NC0088056_Permit Issuance_20051014

October 14, 2005
Mr. Ed Nunez
Vista Developers, LLC
525 North Main Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. IOimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
NCO088056
Blacksmith Run WWTP
Henderson County
Dear Mr. Nunez:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject
permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of
Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9,1994 (or
as subsequently amended).
This final permit contains no significant changes from the draft you were sent on July 20, 2005.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such
demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the
legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or
permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other
Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Toya Fields at telephone
number [phone], extension 551.
Sincerely,
f6it— Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Central Files
Asheville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone] I�`o 1 Cam ina
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at http://h2o.enr.smte.nc.usi �/�V1atuCq!27
An Fmmi 0mnrhwd1v/AKrma61@ Action Emnlavar

Permit NCO088056
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELRAINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Vista Developers, LLC
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Blacksmith Run WWTP
Edneyville
Henderson County
to receiving waters designated Lewis Creek in the French Broad River Basin in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective November 1, 2005.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2010.
Signed this day October 14, 2005.
-Alan W. Klimek, P.E. , Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO088056
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of this permit
issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate
and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Vista Developers, LLC. is hereby authorized to:
1. After receiving an ATC from the Construction Grants and Loans Section, operate a 0.089
MGD wastewater treatment facility located at the Blacksmith Run WWTP, 525 North
Main Street, Hendersonville, Henderson County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works (via Outfall 001) into Lewis Creek, a Class C-Tr
water in the French Broad River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.

r
� V
1.
C-1
IMile
47
jj
r.
..........
Zoo
Discharge location
t i3
ne ti� 3,
N,
111J,
f
Z
-B'LTl E
-,.*RIDG-"
\R64 \1
I J
silo
♦
228
tno.
Blacksmith Run WWTP — NCO088056
Facility
ocation
Location
USGS Quad Name: Bat Cave
Lat.: 5'23'21"
Receiving Stream: Lewis Creek
Long.: 82'21'51"
Stream Class: C-Tr
Subbasin: French Broad — 04 03 02
North
Not to SCALE

Permit NCO088056
SECTION A(1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning upon receipt of an Engineers Certification and lasting until permit expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by
the Permittee as specified below:
3 �- is 1 � J R{
<r.�uEl�yyrr �..: t ,
1'�
'�
:r1ltA
C R�Sr CS,
� 3 at _ - i .} F E1tf� :� � # �xy } L^'S
4 �.._..ti t LiMTs.+ �t,z>=�._:,44
-+i*e. 3w:._ _� .qjP` i.ryr "'.`Y �g-,f.5�'ky'y� r .E" t
s: 7�' : ii:i4x•::��+{L t `.E.t.,'l'������C�;
A Z r r. S
..-�._.. ,.
� *
� _
M_ t%AnyMNrs.:.
v +:"
_ etA
�. � �!3� t �w�••.r....
....•dldGi x: �kT+' s- 1 1 ■' �'
7:<.• x*S. .:.,•iw,f'Y
�r
"Ipa
6i ft
't `.", 4i` '. �• .�i�. �..
R.e yr•. •. V.::• c. - R� >,. 5!x �S. ',•b+W i '€" �', 'i.
F 4k'": �:i: sv .�. etn �9 ,. i... Z^•.�:� -
ure
,
.t. : x. .t :,i i'! 'r_t
�P,...M.. � ��t.,.
.,�. ��-�
a.. i.:....L. I.S. .,a, b. :.. ?F,_,.Y..•, �...>r .-1...t
. •'�.;t
ra e t 1Vfaxvnum Sr�
....c. ,....ra,.•,5:...« :... .:1
1�: '�
�..� , ,,,, ,
�fi M r
r en ���ex�caion,
'..`!'b if.;[.`-7, ., 'f, .. !�:H ..'�
Flow
0.089 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3 as N (summer)
10.0 mg/L
35.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3 as N (winter)
25.0 mg/L
35.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E
(geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine2
28 pg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
Temperature (Q
Weekly
Grab
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 s.u.
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen
Semi-annual
Composite
E
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annual
Composite
E
Notes:
1. Sample locations: E- Effluent, I- Influent
2. TRC limit only applies if chlorine is used for disinfection.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
a BUNCOMBE COUNTY
ffecfiw
e PWM SS.
5'rewrtl NORTH CAROLINA
mm
Before the undersigned, a Notary. Public of said
71mere'
County and State, duly commissioned, qualified and
,�n.
=,°i;'s�
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
.e`,"em'�'n
appeared Darryl Rhymes, who, being first duly
���
swom, deposes and says: that he is the Legal
Billing Clerk of The Asheville Citizen -Times,
In
;�
engaged in publication of a newspaper known as
Mit
Mmi CM
The Asheville Citizen -Times, published, issued,
As of
and entered as second class mail in the City of
V
Asheville, in said County and State; that he is
9 FVrd
19) M
authorized to make this affidavit and swom
rem n
statement; that the notice or other legal
.od 1m
I
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached
,�
rankly
ftwt
hereto, was published in The Asheville Citizen-
a.m. a d
Times on the following date: July 23, 2005
w intort,w
newspaper in which said notice, paper, document or
I 1 f Co
c 2mf
legal advertisement were published were, at the
rNcmMZe
time of each and every publication, a newspaper
MfthCoann
meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of
�im-�u n�
Section 1-597 of the General Statues of North
#V FrMch
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the
=
meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statues of
L Th's
�F
North Carolina.
Signed this 28th, July 2005
(Signature of pe o making affida
Sworn to and subscribed before me the 28th, July
day of July 2005
(No ublic)
My Commission xpires the 6th day of October
2006

J5 2006
r
Z;rb
i7d
i I lym, A. L
wwrpmm)i 8TE1ZOY
chitt afar; cjkjjW IlMfta&' w-Thls I
alWcatkxu,tn tlftb'
-01 the', Frenc
Ohio EkcMd AWtdW,- fir —
has' fled for. rwaMl bf

c
SUMMER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BLACKSMITH RUN WWTP
Receiving S=ream :
LEWIS CREEK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.C.
is 8.C1
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 4.60
mg/l.
The End NBCJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 3.69
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Mir.
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste Flow
(mg/1)
------
Milepoint Reach #
----------------
(mg/1)
----
(mg/_)
---
(ma/1) (mgd)
-- ----------
Segment 1
7.52
0.00 1
Reach 1
45.00
48.00
5.00 0.08900
bob - 3D
N�13 10
� � S /Y

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BLACKSMITH RUN WWTP Subbas::n 040302
Receiving Stream : LEWIS CREEK Stream Class: C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 1.74 Winter 7Q10 : 2.1
Design Temperature: 23.0
LENGTH SLOPE GELOCITY DEPTH Kd Kd Ka Ka NN
mile I ft/mi fps I ft design) @20° Idesign @20° de;3ign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 I 1.20I 15.30 0.206 0.78 0.20 10.28 15.43 5.67 0,16
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Flom
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/1
mg/l
mg/l
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.138
45.000
48.000
5.000
Headwaters
1.740
2.000
1.000
7.720
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
Seg #
:?each #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
N 3OD
Flow
1
l
0.00
7.52
5.16
4.45
1.88
1
1
0.10
7.60
5.11
1.40
1.88
1
1
0.20
7.68
5.06
1.35
1.88
1
1
0.30
7.74
5.01
4.31
1.88
1
1
0.40
7.79
4.97
1.26
1.88
1
1
0.50
7.83
4.92
•1.21
1.88
1
1
0.60
7.87
4.87
1.88
1
1
0.70
7.90
4.83
1.12
1.88
1
1
0.80
7.93
4.78
1.07
1.88
1
1
0.90
7.95
4.74
1.02
1.88
1
1
1.00
7.97
4.69
3.98
1.88
1
1
1.10
7.99
4.65
3.94
1.88
1
1
1.20
8.01
4.60
3.89
1.88
Seg #
:each ##
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
N:3OD I
Flow

a. .WINTER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BLAC :SMITH RUN WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LEWI.-I CREEK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.20
mg/'...
The End CBOD
is 4.37
mg/l.
The End NBOD
-------------------------•--------------------------------------------
is 7.69
mg/..
WLA
WLA
qLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Mi1Qpoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(-n9/1) . (mgd)
Segment 1
9.41
0.00 1
Reach 1
45.00
116.00
5.00 0.08900
U���.
d�c

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BLACKSMITH RUI; WWTP Subbasin 040302
Receiving Stream : LEWIS CREEK Stream Clas-;: C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 1.74 Winter 7Q10 : 2.1
Desicrn Temperature: 12.0
LENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEP',Hj Kd Kd Ka Ka KN
mile ft/mi fp: ft, design @20° design @20° Idesignj
Segment 1 1.20 15.30 0.2_5 1 0.80 1 0.20 10.29 15.43 1 6.4;1 0.16
Reach 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Flow
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 0.138
Headwaters 2.100
Tributary 0.000
* Runoff 0.000
CBOD NBOD D.O.
mg/l mg/1 I mg/l
45.000
116.000
5.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
2.000
1.000
9.700
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

t
WINTER
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
9.41
4.65
8.09
2.24
1
1
0.10
9.54
4.63
8.05
2.24
1
1
0.20
9.65
4.60
8.02
2.24
1
1
0.30
9.74
4.58
7.99
2.24
1
1
0.40
9.83
4.56
7.95
2.24
1
1
0.50
9.90
4.53
7.92
2.24
1
1
0.60
9.96
4.51
7.89
2.24
1
1
0.70
10.02
4.49
7.85
2.24
1
1
0.80
10.07
4.46
7.82
2.24
1
1
0.90
10.11
4.44
7.79
2.24
1
1
1.00
10.14
4.42
7.75
2.24
1
1
1.10
10.18
4.39
7.72
2.24
1
1
1.20
10.20
4.37
7.69
2.24
Seg #
Reach # (
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
flow

