Land Applicaton Feasibility Study Final Report-1996

DM Camp Dresser & McKee3
O
"%_Ivx l,vr x
PLEASE DO Na
Carteret County
Interlocal Agency
Land Application Feasibility
Study
Final Report
January 1996

� CDM
1 --
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Camp Dresser & McKee
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
January 23, 1996
Mr. Gordon R. McAdams, P.E.
Chairman, Technical Committee
Carteret County Interlocal Agency
7500 Emerald Drive
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
Subject: Land Application Feasibility Study
Final Report
Dear Mr. McAdams:
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) is pleased to complete this important study for the
Carteret County Interlocal Agency. In accordance with our agreement, we are
providing. thirty copies of the final report for your use.
Once again, we would like to recognize the support afforded by you, members of the
technical committee, and Mr. Pete Allen in assisting us on the study. Special thanks are
due to Mr. Don Safrit and his staff at the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management, as well as Ms. Lauren Hillman of the Croatan National Forest for their
valuable input.
Camp Dresser & McKee appreciates the opportunity to have worked on this initial
phase of study for the CCIA. We look forward to participating in your upcoming
public meeting in February, and will be happy to assist you with upcoming phases of
this important project upon your request. In the meantime, please let us know how we
can be of further service.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & �jMI cKEE
Michael J. Ihnat, P.E.
Associate
MJI/nb
cc: Richard Tsang
Tom Hall
David Ammerman

CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
Land Application Feasibility Study
Final Report
Camp Dresser & McKee
Raleigh, North Carolina

.� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ■� r� r

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
r
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................... 1-1
1.1 Summary ........................................... 1-1
1.2 Land Application ...................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Land Application Alternatives ....................... 1-4
1.2.2 System Costs .................................. 1-5
1.3 Conclusions ......................................... 1-5
1.4 Recommendations .................................... 1-7
Introduction ............................................ 2-1
2.1 Background ......................................... 2-1
2.2 Driving Forces ....................................... 2-1
2.3 Pollution Issues ...................................... 2-2
2.4 Institutional Issues .................................... 2-3
2.5 Financial Issues ...................................... 2-4
2.6 Technical Issues ..................................... 2-5
Population and Flow Projections .............................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction ......................................... 3-1
3.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ........................... 3-1
3.3 Analysis of Future Conditions ............................ 3-2
3.4 Seasonal Wastewater Flows ............................. 3-5
3.5 Estimating Wastewater Flow ............................ 3-11
3.5.1 Flow Estimate Needs ............................ 3-13
3.5.2 Flow Estimates ................................ 3-14
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ........................... 4-1
4.1 Existing Practices ..................................... 4-1
4.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems ........................... 4-1
4.3 Status of Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems ............. 4-6
4.4 On -Site Treatment Systems ............................. 4-7
Regulatory and Environmental Issues .......................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ......................................... 5-1
5.2 North Carolina Land Application Regulations ................. 5-1
5.2.1 Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters .............. 5-1
5.2.2 Coastal Waste Treatment Disposal ................... 5-6
5.2.3 Wetlands ..................................... 5-7
5.3 NPDES Permit Requirements ............................ 5-8
5.4 Summary ........................................... 5-8
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee

Contents
(continued)
Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives .....................
-
6.1
Introduction ...........................
6-1
6.2
Secondary and Prohibited Sites ...........................
6-2
6.2.1 The Outer Banks ................................
6-2
6.2.2 Croatan National Forest ...........................
6-4
,
6.2.3 Open Grounds Farms ............................
6-6
6.2.4 Summary of Secondary and Prohibited Sites ............
6-6
6.3
Summary of Other Land Application Studies .................. 6-7
6.3.1 Atlantic Beach .................................. 6-7
6.3.2 City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System ...........
6-12
6.3.3 Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base ..................
6-17
6.4
6.5
Agricultural Reuse ...................................
Urban Reuse
6-17
6.6
.......................................
Industrial Reuse
6-21
6.7
.....................................
Overland Flow ......................................
6-21
6-24
,
6.8
Wetlands Treatment
..................................
6-24
6.9
6.10
RIB Systems .......................................
Summary ..........................................
6-27
6-32
Section 7
Analysis
of Selected Alternatives ..............................
7-1
7.1
7.2
Introduction .........................................
Seasonal Wastewater Flows and Land Application System
7.3
Capacity .........................
Alternative I: Agricultural Irrigation ........................
7-1
7-6
t
7.3.1 Design Considerations and System Components ........
7-12
7.3.2 Environmental Issues of Agricultural Irrigation ..........
7-16
7.4
Alternative II: Wetlands Systems ........................
7-18
7.4.1 Design Considerations and System Components ........
7-19
7.5
Alternative III: Agricultural Irrigation with Wetlands Systems .....
7-21
7.6
Summary of Land Application Alternatives ...................
7-22
7.7
Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Conveyance ...........
7-23
7.7.1 Collection System ..............................
7-23
7.7.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems ....................
7-35
7.7.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Conveyance .......
7-42
7.8
Analysis of Alternatives ................................
7.8.1 Wastewater Collection and Treatment ................
7-58
7-58
7.8.2 Land Treatment ................................
7-59
Section 8
Regional Authority Organization ...............................
8-1
8.1
Regional Authority Alternatives for Wastewater Services
8-1
.........
8.1.1 Sanitary District ...........................
8-1
8.1.2 Water and Sewer Authority .........................
8-2
8.1.3 Metropolitan Sewer District .........................
8-2
8.1.4 Joint Management Agency .........................
8-4
r
CDM
Camp Dresser & McKee
H

Contents
(continued)
1
' Section 9
1
' Section 10
' Appendix A
I
u
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
8.2
Evaluation of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority ...........
8-4
8.2.1 Governing Board ................................
8-5
8.2.2 Organizational Structure ...........................
8-5
8.2.3 Operational Funding .............................
8-6
Available
Funding Sources ..................................
9-1
9.1
Government Funding Programs ...........................
9-1
9.1.1 State Revolving Fund SRF ...............
9-1
9.1.2 State Revolving Loan and Grant Program ..............
9-3
9.1.3 State Bond Loan Fund ............................
9-4
9.1.4 Farmers Home Administration ......................
9-4
9.2
General Obligation Bonds ...............................
9-5
9.3
Revenue Bonds ......................................
9-6
References ........................................... 10-1
Summary of Coastal Rapid Infiltration System with Underdrains
Venice, Florida - 1985 through 1989
Listing of Threatened and Endangered Species for Carteret and Craven
Counties
Proposed Wastewater Collection System Maps
North Carolina General Statutes 162A
Organizational Chart for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
List of Documents Necessary for Submittal to the Local Government
Commission
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee

List of Figures
Figure
3-1
Bogue Banks Seasonal Water Use Factors ............. 3-6
3-2
Newport Average Monthly Wastewater Flows
1989-1995.....................................3-7
3-3
Morehead City Average Monthly Wastewater Flows
1989-1995.....................................3-8
3-4
Beaufort Average Monthly Wastewater Flows
1989-1995.....................................3-9
3-5
Morehead City Average Monthly Water and Wastewater
Flows, 1989-1995 ...............................
3-10
3-6
Monthly Wastewater Flow Factors ...................
3-12
3-7
Ratio of Extreme Flows to Average Daily Flows .........
3-16
4-1
Beaufort Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Flow
Schematic.....................................4-2
4 2
Morehead City Wastewater Treatment Plant Process
Flow Schematic .................................
4-4
4-3
Newport Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Flow
Schematic.....................................4-5
6-1
Location and Status of Potential Land Application Sites
in the Carteret County Study Area ....................
6-3
6 2
Effluent Disposal Alternative Decision Flow Chart .........
6-8
6-3
Potential Agricultural Sites ........................
6-20
6-4
Potential Urban Sites ............................
6-23
6-5
Overload Flow .................................
6-25
6-6
Wetland Sites .................................
6-28
. 6-7
Typical Constructed Wetlands System ................
6-29
6-8
General Soil Map ....' ...........................
6-31
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
TA

List of Figures
(continued)
6-9 Rapid Infiltration Hydraulic Pathways ................. 6-33
7-1 Monthly Average Rainfall for Morehead City, 1973-1992 .... 7-3
7-2 Comparison of Estimated PET in Carteret County ......... 7-4
7-3 Comparison of Year 2025 Seasonal Wastewater Flow to
Average Irrigation Demand from 4 to 10 mgd ............ 7-7
7-4 Average and Maximum 12 Month Required Discharge as a
Function of Irrigated Area .......................... 7-9
7-5 Agricultural Effluent Disposal System Components ....... 7-13
7-6 Schematic of the Agricultural Reuse System Treatment/Distribution
System...................................... 7-15
7-7 Schematic Plan and Profile of the RIB Backup Disposal
System ...................................... 7-17
7-8 Typical Wastewater Source Pump Station for 1-2 Dwelling Units
............................................ 7-31
7-9 WWTP Effluent Conveyance System Rapid Infiltration/Irrigation
Application .................................... 7-44
7-10 WWTP Effluent Conveyance System Wetland Application .. 7-45
7-11 WWTP Effluent Conveyance System Wetland/Irrigation
Application .................................... 7-46
7-12 Conceptual System Layout ....................... 7-48
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee v

List of Tables
Table
'
3-1
Carteret County Interlocal Agency Historic and
Projected Populations .............................
3-3
3 2
Summary of Estimated Wastewater Flows .............
3-26
'
4-1
Summary of NPDES Permitted Discharge Requirements
for the Town of Beaufort ...........................
4-1
'
4 2
Summary of NPDES Permitted Discharge Requirements
for the Town of Morehead City ..
4-3
'
4-3
Summary of NPDES Permitted Discharge Requirements
for the Town of Newport ...........................
4-6
5-la
General Permit Application Requirements for Land
Application Systems with Secondary Treated Effluent .......
5-2
5-lb
Subsurface Ground Absorption System Permitting
Requirements ...................................
5-2
5-1c
Spray Irrigation Permitting Requirements ...............
5-3
5-1d
Rapid Infiltration System Permit Application Requirements ..
5-3
5-2
Buffer Zones Required ............................
5-4
5-3
Current NPDES Permit Conditions ....................
5-9
'
6-1
Summary of Loading Rates for Crops and Soil Types From
"Hydrologic Analysis of Land Application of Treated Municipal
6 2
Wastewater in Carteret County", Skaggs and Evans ......
Summary of the Atlantic Beach Water Balance ..........
6-10
6-11
'
6-3
City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System Summary of
Weather Data and Calculated PET ..................
6-13
64
City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System Summary of
Monthly Site Capacity for Primary and Seasonal Suitable
'
6-5
Areas.......................................
City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System Phase I Monthly
6-14
Water Balance for Flows = 6.0 mg, Total Area =
'
1,970 acres ...................................
6-15
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
vi

List of Tables
(continued)
6-6 City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System Phase II
Monthly Water Balance for Flows = 9.1 mgd, Total Area =
2,080 acres ................................... 6-16
6-7 Agricultural Crops in Carteret County ................. 6-19
6-8 Potential Public Access Irrigation Sites ............... 6-22
6-9 Underdrain Performance - Venice, Florida (January 1985
through October 1989) ........................... 6-32
7-1 Recommended Nitrogen Application Rates for Agricultural
Crops in Carteret County ......................... 7-18
7-2 Collection System Cost Summary ................... 7-36
7-3 Treatment Plant Effluent Conveyance System Cost Summary 7-54
7-4 Alternative I: Agricultural Irrigation with RIB Backup Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost ........................... 7-62
7-5 Alternative II: Constructed Wetland Estimated Capital Cost 7-64
7-6 Alternative III: Agricultural Irrigation with Constructed Wetland
Backup Disposal Estimated Capital Cost .............. 7-67
8-1 Management Entities: Corporative Features ............ 8-3
9-1 Financing Comparison for SRF Eligible Projects for $1,000,000
Construction Project .............................. 9-2
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee vii

Section 1
Executive Summary
1.1 Wastewater Effluent Management
Carteret County is virtually surrounded by water. Together with a portion of
Craven County, Carteret County is essentially a peninsula formed by the
Atlantic Ocean on the south and east, the Neuse River and Pamlico Sound on
the north, and Hunters Creek, Slocum Creek, and the lakes in Croatan
National Forest on the west. Underneath Carteret County lie various layers of
groundwater, including the Castle Hayne and Yorktown Aquifers which
provide nearly the entire population of 21,000 (permanent) to 95,000 (seasonal)
with a bountiful supply of good quality fresh well water. Several wells along
the coast either were not properly isolated from the salty aquifers or are being
pumped so heavily that the fresh water withdrawal rate exceeds the Castle
Hayne Aquifer transmission rate. This sometimes causes salty water to flow
into the well withdrawal zone.
The current peak population consumes approximately 10 million gallons per
day (mgd) of water predominantly from the above aquifers. Of this total,
approximately 2.5 mgd is discharged to surface waters as wastewater
treatment plant effluent and the remainder, approximately 7.5 mgd less
whatever is lost to evaporation and transpiration from outdoor water use, is
returned to the upper groundwater table which, in Carteret County, is usually
within 1 to 10 feet of the surface. The mechanism for this return is through
septic tank effluent absorption fields and other on -site soil absorption systems.
The soil does not actually absorb the wastewater effluent but, rather, serves as
a porous medium through which the effluent flows along with rainwater into
groundwater and eventually, surface waters. On -site wastewater systems
which discharge the effluent to soil absorption fields such as traditional
domestic septic tanks usually do not result in bacterial contamination of
surface waters because the soil filters out the bacteria as the effluent water
migrates toward surface waters. However, in the project area, the combination
of high groundwater table, sandy (pervious) soils, and heavy rainfall or
flooding often causes the septic tank and absorption field to surcharge, thus
causing effluent to surface through the sandy overburden and flow into the
surface waters which become contaminated with bacteria that are not filtered
out by the shallow overburden.
The effect of on -site wastewater disposal systems on surface water nutrient
loads varies. It is probable that most of the phosphorus in effluents disposed
of by traditional septic tank absorption fields is retained by adsorption in the
soil. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia is similarly adsorbed, but nitrogen in
the form of nitrate can pass through the soil into surface waters where aquatic
algae growth can be stimulated. A probable example of this may be observed
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-1

n:kartertVeastudy. rpt
Section 1
Executive Summary
in some of the channels from Bogue Sound into Bogue Banks communities
where the channels probably receive septic tank effluent containing nitrate
nitrogen through the soil and where the channels are not fully flushed out by j
tidal cycles. Significant growths of algae and water plants occur in the
headwaters of some channels.
Although no field supporting data is available it is recognized that the
g PP g g
predominant means of wastewater disposal by septic tanks in parts of the
project area has reached or exceeded the capacity of the soils. This is believed
to have contributed to surface water pollution events such as closure of
shellfishing areas and proliferation of algae. The only practicable way to
eliminate bacteria and nutrient contamination from the above on -site ,
wastewater system conditions is to move the systems to high ground with
more suitable soil characteristics and farther from the surface water or to ,
eliminate the septic tank systems and install a wastewater collection system.
The installation of a wastewater collection and treatment system would
eliminate many potential non -point sources of pollution and consolidate these
into single or multiple points of effluent discharge. However, effluent
discharge also presents a problem in most of Carteret County because of the
sensitivity of the surrounding surface water bodies.
Most of the major bodies of water, including the Neuse River estuary, White
Oak River estuary, Bogue Sound, Newport River estuary, North River estuary,
Back Sound, and Core Sound, do not allow effluent discharges because all are
classified SA except for the areas near Beaufort and Morehead City. That
leaves only inland freshwater streams and the Atlantic Ocean as potential ,
discharge points. Detailed evaluation of discharge to inland freshwater and
the Atlantic Ocean is beyond the scope of this study.
1.2 Land Application
Besides discharging into surface waters, one obvious alternative to manage
wastewater effluent is land application. Application of wastewater effluent on
land utilizes the soils and vegetation to further treat the effluent. Eventually,
land -applied wastewater returns to the environment in two forms: (1) water
containing dissolved and suspended solids which is returned to the
groundwater and surface water and (2) water vapor which is returned to the
atmosphere by direct evaporation or transpiration by plants
(evapotranspiration).
The proportions of water returned to the environment as liquids and vapor
vary with the type of land application system used. As discussed in Section 6,
four basic types of land application systems are considered in this study: (1)
irrigation of agricultural cropland, urban turf land, and forest land; (2) '
overland flow; (3) wetlands; and (4) rapid soil infiltration. These systems in
the above order generally have increasing proportions of effluent returned to
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-2

Section 1
Executive Summary
the environment as liquid and decreasing proportions returned as
evapotranspiration.
In Carteret County, the general absence of high well -drained land (only a
small portion of the County exceeds 20 feet in elevation) and the presence of
the groundwater table close to the ground surface indicate that water which
enters the soil will soon appear as surface water unless application rates
approximate evapotranspiration rates.
In the case of wetlands, the soil below the wetlands will be saturated with
water and most of the applied flow must be discharged to surface waters. In
the case of overland flow, the effect on groundwater will probably be similar
except that application is intermittent, thus allowing an opportunity for the
groundwater table to subside. In the case of rapid soil infiltration, the effect
on groundwater will also probably be similar, and it will be necessary,
therefore, to install an underdrain system in order to allow economical
application rates.
All of the above land application systems will necessitate NPDES discharge
permits. Only the irrigation system disposal method will have application
rates sufficiently low to preclude sufficient point source discharges which
necessitate NPDES permits. Point source surface discharges will have an effect
on the aquatic environment of the receiving waters, and, hence, the quality
and quantity of the discharged water must be considered. The principal
criteria by which the discharge must be evaluated will probably comprise the
following:
■ The discharge must be consistent with the classification of the receiving
waters. In Carteret County, this means that the waters must be Class C
or SC.
■ The nutrient loading from the discharge should not further degrade
nutrient sensitive waters and should not create nutrient sensitive waters
which are not currently nutrient sensitive.
■ The quantity and quality of water discharged to streams which serve as
primary fisheries nursery areas should not have a significant adverse
effect on that water use.
■ The organic carbon and ammonia nitrogen loading should not have a
significant adverse effect on the oxygen resources of the receiving waters.
■ The discharge should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on
wildlife habitat.
■ The discharge should not create an unacceptable environmental problem.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1-3

n:bartedVeastudy.rpt
Section 1
Executive Summary
'
1.2.1 Land Application Alternatives
The feasibilities of three specific land application systems are discussed in this
report. The three alternate land application systems proposed are:
■ Alternative I. Agricultural irrigation in the Stella/Kuhns area and
Newport area in conjunction with a rapid infiltration system along
Hunters Creek on private and 'U.S. Forest Service land.
■ Alternative II: A wetland system on private land south of Ellis Lake and
Camp Brian.
■ Alternative III: Agricultural irrigation in the Newport area in conjunction
'
with a wetland system on private land south of Ellis Lake and Camp
Brian.
All of the above systems continue to utilize the existing NPDES permitted
discharges of the three existing treatment plants, and it is proposed that these
permits be revised from the basis of monthly average flow to annual average
,
flow. This will allow summer season flows to be directed more toward land
application and the other season flows to be directed more toward the NPDES
discharges.
The locations at which the wastewater treatment plant effluents are proposed
to be returned to the environment are as follows:
■ Existing treatment plant NPDES permits:
t
- Beaufort WWTP: 1.5 mgd monthly average
- Morehead City WWTP: 1.7 mgd monthly average
- Newport WWTP: 0.5 mgd monthly average
- Propose to convert to annual averages
- Limits are regulatory and not technical. There is also some apparent
interest in not expanding the existing surface water discharges, if not
eliminating the discharges altogether.
■ Wetland system:
- Capacity is based on area used.
- Area (private) is available for total flow if desired.
- Limited only by land procurement and possibly regulatory concerns
but not technical concerns.
■ Rapid infiltration system:
,
- Area along Hunters Creek (private and federal) is suitable for 10 mgd '
estimated maximum intermittent flow. Geotechnical exploration is
needed to confirm.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-4

Section 1
Executive Summary
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
Other areas are suitable but are either on federal land or close to
residential areas.
Limits are availability of private and federal land, regulatory, and
possibly geotechnical.
■ Agricultural irrigation:
Stella/Kuhns area: 6.6 mgd peak
Newport area: 6.6 mgd peak
Limits are seasonal need, interest by farmers, lack of predictability,
daily variations, and possibly regulatory.
Of the three land application systems - agricultural irrigation systems, rapid
infiltration systems, and wetland systems - the most reliable, in terms of being
capable of receiving effluent water under all probable conditions, is the
wetland system which, if properly sized, will not have seasonal or hydraulic
limitations. The feast reliable, in these terms, are the agricultural irrigation
systems. The rapid infiltration system can be very reliable if sufficient
application area can be procured, if a geotechnical investigation shows the
soils to be suitable, and if the state permits a suitable underdrain system to be
installed.
1.2.2 System Costs
The estimated costs of the three basic systems have been presented in
respective sections and are summarized on the next page.
1.3 Conclusions
Given the conditions set out by the U.S. Forest Service for the utilization of the
Croatan National Forest for wastewater effluent management and the apparent
inavailability of large agricultural land areas in eastern Carteret County, we
conclude that it is not feasible to depend solely on land application systems for
wastewater management in the study area. However, we have developed
three land application systems that are technically feasible within the
framework of the conditions as defined. All three systems rely on using the
existing NPDES permits to complement land application. As summarized in
the cost table which follows, Alternative I has the highest overall cost because
of the redundancy required in the agricultural irrigation system and the
location of suitable land for rapid infiltration basins (RIB) requires wastewater
effluent to be conveyed a long distance across the County for disposal.
Seasonal NPDES discharge is critical for this alternative.
Alternative II has the lowest overall system cost because of the relatively large
latitude of the constructed wetland to accomodate changes in flow conditions.
No other system backup than the existing NPDES discharges are required.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1-5

n:\0art0rtVeastudy.rpt
Section 1
Executive Summary
i
System Component
Alternative I
Alternative II
Alternative III
Agricultural
Irrigation/
Agricultural
Rapid
Irrigation/
Infiltration/
Wetland/
Existing
Wetland/Existing Existing NPDES
NPDES System
NPDES System
System
Collection Systems
Three municipalities
-0-
-0-
-0-
(existing )
I
Six municipalities
$86,774,000
$86,774,000
$86,774,000
(new)
Treatment Systems
Three municipalities
(upgrade)
Beaufort WWTP
3,750,000
3,750,000
3,750,000
Morehead City
4,250,000
4,250,000
4,250,000
WWTP
Newport WWTP
1,050,000
1,050,000
1,050,000
Six municipalities
(new)
Regional WWTP
25,500,000
25,500,000
25,500,000
Effluent Conveyance
Systems
Nine municipalities
29,266,000
22,643,000
25,122,000
Land Application
Systems
tems
Irrigation/Rapid
25,129,400
—
—
Infiltration
Wetland
—
15,960,000
Irrigation/Wetland
—
—
17,820,000
Total
$175,719,400
$159,927,000
$164,266,000
Note: Operation and Maintenance Costs (not including above)
are addressed
in Section 7.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1-6

Section 1
Executive Summary
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alternative III combines the merits of the wetland system and the benefits of
the agricultural irrigation system to utilize wastewater effluent.
All three alternatives involve a substantial capital cost as summarized in the
previous table. The estimated costs are dominated by the cost of providing a
completely new wastewater collection and treatment system for the six
unsewered municipalities. These municipalities are not arranged in a manner
that accommodates an efficient piped collection system design, nor does the
flat topography and high groundwater table accommodate economical design.
The six municipalities are, in effect, a city 26 miles long with an average width
of 0.5 mile. The area has a projected summer population of 107,000 which
would rank it as one of the largest cities in North Carolina with regard to
population, if not to land area as well. Collection of the wastewater from the
area and delivery to a treatment plant requires a trunk sewer (pressure force
main) approximately 35 miles long.
The constraints placed upon wastewater treatment plant effluent disposal
because of the classification of local surface waters, as well as state policy,
have driven exploration for effluent discharge locations to land application
systems. The nature of the hydrogeology, land use, and land ownership in
Carteret County limits the potential land application sites, resulting in the
requirement for extensive piping and pumping systems for delivery of the
treatment plant effluent to these sites. The types of land application systems
which can be considered under prevailing conditions necessitate moderately
stringent wastewater treatment requirements. In addition, it is necessary to
cross several miles of water either under the bottom of waterways or on
existing bridges.
The costs for the six unsewered municipalities consist of a completely new
system to serve every residence, business, and other wastewater sources in
every municipality under the above circumstances. Such an undertaking is
costly by the nature of the facilities and construction methods and the sheer
magnitude of the project.
1.4 Recommendations
The three most significant findings of this study are (1) a 100 percent land
application system located in Carteret County is not technically feasible under
present regulatory constraints, (2) land application in conjunction with existing
NPDES discharges may constitute a feasible alternative for wastewater
management if changes to certain permitting rules occur, and (3) overall
system costs are significant, and the cost of installing wastewater collection
systems in unsewered areas dominates cost/benefit considerations. Technical
and envirorunental issues associated with land application were originally
expected to present obstacles to implementation of a regional treatment and
disposal system. However, given the massive collection infrastructure
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1-7

Section i
Executive Summary
required to support a regional system, it is likely that financing will become a
dominant issue as well.
There are various ways by which the cost of the facilities can be reduced.
Several of these are identified under the following categories of wastewater
collection and wastewater treatment and disposal. Quantification of the
potential cost reductions will require more detailed design development.
■ Wastewater Collection
- Actual site location selection of source pump stations and collection
system pipe routes may reduce the number of stations and length of
collection pipe required, particularly the 2- to flinch sizes.
- In conjunction with the above, a more detailed analysis of the flow
equalizing effect of the storage capacity in the source pump stations
and timer operation of the pumps could result in lower total flow
with a corresponding reduction in pipe sizes and/or booster pump
station numbers and sizes.
- In conjunction with the above, a more detailed analysis of the system
hydraulics could permit operating at higher pressures and reducing
the number of booster pump stations.
- An inventory of actual dwelling units to define single family units,
duplex units, multi -family units, hotel and condominium sizes, could
reduce the number of source pump stations by increasing the number
of dwelling units per pump station.
- Solicitation of competitive pricing on standard source pump stations
could result in a reduction in unit costs.
- Consultation with several marine construction firms could provide a
more economical way of constructing the force main across Bogue
Sound.
■ Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
- In conjunction with the above flow equalization at the source pump
stations, it may be possible to reduce the sizes of certain treatment
facilities to reduce construction cost.
- A more detailed comparison of effluent flow equalization versus
increased pumping and piping capacity could result in overall cost
reduction by eliminating equalization.
nAcartertVeastudy.tpt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1
1
d
1
I
F�

Section i
Executive Summary
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
f
1
1
1
- Geotechnical investigation of the rapid infiltration sites in conjunction
with discussion with the U.S. Forest Service and NCDEM could result
in more capacity at the site or reduced size.
- More detailed hydraulic analysis could result in using smaller effluent
conveying pipes and higher head pumps.
- Selection of the wetland application option without agricultural
irrigation may result in lower land application system cost and may
eliminate the need for filtration at the treatment plants.
Although it appears the high cost of the overall system may have a more
significant impact on the feasibility of the system than the availability of
suitable land for a land application system, without a centralized wastewater
system, CCIA will continue to rely on on -site systems to manage wastewater.
The cost of on -site individual treatment systems will continue to rise as the
state has mandated the implementation of more stringent requirements for on -
site systems. It must be recognized that the area has become a major
metropolitan area (at least seasonally) in an environmentally sensitive location
and that investment in proper wastewater facilities is an inevitable necessity.
When compared with the typical cost of a type VI on -site system of
approximately $12,000 and the requirements for routine maintenance, the cost
for implementing the land application system appears reasonable.
We recommend a phased approach be considered for implementing this
system. Initial phases of the project would likely involve constructing the
selected land application/reuse alternative and the low pressure sewer system
for areas that have the most needs. The new treatment plant will be required
but can be sized to meet the treatment needs of the initial phase. Subsequent
phases may involve sewering other areas not previously served and expanding
the treatment plant and land application/reuse system to accommodate the
increased flow. Upgrade of the existing plants will also be required.
Several financing and payback approaches may be required to implement this
project. Since the system is sized to accommodate wastewater flow during the
summer peak tourist season and the permanent population accounts for less
than 30% of the peak summer population, it is logical that part of this system
cost be borne by tourists. Mechanisms such as taxes in the form of restaurant
and hotel taxes can be assessed to supplement the financing of this system.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee y _g

Section 2

Section 2
Introduction
2.1 Background
The issue of wastewater disposal has been a topic for discussion and study for
many years in Carteret County. In 1994, several municipalities in Carteret
County joined together to form the Carteret County Interlocal Agency (CCIA)
in an effort to further explore the issue. CCIA is a joint agency comprised of
representatives of the Towns of Atlantic Beach, Beaufort, Cape Carteret, Cedar
Point, Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Morehead City, Newport, and Pine Knoll
Shores. In August 1994, CCIA issued a request for proposals to prepare a
wastewater land application feasibility study. The members of CCIA
concluded that the feasibility of land application of wastewater must be
determined prior to consideration of other alternatives. The feasibility study
was also meant to consider wastewater collection and treatment facilities to
serve existing unsewered areas and to provide for projected growth through
the year 2025. Subsequently, CCIA selected Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) to
conduct this feasibility study.
2.2 Driving Forces
This land application feasibility study is the product of many years of effort by
the nine municipalities to respond to a growing need for more consolidated,
expanded, and controlled wastewater or reclaimed water reuse and disposal.
The driving force behind the interest of each municipality varies as follows:
■ Morehead City, Newport, and Beaufort each have wastewater collection
and treatment systems discharging to surface waters. Recent actions by
the N.C. Department of Environment, Heath, and Natural Resources
suggest that significant restrictions in effluent discharge to estuarine
waters may be anticipated in the future. Morehead City's plant has
already been limited by the state to half of its design capacity by effluent
discharge limitations. Newport's plant has at times experienced
difficulties in making permit requirements. Beaufort's plant has adequate
capacity to meet current flow projections, but possible restrictions by the
state pose a constant threat to its future viability. These three
municipalities are active participants in the project in order to be
prepared for possible state restrictions.
■ In Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, Emerald Isle, Cape
Carteret, and Cedar Point, wastewater is treated and disposed
predominantly by individual septic tank/absorption field systems owned
and maintained by the individual property owners. Several small
privately owned treatment systems with effluent discharges to surface
waters exist, and several property owners have to haul away wastewater
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
2-1

wkarteretVeastudy. rpt
,
Section 2
Introduction
by truck for disposal on a frequent basis. Flooding of septic tank systems
during heavy rains is common which results in raw or partially stabilized
wastewater being discharged to Bogue Sound. Such events have been
correlated with high bacteria concentrations in the Sound which have
resulted in state closure for shellfishing on occasion.
'
Atlantic Beach, having been developed longer and more densely than the
other municipalities, has experienced particular problems in attempting
to redevelop property, since the absorption capacities of some soils are
,
inadequate for the needed septic tank/absorption field systems. The
other municipalities anticipate similar problems in the future.
The absorptive capacities of septic tank absorption fields tend to decrease
under continued use, a process that is accelerated if the system is
regularly overloaded or if the solids in the septic tanks are not removed
'
periodically. Thus, with time, absorption field failures will probably
occur on poorly maintained and overloaded systems which will continue
to cause high bacteria concentrations in Bogue Sound and thus more
,
frequent shellfishing closures by the state. Such closures are disruptive
for those who engage in shellfishing and also create the public
impression of widespread water pollution which tarnishes the desired
'
image of clean and safe waters.
Reliance on septic tank/absorption field.systems has a significant limiting '
effect on the use of properties for facilities having high water usage and
wastewater production. The uncertainty of the long-term successful
performance of such systems probably inhibits the investment in such
facilities which thus unbalances the development of the areas served by
septic tank/absorption field systems. The municipalities served by such
systems are rightly concerned with this limitation.
2.3 Pollution Issues
In addition to the bacterial pollution of Bogue Sound and tributary streams '
caused by the inundation of septic tanks/absorption field systems during
heavy rainfall, it must be recognized that most of the septic tank effluent finds '
its way into the surface waters of the area through the soil. While the soil
probably does an essentially complete job of removing and retaining bacteria,
viruses, phosphorus, and solids, it is possible that some portion of the '
ammonia and other forms of nitrogen pass through the sandy soil and into the
surface waters. There appears to have been limited study of this in the project
area. '
While the effluents from the Morehead City, Newport, and Beaufort
wastewater treatment plants are discharged into project area surface waters,
there appears to be little evidence of water quality degradation related to these
effluents when the plants are operating normally. The vast majority of the
estuarine waters in Carteret County have been classified as Class SA water '
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2.2

Section 2
Introduction
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
because of shellfishing activities. The N.C. Division of Environmental
Management has adopted the position of not allowing treated wastewater
discharge into Class SA waters, regardless of the quality of the effluent. In
addition, Western Bogue Sound was recently designated as Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW). This standard is a supplemental classification and
may only be assigned to waters determined to be "unique and special waters
of exceptional state or national recreation or ecological significance which
require special protection to maintain existing uses." Wastewater discharges
are not allowed to any waters of ORW status.
In areas of extensive use of septic tank/absorption field systems, degradation
of groundwater quality in shallow wells is probable, the most likely problem
being nitrogen in the well water. In the past, prior to the central water
systems on Bogue Banks, many residents utilized shallow wells or well points
to tap the fresh water lens above the salt water underneath. Water from such
wells may now possibly have significant nitrogen concentrations, of which the
nitrate form can have adverse health effects. Fortunately, most of the Bogue
Banks residences are served by public water systems which utilize the Castle
Hayne Aquifer which is geologically isolated from the shallow groundwater
and surface water.
2.4 Institutional Issues
Whereas technical issues should be the principal issues to be addressed in
wastewater disposal in the project area, in actuality the matter has been largely
relegated to the non -technical arena. The periodic closings of surface waters
for shellfishing have focused public attention on wastewater disposal and have
aroused the ire of the shellfishing community who make their living
harvesting the products of the area waters. The area is rich in maritime
history involving fishing and shellfishing, and the associated political
contingent is resentful of the imposition of the great population influx which
has accelerated over the past 40 years and which is largely related to leisure,
vacation, retirement, and water -oriented activities. People are inevitably
associated, and rightly so, with pollution. Thus there is a contingent of people
who would like to see population growth stopped.
While wastewater treatment and disposal projects are often identified with
allowing for increased growth, a review of the current conditions in Carteret
County suggests otherwise. The lack of a central utility to handle wastewater
on Bogue Banks has done little to slow development. Rather, each property
has simply been left to provide individual systems. This has resulted in a
proliferation of septic tanks and absorption fields with questionable treatment
when the soil capacity is exceeded. In short, wastewater treatment and
disposal needs are a result of population growth, not its cause. If growth is to
be limited, it is appropriate to confront it head on through zoning and other
measures. Once growth has occurred, the appropriate wastewater treatment
and disposal facilities must be provided to prevent environmental damages.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2.3

n:karteretlteastudy. rpt
Section 2 ,
Introduction
The popularity of environmental preservation issues has spawned in the past
several decades intensely active and influential environmental activist groups ,
who are quick to adopt causes which they believe may alter the pre -human
natural environment. The closing of estuarine waters for shellfishing has been
fertile ground for the inspiration of various environmental activist groups who '
have proven to be formidable political forces regarding wastewater disposal in
the estuarine environment.
Public opinion in Carteret County regarding stream discharge of treated
wastewater has been overwhelmingly negative. In his report titled "Public
Opinion About Wastewater Management in Carteret County" dated August 10,
1989, Dr. Thomas J. Hoban reported that 80% of people surveyed believed that
stream discharge would be the worst alternative for wastewater disposal
among the choices of land application, ocean discharge or stream discharge. '
Of those surveyed, 90% indicated they would oppose a nearby stream
discharge.
Yet, the recent defeat of what appeared to be technically sound and logical
Open Grounds Farm irrigation project in eastern Carteret County using treated
Atlantic Beach wastewater effluent has clearly demonstrated the strength of
the environmental contingent and the importance of public information and
public education in such an environmentally and publically sensitive project.
The attitudes demonstrated on the Open Grounds Farm project suggest that in
addition to sound engineering and planning, any proposed solution to the
wastewater needs of the members of the Carteret County Interlocal Agency
must have the trust and support of the public to be successful. ,
2.5 Financial Issues
One of the significant issues to be addressed in developing and paying for '
centralized wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities will be how
to finance the facilities. For the most part, relatively few existing residences ,
and businesses are currently suffering significant restrictions due to
wastewater system limitations. Yet, the cumulative impact of septic tank
discharges will likely dictate certain restrictions in the future. The restrictions '
that must be considered will mostly occur in the future redevelopment of
existing properties, business, and large water -using facilities, and correction of
failed septic tank/absorption field systems.
The property owners who currently are having no problems or restrictions
with their individual septic tank/absorption field systems may object to ,
having to share the cost of an expensive new centralized system. In order to
gain the cooperation of those who will bear the burden of the cost of the new
system, it will be necessary to prepare convincing cases which will inspire '
their financial support. This enforces the need for a well -organized public
information program.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2-4

Section 2
Introduction
2.6 Technical Issues
The new wastewater system or systems will comprise collection, treatment,
and disposal facilities. For the Morehead City, Newport, and Beaufort urban
areas, collection systems will continue to deal with unsettled and unscreened
raw wastewater collected from individual users in traditional sewer systems
comprising service laterals, gravity sewers and manholes, and local pump
stations pumping to main pump stations or lift pump stations delivering the
wastewater to the next gravity sewer, and so on, flowing ultimately to main
pump stations.
For areas currently served by septic tank/absorption field systems, traditional
collection systems may be used as described above, or several options may be
considered. The septic tanks may be left in service with only the effluent
conveyed in pressure pipe systems by individual pumps at the septic tanks or
in vacuum pipe systems by common vacuum pumps connected to multiple
septic tanks in each collection area. Alternatively, septic tanks may be
abandoned entirely when the home or business is connected to the new
collection system.
Treatment requirements will be based on the selected effluent disposal/reuse
system and could vary from secondary to advanced biological treatment for
nutrient removal with final filtration and disinfection.
The most significant issue is the disposal or reuse of the treated effluent.
Three methods of effluent disposal have commonly been recognized: ocean
discharge, surface water discharge, and land application.
Ocean discharge has been considered but it is generally not considered viable
at this point because of several factors:
■ The state has not had to address any ocean outfalls in the past. The
requirements that EPA and the state may impose on permitting an ocean
outfall may be so costly and time consuming as to render this alternative
to be unfeasible.
■ The cost of an ocean outfall has been reported to be prohibitive.
■ There is overwhelming concern on the potential impacts an ocean outfall
may have on the quality of water in the ocean along the beaches.
Due to the fact that most of the waters in Carteret County are classified as SA
waters or ORW, surface water that is available for effluent discharges is
extremely limited. In light of these limiting factors for ocean discharge and
surface water discharges, CCIA has resigned to the fact that the feasibility of
land application must first be determined before any possibility of the other
systems can be pursued.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
2-5

E
1
1
1
1
Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
3.1 Introduction
A key element to evaluating the feasibility of land application effluent disposal
alternatives is the definition of expected wastewater flows and strength.
Characterizing the increase in flows through the planning horizon and
expected monthly variations is complicated by the presence of two distinct
customer service areas. The first service area is on the mainland. The
population served is somewhat seasonal, and in the case of Morehead City,
Beaufort, and Newport, historic information on water and wastewater flows is
available. The second customer service area is found on Bogue Banks. In this
service area, populations change dramatically throughout the year with a
minimum in the winter months and a maximum in June, July, and August.
Central wastewater treatment facilities are not used on Bogue Banks so historic
records of potable water use must be used to infer expected wastewater flows.
In this section, the current and expected wastewater flows through the year
2025 will be presented. A discussion of how flows may vary throughout the
year will also be developed for use in a land application system water balance.
3.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions
The Carteret County population estimates began with an analysis of the
following land use plans:
■ Carteret County, 1991 Land Use Plan
■ Town of Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, 1993 Land Use Plan
■ Town of Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina,1992 Land Use Plan
■ Town of Beaufort, North Carolina, 1990 Land Use Plan
■ Emerald Isle, North Carolina,1992 Land Use Plan
■ Indian Beach, North Carolina,1994 CAMA Land Use Plan Update
■ Town of Cape Carteret, North Carolina, CAMA Land Use Plan Update,
1992
■ Newport, North Carolina, 1991 Land Use Plan
■ Morehead City, North Carolina, 1991 Land Use Plan
The Carteret County, Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Emerald Isle, and
Beaufort plans include population data for the entire county, while the Cape
Carteret, Newport, Morehead City, and Indian Beach plans only include data
for the individual municipality. While all the plans used the same data for the
years 1970 and 1980, there are three sets of data reported for 1990, one in each
of the Carteret County, Atlantic Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores land use plans.
This discrepancy is due to the fact that up until the Atlantic Beach plan was
prepared in 1993, reliable numbers for 1990 were not yet available from the
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-1

nAcartervveaM,dy.rpl
Section 3 '
Population and Flow Projections
199 ' 0 census. The permanent population numbers for 1970, 1980, and 1990
presented in Table 3-1 are taken from the Atlantic Beach 1993 Land Use Plan.
Peak seasonal populations were calculated as part of the many Carteret
County land use plans written by Holland Consulting Planners, particularly
the Carteret County 1991, Pine Knoll Shores 1992, and Atlantic Beach 1993
land use plans. Enumeration of housing units was identified by Holland as
the most appropriate method for estimating seasonal populations.
In addition to the Carteret County 1985 Land Use Plan, a recent Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) study on coastal development, and data from
permanent population trends, Holland relied primarily on a study by Paul D.
Tschetter of East Carolina University which identifies the following types of
seasonal housing units:
■ Marina boat slips capable of docking boats which house people overnight
■ Motel, hotel, and bed and breakfast rooms
■ Campgrounds
■ Private housing units used by the overnight tourist population
In addition, Tschetter's study identifies average populations for each type of
housing unit. The peak seasonal populations for 1970, 1980, and 1990 were
identified as full occupancy of all available housing units.
Again, the population estimates for 1990 differ slightly between the Carteret
County, Atlantic Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores land use plans, and the
seasonal population numbers for 1970, 1980, and 1990 presented in Table 3-1
are taken from the Atlantic Beach 1993 Land Use Plan.
3.3 Analysis of Future Conditions
Holland Consulting Planners based their projections for growth of the
permanent population on the assumption that relative growth rates by area ,
will remain the same as experienced from 1980 through 1990. The following
equation illustrates the theory:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-2

�,Mm � M M M M M M Mae r M M M 4W M
Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
Table 3-1
Carteret County Intedocal Agency Historic and Projected Populations
Historical Population
Projected Population
1970
1980
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Municipality or Area
Beaufort
Permanent
3,368
3,826
3,808
3,798
3,790
3,781
3,774
3,765
3,756
3,747
Peak Seasonal
03
LZ44
2ZQ4
3.24Z
3,fU
4921
I t`,
LM
@.47si
LM
Peak
4,211
5,530
6,508
7,005
7,442
7,872
8,327
8,779
9,232
9,694
Atlantic Beach
Permanent
300
941
1,938
2,091
2,223
2,223
2,223
2,223
2,223
2,223
Peak Seasonal
,rLm
13.017
20,775
24,725
28.189
30,525
NM
NM
2=
mm
Peak
5775
13,958
22,713
26,816
30,412
32,748
32,748
32,748
32,748
32,748
Morehead City
Permanent
5,233
4,359
6,046
7,560
7,762
8,547
9,244
10,117
10,924
11,730
Peak Seasonal
im
2M
3,m
4a43
@,32$
fzA
f,31Z
zm
LM
2.14,i
Peak
6,617
6,468
9,801
12,153
13,090
14,601
16,061
17,696
19,266
20,835
Indian Beach
Permanent
0
54
146
197
240
265
265
265
265
265
Peak Seasonal
Q
"M
2NA
11.403
13.455
15 M
17,208
17.208
1Z,Y4.Q
17.208
Peak
0
4,524
9,210
11,600
13,695
15,747
17,473
17,473
17,473
17,473
Pine Knoll Shares
Permanent
0
646
1,367
1,770
1,904
1,904
1,904
1,904
1,904
1,904
Peak Seasonal
Q
3 22Z
Sa33
LW
LM
Lfia
Lfia
LM
8.651
8.651
Peak
0
3,873
7,900
9,986
10,%5
10,555
10,555
10,555
10,555
10,555
Newport
Permanent
17M
1,883
2,569
2,953
3,267
3,586
3,869
4,225
4,552
4,880
Peak Seasonal
332
s43
12M
LG 2
LM
22f4
2=
2M2
am
2M
Peak
2,087
2,386
3,805
4,562
5,204
5,946
6,469
7,164
7,831
8,498
Cape Carteret
Permanent
616
944
1,002
1,034
1,061
1,088
1,112
1,142
1,170
1,197
Peak Seasonal
2M
20
am
4,412
&H2
fAH
Z116
LM
4.f,32
mm
Peak
962
1,904
4,254
5,453
6,504
7,542
8,628
9,719
10,809
11,898
Emerald Isle
Permanent
122
865
2,434
3,312
4,030
4,667
4,667
4,667
4,667
4,667
Peak Seasonal
2M
LOA
1LIN
23,24.i
21M
25.f1Z
25,f12
25.617
25"617
25.617
Peak
1,097
9,493
21,087
26,367
29,647
30,284
30,294
30,284
30,284
30,294
Cedar Point
Permanent
0
479
634
721
792
864
929
1,008
1,082
1,156
Peak Seasonal
Q
2K
NZ
L123
LM
Lf32
LM
2M
2.446
2M
Peak
0
725
1,461
1 841
2,174
2,503
2,836
3,185
3,528
3,871
Nine Town Total
Permanent
11,374
13,997
19,944
23,436
25,069
26,925
27,986
29,316
30,543
31,769
Peak Seasonal
2M
34M
f6m
Aj.350
93.654
100,773
105,395
108,287
111,183
114,077
Peak
20,749
48,861
96,739
105,786
118,723
127,698
133,381
137,603
141,726 1145
846
OtartwetVeastudl'.qA CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-3

nAcartemWea Wdy.rpt
Section 3 ,
Population and Flow Projections
Mun. 1 1990-1995 pop. change = _Mun. 1 1980-1990 vop. change * Total Mun. 1990-1995 pop.
change Total Mun. 1980-1990 pop. change
where: Mun. = Municipality
POP. = Population
The total population change for Carteret County was based on North Carolina
State Data Center population projections. The permanent population
projections available from the State Data Center have changed since the
development of the Atlantic Beach 1993 Land Use Plan. Therefore, the
numbers presented in the Atlantic Beach 1993 Land Use Plan for permanent
populations for the years 1995 and 2000 were not used.
The numbers reported in Table 3-1 were calculated using the same theory used
by Holland Consulting Planners. Total permanent population projections for
the County were obtained from the North Carolina State Data Center for the
years 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Total permanent populations for the years
2015, 2020, and 2025 were calculated based on linear interpolation of the data
from 1970 to 2010. From this data, the County municipality population was
calculated using the assumption that the ratio of the municipality population
to the total county population will remain the same as experienced from 1980
through 1990.
Permanent populations by municipality were calculated using the total
municipality populations for 1995 through 2025, as described by the equation
above.
Holland Consulting Planners based their projections for growth of the seasonal
population on the assumptions that: (1) the average annual growth rate of the
seasonal population from 1980 through 2000 will be the same as the average
annual growth rate from 1980 through 1990, and (2) relative growth rates by
area will remain the same from 1980 through 2000 as experienced from 1980
through 1990.
The numbers reported in Table 3-1 were calculated using these assumptions.
Peak seasonal population projections for the County were obtained from the
Atlantic Beach 1993 Land Use Plan for the years 1995 and 2000. Peak seasonal
populations for the years 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025 were calculated
based on linear interpolation of the data from 1970 to 2000. From this data,
the County municipality seasonal population was calculated using the
1
assumptions that the average annual growth rate of the seasonal population
from 1980 through 2025 will be the same as the average annual growth rate
from 1980 through 1990, and that the ratio of the County municipality seasonal
population to the total County seasonal population will remain the same from
1980 through 2025 as experienced from 1980 through 1990.
Based on the experience and advice of Holland Consulting Planners, build -out
populations were not calculated or used. Build -out populations are calculated
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-4
r

