NC0087700_Permit Issuance_20031121

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
A1, �'
�•�
NCDENR
November 21, 2003
Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr.
The Hampton Club, Inc.
P.O. Box 2807
Cashiers, North Carolina 28717
it- .
Dear Mr. Hampton:
Bubject:
NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NCO087700
Wade Hampton Horizons Estates
Jackson County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for
issuance of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached
NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated
May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended.)
The final permit authorizes The Hampton Club, Inc. to discharge up to
0.0822 MGD of treated domestic wastewater from the Wade Hampton Horizons
Estate to the unnamed tributary to Trout Creek, a class WSIII-Trout water in the
Little Tennessee River Basin. The permit includes discharge limitations and/or
monitoring for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), ammonia, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and total residual
chlorine.
Please make note that the permit contains a special condition after the
effluent limitations page regarding the wastewater treatment quality of the
effluent to be discharged from the proposed facility.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements
contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed
with the office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall
be final and binding.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone]/FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Wade Hampton Estates Permit
NC0087700
November 21, 2003
Page 2
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4.
addresses the requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership or
control of this discharge. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to
obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or
permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management
Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
ORIGIN/' '
M^•ORIGINAL SIGN5BY
Irk McIntire
AlanKlimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Asheville Regional Office / Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Health
NPDES Unit/Permit File
Central Files

Permit NCO087700
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 Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
The Hampton Club, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
4317 State Road 1129
Hamburg Township
Jackson County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Trout Creek in the Little
Tennessee River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I. II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2004
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2007.
Signed this day November 21, 2003
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mark McIntire
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO087700
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are
hereby revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is
no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility
arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The Hampton Club Inc. is hereby authorized to:
1. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Water Quality,
construct and operate facilities necessary to treat up to 0.0822 MGD of
wastewater, located at Wade Hampton Horizons Estates WWTP, 4317 State Road
1129, Hamburg Township, Jackson County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into an unnamed tributary to Trout Creek, classified WS-III Trout waters in
the Little Tennessee River Basin.

Permit NC0087700
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated domestic wastewater from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Fre uenc
Sample Type
Sample Locationl
Flow
0.0822 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C)
(April 1 —October 31
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg1L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C)
November 1 — March 31
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg1L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Suspended Residue
30.0 m /L
45.0 m IL
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1— October 31
2.0 mg/L
10.0 mglL
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1 — March 31
4.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
21Month
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen2
Weekly
Grab
Effluent,
U stream & Downstream
Fecal Coliform3
(geometric mean
2001100 ml
4001100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Total Residual Chlodne4
28 Ng/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
H5
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C
Weekly
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Total Nitrogen
Semi -Annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi -Annually
Composite
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Upstream = at least 50 feet upstream from the outfall. Downstream = at least 50 feet downstream
2. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
3. Fecal Coliform shall be calculated using the geometric mean, according to the procedure detailed in Part II.
Section A, Paragraph 9b.
4. Limit applicable only if chlorine used for disinfection
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO087700
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (2). WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONDITION
The permittee shall design, construct and operate the wastewater treatment
plant for this facility in accordance with the State's requirements for treatment of
wastewater for "use of reclaimed water" as described in NCAC 15A: 2H .0219 (k),
with the following exceptions:
1. Compliance with the limitations described in 2H .0219 (k) (1) (A) (iii) (I -IV) shall
not be required by this permit, but that the facility must meet the permit
limitations as described on the effluent limits page of this NPDES Permit.
2. Continuous on-line monitoring and recording for turbidity or particle count
as described in 2H .0219 (k) (1) (A) (iv) shall not be required by this permit.
3. The design, construction and operation of a "five-day side -stream detention
pond" as described in 2H .0219 (k) (1) (A) (v) shall not be required by this
permit.
The objective of this condition in this NPDES permit is to require that all
treatment components for this plant be appropriately designed, sized, built, and
operated so that effluent quality would consistently approach the levels
described in 02 H .0219 (k) (1) (A) (iii) (I -IV) . Compliance with this condition will be
evaluated by examining the specific details of the design components of the
plant, the facilities actually installed, the operation of the plant upon treatment
of wastewater, and the effluent quality performance of the plant.

P.O. Box 129
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-1239
September 30, 2003
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit-NCDENR-DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
MACCONNELL
& AssociAns, P.c.
Re: The Hampton Club, Inc.
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
NPDES Permit and Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Jackson County
MacConnell & Associates, P.C. Project No.: 1318701.00
Dear Ms. Nowell:
909 Aviation Parkway
Suite 1400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Fax [phone]
OCT - 2 2003
We appreciate your efforts on the above referenced project. I have reviewed the draft permit with
Mr. Robert Hampton. The only comment wq have is that the following physical address is
preferred over the one in the permit.
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate or
The Hampton Club
4317 State Road 1129
Hamburg Township, Jackson County, NC
If it is not to late could you please change the address. Both addresses identify the same location.
Could you also please let me know what newspaper and date it will be noticed. Thank you for
your efforts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary S. acConnell, P.E.
President
cc: Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr., Esq., The Hampton Club, Inc., Wade Hampton Horizon Estates

see
PUBLIC NOTICE
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA;T SOIi
BUNCOMBE COUNTY OCT 7 2003
SS.
NORTH CAROLINA --�
NPOES) at
ES) waste-
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
:hoe
,(s)mlisted below
County and State, duly commissioned, qualified and
k5 days fromeofthisiehe
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
o�na m'
appeared Darryl Rhymes, who, being first duly
CeP1etl until 30
theted date
a
, sworndeposes and says: that he is the Legal
Nice. All `°"
rived o
Billing Clerk of The Asheville Citizen -Times,
ireconsieretl
considered in
determinations
engaged in publication of a newspaper known as
the Proposed
be Dirac
The Asheville Citizen -Times, published, issued,
vision of Waterof
vision
ry decidetohold
reefing far the
the
and entered as second class mail in the City of
Permit should
� of°publ4
Asheville, in said County and State; that he is
r
authorized to make this affidavit and sworn
he draft supporting in
in
statement; that the notice or other legal
an
on file used to
use
conditions pre
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached
trod cermit are
upon request
hereto, was published in The Asheville Citizen-
;nt of the costs
auction. Mail
Times on the following date: September 27, 2003.
anWor requests
Water the "C
Water Quality
And that the said newspaper in which said notice,
we address or
olery Stephens
paper, document or legal advertisement were
-5083, extension
e include the
ermit
published were, at the time of each and every
number
in Interes,com,ed
publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
n also visit the
Water Quality
requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of
Alsbury Street.
- 27604-1149 be-
the General Statues of North Carolina and was a
oursofs:00am
e ite. rev;ew in,
newspaper within the meaning of Section
n fil
qualified
of Columbus
1-597 of the General Statues of North Carolina.
Si this 2ndd y of tober, 2003
I i
(Signamn: of pe n making afr.y rit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me the 2nd day of
October, 2003
ooxy9e,, f;: My )Commission expires the 3rd day of September
and total re -
September 27, 20M
(6244)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, •
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality ��-
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director NoRTrI CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 24, 2003 L�w
MEMORANDUM
To: Harold Saylor wd b,Ip,. 4 tFuiunwq;a�i
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer & tiattAA! R4adUtcep
Asheville Regional Office Asheville Regional Office
From: Jackie Nowell SEP 3 0 2003
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NCO087700
Jackson County
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by October
24, 2003. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail
address listed at the bottom of this page.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated
effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality
standards.
❑ Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
❑ Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached
Signed Date: roZvfLo3
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617 919 733-5083, extension 512 (f ) 919'733-07P 10 2003
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET@hfp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES [e-mail]

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT:
IF YES, SOC NUMBER
TO: NPDES UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION:
DATE:
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
)k k>-N; COUNTY
PERMIT NUMBER
NL 00 6-770o
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Yes No X
SEP 2 5 2003
1. Facility and Address: Wade Hampton Horizons Estates
Mailing: Post Office Box 2807
224 Highway 107 South
Cashiers, NC 28717
2. Date of Investigation: 09/03/03
3. Report Prepared By: Kevin H. Barnett
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Gary MacConnell, P.E.
5. Directions to Site: From Sylva, NC, proceed south on Hwy 107. After
entering the community of Glenville, turn left on Big Ridge Road.
Facility is on left, several miles up Big Ridge Road.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: ° ' " Longitude: ° ' "
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. U.S.G.S. Quad Name
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain:
-1-

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Steep,
mountainous terrain. Site has little to no floodplain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Remote site. Nearest dwelling will be
within development.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: UT to Trout Creek
a. Classification: WS � III Tr
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 40402
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: Steep mountain stream
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted 0.08216 MGD(Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? n/a
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity n/a
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
n/a
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: n/a
f. Please provide a description of.proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: dual train extended aeration wastewater treatment
facility with 25o flow equalization. Treatment works to
provide 24 hours of aeration basin detention and 4 hours of
clarifier detention. Disinfection will either be sodium
hypochlorite / dechlor or UV.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: If Chlorine, then WET
testing.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): not needed
-2-

4
F
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
Will be contracted out to a residuals hauler.
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
Grade II plant
4. SIC Codes (s) :
Primary Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code:
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or
are any public monies involved. (municipals only)? n/a
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
WET, Reuse limits (15A NCAC 02H .0219 (k) (1) (A) (iii) ) as proposed be
consulting engineer.
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate)
n/a
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of
the non -discharge options available. Please provide regional
perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: Steep site, not appropriate
Connection to Regional Sewer System: not available due to distance
and topography.
Subsurface: Shallow bedrock
Other disposal options: n/a
5. Other Special Items:
-3-

PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend issuance with re -use quality limits (excluding
continuous turbidity monitoring) as proposed by consulting
engineer. Facility will be located adjacent to an unnamed
tributary to Trout Creek (WS-III Tr) with minimal
downstream access and users prior to convergence with the
west fork of the Tuckasegee River.
a4
Signature of Report Preparer
Water Quality Regional 5"upervisor
Crels--B03
Da e
-4-

NPDES Application NC 0087700--Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
Subject: NPDES Application NC 0087700--Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:27:06 -0400
From: Forrest Westall <Forrest. [e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
To: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
CC: Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>,
Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Dave,
In follow-up to our phone discussion today, this e-mail note
will constitute the ARO's revision to the staff report I
signed and sent to the NPDES Unit this week for this
application. I have discussed this with Kevin and he
supports this approach.
The ARO recommendation to apply "reuse" wastewater limits to
this facility was based on the commitment of the applicant
(or his representative consultant) to provide treatment
capability necessary to achieve this level of performance or
effluent quality. We understand that to actually apply
those limits as the NPDES "effluent limits" we would need a
stronger direct relationship between this performance and
water quality impacts (since the applicant doesn't to our
knowledge plan to actually "reuse" this water on the
project--i.e. this is not a reuse/NPDES discharge system).
We do, however, see benefits to using the NPDES permit to
"hold" the commitment of the applicant to provide this level
of treatment/operation. Therefore, the ARO recommends that
the following condition or one that accomplishes the same
objective be included in the final draft permit (placed in
the most appropriate area of the permit and referenced in
the permit cover letter and permit cover page):
"The permittee shall design, construct and operate the
wastewater treatment plant for this facility in accordance
with the State's requirements for treatment of wastewater
for "use of reclaimed water" as described in NCAC 15A: 02H
.0219 (k), with the following exceptions:
1. Compliance with the limitations described in 02H .0219
(k)(1)(iii)(I-IV) shall not be required by this permit, but
that the facility must meet the permit limitations as
described on the limits page of this NPDES Permit.
2. Continuous on-line monitoring and recording for
turbidity or particle count as described in 02H .0219
(k)(1)(iv) shall not be required by this permit.
3. The design, construction and operation of a "five-day
side -stream detention pond" as described in 02H .0219
(k)(1)(v) shall not be required by this permit.
The objective of this condition in this NPDES permit is to
require that all treatment components for this plant be
appropriately designed, sized, built, and operated so that
effluent quality would consistently approach the levels
described in 02H .0219 (k)(1)(iii)(I-IV). Compliance with
this condition will be evaluated by examining the specific
details of the design components of the plant, the
facilities actually installed the operation of the plant
once it begins to treat wastewater and the effluent quality
performance of the plant."
This condition will need to be evaluated through the ATC
process and in our (RO) examination of the actual plant, its
1 of 2 9/19/03 11:46 AM

NPDES Application NC 0087700--Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
operation and DMR data review. It is our intention to make
specific reference to this condition as we review the plans
for construction, do compliance inspections of the facility
and examine the DMR data.
Please attach this e-mail to our signed staff report as an
amendment. If you or Jackie have any questions, please let
me know. Thanks. Forrest
Forrest Westall - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Forrest Westall <[e-mail]>
NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2 of 2 9/ 19/03 11:46 AM

