5 estimate has also
been removed, and a 3% mobilization fee has been added to the entire project in
29

M
M
0
Alternative No. 4 (see below).
Table III-4 provides an estimate of the capital cost associated with Phase 2 of
Alternative No. 4.
TABLE III-4
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 4 - PHASE 2
wWTP AND COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE SYSTEM
1
Mobilization (3a/o)
Qty
Unit
Unit Price
Extension
1
LS
$ 137,800.00
$ 137,800
2
250,000 GPD WWTP, Secondary
Treatment w/out Tertiary Filters
I
LS
$ 628,000.00
$ 628,000
3
Upgrades to Dosing Pump Station
I
LS
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000
4
8" Effluent Piping to Manifolds
5000
LF
$ 30.00
$ 150,000
5
Distribution Manifold
17
EA
$ 5,000.00
$ 85,000
6
4" Sch. 40 PVC Pipe
119000
LF
$ 10.00
$ 1,190,000
7
4" Flow Divider Tee
625
EA
$ 40.00
$ 25,000
8
Infiltrator Chamber
125000
LF
$ 19.00
$ 2,375,000
9
Electrical
I
LS
$ 15,000.00
S 15,000
b
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Contingencies
, $ 4,705,800 '-
$ 473,000
c
Legal and Administrative
$ 15,000
d
Soils Evaluation by Soil Scientist
$ 75,000
e
*Property Acquisition (22 Acres x $3,250/Acre )
$ 71,500
f
Engineering Design
$ 293,300
Construction Administration and Observation Services
$ 236,500
„ h
s , , ,.„ ., TOTAL ESTIMATED PRQAECT COSTS
$ 5,868,100 .
* Basco on current wn-3 16ung wunm r uwcy ww"y IJce AFFcuu,.. v/
NOTE: Unit bid pricing is based on recent certified bid tabulations or comparative costs for projects similar in nature and completed
within the State of North Carolina.
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would consist
of the O&M costs as described in Alternative No. 5 for the WWTP (minus the tertiary
treatment and disinfection facilities), plus additional O&M costs for the subsurface
system. Table III-5 includes an estimate of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 4.
30

awn
MR
TABLE III-5
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 4
WWTP AND COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE SYSTEM
Item
Phase 1(0.15 MGD)
Annual Cost
Phase 2 (0.40 MGD)
Annual Cost
WWTP O&M
$60,000
$150,000
Subsurface System
$15,000
$30,000
Total
$759000
$1809000
0" . Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed two (2) years after Phase 1, the
MR twenty-year present worth cost of Alternative No. 4, using a discount rate of 5.625% (per
current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated below:
PW = $3,866,000 + $75,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 2 yr.) + $5,868,100 x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.) +
$180,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 18 yr.) x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.)
PW = $398665000 + ($75,000 x 1.84) + ($5,868,100 x 0.9) +
($180,000 x 11.17 x 0.9)
no
PRESENT WORTH = $11,094,830
am
om
,M, 31

ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 - SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE THROUGH THE
NPDES PERMIT SYSTEM
This alternative consists of the construction of a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) on the eleven (11) acres of land currently owned by the County along the banks
of the South Toe River. Since the initial collection system will only serve a portion of the
District, the treatment facility is proposed to be constructed in two (2) phases. Phase 1 is
proposed to involve the construction of a facility with a design capacity of 150,000 GPD
and Phase 2 would upgrade the facility to a capacity of 400,000 GPD. Tertiary treatment
and discharge to the South Toe River is the proposed alternative to be accomplished with
a dual train package treatment facility.
The District has secured funding to construct the improvements necessary for
Phase 1, including the installation of collection system lines shown in Figure II-1, and the
construction of a 150,000 GPD disposal facility. Partial funding for the Phase 2
improvements has already been secured, and the District is currently seeking the
remainder of the funding necessary to construct the Phase 2 project.
According to information obtained from the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), the disposal site is located within a drainage area of approximately 61 square
miles. In addition, the USGS states that average stream flows in Eastern Yancey County
range from as high as 3.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (CFS/SM) to 0.35
(CFS/SM), and the South Toe River near the proposed treatment facility site has a
recorded 7Q 10 flow of 26 CFS = 16.8 MGD and a 30Q2 flow of 52 CFS = 33.6 MGD.
32

FM The treatment facility proposed for this alternative includes a dual train package
No treatment plant employing conventional suspended -growth, activated sludge processes.
The dual train system will give the District the flexibility to treat initial flows generated
no in the District with only one (1) train in operation. If necessary, both trains could be
no utilized at one time to accommodate higher flows.
IM
M"
The treatment facility would involve the construction of an influent pump station,
mechanical bar screen with manual bypass, an aerated flow equalization basin, aeration
tanks, primary settling tanks, an activated sludge return system, a sludge holding tank,
and tertiary treatment of the effluent by the use o sand filter technolo Figure III-3
illustrates the process flow diagram for Phase 1 of the WWTP. The proposed facility
would also include a new laboratory/electrical building that would be constructed in
Phase 1 and utilized throughout the twenty-year planning period.
Tertiary treatment of the effluent is proposed to provide a better quality effluent
for discharge to the surface waters, and should also filter the effluent to a suitable level
M" should reuse be considered. In addition, tertiary treatment will allow for greater
OM
M"
SM
MR
disinfection efficacy due to the increased removal of organic matter. Chlorination and
dechlorination are proposed as the final treatment prior to discharge.
The Town of Burnsville has agreed to accept and treat biosolids generated at the
District's WWTP. Residuals at the plant are therefore proposed to be pumped to a sludge
33

I I I 1 i 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I i I
SAND
DISCHARGE TO
FILTER
SOUTH TOE
RIVER
75,000
SAND
FILTER
0
o 0
oa
u O
75,000
BAR SCREEN
PRE-EO BASIN
o
0
WITH MANUAL
37,500 GPD
AERATION
N
o a
BYPASS
CAPACITY (25%)
BASIN
m
75,000
75,000
150,000
GPD
$ o
z
CLARIFIER
o
a
<
R.
DES02)
vO
o �-
CLARIFIER
^
CHLORINE
75,000
CONTACT
75,000
la
SLUDGE
AERATION
HOLDING
BASIN
TANK
INFLUENT
PUMP
75,000
r�
STATION
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
FIGURE III-3
ALTERNATIVE No. 5 - PHASE 1
WWTF PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
EAST YANCEY
WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
TRANSPORT TO
BURNSVILLE FOR
SLUDGE TREATMENT
OMcGM
A S S O C I A T E S
ENGINEERING PLANNING FINANCE
55 BROAD STItEFIASHEVILLE. NP PH, (82a)25±4M5

r
11111111
F�
Wil
holding tank, and hauled to the Town of Burnsville WWTP for residual treatment. The
Town of Burnsville currently dewaters sludge through a belt filter press and formulates a
Class "A" product by the use of an aerated static pile composting bed.
A preliminary site plan for Phase 1 of the East Yancey Water and Sewer District
WWTP is included in Figure III-4. Table III-6 provides an estimate of the capital costs
associated with Phase 1 of Alternative No. 5.
TABLE III-6
CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 5 - PHASE 1
CONSTRUCTION OF INDEPENDENT WWTP
WITH DISCHARGE TO THE SOUTH TOE RIVER
No.
Description
Qty
Unit
Unit Price
Extension
1
Mobilization(3%)
1
LS
$ 20,100.00
$ 20,100
2
Dual Train 150,000 GPD WWTP, Complete,
Including Yard Piping, Electrical, Etc.
1
LS
$ 400,000.00
$ 400,000
3
office/Electrical Building
1
LS
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000
4
Site Clearing, Grading, Construction of Road
I
LS
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000
5
Effluent Outfall to River
150
LF
$ 30.00
$ 4,500
6
Influent Wastewater Pump Station,
Complete, Including Site Work, Electrical,
Etc.
1
LS
$ 125,000.00
$ 125,000
7
Water Supply to WWTP
1
LS
$ 10,500.00
$ 10,500
8
Emergency Generator
1
EA
S 15,000 00
$ 15,000
.TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
699,100 _-a
b
Contingencies
$ 69,000
c
Preliminary Planning and Site Assessments
$ 7,000
d
Legal and Administrative
$ 15,000
e
Engineering Design
$ 53,900
S
Construction Administration and Observation Services
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
__ :... 1,.,,,..,
$ 34,500
,,,,lrnn,,,i ,Pd
NU J h: unit ma pricing is oases un rcucm a:riumu mu ..............
within the State of North Carolina.
34

