Complete File - Historical_MiscSpills2

May 16 05 05:55a DWQ PERCS UNIT 919-733-0059
B5/14/05 18:33:52 DEFAULTESID-> 919 733 8859 SHKNC-
P. 1
Page 001
NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER - FLASH FAX
xxxGOVERNMENT USE ONLY —GOVERNMENT USE ONLYxxX
DO NOT RELEASE this information to the public without
permission from the NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER 1-800-424-8802
Incident Report N 758704
INCIDENT DESCRIPTION
xReport taken by: CIV JOHNSON at 10:26 on 14-MAY-05
Incident Type: STORAGE TANK
Incident Cause: OPERATOR ERROR
Affected Area: STORM WATER DITCH
The incident was discovered on 14-MAY-05 at 02:30 local time.
Affected Medium: WATER STORM WATER DITCH / INSIDE OF PLANT
REPORTING PARTY ^ ^ _ /J .
Name: STEVE CLOY /' J'`J (�,�j�,
Organization: COPELAND CORP.
Address: 4401 EAST DIXON BLVD
�r
SHELBY, NC 28152
COPELAND CORP. called for the responsible party.
PRIMARY Phone: [phone]
Type of Organization: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
SUSPECTED RESPONSIBLE PARTY
Name: STEVE CLOY
Organization: COPELAND CORP.
Address: 4401 EAST DIXON BLVD
SHELBY, NC 28152
PRIMARY Phone: [phone]
Type of Organization: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
INCIDENT LOCATION
4401 EAST DIXON BLVD County: CLEVELAND
City: SHELBY State: NC
RELEASED MATERIALS)
CHRIS Code: NCC Official Material Name: NO CHRIS CODE
Also Known As: COOLANT MULTAN MIXED WITH 90% WATER
Qty Released: 2500 GALLON(S) Qty in Water: 70 GALLON(S)
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT
MATERIAL RELEASED FROM A CODLING TANK DUE TO VALVE WAS LEFT OPEN.
INCIDENT DETAILS
Description of Tank: COOLING TANK
Tank Above/Below Ground: ABOVE
Transportable Container: NO
Tank Regulated: NO
Tank Regulated By:
Tank ID:
Capacity of Tank: 2800 GALLON(S)
Actual Amount: 1800 GALLON(S)
---WATER INFORMATION ---
Body of Water: STORM WATER DITCH
Tributary of:
Nearest River Mile Marker:
14-MAY-05 10:32 (202)2829201
NOAA 1ST CLASS 88 RPTS FOR NC (PRIMARY)
14-MAY-05 10:32 (206)5266344
SC EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIVISION (PRIMARY)
14-MAY-05 10:32 (803)7378500
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OENR (PRIMARY)
14-MAY-05 10:32 (919)7335083
SC DEPT OF ENV CNTL ATTN: ERS (PRIMARY)
14-MAY-05 10:32 (803)2536468
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Voitaicwa 14.00 rnn 1 IVY YVY
�aat� 9 w16 T. OF. ENIVI SOMA- Ea�9 8
OFFIC`-
200`�
EMERSON.. (��Y 2 3
Ohnate Technologies
F -
Facsimile
WAY. C3
O Refrigeration Division
4401 E. Dixon Blvd.
i_ Shelby, NO 228162
T [phone]
F [phone]
To: fnr1 1�� j� l , � �� No. o4 Pages {Inoluding coversheeO:
Company:
Fox Number: 9/ 7 -2 3 3-; � 141
Date: ©©S
rM - — Irrrw.wY`�r•. -- Itl- —""- ru.w�..r rl �,rw�+�wrr � .1 Y .olq
From:
Phone: % O
Comments:
61tIj
. R �P' -�- �'D
030
iY\C'i r / .

d
EMERSOM
Climate Technologies
VIA FA IlVIII,E AND U. S MAIL
Mr. Alan Klimek, P.E.
Director, North Carolina. Division
of Water Quality
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury- Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Copeland Corporation
4401 East Dixon Blvd
Shelby, NC 28152
USA
T [phone]
F (704)4849723
May 19, 2005
Re: Copeland Corporation Report pursuant to Storm Water General
Permit # NCG03001)0
Dear Mr. Klimek:
Pursuant to the requirements in Section IR(E)(8) of Copeland Corporation's ("Copeland") Storm
Water General Permit No. NCG,030000 (the "Permit"), Copeland hereby submits this report
concerning a release at its facility in Shelby, North Carolina.
At approximately 3 :00 A.M. on May 14, 2005, Copeland experienced a release of approximately
70 gallons of a coolant -water solution into a neighboring stormwater ditch located outside of
Copeland's property. The solution contained 0.6% concentration of a chemical called "Multan
RS". Therefore, approximately 4.2 gallons of Multan RS was released during this -event. Multan
RS is composed of the following (an MSDS is attached hereto for reference):
• Rust Inhibitor (10-30%)
• Triethanolamine (1-101/6)
• Diethanolamine (1-10°/0)
Hexylene glycol (1-10%)
2-(Butylanuno)ethan0l (1-100/0)
• Fatty acid derivative (1-10%)
Triazine (1-10%)
• Surfactant blend (Less than 1%)
• Petroleum distillates (Less than 1%).
I notified the National Response Center and the North Carolina Spill Hotline of this release at
approximately 11:00 A.M. on May 14. We investigated and determined that the cause of the
release was a blocked valve that could not close and seal because it was clogged with debris. We
��pM/Ind®

have cleaned out the valve and have recovered all of the coolant from the stormwater ditch using
a sump sucker. We have taken steps to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of a similar
release in the future by forming a team to address the issue; this team is currently in the process
of drafting a corrective action plan.
Pursuant to Section M(E)(2). a copy of this report is being submitted to the Division of Water.
Quality's Central Files.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this report. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Cloy
Pc: Division of Water Qualify, Central Files

Material Safety Data Sheet
ID: 238090
Material Name: MULTAN RS
* * *Section 1 -Chemical Product and Compan Identification ` * *
Product Trade Name MULTAN RS
Manufacturer Information Contact Phone: [phone]
Henkel Surface Technologies
Henkel Corporation Chemtrec Emergency # [phone]
32100 Stephenson Highway
Madison Heights, MI 48071
* * * Section 2 - Composition /'Information on Ingredients * �`
Emergency Overview:
This product is irritating to the eyes, respiratory system and skin. This product contains a component that may
cause allergic skin reactions. Long-term exposure can cause liver and kidney damage. Prolonged or repeated
contact with liquid or vapor may affect the nervous system. Some effects may be delayed.
Potential Health Effects:
Inhalation and skin contact are expected to be the primary routes of occupational exposure to this material. Based
on its composition, it is anticipated to be severely irritating to corrosive to eyes and skin. Prolonged or repeated
contact may remove oils from the skin and may dry skin and cause irritation, redness and rash. Repeated or
prolonged contact may cause an allergic skin reaction. High vapor concentrations may be irritating to the eyes
and respiratory tract, and may result in central nervous system (CNS) effects such as headache, dizziness,
nausea, drowsiness and, in, severe exposures, loss of consciousness. Precautions should be taken to limit
aerosolization or misting of this material, as repeated exposure to high concentrations of mineral oil mist may
cause lipoid pneumonia. if swallowed, this material may cause severe injury of the mouth, throat and digestive
tract and CNS effects as noted above. Mild to severe lung injury may occur if this material is drawn into the lungs
(,aspirated) during swallowing, or during vomiting after swallowing. Symptoms of injury may include increased
breathing and heart rate, coughing and related signs of respiratory distress. Repeated or prolonged contact may
result in absorption of the material and systemic effects, such as liver or kidney injury. Medical conditions which
may be aggravated by exposure to this material include lung, liver or kidney disease or diminished function of
these o ans.
* * * Section 4 - First Aid Measures
Eye Contact:
In case of contact with the eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water for 15 minutes, and seek immediate
medical attention.
Skin Contact:
For skin contact, flush with large amounts of water. If irritation .persists, get medical attention.
Ingestion:
If the material is swallowed, get immediate medical attention or advice — Do not induce vomiting. Give one t0 two
glasses of water or milk. Never give anything by mouth to a victim who is unconscious or is having convulsions.
Page 1 of 6 Issue Date: 08/17/04 Revision: 1.vuul

--
Material Safety Data Sheet
ID: 238090
Material Name: MULTAN RS
Inhalation:
if mist or vapor of this product is inhaled, remove person immediately to fresh air. Seek medical attention i
svmptoms develop or Rersis�.
Section 5 - Fire Fighting Measures
Method Used: Flammability
Flash Point: , > 200 F Classification:
Upper Flammable NA Lower Flammable NA
Limit (UFL); Limit (LFL):
Fire & Explosion Hazards:
This product is an aqueous mixture which will not bum. If evaporated to dryness, the solid residue may -pose a
p
moderate fire hazard.
Extinguishing Media:
Use methods for the surrounding fire.
Fire -Fighting Instructions:
Fire fighters and others who may be exposed to products of combustion should wear full fire fighting uoutg�sar
(full Bunker Gear) and self-contained breathing apparatus (pressure demand NIOSH approved or equivalent).
iv
Fire fighting ui ment should be thoroughly decontaminated after use.
* * * Section 6 - Accidental Release Measures * �`
Clean -Up Procedures:
Collect spilled material Iwith inertabsorbent
amccordinuch send or g toa regulation.
Place in properly labeled dosed
container. Dispose of coed
Spill or Leak
Contain spill. Stop leak at source if this can be done safely. Ventilate area_ Nonessential personnel should leave
the area until cleanup is completed. Pump liquid into DOT -approved drams for disposal. Absorb remaining liquid
onto inert absorbent and place in DOT approved drums for disposal. Wash area with water. Keep concentrate and
wash water from enterin sewers or waterways.
* * * Section 7 - Handling and Storage
Handling Procedures:
Do not get in eyes, on skin or clothing. Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Keep container dosed. -Use only with
adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Empty container may contain hazardous residues.
Storage Procedures:
Store in a cool, d ace. Avoid excessive heat Store out of direct sun{i ht in a cool, well -ventilated lace.
* * * Section 8 - Exposure -Controls 1 Personal Protection
Component Exposure Umits
Triethanolamine (102-71-S)
ACGiR 5 mg/m3 TWA
Diethanolamine (111-42-2)
ACGIH: 2 mg/m3 TWA
skin - potential for cutaneous absorption
NIOSH: 3 ppm TWA; 15 mg/m3 TWA
Hexylene glycol (107-41-5)
ACGIH: C 25 ppm .
NIOSH: C 25 ppm; C 125 mg/m3
Page 2 of 6 . tissue Date: 08/1.7/04 Revision: 1.0001

ViJ/1.7/LVVi) 1G. JY i'AA 1 IVY YVY VI"" —ua..c 1- ---.
Material Safety Data Sheet ID: 23809-13
Material Name: MULTAN RS
Engineering Controls:
Ventilation should effectively remove and prevent buildup of any vapor or mist generated from the handling of this
product.
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
As prescribed in the OSHA Standard for Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.132), employers must
perform a Hazard Assessment of all workplaces to determine the need for, and selection of, proper protective
equipment for each task performed.
Eyes/Face Protective Equipment:
Wear chQmical goggles; face shield (if splashing is possible).
SkinProtection:
Use impervious gloves. Use of impervious apron and boots are recommended.
Respiratory Protection: riate NIOSH/MSHA
If ventilation is not sufficient to effectively prevent buildup of aerosols or vapors, appro p
res 'ratoprotection must be provided.
* * * Sectiott 9 - Physical &Chemical Properties
Physical State: Liquid
Odor:
Vapor Density: NE
Melting Point: NA
pld: 9.3
VOC:
* * * section 10 - Chemical
Appearance:
Amber, slightly hazy fluid
Vapor Pressure:
As water
Boiling Point:
> 200 F
Specific Gravity:
1.03
Viscosity:
Solubility water:
Soluble
& Reai Information
Chemical Stability:
This material is chemically stable under normal and anticipated storage and handling conditions.
Incompatibility:
Strong acids and strong oxidizers. Contains organic amine compounds. Nitrite based materials should not be
added due to possible nitrosoamine formation.
Decomposition Products:
Thermal - oxides of carbon, nitrogen compounds. May release formaldehyde.
Hazardous Polymerization:
Hazardous p9lymerization is not known to occur.
* * * Section 11 - Toxicological Information
Acute Toxicity:
A: General Product information
Based on animal studies, repeated excessive exposures to high amour►ts,of diethanofamine may cause liver and
kidney effects.
13: Component Analysis - 1-1350=50
Triethanolamine (102-71-6)
Oral LD50 Rat: 4920 uUkg
Oral LD50 Mouse: 5846 mg/kg
Dermal LD50 Rabbit: >20 mL/kg
Diethanolamine (111-42-2)
Oral LD50 Rat: 620 uUkg
Oral LD50 Mouse: 3300 mgikg
Dermal LD50 Rabbit : 7640 uUkg
Hexylene glycol (107-41-6)
Page 3 of 6 Issue Date: 08/17/04 Revision: 1.0001

VU/ 1.7/ LVVU 14• VU 1't111 1 � Vz zvz v• ry v..a u".. a. ... ....�.�
Material Safety Data Sheet
Material Name: MULTAN RS
Inhalation LC50 Rat : >310 mg/m3/11H
Oral LD50 Rat: 3700 mg/kg
Oral LD50 Mouse: 3097 mg/kg
Dermal LD50 Rabbit: 8560 UM9
24Butylamino)ethano11 (111 754).
Oral LD50 Rat: 1150 mg/kg
Triazine (4719-04-4)
Oral LD50 Rat: 763 mg/kg
Componen Carcinogenicity
Diethanolamine (111-42-2)
[ARC: Monograph 77, 2000 (Group 3 (not classifiable))
Chronic Toxicity
No information available forthe product.
Epidemiology:
No information available for the product.
Neurotoxicity:
No information available for the product.
Mutagenicity:
No information available for the product.
Teratogenick:
No information available for the product.
* * * Section 12 - Eco
ical information
GYv
A: General Product Information
No information available for the product.
B: Component Analysis - Eeotox.icity - Aquatic Toxicity
Triethanolamine (102 71-6)
Test & Species
LC60 (24 hr) goldfish 5000 mg/L
Diethanolamine (111-42 2)
Test & Species
LC50 (96 hr) fathead minnow
LC50 (24 hr) goldfish
LC50 (24 hr) goldfish
EC50 (5 min) Photobacterium
phosphoreurn
Hexylene glycol (107-41-5)
Test & Species
LC50 (96 hr) fathead minnow
LC50 (24 hr) goldfish
EC50 (5 min) Photobacterium
phosphoreum
Triazine (4719-04-4)
Test & Species
Page 4 of 6
>100 mg/L.
Boo mg/L.
5000 mglL
73 mg/L Microtox
test
10,700 mg/L-
5000 mg/L.
3038 mg/L Microtox
test.
Conditions
Conditions
Static.
pH 9.6.
pH 7.0.
15 °C.
ID: 2380910
Conditions
Flow through, 24-26 °C, pH 7.5, 45.5 mg/L
CaCO3.
Conditions
Issue Date: 08/17/04 Revision: 1.0001

Material Safety Data Sheet ID: 238090
Material Name: MULTAN RS
EC50 (15 min) Photobacterium 28.9 mg/L Microtox
phosphoreum test.
Environmental Fate:
No data is available concerning the environmental fate, biodegradation or bioconcentration for this product.
* * * Section 13 - Disposal Considerations
'US EPA Waste Numbers & Descriptions:
A: General Product Information
Recover, reclaim or recycle when practical. Dispose of in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.
Note: Chemical additions to, processing of, or otherwise altering this material may make this waste managemerst
information incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise inappropriate. Furthermore, state and local waste disposal
requirements may be more restrictive or otherwise different from federal laws and regulations.
B: Component Waste Numbers
No EPA Waste Numbers are applicable for this product's components.
* * * Section 14 - Transportation Information * �`
US DOT Information
Shipping Name: Please refer to the container label for transportation information.
* * * Section 15 -
information * * *
US Federal Regu1a1110"5
A: General Product Information
This product is considered hazardous under 29 CFR 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication).
B: Component Analysis
This CFR
35.1.1 containsone ), SARA Section 313 (40 CFR 372!65)�and/or GERCLA (40 CFR 302.4uired to be identified under ). Section 302
(40 CFR 35 Appendix
Diethanolamine (111.42-2)
SARA 313: form R reporting required for 1.0% de minimis concentration
CERCLA: final RQ =100 pounds (45.4 kg)
SARA 311/312: Acute: Y Chronic: Y Fire:
State Regulations
A: General Product Information
No additional information available.
B: Component Analysis - State
The following components appear on ane or mare of the
N Pressure: N Reactive: N
followin
state hazardous substances lists:
CAS #
CA
FL
MA
MN
102-71-6
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
111-42--2
, Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
107-41-5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Other Regulations
A: General Product Information
All components are on the U.S. EPA TSCA' Inventory List.
Page 5 of 6 Issue Date: 08/17/04 ' Revision: 1,0001
PA
Yes

Material Safety Data Sheet
Material Name: MULTAN RS
B:
C: Component Analysis - WHMIS IDL
The following com onents are identified under the
102-71-6 1°h; Engli<.
Item 1663
111112-2 1°I°; Englia
Item 693
107-41-5 1 %; Englii
Item 970
-Other Information
ID: 2380910
Disclosure List:
NFPA Ratings: Heafth: 'I Fire: 0 Reactivity: 0
Hazard Scale: 0 = Minimal 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = Serious 4 = Severe
Key/Legend
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; TSCA = Toxic Substance Control Act; ACGIH = American Conference
o feren al
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; IARC = International Agency for Research on Cancer;
institute for Occupational Safety and Health; NTP = National Toxicology Program;'OSHA = Occupational Safety
and Health Administration; NFPA = National Fire Protection Association; HMIS = Hazardous Material
Identification System; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act;
SARA = Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The information presented herein is believed to be factual as it has been derived from the works and opinions of
persons believed to be qualified experts; however,, nothing contained in this information is to be taken as a
warranty or representation for which Henkel Surface Technologies bears legal responsibility. The user should
review any recommendations in the specific context of the intended use to determine whether they are
appropriate.
Contact: Regulatory Affairs and Product Acceptance
Contact Phone: [phone]
This is the end of MSDS # 238090 '
Page 6 of 6 issue Date: 08/17/04 Revislon: 1.0001

A�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
April 11, 2005
Mr. Al Moretz, PE
Moretz Engineering
104 North Dilling Street
Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086
Lake Montonia Club
Dam Committee
Post Office Box 1174
Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086
RE: Lake Montonia Dam
State I.D. CLEVE-017
Dear Sirs:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
nt�"
w%i-,'i�`J.0 it�7���94�K`S.M. irt=. _ilii,'.i.i.i�'� •
This is to acknowledge receipt of your application dated April 8, 2005 for the repair of the subject dam.
The application was received in our office on April 11, 2005. The package was prepared under the
responsible charge of Mr. Al Moretz, PE.
Applications requiring an approval to repair a dam will be reviewed by this office in the order they are
received except that existing high hazard potential dams will be prioritized. We endeavor to respond to
applications within 60 days of receipt of the application.
Please contact Mr. Doug Miller, PE, Regional Engineer at telephone number [phone]; Ms. Tami
Idol, EI, Assistant State. Dam Safety Engineer; Mr. W. Hubert Hawkins, PE, Assistant State Dam Safety
Engineer; Mr. Bill Denton, EI, Assistant State Dam Safety Engineer, or myself at telephone number (919)
733-4574 should you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Maxwell R. Fowler, PE
State Dam Safety Engineer
cc: &I7�RmcGlesonaate •hall, ga_QnalSuper.Wisor
Mr. Doug Miller, PE, Regional Engineer
Mr. Clinton Cook, PE, Assistant Regional Engineer
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 -919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

III VL � Calvin Huffman
180 Huffman Ridge Road
Blacksburg, SC 29702
January 9, 2004
Mike Parker
N.C. Division of Water Quality
919 N. Marion Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
RE: Closing of Sewage Treatment Plant at Minette Mills Site, Grover, NC
Dear Mike,
This will confirm our discussion of the 5t'. I liurchased a portion of the Minette Mills
property in Grover in April, 2003 and arm. ntly preparing the land for use. We must
first dispose of the storm water in the Classifier, Chlorinator and the one -acre Lagoon at
this site. This material has been tested an ound to contain no hazardous materials. I
sent you the report from Pace labs earlier and it is labeled as Pace Lab Project
#9250188. We plan the following actions for the water and sludge held in these areas;
4
Pump the storm water from the Classifier and the Chlorinator into the lagoon.
Let the sludge in these areas dry then fill in over it with dirt. The Classifier
and the Chlorinator have gathered storm water for the past 10+ years since
the plant shut down and the excess has run over during this period.
We will allow time for the lagoon to settle and then land apply the water from
the lagoon. Again, the storm water from the lagoon as beenaweto
e ow for 10+ years into Lick Creek and we are accelerating the process
but we will allow the water to go into the ground on site instead of into the
creek.
The Sludge in the lagoon will be allowed to dry and then we will remove the
berms, fill in and level the site where the lagoon is located.
All sludge will be left on site and covered with dirt.
The above actions will eliminate the collection and holding of storm water at this site.
The areas will be elevated to promote drainage.
I will call you after you've had a chance to read this so that we can discuss any other
suggestions you might have. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely yours,
Calvin Huffman

1007/2003 10: 26
86493670088
CALVIN HUFFMAN
PAGE 06
i
aceAnalytical®
www.pmcoisbs.com
Lab Sample No: 923306732
Client Sample ID: SOLIDS IN LAGOON
Pace Ansiolcal 3ervicos, InC-
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Hunfersville, NC 28078
Phone: [phone]
Fax: 704.875, 9091
Lab Project Number: 9250188
Client Project ID: Metals Test
Project Sample Number: 9250188.005 Date Collected: 09/04/03 14:30
Matrix: Soil Date Received: 09/04/03 15:45
Parameters
Results
Units Report Limit
, Analyzed
9y
CAS Ng. QWII_ RegLmt
Metals
Metals. Trace ICP
Prep/Method:
EPA 3050
/ EPA 6010 -
Arsenic
1.1
mg/kg
0.59
09/10/03
22.58 LBG
7440-38.2
Barium
9.4
mg/kg
0.59
09/10/03
22:58 LBG
7440-39-3
Cadmium
ND
mg/kg
0.12
09/10/03
22:58 LBG
7440.43-9
Chromium
4.5
mg/kg
0.24
09/10/03
22:58 LBG
7440-47-3
Lead
16.
mg/kg
0.59
09/10/03
22-58 LBG
7439-92-1
Selenium
ND
mg/kg
0.59
09/10/03
22:58 LBG
7782-49.2
$liver• ,
NO
lag/kg
0.24
09/10/03
22:58 LBG
7410.22.4
Date Digested
09/10/03
09/10/03
Mercury. CVAAS. in Soil
Mercury
Wet Chemistry
Percent Moisture
Percent Moisture
Date: 09/11/03
Asheville Certification IDs
NC Wastewater
40
NC Drinking Water
37712
SC Environmental
99030
FI NFI AP
FRMAR
Method: EPA 7471
0.021 mg/kg
Method: I Moisture
28.7 1
0.0044 09/09/03 KSB 7439-97-6
09/06/03 10:11 WRC
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc
,11 ALCVA
nelac
Pape: 3 of •
Charlotta._C_e[11 �s
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FI NFI AP FR7f97

CALVIN HUFFMAN PAGE 04
10/07/2003 10:26 86493670088
r
r
ace Analytical
wwW. pace/ebs. ewn
Lab Sample No: 923306690
Client Sample I0: CLASSIFIER ON LEFT
fin -
Pace Anelylical 8arvlces, Inc.
9800 Klncey Avenue, Suite 100
Huntersv►lle, NC 28078
Phone. [phone]
Lab Project Number: 9250188
Fax: [phone]
Client Project ID: Metals Test
Project Sample Number: 9250198-003 Data Collected: 09/04/03 14:30
Matrix: Water Date Received: 09/04/03 15:45
Parameters
Results nits Report Limit
Analyzed
BY
GAS No, ual Realmt
Metals
Metals by Trace
ICP
Prep/Method:
EPA 3010
/ EPA 6010
Arsenic
ND
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
15:35
LBG
7440-38.2
Barium
0.034
mg/l
0,0050
09/06/03
15:35
LBG
7440-39.3
Cadmium
NO
mg/l
0.0010
09/05/03
15:35
LBG
7440-43-9
Chromium
NO
mg/l
0.0020
09/05/03
15:35
LBG
7440.47-3
Lead
NO
mg/1
0.0050
09/05/03
15:36
LBG
7439.92.1
Selenium
ND
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
16:35
LBG
7782.49.2
Silver
ND
mg/l
0.0020
09/05/03
1S:35
LBG
7440-22-4
Date Digested
09/05/03
09/05/03
Mercury. CVAAS.
in Water
Method: EPA
7470
Mercury
ND
pg/l
0.00020
09/11/03
LBG
7439-97.6
Lab Sample No:
923306708
Project Sample
Number: 9250188.004
Date Collected: 09/04/03 14:30
Client Sample ID:
DISCHARGE
Matrix: Water
Date Received: 09/04/03 15:45
Parameters
Results
Units Report Limit
Analyzed
By-_W
No. QmL ReALmt
Metals
Metals by Trace
ICP
Prep/Method:
EPA 3010
/ EPA 6010
Arsenic
NO
mg/l
0.0060
09/05/03
15:39
LBG
7440.38-2
Barium
0.018
mg/1
0.0050
09/05/93
15:39
LBG
7440.39-3
Cadmium
NO
mg/l
0.0010
09/05/03
15:39
LBG
7440-43.9
Chromium
ND
mg/l
0.0020
09/05/03
15:39
LBG
7440.47.3
Lead
ND
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
15:39
LBG
7439-92-1
Selenium
NO
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
15:39
LBG
7782-49-2
Silver
NO
mg/l
0.0020
09/05/03
15:39
LBG
7440.22-4
Date Digested
09/05/03
09/05/03
Mercury, CVAAS, in Water
Mercury
Date: 09/11/03
Method: EPA 7470
ND mg/l 0.00020 09/11/03 LBG 7439-97.6
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Asheville Certification ID5 This report shall not be reproduced, except In full,
NC Wastewater 40 without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030 „ `R
FI hIP AP FR7F'iaR
Pape z or A
harlotte Certification
NC Wastewater
12
NC Drinking Water
37706
SC
99006
FL NELAP
E87627

