[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Mrs tu 4t 61 --1 17 It /11 TD 525 .B32 H53 1983 A Coastal Area Demonstration Project by: PLANNEN G- & DESIGNASSOCIATES, P.A. 3515 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Telephone(919)781-9004 HISTORIC BATH, COASTAL ZONE NORTH CAROLINA INFORMATION CENTER K11 Alternative Wastewater System Demonstration Ln -As, 'Owl fkti jilt INCORPORATED 1705 HISTORIC BATH OLDEST TOWN IN THE STATE 11A.M. NOR= CAROLINA 27808 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Ray S. Brooks, Mayor Judy Edwards, Mary Brooks, Ira Hardy II, M.D., Bruce Tankard Bubbs Carson, Town Administrator PREPARED BY: THE BATH PLANNING BOARD James R. Edwards, Cbairman Erma Tankard, Racbel Tankard, Guy Cutler, Helen Brooks, Teeny Mason, Ed Swindel Bubbs Carson, Town Administrator WITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM: Planning and Design Associates, P.A. 3111 Glenwood Avenue Raleigb, NC 27612 (919) 781-9004 Terry W. Alford, President Consultants: Terry W. Alford, MRP, Project Manager; Rex H. Todd, AICP; Micbael V. Butts, MUP; James S. J. Wang, P.E., Wang Engineering; Gregory Miller, Grapbic Designer; C. Willis Williams, Engineering Grapbics; Debbie Tant and Janet Roberts, Word Processing. The preparation of this plan was financed in part tbrougb a grant provided by the Nortb Carolina Coastal Management Program, tbrougb funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, wbicb is administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospberic Administration. The Town of Batb contributed casb and in-kind services. May, 1983 OUTLINE Page CHAPTER. I INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPM II LEGAL CONSTRAINTS 3 a"= III TARGET A12A SELECTION 9 CHAPTER IV NEED AND DEMAND ANALYSIS 12 CHAPTER.V NITRIFICATION FIELD ANALYSIS AND SELECTION 21 CHAPTER VI SYSTEM DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES 25 CHAPTER VII SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE 36 CHAPTER VIII SYSTEM FINANCING 40 CHAPTER IX DEMONSTRATION VALUE FOR OTHER COASTAL COMKBWITIES 49 APPENDIX: A. PDA TARGET AREA ALTERNATIVES 54 B. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE 59 C. CLA S I AND CLASS Il OPERATORS LIST 62 D. BIBLIOGRAPHY 66 CHAPTER I RODUCTION The purpose of this study is to develop a plan for small alternative wastewater systems for selected areas within the Town of Bath, that is easily adaptable to other coastal area communities. The Town of Batb is characteristic of the North Carolina coastal region in that it is plagued by a complex set of wastewater treatment circumstances. The older sections of the Town are declining in population while the outlying area is experiencing growth largely due to the seasonal recreation demand. The entire town must rely on septic tank systems because a conventional centralized treatment system is not economically feasible. The prime development lands are along the Town's water areas (Batb and Back Creeks) where such lands are subject to periodic flooding and soils are often unsuitable for traditional septic tank and soil absorption field sytems. The area has a history of septic system failures and a potential for sewage pollution of the areas ground water, streams and areas of environmental concern.* Additionally, there is latent demand for some commercial development in the Town which cannot be realized unless the wastewater treatment problem is resolved. The Town of Batb undertook earlier efforts which determined that the costs for construction of a new centralized wastewater treatment system for the Town of Bath was too expensive. The "Bath Wastewater Treatment Plant Feasibility Study," March, 1982 found that a centralized plant (to include collection and treatment of wastes) for lands within the corporate limits would total approximately $1.2 million. For lands within the entire Planning Area (i.e., lands within one-mile of the corporate limits), the facility costs would total $2.7 million. This equates to $9,000 and $14,000 per book-up for the corporate limits and planning area respectively (based upon existing and future demand to 1990). The study concluded that: 1) A conventional waste treatment system is not economically feasible. 2) The majority of soils in the Town have severe limitations for acceptance of traditional septic tanks and aerobic field solutions. 3) Although the Town's water quality appears satisfactory at this point in time) increased development may cause an eventual load of the soil system, contaminating the Town's wells and creeks. Therefore, the study recommended that the Town should: 1) Identify the legal and regulatory authority of local governments to develop and maintain small wastewater treatment systems. *As this document is being written, the school is being closed daily at 2:30 p.m. since its commodes are overflowing due to septic tank malfunctions from heavy rains. 2) Develop schematics and cost estimates for small innovative wastewater systems for targeted areas within the Bath Planning Area. 3) Identify funding sources and methods for financing small wastewater systems. Alternative wastewater treatment systems utilize small waste flows technologies and management while optimizing the use of existing on-site septic systems. Examples of alter-natives to a centralized waste treatment plant or the traditionally designed septic tank and field absorption system include low pressure pipe systems, mound systems, leaching chambers, alternating absorption fields, cluster systems and more (see Appendix A). Most small communities have not been exposed to the full range of small innovative wastewater systems available nor are they equipped administra- tively and technically to either assist local developers or to undertake the projects themselves. The Bath town officials recognized that if they were to solve existing and potential septic system failures and accommodate their projected and desired growth, the Town must foster the development of small alternative wastewater systems. To this end, application was made to the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission to help finance the development of this plan. The plan is organized under seven principal headings which include: 1) Legal Constraints, 2) Target Area Selection, 3) Need and Demand Analysis, 4) Ni- trification Field Analysis and Selection, 5) System Design and Cost Estimates, 6) System Management and Maintenance, and 7) System Financing. Each section contains a description of the methodology employed for use by other coastal area communities and a major findings and conclusions statement applicable specifically to the Town of Batb. Chapter IX, Demonstration Value for Other Coastal Communities, serves as a guide to other coastal communities desiring to undertake a similar planning effort. 2 CEIAPTER II LEGAL CONSTRAINTS Prior to undertaking a project of this nature, it is essential to first identify the legal constraints within which one must plan. The following is a digest of the rules and regulations effecting on-site wastewater treatment systems in the State of North Carolina which are relevant not only to Bath, but other coastal communities considering the design of alternative wastewater treatment systems. The regulation of on-site wastewater disposal systems for North Carolina is shared by the State Commission for Health Services and local health departments, and the Environmental Management Commission. The health services section comes under the administrative code of Department of Human Resources and the environmental management section comes under the administrative code of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. North Carolina General Statutes governing the Regulation of septic tank systems include G.S. Chapter 130-166 to 130-203, known as the Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment and Disposal Act of 1981, G.S. Chapter 130-17, the Powers and Duties of local Boards of Health and G.S. Chapter 143-215, the Regulations of the Environmental Management Commission for systems not discharging to surface waters. Supplementing the Environmental Management Commission's rules and regulations are requirements set out under Rule no. 15 NCAC 2H .6400, applicable to Coastal Areas. Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment and Disposal Act The Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment and Disposal Act of 1981 (G.S. 130-166 to 130-203) requires a person either "owning" or "controlling" a dwelling (single or multi-family), business, or place of public assembly to provide a sewage treatment and disposal system. Approval for public or community sewage systems or systems which discharge to the land surface or surface waters, come under the authority of the Environmental Management Commission. (Note: the Act defines "public or community sewage system" as "a single system of sewage collection, treatment, and disposal owned and operated by a sanitary district, metropolitan sewage district, and water sewer authority, a county or municipality or public utility"). All private sewage treatment and disposal systems, to include approved privies, septic tank systems, incinerators, mechanical toilets, composting toilets, recycling toilets and similar systems which do not discharge effluent to the land surface water, are to be approved under the rules and regulations of the Commission for Health Services. Local Boards of Health may adopt regulations which are ,. more stringent," but not "less stringent" than the Commission's regulations. Such regulations are in the formulative stages for Beaufort County, but final rules and regulations have not yet been adopted, nor received the Department of Human Resources approval of compliance with State regulations. 3 An "improvements permit" must be obtained from the local health department prior to the construction, location or relocation of any residence, place of business or place of public assembly. This step allows for the review of the proposed system and a determination as to its adequacy. Once the system is installed, but prior to its being covered or placed into operation, a .1 certificate of completion permit" must be obtained, proving proper installation of the system. Only after these two permits have been issued can constructiont location or relocation of a dwelling, place of business or place of public assembly begin. Appeals conserving the interpretation and enforcement of the local Board of Health rules must be taken within 15 days of the challenge. Anyone contesting the decision of the local Board of Health has the right to appeal to the District Court having jurisdiction over this matter. Rules and Regulations of the Health Services Commission In conjunction with the recently revised Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment and Disposal Act of 1981, new rules and regulations were established (effective July 1, 1982), for the Commission of Health Services relative to sewage treatment and disposal systems (reference: 10 NCAC IOA .1934-.1968). Included within these rules and regulations is a repetition of the improvements permit and certificate of completion permits required under this disposal act. Additionally, where systems are proposed to serve a condominium or other multi-family development and such systems will be under common or joint control, an agreement (tri-party) must be submitted with the improvements permit application. This agreement must be properly executed along the local health department, developer, and homeowners association which address ownership, maintenance, repairs, operation and performance and necessary funds. Any sewage treatment and disposal system which exceeds a design capacity of three thousand gallons per day and other systems which are required to be designed by a professional engineer, must be inspected annually. Prior to assurance of an improvements permit, the local health department must investigate each site and make an analysis based upon the following factors: 1. Topography and landscape position. 2. Soil characteristics. 3. Soil drainage. 4. Soil depth. 5. Available space. Through this analysis, sites are classified (by the above factors) as either suitable, provisionally suitable or unsuitable. Generally, when adaptations can be instituted such as terracing of land for slopes greater than 30% or mounding of soil where high water tables exist, an unsuitable classification can be adjusted to provisionally suitable and hence a permit can be issued. 4 A new provision under "available space" requires an amount of land for both the proposed system and available space sufficient for an alternative site, should the initial system fail (those lots with evidence of existence, as filed with the local health department prior to July 1982 or those lots described in a recorded deed or plot prior to January 1983, are exempt from this latter requirement). The rules and regulations also include standard sewage flow rates and minimum horizontal distance requirements between the septic tank and field absorption system and certain features. These minimum distance include: 1. Any private water supply 100 ft.; 2. Any public water supply 100 ft.; 3. Streams classified as A-II -- 50 ft.; 4. Waters classified as S.A. - 100 ft. from normal high tide marks; 5. Any other stream, canal, marsh, or coastal waters - 50 ft.; 6. Any Class I or Class II impounded reservoir used as a source of drinking water -- 100 ft. from normal high water lines; 7. Any other lake or impoundment - 50 ft. from normal high water lines; 8. Any building foundation -- 5 ft.; 9. Any basement -- 15 ft.; 10. Any property line - 10 ft.; 11. Top of slope of embankments or cuts of two feet or more vertical height -- 15 ft.; 12. Any water line - 10 ft.; 13. Drainage systpm: A. Interceptor drains - 10 ft. up slope and 25 ft. downslope, B. Groundwater lowering and surface draining ditches - 20 ft.; 14. Any swimming pool - 25 ft.; 15. Any other nitration field (except repair area) -- 20 ft. No system can be installed at sites where the seasonal high water table is within one foot of the ground surface at any time of the year. Under certain restrictive circumstances, the system can be located closer than 100 ft. from a private water supply but in no case closer than 50 ft. An areal fill may be used where at least one foot of natural occurring soil is present within the classification of either suitable or provisionally suitable. Finally, the septic tank system must not be located under paved areas or driveways. Systems which are in use or for which permits were issued prior to July 1, 1977, which are too small to meet the above regulations, are exempt from these requirements. Additional regulations cover septic tank construction, prefabricated tanks, design criteria for conventional sewage systems and privy construction and maintenance. In recognition of alternative wastewater systems, two sections have been added to established regulations for alternative wastewater systems such as nitration trenches, alternating dual field nitration systems, modified nitration lines and low-pressure pipe systems. 