Ci
1
u
P
n:c.n.mv.a eudy.rpt
Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
based on zoning regulations and land availability, but either of these may
change to allow continued growth in an area. In order to be conservative in
our estimation of population growth, CDM chose not to limit growth based on
build -out calculations for the cities on the mainland.
3.4 Seasonal Wastewater Flows
As with many coastal communities, Carteret County experiences a large influx
of seasonal residents from Labor Day to Memorial Day. A majority of these
seasonal visitors reside on Bogue Banks. As noted previously, the change in
County population from summer to winter is significant.
Currently, there are no central waste treatment facilities on the island, and
wastewater flows must be inferred from available potable water use data.
Using historic water use data from the Bogue Banks Water Company and the
Town of Atlantic Beach Inc., Figure 3-1 illustrates how wastewater flows from
this area may vary monthly with a maximum month to minimum month flow
rate of 4.3:1.
A very different pattern of wastewater flows is observed in the towns of
Newport, Morehead City, and Beaufort. Located on the mainland, these
communities exhibit little increase in flow during the summer season. In fact,
wastewater flows are generally lowest in the summer and elevated in the
winter months. Figures 3-2 through 3-4 illustrate the 5-year average daily and
peak daily wastewater flows for the towns of Newport, Morehead City, and
Beaufort.
To provide further evaluation of the mainland wastewater flows, Figure 3-5
illustrates the 5-year average monthly water and wastewater flows for
Morehead City. The ratio of maximum month to minimum month water use
is 1.58:1 which is far less than the ratio observed on Bogue Banks. It is also
noted that wastewater flows are greater than water demands in the winter and
less than water demands in the summer. In a perfect system, wastewater
flows would be equal to or slightly less than water flows, assuming all potable
water used would return as sewage. Figure 3-5 suggests the following:
■ Because wastewater flows in winter months are greater than could be
available from the potable water system, it is reasonable to assume that
the wastewater treatment plant is receiving contributions from
nonpotable sources. The most likely cause is infiltration and inflow of
groundwater and stormwater into the collection system.
■ In summer months, wastewater flows are less than potable water flows.
It is suggested that this difference may be the result of using potable
water for urban irrigation during this period. It is noted that the use of
potable water for irrigation is also likely to occur on Bogue Banks and
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-5

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG003-1 09/19/95 15:36:30 1:27:14 Nick
2.0
1.90
1.8
1.65
1.6 1.60
1.24
C 1.2
C 1.16
a
o>,
0.86 0.86
>. o.s
s
0 0.66
0.6 0.58
52 oO.52
.44
0.4
0.2
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
BOGUE BANKS
CDM SEASONAL WATER USE FACTORS
envlronmentol englneers, sclentlsts
plonners, 9 monomement consultonts Figure 3-1

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ F10003-2 09/19/95 15:40:33 1:27:44 Nick
u.bu
0.50
0.40
.a
tm
E 0.30
3
0
LL
020
0.10
' 0.00 } I . I I I I I I I I f
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
0.43
0.27
—0 Avg Day
--G—Max Day
CARTERET COUNTY 1NTERLOCAL AGENCY
NEWPORT AVERAGE
CDM WASTEWATER FLOWS, 989TLY -" 1994
envlronmentol engineers, sclentlsts.
1plonners. 8 monogement consultants Figure 3-2

P:\8166-01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG003-3
09/19/95 16:10:19 1:33:18 Nick
2.5
2.0
0.5
0.0
2.09
1.77
1.68
1.63
1.45
.38
30 8 1.28 1.25 127
2 1.19
1.09
.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
1.57
—0 Avg Day
—19 Max Day
1.14
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM WASTEWATER FLOEAD CITY AVERAGE
S A 989 -MONTHLY
envlronmentat engineers, sclentlsts,
planners, 8 management consultants Figure 3-3

m m m m r m m � r M M M it m r�� r�
P:\8166-01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG003-4 09/19/95 16:17:05 1:29:21 Nick
1.6
1.4
12
0.8
0.6
0.4
Jan
1.39
—* Avg Day
--l—Max Day
0.95
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
CDM
environmental englneers, sclentlsts,
planners, 9 management consultants
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
BEAUFORT AVERAGE MONTHLY
WASTEWATER FLOWS, 1989 - 1995
Figure 3-4

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG003-5 09/19/95 16:20:18 1:27:24 Nick
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
--4—WW
1.1 —M—water
1.0
0
LL
0.9
Lm--
0.8--
0.7--
0.6--
0.5
U. a a' (0 0 z o
Month
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
MOREHAVERAGE YER ANDCDM WASTEWATER FLOWS. 989 1995
envlronmental engineers, scient/sts,
planners, 9 management consultants Figure 3-5
m m s m im m m m m m m m w r m m m m m

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
be reflected in the water use data summarized on Figure 3-1. The
implication of using this potable water data to predict wastewater flows
is that peak seasonal flows will be exaggerated. This possibility is
recognized; however, no attempt will be made to correct it at this time in
order to provide for a conservative estimate of seasonal land treatment
capacity requirements (refer to Section 7).
Having established an estimate of the seasonal wastewater flows for the island
and inland communities, a composite estimate of seasonal wastewater flows is
required.
This composite or combined County monthly flow distribution was developed
in the following manner.
■ A monthly wastewater flow factor was developed for the mainland by
calculating a monthly flow weighted factor based on the 5-year average
wastewater flows from the Newport, Morehead City, and Beaufort
wastewater treatment plants.
■ A monthly wastewater flow factor was developed for the island by
calculating a monthly flow weighted factor based on the average historic
water demands of the Bogue Banks and Atlantic Beach potable water
systems.
■ A system wide flow factor was then developed by weighing the island
and mainland flow factors by the respective projected 2025 populations.
The results of this procedure are given on Figure 3-6. The monthly pattern of
wastewater flows identified as "County" will be used to estimate how much
effluent will be generated in any given month. This in turn will be
incorporated into the selected effluent disposal alternative in order to develop
a system water balance.
3.5 Estimating Wastewater Flow
Estimating wastewater flow from the nine municipalities is not a
straightforward procedure due to the following characteristics:
■ The diverse nature of the municipalities, ranging from a mix of
domestic/commercial/industrial sources, as in Morehead City, to
predominantly warm weather resort sources, as in Atlantic Beach, Indian
Beach, and Emerald Isle. The other municipalities fall in between.
■ The difficulty of estimating populations in the above Bogue Banks
municipalities due to the large weekend and summer populations.
■ The significant infiltration/inflow component in the three municipalities
that have established wastewater collection systems.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-11

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ F10003-6 09/19/95 16:23:06 1:27:16 Nick
2.00
1.80
1.60
8
1.40 1.41
1.31
1.20
.`0. 1.10 0 --♦—Mainland
v --®—Island
12 �v
1.00—1,.— Combined
3p 91 0.94
u.
0.80 78 .79
.69
0.72
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
CARTERET COUNTY 1NTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM MON FLOWFACTORS TER
envlronmental engineers, sclentlsts, FI Ure 3-6
plonners, 9 monapement consultants 9

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
■ The absence of composite flow data in some municipalities, e.g.,
wastewater flow data in the Bogue Banks municipalities, Cedar Point,
and Cape Carteret.
■ Excessive occupancies observed during summer months, i.e. more than
two per bedroom.
It was necessary, therefore, to utilize various data specific to the respective
municipalities and to make interpretations of the data to make logical
estimates of wastewater flow rates. The process inevitably necessitates the
incorporation of opinion and judgement.
The objective of this effort was to arrive at system capacities which can
accommodate all but extremely and unusually high flows, while at the same
time, not over -estimating flows which would result in uneconomical or
unnecessary facilities or capacities. The resulting flow estimates are believed
to be sufficiently valid to the extent that the refinements, which must be done
during system design, will not significantly change the estimates.
3.5.1 Flow Estimate Needs
There are several needs which must be satisfied by the wastewater flow
estimates. For collection systems from individual residences and commercial
and industrial establishments, the complete range of flows must be handled
from the minimal flows in the early morning hours to the peak flows which
occur during the busiest part of the day. If the peak flows are not conveyed,
system overflows occur. If the system cannot transport the wastewater solids
during low flow periods, solids deposition and possibly in -system
decomposition occurs, which could result in system clogging and gas and odor
production.
For treatment systems, the extreme high and low flows are usually less critical,
as most treatment processes can accommodate a significant flow variation
without an unacceptable impact on effluent quality so long as the average flow
capacity is adequately sized and the flow rate range is not too extreme,
especially on the high flow end.
For the conveyance system to the point of disposal, like collection systems, the
complete range of flows must be handled, or, in the case of the high flow end,
overflows could occur at the treatment process.
The addition of storage can moderate the extreme high and low ends of
wastewater collection rates, treatment rates, and disposal rates. For example,
some degree of storage is inherent in conventional gravity collection systems,
where the unfilled part of the gravity pipes can be allowed to fill, thus storing
the collected wastewater. Storage is also inherent in pumped collection
systems where pump wells can be sized to store a particular quantity of
wastewater before being pumped. At treatment plants, storage can only be
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-13

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
provided by additional storage tanks or reservoirs which can be used to
reduce peak flows through the treatment process.
Infiltration and inflow of extraneous water (groundwater and stormwater) into
the collection system introduces a particularly difficult flow to handle because
these flows occur in addition to the normal variation in wastewater production
rates. Any part of a collection system which operates by gravity below grade
is subject to infiltration and inflow if the gravity portion is not watertight.
Gravity sewers and manholes are the most prevalent sources of extraneous
water, but unsealed pumping wells in pumped collection systems can also
allow extraneous water to enter collection systems. Even small infiltration
rates spread over many parts of a collection system can add up to very
substantial total flows which must be conveyed, treated, and then disposed.
The existing gravity collection systems of Beaufort, Morehead City, and
Newport, are subject to significant amounts of infiltration and inflow. These
municipalities have ongoing efforts underway to decrease this extraneous
water. In aging gravity systems, however, such efforts are usually successful
only to a limited degree, since continued deterioration of the system produces
new sources of infiltration and inflow as older sources are repaired.
3.5.2 Flow Estimates
The actual flow data of water and wastewater from those municipalities which
have representative data indicate a significant difference in the per capita
water consumption rates of the Bogue Banks municipalities and the mainland
municipalities; the former being only about half of the latter. This probably
reflects the more limited water usage of the more transient population, and the
limited commercial water usage compared to the heavier usage of the more
permanent mainland population and more extensive commercial and industrial
development.
The significant infiltration/inflow component of the three mainland
municipalities with sewer systems also contributes to the amount of
wastewater flow that must be handled, sometimes greatly exceeding the
quantity of water used.
Water and wastewater flow data are commonly recorded and reported in three
units on a monthly basis:
■ Average Daily Flow: The total flow for each 24-hour calendar day
averaged over the number of days in the month.
■ Peak Daily Flow: The total flow for the single 24-hour calendar day
having the highest flow in the month.
I
I
I
I
nA=r19*v..atay.Mt
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-14

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
■ Total Monthly Flow: The cumulative total of all flow during the month
which is the same as the average daily flow times the number of days in
the month.
While these traditional flow data reports are useful, they do not provide
sufficient information for designing wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal systems because they do not reflect the extreme low and high flow
rates or the distribution of flow rates within each 24-hour calendar day or
within the month or week
Wastewater flow should theoretically correlate with water flow (less a portion
for uses which do not become wastewater), except that infiltration/inflow can
increase wastewater flows significantly. Water flow data are available for all
nine municipalities, and wastewater flow data are available for the three
municipalities with existing wastewater collection systems and treatment
plants. These data are summarized in previous sections.
Use of per capita flow rates developed from actual flow data is considered to
be a more accurate method for projecting future flows than traditional per
capita flows because of the specific physical and population characteristics of
the nine municipalities. The most significant of these characteristics are:
■ The significant seasonal variation in population of certain municipalities.
■ The significant differences in per capita water consumption of the Bogue
Banks municipalities versus the three older mainland municipalities.
■ The significant infiltration/inflow into the wastewater collection systems
of the three older mainland municipalities.
For design of wastewater collection systems, the most important flow
information is what the peak flow will be that the system must convey to the
treatment facilities so that adequate hydraulic capacity can be provided.
Minimum flow information, is also important to ensure that conveyance system
velocities are not so low and residence times are not so high that operational
problems are created.
Future average flow projections are customarily based on multiplying per
capita wastewater production rates by the projected populations. To
determine normal high and low flows which are included in the average
flows, the traditional relationship between population and minimum and
maximum flows, as shown on the chart on Figure 3-7, can be used. This chart
shows, for example, that the minimum and maximum wastewater flow rates
from Newport, with an estimated 2025 population of 8,500, would be
approximately 0.3 and 3.3 times the average daily flow, respectively.
For those municipalities which do not have existing sewer systems, no
allowance for infiltration/inflow is provided for because, as will be discussed
in Section 7, a pumped conveyance system is recommended which can be
constructed to exclude extraneous water under all weather conditions,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-15

1
Z
v
0
0
In
rn
N
a)
m
0
rn
0
0
(D
LL
a
elsss,ss�■s�s�a.s■■■■�s�■s�s�a�■as■■a�a�s�s■�e��■�■■■
�
■IIIIII��•I:�1��1����11111'
1
,
I���lllf
NOW��liiii
�
111111���111111,
1
I t 1
1 yl
: 1
1,1 1,1 1 1 .
1.1 .,
0
m
3
d
"a
s
Y
10
N
O.
O
E
E
c
�E
0
_�00
Population,in thousands
• Curve A source: Babbitt, H. E., "Sewerage and Sewage Treatment." 7th Ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York (1953).
Curve A: source: Babbitt, H. E., and Baumann, E. R.., "Sewerage and Sewage Treatment." 8th
Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1958).
Curve B source: Harman, W. G., "Forecasting Sewage at Toledo under Dry -Weather Conditions."
Eng. News-Rec. go, 1233 (1918).
Curve C source: Youngstown, Ohio, report.
Curve D source •- Maryland State Department of Health curve prepared in 1914. In "Handbook
of Applied Hvdraulies." 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1952).
Curve E source: Gifft, H. M., "Estimating Variations in Domsetic Sewage Flows." Waterworks
and Sewerage, 92.175 (1945).
Curve F source: "Manual of Military Construction." Corps of Engineers, United States Army,
Washington, D.C.
Curve G source • Fair. G. M., and Geyer, J. C., "Water Supply and Waste -Water Disposal." let
Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1954).
Curves A:. B, and G were constructed as follows:
Curve A:, P0.167
Carve B, 4 14 p '�'1
Curve G. 18 + �P
4+VP
in which P equals population in thousands.
SOURCE: WPCF MANUAL OF PRACTICE -
No. FD-5. 1982
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
RATIO OF EXTREME FLOWS TO
CDM AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners. *management consultants Figure 3-7
1
11
11-
11

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
groundwater levels, and surface flooding conditions. Under the condition that
there will be no illegal drainage connections, there is little probability for
infiltration and inflow. For these municipalities it is estimated that wastewater
flow will approximate water flow. This probably produces a slight
overestimation of wastewater during the irrigation season, but a reasonable
estimate during most of the year.
It has been assumed that current estimated per capita flows will not change in
the future. The potential error in developing current per capita flows is in the
estimates of current populations. Populations for flow projections are shown
in Table 3-1.
For the maximum flow to be handled in municipalities without existing sewer
systems, the peak projected seasonal population, the current per capita water
use rates, and the minimum/maximum flow chart on Figure 3-7 have been
used.
The wastewater flows and water flows for the three municipalities with
existing sewer systems were examined and used to develop flow projections
using the most realistic data. The unpredictability of infiltration/inflow rates
and the otherwise unnecessary cost of treatment and effluent conveyance
systems to handle the highest probable extraneous water flows, suggests that
raw wastewater equalization storage at the treatment plants may be
appropriate. Comparison of the cost of such storage versus the cost and
performance of sewer system rehabilitation/replacement is not included.
Average, minimum, and maximum estimated wastewater flow rates for the
rune municipalities have been developed as described below. Maximum and
minimum wastewater flow factors are taken from Figure 3-7.
Beaufort
■ Peak population in 1994: 6,906
■ Wastewater flows in 1994:
- Average Daily Flow: 0.98 million gallons per day (mgd) (12 months)
- Minimum Average Daily Flow: 0.60 mgd (November)
- Maximum Average Daily Flow: 1.33 mgd (March)
- Maximum Daily Flow: 2.19 mgd (March)
- Average Maximum Daily Flow: 1.39 mgd (12 months)
- Per Capita Average Daily Flow: 0.98 = 142 gallons per capita per
day (gpcd) 6,906
- Maximum Daily Flow (actual 1994): 2.19 = 2.20
Average Daily Flow 0.98
- Maximum 20y Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.40
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.30
Average Daily Flow
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-17

■ Estimated 2025 peak population: 9,684
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025:
- Maximum DaiLy Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.15
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.32
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow:
mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7):
Maximum Daily Flow (1994 ratio):
Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7):
Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
9,684 x 142 gpcd = 1.38
0.32 x 1.38 mgd = 0.44 mgd
2.2 x 1.38 mgd = 3.04 mgd
3.15 x 1.38 mgd = 4.35 mgd
Since Beaufort composes a traditional balance of commercial and residential
development, and since normal average per capita wastewater flow from such
a community would be approximately 85 to 90 gpcd, it is possible that the
difference between the actual average of 142 gpcd and the normal flow is
infiltration/inflow (I/I), most likely infiltration as opposed to inflow, because
of the relatively low maximum to average flow factor of 2.2 versus the
expected factor of 3.4.
If it is assumed that 142 gpcd - 87 gpcd = 55 gpcd is I/I, the normal maximum
per capita flow plus I/I would be 87 gpcd x 3.4 = 296 gpcd + 55 gpcd = 351
gpcd. For 1994 the maximum flow calculated would be 6,906 x 351 gpcd =
2.42 mgd which is in the range of the measured maximum daily flow of 2.19
mgd in 1994. The I/I component would be 55 gpcd x 6,906 = 0.38 mgd.
Assuming that the total I/I will be unchanged in 2025 by virtue of any
additional collection system being pressurized, the above estimated 2025 flows
could be adjusted as follows:
- Max. Mon. Average Daily Flow: 9,684 x 87 gpcd
- Min. Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 0.84 mgd x 0.3
- Max. Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 0.84 mgd x 3.4
Morehead City
■ Estimated 1994 population: 11,227
= 0.84 mgd + 0.38 mgd (I/I)
= 1.22 mgd
= 0.25 mgd + 0.38 mgd (I/I)
= 0.63 mgd
= 2.86 mgd + 0.38 mgd (I/I)
= 3.24 mgd
■ Wastewater flows in 1994:
- Average Daily Flow: 1.20 mgd (12 months)
- Minimum Average Daily Flow: 1.00 mgd (July)
- Maximum Average Daily Flow: 1.70 mgd (December)
- Maximum Daily Flow. 4.27 mgd (December)
- Average Maximum Daily Flow: 1.86 mgd (12 months)
n: c&rt9mN*Wudr.Mt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
I
I

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
- Per Capita Average Daily Flow: 1.20 = 107 gpcd
11,227
- Maximum Dail, Flow (actual 1994): 4.27 = 3.56
Average Daily Flow 1.20
- Maximum Dail, Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.00
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Dail, Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.34
Average Daily Flow
■ Estimated 2025 peak population: 20,835
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025:
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 2.70
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.37
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow:
20,835 x 107 gpcd = 2.23
mgd
Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 0.37 x 2.23 mgd = 0.83 mgd
Maximum Daily Flow (1994 ratio): 3.56 x 2.23 mgd = 7.94 mgd
Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 2.70 x 2.23 mgd = 6.02 mgd
Like Beaufort, Morehead City composes a traditional balance of commercial,
industrial, and residential development. Since the average per capita
wastewater flow of 107 gpcd is not significantly out of line from the normal
flow of 85 to 90 gpcd, combined with the fact that the ratio of peak flow to
average is higher than normal, this suggests that the system is subject to I/I,
comprising modest continuous infiltration and more significant inflow during
wet weather.
If it is assumed that 107 gpcd - 87 gpcd = 20 gpcd is I/I, the normal maximum
per capita flow plus I/I would be 87 gpcd x 3.0 = 261 + 20 gpcd = 281 gpcd.
The I/I component would be 20 gpcd x 11,227 = 0.22 mgd. For 1994, the
maximum flow calculated would be 11,227 x 281 gpcd = 3.15 mgd which is
4.27 - 3.15 = 1.12 mgd, less than the actual measured maximum daily flow. It
could be reasoned, therefore, that 1.12 mgd reflects wet weather inflow into
the collection system in addition to the above I/I. On a per capita basis this is
1.12 mgd/11,227 = 100 gpcd, a significant inflow amount. If it is further
assumed that this inflow amount will be essentially unchanged through 2025,
the maximum flow to be handled must include 1.12 mgd inflow in addition to
average I/I.
Assuming that the average I/I and maximum inflow will be unchanged in
2025, the estimated 2025 flows could be adjusted as follows:
- Max. Mon. Average Daily Flow: 20,835 x 87 gpcd = 1.81 mgd + 0.22 mgd (I/1)
= 2.03 mgd
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-19

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
- Max. Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 1.81 mgd x 2.70 = 4.89 mgd + 0.22 mgd (I/I)
+ 1.12 mgd (inflow)
= 6.23 mgd
- Min. Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 1.81 x 0.37 = 0.67 mgd + 0.22 mgd (I/I)
= 0.89 mgd
Newport
■ Estimated 1994 population: 4,411
■ Wastewater flows in 1994:
- Average Daily Flow: 0.27 mgd (12 months)
- Minimum Average Daily Flow: 0.23 mgd (March, June, July and
September)
- Maximum Average Daily Flow: 0.35 mgd (January and March)
- Maximum Daily Flow: 0.73 mgd (March)
- Average Maximum Daily Flow: 0.40 mgd (12 months)
- Per Capita Average Daily Flow: 0.27 = 61 gpcd
4,411
- Maximum Daily (actual 1994): 0.73 = 2.70
Average Daily Flow 0.27
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.70
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.27
Average Daily Flow
■ Estimated 2025 peak population: 8,499
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025:
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.25
Average Daily Flow
- _Minimum DaiLy Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.31
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 8,499 x 61 gpcd = 0.52 mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 0.31 x 0.52 mgd = 0.16 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow (1994 ratio): 2.70 x 0.52 mgd = 1.40 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 3.25 x 0.52 mgd = 1.69 mgd
The 1994 population and average daily flow for Newport combine to produce
a relatively low per capita wastewater flow (61 gpcd versus a more traditional
value of 85 to 90 gpcd). The factors driving this low value are not apparent
and could reflect the estimated population not being fully connected to the
wastewater system, a low commercial/industrial component, an older
population that may, in fact, have a lower per capita wastewater production
rate, or incorrect flow measurement data.
Newport was reported to have a significant I/I contribution to total flow.
However, the wastewater flow data does not substantiate this because the
nA-d*r*N-study.gA I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-20

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
actual maximum daily flow/average daily flow ratio of 2.70 is substantially
below the normal ratio of 3.70.
Flows in this study based on a continued per capita flow of 61 gpcd and
minimum and maximum daily flows based on the normal average flow ratios
of 0.31.and 3.25, respectively, have been used.
Atlantic Beach
■ Estimated 1994 population (summer): 25,996
■ Wastewater flows in 1994 (based on 100 percent of water flow):
- Average Daily Flow: 1.21 mgd (3 months)
- Minimum Average Daily Flow: 0.44 mgd (December)
- Maximum Average Daily Flow: 1.41 mgd (July)
- Maximum Daily Flow: 2.12 mgd (July)
- Average Maximum Daily Flow: 1.75 mgd (3 months)
- Per Capita Average Daily Flow: 1.21 = 47 gpcd
25,996
- Maximum Daily Flow (actual 1994): 2.12 = 1.75
Average Daily Flow 1.21
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 2.65
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.38
Average Daily Flow
■ Estimated 2025 peak population (summer): 32,798
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025 (based on 1994 per capita flow):
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 2.50
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.40
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 32,748 x 47 gpcd = 1.54
mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 0.38 x 1.54 mgd = 0.59 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow (1994 ratio): 1.75 x 1.54 mgd = 2.70 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 2.65 x 1.54 mgd = 4.08 mgd
The per capita flow rate of 47 gpcd is 8 gpcd lower than the 55 gpcd rate for
Emerald Isle and Indian Beach. It is lower than what might be expected even
for the predominantly non -permanent population, although the proportion of
hotel rooms (which probably are associated with a lower per capita flow rate
than other dwelling units) is higher than in Emerald Isle and Indian Beach.
The reason for the difference is not apparent, but we believe that there should
be no significant difference in the per capita flow rates of these Bogue Banks
municipalities. Therefore, a per capita flow rate of 55 gpcd has been used in
the study flow 2025 for Atlantic Beach which produces the following flows:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-21

wMartsrsNeWudy.rpt
'
Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
- Max. Mon. Average Daily Flow: 32,748 x 55 gpcd = 1.80 mgd
- Min. Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 0.38 x 1.80 mgd = 0.68 mgd
- Max. Daily Flow (Figure 3-7): 2.65 x 1.80 mgd = 4.77 mgd
,
Since a pumped collection system is recommended, no allowance has been
included for I/I.
,
Pine Knoll Shores
■ Estimated 1994 population (summer): 9,570
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 1994 (based on 100 percent of water flow
,
and Emerald Isle and Indian Beach per capita flow of 55 gpcd):
- _Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.20
Average Daily Flow
'
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.32
Average Daily Flow
- Average Daily Flow: 9,570 x 55 gpcd = 0.53 mgd
,
- Minimum Daily Flow: 0.53 x 0.32 mgd = 0.17 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 0.53 x 3.20 mgd = 1.70 mgd
■
,
Estimated 2025 peak population: 10,555
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025:
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.05
,
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Dail, Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.33
Average Daily Flow
i
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 10,555 x 55 gpcd = 0.58
mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow: 0.58 x 0.33 mgd = 0.19 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 0.58 x 3.05 mgd = 1.80 mgd
Since a pumped collection system is recommended, no allowance has been
included for I/I.
Indian Beach
■ Estimated 1994 population (summer): 10,794
■ Wastewater flows in 1994 (based on 100 percent of water flow from the
following combined Indian Beach/Emerald Isle data):
- Average Monthly Flow: 1.96 mgd (summer)
- Average Monthly Flow: 0.86 mgd (9 months) ;
- Minimum Monthly Flow: 0.44 mgd (December)
- Maximum Monthly Flow. 2.02 mgd (August) '
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3_22

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
- Combined Population (summer): 36,105
- Per Capita Average Monthly Flow (summer): 1.96 mgd = 55 gpcd
36,105
■ Estimated 2025 peak population (summer): 17,473
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025 (summer):
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 2.80
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Dail,Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.36
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 17,473 x 55 gpcd = 0.96
mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 0.96 x 2.80 mgd = 2.69 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 0.96 x 0.36 mgd = 0.35 mgd
Since a pumped collection system is recommended, no allowance has been
included for I/I.
Emerald Isle
■ Estimated 1994 population (summer): 25,311
■ Wastewater flows in 1994 (based on 100 percent of water flow from
combined Indian Beach/Emerald Isle data): See Indian Beach
calculations.
■ Estimated wastewater flows for Emerald Isle in 1994:
- Maximum Dail, Flow (Figure 3-7) = 2.65
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.38
Average Daily Flow
- Average Daily Flow: 25,311 x 55 gpcd = 1.39 mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow: 1.39 x 0.38 mgd = 0.53 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 1.39 x 2.65 mgd = 3.68 mgd
■ Estimated 2025 peak population (summer): 30,284
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025 (summer):
- Maximum Dail, Flow (Figure 3-7) = 2.55
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.39
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 30,284 x 55 gpcd = 1.67
mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow: 1.67 x 0.39 mgd = 0.65 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 1.67 x 2.55 mgd = 4.26 mgd
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-23

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
Since a pum
ped ped collection system is recommended, no allowance has been
included for I/I. '
Cape Carteret
Water flow data for Cape Carteret and Cedar Point do not appear to correlate
'
well to the current population that may indicate that not all of the residents
are served by the water system. Both municipalities reflect a normal mix of
commercial and residential development, and the residential development
appears to be more permanent than seasonal. It is reasonable, therefore, to
consider that per capita wastewater production will be in the traditional range
of predominantly permanent residential communities, 85 to 90 gpcd.
Therefore, flows are estimated on this basis.
■ Estimated 1994 population (summer): 6,293
'
■ Estimated wastewater flow in 1994 (based on an average per capita flow
of 87 gpcd):
'
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.50
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.29
,
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 6,293 x 87 gpcd = 0.55 mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow: 0.55 x 0.29 mgd = 0.16 mgd
'
- Maximum Daily Flow: 0.55 x 3.50 mgd = 1.93 mgd
■ Estimated 2025 peak population: 11,898
'
■ Estimated wastewater flows in 2025:
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.05
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.33
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 11,898 x 87 gpcd = 1.04
'
mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow: 1.04 x 0.33 mgd = 0.34 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 1.04 x 3.05 mgd = 3.17 mgd
'
Since a pumped collection system is recommended, no allowance has been
included for I/I.
'
Cedar Point
See Cape Carteret flow basis of per capita flow selection.
■ Estimated 1994 population (summer): 1,767
,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-24
1
nVart*Wv aseudy.rpt

Section 3
Population and Flow Projections
■ Estimated wastewater flow in 1994 (based on an average per capita flow
of 87 gpcd):
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 4.40
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.23
Average Daily Flow
■ Estimated 2025 peak population: 3,871
■ Estimated wastewater flows for Indian Beach in 1994:
- Maximum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 3.05
Average Daily Flow
- Minimum Daily Flow (Figure 3-7) = 0.33
Average Daily Flow
- Maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow: 3,871 x 55 gpcd = 0.21 mgd
- Minimum Daily Flow: 0.21 x 0.33 mgd = 0.07 mgd
- Maximum Daily Flow: 0.21 x 3.05 mgd = 0.65 mgd
The results of the estimated flow calculations are given in Table 3-2. This
information will be used in developing wastewater collection and treatment
facilities as well as effluent disposal alternatives.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-25

Section 3
Population and Floav Projections
Table 3-2
Summary of Estimated Wastewater Flows
Municipality
1994
2025
Max. Month
Average Flow
(mgd)
Maximum
Daily Flow
(mgd)
Minimum
Daily Flow
(mgd)
Max. Month
Average Flow
(mgd)
Maximum
Daily Flow
(mgd)
Minimum
Daily Flow
(mgd)
Beaufort
0.98
2.19
0.29
1.22
3.24
0.63
Morehead
City
1.20
4.27
0.41
2.03
6.23
0.89
Newport
0.27
0.35
0.07
0.52
1.69
0.16
Atlantic
Beach
1.21
2.12
0.44
1.80
4.77
0.68
Pine Knoll
Shores
0.53
1.70
0.17
0.58
1.80
0.19
Indian Beach
0.60
1.83
0.20
0.96
2.69
0.35
Emerald Isle
1.39
3.68
0.53
1.67
4.26
0.65
Cape
Carteret
0.55
1.93
0.16
1.04
3.17
0.34
Cedar Point
0.16
0.70
0.04
0.21
0.65
0.07
TOTALS
6.89
18.77
2.31
10.03
28.50
3.96
n:%mn**vseaWdy.Mt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-26
�w �w w� w w� �w w� �w w� w� ■r w ■r r w w� w �w w

Wastewater Treatment and
4.1 Existing Practices
Section 4
Disposal
Three of the nine communities of the Carteret County Interlocal Agency
(CCIA) have existing wastewater collection and treatment systems. These
three municipalities are Beaufort, Morehead City, and Newport. Other
communities rely mainly on septic tank systems or on -site package treatment
and disposal systems.
4.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems
Town of Beaufort
The Town of Beaufort's wastewater collection and treatment system includes
approximately 16 miles of collection sewers, 12 pump stations, and a
secondary treatment plant with a permitted capacity of 1.5 mgd. The
wastewater treatment plant has preliminary treatment including a mechanical
bar screen and an aerated grit removal unit, followed by secondary treatment
by the contact stabilization activated sludge process. After secondary
clarification, the effluent is chlorinated and discharged into Taylors Creek of
the Newport River estuary. A schematic of the Beaufort wastewater treatment
plant is shown in Figure 4-1. Table 4-1 summarizes the Town's NPDES permit
requirements.
Table 4-1
Summary of NPDES Permitted Discharge Requirements
for the Town of Beaufort
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Flow (mgd)
1.5
-
BODS (mg/1)
30
45
Ammonia (mg/1)
No Limit
No Limit
TSS (mg/1)
30
45
Fecal Coliform (per 100 ml)
400
800
Sludge produced at the plant is stabilized by aerobic digesters before being
dewatered on sand drying beds. Once a year, the dewatered biosolids are
land applied on farmland.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
4-1

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG004-1 09/29/95 01:28:23 0:27:13 Kenneth D. Potts
0

I
Section 4
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
1
L
I
1
,,\carteretVeastudy.rpt
Town of Morehead City
The Town of Morehead City's wastewater collection and treatment system
includes approximately 35 miles of collection sewers, 12 pumping stations, and
a secondary treatment plant with a permitted capacity of 1.7 mgd.
The Morehead City wastewater treatment plant provides preliminary grit
removal, primary clarification, followed by trickling filters, secondary
clarification, chlorination, and post aeration before final discharge into Calico
Creek. The primary clarifiers are 50 ft in diameter with 10 ft side water depth,
centerfed with peripheral launder. Two 60 ft diameter secondary clarifiers
with 7.17 ft side water depth provide secondary clarification. Primary and
secondary sludge generated are stabilized in two 45 ft diameter aerobic
digesters and dewatered on sand drying beds. Dewatered biosolids are
stockpiled and land applied on farmland. Table 4-2 summarizes the NPDES
permit requirements for the Town of Morehead City wastewater treatment
plant. A schematic of the wastewater treatment plant is shown in Figure 4-2.
Table 4-2
Summary of NPDES Permitted Discharge Requirements
for the Town of Morehead City
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Flow (mgd)
1.7
-
BODS (mg/1)
30
45
Ammonia (mg/1)
No Limit
No Limit
T . (mg/1)
30
45
Fecal Coliform (per 100 ml)
86
172
Town of Newport
The Town of Newport's wastewater collection and treatment system includes
approximately 12 mules of collection sewers, four pump stations, and a
secondary wastewater treatment plant with a permitted capacity of 0.5 mgd.
The wastewater treatment units include an influent pump station, grit
chamber, an oxidation ditch, secondary clarifiers, chlorination, and post
aeration. Treated effluent from the plant is discharged into the Newport River.
Sludge generated from two 30-ft diameter secondary clarifiers is stabilized in a
48.5-ft diameter aerobic digester before being dewatered on sand drying beds.
Dewatered biosolids are land applied on farmland. A new bag filter
dewatering system is being planned to relieve the loadings to the drying beds.
A schematic of the Newport wastewater treatment plant is shown in Figure 4-
3. Table 4-3 summarizes the NPDES permit requirement for this treatment
plant.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-3

P:\8166-01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG004-2 09/29/95 01:29:17 0:17:06
Kenneth D. Potts
INFLUENT
w
GRIT PRIMARY TRICKLING SECONDARY CHLORINATION
REMOVAL CLARIFICATION FILTER CLARIFICATION AND POST AERATION
LAND APPLICATION
EFFLUENT
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
MOREHEAD CESLOTSCATC ENT PLANTCDM PROS WASTEWATER
envlronmental engineers, sclent/sts,
planners, 8 management consultants Figure 4-2

P:\8166-01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\
FIG004-3
09/29/95 01:24:16
0:41:55
Kenneth D. Potts
BAR GRIT OXIDATION SECONDARY CHLORINE POST
SCREEN CHAMBER DITCH CLARIFICATION CONTACT AERATION
INFLUENT
CDM
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, 9 management consultants
LAND APPLICATION
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
NEWPORT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC
Figure 4-3

Section 4
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Table 4-3
Summary of NPDES Permitted Discharge Requirements
for the Town of Newport
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Flow (mgd)
0.5
-
BODS (mg/1)
Winter 22
Summer 11
Winter 33
Summer 16.5
Ammonia (mg/1)
Winter 10
Summer 5
Winter 15
Summer 7.5
TSS (mg/1)
30
45
Fecal Coliform (per 100 MI)
200
400
4.3 Status of Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems
Both the Towns of Beaufort and Morehead City have antiquated collection
systems that are subject to a significant amount of infiltration and inflow. The
Town of Newport's collection system is not as old but infiltration and inflow is
not uncommon. Both Beaufort and Morehead City have been undertaking
continued repair and replacement program for leaky pipes and manholes.
The Town of Beaufort's wastewater treatment plant has been well maintained
and operated. The expansion in 1986 has provided the plant with ample
treatment capacity until 2025, based on current population projections. The
annual system repair problem has been effective in controlling infiltration and
inflow. This program is expected to continue to maintain the integrity of the
aging collection system. More stringent discharge requirements may
necessitate upgrading of the plant. There is sufficient space for expansion on
the existing site should this be required.
The Town of Morehead City's wastewater treatment plant has been extremely
vulnerable to wet weather conditions due to the amount of infiltration and
inflow entering the collection system. In 1994, the maximum flow recorded at
the plant was 4.27 mgd, 2.5 times the permitted capacity of 1.7 mgd. Average
flow in 1994 was up to 70 percent of permitted capacity. The town has
continued to grow and will need additional capacity soon to handle the
additional wastewater flow. Upgrading of the plant may be necessary both to
increase capacity or level of treatment should the requirements of the NPDES
permit become more stringent. Space limitation may be an issue for future
expansion and upgrade.
The Town of Newport's wastewater treatment plant is built on a confined site
within the town limit. In 1994 the average daily flow to the plant was 0.27
nAcanaret eastuay.fpt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-6
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1

Section 4
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
FI
mgd, 54 percent of the permitted capacity. Maximum daily flow was up to
0.35 mgd. The Newport wastewater treatment plant has operated well but
there are several areas that require improvements. The plant lacks redundancy
since there is only one oxidation ditch and one aerobic digester. The
secondary clarifiers were also reported to be overloaded. The plant has
already experienced shortage in biosolids dewatering capacity on sand drying
beds. Currently, the plant is in the process of installing a bag dewatering
device in order to increase dewatering capacity. Although wastewater flow for
Newport is projected for 0.52 mgd for 2025, improvements to the plant are
expected to improve operation as wastewater flow increases.
4.4 On -Site Treatment Systems
Those portions of Carteret County with no access to centralized wastewater
treatment systems rely upon septic tanks and soil absorption systems for
wastewater treatment and disposal. Several large soil absorption systems
operate on Bogue Banks. These systems utilize aerobic treatment units or
septic tanks preceding the soil system. Many homes utilize either conventional
septic tanks/soil absorption systems or modifications such as low pressure
pipe systems, mound systems, or other. Costs associated with repair of these
alternative systems, soil suitability, the need for repair, and available space
may limit potential for these on -site systems.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-7

Section 5 `

1
1
1
1
1
1
Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
5.1 Introduction
In order to consider the potential of a given land application strategy to
address effluent disposal in Carteret County, the regulatory framework under
which it will be evaluated must be defined. In this section, the existing and
proposed land application regulations for the State are summarized. A
description of the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits is also provided. Finally, the criteria likely to be used by the
State in evaluating future surface water discharges are discussed.
5.2 North Carolina Land Application Regulations
5.2.1 Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters
In 1990, the State reported over 300 permitted land application systems
primarily associated with small wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Land
application in North Carolina is addressed in Administrative Code Section:
15A NCAC 2H.0200 titled, "Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters." The
amended effective date of this section is August 1, 1988. This rule discusses
design and permitting requirements associated with the land application of
sludge and treated effluent. A discussion of the requirements of the land
application of effluent is given below.
Section 2H.0205 provides information on the supporting data which must be
submitted with any permit for a land application system. A description of the
general requirements is given in Tables 5-1.a through 5-1.d. On receipt of a
complete application, the State allows for a 90-day processing period. Failure
of the applicant to respond to requests for additional information within 60
days will result in the application being returned as "incomplete." The current
rules require State staff to make a site -specific evaluation to determine the
potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater quality.
The local health department does not impose any additional requirements for
land application systems. However, property zoning and local ordinances
may affect system requirements.
Table 5-2 summarizes the buffer zone requirements of various land application
systems. A maximum setback of 400 feet is required from spray irrigation
sites to residential homes when secondary treated effluent is applied. Setbacks
on the order of 100 feet are required between land application areas and
various surface water bodies.
Item (8)(K) of the rule provides additional requirements for effluent
application on public access areas for irrigation. The WWTP must have Class I
reliability. Aerated flow equalization with a capacity of at least 25 percent of
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-1

wkcarteretVeastudy. rpt
Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
the daily system design flow is required. The monthly average total
suspended solids must be less than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/1) with a
maximum daily value not to exceed 10 mg/l. The fecal coliforms must be less
than 1/100 milliliters (ml) prior to discharge to the storage/distribution
system. Treatment processes required to achieve these limits are not specified.
Table 5-1.a ,
General Permit Application Requirements for Land Application Systems
With Secondary Treated Effluent
■ Three copies required and signed by applicant or engineer
■ Signed and sealed plans and specifications
■ General location map
■ Description of wastewater qualities and quantities
■ Rate of infiltration
■ Letter of agreement between wastewater producer and supplier
I
�J
Table 54.b 11 1
Subsurface Ground Absorption System Permitting Requirements
■
Evaluation of soil's ability to provide treatment
■
Design data
■
Site map with 2-foot contours with all structures within property and all
wells, springs, lakes, and drainage features within 500 feet of the site
■
For systems treating over 25,000 gallons per day of industrial waste, soils
borings to 20 feet, or bedrock
- Changes in lithology
Saturated
- and unsaturated conductivity/permeability
- Depth to mean seasonal high water table
■
For systems greater than 25,000 gpd, define transmissivity and specific
yield of the unconfined aquifer
■
Degree of treatment
■
Complete description of effluent quality (TOC, BOD, COD, Cl;, P, NH4,
NO3, TOX, etc.)
■
Proposed groundwater monitoring plan
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5.2

Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
F1
I
[7
Ci
TableE 5-1.c
Spray Irrigation Permitting Requirements
■ Site map with 10-foot contours or 25 percent of total relief, whichever is
greater, location of facilities within property, wells, surface water bodies,
and drainage features within 500 feet
■ Evaluation of soils to a depth of 7 feet with respect to hydraulic capacity
■ Evaluation of crop's ability to receive effluent
■ Proposed groundwater monitoring plan
Table 5-1.d
Rapid Infiltration System Permit Application Requirements
■ Site map with horizontal scale <_ 1 inch = 1,000 feet, and contours of 2
feet or 25 percent of site relief, whichever is greater. All onsite facilities
and all surface water bodies and drainage features within 500 feet
■ Hydrogeologic relationship between the unconfined surficial aquifer and
the aquifer below the first confining unit
■ Expected hydrologic and groundwater/surface water quality changes
associated with the project
■ Proposed groundwater monitoring plan
nAcarteret'Jeastuay.gA I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
I
5-3

Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
Table 5-2
Buffer Zones Required
■ Spray irrigation systems to residences
■ Any private or public water supply source
■ Streams classified as WS-I, WS-II, WS-III or B, for
nondischarge surface disposal
■ Waters classified SA or SB
■ Any other stream, canal, marsh, or coastal waters for
nondischarge surface disposal
■ Any Class I or Class II impounded reservoir used as
a source of drinking water
■ Any other lake or impoundment for surface disposal
■ Any building foundation except treatment facilities
for surface disposal
■ Any basement for surface disposal
■ Any property line for
(1) Spray irrigation
(2) Other surface disposal systems
(3) Other surface treatment systems
■ Top of slope of embankments or cuts, or two feet or
more in vertical height for.
(1) Systems other than rapid infiltration systems
(2) Rapid infiltration systems
■ Any water line from a disposal system
■ Drainage systems:
(1) Interceptor drains and surface water diversions
(upslope) for
-Spray irrigation systems
-Rapid infiltration systems
(2) Interceptor drains and surface water diversions
(downslope) for
-Surface disposal other than spray irrigation
systems and rapid infiltration systems
-Spray irrigation systems
-Rapid infiltration systems
(3) Groundwater lowering and surface drainage
ditches for.
-Surface disposal other than spray irrigation and
rapid infiltration systems
-Spray irrigation systems
-Rapid infiltration systems
■ Any swimming pool for surface disposal
■ Any other nitrification field (except repair area)
■ Any well with the exception of an approved
groundwater monitoring well
■ Public right-of-way surface disposal
n.\can9mtVsastWy.rpt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
400 feet
100 feet
100 feet
100 feet from normal
high water
100 feet
100 feet from normal
high water
100 feet
15 feet
15 feet
150 feet
100 feet
50 feet
15 feet
100 feet
10 feet
100 feet
200 feet
25 feet
100 feet
200 feet
25 feet
100 feet
200 feet
100 feet
20 feet
100 feet
50 feet
I
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

t
Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
I
1
r
r
n:kartereMeastudy.rpt
The system water balance is to be based on the worst case on record. The rule
does not specify the return interval (i.e., daily, weekly, annually, etc.) that is to
be used in selecting this worst case. A lined pond with five days of storage
capacity is required.
Effluent application rates may be up to 1.75 inches per week The time when
irrigation may be applied is restricted between 11:00 p.m. and 3 hours prior to
daily opening of the site to the public. A 100-foot vegetative buffer zone
between the edge of the irrigated zone and the nearest dwelling is
recommended. The site will be posted with signs informing the public that
treated wastewater is being used for irrigation. The WWTP must be attended
24 hours per day by a certified operator.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) has
indicated they have been working to revise the land application/reuse
regulations. The first draft of these rules was distributed in a letter dated
August 23,1995. Unlike the current rules which are oriented to dedicated
disposal systems, the proposed regulations specifically encourage the beneficial
use of reclaimed water as a means of reducing surface water discharge. The
draft rule applies to spray irrigation and rapid infiltration systems. The draft
was developed over concerns that the existing rule does not adequately
address the broad spectrum of reuse opportunities and existing criteria;
notably buffer zone requirements may restrict implementation of land
application systems.
The schedule of the reuse rule amendments is as follows:
Activity
■ Completion of in-house draft
■ Water quality committee review
■ Approval to proceed to hearings
■ Prepare/conduct hearings
■ Hearing officers report
■ EMC approval
■ Rules review commission approval
■ Rule goes into affect
Date
July 17, 1995
July 12 - September 10, 1995
By October 11,1995
October 15 - November 30,1995
By January 10,1996
By February 4, 1996
By April 12, 1996
May 1996
The draft rule is a significant departure from the current regulations and
recognizes the use of reclaimed water for public access irrigation (including
residential lawns), industrial proposes, and other nonpotable uses such as
toilet flushing and fire protection. The draft rule includes prohibition against
the use of reclaimed water to irrigate directly crops intended for human
consumption, to fill swimming pools, hot tubs, etc., or to augment potable
water sources. Central to the question of implementing land application in
Carteret County, the buffer zones in the proposed regulations have been
reduced as follows:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
5-5

Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
■ Between the edge of the wetted area and the nearest dwelling or property
line - 50 feet
■ Between the wetted area and swimming pools or surface waters - 10 feet
■ Between wetted areas and water supply wells - 100 feet
■ Between wetted areas and nonpotable wells - 10 feet
If adopted as currently written, CCIA's ability to implement a land application
system will be greatly increased.
5.2.2 Coastal Waste Treatment Disposal
Effluent disposal either by surface water discharge or land application will
also be subject to 15 NCAC 2H.0400 titled, "Coastal Waste Treatment
Disposal." The amended effective date of this section is January 1, 1988. This
rule is applicable to:
■ The outer banks
■ Lands bordering the coastal waters including all waters assigned a salt
water "S" classification
■ All coastal tributaries that have experienced excessive growths of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation
■ Tributaries found by the commission to be subject to excessive growth
due to relative size and lack of water exchanges
The classifications of surface waters in Carteret County include:
Class SA: Shell fishing for market purposes and any other usage specified by
"SB" and "SC" classification
Class SB: Primary recreation and any other usage specified by the "SC"
classification
Class SC: Fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and other uses
requiring waters of lower quality
In addition to the above classifications, the state in 1986 adopted an "overlay"
classification of Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) to recognize waters with
unique and special attributes and excellent water quality. Western Bogue
Sound and Cove Sound in Carteret County are designated as ORW.
Effluent discharge into "SA" or tributaries classified as "C" or "SC" is
prohibited. A discharge into other tributaries may be permitted if it is
demonstrated there will be no impact to "SA" waters. A discharge into "SB"
waters may be permitted, if assurance is provided that water quality standards
will not be degraded. Discharges into the Atlantic Ocean will be evaluated
under the Environmental Protection Agency "Ocean Discharge Criteria," 40
Code of Federal Regulations 125.120 through 125.124 (October 3, 1980).
nAcaneretVeastuay.Mt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-6
I
1
1�
1
I
F
L!