FIGURE III-4 I
I
ALTERNATIVE No. 5 - PHASE 1
PROPOSED WWTP
EAST YANCEY
WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
I I
I I /
I I /
'I I
i I
I I
I
FLOW SLUDGE AERATION LARIFIERS
EQUALIZATION HOLDING BASIN
BASIN TANK
SAND FIL}}ATE
CELLS
INFLUENT 1 ------ --- - " DI HAY2Gt
FORCE MAIN
I I
I
I
SLUDGE 'I I
LOADING CHI DRINE/S02
STATION
INFL EN I
PUM I
ASPHALT 1 STATION I I
p I I
I oil,
OFFICE/LAB/�L I I
110o ELECTRICAL p I I
❑1 I 0 0 1q:
I I I MECHANICAL W
I I BAR SCREEN I I>
to EMERGENCY I1 WITHI GENERATOR / I BSA SANUAL_ 'O
I LLI
I 0 / I=1
I I to
Pc�QO GRAVITY SEWER
(BY OTHERS)
p p
0
McGifl
\\ SCALE: 1"=60' d / //
ENGINEERINGPLANNING FINANCE
55 BHOAll STREET ASIILVLLLL. NC PH, IN2tl1253-U5]5

r_2
Flows to the WWTP are expected to increase as additional phases of the
MO
wastewater collection system are constructed throughout the District. During Phase 2 of
,M the twenty-year planning period, the WWTP is proposed to be expanded from a capacity
of 150,000 GPD to 400,000 GPD to accommodate the additional flow. It is anticipated
am
that the 150,000 GPD package plant, constructed in the initial phase, would remain in
No service upon completion of the Phase 2 expansion.
W9
Phase 2 of this alternative includes the installation of a second package treatment
unit to be located adjacent to the plant constructed in Phase 1. The capacity of the second
unit is proposed to be 250,000 GPD and will be constructed with the same treatment
components as the plant constructed in Phase 1, including tertiary filtration units.
MM
The facility expansion would also involve upgrades to the influent pump station
constructed in Phase 1. It is assumed that the pump station wet well would be adequately
sized during Phase 1 to accommodate Phase 2 expansion; therefore a new influent pump
station wet well would not be required. Due to the substantial increase in flow, it is
anticipated that the expansion would include a new influent force main, and the
replacement of the influent pumps. A grit removal system is also proposed to be added to
the head of the facility. A flow control valve vault and piping would be installed to
distribute flow between the two (2) treatment units. Preliminary calculations are included
in Appendix C of this report.
RM
It is assumed that the office/laboratory building that is proposed to be constructed
No
no 35

in Phase 1 will be adequately sized for Phase 2 of the project, so that no upgrades will be
required to the facilities during the Phase 2 facility expansion. Therefore, no additional
costs have been added to the project for the upgrade of this building in Phase 2.
A preliminary site plan for the Phase 2 East Yancey Water and Sewer District
WWTP is included in Figure III-5. Table III-7 provides an estimate of the capital costs
associated with Phase 2 of Alternative No. 5.
TABLE III-7
CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 5 - PHASE 2
CONSTRUCTION OF INDEPENDENT WWTP
WITH DISCHARGE TO THE SOUTH TOE RIVER
Item
Description
Ift
No.
IN
1
Mobilization (30/6)
1
LS
$ 24,000.00
$ 24,000
Dual Train 250,000 GPD W WTP,
I
LS
$ 650,000.00
$ 650,000
2
Complete, Including Additional Yard
Piping, Flow Control Appurtenances,
Electrical, Etc.
Flow Control Valve Vault with Piping
1
LS
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000
3
and Appurtenances
4
Additional Site Clearing and Grading
I
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000
Upgrades to Influent Wastewater Pump
1
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000
5
Station, Complete, Including Site Work,
JEA
Electrical, Etc.
6
Emergency Generator
1
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000
a
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$ 824,000
b
Contingencies
$ 82,400
c
Preliminary Planning and Site Assessments
$ 5,000
d
Legal and Administrative
$ 15,000
e
Engineering Design
$ 61,000
f
Construction Administration and Observation Services
S 41,200
S
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$ 1,028,600
NU I h: Unit bid pricing is based on reccnt ccnmco ow mnum ions or congru;nivc wm> im ............. ...... ...,...�,....�..
within the State of North Carolina.
The annual O&M costs for both the initial phase and expansion phase of
Alternative No. 5 would consist of the costs typically required to operate a WWTP. The
,� 36

r
f�
FIGURE III-5
ALTERNATIVE No. 5 - PHASE 2
I I I
PROPOSED WWTF EXPANSION
EAST YANCEY
WATER & SEWER DISTRICT Ij
CLARIFIERS "I
SLUDGE
HOLDING TANK I
SAND�FI ER 1
FLOW CELLS
EQUALIZATION '
BASIN _ ;_'�. i_I.�.._
(
SLUDGE LOADING
STATION I
I
AERATION II
FLOW BASIN
EQUALIZATION
BASIN SLUDGE CLARIFIERS HOLDING SANt F TER l l I
FLOW CONTROL TANK
VALVE VAULT
EF LU T
INFLUENT _ - r--�-�`- �-" DI H�Gt
FORCE MAIN
f I
) I
SLUDGE
LOADING CHL RINE / SO2
STATION I ]NFL EN 11
PUM
ASPHALT STATION
a I� I
I I
OFFICEILAB I I I
o ELECTRICAL I O I
II ml - a ;
II z I I x MECHANICAL Illy
to EMERGENCY I I BAR SCREEN
WITH A UAL/ I�
GENERATORS I I BZPASSIw
1 I I I=
_II I a / IN
a
yQ� GRAVITY SEWER
Q' (BY OTHERS)
1 / I
McGill
SCALE: 1"= 60' / �
A S S O C I A T E S
\ / / ENGINEER] N G - PLANNIN G -FINANCE
/ 55 BROAD STREET ASAEVR,L . NC M (828) 252-O575

operation of this facility will require operations and maintenance items including staff
OR salaries and/or consultant fees (operator, lab testing, sludge hauling, etc.), office
expenditures (supplies, postage, heat, electricity, telephone, etc.), bonding and insurance,
treatment chemicals, supplies, electricity, pump and other equipment maintenance,
grounds and facility maintenance, etc. Currently, it is planned that the District will
sm contract with the Town of Burnsville for operation and maintenance of whatever facilities
so
P"
"I
MR
MR
are constructed. In this case, the Town would be required to hire an operator for the
facility. A summary of the estimated annual operations and maintenance costs is
indicated in Table III-8.
TABLE III-8
ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 5
CONSTRUCTION OF INDEPENDENT WWTP
WITH DISCHARGE TO THE SOUTH TOE RIVER
Item
Phase 1 (0.15 MGD)
Annual Cost
Phase 2 (0.40 MGD)
Annual Cost
Salaries and Benefits
$30,000.00
$60,000.00
Office Expenditures
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
Bonds and Insurance
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
Chemicals
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
Supplies
$3,000.00
$8,000.00
Utilities
$12,000.00
$30,000.00
Maintenance and Repairs
$4,000.00
$10,000.00
Testing
$5,000.00
$13,000.00
Sludge Hauling to the Town of Burnsville
$10,000.00
$30,000.00
Miscellaneous
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
Total
$70,000.00
$167,000.00
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed two (2) year after Phase 1, the
twenty-year present worth cost of Alternative No. 5, using a discount rate of 5.625% (per
current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is as follows:
MR 37

an
PW = $8699500 + $70,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 2 yr.) + $1,028,600 x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.) +
$167,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 18 yr.) x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.)
PW = $8695,500 + ($70,000 x 1.84) + ($1,028,600 x 0.90) +
($167,000 x 11.17 x 0.90)
on
PRESENT WORTH = $3,16029891
m"
ow
am
oft
m
��
f"
so
M"
38

am
Wft
ALTERNATIVE NO.6— DRIP IRRIGATION
Alternative No. 6 involves the construction of a proposed wastewater treatment
facility (WWTP) with tertiary treatment as described in Alternative No. 5, but instead of
discharging the effluent flow into the South Toe River, the treated effluent would be land
applied through a drip irrigation system. Tertiary treatment is advisable using drip
irrigation technology due to the potential malfunctioning of drip irrigation emitters.
Per State guidelines, a detailed soil analysis report was performed for the
wastewater disposal site. A copy of the soils report that was completed by Toney C.
Jacobs & Associates of Mooresville, North Carolina is included in Appendix B at the
back of this report. Based on information included in the soils analysis report, an on -site
drip irrigation system is not recommended for the disposal of flows anticipated by the
District.
Soil conditions are reportedly suitable at the disposal site, but due to the large area
requirements necessary for a treatment system of the intended capacity, drip irrigation is
not considered a viable option. According to the report, the recommended loading rate
for the treated effluent in this area is 0.6 in/hour for a ground covered site or up to 1.0
inch of treated wastewater per week. Using the maximum recommended amount of 1.0
�+ inch per week equates to a total volume of 0.09 gallons per day per square foot
(GPD/SF). Utilizing this loading rate, approximately 38 acres of effective area will be
required for the 150,000 GPD of treated effluent in Phase 1, and approximately 102 acres
am
no 39

