20061820 Ver 1_More Info Received_20070301

Letter of Transmittal
o~-Igo
To: Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1628
Attention: Cyndi Karoly
We are sending you:
^ shop drawings
^ specifications
Date: February 28, 2007
Re: City of Jacksonville LTS Upgrade and
Expansion Project DWQ # 061820
X Enclosed ^ Under separate cover via ^ Mail ^ Messenger, the following items:
^ prints ^ data sheets ^
^ sketches ^ brochures ^
Our action relative to items submitted for approval has been noted on the drawings.
COPIES PREPARED BY REFERENCE N0. DESCRIPTION
5 RTB 0707-101 Response to Noelle Lutheran's 1/29/07 request for supplemental
information
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
^ As requested ^ Approved
^ For your use ^ Approved as corrected
K For review & comment ^ Revise and resubmit
^ For your information ^ Not approved
Remarks: Attachment # 1 not included in this submittal, since copies of the EA have been previously submitted to your office
for review.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc Very tr rs,_ Copies: File,
701 Town Center Drive,
Suite 600 ~ ~p S, CE
Newport News, VA 23606 obe Belc
TEL: [phone] Project Scientist /Wetland Ecologist
FAX: [phone]
^ Resubmit copies for approval
^ Submit copies for distribution
^ Return corrected prints

i
McNeolm Ph'nis, tree.
7fl1 Town Genter Chive
St~rtO 8fl4
tdewport Nsws, VA 236d&~4296
Ti ~57:873.874Xf
F ?57.8?3~8723
v+nvw.pkriie.cotn'
February 27 2007
mss. N~elle Lutheran
N.C.Division of ~i~VaterC~uality
WilmngtanRegianal ©fftce
l27 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington,. North Carolina 28~fl5-3845
Re. Supplemental Information to Support LAMA \ Corps Joint Permit
Jacksunville~'VVastewaterLTS Expansion andLJpgrade Project
DWQ,Pr©ject # 06182B
Dear Noelle:,
This letter is written in response to the commentary contained in your letter dated January 29,
2007 regarding the above referenced project. The comments were developed based upon your
review of the Joint Permit Application and our meeting with you and Brad Shaver (USAGE) an
January i 1, 2007. We have reviewed all of your comments and offer the following responses in
the same order as the comments were presented. i~or clarity, we have re-stated your comment
followed by our response (in italics) to expedite your review.
1. When an environmental assessment is required for a proposed project, DWQ must
receive a copy of a "Finding of no Significant Impact" for the project before a 401 Water
' Quality Certification can be issued. Please provide a copy of this document if and when it
is issued. Please also note that the project wi11 remain on hoed until the document is
received.
We acknowledge the need to submit the requested documentation,:. however, are unable to
do .ro crt this time. Coordination with NCDWQ Construction. Grants and Loans (eG&.L)
suggest the F'f?NSI`will be~issued in April 207.
As we discussed in our meeting it is critical that your review of the pe»nit application
continue while CG&L cr~mpletes t3reirrevien> process and issrurnce of the F011~S1 to ovoid
project delays and penalties for potential vir~latians of the .special Drder of C'nnsent
(.5f?C} issued b3~ the ~NorthCaralina D~parrinent of Emergency Mrztuzge~ent.

I~4s. Noe##e Lutheran
N.~: Divisia~ of Water Quality
February 27,; ~OO7
Page 2 of 5
~. 'Please ~r©vide a table that includes site area, impact area, and permanentor converted For
clari~eaticm:
As shvxm in:Table l of the CAMA I Coups Toint Pernut Applea=atinn, the total site area'~f
the project Is approximately 7,65b acres, It includes the area assairiated with the
proposed impact o,~'4Q0 Linear f~et~ of internti~tent streu»z (`Tuent Smrage .~gvon) rls
sh~+wn on page ~ 5~ of b7 of the CIA !Corps faint Permet Application Drawing Set.
Summary of Temporary and. Permanen# Wetland Impacts
~ ~ ~ ~
t ~ ~~ ~~~ Y
;ft'IgatlOlt EX~,i$IISlon U.©t1 J.32 # . # 6
Ef#liuent garage Lagoon U (~ t#.Oa 2~.4t1'
Tats{ `0.17 x.54 25.56
3. When: impacts to wetlands are greater than 3 acres DWQ must consider ail other practical
alternatives to the ,proposed project, Please provide a copy of the Alternatives Analysis:.
section of the EA For the ~ql File.. This section should include more descriptive
inFormation on the alternative sites considered"and ei~minared {see' 5-29, table 8=2 of the
EA. ~ additgn, please provide a copy of relevant in~ormativn from the 2111 Facilities
Plan concerning the decision to construct an LT'S versus other available alternatives,
A separate three -hole punched copy of the alternatives anarlyses portir3n;af the EA
previously submitted irz September 2(XI6 es provided in Attachment l~lo. l mid a copy of
relevant ertformatir}tt froth the 1989 201 Facilities Plan concerning the decision to
construct an LI"S versos other available alternatives is contzrined in Attachment: Na.2.
A revised ~'cxble 8-2 from the F,A is provided to further clan, fy the sere selection process.
This-table illustrates one step within the iterative process al`'avoidng and minime~ing
wetland impacts while sitting the proposed lagoon.

J_ # fi+ J~ K .r.-,v_ .~ ..'~.., ~ /3} y~ /'
t `S ..[ .~4°~ r i.e,.fi ~.J
~
r~ _ ~-
~ ~ ~ ,~ ,
.
~
~~~ ,
~
' ~ ~
~ fJd !s
~ J
. ~
y~ 2
` u`L~
Parcel f and lA 4C~f 3fs8 7fJ-i(~?
Parcel 2 599 550 ~t#-7U
Parcel3 i 66 # 1 Q 50-84
Parse#5 594 475 80-ii0
Parse#? 352 335 IOO-i3fl`
Parcels 11& #2 -?fib 80 25-55
Parcel 22 ' ~$# 0 0
Parcel 23 #26 5U 70-i(k?;
Tutai 3,246
/ ~ ~, '`"-?'` 1~
' ~ ,~
`ter' ~ '3

~' Design criteria for the kagoan indicate that thee. site would need. to be i(lU-2f30 acres in
size dependent on site. topography and heighi'of the proposed lagoon berms. The initial
- list afcandidate sites shown in Figure 8- i~ of fhe Final Engineering ar~d
Bnviratunentai Assessment Report (Malcolm Pirnie, September ~tlElfi} was screened to
consider primari#y larger tracts of undeveiaped land,
~' Estimated wetlatxi acreages are based on wetland assessments which included the
'evaluation topographic cnaps,soils mapping and waiiCing uansects across the
properties at nterva#s tonging from l(it3 to SOa feet apaii. These assessments were
conducted in accordance with the United State Army Corps of Engineers tUSC©E)
Wetland De#ineation l~ieid Manual (En~irvnmental Laboratory, 1987).'
~' Assumes at least 2Q acres of additional' wetland impacts on Parcel 2 would necessary.
Hyppthetical"lagoon lay-outs on Parcels 1, lA 2, .~, 5, 7, and 23 attempted tv avoid
wetlands to the maximum: degree: practicable resulted in unreasonable lagoon
canfiguratic~ns soul imparted greater than 4D acres o, f tvetlartds As a result of .the
com~arisan in the table above, Parcels 1, ltl, ~, 3, 5, 7, and 2.~ were rexnaved ft`am
additianat consideration czs p,~tential lagoon sites to'minimi~e wetland impacts.
?'ire Parcelszvith the least amount of pote~atiat wetland impact 'Parcels 11, 12, and 23}
are further evaluated beginning can page 8-3f} in the Final Etagineering a-u1
~ni;iranrnental A,~sessment Report (hhalcolm ~Pirnie,~eptetnber 2f306J.

Ms: Noette Lutheran.
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Febn~ary 2'l, Zo07
Page 4 of 5
4. Provide a Dopy of the State Historic Preservation C7ffice's most recent correspondence.
The above referenced letter from SHPO has been included as Attachment No..~. This.:.:
letter-( dated'December 5.200b; totes based upon the archeological survey conducted in
selected areas of the proposed Additional land application expansion area, none of the
sites were recommended for inciicsivn ern the National Register of Historic Places,
S, ' A copy of the draft conservation easement map and declaration written in accordance
with the USACE guidance must also be subnutted tc# AWQ A letter from the third party
that agrees to heldthe easement trust also be included.
We acknowledge the need to submit the requested documentation prior to feral permit.
issuance; however are unable to do so at this tune. Below is a brief update on our status
in providing the requested information.
As briefly discussed in our February 14, 20(17 telephone conversation, we are proppsing
to use the conservation easement template patted on the ~etmington District Carps'
website. A vpy of this dacumens has been provided Fri .Iohri Carter, Jarksonvi~e City
Attorney forhis review Any modification to this document wtli be provided in a red line
format for review by the Corps and DWQ, A jzsstificaZion will lac provided for: each
proposed modification, ~an~
We hrtve begun t3ae process of identifying a third party to hold the conservation easement.
Both The Nature Coresen=ancy (TNC} and the North Carolina Coastal Federation have
expressed interest about learning more about the proposed preser~•ation areas. Bob
Belcher will`be meeting Hervey Mclver from TNC on March 2, 20(17 to show Itm the
` proposed preservation areas, Shandy after this meeting we will confirm TNC's
lvillingrtess'to hold,the conservation easement. Depending on TNC's response we will.'.
eitFier more forward withprovidng you with the requested :information or continue our
dialog with the North Carolina Coastal Federation. Every attempt is being made to
..identify a willing third party within the next thirty days.
6. if Hoffman Forest Mitigation Bank has the available credits for wetland restoration a
letter of acceptance from Hoffman Forest must be received by DWQ befflre a 4()i can be
issued. Please note that if this form of butrgatvn is accepted, payment to the bank trust
be made beft~re any impacts to wetlands or waters occur.
?7ze Hoffman' Forest Barek only has 8 credits Available at this time; As soon as additional
credits are released by the MBRT, we will ask Hojfman Forrest to provide a letter
documenting he availability of the 25..5 credits proposed in theCAMA /Corps Permit
Application. tln Irr-Lieu Fee form hr~s been szthrrtitted to EEP as a contingency,.. if
HoffmanFinestdoes not getadditiorralcredits. released.

Ms. ~ioelle iutheran`
N.C: Division of 1~'ater Quality
)~et~uary 27„ 20b7
Page 5 of 5
7. ` if the USACE is released: to sign jurisdictional determination maps in the'near future,
please provide a copy o~ the signed map for the subject property.
The Corps has nc~t.been released to sign jurisdictional determination maps; hou~euer if
they-~ are released prier to permit issuance then tive will submit signed snaps.
We trust that this letters has addressed your comments so that you may complete your review of
this important project, if you need any: further clamcation or additional information, please
contact Bob Belcher or lvlark McElroy. They may be reached at (7~7) 873-87(?0
Very .truly yours,
MALC4LM P IE, INS.
Steven. . iViiller, P.E., P.P:, BCEE
Associate
Project. Man
f'
Robert T. Belcher, PV4~S, CE
Project Environmental Scientist 1 Wetlands Ecologist
id
070'7- I O i
EnCIOSUr£:5
c: Mr. Brad Shaver, U.S. Army Corpse: of Engineers, wlo .Attachments
s~-rc~ti~2~o r-u~~«~

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONYILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
VOLUME 1
DECEMBER 1989
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
301 Hiden Boulevard
P. 0. Box 6129
Newport News, Virginia
23606
B. L. CARLILE d ASSOCIATES, INC.
P. 0. Box 2677
College Station, Texas 77841
0707-07-1105

TABLE Of CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMA RY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOhMENDATIONS 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Study Purpose and Scope 2-1
2.2 Planning Area 2-2
3.0 EfFLU ENT LIMITATIONS 3-1
3.1 Existing Limitations 3-1
3.2 Expected Limitations - New River Discharge 3-1
3.3 Expected Limitations - Land Treatment 3-2
3.4 Expected Limitations - Ocean Outfall 3-2
4.0 CURRENT SITUATION 4-1
4.1 Conditions in the Project Area 4-1
4.1.1 Description of the Project Area 4-1
4.1.2 Organizational Responsibilities 4-1
4.1.3 Demographic Data 4-2
4.1.4 Existing Environmental Conditions 4-2
4.1.4.1 Physiographic Setting and Topography 4-2
4.1.4.2 Geology 4-3
4.1.4.3 Soils 4-3
4.1.4.4 Groundwater 4-3
4.1.4.5 Surface Waters 4-4
4.1.4.6 Biology 4-5
4.1.4.7 Ciimate 4-6
4.1.4.8 Air Quality 4-6
4.2 Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment System 4-6
4.2.1 Major System Components 4-6
4.2.2 Treatment Plant Description and Current Loadings 4-7
4.2.3 Sludge Management 4-7
4.2.4 Industrial Pretreatment 4-8
4.2.5 Conveyance System Description 4-8
4.3 Infiltration and Inflow 4-8
4.3.1 I/I Determination 4-9
4.3.2 Infiltration Determination 4-10
4.3.3 Inflow Determination ~4-11
4.3.4 Infiltration Rate Evaluation 4-11
4,4 Performance of Existing System 4-12
5.0 FUTURE SITUATION 5-1
5.1 Land Use 5-1
5.2 Demographic and Economic Projections 5-1
5.2.1 Population Projections 5-1
5.2.2 Commercial/Industrial Projections 5-2
0701-07-1105 i

BLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
5.3 Forecasts of Wastewater Flow and Load 5-2
5.3.1 Wastewater Flow Projections 5-2
5.3.2 Wastewater Load Projections 5-3
5.3.3 Flow and Load Design Criteria 5-4
5.4 Future Environment of the Planning Area
Without the Project 5-4
6.0 WASTEWATER TRANSPORT AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 6-1
6.1 Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities fi-1
6.2 Regionalization 6_2
6.3 Alternative 1 - Land Treatment Only 6-3
6.3.1 Description 6-3
6.3.2 Conceptual Plan 6-5
6.3.3 Preliminary Cost Estimates 6-11
6.4 Alternative 2 - New River Discharge Only 6-I1
6.4.1 Description 6-11
6.4.2 Conceptual Process Criteria 6-13
6.4.3 Conceptual Cost Estimates 6-14
6.5 Alternative 3 - Split Flow; Land Treatment and
New River Discharge 6-15
6.6 Alternative 4 - Land Treatment with Partial
Pretreatment at Wilson Bay WWTP (Separate Transport) 6-15
6.7 Alternative 5 - Land Treatment with Partial
Pretreatment at Wilson Bay WWTP (Combined Transport) 6-16
6.8 Alternative 6 - Ocean Discharge 6-18
6.8.1 Description b-18
6.8.2 Conceptual Process Criteria 6-18
6.8.3 Conceptual Cost Estimates 6-19
6.9 Alternative 7 - Ocean Discharge With Carteret County 6-19
1.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 7-1
7.1 Evaluation of Monetary Costs 7_1
7.2 Environmental Evaluation 7_2
1.2.1 Surface Water Quality/Hydrology 7-2
7.2.2 Air Quality 7_4
7.2.3 Habitat Conversion (Force Mains and Treatment
Site) 7_4
7.2.4 Threatened or Endangered Species 7-6
7.2.5 Groundwater 7_7
7.2.6 Health Effects 7-7
1.2.7 Navigation/Recreation 7-8
7.2.8 Prime and Unique Farmland 7-8
7.2.9 Noise 7_g
7.2.10 Indirect (Induced Growth) Impacts 7-9
7.2.11 Cultural Resources 7-10
0707-01-1105 ii

jABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
~9.g
1.2.12 Public Recreational Parks and Scenic Areas 7-10
7.2.13 Economic Impacts 7-10
7.2.14 Environmental Analysis Summary 7-10
7.3 Evaluation of Reliability 7-11
7.4 Evaluation of Implementability 7-11
1.5 Comparison of Alternatives 7-11
7.6 Views of the Public and Concerned Interests 7-12
8.0 SELECTED PLAN 8-1
8.1 Description 8-1
8.2 Preliminary Design 8-3
8.2.1 General 8-3
8.2.2 Conveyance System 8-3
8.2.2.1 Main Pump Station Siting 8-4
8.2.2.2 Existing System Modifications 8-4
8.2.2.3 Conveyance To Land Treatment $-5
8.2.3 Pretreatment System 8-8
8.2.3.1 Level of Treatment 8-8
8.2.3.2 Preliminary Treatment 8-8
8.2.3.3 Aerated Lagoon System 8-8
8.2.3.4 Sludge Management 8-10
8.2.3.5 Pretreatment System Location 8-11
8.2.4 Spray Irrigation System 8-12
8.2.4.1 Hydraulic Capacity 8-12
8.2.4.1.1 Infiltration Capacity 8-13
8.2.4.1.2 Irrigation Requirements 8-14
8.2.4.1.3 Saturated Flow Capacity 8-14
8.2.4.2 Assimilative Capacity 8-15
8.2.4.2.1 Organic Loading 8-15
8.2.4.2.2 Nutrient Loading 8-17
8.2.4.2.3 Sait Movement 8-14
8.2.4.3 Water Balance and Storage Requirements 8-19
8.2.4.4 Recommended Spray Irrigation System 8-20
8.2.5 Storage System 8-22
8.2.6 Disinfection System 8-22
8.3 Implementation Program 8-23
8.4 Operation and Maintenance 8-25
8.5 Cost Estimates 8-27
8.6 User Rate Analysis 8-28
8.6.1 General 8_28
8.6.2 Sewer Charges 8-28
8.6.3 Facility Fees: Wastewater Treatment 8-29
8.6.4 User Charges: Jacksonville Assumptions 8-32
0707-07-1105 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
9.1 Existing Environment
9.1.1 Land Treatment Site
9.1.1.1 Physiographic Setting
9.1.1.2 Groundwater
9.1.1.3 Surface Hydrology and Water Quality
9.1.1.4 Land Use and Soils
9.1.1.5 Plant Community Analysis
9.1.1.6 Wetland Resources and Functional
Value Assessment
9.1.1.1 Fisheries Resources
9.1.1.8 Wildlife Resources
9.1.1.9 Endangered and Threatened Species
9.1.1.10 Archaeological and Historical Resources
9.1.1.11 Public Recreational Parks and Scenic
Areas
9.1.1.12 Air Quality
9.2 Future Environment Without The Project
9.3 Documentation of Findings
9.4 Alternatives Analysis
9.5 Environmental Consequences of The Proposed Action
9.5.1 Biological Resources
9.5.2 Water Quality
9.5.3 Air Quality
9.5.4 Cultural Resources
9.6 Minimizing The Consequences of The Proposed Action
9.7 Summary
9.8 References
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
.~9.~
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-5
9-6
9-7
9-16
9-18
9-19
9-20
9-21
9-25
9-25
9-25
9-26
9-27
9-21
9-27
9-30
9-31
9-31
9-33
9-34
9-35
~_ Descri tion o u e
A NCDEM Report, New River Basin, Onslow County,
Application of Coastal Regulation 2N.0404 (C) 2
B NCDEM Water Quality Correspondence 2
C Potential Fish and Wildlife Species Lists for
the Proposed City of Jacksonville Wastewater
Land Treatment Site 2
D Alternative 1 - Preliminary Capital and
0&M Cost Detail 2
0707-07-1105 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
No. pescription
E Duat Power Lagoons - Investigation of
Process Parameters
F B. L. Carlile Reports:
Preliminary Evaluation of an Integrated
Agricultural/Aquacultural System of Land
Treatment of Wastewater
Proposed Cropping Program for Jacksonville
Land Treatment System
G Marketing Survey and Crop Production Estimates
H Review of Effects of Wastewater Spray Irrigation
on the Ecology of Land Treatment Sites
I Groundwater Investigations
J Cost Effectiveness Analysis
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No• Description
3-1 Class GA Groundwater Standards
4-I Largest Industrial Dischargers
4-2 Soils Associations Analysis
4-3 Existing Wilson Bay WWTP Unit Process Sizes
4-4 Raw Influent Characteristics Wilson Bay WWTP
4-5 Infiltration and Inflow Analysis
4-6 Estimated Monthly Infiltration and Inflow
2
2
2
2
3
3
Following
Page
3-2
4-2
4-3
4-7
4-7
4-10
4-11
0707-07-1105 v

TABIf OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Table Following
No. Description Page
4-7 Existing Wilson Bay WWTP Primary Screen Performance 4-12
4-8 Existing Wilson Bay WWTP Secondary
Treatment Performance 4-12
5-1 Future Wastewater loads - Design Criteria 5-4
6-1 ATternative 1 - Capital Cost Estimate 6-11
1~ in/wk Application Rate
6-2 ATternative 1 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-11
1~ in/wk Application Rate
6-3 Alternative 1 - Capital Cost Estimate 6-11
3/4 in/wk Application Rate
6-4 Alternative 1 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-11
3/4 in/wk Application Rate
6-5 Alternative 2 - Wilson Bay WWTP
Conceptual Process Criteria 6-13
6-6 Alternative 2 - Capital Cost Estimate 6-14
6-7 Alternative 2 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-14
6-8 Alternative 3 - Capital Cost Estimate 6-15
6-9 Alternative 3 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-15
6-10 Alternative 4 - Capital Cost Estimate 6-16
6-11 Alternative 4 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-16
6-12 Alternative 5 - Capital Cost Estimate 6-17
6-13 Alternative 5 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-17
6-14 Alternative 6 - Wilson Bay WWTP
Conceptual Process Criteria 6-19
0707-01-1105 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
1
Table Following
No. pescription Paye
6-15 Alternative 6 - Capital Cost Estimate 6-19
6-16 Alternative 6 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-19
6-17 Alternative 7 - Capital Cast Estimate 6-19
6-16 Alternative 7 - 0&M Cost Estimate 6-19
7-1 Cost Effectiveness Analysis 7-1
7-2 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 7-2
7-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of A]ternatives 1-10
8-1 Interceptor and Force Main Modifications
Preliminary Design Criteria 8-5
8-2 Wastewater Transport System -
Preliminary Design Criteria 8-7
8-3 Preliminary Treatment System -
Preliminary Design Criteria 8-8
8-4 Aerated Lagoon - Preliminary Design Criteria 8-10
8-5 Typical Ranges of Soil Infiltration Rates by
Soil Texture and Slope 8-13
8-6 Water Lost During Drainage to Field Capacity 8-14
8-7 Nitrogen Uptake Rates 8-18
8-8 Rainfall Records - Onslow County 8-19
8-9 'Water Budget for the Land Treatment System 8-19
8-10 Summary of Land Area Requirement 8-20
8-11 Land Treatment System - Hydraulic, Organic, and
Nutrient Loading Rates 8-21
0701-07-1105
vii

ABLE OF CONTENT
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Table Following
No. Description Page
8-12 Spray Irrigation Pumps - Preliminary Design Criteria 8-21
8-13 Storage Lagoon - Preliminary Design Criteria 8_22
8-14 Disinfection System - Preliminary Design Criteria 8-23
8-15 Project Components and Implementation Phase 8_25
8-16 Pretreatment System - Preliminary Sampling Schedule 8-2b
8-17 Water Quality Monitoring - Preliminary Sampling
Schedule 8_27
8-18 Proposed Facility Staffing 8_27
8-19 Calculation of Sewer Rates - Alternative 1:
1-1/2 inches/week Application Rate 8=34
8-20 Calculation of Sewer. Rates - Alternative 1:
3/4 inches/week Application Rate 8_3b
9-1 Typical Hydraulic Properties of the Principal
Hydrogeological Units Underlying the Proposed Land
Treatment Site 9_2
9-2 Water Quality of Principal Aquifers g_4
9-3 North Carolina State Water Quality Standards for
Freshwater Classes 9_5
9-4 Water Quality of Southwest Creek, North Carolina 9-5
9-5 Results of Water Quality Sampling Conducted
by Wapora, Inc. 9_5
9-b Soil Series Identified by the Soil Conservation
Service at the Proposed Land Treatment Site 9_6
9-7 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Higher
Plant and Animal Species 9_20
0707-07-1105 viii

TA~,E OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following
No. Qescription Page
1-1 Location Plan 1-3
2-1 Planning Area Boundaries 2-2
4-1 Existing Land Use 4-2
4-2 location of Major Wastewater Facilities 4-6
4-3 Existing Wilson Bay WWTP Layout 4-7
4-4 Existing Wilson Bay WWTP Process Flow Diagram 4-7
4-5 Wilson Bay WWTP Raw Influent Flow 4-7
4-6 Wilson Bay WWTP Raw Influent BODS Loading 4-7
4-7 Wilson Bay WWTP Raw Influent TSS Loading 4-7
4-8 Wilson Bay WWTP Final Effluent 6005 4-12
4-9 Wilson Bay WWTP Final Effluent TSS 4-12
5-1 Projected Land Use - 2010 5-1
5-2 Projected Land Use - 2035 5-1
5-3 Population Projections 5_2
5-4 Flow Projections 5-3
6-1 Alternative 1 6-1
b-2 Alternative 2 6-1
6-3 Alternative 3 6-1
6-4 Alternative 4 6-1
6-5 Alternative 5 6-1
6-b Alternative 6 6-1
0701-07-1105 ix

ABLE OF CONTENT
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following
No. Description page
6-7 Alternative 7 6-1
6-8 Land Treatment Process Schematic 6-5
6-9 Force Main Route and Land Treatment Site Location 6-5
6-IO Alternative 2 - New River Outfall Location Plan 6-13
6-11 Alternative 2 - Process Schematic 6-13
6-12 Alternative 6 - Ocean Outfall - Onslow County 6-18
6-13 Alternative 7 - Ocean Outfall - Carteret County 6-19
8-1 Land Usage at 2,650 Acre Land Treatment Site 8-2
8-2 Existing Transport System Modifications and
Proposed Main Pump Station Location 8-4
8-3 Initial Aerated Lagoon g_g
8-4 Field Capacity Volume 8_14
8-5 Available Spray Irrigation Areas 8-20
8-6 Solid Set System in Forested Area g-21
8-7 Center Pivot System 8-21
9-1 Hydrologic Features 9_1
9-2 Hydrogeologic Cross-Section Through Project Area 9-1
9-3 Wetland Habitats Along the Force Main Corridor
to the Proposed Treatment Site 9-14
9-4 Historic Sites on Land Application Site 9-23
9-5 Location of City Parks 9-25
9-6 Location of County Parks 9-25
9-7 Potential Air Pollution and Odor Receptor 9-25
0707-07-1105 x

TABLE OF CONTENTS
{Continued)
1IST OF PLATES
Plate
Na•
8-1 Project Location
8-2 Land Treatment System - Preliminary Layout
9-1 Location of Wetlands on Land Treatment Site
0707-07-1105 xi

SECT~~N 1.0
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendation

1.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Jacksonville owns and operates the Q.5 mgd Wi 1 son Bay
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The City currently has a population
of approximately 30,000 with wastewater flows averaging 3.6 mgd. The
Wilson Bay plant is a trickling filter facility which at times is not
capable of complying with its monthly effluent discharge permit
requirements.
The available capacity of the Wilson Bay WWTP will soon be exhausted,
flows in 20 years are expected to be 9 mgd on an average basis. ~breover,
water quality concerns in the New River have prompted the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management {DEM) to require the City to relocate
the Wilson Bay WWTP outfall approximately four miles downstream, to Marker
G-47 in Morgan Bay, and to apply much more restrictive effluent quality
limits.
In an effort to identify a cost effective and environmentally sound
solution to the current water quality concerns in the New River and to
provide sufficient treatment capacity for the expected future growth, the
City of Jacksonville embarked on a facilities planning process. The
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this planning process are
contained in this plan.
A key component of the facilities plan was the evaluation of seven
wastewater treatment alternatives, as follows:
1. Land Treatment Only - the pretreatment, storage, and spray
irrigation of all flow at the land treatment site.
2. New River Discharge Only - the treatment of all flow at an
upgraded and expanded Wilson Bay WWTP with discharge to Morgan
Say .
3. Split Flow; Land Treatment and New River Discharge - the
treatment of 4.5 mgd at an upgraded Wilson Bay WWTP with
discharge to Morgan Bay and the treatment of 4.5 mgd at the
land treatment site.
0701-07-1105 1-1

4. Land Treatment with Partial Pretreatment at Wilson bay WWTP
(Separate Transport) - the pretreatment of 4.5 mgd at the
existing Wilson Bay WWTP and transport of effluent to the land
treatment site for storage and spray irrigation. The separate
transport of 4.5 mgd of raw wastewater to land treatment for
pretreatment, storage, and spray irrigation.
5. Land Treatment with Partial Pretreatment at Wilson Bay WWTP
(Combined Transport) - the pretreatment of 4.5 mgd at the
existing Wilson Bay WWTP and transport of effluent blended
with 4.5 mgd of raw wastewater in a single force main to the
land treatment site for pretreatment, storage, and spray
irrigation.
6. Ocean Discharge -the treatment of all flow at an expanded and
upgraded Wilson Bay WWTP with discharge to the Atlantic Ocean.
7. Ocean Discharge with Carteret County - the treatment of all
flow at an expanded and upgraded Wilson Bay WWTP with discharge
to the Atlantic Ocean through an outfall shared with Carteret
County.
The seven alternatives were evaluated according to their net present
worth cost considering both capital and operation and maintenance costs
and their environmental impacts, along with other less significant
criteria. The results, which are shown below indicate that Alternative
1 is the most cost effective and has the least environmental impact.
Therefore, this alternative was selected as the preferred plan.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Initial Final (20 Year) Net Present
Alternative Capital Cost Capital Cost Worth
1` X27,885,100 X43,769,500 1;50,210,000
2 48,371,900 63,505,900 69,300,000
3 49,514,900 65,655,000 72,690,000
4 32,565,100 54,$55,200 58,040,000
5 28,265,900 50,912,700 56,090,000
6 74,491,300 84,496,300 88,210,000
7 62,394,700 72,399,700 76,370,000
" Based on 3/4 in/wk application rate. final 20 year cost would be lower
should the actual application rate be higher.
0707-07-1105 1-2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Summary
Alternative of Impacts~l~
1 +1
2 -7
3 -5
4 +1
5 +1
6 -4
7 -4
No Action -8
~~~ + = Positive Impact
- = Negative Impact
The selected plan involves conveying all wastewater flow to the land
treatment site where it will undergo pretreatment, storage, and spray
irrigation. A map showing the relative locations of the City and the land
treatment site is shown in Figure 1-1. The treatment system will
initially be constructed with a capacity of 6 mgd, which is the expected
10 year flow. The system will subsequently be expanded to 9 mgd capacity.
Preliminary soil infiltration and hydrogeologic investigations were
performed on the proposed land treatment site. These indicated that the
site is favorable for land treatment and that the spray irrigation
hydraulic application rate could range from 3/4 to 1~ inches per week.
From the preliminary investigations, we recommend that the initial spray
irrigation system be sized for 6 mgd at an application rate of 1~ inches
per week. The actual application rate during initial .operation will be
approximately 1 inch per week.
Detailed soil infiltration and hydrogeologic investigations performed
during the design stage, together with a monitoring program conducted '
during the first year of operation, at less than design flow, will more
closely define the application rate. The spray irrigation system can be
expanded, if necessary, to provide the full 6 mgd capacity.
0707-01-1105 1-3

