NC0087645_Permit Issuance_20040316

William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
C,
1➢
_r
y
The Honorable Walter L.
Town of Milton
P.O. Box 85
March 16. 2004
Thomas IV, Mayor
Milton, North Carolina 27305
Dear Mayor Thomas:
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Milton WWTP
Permit No. NCO087645
Caswell County
Attached to this letter is the final NPDES permit for the Town of Milton's proposed
wastewater treatment plant, NPDES Permit No. NC0087645. 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.
There have been no significant changes to this permit from the draft permit dated January
7, 2004.
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, Mail Service Center 6714, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of
Water Quality. The Division of Water Quality 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, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or
any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions regarding the NPDES permit, please contact Susan Wilson at
(919) 733 - 5083, extension 510 or Dave Goodrich, extension 517.
cc: Winston-Salem
Central Files
NPDES Unit
Kevin O'Leary
Dennis Lassiter
Sincerely,
;l1vinai Signed
Alan 6mek, P.E.
Regional Office/Water Quality
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
305 West Fourth Street, Suite IA
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
P.E. The Rural Center
4021 Carya Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone]
FAX [phone]
On the Internet at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

Permit No. NCO087645
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Water Quality Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Town of Milton
Milton Wastewater Treatment Plant
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Milton WWTP
Off Doll Branch Road
Caswell County
to receiving waters designated as Country Line Creek in the Roanoke River Basin
in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective May 1, 2004.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2007.
Signed this day March 16, 2004. - ftnd Sped
DOM A• doodd&
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Milton WWTP
NPDES No. NCO087645

Permit No. NCO087645
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge, are
hereby revoked. (The exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this permit. The
authority to operate the facility under previously issued permits bearing this number is no
longer effective.] The conditions, requirements, terms and provisions of this permit
authorizing discharge under the NPDES govern discharges from this facility.
Town of Milton
Milton Wastewater Treatment Facility
is hereby authorized to:
1. After receiving an Authorization to Construct permit for a treatment plant not to exceed
0.025 MGD wasteflow, construct and operate Milton Wastewater Treatment Plant,
located off Doll Branch Road (NCSR 1538) south of Milton, Caswell County, and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into the Country Line Creek which is classified C waters in the Roanoke River Basin.
Milton WWTP
NPDES No. NCO087645

Latitude: 36031'46" Sub -Basin: 03-02-04 .,
Facility a,
Longitude: 79012' 25" Location
Quad #: A22SW, Milton
Stream Class: C
Receiving Stream: Country Line Creek, Roanoke River Basin
Permitted Flow: 0.025 MGD Town of Milton
Milton
North NCO0876 5P

A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration. the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number ,001. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
L=TS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location1
Flow MGD
0.025
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2
30 mg/I
45 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
Influent, Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30 mg/I
45 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
Influent, Effluent
NH3 as N
A dl 1 through October 31
15 mg/I
35 mgll
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1 through March 31
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
H3
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Upstream, Downstream
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
200/100
ml
400/100
ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 ug/I
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C
Weekly
Grab
Upstream, Downstream
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
I Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1 Upstream - at least 20 feet upstream of the discharge: Downstream - Country Line Creek at
Highway 57. Stream samples shall be grab samples and shall be conducted weekly.
a The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4 Residual chlorine shall be monitored/limited if chlorine is used as a disinfectant or elsewhere in the
treatment process.
There shall be no discharge offioating solids or visible foam in other than (race amounts.
Milton WWTP
NPDES No. NCO087645

DAN RIVER BASIN'
Ms. Valery Stephens
NCDENR, DWQ Planning Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Stephens:
P O Box 103
Wentworth NC 27375
336-342-1415
January 26, 2004
Re: NPDES Permit #NC0087645
The Board of Directors of the Dan River Basin Association directed me to
write to you requesting a copy of the draft permit and supporting information for
the above -referenced permit under consideration for the Town of Milton to
discharge treated municipal wastewater into Country Line Creek. According to
the notice in the January 14, 2004 Caswell Messenger, the permit is scheduled
to be issued in mid -February. Please send these documents to me at the above
address.
We also request that you send us notification of any public meetings that
will be held to discuss the proposed permit. I can be notified at the above
address or at members0danriver.org . In addition, please send notification of
public meetings to the chair of our Education Committee,
Forrest Altman
1200 Jack Pointer Road
Semora, NC 27343-9437
musakulu(a)gamewood.net
Thank you.
Sincerely,
T13�ev,
T Butler, Secretary
F E B 2 2004
e-Mel(, COP
42�16I
4rrl�) Vfri8Wti' SOW7
N,-R-,> C'Op�
(1�oiJ�> No A-P/D -to nJ A �
�N µ6n1T 5 F2o nn

Public'
Notice
No A-P�J"� e CEYVM &1jS a
..[oN✓i � I.efrG�iL- r 2oM Dkr" R+Jm_ evv cA .J -5soc.�
AFFIDAVIT OF INSERTION OF ADVER']
The Times -News Publishing Company
i .
JAN 2 0 2004
i
Burlington, NC
Alamance County
1, LINDA GIBSON Legal Advertising Manager of the The Times -News
Co., do certify that the advertisement of NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES
Entitled
Public
Notice
Measuring 98 lines appeared in The Times -News, a newspaper published in
County, Burlington, NC, in issues of January 11, 2004
Legal Advertising
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _1? day of
My commission expires Ma. +., 2pp&)
State of North
Carolina
Environmental
Management
Commission/
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699.1617
Notification Of Intent
To Issue A NPDES
Wastewater Permit
On the basis of thorough
staff review and application
of NC General Statute
143.21. Public law 92-500
and other lawful standards
and regulations, the North
Carolina Environmental
Management Commission
proposes to issue a Nation-
al Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater dis-
charge permit to the par-
son(s) listed below effeo-
if" 45 days from the pubes
fish date of this noftca:,_µ
_Written comments 'regard
Ing the Proposed permit wig
be accepted until 30 days
after the publish date of this
notice. All comments re-
ceived prior to that date am
considered in the final de-
terminations regarding the
proposed permit. The Dk
rector of the NC Division of
Water Quality may decide
to hold a public meeting for
the proposed permit should'
the Division receive a sig.
nificant degree of public In-
terest.
Copies of the draft permit
and other sypporting infer•
mallon on file used to de-
termine conditions present
in the draft permit are avail.
able upon request and pay
ment of the costs of repro-
duction. Mail comments
and/or requests for info(-
mation to the NC Division
Of Water Quality at the
above address or call Ms.
Valery Stephens at
919-733-5083, extension
520. Please include the
NPDES permit number
(attached) in any communi-
cation. Interest persons
may also visit the Division
of Water Quality at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh,
NC 27604-1148 between
the hours of 8:00 a.m, and
5:00 P.M. to review infor.
mation on file.
Public The Town of Milton, PO
Box 815, Milton, NC 27305,
has applied for a new
NPDES permit.
(NC0087645) for the dis-
charge of treated municipal
wastewater. The facility
will be permitted to dis.
charge up to 0.025 MGD of
treated wastewater into
Country Line Creek, a
class C stream in the Roa.
noke River Basin. Ammo-
out and chlorine are water
quality limited. This dis.
charge may impact future
discharge in this portion of
the river basin.
January 11th, 2004

Re: Milton
S,
Subject: Re: Milton
From: Mike Mickey <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:46:03 -0500
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
A hard copy works for me and you are correct about no adverse comments. Maybe Larry
C. will take me fishing now. MMM.
Susan Wilson wrote:
hi Mike! hope you have recovered from the holiday's and haven't been too slammed with
work. way back before the holiday - we came to some agreement with the EAA for Milton
(after the town agreed to drop the flow down to 0.025 MGD). It is going to notice today
(and we can speak in more detail about it over the phone if you'd like). I'll send you a
copy of the fact sheet and draft permit. would you like those via e-mail or hardcopy?
With the drop in flow - their summer ammonia limit gets a bit higher - so the wetlands
system may be a satisfactory option. BOD5 should not be a problem (30 mg/1). I'll need
to send Lisa an e-mail today because we have the document in a piece -meal fashion and
we would like it consolidated into one complete document. they basically resolved most
of our questions/concerns.
you know, i had your staff report out yesterday and now i can't find itl this is - driving me
crazy. i think i recall that you had no adverse comments on the original submittal
(although you deferred to us on the EAA?) is that correct? - of course - by the end of the
day i'll probably lay hands on the staff report.
Mike Mickey
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone] ext 264
FAX: [phone]
1 of 1 1/7/2004 1:48 PM

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0087645, Town of Milton/ Milton WWTP
Facility Information
Applicant/FacilityName:
Town of Milton/ Milton WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 85, Milton, NC 27305
Facility Address:
Off Doll Branch Road (speculated)
Permitted Flow
0.025 MGD
Type of Waste:
100% Municipal (domestic and minor non -domestic flow)
Facility/Permit Status:
New Application
County:
Caswell
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Country Line
Creek
Regional Office:
WSRO
Stream Classification:
C
SI: 22-56-(3.7)
Quad
A22SW
Milton
303(d) Listed?:
No
Permit Writer:
S. Wilson
Subbasin:
030204
Date:
January 2003
Drainage Area (mf2):
138
Summer 7 10 (cfs)
0.7
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
6.0
Average Flow (cfs):
124
IWC (%):
5.25
Primary SIC Code:
4952
SUMMARY
The Town of Milton and its consultants originally applied for the new permit in August 2001
(speculative limits were given to the Town via letter dated April 10, 2002). The project was
returned as incomplete or inadequate several times due to lack of information with the
engineering alternatives analysis (EAA). The main contention with the EAA was the estimation
of design flow. The Mayor and the Town agreed in October 2003 to scale back the project (and
subsequent design flow) from 0.05 MGD to 0.025 MGD. DWQ agreed with this projected flow,
as it accurately estimated flow based on 20-year population projections for the Town and
Caswell County. The EAA was revised to reflect this design flow (0.025 MGD).
Based on the soil scientist's report, approximately 14 acres around Doll Branch was evaluated
(per the Mayor, this is the only land that was available to the Town for purchase). Of that
acreage, only approximately 4 acres were deemed viable for spray or drip (not enough to
support the entire flow of 0.025 MGD). Additionally, the NPDES Unit required the consultant
to evaluate the cost of spray/drip if land were available; both costs were well above the cost of
a direct discharge.
Connection to a POTW (Danville, VA) was deemed cost prohibitive in comparison to the
discharge option. Connection to the Danville sewer line would require appx. 48,000 ft (9 miles)
of force main.
The most environmentally sound/economically feasible alternative was determined to be
wastewater treatment, followed by direct discharge to the Country Line Creek.
The discharge will be located approximately 1 mile upstream of Highway 57 on Country Line
Creek. Country Line Creek is designated as a Class C waterbody. The creek flows to the Dan
River in the Roanoke River Basin. This discharge eventually flows into the state of Virginia and
then back into North Carolina.
The Town proposes to use a lagoon/constructed wetlands treatment system with disinfection.
The viability of this system will be thoroughly evaluated when the Town applies for an
Authorization to Construct permit.
Milton WWTP
Proposed NPDES Permit
Page I

TOXICITY TESTING:
This is primarily domestic wastewater (with minor non -domestic flow typical of a small town).
No toxic effects are predicted and no toxicity testing is recommended. The potential toxicants
in domestic wastewater (ammonia and chlorine) are specifically limited in the permit to protect
aquatic life.
PROPOSED LIMITS:
A Level B model was performed for this discharge and yielded secondary limits
(30/30) with a water quality based ammonia limit. The Level B model was run
previously for flows of 0.025 MGD (letter dated June 15, 1998) and 0.05 MGD (letter
dated April 10, 2002). The speculative limits given for the flow of 0.025 MGD are
still applicable. The facility will also receive a water quality based chlorine limit.
Flows for Country Line Creek were derived from the USGS publication, Low -Flow
Characteristics and Profiles for Selected Streams in the Roanoke River Basin, North
Carolina, WRRI Report 96-4154.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Instream monitoring for temperature and DO will be required. The model does reflect a slight
DO sag, so instream monitoring will be required to further assess the impact of the discharge.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: Public Notice by January 7, 2004 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: March 1, 2004 (est.)
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Susan Wilson at [phone] ext. 510.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
The WSRO (Mike Mickey) had no adverse comments on the project at the time of the original
application. A hard copy of the draft and this fact sheet have been forwarded to WSRO for
review.
Aa,-- DATE: 1 /10
Milton WWTP
Proposed NPDES Permit
Page 2

NC0087645
Facility: Milton WWTP
Discharge to: Country Line Creek, C sT ; 22- 5-6 - (3.7�
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.7
7Q10 (CFS)
0.7
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.025
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.025
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.03875
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.03875.
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 (%)
5.25
IWC (%)
5.25
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
324.10
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
15.09
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
6
Fecal Limit
200/100m1
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.025
Ratio of 18.1 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.03875
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (%)
0.64
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
246.45
For Minor domestic -type facilities:
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

NC DENR- DIVISON OF WATER
.0313 ROANOKE RIVER
QUALITY
BASIN
2B .0300
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No.
Hostler Branch
From source to Country
WS-II HQW
08/03/92
22-56-2
Line Creek
Nats Fork
From source to Country
WS-II HQW
08/03/92
22-56-3
Line Creek
Country Line Creek
From a point 0.5 mile
WS-II HQW CA
08/03/92
22-56-(3.5)
(Farmer Lake)
upstream of mouth of Nats
Fork to dam at Farmer Lake
(Town of Yanceyville water
supply intake)
Country Line Creek
From dam at Farmer Lake to
C
08/03/92
22-56-(3.7)
Dan River
Fullers Creek
From source to a point 0.8
WS-III
04/01/01
22-56-4-(1)
mile upstream of Yanceyville
water supply dam
Fullers Creek
From a point 0.8 mile
WS-III CA
04/01/01
22-56-4-(2)
upstream of Yanceyville
water supply dam to
Yanceyville water supply dam
Fullers Creek
From Yanceyville water
C
08/03/92
22-56-4-(3)
supply dam to Country Line
Creek
Jail Branch
From source to Country
C
03/01/77
22-56-5
Line Creek
South Country Line
From source to Caswell
C
09/01/57
22-56-7-(1)
Creek
County SR 1759
South Country Line
From Caswell County SR
B
07/01/73
22-56-7-(2)
Creek (including
1759 to proposed dam located
proposed Country Line
0.1 mile, more or less,
Watershed Project
downstream from Caswell
Structure # 4
County SR 1736
impoundment below
normal pool elevation
490.0 feet MSL)
Byrds Creek
From source to Caswell
C
09/01/57
22-56-7-3-(1)
County SR 1751
Byrds Creek
From Caswell County SR
B
07/01/73
22-56-7-3-(2)
1751 to South Country Line
Creek
Penson Creek
From source to N.C. Hwy. 62
C
09/01/57
22-56-7-4-(1)
Penson Creek
From N.C. Hwy. 62 to South
B
07/01/73
22-56-7-4-(2)
Country Line Creek
Burkes Creek
From source to N.C. Hwy. 62
C
09/01/57
22-56-7-4-3-(1)
Burkes Creek
From N.C. Hwy. 62 to
B
07/01/73
22-56-7-4-3-(2)
Penson Creek
10

Re: milton
Subject: Re: milton
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:45:43 -0500
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Yes. What I'd like you to do is be specific about how they should modify their EAA in the
draft permit cover letter. I'll let Steve know that we'll handle it this way unless you don't
think we should go that route. This is another we could discuss tomorrow if you'd like.
Susan Wilson wrote:
Dave - do i need to get Milton ready for notice? do they know what they need to submit?
do i need to get up with Lisa?
4 off- nloi�c�v �o(L Tbot&©ReoW e in.p�lc SA-
1 of 1 1/5/2004 4:49 PM

NPDES Permitting update
Subject: NPDES Permitting update
From: "Lisa Alley" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:27:23 -0500
To: "walter thomas \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "kevin oleary"<[e-mail]>, "larry coble"
<[e-mail]>, "steve cavanaugh"
<[e-mail]>, "Allen Hart \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>,
"Dennis Lassiter \ (E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Jean Crews -Klein
\(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Julie Haigler \(E-mail\)"
<[e-mail]>, "Dave Goodrich \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>,
"Susan Wilson \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Tom Belnick \(E-mail\)"
<tom. belnick@ncmail. net>
Dave Goodrich responded to Steve Cavanaugh today at 11:00 this morning. He
apologized for the delay in his response. They are planning to take the draft NPDES
Permit for Milton to public notice in the next publication which is January 7th. If there are
no substantial comments, they will issue the permit March 1 st_
Vilwill hold on until just after the public notice is released on January 7 the. Shortly after
that (around January 15th), we would like to schedule a meeting with the Town and the,
funding agencies. This meeting will be a project review and scheduling meeting.
Lisa R. Alley, P.E.
Winston-Salem Office Manager
Cavanaugh & Associates P.A.
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1-A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[e-mail]
www. cavanaughsolutions. com
Ph.: 336/759-9001
Fx.: 336/759-1005
1 of 1 12/18/2003 10:50 AM

From: "Lisa Alley" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:17 -0500
To: "Dave Goodrich \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "kevin oleary"<[e-mail]>, "larry coble"
<[e-mail]>, "steve cavanaugh"
<[e-mail]>, "Allen Hart \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>,
"Dennis Lassiter \ (E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Jean Crews -Klein
\(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Julie Haigler ME -mail\)"
<[e-mail]>, "Tom Belnick \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "walter
thomas \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>, "Susan Wilson \(E-mail\)"
<susan. a.wilson@ncmail. net>
Steve wanted me to confirm his follow up voice mail to you this afternoon about Milton.
Please provide us with a written status of where this project stands from the regulatory
perspective. It's been quite some time since we've heard any update from you or Susan
Wilson. We need to schedule a meeting with the Town and the funding agencies to
discuss future progress on this project. We need to hear something from you soon. We
do understand from your outgoing voice mail message yesterday and also again today that
you are in this week. Please let us hear something from you.
Lisa R. Alley, P.E.
Winston-Salem Office Manager
Cavanaugh & Associates P.A.
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1-A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
'[e-mail]
wvvw. cavanaughsolutions. com
Ph.: 336/759-9001
Fx.: 336/759-1005
1 of 1 12/ 18/2003 10:50 AM

Pu E<,.,7%o A!,-tg Le
�s (Pca,�
/0
llw�
19 t7l wit- tzpc l-1 w 4o-jclG ag-
7x
M,-/
AeG fJOT- *My)
�o �AoC

r..r
GKEX88/MP
08/19/1999 '
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 2
PERMIT--NC0001121
PIPE--004
REPORT PERIOD:
9807-9906 LOC --- E
FACILITY--VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY
DESIGN FLOW-- 5.0000 CLASS--2
LOCATION--ELIZABETHTOWN
REGION/COUNTY--06 BLADEN
01034
01042
01051
01067
01077
01092 78141
MONTH
CHROMIUM
C R
LEAD
NICKEL
SILVER'
ZINC TTO
LIMIT
F .3800
F .4500
.0900 F
.5200
F .0500
F .3200
98/07
.0320
.0120
LE HAN
.122
ESSTHAN
.0302
98/08
.0160
.0100
LESSTHAN
.1600
LESSTHAN
.2200
LIMIT
F .3800
F .4500
F 09 F
.5200
F .0500
F .32.0-U--�
98/09
.0100
.0100
LESST
000
LESSTHAN
:3800'
98/10
.0100
LESSTHAN
L STHAN
.10 0
LESSTHAN
.2600
98/11
.0100
LESST
LESSTHAN
:120
LESSTHAN
.2600
98/12
.0100
LESS
LESSTHAN
.1000
ESSTHAN
.1800
99/01
.2400
.0150
.1400
IjESSTHAN
�.4400p-
99/02
1.-2-800F .0800
LESSTHAN
.1950
ESSTHAN
.5600F ^-
99/03
.180
.1400
.0200
.0300
.0200
.9700F `;
99/04
.00 0
-.4600F .0000
.0000
.0000
_.43�00_F
99/05
.2 00
.0300
LESSTHAN
.050
LESSTHAN
.6200F�� -
-�--
99/06
C200
.0400
.0100
.0 00
LESSTHAN
--
.55�•,_
AVERAGE
681
.0977
.0112
989
.0100
.4083
MAXIMUM
1.2 00
.4600
.0200
.1950
.0200
.9700
MINIMUM
.0 00
.0100
.0100
.0300
.0200
.0302
UNIT
LBS/ Y
LBS/DAY
LBS/DAY
S/DAY
LBS/DAY
LBS/DAY

OCT-15-2003 WED 04:35 PH CAVANAUGH & ASSOC. PA
FAX NO. 3367591005 P. 91
CAVANAUGH
Solutions through integrity and partnership
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
305 West 4th Street, Suite 1A
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
336/759-9001 Fax [phone]
www.cavanaughsolutions.com
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: pftUE G,c�o�(z�c Svst4til
Company: Pep- (, — 1�vJQ
Fax Number: l `;`G `T 33 C>7I11
From: 1—v5/k ALLE\(
Date: 2-c)03
Re: ep-,R
Project No.:
No. of Pages (including Cover): Z
Comments:
W I Ls") n1

OCT-15-2003 WED 04:36 PM CAVANAUGH & ASSOC, PA FAX NO. 3367591005 P. 02
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandFC.com
October 1, 2003 `
Project #7751
qRA
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
Attn: Mr. Kevin O'Leary
8064.63 North Point Boulevard
Suite 102
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Dear Mr. O'Leary:
You have requested that I comment on the status of the proposed disposal area for the town of Milton. My
original report was perforated using a daily Bow of 50,000 gallons. Your new request is to summarize the
possibility of use if the flow were reduced to 25,000 gallons/day.
The proposed wetted area on my map includes 4.439 acres before any additional setbacks are subtracted. If
this site proves Itself to take a liberal maximum rate of 31 inches per year, the amimum annual How would
be 3,731,923 gallons or 10,224 gallons/day. ]t would be unreasonable to think that a hydraulic load of
25,000 gallons/day should be applied to this site!
Sincerely,
7amesL. Beeson
Charlotte Office: GreansboreOOice: HiGkoly Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-C Lawndale Drive 622 Coon Mountain Lane
Concord, NC 28025 Greansbore. NC 27455 Tayloisville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

4)11) h®
HOTEL HIGH POINT
ZS poOcipp - ra u#1 oC 7NLs — P-� sue_
-L,-, -emu s_ -L
P.
7w T
�L'ef
a
* gip` r�
"� r
135 South Main, High Point, North Carolina [phone]

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
September 18, 2003
Mr. Jaya Joshi
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Joshi:
This letter is in response to a request by Cavanaugh and associates to address questions
from both you and Susan Wilson concerning the Soils report for the potential spray area
for the town of Milton. Originally I was asked to evaluate approximately 14 acres
located on Doll Branch Road. The daily flow at the time was to be 50,000 gallons per
day. I was told that the engineer had attempted to perform the soils evaluation, which
was denied by your office. I suspected that the request stemmed from your requirement
that all other possible disposal options be exhausted before a discharge permit is issued.
The engineer requested a minimum of time to be spent in order to establish that the site
would not dispose of 50,000 gallons of water per day. I was also told that the site would
be normal spray or drip quality which would require a minimum setback of 50 feet to
property lines and 100 feet from bodies of water.
I evaluated the entire tract! The issued report identified the wetted area in a hatch
pattern. The report stated that the entire tract was evaluated. Areas left un-hatched do
not meet the State regulations either due to soil, landscape, or buffer regulations. I also
stated on the map and in the report that the map did not include all of the buffers. One in
particular would be the well on the property in front of this property. Also I was not
given a map of surrounding houses or wells at the time of the evaluation.
I have read your response to Cavanaugh and associates and attempted to adequately
address each of your concerns. I have listed those concerns below and each has a
response immediately following. - -
1" concern:
1. Why did they evaluate just a portion of available area but not the
whole area for site suitability? The map submitted does not show any
S E P 2 3 2003
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office: Hickory Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive 622 Coon Mountain Lane
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

property boundary, soil, or buffer related issues that would limit the
use of the whole land area. In other word, they need to show various
limitations on the map and have them clearly marked with legends.
Response:
As my letter to Susan Wilson stated on Augst 6`s, that some of the area is too wet for
surface application, other areas have complex topography, and others lay inside of the
buffer to the property line. These are obvious constraints if you have visited the site.
2°d concern:
2. Speaking of the map, the map I looked at is marked " Not Valid". I am
not sure if it was still in a draft version. We would need a final,
complete map to evaluate the site.
Response:
I have included a sealed copy of the original map that was sent to the engineer. Please
find enclosed.
P concern:
3. Once again, I am not sure what their daily flow is (50, 000 or 20,
000 gallons), and what size system they are proposing.
Response:
The only proposed daily flow that I have been given is 50,000 gallons/day.
0 concern:
4. I do not have a soils report for Caswell county. For a couple of
other counties where they have cecil soil, the permeability for the most
restrictive horizon is listed a 0.6 to 2.0. Please include a copy of the
soils report that states .06 to 0.2 as peremability of B horizon. We
would appreciate a copy of such page from the soil survey report or any
measurements that were done to derive these rates.
Response:
You do not have a copy of the Caswell County soils report because none exists at the
present time. If you will notice permeability rates do not vary from county to county for
the Cecil series. These rates are not re -characterized for each county. You observation is

correct that the drainage rate is less than 5% of the minimum permeability rate for the.
Cecil series. However, I feel that the assigned rate is more than generous. It has been my
experience that 50% to 60% of the annual precipitation should be the maximum for
surface applications in the piedmont. In fact, if this area were to be used Ks`
measurements should be taken on the site. The number used for the report calculation is
what I would consider to be a realistic maximum annual application rate.
In conclusion, this report was provided in order to evaluate whether or not
50,OOOgallonslday flow could be applied to this site. As my report concludes I think that
it is unrealistic to think that this amount could be applied to this site. If your conclusions
contradict my conclusions I am available for questions. If the daily flow is different than
that which I was instructed to use than this report should not be used for other
conclusions. My original report included detailed profile descriptions and a map of the
wetted area. Please call me direct. if you would like any other necessary information.
sort
Sincerely,
1114
James L. Beeson
919-846-5900�
Cc: Mrs. Susan Wilson
Division of Water Quality
1617 mail service center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Cc Mr. Kevin O'Leary
Cavanaugh & Associates, PA
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1 A
Winston-Salem, NC 27107