5 If an existing system falls into disrepair or the use is discontinued for any reason, the system must be brougbt up to the standards of these regulations before the system can be reused. If a determination is made by the local bealtb department that a reuse will not create a bealtb bazard, then compliance witb these regulations can be waived. Rules and Regulations of the Local Boards of Healtb Under G.S. 130-17, the Local Boards of Healtb bave the responsibility to ensure that sewage systems, as installed, are in compliance witb the rules and regulations of the Commission for Healtb Services. As noted previously, these rules and regulations can be superseded by locally adopted provisions wbere there exists "an emergency, or peculiar local condition or circumstances." Sucb additional regulations must be "more stringent, but not less stringent," than those of the Commission. An important provision of G.S. 130-17 autborizes the local boards of bealtb to enter into contracts witb local units of government and private agencies or persons, for the purpose of providing services in excbange for fees. This provision may be useful for long term maintenance agreements for innovative sewage treatment systems. Rules and Regulations of the Environmental Management Commission As noted above, all public or community sewage systems and any systems wbicb discbarge to the land service or surface waters, must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development under the rules and regulations of the Environmental Management Commission. Title 15 (wbicb is presently under revision), subcbapter 2H, Section .0200 addresses directly the requirements for sewage systems not discbarging to service waters. Under this section, a permit is required before constructing or altering any sewage system, treatment works or disposal system not discbarging to surface waters. These regulations outline the required supporting documentation and information, as well as requirements of various systems. Those requirements tbougbt to be specifically applicable to the Batb situation bave been included below: For pumping stations: a. design data; b. plan and profile or force main; c. plot plan; d. specifications describing all materials to be used, metbods of con- struction and means for assuring the quality and integrity of the finisbed project; For septic tank - ground absorption systems: a. percolation data on soil; b. design data; c. plans of complete system including plans for septic tank, system layout and cross section profile of nitration lines; 6 For spray irrigation or land application disposal systems and treatment works: a. topographic map of disposal areas; b. test borings and subsurface data adequate for site evaluation; c. soil evaluation of the disposal site conducted by a recognized soil scientist and his recommendations concerning application rates for liquids, solids, minerals and other constituents of wastewater; d. a project evaluation conducted by a recognized agronomist and his recommendations concerning cover crops and their ability to accept the proposed application rates of liquid, solids, minerals and other constituents of wastewater; e. complete plans and specifications for entire system. The regulations specify that the permit application must be signed by a consulting engineer or "other agent" when accompanied by a letter of authorization. For spray irrigation or land application disposal systems and treatment works, soil evaluations must be conducted by a "recognized soil scientist." Two additional references are made relative to the small area wastewater systems. Specifically, the regulations referenced Section .0300, "septic tank systems" and Section .400, "coastal waste treatment and disposal." Under Section .0300 (which is presently under revision), the regulations are basically the same as those contained within the Ground Absorption Sewage Treatment Disposal Act of 1981 for septic tank systems. Section .0200 - coastal waste treatment disposal, contains regulations which are specific to coastal areas like Bath. These regulations are applicable to public and community sewage systems along the coast. Most important is Regulation .0404(f) prohibiting the use of septic tank systems for "high density" areas. High density has been defined in these regulations as any development for use of more than 1200 gallons of water per acre per day or which contain more than 3 residential units per acre. Section .0404 (g) provides that where approved area-wide collection and treatment systems are not available, interim systems may be approved to include a subsurface disposal trench, low pressure distribution systems and rotary distributions (i.e., spray systems). Additionally, according to Alton Hodge, Environmental Engineer, in order to comply with the Division's regulations, a replacment disposal field must be available (May 12, 1983 letter to Lee Fleming, et al). Applications must be submitted to the Director of Environmental Management, NRCD, in Raleigh. The Direc *tor must complete his review and take final action within 90 days following receipt of the application. An applicant can request an adjutacatory bearing if the permit is denied or the applicant deems the conditions of approval are unacceptable. 7 Conclusions Over the course of the last few years, gains bave been made in amending State laws and rules to furtber accommodate alternative wastewater treatment systems. The latest revision of the Ground Disposal Sewage Treatment Disposal Act is supportive of Alternative Wastewater Systems and at this point in time, is the controlling set of regulations. The Environmental Management Commission rules (i.e., Title 15, subcbapter 2H) are presently being revised to comply witb the Act. The biggest stumbling block witb 15 NCAC 2H to Batb and otber coastal communities is Section .0404(f), wbicb restricts septic systems in "bigb density areas" (more than 1200 gallons of water per acre per day demand or more than tbree residential units per acre). Under section .0400, if it is a publically or community owned system, septic systems are probibited for bigb density development* If the septic system is privately owned, one can develop at bigb density provided design, soil suitability, etc. requirements are met. Conversations witb Environmental Management Commission staff (Dale Crisp) indicate that Batb could make application for the entire corporate limits and then perbaps meet the bigb density limitation tbrougb a city-wide density. Alternatively, a variance to Section .0400 (tbe procedure for wbicb is presented in Section .0200) could be applied for constructing the case that Batb is an individual and not a community, for purposes of an areawide demonstration project like tbis. Or, more practically, the Town could give the entire system to a private individual (witb proper assurances for maintenance, etc.) and then lease it from that individual for $1.00 per year, tbereby meeting the letter of .0400. Tbrougb this review of county and state regulations and discussion/corre- spondence witb officials, the Town of Batb became aware that a variance may be required to Section .0404(f) and that a suitable nitrification field and a replacement field are required to obtain a non-discbarge permit from the Division of Environmental Management. Witb this understanding of that section, wbile keeping open the options for privately owned smaller systems, the Planning Board began the task for selecting target areas witbin the corporate limits. 8 CHAPTER III TARGET AREA SRT CTION Since the aforementioned study of a Conventional commun1ty-w1de system indicated exborbitant costs, this study was begun on a target area basis.* The selection process begins with a review of existing or easily obtainable data in the community. One of the most valuable sources of information is the CAMA Land Use Plan. Within the land use plan are inventories and survey results on existing land use, hazard areas such as floodplains, and areas likely to experience new growth. Detailed soil maps/descriptions from the Soil Conservation Service can be used to locate areas likely to have existing or potential septic system failures due to soil limitations. When this soil data is overlayed with the vacant land survey of the land use plan, lands suitable for future nitrification fields can be identified. The local county health department sanitarian is also a valuable resource. His or her knowledge of the community will serve to pinpoint areas of existing and potential septic failures, the nature of those failures and needs for improvement. The local sanitarian can also help identify areas suitable for field absorption application. The most suitable method for analyzing the data listed above is to plot each element (e.g., hazard areas, soils unsuitable for septic systems, growth modes, etc.) on a set of overlay maps. The next step is to select one or more target areas based upon a set of criteria. The following criteria was developed for use in the Town of Batb, but should be adjusted to suit each jurisdiction's needs and desires. Target Area Selection Criteria: 1. Is the area designated either "developed" or "transition" in the adopted CAMA Land Use Plan (LUP)? 2. Does one or more of the areas include concentrations of septic failures or non@-complying systems? 3. Does the area include lands having known or proposed changes in type of use, density, or otherwise targeted for specific uses which are suppor- ted by the LUP and highly desirable to the community in terms of job creation, income generation, increase in tax base, etc.? 4. Are the areas within reasonably close proximity to vacant lands suitable for field absorption systems? 5. Is the nature of the effluence (i.e., quantity and quality) generated within the area treatable through small waste flows technologies? *It later came to recommend a community-wide land based system (see Chapters VII & VIII). 9 6. Is at least one of the areas feasible for immediate implementation fol- lowing completion of this plan? Based upon an analysis of local data in light of the above criteria, the local staff or consultant can identify from four to six potential target areas for public review. The local Town council or planning board can make the final selections from the alternatives presented at a scheduled meeting. For the Town of Bath, a series of map overlays was developed to include existing land use, fragile areas, hazard areas, land classification, zoning, septic systems failure areas and areas suitable for drainage fields. This information was obtained through a reading of the "Historic Bath Land Use Plan, 1980 - 1990" and interviews with the Beaufort County Sanitarians, Bobbie O'Neil, Horace Moore and Donnie Woolard. Four preliminary target areas were selected for review by the Bath Planning Board. See Exhibit A. These areas included: 1) lands generally at the intersection of Carteret and Main Streets,, 2) lands along Main Street between Grover and Front Streets, 3) lands along the north side of Craven Street between King and Carteret Streets, and 4) lands within the extraterritorial area located across Back Creek opposite HandX's Point. The Bath Planning Board met in September, 1982 and decided on a target area. which combined the preliminary target areas identified as #1 and #2. The Planning Board selected an area targeted for application of the small area wastewater treatment systems to include the parcels and development along Main Street in the Town of Bath extending from the State Park at Bonners Point north to Bowen Avenue. 10 EXHI IT A J HISTORIC vs BATH NORTH CAROLINA Small UWnwtl%v Wastawater Systern Dernwatration tI FAE-f ri J, 11 .17 '4 ell IF r Z IT Alt r VPLA,NNING & DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.A.3515 Gjvnwtxxt Avon% it! Rak.,iqh NorthCarohnit 27612 1(4(j-phiIto:(k41@1i7K1 IJ004 GENERAL NOIES REVtSXM NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTON L ON -1 WINE. ...I I... OF "Ad LaIGN, -1 OT.. -1. A"NO',` TINIFFE."ITICONEA." TK ANCAITICT, 2. n.Firf 4 NO Elm IN4 .01. TNt".0' 61@6-11D "A SON AMETNOM I TWU ONANWINGS @1 SEEN FAMED T.1CONTANCTO-SNAtIL11-16-IL INDA A THALO NO IMPROVE DIANAT@ 0, YNEW `,AAd AND "vt NE., ONt" FNTM 'Nd MT @l t,NO&X - ADAK FIT INTO FOSITIm IINL Cm@ STANNNA4 INA I T.1 1.4 IMETA@ftn TA- K A-GLI 10 V - I ALL 0, U_C( AND @110k$ AT TN4 UTE OUM.ftG TNI OF .( K.". T" I All 1. 1IN31AL.T1 ST C1 11 I.fg Dfl-@S *S-All- @1, CHAPM IV MM MM DEMM &MLYSIS Once the target area(s) have been selected, the septic system problems and, opportunities for development must be identifed. The success of a program of this nature in small coastal area towns is dependent upon a proper blend of .. need" (i.e., existing and potential septic system failures) and "demand" (i.e., opportunities for new development) for alternative wastewater treatment systems. Need for Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems In order to optimize the use and operation of existing on-site septic systems, the performance of that system must first be documented. Reliable data on the various types of septic system failures is often scarce. Further, there is a conflicting bias between the local sanitarian and home owner regarding the frequency and potential for septic system failures. For these reasons,, mailed questionnaires and on-site investigations with the local sanitarian are suggested. The target area of Bath was surveyed during the month of October, 1982. A copy of the cover letter and questionnaire mailed to residents of the Batb target area is included in Appendix B, while the results of the survey are summarized below. There ar e 61 structures within the Main Street Target Area of Bath. The uses include 51 residences, 9 business (3 are combined residences and businesses), 1 church and 3 institutional uses. Returns from the households surveyed indicate about a 60% return rate (30 of 51 surveys mailed). Of those returned surveys, 87 percent (26) were year-a-round residences, 7 percent (2) were seasonal and 3 percent (1) were vacant. Families were predominately one and two person households (30%-8 and 26%-7. respectively) with 18% (5) having 3 person bousebolds, 18% (5) having 4 persons, and 4% each (1) with 5 and 6 person households. The majority of housing units bad three bedrooms (45%, 13 total), followed by 2 bedroom houses at 28% (8) and 4 bedroom houses at 24% (7). Only 3% (1) bad one bedroom houses. Fifty-five percent (16) of the houses bad a single toilet, 38% (11) bad two toilets, while 7% (2) bad three toilets. For shower facilities, 65% (19) bad one tub or shower, 28% (8) bad two showers and 2% (2) bad three shower facilities. Water conservation devices were being used in 20% (6) of the households, 83% of which were shower restrictors and 50% having both shower restrictors and low water volume toilets. 