The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020.08.11 FINAL Sidbury and Greenview Water and Sewer PER FINALTable of Contents Sidbury and Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - Technical Memoranda - Table of Contents • Executive Summary • Technical Memorandum 1.0 Introduction & Background • Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections • Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach • Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results • Technical Memorandum 5.0 Wastewater Offsite Analysis • Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure Recommendations Figures • Executive Summary Figure 0.1 – Recommended Water System Improvements • Executive Summary Figure 0.2 – Recommended Wastewater System Improvements with Relative Diameter, Length, & Cost • Executive Summary Figure 0.3 – Recommended Water System Improvements with Relative Diameter, Length, & Cost • TM 1.0 Figure 1.1 – Project Area • TM 2.0 Figure 2.1 – Known Developments & Other Large Developable Tracts • TM 3.0 Figure 3.1 – Existing Wastewater Infrastructure • TM 3.0 Figure 3.2 – Existing Water Infrastructure • TM 3.0 Figure 3.3 – Recommended Wastewater System Improvements • TM 3.0 Figure 3.4 – Recommended Wastewater System Improvements SA-1 • TM 3.0 Figure 3.5 – Recommended Wastewater System Improvements SA-2 • TM 3.0 Figure 3.6 – Recommended Wastewater System Improvements SA-3 • TM 3.0 Figure 3.7 – Overview Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.8 – Castle Hayne Rd South Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.9 – North College Rd Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.10 – Holly Shelter Rd 2030 Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.11 – Sidbury Rd West Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.12 – Sidbury Rd East Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.13 – Plantation Rd West Proposed Water Mains Table of Contents Sidbury and Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 2 - • TM 3.0 Figure 3.14 – Plantation Rd East Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.15 – Castle Mayne Rd North Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.16 – Holly Shelter Rd 2040 Connection Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.17 – Blue Clay Rd 2040 Proposed Water Mains • TM 3.0 Figure 3.18 – Blue Clay Rd 2050 Proposed Water Mains Appendices • Appendix A – Master Plans Provided by NHC • Appendix B – Available Capacity of Existing Water Facilities • Appendix C – Water System Analysis • Appendix D – Detailed Opinions of Probable Construction Costs Executive Summary Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was developed to evaluate the feasibility of constructing public water and wastewater infrastructure throughout the Sidbury-Greenview area. The project area represents significant potential growth and future development in New Hanover County. Water and wastewater flow projections were developed by utilizing both conceptual development plans and current zoning to determine the probable development mixture in the project area. The probable development mixture was used to determine the required infrastructure improvements that will be necessary to meet projected future demands. This PER utilized County-provided master plans for known developments to create the probable development mixture, based on land use, that would likely populate the area if sufficient public utilities were available. The overall project area development mixture is comprised of: • 70% Residential • 17% Industrial • 8% Recreational • 5% Commercial Hazen-Sawyer recently completed the Water Master Plan, with a flow factor of 211 GPD/REU, which was derived from historical usage data. The historical data method for projecting water demands was evaluated and compared to two other methods used for demand projections. The geographical relevance and historical basis made it favorable for generating design water and wastewater demands for the project area. The projected water and wastewater demands for the Sidbury-Greenview area, in 10-year increments, through year 2050 are in Table 1 and are broken down into seven service areas detailed in TM 2.0: Table 1 – Recommended Design Demands for Planning & Modeling Purposes Wastewater Projected Total Flow (Build-Out) Water Projected Total Flow (Build-Out) 5.22 5.75 Recommended Design Demands for Planning & Modeling Purposes (MGD) 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050 1.04 2.09 3.13 1.15 2.30 3.44 Executive Summary Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 2 - WASTEWATER The general approach to provide wastewater infrastructure in the project area was based upon a primary force main configuration. In this configuration, newly generated wastewater flow is conveyed to the existing system. Developers intending to establish new developments in the Sidbury-Greenview area are responsible for their own local wastewater collection system, which would be accomplished by a combination of conventional gravity sewer and pump station with sewer force main that manifolds into the corresponding primary sewer force main. The primary sewer force mains and connection points to the existing system were evaluated for strategic locations to utilize the area topography, accommodate local collection infrastructure, and ultimately optimize the service areas for future growth. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) would ultimately own and maintain such infrastructure. Hydraulic modeling was conducted to determine infrastructure sizing, phasing, and hydraulic impacts. The following recommendation for wastewater was developed based on the hydraulic modeling results and findings. The phased implementation of the infrastructure improvements is broken down into 10-year increments through the 30-year planning horizon. Off-site improvements to existing infrastructure were also evaluated based on current available capacity of the facilities and the projected demands. Cost estimates were also provided for each phased improvement as required to meet the projected demands for the recommended system. As detailed in TM 3.0, SA-1 will require a parallel 12-inch sewer force main when the projected wastewater demands reach 1.12 MGD. The recommended wastewater infrastructure improvements, with relative diameters, lengths, and costs, are shown in Figure 0.2 and are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 – Summary of the Wastewater Recommendation Location Diameter Cost Per Linear Foot SA-1 12” Single $140 12” Parallel $140 SA-2 12” $98 8” $78 Executive Summary Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 3 - Location Diameter Cost Per Linear Foot SA-3 SA-3 8” $78 6” $65 SA-4 8” $78 SA-5 4” $52 SA-6 12” $125 SA-7 8” $78 WATER The hydraulic analysis performed evaluated a proposed growth for the Sidbury and Greenview areas of 1.15 MGD every 10 years. The goal of this study was to recommend improvements to meet the additional demand and the following goals: • Hydraulically balance elevated storage tanks • Ensure adequate AFF of 1,500 GPM within Sidbury and Greenview • Maintain peak hour pressures above 40 PSI • Maintain reasonable water age • Provide adequate storage, pump and treatment capacity through 2050 The hydraulic analysis found that 11 main water line projects would be needed to meet the goals above, as shown in Figure 0.1. Five of these projects are outside of the Sidbury and Greenview area. The preliminary cost estimates for these projects are included in Table 3. Figure 0.3 shows the recommended water system improvements with relative diameters, lengths, and costs. The proposed 2030 water lines include a 12-inch along Castle Hayne Rd South and a 16-inch along North College Rd. It was determined that as the average day demand along Sidbury Rd approaches 230 GPM, the Castle Hayne Rd improvement will be needed. This will allow the full 2030 growth along Sidbury Rd to be meet. As demand approaches an additional 75 GPM on Holly Shelter Rd, the North College Rd improvement will be needed. Executive Summary Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 4 - The 2030 plant capacity analysis confirmed CFPUA’s current plan of increasing Sweeney and Richardson plant and well field capacity from 35 MGD and 6 MGD to 44 MGD and 9.6 MGD, respectively. This analysis also determined that as demand in the future Sweeney/Richardson zone reaches 42 MGD (80% of the WTP joined capacities), WTP expansion planning should be initiated. The hydraulic modeling results as shown above meet the project goals. It is, however, recommended that the system be reevaluated as developments are built and more refined proposed numbers are understood. Table 3 - Water Distribution System Improvement Preliminary Cost Year Projects Total Cost 2030 Castle Hayne Rd south: 9,280 ft – 12” $1.82 MM Holly Shelter Rd: 15,450 ft – 12” $2.55 MM North College RD: 9,630 ft – 16” $1.85 MM Plantation Rd west: 18,120 ft – 12” & 780 ft – 16” $3.21 MM Plantation Rd east: 14,600 ft – 16” $2.68 MM Sidbury Rd west: 17,770 ft – 16” $3.51 MM Sidbury Rd east: 20,650 ft – 12” & 1,000 ft – 16” $3.54 MM 2040 Castle Hayne Rd north: 13,970 ft – 16” $2.85 MM Holly Shelter Rd Connection: 60 ft – 12” $47,000 Blue Clay Rd 2040: 12,340 ft – 12” $1.87 MM 2050 Blue Clay Rd 2050: 6,000 ft – 12” $1.23 MM Total $25.16 MM END OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Technical Memorandum 1.0 Introduction & Background Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of constructing public water and wastewater infrastructure throughout the Sidbury-Greenview area of New Hanover County. The project area represents an area of significant potential growth and future development in New Hanover county. The Ogden/Porters Neck area (south and east of the project boundaries) has experienced tremendous growth in the past decade and continues to expand both residential and commercial interests. Access to this area continues to improve with the recently completed opening of I-140 to US 17 in Brunswick County, and the on-going Hampstead bypass that will streamline access from Military Cut-Off to Pender County. Growth and infill continue to occur west of I-40, which marks the western most boundary of the proposed study area (see Figure 1.1). As the areas surrounding the project area continue to grow, it will likely create additional pressure for growth in the Sidbury area for residential, commercial and industrial interests. Sidbury Farms is one development that has been approved by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and will add 750 homes on Sidbury Road. Sidbury Farms is primarily residential and will utilize CFPUA infrastructure for water and wastewater service. In addition to Sidbury Farms, several other large tracts are poised for development including the Cameron Holdings (4,200 acres), Corbett Holdings (1,265 acres), Trask Holdings (822 acres), and several other smaller tracts intended for residential development (361 acres). Given the development interests noted above, the study boundary is effectively surrounded by areas of on-going growth, planned growth, and known potential growth. The purpose of the PER is to evaluate the study area and develop a proactive and flexible/adaptive plan to accommodate growth for a 30-year planning horizon and ultimately the buildout of the Sidbury-Greenview Area. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT MIXTURE New Hanover County and Cape Fear Public Utility Authority staff provided master plans, known development interests, population projections, and county growth rates to aid in the production of flow projections in the project area. The project area was broken down into service areas delineated by major road ways and property boundaries. Based on information provided by New Hanover County (provided Appendix A), the development mixture for Cameron Holdings is provided in Table 1 below: Technical Memorandum 1.0 Introduction & Background Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 2 - Table 1 – Development Mixture of Cameron Holdings Commercial Industrial Residential Recreational Cameron Holdings 10% 17% 56% 17% The Cameron Holdings development mixture was used as a basis for estimating the probable development mixture for Corbett Holdings and the unplanned portion of Trask Holdings. Similarly, the Sidbury Farms master plan (provided in Appendix A) was used as a basis for estimating the probable development mixture for similar tracts with known development interest for residential use such as: o Charleston Lakes o Island Creek o Lee Hills Subdivision o Murrayville Road o Northern NHC Tracts o Blanton Property o Stephens Church Road o Blake Tracts o Rock Church PRIMARY GOALS AND DRIVERS GOALS 1. Project water and wastewater demands for 10, 20, and 30-year increments 2. Develop approach to meet water and wastewater demands for project area 3. Provide recommendations for infrastructure planning 4. Communicate findings with CFPUA staff, NHC staff, and Respective Boards (as required) to streamline planning and coordination of project area development DRIVERS 1. Significant development interests within the project area 2. Current lack of infrastructure within the project area is hindering development END OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - 2.