NC0081621_Report_20180502

Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
Table of Contents
1 Background...................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Description............................................................................................................1
1.2
Project Contacts................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Applicant...............................................................................................................2
1.2.2 Facility...................................................................................................................2
1.2.3 Engineering Alternatives Analysis Report Preparer..............................................2
2 Population
and Flow Projections..................................................................................................3
2.1
The Growth Model............................................................................................................3
2.2
Municipal Utility Service Area Demographic Projections.................................................3
2.3
Wastewater Transportation Model..................................................................................4
3 Alternatives...................................................................................................................................5
3.1
Alternative A — Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment System
.......................... 5
3.2
Alternative B — Land Application of Treated Effluent.......................................................
6
3.3
Alternative C — Water Reuse............................................................................................. 6
3.4
Alternative D — Direct Discharge to Surface Waters.........................................................
7
3.5
Alternative E — Combination of Alternatives.....................................................................8
4 Economic Feasibility.....................................................................................................................9
4.1
Alternative A — Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment System
.......................... 9
4.2
Alternative B — Land Application of Treated Effluent.......................................................9
4.3
Alternative C — Water Reuse...........................................................................................10
4.4
Alternative D — Direct Discharge to Surface Waters.......................................................10
5 Present Value of Cost Summary.................................................................................................11
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 i WSACC

Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
Attachments
Administrative
Local Government Review Form
Population and Flow Projections
The Growth Model Documentation
Municipal Utility Service Area Demographic Projections
Wastewater Transportation Model Documentation & Users' Guide
Flow Projections
Alternative A — Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment System
Facilities Plan
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Alternative B — Land Application of Treated Effluent
Site Plan
Land Application Calculations
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Alternative C —Water Reuse
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Alternative D — Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
Speculative Limits Correspondence
Land Deed
Site Plan
Flow Schematic
Preliminary Cost Estimate
BioWin Model
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 ii WSACC

Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
1 Background
1.1 Project Description
The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) owns and operates the Muddy Creek
WWTP (Plant). The Plant is located off Hopewell Church Road, south of Midland, North Carolina. The
facility utilizes an extended aeration activated sludge process to achieve the level of wastewater
treatment required by the State of North Carolina under a National Pollution Discharge and
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The Plant is permitted to discharge 0.3 million gallons per day
(MGD) to the Rocky River, and currently receives approximately 0.1 MGD average daily flow.
WSACC has recently undergone a master planning effort for its member jurisdictions. The Master
Plan indicates that wastewater in the Muddy Creek service area will increase through 2040, reaching
an estimated 1.0 MGD average daily flow. WSACC therefore wishes to begin planning and
permitting for new facilities capable of meeting this future demand. As required by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), one of the early components of this
permitting activity is to justify any new increased discharges through evaluation of various
alternatives. WSACC has undertaken an evaluation of several alternatives as described in this
Engineering Alternatives Analysis Report.
WSACC envisions the construction of a facility sufficient to provide at least 1.0 MGD average daily
flow for the Muddy Creek service area. These facilities would likely consist of a conventional
wastewater treatment system utilizing an activated sludge process followed by enhanced filtration
and ultraviolet disinfection. For the purpose of planning, it is assumed that the facilities would be
constructed with two 0.5 MGD process trains in a single phase of construction with capabilities for
future expansion.
Prior to undertaking this Alternatives Analysis, WSACC made a request to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality to issue Speculative Limits for the proposed treatment
facilities. Unfortunately, due to staffing constraints, NCDEQ has been unable to provide Speculative
Limits for the receiving water course based on the current request. A previous request however was
made by WSACC in 2007 resulting in Speculative Limits for treatment facilities somewhat larger than
currently envisioned. For the purposes of this Engineering Alternatives Analysis the 2007
Speculative Limits have been used. These proposed limits can be found in the Speculative Limits
Correspondence Attachment.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 1 WSACC

1.2 Project Contacts
1.2.1 Applicant
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis has been prepared for the Water and Sewer Authority of
Cabarrus County, 232 Davidson Highway, Concord, North Carolina 28027. The principal contact to
whom questions may be directed is Mr. Timothy R. Kiser, P.E., Engineering Director at 704.786.1783
x 231 or [e-mail].
1.2.2 Facility
The Muddy Creek WWTP is located at 14655 Hopewell Church Road, Midland, North Carolina 28107.
The local phone number for this facility is 704.888.4888. The Operator in Responsible Charge is Kim
Holt.
1.2.3 Engineering Alternatives Analysis Report Preparer
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis has been prepared by Willis Engineers, Inc., 10700 Sikes Place,
Suite 115, Charlotte, North Carolina 28277, 704.377.9844. The principal investigator to whom
questions may be directed is Charles A. Willis Jr., P.E., BCEE.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 2 WSACC

2 Population and Flow Projections
Population and flow projections utilized as part of the Engineering Alternatives Analysis are derived
from the WSACC 2013 Master Plan. The methodology used in the Master Plan differs somewhat
from that suggested in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis Guidance Document but provides
considerably higher accuracy. The Master Plan projections provide in depth analysis of predicted
growth trends in the area. Several complex models were developed to project various demographic
and wastewater flow patterns that could occur in WSACC's service areas through the period 2040.
The methodology used for this analysis included a growth model prepared by LandDesign, Inc.
utilizing demographic inputs from their subconsultant Noelle Consulting Group. Concurrent with
this model development, LandDesign and Willis Engineers undertook an evaluation of the existing
flow patterns within the service areas resulting in an accurate depiction of the actual wastewater
flows contributed by various customer groups. Together, these models were combined to predict
future flows in the Wastewater Transportation Model. The components of this modeling effort are
described in the following Sections of this Report with portions of the previous modeling efforts
provided in the Attachments.
2.1 The Growth Model
The Growth Model is a parcel -based forecasting model developed using Geographic Information
System (GIS) datasets as input to a complex growth model called CommunityViz. The Model utilizes
disaggregate dwelling unit and employment forecasts to determine the probable distribution of
future housing units and employment locations based on currently adopted land use policy,
regulations and suitability of available land. The Executive Summary of how the Growth Model was
developed is included in the Growth Model Documentation Attachment. The Municipal Utility
Service Area Demographic Projections, a subcomponent of The Growth Model, contains information
needed for population projections, and is further discussed below.
2.2 Municipal Utility Service Area Demographic Projections
The Municipal Utility Service Area Demographic Projections consider both the economic and
residential growth expected in the Cabarrus County area through 2040. These projections are based
on historical trends, recent market capture rates, and public and private investments. In short, the
population is expected to grow considerably in Cabarrus County over the next 20 years. The Muddy
Creek WWTP service area is comprised of mostly the Midland area. The Town of Midland is
expected to double in population by 2040 due to the proximity and expansion of the Charlotte
Metropolitan Area. The Executive Summary for the Municipal Utility Service Area Demographic
Projections is attached.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 3 WSACC

2.3 Wastewater Transportation Model
The Wastewater Transportation Model was developed to describe the hydraulic capabilities of the
WSACC wastewater transportation system, and to monitor the system's performance and forecast
future facility demands. Attached is the Executive Summary for the Wastewater Transportation
Model Documentation & User's Guide which elaborates on how the model was developed. In
addition, a data summary sheet entitled Flow Projections is attached. The projected flows in 5 year
increments from present until 2040 are outlined in this Flow Projections attachment. The average
flows for the Muddy Creek Service Area, as observed in recent flow data, are expected to increase
from the current average of 0.096 MGD to 1.12 MGD through 2040. This total includes the
residential, commercial, and industrial flows. Currently the Plant is only permitted for 0.30 MGD.
The flow projections signify the need for an NPDES Permit increase.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 4 WSACC

3 Alternatives
The Clean Water Act strives to minimize or eliminate point source discharges to surface waters
whenever possible. As a result, any project involving new or expanding wastewater facilities are
subjected to an evaluation of technologically feasible alternatives of wastewater disposal methods.
In the following sections, an Alternatives Analysis was performed to assess several potential
alternatives to reduce or eliminate surface water discharge proposed by the new 1.0 MGD Muddy
Creek WWTP. The following alternatives were explored and compared:
A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment System
B. Land Application
C. Water Reuse
D. Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
E. Combination of Alternatives
A full investigation of each alternative was undertaken, including a general evaluation of the
feasibility, as well as design considerations. Additionally, figures and/or calculations for each
alternative are provided where applicable.
3.1 Alternative A — Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment System
The first alternative is to abandon the existing wastewater treatment facilities at Muddy Creek and
convey that wastewater to their larger Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
(RRRWWTP). This would require construction of multiple wastewater pumping stations and
approximately 12.5 miles of pipeline along the Highway 601 corridor, with 1500 feet of cased
crossings. A pumping station constructed at Muddy Creek would provide service to the Midland area
and convey wastewater along Hwy 601 through a pipeline to the Anderson Creek area. Additional
pumping stations would provide service to tributary areas along the route and re -pump the
wastewater the remainder of the distance to RRRWWTP. Each pump station would require some
form of odor control technology, as well as the respective instrumentation & control and electrical
work.
Pumping wastewater over long distances provides some significant practical limitations. The force
main must be of sufficient size to convey wastewater without excessive pressure loss, but not be so
large that the pipe diameter would result in low velocities and long detention times producing septic
wastewater. For this reason, a 16 -inch force main is the defining limitation for the initial facilities
providing 1.0 MGD service. For the purposes of planning, it is assumed that several major pumping
facilities would likely be required to overcome the elevation and friction losses associated with such
a long force main. Odor control and chemical addition facilities would be provided at each location.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 5 WSACC

The general alignment of the force main is illustrated on the attached Facilities Plan. Future
expansion of the facilities is limited to an ultimate capacity of approximately 1.5 MGD. Expansion
beyond this capacity would likely require construction of parallel force mains and additional
pumping facilities.
3.2 Alternative B — Land Application of Treated Effluent
An Alternative for WSACC to eliminate surface discharge of treated effluent would be through land
application. This could be accomplished through the construction of a spray irrigation system, which
consists of using the Plant effluent as the water source for agriculture, grasslands, or silviculture.
There are several design considerations that would need to be taken into account for WSACC to
implement such a system. The industry standard suggests spray irrigation fields can receive
approximately 0.2 gal/sf/day and require a buffer zone of up to 1150 feet depending on the wind
breaks available on the land. Assuming that the trees throughout and surrounding the irrigation
zone will provide this functionality, a buffer zone of 100 feet was used for the evaluation of this
Alternative. Since the Muddy Creek Service area is expected to receive flows nearing 1.0 MGD
through 2040, this equates to a land area of approximately 134 acres as shown on the Alternative B
- Land Application Calculations attachment. Approximately 1390 sprinklers are required to uphold
literature recommended spacing of 60 -ft by 60 -ft on this property.
A visualization of the quantity of land area needed for this Alternative is shown on the attached
Alternative B Site Plan. Due to the variable nature of the land availability in the area, the land shown
in the figure is only representative of the quantity, but not necessarily the precise location of the
available land that would be used for spray irrigation.
Prior to land application of the treated effluent, WSACC would need to treat the projected 1.0 MGD
of wastewater to land application standards. Per 15A NCAC 02T .0505, there are significant
treatment requirements that must be met before land application is permitted. Therefore, a
treatment facility similar to the one proposed in Alternative D would need to be constructed in
addition to the spray irrigation system proposed in this Alternative. Additionally, a pumping station
with a 16" force main to convey the water to the irrigation site would be required, as well as a 30
day storage basin to store residual water during extended periods of wet weather.
3.3 Alternative C — Water Reuse
Irrigation of recreational facilities provides the option to reuse all or a portion of the treated effluent
generated by the Plant. There is a golf course approximately 6 miles from the Muddy Creek WWTP
that could utilize the water as part of its irrigation demand. This golf course is approximately 500
acres in size, which is larger than the calculated area of 134 acres for the Land Application
Alternative presented in Alternative B. The golf course also already has an established irrigation
system that can be utilized for the reuse water.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 6 WSACC