DENR/ DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO087700
Facility
Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Wade Hampton Horizon
Estates
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 2807, 224
Highway, 107 SouthCashiers, North Carolina
Facility Address:
ox
ig Ridge Road Cashiers, North Carolina
Permitted Flow
Type of Waste:
omestic
Facility/Permit Status:
e_w
Facility Classification
NA
County:
Jackson
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
UTTrout Creek
Regional Office:
Asheville
Stream Classification:
WS III 4'rout
USGS To o Quad:
7G3M Big Ridge NC
303 d Listed?:
No
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
Subbasin:
- -
Date:
August ,
Drainage Area mil :
0.22
__`;.
• �0.14
Summer 7Q 10 cfs
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):eMrr.
Average Flow cfs :
0.23
IWC % :
0.8
Primary SIC Code:_
SUMMARY OF FACILITY AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Robert Hampton is requesting the issuance of a NPDES permit for a 82,160 GPD wastewater
treatment plant. The plant will treat domestic wastewater from a proposed resort and spa
development, Wade Hampton Horizon Estates, which will include Club House, inns, restaurant,
single family homes, suites, condominiums, villas and other related units.
The Horizon Estates will discharge into UT Trout Creek in the Little Tennessee River Basin.
The UT Trout Creek is not listed on the 2003 303d list for impaired streams in North Carolina.
The stream is also not rated via monitoring or evaluation, however overall water quality in the
subbasin is excellent.
There is much history with this permit application. Attached notes will detail the background.
After evaluation of most recently submitted alternatives, the most economically feasible option
was direct discharge to UT Trout Creek. Alternatives indicated that there were not enough
suitable soils for a viable nondischarge option. Performed Level B model of UT Trout Creek,
must have summer limits of 5/ 1.5/6 to protect DO standard. Winter limits cannot be less
stringent than twice the summer oxygen consuming limits per NCAC 2B .0404( c) therefore
winter limits of 10/3.5/5 are recommended. NH3 limits for protection against toxicity. Fecal
and TRC limits also required. Stream has very steep slopes. Model segment length was 0.36
miles and stopped at the beginning of a small pond. Tertiary treatment limits will be required
year-round for protection of the dissolved oxygen standard of 6 mg/1 for trout class streams
and protection against ammonia and chlorine toxicity. Semi-annually monitoring of TP and TN
is also required.
Nearest existing discharger is Singing Waters Camping Resort, located approximately 2-3 miles
downstream on Trout Creek. There should be no interaction between the two dischargers.
Draft permit must be reviewed by DEH since discharge is to WSIII Trout waters.
TOXICITY TESTING:
None Require
Wade Hampton Horizons Estates Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1

COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Not Require
PROPOSED LIMITS:
Summer
Winter
BOD5
5 mg/1
10 mg/1
NH3
1.5 mg/l
3.5 mg/l
Fecal
200/ 100ml
200/ 100ml
DO
6 mg/1
5 mg/1
TRC
28 ug/1
28 ug/1
Semi-annual monitoring
for TP and TN.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Jackie Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
NAME:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NAME:
REGIONAL SUPERVISOR:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
Wade Hampton Horizons Estates Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 2

Wade Hampton Horizons Estate NC0087700 1/17/03
The Hampton Club
Jackson County
UT Trout Creek
040402
WS-III Trout
New permit application and Engineering Alternative Analysis submitted August 9, 2002
Requesting a new NPDES permit for a commercial, residential, project — It is a resort
and spa development including Club House, Inns, restaurant, single family homes,
suites, condominiums, villa and other units.
The project will be completed in phases, with the initial phase of construction requiring
6960 GPD, second phase 52500 gpd and third phase 82500 gpd.
Requested is 82,160 GPD into UT Trout Creek
Information provided by engineer indicated that DA = 0.226 mil
And estimated 7Q10 flow is 0.039 cfs
*This flow would be considered zero flow stream and DWQ procedure would not allow a
wastewater discharge into this point. On January 17, 2003 called Gary MacConnell and
told him that another site would need to be selected and even then Level B modeling
would have to determine whether the stream could accept that much flow. He asked me
to hold the project for a copy of days while he looked into the site and 7Q10 of the
stream.
2/22/03 — Flow estimates - received fax memo from Daniel Vallero regarding new
runoff calculations. They found that the 0.105 cfs supplied in the text of the report was
correct. The info in Appendix E where the flow was 0.039 cfs is incorrect. Submitted a
replacement page with the flow of 0.105 cfs.
My evaluation of the discharge site had a smaller drainage area and a lower estimated
7Q10 flow.
Wade Hampton estimates: DA = 0.226 mil , estimated 7Q10 flow is 0.105 cfs
DWQ estimates: DA = 0.13 mil , estimated 7Q10 flow is 0.07 cfs * It should be noted
that the flow estimate program indicates that the drainage area I determined was
unuseable in this hydrologic area. The "Low flow Characteristic of Streams in NC"
report indicates that in this hydrologic area, HA10, the drainage area in square miles
below which indicated low -flow statistic generally has a zero value is probably less than
0.5 square miles. Both the engineer and I estimated a DA below 0.5 mi2. Will
recommend that facility contact USGS and get flow estimate from them since there
is a discrepancy between our two estimates and program indicates that the DA is
unusable.

EAA Review- TB, SAW, NS - 2/14/03
Should this be a phased permit -can it grow to this big of an area?
Ask about the time frames for the building phases.
Ask how they will design the plant @ 90,000 GPD
Want data from USGS to verify the 7Q10 and 30Q2.
Need letter from municipality of Cashiers saying that they would not accept their
wastewater. What is the distance to pump to the nearest collection system or line for
Cashiers? Check with Kevin Barnett of ARO.
How much acreage is need for land disposal?
Reevaluate surface drip.
Will occupancy be seasonal or year round?
3/6/03 — Kevin Barnett of ARO
Called to ask about possible connection to Town of Cashiers. Kevin said that the
collection system is very short. Cashiers is on a self imposed moratorium. They are not
at 80-90%. But the plant is bumping to 100% capacity every summer, but is only at 20%
capacity in the winter. Would not be able to accept additional flow from this project. It
is a seasonal town with a lot of second homes.
The Wade Hampton project will have problems in the winter.
A low rate drip in the woods is not out of the question for this project. He understands it
will be developed with a lot of land.
General public scrutiny will be the problem for building the project. The local people
will want to know about the project. However, if you build it, they will come. Resorts
will be busy in the summer. This project may be trying to compete with High Hampton,
a sport and fishing resort. Wade Hampton has an existing country club w/ golf course
further south of this project. Too far away to use in reuse alternative.
3/11/2003 — returned application and EAA packages to Wade Hampton Estates. Letter
contained several questions requesting additional information on the project. Cc'd Gary
McConnell, project engineer
4/9/03 — received letter from Mr. McConnell responding to the questions in the return
letter. Called Mr. McConnell and indicated that a new application and new copies of the
EAA needed to be sent in before we could proceed with the project. If changes had been
made as far as phases, etc. that new copies of the EAA were required. He said that
2

everything was still the same, the phases have been combined. Told him that we only
had one marked up copy of EAA and new copies would be needed. Mr. McConnell
expressed his displeasure with the length of time that the project had taken. Asked why
he had not received copies of the old application. Told him that the entire package had
been returned to Mr. Hampton, the owner of the project. Mr. McConnell said that he
would have copies of the application and EAA in my office tomorrow. He also
complained that money and jobs was being lost while the project was not approved.
That the length of time had been too long and he had been told that the project would be
finished in October. Also said that he had stopped by my office and I was not here and
should have been there doing my job. Requested to speak to my supervisor and complain
about the length of time with the project. Continued to tell him that an application would
still be needed to move on with the permit request, whether he spoke to my supervisor or
not. Mr. McConnell indicated that something needed to be done and lawyers may have
to be involved.
Second Group EAA Review
1. Hampton Estates should be permitted only for 82,160-82,200 GPD although
designed for 90,000 GPD
2. The option of connection to the Cashiers wwtp needs to be correctly addressed.
Even though it is a private entity, McConnell and Associates could have
approached the Tuckaseegee Water and Sewer Authority - Cashiers WWTP
about the available option of a proposed discharger connection. The correct
wasteflow of the Cashiers WWTP is 0.100 MGD and is noted in the chart of
Jackson County dischargers in Appendix D of the EAA. It is incorrectly printed
in the text on page 41n the Appendix chart should match the text.
3. Will ask Kevin Barnett of ARO to see if adjacent lands are available for
purchase since there is not enough available land within the Hampton Estates.
for land disposal. He may ask owner/applicant if adjacent land can be acquired.
4. The less dense development option of a 40,000 GPD development. Consultant
needs to do a further explanation of the lost opportunity cost. The cost of the
40,000 GPD subsurface, reduced flow option is within 5% of the stream
discharge option.
April 30, 2003 Meeting with Robert Hampton, Gary McConnell
Discussed the alternatives analyses that was provided and additional information
needed. DWQ asked for more info on large diameter pipe nondischarge option,
whether low pressure pipe option was evaluated, and that the price of subsurface
disposal at 40,000 GPD was within 15 % of direct discharge options and could be
chosen as the treatment. Mr. Hampton indicated that he initially wanted to use
septic systems but that it wouldn't work, if he wanted to maintain the natural
scenery.
Mr. Hampton has indicated that he had started construction and roadwork already.
Will take 3 months to put the sewer in. Builders ready to start on the villas. Phase 1

and II have been combined now into the new Phase 1. Phase II is now on schedule
to start. They buying additional property for third Phase, which would be another
project. He wants to start by March 2004. He says there are underground springs
and septic systems would pollute them. Effluent discharged will be reuse quality.
McConnell indicates that property doesn't lend itself to drip irrigation. If a storage
pond is required it would be -tough to operate. Dave G. indicated that a conjunctive
use permit would be more conducive to DWQ. A drip system when it could be
operated and the other time discharge to stream.
McConnell says that orchards and vineyards would lend themselves to seasonal
irrigation of water. Some holding tanks could be done. It would be difficult.
Ground ready for underground utility, etc. Road beds already cut.
Additional Information needed from Hampton and McConnell
1. Needs to demonstrate lost opportunity costs if project at lower flow of 40,000
GPD is built.
2. Need to get local government signoff-notarized -- Letter from Jackson Co.
indicating that there were no zoning ordinances in place. Regs indicate that
letter must be notarized.
3. Need to submit loading rate calculations — they are referenced but not actually
shown
4. Need to present references for cost estimates
June 24, 2003 - additional information received
Showed that direct discharge is the most economically feasible choice. Lost
opportunity cost of $3.2 M dollars if site is reduced by 100 residential units (C $32K
per unit) to a 40,000 GPD treatment plant.
Provided loading rate calculations from certified soil scientist
Provided references for costs of equipment
Did not provide notarized local government signoff
Performed Level B model of UT Trout Creek, must have summer limits of 511.516 to
protect DO standard. Fecal and TRC limits also. Stream has very steep slopes.
Model run stopped at the beginning of a small pond. Winter limits cannot be less
stringent than twice the summer oxygen consuming limits per NCAC 211 .0404( c).
Winter limits of 10/3.5/5. NH3 limits for protection against toxicity.
Kevin Barnett of ARO- will go to the site upon receipt of the application. He thinks
that a downstream discharge, Singing Waters Camping Resort, will have something
to say about the new discharger. Singing Waters takes its swimming pool water
from the UT to Trout Creek (?).
4

P.F.�Lx

Hampton Estates WWTP
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.13
7010 (CFS)
0.13
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.08216
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.08216
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.127348
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.12735
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.48
IWC (%)
49.48
IWC (%)
49.48
Allowable Concentration (ugj
34.35
Allowable Concentration (m
1.53
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.14
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.08216
Ratio of 1.0 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.12735
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
47.63
Allowable Concentration (m
3.54
NC0087700
8/12/03

SUMMER
MODEL FOR HORIZONS ESTATES
Q 82160 GPD
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
HAMPTON ESTATES
Receiving Stream :
UT TROUT CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.37
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 4.38
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 3.69
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
6.37
----------------
0.00 1
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
7.50
6.75
5.00
0.08216
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : HAMPTON ESTATES Subbasin : 040402
Receiving Stream : UT TROUT CREEK Stream Class: WSIII
Summer 7Q10 : 0.13 Winter 7Q10 0.14
Design Temperature: 23.0
LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY DEPTH Kd I Kd I Ka Ka I KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @200 design @200 design
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.13 615.00 0.312 0.23 1.15 1.00 53.37 50.00 0.63
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.02 2000.001 0.439 1 0.20 1 1.15 1 1.00 153.37 ( 50.001 0.63
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.21 952.00 0.354 0.22 1.15 1.00 53.37 50.00 0.63
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/1
mg/l
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.127
7.500
6.750
5.000
Headwaters 0.130
2.000
1.000
7.720
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