RE: Milton NPDES permitting update
Subject: RE: Milton NPDES permitting update
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:21:34 -0400
From: "Lisa Alley" <lalley @cavanaughsolutions.com>
To: "'Susan A Wilson"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Dave Goodrich"' <[e-mail]�?
"kevin oleary"<[e-mail]>,
"steve cavanaugh" <[e-mail]>
Susan, thank you for your response. We look forward to hearing from you soon so that we can keep this project
moving forward.
Lisa R. Alley, P.E.
Winston-Salem Office Manager
Cavanaugh & Associates P.A.
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1-A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[e-mail]
www.cavanaughsolutions.com
Ph.: 336/759-9001
Fx.: 336/759-1005
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan A Wilson[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:03 PM
To: lisa alley
Cc: Dave Goodrich
Subject: Re: Milton NPDES permitting update
Lisa,
My apologies, I was only just now able to check my voice mail - Dave left me a voice mail and I also got
Steve's. Dave said to call or send you an e-mail, as he ran out of time before leaving (and he had
originally planned to call Steve yesterday).
Dave and I discussed the project on Monday. There are still some items I need to look at in a bit more
detail, so Dave and I will likely discuss again when he returns. Generally, we were pleased and satisfied
a
I of 2 10/ 15/03 3:4' /

RE: Milton NPDES permitting update
with the population projections and subsequent flow projections (which should lay to rest Items 1 and 2 of
the 9/15/03 letter); we appreciate the Town's efforts in making that decision, as we know it was not an
easy one from their standpoint. We are also satisfied that the 'averaged' costs for the PV calculation were
eliminated (puts to rest Item 4). The average acreage cost has been corrected and we're satisfied with that
(Item 6).
I would prefer not to respond in a piece -meal fashion regarding some of the items (as I said before - I need
to look at a few things more closely), but if you're waiting for our response, a couple of things you may
wish to look at in the meantime are Items 6 and 3. I do not see any calculations using the EPA loading
rates for the constructed wetlands. I would also read your soils scientist's letter closely (esp. the last two
paragraphs of the Sept. 18 response).
We plan to get back with ya' 11 in a more formal manner early next week.
Susan
Lisa Alley wrote:
Just to keep you updated...
At 11:15 a.m. today (Wednesday, October 15, 2003) Steve Cavanaugh left voice mail messages for Dave Goodrich and Susan Wilson inquiring about the status of
the Milton EAA.In Steve's last discussion with Dave last Wednesday, Dave informed him that the group review of the project was to take place last Friday and that he
would call with an update Monday.We did not get a call so Steve called today.Neither Dave nor Susan were available.Hopefully we will receive a return call from one
of them by Friday.(According to Dave's voice mail message, he is out today and tomorrow.)
Lisa R. Alley, P.E.
Winston-Salem Office Manager
Cavanaugh & Associates P.A.
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1-A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[e-mail]
www.cavanaughsolutions.com
Ph.: 336/759-9001
Fx.: 336/759-1005
\t)1'2 10/ 15/03 3:42 PM

CAVANAU G H
September 08, 2003
Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re.: Milton Sewer Project
Caswell County
C&A No.: MT9901
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
This letter outlines the concerns brought forward by DWQ during a meeting on April 301h,
2003 and during a subsequent conversation between Dave Goodrich and Steve
Cavanaugh on September 3, 2003. The purpose of this letter is to address each of the
concerns with a specific action. It is hoped that with this letter it will be possible to obtain
feedback regarding the measures taken as outlined in this letter within five business
days. After which the final Engineering Alternatives Analysis will be submitted for
approval.
This letter is divided into three sections. The first section outlines the concerns raised
during the April 301h, 2003 meeting. The second section outlines the concerns raised
during the conversation with Steve Cavanaugh on September 3, 2003. The final section
outlines changes that have been made to the Engineering Alternatives Analysis after
thorough reexamination.
COMMENTS FROM APRIL 30`h MEETING (see attached Summary of Meeting):
In regards to the land acquisition cost, NPDES Permitting no longer has an issue about
the $5,000 per acre cost.
The $6,955 per acre cost was derived from recent local property values and was
considered a fair and accurate representation of the cost required for land at the
project's proposed site. However the use of $6,955 per acre in the Engineering
Alternatives Analysis was a misunderstanding. The issue of using actual land
cost was thought to be acceptable at this point in time. Therefore, the land cost
has now been changed to $5,000 per acre.
"Rural Center will require 2 appraisals on any land purchased for the plant site. "
This will be performed prior to any land purchase
"Milton needs to exhaust any hope of property acquisition adjacent to the current
optioned property. There needs to be documentation in writing either from the land
owner or by the Mayor that other adjacent property is not available. "

Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
September 8, 2003
Re: Milton Sewer Project, Caswell County, C&A No.: MT9901
Page 2of4
A letter from the Mayor stating such will be included with the EAA submission.
"Susan requires log boring sheets to be included in the soils report." and "The map
included in the soils report must show suitable, provisionally suitable and unsuitable
soils. If there are no provisionally suitable soils, the soil scientist needs to state this."
and "DWQ found it interesting that the only bores shown on the soils report map are
located in the area where suitable soil was found.."
Log boring sheets have been requested from the Soils Scientist. The included
map, although it does not show bore logs, show the portions of the property that
have been deemed unsuitable for land application of treated effluent. This
judgment of land unsuitability has been made mainly due to topographical
constraints. A copy of the letter from the soils scientist outlining this is included
in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis. This letter was the result of a
conversation between the soils scientist James Beeson and Susan Wilson of
DWQ.
"DWQ will not allow use of peak flow for the engineering alternatives analysis which was
new information to Cavanaugh. DWQ apologized for this oversight but they require the
EAA to be based on monthly average discharge even though components of the
treatment system must be sized to accommodate peak flows."
The analysis has been changed to accommodate monthly average discharges
(average daily flow). Two methods for estimating flow were acknowledged as
being acceptable for DENR and copies of the pertinent correspondence will be
included in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
"DWQ will not allow the entire 20 acre property to be a factor in the cost analysis of the
package plant option regardless of whether the property can or cannot be subdivided. ►►
The property for each alternative has been adjusted to account for the required
area for each alternative. However it should be noted, that according to the
owner of the property and the Mayor of Milton, that the whole parcel will not be
subdivided for this project and the entire parcel will be sold whole. This eventual
purchase of the entire piece of property has been acknowledged by DWQ.
"DWQ does not want room for expansion of the proposed plant to be factored into the
EAA as well.'►
Expansion room has not been included in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
"In our re -analysis of the options, DWQ will not require Cavanaugh to look at
downstream properties for possible locations for a treatment facility."
No other properties have been examined.
"DWQ will not allow the 33% flow "buffer" for future growth without substantial
justification. Milton must show type of development and a list of the types of inquiries
they have received regarding development. DWQ feels that 90-20% is more reasonable
but if we can justify the 33%, they are fine with that as well."

Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
September 8, 2003
Re: Milton Sewer Project, Caswell County, C&A No.: MT9901
Page 3 of 4
No flow buffer has been added to the actual flow projections. The purchase of a
50,000 GPD package plant allows for an approximate 10 percent buffer as is.
NEW COMMENTS:
Provide loading rates using new soil data
A new soils survey should not be required for the following reasons: the
unacceptable land of the proposed property was ruled such primarily because of
topographical reasons. The remaining portion of the property was examined via
boreholes. There has been some questions raised regarding some of the
aspects of the soils report and these have been addressed somewhat in the
conversation between the soils scientist and Susan Wilson of DWQ. A copy of
the letter responding to this conversation is included. The letter explains the
reasoning behind the presentation of the soil report. In summary, the areas
outside of the usable area was deemed unusable mainly for topography reasons.
Provide spray irrigation versus drip
We provided what we considered a logical justification to stop the spray irrigation
analysis where we did. The spray irrigation method requires more land, and is
typically more expensive to operate and maintain. However, the analysis of the
spray irrigation is included as option C-2.
Justify surveying cost differences between connection to Danville and constructed
wetlands and package plant
The difference in surveying costs is a result of the type of information required at
each site. The connection to Danville although covering a larger distance, will
require roughly the same amount of work as the smaller sites due to the
increased topographic information on these sites that must be collected. Our
surveying costs are based on our own in-house surveying team.
Document O&M cost sources
Where appropriate, major equipment costs will be documented in the EAA.
Other miscellaneous costs are based on professional judgment and previous
similar work.
Differences in population estimates
The difference in population estimates taken from the census and the League of
Municipalities is acknowledged. The census data, especially for smaller towns, is
typically always significantly lower than the actual population. The Town of
Milton itself claims to have 242 people. The League of Municipalities population
estimate therefore was a reasonable compromise between all three sources of
population data.
The two methods that were included in the population estimates were endorsed
in a conversation between Kevin O'Leary and both Susan Wilson and Dave
Goodrich. The two methodologies show reasonable consensus and are
therefore included without changes.

Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
September 8, 2003
Re: Milton Sewer Project, Caswell County, C&A No.: MT9901
Page 4of4
OTHER CHANGES:
The Engineering Alternatives Analysis received a detailed reexamination as part of the
efforts to complete the report. Changes to the analysis other than those mentioned
above are outlined below:
1. The package plant and constructed wetlands alternatives did not have their O&M
numbers updated when they were changed. These changes are now reflected in
the analysis.
2. The package plant analysis did not include
a. concrete pad for the plant
b. sludge storage tank
c. storage tank concrete pad
d. mixer to provide suitable aeration and mixing
e. UV disinfection unit
f. Sludge disposal costs
3. The discount rate for The Rural Center Unsewered Communities Grants Program
requires present value assessments to be set at the Federal Discount Rate. For
fiscal year 2003, this rate has been set at 5.875%.
4. The annual O&M costs associated with each option is assumed to increase in
cost relative to the Consumer Price Index. The CPI for the last 20 years has
averaged 3.17%, If the last thirty years is included in the analysis, the impact of
the oil crisis in the late 1970's increases this to an unreasonable CPI of 5.0%.
5. Upon review of a package WWTP of similar capacity the annual analytical costs
associated with each treatment option has been changed to $20,000. This
reflects the fact that there will be minimal capacity by the operator to perform the
required analyses and all testing must be outsourced including the taking of
samples.
6. The capital cost for the UV disinfection unit for both the constructed wetlands and
package plant options was decreased according to an updated quote provided
from a vendor.
7. A copy of the Town of Milton's resolution imposing mandatory connection to the
sewer collection system will be included in the Engineering Alternatives
Analyses.
In closing, we hope that this letter has addressed all of your concerns. Please contact
us if there are any items requiring further clarification. If we do not hear back from you
within five business days, we will assume that you are in agreement with the changes
and approach we have taken and will resubmit the Engineering Alternatives Analysis for
final approval.
Regards,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Lisa Alley, P.E.

SUMMARY OF MEETING
DATE:
April 30, 2003
TIME:
2:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
DWQ Conference Room, Archdale Building, Raleigh
PARTICIPANTS:
Dave Goodrich, DWQ
Tom Belnick, DWQ
Susan Wilson, DWQ
Julie Haigler, The Rural Center
Dennis Lassiter, The Rural Center
Larry Coble, C&A
Lisa Alley, C&A
RE:
C&A No. MT9901 — Milton WWTP
• NPDES Permitting will be meeting for half a day in May to hash through how they do their
permitting so they can streamline and clarify for those who must go through their
permitting process.
NPDES Permitting will hold a workshop/seminar on Jun 121" at The Friday Center. All
those present asked to be included on the notification list so they could attend the
meeting.
• The following are highlights of the discussion regarding the Milton permit application:
o In regards to the land acquisition cost, NPDES Permitting no longer has an issue
about the $5,000 per acre cost.
o Rural Center will require 2 appraisals on any land purchased for the plant site.
o Milton needs to exhaust any hope of property acquisition adjacent to the current
optioned property. There needs to be documentation in writing either from the
land owner or by the Mayor that other adjacent property is not available.
o Susan requires log boring sheets to be included in the soils report.
o The map included in the soils report must show suitable, provisionally suitable
and unsuitable soils. If there are no provisionally suitable soils, the soil scientist
needs to state this.
o DWQ found it interesting that the only bores shown on the soils report map are
located in the area where suitable soil was found.
o DWQ will not allow use of peak flow for the engineering alternatives analysis
which was new information to Cavanaugh. DWQ apologized for this oversight
but they require the EAA to be based on monthly average discharge even though
components of the treatment system must be sized to accommodate peak flows.
o DWQ will not allow the entire 20 acre property to be a factor in the cost analysis
of the package plant option regardless of whether the property can or cannot be
subdivided.
o DWQ does not want room for expansion of the proposed plant to be factored into
the EAA as well.
o In our re -analysis of the options, DWQ will not require Cavanaugh to look at
downstream properties for possible locations for a treatment facility.
o DWQ will not allow the 33% flow "buffer' for future growth without substantial
justification. Milton must show type of development and a list of the types of
inquiries they have received regarding development. DWQ feels that 10-20% is
more reasonable but if we can justify the 33%, they are fine with that as well.
• Once Cavanaugh has recalculated Milton's flow projections as a result of DWQ's request
that monthly average flow be used instead of peak flow, we should send them to Susan
and she will estimate the ammonia limit for us.

Summary of Meeting
Re: C&A No. MT9901 — Milton WWTP
Date: April 30, 2003
Page 2 of 2
• If after redrafting the EAA, the best option is still surface water discharge, DWQ will draft
the permit and after publication, there will be a 45-day public notice period. Once the
NPDES permit is drafted, NPDES Permitting will allow the construction plans to be
submitted for the Authorization to Construct review. The A to C review is expected to be
120 days.
• Julie requested a schedule be sent to The Rural Center for the project. Cavanaugh will
base this schedule on the assumption that we will acquire an NPDES permit, as it is the
longer process when compared to non -discharge system permitting.

P
Town of Milton Timeline
♦ August 1, 2000 - Awarded Unsewered Communities Grant
♦ December 10, 2001- Environmental Assessment Received
♦ December 10, 2001- Application Received
♦ February 1, 2002 -Application Returned
♦ No Speculative Limits
♦ April 10, 2002 - Speculative Limits Issued
♦ May 15, 2002 -Application Received
♦ May 22, 2002 - Acknowledgement Letter Completed
♦ July 31, 2002 - Application Returned
♦ Flow Justification
♦ Local Government Sign -Off
♦ Cost Estimations
♦ Miscellaneous Comments on EAA
♦ Non -Discharge Disposal Options
♦ Other Potential Regional Wastewater Systems
♦ Treatment System
♦ October 11, 2002 - Application Received
♦ January 10, 2003 - Application Returned
♦ Flow Justification
♦ Local Government Sign -Off
♦ Soils Report
♦ Land Cost Estimates
♦ Operations
♦ Present Value Costs
♦ Constructed Wetlands Treatment
♦ April 2, 2003 - Application Received
,f 2t L. 3j0 200 3 - M rtj 4 w/CA�t�-Y C -�i 1A �4 As-tXkfIfZ�rr - C. T%�
0,grj4jv*p Tb &AA- --p ('t. 1=c.ow A2*'*C,7rcNS
go(t.s 4"D -T
ti,gir4l come l4 4pr&L ` miei MasTwi (Wa 7g0YS9T -txtEkf wouLD 40 ro
A- nk0- DI SC,/Al24'_ OP-61
�,csu sr (0 / ZOO3 - Ck✓A1104 k H qor G&r?'&Z w Ns A7i0&y
AuiuSf I / Zoo3 - r f a ga,u,gvU c 'M F; j > G q-/1
041C-A..js r1j.c. /obi 9Ar-1 SFr &r,> W!i( P"j reTrO Dr-s(y/%j r")W OR-
lAA

412403
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
PECfip��
0
March 26, 2003
Project #7751 AU��
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Chris Hay
PO Box 18846
Greensboro, NC 27419-8846
Dear Mr. Hay:
This letter details the findings of a site/soil evaluation performed on approximately 14 acres located onDoll
Branch Road in Caswell County. The evaluation was performed in order to characterize the site's ability to
treat and accept domestic strength wastewater. James L. Beeson, who is a licensed soil scientist, performed
the evaluation.
Soils examined on the property are most like the Cecil soil series. Rock is greater than 36 inches beiow
Ian! surface and the seasonally high water table is greater than 36" below the surface. In this case the soil
contains a sandy loam surface between 3 and 12 inchesdeep and usable material to a depth of at least 40
inches and is therefore an appropriate site for a surface irr.gation system. Because of the argiilic horizon,
nutrient factors such as nitrogen, phosphorous, organic matter, etc. are not limiting factorsin the design.
These items would be of concern on a site containing only highly permeable sands.
The attached water balance equation shows that the site can hydraulically assimilate 30.3" of irrigation
water per year. This is approximately equivalent b .6" per week. Therefore, for a daily flow of 50,000
gallons, a wetted area of 22.13 acres will be required for the minimum spray field area (see attached
calculations). The permanent ground water table is typically 40 feet or deeper. Since the entire site is less
than the required wetted area, the proposed daily flow cannot be applied to the site.
Sincerely,
James L. Beeson,
License # 1114
Attachments
Charlotte Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C
Concord, NC 28025
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hickory Office:
622 Coon Mountain Lane
Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Calculation for Allowable Irrigation Rate
1. Maximum Instantaneous Application Rate (in/hr)
Utilizing the attached Table 1 for typical ranges of soil infiltration rates
The site falls into the sand loam texture and has a slope of 3% to 9% with a
hardwood cover. Therefore .5 inches/hour would be an acceptable application rate
2. Water Balance (Table 2)
A water budget was developed for the proposed irrigation field by balancing water
losses and gains:
Evaporation + Natural Runoff + Drainage = precipitation and Irrigation
3. Data Inputs
A. PET (potential evapotranspiration) data was obtained from the North Carolina
State University Experiment Station, Bulletin 396, "Weather and Climate in North
Carolina." Values of PET do not vary significantly over North Carolina, so data
from Raleigh was used.
B. DR (drainage) was calculated by the procedure described in US EPA
625/1-77-088, "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of
Municipal Waste Water." The percolation rate or drainage rate was
calculated as 4% to 10% of the permeability of the most restrictive horizon in the
soil. For this soil the most restrictive horizon is the B
horizon, which has an estimated permeability of .2 to .06 inches/hour.
Using .005 inches per hour, monthly drainage rate is 3.24inches/30- days.
C. NR (Natural Runoff)- Since the system is designed to operate without designed
runoff.
D. PPT (Precipitation)- Average monthly precipitation rates were
obtained from RDU Weather Station. The monthly values represent an
average determined from more than a 20-year period. These averages
are shown on Table 2.

SprayField Area Calculations
Assumptions:
-Design flow = 50,000 gallons/day
-Allowable irrigation rate = 30.36 inches/year = .044 gallons/sq ft/day
-Land area required = 50,000 gallons/day divided by .052 gallons/sq ft/day
is 964,363 square feet divided by 43,560 square feet/acre
=22.14 acres
Profile Description #1 Wetted Area
HA#1
5% is oye
Landscape Position - Linear
A - 0 to 3" Loam texture color is 1 OYr 3/1, Loose, Very Friable,granular structure.
E - 3" to 8" Sandy Loam texture, Friable, Granular structure color is IOYr 516
Non -sticky and Non -plastic.
Bt - 8" to 42" Clay texture, color is 2.5Yr4/6, Medium, Moderate sub -angular blocky
structure. Sticky and Plastic when wet.
BC -42"- 50" Sandy Clay Loam texture, weak, medium sub -angular blocky structure.
Plastic and Sticky when wet. 2.5Yr4/6 with 7.5 4/6 few, faint mottles.
Series - Cecil

MONTH
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL I
ENTER
% FOR
NR>
PET
0.9
1.4
2.2
3.3
4.3
4.8
4.7
4
3.3
1.9
1.2
0.7
Water Balance Equation
DR NR TOTAL LOSS PPT allowable
3.348
0
4.248
3.55
3.024
0
4.424
3.43
3.348
0
5.548
3.69
3.24
0
6.54
2.91
3.348
0
7.648
3.67
3.24
0
8.04
3.66
3.348
0
8.048
4.38
3.348
0
7.348
4.44
3.24
0
6.54
3.29
0
3.348
0
5.248
2.73
0
3.24
0
4.44
2.87
0
3.348
0
4.048
3.14
32.7 39.42 0 72.12 41.76
total
dr rate
drain rate
in/hr % dr 5 to 10
in/hour
0.06
7.5%
0.0045
daily flow 500007
gallons
required area 964363 1
ft2
irrigation
0.698
0.994
1.858
3.63
3.978
4.38
3.668
2.908
3.25
2.518
1.57
0.908
inches/yr
30.36
0.051847671
gal/sq ft/day

a
TABLE 1
Typical ranEes of soil infiltration rates by soil texture and slope
Texture
Basic Infiltration Rate (inches/hr)
Slope
0-3%
3-9%
9+%
sand and fine sand
1.0+
.7+
0.5+
loamy sands
0.7-1.5
0.5-1.0
0.4-0.7
sandy loams &
0.5-1.0
0.4-0.7
0.3-0.5
Fine sandy loams
very fine sandy loams
0.3-0.7
0.2-0.5
0.15-0.3
& silt loams
sandy clay loams
0.2-0.4
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.15
& silty clay loams
clay, sand
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.15
<0.1
& silty clays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Sprinkler Irrigation Association, Sprinkler Irrigation ( 1969).
For good vegetation cover, these rates may be 25% to 50% greater. For poor surface soil
conditions, rates may be as much as 50% less.

Local Government Review Requirements
for the Issuance of New Non -Municipal Domestic Wastewater Discharge Permits
General Statute Overview
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(G) allows input from local governments in the issuance of NPDES Permits for non -
municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management Commission (EAiC) 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 Applicant
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) fail(s) 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 governments) 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 l._'Gi4W_Zl,(( (� �
(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 X] 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 DQ No [ ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the
ordinance? Yes DQ No [ ]
Date Z- - 2..15- - n 3
Signature
4` El=,'
ity Manager/C anager)
State of County of 16
On this 07 S yl�fv day of ��.�[�.c.owSC , A a o personally appeared before me, the said
name 4• to me known and known to me to be the person
described ig A& who executed a foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she)
executed the same and being duly sworn by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document
are true.
My Commission expires .(Signature of Notary Public)
Notary Adc (Official Seal)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Ms. Lisa Alley, P.E.
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard, Suite 102
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Dear Ms. Alley:
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 10, 2003
Subject: RETURN of Application, No. 2182
Milton WWTP Permit Request
NPDES No. NCO087645
Caswell County
The Division of Water Quality received the Town of Milton's application for an NPDES permit on
October 11, 2002. This application was resubmitted after being returned as incomplete. Although
many questions were clarified with the resubmittal, further questions must be addressed prior to
proceeding with permit development. Because some of the pages were missing with the original
application, this is the first review possible of the land application alternative (as well as the soils
analysis, which was not submitted with the original application). For this reason, the application is
again being returned as incomplete. The project material is being returned to you with this letter.
After resolution of the following concerns, you may resubmit the package for review.
1. Flow Justification. The Town proposes a 33% buffer to the estimated 20 year flow projections, to
attract future industry. Does the Town have any current possibilities? The Town should be aware
that in some instances where the Division did grant "buffers" for industrial growth, the industries
often did not locate in those towns and the treatment plants did not operate efficiently because of
this.
2. Local Government Sign -off. Although local government sign -off is not required with this project,
before proceeding with the project, the Town should ensure that the County has no objections or
adverse zoning that may affect the location of the treatment system.
3. Soils Report. The soils report submitted with the application is not adequate. As Mr. Joshi, Non -
Discharge Permitting Unit, stated to Mr. Larry Coble of your office, the soils report needs to have
sign -off by a licensed soil scientist, the report needs to have the soil characterization in a standard
format, the report should have calculations to show drainage rate and annual hydraulic loading, as
well as instantaneous loading. Additionally, a soils site map (demonstrating where the borings
were taken, etc.) overlain on a topographic map showing soils characterization should be included
with the report. The documentation (whether in the soil scientist's report or other documentation
based on the soil scientist's report) should stipulate how the land requirement is estimated for each
type of land application system (spray or drip). The report submitted with this application appears
to have been done for the storage lagoon only. The Guidance Document to Evaluate Wastewater
Disposal Alternatives has been provided again. Please review Appendix B - Soil Analysis Report
Requirements (for new facilities) . If you have specific questions regarding soils analyses, you may
wish to contact Mr. Joshi at [phone], ext. 363.
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-161 7 -TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

as, Alley
Page 2 of 2
4. Land Cost Estimates. Please provide $/acre average costs for the general area from a real estate
agent. Additionally, how were the land costs for the package treatment plant estimated? At the
rate stated ($5000/acre), the acreage estimated for the package plant would be 20 acres based on
the land cost of $100,000 -please explain. An updated estimate of the total land required and
cost should be estimated for the land application option after the soils report is revised. The
possibility for both spray irrigation and drip irrigation should be evaluated.
5. Operations, Power & Maintenance Costs. Please explain why the operations cost for land
application treatment is significantly higher than that for constructed wetlands (the power and
maintenance costs for the actual land application are estimated separately, which is understood).
The ongoing maintenance for a constructed wetlands system should not be discounted. More
detailed operation and maintenance costs should be provided in the evaluation.
6. Present Value Costs. Please follow A Guidance Document to Evaluate Wastewater Disposal
Alternatives, Appendix A, with regard to estimating present value costs. For our purposes, no
averaged percent increase per year or salvage values should be used to calculate present value. It
appears that the salvage values assume that a plant would no longer be necessary at the site (we
would prefer that the salvage value not be included in order to make a fair relative comparison,
since the system likely will not be abandoned).
7. Constructed Wetlands Treatment. As stated in the previous letter, it may be difficult for a
constructed wetlands system to consistently meet the summer ammonia limit of 5.9 mg/1 (as well
as the weekly average limit of 17.7 mg/1). In order to ensure that the constructed wetlands will be
a viable treatment alternative, you should provide the calculations, along with the assumed loading
rates for NH3-N reduction from the lagoon/constructed wetlands system. Likely, the EPA guidance
should be used to determine the proper loading rate.
Please contact Susan A. Wilson, P.E. at (919) 733 - 5083, ext. 510 should you have further
questions regarding the project.
Sincerely,
(_Y24yivsA-(- S(4/JC-I>
David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files
Winston-Salem Regional Office, Water Quality Section, Mike Mickey
Larry Coble Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard, Suite 102
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
The Honorable Water L. Thomas IV, Mayor
Town of Milton
P.O. Box 85
Milton, North Carolina 27305
NPDES file

r"LVltttt
%VLu�
October 10, 2002
Ms. Susan A. Wilson
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re.: Milton WWTP NPDES Permit
C&A No.: MT9901
Dear Susan:
CAVANAU G H
�,O tior,� through integrity and partnership
OCT 1 i. 2002 --
r. 5"
Attached is the revised NPDES Permit application for the Town of Milton's proposed
50,000 gallon per day constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility. Per the letter
received by the Town from Dave Goodrich, P.E. dated July 31, 2002, we answer the
following requests:
Flow justification — The EAA has been revised to clarify population and flow
projections. Also, attached is a clearer map which shows the area to be
sewered. Documentation from the County Health Department, including a septic
tank survey, has been included in the exhibits of the EAA.
2. Local Government Sign -Off — We are awaiting the return of the sign off from the
County and will forward it as soon as it is received. Caswell County has been
supportive of this project since its beginning.
3. Cost estimation — The cost estimates in the EAA are based on equipment quotes
from vendors, previous bid results from recent projects of Cavanaugh &
Associates, P.A. as well as operation and maintenance trends seen for similar
equipment, chemicals and personnel needs. According to groundwork
performed by Mayor Walter Lea Thomas IV, the price per acre for undeveloped
land in or near Milton is $3,000 - $5,000. The cost opinions are revised to reflect
his findings.
4. Miscellaneous comments
a. The EAA has been reprinted including all pages.
b. The EAA has been revised to reflect the updated speculative limits dated
April 10, 2002.
5. Non -discharge disposal options
a. A soils analysis is included in the exhibits of the EAA.

