Carteret County Regional Wastewater System Phased Implementation Plan 1997

O
Carteret County
Interlocal Agency
Carteret County Regional
Wastewater System
Phased Implementation Plan
August 1997
The preparation of this report (map, document, etc.) was
financed in part through a grant provided by the North Caro-
lina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion.

� `
�.
r
�.
_,I
�,
'li �
�

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
consulting
engineering
crop fn&t n
opemoms
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]
August 15,1997
Mr. Gordon R. McAdams, P.E.
Chairman, Technical Committee
Carteret County Interiocai Agency
7500 Emerald Drive
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
Re: Carteret County Regional Wastewater System
Phased Implementation Plan
Final Report
Dear Mr. McAdams:
TnmX
sary
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) is pleased to submit thirty copies of the final report for your
review in accordance with our agreement. We have completed the phasing study and
financial analysis as well as incorporated your review comments. As presented in the
report, the economic impacts to users are significant. While we believe that the proposed
land application system is technically sound, given the uncertainties of the availability of the
wetland site, potential regulatory issues, and the significant capital investment required;
implementation of this system at this time is not desirable. In order to provide interim
wastewater relief to CCIA members with pressing needs, we recommend further discussions
with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to explore alternatives to increase or
expand existing or new surface discharges on an interim basis while the long-term regional
system is being studied. CDM will be pleased to further assist you in this effort.
We appreciate the opportunity to conduct this study for CCIA, and we want to thank Mr.
Thurman Upchurch, Chairman, and other members of CCIA, Mr. Pete Allen, you and other
members of the Technical Committee, as well as Ms Kathy Vinson of the Division of Coastal
Management for the cooperation and assistance extended to us during this study. By now,
we all understand the complexity of managing wastewater in Carteret County and the
challenges ahead in identifying and implementing a feasible solution. We are pleased to be
able to assist you in the pursuit of a feasible solution Please do not hesitate to call upon us
if we can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McIEE
K Richard Tsang, Ph.D.,
Project Manager
copy: Joe Wiseman
Tom Hall
Diane Mills

CARTERET COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
CARTERET COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGENCY
AUGUST 1997
Camp Dresser & McKee
Raleigh, North Carolina

e
Contents

I
1 Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Contents
Executive.Summary............................................ 1-1
1.1 System Concept .......................................... 1-1
1.2 Phased Implementation Plan ................................. 1-2
1.3 Phased System Costs ...................................... 1-2
1.4 Funding and Cost Sharing ................................... 1-4
1.5 Recommendations ......................................... 1-4
1.6 Conclusions .............................................. 1-5
Project Background ............................................ 2-1
2.1 Land Application Feasibility Study ............................. 2-1
2.2 Four -County Regional Study ................................. 2-2
2.3 Current Project Direction .................................... 2-2
2.4 Existing Land Use Plans .................................... 2-4
Project Phasing ............................................... 3-1
3.1 Need for Phasing .......................................... 3-1
3.2 Phasing Priorities .......................................... 3-1
3.3 System Concept .......................................... 3-2
3.3.1 Collection and Conveyance ............................ 3-3
3.3.2 Treatment .......................................... 3-4
3.3.3 Effluent Land Application .............................. 3-6
3.3.4 Existing Systems .................................... 3-7
3.4 Preliminary Implementation Plan ............................... 3-8
3.4.1 Wastewater Flows ................................... 3-8
3.4.2 Collection and Conveyance System ...................... 3-9
3.4.3 Treatment ......................................... 3-12
3.4.4 Effluent Land Application ............................. 3-14
3.4.5 Existing Systems ................................... 3-17
3.4.6 Flow Measurement .................................. 3-17
3.5 Final Implementation Plan .................................. 3-18
Project Cost and Funding ........................................ 4-1
4.1 Capital Cost .............................................. 4-1
4.1.1 Phase 1 Cost Estimate ................................ 4-2
4.1.2 Phase 2 Cost Estimate ................................ 4-6
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee

Contents
(continued)
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Appendices
4.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost ............................. 4-11
4.3 Funding ................................................ 4-13
4.3.1 Financing Terms .................................... 4-14
4.3.2 Customer Base .................................... 4-14
4.3.3 Estimated Monthly Charger ........................... 4-15
4.3.4 Rural Utility Service Grants and Loans ................... 4-16
4.3.5 Grants ........................................... 4-17
4.3.6 Tourist Tax as Funding Source ......................... 4-17
4.4 Cost Sharing ............................................ 4-13
Organizational Structure ......................................... 5-1
5.1 Political Considerations ..................................... 5-1
5.2 Type of Organization ....................................... 5-1
5.3 Relationship with New and Existing Systems ..................... 5-2
Regulatory and Public Involvement ................................. 6-1
6.1 Regulatory Issues ......................................... 6-1
6.2 Public Issues ............................................. 6-1
Recommendations ............................................. 7-1
7.1 System Concept .......................................... 7-1
7.2
Phasing .................................................
7-1
7.3
Funding and Cost Sharing ...................................
7-2
7.4
Organization .............................................
7-3
7.5
Development Action .......................................
7-5
7.6
System Affordability .........................................
7-6
1.
Revised Estimated Wastewater Flows
2.
System Design Concept
3.
Estimated Morehead City Flows from Future Service Area
4.
Conveyance and Treatment System Layout Map
5.
System Flow Schematic and Pipe Sizes
6.
Operation and Maintenance Cost Basics
7.
Letter of 19 March 1997 to Camp Bryan Farms, Inc.
8.
Letter of 24 April 1997 to Camp Bryan Farms, Inc.
9.
Basis of Assumptions for Financial Analysis
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee

aup
uoi

Section 1
Executive Summary
1.1 System Concept
Three municipalities in Carteret County (Morehead City, Newport, and Beaufort)
have municipal wastewater collection systems and treatment plants. The other
municipalities have only individual septic tanks and on -site absorption systems
for wastewater treatment and disposal. Two of the municipal systems are nearing
capacity, and there are increasing failures of the septic tank systems. Carteret
County Interlocal Agency (CCIA) was formed by the above municipalities and
Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, Emerald Isle, Cape Carteret, and
Cedar Point to address the matter of a regional wastewater system to serve the
nine municipalities.
Based on requirements by NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), the feasibility
of a regional collection and treatment system with land application of the effluent
was examined in a Land Application Feasibility Study dated October 1995. Of
several feasible land application systems, the most practicable system is one
comprising agricultural irrigation and a wetland on privately owned land in the
northwestern part of the county. The study identified the collection, conveyance,
and treatment systems required to provide a complete new wastewater system to
serve the nine municipalities. The proposed system comprises a 100 percent
pumped (pressure) collection system starting with small grinder type pump
stations, each serving several residences or businesses and pumping to local pump
stations; common conveyance force mains from the local pump stations to the
treatment plant; a common treatment plant; and an effluent force main from the
treatment plant through potential irrigation areas to the wetland. The wetland
drains to Hunters Creek, a tributary of the White Oak River, and is located on
private property owned by Camp Bryan Farms, Inc.
Three critical success factors for the proposed system are:
■ Approval by NCDWQ of the system concept.
■ Approval by Camp Bryan Farms, Inc. of the use of their land for a wetland
system.
■ Obtaining funding for the system.
This report addresses further details related to the above success factors including
phasing the system development to reduce initial costs, refinement of the system
capital and operating costs, regulatory issues related to the system, and further
discussion with Camp Bryan Farms.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-1

Section 1
Executive Summary
1.2 Phased Implementation Plan
To reduce the initial capital cost, CCIA prioritized development of the system
selecting those municipalities with the most pressing wastewater needs for
Phase 1—Atlantic Beach, Morehead City, and Newport. The remaining
municipalities are served by Phase 2 although it is practicable to serve Pine Knoll
Shores and Indian Beach in an intermediate phase if desired.
Wastewater from Indian Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach will be
conveyed by force main along Bogue Banks, across the bridge at the east end of
the island, through Morehead City where Morehead City wastewater will be
added, and to the treatment plant on US 70 near Hibbs Road south of Newport.
Newport wastewater will be conveyed directly to the treatment plant by separate
force main.
Wastewater from Emerald Isle will be conveyed by force main along Bogue Banks,
across the bridge at the west end of the island through Cape Carteret where Cedar
Point and Cape Carteret wastewater will be added, and along NC 24 and Hibbs
Road to the same treatment plant.
The treatment plant will treat the wastewater to a very high quality including
nutrient removal and filtration. The treated effluent will be pumped 13.5 miles
along US 70, Nine Foot Road, Lake Road, and private roads to the wetland site
and will be available through valved outlets for irrigation along this route.
The wetland will be a waterfowl habitat type and initially comprise
approximately 120 acres of water surface up to 3 feet deep, probably managed by
Camp Bryan Farms under contract. Excess water from the wetland will drain
along the US Government railroad drainage channels to Hunters Creek and
subsequently to White Oak River, a distance of approximately 11.7 miles from the
wetland.
The treatment plant will comprise eight modules of 1.1 million gallons per day
(mgd) each of which three modules are required for Phase 1. The remaining five
modules will be constructed under Phase 2 for a total capacity of 8.8 mgd. Total
system capacity is based on continued use of the three existing treatment plants
with a total permitted capacity of 3.7 mgd.
1.3 Phased System Costs
The total estimated system costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2, as allocated to the
respective municipalities, are tabulated below.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-2

Section i
Executive Summary
Trst� Cost Allaeatian {phase
MaMglpaptY
Atlantic Beach
1) ,
Callegtlon
$16,950,000
fronveyarrt e .
$5,077,000
Treatmet)t+Wpt.[and
$8,695,000
Total .
$29,722,000
Pine Knoll Shores
-0-
$1,601,000
$2,802,000
$4,403,000
Indian Beach
-0-
$2,650,000
$4,637,000
$7,287,000
Morehead City
(Relief & US 70)
$2,090,000
$1,482,000
$5,604.000
$9,176,000
Emerald Isle
-0-
-0-
$1,870,000
$1,870,000
Cedar Point
-0-
-0-
$235,000
$235,000
Cape Carteret
-0-
-0-
$1,164,000
$1,164,000
Bogue
-0-
-0-
$224,000
$224,000
Morehead City
(NC 24)
-0-
-0-
$929,000
$929,000
Newport
-0-
$1,410,000
1 $280,000
$1,690,000
Totals
$18,040,000
$12,220,000
$26,440,000
$56,700,000
Total Phase 1 Cost
$56,700,000
1 .Total Cast AiTocauon
Manlcipali y.
Indian Beach
(Pius$
G'otlentian ;:
$7,920,000
t onvegah t
$5.045,000
TreatmontPoVet and
$3,305,000
Total ,.
$16,270,000
Pine Knoll Shores
$8,160,000
$1,205,000
$1,997,000
$11,363,000
Emerald Isle
$25,650,000
$17,229,000
$5,749,000
$48,628,000
Cedar Point
$2,710,000
$1,457,000
$723,000
$4,890,000
Cape Carteret
$6,110,000
$4,689,000
$3,580,000
$13,379,000
Bogus
$3,000,000
$902,000
$689,000
$4,591,000
Morehead City/NC 24
$10,400,000
$1,873.000
$2,857,000
$15,130,000
Totals
$60,950,000
$32,400,000
$18,900,000
$114,250,000
Total Phase 2 Cost
$114,250,000
The cost allocation is based on the premise that each municipality pays for:
■ The total cost of the wastewater collection system within that municipality.
■ The conveyance system to the treatment plant in proportion to the share of
the capacity allocated to that municipality.
■ The treatment plant and wetland/irrigation system in proportion to the
share of the capacity allocated to that municipality.
It will be thus necessary for certain municipalities to receive service in Phase 2 to
pay some of the costs for the facilities needed in Phase 1. Since the allocated costs
of the conveyance system reflect the proximity of the municipalities to the
treatment plant, CCIA should consider allocation of the cost of the conveyance
system more equitably.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-3

Section 1
Executive Summary
1.4 Funding and Cost Sharing
Three different financing alternatives were explored: G.O. Bonds, SRF funding and
a combination of 50% grant funding and 50% SRF funding. There are many
combinations of financing which could eventually be examined when the timing
of the phasing plan is determined.
Since the collection project will be bringing service to all the property owners in
the municipality, the cost of the collection system, along with the transmission and
treatment facilities, was included in the monthly base charge for wastewater.
Estimated monthly costs were calculated in two components: base and
consumption. The base cost is calculated by dividing the annual debt service for
each alternative by the number of ERUS (equivalent residential units) and by
twelve to calculate a monthly charge. The consumption charge is calculated by
dividing the operation and maintenance cost as allocated to the municipalities by
the estimated annual flow and dividing by twelve for the monthly charge.
Although the estimated monthly customer costs appear to be high for some of the
cities, these costs should not be viewed as actual rate calculations. More detailed
customer information and characteristics should be obtained for the next phase of
the study.
In addition, there are many ways to break down revenue needs such as debt
service and operating costs into an actual rate structure. In the preliminary design
phase, construction costs will be further refined, customer data can be analyzed in
more detail, and monthly customer costs should be reduced.
It is recommended that, once decisions are made as to the planned year to begin
construction, applications be filed with various agencies handling state and
federal grants to initiate grant funding.
1.5 Recommendations
Should CCIA decide to move forward with this system, our recommendations are
summarized as follows:
■ That the requirement for a costly land application system versus a more
economical discharge to Class SC waters when the treatment plant for either
will be a highly reliable advanced treatment plant be discussed with
NCDWQ.
■ That the system be consolidated to the maximum practicable extent under
one owning and operating organization.
■ That the existing wastewater and water systems be also consolidated under
the new organization.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-4

Section i
Executive Summary
■ That the system organization be selected to provide maximum authority for
area -wide implementation of the system for broad sharing of costs and
maximum environmental benefits.
■ That the system participants be broadened to include Carteret County and
all rapidly growing parts of the county around Bogue Sound.
■ That a high-level meeting with NCDWQ be held to obtain agreement and
approval on a way forward for the regional system.
■ That, if land application is the agreed way forward, formal agreement be
reached on the use of Camp Bryan Farms, Inc., land.
■ That contact be made with potential funding sources for early advice,
planning, and commitment.
■ That the public be involved in the project once the basic direction has been
established.
■ That a system preliminary design and master plan be developed after the
basic direction has been established.
■ That the support of elected officials besought.
■ That other important actions betaken as recommended in Section 7.
■ That the project be consistent with the future ocean outfall system if
implemented.
6 Conclusions
A phased implementation plan for a wastewater treatment and effluent disposal
system via land application for the CCIA is developed and a financial analysis
conducted to assess funding potential and affordability. Due to the lack of
existing infrastructure for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater in
the study area, substantial investment will be required to implement this system.
Unless a significant level of grant funding is made available by the state or federal
government, such a system is not readily affordable by a relatively small customer
base in the study area. In addition, a key component of this system requires that
private property in Craven County be the site of the wetland system. Although
the property owners have indicated their willingness to consider such a system,
many issues remain to be resolved before the implementability of such a system
can be determined. From the regulatory perspective, such a system would require
the state to review the existing wetland regulations and policies to evaluate
permitability. Given the scale of capital investment required, the uncertainties
related to the use of the private property, as well as potential regulatory issues, it
is concluded that implementation of this system is not desirable at this time, and
that CCIA should focus on the pursuit of a long-term regional solution such as the
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-5

Section 1
Executive Summary
proposed ocean outfall system as being studied by the Four County Regional Task
Force. It should be noted, however, that over 50 percent of the cost is related to
the collection and treatment of wastewater which is required regardless of
whether the effluent is to be disposed on land or via an ocean outfall system.
CCIA members in need of an interim solution may wish to discuss with the state
regarding the short-term increase in the use of existing and/or new discharges in
the County. An interim expansion of existing discharges in association with
limited land application and effluent reuse may provide the necessary wastewater
management relief required for CCIA members until the regional long-term
solution can be better defined and implemented.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-6

Section 2
Project Background
' 2.1 Land Application Feasibility Study
The area of Carteret County within and contiguous to the municipalities of
Newport, Morehead City, Beaufort, Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Indian
Beach, Emerald Isle, Cape Carteret, and Cedar Point have experienced significant
development and population growth within the last two decades. While the
- , water systems have been expanded to meet the increasing demand, the
wastewater disposal situation has not included orderly development.
i�
Newport, Morehead City, and Beaufort have existing treatment plants producing
secondary quality effluents. Newport's and Morehead City's plants are
approaching permitted capacity and are in need of expansion. However, the NC
Division of Environmental Management (NCDWQ) has reportedly indicated that
expansion of the plants will not be permitted and that expansion of system
capacity must be done in a manner which has the lowest possible adverse
environmental impact. We have been advised that NCDWQ interprets this as
meaning that a land application system must be considered.
Wastewater disposal in the other municipalities has been with individual septic
tank and drain field systems. Such systems have significant constraints on the
amount of wastewater that can be applied per acre and are restricted to areas
having suitable soil characteristics and elevation above the groundwater table.
These systems not only heavily load the groundwater in more densely developed
areas with septic tank effluent, but are a source of surface water pollution during
wet weather in particular. The absence of common wastewater collection systems
--- is a significant constraint on beneficial use of land not suitable for septic tank
systems and use of land for facilities that have significant wastewater production
such as restaurants, laundries, and facilities with public restrooms. Therefore,
common wastewater collection systems are needed in these municipalities. This
i
need will intensify as existing septic systems fail and surface water pollution
increases.
` New common wastewater systems are subject to the same NCDWQ requirements
- regarding effluent disposal that has the lowest adverse environmental impact, i.e.,
that land application systems must be considered. For the currently unsewered
municipalities, this requirement is of more compelling significance because all of
the adjacent surface waters are classified SA, thereby eliminating any possibility of
treatment plant effluent discharge to local surface waters.
I
_ . Faced with compelling wastewater collection and disposal needs and the NCDWQ
requirement to minimize the adverse impact to the environment, the above nine
municipalities formed the Carteret County Interlocal Agency (CCIA) in 1994 for
the purpose of finding a way forward on wastewater collection and disposal for
the municipalities on a regional basis. CCIA selected Camp Dresser & McKee
(CDM) to conduct a study of a regional wastewater system based on land
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2-1

Section 2
Project Background
application of the treated wastewater effluent. The CCIA Land Application
Feasibility Study was delivered in October 1995.
The Land Application Feasibility Study found extensive constraints to an effluent
land application system in Carteret County but identified four basic mechanisms
which could be used in several combinations:
■ Irrigation of landscape and agricultural plants.
■ Rapid infiltration to sandy areas with underdrain systems to inland surface
waters.
■ Wetland application with runoff to inland surface waters.
■ Continued use of the three existing treatment plants and permitted
discharges.
The system considered to be most reliable and of maximum beneficial use is the
wetland system with seasonal use of the effluent for irrigation. The wetland
system can accept all effluent flow under all weather conditions. The irrigation
system permits seasonal beneficial reuse of the effluent by users adjacent to the
effluent pipe. The proposed wetland site in the report is a pocosin land owned by
Camp Bryan Farms, Inc. between the headwaters of Slocum Creek, Newport
River, and Hunters Creek. An initial informal contact was made by CCIA with
Camp Bryan Farms, Inc. at the time without any commitment by either.
The general conclusion of the Land Application Feasibility Study is that a
wastewater system to serve the nine municipalities is feasible but costly and
requires the endorsement of NCDWQ, other state agencies, the public, and Camp
Bryan Farms, Inc.
2.2 Four -County Regional Study
Concurrently with the Land Application Feasibility Study, the counties of
Carteret, Craven, Onslow, and Pamlico conducted a broader regional study of
how to deal with the four -county regional wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal situation over the next half century. The general conclusion is that the
environmental sensitivity of the area surface waters indicates ultimate disposal of
wastewater effluents by one or two ocean outfalls but that those probably cannot
materialize for several decades. The implication is that CCIA should continue on
an independent path to meet its current needs for wastewater systems, and that
the design of such a system should consider the possible future integration of the
system with the regional ocean outfall system.
2.3 Current Project Direction
The conclusion of CCIA after reviewing the Land Application Feasibility Study
was that the wetland system with agricultural irrigation is the preferred land
application. Three critical success factors were identified:
■ Approval by NCDWQ of the system concept.
■ Approval by Camp Bryan Farms, Inc., of the use of their land for a wetland
system.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
2-2

Section 2
Project Background
■ Obtaining funding for the system.
CDM was authorized to carry the system concept an additional step by a further
study to address phasing the project to limit initial project costs by providing
initial service only to those municipalities with the most pressing needs and to
determine costs and financing options. This report is the product of the further
study.
Regarding the above three critical success factors, the following action has been
taken and needs to be taken:
NCDWQ: Meeting and discussions have been held with NCDWQ regarding
the system concept. No firm commitments have been received from
NCDWQ. As discussed in Section 6, we feel that, following review of the
draft of this report, a meeting between CCIA and the director of NCDWQ
should be held to identify a firm and final position by NCDWQ on the
continued use and expansion of the NPDES permitted discharges from the
existing three treatment plants and the land application system concept as
put forward in this report as well as their position on the proposed future
regional ocean outfall(s). The importance of clear, permanent direction from
NCDWQ on these issues cannot be overemphasized because it represents the
fundamental basis on which CCIA and the member municipalities will
commit many millions of dollars on a permanent wastewater system.
Camp Bryan Farms, Inc.: Meetings and discussions have been held with
Camp Bryan Farms. An initial meeting was held with Mr. Paul Thompson,
Jr., President, by Gordon McAdams of CCIA, and Richard Tsang and Tom
Hall of CDM on 12 March 1997 in Charlotte. The follow-up letter dated 19
March 1997 from CDM to Mr. Thompson is attached at Appendix 7. CCIA
was invited to make a presentation at the annual membership meeting at
Camp Bryan Farms on 13 April 1997. A presentation followed by questions
and answers was made by Thurman Upchurch and Gordon McAdams of
CCIA and Richard Tsang and Tom Hall of CDM. The follow-up letter dated
24 April 1997 from CDM is attached at Appendix 8.
Mr. Thompson requested that the proposed wetland be marked by survey
prior to the 13 April meeting. On authorization of CCIA, we retained Alan J.
Bell, R.L.S., of Cedar Point to perform the survey which comprised marking
the east and west projected boundaries of the wetland along the U.S.
Government Railroad right-of-way.
Mr. Thompson appointed a committee of Camp Bryan Farms' members to
follow up on the proposed wetland project with CCIA and CDM. At the
request of the committee chairman, Mr. Mark Craig, we furnished references
and contact persons on several similar wetland projects in Florida. We have
not heard the results of his inquires and possible visits.
There are no commitments on the part of CCIA or Camp Bryan Farms, Inc.,
at this time regarding the wetland habitat system. It would be prudent to
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
2-3

Section 2
Project Background
remain in contact with the Camp Bryan Farms project committee. Camp
Bryan dates from 1898, and there may be reluctance to depart from
traditional use of the land. The soundness and credibility of CCIA will be
important to the mutually beneficial relationship with Camp Bryan Farms.
■ Funding: A primary purpose of this report is to divide the project into
functional phases, to define the costs of the phases, and to identify how the
funds might be obtained. Costs and funding are discussed in Section 4 and
Section 7.
2.4 Existing Land Use Plans
As part of this study, the latest Land Use Plans for all the towns of CCIA except
Cedar Point were reviewed. All land use plans identified wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal as a major issue in the area. The current efforts in
pursuing a solution is recognized, and all towns are supportive of the current
efforts. For the Town of Emerald Isle, the current policies related to sewage
disposal as stated in the 1997 Land Use Plan adequately states the Town's position
pertaining to wastewater treatment and disposal.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2-4

Section 3
Project Phasing
3.1 Need for Phasing
The Land Application Feasibility Study addressed the concept of a comprehensive
wastewater collection, treatment, and effluent disposal system for all nine
municipalities and established the feasibility and total cost of the overall system.
The magnitude of the total cost precludes any realistic probability of funding the
entire project at one time. It is, therefore, necessary to examine a phased approach
for the project to keep the rate of expenditure at a level for which project capital
and operation and maintenance funding is more consistent with practicable
funding availability.
3.2 Phasing Priorities
In order to limit the rate of funding the project, it is necessary to divide the project
into multiple construction phases and to prioritize the phases. The basis for
prioritizing construction could be based on various criteria such as geographical
progression of system construction, e.g., lowest or highest cost areas first, areas
near the treatment plant first, municipalities with existing systems last,
municipalities with most severe health or water pollution problems first, etc. At
their meeting on October 8,1996, CCIA decided that prioritizing development of
the system will be based on adverse impact on the respective municipalities from
not having the wastewater service to be provided under the project. CCIA
decided that the greatest needs in that regard are in Morehead City, Newport, and
Atlantic Beach for the following reasons:
Morehead City: The existing 1.7-mgd treatment plant is near maximum
capacity. It is unlikely that the state will permit any increase in capacity. The
forthcoming Neuse River Basin Plan may indicate more stringent effluent
quality requirements. A possible increase in flow may be permitted if
significant effluent quality improvements are made. Any expansion of
plants in environmentally sensitive areas may need a full environmental
impact assessment. The existing collection system has significant wet
weather infiltration/inflow.
Subsequent to the above meeting, we were advised that Morehead City has
annexed additional area and will probably continue an annexation program.
Thus, wastewater flows are increasing at a rate greater than projected by
current county and city plans. In order to have a reasonable basis for
projecting future wastewater flows from Morehead City, we estimated the
probable future annexation area and designed an average wastewater flow
per unit area. See 3.4.1.
■ Newport: The city is anticipating a significant population increase in the
next 5-7 years which will fully utilize the capacity of the existing plant.
Expansion will be necessary but will be subject to the same restrictions as
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-1

Section 3
Project Phasing
Morehead City. The existing collection system has significant wet weather
infiltration/inflow.
Atlantic Beach: The city has no municipal wastewater system and relies on
private septic tank/absorption field systems and surface absorption systems
for wastewater disposal. Development in the city has nearly been halted
because of absorption field limitations. System overflows and wastewater
seepage into Bogue Sound causes regular bacterial pollution and shellfishing
closures.
Thus, Morehead City and Newport need additional treatment and effluent
disposal capacity in order to allow for continued orderly growth of the cities.
Atlantic Beach needs a complete collection, treatment, and effluent disposal
system for growth, to eliminate the groundwater and surface water pollution
currently occurring, and to allow for further development.
3.3 System Concept
The fact that the three municipalities are in the same general area makes it logical
that Phase 1 of the overall system would be a single system serving all three. An
anomaly to this concept is that Beaufort is in the same general area and has a long-
term interest in the overall system, particularly if areas east of Beaufort develop
where septic tank systems cannot be used because of soil conditions and high
groundwater table and, therefore, need to convey wastewater into the Beaufort
wastewater system. Phase 1 design should consider that wastewater from
Beaufort will ultimately be introduced into the system.
Since Phase 1 provides service to the east end of Bogue Banks, it is logical that the
conveyance system from the banks to the treatment and reuse/disposal system
should also provide for future service to Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach. If
approved by the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT), it is also logical to
use the existing NC 58 bridge between Atlantic Beach and Morehead City to
support the pipe conveying wastewater from the east end of Bogue Banks to the
mainland.
The above Phase 1 concept for the municipalities in the east end of the project area
suggests that the west end of the project area —comprising Emerald Isle, Cedar
Point, and Cape Carteret —should be served in subsequent phases by a separate
system in which the existing bridge between Emerald Isle and Cape Cartaret
should be used to support the pipe conveying wastewater from the west end of
Bogue Banks to the mainland. To provide an opportunity for repair of the pipes
on the bridges during low flow periods, it would be prudent to interconnect the
main force main along Bogue Banks installed under the respective phases so that
all Bogue Banks wastewater can be conveyed across either bridge under low -flow
conditions.
Developing the overall system by phases instead of a single comprehensive
project indicates modifications to the details of the comprehensive system
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-2

i'
L-
Section 3
Project Phasing
proposed in the Land Application Feasibility Study but not to the basic system
concept. Details of the proposed phased system are described in the following
subheadings.
3.3.1 Collection and Conveyance
A pumped type collection and conveyance system as originally proposed is the
most practicable system. The system comprises the following for new systems in
unserved areas:
Grinder type submersible pumps in small prefabricated watertight pump
stations will serve one or several dwellings, commercial or office buildings,
and other wastewater sources. Each installation will be arranged to
accommodate specific local circumstances. Larger wastewater sources such
as hotels and condominiums will have higher capacity pump stations
serving the individual facilities. The sewer service laterals from the
dwellings and buildings to the individual pump stations will be strictly
controlled to preclude the entrance of any groundwater or wet weather
infiltration/inflow.
Ownership of the pump station should probably belong to the system
owner. Electric power for the pump stations should probably also be to the
account of the system owner but could be to the account of the building
owner where a pump station serves only one premise. The system owner
should probably also own the service laterals up to the building so as to
maintain control of connections thereto.
The respective pump stations will pump into force main headers common to
other pump stations in local areas. The respective local area common force
main headers will lead to concrete above -grade collection tanks serving all
the force main headers in each general collection area. The maximum length
of the local area common force main headers will be approximately 4,000 .
feet, but most will be considerably shorter.
The above -grade collection tanks will have associated pumps which will
pump the collected wastewater intermittently into a common major force
main to the treatment plant. During periods of high flow when multiple
collection tank pumps are discharging wastewater into the major force main,
it will be necessary to use booster pump stations along the major force main
to overcome the higher system pressures resulting from the high flow rates.
The location of the collection tanks and local area common force main
headers will be the same as shown in the Land Application Study, but the
booster pump station locations will be changed due to the revised main force
main flow directions.
■ As suggested in 3.3 above, for the Bogue Banks' municipalities we propose
to use the existing bridges to support respective major force mains for Indian
Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach on the east bridge in Phase 1
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-3

Section 3
Project Phasing
and for Emerald Isle on the west bridge in later phases. NCDOT has not
been approached regarding use of the bridges. If NCDOT rejects such use,
underwater crossings of Bogue Sound will be necessary. Depending on the
design of the bridges, it may be necessary to change the force main to several
smaller pipes on the bridges. We have not explored use of the bridges with
NCDOT.
3.3.2 Treatment
Phase 1 presents a somewhat complicated wastewater treatment situation because
of the following:
■ Morehead City and Newport have existing secondary treatment plants while
Atlantic Beach, Indian Beach, and Pine Knoll Shores have none.
■ Beaufort has an existing secondary treatment plant and may need to come
into the system in the future.
■ Effluent quality requirements for the reuse/disposal system will be higher
than for the existing plants.
■ Land availability and values for a treatment plant on Bogue Banks —as well
as the ramifications of processing and disposal of solids as a separate
function from effluent handling —could make site acquisition and approval
difficult.
■ The area is adjacent to the effluent force main routes for both the Bogue Inlet
and Cape Lookout options for future ocean outfalls, thus facilitating
economical connection thereto.
In the Land Application Feasibility Study, three alternative effluent
reuse/disposal systems were identified and addressed. The most economical
systems comprised disposal to Hunters Creek through a wetland system in
conjunction with full utilization of the existing NPDES discharges to surface
waters. Agricultural irrigation was involved with one system. As noted in Section
2, the wetland system at Camp Bryan appears promising at this time as a
waterfowl habitat type wetland. Since this wetland will have a discharge to
surface waters, the impact of the effluent on surface water quality must be
considered in developing treatment requirements.
The proposed wetland location is such that the discharge could be directed to
Slocum Creek (Neuse River tributary), Northwest Prong (Newport River
tributary), or Hunters Creek (White Oak River tributary). We propose discharge
to Hunters Creek. The probable principal environmental concerns which may be
expressed regarding this proposal will relate to bacteria and nutrients in the White
Oak River and possibly salinity dilution. Another possible concern is the addition
of nitrates to the groundwater from the wetland.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-4

Section 3
Project Phasing
We recommend that these potential environmental issues, whether or not they
have any realistic validity, be mitigated permanently by appropriate treatment
processes. With regard to nutrients, if designed into a treatment plant at the
outset, biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal can be included in the
treatment process economically, and we so recommend. With regard to
disinfection, proper chlorination of the effluent at the treatment plant coupled
with the long residence time in the conveyance force main to the wetland will
adequately disinfect the effluent. With regard to appearance of the water in the
wetland habitat system and the quality of irrigation water, filtration of the effluent
will be necessary.
Regarding state effluent quality requirements, it is important that the wetland
habitat system not be considered as part of the treatment process in which case
effluent water quality will be analyzed at the wetland discharge point. Due to the
presence of plants, animals, and waterfowl in the wetland, the quality of the
wetland discharge will be lower than the influent water with regard to organic
solids (from plants) and bacteria (from birds and mammals). If the state considers
the wetland system to be part of the treatment process, it is probable that further
disinfection of the wetland discharge will be required as a minimum. This will
necessitate electrical power and process equipment and structures at the site
which will probably be unacceptable to Camp Bryan. The process could involve
both chlorination and dechlorination.
The location of the treatment plant has many options for which various
justifications can be made. We propose the Phase 1 treatment plant to be located
on the mainland west of Morehead City and south of Newport near US 70. There
is significant underdeveloped land in this area which could be considered. We
have identified one area in particular which appears to be satisfactory from a
location and development point of view. It is located on Training Ground Road
across US 70 from the south junction of US 70 and Old US 70 near a site which
appears to be a municipal public works and fire training facility (possibly
Morehead City). It is at the boundary of Croatan National Forest, and both
private and NF unused land exists. Access to US 70 is via paved road (Training
Ground Road). Our recommendation of this area for the Phase 1 treatment plant
is based on the following:
■ The limited and expensive real estate on Bogue Banks is avoided.
■ Solids processing and dewatering and hauling on Bogue Banks is avoided.
■ The area is suitable for a regional system and, if so identified, avoids the
possibly negative public reaction of having a plant to serve one jurisdiction.
■ The raw wastewater force main is located for efficient access by Beaufort and
Morehead City.
■ The area is sufficiently near the Newport WWTP that access for raw
wastewater delivery will be efficient.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-5

Section 3
Project Phasing
■ The area will be suitable for treatment facilities from subsequent phases of
the work if the most cost effective wastewater service to the entire NC 24
corridor is desired in the future.
■ Sites in the area can be out of sight of residential areas and buffered by
Croatan National Forest.
■ The area is positioned for cost-effective service to the rapidly growing US 70
commercial/industrial corridor between Morehead City and Newport.
■ The area is on the most cost-effective route between the Phase 1 service and
the proposed wetland.
For the subsequent phase treatment plant site, we examined two alternative areas:
(1) the site of the regional treatment plant proposed in the Land Application
Feasibility Study on private land north of NC 24 near Ocean, and (2) the site of the
Phase 1 treatment plant on US 70 as described above. Both sites have advantages
and disadvantages:
■ The NC 24 site necessitates the operation of two treatment plants, whereas
the US 70 site provides economy of scale including no additional staff.
■ The NC 24 site provides approximately 7.5 miles of additional treated
effluent pipe along NC 24 and Nine Mile Road which could be tapped as a
source of local irrigation water. This will leave approximately 11.3 miles of
NC 24 between the plant site and US 70 without a wastewater force main
which could be used for local service.
■ The US 70 site provides approximately 8.2 miles of additional raw
wastewater force main along NC 24 and Hibbs Road which is available to
receive the discharge from local wastewater pump stations. This will leave
only 5 miles of NC 24 between Hibbs Road and US 70 without a wastewater
force main which could be used for local service.
We have not attempted to determine the magnitude of the cost differences of the
above considerations because future needs and service areas are not defined at
this time. Considering the various issues above, we are partial to the US 70 site for
the future phase treatment plant location and have shown this site in the system
layout and schematic.
3.3.3 Effluent Land Application
The ultimate disposition of treated effluent from the regional wastewater system
is for reuse by land application. Two forms of land application are proposed: (1)
use of the effluent for irrigation when needed, and (2) use of the effluent for
maintenance of a wetland waterfowl habitat. The latter would be designed to
handle all flow not used for irrigation which will be the total flow during non -
irrigation periods. The development of these effluent reuse methods was
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-6

Section 3
Project Phasing
described in the Land Application Feasibility Study. The preferred location for the
wetland site is Camp Bryan Farms, a 15,000-acre privately owned tract which
includes a pocosin area particularly suitable for the wetland with potential benefit
for the property owners.
Discussions have been held recently by CCIA and CDM with officers and
members of Camp Bryan Farms, Inc., the owner of the proposed wetland site. As
noted in Section 2, following an initial meeting with Mr. Paul Thompson,
President, a letter outlining the proposed wetland and the implications for Camp
Bryan was sent. Subsequently, CCIA was invited to make a presentation of the
proposed project before the Camp Bryan members at their semi-annual meeting
on April 13,1997. This was made by Thurman Upchurch and Gordon McAdams
assisted by Richard Tsang and Tom Hall of CDM.
The stated objective of CCIA at the meeting was to solicit sufficient interest in the
proposed wetland on the part of Camp Bryan members so that the proposal could
be developed in further detail. A decision on the part of Camp Bryan members
was not requested. At the presentation, many questions were asked ranging from
the effects of the wetland discharge on the existing lakes to the legal relationship
between CCIA and Camp Bryan. The overall reception of the proposal could not
be classified as positive or negative but was positive to the extent that a committee
was appointed to look further into the matter and to communicate with CCIA and
CDM. Subsequent communications have continued to take place, and further
information has been requested by Camp Bryan.
The wetland system proposed to Camp Bryan is one oriented toward waterfowl
habitat which is consistent with other wildlife propagation which Camp Bryan
supports. The conceptual Phase 1 system described comprises 120 acres of water
surface divided into 1210-acre sub -basins based on a flow of 4 mgd and 30 acres
per mgd of flow.
An existing drainage system along the existing Camp Lejeune Railroad is available
to convey the wetland discharge to Hunters Creek. Use of the channel will
probably require the approval of the Marine Corps or Department of Defense.
Since it flows through Croatan National Forest, approval of the U.S. Forest Service
may also be needed.
3.3.4 Existing Systems
The most significant issue related to the role of the existing treatment plants in the
regional wastewater system is whether or not the state will continue to permit the
three existing plants at their currently permitted flows and effluent quality
requirements. None of the plants is readily convertible to biological nutrient
removal and filtration without significant process and structural modifications.
The modifications identified in the Land Application Feasibility Study did not
cover full biological nutrient removal but, rather, partial nitrogen removal.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-7

Section 3
Project Phasing
In this regard, it would be prudent to consider not modifying the existing plants
but rather to leave them at the existing permitted flow and effluent quality
requirements and to expand the overall system capacity by diverting additional
flow to the new system. This concept will be applicable to all three existing plants.
It is consistent with the concept presented in the Land Application Feasibility
Study of having reversible force mains except, in this case, the force mains would
be conveying raw wastewater. This would add certain flexibility to the overall
system by allowing the unloading of any treatment plant during low flow periods
for maintenance or repairs.
Diversion of raw wastewater from the existing systems can be done at the existing
treatment plants or from suitable locations in the existing collection systems.
Diversion of partially treated wastewater from the treatment plants would not be
appropriate for the new treatment plant because biological nutrient removal
systems operate most reliably when standard -strength raw wastewater is
delivered to the process.
If the state requires more stringent effluent standards on future permit renewals,
the existing plants can be modified reasonably economically for modest increases
in effluent quality. Should the state require full biological nutrient removal, it
may be prudent to consider expanding the new treatment plant to handle the total
flow. If the state, in the extreme, should require complete removal of the existing
NPDES discharges, diversion to the new plant will be necessary.
Significant improvements to the infiltration/inflow conditions or equalization
storage will be appropriate before complete diversion to the new treatment
system. The existing treatment plant tankage could be converted for flow
equalization storage.
3.4 Preliminary Implementation Plan
Based on the phasing priorities in 3.2 and minimizing the cost of Phase 1, a revised
conceptual system layout has been developed. For the currently unsewered areas,
the original collection system concept has been maintained and the conveyance
system between the local collection systems and the treatment plant has been
revised. The original estimated flows are used except that Morehead City's
estimated flow has been increased to cover the future service areas and no flow
from Beaufort is included, since Beaufort has no defined need for service from the
proposed system at this time. A summary of system design concept and flowes is
shown at Appendix 2.
3.4.1 Wastewater Flows
For reference purposes, the Summary of Estimated Wastewater Flows from the
Land Application Feasibility Study is included at Appendix 1. For Morehead City,
revised flows are shown. The revised flows are based on future service to areas
outside the current city limits. The flow basis for the additional Morehead City
estimate is shown in Appendix 3 which indicates an average flow increase of 1.66
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-8

Section 3
Project Phasing
mgd resulting in a total average flow increase from 2.03 mgd to 3.69 mgd for
Morehead City.
The proposed design flows from the respective municipalities for Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of the project are as follows based on 2025 estimated flows:
Municipality
Maximum Month
Average Flow (mgd)
Maximum
Daily Flow (mgd)
Phase 1
Phase 2'•
Phase 1
Phase 2"
Beaufort
0
0
0
0
Morehead City
1.16
0.83
4.57
2.91
Newport
0.25
0
0.81
0
Atlantic Beach
1.80
0
4.77
0
Pine Knoll Shores
0
0.58
0
1.80
Indian Beach
0
0.96
0
2.69
Emerald Isle
0
1.67
0
4.26
Cape Carteret
0
1.04
0
3.17
Cedar Point
0
0.21
0
0.65
Bogue
Totals
3.21
5.49
10.15'
16.38'
Actual flow will be approximately 9.3 mgd due to cumulative effect. See Appendix 1 for overall
system flows.
Balance of system shown as one phase but could be constructed in several phases.
The above flows are based on continued operation of the existing treatment plants
at rated capacity for Morehead City (1.70 mgd), Beaufort (1.50 mgd), and Newport
(0.50 mgd).
3.4.2 Collection and Conveyance
The proposed collection system for unsewered areas, comprising small grinder
pumps in sumps serving several facilities and discharging into common force
main headers leading to local collection tanks and pump stations, is unchanged.
The pressure conveyance system from the local collection tanks to the treatment
plant has been modified to reflect the system phasing. A map of the proposed
conveyance system is shown at Appendix 4. A schematic of the proposed
conveyance system is shown at Appendix 5.
All conveyance system pipes and pumps are sized for the 2025 design flows.
Since the system is a pumped system, pumping rates will be controlled to
maintain sufficient flow velocities to keep grit moving through the system. Since
the collection system for unsewered areas will be sealed from surface water, grit
entry into the system will be minimal. Where traditional gravity collection
systems are served by the proposed conveyance system, it may be necessary to
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
3-9

Section 3
Project Phasing
control high flows from infiltration and inflow and to remove grit before pumping
the wastewater into the system.
Since the three jurisdictions to be served by Phase 1 of the proposed system are in
the same general vicinity, the Phase 1 conveyance and treatment system has been
located to take advantage of the proximate locations, to minimize pipe distances,
to utilize routes that are practicable for Phase 1, and for cost-effective extension in
the future in subsequent phases.
Since Atlantic Beach and Morehead City are proximate, we considered that it will
be prudent to utilize the existing Bogue Sound East Bridge as a means of crossing
Bogue Sound with a wastewater force main from Bogue Banks to the mainland
serving the east end of the island. Future service to the west end of the island will
utilize the NC 58 Bogue Sound West Bridge for supporting a wastewater force
main.
It should be noted that this proposed use of both bridges is based primarily on
minimizing the cost of Phase 1. A common underwater force main across Bogue
Sound near the center of Bogue Banks would probably be more cost effective if the
entire island were sewered in Phase 1 and offers additional cost-effective options
for treatment plant locations on the mainland. It should be further noted that the
proposed use of the bridges has not been discussed with NCDOT and that
rejection by NCDOT will necessitate an underwater crossing, in which case we
recommend that only one crossing be considered for Bogue Banks. This would
significantly increase the Phase 1 cost.
We propose to size the Phase 1 east bridge force main and the force main in
Atlantic Beach west of the bridge to be of sufficient size to service Pine Knoll
Shores and Indian Beach as well. This results in a 16- to 18-inch force main in west
Atlantic Beach and a 20-inch force main across the bridge. If NCDOT requires
smaller pipes on the bridge, the 20-inch force main will be divided into two 14-
inch force mains of which only one will be installed in Phase 1.
For Atlantic Beach, Phase 1 will include the following collection and conveyance
system components:
Individual pump stations with submersible grinder pumps to serve groups
of one to four residences and businesses.
■ Larger individual pump stations with submersible non -grinder pumps to
serve one or two hotels and condominiums each.
■ Pressure 2- to 6-inch collector common force mains to convey wastewater
from the individual pump stations to above -ground collection tanks spaced
to limit the maximum pumping distances to approximately 4,000 feet.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-10

Section 3
Project Phasing
■ Local pump stations at the collection tanks to pump the collected
wastewater into the common conveyance force main to the treatment plant.
Four stations are required.
Booster pump stations to provide the energy required to convey wastewater
in the conveyance force main. Two booster pump stations will be required
in Atlantic Beach when Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach flows are routed
through the system in the future. It appears that one and possibly both
booster pump stations can be eliminated in Phase 1. However, land should
be acquired and the force main should be designed in Phase 1 for the future
booster pump station(s).
One or two booster pump stations will be required in the conveyance force
main on the mainland between the bridge and the treatment plant. Only one
will be required in Phase 1, but land should be acquired and the force main
should be designed in Phase 1 for the future booster pump station.
Detailed requirements for booster pump stations cannot be determined until
a computer -based dynamic system model is developed during actual system
design. System hydraulics and controls must accommodate a significant
range of flow conditions. The dynamic model will examine all possible
combinations and variations of condition and will identify the operating
flow and head conditions for all local pump station pumps and booster
pumps.
For Morehead City, the Phase 1 flows into the force main conveyance system can
be from several sources as follows:
■ The existing collection system and treatment plant can be relieved by
pumping a portion of the collected wastewater from a suitable location into
the proposed system.
■ As new service areas are added through new construction or annexation,
these areas can be served exclusively by the proposed system. It is
suggested that pumped type collection systems of the type proposed for the
currently unsewered areas be considered for such areas. This will preclude
future infiltration/inflow problems.
■ Entire collection systems for specific areas can be diverted into the proposed
system from the existing system.
For Phase 1, we have assumed that three local collection tanks and pump stations
are included in the project scope and that only one booster pump station is
required between Morehead City and the wastewater treatment plant as described
above. The locations of these facilities and the nature of the collection and
interconnection systems will be determined during Phase 1 design.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-11

r-
Section 3
Project Phasing
As noted in 3.4.1 and shown on the system map and schematic at Appendices 4
and 5, the future service areas for Morehead City are shown along US 70 west for
Phase 1 and along NC 24 for Phase 2. With regard to the NC 24 corridor, this area
is undergoing significant development and appears to have the potential for
heavy development from Bogue to US 70 between Croatan NF and Bogue Sound.
Already the Town of Bogue has indicated that they want to be a part of CCIA. It
would appear inevitable that this area must be considered for wastewater service,
particularly since the proposed Phase 2 raw wastewater force main is routed
along NC 24. We have included service to the area from US 70 to Hibbs Road
under the Phase 2 Morehead City system, since Morehead City appears to be
expanding in that direction. We have included a modest 0.20 mgd in the Phase 2
flow estimates for Bogue but none for the approximately 8 miles of NC 24 corridor
between Bogue and Hibbs Road.
With regard to Beaufort's participation in the proposed system, it will be helpful
to have a decision at the time of design so that hydraulic analysis of the system
can include or not include flow from Beaufort.
For Newport, as shown in Appendices 4 and 5, an independent force main from
the existing treatment plant to the proposed treatment plant is proposed for
delivery of raw wastewater. Like Morehead City, the source of wastewater could
be from the same type of alternative locations and not necessarily as flow relief of
the existing plant. For Phase 1 we have assumed that a relief pump station at the
plant and a force main to the proposed plant and no additional collection system
are included in the project scope.
In principle, the Newport WWTP has adequate dry weather capacity (0.50 mgd) to
handle nearly the total 2025 projected flow (0.52 mgd). We are aware, however,
that the existing plant has marginal clarifier capacity and has excessive wet
weather flow and, therefore, may need improvements to perform satisfactorily to
its currently rated capacity. As indicated in 3.4.1, we have assumed that Newport
will have a Phase 1 participation in the proposed system of 0.25 mgd (peak flow
0.81 mgd). This will require an 8-inch force main to the proposed plant. Newport
should provide a more accurate projection of its needs and level of participation in
the new system.
3.4.3 Treatment
As indicated in 3.3.2, we propose that the treatment process include biological
nutrient removal, filtration, and chlorine disinfection. The nutrient removal will
include nitrogen and phosphorus which will ensure that the effluent meets
groundwater nitrate standards, will not likely support musance algae growth in
the wetland habitat, and will not cause an over -fertility problem in the White Oak
River.
As indicated in 3.4.1, the Phase 1 treatment plant capacity need is 3.21 mgd, and
the Phase 2 capacity need is 5.49 mgd based on continued operation of the existing
wastewater treatment plant at their currently rated capacities. We propose the
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-12

Section 3
Project Phasing
new treatment plant to be designed in modules of 1.1 mgd each. Thus the Phase 1
plant will have three modules, and the Phase 2 plant will have five modules for a
total of eight modules and a total capacity of 8.8 mgd for 2025 flows.
The treatment process will include the following:
■ Headworks
- Solids screening and screening compaction
- Grit separation and dewatering
- Hydrogen sulfide stripping and destruction (activated sludge)
- Flow distribution to treatment modules
■ Primary sedimentation
- One clarifier per module
- Sludge thickening in clarifier
- Sludge transfer to digesters
- Scum transfer to digesters
■ Biological treatment
- Activated sludge with diffused air
- Biological nutrient removal
- Sedimentation with sludge recycle
- Sludge and scum wasting and thickening
■ Filtration
- Gravity filtration
- Backwash recycle
■ Disinfection
- Chlorination
- Chlorine contact
■ Effluentconveyance
- Effluent equalization tank (Phase 2)
- Effluent pumps
- Effluent force main to wetland/irrigation
■ Solids processing
- Anaerobic digestion
- Digested sludge dewatering
- Sludge storage for agricultural reuse
■ Support facilities
- Laboratory/training room/lunch room
- Central control room/restroom/locker room
- Garage/storage
- Shop/storage
- Electrical distribution center
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-13

