Appendix VIII. Hazen and Sawyer Technical Memorandum: Option 4: Permanent Haw River Intake. and. Supporting Tables Showing Results of OWASA Analysis

Transcription

1 Appendix VIII. Hazen and Sawyer Technical Memorandum: Option 4: Permanent Haw River Intake and Supporting Tables Showing Results of OWASA Analysis

2

3 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Option 4: Permanent Haw River Intake PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Orange Water and Sewer Authority Hazen and Sawyer, P.C DATE: January 19, 2008 (Final: March 2, 2009) 1.0 Description and Scope This water supply option involves the construction of permanent intake facilities on the Haw River at an Orange County site in the vicinity of Old Greensboro Road (S.R. 1005) and includes two scenarios for conveying raw water (RW) from this location to the OWASA system (refer to Figure 1): Option 4a: Option 4b: Install a pipeline along public right-of-ways to deliver RW to Cane Creek Reservoir. No further improvements are included under this scenario. In addition to Option 4a facilities, install a parallel RW main and increase the pumping capacity from Cane Creek Reservoir to the Jones Ferry Road Water Treatment Plant (JFR WTP) as required to increase RW system flexibility and yield. Alternative parallel main options are shown schematically in Figure 1 and discussed below. Figure 1: Schematic Illustration of Option 4 Features & Variations Cane Creek Reservoir Opt 4b(1), D= 24, Q=21 mgd 4b(2), D= 30, Q= 25 mgd Opt 4a: Existing Delivery Capacity 10.7 mgd firm Opt 4b(3)= 4b(2) + D= 24, Q= 27 mgd Opt 4b Pumping Stn. Improvements Stone Quarry Reservoir 8.3 mgd Intake & Pump Stn. Delivery Capacity 6 mgd JFR WTP Haw River University Lake Delivery Capacity 16 mgd 20 mgd Max. Appendix VIII Page 1 of 30

4 2.0 Background During the severe drought of , OWASA investigated potential sites for constructing an emergency water supply intake on the Haw River and for routing an emergency above-ground pipeline to the Cane Creek Reservoir. These investigations identified a potential intake site on the river in the vicinity of Old Greensboro Road (S.R. 1005). Contingency planning was suspended after drought conditions abated in This TM reviews the potential for constructing a permanent Haw River intake in that vicinity and RW transmission system improvements needed to optimize the yield of this potential supply source. 3.0 Conceptual Design 3.1 Design Capacity and Regulatory Issues The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports a seven-day, ten-year low flow (7Q10) of 75.9 cfs (49.1 mgd) for the Haw River at Bynum. 1 By scaling the drainage areas (1,082 square miles at Old Greensboro Road vs. 1,275 square miles at Bynum), the 7Q10 at the Old Greensboro Road intake site is estimated to be 41.6 mgd. According to minimum instream flow guidelines published by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (DWR), no state or federal Section 401/404 permits, regulatory field studies, or instream flow releases are required for run-of-river projects where the source water is classified for water supply, no dam or weir construction is necessary, and where the rate of withdrawal is less than 20 percent of the 7Q10. 2 In order to minimize regulatory constraints, it is therefore recommended that: (a) the capacity of a potential Haw River intake be limited to 8.3 mgd, which is slightly less than 20 percent of the 7Q10; and, (b) the intake should be located in a section of the river where sufficient water depth during low flow conditions precludes the need to construct a weir or low dam, which would require a Section 401/401 permit. For the planning purposes of this TM, alternative costs are estimated for intake scenarios with and without the construction of a weir. Existing regulatory guidelines are subject to change, and a recent draft report on water allocations prepared for the NC Environmental Review Commission recommends that a permit should be required for all new and existing withdrawers 1 Low-flow Characteristics and Discharge Profiles for Selected Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998, USGS Water-Resource Investigations Report , Weaver and Pope, Note: Bynum 7Q10 estimate confirmed in personal of December 19, 2007, from Ms. Jeanne Robbins, USGS, to Mr. Ed Holland, OWASA. 2 How are Instream Flow Recommendations Determined by the Division of Water Resources? Prepared by NC DENR DWR as a guidance document: Appendix VIII Page 2 of 30

5 from NC ground or surface waters of 100,000 gallons or more per day in any single twenty-four hour period Water Quality Classification The potential intake location at Old Greensboro Road is currently classified as C/NSW (aquatic life propagation/protection/nutrient sensitive waters); i.e., not currently classified for use as as a public water supply source. The WS-IV classification (supply source for drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes) begins at a point approximately 1.2 miles downstream of Old Greensboro Road. If new Jordan Lake watershed protection rules are approved by the North Carolina General Assembly as currently drafted (March, 2009), this portion of the Haw River will become WS-V (protected as a water supply which is generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters). OWASA would have to successfully petition the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to reclassify the Haw River to WS-IV from Old Greensboro Road to a point 10 miles upstream in order to construct a water intake at this location. All upstream land draining to this point would become designated as Protected Area, and all upstream land within one-half mile (Figure 2)would become a designated Critical Area as defined by State rules. Figure 2. C ritical and Protected Area Delineations for a Potential Haw River Intake at Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) 3 Draft 2008 Report of the Water Allocation Study Team to the NC Environmental Review Commission, Richard Whisnant, Bill Holman, et al, Appendix VIII Page 3 of 30

6 A successful petition to the EMC would first require resolutions of support from the Orange County and Alamance County Boards of Commissioners, who exercise planning and zoning jurisdiction within the potential Protected or Critical Areas. Reclassification to WS-IV would require local land use and development practices and limitations as follows: 4 Land within the ½-mile Critical Area: o o o o o o Dischargers: Domestic and Industrial Allowable Development: Low Density Option: 2du/ac or 24% built-upon area High Density Option*: 24-50% built-upon area (* Required to control the 1" storm) 10/70 Provision (high density development potion): Not allowed Residuals application: No new sites Landfills: No new landfills Agriculture BMPs: Required Land within the 10-mile Protected Area: o o o o o o Dischargers: Domestic and Industrial Allowable Development: Low Density Option: 2du/ac or 24% built-upon area High Density Option*: 24-70% built-upon area (* Required to control the 1" storm) 10/70 Provision: Allowed Residuals application: Allowed Landfills: Allowed Agriculture BMPs: Not required It is likely that a proposal to reclassify this portion of the Haw River to WS-IV would be opposed by some upstream property owners and other stakeholders Other Regulatory Considerations A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) would be required to construct the proposed intake. This permit authorizes the construction and removal of temporary measures, including cofferdams, provided that the permanent structure is authorized by the COE or exempt from Section 404 permit requirements. As discussed below in Section 3.3, the Cane Creek Reservoir is classified as WS-II. Current water quality regulations do not restrict the mixing of raw water from sources with different water supply classifications either in-reservoir, in-transit, or at the point of treatment; but, it is recommended that potential water quality issues associated with mixing Haw River and Cane Creek Reservoir water be evaluated 4 Appendix VIII Page 4 of 30