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of Technical Memorandum (TM) 2.0 is to provide an evaluation of demand projections for water and wastewater needs in the Sidbury-Greenview Area in New Hanover County. The evaluation is based on a 30-year planning period and stratified in 10-year increments through the year 2050. Projections have been derived by utilizing data and information provided by New Hanover County staff and Cape Fear Public Utility Authority staff. New Hanover County and Cape Fear Public Utility Authority staff provided master plans, known development interests, population projections, and county growth rates to aid in the production of flow projections in the project area. The project area was broken down into service areas delineated by major road ways and property boundaries. Table 1 summarizes the projected land use and developable acreage for each service area (Figure 3.1). Table 1 – Sidbury-Greenview Area Developable Acreage and Potential Land Use Service Area Zone Developable Acres Land Use (%) 1 880 100% Residential 2 1,920 60% Residential 19% Recreational 16% Commercial 5% Industrial 3 2,040 70% Residential 14% Industrial 13% Recreational 3% Commercial 4 1,180 79% Residential 8% Recreational 7% Industrial 6% Commercial 5 1,170 100% Residential 6 1,510 77% Industrial 19% Residential 4% Recreational 7 730 93% Residential 7% Commercial Total Developable Acreage 9,430 Acres Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 2 - The probable land use composition for the entire project area is as follows: • 69% Residential • 17% Industrial • 8% Recreational • 6% Commercial Further, the information provides descriptions of land uses in the service areas with relative acreages and unit counts. This information was used to project probable land use composition for surrounding areas with similar plans for development. Table 2 shows the flow factors assigned to each land use description. Table 2 – Sidbury-Greenview Area Land Use Descriptions and Assigned Flow Factors for Water and Wastewater Land Use Description *Wastewater Flow Factor Assigned (GPD/Unit) **Water Flow Factor Assigned (GPD/Unit) Units Office/Flex Space/Technology Hub 25 28 Employees/shift Medical campus with a variety of medical office, research, and ambulatory care facilities 880 978 Acre Residential/Independent Living Amenity 50 56 100 SF Parks 250 278 Plumbing Fixture Single Family/Multi Family/Independent Living 360 400 Residence Age-in-place community including assisted living and skilled nursing facility 880 978 Acre Neighborhood Commercial with Grocery and other Neighborhood Services with Restaurants 130 144 1000 SF Retail/Office 100 111 1,000 SF Sports Facilities 50 56 100 SF Regional Commercial Center 130 144 1,000 SF Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 3 - Baseball Stadium surrounded by condominiums over retail on first floor 880 978 Acre Light Industrial 880 978 Acre *The wastewater flow factors and units in Table 2 were taken from 15A NCAC 02T .0114 WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW RATES. Proposed non-residential developments where the specific types of use and occupancy are unknown are given a design flow factor of 880 gallons per acre, as recommended in 15A NCAC 02T .0114 WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW RATES. **The water flow factors in Table 2 were developed by converting each land use into residential equivalent units based on 15A NCAC 18C .0409 SERVICE CONNECTIONS Daily Flow Requirements. The projected water and wastewater needs within the project area are anticipated to be generated mainly from the following major tracts: 1. Cameron Holdings 2. Corbett Holdings 3. Trask Holdings 4. Sidbury Farms 5. Residential Tracts of Interest 6. Other Large Developable Tracts The “Residential Tracts of Interest” (No. 5 above) are areas that will be developed as residential communities in various location throughout the project corridor and are assumed to have density, composition, and features similar to Sidbury Farms. The residential tracts of interest are geographically depicted in Figure 2.1. Table 3 is a list of the residential tracts of interest with relative acreages: Table 3 – Residential Tracts of Interest Name Developable Acreage Hanover Reserve 80 Charleston Lakes 60 Island Creek 130 Lee Hills Subdivision 90 Northern NHC Tracts 200 Blanton Property 30 4908 Blue Clay Road 20 The Walk at Porters Neck 70 Yvonne Road 20 Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 4 - Name Developable Acreage Wild Magnolia 10 Murrayville Road 70 Stephens Church Road 20 Blake Tracts 60 Total Developable Acreage 860 “Other Large Developable Tracts” (No. 6 above) are areas that can be developed depending on their zoning designation. The large developable tracts are geographically depicted in Figure 2.1. Table 4 is a list of the large developable tracts with relative acreages. Table 4 – Other Large Developable Tracts and Relative Developable Acreages Name Developable Acreage Hanpin Land Co. 120 Seagreen LLC Tracts 410 Elementis Chromium 330 Martin Marrietta Materials 410 Skipper Properties 100 Hynda Dalton Tract 260 Total Developable Acreage 1,630 Table 5 shows the likely development mixtures of the major tracts of land based on current zoning and the concept plans provided by New Hanover County Planning Department for Cameron Holdings, Trask Holdings, and Sidbury Farms. Table 5 – Potential Development Mixtures of Major Tracts of Land Within the Project Corridor Land Use Cameron Holdings Corbett Holdings Trask Holdings Sidbury Farms Residential Tracts of Interest Other Large Developable Tracts Commercial 290 110 60 0 0 0 Industrial 550 170 90 0 0 830 Residential 1,620 540 450 310 940 800 Recreational 500 190 100 0 0 0 Total 2960 1,010 700 310 940 1,630 Total Developable Acreage = 7,550 acres Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 5 - NCDEQ Demand projections presented herein for water and wastewater needs are based on the data provided in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this TM. 2.2 NCDEQ WASTEWATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Total Build-Out NCDEQ demand projections are shown in the following Table 6. Table 6 – NCDEQ Wastewater Flow Projections Designated by Drainage Zones and Land Use (MGD) Service Area Zone Commercial Demand Industrial Demand Residential Demand Recreational Demand Build-Out Demand 1 - - 1.14 - 1.14 2 0.59 0.20 2.19 0.70 3.68 3 0.05 0.36 1.73 0.33 2.46 4 0.09 0.13 1.39 0.15 1.75 5 - - 0.88 - 0.88 6 - 1.50 ..5 0.38 0.07 1.96 7 0.11 - 1.36 - 1.47 Total Demand = 13.3 MGD 13.91 Table 7 provides a uniform projection of demands over the 30-year project planning period within the project area. Based on information provided by New Hanover County Planning Department, the ultimate build-out for the area will occur in 2070. Table 7 - Projected Incremental Total Flow for NCDEQ Wastewater Demands Service Area Zone 2030 2040 2050 1 0.22 0.46 0.68 2 0.74 1.47 2.21 3 0.49 0.99 1.48 4 0.35 0.70 1.05 5 0.18 0.35 0.53 6 0.39 0.78 1.17 7 0.29 0.59 0.88 Totals 2.67 MGD 5.34 MGD 8.00 MGD Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 6 - 2.3 NCDEQ WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Total Build-Out demand projections are shown in the following Table 8 for water. Table 8 – NCDEQ Drinking Water Flow Projections Designated by Service Area and Land Use Service Area Zone Commercial Demand Industrial Demand Residential Demand Recreational Demand Total Demand 1 - - 1.27 - 1.27 2 0.65 0.22 2.44 0.77 4.08 3 0.05 0.40 1.92 0.36 2.74 4 0.09 0.14 1.55 0.16 1.95 5 - - 1.0 - 1.0 6 - 1.67 0.42 0.08 2.17 7 0.12 - 1.51 - 1.64 Total MGD 0.91 2.43 10.1 1.38 14.85 MGD Table 9 provides a uniform projection of demands over the 30-year project planning period within the project corridor. Based on information provided by New Hanover County Planning Department, the ultimate buildout for the area would occur by 2070. Table 9 – NCDEQ Projected Incremental Total Flow for Drinking Water Demands Service Area Zone 2030 2040 2050 1 0.25 0.51 0.76 2 0.82 1.63 2.45 3 0.55 1.09 1.64 4 0.39 0.78 1.17 5 0.20 0.39 0.59 6 0.44 0.87 1.30 7 0.33 0.65 0.98 Totals (MGD) 2.53 5.92 8.89 Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 7 - 2.4 WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTION ALTERNATIVES Two additional methods were used to develop water and wastewater projections: 1. Metcalf & Eddy Method 2. Historical Data Method METCALF & EDDY METHOD The Metcalf & Eddy method is a per capita approach used to develop water demand projections. A flow factor of 70 GPDc is used for water. Wastewater projections are based on 90% recovery and 2.49 persons per household. Table 10 shows the incremental water and wastewater projections for the Metcalf & Eddy method. Table 10 - Metcalf & Eddy Method - Incremental Water and Wastewater Projections (MGD) Years Total Water Demand (MGD) 90% Recovery Wastewater (MGD) 2030 1.0 0.9 2040 2.0 1.8 2050 2.9 2.6 HISTORICAL DATA METHOD The Historical Data method is based on information provided in the Hazen-Sawyer Northern Water Mains Master Plan. A flow factor of 211 GPD/REU was derived from historical usage data and used for water projections. Wastewater projections are based on 90% recovery of the 211 GPD/REU. Table 11 shows the incremental water and wastewater projections for the Historical Data method: Table 11 - Historical Data Method - Incremental Water and Wastewater Projections (MGD) Years Total GPD Water (MGD) 90% Recovery Wastewater (MGD) 2030 1.2 1.1 2040 2.3 2.1 2050 3.5 3.2 Build-Out 6.0 5.4 The water and wastewater projections presented in Graphs 1 and 2 as follows: Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 8 - Graph 1 – Water Projections Comparison: Metcalf & Eddy, Historical Data, NCDEQ Flow Factors Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 9 - Graph 2 – Water Projections Comparison: Metcalf & Eddy, Historical Data, NCDEQ Flow Factors 2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The NCDEQ method for projecting water and wastewater needs is required when permitting flows but does not always accurately reflect the actual flows measured. As seen in Graphs 1 and 2, this method results in high projections that may not accurately represent the actual flows that would be measured in the project area; therefore, the NCDEQ method is not recommended for infrastructure planning purposes. The Metcalf & Eddy method utilizes the per capita approach to produce water and wastewater planning projections and is a comparative benchmark. When compared to the Historical Data method, Graphs 1 and 2 show that the Metcalf & Eddy method projections are slightly lower. Technical Memorandum 2.0 Demand Projections Sidbury-Greenview Area Water and Sewer Utilities Preliminary Engineering Report - 10 - The Historical Data method is based on real data gathered from areas surrounding the project corridor. The data was used to project the probable flows that will be seen within the Sidbury- Greenview Area. Graphs 1 and 2 show that the Historical Data method projections are slightly higher than the Metcalf & Eddy method and substantially lower than the NCDEQ method. The Historical Data method is favorable for generating design water demands and wastewater demands for the project area due to its geographical relevance, historical basis, and the conservative and comparative results shown in Graphs 1 and 2. Based on the information presented in the TM, it is recommended that the CFPUA and New Hanover County plan infrastructure improvements for the Sidbury-Greenview corridor based on the demands as summarized in the Table 12 below: Table 12 – Summary of Projected Wastewater and Water Demands (MGD) Wastewater Projected Total Flow (Build-Out) Water Projected Total Flow (Build-Out) 5.22 5.75 Recommended Design Demands for Planning & Modeling Purposes (MGD) 2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050 1.04 2.09 3.13 1.15 2.30 3.44 END OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - 3.1 INTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum 3.0 (TM 3.0) provides a basic approach to infrastructure planning and location. General concepts for wastewater infrastructure collection and conveyance as well as water infrastructure to include storage and distribution system mains are identified and provided in a graphical format. 