MODEL INPUTS FOR LEVEL B ANALYSIS
GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility Name:
L /Y1 f 'r
'
NPDES
Type of Waste: ' 0 a� �a—'-
Facility Status:
_
Receiving Stream: E
f -
Stream Classification:
Subbasin: q
County: A
Regional Office:
j
Topo Quad:
i
FLOW INFORMATION
USGS # - SS -
Date of Flow Estimates: 8
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): ,
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC at Point of Discharge (%):
Cummulative IWC (%):
MODEL INPUT INFORMATION
LENGTH OF REACH (miles)
/ o%
INCREMENTAL LENGTH (miles)
f
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
FLOW (MGD) Q, O
CBOD (mg/1) O . S - Z
u
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
-
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs/mi�
QA (cfs/mi
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TRIBUTARY CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs)
---
QA (cfs)
—
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
-
SLOPE (fpm)
-
-
Name of facility

6
NCO088056
Facility: Blacksmith Run WWTP
Discharge to: Lewis Creek, C-Tr
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS) 1.74 7Q10 (CFS) 1.74
DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.089 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.089
DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.13795 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.13795
STREAM STD (UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 7.35 IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/1) 231.43 Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 10.84
Ammonia as NH3 b� -dote'!
(winter) 1v8��s t18
7Q10 (CFS) 2.1
Fecal Limit 200M00ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.089
Ratio of 12.61 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.13795
STREAM STD (MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L) 0.22
IWC (%) 6.16
Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 25.85
A30-DWZ' // & .
For Minor domestic -type facilities:
a.
Minimum of 2 mg/I (summer) NH3-N; 4 mg/I (winter) NH3-N
Chlorine:
Residual chlorine must be capped at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity effects

eo"

Fw: Low -flow characteristics for Lewis Creek in Henders...
Subject: Fw: Low -flow characteristics for Lewis Creek in Henderson County
From: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun:2005 11:21:41 -0400
tnail net E
GC: Tobti C VYeaver <jcweaver@.usgs.gov>
Toya,
It appears that we are in a "telephone tag" game with each other.
Forwarded below is the email that I sent to Brooks and Medlock engineering
firm last October providing some general low -flow information that appears
to be applicable to Lewis Creek in Henderson County.
If this is not the information you're seeking, please give me a call.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
r*,r****w***,t*,r*,►rt*..x*,►*,r..,twr*,r,r*,r,r*w,ttr.,r,r***ww,r*,r***,twwww,r*:**.,r,t,t***,c
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
----- Forwarded by John C Weaver/WRD/USGS/DOI on 06/03/2005 11:18 AM -----
John C Weaver
To: <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>
10/08/2004 02:30 cc: John C Weaver/WRD/USGS/DOI@USGS
PM Subject: Low -flow characteristics for Lewis Creek in Henderson
County
Mr. Divers,
In response to your inquiry about low -flow characteristics for Lewis Creek
in Henderson County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the District office does not indicate
any previously determined low -flow estimates for the site indicated on your
map image. The only determination identified in the files for Lewis Creek
is for an upstream location where the stream crosses underneath SR 1722
(request dated July 1986, station id 0344640830, drainage area 2.97 sgmi).
The 7Q10 low -flow yield (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area,
or cfsm) used for this request is 0.35 cfsm, based on streamflow data
collected at a discontinued USGS streamgaging station operated on Clear
Creek.
Based on a more recent USGS statewide report (USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403)
on low -flow characteristics in North Carolina, the use of regional
equations for estimating low -flow characteristics in western North Carolina
indicates that 7Q10 yields may be in the range of 0.25 cfsm, give or take a
few hundredths.
Some variation in 7Q10 low -flow yields appears to exist within Henderson
County, but a reasonable estimate (in the absence of further data and
analysis) for your location on Lewis Creek would be about 0.3 cfsm. Once
you know the drainage area of your point of interest, you can apply this
yield to compute the estimated 7Q10 flow.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
r+r#****v.,r,r***,r,r*+.,►*w**,r**,►**w*w,r**ww.,e«,►.�,xwrr**,r,r**�r*«rw,r«*,r#,r**«,r,r**,r*
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
U.S. Geological Survey
1 of 2 6/27/2005 4:03 PM

Fw: Low -flow characteristics for Lewis Creek in Henders...
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
---------+----------------------------->
"Norman Divers"
<norman@brooksandmi
edlock.com> I
10/08/2004 11:29
AM
Please respond to
norman
---------+----------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lewis Creek 7Q10 Request
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
Curtis:
Please find the attached map showing the location request for the
7Q10 flow. Please call me with any questions and as discussed I am
pressed for time needing to complete a report by Monday. Please
reply to both Mark and myself with the necessary data.
Thanks,
Norman Divers
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC
17 Arlington Street
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from unsolicited email by Spam X-terminator
from StompSoft http://www.stompsoft.com
2 of 2 6/27/2005 4:03 PM

f
�
(t "
Information for the USGS gaging station were used to calculate yields which were then used to calculate streamflow information at the discharge location.
USGS Station 0344640830
Site info
10 Yields
Drainage area
2.97 sq mi
-
Qavg
5 cfs
1.68 cfsm
7Q10s
1 cfs
0.34 cfsm
7Q10w
1.2 cfs
0.40 cfsm
Long Creek estimate at discharge point
Site Info -4
Calculated Yields '
Drainage area
5.8 sq mi 2
-
Qavg
8.4 cfs
1.5 cfsm
7Q10s
1.74 cfs
0.3 cfsm '
7Q10w
2.1 cfs
0.36 cfsm
Footnotes
1 - USGS provided a 7Q10 yield of 0.3 cfsm for this site. This is 88% of the yield at the USGS gauging station.
Therefore, to be conservative, all yields at the discharge location are 88% of the yields at the USGS site.
2 - Consultant estimate

BROOKS 6 M E D L O C K
ENG IN EER ING, PLLC
March 16, 2005
North Carolina DENR
Department of Water Quality
NPDES Western Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attention: LeToya Fields
Regarding: Response to Comments
Blacksmith Run Development
Henderson County, NC
Dear Ms. Fields:
DERR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Brooks & Medlock Engineering is pleased to provide response to your comments dated
March 2, 2005 regarding our NPDES Permit Application on behalf of Vista
Development, LLC. Your comments and our responses are as follows.
Section 3.1— Connection to Existing to WWTP
Your comments requested that we provide documentation that the nearest City of
Hendersonville 8" sewer line is at capacity, that the city will not permit additional
allocation, and there are no plans to upgrade the line. The attached letter from the City of
Hendersonville Public Works substantiates this and states that services will not be
extended beyond the "urban services area". The letter and map from the City of
Hendersonville showing the urban services area as well as the location of existing
wastewater treatment plants is provided as an attachment to the revised EAA as
Attachment D. The cost to upgrade the system to the wastewater treatment plant has
been provided in the revised Section 4.0 of the EAA (attached). However, this is not a
feasible project that could be undertaken by a private entity. The WWTP is located in an
urban area and the number easements and access that would have to be obtained to route
the sewer line to the existing WWTP would be onerous and could never be undertaken by
a private developer.
Section 3.3 — Land Application
Your comments inquired if there is additional land to be purchased from adjacent
property owners.
Vista Developers has approached adjacent and surrounding property owners in an attempt
to secure additional land for the development. Adjacent property owners with sizable
tracts include the Owenby Tract to the west (Pin # 969162552555), Dalton Tract to the
west (Pin # 969163772955), the Dewitt Tract to the north (Pin # 969173832755), and the
17 ARLINGTON STREET • ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 • [phone] • FAx [phone]

s-
Jones Tract (Pin # 969181351655) to the east. These are the only tracts in the immediate
vicinity with enough acreage to potentially accommodate a septic or land application
system. The locations are shown on the attached "Adjacent and Area Land Uses" map
(Figure 6). Each of these property owners were contacted for possible land acquisition.
The Owenbys, Daltons, and Dewitts specified their property has been family owned for
several years and are part of active operating farms in the area. There was no interest in
selling land for inclusion in the Blacksmith Run. There was some expressed resistance to
the development on behalf of some of the landowners and therefore their cooperation was
not forthcoming. The Jones' offered their land for sale upon inquiry but placed a price on
the property that was well above market value. Vista Developers had paid $15,000 per
acre for the two tracts involved in the Blacksmith Run development. The Jones' were
asking $30,000 per acre.
The Jones Tract is 34.46 acres. This acreage is still insufficient for a land application
system (our calculations yield 41 acres required without including the setbacks and
pond). It is unlikely purchasing the Jones tract alone would allow for land application as
it has an existing commercial establishment and residential homes on it. Given the
setbacks for a land application system, only approximately 1/3 of this parcel would be
utilizable for land application. As there is basically no land available for land application
within the development (due to setbacks) to supplement this tract, this option is still not
feasible as the Jones property is the only neighboring tract with cooperative owners.
However, as requested BME has provided a PVCA for this option in the revised Section
4.0 assuming land was available.
The option of obtaining additional land was thoroughly investigated it was determined
this was not economically feasible. The revised Section 4.0 and Attachment B in the
revised EAA demonstrate this.
Section 3.4 - Reuse
There are no golf courses or agricultural uses for non -consumptive crops within 5 miles
of the subject site. Refer to the attached Figure 1. There are apple orchards within 0.1
miles, but wastewater re -use on crops for human consumption is not allowable.
A reuse system is analyzed with the scenario that the Jones Tract is purchased for
$30,000 per acre. This is provided in the revised Section 4.0 and Attachment B of the
revised EAA.
Section.4.5 — Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
To provide more detail in the economic evaluation of this permit application, BME has
the EAA, providing more detail describing the system construction and sources for costs.