PAGE 03
V
10/07/2003 10:26
Q.
86493670088 CALVIN HUFFMAN
A/�A - '� ow&
:Analytical
www. pacelabs.com
Solid results are reported on a ary welgnt oasis
Lab Sample No: 923306641
Client Sample ID: LAGOON
Pace Anelyflcal Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Avenue, Suite 100
Hunrersvllle, NC 28078
Phone: [phone]
Lab Project Number: 9250188 Fax' 704.875.9091
Client Project ID. Metals Test
Project Sample Number: 9250188.001 Date Collected: 09/04/03 14:30
Matrix: Water Date Received: 09/04/03 15:45
Par meters _
Results Units
Report Limit
Analyzed
By
CAS No. Qual RegLmt
Metals
Metals by Trace ICP
Prep/Method:
EPA 3010 1
EPA 6010
Arsenic
ND
mg/1
0.0050
09/05/03
15:26
LOG
7440.38-2
Barium
0.013
mg/1
0.0050
09/05/03
15:26
LOG
7440-39.3
Cadmium
NO
mg/l
0.0010
09/05/03
15:26
LBG
7440-43-9
Chromium
ND
mg/l
0.0020
09/05/03
15:26
LBG
7440-47-3
Leo
ND
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
15:26
LBG
7439-92-1
Selenium
NO
mg/1
0.0050
09/05/03
15:26
LBG
7782.49-2
Silver
ND
mg/l
0.0020
09/05/03
15:26
LBG
7440-22-4
Date Digested
09/05/03
09/05/03
Mercury, CVAAS. 1n Water
Method: EPA
7470
Mercury
ND
mg/l
0.00020
09/11/03
LBG
7439-97-6
Lab Sample No: 923306682
Client Sample ID: CLASSIFIER ON RIGHT
Project Sample Number; 9250188.002 Date Collected: 09/04/03 14:30
-Matrix: Water Date Received: 09/04/03 15:45
Parameters
_ Results
Units Report Limit
Analysed
BY
_ CAS No. 4ua1 R@gLmt
Metals
Metals by Trace ICP
Prep/Method:
EPA 3010
/ EPA 6010
Arsenic
ND
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
15:31
LBG
7440.38-2
Barium
0.032
mg/1
0.0050
09/05/03
15:31
LBG
7440-39-3
Cadmium
NO
mg/1
0.0010
09/05/03
15:31
LBG
7440.43-9
Chromium
NO
mg/l
'0.0020
09/05/03
15:31
LBG
7440-47-3
Lead
NO
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
15:31
LBG
7439-92.1
Selenium
NO
mg/l
0.0050
09/05/03
15:31
LBG
7782-49.2
Silver
NO
mg/l
0.0020
09/05/03
15:31
LBG
7440-22.4
Date Digested
09/05/03
09/05/03
Mercury, CVAAS, in Water
Mercury
Date: 09/11/03
Method: EPA 7470
ND mg/1 0.00020 09/11/03 LBG 7439-97-6
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Asheville Certification IDs This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
NC Wastewater 40 without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc
NC Drinking Water 37712
SC Environmental 99030
FI IUP AP FA7A4A
Pepin; 1 of ,
Chflrlg�TR�yrtdlcation IDs
NC Wastewater 12
NC Drinking Water 37706
SC 99006
FL NELAP E87627

t)�-- yk63
wary
O �4
F-0rS-sso
Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting For
PART I
This form shall be submitted to the appropriate DWQ Regional Office within five daysof the first knowledge of
the sanitary sewer overflow (SSO).
Permit Number: NC 0024538 (WQCS# if active otherwise use treatment plant NClWQ#)
Facility:
Owner, City of Shelby Region:
City: Shelby, North Carolina County:
Source of SSO (check applicable) : Q Sanitary Sewer 23 Pump Station
First Broad River WW'rP ?
Incident# —
Mooresville
Cleveland
SPECIFIC location of the SSO (be oonsistant in description from past reports or documentation - i.e. Pump Station 6,
Manhole at WesfaEl & Bragg Street, etc.)
# 3 RmIrtulhllon Pump on Aeration Basin within the Plant
Latitude (degrees/minute/second): N35 - 14'-33"
Incident Started Dt 05-24-2004 Time- 7:15 am
(mm-did-MY) hh:rnm AWFM
Estimated volume of the SSO:
5,200
gallons
Longitude (deg rees/minutelsecond): W81-34-30'
Incident End Db05-2424-2004 Time' 7:41 am
(mm-dd-ywy) hh:mm AM/PM
Estimated Duration (Round to nearest hour 8�--
Vlaual observaVoh oftha laal( at the pump and volume that appBA/ad an the ptvund
Describe how the volume was determined:
Weather conditions during SSO event Geer - D Hnt
Did SSO raach surface Waters? El Yes❑No ❑ Unknown Volume reaching surface waters (gallons): 5200
Surface water name: First BroadRiver r�I
Did the SSO result in a fish kill? Yes I� I No El Unknown If Yes, what is the estimated number of fish kilted?
SPECIFIC Cause(s) of the SSO:
❑ Severe Natural Condition
❑ inflow and Infiltration
❑ Vandalism
Immediate 24-hour verbal notification repotted to:
r
i " r DWQ ❑ Emergency Mgmt
❑ Grease
❑l Pump Station Equipment Failure
11 Debris in line
❑ Roots
❑ Power outage
Q✓ Other (Please explain in Part 11)
Mr. John Lesley / Mooresville
Date (mm-dd-yyyy): 05-24-2004 Time (hh:mm AM/PM): 9:00 am
If an SSO is ongoing, please notify Regional Office on a daily basis until SSO can be stopped.
Per G.S. 143-215.1 C(b), the responsible party of a discharge of 1,000 gallons or more of untreated wastewater to surface
waters shall issue a pressrolaase within 48-hours offirst knowledge to all print and electronic news media providing general
coverage in the county w ere the ischarge occurred, When 15,000 gallons or more of untreated wastewater enters Surface
waters, a public notice shall be published within 10 days and proof of publication shall be provided to the Division within 30 days.
Refer to the referenced statute for further detail.
The Director, Division of Water Quality, ma� take enforcement action for SSOs that are required to be reported to Division unless it
is demonstrated that:
1) the discharge was caused by severe natural conditions and there were no feasible altsmatives to the discharge: or
2) the discharge was exceptional, unintentional, temporary and caused by factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permitthe
and/or owner, and the discharge could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable control.
Part II must be completed to provide a justification claim for either of the above situations. This information will be the basis
for the determination of any enforcement action. Therefore, it is importntto be as complete as possible.
WHETHER OR NOT PANT If IS COMPLETED, A SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED AT THE END OF THIS FORM.
CS-SSO Form October 9, 2003
Page 1
TO 39ad O0f) AS-13HS HO hlIO 8089-b8b-POL T£:£T 17003/8Z/90

WA q
� Form CS-SSO
Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form
PART I I
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR EACH RELATED CAUSE CHECKED IN PART I OF THIS FORM
AND INCLUDE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION AS REQUIRED OR DESIRED
COMPLETE ONLY THOSE SECTIONS PERTAINING TO THE CAUSE OF THE SSO AS CHECKED IN PART I
In the check boxes below, NA = Not Applicable and NE = Not Evaluated
A HARDCOPY OF THIS FORM SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE DWQ REGIONAL OFFICE
UNLESS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE ONLINE REPORTING SYSTEM
Severe Natural Condition (hurricane, tornado, etch
Descxibs the'severe natural condition" in detail.
How much advance warning did you have and what actions were taken in preparation for the event?
Comments:
such as Cleaning, inspections, enforcement
etc. should be available upon request.)
Man was the last time this specific line (or wet well) was cleaned?
Do you have an enforceable grease ordinance that requires new or retrofit of grease traps/interceptors? uY,,D No ❑ NA 1114E
Have there been recent inspections andfor enforcement actions taken on neArby restaurants or other 13YX No ❑ NA ©N E
nonresidential grease contributors?
Sxplain.
Have there been other SSO,s or blockages in this area that were also caused by grease? YedL-J No ❑NA NE
VVhan?
If yes, describe them:
Have cleaning and inspections ever been increased at this location? ❑YM No G NA El NE
Explain.
CS-SSO Form October 9, 2003 Page 2
Z0 39ad - oon AE-13HS JO AIIO 8089-17817-b0L ZE:ET b00Z/8Z/90

05/28/2004 13:31 704-484-6808 CITY OF SHELBY UOC PAGE 03
£ aBed soaz'Baaq°o wood agg sa
LI/l sasseippe
'aN❑VNDON [YsA[] 4ny4jimod Aue ut ejnpagos a ene4 noA op jo (4uesuoa Aq jap30 Iviords) OOS usaepun noA wV
lug Uolleilluul push mogul
:s}uawwoo
Luagm `seh;l
3N0dN oN �ah� — ZineA 4sed gig unpiM paoap!n as p040a4 a�!ows ueaq au11 et4} seH
,�uo!sru4u! 4oca aonpej of u0140001 OSS eg14s peuueld aje suo!4ss aA!pojjoo 4uLIM
G(OSS e44 4}!M PG4eaosse
p wa:pAs Bu!pununs pus) uoReo41 OSS o444e pagslldw000e u®eq aneg suor4ae eA!l00.Uo04egM
:u!a!dx�j
3N VN[] ON LYQA 4t 4ow 4o esn6naq uoyeoo! slg14e peseajow uasq Jana suogoedsul pue Buluee!n QAeH
3N©VN[1QR ETah:1
�NOVN❑oN Ere1111
3N[DVN[:]oN [T�h❑
equasep
&we Owd jw4uo0400a an140e ue ene4 nOA op
s�ao�
:%tiewwoO
j uee!o %Bog qqj e~
�,uoge!nwnooe
esiowB jo; paMovt4a 4s i edwnd pus pam 4am e4} sum ua4m `uoge:s dwnd a }a pwan000 Ogg sy44I
0!01*3
4w04m C4 pue
LU04AA
A}sed eq4 w pe4nq!As!p uaeq aseeap 4nogs s!eueaew !euoponpe eA13H

05/28/2004 13:31 704-484-6808 CITY OF SHELBY UOC PAGE 04
p a6r#d £ooZ'61ago;oo wlod 088-SO
s@A� (uogaolunLuwoo Aom-atio) 1,4aulelWJ$lelp-o4nV
&ueswd ale swa}sits Miele/uogeog4ou p pupl JEL M
}san ea ua n papIAoa aq inowls
;�a •al$ spJpoI]Ijs8; jo UUI}L}wlawnoo(]aJnlle;j luewU In iluol}I3}$ wund
:syuawwoo
guogeool slq;;e sOSS pu;olw 1/1 e1n;r4;ueAeld % pauueld ale suopog angaaLoa lewpa lagM
:ulaldxe 'seA31
3NO VNrj ON []f$AU ¢Aguoow pataedsul uaaq weeAsdn pun U04BOol OSS ot; ul s1a4em eoupna 6ugae;uoo Seidl lls aAUH
:uialdxa 'saA;I
3N j1 VND °N EraAn 4siehWa w1o4s 14!fA suopBaUUoo sso17 Jo mollul jo s$o1nos 1o(aw Au6 pa&na noA oa
:ulsldxa 'seA jI
3N t/N oN BA 4%oafotd uo.4onpa1 VI 1ol suogWlldde ueol 103ue.J6llus uaeq eJogl aneH
:ulsldxa 'sgA jI
BN VN bN EreA n iuEld ivawanaidwl le;ldep JnoA ul SWg6Jd pa;alal III eUagl a1V
:suolpe Lone }o srge;s eqi pUs A1US5e0eu ale suotpe;oyM %votpul pue.uagM 'seA bl
3N bN ,DN 091RA 41eaA;sed Oql LI!LW peoeplA Jo pe;sa; eqouJs uaaq ®ull aq; seH
Lpu®wLuooeJ 11 P1p suor;ao legM pue pe;oidwoo �(pn;s eta aem uagm '59J }l
l.J 4A❑ Luol}aool OSS pL4In wa;%As uopoapoo at4 ul swalgold III eulalta;ap (4 selpnis mog Aue uaaq Walg seH
3u� VN� ON
41e0A 4551 041 UILIPM
ELM
uogeaol l,Ids sty;;e smopQAa pg4elea t T 1 aloulwlle Jo aonpal C% ua�l94 uaaq @Ae4 auor;ola antlaaJJo0 4
:seA;l ulald)S

Audible aes
Visual Ely..
SCADA (two-way communioatlon) ©y.$
Emergency Contact Signage Yes
Other 0Yas
Desedhe the equipment thatfalled?
15 HP Turbine Pump that is used to miX MLSS In Aeration Basin / Packing Gland Assembly Slew out and leaked around shaft
What kind of situations t'iggeran alarm condipon at this station (i.e. pump failure, power failure, high
water, etc.)? Visual by Operator
Were notiflcation/alarm systems operable? Yeau No NA NE
If no, explain:
This pump is part of the plant treatment process, SCADA has a "RUN" - "OFF" Capibility only
If a pump failed, when was the last maintenance and/or inspection performed?
Visual inspection 18 hours prior to event by Plant operator / Maintenance during previous week by Maintenance Crew
What specifically was chacked/maintained?
Visual Inspection for leaks and proper operation I Checked Packing and greased
If a valve failed, when was it last exercised?
Mre all pumps set to altamate? ❑Y..D ❑✓ NoNALENE
Did any pump show above normal run times prior to and during the SSO event? 13Yes0 No EINA1_..1NE
Were ad6qu6ta spare parts on hand to fix the equipment (switch, fuse, valve, seal, etc.)? ®Yeeu No [] NA❑ NE
Was a spare or portable pump immediately avalleblo? l_i yJ71 No ❑ NA I_`'J NE
If a float problem, when were the floats last tested? How?
If an auto -dialer or SCADA, when was the cyst m last tested? How?
Comments;
CS-SSO Form October9, 2003
Page 5
90 39ad oon AS-13HS d0 AiI0 8089-b8b-b0L TE:ET b00Z/8Z/90

Power outs a Documentation of testing,records, etc_ should be
provided of alternative power source upon request.)
What is your altemato power or pumping source? n�
Did itfunation properly? Yea❑ No LINA NE
Deseribe?
When was the alternate power or pumping source last tested under load?
if caused by a weather event, how much advance warning did you have and what actions were taken to
prepare for the event?
Comments'
Vandalism
Provide police report number:
War, the site secured?
if Yea hnw7
Padlocked Control Panel
Have there been previous problems with vandalism at the SSO location?
If Yes, explain:
IIY.LJ No0NA11NE
NoUNAI_INE
What security measures have been put in place to prevent slmilar occurrences in the future? BY4,0 No EINA D NE
Comments:
Debris in line (Rocks, sticks,_ rags and other
What type of debris has been found in the line?
How could it have gotten there?
Are manholes in the area secure and irdact? uy.;u N.L NA NE
CS-SSO Form October9,2003 Pago 8
90 39Vd oon AS-13HS JO AlI3 8089-b8b-b0L TE:ET V003/83/90

05/28/2004 13:31 704-484-6808 CITY OF SHELBY UOC PAGE 07
L abed
�N©VNaON IJ aAQ
SooZ ,a jogo po
w10A oss-so
:s;uewwoo
:papaeN 81 uo4euUo4ul !eu04!PPH;euM '98A M
1-jodaZj ua;;u/N !euo4!ppV ue pa;sanbel:{ bMa
N95 ash Loma aoi
:s;uewwo0
toss
oLg p �ogdwl o4; uesse! eq;ou p!noo we!goad aq�;l
:u!e!dxe 'sa);l
3N I " I VN `" i oN Ef"® i.wa!goid eq; xg o; algel!ene SOOMOM pue }uowd!nbe a unbape OJGAA
:equnsed
Isen as ua n ajgejjene eq prnoUs Sao ej iaollod a pue sawn}aid aau}p
:s;uewwoo
zsaoua.un000
3N [:] VNE] ON LrahD aol!wls am}n;;ueneud o3 pe}nq!-4%!p pUe podolanap 6u!eq s!auegaw !euoponpa eyeudoldde aiv
:u!eldx3
3N[]VNLj ON ❑60A[] 65!Agap qj!n^ swe!goad snolAald o; enp uognool sty};e pesaelow uaaq JOAO suo!loadsul pue SUIUaa!P aAl2H
ipauea!olpe)ioayo leal ease aq; Senn ue4M -

As a representative far the responsible party, 1 certify that the information contained in this report is true and accurate
to the best of my knowledge.
Person submitting claim:
5ignatur
Telephone Number:
Date: -j-1A 7 Je K
Title: tr]iQ ✓/VrC-W,OdMZT"
Any additional information desired to be submitted should be sent to the appropriate Division Regional Office within five daye of first
knowledge of the SSO with rafarence to the incident number (the incident number is only generated when electronic entry of this form
is completed, if used).
OS-880 Form October9, 2003 Page 8
80 39dd oon A9-13HS 30 AlI0 8089-b8b-b0L ZE:EZ b00Z/8Z/90

F,
metalsAmerica Inc
The International Metals & Chemicals Group
135 Old Boiling Springs Road, Shelby, NC 28152
phone: [phone] fax: [phone] email: [e-mail]
Date: April 4, 2003 RECENED
Mr. John Leslie
Division of Water
NCDENR
919 N. Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Mr. Leslie,
APR 0 9 2003
»U f th 1biorWA�r
You asked me to report on the spill of a tote of sulfuric acid on the driveway of our facility on the
afternoon of April 1, 2002. When you called me you mentioned that someone from the
Hazardous Waste Section of NCDENR would be visiting our site shortly. Ms. Spring Allen,
Waste Management Specialist, Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Waste Management did
arrive soon thereafter. She visited our spill location on our plant driveway and saw our cleanup
activity.
I enclose a copy of my report to her which has additional details of the cleanup and hope that it
may answer any questions which you may have.
Richard W. Strachan,
Technical Director

metalsAmerica Inc
The International Metals & Chemicals Group
135 Old Boiling Springs Road, Shelby, NC 28152
phone: [phone] fax: [phone] email: [e-mail]
Date: April 4, 2003
Ms. Spring Allen, CHMM
Waste Management Specialist
NCDENR
P.O. Box 1572
Waynesville, NC 28786
Dear Ms. Allen,
W
APR 0 9 2003
mCMPT OFENVIktimor-W
MYUM PAMMES
This is to report that we have finished the cleanup on our property of the three hundred gallon
spill of sulfuric acid. You saw our efforts during your visit on April 2, 2003. We have recovered
several 55 gallon drums of contaminated dirt from the margin of our plant driveway where the
acid flowed.
I told you during your visit that Mr. Steve Talbot of the City of Shelby wastewater department
visited our site and checked Brushy Creek, 1,000 feet to the rear of our property for any
contamination and found none. He also checked our waste water treatment facility records to
ensure that our discharge pH remained with specifications.
I told you that we would send this dirt off to a secure landfill. Upon reflection, it occurs to me
that we can bring this material into our plant and wash it. We used sodium carbonate to
neutralize the acid, and the dirt which we dug up is a mixture of sodium carbonate with perhaps
some residual sulfuric acid. The reaction products and the reactants are all water soluble. The
wash water which we use will go to our waste water treatment plant. There are no other
hazardous substances in any of the reactants or the dirt. Therefore, I plan to wash the dirt,
remove the solubles, test for pH and then return the dirt to the edge of the driveway. This will
reduce cost and eliminate a lot of paperwork.
I hope that you agree that this is an environmentally friendly procedure and is technically suitable
as well.
Richard W. Strachan,
Technical Director

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200231220
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
January 27, 2002 (C
VAC DEFT. CF Mu'�@RRON'f. ff
AND NATURAL RESOURCE2
D100RESVILLE a'-"iU AL ®FF8CE
Mr. Richard Yount
Dicey Fabrics, Incorporated
Post Office Box 1090
Shelby, North Carolina 28151-1090
Dear Mr. Yount:
AN 2 8 2003
WAM SAUTY ZE
py
Reference your letter dated December 16, 2002 in which you requested that the
temporary dam you installed in the First Broad River adjacent to Dicey Mills, in Shelby,
Cleveland County, North Carolina be allowed to remain in place indefinitely. Also reference our
letter dated August 15, 2002, authorizing the placement of the dam for the purpose of raising the
water level in the river during a period of severe drought in order to re -submerge the plant's
water intake.
As you are aware, our permit was conditioned such that the dam would be removed in its
entirety by December 25, 2002. During a recent field inspection, we observed that higher water
levels have returned to the river and that the dam is no longer needed to supply water to the
intake. Therefore, the dam must be removed as stated in the permit. In the event that you would
need to reinstall the dam, we are committed to the timely review of your proposal to avoid any
delay of the plant's operation.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned in the Asheville Regulatory
Field Office at [phone], Extension 5.
Sincerely,
S x .`. -�
Stephen D. Chapin
Regulatory Specialist
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Mike Parker
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115

r
o �
h,^11
1
i
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1911 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
i Division of Water Quality
September 16, 2002
The Honorable Clarence Withrow, Mayor
Town of Kingstown
2014 Kingston Road
Kingstown, North Carolina 28150-8665
Dear Mayor Withrow:
SEP 17 2002
SUBJECT: Town of Kingstown
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Wastewater Collection and Transport System
Project No. CS370858-01
CL1v9L*x) J GP
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its review of the subject town
of Kingstown 201 Facilities Plan Amendment. A copy of the comments resulting from this
review is attached for your reference. These comments are also being sent directly to your
consulting engineer, The Wooten Company, by copy of this letter. A revised 201 Facilities Plan
Amendment that incorporates responses to these comments should be submitted for our review
and approval as soon as possible. Providing thorough and complete responses to these review
comments in a timely manner is necessary to avoid delays of the project approval.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Zi-Qiang Chen at
[phone] or contact me at [phone].
Si cerely,
f -
K. Lawrence/Horton, III, P.E., Supervisor
Facilities L/valuation Unit
ZC/dr
Attachment: (all cc's)
cc: Clarence M. Lockamy, P.E., The Wooten Company
r° �_t @Rees; �illle 7 7 7 t i �": -
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Reginald Sutton, Ph.D.
Zi-Qiang Chen, Ph.D.
PMB/DMU/FEU/SRF
Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 [phone]
E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX [phone]
T'"
A
`CDE R
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

TOWN OF KINGSTOWN
Technical Review Comments
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
For Wastewater Collection and Transport System
Project No. CS370858-01
September 16, 2002
I. General
1. Please note that approval of the Facilities Plan Amendment does not constitute approval
of sole source procurement. Plans and specifications must comply with N.C. General
Statute Chapter 133, Section 3, prior to their approval.
2. Provide documentation that an inter -local agreement with the city of Shelby is currently
in place, or that the city is planning to complete an agreement. This information, in the
form of a final agreement, must be provided to Construction Grants & Loans before plans
and specifications are approved.
3. Reimbursements from a loan under the SRF program may not be issued until the user
charge system and sewer use ordinance have been approved.
4. A loan from the North Carolina Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund is
contingent on the review and approval of the proposed loan by the Local Government
Commission.
Does the town intend to make connection to the sewer system mandatory? In order to
maximize the public health and environmental benefits of the project, it is strongly
recommended that connection to the sewer system be mandatory.
6. All real property associated with the project must be acquired in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation and Real Property Assistance Act of 1970. The following costs are
not eligible for funding under the Act:
a. The costs of acquisition of sewer rights -of -way (i.e., legal, administrative, and
engineering).
b. Any amount paid by the recipient for eligible land in excess of just compensation
based on appraised value, negotiation, or condemnation proceedings.
7. Include the following in a section in the 201 Plan that addresses Public Participation:
Page 1 of 5

a. Public meetings in early stages of the project development are encouraged. These
meetings can be regular town board meetings in which the project is discussed.
Include a summary of public meetings as part of the Facilities Plan.
b. One public hearing with 30-day notification is required. A copy of the Facilities Plan
should be available for review by the public at least 15 days prior to the public
hearing. The hearing should identify the problem, discuss the selected alternative,
identify the size of the projected loan, discuss any associated inter -local agreements,
and identify the effect this project will have on the monthly sewer bill for a typical
residential user.
c. Place an advertisement for the hearing in the local newspaper that identifies the time
and location of the public hearing, advises when and where a copy of the Facilities
Plan can be observed, provides a brief description of the proposed project, advises
how much funding is required, and identifies the source of funding.
d. Provide a transcript or detailed summary of the hearing, an affidavit of publication of
the hearing notice, and a copy of the resolution from the governmental unit agreeing
to implement the selected alternative.
The owner and consulting engineer should be advised that after approval of the Facilities
Plan Amendment, there are several construction project permits, approvals, certifications,
etc. that must be obtained before the project plans and specifications can be approved,
and before the project is advertised for bids. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that
preliminary work to obtain the following items, if applicable, begin as soon as possible:
a. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit from the Division of Land Quality,
or a letter from them stating that no permit is required for this project.
b. 401 Water Quality Certification and Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit for
all stream crossings, or a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers and from the
Wetlands 401 Certification Unit stating that none is required for this project.
c. Section 10 Permit for aerial crossings of navigable waters, or a letter from the
Corps stating that none is required for this project.
d. A reasonable subsurface investigation that must be made available to the
contractor. If it is not included in the specifications, the specifications must
advise where a copy of the report can be observed. Typically, Construction
Grants and Loans expects a boring about every 500 feet and at each road crossing
for line work, and at all major structures like pump stations, aeration basins, and
clarifiers.
Page 2 of 5

e. NCDOT Encroachment Agreements and Railroad Encroachment Agreements.
Copies of these agreements must be provided in the specifications, or it must be
documented how all construction requirements, associated with the agreements,
have been incorporated in the plans;
f. All construction easements, permanent easements, and rights -of -way. These
easements and rights -of -way must be shown on the plans.
II. 2.0 Proiect Planning Area
1. Page 4: The referenced "growth area" flow cannot be added to the 20-year design flow
unless this area is currently in the 201 Planning Area, or it is incorporated into the 201
Planning Area.
2. Provide some narrative that compares the population proposed to be served with the total
population of the service area.
III. 3.0 Existing Facilities
Page 5: Provide a copy of the NPDES limits pages and advise of the ability to comply with
the existing limitations at the city of Shelby VWWTP.
IV. 4.0 Need for Proiect
1. Page 9: In the table of "Estimated Average Daily Flow (ADF)", both the residential and
commercial flow estimates seem low. Typically, a residential flow value is based on
70 gpd per capita of the projected growth in residential population; whereas, a
commercial flow value is based on 15 gpd per capita. Please recalculate the flow
values in the table and provide an estimate of the future wastewater flow amount
using the following SRF criteria for eligibility:
a. Provide current residential, commercial and industrial flows, and any planned
industrial flows, with a letter of intent as justification. Future FI should not be
included in the flow projections
b. Provide 20-year flows and residential growth based on population projections.
Typically, this flow value is based on 70 gpd per capita of projected growth in
residential population.
Provide 20-year commercial growth based on population projections. Typically, this
flow value is based on 15 gpd per capita of projected growth in residential
population.
d. 10% Industrial Reserve (based on 10% of current flows excluding FI).
Page 3 of 5

