NC0050105_Staff Comments_20050920

VC 60 56 105'
Meeting to Discuss Rockfish Creek WRF Flows
Archdale Building, 9tt, Floor Conference Room
September 20, 2005 —10 AM
Planned Attendees
Tom Belnick/DWQ
Gil Vinzani/DWQ
Alex Marks/DWQ
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M I-IILL
Mick Noland/PWC
Agenda
1. Purpose of meeting
• Review information relative requested flows and plot EA path forward
2. EA Background
• Effort started in 2001
• Required development of updated QUAL2E Model for Cape Fear River
• Required development of Interim Nutrient Management Strategy
• No initial comments from NPDES regarding requested flow
• EA review essentially complete except Clearinghouse Review (to be verified by
Alex Marks)
3. Review of Revised flow memo
• Flow table
• Updated flow graph
4. Discussion and Path Forward

q %DS 6)e/;')/ NCOOn/PS
MAC-
a ),4 576,—E,r
hu,iA z erzni fi/27-
A L - 2 - v/ob
(filihagctiqn
re tA,ti,d-
U
GOkn
- 60,410•
f J C IA/ q' biciuvr
4-4/41 zY /49infr4--
4o f e/
�lCiuSlv►� - PlNiS wr!/ S144 i drok ►'
(10 ® CM31C1C,J
e V A k Gf f 6,evvA4
dhw4°n.

City of Fayetteville
Rockfish Creek WWTP
NC0050105 /CF o30615
Summary of NPDES Permitting Actions
1996 SEPA EA for 24 MGD expansion; FONSI issued 11/27/96
1997 NPDES permit renewal issued for phased 12/14/24 MGD
NPDES issues rerate/ATO for 14 MGD
1998 NPDES issues permit mod for 16 MGD
2001 Phase I expansion from 14 to 16 MGD completed
2002 NPDES renewal permit issued for new phased 21 MGD, plus existing 16/24 MGD
2003 Facility submits SEPA EA for 28 MGD
ri 2
-(2A- kji*'J ge$ttenC!
2_8 61 6-0 - ,,vAa
)attI- I,Fe.- ,l► I I
0 1/) Ie li1 < c,"
7

RE: Rockfish EA
Subject: RE: Rockfish EA
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:04:33 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <Ruth.Swa.iek@CB ZM.com>, <[e-mail]>
Tom - Thanks for your response and the progress we a• a making. I think we need to set up a meeting sometime aftyr the 11 th
when I return from vacation. We appreciate yc Jr strict E:dherence to your review procedures. However, we believe tl •at you are
splitting hairs on the flows and that your position regard ng constructing a 28 mgd plant without a permit is :nconsisti :nt with
current state statutes and rules (at least the v► ay sever. 11 of us have interpreted them in our past lives with the state`. Also - I
forget what the current minimum capacity crite ,ion is foi triggering SEPA - but a re -rating of a plant is stills .abject to SEPA. So
it makes sense for us to sit down and discuss :his. In th ; meantime - we will update the flows on the chart -we send ou with
the memo because it may help resolve our iss aes.
PWC is anxious to to complete this EA. We hz;ve been working on it for several years - having had to do u.)dated writer quality
modeling for speculative limits, etc. I will contE ct you oror about the 11th to set up a meeting date. If you I rave any Iuestions
while I am gone, please contact Ruth. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
Direct Phone - 704.329.0073 x. 217
Mobile Phone - 704.904.5918
Email - bill.kreutzbergera,ch2m.com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 2:27 PM
To: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT; Swanek, Ruth/RDI
Cc: Alex Marks
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
Hello folks- This is a followup to the voice n essage I .eft for Ruth today. Thanks for the revised flow ji tstificaticn for the
Fayetteville Rockfish Creek WWTP. I woulc . be com:: ortable with a phased permitted flow limit of 27 MGD, wr ich is
what your flow evaluation projected after 20 years. The ATC permit would also need to be issued for 2 1 MGD V ) match
the permitted :low. If you still desire to cons xuct to 23 MGD, I believe :.'ou could construct to that flow , and complete the
permit requirements (re -rating, permit mod) : rom 27 t') 28 MGD when that flow is properly justified. L ;t me kn,,w if you
have addition: tl questions.
Bi11.Kreutzbe: erQCH2M.com wrote:
Tom - It ha:, been awhile since we exchang ;d email:.
worked with the Middle Cape Fear River Be sin Assoc.
strategies for new and expanding dischargE rs to the
addressed these issues.
Anyway - we have updated the flow justificc Lion merr•
with the CG&L guidance. It will only be a ye ;r or two
beyond 21 MGD. Please look at this since 1 'e need t
Thanks
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
on this topic. We actually let this issue sit awhile a the fall i as we
iation, PWC, Western Wake Communities and PV !C regarcing
3ape Fear. Also Wanted to see how the draft Basin vide plar
o for Rockfish Creek WRF. We think the 28 is just led in ac :ordance
)efore they will need to begin work on the next phe 3e of the design
get this issue resolved. Call me or Ruth if you ha' e any qu :;stions.
1 of 3
7/1/2:)05 8:54 AM

RE: Rockfish EA
Direct Phone - 704.32::.0073 x. 217
Mobile Phone - 704.9( 4.5918
Email - bill.kreutzbergt rach2m com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:tom;[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, Septe! nber 21, ?004 10:10 AM
To: Kreutzberger, Bill/ :LT
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
Bill- the link to the 0 i&L 201 Facility Plan requirements is: http://www.nccgl.n A/fap/cw srf/d1b.html
Bi11.Kreutzberger u,C 12M.con t wrote:
Tom - I will call to di;cuss as I have also received some additional information fr )m PWC indicating that they believe they
will need to begin di :sign for the next phase - beyond 21 MGD - in the 2007-200i.c time range. Additionally, Mick Noland of
PWC and I are both troubled by your comment regarding building a 28 MGD fac lity at risk., since we both believe that this
is contrary to state statutes. Construction of a 28 MGD facility requires a permit ;Ind authorization to be constructed and
cannot be done "at their own risk".
Prior to our next dis ;ussion, I would appreciate any copies of guidelines from C(i&L that ou are using for your
evaluation. I'II be tal'cing to yc:u soon. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Phone: [phone] ;'3, ext. 2.7
Mobile: [phone]
Email: bkreutzbacf.2m.com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:t ►[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, Se rtember :.)9, 2004 12:20 PM
To: Kreutzberger, B II/CLT
Cc: Swanek, Ruth/F DU; Jones, Vicki/CLT; [e-mail]; Alex Mark larry horton
Subject: Re: Rockf sh EA
Hi Bill- I still don't sec the ji: stification for a flow of 28 MGD within the 20-yi .ar plane t ng period, and am still
confused about the ;tatemens: that the projected maximum monthly flows do n )t include.. I&I. It seems tha�, the use of a
multiplier to obtain max monthly flow proj ectii ms is inherently capturing I&I low during the wet season. Thus, I still
think that I&I flow should b :: broken out and v 'aluated as to whether it is con: idered e:: cessive or nonexcessive.
Although this proci ss has bc. en ongoing, we have stated from the start that the flows mi .st be properly justified in
order for us to conc ur with a permitted flow of 28 MGD. At this point it seem 3 like Fa: ,etteville wants to r:xpand to 28
MGD since it makes sense f om an engineering sequencing perspective. If Fa. 'etteville still wants to proceed with
construction to 281 4GD, they can do that at their own risk, and request a pern it mod for 28 MGD at a later date when
the flows are justifi-:d. If I am misinterpreting :something from the flow analy: is, or if) ou want a meeting to discuss
further, please let n .e know.
Bi11.Kreutzberger( CH2M.c.om wrote:
Hi Tom - As we c scussed today, the request for the 28 mgd flow versus the ; 4 mgd in the current permit is driven by
the need to stay :head of capacity needs and the logical sequencing of expai sions. When we did the permitting in the
2 of 3 7/ 1 /2005 8:54 AM

ZE: Roc-z sh EA
mid-1990s that gave PWC the multiple permittinc; pages w th a maximum of 24 MGD, the capacities were baud on a .
wastewater plan developed by another consultan . PWC's new consultant for the current Rockfish expansion:, has
indicated that the logical expansion of facilities wi .uld be tc: move from a 21 MGD facility to a 28 MGD with no interim
step of 24 MGD. As I said on the call, I think the f:ow numt.ers you summarize below support this request but :3 graph
in the attached PowerPoint file probably tells a beater story.
This graph shows the projected monthly maximui i flows vi thout I&I, the required facility capacity, the requirec.:
design/approval/construction period, and the 20 y :ar planr.ing period. This graph shows that when you consid :r that
the next jump in capacity will be to 28 MGD, design has to begin about 2012. We don't believe this is banking capacity
but rather is prudent facility planning.
This EA has been kicked around DWQ since abo.it 2001 end has required development of an updated receiv:ng water
model which PWC helped to fund and then awaitod DWQ eview and approval of speculative limits for a significant
period of time. I understand that your procedures have chE aged for evaluating capacity needs but believe that the
increased permit capacity is warranted.
Also - the speculative limits letter issued to PWC has indicated the potential need for nutrient removal at the ff icility. I
was in a meeting last week with Coleen Sullins ai id Dave Goodrich regarding the new Western Wake Region, II WRF
discharge to the Cape Fear where they both disci.issed PWC's request to 28 mgd and the potential need for
nutrient removal requirements. If nutrient limits a.-e eventually added to the permit, PWC may need to begin lanning
and construction of the expansion to 28 mgd eve: i earlier than showed on the attached figure.
I hope this answers your questions. Please call o email m•) to discuss further. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Charlotte Office
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email Fax: 678-5 -'9-8071
Email: bkreutzba ch2m.com
tom.k 9lnick@ncmail.n?t
N.C. DENR/DWQ/NPDES
919-733-5083,ext. 543
3 of 3 7/1/20.)5 8:54 AN

Re: Rockfish EA
4,
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:27:04 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: Alex Marks <[e-mail]>
Hello folks- This is a followup to the voice message I left for Ruth today. Thanks for the revised flow justification for the Fayetteville
Rockfish Creek WWTP. I would be comfortable with a phased permitted flow limit of 27 MGD, which is what your flow evaluation
projected after 20 years. The ATC permit would also need to be issued for 27 MGD to match the permitted flow. If you still desire to
construct to 28 MGD, I believe you could construct to that flow, and complete the permit requirements (re -rating, permit mod) from 27 to 28
MGD when that flow is properly justified. Let me know if you have additional questions.
Bi11.Kreutzbergerna,CH2M.com wrote:
Tom - It has been awhile since we exchanged emails on this topic. We actually let this issue sit awhile in the fall as we worked with the
Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association, PWC, Western Wake Communities and PWC regarding strategies for new and expanding
dischargers to the Cape Fear. Also wanted to see how the draft Basinwide plan addressed these issues.
Anyway - we have updated the flow justification memo for Rockfish Creek WRF. We think the 28 is justified in accordance with the CG&L
guidance. It will only be a year or two before they will need to begin work on the next phase of the design beyond 21 MGD. Please look at
this since we need to get this issue resolved. Call me or Ruth if you have any questions. Thanks
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
Direct Phone - 704.329.0073 x. 217
Mobile Phone - 704.904.5918
Email - bill.kreutzbergerech2m.com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]1
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:10 AM
To: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
Bill- the link to the CG&L 201 Facility Plan requirements is: http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/dlb.html
Bi11.Kreutzberger(a,CH2M.com wrote:
Tom - I will call to discuss as I have also received some additional information from PWC indicating that they believe they will need
to begin design for the next phase - beyond 21 MGD - in the 2007-2008 time range. Additionally, Mick Noland of PWC and I are both
troubled by your comment regarding building a 28 MGD facility at risk, since we both believe that this is contrary to state statutes.
Construction of a 28 MGD facility requires a permit and authorization to be constructed and cannot be done "at their own risk".
Prior to our next discussion, I would appreciate any copies of guidelines from CG&L that you are using for your evaluation. I'll be talking to
you soon. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Mobile: [phone]
Email: bkreutzbach2m.com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:20 PM
To: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Cc: Swanek, Ruth/RDU; Jones, Vicki/CLT; [e-mail]; Alex Marks; tarry Norton
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
1 of 2 6/24/2005 2:29 PM

Re: Rockfish EA
Hi Bill- I still don't see the justification for a flow of 28 MGD within the 20-year planning period, and am still confused about the
statement that the projected maximum monthly flows do not include I&I. It seems that the use of a multiplier to obtain max monthly
flow projections is inherently capturing I&I flow during the wet season. Thus, I still think that I&I flow should be broken out and
evaluated as to whether it is considered excessive or nonexcessive. Although this process has been ongoing, we have stated from the
start that the flows must be properly justified in order for us to concur with a permitted flow of 28 MGD. At this point it seems like
Fayetteville wants to expand to 28 MGD since it makes sense from an engineering sequencing perspective. If Fayetteville still wants to
proceed with construction to 28 MGD, they can do that at their own risk, and request a permit mod for 28 MGD at a later date when the
flows are justified. If I am misinterpreting something from the flow analysis, or if you want a meeting to discuss further, please let me
know.
Bi11.Kreutzberger u,CH2M.com wrote:
Hi Tom - As we discussed today, the request for the 28 mgd flow versus the 24 mgd in the current permit is driven by the need to stay
ahead of capacity needs and the logical sequencing of expansions. When we did the permitting in the mid-1990s that gave PWC the
multiple permitting pages with a maximum of 24 MGD, the capacities were based on a wastewater plan developed by another
consultant. PWC's new consultant for the current Rockfish expansions has indicated that the logical expansion of facilities would be to
move from a 21 MGD facility to a 28 MGD with no interim step of 24 MGD. As I said on the call, I think the flow numbers you
summarize below support this request but a graph in the attached PowerPoint file probably tells a better story.
This graph shows the projected monthly maximum flows without MI, the required facility capacity, the required
design/approval/construction period, and the 20 year planning period. This graph shows that when you consider that the next jump in
capacity will be to 28 MGD, design has to begin about 2012. We don't believe this is banking capacity but rather is prudent facility
planning.
This EA has been kicked around DWQ since about 2001 and has required development of an updated receiving water model which
PWC helped to fund and then awaited DWQ review and approval of speculative limits for a significant period of time. I understand that
your procedures have changed for evaluating capacity needs but believe that the increased permit capacity is warranted.
Also - the speculative limits letter issued to PWC has indicated the potential need for nutrient removal at the facility. I was in a
meeting last week with Coleen Sullins and Dave Goodrich regarding the new Western Wake Regional WRF discharge to the Cape
Fear where they both discussed PWC's request to 28 mgd and the potential need for nutrient removal requirements. If nutrient limits
are eventually added to the permit, PWC may need to begin planning and construction of the expansion to 28 mgd even earlier than
showed on the attached figure.
I hope this answers your questions. Please call or email me to discuss further. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Charlotte Office
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email Fax: [phone]
Email: bkreutzbach2m.com
[e-mail]
N.C. DENR/DWQ/NPDES
919-733-5083,ext. 543
2 of 2 6/24/2005 2:29 PM

RE: Rockfish EA
Subject: RE: Rockfish EA
Froin: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:33:13 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
(ve{-1-(1/)•11( /ioct(hit
T tsf
loroC
I
Tom - It has been awhile since we exchanged emails on this topic. We actually let this issue sit awhile in the fall as we worked
with the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association, PWC, Western Wake Communities and PWC regarding strategies for
new and expanding dischargers to the Cape Fear. Also wanted to see how the draft Basinwide plan addressed these issues.
Anyway - we have updated the flow justification memo for Rockfish Creek WRF. We think the 28 is justified in accordance
with the CG&L guidance. It will only be a year or two before they will need to begin work on the next phase of the design
beyond 21 MGD. Please look at this since we need to get this issue resolved. Call me or Ruth if you have any questions.
Thanks
Bill Kreuizberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
Direct Phone - 704.329.0073 x. 217
Mobile Phone - 704.904.5918
Email - bill.kreutzberger(c�ch2m.com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:10 AM
To: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
Bill- the link to the CG&L 201 Facility Plan requirements is: http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/dlb.html
[e-mail] wrote:
Tom - I will call to discuss as I have also received some additional information from PWC indicating that they believe they
will need to begin design for the next phase - beyond 21 MGD - in the 2007-2008 time range. Additionally, Mick Noland of
PWC and I are both troubled by your comment regarding building a 28 MGD facility at risk, since we both believe that this is
contrary to state statutes. Construction of a 28 MGD facility requires a permit and authorization to be constructed and
cannot be done "at their own risk".
Prior to our next discussion, I would appreciate any copies of guidelines from CG&L that you are using for your evaluation.
I'll be talking to you soon. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Mobile: [phone]
Email: bkreutzbch2m.com
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:20 PM
To: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Cc: Swanek, Ruth/RDU; Jones, Vicki/CLT; [e-mail]; Alex Marks; larry horton
1 of 2
5/17/2005 9:28 AM