For this analysis, it is assumed that the water will be pumped to the golf course via a force main and
30 days worth of residual water storage capacity would be provided on the Plant property. Seasonal
and resort facilities, such as golf courses, are sensitive to fluctuations in flow and have irrigation
systems that can be damaged by irregular flow patterns. Per 15A NCAC 02T .0505, this Alternative
requires the construction of an equalization basin capable of managing at least 25% of the WWTP's
design flow to avoid such complications.
Similar to the spray irrigation system in Alternative B, the construction of a treatment facility would
be required to treat up to 1.0 MGD to levels safe for human contact. The proposed treatment
system to be used is further described in Alternative D.
Aside from land application, there are no practical alternatives for water reuse in the area. There are
no industries or commercial operations in the vicinity that can reuse the treated effluent from the
Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Plant's geographic isolation puts constraints on
every option for reuse due to the cost of large scale conveyance installation.
3.4 Alternative D — Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
This Alternative would consist of construction of a larger treatment system located on a separate
area of the existing treatment plant property with the discharge of the treated effluent to Rocky
River. The capacity of the proposed Plant will be 1.0 MGD in accordance with the WSACC Master
Plan. Since the current Plant is only rated for 0.3 MGD, all components of the new Plant will be new
and sized accordingly for the projected flows. For the purposes of planning and comparison it is
assumed that the facilities would be constructed with two parallel process trains and a treatment
capacity of 1.0 MGD. The proposed plant process is depicted in the Alternative D — Flow Schematic
attachment. Future expansions of the Plant could therefore be undertaken in increments of 0.5
MGD, with an ultimate capacity of 1.5 MGD.
Attached is the land deed for the property, which contains information on the acreage available
onsite, as well as the easement agreements. Adequate space is available to build a new wastewater
treatment plant providing larger, more robust unit processes and increased opportunity for future
expansion. The proposed facilities would likely consist of a conventional wastewater treatment
system utilizing an activated sludge process followed by enhanced filtration, ultraviolet disinfection,
and discharge to the Rocky River. A general arrangement of these proposed facilities is presented in
the Alternative D — Site Plan Attachment.
Before undertaking such a project, it is essential to determine that the discharged water will have no
impact on the receiving surface waterbody. Attached are letters of correspondence with the USGS
and NCDEQ discussing the 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows of the receiving waters, as well as the impact the
proposed facility's effluent would have on them. These letters are available in the Speculative Limits
Correspondence Attachment. In short, the summer 7Q10 and 30Q2 streamflows for the Rocky River
are estimated to be 38.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 94 cfs, respectively. A proposed discharge of
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 7 WSACC

1.0 MGD was found to have a minor impact on the dissolved oxygen levels, but nothing significant
enough to lower the levels below 5 mg/I. This indicates that a new Plant with flows permitted to 1.0
MGD will have a negligible impact on the receiving waterbody.
To further analyze and evaluate the performance of the proposed Plant, BioWin, a wastewater
treatment process simulation software was utilized. BioWin is a state-of-the-art modeling software
that allows the user to input influent design conditions and simulate how a plant process would
treat the wastewater. The purpose of using this software was to assess how the proposed Plant
would operate with various treatment configurations under different flow conditions.
Willis Engineers developed a model of the proposed 1.0 MGD Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant within the software. Each unit process was sized based on recommendations provided by
various industry standards. The development and results of these modeling efforts are presented in
the BioWin Model Attachment.
3.5 Alternative E — Combination of Alternatives
There is no feasible combination of Alternatives to suit the needs of WSACC and the Muddy Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Even with land available nearby for application, the infrastructure
required to convey the treated effluent imposes a financial constraint on these installations. The
water must be treated prior to any form of land application, meaning that regardless of how the
water is applied, a new 1.0 MGD facility must be constructed to treat the projected flows. The
construction costs of the proposed Alternatives that involve both treating the wastewater onsite
and pumping it to a new location would add millions of dollars to the project. It is simply not
economically feasible to consider any combination of these alternatives.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 8 WSACC

4 Economic Feasibility
In order to assess the economic feasibility of each of the alternatives, a cost analysis was undertaken
for each option presented. The prices used to estimate the capital costs for the components of each
alternative were derived from previous bids from similar projects. The land costs for Alternative B
were approximated from various online realtor sources. For each of the Alternatives, an assessment
of the capital costs as well as the recurring annual costs were estimated. With this data, a Present
Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) was performed to evaluate and compare the present cost of each
Alternative over a 20 year lifespan. In the following sections, a general discussion of each Alternative
is presented. A more in-depth cost analysis for each Alternative is presented in the Attachment
section of this Report.
4.1 Alternative A — Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment System
The implementation of Alternative A would require four pumping stations and approximately 66,000
feet of 16 -inch piping, with 1500 feet of cased crossings. Each pump station would require odor
control technology, instrumentation & controls, and electrical work. The estimated construction
cost of these facilities is $18,100,000.
This Alternative will also incur significant operational costs arising from the continuous pumping of
wastewater from the Muddy Creek location to Rocky River Regional WWTP, as well as the
maintenance of the pumping stations. The estimated yearly operational and maintenance costs is
$440,000. A Present Value of Cost Analysis was performed by using the capital costs and the
operational and maintenance costs associated with this option. The present value cost was
determined to be $25,294,631. A tabulation of the capital and recurring costs, as well as the
calculations of the PVCA can be determined in the Alternative A - Preliminary Cost Attachment.
4.2 Alternative B — Land Application of Treated Effluent
A spray irrigation system would require the purchase of approximately 134 acres of land, as well as
the construction of a pumping system to convey the treated water to the irrigation site. Although
the availability of land in the area is somewhat variable, a 200 acre plot of land approximately 4
miles away was for sale at the time this Report was written. Approximately 22,000 feet of 16" force
main would also be required for this Alternative, along with a pumping station to convey the water
to the irrigation site. A reservoir for 30 days or more of excess water storage, along with an
irrigation system capable of distributing the water at the irrigation site will also be needed. The
total construction cost for the irrigation / conveyance system and land acquisition is estimated to be
$8,300,000 as presented in Alternative B - Preliminary Cost Estimate Attachment. This Alternative
would also require the 1.0 MGD Plant presented in Alternative D.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 9 WSACC

The Land Application Alternative will also incur significant operational and maintenance costs
stemming from the continuous pumping of wastewater from the Muddy Creek location to the land
application site, as well as the operation and maintenance of the proposed treatment facility. The
estimated yearly operational and maintenance cost is $220,000 for the irrigation and conveyance
system. A Present Value of Cost Analysis was performed by using the capital costs and the
operational and maintenance costs associated with this Alternative. The present value cost,
including the capital for construction and the operation and maintenance of the new Plant, was
estimated to be $35,263,575 as presented in the Alternative A - Preliminary Cost Estimate
Attachment.
4.3 Alternative C — Water Reuse
The seasonal reuse of wastewater at the nearby golf course would require the construction of a new
wastewater treatment plant, a pump station with 6 miles of conveyance facilities, and an
equalization basin. The estimated cost of the conveyance system and equalization basin would be
approximately $7,600,000. The estimated annual operating costs of these facilities is approximately
$113,000 per year. Combined with the capital and recurring costs of the Plant outlined in
Alternative D, the present value cost is approximated to be $32,781,269. Because the golf course is
situated on the Rocky River and utilizes it as its water source, it is highly unlikely the golf course
owners will consider this alternative. The cost estimate for this alternative is presented in the
Alternative C - Preliminary Cost Estimate Attachment.
4.4 Alternative D — Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
The new wastewater treatment plant proposed in Alternative D would require the construction of
all new facilities. The proposed project would require a new pumping station, influent screening,
and two parallel process trains of aeration basins, clarifiers, disc filters, and UV disinfection. The
estimated construction cost for a facility of this size would be $14,700,000. The conceptual design
for the facility has been prepared for the purposes of estimating the overall construction cost as
further defined on the attached Alternative D - Preliminary Cost Estimate Attachment.
In addition to the capital costs, this Alternative will also incur the operational and maintenance costs
of the various processes of the treatment facility. The estimated yearly operational and
maintenance cost is $528,000. The bulk of the costs arise from sludge hauling and equipment
operation. A Present Value of Cost Analysis was performed by using the capital costs and the
operational and maintenance costs associated with this Alternative. The present value cost was
estimated to be $23,333,557 as presented in the Alternative D - Preliminary Cost Estimate
Attachment.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 10 WSACC

5 Present Value of Cost Summary
Below is a summary of the Present Value of Costs Analyses performed for each of the Alternatives. A
detailed tabulation of the costs for each project are presented in each of the Attachments.
Alternative A — Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment System
Capital Costs
Recurring Costs
Present Value
Alternative B — Land Application of Treated Effluent
Capital Costs
Recurring Costs
Present Value Cost of New WWTP
Total Present Value (including new WWTP)
Alternative C — Water Reuse (Golf Course)
Capital Costs
Recurring Costs
Present Value Cost of New WWTP
Present Value (including new WWTP)
Alternative D — Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
Capital Costs
Recurring Costs
Present Value
$18,100,000
$440,000
$25,294,631
$8,300,000
$222,000
$23,333,557
$35,263,575
$7,600,000
$113,000
$23,333,557
$32,781,269
$14,700,000
$528,000
$23,333,557
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 11 WSACC

Administrative

Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from local governments in the
issuance of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility
until it has received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on
which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or
county has a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is
consistent with the ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has
determined to be inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to
have statewide significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the Applicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
■ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
■ If either (or both) local government(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within
the 15 -day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [ ] No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [ ] No [ ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [
No[ ]
Date
State of , County of
Signature
(City Manager/County Manager)
On this day of , , personally appeared before me, the said
name to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires .(Signature of Notary
Notary Public (Official Seal)
EAA Guidance Document Revision: April 2014
Page 8of8

Population / Flow Projections

Growth Model Documentation
WSACC
0&
mmlii��
Prepared For:
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
232 Davidson Highway
Concord, NC 28027
Prepared By:
LandDesign
223 North Graham Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
In Association With:
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
Willis Engineers, Inc.
November 2013
.Land WI11IS'ENGINEERS