V. 5.0 Alternatives Considered
1. Pages 9 - 21 and Exhibits V thru VIII-A: Provide the preliminary engineering
calculations for the sewer lines, pump stations, and force mains. Also, confirm the
capacity of the gravity sewer lines to carry a peak daily flow of 2*ADF at % full.
2. Please confirm that the proposed project design will comply with NCAC 2H.0219 —
Minimum Design Requirements. (A copy of .0219 is attached for reference).
VI. 6.0 Estimates of Probable Cost and Present Worth Analysis
1. The EPA discount rate for present worth analyses that applied to projects beginning on
or after October 1, 2001 was 6.125%. The present worth analyses should use this
discount rate for converting O & M costs and salvage value to present worth.
2. Salvage Value: A useful life of 15 years for equipment, 40 years for collector sewers,
20 years for pump stations and force mains, 50 years for structures, and 20 years for all
other facilities should be used for the salvage value present worth calculations.
3. Page 22, 6.1 Conventional Gravity Collection System and Exhibit VI: The unit cost of
$37/lf for 8-inch sewer appears to be high. Please confirm that this unit cost is based on
current construction costs. Revise the cost estimate if needed.
4. Page 22, 6.2 STEP System and Exhibit VIII: Please confirm that the following items
were included in the determination of the present worth for the STEP system:
a. Was the homeowner's monthly power cost included in the determination of the
present worth of O & M?
b. Was the cost of cleaning the septic tanks every 3 - 5 years included in the
determination of the present worth of O & M? The narrative should indicate how
this cost would be paid, and this should be stated during the public hearing.
c. Was the cost of periodically replacing the STEP system pumps included in the
present worth of O & M?
d: Does the construction cost estimate include the cost of electrical wiring and controls
equipment and installation?
e. Does the construction cost estimate include provisions for odor control?
f. Exhibit VIII does not appear to include costs for replacing the existing septic tanks,
removing and disposing the septage in the existing tanks, or closing the existing
tanks. Please add these costs to the construction cost estimate.
Page 4 of 5

VII. 9.0 Infrastructure Financing
1. The estimated user charges appear to be high. If expected user charges exceed 1.5%
of the County's median household income, the project will be considered by EPA to
be an "expensive" project and will warrant further evaluation of alternatives.
Therefore, options to reduce the total project cost and annual O & M cost should be
Considered. Other options could include a High Unit Cost Grant, contributions from
other agencies, reduction in service area to include only the most densely populated
areas, reduction in scope, etc.
2. The project cost should include a 2% loan -closing fee for the SRF loan.
3. Page 24 & Page 41: Please provide some additional information concerning the
determination of the 6,250 gallons average monthly usage. Usually, an average
amount of 5,000 gallons per month is used to calculate the user charge. Considering
the narrative in sections 2.0 and 3.0 that indicated lower flows than usually expected,
the 6,250 gallon/month amount seems high. Please calculate the present worth and
user charge based on 5,000 gallons/month, unless there is an adequate basis for
another estimated average monthly usage amount.
4. A loan interest rate of 3% was used to estimate the SRF loan debt service; however
CG&L cannot guarantee that this will be the rate at the time of the loan. We
recommend using a conservative rate of 4% (the maximum the loan can be) to
estimate the user charge instead of 3%, or in addition to 3%, as a worst -case scenario.
Page 41: Expected revenue from user charges should be based on the first year's
billable flow. Anticipated disbursements should include the first year's principal and
interest payments and the first year's operation and maintenance cost. The debt
service does not appear to have been calculated correctly. The first year's payment
must be determined based on equal principal payments over the 20-year period and
simple interest with declining annual payment. For example:
Loan amount = $5,000,000, Interest rate = 4%
Principal payment = $5,000,000/20 = $250,000
First Year's interest = $5,000,000 * 0.04 = $200,000
Total First Year Payment = $250,000 + $200,000 = $450,000
6. Please provide an update concerning the status of the Rural Center Unsewered
Communities Grant. All other sources of funding must be confirmed so that the user
charge can be estimated before the 201 Plan will be approved.
Page 5 of 5

F ��'a h Michael F. Easley,
O ,� y, Governor
J Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
E Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
May 2, 2002
Honorable David L. Lattimore, Mayor
Town of Kingstown
2030B Kingston Road
Kingstown, North Carolina 28150
SUBJECT: 201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Greater Cleveland County
Kingstown, North Carolina
Environmental Justice Requirement
Project No. CS370858-01
Dear Mayor Lattimore:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, requires Environmental Justice
(EJ) to be integrated into the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs.
Therefore, Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations - is a federal cross cutter that must be
implemented as apart of the state environmental review process. This objective must be
accomplished before a Finding of No Significant Impact can be issued for an applicant to receive
financial assistance from the State Revolving Fund. Guidance for implementing EJ is provided to
assist the SRF applicant in incorporating this requirement as a part of the 201 Facilities Plan.
If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Reginald R. Sutton, Ph.D.
Environmental Assessment Coordinator
RRS/nw
Attachment (all cc's)
cc: Clarence Lockamy, P.E., The Wooten Company
Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office
Larry Horton, P.E.
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
PMB/DMU/SRF
Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 [phone]
E-Mail Address www.nr-cgl.net FAX [phone]
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL IUSTICE
Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low -Income Populations - requires the applicant to determine what impact the
proposed project will have on minority and low-income populations. This objective must be
accomplished before a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) can be issued for an applicant to
receive financial assistance from the State Revolving Fund (SRF). The task of accomplishing
this objective involves the following:
1. Identify and document the existence of all minority and low-income populations in the
service area or such populations that exist in proximity to the service area.
2. If minority and/or low-income populations exist, an explanation must be provided if there
are disparities in the provision and location of sewer treatment and transport facilities
between the general population and the minority and/or low-income populations.
3. The report needs to document if the minority and/or low-income populations have
suffered historically from environmental management/public facilities such as sites for
wastewater treatment, sludge disposal, land treatment, landfills, recycling centers,
incinerators, hazardous/nuclear disposal, and prisons. If the minority and/or low-income
populations are impacted by the proposed plan, did the citizens have the opportunity to
participate in the decision -making process? If the subject populations have not
participated in the decision -making process, additional public participation efforts may be
required.
4. If the minority and/or low-income populations are impacted disproportionally and
adversely, the applicant may need to reevaluate alternatives and develop mitigative
measures to minimize adverse impacts.

The Honorable David L. Lattimore, Mayor
Town of Kingstown
2030B Kingston Road
Kingstown, North Carolina 28150
Dear Mayor Lattimore:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
i'dC �„^ � Diy�siomof�V�tg�q�ality
AND R�"s'flLIR
ES
May 9, 2002
MAY 1 3 2002
?E�IM QF": Res' `F..
'M
SUBJECT: 201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Greater Cleveland County
Kingstown, North Carolina
Environmental Review Comments
Project No. CS370858-01
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed the environmental review of the
Kingstown portion of the 201 Facilities Plan Amendment for Greater Cleveland County, and the
environmental review comments are attached. The technical review has not been completed, and
comments will be submitted when the review is completed.
If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
V.(./ �Z�6�
Reginal utton, Ph.D.
Environmental Assessment Coordinator
RRS/dr
Attachment (all cc's)
cc: Clarence Lockamy, P.E., The Wooten Company
Rex Gleason, Water Quality Supervisor, Mooresville Regional Office
Larry Horton, P.E.
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Robert Brown
SRF
Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 [phone]
E-Mail Address www.nccgi.net FAX [phone]
Customer Service
1 8W 623-7748

TOWN OF KINGSTOWN PORTION OF THE 201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR GREATER CLEVELAND COUNTY
Environmental Review Comments
Project No. CS370858-01
May, 9, 2002
General
1. The location of the proposed collection system and transport pump station/force main
needs to be identified on an 8'/z x 11 topographical map. Pipe lengths and diameters can be
inserted in a box on the map.
2. A public hearing needs to be advertised and held. The advertisement must be documented
with an affidavit of publication, and a record of the public hearing presentation must be
provided.
3. A letter dated May 2, 2002 was sent to Mayor Lattimore about incorporating Environmental
Justice (EJ) into the proposed plan. The request for information about EJ is duplicated below
to assure compliance with this requirement. Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations -
requires the applicant to determine what impact the proposed project will have on minority
and low-income populations. This objective must be accomplished before a Finding of No
Significant Impact can be issued for an applicant to receive financial assistance from the State
Revolving Fund. The task of accomplishing this objective involves the following:
a. Identify and document the existence of all minority and low-income populations in the
service area or such populations that exist in proximity to the service area.
b. If minority and/or low-income populations exist, an explanation must be provided if
there are disparities in the provision and location of sewer treatment and transport
facilities between the general population and the minority and/or low-income
populations.
c. The report needs to document if the minority and/or low-income populations have
suffered historically from environmental management/public facilities such as sites for
wastewater treatment, sludge disposal, land treatment, landfills, recycling centers,
incinerators, hazardous/nuclear disposal, and prisons. If the minority and/or low-income
populations are impacted by the proposed plan, did the citizens have the opportunity to
participate in the decision -making process? If the subject populations have not
participated in the decision -making process, additional public participation efforts may
be required.

d. If the minority and/or low-income populations are impacted disproportionally and
adversely, the applicant may need to reevaluate alternatives and develop mitigative
measures to minimize adverse impacts.
Section 8.1- Existing Environment and Exhibit XIII
1. The specific location of "supporting and partially supporting" stream segments should be
identified on a map. What are the reasons why some streams are "partially supporting" of
designated uses?
Section 8.4 - Environmental Consequences
1. Will any of the proposed wastewater collection and transport pump station/force main
facilities be located in the 100-year floodplain or within wetland areas? Habitat types should
be identified for the transport force main route from Kingstown to Shelby. Will the proposed
project require clearing any undisturbed areas?
2. What is the source of potable water that is provided by the Cleveland County Sanitary
District?
3. The location of all stream crossings should be identified on a map. Will any stream crossings
be required for the transport force main to be installed from Kingstown to Shelby? Have
stream crossings by directional boring been considered?
4. A discussion of cumulative and secondary impacts needs to be included in the document.
Does the town have policies and ordinances for protecting stream buffers, floodplains, and
wetlands?
Agency Review Comments
1. Several agencies reviewed the plan. The attached comments from the Division of Water
Quality's Local Government Assistance Unit, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Division of Parks and Recreation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be addressed.
Comments from the Division of Environmental Health, Mooresville Regional Office, and
Division of Air Quality are provided for information and planning purposes.

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
February 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Af
FROM: Milt Rhodes
Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: SEPA Review of DENR Project Number 1173, Greater Cleveland County Sewer
Improvements, Kingstown Wastewater Collection and Transport System
The Division of Water Quality (Division) has reviewed the EA and 201 Facility Plan for this
project. This project will involve the construction of a municipal sewer collection system for the
Town of Kingstown. Currently no public sewer serves the Town. Public water is provided. The
project will help the community eliminate health hazards associated with failing septic systems
and associated leach fields. The 201 Plan indicates a desire to partner with the City of Shelby for
the operation and maintenance of the wastewater system and wastewater treatment. The project
proposes to provide services primarily to existing built areas, but alludes to expansions outside of
present town boundaries. It is stated that utility construction is indicated to occur within existing
street right-of-way and two stream crossings will occur utilizing the open cut method.
There is concern regarding secondary and cumulative impacts associated with new development
facilitated by the phases of this project associated with the extended service area. Some changes
in land use are anticipated to "occur or be accelerated" by the existence of a collection system. In
addition, development with access to sewer will likely be developed at higher intensities, which
can have a direct and detrimental effect on water quality if appropriate mitigative measures are
not incorporated by the local government. Areas developed at higher intensities can produce
large quantities of sediment during construction and deposit high concentrations of stormwater
pollutants in aquatic systems. These pollutants are likely to have greater and longer lasting
impacts to downstream habitats than the original utility installation mentions in the environmental
document. Uncontrolled high volumes of stormwater can cause instability in stream banks and
reduce the functionality of fish and wildlife habitats. Secondary and cumulative development
associated with suburban development typically causes loss and fragmentation of terrestrial
habitats as well as additional aquatic impacts.
Local land use planning can be a significant influence on the impacts to water quality. Taking
steps to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality by incorporating stormwater management
and riparian protection measures to protect natural stream and wetland buffers and ecosystems.
These measures can include permanently protecting riparian buffer zones, or requiring the use of
stormwater treatment technology for all sites developed at higher intensities. Additionally, it is �"�'
recommended to protect the entire 100-year floodplain from fill and development These areas
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 NCDEhi
Customer Service g [phone]
1 800 623-7748

provide natural zones for stormwater retention and filtration and can also provide recreational
spaces in the form of greenway trails.
It is recommended that the maximum available forested buffers along perennial and intermittent
streams be maintained. By maintaining this buffer with a forested canopy, these areas will
provide both recreational and aesthetic amenities while protecting riparian habitat and water
quality. Comprehensive stormwater management plans should also be developed as areas
continue to be influenced by potential impacts associated with higher intensity land uses served
by sewer infrastructure.
At this time, the information provided does not address secondary and cumulative impacts
sufficiently for us to make definite recommendations or conclusions concerning long term
impacts to the area and the watershed. The initial phase involving the provision of sewer services
to the existing community does not appear to be a significant concern. Therefore, we can concur
with the proposed first phase and agree public health concerns for the Town can be met.
If there will be significant growth caused by additional phases or sewer extensions into rural
areas, these impacts should be addressed through additional 201 Plan Modifications and
environmental reviews. Please refer to the recommendations provided by the Wildlife Resources
Commission for assistance in addressing these issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment

Charles R. i'ulkvood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Enviroru-nent and Natural 11esources
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 7, 2002
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 1173, 201 Plan Amendment and
Environmental Assessment, Town of Kingstown, Greater Cleveland
County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments
on the 201 Plan Amendments and the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above
referenced project. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.)
and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1
NCAC 25).
This project will involve the construction of a municipal sewer collection system
for Kingstown. Public sewer does not serve the Town although public water is provided.
The community needs to eliminate health hazards caused by failing septic tanks and
distribution fields. The 201 Plan indicates a desire to partner with the City of Shelby for
the operation and maintenance of the wastewater system and wastewater treatment. The
first phases of the proposed project wJ11 provide services primarily to existing built areas.
All utility construction is indicated to occur within existing street right-of-way with no
impacts to wetland resources according to the 201 document.
Although we agree that unsanitary conditions should be addressed, we are
concerned about any secondary and cumulative impacts from new development
facilitated by later phases of this project. Some changes in land use are anticipated to
"occur or be accelerated" by the collection system. Rapidly developing areas routinely
produce large quantities of sediment from construction and stormwater pollutants. These
pollutants are likely to have greater and longer lasting impacts to downstream habitats
than the original utility installation. High volumes of stormwater from urbanized areas
can exert negative impacts on stream stability as well as fish and wildlife habitats.
Secondary and cumulative development associated with growth typically causes loss and
fragmentation of terrestrial habitats as well as additional aquatic impacts.
{ {a=eS $: LJ �'t�if)(i j1 li•_t t { [ ')-+ 99 —7

Town of Kingstown 2 February 7, 2002
Efforts should be made during local land use planning to incorporate stormwater
management and riparian protection to protect natural stream and wetland buffers and
ecosystems. We recommend protecting the entire 100-year floodplain from fill and
development. These areas can provide green ways or natural parks as well as provide
stormwater retention and filtration. We recommend maintaining maximum available
forested buffers along perennial and intermittent streams. If maintained in forest, these
areas will provide both recreational and aesthetic amenities while protecting riparian
habitat and water quality. In addition, a comprehensive stormwater management plan is
recommended to protect area streams from urban pollutants that will be generated by
urban imperviousness.
At this time, the information provided does not address secondary and cumulative
impacts sufficiently for us to make definite recommendations or conclusions concerning
long term impacts to the area and the watershed. The initial phase providing sewer to the
existing community does not appear to be a significant concern. Therefore, we will not
object to the project phases that will resolve public health concerns and issues for the
Town.
If there will be significant growth caused by additional phases or sewer extensions
into rural areas, these impacts should be addressed through additional 201 Plan
Modifications and environmental reviews. The attached information should be helpful in
evaluating secondary and cumulative impacts. They also provide specific comments
about utility installations.
Attachments: General Guidelines for Environmental Reviews
Utility Line and Sewer Line Avoidance and Minimization
Recommendations

Town of Kingstown
February 7, 2002
General Guidelines for Environmental Reviews
Due to staff limitations, this standardized response was developed. Although
some of the information, requests and comments may not be applicable to certain
projects, these guidelines should facilitate preparation of fish and wildlife Environmental
Assessments (EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). In addition to addressing
site specific concerns, the environmental document should include a detailed assessment
of existing natural resources within the areas of potential development and should discuss
the potential of mitigating development impacts to wetlands, streams and high quality
floodplain and upland habitats. To provide a meaningful review of the EA or EIS
prepared for the project(s) secondary and cumulative impacts, we request that project
consultants and sponsors provide the following information:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
animal and plant species in the project area and any areas that may be impacted
by secondary or cumulative impacts within the sub -basin. A listing of designated
species can be developed through consultation with: Mr. Steven Hall of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (919/715-8703) or Mr. Mark Cantrell of the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (828/258-3939, ext. 227).
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the project(s).
3) Project map identifying wetlands and intermittent as well as perennial streams in
the area. Identification of wetlands may be accomplished through coordination
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Corps is not consulted, the person
delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of activities that will occur within streams and wetlands, such as fill
or channel alteration. Acreage of wetlands impacted and linear feet of stream
channels to be relocated, channeled, culverted or disturbed by some other means
by alternative project designs should be listed.
5) Description of project site and non -wetland vegetative communities.
6) Description and cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat
impacted by the project.
7) Discuss the extent to which the project(s) will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
8) Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to
mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.

Town of Kingstown 4 February 7, 2002
9) Discuss the cumulative impacts of secondary development facilitated by the
proposed utility improvements and any interrelated infrastructure projects,
especially the impacts to water quality and habitat in the impacted watershed(s).
Such discussion should weigh the economic benefits of such growth against the
costs of associated environmental degradation.
(a) Include specific measures that will be used to address stormwater at the
source. Include specific requirements for both residential and industrial
developments and BMPs that will be required.
(b) Include specific measures that will be used to protect stream corridors,
riparian habitat and a minimum of a 100-year floodplain.
(c) Include specific measures that will be implemented to promote water
conservation and wastewater reuse.
(d) Include a discussion of any other local ordinances or programs (e.g.,
industrial pretreatment, infiltration and inflow management, farmland
preservation, habitat restoration/preservation, and recycling) that will mitigate the
impacts of development.
10) Discuss the use of any mitigation, preservation, deed restrictions, and
conservation plans and management objectives. These should include detailed
site descriptions and maps. A determination concerning which agency or entity
(e.g. land conservancy) will own and manage the easements or property should be
included.
Note: A list of document preparers should be provided that provides each individual's
professional background and qualifications.

Town of Kingstown 5 February 7, 2002
Utility Line and Sewer Line Avoidance and Minimization Recommendations
Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including wetlands,
should be implemented during all phases of construction associated with the area. Where
impacts to wetlands (and waters) are unavoidable, we will recommend mitigation of the
losses. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform the important
functions of flood control and water quality protection. Whenever possible, utility lines
should be placed along existing right-of-ways along roads and previously impacted
corridors. Pumping may be economically feasible where direct or secondary impacts can
be avoided in sensitive habitats. To avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts
during construction of utility lines, we offer the following generalized recommendations
that should be incorporated into project plans:
1) Construction corridors should be no wider than absolutely necessary. The 401
certification for Nationwide 12 stipulates that wetland construction corridors are
not to exceed 40 feet and permanent maintained corridors are not to exceed 10
feet except at access points. The NC division of Water Quality's 401
Certification for utility lines should be followed specifically for all jurisdictional
impacts.
2) Where crossings are necessary, sewer lines should cross streams at right angles to
minimize impacts to riparian areas. Disturbed stream banks and wetlands must be
restored to original contours and revegetated with native plant materials such as
silky dogwood (Cornus amonum), silky willow (Salix sericea) and hazel alder
(Alnus serrulata). Riprap may be used to stabilize the bank in the area of the
ordinary high water stage and vegetation (bioengineering) should be used above
this stage. Aquatic life passage must not be hindered during low flows upon
project completion. Directional boring is the preferred method of crossing
jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
3) Utility lines crossing streams should be buried in the stream bottom or attached to
existing bridges to maintain fish movement upstream and downstream and
prevent debris from collecting at the pipe and causing a hydrologic change. We
do not recommend installing priers in a stream channel to support a sewer line.
4) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
5) An undisturbed buffer zone should be left between streams and all construction.
We prefer a buffer zone of at least 100 feet to control sedimentation into streams,
provide shade, and maintain a travel corridor for wildlife. Buffers should also be
left along intermittent drains or streams. Following floodplain edge contours with
utility lines is preferable to following the riparian zones and streams. Wetlands
should be avoided to the maximum extent possible.

Town of Kingstown 6 February 7, 2002
6) Temporarily disturbed wetlands should be reseeded with annual small grains
appropriate for the season (e.g. oats, millet, rye, wheat, annual lespedeza or rye
grass) and be allowed to revert to native natural wetland vegetation.
7) A portion of the upland right-of-way (minimum of one acre) should be planted
with VA-70 lespedeza, Korean lespedeza, ladino clover, and/or partridge pea to
provide food and additional habitat for wildlife.
8) Slash and/or large trees available form corridor construction through forested and
stream corridors should be placed along the permanent right-of-way in the form of
brush piles and downed logs to provide cover and nesting habitat for wildlife.
9) If necessary, ROW areas should be mowed. not more than once every 2-3 years.
Mowing should not occur between April 1 through September 30 in order to
avoid disturbing wildlife utilizing the project corridor during the critical stages of
nesting and rearing of young.
10) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented where soil is disturbed
and maintained until project completion.
11) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 5 to 10 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion
control. We prefer a "seed as you go" strategy rather than allowing a large area to
remain bare.

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
February 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall � I
SUBJECT: 201 Facilities Plan Amendment — Wastewater System, Kingstown
REFERENCE: 1173
As mentioned in the document, the Natural Heritage Program database contains a record for a
population of dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), federally and state listed as
Threatened, from within the vicinity of the proposed project. A survey conducted by the consultants
for this project identified three areas where suitable habitat exists for this species.
Based on this information, we concur with the need to conduct a survey for this species during its
flowering period. If populations are found, then the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be
consulted regarding possible mitigation.
1615Mail Sen-ice Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
Phone: [phone] S 1 Fax: [phone]S; \ Internet: ww «.ncsparks. net

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 25, 2002
Mr. Reginald R. Sutton
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Construction Grants & Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
Dear Mr. Sutton:
Subject: 201 Facilities Plan Amendment, Greater Cleveland County Wastewater Collection and
Transport System, Town of Kingston, Cleveland County, North Carolina
We received a copy of the subject 201 Facilities Plan Amendment (Plan) on February 7, 2002.
The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided in the Plan, the Town of Kingston (Town), in Cleveland
County (County), North Carolina, is planning to construct a wastewater transportation system to
replace widespread failing septic systems; the entire town (1,115 people) is currently using septic
tanks. The Plan recommends a low-pressure system that would connect to the City of Shelby's
existing wastewater treatment plant. The low-pressure system will be comprised primarily of
pumps, with effluent or grinder pumps located at site -specific areas. The collection force mains
will generally consist of lines that are 2 and 3 inches in diameter. Intermediate pump stations and
associated force mains will be installed where topography, length of force main, and head loss
dictate.
We believe the proposed wastewater transportation system will result in overall improvements in
environmental and public health. However, we have concerns regarding the stream impacts from
this project. The Natural Systems Report included with the Plan identifies 12 jurisdictional
wetlands/streams that will be crossed by the proposed project, yet the mitigative measures for the
project (page 30) state that there will be "One minor stream crossing of Little Creek ... and one
minor stream crossing of an unnamed tributary of Brushy Creek ...." Based on the maps

provided, the former (12 crossings) appears more accurate. Though the Plan indicates that
stream crossings will be within road rights -of -way, impacts to the streams could be significant,
depending on how the crossings are completed. Therefore, before we can concur with this
project, we need more detailed and consistent information about stream crossings and the
mitigation planned to offset any impacts. Any mitigation plan for this project should include the
restoration of comparable wetlands and streams at a ratio of at least 2:1.
We offer the following additional recommendations to help address secondary and cumulative
impacts associated with this project and to help minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
1. Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including
wetlands, should be implemented during construction. Where impacts to
wetlands are unavoidable, we recommend mitigation for the losses. In addition
to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform important functions of
flood control and water quality protection. Disturbed wetland areas should be
returned to their original soils and contours. Plant communities should be
reestablished that would result in wetland plant community succession into
habitat of equal or greater value than the habitat that was destroyed.
Temporarily disturbed wetlands should be reseeded with annual small grains
appropriate for the season (e.g., oat, millet, rye, wheat, or ryegrass) and be
allowed to revert to natural wetland vegetation. The crossing of wetlands and
streams should be minimized, located at narrow areas, and made perpendicular
to the stream.
2. In addition to the protection of riparian buffers, we suggest that the Town and
County strongly discourage the in -fill of 100-year floodplains for commercial
or residential development. This process only increases the potential for
flooding to adjacent properties and interferes with the natural hydrologic
process of the waterways. It also disrupts the continuity of migration corridors
for wildlife. Instead, we recommend that developers set aside a portion of the
land to be developed as green space and concentrate these areas along the
streams and rivers.
3. The construction of roadways in new neighborhoods can produce short-term.
direct impacts as well as long-term cumulative effects. Studies have shown a
serious decline in the health of receiving waters when 10 to 15 percent of a
watershed is converted to impervious surfaces. We suggest that the County
work to limit impervious surfaces to no more than 7 percent, limit curb and
gutter in new developments, and prevent direct discharges of storm water into
streams. We recommend the use of grassed swales in place of curb and gutter
and on -site storm -water management (i.e., bioretention areas) that will result in
no net change in the hydrology of the watershed. These designs often cost less
to install and significantly reduce environmental impacts from residential
development.