3.2 WASTEWATER EXISTING FACILITIES The Sidbury-Greenview area has been broken into seven service area (SA) zones based on major highways, interstates and large parcel boundaries. The wastewater flow generated from each service area will be collected and conveyed through primary force mains along major roads, allowing developers to tie-in to the system at centralized locations as development progresses. Based on review of available CFPUA information, the following public utility infrastructure exists around the Sidbury-Greenview area. See Figure 3.1 for a geographical depiction of the surrounding wastewater infrastructure. o RPS1 Outfall o RPS1 o College Road Force Main o Blue Clay Road Force Main o Laney Outfall to Smith Creek Pump Station 89 o Country Haven Pump Station 95 o Kirkland Pump Station 135 Table 1 shows the current available pumping capacity of existing wastewater infrastructure. Table 1 – Current Available Capacity of Existing CFPUA Wastewater Infrastructure Surrounding Sidbury-Greenview Area (GPD) Name Available Capacity (GPD) RPS1 292,000 Country Haven (PS 95) 265,000 Kirkland (PS 135) 69,000 Smith Creek (PS 89) 567,000**** **** Based on diverting 317,000 GPD from PS 77 to PS 35 and flow from RPS1 to Blue Clay Rd FM. Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 2 - Preliminary routing of the proposed infrastructure was included as part of this evaluation. However, a more detailed analysis would be required as part of detailed design to ascertain a more definitive location of utilities and incorporate into design of infrastructure construction in the project corridor. 3.3 WASTEWATER CORRIDOR PLANNING APPROACH The general approach to provide wastewater infrastructure in the corridor was based upon a primary force main configuration, whereby newly generated wastewater flow would be conveyed to the existing system. Developers intending to establish new developments in the Sidbury- Greenview area are responsible for their own local wastewater collection system. This would be accomplished by a combination of conventional gravity sewer and pump station with sewer force main that would manifold into the corresponding primary sewer force main. Developers would also be responsible for constructing a section of primary sewer force main to connect their local wastewater collection system to the existing infrastructure or paying into a cost sharing agreement for off-site infrastructure that is already in place. The primary sewer force mains and connection points to the existing system were evaluated for strategic locations to utilize the area topography, accommodate local collection infrastructure, and ultimately optimize the service areas for future growth. For conveyance to the existing CFPUA wastewater system, five primary force mains and five primary connection points to the existing system were identified as feasible to accommodate the projected wastewater flows generated in the project area through year 2050 (see Figure 3.3): 3.4 WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE Each primary force main and connection point to the existing system are described in detail in as follows: Sidbury Road Force Main The Sidbury Road FM would convey flows generated from SA-1, SA-2, and the northern portion of SA-3. DR Horton’s new residential development, Sidbury Farms, will generate the initial wastewater flow for SA-1. This development is currently under design and will provide approximately 14,000 LF of 12-inch sewer FM connecting the new development to the existing system through Blue Clay Road Force Main Connection (See below). The 14,000 LF of 12-inch force main is considered the “Initial Phase” of the Sidbury Road Force Main, stimulating interest for future development in the area. The “Future Phase” of the Sidbury Road Force Main is an Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 3 - extension of the 12-inch FM down Sidbury Road to handle wastewater flow from the future development of the Cameron and Corbett Holdings and an 8-inch FM to serve Lee Hills Subdivision and other development interests east of the Future Hampstead Bypass. See Figures 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 for a geographic depiction of the proposed Sidbury Road Force Main phasing and known development interests. Blue Clay Road Force Main Connection Blue Clay Road FM intersects the N College Road FM in northern New Hanover County and conveys wastewater to NSWWTP. Initial investigation of this connection point yielded the following: • Blue Clay Road FM is the most feasible connection point for SA-1, 2, and the northern portion of SA-3. • The Blue Clay Road FM has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected demands until 2035 but when demand reaches 1 MGD of average daily flow, it would require a parallel force main to NSWWTP to meet the total projected 2050 demands. • A crossing of I-40 would be required via horizontal directional drill and is estimated at approximately 1,800 feet in length. Stephens Church Road Force Main The Stephens Church Road force main would convey wastewater flow generated from the eastern portion of SA-3 to the existing Stephens Church Road gravity sewer outfall (See below). Development in the eastern portion of SA-3 can be served by a 6-inch sewer force main. Based on projected demands, the downstream pump station (Kirkland PS-135) reaches capacity in 2030 (69,000 GPD). At this point, any future development would send flow North towards the Sibury Road force main. Stephens Church Road Outfall Stephens Church Road Outfall is a gravity sewer system near the intersection of Stephens Church Road and Market Street. The gravity sewer conveys wastewater to Kirkland PS 135. Initial investigation of this connection point yielded the following: • Kirkland PS 135 has sufficient capacity to serve flow generated in this service area through year 2030 (69,000 GPD). Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 4 - • Gravity sewer connecting Stephens Church Road Outfall to PS 135 appears to have sufficient capacity to convey these projected flows. • After the flow surpasses the current available capacity at Kirkland PS 135 (69,000 GPD), additional flow would be sent North to the Sidbury Road force main. Plantation Road Force Main - West The Plantation Road FM - West would convey wastewater flow generated from SA-4 and connect to the existing system through Laney Outfall (See below). Based on the projected demands, SA-4 can be served by an 8-inch sewer force main through year 2050. Laney Outfall Laney Outfall is a major gravity sewer outfall near Murrayville Road and Olsen Park. The gravity sewer conveys wastewater to Smith Creek Pump Station, which ultimately is treated at NSWWTP. Initial investigation of this connection point yielded the following: • Gravity sewer connecting Laney Outfall to PS 89 appears to have sufficient capacity to collect 2050 projected demands generated by SA-4 without improvements. • If flow from PS 77 is permanently diverted, then PS 89 would require an upgrade in 2045 based on the projected flows (336,100 GPD) and the current available capacity at the station. • If flow from PS 77 is sent to PS 89, then PS 89 will require an upgrade in 2025 based on the projected flows (67,150 GPD) and the current available capacity at the station. Plantation Road Force Main – East Plantation Road FM - East shall convey wastewater flow generated from SA-5 and connect to the existing system through Country Haven Outfall (see below). Based on the projected demands, SA- 5 can be served by a 4-inch sewer force main through year 2050. Country Haven Outfall Country Haven Outfall is a gravity sewer system in the Country Haven neighborhood in northeastern New Hanover County. Country Haven Outfall conveys waste water to Country Haven PS 95. Initial investigation of this connection point yielded the following: Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 5 - • Gravity sewer connecting Country Haven Outfall and PS 95 appears to have sufficient capacity to collect and convey 2050 projected demands generated by SA-5 without improvements. • Country Haven PS 95 has sufficient capacity to convey wastewater flow through year 2050 without additional improvements. Holly Shelter Road Force Main The Holly Shelter Road FM would convey wastewater flow generated from SA-6 and SA-7 and connect to the existing system through the RPS1 Outfall (See below). SA-6 and SA-7 wastewater flows are expected to be served by 12-inch and 8-inch sewer force mains, respectively, through year 2050. RPS1 Outfall The RPS1 Outfall is located to the North of RPS1 and conveys waste water to RPS1. A portion of the RPS1 is 24” and the connection from Holly Shelter Road force main would drop into the 24” gravity. Initial investigation of this connection point yielded the following: • Gravity sewer connecting RPS1 Outfall to RPS1 has sufficient capacity to collect and convey 2050 projected demands (775,200 GPD) generated by SA-6 and SA-7 without improvements. • RPS1 is projected to exceed its capacity to convey wastewater flow in year 2035 (387,600 GPD) and will require a pump station and force main upgrade to serve the area based on projected demands. • A crossing of I-40 would be required via horizontal directional drill and is estimated at approximately 1,800 feet in length. 3.5 WATER EXISTING FACILITIES For a geographic depiction of the existing water infrastructure surrounding the project area, see Figure 3.2. Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 6 - 3.6 WATER CORRIDOR PLANNING APPROACH The proposed water mains were divided into 11 individual projects, based on the location and project year: 2030, 2040, or 2050. Developers intending to establish new developments in the Sidbury-Greenview area are responsible for their own local water distribution system. This would be accomplished by a combination of water service lines and water mains that would manifold into the corresponding primary water transmission main. Developers would also be responsible for constructing a section of primary water transmission main to connect their local water distribution system to the existing infrastructure or paying into a cost sharing agreement for off- site infrastructure that is already in place.. Route evaluation included a detailed review of locations requiring trenchless installation, areas containing wetlands, locations presenting environmental impacts during construction, boundaries of public rights-of-way to minimize easements, and sites containing hazardous materials. Water lines not within public right of ways will require private property easements. This section of the report describes each of the 11 proposed projects. Figure 3.7 identifies the proposed routes. 3.7 PROPOSED WATER TRANSMISSION ROUTING - 2030 Castle Hayne Road South The Castle Hayne Road South 2030 proposed 12-inch water main begins near the Sweeney Water Treatment Plant (WTP), parallel to Cornelius Harnett Road heading north to Castle Hayne Road, crossing under the Cape Fear River. The water main continues north parallel to Castle Hayne Road ending at the intersection of Hanover Lakes Drive and Castle Hayne Road. The total length of 12-inch water main is approximately 9,280 linear feet. The route requires a total of six trenchless crossings: five bore and jack trenchless crossings under Arlington Drive, Yorktown Drive, Victoria Drive, Glendale Drive, and Brentwood Drive, and one horizontal directional drill (HDD) trenchless crossing under the Cape Fear River. Figure 3.8 depicts the Castle Hayne Road South 2030 proposed route. North College Road The North College Road 2030 proposed 16-inch water main starts at the Holly Shelter School Tank near Roger Haynes Drive. From the water tower, the water main heads west following a parcel boundary before turning south paralleling an existing powerline easement to North College Road. The water main continues south along North College Road and ends at the intersection of Huntsman Court and North College Road. The total length of 16-inch water main is approximately 9,630 linear feet. The route requires a total of two bore and jack trenchless Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 7 - crossings: one under North College Road as well as one under Parmele Road. Figure 3.9 depicts the North College Road 2030 proposed route. Holly Shelter Road 2030 The Holly Shelter Road 2030 proposed 12-inch water main starts at the corner of Barbados Boulevard and then crosses Holly Shelter Road, turning east. The route continues along Holly Shelter Road past the intersection of Ideal Cement Road ending before the road bends and changes to Island Creek Road. The total length of 12-inch water main is approximately 15,450 linear feet. The route requires a total of four trenchless crossings: three bore and jack trenchless crossings under Holly Shelter Road, Diamond Shamrock Road, and Ideal Cement Road, and one HDD trenchless crossing under a stream. Figure 3.10 depicts the Holly Shelter Road 2030 proposed route. Sidbury Road West The Sidbury Road West 2030 proposed 16-inch water main starts at the intersection of Blue Clay Road and Sidbury Road. The route continues east along Sidbury Road until it ends before the intersection of Crooked Pine Road and Sidbury Road. The total length of 16-inch water main is approximately 17,770 linear feet. The route requires a total of four bore and jack trenchless crossings: under I-40, Old Dairy Farm Road, Buck Drive, and Edna Buck Road. Figure 3.11 depicts the Sidbury Road West 2030 proposed route. Sidbury Road East The Sidbury Road East 2030 proposed 12-inch starts at the end of the Sidbury Road West 2030 route near the intersection of Crooked Pine Road and Sidbury Road. The route heads east along Sidbury Road where it turns south to Farm Road. The route follows Farm Road for approximately 4,000 linear feet before crossing many private parcels prior to ending at Market Street near Scotts Hill Medial Drive. Easements will be required for most of the route as shown, or the route can follow new public streets as development occurs. The total length of 12-inch water main is approximately 20,650 linear feet with 1,000 linear feet of 16-inch water main at the future Military Cutoff Hampstead Bypass. The route requires a total of four bore and jack trenchless crossings: under Island Creek Drive, the Military Cutoff Hampstead Bypass, Farm Road, and Market Street. Figure 3.12 depicts the Sidbury Road East 2030 proposed route. Plantation Road West The Plantation Road West 2030 proposed 12-inch water main starts at the intersection of North College Road and Southeast Northchase Parkway. The route crosses North College Road and then Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 8 - continues east along Southeast Northchase Parkway to the end of the road where it then crosses a commercial parcel. The route continues east across I-40 through several parcels to Plantation Road, then east along Plantation Road ending 2,000 linear feet after the intersection of the Military Cutoff Hampstead Bypass and Plantation Road. Easement will likely be required for the segments of the route along private properties. The total length of 12-inch water main is approximately 18,120 linear feet of 12-inch water main with 780 linear feet of 16-inch water main at the I-40 and future Military Cutoff Hampstead Bypass crossings. The route requires three bore and jack trenchless crossings: under North College Road, I-40, and the Military Cutoff Bypass. Figure 3.13 depicts the Plantation Road West 2030 proposed route. Plantation Road East The Plantation Road East 2030 proposed 16-inch water main starts at the Richardson WTP heading north to Plantation Road, then east to Market Street. The total length of proposed water main is approximately 14,600 feet of 16-inch PVC. Figure 3.12 depicts the Plantation Road West 2030 proposed route. 3.8 PROPOSED WATER TRANSMISSION ROUTING - 2040 Castle Hayne Road North The majority of the Castle Hayne Road North proposed route is projected for 2040; however, there is a small percentage of the route proposed for 2030. For simplicity, the entire segment of pipe along the Castle Hayne Road North proposed route is grouped as one project in 2040. The route starts at the northeast corner of the Holly Shelter Road and Castle Hayne Road intersection and then crosses Castle Hayne Road where it turns south. The route continues along Castle Hayne Road on the west side of the road. After the roundabout with Garden Place Drive and North College Road, the route crosses Castle Hayne Road and continues along the east side of the road until it ends after crossing Hermitage Road. The total length of proposed 16-inch water main is approximately 13,970 linear feet. The route requires a total of nine trenchless crossings: eight bore and jack trenchless crossings under Castle Hayne Road at the intersection with Holly Shelter Road, Prince George Avenue, Garden Place Drive, Castle Hayne Road where the proposed water main crosses from the west side to the east side of the road, Parmele Road, Crowatan Road, Goff Drive, and Hermitage Road, and one HDD trenchless crossing under a stream. Figure 3.15 depicts the Castle Hayne Road North 2040 proposed route. Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 9 - Holly Shelter Road 2040 Connection The proposed Holly Shelter Road 2040 Connection includes 60 linear feet of a bore and jack trenchless crossing under Holly Shelter Road approximately 1,000 linear feet east of Diamond Shamrock Road. This proposed pipe segment will connect the existing water main to the proposed Holly Shelter Road 2030 water main. Figure 3.16 depicts the Holly Shelter Road 2040 Connection. Blue Clay Road 2040 The Blue Clay Road 2040 proposed 12-inch water main starts at a connection to the existing water main at the corner of Juvenile Center Road and Blue Clay Road. The route continues southwest along Blue Clay Road and ends at a connection with the existing water main north of North Kerr Avenue. The total length of proposed 12-inch water main is approximately 12,340 linear feet. The route requires three bore and jack trenchless crossings: under I-140, the railroad crossing, and Old Mill Road. Figure 3.17 depicts the Blue Clay Road 2040 proposed route. 3.9 PROPOSED WATER TRANSMISSION ROUTING - 2050 Blue Clay Road 2050 The Blue Clay Road 2050 proposed 12-inch water main starts at the end of the Blue Clay Road 2040 proposed route. The route continues south along Blue Clay Road and parallel with the railroad. The route ends at a connection to the existing water main near the intersection of Hall Drive and Blue Clay Road. The total length of proposed 12-inch water main is approximately 6,000 linear feet. The route requires one bore and jack trenchless crossing under North Kerr Avenue. Figure 3.18 depicts the Blue Clay Road 2050 proposed route. 3.10 STORAGE CAPACITY EVALUATION Water storage is required for equalizing demand, providing fire protection and supplying the system in an emergency. Equalizing storage allows water to be supplied from the water production facilities at a rate equal to the average demand for the day. Fire storage ensures water is available for the defined duration while production sources and pump stations supply the projected maximum day demand. Emergency storage is used during pipe breaks, equipment failures, power outages, contamination of raw water supplies, or natural disasters that disrupt normal service. Storage requirements were evaluated for the CFPUA distribution system using two criteria. The Technical Memorandum 3.0 Planning Approach & Routing Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 10 - first criterion is that the storage capacity should exceed the combined storage requirements for firefighting and equalizing. For firefighting, a maximum required fire flow of 3,500 GPM with a duration of three hours was assumed (per American Water Works Association Manual M31), which corresponds to a fire storage volume of 0.63 MG. For equalization, sufficient storage volume is required to allow the system to supply diurnally varying demand on a maximum demand day while supply is pumped into the system at a constant rate. Equalization requirements are normally expressed as a percentage of maximum day demand and depend on the extent to which demand varies diurnally. The second criterion is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Storage in the system should exceed half the demand for an average day. Emergency storage can include distributed storage (e.g., elevated in the distribution system) and clearwell storage. END OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - 4.1 INTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum 4.0 (TM 4.0) provides detailed information related to hydraulic modeling of water and wastewater systems in the project area and surrounding areas. The hydraulic modeling results include sizing of facilities, resultant hydraulic impacts, and collection and conveyance sizing for projected demands. The water system modeling also includes data related to water age. 4.2 WASTEWATER HYDRAULIC MODELING METHODOLOGY The hydraulic approach is based on the 30-year projections for ultimate system configuration and phased in 10-year increments. The wastewater flow projections were developed using the methodology detailed in TM 2.0 of this preliminary engineering report and are summarized in Table 4.1 as follows, for each service area: Table 4.1 – Wastewater flow projection of the Sidbury-Greenview Area for a 30-year planning horizon, designated by service area (GPD). Modeling Assumptions The following modeling assumptions were made: 1. Topography: Pipe elevations are set to equal to the ground elevation minus three feet of cover. 2. Friction Loss: Pipe material is PVC (Hazen Williams Coefficient = 130) Year SA-1 SA-2 SA-3 SA-4 SA-5 SA-6 SA-7 2030 117,200 279,300 200,200 134,400 43,500 147,500 110,900 2040 234,400 558,600 400,300 268,900 87,100 295,000 221,800 2050 351,500 837,900 600,500 403,300 130,600 442,500 332,700 Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 2 - 4.3 WASTEWATER MODELING RESULTS Utilizing the suggested alternative configuration, hydraulic modeling was conducted to determine viable pipe diameters required to meet the projected demands for the project area through 2050. Table 4.2 provides the hydraulic modeling results of the proposed primary force mains to serve the Sidbury-Greenview area through 2050. Table 4.2 – Hydraulic Results of Proposed Primary Force Mains 2050 Force Main Pipe Segment Pipe Diameter Evaluated Flow Rate Maximum Velocity Blue Clay Road Outfall to Sidbury Farms 12” Single 1,380 GPM 4.0 FPS 12” Parallel 1,380 GPM 4.0 FPS Sidbury Farms to Island Creek Subdivision 12” 2,140 GPM 6.0 FPS Island Creek Subdivision to Lee Hills Subdivision 8” 720 GPM 4.6 FPS Stephens Church Road Force Main 6” 360 GPM 4.0 FPS Plantation Road Force Main - West 8” 760 GPM 4.8 FPS Plantation Road Force Main - East 4” 230 GPM 5.8 FPS Holly Shelter Road Force Main - West 12” 1,350 GPM 3.8 FPS Holly Shelter Road Force Main - East 8” 580 GPM 3.7 FPS The pipe diameters in Table 4.2 meet the criteria for minimum velocity of 2 feet per second and are within the pressure rating of the CFPUA standard C900 DR 18 (235 psi). 4.4 WATER HYDRAULIC MODELING METHODOLOGY Hazen performed the modeling analysis utilizing the calibrated master plan model. The demands in the model were updated to reflect the 2019 production rate of 19.33 MGD. Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 3 - Demand growth and future demand projections were broken down into different user categories for use in the hydraulic model as shown in Table 4.3. The domestic growth numbers included residential, commercial, institutional, large users, and irrigation. 