7 and reviewed with officials of NCDENR s Division of Water Quality and Public Water Supply Section. 3.2 Intake and Pumping Station Cross-sectional river bottom surveys conducted by OWASA during the extreme drought of 2007 identified areas upstream of Old Greensboro Road where a water depth of about 5 feet is sustained during periods of low stream flow. Such a depth is generally adequate for locating a river intake without constructing a weir or dam to increase submergence (thus avoiding a Section 401/404 Permit review). The surveyed sections also indicate that the deepest points are close to the river s easternmost (Orange County) bank, where it appears to be feasible to construct a caisson-type pumping station structure onshore with the extension of one or more intake lines water-ward, approximately 100 feet to the deepest section, via microtunneling or other marine pipeline boring techniques. For conceptual design purposes, it is assumed that two 24-inch diameter intake lines would be installed and furnished with fine Johnson-type screens, similar to the Cane Creek Reservoir intake structure. The pumping station s operating level would be above the 100-year flood elevation and the facility would house two or more vertical turbine pumps. Alternative intake and pumping station concepts should be explored if OWASA decides to implement Option 4. If a deep water site near Old Greensboro Road could not be procured, a low weir (i.e., submerged dam) would be required to provide the necessary submergence. A permanent weir could be constructed with various techniques, such as subaqueous cast-in-place concrete; precast concrete box culvert sections anchored to the river bed and later filled with concrete or other suitable fill; or a concrete- or rock-filled diaphragm wall constructed of concrete or steel sheeting. All such construction would require a Section 401/404 permit. 3.3 Interconnection to the OWASA System Figure 3 shows a potential route for a pipeline to connect a new intake on the Haw River to Cane Creek Reservoir. The route of the existing Cane Creek-JFR WTP raw water main is also shown. Under Option 4b, this main would be paralleled to increase raw water conveyance capacity. All transmission mains are routed along public right-of-ways to the maximum practical extent. Figure 3: Option 4 Pipeline Alternatives Option 4a involves the installation of a RW main from the proposed Haw River intake location to the Cane Creek Reservoir as summarized in Table 1. Assuming no water quality constraints, the direct discharge to Cane Creek Reservoir is recommended based on the following considerations: Appendix VIII Page 5 of 30

8 A pipeline from the Haw River to the Cane Creek Reservoir will require pumping against an elevation difference of about 150 feet and a total pumping head of about 200 feet (including friction losses) at a rate of 8.3 mgd in a 24-inch diameter main. The existing Cane Creek pumps operate at a head of up to about 250 feet, which would be additive to the Haw River- Cane Creek head. Thus, to convey flow from the Haw River to the JFR WTP, it would be necessary to provide supplementary pumping either (a) via a booster pumping station on the Haw River pipeline or (b) by expanding the capacity of the existing Cane Creek pumping station. The latter is less expensive and is the overall preferred approach. It is also consistent with the OWASA Capital Improvements Program s proposed approach to resolving RW pumping capacity limitations at the Cane Creek Reservoir. Consistent with the above, water from the Haw River can either be discharged directly into Cane Creek Reservoir or connected to the Cane Creek pumping station suction main. Because both approaches have merits and shortcomings, a dual connection arrangement is recommended: The direct discharge of Haw River water into the reservoir might adversely affect Cane Creek Reservoir water quality, although inreservoir mixing and settling might be beneficial during periods of high turbidity in the Haw River. Appendix VIII Page 6 of 30

9 A direct connection to the suction main would allow Haw River water to be pumped directly to the JFR WTP, thus minimizing inreservoir mixing. Cane Creek would provide the balance of water pumped in excess of 8.3 mgd, while excess Haw River water would discharge to the reservoir as reverse flow through the suction main and intake screens at other times. The conceptual design discussed under Section 3.2 above includes fine screens, as required under this approach to prevent clogging of the Cane Creek Reservoir screens. It is recommended that this configuration be evaluated carefully for potential adverse effects on Cane Creek Reservoir water quality versus the potential water quality benefits of diluting and settling turbid Haw River water. Table 1: Summary of Potential Raw Water Main Improvements Option Description Raw Water Main Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Capacity (mgd) Incremental Yield (mgd) 4a Haw R. to Cane Creek R , / b(1) 4a + Parallel existing C.C. 24 main 24 27, b(2) 4a + Parallel existing C.C. 24 main 30 27, b(3) 4b(2) + parallel existing CC 30 main 24 24, mgd capacity from Haw River to Cane Creek Reservoir, with pumping from Cane Creek Reservoir to the JFR WTP remaining at the present capacity of 10.7 mgd. All other listed capacities are from Cane Creek to the JFR WTP. Option 4b includes the Option 4a facilities plus the installation of a parallel RW main along NC 54 along either the most restrictive portion or all the way to the JFR WTP. The existing Cane Creek RW main was constructed in two stages: a 24-inch main from the Cane Creek Reservoir to the existing Stone Quarry Reservoir, where water may be conveyed either to University lake via Phils Creek, discharged to the Quarry Reservoir, or pumped from this source to the JFR WTP; and a 30-inch RW main extension from the Quarry Reservoir to the JFR WTP. Table 1 lists three parallel pipeline options, as follows: 1. Parallel the existing 24-inch section of main (Cane Creek Reservoir to Stone Quarry Reservoir) with a new pipeline of the same diameter. Preliminary hydraulic analyses indicate that this improvement would increase pumping capacity from Cane Creek Reservoir to the JFR WTP from the present limit of 10.7 mgd to approximately 21 mgd; or 2. Parallel the existing 24-inch main with a new 30-inch pipeline, thereby increasing Cane Creek pumping capacity to approximately 25 mgd. 3. In addition to the improvements described above in Option 4b(2), parallel the existing 30-inch section (Stone Quarry Reservoir to JFR WTP) with a new 24 inch main, thereby increasing total RW transmission capacity to approximately 30 mgd. Appendix VIII Page 7 of 30