4. Efforts should be made to avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of
construction corridors. Disturbed areas should be reseeded with seed mixtures
that are beneficial to wildlife. Fescue -based mixtures should be avoided;
fescue is invasive and provides little benefit to wildlife. Native annual small
grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended. Where
feasible, use woody debris and logs from corridor clearing to establish brush
piles and downed logs at the edge (just in the woods) of the cleared
right-of-way to improve habitat for wildlife. Allowing the corridor area to
develop into a brush/scrub habitat would maximize benefits to wildlife.
Minimize corridor maintenance and prohibit mowing between April 1 and
October 1 to reduce impacts to nesting wildlife. We suggest a maintenance
schedule that incorporates a portion of the area (e.g., one-third) each year
instead of the entire project every 2 or 3 years. Additionally, herbicides should
not be used in wetland areas or near streams.
Based on the information provided in the Plan and a review of our records, we concur with your
assessment that surveys need to be conducted for dwarf -flowered heartleaf before the
requirements under Section 7(c) of the Act can be fulfilled. We note that three areas have been
identified as having potentially suitable habitat for this species, presumably based on the
presence of (1) Pacolet sandy clay loam soils and (2) dry to mesic wooded slopes along streams
and ravines. Though these parameters roughly define the habitat of this species, more recent
records indicate that this species inhabits a wider range of conditions than previously believed.
We recommend surveying all wooded north- and east -facing slopes in the project area to ensure
that this species is not inadvertently impacted by this project or any secondary development
resulting from this project. Once the surveys are completed we can complete consultation under
Section 7(c) of the Act.
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229, if you
have any questions regarding our comments. We have assigned our Log No. 4-2-02-168 to this
project; please refer to it in all future correspondence directed to us concerning this matter.
Sincerely, --
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Ms. Danielle R. Pender, Piedmont Habitat Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1721

LJCF-t-%F-1 I IV I E: I NI I UF L_I'q V I FIU I N IV I L-14 I /-11'4LJ t-rojeci i\4umner
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name .-Type of Project
Comments provided by:
❑ Regional Program Person
Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
F] Central Office program person
Name: R-14k Date:
411
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
El Public Water Supply
F1 Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
❑ No objection to project as proposed
F-1 No comment
E] Insufficient information to complete review
❑ Comments attached
See comments below
'407/f'1'4 +4 Y% -+n r- V P7 4", /�e cJ 44 d 1--
W A -PC r- + -S e W -e I'P_ Q K -P -S 4s Yecr�'✓ea
rn 6906
4e W 5
1q C d)4 o­ T / Ce) k-ki )21 -e,, � c f ec /%- (2 4 (3A iC�Cq C_ k--
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES .3
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH aunty
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Go^���eR Clev. C . Type of Project 24J iT� CJ")-" }PI,q.,,t
❑ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
❑ This project will be classified as a non -community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
❑ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
❑ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on -site waste disposal methods,
contact the On -Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
y relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, (919) 73372321.
❑ For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
eviewer Section/Branch Date,/

Q:�r., /rye
'`I State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: - - f1 e-
i NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: Due Date: &�Z
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in orderfor this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
contracts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
not discharging into state surface waters.
(90 days)
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection preapplimtion
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
conference usual.Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
90-120days
discharging into state surface waters.
facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
(N/A)
of NPDES permit -whichever is later.
Water Use Permit
Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
7 days
installation of a well.
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
55 days
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and FII Permit.
(90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
N/A
60 days
(2Q.0100, 20.0300, 2 H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
N/A
60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
(90 days)
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
F.2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30
20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
(30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance
30 days
I�
Mining Permit
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
(60 days)
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required 'if more than five
in coastal N.C..with organic soils.
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
1 day
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
(N/A)
Oil Refining Facilities
90 -120 days
N/A
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. -.
30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum
(60 days)
fee of S200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.

PERMITS
-----------------
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.0 conditional that any
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
well opened by drill operator shall,upon abandonment,be plugged according
10 days
to DENR rules and regulations.
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application -
(N/A)
10 days
Geophysical Exploration Permit
by letter. No standard application form.
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
(N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
I S - 20 days
(N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification
NIA
55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application
60 days
$50.00 fee must accompany application
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR,development
22 days
area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project
N.C. Geodetic Survey,
Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
with Title 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100.
Abandonment of anywells, if required must be in accordance
ED I Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan' underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
p .Y �+
REGIONAL OFFICES
45 days
(N/A)
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office Mooresville Regional Office ❑ Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] [phone]
[phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office ❑ Raleigh Regional Office ❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N.C.28301 Raleigh, N.C.27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone] [phone] [phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]

Division of Air Quality
February 13, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Alan Klimek, Director
SUBJECT: Project No. # 1173
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Greater Cleveland County
The Town of Kingstown
The Division of Air Quality has reviewed the proposed project involving installation of a
centralized wastewater collection and transport system for the Town of Kingstown in
Cleveland County. Several collection and treatment alternatives are being evaluated.
If standby engines, engine -driven generators or particulate sources such as lime silos,
boilers, emergency generators or peak -shaving generators are installed with this project,
then an air permit may be required.
Additionally, the contractors constructing the components of the wastewater system
should take care to comply with open burning provisions during land clearing. Adequate
wetting, reseeding and covering of disturbed areas should be utilized during earthmoving
operations to mitigate any adverse impact from fugitive dust emissions.
If there are any questions regarding air permitting requirements for this facility, Mr. Mike
Landis, Mooresville Regional Air Quality Supervisor, should be contacted at (704) 663-
1699.
Should you require further information in this regard, please advise.
c: Connie Washburn

d. If the minority and/or low-income populations are impacted disproportionally and
adversely, the applicant may need to reevaluate alternatives and develop mitigative
measures to minimize adverse impacts.
Section 8.1- Existing Environment and Exhibit XIII
1. The specific location of "supporting and partially supporting" stream segments should be
identified on a map. What are the reasons why some streams are "partially supporting" of
designated uses?
Section 8.4 - Environmental Consequences
1. Will any of the proposed wastewater collection and transport pump station/force main
facilities be located in the 100-year floodplain or within wetland areas? Habitat types should
be identified for the transport force main route from Kingstown to Shelby. Will the proposed
project require clearing any undisturbed areas?
2. What is the source of potable water that is provided by the Cleveland County Sanitary
District?
3. The location of all stream crossings should be identified on a map. Will any stream crossings
be required for the transport force main to be installed from Kingstown to Shelby? Have
stream crossings by directional boring been considered?
4. A discussion of cumulative and secondary impacts needs to be included in the document.
Does the town have policies and ordinances for protecting stream buffers, floodplains, and
wetlands?
Agency Review Comments
1. Several agencies revieW. ,84 plan. The attached comments from the Division of Water
Quality's Local Government Assistance Unit, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Division of Parks and Recreation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be addressed.
Comments from the Division of Environmental Health, Mooresville Regional Office, and
Division of Air Quality are provided for information and planning purposes.

0?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
31 i r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
LL "s s NC DEPT. CP i AND NA
,ICE.
-t-- i'iQ ! Fr ,
May 2, 2002
MAY 0 6 2002
Honorable David L. Lattimore, Mayor
Town of Kingstown
2030B Kinston Road
Kingstown, North Carolina 28150
SUBJECT
Dear Mayor Lattimore:
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Greater Cleveland County
Kingstown, North Carolina
Environmental Justice Requirement
Project No. CS370858-01
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, requires Environmental Justice
(EJ) to be integrated into the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs.
Therefore, Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations - is a federal cross cutter that must be
implemented as a part of the state environmental review process. This objective must be
accomplished before a Finding of No Significant Impact can beissued for an applicant to receive
financial assistance from the State Revolving Fund. Guidance for implementing EJ is provided to
assist the SRF applicant in incorporating this requirement as a part of the 201 Facilities Plan.
If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Reginald'R. Sutton, Ph.D.
Environmental Assessment Coordinator
RRS/nw
Attachment (all cc's)
cc: Clarence Lockamy, P.E., The Wooten Company
Rex Gleason, Mooresville Regional Office
Larry Horton, P.E.
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
PMB/DMU/SRF
Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NG 27699-1633 [phone]
E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX [phone]
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

W A 7-,-
9O
�O G
� r
o �
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
D. W. Royster
Post Office Box 146
Shelby, NC 28151
Dear Mr. Royster:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
April 1, 2002
DWQ # 02-0417
d'levei'& Gourm,2 L�
r
APR 03 2002 �
On March 20, 2002 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receip hour
application regarding your plan to culvert McGill Creek for the purpose of providing road access on to the
site in Cleveland County. Approval from DWQ is required to disturb these stream areas. Please provide us
with seven copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ# listed above in your reply. In
particular as described in 15A NCAC 2B .0502, we will require you to locate all streams and ponds on the
property. Please show these on maps of suitable scale (for instance 1" = 100 feet) so we can begin to
determine your projects' compliance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500.
1. A site plan is needed for the proposed construction and should indicate detailed
measurements.
Please telephone me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules
or procedural materials. This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
.0505(c). The processing time for this application will begin when this information is received. If we do not
hear from you by writing within three (3) weeks we will assume you no longer want to pursue the project
and will consider it withdrawn. y
Sir
yerely,
1
o Dorney
ter Quality rti cation Program
cc: NT resville.aWQRegionahOffice;=
Asheville Corps of Engineers
Odom & Associates
Central Files
File Copy
4 MA
NCYF,'R
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
Ph: [phone], Fax: [phone], http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/

Division of Water Quality
- Aquatic Toxicology Unit
February 20, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To: Rex Gleason
Water Quality Supervisor, MRO
Through: Matt Matthewslvr
Supervisor, Aquatic Toxicology Unit
From: Sandy Mort g�
Quality Assurance Officer, Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Subject: Ambient toxicity test results
Broad River at Monitor Street (A4700000)
Cleveland County
i
The aquatic toxicity test using grab samples of ambient waters collected from Broad River at
Monitor Street (A4700000) has been completed. Ambient samples were collected on
February 12 and 15 by John Lesley for use in a chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia pass/fail toxicity
test. The test using these samples resulted in a pass. Toxicity test information follows.
Test Type
Test Concentrations
Test Result
Control Survival
Control Mean Reproduction
Test Treatment Survival
Treatment Mean Reproduction
First Sample pH
First Sample Conductivity
Second Sample pH
Second Sample Conductivity
3-Brood Ceriodaphnia dubia pass/fail
100% sample
Pass
100%
24.8 neonates
100%
30.1 neonates
6.57 SU
85.8 micromhos/cm
6.85 SU
91.3 micromhos/cm
Test results for these samples indicate that the water quality of these ambient waters has not
been impacted. Please contact us if further effluent toxicity monitoring is desired. We may
be reached at [phone].
Basin: BRD04
cc: Central Files
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section

The Honorable David Lattimore, Mayor
Town of Kingstown
2030B Kinston Road
Kingstown, North Carolina 28150
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
February 1, 2002
FEB 0 5 2002
SUBJECT: Kingstown Portion of the
Greater Cleveland County 201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Project No. CS370858-01
Dear Mayor Lattimore:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the subject 201 Facilities Plan Amendment on
January 31, 2002. The Facilities Evaluation Unit has initiated the project review and we will
notify you and your engineer upon completion of our review.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
K. Law7rene Horton, III, P.E., Supervisor
Facilities"Evaluation Unit
KLH:dr
cc: Clarence Lockamy, P.E., The Wooten Company (Hickory, NC)
Allen Wahab, P.E., The Wooten Company (Raleigh, NC)
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Amy Simes, P.E.
DMU/FEU/SRF
I VVT
41_&V�A
"C' D L N q
Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 [phone] Customer Service
E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX (919) 715,6229 1800 623-7748

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
October 19, 2001
Mr. Carey Tate
Rea Construction
8205 Wilkinson Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28214
AA ,•
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 's
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
Permit Number NCG020571
Return No. 1047
Sand Pit #130
Shelby (Cleveland County)
Dear Mr. Tate:
On June 5, 2001, the Division of Water Quality received a NPDES Permit Application for the
subject facility. As stated in the Notice of Intent (NOI), a copy of the valid approved mining
permit for the facility must be attached to the NOI in order for the stormwater permit application
to be considered complete. To date, we have not received a copy of the mining permit for this
facility. Therefore, the Division of Water Quality is returning the application as incomplete.
This application may be resubmitted with all applicable attachments and fees for reconsideration.
If there is a need for any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact
me at [phone], ext. 584.
Sincerely,
DAB ",z-
Delonda Alexander
Permit Engineer
Cc: Mloares-vi-lle=Regi7oiid'I
Stormwater and General Permits Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS ON THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF
LAKE MONTONIA IN CLEVELAND COUNTY (BROAD RIVER BASIN)
FROM CLASS B TO CLASS B HQW
PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 13,1999
KINGS MOUNTAIN, NORTH CAROLINA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Recommendations
Summary S-1
Background Classification Information S-1
Classification 'Information Specific to Lake Montonia S-1
Proposed Reclassification to High Quality Waters S-2
Implications of Reclassification to HQW S-2
Map of the Area Proposed for Reclassification S-4
Public Hearing Process/Comments Received S-5
Recommendation S-6
Request for Reclassification 1
Public Announcement 3
Announcement of Stakeholder Meeting 5
Informational Flyer for HQW6
Hearing Officer Designation 7
Public Hearing Participants 8
Comments Received 9
Appendix
High Quality Waters Evaluation of Lake Montonia A-1
15A NCAC 2B .0219 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class B'Waters A-38
15A NCAC 2H .1006 Stormwater Requirements: High Quality Waters A-39
15A NCAC 2B 0224 High Quality Waters A-40
15A NCAC 4B .0024 Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds A-41
15A NCAC 2N .0301 Performance Standards for New UST Systems A-42
G.S. 113A-50 Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (Preamble) A-44

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
Background Classification Information
All surface freshwaters in North Carolina are protected by a primary classification,
assigned by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). All waters must at least be fishable
and swimmable waters (Class C). Other primary classifications provide additional levels
of protection, such as for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water
supply (Water Supply Classes'I through V)..
DWQ may add supplemental classifications to the primary classifications to provide
additional protection to waters with special uses or values. Most of these supplemental
classifications have been developed in order to promote special protection to sensitive or
highly valued resource waters. The DWQ supplemental classifications are'NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters), FWS (Future Water Supply), Tr (Trout Waters), HQW (High
Quality Waters), ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters), and Sw (Swamp Waters).
Waters are not limited to only one supplemental classification, and many water bodies
carry several supplemental classifications.
Classification Information .Specific to Lake Montonia
Lake Montonia is currently classified as Class B Waters. The lake received this
classification in 1963.in order to recognize that its 17 acres were being used for primary
recreational purposes and to protect the water for that use. Surface freshwaters classified
as. B Waters have met the following requirements:
1) The waterbody is of sufficient size and depth to support primary recreation.
2) Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations are less than 200 colonies per 100 mL.
This number is'based on a geometric mean of at least five samples taken within a.
30 day period.
3) No sources of water pollution which could result in a hazard to public health are
in close proximity to areas where recreation occurs.
4) Primary recreation takes place in a frequent and organized basis.
To date, the lake is consistently used on a frequent and regular basis for primary
recreation. The Lake Montonia Board, which consists of homeowners around the lake,
requested that Lake Montonia be reclassified to include the supplemental classification
HOW (request for reclassification, see p. 1) in order to give the lake added protection for
its water quality.
Lake Montonia was evaluated by DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch staff and
received an Excellent water quality rating (see High Quality Waters Evaluation,
Appendix, pp. A-1 to A-37).
S-1

Proposed Reclassification to High Quality Waters
Some of North Carolina's surface waters are relatively unaffected by pollution sources
and have water quality higher than, the standards that are applied to many waters of the
State. In addition, some waters may provide habitat for sensitive biota such as trout,
juvenile fish or rare and endangered aquatic species. In an effort to protect those waters
that possess such characteristics, surface waters matching the following criteria qualify
for supplemental classification as High Quality Waters (HQW)
"waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics through Division monitoring or especial studies, native and special native
trout waters (and their tributaries) designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission,
primary .nursery areas (PNA) designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission and other
functional nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, all water
supply watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or WS-IL or those for which a
formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-II has been received from the
appropriate local government and accepted by the Division of Water Quality and all
Class -SA waters" [15A NCAC 2B .0101(e)(5)]'
Implications of 'Reclassification to HQW
There are additional protective management strategies associated with HQW
classification. The land area that is affected by the rules of the HQW classification is that
which is within one mile and draining to waters classified as HQW. Two unnamed
tributaries that flow to Lake Montonia are included in the HQW reclassification. High
Quality Waters protective management strategies are detailed in the following rules: 15A
NCAC 2B 0224 High Quality Waters, 15A NCAC 2H .1006Stormwater Requirements:
High Quality Waters, 15A NCAC 4B .0024 Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds,
and 15A NCAC 2N .0301 Performance Standards for New UST Systems (See.
Appendix, pp. A-39'to A-43).
15A NCAC 2B .0224, High Quality Waters, outlines the requirements for wastewater
discharge into an HQW and requirements of development activities requiring a
Sedimentation and Erosion. Control Plan. Single family dischargers are not permitted,
and any new NPDES permitted facility must abide by the waste treatment guidelines as
outlined in the proposed rule. The treatment standards in the rule are more stringent than
what is required without HQW classification. There are currently no permitted
wastewater discharges to Lake Montonia or its tributaries, nor are there any requested
permits for wastewater discharges to the lake or its tributaries.
15A NCAC 2H .1006 details the stormwater control requirements that are associated with
High Quality Waters. These are guidelines for development activities which require a
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan (administered by the Division of Land
Resources, see Appendix p. A-44). Development within the HQW zone (within one mile
and draining to an HQW) must comply to either low density or high density options. The
Low Density Option requires a 30 foot vegetative buffer to perennial waters, and allows
S-2

either a built upon area of up to a maximum of 12% or one single family dwelling unit
per acre. The High Density Option must meet requirements to control runoff from all
surfaces generated by one inch of rainfall by means of an approved engineered method.
The HQW stormwater control requirements administered by the Division of Water
Quality help prevent erosion and sedimentation after completion of a development'
project. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan administered by the Division of
Land Resources helps prevent erosion and sedimentation during construction.
15A NCAC 4B .0024, Design 'Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, outlines specifications
for :uncovered areas, ground cover, sediment basins, and newly constructed open channels
within HQW zones for projects that require the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
And finally, 15A NCAC 2N .0301 outlines the specific criteria for secondary
containment required when Underground Storage Tanks (UST) are located within 500
feet of any water classified as HQW.
Six months prior to the public hearing, DWQ, staff held an informational stakeholder's
meeting on the proposed reclassification of Lake Montonia in King's Mountain City Hall.
The property owners in the drainage area to. the lake affected by the proposed
reclassification, as well as local governments, were contacted and invited to attend.
Many of the property owners around the lake were involved in the actual ,request for
reclassification to High Quality Waters. No landowner stated opposition to the
reclassification. There was much, interest in proceeding with',the reclassification,
S-3

Proposed Reclassification of
Lake Montonia to High Quality Waters (HQW)
S-4

Public Hearing Process/Comments Received
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, a public hearing was held on July
13, 1999. The hearing was held in King's Mountain, North Carolina (Cleveland County).
Notice of the hearing was. published in the June 1, 1999, North Carolina Register
(Volume 13, 'Issue 23). A public notice of the hearing was published on June 10;1999, in.
the main section of the region's local newspaper, The Kings Mountain. Herald.
Announcements were also mailed to individuals who had requested to be placed on the
Water Quality Section's rule -making mailing list, as well as local government and state
officials.
Seventeen people registered and attended the public hearing. Opening comments and a
slide presentation on classification information and information specific to the proposed
reclassification were ,presented by DWQ staff. After the presentation, the public was
given the opportunity to comment on the proposed reclassification. One attendee wanted
to know if Lake'Montonia could be considered for ORW classification, and staff replied
with information on why the proposed reclassification was'HQW instead of ORW. The.
President of the Lake Montonia Board expressed his thanks to DENR for efforts extended
throughout the reclassification process. Written comments were accepted through
August 13, 1999. All verbal and written comments received were in favor of the
proposed reclassification. Written comments can be found beginning on page 9.
S-5

RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the reclassification of Lake
Montonia, as. proposed herein, be approved by the Environmental Management
Commission. In making this recommendation, the Hearing Officer has considered the
requirements of General Statutes 150B-21.2 143=214.1; 143-215; 143-215.3(a)(1), and
Rules 15A -NCAC 2B .0100 (Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards),
and 15A NCAC 2B .0224 (High Quality Waters), as well as the verbal and written
comments received. The intentions and efforts of the Lake Montonia Board to maintain
Lake Montonia in the most natural state possible were also considered. In taking this
action, Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0306, which references the Schedule of Classifications; for
the Broad River, will show that the Environmental Management Commission has revised
the schedule for Lake Montonia, [Index No. 9-54-1-(1)]. The proposed effective date is
August 1, 2000.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THE BROAD RIVER BASIN
SCHEDULE OF CLASSIFICATIONS AS REFERENCED IN TITLE 15A
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2B .306
Name of Stream
-------------------
Unnamed Tributary
at Lake Montonia
(Lake Montonia)
Existing
Description Class
From source B
to Dam at
Lake Montonia
Description of Proposed
Proposed Segment Class
Same B HQW
IM

'LAKE M O NT O N I A BOARD
1 1 O 2 LA K E MO N T O N I A ROAD
K I N G S MOUNTAIN, N O RT H CA RO L I N A 28088
NOVEMBER 21. 1995
Mr. Steve Zoufaly
State of North Carolina DEHNR
Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 29835
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Zoufaly:
Thank you for such a quick response to Lake Montonia Board's
concern in pursuing the process of getting restrictive action
for extra protection for our water and watershed area. As per
our phone conversation, you are aware that our lake is now
classified as a "B" category, not a water supply source for
drinking, and therefore does not meet the requirements for extra
protection. You are also aware
development of a high level PGA
and encompassing one of the two
lake.
of the immediate plans for the
golf course south of the lake
major spring sources feeding the
The Lake Montonia Board requests that Lake Montonia be
reclassified from a "B" category to a High Quality Waters (HQW)
category under Section .0201 of the State of North Carolina EHNR
Classifications and Water Quality Standards. A few reasons why
we*think it qualifies for reclassification are:
- The high quality results of water samples taken from the
lake for the past three years. The tests taken were
primarily for fecal coliform bacteria count --- the best
indicator.for fecal pollution from domestic sources. These
tests not only provide a certified data base of indicators
of what is happening to the quality of water within the
lake premises itself, but also what is happening to the
quality from the two water sources feeding the lake water
supply. The results of the tests over the past three
years taken at the two lake location sources fed by the
-two spring sources are as follows:
(Parameter/Range = Fecals/100 ml)
ID/Location 1st Test 2nd Test 3rd Test 4th Test
11/23/93 5/25/94 8/6/94 7/10/95
EastCove .......4......... .18..........10..........11
SouthCove ......2.............7......... .6..........<2
- The high quality of water which provides major attraction
for swimming for all ages during the summer months.
Although the lake is private it is frequented by large
numbers of civic, church, and community groups for
picnics, swimming, and fishing. (Also the privilege of
each of the lake's approximately 200 members to invite ten
guests provides the potential of 2,000 persons accessing
the swimming -area during the summer months)
1

The interest and activity of Mr. Jerry Cook, DEHNR
Regional Engineer of the Mooresville Land Resources
Land Quality Section, and Mr. Al Moretz, designated
Professional Engineer by DEHNR for Lake Montonia, to
work with Lake Montonia in developing the plans and
specifications for upgrading the lake dam to meet the
state's classification of higher priorities for both
dam construction and watershed potential. (The survey
and topo computer mapping model, when completed, will
provide .additional data as to the importance of this
watershed and spillway. Also the replacement of the
old dam valve with a new siphon pump extended to lower
depths of the dam will allow a higher water quality by
pumping accumulated silt, etc.)
- The 1991 Four of Five Part Aquatic Plant Management Plan
(see enclosure) for lake weed control to maintain and
improve quality of water and fish.
- The identification of wildflowers by James Barnwell,
Parks'.Consultant; identification of trees/lake
environment by John Hunt, Forester; Aquatic Plant Control
by Garland Still, Soil Conservation; and bird
identification still in progress.
- Lake Montonia is very close to Crowders Mountain State
Park and only 7 miles from the Kings Mountain State and
National Parks
- Lake Montonia's water from the dam runs into Davidson
Lake (the Old City Lake) that was at one time the source
of Kings Mountain's drinking water.
At your request I am sending a map and short history of the
lake, directions to the lake, the results of our water sampling
tests, and some information on our committees, etc. The results
of our water test taken this September at the Dam area is <2.
Lake Montonia is comprised of sixty-five homes of which twenty-
five are year round residents. All drinking water is supplied
by individual and shared well sources. The water comprising
Lake Montonia is supplied by two streams fed from natural
springs originating east and southeast of the lake. The dam
abuts the west side of the lake and water from the dam flows
west by stream through private property and under N.C. Highway
161, into the City (Davidson) Lake.
Steve, I am looking forward to a continuing and positive
dialogue as we work together through the planning and final
completion stages for the needed protection to Lake Montonia's
quality water. Let me express on behalf of the board how
pleased we are to have you share your expertise and advice with
US.
Sincerely
-
s ,
J hn L. Still, President: Lake Montonia Board
2

ANNOUNCEMENT
PROPOSED RECtRSSIrICRTI0f1 Or ME MORTO111R:
PURUC EIERRIM SET rOR MY
The N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources on behalf of the
Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) will conduct a public hearing in order to
receive public comments on the proposed
reclassification of Lake Montonia in Cleveland
County (Broad River Basin) to High Quality
Waters (HQW).
PUI31I0 IIEARIAG
Location: Kings Mountain City Hall
101 West Gold Street
Kings Mountain, NC
Date: July 13, 1999
Time: 6:00 p.m.
BRCKGROUflD
The criteria for designation to High Quality Waters includes those waters which are rated as excellent
based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
monitoring or special studies, native and special native trout waters designated by the Wildlife
Resources Commission, primary nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission and
other functional nursery areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, critical habitat areas
designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of Agriculture, all water supply
watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or WS-H or those for which a formal petition for
reclassification as WS-I or WS-11 has been received from the appropriate local government and accepted
by the Division of Water Quality, and all Class SA waters. A request for the reclassification of Lake
Montonia was submitted by the Lake Montonia Board. Water quality studies show that the lake meets
the criteria for supplemental classification as High Quality Waters.
Proposed Reclassification of
Lake Montonla to High Quality Waters (HOW)
SR 161
Crowdees
Mountain
State Park
US -29 ! H
Lake (j
Montonia o
G`ee�l- I C7
Kings Mountain 1 N
1
_ Cleveland Co. ® Proposed HOW
e
Go York Co
eto�y
Gri
3
(Over)

