Water & Wastewater Feasibility Update For Rocky Point and Topsail Areas-1995

I
11
I
1
1
1
I
Water& Wastewater Feasibility Update
For
Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
Pender County, North Carolina
GovHT
NO
Prepared By
McKim & Creed Engineers
Cary, North Carolina
,,j�11A CARO,
%
SEAL
136,69
December 1996
The preparation ofthis report was financed In part through a grant prodded bythe North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
Tnrd4hfUnds provided bythe Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Olfice of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

V.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................
1
Introduction ...............................................
3
Background...............................................
6
Sanitary Sewer Feasibility ....................................
7
A. Rocky Point Area ....................................
10
B. Topsail Area ........................................
12
C. Combined System ...................................
14
D. Conclusion .........................................
14
Water Feasibility ..........................................
15
A. Demand & Potential Service Areas ......................
15
B. Preliminary Design ...................................
19
C. Opinion of Cost ......................................
20
D. Conclusion .........................................
21
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 a - North Carolina State Map .........................
2
Exhibit1 b - Study Area Map .................................
4
Exhibit 2a - Potential Sanitary Sewer Lines - Rocky Point Area ......
9
Exhibit 2b - Potential Sewer Lines - Topsail Township ............
11
Exhibit 3a - Potential Service Area Map .......................
16
Exhibit 3b - Potential Water Lines - Rocky Point Area ............
17
Exhibit 3c - Potential Water Lines -'Topsail Area ................
18
i

Tab►es
Table 2.1 - Population Growth ............................... 6
Table 4.2 - Opinion of Cost - Without Grant .................... 20
Table 4.3 - Opinion of Cost - With Grant ...................... 21
Appendices
A. Spray Irrigation Wastewater Treatment Facilities -
Suitable Land Classifications
B. Wastewater System Cost Opinion
C. Water System Cost Opinion
H

1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Representatives of McKim and Creed Engineers met with the Water and
Wastewater Focus Group during various phases of the study. Potential service
rareas, costs, funding opportunities, and demographic, environmental, and
economic -development related needs for both water and sewer services in the
study areas were discussed. It was determined that the most cost effective way to
' supply water to the study areas was to design and construct two separate systems,
each supplied from separate well fields. If funding in the form of loans and grants
are available, and public interest is high, a water system is feasible at this time. At
this time, consensus was reached that a sewer system is not feasible at a
reasonable user cost until development density increases (increasing both the
environmental need and economic viability) and additional sources of funding are
created. Through successful industrial recruitment, a skeletal system in Rocky
Point may become feasible in the near future.
McKim and Creed Engineers and the Water and Sewer Focus Group throughly
' explored the practicality of constructing a drinking water supply system for the
Rocky Point and Topsail Areas. The Group met with several representatives from
different Johnston County water districts to learn from their successes and failures
in forming water districts. At the present time, Johnston County has several water
districts in various stages of development, each with a somewhat different
motivating force and methods by which they have pursued implementation. The
Group was enlightened and encouraged by the information that they gathered
Iduring this meeting.
The Group began to research opportunities for funding and support from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Rural Economic & Community Development Services
' Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas 1

' (RECDS), formerly the Farmers Home Administration. Mr. Ronnie Pope, a
representative from RECDS, attended one Water and Sewer Focus Group Meeting
and one meeting with the County Manager, John Bauer and McKim & Creed
' Engineers to discuss obtaining funding from RECDS. From these discussions it
appeared funding was possible, and Mr. Pope encouraged the County to pursue
RECDS funding and offered assistance in the application process.
' McKim & Creed Engineers presented the results of this study to the County Board
of Commissioners at a public meeting held on November 20, 1995. The County
' Commissioners elected to conduct additional public information meetings in the
specific affected areas, to proceed with a pre -application for assistance to RECDS,
tand to start a grass -roots public interest canvassing and polling within the proposed
water district. This will include preparation and distribution of information fact
sheets and door-to-door contact with potential users.
Currently, McKim & Creed Engineers and the County Commissioners are awaiting
comment from the N.C. State Clearinghouse Review, and are compiling the
necessary materials to complete the RECDS pre -application. Also, the Water and
Sewer Focus Group has begun organizing a polling team to canvas the area for
interest.
McKim & Creed Engineers recommends that the County continue it's efforts to
obtain RECDS assistance and to form a Water and Sewer District that
encompasses the Rocky Point and Topsail Areas. Although, a wastewater
collection and treatment system is not feasible at this time, the County should be
continually watchful of rising domestic demand, industrial growth, and environmental
and land use concerns in these area that could create the opportunity to design and
construct a feasible sewer system.
' Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas 2
I

Exhibit la
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study Update
for the Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
Pender County Location Map
MRIGINIA .,,.,..,.,,.---.....
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED IN PART THROLIGH A CRANE
PWADED BY THE NORTH CARLOMNA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 197Z AS AMENDED.
WHICH IS ADMINISTERED ITY THE OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMNISTRATIDN.
JNTY
3

Exhibit 1b
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for the Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
Study Area Map
UGM0
P sMN F "m
IAWgowC o CII RCN
N..f Suloas Noe
v svwme Ibm
u,euaN rxyver
oNW�e runy.s wpwat
eF �eora rupnevy
Ostat. Nyn.dy
Mentate
Carry or State 0.,4a
Study Ana
TC PNEPARMION OF T IMP WAS FNANOEI) N PWF THOUGH A GVM
PNOAEO H TIE NORIM CAIIIDNA WASIIL e1MVOf]QfE Pam. THgION
RRDS N DE13 W TIE IXMST/1 ZONE 1WYGdEM Kf OF 19 AS Npl�m,
WHCN 6 /dIH(SIFf® B FIE OfFCE OF OCPMi MO 00 S x
WlWFLENf. INT OCEANC MO ATe05RI "HtS TMi

' II. INTRODUCTION:
Both the Rocky Point and Topsail areas of Pender County have been experiencing
tremendous growth. This growth has lead to environmental, health, and land use
concerns on the part of the County Commissioners and area residents over the water
and wastewater demands to serve the present and future population. The location of
' these areas are shown on Exhibits 1 a and 1 b.
IIn June of 1988, the then County Commissioners' environmental, health, and land use
concerns led them to procure funding from the North Carolina Department of Natural
'
Resources and Community Development, under the Coastal Planning and
Management Grant Program. With joint funding from this office and the County, the
'
County Commissioners contracted McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A. to investigate and
prepare a study entitled "Growth Management/ Analysis of Water and Sewer Needs for
East Pender and Rocky Point Areas of Pender County, North Carolina." This study was
presented in February of 1989.
The 1989 study served as a preliminary engineering report and a guide to the future
'
development of a water and sewer district to service the Rocky Point and Topsail Areas.
Due to lack of public support and inadequate funding opportunities, no further action was
taken until October of 1994. Pender County then secured funds from the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management to jointly fund an update to the 1989 study. The
'
County Commissioners acquired the services of McKim & Creed Engineers to prepare
this updated study and organized a Water and Wastewater Focus Group to help evaluate
'
and guide their alternatives. The Water and Wastewater Focus Group consists of two,
County Commissioners from Rocky Point and Topsail Townships, Cleveland Simpson
and Carolyn Justice, respectively, the County Manager, John Bauer, and three citizens
of the study areas, Jack Stovall, Tracy Peters, and Wirt Casey. The findings of this grant -
funded study are to be used as a starting point to pursue the design and construction of
a water and/or wastewater system if determined feasible.
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas 5

1
n
f'.
Ill. BACKGROUND:
Pender County is located along the North Carolina southern coastline. Although is
has some commercial strips along its beaches, Pender County consists of mostly
rural/agricultural and residential areas. Pender County is growing rapidly and is
beginning to feel the pressures of the population's demand for water and sewer
services, especially in the Rocky Point and Topsail Townships. In addition to a
response to increased domestic, health, and environmental demands, Pender
County is currently exploring means of providing the infrastructure to attract and
support commercial and industrial growth to improve the County's economy.
This study area originally was chosen due to its tremendous growth rate and
potential. Both the Rocky Point and Topsail Townships are growing at rates well
above the average for Pender County. Table 2.1 - Population Growth summarizes
the growth of these two townships.
Table 2.1 - Population Growth
Population
1990
2000
201C
2020
2030
Pender County
28855*
36374*
42331 *
48257
50960
(% Growth)
(26%)
(16%)
(14%)
(5.6%)
Rocky Point Township
3377*
5018
6836
8644
10364
(% Growth)
(49%)
(36%)
(26%)
(19%)
Topsail Township
8403*
13622
19928
26808
34229
(% Growth)
(62%)
(46%)
(35%)
(26%)
Study Area
7353*
11559
16511
21774
127269
( % Growth)
(57%)
(43%)
(32%)
(25%)
* Data provided by the N.C. State Data Center was based upon census information.
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
0

11
11
H
IV.
I
One of the areas expected to receive considerable attention for expanded industrial
and commercial development is in the Rocky Point Township in the vicinity of the
crossroads of US 117, 1-40, and NC 210. These major transportation routes make
it easily accessible from any direction. These corridors along the crossroads are
zoned as business and industrial areas while the remainder of the area is
categorized as rural/agricultural. Despite its prime location for business and
industry, Rocky Point remains a mostly residential area. The Water and Sewer
Focus Group believes that providing water and sewer services will enhance the
area's potential to attract light, clean industry to the area.
A large portion of developed area of Topsail Township lies adjacent to the Atlantic
Coast and includes several prime real estate districts. The residents of this area are
against industrial development, and it is planned for this area to remain
predominantly residential, with appropriate commercial support services. This area
is zoned for rural/agricultural uses with the exception of a narrow business band
along NC 17 and a few planned development areas.
SANITARY SEWER FEASIBILITY:
When considering the feasibility of constructing a sanitary sewer system in either
Topsail or Rocky Point Areas there are several factors to consider. Beyond the
need for improved service, traditionally, the most important factor is the cost to the
taxpayer and the rate payer. Public opinion and acceptance, industrial recruitment
and economic development, and potential environmental impacts must also be
considered.
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
7

The scope of this study called for examining the feasibility of a low cost skeletal
system initially and then (if any portion proved cost effective) investigate other
expanded or detailed alternatives. In order to determine the feasibility of
constructing a sanitary sewer system, three scenarios were considered. A skeletal
system in Rocky Point, a trunk line in the Topsail area, and a combined system
were all examined. Each of these systems use predominantly gravity sewer
collection system and spray irrigation for treatment and disposal. Where the
sewage would not convey by gravity, pump stations and short segments of force
main were used.
Gravity sewer and spray irrigation were chosen as the least costly alternatives for
these areas. Gravity sewer lines, while somewhat more costly to build initially, are
typically more economical than force mains and pressure systems on a net present
worth basis due to the high operation and maintenance costs associated with
grinder pumps or septic tank effluent pump systems. Perhaps the only cost
effective way to dispose of treated wastewater in this region is by spray irrigation.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain and maintain a surface water discharge
permit under current regulatory restrictions.
Spray irrigation wastewater systems consist of storage lagoons, chlorination
stations, irrigation equipment, and spray fields. Spray sites must be carefully
chosen based upon soil characteristics, wetland classifications, flood plain data,
land use plans, and proximity to waste generators. Potentially suitable sites are
extremely limited, and a select few are shown on Exhibits 2a and 2b. Exhibits
showing all the pertinent land criteria are located in Appendix A.
All three of the examined skeletal systems are economically infeasible for Pender
County to build at this point in time. The average monthly user cost is estimated to
range between $75 and $100. Factors contributing to this are relatively few
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
N.

Exhibit 2a
Potential Sanitary Sewer Lines - Rocky Point Area
ro
W,

potential users, relatively high fixed costs for construction, and an aversion to require
mandatory connections. In the future, continued growth, exacerbated environmental
' concern, and/or increased commercial/industrial demands may make one or more o,
the options sufficiently feasible to pursue. Each of the three systems are examined in
detail in the following sections.
1 A. Rocky Point Area
' The Rocky Point Area, shown on Exhibit 1 b is located at the crossroads of several
major transportation routes. N.C. 210 crosses both N.C. 117 and U.S. 40 at the center
of the township. At present, Rocky Point is primarily a residential region, but Pender
County would like to encourage commercial and light industrial development in this
Iarea. The residents use septic systems to treat their sewage, and although most of the
existing systems function adequately, several areas within Rocky Point Township are
currently undevelopable due to unsuitable soil conditions to support septic systems. In
addition, replacement systems at various locations in the Township may be difficult to
' construct to current more stringent regulatory standards. For the above reasons, the
Water and Sewer Focus Group closely examined providing sanitary sewer service to
' Rocky Point.
In order to support continued industrial growth in this area, sewer lines were proposed
extending east to west on N.C. 210 and north to south on N.C. 117 (see Exhibit 2a).
' The entire system would be gravity fed with the exception of the southern portion of the
line on N.C. 117. This portion would be pumped to the crossroads. In total, the
collection system would consist of approximately 50,000 If of 8" gravity sewer and
20,000 If of 6" force main.
The system would be designed to collect and treat 250,000 GPD of sewage and would
require a spray facility of approximately 200 acres. Several potential spray sites have been
preliminarily identified with the most cost effective being on the eastern end of N.C. 210.
' Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas 10

Exhibit 2b
Potential Sanitary Sewer Lines - Topsail Township
,
,
,
,
met t
To Caned Systems
8' 3revily Sower o
Serve Tops8 r
ETA".�
ApNw, , `C
I
woo 'Acre , ` `ti
. `
i t*
44
,
M PREPMAINR, Of M6 W WAS FHMICED M PM illIOUCH A GNHf
FTOSOED W ME IIOIfIM CNROIN OLSIAt ItWIGE,OP PROORw. MRp1GM
FI.tO$ PnoAom m M casrK m E I,wMcnEM .c1 of 1972>x As AvnoEo. '
WHCN 6 M,16lE1RU B/ M OFFICE Of OCGW uD CCASTAI
4VMGdEM. w,nort� ocEµc uo AiY05PHEIUC FOUNSfPwlp,. 11

1
An itemized cost opinion for providing sewer service to Rocky Point is provided in
Appendix B. The estimated construction costs for this system total $3,444,000. This
is clearly beyond the capacity of the existing user base to support. Pender County
could pay the construction costs up -front or try to finance the project though grants and
loans. Revenue to offset operation and maintenance costs could be generated through
user fees if the average customer charge was $25 per month and 25% of the
households along the proposed sewer lines utilized the system. Even if the County
received a 25% grant and financed the remainder with a 6% loan, the County would
have to provide approximately $167,000 per year in excess of user charges. The
average user charge necessary to support the system without subsidy is approximately
$75 per month.
Due to the high costs of this system, it is not feasible at present. The County should
continue to watch for changing conditions (such as development density, public opinion,
commercial/industrial needs and prospects, and funding availability) which could
facilitate an affordable wastewater system in this area.
B. Topsail Area
The Topsail Area, as shown on Exhibit 1 b, is a highly residential area with a small
commercial development corridor along N.C. 17. Currently, this area is served by
individual septic systems and a few small community wastewater treatment systems.
The majority of the commercial activity is focused on service and tourism. At present,
there are no plans to attract industries that would require a township sanitary sewer
system to support their activities. In fact, the majority of the residents of this township
wish to restrict continued commercial/industrial development. For these reasons,
commercial/industrial recruitment was not considered a significant factor relevant to a
sanitary sewer system in the Topsail Area.
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
' for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas 12

For the purposes of this study, McKim & Creed Engineers and the Water and Sewer
Focus Group first investigated the feasibility of constructing a spine for the system along
N.C. 17 of gravity sewer, and then determined if an expanded sanitary sewer system
could be possible.
A gravity sewer line stretching almost entirely across the township along N.C. 17 (as
shown on Exhibit 2b) was considered as the lowest cost skeletal systems that would
provide enough benefit to be a worthwhile project. The system shown on Exhibit B
shows approximately 56,000 If of 8" gravity sewer line and two potential spray sites.
These spray sites were chosen based upon soil characteristics and land uses (see
Appendix A). The system is sized to treat 100,000 GPD and would require
approximately an 80 acre facility. Although, both of these sites appear able to
support spray irrigation wastewater treatment facilities, the properties are highly
valued on the real estate market and will be costly to obtain. In addition, the public
acceptance of a large disposal site in close proximity to these residential areas is
questionable.
The cost of building the sewer system shown on Exhibit 3b is approximately
$3,821,000 (see Appendix B). If a monthly bill of $25 was paid by half of the
residents along this line and 25% of the construction costs were paid with grant
money, the County would have to subsidize the system with approximately
$203,000 per year. The County's other alternative is to pay the entire construction
cost up -front and use the user fees to support the continued operation and
maintenance of the system. The average user charge to support the system without
subsidy is approximately $100 per month.
A wastewater collection and treatment system in the Topsail Area is not feasible at
this time. McKim & Creed and The Water and Sewer Focus Group concluded that
there are not enough users to support the costs and not enough demonstrated
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
13

environmental needs or public support and interest in commercial/industrial
development for Pender County to allocate funds for the project.
C. Combined System
A combined system was considered in order to expand the economies of scale and
potentially reduce the cost by and combining the user contributions of the Rocky Point
' and Topsail Areas. Connecting the systems would require an additional 60,000 If of 8"
gravity sewer, 18,000 If of 6" force main, and a costly bridge crossing over the Cape
Fear River, but would reduce the costs of having separate treatment facilities by
requiring only one 280 acre site. This connection is shown on both Exhibits 2a and 2b.
1 Still, this alternative did not result in a feasible project. The construction cost of a
' combined system totaled $6,730,000 (see Appendix B). Even with a 25% grant, a 6%
loan, and 50% of the area's 1,242 residents paying $25 dollars per month, the County
would have to contribute approximately $337,000 per year to support the system. The
Water and Sewer Focus Group concluded that this cost far outweighs the benefit
' provided by a combined sewer system.
D. Conclusion
McKim & Creed Engineers recommends that no direct action be taken towards
providing sanitary service to the study area at this time. The Rocky Point area
' should be continuously monitored for opportunities to make this project more
feasible due to the higher demand (resulting in a larger percentage of contributing
' users) for a sewer system in this area. If a sewer system is constructed in Rocky
Point in the future, the feasibility of providing sanitary sewer to the Topsail area
' through a separate or combined system should be re-evaluated.
' Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas 14

I
1
V. WATER FEASIBILITY:
The feasibility of constructing a water system for the Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
was determined based upon potential demand, cost of construction, and available
funding opportunities. The system was sized using housing density per mile and
fire flow requirements. Each of these items is discussed in detail in this section.
The Water and Wastewater Focus Group explored the options of sizing the system
to meet household use needs only, fire protection in most areas, and fire protection
in every area. The Group concluded that, due to the high densities of population,
fire protection is needed in most areas.
A. Demand
When questioned about the quality of water in this region, the residents chief
complaint is of hardness and "yellowing of laundry" due to high iron content. Many
of the households currently use water softening systems to combat this problem. In
Rocky Point, iron and hardness are particular problems, causing many of the
residents to buy bottled water and use professional laundry services. In addition, the
absence of a public water system contributes to poor fire -fighting capability, and
resultant higher hazard insurance rates.
As described in the Background Section of this report, the Rocky Point and Topsail
Areas are growing rapidly. The populations shown in Table 1.1 were used as the
preliminary assumptions for calculating overall demand and sizing of a water
distribution and treatment system.
After the first iteration of calculations, the study area was further refined into a water
district based on the current 911 addresses provided by Pender County. The 911
listings were utilized to determine the density of households on each pipe segment.
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
15

Exhibit 3a
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for the Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
Water District Boundary Map
LEGEND
Uwry,end a V" Rood
or oS....k q Road
UNAidW laghaey
D1~ LM-1"
W Fedard N6gh my
OState Kghwoy
a Interstate
Canty or State Boundary
Potential Sallee Area
1NE PREPARATION OF THIS MOP HYA4 f1iMICED N PAIR 1TROl1CNt A lxU/R
PRO'VDED BY THE NORTH CA1ilAfN COASTAL MN/AOF1QdT PItOORAN, THROUGH
FUNDS PRCd1= BY THE COASTAL ZONE NAL=ENT ACT OF tp72, /lS A►ODED,
WHICH IS ADAf�SIEII D BY THE OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RFtoj3 E
NgVZD ENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATYOSPHEAIC ADYNISIPATION.

I
11
1
THE PREPARATON OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED N PART THROUGH A GRANT
PROVIDED BY THE NORTH CAIU M OOASTAL MMHAOBENT PROORAK THROUGH
FUNDS PROMDFD BY THE COASTAL ZONE MAHAGMIXT ACT OF I RE90URCE AS AM QED,
II WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF OCEAN NO COASTAL
WWHCOHFNT, NATIOIML OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMNIS TION.
Exhibit 3b
Potent10
ial Water Lines - Rocky Point Area
7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Y E F'REPARATOH OF THIS Td1P WAS FNANCtD N PART THROUGH A GRANT
PROVIDED Bf THE NORM CARLOW COASTAL &VMOE MENT PROGRAK nROUGH
FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF t O
AS AME RFD.
WHICH IS AOMPIM tED BY THE OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL
MANAGEIIENT, IMMORAL OCEANIC AND AnIDWHERIC ADIMMSIRATI N.
Exhibit 3c
Potential Water Lines - Topsail Area
c rotermsa water Lim
4' Potential Water Line
2' Potential Water Line 0 Areas Served By Exisft Water Systems I
18

This information was used to eliminate any segments that did not have the density
required to be feasible if 75% of the households joined the system. The 911 mapping
also indicated that it would be feasible to expand the original study area to included
several high density adjoining areas. The area determined to be feasible is shown
in Exhibit 3a.
I
B. Preliminary Design
' Well fields would supply the proposed water systems. Both the Rocky Point and
Topsail Areas are located on the Castle Hayne aquifer. Available well sites are
numerous, but actual quantity and quality tests have not been performed in this study.
Existing community water systems in the Topsail Area have been able to achieve
1,000 GPM from a 10 inch diameter well at 200-230 feet deep and can operate at
least 12 hours per day.
Existing water supplies in the Castle Hayne aquifer show high hardness and iron
levels. Until the supply water has been tested, it is assumed that the water will also
be high in hardness and iron. The proposed treatment systems would include
oxidation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection.
The area shown on the map includes 7,335 households. If each household was
served, and uses 150 GPD, the system will need an average daily flow of 1,100,000
GPD; a peak flow of 2,000,000 GPD. These flows would require two 500,000 gallon
elevated water tanks and four 12-inch diameter wells that yield approximately 1000
GPM each.
The water lines in the system were placed based on user density and sized according
to demand and fire flow requirements. The sizes should accommodate the growth
rates projected, except in cases of extremely disproportionate distribution. The sizing
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas 19

is approximate and further hydraulic investigation is needed before construction.
Exhibits 3b and 3c show the schematic of the system and its line sizes. The system
would require the following approximate lengths of pipe:
60,000
2"
Water Lines
145,000
4"
Water Lines
'
516,400
6"
Water Lines
351,400
8"
Water Lines
11,800 12" Water Lines
93,100 16" Water Lines
1 C. Opinion of Cost
The cost of construction of the water system described above is estimated at
t$25,475,000 (see Appendix C for an itemized evaluation). Assuming an annual interest
rate of 6.0% and 75% participation, the following is a projection of user costs:
Table 4.2 - Opinion of Cost - Without Grant
Total Construction Costs
$25,475,000
Annual Loan Payment
$1,535,000
$750,000
Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
Number of Customers(75%)
participation
5,501
Monthly Payment/Customer (average)
$35
At a $35 monthly charge, it is doubtful that sufficient customers would voluntarily
connect to the system to achieve the 75% participation level. Alternative funding
sources were explored. The leading source of funding for rural water systems, such
this study area, is the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Economic & Community
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
411

1
L�
n
adequate funding, this system could receive up to a 55% grant. According to RECDS a
reasonable grant assumption is 20%. If this water district received a 20% grant the
estimated user costs would be:
Table 4.3 - Opinion of Cost - With Grant
Total Construction Costs
$25,475,000
Grant Funds
$5,100,000
Annual Loan Payment
$1,240,000
Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
$750,000
Number of Customers(75% participation)
5,501
Monthly Payment / Customer (average)
$31
At $31 per month, more residents are expected to become customers. The actual
monthly cost per customer will greatly depend on the percentage of households
participating. Further refinement of the system could bring this cost even lower.
D. Conclusion
If funding is made available, water systems in both the Rocky Point and Topsail areas are
feasible. The systems can be self-supporting with reasonable and customary average
user charges, and at voluntary participation levels that have been achieved in other
counties. McKim & Creed Engineers and the Water and Sewer Focus Group concluded
that forming one Water & Sewer District that encompasses both areas would facilitate
funding and operational management.
McKim & Creed Engineers, PA recommends that Pender County continue the
application process for funding and poll the affected communities for support of a public
water system. If the citizen support is verified and substantiated and the funding is made
available, the County should proceed with design and construction of the proposed water
system.
Water and Wastewater Feasibility Update
for Rocky Point and Topsail Areas
21

APPENDIX A
Spray Irrigation Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Suitable Land Classifications
I
I

Spray irrigation wastewater treatment facilities require land for both storage lagoons and
spray fields. Spray fields must contain soils that can support spray irrigation activities.
Beyond having suitable soil for spray fields, the entire facility must be located in an area
' that does not lie within a flood plain, does not conflict with the County Land Use Plan, is
acceptable to the general public, and is close to the waste generators. Each of these items
is outlined below.
ISuitable Soils
Although the waste is pretreated, the remainder of the waste is as the water is filtered
through the soil. In order to support spray irrigation activities, the soil must be able to have
' the proper combinations of permeability, slope, and adequate depth to a confining layer
(tight soil or grandwater). For the purposes of this study, only the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service maps were used to determine potentially usable
soils areas. Before the final siting of spray fields, detailed soils and wetlands studies would
have to be completed.
1
I
The majority of the soils in the study area are hydric soils and are not able to absorb a
large amount of additional water. The soils in the study area that are usable for spray
fields are as follows:
AnB - Alpin Fine Sand
AuB - Autryville Fine Sand
GoA - Goldsboro Fine Sand
KeB - Kenansville Fine Sand
KuB - Kureb Fine Sand
NoA - Norfolk Loamy Fine Sand
NoB - Norfolk Loamy Fine Sand
On - Onslow Loamy Fine Sand
IM

Flood Plain Areas
Wastewater facilities should not be located within a flood plain area. If flooding were to
occur, untreated waste could be distributed to surface waters and public contact areas.
Land Use Plans
The location of the waste water facility should not interfere with existing land use and/or
the County's long range planning for that area.
Public Acceptance
Although spray irrigation waste water facilities, when properly operated, do not create
' public health threats or nuisances, the public perception of the facilities location is an
important consideration. The facility should not be located in a sensitive area.
Proximity to the Waste Generators
' The proximity to the waste generators directly affects the construction and operation and
maintenance costs of a sanitary sewer system. The facility should be located as close as
possible to the main collection system.
1
A-2

APPENDIX B
1
WASTEWATER SYSTEM COST OPINION
I
11
11

Topsail Area
Sewer System Feasibility Study
Spray Irrigation
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
8" Gravity Sewer, PVC
59,830.00
A. 0-6' Depth
29,915.00
$ 24.00
$ 717,960.00
B. 6'-8' Depth
17,949.00
$ 26.00
$ 466,674.00
C. 8'-10' Depth
5,983.00
$ 28.00
$ 167,524.00
8" Gravity Sewer, DI
5,983.00
$ 29.00
$ 173,507.00
STD 4' Dia Manholes
121
A. 0-6' Depth
61
$1,200.00
$ 73,200.00
B. 6'-8' Depth
37
$1,300.00
$ 48,100.00
C. 8'-10' Depth
25
$1,600.00
$ 40,000.00
Watertight Lid wNent
121
$650.00
$ 78,650.00
Spray Irrigation System
1
$400,000.00
$ 400,000.00
Stabilization Stone
60
$100.00
$5,983
Protection Concrete
1,662
$20.25
$33,654
Asphalt Cutting & Replace
2,659
$4.50
$11,966
Driveway Stone
598
$5.00
$2,992
Undercut Excavation
60
$100.00
$5,983
Stone Check Dam
24
$700.00
$16,800
Class I Rip Rap
300
$100.00
$30,000
8" Bore & Jack
200
$60.00
$12,000
Concrete Driveway
6,282
$1.50
$9,423
Straw with Net
897
$20.00
$17,949
Subtotal Construction
$ 2,310,000
Contingencies 1
$231,000
Constr. Inspec.
$60,000
Land Aquisition
$1,000,000
Technical Services
$220,000
Total Project Cost
$ 3,821,000
Total Homes Along Sewer Lines
465
50% Sign up 1
233
Average Monthly Bill / Home
$ 25.00
Total
$ 3,821,000.00
25% Grant
$ 955,250.00
Annual Loan Payment
$ 172,747.00
Annual User Charges
$ 69,900.00
Min. Annual O&M
$ 100,000.00
Annual Deficit
11 $ 202,847.00
Appendix B

Rocky Point Area
Sewer System Feasilbilty Study
Spray Irrigation
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
8" Gravity Sewer, PVC
45,128.00
A. 0-6' Depth
22,564.00
$
24.00
$
541,536.00
B. 6'-8' Depth
13,538.40
$
26.00
$
351,998.40
C. 8'-10' Depth
4,512.80
$
28.00
$
126,358.40
8" Gravity Sewer, DI
4,512.80
$
29.00
$
130,871.20
STD 4' Dia Manholes
92
A. 0-6' Depth
46
$1,200.00
$
55,200.00
B. 6'-8' Depth
28
$1,300.00
$
36,400.00
C. 8'-10' Depth
19
$1,600.00
$
30,400.00
Watertight Lid wNent
92
$650.00
$
59,800.00
6" PVC Force Main
19,800
$8.00
$158,400
6" DI Force Main
220
$12.00
$2,640
DI Fittings
200
$1.50
$300
4" Dia Air Release Manhole
2
$1,500.00
$3,000
Pump Station
1
$65,000.00
$65,000
Spray Irrigation System
1
$875,000.00
$875,000
Stabilization Stone
65
$100.00
$6,515
Protection Concrete
1,810
$20.25
$36,646
Asphalt Cutting & Replace
2,895
$4.50
$13,030
Driveway Stone
651
$5.00
$3,257
Undercut Excavation
65
$100.00
$6,515
Stone Check Dam
27
$700.00
$18,900
Class I Rip Rap
300
$100.00
$30,000
8" Bore & Jack
200
$60.00
$12,000
6" Bore & Jack
200
$40.00
$8,000
Concrete Driveway
6,841
$1.50
$10,261
Straw with Net
977
$20.00
$19,544
Total Construction (rounded)
$2,600,000
Appendix B

Rocky Point Area
Sewer System Feasilbilty Study
Spray Irrigation
Subtotal Construction
$ 2,600,000
Contingencies
$260,000
ConFtr. Inspec.
$60,000
Land Aquisition
$300,000
Technical Services
$220,000
Total Project Cost
$ 3,440,000
I
Total Homes Along Sewer Lines
592
50% Sign up
296
Average Monthly Bill / Home
$ 25.00
Total
$ 3,440,000.00
25% Grant
$ 860,000.00
Annual Loan Payment
$ 155,522.00
Annual User Charges i $ 88,800.00
Min. Annual O&M $ 100,000.00
nnual Deficit i $ 166,722.00
Appendix B

Combined
Sewer System Feasibility Study
Spray Irrigation
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
8" Gravity Sewer, PVC
159,158.00
A. 0-6' Depth
79,579.00
$
24.00
$
1,909,896.00
B. 6'-8' Depth
47,747.40
$
26.00
$
1,241,432.40
C. 8'-10' Depth
15,915.80
$
28.00
$
445,642.40
8" Gravity Sewer, DI
15,915.80
$
29.00
$
461,558.20
STD 4' Dia Manholes
320
A. 0-6' Depth
160
$1,200.00
$
192,000.00
B. 6'-8' Depth
96
$1,300.00
$
124,800.00
C. 8'-10' Depth
64
$1,600.00
$
102,400.00
Watertight Lid wNent
320
$650.00
$
208,000.00
6" PVC Force Main
34,020
$8.00
$272,160
6" DI Force Main
3,780
$12.00
$45,360
DI Fittings
400
$1.50
$600
4" Dia Air Release Manhole
4
$1,500.00
$6,000
Pump Station
2
$65,000.00
$130,000
Spray Irrigation System
1
$1,100,000.00
$1,100,000
Stabilization Stone
197
$100.00
$19,696
Protection Concrete
5,471
$20.25
$110,789
Asphalt Cutting & Replace
8,754
$4.50
$39,392
Driveway Stone
1,970
$5.00
$9,848
Undercut Excavation
197
$100.00
$19,696
Stone Check Dam
79
$700.00
$55,300
Class I Rip Rap
900
$100.00
$90,000
8" Bore & Jack
600
$60.00
$36,000
6" Bore & Jack
400
$40.00
$16,000
Concrete Driveway
20,681
$1.50
$31,021
Straw with Net
2,954
$20.00
$59,087
Total Construction (rounded)l
$
6,730,000
Appendix B