10 3.4 Supplementary Pumping The pumping capacity estimates for Option 4b in Table 1 are preliminary and assume that the existing Cane Creek pumping station would be expanded and that a third pump would be added to provide firm capacity at the estimated levels shown in Table 1. As previously noted, it is preferable to expand the Cane Creek pumping facilities to increase transmission capacity from the Haw River (as well as from Cane Creek Reservoir) to the JFR WTP, rather than to construct a separate booster station that would pump only Haw River water. The Cane Creek pumping station, which was designed to be expanded, currently houses two two-speed, split-case centrifugal pumps. With the reservoir at full pool, each of the existing pumps is capable of delivering approximately 10.7 mgd to the JFR WTP on high speed and about 5 to 8 mgd at low speed. Pumping capacity declines to about 9.7 mgd as the reservoir falls to its minimum operating level. Option 4a includes no improvements to the Cane Creek raw water transmission facilities and thus no increase above the present hydraulic capacity. Preliminary analyses of hydraulic performance under Option 4b indicate that (a) paralleling all or the most restrictive portion of the Cane Creek raw water main would increase the operating capacity of each of the existing pumps up to a maximum of about 15 mgd, and (b) variable speed or other controls may be required to avoid operating the pumps beyond their design operating limits. At lease one additional pump and a building expansion would be required to increase firm pumping capacity beyond 15 mgd. More detailed studies would be needed to evaluate pumping equipment and related facility improvements. 4.0 Performance Evaluation Data from the USGS gage on the Haw River at Bynum (Figure 4) indicate that streamflow at this location (which is considered to be representative of flow conditions at the proposed Old Greensboro Road location) declined to less than the 7Q10 for a total of 39 days during calendar year 2007, but for only 6 days during the entire drought, which was the drought of record for OWASA s system. River flow has not declined to less than 20 percent of the 7Q10 since If it is assumed that no instream flow requirement would have to be maintained if proposed withdrawals were less than DENR s 20% 7Q10 guideline as discussed in Section 3.1, OWASA could (theoretically) withdraw all remaining flow from the river when streamflow fell below the 20% 7Q10 level; however, actual intake operation at very low river levels would be constrained by the needs of downstream water users. In consideration of the relatively short period of record for the Bynum stream gage, and to simplify OWASA-ROM modeling of this option, a constant withdrawal rate of 8.3 mgd has been assumed for planning-level purposes. However, a flow of 0.3 mgd is subtracted from the calculated yield results to account for operation during periods of sub-7q10 flows. Appendix VIII Page 8 of 30

11 Figure 4: Number of Days Per Year With Haw River Streamflow Less than 7Q10 or Less Than 20% of 7Q Based on average daily flow data for USGS , period of record November 1973-November Consistent with TM 1 Engineering Basis for Technical Evaluations of Water Supply Alternatives, the OWASA-ROM modeling for this option is based on estimated active reservoir storage in 2060, with 20 percent of active storage held in reserve, and with no assumed reduction in streamflow (i.e., no additional allowance for changes in climate or land use/land cover). Table 2 summarizes the results of preliminary performance modeling of the three Haw River intake options. Modeling indicates that Option 4a would provide an incremental increase in yield of only about 2.0 mgd, because existing RW transmission limitations would leave about 1.5 billion gallons of unused water remaining in the Cane Creek Reservoir during the peaks of the and droughts. The model indicates that an incremental increase in yield of 7.5 mgd could be achieved (and all storage in Cane Creek Reservoir utilized) under all three of the Option 4b Cane Creek parallel main scenarios, and reservoir refill times would remain essentially unchanged from present conditions under these scenarios. For option 4a, the refill time would be reduced during both the and the droughts. The following comments address two related issues: The incremental increase in yield that can be achieved under the Haw River option is sensitive to the assumed reservoir conditions that would trigger the beginning and cessation of Haw River pumping. The results in Table 2 assume that water would be pumped from the Haw River at the 8.3 mgd Appendix VIII Page 9 of 30

12 design rate whenever storage in Cane Creek Reservoir falls below 95 percent full. Figure 5 shows the effects on incremental yield of varying this trigger point from 100 percent down to 40 percent of full storage, which would reduce the increase in yield to 5.1 mgd. Table 2: Option 4 Performance Summary Option System Yield (mgd) Total Increase Year Drought of Record Refill Time (months) Existing Comments 4a ( ) 11.4 (16.9) Approximately 1.5 BG of Cane Creek Reservoir storage cannot be pumped. 4b (1, 2 & 3) Incremental gain in yield is the same for all three piping scenarios. Figure 5: Effects on Yield of Different Reservoir Trigger Levels for Pumping from the Haw River The fact that the incremental gain is less than 8.0 mgd (i.e., the design pumping rate minus adjustment) even when the trigger is raised to 100 percent (i.e., continuous pumping from the Haw River) is due to increased evaporative losses associated with reservoir storage levels for this option compared to the present system. Although all three Option 4b scenarios provide equivalent increases in operational yield, it is recommended that OWASA consider the advantages in operational flexibility and redundancy offered by these three piping options as a part of the planning process. Appendix VIII Page 10 of 30

13 5.0 Economic Evaluation Tables 3A and 3B summarize conceptual-level estimates of capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), lifecycle, and levelized unit costs for the Option 4 variations discussed above. Table 3B includes costs for constructing a low dam or weir if needed to provide sufficient submergence depth at the selected intake site. Option 4a has the lowest overall project costs but the highest levelized cost due to its lower increase in operational yield. Option 4b(1) has the lowest levelized cost, but this does not reflect the additional raw water delivery capacity provided by Options 4b(2) and 4b(3). Detailed cost breakouts for each alternative are provided in the attached Tables 4a, 4b(1), 4b(2), and 4b(3). Cost estimates are presented in 2009 dollars and have been developed in accordance with TM 1 Engineering Basis for Technical Evaluations of Water Supply Alternatives. All costs are planning-level order-of-magnitude estimates intended for comparing alternatives and for long-range planning purposes. Table 3A: Summary of Option 4 Project Costs (No Dam) Description Project Costs (Million 2009 Dollars) Option 4a 4b1 4b2 4b3 Construction Cost Subtotal $10.50 $18.98 $20.96 $25.76 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead, Profit $2.10 $3.80 $4.19 $5.15 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $12.60 $22.78 $25.15 $30.91 Engineering Design and Construction Services $1.89 $3.42 $3.77 $4.64 Property and Easement Acquisition (Estimate) $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 Legal Fees, Permits, and Approvals $1.26 $2.28 $2.52 $3.09 Contingency (25%) $3.95 $7.13 $7.87 $9.67 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS $19.80 $35.70 $39.40 $48.40 PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE-CYCLE COSTS $20.80 $41.50 $45.20 $54.30 INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL YIELD (MGD) Estimated 50-Yr Levelized Cost ($/1,000 gals) $0.63 $0.33 $0.36 $0.43 Table 3B: Summary of Option 4 Project Costs (With Dam) Description Project Costs (Million 2009 Dollars) OPTION 4a 4b1 4b2 4b3 Construction Cost Subtotal $12.30 $20.78 $22.76 $27.56 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead, Profit $2.46 $4.16 $4.55 $5.51 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $14.76 $24.94 $27.31 $33.07 Engineering Design and Construction Services $2.21 $3.74 $4.10 $4.96 Appendix VIII Page 11 of 30

14 Property and Easement Acquisition (Estimate) $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 Legal Fees, Permits, and Approvals $4.43 $7.48 $8.19 $9.92 Contingency (25%) $5.36 $9.05 $9.91 $12.00 ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS $26.80 $45.30 $49.60 $60.00 PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE-CYCLE COSTS $27.40 $50.40 $54.70 $65.00 INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL YIELD (MGD) Estimated 50-Yr Levelized Cost ($/1,000 gals) $0.84 $0.40 $0.43 $ Conclusions and Recommendations The following are the main findings of this TM, with emphasis on issues that may affect this option s viability: 1. Conceptual evaluations for a permanent Haw River intake are based on the Old Greensboro Road site evaluated by OWASA in 2007 and assume a maximum pumping rate of 8.3 mgd, which is slightly below the estimated 20 percent 7Q10 flow for that location. A flow of 0.3 mgd has been subtracted from the calculated yield results to account for periods of very low flow when pumping from the Haw River might be constrained or reduced. 2. Option 4a, which includes no raw water conveyance improvements from Cane Creek Reservoir to the JFR WTP, would increase overall yield by 2 mgd. Option 4b, which includes Cane Creek conveyance improvements, would increase yield by 7.7 mgd. 3. The incremental increase in yield is sensitive to the assumed reservoir storage levels that would trigger the beginning and end of pumping from the Haw River. 4. In addition to a Haw River pumping station, supplementary pumping will be required to pump RW from the Haw River to the JFR WTP. A direct connection to the Cane Creek RW main would require the construction of a booster pumping station on the new Haw River main. The preferred approach would be to discharge Haw River first into the Cane Creek Reservoir (and/or to the suction main of the Cane Creek pumping station) and then expand the existing Cane Creek facilities to pump Haw River and/or Cane Creek water at an increased rate to the JFR WTP. Although existing State regulations do not prohibit the mixing of waters with different WS classifications, it is recommended that the water quality implications of this approach be carefully considered and reviewed with regulatory officials. 5. Because the Haw River at the proposed intake location is not currently classified for use as a public water supply source, it would be necessary for Appendix VIII Page 12 of 30

15 the NC Environmental Management Commission to reclassify this portion of the river and upstream environs. The reclassification process would require designation of Critical and Protected Areas upstream of the intake site in accordance with DWQ criteria and might be opposed by upstream property owners and other stakeholders. 6. No other major permitting issues have been identified for this option, provided that the withdrawal capacity remains below 20 percent of the 7Q10 and that no weir or low dam is needed to increase pump intake submergence. As discussed in Section 3.1, recommendations of a recent report on water allocations prepared for the NC Environmental Review Commission may eventually result in new permitting requirements for all withdrawals of 0.1 mgd and greater. Appendix VIII Page 13 of 30

16 Appendix VIII Page 14 of 30

17 Table 4a. OWASA Long-Range Water Supply Plan Update Conceptual-Level Project Cost Estimate Permanent Haw River Intake and Transmission Facilities, 8.3 mgd Pumping Increment (8.3 mgd Design Capacity) Option 4a: Raw Water Pumping to Cane Creek Reservoir No. Description 1 CAPITAL COST Pipe Diam. Allocated Fraction 2009 DOLLARS Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 2 Raw Water Intake Structure Johnson Screen-Type Intake 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 3 Intake Piping Directional Bore (minimum 30") 30 in 200 LF $2,000 $400,000 Pipeline to new RWPS 24 in 200 LF $200 $40,000 4 Raw Water Pump Station 8.3 MGD Capacity 1 LS $2,680,000 $2,680,000 5 Raw Water Transmission Raw Water Trans. Main to from Haw River to Cane Creek R. 24 in 26,000 LF $200 $5,200,000 6 Raw Water Booster Station N/A 7 Raw Water Outlet Structure Energy Dissipation valve/structure 1 LS $210,000 $210,000 8 Cane Creek Transmission Incremental Costs (1) N/A 9 Emergency Generators Raw Water Pump Station 1 LS $930,000 $930, CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $10,460, CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 12 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 20% x Line 10) 20% $2,092, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $12,552, Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 18% x Line 10) 18% $1,883, Subtotal $14,435, Property & Easement Acquisition (Estimate) $50,000 $50, Subtotal $14,485, Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 10% x Line 13) 10% $1,255, Subtotal $15,740, Contingency (@ 25% x Line 19) 25% $3,935, ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST $19,700, PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE-CYCLE COSTS: (2) $23,900, INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL YIELD, MGD: Estimated 50-Yr Levelized Cost ($/1,000 gallons): Based on Volume Pumped: $ Based on Incremental Yield: (2) $0.73 (1) Applicable to Haw River options requiring the upgrade of transmission facilities from Cane Creek Reservoir to JFR WTP. (2) Refer to attached life-cycle evaluation. CALCULATION OF LIFE-CYCLE AND LEVELIZED COSTS Discount Rate: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Fixed O&M Costs: 6.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Rehab & Replacement: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Variable O & M Costs: 4.0% per year Capital Costs Debt Financing Issuing Expense: 1.0% Rate: 5.0% per year Term: 25 years Improvements implemented in Year: 2015 Where not Option Specific Fixed Annual O&M Costs Incremental staffing and other costs, where applicable: per annum Variable O&M Costs for Pumping, etc. Energy Cost: $0.08 per kw-hr electrical energy Pumping Rate: 8.3 mgd Pumping Head Haw River - JFR WTP via Cane Creek R.: 595 feet % effective yield pumped at Beginning & End of Life-Cycle: 1% 35% Initial Variable Costs: N/A Periodic Rehabilitation & Replacement (R&R) of Capital Improvements Cost of Replacement Components as % Total Construction Cost: 15.0% per year (equals 63.7 % of project capital cost) Replacement Occurs Every: 20 years Life-cycle for Calculation of Salvage Value: 50 years Appendix VIII Page 15 of 30

18 Permanent Haw River Intake and Transmission Facilities, 8.3 mgd Pumping Increment (8.3 mgd Design Capacity) Option 4a: Raw Water Pumping to Cane Creek Reservoir Except as Noted, All Costs in Actual (inflated) Dollars Year OWASA Capital Water O&M Costs (3) Total Annual Costs Cost Rehab. & Pumped (on Year Replace-ment Total Net Present (mgd) (2) Fixed Variable Implemented) Annual Worth Base Yr. (1) Base Costs 2015 $26,664,000 $646,300 Based on Vol. Pumped 2009 Dollars Levelized Costs ($/1000 gals) Based on Inc. Yield Year Annual Costs Running Totals $1,802,000 $1,802,000 $1,345,000 $ $1,802,000 $1,802,000 $1,281,000 $ $1,802,000 $1,802,000 $1,220,000 $ $1,802,000 $1,802,000 $1,162,000 $ $1,802,000 $1,802,000 $1,106,000 $ $1,802,000 $85,000 $1,887,000 $1,103,000 $ $ $1,802,000 $95,000 $1,897,000 $1,056,000 $96.73 $ $1,802,000 $106,000 $1,908,000 $1,012,000 $58.35 $ $1,802,000 $118,000 $1,920,000 $970,000 $40.49 $ $1,802,000 $131,000 $1,933,000 $930,000 $30.39 $ $1,802,000 $144,000 $1,946,000 $891,000 $24.00 $ $1,802,000 $159,000 $1,961,000 $856,000 $19.62 $ $1,802,000 $174,000 $1,976,000 $821,000 $16.46 $ $1,802,000 $190,000 $1,992,000 $788,000 $14.08 $ $1,802,000 $207,000 $2,009,000 $757,000 $12.24 $ $1,802,000 $226,000 $2,028,000 $728,000 $10.77 $ $1,802,000 $245,000 $2,047,000 $700,000 $9.58 $ $1,802,000 $266,000 $2,068,000 $673,000 $8.59 $ $1,802,000 $288,000 $2,090,000 $648,000 $7.76 $ $1,802,000 $311,000 $2,113,000 $624,000 $7.06 $ $1,802,000 $6,762,000 $335,000 $8,899,000 $2,503,000 $7.09 $ $1,802,000 $361,000 $2,163,000 $579,000 $6.50 $ $1,802,000 $389,000 $2,191,000 $559,000 $5.98 $ $1,802,000 $418,000 $2,220,000 $539,000 $5.53 $ $1,802,000 $449,000 $2,251,000 $521,000 $5.13 $ $482,000 $482,000 $106,000 $4.70 $ $517,000 $517,000 $109,000 $4.32 $ $553,000 $553,000 $111,000 $3.98 $ $592,000 $592,000 $113,000 $3.69 $ $633,000 $633,000 $115,000 $3.43 $ $676,000 $676,000 $117,000 $3.19 $ $722,000 $722,000 $119,000 $2.99 $ $770,000 $770,000 $121,000 $2.80 $ $822,000 $822,000 $123,000 $2.63 $ $875,000 $875,000 $124,000 $2.47 $ $932,000 $932,000 $126,000 $2.33 $ $992,000 $992,000 $128,000 $2.21 $ $1,056,000 $1,056,000 $130,000 $2.09 $ $1,123,000 $1,123,000 $131,000 $1.98 $ $1,193,000 $1,193,000 $133,000 $1.88 $ $17,941,000 $1,268,000 $19,209,000 $2,036,000 $1.93 $ $1,346,000 $1,346,000 $136,000 $1.84 $ $1,429,000 $1,429,000 $137,000 $1.75 $ $1,516,000 $1,516,000 $139,000 $1.67 $ $1,608,000 -$43,222,000 -$3,769,000 $1.38 $0.73 Salvage Value (5): -$27,380,000 -$17,450,000-43,222,000-3,769,000 $1.38 $0.73 Total: -$44,830,000 TOTALS: $45.1 M $24.7 M $23.8 M $48.7 M $23.9 M $1.38 $0.73 (1) Year(s) in which corresponding capital projects are implemented (and corresponding capital debt financing is transacted). (2) Used to calculate levelized costs based on volume of water pumped. (3) All base year O&M costs are in 2009 dollars. Calculated annual O&M costs are in actual (inflated) dollars and commence on the year in which the corresponding capital cost commences. (4) Levelized costs are calculated as the average of present worth of annual costs and effective yield. (5) Salvage values are calculated by straight-line depreciation of capital/r&r costs over indicated lifecycle and escalated to actual dollars using indicated discount rate. Appendix VIII Page 16 of 30