WSACC
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) developed the FY 2012-2013 Master
Plan (Master Plan) to guide future investment in regionally significant water and sewer
infrastructure. The team of consultants, led by GHD and supported by LandDesign and Willis
Engineers (Project Team), facilitated the planning process. The Master Plan is meant to determine
major utility infrastructure needs in Cabarrus County and a portion of Rowan County between 2013
and the plan horizon year of 2040. LandDesign was responsible for developing future year water
demand forecasts to inform the Master Plan. Forecasted water and sewer demand for the WSACC
service area was developed based on an analysis of existing conditions and the development of a
growth forecasting model. This document provides an overview of the components of the Model
and the forecasting results.
Overview of the Growth Model
The WSACC Growth Model is a parcel -based forecasting model developed with Geographic
Information System (GIS) datasets and software. The Model creates disaggregate dwelling unit
and employment forecasts by determining the probable distribution of future housing units and
employment locations based on currently adopted land use policy regulations and suitability of
available land.
The Model is made up of four components: municipal utility service area projections, the available
land supply, generalized future land use, and the land use suitability analysis. Each component is
made up of a set of assumptions that influence the distribution of future growth.
The Model components were developed over a 10 -month period with regular input from a technical
team of stakeholders, comprised of representatives of WSACC member jurisdictions (Cabarrus
County, City of Concord, Town of Harrisburg, City of Kannapolis, Town of Midland, and Town of
Mount Pleasant). The following sections detail the components of the Model.
Existing Land Use Inventory & Water Usage Rates Analysis
Prior to developing the Model it was essential to determine current usage trends. An existing land
use inventory was created based on tax parcel use codes and other datasets (i.e. a protected land
inventory). Water usage records were collected from the member jurisdictional retail operators and
geocoded (mapped) based on address. From these two datasets average usage rates were
derived for generalized existing land use classes. See Table 3 in the WSACC Growth Model
Documentation Report for more information. This analysis was used to determine an estimate of
daily water usage by parcel and water and sewer basin. It is estimated that current water demand
amounts to 12.8 Million Gallons Per Day (GPD) (this includes all member jurisdictions in Cabarrus
County and the Rowan County portion of Kannapolis).
Usage: The results of this analysis were also used to determine categorical water usage trends by
land use type and spatial trends within utility service areas. This data could be useful to
jurisdictions when developing CIP list and to study current demand and future WWTP/WTP capacity
upgrades.
(MbLand 991115ENGINEERS GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Growth Model Documentation)
`r

WSACC
Maintenance Recommendations: This dataset should be updated every three years or on an as -
needed basis. Updates will be necessary to determine if water usage trends change, as changes
could substantially impact aggregate demand. The data provided for the study was in different
formats and required significant reformatting. Prior to an update utilities should determine the
feasibility of implementing additional reporting capabilities so that historical records could be
provided for each meter in the system (one monthly reading per column). Ideally usage records
could be linked to tax parcel records instead of addresses. This could eliminate geocoding errors.
A working group could be formed that included experts from each utility's billing department in order
to develop a coordinated approach to this problem.
Municipal Utility Service Area Demographic Projections
Housing unit and employment projections were produced for the study area as a whole and for
individual municipal service areas based on historic trends, recent market capture rates and public
and private investments. See the WSACC Master Plan Municipal Service Area Demographic
Projections Executive Summary, the WSACC Service Area Demographic Projections Report
(Section One) and the WSACC Growth Model Documentation Report (Section Two) for more
information.
Land Supply
Based on the existing land use inventory, tax parcel records, and stakeholder review, an inventory
of Available land (vacant or undeveloped) and Underutilized land (land likely to be redeveloped or
support additional development) was created. The Available and Underutilized land in combination,
less environmentally constrained areas, is referred to as the "Land Supply". The Land Supply is a
discretely measurable amount of acreage that could accommodate anticipated growth in new
housing and non-residential uses based on projected demand for each. In total the Land Supply
makes up 128,000 acres or 56% of the total land area of the Master Plan Study Area. As part of
the Land Supply, an inventory of "Pending Development" was created based on data provided by
Cabarrus County. These parcels, which account for 8,471 acres (3.7% of the study area, including
18,500 dwelling units), represent approved developments that are anticipated to be complete prior
to the 2040 planning horizon. See section 3.3 of the WSACC Growth Model Documentation Report
for more information.
Usage: This dataset can assist in a variety of planning efforts where there is a need to quantify the
amount of acreage available for future development. In combination with the Model, the Land
Supply can be used to estimate if there is ample land to accommodate anticipated demand. The
pending development inventory could be maintained and used as an asset by member
governments for ongoing work. Pending development could also be summarized by basin and
used to inform CIP updates.
Maintenance Recommendations: The Land Supply dataset should be updated every three years
or on an as -needed basis. The Pending Development Inventory should be kept up to date with all
developments exceeding an agreed upon threshold (i.e. >50 dwelling units or 50,000 sq.ft. of
nonresidential buildings). Updates should occur on an ongoing or bi-annual basis. WSACC,
Cabarrus County or a third party could assist in this effort.
^l L-11 1{ 1 W11USENGINEERS GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Growth Model Documentation)

WSACC
Generalized Future Land Use
Currently adopted local land use plans were collected and used to create a set of Generalized
Future Land Use categories. Each category has an associated set of allowable uses and densities
(residential density and non-residential "floor area ratio"). These categories were used by the
Model determine the capacity of land to accommodate future development. Density assumptions
reflect existing county and municipal agreements for utility provision. See section 3.4 of the WSACC
Growth Model Documentation Report for more information on the Generalized Future Land Use
component of the Model.
Usage: This component of the model could be adjusted to test the potential impact of land use
plan changes or proposed developments on aggregate water and/or wastewater demand.
Maintenance Recommendations: The Generalized Future Land Use map/inventory should be
updated on an annual basis to take into account updates to local land use plans.
Suitability Analysis
Land suitability represents the likelihood that a parcel will experience growth by 2040, the horizon
year. No two parcels are exactly the same, and the set of characteristics associated with each will
determine its attractiveness, or suitability, for certain uses. A number of economic and
environmental suitability factors were taken into account in the development of the WSACC Growth
Model. These factors vary based on land use type. Suitability analyses were conducted for two
types of residential land uses (Single Family & Multi -Family) and five types of non-residential land
uses (Commercial, Service, Industrial, Office/Institutional/Government, and Lodging). See section
3.5 of the WSACC Growth Model Documentation Report for more information on the Generalized
Future Land Use component of the Model.
Usage: The suitability analysis can be used during land use plan updates to determine the
appropriate locations for non-residential development. It can also be helpful when determining
which areas of a jurisdiction are likely to experience growth.
Maintenance Recommendations: The Land Suitability Analysis should be updated periodically as
the suitability of available land is effected by new public and private investment on adjacent and
nearby properties. For instance, the construction of new homes can increase the need for retail
and other services or the construction of a school, park or new road can increase the likelihood of
development on adjacent parcels.
Parcel Based Demand Forecasts (2040 and Intermediate Years)
The Existing Land Use Inventory, Water Usage Rate Analysis, Land Supply, Generalized Future
Land Use Inventory and Suitability Analysis were used by the Model to distribute projected growth
and determine future water and wastewater demand. Parcel based forecasts were created and
aggregated to water and sewer basins. Forecasts were created based on a 2040 horizon year and
5 year increments. The 2040 and intermediate year figures were based on service area control
totals. In total, it is forecasted that residential and non-residential growth in the study area could
result in 14.1 MGD in new demand. This added to a base demand of 12.8 MGD would result in a
total demand of 26.9 MGD (this water usage estimates includes all member jurisdictions in
Cabarrus County and the Rowan County portion of Kannapolis).
(MbLand W1111SENGINEERS GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Growth Model Documentations
`r

WSACC
Usage: The forecasts were used to determine demand by water and sewer basin and
infrastructure upgrades and extensions needed for WSACC owned regional facilities. The
disaggregate forecasts could also be used by municipal governments for planning purposes. For
instance, utility departments could use the forecasts to determine potential demand in a sub -
watershed.
Maintenance Recommendations: Components not specified above, including the basin demand
forecasts, should be updated every three years or on an as needed basis.
The maps in Figures ES -1 and ES -2 below show forecasted growth and water demand, primary
outputs of the Model.
FigureES-1 Future Household and Employment Growth Distribution
WIIIISENGINEERS GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Growth Model Documentation)

WSACC
_
�f
Figure ES -2 Forecasted New Water Demand (2013-2040)
WATER DEMAND FORECASTS'
ROWAN
New Demand 2040 (GPO) ! SQ_MILES
1,195- 10.000
10,010 25,600 I
25,010-50,000
50,010-75,000
75,010 - 100,000
.100,100 - 150,900
_ 150,100 , 200.000 -
_ 200,100 - 300.900
WRY Service Areas
MECKL,XNBURG
Ni
For More information
STANLY
The WSACC Growth Model Documentation Report (Section Two) includes a more detailed
accounting of the methods used to derive these forecasts
Land WIMSENGINEERS GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Growth Model Documentation)
`r

Municipal Utility Service Area WSACC
Demographic 2o,p
Projections
Prepared For:
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
232 Davidson Highway
Concord, NC 28027
Prepared By:
LandDesign
223 N Graham Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
In Association With:
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
Willis Engineers, Inc.
November 2013
Land Wl��15ENGINEERS GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Service Areas
IMI

WSACC
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) developed the FY 2012-2013 Master
Plan (Master Plan) to guide future investment in regionally significant water and sewer
infrastructure. The team of consultants, led by GHD and supported by LandDesign, Noell
Consulting Group (NCG) and Willis Engineers (Project Team), facilitated the planning process. The
Master Plan is meant to determine major utility infrastructure needs in Cabarrus County and a
portion of Rowan County between 2013 and the plan horizon year of 2040. LandDesign was
responsible for developing future year water demand forecasts to inform the Master Plan.
Forecasted water and sewer demand for the WSACC service area was developed based on an
analysis of existing conditions and the development of a growth forecasting model. This document
provides an overview of the development of the municipal utility service area demographic
projections that were used as an input for the forecasting model.
Municipal Utility Service Area Demographic Projections
Residential and non-residential projections were produced by NCGfor the study area as a whole
and for individual municipal service areas. Projections were based on historic trends, recent market
capture rates and public and private investments. Housing and employment categories were
defined based on similar usage rates. Residential demand projections in terms of new dwelling
units were produced for the following housing types: Single Family, Townhome, and Multi -family.
Non-residential projections in terms of new square footage and employees were produced for the
following industry types: Commercial, OIGOV (Office, Institutional, Government), Service,
Industrial, and Lodging. A graph of study area dwelling unit and employment projections is included
below:
Figure ES -1: Study Area Estimates and Projections
Dwelling Unit and Employment
Estimates and Projections
150,000 131,965
-M
F � �
100,000 79, 29 �■� .E �■" 1 •,727
50,000 63,107 _■—
1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
f Dwelling Units (Estimated) —F Dwelling Units (Projected) —F Jobs (Projected)
Source: Noell Consulting Group
The control totals were presented to the WSACC Stakeholders Group in January of 2013.
Adjustments were made based on comments from stakeholders and revised figures were provided
during the WSACC Stakeholders Group meeting in March of 2013.
Land W1115ENGINEERS GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Service Areas I