W
a
~ U
LL Z ~ P
N ~ a J
~ ~
z
~ J ~ Z A W
1 .7 O > 1O~II O '' _
~ ~ i 1 J ~ ~ ~ F Q lil W
"~. / ~ ~ 3 N 7 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ W O
~~ l L LL J
~~~ ;~ Y ~R
,~ "~
~ _ 1~
1~ -.
1 ~i ,. ,; , , /1
1 `1 ~ :1 1
_ 1 1 ~.
:, 1 ~ , . a r
~ ~, ~ ' 1 1~1 1 F, ~ ~ i ~, ~ 1 l •1
~ /
/ ~ + ~ 1 ~\ 1
1
' , 1 Ih ~ ~ 1 ~/' 1
a ~ 1
1 ~ , ~ ~~ I W I
1 1 1- 1. t
1 y,1 '` .
1 1 1~i
11 1 t 111
f
~ - r
1
~ ~'•i, 1
- 1. 1 4
1 1
'1 1~
t
. ~""~ 1 ~
1- 1 } '
1 ~ r s 1+. -~ - 1 ~dl ~
Ir
t ~ + 1
1
'q, 1
1 ~ 1'1 I
1 ~ 1 f
\ 1
`h: ' t -
1
r.'lj , 1
~ , ~
~•~ ;t `~' ,111 , .1' ;i
,i.
ll~ '~~-
~~,
~ 1
~~ Z ~
~ // Q
~ I \1 ~I,r 1 ,1 ~~ ~2
..t,. ~i ~ , i / N W
~~
r ,,,.. a a
,\ ~: ~ i ~w
\ `.
~~ a ~
•~ ~
~ r
`~ -~
,~
Z
CC

To ensure that sufficient area is available for the land treatment
system at 9 mgd capacity, we recommend that the City initially purchase
4,400 acres and secure an option to purchase an additional 1,300 acres.
The financial requirements of the selected plan will be substantial,
even though it is the most cost-effective alternative. It is estimated
that, depending on the actual application rate, the typical customer will
pay during the first 10 years of the Planning Period an average of X32.00
to x37.00 per month for wastewater collection and treatment depending on
the final sizing of the land treatment system. The current rate for a
typical customer is approximately X14.00 per month.
f
0701-07-1105 1-4

SECTION 2.0
Introduction

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to develop a facilities plan for
treatment of wastewaters from the City of Jacksonville over the next 20
years - 1990 to 2010. Within this overall goal, there are three
objectives:
1. Provide the City with acost-effective and environmentally
sound wastewater treatment system.
2. Provide a treatment system that has the flexibility to
meet possibly more stringent future regulations.
3. Provide a system that can be easily expanded after the 20
year planning period, or before, should actual wastewater
flows during the planning period exceed projections.
The development of a new 20 year wastewater treatment plan was initiated
by the City a~t this time for two reasons. First, the current treatment
facilities will soon reach their design capacity, and second, the State
is prohibiting further discharges to Wilson Bay, the receiving water for
the existing treatment plant effluent.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
conducted field surveys of the New River in the vicinity of Jacksonville
during 1985 and 1986. The results, published in January 1987 (see
Appendix A), found that eutrophication and fish kills are being caused by
high nutrient loadings to the River. Additional findings of DEM studies
in Wilson Bay -were high sediment oxygen demand and little hydraulic
flushing within the Bay.
The results of these surveys prompted the DEM to take several
actions:
1. Impose a 2.0 mg/L total phosphorus limit on effluent
discharges to the New River upstream of Grey Point.
2. Stop any new or expanded effluent discharges to the New
River at Wilson Bay and upstream.
3. Begin studies to determine a suitable discharge location
for effluent from the Wilson Bay Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP).
070.7-07-1105 2-1

The OEM has stated that the most upstream discharge point would be
in Morgan Bay in the vicinity of Marker G-47, approximately four miles
downstream from the Wiison Bay WWTP. In addition, they have stated that
a discharge at this location would require tertiary levels of treatment
plus nutrient removal.
The potential economic impact to the City of the DEM's intended
actions on discharges to the New River has prompted the City to examine
wastewater treatment alternatives from a new and progressive viewpoint.
Water quality in the New River will continue to be at issue, even after
this project is implemented. Therefore, the selected plan must directly
address the current water quality concerns and have the flexibility to
satisfy potential future water quality issues.
The scope of this study is restricted to wastewater treatment
facilities and any new major interceptors or pumping stations necessary
to transport the wastewater to the treatment facility. The collection
system is not included in this plan.
2.2 PLANNING AREA
The Planning Area approximately follows the Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction of (ETJ) the City; however, some areas outside these limits
will be served. The City of Jacksonville and surrounding areas of Onslow
County were shown in Figure 1-1. The boundary of the Planning Area and
the ETJ are delineated in Figure 2-1.
0107-07-1105 2.2

W
~ JL
.. ~ `,,
_ r * ` ~,~5 ~ u~
- - - ~ .; ~ ~ • ~ , ~ ,./ s rig r r ~~ ~ w
F -~ . w m
c ~ I F'}~[DjT
i 4 r'
~~' i T".o kN 'aa ~ „e ~3~'.: t Z d
~ ...j,
.•
\\
k ~
4 ~ ~ / i7 V
J {{{ TT~~''
, ~ .~ FI * e ..<f~ r ~ ~ (~4 1~g. r' r rl 1.
ii }~ .~
l- ~ _
' Ott .* ~ : f~ ~a^ y~ l ~L / ~ f~ ~ty~ ~~ ~.
~^ I
y
/1 i•
- ~ ~ r A~. /r( ~ql 1~ ~ .l..F
w 1' {{{ j
!.~ y
Tr'i~ ~ ~ , r ~~ 3 sr ,u i~~a y~p'T--:'
L~,
. ~ AF y. -~ ...~ ~~iTE"PT+
i ~~•~ t
y; .
I
:,
o F
~ m ,F ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ I ~~ ~
'_. - ~ r.
1- m W .~ ~1' ~ F •
~~ ¢ ~ `
~ xU Z
Z Wp Z
~ ~¢ Q
O
J V-=i a
I
I ~

SECTION 3.0
Effluent Limitations

3.0 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
3.1 EXISTING LIMITATIONS
The Wilson Bay WWTP currently operates under NPDES Permit No.
N00024121, which expires in July, 1991. The permit contains monthly
average limits of 30 mg/L for BODS and 35 mg/L for TSS, with additional
limits for fecal coliform concentrations and pH.
3.2 EXPECTED LIMITATIONS - NEW RIVER DISCHARGE.
As discussed in Section 2.1, the DEM has stated that the Wilson Bay
WWTP will be subject to very stringent discharge limitations upon NPDES
permit renewal. These severe actions are necessary, according to the DEM,
to stem deteriorating water quality in the New River.
The DEM is not able to establish speculative effluent discharge
limitations in the lower New River Basin without performing specific water
quality stu-dies. These studies are currently in progress fora discharge
in the vicinity of Marker G-47 in Morgan Bay (see Figure 1-1). For the
purposes of this study, the DEM has requested that the following criteria
be established for a discharge to-the New River from the. City:
- Locate the discharge in the vicinity of Marker G-47 in Morgan Bay.
- Effluent BODS limit of 5 mg/L.
- Effluent ammonia limit of 2-3 mg/L.
- Low effluent total nitrogen limit year-round (probably less than 10
mg/L) .
- Low effluent total phosphorus limit (probably less than 2 mg/L).
In addition, other dischargers to the lower New River have reported
that the DEM will impose a chlorine residual limit on their effluents;
therefore, it is assumed that these low residual chlorine limits would
also be included in the renewed Wilson Bay WWTP permit. Correspondence
to and from the DEM relative to effluent quality fora discharge into the
New River is contained in Appendix B.
0701-07-1105 3-1

3.3 EXPECTED LIMITATIONS - LAND TREATMENT '
The DEM does not establish specific concentration or mass limits for
pollutants in the effluent of a land treatment system. The DEM's
approach, outlined in the Proposed Revisions to 15 NCAC 21, dated
March 15, 1988, is similar to that of other states. The approach is to
regulate the impact the system has on the surrounding environment and is
implemented through two criteria.
The first requirement is that the wastewater undergo adequate
pretreatment such that it does not hinder proper operation of the spray
irrigation system. Pretreatment to the equivalent of that provided by a
facultative lagoon is usually adequate.
The second criterion is defined by groundwater quality standards.
In general,. the groundwater standards established by the DEM cannot be
exceeded at the boundary of the site as a result of the application
system. The OEM establishes two boundaries, a compliance boundary and a
review boundary. The compliance boundary is established as 250 feet
outside the waste boundary or 50 feet within the property line, whichever
point is closer to the source. The review boundary is established as the
mid-point between the compliance boundary and the waste boundary. A
violation of groundwater standards at the review boundary would require
some action, such as alteration of facility operation, to prevent further
impact to the. groundwater. More drastic actions, such as clean-up,
recovery, or containment, would be necessary if groundwater standards were
violated at the compliance boundary. The standards applicable to Class
GA groundwaters, which is the class of groundwater underlying the proposed
land treatment site, are listed in Table 3-1.
3.4 EXPECTED LIMITATIONS - OCEAN OUTFALL
As with the discharge to the New River, speculative effluent limits
for a discharge to the Atlantic Ocean can only be established after
conducting a thorough environmental evaluation. The DEM's coastal water
quality regulations require that discharges to the Atlantic Ocean follow
federal regulations, 40 CFR Parts 125.120 through 125.124. These federal
regulations require that ten issues be evaluated in order to establish
0707-07-1105 3-2

TABLE 3-1
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
CLASS GA GROUNDWATER STANDARDS
Parameter
Acrylamide (propenamide)
Alachbr
Aldicarb (TEMlK)
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Brwnoform (tribromwnethane)
Cadmium
Carbofuran
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-Chlorophenol
Chromium
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Col'rform organisms (total)
Color
Copper
Cyanide
2, 4-D (2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid)
1,2-Dibromo~3-Chloropropane
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon-12; Halon)
1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)
1,1-Dichlorcethylene (vinylidene chloride)
1,2-Dichloropropane
P-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene Dioxide)
Dioxin
Dissolved Solids (total)
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin {1-Chlwo-2,&Epoxypropane)
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB; 1,2-Dibromoethane)
Ethylene Gycol
Fluoride
Foaming Agents
0.00001
0.00015
D.009
0.05
1.0
0.0007
0.00019
0.005
0.036
0.0003
2.7 x 10~
250.0
0.3
O.D0019
0.0001
0.05
0.07
1 per 100 ml
15 color units
1.0
0.154
0.07
2.5 x 10's
0.00019
0.00038
0.007
0.00056
0.007
2.2 x 10"10
500
0.0002
0.00354
0.029
0.05 x 10~
7.0
2.0
0.5
From proposed revisions to 15 NCAC 2L.0106-.0114, dated March, 1988.
2 All concentrations in mglL unless noted otherwise.
Concentration, mcl/t.2
0707-07-1105

TABLE 3-1
CLASS GA GRaUNDWATER STANDARDS
(Conilnueti7

Parameter
Gross Alpha Particle Activity
(including radium-226 but excluding
radon and uranium)
Heptachlor
Heptachbr Epoxide
Hexachloroben=ene (perchbroben2ene)
N-Hexane
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Manganese
Mercury
Metadichlorobenlene (1,&Dichlorobenzene)
Methoxychlor
Methylene Chloride (dichloromethane)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK; 2-6utanone)
Nickel
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Orthodichlorobenzene {1,2-Dichloroberuene)
Oxamyl
Paradichlorobenzene (1,4-Dichlorobenzene)
Pentachlorophenol
pH
Radium-226 and Radium-228 (combined)
Selenium
Silver
Styrene (ethenylbenzene)
Sulfate
Tetrachlorcethylene (perchlorcethylene; PCE7
Toluene {methylbenzene)
Toxaphene
2, 4, 5-TP (Silvex)
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichlorcethane (methyl chloroform)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Vinyl Chloride {chloroethylene)
Xylenes (o-, m-, and p-)
Zinc
Concentratbn, ma/LZ
15 pCVi
7.s x 10-~
3.8 x 10'a
0.00002
14.3
0.3
0.05
2.65 x 10~
0.05
0.0011
0.62
0.1
0.005
0.17
0.15
10.0
1.0
a.oo1 e
0.175
0.0018
0.22
6.5 - 8.5 pH units
5 pCi/1
0:01
0.05
1.4 X 10'S
250.0
0.0007
1.0
3.1 X 10~
0.01
0.07
0.2
0.0028
1.5 x 10-5
0.4
5.0
0707-07-1105

that an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment does not occur.
The ten issues are:
1. Nature and quantity of pollutants.
2. Pollutant transport.
3. Composition and vulnerability of the biological
communities.
4. Importance of receiving waters to the biological
community.
5. Existence of special aquatic sites.
b. Potential impact on human health.
7. Impact on existing and potential uses.
8. Applicable requirements of any Coastal Area Management
Plan.
9. Special factors or activities.
10. Marine Water Criteria.
For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that only secondary
levels of treatment would be necessary for a discharge to the Atlantic
Ocean. This is based on the successful operation of many ocean outfalls
along the East Coast with flows treated to secondary levels. Should the
cost effectiveness analysis using secondary treatment demonstrate that
this alternative is not attractive, then further studies to determine the
actual level of treatment would not be warranted.
0707-07-1105 3-3

SECTION 4.0
Current Situatian
,~~ c~/~ ~ ~ SAC ~ ~ v~
O~~ ~~~

sECTlorr s.o
'tfi~astewater Transport anti Treatment Alternatives

6.0 wASTEMATER TRANSPORT AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The discharge location is a key consideration in the selection of
alternatives. Surface water discharge, as previously discussed, requires
a relocation of the outfall to the lower New River or discharge to the
Atlantic Ocean. On the other hand, land treatment systems that indirectly
discharge to groundwater should be considered as a cost-effective
alternative. In all cases, however, every attempt should be made to
utilize the existing treatment facilities, if cost-effective.
The options available to the City for wastewater treatment over the
next 20 years can be summarized in two categories:'
- Upgrade of the Wilson Bay WWTP for discharge to the lower New
River or to the Atlantic Ocean.
- Cand treatment.
The wastewater treatment alternatives investigated in this study, in
addition to regionalization, are seven combinations of the two methods
listed above. The seven alternatives are shown schematically and
described in Figures 6-1 through 6-7. Regionalization is discussed in
Section 6.2.
6.1 OPTIMUM OPERATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
The existing wastewater treatment facilities are not capable of
providing the sole means of treatment during the Planning Period, even
when operated at the optimum level. The Wilson Bay WWTP does not have
sufficient capacity to treat the design year flows. In addition, for the
New River discharge alternatives, the Wilson Bay WWTP is unable to achieve
the BOD5 and nitrogen limits the DEM envisions.
Portions of the existing Wilson Bay WWTP can, however, be used in
conjunction with a plant expansion or with other treatment processes. As
will be seen in subsequent sections, the treatment capacity of the
existing plant is used to the extent possible during the development of
alternatives.
0707-07-1105 6-1

( I
I
I D ~ I
°

I a
~ v~
t I
~ I (
z ~, I
w ~, I I

o LI m I
~ z ~I I
J W ° ~
~

~
~
r- a
~ I
}- I
z Q -
I I
~ '-~ o
~ I I
z ~
~ Q
~
E-- i i
U
Q -
a-
z
I }
E
I

-~ ~ ~ I ~ i
~ w ~ I m 1

I- U
U ~ E

rn

O w
~
N ~
~
o ~
Z
~. o
~- ~
U U
Q

FIGURE 6' 1
H
Z
~" w
a~
~~
tL Q
~w
~ ~
Z ~
ao
~Q
~ -~
a~
OQ
~~
0
~~
Z
W J
~ Q
w~
~O
~ Z
~O
~-
c~

FIGURE 6-2
i-
Z
W
W ~
J z
_1 W
~~
Z Q
O
cn z
Y Q
U ~
Q
to
~w
o F:-
~ ~
I- U
U Q
~-
0
N
N
W
~---
a
Z
W
J
Q

~~
>`
m
L
3 ~
c, v
z~
v ~
m
~~m
~ ~ a.
v a. 0 3
aw y 3
=~3
v~

J
I..~. -~
~ Z
~ ~
F-- to
U Y
U
Q
-~
Q •
m~
Z ~
O~
J
~w
Z
Q ~
~w
O~
J ~
`y a
J =
Q~
~ ~
O=
F-=-
z~
w
~ a.
~~
W
F-

FIGURE 6-3
j----------~
i
I ~ I W
~ O ~
1 a °vs ( ~ V?
I N ~ I WZ
~ W
~ I i =~
z ml I Q
~w
w = '^
~ ~ ~I I o~
~~ o
w o ~~ ~I ~, i ~Z
a
..J Z ,. E I ~ I 3 J
.J W z " ~ ~ tL
Z ~ M vl I 33
~O z W °~ I ~
~ a~
m
~ ~ ~- I ~ I W
Q a- Q ~ m a I E I o~
~~ ~ ~, a~ I m I ~, o
~3
Lew W =~ ~ m 3J
- ~ 3 I a ~ ~, a
O I- J I I ~ o
~-- _~ Q ~- - - - - -1 ° ~
E-- U ~ z
Q W
t~ ,06~ 9a ~' a
~-- S~ b ~ '~ Q ~
O ~'
N w z .
J w CY
w
t.i ~ Q >
OZ w~
Fem.,. ~ ~ w
UY z
U
Q

o
n o,
_
cn) ,
~~ I
m~ o
~I ~ I
JI
Z

W ~
~c
W ~ I o I
_._t ~ ` a
j W ~ ~. _~-..I
Z ~ W
o Q >
~ z Q

U J z
Q ~ ~
7 ~ ~
!L W ~!
O ~- <t
~ J
- U

U
Q r
°
~'m
h ~3
'x ° 3
W
N
.o
6~ ~~a
s~
~~
J
oZ
~o
U X
U
Q
-~
FIGURE 6-4
O }- Z o
Q W -
1- W ~ I-
W ~ Q ~
~ W W ~
}--- ~ ~ ~
Q ~- F-
W
~ ~ Z Q
W Q
~ ~ J ~
~ ~ ~
O
~ O ~
a' to Z
1- Z ~ Q
Q Z
~~ a~
~ ~~
Q wp
m~ ~~
- ~~
z~ o
o ~-
~-
_~ w ~ ~
~~ afl
~ ~
Qw ~s
~ wQ
o~ ~~
~z Z~
~ J Z
W~
}- 1- ~-
li Q Q Q
w
O w
~~
Z ~ ~ W
g `j- ~ °-
~- o ~
~z ~o
a ~.,_.
W Q W
~ 1c ~ F-
~w z~
~ a

z
W
W~
J
7~ W
L `
oQ
~~
U~
Q ~
7 ~
1L W
o ~-
_!
.- U
U tQ
t~
N
w
H
Q
z
W
H
Q
~ ~ - ~

~
~
a
N `
I
~
~ I

I
E S
N
~4

oI I

E

I

0
~m
.N ~ 3
'X v°, 3
W3
,p6.
ti
S~
w
J
J
W ~
OZ
}- O
I- (n
U Y
(~
a
~a
b~
FIGURE 6-5
3
a J J
C~ Z Q
Z N ~
Z_ ~
Q Z Z
~ O
W F'-
~ O Q
0 d (.7
Z N ~
J Q ~
m ~ ~
}-- Q W
~ ~ N
3 O ~ ~
~w °w
}~ a~
aQ
m3 ww
W (' ~
z ~ ~a +-
oQ
~3 ~z
3 0 ~
w
~~ ~~
a Q w Q
o~ ~3
~,; WO
~ ~ ~
~-
~ = cY
1- ~
l~
O
}' w Z
w F-- 4
a
~3 ~
Q w w
w ~- U
~ Q ~
~3 ~

FIGURE 6-6
~ O
~ o pZ
om

Qp
a
~ W
~ o
z n
W ~ W
~
W 0 F-
'"'! Z 'Q O
J ~ ~

z ~
Q
`D
~m D
o

O
W ~. z
d
~
Y z
Q
...~.
~ o-~3
W ...
'_' 'Q
~
U --I ~ 3 w ~
Q ~- Q

--~
Z ~a
Q
t/~ [~ _
~ W ~ 3~
O 1= ~ 0 3

U ~ °' a3
r- o ''
~ W m
N .
.I ~"'
lam- ;
O W Z
0
Z ~t
}-
~ Q J
}
- W
U U ~
Q ~
--~

FIGURE 6-7
H
Z
W
W ~
-~ Z
-J W
~~
Z Q
O
~ Z
Y Q
U -~
Q a-
~w
O ~_-
~ ~
_~ {~
U Q
.--
O
N

w
>_
t`
Q
Z
w
Q
r ,.~
3 '"
c
. ~
o °
w U
:«- c
c o ~ •-
o a~ o m
Q O i -C
s U
-v ''
a~ °
.om~
~ ~~
v
a°3
w3
E
v~
J
~ ~
O>
Z
~ O
U Y
U
Q
O ~
~ Z Z
~W~
CVO
~ 0
=W~
~~~
Z w
QO ~
O Q
WW U
~~_
z~
~= 3
X U
w~~
~~~
~ a
~~ ~
03
J ~J
~ ~ J
J ~" Q
J ~' F~-
Q~~
~~O
OQ Z
~. m Q
wZ=
~ O (,~
Q J O
w~~
~ _
~ ~

6.2 RE6IONALIUTIOM
A regional wastewater treatment system would be economically
-attractive due to the significant population surrounding the Planning
Area. .Camp Lejuene currently provides almost 4 mgd of treatment capacity
through several facilities, however, they also face the same issues as
the City regarding surface water discharge. Onslow County does not
provide sewer service to most of its residents. Wastewater treatment is
provided by numerous private on-site systems and package plants, many of
which do not operate properly. With the expected stringent surface water
discharge requirements and the poor-draining soils in many areas, the need
for a regional system appears to exist.
The City has made numerous efforts to gain participation by Camp
Lejuene in a regional system. A copy of the preliminary analysis of
alternatives and letters inviting participation were sent to~base planning
officials. Camp Lejuene officials were invited and participated in a site
visit conducted by the City to two land treatment facilities. Camp
Lejuene officials showed interest in at least partial participation in a
regional system. However, they recently responded in writing to the City
that they will not be able to participate in a system at this time due to
financial constraints.
Onslow County recently evaluated wastewater disposal alternatives.
The study, prepared by Hazen b Sawyer, P.C., and dated January, 1987,
recommended a new system of interceptors and treatment plants at a cost
of 556.6 million over three phases and 20 years. The citizens rejected
this plan through a bond referendum, so the County has no near-term plans
for providing wastewater treatment facilities. The City has attempted to
keep County officials informed of its wastewater treatment studies by
providing copies of significant documents and invitations to key meetings.
Some of the growth expected in the City of Jacksonville area may
occur outside the Planning Area boundary. Therefore, it is planned that,
should the land treatment alternative be selected, those in the County in
proximity to the force main may tap into the system.
0707-07-1105 6-2

6.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - LAND TREATMENT ONLY
6.3.1 Description
The land treatment concept is the application of wastewater to the
land at a controlled rate to achieve treatment through natural biological,
physical, and chemical reactions in the soil. The land treatment process
can take three forms:
- Slow Rate,
- Rapid Infiltration,
- Overland flow.
Slow rate land treatment involves the application of wastewater
through sprinkler or surface distribution in furrows at the rate of 0.5
to 2.5 inches per week. Rapid infiltration is typically employed by
flooding a basin at the rate of 4 to 100 inches per week. With overland
flow, the wastewater is applied to the tops of slopes then collected at
the bottom. This latter method is best suited for sites with relatively
impermeable soils.
The rapid infiltration and overland flow methods were not included
as alternatives in this study. The soils in this area are not
sufficiently permeable to permit the high application rates necessary with
rapid infiltration. Also, groundwater quality impacts were of concern
because of the relatively fast travel through the soil column under
anaerobic conditions. The overland flow method presented a concern as to
the impact to surface water quality.
The slow rate method was selected as an alternative for the City of
Jacksonville because of its compatibility with the soil permeability
typically found in this region and the high degree of treatment exerted
by the soil system. Surface water and groundwater quality can be assured
by a properly designed and operated slow rate system.
Sprinkler and surface distribution were considered with the slow rate
concept. Due to the relief of the ground surface at the proposed site,
surface distribution would not be feasible. Therefore, a sprinkler system
was selected for the land treatment alternative.
0707-07-1]05 f_3

The City initiated a search in early 1988 to identify passible sites
for land treatment. In April 1988, the City identified two potential land
treatment sites. Site 2 was approximately 2,650 acres in area located
south of Catherine Lakes and was owned entirely by the International Paper
Company. Site 2 was approximately 850 acres in area located east of
Richlands and consisted of five major and seven minor tracts of land, all
under separate ownership. The two sites were inspected by Dr. Bob Rubin
of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service in May, 1988. It was
concluded, based on a walk-over of each site and the taking of numerous
hand auger borings that Site 1 displayed good potential for land
treatment, while Site 2 was a poor candidate.
Site 1 was a relatively secluded tract, with few dwellings adjacent
to its property line. This would allow maximum use of the land for
treatment. The soils on the site were moderately well draining and the
topography was gentle, which would allow irrigation on most of the site.
Because Site 2 was composed of so many tracts, acquisition of the
entire site could be difficult. Site 2 was also surrounded by many
dwellings so buffer zones would significantly reduce the available
treatment area. Moreover, the 850 acre site was obviously not large
enough to treat the design flow from the City. Major portions of Site 2
appeared to be in depressional areas with no natural outlets. These areas
would pond water and be unsuitable as receiver sites for wastewater.
As a result of the findings described above, Site 2 was eliminated
from further investigation. Site 1, located in Figure 1-1, was subjected
to a more detailed evaluation.
The site selected as most feasible for the land treatment alternative
(Site 1) is a 2,650 acre tract owned by the International Paper Company
and located approximately 8 miles northwest of the City. The site is a
broad, gently rolling ridge-top with loblolly pine planted in the tree
farm mode of operation over the entire site. These planted tree stands
range in age from the seedling stage to the 15-year stage. Since
approximately 50 percent of the site area was recently clear-cut, the site
lends itself well to a combination of woodland and agricultural wastewater
application.
0707-01-1105 6-4

However, as is discussed in detail in Section 8.0, further studies
appear to indicate that more than the 2,650 acre will be needed to treat
the full 9 mgd, 20 year design flow. Additional tracts of land adjacent
to this site will have to be included in the project.
6.3.2 Conceptual Plan
A simplified process schematic of the land treatment system is
presented in Figure 6-8. The location of mayor system components are
shown in Figure 6-9. The preliminary process criteria and the supporting
information for this alternative are contained in Section 8.0.
The raw wastewater from the Planning Area will be pumped from a new
pump station, the Main Pump Station (MNPS). The wastewater will be pumped
approximately 9 miles directly to the land treatment site. The MNPS site
was chosen because it is located on an abandoned railroad right-of-way
owned by the City and is therefore close to the proposed force main route.
The Wilson Bay WWTP, Sherwood Pump Station (SWPS}, and Hargett Street Pump
Station (RSPB) sites were evaluated as alternative locations for
collection and pumping of the wastewater. It was determined that pumping
from the MNPS site was more economical than pumping from the Wilson Bay
WWTP, SWPS, or HSPS sites. In 10 years,. an expansion of the MNPS pumping
capacity and the construction of a booster pump station will be required
to handle the 20 year flows.
The force main will be 36 inches in diameter and will be adequate to
handle expected flows until the year 2035. The conceptual hydraulic
design is based on a C factor of 140; therefore, the manufacturer's C
rating must be 150. This will be accomplished by using a fiberglass
reinforced plastic pipe such as Hobas or a polyethylene-lined ductile iron f
pipe. The installation of a less expensive pipe, such as cement-lined
ductile iron or prestressed concrete cylinder pipe, which have a lower C
factor, would necessitate the construction of a booster station initially.
The existing collection system will have to be modified for this €
alternative. The force mains from Brookview and Henderson Drive Pump
Stations (BVPS and HDPS) will be extended to MNPS with one 24-inch force
main. The SWPS will be abandoned and a new 100 gpm pump station
constructed at the old SWPS site. This station will pump into the
0707-07-1105 b-5

FIGURE a-8
r
~ N
a o
~ J
W
~ ~
Z
O
0
a
~.!
W
1-
a
w
4
t-
2
W ~
~a
J
LL ~
wa
W F.-
2 U y
O ~' Z
Z
N ~b = ~ F-
U U U
J
a

¢~ w~
c~ z
¢ ~
LL
N
2
O
O
C7
J
W
a
O
f-
J
Q
WU
~ vi
a
~
U
W
m ~
N ~''

N
2
Q
W
H
Q

W
H
3 ~
a a
Q 3
x U
t- F-
e~r W
~C t W ~
~ W
Wj e
~ r

W
~
F"' ~ ~
~ W
W
~ ~W~ W
ao
"' 2 V c
LL J
LL ~-
oR a

Z
CG
..,.

°-~ ~-.. U
`1':wr R = ~ _ N
' 1~f i ~ ~ 1 ~ >7 ) " ' l •LL < ~~' • f. • > ~ r a 1 Y ~-S.~ N, `/' ~ F Q W -~+ #
l `+~ 11
'%'•~'s~.: . :.° ~ .r m 1.~ iii' ` ) I ~ ,~ ~ R f„ ,
.,., jl.' _ r~ ~ ~ . ~
' O ~ Fk
~. '
C ~ ~ R rc, ,, •:.ti .... l W •i l~ ~ r
.\ I, a ,~ l
. ~~ ., 1/ L ~ e `~Y
~ ~f ~ ~~ -~~tii ~ r
..
C1 ~. ~ ~
} r :.
., \~_.. ~c 1 . r a
pp ;,
i. .. I~ -
~~ - ~ ~
~;l)
• I
• _ !
~; ~ 1 1 ! /r
-• ~
.~ w
I , \r ~ '.
~ ~ .. F. .. ' V N ~ j. :~._ ter.-_ ~.... , ~~ ~ ~ .~' Fj1, .._..` r` .ti 1."''"_y
'// r
} ~ ~
1, ,. ~(
- •
_. - ,
\\ 1
..
~ _
(~I " , _
~' • ! I' .1
s ~ ~ ~ Ill ,. ' ~ . ; s d ;, ~ - ~~, - ~
'DUI Y!~. d t' •il / ( S°~ ° 1

proposed 24-inch force main extending to the MNPS. Anew 1,100 gpm pump
station will be constructed at the Wilson Bay WWTP site. The Wilson Bay
Pump Station {WBPS) will discharge into a proposed 12-inch force main that
will tie into the existing 18-inch force main extending to the Hargett
Street Pump Station (HSPS). The HSPS will be abandoned and a 48-inch
gravity line will be constructed to the MNPS. The Brinson
Creek/Georgetown Pump Station (BGPS) discharge will be connected directly
into the force main to the land treatment site.
Considering that additional land for treatment of the year 2035 flow
exists in the vicinity of the 2,650 acre site, the sizing of the force
main for year 2035 flows is prudent. Moreover, the pipe size required to
convey the 20 year flow would be the same to convey the year 2035 flow,
bath 3b-inch diameter. The installation of two smaller force mains, one
30-inch initially to meet the 10 year flow, has an advantage from an odor
control standpoint because of the higher velocities possible during low
and average flow conditions. However, the near doubling of the force main
cost does not make it an attractive alternative. Therefore, construction
of a 36-inch force main initially is the best plan.
The long force main and warm wastewater conditions make the
production of sulfides and other odorous compounds almost certain.
Therefore, odor control is an essential component of the land treatment
design. Typically for a 9 mgd system, the treatment of hydrogen sulfide
~-
in the gas phase is more economical than adding chemicals directly to the
wastewater. In this case, the lower level of energy input in the
pretreatment system and the uncertainty of sulfide concentrations point
to an alternate approach. With this in mind, the following strategy for
odor control was developed for the land treatment alternative to achieve
the lowest overall cost:
- Initially construct a low cost chemical station to feed an
oxidizing compound, such as chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, or
ferric chloride, directly into the force main to control aqueous
sulfides.
- Design in the provision to construct, at a later date, a
preaeration system with two-stage wet scrubbing of the off-gas
prior to the aerated lagoons.
0)07-07-1105 6-6

- Should chemical requirements for sulfide control at the force
main exit be prohibitive, construct a preaeration system and
cease or curtail the chemical feed to the force main.
It is recommended that hydrogen peroxide be fed to the force main
initially. This chemical has been found to result in the lowest operating
cost if levels of aqueous sulfides below 0.4 mg/L after chemical addition
are not necessary, as should be the case with this alternative. The
facilities will be constructed based on a 9 mgd capacity, as it is not
cost effective to phase this system.
The raw wastewater will pass through a bar screen and grit tank prior
to undergoing biological pretreatment. The. bar screen will remove most
of the plastic material and rags which may interfere with the aerator and
sludge pumping operations. The grit tank will remove inert material which
would collect in the aerated lagoons and interfere with sludge
stabilization and would necessitate more frequent sludge removal. These
facilities will be initially constructed for 9 mgd capacity.
Pretreatment of the wastewater is necessary for proper operation of
the spray irrigation system. Facultative lagoons have proved adequate for
this purpose in smaller systems in operation. The use of facultative
lagoon treatment for this project would require a lagoon of over 260 acres
in surface area. The cost to construct a lagoon of this size, considering
that it must be lined, is prohibitive. To reduce the size of the
pretreatment system, an aerated lagoon design was investigated. By adding
air to the lagoon system, soluble carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) is removed ~
quickly, allowing a much smaller detention time. A drawback with the
traditional aerated lagoon has been the disposition of the solids
generated by cell synthesis. The solids would settle in a polishing pond,
undergo anaerobic digestion, then float to the surface, which is a
nuisance. The concept of dual-power, multi-cell aerated lagoons solves
this problem. The concept is a completely-mixed cell for soluble CBOD
removal followed by three partially-mixed cells for solids settling and
digestion. The partial mixing releases the gases produced by digestion
resulting in minimal solids floatation and provides aerobic conditions in
the upper layer of the lagoon. The partially mixed cells are then
periodically dredged of stabilized sludge every one to five years. The .
0707-07-1105 6-7

sludge can be applied to the land in liquid form through subsurface
injection.
The multi-cell lagoon concept is successfully employed in many
treatment systems in South Carolina. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., conducted site
visits and reviewed full-scale data of the 3.4 mgd Georgetown, SC plant
and the two North Myrtle Beach, SC plants of 3.4 and 2.1 mgd capacities.
A process analysis of the North Myrtle Beach plants is contained in
Appendix. E.
The multi-cell lagoon concept was selected for the pretreatment
system used in this project. Performance is estimated to be better than
that of a facultative lagoon. Each train of the aerated lagoon will have
four cells. The first cell will have a detention time of two days and
the remaining three will be one day each for a total detention time of
five days. The first cell will be installed with 30 Hp/mg of aerator
power and each of the three subsequent cells with 5 Hp/mg. The ability
to introduce flow to or remove flow from any one cell is important to the
design. The lagoon will be lined with a synthetic liner or one foot of
clay material to achieve less than 1x10 cm/sec permeability. Initially,
two trains will be constructed to treat 6 mgd. After 10 years, a third
train will be constructed to treat the expected 20 year flow of 9 mgd.
The sludge production from the aerated lagoons is estimated to range
between 500 and 1,000 tons per year of dry solids at a concentration of
4 percent. For design purposes, the higher value will be used. At this
rate, 3 million gallons of sludge per year will require disposal initially
and- 6 million gallons sludge per year will be produced at the design flow
of 9 mgd. At an application rate of 40,000 gallons per acre per year,
approximately 150 acres will be needed for sludge disposal at 9 mgd.
Initially, for the 10 year sludge flows, 100 acres will be required for
disposal. A 190 acre area will be designated for sludge application. A
dredge will be purchased to pump the sludge from the lagoons, and will be
sized so that 6 million gallons could be dredged in at least 30 8-hour
days. The sludge will be directly injected into the soil. The
application will occur during a 30 to 45 day period in the fall, between
crop cycles. An existing 2,000 gallon sludge application vehicle and a
new 4,000 gallon sludge application vehicle will be able to land apply
0707-07-1105 6-8

the 10 year sludge production. After 10 years the 2,000 gallon vehicle
will be abandoned and one new 2,200 gallon and one new 4,OOfl gallon sludge
application vehicle will be purchased to handle the 20 year sludge
production.
Storage of the pretreated wastewater prior to spray irrigation is
necessary during periods of substantial rainfall and cooler temperatures
when the incoming wastewater flow exceeds the available application rate.
Water balance calculations using the most severe annual rainfall period
in the past ten years. indicate that 30 days of storage is adequate. This
detention time would be achieved by constructing a lagoon of 270 million
gallon capacity. The storage lagoon will be constructed in two phases.
A lagoon of 180 million gallons in volume will be constructed initially.
After 10 years, a lagoon of 90 million gallons will be constructed. The
lagoons will have 11.5 feet of liquid depth with 3 feet of freeboard.
The ponds will be lined with a synthetic liner or one foot of clay
material to achieve less than 1 x 106 cm/sec permeability.
The DEM requires disinfection of the effluent prior to spray
irrigation. Thus, the effluent from the storage pond will be disinfected
using chlorine prior to spray irrigation. The State also requires 10
minutes contact time at peak flow when disinfecting with chlorine.
Therefore, the contact tanks will be sized for 30 minutes of detention
time at average flow, which. should provide a minimum of 10 minutes
detention time at peak flow. The chlorine feed system will be sized to
feed as much as 10 mg/L chlorine at peak flow. The facilities will be
constructed for a capacity of 9 mgd initially.
The disinfected effluent will be pumped to spray fields throughout
the site. Approximately 1,285 acres of land will be used for spray
irrigation on the 2,fi50 acre site. This includes the necessary buffer
zones around the property boundaries and all streams, marshes, and
drainage channels.
A site evaluation of the 2,650 acre tract was conducted for Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., by Dr. B. L. Carlile, a Certified Professional Soil
Scientist and recognized expert on land treatment systems in North
Carolina. Dr. Carlile evaluated the hydraulic (infiltration rate) ~;
organic, nutrient, and salt loading to the site and found that an annual .
0707-07-1105 5-9

average application rate of 1} inches per week could be applied to the
site. The evaluation was based on a mix of pine tree forests and coastal
bermudagrass and earn crops. At a rate of 1} inches per week over 1,545
acres of spray irrigation area, the entire 20 year design flow from the
Planning Area could be applied.
Subsequent hydrogeological evaluations identified a possible
hydraulic limitation in the ability of the water table aquifer to accept
the full 1} inches per week application rate. The results of the
hydrogeologic study are not definitive because of short duration field
observations; however, it was concluded that the site appears feasible for
land treatment and that the allowable annual average application rate may
be as low as 3/4 inches per week. The site does contain the relief and
the upper soil horizon characteristics to indicate that a rate of 1#
inches per week may be possible. At 9 mgd and a 1} inches per week
application rate, approximately 3,075 acres of total land would be
required: For the 3/4 inches per week application rate at 9 mgd, it is
estimated that 5,fi50 acres of total land would be required.
The following implementation plan was developed for this alternative
to ensure that adequate land would be used for spray irrigation without
constructing unneeded facilities:
- Initially purchase 4,400 acres of land and an option for 1,300
acres of additional land. This will ensure the availability of
land for the worst case 3/4 inch per week scenario.
- Initially construct facilities required to irrigate 6 mgd, the
10 year flow, at 1} inches per week. This corresponds to 1,030
acres of spray irrigation area. At initial flows, the actual
application rate will be approximately 1 inch per week.
- During the first year of operation, determine the actual
application rate for the site through field monitoring.
- Expand the spray irrigation capacity as required to process the
6 mgd, 10 year design flow, based on the actual application
rate.
- After 10 years, expand the system to treat 9 mgd at the actual
application rate.
0707-07-1105 6-10

A more detailed explanation of the implementation program is contained in
Section 8.3.
6.3.3 preliminary Colt Estimate
A summary of the capital and annual operation and maintenance (0&M)
cost estimates for the 1~ inches per week application rate are presented
in Tables 6-1 and b-2. Tables 6-3 and 6-4 present the capital and annual
0&M costs for the 3/4 inch per week application rate. A detailed
breakdown of these costs are presented in Appendix D. All costs are in
1989 dollars. The cost effectiveness analysis and comparison of
alternatives will be performed using the 3/4 inch per week costs, since
it must be determined that this alternative is preferred even under worst
case conditions.
The engineering cost is a lower percentage of the construction cost
with land treatment than with a conventional wastewater treatment plant,
since the total cost includes some items which require no engineering,
such as land acquisition, and includes items, such as earthen lagoons,
which do not require the detailed design effort associated with a highly
mechanical system.
6.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 - NEW RIVER DISCHARGE ONLY
6.4.1 Description
Alternative 2 entails tfie continued discharge of all wastewater
effluent from the Planning Area to the New River. As discussed in
Section 3.2, the DEM has outlined expected effluent requirements for any
further discharges to the New River. These expected requirements include
relocation of the discharge downstream to Morgan Bay and low GODS, ammonia,
and total nitrogen limits. All renewed permits will have a 2 mg/L total
phosphorus limit.
The treatment processes currently employed at the Wilson Bay WWTP
are not capable of achieving these very stringent limits. Moreover, the
existing plant has only a 4.5 mgd capacity which is one-half of the
required 9 mgd average flow capacity for the Planning Period. The total
nitrogen and ammonia limits can only be met on a year-round basis by using
either a 5-stage biological nutrient removal (BNR) process, such as
0707-07-1105 6-11

TABLE 6-1
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 1
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
1-1/2 INM/K APPLICATION RATE
ESTIMATED COST
CONSTRUCTION REPLACE- SALVAGE
ITEM INITIAL YEAR 10 MENT VALUE
Collection System Mods S
Main Pump Station
Booster Pump Station
Force Main
Preliminary Treatment
Aerated Lagoons
Sludge Disposal
Storage Lagoon
Chlorination 8 Effluent Pumping
Spray Irrigation System
Land Acquisition
Equipment
Support Facilities
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
25% CONTINGENCY
SUBTOTAL
10°6 ENGINEERING
877,500 S (470,000)
7$5,600 S 105,300 (330,000)
579.200 (390,000)
5,729,300 (3,330,000)
421,800 {40,000)
1,838,800 913,300 (840,000)
326,000 270,000 (140,000)
2,223,500 t,t49,300 (990,000)
672,700 58,000 (130,000)
3,353,600 1,726,200 S 295,000 (1,160,000)
2,770.000 (2,770,000)
561,300
720,000 (200,000)
20,280,100 4,801,300 295,000 (10,790,000)
5,070,000 1,200,300 73,800 (2,710,000)
25,350,100 6,001,600 368,800 (13,500,000)
2,535,000 600.200 36,900 (1,350,000)
PROJECT TOTAL S 27,$85,100 S 6,601,800 S 405,700 S

TABLE 6-2
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 1
OEM COST ESTIMATE
1-1/21NiWK APPLICATION RATE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
ITEM INITIAL YEAR 10 YEAR 20
Electricity
Raw Wastewater Pumping S 53,400 S 71,200 S 106,800
Aerated Lagoons 267,600 267,600 / 399,700 399,700
Spray Irrigation Pumping 72,600 96,800 145,200
Chemicals
Odor Control 133,000 178,000 267,000
Disinfection 41,000 54,800 82,200
Grit Disposal 15,000 20,000 30,000
Labor (excluding crop production) 265,000 295,000 340,000
Maintenance Materials 50,000 50,000 50,000
Laboratory Supplies 5,000 5,000 5,000
Crop Production (includes labor) 166,200 221,600 331,400
O&M TOTAL S 1,068,800 t1,260,000/1,392,t00 S 1,757,300

TABLE 6-3
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 1
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
3141NJWK APPLICATION RATE

ITEM CONSTRUCTION
INITIAL YEAR 3
YEAR 10 REPLACE-
MENT SALVAGE
VALUE
Collection System Mods S 877,500 3 (470
000)
Main Pump Station
Booster Pump Station 785,600 S 105,300 ,
(330,000)

Force Main
5,729,300 579,200 (390,000)
(3
330
000)
Preliminary Treatment 421,800 ,
,
(40 000)
Aerated Lagoons
Sludge Disposal 1,838,800
326,000 913,300
270
000 (840,000)

Storage Lagoon
2,223,500 ,
1,149,300 (140,000)
(990
000)
Chlorination 3 Effluent Pumping 672,700 58,000 ,
(130
000)
Spray Irrigation System 3,353,600 S 3,489,800 3,551,100 S 590,000 ,
(2,830,000)
Land Acquisition 2,770,000 650,000 (3,420,000)
Equipment
Support Facilities 561,300
720,000 143,800
118,300 287,500
236,700 (160,000)
(400,000).
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
° 20,280,100 4,401,900 7,150,400 590,000 (13
470
000}
25
~ CONTINGENCY 5,070,000 1,100,500 1,787,600 147,500 ,
,
(3,360,000)
SUBTOTAL
10°~ ENGINEERING 25,350,100
2,535,000 5,502,400
550,200 8,938,000
893,800 737,500
73,800 {16;850,000},
(1,680,000)
PROJECT TOTAL S 27,865,100 i 6,052,600 Z 9,831,800 i 811,300 S (18,530,000)

TABLE 6-4
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 1
OAM COST ESTIMATE
3i4 INM/K APPLICATION RATE
ITEM INITIAL YEAR 10 YEAR 20
Electritity
Raw Wastewater Pumping Z 53,400 Z 71,200 S 106,800
Aerated Lagoons 267,600 267,600/ 399,700 399,700
Spray Irrigation Pumping 72,600 96,800 ta5,200
Chemicals
Odor Gontro! 133,000 178,000 267,000
Disinfection 41,000 54,$00 82,200
Grit Disposal 15,000 20,000 30,000
Labor (excluding crop production) 335,000 425,000 530,000
Maintenance Materials 75,000 75,000 75,000
Laboratory Supplies 5,000 5,000 5,000
Crop Production (includes labor) 313;200 418,300 626,500
OSM TOTAL S 1,310,800 Z 1,611,700/ 1,743,800 3 2,267,400

8ardenpho, or a conventional nitrification/denitrification process. The
low BODS limit requires the use of sand filters to remove effluent solids
which exert a BOD demand.
The 5-stage BNR process requires approximately the same volume of
aeration tankage as the conventional nitrification/denitrification
process, which is approximately 16 to 18 hours of detention time for
year-round nitrogen removal. However, the 5-stage process utilizes
significantly less power and it does not have the chemical requirements
of the conventional process. Since a portion of the raw influent BOD is
consumed in the anaerobic and anoxic cells of the 5-stage process, then
less oxygen is required in the oxic cell thereby reducing aeration costs
(the most significant cost of operating an activated sludge system).
Also, the conventional process requires methanol addition as a BOD source
for denitrification, With the 5-stage BNR process the raw wastewater is
the BOD source for denitrification. Consequently, it is evident that the
5-stage BNR process is the most economical method to remove ammonia and
total nitrogen to low levels on a year-round basis.
The DEM has selected Marker G-47 in Morgan Bay as an estimated
~ location for a new discharge to the New River. This location is
approximately four miles downstream of the Wilson Bay WWTP and would
require effluent pumping and the construction of an outfall (see Figure
1-1).
The existing wet stream treatment processes at the Wilson Bay WWTP
are of little use in reducing the construction requirements of the
upgraded and expanded plant. The existing plant does not utilize primary
clarifiers, only fine screens. The use of primary clarifiers is
recommended with an activated sludge process. The existing biofilter is
not compatible with the biological nutrient removal process since it
removes BOD needed for denitrification. The existing secondary clarifiers
are shallow (only 9 feet deep) and are not designed to return large
amounts of activated sludge. The existing plant was not designed nor were
its treatment units laved out for expansion. Therefore, it would not be
practical to utilize the existing grit removal or chlorine contact tank
capacity. Essentially, a completely new wet stream process must be
constructed. The available land for expansion is minimal. Moreover, much
0707-07-1105 b-12

of the land available appears to be of poor quality soil which may
necessitate the installation of piles, bulkheads, and fill.
The existing solids handling units could, however, be utilized with
the upgraded and expanded plant. The existing. anaerobic and aerobic
digesters could process the 10 year sludge production without constructing
additional digesters initially. The existing gravity thickener would be
adequate to process the primary sludge production throughout the Planning
Period. The sludge dewatering beds could be used for sludge cake storage,
since the existing surface area is not adequate for drying of the expected
sludge quantities and 1 and i s not ava i 1 abl a to expand the beds . Anew
dewatering method would need to be employed to replace the drying beds.
A location plan of the treatment plant and outfall under this
alternative is shown in Figure 6-10.
6.4.2 Conc~tual Process Criteria
Conceptual process criteria for the major unit processes at the b mgd
and 9 mgd plant flows under this alternative are listed in Table 6-5. A
process schematic is presented in Figure b-11.
Phasing of the construction was investigated for this alternative.
It was determined that on a net present worth basis there was a cost
advantage to phasing. Initially, the wet stream processes wil] be
constructed to treat the expected 10 year flow of 5 mgd and will be
divided into two trains. In year 10, a third train will be constructed
to treat the expected 20 year flow of 9 mgd.
Initially, the raw wastewater will be screened and grit will be
removed prior to entering two 80 ft diameter primary clarifiers. The
effluent from the primary clarifiers will then undergo secondary treatment
in a 5-stage activated sludge system of approximately 7.54 million gallons
in total volume divided into two trains. The wastewater will undergo CBOD
removal, nitrification, and denitrification in this process. The mixed
liquor from the activated sludge system will be settled in two 95 ft
diameter secondary clarifiers. The secondary effluent will enter two 1000
ft2 sand filters, then be disinfected with chlorine in two 0.08 MG contact
tanks. Dechlorination of the final effluent will be achieved through the '
addition of sulfur dioxide. The final effluent will be pumped via a
0707-01-1105 6-13

,O \\ ..~1 rl ~ 4 -'__`._ 'Cyr. ~• ~:i ., __
.m ~ .. ~ ~. 111 ~ c ~~VVVr. ~~~ ~-~ _ . l~,i
C1 _ ~ a ..~f/rr~10 f;L' V J2 ~4's
. ,~ _ (~ J
_ ~ ( ,, J 2 ,¢,,~/
o+u,a r t p '
taut\° ~ ~_ +_. ~ '-~. (/ ~r. - fr.:
\ LL r / to ~
v. rp.crp O A.- cr ~ y -- (\z
;,r.,,~~ .. ~ Oil /'14 ~ .~.
~.
O y~ c' / \ \
/ =`'~ ~
~ ~ ~ C ~~. .r'~ .gym, /.:~ ~a ~~.~~W~j\~~\\
;w)?:', -~~•'• ~j., ~~~~ ,r~.r ~'/ r,=" I i t,,: .oi~uSr~~w Y1Yr~
,~„encM lae asiprurd / >~ ~,
~~ /` = _ 0
r , // ~ ~~ ie (~
"` ` - i-
~~~:-/-~ r l i ° +~vt7)\~~'b-w •-'/ /, ~'~ lwl ^ sip
r a'•>4~ ~.>o ~+( ~I t' l.aVtrO ~. a (."l/~I ~- 'l~, v ~41':
jv ~ ~•'~: ~ -.~ + ~.J - l.± ~ _+' _ / f• _..;)• a i1~'11°
1 U ~vr' ~ / ~ i r ~r ~.. _, j * ~(~. t.~°P~p'y ~ +•j'.1
/ ~ 4y r ~ `f sM7efi -1 f r'
J/r s ~ .9~_f ~aC C. - ~ •, J, ,Wqp,. ...~-..... wl ~~r~~ 1:
~n , ~:~ X98 \ _a _j'_:.
~ ~~~ ~ I, ~ ^. `/ yea: stn .~.~~ ; ~./T/ ~a~.~T;
~;ti~, ~ / R `~v~( ~at..• ~~' ~' r/~~ 'i .~f.~ 11) •' '~'~; vaS va~ll r~ ~~•r
r• ~ '~~~ !fit V. ~^~~ ~~-"/ r ~ +tC~ .~r9•pp r:~u.wotan,oa'J:., ''a~
)~,I~r~r,'y i I -: \\~J/~"v- ~rf ~•f fst wel ` ) rrY -' ~~,~ ;y~ '}..
1>~ -'I ~t 0 r.. ~ k~` r~0 o;/.r',' ~ I, •-1 ~H~ ~Y~ir ~a'~ _ K.
"~ ::S;Cv';=:'.t, c.- ^ F w`0 ~'' ~~ ° ~r ~ mod, a _ •K~. ~.

TABLE 6-S
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
2a1 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 2 • WILSON BAY WWTP
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS CRITERIA
MAXIMUM MONTH CONDITIONS
Year 10 Ysar ZO
a mgd ti mgd
Plant Irfluent
Influent Flow, mgd -Average 6.0 9.0
- Maximum Month 7.5 11.3
Influent TSS, Ib/day 11,000 16,500
Influent BOD, Ib/day 11,000 16,500
Primary Clarifiers '
No. of Unfts 2 3
Diameter Each, ft. 80 80
Overflow Rate, gpd/ft~ 790 818
Activated Sludge
Total Volume, MG 7.54 11.3
MLSS, m~/L 2,133 .2,129
HRT, hrs. 24 24
SRT, days ZO 20
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Un""its 2 3
Diameter Each, ft. 95 95
Surface Overflow Rate, gpd/tt~ 552 571
Solids Flux, Ib/day/ft2 .19.1 ~ 19.8
Filter
No. of Units 2 3
Surface Area Each, ft2 1,000 1,000
Overflow Rate, gpmlft2 2.7 2.8
Chlorine Contact Tank
No. of Units 2 3
Volume Each, MG 0.08 0.08
Detention Time, min 30 29
Dechlorination
SuBur Dioxide Usage, Iblday
Average 150 225
Maximum Day 450 675
Peak Hour 675 1,015
'Based on plant influent flow.
0707-07-i 105

TABLE 6-5
(Continued)
Year 10 Year 20
6 mgd 9 mgd
Gravity Thickener
No. of Units
Surface Area Each, sq. it.
Solids Loading, Ib/da /ft2
Overflow Rate, gpd/1t~
Flotation Thickener
No. of Units
Surface Area Each, ft2
Solids Loading, lb/hr/ft2
Hydraulic Laading, gpm/ftz
Digester, Anaerobic
No. of Units
Maximum Volume Each, MG
Residence Time, Days
Digester, Aerobic
No. of Units
Maximum Volume, MG
Residence Time, Days
Dewatering, Centrifuge
No. of Units
Throughput Each, Ibs/day
Sludge Disposal
Flow, MG
TSS Load, Ib/d
{Existing) 1 1
1,600 1,600
5 8
75 113
2 3
200 200
.85 .64
.98 .30
(Existing) 1 2
0.468 0.468
29.3 31.2
(Existing) 1 1
0.269 0.269
26.9 26.9
2 3
7,070 5,350
0.00675 0.01
7,070 10,700
0707-07-1105

Z
m O o JVZ o ~
W ~ W Q W LL`O t W U
~"' ~ O J U ~
p W ¢ F~ ZOU W a N
IL j 3 ' J J H J ~~~ q
n. O < W W W
O LL 2 Dy ~O< W i U > U
(/~ W J 6 (n Q W~
w z to N Z~ i
W C7 O f y~ F yi
G ` Y .~ W ~ = v
O Q U U U W
J p
(71 O LL 4
Z N ooa
y N
f ~
Q V
2
4
O
_ = W U'
V ~ tl=
~ ~~
LL
W
Y i- ~
Q W Z 3
m H W W
t U p
z 3
a
w
Z U
O
< O Z
¢ r O
1- _O p ~'
'~ Z t7 ~~Z`
LL U Z Q~`U
r z J~Ja
W -' a
~ U 1Ntl1tlN1i3dnS ~
J =
LL ~
3~J4nlS V V 2
031tlAll~tl m O
w m
31StlM ¢ O W w
3 w w ap
W U ` 2~
2 ~
3 0 ~
x r Z wo ~ w
U ` O C9FW w > 2
m V ~' fa„ < p J -' Z
a U
> J~ yU NFL U a y
~ 6~ ~LL ~ Uy W ~ U
Q
~ LLU ~¢ N< S C7 ~
J F,.
aU Z
4
H
Q
3~ams ~
AtltlWiFld a
w
w
~. m
n
s
U
¢ w \
aw
mN¢
w
r _
33 Z
W ~
¢ r
y
3

36-inch diameter outfall to the vicinity of Marker G-47 in Morgan Bay.
The dechlorination facilities, pumping station and outfall will not be
phased, as this would not be cost effective. The year 10 additions to the
wet stream will be a one 80 ft diameter primary clarifier, one 5-stage
activated sludge train of approximately 3.16 MG volume, one 95 ft diameter
secondary clarifier, one 1,000 ft2 sand filter, one 0.08 MG chlorine
contact tank.
Primary sludge will be thickened in the existing gravity thickener,
while waste activated sludge will be thickened in one new dissolved air
flotation thickener (DAF) with a surface area of 200 ft1 and one 200 ft2
stand-by OAF. In year 10, a third 200 ft2 dissolved air flotation
thickener will be added. The thickened sludge will be combined, then
digested in either the aerobic or anaerobic digester. The existing
digesters will be used initially, however, after 10 years anew anaerobic
digester will be required to process the 20 year sludge production. The
majority of sludge will be digested anaerobically.
The current sludge management plan of splitting disposal between
landfiliing and land application is recommended. Landfill capacity is
expected to be adequate throughout the Planning Period. Current acreage
for land application is not adequate. Approximately 200 acres of
application area will be needed in the design year and new farms will have
to be solicited, possibly much further from the plant. The ability to
dewater all the sludge production is recommended to allow storage on-site
during periods when application is not possible. Also, dewatering will
reduce hauling costs. The initial installation of two dewatering
centrifuges and a third in year IO is included in the criteria. In
addition, the conversion of the existing drying beds to sludge storage
pads and the purchase of additional sludge hauling and application
equipment is necessary.
6.4.3 Conceptual Cost Estimates
A conceptual estimate of capital and OEM costs for Alternative 2 is
presented in Tables 6-6 and 6-1, respectively.
The costs presented in Tables 6-6 and 6-7 are based on cost tables
contained in the USEPA publication, Innovative and Alternative Technoloov
0107-07-1105 6-14

TABLE 6-6
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 2
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
_----

ITEM
ESTIMATED COST
CONSTRUCTION
INITIAL YEAR 10

SALVAGE
VALUE
WILSON BAY WWTP UPGRADE
Headworks S 2,000,000 S (330,000)
Primary Clarifiers 1,560,000 S 780,000 (720,000)
Activated Sludge Tanks 7,760,000 3,580,000 (3,920,000)
Blowers t,930,000 980,000 (a90,000y
Final Clarifiers 2,060,000 1,030,000 (940,000)
Filters 1,940,000 930,000 (820,000)
~ Chlorination 680,000 340,000 (370,000)
Dechiorination 430,000 .
Gravity Thickener Upgrade 130,000 (70,000
Flotation Thickeners 980,000 60,000 (340,000]
Anaerobic Digester 1,600,000 (980,000
Existing Digester Upgrades 600,000 (300,000]
Dewatering 1,000,000 500,000 (250,000)
Sludge Application Equipment 550,000
Sludge Storage Conversion 100,000
Chemical Feed 200,000
Patent Fees 900,000
SUBTOTAL S 22,090,000 S 10,530,000 S (9,530,000)
FALL
Outtatl S 10,760,000 S {fi,a60,000}
Pumping Station 600,000 (270,000)
SUBTOTAL S 11,560,000 S (6,730,000)
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 33,650,000 10,530,000 (16,260,000)
25% CONTINGENCY 8,412,500 2,630,000 (4,070,000)
SUBTOTAL 42,062,500 13,160,000 {20,330,000)
1596 ENGINEERING 6,309,400 1,974,000 (3,050,000)
PROJECT TOTAL S 48,371,900 S 15,134,000 S (23,380,000)

TABLE S-7
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 F/1CILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 2
O&M COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COS
INITIAL YEAR 20
BAY taUWTP UpGpADE
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Treatment
Secondary Treatment
Filtration
Chlorination.
Dechlorinati0n
Sludge Thickening
Sludge Digestion
Sludge Dewatering
Sludge Disposal
Chemicals (P removan
S 25,000 S 50.000
49,000 88,000
383,000 766,000
120,000 240,000
66,500 173,000
40,000 80,000
69,500 139,000
40,500 81,000
53,500 107,000
185,000 370,000
96,500 793,000
SUBTOTAL
OUTFACE
Eitluent Pumping
08M TOTAL
3 1,148,500 S 2,297,000
S 83,000 S 165,000
s 1,231,500 S 2,462,000