19 Table 4b(1). OWASA Long-Range Water Supply Plan Update Conceptual-Level Project Cost Estimate Permanent Haw River Intake and Transmission Facilities, 8.3 mgd Pumping Increment (8.3 mgd Design Capacity) Option 4b1: Raw Water Pumping to Cane Creek Reservoir with Construction of 24" Parallel Trans. Main No. Description 1 CAPITAL COST Pipe Diam. Allocated Fraction 2009 DOLLARS Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 2 Raw Water Intake Structure Johnson Screen-Type Intake 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 3 Intake Piping Directional Bore (minimum 30") 30 in 200 LF $2,000 $400,000 Pipeline to new RWPS 24 in 200 LF $200 $40,000 4 Raw Water Pump Station 8.3 MGD Capacity 1 LS $2,680,000 $2,680,000 5 Raw Water Transmission Raw Water Trans. Main to from Haw River to Cane Creek R. 24 in 26,000 LF $200 $5,200,000 6 Raw Water Booster Station N/A 7 Raw Water Outlet Structure Energy Dissipation valve/structure 1 LS $210,000 $210,000 8 Cane Creek Transmission Incremental Costs (1) Cane Creek 10 MGD Raw Water Pump Station Expansion 100% 1 LS $2,310,000 $2,310,000 Parallel Trans. Main (Cane Creek to Stone Quarry) 24 in 100% 33,000 LF $200 $6,600,000 9 Emergency Generators Raw Water Pump Station 1 LS $930,000 $930, CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $19,370, CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 12 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 20% x Line 10) 20% $3,874, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $23,244, Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 18% x Line 10) 18% $3,487, Subtotal $26,731, Property & Easement Acquisition (Estimate) $50,000 $50, Subtotal $26,781, Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 10% x Line 13) 10% $2,324, Subtotal $29,105, Contingency (@ 25% x Line 19) 25% $7,276, ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST $36,400, PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE-CYCLE COSTS: (2) $40,600, INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL YIELD, MGD: Estimated 50-Yr Levelized Cost ($/1,000 gallons): Based on Volume Pumped: $ Based on Incremental Yield: (2) $0.32 (1) Applicable to Haw River options requiring the upgrade of transmission facilities from Cane Creek Reservoir to JFR WTP. (2) Refer to attached life-cycle evaluation. CALCULATION OF LIFE-CYCLE AND LEVELIZED COSTS Discount Rate: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Fixed O&M Costs: 6.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Rehab & Replacement: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Variable O & M Costs: 4.0% per year Capital Costs Debt Financing Issuing Expense: 1.0% Rate: 5.0% per year Term: 25 years Improvements implemented in Year: 2015 Fixed Annual O&M Costs Incremental staffing and other costs, where applicable: per annum Variable O&M Costs for Pumping, etc. Energy Cost: $0.08 per kw-hr electrical energy Pumping Rate: 8.3 mgd Pumping Head Haw River - JFR WTP via Cane Creek R.: 595 feet % effective yield pumped at Beginning & End of Life-Cycle: 1% 35% Initial Variable Costs: N/A Periodic Rehabilitation & Replacement (R&R) of Capital Improvements Cost of Replacement Components as % Total Construction Cost: 15.0% per year (equals 63.9 % of project capital cost) Replacement Occurs Every: 20 years Life-cycle for Calculation of Salvage Value: 50 years Appendix VIII Page 17 of 30

20 Permanent Haw River Intake and Transmission Facilities, 8.3 mgd Pumping Increment (8.3 mgd Design Capacity) Option 4b1: Raw Water Pumping to Cane Creek Reservoir with Construction of 24" Parallel Trans. Main Except as Noted, All Costs in Actual (inflated) Dollars Year OWASA Capital Water O&M Costs (3) Cost Rehab. & Replacement Pumped (on Year (mgd) (2) Fixed Variable Implemented) Base Yr. (1) Base Costs 2015 $49,267,000 $646,300 Total Annual Net Present Worth 2009 Dollars Total Annual Costs Based on Vol. Pumped Levelized Cost (4) Year Annual Costs Running Totals $3,329,000 $3,329,000 $2,484,000 $ $3,329,000 $3,329,000 $2,366,000 $ $3,329,000 $3,329,000 $2,253,000 $ $3,329,000 $3,329,000 $2,146,000 $ $3,329,000 $3,329,000 $2,044,000 $ $3,329,000 $85,000 $3,414,000 $1,996,000 $ $ $3,329,000 $95,000 $3,424,000 $1,907,000 $ $ $3,329,000 $106,000 $3,435,000 $1,822,000 $ $ $3,329,000 $118,000 $3,447,000 $1,741,000 $74.06 $ $3,329,000 $131,000 $3,460,000 $1,664,000 $55.50 $ $3,329,000 $144,000 $3,473,000 $1,591,000 $43.74 $ $3,329,000 $159,000 $3,488,000 $1,522,000 $35.71 $ $3,329,000 $174,000 $3,503,000 $1,456,000 $29.91 $ $3,329,000 $190,000 $3,519,000 $1,393,000 $25.56 $ $3,329,000 $207,000 $3,536,000 $1,333,000 $22.18 $ $3,329,000 $226,000 $3,555,000 $1,276,000 $19.49 $ $3,329,000 $245,000 $3,574,000 $1,222,000 $17.30 $ $3,329,000 $266,000 $3,595,000 $1,170,000 $15.49 $ $3,329,000 $288,000 $3,617,000 $1,122,000 $13.98 $ $3,329,000 $311,000 $3,640,000 $1,075,000 $12.69 $ $3,329,000 $12,521,000 $335,000 $16,185,000 $4,552,000 $12.77 $ $3,329,000 $361,000 $3,690,000 $988,000 $11.69 $ $3,329,000 $389,000 $3,718,000 $948,000 $10.74 $ $3,329,000 $418,000 $3,747,000 $910,000 $9.92 $ $3,329,000 $449,000 $3,778,000 $874,000 $9.19 $ $482,000 $482,000 $106,000 $8.39 $ $517,000 $517,000 $109,000 $7.70 $ $553,000 $553,000 $111,000 $7.09 $ $592,000 $592,000 $113,000 $6.55 $ $633,000 $633,000 $115,000 $6.08 $ $676,000 $676,000 $117,000 $5.65 $ $722,000 $722,000 $119,000 $5.27 $ $770,000 $770,000 $121,000 $4.93 $ $822,000 $822,000 $123,000 $4.62 $ $875,000 $875,000 $124,000 $4.34 $ $932,000 $932,000 $126,000 $4.08 $ $992,000 $992,000 $128,000 $3.85 $ $1,056,000 $1,056,000 $130,000 $3.64 $ $1,123,000 $1,123,000 $131,000 $3.44 $ $1,193,000 $1,193,000 $133,000 $3.27 $ $33,222,000 $1,268,000 $34,490,000 $3,656,000 $3.35 $ $1,346,000 $1,346,000 $136,000 $3.19 $ $1,429,000 $1,429,000 $137,000 $3.03 $ $1,516,000 $1,516,000 $139,000 $2.89 $ $1,608,000 -$81,292,000 -$7,089,000 $2.34 $0.32 Salvage Value (5): -$50,590,000 -$32,310,000-81,292,000-7,089,000 $2.34 $0.32 Total: TOTALS: -$82,900,000 $83.2 M $45.7 M $23.8 M $69.9 M $40.6 M $2.34 $0.32 (1) Year(s) in which corresponding capital projects are implemented (and corresponding capital debt financing is transacted). (2) Used to calculate levelized costs based on volume of water pumped. (3) All base year O&M costs are in 2009 dollars. Calculated annual O&M costs are in actual (inflated) dollars and commence on the year in which the corresponding capital cost commences. (4) Levelized costs are calculated as the average of present worth of annual costs and effective yield. (5) Salvage values are calculated by straight-line depreciation of capital/r&r costs over indicated lifecycle and escalated to actual dollars using indicated discount rate. Appendix VIII Page 18 of 30