The proposed treatment technology is a package plant by Purestream ES, LLC. The
proposed plant is a Biologically Engineered Single Sludge Treatment (BESST)
technology plant. This patented process utilizes sludge blanket clarification. The
technology is capable of attaining tertiary treatment limits with special features. The
system has a dual treatment train to allow for duplicity in the system and provide backup
treatment in an emergency situation. This also allows for phasing in of the system by
being able to utilize only half of the system while homes are coming on line.
Equalization basins are provided at the front of both treatment trains to smooth out
"slugs" of wastewater entering the system and reducing system shock. A brochure for
this technology is attached. Pricing for this technology is contingent upon the treatment
limits imposed. The Economic Evaluation (Attachment B) provides for an extra
equalization tank and tertiary treatment filter to meet strict discharge limits. This
information is included in the revised EAA (attached).
Attachment B — Economic Evaluations
The title for this section in our permit submittal should read `Blacksmith -Run". (The
development name changed just before our permit submittal and this "typo" did not get
caught).
Section 4.0 in the EAA has been revised to provide more details regarding what costs are
included and what are the sources utilized for pricing. A revised Attachment B is
provided in the EAA that not only provides the PVCA for additional disposal options but
also considers the impact of the return on investment with regard to each wastewater
treatment and disposal option. A revised copy of the EAA is attached.
We appreciate your review and cooperation with this project. Please contact us (828)
232-4700 if additional information is required. We- look forward to working with you on
this permit application.
Sincerely,
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC
Mark C. Brooks, P.E.
Attachments: Revised EAA
BESST System brochure

,,..) 1.0 Introduction
This Engineering Altematives Analysis (EAA) is provided as part of the
application for a new NPDES permit for the Blacksmith Run development in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105. The purpose of this EAA is to determine
the technical and economic feasibility of wastewater disposal options available
for the development. As part of the 1972 Clean Water Act, discharge to surface
waters is considered only as a last resort.
1.2 Applicant Information
Pertinent information regarding the applicant and this application is as follows.
Property Owner:
NPDES Permit Applicant:
EAA Preparers Information:
1.3 Project Description
Vista Developers, LLC
525 N. Main Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
[phone]
Attn: Ed Nunez
Vista Developers, LLC
525 N. Main Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
[phone]
Contact: Ed Nunez
Brooks & Medlock Engineering
17 Arlington Street
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
Contact: Mark C. Brooks, P.E.
The subject property is located in southeastern Henderson County as depicted in
Figure 1. The two parcels, approximately 47.5 acres and 34.6 acres respectively,
are identified by Henderson County as Tax Map ID Nos. 00969170256055 and
00969172542655. The subject site is currently farm land and vacant fields.
Lewis Creek traverses the northeast portion of the 34.6 acre parcel.
1

q
eon") The development project consists of a proposed 187 single family residential
units on the 82.1 acres. Each of the homes is anticipated to be a four bedroom
house. The site layout as preliminarily approved by the Henderson County
Planning Board is provided as Figure 2. The site water service will be provided
by the City of Hendersonville municipal water system. The proposed wastewater
receiving stream is Lewis Creek.
t"'o,"\
The design flow for the project is calculated to be 89,760 gallons per day (gpd)
based upon 120 gpd/bedroom in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.219.
2

em*) ZO Initial Discharge Determination
Brooks & Medlock Engineering has performed an initial determination regarding
the potential of the receiving stream to accommodate the proposed
developments' design wastewater flow of 89,760 gpd. Initially, the receiving
stream, Lewis Creek, was researched for limiting classifications and the following
determinations were made:
• Lewis Creek has no zero -flow restrictions per 15A NCAC 213.0206 (d)(2);
♦ Lewis Creek has a classification as a Class C Trout Stream;
♦ Lewis Creek is not designated as an impaired stream and has no designated
TMDLs; and
♦ Lewis Creek has no known presence of endangered species.
A basin plan does exist for the receiving stream watershed. The French Broad
River Basin Plan was implemented in 1994 and is due to expire in February
2005. Based upon conversations with local DWQ officials, the new basin plan
will not have a non -degradation clause and is to require less stringent discharge
10� limits than the current basin plan. Given the timing of this application, we would
like to request that this application be given consideration under the French
Broad River Basin Plan effective February 2005.
To address potential deficiencies of the receiving stream regarding flow, BME
staff conducted an investigation by confirming a positive 7Q10 "low stream flow"
for Lewis Creek with the USGS, and then by a field visit with the regional DWQ
representative. These activities are discussed below.
On October 8, 2004 BME staff contacted Mr. Curtis Weaver, PE of the USGS in
Raleigh, NC. Mr. Weaver is the principal engineer in charge of making stream
flow determinations for the Raleigh USGS office. The 7-day 10-year low flow
(7Q10) is the governing stream criteria for wastewater point source discharges
for flow acceptance. Mr. Weaver replied via e-mail that there was an existing
station nearby underneath SR 1722 identified as Station 0344640830. The 7Q10
low flow yield for this site was determined to be 0.35 cubic feet per square mile of
drainage area. The drainage area for Station 0344640830 was determined to be
3

s
2.97 square miles. Mr. Weaver suggested that we use a conservative estimate
of 0.3 cfsm for our site. The proposed discharge point is depicted in Figure 3.
The drainage area for our site is determined to be 5.8 square miles. See Figure
4 for the drainage area as depicted on USGS maps. This results in a low flow of
937,094 gpd. Given the design flow for the Blacksmith Run development plans is
89,760 gpd, less than 10% of the 7Q10 flow, stream flow does not appear to be a
prohibitive factor.
On October 29, 2004, BME staff members and representatives of Vista
Developers met with Mr. Roy Davis of the Water Quality Department's Asheville
regional office. Mr. Davis was able to visually observe the proposed treatment
plant location and Lewis Creek. Mr. Davis indicated that based upon his initial
visit he was unaware of any factors that would prohibit the discharge to Lewis
Creek.
Therefore, based upon the preliminary investigation, it appears there are no flow
or water quality restrictions on Lewis Creek that would immediately prohibit
discharge to surface waters of domestic wastewater with a standard level of
treatment.
4

3.0 Technical Evaluation of Alternatives
3.1 Connection to Existing Waste Treatment Plant
The nearest waste treatment plant is a private system located approximately 1 /2
mile from the subject site. The system is a package plant serving the Henderson
County Justice Academy (NPDES Permit No. NC0086070). This facility's permit
is for 30,000 gpd, but has only been utilizing approximately 5,000 gpd according
to the Asheville NCDENR office. However, the potential additional capacity is not
sufficient to accommodate the Blacksmith Run development.
The second closest access to an existing waste treatment plant is located
approximately 4.5 miles from the subject site and is owned by the Hendersonville
Water & Sewer Authority. According to Mr. Don Sides, Director of
Hendersonville Public Works, the existing 8-inch line identified is currently at
e"41) capacity and would not be able to accommodate flows from a subdivision the
size of Blacksmith Run. Mr. Sides stated that there were no plans to upgrade the
existing line. A letter and map from the City of Hendersonville is provided as
Attachment D to support this statement. The map shows the nearest sewer
connections and location of the nearest WWTP.
A scenario assuming the developer could upgrade the city's system to
accommodate the development addition to the public works system is provided in
Attachment B.
3.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems
The proposed subdivision includes 187 lots on 82.1 acres. The average lot size
is approximately 1/4 acre or less, and the homes are three to four bedrooms.
General guidelines by health departments suggest a minimum of 1/2 acre lots for
an individual primary septic system and repair area.
5

l"h1 The attached (Section 7.0) soils report by a local Registered Soil Scientist
identifies marginal to poor soil conditions at the site for subsurface disposal. Out
of eight pits evaluated across the 80 acres, five areas were classified as
"Provisionally Suitable" with limiting soil conditions too shallow for conventional
systems in 5 out of 8 pits. Two pits were classified as "Unsuitable" with limiting
soil conditions too shallow for any subsurface system. The long term acceptance
rate (LTAR) specked in the pits with enough soil depth for a conventional system
is 0.35 gpd/ft2. For a four bedroom house, the required area for a primary and
repair system is 8,228 ft2, plus another approximate 480 ft2 for setbacks. This
leaves less than 1,292 ft2 to build the house and driveway on a 10,000 ft2 lot. The
lack of space on individual lots, the lack of common greenspace and the poor soil
conditions render individual septic systems an unfeasible option.
For a group system, the 89,760 gpd would require 35.32 acres for primary and
repair drainfield area. This would reduce the number of lots to less than half,
which would render the project financially unfeasible. Additionally, any system
/01'1 over 3,000 gpd has to prove sufficient "conveyance capacity," or lateral hydraulic
conveyance. This is calculated by applying Darcy's Law to the subsurface
horizontal flow. The lack of grade and shallow condition of the confining layer,
identified as a shallow high groundwater table, make the conveyance capacity
very low. Based on the preliminary soils report and several assumptions
concerning drainfield depth, length, and saturated hydraulic conductivity, a single
large drainfield with lateral length maximized would be limited to a conveyance
capacity of approximately 2,475 gpd. The depth to the confining layer is the most
restrictive element in the conveyance capacity calculation. To provide for
adequate conveyance capacity, a depth to confining layer (groundwater) would
have to be 53.3 feet. The soils report indicates a confining layer from 12 to 48
inches. Therefore, the soil conditions render a large on -site septic system as
unfeasible.
3.3 Land Application
emhl A full investigation of the feasibility of a land application system typically
l encompasses the following evaluations.
�-

• Soils Evaluation (to determine application acceptance rates).
♦ Agronomist Evaluation (to determine nutrient balance).
♦ Hydrogeologic Evaluation (to determine water table and lateral flow).
♦ Water Balance Evaluation (to determine storage requirements).
However, the results of the first investigation reveal that there is insufficient
undeveloped land in the proposed subdivision to accommodate land application.
While the soils hydraulic conductivity is typically derived from permeameter and
other hydrogeologic tests for land application permits, the application can
typically be inferred from the LTAR. The application rate is typically one -tenth
the LTAR. The highest LTAR designated in any of the pits analyzed in the soils
report is 0.5 gpdtft2. This would yield an application rate of 0.05 gpd/ft2. The
calculations result in 41.2 wetted acres required for irrigation and an approximate
4.1 acre pond (avg. depth of 6 feet) required for 90 days of storage (see attached
calculations). This leaves less than 36.8 acres for development, before
establishing any setbacks. This is insufficient for half the proposed lots and
infrastructure. Again, the basic land requirement calculations result in this
disposal option as being infeasible for the proposed 187 lot development. Figure
2 depicts the proposed development layout.
No other sizable neighboring property is available for purchase. Vista Developers
has approached adjacent and surrounding property owners in an attempt to
secure additional land for the development. Adjacent property owners include
the Owenby Tract to the west (Pin # 969162552555), Dalton Tract to the west
(Pin # 969163772955), the Dewitt Tract to the north (Pin # 969173832755), and
the Jones Tract (Pin # 969181351655) to the east. These are the only tracts in
the immediate vicinity with enough acreage to potentially accommodate a septic
or land application system. The locations are shown on the attached "Adjacent
and Area Land Uses" map (Figure 1). Each of these property owners were
contacted for possible land acquisition. The Owenbys, Daltons, and Dewitts
specified their property has been family owned for several years and are part of
active operating farms in the area. There was no interest in selling land for
inclusion in the Blacksmith Run. There was some expressed resistance to the
e"*N development on behalf of some of the landowners and therefore their
cooperation was not forthcoming. The Jones' offered their land for sale upon
7

s
inquiry but placed a price on the property that was well above market value.
Vista Developers had paid $15,000 per acre for the two tracts involved in the
Blacksmith Run development. The Jones' were asking $30,000 per acre. The
Jones Tract is 34.46 acres. This acreage is still insufficient for a land application
system (our calculations yield 41 acres required without including the setbacks
and pond). It is unlikely purchasing the Jones tract would allow for land
application as it has an existing commercial establishment and residential homes
on it. This parcel could possibly accommodate a reuse system due to the
significantly reduced setbacks. This is addressed below.
This option was thoroughly investigated it was determined there was no
reasonable potential for sufficient additional land acquisition to accommodate
land application. However, a PVCA is provided in Section 4.0 assuming land
was available, as requested by DWQ.
3.4 Reuse
r"61 The reuse option is similar to the land application option in a domestic residential
development. If treated to tertiary limits, the wastewater can be used as irrigation
water, or any other non -potable use. The same wetted acreage requirements for
land application apply, but the setbacks are minimal if reuse quality effluent is
generated. This still only leaves less than 36.8 acres left for development, which
would accommodate less than half of the proposed lots. There is insufficient
commons area to provide for a reuse system within the development.
The only option in the area for additional reuse options would be to purchase
additional acreage from a neighboring tract. As mentioned above, the Jones
Tract was available, but at a price that was double the market value. However,
an economic evaluation for the scenario of purchasing the Jones Tract for a
reuse system is provided in Section 4.0.

11
3.5 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
As discussed in Section 2, discharge to surface waters is found to be a
technically viable option as the initial evaluation has revealed the following
conditions.
• Lewis Creek has no zero -flow restrictions per 15A NCAC 213.0206 (d)(2).
• Lewis Creek has a classification as a Class C Trout Stream.
• Lewis Creek is not designated as impaired stream and has no designated
TMDLs.
• Lewis Creek has no presence of endangered species.
♦ Lewis Creek is in the French Broad River Basin Plan, but this plan does not
restrict additional point source discharge and the plan is to be amended to
be less restrictive in February 2005.
• The design flow for the project is less than 10% of 7Q10 flow for this portion
of Lewis Creek.
3.6 Combination of Alternatives
Neither the subsurface disposal or land application alternatives were viable for
individual single family homes due to the small lot sizes, and there is basically no
common space for a disposal area serving a cluster of homes. Neither of these
options could service enough homes to significantly reduce the design flow for
the direct discharge to surface water.
The only possible combinations of alternative involve the use of septic on some
lots along with irrigation for others. This is not considered technically feasible
due to the lot size and soil conditions. It is not considered economically feasible
as having a small number of lots on septic does not substantially reduce the size
of complexity of the land application, reuse, or surface discharge system.
/'Ml%�

10. 4.0 Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
The Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) for each disposal option is
provided as Attachment B. The analysis looks not only at the costs for
wastewater treatment options, but also the total infrastructure and land costs for
the development. These total development costs (page 1 of Attachment B) are
provided to demonstrate the cost per lot and provide for the calculation of the
return on investment with each wastewater scenario. The $45,000 sales price
per lot is based upon Vista Developer's market research in the rural east
Henderson County area. A return on investment of less than 20% is typically
unacceptable for any land development company, given the risks of site
development. Any returns shown to be less than this would result in the project
being scrapped and losses would be incurred on the initial investment to date.
The cost basis for the subdivision infrastructure costs is provided as Attachment
E. The infrastructure costs are based upon a professional experience and data
14" collected on previous regional projects. As all of these costs would be incurred
in the initial two years of the development, they are all considered initial costs
and therefore have no time value discounting and are not included in the Present
Value analysis.
As part of the analysis for each wastewater option, the development costs are
added to the PVCA of the wastewater treatment option for a time weighted cost
of development. A return on investment is then calculated for this cost of
development. If the wastewater system option renders the return on investment
below 20%, it is deemed not economically feasible. The return on investment is
35% before any wastewater treatment option costs are added to the total
development costs.
4.1 Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
This alternative was found to be technically not viable as the nearest potential
sewer connection is the Hendersonville Water & Sewer Authority system 4.5
10

miles away and the city has no plans to extend the system or allow any
connections to their system outside of the "urban services area." However, in
the instance that the Hendersonville Water & Sewer Authority would allow
connection to their WWTP (which no plans currently exist), an economic
evaluation is provided for the cost to connect Blacksmith Run to the system.
The route for the sewer extension analyzed is that shown on the Hendersonville
planning map (Attachment D) shown as a proposed future route, to the north of
Blacksmith Run.
The cost for gravity sewer collection in the Blacksmith Run development is not
included in the PVCA, but it is included in the general infrastructure costs for the
development as the collection and pumping system would have to be
implemented with any of the wastewater options, with the exception of individual
septic systems.
The references utilized for the cost basis are as follows:
,� ♦ The price for gravity sewer line is based upon regional data from Buncombe
County Municipal Sewer District's own database. Their records show the
average cost for 8-inch sewer line installation is $61.5/foot. This price
includes surveying, engineering, materials and labor.
♦ The price for pump stations is based upon professional experience where
BME has engineered similar pump stations to NC state standards. The
$100,000 price includes a diesel backup power generator.
♦ The price for pressure sewer line installation ($55/ft.) is based upon regional
data from Buncombe County MSD. This price includes surveying,
engineering, materials and labor.
♦ The costs for easements and legal fees to obtain access is unknown. This
is logistically incomprehensible which is why this scenario is deemed not
feasible. However, given that DWQ wants BME to analyze this scenario,
the costs of legal fees and easements can not be ignored as this cost will be
significant. Our cost estimate is $10,000 per individual property owner that
will be impacted based upon professional experience.
11

As the operation and maintenance of the system would be performed by the City
/l''N of Hendersonville and are of not expense to Vista Developers, these costs are
W
W"
not included in the Present Value analysis.
The results show the Present Value of the cost of the public sewer extension to
be $2,532,234. This is added to the other development infrastructure costs
identified on Page 1 of Attachment B to evaluate the return on investment. The
cost of this wastewater disposal option reduces the return on investment to the
developer to below 2%. This is not a technical or economically viable option.
4.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems
Individual and group septic systems are determined to not be technically feasible
given the existing soil conditions and therefore are not analyzed for economic
feasibility.
4.3 Land Application
Individual and group land application systems are determined to not be
technically feasible without additional land purchase. The only sizable tract
available is the Jones Tract which was offered at $30,000 per acre. This parcel
is 34.5 acres and will not accommodate the estimated 41.2 wetted acres for land
application. As previously discussed, the setback requirements render the
proposed development common grounds unusable for land application so this is
still not a feasible option. However, DWQ has requested BME analyze this
wastewater option as if additional land was available.
The on -site collection and pump system are again the same for any of the
treatment options and this cost is not included in the PVCA, but is considered in
the return on investment analysis. The general infrastructure costs for the
collection system in the development would have to be implemented with any of
the wastewater options, with the exception of individual septic systems, and the
cost is the same with each option, except where otherwise noted.
12

f
Treatment of the effluent is to be performed by an extended air package plant
ea*N system capable of meeting only minimal treatment standards. The package
plant effluent is then distributed to a low head sprinkler system located on
adjacent properties. The sprinkler system will have to be dosed by an additional
pump station.
The cost references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
• The price for pump stations is based upon professional experience where
BME has engineered similar pump stations to NC state standards. The
$100,000 price includes materials, labor, engineering, and a diesel backup
power generator.
• The price for the extended air package plant system is based upon vendor
pricing and includes, materials, installation labor and engineering.
• The price for the land application sprinkler system is based upon vendor
pricing and includes materials, labor and engineering.
♦ Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional experience,
except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor recommendations.
The results show the Present Value of the cost of the public sewer extension to
be $2,748,085. This is added to the other development infrastructure costs
identified on Page 1 of Attachment B to evaluate the return on investment. The
cost of this wastewater disposal option reduces the return on investment to the
developer to 2.7%. This is not a technical or economically viable option.
4.4 Reuse
Reuse systems are determined to not be technically feasible without additional
land purchase. The only sizable tract available is the Jones Tract which was
offered at $30,000 per acre. This parcel is 34.5 acres and will not accommodate
the estimated 41.2 wetted acres for land application. Treating the wastewater to
reuse quality would allow for some of the effluent to be utilized in common
grounds with the 81.7 acres at Blacksmith Run. Therefore this option is deemed
e"6� technically feasible with the purchase of the Jones Tract.
13