Rssessment Manual along with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc`s experience on other
similar projects. Malcom Pirnie, Inc., has found these tables to be
accurate to t 2576 for treatment facilities. The cost of 5900,000 for
patent fees is based on flow and estimates from other facilities using the
Bardenpho process. These fees must be paid to Eimco and payment permits
the use of the 5-stage BNR process. Eimco will provide start-up process
assistance and trouble-shooting during operation.
6.5 ALTERNATIVE 3 - SPLIT ELON; LAND TREATMENT AND NEM RIYER DISCHARGE
Alternative 3 was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of using
the existing Wilson Bay WWTP for continued discharge to the New River.
Under this alternative, one-half of the wastewater flow will be pumped to
the land treatment site and the other one-half will be treated at an
upgraded Wilson Bay WWTP, then discharged to the New River near Marker
~ G-47 in Morgan Bay.
The process schematic, layout, and criteria for the land treatment
portion of Alternative 3 will be similar to that presented in Alternative
1 in Section b.3 with the exception that its design capacity will be cut
in half to an average flow of 4,5 mgd, Also, Hargett Street and Wilson
Bay Pump Stations will not connect to the proposed- Main Pump Station.
For the New River discharge portion, the process schematic presented in
Section b.4 for Alternative 2 will be employed. However, the unit process
capacity will be reduced to a 4.5 mgd average flow, or by ane-half. Also,
- a new headworks facility will not be required, only an upgrade in year
10. With solids handling criteria, the only change from Alternative 2
other than the reduction in capacity is the elimination of the need to add
a digester at the end of the initial 10 year period.
Conceptual cost estimates for Alternative 3 are presented in Tables
6-8 and 6-9. These costs are based on those presented for Alternatives 1
and 2, accounting for the reduction in capacity.
s
6.6 ALTERNATIVE 4 - LAND TREATMENT WITH PARTIAL PRETREATMENT AT WILSON
BAY WWTP (SEPARATE TRANSPORT)
This alternative involves the land treatment of all wastewater from
f
the Planning Area as with Alternative 1. However, the existing Wilson Bay
0707-07-1105 6-15

TABLE 6-8
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 3
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION REPLACE- SALVAGE
ITEM INITIAL YEARS YEAR 10 MENT VALUE
LANG TREATMENT (3/4'/wk Appl. Rate)
Collection System Mods S 230,000
Ma1n Pump Station 590,300 i ~,OOO
Booster Pump Station 435,200
Force Main 5,048,200
Preliminary Treatment 375,000
Aerated Lagoons 920,000 709,200
Sludge Disposal 326,000
Storage Lagoon
Chlorination & Effluent Pumping 1,726,600
522,400 892,500
40
000
Spray Irrigation System 7,676,800 S 1,676,800 ,
1,726,200 S
Land Acquisition 1,617,000 135,000
Equipment 320,000 77,900 168
800
Support Facilities 542,500_ 59,200 ,
7 t 8,400
SUBTOTAL S t 3,894,800 S 7 ,942,900 S 4,155,300 S
WILSON BAY WWTP UPGRADE
Headworks Upgrade t6 300,000
Primary Clarifiers S 880,000 440,000
Activated Sludge Tanks 4,550,000 2,050,000
Blowers 980.000 500,000
Final Clarifiers 7,(40,000 570,000
Filters 7,040,000 500,000
Chlorination 500,000 250,000
Dechforination 220,000
Gravity Thickener Upgrade 130,000
Flotation Thickeners 800,000 40
000
Existing Digester Upgrades ,
600 Opp
Dewatering 7,000,000
Sludge Application Equipment 300,000
Sludge Storage Conversion 700,()00
Chemical Feed 750,000
Patent Fees a50,000
SUBTOTAL S 12,170,000 S S 5,380,000
OUTFACE
Outlall S 8,670.000
Pumping Station 440,000
SUBTOTAL 3 9,050,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 35,054,800 1,942,900 9,535,300
25% CONTINGENCY 8,763,700 485,700 2,383,800
SUBTOTAL 43,818,500 2,428,600 11,919
700
7096 r~ 1396 ENGINEERING 5,696,400 242,900 ,
1,549,500
PRO.fECT TOTAL s 49,514,900 S 2,671,500 = 13,468,600
S {120,000)
(240,000)
(290,000)
(2,940,000)
(30,000)
(560;000)
(770.000)
295,000 (700,000)
(t ,380,000)
(7 ,752,000)
295,000 S (8,522.000)
5 (780,000)
(4 t 0,000)
(2,270,000}
(250,000)
(520,000}
(450,000)
(270,000)
(70,000)
(270,000)
(300.000)
S (4,990,000)
S (5,170,000)
(150,000)
S (5,320,000)
295,000 (18,832,000)
73,800 (4,720,000)
368,800 (23,552,000)
__36,900 (3,040,000)
S 405,700 S (26,592,000)
• t04b FOR YEAR 3 AND REPLACEt~AENT BECAUSE ALL COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LAND TREATMENT.
1346 FOR INITIAL AND YEAR 10 BECAUSE COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LAND TREATMENT AND WILSON BAY WWTP UPGRADE.

TABLE 6-9
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACtLtTtES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 3
O&M COST ESTIMATE

ITEM E
INITIAL (MATED ANNUAL
YEAR 10 S7
YEAR 20
LAND TREATMENT
Electricliy
Raw Wastewater Pumping S 26,700 Z 35,600 Z 53,400
Aerated lagoons 133,600 133,800 ! 199,900 199,900
Spray Irrigation Pumping 36,300 48,400 72,600
Chemicals
Odor Control 66,500 89,000 133,500
Disinfection 20,500 27,400 41,100
Grit Disposal 7,500 10,000 15,000
Labor(exciuding crop production) 212,000 270,000 335,000
Maintenance Materials 37,500 37,500 37,500
Laboratory Supplies 5,000 5,000 5,000
Crop Production (includes labor) 156,600 209,200 313300
SUBTOTAL S 702,400 S 865,900 ! 932,000 S 1,206,300
WILSON 8AY WWTP UPGRADE
Preliminary Treatment S 12,500 t 16,700 S 25,D00
Primary Treatment 29,500 39,300 59,000
Secondary Treatment 23x,400 305,700 x58,500
Filtration 80,000 106,700 t 60,000
Chlorination 51,500 68,700 103,000
Dechlorinatian 25,000 33,300 50,000
Sludge Thickening 41,500 55,300 83,000
Sludge Digestion 23,000 30,700 x6.000
Sludge Dewatering 32,500 43,300 65,000
Sludge Disposal 115,000 153,300 230,000
Chemicals (P remo++an 59,000 78,700 1 t8 000
SUtiTOTA1 S 703,900 S 931,700 S 1,397,500
OUTFACE
Effluent Pumping S 30,700 i 40,000 S 60.000
ObMTOTAL S 1,437,000 S 1,837,600/ 1,903,700 Z 2,663,800

WWTP will continue to be utilized to partially satisfy the pretreatment
requirement of the raw wastewater prior to spray irrigation.
The concept of this alternative is the treatment of one-half of the
wastewater flow at the Wilson Bay WWTP. The effluent will be pumped from
the Wilson Bay Pump Station (WBPSj through a 30-inch force main directly
to the storage lagoon at the land treatment site. The remaining raw
wastewater will be pumped from the Main Pump Station (MNPSj via a separate
30-inch force main to the pretreatment facilities at the land treatment
site. The concept of this alternative is to reduce the size of the
preliminary treatment facility and aerated lagoons to 4.5 mgd average flow
by using the existing treatment capacity at Wilson Bay WWTP. All
subsequent unit processes will remain at full 9 mgd capacity, as in
Alternative 1.
Conceptual cost estimates for this alternative are presented in
Tables 6-]0 and 6-11. The land treatment portion of the capital costs are
based on those presented for Alternative 1, accounting for a reduction in
pretreatment capacity. Initial casts for the Wilson Bay WWTP include a
force main to the land treatment site and an effluent pump station. In
year 10, the existing Wilson Bay WWTP processes will require upgrades,
since existing equipment will reach its service life; WBPS will require
an expansion of pumping capacity; and a booster pump station will be
constructed to convey higher flows. The OEM costs for the Wilson Bay WWTP
are based on current OEM costs which are scaled for the expected flows.
This alternative offers a cost savings associated with a smaller
preliminary treatment and aerated lagoon system. However, substantial
additional costs for a second 9 mile force main and the expenditure of
operating costs for the Wilson Bay WWTP will be required.
6.7 ALTERNATIVE 5 - LAND TREATMENT WITH PARTIAL PRETREATMENT AT WILSON
BAY WWTP (COMBINED TRANSPORT)
As with Alternative 4, this alternative includes the pumping of all
wastewater to the land treatment system. Also, the existing Wilson Bay
WWTP wi11 be used for pretreatment of one-half of the design year flow.
But with this alternative the effluent from the Wilson Bay WWTP will be
mixed with the remaining raw wastewater flow prior to pumping to the land
0707-07-1105 6-16

TABLE 6-10
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 4
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
LANO TREATMENT (3l4 '/wk Appl. Rate)
CONSTRUCTION REPLACE- SALVAGE
INITIAL YEAR 9 YEAR 10 MENT _ VALUE
Collection System Mods S 530,000
Matn Pump Stat[on 645,000 i 86,500
Booster Pump Station 46.`+.000
Force Main 4,970,800
Prelim(nary Treatment 375,000
Aerated lagoons 920,000 460,000
Sludge Disposal 326,000
Storage lagoon 2,223,500 1,149,300
Cfilprination and Effluent Pumping 672,700 58,000
Spray Irrigation System 3,353,600 S 3,489,800 3,551,100 t
Land Acquisition 2,770,000 650,000
Equipment 561,300 143,800 287,500
Support Facilities 720,000 t 18,3Q0_ 23.6,700
SUBTOTAL 3 18,067,900 S 4,401,900 S 6,294,100 S
WILSON 8AY WWTP
~ (280,000)
(280,000)
(310,000)
{2,890.000)
(30.000)
(420,000)
(130,000)
590,000 (2.830,000)
(3,420,000)
(t 60,000)
590,000 S (12,140,000)
Headworks S 300,000 S (150,000)
Primary Screens 750,000 (380,000)
eiofilter ,,200,000 (soo,ooo)
Final Clarifiers 1,030,000 (520,000)
Chlorine Contact Basins 240,000 (120,000)
Gravity Thickener 130,000 (70,0001
Digesters 1,000,000 (500,000)
Force Maln S 4,970,800 (2,890,000)
Efituent Pump Station 645,000 86,500 (280.x)
Booster Pump Station 465,000 (310,000)
SUBTOTAL S 5,615,800 Z 5.201,500
S (5,820,000) ~
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 23,683,700 4,441,900 11,495,600 590,000 (17,960,000)
2596 CONTINGENCY 5,920,900 1,100,500 2,873,900 147,500 (4,490,000)
SUBTOTAL 29,604,600 5,502,400 14,369,500 737,500 (22,450,000)
10°h & 1386 EtdGINEERIAIG 2,960,500 550,200 1,868,000 73,800 (2,470,000)
PROJECT TOTAL S 32,565,100 S 6,052,600 Z 16,237,500 S 811,300 3 (24,920,000)
• t0% FOR INITIAL, YEAR 3 AND REPLAC£M£NT BECAUSE AIL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND TREATMENT.
13% FOR YEAR t0 BECAUSE COSTS ARE FOR LAND TREATMENT AND WILSON BAY WWTP UPGRADE.

TABLE 6-11
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 4
03M COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
Electricity
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Aerated Lagoons
Spray Irrigation Pumping
Chemicals
Odor Control
Disinfection
Grit Disposal
Labor (exciudinfl crop production)
Maintenance Materials
laboratory Supplies
Crop Production (includes labor)
SUBTOTAL
EXISTING WILSON BAY WWTP
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Treatment
Secondary Treatment
Disinfection
Sludge Thickening
Sludge Digestion
Sludge Disposal
Effluent Pumping
SUBTOTAL
ObM SUBTOTAL
INITIAL YEAR 10 YEAR 20 ~
i 26,700 i 35,600 S 53,400
733,800 133,800 / t 99,900 799,900
72,600 96,800 745,200
66.300 88.700 733,000
41,000 54,800 82,200
7,500 t 0,000 t 5,000
335,000 425,000 530,000
75,000 75,000 75,000
5,000 5.000 5.000
373,200 4(8,300 626,500
S 1,076,700 5 7,343,000! 1,409,(00 3 (,865,200
S 10,500 S 74,()00 S 27,000
26.500 35,400 53.000
92,500 123-,400 i 85,000
51,500 68,700 t 03,000
47 ,300 55,000 82,500
22,800 30,400 45,500
30.000 40.000 60.000
26,700 35,600 53,400
S 30(,800 S 402,500 S 603,a00
i 1,377,900 S 1,745,500/ 1,811,600 S 2,468,600

treatment site in a single force main. The resulting collection system
modifications will be the same as Alternative 1, except the 48-inch
gravity line from HSPS will not be constructed. Rather, the flow from
HSPS will be conveyed to the Wilson Bay WWTP. Wilson Bay Pump Station
(WBPS) will pump treated effluent through a 30-inch force main which will
tie into the 36-inch force main to the land treatment site. The 30-inch
force main will tie in lust before the 36-inch force main crosses the New
River. The resulting diluted raw wastewater flow will then undergo
pretreatment and storage prior to spray irrigation.
The concept of this alternative is to reduce the cost of the
pretreatment system at the land treatment site by using the existing
treatment capacity at the Wilson Bay WWTP. Unfortunately, the complete
mix cell of the multi-cell lagoon is sited according to hydraulic
detention time, not organic loading, so a reduction in this cell size
could not be realized. The partial mix cell size can be reduced because
of the lower sludge production. The fourth cell in each train can be
eliminated.
Conceptual cost estimates for Alternative 5 are presented in Tables
6-12 and 6-13. The land treatment portion of the capital costs are based
on those presented for Alternative 1, accounting for a reduction in
capacity. All of the costs associated with the collection system
modifications, including construction of the 30-inch force main connecting
the Wilson .Bay WWTP to the land treatment force main, are included under
the land treatment costs, except for the WBPS which is included under the
Wilson Ba WWTP headin As with Alternative 4 the existin
Y 9• g processes
at the Wilson Bay WWTP will require upgrades in year 10 and the WBPS will
require an expansion of pumping capacity to meet the higher 20 year flows.
The 0&M costs for the Wilson Bay WWTP are the same as Alternative 4.
A small savings in capital and 0&M cost for the preliminary treatment
and aerated lagoon systems will be realized with this alternative. This
savings must be weighed against the additional cost of operating the
Wilson Bay WWTP in order to determine if this is the preferred land
treatment plan.
0707-07-1105 b-11

TABLE 6-12
CITY OF.fACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 5
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION REPLACE- SALVAGE
ITEM INITIAL YEAR 3 YEAR t0 MENT VALUE
LAND TREATMENT ($/4 •/wlc Appl, Rate)
Collection System Mods Z 890,000 t (520,000)
Main Pump Station 645,000 S 86,500 (280,000)
Booster Pump Station 579,200 (390,000)
force Matn 5,729,300 (3,330,000)
PretiminaryTreatment 421,800 (40,000)
Aerated Lagoons 1,598,800 793,300 (730,000)
Sludge Disposal 326,000 270,000 (t 40,000)
Storage lagoon 2,223,500 1,149,300 (990,000)
Chlorination and Effluent Pumping 672,700 58,000 (130,000)
Spray Irrigation System 3,353,600 S 3,x89,800 3,551,100 S 590,000 (2,760,000)
Land Acquisition 2,770,000 650,000 (3,420,000)
Equipment 561,300 143,800 287,500 (160,000)
Support Facilities 720,000 118,300 236,700 (40,000)
SUBTOTAL t 19,9/2,000 S 4,x01,900 S 7,011,600 S 590,000 S (13,290,000)
EXISTING WILSON BAY WVYTP
Headworks i 300,000 S (150,000)
Primary Screens 750,000 (380,000)
Biofitters 1,200,000 (600,000)
Final Clarifiers 1,030,000 (520,000)
Chlorine Contact Basins 240,000 (120,000)
Gravity Thickeners t 30,000 (70,000)
Digesters t ,000,000 (500,000)
Effluent Pump Station S 645,000 86,500 (280,000)
SUBTOTAL 645,000 S 4,736,500 S (2,620,000)
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 20,557,000 4,401,900 11,T48,t00 590,000 (15,910,000)
2546 CONTINGENCY 5,139,300 1,100,500 2,937,000 147,500 (3,980,000)
SUBTOTAL 25,696,300 5,502,400 t4,685,t00 737,500 (19,890,000)
t0°,b 8 13% ENG{NEER{NG 2,569,600 550,200 1,909,100 73,800 {2,220,000)

PROJECT TOTAL. S 28,265,900 S 6.052,600 i 16,594.200 S 81 i,300 S (22,1 10,000)
10% FOR INITIAL, YEAR 3 AND REPLACEMENT t3ECAUSE ALL COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LAND TREATMENT.
t3% FOR YEAR t0 BECAUSE COSTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LAND TREATMENT AND WILSON BAY WWTP UPGRADE.

TABLE 6-i 3
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 5
O&M COST ESTIMATE

ITEM E
INITUL TIMAT D ANNUAL COST
YEAR 10
YEAR 20
LANG TA~-TMEM
Electricity
Wastewater Pumping i 53,440 t 71,200 Z 106,800
Aerated Lagoons 299,100 299,100 / 44f,700 446,700
Spray Irrigation Pumping 72,t~00 96,800 145,200
Chemicals
Odor Control 66,500 89,000 133,500
Disinfection 41,000 54,800 82,200
Grlt Disposal 7,500 10,000 15,000
Labor(excluding crop production) 335,000 x25,000 530,000
Maintenance Materials 75,000 75,000 75,000
Laboratory Supplies 5,000 5,000 5,000
Crop Production (includes labor) 313,200 418,300 626,500
SUBTOTAL a 1,268,300 S 1,544,200/ 1,691,800 S 2,165,900
EXISTING taYILSON BAY WWTP
Preliminary Treatment S 10,500 S 14,000 S 21,000
Primary Treatment 26,500 35,400 53,000
Secondary Treament 92,500 123,400 185,000
Disinfection 51,500 68,700 103,000
Sludge Thickening 41,300 55,000 82,500
Sludge Digestion 22,800 30,400 x5,500
Sludge Disposal 30,000 40,000 60,000
Effluent Pumping 26,700 35,600 53,400
SUBTOTAL S 301,800 S 402,500 S 603,400
Od~M SUBTOTAL S 1,570,100 S 1,946,700/ 2,094,300 S 2,769,300

6.8 ALTERNATIVE 6 - OCEAN DISCNAR6E
6.8.1 Description
The only other alternative available to eliminate the discharge to
estuarine waters while continuing to discharge to surface waters is to
construct an outfall to the Atlantic Ocean. Two ocean outfall
alternatives were evaluated: Alternative 6 locates the outfall in Onslow
County and the outfall is owned by the City; Alternative 7 shares an
outfall with Carteret County. Carteret is located along the northeast
boundary of Onslow and has recently elected to pursue ocean discharge.
For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that only secondary
levels of treatment are necessary for a discharge to the Atlantic Ocean.
This is based on the successful operation of many ocean outfalls along the
East Coast with flows treated to secondary levels. Should the cost
effectiveness analysis using secondary treatment demonstrate that this
alternative is not attractive, then further studies to determine the
actual level of treatment are not warranted.
The conceptual route for the outfall pipe for Alternative 5 to the
Atlantic Ocean generally follows the southern boundary of Camp Lejuene.
The pipeline and outfall, including diffuser, will be approximately
124,000 feet in length and 48-inches in diameter and are shown in Figure
6-12. It was assumed that the outfall would be approximately 1.5 miles
in length.
6.8.2 Conceptual Process Criteria
For ocean discharge alternatives, reliable treatment to secondary
levels is essential. This reliability cannot be achieved by the processes
currently employed at the Wilson Bay WWTP, as discussed in Section 4.4.
A conventional activated sludge process is recommended for the expanded
plant. The existing biofilter could be used as roughing treatment to
reduce the size of the activated sludge process. This would have to be
investigated in more detail if this alternative was selected. As with
Alternative 2, the use of primary clarifiers is recommended with the
activated sludge system and new secondary clarifiers are needed to handle
the large return sludge flows. The existing solids handling process can
be utilized, however they will be supplemented to process the greater
0707-07-1105 6-18

i 0
t

~ q
y
p~~..IZ
Z J
n
O
a o~jtQi~
_= FO ~ ~ a
~~aDU = ~
Z
2 W ~ Z ~ e
J ~
°~~~w~
c~~JUfn ~ v
a W
<<apZ
~ 4 ~
og" O
U
-^ ~ . , ,.,. --_ `~ a
..~ r
f
f -ti ~-
- ~ t~
r-
_, ;; : 1 4
_p
,_
s_~.
M
' V'
.~, \\ ~,
' t'
~ ./
-'_
1r"1,.~y
X:F
'. y i= P
_ l
_a u
~~~`~
~~~~
~~~ •_ ~: `
:, '
S^..,
.F P
_l .t
_~ '
. ' ~ -,
~'
~y ,,,
" - - - i
N
~~,
~.
~- \..
a .,. -
. / ~~
~ i W
/ ,.a
.::~, .
/ 1 W
~ ~
~..1.-~ -~.. ~,
_-~~.~~+~+ t-
.P:
--c
. ~ ~~ -
~;
I / 2
I J
Q
O ~
Q
2
'?. ~
W
~ H
W
N
N
a j
0
F
Z
O
U

~ ~~ f ~ ~~ ~

sludge volume. The solids handling and disposal criteria presented with
Alternative 2 are essentially the same for this alternative.
The process schematic for this alternative is similar to that shown
in Figure 6-11, with the exception that a conventional activated sludge
process will be employed- and there is no effluent filtration. A list of
conceptual process criteria are outlined in Table 6-1~.
6.8.3 Conceptual Cost Estimates
Conceptual capital and O&M cost estimates for Alternative 6 are
presented in Tables 6-15 and 5-16. The treatment facilities costs are
based on the USEPA cost tables. The cost of the ocean outfall is based
on the actual cost of a similar ocean outfall project in Virginia. All
costs are in 1989 dollars.
6.9 ALTERNATIVE 7 - OCEAN DISCHARGE WITH CARTERET COlRiTY
Alternative 7 involves the sharing of an ocean outfall with Carteret
County. The cost for this alternative is based on the outfall being
located near the boundary of Onslow and Carteret Counties. Each party
would be responsible for conveying its own wastewater to the outfall. The
force main route generally follows N.C. Route 24 into Carteret County, as
shown in Figure 6-13. The pipeline and outfall, including diffuser, is
approximately 132,000 feet in length. The force main will be 48-inches
in diameter and the outfall 54-inches. Again, it was assumed that the
outfall would be approximately 1.5 miles in length.
As discussed in Section 6.8.1, it was assumed that only secondary
levels of treatment are necessary. Thus, the processes used to treat the
wastewater at the Wilson Bay WWTP are the same as those for Alternative
6, described in Section b.8.2.
Conceptual capital and OSM cost estimates for Alternative 7 are
presented in Table 6-11 and 6-18. The treatment facilities costs are the
same as the costs presented for Alternative 6. However, the cost for the
force main to the outfall is higher because of the additional length.
Also, it was assumed that the cost for the outfall will be evenly spit
with Carteret County. This may be an optimistic assumption for the City
since Carteret's implementation schedule will require that the City
0707-07-1105 6-19

7A81E ata
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATNE 8 -WILSON 6AY WWTP
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS CRITERIA
MAXIMUM MONTH CON0I1'IONS
Yeu 10 Yeu 20
f6 myd ti mgd
Plant influent/Efflueru
influent Flow, mgd -Average 6.0 9.0
- Maximum Month 7.5 11.3
influent TSS, ~/day 11,000 16,500
Influent BOD, ~/day 11,000 16,500
Primary Clarfiers
No. of Units
Diameter Each, ft.
Overflow Rate, gpd/ft~
2 3
80 80
789 792
Activated Sludge
Total Volume, MG
MLSS, m~/i
HRT, hrs.
SRT, days
Secondary Clarifiers
No. of Units
Diameter Each, tt.
Surface Overtlow Rate, gpd/itz
Solids Ftux, Iblday/ft2
Chlorine Contact Tank
No. of Units
Volume Each, MC3
Detention Time, min
Dechlorination
Sulfur Dioxide Usage, Ib/day
Average
Maximum Day
Peak Hour
27 4
1,950 1,981
8.6 8.5
8 8
2 3
90 90
614 617
19.0 19.8
2 3
0.08 0.08
30 30
1 ~ 225
450 675
875 1,015
'based on plant influent flow.
0707-07-1101

TABLE 6-14
(Continued)
Ye~sr 10 Year 20
6 mqd 9 mqd
Gravity Thickener
No. of Units
Surface Area Each,. sq. iG
Solids Loading, ~/day/ft
Overflow Rate, g
Flotation Thickener
No. of Units
Surface Area Each, it
Solids Loading, Ib/hr/'ft2
Hydraulic Loading, gpm/tt2
Digester, Anaerobic
No. of Units
Maximum Volume Each, MG
Residence Time, Days
Digester, Aerobic
No. of Units
Maximum Volume Each, MG
Residence Time. Days
Oewatering
No, of Unfts
Throughput Each, Ib/day
Sludge Disposal
Fk>\nr, MGD
TSS Load, Ib/d
~1 1
1,600 1,600
5 7
213 325
2 3
200 200
.74 .56
.38 .28
(Existing) 1 2
0.468 0.468
29.3 33.4
(ExLsting) 1 1
.269 .269
29.9 29.9
2 3
6,580 4,950
0.00625 0.00925
6,580 9,900
0707-07-1101

TABLE 6-15
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 8
CAPRAL COST ESTIMATE
ESTIMATED COST
CONSTRUCTION SALVAGE
ITEM INITIAL YEAR 10 VALUE
Heddworks i 2.000.000 . ti (330.000)
Primary Clarifiers .1,560,000 : 780,000 {720.000)
Activated Sludge Tanks 3,430,000 1,530,000 (1,710,000)
Blowers 1,930,000 980,000 (490.000)
Final Clarttisrs 1,880,000 940,000 (860,000)
Chlorination 680,000 ~ 340,000 (370,000)
Dechlorination 430.000
Gravity Thickener Upgrade 130,000 (70,000)
Flotation Thickeners 980,000 50,000 (340,000)
Anaerobic Digester 1,000,000 {610,000)
Existing Digester Upgrades 600,000 (300.000)
Dewatering 1,000,000 500,000 (250,000)
Sludge Application E~utpment 530.000
Sludge Storage Conversion 100,000
SUBTOTAL i 14,520,000 t+ 6,860,000 t ($,050,000)
Face Main Z 17,450,000 (t0,a70,000)
Outfap 19,050,000 i (11,430,000)
Pumping Station 800,000 Z 100,000 (340,000)
SUBTtTAL Z 37.300.000 S 100.000 3 (22.2x0,000)
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 51.820,000 6,960,000 (28,290,000)
25% CONTINGENCY 12,955,000 1,740,000 p,080,000)
SUBTOTAL 64,775,000 8,700,000 (35,370,000)
15% ENGINEEERINCi 9,716,300 1,305,000 (5,310,000)
TOTAL :74,481.300 i 10,006,000 s

TABLE 6-18
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 6
O>I~M COST ESTIMATE

ITEM ESTIMATED ANNUAL. COST
INITIAL YEAR 20
WILSON BAY WWiP UPGRADE
Prefimfnary Treatment i 25,000 = 50,000
Primary Treatment 49,000 98,000
SeconcSary Treatment 278,000 556,000
Chlorlnatbn 86,500 173,000
Dechlorlnatltx- 40,000 80,000
Sludge Thk;kenlnp 69,000 139,000
Sludge Dlpestion 38,000 T6,000
Sludge Dewaterfnp 50,000 100,000
Sludge Disposal 185,000 370,000
SUBTOTAL i 820,500 S 1,642,000
OU'T2=ALL
Effluent Pumplnp S 87,500 s 175,000
031.11 TOTAL i 908.000 i 1,817,000

~,
'~ <
m ~ Z
a
d _. ¢ Z
~ ~ ~ ~~ 3}
u O = Z r W Z a
rc f WC7~
0
=~~~0 ws
Q ) H¢U ~~
W ~L N ~ oZC v_~i ~ - ~
~ ~,, b a
"I ~ YJ ~z¢ o
i o Q
~? ry9' ~ -- b <. LL w cQi
z ~ '° t ~ _ c ~ OU
~.
a ~ ~~ _ _ y -
~ ~ ~ U yF
#~ ..
..
-~
.,~_ _.._
1
lY1SYOJYµN1
Q ~~
W~ a ~a ,~ I~ ~~" ~{ ~ 5 ~ it fel '
ggo
~ ~ ~ - O ¢ W . ~ a > f~
~ /I
h
,.~~
^~•
~.
~ ~ ~,
:__. ~
f i
f

v O ?
~ °' w
~, ~ a
~ a a
5 ~~~ "~
f~~ ,~.
,.
~ ~J ~ ~~ '
,~
^w, 3
Go ~ , +
5-g •
~ ~..
.~ ~~
d 4c ~~ [~ ~R~~~
9 ~ ~~=i l
r !~
a ^\ ~''~
O
\x ~ ``
\ ~
~;auitn ~-r..~
~-, \ \~ 1
- ~~~~~
~
_
= _.
a _
~~
-
~
~ `•
`
~

1, ~ ~

(~ l
g. ~
~a
~~ ~ ~) ,

Z ~\~ ~'
~ 1 r
a 3' )
~i ~~
3 ` ~~ ,-.,

~ ~
\
f r
~
~~
Z
/ \ f,
;
/
° ~
~
L
_;
:
i
~
^
3 y ,
~,, z
6j~-t
O. )°~y
'.Yg \ j%~L
~. ~ ~
'' ~ 1~
1'
~ c~ • `f

~'
~
~Y 1 Y
w
5 ~'
~, ~
,
~~ i
1 '
_ t
i __ r F
~" _
~
~ ~
~ o
~
~ / -
'
~ ~~~R ~ f 7
~_
+w
.
• i t f
A t
r~:^,. 4
L
' d a
3 ,
~
J
~
~
~p
~
S'~'
l
, e
` ,a
~
-
~
~
~ ~ • ' ~ ~
~
Y
pR ~
~
J
~~ - ~
r - OC