Ms. Susan A Wilson
Re.: Milton WWTP NPDES Permit
October 10, 2002
Page Two
b. According to grassroots canvassing by Mayor Walter Lea Thomas IV, the
potential for purchasing property for land application of wastewater in or
near the Town is very low.
6. Other potential regional wastewater systems - There are no sizable wastewater
treatment systems within a five mile radius of the Town of Milton. The closest
systems are the Town of Danville, Virginia and the Town of Yanceyville. There is a
minor, non -municipal wastewater treatment facility approximately 5 miles from
Milton that serves the Blanch Youth Correctional Facility, in Blanch, North
Carolina. This facility is permitted for 0.018 mgd and discharges to an unnamed
tributary to Country Line Creek The facility is not suitable for regional use
because of its size.
7. Treatment System
a. The facultative lagoon will be sized such that ammonia limits will not be
an issue. Conservative volume calculations will be performed to insure
that enough volume and aeration allows for ammonia reduction. The
wetland cells, then, will act as a polishing agent for further reduction and
will be conservatively sized, lengthwise to handle ammonia issues.
b. We have modified the components of the plant to include a simple sand
filter prior to the UV disinfection units. This will collect any remaining
solids which would hinder the disinfection units performance.
c. Post aeration has been removed from the components of the facility. As
we have been moving forward with the design of the system, the need for
post aeration was eliminated.
Also enclosed with this package are the following items are the items you returned
to me that comprise the NPDES Permit Application Package as well as three copies
of the revised Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
i hope this information is helpful in completing your review of Milton's NPDES Permit
application. I greatly appreciate your assistance and your patience. If there is
anything further that you need, please don't hesitate to call Larry Coble or me at
336/759-9001 or e-mail me at lalley _ cavanaughsolutions.com. I look forward to
hearing from you soon!
Sincerely,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
441
Lisa Alley, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mayor Walter Lea Thomas, Town of Milton
Larry D. Coble, Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.

FA(2LITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
form APPrOved 1114199
OMa Number 2040.00a6
FORM
2A
NPDES
NPDES FORM 2A APPLICATION OVERVIEW
APPLICATION OVERVIEW
Form 2A has been developed in a modular format and consists of a "Basic Application.Informatiow, packet
and a "Supplemental Application Information" -packet The Basic Application Information packet, is divided
into two parts. All applicants must complete Parts A and C. Applicants with a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.1 mgd must also complete Part B. Some applicants must also complete the. Supplemental
Application Information packet. The following items explain which parts of Form .2A you must complete.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A. Basic Application Information for all Applicants. All applicants must complete questions A.1 through A.8. A treatment
works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States must also answer questions A.9 through A.12.
B. Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow> 0.1 mgd. All treatment works that have design
flows greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day must complete questions B.1 through B.6.
C. Certification. All applicants must complete Part C (Certification).
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
D. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States and
meets one or more of the following criteria must complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the information.
E. Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the following criteria must complete Part E (Toxicity
Testing Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of toxicity testing.
F. Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
significant industrial users (SIUs) or receives RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete Part F (Industrial User Discharges
and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes). SIUs are defined as:
1. All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N (see instructions); and
2. Any other industrial user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works (with certain
exclusions); or
b. Contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the treatment plant; or
C. Is designated as an SIU by the control authority.
G. Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a combined sewer system must complete Part G (Combined Sewer
Systems).
ALL. APPLICANTS- MUST COMPLETE PARTG (CERTIFICATION).
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1.99). Replaces EPA forms 7550.6 8 7550.22. Page 1 of 21

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Form Approved 1114/99
--ro, ,_n C LA. / OMB Number 2040-0086
r .
y BAs� AFCrcAr t,rq fNF
Q R�`'��
Ll1aJ�
a
:7
PART.A. BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR' ALL. APPLICANTS:
llaroatm ent;workwmu� - complete;quesdiDns;:Xl •through A 8gi:a hlaiBasi itcationhlnfiarmatiotx�
:. packet« r
A.1. Facility Information.
Facility name
Mailing Address
Contact person
Title
Telephone number :? sxo —/.. -=) C+ — 2�;Fj yj
Facility Address
(not P.O. Box)
A.2. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:
Applicant name
Mailing Address
Contact person <
Title
Telephone number
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
X_, owner = operator
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this permit should be directed to the facility or the applicant.
facility applicant
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any existing environmental permits that have been issued to the treatment works
(include state -issued permits). WA
NPDES PSD
UIC
Other
RCRA
Other
A.4. Collection System Information. Provide information on municipalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
Name Population Served Type of Collection System Ownership
'Town ! -HM IA7 toy M001C.4122d
Total population served
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 2 of 21

•
I FAelLITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Form Approved 1114199
OMB Number 2040-0086
A.S. Indian Country.
a. Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
Yes_ No
b. Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
Yes_ No
A.S. Flow. Indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (i.e., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the average
daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each years data must be based on a 12-month time period with the 12th
month of "this year" occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal_
a. Design flow rate O. mgd
Two Years Acj Last Year This Year
b. Annual average daily flow rate t4-W - - mgd
c. Maximum daily flow rate WA mgd
A.T. Collection System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the -percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
Separate sanitary sewer
Combined storm and sanitary sewer
A.S. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
%
a. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.? Yes No
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses: .
I. Discharges of treated effluent 1
ii. Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent (�
Ill. Combined sewer overflow points
iv. Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks)
v. Other
b. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? Yes No
If yes, provide the following for each surface Impoundment:
Location:
Annual average daily volume discharged to surface impoundment(s) mgd
Is discharge continuous or intermittent?
C. Does the treatment works land -apply treated wastewater'?
If yes, provide the following for each land application site:
Location:
Number of acres:
Annual average daily volume applied to site:
Is land application continuous or intermittent?
Mgd
d. Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works?
Yes No
Yes No
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 3 of 21

e
FAOILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Form Approved 11141,99
OMB Number 2040.0086
If yes, describe the mean(s) by which the wastewater from the treatment works is discharged or transported to the other treatment works
(e.g., tank truck, pipe).
If transport is by a party other than the applicant, provide:
Transporter name:
Mailing Address:
Contact person:
Title:
Telephone number:
For each treatment works that receives this discharge, provide the following:
Name:
Mailing Address:
Contact person:
Tale:
Telephone number
If known, provide the NPDES permit number of the treatment works that receives this discharge.
Provide the average daily flow rate from the treatment works into the receiving facility. mgd
e. Does the treatment works discharge or dispose of its wastewater in a manner not included in
A.8.a through A.8.d above (e.g., underground percolation, well injection)? Yes No
If yes, provide the following for each disposal method:
Description of method (including location and size of site(s) if applicable):
Annual daily volume disposed of by this method:
Is disposal through this method continuous or intermittent?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 4 of 21

IFACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Fort Approved 1114199
OMB Number 2040-0086
WASTEWATER- DISCHARGES:
Ifyou.answered "yes" -to, question.A.8.a, complete•questions A.9.through A.12-once for each outfall. (including bypass points).through ,which
effluent is discharged. Do -not include -information on combined sewer -overflows in this section. • If -you answered "no to.questlon1A.8:a,,.90 to
Part-B.; "Additional Application Information for Applicants; with, a: Design. Flow Greater.than orEqual to 0.1L mgd:"
A.9. Description of Dutfall.
a. Outfall number
b. Location
C. Distance from shore (if applicable)
d. Depth below surface (if applicable)
e. Average daily flow rate
f. Does this outfall have either an intermittent or a periodic
discharge?
If yes, provide the following information:
Number of times per year discharge occurs:
Average duration of each discharge:
Average flow per discharge:
Months in which discharge occurs:
g. Is outfall equipped with a diffuser?
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters.
a. Name of receiving water
b. Name of watershed (If known)
touno)
(Longitude)
ft.
ft.
• mgd
Yes No (go to A.9.g.)
mgd
Yes No
United States Sail Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code (if known):
c. Name of State Management/River Basin (if known): Vkg...
United States Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code (if known):
d. Critical low flow of receiving stream (if applicable):
acute cfs chronic cfs
e. Total hardness of receiving stream at critical low flaw (if applicable): mg/I of CaCO3
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 5 of 21

W
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Form Approved 1114199
OMB Number 2040-0086
A.11. Description of Treatment
a. What levels of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
Primary _ �� Secondary
Advanced Other. Describe:
Design GODS XR
removal or Design CBODS removal % iva.c
G
Design SS removal
Design P removal
Design N removal
Other
%
C. What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfali? if disinfection varies by season, please describe.
) lbrm �0�
-A
If disinfection is by chlorination, is dechlorination used for this outfall? Yes
No
d. Does the treatment plant have post aeration?_ Yes No
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
Parameters. Provide the Indicated effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is
discharaed. Do not Include Information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All Information reported must be based on data
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136
methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA1QC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At
a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on -at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart.
'
Outfall number. ! j CLV&Lt&V
- - .P.ARAMI=TER-•
- „MAXIMLM DAILY',VAL• UE
-- - A4'ERAGE+DAILY1fALUE.
L 2
ualue
rtv
Value:
•; Units ..
�iNumberof:Samplew
H (Minimum)S.U.
H Maximum
S.U.
7
R
Flow Rate
Temperature Winter
Temperature Summer
For pH please report a minimum and a maximum daily value
POLLUTANT: :_ MAXIMUM'DAIL•Y'
DISCHARGE.
AVERAGE -DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL ML / MOL
METHOD
Cone. '
Units
:Number of -
Cone.. Units'
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL
COMPOUNDS.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN BOD-5
DEMAND (Report one) CBOD-5
FECAL COLIFORM
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
END OF PART A.
REFER TO THE. -APPLICATION OVERVIEW TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS OF FORM
2A YO'U. MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 6 of 21

a
NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
0
BASIC APPLICATION IN ORMA
Form Approved 1114199
OMB Number 2040-0086
PART C. CERTIFICATION
-AII applicants must -complete- the. Certification Section. - Refer: -to: instructionsi to. determine who, is an officer:for-the• purposes ofithis-certificatlon: ,All applicants must complete all applicable sections -of Form•2A,.as expiained:ink the Application Overview. -Indicate below-which.parts. of Form 2A ycu!have,
completed � and.. am submitting- By signing this;certification-statement, applicants- confirmAhat•they have. reviewed Form 2A:and4have completed ary:sectot�s
that apply to -the facilityforwhich this. a lication Is submitted.. .
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting:
Basic Application Information packet Supplemental Application Information packet:
Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
Part E (Toxicity Testing: Biomonitoring Data)
Part F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCIA Wastes)
Part G (Combined Sewer Systems)
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false inforaton, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Name and official title
Telephone tr►
Date _.
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assess wastewater treatment practices at the treatment works
or Identify appropriate permitting requirements.
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA fors 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 9 of 21

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Acting Director
The Honorable Water L. Thomas W, Mayor
Town of Milton
P.O. Box 85
Milton, North Carolina 27305
Dear Mayor Thomas:
ILTWA
1 �A41TJ •
;k
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL. RESOURCES
July 31, 2002
Subject: Return of NPDES Permit Application
Milton "rM Permit Request
NPDES No. NCO087645
Return No. 2168
Caswell County
The application that you submitted for an NPDES permit received May 15, 2002, for the
discharge of wastewater from the Town of Milton, is lacking complete information and is being
returned to your consulting engineer. Although much information was provided with the application,
the initial review of the project indicates that the information listed below must be provided before a
permit can be developed. The Division of Water Quality has been under increased scrutiny with regard
to new applications for discharges into the waters of the state, and requests that the Town provide
greater documentation and justification for the proposed permit.
1. Flow Justification. Please clarify the population projection list on p. 1. The population increase is
greater than the average predicted increase of 0.5% per year - please explain. Also, is "sewered
population" the projected number to be used for the 20 year flow projection? The average daily
flow projection calculation should be documented (the derivation of the flow is confusing).
An area map which indicates the current and future areas to be sewered, along with the boundary
limits for the town, should be provided. Have the failing septic systems been mapped out and/or
documented? If so, please provide this information. Documentation from the county health
department stating the percentage of failing systems would also be beneficial.
2. Local Government Sign -Off. Any proposed permit must have local government sign -off to ensure
that proposed facilities conform to any local zoning requirements (in this case, the proposed
wastewater treatment plant must conform with local zoning requirements).
3. Cost estimations. The cost estimations of the components for the treatment system and. collection
system are well done. However, please state the reference for the costs. Additionally, Tease
provide documentation for land costs which may be associated with land application of the
wastewater.
4. Miscellaneous comments. In the copies of the Engineering Alternatives Analysis MAN, several
pages were missing. Please look through the EAA carefully and provide a complete copy with the
next submittal. Specifically, pps. 5, 7, 12. 13, 16. and 17 are missing. The land application
system could not be properly reviewed due to this problem.
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROUNA 27699-161 7 —TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER — 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST —CONSUMER PAPER
VISIT Us ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Mayor Thomas
Page 2 of 2
Update the speculative limits provided in the letter dated April 10, 2002 from the Division (revise p.
4 of the EAA).
5. Non -discharge disposal options. Please review the Division's guidance regarding EAA's.
Specifically, for any new discharges, a soil analysis must be provided to determine potential soils
loading rates. Documentation of the potential to acquire additional land for non -discharge
alternatives must also be submitted. .
6. Other Potential Regional Wastewater Systems. Are there any other systems, public or private,
within a 5 mile radius of the Town, which may be able to provide sewer for the Town of Milton?
[The document does state that Danville is 9 miles away - so no cost estimate has to be provided for
connection to this system] .
7. Treatment System. Although this is an application for an NPDES permit, not an Authorization to
Construct permit for the wastewater treatment plant, the following general comments are offered
with regard the proposed wetland treatment system (should an NPDES permit be granted and the
proposed system be chosen). It may be difficult for a constructed wetlands system to consistently
meet the summer ammonia limit of 5.9 mg/l. Moreover, EPA has required that the state
implement weekly average limits for ammonia, in addition to the monthly average limit for
ammonia. The Division is currently researching the ammonia issue to establish the most
scientifically feasible value for weekly average or daily ammonia limits.
Additionally, the fecal limits established in the speculative limits letter might be difficult to meet
with the proposed UV system, unless filters are placed prior the UV system. Further guidance on
UV systems has been forwarded to your consultant by other Division staff.
If
While the Division does not discourage any type of post -aeration, the cascade aeration system may
not be necessary as no effluent dissolved oxygen limit was presented in the speculative limits
letter. You and your consultant may wish to discuss this further, should the NPDES permit be
issued.
You and/or your consultants may contact Susan A. Wilson at (919) 733 - 5083, ext. 510
should you have further questions regarding the project.
cc: Central Files
Winston-Salem Regional Office,
I gA MLA R. .. &&enclosures)
NPDES file
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrici,Supervisor
NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section, Mike Mickey
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard, Suite 102
Winston-Salem, NC 27106

Re: Milton
I
0
Subject: Re: Milton
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:52:06 -0400
From: Milt Rhodes <[e-mail]>
To: Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
CC: Todd Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Susan:
The Town of Milton had prepared an old EA document for a project, I think
to receive some Rural Center funding. This project though was submitted to
us for review in the fall of 2001.
The project as proposed then (13,800 feet of sewer line and a bunch of
pumps) did not appear to exceed the minimum criteria, so I determined in
December that an EA wasn't necessary for SEPA Review through the
clearinghouse. This project was way less than the minimum in terms of
capacity (50,000 gpd).
Are they planning to exceed that?
Milt
ps. Dave was cc'd on the letter I sent to Lisa Alley, Cavenaugh and
Associates stating that this project didn't need a SEPA review.
Susan A Wilson wrote:
> Could one of you let me know if there is a FONSI for the Town of
> Milton? I've got an EA document here attached to a permit application.
> The EA has an older date on it - but the permit application wasn't
> received until May 15. Don't know if I need to return the application
> and just comment on the EA....
> thanks!
I of 1 7/25/02 5:04 PM

cc: Caswell County Health Dept.
Central Files IU(
WSRO u 4
tr _ YlR" l
PLI ,T SOU j`-� OL,',UT JI
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Susan Wilson
Date: June 26, 2002
County: Caswell
Permit No. NCO087645
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Mayor Walter Lea Thomas
Town of Milton - [phone]
P. O. Box 85
Milton, N.C. 27305
2. Date of Investigation: June 25, 2002
3. Report Prepared by: Mike Mickey, Environmental Specialist II
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:
Ms. Lisa Alley, P.E., Cavanaugh & Associates, [phone]
Marvin Cavanaugh, Surveying Director, Cavanaugh & Associates, [phone]
5. Directions to Site: Take Hwy 62 North towards Milton. Turn right onto Doll Branch
Road and proceed 0.3 mile to the gravel drive on the left leading to the towns well house.
6. Discharge Points: Latitude: 36° 31' 46" Longitude: 79° 1212511
U.S.G.S. Quad No. A-22-SW U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Milton. N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? The Town of Milton has an
option to purchase approximately 15 acres of land that is contingent on the issuance of the
NPDES permit.

8. Topography: The wetland treatment system will be located on the side of a gently sloping
ridge, adjacent to Country Line Creek.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Numerous dwellings are located along Doll Branch Road,
however, none will be within 400 ft of the treatment system.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: County Line Creek.
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-02-04
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The confluence
with the Dan River is approximately 1.6 mile downstream.
Part H -. DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: Q MGD
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the W WTP? NA no permit issued.
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility? NA - not built.
d. Dates of Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years. NA.
e. Please describe the existing wastewater treatment facilities; NA - not built.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities.
The Alternatives Analysis Report concludes that a constructed wetlands
wastewater treatment facility is the best alternative based on the net present cost
standpoint. The net present cost of the NPDES option (constructed wetland -
$2,299,045) is 30 % cheaper than the nondischarge option (spray irrigation -
$2,990,996).
The Preliminary Engineering Report proposes a 0.05 MGD constructed wetlands
wastewater treatment facility consisting of the following: influent metering station,
bar screen, facultative lagoon (with floating aerator), dual shallow rooted plant
cells (bulhush and cattails) and post -treatment (sandfilter, UV disinfection,
aeration unit and metering manhole). In addition, a collection system with 13,858
feet of gravity line, 4,409 feet of force main and three pump stations is proposed.
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 2

g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: A speculative limit of 5.9 mg/l is
proposed to protect for ammonia toxicity.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): NA - domestic wastewater only.
2. Residuals handling and disposal scheme: Sludge from the lagoon would be removed
by a licensed septage hauler for disposal in a POTW.
3. Treatment plant classification. Class I.
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater Code(s): Primary 011
Main Treatment Unit Code: Q 00 X 7
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or public monies
(municipals only)? Funding has been secured for the project. The Town of Milton
received a $1,307,000 grant from the Rural Center through the Unsewered Communities
Grant Program. Additional funding will come from the USDA Rural Development office.
In addition, the Town has committed $20,000 to the project.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: NA.
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: NA.
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation:
Spray Irrigation: The Alternatives Analysis report indicates that a spray or drip irrigation
system is not feasible because "the availability of that much consecutive land is a concern
for the Town of Milton". It should be noted that a detailed soils analysis report was not
provided as required by DWQ's EEA Guidance Document. In addition, it was not
determined if any additional land could be acquired, nor was there any documentation
from adjacent owners stating that additional land was unavailable.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: Not feasible due to distance (approximately 9
miles of force main needed to reach the City of Danville, Va).
Subsurface: Not feasible due to volume of water to be disposed.
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 3

PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Milton (population 236 or 107 connections) is currently served by septic
tanks. Due to concerns over failing systems, the town is proposing the construction of a
collection system and NPDES treatment facility. The proposed Constructed Wetland Wastewater
Treatment Facility (CW WTF) would be a good match for the Town of Milton's situation (lower
maintenance costs and domestic wastes only).
Signature of report pre er
,A- ��
Water Quality Regional ipervisor
Date
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 4

Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc

Mayor Walter Lea Thomas
Town of Milton
P.O. Box 85
Milton, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Michael F. Easley
A Governor
©ZIA William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
27305
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
May 22, 2002
Subject: NPDES Permit application NCO087645
Milton WWTP
Caswell County
The Division received your permit application and fee payment of $715.00 (paid by check # 7991)
on May 15, 2002. Ms. Susan Wilson of the NPDES Unit will review your application. Ms. Wilson will
contact your Authorized Representative (Lisa Alley of Cavanaugh & Associates) if further information is
needed about this project.
Please note that the NPDES Unit has consistently had at least 2 (and as many as 5) vacant positions
since mid-1998. Our remaining permit writers are currently carrying extremely heavy workloads. While we
do not expect severe delays in handling your request, be aware that your application is one of many that Ms.
Wilson is currently reviewing.
If you have any additional questions concerning the subject application, please contact Ms. Wilson at
[phone], extension 510.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office / Water Quality Section
Central Piles
NPDES Unit '
Lisa Alley / Cavanaugh & Associates
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone], extension 511
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.ennstate.nc.us e-mail: charles.weaver®ncmail.net

CAVANAU G H
:loluuons Ou�ugn wt<gnfy aad tau ❑xv>ir�
May 10, 2002
Mr. Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Permitting Unit Jam;
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re.: Milton Sewer Project
C&A No.: MT9901
Dear Mr. Weaver:
In response to your letter dated February 1, 2002, 1 am resubmitting the NPDES Permit
application for the proposed wastewater treatment facility for the Town of Milton. The following
items are included in this submittal:
1. Three copies of the NPDES Permit application
2. Three copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report
3. Three copies of the Environmental Assessment prepared by USDA Rural
Development including amendments
4. Three copies of EPA Form 2A signed by Mayor Thomas
5. A letter to Dave Goodrich requesting new speculative limits for Country Line Creek
6. A letter from me to Milt Rhodes regarding SEPA requirements
7. A record of Conversation with Milt Rhodes regarding SEPA requirements (letter to be
forwarded to you by Milt)
8. The application fee in the amount of $715.00
9. Speculative Limits provided to the Town by the Division of Water Quality on April 10,
2002.
If you need further information to complete the application package, please call me at 336/759-
9001 or e-mail me atlalley(sDcavanauahsolutions.com. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
CCAVVAA�NAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
lL�
Lisa Alley, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mayor Walter Lea Thomas, Town of Milton

of WArFR
`0� Q� QL�
r NCDENR
>
o -c
Ms. Lisa Alley
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard, Suite 102
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Dear Ms. Alley:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
February 1, 2002
Subject: NPDES Permit application
Milton WWTP
Caswell County
Return # 2141
In accordance with Division policy, we must hereby return the attached permit application (and check
#7991 for $715.00) received on December 10, 2001. After a preliminary review by the NPDES staff, the
Division has determined that the application package lacks the following items:
■ No speculative limits. Jacquelyn Nowell of the NPDES Unit is currently developing
speculative discharge limits for this facility. Until speculative limits are issued, the Unit
cannot determine the adequacy of the EAA you included with the application. Rather than
hold the application until the speculative limits are issued and then (potentially) return it, the
Division is returning the package now. You can quickly address any changes that may be
required by the speculative limits upon your receipt of them. This will simplify the
application process once the speculative Bruits are promulgated.
After you receive the speculative limits, review them against the EAA you have prepared. Submit any
additional items and the items returned to you in one package. A copy of this letter is also being sent to the
Town of Milton.
If you have any questions about the NPDES permit process, contact me at the address or telephone
number listed below. Questions about permitting restrictions unique to your area should be directed to Mike
Mickey of the Winston-Salem Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
l
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: NPDES File
Winston-Salem Regional Office / Mike Mickey
Mayor Walter Lea Thomas / Town of Milton
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone], extension 511
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us e-mail: [e-mail]

c-
CAVANAUGH
Solutions through integrity and partnership
RECORD OF CONVERSATION
DATE: December 5, 2001
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PARTICIPANTS: Lisa Alley
Milt Rhodes, DWO Planning Branch
RE: Milton WWTP
C&A No.: MT99o1
I called Milt to follow up on the letter I sent him dated October 19, 2001 regarding whether the
Milton Sewer Project fell under SEPA planning requirements. He said that since the line length
is less than 3 miles, the project did not meet that threshold. SEPA has no criteria for a
constructed wetlands treatment facility to date but the criteria would most likely be somewhere
between a land application system and a subsurface system. The capacity threshold for these
systems is 1009000 gpd; therefore, Milton's 50,000 gpd project falls below that threshold. Milt
will write a letter to me stating that the Milton Sewer Project is not subject to the SEPA
requirements.
Respectfully Submitted:
(4is"aA I I leyP.E.
cc: Mayor Walter Lee Thomas, Town of Milton
Allen Hart, Rural Development

r
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
October 19, 2001
Mr. Milt Rhodes
Planning Branch
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Re.: Milton Sewer Project
C&A No.: MT9901
Dear Milt:
Thank you for your help today concerning the'Milton Sewer Project. As requested, I am
writing this letter to summarize the project. The Town of Milton has been working since
1998 toward providing a public sewer system for the town. The Preliminary Engineering
Report was recently updated and a copy is enclosed for your use.
The sewer collection system will consist of approximately 13,200 If e" PVC, 250 If 10"
PVC, 425 If 12 PVC, 68 manholes and 3 pump stations. There will be 8 grinder pumps
installed at homes where gravity service is not feasible. These homes are located on
West Broad Street (4), Community Circle (2) and East Broad Street (2). There will be
107 service connections, mostly residential. There are no industrial users in the Town
of Milton. The majority of the collection system is located in street right-of-way. There is
approximately 2,110 linear feet of outfall. A map is included in the Preliminary
Engineering Report.
The proposed wastewater treatment facility is a 50,000 gpd constructed wetlands, The
plant site is located off Doll Branch Road, south of Town. There will be a 50' buffer
around the plant site. The site is approximately 15 acres. The treatment components
will consist of a 11,100 square foot facultative lagoon with one aerator, 2 parallel shallow
rooted plant wetland cells(approx, 29,000 square feet each), an UV disinfection and a
cascade aeration unit. The facultative lagoon and the two wetlands cells w:Dn
lined
with a geosynthetic clay liner to achieve a hydraulic conductivity of at leas The
wetland will discharge to Country Line Creek which is a tributary to Doll Brand the
Dan River.