Section 3
Project Phasing
- Potable water supply (well)
- Standby power generation
Treatment process components will be selected for maximum cost-effectiveness
and minimum labor requirements.
The proposed location of the Phase 1 treatment plant is at the edge of Croatan
National Forest which will provide a permanent buffer against encroachment by
private development. There are actually many suitable sites in that vicinity. The
proposed site has good access, is currently used for municipal purposes, does not
have adjacent development, and is efficient for the Phase 1 conveyance system.
It should be noted that a possible significant conflict exists between the objectives
of minimizing the Phase 1 system costs and the redirection of the effluent in the
future to the ocean outfall if the outfall is located in the Bogue Inlet area. This
results from the proposed Phase 1 treatment plant site and effluent force main
being in the eastern side of the project area and the proposed ocean outfall being
on the western side. A more consistent arrangement would be for the treatment
plant to be on the western side and the effluent force main to be routed along NC
58 to reach the wetland site from the west, as this would place the effluent in an
efficient location for future diversion to the Bogue Inlet area ocean outfall.
However, this would increase the Phase 1 cost significantly.
One way of reconciling the proposed treatment location on the east side with the
future Bogue Inlet area ocean outfall on the west side is that an effluent force main
would be required along NC 24 in addition to the raw wastewater force main.
This would have significant irrigation potential which could increase the
beneficial reuse of the effluent for irrigation and would extend the area which can
be irrigated cost-effectively. Based on this opportunity, we feel that the proposed
treatment plant site which minimizes Phase 1 costs is justified.
Appendix 4 shows an alternative site for the Phase 2 treatment plant and the
effluent pipe route along NC 24 and Nine Mile Road. This is the site proposed in
the Land Application Feasibility Study in which all of the Bogue Banks
wastewater was to be pumped across Bogue Sound at this location. The site offers
the advantage of increasing the potential effluent irrigation area if the ocean
outfall does not materialize and is well buffered on three sides by Croatan NF. It
is not a cost-effective site for Phase 1 but is a desirable site if Phase 1 cost were not
an issue and if the overall system were oriented toward the future ocean outfall at
Bogue Inlet.
3.4.4 Effluent Land Application
The effluent from the treatment plant will meet the standards for irrigation water
and for return to the groundwater as a consequence of land application. It will be
pumped in a 13.5-mile-long force main from the treatment plant to the wetland,
the route being along US 70 (2.5 miles), Nine Foot Road (3.3 miles), Lake Road (3.6
miles), and along private roads through land owned by Weyerhauser and Camp
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-14

Section 3
Project Phasing
Bryan Farms to the wetland site (4.1 miles). Approximately 50 percent of the pipe
route is adjacent to land currently being farmed or in pasture which could benefit
from irrigation water. The Weyerhauser land is in pine trees and could also
benefit from irrigation if desired.
The irrigation system connections will be comprised of 6-inch valved outlets along
the effluent force main at selected intervals, regular intervals, or where desired by
adjacent property owners. Where possible future branch pipes may be desired to
other locations, valved outlets will be provided. Users of irrigation water will
generally have to use booster pumps to provide sufficient pressure to operate
sprinklers, as the pressure in the effluent pipe will vary with flow rate and
distance along the pipe route.
The wetland waterfowl habitat will comprise a system of ponds formed by
constructing dikes in the pocosin area. The ponds will be individually fed by
piped branches from the effluent force main and will drain to a common effluent
channel. Each pond will have interior dikes to guide the water flow in a
controlled manner so as to prevent stagnant areas. Islands will be provided for
protected nesting. Water depths will be in the 2- to 3-foot range, and the sides of
the dikes will slope gradually to provide areas for wetland plants to grow and
habitat areas to develop.
Water entering the ponds will be lost to overflow, evapo-transpiration, and
seepage to groundwater. Overflow from the ponds will enter a common channel
draining to the drainage channel along the military railroad passing through
Camp Bryan. The railroad channels drain westward approximately 1.9 miles to a
tributary of Hunters Creek approximately 0.5 miles long. Hunters Creek drains
Great Lake in Craven County and flows into White Oak River approximately 9.3
stream miles downstream from the above tributary. Thus the total flow distance
from the wetland ponds to White Oak River is approximately 11.7 miles.
No adverse impact to the water quality of the White Oak River is expected from
this water. The high quality of the water plus the lengthy detention time in the
wetland, the further uptake of remaining nutrients in the wetland, and the long
stream travel in the channels and Hunters Creek negate any probable adverse
effects from the water. Salinity dilution in the White Oak River estuary has been
of concern. The effects of this flow on dilution of river salinity can be placed into
perspective as follows:
■ Flow from wetland: 50% x 8.7 mgd (2025): 4.35 mgd
■ Average daily flow into White Oak River from annual rainfall at 50 % runoff
(drainage area 287 mi2): 360 mgd
■ Flow into White Oak River from one 4-inch rainfall event in 24 hours at 50 %
runoff (drainage area 287 mi2): 10,000 mgd
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-15

Section 3
Project Phasing
■ Average diurnal tidal exchange with 2-foot tidal variation in White Oak
River (5.1 min) = 4,266 mgd
■ Wetland discharge as percent of average runoff:
4.35 mgd/360 mgd =1.2%
■ Wetland discharge as percent of one 4-inch rainfall event in 24 hours:
4.35 mgd/10,000 mgd = 0.04%
■ Wetland discharge as percent of diurnal tidal exchange:
4.35 mgd /4,266 mgd = 0.10%
The above comparisons suggest that the effect of the discharge on White Oak
River salinity is negligible compared to natural rainfall and tidal events. It might
be reasonably expected that the probable increase in lower order aquatic food
chain material from the wetland and the long flow in Hunters Creek would
enhance the White Oak River environment for fish and shellfish.
The combination of irrigation and wetland habitat maximizes the beneficial reuse
of the plant effluent and constitutes an environmentally acceptable system for
returning the effluent to the environment. The system will perform reliably under
any weather or flow condition.
A possible additional benefit from the irrigation and wetland system is the general
recharge of the groundwater inland from Bogue Banks. Whether or not such
recharge would have a direct beneficial effect on the Castle Hayne aquifer from
which most Carteret County municipalities draw groundwater is beyond the
scope of this report. It is our understanding, however, that the aquifers are not
isolated inland. Therefore, it is possible that a higher groundwater table,
particularly in the high -demand summer season, could have a beneficial effect by
countering the groundwater table drawdown from wells and thereby helping to
retard salt water intrusion.
It should be noted that the pocosin area where the wetlands are proposed is part
of a general pocosin area extending southward into Croatan NF. It may be
possible that Croatan NF would like to have the discharge from the wetland flow
into their pocosin area, particularly during the summer season. The area is at a
slightly lower elevation than the wetland and probably can absorb some or all of
the system flow with beneficial results. This possibility should be explored with
Croatan NF at the time of Phase 1 preliminary design.
It should be noted that the proposed waterfowl habitat type wetland can be
loaded at a significantly greater loading rate than a more traditional vegetated
type wetland because: (1) the applied wastewater has been treated to the extent
that the wetland is not being relied on as a treatment process component, and (2)
the wetland system is principally open water surface where it is desirable to
maintain a flow of fresh water moving through the system. The proposed loading
rate of 30 acres per mgd is twice the loading rate of the originally proposed
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-16

Section 3
Project Phasing
vegetated type wetland (60 acres per mgd). It should be further noted that,
depending on the performance of the wetland system and the portion of water
used for irrigation, it may not be necessary to expand the wetland significantly, if
at all, for Phase 2. Thus the cost of the wetland on a unit flow basis is only 50
percent of the cost of the wetland system proposed in the Land Application
Feasibility Study and may be even lower if little or no expansion is needed in
Phase 2.
We propose the Phase 1 wetland to be sized for 4.0 mgd at the above loading rate
-- of 30 acres per mgd for a total area of 120 acres.
The conveyance system comprises an effluent pump station at the treatment plant
and a force main from the plant to the wetland system. We propose to size the
force main for 110 percent of the 2025 total system average flow, i.e., 110% x 8.70
- mgd = 9.57 mgd (see Appendix 1) which coincides with the peak flow for Phase 1
_ of 9.3 mgd (see 3.4.1.). This requires a 24-inch pipe operating at a pump pressure
of approximately 100 psi at the design flow.
To handle the total system peak flow of 20.90 mgd (see Appendix 2), we propose
j to install a flow equalization tank at the treatment plant to reduce the peak flow to
average flow at the time Phase 2 is constructed. This tank will also serve as a
chlorine contact tank. The tank will be sized based on flows projected at that time
based on the operating experience of Phase 1. The equalization tank will also
facilitate maximizing the beneficial reuse of the effluent for irrigation by
maximizing pumping during high demand periods each day.
3.4.5 Existing Systems
The Phase 1 system will probably be connected to the existing Morehead City and
Newport wastewater collection systems to provide relief to the existing treatment
plants. Both systems are subject to significant infiltration/inflow which should be
controlled for the new system. The proposed pressure type collection system for
the Bogue Banks municipalities should have negligible infiltration/inflow.
Connections to the existing systems will be by pump station and force main. The
pump stations could be located at the existing treatment plants or at existing
pump stations or gravity trunk sewers. The system controls will be arranged so
that the selected quantity or proportion of flow to the existing system will be
delivered to the new system. For Morehead City it will be more economical to
i take flow from within the collection system than from the existing treatment plant
to avoid an underwater crossing of Calico Creek. For Newport, either location
will be satisfactory.
3.4.6 Flow Measurement
For cost accounting purposes, it will be appropriate to measure the wastewater
flow from each municipality. Since all flows into the system will be pumped, the
most appropriate and economical locations to measure flows are at the pump
stations where flow meters can be installed in the pump station discharge pipes.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-17

Section 3
Project Phasing
For the Bogue Banks pressure collection system, the flow meters will be installed
at the local pump stations discharging into the force main conveyance system.
The locations at pump stations also provides an opportunity for monitoring the
performance of individual pumps and the flows from respective parts of the
system. This could be helpful in diagnosing unusual flow variations. If system
flow management from a central control point ever becomes necessary, the flow
meters will become part of the control system telemetry.
3.5 Final Implementation Plan
The preliminary implementation plan in Section 3.4 divided the overall regional
wastewater system plan into Phase 1 and Phase 2. The estimated cost of Phase 2 is
more than twice the cost of Phase 1. If Phase 1 is constructed as proposed, it is not
necessary for Phase 2 to be constructed all at one time. We have not attempted to
subdivide the Phase 2 work, but there is a practicable way to do so.
Extension of the Phase 1 system on Bogue Banks to serve Pine Knoll Shores and
Indian Beach can readily be separated from the Phase 2 scope and will comprise a
project with a cost of approximately $22,330,000 plus expansion of the treatment
plant by two modules at a total cost of approximately $6,280,000 for a total of
$28,610,000. This would leave a balance of $82,640,000 to finish Phase 2. Further
division of this balance into sub -phases will be more difficult because most of the
flow originates in the farthest municipality in the system, Emerald Isle. Serving
Cedar Point and/or Cape Carteret, for example, without Emerald Isle would
result in significantly oversized pipe along NC 24. This could result in grit build-
up in the force main as well as high septicity of the wastewater due to long
detention time in the pipe.
The final implementation plan should be developed only after detailed discussion
of this report by the CCIA representatives. There are many variations of the
system and implementation plan which could be considered in addition to
financial and political considerations. The final plan should reflect all of these
considerations.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-18

0
MAN

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
4.1 Capital Cost
The estimated capital costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 (in 1997 dollars) are shown in
Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. These costs include the cost of engineering design and
land for the treatment plant and pump stations. They do not include the cost of
surveying, geotechnical investigations, public relations, pipe right-of-ways, or
engineering services during construction.
The estimated capital costs for conveyance and treatment have been allocated
between the respective municipalities based on the cost of each facility component
to be used by each municipality proportioned between all municipalities using
that component based on 2025 average flows. This is not necessarily the most
equitable way of dividing capital costs because (1) the farthest municipalities from
the treatment plant have the highest conveyance system costs based solely on the
selected plant site, and (2) municipalities not to receive service until Phase 2 incur
Phase 1 capital costs for their share of the common facilities to be used in the
future.
The cost of the collection system for each municipality is allocated solely to that
municipality.
The estimated costs are based on assumed service areas and should generally be
considered as conservative. We expect the costs to be lower when the scope and
facilities are refined during preliminary design. There are design features which
can possible by employed to reduce costs. For example, by increasing the size of
the collection tanks at the local pump stations, the tanks can be used as flow
equalization tanks which can reduce the size and capacity and cost of the
conveyance system. By working with concrete precasters we can develop a
standard concrete "source pump station" or comparable plastic product to
minimize costs. Likewise, we can work with pump manufacturers to select the
most cost-effective pumps for these stations. During preliminary design the actual
pipe routes can be selected and competitive pipe installation costs discussed with
local contractors to achieve the lowest costs. Geotechnical investigation of the
wetland area may reveal ways to construct the wetlands at significantly less cost
than currently estimated.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-1

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
4.1.1 Phase 1 Cost Estimate
Collection System
WW source PS 819 @ $10,000 each
$8,190,0b0i
2-4" pipe 110,000 It @ $12/ft
$1,320,000
6" pipe 22,000 It @ $20/ft
$440,000
Local PS 4 @ $1,500,000
$6.000,000
Cost Allocation
Subtotal
$15,950,000
Atlantic Beach
$15,950,000
Conveyance System
12" pipe
11,700 It @ $45/ft
$530,000
18" pipe
14,600 ft @ $78/ft
$1,140,000
20" pipe
11,700 it @ $89/ft
$1,040,000
Additional for bridge
4,400 ft @ $80/ft
$350,000
crossing
Booster PS
1 @ $2,000,000 each
$2,000,000
Subtotal
$5,060,000
Cost Allocation
Indian Beach:
$1,423,000
0_96 x $1,140,000 + 0.96 x $3,390,000
2.44 3.34
Pine Knoll Shores:
$860,000
0.58 x $1,140,000 + 3.0.58 x $3,390,000
44
Atlantic Beach:
$2,777,000
$530,000 + 2-90 x$1,140,000 + 3-3480
2.84 x$3,390,000
Subtotal
$5,060,000
Collection System Local PS 2 @ $1,000,000 each $2,000,000
10" pipe 1,000 It @ $36/ft $40,000
12" pipe 1,000 ft @ $45/ft $50,000
Cost Allocation Subtotal $2,090,000
Morehead City $2,090,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-2

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Conveyance System 24" pipe 36,700 it @ $102/ft $3,750,000
Booster PS 1 @ $2,000,000 each $2,000,000
Subtotal $5,750,000
Cost Allocation Indian Beach: 0.96 x $5,750,000 $1,227,000
4.50
Pine Knoll Shores: 0.58 x $5,750,000 $741,000
4.50
Atlantic Beach: 1'80 x $5,750,000 $2,300,000
4.50
Morehead City: 1.16 x $5,750,000 $1.482,000
4.50
Beaufort' - 0 -
Subtotal $5,750,000
No allocation for Beaufort, but Beaufort should share this and Phase 1
treatment plant costs if Beaufort participates in the system.
Collection System I NA
Conveyance System Pump Station 1 @ $1,000,000 $1,000,000
8" pipe 13,400 It @ $30/ft $410,000
Subtotal $1,410,000
Cost Allocation Newport $1,410,000
Regional WWTP
Land [50 acres @ $10,000 (Phase 1 and 2)]
$500,000
Access roads and site work (Phase 1 and 2)
$200,000
Fencing (Phase 1 and 2)
$100,000
Headworks (Phase 1 and 2)
$500.000
Primary Sedimentation (Phase 1)
$1,200,000
Biological Treatment (Phase 1)
$3,000,000
Filtration (Phase 1)
$900,000
Disinfection (Phase 1)
$1,000.000
Solids Processing (Phase 1)
$1,500.000
Support Facilities (Phase 1 and 2)
$3,000,000
Subtotal
$11,900,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-3

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Phase Allocation
Phase 1
$7,600,000
Phase 1 and 2
$4,300,000
Effluent Conveyance
System
Pump Station
1 @ $2,000,000
$2,000,000
Force Main
72,500 ft @ $102Rt
$7,400,000
Subtotal
$9,400,000
Phase Allocation
Phase 1
$6,200,000
Phase 1 and 2
$3,200,000
Wetland System
(Phase 1)
30acres
4nrgd x x $42,000/acre
rngd
$5,040,000
Access road
$100,000
Subtotal
$5,140,000
Phase Allocation
Phase 1
$2,900,000
Phase 1 and 2
$2,240,000
Regional WWTP
$7,600,000
$4,300.000
$11,900,000
Effluent Conveyance
$6,200,000
$3,200,000
$9,400,000
Wetland
$2,900,000
$2,240,000
$5,140.000
Totals
$16,700,000
$9,740,000
$26,440,000
Combined Cost
Atlantic Beach:
$8,695,000
Allocation
1.80
1.0
x 16,700,000
+
x $9,740,000
4.50
8.770
Pine Knoll Shores:
$2,802,000
0.58 x $16,700,000
+ 0-58
x $9,740,000
4.50
8.70
.Indian Beach:
$4.637,000
0.96 x $16,700,000
+ 2*96
x $9,740,000
'
4.50
8.70
Morehead City (Relief & US 70):
$5.604,000
1.16 x $16,700,000
+ 1'16
x $9,740,000
4. 00
8.70
Emerald Isle:
$1,870,000
1.67
— x
$9,740,000
8.70
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-4

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Combined Cost Cedar Point: 0.21 $235.000
Allocation (cont.) — x $9,740,000
8.70
Cape Carteret: 1.04 $1,164,000
— x $9,740,000
8.70
Bogue: 0.20 $224,000
x $9,740,000
8.70
Morehead City (NC 24): 0.83 $929,000
x $9,740,000
8.70
Newport: 0.25 $280,000
x $9,740,000
8.70
Total
$26,440,000 1
Atlantic Beach
$15,950,000
$5,077,000
$8,695,000
$29,722,000
Pine Knoll
Shores
-0-
$1,601,000
$2,802,000
$4,403,000
Indian Beach
-0-
$2,650,000
$4,637,000
$7,287,000
Morehead City
(Relief & US 70)
$2,090,000
$1,482,000
$5,604.000
$9,176,000
Emerald Isle
-0-
-0-
$1,870,000
$1,870,000
Cedar Point
-0-
-0-
$235,000
$235,000
Cape Carteret
-0-
-0-
$1,164,000
$1,164,000
Bogue
-0-
-0-
$224,000
$224.000
Morehead City
(NC 24)
-0-
-0-
$929,000
$929,000
Newport
-0-
$1,410,000
$280,000
$1,690,000
Totals
$18,040,000
$12,220,000
$26,440,000
$56,700,000
Total Phase 1 Cost
$56,700,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-5

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
4.1.2 Phase 2 Cost Estimate
Collection System
Cost Allocation
WW source PS:
437 @ $10,000
$4.370,000
2-4" pipe
24,000 ft @ $1 2/ft
$290,000
6" pipe
13,000 ft @ $20/ft
$260,000
Local PS
2 @ $1,500,000
$3,000,000
Subtotal
$7,920,000
Indian Beach
$7,920,000
Conveyance
System
Cost Allocation
14
EP:1 pipe
18,400 ft Q $57/11
$1,050,000
Booster PS
1 (9) $2,000,000
$2,000,000
Subtotal
$3,050,000
Indian Beach
$3,050,000
Fine Knoll Shores
to Atlantic
BeachB
Collection System
Cost Allocation
WW source PS
264 @ $10,000
$2,640,000
2-4" pipe
63,000 ft @ $12/ft
$760,000_
6" pipe
13,000 ft @ $20/ft
$260,000
Local PS
3 @ $1,500,000
$4,500,000
Subtotal
$8,160,000
Pine Knoll Shores
$8,160,000
Conveyance
System
Cost Allocation
16" pipe
18,400 ft @ $65/ft
$1,200,000
Booster PS
1 @ $2,000,000
$2,000,000
Subtotal
$3,200,000
Pine Knoll Shores: 0.58 x $3,200,000
1.54
$1,205,000
Indian Beach, 0.96
x $3,200,000
1.54
$1,995,000
Subtotal
$3,200,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-6

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Collection System WW source PS 757 @ $10,000
2-4" pipe 281,000 it @ $12/ft
6" pipe 60,000 ft @ $20/ft
Local PS 9 @ $1,500,000
Cost Allocation Subtotal
Emerald Isle
Conveyance
System
8" pipe
25,000 ft @ $30/ft
10" pipe
14,200 ft Co) $36Rt
14" pipe
23,400 ft @ $57Nt
16" pipe
10,900 ft @ $65/ft
Additional for bridge
crossing
5,000 it @ $75/ft
Booster PS
3 @ $2,000,000
Emerald Isle
Cost Allocation
Subtotal
$7,570,000
$3,372,000
$1,200,000
$13,500,000
$25,650,000
$25,650,000
$750,000
$520,000
$1.340,000
$710.000
$380,000
$6,000,000
$9,700,000
$9,700,000
Collection System
Cost Allocation
WW source PS 97 @ $10,000/each
$970,000
2-4" pipe 62,000 ft @ $12/ft
$750,000
6" pipe 27,000 ft @ $20/ft
$540,000
Local PS 3 @ $1,500,000
$4,500,000
Subtotal
$6,760,000
Cedar Point
$6,760,000
Conveyance
System
Cost Allocation
8" pipe
16,700 ft @ $30/ft
$510,000
Subtotal
$510,000
Cedar Point
$510.000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-7

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Collection System WW source PS
(Cape Carteret)
2-4" pipe
6" pipe
Cost Allocation Local PS
Cape Carteret
Collection Systems WW Source PS
(Bogue)
2-4" pipe
6" pipe
Local PS
Cost Allocation
Conveyance
System
(Cape Carteret &
Bogue)
Cost Allocation
Bogue
20" pipe
Booster PS
298 @ $10,000 each
113,000 ft @ $12/ft
16,000 ft @ $20/ft
3 @ $1,500,000
Subtotal
100 @ $10,000/each
30,000/t @ $12/ft
7,000/ft @ $20/ft
1 @ $1,500,000
Subtotal
58,400 ft @ $89/ft
3 @ 2,000,000
Subtotal
Emerald Isle: 1.67 x $11,200,000
3.12
Cedar Point: 0.21 x $11,200,000
3.12
Cape Carteret: 1'04 x $11,200,000
3.12
Bogue: 0.20 x $11,200,000
3.12
Collection System WW source PS
2-4" pipe
6" pipe
Local PS
Cost Allocation Morehead City
Subtotal
250 @ $10,000
116,000 ft @ $12/ft
24,900 ft @ $20/ft
4 @ $1,500.000
Subtotal
$2,980,000
$1,360,000
$320,000
$460,000
$9,160,000
$5,110,000
$1,000,000
$360,000
$140,000
$,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$5,200,000
$6,000,000
$11,200,000
$5,995,000
$754,000
$3,733,000
$718.000
$11,200,000
$2,500.000
$1,400,000
$500,000
$6,000,000
$10,400,000
$10,400,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-8

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Conveyance
10" pipe
12,000 ft @ $36/ft
$440,000
System
14" pipe
12,200 it @ $57/(t
$670,000
Subtotal
$1,110,000
Cost Allocation
Morehead City
$1,110,000
G :[Hlbbx R08d #a WWTP.'t
Collector System
No facilities included
Conveyance
24" pipe 15,400 ft @ $102/ft
$1,630,000
System
Booster PS 1 @ $2,000,000
$2,000,000
Subtotal
$3,630,000
Cost Allocation
Emerald Isle: 1*67 x $3,630,000
3.95
$1,534,000
Cedar Point: 011 x $3,630,000
3.95
$193,000
Cape Carteret: 1.04 x $3,630,000
3.95
$956,000
Bogue: 020 x $3,630,000
3.95
$184,000
Morehead City: 0'83 x $3,630,000
3.95
$763,000
Subtotal
$3,630,000
Regional WWTP
Expansion
Primary Sedimentation (Phase 2)
$2,000,000
Biological Treatment (Phase 2)
$5,000,000
Filtration (Phase 2)
$1,500.000
Disinfection (Phase 2)
$1,700,000
Solids Processing (Phase 2)
$2,500,000
Flow Equalization
$2,000,000
Miscellaneous Improvements
$1,000,000
Subtotal
$15,700,000
Effluent
Conveyance
System Expansion
Pump Station Improvements
$500,000
Subtotal
$500,000
Wetland System
Expansion
50% expansion
$2,500,000
Miscellaneous Improvements
$200,000
Subtotal
$2,700,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-9

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Combined Cost
Regional WWTP Expansion
$15,700,000
Allocation
Effluent Conveyance System Expansion
$600,000
Wetland System Expansion
$2,700,000
Subtotal
$18,900,000
Indian Beach: 0.96 x $18,900,000
5.49
$3,305,000
Pine Knoll Shores: 0.58 x $18,900,000
5.49
$1.997,000
Emerald Isle: 1'67 x $18,900,000
5.49
$5,749,000
Cedar Point: 011 x $18,900,000
5.49
$723,000
Cape Carteret: 1.04 x $18,900,000
5.49
$3,580,000
Bogue: 020 x $18,900,000
5.49
$689,000
Morehead City/NC 24: 0'83 x $18,900,000
5.49
$2,857,000
Subtotal
$18,900,000
Total Phase 2 Cost
$111,250,000
I Total Coat Allocation
{F+hase)
Municipality
Coilectton
t nnveyarice
treatmen#NVetlantl
Total
Indian Beach
$7,920,000
$5,045,000
$3,305,000
$16,270.000
Pine Knoll
$8,160,000
$1,205,000
$1,997,000
$11,362,000
Shores
Emerald Isle
$25,650,000
$17,229,000
$5,749,000
$48,628,000
Cedar Point
$6,760,000
$1,457,000
$723,000
$8,940,000
Cape Carteret
$9,160,000
$4,689,000
$3,580,000
$17,429.000
Bogus
$3,000,000
$902,000
$689,000
$4,591,000
Morehead
$10,400,000
$1,873,000
$2,857,000
$15,130,000
City/NC 24
Totals
$69,050,000
$32,400,000
$18,900,000
$122,350,000
Total Phase 2 Cost
$122,350,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-10

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
4.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost
The estimated operation and maintenance costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are shown
below. The costs have been developed based on the estimated cost for the total
facilities at projected average year 2025 flows and reduced for Phase 1 costs based
on the Phase 1 municipalities participating and their projected average year 2025
flows. Each component of operation and maintenance cost is proportioned
between the respective municipalities based on flow where appropriate and
otherwise on best judgement factors.
Operation and maintenance cost estimates are based on many presumed
conditions including equipment repair and replacement, staffing levels and costs,
routine operating costs, electricity and chemical usage, etc. These conditions
cannot be identified and quantified with sufficient accuracy for budgeting at this
stage of project development. Hence, the operation and maintenance cost
estimate should be considered as having only order of magnitude accuracy at this
stage.
Following are summaries of the projected operation and maintenance costs for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 and a table of cost allocation to the respective municipalities.
In the cost allocation, it should be noted that the annual operation and
maintenance costs for Atlantic Beach, Morehead City, and Newport reduce
significantly when the Phase 2 municipalities are served. This is because the fixed
operation and maintenance costs such as the base staffing of the treatment plant
are shared by more municipalities in Phase 2. The basis of the cost estimate is
included at Appendix 6.
Summary of Phase 1 System Operation and Maintenance Costs
(3.3 mgd flow)
Electricity:
Collection & Conveyance: 3=3 x $423,000 = $159,000
8.8
Treatment: 33_3 x $682,000 = $256,000
8.8
Personnel:
Collection & Conveyance: 3=3 x $180,000= I $68,000
8.8
Treatment: 80% x $240,000 = $192,000
Vehicles & Equipment:
Capital: 75% x $44,000 = $33,000
Maintenance & Fuel: 33_3 x $30,000= $12,000
8.8
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-11

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Treatment Plant: 80% x $138,000 = 1 $111,000
Conveyance System: 3=3 x $33,000 = I $13,000
8.8
Reuse System: 90% x $39,000 = $35,000
Communications System: 75%x $31,000 = $24,000
Total $903,000
Summary of Phase 2 System Operation and Maintenance Costs
(8.8 mgd flow) -
Electricity:
Collection & Conveyance:
$423,000
Treatment:
$682,000
Personnel:
Collection & Conveyance:
$180,000
Treatment:
$240,000
Vehicles & Equipment (all functions):
Capital: $440,000/10-year replacement:
$44,000
Maintenance & Fuel:
$30,000
Treatment Plant:
$138,000
Conveyance System:
$33,000
Reuse System:
$39,000
Communications System:
$31,000
Total
$1,840,000
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-12

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Operation and Maintenance
Cost Allocation
Annual
Cost
Mumapallty
Phase !
Phase2
Atlantic Beach
$506,000-
$381,000
Morehead City (relief & US 70)
$326,000'
$245,000
Newport
$71,000'
$53,000
Pine Knoll Shores
---
$123,000
Indian Beach
---
$203,000
Emerald Isle
---
$352,000
Cedar Point
---
$45,000
Cape Carteret
---
$220,000
Bogue/NC 24
---
$42,000
Morehead City (NC 24)
---
$176,000
Total
$903,000
$1,840,000
Phase 1 O&M costs are reduced when additional users are connected to the system in
Phase 2.
4.3 Funding
The estimated capital cost and operation maintenance cost presented in section 4.1
and 4.2 were input into a financial planning model to determine the estimated
revenue needs for each of the participating municipalities to fund these costs.
These costs are presented in terms of estimated monthly charges per residential
customer.
Three different financing alternatives were explored: G.O. Bonds, SRF funding and
a combination of 50% grant funding and 50% SRF funding. There are many
combinations of financing which could eventually be examined when the timing
of the phasing plan is determined.
For the purpose of running the model for these alternatives it was assumed that
Phase 1 would begin in 2000 and be completed in 2002 and operating and
maintenance cost would begin in 2003. Phase 2 would begin in 2003 and be
completed in 2005 and operation and maintenance costs would begin in 2006.
For purposes of calculating costs for this planning model, an inflation factor of 3%
annually was used. Capital costs from Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 were considered
1997 dollars and were inflated annually until the year the projects were assumed
to begin. Operation and Maintenance costs were also assumed to be in 1997
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-13

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
dollars and were inflated until the year the operating and maintenance cost began
for each phase.
4.3.1 Financing Terms
The financing terms assumed for the G.O. bond financing alternative was based on
thirty year bonds, 6% interest rate. The advantage of selling G.O. bonds is that
there would be no debt service reserve requirement and no debt service coverage
test. For the municipalities with no current utility fund G.O. bonds would in most
cases be easier to issue than revenue bonds since there is no past revenue history
to rely on. The disadvantage of issuing G. O. bonds is that it is possible it could
limit the ability to issue more G. O. bonds for other municipality needs in the
future. Unless any of the municipalities have large G.O. issues already
outstanding this should not be considered a serious disadvantage. Table 4-1
shows the estimated debt service for this alternative for each municipality by
phase. The phase 2 debt service includes debt already incurred for phase 1.
The SRF program for the state of North Carolina is based on a twenty year loan
period with an interest rate which is estimated for this comparison at 3%. The
state does not require a debt service reserve nor a debt service coverage test.
Funds are limited to $7,500,000 a year per municipality. The recommended plan
would be for each municipality to apply for funds to finance the collection system
and the regional facility would apply for funds for the conveyance system,
treatment and reuse disposal system. Table 4-2 shows the estimated debt service
for. the SRF financing alternative.
The third alternative is a combination of grants and SRF financing. For the
purpose of this study the grant was assumed to be 50% and the balance of the
project cost would be financed through SRF as discussed above. A few of the
grant programs will be discussed later in more detail. This alternative which
produces the lowest debt service is demonstrated on Table 4-3.
4.3.2 Customer Base
Estimated monthly costs were calculated in two components: base and
consumption. The base cost is calculated by dividing the debt service for each
alternative by the number of ERUS (equivalent residential units) and by twelve to
calculate a monthly charge. The consumption charge is calculated by dividing the
operation and maintenance cost as allocated to the municipalities in section 4.2 by
the estimated annual flow. Average consumption per residential customer was
estimated based on the gallons per capita day (gpcd) calculation used to calculate
design flow times the average persons per household for each city.
Estimated number of customers were classified by residential homes, mobile
homes and condominiums from information obtained from the census report of
1990 and land use and water supply plans for the municipalities when available.
Commercial customers were estimated from land use and water supply plans and
from information on hotels and motels supplied by the Carteret County Tourist
Bureau. It was assumed that most businesses with the exception of the hotels and
motels would have 5/8 inch meter and would be equal to one ERU. Hotel motel
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-14

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
meter sizes were estimated from the number of estimated units in the hotel and
motel category.
Since we did not have monthly water usage from every city, we estimated annual
water use by using maximum month for Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, Emerald
Isle, Cape Carteret and Cedar Point. We estimated the balance of the eleven
months by applying same ratio of various months to July as we had calculated
from Atlantic Beach. Exact assumptions for each city and data determined from
these calculations will be found in Appendix 9.
4.3.3 Estimated Monthly Charges
Although often the recovery of the cost for collection systems is through a
property assessment which can be paid in full at the time of assessment or over a
period of time, usually 15-20 years, that approach was not taken in this study.
Since these collection projects will be bringing service to all the property owners
in the municipality, there should be no inequity in recovering the cost of the
collection system, along with the transmission and treatment facilities, through the
monthly base charge for wastewater. This method will result in a lower annual
cost than if the annual assessment and monthly user charges were levied
separately. The consumption (or treatment) charge would be based on the amount
of water read through the meter for water billing.
However, it is recommended that the cities establish an impact fee to charge new
facilities which could be built after the sewer system is installed. This ensures that
new growth pays for its share of the excess capacity which is built into the system
which all the users are paying for each month through their monthly bill. This is
important in areas that currently have no sewer system. Generally commercial
properties will develop more once a central sewer system is available and even
properties already developed will be redeveloped with facilities which will need
more capacity than currently using.
Tables 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 demonstrate the estimated monthly residential customer
charge for the recovery of both operation and maintenance costs, and the debt
service on the capital project. As shown is the median household income per
home based on the 1990 census inflated to the fiscal years shown on the tables. As
a measure of affordability the annual residential customer charge is shown as a
percentage of the median household income. EPA uses a guideline of 1.25% as the
affordability of a sewer project. For the cities of Morehead and Newport the
charge shown on the tables would be in addition to the current user charges.
It should be noted that Bogue was added late in the study and little information
was available when capacity calculations were made. Based on the flow used in
the capacity calculations the flow per customer for the township based on census
data population is very low. Therefore the monthly costs are not reflective of the
actual cost that would be calculated if the population and flow were compatible.
The costs reflected on these tables for Bogue is most likely too low.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-15

f
TABLE 4-4
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MONTHLY CHARGE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
USING GO BONDS FOR FINANCING
Phase I- FY 2003
Estimated Monthly Charge $37.28 $13.02 $52.41 $78.01 $126.46 $140.33 $229.09 $77.14 $100.61
Estimated Median Household Income $27,627 $38,731 $37,861 $55,469 $46,525 $49,943 $40,807 $35,971 $30,331
Annual Wastewater Charge as % 1.62% 0.40% 1.66% 1.69% 3.26% 3.37% 6.74% 2.57% 3.98%
of Household Income
Phase II- FY 2006
Estimated Monthly Charge $34.36 $11.55 $51.47 $81.22 $128.29 $132.64 $234.67 $81.24 $101.13
Estimated Median Household Income $29,751 $41,709 $40,772 $59,734 $50,102 $53,784 $43,944 $38,737 $32,664
Annual Wastewater Charge as % 1.39% 0.33% 1.51% 1.63% 3.07% 2.96% 6.41% 2.52% 3.72%
of Household Income
20.Iun-97

Wit
TABLE 4-5
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MONTHLY CHARGE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
USING STATE REVOLVING FUNDS FOR FINANCING
;Munzcipalrty
Morehead Newpozf
Aflanto
Pigeknoll
Indian
Emeraltl Cape
Cedar Rogue
Cafy,
Beach Shozes
Beach
Isle
Carteret
Pomt
Phase I- FY 2003
Estimated Monthly Charge
$34.68
$12.33
$48.74
$72.01
$116.62
$129.36
$211.43
$71.38 $92.75
Estimated Median Household Income
$27,627
$38,731
$37,861
$55,469
$46,525
$49,943
$40,807
$35,971 $30,331
Annual Wastewater Charge as%
1.51%
0.38%
1.54%
1.56%
3.01%
3.11%
6.22%
2.38% 3.67%
of Household Income
Phase II- FY 2006
Estimated Monthly Charge
$31.85
$10.90
$47.80
$75.22
$118.50
$122.47
$217.16
$75.60 $93.37
Estimated Median Household Income
$29,751
$41,709
$40,772
$59,734
$50,102
$53,784
$43,944
$38,737 $32,664
Annual Wastewater Charge as%
1.28%
0.31%
1.41%
1.51%
2.84%
2.73%
5.93%
2.34% 3.43%
of Household Income
20-Jun-97

TABLE 4-6
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MONTHLY CHARGE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
USING STATE REVOLVING FUND FOR FINANCING AND GRANT FUNDING
Phase I- FY 2003
Estimated Monthly Charge $19.63 $8.31 $27.46 $37.18 $59.52 $65.70 $108.90 $37.95 $47.08
Estimated Median Household Income $27,627 $38,731 $37,861 $55,469 $46,525 $49,943 $40,807 $35,971 $30,331
Annual Wastewater Charge as % 0.85% 0.26% 0.87% 0.80% 1.54% 1.58% 3.20% 1.27% 1.86%
of Household Income
Phase II- FY 2006
Estimated Monthly Charge $17.29 $7.15 $26.52 $40.39 $61.67 $63.43 $115.56 $42.86 $48.31
Estimated Median Household Income $29,751 $41,709 $40,772 $59,734 $50,102 $53,784 $43,944 $38,737 $32,664
Annual Wastewater Charge as % 0.70% 0.21 % 0.78% 0.81 % 1.48% 1.42% 3.16% 1.33% 1.77%
of Household Income
20-Jun-97

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
As mentioned before detailed customer information was not available for these
calculations. Number of accounts by various meter sizes for each city might result
in a higher eru count and thus a lower monthly bill. These numbers should be
used as a measure of difference in rates by using different financing and funding
methods.
Several different methods could be used for handling the billing for the these
customer charges. For Morehead City, Newport and Atlantic Beach the regional
facility should bill the cities on a monthly basis as a wholesale customer. This
monthly billing would be broken down into a base cost to cover the capital
improvements and a variable costs to cover the operating and maintenance costs.
The operating maintenance costs could be based on a fixed allocation of total
operation and maintenance or a variable charge based on wastewater flow
treated. In this study the fixed allocation method was used.
The cities who do not have a municipal water system could either contract with
the private water utilities to bill for the wastewater charges or the regional
administration could set up a billing system to bill all the customers in these cities
for wastewater. If the later option is selected the regional facility will still need to
obtain water readings from the private utilities.
4.3.4 Rural Utility Service Grants and Loans
The Rural Utility Service is a division of Rural Development under USDA. These
loans and grants were formerly called FmHA. The criteria for these grants and
loans is based on median household income (MHI) and the amount of the monthly
utility bill.
The qualifying criteria for RUS assistance is divided into three categories:
1) The poverty level qualifies for an interest rate of approximately 4.5% and is
applicable for cities whose MHI is under 80% of the state MHI ($26,453). The
cutoff line would therefore be $21,162. Under this criteria only Morehead City
would qualify based on 1990 census data. There is also the possibility of
obtaining up to a 75% grant also depending upon the estimated average sewer
bill after project impact is added.
2) The second category is intermediate which has an estimated interest rate of
5%. The qualifying MHI for this category is $21,162 to $26,453. Both the Town
of Bogue, Beaufort and Cedar Point would qualify in this category. This
category also has a possibility of a 55% grant depending upon the estimated
average sewer bill.
3) The last category is called market and qualifies for an estimated interest rate
of 5.5% with no grant funding. This category is for any MHI above $26,453.
Based upon the 1990 census, the town of Newport, Emerald Isle, Atlantic Beach,
Pine Knoll Shores, Cape Carteret and Indian Beach would all into this category.
As mentioned above the second qualifier for these grants and loans is the average
sewer bill. The goal is to keep the sewer bill after project costs is added to near the
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-19

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
state average which is now $25-27 a month. Therefore a projected sewer bill
above this range is a qualifier within the MHI categories.
This is a potential funding source that should be pursued as project scheduling
become more definite. Interest rates quoted are for the current year and are
revised annually based on bond market rates.
4.3.5 Grants
In addition to the SRF and RUS program already discussed, there are other federal
and state grants for which the regional authority and individual cities could apply.
At this time, there are two bills in state legislature to enable the issuance of one
billion dollars of bonds. These funds would be available for grants and revolving
loans for wastewater and water projects. The state is encouraging regionalization
and consolidation of both water and wastewater facilities so the CCIA project
would be looked upon favorably by DHEC.
4.3.6 Tourist Tax as Funding Source
Another possible source of revenue to augment customer charges could be a
tourist tax on room rentals. The equity of this option is that the wastewater
system must be sized to accommodate the peak tourist season wastewater flow.
The extra capacity affects the base charge for all users. The county currently has a
tourist tax or occupancy tax of 3%. This brings in approximately $1.5 million
dollars annually. Of this revenue 20% goes to the County, 55% to tourist
promotion and the balance is divided between the cities. In order to use revenue
from this source the tax would need to be increased and state that it could be used
for infrastructure for the regional system or allocated to the cities to augment
funding for their individual collection systems.
4.4 Cost Sharing
As shown in 4.1, the total capital cost of both the Phase 1 system and Phase 2
system is substantial. Most of the components of the Phase 1 conveyance,
treatment, and reuse systems will also be used by the municipalities added to the
system in Phase 2. It is necessary, therefore, that a satisfactory means of sharing
the cost of the common Phase 1 facilities be developed. There is also the issue, as
discussed previously, of the inequities of conveyance system costs of serving the
various municipalities due to the disparity of distances between the collection
systems and the common treatment plant.
Regarding sharing the cost of the capital facilities common to all municipalities,
e.g., treatment and reuse systems, when the total system (Phase 2) is finished, the
obvious basis of capital cost sharing is in proportion to the amounts of flow
capacity dedicated to the respective municipalities and, for operation and
maintenance costs, a combination of dedicated capacity and actually used
capacity.
For the Phase 1 capital facilities, either the three initially served municipalities will
have to finance all facilities, including the common facilities, with some form of
buy-back by the other municipalities when Phase 2 is implemented or all
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-20

Section 4
Project Cost and Funding
■ Estimated cost of conveyance system which relates to distance from
treatment plant.
■ That no collection system costs are included for Newport and limited
collection system costs are included for Morehead City in Phase 1.
These cost disparities should not be considered at this stage of system
development to be of significance. We believe that, except for the inequities in
conveyance system costs, the collection system costs for currently unsewered
areas will be reasonably similar between the respective municipalities when the
actual scope is developed during preliminary design.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-22

7

Section 5
Organizational Structure
5.1 Political Considerations
Based on the experience of Atlantic Beach with the Open Grounds Farm
wastewater reuse project, political considerations can dominate over practical
considerations. The formation of CCIA reflects a fundamental necessity for
successful implementation of a wastewater system ... that the system must have
broad regional support and must not be perceived as favoring any particular
municipality or area or, conversely, as having any adverse effect on any
municipality or area. Another fundamental necessity is for the project concept to
develop slowly with early involvement by regulatory agencies and other
interested parties.
Phase 1 of the proposed regional system will probably be more politically
sensitive than Phase 2 because (1) it is the beginning of a new wastewater system
in an environmentally sensitive area, and (2) it has a limited number of initial
users including only one user which does not currently have a wastewater
system (Atlantic Beach). While the other unsewered municipalities will be served
in Phase 2, the incorrect impression could develop that the initial system is an
Atlantic Beach system, thus rejuvenating the previous political animosities
against Atlantic Beach.
It would thus seem prudent for CCIA to form or be converted to an operating
organization with the legal status and recognized purpose to own and operate a
regional wastewater system and, specifically, for the system and all of its
developmental phases to be recognized from the outset as a true regional system
with a regional legal governing authority. This status should help alleviate any
concern that Phase 1 may not be part of a true regional system.
In order to move the project forward, it will soon be necessary for the regional
wastewater system to have political and legal status and staffing in order to deal
with contracts, property ownership, financing, relationships with the respective
members, and communications with others. Status as an operating entity will
necessitate considerable communications and organizational activity. It would
thus seem prudent for project technical development to be accompanied by
organizational development.
5.2 Type of Organization
In the Land Application Feasibility Study, five types of possible organizational
structures were identified along with the respective means of governing and legal
powers. It would be appropriate for CCIA to identify the scope, objectives, and
desired legal powers of the regional system organization and to select the desired
organizational structure to best achieve the objectives, followed by initiation of
the legal and political process for creation of the organization. This process could
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-1

Section 5
Organizational Structure
r—
be lengthy and could necessitate more detailed definition of the proposed
wastewater system than defined in this report.
Because of the high cost of the system, particularly for the currently unsewered
municipalities, it would be prudent to select an organization type which has the
legal authority to require connection to the system so as to obtain the broadest
participation in the system cost.
A source of funding for the organization must be obtained for the first few years
of existence. Presumably, the ultimate funding source will be user charges for
wastewater service provided. The organization should have the authority to
receive state and federal grants and loans and issue bonds.
5.3 Relationship with New and Existing Systems
We recommend that, as a minimum, the system owner own, operate, and
maintain the new conveyance, treatment, and reuse systems. We recommend
that the system owner also own, operate, and maintain the new pressure
collection systems in the currently unsewered municipalities.
We further recommend that Morehead City and Newport review their current
wastewater system operation and maintenance status to determine a possible
interest in transferring ownership and/or operation and maintenance to the new
wastewater organization, thus making the new organization a truly regional
organization. Regardless of how the existing systems are related to the new
system, special considerations will be necessary related to high wet weather
flows, how the total flow will be divided between the existing and new systems,
etc. A contribution of flow and operating funds from Morehead City and
Newport will be necessary from the outset of Phase 1 in order to make the system
operate properly and so as not to place the dominant operating cost on Atlantic
Beach.
While no provisions are made for flow from Beaufort into the new system due to
the absence of a defined need, Beaufort should be given the opportunity of being
included in the new system, in which case costs would be shared on the same
basis as the other municipalities.
COM Camp Dresser & McKee
5-2

0
.
ion
SJX-

I

I }I
Section 6
Regulatory and Public Involvement
6.1 Regulatory Issues
Several meetings and conversations were held with NCDWQ during the course
of preparation of this report regarding the concepts and direction of the
development of a regional wastewater system based on land application of the
final effluent. The general understanding and driving force for the land
f application concept has been NCDWQ's position that no additional expansion of
i existing treatment plant capacities will be permitted and that no new discharges
to Class SA (shellfishing) waters will be permitted in the Carteret County area.
In the most recent conversations with NCDWQ there were indications that some
flexibility in the previous position might be possible regarding expansion of
existing plant capacities. The implications of this could be positive for the
municipalities with existing plants but could be negative for the unsewered
municipalities because the latter may have to finance the entire treatment and
reuse system without contribution from the sewered municipalities. A firm and
final position on this is needed from NCDWQ.
We recommend that, following completion of this report, a meeting be held
between CCIA and the Director of NCDWQ to define clearly NCDWQ's position.
- The implications have a significant impact on the feasibility and cost of a regional
- system using land application for effluent disposal. It would not be prudent for
CCIA to proceed with further development of the project until a clear, realistic,
and final position from NCDWQ is obtained in writing.
I It should be reiterated that there is no engineering reason for denying the
- discharge of a regional wastewater treatment plant effluent into, for example, the
Class SA waters of Calico Creek or Newport River in the vicinity of Morehead
! City. Treatment processes and redundant systems can be employed which will
reliably treat the wastewater to standards which could not possibly contravene
current water quality standards and which far exceed the current effluent quality
of the existing plants. Only NCDWQ's previous position on expansion of the
plants has been the driving force toward the more expensive land application
system.
- 6.2 Public Issues
The matter of a regional wastewater system, regardless of its scope and
configuration, will inevitably receive considerable public attention, scrutiny, and
criticism. It is important, therefore, that the justification for the system be sound
and that the benefits for the system be clear. Public involvement to this point in
I_ the project has not been actively solicited due to lack of clear project definition
and phased scope. Following the definition of project phases in this report,
subsequent forward movement should probably be accompanied by public
I,
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-1
I

Section 6
Regulatory and Public Involvement
involvement activity. Prior to any public information, however, more definitive
commitments on three critical project conditions should be obtained:
■ Approval by NCDWQ of a firm wastewater system development direction,
including the existing systems, expansion of the existing systems, and the
proposed effluent reuse system.
■ Approval by Camp Bryan Farms, Inc., of the proposed wetland waterfowl
habitat system on their property.
■ Agreement that financing the project is possible under identified financing
mechanisms.
Some of the public questions which may develop include:
■ Why the system is needed.
■ Benefit to the typical area property owner.
■ If the system will result in concentrated growth.
■ How much will property owners have to pay.
■ If the White Oak River will be polluted.
■ If the White Oak River salinity will be diluted.
■ How the system relates to the proposed regional ocean outfall.
■ If greater use of well water will result and cause more saltwater intrusion.
■ If more area waters will be polluted.
■ If the existing treatment plant discharges will remain.
■ If shellfishing closures will decrease.
■ The effects of system failure.
■ The effects on population growth in Carteret County.
■ What individual user charges will be.
■ If the public will have access to the wetland waterfowl habitat.
■ Who can use the irrigation water and what the cost will be.
■ If an environmental impact assessment has been performed.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-2

Section 6
Regulatory and Public Involvement
■ What is wrong with septic tank systems.
■ If the existing treatment plants can be expanded.
■ Use of wastewater restrictions to control growth.
It may be prudent for CCIA to prepare for the inevitable questions by preparing
a comprehensive project description and question and answer document for
public review. NCDWQ should be consulted on the requirement for an
environmental impact assessment, or it may be appropriate for CCIA to have an
assessment prepared as a matter of course in the systematic development of the
project.
Preliminary contacts with environmental groups could preclude the development
of opposition in the future and could obtain their support of the project.
A review of the project concept by prominent specialists in various fields
covering various possible environmental effects prior to public involvement
could be useful. Such input could not only provide useful guidance to maximize
the environmental benefits for the project but could help provide project
credibility and environmental acceptance from the onset.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-3

Section 7
Recommendations
7.1 System Concept
The system as proposed herein is based on continued use of the existing treatment
plants and NPDES permitting discharges at their currently authorized capacity
and effluent quality with all additional wastewater from the sewered and
unsewered municipalities being treated in a common advanced treatment plant
with the effluent being used for irrigation and a waterfowl habitat wetland
system. This land application system is considerably more costly than a system
with 100 percent discharge to surface waters. The driving force behind this land
application system is NCDWQ's apparent position that no expansion of existing
treatment plants or additional discharges to salt water will be permitted. It is
difficult to justify this position from an engineering point of view, since
wastewater effluent meeting the most stringent quality standards can reliably be
produced. High degrees of reliability can be achieved at significantly less cost
than the proposed reuse system. Therefore, we recommend a meeting be held
with NCDWQ and that NCDWQ's position be discussed. The outcome of this
meeting could have a significant effect on system configuration and location and
particularly on costs.
The most cost-effective solution to the regional treatment and effluent disposal
system would be a new regional treatment plant with effluent discharge to
existing Class SC waters such as Calico Creek. Basic variations include the
following:
■ Existing plants at current effluent standards with regional plant at high
standard.
■ Upgrade existing plant effluent standards to regional plant standard.
■ Remove existing plants from service and treat all wastewater in regional
plant at high standard.
In the event NCDWQ does not permit all effluent from the existing, expanded,
and new collection systems to be discharged to Class SC surface waters, we
recommend that development of the wastewater system be continued based on
the system concept as defined herein with adjustments as necessary to
accommodate changing conditions.
7.2 Phasing
As decided by CCIA, the first phase of the system is to provide service to Atlantic
Beach, Morehead City, and Newport. It was necessary to make estimates of flow
for Morehead City and Newport. We recommend that these estimates be
reviewed and adjusted or approved. Adjustments will affect the costs of all
municipalities.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-1

Section '7
Recommendations
We have not attempted to identify more than two phases for the project other than
to suggest that extension of the collection and conveyance system from Atlantic
Beach westward to Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach along with the associated
treatment plant expansion could be isolated from the rest of Phase 2. We have not
identified the total cost of this portion of Phase 2.
For the rest of Phase 2—Emerald Isle, Cape Carteret, Cedar Point, and Bogue—it
would be prudent to construct the entire remaining system at one time to have full
cost participation by all municipalities.
Without any calculated flow estimates for the town of Bogue, we assigned an
average flow of 0.20 mgd. The area along NC 24 between Hibbs Road and US 70
i has been considered as a future annexation area of Morehead City and has been
arbitrarily assigned an average flow of 0.83 mgd. Likewise, the area along US 70
between Morehead City and the proposed treatment plant has been considered as
a future annexation area of Morehead City and has been assigned an average flow
of 0.83 mgd. We recommend that these proposed service areas and flows be
reviewed and that any adjustments be identified.
The system concept is based on one regional treatment plant in addition to the
existing treatment plants. The other extreme is for each municipality to have its
own treatment plant and to pump the effluent therefrom into common effluent
force mains. We did not estimate the cost of the latter system arrangement. Costs
will probably be higher for land, treatment plants, operation, and maintenance;
and lower for conveyance system piping. Total cost will probably be higher,
_ effluent quality will be more difficult to control, the system will not be truly
regional in nature, and NCDWQ may be disinclined to approve such a system.
We recommend a true regional system with ownership by one central agency,
preferably including the complete collection system, at least for the new collection
systems for the currently unsewered areas. Consideration should be given to
transferring ownership of the existing systems to the new central agency to
improve overall operating efficiency and system performance. This would result
in a comprehensive regional system.
- 7.3 Funding and Cost Sharing
Although the estimated monthly customer costs appear to be high for some of the
cities, these costs should not be viewed as actual rate calculations. As mentioned
- before, more detailed customer information and characteristics should be obtained
for the next phase of the study. Detailed information on meter sizes and average
monthly flow for each city should be obtained. An analysis of businesses which
may utilize more water than they will contribute wastewater to the system should
be completed to verify capacity sizing.
i
In addition, there are many ways to break down revenue needs such as debt
service and operating costs into an actual rate structure. For cities with a small
percentage of commercial businesses, the monthly cost would be lower if some of
the debt service component were included in the consumption charge instead of in
the base cost. Different rate methodologies can be reviewed to determine the best
methodology for each cities' customer base.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-2

I
Section 7
Recommendations
1
It should also be pointed out that the estimates for both capital costs and
operation and maintenance in sections 4.1 and 4.2 were escalated by 3% annually
to the year the project was estimated to begin. If the projects were undertaken
earlier the cost would be lower and monthly costs would be lower.
In the preliminary design phase, construction costs will be further refined,
customer data can be analyzed in more detail and monthly customer costs as
shown in section 4.3 should be reduced.
It is recommended that once decisions are made as to the planned year to begin
construction, that applications be filed with various agencies handling state and
federal grants to begin to get into the loop for funding.
7.4 Organization
After review of this report and meeting with NCDWQ, if it is concluded that the
project shall move forward, we recommend that discussions be held on the form
of the organization, inter -municipal arrangements for ownership, and
management of the existing and new systems. This may be more involved legally
and politically than expected and could require several years to consummate.
The first step should probably be to work with legal council to define the interests
and objectives of the respective municipalities and an owning/operating
organization. Communication with existing regional water and sewer
organizations in NC such as the Orange Water and Sewer Authority and the
Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County could be helpful in identifying
critical organization and political issues.
We recommend maximum consolidation of system responsibility in order to
achieve:
■ Maximum system operation and maintenance efficiency.
■ Maximum authority for requiring universal connection to the system.
■ Minimum localized political influence on service and standards.
■ Maximum qualification for grants and loans.
■ Provides framework for equalizing capital and operational costs and
payments.
■ Maximum equalization of user fees and connection charges.
■ Minimum cost for professional system management.
■ Consolidates responsibility for dealing with regulatory issues.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-3

Section 7
Recommendations
■ Minimum opportunity for complaints of unequal service, responsiveness to
local needs, and preferential treatment.
■ Maximum authority for raising capital.
We recommend that the system owner have the legal right to:
■ Require connection to and use of the system by all area wastewater sources.
■ Condemn land for system needs.
■ Assess special taxes, if needed, for financial support of the system.
■ Control the quality and quantity of wastewater entering the system.
■ Control unauthorized use of the system.
We recommend that consideration be given to include all area municipal water
systems within the wastewater system owner organization. In addition to the
above benefits of wastewater system consolidation, water and sewer system
consolidation would achieve:
■ Area management of well system to control aquifer degradation and salt
water intrusion.
■ Common standardized water/wastewater billing system based on water
usage.
■ Future development of inland common water sources to handle the water
demand of an increasing population.
■ Comprehensive regional environmental control including storm water
management (which will probably become the most difficult environmental
issue after the wastewater situation is brought under control).
■ Consistent regional drinking water quality standards.
We recommend that Cartaret County be brought into the interlocal agency and
system ownership in order to:
■ Deal with the rapidly growing population outside of the current
municipality boundaries.
■ Expand the sources of funding for the proposed system.
■ Gain political acceptance of the new system and organization and avoid a
competitive or antagonistic environment.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-4

Section 7
Recommendations
■ Enhance the regional aspects of the system and service and gain wider public
acceptance and support.
7.5 Development Action
The following action plan (in appropriate order) is recommended for continuing
development of a comprehensive wastewater system:
CCIA members should review this report, costs, and recommendations and
decide individually if the proposed system is consistent with their needs and
objectives. Then, CCIA should decide as a regional organization if the
proposed system and recommendations meet regional needs and objectives.
Changes should be made as appropriate. Agreement should be reached on
the way forward including the nature, scope, and responsibilities of the
system owning and operating organization.
■ Further contact should be made with Camp Bryan Farms, Inc., to confirm
their continued interest in the wetland waterfowl habitat project.
■ The recommended meetings with NCDWQ, other state agencies, and
Croatan NF should be held to discuss the needs, objectives, and system
concept in detail to work out a mutually acceptable way forward. Any
agreements should be appropriately documented.
■ Contact the appropriate agency of the US Government (DOD) on use of the
railroad drainage channels and Croatan NF on possible interest in the
effluent in the Pocosin Wilderness.
■ The elected officials of the respective jurisdictions should be briefed on
project development and their input and endorsement sought.
■ Preliminary contacts should be made with funding sources to obtain their
advice and recommendations. CCIA and elected officials should decide if
the funding situation supports continued development of the project.
■ If the conclusions of the above actions are positive for continued project
development, a preliminary engineering design report and system master
plan should be developed including actual pipe routes, facility locations, and
a detailed cost estimate. Public involvement should be invited. A written
commitment and tentative agreement with Camp Bryan Farms, Inc., should
be obtained.
■ The tentative system owning and operating organization should be selected
and at least a temporary/interim manager and secretary hired to oversee
continued system development and public relations. Regular public news
releases should be made.
■ The developing master plan and preliminary engineering design should be
reviewed at regular intervals including public presentations and releases.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-5

Section 7
Recommendations
Options should be purchased on land acquisition for the treatment plant and
pump stations.
■ The requirement for an environmental impact study may grow out of the
public or state involvement. If so, conduct an appropriate study and make it
public.
■ Reach firm agreement between all municipalities on the scope and funding
for their respective interests in the system.
■ Seek state grant funding for the preceding preliminary -level development
work if available.
■ Seek approval from NCDOT on use of the two Bogue Sound bridges for the
wastewater force mains.
■ After successful completion of the preliminary work, form a legal owning
and operating organization and arrange for project design funding for
design and construction. Proceed with design of first phase facilities.
Purchase land for the treatment plant and pump stations for the total system.
Enter into legal agreements with Camp Bryan Farms, Inc., US Government
(DOD) (railroad drain channels), Croatan NF (possible effluent application),
NCDOT (bridge use, road crossings, and right-of-way usage), and private
owners for right-of-ways.
Obtain NCDWQ design approval and authorization to construct. Arrange
for project construction funding and proceed with Phase 1 construction.
Proceed with collection of individual system connection fees.
■ Hire operation and maintenance staff to participate in the construction phase
and to operate the system after construction. Connect the existing
wastewater sources to the new system at the completion of construction and
operate the system. Collect user fees as arranged.
r I 7.6 System Affordability
Based on the estimated costs as presented in Section 4, the monthly charges
required in implementing this system exceeds 1.25% of the estimated median
household income in all towns, the affordability level as established by USEPA. In
fact, for some towns, the estimated monthly charges are several times this figure.
Although the estimated monthly charges may vary dependent on how the
fundings are to be structured, we conclude that the proposed system is not readily
affordable by the relatively small population base in the study area unless
substantial grant funding can be made available through state and federal
agencies. Since over 50% of the cost involved is for the collection and treatment
system, financing of any wastewater projects of this scale regardless of whether
land application or ocean outfall is employed would remain a major challenge. It
is recommended that CCIA explore various grant funding opportunities and to
pursue state and/or federal supports to assist financing of such project.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
7-6

- s9 01puaddy
I
1
1

I

REVISED ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOWS

Revised Summary of Estimated Wastewater Flows
From Land Application Feasibility Study
1994
2025
Municipality
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
3.69*
10.33*
1.51*
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
1.16
0.70
0.04
0.21
0.65
0.07
TOTALS
6.89
18.77
2.31
1 11.69*
32.60'
1 4.58*
* Revised flow based on extended service areas for Morehead City.
M

APPENDIX 2
SYSTEM DESIGN CONCEPT

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT
PROJECT
DETAIL.
JOB NO. B/f� —w �' JJCOMPUTED BY ,/W
ME CHECKED DATE MO
CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
S y�f0m
Phan
anrvpf
2;
-Wviee avea: Maaf& 6
h : Fl1h/g agar .
Moroi,®ad ' qq : Alew Sgrvlce p ,p/vs , honsfiev ©�
fgrf ol` 6(" mllkl6d +foul
Nyurrt WVn#s6f fflr� o� p0s� WIA( Ate'' flow
A)TP ; Fi'/Sf hrilif/a : ove wrA 414mhi r► 4 dia,,444on
C-Quani- - 04V : F7 mrr!;, f FM 40 WAAd wi`-lh -laps 4v i-wigg ign
avmn r-410>?5.
0e6ml r 7y-51 mfls
Ulefra�l ���lr�en+ oil�nnel: ff1i 2®2� •Plato
M41'4sor,�s fo Phaso Z (as do -sired ) s
-50045 qfO%: Pn0 Andlf sharer ; &nfiit a,,m
dipv� �BdG!� s EA-iiJr✓a preQ
j2QufA►'`I: ((T @Sir ) - �,,r%r G+Y D�)w el�
6xi5 h'n� �Ol/QA ed f/OiU.
M�rahBod G'� : Addrf,0na! new �v�•e �i�
a)WTTP mi {-V lal module
I-100n+ -Fransfof s A'd'40101 f0my
Gl HAnnl : Mdofh-om l dAfls
Phi% It ;
5ee^dtCB area f-=-mftld leis : Gdt're a►4
Cr(Llaf fthn'I-; ewrma am&
00r &4! P-4+)ie 0)(0
24 / Wbbs ¢Mel fo tdwm
cuwrn ; Addr6d(
Wo4laod r "ihml
ntindu (9s
Add eyotiv'm -far) k
as Its
lty�voix 2
2-�

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT WZA JOB NO. 6jQ2 COMPUTED BY
PROJECT Agii�0 ATE CHECKED DATE -
DETAIL L�99C/n tali! 241 CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
i_ �!� l(ids�rWQ�,. �brl!>�4aci2 • � T�sfila�irf;
Co�vray4n6e n, -Por ur)59War8Gi munin�p.�/.des is d// p�ss'ure
Sys�dn� Corr, pr�sinq :
6rAdW IVnps in wx,ps se/d/ / /0 4 dw,e/1��rrslGus.�asses
fog main h dars sp/virM r>'iN
1� dr's-ldho-j" /a Aged grQd16 lave
AwAv s amr
Cl7�+urah /rUnP l9i lfirce n�,.� 14
A2q 1 pymp sla 1, r /,v,��,
� gems l�r 6/nt s-lQ'l,'ons to �rASrs/N �Orc� na%n �b �rtdir/Bewe r
�rlli3O�d C!Et . %5xt -�'Or SoCt��rLi�i i7runiei�'/ihes �0 7S27xs19r
Q�rf D Ela slow /oral t5e dom (mw c�ds(ewa fei m,�ly )
f70tJ i�f� LV 5flkfly r� G//BC( /o adaid ouer/�oa/i��
mo)--qs4iym - g
C W TP -fv as ploy fire Allowing p/vesssBr:
p/itAr <,,edi 4id�On
kA'ca-lod -lufge cvr h,
R(kk'oq
9,4
luM Rw
rlmkolok,16 414GIB�,
56WAIY�s � rif B lv(
G�(�r e �c�err 'Ago
slue
ilU�rrk 1 %B
Mr j/Yiga liarl
� r � u/Q�0✓ sap
ct PAn,� Pryd Fa�
on-, we,
alon/vi Iry (70 B,crs/ir
vroeimg+el,l /D ,1136s,
fl uo t0r5 Nwt a
hlp/p1/M(�u Fiiaa f /dnr©d�f CS�2)
�/s-km)
�4O)r, �/ f�lv� / Omr5 TD
o mi/a/W eve,die rm�rfe
1V4.�lo��Crv/ had,�dt
Any IAA cda/er evW /f/au
Ov.'r6" I'a,,/rVeW CJr �i 8
crPp� �yo o %d/lh �a�fz -o�
p, cg�c;,s7a asly 115 y1111165,
P/eywm i �,9B tvl-// Ulf✓ 0op�lkv(1n4 oil �/ouj r'af6 Bird
dl5form uloi �Tfrl'q4 fron walor koS4- gmorally
h6 pun,ml Aron, pi f b9 to 15.
2-2

MIA F
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT JOB NO. v �/� l66— U 25 COMPUTED BY
PROJECT a s6w� A� ATE CHECKED DATE Md
DETAIL S �' /� !7 �/.%/hA�rl,J CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
Flouts ba
Us 6an� ylu/tier'mlf, �s 5Q/d,�( dq sys40ps lici ``
/j/Ib?� �0 G✓�5 lzlJ9ue Svuncdsf �js f�.s, CP�bse T)
-56r�les Z146i) /avh, Png k'sol( Slayer, 07 kaAw, may.
IV&I- Islen, ( flllse1) sealer F-Were7/d .s/e,
IN fha m �oiQrd FDii -sy5-%n, S0rV6x M0fbA'i l Ci f f rvwwelf
W I -gyp N,�bs� aa�, cedarG�artAre- fr
' N Qh
Ses sys�err, sC�gBnrd�C..
Q025 Flows.,
East -1 am
© rac�rAn �80a(►
Q P�� loll 51'tare;
Cram. dam. mox.
v Flow Peak Flow M, Row Pedi Flow PtSae
IVA z49
0,53 /, r�
a
+0
A41. 6vh
(wes�F) D•90 2.3q
®
Pf- groah
Nbf) 0.90 2.0
+d +&
Q
+ Q tQ
+® t6rtdge)
P»aa('o✓t
Not ine/aded
(�
Mt7;V read
ell(,
(gelid) 0.33 1.96
0
+0 +©
+® +O
&
morel► v
e►ki
Nsw /v) 0,63 1A I
0t2+0
+
-fa t©
Q
Nfw pO&
v,2-5 0,91
o
-to?-► a
t©j©'
©1©
214,
3.v
48 /0//
9.21 20//
3.6l /19,25 24//
4,50 12.15 240
e //
4.75 12.55
2-5

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT CCU 1 JOB NO. 1 L�2S� COMPUTED BY
1 PROJECT l� OS W O/ IAPTE CHECKED DATE
'�. DETAIL � CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
eun,. G�cln+• )4*
202 5 Flows (e0✓��•) :Aw. Flow Peok Flow Avy Flow fmL Flow O si2e
f sfen�
I
© Ewald .Ish lr=05f 1) ass 0,95 l2'r
�nierald Tsle (c-vsfz) 1p,�¢ Z,/3
® Enr00101 Isle (Guest) D•50 oo /ov
0 ruint a 2 f
iz CUPa eaae✓ l 1,04 3,1�
f Q 4- to -t- d r Z 2.q2 � Ott tor,
O grqUe l NC -N-I H 4 td A 10
®� ® t rr f © 1-0 to 3,12 9,05 ,ter,
® m®rchod (141 (u5105/Ne-24) 0,65 2•q I /4r'
h
of-m-v@ tot@ to t l4 SA5 /P•&7 24"
Wocon4o ' Taa-f&eef /ant
,Et�sf 5ysfe�r ¢,75 12, �r
(/lest Sys10nr 10,67
Cpn�bip¢d( �,70 W, q0
(!e ny�gonee Sys 10m
pi -quid ejaal,zaim 40,1k egpaor'fy k 0�gqa'o/i2e A-ew f0
I //0 l o ader-ar AW = /,rox 9.70 ,,: d 9,57 nj0,
Ii"d Pijse -S M 24"
iL
1 2-4

APPENDD( 3
ESTIMATED MOREHEAD CITY FLOWS FROM
FUTURE SERVICE AREA

CAMP DRESSER B McKEE CLIENT �! JOB NO. 0/k—Z2Z COMPUTED BY rzyl
PROJECT �� 5�� DATE CHECKED DATE
DETAIL CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
L5b,vm /ol Morehmal ell# �/ow Pn
/�ssc+rrr��ipns ;
k he 94,reld 6t 2025 1-5cyip- 6l q soe1ie1. d dr � 1% r1
oh e sf, Neu)�rf 2ir a'nd &0�.Qn NF a� 0077A, N�
"40 ' oq ules4) anal b�ue -5caf, w-cxrf6.
2. uiv4/�f de p oiewf w;// 6e aye �no/w 4" � �dew'ra
p,er /•O lime , 9r'� a✓4i) pr alpd f
br!�s area = 1r, 650 aive5
Wu) pr©dvo-b o = la,650 aws x 2J590 qpl
(i due
Add►A Ellis Aniil fp mlombdad &-4 1y 5 reuiper 25 401
poi won 2�o; m9c1 ylards a /vt� '40 mqd
-Thus ip- Morehead Cr'frl r©�a;ns 1.70n�el
wres d►s6ho r�
Y!?d sha/e i� ll,s p, ��e�d-,r,4er►� wi be
3,(og -1,10 = 1, qq Md
This repre5enfs an i0e(P[rs6 ir► )%666,40d RN of":
3,/ � - 2,05 = 1,6� mcl"
SiAea -fhi5 r0 ec on r5 bos&l 17 CYudB dssym Dads YO{7�p(
�r l� 5koufl�p /► rng 0� nrodift i'i'Irs er mel nand 'G�j.► rr►�,
-Qlq,f -tha ✓'ovised Rifli 164 /,1 r, is �(q bd IN ddsrgn flow
( -n19 nPW 5tle,46n),
,4PPc'/vv/x
3-I

ca .Q"'� �\� •� y/FF_'..�qu �_.n �'N _�.� ° _ /I�}�•i lid. T,. } �\�}I[��;��I+ "�
� _ r �� III -a° Bagam �`o f ��d q I f,�'OFy- a '.'a• t � •�
rn ,\per, _ 4 I,i I s� GpE,i •.
Q', .`"; le `` a5 � �Q+ •. f ,r � I�In �i F I`I, r- R ks,��cp ,f If A_ I .4 - ..
Ilhl11'�ba ri-I, Ff rr'r-
_ au o \ e.. I I l I I q 4- f �/I-<• h�l k 'j Ir Ff'Y�
Rr SA
Ip'lh F14,t t I II r� 41 I 'IF
q�,#4¢141AA y
.. o'o • O ° d' ORIy �I p 4g111�/ plv'k 9,719i IA I :1.7I �L YI R
1i9, ¢. I[r,', ilq •pVl4 ni I rr: I mIl y 411Fi n
VIi I,If
17 O �4.}It r ml i'�II/FPI
il�h!'OII�
s G CB •? FQ/ ; r l i , - '.�� . I I� i� I , I I t m 0 O`+. ¢ { . • I l'
If l l I /
mI�¢9�1}Ih;n{I}`4 jl pa j4, oN
p `
V.
u•. tt11 #.�II 4hy' 'I i4 AA I'f, r[ t fai I!,
-.. me
' m\ a \\ 111.}I•fll 1 f°a/ ;' I 14 !I1 �� 4 I di 4.l I '` \d' TI I5/
I ,ih'Iv�tf 1�i�
, vt °° _ 6t Q�' :� y j \ll: �/ ly � �. I m � s9 s I°� 5� p l I �'� 9'' } F � �' � I I I i \�' � +ems• -_ EJ�J�i I
li Y 1 e \r
i{Y,. J\ �sJ I //0 6e J1FI,k1`�lyyit ls� Hnt ;III I# I.'IW 4 III r G�J
'• r .. 10.m � � b7 11 �i§I�.¢ L �I f d = > `o o ou 1'9i sscl ' g
-' r ', w w (: ..�• o ` �,� d �I lone Z r v fill �\ _ yeoE
a .• � 5 L :; ci :I , Fj I� .�..
't '`'T+ v �.ra Ft - C. ". '("•'s 3 l\\ N -� rri�} •'� n • i'. Ji r�l} .`���, ��4� I."Jrr Oe • ��• `
t�.t lt1 T •li s r „ ^\ fib, II 4 t.1 T.T �l�k
. t I s ♦ r. l-to l rr r! g I. '�., IP ?? l - x ya- �f � I ''} 4 r. 4 o ' la", i
14.I1`♦Y115 a'I✓._ F u'A
y'r a/1s"-te+•,>> I m / 9_ 6 n _ rA; 1 .et.'} 1
d 716r'I% � I
1 ,;�.J fry s "•iri( . } r� 1 �' r, 14 �� 1 � e. ❑ �. o s __
frr�i W Rft f°+s < t Ic J /' ll . 1 F'•r .. ' m p hO 9'AE . ied3 6� r T I I I'
i k-s` i0a 4 w. �{A lr �anir. Il e ^ "/ !Ix - 1?I �d is 9 ¢II
•„r I
+y..J"yls �R li( � i +r L ��/fFy '_ MF xj :�!I. I. _ \ •' I.�.�III�I I%_ j /
t� L � e ••e•' R
x.>,:'t{. .yt>ys "L rly r i+'T' l �, /' � I�•.:41 I�.{ J)
I9C
?F w r F.
L )1--:. pia '°p[ �.._I ' :� ry I i' _` 9: '� 1.q �• I` Iyl ±l A, 1. j���. 11#T./�� yo
Li
\ .� '� 1 k4'1. i 24 C A4 f: �i J 1 \\. ' �mC 3�.„ „' ee r• 1�4 �e7 � i 'f I� �'"f � o
\t°e<s, #41@}�f714iY}4'II�I¢I off;.
� - e-•ei r a �-. mi � C` SS .'� �, 14+ � I A yI l .p• _ it
ntfr 1 Ll�Yi by+1:IT
Tl
'1II�I A
'' �+ sue. L 4 N _ d F''t��i�{-��i.T� � � r �'o •b
,I 4
I /�} s °. � ilr F^I�-�RI I LL 41.f I I i .I �'IF1. TE '• `¢
--il7,;�}It14}';a l}�RRRA
,_J ' � o - a m t•• �,"�q' W! �•f e. {. p I P � f amolsBH o
rti.Y. f
. %'
I t� 5P' 'P\fir
91 r�l.. m 7yZ Imo'
�i
1"BUUFOr(ir SMILES '