12 The entire Main Street area is on septic tank/field absorption systems. Twenty-nine percent (6) were installed over 30 years ago, 33% (7) installed between 20 and 30 years ago, 29% (6) were installed 10-20 years ago and'only 9% (2) installed witbin the last ten years. Nearly 40% (11) of the systems bave bad system failures. Sixty percent (13) indicated there bas never been any maintenance. Only 11% (3) indicated they would like to expand their bouse if adequate wastewater treatment capacity was provided. Of the nine businesses along Main Street, four returned their surveys. All four businesses were open year-around and indicated no problems witb their existing septic systems. All were built in the 1970's. Only one business utilized water flow restriction devices. Tbree of the four businesses indicated a desire to expand their facility if additional waste treatment capacity was provided. The next step in the "needs" definition pbase is on-site investigation and analysis. Beaufort County Sanitarians, Horace Moore and Donnie Woolard, togetber witb Dr. James Wang, P.E., of Wang Engineering, and Terry Alford, AIA, of Planning and Design Associates, P.A., conducted the orr-site investigations. Their findings and conclusions are summarized below: Sixty-one structures witbin the Target Area were placed into one or more of the following categories, a@ccording to their type of system problem and need for alternative system: 1. Inadequate space for drainage field. 2. Inadequate system design (i.e., too small). 3. Inadequate maintenance (i.e., requires regular maintenance). 4. Unsuitable soils for leacbing field (tbis category was applied to vacant lots; Of the 61 structures (lots), 26 rated as baving inadequate space, 16 as baving an inadequate design, 7 required regular maintenance to avoid system failure and 3 were located on sites witb unsuitable soils. Based upon these findings and local knowledge of the individual systems performance, a judgement was made relative to the present wastewater system suitability. The following suitability rating system was applied to eacb site. A. Good, adequate witb no future problems anticipated. B. Marginal, eitber bas bad problems or potential for problems. C. Poor,, in need of redesign and/or connection to community system. As sbown in Exbibit B1, given the above rating system, 20 bouses were judged .good;" 16 marginal and 16 poor., This sbows that a significant number of bouses (62%) are eitber in need of a new or redesigned wastewater system or will be in sucb need witbin the near future. 13 EXHIBIT B1 HISTORIC BATH NORTH CAROLINA 2 so en Av rl,e 127 Alternative Small 3 128 Wastewater System 4 Demonstration 126 1 .j CJ130 .7 6 129 LEGEND: Suitability 124 LD E) Reeld-U.1 GOW - 00 future pmbla@* 1,2 0 125 ;0 131 caeu-W 1. P.64- 2 1 20 19 1 23 24 2;5T: -- chu.h coentnort system 17 ED C7 1119,112@11211 122 23 135 ID tamitumnof I NO adoquoto spooo oal"j. 2 137 166 PM-1 Hum", 2 20 ret tr t 19 0 139 2 -",w Vt- or no arm- t Ira "t IWIC 3 Regular raguieed F.11W p"emlef C t 27 0 &aptic 4 U.*Ult&bis for C*Mtr%wtlon of :@2:19T 28 ED: 118 140 leeChlIq field mar no /motel 0@r 0*61res Ezp@sjoft 31 C3141 3 330 32 [3142 1@7 gcp 35 tf7 164 165 36[] C3 Im? 117 1,3 1 37 116 40 1.2,41 B 41 43 t.24 4 t it 48; 47 @2 49 109 9 E 1 *12,' @2107 51 '144 1,3 1 52 1.2- B th 13 5 54 V5 U6 152 Cr:ek, 56 106 0 14 51 3 15( 58 -7--7151 1! 15@ '5' 8 q @160 T-j6j 11,2 104 r n 13 0 C) 0 62 1 59 1'Z 161 63 2 62 163 1;2 A 64 C 103 r*ak 66* ;6 7 2.4 68 100 69 --- 1102@ 0 101 4 71 98 97 73 r @'[] 72 EXISTING 96 WASTEWATER SYSTEM y CONDITIONS 74 76 09 1 Back 094 Creek 75 77 93 92 91 90 89 Pisming & Design Associates. RA. 88 us Qu....ad A- - Fbk-. at Ina - msl?@ 000, T.'rYAlf.,d - sea Tedd - Ulk..1 Suit. 78 79 80 82 87 1) Dr.- Or: W. Williams 83 84 85 10 Clusclitul by: T. Alford M. Butts Data: ?Ct@b., lost S.M.: - Mallet- J ... ry 1083 14 The nine businesses along Main Street were analyzed against the same standards. Five of the businesses' wastewater systems were judged to bave inadequate space for drainage fields, tbree bad an inadequately designed system, one required regular maintenance to ensure against failure and two bad sites witb unsuitable soils for leacbing fields. The nine businesses were evenly distributed witb tbree eacb judged good, marginal and poor. The one cburcb bad no treatment system and the tbree institutional structures all rated as good. The final step in the "needs" definition pbase is a comparison of the results from the questionnaires and on7site surveys. Of those sites judged good, surveys sbowed that one (#14) was in need of more drain lines and tberefore was reclassified as B2. Of the nineteen sites classified as marginal, nine questionnaires were received. Five of the returned questionnaires indicated system failures and four bad no problems. Only one indicated a desire to expand if additional capacity was provided. Nineteen sites were classified as bad. Of this group, fourteen questionnaires were returned. Only tbree indicated problems, wbile five indicated a desire to expand. Conclusions: The return rates for categories A, B and C (i.e.,'good, marginal and bad) were 39 percent, 53 percent and 74 percent respectively. Altbougb there is a low correlation between questionnaire results and on-site investigations, there is a strong correlation between the judged severity of the problem and interest on the part of the residents as exbibted tbrougb the returned questionnaires. Based on the age of existing systems and the documented number of system failures and/or deficiencies, the Town of Batb bas a substantial need for improved wastewater treatment. Demand for Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems It is essential, in the planning and design of any municipal wastewater treatment system to differentiate between Need and Demand. Need, as presented in the preceding section, is cbaracterized by documentation of existing and potential septic system failures, including ability of the target area to accommodate present and projected wastewater discbarges witbin limits of existing environmental and program constraints. Demand, is most often cbaracterized by those economic forces in the marketplace that result in the willingness to spend money to meet desires as well as needs. In most small coastal communities, as in Batb, community needs far exceed the real marketplace demand. 15 This can be best illustrated from the Bath questionnaire results in which 62% of residents indicated a need for a new or redesigned wastewater system; yet, only 11% of residents indicated a desire to expand their house or business if adequate wastewater capacity was provided. In the absence of a major and immediate threat to their health, safety, and personal goals, Bath residents are less likely or able to spend the additional money required to individually upgrade their existing systems. In a community dominated by older residents, living on fixed incomes, there is little tolerance for additional monthly costs due to book-up to a central wastewater system. Within this socio-economic climate, demand for a central wastewater system must be derived from the individuals desire to achieve community-wide goals. The active public participation, over the past three years, in the development and adoption of a community Land Use Plan has generated community-wide interest in an adequate wastewater system. This improved wastewater system would overcome the potential environmental health problems presented by the present system as well as foster appropriate develoment desired by the community. Specific development desires include recruitment of light industry, residential construction on in-town agricultural land, and limited addition of commercial uses along highway 92 and Main Street. The challenge in Bath, as with many small coastal communities, is to accommodate the discrepancy between individuals inability to pay vs. community goals of growth and improved quality of life* The challenge for the Planning Board and its consultant is, therefore, to identify commercial development opportunities within the target area that would reduce individual residential book-up charges, while achieving community growth goals. That is, can new income-generating projects be developed as a means of financing a significant proportion of the total book-up costs. In order to identify potential new development opportunities in Bath, a public meeting was held at the Bath Town Hall on October 18, 1982 to solicit community input. Prior notification was provided via letters to property owners, town officials, and key individuals. Exhibit B2 provides a summary of the input derived from this brainstorming session with over thirty community residents. 16 Exbibit B2 PLANNING BOARD WORKSESSION - BATH TOWN HALL OCTOBER 18, 1982 A. Overview: Provided by Consultants (Alford, Todd, Butts and Wang) 1. Identify the Problem: Need (current failures; future failures) 5e-mand (opportunities for commercial/resi- dential development, etc.) Supply (potential sites for absorption fields 2. System Alternatives: Design of Solutions - cost/benefits (wbat eacb system is). 3. Systems Maintenance: Wbat it takes to keep it working, over time. Costs. 4. System Financing: Wbat is the cost? How sbare it? B. Suggested Opportunity Projects & Recommendations from Community 1. Plot 20 - Farmer's Market for Fisberman (via town lease). 2. Plot 6*6 - Expanded Bed and Breakfast Guest House, to include Luncb and Dinner. 3. Plot 3 - Convert the Barn, near ampbitbeatre, to a restaurant/lounge to accommodate tbeatre patrons. 4. Cluster Swindells Grocery, Harbour Hotel & Property N. of 92 into single wastewater system. 5. Plots #77, #103 and #163 could accommodate additional bousing (e.g., on Craven St. "Clustered Development") as incentive to development of central nutrification fields. 6. A playground for cbildren is desired for one of the irr--town vacant lots. 7. Target initial projects to utilize publicly owned land (e.g., Beau- fort County scbools owns 13 acres). 8. Explore ways to use wastewater byproducts, via recycling/reclamation 9. Explore tecbniques for segregating waste categories. 10. Include more commercially zoned areas in Target Area. 17 Exbibit B2 (con't.) 11. Provide wastewater systems for existing marinas. 12. Plot #127 - would be suitable for Ligbt Industry, if cbanged from Rl. 13. Encourage the State to let the Town percolate town wastewater on their land. 14. Vacant lots on waterfront could be developed witb adequate waste- water system (e.g., Parcels 3 & 163). 15. Consider using available land on existing residential/commercial/ institutional sites to assist adjacent property. C. Related issues: Parking Improved parking would be essential for area development. Areas outside target area also bave future development potential (e.g., Back Creek Marina restaurant). Parcels #34 and #37, and #36/#38 are conducive to restaurant development (Jim Middleton). 18 Real demand for development within the target area appears to cluster into three major categories: Restaurant, Housing, and Light Industry. A summary of impact of these proposed future uses on construction of a town wastewater system and is as follows: Restaurants: Broad community consensus exists to encourage development of an in-town restaurant. Five (5) specific sites were identified from the community meeting: 1. Ampitbeatre Barn 2. Swindells Grocery 3. Bath Guest House 4. Parcels 34/37 5. Parcels 36/38 There exists an apparent market for a modest family restaurant, to seat 50 to 75 persons during tourist season, operating with a 15 to 25 seat capacity during the off season. The narrow margin of profit affordable by a class A or B restaurant in this seasonable marketplace would negate any significant contribution of capital to a clustered wastewater system. That is, a restaurant would more likely follow, rather than lead the development of improved municiple wastewater capacity. Housing: A total of eleven vacant parcels, suitable for residential construction were identified within the target area. Available residential in7-fill sites for single family detached or duplex units, on scattered parcels will not generate sufficient volume of construction to significantly contribute to capital costs of a central wastewater system. Rather, like the restaurant,, scattered site residential infill would most likely occur after installation of a central system. Parcels 77, 103Y and 163 are suitable for clustered "patio home," duplex townhouse, or single-family detached units. With a phased development plan, parcels 103 and 163 could easily accommodate thirty (30) single-family units on quarter acre lots, with sufficient land remaining to serve as nitrification field for the entire town (See Wastewater Schematic Design 4). Assuming the Town's willingness to provide development incentives to the Developer/Owners of this property, the Developer may be able to provide significant priva*te capital contribution to construction of a central wastewater system. Light Industry: Parcel #127, north of Bowen Avenue, was identified in the community meeting as a potential site for light industry. With appropriate incentives from the Town, the owner of this parcel has expressed an interest in developing a small apparel manufacturing facility at this location* Assuming an expanded 19 employment base of 50 to 75 workers, attributable to this project, a significant capital contribution to the cost of a central wastewater system might be gained; especially due to the projects potential for leveraging other sources of public capital due to job creation. Other Opportunities Considered: Other projects identified in the community meeting included a "Farmers Fish Market" (Plot #20) and the need to accommodate wastewater at existing marinas (Plot #21). Neither of these projects would generate sufficient revenue to contribute, beyond their direct costs, to the construction of the overall target area wastewater system. Conclusions Real demand for a centralized wastewater system in Bath, measured by the ability of the marketplace to recruit private capital in its construction, is likely to be derived from new development rather than from existing residential and commercial uses. New development potentials identified include a moderate density residential subdivision and addition of a small scale, light industry. Upon completion of the system, pent-up market demand for residential and commercial in-fill will result in additional scattered site development, as an aid to reducing operating costs of the central system. Individual acceptance of the additional dollar costs of central wastewater treatment must be tied to that individual's desire to achieve larger goals of community development. New development within the community must make a significant capital contribution to construction of the central system, to reduce operating costs to existing residents. 20 CHAPTER V NITRIFICATION FIELD ANALYSIS AND SELECTION Once the need and demand for wastewater treatment bas been determined, potential" nitrification fields must be selected and detailed soil analysis conducted. Based upon the need to identify one or more nitrification fields witbin close proximity to the target area, ten alternative sites were selected in Batb. These sites were selected tbrougb a review of the vacant land survey and interviews witb the Beaufort County Sanitarians. The local sanitarian bas knowledge not only of the soil cbaracteristics of the area, but also knows the location of existing drainage fields. Following the selection of the potential nitrification fields, the County Sanitarians conducted on-site investigations and soil boring tests. Based upon their findings, and in accordance witb State regulations, the fields were judged eitber suitable, unsuitable or provisionally suitable (see Cbapter II for definitions). The results of this analysis are listed below: EXHIBIT C NITRIFICATION FIELD SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS Site Number Suitability as Nitrification Field 124 Suitable 118/28/26 Unsuitable 107/105 Provisionally Suitable 104/63/100 Provisionally Suitable 71 Unsuitable 72 Unsuitable 77 Suitable 103/163 Provisionally Suitable 117 Suitable 152 Suitable Those sites identified as "suitable" (See Exbibit D) were next subjected to additional soil borings and tests by Dr. James Wang, of Wang Engineering. His findings indicate that the Town of Batb bas potential wastewater nitrification field soil types 2A, 26 and 43 (See Exbibits E & F below): 21 EXHIBIT D HISTORIC BATH NORTH CAROLINA -80 wen A-- e- 127 Small 3 SUITABLE 128 Alternative Wastewater System 41160.000 of u*eable Demonstration 5-- 24,000 city El a [email protected] 126 E ED 6'x-f/ simultaneous use 0 j ---Ior agriculture 129 130 1:1 xx C7 LEGEND: 0--- 124 0 ---- 10 13 x IINI &.,Vv Ir-, sit.. 125 C-@ T.- 12 01 0 VIM T-9.1 Als. 1-3 23 24 17 130 1 121 122 123 135 ID 21 26tteret rL-et 13d 137 n8 139 166 ITABLE c -- @2 7 rE L--! QNSU poor soils 2Gi D El exILD ' 0140 he 30 xx ci 141 31 Q [J142 SUITABLE 0 3 125.000 of ussoble lc@) gj 34 C3 0) 31,250 GPD capacity 166 5S [-:3 11, GPD/B1 wl 154 165 -117 't'u?' ovneous roa foi 4 J60 FQ recrost an - 37 El 116 117 8 39 40 41 42 x 44 43 SUITABL 6El 4 x 400-000 of MOW. 04 100.000 GPD capacity 0.25GPO/st w/ P*W "its o"Mullarwous was f0f 4 109 .9ricullum 107 Q 152 50 51xx 144 0 2Lj Ej 14 B a t h 5 5 146 152 C rele k 1156 106 14 --- x 57 rq I El 151 E3 158/ 159 ta LD 160 161 j 1652 4,_ _L o Lr ED 1 59 161 060 L- 62 63 A0 0 3 631 0 5 1 P1A0v4 ALLY LD 64 S TA x t C poof Dolls 103 x 1 66 67 x SUITABLE IMSK :1 ble 9 68 1.00 163,350 G"luo".:Facity 102 selmO.2' GPD/s w/ u no u 70 tot r culture 101 71 1 73 97 98 r72 --0 PROYISIONALLY SUITABLE TARGET AREA setback 11 ation 96 0onvsrolively high water I table x SHOWING POTENTIAL NITRIFICATION FIELDS 76 x 10 740 Back 094 Creek 75 77 992 NS ITABLE poof soils 90 Q Planning & Design Associates, PA. 88 ISM 0.- 879 80 82 [387 Yolry Allold - P- Todd Mich..1 D- by: W WilligM& 85 Ch-kd v,: T. Afford , M. bults 84 22 EXHIBIT E CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL TYPE 2A Name: Typical Pedon: State silt loam on a 3% slope Taxonomic Class: Fine loamy, Mixed tbermic typic bapludults Deptb Clay Moist Bulk Permeability pH (in) M Densijy (in/br) (G/CM ) 0-10 5-15 1.25-1.40 o.6-6.o 4.5-5.5 0-10 10-18 1.20-1.35 o.6-2.0 4.5-5.5 0-10 2-8 1.35-1.45 2.0-6.0 4.5-5.5 10-45 18-34 1.35-1.50 0.6-2.0 4.5-5.5 45-6o 2-15 1.35-1.50 2.0 4.5-6.0 soil Type 2A bas a large range of soil cbaracteristics for top soil of 0-10". EXHIBIT F CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL TYPES 26 and 43 Typical Pedon: Altavista fine sandy loam - cultivated Taxonomic Class: Fine loamy, mixed tbermic acquic bapludults Deptb Clay Moist Bulk Permeability pH (in) M Densijy (in/br) (G/CM ) 0-12 7-15 1.4-1.6 2.0-2.0 4.5-6.o 0-12 10-24 1.3-1.5 2.0-6.0 4.5-6.0 12-42 18-35 1.3-1.5 0.6-6.0 4.5-6.0 Soil codes No. of 26 and 43 are the same type except No. 26 indicates more surface cover by development* Additionally, a laboratory test for saturated soil bydraulic conductivity was conducted at the potential nitrification field (lot numbers of 72, 1031, 117 and 124) witb soil samples collected at the deptbs of 0-12", 12"-24", and 24"-48." The bydraulic conductivity test results indicated that lot no. 72 is not suitable for wastewater treatment due to low permeability less than 5 cm/br on the average. The otber lot numbers of 103, 117 and 124 are suitable for wastewater treatment witb the average saturated bydraulic conductivcity about 20 cm/br. 23 Based on the soil type, permeability, water table depth and location of the sites, the was5ewater loading rate for a low2pressure system was designed to be 0.15 gpd/ft for lot no. 124, 0.25 gpd/ft for lots no. 103 and no. 117. This data led to the calculation of the nitrification field acreage requirement for treating the domestic wastewater, and system design was developed, as presented in Chapter VI. 24 CHAPTER VIE SYSTEINS DESIGN & COST ESTIMATES Data regarding need, demand and constraints of the soils were Incorporated into the following scbematic design studies prepared for the target area. Preliminary engineering designs were also prepared by James Wang, PbD., P.E. and Terry Alford, MRP, AIA based on botb conventional collection system ecbnology and low pressure nitrification field layout derived from Dr. Wang's soils analysis. t Cost estimates were derived from actual construction data on projects built in the Nortb Carolina and Soutb Carolina coastal region witbin the past two years. Four alternative geograpbic layouts were evaluated. Design criteria, cost estimates and scbematic layouts for eacb are provided in the following Scbematics 1 - 4. A comparison of eacb of these sebematic designs indicates the lowest cost per book-up for construction of a single system to serve the entire target area. 25 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 1 HISMRIC BATH FISHERMAN'S MARKET CLUSTER NORTH CAROLINA 0 .......... vx El ....... . .......... 7 ... ............ I c I. ........... . ...... .... ..... 10 12 10r 20 LB 19 LA 17 Fij rteret t e F-17 t Ell NUMBER OF HOOKUPS: 10 11. STABILIZATION & PUMPING TOTAL GPD DISPERSED: 4,100 GPD SYSTEM (future demand) SeDtic Tank/PumDine Tank COST ESTIMATE: $75,000-$100,000 I. COLLECTION SYSTEM III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A. 611 GRAVITY LINE (PARCEL 124) 625 lin.ft. B. INTERMEDIATE PUMP Area Useable: 160,000 sf SYSTEM CaDacitv:, 24,000 GPD @ .15 GPD/SF with C. 611 FORCE MAIN Simultaneous use 500 lin.ft. for A2riculture. PLAMING & DESIGN ASSOCIATES, PA.3515Gk-n@KxlAvenue RakAah WfthCarohna 27612 GENERAL MWES REVISQNS MW RELEASED FOR CONSTRIXTION 0. 10 T@ @'Gcf I" .-k "am 0"Mau Him ..to & ?.NCCNIT@ @11MOI.U 0, "...cf p't W-4 T.4 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 1 FISHERMAN'S MARKET CLUSTER Existing and Projected System Demand Parcel Existing Use Description GPD Proposed Use (MAX) GPD No.. Description 7 Residence 300 Same 300 9 Vacant Two-family Residential 600 12 Residential 300 Same 300 13 Residential 300 Same 300 15 Residential 300 Same 300 16 Commercial (Auto service station) 500 Same: 2S% gal/H20 closet or unused x 2 equals 500 gpd 500 17 Vacant 17, 19, 20 combined 19 Vacant into Public Farmer's Fish Mkt., Fisherman's 20 Vacant Public Wharf. (Assume 1500 10 Residence 300 5 gpd per visitor for 300 max. of 40 visitors/ day + 2SO gal ea. for 5 H20 closets or urinal TOTAL 2000 GPD 4100 GPD 27 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 2 HLSTORIC MARINA MOTEL/MIDTOWN CLUSTER BATH NORTH CAROLINA i 23 U sm" 1-1,41 C1 aa I's T19 t2d 22 122 20 t,- 27 J 'N U 30 01-A Quo SU42 132 @, ---,0 j r7 30 2 3e 7T n I C 40 4 LB" 117 46 3 47 - 49 30 W 51 Bath Crook 54 56 we $a I. COLLECTION SYSTEM 104 A. 611 GRAVITY LINE 39 1,000 lin.ft. B. INTERMEDIATE PUMP SYSTEM C. 611 FORCE MAIN 1,300 lin.ft. II. STABILIZATION & PUMPING SYSTEM NUMBER OF HOOKUPS: 27 SeDtic Tank/PumDine Tank TOTAL GPD DISPERSED: 10,380 (future demand) COST ESTIMATE: III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM $85.000-$120,000 (PARCEL 117) Area Useable: 125,000 sf CaDacity: 31,250 sf @ .25 GPD/SF with Simultaneous use for School Recreation. PLANNING & DESIGN ASSOCIATES, PA.3515Gk.-nwtxx1Avent*t Flaloah NoffhCArohna 27612 jfx)4 GENERAL TOCQ@@?O@CA"d a %"a "COW. REVISCOG NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTM)CTION -T em 10 1.6 @1@ CO-49-M TWW0"-= WININON-16 4. W.,. W MSO@$T@ 10d COM SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 2 SCHEMATIC WASTEWATER DESIGN MARINA MOTEL/MIDTOWN CLUSTER Historic Bath, N.C. EXISTING & PROJECTED SYSTEM DEMAND Parcel Existing Use GPD Proposed Use (Max.) GPD No. Description Description MARINA MOTEL 21 Marina/Motel 10 gpd/Boatslip 200 Existing + 8 Additional rooms 1,880 for 20 slips @ 120 gal/room/day 120 gal/room/day 720 22 Residence 300 27 Commercial - Grocery Store @ 400 Existing + small Delicatessan/ 1,200 200 ga/1000 S.F. Restaurant w/ 20 seats at 40 gal. per seat/day 29 Residence 300 Same 300 30 Commercial 400 Same 400 31 Vacant - Single Family Residence 300 32 Residence 300 Same 300 33 Residence 300 Same 300 34 Commercial 300 Same 300 Residence 300 Same 300 35 Residence/Commercial (sail shop) 300 Same 36 Residence 300 Same 300 Residence 300 Same 300 SUBTOTAL: 4,420 5,880 GPD GPD (continued) 29 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 2 SCHEMATIC WASTEWATER DESIGN MARINA MOTEL/MIDTOWN CLUSTER Historic Bath, N.C. MIDTOWN 38 Vacant - Vacant 39 Residence 300 Same 300 40 Vacant - Residence 300 41 Residence 300 Same 300 43 Residence 300 Same 300 44 Residence 300 Same 300 46 Residence 300 Same 300 47 Residence 300 Same 300 48 Residence 300 Same 300 49 Residence 300 Same 300 so Residence 300 Same 300 51 Residence 300 Same 300 52 Residence 300 Same 300 53 Residence 300 Same 300 54 Residence 300 Same 300 55 Residence 300 Same 300 SUBTOTAL 4,200 4,500 GPD GPD 8,840 10,380 TOTAL GPD GPD 30 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 3 HISTORIC BATH BED & BREAKFAST (South End) CLUSTER NORTH CAROLINA _4001-- am" Afthe Woo- wW fyg%m 52 ift 0 AA S3 Bath 55 _,i; Creek so 0 57 Li _LL oa I.c .......... 63 TTT I]EI Wx- X_ -xx Wo Ga 00 ........... .......... 70 98 NUMBER OF HOOKUPS: 9 72 TOTAL GPD DISPERSED: 4,460 so (future demand) COST ESTIMATE: -$100,000 74 $75,000 77 III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM I. COLLECTION SYSTEM (PARCEL 103) A. 611 GRAVITY LINE Area Available: 1,000,000sf 650 lin.ft. Area Useable: 660,000sf B. INTERMEDIATE PUMP CaDacity: 163,350GPD SYSTEM @ .25 GPD/SF with Simultaneous C. 611 FORCE MAIN Aaricultural use. 700 lin.ft., I-I. STABILIZATION & PUMPING SYSTEM SeDtic Tank/Pumx)inq Tank JPLANNING & DESIGNASSOCIATES, P.A.3515rk@nw4"1Avm*_- f3Wk!Kjh- Nuthcafohna 27612 TPk-prvww!191ftj7H1 li(M G093M NOTES NOT FIELEASED FOR CONSTFNJCTK)N "T.-aw Vol a -.4 off. -we sl@v 11-1-WI-M low. @ @1@ 31 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 3 BED & BREAKFAST (SOUni END) CLUSTER Existing & Potential System Demand Parcel Existing Use GPD Proposed Use (Max.) GPD No. Description Description 56 Residence 300 Same 300 58 Residence 300 Same 300 61 (two) residences 600 Same 600 59 Residence 300 Same 300 59A Residence 300 Same 300 63 Residence 300 Same 300 66 Commercial (Bed & Breakfast) 960 Expand restaurant to 1260 (8 rooms @ 120/room) 20 seats 860+800 57 Episcopal Church 600 600 5 gal/seat @ 120 seats 3060 4460 TARGET AREA TOTAL: Design Sub-Area Cluster Name Existing Demand (GPD) Future DemiLnd (GPD) 1 Fisherman's Market Cluster 2, 000 4,100 2 Marina Motel/Midtown Cluster 8,840 10,380 3 Bed & Breakfast Cluster 3,060 4,460 TARGET AREA TOTAL 13,900 18J940 32 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 4 HISMRIC COMPREHENSIVE CLUSTER BATH NOM CAMXINA Cd as all as NUMBER OF HOOKUPS:, 46 TOTAL GPD DISPERSED: 18,940 V ZI (future demand) ate LA COST ESTIMATE: U2 $175,000-$200,000 3: 6 R J. 44 46 45 47 al a 5" W3 1, COLLECTION SYSTEM -Ij .B A. 611 GRAVITY LIRE Q 1.North Section: 1500 lin.ft. Ix Li a 2.South Section: 650 lin.ft. B. INTERMEDIATE PUMP LA21 -j SYSTEM C. 611 FORCE MAIN 750 lin.ft. 7- - rr. STABILIZATION & PUMPING SYSTEM Septic Tank/Pumvine Tank Back Crook III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM C-7 so (PARCEL 103) a Area Available: 1,000,000sf Area Useable: 660,000sf 68 U40 Capacity: 163.350GPD @.25 GP' D/SF with Simultaneous AQriculture use. PLANNING & DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.A.351510k.-nwuodAwntat Ralooh NcxthCarolonj 2717.12 [email protected]'llf917MI cj(X)4 GENERAL WMES REVISIONS NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTMICTON "C@10@16A#ftrA"4 10c"..95I.Ts Cams. C' TO 1.4 @1*cf 0" F@L .. 4V V%Am@-q T @T@ftr$ 14@TOA 4 11@1 TOWIAWT @L 1-1 V. -.11 C1 11 1.4. S--@ -A SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 4 Preliminary Cost Estimate Components of Cost Estimated Cost I. COLLECTION SYSTEM A. 611 Gravity Lines: 1. North Section: 1500 lin. ft. @ assumed average depth of 9 ft. @ $14 per lin. ft. $21,000 2. Tunneling below Highway 92 1,200 3. South Section: 650 lin. ft . @ assumed average depth of 6 ft. @ $12.50 per lin. ft . 8,125 SUBTOTAL $30,325 B. Intermediate Pump Station 1. Pumping Tank w/2 pumps 12,000 2. Standby Power generator 7,000 3. Pump House & Accessories -18,000 SUBTOTAL 37,000 C. 611 Force Main 1. Home Run: 750 lin. ft. @ assumed average depth of 3 ft. @ $8.00 per lin. ft. 6,000 SUBTOTAL 6,000 COLLECTION SYSTEM TOTAL $73,325 II. STABILIZATION & PUMPING SYSTEM 20,000 A. Septic Tank (assumed 20,000 gallons), and B. Pumping Tank (assumed 10,000 gallons). STABILIZATION & PUMPING SYSTEM TOTAL 20,000 III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A. Distribution lines for 20,000 gpd field @ 21-2 ft. depth for agricultural use above. 30,000 30,000 B. Land Lease: Assumes allocation of NONE of 200,000 sq. ft. from parcel 103. SUBTOTAL I, II, 111 $123,325 34 SCHEMATIC WASTEH20 DESIGN 4 Components of Cost Estimated Cost IV. FEES & PERMITS A. Engineering, Topographic, utility, soils & property survey $8,000 B. Planning & Engineering Design, Construction & Bid Documents, & Construction Administration. 15,000 C. Attorney/Accountant Fees 5,000 D. Miscellaneous Permits, Reimbursable Expenses, & Town Admin. Costs -3,000 TOTAL FEES & PERMITS $31,000 SUBTOTAL I IV 154,325 V. CONTINGENCY @ 15% (1 IV) 23,150 GRAND TOTAL: $177,475 VI. ILLUSTRATIVE FINANCING A. Base Costs1 177,500 B. Misc.Admin. & Closing Costs @ 4% - 7,100 C. Assumed Loan Principal $184,600 D. Loan Assumptions PV 185,000 %1 5% Term = 30 years E. Monthly Payments 993 F. Annual Payment 11,917 G. Monthly Cost/Hook-up assuming 50 hook-ups 19.86 Notes lBase costs do not include estimated average unit initial hook-up charges of $400/unit. 35 CHAPTER VII SYSTEK MANAGMMT AND After delineating alternative schematics and considering costs, an assessment of local ordinances, and of system management and maintenance alternatives must be conducted. 