L�
Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
r
n:karteretUeastudy. rpt
A majority of the surface waters found in Carteret County are classified such
that a direct discharge would be prohibited, or at a minimum, subject to
intense regulatory review. For the purposes of this feasibility report, it is
assumed that obtaining an increase to the current NPDES discharge permits is
unlikely. The land application feasibility analysis will consider the indirect
discharge of effluent that may occur from rapid infiltration basins or wetland
systems. This approach is warranted as:
■ Effluent discharged to such systems will be of at least secondary quality.
■ Additional treatment will be provided as the effluent flows through the
land treatment system.
■ The ultimate discharge will be attenuated and diluted through the land
application system.
The Coastal Waste Treatment Disposal rule specifically encourages area -wide
sewage treatment systems. Further, septic tank systems producing more than
1,200 gallons of waste per day per acre, or more than 3 residential units per
acre, are prohibited. Exceptions to the above prohibitions are allowed as
"Interim Treatment and Disposal Facilities" where alternative disposal is not
available.
5.2.3 Wetlands
Currently, the State does not have specific rules governing the use of wetland
systems for effluent treatment and disposal. However, State policy is to
consider wetlands as zero flow streams, and discharges to zero flow streams
are prohibited. The State is currently developing modifications to Rule 15A
NCAC 2B.0101 to provide classifications, allowable uses, and narrative
standards for wetlands systems. In an information package for the Wetlands
Rule Hearings, NCDEM states:
'"The proposed rules, which designate uses and establish criteria to
protect those uses, will also form the basis for developing a policy
concerning the discharge of treated wastewater and stormwater to some
types of wetlands. There is considerable interest in the utilization of
wetlands for the assimilation of treated wastewater and stormwater."
As implied by the above quote, the use of wetlands for effluent disposal is not
specifically addressed in the proposed rule. A review of the draft language
does not indicate any requirements that would tend to discourage the use of
wetlands. The draft rule does discuss wetlands mitigation strategies. In
theory, effluent can be used to restore, create, or enhance wetlands habitats,
thereby receiving credit for mitigation. In discussions with NCDEM
personnel, it was stated the Department is now in the process of creating a
classification system for wetlands. Under this classification, wetlands will be
defined by their productivity and contributions to the overall environmental
well-being of the area. Highly productive and environmentally sensitive
wetlands will be prohibited for use in treatment systems. Other wetland
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5.7

n:ba rteretVeastudy. rpt
Section 5 '
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
et systems to be defined may
y y y be eligible to serve as part of stormwater and
wastewater treatment systems. NCDEM indicated that the use of constructed
wetlands for wastewater treatment would be exempt from the proposed
classification system. When asked about the status of the discharge from a
constructed wetlands into a natural wetlands or stream, it was indicated they
would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
5.3 NPDES Permit Requirements
Three municipalities, Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport, currently hold
NPDES permits to discharge effluent to surface waters. The effluent quality
requirements of these permits are summarized in Table 5-3. It is important to
note that for two of these permits (Morehead City and Newport), more
stringent ammonia limits have been imposed in the summer (April 1 through
October 31). This permit condition recognizes the greater potential for
environmental damage due to excessive aquatic growth that may occur in this
season. The seasonal nature of the NPDES permits also suggests that the
seasonal use of a land application system may provide some advantages in
Carteret County.
NCDEM was contacted to review current NPDES permitting procedures and
explore the possibilities of combining land application systems with the
existing permitted discharges. Discharge limits are now established based on
the summer 7-day, 10-year low flow event. By convention (i.e., it is not subject
,
to an engineering review), the State typically allows a NPDES permittee to
double pollutant concentrations in the winter months. NCDEM was asked
about potential for a permittee to maintain constant constituent limits
'
throughout the year, but vary the total volume of discharge from month to
month. NCDEM staff indicated the rules did not recognize such an approach,
but it appeared consistent with the intent of the surface water discharge
permitting procedures. The door was left open for a permit applicant to make
a case for this strategy for considerations by the State. NCDEM indicated it
was likely the applicant would be required to agree to seasonal discharge
1
limits.
5.4 Summary I
In general, the existing regulations support the implementation of a spray
irrigation effluent disposal program. Current setback/buffer zone ,
requirements would likely eliminate many potential application sites; however,
this restriction will be removed when and if the State adopts revised reuse
rules. Modification of existing NPDES permits to allow for variable discharges
throughout the year and the use of constructed wetlands are not specifically
addressed in the rules. However, discussion with NCDEM suggests that both
are consistent with the intent of the regulations and may be considered on a
case -by -case basis.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5_8
1
1

M M= r M M= W M M M M air M M M M M M
Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
Table 5-3
Current NPDES Permit Conditions
NPDES
Receiving
Flow
Fecal
BOD
TSS
NH3-N
Municipality
Permit No.
Waters
(mgd)
Coliform
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Season
Morehead City
NC0026611
Calico
1.7
86/100 ml
20.0
30.0
--
Apr 1-Oct 31
Creek
1.7
86/100 ml
30.0
30.0
--
Nov 1-Mar 31
Beaufort
NC0044806
Taylors
1.5
400/100 ml
30.0
30.0
--
Year Round
Creek
Newport
NC0021555
Newport
0.5
200/100 ml
11.0
30.0
1.4
Apr 1-Oct 31
River
0.5
200/100 ml
22.0
30.0
3.6
Nov 1-Mar 31
nAcartereAleastudy.rpt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-9

Section 5
Regulatory and Environmental Issues
Based on the review of the North Carolina regulations, the following
conditions will be applied to the analysis of land application systems in
Carteret County:
■ Irrigation systems will conform to the draft reuse regulations.
■ The use of constructed wetlands will be considered permittable.
■ The seasonal use of the existing NPDES discharges will be considered
permittable.
n:barteretVeastudy.ro I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-10

/ Section 6

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives
6.1 Introduction
The use of land application systems as a means to reduce or eliminate the
need for surface water discharges is employed throughout the United States.
Pressures to avoid surface water disposal can be traced to environmental
legislation which attempts to address the problem of increasingly polluted
water bodies associated with increasing population and industrialization. In
October 1981, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published the 'Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater" which provided specific guidance in system design. Much of the
regulations developed by individual states are based on this document. In this
1981 EPA publication, land treatment (spray irrigation, rapid infiltration, and
overland flow) is viewed primarily as a disposal methodology. However, in
water -short regions of the country, treated effluent ('reclaimed water") is being
viewed as an important new source of water. This importance is underscored
by the 1992 EPA publication titled, "Guidelines for Water Reuse" which
describes beneficial uses of reclaimed water ranging from agricultural
irrigation to golf courses, parks, and recreational reuse and the use of
reclaimed water to recharge potable water supplies.
For this study, the primary purpose of land application will be to minimize,
reduce, or eliminate surface water discharges in the region. Maximizing the
disposal capacity per unit area of land will be an important design objective.
The study area includes all of Carteret County and lands in adjacent counties
that are contiguous with Carteret County. However, there are a number of
sites within the study area currently using groundwater or surface water for
irrigation that could use reclaimed water. Sites of this nature would include
golf courses, parks, and agricultural properties.
This section provides a description of land application and reuse strategies that
may be applicable to Carteret County. An inventory of potential land
application sites is developed along with preliminary design considerations.
This information will be used in subsequent sections to develop and evaluate
the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of three land application
systems. However, prior to developing this inventory of potential land
application sites, there are a number of sites within the study area, which for a
variety of reasons, will not be considered at this time or are prohibited from
use. A discussion of these secondary sites and sites where reuse will not be
allowed is given first.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-1

Ocarterehfeastudy. rpt
Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Alternatives
6.2 Secondary and Prohibited Sites
In evaluating the feasibility of land application, a primary consideration is to '
locate properties suitable for irrigation, constructed wetlands, or rapid
infiltration. In this project this process is limited by a number of factors which
serve to prohibit or restrict the consideration of large tracts of land in the
study area. Prohibitions to land application include the presence of coastal
and inland areas deemed environmentally sensitive. Restrictions on site
considerations are largely associated with lands within the Croatan National '
Forest and the associated land use policies. Open Grounds Farms was the site
of a previous attempt to develop a land application system. Because of the
history of this site, it will not be considered as a potential site in this study, '
but should be re-evaluated should land application systems in western
Carteret County fail to be implemented. Finally, many areas within Carteret
County cannot be considered for land application due to existing development. ,
Areas within Carteret County where land application is either restricted in
some manner or prohibited are shown on Figure 6-1. A discussion of these '
sites is given below.
6.2.1 The Outer Banks
Core, Shackleford, and Bogue Banks compose the barrier islands of Carteret
County. As part of this study, North Carolina Division of Environmental ,
Management (NCDEM) was asked about the feasibility/permittability of
developing rapid infiltration systems on Core or Shackleford Banks. Their
response was that such a system was very unlikely to be permitted due to the ,
proximity of this land to Class SA waters and the official and unofficial
designation of Core and Shackleford Banks as National Seashores. Because of
these obstacles, both Core and Shackleford Banks have been eliminated from
the inventory of potential land application sites.
Unlike the other barrier islands, Bogue Banks has experienced significant
development. Waste treatment in this area is now accomplished through
septic tanks that have been cited as one of the sources of excessive nutrients in
adjacent surface waters. The fact that much of the land has been developed
eliminates prohibitions to land application based on environmental grounds,
but reduces the land available for such uses. Further, the nature of the
development makes it difficult to site the treatment facilities that would be
required prior to land application. Even if sufficient land could be found, the
,
rapid infiltration rates of the island soils, combined with the proximity of Class
SA waters, make it likely that excessive nutrients would continue to be
discharged to estuarine waters. Because of these restrictions, Bogue Banks will
not be considered as a potential land application site at this time.
It is important to note that significant effluent disposal could be accomplished
on Bogue Banks through irrigation of residential and commercial properties
with highly treated effluent suitable for reuse. Referred to as a dual-
.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6.2

1
2
C
CL
L_
d
ir2
co
�a
1
LL
cD
LL
1
N
1" = 20,000'
10,000 0 20,000
POCOSIN WILDERNE
CROATAN FOREST
OPEN GROUND
FARMS
-____---____—__ y:
— - - _____--_____
---- _
........... ...............
n -- —
..............................
W.
_ y i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ��` ��•�,0 -�"-ter= f=.- �- .•
--- "�.
; ::•:•:::i. •:ate..
ANKbo
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
UPLANDS
ATLANTIC OCEAN
J-VA
on—, - p`
----------------
----------------
_ '_ `- - _ - _ = _ = = =_
=.�- _____�_____ -____�
-T,- _____ __ __
�._.
-----------------------
t =__= __ _==_= __--_—_:�---
__ _� _— =_---'
_------------
S84 Ck
@gNKs OR6
LEGEND:
SITES WHERE LAND APPLICATION
SYSTEMS CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED
OTHER SITES - OPEN GROUND
FARMS AND THE CROATAN FOREST
TO BE CONSIDERED IF A FEASIBLE
COST EFFECTIVE SYSTEM CANNOT
BE IMPLEMENTED ON PRIMARY AREA
❑REMAINING POTENTIAL LAND
APPLICATION AREAS
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
LOCATION AND STATUS OF POTENTIAL LAND
APPLICATION SITES IN THE CARTERET COUNTY
environmental engineers, scientists, STUDY AREA Figure 6-1
nners, *management consultants

NEYYPORT
IRRIGATION
AREA
\
IRRIGATION AREA J­
v
HUNTERS
CR
� 1^~ 8OOD'
r
/ crou�un m^�/onu� orps� ' ~~~^
4000 O 8000
/ hit
__149BS ^/ �� 24!
White ::ak River
itmi-ping Fun
Gates eek
Bo ue Sound
BPS A.
LPS
LPS
LEGEND
17,41.\5W India- Beach PS #2
14 BPS: BOOSTER PUMP STATION
LPS
VA LOCAL PUMP STATION
12
Emerald Isle FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM
j In et LPS-E18
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY LAND APPLICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LAYOUT
cm
envlronmentat eng1heers, sclentists. RAPID INFILTRATION,,./IRRIGATION APPLICATION Figure No. 7-12 (1a)
1planners, 9 management consultants

H to
IN
ree
Newport River
iz
k 'reek
Marst- Creek
North River
The Strait
rth River
Bogue Sound
4AAS we..
cuth Day
'on State Park
BPS: BOOSTER PUMP STATION
Back Sound LPS:
LPS
BPS #1 NOTE: REFERENCE APPENDIX C
FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM
DETAILS
Onstow Day
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LAYOUT
,planners, &management consultants

NEWPORT
IRRIGATION
AREA
US70
LAKE ROAD r
DS
NINE.Foor Aa— 10"
2 0'
MILLS SWAMP RD PS
L
NEW
rQRT WWTP\
HUNTERS L
f
_J
2
N,
30"
1" 8000'
C�-oatan Naticna, Forest
r
40 0 0 8000
f
24" F
NI�E FOOT
A R6
--at-T M -
_U
White Oak River
:7:
V
u
PR� W,�,T IP
Na If
SITL (115--;A-6RE�,SHOWY�,.—
Ju ipinq Run
V- Gales Cr-
Ar I ) ,
ek
0-
f CC3
A4r� p 0 30
f )
f
Boque Sound
301,
P� �q
-,.rs ;.,;reek 16"
BPS LPS
PKS3
L LPS
j! LPS IBI
CP
IB2
LPS 20" Pine Knott Shores
SI/
LPS
t
CP2
24"
Ell
8" L P S
k r,-G E12 LEGEND
Indian Beach PS #2
LPS-
in k
,-e BPS #3
C-
14 BPS: BOOSTER PUMP STATION
G
LPS IV 14" BPS #4 LPS: LOCAL PUMP STATION
CPl 20"
12"
LPS BPS #5
0%)
Oft, %, S " V L�
E19 , 11� �
V % BPS #6 Onstow Bay
LPS LPS
E16 E15 NOTE: REFERENCE APPENDIX C
Emerald ls�e FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM
DETAILS
Inlet LPS-El BPS #7
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY LAND APPLICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LAYOUT
CDM
envfronmentol englneers. sclent/sts. WETLAND/IRRIGATION APPLICATION Figure No. 7-12 (3a)
planners, *management consultants

HUNTERS
' -- �-- US70----,"'�
}
LAKE ROAD f
W ; TL!ANDS
l - ` *- -
NINE FOOT_ ----
i
i !
101,
MILLS SWAMP RD t- ` 35 �� -�R �(
�� }
1 'f \
r A 1
_.l
NEWNRT' WWTP\
it Ba4F=B�.Y 24„
' y
30
Croatan National Forest �-'�` f �\ t
('`-" '~ _ %
1
r_
' i`-! t �.�
4000 0 8000
E FOOT Ri �,Z,\
1 if
White ❑ a k River ( •'ti �i /„_ l � '��.r3 ` - j � '� � ..� �''' --- 1' ! J S 1 .."_"..i I 1 t � � -( : •=•L`
_ �' �' ' ,! �• - r , ; ^ f, % - �,
- •(- _ ,�1 -.. •,.—._.\ ; % r% } - .--..—._r---� _ is ""�
i \ J r: ! . 1r •. f -. P�2flP1jS C� LP�� / 1......._
-V r +` rr f �_� / `, SITE`S (115'�4CRE ''S,HOWI�{9 �; 'it _ _ ` 1 ^ _� `t fr..
S— it f t t l _ ... r ''•- \ ` y `4 tM t]f.Li'c^5 `�>.it'.7illt�3' Run
tZFS
t - A orb
Bc ue Sound
BPS N; = LPS
LPS PKS3 ---_, fc 0
LPSIJCP r� 1 1 r- r LBP2S IB1
CP2 \�� t ''` `4 {$ "��'-�� LPS 20" n t t Pine Knoll Shores
r rr e t ''���
Ell
8"++ t��. /LLPS
EI2 _ Indian Beach 18„ PS #2 LEGEND
LPS��LPS`„ -
F'61nt ECT^..%iS El BPS #3
---� �14BPS: BOOSTER PUMP STATION
LPS 4-� �; +`�� �, � , +s'+ti �; t, 1 14' BPS #4 LPS: LOCAL PUMP STATION
CP1 (`+,;i�o ,; ..stir 4�� 20
LPS gr�
r - vj(j'�',��t •' BPS #5
EI9
r U 11;�1!; `a`''� LPS LPS BPS #6 Onslorr Bay
EI6 E15 NOTE: REFERENCE APPENDIX C
Erneratd Isle FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM
8„
DETAILS
---so Inlet
LPS-E18 BPS tt7
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY LAND APPLICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
CDM CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LAYOUT
environmental engineers, sclentists, WETLAND APPLICATION Figure No. 7-12 I2a1
planners, 9 management consultants

cher.aneek
Newport River
EA
[c;1,y.
1 V-
Morehead
City' — I
Bogue Sound
14
LPS
Att ntic
Beach
PKS1
LPS
LPS
Pine Knou Shores
AB4
AB3 AB2
LPS
ABI
LPS
PKS2
BPS sal
Onstow Bay
E
rr-
-.I
` State P on Sark
y
Beaufort,` .,
Inlet
-t?tt:•tu� Creek. 1 1 ( ic;� ;
�e.cher Creek
��or-moose
'+
North River
roo
ir,,. /� /
rth River The
Straits
..larref"Bay
r
—
sk' , Creek
6,k)A L .Mfxrs%f Creek
N
1" = 8000'
4000 0 8000
Jtei-6110LAh Bay LEGEND
BPS: BOOSTER PUMP STATION
Back Sound mow, `r' LPS: LOCAL PUMP STATION
NOTE: REFERENCE APPENDIX C
FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM
DETAILS
0
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LAYOUT
elanners, *management
engineers, consultant, RAPID INFILTRATION/IRRIGATION APPLICATION Figure No. 7- 12 (1b)
-planners, 8 monogemenn consultants 9

Z-11 x
Ysler
NN
L-r
f
eA C,
reek—
N11,
YMCF1 t-kLi-�',! a y
C A-,, 4
f
�_A
=2 j
U
r* 4ti_ I I �, -P- -
� A, Rbr ell I
r c'�
c c;'r
_rN7 _T7 P, 1" 8000'
-4.
v 'eek
r
�Tbzcher Creek 4000 0 8000
Newport River
ZI/
Grc
p7a, r�,_
u h,* eo: a C
A
Eff
\-4qntrose
V
A_ . ..... Iwsk Creek
qwk-ly Creek
�A­
-B-
'Ay
C4
IEAO qjy,:,( 3J
at Marsh Creek
North Rlvtfr-
A
pe;6
L 61
V
FV_7�1, 7/_
U� c.,c7f, z,
D r T
The Straits
rth River
M reh�ad­ it KI
o
N - 1.,
-D
V
Bogue Sound
We m--1 `h Boxy
nj
<_ ZVAL:,;
16" Hope Pote
LEGEND
CU-th Day
14"
-�� LI
Fo on State Park 7--
BPS: BOOSTER PUMP STATION
Atl ntic Beach
PS
PKSI LPS LPS Beall'lort� ��qq Back Sound LPS: LOCAL PUMP STATION
Pine Knoll. Shores AB4 AB3 LPS LPS Inlet
ABI
AB2 fo'
LPS
PKS2
_J
BPS #1
_1X71 NOTE: REFERENCE APPENDIX C
FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM
DETAILS
Onslow Bay Q)
ev
'�d ft7
0
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LAYOUT
envfronmentot eng1neers. sclent1sts. WETLAND/IRRIGATION APPLICATION Figure No. 7- 12 (3b)
,planners, 9 management consultants

Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Alternatives
distribution system, a second network of pipes conveying highly treated
effluent could be constructed. Water delivered through this system would be
used for nonpotable uses; primarily landscape irrigation. Such a system would
provide significant effluent disposal capacity in the summer months, while at
the same time, reduce the volumes of potable water used for nonpotable
purposes (i.e., irrigation). Further, numerous studies have shown the loading
rates associated with urban irrigation do not create a significant increase in
nutrients in the groundwater beneath the application site. This means of land
application cannot be considered under the State's current regulation, but
should be permittable under the proposed reuse rules. Even if such a system
could be permitted, the potential customer's lack of familiarity with reclaimed
water, coupled with the current low cost of using potable water for irrigation,
would make it unlikely that urban reuse could be implemented at this time.
Urban reuse should be considered as a long-term effluent disposal/reuse
option for implementation when the State revises its regulations to allow this
use, and potable water prices increase to the point that irrigation with
reclaimed water becomes a cost-effective alternative to the customer, or when
alternative financing/taxing make this an attractive option.
6.2.2 Croatan National Forest
The Croatan National Forest occupies approximately 56,618 acres within
Carteret County. This makes the Croatan National Forest the largest tract
under the control of a single owner and a natural candidate for land
application. The project team met with the District Ranger for the Croatan
National Forest on August 13,1995 to discuss the potential for using forest
land for land application.
The park will not consider any form of land application within areas
designated as "wilderness." These areas are governed by specific regulations
enacted by Congress intended to minimize human impacts, and cannot be
subject to activities which would alter the natural conditions. The Pocosin
Wilderness is the only wilderness area within Carteret County and consists of
approximately 11,000 acres. In addition to the wilderness, the park has
identified two upland areas (shown on Figure 6-1) where land application
cannot be implemented based on the presence of endangered upland species.
Regarding the remainder of the forest property, the District Ranger indicated
that it could in theory be available for land application. However, the District
Ranger has stated that a relatively stringent test will be applied to any request
to use the forest. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that there is no other
feasible means of achieving effluent disposal without the use of the Croatan
National Forest. Details of this demonstration have not been established but
probable elements of any demonstration are described below.
■ NCDEM Response to Nonforest Land Application S, sy terns -While the
prohibitions and restrictions to land application in Carteret County are
significant, suitable locations for land application outside the forest have
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
6-4

n-Amneremes"y.rpt
Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Altematives
been identified. Assuming the task force submits a permit application to
NCDEM to implement a land application program, what criteria will the
forest use to determine this application has been denied (i.e., for the Open
Grounds Farms project, no written approval or denial has been issued by
the State)? If a similar situation occurs in a future land application permit,
it is not clear if an application returned without comment would be deemed
sufficient to consider forest irrigation.
■ Cost -Effective Analysis - All engineering studies must consider two
elements in establishing the feasibility of a given pool of alternatives: (1)
technical feasibility, and (2) relative cost. When the available options are
viewed from a single perspective (i.e., that of the utility), the most cost-
effective system is the alternative that provides the most desirable features
at the lowest present worth cost. In order to select forest lands as the most
cost-effective land application site, the Croatan National Forest will add its
perspective in the judgement of what is and is not cost-effective, and at
what point the forest becomes an option. It is not clear what present worth
differential will be required to justify the use of the Croatan National Forest.
■ Application Strategies - Two items related to application strategies were
discussed in the meeting with the District Ranger. First, there is a
reluctance to use constructed wetland systems in the Croatan National
Forest. According to the District Ranger, this reluctance is based largely on
the view of the Fish and Wildlife Service. This position is unfortunate
because much of the Croatan National Forest soils are better suited to the
creation of wetlands than to irrigation. As a follow-up to the District
Ranger's comments, representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service were
contacted regarding the use of wetlands. In this discussion, no generic
objections to wetlands were voiced. From the perspective of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, disturbance of endangered flora and fauna are the primary
area of concern. This concern will apply equally to forest and non -forest
sites. The need to protect endangered species as part of a constructed
wetlands project are fully appreciated by CDM and are not expected to be
insurmountable.
The District Ranger has also indicated a preference for non -spray irrigation
systems over spray irrigation systems. The reasons for this include
minimizing the exposure of treated effluent and protection of wildlife.
Alternatives to spray irrigation include some form of drip or subsurface
irrigation. If subsurface irrigation is required, this creates a tremendous
disincentive to the use of forest land. Specifically, subsurface irrigation
appears to have technical limitations that may render it infeasible. These
limitations include:
■ Once installed, a subsurface irrigation system cannot be easily inspected
and maintained.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-5
1
r.

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■ The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) recommends that no trees be allowed
to grow within 50 feet of a drainage tile in order to prevent clogging
from roots. This would require a 100-foot wide cleared corridor along
each run of pipe.
■ Even with the 100-foot corridor, grass roots can clog drain tiles. The
previous Cooperative Extension Agent relayed an experience where
fescue grass roots clogged a drain tile located three feet below the ground
surface after only two years of operation.
■ Subsurface irrigation systems often provide an ideal environment for
undesirable growth of bacteria which can result in clogging.
Drip irrigation systems may also pose maintenance problems. Where small
diameter orifices are used, insects have been found to build nests in the
emitters, thereby clogging them. Larger diameter emitters can help overcome
this problem, but create problems in controlling application rates. Drip
systems with disk or media filters have been utilized effectively for over 20
years. Effluent irrigation poses some challenges, but can be over come with
planning.
In summary, the subsurface and drip irrigation systems are expected to create
an increase in maintenance requirements and may be more prone to failure
than a surface irrigation system. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed
that a land application system such as rapid infiltration basins (RIBS) could
potentially be constructed in well -drained soils in the Croatan National Forest.
It is assumed that any RIB system would serve as a backup disposal method to
the primary means of disposal.
6.2.3 Open Grounds Farms
As with the Croatan National Forest, the extensive holdings of Open Grounds
Farms make it a logical choice as a potential land application site. As
described previously, this site was selected by the Town of Atlantic Beach as a
feasible area for effluent disposal via agricultural irrigation. However, for a
variety of non -technical reasons, the project was ultimately abandoned.
Because of this history, the Open Grounds Farms site will not be considered
for land application in this report. However, the Open Grounds Farms
remains a technically feasible alternative and should be considered if western
Carteret County land application systems fail to be approved.
6.2.4 Summary of Secondary and Prohibited Sites
Within the project study area there are a number of sites where the
implementation of a land application system will be prohibited or for a variety
of reasons are considered secondary sites. Coastal areas where land
application systems cannot be located include Core, Shackleford, and Bogue
Banks. Inland areas where land application is prohibited include the Pocosin
Wilderness and certain upland areas within the forest. The ability to construct
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-6

Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse A/tematives
a land application system in the forest will be subject to a demonstration that
there is no other viable alternative. While the details of this demonstration
remain undefined, it is clear that the use of the forest cannot presently be put
forth as a primary disposal alternative. Given the conditions placed on the use
of the forest as a land application site, this study will proceed with an
evaluation of primary disposal systems outside the Croatan National Forest.
Limited alternative disposal systems such as RIBS may be considered within
the boundaries of the forest.
Figure 6-2 provides a flow chart of the effluent disposal analysis that may be
required. This report is primarily concerned with the evaluation of nonforest
alternatives, but creates the background analysis that will allow CCIA to
either. (1) move forward to the implementation of a nonforest land application
system, or (2) demonstrate a nonforest land application system is not feasible
and allow for investigation of land application in the Croatan National Forest.
As noted on Figure 6-2, demonstration that land application outside the forest
is not feasible might include the inability to find suitable sites, finding the
system(s) was not cost-effective and/or the property owners were not willing
to consider effluent reuse, or denial of a NCDEM permit application.
Figure 6-2 includes a feasibility flow chart for the use of the forest which
would be halted by the denial of a permit application from either the Croatan
National Forest or NCDEM. Should both forest and nonforest land application
systems in Carteret County fail to be approved, Figure 6-2 indicates that CCIA
will be required to re-evaluate the use of Open Grounds Farms or investigate
non -land application effluent disposal alternatives.
6.3 Summary of Other Land Application Studies
Three studies of land application have recently been conducted in the North
Carolina coastal region. Each has resulted in a different outcome, but all are
instructive to the consideration of land application as a means of effluent
disposal in Carteret County. These reports are from Atlantic Beach, the City of
Jacksonville, and Camp Lejeune, and are summarized below. For the purposes
of gaining technical insight into land application, the summaries focus on the
engineering studies and conclusions.
6.3.1 Atlantic Beach
A report titled, "Hydrologic Analysis of Land Application of Treated
Municipal Wastewater in Carteret County," (Skaggs and Evans, ND)
considered the capacities of artificially drained (i.e., ditched) fields with a
variety of crops. The tool used to evaluate system capacities was the computer
model "DRAINMOD." This model used 40 years of hourly weather data from
Morehead City (1948 to 1987) and considered rainfall, runoff,
evapotranspiration, and horizontal and vertical percolation losses. The
agricultural crops considered included corn, soybean, Bermuda grass, and a
pine forest. The soils on which these crops were modeled varied from
n:bartemMeaeudr.4n I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-7
I
I
1�

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIGG-2 09/05/95 03:43:17 0:07:12 Kenneth D. Potts
NON FOREST
LAND APPLICATION
i---------
� IDENTIFY POTENTIAL POTENTIAL SITES
NON FOREST SITES NOT FOUND p
PRELIMINARY COST
ESTIMATES, CONTACT I
I OWNER(S) I
I I
I I
I 1
I
I
FINAL DESIGN & PERMIT DENIED
I PERMITTING BY OEM
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I IMPLEMENT NON FOREST I
I LAND APPLICATION
I 1
I ----------I
CDM
environmentol engineers, scientists,
plonners. 8 monogement consultants
FOREST LAND
APPLICATION
-----------,
I
I REMAINING
I
I EFFLUENT
SUBMIT PERMIT
PERMIT DENIED BY DISPOSAL
TO USE FOREST
FOREST DEPT ALTERNATIVES
LAND
I r----------1
I I I
I
�
I 1
I I I
'OPEN GROUND FARMS 1
I I
'STREAM DISCHARGE
I
PRELIMINARY COST
NOT COST EFFECTIVE I
ESTIMATES
I
DISCHARGE
*DISPOSAL
1 I
• REGIONAL EFFLUENT
I
DISPOSAL
FINAL DESIGN 8 PERMIT DENIED
PERMITTING BY DEM
I �
I I
I I
I I
I I
I IMPLEMENT FOREST I
I LAND APPLICATION
I 1
L---------- I
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE DECISION FLOW CHART
I I
I I
I I
L----------I
Figure 6-2

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives
moderately well -drained to poorly drained. The model inputs were
conservative and it was assumed that all effluent generated would either be
land applied if field conditions were appropriate, or stored for application at a
later time. No allowance for an alternative discharge during parts of the year
was provided.
Wastewater flow rates of 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) during May
through October and 0.25 mgd for the remainder of the year were used in the
water balance. The calculated land required to dispose of this flow ranged
from 303 acres to 1,333 acres depending on soil/crop combinations.
The 5-year period,1970 through 1974, was used to calculate storage volume
requirements as this period was found to be the most limiting in the 40-year
record. Table 6-1 summarizes the design loadings associated with each crop
and soils type. Table 6-2 provides the results of the water balance assuming a
constant flow of 1.0 mgd and a variable flow from 1.0 mgd to 0.25 mgd as
described above.
The information given in Table 6-1 is taken from the Atlantic Beach report, but
the means of presentation has been modified to highlight points important to
considering the feasibility of a land application system. Specifically, the total
area required per mgd of disposal for each crop and each soil is provided in
tabular form. Table 6-1 shows that disposal of 1.0 mgd of effluent could
require from 600 to 2,700 acres depending on the crop and soils.
In periods when effluent cannot be land applied it must be stored. Table 6-2
shows this storage may be significant. Given a constant flow of 1.0 mgd,
calculations suggest required storage volumes ranging from 78 million gallons
(mg) to 538 mg or 78 to 538 equivalent days of storage. If it is assumed that
flows vary from 1.0 mgd to 0.25 mgd (resulting in an annual average flow of
0.5 mgd), storage requirements range from 44 mg to 186 mg or 88 to 372
equivalent days of storage. Note that the reduction in storage volume is
approximately 70 percent when the effective annual flow rate is reduced by 50
percent. This favorable condition occurs because periods of reduced flow rates
parallel periods of reduced land application capacity.
In an evaluation of the regional hydrologic impacts of developing a land
application system, the report concluded both runoff and base flow will be
increased. The significance of these increases in runoff and base flow varies
according to the size of the land application system with respect to the size of
the drainage basin in which it is located. In evaluating the anticipated quality
of the drainage. system discharge, it was indicated that excessive nutrients (or
other pollutants) would not be a problem.
n-.kan«mNr.rM I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-9

Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Alternatives
u
11
Table 6-1
Summary of LoadingRates for Crops and Soil Types From
p YP
"Hydrologic Analysis of Land Application
of Treated Municipal Wastewater in Carteret County", Skaggs and Evans
Soil
Crop
Irrigation Period
(1 inch per week)
Annual Irrigation, inches
Average
Range
Design
(5-Year)
Arapaho
Corn
Apr 20 - Jul 31
13
10 - 15
13
Soybean
May 20 - Oct 31
19
16 - 22
17
Bermuda Grass
Jan 1 - Dec 31
34
26 - 40
31
Bermuda Grass
May 1 - Nov 30
23
18 - 25
22
Trees
Jan 1 - Dec 31
36
27 - 41
33
Trees
May 1 - Nov 30
24
20 - 27
23
Deloss
Corn
Apr 20 - Jul 31
10
6-13
7.5
Soybean
May 20 - Oct 31
12
7 -18
9.5
Bermuda Grass
Jan 1 - Dec 31
20
14 - 26
17
Bermuda Grass
May 1 - Nov 30
16
10 - 21
14
Trees
Jan 1 - Dec 31
20
14 - 26
17
Trees
May 1 - Nov 30
16
10 - 21
14
n:�anrtv.aau,dy.rpe CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-10

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives
Table 6.2
Summary of the Atlantic Beach Water Balance
Flow -1.0 mgd Year Round
Flows = 1.0 mgd May 1-Aug 31, 0.25 mgd Remainder of Year
Irrigated Area
Total"'
Storage
Irrigated Area
Totals)
Storage
Crop
Required
Area
admgd
Storage
Required
Required
Area
admgd
Storage
Required
(acre)
Required
of Disposal
Required
(Eq. days
(acre)
Required
of
Required
(Eq. days of
(acre)
(mg)
of flow)
(acre)
Disposal
(mg)
flow)
Arapaho Soil
Corn
1,034
1,550
1,550
415
415
513
769
1,538
130
260
Soybean
790
1,180
1,180
310
310
392
588
1,176
103
206
Bermuda Grass
433
650
650
72
72
215
322
644
52
104
(year-round)
Bermuda Grass
611
916
916
174
172
303
454
908
52
104
(May - Nov)
'frees
407
611
611
78
78
202
303
606
44
88
(year-round)
Trees
(May - Nov)
584
876
876
200
200
290
435
870
57
114
Deloss Soil
Corn
1,800
2,700
2,700
538
538
889
1,333
2,666
186
372
Soybean
1,430
2,140
2,140
319
319
709
1,063
2,126
103
206
Bermuda Grass
790
1,180
1,180
138
138
392
588
1,176
—
-
(year-round)
Bermuda Grass
960
1,440
1,440
195
195
476
714
1,428
55
110
(May - Nov)
Trees
790
1,180
1,180
138
138
392
588
1,176
72
144
(year-round)
Trees
960
1,440
1,440
195
195
476
714
1,430
55
110
(May - Nov)
a► Includes buffer zones and setbacks per State regulations.
n:%md*reN"*udy." CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
6-11

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives
This finding is supported by the historical data from an existing underdrained
land application system in Florida (see Section 6.9 and Appendix A).
6.3.2 City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System
The City of Jacksonville, North Carolina intends to implement an extensive
land application system to provide for effluent disposal. The engineering
studies are provided in "Land Treatment Design Development Report, Volume
I, Jacksonville, NC" (Earth Systems Associates, LTD, December 1993). As part
of the design of this system, a detailed hydro -geologic investigation was
conducted and water balance models performed. Similar to the Atlantic Beach
capacity's analysis in Carteret County, the City of Jacksonville system was
designed to eliminate the need for surface water discharge and use land
application in combination with storage for effluent disposal.
The land application system will provide irrigation to forested areas. Within
the selected site, three distinct application types were identified: (1) "primary
suitable areas" in which optimum hydraulic capacities were available for year-
round applications without drainage improvements, (2) "primary suitable areas
with drainage improvements" where some drainage improvements are
required to facilitate year-round loading, and (3) "seasonally suitable areas"
where irrigation can only be applied from April through October. Table 6-3
summarizes the weather data used in establishing the system water balance
and the potential evapotranspiration (PET) as calculated by the Thornthwaite
method. Table 6-4 summarizes the anticipated seasonal site capacities for the
application areas. Site -specific permeabilities were measured and used in
establishing percolation losses. The groundwater model "MODFLOW" was
also employed to evaluate groundwater mounding and subsurface drainage
characteristics. From Table 6-4, the irrigation rates in the primary suitable
areas will vary from 0.7 inches per week to 1.4 inches per week with an
annual average loading rate of 1.11 inches per week Irrigation rates for the
seasonal suitable areas will vary from 0 inches per week to 1.05 inches per
week with an average annual loading rate of 0.61 inches per week
Tables 6-5 and 6-6 combine the estimated monthly hydraulic capacities of the
site with a 6.0-mgd Phase I system and a 9.0-mgd Phase II system,
respectively. The water balances include:
■ Expected monthly variation in effluent flows
■ Anticipated monthly site capacity
■ Monthly storage requirements
■ A fixed 14-day storage volume to provide for inclement weather
■ Anticipated loading rates
The results of the water balances indicate that between 231 acres and 328 acres
of land will be required to dispose of 1.0 mgd of effluent. Further, storage
requirements will range from 56 to 93 days of equivalent flow. In the Phase II
Jacksonville system, the required system storage is estimated to be 837 mg.
nACM**V.=tWr.M, I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-12

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives
Table 6-5
City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System
Phase I Monthly Water Balance for Flows - 6.0 mg, Total Area -1,970 acres
Month
Land
Application
Capacity (mgd)
Average
Wastewater Flows
(mgd)
Storage Required
Design
Loading
(mgd)
Design
Loading
Un/wk)
Seasonal
(mg)
Equivalent
Days
Inclement
(mg)
Equivalent
Days
Total
(mg)
Equivalent
Days
November
4.9
6.6
50
8.30
84
14.0
134
22.3
4.9
0.70
December
4.9
6.6
102
17.0
84
14.0
186
31.0
4.9
0.70
January
4.9
6.6
154
25.7
84
14.0
238
39.7
4.9
0.70
February
4.9
6.6
201
33.5
84
14.0
285
47.5
4.9
0.70
March
4.9
6.6
253
42.2
84
14.0
337
56.2
4.9
0.70
April
9.8
5.6
126
21.0
84
14.0
210
35.0
9.8
1.40
May
9.8
5.6
0
0
84
14.0
84
14.0
9.7
1.40
June
9.8
5.6
0
0
84
14.0
84
14.0
5.6
0.80
July
9.8
5.6
0
0
84
14.0
84
14.0
5.6
0.80
August
9.8
5.6
0
0
84
14.0
84
14.0
5.6
0.80
September
9.8
5.5
0
0
84
14.0
84
14.0
5.5
0.78
October
9.8
5.5
0
0
84
14.0
84
14.0
5.5
0.78
TOTAL
MEAN
7.8
6.0
14.0
6.0
0.85
Notes: Area Required = 328 acres/mgd
Maximum Seasonal Storage
= 253 mg
= 42.2 days equivalent flow
Maximum Total Storage= 337 mg
= 56.2 days equivalent flow
n:karteretveeatudy.Mt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-15

�r �r r r r� �r �r r rr � r r r r � �r �■r �r r
Section 6
Land Application/Reuse Alternatives
Table 6-6
City of Jacksonville Land Treatment System
Phase II Monthly Water Balance for Flows = 9.1 mgd, Total Area = 2,080 acres
Month
Land
Application
Capacity (mgd)
Average
Wastewater
Flows
(mgd)
Storage Required
Seasonal
(mg)
Equivalent
Days
Inclement
(mg)
Equivalent
Days
Total
(mg)
Equivalent
Days
November
5.2
9.9
141
15.7
126
14.0
267
29.7
December
5.2
9.9
287
31.9
126
14.0
413
45.9
January
5.2
9.9
433
48.1
126
14.0
559
62.1
February
5.2
9.9
565
62.8
126
14.0
691
76.8
March
5.2
9.9
711
79.0
126
14.0
837
93.0
April
11.9
8.4
607
67.4
126
14.0
733
81.4
May
11.9
8.4
499
55.4
126
14.0
625
69.4
June
11.9
8.4
395
43.9
126
14.0
521
57.9
July
11.9
8.4
287
31.9
126
14.0
413
45.9
August
11.9
8.3
176
19.6
126
14.0
302
33.6
September
11.9
8.3
69
7.70
126
14.0
195
21.7
October
11.9
8.3
0
0
126
14.0
126
14.0
MEAN
9.1
9.0
14.0
Notes: Area Required = 231 acres/mgd
Maximum Seasonal Storage = 771 mg
= 79.0 days equivalent flow
Maximum Total Storage = 837 mg
= 93.0 days equivalent flow
n:1®rtemtV@"udy.Mt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-16

wkan.mt ast,ar•Mt
Section 6 '
Land Application/Reuse Altematives
With storage volumes of this magnitude, the associated costs of construction
may equal or exceed those of other system components. As with the Atlantic '
Beach study, the land application system was limited by hydraulic capacity,
not by the ability of the soil crop matrix to remove constituents of concern.
6.3.3 Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base '
The Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base conducted a land application feasibility
study in 1994 (Greenhorn and O'Mara Incorporated, 1994). This study was
initiated in response to public comments received regarding a draft
environmental impact statement associated with a proposed plan to discharge
advanced wastewater effluent into the New River. The land application study '
was based entirely on available documentation and relied heavily on
methodologies discussed in the 1980 EPA Land Application Manual. No field
testing was done as part of this report.
Land application alternatives investigated included slow -rate spray irrigation,
rapid infiltration, and overland flow. Based on a review of soil and
groundwater conditions in Onslow County, the study selected slow -rate spray
irrigation as the most appropriate method of land application. The design
wastewater flows were 15.0 mgd. It was noted that areas in which rapid -rate
land application systems might be feasible were already developed. This was
also noted in the land application study performed for Atlantic Beach. Based
on water balance calculations, the appropriate application rate was established
at one inch per week. This resulted in an estimated spray irrigation area of
3,880 acres with a total land requirement of 6,200 acres. A single parcel
containing this area was not identified and the study assumed that multiple
sites would be required to accomplish the disposal needs of the system.
A 12-week period of non -application per year was assumed in the report. It is
not specified if this non -application period will occur concurrently or
throughout the year. If it is assumed that the 12-week non -application period
is concurrent, this would lead to a storage volume requirement of 1,260 mg or
84 days of flow. Based on a present worth analysis, the Camp Lejeune study
found that land application was not economically feasible and that an
increased discharge to the New River with advanced treatment would be the
most cost-effective effluent disposal alternative.
6.4 Agricultural Reuse t
Agricultural reuse has enjoyed a long successful history in the United States,
with most major systems occurring in the and states. Agricultural reuse can ,
be extremely varied. This variability will have a great impact on the required
water quality. For example, the use of open channel conveyance and flood
irrigation can tolerate relatively high total suspended solids CrSS) in the water. ,
Sprinkler irrigation requires somewhat better quality water to avoid clogging
the nozzles. A very high quality water requiring additional filtration may be
needed if microjet or drip irrigation is employed. It is common to deliver
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-1 7

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse A/tematives
reclaimed water to a central point on an existing agricultural operation to
supplement existing irrigation distribution systems already in place. The
viability of agricultural reuse is reduced when agricultural operations are not
within easy reach of a wastewater treatment plant or do not produce value-
added crops able to pay for irrigation water.
As noted in Table 6-7, an extensive variety of crops are produced in Carteret
County. For the purposes of this report, it has been assumed that only those
crops not intended for human consumption will be considered as potential
reuse irrigation sites. There are significant areas planted in corn and soybeans
which could benefit from irrigation. Unfortunately, approximately 80 percent
of the corn and 70 percent of the soybeans are located on the Open Grounds
Farms. This site has been eliminated as a potential reuse customer at this time
due to the previous land application initiative.
The Carteret County Cooperative Extension Agent was contacted to discuss
existing agricultural sites and the potential for using effluent as irrigation.
With the exception of small areas of cabbage, potatoes, and tobacco,
agricultural sites in Carteret County are not irrigated. The Cooperative
Extension Agent indicated that the use of supplemental irrigation would
provide a definite benefit to the farmers, but that the increased production
would not justify the capital expense.
With the elimination of Open Grounds Farms as a potential site at this time,
there is no single agricultural site in Carteret County of significant size.
However, this does not mean that agricultural reuse is not viable, but that
multiple sites will have to be utilized. In order to implement this strategy in a
cost-effective manner, it is advantageous to locate areas within Carteret County
where agricultural properties are concentrated. With the assistance of the
Cooperative Extension Agent, Figure 6-3 was developed indicating three areas
that meet this criteria. These areas are described below:
Agricultural
Area
Approximate Number
Identification
Farmed
Crops
of Owners
Number
(acre)
1
t 1,500
Corn
10
Tobacco
Soybeans
Wheat
2
2500 to 3,000
Corn
12
Cotton
Soybeans
Sod
3
t 300
Sod
2
Soybeans
Tobacco
Corn
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-18

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse A/tematives
Table 6-7
Agricultural Crops in Carteret County
Crop
Area (acre)
Sod
200.0
Green Beans
4.7
Cabbage
190.9
Corn
17,088.9
Tobacco
600.65
Grass - Hay
270.0
Melons
111.7
Oats
21.2
Other Crops - NCL or Rounding
88.9
Peanuts - Hogging
4.1
Irish Potatoes
508.5
Pumpkins
5.7
Rye
14.9
Sorghum - Grain
3.3
Sorghum - Grazing
7.6
Soybeans
18,902.7
Sudan Sorghum (ACR Cover)
16.8
Strawberries
9.4
Sweet Corn
110.2
Sweet Potatoes
10.9
Tomatoes
3.2
Upland Cotton
321.4
Wheat
3,519.0
Source: Carteret County Cooperative Extension Service.
Ac.n««v.way.mt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
e,e ,

r M Mao M� M M M IMM M r r M
P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\. FIG6-3 09/19/95 19:29:16 3:17:57 Nick
N
I" = 20,000'
CDM
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, 9 management consultants
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL SITES
LEGEND:
Q AGRICULTURAL SITES
Figure 6-3

Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Altematives
The Cooperative Extension Agent estimates irrigation rates on the order of 1
inch to 1.5 inches per week will be possible in the growing seasons (May
through October). CDM staff toured the agricultural sites with the
Cooperative Extension Agent in August 1995. Field inspection indicates well -
drained soils and agricultural land uses suitable for land application.
6.5 Urban Reuse
As experience with the reclamation of wastewater has increased, procedures
and protocol have been developed that provide a high degree of assurance
that a pathogen -free product, safe for most nonpotable uses, can be produced
consistently. This in turn allows for the use of reclaimed water in less
restrictive settings than dedicated land application sites. Initially, urban reuse
customers are often made up exclusively of large turf areas such as golf
courses, parks, and in some cases, condominiums. Today, some states allow
reclaimed water to be distributed through a dual -distribution system to single-
family residents for lawn irrigation. Several states are investigating additional
non -irrigation urban uses that include dust control, equipment washdown, air
conditioning, car washing, and toilet flushing.
For the purposes of this investigation, potential urban reuse sites will include
golf courses and parks. A listing of these sites is given in Table 6-8 and
shown on Figure 6-4.
It is apparent that the urban sites identified do not have sufficient irrigation
demand to make a significant contribution to a county -wide effluent disposal
system. Further, the State's current land application regulations impose
setback requirements from wetted areas to property boundaries (refer to
Section 5) which will eliminate many of these urban sites from further
consideration. Given these facts, urban reuse will not serve as a primary
means of effluent disposal. However, urban sites located along effluent
pipelines may be included in an effluent disposal system in a cost-effective
manner and will be considered on a case -by -case basis.
6.6 Industrial Reuse
Nationwide industrial water use accounts for only about 8 percent of the total
water use demand. However, where plant sites are located in the vicinity of
cities, industrial reuse may offer a significant savings of potable water. The
most common use of reclaimed water is for cooling water makeup.
Depending on the quality of the reclaimed water, it is often possible for it to
be used in as many cycles of concentration as may be practiced by using
traditional sources. Additional treatment by the user is sometimes required to
prevent scaling and fouling of the cooling tower.
n:kaftemmeaswy.rt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-21
1
I
I
1

I
1
1
I
I
Ij
Section 6
Land Application/Reuse A/tematives
Table 6-8
Potential Public Access Irrigation Sites
Identification
Number
Golf
Courses
Total
Area
(acres)
Irrigation
Area
(acres)
Average Seasonal
Irrigation Demand
(gpd)
G1
Morehead City Country
Club
150
40
100,000
G2
Brandywine Bay Golf
Club`
90*
60*
150,000
G3
Bogue Banks Country
Club
90
60
150,000
G4
Star Hill Golf and
Country Club
140*
90*
225,000
G5
Silver Creek Golf Course
90*
60*
150,000
G6
Golfin' Dolphin
(Miniature Golf)
45*
30*
75,000 *
G7
Bob's Golf Driving Range
10
8
20,000
Identification
Number
Parks
Total
Area
Irrigation
Area
Average Seasonal
Irrigation Demand
Pi
Swinson Park
34
acres
P2
Mansfield Park
P3
Newport River Park
P4
J.C. Park
P5
Freedom Park
25
acres
P6
Park (In Newport)
P7
Park (In Newport)
P8
Newport River Park
P9
Salter Path Beach Access
22
acres
P10
Park (In Harlowe)
Pll
Mariners Park
20
acres
P12
Western Park
30
acres
P13
Goose Creek Boat Ramps
Currently using effluent for irrigation.
* Estimated value.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-22

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURE5\ FIG6-4 09/01/95 03:50:27 1:07:03 Kenneth D. Potts
N
1" = 20,000'
LEGEND:
P - PARKS
G - GOLF COURSE
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM POTENTIAL URBAN SITES
environmental engineers, scientists,
1plonners. 8 management consultants Figure 6-4

1
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse A/tematives
Other industrial uses may include boiler feed water and process water.
However, it is often necessary to provide additional treatment of reclaimed
water to meet the stringent water quality requirements of these uses.
Industrial activity in Carteret County is limited and as such, industrial reuse
cannot be established as primary effluent disposal strategy. Industrial reuse
may be implemented as an add -on to the primary disposal system where
suitable sites are found along proposed effluent force main routes.
6.7 Overland Flow
Unlike the previously described reuse alternatives, overland flow is used to
enhance effluent quality prior to discharge. Overland flow systems typically
consist of a slope from 150 to 200 feet long. Slopes may vary from 1 to 8
percent. Turf grasses are planted on the field to prevent erosion and provide
nutrient uptake. Effluent is applied to the top of the field and allowed to
sheet -flow down the slope. Uniform grading of the field is required to prevent
channeling of the effluent. An overland flow system requires a NPDES
permit.
Multiple cells are provided to allow for alternate loading and resting cycles.
For the purposes of estimating land requirements, it is assumed that loading
rates will be on the order of 2.5 inches per day and that discharge to the
system may occur 24 hours per day. Based on studies conducted on an
overland flow system located in Easley, South Carolina, ammonia removal
efficiencies can range between 70 to 95 percent. For the purposes of
establishing a conceptual system design, an average removal efficiency of 80
percent will be assumed. A schematic of a typical overland flow system is
given on Figure 6-5.
Overland flow systems are employed where soil infiltration rates do not favor
either spray irrigation or RIBs, or where poor drainage restricts percolation.
Overland flow systems are often used as a pretreatment process to a
constructed wetlands system. The ability of overland flow fields to
dechlorinate effluent as well as increase oxygen and provide some nutrient
uptake are the primary reason for this.
6.8 Wetlands Treatment
A great deal of research has been performed documenting the ability of
wetlands, both natural and constructed, to provide treatment of wastewater
and reclaimed water. Natural wetlands are waters of the United States and
are subject to discharge permitting requirements. Discharges to natural
wetlands must conform to established water quality criteria and pre-
determined limitations on specific substances, and most of the treatment must
occur prior to discharge to the wetlands. Therefore, natural wetlands can best
be utilized to polish highly treated wastewater. Design criteria and regulatory
controls generally occur at three levels: (1) influent limits for discharge to the
CDM Cramp Dresser & McKee 6-24

0
N
N
N
N
t! )
Co
c
W
W
D
0
W
J
U
a
O
m
0
i
a
WASTEWATER
GRASS AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
VEGETATIVE
LITTER
SHEET FLOW RUNOFF
y COLLECTION
SLOPE 2-8/.
PERCOLA TION
(a) HYDRAULIC PATHWAY
SPRINKLER CIRCLES
RUNOFF COLLECTION
\ ` — DITCHES
............... ...........
............. .........
.........
(b) PICTORIAL VIEW OF SPRINKLER APPLICATION
SOURCE: EPA, 1981
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM OVERLAND FLOW
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, 9 management consultants Figure 6-5
I
11
I
I J
L�
1�
I.

I
11
n
Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Alternatives
wetland, (2) water quality and biological standards within the wetland, and (3)
effluent limits for discharge from the wetland. Because of the desire to protect
natural wetlands systems, effluent discharge quality requirements are typically
very stringent, often requiring nutrient removal to very low levels. These
requirements often make it impractical to use natural wetlands for effluent
disposal.
Constructed wetlands have been commonly used for achieving secondary
treatment or additional biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and TSS removal
beyond typical secondary levels. As with natural wetlands, constructed
wetlands can be effective in treatment of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus
UP), sulfates, metals, and organics. With proper execution of design and
construction elements, constructed wetlands can provide treatment as well as
the general aesthetic and environmental benefits of natural wetlands.
Constructed wetlands are generally either the free water surface type or the
subsurface flow type. In general, constructed wetlands are sized at 20 to 60
acres per mgd of secondary effluent.
The overall efficiency of natural and constructed wetland treatment systems
can be enhanced by combining these types of systems with conventional
and/or advanced treatment plant processes.
The EPA manual, "Guidelines for Water Reuse," (EPA, 1992) indicates that
reclaimed water has been applied to wetlands for three main objectives: (1) to
create, restore, and/or enhance wetland systems, (2) to provide additional
treatment of reclaimed water prior to discharge to a receiving body, and (3) to
provide a wet weather disposal alternative for a water reuse system.
Therefore, using reclaimed water for wetland creation, restoration and
enhancement, and the use of wetlands for additional treatment and reuse
system management, are important applications that can be integrated into an
overall wastewater management and effluent disposal plans.
The Carteret County band Use Plan (T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners,
1991) indicates there are approximately 163,230 acres of forest and freshwater
wetlands in the County. In order to identify potential locations for a
constructed wetland system, the United States Department of the Interior
National Wetlands Inventory Maps for Carteret County were obtained. These
maps are available on a United States Geological Survey quadrangle base and
provide detailed information on the location and type of wetlands in a given
area. The habitats are divided into broad categories including marine,
estuarine, riverine, and palustrine systems. For the purposes of this feasibility
study, the search for suitable natural wetlands focused on palustrine wetland
systems. The goal was to identify upland sites for constructed wetlands
adjacent to natural wetland systems. Palustrine systems are freshwater and
remain inundated much of the year. These systems are typically found
adjacent to fresh and brackish surface water bodies. In many areas the
palustrine systems show a distinct transition between wetland and upland as
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
14M.

Section 6
Land Application/Reuse A/tematives
you move away from open surface water, suggesting that drainage systems in
the wetlands have been used to allow for farming. In considering a
constructed wetlands system in Carteret County, these drained areas would be
rehydrated using reclaimed water. After flowing through the constructed
wetland system, reclaimed water would enter the existing palustrine wetlands,
and from there, ultimately discharge into a surface water body. Systems of
this nature have been successfully used in South Carolina, California, and
Florida as a means of providing additional treatment and expanding and
enhancing wildlife habitat. Figure 6-6 indicates the location in Carteret County
where large palustrine wetland systems are found. Note that the Pocosin
Wilderness has been included on Figure 6-6, but will not be available for use
as a land application system (refer to Section 6.2).
The typical pollutant removal efficiencies for natural and constructed wetlands
systems are given below:
Parameter
Natural Wetlands
(secondary effluent)
Constructed Wetlands
(secondary effluent)
BOD
60 - 90
70 - 90
TSS
60 - 90
70 - 90
TN
40 - 90
75 - 95
TP
10 - 50
30 - 50
It is apparent that significant renovation can occur as effluent flows from
constructed to natural wetlands for ultimate discharge to surface waters.
Figure 6-7 provides a schematic of such a system.
6.9 Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) Systems
As the name implies, RIBs rely on moderate to highly permeable soils and a
water table at least 3 to 5 feet below RIB bottom to percolate effluent into the
surficial aquifer. RIB systems generally consist of shallow basins. The
bottoms of the basins are kept clear of vegetation to maximize the hydraulic
capacities. Effluent is loaded and rested intermittently in cycles to allow for
alternative wetting and drying. Disking of the pond bottom may be required
periodically to break up materials filtered out of the effluent and algae. RIBS
may be dedicated to effluent disposal or used as a means of recharging the
surficial aquifer for some beneficial purpose. The effluent receives additional
treatment as it moves through the soil column. Suspended solids, BOD, and
fecal coliform are effectively filtered out of the wastewater. Nitrogen removal
averages 50 percent, but can be increased up to 80 percent by optimizing
loading cycles and resting. Phosphorus removal can range from 70 to 99
percent depending on soils.
nAca„emN•ar.pt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-27

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG6-6 09/04/95 23:11:55 - 1:29:57
N
1" = 20.000'
+ - LAND APPLICATION PROHIBITED
CDM'.,
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, 8 management consultants
CARTERET COUNTYINTERLOCAL AGENCY
WETLAND SITES
Kenneth D. Potts
LEGEND:
WETLANDS
Figure 6-6

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG6-7
09/06/95 20:25:59 0:03:14 Kenneth D. Potts
MAIN v� CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS Doi NA I UKAL
WETLANDS
CONCRETE
SPLASH
PAD
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND CELL
(TYP)
GRASSED SLOPE
SYSTEM
DISCHARGE
EFFLUENT
MAIN ---- CELL FLOW CONTROL
—�
ISOLATION STRUCTURE
BE
LenvlrDM
onmental engineers, sclentlsts,
ers, 9 management consultants
CARTERET COUNTYINTERLOCAL AGENCY
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS SYSTEM
Figure 6-7

t
t
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Alternatives
Figure 6-8 indicates locations within Carteret County where the Soil
Conservation Service indicated highly permeable, well -drained soils are
present.
For the purposes of this discussion, areas with well -drained soils in Carteret
County are divided into coastal and inland areas. The coastal well -drained
soils are found adjacent to the Newport River, North River, West Mouth and
Janet Bays, Bogue Sound, and on Bogue Banks. Soils associated with these
areas include the Wando-Seabrook Kureb, Altavista -Augusta -Lynchburg, and
Newhan-Corolla-Beaches. Inland well -drained soils are found adjacent to the
upper reaches of the Newport River and its tributaries, and in the Peletier and
Kuhns areas in western Carteret County.
The capacity of a RIB system is highly dependent on site -specific conditions.
An intensive evaluation of the local hydrogeology is required for use in
modeling RIB system responses to hydraulic loadings. Such efforts are beyond
the scope of this study. Typically, RIB loadings range from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons
per square foot of basin per day. When and if RIBs are included as a
component of a land application system, geotechnical exploration and testing
will be required to verify site capacity. Figure 6-9 provides schematics of
typical RIB systems. Underdrains or well points might also be used as shown
on Figure 6-9 to facilitate drainage. However, with artificial drainage, a
discrete discharge is created that may be subject to NPDES regulations. It will
be assumed that underdrains will be required to achieve the desired disposal
capacity in this study.
In a review of Figure 6-8, it is apparent that in many instances, areas with
well -drained soils correspond to areas of intensive urban or agricultural
activity. This fact is not surprising as naturally drained areas create the most
favorable conditions for human habitat. In addition to restrictions imposed by
previous development, the Croatan National Forest has indicated that several
areas of well -drained soils cannot be used due to the presence of endangered
upland species (refer to Section 6.2). The fact that well -drained soils are
already encumbered is noted in the North Carolina State University report for
Carteret County, the City of Jacksonville, the Camp Lejeune reports, and cited
as the reason for not selecting a rapid infiltration system as the primary land
application strategy. The same logic will apply to this land application study
(i.e., there are not sufficient areas of undeveloped well -drained soils to
accommodate an effluent disposal system based only on RIBs). However,
judicious use of limited RIBs in conjunction with other land application
strategies may represent a cost-effective disposal strategy. The use of
integrated land application systems will be explored further in Section 7.
In order to characterize the expected effluent quality of such a system, the
performance of an underdrained system located in Venice, Florida is
summarized in Table 6-9. The average monthly influent and effluent qualities
are summarized in Appendix A. This example is provided because the Venice
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-30

p.m166-oxnnp\uvu\r/sunes\ pIGs-n
°
on/os/so 02.27:5/ /e./s.o/ xewem D. puns
`� �
CARTERETCOUNTY UNTERLOC4LAGENCY
CDMUt:.Ntt-(AL bUIL MAV
environmental engineers. scientists.
planners. 8 management consultants
LEGEND:
COASTAL WELL DRAINED SOILS
F�
[�J INLAND WELL DRAINED SOILS
Figure G-8

I
i�
n
1
I
Section 6
Land ApplicatioNReuse Alternatives
site has similar soil conditions found in Carteret County. From this operating
data, it can be seen that the system has been very effective in reducing TN, TP,
and BOD. However, this system has experienced significant difficulties in
reducing TSS and in fact, it is not uncommon for the underdrain discharge TSS
to be greater than the applied TSS. This problem was ultimately traced to
biological growth in the underdrain system which would periodically break
free of the pipe.
6.10 Summary
There are large areas within Carteret County which, for a variety of reasons,
cannot be considered as potential land application sites. In areas such as the
Pocosin Wilderness, land application will never be allowed. Properties within
the Croatan National Forest may become potential sites if it is demonstrated
nonforest alternatives cannot be implemented.
Based on the inventory of potential land application sites outside of the
Croatan National Forest, there is sufficient area to develop three land
application alternatives. These alternatives are presented in Section 7.
Table 6-9
Underdrain Performance - Venice, Florida
(January 1985 through October 1989)
Constituent
Influent
(mg1l)
Effluent
(mg/1)
% Reduction
BOD
6.2
2.3
63
TSS
5.3
5.4
-2
TN
14.6
2.8
81
TP
2.9
0.8
72
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
6-32

N
ti
M
Ln
U2
0
m
LL
a
APPLIED
WASTEWATER
EVAPORATION
PERCOLATION
(A) HYDRAULIC PATHWAY
FLOODING BASINS
RECOVERED WATER
UNDERDRAINS
i GROUND WATER
PERCOLATION
(UNSATURATED ZONE) WELL
UNDERDRAINS WELLS
SOURCE: EPA 1981
(B) RECOVERY PATHWAYS
FLOODING BASINS
(C) NATURAL DRAINAGE INTO SURFACE WATERS
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM RAPID INFILTRATION HYDRAULIC PATHWAYS
environmental engineers. scientists,
planners, 8 management consultants Figure 6-9

-,
��
-t __�..
,__

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
7.1 Introduction
Previous sections have defined the projected wastewater flows, potential sites,
and methods available for land application and the associated regulatory
requirements. In this section, the feasibility of three land application systems
will be evaluated with respect to technical and economic considerations.
These three alternatives employ five land application methods discussed in
Section 6. Using the selected effluent disposal strategies as a starting point,
wastewater collection and treatment systems will be developed to complement
the three land application alternatives.
Based on the discussions in Section 6, the three land application systems
evaluated in this report are:
1. An agricultural irrigation system providing effluent to farm lands in the
area of Newport and Stella (refer to Figure 6-3).
2. A constructed wetland system located northeast of Pocosin Wilderness on
the Carteret/Craven County line (refer to Figure 6-6).
3. An agricultural irrigation system in conjunction with a wetland system.
All alternatives involve properties outside the Croatan National Forest;
however, the basic design principles associated with spray irrigation and a
wetland system can be applied to land application projects within the forest
should this be required at a later date.
7.2 Seasonal Wastewater Flows and Land Application
System Capacity
The capacity of a land application system to receive effluent at any given time
is subject to rainfall, potential evapotranspiration (PET) (which is subject to
temperature), and hydrogeologic conditions. Since wastewater is generated
continuously, the means of effluent disposal must be reliable year round,
although the volume of wastewater flow may vary. A discussion of seasonal
wastewater flows is provided in Section 3. Expected seasonal fluctuations in
effluent capacity are discussed below.
The capacity of a land application system using irrigation to dispose of
effluent is dependent on both meteorological and hydrogeologic factors.
Specifically, rainfall and temperature affect the amount of water entering and
exiting the land application system. The ability of the water to be discharged
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-1

nlrartsre sastudy.rpt
Section 7 ,
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
through vertical and lateral percolation is controlled by the soil properties and
drainage features of that site.
In order to define local meteorological conditions, a 20-year daily record of
rainfall and temperature (1973 to 1992) for Morehead City was obtained and ,
analyzed. Average rainfall for this period was approximately 57 inches per
year, with a standard deviation of almost 9 inches per year. The minimum
rainfall within this period was 39 inches with a maximum of 72 inches. Figure
7-1 illustrates the typical monthly distribution of rainfall throughout the year.
A similar analysis was conducted for average daily temperatures. The annual
average temperature at Morehead City is 63 degrees with an average monthly
high temperature of 80 degrees occurring in July, and a low temperature of 45
degrees occurring in January.
Using the Thornthwaite equation, the PET for each day may be calculated. ,
Inputs to the equation include average daily temperature and maximum
possible daylight hours. The anticipated distribution of PET by month is
similar to that of the temperature distribution. The Thornthwaite equation
was also employed in the DRAINMOD model used to evaluate land
application potential in Carteret County and employed in the City of
Jacksonville land application analysis. Figure 7-2 compares the PET calculated
in Carteret County to that used in the City of Jacksonville study. Figure 7-2
also illustrates the calculated PET using correction factors recommended by '
Amatya et al. in a paper titled, "Comparison of Methods for Estimating
Reference ET." These correction factors were developed by the Bioagricultural
Engineering Department at North Carolina State University in Raleigh and are ,
recommended to refine estimates of PET. For the purposes of this water
balance, these correction factors will be employed to establish land application
system capacity. '
Having established a daily estimate of the PET, consideration of the soil
properties and water available through rainfall must now be incorporated into ,
development of a water balance model. Rainfall information is taken from the
20-year daily record obtained from the Morehead City Weather Station.
Using information obtained from the Soil Conservation Service soils report, ,
soil properties are included in the model to determine the frequency of
supplemental irrigation requirements. Field properties input into the model
include soil permeability, available water content, and depth of root zone. In ,
evaluating water actually available to a given crop, the model partitions the
root zone into 4 layers assuming 40 percent of the PET may be obtained from
the first layer, 30 percent from the second layer, 20 percent from the third ,
layer, and 10 percent from the deepest layer. The model also allows the user
to input the allowable moisture deficit prior to irrigation. In performing daily
calculations, the first step is to determine if PET exceeds daily rainfall. When i
PET exceeds rainfall, the following calculations are carried out:
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-2

P:\8166_0I\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG007-2
09/19/95 14:38:41 1:27:53 Nick
6.00
5.00
on
4.00
c
W
a
3.00
2.00
1.00
--0 Uncorrected Thornthwaite
\ —M City of Jacksonville
--A—Corrected Thomthwaite
0.00 11 1 1 I ! I I f I I
Jan. Feb. Mar Apr. May Jun Jul. Aug. Sep Oct. Nov. Dec
Month
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM COMPARISON
CARTERET COUNTY
PET
N
environmental engineers, sc%nt/sts,
planners, 8 management consultants Figure 7-2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
■ The crop will attempt to satisfy the water demand by using water
available in the four layers of the root zone.
■ PET demand is set to zero if there is sufficient moisture in the root zone.
■ If there is an insufficient amount of moisture in the root zone to satisfy
PET, a daily deficit is recorded.
■ If this deficit exceeds the allowable moisture depletion, irrigation occurs.
This irrigation will equal the daily unsatisfied PET, and brings the root
zone to full available water content.
Total irrigation is increased by a user -specified irrigation efficiency rate.
If rainfall exceeds PET, the following calculations are conducted:
■ A runoff volume is calculated based on available soil storage capacity in
the root zone.
■ After deducting runoff from rainfall, the model attempts to bring each
soil layer to field capacity.
■ Water in excess of field capacity is assumed to leave the root zone as
percolation.
It should be noted that the methodology described above is somewhat
different than the modeling efforts used in the previous Carteret County
analysis and the analysis of the City of Jacksonville land application system.
In those cases, groundwater calculations were included (using DRAINMOD
and MODFLOW) to estimate the maximum hydraulic capacity of the land
application system (i.e., the consumptive demands of a given crop were not
the primary mode of disposal, and these programs relied on mounding
effluent beneath the site to achieve disposal through percolation and
subsurface drainage). The model developed by CDM is intended to estimate
only that water that may be required for supplemental irrigation. This
approach has been taken for the following reasons:
■ There are numerous urban and agricultural activities within the County
which could now benefit from supplemental irrigation with effluent.
■ Many of these urban and agricultural sites could not tolerate excessive
irrigation as a means to achieve effluent disposal.
■ As noted in previous land application evaluations, artificial drainage is
often required to accommodate higher hydraulic loading rates.
This approach does not mean there will not be dedicated sites which will be
used to their maximum disposal capacity. However, it recognizes that golf
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-5

niew1weNe.study.rpt
Section 7 '
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
courses, parks, and agricultural areas are unlikely to serve in this capacity
because of the damage that may be caused to the turf or crop being grown
there. Using this approach, the annual average demand will be on the order
of 27 inches with a minimum demand of 0.2 inches per month in January and
a maximum demand of 4.4 inches per month in July. Using this information, ,
the next sections discuss the capabilities and requirements of an agricultural
irrigation system to achieve CCIA effluent disposal needs. The potential for
integrating alternate disposal systems with agricultural irrigation will also be '
investigated.
7.3 Alternative I: Agricultural Irrigation
In Section 6, approximately 4,000 acres of agricultural property were identified
which could benefit from irrigation. Based on the water balance,
approximately 27 inches per year can be applied for irrigation. Considering
the average annual irrigation rate with the potential agricultural area, an
average annual irrigation capacity of 7.9 million gallons per day (mgd) is
obtained. However, this rate will fluctuate throughout the year with
maximum demands in July and little to no demand November through
February. Figure 7-3 illustrates the seasonal interaction of an average annual
wastewater flow of 6.9 mgd expected in the year 2025 and an average annual ,
irrigation demand from 4.0 mgd to 10.0 mgd. This demand range would
correspond to an irrigated area ranging from 2,000 acres to 5,000 acres.
Because the tourist season tends to correspond with the peak irrigation season, '
the shape of the effluent supply and irrigation demand curves are similar.
However, there is a sufficient difference in supply and demand to necessitate
an alternative means of managing effluent in low irrigation demand periods. S
Alternative management systems include:
■ Seasonal use of the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination '
System (NPDES) permits
■ Storage
■ Limited rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) ,
■ Wetlands
■ Expanded discharge capacities
The towns of Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport have existing permits to ,
discharge a combined total of 3.7 mgd into surface water. Because the
facilities for discharge are in place, they represent a cost-effective alternative ,
disposal strategy and are included in the agricultural irrigation alternative. It
must now be determined if this 3.7 mgd discharge is sufficient to handle the
total effluent disposal requirements of the agricultural irrigation system.
Before proceeding with this analysis, a discussion on how this 3.7 mgd
discharge will be used is warranted. At the present time, discharge permits
dictate that the monthly average will not total more than 3.7 mgd. The
permitted volume of discharge has been established based on the assimilative
capacities of the receiving water bodies. This assimilative capacity is ,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-6

P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG007-3 09/19/95 16:08:23 1:29:07 Nick
25
20
go
IL
00
00
so
00
vm 15
5
0
/ 0 0♦
/ / ♦ /
/ •
IL
' `
• ` "`
%�
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
CARTERET COUNTY 1NTERLOCAL AGENCY
�6.8 Avg Day WW Flows
- - - -4 mgd Irr. Demand
- - - -6 mgd Irr. Demand
8 mgd Irr. Demand
10 mgd Irr. Demand
CDM COMPARISON AVERAGE IRRIGATION 5DEMA DEMANDAL FROM 4 TOATER 10 M DLOW TO
environmental engineers, sctentlsts. Figure 7-3
planners. 9 management consultants 9

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Altematives
established by the State by modeling. Critical inputs to this model are stream
flows and water temperature. In order to establish a conservative estimate of
discharge capacity, the State assumes summer temperatures and 7-day, 10-year
low stream flow conditions. The resulting calculated discharge capacity is
then applied to the NPDES discharge points on a year-round basis regardless
of actual stream conditions.
By including agricultural irrigation as an element of the effluent disposal
system, CCIA will provide significant effluent disposal capacity in the summer
months, but little or no disposal capacity in the winter months. In order to
make the best use of the disposal capacity afforded by the NPDES discharge
permits, it will be necessary to allow for a variable daily discharge. For
example, it is expected that a majority of the effluent generated in the summer
will be used for irrigation allowing for an average summer surface water
discharge of less than the 3.7 mgd permitted amount. However, in the winter
months, little disposal will be accomplished by irrigation and most of the
effluent will be discharged in volumes greater than the 3.7 mgd permitted
amount. The means of demonstrating that the discharge is consistent with the
existing permit would be a requirement that the annual average discharge not
exceed the 3.7 mgd.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) was
contacted to discuss the use of a variable discharge provision in the existing
NPDES permits. The concept of reducing summer discharges when streams
are more prone to degradation and increasing winter discharge when there is
greater assimilative capacity is consistent with the goals of NCDEM.
However, there is no regulatory framework in place under which such a
strategy would be considered. Based on discussions with NCDEM, it is
assumed that with sufficient documentation, the State will be able to evaluate
and ultimately permit a seasonal discharge. It should be noted that without
this provision the use of agricultural irrigation as the only means of effluent
disposal is unlikely to be feasible.
Required Irrigation Demands
Figure 7-4 presents the average and maximum expected annual discharge
required as a function of irrigated area for the 20 years modeled, assuming an
average annual wastewater flow of 6.9 mgd. From Figure 7-4, providing water
to 1,600 acres (3.2 mgd average annual irrigation) will result in a discharge
requirement equal to the permitted discharge in the average year. Implicit in
this statement is that 50 percent of the time the 12-month discharge will be less
than 3.7 mgd, and 50 percent of the time it will exceed 3.7 mgd. In order to
prevent a discharge in excess of 3.7 mgd, an irrigated area of 2,300 acres
would be required. Experience with the implementation of land application
systems suggests that it is unlikely that all potential areas will be available for
actual use. Reasons for not serving properties may include lack of interest on
the part of the owner or unforeseen difficulties/expense in constructing
transmission and distribution systems. As such, it would not be prudent to
n:,znereNewu4.nA I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-8
ij
I

P:\8166-01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG007-4 09/19/95 14:48:39 1:27:45 Nick
»
F
rot
7
6
6
6...................................'A .............. ...................................... 4
2
1
0♦
0
CDM
environmental engineers, sclent/sts,
planners, 9 management consultants
s
Irrigated Area (ac)
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 12 MONTH REOUIRED DISCHARGE AS A
FUNCTION OF IRRIGATED AREA
4 Max Discharge
----Avg Discharge
- - - -Permitted Discharge
%
Figure 7-4

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
base a land application scenario on the assumption that all available property
that can be served will ultimately receive service.
The agricultural irrigation system will target 2,300 acres of irrigation,
approximately 60 percent of the total available land. For the purposes of this
report, it has been assumed that only portions of the agricultural areas
identified on Figure 6-3 will be irrigated. However, it is noted that there are
numerous isolated agricultural sites along the effluent pipe route which could
be served if this alternative is implemented. Based on the results of the water
balance calculations, irrigation of 2,300 acres will provide sufficient demand to
ensure that use of the existing NPDES discharge points will not exceed 3.7
mgd in the lowest demand period of the 20 years modeled.
Alternative Summer Disposal Capacity
Apart from the modeling results which consider only hydrogeologic
parameters, cultural practices will also impact water use. These practices
include variable crop rotation schemes and the associated reductions in water
needs. As a precaution, it will be assumed that additional short-term backup
disposal capacity will be required to address these transient low demand
periods in the summer. A discussion of the backup management/disposal
alternatives is given below.
Storage
The summaries of the previous land application studies performed in and
around Carteret County have shown that storage can be a significant
component of a spray irrigation system. The agricultural irrigation system,
proposed as Alternative I, differs from previous work in that the land
application site will receive water according to crop water needs as opposed to
the hydrogeologic capacity of the site. This approach results in extended
periods, primarily in the winter months, in which little to no irrigation occurs
resulting in excessive storage requirements. For this reason, seasonal storage
is not considered a feasible means of managing periods of low land application
capacity and has not been investigated further. The use of limited storage to
equalize supply and demand and ultimate peak flows will be considered for
use in the summer.
RIBS
As noted in Section 6, areas with well -drained soils suitable for RIBs are
limited in Carteret County. Many of the areas with well -drained soils have
existing development or contain environmentally sensitive species which
would prohibit their use. However, even with these restrictions, limited areas
capable of supporting a RIB system appear to be available. These areas
include the southern bank of Hunters Creek and the bank of various
tributaries to the Newport River. The use of RIBs offer several advantages as
described below:
ninrtomNeaMudy.fpt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-10

Section 7
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
■ Loading rates are high allowing for reduced application areas.
■ The RIB is not dependent on effluent to support flora and fauna (as a
wetlands is), therefore it does not require continuous loading.
■ The infiltration basins provide flow equalization and short-term storage
capacity.
■ Disposal capacity may be used when needed allowing for loadings in
excess of the permitted capacity for short periods.
■ Additional treatment is provided as the effluent percolates through the
soil column.
For the agricultural irrigation system alternative, a RIB system will be
constructed along Hunters Creek as an alternative means of effluent disposal.
It is likely that forest land would be required for a portion of the RIB system.
It was noted in Section 6 that it is the policy of the Croatan National Forest to
allow its lands to be used only when no other feasible alternative is available.
In requesting the use of forest land for this alternative, it would be argued that
CCIA has maximized the feasible nonforest irrigation options and was now
seeking limited use of forest land for backup disposal. The use of RIBs would
also avoid the problems associated with spray irrigation on forest land. It is
assumed that the RIBS will only be used in the summer months to ensure that
excessive surface water discharges will not occur during this period. Because
the use of the RIBs will be transient, a design loading of two gallons per
square foot per day will be used. Further, it is assumed that an underdrain
system will be required to achieve the required effluent disposal capacity.
This in turn would require a NPDES permit.
Wetlands
Wetlands can be constructed as a wet weather backup system for spray
irrigation systems. This is logical as natural wetlands experience flooding
during periods of high rainfall; a period when spray irrigation capacities are
reduced. Similar to RIBs, wetlands provide additional treatment prior to
discharge to receiving water bodies.
At this level of planning, wetlands and RIBs are equally feasible alternatives
for a backup disposal system. Further, both have inherent advantages and
disadvantages. For the purpose of developing two independent land
application alternatives, it has been assumed that RIBs will be used as backup
disposal for the agricultural irrigation system. The use of wetlands is
evaluated as Alternative R.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-11

nAOM9r&N#aeudy.ipt
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Expanded Discharge Capacity
Another wet weather management alternative would be to increase the
permitted discharge capacity. Based on the water balance calculations, the
required increase would be 1.0 mgd for a total discharge capacity of 4.7 mgd.
This increase could in theory occur at one of the existing NPDES discharge
points. While technically feasible, there are regulatory issues associated with
this strategy which are expected to make implementation difficult. A possible
strategy to overcome these regulatory obstacles would be to permit the
increased discharge for winter months when surface waters are less sensitive
to pollutants. This approach is not supported in the current regulations, but is
consistent with the underlying logic used by the State to evaluate the impacts
of effluent discharges to surface waters. At this stage of the feasibility
analysis, increased surface water discharge at one of the three existing NPDES
discharge points will not be evaluated as a wet weather management strategy.
It is likely that the underdrain system constructed as part of a RIB system will
require a new NPDES permit.
7.3.1 Design Considerations and System Components
Figure 7-5 provides a schematic of the agricultural effluent disposal system
components. A system hydrograph illustrating the expected waste flows,
irrigation demands, and required discharge is also provided on Figure 7-5.
Successful operation of this system would dictate that irrigation demands be
served first in order to maximize the effluent diverted away from alternative
disposal systems. Discharge to the NPDES discharge points and RIBS would
be monitored and flows balanced to ensure compliance with permit
requirements. In general, the use of the RIBs would be maximized in the
summer months, and surface water discharge in the winter.
In order to evaluate the cost of the agricultural effluent disposal system,
conceptual design considerations must be established, and from that, an
inventory of the required system components. A fundamental design
consideration will be that all effluent discharged to the irrigation distributions
system will meet the public access standards proposed in the draft language of
the State's draft effluent disposal rules (refer to Section 5). This condition will
add capital cost but will minimize the need to provide buffer zones between
irrigation areas and adjacent properties. This in turn should maximize the
sites that can be irrigated; while at the same time, ease user's concerns over
effluent quality. The following design conditions will also be used in the
development of a conceptual design.
■ Effluent pumping stations will be located at the wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) and will provide the primary head required for the
transmission system.
■ A peak factor of 1.5 times the maximum month average daily irrigation
demand will be used (14.0 mgd).
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
u
1
7-12 1

11
1
v
1
a
1
IL
10
:6
01 g
E
cn 6
3
O 4
J
LL
2
0
CDN
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, *management consultants
3.7 mgd PERMITTED
DISCHARGE CAPACITY
LEGEND:
—+— WW FLOWS
IRRIGATION DEMAND
— DISCHARGE
Z m w w >- Z J U F- F- > U
Q W Q d Q U O W
LL M Q -; � - Q N O Z 0
SYSTEM HYDROGRAPH
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
AGRICULTURAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Figure 7-5

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
■ Peak velocities in the transmission pipes will be 8 feet per second.
■ Because the effluent is filtered, settling of solids in the pipe is not a
concern and minimum velocities will not be specified.
■ A minimum pressure of 30 pounds per square inch at the agricultural
sites will be provided.
■ Center pivot irrigation systems will be used wherever possible to
accomplish application of the effluent.
■ Five days of storage will be provided in accordance with State
regulations. The required storage will be calculated as the 2025 average
daily wastewater flows (6.86 mgd) minus the permitted discharge
capacity (3.7 mgd) times 5 days equals 16 million gallons (mg). An
additional 29 mg of storage will be provided to ensure that peak day
flows in the year 2025 can be managed. Storage will be located in the
preliminary design and will not necessarily be at a single central location.
■ A RIB system will provide additional wet weather disposal capacity. The
RIBs will be sized to accommodate maximum month summer effluent
flows (10.0 mgd) minus the permitted NPDES capacity (3.7 mgd) or 6.3
mgd.
■ The use of the RIBS will be intermittent. Short-term (30 days) loading
rates are assumed to be 2 gallons per square foot per day. Given a
design flow of 6.3 mgd, approximately 72 acres of infiltration area will be
required.
■ Golf courses and parks along a pipe route to the agricultural sites will be
served. It is assumed these property owners will provide the onsite
distribution system.
■ It is assumed that half of the required irrigation capacity will be
identified in the Newport area and half in west Carteret County.
Figure 7-6 provides a schematic of the agricultural reuse treatment and
disposal system. This system would rely primarily on agricultural irrigation
as a means of reusing summer reclaimed water flows. Reclaimed water would
also be provided to golf courses along the pipe route. Discharge of effluent
into holding ponds would be controlled through a level control valve allowing
flow when water levels are below desired levels and halting discharge at a
preset high level. A pressure sustaining feature on the pond discharge
structure would maintain system pressure for agricultural users and prevent
the valve from opening if peak agricultural demands have dropped system
pressures below a preset value. Figure 7-6 also indicates the use of an inline
booster pump to provide water for sod irrigation. This is required because the
walling gun irrigation system currently used has pressure requirements
�.�s�rvesc�dr. I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-14
1
J
F
I

r M = = =
= =
M = =
= M
= = M = = = M
P:\8166_0I\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\
FIG007-6
09/19/95 15:06:29
1:26:04
Nick
LOW HEAD
TRANSFER
PUMP
AGRICULTURAL. IRRIGATION
VIA CENTER PIVOTS IN STELLA
AREA OF WESTERN CARTERET
ADF - 2.2 mgd
PEAK - 6.6 mgd
PRESSURE REQUIRED - 30 psi
14 mgd
IRRIGATION
PUMP STATION
FILTERS CHLORINE CONTACT 45 mg STORAGE
POND
CDM
envlronmentol engineers, sc/entlsts,
planners, 8 management consultants
BOOSTER PUMP
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION
VIA CENTER PIVOTS ON LOOP
ROAD IN NEWPORT
ADF 2 g
PEAK -6.6md
PRESSU RED - 30 psi
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
SCHEMATIC OF THE AGRICULTURAL REUSE
SYSTEM TREATMENT/DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
RIB SYSTEM
ADF - 1.0 mgd
PEAK = 10 mgd
PRESSURE - 10 psi
WALKING GUN
LEVEL CONTROL
PRESSURE SUSTAINING
VALVE
SOD IRRIGATION
.i,VII
GOLF COURSE
PONDS
Figure 7-6

n:%-d-"9 -M,ay.Mt
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
exceeding that of the agricultural irrigation system. It was determined to be
more cost-effective to boost pressure to only that part of the system where it is ,
required rather than to increase pressure system wide. Figure 7-7 provides a
schematic of the proposed 6.3 mgd RIB system to be located along Hunters
Creek. The estimated capital cost of this irrigation system is given in Section
7.8.
7.3.2 Environmental Issues of Agricultural Irrigation '
Even where reclaimed water is not used for irrigation, agricultural land uses
have been associated with an increase in nutrient concentrations in the
groundwater and surface water runoff. The potential for farming to degrade
groundwater and surface water quality is a function of the physical and
chemical properties of the soil, the hydrogeology of the site, and the cultural
practices employed in crop production. The primary factors associated with
increased nutrients in groundwater and surface water are nutrients applied in
the form of commercial fertilizers and erosion caused by land clearing and
tilling
Long recognized as a problem, the farming community has developed
production practices which are intended to minimize the adverse impacts '
associated with agricultural land use collectively referred to as best
management practices (BMPs). A detailed description of agricultural BMPs is
beyond the scope of this report, but typical elements include increased '
management of applied nutrients and land management practices intended to
minimize erosion and runoff. The State has published a manual to allow
farmers to tailor fertilizer use according to potential yields and soils which will
greatly reduce the excess application of nutrients. Several organizations have
developed land management and tillage strategies that minimize erosion.
These strategies include no till where field preparation is limited to only that
area where the crop is planted as opposed to plowing under the entire field
and the maintenance of grassed strips along streams and drainage ditches. In
fact, the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act requires a certified nutrient
management plan on all farms in this coastal zone.
Table 7-1 summarizes the recommended range of nitrogen application rates for '
Carteret County agricultural crops. These rates were generated based on
general guidelines for the soils found in this area and can be refined as the
project moves into final design. Table 7-1 also provides the nutrient loadings '
that would be expected if effluent is used for irrigation at a rate of 27 inches
per year. In general, the nitrogen received through effluent irrigation will be
less than the recommended loading rates associated with corn, sod, and wheat, '
and slightly greater than the rates recommended for cotton. It is suggested
that by enlisting the assistance of the State and local agricultural extension
service, a nutrient and land management system could be implemented in
conjunction with the agricultural irrigation system which could maximize the
agronomic benefits of effluent irrigation and minimize any adverse
environmental impacts. '
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-16

= == w err M M= M= M M = = M M® w
P:\8166_01\30P\CIVIL\FIGURES\ FIG007-7 09/19/95 15:17:17 3:04:40 Nick
X
W
W
3
C.1
h
D:
W
F
2
2
CDM
environmental englneers, sc/entlsts,
planners, 8 management consultants
200'
ACCESS ROAD
RIB
100, 200'
GROUNDWATER No
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
SCHEMATIC PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE RIB BACKUP
DISPOSAL SYSTEM
UNDERDRAIN
SYSTEM
Figure 7-7

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Table 7-1
Recommended Nitrogen Application Rates
for Agricultural Crops in Carteret County
Crop
Nitrogen
(lb/adyr)
Corn
100 -170
120 -165
Sod
180 - 300
Wheat
70 -120
Cotton
40 - 80
Nutrient loading associated
901b/ac/yr
with effluent irrigation*
*Assumes 15 milligrams per liter Total Nitrogen
While the primary value of reclaimed water is irrigation, the nutrients do
contribute to crop requirements. In order to optimize the use of commercial
fertilizer in conjunction with effluent irrigation, a nutrient balance is required.
Based on the information presented in Table 7-1, it appears that nitrogen
loadings associated with fertilizers could be reduced from 30 to 100 percent.
The final nutrient balance would likely be developed based on actual field
experience with farms in Carteret County in cooperation with the agricultural
extension agent. A similar procedure was conducted in the City of
Tallahassee, Florida spray field which included monitoring of effluent nutrient
concentrations, soil and groundwater nutrient concentrations, and crop tissue
nutrients. This procedure resulted in a substantial reduction in the use of
commercial fertilizers and reductions in the amounts of nitrogen discharge
from the site.
7.4 Alternative Il: Wetlands Systems
The capacity of a constructed wetland is a function of the hydraulic loading
rate and the residence time of the effluent within the system. By definition,
wetlands systems are saturated much of the time and, as such, are not subject
to reductions in disposal capacity in periods of high rainfall. Because of this
feature, a detailed water balance as was performed for the agricultural system
will not be required for a constructed wetland.
nAcaRemN•WWr.Mt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-18

I
'I
1
1
n.=demN"Audy.rpt
i
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
For the purposes of evaluating a constructed wetland, a hydraulic loading rate
of 60 acres per mgd of effluent is used. It is assumed that the current NPDES
discharge capacity of 3.7 mgd will be used in conjunction with the constructed
wetland. The total effluent to be handled by the wetland can be calculated as
the expected average daily flows in 2025 (6.86 mgd) minus the existing
discharge capacity (3.7 mgd) equals 3.20 mgd. However, this approach
neglects the fact that peak season effluent flows are on the order of 10.0 mgd
in the summer. If a constructed wetlands system capacity of only 3.2 mgd is
provided, summer discharges at the existing NPDES points would be required
to increase from 3.7 mgd to 6.8 mgd. While the annual average discharge at
the NPDES points could be brought into compliance by reducing discharge
volumes in the winter months, it must be assumed that doubling the summer
discharge is not desirable. In order to size the wetlands it will be assumed
that summer discharges from the existing NPDES points cannot exceed 3.7
mgd. From this, the capacity of the constructed wetland system is calculated
as peak month effluent flows in 2025 (10.0 mgd) minus the allowable discharge
(3.7 mgd) equals 6.3 mgd. This volume of effluent will require a constructed
wetland of approximately 380 acres assuming 60 acres of constructed wetland
are required per mgd of effluent. Allowing for buffer zones and facility
requirements, the total land area associated with the wetland is estimated to be
490 acres.
7.4.1 Design Considerations and System Components
Public exposure to effluent discharged to a wetland system would be less than
that of an agricultural irrigation system. Because of this, secondary quality
effluent is considered appropriate for discharge into a constructed wetlands.
The following design condition is also used in the development of the
conceptual design:
■ Effluent pumping stations will be located at the WWTPs.
■ A peak factor of 1.5 times the maximum month average daily flow (10
mgd) will be used (15 mgd).
■ Peak velocities in the transmission pipe will be 8 feet per second (fps).
■ A target minimum velocity in the transmission pipe of 2 fps will be used
to prevent settling.
■ A minimum pressure of 10 pounds per square inch at the wetlands
discharge will be provided.
■ Effluent equalization storage volume equivalent to the expected 2025
peak day wastewater flows (30.0 mgd) will be provided.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-19

n:\nrtOrWW3t1*.rO
Section 7 '
Analysis of Selected Altematives
■ It is assumed that a contract between CCIA and the property owner will
be used to establish CCIA's authority to construct and operate a wetland '
system (i.e., CCIA will not purchase the property).
■ The constructed wetlands will seek to restore wetlands damaged or
destroyed by previous drainage projects.
■ The design of the wetland system will maximize wetland habitat and
treatment efficiency.
■ The WWTP layout will be designed to allow for the easy addition of a
filter at a future date. This provision is made should potential irrigation
customers along the pipe route request service or to accommodate more
stringent discharge limits in the future.
■ Discharge from the constructed wetland will be to natural tural wetland.
The concept of a constructed wetland system is straightforward. Reclaimed
water is used to rehydrate ditched and drained sites to recreate a wetland and
provide additional wastewater treatment. However, the details of such a
program are highly dependant on site -specific conditions. At this time, a
t
potential constructed wetland site has been identified at the Craven and
Carteret County line. A review of the National Wetlands Inventory and
United States Geological Survey maps, the soil survey, and aerial photographs,
indicate it is a suitable location for a constructed wetland. In order to
establish the details of a constructed wetland system design, the following
tasks will be required.
Evaluation of Drainage
Wetlands rely on surface and subsurface drainage to distribute water
throughout the system. In order to assess current drainage patterns, a detailed
topographic survey will be required. Preliminary review of the selected site
suggests that drainage patterns are complex and discharges may occur to, a
number of basins. It is critical to confirm that the construction of a wetland
can be accomplished without detrimental alteration of existing drainage
patterns. Hydrologic and geotechnical monitoring are also required. Those
data (topographic, hydrologic, and geotechnical) can be combined to develop a
model to determine final design of the constructed wetland system.
Threatened and Endangered Species
9 P
In order to consider a constructed wetlands, an inventory of the species now
found at the proposed site will be required. A listing of threatened and
endangered species in Carteret and Craven County is given in Appendix B.
Determining the presence or absence of these species on the proposed wetland
site will be required to address the concerns of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
As part of this effort, upland plant species that may have been introduced as
part of previous drainage work and undesirable species can be identified. An
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7_20

F�
1
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
assessment of the desirable flora and fauna can also be developed at this time.
A monitoring program will likely be required to evaluate the environmental
changes that occur as a result of construction and operation of the constructed
wetland system. The cost of the constructed wetland alternative is given in
Section 7.8.
7.5 Alternative III: Agricultural Irrigation With
Wetlands Systems
In Alternative I, agricultural irrigation provided the primary means of disposal
in the summer months with RIBs providing backup disposal. In Alternative III
agricultural irrigation would be used as the primary means of effluent disposal
in the summer months with wetlands used as backup disposal. This
alternative was added to the feasibility analysis because there is a synergy
between the two methods. Specifically, the periods in the summer months
when irrigation demands are low due to rainfall are the same periods when a
wetland would be saturated. By combining irrigation with wetlands, each
component can receive effluent as dictated by weather conditions and demand
providing a high level of disposal reliability.
Design Considerations
The design requirements of Alternative III combine the applicable design
elements of Alternatives I and II. Because of the agricultural irrigation, it is
assumed that all effluent diverted to the reuse system would be filtered. The
size of each component is defined below.
■ It is assumed that the NPDES permits would be used up to their current
3.7 mgd limit.
■ The agricultural irrigation system targets an irrigated area of 1,600 acres.
As discussed in Alternative I, this would provide sufficient area to ensure
that the 12-month discharge does not exceed 3.7 mgd in the average year.
It is assumed that the wetland system disposal capacity will not be
decreased by periodic increases in loadings associated with lower than
average irrigation demands.
■ In order to ensure firm disposal capacity in the summer, the wetland will
provide for 6.3 mgd of firm disposal capacity.
■ Because the wetlands would provide a backup disposal system to
agricultural irrigation, the 5-day storage requirement is not applicable to
this alternative. A storage volume of 30 mg would be provided to
equalize reclaimed water supply and demand and reduce peak pumping
requirements.
From the design considerations given above, the constructed wetland system
would require a disposal capacity of 6.3 mgd. However, this capacity is based
.AmdereNeastudy.rpt
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-21

n:lwabrdMwtudy.rpt
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
on the maximum month effluent flows and assumes no irrigation demands for
a period of two to four weeks. Further, the effluent will be filtered prior to
discharge into the constructed wetland system. Because of the short duration
of peak loadings and the higher quality, a design rate of 30 acres per mgd will
be used to size the constructed wetland. Given a flow rate of 6.3 mgd,
approximately 190 acres will be required. Allowing for buffer zones and
facilities requirements, the total land area associated with the backup wetland
system is estimated to be 250 acres. The cost of Alternative III is discussed in
Section 7.8.
7.6 Summary of Land Application Alternatives
The land application alternatives presented in this section are considered
technically feasible and environmentally responsible. Unlike many land
application systems, the above alternatives do not assume that land will be
purchased and dedicated to irrigation and/or wetlands. Rather, it has been
assumed that effluent reuse agreements will be executed between CCIA and
the users. This in turn requires a willingness on the part of the land owner to
receive and make use of reclaimed water. Without willing land owners, CCIA
would have to consider purchasing property. Similar procedures have been
used successfully in many reuse and land application systems elsewhere. It is '
clear that CCIA benefits by diverting reclaimed water to a permittable land
based reuse/disposal system. The remaining issue is what benefit is provided
to the users and why they should participate.
Regarding the willingness of the selected site owners to participate in the
program, there is reason to be optimistic. The use of reclaimed water for
agricultural irrigation would increase the productivity of County farms above
current levels and thereby create an incentive for participation. By providing
water at agronomic rates, the fear that farm lands would be used as "dumping
grounds" is eliminated. Filtering of the reclaimed water coupled with reliable
disinfection will also enhance water quality and reduce concerns over public
health. The local Cooperative Extension Agent has offered to assist in a
program to inform the County farmers about the irrigation alternatives and to
receive feedback from the potential users.
Regarding the constructed wetland system, the property owner has been
contacted and appears interested in learning more about the program. The
selected site is currently used for hunting by a private club and the
construction of a wetland system may offer advantages by increasing habitat
and wildlife diversity. This property is located in Craven County as the result
of a recent adjustment to the County boundaries. r
I
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7_22

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
I
1
1
I
1
n:bnterstV—Wdy.nA
7.7 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and
Conveyance
7.7.1 Collection System
Existing Collection Systems
Beaufort, Morehead City, and Newport have existing gravity sewer type
wastewater collection systems comprising individual service laterals (flinch
minimum size), gravity sewers (8-inch minimum size), manholes, pump
stations, and force mains. In relatively flat terrain with a high groundwater
table, the use of pump stations is an inevitable requirement. The spacing of
pump stations in flat terrain is dependent to some degree on how deep gravity
sewer trenches can be constructed. In this area, the high groundwater table
and sandy nature of the soil necessitate extensive dewatering for sewer
construction. Consequently deep sewers are not customary. The depth
limitations result in pump stations being spaced more closely than in areas
characterized by topographic relief.
Gravity sewers below the groundwater table provide an opportunity for
infiltration and inflow of groundwater and surface water through pipe joints,
breaks, and service connections and through manhole walls, connections, and
tops. The three existing systems have experienced excessive infiltration and
inflow and have ongoing projects to repair or replace leaking pipes and
manholes. As the systems age, continual repairs and replacement are
necessary, and conveying and treating high wet weather wastewater flows is a
continual challenge.
It is assumed that the existing collection and conveyance systems will be
maintained and upgraded as needed. No costs associated with continued
operation, maintenance, upgrading, and expansion of the existing systems are
included. Interconnection of the existing systems and the new land
application system is made at the treatment plants within the treatment
process and not in the collection and conveyance system.
Comparison of Gravity, Vacuum, and Pumped Collection Systems
Three types of pumping systems are commonly used for the initial
introduction of wastewater into low pressure collection systems - vacuum
collection systems, septic tank effluent pumping systems, and grinder pump
collection systems. The respective characteristics of gravity, vacuum, and
pumped (pressure) wastewater collection are described under subsequent
respective headings:
■ Conventional Gravity Sewers: In this system, a flinch service lateral
usually connects each raw wastewater source (residence, business, etc.) to
a common street sewer (usually 8-inch) with manholes. These pipes
convey raw wastewater to local pump stations which serve up to 1,000
feet of incoming street sewers, the actual length depending on features
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-23

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
such as terrain, elevations, and street layout. The length of gravity
sewers is limited by the depth to which it can economically be
constructed in the relatively flat terrain and high groundwater table in
the project area (minimum sewer slope 4 feet in elevation per 1,000 feet
of length).
The local pump stations then pump the collected wastewater through
force mains to major pump stations which, in turn, pump the wastewater
to the treatment facility. A pump station at the treatment facility pumps
the treated effluent to the disposal point if it is distant from the treatment
site. In some cases, multiple local pump stations can pump into a
common force main and the major pump stations can be booster pump
stations with no re -pumping from open wells.
Traditional gravity sewer systems tend to be a costly option because of
the deep excavation, large gravity pipes, manholes, and numerous pump
stations required in flat terrain. They are also subject to wet -weather
infiltration/inflow and grit accumulation. They require the least
maintenance at the individual properties.
■ Vacuum Collection Systems: This system may convey wastewater effluent
from existing or new septic tanks (which otherwise would be disposed of
in absorption fields) or raw wastewater. A 4-inch service lateral connects
each raw wastewater source or septic tank outlet pipe to a sump located
for convenient access near the public road or street if practicable. Each
sump is connected to a branch pipe from a vacuum main in the road or
street through a special pneumatically operated valve which opens at
high sump level and closes at low sump level. When the valve opens,
the vacuum in the main draws the wastewater or septic tank effluent in
the pump into the main. The system owner owns and maintains the
sumps and valves. If convenient, several wastewater sources can be
connected to a common sump.
Vacuum is provided in the main by a combination vacuum and
wastewater pump station containing vacuum pumps and controls, a
vacuum reservoir tank, a vacuum/wastewater separation tank, and
wastewater pumps and controls. The combination pump stations then
pump the collected wastewater through force mains to major pump
stations as described above for convention sewers.
Vacuum mains are very different from gravity sewers. They are usually
smaller (usually 6-inch maximum) and are laid to a grade that descends
gradually for a few hundred feet, then rising abruptly for typically 1.5
feet, this pattern repeating itself until the vacuum pump station is
reached.
nAmitemNeamudy.Mt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1
1
1
1
I
7-24
A

F1
11
1
'I
.AcW "eaMuay.qA
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Vacuum systems are limited to approximately 20 feet of usable head
which is consumed by both lift and flow friction which varies with
length of the vacuum main. A typical maximum length in flat terrain
might be around 2,000 feet which might have 10 feet of friction loss and
six 1.5-foot lifts. Thus in flat terrain under conditions similar to the
project area, it is probable that about half the number of vacuum pump
stations would be required compared to local gravity sewer pump
stations.
Vacuum collection systems can be as expensive to construct as
conventional gravity sewer systems, and operational costs are higher
because of valve maintenance, the additional head on the wastewater
pumps due to them having to draw against the constant vacuum head,
the necessity of maintaining constant vacuum in the system, and
maintenance of the more complicated combination vacuum and
wastewater pumping system.
Connecting the vacuum system to the septic tank effluent pipes instead
of the raw wastewater pipes has several distinct advantages to the system
owner:
— Pipe and vacuum valve sizes can be reduced because there are no
coarse solids to handle.
— The user is responsible for collecting and disposing of primary
sedimentation solids and grease, thus eliminating an entire treatment
process at the treatment plant and primarily solids handling costs.
— The elimination of grease reduces maintenance at pump stations and
scum handling at the treatment plant.
A disadvantage of connecting to septic tank effluent pipes is that septic
tanks in areas subject to flooding must be sealed or replaced to keep
extraneous water out of the system.
■ Pressure Collection Systems: This system, like vacuum collection systems,
may convey wastewater effluent from existing or new septic tanks or raw
wastewater. A flinch service lateral connects each raw wastewater
source or septic tank outlet pipe to a sump located for convenient access
near the public road or street if practicable. An electric pump is located
in each sump which pumps through a relatively small branch pipe (2
inch typically ) to a pressure main in the road or street. The pump is
energized by float switches in the sump to start at high sump level and
stop at low sump level. A third high level float switch actuates an
audible or visual alarm if the sump level rises above the pump start
level. The system owner normally owns and maintains the sumps and
pumps. The system owner or the property owner provides electricity for
the pump. If convenient, several wastewater sources can be connected to
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7_25

nA=mtV"s *.,A
Section 7 '
Analysis of Selected Altem_atives
a common sump, in which case the system owner would logically
provide electricity for the pump. Dual pumps could be used in common
sumps.
When raw wastewater is pumped, the type of pump used is a grinder
pump which reduces the solids to small particles. For septic tank
effluent pumping, the pump needs to be capable of passing only around
1/2-inch solids, but is prudent to pass the effluent through a basket
strainer to catch the occasional wayward larger solid. Submersible type
pumps are the most practicable type.
Pressure mains are limited in length only by the available pressure head
from the pumps when many pumps are pumping concurrently into the
pressure main, thus producing high total flow which produces the
maximum friction head losses in the pressure main. By sizing the
pressure main in increasingly larger sizes as the main approaches its
destination - either a major pump station or a booster pump station - the
flow velocity can be lowered and hence, the total friction losses
minimized. Thus, in level terrain, the length of the pressure main is
often determined by other factors such as residence time under low flow
conditions.
Pressure collection systems are the most economical of the three types of
wastewater collection systems because pipes are shallow and are only r
large enough to carry the flow at a reasonable velocities; fewer local
pump stations are required; and sumps, pumps, and controls are
competitively available and not very expensive.
Connecting the pumps to the septic tank effluent instead of the raw
wastewater pipes has similar advantages to those described for vacuum 1
collection, and standard pumps are cheaper and require less maintenance
than grinder pumps.
One disadvantage of pumped systems is the difficulty stopping of sto in the
flow in the event of pressure main failure, since many pumps are
delivering wastewater to the pressure main. Such emergencies can best
be handled by shutting off the water system which minimizes any
overflows while repairs are being made. Pumping costs to the system
owner are greatly reduced by having property owners provide the
electricity for the pump in the individual sumps.
Since existing septic tanks may not be watertight, they are subject to
infiltration/inflow especially in wet weather. It is prudent, therefore, to
replace existing septic tanks with new, tightly sealed septic tanks. This
will control infiltration/inflow which, in turn, will prevent system
overloads.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-26

Section 7
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
Proposed Collection System Selection
New wastewater collection systems are needed for Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll
Shores, Indian Beach, Emerald Isle, Cedar Point, and Cape Carteret. These
municipalities are somewhat linear in layout, the combined length totaling
approximately 26 miles.
If a gravity/lift pump sewer system was used to collect wastewater over a
system of this total length, the practicable section depth range of
approximately 4 to 12 feet would necessitate repumping the wastewater every
2,000 to 3,000 feet, resulting in some 45 to 70 successively larger lift stations in
addition to the major transmission pump stations. One of the significant
shortcomings of such a lift/gravity system is that, if any pump station fails,
the upstream stations continue to deliver wastewater, resulting in system
overflows. Gravity collection systems are always subject to infiltration and
inflow which usually increase as the system ages.
Low pressure wastewater collection systems are not limited by pipe trench
depth and, hence, by length of pipe between major pump stations. However,
many pumps are required at or near the wastewater sources, e.g., at each
residence, in order to introduce the wastewater initially into the pressure
conveyance system. If the system is protected from infiltration/inflow at each
source, there is no further possibility of infiltration/inflow into the system.
For the proposed collection system, conventional gravity systems or any of the
above three types of pumped collection systems could be used for the basic
wastewater collection system. Having considered the various characteristics of
each, our preference is for pumped collection system of the grinder pump
type. Some of the more significant considerations in developing this
preference are:
■ The principal considerations that make pressure collection systems
preferable to gravity/lift pump collection systems in the six unsewered
municipalities are:
- Higher cost of larger pipe and deeper trenches for gravity systems.
- Installation of gravity systems is slower and causes more damage to
trees, pavement, landscaping, etc.
- Pump stations for gravity systems are deeper and more costly than
collector pump stations in pumped systems, and more stations are
required.
- Manholes are required in gravity systems but not in pumped systems.
Construction in streets would be costly.
- Pumped system pipe location is more flexible than gravity system
pipe, enabling obstacles to be readily avoided.
- Pumped system pipes are smaller and shallower. Most of the system
can be installed with a small trencher. Installation is thus
considerably faster and cheaper.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-27

n:lc artarstlfaastudy.gA
Section 7
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
- Pipe grades are critical in gravity collection, hence requiring careful
control. Pumped system pipe grades are not a critical design element.
- Paved road crossings can be crossed by jacking a casing under the
road at shallow depth and inserting the pressure pipe, whereas
gravity sewer pipe crossings are deeper and often require the
pavement to be excavated.
- Pressure and, hence, energy are preserved by pressure systems which
are generally more energy efficient than gravity/lift systems. ,
- The distances and transit times involved in this system will result in
hydrogen sulfide production and odor problems at gravity/lift pump
stations. Pressure systems keep the odors confined until the
treatment plant where they can be controlled.
■ The principal considerations that resulted in our preference for grinder
pump type pumped collection systems for the six municipalities are:
- Vacuum collection systems are considered to be more complex, less
reliable, and less energy efficient than septic tank effluent or grinder
pump systems.
- Vacuum collection systems would not be suitable for large
wastewater sources such as condominiums.
- Vacuum collection systems cannot be programmed to equalize overall
flows.
- Septic tank effluent pumping would have less risk of system solids
build-up from low flows than grinder pumps if system construction
were phased over many years. However, the proposed (by CCIA)
rapid construction program negates that advantage.
- Septic tanks with pump chambers would require larger structures
than grinder pump chambers, resulting in higher cost.
- It is desirable to have the pump chambers exposed above grade for
access and to minimize extraneous water entry. This would be more
costly for a combination septic tank and pump chamber than for a
pump chamber alone. It could also create aesthetic problems.
- Use of pump chambers only, as opposed to combination septic tanks
and pump chambers, is more suitable for locating the units near the
streets facilitating maintenance access.
- Combination septic tanks and pump chambers must have the septic
tanks pumped out every 5 to 10 years.
- The environmental impact of pumping out all septic tanks
periodically will be significant on a system -wide basis - traffic, odors,
occasional spills, noise, exhaust pollution, and the need to receive and
treat the septage at the treatment plant.
- Septic tanks for large wastewater producers such as condominiums
must either be very large or must have the solids removed frequently.
- If combination septic tank and pump chamber systems
are considered, the existing septic tanks should be replaced with new
watertight tanks to insure that infiltration and inflow through leaky
tanks is not received in the new systems. As noted above, this will
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-28

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
be more costly than new pump chambers alone and could result in
significant protests over cost and siting.
Grinder pump systems are suitable for any size wastewater producer,
as they are available in a wide range of capacities.
The grinder feature precludes the necessity of settling or screening the
wastewater to prevent pump clogging and, hence, should have
comparable reliability to septic tank effluent pumps.
One disadvantage of grinder pumps compared to septic tank effluent
pumps is that they are approximately 25% more expensive. However,
the grinder feature is necessary.only for smaller size pumps for small
wastewater sources with small service pipes. For large sources and
for larger downstream pumping, standard wastewater pumps will
suffice. Therefore, the relatively higher cost is only for the smallest
pumps in the system.
Two common grinder pump arrangements are: (1) A grinder pump station at
each wastewater source, e.g., each residence, can be provided with an
individual pump station, or (2) one grinder pump station is provided for
multiple adjacent wastewater sources, e.g., a group of four homes can share a
common pump station. Some of the associated considerations are:
E. With individual user pump stations, the user can be required to pay for
the initial installation and also to pay for the electrical power for the
station. The owner is also responsible for reporting station problems, as
well as to provide the site for the station.
■ For multiple user pump stations, CCIA would logically own, operate, and
provide power for the stations and to procure sites for the stations.
■ The multiple user pump stations would be larger and more expensive
but the overall capital cost would likely be somewhat less than for
individual user pump stations.
The approximate cost for a typical individual user pump station and building
connection is $4,500. The approximate cost for a typical four -user pump
station and building connections is $10,000 plus any site acquisition cost.
Description of Proposed Collection System
A common regional wastewater collection system operated by a central
authority is proposed. The proposed collection system begins at each
wastewater source with a grinder pump station to replace each existing on -site
wastewater disposal system (usually septic tank/absorption field systems).
The existing system will be isolated completely and abandoned. The main
wastewater drain from each source (home, business, apartment building,
condominium, etc.) will be cut outside the building and repiped into the
grinder pump station with watertight Schedule 40 PVC pipe (4-inch minimum
size).
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-29

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
The grinder pump stations will be located near the street if possible to
facilitate maintenance by the authority. The existing systems may not be
connected as redundant systems because they would be a source of
infiltration/inflow into the new system.
Pump stations will have a single pump for residences and two or more pumps
for larger wastewater sources. A sketch of a single pump station is shown in
Figure 7-8.
Pumps will be controlled automatically in two ways. The pump chambers for
individual residences and other smaller wastewater users will be sized to hold
a typical day's flow. The primary pump control will be a quartz -based timer
which will start each pump at a set time two to four times per 24-hour period.
The pump will be stopped by a float switch at low liquid level. Should the
pump chamber be filled before the timed start cycle, a high-level float switch
will override the timer and start the pump. A higher level float switch will
actuate a red alarm light on the control panel indicating a pump or power
failure. When the pump is operating, a green light on the panel will be
actuated. A sign will be located on each panel:
"CALL (TEL NO.) IF RED LIGHT IS ON OR IF GREEN
LIGHT IS ON FOR MORE THAN 20 MINUTES CONTINUOUSLY"
The reason for the primary timer control is that all pumps throughout the
collection can be timed in a manner that normally will distribute the overall
flow evenly throughout each 24-hour period. This will provide several
benefits:
■ The risk of flow congestion from multiple pumps operating concurrently
is reduced.
■ Pipes can be sized moderately without excess capacity.
■ Conveyance system performance will be improved and more efficient due
to lower pump pressures.
■ Treatment plant performance is improved due to the more consistent
flow rate over each 24-hour period.
The individual grinder pump stations will discharge through a PVC pipe
collector system with sizes 2-inch to 6-inch to local pump stations located
centrally in each collection area. The lengths of the collector piping will be
limited to approximately 4,000 feet extending in any direction from the local
pump stations.
J
I
nAcadeWV.mt
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-30

w
a
x
a
w
0
TO CONTROL
PANEL
LATERAL FROM
HOUSE FIELD
LOCATED
2,6
1 1/4" NPT BROOKS NO. 1324-18
FLANGE HDPE UTILITY ENCLOSURE
WITH 1324 BOLT DOWN
POWER CABLE COVER OR EOUAL
SS LIFTING
CABLE
PLAN
POWER CABLE
INLET HUB SS LIFTING
SEE NOTE 1 CABLE
HIGH LEVEL
1 1/2" PVC
UNION (PINNED
W/SS SCREWS)
1 1/2" SDR 21
PVC PIPE
TO F.M.
1 1/2" BRONZE
SWING CHECK
VALVE
z
`-GRAVEL
\-I 1/2" NPT 1 1/2" PVC
FLANGE BALL VALVE
5 CUBIC FEET OF CONCRETE
%.,,,,--'FOR ANTI -FLOATATION
�- 1 1/2" SCH 80
PVC
1 1/4" x 1 1/2"
NOTES ADAPTOR
1. INLET HUB - CONTRACTOR TO
LOCATE AND INSTALL IN FIELD SECTION -
2. FLOAT LEVELS TO BE SET 1N
THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER NOT TO SCALE -
ALARM
PUMP ON
PUMP* OFF
..• ..• ..
Figure No. 7-8
CM Camp Dresser & McKee TYPICAL WASTEWATER SOURCE PUMP STATION

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
The estimated numbers of local pump stations to serve the respective
municipalities are:
■ Atlantic Beach:
4
■ Pine Knoll Shores:
3
■ Indian Beach:
2
■ Emerald Isle:
9
■ Cedar Point
3
■ Cape Carteret:
3
■ Total
24
The local pump stations will comprise an above -grade concrete tank (pump
wet well) with an adjoining pump room containing two or more variable
speed pumps, piping, an adjacent air conditioned room for electrical controls
and instrumentation, and an adjacent room for a stand-by power generator.
For aesthetic reasons the tank and various rooms will be given a consistent
attractive exterior appearance. The overall dimensions will be approximately
20 feet wide x 40 feet long x 12 feet high.
The respective collector pipes in each collection area will discharge into the
wet well. Flow meters and recorders can be provided on the collector pipes if
desired. The variable speed pumps will pump out of the wet well into a force
main common to the other local pump stations and leading to the treatment
plant. The speed and, hence, output of the pumps is controlled by the level of
water in the wet well, the higher the level, the higher the pump speed and
output, the output flow rate of the station being equal to the incoming flow
rate. The pumps will discharge through a magnetic flow meter. Flows will
also be totalized and recorded.
Each local pump station will cost approximately $1.0 million inclusive of an
allowance for land cost.
The common force main will begin near the east end of Atlantic Beach at the
most upstream local pump station as an 8-inch pipe and continues along NC
58 to a point approximately 3.4 miles west of the east end of Emerald Isle
where it will have increased in size to 20 inches, will be joined by a branch 8-
inch to 14-inch force main along NC 58 and Coast Guard Road serving the
west end of Emerald Isle, and will cross Bogue Sound as a 24-inch force main.
On the north side of Bogue Sound it will be joined by a branch 8-inch to 12-
inch force main serving Cedar Point and Cape Carteret along NC 24 and will
continue as a 30-inch pipe to the treatment plant.
The resistance to flow along the long common force main from the friction of
the water and the pipe wall necessitates substantial pumping energy input to
provide the pressures needed. The required energy increases exponentially
with increasing flow. The pumping system must be capable of providing
highly variable flow handling capacity under highly variable conveying
pressure needs.
n.me.nw«tudr.mt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-32

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
The local pump stations cannot practicably provide the full range of flow and
pressure requirements of the conveying system while keeping pipe sizes in an
economical range, maintaining minimum flow velocities to keep solids from
settling out in the pipe, and keeping maximum pipe pressures to a reasonable
value. Therefore, to provide the needed flow range and pressure range, a
series of pressure booster stations will be provided along the common force
main. Under low flow conditions these stations will need to add little or no
energy into the conveying system. As flows increase, however, back pressures
will increase, and the booster pumps will start in the number required and
operate at the speed required to keep the wastewater moving through the
force main.
We estimate that nine booster pump stations will be required in the common
force main which has a total length of approximately 33.4 miles. The stations
will operate only when pressure boost is required. Thus, under low to
moderate flow conditions, some of the booster pump stations may not operate,
in which case the wastewater will flow through a check valve past the booster
pump station.
The booster pump stations will comprise above -grade structures of
approximately the size of the local pump stations and will contain two or
more variable speed pumps, piping, an air conditioned room for electrical
controls and instrumentation, and a room for a standby power generator. The
exterior appearance will be similar to the local pump stations.
The primary control of the booster pump stations will be a pressure control
whereby the number of operating pumps and the speed of the pumps will be
controlled to reduce upstream pressure. Flow will also be measured and
integrated into the pump control system using a programmable logic controller
(PLC). As the upstream pressure rises, reflecting downstream system
backpressure, the pumps will operate to reduce the upstream pressure and
increase the downstream pressure. The increased downstream pressure will be
sensed by the next booster pump station which will operate in the same
manner and so on until flow is discharged at the treatment plant.
The average cost of the nine booster pump stations will be approximately $1.5
million plus land cost, with individual costs varying according to the station
capacity.
Pipe for the collection system will be predominantly PVC of which the grade
will be AWWA C900, Pressure Class 150 psi. Some ductile iron pipe will be
used in the pump stations. Joints will be rubber gasket push -on type with
flanged joints in the pump stations.
The proposed crossing location of Bogue Sound is selected for several reasons:
■ It is convenient to the proposed treatment plant site.
■ It considers economy of the collection system piping and pumping.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-33

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Altematives
■ It traverses open water which will minimize adverse effects on marine
grasses. '
■ It can be constructed from barges, although it may be necessary to
directional drill under the intracoastal waterway channel.
An aerial crossing on the NC 58 bridge is a possible alternative location but t
will be accompanied by additional piping and pumping costs. We did not
explore this alternative.
The pipe type for the Bogue Sound crossing may be other than PVC. Possible
alternatives are high density polyethylene and ductile iron ball joint pipe. The
respective qualities and costs must be explored during design.
Build-up of hydrogen sulfide in the wastewater during conveyance is expected
to be significant because of the warm summer temperatures and long transit
times in the collection system. This will not present a problem in the
collection system but must be accommodated when the wastewater is released
to atmosphere at the treatment plant. We propose to control the hydrogen
sulfide at the treatment plant by accelerating the release to atmosphere of the
hydrogen sulfide in the aerated grit chamber and drawing the released gas
into the activated sludge aeration system where it will be oxidized in the
activated sludge tanks.
The sizes and quantities of pipe in the wastewater collection are shown in
Table 7-2. The 2-4-inch pipe quantities are based on having a pipe of this size
range along every street in each of the six municipalities as shown on a map
approximately five years old. More recently developed streets and current i
usage of streets have not been field determined. The quantities shown will,
therefore, generally approximate the pipe required for serving the six
municipalities except for recent development. The six-inch and larger size ,
pipe quantities are a more accurate representation of current requirements.
It is considered that pipes will generally be installed with three feet of cover i
and that pipe size through 8 inches will be installed using common chain type
trenching equipment and that no special bedding will be required.. In
crossings of state highways, pipes will be installed in steel sleeves jacked
under the roads.
Cost Summary I
The costs of the various components of the proposed wastewater collection
system for the six unsewered municipalities are summarized in Table 7-2. No
costs are included for land for any facilities or for pipe routes. It is assumed
that pipes can be installed within existing road right-of-ways at no land costs.
11
n:%=dW9N*aStL*.rM
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-34 1

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
7.7.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems
Wastewater Treatment Requirements
The nature and degree of wastewater treatment needed will ultimately depend
on the effluent disposal/reuse method. Both wetlands systems and rapid
infiltration systems in Carteret County will necessitate discharge to surface
waters. The rapid infiltration system and possibly the wetlands system will
discharge to Hunters Creek, classified as C which, in turn, flows into White
Oak River, classified as SA.
It is probable that all Class C criteria can be met by a treatment plant effluent
meeting typical secondary standards with subsequent treatment in either a
rapid infiltration or wetland system. A possible exception is dissolved oxygen
in Hunters Creek under low streamflow conditions when the effluent water
may constitute the majority of flow in the stream. Under such conditions the
effluent quality should be such that it will have minimal demand on the
oxygen resources of the stream. Thus complete nitrification and a maximum
BOD of approximately 1 mg/1 would be the required effluent criteria.
To achieve this degree of treatment reliably and consistently for discharge to a
rapid infiltration system or a wetland system, an activated sludge system
providing nitrification and partial denitrification would be required. Filters are
typically not needed for RIB discharge.
Hunters Creek and White Oak River will need to be modelled to determine if
a nutrient sensitive condition will be created. The White Oak River receives
some nutrient load from several upstream NPDFS discharges (Town of
Maysville and several schools) but these probably do not comprise significant
quantities. Due to the magnitude of the flow from rainfall in the White Oak
River and from tidal action, as well as the probable low upstream nutrient
contribution, it is doubtful that nutrient sensitivity will develop from either a
rapid infiltration system effluent or a wetland system effluent. Both systems
reduce phosphorus and nitrogen, but the degree of removal will require
further investigation should the model indicate potential nutrient sensitivity.
With chlorine disinfection at the treatment process, the Class SA fecal coliform
standard required in White Oak River should be achieved reliably in Hunters
Creek. Treatment plant disinfection can reliably achieve the required fecal
coliform reduction.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-35

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Table 7-2 Collection System Cost Summary
Local Collection System:
Local Collection System (3)
11W
Source
PS
"- " Pipe
6" Pine
Local PS
Quant. t't
Cost
Length (it)
Avg. Cost
Length
(ft)
Cost
Quant.
Costly
Atlantic Beach
819
$8,190,000
110,000
$1,320,000
22,000
$440,000
4
$4,000,000
Pine Knoll Shores
264
2,640,000
63,000
756,000
13,000
260,000
3
3,000,000
Indian Beach
437
4,370,000
24,000
288,000
13,000
260,000
2
2,000,000
Emerald Isle
757
7,570,000
281,000
3,372,000
60,000
1,200,000
9
9,000,000
Cedar Point
97
970,000
62,000
744,000
27,000
540,000
3
3,000,000
Cape Carteret
298
2,980,000
113,000
1,256,000
16,000
320,000
3
3,000,000
Total
$26,720,000
Total
$7,836,000
Total
$3,020,000
Total
$24,000,000
Conveyance System:
Force main pipes:
Size
(in)
Length (ft)
Unit
Costs (ft)t't
Total Cost
8
39,900
$30
$ 1,197,000
10
13,000
$36
468,000
12
44,300
$45
1,994,000
14
11,700
$57
667,000
16
26,300
$65
1,710,000
18
10,500
$78
819,000
20
21,400
$89
1,905,000
24
13,800
$102
2,208,0001"
30
4,500
$162
729,000
$11,698,000
Booster pump stations:
Quantity
Ayerage Cost
Total Cost
9
$1,500,000
$13,500,00012)
Cost Summary•
Local Collection System: $61,576,000
Conveyance Systems: $25,198,000
Total $86,774,000
ot2025 population/average 40 persons per Source PS - based on 4 sources per PS and 10 persons per source overall average and $10,000 per PS. Service laterals to individual
wastewater sources and electrical services included. Actual will vary significantly.
('Includes allowance for land costs.
tIVo additional collection included for Beaufort, Morehead City,
or Newport.
(°Installed costs, including engineering and contingencies.
t5t$800,000 added for Bogue Sound crossing.
nAwrteretVeastudy.ipt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-36
M M M M M M it M M r M s W M M M r M M

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Altematives
For the wetland system, discharge into Slocum Creek or Newport River
would be similar to discharge to Hunters Creek, both of these Class C
streams flowing into Class SA waters. Slocum Creek is classified as
nutrient sensitive and receives the effluent from Havelock WWTP and
flows into Neuse River, also classified as nutrient sensitive. Newport River
receives the effluent from Newport WWTP but is not classified as nutrient
sensitive.
These two streams drain municipal areas which subjects them to wet
weather runoff and associated bacteria loading. The upstream tidal areas
of these streams are commonly closed to shellfishing. While the upstream
tidal area of White Oak River is not subject to municipal area runoff, it is
nevertheless commonly closed to shellfishing. The reason for this is
unclear.
Based on the above stream conditions it appears that discharge of the
wetland system to Hunters Creek is preferable to discharge to Slocum
Creek or Newport River, assuming that such choice is available. It may be
necessary to pump, pipe, or channel the wetland system effluent to the
selected receiving stream.
For agricultural irrigation water quality, it is not necessary to nitrify the
ammonia in the wastewater, since nitrogen in the form of ammonia tends
to remain available in the root zone for plant uptake longer than nitrogen
in the form of nitrate. However, the oxygen content of the receiving
streams is a critical requirement which necessitates removal of the oxygen
demand of ammonia nitrogen which is most economically done by
converting the ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen by nitrification. While
some nitrification and removal of nitrogen will occur in both rapid
infiltration systems and wetland systems, the more reliable approach is to
nitrify the wastewater by controlled plant treatment process and to accept
the slightly less nitrogen utilization from nitrified effluent for agricultural
irrigation. For agricultural irrigation (public access), state regulations limit
the suspended solids to 5 mg/1 which necessitates filtration.
In summary, an appropriate treatment process for both the rapid
infiltration system and wetland system discharge is activated sludge
secondary treatment with nitrification, partial denitrification, and chlorine
disinfection. For the wetland system filtration may be required.
Existing Plants
As noted elsewhere herein, the treatment required to meet discharge
criteria for both rapid infiltration, wetland, and irrigation application
should be secondary level with nitrification, partial denitrification, and
filtration with chlorine disinfection. None of the existing three treatment
plants serving Beaufort, Morehead City, and Newport provide that level of
treatment and, hence, must be modified to do so. In addition, each plant
should be provided with a flow equalization basin to reduce the piping
1 �.«wv..�►�ar•�e CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7_37

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
and pumping cost for conveying the effluent to land application. The
specific modifications needed are discussed below.
Beaufort WWTP
This plant employs a contact stabilization type activated sludge process
(two equally sized units) with a permitted average capacity of 1.5 mgd.
There are no primary clarifiers. The effluent is chlorinated. Sludge is
aerobically digested and dewatered on sand beds. The following
modifications will be needed:
■ Additional activated sludge process in series with the existing,
including blowers and building
■ Intermediate pump station
■ Additional clarifier with rapid sludge return system
■ A new anoxic basin with mixers and recycle pumps (for RIB
discharge)
■ Sludge return pumps and sludge wasting pumps
■ Effluent filter, continuous -cleaning type, with backwash return pumps
■ Effluent equalization tank and pumping system
■ Chlorination system modifications
■ Stand-by power generation if needed
■ Piping, electrical, and site work
The estimated cost of the above is $3.75 million, not including additional
land or stand-by power.
Morehead City WWTP
This plant employs primary clarifiers and trickling filters (two equally
sized trains) with a permitted average capacity of 1.7 mgd. The effluent is
chlorinated. Sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered on sand beds.
The plant is designed for 3.4 mgd but has not been permitted at that
capacity. The following modifications will be needed:
■ Activated sludge process in series with the existing trickling filters,
including blowers and building
■ Intermediate pump station
■ Additional clarifier with rapid sludge return system
■ A new anoxic basin with mixers and recycle pumps (for RIB
discharge)
■ Sludge return pumps and sludge wasting pumps
■ Effluent filter, continuous -cleaning type, with backwash return pumps
■ Effluent equalization tank and pumping system
■ Chlorination system modifications
■ Stand-by power generation if needed
■ Piping, electrical, and site work
The estimated cost of the above is $4.25 million, not including additional
land or stand-by power.
I
i
I
I
1
I
I
I]
I
I
n.4=rter9v*aatudr.gd CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-38 1

I
C]
1-1
1
11
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Newport WWTP
This plant employs an oxidation ditch type activated sludge process with a
permitted average capacity of 0.5 mgd. There are no primary clarifiers.
The effluent is chlorinated. Sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered
on sand beds. The following modifications will be needed.
■ The aeration tank (oxidation ditch) has approximately 24 hours of
detention time and, hence, can achieve nitrification in the existing
system if adequate oxygen (from rotor aerators) is provided and
adequate active bacteria solids are retained in the system
■ Additional clarifier with rapid sludge return system
■ A new anoxic basin with mixers and recycle pumps (for RIB
discharge). Alternatively, it may be possible to create anoxic zones in
the oxidation ditch
■ Modifications to existing clarifier, if needed
■ Sludge return pumps and sludge wasting pumps for additional
clarifier
■ Effluent filter, continuous -cleaning type, with backwash return pumps
■ Intermediate pump station
■ Effluent equalization tank and pumping system
■ Chlorination system modifications
■ Stand-by power generation if needed
■ Piping, electrical, and site work
The estimated cost of the above is $1.05 million, not including additional
land or stand-by power.
Regional WWTP
A new regional WWTP is proposed for Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores,
Indian Beach, Emerald Isle, Cedar Point, and Cape Carteret to be located
east of Cape Carteret on private land protruding into the Croatan National
Forest. The availability and planned use of this land have not been
investigated. There are similar alternative sites in the area should the
proposed site be unavailable. The plant capacity will be 8 mgd average
flow/20 mgd peak flow.
The proposed treatment process will comprise fine screening with
screenings compaction; grit removal, primary clarification; single stage
activated sludge with nitrification and partial denitrification capability,
secondary clarification; chlorination; filtration; effluent equalization storage
and pumping, anaerobic sludge digestion; sludge dewatering and dry
sludge storage; stand-by power generation; operation/maintenance/
laboratory facilities, and miscellaneous facilities and site work The
following facilities are proposed:
In..md*mW"9udr.fva CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-39

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Altematives
■ Headworks containing the following screening, grit removal, and
flow measurement facilities:
- Influent magnetic flow meter
- Dual fine bar screens
- Screenings conveyor and compactor
- Enclosed aerated grit chamber (used also for stripping hydrogen
sulfide)
- Grit chamber off -gas piping and filters for delivering gas to
activated sludge aeration system (for odor control)
- Grit removal, concentration, and dewatering system
■ Primary clarifier system comprising the following-
- Two circular clarifiers with sludge/scum collectors and sludge
thickening hoppers
- Sludge transfer pumps (to digesters)
- Scum transfer pumps (to digesters)
■ Activated sludge system comprising the following:
- Two anoxic basins with mixers (for RIB discharge)
- Two aeration tanks with medium bubble compressed air whole -
bottom diffusers
- Internal recycle pumps for pumping activated sludge from aeration
tanks to the anoxic basins (for RIB discharge)
- Centrifugal air compressors
- Froth suppression system
■ Secondary clarifier system comprising the following:
- Two circular clarifiers with rapid return sludge collectors and scum
collectors
- Return sludge pumps
- Return sludge flow meter
- Waste sludge pumps
- Scum pumps
■ Chlorination system comprising the following:
- Sodium hypochlorite receiving/dilution/storage tanks
- Hypochlorite pumps
- ORP chlorination control system
- Chlorine mixing system and contact tank
■ Filter system comprising the following-
- Two gravity filter structures with continuous -cleaning type filters
- Backwash return piping
1
1
u
I
I
1
nAwd.mveast,ar.Mt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-40 1

1
I
1
I
1
Ij
fl
I
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
■ Effluent equalization and pumping system comprising the following:
- Dual chamber concrete storage tank
- Wash -down system and drain pumps
- Vertical turbine effluent pumps, variable speed
- Level and timer -based PLC pump control system
■ Sludge treatment and processing facilities comprising the following:
- Two waste activated sludge belt -type thickeners with polymer
make-up and feed systems
- Thickened waste activated sludge feed pumps (to anaerobic
digesters), variable speed.
- Two anaerobic digesters with gas -holding covers and pump type
mixers
- Two sludge heaters
- Excess gas burner
- Two digested sludge belt -type dewatering presses with polymer
make-up and feed systems
- Digested sludge feed pumps, variable speed
- Dry sludge cake storage
■ Standby power generator system comprising the following:
- One or more diesel engine -driven generators supplying dedicated
loads (no paralleling)
- Generator/power distribution center building
■ Operation/maintenance/laboratory facilities comprising the
following:
- Common building containing central operation control and
monitoring room; laboratory; operator dressing, toilet, shower, and
lunch room; parts storage room; maintenance room; and operator
training/CCIA Board meeting/visitor room
■ Electrical facilities comprising the following:
- Central substation
- Power distribution center (in generator building)
- Area motor control centers
- Local motor controls
- Instrumentation (levels, flows, speeds, limits, failures, etc.)
- Central monitoring system and data logging system with limited
central control
- Underground power and signal conductor system
- Site lighting system
n:=n.W\I*as dy.pt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-41

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
■ Miscellaneous facilities and site work comprising the following:
- Paved site roads
- Perimeter six-foot chain link security fence
- Site drainage structures
- Plant wastewater pump station with magnetic flow meter (to
return all process side flows, tank drainage, filled backwash flow,
sanitary sewer flows, etc., to the head of the plant)
- Plant effluent water pump station with magnetic flow meter (to
deliver high-pressure effluent water for internal plant process,
wash -down, and irrigation)
- Water well and pump with magnetic flow meter for potable water
needs
- Plant piping system (underground and exposed)
Since the incoming flow will be pumped, all structures will be elevated
and an intermediate pump station avoided. The estimated cost of the
above is $25 million not including land. A minimum of 50 acres should be
procured. At a land price of $10,000 per acre, this minimum cost will be
$500,000. -
7.7.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Conveyance
Delivery Locations
As discussed elsewhere herein, the locations at which the wastewater
treatment plant effluents are proposed to be returned to the environment are
as follows:
■ Existing treatment plant NPDES permits:
- Beaufort WWTP: 1.5 mgd monthly average
- Morehead City WWTP: 1.7 mgd monthly average
- Newport WWTP: 0.5 mgd monthly average
- Propose to convert to annual averages capacity limitations
■ Wetland
- Capacity is based on area used.
- Area (private) is available for total flow if desired.
- Limited only by land procurement
■ Rapid infiltration system
Area along Hunters Creek (private and federal) is suitable for 10 mgd
estimated maximum intermittent flow. Geotechnical exploration is
needed to confirm.
Other areas are suitable but are either on federal land or close to
residential areas.
Limits are availability of private and federal land, regulatory, and
possibly geotechnical.
I
I
I
I
n
I
C1
nAcafte.ev.aaeudy.Mt CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-42 1

Section 7
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
■ Agricultural irrigation:
- Stella/Kuhns area: 6.6 mgd peak
- Newport area: 6.6 mgd peak
- Limits are seasonal need, interest by farmers, daily variations, and
possibly regulatory.
Proposed Effluent Conveyance System
Based on the needed flexibility to deliver wastewater treatment plant effluent
flows to the respective discharge locations at different times and in varying
flow rates, piping systems are identified herein to function in the above three
systems. These piping systems are shown schematically in Figures 7-9, 7-10,
and 7-11. These piping schematics show the:
■ Maximum expected flow in each pipe segment
■ Pipe size to convey the maximum flow with reasonable pumping heads
(pressures)
■ Length of each pipe segment
■ Head loss (pumping pressure required) in each pipe segment
■ Flow direction(s) in each pipe segment
■ Average flow for each existing NPDES permitted discharge
■ Booster pump station locations
The proposed conveyance system is entirely a pumped system. AWWA C-900
Pressure Class 150 PVC pipe is proposed for the sizes where available and
ductile iron pipe where PVC sizes are not available or where indicated for
other reasons. Exposed pipe, e.g., mounted on bridges, will be ductile iron.
Booster pump stations are required to provide adequate conveying pressure
for certain pipe segments and for flows in certain directions. The design and
cost of booster pump stations will be similar to those in the wastewater
collection system.
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-43

M = = = = M = i = = r M
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Table 7-3 Treatment Plant Effluent Conveyance System Cost Summary
Rapid Infiltration/Irrigation
Wetland
Wetland/Irrigation
Pipe Size (in)
Unit Cost (ft)")
Length f
Total Cost
LgngLh-ffq
Total Cost
Length f
Total Cost
10
$36
4,200
$151,000
4,200
$151,000
,200
$ 151,000
12
$45
31,000
1,495,000(2)
31,000
1,495,000(2)
31,000
1,495,000(2)
16
$65
3,000
295,000(3)
3,000
295,000(3)
3,000
295,000(3)
20
$89
11,000
979,000
—
—
11,000
979,000
24
$102
103,000
10,506,000
69,000
7,038,000
69,000
7,038,000
30
$162
70,000
11,340,000
52,000
8,424,000
52,000
8,424,000
36
$220
—
—
17,000
3,740,000
17,000
3,740,000
Total
24,766,000
$21,143,000
$22,122,000
Booster Pump Stations: 4)
Quant.
cost
Quant,
C-Q a
Quant.
cost
3
$4,500,000
2
$3,000,000
1
$1,500,000
Cost Summary:
$29,266,000
$25,122,000
$22,643,000
(')Includes engineering and contingencies, road casings, fittings, and valves.
(2)$100,000 added for suspending pipe from Newport River Bridge.
(3)$100,000 added for Calico Creek crossing.
(4)Average Cost $1,500,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-54

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Altematives
I
1
■ The authority will own and operate all other new systems, including:
- Collection systems for the other six municipalities
- Regional WWTP for the other six municipalities
- Effluent conveyance system from the existing three WWTPs and the
regional WWTP
- Effluent land application systems
■ The authority will hold the NPDES permits for the four WWTPs.
■ The authority will own all vehicles and equipment used for operation
and maintenance.
■ Extensions of the local collection systems and new source connections
and pump stations will be paid for by customer correction fees.
■ The total labor cost burden as a percent of actual salary of authority
employees, covering social security, workmens compensation, health and
dental insurance, holidays, and vacation, will be approximately 60%.
■ The authority will have an Engineer Director and the following staff-
- Secretary
- Accountant
- Assistant Accountant
- Personnel Manager
- Engineer
■ Laboratory work for all four plants will be consolidated at the Regional
Plant.
Based on the above premises the estimated annual operation and maintenance
costs of the system are listed under the following categories:
■ Administrative Costs:
- Authority Based payments
$ 6,000
- Attorney Fees
$15,000
- Staff salaries (x 1.6):
• Engineer Director @ $45,000
$ 72,000
• Secretary @ $20,000
$ 32,000
• Accountant @ $24,000
$ 39,000
• Assistant Accountant @ $15,000
$ 24,000
• Personnel Manager @ $26,000
$ 42,000
• Engineer @ $35,000
$ 56,000
- Communications
$ 6,000
- Automobile and Travel
$ 8,000
- Office Equipment Replacement
$ 5,000
- Outside Maintenance
$ 5,000
- Office Suppliers
$ 5,000
- Insurance (liability and casualty)
$50,000
Subtotal
$365,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-55

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
■ Operation C I
p Costs:
- Plant Operators (x 1.6)
'
• Existing plants: 7 Q $28,000 average
$ 314,000
• Regional plants: 5 @ $28,000 average
$ 224,000
- Collection system operations (x 1.6):
,
• Existing system: 2 @ $28,000
, . $ 90,000
• New system: 2 Q $28,000
$ 90,000
- Land App. System Operators (x 1.6) @ $24,000 average
'
$ 77,000
- Laboratory personnel (x 1.6) 2 ® $28,000
$ 90,000
- Plant manager (4 plants) (x 1.6) Q $40,000
$ 64,000
- Assistant plant manager (4 plants) (x 1.6)
'
Q $30,000
$ 48,000
- Plant electric power (commercial):
• Existing plants: 3 @ 200 hp average
'
x 0.75 kw/hp x $0.08/kwh
x 365 days/yr x 24 hr/day =
$ 314,000
• Regional Plant: 1000 hp average
'
x 0.75 kw/hp x $0.08/kwh
x 365 days/yr x 24 hr/day =
$ 526,000
• Generator fuel:
$ 3,000
'
- Chlorine (4 plants):
$ 40,000
- Polymer (regional plant):
$ 10,000
- Collection system electric power (commercial)
'
• Existing plants: 100 hp average
x 0.75 kw/hp x $0.08/kwh
x 365 days/yr x 24 hr/day:
$ 53,000
• Regional plant: 6.26 x 10' gal/day
x 8.34 lb/gal x 300 feet of head
average x lday x 1 hR
'
1440 min 33,000 ft lbs/min
x 0.75 kw/hp x $0.08/kwh x
365 day/yr x 24 hr/day:
$ 174,000
• Effluent conveyance electric power:
'
Same as above:
$ 174,000
• Maintenance equipment repair and
replacement:
$ 20,000
'
• Generator Fuel:
$ 6,000
- Vehicles (7 pick-up trucks):
'
• Replacement (10%/year):
$ 10,000
• Repair:
$ 3,000
• Fuel and lubricants:
$ 12,000
'
La
- boratory supplies
2 000
Subtotal
$2,346,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-56
11

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Maintenance Costs:
- System maintenance personnel (x 1.6):
• Mechanics: 2 @ $30,000 average
$ 96,000
• Electricians: 2 Q $30,000 average
$ 96,000
• Laborers: 4 Q $20,000 average
$ 128,000
- Maintenance equipment (all types)
• Replacement:
$ 20,000
• Repair:
$ 5,000
• Fuel and Lubricants:
$ 10,000
- Vehicles (3 utility trucks):
• Replacement:
$ 6,000
• Repair:
$ 2,000
• Fuel and Lubricants:
$ 8,000
- Commercial repairs
• Electrical
$ 10,000
• Mechanical
$ 5,000
- Maintenance material
$ 10,000
• Mechanical
$ 5,000
• Electrical
$ 5,000
• Site
$ 5,000
• Structure
5,000
Subtotal
$ 416,000
Summary of estimated annual operation and maintenance cost:
• Administrative
$ 365,000
• Operation
$2,346,000
• Maintenance
416,000
Total $3,127,000
The above estimated cost includes operation and maintenance of all four
collection and treatment systems but not improvements to the existing
systems. The cost should be viewed as conceptual in scope and magnitude
and is subject to considerable variations depending on how the existing and
new systems are organized.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-57

Section 7 '
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
7.8 Analysis of Alternatives
The pool of land treatment and wastewater treatment alternatives presented
above must be evaluated with respect to their overall feasibility. The criteria
used to evaluate feasibility will include potential environmental impacts,
capital cost, permittability, and other considerations. Under the category of
"Other Considerations", issues of public and political concerns will be
discussed. Each alternative is also evaluated with respect to its ability to be
incorporated into a regional wastewater system. Note that the proposed
alternatives are self-sufficient and do not require incorporation into external
wastewater treatment and disposal systems. While the treatment facilities and
land treatment systems are elements of a complete wastewater system, they
are not interdependent with the exception of limited processes and the
primary transmission lines that link them.
For the purposes of this feasibility analysis, the wastewater treatment facilities
will be considered first. After the most feasible means of collecting and
treating the wastewater has been selected, it will be combined with the land
treatment alternatives to evaluate the feasibility of a complete wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal system.
7.8.1 Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Environmental Impacts
By eliminating the septic tanks adjacent to surface waters, the discharge of
nutrients to sensitive water bodies will be reduced. There will be some short-
term adverse impacts associated with construction of the systems. These can
be reduced by including the appropriate controls into the contract documents
(silt fence, etc.). The pipeline will have to cross the Intracoastal waterway
which may cause some short-term environmental impacts. These can be
minimized by using directional drilling for pipe installation. Any short-term
environmental impact associated with construction will be more than
overcome by the benefits of eliminating septic tanks.
Capital Cost
Capital costs of the collection, treatment and conveyance systems are presented
in Section 7.7. Costs involved are significant as an entirely new collection and
treatment system has to be provided for six communities. Costs of conveyance
and disposal vary for each alternative but are not significant as compared to
cost of collection and treatment.
Permittability
The installation of sewer lines and Intracoastal crossing in the coastal region
falls under the Coastal Area Management Act and any environmental impact
must be addressed. However, it is not anticipated that there will be
complications involving the installation of a collection and conveyance system.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7_58
1�
LD

Section 7
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
1
11
The pipeline route and pump station locations should be selected to avoid any
potential wetland areas.
Other Considerations
Regardless of the effluent disposal system selected, there requires a means of
collecting and treating the wastewater. Due to the geographic characteristics
of Bogue Sound, the cost of installing a complete wastewater collection system
appears to be significant. However, the problem of wastewater disposal must
be addressed as the area continues to grow and attract permanent as well as
seasonal residents.
7.8.2 Land Treatment
Based on the selected collection and treatment alternative, each of the land
treatment alternatives is evaluated in this section according to environmental
impacts, cost, permittability, and other considerations. Under each alternative
presented in this report, a minimum of two disposal processes are provided
for each scenario. These processes are summarized below:
Alternative I: Agricultural Irrigation (summer)
RIB (summer backup)
Existing NPDES Discharge (year-round)
Alternative II: Constructed Wetland (year-round)
Existing NPDES Discharge (year-round)
Alternative III: Agricultural Irrigation (summer)
Constructed Wetland (year-round)
Existing NPDES Discharge (year-round)
Multiple disposal options are provided for each alternative as a means of
increasing the reliability of each system. By connecting to a future regional
system, CCIA will be able to increase the disposal reliability of a given
scenario. Such an interconnection might also allow for the components of a
given alternative to be down -sized with no loss in disposal reliability.
Alternative I.- Agricultural Irrigation with RIBs
Permittability
A number of permitting issues must be resolved in order to implement
Alternative I. First and foremost, the agricultural irrigation system relies on
the seasonal use of the existing NPDES discharge permits. As described
previously, irrigation will greatly reduce the volume of summer discharges.
However, because there will be little or no irrigation demands in the winter,
most if not all of the effluent generated in this period will be discharged.
Given a 2025 average wastewater flow of 6.9 mgd, water balance calculations
indicated a maximum month average day discharge requirement of 5.82 mgd.
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-59

Section 7 ,
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
This is approximately 60 percent greater tha
n the currently allowed discharge
permit of 3.7 mgd.
The seasonal use of the NPDES discharge points has been reviewed with '
NCDEM and received conceptual approval. However, it will be incumbent on
CCIA to develop a convincing technical document demonstrating this strategy ,
will not cause additional surface water quality degradation in order to receive
a permit. Without the ability to permit a seasonal use of the NPDES discharge
points, Alternative I could not be implemented. '
In formulating Alternative I, it has been assumed that the draft land
application regulation will be adopted. This assumption was made because ,
the proposed rules recognized the potential benefits of effluent reuse, and with
the appropriate treatment, place fewer restrictions on its use. It will be
possible to permit an agricultural -based land application system under the ,
existing regulation, but it would be expected that a number of sites would be
eliminated from consideration because of the buffer zone requirement of the
current regulations. ,
A number of permitting issues would also come into play in construction of
the RIBs. These are described below.
■ A land application permit will be required for the basins. This activity is
supported in the current and proposed regulations and should be a ,
straightforward process.
■ A portion of the RIB system will be located within the Croatan National I
Forest and will require a permit from the National Park Service.
■ It has been assumed that the RIB system will require an underdrain '
system which will require a discharge to Hunters Creek. Because the
RIBs will be laid out along the bank of the creek, it is probable that
numerous points of discharge will be needed. It is expected that a '
WQBEL study would be required for each point of discharge. As
discussed in Section 6, effluent receives additional renovation as it passes
through the soil column. As such, it is expected that an, effluent quality ,
better than secondary could be produced. However, experience with
underdrain systems shows that their treatment is inconsistent particularly
with respect to suspended solids. The effluent quality requirements for a
Hunters Creek discharge will dictate the feasibility of the RIB system.
The following effluent quality could be reasonably expected from the
underdrain system: ,
BOD -10 mg/1
TSS -10 mg/1 '
IN - 8 mg/l
TP - 2 mg/1
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-60

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Site -specific investigations will be required to refine the expected quality
of the underdrain discharge.
Capital Cost
The capital costs of Alternative I are summarized in Table 7-4. The total
capital cost including engineering and contingencies is estimated to be
$175,719,400. Of this cost, approximately $121 million is for wastewater
collection and treatment. The annualized cost for this alternative over 30 years
at an interest rate of 6% including operational and maintenance cost is
$16,410,000. This translates into an average cost per person of $700 per year
based on projected permanent 1995 population. The cost per person will be
less if some mechanisms can be set up to recover part of the cost from a much
larger seasonal population.
Environmental Impacts
By using the majority of the effluent for agricultural irrigation, the nutrients
contained in the water are recycled as fertilizer for crop production. With the
implementation of best management practices on the agricultural land served,
it is reasonable to expect that the net volume of nutrients leaving the site can
be reduced, thereby providing an improvement in current conditions. The use
of the RIBs will result in new NPDES discharge points along Hunters Creek.
However, this discharge will only occur in periods of low irrigation demand in
the summer months and the effluent discharge to the RIBs will be of filtered
secondary quality. Further, Hunters Creek is not a Class SA water body.
Given that the existing septic tank systems discharge 365 days per year,
receive no treatment prior to discharge to groundwater, and are concentrated
along Class SA water bodies, the intermittent discharge from the RIB system is
viewed as a net benefit to the environment.
Other Considerations
As noted at the conclusion of Section 7.6, the success of the agricultural
irrigation system relies on the willingness of the potential customer to use
effluent for irrigation. With the support of the Cooperative Extension Agent, it
is expected that the agricultural community will participate in the project.
Another element of Alternative I is the RIB system which will require CCIA to
purchase 180 acres of property along Hunters Creek. Because this property is
well drained, it is well suited to either agricultural uses or development. As
such, the use of this property for RIBs will be in competition with these other
land uses. This competition will in turn tend to publicize the RIB system.
Finally, the RIB system will also require use of the Croatan National Forest
along Hunters Creek. This will require that CCIA demonstrate this use of
forest land is the only feasible alternative means of backup for summer
disposal. It would seem likely that this demonstration would require that
Alternatives II and III be deemed unfeasible.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7.61

Section 7 ,
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Table 7-4
Alternative I: Agricultural Irrigation with RIB Backup Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost
Item
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Wastewater System
Collection System
86,774,000
Treatment Systems
34,550,000
Land Application System
Primary Effluent Conveyance System
29,266,000
Secondary Effluent Conveyance System
Stella Area
30,800 LF 16" dia. FM
$65/LF
$2,002,000
10,300 LF 10" dia. FM
$36/LF
$370,800
Newport Area
41,200 LF 16" dia. FM
$65/LF
$2,678,000
3 Golf Course Connections
$18,000/connection
$54,000
2,300 ac. Center Pivot Irrigation
$1,200/ac.
$2,760,000
Center Pivot Distribution Piping
42,500 LF 8" dia. FM
$30/LF
$1,275,000
85,100 LF 6" dia. FM
$20/LF
$1,702,000
RIB System
72 ac. of basins
$110,000/ac.
$7,920,000
30,000 LF underdrain system
$60/LF
$1,800,000
Distribution Pipe
25,600 LF 16" dia.
$65/LF
$1,664,000
12,400 LF 20" dia.
$89/LF
$1,103,600
180 ac. of property
$10,000/ac.
$1,800,000
Grand Total (Capital Cost)
$175,719,400
Annual O&M Costs
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
3,127,000
Agriculural Irrigation/RIB System
Personnel (4)
$32,000/yr
$128,000
Cars/Trucks (2)
8,000 miles/yr @ $0.30/mile
$5,000
RIB O&M
W.20/1000 gal
$73,000
Agricultual Irrigation O&M
$0.20/1000 gal
$320,000
Subtotal
$525,800
Total
$3,653,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7.62

1-1
Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
I�
ii
I
Incorporation Into A Regional System
The agricultural irrigation system in Alternative I requires use of 60 percent of
the available farm land in Western Carteret County. If user participation is
high, it is possible the remaining farm land could receive additional effluent
from suppliers outside of the County. Because of the relatively low loading
rate associated with the RIBs, there does not appear to be any excess capacity
available for use by external utilities. An attractive option to CCIA would be
to make use of any regional system for backup summer disposal thereby
eliminating the need for the RIB. Another option applicable to all of the
alternatives would be to connect to any future regional system in order to
provide another outlet for treated effluent..
Alternative II: Constructed Wetlands
Permittability
The current state regulations allude to the use of wetlands as a potential
means of providing further treatment to effluent and stormwater, but provide
no detail on the process by which this might be permitted. Based on
discussions with NCDEM, wetland treatment systems can be permitted on a
case -by -case basis provided the applicant submits documentation that the
project will not result in unacceptable environmental impacts. Alternative II
proposes to construct wetlands in upland areas or in areas where wetlands
have been ditched and drained (i.e., restore the historic land use). According
to discussions with the State, the use of constructed wetlands will avoid much
of the environmental concerns associated with the discharge of effluent to a
natural wetland system. It is expected that NCDEM will require that CCIA
agree to water quality standards at the discharge of the constructed wetland.
This discharge will also require a NPDES permit and be subject to a WQBEL
evaluation. An analysis of the expected impacts on water quality in adjacent
natural wetlands and surface water will also be required. Because of the
proposed inland location of the constructed wetland, it is expected that CCIA
will be able to demonstrate that the wetland system can be implemented with
negligible impacts to the surrounding surface waters.
In addition to NCDEM, the Fish and Wildlife Service will also likely be
involved in permitting a constructed wetland system. Their main concern will
be that the project does not damage the habitats of any threatened or
endangered species. In order to address these issues, an inventory of the flora
and fauna of the perspective site will be required. It is expected that a suitable
site from the prospective of the Fish and Wildlife Service can be located.
Further, it is expected that because the constructed wetland will ultimately
increase wetlands habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service may endorse the
project.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-63

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
Table 7-5
Alternative II: Constructed Wetland
Estimated Capital Cost
Item
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Wastewater System
Collection System
$86,774,000
Treatment System
34,550,000
Land Treatment System
Primary Effluent Transmission System
22,643,000
380 ac. Constructed Wetland
$42,000/ac
15,960,000
[Grand Total
$159,927,000
Annual O&M Costs
1
::1
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
$3,127,000
Wetland Systems
Personnel (3)
$32,000/yr
$96,000
Car/Trucks (2)
5,000 miles/yr Q
$0.30/mile
$3,000
Wetland O&M
$0.15/1,000 gal
$241,000
Subtotal
$340,000
Total
$3,467,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
I�
IJ

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
F
7
rd
u
1
11
Capital Costs
The expected capital costs for Alternative II are given in Table 7-5. The system
cost is estimated to be $159,927,000. The annualized cost for this alternative
over 30 years at an interest rate of 6% including operational and maintenance
cost is $15,078,000. (This translates into an average cost per person of $640 per
year based on projected peak 1995 population.)
Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts of a constructed wetland are subject to the system
design and the resulting discharge water quality. Experience has shown that
with proper design, an acceptable level of treatment can be achieved and
wetland habitat increased. By including the use of a seasonal discharge at the
existing NPDES discharge permits points, CCIA will increase the flexibility in
loading the system and approximate the natural hydroperiod. Comparing the
continued use of septic tanks to the use of a constructed wetland, the latter is
preferable. Septic system maintenance system will be costly in the future.
Individual onsite modifications may be as high as $12,000 to $15,000 for
sophisticated on -site wastewater management systems. The constructed
wetland will eliminate the subsurface flow of nutrient rich effluent from septic
tanks to sensitive surface water and replace it with a controlled discharge of
treated effluent to an aquatic environment capable of handling it. As with
Alternative I, any temporary environmental impacts associated with
construction will be more than offset by the long-term benefits of the wetland.
Other Considerations
The proposed location of the constructed wetland is on private property at the
Carteret/Craven County line. Two issues must considered. First, the
implementation of a constructed wetland must be commensurate with the
interests of the property owner. As discussed previously, the property is
currently used as a hunting club. Because the constructed wetland will
increase wildlife habitat, it is expected the property owners will view it as a
desirable enhancement.
Second, as a result of a recent agreement between Carteret and Craven
County, much of the hunt club is now within Craven County. This will add a
third party to the process of implementing this project. While this may not
prove to be a major obstacle, it will serve to complicate the process. It must be
pointed out that should either the property owner or jurisdiction make it
impossible to construct a wetland on the selected site, National Forest land in
this vicinity is equally suitable.
Incorporation Into A Regional System
By increasing the size of the constructed wetland, the system capacity can be
increased to accommodate additional effluent flows. This method could be
used to allow adjacent municipalities (primarily in Craven County) to
participate in the constructed wetland project. A high-level of management
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-65
1

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
would be required between CCIA and any external utility to assure both
parties remain in compliance with the system operation requirements. This
would include monitoring effluent quality and quantity from each supplier.
Alternative III: Agricultural Irrigation with Constructed Wetland Backup
Disposal
Permittability
Alternative III will combine the need to permit an agricultural irrigation
system and a constructed wetland as previously discussed under Alternatives I
and II, respectively. In Alternative III, each portion of the effluent disposal
system will be reduced in size and capacity over those required in previous
alternatives. This is expected to provide some benefits with respect to
permitting. The use of wetlands in place of RIBs will require less engineering
and disturbance to the surface and groundwater systems on the selected site.
Further, the constructed wetlands' capacity to receive effluent will be affected
less than the RIB system by rainfall. The combination of agricultural
irrigation, wetlands, and the existing NPDES discharge points will provide a
high-level of effluent disposal reliability. Combining the proposed size of each
element and reliability, it is expected that Alternative III may be marginally
more permittable than the previous alternatives.
Capital Costs
The estimated capital cost of Alternative III is given in Table 7-6. The total
system cost is estimated to be $164,266,000. The annualized cost for this
alternative over 30 years at an interest rate of 6% including operational and
maintenance cost is $15,475,000. This translates into an average cost per
person of $660 per year based on projected peak 1995 population.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts of Alternative III will be similar to those of
Alternatives I and II but will avoid issues associated with construction and
operation of a RIB system. Deletion of the RIBs will also avoid the need to
encumber a large portion of the banks of Hunters Creek. Further, the
diversion of excess effluent to a constructed wetland will allow for an
environmental enhancement while RIBS will serve solely as effluent disposal.
As such, Alternative III is considered superior to Alternative I.
Other Considerations
Both the constructed wetland and agricultural irrigation elements will require
participation of the property owners. Because each element of the disposal
system are reduced in size: (1) fewer farms will be needed, and (2) less land
will be encumbered with the wetlands. This is expected to provide -an
advantage to the implementation of Alternative III.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-66
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Section 7
Analysis of Selected Alternatives
11
1
Table 7-6
Alternative III: Agricultural Irrigation with Constructed Wetland Backup Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost
Item
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Wastewater System
Collection System
$86,774,000
Treatment Systems
34,550,000
Land Treatment System
Primary Effluent Conveyance System
25,122,000
Agricultural Transmission System
Stella Area
30,800 LF 10" dia.
$36/LF
$1,109,000
10,300 LF 8" dia.
$30/LF
$309,000
Newport Area
41,200 LF 10" dia.
$36/LF
$1,483,000
3 Golf Course Connections
$18,000/connection
$54,000
1,600 ac. Center Pivot Irrigation
$1,200/ac
$1,920,000
Center Pivot Distribution Piping
29,500 LF 8" dia.
$30/LF
$885,000
59,100 LF 6" dia.
$20/1,F
$1,182,000
259 ac. Constructed Wetland
$42,000/ac
$10,878,000
Grand Total
164,266,000
Annual O&M Costs '
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
$3,127,000
Agricultural Irrigation & Wetland
Personnel (4)
$32,000/yr
$128,000
Car/Trucks (2)
8,000 miles/yr ®
$0.30/mile
$4,800
Agricultural Irrigation O&M
$0.20/1,000 gal
$234,000
Wetland O&M
$0.15/1,000 gal
$55,000
Subtotal
$421,800
Total
$3, 81800
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-67

Section 7
Analysis of Selected A/tematives
Incorporation Into A Regional System
Under Alternative III, unused agricultural and uplands will be available for
irrigation and constructed wetlands, respectively. This land could in theory be
used by utilities outside of Carteret County for land application. As discussed
previously, an interconnection to a future regional disposal system would have
the affect of increasing reliability, or in the alternative, allow for some down-
sizing in the land treatment processes.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-68

Section 8

Section 8
Regional Authority Organization
8.1 Regional Authority Alternatives for Wastewater
Services
If a regional approach is taken to construct a wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal system, an authority must be established to oversee the
administration, management, and operation of the system.
According to the North Carolina General Statutes, there are a variety of
regulatory authorities which can be established to construct, own, and operate
the wastewater facilities proposed for the towns which form the Carteret
County Interlocal Agency (CCIA). This section of the report will identify and
summarize the viable alternatives for CCIA to establish a regional authority.
In determining the most appropriate means for CCIA to regulate and manage
wastewater services, the method by which the governing board is selected and
the powers granted that board must be fully evaluated.
There are several regional wastewater authorities in North Carolina, one of
which is the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) which may serve
as a model for a future CCIA authority. CDM has obtained organizational and
operational information from OWASA. The pertinent characteristics of the
OWASA structure will be discussed at the end of the section.
8.1.1 Sanitary District
North Carolina General Statute (NCGS)130A-55 allows for the creation of a
sanitary district without regard for county, township, or municipal lines
provided permission is granted by the governing body of the county or
municipality. A request for creation of a sanitary district is made to the
county board of commissioners by petition of 51 % of resident freeholders or
51 % of freeholders within the proposed district. Upon receipt of the petition,
the board of commissioners requests a joint hearing with the North Carolina
Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). The
NCGS require that a notice of public hearing be posted at the courthouse and
by newspaper publication at a minimum of once a week for four successive
weeks prior to the hearing date. Upon receiving all public comments
regarding the creation of the sanitary district, the county board of
commissioners and commission for health services evaluate the necessity of
creating a sanitary district. If the proposal clears all evaluation hurdles, the
commission for health services adopts a resolution creating the sanitary
district.
The sanitary district governing board members are elected to their position
according to the provisions in NCGS 163-279, election for municipal and
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
8-1

Section 8
Regional Authority Organization
special district officers. The county board of commissioners determines the
number of members which can be elected to the board. The various powers
given to a sanitary district are summarized in Table 8-1.
A sanitary district cannot require connections for new subdivisions or adopt
subdivision regulations. The sanitary district also cannot regulate land use or
levy special assessments to extend sewer lines.
8.1.2 Water and Sewer Authority
NCGS 162A-3 outlines the specific procedures necessary to establish a water
and sewer authority charged with the responsibility of providing wastewater
services. A water and sewer authority can be organized by the governing
body of a single county or the governing bodies of any two or more political
subdivisions by means of a resolution. The resolution can only be adopted
after a public hearing for which notice shall have been given by newspaper
publication at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The newspaper shall have a
circulation in the political subdivision of interest. The resolution for creation
of a water and sewer authority shall include articles of incorporation and a
certified copy of the resolution shall be filled with the Secretary of State of
North Carolina. Proof that the notices of public hearing were properly posted
shall also be submitted to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State
determines that the resolution has been submitted in accordance with NCGS
162A-3, the Secretary of State will issue a certificate of incorporation.
The water and sewer authority governing board members are appointed by
each of the represented political subdivisions. The number of members shall
be agreed upon by all participating political subdivisions. The names and
addresses of each original member shall be submitted to the Secretary of State
for inclusion in the articles of incorporation. The powers granted a water and
sewer authority are summarized in Table 8-1.
The primary limitations for a water and sewer authority are they lack the
ability to issue general obligation bonds, levy property taxes, or receive federal
revenue -sharing funds and community development grants.
8.1.3 Metropolitan Sewer District
NCGS 162A-66 outlines the requirements for establishing a metropolitan sewer
district (MSD). A metropolitan sewer district can be created from two or more
political subdivisions in one or more counties. Political subdivisions do not
have to be contiguous. Creation of a MSD requires a resolution from the
governing body of each participating political subdivision. If any
unincorporated areas are involved, a petition signed by not less than 51 % of
the qualified voters resident within the area must be filed with the county
board of commissioners. The county board of commissioners then requests a
joint hearing with the Environmental Management Commission (EMC). A
public hearing notice is required to be posted 30 days prior to the hearing
nA=A9mW.Wmdr.rpt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 8-2
J
7
I
u
1
1

�r rr � r r rr ar r r rs r � r �r rr rr �r r� r■�
Table 8-1
MANAGEMENT ENTITIES: COMPARATIVE FEATURES
o-
c
�
::
.�3E
Z
GOVERNING BOARD
Elected
X
Appointed
X
X
X
POWERS
Water
X
X
X
X
Sewer
X
X
X
X
X
User Fees Rates and Charges
X
X
X
X
X
Levy Property Taxes
X
X
3
General Obligation Bonds
X
X
3
X
Revenue Bonds
X
X
X
3
X
Special Assessments
X
X
3
X
Require Connections
X
X
3
X
Condemn Land
X
X
X
3
Regulate Land Use
X
3
X
Surveys of Sanitary roblems/needs
X
X
X
X
X
Receive grants1loans
X
X
X
X
X
Hold Tide to all Real Property of the System
X
X
X
X
X
Enter into Contracts
X
X
X
X
X
Install/Operate/Maintain Systems on Private Property
X,
X
X
X
X
1. Limiting conditions apply.
2. Sewer authority cannot receive federal revenue -sharing funds or community
development grants.
3. These power may be exercised by any participating unit possessing them.
4. Sanitary district cannot require Installation of sewer lines in new
subdivisions or adopt subdivision regulations.

nAmrt9r N*as ,ay.rpt
Section 8 ,
Regional Authority Organization
date. The notice should be posted at the courthouse and by newspaper
publication at least once a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing.
Upon completion of the public hearing, the EMC and the county board of
commissioners evaluate the necessity of creating a MSD. If the resolution is
accepted, the EMC will adopt the resolution creating the metropolitan sewer
district.
The metropolitan sewer district governing board members are appointed by '
the county board of commissioners. The powers authorized to a MSD are
summarized in Table 8-1. A metropolitan sewer district lacks the ability to
levy special assessments for extending sewer lines and regulate specific land
uses.
8.1.4 Joint Management Agency i
NCGS 16OA-461 provides the requirements for organizing a joint management
agency. A group of local government units are authorized by an interlocal '
agreement to create a joint management agency to administer any service or
activity which each unit is authorized to carry out individually. The joint
management agency is considered a special form of an interlocal agreement.
Local government units which form a joint management agency may confer
upon the agency any power, duty, right, or function needed to complete the
required service or activity. Title to all real property needed for the service
must be held by the participating units individually or jointly as tenants in
common.
The joint management agency allows the group of governmental units to act as
I
one administrative structure which is independent of the individual
administrations. This type of governing authority is beneficial when there are
several units combining together to administer a common service, however,
the decision on which unit would be responsible for complete administration
would be difficult to make. The primary limitation for the joint management
agency is the inability of the agency to levy taxes as an independent
governmental entity. The agency can be empowered by the individual units to
exercise any power which is within the rights of the individual governing
body. These various powers are summarized in Table 8-1.
8.2 Evaluation of the Orange Water and Sewer
,
Authority
OWASA was incorporated in June 1975 in compliance with article 1 of chapter
162A of the General Statutes of North Carolina. A copy of General Statute
162A is provided as Appendix D. The individual political subdivisions which
created OWASA are the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Chapel Hill, and
Orange County. The authority was established to provide its customers with
an adequate supply of drinking water and an effective sewer system. The
initial funding for establishing the authority was obtained from revenue bonds
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 8_4

I
Section 8
Regional Authority Organization
f]
1
1
1
r
r
r
r
n: csfiwetV"dudyapt
r
issued by OWASA in February 1977. CDM obtained some organizational and
operational information on OWASA to provide CCIA with some insight into a
current authority's structure and operational characteristics.
8.2.1 Governing Board
The initial articles of incorporation of OWASA indicated that the ;authority
would have nine members, three appointed by each of the participating
political subdivisions. Each member is appointed for a specific term according
to the requirements of the resolution and NCGS. 162A-5, members of
authority; organization; quorum. In June 1976, OWASA amended their
Articles of Incorporation regarding the appointment of members of the board.
The total number of members remained constant, however, the number of
members appointed by each political subdivision was changed. The Town of
Chapel Hill increased their representation to five members while the Town of
Carrboro and Orange County reduced their appointments to two each. The
reorganization of the board illustrates the ability of a water and sewer
authority to structure the board in the best interest of the authority. The only
requirement is an official amendment to the Articles of Incorporation.
8.2.2 Organizational Structure
OWASA has an organizational structure which clearly identifies the hierarchy
of authority and responsibility. The effective organization of the authority has
led to the excellent operation and maintenance of the water and sewer systems
for their customers. The organizational chart for OWASA is provided as
Appendix E. The following positions are considered key in the operation of
the authority:
■ Board of Directors
■ Executive Director
■ Auditors
■ General Counsel
■ General Manager of Operations
■ Director of Customer and Community Affairs
■ Director of Planning and Development
■ Procurement Officer
■ Fiscal Affairs Manager
■ Personnel Manager
The ability of OWASA to continue to develop programs for the community,
training for its employees, maintenance for equipment and existing structures,
and investment in capital infrastructure has contributed to the success of the
authority. Any governing authority CCIA chooses to establish will require an
effective and efficient organizational structure to operate successfully.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
8-5

nAcartareft"udy.rpt
Section 8
Regional Authority Organization
8.2.3 Operational Funding
OWASA is considered a separate governmental entity which has been granted
independent authority by the North Carolina General Statutes. The Statutes
allow OWASA's Board of Directors to set the rates, fees, and charges without
interference from any other state or local governmental agency. According to
OWASA's 1994 Annual Report, the authority operates under an,annual budget
ordinance administrated in accordance with the provisions of the Local
Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act (NCGS Section 159).
OWASA has the ability to issue revenue bonds to generate sufficient funds
necessary to fund additional improvement plans, construction, acquisition, and
any other expenses required in order to provide water and sewer service at an
acceptable level to their customers.
OWASA has the ability to utilize investment vehicles to increase asset values
and income. OWASA is authorized by NCGS Section 159-30 to invest in
obligations of the U.S. Treasury, or obligations of any U.S. agency provided
the payment of interest and principal of such obligations are guaranteed by the
United States. OWASA also receives operational proceeds from various
federal and state grants. The funds from these grants are used to pay for
construction costs associated with capital improvements and customer
expansions. I
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 8-6
7
I
I

Section 9
Available Funding Sources
9.1 Government Funding Programs
There are several options available to governmental entities for obtaining
funds for the purpose of constructing publicly -owned wastewater facilities.
This section provides information on both federal and state sponsored
programs. The issuing of general obligation and revenue bonds, as a means of
raising necessary capital, is also discussed in this section. The Education,
Clean Water, and Parks Bond Act, which was approved in November 1993,
provided $145 million for various loans and grants to be used for funding of
water and wastewater construction projects. Depending on the availability of
funds and the individual eligibility requirements, certain projects may receive
funding for the entire cost of the project. The funds for the project are
disbursed as the work progresses instead of a lump sum distribution. The
funding from this Act is distributed in the following four ways:
■ as general low -interest revolving loans
■ high -unit cost grants for holding down user costs where water and sewer
fees are considered high
■ emergency low -interest revolving loans for certified public health
emergencies associated with existing systems
■ market rate loans
9.1.1 State Revolving Fund (SRF)
The State Revolving Fund utilizes both federal and state monies which are
available for projects involving wastewater treatment facilities and
interceptors. The deadline for submitting an application is March 31 of the
particular year. The SRF has a funding limit of $7.5 million per fiscal year
with a maximum limit of $15 million per project. The interest rate attached to
this type of loan is half the Bond Buyers 20 Bond index adjusted annually with
a maximum interest rate of four percent. The term of the loan is established
by the Local Government Commission. The maximum term for repayment is
twenty years and repayment begins shortly after construction has been
completed.
Once the application has been submitted and the project is approved for
receiving funds, the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) will establish a schedule for development of a 201
facility plan and specifications. The engineering report, plans, and
specifications developed for the project are generally acceptable for meeting
the NCDEM requirements. NCDEM distributes the available funds based
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
9-1

Section 9
Available Funding Sources
Table 9-1
FINANCING COMPARISON FOR SRF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
FOR $1,000,000 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Item
With SRF Funds
Revenue Bonds
Borrowing
Project Cost
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Interim Financing')
0
0
SUBTOTAL
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
SRF Service Fee (3.5%)')
$35,000
0
SUBTOTAL
$1,035,000
$1,000,000
Capitalized Interest ca>
$79,324
$193,103
Finance Costs - SRF
$12,436
0
Finance Costs - Revenue
Bonds (6)
0
$186,207
Par Amount of Loan
$1,126,760
$1379,310
Annual Debt Service
$82,909
$140,551
Savings of SRF Over Conventional Revenue Bonds:
Par Amount of Loan
—
$252,550
Annual Debt Service
Reduction
—
$57,642
Debt Service Reduction -
Total Life of Borrowing
—
$1,152,840
(1) Total construction costs including engineering and contingency.
w SRF will include in loan reimbursement for any issuance cost in an interim financing.
(3) SRF service fee for NCDEM administration 3.5% of amount borrowed each year, which is
a one-time fee.
(4) Capitalized interest on SRF loan for 24 months depending on time period from start of
drawdown to substantial completion. Interest accrues on amount drawdown only.
Capitalized interest for revenue bonds for 24 months depending on the time period from
first issuance of bonds to projection completion and service.
to Finance costs consits of SRF debt service requirement of 15% of maximum annual debt
service.
(6) Revenue bond financing costs include 10% for debt service reserve plus 3.5% for issuance
costs, increasing size of issue.
m Annual Debt Service for SRF based on 20 years at 4% interest, annual debt service for
revenue bonds based on 20 year bonds at 8% interest.
nAcart9mNesstudy.gA I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 9_2

Section 9
Available Funding Sources
on a annual priority list of all accepted projects. The following federal
regulations apply to the procurement of a SRF loan:
■ The Davis Bacon Act
■ Minority Business Enterprise Goals
■ Women Business Enterprise Goals
The continuation of this loan program is dependent upon congressional re-
authorization.
The use of SRF funding does require the applicant to develop facilities
planning documents and increases the level of coordination required between
the owner and the state. However these added efforts may be well worth the
savings that are possible when using an SRF. Table 9-1 presents a comparison
of a hypothetical loan of $1,000,000 with SRF and revenue bonds. For the
purpose of this comparison, the interest rate of the SRF was assumed to be 4%,
the interest rate of the Revenue Bonds 8%. Both loans assume a 20-year pay
back. From Table 9-1, the differences in financing costs can be significant. For
example, the par amount of the loan will be reduced by approximately
$250,000, annual debt service will decrease by over $50,000, and total debt
service over the life of the loan will be reduced by over $1,000,000.
9.1.2 State Revolving Loan and Grant Program
The State Revolving Loan and Grant program utilizes only state money for its
disbursements. The program provides funds for general loans, emergency
loans, and high -unit cost grants. The types of projects considered for these
funds are wastewater treatment facilities, interceptors, collection sewers, and
associated land cost. There are two deadlines for submitting applications:
March 31 and September 30. Applications for emergency loans can be
submitted at any time during the year. The State Revolving Loan and Grant
program has a funding limit of $3 million per fiscal year for all loans, and a
limit of $1 million per fiscal year for all grants. The interest rate associated
with these loans is set at half the Bond Buyers 20 Bond Index adjusted semi-
annually with a maximum rate of four percent. The Local Government
Commission establishes the term of the loan with a maximum term limit of
twenty years. Repayment of the loan begins shortly after completion of project
construction.
The main requirement of the State Revolving Loan and Grant program is that
each application package must contain a preliminary engineering report and
an environmental assessment report. Wastewater projects that are being
driven by regulatory orders, and have completed final plans and specifications,
will receive the highest priority. The State rules regarding Minority Business
Goals must be met in order to procure a loan or grant.
There is currently little State revolving money available for new projects in this
program.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
9-3

Section 9
Available Funding Sources
9.1.3 State Bond Loan Fund
The State Bond Loan fund derives its funds from State issued bonds. The
program issues funds for wastewater treatment facilities, interceptors,
collection sewers, and associated land costs. The application deadlines for this
program are March 31 and September 30. The fund has a loan maximum of $5
million per applicant regardless of the amount received per year. The interest
rate for these loans is based upon the State's interest costs plus any
administrative expenses that may be incurred during the term of the loan. The
term of the loan will be determined by the Local Government Commission.
There is no maximum term limit associated with this particular loan program.
Repayment of the loan will be according to the State's debt repayment plan
which is dictated by the market conditions at the time of the sale.
The State Bond Fund requires that all application packages contain an
approved facility plan, final plans and specifications, and proof of an
advertised public hearing. Funds are distributed based on each project's
readiness and priority relative to other approved projects. The State rules
regarding Minority Business Goals must be met in order to procure a loan.
The Minority Business Goals are outlined in General Statute 143-128(c).
The State Bond Fund involves the least cost to the State of any of the
aforementioned programs. The funds available from this program have
already been committed to various projects; therefore, there are no funds
available for new projects. The fund will require an additional bond
referendum to be passed in order to have access to additional funds.
9.1.4 Farmers Home Administration
The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) operates under the guidelines of
the United States Department of Agriculture. FmHA provides loans and
grants for water and wastewater facilities in rural areas and towns of up to
10,000 people. The loan or grant funds obtained under this program may be
used for the construction, repair, improvements, or expansion of water and
wastewater facilities. The facilities may include sewer lines, treatment plants,
and required equipment. Additional costs approved for payment with FmHA
funds are legal and engineering fees, land acquisition costs, and any easement
costs. Financial assistance in the form of grants are available for up to 75% of
the project's development costs. Grant funds are primarily available for
facilities which reduce the user costs for eligible participants within financially
needy communities. FmHA funds are normally made available when the
proposed projected is completed. Additional sources of funding are used
during the construction process. If the public entity is unable to obtain
funding for the project construction, or if the project costs less than $50,000,
FmHA may distribute the funds in several installments as construction
progresses.
nA=d*mv...n,ay.qA I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 9-4

Section 9
Available Funding Sources
The FmHA program assigns priority to public entities, located in areas smaller
than 5,500 people, attempting to restore a deteriorating water supply or to
improve inadequate water and wastewater facilities. Projects involving the
merging of small facilities and those serving low-income communities will also
be assigned as a high priority project. The following requirements must also
be met prior to receiving funds from the FmHA:
■ The applicant must be unable to obtain the required funds from
additional sources at reasonable interest rates and terms.
■ The applicant must be legally capable of borrowing and repaying loans,
pledging security for the loan, and operating and maintaining the facility.
■ The public entity must be financially sound, and have effective facility
management in place.
■ The project should be financially feasible based on having taxes,
revenues, fees, and other income sources sufficient to pay all facility costs
and retire the indebtedness.
The maximum term for all FmHA loans is forty (40) years. No repayment
term will be allowed to exceed any statutory limitation on the public entity's
borrowing authority nor the useful life of the facility being financed. The
interest rate for all loans will be based on current market yields for municipal
obligations; however, certain loans may be financed at a lower rate.
Applications for loans or grants are submitted at the various district offices of
the Farmers Home Administration.
9.2 General Obligation Bonds
The Local Government Bond Act (NCGS Article 4 of Chapter 159) indicates the
purposes for which general obligation bonds may be issued and describes the
procedures necessary to authorize and issue bonds. In order to market
obligation bonds, the bond issuer must retain the services of a qualified bond
counsel. The bond counsel is responsible for providing drafts of all notices,
bond orders, and required proceedings.
The Secretary of the Commission, in some instances, may request the
government entity's attendance at a preliminary (pre -filing) conference to
discuss any issues associated with the bond sale which could hinder the
authorization process. A resolution should be adopted by the governing body
which divulges any findings relative to the bond project, authorizes filing of
the application with the Local Government Commission, and designates its
representative for all proceedings. The resolution will become a supplement to
the final application submitted to the Commission.
The application for bond issuance approval must be submitted to and accepted
by the Commission prior to or concurrent with the introduction of the bond
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 9-5

Section 9
Available Funding Sources
order by the governing body. If the bond order requires voter approval, then
the application cannot be accepted by the Commission until ten days have
passed since the Notice of Intent was posted. Evidence in the form of a
publisher's affidavit with the notice should be attached to the submitted
application. The application should indicate why the project is necessary, and
why the requested amount of bonds are adequate but not excessive. The
application should inform the Commission that the appropriate debt
management practices will be implemented. Any increases in property tax
rates or consumer rates should be addressed in the application. The rate
increases should be sufficient to maintain the additional debt service while not
being considered excessive. Appendix F provides the list of documents
necessary for submittal to the Local Government Commission.
9.3 Revenue Bonds
The Local Government Revenue Bond Act (NCGS Chapter 159, Article 5)
authorizes governing bodies to issue revenue bonds for the construction or
improvement of water and sewer systems. The debt originating from the
issuance of a revenue bond is serviced from revenues generated by the
financed facility. As part of the revenue bond order, the governing body is
responsible for operating and managing the facility in a manner that provides
sufficient net revenues to meet all bond obligations. A revenue bond does not
require voter approval prior to submitting the application to the Local
Government Commission.
The first step in the application process requires the governing body to attend
a pre -application conference with the Commission. The conference will
discuss the project necessity, associated costs, and any alternative funding
sources available. The Commission will determine if the governing body has
the appropriate debt and fiscal management procedures and policies in place.
Once the pre -application conference is completed, the governing body will
have to adopt a resolution which grants permission to proceed with the bond
issuance process. The resolution should also appoint an authorized
representative and select appropriate bond counsel.
The formal application along with all supporting documentation should be
submitted to the Local Government Commission a minimum of ten days prior
to any regular meeting of the Commission. The supporting information
attached to the application should include the following:
■ preliminary engineering report including cost estimate
■ all service or construction contracts
■ a complete description of the project and all associated requirements
■ estimated fees and rates for all parties
■ a complete feasibility study
The governing body's resolution should provide information that makes clear
the necessity for the proposed revenue bond, and that the amount of the bond
n:%c*demN@a"r.mt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee g_g
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Section 9
Available Funding Sources
will be sufficient but not excessive for the proposed facility. The proposed
revenue bond should be marketed at a reasonable interest cost to the
governing body.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
NYA

Section 10
References
Amatya D.M., Skaggs, R.W. and J.D. Gregory. "Comparison of Methods for
Estimating Reference ET." ND.
Division of Environmental Management. 1988. "Coastal Waste Treatment
Disposal." Administrative Code Section: 15 NCAC 2H.0400.
Division of Environmental Management. 1988. "Waste Not Discharged to
Surface Waters." Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2H.0200.
Division of Environmental Management. 1993. Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the White Oak River Basin,
Administrative Code: 15A NCAC 2B.0312.
Division of Environmental Management. 1993. Classification and Water
Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin,
Administrative Code: 15A NCAC 2B.0315.
Division of Environmental Management. 1994. "Proposed Rule Modifications:
Wetlands and 401 Certification Procedures."
Earth Systems Associates, LTD. 1993. "Land Treatment Design Development
Report, Volume I, Jacksonville NC."
Greenhorn and O'Mara Incorporated. 1994. "Land Application Feasibility
Study, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina."
Hoban, Thomas J. "Public Opinion About Wastewater Management in Carteret
County," August 10,1989.
Reed, Sherwood C. et al., "Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment," MOP
FD-16; Water Pollution Control Federation, 1990.
Rowe, Donald R. and Isam Mohammed Abdel-Magid. 1995. "Handbook of
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse," Lewis Publishers.
Skaggs, R. Wayne and Robert O Evans. "Hydrologic Analysis of Land
Application of Treated Municipal Wastewater in Carteret County."
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State
University.
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners. 1991. "Carteret County, North Carolina
1991 Land Use Plan."
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
10-1

Section 10
References
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners. 1992.
"Town of Pine Knoll Shores,
North Carolina, 1992 Land Use Plan."
T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners. 1993.
"Town of Atlantic Beach, North
Carolina, 1993 Land Use Plan."
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soils Conservation Service. 1987,,"Soil
Survey of Carteret County, North Carolina."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981.
"Process Design Manual for Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.
"Guidelines for Water Reuse."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.
"Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat."
n:=rI9WV*wudy.fpt I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 10_2

/ Appendix A

F]
1
1
I
I
1�1'
I
I
1
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF COASTAL RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM WITH UNDERDRAINS
VENICE, FLORIDA - 1985 THROUGH 1989
I

M M M*w m m m! r m i� m==� M m
Sheet1 Chart 1
25.00
20.00
15.00
E
O
0
m
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
Underdrain System BOD
10 20 30 40 50 60
Month
. Page 1
— 0 Influent
--*—Effluent

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
r
25.00
N
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
Sheet1 Chart 2
Underdrain TSS
10 20 30 40 50 60
Month
Page 1
—0 Influent
—!— Effluent

Sheet1 Chart 3
25.00
20.00
15.00
E
z
f-
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
Underdrain TN
10 20 30 40 50 60
Month
Page 1
—0 Influent
—!— Effluent

9.00
1 8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
E
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0
Sheet1 Chart 4
Underdrain TP
10 20 30 40 50 60
Month
Page 1
--0 Influent
--E— Effluent

I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
@;gm�q�q;m©§
q§;qa..-„■■..;�BR;ag■���@q9
0141"I'MI"
|���;�..;..;��
|����■�;■;�;;
'�@9
&
;;■;qq
q■�q�
q�■a;■q4
{.._.........;
|■S■;■a;;;■;■
§|SS55�l7|552|
§na;�■;;■■;;■
$■;■;,■;;
Ill
■;
TITIT'l
§!S!§�55§§�'t
9;G;;■s■;;;■■
7
TTlo-
1-T-
§!7-i3T35!!5!!
%■„
IT
116
5�)SSS!|'
§■e■�;;;;■■#;
0
§5l5�l�|!))§52
§;as;■;;�■;�s
�2
�
„
;a;;;;a■�s
lllvl,
§!G.
V
A
5;z%2A
§;;;■;:;;;;■;■
§!S§3S5SS!|S|!
§;;■ea;�■2�■a
■;;■■■
§i'4W
|355|§|
■;;;■;;■s;;■
§!!lSS�lS555S5
§aa;��;■■■;;;
§55|�55555!!!§
§;2;k�■2;■■;;
T
TITT
;
q#4■9�■
k |_;;;;�;■■
„Gs
..wd...
■#rt
W!
qq§m
@
;■■a;;■;�;e
Tl
§§55l�355!!!S2
§;;■;�;■■;;■a
E§■■;#��@q4;#R
■;■;�■;
�_
.w..._=._�;;
/§■■�a■
�.•�
��•�-
a��2�
•-
„<■a!!
!��!<■!�;■�l��
�

Appendix B
1

APPENDIX B
LISTING OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
FOR CARTERET AND CRAVEN COUNTIES
Ll
f'P,
I
I
I

09/06/95 FRI 09:48 FAIL 1 818 656 455b
USi' 11 J-KAl.t:llali, lrl.
REVISED APRIL 19, 1SS5
Craven County
Bir
Bald eagle (Naliaeetus laucocepholus) - E
Red -cockaded woodpecker (Plogides borealis) - E
Reptiles
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mvdss) - T
Kemp's (Atlantic) Ridley sea turtle (Leoidochelvs kemoi) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle JCargna ear a) - T .
.ants
Sensitive joint vetch (Aeschvnomene v' ini - T•
Sea turtles when "in the water' are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service and
should be contacted concerning your agency's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered species
Act. Their address is:
' National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koper Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
' threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C7 and C21 species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of Its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or fisted as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
a)ecles which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
' species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Birds
Bachman's sparrow ( imo hila iv ) - C2
Black rall Laterallu m ce is) - C2
Crustaceans -
Croatan crayfish (Procambarus clumimanus) - C2
Insects
Ceromatic noctu)d moth r ferra ceromatica) - C2
Plants
Carolina goldenrod oli up Ichral - C2
Chapman's sedge (Corox chapmanii) - C2
Godfrey's sandwort(Ming artla godfre it - C2
Loose watermilfoil IMvrioohvllum axu ) - C2
' Savanna aowbane 10xvoolis tempts) - C2
Smooth bog -asphodel is al_abra) - C2*
Spring -flowering goldenrod JSolldago vernal - C2
Venus flytrap IDionsep muscioula) - C2
Wagner's spleenwort (Asolenium hetgroresiliens) - C2
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus feretlfoiius) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.

U9/06/95 FRi 09:48 FAb 1 919 856 455b
.7
Carteret County
UbE"b_xA1.E1GJi1NG
REVISED APRiL 19, 1995
Mammals
Eastern cougar Fetis concolor cououarl - E
Bir
Bald eagle Lallaeetus leucoceohalus) - E
peregrine falcon (Falco Dereorinus tundiiva► - T
Red cockaded woodpecker (Picoldes borealis - E
Roseate tern (Sterna douoellri douaallil - E
Piping plover (Charedrius el us) - T
Reptiles
Green sea turtle halo la mvdas) - T
Kemp's (Atlantic) Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelvs kempi) - E
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs o incea) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta care a) - T
Plants
Rough4eaved loosestrifa (Lvsimachia uperulaefolia) - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus umilus) - T
Sea turtles when "in the water" are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service and
should be contacted concerning your agency's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered species
-Act. Their address is:
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
spades may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
B'r a
Bachman's sparrow (&rnochiia aestivalis) - C2
Black rail (Laterallus famalcensis) - C2
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus enslowi) - C2
Reptiles
Northern diamondback terrapin (Malaaiemve terrapin terraoln) - C2
Amphlbians
Carolina crawfish frog (Rana areolato caoito) - C2
Crustaceans
Croatan crayfish (Procambarus plumimanus) - C2

ub/06/95 FRI 09:4b FAa 1 919 bbb.40bb
Carteret County (cont'd)
u ar MO
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Insects
Carter's noctuid moth (Soartininhaaa carter - C2
Plants
Carolins goldenrod li uD Ichra) - C2
Chapman's sedge arex chaomanii) - C2
Duns blue curls (Trich_sterna 1R.) - C2
Loose watermilfoll (Myriioohvllum laxum) - C2
Pondspice itsea sestivalis - C2
Savanna camylopus (Camvloous carolinae) - C2
Savanna cowbane loxypolis temefs) - C2
Smooth bop -asphodel fieldia alabra - C2
Venus flytrap IDjona9a muscioula) - C2

I
ww ww ww �ww w ww ww ww ww ww ww �w ww ww w ww ww ww ww

APPENDIX C
PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MAPS
n
I

r = m = = = m = r r r = = = = = = = m
CDNI
emrYorvnenral engineers, sdentsls,
#amens management wnsurranrs
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

C
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDM WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
emYawnental engineers, sdenBsls,
wamers S managemml wnsalanls

m w � r m m "" w m m w = � m " m = =
C D M'
er►vid�menfal engineers, aCiesi4ts,
p►atwers s management mnsdimts
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

l�5
, 1
,
r I i
• I
7
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
C D m WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
emirorlrnenfar engineers, sdenfists,
#amens S management emsukants
r ■r � rr � r � � r r � r r r� ■r r � ■■r rr

wo A m so 4m4= an AM = a* im m ���, IV= am m m
C D M'
emironmenfal engineers, sdengsfs,
pfamers 6 marmgement cvnsuttants
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
C D m WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
emicnmenlal engineers, sdentists,
pamers 3 management consultants

LDM
sdenlis►s,
management aansuhan►s
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
CDm' WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
emrtt/lrnenta► engineers, scientists,
planners d management wnsuhants
r�

CDM
enviranmenw engineers, sdenl sM
pamers 6 num9emenl oansdianrs
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

1 �a�
G�
- I 1
f
1 �
I r)�
1
_- — lip)
14F n�
� �w
X ,
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
C D m WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
errvrorwnenlal engineers, sden$sis.
panners S management wasdianls
a�
RAW

m "an m m m m am m w 1 m m m 'm tm m m m
C D M'
enviranmentat engineers, sdenttsts,
ptatvws 6 management Consonants
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
ICDm' WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
environmentar engineers, sdentisrs,
pamers S management mnsuhanrs

Appendix D

n
1
APPENDIX D
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUES 162A
11
f]
I
I
I
t

GENERAL STATUTES OF
NORTH CAROLINA
Chapter 162A
Water and Sewer Systems
OCTOBER 1991
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Raleigh, North Carolina
October 1, 1991
I, Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, do
hereby certify that the attached recompilation of Chapter 162A of the
General Statutes of North Carolina was prepared and published by
The Michie Company under the supervision of the Department of
Justice of the State of North Carolina.
LAcY H. THowBuRG
Attorney General of North Carolina
46465-10

COPYRIGHT m 1944, 1952, 1964, 1972, 1976, 1982, 1987. 1991
BY
HE MICHIE COMPANY
All rights reserved.
Scope of. Chapter
Statutes:
Full text of Chapter 162A of the General Statutes of North
Carolina, including all enactments through the 1991 Regular
Session.
AIIIIOtat10IIS:
Sources of the annotations appearing in this chapter are:
North Carolina Reports through Volume 328, p. 735.
North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports through Volume 102,
p. 582.
South Eastern Reporter 2nd Series through Volume 404, p.
254.
Federal Reporter 2nd Series through Volume 931, p. 1555.
Federal Supplement through Volume 762, p. 1.
Federal Rules Decisions through Volume 135, p. 791.
Bankruptcy Reports through Volume 126, p. 822.
Supreme Court Reporter through Volume 111, p. 2070.
North Carolina Law Review through Volume 69, p. 1079.
Wake Forest Law Review through Volume 26, p. 539.
Campbell Law Review through Volume 13, p. 254.
Duke Law Journal through 1990, p. 1454.
North Carolina Central Law Journal through Volume 19, p.
112.
Opinions of the Attorney General.
LI
I
J
P,
P
41.

i 7i
1
1
1
1
1*1
G
CH. 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS
Chapter 162A.
Water and Sewer Systems.
Article 1
Water and Sewer Authorities.
Sec.
162A-1. Title.
162A-2. Definitions.
162A-3. Procedure for creation; certifi-
cate of incorporation; certi.
fication of principal office
and officers.
162A-3.1. Alternative procedure for cre-
ation.
162A-4. Withdrawal from authority;
joinder of new subdivision.
162A-5. Members of authority; organi-
zation; quorum.
162A-6. Powers of authority generally.
162A-7. Prerequisites to acquisition of
water, etc., by eminent do-
main.
162A-8. Revenue bonds.
162A-9. Rates and charges; contracts
for water or services; de-
posits; delinquent charges.
162A-9.1. Adoption and enforcement of
ordinances.
162A-10. [Repealed.]
162A-11. Moneys received deemed trust
funds.
162A-12. Bondholder's remedies.
162A-13. Refunding bonds.
162A-14. Conveyances and contracts be-
tween political subdivi.
sions and authority.
162A-15. Services to authority by pri.
vate water companies;
records of water taken by
authority; reports to the
Commission.
162A-16. Contributions or advances to
authority by political sub-
divisions.
162A-17. Article regarded as supple-
mental.
162A-18. Actions against authority by
riparian owners.
162A-19. Inconsistent laws declared in-
applicable.
Article 2.
Regional Water Supply Planning
162A-20. Title.
162A-21. Preamble.
162A-22. Definition of regional water
supply system.
162A-23. State role and functions relat-
1
Sec.
ing to local and regional
water supply planning.
162A-24. Regional Cater Supply Plan-
ning Revolving Fund estab-
lished; conditions and pro-
cedures.
162A-25. Construction of Article.
Article 3.
Regional Sewage Disposal Plan-
ning.
162A-26. Title.
162A-27. Definitions of "regional sew-
age disposal system" and
"comprehensive planning."
162A-28. Role and function of Environ-
mental Management Com-
mission.
162A-29. Regional Sewage Disposal
Planning Revolving Fund
established; conditions and
procedures.
162A-30. Construction of Article.
Article 4.
Metropolitan Water Districts.
162A-31. Short title.
162A-32. Definitions; description of
boundaries.
162A-33. Procedure for creation; resolu-
tions and petitions for cre-
ation; notice to and action
by Commission for Health
Services; notice and public
hearing-, resolutions creat-
ing districts; actions to set
aside proceedings.
162A-34. District board; composition,
appointment, term, oaths
and removal of members;
organization; meetings;
quorum; compensation and
expenses of members.
162A-35. Procedure for inclusion of ad-
ditional political subdivi-
sion or unincorporated
area; notice and hearing;
elections; actions question-
ing validity of elections.
162A-36. Powers generally; fiscal year.
162A-37. Bonds and notes authorized.
162A-38 to 162A-44. [Repealed.]
162A45. Determination of tax rate by
district board; levy and col-
t- • -

:43£t
CIL 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS
Sec.
lection of tax; remittance
and deposit of funds.
162A-46 to 162A-48. [Repealed.)
162A-49. Rates and charges for ser-
vices.
162A-50 to 162A-52. [Repealed.]
162A-53. Authority of governing bodies
of political subdivisions.
162A-54. Rights -of -way and easements
in streets and highways.
162A-55.-Submission of preliminary
plans to planning groups.
cooperation with planning
agencies.
162A-56. Advances by political subdivi-
sions for preliminary ex-
penses of districts.
162A-57. Article regarded as supple-
mental.
162A-58. Inconsistent laws declared in-
applicable.
162A-59 to 162A-63. [Reserved.]
Article 5.
Metropolitan Sewerage Districts
162A-64. Short title.
162A-65. Definitions; description of
boundaries.
162A-66. Procedure for creation; resolu-
tions and petitions for cre-
ation; notice to and action
by the Environmental
Management Commission;
notice -and public hearing;
resolutions creating dis-
tricts; actions to set aside
proceedings.
162A-67. District board; composition,
appointment, terms. oaths
and removal of members;
organization; meetings;
quorum; compensation and
expenses of members.
162A-68. Procedure for inclusion of ad-
ditional political subdivi-
sion or unincorporated
area; notice and hearing;
elections; actions to set
aside proceedings.
162A-69. Powers generally; fiscal year.
162A-70. Bonds and notes authorized.
162A-71. Determination of tax rate by
district board; levy and col-
lection of tax; remittance
and deposit of funds.
162A-72. Rates and charges for ser.
vices.
162A-73. Authority of governing bodies
i
of political subdivisions.
t
E
t
2
Sec.
162A-74. Rights -of -way and easements
in streets and highways.
162A-75. Submission of preliminary
plans to planning groups:
cooperation with planning
agencies.
162A-76. Water system acting as billing
and collecting agent for dis-
trict; furnishing meter
readings.
162A-7 7. District may assume sewerage
system indebtedness of po-
litical subdivision; ap-
proval of voters; actions
founded upon invalidity of
election; tax to pay as-
sumed indebtedness.
162A-77.1. Special election upon the
question of the merger of
metropolitan sewerage dis-
tricts into cities or towns.
162A-78. Advances by political subdivi-
sions for preliminary ex-
penses of districts.
162A-79. Article regarded as supple.
mental.
162A-80. Inconsistent laws declared in-
applicable.
162A-81. Adoption and enforcement of
ordinances.
162A-82 to 162A-85. [Reserved.]
Article 6.
County Rater and Sewer Districts.
162A-86. Formation of district; hearing.
162A-87. Creation of district; standards;
limitation of actions.
162A-87.1. Extension of water and
sewer districts.
162A-87.2. Abolition of water and serer
districts.
162A-87.3. Services outside the district.
162A-88. District is a municipal corpo-
ration.
162A-89. Governing body of district;
powers.
162A-89.1. Eminent domain power au-
thorized.
162A-90. Bonds and notes authorized.
162A-91. Taxes authorized.
162A-92. Special assessments autho-
rized.
162A-93. Certain city actions prohib.
ited.
162A-94 to 162A-100. [Reserved.]
Article 7.
Assumption of Indebtedness of
Certain Districts.
162A-101. Assumption of indebtedness
of certain districts.
r
a

n
i
I
1
� ( c
I
§162A-1 ART. 1. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES
ARTICLE 1.
Water and Sewer Authorities.
§ 162A-1. Title.
162A-2
This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "North Caro-
lina Water and Sewer Authorities Act." (1955, c. 1195, s. 1; 1971, c.
892, s. 1.)
Editor's Note. — Session Laws 1989,
c. 708, s. 2, provided: "(a) Any contract
made or entered into, prior to the date of
ratification of this act, by a city, a
county, or a water and sewer authority
created under Article 1 of Chapter 162A
of the General Statutes which would
have been valid under G.S. 160A-20,
subsections (a), (b), (c), and (f), as rewrit-
ten by this act, is hereby validated, rati-
fied, and confirmed. Furthermore, such
a contract may not be held invalid be-
cause it contains a nonsubstitution
clause, or because no public hearing was
advertised and held on the contract, or
both.
(b) Any contract made or entered into,
prior to the date of ratification of this
act, by a city, a county, or a water and
sewer authority created under Article 1
of Chapter 162A of the General Statutes
which would have been valid under sub-
section (a) of this Section 2 or under G.S.
16OA-20 as it existed prior to the ratifi-
cation of this act or as rewritten by this
act, except that the Local Government
Commission did not approve the con-
tract, is hereby validated, ratified, and
confirmed"
The act was ratified August 1, 1989.
Session Laws 1989, c. 708, s. 3 pro-
vided: "Nothing in this act shall be in-
terpreted to limit or restrict the author-
ity of cities, counties, or water and sewer
authorities created under Article 1 of
Chapter 162A of the General Statutes to
purchase, improve, or finance the pur-
chase or improvement of real or personal
property pursuant to any other applica-
ble law, whether general, special, or lo-
cal."
Legal Periodicals. — For survey of
1977 law on property, see 56 N.C.L. Rev.
1111 (1978).
CASE NOTES
Stated in Moody v. Town of Carrboro,
301 N.C. 318, 271 S.E.2d 265 (1980).
Cited in Chapel Hill Country Club,
Inc v. Town of Chapel Hill, 97 N.C. App.
171, 388 S.E.2d 168 (1990).
§ 162A-2. Definitions.
As used in this Article the following words and terms shall have
the following meanings, unless the context shall indicate another or
different meaning or intent:
(1) The word "authority" shall mean an authority created un-
der the provisions of this Article or, if such authority shall
be abolished, the board, body or commission succeeding to
the principal functions thereof or to whom the powers
given by this Article to the authority shall be given by law.
(2) The word "Commission" shall mean the Environmental
Management Commission.
(3) The word "cost" as applied to a water system or a sewer
system shall include the purchase price of any such sys-
tem, the cost of construction, the cost of all labor and mate-
rials, machinery and equipment, the cost of improvements,
the cost of all lands, property, rights, easements and fran-
chises acquired, financing charges, interest prior to and
3

§162A-2 ('11 162A. «'ATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS 162A-2
during construction and, if deemed advisable by the au-
thority, for one year after completion of construction, cost
of plans and specifications, surveys and estimates of cost
of revenues, cost of engineering and legal services, and
and
all other expenses necessary or incident to determining the
feasibility or practicability of such construction, adminis-
trative expense and such other expenses, including reason-
able provision for working capital, as may be necessary or
incident to the financing herein authorized. Any obligation
incurred by the authority or by any political c
.or expense
subdivision prior to the issuance of bonds under the provi-
sions of this Article in connection with any of the foregoing
items or cost may be regarded as a part of such cost.
(4) The term "governing body" shall mean the board, commis-
sion, council or other body, by whatever name it may be
,
known, in which the general legislative powers of the polit-
ical subdivision are vested.
(5) The word "improvements" shall mean such repairs, replace-
betterments of and to a
ments, additions, extensions and
water system or a sewer system as are deemed necessary
by the authority to place or to maintain such system in
proper condition for its safe, efficient and economic opera-
�-
tion or to meet requirements for service in areas which
may be served by the authority and for which no existing
service is being rendered.
(6) The word "person" shall mean any and all persons, includ-
r
ing individuals, firms, partnerships, associations, public or
private institutions. municipalities, or political subdivi-
sions, governmental agencies, or private or public corpora-
State or;�
tions organized and existing under the laws of this
any other state or country.
(7) The term "political subdivision" shall mean any county,
city, town, incorporated village, sanitary district or other
political subdivision or public corporation of this State now
or hereafter incorporated.
(7a) The word "revenues" shall mean all moneys received by
'
an authority from or in connection with any sewer system
or water system including, without limitation, any moneys
received as interest grants.
(8) The word "sewage" shall mean the water -carried wastes
created in and carried or to be carried away from resi-
dences, hotels, schools, hospitals, industrial establish-
ments, commercial establishments or any other private or
public building together with such surface or groundwater
'
or household and industrial wastes as may be present.
(9) The term "sewage disposal system" shall mean and shall
include any plant, system, facility, or property used or
useful or having the present capacity for future use in con-
nection with the collection, treatment, purification or dis-
posal of sewage (including industrial wastes resulting from
any processes of industry, manufacture, trade or business
or from the development of any natural resources), or any
integral part thereof, including but not limited to septic
or other on -site collection or disposal facili-
tank systems
ties or systems, treatment plants, pumping stations, inter-
cepting sewers, trunk sewers, pressure lines, mains and all
4
J�4
, � �j
,

§162A-3 ART. 1. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES C162A-3
necessary appurtenances and equipment, and all property,
rights, easements and franchises relating thereto and
deemed necessary or convenient by the authority for the
operation thereof.
(10) The word "sewers" shall include mains, pipes and laterals
for the reception of sewage and carrying such sewage to an
outfall or some part of a sewage disposal system, including
pumping stations where deemed necessary by the author-
ity.
(11) The term "sewer system" shall embrace both sewers and
sewage disposal systems and all property, rights, ease-
ments and franchises relating thereto.
(12) The term "water system" shall mean and include all
plants, systems, facilities or properties used or useful or
having the present capacity for future use in connection
with the supply or distribution of water or the control and
drainage of stormwater runoff and any integral part
thereof, including but not limited to water supply systems,
water distribution systems, structural and natural
stormwater and drainage systems of all types, sources of
water supply including lakes, reservoirs and wells, in-
takes, mains, laterals, aqueducts, pumping stations, stand-
pipes, filtration plants, purification plants, hydrants,
meters, valves, and all necessary appurtenances and
equipment and all properties, rights, easements and fran-
chises relating thereto and deemed necessary or conve-
nient by the authority for the operation thereof. (1955, c.
1195, s. 2; 1969, c. 850; 1971, c. 892, s. 1; 1979, c. 619, s. 8;
1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1004, s. 43; 1991, c. 591, s. 3.)
Effect of Amendments. — The 1989
(Reg. Sess., 1990) amendment, effective
July 20, 1990, substituted the present
subdivision (2) for the former version
which read "The word 'Board' shall
inean the Board of Water Commis-
sioners of the State of North Carolina or
the board, body or commission succeed-
ing to the principal functions thereof or
to whom the powers given by this Arti-
cle to the Board shall be given by law."
The 1991 amendment, effective July
8, 1991, in subdivision (12), inserted "or
the control and drainage of stormwater
runoff' and inserted "structural and nat-
ural stormwater and drainage systems
of all types"
CASE NOTES
Applied in Orange Water & Sewer Cited in In re Environmental Mgt.
Auth. v. Town of Carrboro, 58 N.C. App. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588
676. 294 S.E.2d 757 (1982). (1986).
§ 162A-3. Procedure for creation; certificate of in-
corporation; certification of principal
office and officers.
(a) The governing body of a single county or the governing bodies
of any two or more political subdivisions may by resolution signify
their determination to organize an authority under the provisions
of this Article. Each of such resolutions shall be adopted after a
public hearing thereon, notice of which hearing shall be given by
publication at least once, not less than 10 days prior to the date

E162A-3.1 CH. 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS §162A-3.1
fixed for such hearing, in a newspaper having a general circulation
in the political subdivision. Such notice shall contain a brief state-
ment of the substance of the proposed resolution, shall set forth the
proposed articles of incorporation of the authority and shall state
the time and place of the public hearing to be held thereof. No such
political subdivision shall be required to make any other publica-
tion of such resolution under the provisions of any other law.
(b) Each such resolution shall include articles of incorporation
which shall set forth:
(1) The name of the authority;
(2) A statement that such authority is or
under this
Article;
(3) The names of the organizing political subdivisions; and
(4) The names and addresses of the first members of the au-
thority appointed by the organizing political subdivisions.
(c) A certified copy of each of such resolutions signifying the de-
termination to organize an authority under the provisions of this
Article shall be filed with the Secretary of State of North Carolina,
together with proof of publication of the notice of hearing on each of
such resolutions. If the Secretary of State finds that the resolutions,
including the articles of incorporation, conform to the provisions of
this Article and that the notices of hearing were properly pub-
lished, he shall file such resolutions and proofs of publication in his
office and shall issue a certificate of incorporation under the seal of
the State and shall record the same in an appropriate book of record
in his office. The issuance of such certificate of incorporation by the
Secretary of State shall constitute the authority a public body and
body politic and corporate of the State of North Carolina. Said cer-
tificate of incorporation shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that
such authority has been duly created and established under the
provisions of this Article.
(d) When the authority has been duly organized and its officers
elected as herein provided the secretary of the authority shall cer-
tify to the Secretary of State the names and addresses of such offi-
cers as well as the address of the principal office of the authority.
(1955, c. 1195, s. 3; 1971, c. 892, s. 1; 1991, c. 516, s. 1.)
Effect of Amendments. — The 1991 county or the" in the first sentence of
amendment, effective July 2, 1991, in- subsection (a).
serted "governing body of a single
§ 162A-3.1. Alternative procedure for creation.
(a) As an alternative to the procedure set forth in G.S. 162A-3,
the governing body of a single county or the governing bodies of any
two or more political subdivisions may by resolution signify their
determination to organize an authority under the provisions of this
section of this Article. Each of such resolutions shall be adopted
after a public hearing thereon, notice of which hearing shall be
TMby publication at least once, not less than 10 days prior to the
date fixed for such hearing, in a newspaper having a general circu-
lation in the political subdivision. Such notice shall contain a brief
statement of the substance of the proposed resolution, shall set
forth the proposed articles of incorporation of the authority and
shall state the time and place of the public hearing. No such politi-
cal subdivision shall be required to make any other publication of
such resolution under the provisions of any other law.
6
I
I
I
1

1
§162A-4 ART. 1. WATER AND SENVER AUTHORITIES §162A-4
I
(b) Each such resolution shall include articles of incorporation
which shall set forth:
(1) The name of the authority;
(2) A statement that such authority is organized under this
section of this Article;
(3) The names of the organizing political subdivisions;
(4) The names and addresses of the members of the authority
appointed by the organizing political subdivisions; and
(5) A statement that members of the authority will be limited
to such members as may be appointed from time to time by
the organizing political subdivisions.
(c) A certified copy of each of such resolutions signifying the de-
termination to organize an authority under the provisions of this
section of this Article shall be filed with the Secretary of State of
�-
North Carolina, together with proof of publication of the notice of
'
hearing on each of such resolutions. If the Secretary of State finds
that the resolutions, including the articles of incorporation, con-
t
form to the provisions of this section of this Article and that the
notices of hearing were properly published, he shall file such reso-
lutions and proofs of publication in his office and shall issue a cer-
tificate of incorporation under the seal of the State and shall record
the same in an appropriate book of record in his office. The issuance
of such certificate of incorporation by the Secretary of State shall
constitute the authority a public body and body politic and corpo-
rate of the State of North Carolina. Said certificate of incorporation
shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that such authority has been
duly created and established under the provisions of this section of
this Article.
(d) When the authority has been duly organized and its officers
elected as herein provided the secretary of the authority shall cer-
tify to the Secretary of State the names and addresses of such offi-
cers as well as the address of the principal office of the authority.
(1975, c. 224, s. 1; 1991, c. 516, s. 2.)
Effect of Amendments. — The 1991 county or" in the first sentence of sub -
amendment, effective July 2, 1991. in- section (a).
i
serted "the governing body of a single
§ 162A4. Withdrawal from authority; joinder of
new subdivision.
(a) Whenever an authority has been organized under the provi-
sions of this Chapter, any political subdivision may withdraw
therefrom time to
at any prior the creation of any obligations by the
authority, and any political subdivision not having joined in the
original organization may, with the consent of the authority, join
the authority; provided, that any political subdivision not having
joined the original organization shall have the right upon reason-
able terms and conditions, whether the authority shall consent
thereto or not, to join the authority if the authority's water system
or sewer system, or any part thereof is situated within the bound-
aries of the political subdivision or of the county within which the
political subdivision is located.
(b) Any political subdivision desiring to withdraw from or to join
an existing authority shall signify its desire by resolution adopted
after a public hearing thereon, notice of which hearing shall be
7

162A-5 CH. 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS § 162A-5
given in the manner and at the time provided in G.S. 162A-3 or
r
162A-3.1, as appropriate. Such notice shall contain a brief state-
ment of the substance of said resolution and shall state the time
,
and place of the public hearing to be held thereon. In the case of a
political subdivision desiring to join the authority, the resolution
shall set forth all of the information required under G.S. 162A-3 or
162A-3.1, as appropriate, in connection with the original organiza-
tion of the authority, including the name and address of the first
member of the authority from the joining political subdivision if the
authority was organized under G.S. 162A-3.
(c) A certified copy of each such resolution signifying the desire
of a political subdivision to withdraw from or to join an existing
authority, together with proof of publication of the notice of hearing
;
on each such resolution and, in cases where such resolution pro-
vides for the political subdivision joining the authority, certified
�C
copies of the resolution of the governing bodies creating the author-
ity consenting to such joining shall be filed with the Secretary of
State of North Carolina. If the Secretary of State finds that the
resolutions conform to the provisions of this Article and that the
,
notices of hearing were properly published, he shall file such reso-
lutions and proofs of publication in his office and shall issue a cer-
tificate of withdrawal, or a certificate of joinder, as the case may be,
and shall record the same in an appropriate book of record in his
office. The withdrawal or joining shall become effective upon the
issuance of such certificate, and such certificate shall be conclusive
evidence thereof. (1955, c. 1195, s. 4; 1969, c. 850; 1971, c. 892, s. 1;
c. 1093, s. 6; 1975, c. 224, s. 2.)
§ 162A-5. Members of authority; organization; quo-
Each authority organized under this Article shall consist of the
number of members as may be agreed upon by the participating
political subdivision, such members to be selected by the respective
political subdivision. A proportionate number (as nearly as can be)
of members of the authority first appointed shall have terms expir-
ing one year, two years and three years respectively from the date
Successor
on which the creation of the authority becomes effective.
'
members and members appointed by a political subdivision subse-
quently joining the authority shall each be appointed for a term of
three years, but any person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be
appointed to serve only for the unexpired term and any member
may be reappointed; provided, however, that a political subdivision
subsequently joining an authority created under G.S. 162A-3.1
shall not have the right to appoint any members to such authority.
Appointments of successor members shall, in each instance, be
made by the governing body of the political subdivision appointing
the member whose successor is to be appointed. Any member of the
authority may be removed, with or without cause, by the governing
body appointing said member.
Each member of the authority before entering upon his duties
shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Con-
stitution of -the United States and of this State and to discharge
faithfully the duties of his office, and a record of each such oath
shall be filed with the secretary of the authority.
fl
i
��:. i .y, •^. -'. �' -ram 'j.:��,

1
§162A-6 ART. 1. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES§ 162A-6
The authority shall select one of its members as chairman and
another as vice-chairman and shall also select a secretary and a
treasurer who may but need not be members of the authority. The
offices of secretary and treasurer may be combined. The terms of
office of the chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and treasurer shall
be as provided in the bylaws of the authority.
A majority of the members of the authority shall constitute a
quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of all of the members
of the authority shall be necessary for any action taken by the
authority. No vacancy in the membership of the authority shall
impair
the right of a quorum to exercise all the rights and perform
all of the duties of the authority. The members of the authority may
be paid a per diem compensation set by the authority which per
'
diem may not exceed the total amount of two thousand dollars
($2,000) annually, and shall be reimbursed for the amount of actual
expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.
(1955, c. 1195, s. 5; 1969, c. 850; 1971, c. 892, s. 1;1975, c. 224, ss. 3,
1
4.)
§ 162A-6. Powers of authority generally.
Each authority hereunder
created shall be deemed to be a public
instrumentality exercising public and essential governmental func-
tions to provide for the public health and welfare, and each such
authority is, subject to the provisions of G.S. 162A-7, hereby autho-
rized and empowered:
_
(1) To adopt bylaws for the regulation of its affairs and the
its business;
conduct of
(2) To adopt an official seal and alter the same at pleasure;
(3) To maintain an
office at such place or places as it may
designate;
(4) To sue and be sued in its own name, plead and be im-
pleaded;
(5) To acquire, lease as lessee or lessor, construct, reconstruct,
improve, extend, enlarge, equip, repair, maintain and op-
erate any water system or part thereof or any sewer sys-
tem or part thereof or any combination thereof within or
i
without the participating political subdivisions or any
thereof,
(6) To issue revenue bonds of the authority as hereinafter pro-
'
vided to pay the cost of such acquisition, construction, re-
f
construction, improvement, extension, enlargement or
equipment;
(7) To issue revenue refunding bonds of the authority as here-
inafter provided;
(8) To combine any water system and any sewer system as a
single system for the purpose of operation and financing;
(9) To fix and revise from time to time and to collect rates, fees
and other charges for the use of or for the services and
facilities furnished by any system operated by the author-
ity;
(10) To acquire in the name of the authority by gift, grant,
devise, lease,
purchase, exchange, acceptance of of%rs of
dedication by plat, or any other lawful method, to the same
extent and in the same manner as provided for cities and
towns under the provisions of G.S. 160A-240.1 and G.S.
9

§162A-6 CH. 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS §162A-6
160A-374, or the exercise of the right of eminent domain in
!� ,
accordance with the General Statutes of North Carolina
which may be applicable to the exercise of such powers by
municipalities or counties, any lands or rights in land or
,
water rights in connection therewith, and to acquire such
personal property, as it may deem necessary in connection
with the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, im-
provement, extension, enlargement or operation of any
water system or sewer system, and to hold and dispose of
all real and personal property under its control; provided,
that the taking of water from any stream or reservoir by
any authority created under the provisions of this Article
shall not vest in the taker any rights by prescription; pro-
vided, further, that nothing in this section shall affect
rights by prescription, if any, now held by any municipal-
(�
C".
ity and which may be later transferred to any authority of
,
which such municipality may become a member;
(11) To make and enter into all contracts and agreements nec-
essary or incidental to the performance of its duties and
the execution of its powers under this Article, including a
trust agreement or trust agreements securing any revenue
bonds issued hereunder, and to employ such consulting
and other engineers, superintendents, managers, construc-
tion and financial experts, accountants and attorneys, and
such employees and agents as may, in the judgment of the
r
authority be deemed necessary, and to fix their compensa-
tion; provided, however, that all such expenses shall be
payable solely from funds made available under the provi-
sions of this Article;
(12) To enter into contracts with the government of the United
States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or with
any_ political subdivision, private corporation, copartner-
ship, association or individual providing for the acquisi-
,
tion, construction, reconstruction, improvement, exten-
sion, enlargement, operation or maintenance of any water
system or sewer system or providing for or relating to the
treatment and disposal of sewage or providing for or relat-
ing to any water system or the purchase or sale of water;
(13) To receive and accept from any federal, State or other
public agency and any private agency, person or other en-
tity, donations, loans, grants, aid or contributions of any
money, property, labor or other things of value for any
sewer system or water system, and to agree to apply and
use the same in accordance with the terms and conditions
under which the same are provided;
(14) To enter into contract with any political subdivision by
which the authority shall assume the payment of the prin-
cipal of and interest on indebtedness of such subdivision;
and
(14a) To make special assessments against benefited property
within the area served or to be served by the authority for
the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, extending, or
otherwise improving water systems or sanitary collection,
treatment, and sewage disposal systems, in the same man-
ner that a county may make special assessments under
authority of Chapter 153A, Article 9, except that the lan-
10
7-1

iJ
u
I
Ell
0 !*
162A-6 ART. 1. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES § 162A-6
guage appearing in G.S. 153A-185 reading as follows: "A
county may not assess property within a city pursuant to
subdivision (1) or (2) of this section unless the governing
board of the city has by resolution approved the project,"
shall not apply to assessments levied by Water and Sewer
Authorities established pursuant to Chapter 162A, Article,
1, of the General Statutes. For the purposes of this para ,, '
graph, references in Chapter 153A, Article 9, to the
"county," the "board of county commissioners," "the board"
or a specific county official or employee are deemed to
refer, respectively, to the authority and to the official or
employee of the authority who performs most nearly the
same duties performed by the specified county official or
employee.
Assessment rolls after being confirmed shall be filed for
registration in the office of the Register of Deeds of the
county in which the property being assessed is located, and
the term "county tax collector" wherever used in G.S.
153A-195 and 153A-196, shall mean the Executive Direc-
tor or other administrative officer designated by the au-
thority to perform the functions described in said sections
of the statute.
(14b) To provide for the defense of civil and criminal actions
and payment of civil judgments against employees and of-
ficers or former employees and officers and members or
former members of the governing body as authorized by
G.S. 160A-167, as amended.
(14c) To adopt ordinances to regulate and control the discharge
of sewage into any sewerage system owned or operated by
the authority. Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance
or any amendment to any such ordinance, the authority
shall first pass a declaration of intent to adopt such ordi-
nance or amendment. The declaration of intent shall de-
scribe the ordinance which it is proposed that the authority
adopt. The declaration of intent shall be submitted to each
governing body for review and comment. The authority
shall consider any comment or suggestions offered by any
governing body with respect to the proposed ordinance or
amendment. Thereafter, the authority shall be authorized
to adopt such ordinance or amendment to it at any time
after 60 days following the submission of the declaration of
intent to each governing body.
(15) To do all acts and things necessary or convenient to carry
out the powers granted by this Article.
(16) To purchase real or personal property as provided by G.S.
16OA-20, in addition to any other method allowed under
this Article. (1955, c.1195, s. 6;1969, c. 850;1971, c. 892, s.
1; 1979, c. 804; 1983, c. 525, s. 5; c. 820, s. 1; 1987 (Reg.
Sess., 1988), c. 981, s. 2; 1989, c. 517.)
Editor's Note. — Session Laws 1989.
c. 517, which amended this section, in s.
2 provided: 'This act shall have no effect
upon the provisions of G.S. 162A-7."
Section 3 of Session Laws 1989, c. 517
provided that the act "shall have the ef-
11
fect of validating the acquisition of any
property theretofore acquired by any
water and sewer authority by any of the
methods authorized by this revision of
G.S. subdivision 162A-6(10) by Section 1
of this act."

§162A-7 CH. 162A. \PATER AND SEXCI'll SYS' E-NIS
CASE NOTES
Water quality is not only a permis-
sible consideration for the Environ-
mental Management Commission, but
also one that is important, if not essen-
tial, to the responsible exercise of the
police power. In re Environmental Mgt.
Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588,
cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d
139 (1986).
Procedures for eminent domain
governing cities and counties apply
to water and sewer authorities created
pursuant to this Article. Orange Water
and Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong,
34 N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert.
denied, 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265
11977).
With additional requirement that a
certificate of authorization be ob-
tained before an action in eminent do-
main is commenced. Orange Water and
ms Sever Auth. v. Estate of Artrong, 34
N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert. de-
nied. 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265
11977j.
As the power of eminent domain
§ 162A- 7
under subdivision (10) is subject to
the provisions of C 162A-7(a). Orange
Water and Sewer. Auth. v. Estate of
Armstrong, 34 N.C. App. 162. 237
S.E.2d 486, cert. denied, 293 N.C. 593.
239 S.E.2d 265 0977).
But Authority May Enter and Sur-
vey Prior to Instituting Proceedings.
— A water and sewer authority's right
of eminent domain is not dormant before
certification under : 162A-7. Because it
has the power of eminent domain pos-
sessed by cities, it may enter and survey
lands prior to the institution of an emi-
nent domain proceeding. Orange Water
and Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong.
34 N.C. App. 162. 237 S.E.2d 486, cert.
denied. 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265
(1977).
Applied in Orange Water & Sewer
Auth. v. Town of Carrboro, 58 N.C. App.
676, 294 S.E.2d 757 (1982).
Cited in In re Environmental Mgt.
Comm'n. 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588
(1986).
§ 162A-7. Prerequisites to acquisition of water,
etc., by eminent domain.
(a) No authority shall institute proceedings in the nature of emi-
nent domain. to acquire water, water rights, or lands having water
rights attached thereto without first securing from the Commission
a certificate authorizing such acquisition.
(b) An authority seeking such certificate shall petition the Com-
mission therefor in writing, which petition shall include a descrip-
tion of the waters or water rights involved, the plans for impound-
ing or diverting such waters, and the names of riparian owners
affected thereby insofar as known to the authority. Upon receipt of
such petition, the Commission shall hold public hearing thereon
after giving at least 30 days' written notice thereof to known af-
fected riparian owners and notice published at least once each week
for two successive weeks in a newspaper or newspapers of general
circulation in each county in which lower riparian lands lie.
(c) The Commission shall issue certificates only to projects which
it finds to be consistent with the maximum beneficial use of the
water resources in the State and shall give paramount consider-
ation to the statewide effect of the proposed project rather than its
purely local or regional effect. In making this determination, the
Commission shall specifically consider:
(1) The necessity of the proposed project,
(2) Whether the proposed project will promote and increase the
storage and conservation of water;
(3) The extent of the probable detriment to be caused by the
proposed project to the present beneficial use of water in
12

N
4
§162A-7 ART. 1. WATER AND SEIVER Al'"I'HORI'I'lES §162A-7
the affected watershed and resulting damages to present
beneficial users;
(4) The extent of the probable detriment to be caused by the
proposed project to the potential beneficial use of water on
the affected watershed;
(5) The feasibility of alternative sources of supply to the pet-
tioning authority and the comparative cost thereof;
(6) The extent of the probable detriment to be caused by the
use of alternative sources of supply to present and poten-
tial beneficial use of water on the watershed or watersheds
affected by such alternative sources of supply;
(7) All other factors as will. in the Commission's opinion, pro-
duce the maximum beneficial use of Water for all in all
areas of the State affected by the proposed project or alter-
natives thereto.
(cl) Based upon the considerations set out in subsection (c) of
this section, the Commission may grant its certificate in whole or in
part or it may refuse the same.
(d) At the public hearing provided for in subsection (b) above the
Commission shall hear evidence from the authority and any others
in support of its petition and from all persons opposed thereto.
(e) At any hearing authorized by this section, the Commission
shall have power to administer oaths; to take testimony; to issue
subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses, which shall be
served in the same manner as subpoenas issued by the superior
courts of the State; and to order the taking of depositions in the
same manner as depositions are taken for use in the superior court.
(f) Any final order or decision of the Commission in administer-
ing the provisions of this section shall be subject to Judicial review
at the instance of any person or authority aggrieve by such order
or decision by complying with the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter
150B of the General Statutes. (1955, c. 1195, s. 61l2; 1989 (Reg.
Sess., 1990), c. 1004, s. 44; c. 1075, s. 3.)
Editor's Note. — Session Laws 1989,
c. 517, which amended § 162A-6, pro-
vided in s. 2 of that the act "shall have
no effect upon the provisions of G.S.
162A-7. '
Effect of Amendments. — Session
Laws 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990). c. 1004, s.
44, effective July 20, 1990, substituted
"Commission" for "Board" throughout
the section; in subsection (cl), substi-
tuted "set out is subsection (c) of this
section, the Commission" for "above set
forth, the Board"; in subsection M. sub-
stituted "Article 4 of Chapter 150B of
the General Statutes" for "Article 33,
Chapter 143 of the General Statutes of
North Carolina."
Session Laws 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990),
c. 1075, s. 3, effective July 28, 1990, in
subsection (cl), substituted "Based
upon" for "Upon," and substituted "in
subsection" for "is subsection."
CASE NOTES
Procedures for eminent domain
governing cities and counties apply
to water and sewer authorities created
pursuant to this Article. Orange Water
and Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong,
34 N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert.
denied, 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265
(1977).
With additional requirement that a
certificate of authorization be ob-
tained before an action in eminent do-
main is commenced. Orange Water and
Sewer Auth. v. Estate of Armstrong, 34
N.C. App. 162, 237 S.E.2d 486, cert. de-
nied, 293 N.C. 593, 239 S.E.2d 265
(1977).
But water and sewer authority's
right of eminent domain is not dor-
mant before certification under this
section. Orange Water and Sewer Auth.
13
is .

