Haywood Co. Watershed Protection - Pigeon River

a
N
Ar-
WATERSHED PROTECTION IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
with Special Attention to the Pigeon River.
Upstream of Canton
by
David H. Moreau
Mary Jo Moubry
Daniel L. Gallagher
March 1988
_
WalerResources Rose -arch IRS111U18
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
r`
r
77.
e;,
f:

WATERSHED PROTECTION IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
with Special Attention to the Pigeon River
Upstream of Canton
by
David Ho Moreau
Mary Jo Moubry
Daniel Le Gallagher
Water Resources Research Institute
of The University of North Carolina
March 1988

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are deeply indebted to many people for their
assistance in the publication of this document. Those who took
leadership roles in initiating the study were Dr. Garret
Smathers, a member of the Planning Board, Mr. C. W. Hardin,
Mayor, and Mr. Bill Stamey', Town Manager, Town.of Canton, N.C.
Their initiatives were well received by members of the''Nort.h
Carolina General Assembly, and the authors express their
appreciation to that body for the appropriation of funds
necessary for the conduct of this study.
Dr. Robert Holman, Coordinator, Water Supply Protection
Program, NC Division of Environmental Management (DEM), provided
conside-rable guidance and encouragement for the study.. Mary Jo
Mobury, a graduate research assistant in the Department of City
and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina atlChapel
Hill, spent t-he summer of 1987. as, a student intern in Dr .-
Holman's office. Other's in the Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development were al. so helpful and cooperative.
Special thanks go to Mr. David Spain, Director of the Regional
Office in Asheville and Mr. Bill Krutzberger, Water Quality
Section, DEM, in Raleigh.
At the local level we were given considerable assistance by
the Haywood County Soil and Water Conservation District, (SWCD),
the Haywood -County Planning Department, and the Town of Canton.
Special appreciation is expressed for the valuable assistance
given,by Mr. David Gerrard, formerly with the SWCD, who
interpreted the orthophoto quads from which the land —use data
base was constructed. Mary Heningbaum, Haywood County,Planner,
deserves our acknowledgment for the constant supply of!'
information, her perceptions of needs, and her critical review of
the report.
Finally, we owe generous thanks to the staff of the Water
Resources Research Institute for their support and advice. Dr.
James Stewart, associate director, with his prior experience as
an agricultural extension agent in western North Carolina, Mrs.
Linda Lambert, administrative officer, and Mrs. Eva Tew,
secretary, were most helpful in carrying this study in addition
to their other responsibilities.
i i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................... . ................
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1
BACKGROUND .................. .................................. 1
Quantities and Effects of Land Use ........................ 4
Public Health Implications .................... 6
OUTLINE OF REPORT. ............................................ 7
CHAPTER II: PROTECTION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA 9
THEREGION AND ITS GROWTH ..........................:... 10
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES ........................................ 10
Wastewater Discharges .................................... 13
AGRICULTURE .................................................. 16
WATERSHED PROTECTION ......................................... 18
Classification Status.......... ....................... 21
CONCLUSION ................................................... 24
CHAPTER III: PIGEON RIVER UPSTREAM OF CANTON .......................:..... 25
HAYWOOD COUNTY ............................................... 25
Growth.... .............................................. 25
Water Supplies......... .......................:..... 25
Spatial Patterns of Population ..................... .... 27
Wastewater Disposal ................................ 27
DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED ................................. 30
Topography ............................ ................ 30
soils: ...................................... ............ 32
Land Use.............................................35
POLLUTION SURVEYS ........:.................................... 44
Point Sources.. .................................... 44
Pesticide Contamination.. .. .... ............... ..... 45
Site Selection and Sampling Procedure .................... 46
iv

Experimental Methods.... ..........................:........
Results :..............................................'.....
Discussion ...........................................,....
WATERSHED PROTECTION............ ................................
CHAPTER IV: WATERSHED PROTECTION: CURRENT PROGRAMS IN NORTH CAROLIN'A....
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ...........................................
Regulatory Programs............ .........................
Zoning Ordinances.
Subdivision Regulations... .....
Sediment and Erosion (S & E) Control............'.....
Pre —Development Review Ordinanace....................
Flood Control .� Municipal and County General Ordinance—MakingPower..
Extent of Use ........................................
Other Methods .............................................
NORTH CAROLINA'S- STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS AND WATER
SUPPLY PROTECTION GUIDELINES ................................
Guidelines ... .... .. .. .... . I.
Existing and Proposed Programs........ ......''....
Alamance County ......................................;.....
Chatham County ...................... ............. ....
Durham County .............. ........................I...
Franklin County......... ................................
Guilford County........ .............. .. .... ....
Orange County...... ;........ ...........................
Randolph County ............................. .;;.....
Wake County..... .�
... .............. ..............
Wilkes County and theTown of North Wilkesboro.......:;.....
CHAPTER,V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 4................:;.....
CONCLUSIONS ................ ............. .......:.....
RECOMMENDATIONS .............. .............. .. ....
State Government .................... ..... ....
Haywood County .................... ....
APPENDIX A. Surface Water Supplies in Western North Carolina..............
APPENDIX B. Soils of the Pigeon River Watershed Upstream of Canton........
REFERENCES......................................................... ....
v
49
50
52
52
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
59
59
61
62
63
64
64
66
66
68
69
70
71
72
73
75
75
77
77

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Pathways for Contaminants in Surface Water
Supplies ...............................'.... .................... 3
2 Annual Growth Rates, 1970-80--Selected Counties in
Western North Carolina ...... ..................................... 11
3 Generalized Geologic Map of Western North Carolina....... ..... o ..... 14
4 Water Supplies and Discharge Permits.... ... ................ 17
5 Percent of Counties in Cultivated Cropland....... 19
6 Percent of Counties in Pastureland........... 20
7 Population of Haywood County ................ 26
8 Haywood County Showing Location of Water Supplies
and Discharge Permits ...................... 28
9 Haywood County Population: Distribution by Township, 1985.,:........ 29
10 Contour Map of Pigeon River Watershed Upstream of Canton...:........ 31
11 Profile of Pigeon River.. .... — ....... ....... 33
12 Generalized Soils Map for the Pigeon River Watershed.......:......... 34
13 Cropland in Haywood County, 1975-1985..................... 37
14 Coverage of Orthophoto Maps Used for Land Use Analysis.............. 39
15 Location of Urban Lands in Pigeon River Watershed
Upstream of Canton ............. 41
16 Proposed Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities............... 42
17 Location of Agricultural Activities in Pigeon River
Watershed Upstream of Canton ............................ 43
18 Location of Discharges and Sampling Sites ................. ........ 48
vi

I l ,
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Uncontrolled Nonpoint Pollution Loading Rates ...........................
5
2
Mean Concentrations of Pollutants in Median Storm
Events: National Urban Runoff Program ................................
5
3
Population of Western North Carolina Counties............... ...... ..
12
4
Authorized Construction in Western North Carolina .......................
12
5
Number and Density of Waste Discharge Permits in
Western North Carolina ................................................
15
6
Growth"Management Authority Enacted by Counties in
Western North Carolina, ... oo .......... ......... —,,,,,,,,.
23
7
Population.of'Haywood County by Towns and Townships .....................
26
8
Population and Land Use in Cecil, East Fork and
Pigeon Townships......................................................
36
9
Land Use in Pigeon River Watershed...,.... ............................
38
10
Pesticides and Herbicides Used in Haywood County.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
47
11
Summary of Organics Found During Pigeon River Monitoring ................
51
12
North Carolina Communities Actively Participating in
the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program .........................
60
13
Techniques for Watershed Management in.Selected Counties
in North Carolina., .... o— ....-.....................................
65
vii

� z 4
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Only a few of the many watersheds that are used for public drinking water
supplies in western North Carolina are adequately protected by public policy from
the threat of degradation from improper management of urban development and the
failure to adopt best management practices in agricultural and silvicultural
operations. This report examines the nature and extent of risks to water
supplies; it explores what powers are available to local governments in.North
Carolina to manage the risk of degradation; and it reviews how those powers are
being exercised. The nature of the risk is described first by examining water
supplies in 24 counties in the western part of the'State. Special attention is
then given to the Pigeon River watershed upstream of the Town of Canton in
Haywood County. The report concludes with recommendations for further
development of public policy at both the state level and in Haywood County.
BACKGROUND
Every year millions of visitors are attracted to the mountains of western
North Carolina to enjoy their natural beauty and to take advantage of a variety
of recreational opportunities. Many of these same people are choosing to make
the area their permanent home, an option that has been -exercised by a large
number of retirees. Improved access over new interstate highways and other road
improvements, in hand with enhanced efforts toward economic development, have
increased the number of jobs in this region that has long been classified as
being economically depressed.
While growth and development have brought many benefits to the area, they
have.also brought many costs. Heavy traffic, construction activity, and unman-
aged growth threaten the beauty of the natural landscape which . has attracted so
many people to the area. These activities threaten not only the natural beauty
of the region, but also the quality of some of the most productive public water
supplies in the United States.
1

i 1 )
The threat to public water supplies is not limited to urban development, how-
ever. During the. past 25 years a revolution has occurred in the manufacturing
and use of agricultural chemicals, and western North Carolina has notescaped the
potential for adverse effects that could result from transport of 'these chemicals
into public water supplies through stormwater runoff. The mountainous terrain
that is typical of much of the region limits the total volume of agricultural
production, but the flood plains and terraces along many.of the streams are used
intensively for a variety of crops. Furthermore, the proximity of agricultural
operations to the streams and the frequent intense storms that occur in the
region lead to direct runoff of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals into
water supplies. The Pigeon River watershed upstream of Canton is illustrative of
this kind of problem.
In fact, contaminants can enter public water supplies from a variety'of
sources as illustrated in Figure 1. They include: (a) the effluents'from indus-
trial and municipal wastewater treatment plants; (b) effluents from small so-
called "package" wastewater treatment plants that serve individual residences,
subdivisions, or institutions; (c) stormwater runoff from agricultural and silvi-
cultural operations, urban areas, and construction sites; (d) seepage from septic
tanks, landfills, underground storage tanks and other subsurface waste disposal
and storage practices; and (e) accidental spills of hazardous chemicals- during
transport or storage of these substances. An overly simplified but widely recog-
nized.classification system, puts all of these sources into one of two categor-
ies; namely, "point" and "nonpoint" sources. Point sources are those such as
effluents from treatment plants, that are discharged at known, easily;,pinpointed
locations. By contrast, sources such as agricultural drainage enter streams at a
large number -of diffuse 1 ocati ons - and- are' therefore referred to as nonpoi nt
sources.
The threat to public health from point.sources has been recognized by the
public for over a century. David Howells, professor emeritus at North Carolina
State University, uncovered the following account from the`Second Biennial Report
of the Raleigh water supply for the year 1887-1888:
"Raleigh's supply depends for its safety upon the permanency
of the lively appreciation of danger at present evinced by ;:
its health authorities." (p. 176). Continuing, "The public;.
water supply should be guarded with special care by the local
authorities, but in many instances these would be powerless'
2

Act J.vl ty
Patterns
VP
Surface Runoff
Groundwater infiltration
FA
Water
Treatment
Receiving Bodies
of Water
FIGURE 1. PATHWAYS 'FOR CONTAMINANTS IN SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES
Exposed
Population

I!
It
i�
without cooperation of the authorities of the State. This its
shown by the action of Raleigh in,securing special legisla-'�
ti on to prevent the pollution of its source of water supply.!
Without such legislation, every public water supply in the
State, located outside the corporate limits of a town, is
completely at the mercy of every ignorant or wanton tres-
passer." (p. 178).
The State did adopt regulations in the late nineteenth century to protect,public'
water supplies from the discharge of sewage upstream.
Recognition of the risk from nonpoint sources, however, is of more recent
origin. Rapid growth in and around Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, High'�Point and
Winston-Salem have caused each of these cities to formulate management plans to
protect their supplies from the effects of urban encroachment. The State of
North Carolina has become an active partner in these.eff.orts- and is playing a
leadership role.
To some extent the concerns being expressed in North Carolina are typical of
those nationwide. A 1983 book by researchers at the University of North Carolina
E�
at Chapel Hill recounted the evolution of water source protection (Busby, et al.,
1983). Source protection became a basic tenet of practice after it became
understood in the nineteenth century that diseases could be transmitted through
water supplies.. Then, with improvements in water treatment technology,,, source .
protection was seen as being less important until new light was shed on the topic
by several studies in the late 1960s and early 70s. Among those studies were the
1969 report by -the Bureau of Water Hygiene of the U.S. Public Health Study, the
reports of excessive cancer deaths among residents of New Orleans and'Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana, and an array of studies on the quality of runoff from urban
and agricultural areas. For the first time in 1972, in the amendments, to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92=500), nonpoint sources were
recognized as significant sources of pollution that must be addressed�!!by water
quality management plans.
Quantities and Effects of Land Use
The quantities of pollutants from nonpoint sources and their concentrations
in stormwater runoff can be quite significant. There are also important
differences in the quantities generated by different types of land uses. Brovitz
(1985, p.43B) compiled the set of loading rates shown in Table 1 from,a number of
4

`
Table 1.
Uncontrolled
Nonpo.int Pollution
Loading Rates
Lead
coo
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Sediment
lb/ac/yr
lb/ac/yr
lb/ac7yr
lb/ac/yr
tonlac/yr
Agricultural and Residential Land Usel
Single Family Residential
Large Lot
0.5 duiac .14
32(est.)
. .8
6.2
.09
1.0 du/ac .17
.92
.8
6.7
.11
2.0 duiac .25
181
.9
7.7
1.4
Medium. Oens i ty
3 du/ac .34
200
1.0
8.0
.16
Townhouse/Garden Apt.
(10-20 du/ac) 1.04
350
1.7
13.6
.33
Cropland
Tillage .04
193
3.5
16.6
1.8
Pasture 02
115
.5
6.3
.06
Forest .02
82'
.l
2.7
.06
Idle .02.
100(est.)
.2
3.3
.05
Commercial and Industrial Land
Use
Commercial2 3 5.59
981.3
3.68
24.8
1.32
Industiral (R&0) 4.0
50.0
2:2
7.9
Institutional4 4.0
50.0
2.2
7.9
.03
.03
Major Highways/Airports .3.59
981.3
3.68
24.3
1.32
Ooen Space3 0.01
1.3
_
0.06
3.0 .
.003
fall estimated loading rates in this category (Estate Singie to Idle Land)
frcm Oak Hollow l:atersned Study (1984)'.
2Vinston-Salem NURP Study (nRCO '1983).
.,Wasnington State Reoort (Horner and Mar 1982).
'Assumes Institutional = industrial (R&O) and Major Highway/Airport = Commercial
du = dwelling unit
Table 2.
Mean Concentrations of Pollutants in Median Storm Events:
National Urban Runoff Program
(all concentrations in milligrams per liter)
Land Use
Type
Parameter
Residential
'lixed
Commercial
Nonurban.
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand, mg/1
10
7.8
9.3
Chemical
Oxygen Demand, mg/l
73
65
57
40
Total Suspended
Solids, mg/l
101
67
69
70
Lead, mg/l
.144
.114
.104
.03
C000er, mg/l
.033
.027
.029
Zinc, mg/1
.135
.154
.226
.195
jeidahl nitrogen, mg/1
1.900
1.29
1.18
.965
Nitrites and Nitrates
as Nitrogen, mg/l
.736
.558
.572
.543
Total Phosphorous, mg/l
.383
.263
.201
.121
Soluble Phosphorous, mg/l
.143
:.C56
.080
.026
5

studies reported in the literature. Much of that literature has focused on the
problem of excessive nutrients in lakes and estuaries, and hence, estimates of
phosphorous and nitrogen loads are frequently reported. Considerable attention
has also been given to soil erosion and sedimentdamage in streams and lakes.
Less attention has been given to heavy metals, but loading rates for lead are
quite common. The estimates given in Table 1.support the observation that the
quantities, of pollutants that are transported by stormwater runoff are not
negligible, and that there are important variations in these quantities from one
type of land use to another. Those variations are also reflected in results of
the National Urban Runoff Program, given in Table 2, which show the,concentra-
tions of several substances for the median storm event covered by that study.
Public Health Implications
Translating loading rates and ambient concentrations of contaminants into
effects on human health is a task involving many uncertainties. These effects
may be either acute or chronic. Acute effects, those that are realized shortly
after the population is exposed, have been assessed by classical methods of
toxicology and epidemiology. The Safe Drinking Water Committee of the National
Academy of Sciences (1977) recommended the use of those methods to arrive at "no -
observed -adverse -effect" concentrations for a long list of substances and
organisms having acute effects on humans. That committee recognized the
-
limitati-ons. of research on health effects, however, and recommended,the use of
safety factors in setting drinking water standards.
The -committee's basic presumption for chronic effects is that there is no
threshold level for contaminants below which health effects will not -occur:
Effects of this kind, including cancer, are the result of long-term'exposure to
low-level concentrations of a variety of chemicals where symptoms of -the disease
may not occur for as long as 20 to 30 years after initial exposures. Assessments
of risk from substances that cause those kinds of effects are based,largely upon
animal studies where the subjects are exposed to relatively high doses. Although
these experiments are generally recognized as being appropriate for:the study of
health effects in humans, their results must be extrapolated to get predicted
responses in animals at dose levels found in the environment, and those findings
must be extrapolated from animal populations to human populations, the so-called.
"mouse -to -man" extrapolation. Since the presumption is that there is no "safe"
6

level for these substances, the choice of a drinking water standard for these
substances must be based on the concept of acceptable risk. As might be
expected, assessments of chronic risks are subject to considerable uncertainty.
Various models that are used for the extrapolations can yield results that differ
by orders of magnitude.
Some acute and chronic effects can be reduced through conventional water
treatment processes, others cannot. One of the most disturbing facts about many
synthetic organic chemicals is that the health effects remain unknown and their
presence in drinking water is difficult to detect. These are the primary reasons
for renewed attention to protection of the sources of drinking water. In 1962
the Advisory Committee to the Public Health Service recommended,
...the production of water supplies which pose no- threat to
the consumer's health depends on continuous protection.
Because of human frailties associated with this protection,
priority should be given to the purest source. Polluted
sources should be used only when pure sources are
economically unavailable...
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has adopted the same rationale in regard
to protecting water supply lakes and reservoirs. It stresses the importance of
the sanitary survey and recommends that frequent surveys be made to locate and
identify health hazards which might exist in the watershed.
OUTLINE OF REPORT
That line of reasoning is followed in this report. In Chapter II the nature
and extent of threats to public water supplies are examined in 24 counties in
western North Carolina. The status of watershed protection in those counties is
also included in that discussion. A more detailed examination. of the problem in
the Pigeon River watershed and Haywood County is presented in Chapter III. New
initiatives have been taken at both State and local levels` to protect water
supplies in North Carolina, and they are reviewed in Chapter IV. That discussion
gives special attention to recent changes in the state stream classification
system and related guidelines for watershed protection. Also included is an
examination of the statutory authorities available to local governments upon
which watershed protection policies can be formulated. That chapter concludes
7

with a review of policies that have been developed in six counties in North
Carolina.
The report concludes with a summary and recommendations in C haptOr V.

CHAPTER.II
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
IN. ON
NORTH CAROLINA
.Western North Carolina, as a part of the Appalachian region, has been thought
of for many years as an economically depressed area, not subject to;'the kinds of
urban development pressures that are facing the more rapidly -growing cities. and -
counties in the Piedmont. Even in an era when that perspective may, have been more
valid than it is today, there was far more pressure onthe quality of water
resources of the area than could have been inferred by population densities and
growth. Figures of that kind ignored the millions of non-residents who annually
visited the area, one of the most attractive vacation regions in the'country. They,
also ignored the thousands of non-residents who were building second homes in the
area.
In recent years the permanent population of all counties in the region has
increased at rates that are approximately the same as those for the•State as a
whole; several counties are among the fastest growing in the State.` This growth,
like that in other parts of the State is posing a threat to the quality of public
drinking water supplies, and a large number of cities, towns, and counties°in the
area have adopted few, if any, public policies to protect their supplies.
The increasing numbers of residences, industries, and accommodations for,
visitors, are significant threats. With them come increased construction activity
with off -site damage to streams from erosion and sedimentation. They also increase
rates at which water=borne wastes are generated; they increase the volume of
effluents from waste -disposal facilities; and they increase the problem of
disposing of sludge from waste -treatment plants
Increasing numbers is not the only factor affecting water quality, however.
The topography of the region dictates that much of the urban activity is located
near the streams where surface runoff and seepage from soil disposal systems flow
directly into tributaries of water supplies. The same is true for agricultural
activities.
The increasing use of synthetic organic chemicals in homes, industries, and
agriculture also increases the risk to drinking water supplies. This factor is not.
9

I ) I
unique to western North Carolina, but it is a problem that deserves the attention
of water managers and citizens alike.
These threats are examined at two levels of detail in this report. A
regionwide perspective is presented in this chapter, and a more detailed case study
of the Pigeon River watershed is given in Chapter III.
THE REGION AND ITS GROWTH
The region of concern consists of the 24.counties in western North Carolina
shown in Figure 2, all of which may be generally classified as being mountainous.
The region is defined as containing all of the counties that wholly, or in sizable
part, are in -the geologic Mountain Province of the State. Its total population in
1985 was.908,000, with individual counties ranging in size from 7,000 to 168,000.
The average county populations was 37,800.
As shown in Table 3, some of these counties actually lost population in the
1960s while the regionwide population increased by about 10 percent: In the 1970s
every county in the region experienced growth in the population,as indicated in
Figure 2, while the -region absorbed 125,000 new residents, an increase of 17
percent. Estimates of the 1985 population indicate that growth is continuing into
the 1980s, albeit at a rate that.is more like the 60s than the 70s.,,
Several counties in the region have grown very rapidly. The, population of
Henderson County increased by over 18 percent in the 60s, then by 37 percent in the
70s, and another 13 percent from 1980 to 1985. Over that 25—year period, the
population has doubled. The population of Watauga County has more than doubled
during that period, with increases of more than 33 percent in each decade. Growth
rates of that magnitude impose very heavy burdens on local governments if they are
to properly manage growth to avoid a.variety of adverse effects of urbanization,
degradation of water quality in streams being among them.
With that growth comes construction activity. Even though growth has slowed
somewhat in the 1980s, the annual rate of construction.activity reached about
14-,OOG units in 1985, and, as shown in Table 4, approximately one half of those
were new single—family homes.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
Most.of the water supplies in the region which serve more than a few customers
take their water from surface sources. A 1977 survey of public water supplies in
10

FIGURE 2.
Annual Growth Rates, 1-0 70-80
Selected Counties in Western North Carolina
LEGEND
.5 to
1.0
1.0
to
1.5
1.5
to
2.0
2.0
to
2.5
2.5
to
3.0
3.0
to
3.5

Table 3.
Population of Western North Carolina Counties
ALLEGHANY
ASHE
AVERY
BUNCOMBE
BURKE
CALDWELL
CHEROKEE
CLAY
GRAHAM
HAYWOOD
HENDERSON
JACKSON
MACON
MADISON
MCDOWELL
MITCHELL
POLK
RUTHERFORD
SURRY
SWAIN
TRANSYLVANIA
WATAUGA
WILKES
YANCEY
TOTAL
Population
1960
1970
1980
1985
7,734
8,134
9,587
9,692
19,768
19,571
22,325
23,423
12,009
12,655
14,409
14,996
130,074
145,056
160,934
168,281
52,701
60,364
72,504
75,548
49,552
56,699
67,746
70,245
16,335
16,330
18,933
20,207
5,526
5,180
6,619
7,026
6,432
6,562
7,217
7,189
39,711
41,710
46,495
47,905
36,163
42,804
58,580.
66,186
17,780
21,593
25,811
26,967
14,935
15,788
20,178
-23,072;
17,217
16,003
16,827
17,191
26,742
30,648
35,135
36,281
13,906
13,447
14,428
14,559
11,395
11,735.
12,984
14,388
45,091
47,337
53,787
56,941
48,205
51'14.15
59,449
60,827
8,387
8,835
10,283
10,699
16,372
19,713
23,417
25,581
17,529
23,404
31,666
34,173
45,269
49,524
58,657
60,802
14,008
12,629
14,934
15,575
672,841 737,136 862,905 907,754
TABLE 4.
Authorized Construction in Western North Carolina
1983 1984 1985
No. of counties reporting 17 17 15
All units 9,800 11,400 13,300
Distribution by type (%):
Single-family
53
50
53
Multi -family
11
15
14
Non-residential
10
12
12
Additions and alterations
25
22
21
12
Percent
Change
1970-85
19.2
19.7
18.5
16.0
25.2
23.9
23.7
35.6
9.6
14.9
54.6
24.9
46.1
7.4
18.4
-8.3
22.6
20.3
18.3
21.1
29.8
-46.0
22.8
23.3
23.1

North Carolina identified 36 systems in the region that served more than 500
customers; 29 of them used surface sources exclusively (Mann, 1978), six used only
groundwater, and one used a combination of surface and ground supplies. The North
Carolina Division of Environmental, Management.now lists 50 surface water suppliers
of all sizes in the region (see Appendix A), and those suppliers take water from 76
different sources.
It is not surprising that in this region supplies are taken- predominantly from
surface sources. As shown by the generalized geology of the area, illustrated in
Figure 3, much of the region consists of relatively shallow layers.of soil and
saprolite underlain by fractured bedrock consisting of granite and metamorphosed
igneous and sedimentary rocks. These crystalline rock aquifers have low porosity
(void spaces); thus, they hold very little water. Wells drilled into aquifers of
this type have relatively low yields, usually in the range of 10-25 gallons per
minute, but if a driller is fortunate and happens to hit a water -bearing fracture,
the yield may be.as high as 200 gallons per minute (USGS, 1985, p. 330).
Wastewater Discharges
The primary concern of study is: how well are these supplies protected? That
question is not an easy one to answer without a detailed analysis of each of the 76
sources. There are some -general indicators, however, that provide some insights
into the nature of the threat,. One of the most important of these it the location
of municipalities, industries, institutions, and, in many instances, individual
residences..who discharge wastewaters into streams that flow into public water
supplies.
The best data set for waste dischargers is the NPDES permits. Any person or
public or private organization who discharges. wastes to a stream in the United
States is required to have a permit to do so in accordance with provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) and its
amendments, known as the Clean Water Act. These permits are commonly referred to
as NPDES permits because they are part of the National Pol 1 u ti on Discharge
Elimination System. The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development has jurisdiction over the issuance of these permits, and 524
of them were -active in August of 1987. The distribution by county i s ,given in
Table 5.
13

FIGURE 3.
Generalized Geologic Ma-p of
Western North Carolina
:i�

Table 5. Number and Density of Waste Discharge
Permits
in Western North
Carolina
No, of
Permits
Popula-
No. of
per
tion,
NPDES
100,000
County
1985
Permits
People
ALLEGHANY
9,692
5
52
ASHE
23,423
13
56
AVERY
14,996
22
147
BUNCOMBE
168,281
39
23
BURKE
75,548
25
33
CALDWELL
70,245
29
41
CHEROKEE
20,207
9
45
CLAY
7,026
2
28
GRAHAM
7,189
4
56
HAYWOOD
47,905
60
125
HENDERSON
66,186
49
74
JACKSON
26,967
24
89
MACON
23,072
21
91
MADISON
17,191
39
227
MCDOWELL
36,281
18
5.0
MITCHELL
14,559
10
69
POLK
14,388
10
70
RUTHERFORD
56,941
17
30
SURRY
60,827
36
59
SWAIN
1.0,699
8
75
TRANSYLVANIA
25,581
21
82
WATAUGA
34,173
30
88
WILKES
60,802
24
39
YANCEY
15,575
9
58
TOTAL
907,754
524
58
15

The statewide number of permits in August 1987 was 2,224 or about 22..2 per
county. That is the same density as that for the western 24 counties. ' On a
population basis, there are approximately 34 permits for every 100,000 persons for
the State as a whole--58 permits per 100,000 persons in the 24-county area and 30
elsewhere. Thus, a person.in one of these counties is 90 percent more likely to be
served by a discharging wastewater treatment system than a person living elsewhere
in the State, a much more decentralized pattern of discharges to streams.
Several of the counties within the region have an even more exaggerated
decentralization of discharges. Madison, Avery, and Haywood Counties have more
than 100 permits per 100,000 persons.
While many of these permits have been issued to small dischargers such as
motels, schools, and even to individual residents, the -degree of treatment provided
in these small systems is. usually far less than that provided in centralized -
facilities that are managed by trained operators with supporting laboratory
services. Furthermore, the accumulation of discharges from several small
discharges along a small stream may well lead to contraventions of standards, as is
the case along Jonathan's Creek in Haywood County.
Decentralization of wastewater treatment can pose a threat to public drinking
water supplies when permits are issued to activities located upstream of those
supplies. As shown in Figure 4, that is the case in.several supplies ,in western
North Carolina. The largest numbers of those occur in Surry, Caldwell, and
Rutherford Counties, and in the Yadkin.River Basin upstream of Wilkesboro and
Jonesville.
AGRICULTURE
Because of the expanded use of a wide array of pesticides and herbicides and
continued soil erosion, agricultural activities in these watershed are also of
concern. Although this region is not the principal agricultural center of the
State, it does include a significant amount of agricultural production.
Approximately 13 percent of all farmlands in the State are located in this region,
and they cover about 21 percent of the total area, less than the statewide figure
of 33 percent. The mountainous terrain limits the amount of land that can be
cultivated. In this region only 4.7 percent of the total area was in cultivation
in 1982, while the statewide level was 16.5 percent. That figure is'highly
16

FIGURE 4.
Water Supplies and Discharge Permits
LEGEND
Water supply watersheds
Location of permitted dischargers
V

variable from county to county within the region as shown in Figure 5. Alleghany,
Henderson, and Surry Counties are all above the 10 percent level.
This area is more widely used for pasturelands than is the rest of the State.
Within this.area, 8.7 percent of all lands are in pasture. That amount is much
greater than 5.3 percent for the State. In some counties, as shown in Figure 6, as
much as 25 to 30 percent of the land is in pasture.
These facts would tend to place less importance on agriculture as a. source of
contamination in mountain watersheds than elsewhere in the State except 'for the
fact that the preponderance of'surface water supplies are in the western half of
the State. Furthermore, as shown in the discussion of Pigeon River, agricultural
activities in the region are carried out in close proximity to streams.,
The threat to public water supplies from agricultural chemicals should not be
overstated. On the other hand, it should not be ignored as has been largely true
in North Carolina to date. In a recent effort to construct a data base 'for
national pesticide usage, North Carolina was listed as one of nine states that had
no reports of agricultural usage (Gianessi, 1986). The only estimates that are
available are those that are -being constructed from secondary data sources that
combine crop statistics with expert opinion about application rates (Turner,
DiGiano, and DeRosa, 1984; Oak Hollow Watershed Study, 1982).
Specific kinds of agricultural chemicals that are used in these watersheds can
be identified by agricultural experts in each county who have knowledge of both the
particular types of crops that are grown in the watersheds and the types of
herbicides and pesticides that are being used. The statewide estimates, of the
amounts of -these chemicals that are used tend to focus on major crops such as
tobacco, corn, and soybeans, some of which are produced in great abundance in this
region.
WATERSHED PROTECTION
Public policy to protect the quality of public water supplies is not new in
North Carolina, but it has received renewed attention in recent years. Initiatives
have been taken at the local level, and a significant change occurred at the state
1 eve-1 in 1985.