21 Table 4b(2). OWASA Long-Range Water Supply Plan Update Conceptual-Level Project Cost Estimate Permanent Haw River Intake and Transmission Facilities, 8.3 mgd Pumping Increment (8.3 mgd Design Capacity) Option 4b2: Raw Water Pumping to Cane Creek Reservoir with Construction of 30" Parallel Trans. Main No. Description 1 CAPITAL COST Pipe Diam. Allocated Fraction 2009 DOLLARS Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 2 Raw Water Intake Structure Johnson Screen-Type Intake 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 3 Intake Piping Directional Bore (minimum 30") 30 in 200 LF $2,000 $400,000 Pipeline to new RWPS 24 in 200 LF $200 $40,000 4 Raw Water Pump Station 8.3 MGD Capacity 1 LS $2,680,000 $2,680,000 5 Raw Water Transmission Raw Water Trans. Main to from Haw River to Cane Creek R. 24 in 26,000 LF $200 $5,200,000 6 Raw Water Booster Station N/A 7 Raw Water Outlet Structure Energy Dissipation valve/structure 1 LS $210,000 $210,000 8 Cane Creek Transmission Incremental Costs (1) Cane Creek 14 MGD Raw Water Pump Station Expansion 100% 1 LS $2,970,000 $2,970,000 Parallel Trans. Main (Cane Creek to Stone Quarry) 30 in 100% 33,000 LF $260 $8,580,000 9 Emergency Generators Raw Water Pump Station 1 LS $930,000 $930, CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $22,010, CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 12 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 20% x Line 10) 20% $4,402, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $26,412, Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 18% x Line 10) 18% $3,962, Subtotal $30,374, Property & Easement Acquisition (Estimate) $50,000 $50, Subtotal $30,424, Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 10% x Line 13) 10% $2,641, Subtotal $33,065, Contingency (@ 25% x Line 19) 25% $8,266, ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST $41,300, PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE-CYCLE COSTS: (2) $2,600, INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL YIELD, MGD: Estimated 50-Yr Levelized Cost ($/1,000 gallons): Based on Volume Pumped: $ Based on Incremental Yield: (2) $0.36 (1) Applicable to Haw River options requiring the upgrade of transmission facilities from Cane Creek Reservoir to JFR WTP. (2) Refer to attached life-cycle evaluation. CALCULATION OF LIFE-CYCLE AND LEVELIZED COSTS Discount Rate: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Fixed O&M Costs: 6.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Rehab & Replacement: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Variable O & M Costs: 4.0% per year Capital Costs Debt Financing Issuing Expense: 1.0% Rate: 5.0% per year Term: 25 years Improvements implemented in Year: 2015 Fixed Annual O&M Costs Incremental staffing and other costs, where applicable: per annum Variable O&M Costs for Pumping, etc. Energy Cost: $0.08 per kw-hr electrical energy Pumping Rate: 8.3 mgd Pumping Head Haw River - JFR WTP via Cane Creek R.: 595 feet % effective yield pumped at Beginning & End of Life-Cycle: 1% 35% Variable Treatment Costs: per 1,000 gals/yr Periodic Rehabilitation & Replacement (R&R) of Capital Improvements Cost of Replacement Components as % Total Construction Cost: 15.0% per year (equals 64.0 % of project capital cost) Replacement Occurs Every: 20 years Life-cycle for Calculation of Salvage Value: 50 years Appendix VIII Page 19 of 30