2016 industrial demand is included in large user demand, but future industrial demand (summarized in Table 4.4) is shown in a new category. A new demand category was also created for bulk customers and potential expansion areas that CFPUA expects to add by 2050. Those customers are summarized in Table 4.5. The Sidbury and Greenview Area are projected to grow by 1.15 MGD every 10 years. Water quality flushing demand is expected to decrease due to operational improvements and overall growth. The total average day demand by 2050 is 28.90 MGD with a maximum day demand of 47.35 MGD. Table 4.3 – Estimated Future Demand by Category Demand Category 2019 Average Day Demand (MGD) 2030 Average Day Demand (MGD) 2040 Average Day Demand (MGD) 2050 Average Day Demand (MGD) Domestic 11.86 17.59 19.25 20.94 Large Users 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 Industry 0.00 0.43 0.82 0.82 Bulk Customers and Potential Expansion Areas 0.00 1.56 1.56 1.56 Sidbury Growth 0.00 1.15 2.30 3.44 Non-Revenue Water (including flushing) 1.99 0.71 0.73 0.82 Total 19.33 22.75 25.97 28.90 Table 4.4 – Estimated Industrial Demand Growth from Current Day to 2040 Industrial User(s) Average Day Demand (gpd) Elementis Chromium (growth demand) 71,000 GE (new customer) 78,000 Highway 421 Corridor (new customer) 676,000 Total 825,000 Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 4 - Table 4.5 – Estimated 2040 Demands from Bulk Customers and Potential Expansion Areas Bulk Customer Average Day Demand (gpd) Figure 8 Island 500,000 Middle Sound 99,000 Bayshore Area 102,000 Treasure Cove 64,000 Wrightsville Beach* 800,000 Total 1,565,000 * Based on current 12-hour supply of 1.59 MGD (from Wrightsville Beach PER) Water System Assessment – with Sidbury and Greenview Demands After the hydraulic model demand was updated, it was used to assess future conditions in the CFPUA system with the Sidbury and Greenview demands. Storage, pumping capacity, tank performance, available fire flow, peak hour pressure and water age were evaluated. The modeling analysis assumed that the Monterey Heights Boundaries would be moved, so that the Tarin Woods and Congleton developments would be served by the Sweeney Zone. The 2030 analysis maintained the three pressure zones. However, it was assumed that by 2040 the Sweeney and Richardson Zone would be merged. The assessment focused mainly on the CFPUA system north of the 17th Street Tank. 4.5 WATER MODELING RESULTS CFPUA currently has a total ground storage capacity of 18 million gallons (MG) and a total elevated storage capacity of 8.90 MG. Storage requirements are calculated and compared to existing storage capacity in Tables 4.6 through 4.8. Fire flow and equalization storage are analyzed separately for each zone for 2030 because the zones are isolated from each other. To improve water age the Wrightsboro Tank can be temporarily removed in 2030 without effecting the Sweeney storage capacity. The Sweeney, Richardson and Monterey Heights zones each have a storage surplus of approximately 0.13 MG, 0.66 MG and 0.08 MG respectively. For 2040 and 2050 the fire flow and equalization storage were calculated for the combined Sweeney/Richardson Zone and for Monterey Heights. The Wrightsboro Tank will need to be returned to service when maximum day demands exceed 42.5 MGD. Therefore, the 2040 analysis was done with the tank left offline, to continue to provide better water quality in the surrounding Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 5 - area. The Sweeney/Richardson and Monterey Heights zones 2040 storage surplus capacity of approximately 0.22 MG and 0.07 MG, respectively. When maximum day demand approaches 45.5 MGD in the Sweeney/Richardson Zone, new storage should be evaluated. As the maximum day demand by 2050 is projected to be 46 MGD, the storage capacity in Sweeney/Richardson Zone is deficient by 0.06 MG. Emergency storage is analyzed globally across the three zones, because the zones can be interconnected in case of emergency. CFPUA requested that the evaluated emergency storage capacity be based on 75% of average day demand, which is more stringent than the DEQ requirement. The Dawson and Porters Neck Plantation tanks were not included in the emergency storage as they are booster pump stations. Due to the large capacity of the Sweeney WTP clearwell, the combined system has an emergency storage excess in 2030, 2040 and 2050 of 7.04 MG. 4.62 MG, and 2.95 MG, respectively. Table 4.6 – Comparison of Required and Existing Elevated Storage – 2030 Sweeney Richardson Monterey Heights Required Elevated Storage (Equalizing + Fire Storage) (MG) 5.87 1.24 0.42 Total existing capacity 6.00 1.90 0.50 Excess (or deficit) capacity (MG) 0.13 0.66 0.08 Table 4.7 – Comparison of Required and Existing Elevated Storage - 2040 Sweeney/ Richardson Monterey Heights Required Elevated Storage (Equalizing + Fire Storage) (MG) 7.68 0.43 Total existing capacity 7.90 0.50 Excess (or deficit) capacity (MG) 0.22 0.07 Table 4.8 – Comparison of Required and Existing Elevated Storage – 2050 Sweeney/ Richardson Monterey Heights Required Elevated Storage (Equalizing + Fire Storage) (MG) 8.46 0.44 Total existing capacity 8.40 0.50 Excess (or deficit) capacity (MG) (0.06) 0.06 Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 6 - Table 4.9: Comparison of Required and Existing Emergency Storage: 2030-2050 Capacity (MG) 2030 2040 2050 Average Day Demand (MGD) 22.75 25.97 28.87 Total Emergency Storage Required (75% of Average Day Demand) 17.06 19.48 21.65 Total Existing Capacity 24.10 24.10 24.60 Total Elevated Storage Excess or (Deficit) 7.04 4.62 2.95 For a detailed breakdown of Tables 4.6-4.9, see Appendix B. Pumping and Treatment Capacity Evaluation Pumping and treatment capacity for 2030 through 2050 were evaluated for each of the zones in the CFPUA distribution system. Required firm pumping capacity is equal to maximum day demand. Pumps do not need to meet peak hour demand if enough elevated equalizing storage capacity is available. Results are shown in Tables 4.10 and 4.11. Monterey Heights was not evaluated for this analysis. The Sweeney Water Treatment Plant (WTP) currently has a permitted capacity of 35 MGD and Richardson WTP has a permitted capacity of 6 MGD. In both these situations, the 2030 maximum day has exceeded 80% of the plant capacities. CFPUA is currently in the process of increasing the plant capacities and the well field capacity at Richardson. The 2040 and 2050 capacity evaluation are based on the 44 MGD Sweeney WTP capacity and 9.6 MGD Richardson WTP capacity. The 2050 maximum day demand exceed 80% of the two plant capacities, it is recommended that planning be initiated once maximum demand exceed 42 MGD. Table 4.10: Existing Pump and Treatment Capacity Assessment – 2030 Sweeney Richardson Excess (Deficit) Pumping Capacity (MGD) 19.98 3.42 Excess (Deficit) Plant Capacity (MGD) 4.18 0.44 Technical Memorandum 4.0 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology & Results Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 7 - Table 4.11: Existing Pump and Treatment Capacity Assessment – 2040 & 2050 2040 2050 Excess (Deficit) Pumping Capacity (MGD) 18.5 13.8 Excess (Deficit) Plant Capacity (MGD) 12.3 7.6 For a detailed breakdown of Tables 4.10-4.11, see Appendix B. END OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Technical Memorandum 5.0 Wastewater Offsite Analysis Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - The analysis of offsite wastewater infrastructure improvements was reserved to be utilized as needed while the technical memorandum was being developed. Based on current available capacity and projected wastewater flows for the Sidbury Greenview area, offsite wastewater infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to be required until approximately 2035. Therefore, no analysis of offsite wastewater infrastructure is included in this technical memorandum. It is recommended that subsequent master plans revisit the need for improvements as development progresses in the region. Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 1 - 6.1 INTRODUCTION Technical Memorandum 6.0 (TM 6.0) details the water and wastewater recommendations. The recommendations will be segmented by phased implementation configuration and final configuration for the 30-year planning period for water and wastewater. Opinions of probable project costs are included. 6.2 WASTEWATER RECOMMENDATIONS In order to provide public wastewater service to the Sidbury-Greenview area for the projected demands, a number of alternatives were evaluated. The alternatives were developed to provide public wastewater service and access utilizing existing CFPUA infrastructure for conveyance and treatment, which will be accomplished at Northside WWTP. For the purposes of this summary, the preferred alternative has been broken down into an “Initial Phase” and a “Future Phase” for the Sidbury Road Force Main and by Service Area for the project area. The force main and water main for Service Area 1 is currently in the design phase and is expected to be in construction in 2021. As development progresses in the project area, the wastewater demand projections should be re-evaluated based on development specific factors. The phased development of the recommended wastewater system to serve the projected flows generated in the project area is detailed in the following section. See Figure 3.1 for a geographical depiction of the recommendations. 6.3 WASTEWATER PHASED IMPLEMENTATION The planning approach is detailed in TM 3.0. Table 6.1 below outlines the phased implementation of the recommendations for the wastewater system that will be required to serve projected demands through year 2050. Sidbury Road Force Main - Initial Phase DR Horton’s Sidbury Farms and other developments in SA-1 will be served by a single 12-inch force main that manifolds to the Blue Clay Road force main through the year 2040 (1.12 MGD). The installation of the 12-inch force main is expected to stimulate development along Sidbury Road, prompting the construction of the “Future Phase.” Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 2 - Sidbury Road Force Main – Future Phase Additional flow from SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 is expected to be generated by known development interests along Sidbury Road. The addition of a parallel 12-inch force main, single 12-inch force main, and an 8-inch force main will serve the projected flows through 2050 along Sidbury Road. The addition of a parallel 12-inch force main will be required to serve 2040 demands generated along Sidbury Road. A summary of the phased implementation of infrastructure improvements and their associated costs are outlined in the following Table 6.1. Table 6.1 – Summary of phased implementation of infrastructure improvements and associated costs. Infrastructure Improvements Year Location Diameter Length Cost 2030 SA-1 12” Single 13,960 LF $1.95 M SA-2 12” 8,400 LF $819,000 8” 1,600 LF $124,800 SA-3 8” 9,070 LF $708,200 6” 3,420 LF $223,000 SA-4 8” 14,720 LF $1.15 M SA-5 4” 7,340 LF $381,600 SA-6 12” 21,100 LF $2.64 M SA-7 8” 5,920 LF $461,200 2040 SA-1 12” Parallel 13,960 LF $ 1.95 M 2050 None Detailed opinions of probable construction cost can be found in Appendix B Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 3 - Based on projected demands, a parallel force main along Blue Clay Road and an upgrade to RPS1 will be required to convey wastewater to NSWWTP in year 2035 (1 MGD and 387,600 GPD, respectively). Smith Creek PS will also require an upgrade to meet 2040 demands. A summary of the phased implementation of infrastructure improvements to the existing system are outlined in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 – Phased Improvements to Existing Infrastructure Year Description 2035 Parallel Blue Clay Road FM to NSWWTP RPS1 Upgrade 2040 Smith Creek PS Upgrade**** **** Based on diverting 317,000 GPD from PS 77 to PS 35 and flow from RPS1 to Blue Clay Rd FM. 6.4 WATER PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The proposed water mains, detailed in TM 3.0, were divided into 11 individual projects, based on the location and project year: 2030, 2040, or 2050. Figure 3.5 identifies the proposed routes of the preferred alternative. 6.5 WATER PHASED IMPLEMENTATION Proposed Improvements for 2030 The modeling analysis included the recommendations made in the 2019 Master Plan for 2030 and 2040. One of the recommendations included the Northern Service Line. Additional water mains will be needed to meet the 2030 Sidbury and Greenview growth demands and are shown in Figure 6.0. Phasing of Water Lines West of I-40 The 2030 average day demand projected for The Sidbury and Greenview development can be broken down into these main water service line: • Sidbury Rd West (16-inch): 291 GPM Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 4 - • Holly Shelter Rd (12-inch): 218 GPM • Plantation Rd West (12-inch): 80 GPM • Richardson Area: 208 GPM Total 2030 average day: 797 GPM (1.15 MGD) Two water mains west of I-40, Castle Hayne Rd South and North College Rd are needed to meet the full demand of 1.15 MGD growth in Sidbury and Greenview. However, these projects can be phased in. The capacity evaluation was done under a maximum day demand EPS with the goal of maintaining Holly Shelter Tank level above 45% for fire demand. When the additional 16-inch water line is built to the tank, the tank level can drop to 35% and the system is still capable of supplying 2,000 GPM for 2 hours of fire protection at the school where the Holly Shelter Tank is located. The Northern Service Line, currently under construction can supply 230 GPM average day demand. Table 6.3 lists the required demand, the provided demand and the difference. Table 6.3: Capacity of the Northern Service Line 2030 Sidbury/ Greenview Total Demand (GPM) Northern Service Line (GPM) Remaining Need (GPM) Sidbury Rd West (16-inch): 291 230 61 Holly Shelter Rd (12-inch): 218 5 213 Plantation Rd West (12-inch) 80 80 With the addition of the Castle Hayne Rd South, another 61 gpm can be provided along Sidbury Rd West and 70 GPM along Holly Shelter Rd, as shown in Table 6.4. Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 5 - Table 6.4: Capacity of the Castle Hayne Rd South 2030 Sidbury/ Greenview Total Demand (GPM) Northern Service Line (GPM) Remaining Need (GPM) Sidbury Rd West (16-inch): 291 291 - Holly Shelter Rd (12-inch): 218 75 143 Plantation Rd West (12-inch) 80 80 - The North College Road water main was modeled to demonstrate phasing. With the same additional demand provided as what the Castle Hayne Rd South water main could provide, the Holly Shelter tank could drop below 33%. This does not meet the fire flow requirement. Therefore, the Castle Hayne Rd South should be constructed first and be initiated as the Northern Service Line reaches capacity. The Castle Hayne Rd South and the North College Rd water mains are necessary to meet the 2030 Sidbury Greenview demand and to achieve 2,000 GPM for 2 hours of fire flow at the school located adjacent to the Holly Shelter Tank. Elevated Storage Tank Performance: 2030 Proposed pipe improvements were designed to maintain hydraulic balance within each of the different zones. When a zone is hydraulically balanced, the HGLs at all elevated storage tanks within the zone should be within approximately 6 feet of one another. Ideally, tanks levels will fluctuate between approximately 100% full and 50% full throughout the day. This turnover reduces water age. Maximum day demand conditions are modeled to evaluate tank balance and level fluctuation, since MDD conditions can result in more headloss and hydraulic imbalance across the distribution network. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 in Appendix C show variation in tank levels and HGLs in the Sweeney zone during a maximum day demand EPS simulation with proposed improvements for 2030. No tanks drop below 40% full or reach 100% full for an extended period. The tanks fluctuate between 52% and 97%. Apart from the Dawson Tank, the HGLs of the Sweeney tanks are within 9 feet of each other at any given time throughout the day. The level in the Dawson tank does not follow the same pattern as the other tanks because its level is controlled by a booster pump across most of the system pressures. The two tanks in the Richardson system (Ogden and Porter’s Neck) fluctuate between 48% and 98% full (Figure 6.3 in Appendix C). The Ogden and Porters Neck tanks HGLs are within 8 feet of each other throughout the day (Figure 6.4 in Appendix C). Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 6 - Available Fire Flow: 2030 The Available Fire Flow (AFF) goal for existing hydrants is 500 GPM at 20 PSI, maximum day demand, and with tanks at their lowest expected level. However, the AFF goal for hydrants on all future pipes within the Sidbury and Greenview is 1,500 GPM. AFF with proposed 2030 improvements is shown in Figure 6.5 in Appendix C. As discussed above, the Northern Service Area Water Main improvements and the recommended connections of 10- and 8-inch pipes must be in place before the Wrightsboro tank is taken offline in order to meet the AFF goal in that area. The goal of 1,500 GPM could not be met at the end of the Sidbury Road line in the Richardson Zone in the 2030 analysis. However, once the Sweeney and Richardson zones are merged and the development systems include the appropriate pipe looping, the fire goal can be met. Peak Hour Pressure and Velocity: 2030 Peak hour pressures in 2030 with the recommended improvements are shown in Figure 6.6 in Appendix C. All nodes have a peak hour pressure of 41 PSI or greater, complying with CFPUA’s minimum pressure goal of 40 PSI. Peak velocities under 2030 maximum day demand do not exceed 6 feet per second, outside of WTPs, Booster Pump Stations and the Kerr Waterline connection (4 to 7.2 FPS) to the 36 & 30-inch cross country connection feeder. Water Age Evaluation: 2030 The 2030 water age evaluation assumes a significant decrease in flushing. However, several automatic flushing locations are still needed and are shown in Figure 6.7 in Appendix C. Water age improves in the area near the Wrightsboro tank improves as the tank is taken offline temporarily. Water age in the Sidbury and Greenview areas are reasonable, except at the end of Sidbury Rd where the Sweeney and Richardson Zone boundaries meet. Actual water age may differ significantly from these predictions depending on the timing and location of new demand. It will be important for CFPUA to closely monitor demand patterns, and potentially alter the phasing of distribution system improvements to manage water age and quality. In the model, this location had a flusher placed at it to reduce water age. Proposed Improvements for 2040 To meet the 2040 Sidbury and Greenview growth demands, additional water mains (beyond the Master Plan recommendations) are needed. These are shown in Figure 6.8 in Appendix C. This includes the Blue Clay Rd North of Kerr Ave and Castle Hayne Rd North water mains. Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 7 - Elevated Storage Tank Performance: 2040 Figures 6.9 and 6.10 in Appendix C show variation in tank levels and HGLs in the Sweeney/Richardson zone during a maximum day demand EPS simulation with proposed improvements for 2040. Holly Shelter Tank dropped as low as 34 % for a very short time period and Odgen Tank peaked at 100% full for an extended period. This extreme difference between tanks is due to the increased demand in this system while trying to maintain reasonable pipe size and location improvements. A simultaneous fire simulation was performed at hour 57 to ensure that adequate fire protection under extreme conditions was possible. A 2 hour, 2,000 GPM fire flow was run at the Holly Shelter school and at the prison. The Holly Shelter Tank emptied by the end of the 2 hour simulation, however the model results indicated adequate pressures above 50 PSI through the system even with this extreme demand. Except for the Dawson tank and Porters Neck Plantation, the tank HGLs are within 14.5 feet of each other at any given time throughout the day. The level in the Dawson and Porters Neck Plantation tanks does not follow the same pattern as the other tanks because its level is controlled by a booster pump. Available Fire Flow (AFF): 2040 The AFF evaluation used 500 GPM (at 20 PSI, maximum day demand, and with tanks at their lowest expected level) as the goal for existing hydrants. The AFF goal for hydrants on all future pipes within the Sidbury and Greenview is 1,500 GPM. AFF with proposed 2040 improvements is shown in Figure 6.11 in Appendix C. The goal of 1,500 GPM could not be met at the dead-end piping within the development areas. However, once the development systems include appropriate pipe looping, the fire goal can be met. Peak Hour Pressure and Velocity: 2040 Peak hour pressures in 2040 with the recommended improvements are shown in Figure 6.12 in Appendix C. All nodes have a peak hour pressure of 41 PSI or greater, complying with CFPUA’s minimum pressure goal of 40 PSI. Peak velocities under 2030 maximum day demand do not exceed 6 feet per second, outside of WTPs, Booster Pump Stations and the Kerr Waterline connection to the 36 & 30-inch cross country connection feeder. Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 8 - Water Age Evaluation: 2040 The 2040 water age evaluation, as with the 2030 evaluation, assumes a significant decrease in flushing. Automatic flushing locations are still needed and are shown in Figure 6.13 in Appendix C. In addition, the need for Wrightsboro Tank to be active for storage capacity increases water age in the surrounding area. This is one of the locations where a flusher is recommended. Water age in Sidbury and Greenview are reasonable. Actual water age may differ significantly from these predictions depending on the timing and location of new demand. It will be important for CFPUA to closely monitor demand patterns, and potentially alter the phasing of distribution system improvements to manage water age and quality. Proposed Improvements for 2050 The additional water mains to meet the 2050 Sidbury and Greenview growth demands are shown in Figure 6.14 in Appendix C. These include the Blue Clay Rd South of Kerr Ave water main and the equivalent 12-inch piping within development areas. Elevated Storage Tank Performance: 2050 Figures 6.15 and 6.16 display variation in tank levels and HGLs in the Sweeney/Richardson zone during a maximum day demand EPS simulation with proposed improvements for 2050. Holly Shelter Tank dropped as low as 26 % for periods of time and Ogden Tank peaked at 100% full an extended period. This extreme difference between tanks is due to the increased demand and trying to maintain reasonable pipe improvements. The model should be refined as the development occurs and assessments be made to further balance to the system’s tanks. By 2050 several improvements will have been done to provide additional flow to the Holly Shelter Tank. However, 26%, is below our goal. To make sure that the system wouldn’t suffer from this low water level, a simultaneous fire simulation at hour 57 was performed. This was a 2 hour, 2,000 GPM at the school and at the prison. Similarly, to the 2040 multi fire flow analysis, the model results indicated adequate pressures above 40 PSI, however, the Holly Shelter Tank was empty by the end of the 2 hours. Although, the tank did empty at the end of the fire demand, the pressures in the system did not drop below 20 psi, due to the additional water lines to the Holly Shelter Tank. Except for Dawson tank and Porters Neck Plantation, the tank HGLs are within 15 feet of each other at any given time throughout the day. The level in the Dawson and Porters Neck Plantation tanks does not follow the same pattern as the other tanks because their levels are controlled by booster pumps. Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 9 - Available Fire Flow: 2050 The AFF evaluation uses 500 GPM (at 20 PSI, maximum day demand, and with tanks at their lowest expected level) as the goal for existing hydrants. However, the AFF goal for hydrants on all future pipes within the Sidbury and Greenview is 1,500 GPM. AFF with proposed 2050 improvements is shown in Figure 6.17 in Appendix C. The goal of 1,500 GPM is met with the recommended pipe improvements and appropriate pipe looping within the development areas. Peak Hour Pressure and Velocity: 2050 Peak hour pressures in 2050 with the recommended improvements are shown in Figure 6.18 in Appendix C. All nodes have a peak hour pressure of 41 PSI or greater, complying with CFPUA’s minimum pressure goal of 40 PSI. Peak velocities under 2050 maximum day demand do not exceed 6 feet per second, outside of WTPs, Booster Pump Stations and the Kerr Waterline connection to the 36 & 30-inch cross country connection feeder. Water Age Evaluation The 2050 water age evaluation also assumes further decrease in flushing. Automatic flushing locations are still needed and are shown in Figure 6.19 in Appendix C. Wrightsboro Tank is required to meet storage capacity; however, this increases water age in the surrounding area. This is one of the locations where a flusher is recommended. Water age in the Sidbury and Greenview areas are reasonable. Actual water age may differ significantly from these predictions depending on the timing and location of new demand. It will be important for CFPUA to closely monitor demand patterns, and potentially alter the phasing of distribution system improvements to manage water age and quality. Summary The hydraulic analysis performed evaluated a proposed growth for the Sidbury and Greenview areas of 1.15 MGD every 10 years. The goal of this study was to recommend improvements to meet the additional demand and the following goals: • Hydraulically balance elevated storage tanks, • Ensure adequate AFF of 1,500 GPM within Sidbury and Greenview • Maintain peak hour pressures above 40 PSI Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 10 - • Maintain reasonable water age • Provide adequate storage, pump and treatment capacity through 2050. As mentioned in the 2019 Master Plan, Wrightsboro tank can be temporarily taken offline to improve water age, as it is not needed for storage in 2030. In order to meet the AFF goal in this area, the Northern Service Area Water Mains improvements and the connected 10-inch pipe (Chair Rd) and 8-inch pipes (Rockhill Rd) must be in place for this to occur. Once maximum day demands in the Sweeney zone approach 42.5 MGD, the Wrightsboro tank will need to be brought back online. It was also determined that the Castle Hayne Rd South improvement will be needed when Sidbury Rd average day demands approach 230 GPM. The 2030 demand on Sidbury Rd can be met with the Castle Hayne Rd South improvement. As demand reaches an additional 75 GPM on Holly Shelter Rd, the North College Rd improvement will be needed. Once demand in the joined Sweeney/Richardson zone reaches 42 MGD (80% of the joined WTP capacity), it is recommended that planning be initiated. The summary of demand triggers for system infrastructure improvements outside of the Sidbury and Greenview area are in Table 6.5. Table 6.5: Demand Triggers for Infrastructure improvement outside of the Sidbury and Greenview Area Demand Trigger, mgd Infrastructure Improvement 230 GPM Average Day Demand on Sidbury Rd 12-inch Castle Hayne Rd South water line 75 GPM Average Day Demand on Holly Shelter Rd 16-inch North College Rd water line 42 MGD Max Demand Upgrades to either Sweeney or Richardson WTP Plant 42.5 MGD Max Day Demand Reinstate Wrightsboro Tank The hydraulic modeling results as shown above meet the project goals. It is, however, recommended that the system be reevaluated as developments are built and more refined proposed numbers are understood. 