FIGURE 5.
Percent of Counties
in Cultivated Cropland
% OF COUNTY LAND
0 to 3
3 to 6
6 to 9-
9 to 12
12 to 15

FIGURE 6.
Percent of . Counties
in Pastureland
% OF COUNTY LAND
0 to 5
5 to 10
10
to
15
15to20
20
to
25
25
to
30
30
to
35

Classification Status
Details of state and local programs are given in Chapter IV. To appreciate
the current status of water supply protection in Western North Carolina it is
sufficient at this point in the discussion to describe elements of North Carolina's
stream classification system. Prior to 1985, all segments of streams that were
immediate.ly upstream of public water supplies were classified either A -I orA-II.
The A -I classification was reserved for a few highly protected streams in the
mountains that could be used for water supplies with minimal treatment: All other
supplies fell into the A -II category.
The 1985 change in classifications brought about a three -level classification
described briefly. as follows:
CLASS WS-I Water supplies which are in natural and uninhabited or
predominantly undeveloped watersheds. Point source dis-
charges are not permitted and local programs to control
nonpoint source pollution are required.
CLASS WS-II Water supplies which are in low to moderately developed
watersheds. Permitted discharges are restricted to pri-
marily domestic wastewater or industrial non -process
waters specifically approved by the Commission. Local
programs to control nonpoint source pollution are
required.
CLASS WS-III Water sup.ply segments with no categorical restrictions
on watershed development or discharges. A detailed
evaluation of point sources including toxic substances
and implementation of a non -point source control program
for the portion of the watershed under the community's
control is recommended.
To quality for WS-I or WS-II status, local governments having jurisdictions.
over the tributary watersheds must have an approved program to reduce the impact of
pollution from non -point sources. In the transition from the old classification
system to the new one, all A -I classifications were automatically classified WS-I,
and all others were classified WS-II.I: To upgrade classifications from WS-III to
WS-I or WS-II, a formal request must be made by a unit of local government. That
request triggers a reclassification process in which the State must determine -if
all the required conditions have been satisfied. Unless a request of:that type.is
made, the water supply remains in the WS-III category.
21

At present the 76 sources of surface water supplies in western North Carolina
are classified as follows (NRCD-DEM, Dec. 1987):
Current Classification No. of Sources
WS-I 33 (all formerly A -I)
WS-II 0
WS-III 44
Of the 44.sources currently classified as WS-III, the Division of Environmental
Management, NCDNRCD, has estimated that these sources have the highest:potential
classifications as follows:
Highest Potential No. of
Classification Sources
WS-I 26
WS-II 9
WS-III 9
Thus, if these estimates are correct, 34 sources would have to be reclassified to
achieve the level of protection that could be achieved under the State regulations.
While this program is still relatively new, there are several signs that
progress toward the goal of bringing all of these supplies to their highest
potential classification will be slow. County governments are the key to that
progress. because the watersheds lie predominantly outside the jurisdiction of
cities that use them for water supplies. Cities and towns that use these supplies
are more likely to act in their own interest to adopt the necessary controls on
non -point sources and to restrict the location of waste dischargers to areas
outside the watersheds. Counties, on the other hand, include constituents who do
not benefit directly from such controls and who may resist imposition`of such
controls.
Of the.100 counties in North Carolina, 27 have no public water supplies that
are extracted from surface sources. Watershed protection is not relevant in those
counties, most of which are located in the coastal plain (protection of sole -source
aquifers may be relevant, but that is another story). However, watershed -
protection is relevant in the other 73 counties, but, as of August 1987, only 10 of
them had shown an inclination to adopt the regulations necessary to bring them into
compliance with WS-I and WS-II classifications.
Of the 24 counties examined in this study, only two, Wilkes and Transylvania,
are in the process of developing programs to upgrade the classifications of their
22

water supplies. A third, Haywood County, is awaiting. publication of this, report
before considering further action. Four of these counties have no surface water
supplies.
County governments in the region have been reluctant to adopt growth
management guidelines and regulations. The nature of these regulations is
discussed in greater detail in Chapter III, but the categories include: (1) land -
use plans; (2) zoning; (3) subdivision regulations; (4) local sedimentation and
erosion ordinances; and (5) flood -plain regulations.
The counties that have adopted these guidelines and regulations are shown i,n
Table 6, and the statistics on them are revealing. Land -use plans have been
Tabl a 6.
Growth Management Authority Enacted by Counties•in
Western North Carolina
Land Sub- Sediment
Use division & Erosion
County
Plan
Zoning
Regs Ordinance
Alleghany
x
x
Ashe
x
Avery
x
Buncombe
x
x
Burke
x
Caldwell
X.
x
Cherokee
x
Clay
Graham
Haywood
x
Henderson
x
x
Jackson
x
Macon
x
Madison
x
McDowell
x
Mitchell
Polk
x
x
x
Rutherford
x
x
Surry
x
x
x
Swain
Transylvania
x
Watauga
x x
Wilkes
x
x
x
Yancey
x
23
F1 ood
Plain
Regs
x
x

adopted by 17 of the 24 counties, but only six of them have adopted even partial
zoning. Subdivision regulations have been adopted by only 7 of 24, and 'only two of
them have enacted local sedimentation and erosion ordinances. Flood plain
regulations are in force more widely.
The widespread use of land -use plans is a logical first step, but they are
largely of the nature of guidelines. They are not enforceable in and of
themselves. The widespread use of flood -plain regulations. results in large part
because of considerable financial incentives. They are a necessary prerequisite
for residents of a county to qualify for federally subsidized flood insurance. The
other types of growth management techniques are voluntary, they impose some
restrictions on land development, and they have not been widely adopted'in these
counties.
CONCLUSION
The extent to which watershed protection measures of this type have been
adopted in these counties.may be appropriate to.the levels of development that have
occurred on these watersheds in the past. With a few notable exceptions, point
source discharges in most of these watersheds are such that the water supplies
could still be classified as either WS-I or WS-II. However, all of these counties
are continuing to experience growth, and there is little public policy to manage
that growth to minimize its adverse impacts on water quality. Furthermore, a
significant amount of agricultural activity is occurring within the watersheds that
are used for public water supplies, and the potential risk from pesticides and
herbicides used in that activity has gone largely unmonitored and unassessed.
24

CHAPTER III
PIGEON RIVER UPSTREAM OF CANTON
Specifics of the threats to public water supplies in western North'Carolina
and the status of watershed protection (or the lack thereof) can be seen in detail
in the case of the Pigeon River above Canton, North Carolina, in Haywood County.
Although Haywood County is not growing as fast as a few of the other counties in
the region, the -current situation there is typical of situations that can be found
in many of the other counties. Growth is occurring without the benefit of much
public policy to guide it, and while existing water supplies are still in
relatively good condition, change is in progress, and supplies are vulnerable to
the impacts of new developments in the watershed. This particular case also
illustrates the special character of watersheds'in western North Carolina where -
urban and industrial activities are located very close to tributary streams, and
where surface runoff and groundwater seepage flow directly into the supplies.
This chapter begins with a discussion of water supply related trends in
Haywood County before proceeding to a detailed examination of trends in the Pigeon
River watershed. It concludes with a discussion of public policies for managing
growth in that watershed.
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Growth
Haywood County is growing, not explosively, but it is growing. As shown in
Table 7 and Figure 7, the population followed the trends for the region as a whole.
In.the decade of the 1960s, Haywood County's population increased by a modest 4.8
percent from 39,700 to 41,700, but.it experienced an accelerated growth in the
1970s. In that decade it increased by 10.3 percent to 46,500, and since 1980
growth has continued at a lesser pace, 2.9 percent from 1980 to 1985 when its
population reached 47,900.
Water Supplies
That population is served by a combination of public and private sources.
Recent data on the mix of those sources is not available, but in 1974 it was
estimated that about three -fourths of the population got their water from public
25

� � 4
Table 7.
POPULATION OF HAYWOOD COUNTY BY TOWNS AND TOWNSHIPS
Township
Town
1960
1970
1980
eaver am
117TO
11-, -W
11-3T
Canton
5,068
5,158
4,631
Cataloochie
116
107
56
Cecil
426
418
355
Clyde
2,620
3,086
4,448
Clyde
680
814
1,008
Crabtree
851
794
882
East Fork
1,295
1,362
1,551
Fines Creek
905
692
764
Ivon Duff
495
645.
668
Ivy Hill
1,470
1,779
2,356
Maggie Valley
-
-
202
Jonathan's Cr.
928
803
1,189
Pigeon
3,150
3,460
3,996
Waynesville
15,220
16,955
18,084
Waynesville
6,159
6,488
6,765
White Oak
266
141
149
Total
39,711
41,710
46,495
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1980
50
49
48
4?
46
44
�a
'11- 43
42
41
AO
39
38
1950
19J0
Ymar
1950
FIGURE 7. POPULATION= OF- HAY4JOOD COUNTY
26

sources -(Jackson, 1974, p. 115). These sources, located as shown in Figure. 8,
include:
Supplier
Canton
Pigeon River
Maggie Valley
Waynesville
Sources
Rough Cr.
WS-III
Campbells Cr.
Allen Cr.
Rocky Br.
Classification
WS-I (formerly A -I)
WS-III
WS-I (formerly A -I)
WS- I (. 11 if )-
The Town of Canton supplies not only its -own customers, but it also supplies Clyde
and several water associations.. The Town of Waynesville also serves Hazelwood and
the area around Lake Junaluska.
Spatial Patterns of Population
Although growth throughout the county has been moderate over the past 20-25
years, much of that growth has been concentrated near the water supply watersheds.
As shown in Figure 9, the population of Haywood County is concentrated in the
southern half of the county in Waynesville, Beaverdam..(Canton), Pigeon and Clyde
Townships.
Substantial growth has occurred in the Pigeon River watershed above Canton.
Pigeon Township, located primarily i.n this watershed, experienced -an increase of
more than 500 people, about 15 percent, in the 1970s. East Fork Township, also
located in this watershed increased by nearly 200 people in that period. It is
this development trend that has caused concern among the citizens and "elected
officials in Canton.
Wastewater Disposal
As noted in Chapter II, the pattern of wastewater dischargers in.Haywood
County is highly decentralized. There are 60 permitted wastewater dischargers in
the county, giving the county one of the highest number of dischargers per capita
in the region and in the state. The distribution of those permits by, types of
generator is as follows:
27

Mc
FIGURE
HAYWOOD COUNTY
LOCATION OF WAT
AND DISCHARGE F
140
19
)n

FIGURE 9.
Haywood County Population:
Distribution by Township, 1985
a
% OF COUNTY
POPULATION
0 to 2
2 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 30
30 to 40

Type of Generator
No. of Permits
Municipal
4
Commercial and institutional.
24
.Industrial
6
Motels
7
Mobile home parks
1
Residential
18
Most of these dischargers are located along the urban corridor from Waynesville to
Canton and along US Highway 19 between Waynesville and Maggie Valley.
This pattern of dischargers results from a combination of factors. Included
among them are: (a) the failure of local governments to provide or extend sewer
service to new developments; (b) the willingness of county government to issue
building permits to activities not located on sewer systems; and (c) the
willingness of state governments to issue -discharge permits to large numbers of
individual dischargers.
Fortunately, only a few discharge permits have been issued to activities
located in watersheds used for public water supplies. Permits have been issued to
four dischargers in the Pigeon River watershed, but another is pending. However,
there is little in the way of public policy to protect the watershed from further
degradation. The issuance of these permits, development trends noted earlier, and
a widespread concern about industrial and agricultural chemicals led to a more
detailed examination of this particular watershed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED
The watershed of the Pigeon River upstream of Canton, covering approximately
136 square miles, is one of the great natural resources of North Carolina. Its
mountainous terrain, rimmed by the Blue Ridge Parkway on its southern border,
affords spectacular views of over 50 miles., A large portion of the watershed lies
within the Pisgah National Forest and the Shinning Rock Wilderness Area. It also
contains a valley floor that is a highly productive.agricultural area.
Topography
As shown in Figure 10, elevations in the watershed vary from 2,600 feet above
mean sea level at the intake to Canton's water supply to 6,540 feet at Richland
Balsam on the Parkway. Most of the. urban and agricultural uses of the watershed
30

Lake
Richland
Balsam
ucc�ii aaN
FIGURE 10.
CONTOUR MAP OF PIGEON RIVER WATERSHED UPSTREAM OF CANTON
31
= 399 30'
-3!�P 26'
— 399 22'
39' 18'

are located below the 3,000-foot contour, an area of approximately 23 square miles
or 17 percent of the watershed. The area between the 3,000 and 4,000-foot contour
is about 49 square miles or 36 percent of the watershed, and between 4,000 and
5,000, 40 square miles and 29 percent of the watershed. There is approximately 23
square miles of elevations in the range 5.,000-6,000, and only 0.4 square miles
above 6,000 feet. Over 80 percent of the land has slopes in excess of 30 percent,
and the average throughout the watershed exceeds 25 percent.
Despite the.generally steep terrain, the watershed does contain a relatively
broad. valley floor with mild slopes. Just upstream of the .intake for the Canton
water supply, the flood plain extends approximately 1/2 mile to the west'of the
Pigeon River, and the flood plain and stream terraces extend nearly two miles to
the east. Just upstream of.the confluence of the West and East Forks, the flood
plains and terraces are approximately three miles wide. Then, upstream of that
location, the stream valleys become much more narrow, and the slopes become much
steeper.
The profiles of the Pigeon River and its tributaries, in Figure 11, also
illustrate the contrast in topography between the lower and upper portions of the
watershed. For the first ten miles upstream of Canton, to points upstream of the
confluences of the.West and East Forks, the streams have an average slope of 0.37
percent. Over the next six miles to points upstream of Lake Logan on the West Fork
and near Cruso on the East Fork, the slopes are still. less than one percent. Then
the slopes become increasingly steep as the streams approach their headwaters near
the south rim of the watershed.
Soils
Soils in the watershed tend to vary with the topography. The Interim Soil
Survey Report for Haywood County (1986), a portion of which is shown in Figure 12,
shows that the Rosman and Dellwood series, classified as sandy loam and cobbly„
loarV sand, respectively, are the predominant soil types in the flood plains in the
lower portion of the watershed while Saunook loam is quite common near streams in
the -upper part. Terraces in the lower portion are predominantly loam'and clay loam
in the Union and Braddock Series, while the steeper slopes represent foams from.
several series, including Hayesville, Plott, Edneyville, Evard-Cowee, and Wayak.
More detailed descriptions of these soils are given in Appendix B, and further
details are given in the soil survey report.
32

4.8
M
4.4
J
N
4.2
Q1
O 4
.0
rd
QJ
O
4-
.3..s
(') O
W �
0
r
3.4
3.2
0
•r
rd
3
W
2.8
2 .6
2.4
FIGURE 11.
PROFILE OF PIGEON RIVER
4 8 12
Miles Upstream of Canton

SOIL TYPE
Rosman/Dellwood
Ed n eyv i I I e/Eva rd/P I o tt
Plott/Edneyville.
Evard/Saunook
Hayesville
Braddock
Richlar
balsa
FIGURE 12.
GENERALIZED SOILS MAP'
OF THE PIGEON RIVER WATERSHED
UPSTREAM OF CANTON

N
The characteristics of these soils have several implications for the
management of water quality. First, soils in the lower portions of the basin are
low in clay content, well -drained, and they are relatively deep, commonly ranging
in depth from 4 to 8 feet. Thus, they have a high potential for agricultural
productivity, and as noted later, they are intensively used for that purpose.
Erosion and agricultural chemicals in storm runoff from these areas can be a
problem if they are not managed properly. Second., the soils in the steep slopes
are generally stable where vegetative covers are maintained. Construction and
other land -disturbing activities will reduce the stability, however, and the
combination of intense storms and steep slopes will result in avalanches of debris
and soil slippage (Brovitz, p. 90). Finally, in many areas where steep slopes are
dominant, the soils are fairly shallow and.not well suited for on -site disposal of
household and commercial wastewaters.
Land Use
The land is used for a variety of purposes. From the perspective of the
watershed as a whole, the predominant category is forest. Approximately 90 percent
of the 136 square miles (87,000 acres) is inside the outer boundaries of the. Pisgah
National Forest, but a significant portion of that land is in private ownership,
much of it held by Champion International, Inc. Approximately one half of the
watershed, approximately 40,000 acres in the southern part, is closed forest, while
25,000 acres in the midsection has a 50 percent forest cover, and in the lower
portion, the remaining 20,000 or so acres has a forest cover of 25 percent or less
(Brovitz, p. 90).
Population density over the entire watershed is quite sparse. Census tracts
are not coincident with hydrologic boundaries so that exact counts of°the
residential population in the watershed is not possible, but they are:sufficiently
close to make a reliable estimate of between 5000 and 6000 persons.. As shown in
Table 7, there were 5,902 persons in the Cecil, East Fork, and Pigeon Townships in
1980, and those townships include some sparsely populated areas.outside the
watershed. A small portion of the Beaverdam Township also lies in the watershed.
Regardless of the exact number, however, the density would fall in'the range of 35-
45`persons per square mile or one person for every 14 to 18 acres. The population
did increase by 13 percent from 1970 to 1980.
35

Data compiled by the Haywood County Planning Department. (Table 8) indicate
that there were approximately 2,600 housing units and 56 commercial and industrial
establishments in the watershed in 1983. The number of housing units increased
substantially during the 1970s when nearly 600 units were built, and the number
continues to increase at about 50 units per year. With very few exceptions, waste
from these units is disposed of in septic tank systems.
If agricultural .land use in the Pigeon River watershed follows the more
general pattern of Haywood County, it has changed very little since 1975 as
indicated in Figure 13. There were 81,000 acres of farmland in Haywood County in
1982, about 12,000 acres of which was in cultivated cropland (US Bureau of the
Census). Data from the North Carolina crop statistics indicate very little change
in total cropland and only moderate shifts in the mix of crops.
Within the Pigeon River watershed, about one-half of the land in the watershed
is in farms, but a large portion of that, nearly 80 percent, is in woodlands (see
Table 8). Approximately seven percent of the farmland is cultivated, and another
13 percent is in pasturelands. Thus, from the perspective of the entire watershed,
there would appear to be little threat to the quality of Canton's water supply from
nonpoint source discharges in the watershed.
Table 8.
Population and Land Use in
Cecil, East Fork and Pigeon Townships
1970 1980 1983
Population 5-,74U 5= 5;,
No. of Households 1,600 2,024 2,054
No. of Housing Units 1,783 2,362 2,580
Site -built 1,647 2,362 2,580
Mobile [phone]
Commercial & Industrial Estab. 29 48 56
Agriculture 1974 1978 1982
No. of Farms 622 631 641
Acreage
45,650 44,889 44,258
Woodland
36,660
36,028
35,561
Cultivated
2,600
2,549
2,522-
Pasture
5,900
5,833
5,723
Idle & Other
490
479
452

12
IN
E•�
U
6
w
o
v
4
N
O
..0
f--
L
FIGURE 13.
CROPLAND IN HAYWOOD COUNTY, 1975-1-985
1975 1980
Year
1985

Statistics for the entire watershed are quite deceptive in this case, however,
because most of the urban development and agricultural activity is concentrated
within the lower portion of the watershed just upstream of the water supply intake
and near the streambanks.
A very detailed analysis of land uses was made of the 14 quad sheets shown in
Figure 14. Each of those areas has been aerially mapped by an orthophotographic
quad sheet covering an area of 10,000 x 10,000 feet (2,296 acres). Each of them
was interpreted for this study by personnel of the Haywood County Soil and Water
Conservation District. Seven attributes were identified for each quad. They
are:
(1) the network of streams;
(2) woodlands; .
(3) urban areas, including residential, commercial, and institutional
lands;
(4) agricultural lands;
(5) steep slopes (30 percent or more);
(6) flood plain soils; and
(7) prime agricultural soils.
The interpreted quad sheets were then digitized using the MAPEDT software marketed
by Resources Planning Associates, and the areas covered by each attribute was
computed. Results of that analysis are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Land Use in Pigeon River Watershed
(acres by quad sheet)*
Prime
Flood
Wood
Farm
Plain
Steep
Stream
Agri -
Quad
Land
Land
Soil
Slope
Urban
Net
culture
8632
1,970.6
144.9
234.3
1,431.7
75.6
22.1
3.2
8633
1,637.2
600.5
353.2
862.4
192.4
75.9
35.4
8634
764.1
284.8
50.9
210.1
8635
1,152.2
91.7
24.5
55.8
8644
1,028.7
500.2
253.2
834.5
269.4
66.1
181.2
8645
548.4
374.0
80.7
296.6
8646
859.0
97.6
9.2
23.8
8654
1,569.1
195.6
249.7
1,472.0
141.5
77.7
33.9
8655
951.9
258.6
48.6
49.8
8656
566.5
256.5
138.5
275.2
201.6
.40.7
68.1
8662
1835.4.
97.8
36.9
8.6
8663
1:383.2
127.4
44.8
18.4
8664
331.0
11.0
44.4
392.6
84.6
23.9
8.8
8665
307.2
13.4
6.6
2.9
14,904.5
1,708.6
1,273.2
5,268.3
2,310.4
608.6
996.4
*blank
areas indicate
the quad
sheet's
land use
was not
digitized.
38

Waynesvi Ile
Canton
ply ` L1J 1 tO .Y.w.-
46�'
10/.1,0 C
1 46 56
�f 35 5. 45� %r 55 %% i 65
p I s GA. 34 54 ; 64
n, 33 1 63 Un`�
NA I 1 O NAaz
C, 2
32
yam-` ' c •yy;....�,,e..cxg - :�"/
ik
a.. �.�
SH EAWO(•OD l''�.1W I IDIIFE,,-
•�F .O,y � r.� �t.
7M A N A`OEMENT fA AR EA
s �
�i7o kno
a.ac u�s.w ooa � I •!". y1>^ P
vR ...
FIGURE 14. COVERAGE OF ORTHOPHOTO MAPS USED FOR LAND USE ANALYSIS
39

It is apparent from these results that the most intensively used portion of
the watershed is that area covered by the cross -hatched quads in Figure 14. These
six quads cover 13,776 acres of the watershed, including 2,580 acres of very steep
slopes (30 percent or more) and 365 acres of streams. Approximately 40 percent of
the area is covered by woodlands.
Urban activities cover a significant portion of the remaining lands, including
1,530 acres, and cultivated agricultural activities are also significant, account-
ing for 840 acres, mostly in intensive vegetable production, particularly tomatoes.
Since most of the population within the watershed reside in this area, densities
are in the range of 225-275 persons per square mile or one person per 2-2.5 acres.
The significance of urban development and cultivated lands in the watershed is
magnified by the proximity of those activities to the mainstem of the Pigeon River.
Locations of the urban activities relative to the river and its feeder streams are
shown in Figure 15. Although an exact count of the housing units in that partic-
ular area has not been made, the data on housing and population in the watershed
and the spatial distribution of urban development suggest that the area shown in
Figure 15 contains 1500-2000 units. All of those units, except for those inside
the Canton sewer service area, are served by septic tanks. The wastewater facil-
ities plan for Haywood County, prepared by a planning engineering firm in 1984,
proposed an extensive wastewater collection and treatment system for that area
(William F. Freeman Co., 1984). That system, shown in Figure 16, had an estimated
construction cost of near $7 million. Very little of that system has come to
reality.
Locations of cultivated lands are shown in Figure 17. It can be noted that
most of those lands abut the streams. Thus, stormwater runoff from these fields
flow directly into the streams, and an analysis of an overlay of forested lands,
cultivated lands, and the stream network revealed that in many instances there is
little or no vegetative buffer between the fields and the streams. In those
instances it is reasonable to expect a substantial transport of agricultural
chemicals and eroded soil into the streams.
40

V
LEGEND
-61 Land with slope > 30%
Urban activity
LOCATION MAP
West Fork East Fork
FIGURE 15.
LOCATION OF URBAN LANDS IN PIGEON RIVER
WATERSHED UPSTREAM OF CANTON
41

Waynei
LEGEND
— proposed server lines
10 proposed treal.,ment plants
o proposed pump stations
West Fork East Fork
FIGURE 16
PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES-
42

YI
LEGEND
Land with slope ? 30%
Cultivated agriculture
1 r%f'A-mrNK1 IIAM
West Fork
FIGURE 17.
LOCATION OF AGRICULTURAL -ACTIVITIES IN PIGEON RIVER
WATERSHED UPSTREAM OF CANTON
43
East Fork

POLLUTION SURVEYS
Point Sources
In addition to the analysis of activities in the watershed presented above,
two surveys of pollution sources and instream water quality conditions have been
made, one by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) of the NCDNRCD, and
one by the staff of the Water Resources Research Institute_ during the conduct of
this study. DEM conducted an investigation of the Upper Pigeon River on July 25,
1984, where ". . .particular interest centered around three dischargers --Pigeon
Valley Rest Home, Royal Oaks Subdivision, and Bethal School" (DEM, 1984). A
fourth permit has been granted since that study, a request has been made for a
fifth one, and the Royal Oaks Subdivision has requested a modification to expand
its capacity.
The permits are described as follows:
Facility
Bethal School
Pigeon Valley Rest Home
Royal Oaks Subdivision
Roy Galloway Residence
Design Flow Receiving
gals/day Stream
15,000 Bird Creek
25,000 Pigeon River
15,000 E. Fork Pigeon River
450 Garden Creek
Their approximate locations are shown in Figure 8.
In the 1984 survey, samples were taken from the effluent of the Pigeon
Valley Rest Home and from the stream at those locations.. The in -stream sampling
points were: (a) 500 meters above the intake of Canton's water supply; (b) 100
meters below the confluence of the East Fork and West Fork of the Pigeon River;
and (c) the East Fork of the Pigeon River near Cruso, a location used to
establish background water quality conditions. Water quality parameters that
were measured at these locations included the conventional ones relevant to
bacteria, oxygen balance, solids and nutrients. They also included a fairly
standard list of 7 heavy metals (Cd, Ch. Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Zn). DEM found that
all of the concentrations of the substances and organisms that they examined
". . .were below state water quality standards and only slightly above background
44

levels." They also concluded that the effects of the point sources on in -stream
water quality were negligible.
These results reflect what one would expect to find during dry -weather
flows when the point -source treatment facilities are being properly operated. If
the effluent volumes are within the limits specified in their permits, those
discharges are small in comparison with stream flow from a watershed of that
size.
Pesticide Contamination
However, as stated by DEM, the survey in 1984 focused primarily on the role
of point sources, and, although the report does not include rates of stream flow
at the time samples were taken, the usual procedure is to make such surveys
during dry -weather, warm temperature conditions. Surveys of that kind cannot be
used to assess the effects of nonpoint sources, most of which are activated by
storm events.
The possibility of contamination from pesticides, herbicides, and other
synthetic organic chemicals was considered to be the primary threat from nonpoint
sources in this watershed. Most of the land uses that would generate significant
quantities of nonpoint sources are located downstream of Lake Logan. Thus, their
potential for causing excessive nutrient buildup in that impoundment would be
small. The proximity of agricultural and urban activities to the intake was a
matter of concern, however. The facts that a significant amount of cultivated
farm land is in the watershed and that much of it is located near streambanks are
sufficient to cause a concer-n about the potential for contamination from
herbicides, pesticides, and other agricultural.chemicals. As noted in Table 8,
there are 2,500 acres of cultivated croplands in the Pigeon River watershed
upstream of Canton. Approximately 940 of those are found within the six quad
areas in Figure 14 that are nearest the water supply intake for Canton.
Tabular data on the kinds of crops grown on these lands is unavailable, but
agricultural experts in Haywood County have indicated that tomatoes are the
principal cash crop (West, 1987). Herbicides are applied to -them in May or early
June and possibly again in mid -July. Typical herbicides are Lexam and Tillam.
Pesticides are applied June through September. The Agricultural Extension
Services advises weekly fungicide application and pesticide application as need,
although most farmers will apply pesticides on.a weekly or biweekly basis.
45