`
SUMMER
MODEL FOR HORIZONS
@ 82160
GPD
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
6.37
4.72
3.85
0.26
1
1
0.01
6.58
4.71
3.84
0.26
1
1
0.02
6.76
4.70
3.84
0.26
1
1
0.03
6.93
4.69
3.83
0.26
1
1
0.04
7.08
4.68
3.83
0.26
1
1
0.05
7.21
4.67
3.82
0.26
1
1
0.06
7.33
4.66
3.82
0.26
1
1
0.07
7.44
4.65
3.81
0.26
1
1
0.08
7.54
4.64
3.81
0.26
1
1
0.09
7.63
4.63
3.80
0.26
1
1
0.10
7.71
4.62
3.80
0.26
1
1
0.11
7.78
4.61
3.79
0.26
1
1
0.12
7.85
4.60
3.79
0.26
1
1
0.13
7.91
4.59
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.13
7.91
4.59
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.13
7.91
4.58
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.13
7.92
4.58
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.14
7.93
4.58
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.14
7.94
4.58
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.14
7.94
4.58
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.14
7.95
4.58
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.14
7.96
4.58
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.15
7.97
4.57
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.15
7.97
4.57
3.78
0.26
1
2
0.15
7.98
4.57
3.78
0.26
1
3
0.15
7.98
4.57
3.78
0.26
1
3
0.16
8.02
4.56
3.77
0.26
1
3
0.17
8.06
4.55
3.77
0.26
1
3
0.18
8.09
4.54
3.77
0.26
1
3
0.19
8.12
4.54
3.76
0.26
1
3
0.20
8.15
4.53
3.76
0.26
1
3
0.21
8.17
4.52
3.75
0.26
1
3
0.22
8.20
4.51
3.75
0.26
1
3
0.23
8.22
4.50
3.74
0.26
1
3
0.24
8.24
4.49
3.74
0.26
1
3
0.25
8.26
4.48
3.74
0.26
1
3
0.26
8.27
4.47
3.73
0.26
1
3
0.27
8.29
4.46
3.73
0.26
1
3
0.28
8.30
4.46
3.72
0.26
1
3
0.29
8.31
4.45
3.72
0.26
1
3
0.30
8.32
4.44
3.72
0.26
1
3
0.31
8.33
4.43
3.71
0.26
1
3
0.32
8.34
4.42
3.71
0.26
1
3
0.33
8.35
4.41
3.70
0.26
1
3
0.34
8.36
4.40
3.70
0.26
1
3
0.35
8.37
4.39
3.70
0.26
1
3
0.36
8.37
4.38
3.69
0.26
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
6.37
4.72
3.85
0.26
1
1
0.01
6.58
4.71
3.84
0.26
1
1
0.02
6.76
4.70
3.84
0.26
1
1
0.03
6.93
4.69
3.83
0.26
1
1
0.04
7.08
4.68
3.83
0.26
1
1
0.05
7.21
4.67
3.82
0.26
1
1
0.06
7.33
4.66
3.82
0.26
1
1
0.07
7.44
4.65
3.81
0.26
ESTATES

WINTER
MODEL FOR HORIXONS ESTATES Q
82160 GPD 10/3.5/5
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
HAMPTON ESTATES
Receiving Stream :
UT TROUT CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.37
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 7.84
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 7.89
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
7.46
----------------
0.00 1
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
15.00
15.75
5.00
0.08216
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

i
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : HAMPTON ESTATES Subbasin : 040402
Receiving Stream : UT TROUT CREEK Stream Class: WSIII
Summer 7Q10 : 0.13 Winter 7Q10 0.14
Design Temperature: 12.0
LENGTH SLOPEJ VELOCITY I DEPTH Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @200 design @200 design
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.13 615.00 0.321 0.24 0.69 1.00 42.01 50.00 0.27
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.02 2000.00 0.452 I 0.20I 0.69I1 1.00 142.01 1 50.001 0.27I
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.21 952.00 0.364 0.22 0.69 1.00 42.01 50.00 0.27
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.127
15.000
15.750
5.000
Headwaters
0.140
2.000
1.000
9.700
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
1
1
0.00
7.46
8.19
1
1
0.01
7.70
8.18
1
1
0.02
7.92
8.17
1
1
0.03
8.13
8.16
1
1
0.04
8.32
8.15
1
1
0.05
8.49
8.14
1
1
0.06
8.66
8.13
1
1
0.07
8.80
8.12
1
1
0.08
8.94
8.11
1
1
0.09
9.07
8.10
1
1
0.10
9.19
8.09
1
1
0.11
9.29
8.07
1
1
0.12
9.39
8.06
1
1
0.13
9.49
8.05
1
2
0.13
9.49
8.05
1
2
0.13
9.50
8.05
1
2
0.13
9.51
8.05
1
2
0.14
9.52
8.05
1
2
0.14
9.54
8.05
1
2
0.14
9.55
8.05
1
2
0.14
9.56
8.04
1
2
0.14
9.57
8.04
1
2
0.15
9.58
8.04
1
2
0.15
9.60
8.04
1
2
0.15
9.61
8.04
1
3
0.15
9.61
8.04
1
3
0.16
9.67
8.03
1
3
0.17
9.74
8.02
1
3
0.18
9.80
8.01
1
3
0.19
9.85
8.00
1
3
0.20
9.90
7.99
1
3
0.21
9.95
7.98
1
3
0.22
9.99
7.97
1
3
0.23
10.03
7.96
1
3
0.24
10.07
7.95
1
3
0.25
10.11
7.95
1
3
0.26
10.14
7.94
1
3
0.27
10.17
7.93
1
3
0.28
10.20
7.92
1
3
0.29
10.23
7.91
1
3
0.30
10.25
7.90
1
3
0.31
10.28
7.89
1
3
0.32
10.30
7.88
1
3
0.33
10.32
7.87
1
3
0.34
10.34
7.86
1
3
0.35
10.36
7.85
1
3
0.36
10.37
7.84
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
WINTER
MODEL FOR HORIXONS ESTATES @
82160 GPD 10/3.5/5
NBOD
Flow
8.03
0.27
8.02
0.27
8.02
0.27
8.01
0.27
8.01
0.27
8.01
0.27
8.00
0.27
8.00
0.27
7.99
0.27
7.99
0.27
7.98
0.27
7.98
0.27
7.98
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.97
0.27
7.96
0.27
7.96
0.27
7.96
0.27
7.95
0.27
7.95
0.27
7.95
0.27
7.94
0.27
7.94
0.27
7.93
0.27
7.93
0.27
7.93
0.27
7.92
0.27
7.92
0.27
7.92
0.27
7.91
0.27
7.91
0.27
7.91
0.27
7.90
0.27
7.90
0.27
7.89
0.27
7.89
0.27
NBOD I
Flow

oYA ()()AA/) ? rDr2S Yc_,V\
300„
qj _ ., If
7t do
I
3;�j
Stream
('14lr1Ste- m Brmnc►1
Sl0 cdcu'ions ,I(SVo C^4 0 al' )IODU("�,
0 323_ I
®,m7-0A'
Z� 38ou - 3960 ¢- ° �- 6 6 6 /t>M 38 Yo — 3:�=V 611
3) 3760 -3T w , `f u : Logo
316d ,13e4l 2 r2wo
3720- 3bSo ; ga t_�0u0�,m 3710— 3Szo , Zuu(t
S) 36S0- 36Y0
, aq — ,19 M,
G� N,Yo —36oa
2B_ ,ZY oY�r V
CuM
elev disc
disc
sio
�gy� o
330� 0,0-/
�(oP
p,DL
368il o.19
_
0,0Y
36u�
o,o .
3�69 a.3a
3�20 0,
3y yo
3yuil
b .11 .iY ,v..ts .50, St
d Stan«

DWQ-NPDES & Wade Hampton Horizons Estates
Meeting Agenda
April 30, 2003
9:00 a.m. —10:30 a.m.
• Introductions (5 min.)
• Discussion of Project
• New h es — Mr. Hampton (10 min.)
• Discussion of Alternatives Analyses — Mr. McConnell (30 min.)
• Explanation of lost useable acreage al��%t
• Large diameter pipe option �ti fwfo - a" ff, �� �'°''�`'� `
• LPP evaluated? 4/, ft4 w/ % S17W" �- C�°
• Subsurface disposal @ 40,000 GPD within 15% of direct discharge options
• Additional Information Needed (30 min.)
• Demonstration of lost opportunity costs —Mr. Belnick
• Local Government SignoffC.--+�
• Loading rate calculations
• References for cost estimates � f / lcf
• Other Miscellaneous Discussion and Closing (10 min)
� US �";�,e- c.�, %d �� �Jr lc�l�� ,�Er�✓cif
0
/N c rT Cv�
orlia1Ands
W b 'k,� �4 C1 jr
C ir�
q w�,atil ✓/lcfics.� � dr�
&E d_/_E 4ti
4-04
14,

Uc�
wziaf374n,1�,,,� `ik� i1o�1� ssrc
uu
OfA-
e
l iffyc1� , f�cvr c !� dull ![m/�,s t'✓cw�„ - - - -- —
6�lZ> l„�c �a�c�,[1� rcal Esfs�, �h �ifws iry
lGjr�yllb'f fl✓fi�//. c�nr//E , /�ic� cu,sdfi�/c�l�ro.,
In
lido i�S�
&-1
Al l/S owh+cC !�Y lam• r `--- — -
R!"S
--/0 �=

(f)
Uiy �,FtrEc sa -6�
�yyrc.i�lS w�i,j'alla�
4,4
Id
"x, if ✓i.� ✓d3 old /" y4v tic.;--
w�',,,, / d� �E, /1
7 J� Tl i �✓( � ' y i✓( Cas4Yi
J�n d ui.es - ter<r £
�ft(rS /4t-d WS uXs c

/0

P.O. Box 129
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-1239
& ASSOCIATES, ac.
June 20, 2003
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit-NCDENR-DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: The Hampton Club, Inc.
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
NPDES Permit and Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Jackson County
MacConnell & Associates, P.C. Project No.: B18701.00
Dear Ms. Nowell:
909 Aviation Parkway
Suite 1400
Morrisville, NC 27560
ECEE WE
JUN 2 4 20M
DENR `NATER OUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Fax [phone]
In please find three copies of revised sheets which should replace pages in the most recently
submitted Engineering Alternatives Analysis. Many of the issues discussed at our last meeting
have been addressed in these revised pages. Other information is being furnished at your request
to better document our assumptions. Outstanding items are discussed below.
There was some discussion regarding "lost acreage". Land has not been lost. However, due
to: built upon land, set backs, (there will be numerous wells on site), and unsuitable land, the
available acreage identified in the soils report has become significantly less.
2. Large diameter pipe has been discussed in more detail within the analysis. It is included in the
on site wastewater regulations (15 NCAC 18A.1956).
3. Low Pressure Pipe was not considered a viable alternative due to the steep slopes, springs,
and varying topography. This option is discussed in the analysis.
4. The subsurface disposal option with a reduced flow of 40,000 GPD has been reevaluated to
include opportunity costs.
5. Local Government Sign off is included in Appendix F
6. See attached letter from S&ME with proposed loading rates.
7. Please see referenced packaged wastewater package plant quote for referenced cost.

We trust these responses, along with all supporting information and documentation will answer
your questions. Please contact me or Julia Keith, E.I. with any questions or comments at (919)
467-1239. Thank you.
President
cc: Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr., Esq., The Hampton Club, Inc., Wade Hampton Horizon Estates
Julia Keith, E.I., MacConnell & Associates

The Hampton Club, Inc.
1. Contacts
Owner Information:
Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr., Esq., President
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
The Hampton Club, Inc.
224 Hwy. 107 South
P.O. Box 2807
Cashiers, North Carolina 28717
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Facility Contact:
Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr., Esq., President
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
The Hampton Club, Inc.
4317 Big Ridge Road
P.O. Box 2807
Cashiers, North Carolina 28717
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Engineering, Alternative Analysis Preparer.
Gary S. MacConnell, P.E.
MacConnell & Associates, P.C.
Post Office Box 129
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Soil Scientist for Engineering Scientist for En in��Alternative Analysis Analysis:
,1UN 24 7A�
n, AT F.� OU P'LIIYN
oENR'' �acE araAr._,
POINT SO
Mr. Matthew H. O'Brien, L.S.S. and Mr. C. Scott Carpenter, Soil Scientist in Training
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
10ftk Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
Page I

The Hampton Club, Inc.
4
2. Project Background
The Wade Hampton Horizons Estate is a proposed 119.9 acre multi -use development consisting
of: a club house, three inns, restaurant, a spa resort with condominiums and suites (The Lodge),
single family residences, mansions, cottages, villas, and other miscellaneous amenities. The
development will be located in Jackson County about five miles north of Cashiers, North
Carolina. The development has a northwest aspect with distant views of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. The site offers unique and varying vegetation types, numerous springs,
two streams, ponds, and an adjacent waterfall. Because of the environmentally sensitive
developer, the Wade Hampton Horizons Estate others a one of a kind development which
enhances the beauty of the mountains of North Carolina.
The only municipality within the vicinity of the development is the Town of Cashiers which is
approximately five miles away, with driving distance being about 10 miles. Potable water will be
provided to the development by springs located throughout the site. The slope of the land where
the development is to be located averages about 21 percent and is mostly heavily forested.
However, some areas are significantly flatter or steeper. For further information concerning the
site and topography, please refer to the soils report located in Appendix A and two site plans
located in Appendix B.
The purpose of this Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is to outline the various wastewater
treatment and disposal alternatives for the proposed development and determine the most feasible
1110� alternative. Based on this analysis and the associated costs for the various alternatives, the
owners of the proposed development are requesting authorization to discharge up to 82,160 GPD
into an unnamed tributary of Trout Creek which is part of the Little Tennessee River Basin under
a NPDES permit issued by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). According to Division records,
this stream is located in Subbasin 40402 of the Little Tennessee River Basin and is classified as
"WS-III Tr" waters. The "Tr" classification refers to the fact that these waters have conditions
which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stock trout on a year-round
basis.
3. Wastewater Analysis of Proposed Development
Projected wastewater flows have been developed for the proposed Wade Hampton Horizons
Estate. Flows for the development are based on three phases of development for the 119.9 acre
multi -use development which consists of a club house, three inns, restaurant, a spa resort with
condominiums and suites (The Lodge), single family residences, mansions, cottages, villas, and
other miscellaneous amenities. Wastewater from the development is considered to be completely
domestic, with no industries within the property. Based on textbook values, the raw wastewater
is expected to have an average BQD5 concentration of 200 mg/l and a total suspended
concentration of 200 mg/l. The average wastewater quantity or flow rate at build out will be the
basis for design. It is based on the design flow rates outlined in 15A NCAC 2H .0200. A value
of 120 gallons of wastewater per day, per bedroom is used for dwelling units. Bedrooms in the
r"b� spa are allocated 200 gallons per day per bedroom for resorts and each seat in the restaurant is
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 2