6.6 WATER COST OPINION Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 11 - An opinion of probable cost was prepared to aid in budgeting for the design and construction phases of the Sidbury-Greenview area water system improvements as follows: Cost Opinion Methodology The general methodology implemented for the cost opinion was to divide the project into four main categories and calculate a cost for each. The categories evaluated were as follows: • Construction • Design and Permitting • Easements • Construction Administration The cost of construction was calculated based on five subcategories, including pipe and other appurtenances; trenchless crossings including HDD and bore and jack; erosion and sediment control (E&SC); miscellaneous items such as surface restoration, connections to existing water mains, traffic control, and testing; and mobilization. For each of these subcategories, an estimated material quantity take-off was developed in units of linear feet based on the proposed alignment and calculated ratios, which are described in the subsequent paragraphs. Unit prices on a cost per linear foot basis were applied for each item. The cost per linear foot (LF) unit prices for E&SC, fittings, and miscellaneous items were developed using the average of the three lowest actual bid prices from the 2018 Northern Service Area Water Mains project divided by the total pipe length from that project. The costs for E&SC, fittings, and miscellaneous items for the proposed water mains were calculated by multiplying the unit price per linear foot from the Northern Service Mains bid by the total linear feet of each proposed project. A standard 3% was applied for mobilization. A different approach was used for the opinion of cost for valves and fire hydrants. Using the same bid tabulation from the 2018 Northern Service Area Water Mains project, the total number of valves and fire hydrants were each counted and then divided by the total project pipe length (per 1,000 LF) to develop two ratios: Valves per 1,000 LF and Fire Hydrants per 1,000 LF. In the cost opinion, these two ratios were multiplied by the total linear feet for each proposed water main to estimate the quantities of valves and fire hydrants on a linear foot basis. The unit prices per linear foot applied for valves and fire hydrants are discussed in the following paragraph. The unit prices utilized for the opinion of cost for pipe, valves, fire hydrants, and HDD and Bore and Jack trenchless crossings were developed by comparing industry standards to the average of the three lowest actual bid prices from the 2018 Northern Service Area Water Mains project. The Technical Memorandum 6.0 Water & Wastewater Recommendations Sidbury-Greenview Area Preliminary Engineering Report - 12 - cost opinion assumes all of the projected routes will use either 12-inch or 16-inch C900 PVC, dimension ratio 18, for open cut installation. Unit prices for valves vary based on the corresponding diameter of pipe used on the route. All costs are provided in 2020 dollars with no escalation factors for inflation or increases in material cost. Final construction costs will depend on actual labor, material, and equipment costs; competitive market conditions; actual site conditions; final project scope; implementation schedule; easement acquisition costs; and other factors that cannot be precisely quantified at the current level of detail. Based on the level of detail of this preliminary cost estimate and to account for potential variations in final construction costs, a 20% contingency was included with the construction subtotal. Industry standard percentages were applied to estimate costs for design (12% of construction), easement acquisition (0.5% of construction), and construction administration (5% of construction). Cost Opinion Table 6.6, Table 6.7, and Table 6.8 provide costs associated with the total preliminary cost estimates for the 2030, 2040, and 2050 proposed routes for the Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to the CFPUA Water System project, respectively. For a detailed breakdown of the cost estimates below, see Appendix D. Table 6.6: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Year 2030 Projects Item Castle Hayne Rd South Holly Shelter Rd 2030 North College Rd Plantation Rd West Plantation Rd East Sidbury Rd West Sidbury Rd East Project Total $1,816,000 $2,546,000 $1,848,000 $3,208,000 $2,684,000 $3,510,000 $3,540,000 Table 6.7: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Year 2040 Projects Item Castle Hayne Rd North Holly Shelter Rd 2040 Connection Blue Clay Rd 2040 Project Total $2,853,000 $47,000 $1,866,000 Table 6.8: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Year 2050 Projects Item Blue Clay Rd 2050 Project Total $1,229,000 END OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FIGURES RECOMMENDED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTSFIG 0.1CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEW LEGENDPROJECT AREA2050 PIPE IMPROVEMENTSWATER TANKSERVICE AREA2019 EXISTING PIPES203020402050 RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITH RELATIVE DIAMETER, LENGTH, AND COSTFIG 0.2CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEW LEGENDPROJECT AREAFORCE MAINSERVICE AREATO BE PARALLELED IN 2040* RECOMMENDED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITH RELATIVE DIAMETER, LENGTH, AND COSTFIG 0.3CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEW LEGENDPROJECT AREASERVICE AREA203020402050 KNOWN DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHERLARGE DEVELOPABLE TRACTSFIG 2.1CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEWLEGENDPROJECT AREA (16,870 AC)Cameron HoldingsCorbett HoldingsTrask HoldingsHanover ReserveCharleston LakesIsland CreekLee Hills SubdivisionNorthern NHC TractsBlanton Property4908 Blue Clay RoadHanpin Land CoThe Walk at Porters NeckYvonne RoadWild MagnoliaMurrayville RoadStephens Church RoadBlake TractsTract South of I-140Rock ChurchMartin Marietta MaterialsNCDOTElementis ChromiumSeagreen LLCSkipper Family PropertiesHynda DaltonNCSU AgricultureSidbury Farms EXISTING INFRASTRUCTUREFIG 1.2CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEW LEGENDGRAVITY SEWERPROJECT AREAFORCE MAINPUMP STATIONSERVICE AREA CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/ASidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Existing Pipes DAWSON ST WESTBROOK CASTLE HAYNE HOLLY SHELTER 17TH ST WRIGHTSBORO PORTERS NECK OGDEN PORTERS NECKPLANTATION SWEENEY WTP RICHARDSONWTP ¯ Sidbury and Greenview Growth MGD 0.000 - 0.005 0.006 - 0.010 0.011 - 0.050 0.051 - 0.100 0.101 - 0.190 EXISTING PIPES Diameter < 6 inch 6 - 8 inch 8 - 12 inch 12 - 20 inch > 20 inch012,000Feet RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTSFIG 3.1CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEW LEGENDGRAVITY SEWERPROJECT AREAFORCE MAINPUMP STATIONSERVICE AREA FIG 3.2CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEWLEGENDGRAVITY SEWERPROJECT AREAFORCE MAINPUMP STATIONSERVICE AREARECOMMENDED WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SA-1 FIG 3.3CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEWLEGENDGRAVITY SEWERPROJECT AREAFORCE MAINPUMP STATIONSERVICE AREARECOMMENDED WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SA-2 FIG 3.4CFPUA SIDBURY GREENVIEWLEGENDGRAVITY SEWERPROJECT AREAFORCE MAINPUMP STATIONSERVICE AREARECOMMENDED WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SA-3 CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-1 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Overview Proposed Water Mains ¯ 0 2,500 5,000 7,50010,000Feet Legend Proposed Water Mains 2030 Proposed Water Mains 2040 Proposed Water Mains 2050 CASTLE HAYNE RD SOUTH BLUE CLAY RD 2050 BLUE CLAY RD 2040 CASTLE HAYNE RD NORTH HOLLY SHELTER RD 2030 NORTH COLLEGE RD SIDBURY RD WEST SIDBURY RD EAST PLANTATION RD EAST PLANTATION RD WEST HOLLY SHELTER RD 2040 CONNECTION CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-2 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Castle Hayne Rd South Proposed Water Mains 23RDGARDN E R HERONS VIEW MARTIN LUTHER KING JR EGRETCROSSINGHANOV ER L AK E S CORNELIUS HARNETT HOLLYBERRY5TH CO M P T O N PALME T T O CASTLE H A Y N E 6THOSPREY COVE MCRAECO N T I N E N T A L MARTIN LUT H E R K I N G J R TIDALFO R E S T KRAUS S E RIVERV I E W DIVISION PARKAIR P O R T DIVISIO N SPRI N G A R L ING TON PRESERVATION PO INT GORDON YO R K T OW N BRENTWOODBLUE C L A YGLENDALEVI C TO R I A 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Legend Proposed Water Main 2030 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-3 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: North College Rd Proposed Water Mains I-40PARSONS MILLCOLLE G E MI L L H O U S EPARMELE PARMELEPER ENN IA LGARDEN S HUNTSMANHOUNDSEARCREEKSTONE LOGAN HOPKIN SSMALLSTREAMCHERRYGROVEDUTCH COVE CHRISBALL A R D I-40POWERSIRON TREE PA R S O N S MI L L DEERFIELD OLD OA K L A N D CAS T L E H E I G H T S SADDLEBROOK TWIN OAKS RUSTIC ACRES PLUMTREE¯0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Legend Proposed Water Main 2030 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-4 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Holly Shelter Rd 2030 Proposed Water Mains HOLLY S H E L T E R KERRY PRIVATEDIAMOND SHAMROCKPRIVAT EPRIVATEBLUE CLAYPRIVATEMCGREGORPRIVAT E PRIVAT E PRIVATEPRIVATEPRIVATEPRIVATEPRIVAT EPRIVATEIDEAL CEMENTLULA NIXONPRIVATELegend Proposed Water Mains 2030 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000Feet CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-5 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Sidbury Rd West Proposed Water Mains I -40PRIVAT E SUNRAY ENNIS ACRESWOODHAVEN SIDBUR Y TRANSFORMA T I O N PRIVATEBLUE CLAYPRIVATEPRIVATECAROLY N H I L L PRIVATEEDNA BUCKPRIVATEPRIVATEPRIVATEDAIR Y F A RM PRIVATEHERMITAGE I -40BUCKEDUCAT ION PASTUR E GLAZIER BROOKDALE PRIVA T E PROSPERITYGILBERT CURRY PRIVATEPRIVATEPRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATEBLUE CLAYPRIVATE PRIVATEPRIVATE 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000Feet Legend Proposed Water Mains 2030 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-6 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Sidbury Rd East Proposed Water Mains Military C ut off Hampst ea d By p ass FARMMARKE T MARKE T STEPH E N S CHUR C HPRIVATEISLAND CREEKPRIVAT E SCOTTSHILLMEDICAL PRIV A T E PRIVATEPRIVATESIDBURY PRIVATECROOKED PINEPRIVA T E ISLAND C R E E K PRIVA T E PRIVA T E P R I V A T E PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000Feet Legend Proposed Water Mains 2030 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-7 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Plantation Rd West Proposed Water Mains Military CutoffHampsteadBypassMilitary C u t o f fHampst e a d B y p a s s Mili ta ry Cu to f fHampstead Bypa s s BRITTANY POINTER WOODBU R NEASTB O U R NE WOODBERRYPRIVATEDUCKSBI L L CREEK RIDGE NEW TOWN BIGHORNBASSET HABERDEE NBLUETICKCOVEYCOCKER