Thiodan is a popular insecticide, which is applied along with the fungicides
Manzate, Dyrene, and some of the copper compounds.
Beans are also grown in the watershed. The major pesticides applied to
beans are Dacthal, Jule, and Treflan. Strawberries are also cultivated. 2,4-D
is applied to strawberries in March. Devrinol or Enide is applied in early July
(usually July 4th weekend). Whichever of the above compounds was not used will
be applied in late August or September. There are four nurseries close to the
watershed which may grow between 30 to 40 crops. Various herbicides/pesticides
may be used. Small amounts of tobacco are also grown in the watershed. These
lands may receive applications of Devr.inol.
In addition to the croplands, the watershed includes some 5,700 acres of
pasture and hay which typically receive a springtime application of 2,4-D or
Banvel in late March or early April. A second application is usual after the
first harvest, usually around mid -June. Other organic compounds are also used at
the several dairies and hog farms -in the watershed.
Although a complete listing of all the chemicals used in the watershed is
not possible, it would include the 31 substances listed in Table 10. That list
was compiled from conversations with several agricultural experts in Haywood
County.
Just as a complete listing of all chemicals used in the basin is not
feasible, neither is a complete quantification of the amounts of each that are
used, the amounts that leave the fields and enter the stream, the amounts that
reach the water intake, and ultimately the amount that is ingested by the
citizens of Canton. Nonetheless, a partial assessment of the risk was undertaken
by sampling at several locations throughout the watershed and subjecting those
samples to broad -based chemical analyses.
Site Selection and Sampling Procedure
A discussion with the Agricultural Extension Service suggested that any time
between mid -February and mid -October would be suitable for sampling of pesticides
and herbicides. The types of pesticides/herbicides found might change throughout
the growing season, but no particular sampling period would result in higher
concentrations.
A total of five sampling locations were established along the river, running
approximately from the border of the Sherwood Wildlife Management. Area to the
46

Table 10.
Pesticides & Herbicides Used in Haywood County
Common Name Trade Name Use
2,4-0 2,4-0 systemic herbicide
Anilazine Dryene foliar fungicide
Atrazine Aatrex selective pre/post
emergence herbicide
Bacillus thuringiensis Dipel, Bactur, Thuricide insecticide
var, kurstaki
Benomyl
Benlate
BHC, gamma isomer
Lindane
Butylate
Sutan
Captan
Captan
Carba ryl
Sev:En
Carbofuran
Furadan
Chlorpyrifos
Lorsban, Dursban
DCPA Dacthal
Dicamba Banvel
Dichlobenil Casoron
Diohenamid Enide
Diuron Karmex, Drexel
Endosulfan Thiodan
EPTC+Safener
Eradicane
Fol pet
PhaItan
Glyphosphate
Roundup
Malathion
Malathion, Sumitox
Mancozeb + dinocap
Dikar
Maneb
Manzate, Vancide
Methomyl
Lannate
Napropamide
Pebulate
Phosphamidon
Simazine
Terbacil
Devrinol
Tillam
Phosphainidon, Dimecron
Princep
Sinbar
Trifluralin Treflan, Trefanocide,
Treficon, Treflonocide
Symate, Methyl Cymate,
Methasan, Zimate, Zirbeck,
Karbam White, Corozate, Fuklasin,
Fuklasin, Zerlate
47
Ziram
carbamate pesticide
insecticide
selective herbicide
protestant fungicide
contact insecticide
contact insecticide'
broad spectrum pesticide
selective pre -emergence
herbicide
foliar and soil applied
herbicide
selective herbicide
selective pre-energence
herbicide
photosynthesis inhibi-
tion herbicide
bread spectrum non-
sys-temic insecticide
herbicide
protectant fungicide
non -selective post -
emergence herbicide
non -systemic insecticide
fungicide
protectant fungicide
carbamate pesticide
pre -emergence herbicide
pre -emergence herbicide
oraanophosphorus pesticide
pre -emergence herbicide
photosynthesis inhibition
herbicide
pre -emergence herbicide
protectant fungicide
Crops
corn, apples, hay
strawberries
tomatoes
corn, tobacco
corn
corn, potato, apple
corn, tobacco, potato,
apple
corn, tobacco, potato
corn, tobacco, cattle,
apple
beans
corn, hay
tobacco, potato,
strawberries
apples
tomatoes
corn, hay, potato
corn, apple, hay, potato
corn, cattle
tobacco, potato, apple '
tomatoes
corn, tobacco, potato,
apple
tobacoo,apples
tobacco, tomatoes
potato
corn, apples, hay
apples, hay
beans
sweet potatoes

FIGURE 18.
LOCATION OF PESTICIDE SAMPLING POINTS
water intake at Canton as shown in Figure 18. Sampling started in mid -May and ran
for nearly six weeks. Every 10-12 days, a sample was collected from each of the
five sites. Samples were collected on the 5th and 27th of May and the 6th and 16th
of June 1987. Samples taken on May 27 were obtained during a rainfall event. For
this situation, additional samples were taken approximately 8 and 16 hours later
for sites #3 and #4, the sites most likely to receive agricultural runoff.
All samples were grab samples; i.e., 4 liters of river water were collected at
a given time at each location. The procedure was to fill a 4-liter glass bottle
with a representative sample of river water. The bottles were labeled, sealed, and
stored in a cooler with ice for shipment to a commercial laboratory where the
samples were analyzed for organics.
Sampling locations were chosen for two reasons. The first was to provide an
overall impression of the water quality. Sites #1, #2, and #5 were chosen for this
purpose. The second objective was to gain an understanding of the potential for
synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) to contaminate the drinking water supply of
Canton. From the existing land uses, herbicides and pesticides. appear to be the
most likely SOC candidates. -Thus, stations #3 and #4 were chosen because they are
near agricultural areas, and they are likely to receive direct field runoff. Three
sites (#1, #2, and #5) were near locations chosen by the NC Division of Environ-
mental Management, Water Quality Section, for the July 1984 water quality
evaluation of the upper Pigeon River.

Station #1: Site 1 was located about 100 feet above the bridge at Camp Hope on the
East Fork of the Pigeon River, just above Cruso and above any substantial urban
development or agriculture. It served as a control to provide water quality data
on the river as it leaves the Sherwood Wildlife Management Area.
Station #2: Site 2 was located just upstream from a bridge on unnamed road between
Routes 215 and 110, located approximately one mile below the confluence of the East
and West Forks. This site provided a summary of the water quality of the East and
West Forks.
Station #3: Site 3, located off a gravel road between Routes 215 and 276, was on a
small ee er stream to the West Fork about one mile above the confluence of East
and West Forks. This stream travels through a mostly agricultural district, and
lies alongside several large unbuffered fields. It is likely to receive direct
field runoff and thus provide an assessment of the potential for agricultural
chemicals entering the drinking water supply downstream.
Station #4: Site 4 is located off a gravel road parallel to Route 215, below a
small cu vert. Site was on a small feeder stream to the Pigeon River about one
mile below the confluence. This feeder stream also flows through a highly agricul-
tural area with several unbuffered fields providing direct runoff.
Station #5: Site 5 was located on the main stem of the Pigeon River just above the
pumping station at a bridge on Route 215. It was the farthest downstream point
sampled and provided the best assessment of the source water quality for Canton.
Experimental Methods
Samples were analyzed for priority pollutants using EPA's Method 625 for
extractable organics. This method should detect most pesticides and herbicides if
present in sufficient concentrations, as well as all but the most volatile organ-
ics. This procedure used a methylene chloride extraction at a basic pH followed by
a methylene chloride extraction at an acidic pH, then analysis by gas chromatog-
raphy/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Priority pollutants, if present, are identified
by comparison with analytical standards. The priority pollutants are quantified to
ug/l concentrations, within the limits of the analytical techniques. Non -priority
pollutants can sometimes be identified by mass spectral library matching. Those
compounds identified by library matching can only be approximately quantified.
Standard quality control procedures, as defined by the EPA, are adhered to by
Triangle Laboratories, Inc.
The GC/MS conditions were as follows: The GC column was a J&W DB-5, 30m x
0.32 mm, with a 25 micron film thickness. The GC program held at 40 C for 3
minutes, increased to 300 C at 8 C/min, and then held at 300 C for 4.5 minutes.
The GC was interfaced to the MS through a heated inlet held at 230 C. For the MS,
49

the ion source was heated to 180 C, and a mass range of 35 to 510 amu (atomic mass
units) was scanned at 1 sec/scan.
t
s
ples were analyzed for priority pollutants using EPA's Method 625 for
extractable organics. Results are summarized in Table; 11. Three organic compounds
were identified during the analysis. Another compound was found but could not be
identified. No compounds were found for dates and/or stations not shown. Two of
the compounds are known pesticides/herbicides. The concentrations of the organics
are quite low, generally in the low parts per billion range. None of the compounds
were priority pollutants, and therefore all the compounds were identified solely by
library matching. Some caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions from
these results, noting in particular that the uncertainty associated with the
concentration levels is high because no direct comparisons with known standards
were possible.
One of the compounds, 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6 chloro-N-ethyl-N' (1-
methylethyl) atrazine, is better known simply as atrazine. It is a commonly used
agricultural herbicide, and has been found in other surface waters in North
Carolina that are adjacent to agricultural areas (Dietrich, et al. 1983). Its oral
LD50 in mice is 1.75 g/kg and in rats is 3.08 g/kg. No apparent skin irritations
or other toxic effects have been observed in humans (Merck Index, 1976).
Another compound is Bis dimethyl carbamodithioato-S,S'-(T-4)-zinc, also known
as Ziram, Cymate, methyl cymate, Methasan, Zimate, Zirbeck, Karbam White, Corozate,
Fuclasin, Fuklasin, and Zerlate (Merck Index, 1976, School of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, 1987). Among other purposes it is used as an agricultural fungicide. -
Its oral LD50 in rats is 1.4 g/kg. This chemical causes irritation to the skin and
mucous membranes (Merck, 1976).
It is not obvious what a third compound, 4,4, thiobis-2-(1,1 dimethylethyl)-
(5)-methyl phenol, is used for or where it might arise in the watershed. A brief
review of the Chemical Abstracts suggests that it is an industrial chemical used
primarily for its insulating properties.
The apparent hydrocarbons could not be identified exactly. Likely sources for
hydrocarbon contamination include road runoff or leaky underground storage tanks.
Ac

Tabl e 11
Summary of Organics Found
During Pigeon River Monitoring
Sample
Concen-
Sample Sample ttation
Canpound Date Station (ug/L)**
1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diand ne, 6 chloro-N-ethyl-N' (1-methylethyl) atrazine 5/27/87 (4:41) 3
�� " 5/27/87 (4:51) 4 60
It 11 It 11'. 5/27/87(21:58) 3
4,4 thiobis-2(1,1 dimethylethyl-(5)-methyl phenol 5/27/87 (4:41)
(4:51) 4 16 1{ II 11 II
It It It. 5/27/87(22:06) 4 13
It 6/06/87 1 8
6/06/87 2 6
.6/06/87 3 6
Bis din -ethyl carbcmodithioato-S,S'-(T-4)-zinc 6/06/87 2 7
6/06/87 3 4
r 6/16/87 3
u at u n 6/16/87 4
unknown hydrocarbon 5/27/87 (4:41) 3 8
unknown hydrocarbon 5/27/87 (4:51) 4 10
* Peak height less than 10% of nearest internal standard. No estimate:of
concentration available. .
** Since none of these compounds are priority pollutants, concentrations are only
approximate and should be of as order of magnitude estimates.
51

Discussion
The first set of samples was taken on May 6, 1987, prior to the application of
most pesticides/herbicides during the growing season. It is the only set of
samples in which no organics were found. These results suggest that the pesticides
found in later samples were from agricultural application. Further year -round -
sampling should be conducted to confirm this hypothesis.
The majority of positive findings occurred at stations #3 and #4, the small
feeder streams to the Pigeon River. GIS mapping had indicated that these small
streams drained agricultural areas and were most likely to receive agricultural
runoff.
+� W�.�e Cn o,w i
The river f low is greatest here compared to all the sampling stations, and any
organics would be significantly diluted. 0e
s nh 'y e _1WRW However., the fact
that these chemicals are found directly upstream of the drinking water supply
indicates the need for caution and concern in the face of further industrial or
agricultural development.
WATERSHED PROTECTION
Surveys of instream water quality conditions such as those undertaken by DEM
and those undertaken by WRRI are simply snapshots of what conditions prevailed at
the time they were taken. Even then they do not provide a complete picture of what
was in the water. However, they do support the general conclusion that the
watershed, in its present state of development, is in good condition, and there is
little evidence to conclude that there is any significant and imminent threat to
the consumers of Canton's water supply.
The more disturbing observation is that public policy to prevent future
degradation of this supply is minimal. The watershed is affected by continued
urbanization, and there are existing requests for new and modified permits for the
discharge of waste waters. Current state and federal regulations for pollution
control have as objectives the protection of instream water quality sufficient to
make the streams fishable and swimmable.
Under the present WS-III classification, the state is obligated to issue_
permits to all dischargers who can satisfy generally applicable effluent limita-
52

tions and in -stream water quality standards. Qualifying dischargers could include
industries and municipalities. Even under the more restrictive WS-II classifica-
tion, the State would be obligated to issue permits to subdivisions and other non-
industrial, non -municipal dischargers. The weakness in the WS-II classification is
that each permit to discharge is evaluated by the N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development on a case -by -case basis, and, for small to
moderate -size dischargers, it is difficult to demonstrate by standard calculations
that the effluent from any single discharge would have an adverse effect upon the
health of those who drink from that supply. However, the cumulative effect of many
small sources could be significant, not only because of their simple additive
effects, but the development of new point sources also signals a change in land use
and transportation activities from which significant quantities of nonpoint
pollutants would be generated.
Two events have occurred during the course of this study that illustrate why
that weakness is of concern. The Royal Oaks Subdivision applied for a modification
to its permit to increase the amount of discharge, and the National Park Service,
which leases land to a complex near Mt. Pisgah on the Blue Ridge Parkway, applied
for a permit to discharge waste to a small tributary to the East Fork of the Pigeon
River. In the second of these two cases, the permit would allow the owner to
replace a failing subsurface disposal system with a treatment plant that discharges
to a stream. %n�ae5- r ajL-h Uca f �beac1 .h:e
mope of this repor Yut.the burden of proof to show an adverse effect on the
Canton water supply would be heavy in either case. The State intends to grant both
requests: However, the present guidelines for WS-II classification offer little
assurance that many such sources --new ones, expansions to existing ones, and
replacement of subsurface disposal with surface discharges --would not occur in the
future. Each such occurrence could be processed in the same manner as these two
requests. The incremental discharge of each could have only a small marginal
effect; however, the aggregate effect of many dischargers could defeat the purpose
of the WS-II-classification.
The Town of Canton recognized that weakness early in the history of the
State's watershed protection program. In August 1986 the Town requested that the
East and West forks of the Pigeon River above the existing point sources be
classified WS-I with the remaining portion being WS-II. The Town was advised by
the state to proceed with a request for a WS-II for the entire watershed and await
53

the completion of the present study to act on the WS-I classification. However,
the request for a discharge permit by the National Park Service in November 1987
renewed concern among town officials, and they reactivated their earlier request
(Hardin, Dec. 30, 1987). The timing of that request was inopportune, however, as
the community was embroiled in the interstate controversy over the renewal of a
discharge permit for Champion International, the major employer in the area. A
story in the The Asheville Citizen (Morrison, February 7, 1988) pointed out that
the Town was in the ironical position of requesting a higher level of protection
upstream while supporting lower standards downstream. The story also stated that,
after being informed of the National Park Service's intentions to build a waste
treatment plant, Mayor C. W. Hardin convinced town officials to drop their demands
for the WS-I classification. Nonetheless, concerns remain about the weakness of
present guidelines for the WS-II classification.
The emerging concerns about watershed protection and other development
activity has prompted Haywood County to take several important steps that would
affect development in the watershed. There are many other steps which could be
taken. In one action the County adopted a Pre -Development Ordinance which became
effective March 1, 1987. While that ordinance does not add any regulations
affecting the kinds of development, it does require developers to demonstrate
compliance with existing regulation before construction is initiated. In a second
step the County adopted a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, effective as of
January 15, 1988, which will affect new development in the watershed that is near
the streambanks of the mainstem and East and West Forks of the Pigeon.River. A
third step was taken in March 1988 by adopting an Erosion Control Ordinance that
will take effect August 1, 1988. All of these actions flow from an increased
awareness of the potential damage -from construction activities.
Although the steps taken in 1986 and 1987 are significant, they would not
protect the watershed from being extensively developed. The watershed is not
zoned; the County does not have subdivision regulations; and there are no special
ordinances to protect the quality of water in watersheds that are used as sources
of drinking water.
The wastewater facilities plan for Haywood County, shown earlier in Figure 16,
could eliminate some of the seepage from septic tank drainage fields, but a collec-
tion system of that extent would have -t least two significant adverse effects.
First, it would p -mote greater and higher densities of development with an
54

attendant increase in pollution from urban stormwater runoff. .Second, that partic-
ular plan calls for the concentration of residential and commercial wastes in two
new wastewater treatment plants and three pumping stations, all of which would be
subject to failure. Before any program for extending sewers into the watershed is
undertaken, careful consideration should be given to the development of a compre-
hensive watershed management plan.
The powers that the county could exercise to enhance protection of the
watershed are discussed in Chapter IV. While the evidence compiled to date may
support the view that there has been little need for such regulations in the past,
the evidence does point to changing circumstances where prudent and reasonable
action is justified to preserve the quality of this valuable resource.for the
future.
55

CHAPTER IV
WATERSHED PROTECTION:
CURRENT PROGRAMS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Although there are numerous examples of good watershed management programs in
other states, the experience in North Carolina may be among the better guides for
cities and counties in this State who wish to initiate or improve programs to
protect their public water supplies. Since 1980 state and local.governments in
North Carolina have adopted a variety of growth management techniques to respond to
the increasing levels of urban development in watersheds that are used -for public
water supplies, and it is the purpose of this chapter to review the current
statutory bases and current status of those activities. The review begins with a'
discussion of the authority of local governments to regulate land use in general.
The discussion then turns to more specific programs that have been targeted at
watershed protection.
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
Techniques that could be used as elements of a watershed protection plan cover
a broad spectrum of possibilities, but they can be conveniently grouped into four
categories:
(1) regulatory measures - those involving the exercise of police
powers to control offsite damage resulting from developmental
activity;
(2) acquisition of property rights - those involving the exercise
of compensatory powers;
(3) financial incentives; and
(4) public education.
North Carolinians have traditionally opposed the ,use of regulatory authority over
land use decisions either at the State level or at the local level. However, as
spill -over effects of private development on public and other private properties
have become more widely recognized, concepts of zoning and development ordinances
of various kinds have become more acceptable to a larger portion of the population.
But the tension between regulation and the "taking" of private property
remains high. North Carolina, like other states, derives its police powers to
56

promote public health, safety, and welfare from the fourteenth amendment, and in
this State, local governments can exercise that power only if there is enabling
legislation at the state level. However, there are also constitutional limits to
the exercise of that power, and, of particular relevance to land use management,
the regulations cannot be confiscatory, meaning the they may not render the land
unusable or "take" it without just compensation. Other protections must also be
satisfied; namely, due process and the avoidance of discrimination whereby two
pieces of land having similar characteristics are treated differently.
A court case has tended to heighten the tension between regulation and taking.
In June 1987 the Supreme Court ruled (First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California) that there can be a temporary
regulatory "taking" of property in cases of continued regulatory delay, and that in
this instance landowners have a right to seek compensation. This ruling has had
repercussions on the decisions of local planners in North Carolina. There is fear
that more regulatory restrictions will be considered a taking and local governments
will need to provide an avenue to pay compensation for temporary takings. At the
very least, more landowners are likely to contest regulatory restrictions, leading
to increased litigation. For this reason, some local governments have become
hesitant in adopting additional regulatory restrictions. Opinions vary as far as
the long-term effects of this case, but one knowledgeable expert states that he
knows of no case in North Carolina that has held when a case resulted in a regula-
tory taking and just compensation (Heath, 1987).
Regulatory Programs
Regulatory programs designed to protect important resource areas often rely on
zoning, subdivision, sediment and erosion control, and flood control ordinances.
These ordinances define special districts, or overlay districts, which specify
permitted uses, prohibited uses, and design standards for development.
Zoning Ordinances. Zoning by municipalities and counties (GS 160A, Art. 19; 153A,
Art. 18) divides a political jurisdiction into districts, each with different
restrictions on the type of land use allowed, and density of development. This
method may be used to assign land uses to sites having the most suitable environ-
mental characteristics.
57

Traditionally, zoning ordinances were set up to establish districts of varying
densities and purposes in order to guide development. Typical provisions include
requirements for the provision of services and reductions of hazards such as
flooding. Lot sizes often vary depending on the type of water and sewer used, and
if available, developments are generally required to connect to public water and
sewer systems. Site drainage requirements may be. specified, and additional design
standards may be set for flood prone areas.
With the realization of the impact of development_ on public water supplies,
additional provisions geared directly to controlling stormwater, erosion, and water
quality are becoming more common. Watershed protection provisions include the use
of natural, undisturbed buffers, low densities, limited impervious surfaces, use'
restrictions, cluster development, conditional -use or special -use requirements,
special districts, performance standards, and public sewage restrictions.
Subdivision.Regulations. Subdivision regulations (GS 160A, Art. 19; 153A, Art. 18)
control the division of raw land into buildable sites. Traditionally, a subdivi-
sion ordinance included standards for public and private water and sewer, and*
required information concerning the location of watercourse and drainage struc-
tures.. Today, the ordinance may include watershed protection requirements such as
drainage easements, grading, and on -site detention of runoff. These regulations
may also encourage the dedication of stream corridors to provide buffers of natural
vegetation between streams and development in lieu of a mandatory dedication of
neighborhood recreational land.
Sediment and Erosion (S & E) Control. Sediment and erosion control ordinances
regulate the clearing, grading, excavation, filling, and other earth -moving
activities to prevent increased soil erosion and sedimentation, flooding, and the
obstruction of drainageways. North Carolina has a statewide S & E ordinance (GS
113A, Art. 4). Cities and counties have the option of adopting their own, more
stringent version of this ordinance, but most who adopted their own ordinance have
closely followed the model ordinance developed by the State. All ordinances
require the preparation of S & E plans before land -disturbing activities can be
initiated.
99

. , a
Pre -Development Review Ordinance. Special legislation allows three counties -
Haywood, Henderson, and Transylvania - to implement a Pre -Development Review
Ordinance. Although this ordinance may be considered a first step toward the
adoption of land -use regulation, no new land -use controls are authorized. It
simply requires pre -development of plans to p-.-mote compliance with existing
regulations.
Flood Control. Flood damage prevention ordinances are intended to minimize losses
due to flood damage. While these provisions are not geared directly to preserving
the quality of drinking waters, they may decrease densities in floodway areas
around streams and water bodies, and lessen the chance of sewage contamination from
public or private systems. In addition, nonpoint source pollutant loading is
directly related to stormwater and flood events. Discouraging development in flood
plains will help to control nonpoint source pollution.
Through these regulations, construction in areas prone to flooding must meet
specific design standards, and water and sewer facilities must be placed to prevent
contamination of flood waters and vice versa. Construction may be prohibited
within some distance of streams, usually based on the 100-year flood level,
effectively providing undisturbed buffers. In addition, the alteration of water-
courses is not.allowed if it will increase the chances of flooding.
Municipal and County General Ordinance -Making Power. In addition to the specific
powers, municipalities and counties in North Carolina have general ordinance -
making powers (GS 160A-174; 153A-121), but if ordinances adopted under those
powers resemble those under specific powers, provisions of the specific powers may
govern.
Extent of Use. The extent to which local governments have used their specific
powers for regulating land use has been summarized by the Division of Community
Assistance, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment (1985). Among the state's 100 counties, 78% have a land -use plan, 45% have
zoning and 52% utilize subdivision regulation to guide development. This inventory
also revealed that 18% of the counties have their own S & E control ordinances, 37%
contain mobile home provisions, and 81% of the counties participate in the flood
control program. Of North Carolina's 495 cities surveyed, 328 (66%) have developed
59

land -use plans, 349 (71%) have zoning and 232 (47%) contain subdivision regula-
tions. In addition, 69 (14%) have established mobile home ordinances, 37 (8%)
adopt a S & E ordinance and 244 (47%) participate in the flood control program.
This survey indicates that approximately 1/2 of the state's counties have
zoning and subdivision regulations. In the cities the use of zoning seems to be
more popular than subdivision regulations. Cities have a lower participation rate
in adopting mobile home, S & E, and flood control regulations. Currently, most
water supplies are in rural areas under county jurisdiction, but as cities continue
to expand due to increased development, this will change. Cities are gaining
control over development decisions within the states, water supply watersheds, and
it will become increasingly important that these towns ensure proper development.
Eight counties have adopted specific watershed protection regulations, and two
additional counties (Wilkes, Transylvania) are in the process of establishing'
protection regulations (Holman, 1987). Eleven cities have, or are in the process
of adopting watershed provisions. The participating towns and counties are
presented in Table 12.
Tabl e 12.
North Carolina Communities Actively Participating
in the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program
COUNTY
CITY/TOWN
WAKE
RALEIGH
DURHAM
DURHAM
ORANGE
CREEDMOOR
FRANKLIN
ZEBULON
ALAMANCE
CARY
GU ILFORD
GARNER
RANDOLPH
WAKE FOREST
*WILKES
*MEBANE
*CHATHAM
CARRBORO`
*TRANSYLVANIA
ROLESVILLE
*Governments currently in the process of devising a
protection program
**July 1987
.0

Other Methods
Activities of these and other communities need not be limited to regulatory
actions, however. Among the other options are the acquisition of some portion of
the property rights in'the watershed, the creation of financial incentives to
encourage the adoption of improved management practices, and public education.
The practice of acquiring all of the lands in a watershed, once common in New
England, is financially feasible and advisable in only a few instances, but
acquisition of all rights for some lands and partial rights for others might be
appropriate in many instances. In fact, it is quite common for jurisdictions to
make fee simple purchases of lands adjacent to reservoirs to protect them from
shoreline developments and unauthorized access.
Less -than -fee simple acquisition techniques have not been widely used in North
Carolina to protect public water supplies. One particular form, negative ease-
ments, probably deserve more attention than they have gotten. A negative easement,
like all easements, conveys some specific right or rights to a second party while
the title and ownership of all rights are retained by the first party. Negative
easements prevent certain types of uses of privately owned land that would other-
wise be permitted.
Negative easements could be thought of as one form of financial incentive for
watershed management because the landowner would receive compensation for not using
the land in ways that would be detrimental to a, water supply. Simpler forms of
financial incentives are also available, the most pertinent example being North
Carolina's Agricultural Cost Share Program for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.
This program provides farmers with up to 75 percent of the cost of installing
conservation facilities that reduce the flow of pollutants from nonpoint sources
into water bodies. The program was begun in 1985 to provide assistance to farmers
in 16 counties that were affected by the reclassification of streams to a "nutri-
ent -sensitive" category. That program has now been extended to include the coastal
counties and 16 counties in western North Carolina; it now covers approximately
one-half of the State's counties. Annual appropriations;.in 1987 reached a level of
$5.4 million for grants and $825,000 for technical assistance. One water supplier,
the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), has chosen to supplement that program
for farms that are located within the two watersheds from which OWASA draws its
supply.
61