162A-7 Cli 162A. WATER ANI) SYSTEMS § 162A- 7
v. Estate of Armstrong. :34 N.C. App.
162. 237 S.E.2d 486. cert. denied. 293
N.C. 593. 239 S.E.2d 265 (1977).
And Authority May Enter and Sur.
vey Prior to Instituting Proceedings.
— A water and sewer authority, having
the power of eminent domain possessed
by cities, may enter lands for the pur-
pose of making surveys prior to the in-
stitution of eminent domain proceed-
ings. Orange Water and Sewer Auth. v.
Estate of Armstrong, 34 N.C. App. 162,
237 S.E.2d 486, cert. denied, 293 N.C.
593, 239 S.E.2d 265 (1977).
'Factors to Be Considered. — The
Legislature, in granting the Environ-
mental Management Commission au-
thority to issue certificates authorizing
land and water rights acquisition, in-
tended that the Commission consider
carefully not only the development of
water resources, but also the effect of
that development on present beneficial
users within the watershed. In re Envi-
ronmental Mgt. Comm'n, 53 N.C. App.
135, 280 S.E.2d 520 (1981). afrd, 80 N.C.
App. 1. 341 S.E.2d 588 (1986).
Subsection (c) of this section requires
only that the Environmental Manage-
ment Commission "specifically consider"
the listed factors. It does not require the
Environmental Management Commis-
sion to make findings regarding each
factor. In re Environmental Mgt.
Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588,
cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d
139 (1986); endorsing the making of
findings as a means of insuring that
each factor is specifically considered.
The seventh listed factor in this sec.
tion is a "catch all" provision that allows
the Environmental Management Com-
mission to consider all other factors as
will, in the board's opinion, produce the
maximum beneficial use of water for af-
fected areas of the estate. In re Environ.
mental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1,
341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C.
334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986).
Not Limited to Listed Factors. —
While directing that the Environmental
Management Commission shall specifi-
cally consider the listed factors, this sec.
tion contains no language limiting the
Environmental Management Commis-
sion's consideration to those factors.
Clearly, the Environmental Manage-
ment Commission has some latitude and
discretion as to the factors to consider in
14
each situation and the weight to he
given them in reaching; a decision. The
only limitation is that the Environmen-
tal Management Commission's consider-
ation of any factor relate to the maxi-
mum beneficial use of the State's .eater
resources. In re Environmental A1gt.
Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588.
cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d
139 (1986).
Water quality is not only a permis-
sible consideration for the Environ.
mental Management Commission, but
also one that is important if not essen-
tial to the responsible exercise of the po.
lice power. In re Environmental Mgt.
Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588.
cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d
139 0986).
Local or Regional Factors. — The
Environmental Management Commis-
sion is required to give paramount con-
sideration to the statewide effect of the
proposed project. However, this does not
preclude consideration by the Environ-
mental Management Commission of lo-
cal or regional factors. On the contrary.
the language of the statute assumes that
some consideration will be given to local
and regional concerns, but requires that
the larger interest of the State be of
"paramount" concern. In re Environ-
mental Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1,
341 S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C.
334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986).
Alternatives to Proposed Projects.
— This section contemplates the consid-
eration of one or more alternatives to
the project for which the certificate of
authority is sought. In re Environmen.
tal Mgt. Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341
S.E.2d 588, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334,
346 S.E.2d 139 (1986).
Proceedings Governed by Admin.
istrative Procedure Act. — The Envi.
ronmental Management Commission's
proceedings larder this section are gov-
erned by the Administrative Procedure
Act, § 150B-1 et seq. The evidentiary
standards set forth therein apply
equally to any findings made by the
agency. In re Environmental Mgt.
Comm'n, 60 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588,
cert. denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d
139 (1986).
Cited in Cane Creek Conservation
Auth. v. Orange Water & Sewer Auth.,
590 F. Supp. 1123 (M.DN.C. 1984).
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

L�
§162A-8 ART. 1. WATER AND SE11'ER AUTHORITIES §162A-9
1 § 162A-8. Revenue bonds.
A water and sewer authority shall have power from time to time
to issue revenue bonds under the Local Government Revenue Bond
Act. (1955, c. 1195, s. 7; 1969, c. 850; 1971, c. 780, s. 32; c. 892, s. 1,)
Cross References. — For the Local
Government Revenue Bond Act, see
Chapter 159, Article 5.
'
§ 162A-9. Rates and charges; contracts for water
or services; deposits; delinquent
charges.
(a) Each authority shall fix, and may revise from time to time,
reasonable rates, fees and other charges for the use of and for the
services furnished or to be furnished by any water system or sewer
system or parts thereof owned or operated by such authority. Such
'
rates, fees and charges shall not be subject to supervision or regula-
tion by any bureau, board,
commission or other agency of the State
or of any political subdivision.
Before an authority sets or revises rates, fees, or other charges for
structural or natural stormwater and drainage system service, the
authority shall hold a public hearing on the matter. At least seven
days before the hearing, the authority shall publish notice of the
public hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the
area. An authority may impose rates, fees, or other charges for
stormwater and drainage system service on a though
person even
the person has not entered into a contract to receive the service.
Rates, fees, and charges shall be fixed and revised so that the
revenues of the authority, together with any other available funds,
'
will be sufficient at all times:
(1) To pay the cost of maintaining, repairing and operating the
systems or parts thereof owned or operated by the author-
ity, including reserves for such purposes, and including
provision for the payment of principal of and interest on
indebtedness of a political subdivision or of political subdi-
visions which payment shall have been assumed by the
authority, and
(2) To pay the principal of and the interest on all bonds issued
by the authority under the provisions of this Article as the
©
same shall become due and payable and to provide reserves
therefor.
Fees established as provided in this subsection shall be made
applicable throughout the service area. Schedules of rates, fees,
charges, and penalties for providing structural and natural
stormwater and drainage system service may vary according to
'
whether the property served is residential, commercial, or indus-
'
trial property, the property's use, the size of the property, the area
of impervious surfaces on the property, the quantity and quality of
the runoff from the property, the characteristics of the watershed
into which stormwater from the property drains, and other factors
+
that affect the stormwater drainage system. Rates, fees, and
charges imposed under this section may not exceed the authority's
cost of providing a stormwater and drainage system.
15

§162A-9 CH. 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS §162A-9
No stormwater utility fee may be levied under this subsection
whenever two or more units of local government operate separate
structural and natural stormwater and drainage system services in
the same area within a county. However, two or more units of local
government may allocate among themselves the functions, duties,
powers, and responsibilities for jointly operating a single structural
and natural stormwater and drainage system service in the same
area within a county, provided that only one unit may levy a fee
pursuant to this act within the joint service area. For purposes of
this subsection, a unit of local government shall include a regional
authority providing structural and natural stormwater and drain-
age system services.
(b) Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this sec-
tion, the authority may enter into contracts relating to the collec-
tion, treatment or disposal of sewage or the purchase or sale of
water which shall not be subject to revision except in accordance
with their terms.
(c) In order to insure the payment of such rates, fees and charges
as the same shall become due and payable, the authority may do
the following in addition to exercising any other remedies which it
may have:
(1) Require reasonable advance deposits to be made with it to
be subject to application to the payment of delinquent
rates, fees and charges.
(2) At the expiration of 30 days after any rates, fees and
charges become delinquent, discontinue supplying water
or the services and facilities of any water system or sewer
system of the authority.
(3) Specify the order in which partial payments are to be ap-
plied when a bill covers more than one service. (1955, c.
1195, s. 8; 1971, c. 892, s. 1; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c.
1004, s. 45; 1991, c. 591, s. 4.)
Editor's Note. — Reference to "this
act" in the second sentence of the last
paragraph of subsection (a) is to Session
Laws 1991. c. 591. which, in s. 4,
amended subsections (a) and (c) of this
section, and amended H 160A-314,
153A-277 and 162A-2(12).
Effect of Amendments. — The 1989
(Reg. Sess., 1990) amendment, effective
July 20, 1990, added the subsection des-
ignators (a), (b), and (c); at the end of the
introductory language of subsection (a),
added a colon following "times"; at the
end of the introductory language of sub-
section (c), added a colon following
"have."
The 1991 amendment, effective July
8, 1991, in subsection (a) added the sec-
ond paragraph, deleted "Such" preced.
ing "rates" at the beginning of the third
paragraph, and added the fourth and
fifth paragraphs, and in subsection (c) in
the introductory language inserted "do
the following" and inserted "exercising."
in subdivision (1) deleted "and" follow-
ing "charges," in subdivision (2) deleted
"such" preceding "rates," and added sub-
division (3).
CASE NOTES
Liability of City for Hydrant Fees.
— Even absent statutory or express con-
tractual liability to pay for fire protec-
tion, justice and equity required city to
pay fire hydrant fees to a water and
sewer authority where the authority in-
tended to maintain hydrants for the
city's use, the city granted a 60-year
16
franchise to the authority to install and
maintain hydrants, free service was ex-
plicitly proscribed, the city knew of the
hydrant charges, and the city paid such
charges until the rate was increased.
The law would imply a promise by the
city to pay for such service. Otherwise, it
would be unjustly enriched at the ex-
1L1
{Y
t
t
>s
,
11
I
I

§162A-9.1 ART. 1. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES §162A-9.1
pense of the authority. Orange Water & Cited in Town of Spring Hope v.
Sewer Auth. v. Town of Carrboro, 58 Bissette. 305 N.C. 248, 287 S.E.2d 851
N.C. App. 676, 294 S.E.2d 757, cert. de- 11982).
nied, 307 N.C. 127, 297 S.E.2d 400
(1982).
§ 162A-9.1. Adoption and enforcement of ordi-
nances.
(a) An authority shall have the same power as a city under G.S.
160A-175 to assess civil fines and penalties for violation of its ordi-
nances; and, an authority may seek and recover injunctive relief to
insure compliance with its ordinances as provided by this section.
(b) An ordinance may provide that its violation shall subject the
offender to a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000) per violation, to be recovered by the authority in a civil
action in the nature of debt if the offender does not pay the penalty
within a prescribed period of time after he has been cited for viola-
tion of the ordinance. Any person assessed a civil penalty by the
authority shall be notified of the assessment by registered or certi-
fied mail, and the notice shall specify the reasons for the assess-
ment of the civil penalty. If the person assessed fails to pay the
' amount of the assessment to the authority within 30 days after
receipt of such notice, or such longer period, not to exceed 180 days,
as the authority may specify, the authority may institute a civil
action in the General Court of Justice of the county in which the
violation occurred, or, in the discretion of the authority, in the
General Court of Justice of the county in which the person has his
or its principal place of business, to recover the amount of the as-
sessment. The validity of the authority's action in assessing the
' violator may be appealed directly to the General Court of Justice in
the county in which the violation occurred, or may be raised at any
time in the action to recover the assessment. No failure to contest
directly the validity of the authority's action in levying the assess-
ment shall preclude the person assessed from later raising the issue
of validity in any action to collect the assessment.
(c) An ordinance may provide that it may be enforced, and it may
be enforced, by any appropriate equitable remedy issuing from a
F court of competent jurisdiction. In such cases, the General Court of
Justice shall have jurisdiction and authority to issue such orders as
may be appropriate to enforce the ordinances of the authority, and
it shall not be a defense to the application made by the authority
therefor that there is an adequate remedy at law.
�r (d) Subject to the express terms of any ordinance, an ordinance
adopted by the authority maybe enforced by any one, all or a
combination of the remedies authorized and prescribed by this sec-
tion.
(e) An ordinance may provide, when appropriate, that each day's
continuing violation thereof shall constitute and be a separate and
distinct offense. (1983, c. 820, s. 2.)
17
' s
;s�....
r. -.- . .

§162A-10 CH. 162A. WATER AND SEWER SY'S7'E.%1S 162A-13
§ 162A-10: Repealed by Session Laws 1971, c. 780, s.:33
§ 162A-11. Moneys received deemed trust funds.
All moneys received pursuant to the authority of this Article
shall be deemed to be trust funds, to be held and applied solely as
provided in this Article. The resolution authorizing the issuance of
bonds or the trust agreement securing such bonds shall provide
that any officer to whom, or bank, trust company or fiscal agent to
which, such moneys shall be paid shall act as trustee of such
moneys and shall hold and apply the same for the purposes hereof,
subject to such regulations as this Article and such resolution or
trust agreement may provide. (1955, c.
1.) 1195, s. 10; 1971, c. 892, s.
§ 162A-12. Bondholder's remedies.
Any holder of revenue bonds issued under the provisions of this
Article or of any of the coupons appertaining trustee under any trust agreement, xep to thextenttherights
herein given may be restricted by the resolution authorizing the
issuance of such bonds or such trust agreement, may, either at law
or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or other proceedin
and enforce any and all rights under the laws of the S ate eor
granted hereunder or under such resolution or trust agreement,
and may enforce and compel the performance of all duties required
by this Article or by such resolution or trust agreement to be per-
formed by the authority or b
fixing, charging and collecting of rates fees and charg sy any officer thereof,cfouding the
rr the use
of or for the services and facilities furnished by a water system or
sewer system. (1955, c. 1195, s. 11; 1971, c. 892, s. 1.)
§ 162A-13. Refunding bonds.
Each authority is hereby authorized to issue from time to time
revenue refunding bonds for the purpose of refunding any revenue
bonds of the authority then outstanding, including the a
any redemption premium thereon and an interest accrued or to
y P yment of
accrue tote date of redemption of such bonds. The authority is
further authorized to issue from time to time revenue bonds of -the
authority for the combined purpose of
(1) Refunding any revenue bonds or revenue refunding bonds
of the authority then outstanding, including the payment
of any redemption premium thereon and any interest ac-
crued or to accrue to the date of redemption of such bonds,
and
(2) Paying all or any part of the cost of acquiring or construct-
ing any additional water system or sewer system or part
thereof, or any improvements, extensions or enlargements
of any water system or sewer system.
The issuance of such bonds, the maturities and other details
thereof, the rights and remedi
rights, powers, es of the holders thereof, and the
privileges, duties and obligations of the authority
with respect to the same, shall be governed by the foregoing
sions of this Article insofar as the same may be applicable. (1955, c.
1195, s. 12; 1971, c. 892 s, 1 g g Provi-
18
MR
�A F Rai..
1
I
I
r�
1
I
1
LJ
I

I
I
§162A-14 ART. 1. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES §162A-14
§ 162A-14. Conveyances and contracts between
political subdivisions and authority.
The governing body of any political subdivision is hereby autho-
rized and empowered: '
(1) Pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 160A-274 and subject to
the approval of the Local Government Commission, except
for action taken hereunder by any State agency, to transfer
jurisdiction over, and to lease, lend, grant or convey to an
authority upon the request of the authority, upon such
terms and conditions as the governing body of such politi-
cal subdivision may agree with the authority as reasonable
and fair, the whole or any part of any existing water sys-
tem or sewer system or such real or personal property as
may be necessary or desirable in connection with the ac-
quisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, ex-
tension, enlargement, equipment, repair, maintenance or
operation of any water system or sewer system or part
thereof by the authority, including public roads and other
property already devoted to public use;
(2) To make and enter into contracts or agreements with an
authority, upon such terms and conditions and for such
periods as are agreed to by the governing body of such
political subdivision and the authority;
a. For the collection, treatment or disposal of sewage by
the authority or for the purchase of a supply of water
from the authority;
b. For the collecting by such political subdivision or by the
authority of fees, rates or charges for water furnished
to such political subdivision or to its inhabitants and
for the services and facilities rendered to such political
subdivision or to its inhabitants by any water system
or sewer system of the authority, and for the enforce-
ment of delinquent charges for such water, services
and facilities; and
c. For shutting off the supply of water furnished by any
water system owned or operated by such political sub-
division in the event that the owner, tenant or occu-
pant of any premises utilizing such water shall fail to
pay any rates, fees or charges for the use of or for the
services furnished by any sewer system of the author-
ity, within the time or times specified in such contract;
(3) To fix, and revise from time to time, rates, fees and other
charges for water and for the services furnished or to be
furnished by any water system or sewer system of the au-
thority, or parts thereof, under any contract between the
?r
authority and such political subdivision, and to pledge all
or any part of the proceeds of such rates, fees and charges
to the payment of any obligation of such political subdivi-
sion under such contract; and
(4) In its discretion, to submit to the qualified electors under
the election laws applicable to such political subdivision
any contract or agreement which such governing body is
authorized to make and enter into with the authority un-
der the provisions of this Article. (1955, c. 1195, s. 13;
1971, c. 892, s. 1; 1975, c. 224, ss. 5, 6.)
19
.: it ;�V�.'A .J� ;

§162A-15 CH. 162A. WATER AND SYSTEMS §162A-17
§ 162A-15. Services to authority by private water
companies; records of water taken by
,
authority; reports to the Commission.
'
Each private water company which is supplying water to the
owners, lessees or tenants of real property which is or will be served
by any sewer
system of an authority is authorized to act as the
billing and collecting agent of the authority for
any rates, fees or ;
charges imposed by the authority for the services rendered by such
sewer system. Any such company shall, if requested by an author-
ity furnish to the authority copies of its regular periodic meter
i
reading and water consumption records and other pertinent data as
may, be required for the authority to act as its own billing and
collecting agent. The authority shall pay to such water company
the reasonable additional cost of clerical services and other ex-
penses incurred by the water company in rendering such services to
the authority. The authority shall by means of suitable measuring
and recording devices and facilities record the quantity of water
taken daily by it from any stream
or reservoir and make monthly
reports of such daily recordings to the Commission. (1955, c. 1195,
s. 14; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1004, s. 46.)
Effect of Amendments. —The 1989 sinners" in the catchline, and substi-
(Reg. Sess., 1990) amendment, effective tuted -Commission- for "Board of water
July 20, 1990, substituted "the Commis-
pp
F
f
Commissioners of the State of North
sion" for "Board of water Commis- Carolina" at the end of the section.
'
§ 162A-16. Contributions or advances to authority
by political subdivisions.
Any political subdivision is hereby authorized to make contribu-
tions or advances to an authority, from any moneys which may be
available for such purpose, to provide for the preliminary expenses
of such authority in carrying out the
r
provisions of this Article. Any
such advances may be repaid to such political subdivisions from the
proceeds of bonds issued by such authority under this Article.
(1955, c. 1195, s. 15; 1971, c. 892, s. 1.)
§ 162A-17. Article regarded as supplemental.
This Article shall be deemed to provide an additional and alter-
native method for the doing of the things authorized hereby and
shall be regarded as supplemental and additional to powers con-
,
ferred by other laws, and shall not be regarded as in derogation of
or as repealing any powers now existing under any other law, ei-
ther general, special or local; provided, however, that the issuance
of revenue bonds or revenue refunding bonds under the provisions
of this Article need not comply with the
requirements of any other
law applicable to the issuance of bonds. (1955, c. 1195, s. 16;1971, c.
892, s. 1.)
20
1
?. •-Ce4 1 t.+'b ,�7N.
' i (. 1
Q.
•
u L #;•� S:
i-l_,'�'h
L ^+?'•�`,•T`� %+' +�Lt:>a '.1-_ ys �..-.^ i- r .
Ytx',.
S-.,,�';�r•:s=`�:
Ji
.. �, Y _
- -

162A-18 ART. 2. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING � 162A-21
1�
§ 162A-18. Actions against authority by ri p
riparian
owners.
Any riparian owner alleging an injury as a result of any act of an
authority created under this Article may maintain an action fot-
relief against the acts of the authority either in the county where
the lands of such riparian owner lie or in the county in which the
principal office of the authority is maintained. (1955, c. 1195. s.
161/2; 1971, c. 892, s. 1.)
§ 162A-19. Inconsistent laws declared inapplica-
ble.
All general, special or local laws, or parts thereof, inconsistent
herewith are hereby declared to be inapplicable to the
provisions of
this Article. (1955, c. 1195, s. 17; 1971, c. 892, s. 1.)
ARTICLE 2.
Regional Water Supply Planning.
'
§ 162A-20. Title.
This Article shall be known "Regional
and may be cited as the
n
Water Supply Planning Act of 1971." (1971, c. 892, s. 1.)
CASE NOTES
s
Cited in In re Environmental Mgt.
Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588
(1986).
§ 162A-21. Preamble.
The Legislative Research Commission was directed by Senate
Resolution 875 of the 1969 General Assembly to study and report to
the 1971 General Assembly on the need for legislation "concerning
local and regional water supplies (including sources of water, and
organization and administration of water systems)." Pursuant to
said Resolution a report was prepared and adopted by the Legisla-
tive Research Commission in 1970 concerning local and regional
water supplies. In this report the Legislative Research Commission
made the following findings concerning the need for planning and
developing regional water supply systems in
order to provide ade-
quate supplies of high quality water to the citizens of North Caro-
lina, of which the General Assembly hereby takes cogmmnce:
(1) The existing pattern of public water supply development in
North Carolina is dominated by many small systems serv-
ing few customers. Of the 1,782 public water systems of
record on July 1, 1970, according to Department of Human
Resources statistics, over eighty percent (80%) were serv-
ing less than 1,000 These
people each. small systems are
often underfinanced, inadequately designed and main-
tained, difficult to coordinate with nearby regional sys-
21
Y

§162A-22 CH. 162A. \1'A1'ER AND SEWER SYSTEMS §162A-22 ,
tems, and generally inferior to systems serving larger com-
munities as regards adequacy of source, facilities and qual-
itv. The situation which has developed reflects a need for
'
better planning at both State and local levels.
(2) The State's population balance is steadily changing.
Sparsely populated counties are losing residents to the
more densely populated counties, while the State's total
IV
population is increasing. As this trend continues, small
towns and communities will find it increasingly difficult to
1`
build and maintain public water supply systems. Also, as
urban centers expand, and embrace relatively large
geo-
graphical areas, economic factors will dictate that regional
water systems be developed to serve these centers and to
meet the demands of commercial and industrial develop-
ment. It is estimated that countywide or regional water
systems are needed now by 50 counties.
(3) If the future public water supply needs of the State are to
be met, a change in the existing pattern of public water
supply development and management
L '
must be under-
taken. Regional planning and development is an immedi-
ate need. The creation of
countywide or regional water.
supplies, with adequate interconnections, is necessary in
order to provide an adequate supply of high quality water
'
to the State's citizens, to make supplies less vulnerable to
recurring drought conditions, and to have
'
systems large
enough to justify the costs of adequate facilities and of
'
proper operation and maintenance.
(4) The State should provide a framework for comprehensive
,
planning of regional water supply systems, and for the
orderly coordination of local actions,
so as to make the
most efficient use of available water resources and econo-
mies of scale for construction, operation and maintenance.
The State should also provide financial
assistance to local
governments and regional authorities in order to assist
with the cost of developing
comprehensive regional plans,
and countywide plans compatible with a regional system.
r
(1971, c. 892, s. 1; 1973, c. 476, s. 128.)
CASE NOTES ,
Cited in In re Environmental Mgt. City of Wilmington, 97 N.C. App. 400,
Comm'n, 80 N.C. App. 1, 341 S.E.2d 588 388 S.E.2d 608 (1990).
(1986); Quality Water Supply, Inc. v.
§ 162A-22. Definition of regional water supply sys-
tem. '
For the purposes of this Article "a regional water supply system"
is defined as a public water supply system of a municipality,
county, sanitary district, or other political subdivision of the State,
or combination thereof, which provides, is intended to provide, or is '
capable of providing an adequate and safe supply of water to a
substantial portion of the population within a county, or to a sub-
stantial water service area in a region composed of all or parts of
two or more counties, or to a metropolitan area in two or more
counties. (1971, c. 892, s. 1.)
22

1
I
19
1
§162A-23 ART. 2. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING § 162A-24
§ 162A-23. State role and functions relating to local
and regional water supply planning.
(a) It should be the role of State government to provide a frame.
work for comprehensive planning of regional water supply systems,
and for the orderly coordination of local actions relating to eater
supply, so as to make possible the most efficient use of water re-
sources and to help realize economies of scale in water supply sys-
tems. To these ends, it shall be the function of State government to:
(1) Identify major sources of raw water supply for regional sys-
tems, and raw water interconnections as may be desirable
and feasible.
(2) Identify areas suitable for the development of regional sys-
tems.
(3) Establish priorities for regionalization.
(4) Develop plans for connecting proposed regional systems to
major sources of supply, and for such finished water inter-
connections as may be desirable and feasible.
(5) Review and approve plans for proposed regional systems,
and for proposed municipal and countywide systems which
are compatible with a regional plan.
(6) Administer a State program of financial assistance to local
governments and regional planning agencies for the devel-
opment of comprehensive plans for regional water systems.
or county systems compatible with regional plans.
(7) Provide technical assistance to local and regional planning
agencies, and to consulting engineering firms.
(b) Responsibility for carrying out the role of State government
in regional water supply planning shall be assigned to the Depart-
ment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. (1971, c.
892, s. 1; 1973, c. 476, s. 128; 1989, c. 727, s. 212.)
§ 162A-24. Regional Water Supply Planning Re-
volving Fund established; conditions
and procedures.
(a) There is established under the control and direction of the
Department of Administration a Regional Water Supply Planning
Revolving Fund, to consist of any moneys that may be appropriated
for use through the fund by the General Assembly or that may be
made available to it from any other source. The Department may
make advances from the fund to any county, municipality, sanitary
district, or to counties and municipalities acting collectively or
jointly as a regional water authority, for the purpose of meeting the
cost of advance planning and engineering work necessary or desir-
able for the development of a comprehensive plan for a regional
water supply system as defined in this Article. Such advances shall
be subject to repayment by the recipient to the Department from
the proceeds of bonds or other obligations for. the regional water
supply system, or from other funds available to the recipient includ-
ing grants, except when, in the judgment of the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, a proposed plan for
development and construction of a countywide or other regional
water system is not feasible because of design and construction
factors or because available sources of raw water supply are inade-
23
5

§162A-24 CIL 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS C162A-24
quate or because construction of a proposed system is not economi-
cally feasible. (but not if the applicant decides not to proceed with
consti•uctio►i that has been planned and which the Department of
Environment. health, and Natural Resources have declared to be
feasible).
(b) The Department. of Administration shall not make any ad-
vance pursuant to this section without first referring the applica-
tion and proposal to the Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources for determination as to whether the following
conditions have been met:
(1) The proposed area is suitable for development of a regional
water supply System from the standpoint of present and
projected populations, industrial growth potential, and
present and future sources of raw water.
(2) The applicant proposes to undertake long-range compre-
hensive planning to meet present and projected needs for
high quality water service through the construction of a
regional water supply system as defined in this Article.
The determination by the Department of Environment, Health. and Natural Resources that the proposed system would be a "regional system," as defined by this Article,
shall be conclusive.
(3) The applicant proposes to coordinate planning of the re-
gional water supply with land -use planning in the area, in
order that both panning efforts will be compatible.
14) The applicant proposes to employ an engineer licensed to
practice in the State of North Carolina to prepare a com-
prehensive regional water supply plan, which plan will
provide detailed information on source or sources of water
to meet projected domestic and industrial water demands;
proposed system, including raw water intake(s), treatment
plant, storage facilities, distribution system, and other wa-
terworks appurtenances; proposed interconnections with
existing systems, and provisions for interconnections with
other county, municipal and regional systems; phased de-
velopment of systems to achieve ultimate objectives if eco-
nomic feasibility is in question; projected water service
areas; proposed equipment; estimates of cost and projected
revenues; and methods of financing.
(c) In addition to the above conditions, the Department of Admin-
istration shall not make any advance to any applicant until the
following conditions have also been met:
(1) The Department has determined that there is a reasonable
Prospect of federal (or State) aid in the financing of the
projected work if the undertaking is one that will be depen-
dent upon federal (or State) aid.
(2) The Department has received firm assurances from the ap-
plicant that the works or project, if feasible, will be under-
taken.
(d) All advances made pursuant to this section shall be repaid in
full, within one year of the start of construction on the projected
system, or within six months after the issuance of bonds for the
financing of construction of the system, or within six years from the
date of the making of the advance, whichever comes first. The De-
partment may, in its discretion, require the repayment of any ad-
vance in installments.
24

P^�Wi:N.+�+R:vi.^s�,w•..vss.•.n+..+.-�.-"__ _.._.__.. _ .- - rr� - - "-�: --,Ma�Y-•YYi7+.Awl➢1f�l;UF'Ck-�,W-�t�ua+Ms,B:iM•Ihv �w-vr sR.r.+wt
§162A-25 ART. 3. SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANNING §162A-27
(e) The Department of Administration may adopt such rules and
regulations with respect to the making of applications or the receipt
of advances as are consistent with the terms and purpose of this
section.
(f) The provisions of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of
North Carolina (Local Government Acts) shall not apply to ad.
vances made from the Regional Water Supply Planning Revolving
Fund as authorized in this Article. (1971, c. 892, s. 1; 1973, c. 476, s.
128; 1989, c. 727, ss. 213, 214.)
i
§ 162A-25. Construction of Article.
This Article shall be construed as providing supplemental au.
'. thority in addition to the powers of the Department of Environ-
ment, Health, and Natural Resources under Chapter 130A and Ar-
ticles 21 and 38 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes, the powers
of the North Carolina Utilities Commission under Chapter 62 of the
General Statutes, and any other provisions of law concerning local
and regional water supplies. (1971, c. 892, s. 1; 1973, c. 476, s. 128;
1989, c. 727, s. 215.)
ARTICLE 3.
Regional Sewage Disposal Planning.
§ 162A-26. l itle.
This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "Regional
Sewage Disposal Planning Act of 1971." (1971, c. 870, s. 1.)
§ 162A-27. Definitions of "regional sewage dis-
posal system" and "comprehensive
planning."
For the purposes of this Article `regional sewage disposal sys-
tem" is defined as a public sewage disposal system of a municipal-
ity, count sanit
ary tary district, or other political subdivision of the
State, or combination thereof, which provides, is intended to pro-
vide, or is capable of providing adequate collection, treatment, puri-
fication and disposal of sewage to a substantial portion of the popu-
lation within a county, or a region composed of all or parts of two or
-
more counties, or to a metropolitan area in two or more counties.
"Comprehensive planning" is defined as that planning which is a
prerequisite for qualifying for receipt of federal and/or State grant
funds for preparation of plans and specifications and for actual con-
struction of regional sewage disposal systems. (1971, c. 870, s. 1;
1975, c. 251, s. 1.)
25
I

§162A-30 CH. 162A. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS §162A-32
of construction on the projected system, or within six months after -
the issuance of bonds for the financing of construction of the sys-
tem, or within six years from the date of the making of the advance,
whichever comes first. The Department may, in its discretion, re-
quire the repayment of any advance in installments.
(e) The Department of Administration may adopt such rules and
regulations with respect to the making of applications or the receipt
of advances as are consistent with the terms and purpose of this
section.
(f) The provisions of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of
North Carolina (Local Government Acts) shall not apply to ad-
vances made from the Regional Sewage Disposal Planning Revolv-
ing Fund as authorized in this Article. (1971, c. 870, s. 1; 1975, c.
251,, ss. 3, 4; 1989, c. 727, ss. 216, 217.)
§ 162A-30. Construction of Article.
This Article shall be construed as providing supplemental au-
thority in addition to the powers of the North Carolina Utilities
Commission under Chapter 62 of the North Carolina General Stat-
utes, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
under Articles 21 and 38 of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources under General Statutes Chapter 130, and any other pro-
visions of law concerning local and regional sewage disposal. (1971,
c. 870, s. 1; 1973, c. 476, s. 128; c. 1262, s. 23.)
Editor's Note. — The provisions of 130A for provisions relating to the pub.
Chapter 130. referred to in this section, lic health.
have been repealed. See now Chapter
ARTICLE 4.
Metropolitan Water Districts.
§ 162A-31. Short title.
This Article shall be known and may be cited as the Metropolitan
Water Districts Act. (1971, c. 815, s. 1.)
§ 162A-32. Definitions; description of boundaries
(a) As used in this Article the following words and terms shall
have the following meanings, unless the context shall indicate an-
other or different meaning or intent:
(1) "Board of commissioners" or "commissioners" shall mean
the duly elected board of commissioners of the county in
which a metropolitan water district shall be created under
the provisions of this Article.
(2) "City council" or "council' shall mean the duly elected city
council of any municipality located within the State.
(3) "Cost" as applied to a water system or sewerage system
shall mean the cost of acquiring, constructing, reconstruct-
ing, improving, extending, enlarging, repairing and equip-
ping any such system, and shall include the cost of all
28
,, r•t ,- y f
y,-. r ° , i 'r.•'� a ' i`�.v f � 't' �. �.. � i 'h.. '�� .-?'� 'Gi �� `ty

Appendix E

J
Lj
1
APPENDIX E
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
1

�■II� �r rr r� rr r r■ r rr r r rr rr r r rr rr r� rr
rater a wastewater
Treahmrrt
Iar" Melntsnanee
atide Dhposal
Wonlmy Srvlose
agulatry Com0—
mrg-7 Response
Felt ouetily
few Supptiee
GENERAL MANAGEI
ENGINEERING MANAGER
)*sign services
realrieeal Compgenoe
:anrtrucdan Standards
;aptal Projects Idernegernerd
nerve Review
-IP Development
t Administration
Services
using
Pool
FICER
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
August, 1995
I BOARD OF DIRECTORSI
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
Clerk to go Board
Secretarial services
Aprnda Preparation
IDISTRIBUTION/COLLECTIONS MANAGER
Reheblittedon
Operation
Metnionence
r mau,trunce
ring
eeroal Control
x Secretary-Trwuer
too" Support
mamgemrrt
RECTOR OF CUSTOMER
JD COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
domer Billing
it Reeelpts a Posting
Ph Deposits
domer Relations a information
ter Reading
Ma Initiation
�tia Relations A Information
FISCAL AFFAIRS MANAGER
Accounting
Cash Management
Budget Preparation
Internal Audits
Flecal Plan in
Rau Review
I GENERAL COUNSEL I
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT
Government Uelson
Lore -Range Planning
Research A Information
Special Projects
Computer Systems
Organizational Development
PERSONNEL MANAGER
Personnel Service
Benefits a Salary Administration
Support Personnel
Training a Development
Employee Relations
ADA
Safety Administration
EEO/Affirmative Action

Appendix F

r�
1
APPENDIX F
LIST OF DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR SUBMITTAL
TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
Fl
11

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURER f
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603.1388
Telephone [phone]
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING APPLICATION
' FOR APPROVAL OF ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
' ENCLOSURES
ocuments to be filed with the Local Government Commission
LGC•107 List of D
LGC-108 Application for Approval of Issuance of Ceneral Obligation Bonds
LGC-108A Selected Fiscal Information as Certified by the Finance Officer
LGC-108B Capital Budget and Related Information bonds are for
LCC-108C Projection of Water and Sewer Net Revenues (included only if proposed
water or sewer purposes)
nue (included only if proposed bonds are for enterprises
LGC-108D Projection of Enterprise Net Reve
other than water and sewer).
' LGC-109 Preliminary Statement of Debt.
' GENERAL
The Local Government Bond Act (Article 4 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes) states those Purposes
for which general obligation bonds may be issued and sets forth procedures to be followed in authorizing
and issuing bonds. Employment of bond counsel is necessary so that bonds or bond anticipation notes can
be marketed. Bond Counsel will provide drafts of the various notices, bond order and other proceedings,
and furnish a calendar to be followed throughout all the proceedings. The list of documents (LCC-107)
to be filed with the Local nGovernment Commission sets forth the be used in developing a calendar in cerincipal uost�to be takenwith bond counsel authorizing
' and issuing bonds and ca
BUSINESS ETHICS
To maintain and broaden public confidence, public officials should actively avoid the appearance it or
e
the fact, of conflicting interests. Public officials should not receive personal gains from their positions, either
directly or indirectly, other than normal agreed upon compensation for services rendered in travel ir pacify
as public officials. No official should receive or accept any material gifts, services, favors,
' OcOm-
modations or other items of personal
e� earbenefit from ned with this financecing and thcee related projects.attorneys, financial
advisors, or other consultants
' PRE -FILING OR PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
The Secretary of the Commission may require the governing body or its representative to attend a preliminary
conference to oonsidesibe p4gposed bond issue before any of the proceedings are begun or the application
filed. This is not necessary in all cases; however, a determination should be made as to whether a conference
' is required. A conference is useful both to the unit of government and to the Commission to resolve questions
that might arise at a later date and could delay or prevent the authorization or sale of the bonds.
' RESOLUTION OF GOVERNING BODY
The governing body should adopt a resolution making necessary findings relating to proposed bonds, authoriz-
ing filing of the application with the Commission and designating authorized representative. This resolu-
lion is not required by the Local Government Bond Act and such resolution draft will not be ion feels that t
furnished by
the unies bond counsel. While not required by the Local Government Bond AM, �eCommis
filing of the application should take place as a result of deliberation and action of the governing body. The
resolution will supplement the application in making findings relating to the proposed bonds and in designating
the unies representative to file the application and to be the Commission's contact throughout authorization
and sale procedures.

APPLICATION
The "Application for Approval of the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds" must be filed with and ac-
cepted for submission to the Local Government Commission prior to or at the same time the bond order
is introduced by the governing body. If voter approval of the bonds is required, ten days must elapse after
filing the
publication of the Notice of Intent before the Commission may acknowledge the of application.
In evidence of the publication of Notice of Intent, a publisher's affidavit with clipping is required. Only
one copy of the application and its attachments is required. to be filed with the Commission.
The resolution should:
'
1. Describe the project for which bonds are proposed.
2. State facts as to why the project is necessary and expedient.
a ve for the
3. State facts as to why the amount of bonds proposed ' adequateproposed per•
4. State facts supporting a conclusion that debt management policies have been carried out in strict com-
pliance with the law or reasonable assurances have been given that debt management policies will
henceforth be carried out.
5. State facts supporting a conclusion that budgetary and fiscal management policies have been carried
'
out in compliance with the law or reasonable assurances that compliance with the law will henceforth
be carried out.
6. State the estimated increase in property tax rate necessary to raise the estimated increase in debt service
requirements and state that such increase is not excessive.
7. State the estimated increase in consumer rates needed to raise the estimated increase in debt service
requirements if the proposed bonds are for utility or other enterprise purposes and state that such in-
,
crease is not excessive.
8. Designate a representative of the unit to file the application for approval of bonds with the Local Govern-
ment Commission.
9. Authorize the representative or the unit's attorney to employ bond counsel to represent the unit in the
'
authorization and issuance of bonds.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
The authorized representative of the unit should be the person charged with the responsibility of filing the
application for approval of the bonds on behalf of the governing body and whom the Local Government
Commission will contact with regard to any problems arising during authorization and sale of the bonds.
The acknowledgement of filing of the application and approval or disapproval of the application by the
Commission will be addressed to the authorized representative and upon whose authority the Commission
will rely in initiating sale of bonds or bond anticipation notes after the bonds are authorized. The author-
ized representative need not be the unit's attorney. Should the attorney and the authorized representative
be different individuals, a coordination of activities should be established between the two to assure timely
action on necessary proceedings.
SWORN STATEMENT OF DEBT ,
A sworn statement of debt by the Finance Officer or other designated officer is required after introduction
of the bond order and before the public hearing. The attached Form LCC-109 may be used for this pur-
pose; however, if bond counsel provides a draft of the statement, it should be used in lieu of the form. A '
copy of the Preliminary Statement of Debt should be filed with the application.
RESOURCE PERSONS
1. Legal questions: Unit's attorney and/or bond counsel. Routine questions relating to administrative ,
or procedural questions may in some instances be answered by the Local Government Commission Staff.
2. Bond Authorization and feasibility questions until the bonds are fully authorized - Janice T. Burke,
Assistant Director. ,
3. Bond and Note Sales and Deliveries after bonds are fully authorized - Everett M. Chalk, Assistant Director.
Robert M. High, Secretary
Local Government Commission
Harlan E. Boyles, State Treasurer '
Chairman, Local Government Commission

IForm LCC-1117
Departm a of the Treasurer
Local Gowsesassnt Commission
LIST OF DOCUMFMB TO BE FILM WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION — G. 0. BONDS
DATE:
PROPOSED GENERAL OBLICATION BONDS
Purpose
Total
i
Amount
The following is a list of major steps necessary for_counties and municipalities to authorize p wal obligation bonds. It does not purport
to include all the documents required by bond counsel or to be all inclusive for"districts or special types of financing. All dooments and
publishers affidavits should contain an original signature of the certifying apnt.
DATES
TenuUv. 7 rna
GLndar I T= LCC
u
11
Calendar and list of documents to be finalized following direction and advioa of bond ooumsi
AUTHORIZATION
(•These step are not required for non -voted bonds)
1. PETITION(S) of local boards of education to the Board of County Canminioners to
issue bonds. Required only when bonds are for school purposes not including refun-
ding or funding of school debt. Should be passed prior to (or same day as) publication
of Notice of Intent. Furnish certified copy. (G.S. 115C-503)
2. 'NOTICE OF INTENT - Required only when bonds are to be approved by the
voters and is to be published once not less than 10 days prior to filing application.
Furnish publisher's affidavit with clipping attached. (G.S. 159-SO)
3. FEE ARRANGEMENT LETTER FROM BOND COUNSEL.
4. APPLICATION requesting approval of proposed bonds on forms furnished by the
Commission. The application may be received by the Commission and held in escrow
prior to the expiration of the 10-day period after publication of the Notice of Intent.
in which case the application will be acknowledged as filed and aooepted for submis-
sion to the Commission at the expiration of the 10-day period. (G.S. 159-51)
5. BOND ORDER(S) as introduced before governing board. The bond ordw(s) may be
introduced after or at the same time the application is filed and axepted for submis-
sion to the Commission. (C.S. 159-54)
6. SWORN STATEMENT OF DEBT to be filed with clerk to the board after intro-
duction of bond order(s) and before public hearing. Furnish certified copy. (G.S.
159-M
7. PUBLICATION OF BOND ORDER(S) AS INTRODUCED AND NOTICE 0
HEARING. To be published at least six days prior to public hearing. Furnu
publisher's affidavit with clipping attached. (G.S. 159.50 and St)

Form LCG107 (Back)
ToW" I MOM I rani I
GLdu T" LCC
N-R
N-R
N-R
Dates filed with LGC
Authorization (Condnuesn .
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND PASSAGE OF BOND ORDER. . Furnish certified ex-
tracts of minutes of governing body rdating to public hearing and final paaage of,
bond order. (G.S. 159-57)
9. 'RESOLUTION CALLINC A REFERENDUM for approval of bonds. Furnish cer.'
tified extracts of minutes of governing board relating to the resolution. (C.S. 159.61)
10. PUBLICATION OF BOND ORDER(Sj as adopted. Publish once and furnish pub.
lisher's affidavit with dipping attached. (C.S: 159458) '
11. •NOTICE OF REFERENDUM - Publish at least twice on dates established in con-
sultation with bond counsel. First publication shall not be Ise than 14 days and the
second not less than 7 days before last day on which voters may register for referen-
dum. Furnish publisher's affidavit with dipping attached. (C.S. 159-61)
12. •ABSENTEE BALLOTS - Must be available 50 days prior to county bond refer-'
endums. (C.S. 163.227); for municipalities only 30 days availability required. (C.S.
163-W2)
13. 'REGISTRATION - Last day of registration is the 21st day, =dadiq Saturdays'
and Sundays, preceding bond referendum. (C.S. 1634M-
14. 'SPECIMEN BALLOT - Furnish one certified copy of baHcL
15. 'REFERENDUM - Must be held within one yen after final passage of bonj
order. (G.S. 159-61)
10. 'REFERENDUM - Resolution or certificate of Board of Elections canvassing and
declaring results of referendum. Furnish certified estracb of minutes relating to resol"I
tion. (C.S. 159-61)
17. 'REFERENDUM RESULTS - Resolution of governing board certifying and de
claring results of referendum. Furnish certified extracts of minutes relating to resol J
tion. (C.S. 159-61)
18. 'PUBLICATION OF REFERENDUM RESULTS - Publish once. Furnish pub'
lisher's affidavit with clipping attached. (C.S. 159-61)
BOND AND NOTE SALE
Indicate date of sale, amount, and if for bonds (B) or notes (N)
a b c d
s s s s
1. BOND (OR NOTE) RESOLUTION providing for the issuance of bonds (notes
Furnish certified extracts of minutes of governing board relating to resolution. (C
159.65 and C.S. 159-164)
2. NOTICE OF SALE to be published at least once five days prior to the date of sale c�
bonds. Furnish publisher's affidavit with clipping attached. (C.S. 159-124)

1
I SUGGESTED STEPS FOR REVENUE BOND ISSUANCE
1�
ii
1
1
CALENDAR STEPS EVENT .
DAY 1-30 1 Contact LGC staff, Schedule an informal preapplication
conference with LGC staff.
(a) Discuss project necessity, estimated costs, and feasibility.
(b) Discuss financing alternatives.
(c) Review unit's debt/fiscal management procedures 'and policies.
(d) Discuss authorization process, requirements and timeframe.
2 Decide whether to proceed.
Have Governing Board adopt a resolution giving their approval to
proceed, appointing authorized representative and bond counsel,
and directing staff to request proposals for underwriter/place-
ment agents.
3 Request proposals from 3-5 underwriter/placement agents. After
materials submitted and follow-up interviews, underwriter
selected.
4 Notify Local Government Commission staff of tentative selection
of underwriter/placement agent, bond counsel and feasibility
consultant and receive approval for submission to Local Govern-
ment Commission.
5 Appoint financing team members.
Steps 1-5 can be done in approximately 30 days.
Day 40 6 Organizational meeting at Local Government Commission -bond
counsel, underwriter/placement agent, unit's staff, and
Commission's staff — set times for events to follow.
Day 55-95 7 Document/Planning Sessions — to review, discuss, plan, and
refine the proposed financing throughout its development.
Day 100 8 A. File formal application with the Local Government Commis-
sion. Application, supporting documentation, and essentially
final documents (including preliminary offering material) to be
received at least 10 working days prior to any regular meeting of
the Local Government Commission. All supporting materials
must be received prior to LGC meeting including: (1) preliminary
engineering report/or cost estimate; (2) any associated service or
construction contracts; (3) description of project and need; (4)
placement agreement and estimated fees for all parties; and (5)
feasibility documentation. B. Have resolution passed by Govern-
ing Body making the necessary finding required by Commission
relating to the proposed bonds.

ir1
J
Day 115 9 Submission of the application to the Local Government Commis-
sion at its next meeting.
10 Adoption of the Bond Order b the unit's governing body.
P Y g g
Day 130 11 Bond sale, closing and delivery. ,
CONTENTS OF BOARD RESOLUTION (as required in 3.b.):
* f not done b prior resolution Designate a representative of the unit to file the '
(I Y P ) � P
application and employ bond counsel (subject to Local Government Commission
approval) and to represent the unit in the authorization and issuance of bonds. '
* Request that the Local Government Commission sell the Bonds at a private sale ,
without advertisement.
* Describe the project in general terms indicating the nature of capital outlay and
the necessity of the project.
* Make the following findings (G.S. 159-86): ,
1. The proposed revenue bond is necessary or expedient.
2. The amount of bonds will be sufficient but is not excessive for the proposed
purpose.
3. The proposed project is feasible.
4. The unit's debt management procedures and policies are good.
5. The proposed revenue bonds can be marketed at a reasonable interest cost to
the unit.
1
1