OM
will be required for the 400,000 GPD in Phase 2.
am
No The County currently owns approximately eleven (11) acres of land north of US
Highway 19 E off of Wyatt Town Road on the banks of the South Toe River. It is
estimated that the construction of the WWTP will consume approximately five (5) acres
of this tract of land. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it will be assumed that six
(6) acres remain that could possibly be used for drip irrigation.
an
P" According to State regulations, drip irrigation systems require 50-foot setbacks
from property lines. When applying the 50-foot setback requirement and the applicable
IM soil loading rate, a total of 44 acres is necessary, requiring approximately 38 acres of
00 additional property to be acquired during Phase 1. Phase 2 would require a total area of
approximately 112 acres and the purchase of an additional 68 acres. The actual amount
am
of acreage to be acquired may vary depending on the soil, hydrological, and physical
Ift characteristics of the tract of land. Appendix D contains a summary of the estimated
average land cost per acre within Yancey County ($3,250 per acre), based on current
MLS listings in the area.
W
In addition to the land requirements outlined above, the State regulations require a
am
storage pond capable of holding the effluent during wet or freezing weather for a
pd' minimum of 5-days when using a drip irrigation system. Therefore, a 750,000 gallon
aerated storage pond will be required for Phase 1, and a 2 million gallon holding pond
00
will be required for the future flows in Phase 2.
MW 40

r
The capital costs associated with Phase 1 of this alternative involve treatment
facility costs detailed in Alternative No. 5, excluding disinfection costs and the costs
r
associated with an effluent outfall line. Based on discussions with package treatment
plant manufacturers, the cost of disinfection treatment equipment is approximately
r
$13,000 for this size of a facility.
r
Table III-9 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with Phase 1 of
r Alternative No. 6. The total cost of the package plant is estimated at $652,500, and
r
r
ON
MI
it
includes all items included in the capital cost estimate for Phase 1 in Alternative No. 5
($690,100) minus disinfection ($13,000), the outfall line to the river ($4,500), and
mobilization ($20,100). Note that a 3% mobilization charge has been included in the
entire project estimate in Table III-9.
TABLE III-9
CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 6 — PHASE 1
WWTP AND DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Item
No.
Description=,,.
1 LS $ 62,300.00
$
62,300
I
Mobilization (3%)
2
150,000 GPD W W'IP (Total
Construction Costs)
1
LS
$ 652,500.00
$
652,500
3
5 Day Storage Lagoon
1
LS
$ 200,000.00
$
200,000
4
Drip Irrigation Pump Station
2
EA
$ 100,000.00
$
200,000
5
Drip Irrigation Piping
10000
LF
$ 30.00
$
300,000
6
Drip Irrigation Systems
1
LS
$ 750,000.00
$
750,000
a ,,
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$
2,164,800
b
Contingencies
$
217,000
c
Legal and Administrative
$
15,000
d
Property Acquisition ( 38 Acres)
$
123,500
e
Engineering Design
$
160,000
f
Construction Administration and Observation Services
$
100,000
K
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$
2,780,300 +
r . tiasea on current Mr.O usung wumn Yancey i,oumy tacc nppcuuu vt
NOTE: Unit bid pricing is bated on recent certified bid tabulations or comparative costs for projects similar in nature and completed
within the State of North Carolina
r
41

Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the WWTP constructed in
Phase 1, and the upgrade of the drip irrigation system to a capacity of 400,000 GPD. The
costs associated with Phase 2 of this alternative involve treatment facility costs as
described in Alternative No. 5 ($824,000) excluding mobilization ($24,000) and
disinfection costs. Based on discussions with package treatment plant manufacturers, the
cost of disinfection facilities in this size of a facility is approximately $22,000.
Table III-10 provides an estimate of the capital cost associated with Phase 2 of
Alternative No. 6.
TABLE III-10
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 6 - PHASE 2
.r WWTP AND DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM
0
am
I
Mobilization (3a/a)
1
LS $ 83,300.00
$
83,300
2
250,000 GPD WWTP (Total
Construction Costs)
1
LS
$ 778,000.00
$
778,000
3
5 Day Storage Lagoon
1
LS
$ 350,000.00
$
350,000
4
Drip Irrigation Pump Station
2
EA
$ 100,000.00
$
200,000
5
Drip Irrigation Piping
15000
1 LF
$ 30.00
$
450,000
6
Drip Irrigation Systems
100000
1 LF
S 10.00
S
1,00U00
a
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
S
2,861,300
b
Contingencies
S
286,100
c
Legal and Administrative
$
55,000
d
Property Acquisition (106 Acres)
$
344,500
e
Engineering Design
$
200,000
j
Construction Administration and Observation Services
$
120,000
g
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$
3,826,900
tiasea on current rvu.a usung wamu 141y
NOTE: Unit bid pricing is based on recent certified bid tabulations or comparative costs for projects similar in nature and completed
within the State of North Carolina.
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would consist
of the O&M costs as described in Alternative No. 5 for the WWTP (excluding
42

disinfection), plus additional O&M costs for the drip irrigation system. Table III-11
am includes an estimate of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 6.
TABLE III-11
No
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 6
WWTP AND DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM
no
a"
do
M
MR
0"
am
Item
Phase 1(0.15 MGD)
Annual Cost
Phase 2 (0.40 MGD)
Annual Cost
WWTP O&M .
$67,000
$160,000
Drip Irrigation System
$15,000
$30,000
Total
$829000
$1909000
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed two (2) years after Phase 1, the
twenty-year present worth cost of Alternative No. 6, using a discount rate of 5.625% (per
current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated below:
PW = $227803,300 + $82,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 2 yr.) + $3,826,900 x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.) +
$190,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 18 yr.) x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.)
PW = $22,7802300 + ($82,000 x 1.84) + ($3,826,900 x 0.9) +
($190,000 x 11.17 x 0.9)
PRESENT WORTH = $8,285,460
ON 43

Im
Or
ALTERNATIVE NO.7 — SPRAY IRRIGATION
0,
am Alternative No. 7 involves the construction of the proposed wastewater treatment
facility (WWTP) described in Alternative No. 5 without the inclusion of tertiary filtration
units. Instead of discharging the effluent flow into the South Toe River, the treated
o., effluent will be land applied through a spray irrigation system.
on
Per State guidelines, a detailed soil analysis report was performed for the
proposed wastewater disposal site. A copy of the soils report that was completed by
Toney C. Jacobs & Associates of Mooresville, North Carolina is included in Appendix B
at the back of this report. Based on information included in the soils analysis report, an
on -site spray irrigation system is not recommended for the disposal of flows anticipated
by the District.
w Soil conditions are reportedly suitable at the disposal site, but due to the large area
requirements necessary for a treatment system of the intended capacity, spray irrigation is
not considered a viable option. According to the report, the recommended loading rate
for the treated effluent in this area is 0.6 in/hour for a ground covered site or up to 1.0
inch of treated wastewater per week. Using the maximum recommended amount of 1.0
inch per week equates to a total volume of 0.09 gallons per day per square foot
(GPD/SF). Utilizing this loading rate, approximately 38 acres of effective area will be
required for the 150,000 GPD of treated effluent in Phase 1, and approximately 102 acres
„m 44

PER
.R
will be required for the 400,000 GPD in Phase 2.
The County currently owns approximately eleven (11) acres of land north of US
Highway 19 E off of Wyatt Town Road on the banks of the South Toe River. It is
estimated that the construction of the WWTP will consume approximately five (5) acres
of this tract of land. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it will be assumed that six
(6) acres remain that could possibly be used for spray irrigation.
M" According to State regulations, spray irrigation systems require 150-foot setbacks
from property lines. When applying the 150-foot setback requirement and the applicable
soil loading rate, a total of 58 acres is necessary, requiring approximately 52 acres of
additional property to be acquired during Phase. Phase 2 would require a total area of
approximately 133 acres and the purchase of an additional 75 acres. The actual amount
of acreage to be acquired may vary depending on the soil, hydrological, and physical
P" characteristics of the tract of land. Appendix D contains a summary of the estimated
average land cost per acre within Yancey County ($3,250/acre), based on the MLS
,.4
property listings in the area.
no
In addition to the land requirements outlined above, the State regulations require a
storage pond capable of holding the effluent during wet or freezing weather for a
minimum of 5-days when using a spray irrigation system. Therefore, a 750,000 gallon
aerated storage pond will be required for Phase 1, and a 2 million gallon holding pond
will be required for the future flows in Phase 2.
no
IM 45

The capital costs associated with Phase I of this alternative involve treatment
M, facility costs described in Alternative No. 5 excluding tertiary treatment costs,
disinfection costs and the costs associated with an effluent outfall line. Based on
discussions with manufacturers of package treatment plants, the costs of tertiary
treatment and disinfection during Phase 1 of this alternative is approximately $103,000.
Table III-12 provides an estimate of the capital costs associated with Phase 1 of
., Alternative No. 7. The total cost of the package plant is estimated at $562,500, and
=,
includes all items included in the capital cost estimate for Phase 1 in Alternative No. 5
($690,100) minus tertiary treatment and disinfection ($103,000), the outfall line to the
river ($4,500), and mobilization ($20,100). Note that a 3% mobilization charge has been
added to the entire project in Table III-12.
TABLE III-12
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 7 - PHASE I
.. WWTP AND SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
M,
0
r�
M
MI
Item'.
No.
Description
Qly
Unit
Unit [rice
Extension
1
Mobilization (3%)
1
LS
$ 62,000.00
S 62,000
2
150,000 GPD WWTP, Secondary
Treatment w/out Tertiary Filters
1
LS
$ 562,500.00
$ 562,500
3
5 Day Storage Lagoon
1
LS
$ 200,000.00
$ 200,0W
4
Spray Irrigation Pump Station
2
'EA
$ 100,000.00
$ 200,000
5
Spray Irrigation Force Main to Site
10000
LF
$ 30.00
$ 300,000
6
Spray Irrigation Distribution Pipe
50000
LF
$ 15.00
$ 750,000
7
Spray Irrigation Spray Guns
30
EA
$ 1,000.00
S 30,000
a
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
S ,2,104,500
6
Contingencies
S 210,000
c
Legal and Administrative
$ 15,000
d
*Property Acquisition (52 Acres x $3,250/Acre)
$ 169,000
e
Engineering Design
$ 150,000
f
Constntction Administration and Observation Services
$ 101,000
g
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$ 2,749,500
' tsaseo on current mts usung wunm r ancey wuary tacc nppcuwn v)
NOTE: Unit bid pricing is based on recent certified bid tabulations or comparative costs for projects similar in nature and completed
within the State of North Carolina.
46

r
Phase 2 of the project would involve the upgrade of the WWTP, and the upgrade
of the spray irrigation system to a capacity of 400,000 GPD. The costs associated with
.. Phase 2 of this alternative involve treatment facility costs as shown in Alternative No. 5
($824,000) excluding tertiary treatment and disinfection costs. Based on discussions with
.. package treatment plant manufacturers, the cost of tertiary treatment facilities and
r disinfection facilities in Phase 2 is approximately $172,000. The $24,000 mobilization
estimate that is included in the Alternative No. 5 estimate has also been removed, and a
3% mobilization fee has been added to the entire project in Alternative No. 7 (see below).
Table III-13 provides an estimate of the capital cost associated with Phase 2 of
M Alternative No. 7.
r
r
r
TABLE III-13
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 7 - PHASE 2
WWTP AND SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Item
bescrtption
Qty
Unit
'•
Unit Price
Extension.
1
Mobilization (3%)
I
LS
S 81,800.00
S 81,800
2
250,000 GPD WWTP, Secondary
Treatment Wout Tertiary Filters
1
LS
$ 628,000.00
$ 628,000
3
5 Day Storage Lagoon
1
LS
$ 350,000.00
$ 350,000
4
Spray Irrigation Pump Station
2
EA
$ 100,000.00
$ 200,000
5
Spray Irrigation Force Main to Site
I5000
LF
$ 30.00
$ 450,000
6
Spray Irrigation Distribution Pipe
70000
LF
$ 15.00
$ 1,050,000
7
Spray Irrigation Spray Guns
50
EA
$ 1,000.00
$ 50,000
a
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
S 2,809,800
y
Contingencies
$ 281,000
a
Legal and Administrative
$ 15,000
d
*Property Acquisition (127 Acres x $3,250/Acre)
$ 412,750
f
Engineering Design
$ 198,000
S
Construction Administration and Observation Services
S 150,000
h
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
S 3,866,550
tsasca on current rvu.n usuag .VILLLLII ,.ally ILy , « „,"111...,A
NOTE: Unit bid pricing is based on recent certilied bid tabulations or comparative costs for projects similar in nature and completed
within the State of North Carolina.
.. 47

M
ow
,no
am
am
The annual O&M costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this alternative would be
similar to the O&M costs described in Alternative No. 5 for the WWTP (minus the
tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities), plus additional O&M costs for the spray
irrigation system. Table III-14 includes an estimate of the annual O&M costs for
Alternative No. 7.
TABLE III-14
ANNUAL O&M COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE No. 7
WWTP AND SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Item
Phase 1 (0.15 MGD)
Annual Cost
Phase 2 (0.40 MGD)
Annual Cost
WWTP O&M (Alt. No.5)
$60,000
$150,000
Spray Irrigation System
$102000
$20,000
Total
$709000
$1709000
Based on Phase 2 of the project being constructed two (2) years after Phase 1, the
twenty-year present worth cost of Alternative No. 7, using a discount rate of 5.625% (per
current NCDENR Construction Grants and Loans guidelines) is calculated below:
PW = $2,749,500 + $70,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 2 yr.) + $3,866,550 x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.) +
$170,000 x (P/A, 5.625%, 18 yr.) x (P/F, 5.625%, 2 yr.)
PW = $2,74%500 + ($70,000 x 1.84) + ($3,866,550 x 0.9) +
($170,000 x 11.17 x 0.9)
PRESENT WORTH = $8,067,205
am
48

0
�r
ALTERNATIVE NO.8 — REUSE
This alternative involves reusing all or a portion of the wastewater generated at
the WWTP to minimize or eliminate the need for a surface water discharge. Potential
reuse options include drip or spray irrigation, industrial process or cooling water, the use
of reclaimed water for toilet flushing, etc.
Drip irrigation and spray irrigation systems were previously analyzed in this
P„ report as Alternatives No. 6 and No. 7. These options do not appear to be economically
feasible when compared to other disposal methods, based on a twenty-year present value
analysis.
M
Using reclaimed water for other types of land applications or for industrial or
so
residential use at local facilities would involve the construction of the WWTP as outlined
*y
Ow
in Alternative No. 5. The option of plumbing all local facilities to use treatment facility
effluent is not an economically feasible alternative, nor is there sufficient demand in the
area to utilize the required effluent flow. At this time, there are no known industries that
are planning to locate a facility to the area that could reuse the WWTP effluent as either a
process or cooling water.
Therefore, the option of reusing treated wastewater from the East Yancey Water
and Sewer District WWTP is not considered feasible and will not be discussed further.
49

M
o.
0
MR
wo
MR
MR
"M
MR
PW
Im
am
fm
MR
0"
David GcindBtaff 'Town Of Burnsville CouncJors•
Mayor Ruth L. Banks
OUR N Charle8 Gillespie
Jeanne Martin Heather Hockaday
Tows Clerk Doyce G. McClure
"T f4ry.w e��
October 29, 2003
Mr. Jeremy Cadeau, EI
McGill Associates, PA
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
McGILLASSOC. • FILE COPY
RECEIVED
NOV 0 3 2003
Project #
File
RE: Wastewater Treatment Availability
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
Mr. Cadeau,
The Town of Burnsville would like to address the possibility of providing
treatment services for the East Yancey County Water and Sewer District. Based on your
correspondence it is my understanding that you are researching treatment alternatives for
the flows generated by the District and that one of the alternatives is to connect to the
Town of Burnsville system. The Town has already agreed to support the District both
financially and managerially and has agreed to .accept sludge generated with the proposed
construction of a new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). However, the Town is
concerned about the alternative to pump, collect, and treat the District's flows at the
Burnsville WWTP due to the current condition and capacity of the Town's sewer
collection and treatment system.
It is my understanding that the acceptance of District flows into the Town of
Burnsville system would require District flows to be pumped to the eastern edge of
Burnsville Town limits to the existing OMC pump station. This pump station currently
handles roughly half of the Town's flow and feeds directly into the Town's main
interceptor line which then enters the treatment plant. The pump station and the
interceptor line to the treatment plant do not have the capacity to handle the expected
flows.
During recent infiltration and inflow studies of the sewer system, the Town's
main interceptor was identified as having significant infiltration and inflow. Based on
field inspections, the main 10-inch interceptor is already flowing half full and is not
expected to handle the increased District flows especially during days when rainfall
occurs. If this alternative were considered further, funding would be needed immediately
to aid the Town of Burnsville in the replacement of approximately 11,000 feet of the 10-
inch interceptor line and the construction of a larger OMC Pump Station, The Town does
no
P.O. Box 97 • Burnsville, North Carolina 28714 • Phone [phone] e FAX [phone]