Combined
Sewer System Feasibility Study
Spray Irrigation
Subtotal
$ 6,730,000
Contingencies
$673,000
Constr. Inspec.
$60,000
Land Aquisition
$500,000
Technical Services
$390,000
Project Cost
$ 8,353,000
Total Homes Along Sewer Lines
1242
50% Sign up
1621
Average Monthly Bill / Home
$ 25.00
77
Total
$ 8,353,000
25% Grant
$ 2,088,000
Annual Loan Payment
$ 373,639
Annual User Charges
$ 186,300
Min. Annual O&M
$ 150,000
Annual Deficit
$ 336,900
Appendix B

APPENDIX C
WATER SYSTEM COST OPINION
p:\0542\0014\26\STUDY2. WPD

Pender County Water Feasibility
1
7
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
Well -10" dia wells
4.00
$
70,000.00
$
280,000.00
Cape Fear Crossing
1.00
$
100,000.00
$
100,000.00
500,000 gal Water Tank
2.00
$
600,000.00
$
1,200,000.00
Treatment
2.00
$
150,000.00
$
300,000.00
16" DI
93,089.61
$
24.00
$
2,234,150.64
12" PVC
64,621.44
$
20.00
$
1,292,428.80
12" DI
7,180.16
$
22.00
$
157,963.52
8" PVC
316,237.86
$9.00
$
2,846,140.74
8" DIP
35,137.54
$15.00
$
527,063.10
6" PVC
464,753.34
$7.00
$
4,182,780.06
6" DIP
51,639.26
$13.50
$
774,588.90
4" PVC
185,552.82
$5.00
$
1,298,869.74
4" DIP
20,616.98
$11.50
$278,329
DI Fittings
50,000.00
$1.50
$75,000
3/4" Service
5,501.00
$350.00
$1,925,350
Fire Hydrant Assemblies
1,032.66
$1,450.00
$1,497,356
Stabilization Stone
148,659.48
$0.50
$74,330
Protection Concrete
1,238.83
$100.00
$123,883
Asphalt Cutting & Replace
34,411.92
$20.25
$696,841
Driveway Stone
55,059.07
$4.50
$247,766
Undercut Excavation
12,388.29
$5.00
$61,941
Stone Check Dam
1,238.83
$100.00
$123,883
16" Gate Valve
37.24
$900.00
$33,512
12" Gate Valve
28.72
$800.00
$22,977
8" Gate Valve
140.55
$600.00
$84,330
6" Gate Valve
206.56
$450.00
$92,951
4" Gate Valve
82.47
$350.00
$28,864
Class I Rip Rap
2,065.57
$25.00
$51,639
16" Bore & Jack
180.00
$200.00
$36,000
12" Bore & Jack
220.00
$120.00
$26,400
8" Bore & Jack
300.00
$80.00
$24,000
6" Bore & Jack
300.00
$60.00
$18,000
4" Bore & Jack
300.00
$40.00
$12,000
Tapping Saddle
20.00
$100.00
$2,000
Concrete Driveway
4,129.43
$30.00
$123,883
Straw with Net
130,077.05
$1.50
$195,116
Driveway Pipe Replacement
18,582.44
$20.00
_ $371,649
Total Construction
$
21,422,000
Appendix C

Pender County Water Feasibility
I
Subtotal
$ 21,422,000
Contingencies
$2,142,200
Capitalized Interest
$428,440
Constr. Inspec. 1
$407,018
Technical Services
$1,103,233
RECDS
$5,000
Total
$ 25,507,891
Total Construction Costs =
$ 25,507,891
20% Grant =
$4,960,575
Annual Loan Payment =
$1,238,592
Annual O&M Costs =
$750,000
Number of Customers =
5,501
Average Monthly Payment/Customer =
$31
Total Construction Costs =
$ 25,507,891
0% Grant =
$0
Annual Loan Payment =
$1,537,616
Annual O&M Costs =
$750,000
Number of Customers =
5,501
Average Monthly Payment/Customer =
$35
Appendix C