TABLE 6-17
CfTY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE 7
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
8AY IAIYVTP UPGRADE
Headworks
Primary Clarifiers
ActNatad Sludge Tanks
Blowers
Flnal Clarifiers
Chlorlnatitm
Dechlorinatitm
Gravhy Thk:kener Upgrade
Flotation Thkkeners
Maerobk: Digester
Existing Digester Upgrades
Oewaterinq
Sludge Appgcation Equipment
Sludge Storage Conversion
SUBTOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
CONSTRUCTION SALVAGE
IN171AL YEAR 10 VALUE
i 2.000.000 ti (330,000)
1,560.000 t 780.000 (720,000)
3,430,000 1,530,000 (1,710,000)
t .930.000 980,000 (a9o,oo0)
1,880.000 940.000 (860.000)
680,000 340.000 (370,000)
430,000
130,000 (70,OQp)
980,000 60,000 (340,000)
1,000,000 (610,000)
600,000 (300,000)
1,000,000 500,000 (250,000)
530,000
t 00,000
= 14,520,000 S 6,860,000 Z (6,050,000)
~OUTFALL
Force Main
Outtatt
Pumping Station
SUBTOTAL
Z 18.560,000 (11,140,000)
9.525,000 S (5,720,000)
eoo,ooo s to0,oo0 040,000)
ti 28.885.000 ti 100,000 S .(17,200,000)
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
259b CONTINGENCY
SUBTOTAL
15% ENGINEEERING
PROJECT TOTAL
43,405,000 6,980,000 (23.250,000)
10,851,300 1,740,000 (5,820,000)
54,256.300 8.700,000 (29,070,000)
8,138,400 1,305,000 (4.380,000)
t 62,394,700 t 10,005,000 S

TABLE 8-t 8
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
ALTERNATIVE ?
Od~M-COST ESTIMATE

ITEM ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
INRIAL YE'/1R 20
WILSON BAY WWTP IJPORADE
Preliminary Treatment i 25,000 s 50,000
Primary'freatment 49,000 88,000
Secondary Treatment 278,000 556,000
Chlorination 86,500 173,000
Dechiorination 40.000 80.000
Sludge Thickening 69,000 139,000
Sludge Oipestion 38,000 76,000
Sludge Dewaterlnp 50,000 100,000
Sludge Dlaposal 185,000 370,000
SUBTOTAL = 820.500 s 1.642,000
OtJTFALL
Effluent Pumping fi 87,500 i 175,000
Od.M TOTAL = 908.000 i 1,817,000

construct and co~nence operation of tfie outfall witfi subsequent
participation by Carteret.
0707-07-1105 6-20

SECTION 7.0
Evaluation of Alternatives

7.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
7.1 EVALUATION OF MONETARY COSTS
The seven alternatives and their associated capital and 0&!1 costs
were presented in Section 6.0. These alternatives were evaluated on the
basis of net present worth cost of all capital and annual operation and
maintenance costs. An inflation factor was not used and an 8-7/8 percent
discount rate was used. as required by the reviewing authority. Since the
first 15 million dollars of capital costs would be funded through State
loans, this portion of the capital cost under each alternative was not
included in the calculation of interest during construction. The salvage
values were based on an estimated service life of equipment, and
structures, as follows:
- Land - Permanent
- Force Main - 50 Years
- Buildings & Structures - 30 Years
- Process Equipment - 20 Years
- Sprinkler Heads - 10 Years
- Center Pivot System - 15 Years
- Solid Set System - 20 Years
Revenues generated by the land treatment system, although
substantial, were not included in the cost effectiveness analysis, as
directed by the reviewing authority. A detailed explanation of the
present worth analysis is presented in Appendix ~.
Table 1-1 presents the results of the cost effectiveness analysis.
It is evident that Alternative 1 - Land Treatment Only is the most
attractive alternative from a monetary basis because of its lower net
present worth cost. Although Alternatives 4 and 5 are only 10 to 15
percent higher than Alternative 1 in net present worth cost, they can be
0707-07-1105 7-1

m
h-

W
J
J
O
X
U
Q
LL
O
Z
W
z
a
W
f-
J
U
F'-
U
LPL.
N
N
}
J
Z
Q
y
w
Z
>_
H
W
~t
W
N
v
S
~
~
~~
~
~

M o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
to N
v i
A
$ $~ OO
v v v
O ~ ~ ~ t N
O ~ W
N y 0
~ M v
~j g g
N
~ g
O S
~ 49 g~ p
O
!ff X41 O
tp N ~ r ~ Q Ql O Q
N fA ~ i9 iN9 K ~ N ~A
fA iA 1vA fA
W p
S
~
~ p
~O
$ ~j p
O
t0 $"
O
O
~
Q
~ ~ tNA M r pp
,
N ~ ON
a N ei
~ ~ O N W t0 t
i of W O
N ~ ~ iN9 i9 fNA N N
J f9 fA iV9 i9
Q
R
~ p $
3
$
~ ~
~ a~D $r
c3
O
i ~t! ~
o
p
~
~ i9 lr (A t9 iNA N ~
i9 i9 tvA iA
O~ O O ~A O O O

N r
~ ~! Q
~ ~ N
N O O
~
r R M
OD 1A
r @7
fA .- N
i9 i9 cq
N Oi
~
~ N iA
...

S pp
~ g
E~1 p
t~ ~j
O
m~ .-.
O
t
0 O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~pp O ~ ~O O
r 00 O aD CQ Q~ M N ~ N
N ~ t09 vss if! f9 iN9 ~ ~
fi! f9
v d!
_~v~i c~n c~n ~r~n c7z
zo ~~~
» w
>
~
~=v Nv yv ~v ¢F v~7 < O
~ ~ ~ ~~~
a a w
v <
~ <
°CV <
Qv ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
~ ~
~
; a z
Q ~ a
ch O {
j
j F-
r } U1
r
m.
ego
U
a
n
t
t
N
16
m

considered more expensive since the cost basis of all three alternatives
are the same. Therefore, we can conclude that it is not cost effective
to continue to operate the Wilson Say WWTP for pretreatment with a land
treatment system.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The potential environmental impacts of each of the proposed
alternatives are summarized and compared in Table 7-2. The discussion
which follows provides an assessment of the effects of each alternative.
The potential impacts are assessed according to each major issue area.
7.2.1 Surface Water gualitvjHvdr._.~loay
The most important potential impacts on water quality are related
to the types and volumes of effluent to be discharged.
Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 will have the smallest potential for
impacting water quality in the New fZiver estuary since all of the flow
will be treated using land applicat•;on. These alternatives will result
in major improvements in water quality of Wilson Bay and in the lower New
River Basin since the present discharge would be discontinued.
Due to the presence of clay and other tf pes of aquatards, the land
treatment alternatives have the potential for affecting surface water
quality in the adjacent streams die to lateral movement of effluent
thraugh saturated soil during rainstorms. This potential likely will be
minimized by the removal of the ma,;or wastewater constituents, such as
BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus by pretreatment. crop uptake and soil
biodegradation. Other wastewater constituents which are not amenable to
land treatment and could leach to surface waters are not expected to be
present to any significant levels, since the wastewater is predominantly
domestic in nature. Any unexpected presence of these constituents would
have to be addressed through pretreatment regulations. Clay or other
types of aquatards help in preventing movement of effluent into the Trent
Formation, which is as close as 13 feet below the surface of the site.
0707-07-1105 1-2

TABLE 7-2
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
SUMMARY OF POTENTUIL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
issue Area No Action AkematMe
Water t]uaiiry o Continued discharges to Wilson Bay
o increased potential for bypasses and Overloads
Hydrology o Na water reuse
Wetlands o Continued habkat conversions due to growth
wthout expanded treatment facilities (less than which
would occur with the alternatives)
Aquatic Habitats o Continued adverse impacts of discharges on aquatic Ilse of
Wilson Bay
Terrestrial Plant Commu nities o Continued habitat conversions due io growth
without expanded treatment facilities (less than which
would occur with the other alternatives)
Wildlife o Continued habkat conversions due to growth
without expanded treatment facilkies (less than which
would occur with the other akernatives)
Endangered Species o Continued habitat conversions due to growth
without expanded treatment facilities (less than which
would occur with the other alternatives)
Public Recreation Areas o Loss of water related recreation
Noise o No change over present pumping noises
Air Duality o t~dor problems at overloaded plants or during bypasses
Induced Growth o Growth moratorium
o Probably less growth without sufficient treatment
tacilities
o Less land use conversions due to less growth
Cultural Resources o Posstbie impacts due to growth wh~h will occur
even without treatment facilities

TABLE 7-2 (t~ttt)

Alternative 1
Issas Area Land Treatment Only
Water Quality o improved water quality In Wlison Bay due to use of land application
o No ocean discharge
o No discharge to New River at marker Ci-e7
o Potential nonpolnt runoff during storms at tend treatment sits
Hydrology 0 Maximum water reuse
0 Application of water to site wtN change patterns of nonpotnt runoff
Wetlands o Temporary disturbances of wetland habitat along
new force main to land treatment site
o Conversion of wetlands on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
Aquatic Habitats
o Potential impacts of nonpoint runof(on aquatic habitats
adjoining land treatment site
Terrestrial Plant Communities
~idlife
Endangered Species
o Conversion of terrestlal habitat on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
o Conversion of terrestrial habitat on Land treatment site to
farmland and wiidlile management areas
o No Impacts on land treatment site or along force mains
Public Recreation Areas o Temporary disruption of navigation and recreation at
single New River Crossing
o No parks impacted
o Benefits due to increased water quality
Noise o Temporary construction noise impacts at LA Site
o Long term impacts due to pumping noise at LA site
(remoteness of site will minimize these effects)
Air Quality o Odor impacts during operatioNmitfgation required
(remoteness o! Site will m(nimlze these effects)
o Smoke during clearing (temporary)
Induced Growth o Land use cornersions to urbaNSUburban from
natural habitat and farmlands
Guttural Resources o No impacts on reptstered sites
o Possible archaeological sites impacted on land treatment sfte
o No impacts along force main (best estimate)

TABLE 7-2 (oontj
0
Alternative 2
Lssue Area New RMer Discharge Only .
Water Quality o Ail flow (9 mgd) discharged to New River at Marker G-47
o Occasional discharge of secondary effluent to New River
o Improved water quality in Willson Bay due to shifting of discharge
o No ocean discharge
Hydrology o One way movement of groundwater to New River
o No reuse Of wastewater discharged as compared wkh land
treatment altemathres
Wetlands a Temporary disturbance of wetland habitat along new force main
from Wilson Bay VItVVTP to Marker G-47
o No wetlands impacted on land treatment site
Aquatic Habitats o Effects of reduced water quality on estuarine life in vicinity
of Marker G-47 (twice the effect of Alternative ~
o BenthiC habitat In estuary temporarily disturbed along
discharge pipe corridor to Marker G-47
Terrestrial Plant Communities 0 No Impacts on terrestrial habitat at land treatment site
Wildlife o Ne impacts on terrestrial habitat at land treatment site
Endangered Species o Undetermined impacts of discharge pipe on New River area
Public Recreation Areas o Temporary dtsruption of navigation and recreation at
single New River Crossing
o No parks impacted
Noise o No Impacts at land treatment site
o Pumping noise at expanded Wilson Bay WWTP
Air Ouaiity o No impacts at land treatment slte
o Expanded plant will have increased odors
induced Growth o Land use conversions to urban/suburban from
natural habitat and farmlands
Cultural Resources o No Impacts along force main (best estimate)

TABLE 7-2 (cortt)
Atterttative 9
Split Flow - L.and.Treatmerit
issue Area and New Weer iischarge
Water Quality o Reduced water quality In New Rhrer In vicinity of Marker G-47
o Occasstonal Oischarpa of secondary effluent at Marker G-47
o Potential nonpoint runoff during storms at land treatment sfte
o Improved water quality M tMison Bay since discharge shhted
to G-47
o No ocean discharge
Hydrology o 5t)9! Less groundwater reuse than Alternative t
due to New River discharge
o Application of water to site will change patterns of nonpoint runoff
Wetlands o Temporary disturbances of wetland habitat along
new force main to land treatment site
o Conversion of wetlands on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
Aquatic Habitats o Potential impacts of nonpoint runoff on aquatic habitats
adjoining land treatment site (5096 of the flow of Alternative t)
e Potential impacts of reduced water quality at marker G-47
o Benthic habitat in estuary temporarily disturbed during
construction of discharge pipe
Terresiriai Plant Communities - o Conversion of terreslrfa! habitat on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
Wildlife o Conversion of terrestrial habitat on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas (less impact than Alt +Y1)
Endangered Species o No Impacts On lend treatment site or along force mains
o Undetermined Impacts of discharge pipe on New River area
Public Recreation Areas o Temporary disruption of navigation and recreation at
single New River Crossing
o No parks Impacted
Noise o Temporary construction noise impacts at land treatment site
o Long term impacts due to pumping noise at land treatment site
o Pumping noise at eocpanded Wilson Bay WWTP
Air Quality o Less odor Impacts as compared with Alternative t
(only 4.5 mpd being treated)
o Smoke during clearing (temporary)
induced Growth o Land use conversions to urbaNsuburban from
natural habitat and farmlands
Cultural Resources o No impacts on registered sites on land treatment property
o Possible archaeoiogicai sites impacted on land treatment site
o No impacts along force main (best estimate)

TABLE 7-2 (cant)
AltematMe 4
,Land Treatment with Partial Pretreatment
Issue Area sl NVlleon gay tMMP (Separate Transport)
Water t]uality o Improved water quality in Wltson Bay due to use of land treatment
o No discharge to New RiverAmproved water quality in Witson gay
o Potential nonpoint runoff during storms at land treatment site
o No ocean discharge
Hydrology o Application of water to site wilt change patterns of nonpoint runoff
o IiAaxlmum water reuse
Wetlands o Temporary dtsturbence of wetland habitat along
new force main to land treatment afte
o Conversion of wetlands on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
Aquatic Habitats o Potential impacts of nonpoint runoff on aquatic habitats
adjoining land treatment site
Terrestrial Plant Communities o Conversion of terrestrial habitat on land treatment site to
farmland and wikifile management areas
Wildlife o Conversion of terrestrial habitat on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
Endangered Species o No impacts on land treatment site a along force mains
Public Recreation Areas o Temporary disruption of navigation and recreation at
New Aiver crossing
0 Benefits due to increased water quality
o No parks Impacted
Noise o Temporary construction noise Impacts at land treatment site
o Long term Impacts due to pumping noise at land treatment site
Air Quality o t7dor impacts during operafion same as Alternative 1
(remoteness of site will minimize these effects)
o Smoke during clearing
Induced Growth o Land use conversions to u-ban/suburban from
natural habitat and farmlands
Cultural Resources o No impacts on registered sites on land treatment property
o Possible archaeological sites impacted on land treatment site
0 No Impacts along force main (best estimate)

TABLE 7-2 (contj
AlternatHe 5
lend Treatment wNh Partial Pretreatment
Lssue Area at Wtisort Bay WWiP (t,.ombined Transport)
Water pualiry o Improved water qualty in Wilson Bay due to use of land treatment
o No discharge to New Riverlmproved water quality in Wilson Bay
o Potential nonpdnt runoff during storms at land treatment site
o No ocean discharge
Hydrology o Appl{cation of water to efts wilt change patterns of nonpoint runoff
Wetlands o Temporary disturbance o1 wetland habitat along
new force main to land treatment site
o Conversion of wetlands on land treatment ells to
farmland and wiidOfe management areas
Aquatic Habhats o Potential impacts of nonpoint runoff on aquatic habitats
adjoining land treatment site
Terrestrial Plant Communities o Conversion of terrestrial habitat on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
Wildlife o Conversion of terrestrial habitat on land treatment site to
farmland and wildlife management areas
Endangered Species o No impacts on land treatment site or along force mains
Public Recreation Areas o Temporary disruption of navigation and recreation at
New Rtver Crossing
o Benefits due to Increased water quality
o No parks impacted
Noise o Temporary construction noise impacts at land treatment site
o Long term impacts due to pumping noise at land treatment site
Air Quality o Odor impacts during operation same as Alternative t
(remoteness of she will minimize these effects)
o Smoke during clearing
Induced Growth o Land use conversions to urbaNsuburban from
natural habitat and farmlands
Cultural Resources o No impacts on registered sites on land treatment property
o Possible archaeological sites impacted on land treatment site
o No impacts along force main (best estimate)

TABLE 7-2 (c~otttj
/1lternattve 6
Issue Area Ocean Discharge
Water Quality o Improved water gwliry in New River
o Improved water quality in Wilson Bay
o Oi»charge of 9 mgd secondary
waste to Haar shore marine environment
Hydrology o One way movement of water from aquifers to ocean (9 mgd)
o No potential groundwater degradation
Wetlands o Avoid discharge/spray irrigation of wetlands on land-treatment site
o Ocean outfall pipe may affect wetlands along corridor
Aquatic Habitats o 8enthiC habitats and estuarine pfe improved
due to removal of discharge from New River
Terrestrial Plant Communities o Avoid Impacts on land treatment site
o Some habitat temporarily disturbed along outfall corrfdor
Wildl'sfe a Some habitat temporarily disturbed along outfall corridor
Endangered Species o Unknown effects along Corridor/yet to be surveyed
(unlikely due to existing easements)
Public Recreation Areas o No parks Impacted
o Reduced water quality and recreation
at nearshore mdrin8 environment
Noise o Unknown/possible effects at expanded plant
o Pumping noise at expanded Wilson Bay WWTP
Air duality o Reduce/eliminate potential odors at land treatment site by
discharging to ocean
induced Growth o land use conversions to urbaNsuburban from
natural habitat and farmlands
Cultural Resources 0 Poss~le Impacts of undetermined nature
in near coastal ocean environment, and possibly
the Naw River _

TABLE 7-2 (corn)
Issue Area
ABematlve 7
Ocean Discharge with Carteret County
Water Quality o Improved water quality In New Rhrer
0 Improved water Quality M Wllsort Bay
o Discharge of 9 mpd secondary
waste to near shorn marine environment
Hydrology o One way movement of water from aquifers to ocean (9 mpdj
o No potential groundwater degradation
Wetlands o Avoid discharpeJspray krigation of wetlands on land treatment site
o Ocean outtall pipe may affect wetlands along corridor
Aquatic Habitats o 8enthic habitats and estuarine life Improved
due to removal of discharge from New River
Terrestrial Plant Communities o Avoid impacts on land treatment Site
o Some habitat temporarily disturbed along outtali corridor
Wildlife o Some habitat temporarily disturbed along outtall corridor
Endangered Species o Unknown effects along corridortyet to be surveyed
(unlikely due to existing easements)
Public Recreation Areas o No parks Empacted
o Reduced water quality and recreation
at nearshore marine environment
Noise o UnknorvNpossibie effects at expanded plant
o Pumping noise at expanded Wilson Bay WWTP
Alr Quality o Reduce%Ifminate potential odors at land treatment site by
discharging to ocean
Induced Growth o Land use conversions to urbaNsuburban from
natural habitat and farmlands
Cultural Resources o Possible impacts of undetermined nature
in near coastal ocean environment, and possibly
the White Oak River

Application of effluent at the .site may also lead to accumulation of
trace metals and other non-biodegradable organics in the soils, which tend
to bind with soil particles. Accumulation of these compounds could
impact the project life of the land treatment site. The use of chemicals
in wastewater treatment should be minimized where possible. Accordingly,
a rigorous monitoring .program to develop site specific water
quality/cropping management strategies is appropriate.
The pattern of movement of stormwater off the site (as modified for
land treatment) will be changed. Baseline streamflow may be increased,
possibly improving water quality. These changes may result in
improvements to aquatic habitats in Southwest Creek.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, treated wastewater is discharged to the
New River estuary at Marker G-47 in Morgan Bay. Under Alternative 2, the
entire flow is discharged to Morgan Bay, while under Alternative 3, the
flow is equally split between land treatment and discharge to Morgan Bay.
By moving the discharge away from Wilson Bay, this alternative also has
the benefit of improving water quality in that area. Discharge to the
area near Marker G-47 also places the effluent in a larger, more open part
of the estuary where vertical and horizontal mixing is much improved over
Wilson Bay. However, the discharge to the New River at Morgan Bay under
these two alternatives will result in some reductions of water quality of
Morgan Bay (additions of solids, BOD, nutrients, metals and other
pollutants). Discharge of treated effluent under Alternatives 2 and 3
will also result in changes in the salinity regime within the estuary.
This effect will be greater for Alternative 2 since all of the flow will
enter the_New River at Morgan Bay.
The ocean outfall alternatives (Alternative 6 and 7) will impact
water quality in the near shore coastal marine environment. These
alternatives will effectively avoid the effects of an estuarine discharge,
and will require construction of an approximately 20 to 25 mile long
pipeline for either alternative. r
0701-07-1105 1-3

One additional possible type of water quality impact could include
discharge of thermal plumes to the New River estuary at Morgan Bay. under
Alternatives 2 and 3. and to the near shore coastal marine environment
under Alternatives 6 and 7. Such p-fumes could be generated in the
receiving waters during winter.
Under the no action alternative, the water quality in the study area
will steadily deteriorate as the treatment plant becomes overloaded and
the occurrence of bypasses and plant overloads will begin. The water
quality of Wilson Bay, which currently receives effluent from the existing
plant, will continue to worsen if the quality of the effluent is not
improved. Section 5.4 further discusses the important implications of the
no action alternative.
7.2.2 Air Quality
Air quality impacts to the surrounding area for alternatives at the
land treatment site will be associated with construction clearing during
habitat conversion. Smoke generated from burning may temporarily affect
the local human population. Temporary wind generated dust will also be
produced during clearing of land for construction of the treatment
facili-ties, agricultural areas, and force mains.
During operation, odors may be generated at the land treatment site
which will influence receptors around the site. These effects are
dependent on the nature of wind speeds and directions. However, since
the site is in a remote area with buffers between low population density
areas, these effects are expected to be negligible. Measures to minimize
the odors through the use of chemical addition to the force main will be
taken. Odors will also be generated at the expanded Wilson Bay WWTP,
depending upon the alternative selected.
7.2.3 Habitat Conversion (Force Mains and Treatment Site
Direct Conversion During Construction
Terrestrial habitat will be directly eliminated due to construction
of the treatment facilities. The force main corridors (approximately a
20 to 30 foot wide corridor), and the ocean outfall corridor (Alternatives
0701-01-1105 7-4

6 and 7) will temporarily impact terrestrial and wetland habitat along
their routes.
Some wetland areas will be crossed by the force mains. Estimates
of the acreage and type of wetland habitat affected by the force main
corridors for Alternative 1 are reported in Section 9.1.1.5. These
include 12 areas, three of which are ditches, two of which are cut
upocosin-like" habitats (total of 0.28 + 0.21 = 0.49 acres), five of which
include red maple swamp/bottomland forest (0.83 + 0.41 + 0.14 + <0.1 +
<0.1 acres = 1.58 acres), and Brinson Creek and the New River Estuary.
Habitat will be temporarily eliminated within the approximately 30
foot pipe line corridors during construction of the force mains. These
areas (including wetlands at the river crossings) will regrow in a
relatively short period of time. This type of effect is not considered
to be long term.
The crossing of the New River by the force mains also will require
temporary disturbance of the benthic habitats at the point of crossing.
This will be a temporary effect since the pipes are to be buried in the
sediments, which will allow for subsequent recolonixation of the benthic
habitats in these areas.
No surveys of wetlands associated with the ocean outfall alternatives
or the discharge pipe to Morgan Bay have yet been conducted. In these
areas, the habitat will be temporarily disturbed and is expected to regrow
rapidly. The pipe to Morgan Bay will be almost entirely underwater in an
estuarine situation, and only minor wetland crossings would be anticipated
near the Wilson Bay WWTP. A Section 10 and possibly a Section 404 permit
will be required for wetland impacts at all crossings of the Hew River or
other aquatic areas.
Longer Term Habitat Conversion During Operation
For the land treatment alternatives, primarily upland terrestrial
and some wetland habitat will be converted to farming in the spray
irrigation areas. The exact number of acres of each type of habitat to
be eliminated varies with project alternatives. However, spray irrigation
fields will result in conversion of a large portion of the site, depending
on the amount of effluent to be sprayed. Most of the areas that will be
converted to farming consist of previously logged fields in various stages
0707-07-1105 7-5

of regrowth. Therefore, short term impacts due to habitat conversion will
not be significant. Under Alternative 3, only half the flow will be
treated on the land treatment site and the other half will be treated at
the existing Wilson Bay WWTP. Therefore, fewer acres of habitat are
impacted in this manner. Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 involve treatment of the
full flow at the land treatment site.
Construction of the pretreatment and storage lagoons and other
facilities will require more than 100 acres on the land treatment site,
The total acreage of habitat affected by the pretreatment and storage
facilities on the land treatment site is much smaller in comparison with
the number of acres of habitat converted to farmland in the spray fields.
Section 6.2 provides a more detailed summary of the acreage requirements
for the land treatment components.
Areas of the land treatment site which are sprayed with effluent but
are not cleared for farming may experience changes in the structure and
function of the plant community. These changes have been documented in
plant communities on land treatment sites at other locations'. The wetter
hydrologic regime associated with the spray irrigation may improve wetland
habitat in the site that is not converted to agricultural practices.
The actual effect on the land treatment site will depend on the
design of the project and the types of plant and animal communities
present at the site. Heavier rates of loading will result in more
pronounced impacts. Alternative 3, which splits the flow and only applies
half of the flow to the land treatment site, will have less impact on
natural resources because of the reduced loadings to the land treatment
site.
7.2.4 Threatened or Endangered S ecies
No federally listed or proposed Threatened or Endangered Species are
known to inhabit the land treatment site or force main corridors. Surveys
of the ocean outfall corridor or the corridor for the Morgan Bay outfall
have not yet been undertaken, however, the impacts from the pipelines are
temporary in nature.
` Jackson, W. B., "Terrestrial Communities: Frum Mesic To Hydric",
Ecological Considerations In Wetlands Trea~:ment of Municipal
Wastewaters, 1985, pp. 224-230.
0101-01-1105 7-6

7.2.5 Groundwater
The land treatment alternatives (1, 3, 4 ~ 5) will result in
additions of varying amounts of treated wastewater to the local
groundwater.. This nay potentially affect both the quality of the
groundwater and the level of the groundwater table. Alternatives 1, 4
'and 5 will have the greatest potential for impacts since all the flow will
be treated at the site. Alternative 3 will equally split the flow between
the discharge to the New River and the l and treatment site and will ,
therefore, produce less of an impact on groundwater levels and quality at
the land treatment site.
The ocean outfall alternatives (Alternatives 6 and 7) will have no
affect on groundwater loading since they involve an ocean discharge.
However, the ocean outfall alternative will result in a "one way" movement
of freshwater from the groundwater aquifers of the Project Area. The
effects of this one way movement and its potential significance are not
known at present. The alternatives involving land treatment will result
in a greater reuse of fresh water to adjacent areas.
7.2.6 Health Efifects
The land treatment alternatives involve spraying of secondary treated
wastewater onto the site. Sprayed material can be transported some
distance from the point of application to adjacent areas. Since the
sprayed effluent can contain viruses and bacteria, these alternatives,
therefore, have the potential to transmit airborne disease to adjacent
areas.
Spray irrigation projects also have the potential for spreading
avian viruses and other forms of wildlife disease. Shiaris (1985)
reviewed the literature concerning public health implications of applying
sewage to wetlands. These effects are recognized as an important issue
but few studies of actual effects have been completed to date. Pathogens
also may escape the site via surface runoff, or by ingestion of
' Shiaris, M. P., "Public Health Implications of Sewage
Applications on Wetlands: Microbiological Aspects", Fcolo~ical ,
Considerations In Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewate,~s,
1985, pp. 243-261.
0107-07-1105 1-7

contaminated plants and animals. The potential for this to occur at the
proposed land treatment site will be very low since it is located in a
relatively remote area, vegetated buffers around the site will be left
intact, and the effluent will be disinfected.
1.2.7 NavigationjRecreation
Alternatives involving crossings of the New River {Alternatives 1.
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and the alternative involving crossing the White Oak
River (Alternative 7) will result in a temporary disturbance of
navigation as well as any recreational activities which occur at these
locations. These effects will be temporary and will last only during the
construction phase. However. there may be some permanent mooring
restrictions in the immediate vicinity of the force main crossings (a
relatively small area).
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a discharge pipe is proposed to extend
into the New River from the mainland to Morgan Bay. This pipe also will
result in the temporary disturbance of navigation and recreation where it
crosses open water. This pipe also will be buried and, therefore, will
have short term effects.
The ocean outfalls will be buried and no long term effects on
navigation or recreation in near coastal waters are predicted. Short
term effects similar to those produced by the other alternatives could
result in estuarine or freshwater areas crossed by the ocean outfall.
The land treatment alternatives provide a recreational benefit due
to the improved water quality and associated uses.
1.2.8 Prime and Unique Farmland
No prime or unique farmland occurs on the site, therefore, no
adverse effects on this resource are projected. No detailed survey of
prime and unique farmland along the force main corridors or ocean outfall
was conducted. these effects, if any, would be short term in nature and
located primarily along major roadways.
0707-07-1105 7-8

7.2.9 No's
Elevated noise levels will occur for all projects during construction
as the result of construction equipment and truck traffic. These effects
will be temporary, and no permanent adverse effects are expected. During
operation, noise from the treatment plant/spray irrigation system
equipment will result for all alternatives. These effects will be
minimized through proper engineering of structures.
7.2.10 Indirect (jnduced Growth,, Impact
The availability of sewage treatment and disposal facilities made
possible by the proposed project will cause a certain aaaunt of secondary
("induced") growth in the study area. This growth will be similar for
all of the action alternatives since they all provide service for the
Project Area. The growth with the proposed action alternatives will be
faster than the growth which would occur under the no action alternative
due to limitations of sewage service availability to new communities and
growth centers.
The effect of induced growth caused by the availability of sewage
- treatment and. disposal facilities is one of the most important issues
facing a community because it implies that major land use conversions
will occur. Increases in the extent of urban areas occur at the expense
of farmlands or natural habitats. These conversions in turn result in
increased levels of non-point runoff and pollutant loadings to local
streams and rivers. Other types of impacts include encroachment on
natural areas due to population increases, and resulting disturbances of
wildlife.
The actual impacts of land use conversions in the Project Area will
be dependent on the patterns and rates of growth. The overall effects of
any of the action alternatives would result in similar levels of
stimulation of these indirect effects, since population increases are
related in general to the amount of waste treatment capabi]ity.
fl747-47-1145 7-9

7.2.11 Cultural Resources
All of the alternatives involving land treatment will have roughly
similar effects on cultural resources since they all involve the same land
treatment site. Alternative 2, in which all of the flow is discharged to
the New River at Morgan Bay, will not impact the land treatment site but
could impact cultural resources in the New River along the discharge pipe
route. Similarly, Alternatives 6 and 7 (ocean outfall) could impact
cultural resources along the 20 to 25 mile pipeline corridor to the coast,
or even in the nearshore coastal marine environments. This plan has not
included cultural resource surveys of these additional areas. but has only
focused on the land treatment site and the force main corridors.
Consequently, no firm conclusions can be made with regard to the potential
impacts of a project on the ocean outfall and New River corridor.
7.2.12 Public Recreational Parks and Scenic Areas
As summarized in the baseline conditions section, no public
recreational parks are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
land treatment site, and will therefore not be impacted by the project.
Similarly, no parks will be impacted by the force mains. No Wild and
Scenic rivers will be impacted by the location of the force mains or
treatment facilities.
1.2.13 Cconomic Facts
Those alternatives that prohibit continued growth and increase in tax
revenues were considered a negative impact for this analysis. A1T
alternatives except the no action alternative will result in continued
moderate growth for the area.
7.2.14 Environmental Analvsis Summary
A summary table and ranking of alternatives has been prepared (Table
7-3) that evaluates the seven alternatives and the no action alternative
in a comparative manner. Each alternative is ranked based upon its
relative magnitude of impacts as compared to the other alternatives. In
this ranking, a negative number does not mean that the impacts are
0707-07-1105 7-IO

TABLE 7.3 '
CRY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILRIES PLAN AMENDMENT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL tMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
(0 = No Impacts; + =Positive impacts; - =Negative Impacts
IMPACTS

ALTERNATIVES 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 No
Action
ISSUE AREA
Water Quality +2 2 •1 +2 +2 -1 -1 2
Hydrology +2 -2 -1 +2 +2 -2 2 2
Wetlands -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0
Aquatic Habitats -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Terrestrial Plant Communities •1 0 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0
Wildlife 0 -i 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public Recreation +1 -1 0 +1 +1 0 0 -2
Noise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Air duality -1 0 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0
Induced Growth -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1
Guttural Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Economic Impacts +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 -2
Total +1 -7 -b +1 +i -4 -4 $
0707-07-1101

meaningfully adverse, merely that in relation tv other alternatives the
value for the given criterion was not as favorable.
This summary table shows that Alternatives 1. 4, and 5 all are ranked
equally high as the favored alternatives from an environmental
perspective.
7.3 EVALUATION OF RELIABILITY
Each of the seven alternatives evaluated would be able to
consistently meet the treatment levels for which they were designed.
However, the alternatives which involve discharge to the New River seem
to contain more instability relative to the treatment levels required
throughout the Planning Period. The effluent quality that the DEM
currently envisions for the New River may be found to be inadequate to
restore water quality at a later time, thereby opening the possibility for
even more stringent discharge limitations. Ocean discharge may be subject
to these same issues regarding water quality. Therefore, Alternatives 1,
4, and 5 are considered preferred with respect to reliability.
7.4 EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTABILITY
All alternatives involve significant capital investment because of
the drastic improvements in effluent quality required. The City of
Jacksonville will be put under a substantial financial burden to implement
even the lowest cost alternative. It will be evident in the financial
' implementation plan of Section 8.6 that only the lowest cost alternative
is implementable.
7.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives were compared on the basis of monetary costs,
- environmental impacts, reliability and implementabiiity. Alternative 1
is the most attractive from a monetary cost, reliability, and
implementability basis. The environmental impacts of Alternative 1. along
with Alternatives 4 and 5, are the most positive. Moreover, the monetary
_ cost of Alternatives 2 through 1 do not permit implementation. Therefore,
Alternative 1 - Land Treatment Only is selected as the preferred
alternative.
0101-07-1105 1-11 r

7.6 VIEWS OF THE PUBLIC AND CONCERNED INTERESTS
Delays in the hydrogeologic evaluation of the land treatment site
did not permit the completion of the 201 Facilities Plan Amendment in time
to hold a public meeting prior to submission to the State. A public
meeting will be conducted within approximately 30 days of submission of
this Plan to the State and the results will be submitted as an addendum
to this Report.
0701-07-1105 7-12

S ACT/o~ 8
O i~ ~~~~

SECTION 9.0
Environmental Assessment

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEfIT
9.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
9.1.1 Land ,'reatment Site
This section summarizes the a~a3or features of the existing natural
environment of the proposed 2,650 acre land treatment site and the area
along the force main corridors. In the discussion, more emphasis is
placed on the features of the environment which relate to the primary
issues surrounding the pro3ect.
9.1.1.1 Phvsiograohic Selina
The land treatment site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province of southeastern North Carolina. The region is
characterized by flat to gently rolling topography with slightly
entrenched streams (Figure 9-1). The land surface slopes eastward at
approximately three feet per mile. A typical cross-section of the
coastal plain reveals a wedge shaped sequence of marine and non-marine
sedimentary units overlying an eastwardly dipping crystalline basement
complex. Sedimentary units in the coastal plain of North Carolina range
in age from lower Cretaceous to the present, and- were deposited during
several transgressions and regressions of the sea. The sequence of
sedimentary units underlying the land treatment site is approximately 1100
feet thick (Narkunas, 1980).
9.1.1.2 Groundwater
Hvdroloav
The •sedimentary wedge which characterizes the coastal plain in
southeastern North Carolina consists of aquifers and confining units
which comprise several hydrogeologic units. Hydrogeologic units are
differentiated by hydraulic conductivity and hydrologic characteristics.
The stratigraphic relationship of the hydrogeologic units underlying the
land treatment site and vicinity is shown in Figure 9-2.
Coastal plain aquifers are subject to intrusion of saltwater that
pinches out in a landward direction. Saltwater is defined as water
having a concentration of chloride ion in excess of 250 mg/L. The plane
of contact between freshwater and saltwater is called the transition area,
and is depicted in cross-section as a concave upward line (Figure 9-2).
0707-07-1105 g_1

'~--~:-~ - -~-, , •~ „ -~ , ~ FIGURE sa-1
`\ ~` _ ~
i .__. ._ C. M // ! t...r
1----
• ,
_ r ~ ~.-_
/ - M
~~ j ; MON(T~fiINQ. S.I 1'10•N + «,«'`««
+ _.-. '~
` ~ .. ~
m. / ~ =/~~ / /~ ,mss ~ ,
Ar `
'. Y ~ ~ ~ ~
IM
~f.
I ~
ie ! ~ ~•'~
'~ i ~~ ;-
~~ _ -
i / ~~ ~
~t _ `(~.
-^~-~ /~
~ -...~.
LEGEND CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
2a1 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
WATER WELL LOCATION HYDROLOGIC FEATURES
® DECEMBER 1li8E
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 500 0 6Q0
IRN! ~ DEEP RUN CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
SCALE !N METERS

FIGURE >t-2
Z
J
W ~ ~
d
~ p g WW
H 111 W ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ p
~' IW ~ NF-
~ Q ~~W W o ~ s
U ~ ~ .t r
ti ~w ~vpn ~n g~
~ .. d
W W, ~R Q~
~~ v ~
u.~ S
ac
LLI
~ 6 ¢
Q Y W
W ~_
W W ~
U a
d W U ~
LL ~ J ~ ~
~ a~ 1 m W v
~ } a w ~ w ~
z = fl ~ ~ W
~ N a ' 4 ~
~ , sa w
v
O ~ ~
O w
_ '_ "' O
Z OLLW ~
~ = ti ~ tJ
J
N m~ t
2 ' V
~ ' W
Z U. W ~ N Z
J ~'
a ~
W '~

Cape Fear (also known as the Tuscaloosa Formation: LeGrand, 1960),
Black Creek and Pee Dee aquifers are ~aembers of the Cretaceous Aquifer
System. This system has been divided into two units, the Upper and Lower
Sand Units, which are separated by a semi-permeable confining bed. The
Cretaceous Lower Sand Unit includes the water-bearing sands and clays of
the Cape Fear and Black Creek aquifers, and ranges in thickness from 500
to 500 feet in the study area. Groundwater in the lower sand unit occurs
primarily under. confined conditions {Narkunas, 1980). The directian of
groundwater flow under natural conditions would be to the east or
southeast (downdip), however, natural flow is precluded by large-scale
withdrawal for municipal and industrial uses (Narkunas, 1980). Cones of
depression in the potentiometric surface of the lower sand unit are
extensive in the vicinity of major pumping centers, including
Jacksonville, Kinston (Lenoir County), and Greenville (Pitt County)
(Narkunas, 1980).
Recharge to the Cretaceous Lower Sand Unit occurs primarily by
leakage through the overlying confining bed. The rate of recharge is
dependent upon the thickness and hydraulic conductivity of the confining
bed, and the hydraulic head from the source beds to the recovering beds.
Accordingly, recharge rates vary throughout the unit. The average
recharge rate for the Cretaceous Lower Sand Unit was estimated to be
55,000 gallons per day per square mile (gpd/mil) {Narkunas, 1980}. Other
hydraulic properties of the aquifer are included in Table 9-1. In
general, the Cretaceous Lower Sand Unit is not used as a source of
groundwater in the immediate Project Area because of saltwater intrusion.
The Cretaceous Upper Sand Unit is composed of water-bearing sands
in the lower portion of the Pee Dee stratigraphic unit. Silt and clay
deposits within the Pee Dee unit form a confining bed, separating the
Cretaceous Upper Sand Unit from the overlying Castle Nayne Formation. The
Pee Dee aquifer is approximately 100 feet thick in the land treatment
site. Confining units can range in thickness from 15 to 80 feet.
Natural flow patterns in the Cretaceous Upper Sand Unit are modified
by heavy withdrawal from the Cretaceous Lower Sand Unit. Groundwater in
the Upper Sand Unit flows toward major pumping centers in the Lower Sand
Unit. Saltwater intrusion is also a problem in areas of the Upper Sand
0707-07-1105 9-2

W
Q
v
O
~ a0
a
O ~u

V
C
Q ~ W

~+
~
Y H
W~W
m
H ~a
W pi~
O
~~ W
~
Z
V ~ Zaa
0 ~ J
p
N a
v~

U
_
~~
N
ire
[~
~.-~
O~
U
W
on~

~~
i~
~Z
~_
~ ~ ~i,
~ r 'a
m Q~ m ~~ ~ O
C '" CO "' t9 CO "' r
b ~ ~_
T r
'~ ~ o b '~ b
r r r r ~- r
f~ N r r CV '~ ~G
!D r N
8
g o~ ~ o~ ~ o~
tp " r " .- r '-' u~
W
U
Z
N
W
U
W
a
a
Z
Q
N
W
Q
Q
U
O
!~

c

0
4
0
0

Unit. Recharge to the Cretaceous Upper Sand Unit is provided by leakage
through the overlying confining bed. A recharge rate of 56,000 gpd/miZ
was estimated for the Cretaceous Upper Sand Unit by Narkunas (1980).
Additional hydraulic properties of this unit are presented in Table 9-1.
Tertiary aquifers in the coastal plain of North Carolina include
the Belgrade (~aleocene), Castle Nayne (Eocene), Trent (Oligocene), and
Yorktown (Miocene} formations. The Castle Nayne hydrogeologic unit
includes the Castle Hayne and Trent Formations and is a principal aquifer
system of the land treatment site. The Castle Nayne aquifer is composed
of a series of sand, limestone, and clay beds. Limestone is the dominant
rock type in the upper one-half to one-third of the aquifer, and the lower
portions of the unit are composed of sand and limestone. Minor amounts
of clay occur in thin sandy marl beds or are dispersed througfiout the
lower limestone and sand beds (Manner and Coble, 1987).
The Castle Hayne unit is 200 to 250 feet thick in the vicinity of
the land treatment site. The aquifer is generally confined, but may be
locally unconfined in stream valleys where confining materials have been
removed by stream processes. The recharge rate for the Castle Nayne
aquifer was estimated to be 240,000 gpd/mil (Narkunas, 1980). Most
recharge to the aquifer occurs in interstream areas and groundwater is
discharged under natural conditions beneath streams and esturaries.
Reversals in natural flow direction, both vertical and horizontal, are
caused by groundwater withdrawals for municipal and industrial uses. The
potential for contamination of the Castle Hayne aquifer by surface
pollutants is increased in areas that experience vertical flow direction
reversal (tyke and Treece, 1988}. Hydraulic properties of the Castle
Hayne aquifer are presented in Table 9-1.
The Castle Hayne aquifer is an important source of water for the
Camp lejeune military base, as well as for municipal, rural domestic
i
agricultural, and industrial uses. In general, water level declines in
the aquifer have occurred as a result of excessive withdrawals by
industries and public supply systems (tyke and Treece, 1988). In the
Camp Lejeune area, water levels in the aquifer indicate that regional
flow is towards surface streams and the New River (Harned and Lloyd,
1988).
0707-01-1105 9-3

.The surficial aquifer is composed of sand and thin, discontinuous
clay layers, and ranges in thickness from 50 to 100 feet. The unit is
unconfined and is recharged- through interstream areas and direct
infiltration from overlying soils. It is important as a groundwater
reservoir, providing.baseflow for streams, and recharging the underlying
confined aquifer systems.
Watgr Ouality
Water quality in the Cretaceous aquifer is generally very good.
Water was below maximum contaminant levels of the national drinking
water-standards for nitrate, chloride, and fluoride (Giese et al., 1986).
Water in the Cretaceous aquifer is soft and alkaline, requiring little or
no treatment for most uses. Concentrations of fluoride in the Black Creek
Formation may exceed maximum permissible concentrations, and may therefore
limit the use of water for drinking from some wells.
The Castle Hayne aquifer yields hard to very hard water. Hardness
is lowest near recharge areas, but increases with residence time in the
limestone rocks of the aquifer. Iron concentrations may exceed drinking
water standards near recharge zones, but iron is precipitated as the water
moves through the limestone (Giese et al., 1986). Water quality data for
the Cretaceous, Castle Hayne and surficial aquifers are presented in
Table 9-2.
Water Supply
There are no sole source aquifers or proposed sole source aquifers
in Onslow County, North Carolina (Ron Meculick, U.S. EPA Region IY,
Personal Communication, July 13, 1989) or well head protection areas in
Onslow County. However, the state has developed a system to protect
aquifers in the Project Area, with new legislation having been initiated
in August. There is one public water supply well, Well No. 4, owned by
Onslow County, and several private drinking water wells located adjacent
to the proposed site (Figure 9-1). The public well has a total depth of
665 feet, and intersects a water zone from 560 to 660 feet. Average yield
of the well is 802 gpm (Rick Shiver, NCDNRCD, Transmittal, 27 July 1989).
The water is obtained from a hard limestone unit, presumably of the Castle
Hayne aquifer.
0701-01-1105 g_q

N
W
W C
C 4
~~ a
a ~a =
~ N2
~ ~g a
~ a
k- O W ~
~a
Y.
N
Q
3
~
~ $
~
Q ° e,~
t'tS cbd

~Z3

5
a

U ~
~ $
.- ~
o
ao N
0

U

d
a
W

=
N o
C
N v
C

Q
~
v m
E
~ a
v

~ ~
r
g N
o
~ r
o
LL
~
~ C
~
L!
Q ~ ~
U s ~
~ `

a
~_=
~ ~
~
m
m ~ ~
~
<S
3s C W~
=v ~
~ z~
Zv t
V ~
~. b
w p
Q

_~
U
O
v

r
4
d
d

9.1.1.3 Surface Hvdrologv and WateL Ouality
The land treatment site is located in the drainage basin of Southwest
Creek, a tributary to the New River. Southwest Creek has a total drainage
area of approximately 75.0 square miles and drains into the New River at
a location known as Morgan Bay. The land treatment site is located near
the headwaters of Southwest Creek. The drainage area of the creek at the
point where it exits the land treatment site (Figure 9-1) is approximately
16.7 square miles. The southern portion of the land treatment site is
included in the Deep Run sub-basin of Southwest Creek (Figure 9-1) which
has a total drainage area of approximately 4.3 square miles. A flow of
4 to 5 CFS was estimated for Southwest Creek during the July and August
sampling period. Using a runoff factor of 1.4 CFS min, the annual average
discharge for Southwest Creek at the land treatment site is 29 CFS.
Southwest Creek and its tributaries are included in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). The extent of the 100-year floodplain for the stream has been
delineated as part of the NFIP. The northeastern portion of the land
treatment site borders on Southwest Creek and is within the creek's
100-year floodplain, as shown in Figure 9-1.
Southwest Creek is a freshwater "Class C" stream (North Carolina
DNR&CD, 1989}. This classification indicates that the stream is suitable
for fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
North Carolina water quality standards applicable to 'Class C" waters are
presented in Table 9-3.
During a 1986 study of the New River Basin, two water quality
sampling stations were located on Southwest Creek (North Carolina DNR&CD,
1987). One station was located at the mouth of the Creek, and the second
station was located at the Route 17 crossing of Southwest Creek,
approximately 8 river miles downstream from the Project Area. The results
of water quality sampling at the two stations during a four month period
(June-September, 1986) are shown in Table 9-4.
Water quality samples were taken on Southwest Creek in July and
August of 1989. The results are presented in Table 9-5. There are two
NPOES permitted dischargers to Southwest Creek: Kenwood Estates (Permit
No. N00030813) and Old Hickory (Permit No. 0034339). Kenwood estates has
0701-07-1105 9-5

TABLE 0.3
CRY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACILRIES PLAN AMENDMENT
NORTH CAROLINA STATE
WATER OUALM STANDARDS FOR FRESHWATER CLASSES
SOsr-dads 1brLM
fib Moro Shin4srrt Standads
T8 5~ Addltionei Uaes
Nl5 Classes Cisas 8
Arasnk ruym ao 1.0
eadwr, (ugli) 11.0
eerylfium (ugN) 2.0 (~)
CJdoride (mgp) 2bo
Chloride, toga! rosldual (ug/I} (TA)
Chlorophyll a, corrected (ugly 40 (Claw C)
Clnomlurn, total (ug/~ b0
cobalt (,,,o/i) !.o
ColNonn, total (MfTCCn00 rnl) ~ R+~J N)
Colllorm, fecal (JNFfcC1100 mq 1000 200 (~1
CopPe1(u91~ 15 (~
Cyanlds (ug/J) a.0
~
~o d ~n (mgm a.o ~
(sw! ~)
fluoride (mg/n 1.d
Hardness, total (mg1>J 100

f..ed (~14 ~ f~
Manganese (uglQ 50
MBAS (ug/1) '~
M•-~wr (gym o.20
Nickel (ugli) ~ R) ~
NlCate Nitrogen (mg/~ !0
Peatlcfdes (ugly
Aldnn 0.002
Chlordane O.OOy
DDT 0.00!
Demeton 0.1
Die/drln O•~
EndosuNan 0.05
Endrin O•~2
~utldon ~ 01
Heptachlor 0.004
Undans 001
Mefhcixychlor 0.03
Mirez 0.001
Parathion 0.O'r
Towphens 0.013
$ 4-D 100

1~ N~1 e.0-tr.o (SW)
Phendk Compounds (ugJlJ (N) 1.0 (AIC)
Pdych/orinatsd 6lphsnyla (rrg/~ 0.001
ftadiaactiwe Substances M)
Selenium (ug/1) 10 (3)
Slhrer (+rSm !D ("L)
Solids, tote/ disaoAred (mgll) S00
Solids, auependsd M)
0707-07-1105

TABLE ~
(Col~tfnued)
Parameters SOar-denis for AM More Stringent Sfendtirda
Freshwaters 7o Suoport,Additiona! 11sea
WS Classes ~_..@
sttxares (mg/I) rso
TsmpereAxe PC1 32 (Casa C)
Toxic Substarresa ~
Tilalkyldn (ugln O.OOt1
Turbldlty ~
Zinc (ug/~ so (AL)
(N) See ?B.0221 (b) For narrafi-ro description d limits.
(/YC) See narratrve description for specific classilicafion.
(AL) Values represent actlon bvels as specllrod !n .0211 (b) (I).
(SNP Designated swamp wafers may have s pH as bw sa 4.3 acrd d/saohred oxygen Mss ~1-an 5.0 rnQit M due to nadxaJ
conditions.
(TR) Designated trout waters have cadmium limit d 0.~ +rg/l, a loos! residual chbdrre -im/t of 2.0 ug/I and dissohrod
oxygen must lie et least 8.0 mgll.
(1) An instantaneous reading may be as bw as I.0 ugll but the dally average must be S.0 rn9h or more.
(2) Or if more stringent 0.0t d the 9t3-hr LC50.
(3) Selenium limit for ponds, lakes, and reservoirs TS 5 ugh.
(I) Applies only fo unfiltered water supplies.
(Source: North Carolina DNAdCD, 1989a)
0707-07-1105

"~ ~ ~ ~ at s i ~ ~ ~
V
v
q n ~ N a ~q
O !- H 1~ O O A
~ l8 R t3 !6 ~ l6 16
O f'
a
v
F
Z O
~ _ ~- A •r a •r n a
Q ~ f a IC !1 O N! Q M!
W ~ Q .r
~Q V
Yg ~
m Qa
~ t
H LL W ~ d ~ ~ o s ~ '~ n m
O~ N ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0
V Q 4. h ...
~ O
T
~ a
a ~~ AA
Z ~ A ~ ~ A A O m
Q ~ r C O O C O ~ O O i
3 G7 ~-
0 0 ~ c~ a ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ `
...
U
o a ~ ~ a :'
H ~ ~^

O
U
2~
O
U
Z
N
0
.-v
.~
O
O
O

TABLE si-5
CRY OF JACKSONVIU.E
Z01 FACILRIES PLAN AMENDMENT
RESULTS OF WATER t]UAUTY SAMPLING CONDUCTED BY WAPORA~ INC.
AT STATION INDICATED IN FIGURE si-1 (TESTING DONE BY LAW i COMPANY,
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA).
t
Results Results
Test/Samples Unks 7/27/89 8/14/89
Total Suspended Solids PPM ~ 6.00 920.0
Nitrate Nitrogen PPM 0.62 20.0
Nitrite Nitrogen PPM <0.20 0.46
Total lGeldahl Nitrogen PPM 5.00 <0.20
Ortho-phosphorus PPM O.U6 5.60
Total Phosphorus PPM <0.10 0.47
COD PPM 31.40 0.69
BOD PPM < 1.00 24.0
Lead ~ PPM 0.012 5.0
Cadmium PPM 0.002 <0.01
Zinc PPM 0.026 <0.01
fecal Colrform C/100ML 80.00 0.07
Dissolved Oxygen PPM 6.60 ~ 3.40
Temperature DegC 23,00 6,gp
PH - 6.50
070?-07-1105

a permitted flow of 0.0500 million gallons per day (mgd) and an actual
flaw of 0.0312 mgd. Old Hickory has a penaitted flow of 0.0180 mgd and
an actual flow of 0.0120 mgd. Total point source flow from Southwest
Creek into New River is 0.068 mgd. An estimated concentration of total
phosphorus from point sources to Southwest Creek is 610 kg/year.
fstimated point source total nitrogen is 1635 kg/year for Southwest Creek
(North Carolina DNR~CD, 1987). These values for point source nutrient
loading are the lowest of all estimated values for tributaries to the New
River.
9.1.1.4 Land Use a2d_ Soi 1 s
Land use on the land treatment site includes areas that have been
recent]y cleared by International Paper Company or areas planted to
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) or slash pine (Pinus e]lfottii) for use in the
pulpwood industry. The land is also leased for hunting by the Rhodestown
_ Hunting Club.
Stands of planted pine vary in age from three to sixteen years. Much
of the three year plantation occupies areas presently dominated by other
types of vegetation discussed in Section 9.1.1.3. The youngest pine is
planted in areas where a previous stand of pine plantation, having reached
rotational age (35-40 year), was cut three or four years ago.
Hunting at the site include white-tailed deer between September and
January of each year, the normal deer season. Yhite-tailed deer appeared
to be abundant and small groups of two to three deer were seen on numerous
occasions during the field survey. land use by forestry interests
generally favors creating foraging habitat for white-tailed deer.
Preliminary soil mapping by the Onslow County SCS has been
completed, however, a published Onslow County Soil Survey is not
available. Preliminary field sheets of the site were obtained from the
Onslow County SCS. The soil series, their respective subgroups, orders,
and moisture regimes are presented in Table 9-6. Prime soils and soils
having statewide or local importance are also identified in Table 9-6.
Norfolk series soils constitute the bulk of the upland soils, and
Rains and Lynchburg soils comprise the bulk of the non-floodplain wetland
soils. Soils of the Muckalee series constitute the floodplain soils along
Southwest Creek and some of its tributaries in the land treatment site.
0707-07-1105 9-6

TABLE ~
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
201 FACIU'f1ES PLAN AIrAEND1YlENT
SOIL SERIES IDENTIFIED BY THE SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE AT THE PROPOSED LAND TREATMENT SITE
arias Su~,~gbn~u_p Qr~g _Moisture Regime
Atpin TYPE 9~Psam mertt Ent~sol Aeric
Autryvipe Arenic paleudult Utt~ol Aeric
Baymead Arenic hapludult Ultisd Aeric
Leon Aeric haplaquod Spodosd Aquic
Lynchburg** Aeric pateaquult URisol Aquic
Marvyn Typic hapludult Uhisoi Aeric
Muckalee Typic flwaquent Entisol Aquic
Murvilis Typic haptaqufld Spodosd Aquic
Norfolk* Typic paleudult Uatsol Aeric
Onslow* Spodic paleudult Ukisol Aeric
Rains** Typic paleaquult Ultisol Aquic
Stallings** Aeric pak3aquuh Uttisoi Aquic
Woodington** Typic paleaquua Uftisoi Aquic
• Soils considered Prime Farmland: These soils are best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage,
and oilseed crops. They have good soil qualities, are favorable far all major crops coming to the
county, have a favorable growing season , and they receive available moisture needed to produce
high yields on an average of 8 out d every 10 years (USDASCS, Onslow County Technical Guide,
Section II C, No date).
** Soils considered of state and local importance; These soil urdis are important in the agricuhure of
Onskr+v County. in one or more ways, their characteristics do not meet the requirements of prime
farmlands in that they are naturally wet and tack adequate intemat drainage.
0707-07-1105

Leon series map units scattered within the proposed land treatment site
represent pockets of pocosin present before the planting of pine. Rains
and Lynchburg soils most likely supported savannah, savannah-like pocosin
or bay forest vegetation prior to cutting and pine plantation.
9.1.1.5 plant Community nalvsis
Plant communities at the proposed land treatment site and along the
force main corridor have developed in response to soils, climate and
other site-specific ecological characteristics. Modification of these
conditions, as well as modification of plant tonmunities, has largely
been the resu]t of human manipulation of the landscape. Fire has been
an important factor in the succession of vegetation. In pine
plantations, controlled fire is frequently used to reduce the amount of
natural litter that could fuel uncontrolled fires.
Most of the plant communities present at the proposed site are
influenced by the pine plantation by a continuous canopy of planted- pine
that shadows the ground and the understory vegetation. When the pine is
harvested, disturbance of the soil and sudden exposure to light promote
the rapid development of successional stages normally expected in the
early development of the natural communities.
Plant communities which have developed under natural conditions in
the land treatment site, or that have been created by human land use
practices, are listed below, followed by a discussion of each community
type. The wetland classification system employed in the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al.
1979} are also used to identify wetland communities. The following table
summarizes the relationships between the two classification systems and
summarizes the acreages of each habitat on the pro3ect site: (See
Plate 9-1)
Habjtat Tvoe NWI Tvog Wetland Acres n Site
Upland Pine Plantation
Wetland Pine Plantation PF04C 91.3
Upland Scrub-Shrub -- --
Wetland Scrub-Shrub PSSIA 267.7
Bottomland Forest PFOIC 75.12
Mixed Forest -- --
Marsh PAB3H or PAB3G 4.13
0707-07-1105 9-7

s

: ~~o_ a
v ~ ~~_,
WW °
a'' ~
_
o _; •
W J -
W -_ e
_ E a ~ 8 7
~ ¢ a
O

/_/
J
V z
~g ...
i
3
~ i Y~ ~, ..
~I

~p~and Pine Planstation
The most common forested plant community at the land treatment site
is upland pine plantation. Most of the pine is loblolly (Pious taeda),
but slash pine (Pines elliottii) is planted in some of the younger stands.
Pine plantations five years old or older are included in this community
type.
In the early years of growth, planted pine is difficult to
distinguish from the natural vegetation, but after about five years, the
tops of the planted trees emerge above the adjacent scrubby vegetation.
Prior to the emergence of the pine above the surrounding vegetation, young
trees and shrubs dominate the plantations. As the pine increases in size
and density, growth of many light-loving. species is impeded by shade.
Other species of particularly broad-leaf trees thrive in the shade and
tan eventually grow to share the canopy with the pine.
Common shrub species noted in younger upland pine plantation were
wax myrtle {Kyrica cerifera), high bush blueberry (Vaccinium carymbosum),
bitter gall berry (Ilex glabra), bamboo (Arundinaria gigantea), and winged
sumac (Rhos copallina). Yellow jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens) is a
common woody vine. Many species of weedy plants can be found in young,
open pine plantations. The most common weedy plants are broom sedge
(Andropogon spp.), blackberry {Rebus argutus), and bracken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum). Oat grass (Danthonia sericeaj and elephant's foot
(Elephantopus tomentosus) frequently occur in open dry soils. j
More mature pine plantation in upland situations frequently supports
young individual tree species tolerant of shade. Blackgum (Nyssa
syivatica), southern red aak (Quercus falcate), blackjack oak (Quercus
marilandica), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum) are usually common in drier soils. Yild cherry (Prunes
serotina) is common near edges of pine plantation and in openings in the
pine canopy.
Many of the same shrub species are common in the more mature
plantations, but the cover by these species and other species of
light-loving shrubs is reduced due to increased shade. Bitter gallberry
and wax myrtle are prevalent. Colic-root (Aletris farinosa), goat's rue
(Tephrosia virginiana), pencil flower (Stylosanthes biflora), and baptisia
0701-07-1105 9-8