The Hampton Club, Inc.
4k
r""'1
allocated 40 gallons per day per seat. The development will generate approximately 82,160
gallons per day (GPD) (basis for permit) of raw wastewater at build out, based on projections
presented in Table 3-1. The actual wastewater treatment plant will be designed based on an
average daily flow of 90,000 GPD, to be conservative.
Table 3-1: Projected wastewater flows for the Wade Hampton Horizons Estate in Jackson
County, North Carolina.
Description
No.
Units
Design Flow
Rate
Units
Extended
Flow
Units
Phase I
7: 4-Bedroom Homes
28
120
GPD/Bedroom
32360
GPD
Artesian Cottage, 4-Bedrooms
4
120
GPD/Bedroom
480
GPD
Inn, 22 Bedrooms
22
120
GPDBedroom
23,640
GPD
Club House, 4,000 SF
41
120
GPD/1,000 SF
480
GPD
25: 6- Bedroom Homes
150
120
GPD/Bedroom
18,000
GPD
5: 7- Bedroom Mansions
35
120
GPD/Bedroom
47200
GPD
Inn, 20 Bedrooms
20
120
GPD/Bedroom
2,400
GPD
The Lodge, Rooms w/ Spa)
45
200
GPD/Bedroom
91000
GPD
The Lodge, 4-Bedroom Suites
28
200
GPD/Bedroom
5,600
GPD
Commons Restaurant
60
40
GPD/Seat
2,400
GPD
20: 4-Bedrooms Villas
80
120
GPDBedroom
9,600
GPD
Subtotal Phase I
589160
GPD
Phase H
45: Villas, 4-Bedrooms
180
120
GPD/Bedroom
21,600
GPD
Inn, 2,0 Bedrooms
20
120
GPD/Bedroom
22400
GPD
Subtotal Phase H
149,000
GPD
Requested Discha a Flow
82,160
GPD
WWTP Design Flow
90,000
I GPD
4. Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives
Based on the 82,.100 GPD of wastewater which will be generated by the proposed development,
the following wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives have been evaluated to determine
their economic and environmental feasibility:
• Connection to an existing wastewater treatment system including Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) and Privately Owned Treatment Works.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 3

The Hampton Club, Inc.
• Surface and subsurface land based alternatives including individual non -discharge systems,
community subsurface systems (both standard and innovative systems), drip irrigation
systems, and spray irrigation systems.
• Wastewater Reuse
• Surface Water Discharge
• Combinations of various disposal alternatives
Each alternative is discussed in detail including proposed treatment processes, wastewater
disposal options, and Present -Value -of Costs Analysis where feasible. All capital, installation,
construction, opportunity, monitoring, and operation and maintenance costs associated with the
various alternatives outlined below can be found in Appendix C.
A. Connection to a Sewer -Collection System
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Division of Water
Quality has issued nineteen (19) active NPDES permits in Jackson County, as summarized in
Appendix D. Of these discharges, only the Singing Waters Camping Resort discharges into Trout
Creek. This is a small facility as summarized below:
Permit Facility Receiving Stream Flow
f4m'1 NC0038687 Singing Waters Camping Resort Trout Creek 71)500 GPD
Although it is the closest facility at about four (4) miles away, it is not considered a viable
alternative to connect to due to its size, distance, and seasonal nature of its operation. The closest
wastewater treatment plant of significant size is the Cashiers Wastewater Treatment Plant, as
summarized below:
Permit Facifily Receiving Stream Flow
NC0063321 Cashiers WWTP East Fork Chatooga River 100,000 GPD
This facility which is owned and operated by the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority is more
than ten (10) miles away by road and located in another sub -basin. Therefore, it is not considered
a viable alternative to connect to based on cost and environmental concerns. This alternative was
not evaluated any further due to the cost of constructing a force main that distance and the degree
of difficulty in constructing a force main in this area due to shallow bedrock and extreme
topography. In addition, because the owner is a private developer, the force main could not be
constructed in the. Department of Transportation's public right-of-way. Therefore, easements
would be required from every property owner for the entire ten plus miles route.
The seventeen remaining wastewater treatment systems in Jackson County are either small (no
larger than 150,000 gallons per day), and/or significantly farther than the Cashiers Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Therefore, none of these facilities offers a viable alternative to furnish
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 4

The Hampton Club, Inc.
C'i
wastewater treatment for the Wade Hampton Horizons Estate, and they are not given further
consideration.
B. Land Based Disposal
The total acreage of the proposed Wade Hampton Horizons Estate development is approximately
119.90 acres. The original property or Site 1 occupies approximately 31.70 acres while Site 2 or
the newest addition occupies approximately 88.20 acres of land. Of the total acreage, the owners
have set aside approximately 35 acres for green space which are located in common areas, areas
adjacent to creeks, and in the estate or mansion lots. These natural areas will be defined in the
property deeds and are to promote the unique flora and fauna of the area. Therefore,
approximately 85.90 acres remain for the proposed development and wastewater treatment and
disposal.
S&ME, Inc. completed a preliminary soil evaluation of the proposed site in order to identify
usable areas for wastewater disposal and establish applicable loading rates. Their complete
evaluation is located in Appendix A. Based on their evaluation, approximately 13.17 acres of Site
1 and 24.85 acres of Site 2 for a total area of 38.02 acres are usable, throughout the total site.
This represents about 41.51 percent of Site 1, 28.17 percent of Site 2, or 31.71 percent of the
total area being potentially usable for an on -site system The remaining areas have greater than 65
percent slope, shallow soils, and/or they are within the various buffers. from property lines,
streams or other water features as required by the Division of Water Quality or the Division of
Environmental Health. This makes these areas unsuitable for wastewater disposal.
It is estimated that approximately 20% of the entire property will be built upon with buildings and
infrastructure. Based on the proposed site plan as contained in Appendix B, approximately 5.0
acres of Site 1 and 7.5 acres of Site 2, or 12.5 acres of the entire site are available for wastewater
disposal at build -out of the project, when building footprints, setbacks and natural areas are
subtracted for available area. Because of the topography, vegetation, irregular shapes of available
areas, footpaths, setbacks from proposed wells, and other small miscellaneous appurtenances such
as distribution lines and power lines approximately 50 percent of the remaining area is actually
unusable. This leaves approximately 2.5 acres of Site 1 and 3.75 acres of Site 2, or 6.25 total
acres available for wastewater treatment and disposal.
The land based disposal alternatives have been evaluated as follows:
Low Pressure Pipe (LPP): The average slope of the property is about 21 percent which eliminates
the low pressure pipe alternative. LPP systems can be used on steeper slope when the slopes are
relatively uniform. However, the varied topography, steep slopes and broken up areas make this
option impractical: • This option is not considered further
Spray, Irrigation: The average slope of the property is about 21 percent which eliminates spray
irrigation as a viable alternative. Typically, it is recommended to avoid spray irrigation of effluent
on slopes greater than 8 to 10 percent due to the potential of runoff It may be possible to irrigate
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 5

The Hampton Club, Inc.
isolated areas such as the vineyard or orchard. However, theses areas are small and the amount of
water irrigated would be insignificant and the irrigation of these areas would be seasonal.
Large Diameter Pipe: Large diameter pipe systems are often used in the mountains where steeper
slopes are present. In these types of systems, 8 or 10-inch diameter corrugated pipe is used in lieu
of the 4 or 6-inch pipe, for drainage. When.8-inch pipe is used, an actual trench bottom width of
15-inches is used, but 24 inches is used for design purposes with a separation between the design
trench bottoms of 6 feet. When 10-inch pipe is used, an actual trench bottom width of 18-inches
is used, but 30 inches are used for design purposes with a separation between the design trench
bottoms of 6 feet. Based on a long term acceptance rate (LTAR) of 0.5 to 0.7 gallons per day per
square foot (gpd/ft2), this equates to an effective loading of total area of 0.125 to 0.175 gpd/ft2.
Based on a LTAR of 0.5 to 0.7 gpd/ft2 or an effective loading of 0.125 to 0.175 gpd/ft2 for total
area, approximately 30.18 to 21.56 acres of land, including repair area, will be required for this
type of subsurface aisposa option. Based on the design of this type of system even more area
would be required to accommodate setbacks, placement of pipe, and septic tanks. Because this
option requires more land than what is available, this option was not evaluated any further.
Subsurface Drip: When designing a subsurface drip irrigation system, one half of the published
LTAR is typically used as the design value, assuming that 2-foot spacing of lines provides for
total coverage of the area. Based on a published LTAR of 0.5 to 0.7 gpd/ft2 for conventional
trench bottom, this yields an effective loading of 0.25 to 0.35 gpd/ft2 for the total area.
Approximately 15.09 to 10.78 acres of land, including repair area, will be necessary to dispose of
the wastewater generated by this project through a subsurface drip irrigation system. Cost
analysis of this type of system is outlined in Appendix C. Disinfection is not typically required for
subsurface disposal systems. However, due to the large volume of wastewater to be treated and
the sensitivity to the freshwater springs in the area, a wastewater treatment facility with aeration
and clarification is proposed in lieu of septic tanks, pump tanks, and effluent filters. Due to the
potential of shallow bedrock and the freshwater springs throughout the site, installing septic tanks
and pump tanks at each facility would also not be viable or cost effective.
Please note that this alternative was evaluated but due to the amount of land required to construct
the subsurface drip irrigation fields, this alternative in actuality is not viable. This alternative
would stretch the technology limits to the maximum based on distribution and monitoring of
wastewater disposal.
Surface Drip: Based on a surface loading of 0.80 to 1.12 inches per week, approximately 26.50 to
18.93 acres of irrigation land is required for a surface drip irrigation to dispose of the wastewater
generated by Wade Hampton Horizons Estate. The cost analysis for this system is addressed in
Appendix C. This type of disposal system will require a wastewater treatment facility with
aeration, clarification and disinfection capable of meeting secondary limits. In addition, inclement
storage will be required. Due to the climate in this area, it is estimated that 120 days of storage,
or 5.4 million gallons, will be required. Please note that this alternative was also evaluated but
due to the amount of land required to construct the surface drip irrigation fields, this alternative is
actuality not a very viable option. This alternative would also stretch the technology limits to the
maximum based on distribution and monitoring of wastewater disposal.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 6

The Hampton Club, Inc.
k�
C. Wastewater Reuse
The developer of Wade Hampton Horizons Estate intends to minimize disturbance as much as
possible. Landscaping will be constructed and maintained around the dwelling units and along
walkways. Landscaping will highlight species which are native to the area. In addition there are
plans for a small boutique orchard and a boutique vineyard. Because of the limited amount of
planned landscaping, the potential for reuse through an irrigation system is minimal and limited to
small isolated areas. In addition, due to the extremely cold weather in this area during the winter,
irrigation would not be possible during the months of October through March.
At this time there does not appear to be any significant non -potable water use options (estimated
to be less than 51000 GPD) in the development, therefore, this alternative was not evaluated any
further. Once the facility is operating and the wastewater being generated by the WWTP meets
the reclaimed water standards, the owner may reevaluate the potential for wastewater reuse
around the development.
D. Surface Water Discharge
The US Geological Survey (Curtis Weaver) was contacted to obtain stream flow information.
Their records did not include any flow estimates specific to the propose location. However, Mr.
Weaver did calculate the 7Q 10 flow for the drainage area (see Appendix E). He provided an
email response and written report. The 7Q 10 is the average flow rate for a seven day period
following a 10-year storm event. The drainage area for the unnamed tributary of Trout Creek
/0=*) where the proposed discharge will be located is approximately 0.22 square miles. The 7Q 10 for
the area was found to be 0.13 cubic feet per second (cfs). This stream flow exceeds the threshold
of 0.05 cfs for a positive flow stream. The USGS low flow report by Mr. Weaver and
correspondence with Mr. Weaver may be found in Appendix E. The proposed discharge point is
also shown on the USGS quad sheet for this option with the approximate property boundaries, in
Appendix E.
/0.
Appendix C contains a cost estimate for both a wastewater treatment facility with a tertiary filter
and one without a tertiary filter. Associated laboratory and monitoring costs were also developed
to reflect the various sampling regimes which may be required by the Division of Water Quality.
The Present -Value -of -Costs Analysis for this alternative is also included in Appendix C.
The proposed wastewater treatment facility will be a dual train extended aeration wastewater
treatment facility and will include flow equalization (sized for a minimum of 25% of the facilities
hydraulic capacity). The facility will provide 24 hours of detention in the aeration chamber and at
least 4 hours of detention in the clarifiers. Disinfection will be achieved by sodium hypochlorite
with dechlorinatioh, or through multiple banks of ultraviolet units. The wastewater treatment
facility, discharge piping, and receiving stream are all located within boundaries of the proposed
development.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 7