WSACC
Table ES -1 details employment projections for the municipal utility service areas within the WSACC
Master Plan Study Area. Job growth is expected to be 64% between the base year and the plan
horizon year of 2040. Municipalities closer to 1-85 and Mecklenburg County will continue to
experience more job growth than those areas in the eastern and southern parts of Cabarrus
County.
Table ES -1 Study Area and Municipal Service Area Employment Projections
Total EMP, 2012
��
362
11 934 307
Industrial
1,200
3,848
505
1,010
72
184
111
6,929
Commercial
914
3,446
433
593
125
331
5
5,846
O I GOV
4,541
12,605
2,613
1,220
0
1,149
117
22,245
Lodge
98
555
62
31
19
27
0
793
Service
504
3,426
449
181
100
146
0
4,806
Total Added
7,256
23,880
4,061
3,035
316
1,838
234
40,620
Total EMP, 2040
18,798
68,803
8,423
4,063
327
2,773
540
103,727
Source: Noell Consulting Group
Table ES -2 details residential projections for the municipal utility service areas within the WSACC
Master Plan Study Area. Housing units are expected to increase by 65% between the base year
and the plan horizon year of 2040. Concord, Kannapolis and Harrisburg continue to grow at a rapid
pace. The Town of Midland is expected to double in population due to its proximity to the Charlotte
metro area. Market demand will lead to more diverse housing types.
Table ES -2 Study Area and Municipal Service Area Residential Projections
Source: Noel] Consulting Group
For More information
The WSACC Growth Model Documentation Report includes a more detailed accounting how the
municipal service area control totals were used to forecast future water and sewer demand. The
WSACC Service Area Demographic Projections Report, by NCG, details the methods and results of
the service area forecasting effort.
PM
Land W11115ENGINEERS
GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Service Areas

Wastewater Transportation Model WSACC
Documentation & User's Guide
Prepared Fc
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
232 Davidson Highway
Concord, NC 28027
Prepared By:
Willis Engineers, Inc.
10700 Sikes Place, Suite 230
Charlotte, NC 28277
NC License F-0114
In Association With:
GHD Consulting Services Inc.
LandDesign
November 2013
PMR, WINSENGENEERS
v

WSACC
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) developed the FY 2012-2013
Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide the renovation and expansion of major wastewater
infrastructure through the planning year of 2040. A major component of the Master Plan is
the development of a Wastewater Transportation Model (Model) used to describe the
hydraulic capabilities of the WSACC wastewater transportation system, monitor the system's
performance and forecast future facilities. This document provides an overview of the Model
and its operation, and summarizes the current forecasting results.
Model Overview
WSACC is somewhat unique among wastewater system operators. Rather than providing
service to individual customers, WSACC provides "wholesale" service to the four municipal
utility providers in Cabarrus County and the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department. These
municipal customers provide "retail" service to individual customers within their service areas.
WSACC therefore owns and operates fewer facilities than a typical retail provider, albeit these
facilities are some of the largest in Cabarrus County. As a result, the Model was developed
using a simplified format that is more user-friendly than the complex, proprietary modeling
software necessary for a large retail utility. The Model described herein was specifically
developed using an industry standard spreadsheet software and is fully customizable by the
WSACC staff without the need for additional software or specialized training.
The Model utilizes facility information previously collected by WSACC and documented in the
Cabarrus County GIS system. Most WSACC facilities are described in the GIS System by
pipe size, material type, location, age and manhole depth. Similar information for some newer
facilities comes from their construction drawings. These descriptions are used to calculate the
hydraulic capacity of the existing facilities. The facilities are organized by location, generally
corresponding to the major drainage basins in Cabarrus County. For hydraulic analysis, these
basins are further divided into sub -basins.
Model Calibration
In conjunction with the Model development, the Project Team conducted a detailed analysis of
water use throughout the County. LandDesign collected monthly water use data for each
customer and geocoded that water use to individual parcels. Willis Engineers analyzed the
water use pattern by basin, sub -basin and municipal jurisdiction. These flow values were
compared with those recorded at WSACC's 31 monitoring stations over that same period.
This analysis provided the basis for the Model calibration.
Using the Model
Using the adjusted flow projections based on the Model calibration, the Model was used to
predict the performance of the system at five-year intervals during the planning period. In
_��� WIIIiSENGINEERS
bolaGHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Wastewater Transportation Model

WSACC
��-7�1
general, it was determined that the existing facilities are capable of meeting the immediate
needs of the WSACC customers; however, as growth continues, additional capacity in the
existing assets will be necessary to adequately serve new customers. Those projects
providing additional capacity are identified as:
• Lower Coddle Creek Parallel Interceptor
• Lower Cold Water Creek Parallel Interceptor
• Lower Muddy Creek Parallel Interceptor
• Threemile Branch Parallel Interceptor
Projects serving new or expanded service areas are also anticipated. Those projects include:
• Royal Oaks-Copperfield Interceptor Replacement
• International Business Park Interceptor
• Upper Rocky River Interceptor
• Little Cold Water Creek Interceptor
• Crestridge Interceptor
• Muddy Creek Interceptor
• Back Creek Interceptor
• Caldwell Creek Interceptor
• Mt. Pleasant Pumping Station
• Adams Creek and Dutch Buffalo Interceptor, Pumping Station and Force Main
In addition to predicting the future facility needs, the Model can also be used to monitor the
performance of the system and evaluate new flow scenarios. The monthly flow monitoring
data provided by WSACC's independent engineer can be imported directly into the Model
allowing WSACC to compare the current level of performance to that predicted by the flow
projections. New flow scenarios also can be evaluated by inserting into the Model site specific
flows for potential new developments or industries. This flow would be in addition to those
flows previously anticipated as part of the flow projection. This allows WSACC to assess the
impact of the new flow to the overall system and to identify the need for new facilities.
WiIRSENGINEERS
GHD I WSACC 2013 Master Plan I Wastewater Transportation Model

WSACC Master Plan
Flow Projections
Wastewater Transportation
System
Baseyear ADF (MGD)
Projected
ADF (MGD)
Computed
Adjusted
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Back Creek
BC1
0.141
0.098
0.110
0.133
0.152
0.168
0.184
0.197
BC2
0.253
0.170
0.206
0.276
0.339
0.378
0.414
0.440
BC3
0.210
0.140
0.166
0.211
0.248
0.284
0.324
0.358
Coddle Creek
CC1
0.258
0.219
0.270
0.369
0.460
0.524
0.591
0.642
CC2
0.199
0.167
0.176
0.192
0.206
0.218
0.231
0.242
CC3
0.532
0.455
0.520
0.650
0.769
0.851
0.933
0.997
CC4
0.429
0.367
0.411
0.491
0.561
0.626
0.699
0.759
CC5
0.020
0.014
0.035
0.076
0.113
0.141
0.169
0.192
CC6
0.041
0.030
0.084
0.199
0.309
0.362
0.404
0.431
CC7
0.227
0.192
0.224
0.284
0.337
0.381
0.428
0.466
CC8
0.123
0.116
0.160
0.250
0.333
0.387
0.436
0.475
Cold Water Creek
CW1
0.034
0.042
0.046
0.054
0.061
0.067
0.075
0.081
CW2
0.099
0.122
0.153
0.216
0.274
0.311
0.349
0.377
CW3
0.092
0.114
0.127
0.153
0.178
0.193
0.208
0.219
CW4
0.218
0.229
0.244
0.271
0.295
0.318
0.344
0.366
CW5
0.595
0.623
0.649
0.696
0.735
0.775
0.819
0.856
CW6
0.433
0.634
0.650
0.678
0.702
0.728
0.756
0.781
CW7
0.057
0.070
0.078
0.095
0.109
0.121
0.135
0.145
CW8
0.021
0.026
0.032
0.044
0.054
0.064
0.075
0.084
CW9
0.151
0.187
0.204
0.236
0.263
0.290
0.320
0.345
CW10
0.906
1.062
1.083
1.120
1.151
1.186
1.223
1.256
CW11
0.166
0.092
0.103
0.122
0.138
0.156
0.175
0.191
CW12
0.017
0.021
0.024
0.030
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.049
CW13
0.045
0.025
0.032
0.045
0.056
0.066
0.075
0.083
CW14
0.011
0.014
0.019
0.028
0.036
0.043
0.052
0.059
CW15
0.019
0.023
0.040
0.074
0.104
0.125
0.146
0.162
CW16
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.059
0.099
0.115
0.127
0.133
Dutch Buffalo Creek
DB1
0.043
0.039
0.051
0.075
0.094
0.121
0.153
0.189
DB2
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.007
0.011
0.015
0.020
Irish Buffalo Creek
1131
0.371
0.454
0.512
0.631
0.741
0.809
0.875
0.923
1132
0.805
0.984
1.029
1.116
1.193
1.255
1.321
1.373
1133
0.840
1.026
1.084
1.191
1.285
1.369
1.460
1.535
1134
0.562
0.687
0.750
0.868
0.970
1.062
1.163
1.245
1135
0.611
0.717
0.778
0.898
1.008
1.085
1.157
1.215
1136
0.309
0.362
0.380
0.415
0.445
0.470
0.495
0.516
1137
0.616
0.723
0.774
0.862
0.937
1.020
1.109
1.188
1138
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.016
0.025
0.035
0.045
0.054
Lower Rocky River
LRR1
0.100
0.085
0.146
0.283
0.419
0.466
0.498
0.510
LRR2
0.010
0.010
0.037
0.098
0.160
0.191
0.217
0.238
LRR3
0.007
0.007
0.028
0.069
0.102
0.137
0.177
0.214
Muddy Creek
MC1
0.356
0.047
0.145
0.358
0.570
0.751
0.941
1.124
Mt Pleasant
MP1
0.121
0.110
0.126
0.158
0.183
0.211
0.245
0.276
MP2
0.025
0.023
0.027
0.036
0.042
0.050
0.058
0.067
MP3
0.034
0.005
0.014
0.030
0.043
0.058
0.075
0.092
Reedy Creek
RC1
0.009
0.010
0.031
0.076
0.120
0.137
0.151
0.158
RC2
0.033
0.033
0.067
0.132
0.188
0.229
0.271
0.303
RC3
0.145
0.119
0.151
0.211
0.263
0.302
0.341
0.371
RC4
0.009
0.009
0.028
0.064
0.095
0.117
0.140
0.157
RC5
0.049
0.051
0.071
0.114
0.157
0.185
0.211
0.234
Rocky River
RR1
0.167
0.501
0.523
0.563
0.597
0.627
0.658
0.684
RR2
0.678
0.627
0.674
0.757
0.827
0.889
0.956
1.011
RR3
0.529
0.489
0.545
0.656
0.757
0.828
0.899
0.955
RR4
0.714
0.660
0.751
0.942
1.122
1.220
1.310
1.373
RR5
0.082
0.176
0.234
0.363
0.488
0.538
0.575
0.593
RR6
0.283
0.262
0.303
0.393
0.480
0.517
0.546
0.562
CMU URR1
CMU1
1.070
1.070
1.085
1.116
1.143
1.163
1.184
1.200
Clark Creek
CMU2
0.324
0.324
0.498
0.844
1.158
1.386
1.615
1.800
HC4
CMU3
0.137
0.137
0.137
0.138
0.139
0.139
0.140
0.140
HC3
CMU4
0.599
0.599
0.599
0.599
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
BRF
CMI-15
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.079
0.080
0.080
0.080
QRF
CMU6
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.039
0.040
0.040
0.040
CB
CMU7
0.076
0.076
0.079
0.084
0.089
0.093
0.097
0.100
RC
CMU8
0.894
0.894
0.913
0.952
0.988
1.013
1.039
1.060
MK
CMU9
0.000
0.000
0.054
0.162
0.260
0.331
0.402
0.460
Back Creek (Future)
CMU10
0.000
0.000
0.061
0.183
0.294
0.374
0.455
0.520

Alternative A
Connection to Existing Wastewater Facility

c CpL�ch
Ra
y
e -a �
4 M�
D$
�J Q
1
PARKS
LAFERTY I
BOST
` 1 CREEK
3
n �
s
ANDERSON `
CREEK
� s
ul
a
� I •
°i
1 Rwd 6rdg ,ol} z
` G vounlr Cfub C
3
23 6
110
C-24 24 4� �y /
Y
MUDDY
Rd CREEK r'
��us 5 fah
PJ dl ndGv
SERVICE AREA BOUNDRY
MCWWTP _ _ — FUTURE WSACC FORCE MAIN
CONCORD SEWER SYSTEM
n
�igye .
WSACCINTERCEPTOR
S,f�ALE: 1 = 500' +f ® MUDDY CREEK WWTP
ENGINEERINGALTERNATIVEA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS WSACC
WIINSENGINEERS FACILITIES PLAN
APRIL 2018
r .a

Preliminary Cost Estimate
Capital Costs
Item
Pumping Stations (Total of 4)
Pumping Equipment and Piping (150 HP)
Structure
Odor Control Facilities
Instrumentation and Controls
Electrical (primary and stand-by)
Site Work
Force Main
16 -inch Force Main (66,000 ft @ $100/ft)
Cased Crossings (1,500 ft @ $300/ft)
Sub -Total
Contingencies (20%)
Technical Services (15%)
Total Estimated Project Cost
Reccuring Costs
Item
Operation and Maintenance
Conveyance Power Costs (4x150 HP pumps, 24/7 Operation)
Total Estimated Recurring Costs
Present Value of Costs Analysis
PV= Co + C (1
r(1 + ry
Co Cost incured in the present year
C Recurring Costs (Operational and Maintenance)
n Ending year of the life of the facility
r Current EPA discount rate
PV Present Value Cost
Alternative A
Cost
$2,200,000
$1,100,000
$300,000
$400,000
$1,600,000
$400,000
$6,600,000
450,000
$13,050,000
2,610,000
2,350,000
$18,010,000
$18,100,000
Ann..,I rnc+
$200,000
$240,000
$440,000
$18,100,000
$440,000
20
2%
$25,294,631
Willis Enginers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 1 WSACC

Alternative B
Land Application of Treated Effluent

Land Application Calculations
Alternative B
The following assumptions are derived from the Cabarrus County Soil Survey as provided by the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Water Pollution Control Federation MOP 8, and Metcalf and
Eddy's Wastewater Engineering.
Assumptions
Water Application:
Application Rate:
Buffer:
Sprinkler Spacing:
Piping Distance:
Calculations
Ground Area Needed for 30 Day Storage:
1.0 MGD
0.2 gal/sf/day (Metcalf and Eddy)
100 ft
60'x 60' (MOP 8)
26,000 ft
1 cu.
1 1 acre _
30 days x 1,000,000 gal x 48 gallons x 10 ft depth x 43,560 sf — 9.2 acres
7.Area needed for Wastewater Application:
1,000,000 gal x 1 sf*day = 5,000,000 sf
day 0.2 gal
Radius of Area Needed:
r _ 5,000,000sf _ 1262 ft
7
Radius with Buffer Zone:
1262 ft + 100 ft = 1362 ft
Total Area Required:
(1362 ft)27c = 5,824,838 ft2 = 134 acres
Number of Sprinklers:
(1262 ft)27c x sprinklers = 1390 sprinklers
60 ft x 60 ft
Willis Engineers 1 NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
February 2018 WSACC

Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative B
Capital Costs
Item
Cost
Pumping Station
Pumping Equipment and Piping (2 x 150 HP Pumps)
$550,000
Structure
$275,000
Instrumentation and Controls
$100,000
Electrical (primary and stand-by)
$400,000
Site Work
$100,000
16 -inch Force Main (21,000 ft @ $100/ft)
$2,100,000
Irrigation System
Pumps and Piping
$400,000
Spinklers (625 sprinklers needed)
$16,000
Storage (5000 CY for 30 days of Storage)
$500,000
Land @ 200 Acres, LS
$1,500,000
Sub -Total $5,941,000
Contingencies (20%) $1,200,000
Technical Services (15%) $1,080,000
Total Estimated Irrigation/Conveyance System Cost $8,221,000
$8,300,000
Reccuring Costs
Item Annual Cost
Operation and Maintenance $100,000
Conveyance Power Costs (150 HP pumps, 24/7 Operation) $60,000
Irrigation System Pumps (110 HP, 24/7) $62,000
Total Estimated Recurring Costs $222,000
Present Value of Costs Analysis
(1
PV= Co + C r(1 + r)n
Co Cost incured in the present year $8,300,000
C Recurring Costs (Operational and Maintainence) $222,000
n Ending year of the life of the facility 20
r Current EPA discount rate 2%
PV Present Value Cost of Irrigation/ Conveyance System $11,930,018
Present Value Cost of WWTP (Alternative D) $23,333,557
Total Present Value Cost $35,263,575
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 1 WSACC

Alternative C
Water Reuse

Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative C
Capital Costs
Item
Cost
Pumping Station
Pumping Equipment and Piping (2 x 150 HP Pumps)
$550,000
Structure
$275,000
Odor Control Facilities
$75,000
Instrumentation and Controls
$100,000
Electrical (primary and stand-by)
$400,000
Site Work
$100,000
16 -inch Force Main (31,680 ft @ $100/ft)
$3,168,000
Equalization Basin
$300,000
Storage (5000 CY for 30 days of Storage)
$500,000
Sub -Total $5,468,000
Contingencies (20%) $1,100,000
Technical Services (15%) $990,000
Total Estimated Irrigation/Conveyance System Cost $7,558,000
$7,600,000
Reccuring Costs
Item Annual Cost
Operation and Maintenance $80,000
Conveyance Power Costs (150 HP pumps, 200 days/yr Operation) $33,000
Total Estimated Recurring Costs $113,000
Present Value of Costs Analysis
(1
PV= Co + C r(1 + r)n
Co Cost incured in the present year $7,600,000
C Recurring Costs (Operational and Maintainence) $113,000
n Ending year of the life of the facility 20
r Current EPA discount rate 2%
PV Present Value Cost of Irrigation/ Conveyance System $9,447,712
Present Value Cost of WWTP (Alternative D) $23,333,557
Total Present Value Cost $32,781,269
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 1 WSACC

Alternative D
Direct Discharge to Surface Waters

WIIIISENGINEERS
November 2, 2015
Mr. Tom Belnick
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Subject: Request for Speculative NPDES Permit Limits
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
Muddy Creek WWTP (NPDES Permit No. NC0081621)
Dear Mr. Belnick,
1968.015 (34)
On behalf of the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) we request
speculative discharge limits for expansion of the Muddy Creek WWTP (NPDES Permit No.
NC0081621). The facility currently has a NPDES Permit with limits for 0.15 and 0.3 MGD.
As growth in this area continues WSACC would like to make plans for future expansion of
this facility to 0.5 MGD or 1.0 MGD. We anticipate the facility will continue to treat primarily
domestic wastewater.
We have been in correspondence with US Geological Survey regarding low flow data for
the receiving water course, Rocky River. Attached is a copy of the email correspondence
with Mr. J. Curtis Weaver, P.E. indicating that the drainage area for this location on the
Rocky River is approximately 553 square miles with an approximate annual discharge rate
of 500 cfs. The 7Q10 discharge rate is estimated to be 38.7 cfs and the 30Q2 discharge is
estimated to be 94 cfs.
We appreciate your efforts in determining speculative discharge limits for this facility so
that WSACC can continue orderly planning for wastewater service to its customers.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information from us please do not
hesitate to contact me at 704.338.4668 or via email at [e-mail].
Yours very truly,
WIL ENGI EER
Charles A. Willis, Jr., .E., BCEE
Attachments
cc: Mr. Timothy R. Kiser, P.E., WSACC
10700 Sikes Place, Suite 115
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
704.377.9844 / NC License F-0114

Chuck Willis
Subject: FW: Response from USGS concerning... Re: Request for low flow characteristics
From: Weaver, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 9:40 AM
To: Chuck Willis <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Weaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response from USGS concerning... Re: Request for low flow characteristics
Mr. Willis,
Thank you for your patience the past several weeks as my focus was directed to field activities following the storm surge
and flooding that affected both North Carolina and South Carolina.
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for a location on the Rocky River near Midland in
southeastern Cabarrus County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center (Raleigh office) indicates several
previous low -flow determinations nearby the specific point of interest on the Rocky River, as identified by the lat/long
coordinates (35 12 28 N, 80 29 30 W) you provided via email dated October 13, 2015. No USGS discharge records are
known to exist for the point of interest.
In the absence of site-specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis, estimates of low -flow characteristics at
ungaged locations are determined by assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square
mile drainage area, or cfsm) at nearby sites where estimates have been determined.
For streams in Cabarrus County, low -flow characteristics published by the USGS are provided in the following reports:
(1) The first is a basin -wide report for the Rocky River basin published in 2003. It is USGS Water -Resources
Investigations Report 03-4147, "Low -Flow Characteristics and Profiles for the Rocky River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basin, North Carolina, through 2002" (Weaver and Fine, 2003). An online version of the report is available
through http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034147/. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through
2002) for continuous -record gaging stations and partial -record sites within the Rocky River basin. The report also
provides low -flow discharge profiles (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, and 7Q2) for the Rocky River from its headwaters in
Mecklenburg County to its mouth.
(2) The second is a recently published statewide report published in March 2015. It is USGS Scientific Investigations
Report 2015-5001, "Low -flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics for selected USGS continuous -record
streamgaging stations in North Carolina through 2012" (Weaver, 2015). The report is available online
at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5001/. The report provides updated low -flow characteristics and flow -duration statistics
for 266 active (as of 2012 water year) and discontinued streamgages across the state where a minimum of 10 climatic
years discharge records were available for flow analyses.
A basin delineation completed for the point of interest using the USGS StreamStats application for North Carolina
(http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north carolina.html) resulted in a drainage area at 553 sqmi.
As noted above, low -flow profiles were developed for the 7Q10 and 30Q2 discharges (figures 7 and 8, respectively) in the
first report. Interpolation of the profiles allows users to estimate the low -flow statistics for ungaged locations along the
Rocky River. In the second report, only low -flow characteristics for selected continuous -record streamgages in North
Carolina were updated for publication, including the downstream streamgage on the Rocky River near Norwood (station id
02126000, drainage area 1,372 sqmi). This is the only site on the Rocky River for which low -flow characteristics were

updated as part of the recent statewide update. Of note, the drainage area at the streamgage is almost 2.5 times the
drainage area at the point of interest, .
Comparison of the published 7Q10 discharges for the Norwood streamgage in the first and second reports indicates the
7Q10 increased from 45.8 cfs to 47.0 cfs, respectively, a percentage increase of about 2.6 percent. Comparison of the
published 30Q2 discharges indicates no change in value (113 cfs) between the two reports. Because of the small
percentage change in the 7Q10 discharge values and no change for the 30Q2 discharge, it appears reasonable and
appropriate to consider the low -flow profiles in the first report as still being applicable for determining low -flow
characteristics at ungaged locations along the Rocky River.
Using interpolation between discharge values used to develop the profile, the 7Q10 and 30Q2 low -flow yields at the point
of interest are approximately 0.07 cfsm and 0.17 cfsm, respectively. Applied to the drainage area at the point of interest
(553 sqmi), the 7Q10 discharge is estimated at 38.7 cfs, and the 30Q2 discharge is estimated at 94 cfs.
The flow statistics presented in the above two reports indicate the annual average discharge yields in the Rocky River
basin are more commonly in the range of 0.9 to 1.0 cfsm. When applied to the drainage area at the point of interest, the
average annual discharge is estimated between 500 and 550 cfs.
Please note the estimated flows are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
Please understand the information provided in this message is based on a preliminary assessment and considered
provisional, subject to revision pending further analyses.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email. [e-mail]
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: http✓/nc.water. usgs._qov/
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax. [phone]
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Chuck Willis <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Weaver—
We are working for the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) who operates a small wastewater
treatment plant on the Rocky River near Midland (35 12 28N, 80 29 30W). WSACC is considering expansion of this
plant and will be requesting speculative limits from the NC Division of Water Resources. As part of the request DWR will
want to know more about the low flow conditions of the river, specifically the drainage area, average flow, 7Q10 and
30Q2. Can you assist in providing this information? If there is a fee associated with this please let us know and we will
remit payment promptly.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
- Chuck
Charles A. Willis, Jr., P.E., BCEE
Willis Engineers
10700 Sikes Place, Suite 115
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
704.377.9844 office
704.338.4668 direct
704.641.1621 cell

Mr. Van Rowell
Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
P.O. Box 428
Concord, North Carolina 28026-0428
Dear Mr. Rowell:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
November 21, 2007
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
WSACC Muddy Creek WWTP NCO081621
Proposed Expansion
Cabarrus County
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for a proposed expansion of Muddy Creek
WWTP from 0.3 MGD to 5.0 MGD of wastewater discharging to the Rocky River.
Receiving Stream: Muddy Creek WWTP discharges into the Rocky River. This segment of the Rocky River is
classified C waters. It should be noted that the Rocky River is impaired for turbidity. Therefore, any expansion
should not have any further impact on the turbidity in the Rocky River.
Speculative Limits: The speculative limits were developed based on an EPA -approved QUAL2E model on the
Rocky River. The model was run for Muddy Creek WWTP at the current permitted discharge of 0.3 MGD and the
proposed expansions to 5.0 MGD.
Based on available information, speculative effluent limits for the proposed discharges of 1.0/2.0/5.0 MGD to the
Rocky River are presented in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring frequencies in
addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants, will be addressed upon receipt of a formal
NPDES permit application request.
The model results indicate that 1.0/2.0/5.0 MGD discharges with the speculative limits presented in Table 1 will
have minor impacts on the dissolved oxygen levels in the river and will not lower the levels below the water quality
standard of 5 mg/L.
I ABLE 1. Speculative Limits for Proposed Expansions
Effluent, Characteristic
Monfhl ";Average "
Effluent Limitations
Weekly Average Dail Maximum
Flow
1.0/2.0/5.0 MGD
BODE, (April 1 —October 31
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/I
BOD5i November 1 — March 31
10.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
NH3 as N, (April 1 — October 31
1.0 mg/I
3.0 mg/I
NH3 as N, November 1 — March 31
2.0 mg/I
6.0 mg/I
TRC
28.0 ug/1
Fecal coliform geometric mean
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA): Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES permit
for an expansion to 1.0/2.0/5.0 MGD will be issued. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives
and evaluates a formal permit application for Muddy Creek WWTP's proposed expansion.
o e hCarohna
NNtuniliff
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.nckvaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Lane
Page 2 of 2
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the most practicable wastewater treatment and disposal
alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented. Therefore, as a
component of all NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives
analysis (EAA) must be prepared.
The EAA must justify requested flows, and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives.
Alternatives to a surface water discharge, such as spray/drip irrigation, wastewater reuse, or inflow/infiltration
reduction, are considered to be environmentally preferable. A copy of the EAA requirements is attached to this
letter. Permit applications for new or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA
requirements are not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please
contact the DWQ NPDES Unit at 919-733-5083.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements: A SEPA EA or EIS document must be prepared
for all projects that 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public lands; and 3) might have a potential to
significantly impact the environment. For new wastewater discharges, significant impact is defined as a proposed
discharge of >500,000 gpd and producing an instream waste concentration of > 33% based on summer 7Q10
flow conditions. For existing discharges, significant impact is defined as an expansion of > 500,000 gpd additional
flow. Since the proposed discharge is an existing discharge with expansion of >500,000 gpd flow,
WSACC must prepare a SEPA document that evaluates the potential for impacting the quality of the
environment. The NPDES Program cannot accept an NPDES permit application for the expanded
discharge until the Division has approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment. A SEPA Environmental Assessment
(EA) should contain a clear justification for the proposed project. If the SEPA EA demonstrates that the project
may result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement). Since your proposed discharge is subject to SEPA, the EAA
requirements discussed above will need to be folded into the SEPA document. The SEPA process will be
delayed if all EAA requirements are not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding SEPA
EA/EIS requirements, please contact Hannah Stallings with the DWQ Planning Branch at [phone], ext.
555.
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please feel free
to contact Agyeman Adu-Poku at [phone], extension 508.
Sincerely,
Susan A. Wilson, P. E.
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
Attachment: EAA Guidance Document
cc: (without Attachment)
DWQ Mooresville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
McKIM & CREED, P.A./Keith E. Lane, P.E.
200 MacKenan Court
Cary, NC 27511
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Inland Fisheries/Fred Harris
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
US Fish & Wild Life/Tom Augspurger
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636

NC Division of Water Quality
Planning Section — Modeling & TMDL Unit
Technical Memorandum
October 25, 2007
TO: Toya Fields, Western NPDES Unit
CC: Kathy Stecker, Modeling & TMDL Unit
Susan Wilson, Western NPDES Unit
FROM: Pam Behm, Modeling & TMDL Unit IN
RE: WSACC Muddy Creek WWTP Speculative Limits — QUAL2E Model Simulation
NPDES Permit Number: NC0081621
This is in response to your request for speculative limits for a proposed expansion of the Muddy
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) from 0.3 MGD to 5.0 MGD. The Rocky River
QUAL2E model, which is a low -flow, steady-state, and one-dimensional BOD model, was used
to evaluate the effect of the requested expansion on dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the
Rocky River. A map of the area is provided in Figure 1.
The QUAL2E model extends 73.4 miles from Dye Branch to the USGS gage (02126000) just
below Lanes Creek near the Town of Norwood. The oldest portion of the QUAL2E model is the
upstream portion and extends 42.8 miles downstream to just below the confluence of Muddy
Creek. This portion of the model is actually a combination of three individual QUAL2E models,
which were developed for wasteload allocation. These three models are: the Mooresville
WWTP model completed in 1988, the Mallard Creek WWTP model, completed in 1992, and the
Concord Regional WWTP model, also completed in 1988. The downstream model was
developed in 2001 to extend the model down to the USGS gage in Norwood.
When the downstream model was developed, it was combined with the upstream model, but the
upstream model was not recalibrated. This means the upstream model is about 20 years old and
is based on 20 -year old flow regimes. The downstream model was developed and calibrated
using very little monitoring data, although there is good time -of -travel and long term BOD data.
Most of the other parameters were estimated from data collected during one -sampling trip in
May. I am particularly concerned that tributary inputs to the Rocky are not fully accounted for in
the model. For these reasons, the Rocky River QUAL2E model is in need of recalibration and
extreme care should be taken in interpreting model results.
The model was run for the Muddy Creek WWTP current permitted discharge of 0.3 MGD and
the proposed expansion to 5.0 MGD. This discharge occurs at about river mile 43 in the model.
Figure 2 shows the simulated dissolved oxygen (DO) levels for the two different scenarios. The
model results indicate that a 5.0 MGD discharge with a monthly average BOD limit of 5 mg j/
and a monthly average ammonia limit of 1 mg/l will have minor impacts on the DO levels in the
river, but will not lower the levels below 5 mg/l. Although the model results indicate that

dissolved oxygen in the river would most likely meet water quality standards, the predicted
dissolved oxygen levels should be interpreted with caution. These levels would depend on flows
from tributaries and other W WTPs discharging to the Rocky River and the current river
conditions.
Analyses of dissolved oxygen data from 2000-2006 from various stations along the Rocky River
are provided in Figures 3-12. Stations Q8210000, Q8355000, and Q8385000 exhibit DO
concentrations below the standard of 5 mg/L during the summer months. The low DO values at
Station Q8385000 are of particular concern because this station is right below the Muddy Creek
W WTP discharge. If there is an expansion of the ,:Muddy Creek'WWTP; the 'P 6rmit should
4 be noted that the Rocky River is impaired for turbidity. Therefore, any expansion
not have any further impact on the turbidity in the Rocky River.
As part of the speculative limits request, there was also a request to determine the speculative
maximum discharge that may be permissible assuming that the plant is upgraded to best practical
technology for BOD and Ammonia removal. Due to the age of the model and the associated
uncertainties, the Rocky River QUAL2E model is not an adequate tool to determine the
maximum discharge that may be permissible.
The Rocky River QUAL2E model needs to be recalibrated and updated to current conditions
prior to considering any further speculative limit discharge requests. The model should also be
extended down to the confluence of the Rocky River and the Pee Dee River. The current model
ends at the USGS gage in Norwood and shows DO decreasing (see Figure 2). It is important to
extend the model further downstream to see if the DO recovers before it reaches the Pee Dee
River, which is impaired for low DO.
If the dischargers in this area are working together to develop a regional plan (as recommended
by DWQ earlier this year), perhaps they can include updating and expanding the QUAL2E
model as part of their planning process. This will provide the dischargers with a tool to test
various scenarios as they work towards developing a regional plan. The Modeling and TMDL
Unit can provide guidance and review of the model.
If you have any questions please contact me at 919-733-5083 ext. 506.
2