1. Local Ordinances. First, towns should determine what changes in local ordinances would be required to accommodate (or control) the proposed system. In Bath, a community-wide system will serve the Rl, R2, Bl, and B2 Zoning Districts. All of these districts already have densities, etc. established at levels desirable when the town gets public sewer. No changes in that ordinance are necessary. The town will consider a sewer ordinance to establish permitted types of book-ups, types of waste permitted in the system, rates, etc. The Town of Bath does not have subdivision regulations. Next, the town should consider what easements will be required to allow the system to cross private property outside of the public rigbt-of-way, and perhaps for the subsurface use rights in the nitrification field itself. In Bath, these easements will be drawn by the local attorney and will be financed as an allowable cost under FmHA (see Chapter VIII). 2. Management and Maintenance. The Town should estimate the management and maintenance systems which will be required. In the case of Bath, Schematic #4 was used as a basis for estimating the management and maintenance for a community-wide system. (It is important to emphasize that a considerable amount of planning and engineering is yet required in order to determine the final cost of any community-wide system. The numbers shown in this chapter and in Chapter VIII are preliminary estimates). The community should determine what agency will oversee the management and mg,intenance. For Bath, Mr. Donnie Woolard, sanitarian, and Mr. Richard Clayton, Head Sanitarian, Beaufort Co. Health Department, were contacted regarding the Bath Management Alternatives. Assumed for discussion purposes was 18,940 gallons per day (GPD), with 46 units, pumps and septic tank (for the target area) and 60,500 GPD for 121 units for the whole community. 36 Mr* Woodard stated that If the system is publicly owned, t@e regional engineer of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (Roger Tborpe, wbose office is in Wasbington, N. C.) will determine the classification of operator required. If it is privately owned, the County Healtb Department will monitor tbe.operator of the private company. The law separates oversigbt according to ownersbip category (ratber than tecbnology, flow, etc.). Since the proposed system is to be publicly owned, Mr. Tborpe was contacted to determine the class of operator required. He stated that botb the target area system and community-wide systems would require only a Class I operator, based upon a point system wbicb allocates points for pumps, flow and tank. From the aforementioned assumptions, Mr. Tborpe said that the Batb system would get no more than 10 points for the target area and only sligbtly more for the extra flow from a community-wide approacb. The bracket for Class I is I to 25 points. Class II goes from 26 to 36 or so, on up to a Class IV. Any Class bigber can operate a lower class system. Next, the community sbould determine the organizational arrangement that is to manage the system. Class I provides that a local official of the Town of Batb (or someone witb experience in operating a system) can operate the system. Mr. Ed Warren, training director for NRCD in Wasbington, said that someone witbout experience could acquire a temporary certificate and attend classes, take an exam and gain the required experience under the temporary certificate, tbereby qualifying upon passing the exam. Mr. Warren stated that there are several contracting firms that communities can contact for terms, fees, etc. He provided the NRCD computer list of Class I and Class II operators and Commercial Laboratories in Nortb Carolina wbicb communities may cboose to contact in designing their own management and maintenance systems (see Appendix D). Finally, communities sbould talk witb qualified operators and otber experts to determine the type and level of management and maintenance required on site and determine wbat types of maintenance contractual arrangements a-r-e best suited for the Town. In the Batb instance, Mr. Jobn Melvin (of Environ- ment 1, Greenville), Dr. Jim Wang, P.E. (Wang Engineering) and PDA were consulted. 37 Since Batb bas capable and trainable local administrative personnel, and contracting engineers witb lab facilities are nearby (Greenville, etc.), a two-tier management process is recommended. Tasks (Exbibit G) and preliminary budget (Exbibit H) for a community-wide system are as follows: EXHIBIT G PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT TASKS, BY PERSONNEL TYPE Assumptions: System consists of collection lines, 3 collection pumps, interceptor line, 1 interceptor pump, two rectangular septic tanks and the septic field. 121 units served. Local Land Preventive maintenance, minor repairs, monitoring and Management reporting. Tasks: Maintain warranty: eacb day monitor the pumps and the second rectangular tank (water); cbeck first tank (sludge decomposition and sand accumulation) periodi- cally. Make judgements and reports to consulting engineer. Supervise pumpout as needed.* Contracting Assure initial operation of system. Engineer Visit site montbly. (Operator Review report Company): Intervene to trouble-sboot as requested. Take samples; analyze and respond. 38 EXHIBIT H PRELIMINARY BUDGET, BATH ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT Item Mo. Cost Annual Cost Local Operator $250 $3,000 Bookkeeping 20 120 Contracting Operator 300 3,600 Lab Services 30 360 Electricty to run pumps 200 2,400 Pump out boney-wagon* (per visit) 25 300 Contingency for repairs, etc. 50 600 $865 $10,380 According to FmHA, the cost of $10,380 dollars per year would compute to cost of $7.88/montb. Average for comparable systems in N. C. ranges between $5 and $10 (See Cbapter VIII for complete preliminary budget, for wbicb management and maintenance is one line item.) *It is recommended by Alton Hodge, NRCD Environmental Engineer, that this system be pumped out more often than a single family system, possibly on a two to tbree year period. This sbould prevent solids from clogging the system. 39 CHAPTER MI. SYSTEK FIRMING In earlier days, even small coastal communities could engage in sopbisti- cated waste treatment systems,financed beavily by Environmental Proection Agency (EPA) funds. This practice bas been drastically curtailed by federal cutbacks in EPA (in FY'83, Nortb Carolina was allocated only $35 million, financing approximateiy 8 projects per year), and by moratoria from dumping municipal wastes into surface waters (e.g., the Cbowan, Trent and Neuse Rivers). Tbus, communities interested in alternative wastewater treatment systems must engage in creative financing strategies. The Town of Batb found that the constraints (i.e., eligibility requirements, timing, etc.) of several funding sources posed particular problems for small communities. One of the most significant factors in Batb is the need to develop an alternative system for the entire community, ratber than for a particular target area. Below is the array of funding sources developed for Batb by extrapolating Scbematic 4 to cover the entire community. Eacb source is considered in turn, enumerating critical points wbicb led to its selection in or exclusion from the recommended course of financing, and its preliminary dollar amounts. Alternative Funding Sources The funding sources considered by the Town of Batb include the following: 1. Sale of Revenue Bonds backed by the Tax Base of the Community or use of Tax Increment Financing. Tax increment financing could be used, in wbicb case a bond referendum could be beld and bonds sold witb wbicb to undertake the project. As lots are sold and reassessed for bigber taxes (tbat is, improved), the tax "increment" (value of the improved property minus previous value times the tax rate) will be used to retire the bonds. It is doubtfulP bowever, that a place as small as Batb witb a project cost of less than $500,000 would be marketable under this option. Pay back may be unsure as well, witb a limited municipal budget ($18,000), indicating the type of situation wbicb led the State to get into the Clean Water Bond business in the first place. 40 2. Developer Incentives Real demand (tbat is, ability and propensity to pay by private individuals) is often required by tbird party funding sources (sucb as Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), wbicb requires that eacb bousebold on the wastewater treatment system pay $100 per year for debt service). Also, actual growtb and development of opportunity projects is often a fundamental piece of generating a strong base from wbicb to generate sources of revenue (wbetber user fees or taxes). In the latter case, the Town's cost of acquiring land may be foregone by accepting dedication of land by the developer for the treatment field. Otber public/private partnersbip options available for towns wbicb, select alternative systems include involving the land owner in the deal, sucb as leasing the field ratber than purcbasing it; leasing the land or selling the owner the wastewater as fertilizer during periods of simultaneous agricultural uses (aereation systems only); or acquiring leasebold interest (easements) for the use rigbts on the sub-surface. Alternatively, a town may engage the landowner in a form of "value increment financing*" In this case, a developer's lots are enbanced in value (first, by making them marketable and second, by generating a bigber price) largely tbrougb the spillover effect of the use of public funds (FmHA, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), local taxes, etc.) to plan and install the community septic system. Upon sale of the lots, the developer would "pay back" part of this increased value by paying part of the local sbare of the financing package (tbat is, the money could go to belp amortize a FmHA loan, for instance). In this case, the buyers get a dependable septic system at a cost under that of an individual rate, the developers get a better return on their land, and the Town gets a portion of its wastewater treatment cost paid* In contrast to these advantages, the disadvantages include the fact that the vacant land wbicb is centrally located and near enougb to residences to reduce the cost of the collection system, may be inappropriate for agricultural use of the pretreated waste. Also, the issues of fair market value of the lease or dedication would bave to be adequate to entice a land owner to participate at rates comfortable to the town. This could be proceeded upon a case by case basis. 3. Farmers Home Administration Community Facilities Program The Farmers Home Administration Community Facilities Program provides botb loan and grant opportunities to communities like Batb, but for community- wide programs ratber than for target areas or partial-community programs. The loan programs will cover up to 75% of the total project costs, except for operation and maintenance and individual book-up fees. To qualify for the loan, a town must bave a median family income below 85% of the State's median family income level. The 1980 census indicates that Batb does qualify, witb a median family income of $10,000 wbicb is below the required amount (NC $15,249 x .85 = $12,961.65). This median income level also qualifies the town for the intermediate interest rate of 7-3/8%,, ratber than the full rate 41 Additionally, if Bath meets two additional criteria, namely, median family income below the national poverty level (now $9,300) and presence of a health problem related to wastewater treatment, the Town would qualify for a 5% loan. In either case, the Town must pay $100 per year per household for debt service (based upon $1.00 per thousand dollars of median family income). FmHA also provides a combination of the loan and grant program. Allowable costs and logistics of the grant portions of FmHA are explained in Exhibit I below. Advantages of the FmHA program include that it is conveniently available and well suited for small communities, and it caters to innovative and alternative systems. Disadvantages include FmHA's requirement of a community-wide approach rather than a portion or target area. (However, small areas with few units served are rarely cost effective, regardles of the type of financing used). 4. Community Development Block Grant. Developm-nt Planning Grants (of up to $10,000) and Community Revitalization Grants (CR) (of up to $750,000) are competitively available through the NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Develom-nt' Division of Community Assistance. The former will finance the preparation of a full CR application for wastewater treatment in which the analysis would be expanded from the target area to a broader based program (increased number of units). The larger Community Revitalization Grant will pay for planning and administration, and construction of the system in a target area of 80% low-to-moderate income persons, with a local option of up to 20% of the total dollar amount used to benefit persons 50% of whom are classified as low-to-moderate income. Advantages of using the CDBG Sm-11 Cities Program include that the timing for this application is excellent, with the application deadline of May 2. The fact that Bath has never received CDBG funds before is consistent with State's priorities for the Development Planning Grant. Additionaly, the extensive work placed into the CAMA Demonstration for the target area may be adequate to develop a full application for the target area (Schematic 4) if the cost per household is cost effective. Disadvantages include high monthly costs per unit, based upon only 46 units. The CDBG staff considers the grant amount per unit served and the grant amount per low-and-moderate unit served. In both cases, the basis cost of the target area system ($177,745 plus book-ups (400 x 46 = $18,400)), plus (15% for planning and administration) warrants a CR Block Grant of $245,181. For 46 units in Schematic 4, this renders a grant amount of $5,330 per recipient, which may not be competitive with other systems using larger numbers of recipients (for example, a city-wide system, assuming 100% less low-to-moderate income residents, would qualify $411,765 divided by 121 $3,403, a 56% reduction in cost per household). 42 This latter determination of grant per unit served indicates that a Development Planning Grant may be in order to better design the project, especially in light of the CDBG requirements of leveraging other public and private funds, which FmHA and DEM, plus the developer incentive posture above, avail to the Town of Batb. Advantages of the Development Planning Grant ($10,000) include their low cost of preparation and their utility in marshalling additional funds. Disadvantages are minimal, if any. Advantages of the larger grant include the fact that 100% of the costs are allowable to low and moderate income. It also provides an attractive opportunity to pay for only the connection fees as referenced above. 