22 Permanent Haw River Intake and Transmission Facilities, 8.3 mgd Pumping Increment (8.3 mgd Design Capacity) Option 4b2: Raw Water Pumping to Cane Creek Reservoir with Construction of 30" Parallel Trans. Main Year Water Pumped (mgd) (2) Except as Noted, All Costs in Actual (inflated) Dollars OWASA Capital O&M Costs (3) Cost Rehab. & (on Year Replace-ment Fixed Variable Implemented) Base Yr. (1) Base Costs 2015 $55,899,000 $646,300 Total Annual Net Present Worth 2009 Dollars Total Annual Costs Based on Vol. Pumped Levelized Cost (4) Year Annual Costs Running Totals $3,777,000 $3,777,000 $2,818,000 $ $3,777,000 $3,777,000 $2,684,000 $ $3,777,000 $3,777,000 $2,556,000 $ $3,777,000 $3,777,000 $2,435,000 $ $3,777,000 $3,777,000 $2,319,000 $ $3,777,000 $85,000 $3,862,000 $2,258,000 $ $ $3,777,000 $95,000 $3,872,000 $2,156,000 $ $ $3,777,000 $106,000 $3,883,000 $2,059,000 $ $ $3,777,000 $118,000 $3,895,000 $1,967,000 $83.91 $ $3,777,000 $131,000 $3,908,000 $1,880,000 $62.86 $ $3,777,000 $144,000 $3,921,000 $1,796,000 $49.53 $ $3,777,000 $159,000 $3,936,000 $1,717,000 $40.43 $ $3,777,000 $174,000 $3,951,000 $1,642,000 $33.86 $ $3,777,000 $190,000 $3,967,000 $1,570,000 $28.92 $ $3,777,000 $207,000 $3,984,000 $1,502,000 $25.09 $ $3,777,000 $226,000 $4,003,000 $1,437,000 $22.04 $ $3,777,000 $245,000 $4,022,000 $1,375,000 $19.56 $ $3,777,000 $266,000 $4,043,000 $1,316,000 $17.52 $ $3,777,000 $288,000 $4,065,000 $1,260,000 $15.80 $ $3,777,000 $311,000 $4,088,000 $1,207,000 $14.35 $ $3,777,000 $14,228,000 $335,000 $18,340,000 $5,158,000 $14.44 $ $3,777,000 $361,000 $4,138,000 $1,108,000 $13.21 $ $3,777,000 $389,000 $4,166,000 $1,063,000 $12.14 $ $3,777,000 $418,000 $4,195,000 $1,019,000 $11.20 $ $3,777,000 $449,000 $4,226,000 $978,000 $10.38 $ $482,000 $482,000 $106,000 $9.48 $ $517,000 $517,000 $109,000 $8.69 $ $553,000 $553,000 $111,000 $8.00 $ $592,000 $592,000 $113,000 $7.39 $ $633,000 $633,000 $115,000 $6.85 $ $676,000 $676,000 $117,000 $6.37 $ $722,000 $722,000 $119,000 $5.94 $ $770,000 $770,000 $121,000 $5.55 $ $822,000 $822,000 $123,000 $5.20 $ $875,000 $875,000 $124,000 $4.88 $ $932,000 $932,000 $126,000 $4.60 $ $992,000 $992,000 $128,000 $4.33 $ $1,056,000 $1,056,000 $130,000 $4.09 $ $1,123,000 $1,123,000 $131,000 $3.87 $ $1,193,000 $1,193,000 $133,000 $3.67 $ $37,750,000 $1,268,000 $39,018,000 $4,136,000 $3.77 $ $1,346,000 $1,346,000 $136,000 $3.58 $ $1,429,000 $1,429,000 $137,000 $3.41 $ $1,516,000 $1,516,000 $139,000 $3.25 $ $1,608,000 -$92,502,000 -$8,067,000 $2.63 $0.36 Salvage Value (5): -$57,400,000 -$36,710,000-92,502,000-8,067,000 $2.63 $0.36 Total: -$94,110,000 TOTALS: $94.4 M $52.0 M $23.8 M $76.1 M $45.6 M $2.63 $0.36 (1) Year(s) in which corresponding capital projects are implemented (and corresponding capital debt financing is transacted). (2) Used to calculate levelized costs based on volume of water pumped. (3) All base year O&M costs are in 2009 dollars. Calculated annual O&M costs are in actual (inflated) dollars and commence on the year in which the corresponding capital cost commences. (4) Levelized costs are calculated as the average of present worth of annual costs and effective yield. (5) Salvage values are calculated by straight-line depreciation of capital/r&r costs over indicated lifecycle and escalated to actual dollars using indicated discount rate. Appendix VIII Page 20 of 30

23 Table 4b(3). OWASA Long-Range Water Supply Plan Update Conceptual-Level Project Cost Estimate Permanent Haw River Intake and Transmission Facilities, 8.3 mgd Pumping Increment (8.3 mgd Design Capacity) Option 4b3: Raw Water Pumping to Cane Creek Reservoir with Construction of 30" and 24"Parallel Trans. Main No. Description 1 CAPITAL COST Pipe Diam. Allocated Fraction 2009 DOLLARS Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 2 Raw Water Intake Structure Johnson Screen-Type Intake 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 3 Intake Piping Directional Bore (minimum 30") 30 in 200 LF $2,000 $400,000 Pipeline to new RWPS 24 in 200 LF $200 $40,000 4 Raw Water Pump Station 8.3 MGD Capacity 1 LS $2,680,000 $2,680,000 5 Raw Water Transmission Raw Water Trans. Main to from Haw River to Cane Creek R. 24 in 26,000 LF $200 $5,200,000 6 Raw Water Booster Station N/A 7 Raw Water Outlet Structure Energy Dissipation valve/structure 1 LS $210,000 $210,000 8 Cane Creek Transmission Incremental Costs (1) Cane Creek 19 MGD Raw Water Pump Station Expansion 100% 1 LS $3,730,000 $3,730,000 Parallel Trans. Main (Cane Creek to Stone Quarry) 30 in 100% 33,000 LF $260 $8,580,000 Parallel Trans. Main (Stone Quarry to JFR WTP) 24 in 100% 24,000 LF $200 $4,800,000 9 Emergency Generators Raw Water Pump Station 1 LS $930,000 $930, CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $27,570, CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES 12 Contractor Mobilization, Overhead & Profit (@ 20% x Line 10) 20% $5,514, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $33,084, Engineering Studies, Design, and Construction Services (@ 18% x Line 10) 18% $4,963, Subtotal $38,047, Property & Easement Acquisition (Estimate) $50,000 $50, Subtotal $38,097, Legal Fees, Permits and Approvals (@ 10% x Line 13) 10% $3,308, Subtotal $41,405, Contingency (@ 25% x Line 19) 25% $10,351, ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPITAL COST $51,800, PRESENT WORTH OF LIFE-CYCLE COSTS: (2) $3,200, INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL YIELD, MGD: Estimated 50-Yr Levelized Cost ($/1,000 gallons): Based on Volume Pumped: $ Based on Incremental Yield: (2) $0.44 (1) Applicable to Haw River options requiring the upgrade of transmission facilities from Cane Creek Reservoir to JFR WTP. (2) Refer to attached life-cycle evaluation. CALCULATION OF LIFE-CYCLE AND LEVELIZED COSTS Discount Rate: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Fixed O&M Costs: 6.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Rehab & Replacement: 5.0% per year Annual Escalation Factor for Variable O & M Costs: 4.0% per year Capital Costs Debt Financing Issuing Expense: 1.0% Rate: 5.0% per year Term: 25 years Improvements implemented in Year: 2015 Fixed Annual O&M Costs Incremental staffing and other costs, where applicable: per annum Variable O&M Costs for Pumping, etc. Energy Cost: $0.08 per kw-hr electrical energy Pumping Rate: 8.3 mgd Pumping Head Haw River - JFR WTP via Cane Creek R.: 595 feet % effective yield pumped at Beginning & End of Life-Cycle: 1% 35% Variable Treatment Costs: per 1,000 gals/yr Periodic Rehabilitation & Replacement (R&R) of Capital Improvements Cost of Replacement Components as % Total Construction Cost: 15.0% per year (equals 63.9 % of project capital cost) Replacement Occurs Every: 20 years Life-cycle for Calculation of Salvage Value: 50 years Appendix VIII Page 21 of 30