OEM
not currently have the funding to undertake the replacement of the 10-inch interceptor
line but understands it will need to be addressed in the future.
Capacity at the existing WWTP should also be reviewed with the alternative to
connect to the Town of Burnsville system. The WWTP operates at an average daily flow
rate of 0.45 million gallons a day and it would appear that excess capacity is available to
handle the expected flows. However, in order to preserve the current situation of excess
capacity for the Town of Burnsville citizens, a significant impact fee will be required to
help the Town regain the lost capacity that will be committed to the Sewer District if
connected. This will allow the Town to expand the capacity of their -treatment plant when
it does reach capacity without penalizing those citizens who had previously paid for the
capacity reserved by the District. Furthermore, the District will be required to negotiate a
bulk user.contract with the Town and pay monthly usage charges for the flow actually
delivered.
The Town understands the need to research various treatment alternatives for the
District flows but it appears that the current capacity and condition of the sewer
collection and treatment system is not capable of accepting the expected District flows.
In addition, the Town would like to address the operation and maintenance of any such
alternatives at a later date, should this alternative be considered.
X" If I can be of further assistance please let me know.
M
no
0"
M"
IM
No
no
Sincerely,
TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
Mr. Tom Storie
Director of Public Works
no

R"
M0
OR
P"
im
MR
am
I"
no
No
am
David Grindstaff
Mayor
Jeanne Martin
Towa Clerk
April 14, 2004
Mr. Mike Apke
McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Dear Mr. Apke:
Town of Burn8v& COU17 `IMS.-
Ruth L. Bank$
BU1gN
Charles Gillespie
Of
pruNry ` • s Heather Hockaday, 3C1 ��`
Doyce G. McClure
o +s� '"
\0
y CAR°i�
RE: Engineering Alternatives Analysis
East Yancey Water and Sewer District
Based on our recent conversation, it is my understanding that McGill Associates is in the
process of completing an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for the East Yancey Water
and Sewer District to obtain a wastewater treatment plant discharge permit from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. I understand that completion of the EAA requires an
evaluation of all wastewater disposal options, including the connection of the new collection
system to the Town of Burnsville's existing wastewater collection system.
Connection to the Town's existing system would reduce the excess capacity that the
Town currently has invested at our wastewater treatment plant: The Town of Burnsville would
therefore require a capacity depletion fee of $3.00 per gallon of capacity to be paid by the
District to the Town. This fee would preserve the current situation of excess capacity, and allow
the Town to expand the capacity of the plant in the future without penalizing the citizens who
have previously ' paid for the capacity at the plant. The District would also be required to pay
monthly usage charges to the Town for the flow actually discharged into the system. The
Town's current sewer rates for users outside the Town limits is $22.00 per 3,000 gallons.
It is the Town's understanding that connection of the new system to our existing system
is not a cost effective alternative, and is not the alternative that is recommended in the EAA. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 828-682-2420.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
r/yvl
Mr. Tom Storie, Director of Public Works
P.O. Box 97 • Burnsville, North Carolina 28714 • Phone [phone] • FAX [phone]

sw •
INC.
P.O. Box 180 - Micaville, NC 28755 - 828-675-4153
Fax [phone]
ON October 31, 2003
Jeremy Cadeau, E.I.
McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. Cadeau,
I understand your task of exploring all of the alternatives to construct a sewage treatment
plant to serve the East Yancey County Water and Sewer District. Taylor Togs, Inc. owns
and operates a small 10,000 GPD wastewater treatment facility and is not capable of or
interested in accepting the expected 150,000 GPD flows from the East Yancey Water and
Sewer District.
Sincerely,
Sam Cook
Maintenance Manager
am
MW
4W

No
JDec•28. 2002 12:46PM No-5000 P. 2
TOE RIVER HEALTH DISTRICT
889 Greenwood Road
Spruce Pine, NC 28777
Phone; 828-765.2238 Fax: [phone]
Thomas E. Singleton, Health Director
r
December 27, 2002
Three have been numerous times in the past few years when individual located along 19B between
Burnsville and Micuffle have been denied improvement permits or repair permits due to restrictive soils or
space limitations.
Sites in this area that have been unsuitable for subsudke discharge by this department are:
Sites at Rocky Springs Heights
Catalano Ford
Kevin''s Country Carpet
Ths area between old 19E and 19B
Burnsville Elementary School
Mt. View Motel
Some sites at Windom Cove development
Slagle's Office Complex
Comihercial properties along 19E owned by Farrel %ghes, Bill Young, Pied Peterson, Allan Boone, Edd
Cassida, Dennis Buchanan, A Jr. McIrtWe and Keith Presnell
New Church in IV1.tcaville
FM Mobile home park on BM Allen Branch
Expansion of Hickory Springs
On -going problems with aging sewage systems in Bill Young's mobile home park
Mobile home park
Old housing developments and mobile home parks in this area
New housing developments and mobile home parks in this area
Could more effectively use available land area i.e. more homes per acre
This list is not intended to be inclusive of all problems encounter in the past but should be an indicator of
ate,
problems that may arise in the future.
In previous years there have been approximmtely twelve alternative non -ground absorption treatment
systems installed in the projected target area for this project. Including satellite pump syst=s, sand filter
FM discharge and individual package plane.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that other problems will not arise in this area served by this project.
Allan McCurry, '
Environmental Health specialists
WEI AMIIa
0M
Avery County Health Dept/ Home Coro
Mitchell County Hieth Dept.
Mitchell County Home Can
Yancey County Health Dept
Yancey County Homo Care • CAN DA
A0. Box 326
Wand, NC 28557
W Forest 3ervioe Drive, Bulle A
Bake*fle, NC 28708
130 Forest Servlca Drive, Suite D
BekeisWle, NC 28706
10 avibs Avenue
BumWlb, NC 28714
328 West Main 8(mal ,
Bumsvft(e, NC 28714
)aKh Dept, UB-733.6031
828.488.237i
628AB-3803
828-882.6118 '
Noma Caro 828-882-7825
name Care 82&733.1560
CAP/DA 82MB2.6370
No
12/27/2002 FRI 13:45 [TX/RX NO 68831 9 002

PROJECT: &w V,+,vcy-y j 79
PROJECT NO.: o/7e-3
ASSOCI
EMcGATES RI DESCRIPTION: h(-7-. M-z - WmAe6i Dm,s-,
* AA
Engineering - Planning - Finance CALCULATED BY: 5�c, CHECKED BY:
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802 DATE: //c/o .3 SHEET NO. OF
55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 828-252-0575 Fax [phone]
17
A*
4"
LA

r
on
Y
i
60
• PROJECT: Vtm:.'Y WWT%
�
McGm PROJECT NO.: OJ%y3 0
it ASSOCIATES
DESCRIPTION: T• ,. 2 ,. 21'r�+m.nay D!,S,qA
Engineering - Planning • Finance CALCULATED BY: SpL CHECKED BY: MA
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 18802 q
DATE:
55 Bad Street,Aslieville, NC28801828-252-057S Fax [phone] / �3 SHEET NO. 2- OF
so
Fkq

I A I I I I I I I
Flows to Waste Disposal Site
Alt. No.2 Connection to Burnsville
Using 85 GPD/capita Residential/Commercial, Recorded Industrial Flows, and Infiltration
0 Current Flow
1
2006
43,340
43,340 1.43% Growth Rate
108,350
2007
43,960
109,899
2
2008
0
44,588
111,471
2009
45,226
113,065
3
2010
6,300
52,173
130,432
2011
52,919
132,297
2012
53,676
134,189
2013
54,443
136,108
2014
55,222
138,054
4
2015
9,715
65,726
164,316
2016
66,666
166,665
2017
67,620
169,049
2018
68,586
171,466
2019
69,567
173,918
5
2020
6,980
77,542
193,855
2021
78,651
196,627
2022
79,776
199,439
2023
80,916
202,291
2024
82,074
205,184
6
2025
5,650
88,897
222,243
Rev. 19March04

Force Main From Waste Disposal Site to Burnsville Elementary Pump Station
Pipe Diameter
6
(inches)
_ Static Head
120
(feet)
Length
20,000
(feet)
Coefficient
140
Fittings
Loss Coeff.
Quanti
Size in.
Gate Valves
0.2
5
6
90 Bends
0.3
20
6
45 Bends
0.225
20
6
Tee Thru
0.2
1
6
Tee Branch
0.5
0
6
Check Valves
2.5
1
6
Outlet
1
1
6
Flow Increment 10
FLOW
( m)
HEADLOSS
(feet) ;
MINOR LOSSES
feet =
TDH
feet •
Velocity
Ft/sec
PUMP
DATA
HP
KW
60
7.13
0.11
127.24
0.68
3.06
2.281859
70
9.48
0.15
129.63
0.79
3.64
2.7122
80
12.13
0.19
132.33
0.91
4.24
3.164257
90
15.09
0.25
135.33
1.02
4.88
3.640649
100
18.34
0.30
138.64
1.13
5.56
4.143949
110
1 21.87
0.37
142.24 1
1.25
6.27
4.676686
120
25.69
0.44
146.13
1.36
7.03
5.241354
130
29.79
0.51
150.30
1.48
7.83
5.840413
140
34.17
0.60
154.76
1.59
8.68
6.476292
150
38.82
0.68
159.50
1.70
9.59
7.151396
160
43.74
0.78
164.52
1.82
10.55
7.868101
170
48.93
0.88
169.81
1.93
11.57
8.628762
180
54.39
0.98
175.38
2.04
12.65
9.435713
190
60.11
1.10
181.21
1 2.16
1 13.80
10.29126
200
66.10
1.22
187.31
2.27
15.02
11.19771
210
72.34
1.34
193.68
2.38
16.30
12.15734
220
78.84
1.47
200.32
2.50
17.66
13.17239
230
85.60
1.61
207.21
2.61
19.10
14.24512
240
92.61
1.75
214.36
2.72
20.62
15.37776
250
99.88
1.90
221.78
2.84
22.22
16.57252
260
107.40
2.05
229.45
2.95
23.91
17.83161
Pump Model:
Speed:
Discharge:
Impeller:
HP:
Pump Calculation 2.1 Dana J. Bolden
Revised 5/30/01 (based on work by J. McCracken)