Mr. Milt Rhodes
October 19, 2001
Page Two
I hope this information will help determine whether this project is subject to SEPA
requirements. Please let me know your determination or if you have any further
questions about the project. Thank you again for your help.
Sincerely,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Lisa Alley, P.E.
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Walter Lea Thomas, Town of Milton
Allen Hart, USDA Rural Development

February 02, 2004
Ms. Susan Wilson, P.E.
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re.: Milton Sewer Project, Caswell County
C&A No.: MT9901
Dear Ms. Wilson:
CAVANAU G H
Solutions m;uugh m[egri y ano partnershup
FEB 5 2004
This letter address the three concerns you raised in your e-mail to Lisa Alley dated January 7,
2004. Your comments are shown in italics and enclosed in quotations. Our replies are shown
indented below each comment. Please find attached a copy of the most recently revised EAA
for the Milton sewer project.
"We received the fax from the soil scientist regarding the 0.025 MGD flow after your
September 30 document. If you would, please bind that into the EAA as that is a
pertinent correction to his prior document (which referred to 0.05 MGD flow). "
The communications section in the EAA shows the most current set of pertinent
communications. The Certified Soils Report has also been updated.
"In Item no. 6 of our September 15, 2003 letter we had asked for a reference for the
operation and maintenance costs. If it is based on BPJ - please state this. If it is based
on knowledge of operation of similar facilities, then please state so. Its important to
resolve this as it was a direct question and this is a public document. At this point, I
don't think great detail is necessary, just answer the question within the document in
some manner. (If I have missed this in the document, just direct me to the proper
page.)"
This has been included in the document on page 5 under "Presentation of
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives". Costs were based on a mixture of best
professional judgment and costs of similar operations.
"As far as the loading rate goes for the NH3-N - this will need to be addressed in some
manner. Fortunately, because the permitted flow was reduced to 0.025 MGD, the
summer monthly average ammonia limit will be 15 mgll (with a 35 mgll weekly average
limit); there is no NH3-N limit during the winter months. As stated previously, this
should be addressed as this is a public document and it was a direct question."
Treatment and performance issues are more appropriately dealt with in the
submittal for Engineering Plans and Specifications approval and the
Authorization to Construct. Constructed wetlands are an accepted alternative for
domestic wastewater treatment and at the proposed size (4 acre footprint) the
loading for ammonia is well within the typical loading rates for ammonia (1-4 lb

r
�. Reply to DENR Comments
Re: C&A No. MT9901 - Milton WWTP
Date: February 2, 2004
Page 2of2
NH3-N/[acre d]). Loading rates and treatment levels for ammonia within a
wetlands system is governed primarily by surface area and will be properly
accounted for in the detailed design stage of this project.
Please do not hesitate to call if there are questions.
Sincerely,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Kevin O'Leary
Cc: Dave Goodrich, P.E., DENR
Tom Belnick, DENR
Mayor Walter Lea Thomas, Milton
Julie Haigler, The Rural Center
Dennis Lassiter, The Rural Center
Larry Coble, Cavanaugh (Wilmington)
Allen Hart, USDA Rural Development

P"
`,10
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
Town of Milton
A Sewer Collection System &
MIN Wastewater Treatment Facility
MR
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
May 1998
Revised October 2002 0�.���'""""'��.,,
Revised April 2003 � CAI
Revised August 2003
MM Revised September 2003
Q
Revised February 2004 8
'�''•ti,Roui� ��..
evil %
RIP
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Consulting Engineers
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1 A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101 336/759-9001 Fax [phone]
www.cavanaughsolutions.com
MR

am
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through urtgdW and parm-*p
Proiect Preface
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is being performed to assess the viability
of various wastewater treatment options for the Town of Milton. It is important to note
that this EAA is being performed under some restrictions applied by the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) unit of the North Carolina Department
of the Environment and Natural Resources. These restrictions required performing the
EAA in a manner that Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A. feels is professionally imprudent
and therefore, requires an explanation prior to the body of the EAA. In addition to these
restrictions, the EAA guidelines, while being written in general terms, had some specific
interpretations applied to the formulation of the final EAA.
1. The working population for the EAA for Town of Milton was set by the NPDES
unit to be the population measured during the year 2000 Federal Census, 132.
Other population estimates such as the League of Municipalities and the Town
of Milton itself quantified the population as being higher. The earlier EAA
submittals chose the League of Municipalities population of 179 as a reasonable
FM design estimate. Therefore, by instruction of the NPDES unit, the final EAA will
use the year 2000 census population estimate of 132.
2. The addition of a wastewater treatment system often brings increased growth to
a municipality. The authors deemed that a reasonable additional 0.5% annual
growth would allow for this. By instruction by the NPDES unit, the final EAA will
not include this factor.
3. The North Carolina Administrative Code's prescribed manner to project flow
based on dwelling and establishment type was originally used including a site
visit to physically count each dwelling/establishment unit. This method gives a
conservative design daily flow estimate upon which to base design in the
absence of any measured flow data. The NPDES unit would not let this method
be used but chose other alternatives.
4. By instruction from the NPDES unit the EAA analyzed options based solely on
�+ sizing the alternatives on the basis of average daily flow. In reality, these
systems should be sized to reflect peaking and other related design and safety
factors.
5. By instruction from the NPDES unit, the EAA was not allowed to account for
annual increases in the O&M costs incurred with each alternative. Simply stated
this means that the O&M costs incurred in 2003 will be the same as those
incurred in 2023. This decision will skew the analysis making the present value
of costs inaccurately reflect those alternatives that have a higher O&M cost
relative to other alternatives.
6. By instruction of the NPDES unit, reasonable inflow and infiltration flows were
am not allowed to be included. The choice of I&I values selected by the NPDES unit
represent new construction and allowed no deterioration of the collection
system. The I&I flow considered in earlier EAA submittals gave a final 20-year
MR
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 1
MR

no
4*401
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
I&I flow that was one third of what NC Construction Grants and Loans considers
excessive and what the authors feel was a reasonable design estimate for the
20-year time frame.
7. Information on the performance of lagoon/wetland wastewater treatment
FM systems is not as well defined and studied as traditional engineered treatment
systems. Design manuals for these systems have been in use in the late 1980s
(EPA 843-B-00-005) and the design of these systems was recently reviewed by
the EPA (EPA 832-F-00-024). They show typical ammonia loadings to wetland
systems is 1 to 4 Ibs NH3-N/(acre d). These systems are capable of treating
typical domestic wastewater for ammonia. Loading rates and treatment levels
for ammonia within a wetlands system is governed primarily by surface area and
am will be properly accounted for in the detailed design stage of this project.
When the above factors are considered as a whole, Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
PM believes that this yields a projected design flow that is low and leaves the Town of
Milton in a position where they may be required to upgrade their facilities before the 20-
year analysis period has passed.
Proiect Planning Area
The Town of Milton is a historical town that lies in northeast Caswell County immediately
south of the Virginia state line. The Town is adjacent to the Dan River and lies in the
Roanoke River Basin. Milton is bordered to the north, east and west by Country Line
Creek, a tributary to the Dan River. Exhibit A shows the topography of the area
surrounding Milton.
so The Roanoke River Basin begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains with the majority of the
headwaters lying in Virginia. The Dan River weaves back and forth over the North
Carolina -Virginia state line before it converges with the Roanoke, which then continues
flowing east -by -southeast to the Albemarle Sound. The Town of Milton is in sub -basin
03-02-04 of the Roanoke River Basin. All rated surface waters in this sub -basin are
rated as fully supporting aquatic life/secondary recreation.
Growth Areas & Population Trends
According to the 2000 Census, the Town of Milton has a population of 132. Caswell
am County population, as a whole, increased slightly from the 1990 Census to the 2000
Census (20,693 and 23,501 respectively). This yields an annual increase of 1.19%. It is
assumed that Milton's population growth will match the County's population growth.
The following table shows projections for Milton's population growth based on the
above assumptions.
®,
Year
Sewered Population
2000
132
2003
137
2008
145
2013
154
Ow
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 2
ma

2018 163
2023 173
am
4001,
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partaenhip
t..
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 3

no
Gv
IAA
an
0"
Am
no
0"
am
M"
no
am
CAVANAUGH
Satumm through integrity and partnership
Existing Facilities & Need for the Proiect
It is the goal and intent of every community to provide safe and healthy living conditions
for all of its citizens. The Town of Milton relies completely on private septic systems
which continue to fail. Exhibit B shows the results of a septic system survey performed
by Caswell County for the Town of Milton.
Wastewater Flow Estimates
To predict the future wastewater flows in the Town of Milton, the flow is assumed to be
directly proportional to growth. The Ten States Standards for projecting wastewater
flow recommends using 100 gallons per day per capita. Although this standard
accounts for some infiltration, it does not account for the size of the collection system
and density of the population. The authors believe that this infiltration flow is
underestimated during the later portion of the design life of the collection system using
this method. The Ten State Standard method yields the following projected wastewater
flows from 2003 through 2023.
Year
Wastewater Flow (gpd)
2003
13,677
2008
14,510
2013
15,394
2018
16,332
2023
17,327
From this information, the engineering alternatives analysis will be performed on a flow
of 25,000 gpd because one of the alternatives is a package wastewater plant which is
supplied in units of capacity whose nearest available size is 25,000 gpd.
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 4
an

4*ie
CAVANAU G H
Solubom thrwgh intcgdW and panaenhip
e�
Presentation of Proposed Improvements- Alternatives
Considered
The Town of Milton will require both a collection system and a treatment facility. The
entire town will be served with sewer at one time instead of phasing the project. Exhibit
C shows the layout of the sewer system and proposed location of the treatment facility.
Collection System Components
The Town of Milton will require three pump stations. The majority of the collection lines
will be 8" with some 12" line. A cost estimate for the collection system's construction
excluding design and administration costs is described later in this report.
Treatment Component
The Town of Milton would construct a wastewater treatment facility to treat the projected
wastewater flows over a design period of 20 years. The proposed discharge would be
at Country Line Creek just above the convergence with Doll Branch Creek. Country
Line Creek flows into the Dan River. Speculative discharge limits for the Country Line
Creek just north of Doll Branch Tributary were received May 29, 2002 from NCDENR.
The speculative limits for a 50,000 GPD facility are as follows:
Effluent Limits
Daily
Monthly Weekly Maximum
�.,
Flow (MG D) 0.050
BOD5 (mg/L) 30 45
NH3-N(April 1 -October 31) (mg/L) 5.9
TSS (mg/L) 30 45
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml) 200 400
Total Residual Chlorine (ug/L) 28
Presentation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Four alternatives were considered to address Milton's wastewater needs:
Option A: 25,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Option B: 25,000 gpd Mechanical Package Wastewater Treatment Facility
Option C1 &2: 25,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility: Drip and Spray
Option D: Connecting to a nearby existing wastewater collection system
IM Wastewater plants are designed to be capable of retaining and treating the daily peak
flow. However, this engineering alternatives analysis was g' g y performed using a
wastewater treatment plant sized to be capable of treating only average daily flow.
Although this approach for alternatives selection is appropriate for operation and
ma maintenance costs, this approach is technically unsound for estimating true capital
costs. Costs are provided on the basis of best professional judgment and in most
cases comparisons were made with similar systems in operation.
An
an
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 5

G011
0"
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through intagnty and partnership
Description of Treatment Alternatives
Option A: A 25,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Town of Milton would construct a new 25,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands
Wastewater Treatment Facility (CVWVT'F) to treat their projected wastewater flows for a
design period of 20 years. The CWWTF would consists of the following components:
• Pretreatment (manual bar screen)
Facultative lagoon (aerobic, non -aerobic)
• Dual shallow rooted plant cells
• Post -treatment (sand filter, UV disinfection)
• Influent and effluent flow measurement and sampling
ma The manual bar screen will be a simple design that allows flow through a stationary
screen (openings 0.25" - 0.38" o.c.) which can be manually raked. The inorganic
debris will be raked into a metal tray with perforations to allow the trash to dry for
disposal.
The facultative lagoon, which would serve as the primary treatment unit, would utilize
two stratified zones where the lower part of the lagoon will be non -aerobic and the
s' upper part of the lagoon will be aerobic. The upper part of the lagoon will be aerated
using one central aerator that will be designed for continuous aeration.
Following the facultative lagoon are the wetland cells which serve as secondary
treatment. The shallow -rooted plants included in these cells will be bullrush and
cattails. The wetland cells comprise the majority of the site area and are sized linearly
�► to accommodate needed biological removal.
Following the wetlands cells will be post treatment units including a sand filter and
am ultraviolet disinfection.
The CWWTF would require approximately 9 acres which would include access roads
om and other infrastructure. While the facility could be configured to minimize space, it is
anticipated that there would still be a large area required to be under construction. Of
course, the larger the construction area, the more opportunity for construction related
Im problems to occur. A detailed geotechnical investigation must be performed to
determine the amount of rock, if any, expected to be encountered during construction.
Because the cuts are fairly shallow and the depth of basins likewise shallow, it is
4ft anticipated that the conflicts with seasonal high groundwater table would be limited.
Exhibit D shows the layout of the constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility.
Option B: A 25,000 gpd Mechanical Package Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Town of Milton would construct a 25,000 gpd mechanical package wastewater
treatment plant to meet their wastewater needs. Exhibit E is a plan/profile view of a
50,000 gallon per day package plant. The dimensions of the 25,000 GPD plant would
be reduced in size but would contain the same components. In addition to the package
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 6

4*011
CAVANAU G H
Sotuawu through integrity and parma9up
tin
plant, UV disinfection and a package metering station will be required. The discharge
points and design criteria for the mechanical wastewater treatment facility would be the
same as for the CWWTF.
Option C1&2: A 25,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility: Drip and Spray
Irrigation
The Town of Milton would develop a land application site with a capacity of 25,000 gpd
to meet their wastewater treatment needs. This system would consist of the following
components:
• A secondary treatment facility consisting of a mechanical bar screen, flow
monitoring station and aerated storage lagoon.
• A land application field (for this preliminary report, spray and drip irrigation will
be evaluated).
This alternative does not require an NPDES permit since wastewater is not released or
,m discharged directly to surface waters of the State. The hydraulic application to the soil
must be carefully determined to preclude run off. The applied wastewater evaporates,
is used by plants or percolates into the soil and ultimately joins the groundwater. The
me total system must be carefully controlled to ensure proper operation. Groundwater
observation wells may be required to be installed to monitor groundwater quality.
Am
Option D: Connecting To Any Nearby Existing Wastewater Collection Svstems
The nearest existing wastewater treatment facilities to Milton is the City of Danville,
Virginia. The closest line is nine miles away on Highway 360. This alternative does not
include an NPDES permit. It will include crossing the Dan River which will require a
pump station.
Environmental Assessment of Treatment Alternatives
MThe following is an environmental discussion of the impacts of each of the alternatives.
This section primarily addresses the adverse impacts associated with each option.
Each of the treatment alternatives requiring the construction of a treatment plant will be
im located in close proximity to the Town's water supply well which may or may not require
relocation.
no
Option A: 25,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
The constructed wetlands will require approximately 4 acres of property. Counting
roadways and auxiliary infrastructure, the total required area is approximately 9 acres.
Because of the amount of land area required and associated buffers around the
wastewater treatment facility, it is anticipated that the opportunity for disturbance of
habitat, existing wetland areas, and other highly specialized natural areas is possible. A
species survey (both plant and animal) as well as a wetland delineation is anticipated
prior to the final option being exercised on the property. During the course of
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 7

am
41;�ell
• CAVANAU G H
Solutions thmq* integrity and parmership
tal
construction, machinery such as bulldozers, scrapers, pans, and other trucks and
gasoline/diesel powered equipment will be on the project site. The project duration is
t�
anticipated to be short (within 6 to 8 months) and the environmental impacts are
considered to be minimal.
The effects on the enviram onment with respect to the completed system and how it fits in
and balances with the environment is an extreme positive and one of the primary
reasons for this alternative being carefully considered. The approximate 4 acres of new
natural habitat area associated with the constructed wetlands facility are anticipated to
`� greatly outweigh any potential temporary environmental impacts associated with
construction.
Option B: 25,000 qpd Mechanical Package Wastewater Treatment Facility
The construction of concrete footings and piping and discharge facilities does represent
a temporary impact to a small area. This impact would be in the form of utilization of
combustion engines on the project site, potential for construction noise, and the
transport of new materials to the project site. The temporary construction noise and air
quality effects are minimal as they relate to the overall operation of positive
environmental solutions. There are, however, long-term environmental impacts
anticipated such as an increase in noise level to the area based on the continual
�! operation of rotary positive displacement blowers and other operating equipment.
The mechanical wastewater treatment facility would be designed with sufficient aeration
�• which would provide for the dampening to reduce potential negative odors associated
with the facility.
RM
Option C1 &2: 25,000 gDd Land Application Treatment Facility: Drip and Spray
Irrigation
me Following primary treatment and disinfection, wastewater can be land -applied using
irrigation or infiltration/percolation systems. Generally, land application requires several
acres of cleared land with gentle or no slopes to prevent runoff if spray applied. Drip
OW irrigation applications require similar acreage. The ability of existing soils in the
community to adequately treat the wastewater irrigation would control the required
acreage. The area is defined by rolling terrain therefore substantial clearing and
NM grading would have to be performed to develop adequate ground slopes. This would
require implementation of erosion control measures during construction. Substantial
storm water controls would also have to be constructed to control storm water runoff
AM during a rain event. The temporary construction impact could be minimized with proper
construction techniques and construction oversight. The temporary environmental
impacts during construction can be categorized as moderate.
Permanent environmental impacts for land application by field irrigation are minimal if
properly installed. A pumping system would be required to provide the flow to the
irrigation system. Noise levels from the pump station are considered non-existent.
Noise levels from the floating aerator for the primary treatment lagoon can be moderate.
During wet weather, odor from the application field may be a consideration. Extremely
prolonged wet spells could also diminish the ability of the application field to accept the
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 8
me

am
G
CAVANAU G H
fm
Sdudons through inte" and partnenhip
irrigation wastewater. Saturated soils during prolonged wet periods may cause
wastewater to reach receiving waters in either an untreated or partially treated state.
Option D: Connection to Danville Sewer Svstem
Construction of the force main to Danville will be primarily in the NCDOT right of way
am along Highways 62 and 360 which would have little to no environmental impact.
However, the force main would cross the Dan River. With any stream crossing there is
the potential for contamination of the stream during construction.
In looking at the topography and distance to be traveled, another pump station may be
required at the Dan River crossing. With pump stations that cross a water body comes
the long-term possibility of overflow which would directly impact the streams because of
the close proximity to the water courses.
so
Land Requirements of Treatment Alternatives
an The Town of Milton has a piece of property with an option on Doll Branch Road, totaling
20 acres.
Option A: A 25,000 qpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
9 acres including buffer area
MW
Option B: 25,000 gpd Mechanical Package Wastewater Treatment Facility
0.5 acres
OM
Option C1 &2: 25,000 god Land Application Treatment Facility - Spray and Drip
am Irrigation
The Milton property was evaluated by a certified soil scientist. From the whole 20 acre
property, 4.5 acres were deemed suitable for land application. This requires an
OM additional piece of property to be purchased to accommodate the required wetted area.
This new property will also require its own buffer area. The buffer area shown below
reflects the area required for the two pieces of property required to supply the wetted
MR area. The required areas were calculated by assuming the required area were square
and were surrounded by the appropriate buffer area.
ma
am
FM
Spray Irrigation
Required wetted area
11.07 ac
Treatment lagoon
0.15 ac
Storage lagoon
0.60 ac
Separation area & access
0.50 ac
Buffer area 150' min.
7.68 ac
Total
20.00 ac
The Doll Branch property can be used for the treatment system, storage lagoon and a
portion of the wetted area.
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 9

G•
an
mm
fm
sm
Drip Irrigation
Required wetted area
11.07 ac
Treatment lagoon
0.15 ac
Storage lagoon
0.60 ac
Separation area & access
0.50 ac
Buffer area 50' min.
2.35 ac
Total
14.65 ac
CAVANAU G H
SorM— thm&* fnugn'ey and p=enho
The Doll Branch property can be used for the treatment system, storage lagoon and a
portion of the wetted area.
Option D: Connection to Danville Sewer System
One pump station site totaling less than 0.25 acre (may possibly require two stations).
Construction Problems
Option A: A 25,000 qpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
This option would require approximately 9 acres which would include access roads and
other infrastructure. While the constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility could
be configured to minimize space, it is anticipated that there would still be a large area
required to be under construction. Of course, the larger the construction area, the more
opportunity for construction related problems to occur. A detailed geotechnical
investigation must be performed to determine the presence of rock on the proposed
site. Because the cuts are fairly shallow and the depth of basins likewise shallow, it is
anticipated that the conflicts with seasonal high groundwater table would be limited.
�+ Option B: 25,000 qpd Mechanical Package Wastewater Treatment Facility
Due to the nature of a package plant, construction considerations are expected to be
minimal based upon the small footprint required for mechanical treatment facility.
Option C1 &2: 25,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility: Drip and Spray
Irrigation
Finding sufficient application land will be difficult in this area due to lack of available
undeveloped land suitable for application of waste as well as public perception of the
process.
Option D: Connection to Danville Sewer System
MR Construction of a force main to the City of Danville would involve a major river crossing
which would require boring under the stream. The Dan River is a sizable watercourse,
increasing the depth of the bore, the possibility of rock and the likely use of directional
ON bores.
am
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 10
so

Iwo
G101
C AVA N A U G H
Solutions through integrity and portnership
A
Capital Cost for Wastewater Treatment Facility Alternatives
Collection System Components
tm
A
r-t
fm
fm
fm
em
am
Im
am
Im
an
Description
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Total
8" PVC SDR35 S.S. 0.6
7,935
LF
$21
$166,635
8" PVC SDR35 S.S. 6-8
4.2SS
LF
$23
S97,865
8" PVC SDR35 S.S. B-10
761
LF
$37
527,787
8" PVC SDR35 S.S. 10.12
234
LF
S44
$10,296
8" PVC SDR35 SS. 12-14
4
LF
$56
S224
8" PVC SDR35 S.S. 14-16
4
LF
375
5300
10" PVC SDR35 S.S. 0.6
250
LF
$35
$8,750
12" PVC SDR35 S.S. 0-6
205
LF
S36
$7.380
12" PVC SDR35 S.S. 6.8
91
LF
S38
$3.458
12" PVC SDR35 S.S. 8-10
129
LF
S44
$5,676
4 ft. M.H. 08
54
E4
$1.400
575.600
4 tL M.H. 6-8
20
EA
51.800
$36,000
4 ft. M.N. 8.10
6
EA
52,455
$14,730
4 ft. M.H. 12-14
1
EA
S3.300
$3.300
4 ft. M.H. 14.16
1
EA
$3,800
S3.800
Drop M.H.
40
LF
S1S0
$6.000
Lea Ally Pump Station
1
LS
$75.000
575,000
Fairview Dr. P.S. (Fence & Road, Elec. & All)
1
LS
$50000
55O000
Liberty St. P.S. (Fence, Road Electrical & Ali)
1
LS
$511000
$5Q000
Grinding Pumps for Home's
8
EA
56,000
$48.000
16" Steel Casing B & Jack
30D
LF
$127
S38,100
8" PVC S.S. line in easing
300
LF
S20
$6,000
6" Sted Casing B & Jade
90
LF
$50
$4.500
2" PVC in Casing
30
LF
S20
S60D
8" DIP (0-8)
18
LF
S38
$684
2.5" PVC SDR21 Force Main
1,326
LF
SS
$6.299
6" PVC SDR21 Force Main
3.083
LF
S6
$18,498
Portable Generator
1
EA
S1Q000
$10,000
4' S.S. Service Connection open -art
1.700
LF
S17
$28.050
4' S.S. Service Connection Bared &Jack
1.300
LF
$23
$29,250
Sewerwyes 8x4
128
EA
S88
511,025
Sewer wyes 12x4
4
EA
$120
5480
Sewer clean out
130
EA
We
311.375
4" Sermee line house connection
11.360
LF
S7
576.815
4" C.O. Service line house connection
247
EA
S85
$20.995
Septic tank pumping dean
141
EA
5225
531,725
Septic tank demolition & back fill
1.550
CY
S23
$34,875
Grease tank pump dean
20
EA
$88
$1,780
Grease tank demolition & back fill
130
CY
S22
$2,896
Asphalt pavement repair (NC57)
1,000
SY
S30
530.000
Concrete drive repair
500
LF
S46
$23,000
Asphalt drive repair
230
LF
S30
S6,900
Gravel drive repair
275
LF
S11
52.970
DI Fittings
2.000
EA
S4
$7,000
Rock check dam
5
EA
S2S0
$1.250
Silt fence
300
LF
S4
$1.200
Misc. Concrete
20
CY
S150
$3.000
Stabilization stone
1,000
TN
S20
$20,000
ABC stone
1,000
TN
$16
518.000
Unclassified material
50
CY
$90
54,500
Air release valve & M.H.
1
EA
52.500
52.500
Rip Rap
20
SY
S37
5735
21/2 PVC SDR21 Force Main
2.250
LF
SS
$10.125
21/2 PVC in Casing
60
LF
$9
$510
Pavement Repair (SRs)
1.000
SY
Si?
517,000
Mobilization
1
LS
$35.231
535.231
Collection System Construction Total
$1,204650
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 11

fm
tR
tm
MR
ISM
fm
tm
No
tm
eM
fm
fm
fm
fm
MR
fm
CAVANAU G H
sobs through integrity and parmeahO
Option A: 25,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Unit
Item
Quantity
Unit
Cost
Total
Land Acquisibion
9
AC
$5.000
$45,000
Site Preparation
Clear & Grub
4.75
AC
$5,000
$23,750
Gravel Access Road
315
SY
$80
$25,200
Erosion and Sediment Control
Sediment Traps
3
EA
$750
$2.250
Silt Fence
300
LF
$4
$1.050
Drainage Swales
700
LF
$5
$3.500
Discharge Controls
15" RCP
40
LF
$30
$1.200
Site Grading (Held on site)
Total Site Grading
8,000
CY
$4
$32,000
Lagoon Liner
Facultative Lagoon
5,550
SF
$1
$3,053
Shallow Rooted Plant Cells
29,042
SF
$1
$15,973
Precast Concrete
Precast Manholes
3
EA
$2.500
$7,500
Discharge Headwall
1
EA
$2,500
$2,500
Influent Screening
1
LS
$20,000
$20.000
Sand Filter System
Precast tank, media, piping
1
LS
$10,000
$10.000
Plant Piping
8" PVC SDR 35 Pipe
480
LF
$23
$10,800
Misc. Fittings
1
EA
$500
$500
Plant Mechanical
Facultative Floating Aerator
1
EA
$6,500
$6,500
Manual Weir Gates
4
EA
$500
$2,000
Flow Recorder w/Chart Sys
1
EA
$7,000
$7,000
UV Disinfection Unit
1
EA
$22.500
$22.500
Auto Sampler Unit
1
EA
$8.000
$8.000
Palmer Bowles Flume
1
EA
$4,000
$4,000
Plant Electrical
Area Lights
3
EA
$1,250
$3,750
Power Service
1
EA
$3,000
$3,000
Generator for UV + Aerator
1
EA
$18,000
$18.000
Site Fencing
5.0' Chain Link
400
LF
$8
$3,200
Gates
2
EA
$500
$1,000
Landscaping
Seed & Straw
2.5
AC
$1,700
$4,250
General Contractor Adm/Job Mgmt (6 mo const pd.)
$60.000
CWWTP Construction Cost
$347,476
Collection System
$1,208,650
Mobilization (3% of Const)
$55,758
Construction Subtotal
$1,611,884
Surveying (Easements and Property)
$75.000
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$7,000
Subsurface Investigations
$7,000
Design
$116,056
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$8,000
Construction Administration
$80.594
Legal & Administrative
$16,119
Equipment
$7,000
Interest During Construction
$32,238
Construction Contingency
$161,188
Total Project Cost
$2,122,078
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 12
ram.