(Baptisia cinerea) can be found in more open situations. Samson snakeroot
(Psoralea psoraiioides} is common in relatively open, dry pine plantation.
Stagger-bush (Lyonia •ariana) and dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa) also
occur.
~letiand Pine Plantation
Metland habitats under a loblolly pine plantation occur along stream
channels and on poorly drained flats with clay or spodic horizons that
impede the downward movement of water. Use of heavy machinery for
timbering and planting may have increased the extent of wet soils due to
compaction and rutting. These areas are similar to pocosin or savannah
habitats because tfiey support an•abundance of evergreen shrub species,
especially where the pine canopy has failed to develop because of
competition from species better able to survive in wet soils.
Some of the more common woody plant species associated with these
habitats are: red maple (Ater rubrum), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana),
red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus, sweetgum
(Liquidam~bar styraciflua), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). The most
abundant shrub species are: fetter-bush (Lyonia )ucida), wax myrtle,
bamboo, high bush blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), and male-berry (Lyonia
Jigustrina).
The most frequently occurring herbaceous species are large, coarse
plants mare readily able to compete for light. Cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea) and royal fern (Osmunda regaJis) are the most highly visible.
Bamboo briar (Smilax laurifolia), a species of woody vine
characteristically found throughout pocosins, also is common in wetland
pine plantation at the land treatment site.
Upland Scrub-shrub
Upland scrub-shrub habitats occur wherever pine plantation has been
harvested. In most areas, pine has been replanted but is not yet obvious
as a dominant species. The prevalence of plant cover is usually due to
one or several species of broad-leaf deciduous trees rising as stump or
root sprouts. Such upland situations are occasionally thickets, but
usually young trees and shrubs are more widely spaced. The height of the
woody vegetation ranges from three to six feet.
0107-07-1105 9-9

Xeric dry sandy soils support a mixture of oak species including
young blacl~ack oak (Quercus marilandfca), southern red oak (Quercus
falcate), post oak (Quercus ste]lata), scrubby past oak (Quercus
margaretta), turkey oak (Quercus Iaevis), and ~luejack oak (Quercus
incana). It is not common for all of these species to be found in one
area. Species dominance or co-dominance changes in response to minor soil
variations. In some sandy soils, persimmon (Diospyros rirginiana),
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatfca) and blackjack oak are co-dominant. Along more
mesic slopes, sweetgum, red maple, white oak (Quercus alba) and, in moist
sandy soils, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), occur as elements in
a low scrub-shrub canopy. These situations reflect, in part, the forest
conditions that pre-dated pine plantation.
Woody species, normally considered shrubs, also grow in the cut-over
areas and contribute to the scrub-shrub characterization of the canopy
cover. Bitter gallberry, stagger-bush, choke-berry (Aronia arbutifolia),
sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), dwarf wax myrtle (Myrica pusilla),
and winged sumac (Rhus copallina) are most abundant in xeric to mesic
areas.
Due to soil disturbance and an increase in the amount of light
reaching the herbaceous layer, many herbaceous species, in addition to
those characteristically found in undisturbed habitats, were observed
growing at the land treatment site. Typical herbaceous species found in
dry, sandy soils were wiregrass (Aristida stricta), baptisia,
stiff-leaved aster (Aster linariifo]ius), retrorse aster (Aster
squarrosus), black-root (Pterocaulon virgatum), Samson snakeroot, and
white-topped aster (Aster solidagineus). In many areas adjacent to
hydric sails, these species intergrade with species characteristic of
wetlands (sensu strictu). Within these transition zones, orange polygala
(Polyga]a lutes), bracken fern, running blueberry (Vaccinium
crassifolium), hat pins (Lachnocaulon anceps), meadow beauty (Rhexia
alifanus), and colic-root were common.
Wetlanr~,Scrub-Shrub
Wetland scrub-shrub habitats exist in wetlands that have been
recently cleared of pine. Pine seedlings have recently been planted, but
a sufficient amount of time has not passed to allow dominance to shift to
0701-07-1105 9-10

pine from the wide variety of hydrophytic species presently supported in
these hydric soils. The herbaceous species assemblage in these wetlands
is not unlike species associated with savannahs, especially somewhat
disturbed savannahs. The disturbance has been associated with forest
management practices and has resulted in pools of water in same areas
where surface soil horizons have been iaoved by aachinery. low mounds of
clay soil usually occur ad3acent to the pools. Allowed to regenerate
without pine plantation, these sites would resemble pocosins. With the
advent of irregular fire, they tould support pond pine (Pinus serotina)
or longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) as a dominant canopy species and
develop as savannahs.
Two groups of soils appear to support the development of scrub-shrub
wetlands: haplaquods and paleaquolts. Haplaquods have developed a
spodic horizon which impedes the downward movement of water. Paleaquolts
possess clayey horizons which also tend to perch water at or near the
surface of the soil. These horizons are most effective in holding water
in areas of low topographic relief along flats and gentle slopes in the
headwater areas of streams.
Pocosin-like vegetation has developed in stream channels connecting
the flats to the floodplain of Southwest Creek in areas where pine
plantation has not obscured the natural vegetation. Scrub-shrub
vegetation on the wetland flats and stream heads is currently less than
five or six feet in height. Co-dominant species consist of sweet bay and
red maple. Stump shoots of these species are scattered. Other tree
species represented by root and stump shoots are black gum and red bay.
True shrub species growing in these habitats are choke berry, lamb-kill
(Kalmia angustifo]ia), bitter gallberry, high-bush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum), bamboo, and sweet pepperbush. Bamboo briar is present,
though not as abundant as in better developed pocosins.
Herbaceous species are abundant, and in many parts of the land
treatment site are dominant over woody plants. Orchids and carnivorous
plants on the land treatment site include the following:
- Spreading pogonia (C~eistes divaricata)
- Grass-pink (Calopogon tuberosus)
- Yenus' fly trap (Dionaea muscipula)
0707-07-1105 g-ll

- Sundew (Drosera capiJlaris)
- Sundew (Drosera intermedia}
- Yellow pitcher plant (Sarracenia flava)
- Purple pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea)
- Bladderwort (Utricularia ,funcea)
These are characteristic species of savannahs and pocosin borders.
Other species whose presence attest to the savannah-like nature of these
habitats are nut rush (Scleria triglomerata and ScJeria paucifJora),
tooth-ache grass (Ctenium aromaticum), nut rush (Rhynchospora spp.), red
root (Lachnanthes caroliniana), yellow star-grass (Nypoxis hirsuta),
polygala (Polygala ramose and Polygala cruciata), thoroughwort (Eupatorium
rotundifolium), and black snakeroot (Zigadenus densus). Several species
of panic grass (Dicanthelium spp. and Panicum verrucosuai) also are
prevalent in these disturbed habitats.
Bottomland Forest
Within the land treatment site, few segments of undisturbed
bottomland or floodplain forest exist along Southwest Creek: most have
been recently cut. Soils that have developed along the creek are entisols
in the great group, fluvaquents. They are morphologically young soils,
developed from floodplain deposits and sediments eroded from agricultural
fields and other cleared areas.
Canopy species, if distinct strata are present, consist of green ash
(~raxinus/pennsylvanica}, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
American elm (Ulnws araericana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water
oak (Quercus nigra), and sweetgum. Mature and post mature loblolly pine
individuals are widely scattered along the upper edges of the active
floodplain. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) individuals are scattered
in the wetter areas of the fioodplains where water is panded following
flooding. A single species of subcanopy tree, hornbeam (Carpinus
caroliniana) is characteristic of this habitat.
Shrubs are not common components of the most active portions of the
floodplain, but in areas which are occasionally flooded, possum haw
0107-01-1105 9-12

(Viburnum unifalfum), spicebush (tinders benZOin), and hawthorn (Crataegus
marsha]lii) are characteristic shrubs. Moody vines found in the
floodplain soils include climbing hydrangea (Decuoari: barbara), cross
vine (Bignonia capreolata), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Herbaceous cover is considerably sore abundant along the floodplain
than cover by shrub species. Two species of Carex (Carex grayif and
Carex lurida), -false nettle (Boehmerfa cylindrica), and dayflower
(Commelina virginica) grew in more frequently inundated portions of the
floodplain. Panic grass (Dicanthelium comrsutatum) appeared to grow in
less frequently flooded areas.
Mixed forest
Small isolated stands of mixed forest remain unconverted to pine
plantation. Some of these stands are located along the topographic break
between the lower edge of pine forest and the upper edge of bottomland
forest along Southwest Creek. In areas where they have not been recently
cut, these stands may remain because slopes were too great for the
operation of Lree harvesting equipment being used at one time. Most of
the forest in these stands is mesic and is characterized by a hardwood
canopy.
The ma3or constituents of the canopy are ;white oak (Quercus albs)
and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), but mockernut hickory (Carya
tomentosa), red maple, and loblolly pine are scattered throughout. Red
M maple is dominant in areas with level soil and somewhat poorer drainage.
Individuals of loblolly pine are also scattered. Subcanopy species in
this forest type are sweet bay, American holly (Ilex opaca), and flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida). Horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria) forms a
scattered high shrub or low Subcanopy stratum.
Light penetration through the canopies assists in the development
of very thick stands. Shrubs and woody vines also grow thickly. Sweet
pepper bush, several canopy and subcanopy species, azalea (Rhododendron
spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), muscadine (Vitis
! rotundifolia), witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), and wax myrtle make up
a dense understory stratum. Occasional beds of leucothoe (Leucothoe
axillaris) grow along slopes in well drained soil.
0707-07-1105 9-13

Ma3or herbaceous species are ferns. Cinnamon fern, Christmas fern
(Polystichuu acrostichoides), and southern lady fern (Athyrium
asphenioides) constitute the bulk of the herbaceous layer in the mixed
forest.
rsh
Small beds of aquatic bed marsh exist in a pond formed by two
impoundments, and in one natural pond on the land treatment site. Along
the main road through the land treatment site, two stream drainage-ways
have been impounded by logging road, construction and subsequent culvert
failure. These ponds are fringed by rushes (Juncos canadensis and Juncos
effuses). White water lily (Nymphae odorata) and bladderwort (Utricu)aria
sp.) form an aquatic bed throughout most of the interior of the ponds.
Short, heavily buttressed black gums are scattered in the ponds.
A third pond, possibly formed by subsurface limestone dissolution,
is located near the main intersection in the southern half of the site.
This pond supports quite different vegetation. Fringing vegetation
consists of maiden cane (Panicum hemitomon) and hairy smartweed (Polygonum
hirsutum). Centrally, the water is covered by a floating mat of banana
plant (Nymphoides aquatica) and watershield (Brasneria schre6eri).
Agricultural Field
Two areas of agricultural fields associated with small farms are
located along the southwestern edge of the proposed land treatment site.
These fields are both cultivated and fallow. Fallow fields support a
variety of weedy plant species including broom sedge (Andropogon spp.), ~
wild aster goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and dog fennel (fupatorium
capillifolium), as well as young loblolly pine.
~letland Resources and Crossings
Twelve potential wetland Crossings were found along the proposed
force main corridor route (Figure 9.3). Three general groups of habitat
types are represented by these wetlands: flood plain, pine-evergreen
shrub, and ditch. The potential crossings, their locations, habitats,
acreages (assuming a 60 feet right-of-way width), and dominant plant
species are as follows:
~r
0107-01-1105 9-14

~ ~' ' °
'~~ . -

..
„ .
)

-~ •.
.,
{a .~ ;
• • --, „i
m -~:.~:
~ +
~ :Lr_. -

C
. ,~.• a..._... ~.
~ .
, r
y
~ I .~
R y r2
S 1~~fe~
~~
~
O W
~~ C~\l _~U ~ } :7 ~
~ ~ rte,` ~~
~
1 d LL
~
'
'
1
c.

..
•~l ~
-
:~
'
~
~' ~~

,
•. > ~
.,
,
_ -
~
~
•.
. :~
. , ...;
f~

~~

•z1o f
~~` c- ~ ~ ~
1
..
.~ ~ ~
1
~~ ~ ~ ~f,

N ; `~
._ ..~
~, ~ ~ -

;-

..

~ ~ ~ -.
_.- ___,_
~. y ~ ~ -
- ----
- 1 ~ iii '1 ~\ ~ - ~ I ~ ~ ~ ` , j 1I `~) r, /1 / ~
f 1 ~~ ~ - a ~~" l-Jd I '' -~,4-- ~ g 1G
w, F
-._ - _
l . 1 ~ D 1. ~ ~_ ~ ~-' ~
~
`
-

~ `
''•. ~ ~ J a ~ o ~ .. ' t ~ ` : fit, ~`~
_ <_~
l M '
~F~ r
~ "+ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ %~ .1 _ C
;. ,
,:
._
y
l
,,
,.
,
`~
~ ~
:, .:
~ ~.. ~.: -- -films-- -- - ~-- -- -- -
1.
-
.. ,, , ;
r~ .. _
- - I. --

-

I - -...,,
-~ r i ~ , ~
_
i
`
~~ ~
;~
,_ - -
L
~ ~U
/~ -~

__a

Crossipg
1 iLocation Ha
Unnamed tributary bit_ t~ Acreage
<0.1 Plant Danioants
-
of Southwest Creek
(ditch) along S.R.
1211
2 Unnamed tributary <0.1 -
of Southwest Creek
(ditch) along S.R.
1211
3 Unnamed tributary <0.1 -
of Slue Creek {ditch)
along S.R. 1212
4 Headwaters of Blue <0.1 red maple
Creek along S.R. sweet bay
1212 bamboo briar
(red maple swamp) chain fern
bamboo
S Headwaters of 61ue <0.1 sweet bay
Creek along S.R. wool grass
1212 (off R/W) (Scirpus
{red maple swamp) scuperinus}
(cut) panicgrass
b Headwaters of Blue 0.14 red maple
Creek along S.R. bays
1212 (off R/W) bamboo titi
(red maple bay swamp) (Cyri)la
racemiflora) ,
7 Headwaters of Blue 0.28 loblolly pine
Creek along S.R. bays
1213 (Pocosin-like) holly
{cut) sweet
pepper-bush
bamboo water
oak
8 Headwaters of Blue 0.21 loblolly pine
Creek along S.R. bays
1213 (Pocosin-like) red maple
(cut) bamboo.
0707-01-1105 9-15

r ssin location
FLabitat Acre4ae Plant Dominants
9 Blue Creek along 0.41 red maple
S.R. ]213 green ash
(Bottomland forest) cypress vines
(75' fresh sediment) forbs
10 Blue Creek 0.83 green ash
along N.C. 24 black willow
~ U.S. 238 red maple
(Bottomland forest) chain ferns
forbs vines
11 Unnamed Tributary Undetermined
of Brinson Creek
12 New River Undetermined
Open Estuarine
Of the twelve potential wetlands between the proposed land treatment
site and the pump station, seven are actually wetlands, three are ditches,
and one is deep estuarine water habitat. Metlands Nos. 5, 6, and 7 may
be outside of the actual construction right-of-way, separated by low,
sandy ridges between the roadside ditch and the wetlands. These ridges
are 20-40 feet in width. Wetlands Nos. 4, 8, 9, and 10 are adjacent to
the highway embankments. Wetlands Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 have been
partially or totally cut for timber or pulpwood, or were cleared of trees
(e.g., No. 9) for a powerline corridor. Crossings of bottomland forest
wetlands were typically wider than other wetland crossings.
9.1.1.6 Wetland Resources and Functional Yalue Assess ent
Wetland habitat types occurring on the proposed land treatment site
include wetland pine plantation, wetland scrub-shrub, bottomland forest
and marsh. National Wetlands Inventory mapping of the area has been
completed, but draft maps covering the land treatment site are not yet
available. Generalized wetlands mapping was completed during the field
survey and is presented in Plate 9-1.
Recently, the assessment of the functional roles and socioeconomic
values of wetlands has been of great interest to Federal, state, local,
and private organizations. Several methods have been devised to evaluate
a limited set of perceived values. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET}
0707-07-1105 9-16

(Adamus et al., 1987) is foremost aiaong these. The Wetland Evaluation
Technique examines the following set of functions and values:
- Groundwater Recharge
- Groundwater Discharge
- Floodflow Alteration
- Sediment Stabilization
- Sediment/Toxicant Retention
- Nutrient Removal/Transformation
- Production Export
- Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
- Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
- Uniqueness/Heritage
Although employment of WE7 is outside the scope of this assessment,
informal generalizations about the values of wetlands at the proposed
land treatment site include:
- Groundwater - Groundwater discharge is an important function of
wetlands in the area because the pocosin/savannah-like wetlands at
the land treatment site resemble slow release reservoirs.
- Floodflow Alteration - Southwest Creek floodplain vegetation may act
as a buffer by slowing the movement of storm water into New River.
- Sediment/Toxicant Retentian - Materials moving into the basin of
Southwest Creek from the community of Catherine lake and Albert J.
Ellis Airport may be retained indefinitely by the partially intact
bottomland forest, and in floodplain deposits.
- Nutrient Removal/Transformation - Temporary nutrient retention and
chemical transformation is common in pocosin/savannah-like wetlands
and in bottomland systems.
- Production Export - Swamp and bottomland forest systems typical of
this area release nutrients into ad,iacent waters during portions of
the year (Brinson, 1971).
0707-01-1105 9-17

- M.ildlife/Aquatic Diversity - The existing wetland habitat systems at
the land treatment site tontribute to the overall diversity of
organisms and to the general abundance of .particular wildlife
species.
- Recreation -Recreational values of the area are limited to seasonal
hunting and occasional horseback riding.
- Uniqueness/Heritage - It is unlikely that the land treatment site
would be given high values for presence of rare organisms, other than
several carnivorous plants, or for natural or cultural heritage.
9.1.1.7 fisheries Resources
Information regarding fishery resources of Southwest Creek, within
the study area, is limited. Sampling of a 100 foot segment of the stream,
approximately 2.5 miles downstream from the project site at the North
Carolina Route 53 crossing of Southwest Creek, reported the following
species (Davis and McCoy, 1965):
¢AME SPECIES NON-GAME SPECIES
Sluegill Pirate perch
Redfin pickerel Yellow bullhead
Redbreast sunfish Comely shiner
Largemouth bass Dusky shiner
Yarmouth Johnny darter (probably
tesselate darter)
Mosquito fish
Banded sunfish
Bluespotted sunfish
Lake chubsucker (probably
creek chubsucker)
Margined madtom
American eel
Swamp forest habitat along the portion of the creek in the land
treatment site is not as heavily forested as the downstream sample site.
Fish habitat at the sample point is classed as "largemouth-pickerel"
(Davis and McCoy, 1965). Streams of this habitat are characterized by:
widths greater than 10 feet; moderately deep pools; greater than 20 CFS
flow; warm temperatures; variable turbidity; gravel, silt, or muck
bottoms; and variable alkalinity. This type of habitat is thought to be
ideal for largemouth bass, chain pickerel, and robin.
0107-01-1105 9-18

Chemical and physical data taken at.the land treatment site during
fish sampling indicate average conditions fora lower coastal plain stream
(Davis and McCoy, 1965):
Dissolved Oxygen 7.0 ppm
Dissolved Carbon dioxide 12.0 ppm
pH 6.3
- Total alkalinity 28.0 ppm
Chlorinity 0.0 ppm
Temperature 70'F
Average width 27 feet
Average depth 6.2 feet
Velocity 0.66 ft/sec
Flow 101 tfs
Secchi disc 18 inches
Bottom type sand
A list of fish species which could potentially occur on the land
treatment site or in the vicinity of the site is presented in Appendix C
(Table C1). Such listings are strictly hypothetical and necessarily
present a greater potential diversity than could ever be supported by the
existing environment.
The proposed land treatment site is well above mean sea level and,
therefore, no direct relationship is made between the site and the
existing shell fishery downstream. Shell fishing in New River and its
tributaries north of Hadnot Point is prohibited by the Shellfish
Sanitation Unit of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Resources. High coliform bacteria counts in the shellfish and in
associated waters make consumption of clams and oysters from the area
exceedingly hazardous to human health.
9.1.1.8 Wildlife Resources
Game and non-game wildlife species habitat in the proposed land
treatment site have been modified by forestry practices. Habitat for game
species such as white-tailed deer has been enhanced by the increased
browse made available by clearing. Arboreal species have lost habitat,
while thicket-nesting species such as yellow-breasted thats, common yellow
throats and ground-nesters, including northern bobwhites, eastern
meadowlarks and common nighthawks, have generally become quite common in
0707-07-1105 9-19

the area. Hawks and owls finding suitable nesting habitat benefit from
increased prey.
Amphibian habitat is probably Baited by the small amount of
decaying and fallen trees. Individuals of this group would be most
abundant in and near the bottomland forest where more satisfactory cover
is available adjacent to higher moisture regimes.
Wildlife species which could potentially occur on the site are
listed in Appendix C: Tables C2, C3, and C~. Generalized habitat
designations, indications that a species was seen, and other information
gathered during the field survey are also included in Tables C2, C3, and
C4. These listings are strictly hypothetical and necessarily present a
greater potential diversity than could be supported by the existing
environment.
9.1.1.9 fndanaered and Threatened Species
A list of both state and federally protected species is presented
in Table 9-1. This list is modified from more comprehensive listings
maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program for the State
of North Carolina.
Several rare plants are known to occur in the vicinity of the
proposed pro3ect site (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, July
1989, list of rare natural elements for Onslow County; Computer
printout). Rough-leaf loosestrife (iysimachia asperulifolia), Cooley's
meadow rue {Thalyctrum cooleyi), and wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus
teretifolius) grow in wetland savannah-like soils over shallow {three to
six feet deep) limestone or marl units. In this area, the limestone is
part of the Trent Formation. Outcrops of this Formation near Catherine
take, about two miles northeast of the land treatment site, support
several rare, calciphilic plant species. At the site, however, the top
of the Trent limestone is approximately 13 feet deep (T. Britt McMillan,
Geologist, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Personal Communication, July 21, 1989).
A number of additional rare plants found in association with
outcrops of limestone of the Trent formation near Catherine Lake are not
listed here because the habitat does not appear to exist at the land
treatment site. Adequate habitat is present for Yenus' fly trap (an
0707-07-1105 9-20

m

W
~~
W
~~
~a
~z
Qa
o~
U4
~~
W ~
W
d
W W
~Qy
`tea
z°~~
~~n
Q W==
~4F
a=a~
N
o~o~
= W.~
z ~'~
~~~~
evsc
Z " ;~ 2
~~~~
w W
m
k'~4
~~
moo=
~~3
W Q
Q W
W2
2D
~ W
W
If~l~ ~~illl llll~
•
WhN~h F-~~t~~ a~NNF-
e~ EP~~ ~~
O m~~a~ ~etmaa ~a~~~

~~
~ ~~
_ ~,°D~
~~.~~~
~~~~
m~iv~m
~~
y~
~~y~~
QQQ~~
~~~~~
~~ z
~~ ~~
~~ ~
a~=~~
G
~_~ ~
~a~~
~~~~~
~.~~~~
'a~~a~~
~~
~ ~~
to ~
~~
$~°~~
~E~~
v~c~3Q¢
_~
~~~ ~
~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~
.~ ~ o
~Qm~c~
.~'
E $'
~a
c~
O=
N
~~
~U
~t
~o
~Z
~~
0
4
0
0

O
0
b
v
`~ ~ m
y~ac
,~~~~
a_o' ~ ~ v
~a~z~
~~
~~moo c
o~~~ ~~
~~~~
~~ w a3
~~~~
~m
~~~g v~ -v~ Q ~ r-1
~~~~~~ ~~
~~~ ~ m
m~.
~~ ~ ~ ~°
m,~~ ~~~
~~ m
~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ ~
~~~ ~m~ ~ Z
a
~m~0
''~~
~~~~
~~~
m~
~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~
~~ m
~~ ~~
m~
~m
~~
~p
~ ~ a
~ ~
o~~ ~~~~3
~~ a.a~~~
vs -a ~ mmwm~ my m -+cn m-r-a '
~ ~1~~ ~~lf~ {f 111 II1N1 ~"