- . 0McGW
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad So eet, Asheville, NC28801 828-252.0575 Fax [phone]
PROJECT: 6— U-%JTI::-
PROJECTNO.: 0i74E
DESCRIPTION: ELT, No • Z ProQIm iAn Dcd,3 A
CALCULATED BY: SPL CHECKED BY: „M
DATE: /Z/%/D3 - SHEET NO. S OF

Flows to Burnsville Elementary Pump Station
Alt. No.2 Connection to Burnsville
Using 85 GPDlcapita Residential/Commercial, Recorded Industrial Flows, and Infiltration
Phase
New
Flow (vim
i otai mow jui-up i otai riow
w► A.a reaK ractor 1-urLU
49848 Current Flow
1
2006
48,188
53,036 1.43% Growth Rate
132,590
2007
53,794
134,486
2
2008
15,360
69,924
174,809
2009
70,924
177,309
3
2010
6,300
78,238
195,594
2011
79,357
198,391
2012
80,491
201,228
2013
81,642
204,106
2014
82,810
207,025
4
2015
9,715
93,709
234,273
2016
95,049
237,623
2017
96,408
241,021
2018
97,787
244,467
2019
99,185
247,963
5
2020
6,980
107,584
268,959
2021
109,122
272,805
2022
110,683
276,706
2023
112,265
280,663
2024
113,871
284,677
6
2025
5,650
121,149
302,873
Rev. 19March04

Burnsville Elennentary PunnD Station and Force Main to OMC Pump Station
Pipe Diameter
6
(inches)
Static Head
80
(feet)
Length
7,000
(feet)
Coefficient
140
Fittings
Loss Coeff.
Quantity
Size in.
Gate Valves
0.2
3
6
90 Bends
0.3
10
6
45 Bends
0.225
10
6
Tee Thru
0.2
1
6
Tee Branch
0.5
0
6
Check Valves
2.5
1
6
Outlet
1
1
6
Flow Increment 10
tWP
1
Hr ADoa
�IANOWLQ-S-S-- 'EsvpH&,
616 i,
WPu
11 =
, p
100
6.42
0.19
86.61
1.13
3.47
2.588736
110
7.65
0.23
87.89
1.25
3.88
2.889614
120
8.99
0.27
89.27
1.36
4.29
3.201834
130
10.43
0.32
90.75
1.48
4.73
3.526273
140
11.96
0.37
92.33
1.59
5.18
3.863796
150
1 13.59
0.43
94.02
1.70
5.65
4.21526
160
15.31
0.49
95.80
1.82
1 6.14
4.581512
170
17.13
0.55
97.68
1.93
1 6.66
4.963391
180
19.04
0.62
99.66
2.04
1 7.19
5.36173
190
21.04
0.69
101.73
2.16
7.75
5.777352
200
23.13
0.76
103.90
2.27
8.33
6.211076
210
25.32
0.84
106.16
2.38
8.94
6.663714
220
27.60
0.92
108.52
1 2.50
9.57
7.1360721
230
1 29.96
1.01
110.97
2.61
10.23
7.628951
240
32.42
1.10
113.51
2.72
10.92
8.143146
250
34.96
1.19
116.15
2.84
11.64
8.679448
260
37.59
1.29
118.88
2.95
12.39
9.238642
270
40.31
1.39
121.70
3.06
13.17
9.821511
280
43.11
1.50
124.61
3.18
13.99
10.42883
290
46.00
1 1�6l
12761
3.29
14.83
11 06137
300
48.98
i 7�
+_I -_--
30 70
130.70
-
1 340
15.72i
11.71991
Pump Model:
Speed:
Discharge:
Impeller:
HP:
Pump Calculation 2.1 Dana J. Bolden
Revised 5130101 (based on work by J. McCracken)

PROJECT:�-PROJECT NO.:
0MCC� Y 3 DESCRIPTION: T /10 .Z , ' WNffi,ft" CdJo�
ASSOCIATES ��,,
Engineering • Planning • Finance CALCULATED BY: �O�— CHECKED BY: MA
McGW Associates, PA. P.O. B=1259, AsheWfle, NC 28801 I0
55BroadStreet,Ash"ale,NC28801828.252-0575Fas828-252-2518 DATE: 1C-1 3 SHEET NO. OF
..
Opf Yv�� ^STk7crl!7ry
-. _.�„_ i._ ..... .....- - -row I
N
�1
a
L-:
h
r
TTT F lr,T
C- 3;s <
71t' ✓�-
411

Flows to OMC Pump Station
Alt. No.2 Connection to Burnsville
Using 85 GPDlcapita Residential/Commercials Recorded Industrial Flows, and Infiltration
Phase New
Flow (GP) Total Flow (GP) Total Flow wl
2319000 Current Flow
3.6 Peak Factor (M D)
1 2006
43,340 274,340 1.43% Growth Rate
0.99
2007
278,263
1.00
2 2008
10,290 292,532
1.05
2009
296,715
1.07
3 2010
12,595 313,553
1.13
2011
318,037
1.14
2012
322,585
1.16
2013
327,198
1.18
2014
331,877
1.19
4 2015
9,715 346,338
1.25
2016
351,291
1.26
2017
356,314
1.28
2018
361,409
1.30
2019
366,577
1.32
5 2020
6,980 378,800
1.36
2021
384,216
1.38
2022
389,711
1.40
2023
395,284
1.42
2024
400,936
1.44
6 2025
5,650 412,319
1.48
Rev. 19March04

_ Existing Force Main From OMC to Gravity
Alt. No.2 Connection to Town
of Burnsville
_ Pipe Diameter
8
(inches)
Static Head
140
(feet)
_ Length
6,000
(feet)
Coefficient
140
Fittings
Loss Coeff.
Quantity
Size in.
Gate Valves
0.2
5
8
90 Bends
0.3
10
8
45 Bends
0.225
10
8
Tee Thru
0.2
1
8
Tee Branch
0.5
0
8
Check Valves
2.5
1
8
Outlet
1
1
8
Flow Increment
50
FLOW
DLOSS
MINOR LOSSES
TDH
VelocityPUMP
HP
KW
m
eet)
feet
(feet)
(Ft/sec)DATA
680
7.06
2.91
189.97
4.34
51.78
38.61231
730
753.66
3.35
197.02
4.66
57.65
42.98861
780
0.66
3.83
204.49
4.98
63.93
47.67511
830
8.05
4.34
212.38
5.30
70.66
52.69001
880
5.82
4.87
220.70
5.62
77.85
58.05133
930
83.99
5.44
229.43
5.94
85.53
63.77696
980
92.53
6.05
238.58
6.26
93.72
69.88463
1030
101.45
6.68
248.13
6.57
102.44A97.68417
1080
110.75
7.34
258.09
6.89
111.73
1125
119.44
7.97
267.41
7.18
120.58
1175
129.45
8.69
278.14
7.50
131.001225
139.82
9.45
289.27
7.82
142.04
Pump Calculation 2.1 Dana J. Bolden
- Revised 5/30/01 (based on work by J. McCracken)

- McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
.�
McGil(Associares, P.A. P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Sheet, Asheville, NC 28801 828-252-0575 Fax [phone]
� � I
PROJECT: d—• yynicay /jwTF
PROJECT NO.: o/7y3
DESCRIPTION: &7' AV' Z
CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY:
DATE: /ZI9/03 SHEET NO. OF

I i 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Flows to Burnsville 10-Inch Interceptor and WWTP
Alt. No.2 Connection to Burnsville
Using 85 GPD/capita Residential/Commercial,
Recorded Industrial Flows, and Infiltration
Phase New Flow (GPD) Total
Flow (GPD)
Total Flow w/ 3.6 Peak Factor (MQQj
Current Flow
4509000
1 2006 43,340
493,340
1.43% Growth Rate 1.78
2007
500,395
1.80
2 2008 10,290
517,840
1.86
2009
525,246
1.89
3 2010 12,595
545,352
1.96
2011
553,150
1.99
2012
561,060
2.02
2013
569,083
2.05
2014
577,221
2.08
4 2015 9,715
595,190
2.14
2016
603,702
2.17
2017
612,335
2.20
2018
621,091
2.24
2019
629,973
2.27
5 2020 6,980
645,961
2.33
2021
655,198
2.36
2022
664,568
2.39
2023
674,071
2.43
2024
683,710
2.46
6 2025 5,650
699,137
2.52
At Min. Grade the following pipe capacities are as follows:
10 Pipe 1/2 Full Flow = 374,863 GPD
24" Pipe 1/2 Full Flow = 2.1 MGD
10" Pipe Full Flow = 937,086 GPD
24" Pipe Full Flow = 4.5 MGD
18" Pipe 1/2 Full Flow =1.2 MGD
18" Pipe Full Flow = 2.7 MGD
Rev. 19March04

- McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Bm 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 BrwdStseet, Asheville, NC 28801 828-252-0575 F= 828-252-25I8
A
an
A
m
as
am
OR
PROJECT: &r: �Y 6.
PROJECT NO.: O/?Ys -
DESCRIPTION: G06')79Z:- —%}LT,
No, 5
CALCULATED BY: 'lc— CHECKED BY:
MA
111IS1n3 Q&ISES
DATE: �;:{dT SHEET NO.
OF

INFLUENT PUMP STATION (aD WWTP
Pipe Diameter
6
(inches)
Static Head
40
(feet)
Length
200
(feet)
Coefficient
120
Fittings
Loss Coeff.
Quantity
Gate Valves
0.2
1
90 Bends
0.3
4
45 Bends
0.225
2
_ Tee Thru
0.2
Tee Branch
0.5
1
Check Valves
2.5
1
Outlet
1
1
Flow Increment 20
Size in.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
FLOW s ,
260
;'HEADLOSS
1.43
MINOR LOSSES"
feet,
0.79
TDH=
feel
42.22
Velocity
FtisecDAT%_
2.95
PUMPS
r HlR
4.40
K
3.281028
280
1.64
0.92
42.56
3.18
4.78
3.561553
300
1.86
1.05
42.91
3.40
5.16
3.848115
320
2.10
1.20
43.30
3.63
5.55
4.141106
340
2.35
1.35
43.70
3.86
5.96
4.440912
360
2.61
1.52
44.12
4.08
37
4.747922
380
2.88
1.69
44.57
4.31
79
5.062518
400
3.17
1.87
45.04
4.54
22
5.385084
420
3.47
2.06
45.53
4.77
67
5.716001
440
3.78
2.26
46.04
4.99
6.055641
460
4.10
2.47
46.58
5.22
59
112
6.404401
480
4.44
2.69
47.14
5.45
07
6.76264
500
4.79
2.92
47.71
5.67
56
7.130737
520
5.15
3.16
48.31
5.90
07
7.509067
540
5.52
3.41
48.93
6.13
59
7.898002560
5.91
3.67
49.57
6.35
13
8.297914
580
6.30
3.93
50.24
6.58
68
8.709173
600
6.71
4.21
50.92
6.81
12.25
9.112147
620
7.13
4.50
51.63
7.04
12.83
9.567206
640
7.56
4.79
52.35
7.26
13.43
10.01471
660
8.00
5.09
53.10
7.49
14.05
10.47504
Pump Model:
Speed:
Discharge:
Impeller:
HP:
Pump Calculation 2.1 Dana J. Bolden
Revised 5/30/01 (based on work by J. McCracken)

INFLUENT PUMP STATION (W WWTP
Pipe Diameter
8
(inches)
Static Head
40
(feet)
Length
200
(feet)
Coefficient
120
Fittings
Loss Coeff.
Quantity
Gate Valves
0.2
1
90 Bends
0.3
4
45 Bends
0.225
2
- Tee Thru
0.2
Tee Branch
0.5
1
Check Valves
2.5
1
Outlet
1
1
Flow Increment 20
Size in.
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
g.
LQM4I
°
1.27
e.LeQSEPs
1.00
t _.
Ef1se
? D(A1M
!r'
+8.81
520
42.27
3.32
6.57,
0109
540
1.36
1.08
42.44
3.45
9.19
6.850294
560
1.46
1.16
42.62
3.57
9.57
7.133503
580
1.55
124
4280
3.70
9.95
7.419838
600
1.33
42.99
3.83
10.34
7.709402
620
1.76
1.42
43.18
3.96
10.73
8.002299
640
1.87
1.52
43.38
4.08
11.13
8.298629
660
1.97
1.61
43.59
4.21
11.53
8.598495
680
2.09
1.71
43.80
4.34
11.94
8.902
700
2.20
1.81
44.01
4.47
12.35
9.209243
720
2.32
1.92
44.24
4.60
12.77
9.520327
740
2.44
2.03
44.47
4.72
13.19
9.835353
760
2.56
2.14
44.70
4.85
13.62
10.15442
780
2.69
2.25
44.94
F 4.98
14.05
10.47763
800
2.82
2.37
45.19
1 5.11
14.49
10.80509
820
2.95
2.49
45.44
5.23
14.93
11.13689
840
3.08
2.61
45.70
5.36
15.39
11.47314
860
3.22
2.74
45.96
5.49
15.84
11.81393
880
3.36
2.87
46.23
5.62
16.31
12.15936
900
3.50
3.00
46.50
5.74
16.78
12.50954
920
3.65
3.13
46.78
5.87
1
1 17.25
12.86457
Pump Model:
Speed:
Discharge:
Impeller:
HP:
Pump Calculation 2.1 Dana J. Bolden
Revised 5/30/01 (based on work by J. McCracken)

c
a-
Influent Puma Station _
Phase 1 Phase 2
Qaverage 04 278 GPM
Qpump 260.5 695 GPM
Wet Well
Diameter 10
am Using the formula Cycle Time = (Pump Run Time + Refill Time at Average Inflow)
nL.___ w n"Yo f±Dl1A
we
fm
am
A�
fW
FM
P"
ma
Well Dia.
(ft.)
10
Volume/ft.
(ft3)
78.54
Operating
Depth (ft.)
1
Volume a@D
Operating
Depth
(Gal.)
587.56
Pump
Run Time
(min.)
3.75
Refill
Time
(min.)
5.65
Total
Cycle
Time
(minutes)
9.40
Cycles per
Hour
6.38
10
78.54
1.25
734.45
4.69
7.06
11.75
5.10
10
78.54
1.5
881.33
5.63
8.47
14.11
4.25
10
78.54
1.75
1028.22
6.57
9.89
16.46
3.65
10
78.54
2
1175.11
7.51
11.30
18.81
3.19
10
78.54
2.25
1322.00
8.45
12.71
21.16
2.84
10
78.54
2.5
1 1468.89
9.39
14.12
23.51
2.55
•+■ ■W■
Volume/ft.
(ft3)
78.54
Operating
Depth (ft.)
2.5
Volumed
Operating
Depth
(Gal.)
1468.89
Pump
Run Time
(min.)
3.52
Refill
Time
(min.)
5.28
Total
Cycle
Time
(minutes)
8.81
Cycles per
Hour
6.81
Well Dia.
(ft.)
10
10
78.54
3
1762.67
4.23
6.34
10.57
5.68
10
78.54
3.5
2056.45
4.93
7.40
12.33
4.87
10
78.54
4
2350.23
5.64
8.45
14.09
4.26
10
78.54
4.5
2644.00
6.34
9.51
15.85
3.79
10
78.54
5
2937.78
7.05
10.57
17.61
3.41
10
78.54
5.5
3231.56
7.75
11.62
1 19.37
3.10
ow

t
pm
on
— APPENDIX D
omm
DOCUMENTATION OF LAND COSTS
No
mm
on
pm
mq
ow
FM
fm
pim
am

- } McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. P.O. Box 1259, Asheville, NC 28802
55 Broad Saret, Asheville, NC28801 828-151-0575 Fax [phone]
No
m
s
L
n
04
1
PROJECT: �� c=t% WW / f
PROJECT NO.: 00,13
DESCRIPTION: CnST OF LAID Aga)uh71cl%J
CALCULATED BY: WO L CHECKED BY: /AA
DATE: IZ.-/Zr`JD'& SHEET NO. OF

.Search%Results
Page I of I
Price Lot Size County Restrictions
$ 299,000 95.800 acres Yancey N
Schedule a Showing
Send Me Mortgage
Information for this
listing
Printer Friendly
Version
Click Here
MLS#
228820
Location Subdivision In City zone Listing Agency
Burnsville Jacks creek N Premier Mtn. Properties, Inc.
Description
Located in Burnsville, NC, this Acreage is 95.800 acres.
Contact Me for More Info
Type: Land Suitable Use: Farmland, Pasture/Grazing,
Timber/Tree Farm
_ Utilities: Electric Restrictions: None
Water: Spring Sewer:
Rd Frontage Access:State Highway, Road Maint:
Gravel Road
Improvements: Area: Yancey/Mitchell Coun
Topo Features: Pasture/Gardens, Roiling, Partially Wooded, Long Range Mountain, Open
Improvements:
Elem School:Yancey Cnty High School: Yancey County
ABRS 1Rw6*•
Courtesy of Premier Mtn. Properties, Inc. and Asheville Multiple Listings Service, Inc.
Information Is deemed reliable but not guaranteed and is updated daily.
Copyright 2002, Asheville Multiple Listing Service, Inc. All rights reserved.
Database last updated December 21 2003 04:07:14 PM

.Search -Results
,
Page 1 of 1
Schedule a Showing
Send Me Mortgage
Information for this
listing
Printer Friendly
Version
Click Here
Price Lot Size
County Restrictions MLS#
$ 119,000 34.000 acres
Yancey N 228888
Location Subdivision
In City Zone Listing Agency
Burnsville Jacks creek
N Premier Mtn. Properties, Inc.
Description
Located in Burnsville, NC, this Acreage is 34.000 acres.
�.
Contact Me for More Info
Type: Land
Suitable Use: Farmland, Pasture/Grazing
Utilities: Electric
Restrictions: None
Water: Spring
Sewer: None
Rd Frontage Access: Private Road Road Maint:
Improvements:
Area: Yancey/Mitchell Coun
Topo Features: Pasture/Gardens, Partially Wooded, Stream/Creek/River
_
Improvements:
Elem School: Yancey Cnty
High School: Yancey County
ABRSRK`«'1PLdKy�
Courtesy of Premier Mtn. Properties, Inc. and Asheville Multiple Listings Service, Inc.
Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed and Is updated daily.
Copyright 2002, Asheville Multiple Listing Service, Inc. All rights reserved.
Database last updated December 21 2003 04:07:14 PM

—Search Results
Page I of I
Schedule a Shova
Send Me Mortgage
Information for this
listing
Printer Friendly
Version
Click Here
Price Lot Size County Restrictions MLS#
$ 139,900 44.420 acres Yancey Y 237238
Location Subdivision In City Zone Listing Agency
Burnsville Burnsville N Premier Mtn. Properties, Inc.
Description
Located in Burnsville, NC, this Acreage is 44.420 acres.
Contact Me for More Info
Type: Land Suitable Use: Residential, MultioFamily
Utilities: None Restrictions: Call Listing Office
_ Water: Spring Sewer: None
Rd Frontage Access: Private Road, Gravel Road Road Plaint: Property Owners Asso
Improvements: Area: Yancey/Mitchell Coun
Topo Features: Partially Wooded, Partially Steep
Improvements:
Elem School: Yancey Cnty High School: Yancey County
ABRSM4opLdlys,
Courtesy of Premier Mtn. Properties, Inc. and Asheville Multiple Listings Service, Inc.
Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed and is updated daily.
Copyright 2002, Asheville Multiple Listing Service, Inc. All rights reserved.
Database last updated December 21 2003 04:07:14 PM

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
March 8, 2004
Jeremy Cadeau
McGill Associates
P.O. Box 2259
Asheville, NC 28802
Subject: Return No. 2210
NPDES Permit Application/NCO087891
East Yancy Water/Sewer District
South Toe River WWTP
Yancey County
Dear Mr. Cadeau:
The Division received your NPDES permit application package for the proposed subject facility on January 13,
2004. Following review of the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA), the Division is returning the
application as incomplete for the items listed below. Due to high workload and space constraints, it is
standard policy to return applications that require additional information. The application fee will be retained
if you resubmit a completed NPDES application within six months. Please include a copy of this letter with
your future resubmission.
1. Page 5. The EAA states that connection to the proposed treatment system is not expected to be
mandatory unless required to connect by the County Health Department, and estimates that 50% of
the customers will actually connect. What is the basis for a 50% connection rate? Has the County
Health Department provided any data on the current number of failing septic systems in the district?
2. Page 6. The EAA incorporates a residential wastewater flow rate of 86 gpcd, based on water
consumption data for the Town of Burnsville. Does this value account for consumptive loss? For
comparison, the Construction Grants and Loans Program recommends that current residential flows
based on water billing records subtract out 10% for consumptive loss, and uses a 70 gpcd residential
flow rate for future residential population growth.
3. Page 19. The EAA must reference the basis for the Unit Prices presented in Table III-1 (e.g., past bids,
manufacturer quotes, Means Construction, etc.).
4. Pa a 20. The cost estimate for Alternative 2 (Connection to POTW) incorporates a sewer use/capacity
depletion charge of $3/ 1000 gallons. It is unclear how this charge was derived, since the letter from
the Town of Burnsville did not include such information.
5. Page 24. Alternative 4 (Individual/Communitty Subsurface Systems) was considered technically
infeasible and not costed out, due to unsuitable soils and currently failing septic systems in the
project area. Please provide supporting documentation from the County Health Department regarding
this determination. The soils report within the EAA states that soils on the 11-acre project site are
deep, well -drained, and permeable, but there is no discussion as to whether this good soil is an
anomaly within the district boundaries. If community systems are technically feasible, they will need
to be costed out and compared to the cost for a direct discharge alternative.
6. Page 27. The EAA must reference the basis for the Unit Prices presented in Table III-3 (e.g., past bids,
manufacturer quotes, Means Construction, etc.).
7. Page 29. The EAA must reference the basis for the Unit Prices presented in Table III-4 (e.g., past bids,
manufacturer quotes, Means Construction, etc.).
8. Page 25. Alternative 5 (NPDES Surface Water Discharge) states that the project will be constructed in
two phases- Phase 1 for a design capacity of 0.15 MGD and Phase 2 for an ultimate design flow of 0.4
MGD. It is unclear how the Phase 1 flow request for 0.15 MGD coincides with the six phase buildout
scenario summarized previously in Table II-3 (Page 13). Table II-3 projects total wastewater flows of
0.048 MGD (in 2006), 0.049 MGD (in 2007), then increasing to 0.28 MGD (in 2008) after the Town of
Burnsville diverts their existing OMC pump station flow to the proposed plant. Thus, a phased flow
F
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] ?YeCustomer Service
1�7 � 1 800 623-7748
N MENR

NC4087891
East Yancey Water and Sewer District
,Page 2
limit of 0.15 MGD does not appear to be justified by the planned buildout scenario. Please explain the
rationale for this phased flow request of 0.15 MGD.
9. Pa a 25. It is unclear whether the 7Q 10 and 30Q2 flow values were provided by the USGS or
calculated by the consultant. If USGS provided the flow data, please append this data. Otherwise,
please present the flow calculations.
10. Pa a 33. The EAA must reference the basis for the Unit Prices presented in Table II1-6 (e.g., past bids,
manufacturer quotes, Means Construction, etc.). It is unclear why the cost for a tertiary 0.15 MGD
WWTP is priced at $690,100 in Table III-6 (Phase 1, Drip Irrigation), but only $400,000 in Table III-3
(Phase I, Direct Discharge). Similarly, it is unclear why the cost for a tertiary 025 MGD WWTP is
priced at $824,000 gpd in Table I1I-6 (Phase 2, Drip Irrigation), but only $650,000 in Table III-4 (Phase
2, Direct Discharge).
11. Page 34. The EAA must reference the basis for the Unit Prices presented in Table 11I-7 (e.g., past bids,
manufacturer quotes, Means Construction, etc.).
12. Page 38. The EAA must reference the basis for the Unit Prices presented in Table 1I1-9 (e.g., past bids,
manufacturer quotes, Means Construction, etc.). It is unclear why the cost for a secondary 0.15 MGD
WWTP is priced at $483,000 in Table III-9 (Phase 1, Spray Irrigation), but only $400,000 for a tertiary
0.15 MGD WWTP in Table 111-3 (Phase 1, Direct Discharge).
13. Page 39. The EAA must reference the basis for the Unit Prices presented in Table 11I-10 (e.g., past
bids, manufacturer quotes, Means Construction, etc.).
If you have any questions about the contents of this letter or the NPDES permitting process, please call me at
919-733-5083, ext 543.
Si erely
4,U
om Belnick
NPDES Unit
cc:
Ms. Michele Lawhern, District Manager, East Yancey Water and Sewer District, County Court House, Room 11. Burnsville, NC 28714
Ms. Julie Halgler, Dir. Water/Sewer Grants, NC Rural Economic Development Center. 4021 Carya Drive, Raleigh, NC 27610
Asheville Regional Office, Water Quality
NPDES File