M"
am
RM
an
ow
fm
am
MR
tm
fm
rim
ow
AM
tM
am
Am
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
Option B: 25,000 d Mechanical Package Wastewater Treatment Facili
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Total Price
Land Cost (Doll Branch Property)
0.5
AC
$5,000
$2,500
25,000 gpd Package WWTP
1
LS
$130,000
$130,000
Site Preparation Clear and Grub
0.5
AC
$5,000
$2,500
Site Preparation Gravel Access Road
315
SY
$80
$25,200
Package Plant concrete slab
40
CY
$350
$14,000
UV Disinfection
1
LS
$22,500
$22,500
15 kW Generator w/ Automatic Transfer
1
LS
$27,000
$27,000
Samplers & Flow Measurement
1
LS
$19,000
$19,000
Plant Electrical: Area lights
3
LS
$1,250
$3,750
Power Service
1
EA
$3,000
$3,000
Site Fencing: Fence
600
LF
$8
$4,800
Site Fencing: Gates
2
EA
$500
$1,000
CABC Stone Fill
161
TN
$37
$5,957
Erosion Control (silt fencing)
300
LF
$4
$1,200
Seed and Straw
0.2
AC
$1,700
$340
General Contractor Adm/Job Mgmt (5 mo const pd.)
$50.000
Package Plant Construction Cost
$312,747
Sewer Collection System
$1,208,650
Mobilization (3% of Const)
$54,949
Construction Subtotal
$1,576,346
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$7,000
Surveying (Easements & Property)
$75,000
Design
$113,497
Subsurface Investigations
$5,000
Legal & Administrative
$15,763
Construction Administration
$78,817
Equipment
$10,000
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$8,000
Interest During Construction
$31,527
Construction Contingency
$157,635
Total Project Cost
$2,078,585
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 13
am

• CAVANAU G H
Sohitions through integrity and partnership
tsar
Option C 1: 26,000 qpd Land Application Treatment Facility (Drip Irrigation)
>'t
R"
M
M
M
M
ter
MR
Om
OW
rm
®I
MR
FM
Item Unit Oty. Unit Cost Total
Plant Slte
Land Acquisition (Doll Branch Property)
AC
5.02
$5,000
$25,100
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
5.02
$5,000
$25,100
Gravel Access Road
SY
315
$80
$25.200
Grading
CY
10.000
$4.00
$40.000
Influent Screening
LS
1
$20,000
$20,000
Settling Lagoon Liner
SF
5500
$1.00
$5,500
Settling Lagoon Aeration
LS
1
$15,000
$15.000
Storage Lagoon Liner
SF
23980.5
$1.00
$23,981
Storage Lagoon Aeration
LS
1
$15.000
$15.000
Distribution Pump Station
LS
1
$45.000
$45,000
UV Disinfection Unit
EA
1
$22,500
$22,500
Generator fro UV + Aerator + Pump Station
EA
1
$25,000
$25,000
Yard Piping
LF
600
$15
$9,000
Sampling & Metering
LS
1
$12,000
$12.000
Plant Electrical: Area Lights
EA
3
$1.250
$3,750
Power Service
EA
1
$3,000
$3,000
Fencing
LF
950
$8
$7,600
Land Application Site
Land acquisition - application
AC
9.63
$5.000
$48,150
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
9.63
$5,000
$48,150
Crop Planting, Seeding & Mulching
AC
9.63
$1,000
$9,630
Delivery Piping
LF
1300 1
$15
$19,500
Delivery Valves & Blowoffs
LS
1
$5,000
$5.000
Irrigation Main
LF
4275
$10
$42,750
Lateral Pipe
LF
6.177
$5.00
$30,883
Valves
EA
33
$300
$9,900
Rotors
EA
62
$50
$3,100
Misc. Electrical
LS
1
$10,000
$10,000
Erosion Control Sediment
Traps
EA
6
$750
$4,500
Slit Fence
LF
2000
$4.00
$8,000
Drainage
Swales
EA
2000
$5.00
$10,000
General Contractor Adm/Job Mgmt (6 mo const pd.)
$60,000
Land Application System Construction Cost (Drip)
$632,293
Sewer Collection System
$1,208,650
Mobilization (3% of Const)
$53,031
Construction Subtotal
$1,893,974
Species Survey & Floodway Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (Easements & Property)
$92,000
Design
$136.366
Subsurface Investigations
$10.000
Legal & Administrative
$18.940
Construction Administration
S94,699
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$8,000
Equipment
$7,000
Interest During Construction
$37.879
Construction Contingency
$189,397
Total Project Cost
$2,498,255
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 14
am

MR
FM
MR
M
am
MM
tt�t
MR
rm
Op
MR
M
MR
�-]
40011
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through irate" and poanership
Option C 2: 25,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility (Spray Irrigation)
Item Unit Oty. Unit Cost Total
Plant Site
Land Acquisition (Doll Branch Property)
AC
6.71
$5.000
$33,550
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
6.71
$5,000
$33,550
Grading
CY
10,000
$4
$40.000
Gravel Access Road
SY
315
$80
$25.200
Influent Screening
LS
1
$20.000
$20,000
Settling Lagoon Liner
SF
5500
$1.00
$5,500
Settling Lagoon Aeration
LS
1
$15,000
$15.000
Storage Lagoon Liner
SF
23980.5
$1.00
$23.981
Storage Lagoon Aeration
LS
1
$15.000
$15.000
Distribution Pump Station
LS
1
$45,000
$45,000
UV Disinfection Unit
EA
1
$22,600
$22,500
Generator for UV + Aerator + Pump Station
EA
1
$25,000
$25.000
Yard Piping
LF
600
$15
$9,000
Sampling & Metering
LS
1
$12.000
$12,000
Plant Electrical: Area Lights
EA
3
$1,250
$3,750
Power Service
EA
1
$3,000
$3,000
Fencing
LF
950
$8
$7.600
Land Application
Land acquisition - application
AC
13.29
$5,000
$66.450
Clearing & Grubbing
AC
13.29
$5,000
$66,450
Crop Planting, Seeding & Mulching
AC
13.29
$1,000
$13,290
Solid Set Irrigation System and Equip
AC
11.07
$5,750
$63.653
Irrigation Pumps
LS
2
$25.000
$50,000
Irrigation Main
LF
4275
$10
$42,750
Misc. Electrical
LS
1
$10.000
$10,000
Erosion Control
LS
1
$10.000
$10,000
General Contractor Adm/Job Mgmt (6 mo const pd.)
$60,000
Land Application System Construction Cost (Spray)
$722.223
Sewer Collection System
$1.208,650
Mobilization (3% of Const)
$54.926
Construction Subtotal
$1,986,799
Species Survey & Fioodway Analysis
$10,000
Surveying (Easements & Property)
$92.000
Design
$198.580
Subsurface Investigations
$10.000
Legal & Administrative
$19.858
Construction Administration
$99,290
Operation & Maintenance Manual
$8,000
Equipment
$7,000
Interest During Construction
$39,716
Construction Contingency
$198,580
Total Project Cost
$2,668,823
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 15
Om

fm
FAR
Im
an
tom,
tR
f"
tm
■m
OW
400
OM
401-1�1
CAVANAU G H
SOWOM through integrity and partnershep
0 tion D: Connection to Danville Sewer S stem
Item
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Total
4" Force Main
47,520
LF
$15
$712,800
Directional Bores (without rock)
100
LF
$175
$17,500
Directional Bore (estimated rock)
100
LF
$225
$22,500
Pump Station
1
EA
$45,000
$45,000
Land Acquisition
0.5
AC
$5,000
$2,500
Road Crossing Bore
200
LF
$135
$27,000
Flow Meter Vault
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Clear & Grub
0.5
AC
$5,000
$2,500
Gravel Access Road
250
SY
$80
$20,000
Erosion Control (silt fencing)
300
LF
$4.00
$1,200
Seed and Straw
0.2
AC
$1,700
$340
General Contractor Adm/Job Mgmt (6 mo const pd.)
$60,000
Danville Connection Cosntruction Cost
$961,340
Sewer Collection System
$1,208,650
Mobilization (3% of Const)
$65,100
Construction Subtotal
$2,235,090
Surveying (Easements & Property)
$85,000
Floodway Analysis
$5,000
Design
$149,751
Construction Administration
$111,754
Legal & Administrative
$22,351
Equipment
$7,000
Interest During Construction
$44,702
Construction Contingency
$223,509
Total Project Cost
$2,884,157
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 16

4001
CAVANAU G H
SduWns through integrity and pannenhip
Operation and Maintenance Costs
�. Sewer Collection System Operations and Maintenance
There are three pump stations that will be operated and maintained in the sewer
collection system along with the actual line work itself. Below is an estimate of the
operation and maintenance cost for the collection system.
2003
2023
Average/yr.
Pump Station - Power $4,500
$8,319
$6,409.49
PumpMaintenance $4,400
$8,134
$6,267.06
Total Operation & Maintenance $8,900
$16,453
$129677
ern
Annual operation and maintenance costs are described for each of the primary
alternatives. These figures are based on an average flows.
Option A: 25,000 qpd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
With a constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility, the operation and
maintenance is reduced significantly. The constructed wetlands wastewater treatment
concept uses the natural approach of biological waste decomposition through
anaerobic, aerobic and facultative microbial life. The influent waste stream would still
need to undergo a rudimentary screening process followed by flow measurement.
These operation and maintenance aspects were outlined in the mechanical treatment
section.
Following the preliminary screening, the wastewater must undergo primary treatment.
The primary treatment anticipated for the Milton system would be a facultative lagoon
FM with one central floating aerator. The maintenance associated with a floating -type
aerator would include periodic observation of the aeration equipment and turning off
and inspecting the equipment for required greasing of fittings, etc. The aeration
MM equipment that should be designed and installed in the aerobic zone should be
equipment that is capable of running continuously.
tom, Following the preliminary treatment, the wastewater flows to the natural section of the
constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility. In this section, which could be a
bullrush or cattail plant section, the waste is placed in an environment which has an
�., extremely long detention time. The natural nutrient uptake from the plant species
breaks down the waste elements, specifically nutrients such as phosphorus and
nitrogen. There is some maintenance around this facility, as it is land intensive. It is,
however, intensive only as it relates to mowing and potential animal
colonization/damage if those animals begin to cause problems such as borrowing into
berms, etc. Following the natural marsh facility, the wastewater would flow to a sand
filter followed by UV disinfection and an effluent metering station. These components
would require the same type of maintenance required as described in the mechanical
treatment section.
fm
PM
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 17
fm

fm
fm
Fa
f"
CAVANAU G H
Sofudw through nttgrhy and partnership
Expected Annual 0 & M
2003
2023
Average/yr
Power
Primary process (aerator) - 5 hp - 24 hrs
$2,600
$4,807
$3,703
Secondary process (UV, recirc pump,
metering & sampling) -1 hp - 24 hr
$1,100
$2,034
$1,567
Laboratory & Analytical testing
$20,000
$36,973
$28,487
Mowing & Maintenance ($50/ac, ave 6 wk)
$1,950
$3,605
$2,777
Equipment Maintenance and Repairs
$2,000
$3,697
$2,849
Operational Labor
$25,000
$46,217
$35,608
Total
$529650
$97,332
$74,991
Option B: Package Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
fm Based on similar package treatment plants currently in operation, the following is an
estimate of the expected operations and maintenance costs.
ON Expected Annual 0 & M
am
I"
am
2003
2023
Average/yr.
Power
Plant (from similar plant records)
$7,000
$12,941
$9,970.33
Laboratory & Analytical testing
$20,000
$36,973
$28,486.64
Mowing & Maintenance
$2,000
$3,697
$2,848.66
Sludge Disposal
$6,008
$11,107
$8,557.39
Equipment Maintenance and Repairs
$7,500
$13,865
$10,682.49
Operational Labor
$25,000
$46,217
$35,608.31
Total
$679508
$1249800
$969154
OW Option C 1: A 25,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility Drip Irrigation
A land application treatment facility consists of mechanical pre-screening equipment
and a partially aerated settling lagoon. The aerator runs 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. The process also includes a storage lagoon which must allow 30 days minimum
storage. Flow is pumped to the irrigation field for application. The irrigation field
consists of a series of distribution lines and control valves. Field vegetation control
most also be considered.
am
an
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 18

t�l
we
e"
am
am
CAVANAU G H
SohMns through inteprtty and partnership
Expected Annual O & M
2003
2023
Average/yr.
Power
Primary process (aerator) - 5 hp - 24 hrs
$2,600
$4,807
$3,703
Pumping - 7.5 hp - 6 hrs
$980
$1,812
$1,396
Laboratory & Analytical testing
$10,000
$18,487
$14,243
Mowing & Maintenance ($50/ac/6 weeks)
$6,348
$11,736
$9,042
Equipment Maintenance and Repairs
$3,000
$5,546
$4,273
Operational Labor
$25,000
$46,217
$35,608
Total
$47,928
$88p603
$68,266
on
Option C 1: A 25,000 gpd Land Application Treatment Facility Spray Irrigation
A land application treatment facility consists of mechanical pre-screening equipment
�., and a partially aerated settling lagoon. The aerator runs 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. The process also includes a storage lagoon which must allow 30 days minimum
storage. Flow is pumped to the irrigation field for application. The irrigation field
consists of a series of distribution lines and control valves. Field vegetation control
most also be considered.
Expected Annual O & M
M
fm
2003
2023
Average/yr.
Power
Primary process (aerator) - 5 hp - 24 hrs
$2,600
$4,807
$3,703
Pumping - 7.5 hp - 6 hrs
$980
$1,812
$1,396
Laboratory & Analytical testing
$10,000
$18,487
$14,243
Mowing & Maintenance ($50/ac/6 weeks)
$8,667
$16,022
$12,344
Equipment Maintenance and Repairs
$3,000
$5,546
$4,273
Operational Labor
$25,000
$46,217
$35,608
Total
$50,247
$929889
$719568
Option D: Connection to Danville Sewer System
No An interconnection with the City of Danville would involve the least amount of
maintenance. However, the Town of Milton would install a flow meter at the connection
and be billed monthly by the City of Danville based on their bulk sale rate which is
FM currently $7.50 per 750 gallons.
am
we
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis - February 2004 Page 19
MW

me
fm
no
fm
m"
fm
No
so
am
No
oft
me
w.
Im
CAVANAU G H
Schwas thmgh intey W cad pamiem- ip
Expected Annual 0 & M
2003
2023
Average/yr.
Additional Pump Station - Power
$8,500
$15,714
$12,106.82
Additional Pump Station - Maintenance
$1,500
$2,773
$2,136.50
Average Yearly Payment to Danville
$32,850
$60,729
$46,789.31
Total Operations & Maintenance
$42,850 _
$799215
$610033
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 20
00

we
am
M
CAVANAUGH
Sehn = through integrity and partner lup
Net Prasant Va lip of r-nsie
Capital Cost
Term (yrs)
Rate
Recurring Cost*
Present Value
Difference from lowest
Option A: CWWTF
$2.122.078
20
S.875%
$61,550
$2,835.272
lowest
Option B. Mechanical Plant
$2,078,585
20
S.875%
$76,408
$2.963,942
$128,670
Option C-1: Land Application -
Drip
$2.498,255
20
5.975%
$5a828
$3.156,738
$321,466
Option C-2: Land Application -
Spray
$2,668,823
20
5.875%
$59,147
$3,354.169
$518.897
Option 0,Danville
Interconnection
S2,884,157
20
5.675%
S51,750
$3,483.796
$648.524
91�1
For the basis of comparing alternatives, a 20-year life cycle cost analysis was performed
for each alternative. A discount rate of 5.875% was used based on recent funding
agency debt service interest rates. The following summarizes the net present cost
analysis:
* Recurring costs represent the collection and treatment facility O&M
PV = Co + C, (1 + r)" ^ 1
psi r(1 + r)
where PV = present value of cost
Co = costs incurred in the present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after the present year
n = ending year of the period of project
r = discount rate
The most economical alternative is to construct a 25,000 gpd Constructed Wetlands
Wastewater Treatment Facility.
IAA
am
em
No
om
MR
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 21
MR

G01
CAVANAU G H
Salmns thrwryh integrity and partnership
0"
Proposed Project (Recommended alternative)
Because of the on -going problems Milton residents and businesses have with private
septic systems, the Town of Milton will develop a public sewer system and a wastewater
treatment facility with a capacity of 25,000 gpd. Constructing a 25,000 gpd constructed
wetlands wastewater treatment plant is the best alternative.
Funding the Project
The Town of Milton has acquired a grant from The Rural Center for $1,307,000 for
this project through the Unsewered Communities Grant Program. The Town has
committed $20,000 to the project. USDA Rural Development has informed the Town
that they are eligible for the following funding scenario:
$1,192,000 Grant
$430,000 Loan
$20,000 Local funding
$1,642,000 Total Project
The following funding models reflect the updated cost estimates and funding from
The Rural Center. The first model shows the Rural Development loan remaining at
$430,000 which yields an average monthly user cost of $57.32. The second model
shows the all grant fund from Rural Development which reduced the average user
cost to $41.36. The user costs are based on 124 connections.
fm
an
am
M"
A.
am
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 22
M

ouenano: Kural. uevelopment Loan Stays at $430,000
Total Project Estimate - Capital Cost (Updated 9-24-03)
$2,122,078
Rural Center Unsewered Communities Money
$1,307,000
Milton Local Funds
$20,000
Rural Development Grant
$385,078
Project Balance to Be Funded Through RD loan
$430,000
Annual Debt Service (38-Yr. Amort, 4.475%)
$23,740
System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
$61,550
Total Annual Revenue Need
$85,290
Number of Connected Users (Equivalent User Calc)
124
Monthly Cost to User (Equally Distributed)
$67.32
CAVANAUGH
Solutions through integrity and partnership
18% RD Grant
Suggested Rate Structure
Base Rate (Approximately 2/3 Fixed Cost) 0-2000 Gallons $42.32 $62,970 Fixed Revenue
Variable Rate >2001 Gallons Consumed ($/1000 Gal) $5.00
JAssuming 5,000 Gallons Average Usage $85,290
QUUIIUIIU. Htt gran[
Total Project Estimate (Updated 08-12-03)
$2,122,078
Rural Center U nsewered Communities Money
$1,307,000
Milton Local Funds
$20,000
Rural Development Grant
$795,078
Project Balance to Be Funded Through RD loan
$0
Annual Debt Service (38-Yr. Amort, 4.475%)
$0
System Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
$61,550
Total Annual Revenue Need
$61,550
Number of Connected Users (Equivalent User Calc)
124
Monthly Cost to User (Equally Distributed)
$41.36
37% RD Grant
Suggested Rate Structure
Base Rate (Approximately 213 Fixed Cost) 0-2000 Gallons $31.01 $46,149 Fixed Revenue
Variable Rate >2001 Gallons Consumed {$/1000 Gal) $3.45
JAssuming 5,000 Gallons Average Usage $61,550
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004 Page 23

fop
am
me
FJW
MR
am
fm
am
fm
so
tm
00
FM
4010°
CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integM and partnership
Conclusions & Recommendations
Currently, the Town of Milton has funding for this project through The Rural Center and
USDA Rural Development that will insure the project is financially feasible for the Town.
It is recommended that the Town move forward with permitting of a 25,000 gpd
Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility and the collection system to
provide public sewer to the entire Town of Milton. The Town must continue to work
together with The Rural Center and USDA Rural Development through the completion of
the sewer system.
Milton Sewer Engineering Alternatives Analysis — February 2004
Page 24

g eJ
lit
ill l'Y
\U
N
V6 AJZ
4 CIO
!m
I UMM
P N%
37
�'�' __ -may � ,�._•�, �I )} s /r—.. - /l(' __.: .y �f �i.- '.'-• \ �..;:•• � \ `, 111i
J.
A
n4aill;
\,X
\ jlt 600
VAT J
.
5w
7
soc
00
so559
:1 � �1 {_
VA 9V. RR
u.
7 1• 5
, VV
1 41
I YK,
F. IR
AII
".:If. V.
Z.-
UU
ANI
fniI..
I I fit
; Ij
fit, 1 7
,•1-.� !a�, ,'1� j, _�. ` �1�.\ -:`�" �1 1� _`.i1 ".•,',.1 ,f Ci• _ �- t _.�. .t •� ••iPt
-UU 10 v
j
2� .I'•' } .• G f +. � 1_ / _� ', L- ^^ '• \i fi\ / •. .!1 y , t`.� a / �� �r - - / ' _ c � '
J•Lnion it
is
P-C Is
if' --Soo Jr
$00
w
A
v W.
`a \., �% ' :� i•� - I,,s�, .t �����.�.�- �(f��� -ill' { j ���i..��"�) t/:= J� - _ l r )•. ' ' /� '
11 -,/Z
, � `� I { ` / ,i J `I:!`,li\`1 I .�,,'•;�`� !% \N v, ON—
E
554
I
. I .. %.. - . _..,
314
Estelle
N
-4
sck,
Offil -
- .'• ..:.� = -- L• - - - � �I .-� I `., �,—.` _ �.a` �. .Y�.• \ •,\. .� I / l..' i ( 1 ��,, _� I�:. - �-'•�-`�' SOS:
30 000 FErf (VA.)
:658
1659 -60 12#301* •Upalmercl
662
i(e�_-_Fanod)Ylu
bli eaby the Geological Survey .663
I USGS aild NOS/NOAA 5156 1 NW
111Y by Witifoofammorit- 111pilinriq frnm SCALE 1:24 000
0 ------------- ;zz= ------ E�_

,sv, QQu 0e4 1141 r, U2
CaY � '� BAR 1 1 1999
$ballgh & Associates, P.A.
MR r-4We provide superior client service and ersvironmenraily soand
designs thr+mugh integrity, communication and pannership.
EtMROWA9VTJK PRR CNAlE Cem mcfes3 oms
March 9, 1999
Mr. Allen Hart
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
Suite 104, Henderson Building
2301 W. Meadowview Road
Greensboro, NC 27407
F
Re: Town of Milton Wastewater Facilities
C&A No.: MT9803
Dear Allen:
We are enclosing a copy of the septic tank survey done in the Tows of Milton. Every
fourth house (31) was surveyed to determine the condition of its tank and drain field.
The attached map shows the location of the homes or businesses surveyed. 23 of the 31
facilities checked, had completely fatted or are in a failing condition. Approximately,
one half of the failed facilities were, among other things, surfacing.
Should you have questions, please give me a call at [phone] or Mr. Ted Davis,
` Caswell County Health Director at (3 3 6) 694-9731.
,
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOICATES, F.A.
Joseph E. Hardee, P.E., R.L.S.
Jump
cc: Mr. Jeff Rudd w/enclosure
Mr. Ted Davis
Mr. Larry Jeffress w/enclosure
NAMT9802%doca%ahO30999.doc
705 Creorg=wa Road ♦ Raleigh. North Carolina 27608 ♦ 919MZ77% • FU 919/832.4781 ♦, wwwx vanaueh-paxom
CoMmate Mradquarsers: Winston -Sala n, North Ca vma
.r
f�

I lilt JIVI Oa0 oa4 1141 r, U4
3--09--1999 8 : 27AM FRCM CASWELL CO HOME HEAL 3l eSSA7490 P. 2
city of
Milt n
Gh3-Site'W'st�ar S Eralcradart sues►
1
xO'm : survey was aoaducted oe a p ea-M basis► on w A rnccm the c� kI& of R�r�cdoWAS a�
MR 'signed or sS a new wdc tank would ftmcdan. Survey aos�dttC#ed oa avay fourth }tome of htc3o wan
as 4atern fined by s aveyw. T3e't tistmg; eo of the Seam 04tadn;y� was mods i�rviews wit
the rpekkm vr+tum po"ibta =&or an hm wdon ofthe �i site. The an%my was conducted during
the ji r of Febrstiary and March 19".
MAP. "yN# list co and is designed to be used with Avane imW pdr W Z=Mad CcNcdon. SWed
areas are =tm wick' have beam surveyed nd msb.rs be= Bedded to vita dewed by wavayon as
dweliiap width two =-site soo k ems► &adiip oa msF VWWn amobwS h a been seaweed as
storage baddmgo. carports. ` edii er estiw utility
'DormW Squtma
Fad
Rte W nos*.* lii za, k p amounts
299 DON &each Rd.
IMC= smik Fj�
5.
176 Doll SMWAPA
r-A
e b"Massive a t a
352 DOA is I Rd.
Tm
.to h" atomwe mere, editm
13.
1e$6rps Fsoaily
Fill
to bsit manive 4daw. Stile in
1 I339 AMWOMy SL
mm tank. Mum seu+E'eciog.
JaddRi W am
F.>ti
mod in msior c uaw. Washimg ms�irte
OR
I I SU AQMkW St.
mism PPM and dumps mm 2dIY and emit=
in VINDO teak w4b btoiem: lid.
21.
chsga�ar,. Pandty
Fsdt
:ppesr8 to be at capacity, rap ww to be
11635 AQW=W St,
w MOW=. Talc pad pectodivagy 19
"mm proper Ssaodanins,
25,
Hue%es Fsmf[y
Fast
�yapnm is cn+er r�oe*y yosts and and
117 os AcadftY Se,
rtodb ps to eesvro praptR
29.
inbmw Viimmo
Fes
ump in *a date to
t�cumml'
74 Coa moue ty C3r a
e=amie �. Syyam o�vw l�ae 27
e�
'

. �. .. ... ...�.. .. r.. ..
�.....tIV„.. L.
I•!Z!1 lYU' J,�b W4 1741 p , 05
309--1999 S, 28AM FROM CASWELL CC HOW HEAL. 91AGSA7ASO P. 3
i
I
33,
156-Holders str
Pew
37.
M% 3obarrt
Fag
151E Pambar Alley
Larry kfferi =
Pans
"0
52 Broad St.
I
45,
.T.F. Wiiiis
1 ZS96 Y 62
paw
Maw* >�t� as more Mom far repair
40:
t Isis Rw? 62 '
1
slow fluains bas to Ude Phusaw
53.
mcivin Guolet
.11279 A" 62
Paw
Thm yaw old i no Oux snaxn �o regaQ
61.
Lisa Sarlcar
Farr
( CgM*- w"hicS maddaa MeNOM loud odor,
F
,
63.
Edith Foote
Fm1it:aisea
sfovY,
37 FA&Nieww Dr.
,
69,
Iowa Sattwfwd
181 Fairview Dr.
Fail
Petwwy acuacm hu to Punt often.
�,
73.
MUM UAiVW MahCalas Ch. f=I
ltaa vieav Dr.
At cap Wiy7 no room to Main
i
.
r
?Mmimd vr.
Pass
Appan io be p to dra 4eid, no room to
s3.
137 Lj'bwy St.
sS.
66
•per
Appeam � caonvedisrc0 stare wW two bay
PM
14 $load
1E#�'�o
we on �e systeat.
84.
Amt Ai'im
Fag
At c%Wj isy, b" to pimp oftem.
249 Broad St.
MR
93.
Raymond msde
pan
g,ffh-mm Su IRCM,
Sa aridw St.
`
Fuil
S asap�b'* rs�c drain and wssi�in�
� 34 Bridge St
as Pipes '
y 0�.
E.s�nervne Gatriand
Fail
At capacity, tUrW yOM pbm old. panp evwy
157 Erse 9t
awe s
103.
126 gavi St.
Fsd
ITWO
boaaI'm , one appm I to have no $yam ft
I other at =Pocky, so room to repair.
109.
Raoramre ftha r
'Pam
New sgstm
81,Srids St
�
II

I in ,iv, oy4 11,41 V. 06
3—@9--19%9 8 : ?BAM FROM CASWELL CO HOW fit- 916.9cUM � P. A
l 13: Peat b ca
Tsnlc POMMY =&4 Smu:trs is :poky,
7,38 $roar! St.
scaface. open.
r�
117. F%aae lohnsog Fail
Twasriy Ye* plus old. at caagseity. P=ps caft.
126 Lcs'3 St.
�+
121. 190 Rr oed St. Faa
Buih is pis" tank, no }id..
125. Je n's Unie Shop sail
Dwglkg / Shop *n = ee syeeem, ax cspa,oity
136 Sn*d St.'
ao room to i'qx*.
3ho A vvW was aw4v a d by Tb=w Dais RS acid Dtvid l3elnrs RM of the Casweit Catvtty
"Gakh Dspsrtmr ' ifyott have w7 quOdOm 0
w6h to tMUM uL oar Vlx= number Is 336.694
9731. We OV UOUalfy iA tho *Sm or.A weekd&y
8:00 AMun& 9-.30 AM
Stncac+eiy.
Thaw Davis R$
8vbwwwo ,a1 NO&" ?NO= Comfin"Or
.
Caswen C UNY H=ft t r"M
1
j
�
•
I

o �
1
EXIST. TOWN
WELL
CWWTF SITE
G1 PUMP STATION
O o � � ❑
o �0� ❑ fl
O
NC HWY 62 ❑J
-13
❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑gyp ❑ ❑
13
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p ❑
ALMERS ALLEY 0 o LIBERTY STREET
❑ ❑
❑ CO PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION ❑ ❑ ❑
LEAS ALLEY
BRIDGE STREET WAREHOUSE STREET
❑ ❑❑ ❑
EAST STREET 00 ❑ 0 ❑
o'
4—
�je�e9

CUR%E TABLE
ofu ",ao -.m
10,07,1, 1BOEL-121,
-c-2 289.01,
1A 11
25' X 100 CQNSr.
I —ENTRANCE
GRAW!
ACCESS
L
up;
AA=,
IMF
02STM 'IBM I Van P016 TOWN Ff." I Lp N
N PONEW ROLE
TAX MAI,
aEv. ift.00,
W W.. lam, v
1 1/1'. 1 1 T�~APY
(7F*S 90NTRA ml�
sw:::
- I
L .4
RJR SCRMV It nq
my A% p(wrt
W t
.LAGOON 4—
-OCRIAAL WL'
•
9" EL* J7&oo mad`aI —_ I i /j
iL PROP, Co41W
AERAQ
CO
f v
Emma mm LLmr IMP
5
I \ i , '19 71
Box
m"W al
r -� i SO' I I I , \ ' �I _ I � ' `, ,•�. /� META DEM776 41
LiNGne a,
PROP" SOME AP m0� 5 ` \`�`}�\ i`\ ��\`�I . I �/I / I I I '�
OL
NO
1-1 71,
Disr. 211 1: ar0%',a Oa 46
---mL
-0 maimm 5
T 1�
HOnrJM Dffit 41
DOM 01
OUR UMrpt ir'
\ 14 5ao
FREMoilkFary. '90 Jaw 11<�
ROM S044wr niAP
z24 Ar I LUST AREA
VCL RM, 4.4W, Cr
RIM.: Ar'. 2r
LENGT* r
I I i Ir--' I I I � Df�LZ'-.��_5ri�1fVL}!•! a'' Ti `0.j'.�• ���'� •-..�. _ — ��'' i , ••,
Li CAUX ALONG C/L OFQOLL*S BRANCH
NOTES COURSE BEAFma D1 94M )P
9 2
1. ALL ACCESS BE A 4* CROVIIM. OV3,011E 2.5.(1)2'
E YATM 11
2. Mlg��M M 37'M*5" 20.7r OW
BE A OF 10' VER OWN ALL PIPINQ
3- THE BOUNDARY AND TO-CMAP416 SURVEY INFORMATION AND DATA PRESENTED ON THEN PLAN SHMYS B-5 5 W 193.av
WAS OEMkilNED By ACTUAL FaD SURVEY 13Y MARYIN SL CAVANIAUGH, RLS L-1149 1:67 1 H4z-11v 1301: "1
0719:,2:W
8-0 Ir41,, 3
40
!a 1
98.
8r4:2
-07- rl 11.22
13-12 5 4"1' 3* W
?2
8-13 ­6 04**
S a" _W SCALE. -50 13-14 N .3-27 2 1112:
B-15 11 44 .6
B-Is s
8-17 11 711 9•W
S1,37 1;0
8-18
".24
B-19 5 44M 2 02*W WALE OF MAP WAY BE REDUCM
0 98: WU
44.M M TO METHOOS CF R82ROI)UCnCN.
221 Is, 41;14Z 1,11
1:12 N Z :W IV 19.
8 2.3 S 7 ,, "I
9-24 N 87,112'-111
a- 3,:W
BEFORE YOU o1a 1 25 S 62 . " 1711: A
8-28 S a2l 4�,�.,
CALL 1-flOO-432-4949 9_27 5 :.33,8,., W 31.71' ' 29 e
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER 8-29 N L I
B-30 N 33-2"1" 1 . ITS THE LAW 1 8-31 N .. 2-OrW I !If
8-32

4' THIQ
4' SOUA
FUTURE
FORCE
MAIN
CONNECT
Ww PLUG
FLOW c.Nrna
CHAMBER
'•. •� CROU7'/RLND
Cr EL _ tro
O
T1W a WNOlE7E i
PIER MM 3'XS'1C'1H.
moM7.1w.. W/TA BARS
o e• am AND
A 1MV SUPPORT
CCUIMN W/ 1 6
DCWFLS ANO s-
BARS OS 0 I t
* BANGS o 1Y 1„I
4 SCH I
PIPE
IIL.A. ON
�Ilf'I A11 oFF
I
DIFFUSER i Y I�MERCURY 1 .
DROP
SENBLY I FLOAT
FLOAT
A
� SWIT'Qi6 � R! O 8' D.C. E.W.
I FLAW EOUAUZATION
PUMPS (2) W/ REMOVAL
1 1/2' R' SERVICE HANDRAIL
STV7 BASE SUBDRAOE
3 SECTION
1 t NOT i0 SCALE
CHAMW
4' * SLUDGE
RETURN LINE
BAFFLE
CONCRETE FOUNDATION PAD
BOX OUT CONCRETE
FOR CLARIFIER
UNITS (TYP.)
MN. — _
L21NE 2'1 BgMMER
BAFFLE
E WPMEn WT±CM
B AIND O WALL
CLARN"
C�IFI
114
I 0, F-W. . •i
Ew,EF,
-
r'�
I
f I I
nr
/
�SJBORADE
L 6' NE 7
STOBASE
'E
WALL
0
C
w
0
Cf
W
ut
O
0
z
3
�
2
U
u4 n
t7-N 3
N O

Soil & Environmental Consultants PA
I1010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone:[phone] • Fax:
www.SandEC.com [phone]
March 26, 2003
Project #7751
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Chris Hay
PO Box 18846
Greensboro, NC 27419-8346
Dear Mr. Hay:
PE06�6,�
"a
n
This letter details the findings of a site/soil evaluation performed on approximately 14 acres located onDoll
.. Branch Road in Caswell County. The evaluation w
treat and accept domestic strength wastewateras performed in order to characterize the site's ability to
the evaluation. . James L. Beeson, who is a licensed soil .scientist, performed
Soils examined on the property are most like the Cecil soil series. Ruck is greater thazt 36 inches below
]anti surface and the seasonally high water table is greater than 36" below the surface. In this case the soil
contains a sandy loam surface between' and 12 inchesdeep and usable material to a depth of ar least 40
inches and is therefore an appropriate site for a surface irr'gat.ion system. Because ofthe argiilic horizon,
nctr'ent factors such as nitrogen, phosphorous, organic matter, etc. are not Iimiting factcrsin the design.
These items would be of concern on a site containing only highly permeable sands.
The attached water balance equation shows that the site can hydraulically assimilate 30.3" of irrigation
water. per year. This is approximately equivalent n .61' per week Therefore, for a daily flow of 50,000
gallons, a wetted area of 22.13 acres will be required for the minimum spray field area (see attached
calculations). The permanent ground water table is typically 40 feet or deeper. Since the entire site is less
than the required wetted area, the proposed daily flow cannot be applied to the site.
Sincerely,
James L. Beeson,
License # 1 1 14
Attachments
:::ariotte Office: Greensboro Ofhcg;
6 Lephillio Court. Suite C 381 i•E Lawndale Drive
62_ Coon ylounaun Lane .;ncord, VC _8025
Greensboro. NC 27455
''^cne: (704) 72_0-9405 Phone: [phone]
Taytorsville, YC 78681
:x: [phone] Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

am
Ow
Calculation for Allowable Irri gation Rate
1. Maximum Instantaneous Application Rate (in/hr)
Utilizing the attached Table 1 for typical ranges of soil infiltration rates
The site falls into the sand loam texture and has a slope of 3 % to 9% with a
hardwood cover. Therefore .5 inches/hour would be an acceptable application rate
2. Water Balance (Table 2)
A water budget was developed for the proposed irrigation field by balancing water
losses and gains;
Ow Evaporation + Natural Runoff + Drainage = precipitation and Irrigation
3. Data Inputs
fm
A. PET (potential evapotranspiration) data was- obtained from the North. Carolina
State University Experiment Station, Bldletin 3962 "Weather- and C11imate in North
OR Carolina" Values of PET do not vary significantly over North Carolina, so data.
from Raleigh was used.
B. DR (drainage) was calculated by the procedure described in US EPA.
625/1-77-088, "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of
Municipal Waste Water." The percolation rate or drainage rate was
calculated as 4% to 10% of the permeability of the most restrictive horizon in the
soil. For this soil the most restrictive horizon is the B
horizon, which has an estimated permeability of .2 to .06 inches/hour.
Using .005 inches per hour, monthly drainage rate is 3.24inches/30- days.
C. NR (Natural Runoff)- Since the system is designed to operate without designed
runoff.
D. PPT (Precipitation)- Average monthly y precipitation rates were
obtained from RDU Weather Station. The monthly values represent an
average determined from more than a 20-year period. These averages
are shown on Table 2.
am

am S rav Field Area Calculations
Assumptions:
oft
-Design flow = 50,000 gallons/day
OW Allowable irrigation rate = 30.36 inches/year = .044 gallons/sq ft/day
-Land area required = 50,000 gallons/day divided by .052 gallons/sq ft/da
y
is 964,363 square feet divided by 43,560 square feet/acre
=22.14 acres
Profile Descriution #1 Wetted Area
em`
5% sloae
Landscape Position - Linear
FM
A - 0 to 3" Loam texture color is 10Yr 3/1, Loose, Very Friable,granuiar structure.
E - 3" to 8" Sandy Loam texture, Friable, Granular structure color is IOYr 516
Non -sticky and Non -plastic.
Bt - 8" to 42" Clay texture, color is 2.5Yr4/6, Medium, Moderate sub-
structure. Sticky and Plastic when wet. ��� blocky
BC -42"- 50" Sandy Clay Loam texture, weak, medium sub -angular blocky structure.
f
Plastic and Sticky when wet. 2.5Yr4/6 with 7.5 4/6 few, faint mottles.
Series - Cecil
MR
no
OW
I.
am

Water Balance Equation
MONTH
PET OR
NR TOTAL LOSS PPT
allowable
JAN
0.9 3.348
0
irrigation
4.248
3.55
0.698
FEB
1.4 3.024
p 4.424
3.43
0.994
MAR
2.2 3.348
0 5.548
3.69
1.858
APR
3.3 3.24
0 6.54
2•S1
3.63
MAY
4.3 3.348
0 7.648
3.67
3.978
JUN
4.8 3.24
0 8.04
3.66
4.38
JUL
4.7 3.348
0 8.048
4.38
3.668
AUG
4 3.348
0 7.348
4-44
2.908
SEP
3.3 3.24
0 6.54
3.29
3.25
0
OCT
1.9 3.348
0 5.248
2.73
2.518
0
NOV
1.2 3.24
0 444
2.87
1.57
0
DEC
0.7 3.348
0 4.048
3.14
0.908
incheslyr
TOTAL
32.7 39.42
Q 72.12
3f,.36
41.76
0.051847671
gaUsq fWay
ENTER
total
dr rate
drain rate
FOR
in/hr % dr (5 to 10)
in/hour
NR>
0
0.06 7.5%
0.0045
daily flow 50000J
gallons
required
area 964363
fit

� s
TABLE 1
Typical ranges of soil infiltration rates by soil texture and
slo e
Texture
Basic Infiltration Rate inches/hr
Slope
0-3%
3-9% o
9+ /o
sand and fine sand 1.0+
.7+ 0.5+
FAR
loamy sands 0.7-1.5
0.5-1.0 0.4-0.7
sandy loarns & 0.5-1.0
Fine sandy loans
0.4-0.7 0.3-0.5
very fine sandy loans 0.3-0.7
& silt loamy
0.2-0.5 0.15-0.3
sandy clay loam; 0.2-0.4
& silty clay loans
0.15-0275 0.1-0.15
clay, sand 0.1-0.2
& silty clays
0.1-0.15 <0,1
Source: Sprinkler Irrigation Association, SDrinkler
Irri awn ( 1969).
For good vegetation cover, these rates may be 25% to 50% greater. For poor surface
conditions, rates may be P soil
as much as 50% less.
fm
9"
am

t
N
a-20
',a
Qom
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 " = 100,
° 1°°
2C°
MAP NOT VALID
WITH❑UT S&EC REPORT
SOX Sc�

IMMI L6
Area contains soil that meets the minimum
soil criteria for the application of
surface application of wastewater
Area does not take into account all setbacks
Slope exceeds criteria for spray —irrigation
�>11 M1� a{ pVf
a
iw =
t2
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 0 100 zoo
x-x-x-x-MAP NOT VALID
��O SOIL SCi
F
G� �s t.. eFFs ti

M �To rJ PP-0P Fe I/
EJP (pQYC}J rOP,
E!P (pJrvcri rOP) N 3� %, ` c4E \
� f � er•('� I \ \ 1 \ \ \ � \ \ •`\ '"•Jai •\
TOW 2tO2FaC ILTON
31
TAX MAP 122 — PARCEL 13E
,,may`` J ! / �,' \,• ` \ 1 E1S 1a3es
_— _ � - J / _--•_ \ 1 1 \ \ � \ / / III
sit
jr
Nw
—;-9,=='+�"'��$•' I / /- ��\��" \ . _ _ _ _ — / / i I III
_--••aim?-•s4=__�;— •��,--\ % 1 / // ��.\ — —~\ I I III
c—� I•\\•�,\ �0 / �. ``\\lam—^.-11 � \ — I I

October 1, 2003
Project #7751
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 - Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
r'
04 AMX
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
Attn: Mr. Kevin O'Leary
8064-63 North Point Boulevard
Suite 102
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Dear Mr. O'Leary:
You have requested that I comment on the status of the proposed disposal area for the town of Milton. My
original report was performed using a daily flow of 50,000 gallons. Your new request is to summarize the
possibility of use if the flow were reduced to 25,000 gallons/day.
The proposed wetted area on my map includes 4.439 acres before any additional setbacks are subtracted. If
this site proves itself to take a liberal maximum rate of 31 inches per year, the maximum annual flow would
be 3,731,923 gallons or 10,224 gallons/day. It would be unreasonable to think that a hydraulic load of
25,000 gallons/day should be applied to this site!
Sincerely,
James L. Beeson -
Charlotte Office:
Greensboro Office:
Hickory Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C
3817-E Lawndale Drive
622 Coon Mountain Lane
Concord, NC 28025
Greensboro, NC 27455
Taylorsville, INC 28681
-- Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
. Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 - Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
OR
am
October 1, 2003 l Leo '
Project #7751
�yA�la
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
Attic: Mr. Kevin O'Leary
8064-63 North Point Boulevard
Suite 102
�+ Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Dear Mr. O'Leary:
You have requested that I comment on the status of the proposed disposal area for the town of Milton. My
original report was performed using a daily flow of 50,000 gallons. Your new request is to summarize the
possibility of use if the flow were reduced to 25,000 gallons/day.
The proposed wetted area on my map includes 4.439 acres before any additional setbacks are subtracted. If
this site proves itself to take a liberal maximum rate of 31 inches per year, the maximum annual flow would
be 3,7311923 gallons or 10,224 gallons/day. It would be unreasonable to think that a hydraulic load of
25,000 gallons/day should be applied to this sites
Im
no
no
M"
MR
mm
am
Sincerely,
James L. Beeson
Charlotte Office:
Greensboro Office:
Hickory Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C
3817-E Lawndale Drive
622 Coon Mountain Lane
Concord, NC 28025
Greensboro, NC 27455
Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

CAVANAU G H
Soludam through inteF4 and parm=hlp
Exhibit G - Speculative Umits
7

• State of North Carolina
A., Department of Environment
and Natural Resources 4
Division * •
i of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary N K)ENR
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 15. 1998
Mr. Larry H. Jeffress, Mayor
To%-.m of Milton
P.O.Box 85
Milton, North Carolina 27305
Subject: Speculative Limits
Z own of Milton
�w Caswell County
Dear Mr. Jeffress:
This letter is in response to your request (dated March 17. 1998) for speculative effluent limits
for a proposcd wastewater nsetotreatment plant discharge to Country Line Creek in the Roanoke River Basin.
S MOD discharge of treated domestic wastewater tv CountryThis speculative limit request was fora 0.02
Line Creek at a location just north of the Dvll Branch tributary. The proposed discharge point on
(country Tine Creek has a drainage area of approximately 138 square miles and an estimated summer
7Q 10 now of 0.7 cfs based on USGS data. From the proposed discharge point, Country Ling: Creek
flows north for approximately 2 miles until it discharges to the Dan River (summer 7Qln - 440 cts).
Based on the available information, speculative limits for the proposed discharge point are
presented in Table A(1) and include:
• Sccondar,- limits for BODE and TSS
Fecal coliform and pH limits
• Ammonia limits (summer only)
• Total residual chlorine limit (only if chlorine is used for disinfection)
• Monitoring requirements for a Class II facility
Under the current Division policy, dechiorination and chlorine limits are now required for all new
or expanding dischargers proposing the use of chlorine for disinfection. An alternate f orin of
disinfection, such As ultraviolet radiation, would nl Iow the facility to comply with fecal coliform limits
without the use of 'chlorine.
The speculative limits presented here are based on our understanding of the proposal and of
present environmental conditions. These speculative limits are not binding unless they become part of an
iSstied NPDES permit. Responsc to a speculative limit request does not guarantee that the Division will
issue the Town of Milton an NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into waters of the State. Nor
can we guarantee that the ettluent limitations and other requirements included in any permit will be
exactly as presented here. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable waste
treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment must be implemented.
Non -discharge alternatives, such as spray irrigation or connection to a regional wastewater treatment
facility, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a discharge. Therefore, prior to suhmittal of
an NPDES application, a detailed alternatives analysis must be prepared to assure that the most
environmentally sound alternative was selected from the reasonably cost-effective opbuns. A guidance
P.O. Box 29536, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 59% recyc,ed J 10% post -consumer paper

no
Town of N4 ilton
Speculative Limits
Page 2
document to -assist you or your consultant in preparing an engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) is
enclosed.
aM
All intormation pertaining to this request has been sent to our Central Files for storage. if it
becomes necessary to request an NPDES perni t, please submit a corn Jere a lication
the appropriate fees. If you have any additional questions about these Pirnits or the: NPDES applicat onrrg
process, please contact Tom Belnick at [phone], extension 543.
Sincere
J* WALIL
�ar-David A. Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
o., Water (:duality Section
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Offrcc
""" Central Files
NPDES Unit
a~
no
wo
me
am
Ow
me
a.
Ow
M.

A M. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -SPECULATIVE
Permit 1110. NC040p4C0 �
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittes is authorized to discharge from outtall�s serial umber
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: ) I n
EFFLUENT CHARACTE
e Y . a _ soreme amp
§amow AY�f$geply
.Average' :.Maximum Frequency iRYteP La1
cat�on
BUD
-day
, ,„„ �_ on inuous r nr
To a estoua _ orine
t pn — ijffol
ovem r —
issolved Oxygen
emRera ure
Notes• ,
5
I Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent. Instream monitoring r is `
mined upon application receipt.
2 The mcnthfy average effluent 80D5 and TS tr 'o ' .� _no = -
lo of the respective influent 1lalliB (85% removal squired).
3 TRC limit applies only if chlorine is added for cte
4 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units or an 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible ' in _er than trace amounts.

am
OR
am
G101
CAVANAUGH
Solutions through latcgrity and partnenhip
Exhibit H - Communications

am
a,
April 2, 2003
Im Ms. Susan A. Wilson
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
me Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
fm Re.: Milton W VT'P NPDES Permit
NPDES Permit No.: NCO087645
Application No.: 2182
C&A No.: MT9901
mm
Dear Susan:
11.
CAVA NAU G H
Sofurion_ -r-Ugh inre;riry and parrner;ljra
MM Attached is the second revision on the NPDES Permit a licaio
Milton's proposed 507000 gallons per day constructed wetlands wastewaterrthe Town of
facility. Based on the letter received by the Town from Dave Goodrich
treatment
fm 10, 2003, the following information is offered to answer yours specific questih dated January
questions are answered using the same numbering as in the abovFrnentied onThe
leetttt er.
1. FLOW JUSTIFICATION- In your application return you were concerned
the Town's ability to effectively operate the WWT'P with a 33 hydraulic babout
future growth in excess of the estimated 20-year flow projecions. From buffer for
experience, 1 can see this as being a significant problem with conventional
wastewater treatment such as activated sludge. The proposed nttis al
constructed wetland system that consists of two parallel Systems. Each is a
will consist of a lagoon followed by a wetland vegetation area surfaceh system
niter, UV disinfection and an effluent recycle pump. The recycle ' Pum
sand
installed in order to keep the wetland vegetation area wet and flour shiny will be during
periods of low flow. With this type of wastewater treatment the consistent
or near design capacity is not critical to efficient operation of the system. w at
long as there is sufficient flow to keep the vegetation health As
Pump can do, the system can operate effectively in an under �vloadeds recycle
addition, since the facility will have two systems in parallel, either system state. In
flow increases require both systems can be operated. in addition the Toor as
been severely limited in growth due to failing septic tanks and p
e Town has'
conditions. According to Mayor Thomas several inquires have beeoor soil
n mad
concerning development of the down town area that cannot be currentlyd
due to failing septic tanks. Due to their close location texpected
Danville. it is used
that growth will exceed the 20-year projections once there is a
Way t 0 dispose Of
no

' Ms. Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
Re.: Milton WWTP NPOES Permit
• April 2, 2003
Page 2 or 4
wastewater. There is no current proposal for significant industrial development
�., but there have been several queries about commercial additions such as
restaurants, bed & breakfast, etc. Milton appears to be in a prime location to
become a bedroom community for Danville.
om
2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SIGN -OFF- Even though local government sign -off is
not required for this project, please find attached a duly completed signed d
me notarized sign off: form. As prior noted the County has absolutely no objection to proceeding with this project. 1
fm
Mh
no
0"
fm
NO
ow
3.
4.
SOiLS REPORT- Per your request, attached is a new soils report conducted b a Licensed Sail Scientist, Mr. James L. Beeson, License '1114. This report
concludes that while the site is acceptable for spray irrigation there is not
enough land available to handle the needs of Milton. According to this report, only approximately 4.4 acres of Milton's 20-acre site are acceptable to receive
wastewater. His investigation does not include required buffers and setbacks.
In order to design an adequate spray irrigation facility for Milton it would require
a site with 22.14 acres of wetable area plus additional acreage for buffers appropriate setbacks, treatment units, storage lagoons and access roads.
Milton does not own any other large tracts or feel that they could afford to
purchase another large tract near enough to town to be economically feasible.
LAND COST ESTIMATES You had asked that we provide the average
er
acre of land in Milton. Real estate agents were contacted in the Milton area and it
was advised that there was currently no property on th
area. Therefore, investigations were conducted at the tax office inn the Milton
and the tax records on acreage tracts in Milton were checked. It should
be
noted that this is the end of the valuation cycle, all the property will be
reevaluated next year and the values will increase. Several real ors were
contacted concerning the selling price as compared to the tax value. All those
contacted felt that a 50% increase over current tax value would be a
conservative selling price. The following shows a break down of these findin s
and average selling price per acre in Milton: 5
Size in Acres
"" 2.79
Tax Value
Tax Yalu e1Acre
ProiectEd Selliny Price
3.34
$6,349
$11,874
82,2 7 6
$3, 414
1 .0
$10,627
$3,555
$10,627
3.,
$5, 3.,,.
$15,941
20.59
2.21
$39,953
$1,912
$2,868
7.82
522,100
$10,000
$15,000
2.08
S28 845
S8,DQ7
$3,612
$5,418
3.95
512.064
$3,869
$3,054
$5,803
4.45
2.21S11,7777S4,822
S14, 308
$3,215
$4,581
3.34
$:..329
�
$7, 99„
S 11.874
^ „-
�J..sv.�i
S S.333
,�,
Average Ccst Per Acre
3o,95c"

Ms. Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
Re.; Milton WWTP NPOES Permit
April 2, 2003
Page 3 of 4
�.,
Please note that this land cost is higher than the S5,000 projected in the October
2002, revision to the Encrineerin
Alternatives Analysis.
You also asked that we explain the s100,000 cost for the 20 acres ofproperty
that was shown in the alternatives analysis
���_�
for the package
P g WW1'P that would
only require 5 acres. In order to avoid escalating property cost
as explained
above the Town has taken an option on the
•
aforementioned
mentioned 20 acre tract. The
of this property is unwilling to split the roeAL-
owner p p rty into smaller
,� � '
portions.
Therefore, the Town has to purchase all 20
acres. That is why we included the
cost of the whole 20 acres in each alternative presented. The only difference
between
,
' L-
,�
spray and drip irrigation acreage requirements would be a slight
reduction in buffer needs for the
drip irrigation system. In the Land
Requirements Section of the EAA (page 9) is the determination for
ac, eaae
needs for both spray and drip irrigation disposal. Based on these determination
it appears that an additional 23 acres
at a cost of $259,9eS will be required for
drip and 33 additional acres at a cost of $325,915 will be needed or s ra irrigation
disposal. p Y
S. OPERATIONS, POWER & MAINTENANCE -Operations and maintenance
estimates have been revised.
The original I�de application figures were
assuming the possibility for reuse. After real estate investigation
discussions
and
with local agents and residents, thisrealistic possibility. We
have, therefore,
revised both the capital Aida
O&M figures for land
application. Also, in recent discussions with possible
contract operators or the
system, the operational figure for all options except option D have f been
increased.
6. PRESENT VALUE COST- Present Value Costs have been revised to not
include salvage values. As well, the discount rate has been
changed from 8% to
4.475%, a more realistic figure from funding agencies at this time.
7. CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS TREATMENT- You were concerned with the
ability of a wetland system to consistently
meet the summer ammonia limit of 5.9
mg/i maximum and the weekly average limit of 17.7 mc-11. As
you know the
design and performance of lagoon/wetland treatment systems with respect to
ammonia (nitrification)
is not well defined or documented. This f stem is
type not widely used for treatment
of domestic wastewater in North C
However, the design of wetland systems was recently reviewed according Carolina.
EPA's Office of Water.
The EPA's recommended ammonia loading is currently 1
to 4 lb/acre/day. It is our intention
to design the proposed system within this
range once it is permitted.
Enclosed are also are the items that were returned that make up ";e complete NP
application package. P DES

Ms. Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
Re.: Milton VW TP NPOES Permit
April 2, 2003
Page 4 or 4
We hope that this additional information clarifies your questions and concerns an
are hoping for approval of this much needed facility, if you should have an questions.
please do not hesitate to contact Larry Coble or myself. We look forward to a speed
review-.y
Sincerely,
Lisa Alley, P.E.
Enclosures
Cc: Mayor Walter Lea Thomas, Town of Milton
Allen Hart, USDA Rural Development
Julie Haigler, The Rural Center
Larry D. Coble, Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
No
fm
f.
Ow
Om
A.

MW
Record of Meeting
Participants: Dave Goodrich, DWQ
Tom Belnick, DWQ
Susan Wilson, DWQ
Ow Julie Haigler, The Rural Center
Dennis Lassiter, The Rural Center
Larry Coble, C&A
O, Lisa Alley, C&A
Date: April 30, 2003
OM Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: DWQ Conference Room, Archdale Building, Raleigh
fm
fm
am
FAR
Om
mm
on
no
NPDES Permitting will be meeting for half a day in May to hash through how
they do their permitting so they can streamline and clarify for those who must go
through their permitting process.
NPDES Permitting will hold a workshop/seminar on Jun 12' at The Friday
Center. All those present asked to be included on the notification list so they
could attend the meeting.
The following are highlights of the discussion regarding the Milton permit
application:
o In regards to the land acquisition cost, NPDES Permitting no longer has
an issue about the $5,000 per acre cost
o Rural Center will require 2 appraisals on any land purchased for the plant
site.
o Milton needs to exhaust any hope of property acquisition adjacent to the
current optioned property. There needs to be documentation in writing
either from the land owner or by the Mayor that other adjacent property is
not available.
o Susan requires log boring sheets to be included in the soils report.
o The map included in the soils report must show suitable, provisionally
suitable and unsuitable soils. If there are no provisionally suitable soils,
the soil scientist needs to state this.
o DWQ found it interesting that the only bores shown on the soils report
map are located in the area where suitable soil was found.
o DWQ will not allow use of peak flow for the engineering alternatives
analysis which was new information to Cavanaugh. DWQ apologized for
this oversight but they require the EAA to be based on monthly average
discharge even though components of the treatment system must be
sized to accommodate peak flows.
o DWQ will not allow the entire 20 acre property to be a factor in the cost
analysis of the package plant option regardless of whether the property
can or cannot be subdivided.
o DWQ does not want room for expansion of the proposed plant to be
factored into the EAA as well.
o In our re -analysis of the options, DWQ will not require Cavanaugh to look
at downstream properties for possible locations for a treatment facility.
am

am
o DWQ will not allow the 33% flow "buffer" for future growth without
substantial justification. Milton must show type of development and a list
of the types of inquiries they have received regarding development.
DWQ feels that 10-20% is more reasonable but if we can justify the 33%,
they are fine with that as well.
Once Cavanaugh has recalculated Milton's flow projections, we should send
them to Susan and she will estimate the ammonia limit for us.
If after redrafting the EAA, the best option is still surface water discharge, DWQ
will draft the permit and after publication, there will be a 45-day public notice
period. Once the NPDES permit is drafted, NPDES Permitting will allow the
construction plans to be submitted for the Authorization to Construct review.
The A to C review is expected to be 120 days.
Julie requested a schedule be sent to The Rural Center for the project.
Cavanaugh will base this schedule on the assumption that we will acquire an
NPDES permit, as it is the longer process when compared to non -discharge
system permitting.
FM
FM
fm
1W
PAR
am
M"
on
PAM

kevin oleary
From: Susan A Wilson [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:28 AM
To: koleary@cavanaughsol utions. cam
a� Cc: Dave Goodrich
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Wastewater Flow Projections]]
Wastewater Flow
Projections] ...
Kevin,
Using the 2H 0100's is OK. Please compare it with projected flows based
on population, as well. construction Grants & Loans 201 Facility plan
guidance details how flows may be calculated.
MilHere's the link -- look for the section on Future Situation (for
projecting flows for new plants). This will provide the basis for
average daily design (ADD)flow. DO NOT multiply that value by 2.5 as
was done in previous reports (and this was discussed in our meeting
ae 4/30/03). 2.5 x ADD gives estimated peak flow values.
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/stategrants/per_gui.html
F
Was spray evaluated at all? This is the direction I was told this
project was going (by Larry, at least twice). Spray will need to be
evaluated at the new design flow - as will all the alternatives.
Please be aware that my e-mail is [e-mail] (the other
Susan Wilson was kind enough to pass along your message).
as
FM
N"
fm
am
MM
am
a. 1

am
kevin olea
From: Dave Goodrich [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:16 AM
To: Kevin O'Leary
Subject: Re: Wastewater Flow Projections
Kevin -
am This method is ok to use.
- Dave
Kevin O'Leary wrote:
>
Dave and Susan,
>
I am currently working on the engineering alternatives analysis for the Town
>
>
of Milton's proposed wastewater plant. I would like some clarification on
the method used for developing wastewater flow projections. According to
>
the NC Admin. Code, wastewater flow rates should be determined using
>
dwelling units (120 gal per day per bedroom with a minimum of 240 gal per
>
>
day per dwelling with an additional 120 gal per day per each bedroom beyond
the
second) and types of establishments. I found this in Chapter 2
>
Subchapter H of Section .0100 Point Source Discharges to the Surface Waters.
>
>
Is this the method you are expecting to see in the alternatives analysis or
would you prefer some other method?
>
Sincerely,
>
Kevin O'Leary
>
Cavanaugh and Associates, P.A.
>
8064 North Point Boulevard
>
Suite 102
>
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
>
Phone: [phone]
>
Fax: [phone]
>
E-Mail: [e-mail]
so
so
fm
I.,
No 1

__• �A&r4IAIA %3J2 bi AOOU -*-*-i RIJJQI'ULJ U14-14'1(J& �]002
am
soil & Environmental Consultants PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 - Phone: [phone] • Fax: (9I9) 846-9467
www SandEC.cam
0"
August 6, 2003
fm Project #7751
Division of Water Quality
Mn. Susan Wilson
no 1617 mail service center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
to p4
IE --, '- ILU)
9: M3
Dear Mrs. Wilson;
This letter is in response to Our Phone conversation regarding the proposed Town of Milton wastewater
irrigation system. As you can see, the request for a system with a daily flow of 50,000 gallons/day could
not be accommodated on this site. The report states that at the application rate of .6" !wk that 22.13 acres of
wetted area would be required. The entire site is only 14 acres in size. Furthermore, if this water balance
equation were to try to be implemented additional Ksat work would be required in order to confirm the
proposed application rate.
am
The enclosed map shows the outline of the boundary. The hatched area is the only area that meets the
minimum soils criteria for spray -irrigation. The entire tract was evaluated. The areas left blank, or white,
do not meet the minimum criteria for various reasons, primarily because of unsuitable topography In
so addition, the hatched area does not include setbacks from feam m such as neighboring wells or houses. I
have included a description of the hatched area, which is entirely similar soil. You have requested that I
include a description of the'Im nsable" area. I will tell you that I did not record proffle descriptions of the
unusable area. Upon reflection much of the unusable area is gullied. Some of the area is probably wedaed
"'� although I have not seam the official wedand delineation map.
I hope that this explanation suffices. For future reference I would very much appreciate your existing
RM written guidance on the required fivquency of borings in both usable and unusable materials.
Sincerely,
MM
James L. Beeson
am
OR Ciserlatre Offlcx: Greensboro Office- HiGicoa Office:
236 UPhillip Court, Suite C 3817-B Lawndale Drive 622 Coon Mountain Lane
COnCOrd, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylorsvillc, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
MO Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Page 1 of 2
kevin oleary
From: Lisa alley
am Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 6:38 PM
To: kevin oleary
Subject: FW: Milton
Lisa R. Alley, P.E.
Winston-Salem Office Manager 4 0
Cavanaugh & Associates P.A. 6Ac.LfD
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1-A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Gt��Efl o
[e-mail]
www.cavanaughsolutions.com
Ph.: 336/759-9001
Fx.: 336/759-1005
----Original Message -----
ow From: Jaya Joshi [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:03 PM
To: lisa alley
MR Subject: Re: Milton
Jim,
,m This is J R Joshi, following up on the Milton Soils report. Hope you got my voice me
Since we talked last, Larry Coble, of Cavanaugh, had indicated to me
1q that they were re -considering the proposal to choose non -discharge
option. Susan Wilson tell me that the still
Y are pursuing the discharge
option and hence this correspondence.
mi, As I recall, they have 14 acres of land availble, portion of which you
evaluated for the spray system. According to your calculations, they
would need about 22 acres for a 50,000 gallons/day system and, hence,
did not have enough land. Upon further consideration, Larry had also
indicted to me that they may only have a 20, 000 gallon system. In that
case, they would need about 9 acres. I am not sure what transpired in
between but the latest information Susan has is that they still want to
a•, pursue the discharge option. If that is the case, we need to re -visit
some of the following issues that need further clarification:
am 1. Why did they evaluate just a portion of available area but not the
whole area for site suitability? The map submitted does not show any
Property boundary, soil, or buffer related issues that would limit the
use of the whole land area. In other word, they need to show various
limitations on the map and have them clearly marked with legends.
2. Speaking of the map, the map I looked at is marked " Not Valid". I am
not sure if it was still in a draft version. We would need a final,
complete map to evaluate the site.
9/5/2003

Page 2 of 2
3. Once again, I am not sure what their daily flow is (50, 000 or 20,
000 gallons), and what size system they are proposing.
4. I do not have a soils report for Caswell county. For a couple of
other counties where they have cecil soil the
permeability
restrictive horizon is listed a 0.6 to 2.0. Please include afcopy
the most
soils report that states .06 to 0.2 as peremability of B horizon. ofthe
would appreciate a copy of such page from the soil survey report or any
measurements that were done to derive these rates.
I hope this summarizes the discussions we have had so far. I know you
may not be able to answer all the questions above. However, I wanted to
make it clear as to where we stood the last time we had discussions.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concern.
�w
J. R. Joshi
44 North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] ext 363
Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
dw
Lisa Alley wrote:
Lisa X Alley, P.E.
Winston-Salem Office Manager
Cavanaugh & Associates P.A.
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1-A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
lalley-gcay_anaughsolu�txons �cona
. w_w_I cavanaughsolutions.com
Ph.: 336/759-9001
Fx.: 3361759-1005
OR
J.R. Joshi
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
.. Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] ext 363
Fax: [phone] Email: java,� [e-mail]
MM
9/5/2003

aep U� ud ua:3zp
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
Greensboro Soil Survey336 2?4 4718
s J
In cooperation with
North Carolina
Soil Survey
of'
Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources; North
Stokes County
Carolina, Agricultural
Research Service; North
i
North Carolina
Carolina Cooperative
6tension.Service; Stokes
Soil and Water
Conservation'District; and
Stokes County. Board of
Commissioners
-
a�
^I.ks

ureensbara Sail Survey 336 274 4718
OEM p.l
United States DeParlment at Agriueiture
o N RCS
Natural Resources conservation Service telephone [phone]
Greensboro Sell Survey office fax [phone]
3309 Burlington Road
Greensboro, N.C. 27405
am
Date: September 5, 2003
an FAX Page _I_ of _3_
TO: Kevin O'Leary, Cavanaugh and Associates
me FAX # [phone]
Kevin,
O' In response to your request, I am faxing a copy of the cover sheet and page 172 of the Stokes
County Soil Survey Report I have underlined on the copy of page 172 the published
permeability range for a Bt horizon in the Cecil soil series. This range, 0.6-2.0 inJhr., is the
range for moderate permeability, which is the range, assigned to the Cecil series. Moderate
permeability is assigned to Cecil due to the low shrink swell and the strong structure exhibited in
the Bt horizon.
As I mentioned on the phone, actual onsite permeability tests might vary from this.
If you need further information, feel flee to call.
Sincerely
:J
David C Clapp
Soil Survey Party Leader
ON
am
FAR
am
AW
am
The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people
conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment
am An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
00

• -"""'"' t7reensbara Sail Surve
y 336 274 4718
P-2
172
oft
Soil Surv(
TABLE 14.--aarslCAL Arm c
HH1tICAL PR08ERTIE3 Or THE 80xI.g
(The symbol < mea = leas than;
Profile. Entries under "Or moan's moretAaa, ratriea under M
that data were not available4 maCter a Rroaion factors--T�• apply to the
PPZY only to the surface layer. Absence of entire
or Were not estimated)
mman entry indicates
I I 1
MaP symbol and JDepthl ClaY
1 1 1 !
soil name I Moist Permeability 1Available ! rag in i
I _ ( I densit bulk I I water lreact Q�1Shriak-sweZ1 I factors I Organic
1 n I g/cc Y I I capacity 1 1. Potential
I 1 -'1 ranter
I Pet I =a I A
HrD*� 1 erE*; I 1 s l 1 / "/z= I PH 1 I T
I
MR
Brevasd--------- I I I I I
l 0-16I 5-20 I 1
11.30-1.451 I 1 1
1
r
2.0-6.o J
116-511 18-35 IL.30-1.501 0.6-2.0 10.Q8-O.Z514.5-6.o ILox----------10 101 5
I51-651 8-25 10.11-0.1614.5-6.0
1 1-3
Law---___N
I I i1.35-1.551 2.0-6,0 10.08-0-2314.5-6.0 I.Low_______-_-10.201
1
`
Greenlee -------- 1 0-e 5_25 1 J 1 10.101
1 11. 30-1. 501 2. I 1
1
0- 6.0
1 1 1 8-621 5-2S 11.40-1.60 10.06-0.1113.E-6.0 1?.ow---_N_-_-
I 1 1 2.0-6.0 10.05-0.1013.E-6.0 10.101 5
1
1
ccH-------------- I 0-8 I 1 1 IL°w----------10.101
2-5
I
1
Cecil 18-111 20-35 11.30-1.501 2.0-6.0 10.12-0,19 4.5-6.5 I
11.30-l.SOI 0.6-2.0 10.13-0.151 lLow----�__�10.281 4
111-551 35-70
I
I
I` •
11.30-1.50 14.5-3.5 Ilow__
155-601 ( 0.6-2.0 _ 10.13-0.1514.5-5.5 +10•z81
.S-2
1
''
I I ! ___
I
_
CeSZCeC2-:ecil,j .,:. _I 0_8 1 20-35 11.30-1. S01 I .•- j --__ -1
--------
B-551 35-70 1 0.9-2.0 10.13-O.1S14.S-6.5 1
1
am 1
11.30-1. 501 0.6-2.0 'Low-----------10.28
155-601 -.._ I _-- 10.13-0.15 4.5- 1 1 3
l --- I--5.5 IL°M----------10.281
I
1 1 1 1 I ---
ChA-------------- 1-------------I----1
I
`
I o-9 1
clumacla 1 7-27 11.30-1.601 0.6-2.0 1 I 19-401 IS-35 J1.30-1.60 10.15-0.2414.S-6.5 1Lon----_-_1
1 0.6-2.0 " 10.281
1
1
a.a
140-601 10.12-0.2014.5-6.5 5 1
1 1 -»_ I --- 1 --- ! --- 1Low----------10.281 1
1-4
1:.
_ -- I __-_
CWD, CwE--------- 1 0-14 1 ( ---------1---- I
Cowee 1 8-20 11.25-1.601 2.0-6.0 1 1 I 1
1
114-311 18-35 11.30-1.601 0.6-2.0 10.10-0.1513.E-6.0 ---------10.20,
2
131-601 --- I -__ I _-- 10,12-0.1813.6- 6.0 1 Lour-______� 1
1 I I --- 10.241 1
1-5
�► t'
---
LB 9CN------- I I I-_-__M_•___-- I _M_ I
I I I
3 D 1 0-9 1 5-20 11.3S-1.S01
2.0-6.0
Dogaa 1 9-481 35-50 11.45-1.60 10.08-0.1513.6-5.5 ILar---__-__ 1 {
I
0.2-0.6
r
10.3.2-0.1913.6-S.S Mderate--- _l0.281 5 1
148-601 5-40 J1.30-1.S0I I0.281 I
1
.5-2
c, eaD, gas----j 0-e 1 I �0.05-0.1413.E-s.s 1Low----------10.17I I
1 5-20 I
BaYeavilln 11.35-1.601 2.0-6.0 I
18-411 35-65 11.30-1.601 0.6-2.0 10.08-0.1413.6-5.S O.15I 4
141-531 20-40 11.23-1.55 10.15-0.2013.6-6.0 1Low ......... I
10.281 1
) 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.2013.6-6.0
153-651 5-25
1-3
!'
11.20-1.50 ILaw-------__-_
1 1 10.11-0.1513.6-6.0 10.281 1
BOB*, SsC*� 1
8eD*, 1 1
0.241OR
1 I 1
1
0-a I 5-20 j1.35-1.sol _ I 1 I 1 1 I
1 8-411 35-65 11.20-L.351 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.2013.6-6.5 ILow---------- 10.201 5
raq
1
153-651 20-40 11.30-1.40J 0.6-Z.0 10.15-0.2013.E-6.0 ILox----------10.241
IS3-65 S-2S J0.12-0.2013.E-6.0 1Low--__---_ I
( 11.45-1.651 2.0-6.0-10.201
1-3
1
I I I I J0.11-O.1S13.6-6.0 ILow---------- saurat"m------ 1 0-121 5-20 10.171
I I !
11.20-1.401 2.0-6.0
I 1 1 I 113-33I 18-35 11.35-1.601 0.6-2.0 (0.20-0.1513.E-6.0 1Low----------10.171 2 1
31 I 0 ,10_ 0.1513.6-
1-3
ra~
M_
I 1 j 6. 0 1 LcrA►---------- I o. zo I I
I 1 1 1 I----- --------1----1 I
Rea --------------1 0-25
Hornsboro I 7-z7 11.40-1.601 0.6-2.0 1 1 ( I I
115-531 35-60 11.40-1.60) 0.06-0.2 10.17-O.ZS14.5-7,3 ILOW----------
10.371 5
153-77 22-40 11.40-1.75 10.11-0.1814.5-7.8 IHigh--------- 1
1 1 1 0.2-0.s 10.10-0.1716.1-8.4 10.321 1
1-4
_
! odsrate-----10.241 I
MaeadaaC2------_I 0-101 20-3S 11.43-1.551 1 1 1
0.6-2.0 l
110-571 3S-55 10.10-0.1714.5-5.5 MMdderate----_ 1 I
11.30-1.601 0.6-2.0 10.10-0-2714.5-5.S
4 157-75) 25-40
I1�[odarate-----10.241
11.30-1.601 0.6-2.0 10.20-0.1714.5-5.5 Moderate---_-10.z41 I
1 1 I I 1 10.241
dft
! I I I 1 1 I
Sae footnote at and of tables.
am

Mo
me
CAVANAUGH
September 08, 2003 ,.;::,.;�1„ r:�7r.�,:c,;l -17U'r.TTi .Ind pertn(-r.%•Ilio
Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re.: Milton Sewer Project
Caswell County
C&A No.: MT9901
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
This letter outlines the concerns brought forward by DWQ during a meeting on A
2003 and during a subsequent conversation between Dave Goodrich Pnl tev'
Cavanaugh on September 3, 2003. The purpose of this letter is to address each of te
Steve
concerns with a specific action. it is hoped that with this letter it will be possible to obtain
feedback regarding the measures taken as outlined in this letter within five business
days. After which the final Engineering Alternatives Analysis will be submitted d for
am
This letter is divided into three sections. The first section outlines the concerns raised
during the April 30t', 2003 meeting. The second section outlines the concerns raised
during the conversation with Steve Cavanaugh on September 3, 2003. The final section
outlines changes that have been made to the Engineering Alternatives Anal sis after
thorough reexamination. Y
COMMENTS FROM APRIL 30"1 MEETiNG (see attached Summar
y of Meeting):
In regards to the land acquisition cost, NPDES Permittinglonger
the $5, 000 per acre cost. no has an issue about
MM The $6,955 per acre cost was derived from recent local property values and was
considered a fair and accurate representation of the cost required for land at the
project's proposed site. However the use of $6,955 per acre in the Engineerin fm Alternatives Analysis was a misunderstanding. The issue of using actual land
cost was thought to be acceptable at this point in time. Therefore, the land cost
has now been changed to $5,000 per acre.
"Rural Center will require 2 appraisals on any land purchased for the plant site. "
This will be performed prior to any land purchase
"Milton needs to exhaust any hope of property acquisition adjacent to the current
optioned property. There needs to be documentation in writing either from the land
owner or by the Mayor that other ad acent ro e l p p rty is not available. it

Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
September 8, 2003
Re: Milton Sewer Project, Caswell County, C&A No.: MT9901
Page 2 of 4
A letter from the Mayor stating such will be included with the EAA submission.
"Susan requires log boring sheets to be included in the soils report. ' and "The m
ap
included in the soils report must show suitable, provisionally suitable and unsuitable
soils. If there are no provisionally suitable soils, the soil scientist nee
and "DWQ found it interesting that the only bores shown on the soils re o state this.,,
located in the area where suitable soil was found " p map are
Log boring sheets have been requested from the Soils Scientist. The included
am map, although it does not show bore logs, show the portions of the property that
have been deemed unsuitable for land application of treated effluent. This
judgment of land unsuitability has been made mainly due to topographical
am constraints. A copy of the letter from the soils scientist outlining this is included
in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis. This letter was the result of a
conversation between the soils scientist James Beeson and Susan Wilson of
DWQ.
so
"DWQ will not allow use of peak flow for the engineering alternatives analysis which was
new information to Cavanaugh. DWQ apologized for this oversight but they require the
am EAA to be based on monthly average discharge even though components of the
treatment system must be sized to accommodate peak flows. "
ON The analysis has been changed to accommodate monthly average discharges
(average daily flow). Two methods for estimating flow were acknowledged as
being acceptable for DENR and copies of the pertinent correspondence will be
included in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
"DWQ will not allow the entire 20 acre property to be a factor in the cost analysis of the
package plant option regardless of whether the property can or cannot be subdivided."
The property for each alternative has been adjusted to account for the required
area for each alternative. However it should be noted, that according to the
owner of the property and the Mayor of Milton, that the whole parcel will not be
subdivided for this project and the entire parcel will be sold whole. This eventual
purchase of the entire piece of property has been acknowledged by DWQ.
"DWQ does not want room for expansion of the proposed plant to be factored into the
EAA as well. "
Expansion room has not been included in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
"in our re -analysis of the options, DWQ will not require Cavanaugh to look at
downstream properties for possible locations for a treatment facility."
No other properties have been examined.
DWQ will not allow the 33 % flow "buffer" for future growth without substantial
justification. Milton must show type of development and a list of the types of inquiries
they have received regarding development. DWQ feels that 10-20% is more reasonable
but if we can justify the 33%, they are fine with that as well. If
a.

Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
• September 8, 2003
�. Re: Milton Sewer Project, Caswell County, C&A No.: MT9901
Page 3 of 4
No flow buffer has been added to the actual flow projections. The purchase of a
50,000 GPD package plant allows for an approximate 10 percent buffer as is.
NEW COMMENTS:
Provide loading rates using new soil data
A new soils survey should not be required for the following reasons: the
unacceptable land of the proposed property was ruled such primarily because of
topographical reasons. The remaining portion of the property was examined via
boreholes. There has been some
questions aspects of the soils report and these havebeen raised
essed regarding some of the
conversation between the soils scientist and Susan Wilson of DWQwA tin the
copy of
the letter responding to this conversation is included. The letter explains the
reasoning behind the presentation of the soil report. In summary, the areas
outside of the usable area was deemed unusable mainly for topography reasons.
Provide spray irrigation versus drip
We provided what we considered a logical justification to stop the spray irrigation
analysis where we did. The spray irrigation method requires more land, and is
typically more expensive to operate and maintain. However, the analysis of the
spray irrigation is included as option C-2.
Justify surveying cost differences between connection to Danville and constructed
wetlands and package plant
The difference in surveying costs is a result of the type of information required at
each site. The connection to Danville although covering a larger distance, will
require roughly the same amount of work as the smaller sites due to the
increased topographic information on these sites that must be collected. Our
surveying costs are based on our own in-house surveying team.
Document 0&M cost sources
Where appropriate, major equipment costs will be documented in the EAA.
Other miscellaneous costs are based on professional judgment and previous
similar work.
Differences in population estimates
ORThe difference in population estimates taken from the census and the League of
Municipalities is acknowledged. The census data, especially for smaller towns, is
typically always significantly lower than the actual population. The Town of
Milton itself claims to have 242 people. The League of Municipalities population
°" estimate therefore was a reasonable compromise between all three sources of
population data.
The two methods that were included in the population estimates were endorsed
in a conversation between Kevin O'Leary and both Susan Wilson and Dave
Goodrich. The two methodologies show reasonable consensus and are
,�, therefore included without changes.

om
Mr. Dave Goodrich, P.E.
September 8, 2003
Re: Milton Sewer Project, Caswell County, C&A No.: MT9901
Page 4 of 4
OTHER CHANGES:
em The Engineering Alternatives Analysis received a detailed reexamination as part of the
efforts to complete the report. Changes to the analysis other than those mentioned
above are outlined below:
1.
The package plant and constructed wetlands alternatives did not have their O&M
numbers updated when they were changed. These changes are now reflected in
the analysis.
2.
The package plant analysis did not include
a. concrete pad for the plant
b. sludge storage tank
C. storage tank concrete pad
d. mixer to provide suitable aeration and mixing
e. UV disinfection unit
f. Sludge disposal costs
3.
The discount rate for The Rural Center Unsewered Communities Grants Program
,sm
requires present value assessments to be set at the Federal Discount Rate. For
fiscal year 2003, this rate has been set 5.875%.
4.
at
The annual O&M costs associated with each option is assumed to increase in
cost relative to the Consumer Price Index. The CPI for the last 20 years has
®,
averaged 3.17%, If the last thirty years is included in the analysis, the impact of
the oil crisis in the late 1970's increases this to an unreasonable CPI of 5.0%.
5.
Upon review of a package WWTP of similar capacity the annual analytical costs
associated with each treatment option has been changed to $20,000. This
reflects the fact that there will be minimal capacity by the operator to perform the
required analyses and all testing must be outsourced including the taking of
samples.
6.
The capital cost for the UV disinfection unit for both the constructed wetlands and
package plant options was decreased according to an updated quote provided
from a vendor.
7.
A copy of the Town of Milton's resolution imposing mandatory connection to the
sewer collection system will be included in the Engineering Alternatives
Analyses.
In closing, we hope that this letter has addressed all of your concerns. Please contact
us if there are any items requiring further clarification. If we do not hear back from you
,il" within five business days, we will assume that you are in agreement with the changes
and approach we have taken and will resubmit the Engineering Alternatives Analysis for
final approval.
em
Regards,
Im CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Lisa Alley, P.E.

PM
dw
am
MM
am
M
am
am
eim
am
am
M0
no
MM
dw
M,
M"
OR
SUMMARY OF MEETING
DATE:
April 30, 2003
TIME:
2:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
DWQ Conference Room, Archdale Building, Raleigh
PARTICIPANTS:
Dave Goodrich, DWQ
Tom Belnick, DWQ
Susan Wilson, DWQ
Julie Haigler, The Rural Center
Dennis Lassiter, The Rural Center
Larry Coble, C&A
Lisa Alley, C&A
RE:
C&A No. MT9901 —Milton WWTP
NPDES Permitting will be meeting for half a day in May to hash through how they do their
permitting so they can streamline and clarify for those who must go through their
permitting process.
NPDES Permitting will hold a workshop/seminar on Jun 12`h at The Friday Center. All
those present asked to be included on the notification list so they could attend the
meeting.
The following are highlights of the discussion regarding the Milton permit application:
o In regards to the land acquisition cost, NPDES Permitting no longer has an issue
about the $5,000 per acre cost.
o Rural Center will require 2 appraisals on any land purchased for the plant site.
o Milton needs to exhaust any hope of property acquisition adjacent to the current
optioned property. There needs to be documentation in writing either from the
land owner or by the Mayor that other adjacent property is not available.
o Susan requires log boring sheets to be included in the soils report.
o The map included in the soils report must show suitable, provisionally suitable
and unsuitable soils. If there are no provisionally suitable soils, the soil scientist
needs to state this.
o DWQ found it interesting that the only bores shown on the soils report map are
located in the area where suitable soil was found.
o DWQ will not allow use of peak flow for the engineering alternatives analysis
which was new information to Cavanaugh. DWQ apologized for this oversight
but they require the EAA to be based on monthly average discharge even though
components of the treatment system must be sized to accommodate peak flows.
o DWQ will not allow the entire 20 acre property to be a factor in the cost analysis
of the package plant option regardless of whether the property can or cannot be
subdivided.
o DWQ does not want room for expansion of the proposed plant to be factored into
the EAA as well.
o In our re -analysis of the options, DWQ will not require Cavanaugh to look at
downstream properties for possible locations for a treatment facility.
o DWQ will not allow the 33% flow "buffer" for future growth without substantial
justification. Milton must show type of development and a list of the types of
inquiries they have received regarding development. DWQ feels that 10-20% is
more reasonable but if we can justify the 33%, they are fine with that as well.
Once Cavanaugh has recalculated Milton's flow projections as a result of DWQ's request
that monthly average flow be used instead of peak flow, we should send them to Susan
and she will estimate the ammonia limit for us.
RM

Summary of Meeting
Re: C&A No. MT9901 — Milton WWTP
Date: April 30, 2003
Page 2 of 2
If after redrafting the EAA, the best option is still surface water discharge, DWQ will draft
the permit and after publication, there will be a 45-day public notice period. Once the
NPDES permit is drafted, NPDES Permitting will allow the construction plans to be
submitted for the Authorization to Construct review. The A to C review is expected to be
120 days.
• Julie requested a schedule be sent to The Rural Center for the project. Cavanaugh will
base this schedule on the assumption that we will acquire an NPDES permit, as it is the
longer process when compared to non -discharge system permitting.
M
RM
U_____'1
f"
M
am
MR
Im
am

no
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
M
am The Honorable Water L.
Town of Milton
P.O. Box 85
Milton, North Carolina
MR
MR
Dear Mayor Thomas:
Llp,aw,j
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 15, 2003
Thomas IV, Mayor
27305
Subject: Return of NPDES Permit Application
Milton WWTP Permit Request
NPDES No. NCO087645
Return No. 2200
Caswell County
The Division of Water Quality received the Town of Milton's revised Engineering Alternatives Analysis
(FAA) on August 14, 2002, as submitted by your consultants, Cavanaugh Associates, P.A. This is the
third submittal of an EAA for the Town of Milton. It is believed that it is in the interest of all parties to
document the specific responses to the August 14, 2003 submittal, and treat any intermediate
correspondence as clarification only.
The following items need to be revised or clarified before the Division may proceed forward with the
project:
1. Population projections. The existing population is the basis for future flow projections, which is
the driving force behind the alternative to be chosen. Census data from 2001 exists for the Town
of Milton. The consultant should use this information as a basis for population projections. The
Division of Water Quality will accept percentage growth projections based on 1990-2000 census
data for the county (althoug
h historical growth rates for the town may also be used). The
speculative growth percentage of 0.5%/year cannot be used unless the consultant can demonstrate
a similar growth rate for another town in this area. The Division's 20-year estimated population
using current census data and the 1990-2000 growth rate is lower than that predicted by the
consultant (166 versus 263 by 2023).
2. Flow projections. Two different methods of projecting flows were used. This is a prudent way to
proceed, since the correct calculation of flows will often have a major influence in determining the
most environmentally sound of the economically -feasible methods.
Method # 1 - While the Division's 2H .0200 regulations provide a general flow estimate based on
particular activities, services and number of bedrooms per house, they should be viewed in
conjunction with other methods, while taking into account actual population figures. The flow
projections per bedroom are based on the house being completely occupied. Does the consultant
have information confirming the per person occupancy cY of the houses. Additionally, this flow basis
assumes that all houses will be connected after the sewer system is built. Does Milton have or will
the town pass an ordinance that all houses must be connected after the system is built? Please
1 61 7 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEICH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-161 7 - TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Mayor Thomas
Page 2 of 3
provide a copy of any ordinances or a letter of commitment to pass such. If we assume that the
flow basis using this method is correct, the 2 003 flows would be 36,420 gpd. This amount, based
on current census data, would be equal to approximately 282 gpd per person.
"" Method #2 - The consultant also used the Division of Construction Grants and Loans guidance for
projecting municipal wastewater flows. This calculation is totally dependent on population
projections. Because the population projections presented by the consultant may be high, the flow
projection presented by this method may be similarly inflated. Additionally, the base infiltration
rate of 500 gallons per day per inch mile (gpdim) as well as the annual infiltration increase of 20
gpdim is an overestimate and should not be used in the flow projections. Instead, these estimates
should be replaced by an allowance of 100 gpdim. Using this method and the projected population
"0 of 166, the Division predicts a 2023 flow of approximately 15,500 gallons per day (excluding
infiltration, since the gpdim calculation details were not available in the report).
�+ The Division also looked at two other methods in an attempt to further estimate potential flow
levels:
Method #3 - Another method for calculating projected municipal wastewater flows is based on Ten
State Standards (Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities). This method uses 100
gallons per day per capita (which accounts for normal infiltration). Based on this method, the
Division calculates a projected flow in 2023 of 16,600 gpd of wastewater flow.
Method #4 - An examination of 10 existing municipal wastewater facilities serving populations
between 111 - 321 people was also made for comparison purposes. For those discharges
associated with populations of 200 or less, the flows averaged approximately 13,500 gallons per
day. Approximately 32,000 gallons per day of flow was averaged for the systems serving between
206-321 people.
No By three of these methods - the original projected wastewaterflow Iow of 50, 000 gpd is an
overestimate and cannot be supporters. The Division believes that a flow * of 20,000 -
25,000 gpd is more realistic. After reviewing the above information., the town should re -
Am evaluate capacity needs.
3. Soils survey. In discussion with our soil scientist, the permeability rates appear low. Please
am provide documentation/references on the derivation of these values. Also, as previously discussed,
it would be helpful to clarify the designation of the areas that cannot be used for a land application
system. Specifically, we requested an overlay of two maps: a topographic map along with the soils
site survey reap.
so
4. Present Value Costs. As stated in previous correspondence (January 10, 2003, Item 6), no
averaged percent increase per year should be used in the calculations. The consultant used a 2%
increase per year for a future Operation and Maintenance value and averaged this cost and the
present cost for a baseline present worth value. This is unacceptable and must be corrected.
The items below were evaluated to determine if there were other inaccuracies in the document. These
values must reflect changes associated with projected flows as mentioned above.
5. Land costs. As the Division stated in the meeting held with the consulting firm and the Rural
MRCenter April 30, 2003, the two highest values of the projected land costs must be eliminated (they
are an order of magnitude different from the other data). Other land values presented in the letter
dated April 2, 2003 may be used in the calculation of the average land costs (the Division
calculates an average land cost of $5063 / acre based on the information submitted).
6. Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Facility costs. What is the reference for the operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs provided? The consultant should thoroughly document these. For
example, can the consultant provide O&M costs for similar facilities? The consultant should also
demonstrate, through reference to similar systems or engineering calculations, that the proposed
4M

Mayor Thomas
Page 3 of 3
.o system can meet a monthly average ammonia limit of 5.9 mg/l and a weekly average of 17.7 mg/l.
Loading rates were provided in previous correspondence based on EPA estimates (1-4
lb/acre/day). The consultant should use these rates or provide explicit documentation and
"" justification of other rates in order to provide calculations based on the proposed system to
demonstrate that it is properly sized.
7. Package plant costs. Five acres is not necessary for a package -type treatment system. A 0.5-acre
Oft parcel is sufficient for the package plant. Power costs for the package plant should be referenced
(as should all costs). Are they based on experience and/or costs provided by a manufacturer? The
survey costs for the package plant should be further documented and/or referenced.
8. Drip system. The acres of land to be acquired are unclear. Instead of a flat rate of $100,000 for
land acquisition, the land costs should be updated based on the number of acres required and the
cost per acre (as was done for the CWWTF and the package plant). The acreage needed and to be
acquired should be clearly documented. Also, the consultant should outline the calculation for
estimating the land required plus buffers. The "pre-screening" for the drip system should be
defined and the cost reference provided.
RM
fm
9. Spray irrigation. As outlined in the Division's Engineering Alternatives Analyses Guidance, spray
irrigation costs should be provided. As with the drip system, land acquisition should be clearly
documented (along with the calculation for the buffers) by the consultant.
You and/or your consultants may contact me at [phone], ext. 517 or Susan A. Wilson at ext.
510 should you have further questions regarding the project. We look forward to a satisfactory
resolution of these issues in the near future.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Unit
a.
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office, Water Quality Section, Mike Mickey
Town Commissioners, Town of Milton
NPDES file
am Dennis H. Lassiter, P.E.
The Rural Center
4021 Carya Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Lisa Alley, P.E.
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard, Suite 102
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
MR
am
am

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
September 18, 2003
Mr. Jaya Joshi
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
_ Dear Mr. Joshi:
This letter is in response to a request by Cavanaugh and associates to address questions
_ from both you and Susan Wilson concerning the Soils report for the potential spray area
for the town of Milton. Originally I was asked to evaluate approximately 14 acres
located on Doll Branch Road. The daily flow at the time was to be 50,000 gallons per
_ day. I was told that the engineer had attempted to perform the soils evaluation, which
was denied by your office. I suspected that the request stemmed from your requirement
that all other possible disposal options be exhausted before a discharge permit is issued.
The engineer requested a minimum of time to be spent in order to establish that the site
would not dispose of 50,000 gallons of water per day. I was also told that the site would
be normal spray or drip quality which would require a minimum setback of 50 feet to
property lines and 100 feet from bodies of water.
I evaluated the entire tract! The issued report identified the wetted area in a hatch
pattern. The report stated that the entire tract was evaluated. Areas left un-hatched do
not meet the State regulations either due to soil, landscape, or buffer regulations: I also
stated on the map and in the report that the map did not include all of the buffers. One in
., particular would be the well on the property in front of this property. Also I was not
given a map of surrounding houses or wells at the time of the evaluation.
I have read your response to Cavanaugh and associates and attempted to adequately
address each of your concerns. I have listed those concerns below and each has a
response immediately following.
I" concern:
1. Why did they evaluate just a portion of available area but not the
whole area for site suitability? The map submitted does not show any
Charlotte Of&ce:
236 LePhillip Court. Suite C
Concord. NC 28025
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hickory Office:
622 Coon Mountain Lane
Taylorsville. NC 28681
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]

0M
M"
property boundary, soil, or buffer related issues that would limit the
use of the whole land area. In other word, they need to show various
limitations on the map and have them clearly marked with legends.
Response:
As my letter to Susan Wilson stated on Augst 6`h, that some of the area is too wet for
surface application, other areas have complex topography, and others lay inside of the
buffer to the property line. These are obvious constraints if you have visited the site.
2Id concern:
me 2. Speaking of the map, the map I looked at is marked " Not Valid". I am
not sure if it was still in a draft version. We would need a final,
complete map to evaluate the site.
no
Response:
!" I have included a sealed co of the original ma that was sent to the
PYp engineer. Please
find enclosed.
3rd concern:
rM 3. Once again, I am not sure what their daily flow is (50, 000 or 20,
000 gallons), and what size system they are proposing.
Response:
The only proposed daily flow that I have been given is 50,000 gallons/day.
am 4`h concern:
4. I do not have a soils report for Caswell county. For a couple of
a, other counties where they have cecil soil, the permeability for the most
restrictive horizon is listed a 0.6 to 2.0. Please include a copy of the
soils report that states .06 to 0.2 as peremability of B horizon. We
,m would appreciate a copy of such page from the soil survey report or any
measurements that were done to derive these rates.
fm Response:
You do not have a copy of the Caswell County soils report because none exists at the
dM present time. If you will notice permeability rates do not vary from cour$y to county for
the Cecil series. These rates are not re -characterized for each county. You observation is
am

am
am
,.. correct that the drainage rate is less than 5% of the minimum permeability rate for the,
Cecil series. However, I feel that the assigned rate is more than generous. It has been my
experience that 50% to 60% of the annual precipitation should be the maximum for
Oft surface applications in the piedmont. In fact, if this area were to be used Ksat
measurements should be taken on the site. The number used for the report calculation is
what I would consider to be a realistic maximum annual application rate.
IM
In conclusion, this report was provided in order to evaluate whether or not
50,000gallons/day flow could be applied to this site. As my report concludes I think that
am it is unrealistic to think that this amount could be applied to this site. If your conclusions
contradict my conclusions I am available for questions. If the daily flow is different than
that which I was instructed to use than this report should not be used for other
no conclusions. My original report included detailed profile descriptions and a map of the
wetted area. Please call me direct if ou would like any other necessary information.
�, 5tio sort so`
L. eE���
Sincerely, ,, v `Soy
I
1114
James L. Beeson NOM G
919-846-5900
Cc: Mrs. Susan Wilson
am
Division of Water Quality
1617 mail service center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Cc fir. Kevin O'Leary
Cavanaugh & Associates, PA
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1 A
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
MR
ao
em
MM

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
March 26, 2003
Project #7751
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Chris Hay
PO Box 18846
Greensboro, NC 27419-8846
Dear Mr. Hay:
This letter details the findings of a site/soil evaluation performed on approximately 14 acres located onDoll
Branch Road in Caswell County. The evaluation was performed in order to characterize the site's ability to
treat and accept domestic strength wastewater. James L. Beeson, who is a licensed soil scientist, performed
the evaluation.
Soils examined on the property are most like the Cecil soil series. Rock is greater than 36 inches below
land surface and the seasonally high water table is greater than 36" below the surface. In this case the soil
contains a sandy loam surface between 3 and 12 inches deep and usable material to a depth of at least 40
inches and is therefore an appropriate site for a surface irrigation system. Because of the argillic horizon,
nutrient factors such as nitrogen, phosphorous, organic matter, etc. are not limiting factorsin the design.
These items would be of concern on a site containing only highly permeable sands.
The attached water balance equation shows that the site can hydraulically assimilate 30.3" of irrigation
water per year. This is approximately equivalent in .6" per week. Therefore, for a daily flow of 50,000
gallons, a wetted area of22.13 acres will be required for the minimum spray field area (see attached
calculations). The permanent ground water table is typically 40 feet or deeper. Since the entire ite is less
than the required wetted area, the proposed daily flow cannot be applied to the site.
Sincerely,
James L. Beeson,
License #1114
Attachments
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office: Hickory Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive 622 Coon Mountain Lane
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylorsville, NC 28691
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
'� Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Calculation for Allowable Irrigation Rate
m.
M. 1. Maximum Instantaneous Application Rate (in/hr)
Utilizing the attached Table 1 for typical ranges of soil infiltration rates .
Im The site falls into the sand' loam texture and has a slope of 3% to 9% with a
hardwood cover. Therefore .5 inches/hour would be an acceptable application rate
Om 2. Water Balance (Table 2)
A water budget was developed for the proposed irrigation field by balancing water
losses and gains:
Am Evaporation + Natural Runoff + Drainage = precipitation and Irrigation
3. Data Inputs
A. PET (potential evapotranspiration) data was obtained from the North Carolina
State University Experiment Station, Bulletin 396, "Weather 'and Climate in North
Carolina." Values of PET do not vary significantly over North Carolina, so data
from Raleigh was used.
an B. DR (drainage) was calculated by the procedure described in US EPA
625/1-77-088, "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of
Municipal Waste Water." The percolation rate or drainage rate was
am calculated as 4% to 10% of the permeability of the most restrictive horizon in the
soil. For this soil the most restrictive horizon is the B
horizon, which has an estimated permeability of .2 to .06 inches/hour.
oft Using .005 inches per hour, monthly drainage rate is 3.24inches/3O- days.
C. NR (Natural Runoff)- Since the system is designed to operate without designed
s„ runoff.
D. PPT (Precipitation)- Average monthly precipitation rates were
obtained from RDU Weather Station. The monthly values represent an
average determined from more than a 20-year period. These averages
are shown on Table 2.
Im
am

Spray Field Area Calculations
OM
Assumptions:
-Design flow = 50,000 gallons/day
-Allowable irrigation rate = 3 0.3 6 inches/year = .044 gallons/sq ft/day
-Land area required = 50,000 gallons/day divided by .052 gallons/sq ft/day
is 964,363 square feet divided by 43,560 square feet/acre
=22.14 acres
ON
Profile Description 01 Wetted Area
HA#1
5% slope
Landscape Position - Linear
A - 0 to 3" Loam texture color is IOYr 3/1, Loose, Very Friable,granular structure.
E - 3" to 8" Sandy Loam texture, Friable, Granular structure color is I OYr 516
Non -sticky and Non -plastic.
Bt - 8" to 42" Clay texture, color is 2.5Yr4/6, Medium, Moderate sub -angular blocky
structure. Sticky and Plastic when wet.
BC -42"- 50" Sandy Clay Loam texture, weak, medium sub -angular blocky structure.
Plastic and Sticky when wet. 2.5Yr4/6 with 7.5 4/6 few, faint mottles.
Series - Cecil
#,
on
fm
OM
am

w�
Water Balance Equation
MONTH
PET
DR
NR TOTAL LOSS
PPT
allowable
irrigation
JAN
0.9
3.348
0 4.248
3.55
0.698
r�
FEB
1.4
1.024
0 4.424
3.43
0.994
MAR
2.2
3.348
0 5.548
3.69
1.858
APR
3.3
S24
0 6.54
2.91
3.63
r,..a
MAY
4.3
3.348
0 7.648
3.67
3.978
JUN
4.8
3.24
0 8.04
3.66
4.38
JUL
4.7
3.348
0 8.048
4.38
3.668
AUG
4
3.348
0 7.348
4.44
2.908
S EP
3.3
3.24
0 6.54
3.29
3.25
0
OCT
1.9
3.348
0 5.248
2.73
2.518
ISO
NOV
1.2
3.24
0 4.44 '
2.87
1.57
0
DEC
0.7
3.348
0 4.048
3.14
0.908
inches/yr
30.36
TOTAL
32.7
39.42
0 72.12
41.76
0.051847671
gal/sc; Way
total
ENTER
dr rate
drain rate
% FOR
in/hr % dr 5 to 10
in/hour
NR>
0
0.06
7.5%
0.0045
daily flow 50000
gallons
ism
required
area 964363
ft2

TABLE 1
Typical ranges
of soil infiltration rates by
soil texture and slope
Texture
Basic Infiltration Rate (inches/hr)
Slope
0-3%
3-9%
9+%
sand and fine sand
1.0+
.7+
0.5+
loamy sands
0.7-1.5
0.5-1.0
0.4-0.7
sandy loams &
0.5-1.0
0.4-0.7
0.3-0.5
Fine sandy loams
very fine sandy loams-
0.3-0.7
0.2-0.5
0.15-0:3
& silt loams
sandy clay loams
0.2-0.4
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.15
& silty clay loams
clay, sand
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.15
<0.1
& silty clays
Source: Sprinkler Irrigation Association, Sprinkler Irrigation ( 1969).
For good vegetation cover, these rates may be 25% to 50% greater. For poor surface soil
am conditions, rates may be as much as 50% less.
FM

ow
`•• kevin oleary
am
From: lisa alley
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:40 AM
To: 'Susan Wilson'
Cc: 'Dave Goodrich'; '[e-mail]'; kevin oleary; larry coble; tory wagoner;
'Allen Hart (E-mail)'; 'Dennis Lassiter (E-mail)'; 'Julie Haigler (E-mail)'; 'Jean Crews -Klein (E-
mail)'; 'walter thomas (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Milton
Thanks for the update Susan. We will gather the documents and information as you've
am requested and send a single package to you as soon as possible. We are all looking
forward to moving forward with this project and appreciate your help and understanding.
We'll be in touch soon.
am Thanks
Lisa R. Alley, P.E.
Winston-Salem Office Manager
am Cavanaugh & Associates P.A.
305 West Fourth Street, Suite 1-A
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[e-mail]
www.cavanaughsolutions.com
Ph.: 336/759-9001
Fx.: 336/759-1005
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan Wilson (mailto:[e-mail]]
no Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:02 PM
To: lisa alley
Cc: Dave Goodrich; [e-mail]
Subject: Milton
am
Lisa,
The NPDES permit for Milton should be out to public notice within the
so next couple of days and you, as well as the Town, will be receiving a
hardcopy of the draft.
We proceeded with the notice, although there are a couple of items which
MM need to be completed prior to issuance (and actually, the sooner you can
get them to us the better).
Because of all the various documents and faxes floating around with
regard to this project - we'd like to have the pertinent documents
together. We received the fax from the soil scientist regarding the
0.025 MGD flow after your September 30 document. If you would, please
bind that into the EAA as that is a pertinent correction to his prior
document (which referred to 0.05 MGD flow). Your soil scientist would
be well advised to curtail his use of exclamation points in future
professional correspondences.
In Item no. 6 of our September 15, 2003 letter we had asked for a
reference for the operation and maintenance costs. If it is based on
BPJ - please state this. If it is based on knowledge of operation of
similar facilities, then please state so. It's important to resolve
this as it was a direct question and this is a public document. At this
point, I don't think great detail is necessary, just answer the question
within the document in some manner. (If I have missed this in the
document, just direct me to the proper page.)
As far as the loading rate goes for the NH3-N - this will need to be
1

addressed in some manner. Fortunately, because the permitted flow was
reduced to 0.025 MGD, the summer monthly average ammonia limit will be
15 mg/1 (with a 35 mg/l weekly average limit); there is no NH3-N limit
e` during the winter months. As stated previously, this should be
addressed as this is a public document and it was a direct question.
am Once this information gets added to the EAA document, we will be able to
issue the permit after the required 45 day notice period (barring
outstanding public comment).
Let me know if you have any questions.
am
M
MR
AM
SM
an
Z;
P"
0M
M"
2