I IIl~~ Ilia lI~I~ ~1 I
pp U
(~ N O~.NNWN N~~~M to I ~Na W~
~~
a
M
0
~v
C31 ~ ~~aaa "~fi~~ E~~~~ ~~
¢m~ <maa~ a~ m
~~~~
~~~~
Z ~~ ~3~m~
~~ - m~~~
~'
v ~ rwF~a°~ci
z
N
m
U
a~
~ 8~
~~~~
m
Q~~ m
5 ~ ~ ~v
.~ ~ ~", As
J J J J
r ~~
„~ ~ Y
~~ $~
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~~ ~~ ~_m
`~ ~ N=
~~ ~~ ~~~
°' ~ a
U QUU Uu.} ~
m
a ` ~ =° ~ a
~~~ ~ Qm~ ~~'~
~ ~~ ~ h ~~~ ~a.~
~~~~ ~~~.~~ ~C~.
~~aa ~ ~¢atn ~y~
0
r
.-
0
0
Q

~~
m~
0
FU
M M
~~~
~- N
.~ ~
aF-W~ AWN
~ W
a
N
Y
N w V
OI aaaa aaSe
~~
°~
~~~
N p~~
t¢ F c
_~
Z _ ~ ~~
~~ ..
=~ ~
o_~~.~ ~.
U Cf~UU mom ~~~ ~°
M
w ~
a °'
W ~~
.~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~~~
~ ~°~8= ~j~ ~g~
~ y to ~ ~ m
Z ~~~ ~~ }}~~~3C
V y q ~ W~ LL ~,,.
~ ~ y
~ ~ ~ ~
m ~~ ~=' ,

0
0
0

endemic species but not federally listed) and occurrence of this species
at the land treatment site was noted.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers (not included in Table 9-7) have been
observed near Albert J. E]iis airport in pocosin and savannah habitats
(North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, July 1989, list of rare natural
elements for Onslow County, Computer printout). This endangered species
may be a visitor to the proposed land treatment site, but permanent
residence is unlikely because nearly all the natural vegetation has been
converted to pine plantation or recently cut, eliminating trees suitable
for cavity construction. Prime foraging habitat for this species is not
usually associated with pine plantation.
Two large bor~lders of limestone were found on the land treatment
near Southwest Creek at the south end of the property. One boulder
supported a few young plants of ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
9.1.1.10 Archaeological and Historical Resources
Qreliminary Research
Preliminary research for this project involved the examination of
published studies of coastal North Carolina; the review of reports on
Onslow County archaeology on file at the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History; a two day walkover survey of logging roads at the
land treatment site; and the excavation and drawing of soil profiles in
the floodplain, upland and intermediate sections of the land treatment
site. In addition, photographs of the site environment, the pipeline
route, and the soil profiles were taken.
Previous Research
Throughout much of prehistory, the coastal area of North Carolina
was a transition zone that divided the Middle Atlantic from the
Southeastern United States (Phelps 1983; Wayne and Dickenson 1986). The
prehistory of the southeastern coast of North Carolina has not received
the same extended archaeological attention as the Piedmont and Mountain
regions (Coe 1983; Loftfield 1981; Mathis 1988; Phelps 1983). Although
archaeological work in the southern North Carolina Coastal Plain began
near the turn of the century (Holmes 1884; Peabody 1910), and extensive
excavations have been carried out in North Carolina since the 1930s by
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, research in the ..Coastal
0707-07-1105 9-21

Plain is, in general, a recent development (Phelps 1983). In 1954-55 Haag
(1958) carried out surface collections and test excavations at a number
of sites to the north of the project area, and in 1960 South (1976)
Collected materials from the surface of shell Aiddens at the southern
terminus of the North Carolina coast. These studies provided a basic
ceramic chronology for the coastal region (Phelps 1983). However, the
majority of survey and excavation in the region has been carried out in
the last 20 years (cf. loftfield 1976, 1981; Phelps 1983). These studies
have provided a framework for studying regional variation and temporal
trends in ceramic decoration, projectile point styles, and settlement
pattern shifts (Mathis 1988; Phelps 1983).
Along the southeastern coast "extensive excavations have been
carried out at relatively few sites, primarily coastal sites dating to
the Late Woodland period" (Wayne and Dickenson 1986). No archaeological
fieldwork has been conducted in the Project Area. Within Onslow County,
archaeological work has concentrated on the area immediately adjacent to
the New and White Oak Rivers. A number of surveys have been completed in
Onslow County (Coats 1979; Hargrove 1981; loftfield 1981) consisting of
walkover surveys of disturbed ground surfaces. Authors of the historic
preservation plan for the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, the scene of the
majority of archaeological work in the county, found their ability to
produce reliable models for resource location at the base restricted by
the lack of data.
.The lack of data at Camp Lejeune for producing a model predicting
the density and distribution of archaeological sites in that area is
mirrored at the Catherine Lake area where 'the land treatment site is
located. Therefore, systematic subsurface testing in the project area
would fill a gap in regional studies. Investigation of spatially limited
areas, such as the Project Area, do not provide data on the full temporal
or spatial range of prehistoric adaptations (Goodyear 1975). However,
the archaeological investigation of such areas may address questions
concerning settlement patterning, resource use, and tool production and
use (Canouts and Goodyear 1985; Ward 1983). No direct evidence of
historic period archaeological sites representing inhabitation prior to
about 1950 was identified. It may be expected, however, that a tract of
0707-07-1105 9-22

this size in southeastern North Carolina has been inhabited at some time
since 1700. Eighteenth and 19th century tenant fangs and slave cabins,
pine tar extraction camps (Ciaggett, personal communication), and logging
camps have the potential to be found there. The potential for
encountering sites associated with military campaigns is law. During the
American Revolution, the British General Cornwallis briefly occupied
Wilmington, North Carolina prior to advancing on Yorktown, Virginia, and
Union forces occupied New Bern, Beaufort, and Fort Macon during the
American Civil Var. However, the major effect of these wars on the
central North Carolina coast was probably through military service and the
disruption of local production and shipping (Brown 1960; Wayne and
Dickenson 198fi).
Fin n s
No archaeological sites are known to exist within the Project Area
or land treatment site, nor were any encountered during the field
reconnaissance. The only artifacts observed were of recent (i.e., post
1950) deposition. A small scatter of mixed oyster and clam shell observed
near Southwest Creek appears to be associated with recent debris, and was
probably discarded along with trash. Considerable evidence of the use of
this area by modern hunters was observed, in the farms of shell casings,
bullets, cans, and bottles. Na prehistoric or historic artifacts dating
prior to the mid-twentieth century were observed. There is insufficient
previous archaeological study of the interior areas of Onslow County on
which to base a prediction of the number, type, and potential significance
of archaeological resources in the Project Area.
Historic Architectural Resources
A number of historic structures have been recorded during a previous
architectural survey along roads in the vicinity of the project (Figure
9-4). These structures, their currently perceived significance, and the
impacts expected from the project are discussed below:
1. Alum Spring (NCDAH i~355). This is a structure covering a
natural spring which dates to early in the historic period. It
is currently being reviewed for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
0707-07-1105 9-23

~ j ~. ~
\ 1 ~ ~
~ ~-- _.~ ~, ~ 111'. ~..~- r. I,.
.. I ,, 1 .. -~ ,'+ i, i _ / ~.~ ~ ~ /;~ ~. Jam/
i ~ _ . '1 _ ~... ~`
----.~ _ ~. ~ s
~-~- ~ ~
j: _~ ~ ~ `'
- -
~.:ps~iJ ~ _ • J
O / -+•
m~
~ Y,`„
~ ~ i~
D = + ~ ~ _ ,l ~• Vii, ~--
~r -gyp ~ ~~ 7C
p~~ ;f
~e N• D ~ ~~ = j O 'n = tlo f j f~jt Z (^A
n
oa•Z~;~ Q>~ O~~ ~~~~
ow ~ ~ fl;a .~~ m=
v -+
tAZ m ;~~ .~ ~~
n-i1 ~ = o fret A O v
v ~ ~ •'
1-0 3tiftOi~

2. Nouse (NCDAH #389).. This structure is located on the east side
of SR 1203, 2 wiles southeast of its junction with SR 1204.
This structure dates to late in the historic period, is not a
unique example of architectural design, and has no known
associations with persons or events of historic i~aportance. .
3. Nillia~s Family House (not an yap). This structure is located
on the north side of SR 1203, .4 mile northwest of its junction
with SR 1213, in the Cyrus vicinity.
4. Effie Nclane House (not on ^ap). This structure is located on
the east side of SR 1203, .5 mile northwest of its junction with
SR 1213. The house is a one and one half story frame structure
built in the 1930's. It was moved to its present location in
1948 to be used as a tobacco barn. This structure does not
appear to be NRHP eligible.
5. House (NCDAH #393). This structure is located on the west side
of SR 1211, 1.15 mile south of its junction with SR 1204.
6. Hardy Horn Farm (not on map). This complex of structures is
located at the end of a lane joining SR 1213 on its north side,
.7 mile west of the junction of SR 1213 and SR 1241. Hardy Harn
Farm is currently under study by NCDAH for nomination to the
NRHP.
7. Parker House (NCDAH #409). This structure is an early 20th
century one story hall and parlor frame house with a mansard
roof. A single brick chimney is located in the center of the
main structure, and another is located in the rear of the house.
The house is clad in weatherboard. Out buildings include a
smoke house and tobacco barn. The concrete floor of a milking
shed and silo are remanents of dairying operations carried out
by the Porkers in the 1940's and 50's. The Parker House is a
typical form of early to mid 20th century farm housing built
throughout the southeastern U.S. The structural form is not
unique, and no significant historical events or persons are
known to be associated with it. It does not meet criteria for
the National Register of Historic Places and the land treatment
site will have no impacts on the structure.
Archaeological and. Historical Resources Associated wjth Force Mains
No retarded archaeological sites or historic structures will be
effected by the construction of the force main. Although this pipeline
route crosses areas of high archaeological potential (e.g., those areas
adjacent to the New River and swamp lands), the majority of these areas
have been heavily disturbed by previous construction and agricultural
activity. Those areas which have been undisturbed by development along
~- 0107-07-1105 9-24

this corridor, are more likely to possess historic and prehistoric
archaeologica] resources than is the land treatment site, on an acre to
acre basis.
9.1.1.11 Public Recreational Parks and Scenic Areas
Parks constructed for public recreation are limited to those in the
City of Jacksonville and those located elsewhere in Onslow County
(Figures 9-5 and 9-6). While public recreation facilities for military
personnel and their families may be located on military property (e.g.,
Camp lejeune), their distance from the proposed land treatment site
precludes their inclusion in this assessment.
No designated state or Federal scenic areas or rivers are known to
be located within the vicinity of the proposed project area.
9.1.1.12 Air Quality
Concentrated sources of air contaminants are rare within and near
the proposed project area. Such sources would most likely be smoke and
ash in the event of forest fires. Otherwise, the area is considered to
be in attainment by the State DEM (Source: NCDEM Wilmington Field
Office). Figure 9-1 shows the locations of sensitive receptors around the
land treatment site.
9.2 FUTURE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROJECT
Without the implementation of the proposed project or its
alternatives, the City of Jacksonville and outlying areas will experience
three types of impacts:
- Amounts of raw wastewater will continue to increase in the
Jacksonville area unless strict limitations on growth are instituted.
Continued growth is going to mean continued increases in the need for
better treatment facilities. Demands placed on existing facilities
will ultimately exceed capacity. Untreated waste water will bypass
the existing treatment facility during high flood water periods.
This event will become more regular as demands grow, and eventually
the existing system will become totally inadequate. The environment
adjacent to the collection system and pumping 'stations will
experience regular influx of untreated sewage.
- As treated wastewater effluent being pumped into Wilson Bay
increases, the ability of these estuarine waters to assimilate
increased biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, etc., will
deteriorate and the naturally occurring fauna and flora in the New
River estuary will have limited survivability. Shell fishing (clam
fl1flJ-flJ-1105 g-~5

a
o ~~
W 2 ~ J ~
Q
_~ t = W
1 ~ ~ W ~ ' O
~ ,, ~ ~ i . :11 ~ _ ~ ~ \ ~ W O 111
_...
S .r.. Q
~ a
~ ~. . ~:`
~ `~ ~~ / ..~ a ~' ~ -
~:',
.` ~ r
••, ~ _ / . .
•~:t.
•~ .^~
~.,' ~ ~ ~4a~ ,
G..~ / a ! ~.> .
\.. /J ~ C lam.' I / ~ ~ •~` ~ ~ ~ r.; ~ J 1'.~ ~. ' , ~--~`' ~,y ~ -.~.`' '
r~ 1! • a r "~~Yj"~,-~.. ¢ ''1~`_." .. .i r''~c_. . yip ~~
.,
t 1 ~ ~ _^ 1~ .~ ~, .... . ~ _ _ . . O ) 'may ~ `
0 `~ `'
O 2 ~,
)~~ ~ ~ . ale ~ e
> •
.~ i

FtOURE t1-#
X.
~~ L
ONSLOW
COUN?Y ~
~ 2a
JACKSONVILLE 17
>:~~~~; ,
~;.,;;
>~ ;: ,,
Site ;::>:. New River Water Front Park
Qnslow Pines Park
~ 1-lerbert Hy-Pass Park Hubert 24
17 "''~
50
ATLANTIC
A#
220
BA#1
Holly Ridge
OCEAN
'BA#2
CfTY OF JACKt30NVILLE, NORTH CAROLMA
201 FACILtT~3 PLAN AMENDMENT
LOCATION OF COUNTY PARKS
Qp t5 0 is
IEIN' SCALE tN MILE&
DECEMBER t9a#

i Z
~' ~ z O
i ~ ~ ~
O U= J F
u ~ w J a O
Q1 O W m o
~Z aW °~
J j ~ ~ ~ 6
_J O Q ~ ' m
~ ~ W
= W „J O J ~
a°, F Q ~ c~i u
u= F O o~ W
~o Z o
LL ~` W Z
o c -- ~
~'N a
.` ~~.1.~ ,/ +• -^ ..I..~ 'I'MO _ 1 ~ Y. ~_- ~~.• _ e ~~ .
.'_ ' `1 ,,, ,. ..` .. _.
...-
' j •. ~~ ~ ~ I • _
1 ~~ ~ ~~
~,' ,
''~ L~ .._
.~
~- - ~' r---- - , ~f, _
:.
_ _ F
_,
. ,
,, ~
. ~ .~`"
1= -- - - - -~ - - -~ _ ~ f.
•r- -
_ I d f ~ ~,~
- - .~
1" Ll 1 ~
`I 1 ' \ `.. ~~ i
t
~+ ,,!
y~.
i - ; ~I _~ ~,~.-.~ ._ ~,.~ - _ ~ ~_~ ~\ I _ '.rte.- - - -r - a ,~ - - -
{i ~' ~ . ~ .y: i ~ ` orb i '`.\ . ~ .% ~ I ~ - J
.._
_ :. O~` ~ ._ _._.. _ .. _ .i
e`er'" ~ ~ ~ ~. S I _ - ' .~~ ~ ( ,~ SCI ~,
~~ •; ~ ~ ~ i
:..
~ j,
_ •~
~' J ~_ ~ -a-V_.
" .t: ~-,-
JL
~. `7 ~'
Z

and oyster) is already prohibited in all of Morgan• Bay and upper
portions of Stump Sound. Shell fishing to the mouth of New River
zould ultimately be dosed..
- As demands exceed capacity, connections to the system would have to
cease and the use of individual systems as community contained waste
water treatment facilities would have to be used. The capacity of
sails to assimilate waste matter is limited by the short residence
times in coarse sands, and the failure of absorption fields to
function in marginal soils. Partially treated sewage would be moved
into adjacent ditches and streams and transported toward the New
River.
9.3 DOCUMENTATION OF FINDINGS
The following persons and/or agencies were contacted in order to
complete the description of the existing environment and to assess future
environmental impacts:
Alan Weakley
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDNRCD
Library, Raleigh
Office of Water Resources, NCDNRCD
Bill Cochran
Wilmington Field Office
Division of Environmental Management, NCDNRCD
Rick Shiver
Groundwater Division Supervisor
Division of Environmental Management, NCDNRCD
Classifications and Water puality Standards
Division of Environmental Management, NCDNRCD
North Carolina Geologic Survey
Division of land Resources, NCDNRCD
Bob Benton
Shellfish Sanitation Unit
Division of Health Services
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
Kent Nelson, District Fisheries Biologist
Division of Inland Fisheries, NCWRC
National Flood Insurance Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency
0701-01-1105 9-26

8117 Lyke
Mater Resources Division
U.S. Geologic Survey
Ron Meculick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV (Groundwater
Resources)
Onslow County Department Parks and Recreation
Horace Mann, Planning Director
City of Jacksonville
CPL Turner
Heather Service Office
Marine Corps Air Service
9.4 ALTERNATIYES ANALYSIS
Alternatives to the proposed project are presented in Chapter 6.0 and
an evaluation of impacts presented in Chapter 7.0. This analysis
concluded that, Alternative 1, the proposed land treatment alternative is
the most feasible in terms of implementation and costs and meets the
objective of improving water quality in_Wiison Bay. Also, there are no
unacceptable adverse impacts with this project that cannot be minimized
through mitigation.
9.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Although minor, a variety of impacts will result from implementation
of the proposed preferred alternative (Alternative 1j. This section
summarizes these effects.
9.5.1 Biological Resource
Facilities installation will result in the direct modification of
both wetland and upland habitat. Upland areas and wetland areas will be
impacted differently by the application of the effluent spray. Jackson
(1985) summarized the results of several studies of the changes in the
structure and function of forested areas and wetlands due to spray
irrigation. AL the Seabrook Farms, New Jersey, project, wastewater was
applied at a high loading rate to a wooded forested site. At the high
loading rates employed, some canopy species were killed by the application
of effluent due to root oxygen deprivation. A dense wetland herbaceous
0707-07-1105 9-27

layer grew into the opened canopy areas. Therefore, the impact was
essentially a shift to a .ore hydrtc herbaceous type plant co~munity, with
loss or reduced growth of trees. Elevated soil nutrient levels were
observed, and significant increases in some wall aammal population were
reported. This system has functioned as an effective treatment system for
20 years, even at high loading rates. This aagnitude of shift to hydric
vegetation is not anticipated on the Jacksonville project due to a more
conservative loading rate.
Other studies reviewed in Jackson {1985) included the Penn State
project (woodland effluent application) the Muskegon, Michigan, land
treatment site/crop irrigation) and the Middleville, Michigan, study. The
impacts of the Penn State project were similar Lo those for Seabrook in
a general sense, but were not as extensive as the Seabrook project due to
lower loadings at the Penn State site. The Muskegon, Michigan, study did
not examine the detailed effects on wildlife. However, an increase in
blackbird depredation on corn was observed.
The Middleville, Michigan, project involved spray irrigation of tree
plantations. An increase in mouse grazing on young poplar and pine
seedlings was observed in irrigated areas.
Brennan (1985) summarized the ecological changes which occur as the
result of additions of secondary treated wastewater to wetlands. These
changes are basically related to changes in the alteration of hydrologic
regime and water ct-emistry (nutrient availability). for forested wetlands
especially, changes in hydroperiod are important as this controls the
ability of tree seedlings to survive. The species composition of the
vegetation is affected by increased duration, height and periodicity of
flooding. wildlife populations in turn respond to the shifts in plant
community species composition.
Brennan (1985) made the following conclusions regarding the effects
of land treatment on the ecology of terrestrial wildlife.
- Lower forage production for deer in summer was observed and
levels of most nutrients in forage increased (Calcium
decreased).
- Herbaceous plant production was increased "dramatically" due to
elevated nutrients.
0707-07-1105 9-28

- Species diversity of herbaceous plants was reduced; many of the
new fonas were unsuitable for wildlife.
An increase in small mammal production was observed in autumn,
due to increased cover and food.
- Song bird populations increased in late summer due to increased
food; overall bird community diversity/stability was reduced.
- Elevated chromium levels in mouse and rabbit tissue were
observed in sprayed areas whereas nickel levels were lower.
Appendix N summarizes these studies further.
The facilities would consist. of a storage lagoon, aerated lagoons and
spray irrigation fields. The irrigation of acreage within the project
site will be shared between woodland treatment and agricultural treatment.
Estimates of acreage to be allocated to each usage are listed below:
~Icreage
Grass or Cropland 525
limber and Pulpwood 760
Natural Wetlands 550
Sludge Application 190
Storage Ponds 80
Aerated Lagoons 20
Buffer Zones and Miscellaneous 525
Total 2650
Further modifications.to existing habitat could be expected as the
525 acre grass or cropland parcels are cleared and planted. it is also
anticipated that construction of the treatment and storage facilities will
impact approximately 9.0 acres of on-site wetlands. Construction of the
treatment and storage facilities will require notification of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers and a subsequent permit application.
Modification of wetlands at the irrigation fields may require a
permit application through the Corps of Engineers. Section 404 wetlands
are abundant at the site and may require modification to achieve the
desired land treatment efficiency. Wetlands along force mains or other
pipelines also will be temporarily impacted.
0707-07-1105 9-29

Clearing for the storage and: aerated lagoons, irrigation lines and.
planned agricultural areas will result in lass of viable wildlife
habitat. Clearing will permanently or temporarily displace certain
species of wildlife, but white-tailed deer and other mobile game species
will ultimately benefit from the clearing and eventual agricultural use
of the land from the increased food supply. Other species unable to
adjust to the changes will move to other habitats or other areas, compete
with the current residents or fail to compete successfully.
9.5.2 Water Ouality
Due to the presence of clay and other types of aquatards, the land
treatment alternatives have the potential for affecting surface water
quality in' the adjacent streams due to lateral movement of effluent
through saturated soil during rainstorms. This potential likely will be
minimized by the removal of the major wastewater constituents, such as
BODS, nitrogen, and phosphorus, by pretreatment crop uptake and soil
biodegradation. Other wastewater constituents, which could leach to
surface waters and are not amenable to land treatment, are not expected
to be present to any significant levels, since the wastewater is
predominantly domestic in nature. Any unexpected presence of these
constituents would have to be addressed through pretreatment regulations.
Clay or other types of aquatards help in preventing movement of effluent
into the Trent Formation, which is as close as 13 feet below the surface
on the site.
' Application of effluent at the site may also lead to accumulation of
trace metals and other non-biodegradable organics in the soils, which tend
to bind with soil particles. Accumulation of these compounds could
impact the project life of the land treatment site. The use of chemicals
in wastewater treatment should be minimized where possible. Accordingly,
a rigorous monitoring program to develop site specific water
quality/cropping management strategies would be appropriate.
The project will be implemented in phases (see Chapter 8.3) and the
initial loading rates adjusted to assure wastewater treatment through crop
uptake and soil biodegradation. Water quality and loading rates will be
0707-07-1105 9-30

closely monitored during: the first phase. and subsequent loading rates
adjusted to minimize any potential water quality impacts.
9.5.3 dir Quality
The potential for odor generation exists at the exit of the force
main. This potential will be minimized through addition of oxidants to
the wastewater.
Since the sprayed effluent can contain viruses and bacteria (Shiaris,
1985), these alternatives, therefore, have the potential to transmit
airborne disease to the adjacent areas. The potential for this to occur
at the proposed land treatment site will be extremely low since it is
located in a relatively remote area, the wastewater will be disinfected,
and buffers will be maintained between the irrigation site and the
adjacent property.
Potential bacterial diseases associated with wastewater effluent
include Salmonella spp, Shigella spp, Campylobacter fetus, and Leptospira
spp. The abundance of these organisms in wastewater is highly variable,
and is not necessarily "reflective of either the incidence of disease or
the amount of fecal pollution to which the water is subjected" (Shiaris
1985). Removal of pathogenic bacteria from a wetland/wastewater site is
dependent on residence time, amount of contact with the soil, and flow
rates (Kadlec and Tilton 1979, Shiaris 1985).
Disease producing viruses also may be associated with wastewater
treatment facilities. These include hepatitis A, enteroviruses,
rotovirus and numerous other viruses. Detection of these types of
viruses in wastewater is very expensive and technically difficult. Also,
"traditional indicators of fecal pollution are not reliable indicators of
viral pollution" (Shiaris 1985). Viruses tend to be more persistent in
the environment as compared to bacteria. All wastewater discharges would
be disinfected to reduce pathogen releases.
9.5.4 Cultural Resource
While the field investigation of this study encountered no
prehistoric archaeological sites, the survey involved was neither
intensive nor extensive enough to support a finding of the proposed
0707-07-1105 9-31

action having no effect on significant archaeological sites. Given the
size and environmental diversity of the tract, archaeological sites can
be expected to exist on the site. During the design phase a detailed
archaeological study will be conducted, and any archaeological impacts
.will be miti-gated through design compatibility or excavation.
Despite the scarcity of infonaation for this portion of Onslow
County, some generalizations about site location can be ~aade, based on
data from neighboring regions. Eighteenth and 19th century tenant farms.
and slave cabins, pine tar extraction camps (Claggett, personal
communication), and logging camps can be expected to be found there. Well
drained areas near Southwest Creek have the greatest likelihood of
containing prehistoric archaeological resources. Historic domestic sites
have the highest probability of being located within lj2 mile of the
precursors of current roads ringing the project site, while the most
probable areas for historic extractive sites (pine tar and logging sites)
is ill defined.
Impacts to historic structures recorded during a previous
architectural survey along roads in the vicinity of the project are
discussed below:
1. Alum Spring (NCDAH X355). No direct physical effects from the
proposed act-ion can be expected in regard to this property.
Alum Spring. is located .5 mile from the closest portion of the
Project Area. In addition, this property is not in the drainage
pattern of the project site, and as such, could not be affected
by impacts to groundwater. As the intervening area is wooded,
no visual effects to be property should be expected either.
2. House (NCDAH~1389). It may suffer direct physical impacts from
the proposed action, however, as it does not appear to qualify
for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, no
effect to NRHP eligible property would be presented by its
demolition.
3. ililliams Family House. No effects to this property will result
from the proposed project, as this structure is situated beyond
the bounds of the Project Area.
4. Effie McLane House. This structure does not appear to be NRHP
eligible, and the project is not expected to have any direct
effects.
5. House (NCDAH 1f393). No effects to this structure (NCDAH ~Y393)
are expected to result from the proposed action.
0707-07-1105 g-32

6. Hardy Horn Farm. The property lies outside. the Project Area,
but is less than .25 mile from the southern portion of the
Project Area. Yhile no direct physi-cal effect from the proposed
action is expected, the property may be effected by secondary
effects. The secondary effects are primarily in relation to any
odors which may be emitted from the plant. Odor impacts,
however, should be minimal- due to the installation of odor
control facilities and the distance of the property from the
project site. Yisual impact to the property is not expected,
as wooded areas intervene between the Project Area and Hardy
Horne Fans. Hardy Horn Farm is currently being considered for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
The North Carolina Division of Archives and Nistory stated that the
forcemain does not have a high probability of retaining significant
resources, because of the disturbances associated with the highway
corridors. No recorded archaeological sites or historic structures will
be disturbed by it. Pristine areas along the force main route outside the
highway corridor do, in places, have a high potential for such resources,
and are liable to be impacted.
9.6 MINIMIZING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Minimi-zing- the potential consequences of the construction and
operation of the proposed land treatment system will involve careful
monitoring of the site. During construction, burning and the loss of
exposed soil materials will be monitored. Cleared land will be planted
with a fast-growing grass as soon as possible to prevent wind and water
erosion. Silt fencing and/or hay bales will be used to limit the movement
of water-borne sediments through existing stream channels. Smake
generated during construction clearing will be suppressed if periods of
severe inversion activity are anticipated, particularly during mid and
late summer.
Wastewater will be applied at an appropriate rate to allow proper
drainage and treatment by the soils present at the site. Since saturated
and anaerobic conditions exist in hydric soils, the application of
wastewater to these areas will be minimized.
The potential for odor generation sill be minimized through the
addition of oxidants to the incoming raw wastewater. Disinfection will
0707-07-1105 9-33

be incorporated into the design to reduce pathogen levels in the
wastewater.
There are no known significant sources of trace metals being
collected in wastewater in the Planning Area, but other constituents may
appear in sufficient quantities to require regular monitoring. Soil
monitoring at regular intervals should be instituted and comparisons with
a base of pre-existing soils data should be made. The City's pretreatment
program will be enforced to correct ar reduce these concerns.
Since the County is not zoned, zoning ordinances within the County
will not be impacted. Impacts to development will be minimal since the
only projected areas of rapid growth are located east of the proposed
site. (honing Enforcement/CAMA.)
9.7 SUMMARY
In summary, existing conditions on the land treatment site provide
a favorable environment for implementation of the project and include:
- Remoteness of site; which reduces odor and air quality impacts.
- Topography of soils and groundwater tonditions; which promotes
proper treatment of wastewater effluent and minimizes water
quality impacts.
- Vegetative communities; previously disturbed through logging
operations; compatible with spray irrigation.
- No identified historic or archeological features.
- No identified endangered species.
Project design and mitigation features include:
- Buffer area of at least 100 feet around streams and 150 feet
around site boundary.
- Reduced irrigation on slopes,
- Location of treatment and storage facilities outside of
significant wetlands.
- Disinfection or wastewater before application.
0701-01-1105 9-34

Project benefits include:
- No direct discharge to New River and resulting water quality
improvements.
- Benefits to recreational fishing and aquatic habitat due to
water quality improvements.
- Maximum reuse of groundwater.
- Lower cost of implementation.
Based upon existing site conditions, project design and mitigation
features and project benefits, the selected alternative offers the least
environmental impact while providing the most cost effective method of
wastewater treatment and. disposal. In addition, an evaluation of the
preferred alternative indicates that there are likely to be no significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels during
implementation.
9.8 REFERENCES
1. Adamus, P. R.; Clairain, E. S., Jr.; Smith, R. D. and Young, R. E.,
Wetlands Evaluation Technique ~ ET Volume II: Methodoloav, 1987,
p. 206.
2. Brennan, K. M., "£ffects of Wastewater on Wetland Animal
Communities", Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of
MuniciQai Wastewa ers, 1985, pp. 199-223.
3. Brown, J. P. "The Commonwealth of Onslow: A History," The Owen G.
Dunn Co,; New Bern, 1960.
4. Canouts, V, and Goodyear, A,, "Lithic Scatters in the South Carolina
Piedmont", structure and Process in the Southeastern Archaeology,
1985, pp. 180-194.
5. Coe, J. L., "Through a Glass Darkly: An Archaeological Yiew of North
Carolina's More Distant Past", The Prehistory of North Carolina,
1983, pp. 161-117.
6. Cowardin, L. M.; Carter, C. G and LaRoe, E. T., Classifications of
Wetlands and Dee water Habitats of the United States, 1979, p. 103.
7. Davis, J. R. and McCoy, E. 6, Survey and Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, 1965, p. 48.
0707-07-1105 9-35

8. Giese, G. L.; Mason, R. R. and Strickland, A. G., "North Carolina
Groundwater Quality", Nati-oval Water SummarX, U. S. Geological
Survey, Water Supply Paper 2325.
9. Goodyear, A. C., "A General Research Design of Highway Archaeology
in South Carolina", the Institute of Archaeology and Anthro~oloav
Not~~ 1975.
10. Hargrove, Thomas, "An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Wastewater
Treatment Facility, Richlands Yicinity, Onslow County, North
Carolina", 1988.
11. Harmed, D. A. and Lloyd, 0. B., Jr., "A Preliminary Hydrogeologic
Assessment of the Camp LeJeune Area, North Carolina", ~,vmposium of
Coastal Water Resources American Water Resources Association,
1988, p. 9.
12. Holmes, J. A., "Indian Mounds of the Cape Fear", $ou~ern Indian
Stud Les I8, 1883.
13. Jackson, W. 8., "Terrestrial Communities: From Mesic to Hydric",
Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal
Wastewaters, 1985, pp. 224-230.
14. Kadlec, R. H. and Tilton, D. L., "The Use of Freshwater Wetlands as
a Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Alternative", CRC Critical Reviews
in Environmental Control 9f2), 1979, pp. 185-212.
15. LeGrand, H. E., °Geology and Groundwater Resources of Wilmington -
New Bern Area", Groundwater Bulletin No. 1, 1960.
16. Loftfield, T. C., A brief and True Report An Archaeol,oyical
Interpretation of the Southern North Carolina Coast, Ph.D. diss.,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, 1976.
11. Lyke, W. L, and Treece, M. W., Jr., "Hydrogeology and Effects of
Groundwater Withdrawals in the Castle Hayne Aquifer in Coastal
North Carolina, American Water Resources Association, 1988, p. 10.
18. Mathis, M. A., "North Carolina Archaeology Since 1966: Two Decades
of Feds Over the Shoulder", Advances in Southeastern Archaeology,
1966, pp. 34-41.
19. Narkunas, J., Groundwater Evaluation in the Central Coastal Plain of
North Carolina, NC DNR and CO, Office of Water Resources, 1980,
Grant No. 10740004.
20. North Carolina Oepartment of Natural Resources and Community
Development (ONR&CD), 1987, Application of Coastal Regulation
2H.0404(C).
0707-07-1105 9-36

21. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (DNR&COj, 1989, "Classifications and water quality
standards assigned to the White Oak river basin", North Carolina
Administrative Code 15 NCAC 26.0312.
22. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development ( DNR&CD), 1989a, Procedures for assignment of water
quality standards (15 NCAC 28.0140); and classifications and water
quality standards applicable to surface waters of North Carolina
(15 NCAC 28.0240)".
23. Peabody, C., "The Exploration of Mounds in North Carolina, American
Anthrog loo gist, 1910, pp. 425-433.
24. Phelps, D. S., Archaeological - Historical Study of Jacksonville 20.1
facilities Pro.iect, Ms. on File at the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh, 1977.
Z5. Shiaris, M. P., "Public Health Implications of sewage Applications
on Wetlands: Microbiological aspects", Ecological Considerations
In Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters, 1985, pp. 243-261.
25. South, 5., "An Archaeological Survey of Southeastern North Carolina",
The nstitute of Archaeolow and Anthropology Notebook 8, T976.
27. Ward, H. T., NA Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont:
A Study of Change", The Prehistory of North Carolina, 1983, pp. 53-
82.
28. Wayne, 1. B. and Dickenson, M. F., X986 Histori Preservation Plan.
Camp Le.ieune. N.C., Monograph on File at North Carolina Division
of Archives and History, Raleigh.
29. Winner, M. R., Jr. and Coble, R. W., "Hydrogeologic Framework of the
North Carolina Coastal Plain", U.S. Geological Survey pen-File
Report 87-690.
0707-07-1105 9-37

t/
~~~
~ ,,,_
.~~,~,,.
ODD' (~~
/~ tT~1 c ~. ~r ~ 3
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pam a sat~ech.; ~micmtx
hiics~or_i F. ~aalty; Gore:mr Ot'6ce of?lsck><~es and 1-Gsw:g
t,isbeth C: ~`,vaxu, $c~xtaz9 Di~tiuion of~Tlisto;ica! Resources
)effre7r). Crow, Deputy S ...., . __ _ l7sctid Brtroiq Director
December 5, 2006 _
!;,' ,
Robert Belchex
irrialcolm Pettus, Inc: .. _ .
-,;.,
fl l Tawn. Center Drive, Suite f fl(}
Newport mews, VA 23606-4396
Re: Archaeologitcal. Survey of Proposed Land Application Tracts, Jacksonville L'rlastevvater Treatment Plant,
C}nslow County, CH fly-1850
Dear l4ir. Belcher:
Thank you for your transmittal letter of Novembex 6, 2flfl6. ~e have rev-iewed the surVep report for the above
project and offer the following comments.
An archaeological survey was conducted in selected azeas of the proposed additional Land application expansion
area: One site, 31 C)N62$, was revisited and assessed by this project. Four additional sites, 310N1573 -
310N1575 and 310N1b05, were recorded and assessed a.s a result of this project. None of the sites were
recommended as eligible for inclusion on the National Register of I-Iistoric places (l~~lP}. 1~'e concuz with
these recommendations.
Please note, a historic cemetery, 31 ON1605, is located within the general project area. It has been
recommended that any proposed use of 31Ci1~316fl5 will requtre treatment under the provisions of .North
Carolina Gen~rsl Statute G5,13. Vale concur vaith this recisnmendation; It is our urzdesstanding £rom `
discussions ~vitli. you that the cemetery has been avoided by the proposed design plates and will be clearly
marked i» the Geld for at>oidance and any future development. We ask that eve be noti£ted sf any changes in the
design plans map impact 31 ON16fl5.
~'he report meets-our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. there are no specific
concerns and/or corrections, which need to be addressed iIx regards to this report. The present version of this
document can serve as the final report
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the l4'ational Historic Pteserva.tian Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 ci~dified at 36 C>~ lt.
Parr 800.
Lncstien Mailie~ Addcen 'fctsgmac/Fru
?tI)bIINISrRkTION 5s~7;y.l~otmt Ssrest, Pvlcs~z :3C 4G7?bSad $ccx'~+: Ctnct , Ral~h;vC ~ig~ry.tdl? ~Tli4j'73-d?bI/73}R~S3
IZL?51"oCN?iOrF il$ ~}. Blt~~mt 52se~tt, {laTei~1 N(: •ibT7 A4ti15erdtte 4:tMtt, k :'•F{; 27Gsi4Y{Gi~ (974j`r33-G54ii iti.48Clt
SL'RVl;Y & PGANNINtC i15 t3. Bimmr Strcat, Itataigh, NC 451"1 Mad Scrrxe Cantu, ~ :~:C 2769tb45q' {914}'3-Si;Sf'QS-fist}[

i
That you for your cooperation and considexatian, If you have. questions c©uce~.iag the al7oc°e. comment,
contact Renee Glecliull.-Earley, emcrironmer~tal rec*i~m coord~ato#; at 919/733-~7b3 ext. 2~4G. In all future
communication concerning; this pzoject, please cite :the ~bc~ a xe£exenced traclting n~unber_
Sincerely,
~~
~~~-
st~r Sandbeck
cc: Doug Haggett, Division of Coastal.lvtanagersfent
Larry Horton, Di^crision rs£ mater Quality
Latett~ IautEh.eisrr, Coastal Camlix~ Research, Inc.
................