5. Clean Water Bond Act of 1977. The state previously bad two accounts for wastewater funds: one for localities (counties, etc.) which would have funded collection lines, and a separate statewide account which only funds the interceptor system and treatment systems. In Beaufort County, $25,000 lapsed into the statewide account last year, and there are no other funds available for collection, etc. In a February 8, 1983 interview, Herb Davis of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) indicated the following regarding Clean Water Bond funds: In order to qualify for Clean Water Bond Funds, Bath must have a federal grant (either FmHA or CDBG will do). Clean Water Bond funds will not pay for any collection lines within the town limits but will pay for the interceptor if it's inside. If there are pumps on the interceptor line or preliminary treatment (septic) tanks, they will pay for them as well. The DEM money will pay for the lesser of 25% of the eligible costs or one-half of the non-federal share. The Clean Water Bond application must go through both A-95 (state and regional) review (regional means the Mid-East Commission in Washington and the State means the NRCD office (Mr. Roger Thorpe) in Washington). This includes an impact statement, an engineering assessment, etc. Clean Water Bond funds are available only if the system receives a permit, and only if the other funding sources show firm commitment. 43 There may be new Clean Water Bond money from the State if the sales tax (new bill) passes, or if there is a general referendum statewide for such purposes. Advantages of the Clean Water Bond funds include the fact that they are in grant form rather than loan, and in this case, pay for a major portion of the system's cost (Bath's system is treatment heavy rather than collection heavy). Disadvantages are minimal, the requirement for receiving another federal grant may be critical however, though minimized in this case by the FmHA grant (see Exhibit 1). 6. Coastal Area Management Act Implementation Demonstration. In its new regulations for Local Planning and Management Funds (February 7, 1983), the Office of Coastal Management establishes highest priority for "demonstration projects which can be used by more than one local government." The second category (50% to 67% grant funded) includes projects which are coastally dependent (water-related) or projects to implement the land use directing policies in the approved local land use plan such as public facilities planning. Since CAMA has invested in the preparation of the Batb Land Use Plan and the current demonstration project for facilities planning, there is a good basis for applying for continuation funds to expand this demonstration to the total area of Bath. Coordinating benefits among funding sources is worth demonstrating, as is the continuation of this on-going planning program, and this work related directly to implementation of an officially adopted CAMA Land Use Plan. Advantages include the timelines of the funding cycle and the value of continuing a planning process already in process. Disadvantages are minimal. Barriers to Financing Time frames for many of the aforementioned funding sources do not lend themselves to coordination. For example: Funding Source Application Date Award Date CDBG May 2 July 2 FmHA April 1 June Clean Water Bond March I July The problem comes when the CDBG program requires creative leveraging (in this case, of FmRA and CWB), which means that firm letters of commitment from these sources must be in-band at least by May 2, a month or two prior to the FmHA decision (June). The meeting of the Coastal Management Commission (July). 44 The Recommended Course of Financing Based upon the foregoing consideration of financial strategies, it is recommended that the Town of Batb apply for several sources of financing simultaneously. These include the FmHA and Clean Water Bond (Strategy 1), the CDBG Community Revitalization Grant (Strategy 2), and the CAMA Grant (Strategy 3). Strategy 1 is illustrated in detail in Exbibit I. Discussions witb Mr. Jobn Soles, FmHA (919-755-4640), strongly suggests that proposal to FmHA be for community-wide system. This means that Scbematic 4, (see Cbapter VI), is actually eitber the first pbase of sucb a program or the basis for expansion in a community-wide system design using the latter approacb, extrapolating costs and revenues for the target area to a preliminary community-wide budget. It is important to empbasize that this budget is preliminary and that considerable planning and engineering work is yet required to finalize this attractive financial strategy. Strategy 2 consists of applying for a CDBG Development Planning grant witb wbicb to finance the estimated $48,400 for booking up the bomes of low-to- moderate income housebolds and related planning and administration. The Town may also apply for a smaller Development Planning Grant of up to $10,000 to plan a more comprebensive application for subsequent CDBG cycle. Strategy 3 consists of applying for a $7,000 CAMA Demonstration Grant for expansion of the original analysis to the rest of the community. This analysis could provide the basis for a full CDBG application next cycle. 45 EXHIBIT I FINANCIAL STRATEGY 1 FmHA7UER P R E L I M I N A R Y 0 N L Y One-time Annual Montbly Use of Funds: Total Construction Costs 2 $350,000 -0- -0- Debt Service on $154,000 3 12,174 8.39 Operation and Maintenance 10,380 7.15 Subtotal 229562 15.54 Hook-up Costs of $400 per Housebold 482400 (times 121) Source of Funds: FmHA Loan 1 1543,000 DE14 Gran@ (Clean Water Bond) 5 61,000 FmHA Grant 135,000 Subtotal 350,000 Hook-up payments of $400 per House- bold (times 121) 489400 1Total Project Costs for this budget are assumed at $350,000. The following is a sample budget for this amount, and for $451,000: Construction $271,618 $350,000 Legal: Bond Attorney, N.Y. 32104 4,000 Local Attorney 3,104 4,000 Interest 83,538 11,000 (on $154,000 loan) Land Cost (rigbt of way acquisition) 3,88o* 59000 A/E Fees 32,594 42,000 Contingency (based upon .10 of Construction Costs 2731162 35,000 Total Project Costs 350)000 451,000 If the project cost goes to $451,000, then the FmHA Grant would be expanded to make the average montbly user costs in line witb otber comparable systems or better (bere, better is $15.44)(see Note 6). *Tbis line item may increase to include additional funds from FmHA/DEM for acquisition of easements or fee simple purcbase. Notes to Strategy 1 - FmHA/DEM The Amount required by FmHA for debt services, given median family income of $10,000 is $100 per household per year, or 100 x 121 users = $12,100. This $12,100 will amortize a loan amount of $153,068 (at 7-3/8% interest). FmHA requires that loan amounts be rounded up to the nearest thousand dollars, rendering the $154,000 as shown. It also requires that having adjusted the loan amount, a debt service factor of $79.05/1000 be applied, to render the debt service amount at $12,174 as shown. The maximum loan under FmHA is 75% of the construction costs (in this example, $271,618 times .75 or $203,714. Note: since the loan is to a local government, it is deemed part of the local (non-federal) share). 3See Chapter VII. 4Clean Water Bond (CWB) pays only for the treatment system, in- cluding the interceptor, inceptor lines, preliminary treatment tanks and if critical, acquisition of the treatment field. CWB will grant the lesser of 25% of eligible costs or one-half of the non-federal share, whichever is less. 69.7% of the $350,000 is 244,000 x .25 = $61,000. Half the non-local share is $154,000 divided by = $77,000, therefore rendering the lesser amount $61,000) as the grant amount. 5Determined by subtracting the subtotal $215,000 (loan = $154,000 + grant $61,000) from total construction costs ($350,000)). FmHA has a maximum allowable grant of 75% of the allowable costs in this case $203,714 (determined by multiplying construction costs of $271,618 times .75). In this case, with the average monthly rate of $15.44, it is unlikely that Bath would get a higher grant amount,if the total costs remain $350,000. 6The Town of Bath will have to issue General Obligation Bonds to qualify for the FmHA Loan. A public referendum is required. FmHA will purchase the Bonds with the loan amount (here, $154,000) and the tax base of Bath will stand behind the bonds. Maximum amount of the FmHA loan is usually 8% of the tax value (which for Bath may be between $5 and $10 million. At any rate, a waiver can be easily achieved to get the FmHA loan. FmHA makes sure that the systems it loans to are self-sufficent. If in the event it is not, the city will, under the GO bonds regulations, levy taxes to pay for the system. The town will have to issue bond anticipation notes in order to finance the initial construction of the system (estimated that a six month period will expend half of the construction budget). FmHA will lend the Town funds at 8% to 10% to pay the interest on the six months of borrowing (say $7,000 or $8,000), plus, the amount required to pay for the bond anticipation notes, totaling $18,000 to $20,000. 7Hook-up fee: This cost is an eligible cost under the FmHA loan program. However, this will require clear easement on each of the 121 properties (signed by the homeowner, storeowner, etc.) and either brought by the Town or donated to the Town. 47 Developing the easements will increase the legal fees associated witb land acquisition sbown under Note 1. Normally, the cost of connecting the bouse to the collector is left to the individual bomeowner, witb the city acting as an organizer. The city may let a contract to one plumbing company to do the entire area, tbereby gaining economies of scale and passing them on to the bomeowner, etc. in the form of reduced connection cbarges. Connection fees are eligible under the CDBG program, usually as part of a bousing rebabilitation project. 48 CHAPTER Ix DEMONSTRATION VALUE FOR OTHER COASTAL COMMTIES INTRODUCTION This year, the Office Coastal Management of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development funded five coastal demonstration projects. The Town of Bath's Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plan is one of them. This chapter is an epilogue which reflects upon the wastewater treatment situation in Bath and the technical work undertaken to address that situation. It highlights the strengths of that work which other communities may wish to replicate, and exposes points upon which other communities may wish to improve as they apply methods used in the Town of Bath. Much of the demonstration value of the Bath Wastewater Treatment project lies with its analysis of the situation, selection of planning methods, and techniques of carrying out those methods. Additional value is found in its emphasis upon making the plan become a reality (that is, establishing the goal of installing an alternative system in Bath as a result of this, and preceding work). This chapter examines each of the Plan's chapters primarily from a methodological standpoint. To gain the most from this chapter, it is best to have read the entire document, and to refer to it while working through this chapter. ARTICULATION AND ASSESSMENT OF DEMONSTRATION VALUE Chapter I-Introduction Prior to this project, the Town of Bath bad proceeded t-rougb a model planning sequence, beginning with its land use plan, update of its zoning ordinance, amending its plan as necessary, undertaking a feasibility study of a conventional treatment system, and then the study of alternative wastewater systems. While it is not necessary to have completed all of these steps to undertake this last study, it is important to realize that much of the information upon which this report is based bad been collected and digested in a community-wide process before the wastewater treatment alternatives were explored. Thanks to the Coastal Area Management Act, many communities in North Carolina have sustained planning efforts over time and, therefore, will be better prepared to replicate this demonstration. Others may wish to emphasize the public involvement mechanisms used in the Bath project (such as active networking among private developers to stimulate commercial demand for the 49 wastewater treatment system, open worksessions witb the Planning Board, and interim presentations to the Town Board) to prepare the community for this type of study* Cbapter II-Legal Constraints The consideration of legal constraints is always important wbere innovation is required. For this reason, a detailed collection and analysis of the Nortb Carolina General Statutes and regulations regarding septic systems was undertaken at the outset. The objective of putting this researcb "up-front" was to determine to wbat extent the scope of work, planning tecbniques, and wastewater treatment alternatives would be sbaped by law. This procedure exposed communication cbannels tbrougb wbicb the planners and engineers later moved, and identified strategies tbrougb wbicb to meet (or cballenge) the constraints presented by the regulations. This assessment exposed tbat, wbile gains bave recently been made in amending state laws and rules to accommodate alternative wastewater treatment systems, continued work needs to be done on 15 NCAC 2H (Section .0400) wbicb restricts septic systems in "bigb density areas." Apparently, this provision is more suited to urban settings and is in great need of performance criteria vs. prescriptive standards. A variance may be required for the coast to use alternative systems. This metbod of examining legal constraints early can belp otber communities avoid the pitfall of focusing too beavily upon tecbnical aspects wbile leaving the political or financial aspects until later. (More on the financial pitfall later in this cbapter). Cbapter III--Target Area Selection The metbod in wbicb data was collected and analyzed, and criteria establisbed for target area selection presented in Cbapter III is replicable in otber communities. The Batb Land Use Plan (CAMA) was a fundamental source of that data, as was personal contact witb the local county bealtb department sanitarians. Tbrougb using an overlay tecbnique of maps prepared for the land use plan (bazards, unsuitable soils, land classification map, etc.) the areas suitable for application of land intensive wastewater treatment systems were identified. Establisbment of criteria belped narrow the field to a few sites wbicb, after preliminary workups, were presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Board selected a target area wbicb became the focal point of the demonstration project. Cbapter IV--Need and Demand Analysis Many communities can learn from the manner in wbicb the Batb project was undertaken witb attention to botb public need and private demand for solution of the community's problem. 