NORTH CAROLINA'S STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS AND
WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION GUIDELINES
Recent changes have also been made in the state regulatory program for water
pollution control to encourage watershed protection. Protection of public drinking
water supplies has always been a basic tenet for North Carolina's water pollution
control program, but until recently that program was limited to point source
controls. For the first half of the twentieth century it was the only statutory
justification for pollution control. In 1951 the state adopted a stream classifi-
cation system that assigned each segment of every stream to one of several classes
according to the "best and highest" use that segment was anticipated to be put.
Under that system all surface water supplies were classified as either "A -I" or
"A -II." The A -I category was reserved for those supplies collected from highly
protected watersheds (such as national forests) for which the only treatment
necessary was chlorination. Only a very small number of supplies fit that cate-
gory, and all other surface water supplies were classified A -II.
In the early 1980's, however, an extended public debate over a new water
supply for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (serving Chapel Hill and Carrboro)
led to the observation that the A -II category did not draw proper distinction among
water supplies that were subject to different levels of protection. One alterna-
tive, B. Everett Jordan Lake, whose tributaries receive the effluents from numerous
major municipal and industrial waste treatment facilities, fell into thesame
category as the proposed Cane Creek Reservoir into which no domestic or industrial
wastes were discharged. That debate, coupled with concerns about protection of
Jordan Lake and the Falls of the Neuse Reservoir, led the Environmental Management
Commission to revise the classification system in 1986. The revisions establish
three levels of public water supplies; WS-I, WS-II, and WS-III. Class WS-I
watersheds have no point sources; WS-II watersheds allow only domestic and approved
non -process (cooling) water discharges. All others automatically fall into WS-III.
The most innovative part of this process, however, is the added requirement
that before any streams are classified WS-I or WS-II, local governments (counties
and municipalities) must adopt protection programs for their watersheds to protect
the supplies from contamination arising from nonpoint sources. All.but the
pristine (previously classed A -I) waters were delegated to WS-III waters. If a
water supply is eligible to receive a more protective WS-I or WS-II classification,
M

the governing bodies affecting lands that drain to that supply must request a
reclassification and develop and adopt an approved watershed protection program.
Guidelines. To provide guidance and consistency in the program, the NC Division of
Environmental Management developed a set of guidelines for watershed protection.
These guidelines call for one set of regulations to apply to the entire watershed
and another set to apply to a "critical area" near impoundments on intakes.
Development guidelines for entire watersheds include:
(1) control of the first 1/2 inch runoff where any new development has a
density greater than 12% impervious surface (40,000 sq. ft. per dwell-
ing);
(2) reservation of a 50-foot minimum undisturbed vegetative buffer along both
sides of all perennial. tributaries; and.
(3) an inventory of hazardous materials used and stored.
The critical area includes an area adjacent to the reservoir or water intake
location, and.extends one mile from the reservoir's pool elevation or intake point
(1/2 mile if watershed is less than 100 square miles). Recommended guidelines
include:
(1) no sewer connections except to deal with specific problem areas;
(2) limit the number of small businesses;
(3) limit new development to 6% impervious coverage (80,000 sq. ft. or one
dwelling per 2 acres);
(4) reservation of a 100-foot minimum vegetative buffer around all
reservoirs, and around the critical area portion of streams or rivers
used as an intake; vegetative buffers should remain undisturbed and have
no permanent structures; and
(5) no industrial or commercial uses or their associated hazardous materials
use or storage.
The guidelines also specify that:
(1) Special Use Provisions may be allowed for new developments not complying
with the above requirements on a case -by -case basis, if special safe-
guards are in place to protect against contamination; and
(2) Development may exceed recommended impervious surface maximums (6% or
30%) as long as the first one inch of stormwater runoff is retained.
63

Existing and Proposed Programs
DEM has identified 157 public water supplies, mostly in the piedmont and
mountains, that are eligible for classifications as either WS-I or WS-II. Some of
those supplies extend over two or more political jurisdictions so that more than
one local program.is required to protect many of those supplies. As of August
1986, 30 local governments had inquired about the program. Of these, 18 have
either adopted necessary local protection measures or are in the process of doing
SO.
Table 13 contains a summary of the measures adopted by each of the local
programs for portions of the watersheds inside and outside of the critical areas.
Details of these -programs for all of the 18 local governments are given by Moubry
and Moreau (1987). Because most of the watersheds lie within county jurisdictions,
descriptions of the county programs are included here in the following paragraphs.
They include Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Guilford, Orange, Randolph, Wake,
and Wilkes Counties.
Alamance County. A watershed protection ordinance was passed by Alamance County in
May 1987. It affects lands in the watersheds of the Lake Cammack and Stony Creek
Reservoir, Cane Creek, Big Alamance Creek (which feeds into the proposed Lake
MacIntosh Reservoir), and Quaker and Back Creeks (which feed into the proposed
Graham/Mebane Reservoir). This ordinance establishes a Water Quality Critical Area
(WQCA), defined as the land located adjacent to the shoreline of a water supply
reservoir at normal pool level, extending to the shorter of a mile from normal pool
level or the watershed ridge line. Industry is prohibited in the WQCA. Other uses
(office, institutional, etc.) are limited to a 3,000 square foot floor area and 6%
impervious surface area. Bona fide farms are exempt. The Board of Adjustment may'
consider granting a variance if a site plan contains a maximum of 6% impervious
coverage or retains/detains the first 1/2 inch of stormwater runoff falling on the
property.
In the outlying watershed area, control is limited to the establishment of 50
ft. stream buffers. There are no impervious surface standards, stormwater runoff
containment, or hazardous materials requirements outside the WQCA.
64

TABLE 13.
TECHNIQUES FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN SELECTED COUNTIES
IN NORTH CAROLINA
Controls
Applic-
able to
Other
Controls Applicable
to
Critical
Watershed
Areas
Areas
Storage/Use
of
Defini-
Hazardous
Storm-
tion
Buffers
Development
Materials
water
N
N
b
47
N
GJ
r r-•
N,C
r cd
U
L
U
N
L
y
.a
y
rC
r
17
(d
N
td =
\
O
T
E0
EC
rM
•N
•0
=
bm
U
i
U
L r
Q
U
4-30
CL
r
-0(0
N
G
+-)E
4-3 >
+-)
d
S.
+)
S_
+•)
0 to
(d
E S.
M+3
C
= i
\
Cn
4- (d
4- S-
0 Ln
4-3r
a)N
a)
-
H •r-
S- r+
\
(0 a)=
04-
a)NO
1 E
I E
NO
Q.d
3
0
"
O'
OL
0
ON
•r M
�d
•rr
End
E
E
_
E
E
= U
•U d
4-3
C aQ
=
in
5-4-
N>
County/Comm.
.-14-
�4-
Od
zvl
3Q
O+)
�cn
CD
r,�
CL
�a
rE
��
00
z�
OC
00
OC t1
zr cn
O N
+3_
VIM
CO
Franklin
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Alanance
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Wake Co.
x
x
x
x* *x
x
x
Wake Forest
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Zebulon
x
x
x
z
x
x
x x
x* *x
x
x
Rolesville
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
x* *x
x
x
Garner
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
Raleigh
x
x
x
n/a
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
Cary
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Durham Co.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
Durham City
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
Orange Co.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
Carrboro
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Guilford Co.
x
x
Randolph Co.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Wilkes Co.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
Creed oor
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
x
Chatham Co
x
*x
*x
x
x* *x
*x
KEY: DU = dwelling unit
SWR= storm water runoff
ISA= impervious surface area
Sewerage provision may be written or informal policy
x* *x: indicates that the first 1/2 inch must be retained.if ISA>12%
*indicates proposed program or standard
Haz Mat'l = hazardous materials
65

Chatham County. Although the Chatham County regulations adopted in 1987 do not
constitute a comprehensive watershed management program, they do contain some'of
the basic elements. These regulations affect development along many streams
throughout the county, and they contain special provisions for certain types of
developments near Jordan Lake.
The regulations contain requirements that buffers be established along the Deep
River, Cape Fear River, Rocky River, Haw River,.New Hope River, and B. Everett
Jordan Lake (July 1987). One hundred -foot buffers are required along Deep River,
Cape Fear River, Rocky River, Haw River and New Hope River, and B. Everett Jordan
Lake. A 100-foot buffer must also be placed along all continuously flowing and
intermittent streams for a distance of 2,500 feet upstream of their confluence with
the river into which they discharge. .Buffers of 50 ft. are required along streams
beyond the 2,500 foot distance. In both cases, the distance may be decreased if a
developer demonstrates that a smaller area will be sufficient for water protection
and aesthetics.
Special provisions apply to bait and tackle shops (BATS) and industries that
locate within a half mile of the Corps of Engineers property along Jordan Lake.
BATS must be located on at least a one acre lot, cannot exceed 6% impervious
surfaces, and must contain the first 1/2 inch of stormwater runoff from impervious
surfaces. Manufacturing, warehousing, processing, and related uses must obtain
Limited Industrial Conditional Use Permits. To qualify the minimum lot size is 2
acres, impervious surface areas may not exceed 6%, and the first 1/2 inch of
rainfall must be contained on -site. There.can be no discharge of water and any
hazardous materials or wastes must be disclosed for consideration in the permit
review process. For all development in the county's jurisdiction, if the -mount of
paved surfaces exceeds 4% of the site area, then the first 1/2 inch of stormwater
must be contained (Megginson, 1987).
Durham County. Durham County first adopted watershed protection measures in its
Zoning Ordinance in May 1985. This ordinance regulates.;the development of lands in
the Lake Michie, Lake Jordan, Little River, and Neuse River watersheds. The
Critical Watershed District, is an overlay district consisting of two parts, a
Water Quality Basin Area (WQBA) and a Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA).
The WQCA includes land adjacent to the shoreline of a reservoir at normal pool
level and extends to a point beyond either the ridge line of the reservoir water-.

,
shed or one mile from the shoreline of the reservoir, whichever is shorter.
Restrictions in the WQCA include 80,000 square foot lots and the prohibition of
industrial uses. Commercial activities are permitted but the use, storage, and
handling of hazardous materials is not (Suggs, 1987). Fuel storage tanks must be
kept above ground.
Stormwater runoff is controlled in the critical area through impervious surface
limitations or rainfall containment. For all developments the first 1/2 inch of
stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces must be retained or infiltrated.
Impervious surfaces may not exceed 6% of the total land area for a single develop-
ment. Roof areas may be excluded from impervious surface calculations for
residential developments if (a) roof runoff is directed across a vegetated surface
and (b) the first one inch of storm water runoff is infiltrated. Impervious
surface areas of 6-9% may be allowed through special permit. To receive a special
permit in the watershed districts, a site must contain unique features to safeguard
against stormwater contamination, including infiltration, retention, or detention
of the first one inch of runoff from impervious surfaces. Public sewer is allowed
in areas which drain into Class WS-II drinking water supplies, provided the system
uses gravity flow to direct sewage outside the WQCA and the first one inch of
runoff is retained or infiltrated. Public sewer is allowed in areas which do not
drain into Class WS-II water supplies. Street design standards do not require curb
and gutter installation.
Buffers of 100 feet are required for all perennial streams, and streams in
floodplains along both stream banks. This protection ordinance does not address
buffers along reservoirs in general, but the 100-foot stream buffer requirement was
applied to the Little River Reservoir. The Army Corps of Engineers bought for
public use an area greater than 100 feet around the Falls of the Neuse Lake. This
land includes wildlife areas used for hunting and fishing and a recreation area
that includes a boat ramp and marina.
In the Water Quality Basin Area (WQBA) there are no additional lot size
restrictions, commercial activities are allowed, and industry is prohibited in
areas which drain into Class WS-II segments of drinking water supply reservoirs.
Industries which use, store, distribute, or produce hazardous substances in excess
of stated threshold amounts must register the types and quantities of hazardous
substances used. No facilities may recycle or dispose of toxic or hazardous
wastes. Lots without public sewer require impervious surface areas of less than
67

15%, or 15-20% with special permit. If public sewer is provided, impervious
surface areas must be less than 30%, or with a special permit 30-40%. Buffers of
50 ft. must remain along perennial streams and along streams located in flood
plains. Privately owned discharging waste water treatment facilities must have the
approval of the Environmental Management Commission. Industrial pre-treatment is
allowed, and public sewer is to be encouraged where it is feasible.
Franklin County. Franklin County's watershed protection program was adopted in
January 1987 to protect the Tar River watershed. It relies on the incorporation of
control standards in its zoning ordinance. The county has designated two water
supply districts, R-40 and R-80. The R-40 district provides water quality protec-
tion in the drainage basin of water supply watersheds outside the critical area.
The minimum lot area is 40,000 square feet, and ground coverage by impervious
surfaces is limited to 25%. The R-80 district was established to provide protec-
tion in the water supply watershed critical area. Lots must be at least 80,000
square feet and have less than 12.5% impervious surface area.
In both watershed districts, vegetative buffers of 50 ft. are required along
both sides of perennial streams and on -site control of the first 1/2 inch of
stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces is required. Industrial uses are
permitted in the watersheds but the use, storage, and handling of hazardous
chemicals or toxic substances is prohibited.
Critical areas are not defined in the zoning ordinance, but they only include
R-80 districts in place around the watershed of -the Franklinton City Lake (Heutz,
1987). Other sources of drinking water do not have "critical area zoning." R-40
districts are scattered throughout the county. Watershed areas do not have access
to public water or sewage systems and must rely on septic tanks.
Franklin's program includes four suggested control techniques: (1) the contain-
ment of the first 1/2 inch of stormwater runoff; (2) a 50-foot minimum vegetative
buffers along perennial tributaries; (3) denial of permanent structures in buffer
areas; and (4) the prohibition of commercial activities.,:. The primary drawbacks to
this watershed protection program are the lack of a consistent definition of
critical areas and the lack of minimal standards in those areas. The critical area
does not prohibit industrial uses or public sewage systems, and impervious surface
areas may exceed 6%.

Guilford County. Guilford County regulates the development of land in .portions of
watersheds serving Burlington, Greensboro, and High Point. Its protection program
includes a Watershed Critical Area Protection District (WCA) and Watershed Manage-
ment Rating System (WMRS). In 1985 the county adopted a development rating system
to control the quality of development throughout their watershed areas. The WMRS
presents two options to developers: (a) retain the first 1/2 inch of runoff from
impervious surfaces and include 50 ft. buffers along perennial streams; or (b)
submit proposals for "rating." The rating system involves a checklist and point
system whereby developments must earn 100 points by meeting certain standards
including its land use zone, the percent of impervious surfaces, proximity to
floodways, soil type, drainage, slope, land cover, runoff control, sewage system,
and road design. Additional standards for critical working areas were adopted.in
April 1987.
The county's watershed critical area protection district (WCA) is an overlay
district, extending to the ridgeline of the reservoir basin, or in the case of
major streams feeding the reservoir, to the nearest identifiable feature which
crosses the stream which is at least 2,750 feet upstream of the reservoir. The
critical area generally extends to the shorter of the distance of one mile landward
or to the ridgeline (Jenkins, 1987).
The critical area is divided into 5 consecutive tiers, defined by their
distance from the normal pool elevation. The first tier is the shoreline buffer
area. Residential, commercial, and industrial uses are permitted in-the'WCA.
Permissible densities vary between 16,000 sq. ft. lots to 200,000 sq. ft. lots over
the 5 tiers depending on location and the type of sewage system used. Impervious
surfaces range from 2.5% to 30%; they also .depend on location and the type of
sewage system present.
For all developments the first 1/2 inch of stormwater runoff must be controlled
using one of the following methods: (a) on -site infiltration, (b) engineered
infiltration measures (retention ponds and trenches); (c) detention structures; or
(d) fee in lieu of construction where public retention structures are available.
All structural designs must be approved by the County Soil Scientist, and a
homeowner -association must be created to own and maintain runoff control struc-
tures. Impervious surfaces may be increased by 10% in existing commercial and
industrial areas if the owners control the first one inch of rainfall.
.•

� � J
Guilford County attempts to reduce the risk of chemical spills by prohibiting
certain uses within each tier. Fuel storage tanks and chemicals must be diked for
the containment of spills. Dikes must be of'a volume to contain 100% of the tank's
contents stored in the area and should have a leakage detention system. Under-
ground storage tanks must be approved by the planning board.
Extensive buffer area is provided in the WCA's "first tier." The first tier
consists of lands within 200 feet of the normal pool elevation and lands within 1/2
to one mile upstream of the water intake structures. It is -in public ownership and
remains undisturbed. Buffers are not provided along streams except where slopes
adjacent.and parallel to natural streams and drainageways are greater than 15%.
The county's_protection program contains provisions for preserving fragile
areas, decreasing runoff from streets, and minimizing land disturbance. Fragile
areas, including wetlands and flood plains, are protected by dedication or they may
be held by a homeowners association, in a natural and undisturbed state. Drainage
within developments is -provided by undisturbed open channels with specified
easements whose widths depend on the level of flow during a 100-year storm.
Clustering of development on the best soils and terrain of a site is encouraged.
To reduce land disturbance and stormwater runoff caused by street construction,
block sizes may be increased, curb and gutters may be eliminated, and roads must
cross natural areas or stream buffers at approximately a 90-degree angle. Erosion
control plans are required for nonagricultural -related land disturbing activities
if: (a) more than one acre of land is disturbed; (b) soils are highly erodible and
have a "k" factor greater than .36; (c) a pond or retention structure is installed;
or (d) development will take place in Tier 1 or Tier 2.
This ordinance contains many innovative techniques to provide surface water
protection. It has sizable buffer (Tier 1) around reservoirs and intake struc-
tures. Street design is flexible, and wetlands and floodplains are protected. On
the negative side, the tiered approach is complicated and can be confusing.
Furthermore, it permits development adjacent to reservoirs, and'it does not
regulate hazardous substances in all tiers of the critical areas.
Orange County. Provisions for watershed protection in Orange County were first
adopted in November 1984 as a part of zoning, subdivision, and sediment and erosion
control ordinances. This program establishes three di.stricts: Protected Watershed
II (PW-II), Protected Watershed I (PW-I), and a Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA).
70

Standards for these districts apply to zoned portions of University Lake, Cane
Creek, and the Upper Eno Watersheds. Bona fide farms are exempt.
The Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) is defined topographically. It is that
portion of the watershed which drains directly into an impoundment or into trunk
streams leading into an impoundment. With the exception of the critical area
definition and reservoir buffers, all of the state's suggested guidelines are met.
The width of buffers placed along streams and rivers is calculated as 50 ft. +
(slope x 4 x 100). Reservoir buffers are not addressed in the zoning ordinance.
The Soil and Erosion Control Ordinance of Orange County contains additional buffer
requirements which apply solely to the University Lake Watershed. Intermittent
streams flowing directly into University Lake and the area directly adjacent to the
lake must have a buffer width of 100 ft. + (slope x 4 x 100). New septic tanks and
their nitrification fields must be 300 feet from the edge of an impoundment or
perennial stream.
,The Protected Watershed II (PW-II) district includes all land outside the WQCA.
In this district, impervious surface areas must be less than 12%, if public sewer
is unavailable and up to 30% with public sewer. Buffers along tributaries are 50
ft. + (slope x 4 x 100) with a maximum limit of 150 feet. This area includes
Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural 1 (R1), Rural Buffer (RB) and PW-I zones.
Residential lot sizes range from 40,000-80,000 sq. ft. Commercial and industrial
uses require 80,000 and 200,000 sq. ft. lot sizes, respectively.
Light industrial uses are allowed in the PW-I district. This district provides
for limited industrial activities which do not use, produce, store, consume, or
discharge hazardous or toxic substances in quantities equal to or exceeding amounts
specified in EPA's "Hazardous Substances and Priority Pollutants."
Randolph County. In July 1987, Randolph County's program established protection
stan'dards for critical areas of watersheds. These standards apply to all municipal
water supply watersheds including Lucus Lake, Lake Bunch, Lake -Reese, Sandy Creek,
and the site for the future Randleman Lake. Density in the WQCAs is restricted to
one dwelling unit per 80,000 square feet, and all commercial, educational, recre-
ational, and institutional uses must have less than 3,000 square foot floor space
or a limit of 6% impervious surfaces. Commercial activities cannot distribute,
sell or store motor.fuels or hazardous materials, and industrial uses are prohibit-
ed. No new underground fuel or chemical storage tanks are allowed. Public sewage
71

is prohibited unless there is a public health problem. Buffers of 50 ft. are
required along all perennial streams in the watershed, and 100 foot buffers must be
maintained around water supply reservoirs. Density in the outlying watershed area
must be at least -one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet.
Variances may be granted if a site meets either of the following: (1) has less
than a 6% impervious surface area, or (2) retains, detains, or infiltrates the
first 1/2 inch of rainfall falling on the property. Bona fide farms are exempt
from this ordinance.
Randolph's program could be improved by prohibiting commercial activities in
their critical areas.
Wake County. Wake County has set aside R-40W and R-80W watershed districts with
development standards to protect surface water quality. Critical watershed areas
are zoned R-80W (80,000 sq. ft. lots) and the outlying areas are zoned R-40W
(40,000 sq. ft. lots). They are applied'as follows:
(1) Falls Lake Watershed has R-80W around the reservoir, and all land within
2,940 feet of the 100 year flood pool elevation. The remainder of the
watershed is R-40W.
(2) Jordan Lake Watershed is the same as that in Falls Lake.
(3) In the Swift Creek Watershed R-80W applies to lands within 1,200 feet of
Lakes Wheeler and Benson and all land within 600 feet of Swift Creek.
The remainder is R-40W, with the exception of areas zoned for commercial,
industrial, and mobile. home park uses.
(4) All of the Smith Creek Watershed that lies in Wake County is zoned R-80W.
Watershed restrictions were first adopted in March 1984, but they have since
been revised. Wake has requirements for Consolidated Open Space Developments and
Special Uses in their R-40W and R-80W districts. Impervious surfaces are limited
to 30%- and any developments with impervious surface areas above 12% must contain
the first 1/2 inch of rainfall. Means of control will include, in order of
preference: (a) on -,site infiltration; (b) retention; and (c) detention.
Post -construction maintenance of stormwater control measures and facilities lie
with the property owner or a homeowners association as appropriate. All buildings
in these districts must be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the edge of any
undisturbed stream buffer or natural drainage area buffer. Drainage buffers of 50
72

feet are required along both sides of streams. Buffers along upper watershed
drainageways (defined as a watercourse, channel ditch or similar physiographic
feature draining less than 25 acres) must be at least 25 feet.
Wake County's program does not address issues such as commercial and indus-
trial development, the treatment of hazardous wastes, and their watershed sewer
policy. Permanent structures such as docks, boat ramps, and piers are allowed in
their vegetative buffers.
Wilkes County and.the Town of North Wilkesboro. Wilkes County and the Town of
North Wilkesboro are in the process of creating a joint watershed protection
program for the Reddies River. The proposed program includes development standards
in an R-80W district in the WQCA, and R-40W district in the remaining part of their
watershed areas. North Wilkesboro draws their water supply from the Reddies River.
Their-WQCA includes all lands adjacent to this river upstream from the water
intake, -and includes land from the high water mark to the ridge line or one mile
point, whichever is smaller. In this area, density is restricted to one dwelling
unit per 80,000 sq. ft. Industrial uses are prohibited and commercial uses must
include less than 3,000 sq. ft. of floor space. Impervious surfaces are limited to
6%, unless the first 1/2 inch rainfall from impervious surfaces is contained
on -site. All roads must follow the contours of the site, cross streams at a
minimum of a 60 degree angle, and the first 1/2 inch of runoff from roads must be
retained.
In the R-40 district, limited commercial and industrial uses are allowed,
provided: (a) they do not use, handle, or store hazardous materials; (b) there is
no land -application of industrial waste; and (c) pre-treatment of wastewater is not
required. Density is limited to 1 dwelling unit per 40,000 sq. ft., and ISAs must
be less than 12%.
Throughout the entire watershed district, facilities are prohibited which
handle, store, or dispose of toxic or hazardous waste as listed on the EPA hazard-
ous materials list or determined by the governing body. Underground storage of
gasoline is allowed as an accessory use if tanks are incased in a watertight vault.
Buffers are required along the Reddies River and streams. A 200 ft. buffer must be
maintained along the Reddies River, and the required stream buffer width is
calculated as 50 ft. + (% slope x 4). Buildings must be set back a minimum of 20
73

ft. from all buffers. Only septic tank systems are allowed for waste disposal in
the watershed areas.
The proposed regulations appear to meet state guidelines for water quality
protection in the Reddies River watershed. This ordinance is simple and easy to
interpret.
74

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings from both the broad scale investigations of the status of water
supply protection in 24 counties in western North Carolina in Chapter II and the
more detailed analysis of the Pigeon River watershed upstream of Canton in Chapter
III lead to several conclusions about the need for additional protection. The
review of other watershed protection programs in Chapter IV, with the findings from
Chapters II and III as background, lead to recommendations for action at both the
State and local levels. The purpose of this chapter is to present those conclu-
sions and recommendations. Special attention is given to recommendations for the
Pigeon River watershed upstream of Canton.
CONCLUSIONS
The data and analyses presented in Chapters II and III could lead to a number
of possible conclusions, but only a few are especially relevant to the discussion
of the present status of watershed protection in western North Carolina and the
need for improvements. The first should be comforting to those who are concerned
about the present conditions of their public water supplies. There is little
evidence either in this report or in other documents reviewed by the project staff
during the course of this study to suggest that water suRp ties i_n the region are
subject to such wi-d-e-spread degradation of sufficient magnitude so as_to constitute
an imminent threat to publid health. Despite the minimal extent to which state and
local governments have adopted -regulatory measures, good judgments about selections
of locations for public water supplies have avoided the need for extensive controls
to date. By choosing sites in areas that were not subject -to intense urban
developments, nearly 90 percent of.the sources of drinking water in the region
could qualify for either a WS-I or a WS-II classification. However, some supplies
in the region do face possible contamination from upstream municipalities and
industries, and more careful monitoring of upstream activities and contamination
should be undertaken to maintain surveillance over the quality of those supplies.
The second conclusion is less comforting. Very few of the counties have
adopted growth management strategies that will be effective in mitigating the
adverse effects of upstream urban, industrial, and agricultural activities. Growth
75

is occurring in the region; some counties are experiencing very high rates of
growth. Even in some counties that are experiencing moderate growth, such as
Haywood, that growth is tending to concentrate in public water supply watersheds.
Third, -very little attention has been given to monitoring for the presence of
synthetic organic chemicals from agricultural and industrial activities. A wide
variety of pesticides and herbicides are being applied to agricultural and silvi-
cultural, operations in the watersheds, but there is virtually no program in place
to systematically identify which substances are being used, to report on the
quantities of these substances that are being applied to fields and forests, or to
monitor for the presence of these substances in streams and lakes that are used for
drinking water.
A fourth conclusion is that the impact of urban and agricultural activities in
the watersheds of western North Carolina is magnified by their relatively close
proximity to feeder streams. The mountainous terrain tends to confine these
activities to the flood plains and terraces of stream valleys where surface runoff
and seepage from subsurface disposal of wastes travel only short distances before
reaching the streams.
A fifth and final conclusion relates to the speed with which local growth'
management measures are adopted. Strictly voluntary regulations, includi.ng zoning,
subdivision regulations, and sediment and erosion control ordinances, are not
readily adopted by local governments in.the region. By contrast, regulations to
which financial incentives have been attached have been widely accepted over
relatively short periods of time. Most notable among them are flood plain regula-
tions and agricultural cost sharing programs.
A similar conclusion was reached in a recent assessment of the local govern-
ment role in nonpoint source pollution control in Virginia (Cox and Herson,
November 1987). After reviewing programs in 18 counties and municipalities in
Virginia, the authors.stated that at one end of the spectrum
.some localities take the minimum action necessary to
comply. Where a power is discretionary, as in the case of
zoning, it is unlikely to.be exercised. When a program is
mandatory,. . .it may consist largely of administrative
formalities with little effective enforcement. . ." (p: 72).
"Funding is a primary factor in local program effectiveness.
Limited resources in many localities jeopardize effective
implementation. While willingness and ability to fund.local
programs may be difficult to distinguish in some cases, funding
should not be overlooked as a potential problem." (p. 79).
►P.

RECOMMENDATIONS
These conclusions lead the project staff to make several recommendations.to
address the shortcomings documented in this study. These recommendations are
addressed to two different audiences: state government and Haywood County in
particular. They are discussed in that order.
State Government
The most significant step that state government could take to enhance water-
shed protection is to create -financial incentives for which local governments would'
qualify if they adopt appropriate measures. Two popular forms of financial
assistance, already in place, could be used for that purpose; namely, state grants
and subsidized loans for water and sewer facilities and the agricultural cost
sharing program. State government should give serious consideration to adoption of
criteria that requires local governments to -enact appropriate regulations for ti
watershed protection before they qualify for agricultural cost sharing and finan-
cial assistance for water supply facilities. Adoption of sedimentation and erosion
control ordinances, regulations to manage surface runoff, and measures to reduce
the risk of contamination from hazardous chemicals should be given high priority.
The second recommendation is that the Environmental Management Commission
should remedy the inherent weakness in the present WS-II classification. Provi-
sions should be added to place some form of limit on the number or volume of
qualifying wastes that can be discharged into streams of that classification.
Those limits should reflect the special concerns about public health associated
with consumption of those waters.
The third recommendation is that -state government should improve information
about agricultural and industrial chemicals that are used in significant quantities
in water supply watersheds. The lack of information on the use of herbicides and
pesticides should be remedied. One step would be the creation of a reporting
system for the quantities of these substances that are sold to retailers in each
county. Another positive step would be to require industries and others who 'store
or process significant quantities of hazardous chemicals that enter waste streams
above public water supplies to disclose the use of those substances to managers'of
77

those supplies. Currently available analytical methods, such as those used.on the
samples taken in the Pigeon River watershed, are inefficient and very costly.f or
identifying the presence of unknown synthetic organic chemicals.
The fourth step that should be taken by state government is to revise regu-
lations for monitoring public water supplies that are taken from surface sources.
These regulations should be revised to include a periodic assessment by water
suppliers of potential sources of contamination that may exist within the water-
sheds from which they extract their supplies as well as monitoring of the quality
of water at its points of consumption.
The fifth and final recommendation for State action is to enhance understanding
among the public and professional planners and engineers of the physical, chemical,
and biological processes that threaten the quality of drinking water supplies and
of the costs, of protecting them. Public support, so vital to the success of these
programs, can be sustained only if credible information about these processes and
the cost-effectiveness of management programs is made more readily available to
citizens and their elected officials. Some of these processes are well understood
by the planners and engineers whose expertise is required to formulate and evaluate
management programs. For example, watershed hydrology is reasonably well known and
predictable. On the other hand, some aspects of these processes are not well
understood, particularly the transport and chemical and biochemical reactions that
affect the fate, of synthetic organic chemicals and their effects upon public
health. Furthermore, there is little information about the costs on those who own,
use, or develop land that is affected by management programs.
Haywood County
Good public health policy recognizes the fact that not all of the threats and
their scientific details are completely understood. Protection against the unknown
and against unpredictable events is a key factor in formulating health policy, and
the evidence about what is known is sufficient to warrant the adoption of
reasonable steps to protect the quality of drinking water:in Haywood County. The
recommendations which follow recognize the fact that Haywood County does not now
have zoning, subdivision regulations, erosion control ordinance; or flood plain
regulations. The only controls that would affect development in the Pigeon River
watershed and the other watersheds_in the county are minimal statewide regulations
and the Pre -Development Ordinance which provides for county review of plans.
78

There are several modest steps that the county and the Town of Canton should
take to enhance protection of the watershed of the Pigeon River upstream of Canton,
steps that would not impose excessive costs on its residents. First, the County
should initiate the process of reclassifying streams in the watershed from WS-III
to higher levels. The actions necessary to satisfy requirements for adequate local
controls on nonpoint sources must be determined by the Environmental Management
Commission in consultation with the staff of the Division of Environmental Manage-
ment (DEM) of the NCDNRCD.
In concert with that activity, the Town of Canton and Haywood County should
initiate the preparation of a watershed protection plan and related policies.
Policies must be enacted to satisfy the guidelines for a WS-I or WS-II classifica-
tion, but the plan should go beyond State guidelines. At a minimum, it should
include the following elements:
(1) delineation of water quality critical areas;
(2) development of a water and sewer extension policy for the watershed;
(3) formulation of development ordinances for the water quality critical
areas and remaining positions of the watershed, including:
(a) specification of limits on densities of development;
(b) specification of standards for the management of stormwater
runoff; and
(c) specification of waste disposal practices.
(4) identification of priority areas and techniques for the installation of
Best Management Practices through the Agricultural Cost Sharing and other
soil and water management programs; and
(5) development of regulations regarding the storage of hazardous substances
in the watershed.
Guidelines prepared by DEM and the programs adopted by other counties,
portions of which are discussed in Chapter IV, should provide useful guidance for
some'of the elements listed above. The policies necessary -to implement the plan
could be incorporated into one or more of several ordinances for which all counties
in the State have enabling legislation. The most direct route is probably through a
watershed protection ordinance that could be developed specifically for and
applicable to the Pigeon River watershed upstream of the Canton water supply
intake. Details of a proposed ordinance could be constructed with the assistance
of DEM, the Institute of Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel
79

Hill, and others. Examples of the provisions of these ordinances are also dis-
cussed in Chapter IV.
The Town of Canton in cooperation with Haywood County should enhance its
program for monitoring the quality of its water supply. That program should
include several elements. The Town should maintain an up-to-date information
system on the characteristics of the watershed and activities that are occurring in
it. That information should be used to periodically assess the status of possible
sources of contamination in -the watershed, say every three years. Information in
that assessment should include: (a) the location and status of septic tanks and
underground storage tanks; (b) an inventory of pesticides and herbicides with
estimates of the quantities used; and (c) monitoring reports on point source
discharges. That assessment should also be used to guide the selection of param-
eters -to be measured in samples of water taken at the point of consumption.
Haywood County, through its Soil and Water Conservation District, should take
an active role in promoting participation in the Agricultural Cost Sharing Program.
Priority should be given to the installation of best management practices in water
supply watersheds.
Finally, local officials should prepare and implement a program of public.
education on the nature of threats to public water supplies in the county and what
steps are needed to reduce those threats. Although it is listed last in this
discussion, it may be necessary to make this the first step toward implementation
of more effective protection of these resources which are so vital to the continued
health and prosperity of the current and future residents of Canton and Haywood
County.
M

APPENDIX A.
Surface Water Supplies in
Western North Carolina
Potential
Drainage
classi-
area,
County
Supplier
fication
Sources
sq. mi.
Buncombe
Asheville (2)
WS-I(A-I)
N. Fo.rk Swannonoa-
21.90
Burnett Res.
WS-I(A-I)
Beetree Cr.-
7.60
Beetree Res.
Biltmore Est.
WS-I
Busbee Lake -
0.90
(Asheville)
Sweeten Cr.
Black Mountain
WS-I(A-I)
Dunsmore Cr.
0.60
Re-s. (Emg. )2
Montreat
WS-I(A-I)
Flat Cr. (Emg)2
1.00
Ridgecrest
WS-I(A-I)
L. Rattle-
0.50
Baptist Center
snake Br. (Sec.)1
(Ridgecrest)
Weaverville (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Ox. Cr.
0.40
WS-I(A-I)
Eller Cove
0.50
Woodfin (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Laurel Fork
1.20
(Asheville)
WS-I(A-I)
Sugar Camp Fork
1.70
Burke
Morganton (3)
WS-I(A-I)
Henry Fork
4.50
WS-I
Warrier Fork
84.00
WS-III
Catawba R.
510.00
Valdese
WS-III
Catawba R. -
1;090.00
Lake Rhodhiss
Caldwell
Granite Falls
WS-III
Catawba R. -
1,090.00-
Lake Rhodhiss
Lenoir
WS-III
Catawba R. -
1,090.00
Lake Rhodhiss
Cherokee
Andrews (2)
WS-I
Beaver Cr.
1.70
WS-I
Dan Holland Cr.
1.50
Murphy (3)
WS-I(A-I)
Marble Cr.
0.90
WS-I(A-I)
Brittian Cr.
0.40
WS-III
Hiwassee R.-
420.00
Graham
Fontana Village
WS-III
L. Tenn. R. -
1,571.00
(Fed. Govt.)
Fontana Lake
Robbinsville (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Burgan Cr.
0.30
WS-I(A-I)
Rock Cr.
0.80
Tapoco, Inc.
WS-I(A-I)
Yellow Hammer Br. -
1.30
(Tapoco)
Trib. of Cheo.ah R.
AN

Haywood
Canton (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Rough Cr.
1.30
WS-II
Pigeon R.
133.00
Maggie Valley
WS-I
Campbells Cr.
5.30
Waynesville (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Allen Cr.
13.00
WS-I(A-I)
Rocky Br.
1.30
Henderson
Hendersonville
WS-I(A-I)
N. Fork Mills River
11.70
(3)
WS-I(A-I)
Bradley Cr.
8.80
WS-II
Mills R.
71.10
J.P. Stevens
WS-I(A-I)
#1 UT Lake Summit
0.29
(Tuxedo)
Camp Mondamin
WS-I(A-I)
#2 UT Lake Summit
0.60
(Tuxedo)
Jackson
Sapphire
WS-I
Nix Cr. (Emg.)2
1.00
Sylva (3)
WS-I(A-I)
Fisher Cr. (2 intake)
1.60
WS-I(A-I)
Dills Cr.
0.90
West Carolina
WS-II
Tuckaseegee R.
207.00
Univ.(Cullowhee)
Macon
Franklin
WS-II
Cartoogechaye Cr.
44.50
Highlands (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Houston Br. (Sec.)1
0.20
WS-II
Big Cr.
4.90
Madison
Hot Springs
WS-I(A-I)
Cascade Br.
1.10
Mars Hill
WS-I(A-I)
Big Laurel Cr.
1.00
(North Fork)
Mitchell
Spruce Pine (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Beaver Cr.
2.20
WS-I(A-I)
Graveyard Cr.
0.70
Polk
Columbus
WS-I
UT of Horse Cr.
0.80
Tryon (7)
WS-I
Big Falls Cr.
1.60
WS-I
Colt Cr.
2.70
WS-I
Little Falls Cr.
0.50
WS-I
Vaughn Cr. (3-intakes)
0.60
WS-I
Fork Cr.
2.20
Rutherford
Cone Mills
WS-III
Second Broad River
220.00
(Cliffside)
,
Forest City
WS-I?
Second Broad River
92.00
Rutherfordton/
WS-III
Broad,,River
261.40
Spindale
Surry
Dobson
WS-II
Fisher River
70.00
Elkins
WS-II
Big Elkins Cr.
34.50
Mount Airy (2)
WS-II
Stewarts Cr.
66.45
WS-II
Lovills Cr.
33.05
Pilot Mountain
WS-I
Toms Cr.
29.20
:.

Swain
Bryson City
WS-I(A-I)
Lands Cr.
2.50
Transylvania
Brevard
WS-I
Catheys Cr.
11.40
Watauga
Appalachian
WS-I
Howards Cr.
0.33
State Univ.
(Boone)
Beech Mt. (3)
WS-I
Pond Cr. (2 intake)
1.00
(Banner Elk)
WS-I
Buckeye Cr.
2.80
Blowing Rock
WS-I
Brick House Cr.
0.55
(Flat Top Br.)
Boone (2)
WS-I(A-I)
Winklers Cr.
0.80
WS-I
S. Fork New R. (Emg)2
5.73
Wilkes
N. Wilkesboro
WS-I?
Reddies River
95.00
Wilkesboro
WS-III
Yadkin River
370.00
Yadkin
Jonesville
WS-III
Yadkin River
832.50
Yadkinville
WS-II
S. Deep Cr.
53.30
Yancey
Burnsville (2)
WS-I
Bowlen Cr.
1.90
WS-I
UT Bowlen Cr.
1.20
1..(Sec.) - indicates a secondary water supply source
2. (Emg.) - indicates an emergency water supply source
3. Extraction source that has more than one intake - latitude and
longitude are for the downstream intake while the upstream intake
can be from 100 feet to 10 miles upstream.of this location.
MK

•4uaoaad OL of 9 aap sadoLS •suLP4unoW UPLy
-opLpddy uaay,4noS ayl jo sado Ls apLs pup sa6pLa daa-Is RaaA 04 6uLdoIs
uo s L Lo.s pau Lpap L Lam Jo s4s Lsuoo sa Laas a L L LnkauP3 ayl : uo L;d Laosaa
RuO4s `swpoL kLLanpa6 ;nugsa40-9LLLnX0uP3
a Lqp L Lpnp 4oN : uo L4p4a60A pup asa
a Lqp L Lpnp -;ON : X; L L Lgpawaad pup a6pu Lpap
•�uaoaad
9 o,4 0 woaj.sa6upa ado Ls pups kLggoo kLawaa4xa pup kLLanpa6 RLawaa-;xa
uMoaq ys'LMo L Lak Sapp - s L say'0u L 39 Jo y;dap p o; Lp Laa-.pw 6u LkLaaPun
ayl • 10 Lys sayou L TT Lupo L kpups au LJ kL Lanpa6 unnoaq ys Lkpa6 Sapp kaan
s L aa�'p L aopjans ay4 RL Lpo Ldkl •sa Lggoo pup sa Lggad Jo ;ua4uo3 y6 Ly
p anpy 4p44 sLpLaa4pw o-4 MoLLpys sL LLos ayl •suLpqunoW UpLyopLpddy
uaag4noS ay4 u L su Lp Ld poo LJ uo s L Los a Lgpawaad kLp Ldua `Pau Lpap
kLan Lssaoxa 4PgM9wos JO s4s Lsuoo sa Laas PooM L LaO ayl : uo L;d L.aosaa
PaPooLJ klLPUOLsp000 `%£'0 `Pups RWPOL kLggoo pooMLLaO
•au A
p Lu L6a LA ,pup `ap Ldod Mo L LBR `Xao�o Ly awos 41 LM `pooM6op pup s jpo kq
p941Pu Lwop `spooMpapy paxLw Jo s4s Lsuoo uo L4P4a6an Lpanq.pN • sa LgP4a6an
pup ' `sa Laaaq `spapyoao yopad pup a Lddp `RP4 `u Lpa6 L Lpws `uaoo apn Lou L
sdoa0 •aan;spd pup sdoao p04pn.L4Lno 6uLMoa6 ao� pasn s� a6paaop
ayj. jo awos •Pa4s9aoJ aap sLLos asa41 Jo 4soW :uoL'4p4a6aA pup asa
-RZ Lj Lgpawaad azpaapow
_4ouna aop jans p Ldpa off. Mo Ls `.pau Lpap L LaM1 : R4 L L Lgpawaad pup a6pu Lpap
•�uaoaad Sti
o; 0 woaj a6upa sadoLS •suPJ LPLnnLLoo pup `sadoLs4OOJ `saopaaaZ y6Ly
uo aap 494l • slooa au L L LpgsRao jo aan;x Lw p woa j kL4upu Lwop pan Laap
wn Lnn L Loo ao wn Lnn L Lp u L pawaoJ 9941 • s L Los a Lgpawaad RI a�.paapow
PUP `pau Lpap LLaM `daap Jo s4sLsuoo saLaas Ioopppag ayl :uoL;dLaosaa
Papoaa `wpoL RPLo �oopppa8
NO1NVO 30 WVHlSdn 03HMAM �HH N039I d 3H1 30 SIIOS
'S XI0N3ddd

Drainage and Permeability: Well drained; medium to rapid runoff;
medium internal rainage; moderate permeability.
Use and Vegetation: More than one-half of the soil is in forest type
of white oak, ack oak, and northern red oak, hickory, maple, elm,
poplar, locust, sourwood, and -some white pine and hemlock are associa-
ted with this forest type. The undergrowth is laurel, dogwood, and
rhododendron. Cleared areas are used for pasture, corn, small grain,
hay, some fruit trees, burley tobacco, and vegetables.
Evard-Cowee gravelly loam
Description: The Evard series consists of deep, well drained, moder-
ately permeable soils that formed in residuum from granite, gneiss, or
schist. Slopes range from 2 to 80 percent.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained, surface runoff is rapid;
permeability is moderate.
Use and Vegetation: Forested to oak, hickory, white pine, and short -
ea pine.
Hayesville clay loam, -eroded
Description: The Hayesville series consists of well drained soils on
gentle s oping to very steep ridges and side slopes of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. They formed in residuum weathered from granite,
gneiss and schists. Slopes are 2 to 50 percent.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained; medium to rapid runoff;
medium internal rainage; moderate permeability.
Use'and Vegetation: About one-half of the acres of this soil is in
cultivation, the remainder is in forest of yellow -poplar, eastern white
pine, northern red oak, pitch pine, shortleaf pine and Virginia pine.
The understory is flowering dogwood, rhododendron, mountain laurel and
sourwood. Cleared areas are used for cultivated crops such as corn,
small grain, pasture, hayland, burley tobacco, vegetable crops and
Christmas trees.
Plott loam, stony
Description: The Plott series consists of well drained soils on
sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes of the Southern Appalac-
hian Mountains. Slopes are 6 to 70 percent.

') 1
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained. Runoff is slow under forest
cover and internal rainage is medium. Permeability is moderately
rapid.
Use and Vegetation: Most areas are in forest consisting of a dominant
forest type of northern red oak with hi.ckory, sugar maple, yellow -pop-
lar, black locust, hemlock, and eastern white pine as associated. On
dry sites or the higher elevations, upland oaks, hickory, b'lackgum, red
maple, yellow birch, black birch, and pitch pine are associated.
Flowering dogwood, mountain laurel, and rhododendron are the dominant
understory species. Approximately 20 percent of the soil is cleared
and used for pasture, hay, corn, truck crops, and burley tobacco.
Rosman, sandy loam, 0.3%, occasionally flooded
Description: The Rosman series consists of well drained soils that
formed in oamy alluvium on flood plains of mountain valleys. Slopes
range from 0 to 3 percent.
Drainage and Permeability: Well to moderately well drained; slow
runo ; moderate internal drainage; moderately rapid permeability.
These soils are subject to occasional to frequent overflow.
Use and Vegetation: Most of the acreage is cleared and in cultivation.
e chief crops are corn, truck crops, hay, and pasture grasses. The
remainder is in mixed hardwood and white pine.
Saunook loam
Description: The Saunook series co.nsists of well drained soils formed
in oamy a luvium and colluvium in coves, on benches, fans and toe
slopes in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Slope range from 2 to 30
percent.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained, medium runoff, and medium
internal rainage; mo erate permeability.
Use and Vegetation:, More than 75 percent is cleared. Cleared areas
are used for orc ards, growing corn, tobacco, tomatoes, small grain,
truck crops, ornamentals and pasture. Also, many areas are used for
subdivision development. Woodland species include such species as
yellow -poplar, eastern white pine, scarlet oak, red maple, white oak,
northern red oak, eastern hemlock, black locust, and an understory of
mountain laurel, dogwood, rhododendron, blackberries, and various
ferns.
:.

Unison loam
Description: Soils of the Unison series are deep and well drained.
They are on mountain footslopes, alluvial fans, or stream terraces.
Permeability of the soil is moderate. Slopes range from-0 to 45
percent. Mean annual temperature is about 55 F. Mean annual precipi-
tation is about 40 inches.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained, medium or rapid runoff;
moderate permeability.,
Use and Vegetation: About half is used for cultivated crops, pasture
and orchards, sucT as corn, small grains, hay, fruit and vegetables.
Most of the remainder is in mixed hardwoods, dominated by oaks, maple,
poplar, hemlock and pine.
Wayah loam, stony
Description: The Wayah series consists of deep, well drained, moder-
ately rap, ly permeable soil on ridges and side slopes at high
elevations in the Southern -Appalachian Mountains. It formed in
residuum weathered from acid crystalline rocks such as gneiss and
granite. Slope ranges from 8 to 95 percent.
Drainage and Permeability: Well drained; very little runoff where
torest litter has not beEn disturbed; medium to very rapid runoff where
litter has been removed; moderately rapid permeability.
Use and Vegetation: Nearly all of this soil is in forest: In areas
higher than a ou 5400 feet, red spruce and fraser fir are the dominant
trees. -At the lower elevations, northern red oak, black oak, American
beech, yellow birch, black cherry, sugar maple, eastern hemlock, and
yellow buckeye are common trees. Common understory plants are service -
berry, striped maple, American chestnut sprouts, silv.erbell, red maple,
pin cherry, rhododendron, flame azalea, and blueberry. Common forbes
are hay -scented fern, woodfern, New York fern, Soloman's-seal, yellow
mandarin, and trillum. In many places, the climate is so severe that
ice and wind damage prevent trees from reaching commercial size. In
these areas, a windswept phase is recognized. Overall, little commer-
cial forestry is practiced on this soil. A small acreage is covered by
heath balds. These_balds are vegetated with rhododendron, mountain
laurel, blueberry, flame azalea, hawthorn, and mountain ash. The main
uses of this soil are for wildlife, and for recreational activities
such as hiking, hunting, and scenic viewing.
Source: Interim Soil Survey Report, Haywood Co., NC, 1986, by
SCS, USDA in coop. with Haywood Soil & Water Conservation District,
Feb., 1986.

REFERENCES
Theodore B. Brovitz, "Assessment and Management of Water Supply
Watersheds in Western North Carolina," master's project,
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke
University, 1986.
Raymond J. Burby, Edward J. Kaiser, Todd L. Miller, and David H.
Moreau, Drinking Water Supplies - Protection Through
Watershed Management, Ann r or Science, Ann Arbor, MI,
1983.
William E. Cox and Lorraine M. Herson, Control of Nonpoint Source
Pollution in Virginia: An Assessment of the Local Role,
Bu etin No. 158, Virginia Water Resources Research Center,
Blacksburg, VA, 1987.
Andrea M. Dietrich, David S. Millington, and Russell F.
Christman, Specific Identification of Organic Pollutants in
Haw River Water Using Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry,
WRRI Report No. 206, Water Resources Research Institute of
The UNC, Raleigh, NC, 1983.
Leonard P. Gianessi, "A National Pesticide Usage Data Base,"
summary of a report to the Office of Standards and Regula-
tions, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative
Agreement CR 811858-01-0, Resources for the Future, Wash-
ington, DC, 1986.
Guidelines for Obtaining a Protective Surface Water
Classification, NC Division of EnvironmentalManagement,
Report No. 87-05, December 1987.
C. W._Hardin, Mayor of Canton, letter to Paul Wilms, Director, NC
Division of Environmental Management, December 30, 1987.
Haywood County, NC - 201 Facilities Plan Report, EPA Project
370525-017illiam F. Freeman, Co., Hig Point, NC, June
1984.
Milton Heath, Jr., Professor, Institute of Government, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, comments at conference on
watershed protection, sponsored by the NC Division of
Environmental Management, Greensboro, NC', June 18, 1987.
R. Heutz, Franklin County Planning Department, personal communi-
cation, June 3, 1987.
Robert Holman, Coordinator, Water Supply Protection Program, NC
Division of Environmental Management, personal communica-
tion, June 1987.

David H. Howells, Professor Emeritus, NC State University, letter
to Mr. Avery Upchurch, Mayor of Raleigh, December 19,.1987.
Interim Soil Survey Report for Haywood County, NC, Soil
Conservation Service, USDA, February 1986.
N. M. Jackson, Jr.-. Public Water Supplies in North Carolina, Part
3. Mountains and Western Piedmont, prepare y t e Unite
States Geo ogica Survey or t e North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources, July 1974.
V. Jenkins, Guilford County Soil Scientist Division, personal
communication, June 24, 1987.
L. T. Mann, Jr. Public Water Supplies in North -Carolina, US
Geological Survey, a er Resources Investigations 78=1631
April 1978.
K. Megginson, Chatham County Planning Department, personal com-
munication, June 24, 1987.
Merck Index, 9th edition, edited by Martha Windholf. Published
y Merck & Co., Inc., Rohway, NJ, 1976.
Clarke Morrison, "Clean Water Fund: 'All Live Downstream,'" The
Asheville Citizen (Morrison, February 5, 1988) p. 6C.
Mary Jo Moubry and David H. Moreau, Review of North Carolina's
Water Supply Watershed Protection Program," Water Resources
Research Institute of The University of North Carolina,
Raleigh, NC, March 1988.
National Academy of Sciences, Safe Drinking Water Commi;ttee,
Drinking Water and Health, Washington, DC, 1977.
NC Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality'Section,
"Upper Pigeon River Investigation,".July 1984.
Oak Hollow Watershed Study, Department of Planning and Community
Development, City ot High Point, NC 1982.
Status of North Carolina Local Planning and Management, NC Dept.
of Natural Resources and 7ommunity Deve opment, Division of
Community Assistance, Raleigh, 1985.
S. Suggs, Durham County Planning Department, personal communi-
cation, June 8, 1987.
Alvis G. Turner, Francis A. DiGiano, and Patricia M. De Rosa, A
Survey of Potential Population .Exposures to Chemical Contam-
inants Present'in Unprotected ur ace Water Supplies in
North Caroina, Report No. 213, Water Resources Research
Institute of The University of North Carolina, Raleigh, 1984.

U.S. Geological Survey, "North Carolina Ground -Water Resources,"
National Water Summary, 1985.
Steve West, Director, Haywood County Agricultural Extension
Service, personal communication, June 11, 1987.
F
all

-I .
i
DAIT
V k
v. A "! 5... 1.�_-IL_ _
•-''l �._ �_S:-_._.�.�_�..
ii E.l�.��ii.� i. .,_
�'...,.e �„_ �.. _.i..�._
fi... ... �':e �..A-i, �,,,-.. _.
.r ..N._ v _._ Y
R
h.
{
ti
i
` YA
r
1
a
4, x
1
t
1 IM1
r
xM
A
`i
��,
.�P'
�
'+.. '•�
��`'�'.
..,:_� Il 1 1 T�-.^,..'1 "' v `m �,. _::�
.�� r... I^n,
r,,
4. M�.
C %._
+ , k._.
.� 7 �
n ,
}
V
Yq
x�
r
i
q `
�W
x �
el
h'\ F ♦ t PP
1
a._ Sir -'F' � 'F.
.. a ;I
\..
V d1 I
a,ry
_
V � v x � v'
rr W
'7= 3 �. .'4✓ �, "*y,• y
fir' C' r ' l' �.
P
w
P
X r N G
I
North Carolina Depar,
,'.,"�yy"� � 'y$y" � `y^ ,�i�^ wy $�^' gp+' g¢r` ]8 �Q+^ yq
C '+n.,S'w'm.���w�;'�cck."•d C: s�. 'A V T�B R«r tl q� .F `k+...J �k! �5�..!:�n. � 4'.�A 7•A

q ik
6 ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS 3 ALDEHYDES AND KETONES 187
as jormalin, a 35-40%-solution in water and methanol. --'This also_contatns `: solution (alkaline cupric tartrate solution). In alkaline solution hydrogen s
varying amounts of impurities such as formal, formaldehyde `dimethyl acetal, Peroxide oxidizes it uantitatively' to a formate.
q t
H2C(OMe)z. Formaldehyde has a characteristic penetrating odor. Form x. 2. Reduction is also easy, CH10 --r CH°OH•
aldeh de is also obtained in small yields but' in large amounts by the cps it 3. Polymerization Formaldeh ' de, readil chap es reveraibl Y ttc Polymers. Y Y g y into solid �{
oxidation of natural gas. It is also an important product of the non-cataly ymers. 'Paraformaldehyde, paraform, (CH2O) _, is obtained as as amor-
high temperature oxidation of,butane (p. 18) in which it is_obtained..in aillute • Phou_s white_s61id b �. t'
y_evapomtion:' of an aqueous solution •of CH2O. It, is
,water solution admixed with volatile organic compounds. By distillation Probably HOCH2(OCH2)„CHO.G. 2 Rapid condensation of •CH2O. vapors .can ri N
under reduced pressure, water and the -other materials are removed at ® 'give a-trioxyniethylene, trioxane, m. 610, b. 11VIP which is a, definite 6-mem=
re tiered ring compound.. 'It is crystalline and readily, soluble' in water, alcohol
temperature at. which CH2(OH)2 i® stable. After this separation the pressu
j
is raised and CH2O distilled out dnd ethers' (DuPont). ',
$ +z
Formaldehyde is said to occur in air in minute amounts as a result of Its: ;l k
formation during combustion processes' O CH \O
Formaldehyde can also be produced by heating certain formates,
r
(HCO2)2Ca --* CaCO3 + 112CO (�Hll 1 t
2 C;Hs
rf ..sit
This again is dismutation, half of the formate is oxidized to carbonate and the .
0 I, 11�
other half is reduced to formaldehyde. Treatment of formaldehyde solution with sulfuric acid In various was I'#
There is excellent evidence 'that 'the first product formed from carbon gives several different of y
dioxide by the chlorophyll of green plants is formaldehyde, st P �'axymethylenes of unknown molecular weight and
ructure. All these polymers are readily converted to formaldehyde by heat..
CO2 + H2O —+ H2CO .+ 02°• "Paraform" candles are used for fumigating, part of the paraformaldehyde ii 4ka
The ratio of oxygen given off b plant to the carbon dioxide absorbed hurg
Y the P d has and part being depolymerized to formaldehyde.
' 4. 4. With baser. !i
been found experimentally to be 1;1 (Willatatter):. The formaldehyde, being r a
extraordinarily reactive, undergoes a variety of changes. If the living plant Concentrated strong bases cause dismutations (Cannizzaro).
needs an oxidizer or a reducer, the formaldehyde can serve in either capacity, 2 H2C0 -} KOH —► HCO2K CHsOH
changing to methanol and to formic acid or carbonic acid respectively. The R
first of these changes is indicated b the presence of methyl derivatives in many
This reaction is characteristic of aldehydes which have no alpha hydrogen, that a4';
plant products. .Most of the formaldehyde probably undergoes condensation, is, no hydrogen on the carbon next to the carbonyl group.
P
p p Y P Y g Y g P• ,
b. Dilute and weak bases cause aldol t e condensations as discussed under s
the H from one molecule adding to the carbonyl group of another, to form y, .the behavior of formaldehyde in Tanta. YP
successively glycolic aldehyde, glyceric aldehyde, and hexoses (pp 460-1, 486)• Formaldehyde supplies a very Preactive carbonyl group for aldol condense- E
..+y _ — Ott - .rid Y PP Y rs
tions with a—H compounds such as acetaldehyde and isobutyraldehyde. !° o e With ketones and secondary amines it replaces the o —H atoms with the
• group—CH2NIt2 (Mannich). Thus acetone with formalin and dimethyl- r
amine gives condensation products which range from Me2NCH2CH2COCHs to €
(Me2NCH2)sCCOC(CH2NMe2)1.
5. Alcohols in the presence of a trace of acid give formals, ethers of the
S hypothetical hydrate of formaldehyde H2C(OH)2.
i 1 case _ • """ , .
appFRO. In common with other aliphatic aldehydes and in contrast to 112C0 -F 2 ROH —► H2C(OIi)2 -}• 1120 °st
ketones, formaldehyde reduces ammoniacal silver solution and Feilling's
° Staudinger et al. Ann. 474, 145 (1929). E'
' I Levey. Chem. Inds. 50, 204 (1942). ' Sauter. Z: physik. Chem. B21,.186 (1933).
° Goldman, Yagoda. Ind. Eng. Chem., Anal. Ed. 15, 378 (1943). °Walker, Carlisle. Chem. Eng. News al, 1250 (1943).
Ann. Rep. Chem. Soc. (London) 1906, 83. 'Fry, Uber, Price. Rec. traq. shim, 50, 1061 (1931). -

----D-�- - -- --'--- ----------'----'------'-------

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL
PAGE
A. Purpose of Report
1
B. Description of Canton..Service Area
1
C. Present and -Future Water Needs
3
1. Current .Production
3
2. Current.Consumption
5
3. Projected Per Capita Water Usage
5
4, Projected Population and Land Use
7
5. Future Water Requirements
9
II.
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
A, Supply
10
B. Treatment Facilities
12
C. Storage
18
D. Distribution System
21
III.
FUTURE TREATMENT; STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS
A. Treatment Capacity
23
B. Storage Requirements
24
C. Distribution System Expansion
26
IV.
ALTERNATIVES FOR SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
A. Rough Creek
28
B. Penland Street Filter Plant
29
V.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Supply and Treatment
29
B: Storage
32
C. Distribution
32
VI,
COST ESTIMATE FOR IMPROVEMENTS
32
VII.
FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
35

LIST OF FIGURES
NO.
TITLE
1
Average Daily Water Production by
Month
2
Schematic.of Rough Creek Water
Treatment Facility
3
Schematic of Existing Penland Street
Filter Plant
4
Schematic of Proposed Sludge Disposal
System
5
Existing and Proposed Distribution
System
6
Required Treatment Plant Capacity
7
Proposed Improvements to Penland Street
Filter Plant
PAGE
4
13
15
19
22
25
31

IKi1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
PAGE
Average Daily Water Production
3
Maximum and Minimum Daily Water
Production
3
Ratio of Average Daily Flow to
Maximum Daily Flow
5
Tabulation of Metered Water
Customers
6
Residential, Commercial, Industrial
Per Capita Consumption'Projections
6
Maximum Day and Peak Hour Per Capita
Projections
7
Population Growth Trends, 1930-1970
7
Canton and Clyde Water Service Area
Population Projections
9
Projected Water Requirements
10
Existing Distribution System Pipe
Inventory
21
Locations of Future Water Line
Extensions
27
Project Cost Breakdown
33

I. GENERAL
A. PURPOSE OF REPORT
The Town of Canton, North Carolina presently provides water to
customers within her corporate boundaries, surrounding suburban areas
and to the Town of Clyde located approximately three (3) miles to the
west. Water treatment facilities operated by the Town are obsolete
and in need of rehabilitation and expansion. The Rough Creek plant,
which has a -capacity of 0.6 million gallons per day (mgd), is approxi-
mately eighty (80) years old. Maintenance of finished water quality
at this plant is a problem and it has been difficult to meet the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Waters Act (PL93-523) maximum con-
taminant levels for turbidity. The Penland Street water filtration
plant is forty-four (44) years old. Existing plant equipment and
structures are i-n need of replacement and repairs and the plant
capacity of two (2) mgd will be exceeded in the near future.
Canton is the only source of public water -in the eastern
section of The Haywood County Growth Corridor. In order for Canton
to continue her commitment to provide water to her present and future
customers in the eastern portion of the County it is necessary that
the Town improve the water.treatment and distribution system.
As the first step in meeting this responsibility the Town has
developed this study to plan and guide the implementation of
improvements required for modernization of the water system.
B. DESCRIPTION OF CANTON SERVICE AREA
The Town of Canton is located approximately 15 miles southwest of
Asheville, North Carolina in Haywood County in the southern highlands of
Southwestern North Carolina. The area is predominately mountainous,
with broad mature valleys. Elevations range from 2,500 to 4,500 feet.
Canton, the largest town in eastern Haywood County, lies approxi-
mately 12 miles northeast of Waynesville, the County Seat. Canton's
corporate limits encompass.2.1 square miles and has an estimated popula-
tion of 5,500 people. The town lies in the eastern industrialized area
of Haywood County which also includes the Towns of Waynesville, Clyde,
Hazelwood and Maggie Valley. Manufacturing industries, located in
these towns employ the largest segment of the work force in the county
and account for approximately 37% of the present jobs -in the area.
Industries include footwear, wearing apparel, furniture, rubber, paper
and leather products. The Champion Paper Company, which is located
in Canton, employs approximately 2,200 people which is approximately
38% of the total manufacturing jobs in Haywood County. -
The Haywood County growth corridor, which comprises the water
service areas of both the "Western" and "Eastern" systems served by
Waynesville and Canton, as recognized by the overall economic develop-
ment program for the seven county planning region has been the largest
1

hub of economic activity in Western North Carolina, west of Asheville,
for a number of decades. It has, without significant outside stimuli,
served as a strong and steadily growing job center for some 6,000 manu-
facturing workers. Adequate water supplies to support these industries
is critical to maintain and insure growth of this region's economic
base.
A study prepared by W—E. Freeman Associates of High Point, North
Carolina, states that "a county -wide water system serving almost all of
the County's population is a necessary step in Haywood County's future."
The study indicates that the nucleus of the proposed systems would be
the Waynesville and Canton water facilities.
Haywood County is divided into two water service areas. The water
system to the west is supplied finished water by the Town of Waynesville.
This "Western System" consists of Waynesville and Ivy Hill Townships and
includes the Town of Waynesville and Hazelwood, -the Lake Junaluska
assembly grounds and the Lake Junaluska sanitary district.
Waynesville is presently building a reservoir on Allen Creek, which
will insure an adequate supply of raw water to meet the future needs of
this "Western System" and has recently upgraded water treatment capacity
to 8 mgd.
Waynesville, in undertaking the construction of new treatment
facilities and reservoir, has implemented the plan for providing for the
present and future water needs of the "Western" section of Haywood
County.
The "Eastern System" is supplied finished water by the Town of
Canton and serves Beaverdam and Clyde townships, including the Town of
Canton and Clyde, the Green Hill and Phillipsville areas and several
rural water associations. In planning to provide adequate finished water
for the "Eastern System" in Haywood County, the Town of Canton proposes
to increase the capacity of the Penland'Street filtration plant from
2 mgd to 4 mgd and to make improvements to the Rough Creek plant needed
to adequately treat the 0.5 mgd produced there.
Although the population of Canton has remainded fairly stable over
the past four decades, significant population gains have accurred in
the surrounding areas since 1960 due to residential development in
unincorporated areas. The service population for the Canton system is
presently estimated to be 8,800 people and is projected to be 13,100
people by the year 2005. Water demands are expected to increase from an
average of.1.3 mgd to 2.3 mgd with maximum day demand to increase from
2.0 mgd to.3.9 mgd.
The major water user supplied by the Town of Canton is the Champion
Paper Company, which purchases 27% of the total water sold by the town.
The importance of the Champion Paper Company to the economic stability
of Canton is apparent when one realizes that they employ 2200 people and
the population of Canton is 5500.
2

C. PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER NEEDS
1. Current Production
Water is supplied to the Canton and Clyde distribution systems from
two sources. The Rough Creek water plant collects surface water from
the upper reaches of the Rough Creek watershed and produces an average
of 0.514 mgd. The Penland Street water plant treats water from Pigeon
River and produces an average of 0.764 mgd. Total average daily plant
production is now approximately 1.3 million gallons per day. Table 1
lists average daily water production since 1973.
TABLE 1
-
AVERAGE
DAILY WATER PRODUCTION
gallons/day
Year
Rough Creek
Penland Street
Total
1973
518,000
599,000
1,117,000
1974
387,000
593,000
980,000
1975
531,000
616,000
1,147,000
1976
534,000
652,000
1,186,000
1977
551,000
714,000
1,265,000
1978
533,000
755,000
1,288,000
1979
514,000
764,000
1,278,000
Monthly and seasonal variations shown in Figure 1 reveal that peak
demands can be expected to occur in July, August and September.
Reported maximum daily.water production of 600,000 gpd at Rough
Creek matches plant capacity. The Penland Street plant on the Pigeon
River peaked at 1,572,000 gpd, which is near the 2.0 mgd capacity of
that plant.
TABLE 2
'
MAXIMUM
& MINIMUM DAILY WATER
PRODUCTION
gallons/day
Year
Rough
Creek Plant
Penland Street
Plant
max.
min.
max..
min.
1973
611,000
321,000
1,512,000
329,000
1974
450,000
270,000
907,000
365,000
1975
602,000
311,000
1,518,000
382,000
1976
562,000
402,000
1,195,000
327,000
1977
577,000
265,000
1,359,000
465,000
1978
573,000
259,000
1,572,000
511,000
1979
600,000
376,000
1,167,000
330,000
Extreme variations in production at the Rough Creek plant result
more from operating factors than from variations in user demand. Maxi-
3

m
I&
a
12
19
L]
AVERAGE DAILY WATER PRODUCTION
BY MONTH
6
;z
m
m
Q
W
Q
U-
LEGEND
1978 — — —
1977
1976---------
1975 -•— —
1974 •--w.........
1973 —• —•--
z >- C7 F- F- > CU
Q -j =3 a- v p W
Q Q p z 0
CITY.'OF CANTON, NORTH CAROLINA
WATER STUDY
FIGURE I
AVERAGE DAILY WATER PRODUCTION BY MONTH
JANUARY, 1979 SCALE:NONE
JOB NO. C440/5063
HARWOOD BEEBE
Division of C-E Maguire, Inc.
SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

mum use of the Rough Creek water supply is made because it -is less
costly to treat, water quality is high and finished water can be fed by
gravity into the distribution system. The plant is operated twenty-four
(24) hours per day. Maximum water production occurs at Rough Creek
during periods of high runoff and when raw water is at minimum turbidity
levels requiring less filter shutdown for backwashing. Minimum flows
occur during periods of drought and immediately following periods of
heavy rainfall resulting in highly turbid raw water. It has been
necessary to shut the plant down for as much as six hours to allow the
influent turbidity to decrease to a treatable level.
Variations in daily water production at the Penland Street water
plant result from variations of production at Rough Creek and in varia-
tions in user demand. Peak production at the Penland Street plant occurs
generally during a drought period when the Rough Creek water shed is at
minimum yield and when water demand is high. The Penland street plant is
operated so as to produce all water needed in excess of that available
from Rough Creek.
Maximum daily water production from both plants peaked at 2,122,600
gallons in August 9, 1978.
TABLE 3
RATIO OF AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
TO MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW
Avg. Daily Max. Max. Day Max./Avg.
Year Flow (gpd) Day Flow (gpp) Ratio
1973
1,117,000
Aug.
23
2,076,000
1.86
1974
980,000
Aug.
13
1,279,000
1.31
1975
1,147,000
Sept.
5
1,984,000
1.73
1976
1,186,000
Sept.25
1,724,000
1.45
1977
1,265,000
Nov.
8
1,875,000
1.48
1978
1,288,000
Aug.
9
2,122,000
1.65
1979
1,278,000
Sept.
4
1,767,000
1.38
From the above it can be seen that the ratio of the maximum day flow
to the average daily flow occuring during the last six years ranged from
approximately 1.4 to 1.9 which is within the normal range for cities of
comparable size within the United States.
2. Current Consumption.
Monthly water billing records were provided for Canton by
the Town of Canton Water Department along with a list of water customers
by street location. Similar information was provided by the Clyde Water
Department. The total number of metered service connections on the
system is 3,243. The service population is estimated to be 8,573 people.
5

Residential
Commercial
Industrial
School
Total
TABLE 4
TABULATION OF METERED
WATER CUSTOMERS
Canton Clyde Total
2500 540 3040
142 50 192
3 1 4
6 1 7
2651 592 3243
In addition to metered customers, the City of Canton provides water
to churches, public buildings and civic organizations at no charge. These
these taps are unmetered.
The major industrial water customer is the Champion -Paper Company
which uses an average of 215,000 gpd. Average consumption during the peak
month of record was approximately 300,000 gallons per day. Champion
Paper purchases approximately 27% of the water sold by. the Town of Canton.
The Canton Laundry uses an average of 50,000 gpd. The Town of Clyde water
usage is metered monthly with water usage averaging 300,000 gallons
per day.
Present per capita usage rates are estimated to be 150 gallons
per person per day (gpcd). This figure represents total residential,
commercial, industrial and unaccounted for water consumption. An
analysis bf water billing records indicates that the total per capita
consumption can be broken down into the following usage categories:
Industrial 25 gpcd
Residential & Commercial 77 gpcd
Unaccounted for water 48 gpcd
Unaccounted for water represents that water lost or not sold due to
broken meters, filter backwashing, reservoir overflow, unmetered
services, hydrant flushing, street cleaning, firefighting and leakage.
3. Projected Per Capita Water Usage.
.The per capita use of water in. America cities has commonly
increased approximately one per cent per year primarily because of a
continuing increase in the standard of living. On this basis, the
consumption of water for residential, commercial and industrial use
on a per capita service population basis has been projected.
TABLE 5
RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL=INDUSTRIAL PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION PROJECTIONS
Year
Gallons/Capita/Day
1977 (actual)
102
1980
104
1990
115
2000
127
2010
140
2020
155
2030
171

These figures do not include public use of water for fire fighting,
hydrant flushing, street cleaning and service to public and civic
organizations estimated to be 5 gpcd, or for system leakage estimated to
be 27 gpcd. Assuming that public water use will increase at the same
rate as residential consumption and that leakage in the system will
continue to be approximately 18 per cent of production, we have projected
the total percapita usage rates to increase to 175 gallons per person
per day by the year 2005. Using the maximum day to average daily ratio
of 1.7 to 1 and maximum day to peak hour ratio of 1.75 to 1, the follow-
ing per capita projections. are made.
TABLE 6
MAXIMUM DAY &
PEAK HOUR PER
CAPITA PROJECTIONS
Avg. Daily
Max'Daily
Peak Hour
Consumption
Consumption
Consumption
Year
gpcd.
gpcd
gpcd
1977
133
226
396
1980
136
231
404
1990
151
257
450
2000
166
282
493
2005
175
298
520
2010
184
313
547
2020
203
345
604
2030
224
380
665
4. Projected Population and Land Use.
The historical population growth trends of Canton, Clyde,
and Haywood County are presented in Table 7.
TABLE 7
POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS, 1930-1970
Area 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Canton 5,117 5,037 4,906 5,068 5,518
Clyde 458 516 598 680 900
Haywood County 28,273 34,804 37,631 39,711 41,710
Source: U. S. Census of Population, 1930-1970 U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
It is evident that the population of Canton had remained
fairly stable over the past four decades. Nevertheless, significant
population gains 'have occurred in areas near Canton since 1960 due
to development of new residential subdivisions in unincorporated areas.
The population of Clyde has experienced moderate increases since 1930 as
has the overall population of Haywood County. Most of the population
increases in Haywood County have occurred in and around the municipalities
of Canton, Waynesville, Clyde, and Maggie Valley.
7

In order to determine the current distribution of population,
the study area was divided into fifty-two subareas and was based on an
"Existing Land Use Map" prepared for this report. For each subarea the
estimated number of dwelling units, the average number of persons per
dwelling units, .and the total estimated population for each subarea was
determined. This data and the existing land use map were prepared from
information gathered using several sources: (1) the 1970 Census of
Population; (2) population estimates prepared by the Southwestern North
Carolina Planning and Economic Development Commission; and (3) popula-
tion estimates prepared by the North Carolina Highway Department in the
Canton Thoroughfare Plan. The accuracy -of this data was then evaluated
and corrected where necessary during our land use field survey conducted
in October of 1978.
The total 1978 population of the study area is estimated to be
14,307 persons. The total estimated number of dwelling units in the
study area is 4,895 units. Thus, the average ratio of persons per
dwelling unit in the study area is 2.92.
In order to estimate future water supply needs in the study
area, future population projections were prepared for each of the fifty-
two subareas and a projected land use map was developed. In the prep-
aration of these projections several previously prepared population
projections sponsored byother agencies were reviewed. Projections
prepared by the N.C. Department of Natural and Economic Resources, the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Southwestern North Carolina
Planning and Economic Development Commission were reviewed in detail.
Aside from study of these projections, other factors influencing future
population growth were evaluated. These factors included: (1) past
population and economic trends; (2) economic growth potential; (3)
availability of housing; (4) likelihood of future in -or out -migration of
population; (5) topographic constraints; and (6) other environmental
constraints.
It is estimated that the population of the study area will
increase from 14,307 persons in 1978 to 16,620 persons by 2005. This
represents an increase of 2,313 persons or 16.2 percent. By the year
2030 the study area's population -is expected to reach approximately
18,600 for an additional 12.1 percent increase. These projections
reflect growth trends which are well in line with base population
projections by the aforementioned three agencies.
The projected future population growth of the study area will
not be evenly distributed among the fifty-two subareas. Some of the
subareas will experience fairly substantial population growth, with an
accompanying increase in residential land use anticipated in these
subareas. Those areas where the maximum population growth is expected
are these areas situated adjacent to -the incorporated fringe of Canton.
with good access to Interstate -Highway 40 and U. S. Highway 19/23.
The majority of the subareas will likely experience moderate
or minor population gains. Some of the subareas such as subareas in the
already heavily developed part of Canton, should maintain a relatively
NO

stable population through the planning period. A few subareas, partic-
ularly those in the mountainous rural regions will probably experience
minor population gains.
A summarization of the service area population projections are
shown tabulated below.
TABLE 8
CANTON AND CLYDE WATER
SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Projected'
Year
Population
1980
14,590
1985
14,830
1990
15,180
1995
15,590
2000
16,090
2005
16,620
2010
17,050
2020
17,900
2030
18,600
5. Future Water Requirements.
The determination of future water requirements for the
Canton and Clyde Service areas was made using population projections for
each subarea and an analysis of.future development of the area as shown
on the future land use map. Areas that are expected to experience the
most growth in population or commercial development are the Beaverdam
area north of Interstate Highway 40 for residential development, the
developing commercial area west of Canton between Highway 19/23 and Old
Clyde Road in the Harkins Street area, and along Highway 215 to the
intersection with Interstate Highway 40. Other growth areas in the
Canton area are south of the corporation limits along highway 110. The
major area of development in Clyde is projected to be around the northern -
section of Town and westward in the general vicinity of the connector
intersections between Interstate Highway 40 and Highway 19/23. The area
lying between Canton and Clyde is expected to increase.in population by
approximately 500 persons by the year 2005.
Analysis of subarea growth projections and consideration
of factors'such as topography resulted in a determination of future
population which could be expected to be connected to the water system.
In the year 2020, it is estimated the 14,700 people will be connected to
the system. This 'number is based on the assumption that 90 percent of
the homes�in the subareas where water service will be provided in the
future will be connected to the distribution system.
Applying the projected connected population and the
estimated future per capita demands developed previously, the future
water supply requirements are determined and listed below.
0

TABLE 9
PROJECTED WATER
REQUIREMENTS
Gallons
Per Connected
Avg. Daily
Max. Day
Peak Hour
Capita Per
Day Population
Demand
Demand
Demand
Year
(gpcd)
MGD
MGD
MGD
1980
136
8,800
1.3
2.2
3.6
1990
151
10,600
1.6
2.7
4.8
2000
166
12,300
2.0
3.4
6.0
2005
175
13,100
2.3
3.9
6.8
2010
184
13,500
2.5
4.2
7.4
2020
203
14,700
3.0
5.1
8.9
II. EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
A. SUPPLY
1. Rough Creek
The Rough Creek water treatment facility receives its
water by continuous draft from a small diversion dam immediately upstream
from the plant. The Rough Creek water shed has been utilized by the Town
of Canton for approximately eighty years as a source of water, and was
before the construction of the Pigeon River plant the only source used
to supply the Canton system. There are*no stream gage records available
for Rough Creek above or below the diversion dam.
The minimum safe yield of the Rough Creek supply by
continuous draft is the low flow that would be available during a period
of drought. Since there are no flow records for Rough Creek, this safe
yield must be estimated. Analysis of low flow records for other streams
in Haywood County indicates that generally the low flow that would be
expected is approximately 0.20 cubic feet per second per square mile of
drainage area. The water shed area tributory to the water treatment
facility is.1.35 square miles resulting in a safe yield of 0.27 cubic
feet per second or approximately 0.2 million gallons per day.
In order to estimate the average yield of the Rough Creek
water shed an analysis was made using water accounting methods. In this
method we considered several factors which affect water shed yield
including; soils types, water holding capacities of soils, land use and
treatment, evapotranspiration, and rainfall data. Based upon these
calculations and assuming average rainfall over the watershed, it is
estimated that the average daily yield on a yearly basis is 0.8 million
gallons per day.
The water quality is excellent. The Rough Creek watershed
is a protected watershed owned by the Town of Canton and is classified
as A -I by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources.
Class A -I is assigned to waters having watersheds. which are uninhabited
and otherwise protected as required by the State Board of Health. In
order to maintain.the Class A -I designation the Town must continue to
10

protect the water shed in accordance with Section .1200 of Rules Governing
Public Water Supplies.
Because of the timber harvesting program which has just
been recently completed, water quality in regards to turbidity levels
received at the Rough Creek plant have deteriorated, especially after
rainfalls. Although this supply is classified as A -I, it requires
filtration to remove high turbidity levels prior to disinfection.
Since the Rough Creek water shed is owned by the City of
Canton and is easily controlled, the water quality from this source
should remain at its present high quality. At present Canton is taking
an average of 0.53 mgd from Rough Creek. An economic analysis was made
of the best method of optimizing the use of this supply. This study
involved a detailed study of the construction of a storage reservoir to
hold surplus water beyond the capacity of the treatment facility.
However, this alternative was found to be too costly. It was determined
that the most cost effective use of this supply can be made by continuous
draft withdrawal and treatment of between 0.5 and 0.8 mgd. Since the
total average daily demand for -water by Canton is estimated to be 2.3
mgd by the year 2005, Rough Creek has the potential for supplying up to
thirty-five percent of the total water requirements of the area.
2. Pigeon River
The Pigeon River drains an area of 133 square miles at
the Canton water treatment plant intake. Flows have been gaged by the
U. S. Geologic Survey continuously since October 1928 at a gaging station
located 200 feet downstream from the Pigeon Street Bridge. The average
daily flow for 50 years -of -record is 208 million gallons per day. The
minimum flow of record is 17.4 mgd on September 7, 1954.
Considerable regulation of low flow is caused by Lake
Logan on the West Fork of the Pigeon River twelve miles upstream. This
structure is owned and operated by,the Champion Paper Company which uses
it to store water for drought periods. Champion Paper Company attempts
to maintain a minimum flow of 40 mgd in the Pigeon River at their Canton-
Pla.nt intake structure to be used as process water. During dry periods
they release water from Lake Logan to maintain this flow. The Canton
water treatment plant intake structure is located upstream of the Champion
intake structure and thus benefits from this flow regulation. However,
there have been occasions when the flow in the Pigeon River has been
less than that required by Champion Paper Company. During these periods
Champion has requested that the Town stop taking water for a period to
allow the paper mill to maintain full production. The Town has been
able to do this -because the Rough Creek water plant has been able to
provide 0.5 mgd. This, along with elevated storage has provided water
to the service area while the Penland Street Plant was out of operation.
Since Champion, occasionally needs more water than is
available from the river, and since the Town wishes to be able to continue
to cooperate and assist Champion in their manufacturing enterprise to
11

the mutual benefit of both, it has been decided by the Town that the
Rough Creek treatment plant must be available to provide water as a
back-up to the Penland Street plant.
T_he Pigeon River water quality is good. Its classifi-
cation as an A -II stream by the Department of Natural and Economic
Resources and the fact that it is presently a water supply allows the
water shed to be protected by the rules and regulations providing for
the protection of public water supplies. If these regulations are
enforced, the water quality of the Pigeon River will not deteriorate.
B. Treatment Facilities
1. Rough Creek.,
The Rough Creek water treatment plant takes water from
the Rough Creek watershed by continuous draft from a diversion dam
constructed across the stream channel. Treatment consists of chemical
conditioning, clarification, pressure filtration, chlorination and fluorida-
tion. The rated capacity of the plant is 0.6 million gallons per day
(mgd). Treated water flows into the distribution system by gravity thru
a six (6) inch cast-iron main approximately 15,300 feet in length where
it discharges into the Spruce Street Reservoir. This line and reservoir
were constructed approximately eighty years ago and the pressure filters
were installed in 1950. A schmatic of the existing Rough Creek treatment
system is shown in Figure 2.
Raw water from Rough Creek flows by gravity from the
diversion structure through a 10" line where alum, polymer and prechlorin-
ation chemicals are applied. Chemical mixing occurs in this line as the
raw water passes thru an in -line baffle fabricated by Town personnel.
The chemically conditioned water then passes into a 25,700 gallon settling
basin which has a surface area of approximately 450 square feet. Clarified
water passes thru two 120-inch diameter steel pressure filters having
sand, gravel and anthracite media after which chlorine is applied and
finished water flows into the distribution system. Volume of water
treated ranges from a minimum, approximately 200,000 gallons per day
during drought periods to 600,000 gallons per day plant capacity.
The pressure filters have a surface area of 157 square
feet and at 600,000 gpd have a filtration rate of 2.65 gpm/sf. Generally,
it is not recommended that pressure filters be operated in excess of 2
gpm/sf. At this rate, plant capacity would be 0.45 mgd. The average
daily water production by these filters is approximately 550,000 gpd.
Pressure filtration of water for municipal use has been restricted by
many state health departments to treatment of well waters of high water
quality. Operating problems result because the condition of the filter
media cannot be checked visually. It is possible for the filter media
to be disrupted by sudden variations in pressure on influent and effluent
sides of the filter. Difficulties in operation have been experienced
because of highly turbid raw water following rain storms which results
12

Diversion Domof
-
Coagulation
Chemicals
!a -Line Alum
Mixer Polymer
Chlorine
k�
Screen
C\1d
B
o
G
G�
Sedimentation
Basin
Backwash o
_ Water
c�
Pressure
Filters
Backwash WateME r
Chlorine
Finished
Water
Schematic. of Rough Creek
Water Treatment Facility
TOWN OF CANTON , N. C.,
WATER STUDY
FIGURE 2
HAR WOOD BEEBE , CO.
Spartan. -burg, S.C.
t�

in clogging of media with mud balls. It is occassionally necessary to
shut the plant down following rain storms to allow raw water turbidity
levels to decrease before resuming operation.
'Maintenance of finished water quality from these filters
is a problem, and -it has been difficult to meet the requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL93-523) maximum contaminant levels for turbidity.
A major operating problem at the Rough Creek plant is the
lack of clean backwash water. Filters are backwashed by gravity from
the water stored in the settling basin. During certain periods highly
turbid water and poor hydraulics from the clarifier to the filters
result in poor filter cleaning.
The plant.operate`s on -a continuous basis, twenty-four
hours a day. A caretaker lives adjacent to the plant and performs
routine operation work of backwashing filters and flushing the clarifier.
Town Water Department personnel visit the plant daily to take water
samples and perform necessary maintenance tasks.
Flow measurements of finished water are made on a recording
meter on the discharge side of the filters. This meter is not working
properly and should be repaired or replaced to insure that accurate
flows are recorded. The Town has very recently installed a weir in the
diversion dam so that records can be maintained on the volume of water
passing this structure. They have also installed a rain gage so that
accurate records of rainfall and total watershed yield will be available.
2. Penland Street Filtration Plant.
The water treatment plant located off Penland Street on
the north bank of the Pigeon River was constructed in 1936 and has a
rated capacity of 2.0 mgd. It is a conventional rapid sand filtration
plant taking a continuous draft from the Pigeon River. A schematic of
the existing Penland Street plant is shown in Figure 3. The plant
treats an average of 570,000 gpd and operates an average of ten to
twelve hours per day, seven days a week.
Water is pumped by low lift pumps from the Pigeon River
intake structure into a rapid mixing unit where dry alum. and dru lime
are fed by gravimetric ch-dmical'feed units. Raw water is measured in
the raw water pump station discharge line by an orifice plate device and
recorded on a totalizer near the flash mix unit. After rapid mixing,
the water passes through the flocculation basin and into two rectangular
clarifiers before passing to three rapid sand filters. Filtered water
is discharged into a 100,000 gallon clearwell and is then pumped by high
lift pumps into the Penland Street reservoir. Filter backwash is by
gravity from a 50,000 gallon backwash water tank. A detailed description
of the unit operations follows along with a description of operating and
maintenance problems. The Town has under construction a new 100,000
gallon clearwell that will supplement the existing clearwell.
14

Wash Water
Tank
01
Coagulation
Cherriica7s
Alum. Wash Water Finished..Water
Caustic
Polymer
1 Row Water CL2
Pump Sta.
Finished Water
r F:4
To Distribution
in --� � - System
Intake f7ash Mixing EFlocculdfors
ludgg Sedimentation
Wash. Water Rapid
Sand
Filters
2=100,000 Gal.
Clearwe/ls
Schematic of Existing
Penland St. Filter Plant
TOWN OF CANTON , N. C.
WATER STUDY
FIGURE 3
HARWOOD BEEBE , CO.
Spartanburg, S.C.

a. Raw Water Pumping Station - The pumping station
has the following pumps in service:
1 - 960 gpm; original equipment
1 - 480 gpm; original equipment
1 - 960 gpm; installed in 1971
1 480 gpm; installed in 1971
These pumps have a total dynamic head of approximately
120 feet and pump thru a 12 inch cast iron main directly into the flash
mixing unit. Flow rate into the flash mixing unit is designed to be
controlled by a hydraulic valve located directly before discharge into
the flash mixing unit. However, this valve is not working and should be
replaced. The pressure relief valve on the discharge side of the raw
water pumps should also be replaced.
The pump room floor has been flooded on five different
occasions due to floods on the Pigeon River. When this occurs it is
necessary to lift the pump motors to a higher elevation by a lifting
mechanism installed in the roof trusses. The raw water intake structure
also has problems with clogging of river debris and the shear gate on
the inlet pipe leaks and should be replaced.
b. Flash Mix/Agitator - The flash mixer size is
6' x 6' x 10' and has a volume of 360 cubic feet and a detention time of
1.9 minutes at 2 mgd. It has a new 2 hp. lightning flash mix agitator.
This unit and appurtenances are in good condition.
C. Flocculator - The existing flocculator.is
47'-3" x 12' x 11' with a volume of 46,652 gal. and a detention time of 34
minutes at 2 mgd. The flocculation paddles and drive mechanism are in
good condition and can be operated at variable speed. Concrete spalling
along the water surface of the concrete side walls is taking place, but
the overall structural condition is good. This tank is drained by . -
gravity and discharges into the plant storm drain system which discharges
into the Pigeon River.
d. Clarifiers - The plant has two clarifiers with the
following dimensions: L = 58 -6", W = 27', Sidewall Depth = ll'; a
capacity of 129,961 gallons and a surface area of 1,580 square feet. At
2 mgd these tanks operate with a detention time of 3.1 hours and a
surface settling rate of 0.44 gpm/s.f. Influent water passes thru a
perforated baffle wall and exits over a wier having a length of 27 feet
with an overflow rate of 26 gpm per foot. Sludge is withdrawn from
these tanks approximately once a year by flushing with a fire hose to
the storm drain system discharging into the Pigeon River. Shear gates
are needed on the inlet ports to each clarifier so that they can be
individually isolated. These ports are now being closed with sheets of
plywood and wooden wedges. The clarifier overflow pipes also need new
1[.

anchors as they are pulling away from their original mounts. There have
been problems with clarifier short circuiting and problems have occurred
in obtaining proper sedimentation of flocculated material. Sedimentation
basins overflow continuously because of the inability to control the
rate of raw water pumped. This results in wasted pumping costs and
wasted chemicals.
e. Chemical'Feed Equipment - Three dry chemical feed
machines are in use, one for alum and two for lime. Feed rates are set
manually from dosage rates determined from laboratory jars tests. These
machines are worn out and it is impossible to accurately apply these two
chemicals to the raw water resulting in the inability of plant operators
to control flocculation. It is most important that this equipment be
replaced with modern liquid feed equipment along with the proper instru-
mentation to control chemical application. The installation of liquid
chemical feed equipment will require the improvement of the plant access
road to allow trucks to deliver the chemical in bulk.
f. Filters - Three rapid sand filters, each having a
surface area of 240 square feet (L = 15', W = 16') are operated for 50
to 90 hours before backwashing and can produce 2 mgd at a filter rate of
2 gpm/s.f. Good water quality has been obtained producing finished
waters of low turbidity. Filter media consists of 24 inches of sand on
12 inches of stone. Filters are backwashed when the head loss through
the filters increases to a predetermined maximum value. Each filter is
provided with a Venturi type rate controller and all filter valving is
controlled hydraulically. A Venturi type indicating rate controller is
provided in the wash water main between the backwash water tank and the
filters. This controller is a Westinghouse Infilco size no. 14312 and
has been in service for five years. Plant operators indicate that
considerable loss of head results from this controller and that backwash
water rates are not sufficient when the wash water tank drops in elevations
near the end of a backwash cycle. Mud balls and mud blankets develop
around the edges of the filters indicating that this is possible as
there is not sufficient agitation of the grains of the media to remove
accumulated coatings. It is recommended that an auxiliary scour (surface
wash) system be installed to improve filter cleaning. Filter media was
changed in 1977. The bottoms of the filters have been reported by the
operators to leak. This condition should be inspected and steps should
be taken to repair these leaks. The condition of filter control valves
should also be investigated for repair or replacement. Filtered water
flows by gravity into a 100,000 gallon clearwell thru a 12 inch cast
iron main.
g. Clearwell - The 100,000 gallon capacity clearwell is
a 40 foot diameter reinforced concrete structure with 12 inch side
walls. This structure is leaking badly thru the sidewalls and requires
immediate attention. It has in the past been coated by the Gunite
process and has a coating of approximately three inches of cement mortar
over the original wall surface. Water is leaking thru the original
walls and has broken thru the Gunite coating. The Town has under construction
a new 100,000 gallon clearwell. When this is placed into operation, the
Town plans to repair the existing clearwell.
17

h. Backwash Reservoir - Backwash water is pumped by a
500 gpm pump from the clearwell into a 50,000 gallon washwater tank.
Filter backwash is by gravity. -The structural condition of the washwater
tank is similar to the clearwell and should be rehabilitated as soon as -
possible. It is not possible to backwash the filters .if this tank is
taken out of service. Studies should be initiated to determine the best
method of increasing backwash rate so as to improve filter backwash
efficiency.
- J. Finish Water High Service Pumps - Finished water is
pumped from the clearwell by two horizontal centrifugal pumps.having a
capacity of 960 gpm and 480 gpm. These are the original pumps which
were placed into service in 1936. Finished water is pumped thru a 12
inch cast iron main to the Penland Street reservoir.
j. Instrumentation - Plant instrumentation is in need
of modernization and replacement: Two main line water meters were -
originally provided however, only the raw water meter is in operation
and is in need of calibration. The finish water meter is not operational.
In general, plant instrumentation is out of date and in need of modern-
ization and should be replaced with equipment that will allow operators
to better control the water treatment process.
k. Waste Disposal - At present, both backwash water and
clarifier sludge are Cis —charged Cis—chargedinto the plant storm drain system which
flows into the Pigeon River. In order to meet water pollution control
requirements the Town must provide for adequate treatment of these plant
wastewaters in the future. Waste from filter backwash andclarifier
sludge have different characteristics, primarily in the percent solids
composition as well as in frequency of occurance. Filter backwashing
occurs approximately every fifty to ninety hours per -filter with:a
volume of approximately 40,000 gallons at a very low solids concentration.
Clarifier discharge under present operations involves a once per year
flushing of approximately 50,000 gallons of sludge per clarifier having
a very high.solids.content.
The recommended method of waste disposal proposed is to
recycle the filter washwater to the raw water intake and thus back
through the coagulation facilities and the filters. In this way, all
waterworks sludge will be concentrated in the coagulation basins. Separate
handling of the two wastes is then no longer necessary. In order to
return the washwater to the inlet works it is necessary to construct an
equilizati-on reservoir to provide storage for the large volume:of washwater
used in a backwash. The water would then be returned at a controlled
rate to the head of the plant. The clarifier sludge will then be flushed
into the sanitary -sewer for disposal. A schematic of this system is
shown in Figure 4.
C. STORAGE
The Canton and Clyde distribution
reservoirs that provide storage and pressure
elevated storage is 1,650,000 gallons.
systems have three service
for the system. Total
ku

1
rn
0
z
c
m
Raw Water
PUMP Sla.
lntoke
r
RECYCLED BACKWASH NEW .EQUALIZATIONi RESERVOIR
WATER FOR, BACKWASH WATER
P.
,Back Wash
Reservoir
1
Sedimentation % 500,000 Gal.
Basins r --- 1—i Reservoir
Flocculator ---� �.� i 60 +%
lash ---------- ---_J� ;
Mixer �.,_ To Distribution
`'---'--- : % _� System
Gravity Clearwell
Filters
GRAVITY -
SEWER
CLARIFIER SLUDGE
TO WASTEWATER
TREATMENT- FACILITY
Schematic of Proposed
' Sludge Disposal System -
TOWN OF- CANTON , N. C.
WATER STUDY
FIGURE 4
HARWOOD BEEBE , CO.
Spartanburg, S. C.

1. Spruce Street Reservoir - This 750,000 gallon ground
reservoir is the oldest in the system and was constructed some time
prior to 1910. It receives water from the Rough Creek plant thru a six
inch cast iron line and has an overflow elevation of 2866.40 MSL. It is
a rectangular concrete tank with a prestressed concrete roof slab which
was installed in 1966. Dimensions are: L = 125 ft., W = 80 ft. and D =
10 ft. The tank feeds the distribution system.by gravity and overflows
to waste. A booster pump draws from the reservoir to supply the Hy Vu
Drive, Spruce and Phillips Street areas which are at or -above -reservoir
level. Elizabeth and Elaine.Streets are also on the booster pump system.
This booster pump runs continuously with recirculation to the reservoir.
An altitude val-ve has been installed on the inlet side of the reservoir
but is not operational. When in operation, the altitude valve will close
when the reservoir is full and allow the high service areas to be pressurized
by the Rough Creek line,.eliminating the need for the booster pump.
Bypass piping around the reservoir is available. There is no water level
indication instrumentation. The overflow elevation at this tank is five
feet below the other two reservoirs.
When the Rough Creek plant is not in operation or production
is low due to drought conditions it is necessary to fill this reservoir
from the Penland Street Plant. This requires pumping water across town
with the plant high service pumps and can only be accomplished when the
valve in the water line feeding Clyde is partially closed to increase
system pressure on the Canton side. It is not possible to fill the
Spruce Street Reservoir by gravity from the Penland Street reservoir
because of head loss in pipe network between these two tanks.
The feasibility of providing a more direct pipeline
connection between the two reservoirs was studied to determine if it
would be possible to fill the Spruce Street reservoir by gravity from
Penland Street. The installation of a ten inch diameter main running
from Old Clyde Road along Woodside Drive, crossing the river bridge and
tying into the existing eight inch line in Beaverdam Street and then
connecting to a new eight inch line in Thompson Street running directly
to the Spruce Street tank is recommended to improve the system hydraulics_
to allow filling the reservoir. This improvement along with new high
service pumps at the Penland Street plant with greater head will facili-
tate filling the Spruce Street tank.
2. Penland Street Reservoir - This ground reservoir has a
storage capacity of 500,000 gallons and is a circular reinforced concrete
tank with -an overflow elevation of 2871.40 MSL. Tank diameter is 75
feet and sidewall depth is.15 feet. Water is pumped into this tank by
the high lift service pumps located at the Penland Street filter plant
and flows by gravity into the distribution system thru a 14 inch cast
iron main. Operational problems exist at this reservoir because when the
tank.is full no means is available to keep it from overflowing. Gate
valves located at the tank cannot be closed because they stick shut and
can't be reopened. This tank also leaks although it has been repaired
on two previous occasions. There is no legal right of way across
private property to gain access to this reservoir and access is across
difficult, steep terrain. Efforts should be taken to obtain a clear
20

r
1/
legal right of way and to make the necessary improvements so the access
may be readily available to plant operators and water department maintenance
personnel. Gate valves should be replaced, and an altitude valve installed
to provide shut off to the tank when it is full.
3. Clyde Reservoir- This is a 400,000 gallon reservoir
located south of Highway 19/23 between the Towns of Canton and Clyde. It
is a steel,ground tank fed —by a'12 inch line which connects to the distribution
line running from Canton to service Clyde and has an overflow elevation
of 2871A, the same as the Penland Street reservoir. This tank cannot
be'completely filled from the Penland Street reservoir by gravity. It
can be filled by use of an existing booster pump either manually or
automatically via a pressure switch system.
D. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The existing distribution system was studied to evaluate its
ability to provide water volumes and pressures required by customers. A
computer model of the existing system was developed and various operating
conditions were studied to determine the distribution systems response
to variations in demand. A map showing the location and size of existing
water lines and system pressures is shown in Figure 5 . This map also
shows the location of the treatment plants and storage reservoirs.
Pressure contours are shown that will exist in the system under average
daily flow conditions.
The existing distribution system has a total of approximately
27 miles of pipe not including lines less than 4-inch diameter. Pipe
sizes and lengths are shown below.
TABLE 10
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PIPE INVENTORY
including Clyde
Length
Pipe Size Feet Miles % of Length
4
in.
10,470
1.93
7.4
6
in.
88,270
16.71
62.2
8
in.
30,920
5.86
21.8
10
in.
8,470
1.60
9.9
12
in.
2,600
0.49
1.8
14
in.
1,260
0.24
0.9
141,990
26.88
100.0
During the development of the computer model flow tests were
run at three different locations simultaneously and measurements were
made of all inflow into the system during the flow tests. The results
of these flow tests were used in the calibration of the computer model
and in the determination of Hazen - Williams coefficient "C" for frictional
factors of the pipes in the distribution system. Cast iron lines in the
21

system were determined to have "C" values ranging between 95 and 105
depending on age. In general water lines located east of Pisgah Drive
and south of Church Street were determined to have "C" values of 95, all
others are 105. All asbestos cement pipe was determined to have a "C"
value of 150. The existing distribution system has 35 major loops
having pipe sizes of four inches or greater. Several significant dead
end lines exist in the present system.
Pressure and flowrates in the distribution lines were computed
for the existing system for average daily flow, maximum day flow and
peak hour flow. Areas of low pressure at points of high elevation are
tabulated below.
Pressure (psi)
Avg. Daily
Max. Day
Peak
Hour
Low Pressure Areas
Flow
Flow
Flow
Star Ridge at Newfound St.
33.2
31.0
24.3
Blalock St. at Newfound St.
36.4
34.0
26.9
Flint St. at Newfound St.
37.8
35.3
28.1
Patton St. at High St.
35.5
33.2
26.1
Hill St. at High St.
36.8
34.4
27.2
Burrell St. at Wesley St.
44.5
40.2
27.5
Skyline Drive at Timberline Rd.
40.9
36.0
21.6
Areas of highest pressure occur at points of lowest elevation. There is
130 psi pressure at the intersection of Beaverdam Street and Fiberville
Road and 125 psi pressure in the line serving the town garage.
The system was checked for fire flows at four different
locations by running fire demands at hydrants in the computer model.
In general, water pressures adequate for fire protection are available
in the system except at high elevations where low pressure conditions
have been identified.
The Insurance Services Organization (ISO) last surveyed the
Canton system in 1970 and gave the Town a rating of 6. They indicated
in their survey that of the available storage in the Canton system,
900,000 gallons would be available for fire fighting purposes. They have
suggested that storage for a fire flow of 5,000 gpm for a duration of
five hours should be considered in planning for future expansion and
improvements to the system. This would require 1.5 million gallons
available for fire protection in the future, or an additional 600,000
gallons in storage.
III. FUTURE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS
A. Treatment Capacity
The total water treatment plant capacity that will be needed
to meet the future water needs of the Canton area is projected to be
3.9 mgd by the year 2005. The following list shows required plant
23

capacity based on maximum day water demand expected to occur in future
years.
Required
Treatment
Service
Capacity
Year
Population
mgd
1980
8,800
2.0
1990
10,600
2.7.
2000
12,300
3.5
2005
13,100
3.9
2010
13,500
4.2
2020
14,700
5.1
Figure 6 shows graphically projected treatment plant capacity
and demonstrates that the present total plant capacity of 2.6 mgd will
be exceeded by the year 1986. If a drought should occur in the Rough
Creek watershed existing plant capacity would be exceeded by 1984.
The normal design period for water treatment facilities is
twenty to twenty-five years. Using a design period of twenty-five years
(year 2005), plant capacity should be increased to 3.9 mgd. Since plants
are generally constructed in 0.5 mgd increments, plant capacity for the
year 2005 should be increased to 4.0 mgd. In order to meet water
quality standards it will be necessary to provide for complete water
treatment including coagulation, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration
and disinfection.
B. Storage Requirements
In determining system storage requirements it is necessary to
consider the need for storage to provide for fighting major fires and
for storage to meet peak demands. The selection of storage volume is
also a matter of economics. The ideal recommended storage volume for
Canton would be the sum of fire flow plus 25 percent of maximum day
demand for equalization storage plus the average day demand for emergency
storage. The minimum recommended storage available should be equal to
the fire storage requirement plus -coincident draft. Insurance Services
Organization has suggested that a fire flow of 5,000 gpm�should be
available for fire fighting in the downtown area of Canton for a duration
of five hours. This results in a storage volume of 1.-5 million gallons
required for fire fighting. Considering that the maximum daily demand
would be required to be met as coincident draft during the fire fighting
period an additional volume of 5/24 x 2.2 mgd = 0.46 gallons would be
necessary. This gives a storage requirement of 2,000,000 gallons for
present conditions. Absolute minimum storage that should be considered
would be equal to the average daily demand on the system. Tabulated
below are recommended present and future storage requirements for the
Canton System.
24

z
a
3.0
2.3 t�-2A
O
co
O
OD-
GO
CID
a)
O
a).
a)
a)
Required Treatirient -
Plant Capacity --�
Present Actual Capacity 2.6 MGD,.
With Good Yield From Rough
Creek. This Will Be Exceeded'.
By Year 1986
Present Actual Capacity 2.3MG0
With Drought At Rough Creek.
This Will Be Exceeded By Year /984-
0
O
YEAR N
Required Treatment Plant. Gapn city
TOWN OF CANTON , N_. C.
WATER STUDY
FIGURE 6
HARWOOD BEEBE., CO.
Spartanburg, S.C.
25

TABULATION OF STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
GALS.
PRESENT FUTURE PRESENT
NEEDS NEEDS AVAILABLE
absolute minimum 1,300,000 2,300,000 1,750,000
recommended 2,000,000 2,350,000
ideal 3,100,000 4,800,000
It is recommended that in planning for system expansion
that an additional 600,000 gallon storage capacity be provided. The new
clearwell under construction will provide 100,000 gallons'of storage.
An additional 500,000 gallon storage reservoir should then be planned for
in the future to provide the additional storage.
C. Distribution System Expansion
A detailed analysis was made of the distribution system. New
water lines necessary to provide water to new service areas have been
determined and sized to provide necessary pressure during peak hour flows.
Provision for improving the distribution system by looping and the
elimination of dead ends should be considered in future line construction.
Future water line extensions will be necessary as population increases
and as additional industrial and commercial growth occur. Water line
extensions necessary to serve projected growth areas are shown in
Table 11 along with pipe size, length and present day estimated costs.
The major improvement necessary in the distribution system
at this time is the construction of a more direct connection between the
Penland Street reservoir and the Spruce Street reservoir. This can
best be accomplished by the construction of a 10-inch main in Woodside
Drive from the existing 8-inch main at the intersection of Clyde Road,
crossing the Pigeon River bridge opposite Rosewood Drive, and connecting
to the 8-inch main at the intersection of Thickety Road and Beaverdam
Street. An 8-inch main would tied into the end of the existing 8-inch
main in Thompson Street and connect into the existing 8-inch line
running directly to the Spruce Street reservoir near the intersection of
Hy-Vu Drive. The construction cost for this improvement is estimated to
be approximately $120,000.
26

TABLE 11
LOCATIONS OF FUTURE
WATER
LINE EXTENSIONS
Estimated
Location
Length (ft.)
Size (in.)
Cost •(1980)
Route 1613 (Beaver -
dam) from Route 1616
to Route 1585
9,200
6
92,000
Route 1613 from
Route 1616 north
1,500
4
12,000
Route 1613 -
4,000
6
40,000
Newfound Street
Replace 2" with 6"
1,400
6
14,000
Route 1593 and 1594
to Church Street
2,600
6
26,000
Church Street
900
6
91000
Skyline Drive
600
6
6,000
Route 1847
3,300
6
33,000
Route 110
6,450
6
64,500.
N. Canton Road
3,400
6
34,000
Thickety Road, Rt. 215
3,200'
8
38,400
Harkins Cove Rd.
750
8
91000
Waynesville Highway
2,300
8
27,600
Thompson Street
3,600
8
43,200
Woodside Drive
3,700
10
55,500
Loop Connection between
Green Acres Subd. and
.Green Hills Subd.
11800
4
14,400
Waynesville Highway.
between existing 8"
and 6"
1,700
6
17,000
Preston St. Connection
900
6
91000
Subtotal
544,600
Contingencies @ 10%
55,000
Total
599,600
27
- -
_-

IV. ALTERNATIVES FOR SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
In planning for the capital improvements required to provide for
the future water needs of the Canton and Clyde service areas it was
determined that treatment plant capacity required by the year 2005 will'
be 4.0 mgd and that existing plant capacity of 2.6 mgd will probably
be exceeded sometime in the mid 1980's. It has been determined that
the two sources of supply presently being used will have adequate yield
to meet Canton's water needs in the foreseeable future. The average daily
yield from the Rough Creek supply has been estimated to be 0.8 mgd with
a minimum safe yield by continuous draft estimated to be 200,000 gallons
per day. The safe yield of the Pigeon River is approximately 17 mgd and
can be used as a continuous draft supply to provide all of -the -service
area water requirements. However, the industrial process water needs of
the Champion Paper Company have required that Canton occasionally stop
pumping water from the Pigeon River for short periods of time during
low flow conditions. When this occurs, system finished water needs have
been met by withdrawing from storage and by the Rough Creek water plant.
The Town of Canton has indicated that they want to continue the operation
of the Rough Creek water plant so as to provide a back up to the Penland
Street water plant and because the major growth expected to take place
in the Canton is in Beaverdam section immediately adjacent to the Rough
Creek plant.
Since both the Pigeon River and Rough Creek supplies have been
determined to be suitable in volume and quality and it has been deter-
mined that both of.these supplies will be utilized, our analysis of
alternatives has been aimed at the optimum utilization of both these
sources.
A. Rough Creek
A study was made of the feasibility of constructing a reservoir
on Rough Creek.in order to make maximum use of this supply. It was
determined.that with a reservoir, an average daily yield of approximately
.0.8 mgd could be expected at a total project construction cost of approxi-
mately.2.0 million dollars. This would include construction of the dam,
supplemental 6-inch finished water transmission line.and an 0.8 mgd
filtration plant. Since 0.5 mgd is now being produced by continuous
draft, this alternative was found not to be cost effective.
In order to continue to produce water at Rough Creek the
existing facility -.should be replaced with a plant that.is capable of
reliably meeting finished water quality standards. The existing
inadequate -treatment facilities consisting of clarification and pressure
filtration.should be replaced. The least costly treatment facility that
could be constructed at Rough Creek would be a prefabricated package
water treatment plant. Since.these package treatment plants do not
conform.to.the design criteria used for conventional treatment facilities,
approval for use at Rough Creek would have to be obtained from state
authorities. However, because raw water quality is good from the
protected watershed, a package water plant should be able to provide
suitable treatment. Because of the substantial savings available over
.the cost of 4 conventional plant, a package plant is recommended. The

size of this plant should be between 0.5 and 0.8 mgd depending upon which
type is selected.
B. Penland Street Filter Plant
The capacity of the Penland Street filtration plant should be
increased to 4.0 mgd which will double its present size. This capacity
can be reached by high rating the present filters to operate at a filtra-
tion rate of 4 gpm/s.f. However, because the existing plant is forty-
four years old we believe that the Town would be"better served by a
plant expansion that would provide new gravity filters. This would
permit more flexibility of operation, permit future expansion and allow
old plant structures to be maintained.and rehabilitated.
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Supply and Treatment
In order to increase water treatment capacity to 4.0 mgd at
the Penland Street plant.the Town has two options. It can high rate the
existing plant to 4.0 mgd or it can expand the plant by adding new rapid
sand filters. The least costly alternative would be to high rate the
plant because the cost of new filters and enclosure building would be
saved. We recommend, however, that the Town expand the existing plant
by adding new filters because of the advantages to be gained in operational
flexibility and maintenance. Another reason for not high rating the
existing filters is because of their age. The Penland Street plant
should be expanded and repairs and improvements in the existing plant
should be accomplished to provide for a modern facility. The following
improvements are recommended for the existing plant:
1. Raw water Pumping Station
.a. improve screens at raw water intake structure
b, replace/repai.r.shear gate
.c. replace pressure relief valve
.d. replace pumps and structural modifications
e. replace hydraulic valve on force main at flash
mixing unit
2. Flocculator
a. structural repairs and modifications
3. Clarifiers
a. provide new.shear gates at existing inlets
b. repair overflow ports
C. connect drains to sanitary sewer
4. Filters
a, replace filter media
b. inspect and repair leaks in concrete structure
29

C. install surface wash
d. repair leaking filter gallery piping, controllers
and valves
5. Clearwel1
a. repair existing clearwell structure
6. Backwash Reservoir
a. repair existing backwash tank structure
7. High Service Pumps
a. Replace existing pumps with pumps of greater
capacity and greater head
8. Plant Instrumentation
a. install modern instrumentation
9. Waste Disposal
a. construct equalization reservoir, recycle pumping
station and piping
b. connect plant drain to sanitary sewer system
10. Provide New Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment
11'.. Modernize Laboratory and Equipment
12. Improve Plant Access Road
Figure 7 shows a prelimi.nary site plan showing recommended improvements
required at the Penland Street plant.
The existing Rough Creek plant has inadequate flocculation,
clarification and -filtration operations and should be replaced with a
new plant. The construction of a "package" type filter plant.would be
the least costly if authorization could be obtained from.state authorities.
As an interim step, it is recommended that the Town construct
a new clea.rwell and backwash pumping station that will provide clean
backwash water for the pressure filters. The clearwell and pump station
should be located so that they will be at the best functional location
for utilization in future plant modifications. It is also recommended
that a turbidity analyzer be constructed on the filter influent line so
.that raw water can be automatically diverted to the creek when raw water
turbidity exceeds a level that cannot be adequatel.y filtered. Loss of
head indicators.should be provided on the filters. These improvements
should be made in conjunction with an overall improvement program for
the.Rough Creek Plant.
OV

B. Storage
Improvements that must be made to the existing storage reservoirs
are listed below.
1. Spruce Street Reservoir
a. place existing altitude valve into operation
b. provide new pump house
C. provide water level recorder
d. close air space between end walls and roof
e. repairs to roof
2. Penland Street reservoir
a. new altitude valve
b. replace gate valves
C. repair roof
d. access road improvements
3. Clyde Reservoir
a. install altitude valve
C. Distribution
The construction -of a more direct connection between the
Penland Street and Spruce Street reservoirs should be made as soon as
possible. This can be accomplished by the construction of a 10-inch
main in Woodside Drive from the existing 8-inch main at the intersection
of Clyde Road, crossing the Pigeon River bridge opposite Rosewood Drive,
and connecting to the 8-inch main at the intersection of Thickety Road
and Beaverdam Street. An 8-inch main would tied into the end of the
existing 8-inch main in Thompson Street and connect into the existing 8-
inch line running directly to the Spruce Street reservoir near the
intersection of Hy-Vu Drive.
VI. ­COST ESTIMATE FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements based upon
1982 estimated cost figures is $2,670,000. This cost includes con-
struction cost, legal, administrative and engineering cost.
Iv
The breakdown of these costs is shown in Table-1-1- No cost
is included for land acquisition at Rough Creek since it is not known
at this time if that will be necessary.
32