_A.
e01.0%ni 80 -- I 11' 0 1663 p LFn
RORTZ CAROLZM ` ,�� a& 3 COURT oil JUBTICB
I pY,12' 1 0_ COURT DIVX81ON
CABARRUB COUNiii. ` JAN Ll N 4 Cva, ,g.3,7 A;, , .
r r:'E�PY
,. , : � • - car,; rr� F; c ;S/ .�. -- ,
RtT; E OF SUPERIOR' COURT
CABARRUB•C0�"i� +.•;!,';;:�;jsF(1 C� ,
piaintiff F r1:AqRRRU COUNTIS
Defendant. Jir(lt)
6666 ................66.0.6.........
THIS CAUSE, coming on to be heard and being heard before His
Honor, James C. Davis, Resident Judge of the 19-A Judicial
District, upon the consent of the parties affixed hereto for Final
Judgment;
AND IT FURTHER APPEARING TO THE COURT and the Court finding as
fact that:
1. This action was duly instituted on the 20th day of
October, 1994, by the issuance of Summons and filing of a
Complaint, Declaration of Taking, and Notice of Deposit, along with
the deposit into the Court of Fifty -Two Thousand Five Hundred and
00/100 Dollars ($52,500.00), the sum estimated by the plaintiff to
be just compensation for the taking of the property of the
defendants (the "Original Deposit").
2. Summons, together with a copy of the Compliint,
Declaration of Taking, and Notice of Deposit, were duly served upon
each of the defendants as appears on record.
3. All persons having or claiming to have an interest in the
condemned land are parties hereto and are duly before the Court.
1
11
40

•
•
r�
L
m,J70&!GF 81
4. On the 18th day of September, 1995, by and with the
consent of the parties, plaintiff filed an "Amended, Supplemental
and Restated Complaint, Declaration of Taking and Notice of
Deposit", together with the additional sum of Four Thousand Seven
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,750.00) for an additional taking of an
easement/right-of-way, resulting in a total deposit of Fifty -Seven
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($57,250.00) (the "Total
Deposit") for the property described in "Exhibit All attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference (the "Condemned Property").
5. On April 17, 1996, Commissioners of Appraisal, duly
appointed pursuant to G.S. 40A-48, filed their Report awarding
damages for the Condemned Property to the defendant in the amount
of Ninety -Five Thousand Two Hundred Ninety -Five Dollars
($95,295.00) (the "Award"). The Award includes the Total Deposit.
6. By their Consents affixed hereto, plaintiff and defendant
have resolved and settled this Action upon the following terms and
conditions:
(a) The plaintiff, Cabarrus County will pay to the defendant,
Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., total compensation of Ninety-six
Thousand Two Hundred Seventy -Five Dollars ($96,275.00)
• (the "Settlement Amount"). This amount represents
compensation for the taking of the Condemned Property as
well as damages to the remaining property of the
defendant resulting from the condemnation. Any amounts
previously paid into the Court by the plaintiff that have
not been previously released shall be released to
Ba.Am.lv., Inc., immediately, with all amounts previously
paid into the Court by Cabarrus County to offset against
the Settlement Amount;
(b) Cabarrus County shall screen the entire southern and
-western perimeter of the Condemned Property as outlined
in attached "Exhibit B". Cabarrus County will plant
along the southern and western perimeter of the Condemned
Property three rows of trees. The first row of trees,
-2-

closest to the remaining property, will consist of Leland
cypress trees, the second and third rows of trees will
consist of white pine and/or loblolly pine trees. The
trees will be planted by cabarrus County twenty (20) feet
from each other "on center". Each tree will be three to
five feet in height when planted, and the rows of trees
shall be staggered (e.g. the second row of pine trees
shall be planted behind but in between each Leland
cypress tree located in the first row). Ba.Am. IV., Inc.,
shall have the right to build and construct a berm(s) on
the Condemned Property using dirt, soil or other
excavation material obtained from the Condemned Property.
The cost of constructing the berm(s), excluding the dirt
and excavation materials, shall be incurred by Ba.Am.Iv.,
Inc. If Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., elects to construct berm(s)
upon the Condemned Property, Cabarrus County shall plant
trees as referenced above on top of the berm(s). The
trees shall be planted by Cabarrus County at a time
suitable for planting such trees but during 1997. Prior
to planting the trees, Cabarrus County shall provide
Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., with at least thirty (30) days written
notice prior to the date on which the trees will be
planted so that Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., can construct the
berm(s) upon which the trees will be planted by Cabarrus
County. Cabarrus County will replace any trees that die.
Planting of the trees by Cabarrus County must begin and
must be completed during the year 1997.
(c) The parties have agreed that the owners of the Remaining
Property (currently Ba.Am.Iv., Inc.) shall have the
right, access and easement to enter the Condemned
Property at and within an easement area reasonable in
width for access and use purposes as determined by
Cabarrus County and Ba.Am.lv., Inc., in the reasonably
near future. Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., shall have the right to
use such easement for ingress, egress and regress on,
over and through the Condemned Property from its
remaining property for the purpose of delivering waste
and waste water generated on or from the remaining
property and place the same into the waste water
treatment facility located on the Condemned Property.
Cabarrus County does hereby grant, bargain, sell and
convey unto Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., (as owner of the Remaining
Property) the non-exclusive right and easement for
ingress, egress and regress to and from the Remaining
Property to the Condemned Property and on, over and
through the Condemned Property to the waste water
treatment facility for the use of such waste water
treatment facility as referred to herein, and the parties
acknowledge that such grant of easement as hereby
specified shall be an easement appurtenant to the
Remaining Property and a burden on the Condemned Property
WC
t
0
49

•
and shall inure to the benefit of the owner of the
Remaining Property (currently Ba.Am.Iv., Inc.), its
successors and assigns, and that such easement as hereby
granted shall run with the land. Further, the plaintiff
and defendant acknowledge that the easement hereby
granted contemplates surface use as well as underground
use of the easement area for the purposes herein set
forth., The parties agree to identify the specific
easement area and delineate the same in an Easement
Agreement which shall include a minimum of all of the
terms set forth herein, with more specifics relating to
the physical location of the easement area as defined by
a current survey;
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COURT CONCLUDES
that:
1. The plaintiff was entitled to acquire and did acquire on
the 20th day of October, 1994, the Condemned Property described
herein.
-4-
•
83
(d) Cabarrus County will not be responsible or liable for any
costs associated with installing any utility line to
service the Remaining Property.
(e) If Cabarrus County determines in the future that it
desires to sell, lease or otherwise alienate the
Condemned Property or any portion thereof, it hereby
agrees to grant the right of first refusal to purchase,
lease or otherwise obtain any portion of the Condemned
.
Property to Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., at the recognized present
fair market value of such property of $5,000.00 per acre
(exclusive of improvements located on such land). If
Cabarrus County does decide to sell, lease or -otherwise
alienate any portion of the Condemned Property in the
future, it shall give written notice to Ba.Am.Iv., Inc.,
of such intent by specifying the affected area and the
transaction contemplated, and Ba.Am.Iv., Inc. shall have
thirty (30) days from receipt of such written notice to
notify Cabarrus County of its decision to purchase or
otherwise acquire such interest in the Condemned
Property. If written notice of desire to purchase or
otherwise acquire an interest in the Condemned Property
is not communicated back to Cabarrus County by Ba. Am. IV. I
Inc., within such thirty (30) day period from receipt of
notice, Cabarrus County shall be entitled to assume that
Ba.Am.Iv., Inc., does not desire to purchase or otherwise
acquire the interest in the property and shall be free to
deal with third parties regarding the Condemned property.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COURT CONCLUDES
that:
1. The plaintiff was entitled to acquire and did acquire on
the 20th day of October, 1994, the Condemned Property described
herein.
-4-
•
83

ti
BOud7S.-AE 84
2. The terms set forth in Paragraph 6 hereinbefore are fair,
full and just compensation for the taking of the Condemned
Property.
3. These proceedings, an appear from the pleadings, are
regular in all respects, and no reason exists for not entering
Final Judgment based upon the consent of the parties.
4. Except as expressly set forth herein, the defendants are
entitled to no further relief from the plaintiff as a result of the
taking.
NOW, THEREFOP.E, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. Plaintiff, Cabarrus County, has condemned and has been
and shall be permanently vested with, the property, interest and
estate, described in "Exhibit All attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
2. The Settlement Amount of Ninety -Six Thousand Two Hundred
Ninety -Five Dollars ($96,295.00) (which includes the Total Deposit
Of Fifty -Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($57,250.00), the
entirety of which has previously been deposited by the plaintiff
with the Court) shall be delivered to the defendant,'Ba.Am.Iv.,
Inc., immediately.
3. Receipt by the defendant of the sum of Ninety -Six
Thousand Two Hundred Ninety -Five Dollars ($96,295.00) (including
the Total Deposit of Fifty -Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars
($57,250.00)) shall be and constitute payment of the Settlement
Amount which, together with the plaintiffs compliance with the
GFfl
0
61
�A

•
Lo-, J79&!GE 85
additional terms set forth in Paragraph 6 hereinbefore, shall be
and constitute full and final resolution of this action.
4. The plaintiff shall pay the Commissioners of Appraisal,
i.e., Tyrone H. Harward, Allan King and Robert F. McCoy the sum of
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) each for their services as
Commissioners. These Commissions, together with the remaining
Costs of the action be and they are hereby taxed to the plaintiff.
S. A copy of this Judgment shall bi certified under seal of
the Court to the Register of Deeds of Cabarrus County, and the
Register of Deeds be and he is hereby ordered to record this
Judgment among the land records of Cabarrus County.
• This the SO day of December, 1996.
aa esC. Davia
Senior Resident Judge
19-A Judicial District
WE CONSENT:
CABARRUS COUNTY
B
Fle cher L. Hartsel , J
Cabarrus County Attorney
BA.A
Bys
r�
t7
-6-

=1798nv 8
Lying and being in No. 11 Township of Cabarrus County, North
Catalina, wast of and adjacent to Rocky River adjoining John B.
Green and more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at.a point, station 29-55.78, a corner of Green and
Ba.Am.Iv., Inc.; thence with Green*s line, S. 57-41-16 E., 1,056.34
feet to a point along the west bank of Rocky River; thence two
lines with Rocky River as follows: (1) S. 41-12-21 W., 554.24 feet
to a point; (2) S. 48-16-33 W., 345.63 feet to a point on the west
bank of Rocky River, a new corner with Ba.Am.iv., Inc., thence two
new lines with Ba.Am.IV., Inc. as follows: (1) N. 57--41-16 W.,
875.99 feet to a point; (2) N. 30-41-51 E., 800.00 feet to the
BEGINNING containing 17.942 acres more or less, together with an
easement for utility lines (water, sewer or otherwise) ingress,
egress and regress to from and over the property of Ba.Am.iv.,
Inc., more particularly described as follows:
Tract No. 2
(Right of Way/Easement)
Lying and being in No. 10 Township, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
and being a non-exclusive right of way for utility lines and for
ingress, egress, and regress to, from, and over that strip of land
twenty (20) feet in width for a portion and the remainder thirty
(30) feet in width, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an existing iron pin at the end of an existing
sixty (60) foot right of way leading from Hopewell Church Road and
being a corner between Ba.Am.IY., Inc. (Deed Book 819, page 215)
and Charles W. Purr (Deed Book 463, Page 491) and in the line of
Summerhill Developers, Inc., (Deed Book 704, Page 291 and Deed Book
722 at Page 362); thence with the line of Summerhill Developers,
Inc.` S. 54--21-57 E., 518.62 feet to a point corner with John B.
Green, II (Deed Book 724 at Page 308); thence with the line of
Green S. 59-46-12 E., 773.24 feet to the beginning point of a
circular curve; thence with the curve to the right with a radius of
135 feet an arc distance of 122.72 feet to a point (chord bearing
and distance S. 33-45-03 E., 118.53 feet); thence S. 7-42-35 E.,
371.24 feet to the beginning of a circular curve; then with the
curve to the left with a radius of 105 feet, an arc distance of
91.59 feet to a point (chord bearing and distance S. 32-41-56 E.,
88.71 feet); thence S. 57.41-16 E., 3.11 feet to a point the
northwest corner of a 17.942 acre parcel, said point also being S.
30-41-51 W., 385.30 feet from a corner with John B. Green, II;
thence with the 17.942 acre parcel S. 30-41-51 W., 30.01 feet to a
point; thence N. 57-41-16 W., 3.95 feet to the beginning point of
a circular curve; thence with the curve to the right with a radius
•
0