50 Need, as defined in Cbapter IV, revolves around public issues sucb as adequacy (capacity and performance) of existing conventional septic tanks, areas of known malfunction, etc. Mucb of this information was collected by a bouse-to-bouse survey of 61 structures in the Target Area, a step wbicb removed the project from a paper-work study to a serious attempt to implement a program* The consultant devised metbods of classifying this information and later rating the suitability of the existing systems witb regard to the future. It was important to compare the results of the questionnaire witb those of the on-site surveys. This disclosed a low correlation, leaving discernment of severity and interest on the part of the residents to otber meebanisms, sucb as the Planning Board meetings and follow-up pbone calls and interviews In contrast to need, demand was cbaracterized by the economic forces in the marketplace that result in the willingness to spend money to obtain better wastewater treatment facilities. Demand in Batb,, as expected, is constrained by fixed incomes (as reflected in a low median family income of $10,000 per year). Tbus, the Planning Board and the consultant began to searcb for pockets of demand (opportunity projects) wbicb could, tbrougb being commercial users, finance a larger sbare of the system and tbereby make it more financially feasible for residential users. This produced tbree types of demand: restaurant, bousing and ligbt industry, at five sites. This initial concern for demand (as well as need) became of paramount importance in later considerations of financial responsibility (See Cbapter VIII, in the document). Cbapt8r V--Nitrification Field Analysis and Selection Having defined need and demand, the analysis sbifted to the supply side of wastewater treatment. Cbapter V presents the metbod applied to ten alternative sites for the nutrient field in Batb, ranking those sites as "suitable," "provisionally suitable," or "unsuitable," based upon soil boring tests. From this information, the nitrification field acreage requirements for treating domestic wastewater was calculated as the basis for system design. Any communities preparing to undertake a similar project sbould plan on a considerable amount of on7site soils testing and related engineering work at this stage (see document, Cbapter V). Development of a good working relationsbip witb the county sanitarian is also fundamental to any sucb effort* Cbapter VI--Systems Design and Cost Estimates Four detailed alternatives sbowing the collection system, stabilization and pumping systems, distribution systems, fees and permits, and contingency costs were designed and evaluated. 51 A comparison of these schematics indicated an obvious cost savings in of developing a single system to serve the entire target area, rather than serve a sub-target area. Communities desiring to conduct this type study should carefully review the level of detail required at this stage. See scbematics in the document. Chapter VII-System. Management and Maintenance Having selected the system which best served the target area, efforts were undertaken to determine need to amend local ordinances and to determine the most appropriate operation and maintenance arrangement. Assessment of the local zoning ordinance indicated that the Town is prepared to handle the densities, etc. which the wastewater system will bring. A sewer ordinance will be considered to regulate types of waste, etc. No other ordinance changes are necessary. Additionally, easements will be required to install the system. These are to be drawn by the local attorney* Contacts at the state, regional and local governmental levels, and contractors within the private sector, exposed the types of operators required and identified persons licenses as operators. Opportunities for training local people and for use of contracting engineers became apparent and were later adopted into the recommended organizational arrangement. Chapter VII goes to considerable detail to articulate the actual management and maintenance tasks required and to derive a budget for this aspect of the system. This level of effort again exemplifies the concern for the system actually being developed in the Town of Bath. As the project evolved, it was discovered that the major funding source (FmHA) is interested in community-wide (not target area size) systems. This awareness was incorporated into Chapter VII. At this point, the consultant adjusted the management and maintenance requirements for the target area to derive that for a larger system and confirmed those estimates with the consulting engineer. Hence, the $10,380 estimate presented in Chapter VII and the budget in Chapter VIII. 52 Cbapter VIII--System Financing One of the major learnings for otber communities was discovered in the late stages of the Batb project development. Witbin Cbapter II above, we cautioned otber communities to follow suite and explore, early on, possible legal constraints wbicb may be placed upon the project. Even political constraints were mentioned as part of the pre-planning bomework requirement. The same overview (scan) of funding sources sbould bave been undertaken at the beginning of the project, at wbicb time it would bave been discovered that FmHA was interested only in community-wide systems and the scope of work could bave been adjusted. As it turned out, about 80% of the information needed for the wbole town was collected for the demonstration project, requiring some remedial work in order to write the last cbapters for a community-wide system and to collect additional information for funding applications. Witb this word of caution, otber demonstration value in Cbapter VIII is found in the surveying of alternative funding sources (sucb as, developer incentives). From this searcb came one budget based upon a project cost of $350,000 and anotber based upon a larger system totalling $451,000. This provided a range witbin wbicb to talk witb FmHA and DEM officials regarding feasibility and availability of funds. Variations in funding timelines and eligible expenses were discovered, as expected, during the financial design pbase of this project. one item of demonstration value in this section is a financial design wbicb seeks to leverage as mucb and as diverse financing as possible. Otber communities are encouraged to enbance the feasibility of their systems by increasing the number of units to be served, and to creatively seek diverse funding sources from the public and private sectors. CONCLUSION As outlined in this final cbapter, the Batb project on Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems exposed several points wbicb otber communities sbould empbasize in planning for alternative wastewater systems* The Planning Board Cbairman and the consultant will be bappy to answer any questions regarding the text or the outlined demonstration value articulated bere. Hopefully, the wastewater treatment system will soon become a reality in the Town of Batb. We bope that reality itself will serve as a "demonstration by example" for otber alternative wastewater treatment studies in Coastal Nortb Carolina. 53 APPMIK A The following examples of alternative waste treatment systems are publisbed in a pampblet printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency titled, "Small Wastewater Systems, Alternative Systems for Small Communities and Rural Areas," January, 1980. 54 Septic Tank & Soil Absorption M S 611 Field (Trench) ; MS1*1 e Sewage bacteria break up some solids in tank. Heavy solids W." sink to bottom as sludge. Grease & light particles float to top as scum. Liquid flows from tank through closed pipe and distribution box to perforated pipes in trenches; flows through "A 7 surround ing crushed rocks or gravel and soil to ground water (underground water). Bacteria F� oxygen in soil help purify liquid. Tank sludge & scum are pumped out periodically Most ma common onsite system. Level ground or moderate slope*. fbr S, 11 A 1ju ura ,.-:,..and'.' R Absorption Field (Trench) Distrithtition Bo nk Septic T SCL. 114P ;7 xcavated Gravel or Crushed Rock V@, Septic Tank with Alternating 5 Septic System Refinements: Absorption Fields (A) Dosing (B) Closed Loop One field rests while other is in use. Allows field to renew W Pump or siphon forces liquid to perforated pipes in con- itself. Extends life of field. Provides standby if one field fails. trolled doses so all pipes discharge liquid almost at same time Valve directs sewage liquid to proper field. Fields usually (dosing). Spreads liquid more evenly & gives field chance to switched every 6-12 months. dry out between Closings. (B) Variation of Sketch 1 absorption field. Can be used for dosing & where ground is level or nearly level. Distribution Dstnt w- Sei)licTank PL Por Bo, A,bsorption Field Septic Tank Valve Box Box S@@Ition (A) Closed Loop Absorption Field Distribution Box (B) 8 Septic Tank & Leaching 9 Mound System Chambers (Used with Septic or Aerobic Tank) Open-bottom concrete chambers create underground cavern Liquid is pumped from storage tank (as in Sketch 21) to per- over absorption field. Liquid is piped into cavern Et spread over forated plastic pipe in sand mound that covers plowed ground. field by troughs, splashplates, or dams. Liquid filters through Liquid flows through rocks or gravel, sand, Et natural soil, soil, Chambers replace perforated pipe, trenches, Er rocks of Mound vegetation helps evaporate liquid. Rocky or tight soil or conventional absorption field. Access holes at top allow main- high water table. tenance soil inspection. PrOofal'!d C ... S5 Wnt si, 1-n P, ...... Septic Tank g ch; .... hers 1=7 (Mi SwI F,N 62,S,@I,c Tnk S", 1,111 7@ .1 "I.-( f"pe I...... Ao-i plo-d 0,,,w,jl Gr,,d,! 55 Ri,, 1,@ T,,Ihl H,ijf, Croim,j V. 7- 2 Aerobic System & Soil 3 Septic Tank & Soil Absorption Absorption Field Field (Bed) Air and wastewater are mixed in tank. Oxygen-using (aerobic) Similar to Sketch 1 but smaller field. Total field excavated. bacteria grow, digest sewage, liquefy most solids. Liquid Used where space limited. Nearly level ground. discharges to absorption field where treatment continues. Can use same treatment Er disposal methods as septic tank. Maintenance essential. Uses energy. Absorption Field ITrench) Absorption Field (Bed) Distribution Box -7. 7 Aeration Tank ;-_T 11@__ Septic Tank A Gravel or Crushed @ock 6 Septic Tank with Sloping Field- 7 Septic Tank with Seepage Pit Serial Distribution Pump forces liquid to perforated pipes in contoured absorption Liquid flows to pit hat has open-jointed brick or stone walls field. Drop boxes regulate liquid flow so highest trench fills up surrounded by rocks. Precast tanks with sidewall holes can first, second fills up next, & lowest fills up last. Plastic fittings also be used. Liquid seeps through walls Er rocks to surround- can be used instead of drop boxes to regulate flow. Used on ing soil. Pit sides are cleaned periodically to prevent clogging. slopes. Absorption Field on slope Perforated Pipe Septic Tank Seepage Pit Septic Tank 000 0 Pump Drop Boxes 00 00 Gm@el a, Rock Fill 0000 vapotranspiration Bed Septic Tank, Sand Filter, 10 (Used with Septic or Aerobic Tank) Disinfection & Discharge Similar to Sketch 9 but sand bed is lined with plastic or other Filter is ground-level or buried sand pit. Liquid enters per- waterproof material. Bed could be mound or level, Liquid forated pipe at top & filters through sand Et gravel to bottom evaporates because liner prevents it from filtering through pipe. Bottom pipe conducts liquid to disinfection tank, Liquid natural soil. Plants speed evaporation by drawing moisture discharges to stream or ditch. Variations are intermittent sand from soil & breathing it into the air. Used where conventional filter & recirculating sand filter. Used where soil absorption absorption field not possible. field not possible. Perfafated Pipe t,r Sepow Ti... C'oss Section Diagram D,smf- tair, Absor.pt 0'.'r' j,,-nBrix S ptic Tank 64S@euc Tr,, D, P @Boxe, pump Rock 1,11@ o. f Inlet Pipe Ffor, Septic Fill Soil ,,ol,,c an, E-,stmq Soil ___Wm,!,proof Liner 156 R ...... 12 Low-Pressure Subsurface Pipe 13 Holding Tank Distribution Network of small-diameter perforated plastic pipes are buried Sewage flows to large, underground, watertight storage tank. 6-- 18" in 4-- 6--wide trenches. Pump forces liquid through Tank is pumped periodically & sewage hauled away. Isolated or pipes in controlled doses so liquid discharges evenly. Site & remote areas where absorption field not possible. Sewage haul- soil determine pipe layout Er pipe-hole size Er number. Absorp- ing cost high. tion field is same size as conventional field. Rocky or tight soil or high water table. Dosing Tank Septic Tank with Pump Perforated Plastic Pipe Holding Tank 16 Dual Systems: 17 Small-Diameter Gravity Sewers Blackwater & Graywater (Collection System) Many systems. In this one: (A) toilet wastes (blackwated are 4-- 6" pipe is sloped so liquid from septic or aerobic tank flows handled by waterless or low-water toilet system [Sketch 151. through pipe to treatment Er disposal. Treatment & disposal (B) Other household wastewater from kitchen, bath, laundry system can be conventional or alternative. Small pipe costs less (graywater) needs separate treatment & disposal. than conventional 8" pipe. (A ) Blackwater (Toilet Wastesl Waste /_" - Disposal or Recycle Treatment Waterless or Low-water Toilet System Septic (B Graywater (Other Household wastewater) Tank Kitchen Laundry Small-Diameter Gravity Sewer Soil Ahsorption Field or Oth@!r To Septic or Other Treatment Er Disoosal Approved Treatment Et Disposal 19 Land Application Pressure Sewers,. GP 20 (Grinder Pump) Sewage liquid is applied to land to nourish vegetation & purify Unit grinds sewage & pumps it through small- liquid. Methods: diameter plastic pipe to central or alternative treatment Erdisposal. Doesn't use septic tank 1. Irrigation- Liquid is applied to crops or to forests (silviculture) but existing tank (B) may remain for emer- by sprinkling, flooding, or ridge Er furrow, Liquid is gency storage. Used for one or several sometimes disinfected before application. homes (C). 2. Overland flow-Liquid flows through vegetation on graded slope. Runoff is collected at bottom & reused or discharged (A No Septic Tank (C Clusters to river or stream, Suitable for tight soils. 