A.
TABLE 12
PROJECT COST
BREAKDOWN
CANTON, N. C. WATER
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ROUGH CREEK PLANT
Prefab. Water Plant
$ 195,500
Surface Wash Pumps
6,000
Backwash Pumps
10,000
Turbidity Meter & Controls
5,200
Interior Piping, valves, etc.
21,200
Air Compressor
2,200
Prefab. Bldg.
53,900
Electrical
10,000
Chlorination System
10,000
100,000 gal. Clearwell
120,000
Yard Piping
15,000
Instrumentation
10,000
Site Work
30,000
Sludge Lagoons
30,000
Contingencies @ 10%
52,000
Total Const. Cost Rough Creek
571,000
PENLAND STREET PLANT
Rehabilitate Raw Water Pump Station $ 48,400
Rehab. Exist. Clarifiers
6,000
Exist. Filter Improvements
53,000
Repair Exist. Clearwell .
28,000
Repair Exist. Backwash Tank
15,000
Replace High Service Pumps
32,000
Modify Flash Mix
3,000
Modify Flocculator
95,000
New Clarifiers
203,000
New Filters
247,000
Interior Piping
126,000
Building Addition
154,000
Chemical Feed Equip.
72,000
Sanitary Sewer
28,000
Backwash Tank & Pump
87,000
Backwash Equalization Tank &
Pump Station
133,000
Yard Piping
86,000
Site Work
43,000
Pavement
16,000
Chlorination'Facilities
41,000
Laboratory Modernization
11,000
Drainage & Retaining Walls
26,000
Contingencies @ 10%
155,000
Total Const. Cost Penland St. Plant
1,708,400
33

C. WATER LINES*
.Woodside Drive 3,700 1.f..10"
Thompson St. 3,600 l.f. 8"
Contingencies @ 10%
Total Const. Water Lines
D. STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS, ACCESS
ROAD, VALVES, LEVEL INDICATOR
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMIN.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
55,500
43,200
9,900
108,600
60,000
2,448,000
222_nnn
$2,670,000
* Th.ese water lines are necessary to provide a more direct connection
between th.e Penland Street and Spruce Street'reservoi.rs, See Page 26,
34

VII. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The Town plans to seek grant monies that may be available
through various federal and local agencies. The Southwestern North
Carolina Planning and Economic Development Commission has been very
helpful in advising the Town in developing a funding strategy for
the proposed project. The Town plans to seek grants from the U. S.
Department of Commerces Economic Development Administration (EDA),
the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and grants available through
the North Carolina Clean Water Bond Act of 1977.
The amount and source of funding that will be sought for this
project are listed below:
PROPOSED FUNDING PROFILE
EDA Title 1 Grant (50%) $ 1,335,000
ARC Section 214 Supplemental
Grant 600,000
North Carolina Clean Water
Bond .Fund 367,500
Town of Canton Local Share 367,500
Total Project Cost $ 2,670,000
The Town is in the process of applying for these grants.
35

i
N.C' 'PT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COf
L C l
'COUNTY: y4tI'� tt", :fDEVELOPMENT
RIVER BASIN" DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL iMANAGEMENT
REPORT TOP ARO,jFRO, MRO, RRO• Wa i WSRO,TS WATER QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM (DM
1)
Other
N1TY % r1
T LAB NUMBER 00008:f '! j
r.' __ -
0 DATE RELIEVED: —l�r Time+ •
Recd bv: fit From: Bus —:Courier -Other
DATA ENTRY BY' CK:
.= Shippe8 by: Bus, Courier, Other
SAMPLE TYPE {
1', + `/+aAMBIENT aEMERGENCY_ ,SPLIT ❑COMPLIANCE DATE REPORT O:
COLLECTOR(S): i J - �'h� 'S .} { .
r
BOD RANGE: SEED-,
08
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
li
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A
B
DM1/Revised lO/82
4)
�
Station Number
Date Begin ! yy/mr
Time Begin
Date End
Time End
Dept DM DB DBM
Value Type
Composite
Sample Type
rI
A H L
T 5 B
C G GNXX
BOD 10 m /I
Chloride940 mg/1
NH as N 610 m /I
Ni — Nickel 1067 u /
COD High 40 m /I
Arser10 u /I
iaTota
TKN as N 625 m /i
Pb— Lead 10.51 u /
COD:Low 335 m /
Chi a: Tri 32217 u /1
NO *NO3as N 630 m /I
Sb— Antimony1097 u /1
Coliforni Feca131 16 /100ml
Chi a:Corr 32209 u /I
PO as P 70507 rn /I
Se— Selenium u /I
Colifor :MF Total 04 /100m1
Pheo h tin a 32213 u /I
P: Total as P 665 m /I
Zn— Zinc 109 u /1
Tube ColifornrFeca131615 /100ml
Color:True 80 Pt —Co
P` Dissolved as P 666 mg/1
Coliform:Tube .Total 31505 /100ml
Chromium: Hex.1032 ug/I
A —Silver 1077 u /I
Pesticides Specifically
.
Residue Total 0 m /I
11
Cyanide 720 /I
Al — Aluminum 1105 u /•I
Volatile 505 mg/1
Fluoride951 mg/I
Be— Beryllium 1012 u /I
�
Scan Organochlorine
Fixed 510 mg/1
Formaldeh de 71880 1m /l
Ca— Calcium 916 mg/1
Scan Or ano hos horus
Residue:S ended 530 m /I.
Grease and Oils 556 m /I
Cd — Cadmium 1027 u /
Volatile 535 m /I
Hardness:Total 900 m /I
Co— Cobalt 1037 u /I
Or anics Specifically
Fixed 540 m /I
MBAS 38260 m /I
Chromium:Total 1034 u /I/I
pH 403 units
Phenols 32730 u
CopperCu—1042 u /I
.''`�
Scan Base / Neutral. Extractables
Acidityto H 4.5 436 m /I
Sulfate 945 rn /I
Fe— Iron 1045 u /I
r`�
Scan Acid Extractables
Acidityto H 8 3 435 m /I
Sulfide 745 m /I
H—Mercur 900 u /I
2
Alkalinityto 8-3 415 m /I
Specific Cond.95 uMhos/cm
Li — Lithium 1132 u /I
Special Anal sis Specifically
2
Alkalinityto H 4 5 410 m /I
Biomass: Dr Wt. 573 g/M
M —Magnesium 927 m /I
�/'
2
TOC 8 m /I
Biomass: Peri Ash Free 572 g�"�. /M
MnMn—Manganese 1055 u /1
Scan Acid Herbicides
_.
Turbidity 7 NTU
Chi a: Peri Fluro 82547 n 2
No — Sodium 929 m /I
Scan Pur eables
~
Sampling Point
Water Temperature(°C)
D: .
pH
Conductance .
41 Alkalinity
'
it
D
P.T %
at25`C
PH 8.3 pH 4.5 PH4.5
-
- -- -
--
,A'
--ter QVU ip-Division
6 2-
10
300 `�
400
94 --- - ""---
82244 = -- 431 - - - _-= 82243--
Secchi(Meters)
Air Temperature(°C)
D.O.%Saturation
Salinity%,
Algae; Floating Mots
Precipitation(in/Day)
Cloud Cover;% Wind
Direction(Deg.)
Win Force
Seventy
Beaufort
OCT
A 19k
78
20
301
480
1325
45
32 36
1 Hr.Settlea a
Dead Fis
Turbidity Severity
Odor,Atmosp ere
Stream flow
Detergent Su s
-
Oi Grease Floating
Debris
Sludge Severity
Matter

Reported by��.
Checked by t .
Supervisor
Lab
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
Entered bY4:a�-
Checked by
C
Date
ih
i_
is
�� GC/MS/DS used

lE
B
C
EPT.- OF NATURAL" RESOURCES' & CO �1NITY'
r'GUNTY ✓ 7`-i it t.l �.ti1 d l.l" F a�.
OEY OPMENT .SLAB NUMBER 00008:
RIVER BASIN: DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DATe RECIEVED:1-? ex Time
REPORT TO: ,FRO. MRO, RRO, WaRO wiao. wsao.rs WATER QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM�IDM1) ' I_Recd by"�``
��....�/' -- ' t�.�--/ � From: Bu -Courier. Ocher
Other^�
Shipped 6y: Bus, Courier, Other SAMPLE TYPE DATA ENTRY BY,-.
v c AMBIENT EMERGENCY .,. SPLIT COMPLIANCE DATE REPORTED: < - ;:2
COIIECTOR151: � '��`•r`Jn I � � _t
BOD RANGE: SEED: STATION LOCATION: A "C' e0 j / C c; rj. O /Vl S i^ 10 7 e i - -J C4 - 16
CHLORINATED: -
Station Number
/�l�h; �--
Date Begin i yy/mmj/ Ci
!J'- C��/ I'•�
Time Begin
•�
Date En
Time End
Dept fDM pB DBM
�j/
Type
A H L
Composite
T S B
Sample Type
C G GNXX
BODS 310 m /I
r
"
Chlaride940 m /I
'. -
NH, as N 610 m /I
-
Ni - Nickel 1067 u /
COD High 340 /1
-Arsenic:
Tota u /I
TKN as N 625 mg/l
Pb- Lead 1051 u /
COD Cow 335 mq/1
Chi a= Tri 32217 u /I
NO 2 •N(3as' N 630 /1
Sb- Antimony 1097' u /I
Coliform:MF Feco131616 /100ml
Chi a:Corr ' 2209 u /I
PO4 as P 70507-- m /I
e- Selenium 1 u I
Coliform:MF Total 04 /100ml
Pheaphv tin a_32213 u 71
P: Total as P 665 nt /I
Zn- Zinc 109 u /I
Coliform:Tub• Feco131615 /100m1
Color: True 0 Pt -Co
P`.Dissolvr.d as P666 m /I
'
Coliform:Tube Total 31505 /100ml
Chromium: Hex.1032 -- "`u /I
,
A - Silver 9077u /I
Pesticides $ i{ic'a • .•
'
Residue Total 500 - "' mg/1
v anide77Q - "In /I
AI:--Alumiriuin1105-.- u /I
-
Volatile 505 mg/1
Ffuoride9 1 mg/I
Be - Beryllium 1012 /I
Scan Or anochlorine• r
Fixed 510 mg/1
Formoldeh de 71880' _ m /I
Co- Calcium 916 mg/1
Scan Or anophosphorus / f
Residue -Sv5pended 530 mg/1
Grease and Oils 556 in /I
Cd- Cadmium 1027 u /
,
Volatile 535 m /I
Hardness:Total 900 in /I
Co- Cobalt 1037 - uQ/1
Organics S aficall
Fixed 540 m /I
MBAS38260 'rn /I
Chromium: oral 1034 u /1
H403 - 'units
Phenoti 32730" u /I
Cu-Co er 1042 "v /►
$cdn Base / Neutral Eiitractables
Acidic to H 4 5 436 mg/1
Sullate 945 m '/1
Fe- Iron 1045 u /1
Scan Acid Exfraclables
Acidity to PH 8 3' 435 m /I
Sulfide 745 m /I
H-Mercur 71900 u /I
Alkalinity Pci'pH 8 3 415 mg/l
2
Soecific Cond.95' uMhos/cm
Li- (ithium1132 u /)
$ ecial Analysis Specifically
Alkalinity to pH4 5 410 m /I
. 2
Biomass: Dr Wt. 573 g/M
M -Ma nesium 927 mg /I
TOC 80 m /1
2
Biomass Peri Ash Fme 572 g/M
Mn -Manganese 1055 u /I
Scan Acid Herbicides
Turbidity 76 NTUi
lChl
2
a: Peri Fluro 82547 mg/M
No Sodium 929 I m /!
C
$can Pur ea6les
1 '�'.;?--r.._I !7.��!'.C•z-t�-S(_e v� l.� /%i %..�'L-v. c�i ��7-"i'/��+,`'.�'r�;r;'%✓_,-. /��$' ��_'_.f_yf...4_�_ �� ---- •
Sampling Point
PT
6 2
Water Temperature(°C)
10
D-0,pH
300
_
400
Conductance �i
Conduc %
a'
94
-
PH 8.3 Alkalinity
PH 4.5 ,
82244 431
-
Acidity
PH4.5 Water Qua PI,*EIr3jv '. rl
82243 82242
Secchi (Meters)
;:a
Air Temperature('C)
120
D.O Y saturation
301
Salinity T_
1480
Algae Floating Mats
Severity
1325
Precipitation( In/Day)
- -
45 32
Cloud Cover. a
Wind Direction(Deg )
C
SEP
36
yllin , Force
eav w
37
11 Hr Setile❑ble
.bto:rerlml/I/Hr:
00086
Dead FishTwbidily
Severity
1340
Severity
1350
Odor:Atmosphere
Seventy
1330
Stream flow
Severity
1351
Detergent Suds
Severity Severity
1305 1
Oi -Grease
0
Floatingr�� a
Severitv W ern R
1345 Asheville;
I
0't �9��iilYce�
lorsh Caroling

Reported Date `6
Checked by �. ORGANIC ANALYSTS
Supervisor Entered byAtL-
.
Checked b qg
Lab No. AnResults
____� GC/MS/DS used

zk(t .1 lt4v� k
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
`1
P.1kx_&Yv_f2cv
Development �
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ' S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Mr. Garrett Smathers
Environmental -Management
11 Forest Hill Drive
Canton, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Smathers:
September 13, 1985
Commission
28716
SUBJECT: Pigeon River Study
Haywood County
As a result of your request to have Division personnel sample the Pigeon
River at the Town of Canton's raw water intake looking for the presence of
contamination, the river at that location has been sampled five times. Ana-
lytical results have been returned for the first two sampling runs and do not
reveal the presence of any organic contamination. One of the samples was gath--
ered on April 23, 1985, during which Western North Carolina was experiencing
prolonged dry weather. The other sample was gathered on May 10, 1985, follow-
ing 24 hours of light rain. We will keep you informed as additional analytical
results become available.
Sincerely,
Paul Wilms
Division Director
RPW:gv
xc: Bill Stamey, Town Manager
Darrell Herndon
Forrest Westall
Max Haner
1 }� P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
_^ �Uv u
I' (� � An Equal:Opporrunity / Affirmative Action Employer

10T. OF NATURAL RESOURCES & Cd _
UNITY
C(YihTY(
^ ! '�
DEVELOPMENT
LAB NUMBER 00008:
cJ RIVER BASIN:
i^.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT0
DATE RECIEVED�
Time l ..
REPORT TO:rARO, FRO. MRO L RRO. WaRO WiRO, WSRO, T$
WATER QUALITY FIELD -LAB
FORM (DM1)
Recd bv:/(
�
From: Bus �ourier)- Other '
Other
Shipped by: Bus,
SAMPLE TYPE
DATA ENTRY BY: --
1,-,` /
CK:
Courier, Other
COLLIE TOR(S): h .r, ... J.
"AMBIENT
EMERGENCY
❑SPLIT ❑COMPLIANCE
DATE REPORTED:
L A TO Ems! �
�C ` "' �:
BOD RANGE:
SEED:
STATION LOCATION:
<�)
S J a
T� I!' f Fll �
i i C`:�tl ✓1 1 'l%
CHLORINATED:
REMARKS: n� ca +
4 ' `� '_2/
j
k ci
Y
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
_12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A
B
C
Station Number
Date Begin yy/mm/ddl
Time Begin
Date End
Time End
Depth DM DB DBM
Value Type
Composite
Sample Typa
A H L.
T S B
C G GNXX
BOD5 310 m /I
Chloride940 mg/1
NH as N 610 m /I
Ni - Nickel 1067 u /
COD High 40 m /I
Arsenic: Tota 1002 u /I
TKN as N 625 mg/l
Pb- Lead 1057 u /
COD:Low 335 mg/Img/I
Chi a: Tri 32217 u /I
NO +NO3 as N 630 m /I
Sb- Antimony 1097 u /I
Coliform.:MF Feca131616 /100ml
Chi .:Corr 32209 u /I
PO4 as P 70507 mg/I,
Se- Selenium 1147 u /1
Colifor :MF Total 31504 /100ml
Pheo h tin a 32213 u /I
P: Total as P 665 m /I
Zn- Zinc 109 u /1
Coliform:Tube Feco131615 /100ml
,Color:
True 80 �Pt-Co
P'• Dissolved as P666 mg/ I
Coliform:Tube Total 31505 /100ml
Chromium: Hex.1032 u /I
A -Silver 1077 u /1
Pesticides Specifically
Residue Total 500 m /I
Cyanide 720 m /I
At -Aluminum1105 u it
Volatile505 m /I
Fluoride951 mg/I
Be - Beryllium 1012 /i
Scan Or anochlorine
Fixed 10 m /I
Formaldeh de 71880 m /I
Ca- Calcium 916 m /I
Scan Or an0 hos horns
Residue:5 ended 530 m /I
Grease and Oils 556 m /I
Cd- Cadmium 1027 u /
Volatile 535 m /I
Hardness:Total900 m /I
Co- Cobalt 1037 u /I
Or anics $ ecificall
Fixed 540 m /I
MBAS 38260 m /I
Total 7034 u /I
H403 units
Phenols 32730 u /1
-Chromium;
Cu- Copper 7042 u /I
Scan Base / Neutral Extractables
Acidity to PH 4.5 436 m /I
Sulfate 945 m /I
Fe- Iron 1045 u /I
Scan Acid Extracta6les
Acidity to PH 8 3 435 nt /I
ISulfide 745 m /I
H-Mercur 00 u /I
2
Alkalinity to PH 8 3 415 m /I
S ecific Cond.95 uMhos/cm
Li - Lithium 1132 u /I
Special Analysis Specifically
2
Alkalinity to PH45410 rn /I
BiomossDry Wt.573 g/M
M -Ma nesium927 m /I
-
TOC 68Q rn /I
2
Biomass: Peri Ash Free 572 % g/M
'
Mn-Manganese 1055 u /I
Scan Acid Herbicides
—
Turbidit 7 NTU
2
Chi a: Peri Fluro 82547 mg/M
No Sodium 929 m /I
Scan Pur eables
f
-
Sampling Point
Water Temperature(°C)
D.O.
pH
Conductance
of 25°C
Alkalinity
4.54.5RE
c' �f �_ l
�8V E 1J
PT
PH 8.3 PH PH
6 - 2 _- __ -. _
10 ___ -- - -
300 =� ---- --- -
400 - ' - - --
94' -' - _ -
82244 - 431 - - - 82243
2 f A
Secchi (Meters)
Air Temperature(°C)
D.O.% Saturation
Salinity %
Algoe:Floating Mats
Precipitation(in/Day)
Cloud Cover;% Wind
Direc ion eg.
Win Force
Seventy
Beaufort
CC��
198,+
78
20
301
480
1325
45
32 36
m1r.
28
1 Hr. Settles a
Dead Fish
Turbidity Severity
Odor;Atmosp ere
Stream Flow
Detergent Suds
oil -Grease Floating.
Debris
Sludge Severity
Matter(ml/I/Hr,)
Severity
Severity
Severity
Severity
Severity Severity
1134G
1,1350
Western
q,-' Onzl Office
50086
1330
1351
1305 11300
1345
DM1/Revised 10/82
8snevine, 1-4ut t t . � ,,. q

Reported
Checked by
Supe rvisor7g=�' L
Lab No.
Date
ORGANIC -ANALYSIS
Entered by
U
Checked by"
Analvtical. Results
V GC/MS/DS used

1
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
1&
19
20
4
'A
11Y� N. EPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES & CO 1NITY
Try w �� DEVtiUPMENT
RIVER BASIN: DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
REPORT TO: RO FRO, MRO, RRO. WoRO WiRO, WSRO,TS WATER QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM (DM1)
Other
Shipped by: Bus, Courier, Other SAMPLE TYPE
LLECTOR(S): Fyy,/Vc.f e—s 1:1AMBIENT EMERGENCY ' ❑SPLIT ❑COMPLIANCE
BOD RANGE: SEED:
STATION LO ATIO :
P)'<'-dN
lc
CHLORINATED:
REMARKS:
-a` 1,- - - I - . .„ L - IV
Station Number
Date Begin yy/mm/ !
ps o, `o��
OO y zi
Time Begin
(
Date End
Time End
Depf D B DBM
f�
< /
Value Type
A H L
Composite
T S B
Sample Type
C G GNXX
BOD5 310 m /I
Chloride940 m /I
NH,1 as N 610 m /I
I
Ni - Nickel 1067 u /
COD High 340 m /I
Arsenic: Tofa 100 u /I
TKN as N 625 mg/I
Pb- Lead 1051 u /
COD:Low 335 mg/l
Chi a: Tri 32217 u /I
NO +NO3 as N 630 m /I
Sb- Antimony 1097 u /I
Coliform:MF Feca131616 /100ml
Chl a:Corr 32209 u /I
PO4 as P 70507 m /I
Se- Selenium 1147 u /I
Coliform:MF Total 31504 /100m1
Pheo h tin a 32213 u /I
P: Total as P 665 m /I
Zn- Zinc 109 u /l
Coliform:Tube Feca131615 /100ml
Color:True 80 Pt -Co
P' Dissolved as P 666 m /I
Coliform:Tube Total 31505 /100m1
Chromium: Hex.1032 ug/I
jAg -Silver 1077 u /I
Pesticides Specifically
Residue Total 500 m /I
Cyanide 720 m /I
Al - Aluminum 1105 u /I
Volatile 505 m /I
Fluoride951 -mg/I
Be- Beryllium 1012 u /I
Scan Organochlorine 14
Fixed 510 m /I
Formaldehyde 77880 m /I
Co- Calcium 916 m /I
$can Or anophos horns
Residue:5 ended 530 m /I
Grease and Oils 556 m /I
Cd- Cadmium 1027 u /
Volatile 535 m /I
Hardness:Total 900 m /I
Co- Cobalt 1037 u /I
Organics $ ecificall
Fixed 540 m /l
MBAS 38260 .m /I
Chromium: otal 1034 u /I
H403 units
Phenols 32730 u /I
-Cu-Copper
1042 u /I
Scan Base / Neutral Extractables
Acidity to PH 4.5 436 m /I
Sulfate 945 m /I
Fe- Iron 1045 u /I
Scan Acid Extractables
Acidity to PH 8 3 435 mg/I
Sulfide 745 m /I
H-Mercur 900 u /I
Alkalinity to PH 8.3 415 m /I
2
Specific Cond. 95 uMhos/cm
Li - Lithium 1132 u /I
Special Analysis Specifically
Alkalinity to PH 4 5 410 m /I
2
Biomass: Dry Wt. 573 g/M
M -Ma nesium 927 m /I
TOC 8 _, m /I
2
Biomass: Peri Ash Free 572 9/M
Mn-Manganese 1055 u /I
"
Scan Acid Herbicides
Tur,biditv76 NTU
1 2
IChl a: Peri Fluro 82547 mg/M
No -Sodium 929 m /I
CScan
Pur eobles
ED
Sampling Point
PT
6 2
Water Temperature(°C)
10
D.O.
300
fH
400
Conductance
at 25°C
94
Alkalinity
PH 8.3 !PH 4.5
82244 431
Acidic
UA}���IVISIOr1
PH 4.5 Water Qy
CH
82243 82242
Secchi(Meters)
78
Air Temperature(°C)
20
D.O.%Saturation
301
Salinity%°
480
Algae; Floating Mats
Severity
1325
Precipitation(in/Day)
45
Cloud Cover;%-
32
Wind Direction(De .)
U6
!1V
36
in ue
au �J
37
1 Hr. Settleable
Matter (ml/IIHr.)
50086
Dead FishTurbidity
Severity
1340
Severity
1350
Odor;Atmosp ere
Severity
1330
Stream Flow
Severity
1351 1
Detergent Su s
Severity
1305
Oil -Grease
Severity
1300
` 6
Floating v�tllr' fR �'
Severity
1345 ;NsheviHe�
SI}�dgeg5eyeti)y c
orth Carolina1315
DM1/Revised 101bl

i
4
R
E
7
8
5
1C
11
M
I-
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
7
A
B
C
N. EPT. OF NATURAL ,RESOURCES & CO
COUNTY: y �� t, :�_5 o 0 d OE1 PMENT
RIVER BASIN: DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
REPORT TO: ARO, FRO, MRO. RRO, WaRO WiRO, WSRO, TS
t- Other WATER QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM (DM1)
Shipped by: Bus, Courier, Other SAMPLE TYPE
1NITY
LAB NUMBER 00008:
f i
DATE RECIEVED: / "i h Time . Y4
Recd by: f'--- ' From: Bus'rCourier-Other
DATA ENTRY BY: CK:
�^ AMBIENT
COLLECTOR(S): t' f :� r.l t' t P S .
EMERGENCY
s
_ SPLIT COMPLIANCE DATE REPORTED:
'
BOD RANGE: SEED: STATION LOCATION:
;! ' ! y =r d
+ c. t, r1.;tir„ ;) r
,-, T,e, �.
a T., 7 1�= e
CHLORINATED:
Station Number
Date Begin yy/mm/ )
Time Begin
Date End
Time End
DBM
Value Type
Composite
Sample Type
-4
IDepth,-DM—DB
A H L
T S B
C G GNXX
BOD5 3io m /I
Chloride940 m /l
INHI as N 610 m /I
Ni — Nickel 1067 u /
COD High 340 m /I
Arsenic:Tota 1002 u /l
TKN as N 625 m /I
Pb— Lead 1051 u /
COD Low 335 mg/l
Chi a: Tri 32217 u /I
NO +NO3 as N 630 m /l
Sb— Antimony 1097 u /I
Coliform:MF Fecal31616_ /100ml
Chi a:Corr 32209 -,u /I
PO4 as P 70507 m /I
Se— Selenium 1147 u /I'
Colifor :MF Total 04 /100ml
Pheo h tin a 32213 u /l
P: Total as P 665 m /I
Zn— Zinc 1092 u /l
Coliform:Tube Feco131615 /100ml
Colar:True 80 Pt —Co
P`• Dissolved as P 666 m /I
Coliform:.Tube Total 31505 /100mll
Chromium: Hex..1032 ', u /i
A — Silver 1077 u /I
Pesticides Specifically
Residue Total 500 _m /l
;- ._
C snide 720 �m /I
Al —Aluminum 1105 u /l
Volatile 505 m /l
Fluoride951 mg/I
Be— Ber Ilium1012 /I
C
Scan Organochlorine
Fixed 510 m /I
I
Formaldeh de 71880 rm /I
Ca— Calcium 916 ni /1
6+
Scan Or anopho5 horus +
Residue:5 ended 530 m /I
Grease and Oils 556 m /I
Cd— Cadmium 1027 u g/:
'Volatile 535 m /1
Hardness:Total900- - in /l
Co— Cobalt 1037 u /1
l0racinics Specifically
Fixed 540 m /l
MBAS 38260 ' Fri /l
Chromium:Total 1034 u /I
H403 units
Phenols 32730 u /I
'
Cu—Co er 1042 u /l
Scan Base / Neutral Extracta6les
—Acidity
to oH 4.5 436 m /I
Sulfate 945 'm /I
Fe— Iron 1045 u /I
l Scan Acid Extracta6les
Acidit y to PH 8 3 435 mg/I
Sulfide 745 m /I
H—Mercur 900 u /I
2
Alkalinity to PH 8.3 415' m /i
Specific Cond. 95 umhosAm
Li — Lithium 1132 u /I
$ ecial Analysis Specifically
2
Alkalinity to pH4 5 410 m /l
Biomass: Dry Wt. 573 )9/M
M9 —Magnesium 927 m /I
-
z
TOC 8 m /l
Biomass: Peri Ash Free 572 g/M
Mn—Manganese 1055 u /l
t-'
Scan Acid Herbicides
iTurbidity
76 NTU
2
Chl a: Peri Fluro 82547 mg/M
No — Sodium 929 m /I
a
Scan Pur eobles
r - -- -- �
Sampling Point
PT o
Water Temperature(°C)
D.O.
pH
Conductance
at 25°C
Alkalinity
PH 8.3 pH 4.5
PH 4.5 R E l-.O8,3
-
E D
63 2
10
300 _ _400
94 _
82244 431
82243 Water Ou
i
i zCiv�sion-
Secchi (Meters)
Air Temperature ('C)
D,O.% Saturation
Salinity %,
Algae; Floating Mats
Severity.
Precipitation(in/Day)
Cloud Cover;%
Wind Direction(Deg,)
Wind Force
78
20
301
480
1325
45
32
36
ccBeaaufort �j
R3 1985
1 Hr. Settleable
Matter(ml/IIHr.)
50086
Dead FishTurbidity
Severity
1340
Severity
11350
Odor;Atmosp ere
Severity
1330
Stream 'Flow
Severity
11351 i
Detergent Suds
Severity
1305
Oi -Grease
Severity
1300
Floating Debris
Severity
1345 Western
Sludge Severity
etional Offic'm
DMI/Revised IU/tlL VMaea.ne' a+na+• v....,.

Reported by�f Date R —al AC5
Checked by 4�LL; ORGANIC ANALYSIS
Supervisor C, Entered by f
Checked by
Lab No. Anal tical.Results
r
I
e
1
1 \
RECEIVED
Water Quality Division
�� GC/MS/DS used

I -
RECEAYEP
MAR I 1 1986
Western-Ragionil Offir-O
6sheville, North Carolirw
A
t4 OIL utu
4-, (
cll�
C/-
C. �,Ldxw ;�L-/ dnhcLhL -A-4 (,Jo- 41le a4

t.,j
6t -
A14
i