The Hampton Club, Inc.
E. Disposal Combinations
In order to eliminate the inclement weather storage pond, it is possible to combine the surface drip
irrigation alternative with the discharge alternative. This combined alternative would further
increase the overall total cost required to install both systems making this alternative even less
viable. Another combination mentioned earlier in the report would be to combine any of the
proposed disposal options and reusing a portion of the effluent for on -site irrigation. However,
there does not appear to be enough demand for the reuse water in this development to justify its
use. Reuse in isolated areas could be used but this should not be considered the major means of
effluent disposal. There are no other viable disposal combination alternatives available.
F. Less Dense Development
What are the consequences of reducing development on the property to both reduce flow and to
increase the area for disposal. If the total flow is reduced to about 40,000 GPD it is possible that
the site could assimilate the treated wastewater with either surface, subsurface, or large diameter
pipe technologies. The large diameter pipe with septic tanks option is not considered due to the
numerous springs on site. Surface drip with a treatment plant requires a large storage pond which
is costly. Therefore, the cost of treating 40,000 GPD with a wastewater treatment plant and
subsurface drip irrigation is considered. These costs are presented, however, the reduced housing
on site makes the project cost prohibitive based on land and infrastructure costs. The reduced
housing is presented as an opportunity cost for not developing the land to its potential.
5. Recommended Disposal Alternative
Based on review of the available alternatives for the proposed development and the economic and
environmental impacts, the recommended option is the Extended Aeration Wastewater Treatment
Facility with Direct Discharge. Not only is this alternative the most economical feasible option,
but also the most reliable system. Typically, drip irrigation systems greater than 50,000 GPD
become difficult to manage due to the number of valves, controls, and zones associated with
systems that large. In addition, due to the presence of shallow and fractured bedrock, a surface or
subsurface drip irrigation system could result in negative impacts to the groundwater/aquifer in
this area, as well as to the valued pristine springs on the property and surrounding areas. Due to
the yearly stream flow and existing topography, the environmental impacts are expected to be non
existent or minimal. The topography offers constant aeration of the stream throughout the year.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 8

Explanation and Justification of Equipment, Quantities, and Unit Cost:
Equipment, Construction, Installation, and Operation and Maintenance costs were estimated based on
similar projects or discussions with manufacturers, contractors, and/or sales representatives
General
1. An interest rate of 6.875% and a time period of 20 years was utilized in calculating the net present
value of the estimated operation and maintenance costs.
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
1. Wastewater Treatment to Secondary Levels averages about $5.00 per gallon per discussions with
prefabricated steel wastewater treatment plant manufacturers and sales representatives. These costs
were also- compared to similar wastewater treatment facilities which were recently bid.
2. Due to shallow bedrock, fresh water springs, and extreme topography located throughout the project
site, a central wastewater treatment facility is proposed in lieu of multiple septic tanks, pump tanks,
and effluent filters in the Subsurface Disposal alternative. With wastewater flows of this volume and
the proposed density of the development, it is also more viable and cost effective to- construct one
centralized wastewater treatment facility #han having septic tanks and pump tanks at each facility.
3. The standby generator and electrical construction costs will be greater for the Subsurface and Surface
Disposal alternatives (through drip irrigation) due to the additional pumps, controls and valves required
to operate the irrigation fields. The area required for the fields will require a large number of multiple
zones in order to maintain the required pressures throughout the system.
4. Due to the volume of wastewater generated by the proposed development and the complexity of the
wastewater treatment system, a Grade III biological wastewater operator will be required for each of
the proposed alternatives.
5. Disinfection is typically not required for subsurface disposal systems, although in areas of shallow
soils the Health Department may require disinfection. The proposed costs associated with the
Subsurface Disposal alternative assume- disinfection will not be required.
6. The Surface Drip Irrigation alternative will require the construction of an inclement weather storage
pond. Due to the cold weather in this part of the State it is assumed that approximately 120 days of
storage, will be required. This equates to a minimum 10.8 million gallon storage pond. This pond will
also require two feet of freeboard. Construction of a pond this size will be difficult in this area due to
shallow bedrock and springs. In addition, the shallow bedrock will also require that the pond be lined
to ensure protection of the groundwater in this area. Construction of the pond will require the
excavation and compaction of approximately 65,000 cubic yards of material at a cost of $1.00 to
$2.50 per cubic yard for removal and compaction. A synthetic liner will cost approximately $0.75 per
square foot for installation. These costs assume that all soil material required to construct the dikes
can -be obtained •on -site. If soil material is required- to be hauled -to the project site for the construction
of the storage pond dikes and or if significant blasting is required, the capital costs will increase.
7. Opportunity cost is considered for the reduced flow option of 40,000 gallons per day. This cost
represents the lost income of constructing a less dense development. Based on the proposed
development this would represent the loss of approximately 100 residential units. These units would be
/0"�

spread out over the various types of properties. However, the projected profit from an average unit is
�..� about $32,000, as this is a high end development.
Wastewater Disposal Alternatives
1. The Direct Discharge Alternative will require the construction of approximately 250 linear feet of
6-inch force main to transport the treated effluent from the wastewater treatment facility to the
receiving stream. The force main will discharge onto to cascade aeration device.
2. Due to the large area required for drip irrigation, both the Subsurface and Surface Drip Irrigation
alternatives include costs for multiple zones, controls, pumps, and disc filters. Six inch supply piping
will be required to transport the effluent from the irrigation pond to the drip irrigation fields and also
take the backwash from the fields back to the wastewater treatment facility.
3. Construction costs for the installation of the drip irrigation line is greater in the Subsurface Disposal
alternative due to the fact that a 6 to 12 inch deep trench will be required. The cost also includes
backfilling of the trench.
W
W

TOTAL COST OF EACH WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
EXTENDED
AERATION Wl
EXTENDED
EXTENDED
EXTENDED
EXTENDED
SUBSURFACE
AERATION Wl
AERATION Wl
AERATION Wl
AERATION W1
DISPOSAL
DIRECT
DIRECT
SUBSURFACE
SURFACE
REDUCED FLOW
DISCHARGE (1)
DISCHARGE (2)
DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL
.40,000 GPD
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$887,300
$977.300
$1,409,300
$1,534,300
$936.800
OPPORTUNITY COST
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,200,000
ENGINEERING & CONTINGENCIES
$310,555
$342,055
$493,255
$537,005
$327,880
TOTAL O/ M COSTS
$86,215
$89,215
$109,000
$121,090
$105,500
PRESENT VALUE O/M COSTS
$922,501
$954,601
$1,166,300
$1,295,663
$1,128,850
NET PRESENT VALUE
$2,120,356
$2,273,956
$3,068,856
$3,366,968
$6,593,530
NPV RANKING
1
2
3
4
5
% OVER LEAST COST
0.00%
7.24%
44.73%
58.79%
145.98%
(1) EXTENDED AERATION W/ NO TERTIARY FILTER
(2) EXTENDED AERATION W/ TERTIARY FILTER
ENGINEERING COSTS ESTIMATED AT 15%
CONTINGENCIES COSTS ESTIMATED AT 20%
ECONOMIC FACTORS: INTEREST RATE = 6.875%. TIME PERIOD = 20 YEARS
�1

CAPTIAL COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS
8-INCH PVC SEWER
LATERALS
MANHOLES
4-INCH FORCEMAIN
SUBMERSIBLE PUMP STATION
TOTAL COST (COLLECTION)
TREATMENT PLANT CAPITAL COSTS
WWTP
TERTIARY FILTER
DISINFECTION
LINED STORAGE POND (60 MG)
GENERATOR
ELECTRICAL
SITEWORK
TOTAL COST (TREATMENT)
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
HOUSING UNIT$ LOST
TOTAL COST OPPORTUNITY
DISPOSAL CAPITAL COST
IRRIGATION PUMPS & CONTROLS
ADDITIONAL ,V FORCE MAIN
DISTRIBUTION PIPING (,C)
DRIP IRRIGATION PIPING
CASCADE AERATION
GW MONITORING WELLS
TOTAL COST (DISPOSAL)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
TOTAL OPPORTUNITY COST
ENGINEERING & CONTINGENCIES
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
CAPITAL COST RANKING
% OVER LEAST COST
EXTENDED
AERATION W/
EXTENDED
EXTENDED
EXTENDED
EXTENDED
SUBSURFACE
AERATION Wl
AERATION Wl
AERATION W/
AERATION Wl
DISPOSAL
DIRECT
DIRECT
SUBSURFACE
SURFACE
REDUCED FLOW
DISCHARGE (1)
DISCHARGE (2)
DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL
40,000 GPD
$144,000
$144,000
$144,000
$144,000
$138,000
$54,500
$54,500
$54,500
$54,500
$27,000
$132,000
$132,000
$132,000
$132,000
$126.000
$24.800
$24,8W
$24,800
$24,800
$24,800
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$36,000
$395,300
$395,300
$395,300
$395,300
$351,800
$360,000
$360.000
$360,000
$360,000
$200,000
$0
$90,000
$0
$0
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$50,000
$50,000
$65,000
$65,000
$55,000
$30.000
$30,000
$45,000
$45,000
$42.000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$18,000
$485,000
$575,000
$490,000
$715,000
$315,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,200,000
$0
$0
$180,000
$180,ow
$80,000
$2,000
$2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,000
$32,000
$28,000
$0
$0
$300,000
$200,000
$150,000
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,000
$12,000
$12,000
$7,000
$7,000
$524,000
$424,000
$270,000
$897,300
$977,300
$1,409,300
$1,534,300
$936,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,200,000
$310,555
$342,055
$493,255
$537,005
$327,880
$1,197,855
$1,319,355
$1,902,555
$2,071,305
$4,464,680
1
2
3
4
5
0.00%
10.14%
58.83%
72.92%
272.72%
(1) EXTENDED AERATION W/ NO TERTIARY FILTER
(2) EXTENDED AERATION Wl TERTIARY FILTER
ENGINEERING COSTS ESTIMATED AT 15%
CONTINGENCIES COSTS ESTIMATED AT 20%
r

CO-5T ANALYSIS FOR MECHANICAL EXTENDED AERATION PLANT FOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
ubUCED FLOW AT 40,000 CPD
CONSTRUCTION
Item
Quantity
Units
Unit Cost
' COLLECTION SYSTEM 8-INCH PVC SEWER
11,500
FEET
$12
LATERALS
54
EACH
$500
MANHOLES
42
EACH
$3,000
4-INCH FORCEMAIN
3,100
FEET
$8
SUBMERSIBLE PUMPSTATION
1
EACH
$36,000
TREATMENT PLANT WWTP
40,000
GALLON
$5
TERTIARY FILTER
0
GALLON
$0
DISINFECTION
0
EACH
$0
LINED STORAGE POND (60 MG)
0
EACH
$0
GENERATOR
1
EACH
$55,000
ELECTRICAL
1
EACH
$42,000
SITEWORK
1
EACH
$18,000
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL WASTEWATER TOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
20
PERCENT
ENGINEERING
15
PERCENT
PROJECT COST
OPPORTUNITY COSTS HOUSING UNITS LOST
100
UNITS
$32,000
Subtotal
Project Cost
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Item
EMENSES
Units
Unit Cost
Quantity
OPERATOR (GRADE III) 1 LUMP SUM
ELECTRICAL 1 LUMP SUM
CHEMICALS / LAMPS 1 LUMP SUM
MAINTENANCE 1 LUMP SUM
PARTS 1 LUMP SUM
LAB FEES (WWTP ONLY) 1 LUMP SUM
TOTAL O & M COSTS
PRESENT VALUE O & M COSTS
NET PRESENT VALUE
$35, 000
$7,000
$1,000
$5,000
$5,000
$12,000
(1) EXTENDED AERATION W/ NO TERTIARY FILTER
ECONOMIC FACTORS: INTEREST RATE = 6.875%. TIME PERIOD = 20 YEARS
Cost
$138,000
$27,000
$126,000
$24.800
$36,000
$351,800
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$55,000
$42, 000
$18,000
$315,000
$666,800
$133,360
$100,020
$900,180
$3,200,000
$3,200,000
$4,100,180
Cost
$35,000
$7, 000
$1,000
$5,000
$5,000
$12,000
$65,000
$695,500
$1,595,680

Since 1973
Three Decades ... Three Reasons
We. listen. We respond. We solve.
May 12, 2003
MacConnell & Associates
909 Aviation Parkway
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
Attn: Mr. Gary MacConnell, P.E.
RE: SOIL HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES
The Hampton Club, Inc.
Jackson County, North Carolina
S&ME, Inc. Project No. 1588-01-037
Dear Gary:
This letter is to provide MacConnell & Associates with approximate soil hydraulic loading rates
for the property at The Hampton Club, Inc. Based upon soil evaluations performed on 10/29/01
and 10/30/01 at various locations within the property boundaries soil hydraulic loading rates can
be approximated based on North Carolina Administrative Code for Sewage Treatment and
Disposal Systems T15A: 18A .1955 Design and Installation Criteria for Conventional Sewage
Systems. Table I below address the loading rates for surface and sub -surface hydraulic loading
rates.
TABLE
LOCATION
LIMITING
TEXTURE
SUB -SURFACE
(GPD/Ft')
SURFACE
(In./Acre/Week)
1
Fine Sandy Loam
0.5 — 0.7
0.80 — 1.12
2
Loam
0.5 — 0.7
0.80 — 1.12
3
Fine Sandy Loam
0.5 — 0.7
0.80 — 1.12
4
Fine Sandy Loam
0.5 — 0.7
0.80 — 1.12
5
Fine Sandy Loam
0.5 — 0.7
0.80 —1.12
6
Fine Sandy Loam
0.5 — 0.7
0.80 — 1.12
SWE, Inc. 1 )336) 288-7180
3718 Old Battleground Road )336) 288-8980 fax
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410 [phone] 1�:�•. �.;�r�::- ..