APPENDIX 4
CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
LAYOUT MAP

POND
on
ildemes \^ —r Z►-.ram —�; _ _.
no
,f
sw.
f '
f
f
W
GAME LAND
t _ _
CROATAN= GA E
IL
I
x� .• ,i' _ -.. GHEE �_�___- Croatian NF �i/ r E`�
- t P'
1
�� � \ EAST
e �O
1 °vµ
•mad -_
ef(:
`L3L�_,
al
>_
j j
-CM
I I
11 `l
a�
_- I I
I�1�'
- I I
FTp.i I )
i
j Yli
all
141
C.
i
crEa
�
\ ' tot ,
1
x
,
`I
4
--
Horse bl n
. '_Jr _ __... ___ tz {
1tl IYIf O CHERRY POINr °' Salter - ,. -• _...- 8 AILS Beach � ���Pier � ., t. _ \�C\
Humphre nock 1 �Viat¢N )om✓ems Pine Knoll Oceanna PORT PARK S �'
Cedar U 5 MLLJT.4RY RESERVATION Path
1 Poi Fishing Pier STATE PAR
LL at Point Point Poinf _ I'Nood_Izlanu Tory Areal 1040 J n 5 u • :2r r J_lj �j� ` _
Taylor -� Races Q e F _ �. F" : - o`
Q,,,, y� p,a "� tong Indian Beach pa, p, f1 fp p� / Q
H nn Oa Ols���>��-.-�� Fishing Pier BUnit n
each V �i7� C IN✓ _
2020 refs d9 �n 14'
U ONp a.�g [E
M O� $� Poi Emerald L _
y� ��jUE merald Isle Isle Qp� ttp S T
-I� B _ - Fishing Pier U/ - Fr 0
43 a 5CA
Bo ue Fishin Pier _
d 1 s, e g g A? F2=—�E 7-0 /�/`T Y� OAIA L WA TE W,4 TZ-2
4"
Dco i
�f IftSc
a`
- - ,r .w 1. ....:. :`
60� I Y I r i� �- i �i -17L Y �. r �i��, , E7
I ES P ERWAY - BA
VW
MW
AzEYWON.41- WwTR S o U N o
13
O
=THEODORE ROOSEVELT — ii, U
.- - NATURAL AREA - — �— — 5 _
Theodore Roosevel —

APPENDIX 5
SYSTEM FLOW SCHEMATIC AND
PIPE SIZES

WE-T//WD f-MP.4rfr
mp
Ao--[ 1
f-
2¢r
CLI/�WEL %b
Pmsc 1
�
PP61� 2 -scOPF
®
P/f�tse 3 scp;o�
O
-5-=� FOW iTa✓c-Cn&le,
�EGW2 PO/NT
8
11
P�DST>=R
PUMP-:5TA. (TYP)'
A7ZE14
FAI
/p-/l/e,4 r w
DUT[LL-T (TYP.)
ao4uF/Nc2ah�� ¢v
B o es, ti E
El
&E
4�
p
y
D
e/rY 4ee45�
0 ® �LAFOQT x m
o -s
S O u n/ p
I�
y A
©-1
0 4El
0
E5-W
®
❑
OS ❑
m
©
SOAraqO
m C
2
c00/v7/ �/�w��
w�IsTsw�,rErz
sysT�
'5eNC-A64"c 4 P112S pi s

APPENDIX 6
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST BASICS

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT Oi.L JOB NO. r//62 —?t2253 COMPUTED BY H
i
PROJECT ��fw �� S DATE CHECKED DATE 2N 7
DETAI at CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
2025 ��trnld 1M �
d s gym, - r
A,eirc, .7
C71/e�lo�
2 , 7r�/i>renf s
�J, PPrs�ne/
Te��111a4/:
Ap)z---ND/X 6
adoalowees W "
a&041. /501
Taal, 5.30'
x �0,.
70/d/ 7j06 Ar
Z �9/s�i1s PQr rrirrnr'ei j�a/• �y cgi 4 5p,O01yr �rqu
�U�r�'/l -�jS fer� ��rs�NS ®� � r' �y✓ fi�xr
ra/o/:-4420,601gr

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT ��y JOB NO. ��— w Zh3COMPUTED BY ��
PROJECT Nr DATE CHECKED DATE Z U✓�
i DETAILtwt CHECKED BY PAGE NO. 2
C . Vehl?16s op or ymm-f
!'aktip /,ve16s &11,oC4cn:
hOd�IO000
7renah0f /gym3�0v0
m1;ea/idnoov.r'
l/a��y r�owar: 30, 000
Pfeil
Akkirl ld4dit eo
Fa6l
Djal
4.- 40; 000 Ls
-9 to,r®a/yr
-430 o0a, /or
M

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT JOB NO BY COMPUTED
PROJECT �0� DATE CHECKED ' DATE /
DETAIL CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
T�zww1;
f�e►rfs ;
Qu-fsida ra�dir� ,
s/ari9v �spr�sd/
�ik�l(d.+parrs ;
Talal
ieplaceMm,�f Pa„,�r ;
Pik � do �OAsioh s � rOp4irs
aec��l
AtiM `awip 444wj,
FF CDfIv6/4ne6 -scrim
cubr,-eesil,:
ports .
Dfl&jd6 rey�/rJ
fiv
/D ® #/0) floe)
4 26w/q,
# 10�0��/yam
�/O,Od�I�yr
5 OG�/Ar
G0, ea yam
nQ o6v r
f/20� vOv/y,-
� ,odd/yY
� ID�Opb�y�
� dD, aOD�yr
&3

m
.fh/ oad I/�,# l4 QL
Ali/tomb �. 19auU'plv14t?la 14J�s4s 410WQI@l
•+h�OI,PO r2l s,�p�liuQ�, bvi�jJQa J �!,��/ �a®jr1�/�/
.Ala
1v0'�� Idol
,'h/QDO
.►h/�J� L � : rnn/an � �� f�� dp� v��vb��.�t
,/hleg,4, l*°1
�bl,-
j)))Ovpj/o�srin/
I
I4yffD� 'ON 3OVd A9 03NO3H0 IlVl30
l 31tl0 03NO3H0 31tl0 /#Iff 103fOHd
/, w A9 031NdW00 'ON 9Of IoDvw 1N3110 33N3W 4 tl35S3H0 dWVJ

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
1
0
CLIENT CG1ft JOB NO. d ljb COMPUTED BY iPq
PROJECT &R90%I N75 $9 DATE CHECKED DATE
DETAIL 4QrM CHECKED BY PAGE NO. 5
r�lBC1�YiCl
CO 1(P� I��n � CO�i�Ct� once
71'�,t�m�rlt;
P�r�nal:
�1t2� �iDn s? CPJ✓Icl.�ldq�
Tr�dam�rl:
Ohfaks fl Iy/pntagi (d// 446- of7s);
(2041 , 0,00o 7 /0yr mpldeei„e,,f
mainjo4arc6 duel:
7h9 /#/&// pldnf;
lvlloe�eo -5ysTam.
���,nluHlc��i�C1�s sys�dM t
7a-lab
A11,1ya1 epsf
94, ogpo
Cm

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT JOB NO. f9hZ— 0-!MOMPUTED BY / , _
PROJECT DATE CHECKED DATE CIH
DETAIL CHECKED BY PAGE NO.
- J. �xlhr�r0✓� ��{ldsa 1 sf6rn� (�,3 Iwo
C®/l�/;✓,� CnxiayQ,:ra ; 3 ?? x 492? 0O
8�
yoimnn0l
(�/lEt�lrti�y (IlhJCC//�i��8 = r 46p, am
is l - 75%d'r 4, 49, Phi =
lea%�18�nte� tee! :sl x G 1 =
7�&i�nr�nt pin��f: ��7c r. 'IF/5 d10J a
Wc9inrGUrl�d7�DK �--c'�S7i�ti1 � 7>(D,t �����
Td-hl
ACV
d©10
Peo
'1 /7 ew
� S o7o
4 903, &?w

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE CLIENT U JOB NO. /0— /�L COMPUTED BY
PROJECT "�n DATE CHECKED DATE N
DETAIL V S Al (1
05 CHECKED BY PAGE NO. 7
y o 40m (',P115t A-11,0910o
/4[iili;11�yllk
�lnlinn �'��i
�r��rd 1s�g
C6l%r frill
Cell nar jerey
M01ehiv.4 (71,1 C ZQ)
(61 P' �lfrh✓�r o7� q�rdg� AW),
A�•�ua/
��s t
gel /
{f SDI, 00,
1 3 �/� pop
POO
24-00
-711d0O*
4 53000
—
125) 00o
—
20�5) 000
—'
352r 00o
—
220, 000
h) 6700
4 M) 900 # 1, P40, 00d
Phase
I O EPN4
eA; s
ate fedu&o(
ohm
M,44ona l aws
Q✓e
(TdAeded
fo -f1v
-1548M il)
fivo
2 ,
6-7

APPENDIX 7
LETTER OF 19 MARCH 1997 TO
CAMP BRYAN FARMS, INC.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
environmental 301 South McDowell Street, Suite 200
services Charlotte, North Carolina 28204
`— Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
19 March 1997
- Mr. Paul Thompson, Jr.
President, Camp Bryan Farms
Coffey & Thompson, Inc.
1423A East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28204
RE: Carteret County Interlocal Agency
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Gordon McAdams, Richard Tsang, and I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you
last Wednesday regarding possible mutual benefits to Camp Bryan Farms and Carteret
County Interlocal Agency from the creation of a wetland system on Camp Bryan Farms
property using treated wastewater effluent from a proposed wastewater system to serve
the nine municipalities in Carteret County.
As discussed during our meeting, the situation may be summarized as follows:
_ 1. Carteret County Interlocal Agency (CCIA) was formed to address pressing needs
for consolidated wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for Beaufort,
Morehead City, Newport, Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach,
Emerald Isle, Cape Carteret, and Cedar Point.
2. Beaufort, Morehead City, and Newport have existing treatment plants with
effluent discharges to surface waters. These plants have been constrained from
expansion by the state due to the environmental sensitivity of the surrounding
shellfishing waters.
3. The other municipalities have no consolidated wastewater systems and are served
principally by septic tank systems which discharge partially treated wastewater
into the groundwater table. System failures are increasing, and shellfishing
-- closures are increasing as a result.
4. All tidal surface waters in the county are classified for shellfishing (Class SA)
with several minor exceptions. This classification precludes any new wastewater
effluent discharges to such waters regardless of quality.
I
5. This leaves two basic alternatives for treated effluent discharge from a new
consolidated wastewater system: (1) Pump it to the ocean through an ocean
outfall or, (2) return it to the environment through an environmentally acceptable

' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Paul Thompson, Jr.
19 March 1997
Page 2
mechanism other than direct discharge to Class SA waters. An ocean outfall is
generally considered to be the best long-range alternative but to be several decades
away due to the high cost and the inevitable lengthy political/environmental
process which will be required (a new concept in N.C.).
6. A method for returning wastewater effluents to the environment generally found to
be environmentally acceptable is broadly identified under the generic term "land
application." "Land application" does not imply that the effluent somehow is
consumed by land but, rather, that a natural land process is utilized in the overall
scheme of returning the effluent to the environment. Such processes may include:
• Direct return to the groundwater table through infiltration to sandy soils
(percolation).
• Irrigation of pastures, lawns, forests, or farm crops (evapo-transpiration, plant
use, percolation).
• Wetlands for plant propagation and/or wildlife habitat (evaporation, plant use,
percolation, surface discharge).
We performed a feasibility study in 1996 for CCIA of land application alternatives
for effluent disposal from a new consolidated wastewater system. The study
identified a number of opportunities for various forms of land application but that
significant constraints exist on use of otherwise suitable land. These constraints
include:
• Open Grounds Farm Irrigation: Political opposition to population growth and
concern for runoff to adjacent Class SA waters.
• Croatan National Forest: Refused any type of land application regardless of
benefits except as an absolute last resort - not to include their pocosin area
which has been designated as a wilderness area.
Sandy Soil for Infiltration: Only available adjacent to streams - nearly all
developed residentially or in Croatan National Forest.
• Farm Land and Golf Course Irrigation: Available in scattered locations - can
use only part of the flow part of the time.
i 8. The search for an adequate area of suitable land for a land application system led
us to Camp Bryan Farms - specifically the pocosin area recently transferred to
Craven County. The area that appears to belong to Camp Bryan Farms would be
adequate in size to meet first phase and future land application needs, depending
on the nature of the land application system.
7-2

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Paul Thompson, Jr.
19 March 1997
Page 3
9. At this point we have initiated contact with you to explore the possibility of any
mutual interest in some form of land application system for treated wastewater
effluent in the Camp Bryan Farms pocosin area. We have not yet visited the site
and have only maps and the county soil survey as a source of information.
10. From the limited available information at this time, it appears that the most
appropriate type of land application system for Camp Bryan Farms would be a
created wetland system with emphasis on the development of wildlife habitat.
There are many forms that such a wetland system could take. A characteristic
system could comprise multiple ponds with diked channels to control the water
flow pattern. The ponds could be predominantly open water with the edges lined
with wetland species such as cattails, bulrushes, and water grasses. Islands could
be provided for protected nesting, cypress tree growth, etc. Dikes would be
constructed suitably for maintenance vehicle access.
11. The effluent applied to the wetland would be returned to the environment through
plant use, evapo-transpiration, percolation, evaporation, and runoff. The runoff
could be allowed simply to follow the fall of the land to the west, south, and east,
depending on the receptiveness of Croatan National Forest to the increased runoff,
or could be channeled or piped to an existing stream such as Hunters Creek.
12. The quality of the effluent to be delivered by pipe to the site would be suitable for
lawn and agriculture irrigation and will be available for such purposes to interested
users along the pipe route. The water will have been filtered and disinfected. The
wetland system enhances the water quality.
13. Whatever land application scheme is proposed is subject to approval by the state.
We do not have any prior commitments at this time. Working with you on the
preliminary feasibility is the first step in the process.
We have marked on the attached map (compilation of two USGS maps) one possible
arrangement of a wetland habitat system for the first phase of a CCIA system covering
approximately half of the maximum anticipated need for the next 25 years. This system
is located at approximately the highest elevation in the pocosin, thus permitting
drainage to the west, south, and east. A drainage system to Hunters Creek is shown as
an example of directed drainage. The final agreed scheme does not have to follow this
example and would be developed to accommodate all interests.
We are attaching an article from a 1979 Environmental Protection Agency seminar
proceedings on aquaculture systems for wastewater treatment entitled Wetlands
7 3

CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
I Mr. Paul Thompson, Jr.
19 March 1997
Page 4
Creation for Habitat and Treatment at Mountain View Sanitary District, California,
which may be of interest in understanding what a habitat oriented wetland might be like.
The effluent quality proposed for a wetland on Camp Bryan Farms will be significantly
higher.
We are hopeful that you and your colleagues at Camp Bryan Farms will find the
possibility for a wetland or other land application system to be sufficiently attractive
that you will allow CCIA to continue to explore the possibility. The overall project
1 evolution is currently at the stage of defining the scope of a phased approach and the
location and method of returning the treated effluent to the environment. Please
consider that the role of Camp Bryan Farms is very important, if not critical, to the
feasibility and success of the project at this point.
We understand that you will be meeting shortly with the Board and soon thereafter with
the membership. We again volunteer to meet with either or both groups to provide
further information on the project and proposed wetland system options and details. If
you approve of continuing to explore the feasibility of the proposed wetland, we would
like to visit the site to develop some concepts on construction and to receive input from
you regarding your objectives.
As requested, six additional copes are provided.
Thank you for meeting with us. We look forward to your response.
Yours very truly,
CAMP D
VSSER & McKEE
Thomas D. Hall, P.E.
Attachments:
Map of possible wetlands system
Article on wetland habitat system
Copy:
'-- Gordon McAdams
Richard Tsang
7 4

WETLANDS CREATION FOR HABITAT AND TREATMENT - Al MT. VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT. CA.
Francesca C. Demgen , Aquatic Biologist, Mt. View Sanitary District,
Martinez, California
In 1974 the Mt. View Sanitary District (MVSD), near Martinez, California
initiated a full scale pilot wetlands creation program on low lying reclaimed
tide lands owned by the District. The objective of the program was to
demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing plant effluent to create a wetlands
environment for the be-efit of wildlife and migratory waterfowl and to develop
management techniques for improvement of both water quality and wildlife
habitat.
The concept of using treated sewage effluent as a freshwater source for the
creation and restoration of wetland ecosystems qualifies as an alternative
wastewater management technology for meeting the objectives of the 1977 Clean
Water Act Amendments promoting the use of land treatment processes that reclaim
and reuse municipal wastewater. Wetlands reclamation projects are cost-
effective and dependit.g on site conditions, energy requirements are minimal.
- Wetlands projects also are consistent with EPA's multiple use policy supporting
_ wastewater management practices which combine open space, recreational and
educational considerations with such management.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES DESCRIPTION
Treatment Plant
Mt. View Sanitary District was established in 1923. It serves a portion of
the City of Martinez and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, with a
i present population of approximately 14,000. The process provides two -stage
�- bioiiltration with separate sludge digestion. Facilities include comminution,
primary and secondary clarifiers, a rock biofilter with a rotating dual
distributor, recirculation pumps and chlorination facilities. Sludge handling
facilitiesinclude grit removal, sludge thickening and primary and secondary
sludge digestion. A belt -filter press and paved drying beds provide for
sludge dewatering. The plant is designed to provide full secondary treatment
for 1.6 MCD dry weather flow with a hydraulic capacity of 8.0 MGD wet
weather flow. Present dry weather flow is approximately .7 MCD. Effluent
consistently meets standard secondary treatment requirements of 30 mg/l-,
biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids.
Wetlands
The wetland system covers 20.3 acres (8.2 ha) and consists of five inter-
connected areas with tributary edge habitat. The total plant flow passes
-- through the ponds and marshes into Peyton Slough which discharges into
Suisun Bay. At present flow of .7 MGD there is a ten day detention time.
Land useage is 27ac/MG. At the design capacity of the treatment plant,
1.6 HGD, there will be a 5 day detention time and 12ac)MG. This ratio will
still provide for a beneficial habitat.
7-5

As shown in Figure I plaut effluent is conveyed by gravity through an out -
fall pipe and siphon e.der Peyton Slough to plot D. This area is divided
._ with earthen dikes in ,crpentine fashion. This method of channelization
directs the flow through the emergent vegetation, to guarantee adequate
circulation. The final cell of plot D contains Ecufloats (EBC Company)
with are strung across the open water. These deices are made of redwood
bark, wood, and Etyrofoam for floatation. They serve as artificial substrate
or habitat for aquatic invertebrates which normal.; colonize the bottom muds
and emergent vegetation. Thus they increase the -iuobers of organisms which ca
live in open water thereby enhancing the food chain.
- The flow passes from the Ecofloat pond over weirs into plo C and E. Harsh
plot E is planted.tr provide food for migratory waterfowl using water grass
and alkali bulrush (Echinochloa crusgalli and Scirpus rooustus). Since the
District wetlands are located on the Pacific Flyway the posslailicy exists
to feted many migratory waterfowl. Harsh plot C is open water with four
vegetated islands which provide food, cover and nesting sites removed from
predators.
The discharges from plots C and E are combinea and flow by gravity through
the inverted siphon to the slough from which the flow is directed to both
plots A-1 and B. Flow through the wetlands system is entirely by gravity.
Dingeal points out that high pressure pumps and excessive velocities should
be avoided since they harm aquatic invertebrates which are important for
maintaining a balanced ecosystem. The water level in each plot is controlled
by adjustable weirs and ranges from .3-1m.
Plots A-1, A-2, and B formed the original wetlands system whose objective
L was to compare the creation of vegetated versus open water habitats. It
was determined that both types were successfully created and that the
combination provided a more stable, total habitat than either type alone.
Plot B is mixed open water and emergent vegetation. Plot A-1 contains
-- emergents and A-2 is an open water area with supplemental invertebrate
habitat. Large open water areas are particularly important in attracting
migratory ducks; the area must be visible to the waterfowl while flyink.
The flow i� discharged to Peyton Slough from plots A-2 and B.
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS
The wetlands environment has a positive effect on the treatment plant.
effluent. Various monitoring programs have been carried cut during the
- life of the project to assess the water quality within the wetlanda and also
the quality of water discharged from the system.2 The local climate is
mild, average daytime water temperature is 190C, range 5-290C. The pH
normally remains between 7.0 - 7.4 units; increases up to 8.8 units occur
accompanying algal blooms. The District treats only domestic wastewater
with very low metal content. Therefore, the wetlands is not monitored for metals. Disinfection with chlorine to achieve a total coliform level of 23
HPN is accomplished prior to the wetlands. The initial portion of plot D
is used for dechlorination, the residual entering D is 1.0-4.0 mg/l. APHA
Standard Hethods, 14th Edition procedures are referenced for each analysis.
The data discussed is on only plots A-1, A-2 and B, which have been in
operation since the fall of 1974. Plots C, D, and E were constructed in
the fall of 1978 and are now being monitored.
i
7-6

Dissolved Oxveen
The levels of dissolved oxygen WO), measured with a portable meter (method
422F), vary diurnally and seasonally from about l.Omg/l to supersaturation.
Normally levels above 5mg/l are maintained. Due to the shallow depths and
frequent wind mixing, the dissolved oxygen 'levels do not become stratified.
The highest levels of DO are caused by algae and occur in summer months.
The lower levels of DO occur in the early morning hours. In general, the
DO in winter months has a lower, smaller range. Even with the wide range of
DO levels there have been no odor problems or anaerobic conditions associated
-- with the wetlands.
Biochemical Oxveen Demand
Figure 2 shows biochemical oxygen demand (BOD, method 507) and suspended
solids data in six-month intervals divided into growing season and non -
growing season. The water quality in a biological system, such as the wet-
lands, is affected by the seasonal life processes occurring there. The
average BOD loading rate is 172 lbs/day and has been consistently reduced
by marsh B; only in two six-month periods did the BOD remain the same as
it was in the plant effluent, i.e., influent to the wetlands. The A complex
reduced the BOD in the winter months and the summer of 1977, but raised the
BOD during the other two summers. It must be stressed, however, that the
type of BOD leaving the treatment plant and that leaving the marsh system
differ. Materials comprising the BOD in the plant effl•.,ent are the degrada-
tion products of human waste. The material exerting a BOD in the marsh
effluent is partially composed of algae and other living organisms at the
very base of the food chain. These constituents are ready to be used by
organisms downstream whereas the materials in the plant effluent are not yet
` in a usable form.
Suspended Solids
Suspended solids (SS, method 208 D) data for the four years to date show
that in the strict sense, SS are usually reduced in the winters but not in
the summer. The average loading rate to the wetlands is 189 lbs/day. When
SS leaving the wetlands are higher than the values found for the plant
effluent it can be attributed to algal growth in the pond -like portion of
system or silt from winter runoff. Therefore, it is especially important to
acknowle,'ge the form in which the SS leave the wetlands because algae com-
prises thc: producer level of the food chain. This producer status means
that the algae is the base of the food pyramid allowing a healthy, balanced
ecosystem to occur in the marshes and slough.
When the results of plots A and B are compared it is apparent that if water
quality criteria are placed on a wetland discharge, the system should be
designed with a vegetated cell last in the flow scheme. Dinged work with
floating vegetation and Spangler et a14 working with emergents have both
concluded that aquatic vegetation is an effective means of improving various
water quality parameters.
7-7

Nutrients
Nutrient levels in the plant effluent are variously affected by the wet-
lands. In some cases nutrients are removed and in others, levels remain unchanged. The nutrient analyses were run on grab samples collected during
1975-1978, using the following methods: nitrate 419D, ammonia 418B with
distillation, total organic nitrogen 421, total phosphate 425F. Table 1
gives the average, range and percentage of wetlands samples that had a lower
level of the nutrient than did the plant effluent sample on the same day.
Consistent nitrate removal is accomplished by the wetlands. Nitrification
does not occur to any great extent. Phosphorus does not appear to be a
limiting nutrient, the amount entering is also discharged. These is a
great deal of biological activity in the wetlands, a balance set -a to be in
affect such that nutrients are neither added to nor extracted from the
system. The exception to this is the consistent reduction of nitrate levels.
THE HABITAT
Numerous ponds, marshes and rivers in the United States are fed, in part,
with treated wastewater. The unique aspects of this project are 1) a wet-
lands exists where previously there was none, 2) the sole source of water is
treated wastewater, 3) the primary purpose for creating the wetlands is to
provide wildlife habitat. The major goal of this research has been to de-
fine the components of this newly created wetland 'habitat. Only after
defining what exists can one then proceed to determine success or failure of
the project. The habitat types which comprise the wetlands are 1) open water
alone or in combination, with ecofloats or islands, 2) areas covered by float-
ing vegetation - either free floating such as Lemna sp. or rooted on the
levees and floating 2-3 ft. out over the water areas of emergents, 4)
cultivated waterfowl food area and accompanying mad flats, 5) levees and
adjacent land with grasses, bushes and soLie trees.
Vegetation
A wetlands community is complex and is composed of both terrestrial and
aquatic forms of plants and animals. There are more than 72'species of
macrophytes in the HVSD wetlands, none were planted by the District. Twelve
of these are emergents: Typha app., Scirpus spp., sedges; another 10 are
particularly saline tolerant, 29 are native to California. In the early
1800's the site was covered by a brackish water marsh, which was later
diked and drained. This accounts* for the saline nature of the soil. The
_ remaining plants are field annuals, perennials, herbs and shrubs. The
vegetation serves as food, shields animals from predators, provides nesting
sites and improve9 some water quality parameters. Nineteen of the species
have seeds that are used by waterfowl for food.5 As winter progresses food
becomes more scarce and the birds and animals eat many plants or plant parts
not otherwise eaten. Planting the 2.5 acre plot E in seed producing vegeta-
tion will expand the available food supply.
An open water area mixed with stands of emergent vegetation provides the
habitat necessary for a greater variety of organisms. This diversity and
-- interdependence of plant and animal species leads to ecological stability.
W

The surface area of the wetlands is approximately 63% open water combined
with 37% covered by emergent vegetation. Voigts notes that this inter-
spersed type of habitat fosters a great variety of aquatic invertebrates and
also appears to attract the greatest variety of nesting birds. 6b In a
biomass study done on this emergent vegetation it was found that TTypha
latifolia car. produce up to 18 lbs/sq m and Scirpue californicue up to
24 lbs/sq m, both as dry weight.
Algae. The algal growth in the wetlands is highly beneficial. It oxygenates
the water, removes ammonia, and serves as a fool source for small herbivorous
animals such as the zooplankton. The wetlands system has never been plagued
by the growth of nuisance algae: no filamentous mats, no blue -greens, no
-' odor producers. The dominant algae preseat over a two year period were:
euglenoids, chlamydomonids, chlorella-like, and naviculates. Light and
dark bottle productivity analysis has peen carried out over a two year
period. The low temperatures and overcast conditions of winter keep produc-
tivity very low to ncn-existent. During the summers studied, 1977 and 1978,
algal growth was cyclical. However, numbers of algal cells, therefore
oxygen evolution was much greater in 1978. It is theorized that this
increased number of cells can be accounted for by the decrease in zooplankton
population and other algal predators. The decrease in the zooplankton was
due to the increased number of mosquito fish (Gambusia afinis). This
is a humanly created upset in the ecological balance of the wetlands. Marsh
management techniques provided the increase in mosquito fish, which success-
fully eliminated mosquito breeding. However, it also had this marked affect
on algal growth. During the fall of 1978 as many as 52 common and snowy
egrets were feeding, on the mosquito :ish, in a four acre area. Some of the
excess fish were trapped by other local agencies. It is hoped that in the
coming year a balance can again be reached between the numbers of fish and
invertebrates.
Animals
Twenty-two species of animals live at the MVSD wetlands: 10 species of
mammals, 4 sp. of amphibians, 4 sp. of reptiles, 3 sp. of fish. Reek studied
the south levee of plot B and found heavy use by mice (Hue musculus and
Reithrodontomys meg_alotis) and muskrats (Ondatra zibethica)—f —The animal list
includes both herbivores and carnivores; many of the species reproduce and
live solely on what exists in the manmade wetlands. All of these animals
have come to the District on their own.
- Birds. Ninety species of birds either live in or stop at the wetlands during
migration. This is a very large variety for such a small area, clearly wet-
_ lands are critical in the San Francisco Bay area. Schulenburg estimates that
! 70% of California's wetleuda have been lost to drainiug and filling, since
A
the turn of the century.8
An approximate breakdown of species composition is 15 sp. of ducks, 32 ep.
of water and shorebirds, 30 passerine species, and 6 sp. of raptors.4
- It appears that many of the migratory birds return each year. If it is not
the same individuals it is at least the same t.pecies returning at the same
time each year. In some cases these birds ara somewhat uncommon in the
locality, which leads the author to believe it is the same flock returuing,
V=6

for example tri-colored blaci.birda. There are two types of usagE: of the
wetlands by migratory bird:•. Some flocks will stay only a few hours or less,
other flecks will spend weeks or months
their destinatiat the wetlands before solving to
on, usually Canada ur Southern California. For example, a•
flock of approximately 90 ruddy ducks spent two winter months whereas a pair
-', of malla:rdc spent only one morning. Predatory bids, for instance herons
and hawks, need a large range and the MVSD wetlands is included in the
territory they rely on for food. There are z number of bird famili.ts in
which many generations have hatched, grown and reproduced entirely dependent
on the wetlands. A successful nesting this spring, 1979, of cinnamon teal will
be the fourth generation. The quaii:•y of the water ind chemical content of
-- the vegetation must be acceptable since it enables the organisms feeding on it
to continually produce viable offspring. The available food Supply appe
- to define the carrying capacity of the wetlandsfor birds. This is why
the cultivation of seen bearing plants was iritiated.
Aquatic Invertebrates. There are more than 34 species of aquatic inverte-
brates living in the wetland_. 3 sp. of bugs and beetles, 10 sp, of flies,
7 other insects, 5 sp. of zocplankton, 4 sp. of non-insects.5 Voights study-
ing four marshes in Iowa found the number of taxa present to be between
20-32, with a maximum of 43.6 This is clear evidence that a species list of
34 is comparable to that found in other small wetland areas. It is probable
- that there are more species then have been identified of zooplankton, due
to the difficulty of identification. Nearly all of these organisms exist in
the wetlands in each of their life stages. For these organisms to be able
to reproduce successfully generation after generation they have to be living
in high quality water. The volume of invertebrates and the species diversity
also are clear indicators that a stable ecosystem has been created. During
the summer of 1977 up to 3.8 lbs/hr. of zooplankton, mostly Daphnia were
tr.pof
food ed in the available outlet weir
Of o
available forusebylargerinverteb invertebrates and fish llivingewithinvoluethe
wetlands and downstream.
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
A well designed project reduces the amount of necessary maintenance.- The
major design objective is to create a balanced habitat and avoid nuisance
situations. Much was gained during the first four years of operation of
Plots A-1, A-2, and E. This knowledge was incorporated in the design of the
three areas added in 1978.
} Levees
All levees should be wide enough for vehicular traffic so they may be
utilized for maintenance when necessary. Some levees are used on a regular
basis, others are not and vegetation is allowed to cover them. These vegeta-
tion covered levees add to the habitat but provide access when needed.
Levees should be at least 10, vide, steep -sided, with 1.5' freeboard, and
compacted during construction. There are many wetlands organisms which
tunnel in levees: muskrats, gophers, crayfieh,•and other small mammals.
Therefore proper levee design and construction is crucial to keeping
maintenance needs minimal.
7-10

Erosion
Vegetation is the main form of erc.sion ^ontrol and works quite well once
established. A minimum of one spring and summer are needed bef re the
vegetation can become established, without specific p!.anting and cultivation.
Vegetation is not sufficient around weirs, gates and pipes. These areas
must be fortified with riprap. The District is fortunate in this respect
because it is located en route to the local landfill and gets all its riprap
free of charge.
Plot Design
By dividing the total area designated for the wetlands into plots more
habitat goals may be achieved. When a wultip:e plot. system is created flow
- variation is facilitated. This allows one plot to be isolated from Oie system
in case of major maintenance needs. Multiple plots also allow depth variation.
Depth is a key factor in habitat design: it will determine whether or not
emergent vegetation will be present and will affect temperature and dissolved
oxygen values. Plot shapes may vary but small, constricted areas should be
avoided as they would promote stagnation and vector problems. Deciding
which groups of organisms are desired in the wetlands and knowing what condi-
tions these organisms normally live under will determine the fundamental com-
ponents of the design.
i
Vectors
Botulirm. Clostridum botulinum is the cause of avian botuiism and will not
cause botulism in humane. It is, however, deadly to waterfowl cud ccetain
measures may be taken to avoid its occurrence. There have been no known
cases of avian botulism at the MVSD wetlands. Avoiding anaerobic conditions
by keeping the •eater circulating and maintaining the depth under 3' is an
important factor in botulism avoidance. Removal of floating organic debris
which collects behind weirs and in corners is regularly done. Steep -aided
levees, adjustable broad crested weirs for controllingwater levels, conveying
water by pipeline, and ability to shunt a plot out of service for draining,
- are alro factors in the botulism avoidance program.
Mosquitoes. Mosquitoes lay eggs in water and the larva grow there under-
going metamorphosis to the adult form. To breathe the larva must hang from
the surface filr ,f the water, piercing it with their respiratory tube
to obtain oxygen. This knowledge of the mosquito life cycle and habitat
needs helps the wetlands manager avoid mosquito breeding problems. Open
water areas, subject to wind action and proviiing easy access.for predators,
limit mosquito production. Maintaining good circulation in vegetated areas
provides for predator access and lessens mosquito product` -on. These factors
have been the key to MVSD success in keeping mosquito production minimal in
1978. Figure 3 compares the numbers of adult female mosquitoes caught in a
light trap monitored by the Contra Costa County Mosquito Abatement District.9
The insects are collected and counted weekly, analysis began in August of
1976. The drastic reductirn in numbers of mosquitoes trapped in late summer
of 1977 and all of 1978 was due to the transplanting of mosquito fish

(Gam'u.via afinis) in the early summer of 1977. Fish were taken out of Peyton
Sloue•, and stocked in plots A-1, A-2, and B. By the end of the summer
their numbers hrd increased enough to have the mosquito larvae population
greatly reduced. Enough of the fish wtncered-over such that in the spring of
1978 they multiplied quickly and soon had the mosquito population under
control. The rise in numbers at the erd of 1978 was due to water trapped
on property adjacent to the District's. Good circulation and adequate
nrmbers of predatory fish have allowed NVSD to operate a wetland project
which does not produce vector problems.
CO?rS AND BENEFITS
Me capital cost of the entire 20.3 acre wetlands was $94,000. Average annual
operation and maintenance erpeodi.tures over 4.5 years have been $1,200/yr.
Additional to this figu.-e :ou r, be salaries for approximately 10 hra/vk of
system maintenance ani 15 hrs,'wk for ,monitoring and management. No pumping
costs are associated wirh the gravity flow wetlands system. The amount of
time necessary by personnel depends on the amount of monitoring required
and on maintenance needs which vary seasonally and can be greatly reduced by
i
careful design of both the hydraulics and physical features of the system.
Benefits of the wetlands system using treated wastewater Include improved
water quality, habitat creation, and recreational and educational opportunities.
The wetlands is NVSD's contribution to the community, and it receives heavy
use. The recreational and educational benefits included in the wetlands
are a good example of the intent of section 201(g) (6) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 "The Administrator shall not make grants ... (for) treatment
works unless the grant applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated to the
Administrator that the applicant has analyzed the potential recreation and
open space opportunities in the planning of the proposed treatment works."
There are visitors of all types ranging from neighborhood children whe look
for animal tracks to organized group tours for college students and environ-
mental groups. The District has hosted researchers, municipal officials,
and nature photographers. The local Audubon Society gave the District an
award for its work and has declared the wetlands to be one of the best birding
j areas in the county. The California Chapter of the Soil Conservation Society
of America has also officially commended the District for its work on water
reuse and habitat creation. There is broad recreational potential in this
-- type of water reuse project. Table 2 delineates the hourly usage of the
wetlands by the public.
A wetlands system also has income possibilities. For example, during the
summer of 1978 there was an over abundance of mosquito fish in the ponds.
The local mosquito abatement district seined fish out of the ponds for their use.
A local wildlife rehabilitation center and museum collects fish as well as
duckweed and invertebrates for animal food. The District could charge for
the fish and other food products produced.10 The possibility exists to sell
_ crayfish for bait or aquatic invertebrates for tropical fish food.11 An
option for a large wetlands would be to rent a portion of it to a duck club
for hunting.
CONCLUSIONS
The protection, restoration and enhancement of wetlands has become a national
goal. The potential environmental benefits derived from utilizing treated
municipal wastewater for wetland restoration and enhaacement has been
7-12

demonstrated by the Mt. View Sanitary District's wetlands protect. The
project also demonstrates a reuse method that combines wastewater and wild-
life management for optimum results. Wetlands systems created and main-
tained with treated wastewater are cost-effective and low in energy require-
ments. (1) A balanced and healthy wetlands ecosystem, composed of pond and
marsh areas, has been successfully created using secondary treated wastewater.
(2) The wildlife habitat actively suppor " 72 op. of plants, 21 sp. of animals,
90 op. of birds and 34 sp. of aquatic invertebrates. (3) Mosquito breeding
has been reduced io a minimum through the use of natural predators. Avian
botulism and odors have been avoided. (4) Redwood bark floats provide
suP2lementary habitat for aquatic invertebrates, thereby increasing their
populations in open water. (5) Nitrate removal is consistent. SOD and SS
removal is seasonal - if algae was not regarded as a component of SS they
would then be consistently lowered. (6) Public support for the wetlands is
strong, educational and recreational usage is considerable and increasing.
7-13

It11f-
{ I }' 4 4 $ I } l}' P I , } I # it 4.. }
#I I#I I #} 1}41}} }I} 14�I;141}4111.} i' ¢$I}' y'#�'' * 4 i)1' l}' II$ ee if
t }'} }' .1l}l I} '#I II }}'$,I},I } #tI 44 l
t} {lh{ #¢! 41 }11411�1FI}l{I{'{i'1 }I �I}l }I$`l $4 I'{�'},$$#4$ I, }} o --IIF_ I \•}'}}I'#{{! $I �'41$#I
44,14111141:}I'}14$141}41}1}4}#)I#}{,I}111}{}I¢$$I}l}I#1 i}I$�/I�$¢ I , ..,;'.'#1 1 }141{}}, }4�411}}I
}. l $ } } # 1 41$ l'1 I'I} ,{ ' $ } I $ $l#/'l$ } $ I I '} '�}''kli if If
}41+}414}Ill¢ I$'#} offif4#'$# 14$ $11}$$ Ip }$,¢ p i fll $ tl4
#'###}'} {{ I} # 1 441} III I$ Ia1 I,$ I l ''Y$ II #
i I ItI 4$l i } I $I $$l$ 1$Ik, I{1$I> , ,},}{$ }#�}'##I
.I}' ,$ }� } ,}} 6$I ,P,'Ik}�j�l yt} li4i #r$!'!} 4 }}lil $I}I ',, {I.$l i}I Ip1$}I�I I .,,1'It 11#,}, }I'} {I#I
},�$$}'$'{�II,¢l}'$}$¢1$14141¢11$I#I}$I}Ir'$I'j �I; #}llp l)11'i '" IT���$�I}'f'$'+}I I. ,I'll Sy
If
}¢{141#{{¢}#{I!I $it,1{,#�}$' 1 }II¢$$p}i}�I}I}Il �l¢,#¢$$ { I!I ${
I I I $ Ik, $I, I r ,$} I$ $
','}I{I$ }' Itpl,'#$,4�1'll{i441$10,$'k,#tk'!,i}t$II `wJ ,}i $$'¢4$tl}II., $I$ I?}t �kl$l flol 1 w�-J, }'!I$1 +l il}i'p$��'�¢,I
¢141$44 }I �IIj1}ICI},4,III'#,$}1}{} !}}I## I` I r$,�aiCttt;'}I$}'4,¢I4$I}}, I,:}
y{414.11}�14}}t#'1{if
II#41'#'! ##I IIt}i}III'Ifl?t ''fI'olI¢1,1$I Ikl }'I$I$t{}f I �11{'$'#,I}I$l, I �!'{I${I#�#k}li i41 {I}I${{ 9
}} # If ry $ 1 , i �#}'3v":#' flit,
'1 #} $'$ I,p, I:}$$ {Io}' I if t4 '} {' 4 l #
$ $II $ $ 4 I I I, it � 'I ${I $ }I 4 4l 1 {1} I#
I I} ¢ I$ I I,I { I I I(. I {I $i $ $ $ I} I}+ ►I I, ¢ {
} {'# 41} }I {1141 '#ll:}I,p'#,}I 41I I'19#}I} II $$I $ip $, #I}I$I 4t I'II,1:
�'}{,I#14}414{�l,p{,f}}f 4, ,k �?44ik$$41 %'}II#i# {41{$III it
fit ll,t{I }I� }�4 $,#',{}I}
} $I'# }¢ 14 I$ I{$I , } $ �I $ $I$ la #1 li I$ } } $ I I 1 , }},I
} {II$ II ,p 4 } $ }4F$ Ii$$,$1¢I $11 If$II}I}14'{III$t#I' }II¢} I I 14'Ip I{} {41¢I}
} {141 ¢ 1 ,# 141� l $ } { I } 41 4 $ I ¢ I $ '} I { 11, }., .�.} }}l- $ { 41 } $ t $
41#, i},f 1 it It It]
{'# 14 II 4$ $.I$ ill 1pl }I I14
#I#1� 1$Ilk ll{Ipl ,�'# { $Ii#4}il l; :} lof
}} $'{ $I �; �$¢'it $I$,} li i 11$1 $I}I$I}I $ {14 {I$I $,$I { I$'4'1 p,l I{I 1411$
$41
i alll}I$ I! I{ I$ {I I$1414${'__�-I�
} I ,, 4141p1},y�,$I{I¢ {I $ Itt1 $ 4 I{$I$}I{I{}$} t I$ I I
pl}I{ # #I. }I#,} $II II} $I¢I 'i4 ,$I $, $, I I I
$f I{I $ I}I l I} $ $ ,}1$ I $ $I I$p141 IItII I $ 14'}I$ } I $I¢ ¢144
}#$II''p1411,{$Ii,I, ¢!$ {tit}I I it$ 41 I$ 'li, I , ¢I I
}t$IpI$ a$ # # 4$I$ #t
'�' $ It
I# I
#p 4[, Y�,I11 � 4$ i I I {' l$ I I $ ti I{{$q{I, I}„41{�}{ $! A�
it
I$I$I}}p141}t' !'#14 $Ir$TIITll4,1}441.I#I$ 41${'Ip N }I�'k#}¢ $#t$'}, I } # $ $}}l$ $ I,1} t$l,l $ ¢ 1 { I 4 1 }
$} }I{I I ,p $I }I }I �l fl,# 4t # `}I'¢ ¢¢ T 41 $I$ I¢ t{I 1 ¢I I $ t'} $ # 41#Ilp Il 1 ,, lkFl l#$. .I $ $ I$I} }i $I{14¢I¢I $};p E
lit .I¢$ }'#II 114�-�. I'. $I} $ $l }$} :I ,$I 1 k 1 4 _ I }
iI I+ $ I,F : II I IF I I •t-' •d..4' If 1¢ it $ II I} IF If,
I/
$$$ !$,Ij4� #I$$ {'"R
fly IT $$ $ I{, } $ I1m 4 ;PP;$
I$II } ¢II {I $} I # { $ I } }�• }, h
${ { $ $ } 41 I I# 14 4 41 $$ 9 $ I', 1•I},� }I I 1 I Ip$}'} i'1 $ I$1}$ }I$[7<1 it
i$, #I I}}I•'it$ I¢{$I II#I $,},I l ' I$ ' $I $$$I$ '¢1$ $I'I I�p{I} } $'�$ }$I$Ii Co=J'Z¢"; "
}$41 $ I I71}I## ¢}¢}${ ${ 4l¢ I }I }$ $ $$ $$ coal
¢ $ !$1 1 I I $
'y I y' $ } ¢ $14 # $ II!'¢ I $ } i , ¢ I I{ I 4 16 II$ $I$I}
h4$I'41$I 4 it$I{#13$I$' 141¢I ¢41M�Ijj'l4$Ik I I 1}l}I$I l $ ¢I{IIII#Ip'jlilppl }I$I'!l11{I{$ci�} k h
1}{ #I•ps$¢I $I!}l41}'$ I{I$ t$I1'I .{II'}I Il
{I I{iIi ,11IF
{{iI}{11411 II$}I$pI$,y1$I}l, $,$I# {I, II$911$,$I }'l'�I¢I$I$I}$}I$I $,if,}#t$I lkl#I iplli 1{I},p} $ }I$$$ $,}
I'I}I ll'F,,ilf ll llit-.F ,},� ,(yl I''V II'iF ,, 'F'li 1- I1, ''Irl •II}I"'ll'1 'I'. }I'I i' I I I'll ail llf 111 },. IY IP I!'ll I'
r.
i tl II I IIIh t
J.I•lt.,'IT.ly:ii, Ill y}l "•i.k.i':.I. Iltl'I I;}I ''�rl ,'�j ,4}l,}iI j}IllJil,11}II'�`Ij'l)t,p'I,I}il'a1 it�'I'�I }li if lSil},,j l}}'I r.li ,l'. �!I-til'''._I'jl fll�}' ,y;}''li ll .''I ,I�i;N'I'll ' I''h''�IL'III'. "jid+l II :`i , •.�1ri ,
Ir'1/ }II}i'.I�!IhI,I�,,.I YII,�., l,!,I,: rlil}i; ,!I}!IiSY aI;'}i} ,.rryl,l llt,,rl'}'I?yL•.'�Ih'I''','':}r 'hl ,li a111 �nI'>..Fi} i. }''h: Alp, I'
! IF y II}i}','}rFl,kl. a'YI1:'t }Il,l'J11'+. i''.11}. II'11'.i; ill �1}'4i '19}. III t''l'I'I'II''I��'I'+'Irl lis':I;11/.,'I,'r q•IF
I,'I ..}I 1' Il•,:•II ,,' .I}I
1 ' I f } $I, I � 111 } ! I t '' I••
10511 l_l. 7,,,i`I'T'll li ilh,}I!1}I'}l FI'ITr,I'1 II'�I r,, 1, l,IA'S I'l iy lt, 'il t, Li�il -,F (N II IF lll11�1 ,I, r'll }I l;l1 II,: ,I,I I�I 1, }1 Y :,IF I IF
Y'' 't'•::',' I:}N;}�I}'IN i.+l IPI' ilp�L11 .1 :},IIIaj. I'rt ,Il�'llr ll''1 1`I I'rl l,h111,i114ii1r, ;I IFI IIII Iq, ,}IYI r,'.I(l1 pl'.I •j'I"'}''I !,41 �'iff 'i �'I ��'��: } t t y: '•} t } ti' }, f �I'}
},I, t pl. :.} ::}.•:Ill y11 FIli 'TI ilk 1'I If I'i''I ntll ll'}''ll'll,')I II14' Ii"iljs } 1 1.1 _i'JIs 1tTI :I':} 111 I �I F,t•
VI:I�i N;i tl��p,Li d-t�gtl I�l: 111WI If" .>. 'l Il .. y:, l: li'a •y
IF
.IT}II'i,'■■s1'FI I :Ii'IYfl��l'}II I''i'ititltl l�l''ll',-,1%:}'IYI'I''r,;.i'IIj'!i'1911)',1}Ily',l 'I? ... ;1;
}} "f '} 13, J.' F'-, I' I ' pr Y 1 }l�(}J1 !
}Il'I/,til'' a�tl''j fl:'yhl I i''ii' f'}'II 'It IIII �1, I'tI
1 I', }I,'e'.;1.,t'11 •,'y','I �I +t,'�'', T}'Ili, re'I Ii �I � ' 1I�':)'•j Il I�hl?''I''�' �II
Q�1';I ll♦. !I 'L. Y lJ I;. 1 1 li 1 II it II I I.�I• I llt, ;.i .F y n :�! I Ih ;
t I `il�t j ni.3 ; 4;FI,I '.iII"I,f'll i' I;i Ili%',,Iy11,,01,1i ,.lYM loth. , ?!'}!'i �) ",I l.fl';'l l)','I}.Irlly� )_!t, l,. 11 �1p1i� ,}. ,;tl}i I,I'Ci r,111 ll ,�171
11 y,."P 1 } VI •.y:. 11 11' 1. Winn',ill II'•,1 :'I .'1 ' -1 •I t11 4':} Y '1; 1• ,Y` ' hl li I.F al, i F!Iil I d ,'n it ,i:, ! I ' , tl lA. �I I III• � r'1'I •}I; I }I �y 1`;
r 6,' i l it;)..c':I � II,,k, 0 fil 1..�11 rr � I'''.Ml,�t 1! ,1,17, >ly , ��.I31 I BI. 1,`1, 6/ :11' Li 'I I�i'L.L , '}, }', III �?',1y
p I } 1 y I` 1 1 'll}} l %,I } }II I I F ' r I: II 1 t .I, } I, I - 'I
trrl. 1 k I,'}'y 1''fl Fai d`II 'fl. \ 1:t 611l�: I,FI ;II�`I .pI 11�} Ili j j'(�: y,P 11.1 Iy15 ,Iy, , } y'. } y. ,'r'i I'I 14'li• .1'II I t i:, I t I, 11//� '.i I• } .., t.;y y,y, , -
�,!!}� YlLrl y IIl�• I11 ', 'iY'iill l,Il 1 'Ili, r I�I},I} k%1 I'd IIII Ili:pl ,).}'I'Y.
'{ l''i''I'1 '' Ili , 4h'I'�il j'}il}l•yi''iil'E8l l Irj t,), tiy' FI'i; rlfi�il')I IF tr'I �, FI,II11,41,,I,,III .I jllL•Ir'I};'lt'>'1}I, kit }'i'I'f ;y,ipl ,4l.+ll}'}Il, ,Ihli'hI l',.� •, l :i �. /,kl lyi-Ii
ICI�,} ! I I 1}.I I • }.i,! r ,.�1!y�wj. }I l 1I' 13' \y,,yl 11.�I { II 1 ll, ,I I} F i,,I'h }' III II ' f, 1 :y,,! t }' ! , 11 t .! ,
••}l lF iyl4'}t'}I�}A�' itl l'I' �tl'I'`I }'I!''-r''`Inl' ''1{Il'I -1 �I�'ll}}I' ?!It 1.I1M14'Ip.',tllI. ill. I;- -'I ll l}'I 1,:�1''!' iy
it ?,I i? 4� F 'L > ii.5_t t )' pl }F'
IIt ;y;, }L'EE.: iI,}IlF'.. toii jS(i��l I'I''>'ll''31f�'III IFI Il'i nl+l''I III, �(�I'Il' ' F'It ;Ir!i Illy
! I� r i r F I, . I / Y ' ). 3 I', 1 ' p h Iy� } I, I I') a:. l V.
''� 'Y II} IH } I
151042
F }IAt- }�.' ll tG 11 (1'ih •I }I I, Is. ,I'F YI:,j, r11� 1}'II,I, IIII Ip.iF }P tl :}'.isl Y1'. I FIII'+1
' I11(: li 111 i, 111 ),'�91Yl'Yt, 'T'}}i ,�tlli (,a, it }`ii Ip IIS f, Ill' Fy1, J.. .. 1,.}1 ',fI I'I I , }. ,6•II '6, },I.'I'i.} '1 j,4 �. "" I ' � iil'y..
' (,i,hl}.`II t..l I •.},}�il .T II } ll} .,+1� 1°+'!.' y .w .:1
I i , .' 1. I .iitl }I Iflip
I I1, ,.iJ "1 l' � m IO
1 .� } y i.i.r l,} y11 .4I It
I IT I I# . i.11 1 l ,. y IIII N0 (D
S l .I}I✓ 1 ,I� , (, j r }I 1 I It' i I •-A 1 r1� ! I} "} i I,: I'} y V: I -J I' t..}.
L.$}. $'I II I-':'!� F Fr• I1
L a l I I I t
I I) tI'1 ,y II I I }II `lI. ., III II I i..
! yA:l 1� 'iR II}� �''}YF I'lif+. k' JI t II Y yip l,l Illlll0
't' I III• t' „ 11'•i I }'l.. L'rya }r Ipa} I i \ I'3BI _ !I I c
I - ',} I �1, ,} I III,. II 3 L . 'I )
il� }1l.1 Ip, )I1 P, 4 I•I}i I�II�I�I'y l.yl'F ,.}I y, li Wl'i'Ilih .I„il `,I•t 1-�f
Irr��I a I1, I I hi ,I ,,}
i (I I I ti; �; y'I }T',}r ,1} 1 1 I 'I F'i. >I ' I! )I'�'L>SIII• i♦ i•/ I t i II i ?II j }I 1'1t" }t.. �� 41 .}•,i I ' 3 Y T I . , I. '' % R I} II Y �' .: t I Y�;' v ktr'�� �} I' \
? l '' i h f I f' I I t: it li I I I 1 (`7j h I I I y 1, r 1,,: 1 k 1 "• ` r' f' t I'}'
rllr:,.y.1.:t TIl'}I L1'I'f'IIII�'}I}.>ll'l'I` �ibSll ;t1 I JIY.'}. �il,F'F,�t}.jlllhlI'✓I I, )r1�', t1. '�a YIF--
J1'ls, l•hl'o: r .,Ill I f tF' �l l l )i.' , P.
if ? t ?I' I I }}41
p
I' I, pi ",':/11 i,'�(+1'I ]•}II Ilil t �'}, 'yl %II,j 1.i II I ,,J }, 'I'F'4''111 IIj*y''�'1�I /�.•//
F Ili. VI;y yP ,}I,'It I j':.I I�}Ill+IIII.+'1715 L�rp Il i'I� It i'�, ICI' 1}Iyplt l,l ti ;yl'1 1a'3ii ''''!
i,t, T I�NIr IIII I'ytl I' F till LI I� 1 I I 1 I r. - }I '1 ii, If•I 4I Lsl I 1
li'I Iti II, .t''I yl� l+'i i'"e, , }i111 If
ll:T'j ,''�
ill' II 1,11 ',! II 1 I ryl %I It �tY-a� j la6d i' I II 111`T"i,_ YI'll lrlplli},"�r.' i I. IiF } I I PIN
!' I 'FI S `r 1 I I I' il'�\ rl' I I I I I I /'4�' -1, I,I I�IIC� rll•• I} I]L y I I Y,h 'I'1� r
p 1,AI�}'j1'll 'I)l''Illlll ll ky'I II,':,F',I iI`Il•l 'iylji Yl�II11Fl\,'I I, F�11 l it )Ii31}I}:'ll }I�Ilil'1'IJrI''I'I't pt it ll}f'Infl l'I'I'Iy''I fr t';1
`I ) 'll 1 Il I 1
L,�11 I r 11. ( \' I I I 1 1 1 1, TI I -\
')1, Ir.•.•}I ISwan
T}I i e'ify ll 11}:'
I Il,y l'.Ir ,Ii n} ' Itl i•,'li !', ai �'..>di IV 4 tt,'YI I, 1 tl r i'.. ( II'll yF,pl, II Lj ,,t'1il ,ill ll`I'I, IIII 1, r,ly' p \ //
yl I'1'lhr + %I,I it l(.ist. II ll)ly l,',S r}'III I, I1t rl 1'li r• I Ir tl), 31II1 'III III!'I+IIII IItII fI I'I'Iyi'' `
r ,I i I,y IY,I 11 I11 ,'} 'lll'r 1!I $}'fl �'1'rlJl'Jilll', I. )I rnl1f 1 I I'r'�
�}I 1t I I }} I 7iii7 I F� I iiiiS ����� /Ill . ,
y1, ;1 'I ITIr i4.,'li'.,,I I�I ;'III?I11 l.y'1 �}I,..yl i�':I"�I''�'•,'}I'}IIIIY �:.;K.��F,t,llllijI,'I'll J if 'LI ,M 1J'�'y lt, f,I'I''lli.l 1,III+I.'"tlll,�l�rkI�III�',!i},il `
I IIF 1,+illl1; i •rll'
I'}641liYw'-Ila �i tl rl'1'I!�,l �"1 ':r ,}IA.I i113'ialuil�r lly �Y.} r�l tllr�ll lri'I,Y'�rr'I Ill It}I IF In'I, 1'I r I 31 1`, I1, I }II
:$ Y r �r 1 I I F 4 in 1 I•l ' y Ihll 1). f 'i 1
''7 ly!Ir I I>tl }I;t IF Id ilh tl. \ A. Id',ViI B)11:4'}I1f'�ill' F I'I'i I''r111 't 'li;l l.I ;A II!r A.'ll.' ltr'.'I Il I F,1!n, ''.ILuI'.��'tl.''I� '•It' r\
'TI I/l.,1 I,l I it I 'F It:111 I.,il ,I '. I}' 11 pI'%I li' l II I MI'lll �l lr'jli IMr' •1'I "ry I
ill,/•1} tlp'Ilt,-}'III il:;'1�1L' III,Ib :I O lli,.l yrl 'lili''l1r'.yl lllf,.tpA{.1.j tA11(IIt,IJ,IFI�I A�111/, jlll ll}�Y 4,it IF,1`IjI,� I, 11 Ih 11/41',}IYl }14411 �y
� jl :I t q lr 1p'!y:' ' ll'FI', y"'I jl l I!1 'I I'1',II'rtl r llt'A''tl tl'•'}"II11 tl lll}I}Vr%I Ilil�Alilr't(I!'' lyllill lltl: '1`'y,' Flit�� II IF I .ff�`l i%,tIIk 1.1 I x
li l'}i11`''II )''tl ll'ii I''Y4i II Ill.' II. 'Y'I'�' jl1{I?I ll,li III;th I1'tI YLI fi'"Yll d:l '� I,J'IF, r'4. 1'I'ril it Tl 1, rF :t F:'t IF
0 IF.
Idlli,. M1,
I'lil} II}15 r'r II'l II',YI 71}I'I,! . I y lfl ', IIIIt'' N�y T'.}i•I , Ilj ll
't'Ih'11 I ( •'.FI'ry ITI'l':yyl'}I'I:II I,.",'''l �hi yl"%,'jl ll,t l '�}'BI I{.i}i'I'I '�I P': 'i' S,'II II I
iryI! } �
I IIYYI t,I IIl,1 I'/ yl1 1,)l l\.;wlFitI ll il'141 Trj 11} 1.'II }'I(I I, 'tl'l `Y'It 1 } Tar Si}tllii'I,1>l�,i it 'I },I rIF,l l,l ?I Lt 11I I"i,
I f ( If
} II '� Ih I�I , I ti IIII I1{ tar}I}, Ihyl lFl I I 4l } Ir, I I,I' ,}II''I31I,r II}ll III ' I I lf, III IIII
IY'fll ' ISI It', i�l,lr'lIIi1'.r'I'•�I'I l.,l lrl lyt-11111I�. 1, li',IIII'lll,I 'WI Q'a.'
1,I lei },III :J ';II II, ` 'Ill �l 1, '} }I liy' I,II y' II.�IIv'I'i411`II (JI', IIII In,It,',11 Flly Iit lit: tl II I11I'7, 1, 14 IiI¢.''tl ptl'Tl Ills, l'I,l Ir; l}' ' I l
I, li Ii} , i 1 yll' 11,(r111� ',tier/'.1}Ili, II }.l}'il l}:}l �Iy it ) %I ll •1i} }�}'IIII y''I},.}i1 l,l ::�} bID 'IF II+ilrip..
.IY IQ
} II •ill ly1 I }II F'lIi III 11 !, } 71 r l I TIFk
I r 'I } 141 I, } I l 1 1 y Q I I r I T '+--=L.,'}C���j r:" IF :'ill�l I, r tl 9
•ITljt��,yl lrti',I ip lbl 1.
tl
J� !Il wl II I I, )I'll i '1 F'. lI ,:}I1q�IIrI Ill Il. ii t,1 1l �'}• �.
• ii•'' ' urllpp lit Ik(}('I' 'lf'I ''AI �I'I'j'jn) ,'11t'I}II}, itpl ilgl , ',' 14!Iy I III'11pp1r'I" '1' dl I ,IF' ill 4i Ilp 1
IIIVI II I�I':IIIi11III,i,Iyf II I,}I, I,II I,I }'ll'I I:I:•Irl ll l�n'>1 IU Inl 1'il lF li :I:,
il'tl,tl .11fh''i - 1,p },Ihl ll lr1}� H'I I}I'IF; Fll it lit tl�}il",'}.i I,F 'M' ,,11 E'Iti'It'li'}' 'I /l','rj 10 (I'll''ili I
b }ILI I I ♦I ILiH `NLIII wIj, IF ,♦ If Mil 1i! I I'l,I(s l bII�Pulp I Ir :}'l ll' I hi LI1� ,t'I' I,'I}1
i' , II} ,!Ill^ Il I, Irl )Illy I: I1 ,I IY;: Il } }hl rl .� I'
.1 t 11 I " 1'IpI I } Ik '', (i }'I I:Il1}' I ' Il �I:
ii, r, SI' )1,111y 4,'.�.'I lyll'FiFll I lyl.11l'II I11I144'I' I'. 1�' II 4'I'illl 'I ``IV ' IIF IIFI FI`il,l•1V fl IIFI :hl J
r( OWN 1 1 r,yl i I AI, , V ., I }, r, }I,1 ,, %,,1. / /l Oi Il,tr'
I'ILyI,l)llhl', 1'j., I' Il r.'�ilhl Iqi llpll'11 lsi p} }114i II'1} i 'llhly ' i } IIiJ 'u \\\\\\
y� h , l }.� ll N r '}I tl ,l} I, I'u-0' I
'Ir.I!
11 I A LF' I,� I Ir I , �Lp rhllih 1S , iY� S II IJ•3 ". Ir,I I' II,, ' i.•I' h i �'�V"1
'iF'rtililll}hVl'I,ll'llj}Ii,IFIiI I,I1
,III�IAt1t4"`I I�, Iw nly'ik r'I' IIt Il ll;i,ll Fe', lid W I `/I r'r
II H } IP F I I. III
„ I " �, } y:} ,I !IIFI ! 11 ? l J II� I I 1 F l' 1),- ; • o O p
1} IIr
� I 11 i i'r ' IIrppr11 , } 1 S
}'
''v1
,� j$ }�` •y 1 1� � l 1 I III 'I'lj' I I 0
ll -..7 -1 t F ) r �•*I ! IFJ 'I .. ' ' :7i 11.
it.*�'

APPENDIX S
LETTER OF 24 APRIL 1997 TO
CAMP BRYAN FARMS, INC.

CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
consulting
engineering
construction
operations
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28204.2686
Tea: 704 342-4546 Fax: [phone]
24 April 1997
Mr. Paul Thompson, Jr.
President, Camp Bryan Farms, Inc.
Coffey & Thompson, Inc.
1423A East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28204
Re: Cartaret County Interlocal Agency
Dear Mr. Thompson:
X
{i-1rs �
Thurman Upchurch, Gordon McAdams, Richard Tsang, and I enjoyed meeting with you
and the other Camp Bryan members on 13 April and were pleased that you invited us to
share additional information with the members on the proposed wetland habitat project.
The members had various in-depth questions, interests, and concerns about the project, and
we welcomed the opportunity to explain about the Agency, its probable future legal
configuration, its mission, and technical issues related to the proposed project to the extent
that those issues have been defined at this early stage of the project.
As we noted at our meeting, development of the project is currently at a very elementary
stage, and we have identified three critical factors necessary for success of the project:
1. Agreement by Camp Bryan that the wetland habitat can be located on Camp Bryan
property,
2. Approval by the State Department of Health and Natural Resources, and
3. Obtaining funding for the project.
At this time we are at the beginning of Step 1 above and have initiated discussion with
Camp Bryan officers and members on the concept of a created wetland habitat on Camp
Bryan property. The wetland is needed because wetlands are perceived as an
environmentally acceptable means of returning wastewater treatment plant effluents into'
the environment in areas where direct discharges to streams are perceived as a too abrupt
transition. The wetland allows the effluent to enter the stream as a natural source of water.
The wetland tends to enhance the natural quality through the further removal of nutrients
and organics.
Consideration of this proposal by Camp Bryan should progress one step at a time and at a
pace with which the members feel comfortable. The project is for a very long term, if not
permanent; so the decision should be developed carefully. Carteret County Interlocal
Agency's (CCIA) development of the project is also proceeding one step at a time. At this
stage of the project, CCIA is simply seeking an expression of interest in the project based on
� —I AOPE,h/D/X g

CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Paul Thompson, Jr.
24 April 1997
Page 2
currently available information which will enable the project development to advance to a
stage of further definition, at which time we will update Camp Bryan officers and members
and again seek an expression of continued interest in the project. CCIA will be seeking
such endorsements from others during the project development period. Continued
progress is contingent on continued endorsement of critical parties like Camp Bryan. If any
critical party ceases to endorse the project, the project will either stop or major redirection
will be necessary.
Camp Bryan is the location of choice for the wetland habitat for the following reasons:
■ It is privately owned and has controlled access.
■ The wetland in this location serves the needs of CCIA and benefits Camp Bryan by
the creation of a wildlife habitat and by making remote property more accessible.
■ Wetland discharge will be to Hunters Creek and have a long flow route before
flowing into Class SA (shellfishing) waters. The other two streams in the area have
existing wastewater treatment plant effluent discharges.
■ The wetland in this location has maximum positive environmental benefits for
waterfowl, wildlife, and marine life.
Your formation of a committee of members with special qualifications to review the
proposed project with regard to the interests of Camp Bryan is a very appropriate response
to CCIA's proposal. We have been contacted by Mr. Mark Craig, one of the committee
members, and requested to provide references of similar wetland systems, particularly
those on private land (operated by wastewater utility organizations). We are preparing a
list of references at this time and will be sending this to Mr. Craig shortly. This is a very
prudent action on the part of the committee.
We are confident that the committee's findings will have a favorable influence on the initial
decision of interest in the project by the Camp Bryan members. Meanwhile, we remain
available for discussion and information as you review the matter and form your opinions
and initial decision.
Please do not overlook the fact that your initial decision of positive interest in the project in
no way commits Camp Bryan to future endorsements. If your initial interest is positive, but
for any reason Camp Bryan members lose interest in the future as the project gains
definition, Camp Bryan is free to terminate further consideration. Meanwhile, we believe
the project to be a "win -win" situation.
'- We were honored to be your guests at lunch. The barbeque was the best I have ever tasted.
Roger and Debbie must have "written the book" on eastern NC barbequing! We
immensely enjoyed visiting with your fellow members. I was particularly intrigued with
g _2

CDMCamp Dresser & McKee
Mr. Paul Thompson, Jr.
24 April 1997
Page 3
Harry Ingles' knowledge of and interest in the geology and history of the area. Camp
Bryan is indeed very special! Thank you for your hospitality!
Bob Schultz has been most accommodating and hospitable, and we appreciate his
assistance. His enthusiasm is infectioous, and we feel that his presence at Camp Bryan
must certainly enhance the affection of the members for the Camp.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRE SER & McKEE
\ J
Thomas D. Hall, P.E.
cc: Bob Shultz
Thurman Upchurch
Gordon McAdams
Richard Tsang
bc.\-mrk\caneretVetters\970424.tho
a

APPENDIX 9
BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

i Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Atlantic Beach
Fiscal Years
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl)
Residential ERU's
Commercial ERU's
213,525
4,454
63
232,742
4,466
63
253,689
4,478
63
276,521
4,490
63
301,408
4,503
63
328,535
4,516
63
328,535
4,516
63
328,535
4,516
63
328,535
4,516
63
328,535
4,516
63
328,535
4,516
63
328,535
4,516
63
TOTAL ERU'S
4,517
4,529
4,541
4,553
4,566
4,579
4,579
4,579
4,579
4,579
4,579
4,579
Assumptions
1) Population growth freezes in 2000 and so does wastewater gallons.
2) Monthly water usage from 1994 Water Supply Plan inflated for 1995.
3) Number of houses, condominiums, mobile homes and commercial from water supply report.
4) Meter sizes for hotel/motels estimated by using number of units when available. Hotels/motels treated as commercial accounts
and assumed to be billed by meter size not units.
5) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.
6) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation. This was adjusted so that annual mgd was the
same ratio above minimal daily flow for the year 2025 as it was for 1995.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Bogue
Fiscal Years
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl) 73,000 73,324 73,649 73,973 74,298 74,622 74,947 75,271 75,596 75,920 76,244 76,569
Residential ERU's
Commercial ERU's
214
0
215
0
216
0
217
0
218
0
219
0
220
0
221
0
222
0
223
0
224
0
225
0
TOTAL ERU'S
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
Assumptions:
1) Population growth and wastewater growth factor based on growth factor for Cape Carteret.
2) 1995 population estimated from population are time of incorporation. Other information such as median household income obtained from 1990
census for Bogue Township as Bogue town alone was not available.
3) No commercial accounts estimated due to lack of data.
4) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.
5) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Cape Carteret
Fiscal Years
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl)
Residential ERU's
Commercial ERU's
95,995
580
50
98,433
582
59
100,933
584
59
103,497
586
59
106,126
588
59
108,822
590
59
111,586
592
59
114,420
594
59
117,326
596
59
120,306
598
59
123,362
600
59
126,495
602
59
TOTAL ERU'S
630
641
643
645
647
649
651
653
655
657
659
661
Assumptions:
1) Number of houses, condominiums, mobile homes and commercial from land use plan.
2) Annual wastewater flow for FY 95 estimated by using mgd for max month (July) and applying ratio of each other month to max month based on
monthly data obtained on Atlantic Beach.
3) Meter sizes for hotel/motels estimated by using number of units when available. Hotels/motels treated as commercial accounts and assumed to
be billed by meter size not units. Assumed all hotels/motels were 5/8" meter since no unit information was available. Included six
institutional under V category.
4) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.
5) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation. This was adjusted so that annual mgd was the same
ratio above minimal daily flow for the year 2025 as it was for 1995.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Cedar Point
Fiscal Years
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl)
Residential ERU's
Commercial ERU's
27,740
946
0
28,267
952
0
28,804
958
0
29,351
964
0
29,909
970
0
30,477
976
0
31,056
982
0
31,647
988
0
32,248
995
0
32,860
1,002
0
33,485
1,009
0
34,121
1,016
0
TOTAL ERU'S
946
952
958
964
970
976
982
988
995
1,002
1,009
1,016
Assumptions
1) Number of houses, condominiums, and mobile homes from census data 1990.
2) Annual wastewater flow for FY 95 estimated by using mgd for max month (July) and applying ratio of each other month to max month based on
monthly data obtained on Atlantic Beach.
3) No commercial accounts estimated due to lack of data.
4) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.
5) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation. This was adjusted so that annual mgd was the same
ratio above minimal daily flow for the year 2025 as it was for 1995.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Emerald Isle
Fiscal Years
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl) 289,080 297,752 306,685 315,886 325,362 335,123 345,177 355,532 366,198 377,184 388,499 388,499
al ERU's
:ial ERU's
2,433
19
2,480
19
2,529
19
2,579
19
2,631
19
2,684
19
2,739
19
2,796
19
2,854
19
2,914
19
3,079
19
3,079
19
TOTAL ERU'S
2,452
2,499
2,548
2,598
2,650
2,703
2,758
2,815
2,873
2,933
3,098
3,098
Assumptions
1) Population growth freezes in 2005 and so does wastewater gallons.
2) Number of houses, condominiums, mobile homes and commercial from land use plan.
3) Annual wastewater flow for FY 95 estimated by using mgd for max month (July) and applying ratio of each other month to max month based on
monthly data obtained on Atlantic Beach. This calculation was adjusted to match total annual flow for Emerald Isle and Indian Beach.
4) Meter sizes for hotel/motels estimated by using number of units when available. Hotels/motels treated as commercial accounts
and assumed to be billed by meter size not units.
5) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.
6) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation. This was adjusted so that annual mgd was the same
ratio above minimal daily flow for the year 2025 as it was for 1995.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Indian Beach
Fiscal Years
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl)
Residential ERU's
Commercial ERU's
124,830
1,414
15
131,945
1,417
15
139,466
1,420
15
147,416
1,423
15
155,818
1,426
15
164,700
1,429
15
174,088
1,432
15
184,011
1,435
15
194,500
1,439
15
205,586
1,443
15
217,305
1,446
15
217,305
1,446
15
TOTAL ERU'S
1,429
1,432
1,435
1,438
1,441
1,444
1,447
1,450
1,454
1,458
1,461
1,461
Assumptions:
1) Population growth freezes in 2005 and so does wastewater gallons.
2) Number of houses, condominiums, and mobile homes from land use plan.
3) Annual wastewater flow for FY 95 estimated by using mgd for max month (July) and applying ratio of each other month to max month based on
monthly data obtained on Atlantic Beach. This calculation was adjusted to match total annual flow for Emerald Isle and Indian Beach.
4) No commercial information was available except that there were 3 RV parks. These were estimated to be 1 1\2" meters.
5) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.
6) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation. This was adjusted so that annual mgd was the same
ratio above minimal daily flow for the year 2025 as it was for 1995.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Morehead City
Fiscal Years
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl) 339,450 354,386 369,979 386,258 403,253 420,996 439,520 458,859 479,049 500,127 522,133 545,106
al ERU's
:ial ERU's
4,888
310
4,941
310
4,995
310
5,049
310
5,104
310
5,160
310
5,220
310
5,280
310
5,341
310
5,403
310
5,466
310
5,530
310
TOTAL ERU'S
5,198
5,251
5,305
5,359
5,414
5,470
5,530
5,590
5,651
5,713
5.776
5,840
Assumptions:
1) Number of houses, condominiums, mobile homes and commercial from land use plan.
2) Meter sizes for hotelImotels estimated by using number of units when available. Hotels/motels treated as commercial accounts
and assumed to be billed by meter size not units.
3) Annual wastewater flow for FY 95 estimated from average flow data from 1989 to 1995, adjusted downward for UI which is not billed and compared
to water gallons billed for fiscal year ending June 30, 1996 less the credit for water billed to Port which does not contribute to sewer flow.
4) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.
5) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation. This was adjusted so that annual mgd was the same
ratio above minimal daily flow for the year 2025 as it was for 1995.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Newport
Fiscal Years
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl) 98,550 100,215 101,909 103,631 105,383 107,164 108,975 110,816 112,689 114,594 116,530 118,500
Residential ERU's
Commercial ERU's
853
95
877
95
901
95
926
95
951
95
976
95
1,002
95
1,028
95
1,055
95
1,082
95
1,110
95
1,138
95
TOTAL ERU'S
948
972
996
1,021
1,046
1,071
1,097
1,123
1,150
1,177
1,205
1,233
Assumptions
1) Number of houses and commercial from water supply report.
2) Annual wastewater flow for FY 95 estimated by using mgd for max month (July) and applying ratio of each other month to max month based on
monthly data obtained on Atlantic Beach.
3) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation.
4) Meter sizes for hotel/motels estimated by using number of units when available. Hotels/motels treated as commercial accounts and assumed to be
billed by meter size not units. All commercial assumed to be 5/8" with the exception of the prison camp which is estimated as a 2" meter and
four accounts under 1" meter for hotel, rest homes, schools and other institutional.
5) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.

Appendix 9
Summary of ERU's and Annual Gallons Billed by Year
and Basis of Assumptions for Pine Knoll Shores
Fiscal Years
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Annual Sales (1,000 gl) 92,710 94,750 96,834 98,964 101,142 103,367 103,367 103,367 103,367 103,367 103,367 103,367
Residential ERU's
Commercial ERU's
1,518
20
1,528
20
1,538
20
1,548
20
1,559
20
1,580
20
1,580
20
1,580
20
1,580
20
1,580
20
1,580
20
1,580
20
TOTAL ERU'S
1,538
1,548
1,558
1,568
1,579
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
Assumptions:
1) Population growth freezes in 2000 and so does wastewater gallons.
2) Number of houses, condominiums, and commercial from land use plan.
3) Annual wastewater flow for FY 95 estimated by using mgd for max month (July) and applying ratio of each other month to max month based on
monthly data obtained on Atlantic Beach.
4) Annual wastewater flow calculated by multiplying previous year by population growth calculation. This was adjusted so that annual mgd was the same
ratio above minimal daily flow for the year 2025 as it was for 1995.
5) Meter sizes for hotel/motels estimated by using number of units when available. Hotels/motels treated as commercial accounts
and assumed to be billed by meter size not units.
6) Annual growth of accounts added to residential classification only by dividing annual population growth of number of persons per household.
The number of accounts calculated were added to each year in the residential category.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
en.mnmeWal
services
amces.vm I