RE: Rockfish EA
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
Hi Bill- I still don't see the justification for a flow of 28 MGD within the 20-year planning period, and am still confused
about the statement that the projected maximum monthly flows do not include I&I. It seems that the use of a multiplier
to obtain max monthly flow projections is inherently capturing I&I flow during the wet season. Thus, I still think that
I&I flow should be broken out and evaluated as to whether it is considered excessive or nonexcessive. Although this
process has been ongoing, we have stated from the start that the flows must be properly justified in order for us to concur
with a permitted flow of 28 MGD. At this point it seems like Fayetteville wants to expand to 28 MGD since it makes
sense from an engineering sequencing perspective. If Fayetteville still wants to proceed with construction to 28 MGD,
they can do that at their own risk, and request a permit mod for 28 MGD at a later date when the flows are justified. If I
am misinterpreting something from the flow analysis, or if you want a meeting to discuss further, please let me know.
Bi11.KreutzbergerRCH2M.com wrote:
Hi Tom - As we discussed today, the request for the 28 mgd flow versus the 24 mgd in the current permit is driven by the
need to stay ahead of capacity needs and the logical sequencing of expansions. When we did the permitting in the
mid-1990s that gave PWC the multiple permitting pages with a maximum of 24 MGD, the capacities were based on a
wastewater plan developed by another consultant. PWC's new consultant for the current Rockfish expansions has
indicated that the logical expansion of facilities would be to move from a 21 MGD facility to a 28 MGD with no interim
step of 24 MGD. As I said on the call, I think the flow numbers you summarize below support this request but a graph in
the attached PowerPoint file probably tells a better story.
This graph shows the projected monthly maximum flows without I&I, the required facility capacity, the required
design/approval/construction period, and the 20 year planning period. This graph shows that when you consider that the
next jump in capacity will be to 28 MGD, design has to begin about 2012. We don't believe this is banking capacity but
rather is prudent facility planning.
This EA has been kicked around DWQ since about 2001 and has required development of an updated receiving water
model which PWC helped to fund and then awaited DWQ review and approval of speculative limits for a significant
period of time. I understand that your procedures have changed for evaluating capacity needs but believe that the
increased permit capacity is warranted.
Also - the speculative limits letter issued to PWC has indicated the potential need for nutrient removal at the facility. I was
in a meeting last week with Coleen Sullins and Dave Goodrich regarding the new Western Wake Regional WRF
discharge to the Cape Fear where they both discussed PWC's request to 28 mgd and the potential need for
nutrient removal requirements. If nutrient limits are eventually added to the permit, PWC may need to begin planning
and construction of the expansion to 28 mgd even earlier than showed on the attached figure.
I hope this answers your questions. Please call or email me to discuss further. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Charlotte Office
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email Fax: [phone]
Email: bkreutzbch2m.com
2 of 2 5/17/2005 9:28 AM

MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
Rockfish Creek EA: Justification of Flows
TO:
COPIES:
FROM:
DATE:
Tom Belnick, DWQ
Mick Noland, PWC
Ruth Swanek/CH2M HILL
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
May 13, 2005 (Updated September 16, 2005)
Summary
The Public Works Commission (PWC) of the City of Fayetteville will complete construction
of an expansion of the Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to 21 MGD in 2005
or early 2006. The current NPDES permit for the facility has an additional permit page
allowing expansion to 24 MGD. PWC and their design consultants have determined that the
next logical sequence for expansion is up to 28 MGD. An Environmental Assessment for
expansion to 28 MGD has been in process since 2001 having been delayed because of
analyses related to speculative permit limitations. There were several communications with
DWQ NPDES staff during the fall of 2004 related to whether the additional flow for the
facility was justified within a 20 year planning period (Attachment 1). This memorandum
provides supplemental information related to PWC's flow projections.
Analysis
The projected flows for the Rockfish Creek EA have been revised based on Construction
Grants and Loan's outline for 201 Facilities Plans. The 201 Plan that was finalized in March
2001 for the Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) was used as a basis for the
calculations, and the pertinent pages from that document are included in Attachment 2. A
review of the 201 Plan indicates that it follows Construction Grants and Loan Guidance;
however, available data from PWC were used to estimate residential and commercial flows
rather than using the default values indicated in the Guidance document.
The Guidance document indicates that existing and future situations should be examined in
the 201 Plan. For the existing situation, infiltration and inflow are evaluated to determine
whether they are excessive. The 201 Plan includes this assessment and indicates that I/ I is
not excessive. Table 3-3 of the 201 Plan indicates that 7.4 MGD of I/ I are discharged on
average from the PWC treatment system. In order to estimate the existing I/ I at the
Rockfish Creek WRF, the ratio of current I/I flow (7.4 MGD) to wastewater flow (15.6 MGD)
presented in Table 3-3 was assumed to apply to the current Rockfish Creek flow (8.85 MGD)
presented in Table 3-5 of the 201 Plan. This resulted in an estimate of current I/ I at the
Rockfish plant of 4.2 MGD.
ROCKFISH FLOW JUSTIFICATION SEP 2005.000 1

ROCKFISH CREEK EA JUSTIFICATION OF FLOWS
The Guidance document indicates that for future scenarios, the current flow (including I/I)
should be used as a baseline. Future flows for residential, commercial, and industrial
reserve flow are then added based on population projections. I/I based on 100 gpd/inch-
mile were also included in the 201 Plan calculations. The Guidance document does not
indicate that a maximum month to annual average flow ratio should be used to estimate
maximum monthly flow.
A maximum to annual average flow ratio was used in the 201 Plan because it eliminated the
existing I/ I from the calculations. The revised flow calculations shown in Table 1 include
estimates of future flow based on the existing I/ I as allowed by Guidance document and
eliminates the use of the ratio. As shown in Table 1, in 2025, the 20-year planning horizon, a
flow of 27 MGD is predicted which justifies the 28 MGD flow being requested by PWC.
The flow estimate in Table 1 was compared to data provided by PWC (Figure 1) to ensure
the numbers appear reasonable. Figure 1 shows a 2003 maximum month flow of 15.7 MGD
and a 2004 maximum of 14.2 MGD. Given the influence of rainfall on flow, the 2005
predicted flow of 18 MGD in Table 1 appears reasonable. A linear regression on the change
in maximum monthly flow from 1985 through 2004 shows a slope of 0.688 MGD/yr. Using
this flow the calculated 2025 flow is 30 MGD. Both sets of information support the request
of 28 MGD as a permit limitation.
Conclusion
Based on current projections, PWC will need to begin planning and design for the next
expansion - beyond the 21 MGD project that is nearing completion - almost immediately.
Flow projections predict a maximum month flow of 18 MGD in 2005 and that the 21 MGD
capacity could be reached by 2010. The next expansion sequence is to 28 MGD rather than
the 24 MGD included in the current permit based on logical sequencing of facilities to
continue adding 7 MGD treatment trains. Flow projection information and historical trends
clearly support the need to expand up to 28 MGD within the 20-year planning period.
ROCKFISH FLOW JUSTIFICATION SEP 2005.DOC 2

Table 1. Updated flow projections for the Rockfish Creek WRF
Year
PWC Service
Area
Population
Rockfish Ck
Service Area
Population
Residential
Flow (MGD)
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
Residential
and
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
PWC Flow
(MGD)
Industrial
Flow
(MGD)
Future
Industrial
Reserve
(MGD)
Existing III
(MGD)
WI for new
constructio
(MGD)
redicted
Max Month
Flow (MGD)
2005
144,556
94,981
7.60
3.42
11.02
0.05
0.63
0.26
4.2
1.
18.00
2006
147,736
97,684
7.81
3.52
11.33
0.05
0.63
0.30
2007
150,986
100,447
8.04
3.62
11.65
0.05
0.63
0.34
2008
154,308
103,270
8.26
3.72
11.98
0.05
0.63
0.39
2009
157,703
106,156
8.49
3.82
12.31
0.06
0.63
0.43
2010
161,172
109,105
8.73
3.93
12.66
0.06
0.63
0.47
4.2
1.94
19.95
2011
164,718
112,119
8.97
4.04
13.01
0.06
0.63
0.51
2012
168,342
115,199
9.22
4.15
13.36
0.06
0.63
0.55
2013
172,045
118,347
9.47
4.26
13.73
0.06
0.63
0.60
2014
175,830
121,564
9.73
4.38
14.10
0.06
0.63
0.64
2015
179,699
124,852
9.99
4.49
14.48
0.07
0.63
0.68
4.2
2.06
22.12
2016
183,652
128,213
10.26
4.62
14.87
0.07
0.63
0.72
2017
187,692
131,647
10.53
4.74
15.27
0.07
0.63
0.76
2018
191,822
135,157
10.81
4.87
15.68
0.07
0.63
0.81
2019
196,042
138,744
11.10
4.99
16.09
0.07
0.63
0.85
2020
200,355
142,410
11.39
5.13
16.52
0.07
0.63
0.89
4.2
2.19
24.50
2021
204,763
146,157
11.69
5.26
16.95
0.08
0.63
0.93
2022
209,267
149,986
12.00
5.40
17.40
0.08
0.63
0.97
2023
213,871
153,899
12.31
5.54
17.85
0.08
0.63
1.02
2024
218,576
157,898
12.63
5.68
18.32
0.08
0.63
1.06
2025
223,385
161,986
12.96
5.83
18.79
0.09
0.63
1.10
4.2
2.34
27.15
2026
228,299
166,163
13.29
5.98
19.27
0.09
0.63
1.14
2027
233,322
170,432
13.63
6.14
19.77
0.09
0.63
1.18
2028
238,455
174,795
13.98
6.29
20.28
0.09
0.63
1.23
2029
243,701
179,254
14.34
6.45
20.79
0.09
0.63
1.27
2030
249,063
183,812
14.70
6.62
21.32
0.10
0.63
1.31
4.2
2.50
30.06
ROCKFISH FLOW JUSTIFICATION SEP 2005.DOC

ROCKFISH CREEK EA JUSTIFICATION OF FLOWS
Rockfish Creek WRF Monthly Flows
A
g
— 12
— 10
- 8 .T
a
-6 a
-4
- 2
22
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■-14
20
90% of Permitted 21 MGD—Authorization to Construct Required
18
16
80% of Permitted 21 MGD — Begin Design Required
Slope = 0.688 MGD/yr
Predicted 2025 flow = 30 MGD
14
•
12
+
10
8
6
■ ■ ■ ■
4
X MJ Soffe Diversion - 03/97
2
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1992 1993 1996
Monthly Flow (MGD)
Monthly Rainfall (in.)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
--Max Monthly Flow (MGD)
Linear Monthly Flow(MGD))
0
2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
—o Max Permitted Monthly Flow (MGD)
—4—Avg.
A.
— (Max.
Cdendar Year
Avg. M orely Row (M60)
Mac Mor(hy Flow (MGO)
1965
2.3
25
Mac Porrc6ted Monty Flow(MGD) ! 6
Avg. M orally R30(41 On)
1986
25
1987
29
3.11 32
1988
3A
39
6
1989
4.7
4.7
1990
42
4.7
8
1991
5
5.7
8
1992
52
59
1393 11994
81 72
69
12
79
12
4
1995
79
9.3
12
6
1986
89
108
1997
9.9
10.8
12 12
4431 327
1998
11
11
4.1
1999
11
13
14
4.5
2000
13.8
12
M
349
200112002
11
12
14
3.1
10.7
113
18
2.61
Figure 1. Historical changes in flow for the Rockfish Creek WRF.
ROCKFISH FLOW JUSTIFICATION SEP 2005.DOC
2003
13
46.7
16
52
2004
123
142
16
3.72
2005
16
2006
21
2007
21
2008
21
4
2009
21
2013
21
2011
21
2012 2013
21 21
2014
21
2015
21

20l : G4a-ev -i-re3 8s pcd . �Ta�l � CCsGL
Cyr i r44 c 3 6 w- Tb i I' Is arm
2 !moci(re_l tom 113 di $S aired
(4qed orl waf#, blI)Phd ?accQ4.44-A. cO•is•..
bit
Frek�tf-
19 t7. 0.73 O►(,
. 0. "78
0.78
r' fela ,fe ,�v�1
t�ie.11LQh �w CAVIL co(
Q� e1'a!le‘t �o� o} � SR IS 919
dw �O1Uro
oa 0.0YZI�
Table 1. Updated flow projections for the Roc ish Creek WRF f d` �Ca�°� d�Qp�d
P P l gip . dra�0a .
✓ I*-0. 25
Jtis
i:milvt`A' 33
Alt
Year
PWC Service
Area
Population
Rockfish Ck
Service Area
Population
Residential
Flow (MGD)
f
ca
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
Residential
and
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
PWC Flow
(MGD)
Industrial
Flow
(MGD)
Future
Industrial
Reserve
(MGD)
Existing VI
(MGD)
III for new
construction
(MGD)
Predicted
Max Month
Flow (MGD)
2005
144,556
94,981
7.60
3.42
11.02'
0.05
0.63
0.26
;, 1.84
18.00
2006
147,736
97,684
7.81
3.52
11.33
0.05
0.63
.30
2007
150,986
100,447
8.04
3.62
11.65
0.05
0.63
0.34
2008
154,308
103,270
8.26
3.72
11.98
0.05
0.63
0.39
2009
157,703
®, 106,156
8.49
3.82
12.31
0.06
0.63
0.43
2010
161,172
109,105
/8:73
3.93
12.66
0.06
0.63
0.47
4.2
1.94
19.95
2011
164,718
`7 112,119
8.97
4.04
13.01
0.06
0.63
0.51
2012
168,342
115,199
(t 9.22
4.15
13.36
0.06
0.63
0.55
2013
172,045
tile 118,347
•bb 9.47
4.26
13.73
0.06
0.63
0.60
2014
175,830
Q 121,564
9.73
4.38
14.10
0.06
0.63
0.64
2015
179,699
0 124,852
.D 9.99
. 4.49
14.48
0.07
0.63
0.68
4.2
2.06
22.12
2016
183,652
N " 128,213
l` l 10.26
N 4.62
14.87
0.07
0.63
0.72
2017
187,692
131,647
Lf5 10.53
1( 4.74
15.27
0.07
0.63
0.76
2018
191,822
II 135,157
it 10.81
4.87
15.68
0.07
0.63
0.81
2019
196,042
138,744
en 11.10
4.99
16.09
0.07
0.63
0.85
2020
200,355
142,410
11.39
5.13
16.52
0.07
0.63
0.89
4.2
2.19
24.50
2021
204,763
146,157
11.69
5.26
16.95
0.08
0.63
0.93
2022
209,267
149,986
12.00
5.40
17.40
0.08
0.63
0.97
2023
213,871
153,899
12.31
5.54
17.85
0.08
0.63
1.02
''''
2024
218,576
157,898
12.63
5.68
18.32
0.08
0.63
1.06('''.
_ 2025
223 385
161,986
12.96
5.83
_ 18.79
0.09
0.6
1.1 Q
4.2`
27.15
2026
228,299
166, • 3
13.29
5.98
19.27
0.09
0.63
1-r
_ _�
��
2027
233,322
170,432
13.63
6.14
19.77
0.09
0.63
1.18
2028
238,455
174,795
13.98
6.29
20.28
0.09
0.63
1.23
2029
243,701
179,254
14.34
6.45
20.79
0.09
0.63 1.27
2030
249,063
183,812
14.70
6.62
21.32
0.10
0.63/ 1.31
4.2
2.50
30.06
ROCKFISH FLOW JUST!
sowo 0-I 7
10
AI
JIO�MAY 5�.DOC�
19
q
(eJir ('at L
ho4koll.p (I CoM�t,l jA, a',� � s t-� 34 1'1= al- go cKh'h
0 Mosg, I
,.«r� ,, a Ap t tor, ,1
aj°
Z.3Y
18 .19-nAZ
NE' d
.lad t��,00 . ¢�,� ;t9 d� et �� 587 of
ire �Id� �� v►�N' ' o �� s�'�� t� Kite 4
la.�° fly j1► >� �, �7 �, n�� �a �0 Id1 .mac, oM foiocreivel
V