3. Rapid infiltration- Partly treated sewage is applied in con- trolled doses to sandy soil. Solids break down. Liquid S @pl_'c Small O;amee, r.v,ty v'@, G e, purifies as it seeps to round water lunder,round water) or Pws,we Svvw, Plast,c Pill(, is collected Et may be reused. to T,omrvonr @-? Disoosii Aquaculture: ants & animals that grow in wastewater help purify water by J@ digesting pollutants. Harvest is used as food, fertilizer, etc. Stor,me r,k 57 14 Cluster System 15 Waterless or Low-Water Toilet (Two or More Users on One Alternative Systems* System) Several houses are served by common treatment & disposal Composting: No water. system. Houses could also have onsite septic or aerobic tanks Large & small systems. Converts toilet wastes & most food with liquid conducted to common absorption field. Clusters of wastes to compost. Electric vent fan & heating element op- houses can also use other alternative systems, such as mounds tional on large systems; essential on small systems. Proper (Sketch 9), pressure & vacuum sewers (Sketches 18, 20, 21), care vital. sewage treatment lagoons. Incinerating: No water. Electricity, gas, or oil burns solids & evaporates liquid.. Small amount of ash is removed weekly. Roof vent. Proper care essential. Recycling Oil Flush: No water. Similar to water-flush toilet but uses oil for flush. Oil Dosing wastes go to large storage tank where wastes settle at bot- tom & oil rises to top. Filtered oil recycles for flush. Storage tank is pumped Et oil replaced periodically. Uses electricity. Proper care essential. Recycling Chemical: Low water. Water-chemical flush mixture is pumped into toilet bowl. Mixture & wastes go to storage tank. Filtered liquid recircu- lates for flush. Permanent or portable types. Permanent Vacuum Sewers needs water hookup. Storage tank is pumped & chemicals 18 (Collection System) added periodically. Uses electricity. Proper care essential-. Vacuum pump creates vacuum in collector pipes. Valve opens Recycling Water: Low water. when sewage from dwelling presses against it. Sewage & plug Various systems. Sorne reduce wastes to water, gas, of air behind it enter pipe. Air forces sewage to collection tank. vapor. Treated wastewater recycles to flush toilet. System Sewage pump forces sewage from tank to treatment system. vents to outside. Multiflush commercial units available. Most systems use electricity. Professional maintenance essential. Needs standby electric power & failure alarm system. Can be used with large cluster systems (Sketch 14). Sewage From Dwelling Central Vacuum Pump 1 Valve Collection Tank Sewage Pump Street To Treatment EY Disposal Central Collector Pipe 'Treat toilet wastes Iblackwater). Other household wastewater (graywater) needs separate treatment & disposal system. Id Septic Tank Left in Place Pressure Sewers, STEP (@A One Dwelling 21 (Septic Tank Effluent Pump) 1 or Larger (A) One dwelling. Pump forces liquid from septic Plastic Pipe T Treatment tank through plastic pipe to further treatment 'o disposal. Sludge is pumped from septic tank Grind,, @Pup 01,1S periodically. Stap(c Tank Storaop Tank Tank for Emergpncy Storage (B) Cluster system. LiqUid from several septic tanks flows to one pumping tank. Pump forces 1', orl.arqw To Tr,!atn,,!,,t liquid through plastic pipe to treatment disposal. Puo'o Plastic Ptw Cluster To Troalmont House & Disposal I '. or I-Ougel _alve Collection Tank Sewage Pum Plastic Pipe @A_ 1. peime St,,),, T @.nk S,.raoe Tank Pu 1, D, sposal I '. 01 L31 131 P,as"@ C Pip, ,.nd , P;@ @G-der Pump Septic Tank Soptc Tank e 7 pu-p 1;Q INCORPORATED 170-1 APPMIX B HISTORIC' BATH oramST Tn'AVX IN TIM. STATF'. it,%iir. SMITH 27005 October 6, 1982 Dear Property Owner on Main Street and portions of Highway 92: You are specially invited to a public meeting on Monday, October 18, 1982 to be held by the Bath Planning Board a't 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall on Harding Street. The general public is invited as well. The Town has received a demonstration grant from the Office of Coastal Manage- ment for the development of alternative wastewater treatment systems for the Town, which are also appropriate for other,coastal communities. Preliminary work on the project ranked areas in particular need of alternative systems. At our September 29 meeting, the Planning Board selected a "target area" running from the Outdoor Drama Ampitheatre down Main Street to Bonners Point-, including properties fronting on Highway 92 and Main Street within that area. At the October 18 meeting, our consultants will present alternative projects identified within the target area, collect your ideas on others you may want considered, hold an informal discussion regarding different types of package systems for groups of stores and houses, and other alternatives to individual conventional septic tanks. At the end of this discussion, the Planning Board intends to identify projects for detailed study by the consultant. As you know, our last study showed that traditional community-wide wastewater collection and treatment systems are too expensive for a small community like Bath. This project provides us with a real opportunity to develop smaller scale- solutions to our long-standing wastewater treatment problem. We look forward to seeing you and your neighbors at this important meeting. Sincerely, almes R. Edwards Planning Board Chairman. JE/dkt cc: Terry W, Alford John Crew Bubbs Carson Planning Board Members: Erma Tankard, Rachel Tankard, Guy Cutler, Helen Brooks, Teeny Mason, Ed Swindel 59 TOWN OF BATH SMALL AREA WASTEWATER SYSTEMS STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY As noted in our cover letter, the Town of Bath has received a state grant through the Office of Coastal Management to develop an alternative wastewater treatment system program. We ask that you help us by answering the following questions: 1. How many bedrooms does your home have? (no. of bedrooms) 2R if you have a business in this area, what is the total number of square feet? (no. of sq. ft.) 2. Do you use your home/business fronting on Main Street in this area year-around or seasonal? 3. How many occupants/employees normally live/work in your home/place of business ? (no. occupants) (no. employees, including yourself) 4. If you know your building lot dimensions, please specify below: ft. (wide) x ft. (deep), OR total square feet. 5. Please indicate the number of plumbing facilities you have: number of toilets number of tubs/showers garbage disposal (if any) 6. Does your home/place of business have any special water conservation devices such as low volume toilets, flow restriction devices for faucets or shower heads, etc.? (yes) (no) If yes, please specify: 7. If you know when your septic tank system was installed, would you please indicate the year? (please estimate) 60 2 8. Has your on-site septic system shown any signs of failure such as plumbing back- ups, clogged pipes, drainage field seepage, or any odor? yes) (no). If yes, please specify: the type of failures annual number of occurrences OR total number of occurrences since the system was installed 9. Would you please specify any maintenance (such as periodic inspection or pumping of your septic tank)-or repairs completed on your on-site septic system? (date or dates) (Maintenance or repair work) 10. Finally, would you like to add-on to your house or expand your place of business but can't due to septic limitations? . (yes) _(no) Since it's important to be able to match your comments with specific parts of the area, would you please provide your name & address: (Name) (Address) PLEASE COMPLETE THIS SURVEY AND BRING IT TO OUR OCTOBER 18, 1982 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND, EITHER DROP IT BYOR MAIL IT TO: Jim Edwards, Chairman Bath Planning Board P. 0. Box 3 Bath, NC 27808 JE/dkt 61 OL L-J&All-- OPERTWO AND OPERADD 19-JAN-93 c KEY I NAME RENI DATt. CERTS GRO TMP-DT ADDRESS CITY RG CO SUZIP 009003ADANS, DANIEL G 2751 8401 748 2 RT 2 Box jbi WASHINGTON E 013 NC27999 215303ADAMS, DANIEL G 2751 9401 748 2 RT 2 BOX 361 WASHINGTON E 013 MC27089 2lb3O5AMUS, LORIS 6 7806 2818 1 WASHINGTON E 013 MC27669 b04405ANDREWS, TERRY D 4662 7906 1990 4 RT I BOX 438 CHOCOWINITY E 013 NC27817 232303BRADSHAW, HANSEL 0 1492 8401 5733 2 P 0 Box 365 AURORA E Oll NC27806 c 850505BURCH, DEBORAH 26b3 8401 4308 a 221 GEORGE ST BELHAVEN E 013 NC27810 bl8bO5CARRUW, WESTER L 2736 8401 2561 2 RT I BOX 573 PINCTOWN E 013 MC2796: 207303CLARK, RONNIE L 9559 8301 4580 1 RT I BOX 324 CHOCOWINITY E 013 NC2761 149903CLARK, HUNNIE L 9559 6301 4580 1 RT I BUX 324 C"OCUWINITY C 013 NC27617 079103CUTLER, DOTTIE RAWLS 2664 b401 3771 2 RT I BOX 601 WASHINGTON E 013 NC27889 rA 113303CUTLER, JERRY D 1323 8402 909 4 RT 2 BOX 452 WASHINGTON E 013 MC27069 189003DAVIS, MICHAEL LEE 7006 b3OI 3755 2 PO BOX 1219 WASHINGTON E 013 NC27689 987405DAVIS, TED W 3201 8401 4689 k RT I BOX 362 AURORA E 013 NC27806 200603FLEMING, GEURGE R 2b72 8401 3777 1 PO BOX 278 CHOCOWINITY E 613 NC27817 832905FURSTEk, EDWARD E 1098 8401 706 3 PO BOX 1834 WASHINGTON E 013 MC27889 to 996507GAVIN, MAXIE 1570 6401 2925 1 111 HANDING DRIVE WASHINGTON C 013 NC27849 685105HOLLAND JR, PETE T 9785 8301 698 3 NT 4 BOA 330-A STATESVILLE E 013 MC28677 0 69lbOSIPOCK, BILLY E 131 2 RT 4 BOX 296 WASHINGTON E 013 MC27969 864105JONES JN, ALBERT A 2796 8401 6005 4 P 0 BOX 1375 WASHINGTON E 013 NC27899 29 099103AELVLN, JUK% 5 2273 0401 55b2 4 BOX 7085 GREENVILLE E 013 MC27834 10640JMERCER, UUUGLAS G 3202 6401 GC530 4 105 LAWSON ROAD WASHINGTON c 013 NC27869 106503MENCER, UUUGbAS G 3202 8401 GC536 4 105 LAWSON ROAD WASHINGTON E 013 NC27889 063039ERCEk. UUUGLAS G 3202 8401 GC530 4 105 LAWSON ROAD WASHINGTON t 013 NC27889 l2uI09AOUHE ik, TROY LCE 8401 6149 1 RT I BOX 315A C"OCOWINITY E 013 NC27017 832605NORRIS, TUNKIL H OU01 4111 2 PU BOX 203 CHOCOwINITY E 013 MC27917 123505FICKENS JR, HARRY L 2893 0401 RC1335 4 RT 2 BOA 1728-wESTLHLI PARK RD EDEN E 013 NC27288 741709RAY, DENNIS TkUY 2735 8401 345b 2 RT 4 BUA b2b WASHINGTON E 013 NC27UO9 00540.IRLESE, REBA TC21b9 I 122273KT I BUX 14 AURURA E 013 MC27806 979205NUhLRSON. H CLYDE 197S b401 5729 1 P 0 Box 1067 WASHINGTON E 013 NC27889 OPERTWO AND OPERADD 19-JAN-83 KEV a NAME KENN DATE CERT# GRU TMP-DT ADDRESS CITY RG CO ST&ZLP 746705ROSCUE, EDWARD OUELL 0373 770b 2557 1 1406 HARRINGTON WASHINGTON E 013 NC27609 753905SHEPPARD, WILBUR 829 2 WASHINGTON E 013 NC27889 RT 4 BOX 218 215103TAILOR, MICHAEL U 3027 9401 4072 2 E FRUNT STREET BELHAVEN E 013 NC27610 8857051ETTENTUM, EMORY L 4931 0201 CE75 I RT 5 BOX 219 WASHINGTON E 013 MC27889 772705THOMAS, ROBERT m 17t)3 2 PO box i9l WASHINGTON E 013 NC27969 77550STUOLEY, JOHN G 2750 8401 1338 2 605 E MAIN BELHAVEN E 013 NC27810 c 918405wARU JR, BOBBY E 790b 3774 2 117 N BONNEY WASHINGTON E 013 NC27899 786807WILEY, JOHN WAYNE 3149 8101 2558 1 PO BOX 414 CHOCOWINITY E 013 NC27817 15b403wOULARU, JOSEPH L 1831 b401 CE50 I RT 4 BOX 678 WASHINGTON E 013 MC27969 792709*UOLARD, TObY WAYNE 2746 6401 5558 3 RT 4 BOX 170 WASHINGTON F 013 NC27669 c TOTAL 35 0% Li IL December 6, 19// Commercial Laboratories with North Carolina Certification Name and Address Cert. No. Name and Address Beacham Laboratory 14 Guilford Laboratories, Inc. 640 Wilmington Highway P. 0. Box 9735 Jacksonville, N. C. 28540 Greensboro, N. C. 27408 Biomedical Laboratories, Inc. 16 Law & Co. of Wilmington, Inc. 1308 Rainey St. P. 0. Box 629 Burlington, N. C. 27215 Wilmington, N. C. 28401 Burlington Industries, Inc. 17 Dr. Fred Holtkamp, Head Chemical Division Dept. of Chemistry Analytical Testing Services Mars Hill College P. 0. Box 523 Mars Hill, N. C. 28754 Jamestown., N. C. 27282 18 Moore, Gardner & Associates, Inc. Carolina Laboratories, Inc. Environmental Laboratory 201 Pine Street P. 0. Box 728 Greensboro, N. C. 27405 Asheboro, N. C. 27203 Charles T. Main, Inc. 19 Town of Morehead Environmental Laboratory Wastewater Treatment Laboratory P. 0. Box 15236 Drawer M Charlotte, N. C. 28210 Morehead City, N. C. 28557 Cross Creek Wastewater Plant 20 Par Laboratories, Inc. P- 0. Box 1089 Box 15722 Fayetteville, N. C. 28302 Charlotte, N. C. 28210 Environmental Engineering Laboratory 21 Southern Testing & Research Labs, Inc. P- 0. Box 8678 P. 0. Box 350 Durham, N. C. 27707 Wilson, N. C. 27893 Entropy Environmentalist, Inc. 22 Vann Laboratories P. 0. Box 12291 P. 0. Box 668 Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709 Wallace, N. C. 28466 Environment I, Inc. 24 Commonwealth Laboratory, Inc. Box 7085 Nardin Division Creenville, N. C. 27834 112 Greenacre Rd. Environmental Laboratories of Greenville, S. C. 29607 Fayetteville, N. C., Inc. 25 Davis & Floyd Engineers, Inc. 4634 Yadkin Road P. 0. Drawer 428 Fayetteville, N. C. 28303 Greenwood, S. C. 29646 Environmental Testing, Inc. 26 R. S. Noonan, Inc. of S. C. P- 0. Box 17454 P. 0. Box 1388 Charlotte, N. C. 28209 Greenville, S. C. 29602 Grainger Laboratories, Inc. 27 J. L. Rogers & Callcott Engrs-, Inc. 709 W. Johnson St. 718 Lowndes Hills Rd. Raleigh. N. C. 27605 Greenville, S. C. 29607 64 December 6, 19 Commercial Laboratories with North Carolina Certification Cert. Cert. No. Name and Address No. Name and Address -28 J. E. Sirrine Co., Engrs.,Architects 41 En-Cas Analytical Laboratoriesi P. 0. Box 5456, Station B 807 Brookstown Ave. Greenville, S. C. 29606 Winston-Salem, N. C. 27101 29 Stevens-Environmental Services Lab 42 Jesse Jones, Div. GoodMark, Int P. 0. Box 6545 Rt. 1, Box 187 Greenville, S. C. 29606 Garner, N. C. 27529 10 Texidyne, Incorporated 43 City of Lexington P. 0. Box 932 Industrial Waste Laboratory Clemson, S. C. 29631 Rt. 12, Box 46 Lexington, N. C. 27292 31 Commonwealth Laboratory, Inc. P. 0. Box 8025 47 Wastewater Services, Inc. Richmond. Virginia 23225 122 Stewart St. Asheville, N. C. 28806 32 Sharpley Laboratories, Inc. P. 0. Box 846 Frederickbburg, Virginia 19380 33 Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern Laboratory & Testing Services P. 0. Box 1490 Roanoke, Virginia 24007 34 Research & Analytical Laboratories, Inc* 106 Short St.. P. 0. Box 473 Kcr-nersville, N. C. 27284 35 Chem-Bac Laboratories, Inc. P. 0. Box 3114 CharloL@e, N. C. 28203 36 The Mogul Corporation 0. Box 1267 Charlotte, N. C. 28231 37 Professional Environmental Lab of Lumbertcn 2401 West 5th Street Lumberton, N. C. 28358 32 Aq,.LUr Laboratories, Inc. 431 --oiter Avenue Charlotte. N. C. 28203 40 Ervirormental Testing, Inc. 7661-, Biltmore Asheville, N. C. 28803 65 APPEMIX D BATH SHALL AREA WASTEWATER SYSTEM BIBLIOGRAPHY A Strategy for Small Alternative Wastewater Systems, EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, December, 1980. Design Manual; On-site Wastewater Treatment and Di sposal Systems, EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, October, 1980. Individual Wastewater Project, Final Report, Region J, Nortb Carolina, February, 1980. Individual Wastewater Project, Task B Report, Summary of Alternative On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Metbods, Region J, Nortb Carolina, November, 1978. Individual Wastewater Project, Task E and F Reports, Regulation and Manage- ment of Septic Systems, Region J, Nortb Carolina, August, 1979. Rural Lakes Projects, EIS, EPA, October, 1981. Small Wastewater Systems; Alternative Systems for Small Communities and Rural Areas, EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, January, 1980. 66 US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library 2234 South Robson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 3 6668 14102 0877