•
to,IA 798- pace 87
a circular curve; thence with the curve to the right with a radius i
of 135 feet an arc distance of 117.76 feet to a point (chord
bearing and distance N. 32-41-56 W., 114.06 feet); thence N. 7-42-
35 W., 371.24 feet to the beginning of a circular curve; thence
with the curve to the left with a radius of 105 feet and arc
distance of 95.45 feet to a point (chord bearing and distance N.
33-45-03 W., 92.19 feet); thence N. 59-46-12 W., 774„66 feet to a ,
point; thence N. 54-21-57 W., 250.98 feet to a point; thence N. 35-
38-03 E., 10.00 feet to a point; thence N. 54-21-57 W., 270.00 feet
to a point in the line of Charles W. Furr and in the line of an
exisiting 60.foot right of way; thence with Furr's line and the 60
foot right of way N. 38-21-40 E., 20.02 feet to the point of
beginning and containing 1.23 acres as shown on a map entitled
property of: Ba.Am.Iv. , Inc., prepared by Tony B. Sanders,
Registered Land Surveyor, dated October 1, 1993.
Tract No. ,_1
(Additional Right of Way/Easement)
Lying and being in No. 10 Township, Cabarrus County, North Carolina
and being a non-exclusive right of way for utility lines and for
' ingress, egress, and regress to, from, and over that strip of land,
generally an additional fifteen (15) feet in width and more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point 273.24 feet from the corner between
Charles W. Furr (Deed Book 463, page 491) and Ba.Am.Iv., Inc. (Deed
Book 819, page 215) and 15 feet off of the south side of the right
of way/easement described in Tract No. 2 and continuing along the
line S. 52-42-51 E., 212.12 feet to the beginning point of a
circular curve with the radius of 525.00 feet, for a distance of
64.85 feet to the ending point of the circular curve; then
continuing along the line S. 59-47-31 E. for a distance of
approximately 746.39 feet until intersecting with the right of
way/easement described in Tract No. 2 in the next circular curve.
The easement makes a parallel shift to the opposite side of the
right of way/easement described in Tract No. 2 at this point and
continues on the same line of S. 59-47-31 E. for a distances of
approximately 37.00 feet where it turns to follow the line of S.
07-42-35 E. for a distance of approximately 455.00 feet until
intersecting with the right of way/easement described in Tract•No.
2 in the next circular curve. The easement makes a parallel shift
to the opposite side of the right of way/easement described in
Tract No. 2 at this point and continues on the same line of S. 07-
42-35 T. for approximately 32.00 feet where it turns to follow the
line of S. 57-41-16 E. for a distance of approximately 29.00 feet
where it intersects with the line of John B. Green, III (Deed Book
. 724, page 308) containing 0.55 acres.
r�

is
nu179 sE 88
Lel r
N 38'21'40' E
11
1 1 M
...� 1467.39' r
'�mr
j� Rivpr•la•^'••ny
goal
•?o�:'�1
i�. '
(1�
f
y
i e� _ N;N '
s�.
tv
m
1.1
m� N
r
H
�$r-+ap
11
C
U
N'
'
C
�
I.;p
1 1
N 4 0
ti40.y
YY
,F S a` i. .
i i
r1
v
V
1
w
i�
q
fn
Qry�
N
q,OE'SOtt
��r��p
I
1
sn
wan
S
11 .tS.tr.DE S
� �
o'
1
A .tS.tY.DE t
CD
a
l
tly
.w
I
1
~
1
rya P
}will nn
4
•p
� A_
O�
* . k L1
rte.
L3 L2 S 14.36.32• y
-0A � M p
61.Op4
11
X1_2_1V
�
�b$~r
w
534.24' ^ _�.�
u:qq$ .a
V'O o
O
` ry
RoCk
,
n u
N
'�mr
j� Rivpr•la•^'••ny
SO
•?o�:'�1
i�. '
(1�
f
y
i e� _ N;N '
s�.
tv
C
U
N'
'
N
4 � e� d41 � R4 ..•
ti40.y
,F S a` i. .
•
u

le
10
� 0
� 0
89
f
,c:>
+ Bi)u
-:::oA
p
o
1
p
m
74
W3SV3 ,0
�..1N3'u
C
a
M K
p
(�
in
I
n
L!1
s
U1
CD
6
y�1°H tl w
Ln a,
1 v
Y-
w
f-), rl
LA
N 9- AC
LIN:3W3SV3
1
Ln
0,-, 1
tb
1
w I
con
1Gru
V�3
1
SIC
'N
r)
rn
.
�2 e
X
►.� ,oz
N
W
► 'D
•
►cV
►X
o GN
1r"k ► N
•Q� $
m ►
N
M ��5,��
� N ►
.A
+
+
o
On
rri o ► W
Ln
► N
v
m
OD
3
89
f

SOGX1��701'!CE. 90
x
!
1
a
c
�
I�I II
O 6
m I
I I D
I
I
j00y
Ili
,.i r
a ISO
0
I
y
�I
r
i
I I
t
.I
t
�
44rT. r r'
r
��_�r�7 �R�N RO►'�_
x
!
a
c

10
� 0
� 0
o
I
\
p ER
M N E�A�SE�MyE+N
ggQQ
�+r'S
QQ�jj M
i5
yp
Y � �
tOM10:i`
Cd
n.
n
b2oii��
I
�
tONb�rryi
+za�oJM
I
o
I
\
QQ�jj M
yp
Y � �
tOM10:i`
b
BOAPD&a 91

d
5=1798P.:GE 92
t�
;m�Mh
g
.�h
�TA 23,00
�o 4r
;.PAI�EIL
4SEMENi, I
�Qu•
w

le
� 0
� 0
� 0
rr�o

{
- _ OUTFALL TO
ROCKY RIVER
T
SCALE: 1 " = 100'
UUIIIIS ENGINEERS
a
_ :4
_r
494
i f
_.sem
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE D
SITE PLAN
APRIL 2018
WSACC
r..�

OUTFALL TO
ROCKY RIVER
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
■ ALTERNATIVE D
UUIIIISENGINEERS FLOW SCHEMATIC
APRIL 2018
WSACC
r..�

Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative D
Capital Costs
Item
Cost
Influent Pumping Station (100 HP)
$1,500,000
Headworks (5 HP)
$400,000
Aeration Basins, Blowers (130 HP)
$1,250,000
Secondary Clarifiers (1 HP, 60' Diameter)
$750,000
RAS / WAS Pumping Station (5 HP RAS, 5 HP WAS)
$1,000,000
Tertiary Filtration
$1,250,000
Disinfection (10 kW)
$1,500,000
Casade Aeration
$100,000
Aerated Sludge Holding Tank
$750,000
Plant Water System
$150,000
Electrical
$750,000
Stand-by Power System
$500,000
Instrumentation and Controls
$300,000
Site Work
$400,000
Sub -Total $10,600,000
Contingencies (20%) $2,120,000
Technical Services (15%) $1,910,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $14,630,000
$14,700,000
Reccuring Costs
Item Annual Cost
Operation and Maintenance $80,000
Laboratory Costs $8,000
Operator and Staff $40,000
Residual Disposal @ 280 tons/ yr $250,000
Power Costs $150,000
Total Estimated Recurring Costs $528,000
Present Value Cost Analysis
1+r 1
PV= Co+C (
r(1 + ry
Co Cost incured in the present year $14,700,000
C Recurring Costs $528,000
n Ending year of the life of the facility 20
r Current EPA discount rate 2%
PV Present Value Cost $23,333,557
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 1 WSACC

BioWin Model
Background
Alternative D
For part of the Analysis of Alternative D, the proposed 1.0 wastewater treatment plant was evaluated
under various flow scenarios and treatment conditions. Part of the Speculative Limits Analysis performed
by NCDEQ is to assess how the discharge of oxygen consuming waste will affect the receiving water body.
Their analysis is performed under two scenarios: one with a filtered effluent and one without. In order to
ensure the WWTP can reach the limits used for the Speculative Limits analysis, two models were
developed using BioWin. Model 1 was developed to assess the proposed WWTP performance without
tertiary filtration, and Model 2 was created to analyze plant performance with tertiary filtration. Both
models were assessed during design flow conditions (1.0 mgd) and during peak flow conditions (3.5 mgd).
Below are two figures illustrating the layouts of Model 1 and 2, as configured in BioWin.
Aeration Basin 1
> �o
Influent Effluent
Aeration Basin 2
Peak Flow ` ..
f
No Peak to Process Wastage
Model 1, shown above, has two parallel process trains containing an aeration basin and clarifier. BioWin
does not currently offer any disinfection component to their software, so this aspect of the treatment
process was omitted from these modeling efforts.
Aeration Basin 1
I ..". I
Influent
— Aeration Basin 2
Peak Flow
No Peak to Process
Wastage
4
Effluent
■
Model 2, shown above, has a similar configuration to Model 1, as well as a filter component added to the
treatment process (shown to the left of the "Effluent" component). The filter's backwash is re -fed to the
headworks of the WWTP. The representation of the tertiary filtration in one vs. multiple units has no
effect on the effluent in this BioWin simulation. The filter unit is currently represented as a single
component to simplify the compiling efforts needed to run the model. For the actual WWTP design, there
will be at least two units for redundancy.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 WSACC

BioWin Model
Alternative D
Results and Discussion
The results of the two simulations for each model are presented in the table below. For each simulation,
a BOD and TSS influent of 250 mg/L was used. Influent Nitrogen was assumed to be around 35 mg/L. These
values were approximated from historical wastewater influent conditions seen at Muddy Creek.
Effluent
Model Flow (mgd) BOD [mg/L] TSS [mg/L] NH3-N [mgN/L]
1 1.0 5.3 5.8 0.3
2 1.0 4.8 2.9 0.2
1 3.5 11 22 0.5
2 3.5 8.0 11 0.4
The Speculative Limits assessment assumes the proposed facilities will be able to achieve BODS and NH3-
N levels of at least 5 and 1 mg/I, respectively. The results indicate that WWTP should be able to accomplish
these levels during design flow and peak flow with or without tertiary filtration.
Willis Engineers NPDES Engineering Alternatives Analysis
April 2018 WSACC