ROCKFISH CREEK EA: JUSTIFICATION OF FLOWS
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
•- 14
ui 1'eruuueu Ll MI. L' •- ttu lf1.nzdUu11 ru L..Unsirut. equire
80% of Permitted 21 MGD - Begin Design - 12
III ■
X MJ Soffc Divcrsion 03/97
e.
- 10
- 8too
cis
- 6 a
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008
4
2
0
-0-Avg. Monthly Flow (M®) -fir- Max. Monthly Flow (M®) -1- Max. Permitted Monthly Flow (M®) ---Ai. Monthly Rainfall (in.) -3I-
1985198619871988198919901991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Avg. Monthly Flow (MGD)
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.4
4►7
4.2
5
5.2
6
7.2
7.9
8.6
9.9
10.2
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.7
13
Max. Monthly Flow (MGD)
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.8
4.7
4.7
5.7
5.8
6.9
7.6
9.3
10.6
10.8
13.6
12.5
12
11.6
11.3
15.7
Max Permitted Monthly Flow (MGD)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
12
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
14
16
16
16
21
21
21
21
Avg. Monthly Rainfall (In.)
3.95
4.97
4.43
3.27
4.05
4.49
3.48
3.1
2.61
5.2
Figure 1. Historical changes in flow for the Rockfish Creek WRF.
ROCKFISH FLOW JUSTIFICATION MAY 2005.DOC
4

Page 1 of 2
Kreutzberger, BIIIICLT
From: Tom Belnick [tom.belnick@ ncmail.netj
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 200410:10 AM
To: Kreutzberger, BIIIICLT
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
Bill- the link to the CG&I.201 Facility Plan requirements is: http://www.nccgl.netlfap/cwsrf/d1b.html
[e-mail] wrote:
Tom - I will call to discuss as I have also received some additional information from PWC indicating
that they believe they will need to begin design for the next phase - beyond 21 MGD - in the 2007-
2008 time range. Additionally, Mick Noland of PWC and I are both troubled by your comment
regarding building a 28 MGD facility at risk, since we both believe that this is contrary to state
statutes. Construction of a 28 MGD facility requires a permit and authorization to be constructed and
cannot be done at their own risk°.
Prior to our next discussion, I would appreciate any copies of guidelines from CG&L that you are
using for your evaluation. I'II be talking to you soon. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:tom.belnlck )ncmail.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:20.PM* .1.
Cc: Swanek, Ruth/RDU; Jones, Vickl/CLT; dave.goodrichancmall.net; Alex Marks; tarry horton
Subject: Re Rockfish EA
Hi Bill- I still don't see the justification for a flow of 28 MGD within the 20-year planning
period, and am still confused about the statement that the projected maximum monthly
flows do not include I&I. It seems that the use of a multiplier to obtain max monthly flow
projections is inherently capturing I&I flow during the wet season. Thus, I still think that
I&I flow should be broken out and evaluated as to whether it is considered excessive or
nonexcessive. Although this process has been ongoing, we have stated from the start that
the flows must be properly justified in order for us to concur with a permitted flow of 28
MGD. At this point it seems like Fayetteville wants to expand to 28 MGD since it makes
sense from an engineering sequencing perspective. If Fayetteville still wants to proceed
with construction to 28 MGD, they can do that at their own risk, and request a permit mod
for 28 MGD at a later date when the flows are justified. If I am misinterpreting something
from the flow analysis, or if you want a meeting to discuss further, please let me know.
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Tom - As we discussed today, the request for the 28 mgd flow versus the 24 mgd in
the current permit is driven by the need to stay ahead of capacity needs and the
logical sequencing of expansions. When we did the permitting in the mid-1990s that
gave PWC the multiple permitting pages with a maximum of 24 MGD, the capacities
were based on a wastewater plan developed by another consultant. PWC's new
5/16/2005

Page 2 of 2
consultant for the current Rockfish expansions has indicated that the logical expansion
of facilities would be to move from a 21 MGD facility to a 28 MGD with no interim step
of 24 MGD. As I said on the call, I think the flow numbers you summarize below
support this request but a graph in the attached PowerPoint file probably tells a better
story.
This graph shows the projected monthly maximum flows without I&I, the required
facility capacity, the required design/approval/construction period, and the 20 year
'planning period. This graph shows that when you consider that the next jump in
capacity will be to 28 MGD, design has to begin about 2012. We don't believe this is
banking capacity but rather is prudent facility planning.
This EA has been kicked around DWQ since about 2001 and has required
development of an updated receiving water model which PWC helped to fund and then
awaited DWQ review and approval of speculative limits for a significant period of time.
understand that your procedures have changed for evaluating capacity needs but
believe that the increased permit capacity is warranted.
Also - the speculative limits letter issued to PWC has indicated the potential need for
nutrient removal at the facility. I was in a meeting last week with Coleen Sullins and
Dave Goodrich regarding the new Western Wake Regional WRF discharge to the
Cape Fear where they both discussed PWC's request to 28 mgd and the potential
need for nutrient removal requirements. If nutrient limits are eventually added to the
permit, PWC may need to begin planning and construction of the expansion to 28 mgd
even earlier than showed on theattached figure..
hope this answers your questions. Please call or email me to discuss further. Thanks
- BiIl
BIII Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Charlotte Office
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Fax: [phone]' •
Mobile: [phone]:8 • .•
•__ _.__.._____. __..�..�_.Email-Fax:-678=579-8071- _........__.-... ._�......_..._.._........_._.__
Email: [e-mail]
5/16/2005

North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans
Page 1 of 8
HOME
Financial Assistance
Programs
CWSRF
• Funding List
• 201 Facilities Plan
• Plan & Specs
• Application
• Construction Info.
• Rules
Personae Directory Howio Find Us financial Assistance Free Technical
Programs
Assistance
Financial Assistance Programs
May 16
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
General 201 Facilities Plan Outline for SRF Projects
A. Summary, Conclusion, Recommendation
Summarize the problem and the solution. The facilities
plan is considered an engineering report; therefore, the
front page or cover should be signed and sealed by an
engineer licensed to practice in North Carolina.
B. Current Situation
Collection system description
1. Identify the inch -miles of gravity
sewers/interceptors.
2. Identify the age and condition of sewers and pump
stations.
3. Provide a history of overflows and bypasses.
4. Identify un-sewered areas within the service area
that require service due to public health or water
quality problems.
5. Identify all un-sewered areas within the city or town
limits.
Treatment system description
1. Describe the size and type of each unit within the
existing treatment process.
2. Identify the capabilities and deficiencies of each unit
process, in both the liquid and the sludge trains.
3. Provide a copy of the NPDES limits pages and advise
of the ability to comply with the existing limitations.
4. Provide a copy of any SOC that applies to the facility
and summarize any construction requirements with
the appropriate schedules.
Population and Demographics
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/201gui.html 5/16/2005

North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans
Page 2 of 8
1. Identify the current service population (or
the population at the time the proposed
facility will start operation) for the subject
project area.
2. If multiple treatment facilities are involved,
the populations should be broken down by
tributary service area.
3. Compare service population with total
population.
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis
Evaluate Infiltration/Inflow to determine if they are
excessive using the following screening criteria:
1. Infiltration is the average daily flow of the
three wettest consecutive months minus the
expected flow. Expected flow Is based on
water billing records minus a consumptive
loss of 10 to 15 percent. Infiltration greater
than 3000 gallons .per day per inch -mile
(gpdim) o€ pipe is considered excessive.
2. Inflow is typically estimated from flow
records following a one -inch rain event. The
rain event used for the analysis should be
preceded by at least flve dry weather days.
Inflow is considered excessive if non-
industrial instantaneous peak flows at the
wastewater treatment plant, following a one -
inch rain, exceed 275 gpd per capita served.
This figure representstotal.flow; do not
•_ _..__........_... w-.._.____._. _.....____....-.._ subtract the -baseline ordry-weather-flow.
Daily precipitation data can be obtained from the
State Climate Office at their website at
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edui,
through e-mail at scoecumulus.meas..ncsu.edu,
or by calling [phone].
Two flow values are of interest: A high peak
instantaneous flow can result in a washout of any
clarifiers. A high total flow can affect compliance
with NPDES flow limits.
If excessive I/I is small, provide a schedule for I/I
identification and removal and their cost. Removal
of excessive I/I should occur prior to placing the
new facilities on line. If excessive I/I is large,
provide a Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey
(SSES) prior to completion of the facilities plan.
Some sections of the collection system may need
repair even if the calculations show I/I Is not
excessive.
Provide a description of current flows as follows:
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/201gui.html 5/16/2005

•
North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans
Page 3 of 8
1. Residential flow should be based on water
billing records minus a 10% consumptive
loss.
2. Commercial flow should be based on water
billing records minus a 10% consumptive
loss.
3. Industrial flow should be based on dual
metering to determine consumptive losses.
Flow commitments should be taken into
consideration as current flows.
4. Non -Excessive I/I as defined above.
C. Future Situation
Provide 20-year population projections. The Office
of State Planning provides population data for each
county and municipality that can be accessed on
the Internet at http://www.demog.state.nc.us.
Other data may be used if available.
Provide flow projections using --the following SRF
criteria foreligibility:
1. Provide current flows including non -
excessive I/I.and any planned industrial
flows with a letter of intent as justification.
2. Provide 20-year flows and residential growth
based on population projections. Typically,
this flow value is based on 70 gpd per capita
of projected growth in residential population.
3. Provid620*-year✓ cbmrneitial Tgrowth"based.on
population projections: -Typically, this -flow
value is based on 15 gpd per capita of
projected growth in residential population.
4. 10% Industrial Reserve (based on 10% of
current flows excluding I/I).
Provide speculative or actual effluent limitations,
when applicable, to support the design
assumptions. Speculative limits can be obtained
from DWQ's Water Quality Section.
If a recipient desires to construct a facility larger
than necessary for the 20-year planning needs,
two items must be provided.
1. Demonstrate that the facility is capable of
operating properly at both the current and
design flows.
2. Provide a detailed cost estimate for the
proposed design and the 20-year design.
These cost estimates will be used to develop
a Reserve Capacity Cost Ratio (RCCR) factor
which is applied to the total project cost to
determine the total eligible cost.
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/201gui.html 5/16/2005

' North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans
Page 4 of 8
If a recipient desires to construct a facility smaller
than necessary for the 20-year planning needs,
four items must be provided.
1. Identify a schedule for construction of each
phase.
2. Demonstrate that phased construction is
more cost effective than completing the
entire project in one phase.
3. Demonstrate that the facility can be
operated properly during the transition
between phases.
4. Provide a detailed cost estimate for the
proposed design and the 20-year design.
D. Alternatives
The applicant must evaluate the following alternatives:
1. No action
2. .Optimum operation of existing facilities
3.. Land application
4. Regional System
5. Water Reuse System
All other feasible alternatives should also be evaluated,
such as upgrading existing facilities, upgrading and
expanding existing facilities, and constructing new
facilities. Although alternatives -to a discharging system
may not be the most cost effective, they may be
selected on a case=by-case due to their
environments a"sirabil�ty.
Evaluate sludge disposal alternatives, when applicable.
Show how sludge management will comply with the 40
CFR 503 regulations. Provide sludge production
calculations and advise what methods will be used to
comply with pathogen and vector attraction reduction.
Provide descriptions and preliminary design criteria for
treatment plant unit processes and interceptor sewers,
when applicable.
If total construction cost for the selected alternative
exceeds $10 million, the recipient must provide a value
engineering study. For more information on value
engineering see http://www.value-eng.com
Provide an analysis of the potential open space and
recreational opportunities associated with the project.
Typically, participation in a loan program is limited to
transport and treatment of wastewater. Funds from the
small community set -asides can be used for sewer
collection. In order for collection facilities to be eligible
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/201gui.html 5/16/2005

Re: Rockfish EA
Subject: Re: Rockfish EA
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:19:40 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Alex
Marks <[e-mail]>, larry horton <[e-mail]>
Hi Bill- I still don't see the justification for a flow of 28 MGD within the 20-year planning period,
and am still confused about the statement that the projected maximum monthly flows do not
include I&I. It seems that the use of a multiplier to obtain max monthly flow projections is
inherently capturing I&I flow during the wet season. Thus, I still think that I&I flow should be
broken out and evaluated as to whether it is considered excessive or nonexcessive. Although this
process has been ongoing, we have stated from the start that the flows must be properly justified in
order for us to concur with a permitted flow of 28 MGD. At this point it seems like Fayetteville
wants to expand to 28 MGD since it makes sense from an engineering sequencing perspective. If
Fayetteville still wants to proceed with construction to 28 MGD, they can do that at their own risk,
and request a permit mod for 28 MGD at a later date when the flows are justified. If I am
misinterpreting something from the flow analysis, or if you want a meeting to discuss further,
please let me know.
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Tom - As we discussed today, the request for the 28 mgd flow versus the 24 mgd in the
current permit is driven by the need to stay ahead of capacity needs and the logical sequencing
of expansions. When we did the permitting in the mid-1990s that gave PWC the multiple
permitting pages with a maximum of 24 MGD, the capacities were based on a wastewater plan
developed by another consultant. PWC's new consultant for the current Rockfish expansions has
indicated that the logical expansion of facilities would be to move from a 21 MGD facility to a 28
MGD with no interim step of 24 MGD. As I said on the call, I think the flow numbers you
summarize below support this request but a graph in the attached PowerPoint file probably tells
a better story.
This graph shows the projected monthly maximum flows without I&I, the required facility
capacity, the required design/approval/construction period, and the 20 year planning period. This
graph shows that when you consider that the next jump in capacity will be to 28 MGD, design
has to begin about 2012. We don't believe this is banking capacity but rather is prudent facility
planning.
This EA has been kicked around DWQ since about 2001 and has required development of an
updated receiving water model which PWC helped to fund and then awaited DWQ review and
approval of speculative limits for a significant period of time. I understand that your procedures
have changed for evaluating capacity needs but believe that the increased permit capacity is
1 of 2 9/9/2004 12:20 PM

Re: Rockfish EA
warranted.
Also - the speculative limits letter issued to PWC has indicated the potential need for nutrient
removal at the facility. I was in a meeting last week with Coleen Sullins and Dave Goodrich
regarding the new Western Wake Regional WRF discharge to the Cape Fear where they both
discussed PWC's request to 28 mgd and the potential need for nutrient removal requirements. If
nutrient limits are eventually added to the permit, PWC may need to begin planning and
construction of the expansion to 28 mgd even earlier than showed on the attached figure.
I hope this answers your questions. Please call or email me to discuss further. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Charlotte Office
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email Fax: [phone]
Email: bkreutzb(a�ch2m.com
2 of 2 9/9/2004 12:20 PM

Rockfish EA c:IC
* 0 ti 5t) VOI \It
114*. A .
Subject: Rockfish EA �'�� - n�'� 1c `�
From: <[e-mail]> Q)J\ 1
e da
To: <[e-mail]>
a�
CC: <[e-mail]>, <Vicki.Jones@C 2M.com>, <[e-mail]>
f•
Hi Tom - As we discussed today, the request for the 2: mgd flow versus the 24 mgd in the current
permit is driven by the need to stay ahead of capacity eeds and the logical sequencing of
expansions. When we did the permitting in the mid-199 1 s that gave PWC the multiple permitting
pages with a maximum of 24 MGD, the capacities were • ased on a wastewater plan developed by
another consultant. PWC's new consultant for the curren Rockfish expansions has indicated that
the logical expansion of facilities would be to move from - 21 MGD facility to a 28 MGD with no
interim step of 24 MGD. As I said on the call, I think the fl.\ numbers you summarize below
support this request but a graph in the attached PowerPoi t file probably tells a better story.
This graph shows the projected monthly maximum flow without I&I, t - required facility capacity,
the required design/approval/construction period, and the 1 ye.. : anning period. This graph
shows that when you consider that the next jump in capacity will be to 28 MGD, design has to
begin about 2012. We don't believe this is banking capacity but rather is prudent facility planning.
This EA has been kicked around DWQ since about 2001 and has required development of an
updated receiving water model which PWC helped to fund and then awaited DWQ review and
approval of speculative limits for a significant period of time. I understand that your procedures
have changed for evaluating capacity needs but believe that the increased permit capacity is
warranted.
Also - the speculative limits letter issued to PWC has indicated the potential need for nutrient
removal at the facility. I was in a meeting last week with Coleen Sullins and Dave Goodrich
regarding the new Western Wake Regional WRF discharge to the Cape Fear where they both
discussed PWC's request to 28 mgd and the potential need for nutrient removal requirements. If
nutrient limits are eventually added to the permit, PWC may need to begin planning and
construction of the expansion to 28 mgd even earlier than showed on the attached figure.
I hope this answers your questions. Please call or email me to discuss further. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL
Charlotte Office
Phone: [phone], ext. 217
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Email Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1 of 1 9/9/2004 11:22 AM

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Projected Flows for the Rockfish Creek WRF
Capacity
Design/ATC/Construction
Required
for 28 MGD Phase
Q
a a a
Max Month
■ ■ a a a
a
■
20 Year Planning Horizon

Re: Roclefish Creek EA
Subject: Re: Rockfish Creek EA
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:41:53 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Hi Ruth- I looked through the revised Section 2, but unfortunately I still don't see a valid flow justification to 28 MGD.
As I commented previously, the Division looks at a 20-year planning horizon, and your flow estimates through year
2025 are only 20.61 MGD (Annual Average) and 25.76 MGD (Max Monthly Average). These flow projections are still
well below the requested 28 MGD, and closer to the currently permitted phased flow limit of 24 MGD. Thus, the
NPDES Unit still does not concur with the revised EA based on inadequate flow justification.
If you would like to meet about this issue, please let me know. There are also other flow -related issues (e.g., use of
multipliers, I&I, annexation) which we could discuss.
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Tom. Per your last set of comments, we have revised Section 2 of the EA. Changes were made to Section 2.2; no
other changes were made to the chapter.
One of your questions related to the residential/commercial flow rate assumption. You indicated that Construction
Grants uses a flow rate of 85 gpcd. My understanding is that these flow rates are used when existing data are not
available; PWC has data that was summarized in the 201 Plan submitted to Construction Grants. We have used those
same flow rates.
We are trying to get this document to Alex next week to submit to the Clearinghouse on Friday. So, if you could review
this in next couple days, I'd appreciate it (I owe you!).
Ruth C. 5wanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
1 of 1 8/18/2004 2:42 PM

Rockfislf Creek EA
.
Subject: Rockfish Creek EA
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:15:12 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Hi Tom. Per your last set of comments, we have revised Section 2 of the EA. Changes were
made to Section 2.2; no other changes were made to the chapter.
One of your questions related to the residential/commercial flow rate assumption. You indicated
that Construction Grants uses a flow rate of 85 gpcd. My understanding is that these flow rates
are used when existing data are not available; PWC has data that was summarized in the 201
Plan submitted to Construction Grants. We have used those same flow rates.
We are trying to get this document to Alex next week to submit to the Clearinghouse on Friday.
So, if you could review this in next couple days, I'd appreciate it (I owe you!).
Ruth C. Swanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
1 of 1 8/16/2004 11:23 AM

.10
2.0 Purpose and Need
kfish Creek WRF is an existin 14- gd facility (under construction for expansion to
owned and operated by the P e Rockfish Creek WRF serves a population of
imately 74,200 people as of June 2000. The service area currently covers portions of
the City of Fayetteville, an area southeast of the city limits, western Cumberland County,
and the Town of Hope Mills. The PWC has a bulk service agreement with Hoke County,
which currently routes discharge from commercial and residential development along the
U.S. Hwy 401 corridor to the Rockfish Creek WRF.
Service is expanding between the Cumberland County municipalities and is merging into
an area designated as the Urban Service Area, served by the Rockfish Creek and Cross
Creek WRFs. A contract for sewer service to be provided by the PWC through the Rockfish
Creek WRF was signed with the Town of Stedman in July 2000. An interceptor sewer line
was installed in September 2000, and approximately 85 percent of the Town's population is
connected to the line. The Town was previously served by septic tanks.
Figure 2-1 shows the Urban Service Area and the WRF service areas. In addition to
residential and commercial flow, the Rockfish Creek WRF currently receives discharges
from four industries.
2.1 Population Growth
Significant growth has occurred and continues to occur in and around the City of
Fayetteville. According to the North Carolina Office of State Planning, the population of the
county is projected to grow from about 303,000 people in 2000 to about 366,000 in 2020 and
397,000 in 2030 (http://demog.state.nc.us/). An annexation plan, approved in May of 1993,
provided for annexation around the city limits by the year 2000. The initial four phases of
annexation are complete and will result in more than 10,000 additional residents. Most of
the annexation is located in the Rockfish Creek WRF service area. The annexation areas that
are now within the city limits are shown in Figure 2-1, and there are plans to extend utilities
through additional annexation.
As growth occurs in Hoke County, additional wastewater may be routed to the Rockfish
Creek WRF. Hoke County would propose the amount of additional flow to route to the
WRF, and the PWC has the option to approve the additional flow. Hoke County has limited
WWTP capacity (City of Raeford), and the increase in flow would be due to additional
residential and commercial development.
Because the PWC owns and operates the wastewater collection and treatment system for the
City and adjacent areas within Cumberland County, the PWC must expand its facilities to
serve the increasing population. The number of sewer utility customers increased between 4
and 5 percent in 1996,1997, and 1999. An increase of more than 14 percent in 1998 coincided
with customer connections from the Phase II annexation, the largest annexation phase.
Following the construction of Phase I and Phase II sewer lines, 47 percent and 70 percent of
CLT/SEC i iON 2 REVISIONS AUGO4BSECTION.2.REVISIONS:,AUGO4B DOC 2-1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
the residents, respectively, connected to the sewer. Construction of the Phase III lines was
completed in summer 2000, and approximately 80 percent of residents connected. Phase 4A
construction was completed in December 2002, and PWC expects approximately 75 to 85
percent of the residents to connect. Phase 4B is currently being bid.
As part of the planning for an expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF to 21 mgd, Hazen and
Sawyer and the PWC submitted a North Carolina General 201 Facilities Plan for State
Revolving Fund (SRF) Projects. The population projections shown in Table 2-1 are based on
that 201 plan. The methodology used in that plan was applied to estimate population h�
through 2030 in the Rockfish Creek service area.
TABLE 2-1: 1996 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR ROCKFISH CREEK SERVICE AREA
Year Population Estimate
2000 76,237
2005 94,981
2010 109,104
2015 124,852
2020 142,409
2025 161,986
2030 183,812
CLT/SECTION 2 REVISIONS AUGO4BS€C73ON 2 REVISIONS_AUGO4B.DOC 2-2

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.2 Flow Projections
Hazen and Sawyer (2001) develope
flows in the Rockfish Creek service
the 201 plan with the e e • tion o
flows were projected through 2030.
gpcd; this flow was revise
assumed no increase in commercial flow rates since much of the additional flow in the short
run was assumed to be from annexation. PWC indicated that while that assumption is valid
over the next couple years, commercial flow over the longer run will likely be directly
correlated to the increase in population and be similar to current per capita rates. Existing
data indicate that the current per capita commercial flow rate is 36 gpcd (Hazen and
Sawyer, 2001); thus this rate was applied in the analysis.
Industrial flow was then added to the flow projections based on the 201 plan assumptions.
According to the 201 plan, current industrial flow is approximately 0.63 mgd, and data
presented in the plan indicate that industrial flow is projected to increase by 0.21 mgd every
five years (0.042 mgd/yr). Data presented in the 201 plan were also used to project flows
from PWC.
201 Plan for the City of Fayetteville which projected
rea through 2020. Using the methodology presented in
the assumption of per capita use, the annual average
The 201 plan assumed a residential per capita flow of 85
gpcd based on feedback from PWC staff. The 201 plan also
NPDES permit limits are assi ed in terms of maximum monthly flow. Thus, the annual
average flow projections nee d to be converted to maximum monthly flow projections.
Based on data collected at numerous water reclamation facilities, a maximum month to
annual avera;i;e flow ratio of 1.25 was applied. Data provided by PWC indicates that this
ratio varies and that 1.25 is a reasonable assumption. From June 2003 through May 2004, the
ratio is 1.34. In FY 1998 the ratio was 1.25 MGD and in FY 2000, the ratio was 1.20. The
results of this flow projection analysis are summarized in Table 2-2 and indicate that in 2025�
a maximum mo.r1Lly flow of 25.8 MGD jredicted, and in 2030 a maximum month flow of
29.2 mgd is predicted.
In Hazen and Sawyer's 201 plan, they used an alternative method to calculate the maximum
monthly flow. In their report, they included an estimate of low groundwater infiltration,
the level of infiltration/inflow (I/I) that is present in the system on an average basis to
estimate the annual average flow. They then used a lower ratio (1.19) to estimate maximum
monthly flow from the average annual flow. Based on the numbers provided in the 201
plan, if I/I is subtracted from the annual average flow, multipliers that range from 1.35 to
1.41 are needed to estimate maximum month flow. Thus, the multiplier of 1.25 presented
above is a more conservative method to estimate maximum month flow rates.)
1 Addressing I/1 will help ensure that the proposed WRF will meet PWC's treatment needs in the Rockfish Creek service area
through 2025 or 2030. PWC has a program in place to address I/1, and the existing I/I problems should diminish over time. A
system is now in place to report and track observed system defects and to generate work orders for system repair. PWC
videos 10 to 20 percent of the sewer lines that are eight inches or greater each year. On the basis of field observations, two
areas within the Rockfish Creek service area were identified in the Master Plan as having I/1 problems: the Beaver Creek outfall
from Raeford Road to Cumberland Road and the Chestnut Hills area.
CLTISECTION 2 REVISIONS ;UG 4BSE CTION 2 HIV SOON « UGO. B-D•?C 2-4

TABLE 2-2: FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR ROCKFISH CREEK SERVICE AREA
Year
Rockfish Ck
Service Area
Population
Residential
Flow (MGD)
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
Residential and
Commercial
Flow (MGD)
PWC Flow
(MGD)
Industrial
Flow
(MGD)
Future
Industrial
Reserve
(MGD)
Annual
Avg Flow
(MGD)
Max Month
Flow
(MGD)
2005
94,981
7.60
3.42
11.02
0.05
0.63
0.26
11.96
14.95
2006
97,684
7.81
3.52
11.33
0.05
0.63
0.30
12.31
15.39
2007
100,447
8.04
3.62
11.65
0.05
0.63
0.34
12.68
15.85
2008
103,270
8.26
3.72
11.98
0.05
0.63
0.39
13.05
16.31
2009
106,156
8.49
3.82
12.31
0.06
0.63
0.43
13.43
16.78
2010
109,105
8.73
3.93
12.66
0.06
0.63
0.47
13.81
17.27
2011
112,119
8.97
4.04
13.01
0.06
0.63
0.51
14.21
17.76
2012
115,199
9.22
4.15
13.36
0.06
0.63
0.55
14.61
18.26
2013
118,347
9.47
4.26
13.73
0.06
0.63
0.60
15.02
18.77
2014
121,564
9.73
4.38
14.10
0.06
0.63
0.64
15.43
19.29
2015
124,852
9.99
4.49
14.48
0.07
0.63
0.68
15.86
19.82
2016
128,213
10.26
4.62
14.87
0.07
0.63
0.72
16.29
20.37
2017
131,647
10.53
4.74
15.27
0.07
0.63
0.76
16.73
20.92
2018
135,157
10.81
4.87
15.68
0.07
0.63
0.81
17.19
21.48
2019
138,744
11.10
4.99
16.09
0.07
0.63
0.85
17.65
22.06
2020
142,410
11.39
5.13
16.52
0.07
0.63
0.89
18.11
22.64
2021
146,157
11.69
5.26
16.95
0.08
0.63
0.93
18.59
23.24
2022
149,986
12.00
5.40
17.40
0.08
0.63
0.97
19.08
23.85
2023
153,899
12.31
5.54
17.85
0.08
0.63
1.02
19.58
24.47
2024
157,898
12.63
5.68
18.32
0.08
0.63
11.06
20.09
25.11
2025
161,986
--�
12.96
13.29
5.83
18.79
0.09
0.63
1.10
2Q.61
v. 25:76
2026
166,163
` 5 9898
19.27
0.09
0.0
1.14
. 3
2
2027
170,432
13.63
6.14
19.77
0.09
0.63
1.18
21.67
27.09
2028
174,795
13.98
6.29
20.28
0.09
0.63
1.23
22.22
27.78
2029
179,254
14.34
6.45
20.79
0.09
0.63
1.27
22.79
28.48
2030
183,812
14.70
6.62
21.32
0.10
0.63
1.31
23.36
29.20
CLTISECT1ON 2 REVISIONS AUGO4BSECT4ON 2 REVISIONS-_ AUGO48-COC
2-1
1

These flow estimatesdepicted in Table 2-2 appear to be fairly accurate based on the actual
flows observed in-2000 and 2003. The maximum flow in 2000 was 12.0 mgd and occurred in
February. The maximum month since 1996 was March of 1998 at 13.6 mgd. The monthly
average flows in 2003 (through May) have ranged from 11.5 mgd in January to 13.3 mgd in
March and May. The flow projections outlined in Table 2-2 indicate that a 28 mgd plant is
needed to meet wastewater treatment needs in the 20 to 30 year time frame.
CLT/SECTION 2 REVISIONS AUGO4B SECTION 2 REVISIQNS_AUGO4B:DOC 2.1

Re: Rockfish Creek EA
jE)A , 6 (kit(
Subject: Re: Rockfish Creek EA
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:19:51 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], Dave Goodrich
<Dave. Goodrich @ ncmail. net>
Hi Ruth- I read through the revised EA Section 5, Alternatives Analysis, and feel comfortable
about the justification for the selected alternative. However, I'm still not comfortable with the
flow justification for 28 MGD as currently presented in Section 2.2, or how you propose to
revise it. I think the current Table 2-2 is vague and confusing, and the EA would be better
served by replacing it with the spreadsheet sent to me via email dated 7/16/04. The section
should also explain all the flow assumptions used for the flow justification. I also have the
following flow -related questions:
1. It appears in the spreadsheet that you are using a flow of 116 gpcd for combined
residential/commercial. You need to explain the basis for this number. Generally we are
requiring applicants to follow CG&L SRF criteria, which uses 85 gpcd for combined
future residential/commercial. If you are using higher flow criteria, you need to provide
adequate justification.
2. I'm confused about the basis for the multiplication factor (1.19) used to convert from
Average Flow to Max Month Average. There is no discussion of this multiplier in any of
the text I reviewed. I looked at DMRs for the period 2000-2003, and found the multipliers
to vary significantly based on rainfall. Since the large multiplication factor appears to
represent additional flow (VI) during rainy months, why is this flow component not
captured in the I/I column of the spreadsheet, rather than as an additional flow multiplier
tacked on at the end? The EA discusses what a conservative I/I value is used in flow
projections, but then includes the multiplication factor to account for heavy rain months.
Generally the I/I flow component is broken into current non -excessive 1/1, and minimal
future I/I based on new sewer line construction, without any multiplier. This is obviously
a big issue, since the 2025 flow justification is only 22.95 MGD without the multiplier,
and would be adequately covered by the existing 24 MGD phased flow limit.
Please call me at 733-5083, x543 to discuss these flow comments.
[e-mail] wrote:
Tom - I have enclosed Section 5 of the EA. It contains the changes you suggested on the
land application and cost analysis sections. We put this in revisions mode so you can easily
see the changes that we made.
1 of 2 7/30/2004 5:20 PM

Re: Rockfish Creek EA
Once you have concurred with the population and flow methodology that was outlined on the
spreadsheet I submitted earlier, we will summarize the methodology and include the pertinent
pages of the 201 plan in an appendix to the document.
Alex - Section 6 contains some minor changes in revisions mode regarding Hoke County.
Once you have approved these two Sections and population/flow methodology, we will finalize
the document.
Please copy Vicki Jones on any comments/questions as I will be on vacation starting
tomorrow and returning to the office on Wednesday next week. We are still trying to get the
document finalized and to Alex to submit to the Clearinghouse next Friday.
If you need to contact Vicki while I am out, her number is [phone], ext. 239.
Ruth C. Swanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
2 of 2 7/30/2004 5:20 PM

. .
Ftjrtho,llr
-teoc,6,4(; NC 00 5M-0)
v i 1 Y 4—
as,,I a,..A....-.0 — , ,
IA,,.04,,)P,tv
v—i'ilii , .7
i 24i-D z_
7___4-121
II
Z(i-D3 Lii)oZ. Zo01 :.■o •
LeL I
iZ.o ►I.o 10.3
►o.o
Nov
j2.2 11.2, ►0.7 io.p
Obi-
1Z.3 Jo.y 1o.5 0.2
1/4S.Irt
1�•7 10.6
10.17_ to.9
/41-)
5'7 0.46'}61) 10.3 , 00.3
jkl
iy.$
(U.1s'ra,) 10.0 10.7 10.3
dun I
13•D I0.2. i 1. b I 0
1146-1
I
13.3 II. 0 I0,7 )0:2--
Am
I
13,1- 11.3 i0.9
j 0 A
Atm (tom
13.Y I6. L Ili 0-6)
F1,6 1123
iL2 ►O.S
12.0
S i
ii.s
11.2
toil Y
iI
.
1 .i
_ .03�UL IQ. S 1012. 0. b2
f,c4ir
I.2v
1 A 1.08
I.
I �
II

Rockfish,Creek EA
.
Subject: Rockfish Creek EA
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:00:50 -0600
To: <alex.marks @ ncmail.net>, <tom.belnick @ ncmail.net>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Tom - I have enclosed Section 5 of the EA. It contains the changes you suggested on the land
application and cost analysis sections. We put this in revisions mode so you can easily see the
changes that we made.
Once you have concurred with the population and flow methodology that was outlined on the
spreadsheet I submitted earlier, we will summarize the methodology and include the pertinent
pages of the 201 plan in an appendix to the document.
Alex - Section 6 contains some minor changes in revisions mode regarding Hoke County.
Once you have approved these two Sections and population/flow methodology, we will finalize
the document.
Please copy Vicki Jones on any comments/questions as I will be on vacation starting tomorrow
and returning to the office on Wednesday next week. We are still trying to get the document
finalized and to Alex to submit to the Clearinghouse next Friday.
If you need to contact Vicki while I am out, her number is [phone], ext. 239.
Ruth C. Swanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
1 of 1 7/29/2004 3:16 PM

5.0 Alternatives Analysis
Three alternatives for treatment and discharge of increased wastewater flows are considered
in this EA — no action, effluent land application and reuse, and expansion of the Rockfish
Creek WRF.
5.1 No Action
No expansion of the Rockfish WRF would eliminate the need for construction of the
proposed new facilities at the plant site and the additional sewer lines required for the
collection of wastewater. As a result, there would be no construction -related impacts on
terrestrial vegetation; sedimentation and erosion impacts on adjacent streams and the Cape
Fear River; or increased noise levels and dust emissions during construction.
Expected population growth in the region would continue to generate the need for
wastewater treatment that would not be accommodated by a centralized sewage treatment
system. As a result, individual septic systems and small wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) would be required to meet the needs of the additional residential development.
The use of septic tanks to support the anticipated residential densities could pose a public
health risk because of the potential for septic tank failures, which occur frequently in the
more poorly drained areas of Cumberland County. This situation could give rise to the
proliferation of lower -density developments and increase the problems associated with
urban sprawl. In addition, failing septic tanks may affect surficial groundwater resources
and, eventually, surface water resources. Small WWTPs typically are not operated or
monitored to the same degree as larger public WWTPs, and the proliferation of smaller
WWTPs could pose a threat to water quality in the area.
5.2 Effluent Land Application and Reuse
Spray irrigation, either in dedicated sites as a disposal method or as a beneficial reuse for
landscape irrigation, is an option for disposal of treated wastewater effluent. Use of this
alternative would not eliminate the need for expanded wastewater treatment capacity at the
Rockfish Creek WRF, but it could reduce the increase in the NPDES-permitted discharge
from the facility. Dedicated disposal locations would require transport of effluent from the
treatment site to the disposal locations.
To effectively treat the wastewater, large tracts of land (typically greater than 100 acres)
composed of soils with moderate absorption capacities would have to be identified and
acquired. Using a rule of thumb of applying 1 inch of wastewater per week, approximately
260 acres of land would be required per mgd of wastewater. This estimate is based on
converting 1 mgd of volume to the area in inches required, at an application rate of 1
in/week.
1,000,000 gallons/day = 231,000,000 in3/day * 1 week/in * 7days/week

=1,617,000,000 in2 or 257.79 acres
This assumption is conservative in that wastewater would have to be applied during each
week of the year, unless large effluent storage reservoirs are built that could allow some
variability in the weekly application rates. In addition, the 1 inch includes rainfall, so during
wetter periods, wastewater cannot be applied. Adding consideration of buffers, 400 to 500
acres of land per mgd would be required for spray irrigation of wastewater. Therefore, a
total of 1600 to 2000 acres would be necessary for the proposed increase of 4 mgd.
A five -mile radius around the Rockfish Creek WRF was considered as a feasible area to pipe
the treated wastewater to a land application site. The soil types in Cumberland County were
assessed for suitability for application, and those classified as hydric type A and B, as well
as those with slopes greater than 8 percent, were not considered suitable. Parcels or
combinations of parcels greater than 100 acres that currently did not have a building on site
were identified. This query resulted in 12 parcel clusters and 3208 total acres as shown in
Figure 5-1 and summarized in Table 5-1. Of the 3114 acres, a portion of each parcel cluster
contained unsuitable soils; therefore, the 3208 acres does not represent total usable area.
TABLE 5-1
Potential Land Application Parcels
Parcel Cluster Total Area, ac
Area A 134.8
Area B 3424.5
Area C 159.6
Area D 109.1
Area E 297.3
Area F 111.6
Area G 1176.4
Area H 313.9
Area I 63
Area J 154.4
Area K 116.6
Area L 147
Further review of the parcel clusters with aerial photography revealed that only Areas or
portions of Areas B, C, G, I and J appeared to be acceptable for land application. The largest
parcel in Area B had been built upon; however, approximately 206 acres could potentially
be utilized. The majority of Areas C, I and J appeared to be acceptable. The majority of Area
G has unsuitable soils or wooded areas resulting in one parcel, 279 acres, that may be
acceptable. This results in slightly less than 862 acres that may be suitable, since a portion of

Areas I and J contain unsuitable soils. Therefore, approximately 1.7 mgd could potentially
be treated.
The remaining parcel clusters were removed from consideration due to the following:
• Area A — Grading had occurred on over half of the area, potentially for development.
The area is zoned as a planned industrial district.
• Area D — Ultimately this isolated area would be too small (approximately 50 acres) due
to the unsuitable soils, forested area, and an existing structure that would be protected.
• Area E — The majority of this area is wooded, which is not conducive to land application.
• Area F - The majority of this area has unsuitable soils and is wooded.
• Area H — The entire area is wooded or has unsuitable soils.
• Area K - The majority of this area has unsuitable soils and is wooded.
• Area L - The majority of this area has unsuitable soils and is wooded.
As a technology, land application of effluent is most suitable for applications where effluent
production is growing at a slow rate and service areas are not experiencing rapid growth.
The basis for this conclusion is two -fold. In areas that are experiencing moderate to rapid
growth, there is competition for suitable application sites and land values are generally
high. It is also difficult to find contiguous areas for sites, which increases effluent
distribution system capital and operational costs. The potentially acceptable 862 acres for
land application is dispersed over 5 different locations, and two locations would required
crossing the Cape Fear River. Secondly, for rapidly growing systems, application areas
require extensive expansion of spray areas. A minimum of 2 years is required for the
establishment of an appropriate cover crop before wastewater can be applied. The staging
and development of additional land areas for disposal adds significant planning and
operational costs to dedicated land application systems. Data indicate that the PWC
customer base increased by around 21 percent from 1996 to 1999, and that annual effluent
flow rates incrc n scd by about 22 pefcernl between 1996 and 1999. These data related to
b
that spray irrigation may not be suitable for the Fayetteville araa.
Beneficial reuse of effluent for landscape irrigation is an admirable goal for surface water
systems as a conjunctive method of disposal that will minimize surface water discharges
during periods of low receiving water flow and high demand for irrigation water. The PWC
currently is permitted to irrigate the Rockfish Creek WRF plant site with effluent (at a
permitted rate of up to 0.05 mgd). In the Cumberland County area, opportunities to develop
significant offsite demand for effluent are not likely to exist. Large industrial sites probably
represent the largest potential for landscape irrigation or industrial reuse, but because of the
remote location of the WRF in relation to any suitable industrial sites (as well as developing
residential areas), this opportunity is insignificant at this time. In addition, near surface
groundwater for irrigation use is plentiful in the coastal plain, thus the cost associated with
the infrastructure to meet reuse requirements and conveyance cannot be readily justified.

The PWC will consider opportunities for reuse of effluent offsite in the future and continue
effluent irrigation on the WRF sites. However, no significant potential to minimize effluent
discharge to the Cape Fear River during low river flows exists. Also, conjunctive reuse
generally does not reduce the NPDES-permitted capacity for discharges, because this
capacity is a permit limit (a maximum month flow) that can be expected to occur during
high -flow periods of the year (because of I/I) when irrigation demand is minimal.
Therefore, land application and reuse is not a feasible option for handling all of the
additional increase in treated effluent resulting from increasing urbanization.
For highly treated effluents like those from PWC's facilities discharging to a large river,
there is little or no environmental benefit for disposal of effluent through land application
and irrigation, and it could be a detriment from a water resources standpoint. Disposal of
the effluent at a dedicated land disposal site will incrementally reduce the discharge;
however, during the summer months, much of the effluent will be evapotranspired by the
vegetative cover. This water is essentially lost to the watershed. The recent drought has
demonstrated the importance of highly treated discharges to maintaining low flows
throughout the state including the Cape Fear River. In PWC's situation, they discharge
downstream of their water supply intake but into the same backwater areas created by lock
and dam no. 3. The downstream discharges help to maintain water levels in this backwater
and were in excess of 10 percent of the flow of the river at times during the extreme low
flows in the summer of 2002. In PWC's situation, water reclamation makes sense only as an
option that reduces potable water demand. As noted above, this is not highly likely given
the remote location of the plant and availability of near surface groundwater.
5.3 Expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF
The second phase expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF from 21 mgd to 28 mgd will
include the construction of an aeration basin, clarifier, effluent filters, digester, and sludge
storage tank. Some of these facilities will extend beyond the current fenced area, but the area
is already cleared. Therefore, no loss of terrestrial resources and wildlife habitat would
result from the expansion.
Potential sedimentation and erosion impacts associated with the construction would be
minimized by standard erosion control BMPs. Water quality impacts are not anticipated
because of the required permit limitations on CBOD5 and NH3 -N. The current facility has
summer CBOD5 and NH3-N permit limits of 6 mg/1 and 1 mg/1, respectively, and the
facility has achieved median monthly concentrations of 2.5 mg/1 and 0.11 mg/1, respectively
(from January 2000 to March 2003). The Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan
(DEM, 1996) recommended a strategy of 5/2 for BOD5/NH3-N for new and expanding
discharges; however, the 2000 update of the plan modified this strategy to 5/1 for
CBOD5/NH3-N. The DWQ issued speculative limits for a discharge of 28 mgd of 5 mg/1
BOD5 and 1 mg/1 NH3-N (Appendix D). As noted above, the WRF discharge has
demonstrated average quality better than these potential limits, and these levels should be
achievable upon expansion to 28 mgd.
The proposed expansion will result in the elimination of some failing septic tanks. In 2002,
there were 88 failing septic systems within the Urban Service Area, and 272 in 2003. One of
the reasons for designating the annexation areas was to eliminate failing systems.

Connecting many of the residences currently using septic tanks to the sewer system would
reduce potential public health risks and avoid future water quality problems in adjacent
surface streams. City ordinances require septic tanks to connect to sewer if they are within
200 feet of the sewer line. County ordinances require connection if a sewer line is within 300
feet. The City and County's 2010 Land Use Plan recommends connection to sewer when it is
within 2,000 feet. The Land Use Plan ordinances apply to new developments. City and
County ordinances apply to existing failing septic systems.
Because of the required quality of the effluent, no water quality impacts would result from
the increased discharge. In addition, the expanded facility will result in the elimination of
some failing septic tanks, which will reduce the potential public health risk and reduce
impacts to surface and groundwater quality. Overall, expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF
will not result in significant impacts to the natural or human environment within the service
area, and it is the most viable alternative for effective treatment and discharge of increased
wastewater flows.
5.4 Present Worth Cost Comparison
Order -of -magnitude cost estimates were prepared from available information for purposes
of comparing alternatives. The 20-year present worth cost estimates were eornpleted
calculated on the cost basis shown in Table 5-1g Unless otherwise noted, values are based on
recent unit -cost estimates from CH2M HILL's construction estimating department, indexed
according to inflation and compared with recent construction bids from local projects.
Future costs were converteding future costs to a -present
worth using an annual discount rate of 5.625 percent, as provided for in guidance from the
DENR Construction Grants & Loans Section.
Although the incremental increase in permit capacity being requested is from 24 mgd to 28
mgd, Tthe capital cost for the wastewater treatment facilities were determined based on the
next proposed facility expansion from 21 mgd to 28 mgd;. Utilizing actual facility expansion
phasing from 21 mgd to 28 mgd instead of permit capacity increase, resulting in facilities
will be sized and the cost estimate prepared for 7 mgd.
TABLE 5-1
Cost Basis for Present Worth Estimae
Criterion Value/Description
Cost Estimate Basis January 2004, Charlotte ENRCCI = 3,996
Administrative Costs 20 percent of construction costs
Land Cost Cumberland County estimate of fair market value
Pipeline Construction Costs $3.50/ diameter -inch/ linear foot
Land Application System Pump Station Construction Cost $940/horsepower
Land Application Sprinkler System Construction Cost $3,570 per acre
Open reservoir with low permeability bottom $20,000 per million gallons

TABLE 5-1
Cost Basis for Present Worth Estimae
Criterion Value/Description
Wastewater Treatment O&M Cost $1.50 per 1,000 gallons
Land Application System O&M Cost $0.15 per 1,000 gallons
Discount Rate 5.625 percent
The land purchase price for land application was estimated based on the Cumberland
County fair market value assessment reported in the GIS coverage utilized in selecting the
parcel clusters. The fair market value reported in the GIS coverage was determined by the
Cumberland County Real Estate Division of the Tax Administration Office. Based on phone
conversations with a representative from the Tax Administration Office, the fair market
value is the estimated cost to purchase the parcel. Thus, different parcels have a different
cost per acre associated with them depending on the location within the county and the
zoning. The values range from $354 per acre to $11,216 per acre. Table 5-2 summarizes the
2003 fair market values.
TABLE 5-2
Fair Market Value for Selected Parcels
Parcel ID Parcel acres 2003 fair price per Zoning
cluster market value acre
116270 B 47 $ 527,156 $ 11,216 C3
116033a B 159 $ 260,283 S 1,637 MP
120711 C 24 $ 115,744 $ 4,823 Al
120732 C 69 $ 215,100 $ 3,117 Al
120857 C 37.7 $ 69,184 $ 1,835 Al
120943 C 29 $ 120,400 S 4,152 Al
105641 G 279 $ 98.694 $ 354 Al
93179 I 63 $ 140,146 $ 2,225 Al
87880 J 154 $ 124,078 $ 806 PND
Total' 861.7 $1,670,785 $ 1,939
(average)
allo fair market value given in GIS parcel coverage, The average price per
acre for all parcels except 11603 was S1,637.
bThe average price per acre after recalculating parcel 116003 was $1,939
The same infrastructure for treatment will be needed for both the preferred expansion
alternative and the land application alternative. However, for the land application
alternative, Ffour open reservoirs would be installed, one at each of the parcel clusters B, C,

G and I&J, in order to regulate flow. In addition, Aapproximately 17 miles of pipeline would
be needed to convey the treated wastewater to the four parcel clusters. Routes were
estimated along roadways and the Cape Fear River. Operations and maintenance costs
include laboratory and monitoring, labor, residual disposal, and permit/compliance fees.
The 20-year present worth cost estimates were calculated for the planning period from 2005
to 2025. Construction on the next expansion phase is not anticipated to begin until 2010;
therefore, no costs associated with these two alternatives were accounted for from 2005 until
2009. Present worth was calculated for each year using compound interest factors for 5.625
percent. Capital cost takes into account refurbishment of facilities after 10 years of service,
and refurbishment was assumed to be half of the original cost. Table 5-3 and 5-4
demonstrate the capital and O&M present worth estimates for Alternatives 2 & 3,
respectively.
TABLE 5.3
Present Worth Summary for Alternative 2 - Land Application and Reuse
Capital Wastewater Facilities Total cost
Aeration Basin $13,500,000
Clarifier $4,500.000
Effluent Filters $7,500,000
Anaerobic Digester S7,500.000
Biosolids S4,500,000
Misc. equipment, pumping, & piping S4,500.000
Land Purchase for Land Application $1,670,785
Land Application Mains (17 miles) $1,900,521
Land Applicaion Pump Station $84,070
Land Application Open Reservoirs $51,702
Land Application Spray Irrigation $4,614,404
Administrative Cost $6 479,866
Total WRF Treatment and Land Application S50.321.481
Capital Costs
O&M Wastewater Facilities
Wastewater Treatment $13,731,300
Land Application $558,450
TOTAL O&M Costs $14,289,750
Present Worth
Total Annual Cost S64,611.231
Present Worth of Annual Costs $49.521.460

TABLE 5-3
Present Worth Summary for Alternative 2 - Land Application and Reuse
Capital Wastewater Facilities Total cost
TABLE 5-4
Present Worth Summary for Alternative 3 - Expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF
Capital Wastewater Facilities Total cost
Aeration Basin S13,500,000
Clarifier S4,500.000
Effluent Filters S7.500,000
Anaerobic Digester $7,500,000
Biosolids $4,500,000
Misc. equipment, pumping, & piping S4,500,000
Administrative Cost S5,600,000
Total WRF Treatment Capital Costs $42,000,000
O&M Wastewater Facilities
Wastewater Treatment S19.31 5,800
TOTAL O&M Costs 519.315,800
Present Worth
Total Annual Cost S61,315.800
Present Worth of Annual Costs $45,436,792
Alternative 2, land application of 1.7 mgd and discharge of 5.3 mgd, resulted in a present
worth estimated at $5.450.0 million. Alternative 3, expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF to
28 mgd, resulted in a present worth of $5.4 845.4 million. Table 5 2 and 5 3 dcmon:,t ate the
, . In order to
land apply the requested 4 mgd increase in permitted flow rather than the 1.7 mgd
estimated in Alternative 2, the capital costs would more than double in order to purchase
additional land, as well as provide pump stations, application mains, reservoirs and spray
irrigation. Assuming similar land costs for the same number of parcel clusters, the present
N, orth of the capital costs would increase by approximately $8 million. This does not
account for the lack of land within the current radius; therefore, application main costs
would increase the present worth cost even more.
Final project costs and feasibility would depend on several factors, including final project
scope, market conditions, schedule, and actual labor and material costs at the time of

construction. As a result, final costs may vary significantly from the estimates presented; the
relative cost ranking among the alternatives, however, is expected to remain valid.

Populatign and Flow information
Subject: Population and Flow information
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:31:25 -0600
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Tom - I've enclosed a copy of the 201 plan and the spreadsheet used to develop the flows
included in Table 2-2. Please review and let me know if you agree with the methodology. If you
concur, we will include additional information in an appendix that outlines how we came up with
the population and flow calculations.
Also, I talked to Mick Noland about the annexation issue. Apparently, there are legal battles over
the Phase 5 annexation. Local court and appeals court have upheld the annexation. It was
appealed again and will be heard in State Supreme Court. Mick indicated that City is confident
that annexation meets all legal issues and will go through; this is a delay tactic. Regardless,
PWC needs to plan for the flow. Mick indicated that there are urban septic tanks that need to be
tied on.
Please call me if questions.
Ruth C. Swanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304 �
Raleigh, NC 27604 ��f�,,, �1
[phone], ext. 16 — �-
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
'''''
.�
1 of 1 7/19/2004 9:03 AM

Residential Future Max
PWC Service Rockfish Ck and PWC Industrial Industrial Annual Month
Area Service Area Residential Commercial Commercial Flow Flow Reserve Avg Flow Flow
Year Population Population Flow (MGD) Flow (MGD) Flow (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Ill (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
2005 144,556 94,981 7.60 3.42, 11.02 0.05 0.63 0.26 1.84 13.80 16.42
2006 147,736 97,684 7.81 3.52: 11.33 0.05 0.63 0.30
2007 150,986 100,447 8.04 3.62 11.65 0.05 0 63 0.34
2008 154,308 103.270 8.26 3.72 11.98 0.05 0.63 0.39
2009 157,703 106,156 8.49 3.82 12.31 0.06 0.63 0.43
2010 161,172 109,105 8.73 3.93 12.66 0.06 0.63 0.47 1.94 15.75 18.75
2011 164,718 112,119 8.97 4.041 13.01 0.06 0.63 0.51
2012 168,342 115,199 9.22 4.15 13.36 0.06 0.63 0.55
2013 172,045 118,347 9.47 4.26 13.73 0.06 0.63 0.60
2014 175,830 121,564 9.73 4.381 14.10' 0.06 0.63 0.64
2015 179,699 124,852 9.99 4.49' 14.48 0.07 0.63 0.68 2.06 17.92 21.32
2016 183,652 128,213 10.26 4.62, 14.87 0.07 0.63 0.72
2017 187,692 131,647 10.53 4.741 15.27 0.07 0.63 0.76
2018 191,822 135,157 10.81 4.87 15.68_ 0.07 0.63 0.81
2019 196.042 138,744 1 1.10 4.99 . 16.09 0.07 0.63 0.85
2020 200,355 142,410 11.39 5.131 16.52 0.07 0.63 0.89 2.191 20.30 24.16
2021 204,763 146.157 11.69. 5.26' _ 16.95 0.08 0.63 0.93
2022 209,267 149,986_ 12.00 5.40: _ 17.40 0.08 0.63 0.97
2023 213,871 153,899 12.31 5.5417.85 0.08 0.63 1.02 ,----\ .
2024 218.576 157.898 12.63 5.68 18.32 0.08 0.63 1.06
02 25 223,385 161,986 12.96 5.83: 18.79 0.09 0.63 1.10 2.34 122.95 27.31
2026 228.299 166,163 13.2 .98 19.27 0.09 0.63 1.14 '
2027 233,322 170.432 13.63 6.14. 19.77 0.09 0.63 1.18
2028 238,455 174,795 13.98 6.291 20.28 0.09 0.63 1.23.
2029 243,701 179.254 14.34 6.451 20.79 0.09 0.63 1.27
2030 249,063 183,812 14.70 6.62 21.32 0.10 0.63 1.31 2.50. 25.86 30.77
-)(ovc
1(b fcd toviaM.
rl� u'vA)t
01'

07/14/04 WED 11:15 FAX [phone]
CH2M HILL RALEIGH IJ001
SECTION 3
POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS
3.1 Population Projections
In order to project future populations for the Rockfish Creek WRF service area, existing
and projected population data was obtained from the North Carolina Office of State
Planning, which provides historical population data and estimates of existing population for
municipalities and counties, as well as county population projections to the year 2020.
Historical population data from the Office of State Planning for Cumberland County and
the City of Fayetteville is presented in Table 3-1.
Projections of future populations for Cumberland County and the City of Fayetteville were
based on population projections for Cumberland County from the Office of State Planning
and historical trends for population growth for the City. The Office of State Planning
projections for the County indicate an annual population growth rate of approximately 0.9
percent over the period from 2000 to 2020. The historical annual growth rate for the
County from 1990 to 1999 was also approximately 0.9 percent. Over this same period, the
historical annual growth rate for the City of Fayetteville was approximately 5.9 percent. A
significant component of this growth has been the annexations conducted by the City from
1995 to 1999.
City of Fayetteville
Annual Growth
Rate, %
Cumberland County
Annual Growth
Rate, %
Table 3-1
Historical Population Data
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 1999
34.715 47,106 53,510 59,507 75,850 105,9109 127,558
— 3.1 1.3 1.1 2.5 6.9 5.9*
96,006 148,418 212,042 247.160 274.713 293,501 297,542
— 4.5 3.6 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.9*
'City % of
County Population 36.2 31.7 25.2 24.1 27.6 36.1 • 42.9
* Annual growth rate from 1990 to 1999.
""92-0011Sactlon 3
3-1
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environment./ EnaineIra b SC111111111

07/14/04 WED 11:16 FAX [phone]
CH2M HILL RALEIGH Q 002
In order to determine future wastewater flows for the Rockfish Creek WRF service area,
population projections were prepared for the City of Fayetteville, and for the PWC service
area and the Rockfish Creek WRF service area. Population projections for the City were
based on the projected trends for Cumberland County using a methodology developed by
the City of Fayetteville Planning Department. The Planning Department projections were
developed in March 2000 and were based on estimates of City population and Office of
State Planning projections for the County available at that time. For this 201 Amendment,
these projections were updated based on more recent information from the Office of State
Planning. The resulting population projections for the City of Fayetteville are shown in
Table 3-2. These projections show the City of Fayetteville population increasing at an
average annual rate of approximately 1.8 percent from 2000 to 2020. The projections also
show the City percent of the County population increasing from approximately 45 percent
in 2000 to approximately 55 percent in 2020. These projections for the City of Fayetteville
were used to develop population and flow projections for the PWC service area, as
discussed in the following section. The population projections for the PWC service area
are based on the best information PWC has at this time. The PWC water master plan is
currently being updated and the projections may be revised in the future when it has been
completed.
Table 3-2
Population Projections
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
City of Fayetteville 135,211 146,856 159,503 176,223 194,695
cumberl and Count 300,281 315,955 328,805 344,186 356,872
City % of County Population 45.0 46.5 48.5 51.2 54.6
3.2 Wastewater Flow Projections
Existing wastewater flows for 1999 for the PWC service area, including the service areas
for the Rockfish Creek WRF and the Cross Creek WRF, are summarized in Table 3-3.
The flows include residential, commercial and industrial flows and were developed from
wastewater billing records, Plant effluent flow records were used to determine the total
7 Z-0b1 emion 3
3-2
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineer. a tioiovIIiI■

07;11:O:I WED 11:1(3 FAX [phone]
CH2M HILL RaLEIGH [I003
treatment plant flow. The infiltration/inflow (1/1) estimate for the PWC service area was then
calculated by subtraction and the value shown is based on annual average conditions.
However, I/1 flows vary during the year and from year to year depending on rainfall and
other conditions.
Existing infiltration and inflow rates were also estimated using SRF criteria for loan funding.
The infiltration rates were determined based on the 1997 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for
the PWC collection system. Estimated infiltration rates are summarized in
These estimates were developed for two conditions. The first is a high groun.wa er
condition, expected to be representative of the infiltration present immediately after a rain
event. This rain -induced infiltration normally occurs for one to three days following a rain
event. The second is a low groundwater infiltration, which is present more or less
continuously and is not directly influenced by rain events. Based on a maximum value of
3,000 gpd/in-mile for nonexcessive infiltration, infiltration is not excessive in the PWC
wastewater collection system for either low or high groundwater conditions.
Existing inflow rates for the PWC collection system were determined based on estimated
instantaneous non -industrial peak flows for four 1-inch rain events from 1997 to 1999. The
estimated inflow for a 1-inch rain event is approximately 216 gpcd. Based on a
nonexcessive inflow amount for SRF criteria of 275 gpcd or Tess, inflow is not excessive
in the PWC collection system.
Table 3-3
Cross Creek WRF and Rockfish Creek WRF
1999 Wastewater Flows
Residential Customers = 46,296
Served Population = 49,296 x 2-5 = 115,740
Wastewater Flows;
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Town of Hope Mills`
City of Fayetteville and Public Works Commission
Subtotal
Average Infiltration/Inflow
Average WRF Flow
•• Included to PWC residential flows.
9.29 mgd (80 gpcd)
4.18 mgd (36 gpcd)
2.00 mgd
0.11 mgd
15.6 mgd ft� Mb1
`7.4 mgd t
23.0 mgd
,t 8 3-3l�,ZEN Ervelronmontti EAl\D SAWno hue ri YER

07/14/04 WED 11:17 FAX [phone]
CH2M HILL RALEIGH
e004
Area
Cross Creek WRF System
Rockfish Creek WRF System
Total System
Table 3-4
Overall System Infiltration
Low Groundwater
Infiltration,
gpd/in-mile
2,032 1.55
1-0
I SS
-1.4 '4
High Groundwater
Infiltration,
gpd/in-mile
1.131 2,836
1,309 I.® 1,756 ��.�
2 34
1,704 LIL 8
Annual average and maximum month wastewater flow projections for the Rockfish Creek
WRF for the 20-year planning period were prepared. These projections were based on the
specific criteria for use of State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan funds from the State Clean
Water Revolving Loan and Grant Program. For SRF funding, eligible costs may be up to
100 percent of:
1. Costs necessary to meet 20 years of domestic growth, and
2. Costs to provide for 10 percent unspecified industrial growth.
For future residential flows, a per capita flow rate of 85 gallons per day is assumed. For
the wastewater flow projections, the populations for the City of Fayetteville and
Cumberland County are based on the projections shown in Table 3-2 above. The 1999
and 2000 populations for the PWC service area were based on the number of residential
wastewater customers and an estimated 2.5 persons per household based on 1990
Census data from the Office of State Planning. The projected PWC service area
population for 2005 was based on a population served increase of 18 percent (3.4 percent
average annual increase). This increase reflects planned annexations and is based on the
March 1996 Expansion Study for the Rockfish Creek WRF by Black & Veatch. The 2010,
2015 and 2020 PWC service area populations were determined based on a lower average
annual increase of 2.2 percent. Based on these assumptions, the PWC service area
percent of the City population is projected to increase from approximately 91 percent in
2000 to 103 percent in 2020. The population served by the Rockfish Creek WRF is
REPORTS‘30392-001lSectlon 3
3-4
IIAZENAND SAWYER
Envuoomental Enelnom & Seleetlele

07/14/04 WED 11:17 FAX [phone]
CH2H HILL RALEIGH IJ005
estimated based on an estimate by the PWC that approximately 85 percent of future PWC
service area population will be in the Rockfish Creek WRF service area.
Based on the above assumptions, wastewater flow projections were prepared for the
Rockfish Creek WRF service area, as shown in Table 3-5. These projections are based
on SRF criteria, and show a projected maximum month flow in the year 2020, the end of
the 20-year planning period, of approximately 21 mgd. The projections indicate that an
expansion to 21 mgd is required to meet treatment capacity needs to the year 2020 and
is therefore eligible for SRF loan funding.
REPORTS‘3433924011Setttpn 3
3-5
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Eepinooro & Scientist;

CO
HILL RALEICH
Population
Cumberland County
City of Fayetteville (1)
City Percent of County Population
PWC Wastewater Service Area (1)
PWC Wastewater Service Area
Percent of City Population
Rockfish Creek Service Area (2)
Wastewater Flows, mgd
Residential/Commercial 8.18
Industrial 0.63 0.. +.•3
Planned Industrial (3) 0.00
Hope Mills (4) 0.00
COF and PWC (5) 0.04
Subtotal 8.85
Future Industrial Reserve, mgd
Ill, mgd (6) 1.65
Total Annual Average Flow, mgd 10.50
Total Maximum Month Flow, mgd 12.50
Notes:
1. Population estimates reflect annexations that occurred between 1995 and 2000 and planned annexations by 2005,
2. Assumes that 85% of future population is in the Rockfish Creek WRF service area.
Table 3-5
Rockfish Creek WRF
Wastewater Flow Projections
1995 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
293,501 297,542 300,281 315,955 328,805 344,186 356,872
105,910 127,558 135,211 146,856 159,503 176,223 194,695
36.1 42.9 45.0 46.5 48.5 51.2 54.6
96,098 115,740 122,505 144,556 161,172 179,699 200,355
90.7 90.7 90.6 98.4 101.0 102.0 102.9
53,791 70,487 76,237 94,981 109,104 124,852 142,409
3. Planned industrial flows with totters of intent.
0.00
0.00
0.04
9.34
0.04
1.70
11.08
13.19
0.00
0.00
0.05
10.94
0.25
1.84
13.03
15.51
0.00
0.00
0.06
12.15
0.47
1.94
14.55
17.33
4. Hope Mills is included In the PWC service area beginning in 1999.
t- 5. Assumed to increase at the same rate as the Rockfish Creek WRF residential/commercial flow.
6. 1/1 Increases estimated based on 100 gpd/inch-mile for new construction. Inch -miles for new construction estimated
based on a ratio of new population to existing population times existing inch -mites of 6,694 (1996).
0.63 D.63
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.06 0.07
13.49 14.99
0.68 0.89
2.06 2.19
16.23 18.07
19.32 21.52
REPORTSL0392-0OI1Secskn 3 3-6
1A� M1`,yc„ist,�-
bbq`�
HAZnvAND Sit
E ntltanmtntil Erolniite 4 S[I4nhlIls

Re: [Fwd: Rockfish Creek EA]
•
•
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Rockfish Creek EA]
From: Tom Belnick <tom.belnick @ ncmail.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:09:40 -0400
To: Alex Marks <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Alex- On 2/10/04 I submitted NPDES comments on the EA for the Rockfish Creek expansion
(dated December 2003). I just reviewed some revised EA text from CH2M that addressed some
of my comments, but not all of them. In particular, there is no revised text on the
population/flow projection justifications. Therefore, at this point I cannot sign -off with the
original EA since it still lacks vital pieces of information. Is their plan to submit a revised EA
for DWQ to review?
Ruth- I reviewed the revised Section 5.0, Alternatives Analysis, and offer the following
comments:
1. General Comment- The facility is currently permitted to 24 MGD, and is requesting a 4
MGD expansion to 28 MGD. However, other parts of the text discuss a 7 MGD
expansion, from 21 MGD to 28 MGD, based on planned construction. I think the text at
the beginning of Section 5.0 should discuss this apparent discrepancy, and what
additional flow you are costing alternatives for.
2. Page 5-3 (Note: Pages were unnumbered, so I numbered them). It appears the facility is
making a case for technological infeasiblity for land application. However, I don't believe
the following text adds much to support the case: "Data indicate that the PWC customer
base increased by around 24% from 1996 to 1999 These data related to system growth,
and the concurrent reduction in available land for effluent disposal, suggest that spray
irrigation may not be suitable for the Fayetteville area." First, the EA has already
presented their case that land is not available for the full 4 MGD discharge based on a
quantitative analysis of available land parcels. Thus, this general statment based on old
1996-1999 population trends lends no additional support. Just because the population is
growing does not necessarily suggest that land will not be available for non -discharge
alternatives.
3. Table 5-1. Land Cost- Please state actual cost per acre used, rather than "estimate of fair
market value." Also, what is the basis for some of the cost criterion used (e.g., pipeline
construction costs, pump station construction costs, sprinkler system construction costs,
reservoir, O&M).
4. Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Based on NPDES comments, the EA was to be revised to a 20-year
planning period for the years 2005-2025, and population/flow projections for 2030 would
be dropped. It is unclear why these tables reflect a costing period for 2010-2030, rather
than 2005-2025. Why are capital costs split between two periods (2010-2012 and
1 of 3 7/13/2004 3:10 PM

Re: [Fwd: Rockfish Creek EA]
2020-2022)? These tables could be made simpler by just summarizing capital costs,
recurring costs, and total present worth costs for the entire 20-year period, rather than
listing every year. I can fax you a sample cost summary if you are interested.
5. Section 5.4 Present Worth Cost Comparison. This cost comparison shows that the two
alternatives are rather close in total present worth cost. If you costed out spray irrigation
for the entire 4 MGD expansion (irregardless of whether the land is actually available),
would the cost differential increase significantly?
Alex Marks wrote:
Tom,
You have already stated that you had no further comments on this project but I received this
email from Ruth yesterday and it appears that they gone ahead and made some changes to
address NPDES concerns. Please let me know by July 25 or sooner if you have any further
comments or if NPDES is okay with me writing a FONSI.
Thanks,
Alex
Original Message
Subject:Rockfish Creek EA
Date:Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:01:32 -0600
From:<[e-mail]>
To:<Alex.Marks @ncmail.net>
CC:<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<Bill.Kreutzberger@ CH2M.com>
Hi Alex. I have enclosed a zip file that includes the following items for the Rockfish Creek EA:
• Figure 2-1 - Figure revised based on comments to include Hoke Co service area
• Section 5 - This section was revised to include more information concerning land
application alternative; also includes cost analysis in response to NPDES Unit
comments
• New Section 5 figure - provides information on available land for land application
alternative
• Spreadsheets for Section 5 - Contains the cost analysis information
• Section 6 - This section was revised in several areas to address comments by WRC
2 of 3 7/13/2004 3:10 PM

Re: [Fwd: Rockfish Creek EA]
and DWQ
• Comment summary table
Once you have had an opportunity to forward this information to the commenting agencies
and received their OK, we will submit the copies of the EA for FONSI and submittal to the
Clearinghouse. Please call me if you have any questions.
Ruth C. Swank
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
[phone], fax
[phone], computer fax
3 of 3 7/13/2004 3:10 PM

Re: Rockfish Creek
w
Subject: Re: Rockfish Creek
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:23:19 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Ruth- I concur with your email. For the cost comparison between land application and WWTP
upgrade, you might want to include rough cost estimates of the spray irrigation infrastructure, if
the costs without it make the alternatives comparison close. You can send in an NPDES
application after a FONSI determination is sent to the State Clearinghouse. I would include a
copy of the FONSI and Final SEPA EA in the NPDES application package, and you might
want to state in a cover letter that the approved SEPA EA incorporated all the required elements
of the EAA Guidance Document.
[e-mail] wrote:
Hi Tom. I just wanted to confim with you that if we address the comments in your February
10, 2004 memo to Alex Marks that PWC will meet the requirements of the Engineering
Alternatives Analysis and will not have to submit that as a separate document with the NPDES
permit application. Specifically, I'd like to confirm the following:
• No other alternatives than those listed in the EA are required
• For land application, if we provide the calculations you requested, and do a cost
analysis that may just be based on cost of land if that bumps it enough higher than
discharge option; if not, we can add the costs of the some of the additional
infrastructure
• Costs only required for the land application and expansion alternatives
Is this accurate? PWC wants to ensure that if we address the comments in your
memo that an EAA will not need to be submitted with the permit application. Please confirm; if
not correct, please let us know what other items would need to be included in the EA in order
to meet the permit application requirements.
Thanks.
Ruth C. Swanek
CH2M HILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone], ext. 16
1 of 2 6/18/2004 2:25 PM

•
NC Division of Water Quality
February 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Alex Marks, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
Through: Dave Goodrich
From: Tom Belnick, NC DENR/DWQ/NPDES Unit de.,
Subject: Fayetteville Rockfish Creek EA, December 2003
NPDES Permit No. NC0050105
Alex- 1 have the following comments regarding the subject document:
1. Section 2.0, Purpose and Need. This section states that "The Rockfish Creek WRF is an existing
14-mgd facility (under construction for expansion to 16 mgd)...." According to NPDES records,
the facility completed its Phase 1 expansion to 16 MGD on 9/14/2001.
2. Section 2.1, Population Growth. Population projections through 2030 are presented in Table 2-1,
and reference is made to methodology used in the 201 Facility Plan, which is not available. This
methodology needs to be presented, and updated as appropriate, within the EA document. Table
2-1 should distinguish between future residential population growth and future annexation of
existing residential homes within the Rockfish Creek Service Area. Finally, a 20-year period for
wastewater facility planning is the typical timeframe used by EPA; therefore, population
projections through 2025 are considered appropriate for this expansion request.
3. Section 2.2, Flow Projections. Similar to population projections, the EA makes references to
methodology used in the 201 Facility Plan for flow projections. This information and
assumptions needs to be incorporated into the EA so that the flow projections are fully
supported. The flow projections should also distinguish between future residential, commercial,
and non -excessive infiltration/inflow. A quick review of the 1996 EA indicates a projected
residential population of 153,743 by 2015 was used to support an expansion to 24 MGD, while
this 2004 EA is projecting an additional increase in residential population to 161,986 by 2025.
Using SRF criteria for projecting future flows based on future projected residential growth
results in a flow projection of only 700,655 gallons/day (i.e., 8,243 future residents multiplied by
85 gpcd for future residential + commercial flow). Thus, this section needs to be expanded to
fully explain the rationale and need for expansion to 28 MGD.
4. Section 5.2, Effluent Land Application and Reuse. This section uses a rule of thumb hydraulic
loading rate (1 inch of wastewater per week), which would require approximately 250 acres of

land per MGD of wastewater applied. The EA should show the calculations used to determine
the acreage requirement. The EA then estimates that 400 to 500 acres of land per MGD would
be required for spray irrigation to account for buffers and unsuitable land, resulting in a total land
requirement of 1600-2000 acres for the proposed expansion from 24 to 28 MGD. The permittee
should either document that 2000 acres is not available for purchase in the area, or else calculate
the 20-year present worth cost of this alternative (using current land prices) and then compare the
cost to the cost for a direct discharge alternative.
5. Section 5.3, Expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF. The proposed expansion from 24 to 28
MGD will include the construction of an aeration basin, clarifier, effluent filters, digester, and
sludge storage tank. The EA needs to provide a 20-year present worth cost for this alternative for
comparative purposes.

[Fwd: Response to Comments on the EA for Expansion of...
Subject: [Fwd: Response to Comments on the EA for Expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF]
From: Alex Marks <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:02:20 -0500
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Ricky Revels <[e-mail]>
CC: Melba McGee <[e-mail]>
All:
Please find attached an email response from Bill Kreutzberger regarding DENR comments on the Rockfish Creek Water
Reclamation Facility. Please review the material and respond back to me whether or not your concerns have been
addressed or if you need further information in order to signoff on the SEPA document. Please respond by April 14,
2004. I will forward any additional concerns (if there are any) to Bill in a single package.
Thanks,
Alex
Subject: Response to Comments on the EA for Expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:49:14 -0700
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Hi Alex
Attached is a letter and a response summary for the comments on the Rockfish Creek WRF that you sent us a few weeks
ago. As you suggested - we are sending this response prior to amending the EA. Please reply or call either Vicki or I with
questions/comments. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd. Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28217-1968
Phone - 704-329-0073 ext. 217
Fax - 704-329-0141
Mobile - 704-904-5918
Email Fax - 678-579-8071
Email - [e-mail]
1 of 1 3/30/2004 2:30 PM

Response to Comments on the EA for Expansion of the ...
Subject: Response to Comments on the EA for Expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:49:14 -0700
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Hi Alex
Attached is a letter and a response summary for the comments on the Rockfish Creek WRF that you sent us a few weeks
ago. As you suggested - we are sending this response prior to amending the EA. Please reply or call either Vicki or I with
questions/comments. Thanks - Bill
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd. Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28217-1968
Phone - 704-329-0073 ext. 217
Fax - 704-329-0141
Mobile - 704-904-5918
Email Fax - 678-579-8071
Email - [e-mail]
1 of 1 3/30/2004 2:30 PM

CH2MHILL
March 26, 2004
Mr. Alex Marks
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd.
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC
28217-1968
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Subject: Environmental Assessment for Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation Facility
Expansion
Dear Mr. Marks:
After receiving comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Rockfish Creek Water
Reclamation Facility Expansion from different North Carolina Agencies, I am pleased to
submit to you a summary table that outlines how we plan to address these comments in the
final Environmental Assessment. We find it interesting that the majority of the comments
were from DWQ which previously has reviewed this document and did not raise many of
these issues in previous comments.
Please let us us know if our planned responses sufficiently address the comments. Once we
receive feedback from you, we will proceed to finalize the EA.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call Vicki Jones (ext. 239)
or me (ext. 217) at [phone].
Sincerely,
CH2M HILL
William A. Kreutzberger
Enclosure
cc: Mick Noland, PWC Fayetteville
Vicki Jones, CH2M HILL

Comment ID Summary of comment
Prouosed Approach
DWQ
1
Respond to NPDES comments
See NPDES section below
2
Provide PWC employee contact info on front page
Add contact info to front page
3
Include Hoke Co. service area, label towns, and waterbodies
Revise Figure 2-1. Obtain service area from PWC.
4
If Town of Stedman contributes to increase, include the town in the service area boundary.
Revise Figure 2-1. Obtain service area from PWC.
5
No specific programs are included in section 6.0 to mitigate for Toss of forestland and the further
urbanization within the study area, which may have significant impact on fish and wildlife species.
This project will support increased population. However, no mainlines are
planned for this project; thus, the majority of development will be infill
development. Planning agencies will be contacted to determine how open space
designated on land use plans is protected.
6
Provide more information about the project endorsement meeting held, who from DWQ attended,
and any written correspondece.
Add some additional information in text and attach the meeting summary.
7
Is an approximate number of failing septic systems known? Clarify which cities and counties have
the connection ordiances and which jurisdiction's land use plan recommends connection to sewer
when it is within 2000 ft.
In 2002, there were 88 failing septic systems within the Urban Service Area, and
272 in 2003. The Land Use Plan ordinances apply to new developments. City anc
County ordinances apply to existing failing septic systems. This will be clarified in
the document.
8
No local programs to protect wetlands within the service area described.
The City and County will be contacted to obtain further information regarding them
development review process. Activities which ensure that sections 401 and 404
issues are addressed will be described.
9
Provide details about any permits to be obtained prior to project construction.
We wit outline the permits required to address the direct impacts.
10
Explain 'by providing regional service to the entire are. the PWC has more control over the growth
and can therefore minimize the impacts".
This section will be revised. PWC does not control growth. However, they do
control the location of sewer lines. No new main lines are planned for this
project; thus the majority of new development will be infill. Planning agencies will
be contacted to provide more details on how land use plans and growth
management plans are implemented.
11
No details are provided for local stormwater program.
Fayetteville and Cumbertand County are covered by the Phase 1 permit and will
comply with Phase 2 permit during renewal of Phase 1. More information on the
basic program elements will be presented in the final EA.
12
No details are provided for local erosion and sediment control programs
The City of Fayetteville is not a delegated erosion and sediment control program.
The City of Fayetteville submits erosion control permit plans to the Division of
Land Quality when more than 1 acre is disturbed.
13
Provide more information about the PWC design manual. To which state agency has the manual
been submitted, what type of designs) is considered, and what impacts will the manual mitigate?
This manual was submitted to the Non -Discharge Permitting Unit of DWQ and
was approved in 2003. The manual ensures that pipes are adequately sized to
prevent overflows. The manual also ensures that private lines are designed to
meet PWC standards so they can be tied to PWC system at a later date when
connection is available.
14
Only policies from the land use plan that have been implemented will be considered as part of the
mitigation plan. Describe how the goals listed and other policies have been implemented. Are
jurisdictions other than Fayetteville and Cumberland County resp
The County is planning to implement the Hazard Mitigation Plan to enhance flood
control measures, which will positively impact the conservation district of the
Zone and Subdivision Ordinances. Will work with County staff to determine how
developments plans are reviewed in light of the land use plan when they are
submitted.
15
Include a copy of DWQ's letter and the other agency correspondence (comments) in the Appendix
Include copies in final EA.
NPDES Unit
1
"The Rockfish Creek WRF is an existing 14-mgd facility (under construction for expansion to 16-
mgd)... According to NPDES records, the facility completed its Phase 1 expansion to 16 mgd on
9/14/2001.
Correct text

Comment ID Summary of comment
Proposed Approach
2
Population projections through 2030 are presented in Table 2-1, and refemce is made to
methodology used in the 201 Facility Plan, which is not available. This methodology needs to be
presented. and updated as appropriate. within the EA document. Table 2-
Include the 201 report as an appendix to the EA. Explain the assumptions we
made in adjusting the estimates in the 201 plan. Determine the breakdown of
residential growth vs. annexation from PWC. Remove the 2030 estimate.
3
Similar to population projections. the EA makes references to methodology used in the 201 Facility
plan for flow projections. This information and assumptions needs to be incorporated into the EA
so that the flow projections are fully supported. The flow
Include the 201 report as an appendix to the EA. Explain the assumptions we
made in adjusting the estimates in the 201 plan. Include the residential,
commercial and non -excessive I&I flow breakdown from the 201 plan (Table 3-5).
Remove the 2030 estimate.
4
A rule of thumb hydraulic loading rate (1' wastewater per week) is used. which would require
approximately 250 acres of land per mgd of wastewater applied. The EA should show the
calculations used to determine the acreage requirement. The EA then estimate
Provide base calculations and demonstrate that 2000 acres are not available.
Also provide information that land application for disposal for the increase is not
very realisitic nor beneficial to the river - which needs the flow. More realistic to
look for opportunities for reuse which would reduce demand for potable or raw
water as industry or other users move to reasonable proximity to the WRF.
5
The proposed expansion from 24 to 28 mgd will include the construction of an aeration basin,
clarifier, effluent filters, digester, and sludge storage tank. The EA needs to provide a 20-year
present worth cost for this alternative for comparative purposes
Obtain from PWC.
NCWRC
Concerns are that the service area may not be well defined and that proposed mitigative measure:
may not be sufficient to offset impacts incurred by an accelerated rate of growth facilitated by the
increased wastewater treatement expansion. Based on these
1
The service area will be more clearly described and mapped.
Update Figure 2-1.
2
Fayetteville and Cumberland County will proactively modify their stormwater management
programs to meet Phase 2 requirements.
Phase 2 requirements will be incorporated into the stormwater program when the
Phase 1 permit is renewed. Phase 1 was up for renewal in late 1999. Application
for renewal of existing permit has been submitted to the State. Phase II
application was submitted in summer of 2003, expected to take effect March
2005 but subject to change by the NCDWQ.
3
The Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan will be actively implemented. Those comoponents o
the Plan that have already been implemented will be described.
The County is planning to implement the Hazard Mitigation Plan to enhance flood
control measures, which will positively impact the conservation district of the
Zone and Subdivision Ordinances. Will work with County staff to determine how
developments plans are reviewed in Tight of the land use plan when they are
submitted.
FRO
1
Recommend that PWC and local govts receiving services from the proposed project pursue
adoption of a policy that prioritizes connecting to failing septic systems before extending new
collection Tines to serve future development areas.
PWC does have a plan in place for installing sanitary sewer in neighborhoods
with a high density of septic systems. This is part of Phase V Annexation Sewer
Strategy which will be effective July of 2004. Strategy is laid out such that
neighborhoods with old septic systems will be first inspecated and their septic
tanks replaced whether they are failing or not. It is expected that approximately
7700 septic systems will be replaced during Phase V.
2
Recommend that PWC and local govts receiving services from the proposed project coordinate
with DWR to investigate pursuing adoption of water conservation efforts to :
PWC staff work closely with DWR with respect to Cape Fear River basin
planning efforts through both CFRA and the MCFRBA. PWC has provided many
resources to_protect the Cape Fear River and will continue to do so.
protect future water resources.
reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with the NPDES Discharge and Non
discharge regional wastewater treatment efforts
limit the need for future small discharge facilities, anc
assist in the development for planned future growth
USF&W
Based on the information provided and other information available, however, it appears that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened
species, their formally designated critical habitat, or specie