If reclassified, new and expanding wastewater dischargers to the area affected by the proposed HQW
reclassification will have additional treatment requirements and new single family residence wastewater
discharges to surface waters would not be allowed. The Division of Land Resources currently requires a
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan for all land disturbances greater than one acre (actual land area
disturbed) unless a local program states a different criteria. More stringent sedimentation and erosion
control practices would be applied to land disturbing activities which require a Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan and that are within one mile and draining to High Quality Waters. State land use
development criteria as defined in 15A NCAC 2H .1006 would also apply to development projects
which require a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan and that are within one mile and draining to
High Quality Waters. Development density requirements for HQWs are as follows: the low density
option allows development at 1 dwelling unit per acre, or 12 percent built upon area, and requires 30
foot buffers along all perennial waters. Under the high density option, no development density limit is
specified, but engineered stormwater controls must control runoff from one inch of rainfall. Buffers are
not required with the high density option.
HOW TO SUBMIT COIIIIIIEnTf
The purpose of this. announcement is to encourage those interested in this proposal to provide
comments. You may either attend the public hearing and make relevant verbal comments or submit
written comments, data or other relevant information by August 13. 1999. The Hearing Officer may
limit the length of time that you may speak at the public hearing, if necessary, so that all those who wish
to speak may have an opportunity to do so. We encourage you to submit written comments as well.
The Environmental Management Commission is very interested in all comments pertaining to the
proposed reclassification. All persons interested and potentially affected by the proposal are strongly
encouraged to read this entire announcement and make comments on the proposed reclassification. The
EMC may not adopt a rule that differs substantially from the text of the proposed rule published in the
North Carolina Register s� unless the EMC publishes the text of the proposed different rule and accepts
comments on the new text (see General Statute 150B 21.2 (g)). The proposed effective date for the final
rules pursuant to this hearing process is August 1, 2000. Written comments may be submitted to Liz
Kovasckitz of the Water Quality Planning Branch at the address listed below.
iOR ADDIT1011A1 InrORI11ATIOn
Copies of pertinent rules can be found on the internet at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Rules/ruleindex.html.
Further explanations and details on the proposed reclassification of Lake Montonia and other
classifications may be obtained by writing or calling:
Liz Kovasckitz
DENR/Division of Water Quality
Planning Branch
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
[phone], extension 572
In the case of inclement weather on the day of the public hearing is scheduled, please contact the above
telephone number for a recorded message on any changes to the location, day or time of the hearing.
4

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
.and Natural Resources
Division of Water Cluality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 9,1997
Dear Property Owners:
,Tk,.,R?FA
MEL
1:3 E N R
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has received a request to reclassify Lake Montonia in
Cleveland County (Broad River Basin) to include the High Quality Waters (HQW)
supplemental classification. Part of the Lake Montonia drainage area also lies within Gaston
County. The request for reclassification was submitted by the Lake Montonia Club on
November 21, 1995. Since that time DWQ has been conducting water quality studies to
determine if these waters qualify for HQW status.
A meeting to discuss the implications of a HQW reclassification, in particular its possible
affects on wastewater discharges and development in the Lake Montonia watershed, is
scheduled for January 22, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in the Fireman's Training Room
at Kings Mountain City Hall. Representatives from the Division of Water Quality will
be on hand to make a brief presentation covering the proposed reclassification, the
Classification and Standards Program, the reclassification process and answer any
questions that you may have. We are inviting all property owners and affected local
governments in the Lake Montonia watershed to participate in this meeting. Please call me
by January 12, 1997 at [phone], ext. 572 to let me know if you will be able to
attend. I hope to see you there.
Sincerely,
Liz vasckitz
Classification and Standards
cc: Jay Sauber, DWQ Lab
Rex Gleason, DWQ MRO
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5 50% recycled/ 1 o% post -consumer paper

Check out the Water Quality Rules on the Web at http://hZo.enrstate-nc.us
SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF
THE PROPOSED HQW DESIGNATION
FOR LAKE MONTONIA
WHAT rr MEANS
* In the waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), new or expanded
wastewater discharges would be required to provide advanced treatment.
* New single family residences can not empty effluent from their septic tank
system directly into waters classified as HQW; if no other alternative exists,
the effluent may be discharged, but it must be treated with dual or recirculating
sand filters, disinfection and step aeration.
Any new development activities which disturb greater than one acre of land
and are within one mile and draining to the HQW would have to control
stormwater runoff through low density development or structural stormwater
controls for higher density development.
WHAT rT DOES NOT MEAN
* The HQW classification has no effect on silvicultural activities.
* The HQW classification has no effect on any kind of agricultural activities.
For example, animals are not required to be fenced out of streams.
* The HQW classification does not prohibit use of private land; however, large
developments may have to control stormwater runoff.
Any developments in the affected area that disturb less than one acre of land,
such as single family owners building a single family dwelling on their own
lot, do not have to comply with either the low density or the high density
options contained in the HQW rule.
* The HQW classification does not affect the use of the waters for recreational
purposes -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
For additional information or questions, contact:
Jeff Manning, DWQ Planning Branch,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone], ext. 579, or e-mail to: [e-mail]
0

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Mulligan
FROM: Kerr T. Steven
'�j
SUBJECT: Hearing Officer Designation
IT
4 0 •
�A�Wo V
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RE50URCE5
By authority vested in me by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC), I am
designating you as the Hearing Officer for the July 13, 1999 public hearing in Kings Mountain,
North Carolina. The hearing will be conducted at 6:00 p.m. in the Kings Mountain City Hall. The
purpose of the hearing is to receive public comments on the proposed reclassification of Lake
Montonia (Broad River Basin) to include the HQW (High Quality Waters) supplemental
classification.
You are requested to hold this hearing and receive all relevant comments. Following the close of
the hearing record on August 13, 1999, staff will work with you in developing findings and
recommendations to be considered by the EMC.
A copy of the public announcement is enclosed for your review. I appreciate your willingness to
be a part of this process. If you have any questions, please contact Liz Kovasckitz.
Enclosure
cc: Liz Kovasckitz
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
7

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF LAKE MONTONIA
(BROAD RIVER BASIN)
July 13, 1999
Hearing Officer
Jim Mulligan, Division of Water Quality Regional Supervisor, Washington Regional Office
Participating Division of Water Quality Staff Members
Jeff Manning, Environmental Specialist, Classifications and Standards Unit, Planning Branch
Liz Kovasckitz, Community Planner, Local Government Assistance Unit, Planning Branch
Jay Sauber, Environmental Bio Supervisor, Intensive Survey Unit, Environmental Sci. Branch
Kurt Trumbower, Environmental Specialist, Intensive Survey Unit, Environmental Sci. Branch
Debra Owen, Environmental Biologist, Intensive Survey Unit, Environmental Sci. Branch
Registered Speakers
Dr. John Still, Lake Montonia Club President, 1102 Lake Montonia Road,
King's Mountain, NC 28086
Jim Tate, 721 Lake Montonia Road, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Others in Attendance
John J. Hunt, County Ranger, NC Dept of Natural Resources and Community Development,
130 South Post Road, Shelby, NC 28150
Tom Adams, Resident Manager, Lake Montonia Club,
500 Lake Montonia Road, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Mrs. John Still, 1102 Lake Montonia Road, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Mr. & Mrs. James C. Wilson, Jr., Lake Montonia Club Director
1133 Dumbarton Road, Gastonia, NC 28054
Elizabeth and James Mercer, Stockholder
PO Box 2055, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Dorothy McCraig, Lake Montonia member
525 Lake Montonia Road, King's Mountain, NC 28086
James Melvin, Lake Montonia Board,
920 Lake Montonia Road, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Jim & Barbara Melvin, Lake Montonia members
920 Lake Montonia Road, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Mary Nantz, Lake Montonia member
505 Deerfield Drive, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Mrs. Tom Trott, Lake Montonia member,
208 E, King Street, King's Mountain, NC 28086
Nancy Nickels, Lake Montonia member,
5300 Sharon Road, Charlotte, NC 28210
Mr. and Mrs. HL Ruth, Jr., Lake Montonia member,
1403 56' Ave West, Hendersonville, NC 28739
N

LAKE MONTONIA CLUB, INC.
P.O. BOX 1174
KINGS MOUNTRAIN, NORTH CAROLINA 28086
July 30, 1999
Mr. Jeff Manning
DWQ Planning Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Jeff,
It is without any reservation whatsoever that the Lake Montonia Board
and lake community support the reclassification of Lake Montonia to
"High Quality Waters". The public hearing on July 13, 1999, conducted
by the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources on behalf
of the Environmental Management Commission, was everything we could
have hoped it to be. The response was very positive from our board
and lake community, and word is spreading about the increasing desire
to provide you with a support letter of lake member signatures.
The organized style of your presentation, as well as the quality of
the data gathered, were extremely effective in conveying your message
of recommendation. Your professional approach in providing detailed
data along with photographs of Lake,Montonia was greatly -appreciated.
Let me express on behalf of the Lake Montonia Board, how pleased we
were to have you share your expertise in recommending Lake Montonia
to HQW.
Jeff, as you are also aware, Lake Montonia has been working very
diligently over.the past years to protect and preserve the quality of
lake life and heritage for future generations to come. A few of the
activities we are proud of are:
1. Organizing a neighborhood Environmental Impact & Long Range
Planning Committee for the purpose of determining how to best
protect the natural resources at Lake Montonia
2. Monitoring water quality in the lake, which is fed by two streams
flowing from nearby Kings Mountain ridge range (Lake members were
trained in sampling techniques for quality testing at nearby
Shelby lab. Tests and records have been kept since November,
1993, primarily for fecal coliform bacteria count. Still continue
annual testing for health and safety regarding swimming/fishing)
3. Implementing annual Five Part Aquatic Plant Management Plan for
weed control to maintain and improve quality of water and fish
4. Meeting with N.C: Forest Service to inventory tree species --
from huge oaks to horse chestnuts; meeting with naturalist to
identify and protect wildflowers and birds; and putting signs up
to protect wildflowers like Solomon's Seal in areas once mowed
5. Winning Cleveland County Chamber's Environmental Awareness Award
6. Working with private developers and State conservancy groups to
encourage the purchase of the ridge connecting the Kings Mountain
Pinnacle ridge with Kings Mountain State & National Military Park
7. Working with the N.C. Fisheries in meeting requirements for
stocking our lake with carp for weed control
9

8. Working with the N.C. DEHNR in approving plans and a timeline
for updating our dam and spillway
9. Working with the N.C. DWR Planning Branch in receiving final
approval for the reclassification of our lake to HQW
Jeff, thank you again for your invaluable assistance. Particularly
let me express my appreciation for your staff's generous donation of
time and effort in the gathering of data and preparation of the
report for the July 13th public hearing for our HQW.
Sincerely,
Jo n L. Still
President, Lake Montonia Board
enclosure: Newspaper article & Reference Material to Letter
-I• he S ig naiL.ves on -�Ke +0110� n,9 page. ,eve.
ab�a�nPd Su.Vidar eiccnin, dLLYivt an iCc crca»u
S o cI al at the, l ayr, P a.-Ii l 04.. ;e- -thevc Uuc-r-e.�
S vnall ChiidreA, up -to an earl mewiber in her
n� y1e�es
ram.;liGS brow Kf Churns a del ieioe�S horrte- wiadc
Ice Cve& M • Acme of oL.v Yau.n
Childvcre> p6n nen,�,. ppealar-Sgathwcoi"
w;tw au+aysand -LUC+air fatry
Inr- sKaS of yn,_ele-�tke SFiash,K�w2Y
N eYcik
aii,x 9 Ye -
it
r
d 11, and
elf -Frlems . rcuo4.s
`NIS emnin �►fiorni 2es ��e
life WI-111 w�Lal(� 'YYloni-onia blc=Ses 4S• .
tc5 er u � tkl S
H a4i a Latin of u,itl ps ro+cc+c►-t re
Ins a -t ae-Viii� I iv'►vt4 � S �l a t� -RA
�. enl�anc�h--�l�wcrs
a b'�rdS •{axcb Ace;, Y a Casa S
4sc aril • t-hanK ,`Joa, fair �ouv 1Relp �, Sa�2)t
au r'
nls It at K-eage� -by ot�r
�a1c,e'�d tew.r! b .
C hrmv L, a,aA yn Y e Vie ra+io n S tohi
eo
10

RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF LAKE MONTONIA
TO
HIGH QUALITY WATERS
WHEREAS THE LAKE MONTONIA BOARD REQUESTED THE N.C. DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY (DWQ) FOR LAKE MONTONIA AND THE TWO UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES
FEEDING THE LAKE TO BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THEIR CURRENT CLASSIFICATION
OF '!B" TO INCLUDE HIGH QUALITY WATERS ("HOW"), AND ---
WHEREAS THE LAKE BOARD REQUESTED THIS CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSES
OF PROTECTING THE PRISTINE NATURE DUE TO POTENTIAL INCREASED
DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE IN THE WATERSHED, AND ---
WHEREAS THE DWQ CONDUCTED A SAMPLING STUDY FROM APRIL 3, 1996 TO
SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF LAKE MONTONIA FOR
THE HIGH WATERS DESIGNATION, AND ---
WHEREAS LAKE MONTONIA, MEETING ALL CRITERIA FOR HOW, WAS RECOMMENDED
FOR RECLASSIFICATION TO HIGH QUALITY WATERS AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON
JULY 13, 1999, CONDUCTED BY THE N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
BE IT THEREFORE INDICATED BELOW THAT THE SIGNERS SUPPORT:
(1) THE DWQ'S RECOMMENDATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF LAKE MONTONIA TO
HOW; AND ENDORSED: (2) THE FINAL DECISION BY LEGISLATION IN AUGUST,
2000
SIGNED THIS DAY OF AUGUST 1, 1999
11

t
ojj.i 5w na/-,t-zt-
W
12

�astdn cnuntyhad na
r unty-owned earls and no
recreation program when
Carl Bober became director of
parks and nrreab in 1973.
Residents will become moreand
more grateful in
Dave th! new
Ba.itmillennium,
y. however.forwhat
he has
.aceomplishedin 26
years. Ardh
frugalityand
common sense, he
has built a county
ecwras
COMMENTARY among the best in
the state.
Soon after
joining the county, he launched a
plan that has saved 750 acres from
being gobbled up by developers.
.Those fields and woodlands have
been converted to places like the
Gaston County Park near Dallas,
where folks can play softball,
baseball and tennis, walk wooded
trails for exercise, angle for fish in
one of three takes or enjoy a lazy
picnic in the afternoon sun.
That's but one of the 16 parks
that have been built orput under
construction since Babertookthe
helm.
Baber, 65, retired June 1, but the
momentum he built continues. An
1.100•ac re stretch along the banks
of Mountain Wand lake and the
Catawba River north of Mount
Holly is slated to become an
educational forest operated by the
N.C. Forestry Service.
Don't think it will simply be a
place where students can learn
how to raise trees or control insects
that destroywoodlands. It'll have
hiking bulls, picnic areas and quiet
glades where people can relax and
get back in touch with nature. It
also will help protect the
watershed for the bulk of Gaston
County's water supply.
Amazingly, Baber and his
Recreation & Parks Advisory
M .U151K
By SCOTT DODD
Staff Writer
Suburban development is con-
suming forests and farmland in
Gaston, Lincoln and Cleveland
counties at a rate of several dozen
acres a day — a pace that alarms
many experts concerned about the
Legion's environment
Consider these numbers:
■ More undeveloped land is con-
verted to homes and businesses in
Gaston County ev-
ery year than the 4� R A 6r 111
amount of land m 4� ��1I Wr H
3,025-acre Crow- ��s
dens Mountain
State Park. One- f70m here'
third of Gaston's
urban land has
been developed in the past seven
y I Lincoln County, more farm-
land was converted to residential
development between 1994 and
1997 than in the previous 10 years.
Overall, Lincoln has lost nearly
20,OD0 acres — a quarter of its
agricultural land —since 1971.
■ Fifty subdivisions have been
built in Cleveland County in the
past three years, adding nearly 800
houses. Most of them use public
water but have their awn septic
systems — a major source of po-
tential groundwater pollution.
Pasture land bulldozed for sub-
divisions and shopping malls is just
the most visible sign of change
Rampant development — or
sprawl — is the underlying cause
of many of the area's growing
environmental problems.
"Sprawl affects water quality
and air quality," said Martha Bur-
ris, local director of the N.C. Coop-
erative Extension Service "There's
always a balance and always a
cycle, and one thing impacts the
next"
It all stems from changes in the
way we use our land particularly
farmland.
Many farmers are retiring with -
Board put it all together on the wao oyaoa PArw6Tr/Spe" to The Oba out anyone to take over for them,
A crystal clear stream feeds Lake Montonle In eastern Cleveland County. Residents watt to
keep It dean and are preparing to work with developers to preserve their little plow of _ --
Please see SABER f page 6L heaven. Please see GROWTH f page 6L .
-XC�y SIC, hl6fay of 1BEC On YI"r flet'e -
Lake dwellers prepare to preserve' -their. paradise
"You lose somethingyou can't replace. You
can't isolateyourself, no matter where you
live on Earth. We want to work with
developers."
JOHN STILL
LAKE MONTONIA RESIDENT
By JOE DeMEST
Staff Writer
Kimes Mouptra N —John and
Pat Still hadn't lived in the Lake
Montonia community long be-
fore rumors surfaced about de-
velopment headed their way.
There was talk about a golf
course and big homes on the
rugged slopes near Kmgs Moun-
tain. The Stills — just arrived
from Dunedin, Fla, where they
saw what rapid growth could do
— were upset
They'd retired to lake Mon
tonia to 1991 not only because it
was near his hometown of lGngs
Mountain, but also because of
the area's natural beauty and
isolation.
The rumors worried John Still,
a retired educator with the Pinel-
las County Department of Edu-
cation. He feared golf -course
runoff might pollute the 16-acre
lake, along with other lakes in
the area. He was concerned
about the effects on the rich plant
life and wildlife
Still went to work organizing
residents to protect their envi-
ronment
"We're not against develop-
ment, but you have to be care-
ful," says Still, 65, president of
the Lake Montonin Board
"We don't want to see a repeat
ofgunmanaged growth. You lose
somethingyou can't replace.You
can't isolate yourself, no matter
where you live on Earth We
want to work with developers"
Though the rumors faded, Still
didn't relax. Based on what he'd
seen in Florida, where he'd sup-
ported environmental causes, he
expected another developer with
another plan Today, as new
rumors about a big-time develop.
ment circulate, Still feels Lake
Montonia residents are better
positioned to protect their com-
munity.
To prepare for growth, lake
residents created a database to
measure the effects of develop-
ment and help them take action.
They organized a neighborhood
committee that worked with
state agencies to inventory plants
and animals. And they moni-
tored water quality in the take,
which is fed by two streams
flowing down from nearby Kings
Mountain range.
Still feels these are important
steps to preserve the beauty of
the quiet mountain neighbor-
hood.
Bill McCoy, director of the
UNC Charlotte Urban Institute,
says that as growth continues in
See MONTONIA f page 61.
....,-.•--x•._..,�- .r; :.. -•;-.-o--.r�,.T....-,,.._,..�,_�--•n--.r.y>.��rtrc---.....e..�r""-�;...".-•.••.•�_.T's•a---.-t"..- .. r.
.,•sr-,.. rw•. .�3
13

Lake dwellers try to preserve heir paradise
MONTONIA from IL
the Charlotte region, the Kings
Mountain range probably will be-
come 'very attractive to develop-
ers..
He thinks lake Montonin resi-
dents have the right strategy.
"They ve got to get themselves
in position to at least talk with
developers and maybe even negoti-
ate things," McCoy says
"That's smart Their little piece
of heaven is not going to stay the
way it is. If this wave of develop-
ment doesn't change IL the next
wave WILL"
In 09 beginning
Lake Montonia Club was
forted in Cleveland County in
1922 by men from Gastonia and
Wings Mountain (Montonia is a
combination of Mountain and Gas-
tonia) who wanted a fishing lake
and a place to hunt They built
rough shelters that were replaced
by cabins and larger houses.
Today. the gated community has
about 60 houses where about 20
families live year-round. There are
swimming and boating, tennis and
volleyball and a pavhhon where
kids have dances and adults can sit
and talk Dominating the view is
1,705-foot-high Kings Pinnacle ris.
ing five mites in the distehtce
The club is operated as a non-
profit organization run by an
elected volunteer board of direc-
tors made up of stockholders from
Cleveland and Gaston counties.
Still grew up in Kings Mountain,
where his father, Garland Still,
once served as mayor. He spent
summers at Lake Montonia at the
cabin of his grandfather, R.L Mau-
ne.
,.it was a lot of fun," Still says. "I
fished a lot and played with the
Other children. It was really beauti-
ful. Out here you had the illusion of
being in the Blue Ridge Moun-
tains"
After graduating from Davidson
College and Peabody College in
Nashville, Tenn., SUIT moved to
Dunedin in 1956. He worked with
human resources at the Pinellas
County Board of Education and the
University of South Florida
He remembers how shopping
centers, homes and highways
transformed rural areas
"The growth there was so great
and without any thought or long-
range planning," Still says.
Still and his wife got involved in
environmental issues — projects
like helping save a 100-yearold
oak tree from the bulldozers.
When they moved back to Kings
Mountain and renovated a house at
Lake Montonia, they enjoyed the
natural setting and sense of isola-
tion, though it was just four miles
from the city of Kings Mountain.
Taking acUon
Then rumors of a developer's
Interest shook the security that
Lake Montonia residents had felt
from more than 50 years of isola-
tion.
With the approval of the com-
munity's board, Still helped orga-
nize a 26-member environmental-
impad' committee to determine
how to protect natural resources.
The group metwith the N.C. Forest
Service to inventory tree species —
from huge oaks to horse chestnuts
They got a naturalist to identify
and protect wildflowers and birds.
Signs went up to protect wildflow-
ers hike Solomon's seal !n ress
once mowed by machines.
Houses dot the rim of lake Montonla in southeastern Cleveland County. Residents am flghUrg to preserve
their unspoiled lake.
LAKE MONTONIA
Name: Lake Montonia Club Inc.
Montonia blends parts of the '
names of Kings Mountain and Gas- .
tonia.
Organtratlon: Fomhed In 1922
by a group of men from Kings
Mountain and Gastonia. Today, the
private dub is operated as a non-
profit organization run by an elected
volunteer board of directors made
up of stockholders from Cleveland
and Gaston counties.
Location: Off N.C.161 about
four miles south of Kings Mountain
at the base of Kings Pinnace.
Population: About 200 mem-
bers. They occupy 60 houses,
about 20 of which are full-time res-
idences.
Lot sales: Some lots have been
In the same families since 1922.
There is little property turnover, but
when a let becomes available it
goes fast by word of mouth. No
commercial real estate signs are al-
lowed Inside or outside near the
community.
Membership: The dub has 25
associate members who aren't
property owners at the lake. Associ-
ates are recommended to the
board for approval by full members.
Lake ake:16 acres, fed by two
streams that flow from the Kings
Mountain range.
Community committees: Vol-
unteers serve on a Lake Montonia
Environmental Committee and a
long-range planning committee.
Volunteers also do regular cleanup
and fix -up work at the property.
A cheddist* for 53 species of
birds included new species such as
tted sandpiper, cedar waxwing,
fir-eved vuw ed rose
Meanwhile, the group got a ceF
tified water biologist to test water
quality at the lake. A professional
lab analyzed samples Tests were
made primarily for fecal-coliform
bacteria count, the best indicator of
fecal pollution from domestic
sources.
Still says the tests provide resi-
dents with a certified database of
what was happening to the quality
of the water.
The information, which is up-
dated, can be used U residents
detect a change in the water after
development begins.
Eventually, the committee asked
lake.
the state to begin testing the lake in
an effort to get a higher water
classification.
ggooa Quality Still says that if runoff from a
ing urge & Q uthe lake, hev
Water dessi&
cation could enable residents to get
the developer to build a holding
basin to catch runoff.
A public hearing on the issue is
ad for July at Kings Mountain City
Hall.
As a new round of rumors about
a golf course/housing complex
arise, Still says residents support
efforts by the state and a conserva-
tion group to buy land along the
Kings Mountain range ridgeline.
Last month, two N.C. trust funds
put together a $3 million grant
package that could be o link
Crowdeers Mountain � ( Kings
Mountain state and federal perks.
There's no word on what the land.
owners might do because a major
developer is interested in the same
property.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Trust
Fund approved a $1.8 million grant
to buy 1.100 aces in Cleveland and
Gaston counties. The N.C. Parks
and Recreation Trust Fund had
earlier approved $12 million for
the same project. With the money,
the land could be bought and
turned over to the N.C. Division of
Parks and Recreation.
The link would conned Crow-
ders Mountain State Park in North
Carolina with Kings Mountain
State Park and Kings Mountain
National Military Park in South
Carolina.
The deal would create a 15,000-
acre natural preserve with a com-
mon trail system, all less than an
hour west of Charlotte
"I can't think of anything more
wonderful than a park along that
ridge," says Nancy Nickels, 73, a
retired Charlotte schoolteacher
who has a house at lake Montonia.
"It's fantastic"
Nickels, a Kings Mountain na-
tive, wants mountain land pro-
tected and thinks the community
environmental committee is doing
a good job.
A new committee is worsting
with the city of Kings Mountain to
focus on other Issues, such as
annexation. Members also plan to
meet with officials in Cleveland
and Gaston counties and Gastonia
Still says it's important to keep
up with what's going on around the
region and plan.
It's better to work as early as
you can and not wait for a crisis to
happen," he says. "You've got to
start working together to protect
the land we'll leave to our chil-
dren."
Reach Joe Deprien at (704) W&7745
orjdepriatCathartoftcom
14

APPENDIX
A-1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
Environmental Sciences Branch
August 1998
HIGH QUALITY WATERS EVALUATION
OF
LAKE MONTONIA
This document has been approved by _ _ —� --- ____
Assistant ef, Water Quality Section
roam tal ciences Branch
Date ---`'1----
A-2

Table of Contents
Listof Figures........................................................................................................... ii
Listof Tables............................................................................................................. ii
Appendices................................................................................:..............................
ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................... 1
Introduction............................................................................................................. 3
FecalColiform Bacteria.......................................................................................... 4
Metals......................................................................................................................... 7
FieldParameters...................................................................................................... 7
Nutrients, Chlorophyll and Algal Growth Potential Test Results ............... 8
North Carolina Trophic State Index(NCTSI)................................................... 11
Phytoplankton and Aquatic Macrophytes....................................................... 12
LakeHydrology........................................................................................................ 13
StatisticalAnalyses.................................................................................................. 13
WatershedLand Ownership................................................................................. 23
Conclusions and Recommendation................................................................... 27
References................................................................................................................. 28
i
A-3