Hydraulic Soil Loading Rates S&ME Project No. 1588-01-037
The Hampton Club, Inc. Jackson County, NC May 12, 2003
P
Surface rates are based entirely on soil drainage and do not reflect evaporation or precipitation
rates. Should you have any questions regarding the hydraulic loading rates for this project
please feel free to call S&ME at 1-800-849-2985.
Respectfully,
S&ME, Inc.
Scott Carpenter, L.S.S.I.T.
Project Manager

Page 1 of 2
MacConnell & Associates, R.C.
From: "John C Weaver" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "John C Weaver" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:54 PM
Attach: unnamed.trib.TroutCk.bmp
Subject: Low -flow characteristics: Unnamed tributary to Trout Creek (Jackson County)
Mr. Dan Vallero,
In response to your request for low -flow information, the following
information is provided:
Ms. Debbie Ferm, representing MacConnell and Associates in February 2002,
contacted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and requested low flow
characteristics for two small tributaries to Trout Creek in Jackson County.
A brief assessment of the low flow characteristics known for that area
resulted in a 7Q10 yield ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 cubic foot per second per
square mile (dsm) as being appropriate for the streams of interest. When
I provided this information to her, I also faxed excerpts from a statewide
low flow report that was prepared in the late 1980's/early 1990's,
"Low -flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (USGS Water -Supply
Paper 2403 by Giese and Mason, 1993). My notes also indicate that she
apparently called back to cancel the request for a formal assessment of the
low -flow characteristics at these streams.
Yesterday (April 3, 2003), 1 again examined the low flow information that
we have and identified several nearby sites where low flow characteristics
have been determined based on discharge records. Based on three nearby
sites, the following low flow yields (in units of cfsm) were determined for
your site of interest:
7Q 10 = 0.57 cfsm
30Q2 =1.03 cfsm
'Winter" 7Q10 = 0.65 cfsm
7Q2 = 0.86 cfsm
A quick delineation of the drainage area using your site identified on the
fax location map resulted in a determination of 0.22 sgmi for the drainagea
area.
Thus, application of the above yields using the drainage area would result
in the following low flow characteristics estimated for your site:
7Q10=0.13cfs
30Q2 = 0.23 cfs
"winter" 7Q10 = 0.14 cfs
7Q2 = 0.19 cfs
04/04/2003

Page 2 of 2
The average annual discharge for streams in this area is about 3.5 cfsm,
meaning that an estimated average discharge is about 0.8 cfs.
I have attached a bitmap (.bmp) image showing the site location and
drainage -area delineation.
If you wish for the USGS to proceed with the formal evaluation. please let
me know. Based on yesterday's assessment, the above yields would likely be
those provided in the formal evaluation.
If you have questions about this information, you can contact me at (919)
571-4043.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
U.S. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
E-mail address --
Internet address --
(See attached file: unnamed.trib.TroutCk.bmp)
04/04/2003

04-09-2003 01:46pm From-USGS 9105714041 T-233 P.002/003 F-596
United States Department of the Interior
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
April 7, 2003
Mr. Daniel J. Vallem, Project Engineer
MacConnell & Associate4, P.C.
P.O. Box 129 1
Morrisville, North Carolloa 27560
Year Mr. Vallero:
In response to your request for low -flow data, the U.S. Geological Sarvoy (USUS) does not have site-spe.
cific, low -flow discharge Oata for Unnamed tributary to Trout Creek at Big Ridge, NC (station id
0350750625, drainage area 0.22 jW2). The low -flow characteristics that are provided on the attached sheet
have been computed by correlating the runoff ehareoteristics of nearby partial -record sites in vicinity of the
request site. Please note That the flow estimates do not account for the presence of any diversions or regu-
lation, present or future, V(hich may occur upstream of the request site.
Low -flow characteristics previously determined for three nearby USGS partial -record sites — with drain-
age areas ranging from 3.f6 to 7.69 mil — were used to estimate the low -flow discharges for the request
site. An average of the lov+r-flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area) was applied using
the drainage area determined for the request site. The average 7Q10 low -flow yield determined from the
three index sites was 0.57'cubic foot per second per square mile p3ls)/trti2]. Similarly, for the 30Q2, the
tow -flow yield was determined to be 1.03 (ftl/s)/m12.
The magnitudes in the abgv, low -flow yields are characteristic of strearnflows in the southwest mountains
area of North Carolina. H�sterieal records of discharge collected at sites in this area are among the highest
(in terms of yields) for strums in the State. The average annual discharge for streams in the vicinity of the
nearby Highlands/Cashiers area ranges frorn 3.0 to 4.0.(fts/s)lmi2, compared to values in the range of 0.9
to 1.$ for much of the Stale.
A charge for accessing and processing information has been assessed to partially offset these costs. Your
requested data and an invoice covering processing costs for these data are enclosed. Please forward the
original bill with your ehk to the U.S. Geological Survey.12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 271, Reston,
Virginia 20192.
These data are prellmina* and subject to revision pending approval for publication by the Director of the
U.S. Geological Survey, a p d are made available through our cooperative program of water -resources inves-
tigations with the North Ckolina Department of Envirotunent and Natural Resources.
If you have any questions;regarding this information, please contact me at (919) 5714043.
Enclosures
Siaceraly,
i
. Curds cleaver
Hydrologist
(91.9) 571.4000 • FAX [phone]

04-09-2003 01:47pm From-USGS 9195714041 T-233 P.003/003 F-596
SUMMARY IOF LOW -FLOW ESTIMATES I W FST N RESPONSE
E. POrjSE TO RE01151
REQUEST NO: 91621 SITE NO: __IL DATE: 11 07/2003
SOURCE: Consultant ACTION: New
STATION NUMBER: JI?SQ750625 STATION TYPE: Un a ed
STATION NAME: Unn,:med tributary to Trout Cheek at Big Ridge NC
LOCATION: Apy9oximirtely 0,U mile south-southwett of Big Ridge
LATITUDE: 35°I1'48" ._ LONGITUDE: 83 OS'44^
QUANDRANGLE NAME AND NUMBER; Bic Ridge [G-6 _NE'.
COUNTY CODE: 7a0s,2 f099] STATE CODE: NC f371 DISTRICT CODE: NC f371
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CCvDE: 06010203 ENR BASIN CODE: 04.04.02
DRAINAGE AREA:
Flow statistics as follows:
AVERAGE FLOWrEstirw4ed using 3.5 ft3/slmi2 0.8 ft3/s see note f B l
ANNUAL 7Q10 MUUMITild FLOW: 0.57 ft3/s/mi2 0.13 ft3/s see note [ B 1
ANNUAL 30Q2 MINIMUM FLOW: 1.03 ft3/s/mi2 0,23 f0/s see note f B l
WINTER 7Q10 MINIMUM FLOWt 0.65 i0/5/m12 0.14 ft3/s , see note L11 1
ANNUAL 7Q2 MINIMUTv! FLOW: 0,86 ft3/s/mi3 0.19 ft3/s see note LB_J
NOTES:
[A] Estimate is based on rr:ords collected at or near the request site.
[B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff characteristics observed at nearby streams.
[C] Estimate based on procdures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 "Low -flow Characteristics
of Streams in North Cxrolina°' (Gloss and Mason,1993).
[D] Estimate based on procadures given in USGS Water Supply Paper 2403 and in conjunction with
streantflow records coll acted at or near the request site.
[E] See remarks.
These data are considered irrovisional and subject to revision pending approval by the Director, USGS,
REMARKS. -
Low -flow estimates based cpn low -flow characteristics at three nearby partial -record sites: Sta. 021,6908,
Chatttooga River at Cashiers, drainage area 7.69 mil: Sta. 03507166, Sols Creek near Argura, drainage
area 3.86 mi'-, Sta. 03507495, Pine Creek near Glenvil le, drainage area 6.92 mi'-.
Requasmd by Mr. Daniel J. Vallero, MacConnell & Associates
ENTERED BY: JCW FEE CHARGED: S 200

FRC 1': NacConnell & Associates, P.C. PHOtlr= NO. : 919 319 6510
Jan. 22 2003 12:05PM P1
P.O. Box 129
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-1239
MACCONNELL
& AssoczATEs, P.c.
FAX MEMORANDUM
January 22, 2003
To: Mrs. Jackie Nowell
Fax: [phone] x 512
From: Daniel J. Vallero
Re: Runoff Calculations
909 Aviation Parkway
Suire 1400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Fax [phone]
As per your conversation with Gary MacConnell, we have investigated our runoff calculations for
the 7Q10. We have found the value of 0.105 cfs supplied in the report text to be correct. The
supplemental material in the Appendix E is incorrect. This value should also read 0.105 cfs.
Please find the included revised page to replace the existing material in Appendix E. The new
material has been verified and matches the value supplied in the report text. We can provide you
with a hard -copy of this information by US Mail or by hand -delivery if you wish. Please contact
me, or Gary S. MacConnell if you would like additional copies or if you have questions.
Thank you.

FF:�:q : MacConne 11 & Associates, P. C.
PHONE NO. : 919 319 6510 Jan. 22 2003 12:06PM P2
The Hampton Club, Inc.
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
Jackson County, North Carolina
Calculated 7010
%W
'References:
Given:
Equation:
Table 1: Use Station 0350749500
Table 2: Use Western Piedmont and Mountains (HA 10)
Drainage Area (DA): 0.226 Square Mlles
Drainage Area: 6,300,000 Square Feet
Mean Annual Runoff (MAR): 3.0 (ft"3)/(s)1(m1"2)
7010 = 0. 1 55(MAR * DA)^ 1.01
7Q10 = 0.105 cfs

Facility: wade hampton estates
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream: ut trout creek
Comment(s):
gage number not available
Low Flow Record Station Number:
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7Q 10 Low Flow Record Station:
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
must be < 400 sq. miles
Drainage Area New Site:
0.13 sq. miles
MAR New Site:
3.7
Qave per Report Equation:
0 cfs
s7Q10 per Report Equation:
0.07 cfs
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
0.12 cfs
30Q2 per Report Equation:
0.17 cfs
Unuseable Drainage Area
Drainage Area Ratio: #VALUEI
[ new DA / Da at gage #VALUEI
Weighted Ratio: #VALUEI
Over -ride Inappropriate Site ( y ):
Drainage Area New Site:
11 MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
0.13 miles squared
3.7
#VALUEI
#VALUEI
#VALUE!
#VALUEI

P.O. Box 129
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-1239
April 9, 2003
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Unit-NCDENR-DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
MAcCONNELL
& AssociATEs, P.c.
Re: The Hampton Club, Inc.
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
NPDES Permit and Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Jackson County
MacConnell & Associates, P.C. Project No.: B18701.00
Dear Ms. Nowell:
909 Aviation Parkway
Suite 1400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Fax [phone]
In your letter to Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr., Esq. dated March 11, 2003, you posed several
questions and comments. Your questions and comments are presented below with our responses.
We request that you do everything possible to expedite the review process. The review process
has extended months beyond the date promised by individuals within your department.
Significant amounts of capital have been invested in the project which will provide much needed
jobs for area workers. Because of the delay, the original Phase I and Phase II will be combined
into the new Phase I, and the original Phase III will then become the new Phase II
1. Please re -check the subtotal phase II and III flows in Table 3-1 on page 3.
Response: Please note new Table 3-1 as presented in attached page 3. Please replace this page
in the latest submittal. Due to delays in the review process, the original Phase I and Phase II have
now been combined to the newlPhase I and will be 58,160 GPD. The changes have no effect on
the final requested permitted flow of 82,160 GPD, nor do they affect the WWTP Design flow of
90,000 GPD.
2. What are the anticipated time lines for completion of each phase of the project?
Response: Because of the delay caused by the review process, Phases I and II have been
combined into the current Phase I which will be completed within one calendar year. Phase III,
now being Phase II, will be complete within one calendar year after the completion of the
expanded Phase I.
3. Please provide information on how the treatment plant for Wade Hampton Estates will be
designed. The project lists the first phase as less than 7,000 GPD, followed by
approximately 50,000 GPD, then up to 82,000 GPD. How will the treatment facility be

designed so that as little as 7,000 GPD will be efficiently treated in a plant with a design
capacity of 90,000 GPD?
Response: Phases I and II have now been combined into Phase I. The Phase I total flow is now
58,160 GPD. The design of the treatment plant is capable of treating such flow.
4. Will the occupancy, of this resort be seasonal or year round?'
Response: The occupancy of this resort will be year-round.
/ 5. Please contact USGS and request stream data for written verification of the drainage area,
average flow, summer and winter 7Q10 flows and 30Q2 flow for the proposed discharge
point into UT Trout Creek. This information is being requested because there is a
discrepancy in the flow information provided and DWQ estimates of the drainage area and
stream flows. The cost of flow estimations from USGS should be approximately $150.
Response: Please find attached the information provided by the USGS. Their correspondence
confirms what we have submitted to you since our original submittal. As we discussed, there was
a typo in the original submittal, but this did not affect the actual drainage area nor calculated
flows.
6. Your report indicates that the Cashiers WWTP approximately 5 miles away from the
project, however connection to the Cashiers WWTP is not evaluated as an option. Please
estimate the cost of the connection alternative or provide a letter from the Town indicating
that they will not accept wastewater from this project.
Response: Cashiers is not an incorporated town. Since no Town government exists, taking the
suggested action presented in comment number six is impossible. The Cashiers WWTP is a
private entity, which serves various entities around Cashiers. The Cashiers WWTP is about five
horizontal miles away from the proposed development, by sight. The plant is an estimated to be
about ten logistical miles away from the development when topography and pipe -routing are
accounted for. The Cashiers WWTP does not even serve the Lake Glenville area which is much
closer. Multiple pump stations and easements would also be required to deliver wastewater to the
Cashiers WWTP. The option was eliminated from consideration during the drafting of the report
when it became evident that this option is not practical nor economically justifiable, and because
no Town of Cashiers exists. The Cashier WWTP is also a small facility with a permitted flow of
only 7,500 GPD.I &na'Vwt 17&,M,&,t �w S /QU, uu a 6/0
7. The land based disposal section indicates that the 35 acres of the project has been set aside
of common areas, mansion lots, etc. All the land disposal alternatives indicate that between
15.1 to 21.2 acres would be needed for the subsurface drip and surface drip irrigation
alternatives "to dispose of the wastewater generated by this project." Please reevaluate
these alternatives more clearly. Explain why additional land from the set aside common
areas, etc. could not be used for either of these alternatives, or why the set aside areas
cannot be in the provisionally suitable or unsuitable soils.

Response: During the study phase of the project, areas were given careful consideration for
subsurface disposal or surface irrigation. Based on the footprints and setbacks from existing
creeks and streams, and proposed ponds some of the better soil became unusable. Some of the
common areas and mansion lots are not practically usable because they are broken up into smaller
areas for footpaths, walkways, drives and various structures. These small parcels of land are not
desirable for laying out drip irrigation systems in which longer runs for drip line are desirable. We
have designed approximately 30 drip irrigation systems of various sizes throughout the state. In
our opinion, drip irrigation technology would be stretched to its limit, even if the land was
available on most of this site. In addition to the over riding technical issues of drip irrigation on
this site, it is not economically justifiable.
8. A less dense development plan for 40,000 GPD is discussed on Page 8 of the alternatives
analysis. Please provide additional information showing phases and site plan maps, if
available.
Response: The developer evaluated the 40,000 GPD option and found it to be grossly
cost -prohibitive. Because it was not economically justifiable, there was no need to develop costly
site plans for a project which would not be built. An analysis of such an alternative would be a
misuse of time and resources. Therefore, the proposed flow of 82,160 GPD is required for the
economic viability of the project.
9. Please provide the specific references for the unit costs in the construction estimates.
Response: All unit costs are based on recent bids and projects, as well as quotes from
manufacturers and contractors. Operation and maintenance costs are based on contacts with
contract operators and manufacturer experience with parts and service. Specific bid tabulations,
manufacturer's information, and contract operator information considered in the cost estimates are
available at the office of MacConnell & Associates, but are too voluminous to be included with
this submittal.
We trust these responses, along with all supporting information documentation from USGS will
answer your questions. Please contact me or Daniel J. Vallero, E.I. with any questions or
comments at [phone]. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary S. cConnell, P.E.
President
cc: Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr., Esq., The Hampton Club, Inc., Wade Hampton Horizon Estates
Daniel I Vallero, E.I., MacConnell & Associates

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
March 11, 2003
Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr.,Esq., President
The Hampton Club, Inc.
P.O. Box 2807
Cashiers, North Carolina 28717
A74JO�
NCDENR
Subject: NPDES Permit A lica ion
Return # 218A7 {�• O
Wade Hampton Horizons Estates
Jackson County
Dear Mr. Hampton:
In accordance with Division policy, we must hereby return the permit application received on
August 13, 2002, and the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) that have been submitted by Mr.
Gary McConnell, P.E. There is still some additional information that is must be provided before we
can proceed with the permitting process. Please accept my sincere apology for the length of this review.
The current level of scrutiny for issuance of NPDES discharge permits to North Carolina surface waters
requires more intense and in depth documentation by the permit holder and an extensive review by
DWQ staff. We would be glad to meet with you prior to or upon resubmittal of the project information.
The following information is needed for completion of the EAA review:
l . Please re -check the subtotal phase II and III flows in Table 3-1 on page 3.
2. What are the anticipated time lines for completion of each phase of the project?
3. Please provide information on how the treatment plant for Wade Hampton Estates will be designed.
The project lists the first phase as less than 7,000 GPD, followed by approximately 50,000 GPD,
then up to 82,000 GPD. How will the treatment facility be designed so that as little as 7000 GPD
will be efficiently treated in a plant with a design capacity of 90,000 GPD?
4. Will occupancy of this resort be seasonal or year round?
5. Please contact USGS and request stream data for written verification of the drainage area, average
flow, summer and winter 7Q10 flows and 30Q2 flow for the proposed discharge point into UT Trout
Creek. This information is being requested because there is a discrepancy in the flow information
provided and DWQ estimates of the drainage area and stream flows. The cost of flow estimations
from USGS should be approximately $150.
6. Your report indicates that the Cashiers WWTP approximately 5 miles away from the project,
however connection to the Cashiers WWTP is not evaluated as an option. Please estimate the cost of
the connection alternative or provide a letter from the Town indicating that they will not accept
wastewater from this project.
7. The land based disposal section indicates that 35 acres of the project has been set aside of common
areas, mansion lots, etc. All the land disposal alternatives indicate that between 15.1 to 21.2 acres
would be needed for the subsurface drip and surface drip irrigation alternatives "to dispose of the
wastewater generated by this project". Please reevaluate these alternatives more clearly. Explain
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Wade Hampton Horizons Estates
March 11, 2003
Page 2
why additional land from the set aside common areas, etc. could not be used for either of these
alternatives, or why the set aside areas cannot be in the provisionally suitable or unsuitable soils.
8. A less dense development plan for 40,000 GPD is discussed on Page 8 of the alternatives analysis.
Please provide additional information showing phases and site plan maps, if available.
9. Please provide the specific references for the unit costs in the construction estimates.
512.If you have any questions about the NPDES permitting process, contact me at 919-733-5083, ext.
Sincerely,
mc-' -4,
Jacq n M. Now 11
NP Unit
cc: Asheville Regional Office/Attn. Kevin Barnett
Gary S. MacConnell, P.E./ MacConnell & Associates, P.C.
P.O. Box 129
Morrisville, N.C. 27560

• /�I�w
GA-i�� (� �(�r � - 7r✓!�1 h,,,u„� 4> � c �dl� !i/ £ ��� 7v �E
ca/j 0/1�" call
U�Cr 7 4
/,(� w r�lel ;,, /5"7

q vice
zd
47,
/6 A/�
U I--, 'oo��
sPbGf
Li

-Z,4Yi�a
S!/ �oY-�crr ✓ot �/t��x�� — 31, Z o c-e,
o—f , 9 Ae"
Tt c vS E�JisEs�c
.2
✓?'✓f✓!� GI/JG �5��y^e/ �I o��/rcJ cl lv�AEW c� r ClfpG- r, 1

/�� ��� , OICU 7v /7tol v a Q ' cvu nu
� n A
cil 91
_ 6�7l oza 6 L
7'7 sFa-iFnnj%

l.%y%E�f-d�L�Td�j �oyCt7�lf E'SJ� — //9. 9' �+c • 2.,/7`i drt �i�c.�_�
d> C1dvs to<cvf�
— ,� r .�-- is s4,� ✓f � .L � .. wl�J � ��. � �' =`
— lyrysu^-a
-� 7Z) X? /6 o G.D �
GlS�%iov�
�i�4�Z2T W(GG /f�itJ� "%ff/"�Z<� f'(�✓�S�
�Z1606W
i
CH.. r-- ,fr,,,,c✓ Crfl��— rit�-
00 /�1 G/� ? �1✓.,°v s /i +r;
G6.z,.1fr LL ✓vyE/ ? os��/C� �../lsf ai✓�} v
Lid dose orr/d/,�L
usEance
,z �e 8s`
3 4 62-
S0,u,C x
7, �--•�
,✓ Jd3/3 a/

m
S✓� w✓�r� dtie d — !� / — /�' 9 �. Er O�/.h..e,/ 41t4lf .d
!✓�` - /Z "'SCE — -,�/ he in//ilt / l� �/.r7✓l�Osi C£ ,
iu L5-o f � — /y01-c-tl l�
AAA %t�t i?t GwL% ra n/ /— ffr f. S lc �✓o�t✓ art td G SUaO GPp
/^f/� &/a�� 4.f . �/off/L✓
S,,,Lppu: c./al�'YL vrfcr�c=
0, ZZ 6 wrr 'z
S jpl,j = Qra-�—cF
Sd/L al4zr�T�� S— / v r//-Z-- Z-
� � - 6 p/trnrifr��Y I�rig�

Cotes
�c�wprn 9eyc, v/ P��G Jl'Gts ? 120 3SG
or. rOieL -795,,a�5
cmt-uvev xnoov,ac. 969
X7pv�lJF}9 f}e"/C, `"� S�h'S,��iGiJcCy
4i JPo$q �
2 393 ,f3o
47117Y Z/Y�
p,FF �z K/7/

IJ
The Hampton Club, Inc.
ka
allocated 40 gallons per day per seat. The development will generate approximately 82,160
gallons per day (GPD) of raw wastewater at build out, based on projections presented in Table
3-1. The actual wastewater treatment plant will be designed based on an averge daily flow of
907000 GPD, to be conservative.
Table 3-1: Projected wastewater flows for the Wade Hampton Horizons Estate in Jackson
County, North Carolina.
Description
No.
Units
Design Flow
Rate
Units
Extended
Flow
Units
Phase I
7: 4-Bedroom Homes
28
120
GPD/Bedroom
32360
GPD
Artesian Cottage, 4-Bedrooms
4
120
GPD/Bedroom,
480
GPD
Inn, 22 Bedrooms
22
120
GPD/Bedroom
211640
GPD
Club House, 4,000 SF
41
120
GPD/1,000 SF
480
GPD
25: 6- Bedroom Homes
150
120
GPD/Bedroom
181000
GPD
5: 7- Bedroom Mansions
35
120
GPD/Bedroom.
4,200
GPD
Inn, 20 Bedrooms
20
120
GPD/Bedroom
22400
GPD
The Lodge, Rooms w/ Spa)
45
200
GPD/Bedroom
92000
GPD
The Lodge, 4-Bedroom Suites
28
200
GPD/Bedroom
513600
GPD
Commons Restaurant
60
40
GPD/Seat
22400
GPD
20: 4-Bedrooms Villas
80
120
GPD/Bedroom
911600
GPD
Subtotal Phase I
58,160
GPD
Phase H
45: Villas, 4-Bedrooms
180
120
GPD/Bedroom
213600
GPD
Inn, 20 Bedrooms
20
120
GPD/Bedroom
2,400
GPD
Subtotal Phase H
24,000
GPD
Requested DischaEge Flow
829160
GPD
WWTP Design Flow
909000
GPD
4. Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives
Based on the 822160 GPD of wastewater which will be generated by the proposed development,
the following wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives have been evaluated to determine
their economic and environmental feasibility:
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 3

The Hampton Club, Inc.
60
allocated 40 gallons per day per seat. The development will generate approximately 82,160
gallons per day (GPD) of raw wastewater at build out, based on projections presented in Table
3-1. The actual wastewater treatment plant will be designed based on an averge daily flow of
902000 GPD, to be conservative.
Table 3-1: Projected wastewater flows for the Wade Hampton Horizons Estate in Jackson
County, North Carolina.
Description
No.
Units
Design Flow
Rate
Units
Extended
Flow
Units
Phase I
7: 4,,-Bedroom Homes
28
120
GPD/Bedroom
312360
GPD
Artesian Cottage, 4-Bedrooms
4
120
GPD/Bedroom
480
GPD
Inn, 22 Bedrooms
22
120
GPD/Bedroom
22640
GPD
Club House, 4,000 SF
4
120
GPD/1,000 SF
480
GPD
25: 6- Bedroom Homes
150
120
GPD/Bedroom
18,000
GPD
5: 7- Bedroom Mansions
35
120
GPD/Bedroom
41)200
GPD
Inn, 20 Bedrooms
20
120
GPD/Bedroom
2,400
GPD
The Lodge, Rooms w/ Spa)
45
200
GPD/Bedroom
9,000
GPD
The Lodge, 4-Bedroom Suites
28
200
GPD/Bedroom
513600
GPD
Commons Restaurant
601
40
GPD/Seat
21400
GPD
20: 4-Bedrooms Villas
80
120
GPD/Bedroom
92600
GPD
Subtotal Phase I
589160
GPD
Phase H
45: Villas, 4-Bedrooms
180
120
GPD/Bedroom
211600
GPD
Inn, 20 Bedrooms
20
120
GPD/Bedroom
22400
GPD
Subtotal Phase H
249,000
GPD
Requested Discharge Flow
82,160
GPD
WWTP Design Flow
90,000
GPD
4. Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives
Based on the 82,160 GPD of wastewater which will be generated by the proposed development,
the following wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives have been evaluated to determine
their economic and environmental feasibility:
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 3

The Hampton Club, Inc.
O
allocated 40 gallons per day per seat. The development will generate approximately 82,160
gallons per day (GPD) of raw wastewater at build out, based on projections presented in Table
3-1. The actual wastewater treatment plant will be designed based on an averge daily flow of
907000 GPD, to be conservative.
Table 3-1: Projected wastewater flows for the Wade Hampton Horizons Estate in Jackson
County, North Carolina.
Description
No.
Units
Design Flow
Rate
Units
Extended
Flow
Units
Phase 1
7: 4,Bedroom Homes
28
120
GPD/Bedroom
31360
GPD
Artesian Cottage, 4-Bedrooms
4
120
GPD/Bedroom
480
GPD
Inn, 22 Bedrooms
22
120
GPD/Bedroom
2,640
GPD
Club House, 4,000 SF
4
120
GPD/11000 SF
480
GPD
25: 6- Bedroom Homes
150
120
GPD/Bedroom
181000
GPD
5: 7- Bedroom Mansions
35
120
GPD/Bedroom
41200
GPD
Inn, 20 Bedrooms
20
120
GPDBedroom
23400
GPD
The Lodge, Rooms w/ Spa)
45
200
GPD/Bedroom
91000
GPD
The Lodge, 4-Bedroom Suites
28
200
GPD/Bedroom
52600
GPD
Commons Restaurant
601
40
GPD/Seat
21,400
GPD
20: 4-Bedrooms Villas
80
120
GPD/Bedroom
91600
GPD
Subtotal Phase I
58,160
GPD
Phase H
45: Villas, 4-Bedrooms
180
120
GPD/Bedroom
21,600
GPD
Inn, 20 Bedrooms
20
120
GPD/Bedroom
22400
GPD
Subtotal Phase H
24,000
GPD
Requested Discharge Flow
829160
GPD
WWTP Design Flow
90,000
GPD
4. Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives
Based on the 82,160 GPD of wastewater which will be generated by the proposed development,
the following wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives have been evaluated to determine
their economic and environmental feasibility:
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Wade Hampton Horizons Estate Page 3

PPR-10-2003 10:35 Pm HCO 775 261 6154 P.01
Mom 1 MacctnnelI & Associates, P,C. °HONE NO. : 919 319 6510 Apr. 10 2303 29:17AM P1
NPDES PEPMT AFPLfCATTON - SHORT FORM D
To W 1Ued only by disc6 sra of 100% 4emesric wsxt Vow (< I MGD Row)
N.C. Departtaeot of Eavironmeat and Natnrwl Resources
Division of Weber Quaft / NPDES Usk
1611 Mao Service Cater, Raleigh, NC 27699. 1617
North CarolmaNPDE9 Permit NCOO Y7160
Numbor (if hmovm)
Pleme pgaror type
1. M30JU address of appllem0permkteet
PadUll, Name
Ov = Name
Street Addrm
City
Shoe
UP Code
Telephoo Number
Pax Number
e4nwl Address
r
2. Location of facility prodaciag disah m:
Nme (If .. '.L�
Facility Contact Pmm Robcd Harr illIr. '.. P19•
idad
Sum Address Road / 1 ..� ♦ by
p..
Cow* Jkckaw
3. Reason for applicatlon:
F.lrpanaixlMoM*A%ionExisting UNwmitted Ditebarge
Re+aevnd Now Facility
+ Please provide a descripdon of the eapamioa(modifle tim.
4. Deseripninu of the existing treatment facilities Qlet a0 Installed components with rapatitiee):
Net 4 phoblo
Page 1 of 2 Vera" &W

APR-10-2003 10:35 AM HCO 775 261 6154 P.02
FROM . MacCcrtf,el I I Assoc tatRe► P. C. PHWE NO. : 919 319 E510 Apr. 10 2003 09:17PM P2
WDE S PEW&T APPLICATION - SROIIT FORM D
To be W mly by dlwhaW of 100% domodo wawwOa (4 f UM Raw)
S. Ducdpboo of wea r (cbeck al tom# apt ).
.. Qmmba WAsw=("See aodud EAA fa dcrb k d &W ibn **)
C 1 X WumbwatEmploym
Number of
Schad Number of 5aW=WStW �. ..
7. U the hdft Gas mlukipU dfacharp Mfas, Ord the saureos) of wasftw t for ehah culls
$. NO* of rat+rf otg alma) (Puy M& a map ehowfea the fit bcAdw of em bt oatw..
UMMad AhM of Try Qat
I *91 am &maker with to Wom>adoo ooftined In the gVlsa d= amd tkust to the bm of my
kww d end behd" b6mat,ou is tmo, ompls* ad .
N. Irl, Ewa—.-. ' i� W..—llirar r
hinted Nam afPmw SWming
North Combs G&ww et hde U3415r6(bx2) prwAdae tat Any peman who knaNtnoy makes any Wse
sbr n d man, or w1ftaatlan In any apptka0m, reoordl report, plw% or other dmment fie or regWred
to be matnb nW under Arttol* 21 orukft is 41 the EfMMl wfti Ma ris0arrWt CammhwWn lmpiMM*rWng t *
t�
Afdde, or who s fls*, tompm vrogor kw*bl0ly Nndw ImtacurftDe ahy rewrdln8 ew nt0llt;+ft dwim or
..wd fdvdred to bs opanstW or maMfttreod under bate 71 or repo bdons of tho fty1ronmaRtlsd moment
Commlaalon hgkmwrdng thal Aetlale, Shan be gutfty of a misdemserw punbhablo oy a f ne rat to oweed $1
0,0W, or by tlmprlaonrr4nt not to mooed s#x marho, at by bM, (19 U.&C. eeocon 1 aoi pAWWde a punlshmtnt by
a Me or not more them $10,000 or ln*9onment not nmare Om 5 yporo, or both for a Wmilar ot'iema)
PW 2 of 2 ver'abn M

143-215.1. Control of sources of water pollution; permits
required.
(c) Applications for Permits and Renewals for Facilities
Discharging to the Surface Waters. -
(6) The Commission shall not act upon an application
for a new nonmunicipal 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 which states whether the city or
county has in effect a zoning or subdivision
ordinance and, if such an ordinance is in effect,
whether the proposed facility is consistent with
the ordinance. The Commission shall not approve a
permit application for any facility which a city or
county has determined to be inconsistent with its
zoning or subdivision ordinance unless it
determines that the approval of such application
has statewide significance and is in the best
interest of the State. An applicant for a permit
shall request that each city and county government
having jurisdiction issue the statement required by
this subdivision by mailing by certified mail,
return receipt requested, a written request for
such statement and a copy of the draft permit
application to the clerk of the city or county. If
a local government fails to mail the statement
required by this subdivision, as evidenced by a
postmark, within 15 days after receiving and
signing for the certified mail, the Commission may
proceed to consider the permit application
notwithstanding this subdivision.

1
'C
Mr. Robert Hampton,Jr.
The Hampton Club, Inc.
P.O. Box 2807
Cashiers, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hampton:
Michael F. Easley
©w w Governor
NCDENR William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
28717
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
September 5, 2002
Subject: NPDES Permit application NCO087700
Wade Hampton Horizons Estate
Jackson County
The Division received your permit application on August 13, 2002. The NPDES staff has since
conducted a review of the package to verify that the deficiencies documented in the return letter (2165)
previously sent to you have been addressed.
Please note that the correct application fee for NPDES permits of this type is $715.00. Please
submit the fee, payable by check to NC DENR, within ten days of your receipt of this letter. Failure to
submit the proper fee typically results in the return of the permit application; however, as this deficiency was
not mentioned in the previous review & application return, the Division will begin review of your application.
Mrs. Jacquelyn Nowell of the NPDES Unit will review your application. Mrs. Nowell will contact
your Authorized Representative (Gary MacConnell of MacConnell & Associates) if further information is
needed about this project.
Please note that the NPDES Unit has currently has 3 vacant positions; the Unit has not been fully
staffed since the first quarter of 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. Nowell is currently reviewing.
If you have any additional questions concerning the subject application, please contact Mrs. Nowell
at [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files
NPDES Unit ?
Asheville Regional Office / Water Quality Section
Gary MacConnell
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone], extension 511
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.encstate.nc.us e-mail: charles.weaver0ncmail.net

j
� Y
Mr. Robert Hampton, Jr.
The Hampton Club, Inc.
P.O. Box 2807
Cashiers, Noah Carolina
Dear Mr. Hampton:
Michael F. Easley
AA
r Governor
NCDENR North Carolina Dep�Mx� R ✓v] s�
/Alf � � N6 &vr zzvl
June 25, 2002 f N , /
CX�-C
//
28717 l` 1)
Subject.
In accordance with Division policy, we must hereby return the attached permit application received on June 5,
2002. After a preliminary review by Mr. Michael Myers of the NPDES Unit, the Division has determined that the
application package lacks the following items:
Local Government Review. The Division requires local government signoff from any city or
county having jurisdiction at the proposed site. Enclosed is a Local Government Review form. The
application package should include one form signed and sealed by each city or county having
jurisdiction at the site.
• Complete evaluation of discharge alternatives. The Division requires applicants for new permits
to fully document all alternatives to surface water discharge (15A NCAC 2H.0105 (c)(2)). The
enclosed guidance document will assist you in preparation of the analysis. Deficiencies in the FAA
include:
➢ There is no flow justification for the two flow calculations related to "The Lodge" in Phase II of
the project.
➢ Reserve capacity cannot be used as part of the flow justification. The 90,000 gallons/day
discharge rate cannot be justified based on the FAA. You may choose to re-subtnit your
application with a lower flow rate.
➢ The EAA does not address alternative development scenarios to increase the useable acreage for a
non -discharging system.
If you wish to reapply for an NPDES permit, correct these items before resubmitting the EAA. Submit the items
listed above and the items returned to you in one package.
If you have any questions about the NPDES permit process, contact Mr. Myers at the address or telephone
number fisted below. Questions about permitting restrictions uruque to your area should be directed to Kevin Barnett of
the Asheville Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles H. Weaver,Jr.
NPDES Unit
cc: NPDFS File
Asheville Regional Office
Gary S. MacConnell
N. C. Division of Water Quality I NPDES Unit Phone: [phone], extension 508
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.slate.ne.us e-mail: [e-mail]

e
micnaei r. casiey, vuvernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natura seuLes
Gregory J. Thorpe; :Ph; D.'
Actiog•Ui 'r -�
' Division QuaIW
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Preliminary Review for Application Acceptance
Applicant: The Hampton Club, Inc.
Facility Location: Wade Hampton Estates
PO Box 2807, 4317 Big Ridge Road
Cashiers, North Carolina
Project County: Jackson
Wastewater Source: Domestic wastewater from a private developer project.
Summary:
The following alternatives were evaluated:
• Connection to POTW and private sewer system
• Septic tanks
• Subsurface irrigation system
• Surface drip system
• Spray irrigation system
• Wastewater reuse
• Surface water discharge
Applicant concluded that septic tanks, connection to POTW/private sewer, and spray irrigation
are technically infeasible. Therefore, no cost analysis was conducted.
Cost analysis were conducted on surface and subsurface drip systems and on surface water
discharge.
Applicant concluded that surface water discharge was the most environmentally sound
alternative of the economically feasible alternatives.
Comments:
For the most part, this Engineering Alternatives Analysis was a well done and documented.
However, following comments should be addressed prior to resubmittal of the application.
OW
N. C. Division of Water Quality1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 g [phone] ,�,
N CT)� R
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

Please provide a justification on the two flow calculations for "The Lodge" in the Phase II
portion of the project.
Reserve capacity cannot be used to justify flow. It is the opinion of the Division, that 90,000 gpd
has not been justified. The applicant may reapply at a lower flow rate.
The application does not contain Local Government Signoff.
The applicant should evaluate different development scenarios to increase the usable acreage.