PEPPERCORNRICE GATE TORCHW O O DBIRDDOGSPRINGER HALLS T E A DMU R R A Y F A RM S NORTH C H A S E CROOKED PINEIRI S H CAMERON TRACE ENTERPRISE COURTNEYPINESFIVE ACRESHENANDOAHFLUSHINGMAPLERIDGECRICKET NEILTRAPPERRETRIEVER MURRAYV I L L E Q U A I L W O O D S MISTY OAKFERNDALE ALAMANCEBRITTAN Y LAK E S STONEWOODYELLOW BELLSPRINGWATERIVOR YMABEE RABBITHOLLOWSHIRESTONEHAVEN WOODHALLLURAYSHEFFIELDAMESBURYWELCHJACKSONSRIDGEE N G L I S H STILLCREEKPRIVATEWHITNEY NEWB U RY CAMPAGNAGREGORYSP A N I E L LAURENPLACETHETFORDPOINTINGGRIFFONWHITE THURGOODMEADOWV I E W CANEY BRANCH DOVE FIELDPRI V A T E SETTERDOGWHISTLECOLLEGE ROCKWELLVALORBROOKSIDEGARDENSWILLIAMSBURG RABBITHOLLOWSHERMAN OAKS POINTERSPE A R O W BRITTANYPRIVATE FOREST B E N DPRIVATE POTOMAC I- 4 0 GOLDEN G R O V E PLANTATION PRIVATECORPORATEPRIVAT E I- 4 0 I-140 WILD MAGNOLIA I-140¯0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000Feet Legend Proposed Water Mains 2030 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-8 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Plantation Rd East Proposed Water MainsMilitary CutoffHampstead BypassAMBERLEIGHCOUNTRY HAVENALEXANDER AMBERLEIGHRAINT R E E G R A Y S T O N E CHERA W ARCH D A L E AL E X A N D E R SANDERLINGMONARCHKEYS T O N E CYPRESS POND BU M P A L O N G PENCADE KOONCESANSBERRYPRIVATEBEAUF O R T TRACE L O O S E S T R I F E HAZELTONYVONNEELMHURSTMEND E N H A L L MARSH OA K S MARYM O U N T OLDE P O N D HAY S MARKE TSANCTUARYCOUNTRY LAKES MAPLERIDGEBE AW O O D MARSH REACHTREASUREBAYFI E LDLILLY POND PLACID PRIV A T E PLANTATION PORTERS NECK GR O U N D W A T E R SWEETWATER BRISTLECONEGABLE RUNRED COCKADEDM C C O RM I C K 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Feet Legend Proposed Water Mains 2030 Parcels Existing Watermains CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-9 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Castle Hayne Rd North Proposed Water Mains C A S T L E H A Y N ECASTLEHOLLYSHELTERCOLLEGECOLE B A V A R I A N CASTLE HAYNE CA S T L E H A Y N E GOFF OLD AN T H O N Y RO N A L D BLOSSOM ASHBI R D S VI E WCHERRYHICKORY MARY PARMELEGARDENPLACESONDEYCASTLE LAKES SIMMONSHEIGHTSBOWMANWEDGEWOOD WOODC R E S T SYCAMORE PRIVATEHYACINTH EGGERT CHIPP E W A STRICKSTRADING POSTLYNNMICHAELMADELINE TRASKMCDOU G A L D CROW A T A NTOM JE S S I C AHAWKS NESTASHLY N MA Z U RHUBERTB R O O K G R E E N CHIP PELLA N DPRINCE GEORGECASTLE COVEHERMITAGECHESTERFIE L D PETER SPRING MARATHON¯0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Legend Proposed Water Main 2030 Proposed Water Main 2040 Trenchless Crossing Parcels CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-10 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Holly Shelter Rd 2040 Connection Proposed Water Mains HOLLY SHELTER PRIVATE0 75 150 225 300Feet Legend Proposed Water Main 2040 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-11 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Blue Clay Rd 2040 Proposed Water Mains ANSWORTH BRUCEMONTREMINGTONNORTHCHASEBIG FIEL D CALADA N NEEDLERUSHLEONAR AM G A T E CHANDLERLAKEMO O RPECKHAM PREMIER RUSSELLBOROUGHCARVEROLD MILLBARRO W HIGHG A T E CABOT MONTI C EL L O SKY TEDDYWHITEWOOD TANDEM KERR CAESARHEA TH ER R IDG E NO R T H CO U N T Y DULWIC H COMMO N BRINKMANBRAMB L E FLIGHT PAT H EXPORTPARAMOU N T DALTO N ELLISCASTLE HAYNECLAYMORETER E S A DAMONTODDALEX TRASK ASPENPRIVATEH O L L Y WOOLWIT C H RI T T E R GALWAY PRIVA T E PRIMR O S E NEVAN EDWAR D HYDEMODAWG LAGAR PROVINC E HE M L O C K BOUNDA RYCOMMERCE KI T T Y H AW K O R V I L L E W R I G H TMUTU A L AMMONSFAIRFO R D B R I D G E P O R TBLUE BONNETJUVENILECENTERCOLLEGEI-140 I-140 BLUE C L A Y OA K L E Y WEATHERBYHOLLANDSWA R T V I L L E SAN D Y LAU R E L LON G L E A F ARLE N E PE N N I N G T O N ¯ Legend Proposed Water Main 2040 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Feet CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITIES AUTHORITY NORTH CAROLINA March 2020 32270-023 N/A 1-12 Sidbury and Greenview Area Impact to CFPUA Water System DATE: HAZEN NO.: CONTRACT: FIGURE NO.: Blue Clay Rd 2050 Proposed Water Mains NASSAU NASSAUCARL SE ITTER CASTLE H A Y N E HERITAGE PARKIMPORTBLUE CL A Y SPRING HALLOLD WRIGHTSBOROCASTLE CREEKHARNETTCOMMERCEFULBR I G H T MUTU A L ACORN BR A N C HFAIRFIELDBERMUDA GARD NER KE R R JAMAICAPILGR IM 0 250 500 750 1,000Feet Legend Proposed Water Mains 2050 Trenchless Crossing Parcels Existing Watermains APPENDIX A SIDBURY ROAD TRACT Y N E 5 Wilmington, NC PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN QUAD TOWNHOMES TOWNHOMES = 104 UNITS (4 UNITS / BUILDING) BUILDING SIZE: 96' x 65' WETLAND AREA, TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (55' x 120') TOTAL LOTS = 332 LOTS GARDEN APARTMENTS (150' x 70'') TOTAL APARTMENTS = 288 UNITS (24 UNITS / BUILDING) APARTMENT AMENITY SPACE PROPERTY LINE, TYPICAL (TAKEN FROM NHC GIS)Licence #C-36411429 ASH-LITTLE RIVER RD. NW ASH, NC 28420 PHONE (910) 287-5900 NORRIS & TUNSTALL CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.C. 1900 EASTWOOD RD., SUITE #11 WILMINGTON, NC 28403 PHONE (910) 343-9653 SITE DATA TABLE PROJECT #19146 APPENDIX B Table 4.6 – Comparison of Required and Existing Elevated Storage - 2030 Sweeney Richardson Monterey Heights Required Equalizing Storage Average Day Demand (mgd) 18.83 3.23 0.70 Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 30.82 5.58 1.12 Equalizing Percentage 17% 11% 11% Equalizing Volume (MG) 5.24 0.61 0.12 Required Fire Storage Needed Fire Flow (gpm) 3,500 3,500 2,500 Duration (hours) 3 3 2 Fire Storage Volume (MG) 0.63 0.63 0.30 Duration (hours) Required Elevated Storage (Equalizing + Fire Storage) (MG) 5.87 1.24 0.42 Existing Elevated Storage Capacity (MG) Dawson St Tank 1.50 17th St Tank 1.50 Westbrook Tank 2.00 Porter's Neck Tank 0.50 Ogden Park Tank 0.60 Porters Neck Plantation 0.80 Castle Haynes Tank 0.50 Holly Shelter School Tank 0.50 Wrightsboro Tank (temporarily offline) Veterans Park Tank 0.50 Total existing capacity 6.00 1.90 0.50 Excess (or deficit) capacity (MG) 0.13 0.66 0.08 Table 4.7 – Comparison of Required and Existing Elevated Storage - 2040 Sweeney/ Richardson Monterey Heights Required Equalizing Storage Average Day Demand (mgd) 25.21 0.76 Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 41.46 1.21 Equalizing Percentage 17% 11% Equalizing Volume (MG) 7.05 0.13 Required Fire Storage Needed Fire Flow (gpm) 3,500 2,500 Duration (hours) 3 2 Fire Storage Volume (MG) 0.63 0.30 Duration (hours) Required Elevated Storage (Equalizing + Fire Storage) (MG) 7.68 0.43 Existing Elevated Storage Capacity (MG) Dawson St Tank 1.50 17th St Tank 1.50 Westbrook Tank 2.00 Porter's Neck Tank 0.50 Ogden Park Tank 0.60 Porters Neck Plantation 0.80 Castle Haynes Tank 0.50 Holly Shelter School Tank 0.50 Wrightsboro Tank (temporarily offline) Veterans Park Tank 0.50 Total existing capacity 7.90 0.50 Excess (or deficit) capacity (MG) 0.22 0.07 Table 4.8 – Comparison of Required and Existing Elevated Storage – 2050 Sweeney/ Richardson Monterey Heights Required Equalizing Storage Average Day Demand (mgd) 28.05 0.82 Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 46.04 1.31 Equalizing Percentage 17% 11% Equalizing Volume (MG) 7.83 0.14 Required Fire Storage Needed Fire Flow (gpm) 3,500 2,500 Duration (hours) 3 2 Fire Storage Volume (MG) 0.63 0.30 Duration (hours) Required Elevated Storage (Equalizing + Fire Storage) (MG) 8.46 0.44 Existing Elevated Storage Capacity (MG) Dawson St Tank 1.50 17th St Tank 1.50 Westbrook Tank 2.00 Porter's Neck Tank 0.50 Ogden Park Tank 0.60 Porters Neck Plantation 0.80 Castle Haynes Tank 0.50 Holly Shelter School Tank 0.50 Wrightsboro Tank (returned to service) 0.50 Veterans Park Tank 0.50 Total existing capacity 8.40 0.50 Excess (or deficit) capacity (MG) (0.06) 0.06 Table 4.9: Comparison of Required and Existing Emergency Storage: 2030-2050 Capacity (MG) 2030 2040 2050 Average Day Demand (mgd) 22.75 25.97 28.87 Total Emergency Storage Required (75% of Average Day Demand) 17.06 19.48 21.65 Existing Emergency Storage Capacity Sweeney Clearwell 16.00 16.00 16.00 Richardson Clearwell 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total Elevated Storage (without Dawson and Porters Neck Plantation) 6.10 6.10 6.60 Total Existing Capacity 24.10 24.10 24.60 Total Elevated Storage Excess (Deficit) 7.04 4.62 2.95 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..10: Existing Pump and Treatment Capacity Assessment – 2030 Sweeney Richardson Pump Capacity Required Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 30.82 5.58 Existing Firm Pump Capacity Sweeney WTP (mgd) 50.80 Richardson WTP (mgd) 9.00 Monterey Heights Wells (mgd) Total (mgd) 50.80 9.00 Excess (Deficit) Pumping Capacity (mgd) 19.98 3.42 Existing Plant Capacity Sweeney WTP (mgd) 35.00 Richardson WTP (mgd) 6.00 Monterey Heights Wells (mgd) (Safe Yield) Total (mgd) 35.00 6.00 Excess (Deficit) Plant Capacity (mgd) 4.18 0.44 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..11: Existing Pump and Treatment Capacity Assessment – 2040 & 2050 2040 2050 Pump Capacity Required Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 41.3 46.0 Existing Firm Pump Capacity Sweeney WTP (mgd) 50.8 50.8 Richardson WTP (mgd) 9.0 9.0 Monterey Heights Wells (mgd) Total (mgd) 59.8 59.8 Excess (Deficit) Pumping Capacity (mgd) 18.5 13.8 Existing Plant Capacity Sweeney WTP (mgd) 44.0 44.0 Richardson WTP (mgd) 9.6 9.6 Monterey Heights Wells (mgd) (Safe Yield) Total (mgd) 53.6 53.6 Excess (Deficit) Plant Capacity (mgd) 12.3 7.6 APPENDIX C Figure 6.1: 2030 Maximum Day Demand EPS Tank Water Levels in the Sweeney Zone, with Proposed Improvements Figure 6.2: 2030 Maximum Day Demand EPS Tank HGLs in the Sweeney Zone, with Proposed Improvements Figure 6.3: 2030 Maximum Day Demand EPS Tank Water Levels in the Richardson Zone, with Proposed Improvements Figure 6.4: 2030 Maximum Day Demand EPS Tank HGLs in the Richardson Zone, with Proposed Improvements Figure 6.9: 2040 Maximum Day Demand EPS Tank Water Levels in the Sweeney/Richardson Zone, with Proposed Improvements Figure 6.10: 2040 Maximum Day Demand EPS Tank HGLs in the Sweeney Zone, with Proposed Improvements Figure 6.15: 2050 Maximum Day Demand EPS Tank Water Levels in the Sweeney/Richardson Zone, with Proposed Improvements APPENDIX D Table 6.6: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Year 2030 Projects Item Castle Hayne Rd South Holly Shelter Rd 2030 North College Rd Plantation Rd West Plantation Rd East Sidbury Rd West Sidbury Rd East Pipe and Appurtenances $748,000 $1,404,000 $1,146,000 $1,734,000 $1,755,000 $2,077,000 $2,024,000 Trenchless Crossings $442,000 $251,000 $65,000 $365,000 $0 $227,000 $276,000 Erosion and Sediment Control $28,000 $47,000 $29,000 $57,000 $44,000 $54,000 $65,000 Miscellaneous $30,000 $50,000 $31,000 $61,000 $47,000 $57,000 $70,000 Mobilization - 3% $38,000 $53,000 $39,000 $67,000 $56,000 $73,000 $74,000 Contingency - 20% $258,000 $361,000 $262,000 $455,000 $381,000 $498,000 $502,000 Construction Total $1,544,000 $2,166,000 $1,572,000 $2,729,000 $2,283,000 $2,986,000 $3,011,000 Design and Permitting - 12% of Construction $186,000 $260,000 $189,000 $328,000 $274,000 $359,000 $362,000 Easements - 0.5% of Construction $8,000 $11,000 $8,000 $14,000 $12,000 $15,000 $16,000 Construction Administration - 5% of Construction $78,000 $109,000 $79,000 $137,000 $115,000 $150,000 $151,000 Project Total $1,816,000 $2,546,000 $1,848,000 $3,208,000 $2,684,000 $3,510,000 $3,540,000 Table 6.7: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Year 2040 Projects Item Castle Hayne Rd North Holly Shelter Rd 2040 Connection Blue Clay Rd 2040 Pipe and Appurtenances $1,585,000 $29,000 $1,172,000 Trenchless Crossings $290,000 $0 $33,000 Erosion and Sediment Control $42,000 $1,000 $38,000 Miscellaneous $45,000 $1,000 $40,000 Mobilization - 3% $59,000 $1,000 $39,000 Contingency - 20% $405,000 $7,000 $265,000 Construction Total $2,426,000 $39,000 $1,587,000 Design and Permitting - 12% of Construction $292,000 $5,000 $191,000 Easements - 0.5% of Construction $13,000 $1,000 $8,000 Construction Administration - 5% of Construction $122,000 $2,000 $80,000 Project Total $2,853,000 $47,000 $1,866,000 Table 6.8: Preliminary Cost Estimate for Year 2050 Projects Item Blue Clay Rd 2050 Pipe and Appurtenances $529,000 Trenchless Crossings $276,000 Erosion and Sediment Control $19,000 Miscellaneous $20,000 Mobilization - 3% $26,000 Contingency - 20% $174,000 Construction Total $1,044,000 Design and Permitting - 12% of Construction $126,000 Easements - 0.5% of Construction $6,000 Construction Administration - 5% of Construction $53,000 Project Total $1,229,000