List of Figures
Figure 1
Map of General Location of Lake Montonia..............................
5
Figure 2
Map of Lake Montonia Monitoring Locations .........................
6
Figure 3
Lake Montonia Total Organic Nitrogen ....................................
9
Figure 4
Lake Montonia Total Phosphorus ..............................................
9
Figure *5
Lake Montonia Chlorophyll a .....................................................
10
Figure 6
Lake Montonia Mean N.C. Trophic State Index ......................
11
Figure 7
Fisher's LSD Results for NCTSI..................................................
17
Figure 8
Lake Montonia Watershed Landowners ..................................
24
List of Tables
Table 1
Sampling Stations and Parametric Coverage ............................
4
Table 2
Lake Montonia Mean Lake -wide NCTSI Data Values.....:......
12
Table 3
Phytoplankton Density and Biovolume for Station
LM1.....................:...............................................................................
12
Table 4
Mean NCTSI and Individual Parameter Means ......................
15
Table 5
Fisher's LSD Summary - Ten Parameters .................................
18
Table 6
Kruskal-Wallis Ranking Summary ............................................
19
Table 7
Bonferroni/Dunn Comparison of Lake Montonia and
ReferenceLakes...............................................................................
20
Table 8
Mann -Whitney Nonparametric Analysis of Lake
Montonia and Reference Lakes ....................................................
21
Table 9
Mann -Whitney Analysis of Mountain Lakes Compared
toLake Montonia............................................................................
21
Table 10
Landowners in Lake Montonia Watershed ..............................
23
Table 11
Parties in Attendance at the High Quality Waters
Informational Meeting..................................................................
26
Appendices
Appendix A Lake Montonia Study Water Quality Data
Appendix B Box and Whisker Plots
ii
A-4

Executive Summary
The Lake Montonia Board, a group of citizens concerned about privately owned
Lake Montoma, has made a request to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) for Lake Montonia and the two unnamed tributaries feeding the lake to be
reclassified from their current classification of "B" to include a High Quality Waters
("HQW") designation. The Board has requested this classification for the purposes
of protecting what they feel is Lake Montonia's pristine nature due to potential
increased development pressure in the watershed. Because of this request, the
DWQ conducted a sampling study from April 3,1996 to September 3,1997 to
determine the suitability of Lake Montonia for the High Quality Waters designation.
This summary discusses the data collected during this study.
A total of eleven sampling events were conducted during the growing seasons
from April 3 to September 26,1996 and from May 13,1997 to September 3,1997.
Summary tables, located in Appendix A, are provided for all chemical data collected.
Low fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were found during the Lake Montonia
Study. No values above the state standard of 200/100 ml for protection of human
health in all freshwaters were found. The frequency of sampling required by state
standards (at least 5 samples in a 30 day period) was not necessary to perform because
of the very low levels found during the regularly scheduled sampling runs.
Metals analyses were conducted for cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead,
and zinc. However, only zinc was found at levels greater than the action level as
defined in 15 NCAC 2B .0211 (4). Of the 23 observations collected for zinc, 3
observations were greater than the 50 µg/L action level for dischargers. As there are
no dischargers located in the watershed, the action level becomes a numerical
ambient water quality standard. The high zinc concentrations found may have been
due to the leaching of zinc from the naturally occurring acidified soils in the
watershed. These soil types are primarily Tatum gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent
slope, with a strongly acidic pH range of 5.1 to 5.5 s.u. Similarly, Lake Montonia was
found to be somewhat acidic as evidenced by low pH levels. These isolated zinc
levels are probably not a cause for concern and should not prevent Lake Montonia
for consideration for High Quality Waters designation.
Field parameters measured during the Lake Montonia Study indicated 2 pH
levels slightly less than the state standard of between 6.0 and 9.0 standard units. The
low pH values found were 5.4 s.u` and 5.8 s.u. The low pH values may be due to
naturally acidic soil types in the watershed so these isolated low pH values are not a
cause for concern and should not prohibit Lake Montonia from consideration for
HQW designation. Good water clarity was present in Lake Montonia on all
sampling dates as evidenced by high secchi disk readings. Stratified conditions were
present at the deepest station, LM1, on most sampling dates.
Low concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus (nutrient levels) were found in
Lake Montonia in both years of the sampling study. Chlorophyll a levels were also
generally low in Lake Montonia with no values found above the water quality
A-5

standard of 40 ug/L. Algal growth potential tests (AGPT) performed on a sample
collected on July 9, 1997 demonstrated little potential eutrophication concerns.
North Carolina Trophic State Index (NCTSI) scores calculated on data collected
from Lake Montonia indicated oligotrophic conditions on all sampling dates.
Oligotrophic lakes generally have excellent water quality and low biological
productivity. The most oligotrophic NCTSI scores were found in 1997 at both
stations.
Phytoplankton analyses from samples collected in Lake Montonia in 1997
indicated no algal blooms of nuisance species. A green alga, Gleocystis vesiculosa,
was the most dominant species present. Aquatic macrophytes were observed in
,Lake Montonia on most sampling dates but lake coverage was not extensive enough
to cause problems. Prophylactic control measures have been taken by the Lake
Montonia Board, including stocking of grass carp.
Hydrological conditions in Lake Montonia differed somewhat between 1996 and
1997. A lake drawdown in September, 1996 in anticipation of possible flooding from
a hurricane was performed although the storm event never materialized. The
drawdown and subsequent lack of significant precipitation prevented flushing of
Lake Montonia for much of 1997 so worst case hydrological conditions were
experienced in 1997. No significant adverse water quality affects from the lake
drawdown and lack of flushing were seen. in sampling results from 1997.
Statistical comparisons of Lake Montonia water quality data compared to North
Carolina mountain lakes water quality data indicated that Lake Montonia was
comparable to these mountain lakes even though Lake Montonia is not a true
mountain lake. A variety of statistical analyses were conducted to determine these
comparisons and for certain parameters Lake Montonia water quality data suggested
higher quality than many North Carolina mountain lakes.
From data collected in the Lake Montonia Study, it appears that a High Quality
Waters supplemental designation is appropriate to consider. The lake has been
found to have excellent water quality during the water quality special study thereby
meeting the procedure as defined in 15A NCAC 2B .0100 Procedures for Assignment
of Water Quality Standards (DWQ, 1997) for designation of High Quality Waters.
A2-6

Introduction
The Lake Montonia Board, a group of citizens concerned about privately owned
Lake Montonia, has requested that Lake Montonia and the two unnamed tributaries
feeding the lake be reclassified from their current classification of "B" to include a
High Quality Waters ("HQW") designation The Board has requested this
reclassification for the purposes of protecting the watershed of Lake Montonia due
to increased developmental pressure in the watershed.
The supplemental classification, High Quality Waters (HQW), is defined in the
15A NCAC 2B .0100 Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards (DWQ,
1997). High Quality Waters are defined as waters which are rated as excellent based
on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or
special studies, native and special native trout waters (and their tributaries)
designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, primary nursery areas (PNA)
designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission and other functional nursery areas
designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, critical habitat areas designated
by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of Agriculture, all water
supply watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or WS-H or those for which a
formal petition for reclassification as WS-I or WS-H has been received from the
appropriate local government and accepted by the DWQ and all Class SA waters.
Lake Montonia is a 16 acre privately owned lake in Cleveland County, N.C. in the
Broad River Basin. The elevation at Lake Montonia is approximately 900 feet above
sea level. Both the elevation and geographic location of Lake Montonia tend to
place the lake in a category between a piedmont lake and a mountain lake. The lake
was built in the 1920's. Two spring -fed ephemeral unnamed tributaries flow into
the lake. The tributaries are located to the east and southeast of the lake. The
drainage area of the lake is 1.94 square kilometers (0.75 square miles) and the
watershed is primarily forested although 65 homes are located immediately around
the lake. Approximately 25 of the homes have year round residents with the other
homes having primarily summer usage. Septic tanks are used for waste disposal
and drinking water is supplied by wells. Most of the homes have yards in a natural
condition without grassed and fertilized lawns. Portions of Crowder's Mountain
State Park and Kings Pinnacle are located in the watershed. All of these waters are
currently classified "B". A roped -off swimming area is present on the lake and
picnic and recreational areas are present in the immediate vicinity. A locked gate
controls access to the only road into the property. Although Lake Montonia is a
private lake, it is used frequently by large numbers of civic, church, and community
groups for picnics, swimming, ana fishing with excellent fishing present Qohn Still,
personal communication). According to Chris Goudreau, Fishery Biologist with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, no fisheries data has been
collected in Lake Montonia by the Wildlife Resources Commission. Many
environmental activities are organized by the Lake Montonia Board. Examples
include lake and watershed clean-up days, manual harvesting of aquatic
macrophytes, stocking of the lake with triploid grass carp for aquatic macrophyte
control, fecal coliform bacteria testing, hiring of a naturalist to identify wildlife in
the area, and environmental awareness program for youths. The Lake Montonia
Board has won an environmental awareness award from Cleveland County. No
3
A-7

NPDES permitted dischargers or animal operations are located in the watershed of
Lake Montonia.
To determine the suitability of the High Quality Waters designation for Lake
Montonia, water quality sampling was performed, during 1996 and 1997. A total of
eleven sampling events were conducted from April 3 to September 26, 1996 and
from May 13, 1997 to September 3, 1997. Two lake stations were monitored during
each sampling event except for the initial sampling event performed on April 3,
1996, when 3 stations were monitored. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
the two unnamed tributaries draining to Lake Montonia were not evaluated due to
their small size and ephemeral nature. Water quality sampling stations and
parametric coverage are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. 1996-1997 Lake Montonia Sampling Stations and Parameters
Station # Chemical* Physical** AGPT Phytoolankton
LMl X X X X
LM2*_** X X X
LM3 X X X
* NH3, TKN, NO2+NO3, TP, CHL-A, Total Solids, Total Suspended Solids,
Turbidity, Metals, Fecal Coliform Bacteria
** Dissolved Oxygen, Water Temperature, pH, Conductivity, Secchi Depth
***LM2 was sampled only on April 3. 1996
A map of the general location of Lake Montonia is presented in Figure 1 and
monitoring locations are presented in Figure 2. Water quality samples for the Lake
Montonia Study were collected in accordance with Standard Operating Procedures
Manual Physical and Chemical Monitoring. (DEM, 1996). All water quality samples
were analyzed by the DWQ's Chemistry Laboratory. The following discussion
summarizes results of the data collected.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Low fecal coliform bacteria levels were found during the Lake Montonia Study.
No fecal coliform bacteria values were found above the state standard of a geometric
mean of 200/100 ml. The standard is, however, based on at least 5 samples in a 30
day period and this frequency of sampling for fecal coliform bacteria was not deemed
necessary because of the very low bacteria levels found during the regular sampling
events. The highest fecal coliform bacteria that was found during the Lake
Montonia Study was 64/100 ml, found at LM3 on June 24,1996. The Lake Montonia
Board has also performed fecal coliform bacteria sampling with analyses performed
by a private laboratory. Low fecal coliform bacteria levels were found.in this
monitoring also. No fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were found above 20/100
ml in sampling performed by the Lake Montonia Board in 1993, 1994, and 1995..
V.

-% Map of Lake Montonia Monitoring Locations
9DO O
. ��- - / �C ► 100
-� CHEMICAL STATIONS
A-

Metals
All metals sampled for (cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc)
during the Lake Montonia Study were within state standards except for zinc. Three
of twenty three (13 %) zinc values found were greater than the 50 ug/L action level.
The maximum observed concentration for zinc was 120 µg/L, found at LM3 on
September 26, 1996 and at LMl on September 3, 1997. As defined in the North
Carolina DWQ, Classifications and Water Quality Standards -15 NCAC 2B .0211 (4),
the action levels for metals (including zinc) are designed as criteria for dischargers
and there are no dischargers in the watershed of Lake Montonia. In the case of no
dischargers present, action levels are considered as numerical water quality
standards, but these isolated high zinc values should probably not prevent Lake
Montonia for consideration for High Quality Waters designation. High zinc
concentrations have been found in agricultural soil in nearby Gaston County,
although data for zinc concentrations in soil in the Lake Montonia watershed is not
available (Steve Gibson, Natural Resources Conservation Service, personal
communication). Additionally, the inputs of many trace elements, including zinc,
to freshwaters are increasing due to industrial and combustion emissions which are
subsequently deposited in lake watersheds during rain events (Nriagu and
Davidson, 1980). The widespread acidification -of rain and snow falling on poorly
buffered soils and fresh waters can result in the leaching of trace metals (Wetzel,
1983). Additionally, soil types (primarily Tatum gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent
slope) in the Lake Montonia watershed are strongly acidic with a pH range of 5.1 to
5.5 s.u. Lake Montonia was found to be somewhat acidic as demonstrated by the low
pH values found. As lakes become more acidic the concentrations of many heavy
metals increase as their solubilities increase and as sedimentary binding
mechanisms decline (e.g., Jackson, et al., 1980).
Field Parameters (dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and conductivity)
With the exception of two surface pH values, no violations of water quality
standards for field parameters were found during sampling performed for the Lake
Montonia Study. The two pH values found outside of the state standard for all
freshwaters of a range between 6.0 s.u. and 9.0 s.u. were both found at LM3. A'pH
value of 5.4 s.u. was found on September 26, 1996 and a pH value of 5.8 s.u. was
found on June 17, 1997. Soil types in the Lake Montonia watershed -are strongly
acidic (pH range = 5.1 to 5.5 s.u.) so the low pH values are probably due to natural
conditions. These isolated low pH values should probably not prevent Lake
Montonia from consideration for High Quality Waters designation. Secchi disk
readings indicated good water clarity at both sampling stations with a mean value
for both years of the study of 2.9 n'ieters at LMI and 2.7 meters at LM3. Low turbidity
and suspended residue levels were also found in Lake Montonia and verified by the
relatively high secchi disk readings. Stratified conditions were found at LM1, the
deeper station located near the dam, on most sampling dates. Dissolved oxygen and
temperature levels declined from surface to bottom at this station with anoxic
conditions found in the hypolimnion.

Nutrients, Chlorophyll a ,,and Algal Growth Potential Results
Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) were generally found in low amounts in
Lake Montonia in both years of the study. A notched box and whisker plot for total
organic nitrogen for the Lake Montonia Study is shown in Figure 3. Total organic
nitrogen is calculated by subtracting ammonia from total kjeldahl nitrogen. Located
in Appendix B is an explanation page for the interpretation of box and whisker
plots. As seen in Figure 3, total organic nitrogen levels were low at both stations but
slightly higher levels were found at LM3. A notched box and whisker plot for total
phosphorus is shown in Figure 4. As was the case with total organic nitrogen, low
total phosphorus levels were found at both stations but slightly higher levels were
found at LM3.
8
A-12

FIGURE 3
LAKE MONTONIA TOTAL ORGANIC NITROGEN
(1996 and 1997 data combined, 22 observations)
.3
.25
.2
0.15
.1
.05
.05
.04
a
J¢ J.03
H
c0
O 2
wj
tel
LM1 LM3
STATION
FIGURE 4
LAKE MONTONIA TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
(1996 and 1997 data combined, 22 observations)
� c
I
i I
f i
I
0 `
LM1 LM3
STATION
9
A-13

All chlorophyll a concentrations collected were well below the state standard of 40
µg/L for lakes, reservoirs, and other slow -moving waters. Twenty one of 23 (91%)
chlorophyll a values were less than or. equal to 10 µg/L. The highest chlorophyll a
concentration (15 µg/L) was found at LM1 on June 13, 1996. Chlorophyll a levels
were generally lower in 1997. A notched box and whisker plot for chlorophyll a
data for the Lake Montonia Study is shown in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 5,
chlorophyll a concentrations were low at both stations but higher levels were found
at LM1.
an
�5
T
10
FIGURE 5
LAKE MONTONIA CHLOROPHYLL A
(1996 and 1997 data combined, 22 observations)
W
LM1 LM3
STATION
An algal growth potential test (AGPT) was conducted on a sample collected at
LM1 on July 8, 1997. The AGPT provides a very good estimate of bioavailable and
limiting nutrients at the time of sample collection. The objective of the AGPT is to
determine the total quantity of algal biomass of a test organism supportable by the
test waters under optimum physical conditions and to determine whether algal
growth is limited by either phosphorus or nitrogen. The measurements are made
by adding a test algae, Selenastrum capricornutum, to the test water and
determining algal growth at appropriate intervals. An in -lake concentration of 5 mg
dry weight/L (maximum standing crop) of the test algae is a level that will
reasonably assure protection from nuisance algal blooms and fish kills in warm
water southeastern lakes (Raschke,1989). A concentration of 5 mg dry weight/L
converts to approximately 57 µg/L of chlorophyll a. In cases where the control
maximum standing crop growth rates are >_ 5.0 mg/L, there are sufficient quantities
of biologically available growth limiting constituents to support algal growth in
excess of 57 µg/L chlorophyll a under ideal light and temperature growth
conditions. Ideally, the in -lake concentration should be less than 5 mg dry weight/L
as 57 µg/L is above the North Carolina water quality standard of 40 µg/L. The AGPT
0
A-14

result collected from Lake Montonia indicated a low AGPT concentration of a
maximum standing crop (MSC) dry weight of 1.6 mg/l. The results of the nutrient
limitation testing show that the sample was co -limited. These results indicate that
Lake Montonia is not likely to experience nuisance algal blooms.
Lake Montonia N. C. Trophic State Index
North Carolina Trophic State Index (NCTSI) scores were calculated for the
Lake Montonia study for 1996 and 1997. These scores give an indication of a
lake's biological productivity. The scores are based on the parameters of
secchi depth, total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and total organic nitrogen
These scores were then used to determine trophic status for each lake station
for each sampling date. Mean NCTSI values for each station for both 1996
and 1997 are plotted in Figure 6. In both 1996 and 1997, as seen in Figure 6,
oligotrophic (unproductive) mean NCTSI scores were found at both stations.
In general, oligotrophic lakes have excellent water quality. The mean 1996
and 1997 lake -wide NCTSI scores for each sampling date along with data
values are listed in Table 2. The generally lower (more oligotrophic) NCTSI
scores found in 1997 are reflected in Table 2.
FIGURE 6
LAKE MONTONIA MEAN NC TROPHIC STATE INDEX
1996
❑ 1997
LM1 L-Ma
STATION
11
A-15

Table 2. Lake Montonia Mean Lakewide NCTSI Data Values
Sampling Date
NCTSI
Total P
Secchi
Total Organic Nitrogen
Chl. a
mg/1
meters
mg/l
µg/1
960403
-2.51
0.03
3.5
0.16
8
960613
-2.46
0.01
1.9
0.20
10
960624
-3.04
0.01
2.4
0.21
6
960723
-3.40
0.02
2.4
0.12
5
960820
-3.73
<0.01
2.6
0.19
10
960926
-3.79
<0.01
2.8
0.22
6
970513
-4.73
0.02
3.0
0.06
4
970617
-4.22
0.01
3.2
0.19
2
970709
-4.52
0.01
2.9
0.20
2
970814
-5.03
0.01
2.8
0.14
1
970903
-2.30
0.05
2.8
0.24
2
Phytoplankton and Aquatic Macrophytes
Phytoplankton analysis was performed on samples collected from Lake Montonia
in 1997. High species diversity was present with fifty species representing 32 genera
enumerated in the samples collected at station LM-1 during July, August, and
September. Overall sample densities and biovolumes were low (Table 3).
Table 3. Phytoplankton Density and Biovolume for Station LML
Biovolume
Density
Date
No of Species
(mm3/m3)
(units/ml)
7/9/97
27
3160
6200
8/14/97
27
1400
1970
9/3/97
12
2910
3500
The green alga Gleog:ystis vesiculosa was the most dominant alga. The next most
dominant alga was Ochromonas species 3, a ubiquitous chrysophyte. All remaining
species had low importance values. Blue green algal species were observed but had
low absolute and relative densities and biovolumes. Duarte, et al. (1992) examined
phytoplankton communities along with lake trophic status for 165 Florida lakes.
These researchers noted a shift in dominance from green algae in oligotrophic lakes
to dominance by blue green algae in eutrophic lakes. The genus Gleocvstis was
commonly found in oligotrophic lakes in this study, and contributed a large
proportion to the biomass of the communities. Oligotrophic lakes generally have
excellent water quality. Gletiswas also a dominant species in samples collected
by the N.C. DWQ in the oligotrophic mountain lakes, Hiwassee Reservoir and
Nantahala Lake, in June and July 1993. No water quality problems were noted in
Lake Montonia based on the composition of the phytoplankton communities or
sample densities .or biovolumes.
12
A-16

On all sampling visits to Lake Montonia aquatic macrophytes were observed.
The macrophytes were limited to an area in the upstream end of the lake, primarily
in the mouths of the coves where the two unnamed tributaries feed the lake, and to
some scattered areas on the lake's shoreline. Lily pads (species undetermined) were
observed along with another species that was collected for identification on April 3,
1996. The macrophyte collected was determined to be Myriophyllum brasiliense
kparrot's feather). Parrot's feather is a native of South America and was introduced
to the United States as an aquarium plant. This species grows in fresh water that is
usually neutral to slightly alkaline. It may grow submersed to about a meter.
Unlike other milfoils, parrot's feather has green -gray foliage that extends above the
surface of the water. It can completely clog small ponds and canals. Parrot's feather
has little wildlife value except for providing cover for fish. Another macrophyte
sample was collected from the lake bottom at LM3 on June 17, 1997. This sample
was identified as the macroalgae Nitella aga, ardh, which is a close relative of Chara
Linnaeus. This macroalgae grows in meadows within somewhat deeper waters than
Kara. Chara favors sheltered environments with sandy sediments of low organic
content in slow moving hardwater with good clarity. Grass carp were purchased by
the Lake Montorua homeowners association and stocked in 1997 to help control the
aquatic macrophytes. Field observations made during some of the last sampling
visits in 1997 indicated a noticeable decrease in parrot's feather perhaps although lily
pads (species undetermined) were still present.
Lake Hydrology
According to John Still of the Lake Montonia Board (personal communication,
September 26, 1996) the lake level of Lake Montonia was manually lowered by the
lake caretaker in September of 1996 in anticipation of a possible flooding event
caused by a hurricane. The anticipated flooding of the lake never occurred and later
communication with Mr. Still in August and September of 1997 indicated that very
little flushing of the lake occurred in 1997 due to the lowered lake level. Therefore
worst case hydrologic conditions, with extended lake detetention times, were
accounted for in sampling performed in 1997.
Statistical Analysis
No criteria presently exist for classifying lake water quality as excellent,
although such judgments must be made in response to requests for High
Quality Waters and Outstanding Resource Waters classification. Analysis of
water quality information for reference lakes, will help establish realistic
expectations for least impacted lakes within a given region. To have
"excellent" water quality, a lake should meet or surpass attainable conditions;
that is, the water quality of a candidate lake should be comparable to that -of
minimally impacted lakes in the same region.
Lake studies were conducted in the mountains of North Carolina in the
summers of 1991, 1992 and 1993. The purpose. of this work was to characterize
least impacted lakes to help evaluate excellent water quality in different
regions of North Carolina. Emphasis was placed on water quality parameters
associated with lake trophic status and phytoplankton community analysis.
Lakes chosen for intensive sampling previously demonstrated the highest
13
A-17

water quality conditions within their respective regions and were thought to
be minimally impacted by human activity. This selection of reference lakes
was based on parameters associated with trophic status (nutrients, clarity, and
chlorophyll a), a review of watershed information, and consultations with
DWQ regional office staff. Because distinct regional differences are apparent
in North Carolina, differences related to topography, geology, and
predominant land uses, least impacted lake evaluations were also conducted
in the piedmont, sandhills, and coastal plain regions of the state. Experience
dictates that these regional differences should not be ignored while
interpreting water quality information for lakes. For instance, it would be
unrealistic to expect similar conditions in mountain reservoirs, piedmont
reservoirs, and coastal bay lakes. From a pool of 27 different mountain lakes
which have been monitored by DWQ since 1981, four mountain reference
lakes were selected for evaluation in the 1991, 1992 and 1993 study (Hiwassee
Reservoir, Nantahala Lake, Cedar Cliff Lake and .Allen Creek Reservoir).
Mountain reservoirs as a group have much lower concentrations for all of
the trophic water quality parameters when compared to .the mean for lakes
statewide. Lakes of the piedmont region, on the other hand, generally have
higher concentrations for all of the trophic water quality. parameters.
Lake Montonia, because of its location on the borders of the piedmont and
mountain physiographic regions of the state and shares characteristics with
lakes of both regions: For this analysis, the decision was made to compare the
water quality .parameters of Lake Montonia with that of lakes of the better of
the two regions (the mountain region). Further, Lake Montonia was
compared in detail with the four reference lakes of the mountain region.
This comparison with lakes which are considered to represent the least
impacted lakes of the mountain region and therefore have the best values for
water quality parameters provides for a very rigorous determination of the
comparative water quality of Lake Montonia. This determination will assist
in the evaluation of this lake for reclassification as a High Quality Water.
ComFarison of Mean North Carolina Trojhic State Index Scores and
Parameters
Mean NCTSI scores, total phosphorus (TP), total organic nitrogen (TON),
Secchi depth, and chlorophyll a values for all mountain lakes, Lake Montonia
and the four mountain reference I, kes are presented in Table 4.
Lake Montonia's mean total phosphorus value (0.02 mg/L) was not greatly
different than the mean total phosphorus value for the mountain reference
lakes (0.01 mg/L) - it was equivalent to the mean total phosphorus value for
all mountain lakes. Mean chlorophyll a concentration for Lake Montonia (5
µg/L) was not biologically significant (5 µg/L or less ). The mean chlorophyll
a values for the four mountain reference lakes (range = 1 to 4 µg/L) were also
within this range. The mean chlorophyll a concentration for Lake Montonia
was equivalent to the concentration for all mountain lakes.
14.
A-18