The cost for gravity sewer collection is not included in the PVCA, but it is
included in the general infrastructure costs for the development as the collection
and pumping system would have to be implemented with any of the wastewater
options, with the exception of individual septic systems.
The reuse system is similar to the land application system, with the exception
that the treatment plant must achieve tertiary treatment limits. By achieving
tertiary treatment limits, the setbacks are greatly reduced thus reducing the
amount of additional land that must be acquired. The treatment plant effluent is
to be dosed by a pump station to a standard irrigation system with low flow
sprinkler heads located on the Jones tract and in commons areas in the
Blacksmith Run development. The proposed treatment technology is a package
plant by Purestream ES, LLC. The proposed plant is a Biologically Engineered
Single Sludge Treatment (BESST) technology plant. This patented process
utilizes sludge blanket clarification. The technology is capable of attaining
tertiary treatment limits with special features. The system has a dual treatment
train to allow for duplicity in the system and provide backup treatment in an
emergency situation. This also allows for phasing in of the system by being able
to utilize only half of the system while homes are coming on line. Equalization
basins are provided at the front of both treatment trains to smooth out "slugs" of
wastewater entering the system and reducing system shock. The Economic
Evaluation (Attachment B) provides for an extra equalization tank and tertiary
treatment filter to meet strict discharge limits.
The references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
♦ The price for pump stations is based upon professional experience where
BME has engineered similar pump stations to NC state standards. The
$100,000 price includes a diesel backup power generator.
♦ The price for the BESST system is based upon vendor pricing and includes,
materials, labor, engineering, and backup power.
• The price for the land application sprinkler system is based upon vendor
price estimates and includes materials, labor and engineering.
f00R1 ♦ Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional experience,
except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor recommendations.
14

(Electrical costs for the BESST system are less than that of the extended air
/"*"IN system as blower and pump sizes are decreased).
The results show the Present Value of the cost of the public sewer extension to
be $2,311,274. This is added to the other development infrastructure costs
identified on Page 1 of Attachment B to evaluate the return on investment. The
cost of this wastewater disposal option reduces the return on investment to the
developer to below 2%. This is not an economically viable option.
4.5 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
This alternative is identified as technically viable and is analyzed for economic
feasibility. The Present Value of Costs Analysis is provided as Attachment C.
The cost for gravity sewer collection is not included in the PVCA, but it is
included in the general infrastructure costs for the development as the collection
and pumping system would have to be implemented with any of the wastewater
options, with the exception of individual septic systems.
The surface discharge system is similar to the reuse system, with the exception
that the treatment plant effluent is discharged rather than land applied. This
eliminates the need for additional pumping and the irrigation system, and
additional land acquisition.
The proposed treatment technology is a package plant by Purestream ES, LLC.
The proposed plant is a Biologically Engineered Single Sludge Treatment
(BESST) technology plant. This patented process utilizes sludge blanket
clarification. The technology is capable of attaining tertiary treatment limits with
special features. The system has a dual treatment train to allow for duplicity in
the system and provide backup treatment in an emergency situation. This also
allows for phasing in of the system by being able to utilize only half of the system
while homes are coming on line. Equalization basins are provided at the front of
/r'"1 both treatment trains to smooth out "slugs" of wastewater entering the system
and reducing system shock. A brochure for this technology is attached. The
15

Economic Evaluation (Attachment B) provides for an extra equalization tank and
el ') tertiary treatment filter to meet strict discharge limits.
The references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
• The price for pump stations is based upon professional experience where
BME has engineered similar pump stations to NC state standards. The
$100,000 price includes a diesel backup power generator.
• The price for the BESST system is based upon vendor pricing and includes,
materials, labor, engineering, and backup power.
♦ The price for the land application sprinkler system is based upon vendor
price estimates and includes materials, labor and engineering.
• Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional experience,
except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor recommendations.
(Electrical costs for the BESST system are less than that of the extended air
system as blower and pump sizes are decreased).
The results show the Present Value of the cost of the public sewer extension to
14� be $1,248,900. This is added to the other development infrastructure costs
identified on Page 1 of Attachment B to evaluate the return on investment. The
cost of this wastewater disposal option reduces the return on investment to the
developer to 20.5%. This is not a technical or economically viable option.
4.6 Combinations of Alternatives
The only possible combinations of alternative involve the use of septic on some
lots along with irrigation for others. This is not considered technically feasible
due to the lot size and soil conditions and not economically feasible as having a
number of lots on septic does not substantially reduce the size of complexity of
the land application, reuse, or surface discharge system.
iR

AO\
"""'k
,G� �
As^h�eville
y
`.J
��`
r�fMe
Ilr_
mVoncf _I y
•rmluslm 9q�
Farvex
`( -
'Ficlrm Chimp
r
_
�uapin
lPMouMelnyiome�
m Flat R.
NBabem'te�mr� VOLE :F _ _
r }
L-'..,wmanf Eeae
f rx
fiAb'e_
P 1
MMM'"afts
Gle v
i
tiJorhm
� JeIC •'M /Bmnc �
SC.#_s \�\h\
• .. � \' Alm _�•
•Gml
ColumOus ���� '
R � + ounvim lnn
e
• .Penelel E ee -
R4er
orm•. Few inns. oemremam nr mnum W.n... .
Rralp ac chnwn
Note: Extracted from Delorme Mapping Software.
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
Blacksmith Run —Henderson County, NC

461(7� 800 r \ - ` _
/ 9 zss9 J6a0 J s -laze
hill
I III 4. v is 1�JI \�\pp t\ : 4, 2i84 a3id
z9�r 4 ,ftryl 5_r.,-xtf%r`rr--2 '`�•
1 j7� 005�� L \J �� •, .� 0 $1Z4
Yx94`', y� �� +se1$0 r` r e�as-t
�►4'' 24 81 ' - -S 8356 �' ?' . `-�� 2,\a J6(r\
���I 2232 1<i581fi7. I .t . 2�,-�r 1+ `ji9257 •�
19 t ��4fi ,ab86 \I M I 1 1 i, d+
mile 8�07 •.._ '\ '� ��x 8 iii... / 0,61(g '1 214'',,,
7 `�5666 ') 1608 1_ J� k, 7 f .' i / r 1
��'-"'J.:✓r-ate t- tI 1 51 ! /
341Q �..- 4411 r,sg7 il( �- + r a� �l ! .fna5 /<
6320 7209 +' l i13278� a� 9!5 .A9) l J'
❑ l.! ! L 0157 s1• I i q' 19L�2 r.... r ,
1 T
!� • ti 5903 ,�'i a '4''; •^�889(
7828 $a9Y � � -. 7729 5915 ���LLL���--- 4p2'1 1 j �§61 � 6 47 7 i.
Y '•_5329' -tj 68
b {\ .P9�'•=., 1909 I ,/�tQ`�.,`�,f��'�%'- ~!'\ . \615- 1 %f) t am •_ ,1 6SCr✓744iOEP910-�fi146
5300- J27 4248 auY � �
f96i 4f�,'8;0 .ta:74f6>!it61
J032a5 /
i
i
-362757j
T3 5.1.1087f9 i ll
t" 422 5527 24P5
. ti 'n 5426 ; �• ! 1
3332 r J ( �. .. t_ '+� 't. Ply, 045rj
78
82231 r ; ° 55,,120 1 l p \ tr y� i N� o i) 82
r li I,J t1 1 19T•9 -. °113 811� 2 r�. -.lrly.•i?Q2. R _.:
1845
i0� V Ae42
I-Y.7 Li�1ieY'-`��7 'i� 1`i8 �-t7y 15�11t •`r{'%1�:. ry .351� t., 1523)-350t v ,
\• , ty�A103 { • ��1
470.4 r t�lJyO1.�
`� ! +,;1 1 r l r 256 647,, Discharge Point
64 , r
t• t-� `�,q`a\�6- �zs i �' •.• gbaET ) GE
..� � \' ` r 8992\.\ �, 89T�.' ! y _ / / "'Y - 4-7�9757 - `\
nay v )
�� -Ba 1 ! 373-i H7 1'7sa7 9723 ' 4
rr `t 3s90
a6� �J3✓Rl' 137•E j 1.1 Sri.4'i 59 . •�,- 1 y 1479� ' 1\ 242T 049�
9 413
`71:65 . ..•l t • _ J'3 `.., 32sz i 0,2J. 4198,
7�lrs - 7�
? .t 1 e,e2
• 5 +i�.fi grrt.l 1� 1r�12�4=T3.�1 f], t,{ffj
994 r, rr, 1 —'• - �` ��Z[� lam=T— • Tl 1769 8]85
15j� 1.. �J". i 7bOD 71' 1514 8
7450 /� �, 648� 10(1$ � '102`
+t
t230
_ 6139 2143_- 1"�.� r�. �! t•
5.. °'0902I. R.rir .'i%! 3 :'•},� 8928
Scale as shown.
PROPOSED DISCHARGE LOCATION
FIGURE 3
Blacksmith Run -Henderson County, NC
i'►.

Scale as shown.
PROPOSED DISCHARGE LOCATION
FIGURE 5
Blacksmith Run —Henderson County, NC

Scale as shown.
Note: Extracted from Henderson County GIS
FIGURE 6
ADJACENT AND AREA LAND USE MAP
Blacksmith Run —Henderson County, NC

Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from local governments in the issuance
of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the ARRli ant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
■ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
■ If either (or both) local government(s) fails) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government flmdty-,i011 eoydA NG
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes V<] No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes ['�] No [ ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes Pq
No [ ]
!r ,J
Date ���� b f Q �'! Signature
r P104�4irW ireGF
State of , County of
On this U day of personally appeared before me, the said
name ��i¢�i l.� s i'Yll to me known and knpwn to me to be the pers
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) ecuted the s e and m
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires 1,49g .(Signature of Notary
described in
duly sworn
Notary ublic (Official Seal)
EAA Guidance Document Version: October 14, 2004
Page 8of8

BLACKSMITH RUN DEVELOPMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY NC
Present Value Cost Analysis of Feasbile Alternatives
ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS WITHOUT SEWER TREATMENT & DISPOSAL
Subdivision Infrastructure Costs
Item Units No. Units Cost/Unit
Total Asphalt Paving (see Attachment E)
Total Grading & Erosion Control (see Attachment E)
Total Storm Drainage (see Attachment E)
Curb/gutter/flatwork (see Attachment E)
Water System (see Attachment E)
Sewer Collection System (Attachment E)
Lighting, Landscape Common Amenities
Construction Management (2%)
Engineering (40/6)
Contingency (10%)
Land Acquisition Costs
For proposed subdivision
acres 82.1
Total Costs without wastwater treatment & disposal
Number of lots
,em*\ Cost/lot
Anticipated lot price based on market value
Return on Investment without wastwater treatment & disposal
Cost
$451,977
$375,622
$458,282
$573,800
$358,975
$704,160
$683,000
$72,116.32
$147,117.29
$382,504.96
subtotal $4, 207, 555
$15,000 $1,231,500.00
$5, 439, 054.574
187
$29,085.85
$45, 000.000
35.36%
p. 1 of 5

W
I Connection to Existing Sewer System Option
Item
Construction
Installation of Gravity Sewer Line
Installation of Force main Line
Installatin of Pump Stations
Underground Road boring
Easements & Legal fees
Annual Finance Charge ("Carry") Q 6.5% of land costs
(during planning and construction of sewer extension)
Operation & Maintenance
Units No. Units Cost/Unit Cost
feet
1000
$62
$62,000
feet
26400
$55
$1,452,000 `
each
3
$100,000
$300,000
per crossing
8
$5,000
$40,000
subtotal
$1,854,000
lots
64
$10,000
$640,000
per year
$80,047.50
to be performed by Water & Sewer Authority
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + In C11(1+r)'
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct= costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.63%
Incremental
Total
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
PV
0
Engineering & Planning (8% of construction costs)
$148,320
$148,320
$1489320
1
Easements & legal costs
$640,000
$640,000
$788,320
2
33% of construction + annual land carry
$691,868
$691,868
$1,480,188
3
33% of construction + annual land carry
$691,868
$691,868
$2,1729055
4
34% of construction + annual land cant'
$710,408
$710,408
$2,882,463
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal
Number of lots
Cost/lot
Pricetlot
Return on Investment
$8,321,517
187
$44,500.09
$45,000.00
L11
p. 2 of 5

II Land Application Option
item
Units
No. Units
costfunit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Jones Tract)
acres
34.5
$30,000
$1,035,000
Initial Purchase (Owenby Tract)
acres
38.1
$15,000
$571,500
Construction
92,000 gpd extended air system
per
1
$285,000
$285,000
System enclosure & landscaping
per
1
$85,000
$85,000
Addl pump station for irrigation
per
1
$100,000
$100,000
Transfer piping to irrigation fields
ft.
1,000
$35
$35,000
Irrigation line and heads
tin. ft.
12,000
$24
$288,000
Subtotal
$793.000
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Recommended operator checks
per visit
365
$75
$27,375
Laboratory
per visit
48
$100
$4,800
Pump outs
per visit
2
$400
$800
Electrical
per month
I
$5,500
$5,500
Subtotal
.S38,475
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$15,000
$15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
SI58,600
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR LAND APPLICATION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + yn C j(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct= costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.63%
Incremental
Year Expenditure
Cash
PV
0 Engineering & Land Acquisition
$1,606,500
$1,606,500
1 System Construction
$793,000
$750,769
2 O&M
$38,475
$34,486
3 O&M
$38,475
$32,650
4 O&M
$38,475
$30,911
5 O&M
S38,475
$29,265
6 O&M & Capital Improvements
$53,475
$38,508
7 O&M
$38,475
$26,231
8 O&M
$38,475
$24,934
9 O&M
$39,475
$23,511
10 O&M
$38,475
$22,259
11 O&M & Capital Improvements
$53,475
$29,290
12 O&M
$38,475
$19,952
13 O&M
$38,475
$18,889
14 O&M
$38,475
$17,883
15 O&M
$38,475
$16,931
16 O&M & Capital Improvements
$53,475
$22,278
17 O&M
$38,475
$15,176
18 O&M
$38,475
$14,367
19 O&M
$38,475
$13,602
20 O&M - Salvage Value
-$120,125
440,207
Present Value Cost $2,748,085
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal
$8,187,140
Number of lots
187
Costaot
$43, 781.50
Price lot
$45,000
Return on Investment
2 71%
p.3of5

III Reuse Option
�^1
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Jones Tract)
acres
34.5
$30,000
$1,035,000
Construction
92,000 gpd BESST system
per
1
$345,000
$345,000
Add9 Equalization & storage tankage
per
2
$35,000
$70,000
Tertiary Treatment add-ons
per
1
$28,000
$28,000
System enclosure & landscaping
per
1
$85,000
$85,000
Addl pump station far irrigation
per
1
$100,000
$100,000
Transfer piping to irrigation fields
&
1,000
$35
$35,000
Irrigation line and heads
tin. &
12,000
$24
$288,000
Subtotal
$951,000
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Required operator checks
per visit
365
$75
$27,375
Laboratory
per visit
48
$100
$4,800
Aimp outs
per visit
2
$400
$800
Electrical
per month
1
$4,500
$4,500
Subtotal
$37,475
S Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$15,000
$15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
$170,600
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR REUSE SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) a Co + In C ffl+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct= costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
a = ending year of be ity life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.63%
Incremental
Year Expenditure
Cash
PV
0 Engineering & Land Acquisition
$1,035,000
$1,035,000
1 System Construction
$951,000
$900,355
2 O&M
$37,475
$33,590
3 O&M
$37,475
$31,801
4 O&M
$37,475
$30,109
5 O&M
$37,475
$28,504
6 O&M & Capital Improvements
$52,475
$37,788
7 O&M
$37,475
$25,549
8 O&M
$37,475
$24,189
9 O&M
$37,475
$22,900
10 O&M
$37,475
$21,681
11 O&M & Capital Improvements
$52,475
$28,742
12 O&M
$37,475
$19,433
13 O&M
$37,475
$18,39s
14 O&M
$37,475
$17,418
15 O&M
$37,475
$16,491
16 O&M & Capital Improvements
$52,475
$21,962
17 O&M
S37,475
$14,781
18 O&M
$37,475
$13,994
19 O&M
$37,475
$13,249
20 O&M - Salvage Value
4133,125
-W,558
Present Value Cost
$2,311,274
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal $7.750,329
Number of lots 187
Costnot $41,445.61
Priceilot $45, 000
Return on Investment R90%
1
p. 4 of 6

IV Discharge to Surface Waters
Item
Units
No. Units Cost/Unit
Cost
Construction
92,000 gpd Purestream7m
per
1 $345,000
$345,000
Add? Equalization & storage tankage
per
2 $35,000
$70,000
Tertiary Treatment add-ons
per
1 $28,000
$28,000
Construction, including enclosure
per
1 $85,000
$85,000
Subtotal
$528,000
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Required operator checks
per visit
365
$75
Laboratory
per visit
48
$100
Pump outs
per visit
6
$400
Electrical
per month
1
$4,500
Subtotal
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SCENARIO SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + En Ci (1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.63%
Incremental
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
0
System Installation
$528,000
$528,000
1
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
2
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
3
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
4
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
5
O&M & Capital Improvements
$54,075
$54,075
6
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
7
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
8
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
9
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
10
O&M & Capital Improvements
$54,075
$54,075
11
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
12
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
13
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
14
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
15
O&M & Capital Improvements
$54,075
$54,075
16
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
17
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
18
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
19
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
20
O&M - Salvage Value
-$66,525
-$66,525
Present Value Cost $1,248,900
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal
Number of lots
Cost/lot
Price/lot
e"O1 Return on Investment
$6,687,955
187
$35, 764.46
$45,000
20.52%
$27,375
$4,800
$2,400
$4,500
$39,075
$15,000
$105,600
P. 5 of 5

Chambers Soil Consulting, LSS
1629 Kensington Road, Hendersonville, NC 28791
[phone], [phone]
Schambersnbrinet.com
July20, 2004
Re: Preliminary Soil & site evaluations of portions of 60+ acre tracts of property, located
on Highway 64, Edneyville, Henderson County, NC.
Dear Mr. Dalton and Associates,
Soil and site evaluations were performed on the above referenced tract to help determine
the soil types and suitability of the properties for on -site wastewater ground absorption
septic. Determination of suitability uses the NC rules and regulations for sewage
disposal and treatment systems as guidance. The proposed usage is for three to four
bedroom houses on approximately .75-acre lots, with individual septic systems and
municipal water supply. Agents of the potential buyers dug a total of eight test pits for
evaluation.
Landsca a Position and soil morphological conditions
The acreage lies on a southern aspect exposure, with existing and previous old apple
orchard land management. Measured slopes varied between 5% and 25%:" Soils
evaluated are derived from residual and alluvial parent materials. The geology of .the
area is mapped as Henderson Gneiss. g gy
Soils evaluated contain somewhat shallow depths to soil wetness conditions in
instances less than 36 inches to mottles of 10YR6/2. These are the re some
result
morphology of the soils and their likely derivation from older alluvial sources. Mottles
the
found on upper landscape areas may be inactive, y or the result of an underlying perch
layer. Additional studies, test pits, and/or seasonal monitoring are necessary forsuch
determination. �'
Upper subsoils on the larger western tract of property contain sandy clay loam to clay
textures. Compaction layers from previous land management practices were observed in
the upper horizons of pits one and five. Mottles and active soil wetness (redoximorphic)
conditions are typically present in portions of both the argillic and transitional horizons.
A discontinuity of alluvium over residuum is present in pit 3, with suitable
residuum/saprolite from 40 to 52 inches. Pit 4 does show the presence of past land
disturbance of 20 inches of unsuitable fill dirt over unsuitable soil/wetness conditions.
Pits 6 through 8 on the smaller eastern tract of property (especially pits 6 and 7) appear to
have formed from smaller and more recent alluvial sources, as the small stream and creek
flowing from the north have likely dissected the field over time. Soil wetness conditions
are likely to be prevalent to varying depths across the concave portions of the field. The
�1

stream course may have shifted or been intentionally moved to its present location at
some point. Pit 8 is located on' an upper, convexly contoured area, and does represent a
useable soil in regards to soil wetness conditions.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Depths to soil wetness conditions and soil wetness indicators are a concern on the
properties. Under current rules the Health Department will determine the depth to such
conditions at the occurrence of mottles of 6/2 or less. It is difficult to measure the
amount of affected areas, due to the morphology of the soils, and the limited evaluation
of the property. The evaluation is limited because of the few number of test pits
excavated for evaluation by the buyer's agent(s). It is likely that soil wetness conditions
less affects the upper -northern, sloping portion of the acreage. The lower terrace areas
are less predictable and, as witnessed by pits 2 and 4, do contain wetness conditions at
depths less than 36 inches. Soils may be reclassified as provisionally suitable for
alternative or modified systems depending upon their depths to such layers. It is
desirable to have at least 30 inches of soil depth free from wetness conditions. Additional
and further evaluations are recommended prior to acquisition of the properties.
As is typical on such developments, roads, houses, drives, drainage, septic, wells,
utilities, etc. should be strategically placed to meet initial and reserve system space
requirements. The exact maximum or minimum housing density that the property will
support cannot be determined by this preliminary soil analysis. Three to eight suitable
auger borings or test pits should be located in each individual system area.
�..� Engineered systems that utilize pretreatment, or more technical (and expensive)
alternative systems such as LPP and drip irrigation may reduce the amount of available
space needed for initial/reserve systems. Surface and subsurface drainage should be
properly controlled and diverted away from system areas when necessary. It is
recommended that lot lines be placed in drainage -ways or delineated along unsuitable
areas when possible. CSC will be delighted to assist with consultation towards the
development if requested. We may assist further with soil analysis -test pit locations and
descriptions, system design and flagging, saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements,
laboratory sampling,lot line delineation, etc.

r"'N Disclaimer
This report represents my professional opinion about site and soil conditions. Individuals
employed by state and local agencies may interpret soil and site conditions differently.
Differences of opinion may occur. This report does not guarantee or deny system
approvals. Only local Environmental Health officials may issue or deny permits. It is
recommended that individuals understand permit requirements before making financial
commitments on properties. The property features and locations of soil borings are
approximated on the scaled diagram and are not to scale due to lack of surveyed control.
Additional investigations of the proposed area are recommended. Circumstances beyond
my control may create problems that may deny the use of this property as desired. Some
examples of these include cutting and filling, road grading and right of ways, culverts and
drainage, unseen features, restrictive use areas, property line and utility placement.
Sincerely,
Stephen B. Chambers, LSS
e"`ls
14 1

e01*1) CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
Date: 7-18-04
County: Henderson
Sheet Number: 1
Soil /Site Evaluation
Owner/Agent: Mark Dalton
Proposed Facilities: 3-4 Bedroom Houses, .75 Acre+ lots
Location: Highway 64. Edneyville
Water Supply- Private Well Community Well(s) Public x Spring__
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring Pit x Cut
Profile
Landscape
Slope
Horizon
Depth
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Mineralogy
Mottle
Maw
Other Profile
#
Position
%
Inches
Color
Color
Factors
AP
0-9
SL
2 Gr
VFi
Wetness Condition 41'
D:r 1
Linear
r^,.
i one
Bt1
n__
9-14
—
SCL
M
VFi
ss,sp SE
10YR6/4
Soil Depth:
-- -
Pit 2
�^'••'� ^
Sideslope
Linear
Concave
Footslope-
Terrace
��+��i
10%
Lac
Bt3
ix. -.•a
23-41
I a%-J.
CL
WK IJ131C
Wk 1SBK
rr
Fr
ss,sp SE
s,p SE
JUrxa4
Restrictive Horizon
Profile Classification: PS
BC
A
41-43
0-12
CL
SL
Wk 1SBK
2 Gr
Fi
VFr
s,p SE
l0i'R62
LTAR:.35
Wetness Condition
Bt
12-33
CL
Wk 1SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
10YR6/4
Soil Depth: 33'
BC
33-43
SCL
Wk 1SBK
Fi
ss,sp SE
10YR62
Restrictive Horizon
Profile Classification: PS
LTAR:.4 (shallow.pl)
Pit 3
Linear
Convex
Footslope
12%
Ap
0-4
SL
2 Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
4-34
C
M m SBK
Fr
s,p SE
soil Depth: 4W, 46'ead.
BC
34-40
C
Wk ISBK
Fr
s,p SE
10YR6/4
Restrictive Horizon
2C
40-52
SL
M
Fr
-,sp SE
Profile C4sssificatioa PS
LTAR:.3
Pit 4
Linear
Concave
Sideslope-
Adjacent-
Drainag—y
8%
Fill
0-20
SCL
M
Fi
ss sp SE
Wetness Condition M
Apb
20-28
L
1 Gr
Fr
-,sp SE
Soil Depth:
Btl
28-32
SCL
Wk fSBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
10YRW
dtredox
Restrictive Horizon
Btz
32-38
SCL
Wk 1SBK
Fr
-,sp SE
10YR62
Profile Classification: U
LTAK
Pit 5
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
18%
AP
0-4
SL
2 Gr
VFi
Wetness Condition 3V
Bt1
4-10
CL
Wk 1SBK
VW
ss,p SE
Soil Depth:
Btx
10-34
CL
Wk 1SBK
Fr
ss,p SE
10YIW4
Restrictive Horizon
BC
34-39
CL
Wk 1SBK
Fi
ss,p SE
10YR6►4
Profile Classification: PS
LTAR..35
Comments: PS-- rovisionali suitable U Unsuitable rclfd=reclassified as provisionally suitable formodified or alternative
systems. Pits 1 and 5 contain compacted upper horizons from past land use Parent material is old alluvial terrace over residuum
Mottles present in pits 1 and 5 are not active as they are relic from previous alluvial water tables Pit 3 contains discontinui!X of
alluvium over residuum contact is not cemented or hydraulically limiting.•

eool) CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
Date: 7-18-04
County: Henderson
Sheet Number: 2
Soil /Site Evaluation
Owner/Agent: Mark Dalton
Proposed Facilities: 3A Bedroom Houses 75 Acre,, lots
Location: Highway 64, Edne vibe
Water Supply: Private Well Community Well(s) Public x Spring_
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring Pit x Cut
Profile Landscape Slope Horizon Depth
# Position % Inches
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Mineralogy
Mottle
Color
Maw
Color
Other Profile
Factors
Wetnm Condition 33"
Ap 0-6
Linear Bt3 6-33
Pit 6 Concave 10% BC 33-30
Stream
Terrace
SL
2 Gr
VFi
1 SCL
Wk ISBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
1 YRN4
soil Depth:
1 SCL
Wk-ISBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
t0YR602
Restrictive Horizon
Profile aamoiation: Ps
LIAR: S (Shallow place.)
Ap 0-10
Linear Bt 10-24
Pit 7 Concave 8% BCt 24-32
Stream BCz 32-38
Terrace
SL
2 Gr
VFr
Wetneu Condition24'
CL
Wk fSBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
10YR6l3
G•r
d
Soil Depth:
SCL
Wk ISBK
Fi
ss,sp SE
10
tea,
Restrictive Horixon
SCL
Wk JSBK
Fi
ss,sp SE
10YR42
Profile Clauification: U
LTAR:
Ap 0-11
Linear Bt. 11-26
Pit 8 Convex 12% BC1 26-32
Footslope BCz 32-38
2Bt 38-42
SL
2 Gr
VFr
Wetam Condition ar
SCL
Wk ISBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
soil Depth:
SCL
Wk ISBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
10YR6/4
Restrictive Horizon
SCL
Wk iSBK
Fr
Sssp SE
Profile Ckwific-ation: Ps
C
Wk iSBWT
Fr
s,p SE
10"&2
& redox
LTA& M (shaibw.o--)
Comments: -PS-- provisionally suitable U=Unsuitable rclfd-reclassified as provisionally suitable for modified or alternative
systems. Pits Land 5 contain compacted under horizons from past land use Parent material is alluvium -stream terrace

OFFICERS:
Fred H. Niehoff, Jr.
Mayor
-n Stephens
.Aayor Pro -Tern
Chris A. Carter
City Manager
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
'The City of Four Seasons'
Monday, March 21, 2005
WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
Lee Smith, Utilities Director
Mr. Norman. Divers, P.E.
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC
17 Arlington Street
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: - REQUEST FOR SEINER SERVICE - RESPONSE
BLACKSMITH RUN PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL:
BARBARA VOLK
MARY JO PADGM
RON STFpHENs
JON LAuGHrER
Mr. Divers,
During our meeting on Friday, March 18, 2005, we informed you that the City of -
Hendersonville would be unable to. provide sewer service to .the above referenced
project. This project is located off of U.S. Highway. 64.East and will be outside the
"urban; services area." as described 'in the Henderson County Water & Sewer. Advisory
Council's map entitled "Henderson County Water andSewer Master Plan" (dated
6118104).. : The City has agreed- not to serve projects located outside the proposed urban
service area. Although .this master plan has not been officially adopted by all affected
parties; the Hendersonville City. Council agreed -to uphold these boundaries until which
time the master plan is officially adopted by all -parties- This decision. was made during
their regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday$ March 10, 2005.
Please call or write ,if you have additional questions or concerns regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
Lee. . ) Smit , ilities Dir for
cc: Chris Carter, City Manager
Roger Briggs, Planning Director
Dennis Frady, Assistant Utilities Director
Rhonda Wiggins, Administrative Support Specialist
W.Tenied Sewer RequestslBlacksmith Run 032105.doc
305 Williams Street . Phone: [phone]
Hendersonville, NC 287924461 Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail] www.cityofhendersonviUe.org

c
JOB.- Blacksmith Run Subdrvislon - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinlon of Cost
I�
DEPTH(IN)
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
ASPHALT PAVING
---------------------------------
HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT
---------- ----
0 SY
-----------
- ---------------
ABC STONE
8 0 TN
$15.00
$0.00
H-BINDER
2 0 TN
$36.00
$0.00
1-2
2 0 TN
$38.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL HD ASPHALT
$0.00
LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT
36900 SY
ABC STONE
8 16236 TN
$16.00
$259,776.00
H-BINDER
0 0 TN
$0.00
$0.00
1-2
2 3875 TN
$48.00
$185,976.00
SUBTOTAL LD ASPHALT
$445,752.00
ASPHALT CURB
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
STONE PARKING (0 SY)
8 0 TN
$14.00
$0.00
MISC. STONE (0 SY)
0 0 TN
$0.00
$0.00
STRIPING - SEALER - FINISHINGS ($100.00 MINIMUM)
STRIPING
12000 LF
$0.35
$4,200.00
ARROWS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
STOP STRIPES/SIGNS
15 EA
$135.00
$2,025.00
12" LETTERS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HANDICAP SYMBOLS
0 EA
$8.00
$0.00
HANDICAP SIGNS
ON POST
0 EA
$200.00
$0.00
SIGN ON WALL
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
2 SIGNS ON 1 POST
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
WHEEL STOPS/BUMPER BLOCKS
0 EA
$30.00
$0.00
SEALER
0 SY
$0.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL STRIPING
$6,225.00
TOTAL ASPHALT PAVING
$451,977.00
e�%
4

JOB.• Blacksmith Run Subdivision - Maste�/Development Plan Phase Opinlon of Cost
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
--
- ------EXTENDED
EARTHWORK - GRADING
-------------------------------------------
CLEARING & GRUBBING
----
10.5 ACR
-----------
$1,800.00
- ---------------
$18,900.00
DEMOLITION
CURB AND GUTTER
0 LF
$2.50
$0.00
ASPHALT PAVING
1500 SY
$1.00
$1,500.00
BUILDING/BUILDING PAD
1 LS
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
STORM DRAINAGE PIPE/CB's
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
EXCAVATION
CUT AND FILL
15000 CY
$2.00
$30,000.00
BORROW FILL
2500 CY
$6.00
$15,000.00
STRIP TS & PLACE ON SITE
11000 CY
$2.00
$22,000.00
FINE GRADING
66000 SY
$0.30
$19,800.00
POND RESTORATION/IMPROVEMENT
1 LS
$20.000.00
$20,000.00
STAKING/FIELD ENGINEERING
1 LS
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
SUBTOTAL GRADING
$142,700.00
I�
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
�1 EROSION CONTROL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
WASHED STONE
45 TN
$25.00
$1,125.00
FILTER FABRIC
911 SY
$2.00
$222.00
SILT FENCE
12000 LF
$3.00
$36,000.00
INLET PROTECTION @ C.B.
97 EA
$175.00
$16,975.00
DIVERSION DITCHES
8000 LF
$3.20
$25,600.00
CHECK DAMS
500 EA
$150.00
$75,000.00
SEDIMENT TRAPS
8 EA
$6,000.00
$48,000.00
DETENTION BASINS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
MAINTENANCE
1 LS
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
GRASSING - TEMPORARY
10.00 ACR
$1,500.00
$15,000.00
SUBTOTAL EROSION CONTROL
$232,922.00
TOTAL GRADING
$375,622.00
1

JOB.• Blacksmith faun Subdivision - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion of Cost
I�
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
----------
STORM DRAINAGE
---------------------------------
PIPE
---------- ----
-----------
- ---------------
12" RCP
0 LF
$20.00
$0.00
15" RCP
3332 LF
$22.00
$73,304.00
18" RCP
2237 LF
$24.00
$53,688.00
24" RCP
1317 LF
$30.00
$39,510.00
30" RCP
1252 LF
$38.00
$47,576.00
36" RCP
688 LF
$48.00
$33,024.00
42" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
48" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
54" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
60" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
66" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
72" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
FES 12"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
FES 15"
1 EA
$450.00
$450.00
FES 18"
2 EA
$500.00
$1,000.00
FES 24"
6 EA
$600.00
$3,600.00
FES 30"
1 EA
$700.00
$700.00
FES 36"
2 EA
$750.00
$1,500.00
HW 12"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 15"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 18"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 24"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 30"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 36"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 42"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 48"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 54"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 60"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 66"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 72"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE COLLARS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
RIP RAP
935 TN
$30.00
$28,050.00
WASHED STONE
462 TN
$25.00
$11,550.00
FILTER FABRIC
1540 SY
$2.00
$3,080.00
SD PIPE SUBTOTAL
$297,032.00
2

G
JOB: Blacksm/th Run Subdlvlslon - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinlon of Cost
I�
CATCH BASINS
CURB INLET C.B.
97 EA
$1,500.00
$145,500.00
0-6'
582 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
95 EA
$150.00
$14,250.00
DROP INLET C.B.
1 EA
$1,350.00
$1,350.00
0-6'
6 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
1 EA
$150.00
$150.00
OPEN THROAT C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
yam 1
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
MANHOLE C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
TIE-IN TO EXISTING C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL SD STRUCTURES
$161,250.00
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE
$456,282.00
I�
QTY UNIT
PRICEIUNIT
EXTENDED
CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER
18" C & G
0 LF
$10.00
$0.00
24" C & G
28400 LF
$12.00
$340,800.00
30" C & G
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
18" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$9.00
$0.00
24" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$11.00
$0.00
30" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$14.00
$0.00
6" VERT. CONC. CURB (MEDIAN)
500 LF
$9.00
$4,500.00
STONE UNDER CURB & GUTTER
100 TON
$16.00
$1,600.00
CONCRETE ENTRANCES
0 SY
$30.00
$0.00
CURB CUT
0 LF
$4.00
$0.00
ASPHALT PATCHING (ALONG US 64)
10 TN
$125.00
$1,250.00
DRIVEWAY PERMIT FROM NCDOT
1 EA
$50.00
$50.00
SIDEWALKS (5' WIDE) (11,450 LF)
6400 SY
$35.00
$224,000.00
STONE UNDER CONCRETE
100 TON
$16.00
$1,600.00
TOTAL CONCRETE
$573,800.00
3

JOB.• Blacksmith Run Subd/vlslon - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion of Cost
I�
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
UTILITIES
WATER
3/4" DOMESTIC SERVICE (TAP ONLY
187 EA
$225.00
$42,075.00
1" DOMESTIC SERVICE
0 LF
$13.00
$0.00
1-1/2" DOMESTIC SERVICE
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
3" FIRE LINE
0 LF
$14.00
$0.00
4" WATER/FIRE LINE
0 LF
$16.00
$0.00
6" WATER LINE
4300 LF
$19.00
$81,700.00
8" WATER LINE
4600 LF
$22.00
$101,200.00
10" WATER LINE
0 LF
$26.00
$0.00
12" WATER LINE
2000 LF
$35.00
$70,000.00
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY
22 EA
$2,000.00
$44,000.00
BLOW -OFF ASSEMBLY
0 EA
$1,500.00
$0.00
12" WETTAP TO EXIST
1 LS
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
BORE & JACK (US 64)
75 LF
$200.00
$15,000.00
SUBTOTAL WATER
$358,975.00
SANITARY SEWER
4" LATERAL (TAP ONLY TO RAN)
187 EA
$225.00
$42,075.00
6" LATERAL
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
6" PVC MAIN
0 LF
$28.00
$0.00
8" PVC MAIN
11542 LF
$30.00
$346,260.00
10" PVC MAIN
0 LF
$35.00
$0.00
SAN. MANHOLE
83 EA
$1,600.00
$132,800.00
"1
498 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
83 EA
$150.00
$12.450.00
TIE-IN TO EXISTING MH
0 EA
$750.00
$0.00
SANITARY CLEAN -OUTS
187 EA
$225.00
$42,075.00
SANITARY CLEAN -OUTS (Heavy Duty)
0 EA
$550.00
$0.00
SEWER PUMP STATION
1 EA
$115,000.00
$115,000.00
2" SEWER FORCE MAIN
1500 LF
$9.00
$13,500.00
WWTP PACKAGE FACILITY, INCL. BLD
1 EA
$465,000.00
$465,000.00
SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER
$1,169,160.00
TOTAL UTILITIES
$1,528,135.00
f"" N
5

JOB: Blacksmith Run Subdivlslon - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion of Cost
AM
LIGHTING/LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE
1 EA
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
AMENITIES (CLUBHOUSE, ETC.)
1 EA
$500,000.00
$500,000.00
GATEHOUSE/GATES
1 EA
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
FRENCH DRAINS (DRAINAGE/CLEAN-UP)
1 EA
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
PROJECT SUBTOTAL
$4,070,816.00
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (OH
2%
$81,416.32
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING SERVICES
4%
$162,832.64
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
10%
(MASTER/DEV.)
$415,223.23
GRAND TOTAL
$4,730,288.19
Project Cost per Square Foot
467,500 SF
$10.12
Project Cost per Acre
82.04 AC
$57,658.32
Project Cost per Lot
187 LOTS
$25,295.66
(Est. Residential SF @ 2500SF/lot.)
/Omk%