NC Division of Water Quality
February 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Alex Marks, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
Through: Dave Goodrich
From: Tom Belnick, NC DENR/DWQ/NPDES Unit
Subject: Fayetteville Rockfish Creek EA, December 2003
NPDES Permit No. NC0050105
Alex- I have the following comments regarding the subject document:
1. Section 2.0, Purpose and Need. This section states that "The Rockfish Creek WRF is an existing
14-mgd facility (under construction for expansion to 16 mgd)...." According to NPDES records,
the facility completed its Phase 1 expansion to 16 MGD on 9/14/2001.
2. Section 2.1, Population Growth. Population projections through 2030 are presented in Table 2-1,
and reference is made to methodology used in the 201 Facility Plan, which is not available. This
methodology needs to be presented, and updated as appropriate, within the EA document. Table
2-1 should distinguish between future residential population growth and future annexation of
existing residential homes within the Rockfish Creek Service Area. Finally, a 20-year period for
wastewater facility planning is the typical timeframe used by EPA; therefore, population
projections through 2025 are considered appropriate for this expansion request.
3. Section 2.2, Flow Projections. Similar to population projections, the EA makes references to
methodology used in the 201 Facility Plan for flow projections. This information and
assumptions needs to be incorporated into the EA so that the flow projections are fully
supported. The flow projections should also distinguish between future residential, commercial,
and non -excessive infiltration/inflow. A quick review of the 1996 EA indicates a projected
residential population of 153,743 by 2015 was used to support an expansion to 24 MGD, while
this 2004 EA is projecting an additional increase in residential population to 161,986 by 2025.
Using SRF criteria for projecting future flows based on future projected residential growth
results in a flow projection of only 700,655 gallons/day (i.e., 8,243 future residents multiplied by
85 gpcd for future residential + commercial flow). Thus, this section needs to be expanded to
fully explain the rationale and need for expansion to 28 MGD.
4. Section 5.2, Effluent Land Application and Reuse. This section uses a rule of thumb hydraulic
loading rate (1 inch of wastewater per week), which would require approximately 250 acres of

land per MGD of wastewater applied. The EA should show the calculations used to determine
the acreage requirement. The EA then estimates that 400 to 500 acres of land per MGD would
be required for spray irrigation to account for buffers and unsuitable land, resulting in a total land
requirement of 1600-2000 acres for the proposed expansion from 24 to 28 MGD. The permittee
should either document that 2000 acres is not available for purchase in the area, or else calculate
the 20-year present worth cost of this alternative (using current land prices) and then compare the
cost to the cost for a direct discharge alternative.
5. Section 5.3, Expansion of the Rockfish Creek WRF. The proposed expansion from 24 to 28
MGD will include the construction of an aeration basin, clarifier, effluent filters, digester, and
sludge storage tank. The EA needs to provide a 20-year present worth cost for this alternative for
comparative purposes.

Populati9n Overview: 2000-2030 http://www.demog.state.nc.us/demog/pop0030.html
..go to state
County
Population Overview: 2000-2030
(to open/download as Excel Spreadsheet, click here)
Population
April 2000 I July 2005 April 2010 July 2015 April 2020 July 2025 April 2030
130,800 143,343 154,914 167,587
ALAMANCE
ALEXANDER
ALLEGHANY
ANSON
33,603
10.677
25,275
ASHE
AVERY
BEAUFORT
BERTIE
B LADEN
24,384
17.167
44.958
19,773
36,624
11,203
26.018
25,484
18,254
46,244
19,441
32,278
39,786 42,748
11,735 12,190
26,843 27,561
26,297 27,025
18,906 19,648
47,316 48,160
18,946 18,515
34,028 35,942
BRUNSWICK
BUNCOMBE
BURKE
37,573
181,031 194,703 208,799
45,754 48,714 51,679
12,625 13,003 13,365
28,221 28,823 29,335
27,757 28,322 28,908
20,250 20,778 21,164
49,033' 49,537 50,088
18,047 ; 17,512 16,952
39,170 : 40,626 42,089
73,1431 84,610 93,776 103,731 112,992 122,160
206,3301 222,398 238,793 255,2651 271,754 287,925
89,1481 94,858 101,781 108,025 114,870 121,351
CABARRUS
CALDWELL
CAMDEN
CARTERET
131,063 150,296 166,897 185,714
77,4151 80,094 83,035 85,462
6,885 7,455 7,905 8,414
59,3831 61,825 64,467 66,557
CASWELL
130,688
303,762
128,233
205,495 225,813
87,948
8,991
68,320
23,5011 24,902 26,307
CATAWBA
CHATHAM
CHEROKEE
CHOWAN
CLAY
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
27,639
141,685! 154,395 165,424
49,3291 54,999
24,298 26,216
246,640
90,1831 92,336
9,4881 10,037
69,6301 70,592
29,019 30,2181 31,445
177,372 189,6301 201,9581 214,315
59,806 65,1861 70,524 76,0731 81,507
28,012 29,6371 31,106 32,4321 33,635
14,526 14,929 15,448
8,775' 9,489
96,2871 101,254
54,7491 57,082
15,919
10,043 10,556
106,530 111,687
59,745
16,369
11,040
117,092
16,709 1 17,047
11,4151 11,764
122,358 127,603
61,980 64,302' 66,3371 68,466
CRAVEN
CUMBERLAND
CURRITUCK
DARE
91,436
302,9631
18,190 i
29,967 33,697 36,681
157,205 ` 166,833
DAVIDSON
DAVIE
DUPLIN
DURHAM
147,246
34,8351 38,837
49,0631 54,029
223,3141 241,4721
94,504 97,513 100,212 102,080 : 103,950! 105,070
•
334,040 351,212 366,2041 396,665
22,644 24,9171 27,1261 29,2881 31,347
39,8681 42,9401 45,690 j 48,315
176,4931 186,335 196,0691 205,603
41,932 45,363 48,979 52,5061 56,157
59,294 64,677 70,251 1 76,1401 82,205
257,367 275,576 292,639' 311,374 328,573
EDGECOMBE
FORSYTH
FRANKLIN
55,6061 54,381
306,0671 327,170
47,26053,345
347,165
53,987 53,039
368,164
58,726 64,747
52,079 50,854
390,124r 411,887
70,660 76,820
20os- 20LI 704
49,614
434,096
82,702
1 of 3 2/5/2004 10:48 AM

2000 Census Data
http://mumfordl.dyndns.org/cen2000/NewAmericans/N...
Metropolitan Racial and Et
The New Americans
Lewis Mumforc! Center
Fayetteville, NC MSA
Data for the Metro Region and its Central Cities and Suburbs
Counties in this metropolitan area: Cumberland County
Cities in this metropolitan area: Fayetteville, NC
The newest Americans are those who arrived in the U.S. within the last ten years. The following chart shows
the relative ranking of this region compared to all 331 metropolitan regions in the country for 1990 and 2000
in the number of such residents. The rankings are meant to indicate the regions degree of attractiveness to
immigrants in the previous decade.
National Ranking in Attractiveness to Immigrants (of 331 regions)
1990
2000*
Metro Region
158
179
Central City
206
198
Suburb
118
145
The following chart shows the actual numbers of U.S.-born and foreign -born persons in each part of the
metropolis for 1990 and 2000. The foreign -born are further divided into recent immigrants (arriving in the
previous decade) and those who came to the country earlier.
Metro Region
Central City
Suburb
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
Total Population
274,566
302,963
103,648
120,843
170,918
182,120
U.S. Born
264,000
287,038
99,498
114,025
164,502
173,013
96.2%
94.7%
96%
94.4%
96.2%
95%
Foreign Born
10,566
15,925
4,244
6,818
6,322
9,107
3.8%
5.3%
4.1%
5.6%
3.7%
5%
Immigrated in last decade
3,355
5,659
1,101
2,477
2,254
3,182
1 of 2 2/5/2004 9:46 AM

2000 Census Data
http://mumfordl.dyndns.org/cen2000/NewAmericans/N...
1.2%
1.9%
1.1%
2%
1.3%
1.7%
Immigrated earlier
7,211
10,266
3,143
4,341
4,068
5,925
2.6%
3.4%
3%
3.6%
2.4%
3.3%
An indicator of the assimilation of newcomers into the metropolis is their English -language use. The measure
available in the census is whether people speak only English in their home (the presumption is that these are
people who speak English without difficulty), whether they speak another language but also speak English
well, or whether they speak English poorly. The calculations are based on total population over age 5.
Language Spoken at Home
Metro Region
Central City
Suburb
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
Total Population over age 5
249,734
278,459
95,189
111,753
154,545
166,706
Speaks English Only
228,141
248,238
87,214
99,915
140,927
148,323
91.4%
89.1%
91.6%
89.4%
91.2%
89%
Speaks another language at home
21,593
30,221
7,975
11,838
13,618
18,383
8.6%
10.9%
8.4%
10.6%
8.8%
11 %
2 of 2 2/5/2004 9:46 AM

Harnett County, NC » Demographics
http://www.harnettedc.org/demograp-5.asp
II t R s r1 'r rn 1' ' T 5'
Economic Development
P. County overview
s. Demographics
► What's New?
Search & Site Map
► Contact Us
i .1L•i"din7..
•1:�7a�1 t:r
Swift Denim Weave
Edgerton Industrial Park -
Phase l
\PXC
esearch
glity
strong roots • new growth
'Available Sites & Buildings .*Business Expansion & Relocation 'Useful Into & links 'tome
I.`..I Harnett County Demographics
1.1
Prim
Population » Population Summary » Population Characteristics » Municipal Population » Township Population » Educational Attainment » Per Capita Incoi
Average Annual Pay • Poverty Rates » Transportation Patterns
Population
(2000 Census Data)
Year Harnett County
1980 59,570
1990 67,833
1995 78,642
1996 81,550
1997 84,118
1998 86,898
1999 89,124
2000 91,025
2010 102,301
2020 i 118,383
Source: US Census 2000
Wake MSA
664,788
858,516
1,020,985
1,057,018
1,092,860
1,129,273
1,162,231
1,196,839
1,537,207
1,900,192
Population Summary
(2000 Census Data)
Summary
Total Population 91,025
Total Households 33,800
Population in Households 88,138
Average Household Size 2.61
Total Families 24,107
Population in Families 74,040
Average Family Size 3.07
Source: US Census 2000
Population Characteristics
(2000 Census Data)
% of Population by Age
Total Population 91,025
0 - 17 Years 27.0%
18-24Years 10.6%
25 - 44 Years 32.1%
45 - 64 Years 19.9%
65 + Years 10.4%
Median Age i2.5
Source: US Census 2000 / RTRP aka Book
Fayetteville MSA
247,160 �C �
274,713 >
298,474
299,393
301,948
300,266
300,603
302,963 — Ip fyor1 IRgd/ o'tL____)371_p_
332,905 _
365,182
AA,0
110 Sy�h
Cool
1 of 4 2/5/2004 9:51 AM

Harnett County, NC » Demographics
http://www.harnettedc.org/demograp-5.asp
Raleigh Durham MSA
Fayetteville MSA
United States
Source: US Census 2000
Population Diversity
Total Population 91,025
White
Black or African -American
64,744
•
j 20,481
American Indian or Alaska Native 794
Asian 591
Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 61
Other 4,354
Hispanic or Latino (or any other race) 5,336
Source: US Census 2000 / RTRP Data Book
Municipal Population
(2000 Census Data)
April 1990 I July 2000 ' % Growth 1990-2000
Dunn 8,556 9,196 7.5%
Erwin 4,109 4,537 10.4%
Angier 2,235 3,419 53.0%
Coats 1,493 1,845 23.6%
Lillington 2,048 2,915 42.3%
Hamett 67,833 91,025 34.2%
858,516 1,196,839 39.4%
274,713 302,963 9.4%
248,709,873 i 281,421,902 13.2%
E
Township Population
(2000 Census Data)
Township Population
Anderson Creek 11,137
Averasboro 12,882
Barbecue 9,257
Black River 8,120
Buckhorn 1,935
Duke 5,921
Grove 9,623
Hector's Creek 3,635
Johnsonville 6,927
Lillington 4,622
Neill's Creek 5,829
Stewart's Creek 3,478
Upper Little River 7,659
Source: US Census 2000
Educational Attainment
(2000 Census Data)
Persons 25 or Older ; Harnett County I Wake County Cumberland County
2 of 4
2/5/2004 9:51 AM

Harnett County, NC » Demographics
0.
http://www.harnettedc.org/demograp-5.asp
Less than 9th grade 4,693 / 8.2% 15,158 / 3.8% 8,389 / 4.7%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 9,578 / 16.8% 27,928 /6.9% 18,137 / 10.3%
High school graduate 18,653 / 32.6% 71,648 / 17.8% 50,122 / 28.4%
Some college, no degree 12,589 / 22.0% 80,950 / 20.1% 49,846 / 28.2%
Associate degree 4,327 / 7.6% 30,768 / 7.6% 16,451 / 9.3%
Bachelor's degree 5,347 / 9.4% 119,389 / 29.6% 23,232 / 13.1 %
Graduate or professional degree 1,951 / 3.4% 57,640 / 14.3% 10,537 / 6.0%
Total 1 57,138 / 100% 1 403,481 / 100% 176,714 / 100%
% high school graduate or higher 75.0% 1 89.3% : 85.0% %
% bachelor's degree or higher ', 12.8% 43.9% 19.1 %
Source: US Census 2000
Per Capita Income
(2000 Census Data in Current Dollars)
Harnett County
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
13,404 1 17,119 ` 17,622 18,565 19,383 19,705
2000
19,781
Raleigh -Durham MSA 20,759 I 25,900E 27,069 28,758 30,525 32,054E 32,537
Fayetteville MSA 15,141 1 20,945 22,205 23,088 24,186 25,285 i 24,899
North Carolina 17,367 s 21,938 I 22,940 24,189 25,452 26,417 i 26,882
United States 10,584 1 23,562 1 24,651 1 25,874 27,321 28,546 i 29,469
Source: US Census 2000
Household Income
(2000 Census Data in Current Dollars)
Less than € 3
10,000 ` 10,000-14,999 15,000-24,999 25,000-34,999 i 35,000.49,999 1 50,000-74,999 i 75,000-99,999 100,000-149,999 ;150,QQ0.199,999
Hamett County 4,360 2,453 5,160 4,893 6,215 6,431 2,496 1,258 232
Cumberland 10,502 16,776 15,354 16,411 22,114 20,851 8,596 4,568 1,126
County
Wake County 13,269 8,725 22,216 26,989 37,364 52,077 33,970 31,305 9,040
Raleigh -Durham 8,113 5,154 12,758 14,896 19,062 23,007 13,262 10,843 3,081
MSA
Fayetteville 5,566 3,274 6,845 7,387 9,522 8,490 3,636 2,388 618
MSA
North Carolina 328,770 201,123 431,701 435,975 553,041 608,777 279,020 188,621 50,650
United States 10,067,027 6,657,228 13,536,965 13,519,242 17,446,272 20,540,604 10,799,245 8,147,826 2,322,038
Source: US Census 2000
Average Annual Pay
1997 1998 1999 : 2000
Hamett County 21,164 22,170 22,896 23,806
Raleigh -Durham MSA 30,919 32,824 34,823 "i 37,785
Fayetteville MSA 23,545 ': 24,491 25,123 26,112
North Carolina
26,684 ` 28,176 ii 29,462 31,068
US Total - 30,353 31,945 33,340 35,323
•
Source: US Department of Labor
Poverty Rates
(2000 Census/Based on 1999 Data)
Poverty Rates
3 of 4 2/5/2004 9:51 AM

Harnett County, NC » Demographics
b.
http://www.harnettedc.org/demograp-5.asp
r b u'i to it, p
Hamett County (Rate for Individuals) 14.9%
Harnett County (Rate for Families) 11.3 %
Wake County (Rate for Individuals) 7.8%
Wake County (Rate for Families) 4.9%
Cumberland County (Rate for Individuals) 12.8%
Cumberland County (Rate for Families) 10.4%
Source: US Census 2000/ 1999 Data
Transportation Patterns
Transportation Patterns
Percent of population driving greater than 30 minutes to work 45.3%
Number of residents driving greater than 30 minutes to work 18,061
Mean travel time to work (in minutes) 29.2
Source: US Census Bureau, Census Transportation Planning Package 2000
Harnett
COUNTY
Address: PO Box 1270, 907 S. Main Street, Lillington, NC 27546 • Phone: [phone]
\ 4 of 4 2/5/2004 9:51 AM 1