Lake Montonia's mean total organic nitrogen value (0.18 mg/L) was
greater than both the mean values for the mountain reference lakes (range =
0.08 to 0.15 mg/L) and the mean total organic nitrogen value for all mountain
lakes (0.17 mg/L). The mean secchi depth value for Lake Montonia (2.8
meters) was similar to that of Cedar Cliff Lake (2.9 meters) but lower than the
mean secchi depth values of Allen Creek and Hiwassee Reservoirs (3.3
meters), and Nantahala Lake (5.5 meters). Lake Montonia's mean secchi
depth value was also lower than that of all mountain lakes (3.1 meters).
Because the mean NCTSI score for Lake Montonia was influenced by the
mean values for total organic nitrogen and secchi depth, this mean score is
greater in comparison with those of the four reference lakes and with the
mean NCTSI score of all of the mountain lakes. Although Lake Montonia's
mean NCTSI score is greater than those of the mountain reference lakes, it is
still within the oligotrophic score range (<2.0). Further, the higher NCTSI
score for Lake Montonia as compared with the mountain lakes naturally
reflects the geographic location of this lake in an area which borders both the
mountain and piedmont regions of the state.
Table 4. Mean NCTSI and Individual Parameter Means
NCTSI
Score
TP
mo/L
TCN
m /L
Secchi Depth
meters
Chlorophyll a
ua/L
All Mountain Lakes
-4.1
0.02
0.17
3.1
5
Lake Montonia
- 3. 7
0.02
0.18
2.8
5
Allen Creek Reservoir
-6.3
0.01
0.10
3.3
2
Cedar Cliff Lake
-5.7
1 0.01
1 0.08
2.9
1 4
Nantahaa LaKe
-7.1
0.01
0.10
5.5
1 1
Hiwassee Reservoir
-5.0
0.01
0.15
3.3
1 2
STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)
Various statistical tests can be used to compare Lake Montonia with the 31
mountain lakes including the four reference lakes. The analysis of variance
is often useful in evaluating environmental effects. The loss of information
due to missing data is relatively small (Steel and Torrie, 1960). Although the
data presented for parametric statistical analysis do not necessarily meet strict
ANOVA assumptions (i.e., data are normally distributed, the variance of the
samples are homogeneous and the samples are independent - not sub -
samples), the results of the analysis are consistent with nonparametric
analysis which will be presented subsequently. One single inferential
decision should not be based on the results of the parametric analyses. The
sampling scheme for North Carolina lakes was not designed to be analyzed in
this manner. The parametric ANOVA analysis assumes a normal
distribution of the data. The parametric data are not normally distributed.
The NCTSI data is nearly normal, however, the NCTSI does not pass the test
for normality. These analyses were performed to explore the data currently
15
A-19

available. Analyses based on the normality assumptions were included
because of the general agreement with the nonparametric tests.
Fisher's LSD - Separating the Lakes into Groups
In many situations it is possible to construct different groups so that
variation among units within groups is less than that among units in
different groups. The least significant difference (Fisher's LSD) is a parametric
statistical test valid for comparisons of means. The Fisher's LSD is analyzed
using the .05 probability condition. The LSD is basically a student's T test
using pooled error variance (Abacus, 1989; Steel and Torrie, 1960): The
Fisher's LSD, which will segment the 27 mountain lakes into statistically
similar groups by parameter means, is a liberal test which may produce more
groups than may be found to be significantly different under more ,
conservative testing. For the purposes of evaluating the issue of excellent
water quality, the more groups, the more differentiation; and thus the test is
more selective of the best groups. Thus making Fisher's LSD a valuable tool
for presenting the best of the lakes under investigation.
The Fisher's LSD results for the parameter NCTSI are presented in Figure
7. Notice that there is an overlap between those lakes designated as belonging
to "group a" and those lakes designated as belonging to "group V. While the
lakes represented in "group a" are statistically similar, and the lakes belonging
to "group b" are statistically similar, lakes that are located in both groups
should not be inferred to be different. For example, there is a significant
difference between Nantahala Lake and Lake Montonia for the NCTSI
parameter because they appear in two different groups ("group a" and "group
c"). But there is no discernible significant difference between Allen Creek
Reservoir and Lake Montonia because they both share representation in the
"c group". There is also no significant difference between Hiwassee
Reservoir, Allen Creek Reservoir, Cedar Cliff Lake and Lake Montonia
because they each appear in group c . The- Fishers LSD ANOVA determined
that the 31 mountain lakes can be divided by the NCTSI into eight
significantly different groups and that Lake Montonia appears in the third
best group along with three of the four mountain reference lakes (Figure 7).
Thus, based on the Fisher's LSD ANOVA analysis for NCTSI's, the water
quality of Lake Montonia is significantly different than one of the four
mountain reference lakes (Nantahala Lake).
Table 5 summarizes the complete. analysis of the Fisher's LSD evaluation
for Lake Montonia and the mountain reference lakes. For each parameter,
the number of statistically different groups that were generated is presented
along with the highest individual group within this set in which each lake
was placed. For example, Lake Montonia placed in the premier group (group
1).of four statistically different groups for chlorophyll a. Similarly, all of the
reference lakes were also placed in group 1 out of the four groups for
chlorophyll a.. Lake Montonia placed in the premier group (group 1) for eight
of the ten parameters.
16
A-20

Type III Sums of Squares
source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value
LakeName
30
1811.942
60.398
23.039
.0001
Residual
403
10515AE
2.622
Dependent: NCTSI
Fisher's Protected LSD
Effect: LakeName
Dependent: NCTSI
Significance level:.05
NANTAHALA LAKE
LAKE CHEOAH
BURNETT RESERVOIR
BUSBEE RESERVOIR
CALDERWOOD LAKE
ALLEN CREEK RESERVOIR
CEDAR CLIFF LAKE
APALACHIA LAKE
BEETREE RESERVOIR
THORPE RESERVOIR
LAKE TAHOMA
HIWASSEE RESERVOIR
FONTANALAKE
BEAR CREEK RESERVOIR
SANTEETLAH LAKE
LAKE JAMES
LAKE ADGER
LAKE MONTONIA
LAKE SUMMIT
ASU LAKE
LAKE TOXAWAY
CHATUGE LAKE
WOLF CREEK RESERVOIR
LAKE JULIAN
KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR
LAKE LURE
CASHIERS LAKE
LAKE JUNALUSKA
LAKE SEQUOYAH
LAKE EMORY
WATERVILLE LAKE
Count Mean
37
-7.089
6
-6.567
10
-6.540
1
-6.300
4
-6.300
20
-6.295
16
-5.694
9
-5.278
2
-5.250
23
-5.213
4
-5.100
63
-4.978
18
-4.744
4
-4.075
23
-4.048
55
-3.820
6
-3.783
23
-3.739
9
-3.533
1
-3.400
4
-3.325
9
-3.256
4
-3.050
6
-2.850
15
-2.340
17
-1.982
2
-.800
24
-.500
6
.383
5
.460
81
3.037
a
a
b
a
b
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
b
c
b
c
b
c
d
b
c
d
b
c
d
c
d
c
d
c
d
e
c
d
e
c
d
e
c
d
e
c
d
e
c
d
e
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
d
e
f
e
f
f
f
g
f
g
9
9
h

Table 5. Fishers LSD Summary - Ten Parameters
Mean
Group
Mean Ohl a
Group
Mean TON
Group
Mean TP
Group
Mean Sa =n
Group
LAKE
NCTSI
Mof
u /L
Mof
m /L
Mof
m /L
*of 0
meters
Mot
Lake Montonia (n - 23)
.3.73 9
3 (8)
5.043
1 (4)
0.176
1 (5)
0.017
1 (5)
2.787
4 (6 )
Allen Creek Res. (n - 20)
-6.295
I(S)
2.325
1 (4)
0.098
I(s)
0.009
i(S)
3.290
4(6)
Cedar Cliff Lake (n = 16)
-5.694
2(8)
4.094
1 (4)
0.084
0.146
I(s)
I(s)
0.011
0.012
I(s)
I(s)
2.862
3.280
4(6)
4 (6 )
Hiwassee Res. (n a 65)
-4.978
3 (6)
2.362
1 (4)
Nantahala Res. (n = 39
-7.089
I(q)
1 0.872
1 4
0.103
1 5
0.012
1 5
5.457
1 (61
Mean NI 13
Group
Mean NOx
Group
Mean TIN
Group
Mean TKN
Group
Mean TN
Group
LAIC
ma/L
Mof
ma/L
Mof (1
mo/L
Rot 0
mo/L
Mof 0
mo/L
Mof 0
Lake Montonia (n = 23)
0.024
1 (2)
0.005
1 (7)
0.029
1 (4)
0.200
1 (4)
0.205
1 (6 )
Allen Creek Res. (n = 20)
0.027
1 (2)
0.101
2(7)
0.128
1 (4)
0.125. -
1 (4)
0.226
0.160
2(6)
i(S)
Cedar Cliff Lake (n = 16)
0.029
1 (2)
0.047
1 (7)
0.076
1 (4)
0.113
1 (4)
Hiwassee Res. (n = 65)
0.034
1 (2)
0.020
1 (7)
0.054
1 (4)
0.174
1 (4)
0.194
1(6).
Nantahala Res. (n = 391
0.023
1 (2)
1 0.008
1 (7)
1 0.03
1 (4)
1 0.126
1 (4)
1 0.133
1 (6)
Kruskal-Wallis Analysis
The Kruskal-Wallis test is the nonparametric equivalent of a one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) by ranks. This is a test of the hypothesis that
two or more groups all come from the same distribution against the
alternative hypothesis that at least one of the groups come from ranks of the
data. The test is resistant to outliers (Abacus, 1992; Steel and Torrie, 1960).
The Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to the mountain lakes data to produce a
mean rank for each of the mountain lakes. Mean ranks were then sorted and
renumbered from 1-31,1 representing the best case and 31 the worst case. The
results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the NCTSI, generated from Statview®
are presented below. These results indicate that Lake Montonia ranked in the
18th position, while the reference lakes Nantahala Lake, Allen Creek
Reservoir, Cedar Cliff Lake, and Hiwassee Reservoir ranked 1,6,7, and 12
respectively thus suggesting that Lake Montonia was below the range of the
mountain reference lakes. However, Lake Montonia ranked within the mid-
range of all mountain lakes for. NCTSI score, .chlorophyll a and Secchi depth.
Lake Montonia ranked above the mid -range of all mountain lakes for total
phosphorus and was ranked better than Lake James and Thorpe Reservoir for
this parameter. Thorpe Reservoir is classified as a High Quality Water
(HQW). The summary rankings of these results are presented in Table 6.
18
A-22

Table 6. Kruskal-Wallis Ranking Summary
(,:ontrol versus Treatment
It is often desirable to compare a collection of treatment means to a control
mean. If it is assumed that the selected reference lakes represent a control and
that Lake Montonia represents a level of treatment, then it can be an
appropriate situation for employing a statistical tool such as the
Bonferroni/Dunn procedure. The Bonferroni/Dunn procedure is a multiple
comparison procedure for making all possible pairwise contrasts among a
collection of means and a central mean (Abacus,1992). This test has no limit
on the number of comparison means that may be contrasted. This test may be
used when the control group and the comparison group are unequal. It may
also be used when the control group variance is not equal to the comparison
group variance. The Bonferroni/Dunn procedure is somewhat liberal; the
chances of error are that too many nonexistent significant differences are
claimed. For. the purposes of evaluating excellent water quality, this aspect of
the procedure is not a liability as decisions based on this information are
likely to be more conservative. It is a rather important advantage to be able to
determine whether or not the tested lake is different than the reference lakes
and which parameter concentrations are different than the control.
The Bonferroni/Dunn procedure was used to compare the four reference
lakes, individually used as the control, against the 30 mountain lakes used as
the assumed treatment. Table 7 summarizes the results of the
Bonferroni/Dunn procedure relative to Lake Montonia. Note that Lake
Montonia was significantly different than three of the four reference lakes for
NCTSI score (the mean NCTSI scores for Allen Creek Reservoir (-6.3), Cedar
Cliff Lake (-5.7) and Nantahala Lake (-7.1) were much lower (more
oligotrophic) that the score for Lake Montonia which was -3.7). Lake
Montonia was also significantly different than Nantahala Lake for Secchi
depth. Lake Montonia was significantly lower than Allen Creek Reservoir for
19
A-23

nitrite plus nitrate (NOx). Significant difference was set at alpha = 0.05. For
all of the other parametric comparison procedures, Lake Montonia was not
significantly different than the control reference lakes when analyzed with
the available data from the 30 mountain lakes from 1981 through 1997.
Table 7. Bonferroni/Dunn Comparison of Lake Montonia and Reference
Lakes
Control
Lake
NCTSI
' TP
NH3
NOx
TKN
TN
TCN
TIN
SD
CHLa
Allen Creek Reservoir
Y
N
N
Y.
N
N
N
N
N
N
Cedar Cliff Lake
Y
N
N
, N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Nantahala Lake
Y
I N
I N
N
I N
N
N
N
Y
N
Hiwassee Reservoir
J N
I N
I N
I N
I N
N
N
N
N
N
N = Lake Montonia NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN CONTROL
Y ='Lake Montonia SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE THAN CONTROL
Y' = Lake Montonia SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN CONTROL
The Mann -Whitney U test
The Mann -Whitney U test is a nonparametric version of the two group
unpaired t-test which test the hypothesis that the distribution underlying the
two groups are the same (Abacus,1992). Since this test does not look at the
observations, but considers their ranks, the Mann -Whitney test is resistant to
outliers in either,of the groups being considered. When using the individual
mountain reference lakes as a control, the NCTSI scores and total organic
nitrogen values of these four lakes were found to be significantly lower than
those of Lake Montonia while no significant difference was found in the
ammonia values of the reference lakes as compared with Lake Montonia.
Nitrate and nitrite nitrogen (NOx) and total inorganic nitrogen in Allen
Creek Reservoir, Cedar Cliff Lake and Hiwassee Reservoir were significantly
higher in comparison with Lake Montonia. The Mann -Whitney analyses of
Lake Montonia and reference lake data is presented in Table 8. The Mann -
Whitney analyses of all mountain lakes compared to Lake Montonia is
presented in Table 9.
20
A-24

--Table 8.,Mann-Whitney Nonparametric Analysis of Lake Montonia and --
Reference Lakes
Lake Montonia compared to
Reference Lakes
NCTSI
TP
NH3
NOx
TKN
TN
TON
TIN
SD
CHLa
Allen Creek Reservoir
Y.
Y-
N
Y
Y-
N
Y'
Y
N
I Y.
Cedar Cliff Lake
Y.
N
N
Y
Y-
Y-
Y'
Y
N
N
Nantahala Lake
Y-
N
N
N
Y'
Y'
Y.
N
Y'
Y'
Hiwassee Reservoir
Y'
f Nj
N
Y
I N
N
Y'
Y
Y'
Y'
N = Not significantly different than Lake Montonia
Y = Significantly worse than Lake Montonia
Y' = Significantly better than Lake Montonia
Table 9. Mann -Whitney Analysis of Mountain Lakes Compared to Lake
Montonia
Lakes which were found to be significantly not as good as
Lake Montonia for each parametric based on results of the
Mann -Whitney non -parametric t-test.
- •'
•�
�
•
QIL7G�7L�
•
fi�7L�fu�IL'�
el
• 61
IKKOW
21
A-25

Results of this analysis indicated thatof the thirty mountain lakes
compared with Lake Montonia, 23 lakes had at least one water quality
parameter which was significantly greater than Lake Montonia. Santeetlah
Lake and Cashiers Lake had only one parameter that was significantly higher
than Lake Montonia. Allen Creek Reservoir, Cedar Cliff Lake, and Hiwassee
Reservoir were found to be significantly different for some of the nitrogen
species.
Summary of Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis of water quality parameters for Lake Montonia as
compared with the four mountain reference lakes (as well as with all
mountain lakes) indicated that Lake Montonia was not significantly different
than three of the reference lakes. Lake Montonia compared favorably with
Allen Creek Reservoir, Cedar Cliff Lake and Hiwassee Reservoir. The fourth
reference lake, Nantahala Lake, was significantly different than Lake
Montonia. Nantahala Lake may be the best lake in the state in terms of water
quality and has ranked highest in comparison with all mountain lakes for
almost all of the water quality parameters.
Lake Montonia is a borderline piedmont/mountain lake which
demonstrates a statistical similarity with three of the best lakes in the
mountains region in terms of water quality. It is reasonable to assume that
Lake Montonia would rank at the top of all piedmont lakes, which generally
demonstrate poorer water quality, higher trophic status, and more frequent
water quality problems in comparison with the lakes of the mountain region
of the state.
A-26
22

Watershed Land Ownership
The Lake Montonia watershed encompasses 479 total acres in Cleveland and
Gaston counties. Seven principal landowners own land in the watershed. Principal
landowners in the Lake Montonia watershed, size of land owned, and percentage of
the watershed owned is listed in Table 10, and depicted in Figure S. Individual
landowners directly around the perimeter of the lake are included in the portion
owned by the Lake Montonia Club, Inc.
TABLE 10
LANDOWNERS IN LAKE MONTONIA WATERSHED
(479 TOTAL ACRES)
Smith, George and Levaughn
2 acres/0.5%
306 Silver Street
Kings Mountain, N.C. 28086
phone # - 704-739-3527
Anthony, James E. Jr.
20 acres/4%
611 Hillside Drive
Kings Mountain, N.C. 28086
phone # - unpublished
'
Bailey, Matthew C. and Amy F.
2 acres/0.5%
303 Fairview Street
Kings Mountain, N.C. 28086
phone # - 704-734-1548
Plonk, J.O.
268 acres/56%
503 W. Gold Street
Kings Mountain, N.C. 28086
phone # - 704-739-9235
Timm, David F.
11 acres/2%
523 Lake Montonia Road
Kings Mountain, N.C. 28086
phone # - 704-734-1479
N.C. State Department of Administration
118 acres/25%
(Crowder's Mountain State Park)
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27603
Joe Sox - superintendent
phone # - 704-853-5375
Lake Montonia Club Inc. 58 acres/12%
P.O. Box 1174
Kings Mountain N.C. 28086
Charles Hubbard - president
phone # - 704-739-8606
reclassification requested by:
John Still - past president
phone # - 704-734-0117
Cleveland /Gaston
Cleveland
Cleveland
Cleveland/Gaston
Gaston
Gaston
Cleveland

i
FIGURE 8
LAKE MONTONIA WATERSHED LANDOWNERS
% OF WATERSHED (479 ACRES TOTAL)
0.5%(2 ACRES) , 4%a(20 ACRES)
12%(58
25%(118 ACRES)
2%(11 ACRES)
0.5%(2 ACRES)
56%(268 ACRES)
OWNER
% OF WATERSHED
SMITH
0.5
ANTHONY
4.0
BAILEY
0.5
PLONK
56.0
TIMM
2.0
STATE OF NC
25.0
MONTONIA HOMEOWNERS
12.0
N SMITH
II! ANTHONY
■ BAILEY
PLONK
■ TIMM
® STATE OF NC
IN MONTONIA HOMEOWNERS

As seen in Table 10 and Figure 8, the landowner of most of the Lake Montonia
watershed is J. O. Plonk, who owns 268 acres or 56 percent of the watershed.
Negotiations have occurred between the Lake Montonia Club and J. O. Plonk for the
purchase of land in the watershed to leave undeveloped for the protection of Lake
Montonia. Some land has been acquired from J. O. Plonk by the Lake Montonia
Club for this purpose. There are currently no zoning restrictions in most of the Lake
Montonia watershed (not including the Crowder's Mountain State Park portion
where commercial development is unlikely).
On January 22, 1998 an informational meeting was held between representatives
of the North Carolina DWQ and Lake Montonia watershed landowners and other
interested parties. This meeting was held in King's Mountain, N.C. at City Hall.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the High Quality Waters reclassification
process and the water quality study performed by D.W.Q. Several items were
discussed including the reclassification process, the possible affects on wastewater
discharges and development in the Lake Montonia watershed, and sampling results
collected from the water quality study. Parties that were in attendance at this
meeting are listed in Table 11.
25
A-29

Table 11
Parties in Attendance at the High Quality Waters Informational Meeting
Liz Kovasckitz
DWQ Planning
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
phone # - 919-733-5083 ext. 572
KurtTrumbower
DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
phone # - 919-733-6510
Jay Sauber
DWQ Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
phone # - 919-733-6510
Chris Smith
925 Lake Montonia Road
Kings Mountain, NC
phone # - 704-739-5954
Levaughn Smith
306 Silver Street
Kings Mountain, N.C. 28086
phone # - 704-739-3527
Thomas E. Adams
Resident Manager - Lake Montonia Club
500 Lake Montonia Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
phone # - 704-739-4402
A-30
26
John O. Plonk Jr.
118 N. Piedmont Avenue
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
phone # - 704-739-4565
Larry D. Hamrick
1202 Townsend
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
phone # - 704-739-6613
David Timm
523 Lake Montonia Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
phone # - 704-734-1479
James C. Wilson Jr. .
Lake Montonia Board of Directors
1133 Dumbarton Road
Gastonia, NC 28054
Dr. John Still
Past President - Lake Montonia Club
1102 Lake Montonia Road
Kings Mountain, NC 28086
Bill McCarter
Cleveland Co. Planning Dept.
PO Box 1210
Shelby, NC 28151
phone # - 704-484-4947

Conclusions and Recommendations
From data collected during the Lake Montonia High Quality Waters
investigation, it appears that Lake Montonia does indeed posses excellent water
quality. Low concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, and chlorophyll a
were found during this water quality study. The NCTSI scores calculated for the
lake indicated an oligotrophic status which generally indicates good water quality.
Algal species present in the lake were those typically found in oligotrophic lakes
with no nuisance species or bloom levels. Additionally, AGPT values were low
with no potential eutrophication concerns. Aquatic macrophytes were found in
Lake Montonia, but not at problematic levels. Metals concentrations were low
except for a few zinc values which were above state water quality action levels.
These values may be due to the leaching of zinc from the soils due to naturally
acidic conditions in these soils and in the lake. Two low pH values below state
standards were found in Lake Montonia but these are also probably due to the
naturally occurring acidic conditions. Water clarity in Lake Montonia was
evidenced by fairly high secchi measurements. Statistical comparisons of Lake
Montonia water quality data compared to North Carolina mountain lakes indicated
that Lake Montonia water quality data was similar to data collected in the mountain
lakes, which generally have the best lake water quality in North Carolina. This is
significant since Lake Montonia is not a true mountain lake but is located on the
border of the mountain and piedmont lakes groups. Additionally, worst case
hydrological conditions were sampled in Lake Montonia in 1997 due to the lake
drawdown and lack of flushing but water quality parametric data concentrations
remained low.
From data collected during the Lake Montonia HQW investigation, it appears
that the supplemental HQW designation is appropriate to consider. The Division of
Water Quality's April 3, 1996 to September 3, 1997 investigation of Lake Montonia
indicated excellent water quality in the lake. This investigation meets the
procedures in 15A NCAC 2B .0100 Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality
Standards (DWQ, 1997) for determining HQW, i.e. these waters must be rated as
excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division
monitoring or special studies. LakeMontonia and its tributaries should be
considered for HQW classification.
A-31
27

REFERENCES
1. Abacus Concepts. 1989. Super ANOVA. Abacus Concepts, Inc. Berkeley,
CA.
2. Abacus Concepts. 1992. Statview. Abacus Concepts. Inc. Berkeley, CA.
3. Duarte, C.M., S. Agusti, and D.E. Canfield. 1992. Patterns in
phytoplankton community structure in Florida lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr.
37(1):155-161.
4. Jackson, T. A., G. Kipphut, R. H. Hesslein, and D. W. Schindler. 1980.
Experimental study of trace metal chemistry in soft -water lakes at
different pH levels. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:387-402.
5. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1996.
Standard Operating Procedures Manual Physical and Chemical
Monitoring. Raleigh, N.C.
6. North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Amended
Effective July 22, 1997, Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality
Standards (15A NCAC 2B .0100), and Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina (15A NCAC 2B
.0200), Raleigh, N.C.
7. Nriagu, J. O., and C. I. Davidson. 1980. Zinc in the atmosphere. In J. O.
Nriagu, ed. Zinc in the Environment. I. Ecological Cycling, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. New York. pp. 113-159.
8. Raschke, Ronald L. 1989. Use of the Algal Growth Potential Test for Data
Assessment and Lake Classification. In Proceedings of a National
Conference on Enhancing States' Lake Management Programs. Chicago,
IL. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. North American Lake
Management Society. Washington, D.C.
9. Steel, R.G. and J.H. Tome. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture. May 1989. Soil Survey of Gaston
County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
11. Wetzel, Robert G. 1983. Limnology. Saunders College Publishing,
Philadelphia. 767 pp.
A-32
28

r
W
r r
+ W
r r
+ W
r r
+ W
r r
+
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
y
m®mM0mMOmMOOMMOm
J
0
4m-oro�jm
V V
0 0
V 0
0 0
J J
0 0
V J
0 0
J 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 W
0 0
pD
.0
0
0 W
0+
W V
-� 0
V 0
0+
W 0
W m
+ N
O W
N N
W J
N N
J 0
N N
0 0
N++
W A
0
A A
0 0
W
W A
A t0
m V
V W
W 0
0 0
0 W
W A
A W
W W
W W
+
N A
O W
A+
N O
N O
N 0
0 0+
A
O
+ N
A O
+ O
m
0
1!1 W
[A fA
0 W
O W
O (n
0 0
0 0
fA 000
O O
J
J
J+
N
W
A
W A
0 W
W
lA
0 W
N to
W
0 0
W V
3
A
A A
A P
W W
A 0
0 0
W A
A A
0 A
A A
A W
W A
O O
A J+
m
m m+
O
A+
O J
O O
410
V+
ON
.a
�yyCC
�TT
�Q
W OO
OV000OOAJ0+r=m
AN
A
+A
O
le�
CA
n
A A
A A
A n
n n
n
n A n
n A
n A
n A
A A
c P
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
N N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
e
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
r 2
n
A A
A n
n n
n n
n n
n
n A A
n A
A n
n A
n n
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
N N N
N
N N
N N
N N
L:
V1
(A m
fA 0
m N
N W
VI O
fA lA
UI fA
(ran fA
0 0
lA IA
fA IA
W
N N
[J N
A N
N N
N N
O
N N N
N N
W N
O to
W N^
N
10 V1
N -�
TIT O
W O
W
AA
A
A A
A A
A A
A000000000
0
0 0
0 0
0 or.n
A A
n A
n n
A
JA
n n
0 0
000orWNWA
000000000000
A
A A
::r!: W
A
V
NWNV
WO
Po0
P V0
0 oCiio
r.
C:Yi}

LAKE MONTONIA NUTRIENT
AND CHLOROPHYLL DATA
STATION
DATE
TIME I NH3
TKN •
NO2+NO3
TOTAL P
CHL a
mg/1)
mg/1)
mg/I)
mg/1)
ug/I
LM1
960403
1400 <0.01
0.2
0.01
0.03
10
LM2
960403
1341 ! <0.01
0.1
0.01 j
0.02
8
LM3
960403
1320 <0.01
0.2
<0.01
0.03
5
LM1
960613
1310 j 0.05
0.3
<0.01
0.01
15
LM3
960613
1250 j 0.04
0.2 j
<0.01
0.01
4
LM1 !
960624
1200 j 0.04
0.2
<0.01 1
0.01
5
LM3
960624
1140 0.04
0.3
<0.01
0.01
7
LM1
960723
1315 0.06
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
5
LM3
960723
1300 j 0.09
0.2
<0.01
0.03
5
LM1
960820
1200 <0.01
0.3
<0.01
<0.01
12
LM3
960820
1200 . I 0.02
0.1
I <0.01
<0.01
7
LM1
960926
1220 I 0.01
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
9
LM3
960926
1 1155 0.04
0.3
<0.01
! <0.01
4
LM1
970513
1220 I 0.04
1 0.1
<0.01
I 0.03
j 3
LM3
j 970513
j 1205 I 0.04
0.1
<0.01
! 0.02
I 4
LM1
I 970617
1125 I 0.01
0.2
<0.01
I 0.01
4
LM3
I 970617
1115 i <0.01
0.2
I <0.01
1 0.01
i 1
LM1
! 970709
1145 I <0.01
j 0.2
i <0.01
0.01
{ 2
LM3
j 970709
1135 ! <0.01
0.2
I <0.01 I 0.01 I 1
LM1
970814
1155 <0.01
0.1
<0.01 j <0.01 1
LM3
I 970814
j 1145 <0.01
0.2
I <0.01 i 0.02 I 1
LM1
I 970903
I 1225 1 0.01
0.2
! <0.01 ! 0.05 2
LM3
! 970903
I 1215 1 0.01
I 0.3
I <0.01 I 0.05 I. 1
A-34
30

y
r
r
r
r
r
r
rrrr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rrrrrr
r
r
W
W
W
W
W
—
W
W
W
W
W
-+
W
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-+
O
2
to
0)
totDtDtoto
D!
O!
01
0)
Ol
rDtotototototototDtDiotDtotototDtDtototDmtototDtDo�tDeototototDtDtototoototDtDtomtDtototDtntDtDtDtotototototo
O)
Of
Of
O)
O)
01
01
O)
O)
O!
Ol
01
O)
Q)
W
Q)
Q)
0)
O)
Ol
O)
0)
O)
O)
01
01
O)
01
01
O)
01
01
Q!
O)
Of
Ol
Of
O)
O)
01
01
Ol
O)
W
Q!
Ol
O)
O
Of
O)
01
O)
O)
O)
0)
A
O
O)
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
D
V
V
V
V
V
V
J
V
0)
M
0)
O
0)
M
01
O
M
0
0)
01
0)
M
0)
0)
0)
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P
A
A
A
A
A
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
(J
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
3
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
®
m
V
O
N
A
W
N�
O
�
A
W
N
O
to
m
V
Q)
N
A
W
N�
O
W
W
N
W
O
.
�
ID
O
J
O)
N
A
W
N
-�
O
A
W
N
-�
O
�
V
O)
N
A
W
N
��
O
0
to
W
J
M
M
A
W
N
S
O
-+
N
N
O
N
V
N
fJl
to
t,
N
—tiilj
N
N
N
N
•.•
N
A
W
W
tD
OD
N
01
a,
N
m
V
N
O
N
A
A
J
J
J
W
N
J
V
V
O
O
N
A
O)
V
O
J
V
J
01
V
J
J
O
O
N
P
A
V
J
m
V
V
t0
8
''
O
O
N
,
(0
O
s
O
O
O
...
O
P
01
01
V
W
t0
O
O
O
O
O
0
N
A
to
i.
W
N
-+
co
0)
m
A
A
-+
A
W
W
N
A
to
N
0)
0
N
(n
A
P
N
W
A
A
N
t0
to
A
t0
O
O
L)
A
W
A?
W
0)
W
O
N
N
W
N
-•
��
N
J
N
O
N
A
N
0)
N
m
W
W
WWN
0
A
W
10
O
N
W
A
N
OD
A
V
t0
O
O
A
QI
N
N
N
N
A
W
A
10
to
V
-�
T
0O
N
O!
A
0A
-+
�
to
N
A
W
to
J
W
0
0
N
-+
V�
W
N
W
m
M�
V
m
N
N
to
0)
O)
D1
Ol
T
01
Q)
O)
Of
O)
O)
O)
Q)
O)
Of
O)
0)
O)
0)
M
0
-
O
V
V
0)
0)
W
0)
PIP
0)
0)
01
O)
W
J
V
'AJ
O)
Qr
O
O
O)
01
01
V
O
0)
T
Oi
01
Oi
01
Ql
0)
O
J
fn
C
W
A
O
V
m
m
J
N
(n
A
A
A
V
-+
N
W
N
-+
W
P
N
o
0V
-+
N
V
to
0)
0
V
W
o
0
0�+
N
W
W
P
N
0
0
V
OD
(D
2
n
Z
O)
O)
N
N
W
N
0
01
0
tr
N
N
W
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
0
0
m
N
A
A
P
P
-N
T
m
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P.
P
A
A
A
P
A
P
A
A
A
A
n
O
O
to
O
t0
V
W
J
O
-+
N
O7
m
A
W
V
0)
W
0
0
0
N
V
A
A
tJ1
W
O
0)
A
W
rs
N
N
N
A
0)
O
-+
O
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j=
O
to

W
N y
I
W
a)
D
r
rrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrr
rr
E
E
r-r
si
r-
r-
r-
rrr-
rr
rrrr
rrrr
CC
r
-+
W
W
W
W!
!
W
W
W
W
W!
-
W
W
W
W
W
-+
-
W
W
W
W
W
W!!
!
0
Z
b
to
b
(O
b
b
in
to
to
(0
to
(D
(D
b
b
b
to
(D
(o
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
co
ID
(D
co
(0
(0
CO
b
(Db
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
tO
J
V
V
V
J
J
J
V
V
J
V
J
J
J
J
J
J
V
V
V
J
J
J
m
m
0)
0)
m
m
m
m
0)
m
0)
m
m
01
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
p
0000000000000000000000000000000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
000000000000000000000000
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Vt
U1
ut
m
ut
U1
N
fJl
UI
f71
ut
vt
N
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
J
V
V
V
J
J
V
V
V
2t2
V
V
J
V
V
V
V
J
W
W
(A
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
(J
W
W
W
0)
0)
m
m
m
0)
m
0)
0)
0)
m
0)
0)
0)
m
0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ut
ut
U)
ut
U)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O!!!
T
N
N
N
U1
U)
U1
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ut
N
U)
N
Vt
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
UI
UI
V
m
M
A
W
N
-�
O
!
W
N
-�
O
!
O
CO
OD
J
0)
Ut
A
W
N!
O
W
W
N
-+
O
b
b
m
J
m
N
A
W
N
O
!
A
W
N!!
O
O
b
m
V
as
Ut
A
W
N
-+
O
A
A
W
N
-�
O
,,.�
O
b
m
U)
N
V)
W
U)
J
N
N
ut
W
N
N
P
N
W
N
W
N
N
N
N
N
U)
m
N
m
J
OD
U)
O
'm
!
m
m
b
b
m
m
C
—
m
m
m
—
0
0
—
0
—
0
0
N
m!
—
—
m
—
J
—
J
N
—
J
—
J
J
J
O
O
O
O
—
O
W
to
m
J
—
V
—
V
—
O
—
W
—
V
J
—
J
O
O
—
O
O
O
O
O
W
J
V
J
O
O
W
N
V
J
0
0
0
3
0
A?
N
A
v
U)
m
m!
-
N
O
Q1
tO
V
(O
V
CO
m
m
;Dm
m
m
(D
En
A!
m
V
(D
m
N
V
C)
-1
N
N
N
N
W
i•
b
-+
-
m
(0N
N
(O
A
N
(7)
N
m
m
b
N
N
N
N
A
N
V
b
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
N
W
W
A
m
J
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
N
W
N
A
J
Vr"
N
N
W
N
J!
N
N.
A
m
N
J
N
V
N
m
N
N
W
N
m
N
m
N
b
N
b
-�
N
W
W
n
A
A
m
m
(O
to
m
b
b
A
A
J
W
O)
W
m
b
A
b
b
U)
m
to
-+
m
m
J
N
b
V
A
m
(O
-+
(D
O)
N
m
V
m
0)
V
-+
A
W
N
m
J
0
m
b
W
b
A
b
'p
O
mmTmmmmmmmmmmOmmmmmmmmmmUlNvtm
OUlmmmmmOmmNmmmmmmONUI
utN
WmmmmmmmVVmW
ut
(n
N
A
O)
m
m
A
W
V
J
V
V
A
N
in
A
N
J
m
m
m
m
b
-+
N
(D
V
A
-+
(D
-+
CO
A
N
A
CO
-+
tO
-+
m
J
J
m
A
in
m
J
J
N
0)
m
-+
A
m!
A+
OD
C
Z
0
C
0
Z
V
M
M
W
m
m
m
N
0
0
m
N
m
m
O
N
0
(n
0
0
M
N
N
A
A
A
Am
O
m
m
m
A
A
A
A
ut
ut
(n
N
A
AA,
J.
p
J
M
M
M
N
A
A
A
A
V
m
MN
0
0
b
m
m=
C
N
b
W
A
P
A
W
N
A
N
N
W
m
A
m
0
U)
U(
O
N
N
en
W
m
m
(D
(D
O
W
m
b
W
b
m
m
b
0!
!
b
b
b
b
A
0
U)
U)
W
N
O
b
m
m
m
N
N
m
m
m
m
J
P
A
02

V
=
m
d
N
N
d
0--
0
0
0
0
0
to
m
m
N
N
N
d
M
n
n
n
n
n
m
m
m
O
m
n
n
n
N
M
to
m
m
o
N
N
N
N
N
N
nmO
tototoNtototoWNNtoton
mmtototoNtoNtototototototom�
�totototo
0tototototototomr,
tototototo
0
Z
0
r-
0
V
m
n
n
N
d
d
d
d
N
N
to
d
m
d
N
M
m
m
m
m
m
M
N
N
7
N
M
O
m
n
N
n
n
t0
d
N
N
M
it
to
n
n
m
to
M
_
6
tO
7
7
m
7
N
M
pj
m
m
to
m
m
m
m
m
m
tp
m
m
m
m
t0
m
m
to
tD
m
to
m
m
to
tD
m
m
l0
to
to
m
m
m
m
m
m
to
t0
m
m
m
m
to
tD
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
N
Ol
N
m
m
N
m
9
N
n
n
tT
d
m
m
M
n
.-
N
m
W
m
0
In
m
m
m
M
n
d
N
n
9
^tN.
Cm
M
NN
mNNNn
d
Nn
NnM
m
n
N
m
n
M
mm
mo
nNV
N
Nm
Nn
Nn
N
N
NNNNNN
NINnNNmN
0�
0
0
0
m
d
0
m
N
N
d
�-
M
t0
M
.-
�-
.-
M
N
M
O
d
N
m
N
M
m
N
M
M
m
m
p
E
0
0
0
tD
00
CO
01
n
n
I-
co
f`
N
00
0
0
0
n
h
to
to
t�
r-n
to
w
M
0
00
0
0
0
r,
n
w
N
r,
r,
�`
d
.-
00000,
r.:
ri
t`
to
.-
N
«
N
to
m
n
m
®
M
M
N
N
N
M
N
to
E
r
®
to
to
r`
to
to
O
to
to
0
to
m
O
r'
�-
N
M
7—
N
M
d
m
m
n
m
0
°t0
'�'
N
M
d
N
M
d
to
m
n
m
0
°'0
N
M
N
Cl)d
to
m
n
COO
°'0
'�
N
M
d
W
of
0
0
0
0
W
N
to
m
N
to
to
N
N
M
to
to
M
to
to
to
to
N
N
M
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
m
to
to
to
to
M
to
to
to
to
to
M
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
N
to
to
to
to
N
N
N
.-
r-
r-
d
d
d
d
It
It
d
d
It
d
d
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
M
N
m
N
N
N
m
N
d
d
d
d
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
It
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
a
d
d
d
d
M
M
mom
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
0)
M
F-
10WW
tctom
mnnnnnnnnnnnnnrnrnnaowao
O
III
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
mm
mao
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
o
0
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
aomaoaommmm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0000000000000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rnnnnnnrnnnnnnnnnnnnrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnr.nnn
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
.000
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
.-
Cl)
M
Cl)
M
M
----
M
M
M
M-73F3
??����73��3
F3!3;-71-!5!5!5
N
!ITT5!�
n
I
Q
M
M

Box and Whisker Plots
Box and whisker plot a--m useful for comparing sets of data comprised of a single
variabie by the visualization of selected order satisacs. After the the data have bee-
orde:rd uom low to high, the 10th,.25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles are calcula*med for
plot consmaction. Box and whiner plots display the following immrrant mrormaeon_ 1)_
the interoua--mle range (IQR) which measures the distribution and va_*iaomry of the bulk aI
the data (located between the 25th and 75th perrcendles), 2) the aesred confidence inter rai .
(I -a C L) for measuring the. smdsdcal si_gni-Ecance of the median (50di percentile), 3)
indication of skew from comparing the symmeary of the box above and below the me. -Han,
4) the range of the data hLom the lowest to highest values, and 5) the extrerne v;21ues e ow
.the loth uercenele and above t_he 90th percendle (depicted as dots).
a 1 a s
L j — <__ a 0 %
97
. F-- 7 5 % Re nge
o _ I IQR
CL F-- Median-50X
10
U �
Visual coravarison of confidence level notches about the media= of two or Lore
boxpiots can be used to roughly perorm hypothesis testing. If the bozDlots represent data
from samvies assumed to be independent, then overlapping notcaet indicate no s:gnt-i-c=
dif+erence in the samples at a prescribed level or confidence. Formal tests should
subse^.uea'iy be perormea to verify pre':i =2-,y conclusions based on visual �rspecden of
the plots.
L —
.r o
i _C
-----)
• o I - C
Semple Semple
-' A H
A-38
34

.0219 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASS B WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface waters that are for primary recreation, including frequent or
organized swimming and are classified as Class B waters. Water quality standards applicable to Class C waters as
described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class B waters.
(1) Best Usage of Waters. Primary recreation and any other best usage specified by the "C" classification;
(2) Conditions Related to Best Usage. The waters shall meet accepted standards of water quality for outdoor
bathing places as specified in Item (3) of this Rule and shall be of sufficient size and depth for primary
recreation purposes. Sources of water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or
long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class B waters:
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: none which are not effectively treated to the satisfaction
of the Commission; in determining the degree -of treatment required for such waste when discharged
into waters to be used for bathing; the Commission shall consider the quality and quantity of the
sewage and wastes involved and the proximity of such discharges to waters in'this class; discharges
in the immediate vicinity of bathing areas may not be allowed if the Director determines that the waste
can not be reliably treated to ensure the protection of primary recreation;
(b) Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliforms not to exceed geometric mean of 200/100 ml (MF
count) based on at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30-day period and not to
exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period.
History Note: 'Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Eff. January 1, 1990;
Amended Eff. October 1, 1995.
A-39

.1006 STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS: HIGH QUALITY WATERS
All development activities which -require a stormwater management permit under Rule .1003 of this Section
and are within one mile of and draining to waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) shall manage
stormwater runoff in accordance with the provisions outlined in this Rule. More stringent stormwater
management measures may be required on a case -by -case basis where it is determined that additional measures
are required to protect water quality and maintain existing and anticipated uses of these waters.
(1) All waters classified as WS-I or WS-11 (15A NCAC :B .0212 and .0214) and all waters located in
the coastal counties (Rule .1005 of this Section) are excluded from the requirements of this Rule
since they already have requirements for stormwater management.
(2) Low Density Option: Development shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(c)(1) of this Section
if the development has:
(a) built -upon area of 12 percent or less or proposes single family residential development on lots of
one acre or greater;
(b) stormwater runoff transported primarily by vegetated conveyances; conveyance system shall not
include a discrete stormwater collection. system as defined in Rule .1002 of this Section;
(c) a 30 foot wide vegetative buffer.
(3) High.Density Option: higher density developments shall be permitted pursuant to Rule .1003(c)(2)
of this Section if stormwater control systems meet the following criteria:
(a) control systems must be wet detention ponds or alternative stormwater manacement systems
designed in accordance with Rule .1008 of this Section;
(b) control systems must be designed to control runoff from all surfaces generated by one inch of
rainfall.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-214.7; 143-215.1; 143-215.3(a);
E . September 1, 1995;
Amended E . December 1, 1995.
A-40

.0224 HIGH QUALITY WATERS
High Quality Waters (HQW) are a subset of waters with quality higher.than the standards and are as described by
15A NCAC 2B .0101(e)(5), The following procedures shall be implemented in order to implement the requirements
of Rule .0201(d) of this Section.
(1) New or expanded wastewater discharges in High Quality Waters shall comply with the following:
(a) Discharges from new single family residences shall be prohibited. Those existing subsurface systems
for single family residences which fail and must discharge shall install a septic tank, dual or
recirculating sand filters, disinfection and step aeration.
(b) All new NPDES wastewater discharges (except single family residences) shall be required to provide
the treatment described below:
(i) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BODs= 5 mg/I, NH3-N
= 2 mg/1 and DO = 6 mg/l. More stringent limitations shall be set, if necessary, to ensure that
the cumulative pollutant discharge of oxygen -consuming wastes shall not cause the DO of the
receiving water to drop more than 0.5 mg/l below background levels, and in no case below the
standard. Where background information is not readily available, evaluations shall assume a
percent saturation determined by staff to be generally applicable to that hydroenvironment.
(ii) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be limited to effluent
concentrations of 10 mg/I for trout waters and PNA's, and to 20 mg/1 for all other High Quality
Waters.
(iii) Disinfection: Alternative methods to chlorination shall be required for discharges to trout
streams, except that single family residences may use chlorination if other options are not
economically feasible. Domestic discharges are prohibited to SA waters.
(iv) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs shall be employed, including stand-by
power capability for entire treatment works, dual train design for all treatment components, or
equivalent failsafe treatment designs.
(v) Volume: The total volume of treated wastewater for alldischarges combined shall not exceed
50 percent of the total instream flow under 7Q10 conditions.
(vi) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, appropriate effluent
limitations shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both.
(vii) Toxic substances: In cases where complex wastes (those containing or potentially containing
toxicants) may be present in a discharge, a safety factor shall be applied to any chemical or
whole effluent toxicity allocation. The limit for a specific chemical constituent shall be
allocated at one-half of the normal standard at design conditions. Whole effluent toxicity shall
be allocated to protect for chronic toxicity at an effluent concentration equal to twice that which
is acceptable under design conditions. In all instances there may be no acute toxicity in an
effluent concentration of 90 percent. Ammonia toxicity shall be evaluated according to EPA
guidelines promulgated in "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - 1984'; EPA
document number 440/5-85-001; NITS number PB85-227114; July 29, 1985 (50 FR 30784)
or "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (Saltwater)-1989"; EPA document number
440/5-88-004; NTIS numberPB89-169825. This material related to ammonia toxicity is hereby
incorporated by reference including any subsequent amendments and editions and is available
for inspection at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Library, 512 North
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies maybe obtained from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia22161 at acost of forty-seven
dollars ($47.00).
(c) All expanded NPDES wastewater discharges in High Quality Waters shall be required to provide the
treatment described in Sub -Item (1)(b) of this Rule, except for those existing discharges which expand
with no increase in permitted pollutant loading.
(2) Development activities which require an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in accordance with rules
established by the NC. Sedimentation Control Commission or local erosion and sedimentation control
program approved in accordance with 15A NCAC 413raolB, and which drain to and are within one mile of
High Quality Waters (HQW) shall be required to follow the stormwater management rules as specified in
15A NCAC 2H .1000. Stormwater management requirement's specific to HQW are described in 15A NCAC
2H .1006.
(3) listing of Waters Classified HQW with Specific Actions. Waters classified as HQW with specific actions
to protect exceptional water quality are listed as follows: Thorpe Reservoir [Little Tennessee River Basin,
Index No. 2-79-23-(1)] including all of its tributaries shall be managed with respect to wastewater discharges
through Item (1) of this Rule. Item (2) of this Rule shall not be applied in association with this HQW because
of the local government implementation. of WS-III stormwater management requirements.
If an applicant objects to the requirements to protect high quality waters and believes degradation is necessary to
accommodate important social and economic development, the applicant may contest these requirements according to
the provisions of G.S. 143-215.1(e) and 150B-23.
HistoryNate; Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.1; 143-215.3(u)(1);
E;(f. October 1, 1995;
A-41

T15A-C4-S48.0024 DESIGN STANDARDS IN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS
(a) Uncovered areas in HQW zones shall be limited at any time
to a maximum total area within the boundaries of the tract of 20
acres. Only the portion of the land -disturbing activity within a
HQW zone shall be governed by this Rule. Larger areas may be
uncovered within the boundaries of the tract with the written
approval of the Director.
(b) Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and
devices within HQW zones shall be so planned, designed and
constructed to provide protection from the runoff of the 25 year
storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as
calculated according to procedures in the United States
Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service's "National
Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according
to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the
United States or any generally recognized organization or
association.
(c) Sediment basins within HQW zones shall be designed and
constructed such that the basin will have a settling efficiency
of at least 70 percent for the 40 micron (0.04 mm) size soil
particle transported into the basin by the runoff of that
two-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as
calculated according to procedures in the United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services "National
Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according
to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the
United States or any generally recognized organization or
association. '
(d) Newly constructed open channels in HQW zones shall be
designed and constructed with side slopes no steeper than two
horizontal to one vertical if a vegetative cover is used for
stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or
where the slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices,
structural devices or other acceptable ditch liners. In any
event, the angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain
accelerated erosion.
(el Pursuant to G.S. 113A-57(3) provisions for a ground cover
sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for•any portion
of a land -disturbing activity in a HQW zone within 15 working .
days or 60 calendar days following completion of construction or
development, whichever period is shorter.
HISTORY NOTE
Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-54(b); 113A-54(c)(1); Eff. May 1,
1990.
A-42

T15A-C2-S2N.0301 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NEW UST SYSTEMS
(a) The "Performance standards for new UST systems" contained in 40 CFR
280.20 (Subpart B) have been adopted by reference in accordance with G.S.
150B-14(c) except that:
(1) 40 CFR 280.20(a)(2)(iv) has been changed to read "Cathodic
protection systems are operated and maintained in accordance with 15A NCAC
2N .0402, or as approved by the Director;"
(2) 40 CFR 280..20(b)(2)(iv) has been changed to read "Cathodic
protection systems are operated and maintained in accordance with 15A NCAC
2N .0402 or as approved by the Director;"
(3) 40,CFR 280.20(a)(4) is not adopted by reference; and
(4) 40 CFR 280.20(b)(3) is not adopted by reference.
(b) No UST system shall be installed within 100 feet of a well serving a
public water system, as defined in 15A NCAC 18C .0102, or within 50 feet of
any other well supplying water for human consumption.
(c) An UST system, existing on the date of adoption of this Subchapter and
located within the area described in Paragraph (b) of this Rule, may be
replaced with a new tank meeting the performance standards of 40 CFR 280.20
and the secondary containment provisions of 40 CFR 280.42(b)(1) through (4).
The replacement UST system may not be located nearer to the water supply
source than the UST system being replaced.
(d) Except as prohibited in Paragraph (b) of this Rule an UST system must
meet the requirements for secondary containment described at 40 CFR
280.42(b)(1) through (4) if installed:
(1) within 500 feet of a well serving a public water supply or within
100 feet of any other well supplying water for human consumption; or
(2) within 500 feet of any surface water classified as High Quality
Water (EQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, WS-II, or SA;
(3) in a location determined by the Director to be unsuitable for
conventional installation based on an evaluation of the site by Division
staff.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(15); 143B-282(2)(h);
150B-14(c); Eff. January 1, 1991.
A-43

TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY (CONTINUED)
PART 280--TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS AND OPERAZ
Subpart D--Release Detection
Sec. 280.42 Requirements for hazardous substance UST systems.
Owners and operators of hazardous substance UST systems must provide
release detection that meets the following requirements:
(a) Release detection at existing UST'systems must meet the
requirements for petroleum UST systems in Sec. 280.41. By December 22,
1998, all existing hazardous substance UST systems must meet the release
detection requirements for new systems in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Release detection at new hazardous substance UST systems must
meet the following requirements:
(1) Secondary containment systems must be designed, constructed and
installed to:
(i) Contain regulated substances -released from the tank system until
they are detected and removed;
(ii) Prevent the release of regulated substances to the environment
at any time during the operational life of the UST system; and
(iii) Be checked for evidence of a release at least every 30 days.
Note.-- The provisions of 40 CFR 265.193, Containment and Detection
of Releases, may be used to comply with these requirements.
(2) Double -walled tanks must be designed, constructed, and installed
to:
(i) Contain a release from any portion of the inner tank within the
outer wall; and
(ii) Detect the failure of the inner wall.
(3) External liners (including vaults) must be designed,
constructed, and installed to:
(i) Contain 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank within
its boundary;
(ii) Prevent the interference of precipitation or ground -water
intrusion with the ability to contain or detect a release of regulated
substances; and
(iii) Surround the tank completely (i.e., it is capable of
preventing lateral as well as vertical migration of regulated
substances) .
(4) Underground piping must be equipped with secondary containment
that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section
(e.g., trench liners, jacketing of double -walled pipe). In addition,
underground piping that conveys regulated substances under pressure must
be equipped with an automatic line leak detector in accordance with
Sec. 280.44(a).
(5) Other methods of release detection may be.used if owners and
operators:
(i) Demonstrate to the implementing agency that an alternate method
can detect a release of the stored substance as effectively as any of
A-44

ARTICLE 4.
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973.
§ 113A-50. Short title.
This Article shall be known as and may be cited as the "Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of
1973."
§ 113A-51. Preamble.
The sedimentation of streams, lakes and other waters of this State constitutes a major pollution
problem. Sedimentation occurs from the erosion or depositing of soil and other materials into the waters,
principally from construction sites and road maintenance. The continued development of this State will
result in an intensification of pollution through sedimentation unless timely and appropriate action is
taken. Control of erosion and sedimentation is deemed vital to the public interest and necessary to the
public health and welfare, and expenditures of funds for erosion and sedimentation control programs
shall be deemed for a public purpose. It is the purpose of this Article to provide for the creation,
administration, and enforcement of a program and for the adoption of minimal mandatory standards
which will permit development of this State to continue with the least detrimental effects from pollution
by sedimentation. In recognition of the desirability of early coordination of sedimentation control
planning, it is the intention of the General Assembly that preconstruction conferences be held among the
affected parties, subject to the availability of staff.
A-45

08:55 7044876345
ROVSTER OIL CO
WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS OF SP AiND CHEVRON PR I-IDUCTS
NO—
Shelby1487.6344 Forest City1245.4267 Gaston Iaf824.43' -)
March 21, 2001
Wes Bell
NCDEH9R- Waste Management
FAX Message [phone] 1 page
Re: Overfilling of vehicle and release at:
ROCO Food Stores
1776 E Dixon Blvd
Shelby, NC 28152
Wes;
PACE 01
HOME OFFICE:
P.O. Box 1467
720 S. Lafayette St.
Shelby, N.C. 28150
Per our phone conversation today this note ii-I to recap the events
that happened at the above mentioned site yea-Lorday. A diesel
van belonging to 4 C's Food Services put the dl'esel spout in his
van, started pumping and left the truck. wher, he returned the
diesel, was running over onto the parking lot. His total purchase
was 18 gallons and it was computed that he lv,u 3 gallons on the
concrete. Since it was raining, the water car.+.ied the sheen onto the
adjacent lot. Oil dry was used and the HazMat team was called and
booms were placed to contain the spill,
As of today we have a crew cleaning up the booms and remaining
portions of the spill. Should you have any quexstions please feel
free to contact me at your convenience.
Best Re ds,
a
r
Mike Royster
GASOLINE/FUELS
F� �sA�l Nam'' 'O64rB
INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL Q;'.A41 AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
919 NORTH MAIN STREET, MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28115
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER