NCS000429_OTHER_20070615

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
MS4 PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
� �S � CS b L(
DOC TYPE
El FINAL PERMIT
❑ ANNUAL REPORT.
❑ APPLICATION
❑� COMPLIANCE
ILI,dTHER
DOC DATE
❑ � b / Q CD [S
YYYYMMDD

Helms lvlulliss & Wicker, PLLC Arrarrtcys (u Law
Charlotte Raleigh Wlimingrun umeu,hntxv.eom
HELMS MULLISS WICKER
uj
704.3-13 ,2060
Fax [phone]
henF1L`,}iuSCOri (( Iuri4v,COn1
June 8, 2007
Donald W. I_,aton
Assistant Attorney( General
State of North Carolina, Department of Justice
11. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
201 North Tryon 51rce1
Chaulolte, NC 28202
P.O. Box 31247 (2823 1 )
704.3,13,2000
j 704.343.2300
RECEIVED
JUN 12 2007
N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Environmental Division
Re: City of Gastonia v. North Carolina Department of 17-nvironment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality — Final Settlement Agreement
Client -Matter No. 4025352.000607
Dear Don:
I have enclosed a copy of the fully executed Settlement Agreement in this matter. Thanks for
vnur help in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion.
I-11GIOSIlre
C851328
Sincerely.
1-1F1.,MS MUC..LISS R. WICKER, 11L1,C
i enne C. Hutson
COPY

OFFICE OF TIE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
+�
TD: �- _ r
G n
FRO
40
17.
Rg1. NO. 0 OR ROOM, 6LD.
_
_
ACTION
[NOTE AND FILE ❑ PER OUR CONVERSATION
❑ NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ❑ PER YOUR REQUEST
❑ RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL
❑ NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
❑ PLEASE ANSWER ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS
❑ PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE [] SIGNATURE
❑ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
GOMMENTB:
N DO O -
/Wtu
Aq""oiet

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF GASTON
CITY OF GASTONIA
Petitioner,
V.
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY
Respondent.
III' THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
05 EHR 1496
)FfNAL SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this % day of J'hni, 2007
by and between the North Carolina- Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality ("-1NCDWQ"), and the City of Gastonia ("the City"), a municipality organized
under the laws of the State of North Carolina,
RECITALS
1. On August 25, 2005, NCD A'Q issued to the City National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit No. NCS 000429 to discharge stormwater ("the
Pennit")
. 2. On October 3, 2005 the City Filed a Petition for Contested Case (the `'Petition"), Case
No. 05-I:I-IR-1496, contesting the Permit.
3. The parties desire to settle this matter and have agreed to enter into this Settlement
Agreement.
C790878.4 COPY

STATEMENT QF AGREEMENT
4. Public Education Program. Part 1I Section B(2)(a) of the Permit shall be modified
to read as follows:
"Develop and implement a public education program with 12 months of the
permit issue date. Incorporate outreach elements for all sectors of the
community, including but not limited - to significant minority and
disadvantaged communities."
5. Informational Website. Part 1I Section (B)(2)(b) of the Permit shall be modified to
read as follows:
"Utilize w<vN .cityofgastonia.com to promote public education about the
impacts of storm water discharges on water bodies and the steps that the
public can take to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. The existing
stormwater information on www.cityofgastonia.com may be utilized to
meet this public education requirement provided that educational material
provided by D1 NR or the US EPA. is added to the information existing as
of the date of this Settlement Agreement. The City shall also include
educational material from environmental, public interest or trade
organizations, or educational institutions, or other municipalities that it
determines to -be accurate and appropriate for promoting public education
about the impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies and the steps
that the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff.
C790878.4 2 - .

Educational information shall be updated periodically during the permit
period and any renewed permit periods."
6. Post -Construction Site Runoff Controls Program Measures. Part II Section
(F)(3)(b) of the Permit shall be modified to read as follows:
"In order to fulfill the post -construction minimum measure program
requirement for those areas within the jurisdictional area of the permittee
that are not subject to the post -construction stormwater management
provisions of another existing state stormwater management program, the
permittee shall, within 24 months of the permit issue date, (1) use the
Division's model ordinance, (ii) design its own post -construction practices
based on the Division's guidance on scientific and engineering standards
for best management practices (BMPs), (iii) incorporate the post-
constniction model practices described in this Session Law 2006-246, or
(iv) develop its"own comprehensive watershed plan that is determined by
the Division to meet the post -construction stormwater management
measure required by 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 122.34(b)(5) (1 July
2003 Edition)."
Part II Section (F)(3)(d) of the permit shall be deleted.
7. Permit Modifications and Amendments. NCDWQ and the City will take all
actions necessary to modify and/or amend the Permit in accordance with the terms of this
Settlement Agreement.
C i90878.4 .3

8. Waiver of Right to Administrative Hearin. The City expressly waives its
right to an administrative hearing on the Petition. Within ten days of the full execution of
this Settlement Agreement, the City will file with the Office of Administrative Hearings a
withdrawal with prejudice of its Petition for a Contest Case Hearing.
9. Duty of Good Faith. The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement embodies
their mutual agreement and agree to act in good faith consistently with this Settlement
Agreement. The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall not alter the meaning of the
Permit in any manner, or to any extent define, supplement, or conflict with the Permit, except for
revision of the Permit's language specifically and expressly set forth and identified herciriabove
by Part, Section, and Subsection designation.
10. Force Ma4eure. Any deadline or date of applicability in this Settlement Agreement
shall be extended for the duration of any event of farce majeure, which shall mean any event
arising from causes beyond the control of the party subject to the deadline or date of applicability
that causes a delay in or prevents the performance of any of the conditions under this Settlement
Agreement, including, but not limited to:
a. acts of God, fire, war, insurrection, civil disturbance, explosion, or natural
catastrophes;
b. restraint by court order or order of public authority; inability to obtain,
after the exercise of reasonable diligence and timely • submittal of all
applicable applications, any necessary authorizations, approval, permits,
or licenses due to action or Inaction of any governmental agency or
authority; and delays caused by compliance with applicable statutes or

regulations governing contracting, procurement or acquisition procedures,
despite the exercise of reasonable diligence by the party subject to the
deadline.
11. No Admission or Denial of Liability. By entering into this Settlement Agreement,
none of the parties makes any admissions or denials of law or fact with regard to any of the
matters relevant to any claims that were or could have been asserted in the Petition.
12. Modification. This Settlement Agreement may not be modified except in writing
signed by all the parties.
13. Entire Agreement. The parties agree and acknowledge that this Settlement
Agreement constitutes the agreement between the parties and that all prior or contemporaneous
written or oral agreements with respect to these matters are merged into this Settlement
Agreement. The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shall not alter the meaning of the
Permit in any manner, or to any extent define, supplement, or conflict with the Permit, except for
revision of the Permit's language specifically and expressly set forth and identified hereinabove
by Part, Section, and Subsection designatiozi.
14. Successors and Assigns. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns.
15. Choice of Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by, construed in
accordance with, and enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of North Carolina without resort
to choice of law principles.
C790878.4 5

� 1 I
16. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be considered an original but all of which together shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.
This the 94 day of Su n e 200/ 7
FOR City of Gastonia
Date:
FOR NCDWQ
a4A Date:
Bradley Bennett
C790878.a
�,l,7f()�

. , '.
16. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be considered an original but all of which together shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.
This the day of 2006.
FORity £ GPLston'
� Date: 6-1-2007
Philip Bombardier, Interim Co -city Manager.
FOR NCDWQ
]INSERT NAME]
C790878.4 6
Date:

I . 4
1
SPU City of Gastonia working file contents
10/27/05
KBP
1. 11/6/02 letter, Bennett to Danny Crew (City of Gastonia.)
2. 3/6/03 Gastonia permit application.
3. 3/11/03 acknowledgement letter, Bennett to Joseph Bieker (City of Gastonia.)
4. 9/28/04 xsmittal letter, Pickle to Bieker, with draft permit.
5. 10/18/04 email comments and marked up draft permit, Bieker to Pickle, Public
Comment Document Control #203.
6. 10/20/04 signed staff report, Gleason at MRO.
7. 11/4/04 - 11/12/04 email exchange, Woolfolk (DWQ) and Pickle, Public Comment
Document Control #204.
8. 11/8/04 letter, Pickle to Bieker, notice of public notice.
9. 11/8/04 draft permit working copy.
10. 11/9/04 invoice, public notice ad, and affidavit copies from the Gaston Gazette.
11. 11/9/04 public notice ad and affidavit from the Charlotte Observer.
12. 12/3/04 letter, Watkins (NC League of Municipalities) to Randall, general comments
on all Phase II permits, Public Comment Document Control #205.
13. 12/10/04 email comments, Bieker to Pickle, Public Comment Document Control
#206. Plus two additional working copies.
14.8/25/05 updated application review summary.
15.8/25/05 updated permit processing summary and public comments record. Plus one
additional working copy.
16. 8/25/05 permit xsmittal letter, Klimek to Munn (City of Gastonia:)
17. 10/27/05 email exchange, Leach (AG) and Pickle. eop;es
./a7ef Lc�cl, _
/B , b'/2 s/os Ga signer Ga��, a I /✓ese"04Z9
DWQ Central Files NCSO0O429 file contents
10/27/05 ---- -
KBP
1. 11/6/02 letter, Bennett to Crew.
2. 3/10/03 cash receipt journal record.
3. 3/11/03 acknowledgement letter, Bennett to Bieker.
4. 8/25/05 permit xsmittal letter, Klimek to Munn.
5. 8/25/05 signed permit.

Total Maximum Daily Load for
Fecal Coliform for Crowders Creek
North Carolina and South Carolina
Final Report
June 2004
Approved July 1, 2004
- Catawba River -Basin - -
Prepared by:
NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]
1Q �F NOr R0
a �

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
Summary Sheet
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
1. 303(d) List Information
State: North Carolina, South Carolina
County: Gaston (NC), York (SC)
Major River Basin: Catawba River Basin
Watershed: Crowders Creels, HUC 3050101180010
303(d) Listed Waters (North Carolina)
J one of Stieain� DcScirption .® Cl rss_
k''Ind�x # :� t
5uhb�sui�
IVI�[eti
'^'- -T-r.Jr
y6
L:" w i.
_2
,rowders Creek
SR 1108 to NC 321 C
11-135e
30837
1.4
.rowders Creek
US 321 to SR 2424 C
11-135f
30837
1.4
,rowders Creek
SR 2424 to NC/SC line C
11-135g
30837
0.8
Constituent of Concern: Fecal Coliform
Designated NC Uses: Biological integrity, propagation of aquatic life, secondary recreation
Applicable Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters in NC: Fecal coliforms shall not exceed a
geometric mean'of 200/100ml (membrane filter count) based upon at least five consecutive
sample's examined during any 30 day period, nor exceed 400/ 100 ml in more than 20 percent of
the samples examined during such period.
303(d) Listed -,Waters (South Carolina)
N use of 5u`ear) �,
SEatiun Desci rptroo G1as5
StationIntpaired
C.ause
TM
ME
I
Crowders Creek
At S-46 564 NE Clover Freshwater
CW-023
REC
FC
Crowders Creek
S-46-1104 Freshwater
CW-024
REC
FC
South Fork
At S-46-79 4.5 mi NW Clover Freshwater
CW-192
REC
FC
Crowders Creek
REC=recreation; FC=fecal culiforrn
Constituent of Concern: Fecal Coliform
Designated SC Uses: Primary and secondary contact recreation, a source for drinking water
supply after conventional treatment in accordance with the requirements of SC, fishing and the
survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora, and
industrial and agricultural uses.

Crowders Creel: TMDL.
Final Report
Applicable Water Quality Standards for Freshwater in SC: Not to exceed a geometric mean of
200/100 ml, based on five consecutive samples during any 30 day period; nor shall more than
10% of the total samples during any 30 day period exceed 400/100ml.
2. TMDL Development
Development tools: WARMF model
Critical condition:' Exceedances of the fecal coliform occur during both wet and dry conditions,
and all seasons. The TMllL has been determined using a 5-year simulation (1998-2002) covering
a wide range of hydrologic conditions.
Seasonality: Seasonal variation in hydrology, climatic conditions, and watershed activities are
represented through the use of a Continuous flow gage and the use of all readily available water
quality data collected in the watershed.
3. Allocation Watershed/Stream Reach
Crowders Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
Units per:dgv
%rrReduction
TMDL 12.21
El+ 11
NC Continuous WLA
8.27E+09
0%
NC MS4 WLA
7.45E+10
79%
NC LA
I.15E3+1 l
79%n
SC LA
2.36E+t0
79%
Station CW-023
--
79'7,,
Station CW-024
--
79"l0
Station CW-192
--
79%
' CoMImlOUS paint sources must meet monthly geometric mean of 200 cfu/100m1 and cannot exceed 400
cfu/1001111 maximum.
Total maximum daily load (']'M1)1-): 221E+11 units per day
Waste load allocation (WLA): 8.287E+10 units per day
Load allocation (LA): 1.384E+1 1 units per day
Margin of Safety (applied to the water duality criteria): This'I'MDL utilizes an explicit margin
of safety (MOS): the geometric mean target is set at 175 cfu/100ml (MOS = 25 cfu/100m1) and
the instantancouS limit is set to 360 cfu/100m1 (MOS = 40 cfu/IOOmI).
I

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
This TMDL is set at the confluence ol' Crowders Creek and Beaverdam Creek in SC. The TMDL
applies to all impaired segments identified in (1).
4. Public Notice Date: 5/23/2004
5. Submittal Date: 6/ 10/2004
6. Establishment Date: 7/1/2004
7. Endangered Species (yes or blank):
8. EPA Lead on TMDL (EPA or blank):
9. TMDL Considers Point Source, Nonpoint Source, or both: both

X. I
Crowders Creck'INDL Final Report
"TABLE OF CONTENTS
.................................
Introduction........................................................................... ..................
I
1.1 Watershed Description.....................................................................................................2
1.2 Water Quality Target......................................................................................................3
1.3 Water Quality Assessment..............................................................................................5
2 Source Assessment ................. ....... .......... .... ..................... .............. ....... ............. I— ............ I...
11
2.1 Point Source Assessment..............................................................................................
I
2.2 Non -Point Source Assessment......................................................................................
12
2.2.1 Urban Development and Sewer Systems.................................................................
t2
2.2.2 Septic Systems..........................................................................................................
13
2.2.3 Livestock............................................................... .
14
2.2.4 Waste Application....................................................................................................
t5
2.2.5 Wildlil'e.................................................. ...................................................................15
3 Modeling Approach...............................................................................................................16
3.1.1 Model Framework....................................................................................................16
3.1.2 Model Setup.............................................................................................................
16
3.1.2.1 Observed Data Input........................................................................................
17
3.1.2.2 Fecal Loading Initial Inputs .................. .................... .......... I ...... I—— ...............
18
3.1.2.3 Fecal Coliform Decay......................................................................................
19
3.1.3 Calibration................................................................................................................20
3.1.3.1 Flow and Temperature.....................................................................................20
3.1.3.2 Fecal Coliform............................................................................... ...24
3.1.4 Model Output...........................................................................................................27
4 Allocation..............................................................................................................................28
4.1 Tolal Maximum Daily Load TMDIr..................................................28
4.2 Critical Conditions........................................................................................................29
4.3 Seasonal Variation........................................................................................................30
4A Model Uncertainty and Margin of Safety.....................................................................30
4.5 Allocation............................................................................... .......31
5 Implementation Plan..............................................................................................................33
6 Stream Monitoring..............................................................................33
7 Future Efforts........................................................................................................................33
8 Public Participation .......................... ............................................................................. I.., ... 134
9 Further Information ...............................................................................................................34
iv

r
Crowders Creek TMDL Final Report
10 References.............................................................................................................................35
11 Appendix...............................................................................................................................37
Appendix I. Water quality data collected in the Crowders Creek watershed (1997-2002)........... 38
Appendix I1. Land use by WARMF subwatershed based on 1993-1996 landcover in the
Crowders Creek watershed ...... :................................................. ............................................ 43
Appendix 111. Calibrated soil layer parameters..............................................................................47
Appendix IV. Load allocation calculation for Kings Mountain..... ............................................... 49
Appendix V. Modeled fecal coliform loading scenarios...............................................................51
Appendix VI. Load allocation calculations for South Carolina portion of Crowders Creek . ....... 52
Appendix V11. Crowders Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL Allocation Worksheet ...........................54
Appendix VIII. Septic system loading estimates for the Crowders Creek watershed..................55
Appendix 1X. Affidavits of Publication for Public Notices..........................................................56
Appendix X. Comments on the Crowders Creek TMDL 58
v

Crowders Creek TMDL
TABLES
Final Report
Table 1. Monitoring locations in the Crowders Creek watershed....................................................6
`['able 2. Summary of fiscal coliform monitoring in the Crowders Creek watershed (1997-2002)... 6
Table 3. Potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria in watersheds ............................................. I 1
Table 4. Summary of septic usage in Crowder's Creek watershed (NC portion) based on data
takenfrom Gordon(2003)..................................................................................................... 14
"fable 5. Septic data used in the WARMF model for Crowders Creek .......................................... 19
'[able 6. Livestock data used in the WARM.F model for Crowders Creek.... ..... ...................... ... 19
"fable 7. Precipitation weighting factors and temperature lapse for the Crowders Creek watershed.
...........................................................................................................................................21
Table S. Calibration statistics for temperature and flow in subwatershed l I...............................21
Table 9. Calibration statistics for fecal coliform (#I100m1) in subwatershed 1 I (downstream
station)........................................................................... ...24
.....................................................
`!'able 10. Existing fecal coliform loading (1998-2002) by source in the Crowders Creek
watershed............................................................................................................................... 27
Table 11. Total maximum daily load allocation for the Crowders Creek watershed (detailed in
Appendix).............................................................................................................................. 31
Table 12. Relative fecal coliform loading rates in the Crowders Creek watershed .......................32
v1

Crowders Creek TMDL
i
Final Report
FIGURES
Figure 1. Location map for the Crowders Creek watershed.............................................................4
Figure 2. North Carolina monitoring stations within the Crowders Creek watershed. Numbered
stations correspond to sites in Table 1.....................................................................................7
Figure 3. Fecal coliform concentrations at the NCDWQ ambient station for the period 1997 —
2002. A value>2000 from 1/8/98 is not shown.....................................................................8
Figure 4. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations in the Crowders Creek watershed. 2001.
................................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5. Load duration curve at the Crowders Creek NCDWQ ambient station for the period.
1998-2002..............................................................................................................................10
Figure 6. Load duration curve at the Crowders Creek station SR 2424 for the period, 2001-2002.
..............................................................................................................................................10
Figure 7. Crowders Creek watershed with subwatersheds (WS) as depicted in the WARMF
model. Primary stations used for calibration have been labeled..........................................17
Figure 8. Observed vs. simulated temperature at the downstream calibration station in
subwatershedI 1(R2=0.86)....................................................................................................22
Figure 9. Observed versus simulated temperature at the upstream calibration station in
subwatershed5(R2=0.98)......................................................................................................22
Figure 10. Observed versus simulated flow at the downstream calibration station in subwatershed
lI(R2=0.50)..........................................................................................................................23
Figure 11. Observed versus simulated flow at the upstream calibration station in subwatershed 5
(R2=0.43)................... ............................... .......................................................:...23
..................
Figure 12. Observed versus simulated fecal coliform at subwatershed 11 ...................................25
Figure 13. Observed versus simulated fecal coliform at SR 113 1 in subwatershed 5..................26
Figure 14. Rolling 30-day geometric means of observed fecal coliform at SR 2424 and simulated
fecal coliform at the subwatershed l I outlet. .... ................................ ............................. 26
Figure l5. Results of TMDl- simulation for it rolling 30-day geometric mean for fecal coliform in
theCrowders Creek watershed.............................................................................................29
vn

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
1 Introduction
Crowders Creek is currently on 303(d) lists of impaired waters in North Carolina (NC) and South Carolina
(SC). The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has identified a 3.6-mile segment of Crowders Creek in
the Catawba River Basin as impaired by fecal coliform bacteria, stretching from state road (SR) 1 108 to the
state line. The SC Department of Environmental Health and Control (SCDHI3C) considers the South fork
Crowders Creek and Crowders Creek impaired due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in South
Carolina.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list. of waters not meeting water
quality standards or which have impaired uses. `Phis list, referred to as the 303(d) list, is submitted biennially
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review.
The 303(d) process requires that a `I otal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for each of the waters
appearing on Part I of the 303(d) list. The objective of a TMDL is to estimatc allowable pollutant loads and
allocate the loads to known sources so that actions may be taken to restore the water to its intended uses
(USEPA, 1991). Generally, the primary components of a TMDL, as identified by EPA (1991, 2000a) and
the federal Advisory Committee (FACA, 1998) are as follows:
Target identification or selection of pollutant(s) and end-point(s) fir consideration. The pollutant and end-
point are generally'associated with measurable water quality related characteristics that indicate compliance
With water quality standards. North Carolina indicates known pollutants on the 303(d) list.
Source assessment. All sources that contribute to the impairment should be identified and loads quantified,
where sufficient data exist.
Reduction target. Estimation of the level of pollutant reduction needed to achieve water quality goal. The
level of pollution should be characterized for the waterbody, highlighting how current conditions deviate
from the target end -point. Generally, this component is identified through water quality modeling.
Allocation of pollutant loads. Allocating pollutant control responsibility to the sources of impairment. The
wasteload allocation portion of the TMDL accounts for the loads associated with existing and future point

Crmvders Creek'I'MDL
I
Final Report
sources. Similarly, the load allocation portion of the TMDL accounts for the loads associated with existing
and future non -point sources, stormwater, and natural background.
Margin of Safety. The margin of safety addresses uncertainties associated with pollutant loads, modeling
techniques, and data collection. Per E:PA (2000a), the margin of safety may be expressed explicitly as
unallocated assimilative capacity or implicitly due to conservative assumptions.
Seasonal variation. The TMDL should consider seasonal variation in the pollutant loads and end -point.
Variability can arise due to stream flows, temperatures, and exceptional events (e.g.. droughts, hurricanes).
Critical Conditions. Critical conditions indicate the combination o>f environmental factors that result in just
meeting the water quality criterion and have an acceptably low Frequency ol' cx;currence.
Section 303(d) of the CWA and the Water Quality Planning and Management regulation (USEPA, 2000a)
require EPA to review all TMULs for approval or disapproval. Once EPA approves a TMDL, then the
waterbody may be moved to Category 4a of the Integrated Report. Waterbodies remain in Category 4a until
compliance with water quality standards is achieved. Where conditions are not appropriate for the
development ol' a TMDL, management strategies may still result in the restoration of water quality.
The goal of the TMDL program is to restore designated uses to water bodies. 'Thus, the implementation of
source controls throughout the watershed will be necessary to restore uses in Crowders Creek. Although an
implementation plan is not included as part of this TMDL. reduction strategics for point and nonpoint
sources will be needed. The involvement of iocal governments and agencies will be critical in order to
develop implementation plans and reduction strategies.
1.1 Watershed Description
Crowders Creek, a tributary to Lake Wylie (NCDWQ subbasin 030837) in the Catawba River Basin, drains
92.9 mi' at its confluence with Beaverdam Creek in South Carolina (Figure 1). Most of the NC portion of
Crowders Creek is located within Gaston County in the piedmont physiographic region. A small portion is
located in Cleveland County. Approximately 16% of the watershed area (excluding Beaverdam Creek) is
located within South Carolina (York County). The watershed includes the municipalities of Gastonia, Kings
Mountain and Bessemer City in NC, and Bowling Green in SC.
2

Crowders Creek `I'MDl- Final Report
The land use and land cover characteristics of the watershed were determined using 1996 land cover data that
were developed from 1993-94 LANDSAT satellite imagery (included within the WARMF model). Land use
was 57% forest, 9%n pasture, I I%n cultivated, and 13% developed (low and high intensity residential,
commercial/industrial).
As reported by the USGS, the average flow of the creek below SR 2424 is approximately 91 cubic feet per
second (cfs), with a summer 7Q10 of 6.7 cfs. The drainage area at this point is 79.4 eni'". The predominant
soils are Cecil-Appling-Pacolet and Nason-Tatum associations, underlain by gneiss/schist/slate and schistose
rocks, respectively.
Surface water classifications are designations applied to surface water bodies that define the best uses to be
protected within these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply) and carry with thern an
associated set of water quality standards to protect those uses. Crowders Creek (and its tributaries) is
classified as a class C waterbody in NC. The waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife,
fish and aquatic lice propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
South Carolina classifies Crowders Creek and its tributaries as Freshwaters. Freshwaters are suitable for
primary and secondary contact recreation and as a source for drinking water supply after conventional
treatment in accordance with the requirements of SC. In addition, the waters are suitable for fishing, the
survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community of fauna and flora, and industrial and
agricultural uses.
1.2 Water Quality Target
The North Carolina fresh water quality standard for fecal coliform in Class C waters ('1'15A:
0211.0211) states
Organisms of the colifurni group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100mi (membrane filter
count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor exceed 400/100 nil in more
than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period', violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected
during rainfall events and, in sonic cases, this violation is expected to be caused by uncontrollable nonpoint source
pollution; all coliform concentrations are to be analyzed using the membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or

Crowders Creek 1'MDL
Final Report
other adverse conditions necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube
dilution technique will he used as the reference method.
South Carolina's standard For fecal coliform in Freshwater is:
Not to exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 in], based on live consecutive samples during any 30-day period: nor shall
more than 10% of the total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400/100ml.
Figure 1. Location map for the Crowders Creek watershed.

Crowders Creek TMDL
1 inai Report
The instream numeric target, or endpoint, is the restoration objective associated with implementing the
specified load reductions in the TMDL. The target allows for the evaluation of progress towards the goal of
reaching water quality standards for the impaired stream by comparing the instream data to the target. For
this TMDL the water quality target is South Carolina's standard: it is more stringent based on the portion
relating to 10% of samples during 30 days versus a 20% allowance in NC. Both portions of the SC standard
will be eVldtrated for TMD11 purposes. Note that the unit for fecal coliform bacteria is colony -forming units
(cfu), but may also be referred to as "counts" or'T" throughout this assessment.
1.3 Water Quality Assessinent
NCDWQ collects samples monthly at a fixed ambient monitoring station (C8660000) on Crowders Creek at
Ridge Rd near Bowling Green, SC (Figure 2).1 In 2001. NCDWQ, the Gaston County Cooperative
Extension Service, and the City of Gastonia agreed to conduct intensive surveys of water quality in the
Crowders Creek watershed. Six locations were selected for intensive monitoring ('fable 1). Samples were
collected weekly for six weeks in the spring and 10 weeks in the summer. As Such, eight running geometric
means could be calculated using the data from this study.
During 2002, NCDWQ conducted additional sampling of Crowders Creek to supplement 2001 sampling.
Samples were collected at Blackwood Creek, Crowders Creek at SR 1108.. and Crowders Creek at SR 2424.
A summary of all recent data is presented in Table 2.
Sampling at the ambient station near the base of the watershed indicates that fecal coliform concentrations
have been elevated for several years (Figure 3). Further sampling to evaluate the geometric mean fecal
coliform standard Suggests elevated concentrations at a number of locations throughout the watershed
including the upper portion at SR 1 131 and the southwest portion at SR 1 109 (Figure 4). The geometric
means ol'9/4/2001 include a significant storm event that appears to have contributed to high concentrations.
Blackwood Creek fecal coliform levels are consistently higher than other locations throughout the Study.
"['his subwatershed contains primarily suburban development and many older south Gastonia neighborhoods.
' SCDf1EC also monitors fecal coliform bacteria in Crowders Creek at US 321 0.5 miles north of the NC/SC border
(CW- 152) and at S-91-79 4.5 miles northwest ot' Clover (CW-192). SC's CW-024 is co -located with NC's ambient
station.
5

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
`fable 1. Monitoring locations in the Crowders Creek watershed.
I Crowders Creek at Linwood Roar! (SRI 131)
2 Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
3 Crowders Creek at SR 1 108
4 South Crowders Creek at Crowders Creek Rd
(SR l 103)
5 South Fork Crowders Creek at Ferguson Ridge
Rd (SRI 109)
6 Crowders Creek at SR 2424
7 DWQ Ambient Station
'fable 2. Summary of fecal coliform monitoring in the Crowders Creek watershed (1997-2002).
- -
Si«
Ptrwd
:
�
NU-1
San s
sNumbe arc rtc r th utNurnliir
40011cfu1100nih' �
gre�rtc rihan�
�OOcfii1100inLgcom
�
—
.
Crowders Creek at
2001
16
3
5
Linwood Road (SRI131)
Blackwood Creek at SR
2001-2002
25
14
13
1136
Crowders Creek at SR
2001-2002
25
8
6
1108
South Crowders Creek at
Crowders Creek Rd
2001
16
3
3
(SRI 103)
South Fork Crowders
Creek at Ferguson Ridge
2001
16
4
5
Rd (SR1109)
Crowders Creek at SR
2001-2002
25
6
6
2424
Crowders Creek
t997-2002
67
10
NCDWQ Ambient
" Instantaneous fecal coliform measurements greater than 400efu/100rtnl
n 30-day geometric mean of fecal coliform measurements greater than 200cfu1100nt1 based on at least 5 samples in 30
days.
C Data collected nlontllly; insufficient f1'eClllerlCy to calculate a 30-day geometric nnean.

Crowders Creel: TMDL
Final Report
If d �� � Gastonia
'4 GASTON
Gastonia 1 ''
•
4 3
so, CrOWdws 3 S IkYJ O '41: ST kiCHU\S'S]f:Kti L-RK'AWI P
Q South Car©lirta
Legend
Public roads
P ES discharges
• 0-0.1 MGD
• 0.1 - 0.3 MGD
0.3 - 0.6 MGD
0 0.6 - 1.2 MGD
• 1.2 - 6 MGD
$ Ambient monitoring
% Hydrography
Municipality
[� County bdry
DMR monitoring
Gastonia monitoring
Figure 2. North Carolina monitoring stations within the Crowders Creek watershed. Numbered stations correspond to sites in Table 1.
7

I
Y Crowders Creek'I'MDI_ Final Report
1800
1600
1400
1200
0 1000
T
800
600
400
200
0
m
7
R
Crowders Creek NCDWQ Ambient Station
rn T rn T T o C? 0 0 o a
y, ?, _}. Z, T 7.
7 7 t4 M :3
C C C C C
�6 �C CO M N
Figure 3. Fecal coliform concentrations at the NCDWQ ambient station for the period 1997 -- 2002. A value
>2000 from 118198 is not shown.
A load duration curve analysis (Stiles 2002, Cleland 2002) was used to evaluate flow conditions under which
the standard is violated and also help identify the sources contributing to impairment. Exceedances that
occur curly during low -flow events are likely caused by continuous or point source discharges, which are
generally dilated during storm events. Livestock deposits directly to the stream may also be noticeable
during low flow events. Exceedances that occur during higher flow events are generally driven by storm -
event runoff. A mixture of point and nonpoint sources may cause exceedances during normal flows.
The load duration method plots observed data with flow. Data is available for only 2000 to present for a
gage on Crowders Creek (USGS 02145642). Since it long historical flow series is recommended for use in
Plow and load duration analyses, data from nearby gage was used: USGS 02144000 on Long Creek near
Bessemer City. The Long Creek gage is in the neighboring watershed to the north of Crowders Creek and
has a drainage area of 31.8 mi'. Daily flow data for the period from 1/1953 through 912002 was used to
establish the historic flow regimes. Drainage area (DA) ratios were used to create flow series for the DWQ
ambient station on Crowders Creek (DA = 88.9 tni) and the station at SR 2424 (DA = 79.4 mi).
8

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Levels, 2001
Fecal coliform level, cfu/100mL
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Crowders Creek at
SR1131
Blackwood Creek at —71
SR1136
Crowders Creek-
SR1108
South Crowders
03126/2001
Creek atSR1103
m 4/412 D01
❑ 7/31 /2001
South Fork Crowders
0817/2001
Creek at SR1109
■ 8/14/2001
❑ 8/21 12001
Crowders Creek at
SR2424
m8/28/2001
❑9W2001
Figure 4. Geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations in the Crowders Creek watershed, 2001.
Observed flow is plotted based on the percent of time that historic flows exceed the value oil the date
collected. Once the relative rankings were CaICulated for flow, monitoring data were matched by date to
compare observed water quality to the flow ranking. The curves approximate the allowable load that meets
the water quality standard for fecal col iform (flow * standard; see Figure 5).
In the Crowders Creek watershed, water quality violations of fecal coliform Occur during both wet and dry
periods, and during most times of the year (Figures 5-6). All data points in Figures 5 and 6 are based on
instantaneous samples.2 A greater number of exceedances occurred during April — October and in mid -range
to drier flows.
2 ,,Ile geometric mean line is provided only as an additional reference; ge0n1etriC rrte;nl vaiues have not been plotted.
9

0
Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
1.E-16
1.E•15
1.E•14
E 1.E•13
L
O
_ 1.E•12
O
V
1.E 11
0
u
o►
LL 1.E•10
1.E«09
0
+
4
O
>m
0 <
O
High
Moist
Mid Range
pry
Low
Flows
Conditions
Flows
Conditions
Flows
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Internal (7.)
Gm.Mean
- - -5 4e
4 M Data
♦ Apr-Gtt
Figure 5. Load duration curve at the Crowders Creek NCDWQ ambient station for the period. 1998-2002.
Z
rFl,
Moist
MidRange
Dryow
Conditions
Flows
Conditions
0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80
Flow Duration Interval (%)
Flows
90 100
Figure G. Load duration curve at the Crowders Creek station SR 2424 for the period, 2001-2002.

Crowders Creek "TMDL
Final Report
2 Source Assessment
Both point and nonpoint sources may contribute Fecal coliform to waterbodies. In rural areas, stormwater
runoff can transport fecal coliform from livestock operations, septic systems, and wildlife deposits. Sewer
systems, pets, and wildlife are potential sources in urbanized areas (septic systems to a lesser extent).
Wastewater treatment plants (W WTP), both municipal and package plants, are another source of fecal
col i form.
Potential sources of fecal coliform loading in the watershed were identified based on an evaluation of land
use data, septic and sewer service areas, discharge monitoring data, and agricultural information. The source
assessment was used as the basis for development of the watershed model and ultimate analysis of the
'TMDL allocations. 'fable 3 lists the potential human and animal sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
Table 3, Potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria in watersheds.
Source Orioiii
Type
Source'f t a
Human Sources
Sewered watershed
Combined sewer overflows; Sanitary sewer
overflows; leaking sanitary sewers
Wastewater treatment plants (POTWs)
Illegal sanitary connections to storm drains
Illegal disposal to storm drains
Non-Sewered watershed
Sept icsystems
Package WWT1' plants
Non -human Sources
Domestic animals and urban wildlife
Dogs, cat, rats, raccoons, opossum,
s uirrels, pigeons, waterfowl
Livestock and rural wild] ife
Beef and dairy cows, horses, poultry, swine,
beaver, deer, waterfowl
2.1 Poi>it Source AssessnteW
Point sources are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and include
continuous municipal and industrial sources and regulated stormwater (NPDES Phase I and 11). The major
point source of fecal coliform in the Crowders Creek watershed is Gastonia's Crowders Creck Wastewater
"Treatment Plant (NC0074268), which is currently permitted to discharge G MGD (see Figure 2 for location).
11

Crowders Creek TMDL Final Report
There are no point sources, neither continuous or MS4 stormwater, within the South Carolina portion of the
watershed (Giffin, 2003).
Additional minor point sources discharging domestic waste include Berkley Oaks (NC0062278), CWS
Saddlewood WWTP (NC0060755), Ridge Community WWTP (NC0069175) and Pines Mobile Home Park
(NC007499), totaling approximately 0.07 MGD in permitted capacity. Facilities not listed are either inactive
or contain waste streams lacking significant fecal coliform (e.g., some industrial process water).
CBP Resources, a chicken processing plant, ceased its discharge to Crowders Creek in December 1998 by
connecting to the Gastonia Crowders Creek WWTP. The Bessemer City WWTP (1.5 MGD; NC0020826)
connected to the Crowders Creek WWTP in March 2002. Prior to this, the Bessemer City WWTP
discharged into Abernathy Creek, a tributary to Crowders Creek.
EPA requires that loads allocated to NPDES permitted stormwater be placed in the wasteload allocation
(WLA), which had previously been reserved for continuous point source loads (Wayland, 2002). The three
MS4 entities that are permitted through Phase II of the NPDES stormwater program in the Crowders Creek
watershed are Gastonia (NCS000429), Bessemer City (NCS000412), and Gaston County (NCS000411).
Their entire jurisdiction is covered under the permits. The NC Department of -Transportation also has a
NPDES stormwater permit in this watershed (statewide_. Kings Mountain, with approximately 5.4 mi` of
area in northwest corner of the watershed, is not currently regulated under the Phase 11 program.
2.2 Non -Point Source As.sessrnent
Nonpoint sources of fecal coliform bacteria include those sources that cannot be identified as entering the
waterbody at it specific location such as a NPDES permitted pipe or stormwater outfall. Diffuse sources of
fecal coliform bacteria may originate from human and non -human sources (livestock, pets, wildlife).
2.2.1 Urban Development and Sewer Systems
Developed land typically generates greater areal pollutant loads relative to rural land uses. Mallin et al.
(2000) found a strong relationship between the percentage of watershed imperviousness and fecal coliform
density. Higher amounts of impervious surface result in less opportunity for infiltration, increasing high flow
12

Crowders Creek'I'MID1_ Final Report
volumes, peak Vows and velocities. The resultant stormwater runoff' carries with it waste from pets, wildlife,
and other sources
Sewer systems for GaStOni t (WQCSOOOI7) and Bessemer City (WQCSOO 107) may also contribute fecal
coliform to waterways during overflows and as a result of other defects. Kings Mountain also has it
collection system (WQCS 00036) and sends it portion of its waste to the Crowders Creek WWTP. Sewer
pipes may become blocked, damaged, or flooded by stormwater. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) may occur
clue to pump station failures caused by stormwater infiltration into the pipes through leaks. Sewer pipe. leaks
may also contribute to elevated levels of fecal coliform during low flow periods via exfiltration. Between
1997 and 2002, there were six SSOs reported by Gastonia (collection system associated with the Crowders
Creek W W`I'P), twenty by Bessemer City and three by Kings Mountain. Not all the SSOs in Bessemer City
and Kings Mountain occurred within the Crowders Creek watershed.
Site -specific information for fecal coliform loading from urban runoff in the Crowders Creek watershed was
not available. However, studies from nearby Mecklenburg County can he used to provide initial estinurles of
fecal loads. The USES calculated build-up and wash -off rates for developed land uses based on stormwater
samples collected from 1993-1997 (Bales ct al., 1999). Fecal coliform rates of accumulation for light
residential, heavy residential/industrial, and hcavy commerciai/industrial were 5.3 x 101,1 1 counts/haln o, 6.9
x 10^ I l countslh,1/mo, and 2.1 x 10^ ] l counts/ha/mo, respectively.
2.2.2 Septic Systems
Failing septic systems are a potential source of fecal coliform to water bodies. Lack of maintenance and
improper use can cause systems to fail, creating the potential for discharge to water bodies. A study by the
NC Office Of' Budget and Management suggested that 1 1% of systems surveyed had mall'unctions or failures
(NC DEFI, 2000). In Gaston County, the septic failure rate is thought to be near 4% (Gordon, 2003). Septic
usage in the Catawba River Basin portion of Gaston County was approximately 4517o based on 1990 census
(NC DEFI, 1999). The 2000 census did not collect information on sewage and septic. Since that time, the
percentage may have decreased as more areas are developed and sewer service expands.
Gordon (2003) analyzed septic usage in the Crowders Creek watershed using GIS layers of residential parcel
data, census data, and utility customers to determine the number of septic tanks by subwatershed. It was
assumed that all residential households that were not municipal utility customers relied on septic. Results of
13

Crowders Creek'I'MM- Final Report
the analysis indicated that nearly 5,000 septic systems were in use within the NC portion of the watershed
(Table 4). Resulting septic densities were extrapolated to SC by NCDWQ resulting in an estimated 18,710
people served by septic in the watershed.
Table 4. Summary of septic usage in Crowder's Creek watershed (NC portion) based on data taken from
Gordon (2003)
Subw atershed
Descrt non;°. =
Sej tic
S 'stenlL
:Avg # =
persons/s stem;
x
acres ter}
Population
servedz. __A_ .=
Persons per `
riir^Z-
North Crowders
857
2.78
13737
2363
110
Central Crowders
1115
2.95
9175
3290
229
Blackwood Creek
422
3.03
2202
1382
402
South Crowders
1119
12.79
110686
3023
181
Lower Crowders
1457
2.48
8792
13334
243
2.2.3 Livestock
According to the NC Department of Agriculture's (2001) livestock population census, Gaston County has
approximately 9,100 head of cattle. However, only a small portion is located within the Crowders Creek
watershed. "There were relatively small amounts of other animal agriculture. Within the Crowders Creek
watershed, there are no large concentrated animal operations. At NCDWQ's request, a livestock survey of
the watershed was conducted by the Gaston County Cooperative Extension Service (Hudson, 2003).
Estimates from the survey were approximately 160 beef cattle and 280 dairy cattle, located mostly in the
southwest portion of the watershed. In addition, there are an estimated t50 horses.
Waste produced by cattle that is deposited on pasture or directly into streams can be a significant source of
fecal soli fcrrm. Beef cows, dairy cows and horses produce on average 1.06 x 10^ I I counts/day, 1.04 x 10^ 11
counts/day, and 4.2 x 10^8 counts/day, respectively (NCSU. 1994). A watershed survey in July 2003 by
NCDWQ indicated that some of the cattle had access to strearns. The Gaston County Natural Resources
Department estimates 30 to 50% of livestock within the watershed are permanently Fenced out of streams
based on its implementation of cost share program funding for livestock exclusion and alternate water
sources (Gordon. 2003).
14

Crowders Creek'I'MDL
2.2.4 Waste Application
Final Report
Cattle and horses that graze on pasture land deposit waste directly onto the land. Runot`f during storm events
can transport fecal cotiform in the waste to water bodies, particularly when there is a lack of stream buffer or
cattle have access to the buffer and stream. Confined dairy operations must properly apply manure collected
in feedlots onto cropland or pastureland. Manure is applied to cropland in the Crowders Creek watershed,
primarily during March, April, September and October.
Biosolids application is permitted in the watershed for Gastonia (WQ0001793) and Bessemer City
(WQ0002264). Sludge byproducts of the wastewater treatment process, which may contain fecal coliform, is
applied to agricultural land at approved rates. Anaerobic digestion is used to reduce pathogens. NCDWQ
records for 2002 indicated that 1,300 acres were permitted for Gastonia. Only a portion ol'this acreage is
located within the watershed. The Crowders Creek WWTP plant produced approximately 804 dry tons of
biosofids during 2002, accounting For approximately 22% of the total tonnage applied by Gastonia. '['here
were no recent records of residuals application under the Bessemer City permit since it connected to
Gastonia.
2.2.5 Wildlife
Wildlife deposit fecal -containing waste throughout the landscape, but likely deposit more heavily in rural and
forested areas where populations are larger. Loadings from wildlife cure a background source. Population
estimates for many types of wildlife are not available. The deer population is estimated to be 20 to 30
animals per square mile (NC DWQ, 2002). An upper limit of 30 was chosen to account for other wildlife.
Fecal loading rates for deer have been estimated at 5.0 x 10^8 Wanimallday (US El'A, 2000c).
15

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
3 Modeling Approach
3.1.1 Model Framework
Due to the watershed size and variable sources of fecal coliform, the watershed model Watershed Analysis
Risk Management Framework (WARMF) was selected to evaluate fecal coliform in the Crowders Creek
watershed. WARMF is a decision support system designed to support the watershed approach and TMDL
calculations. The model has been applied to watershed regions in the USA and Taiwan (Systech
Engineering, 2001).
WARMF contains several embedded models adapted from the ILWAS model, ANSWERS. SWMM, and
WASP. The model simulates hydrology and water quality for the landscape of a river basin. WARMF
divides it watershed into land catchments, river segments, and reservoirs and uses the continuously stirred
tank reactor (CSTR) model for flow routing and mass balance within a given soil layer or river segment.
Simulated parameters include flow, temperature, water depth and velocity, and constituent concentrations. In
the case of fecal coliform bacteria, the model simulates the deposition and transportation of the bacteria from
land surface loading and point source discharge. The model then computes the resulting water quality
response instream using first order kinetics. "The model also includes it facility for calculating TMDLs for
non -point source loads under different control levels of point source loads and vice versa.
3.1.2 Model Setup
The Crowder-, Creek watershed is represented as eleven catchments within the model (Figure 7). The
Beaverdam Creek tributary to Crowders Creek located in South Carolina is not modeled in this project. The
confluence of these two creeks is located downstream of DWQ's ambient station. A 'TMDL for fecal
coliform in the Beaverdam Creek watershed has been prepared and approved for South Carolina. Both point
and nonpoint sources are represented in the water quality model. The model was run for it continuous
simulation period of January 1. 1998 through December 31, 2002.
16

Crowders Crcck TMDL Final Report
Figure 7. Crowders Creek watershed with subwatersheds (WS) as depicted in the WARMF model. Primary
stations used liar calibration have been Libeled.
3.1.2.1 Observed Data Input
Water quality data collected at the NCDWQ ambient station located in subwatershed (WS) 1 I and the station
at SR 1131 in WS 5 were used as primary calibration points (Figure 7). Other data stations supplemented the
calibration process. Since there are no meteorological data stations located within the watershed,
meteorological data collected at nearby Long Creek, located immediately north of the Crowders Creek
watershed, were associated with WS 1-4..The other subwatersheds were associated with data collected at
Gastonia to the east (NCDC station 313356). Precipitation and temperature lapse factors were applied during
the calibration process.
17

Crowders Creek TMDL Final Report
Flow data from Long Creek, adjusted for drainage area and the Bessemer City WWTP, was associated with
the upper portion of t17e watershed. Data from it station on Crowders Creek (USGS 02145642) that is co -
located with the ambient station was used for the lower part of the watershed. Flow data at the Crowders
Creek USGS station was only available for October 2000 to present. Since flow data for a 5-year period
(1998 — 2002) was needed, a regression between Crowders Creek and Long Creek was used to fill in the
missing values (Crowders Flow = 2.4513*Long Creek Flow + 12.889; R' = 0.88). Finally, a DA ratio was
used to adjust upward the Crowders Creek flow to represent the remaining portion of the watershed (to the
confluence with Beaverdam Creek).
3.1.22 Fecal Loading Initial Inputs
Initial values for fecal loading (kg/ha/mo) by land use and by subwatershed were input into the model. In
addition, fecal loading based on discharge monitoring data from the two primary point sources, the Crowders
Creek WWTP and Bessemer City WWTP, were input into the model.
The initial fecal coliform rates of accumulation for light residential, heavy residential/industrial. and heavy
coin rnercial/industrial are from Bales et al. (1999). An initial background loading of' t.8x 1019 Wha/mo was
applied to forested land uses to account for wildlife.
The population served by septic was input to the model according to Table 5. These figures were obtained
from some of the previous analysis discussed in Section 2.2.2. A failure rate of 4% based on Gaston County
dala is used. Septic loading assumes 265 Ucap/day and a fecal coliform concentration of 10.000 cfu/100m1
for the load associated with failure (Horsley and Whitten, I996).
Livestock loading of fecal coliform was input into the model using estimated livestock numbers (Table 6)
and Decal production based on NCSU (1994). Loading was generally associated with pasture. Additional
loading associated with dairy manure application to cultivated land was incorporated during March/April and
September/October in subwatersheds 4 and 6. Loading is also associated with direct deposit when livestock
have access to streams. Initially, the model assumed that 40% of livestock were excluded frorn streams
(increased to 70% during calibration).
18

Crowders Creek'I'MDL
Final Report
'fable 5. Septic data used in the WARMF model For Crowders Creek.
Siibwaleislted
Seitic o iulritrcinlrm^"
�I..... 1? t - .,_ _
`
ArcitI(ini2) "
Scpiic populatiEm
I
Ho
9.6
1056
2
110
6.3
693
3
181
1 L5
2082
4
181
12.5
2263
5
247 *
21.3
5261
6
229
3.2
733
7
181
4.4
796
8
229
1.2
275
9
243
7.3
1774
10
229
0.9
206
11
243
14.7
3572
* Average of North and Central Crowders, and Blacicwoud Creek subwatersheds in
Gordon (2003).
"fable 6. LivcstOck data used in the WARMF model For Crowders Creek.
lubw uutihcd" '
'?
Pa�hi'e
rlrca fha
Ii�timatecirNurnbci nt Anin�als ti +
dairy
beef
111orses
1
168.35
0
0
0
2
88.06
0
0
0
3
155.4
0
50
50
4
577,57
200
50
50
5
235.69
0
0
0
6
41.44
80
0
0
7
238.28
0
40
50
8
25.9
0
0
0
9
248,64
0
20
0
10
69.93
0
0
0
11
367,78
0
0
0
3.1,2.3 fecal Coliform Decay
Fecal coliform bacteria produced in a watershed are subject to die -cuff in the soil and water environment.
Factors that influence their survival include sunlight, temperature, moisture conditions, salinity, soil
conditions, waterbody conditions, settling, and association with particles (USFIPA, 2001). For example,
bacteria survival decreases as temperature increases.
19

Crowders Creek TMD, Final Report
Decomposition of fecal coliform in the soil was initially set at 027 day-' based on the median value for the
soil environment in Crane and Moore (1986). The initial value of coliform decay in stream was set at 1.0
day-' based on the median value of the data in Bowie et al. (1985).
3.1.3 Calibration
Calibration of a dynamic loading model involves both hydrologic and water quality components. First, the
model must be calibrated to represent I'low and temperature in the watershed. Next, water quality
simulations and calibration can be performed. The hydrologic calibration involves comparison of simulated
streamtlows to observed stream low data. Simulated streantflows are generated from input and adjustment
of model parameters, including meteorological, physical and hydrologic response. Parameters are adjusted
within defensible ranges until ,in acceptable agreement is achieved between simulated and observed results.
The ambient station, located in WS 11, and the station at SR 1 131 in WS 5 were used as primary calibration
points. Qualitative (seasonal trends, magnitude and timing of peaks) and quantitative (calibration statistics)
measures were used to evaluate calibration.
3.1.3.1 Flow and `temperature
Precipitation weighting factors and temperature lapse were applied by subwatershed during the calibration
process to improve the relationship between observed and simulated values (`table 7). Precipitation
weighting factors are multipliers applied to the precipitation in the meteorological file to account for local
variations in precipitation amount from orographic effects (varies from 1, unitfess). Average temperature
lapse is the average amount subtracted from the temperature in the meteorological file to account for regional
variations in temperature from orographic effects. A positive value indicates that the catchment is cooler
than its meteorological station (varies from 0, degrees Q.
The parameters associated with soil layers were also adjusted to represent hydrologic response. Four soil
layers are simulated in WARMF with saturated lower layers generally providing baseflow and the upper
layers providing stormflow. Thicker soil layers with lower horizontal conductivity tended to provide greater
baseflow, while thinner layers with higher conductivity often resulted in sharper peaks. The final calibrated
parameters are presented in Appendix Ill.
20

Crowders Creek "INDL
Final Report
"fable 7. Precipitation weighting factors and temperature lapse for the Crowders Creek watershed.
Suhwatershcd
'
Metcorolorical •
St ilr(in
Average �5
1elliperature .°",F
La Esc :y `i
P�rjecipttanon
Wet hung `
rktor i t, r
l
Long; Creek
1.4
1.05
2
Long Creek
1.4
1.05
3
Long Creek
1.4
1.15
4
Long Creek
1.4
1.20
5
Gastonia
1.25
1.10
6
Gastonia
1.25
1.10
7
Gastonia
1.25
1.15
8
Gastonia
1.25
1.10
9
Gastonia
1.25
1.10
10
Gastonia
L25
1.10
II
lGaslollia
1.25
L10
The time series ol' simulated versus observed temperature and flow are presented in Figures 8 thrc:rtrgh 11.
"There were only 16 observed temperature values for the upstream station (Figure 9). Calibration statistics For
the downstream station. which is located upstream of the outlet, are presented in Table 8. R' is the square of
the correlation coefficient between simulated results and observed data over all time steps For which both
exist. A perfect correlation has it value of 1. Relative Error is the average of all errors (difference between
simulated and observed values) over all lime steps for which it can be calculated. It is a measure of model
accuracy. Absolute Error. a measure of model precision, is the average of the absolute value of all errors
over all tirne steps for which it can be calculated. Unlike relative error, overpredictions and underpredictions
do not cancel each other out with ❑bsOlute error. RMS Error is the root -mean -square error, which is the
Square root of the average of the squares of all errors over all tirne steps for which it can be calculated. This
magnifies the effect of larger than average errors.
`fable S. Calibration statistics for temperature and flow in subwatershed 1 I.
FlisrJ'(yrttti) ;..:i�-
.'Teri )crature`(°C) a�
Simulated Mean
L78
15.92
Observed Mean
1.76
15.71
Simulated Range
0.38 to 26.87
2.06 to 27.72
Observed IZaur ge
0.12 to 43.30
4.00 to 25.00
Relative Error
0.02
0.49
Absolute I-rror
0.76
2.15
RMS I-rror
2.07
2.65
R
0.50
0.86
21

� fat
Crowders Creek'CMDL
F;
�lY
40
35
U 30
tlNY
i
� 25
v
7
20
01
t1 15
rE
m
H
10
5
Final Report
A Observed Temperature
4_ n r sY —Simulated Temperature (Downslream)
r �o
x 1 F
r e
9 '
9 a q-
_a
7 : na a a x
p' r i. G r t --'i' = r• y
av
s,
a i$ n a 6 t,rs-'_x�k p " y k -_._ 'i-T c "k•.c 6
;,•°r..�'cLr- '£"Za r.w'�., '" �,z. »a '� �" f rn tin
Jan- Apr- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec-
98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02
Figure 8. Observed vs. simulated temperature at the downstream calibration station in subwatershed 1 I
(R'=0.8G).
40
35
U 30
N
61
(r
6 25
d)
20
ry
°- 15
d
1-
10
5
.. :W. -
--
A Observed Temperature
Simulated Temperature (Upstream)
u
i
-
t
!
__ _
-
F^
y�
lip
G
Rw
k
= -
0
Jan- Apr- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- DBC-
9a 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 e1 01 02 02 02 02
Figure 9. Observed versus simulated temperature at the upstream calibration station in subwatershed 5
(R2=0.98).
22

Crowders Creek'i'MDL
40
35
30
N 25
E
20
O
w
15
1a
5
Final Report
n
n,
e
e Observed Flow
A n
A
—Flow Calibration (Downstream)
4
't;
n
j�e Q
en n o e n
e
e
mNQ°.
G
iA46
n e #I n e
o fA A {1 Q A n A n��,��pp A n. 1A A�rQQrni
_ t Qe,� n.tAt .A� e. -AR ke
0
Jan- Apr- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec-
98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02
Figure 10. Observed versus simulated flow at the downstream calibration station in Subwatershed 11
(R2=0.50).
LU
113
16
14
y 12
E
U
10
O
LL
8
6
4
2
a
e
r
A
• n
7Ob..,,..,Id
—a e
Flow
bration (upstream)
e
n
Q. n
is A
�n A
n nA
1 nll ° °
Q1 oil W arA
Jan- Apr- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec-
9B 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02
Figure 11. Observed versus Simulated Flow at the upstream calibration station in subwatershed 5 (R2=0.43).
23

f'P 6
., Crowders Creek "1'MDL
Final Report
3.1.3.2 Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform loading rates by land use adjusted during calibration are associated with "land application" in
the WARMF model. Forested land uses were reduced to 500 E6 #Iha. Pasture rates ranged from 10,000 to
30,000 E6 #Iha for the populated subwatersheds (WS) in 'fable 6. In WS 4 and 6, cultivated land received
1800 and 2000 E6 #Iha, respectively during March, April, October, and September due to dairy manure
application. Finally, low intensity, high intensity, and commercial/industrial development received 25,000,
30,000, and 15,000 E6 #Iha. respectively. The fraction of impervious surface associated with each of these
land uses was 0.3, 0.651, and 0.75, respectively. Final calibrated decay rates for fecal coliforin were 0.35 day-
1 in the soil environment and 09 day-1 in the.stream.
Calibration statistics for instream fecal coliform are presented in Table 9. While R' is a measure of the
model's ability to predict trends in the data, is often not very useful when there is a large amount of scatter in
observed data. For example, the overall R' for the complete fecal coliform time series is 0.02. However,
individual statistics by year may be more insightful with values of 0.16, 0.86, 0.08, 0.56, and 0.55 for 1998
through 2002. indicating improvement in prediction in the last two years.
The time series of observed versus simulated fecal coliform at subwatershed I I is presented in Figure 12.
The capture of patterns is reasonable, although not all values are predicted well. At SR 1 t31 in
subwatershed 5, fecal coliform data was only available for 2001. which limits the comparison (Figure 13).
Table 9. Calibration statistics for fecal coliform (#/100m1) in subwatershed I I (downstream station).
Mean
376.1
515.9
Milli iuni
45.44
l8
Maximum
3695
4200
# of pts to compare
67
Relative Error
-156.8
Absolute 1 rr(ll'
459.9
RMS Error
967.8
A rolling 30-day geometric mean of observed fecal coliform at SR 2424 and simulated fecal coliform at the
subwatershed I I outlet also suggests that the pattern is tracked, but with a few discrepancies (Figure 14).
24

Crowders Creek TM17L
Final Report
This observed station is near the state line, upstream from the point where simulated results are provided
(Figure 7). A 30-day geometric mean is determined by calculating the geometric mean of an individual
day's fecal concentration and the daily predictions for the 29 days that precede it. The rolling aspect is
achieved by moving to the next day and performing the same calculation.
It is important to note that in addition to the inherent difficulty in predicting fecai coliform, both sets of
observed data are from points upstream of the WS outlet where the simulated results are given.
This may account for some of the differences in modeled and observed values. Land based inputs as weil as
instream decay are expected between the station and the watershed outlet.
10000
a Observed at Ambient Station
—Simulated at Watershed Outlet
a
1000
o_
u
E
D
O
2
m
V
N
LL 100
10
Jan- Apr- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec-
98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 D1 01 02 02 02 02
Figure 12. Observed versus simulated fecal coliforin at subwatershed 11.
25

Crowders Creek TMDL
100000
10000
1000
J
E
# 100
U
m 10
t�
1
Ja
0.1
Final Report
.'
3"
a Observed at SR 1131
—Simulated at WS 5 Oullel
_"
_
Awe A»f
TE
°
°a
a
cF.
l
e
L
t
01 A r 01 r
=
Jun
01
Se 01
p
Dec
.'.�s-,M'^
Figure 13. Observed versus simulated Fecal coliform at SR 1 131 in subwatershed 5.
10000
10
Crowder's Creek Watershed
Rolling 30-day Geometric Mean
11
.;W.._: - - '-- 8 - -
_ - 7
-- - —Simulated 0 Watershed putlat
mm kn .
Observed at SR 2424 -
-- - - _-
--x - -- ----- -- - - --
s NA- - --,- - - - _ -- - -
i
-------- _ - __ - -------
= 4.
a s
....':... ..rt'•:s f rii -�: ix� Las ..:,.: r-...c....e'""a--?'. ^c..£..w...x..�.
Jan-01 Apr-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02
Figure 14. Rolling 30-day geometric means of observed fecal coliform at SR 2424 and simulated fecal
coliform at the subwatershed I I outlet.
20

t
Crowders Creek TMDL
3.1.4 Model Output
Final Report
Existing fecal coliform loading (1998-2002) predicted by the calibrated model is given in Table 10. Urban
land uses contributed 62% of the fecal loading and had the highest loading per unit area. Livestock
agriculture generated the second most fecal loading. Background loading associated with wildlife in forested
land uses was greater than both septic and point sources.
Table 10. Existing fecal coliform loading (1998-2002) by source in the Crowders Creek watershed.
° `
5iini6t&l Land'
6 rsetl Load HE6/d_)
Percent.
Lodding:per ;:<
unrt
11"611ra.
Deciduous Forest
29.100
3
1,260
Evergreen Forest
18,100
2
1,720
Mixed Forest
12,400
1
1,890
Pasture
284,000
28
46,700
Cultivated
14,300
t
1,760
Recr. Grasses
817
0
1,000
Water,
270
0
1,400
Barren
300
0
678
Low Int. Develop.
304,000
30
54,700
Fligh lot. Develop.
155,000
15
121,000
Comm / Industrial
179,000
17
66,600
Wetlands
0
0
0
"Type I Septic System
6,670
1
--
Type 2 Septic System
0
0
--
Type 3 Septic System
2,780
0
General Point Sources
25,300
2
--
TOTAL
1.030.000
100
--
' WARMF accepts inputs for 3 types of septic systems: standard, advanced, and failing.
27

k,
Crowders Creek TMDL Final Report
4 Allocation
4.1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
A Total Maximum Daily Load is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still
meet water quality standards, partitioned among point and nonpoint sources. A TMDL is comprised of the
sum of wasteload allocations (WLA) for point sources, load allocations (LA) for nonpoint sources, and a
margin of safety (MOS), expressed by the equation:
TMDL = E WLA + Z LA + MOS
The objectives of the TMDL are to estimate allowable pollutant loads, and to allocate them among the
general pollutant sources in the watershed. 40 CFR § 130.2 (1) states that TMDLs can be expressed in terms
of mass per time (e.g. pounds per day), toxicity, or other appropriate measures. This TMDL will be
expressed in terms of % load reduction and allowable load of Fecal coliform. It will be set at the outlet of the
modeled watershed, the confluence Of Crowders Creek and Beaverdam Creek in South Carolina.
Two separate model runs were performed to evaluate the fecal coli form standards: a geometric mean
standard (200 cfu/100ml) and South Carolina's instantaneous standard discussed in Section 1.2. The
WARMF model provides a facility in the TMDL module to evaluate each of these directly with a margin of
safety.
Initially, since total existing loading for the point sources was below their allowable load would indicate, the
model was run with existing point source loading and reductions were applied to nonpoint sources only.
However, these initial runs indicated that a TMDL could not be calculated because the fecal standard could
not be met even at zero nonpoint loading. This was due to several observed values in the point source data
file above 400 C'u/100m1. Therefore, the file was adjusted so that all values fell below 400. Simulations
were then run for the two standard evaluations. In order to meet SC's instantaneous standard, a 61 %n
reduction would be needed in total loading versus a 79% reduction needed to meet the geometric mean
standard (Figure 15). The higher percentage was chosen since both standards must be met.
28

Crowders Creek TNIDL
Final Report
The fecal coliform geometric mean reductions were used to develop the TMDl_ loading;. Further analysis -
was required to determine the breakdown between point source (WLA) and nonpoint. source (LA) loadings
that meet the TMDL objectives.
10000 -
Crowder's Creek Watershed
Rolling 30-Day Geometric Mean Fecal Colliorm Concentration (1998-2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------_----
-------------------------------- - - - - -- —Simulated Fecal Colitorm
---------------------------------------
—Standard w/ MOS (175 cfu/100mi)
—TMDL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
in -
Jan- Apr- Jun- $ep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- DeC- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec-
98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02
Figure 15. Results of TIVIDL simulation fora rolling 30-day geometric mean for fecal coliform in the
Crowders Creek watershed.
4.2 Critical Conditions
Critical conditions can be considered a subset of seasonality: the most stringent of the seasons. In the
Crowders Creek watershed, water quality violations of fecal coliform appear to occur during both wet and
dry periods (Figure 5 and 6). Recent ambient data collected in the Crowders Creek watershed indicate
observed exceedances may occur during all times of the year, with the four highest values ifs-
August/September and December/January (Figure 3). The three highest simulated geometric means occurred
in January (Figure 15). However, a greater number of observed exceedances occurred during April —
October and in mid -range to drier flows (Figures 5 and 6). The TMDL has been set such that the standard is
met during all times of the modeled period (1998-2002).
29

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
4.3 .Seasonal Variation
Seasonal variation is considered in the development of the TN4DL because the allocation applies to all
seasons. Seasonal variation in hydrology, climatic conditions, and watershed activities are represented
through the use of a continuous flow gage and the use of all readily available water quality data collected in
the watershed. A wide range of flow conditions is modeled for this TMDL, demonstrated by the interannual
variation in hydrology seen in Figure 5.
4.4 Model Uncertainty and.Margin of Safety
The lack of agreement between modeled and observed fecal coliform concentrations is due in part to the high
degree of uncertainty associated with predicting fecal coliform bacteria. The inability to accurately predict
specific observed fecal coliform concentrations can be attributed to many sources: model error, lack of
sufficient information in source assessment, gaps in our scientific knowledge, natural variability in instream
fecal coliforni concentrations, field and laboratory measurement error, and lack of current site specific model
input parameters including decay rate, flow, rainfall data, and land use information. The watershed model
used in this project estimates daily average fecal coliform concentrations based on land use information.
Because of certain lack of site -specific information, professional judgment and literature values were
Sometimes used to calculate the fecal coliform loading from the various land uses. In sum, the model results
Should be interpreted in light of the model limitations and prediction uncertainty.
The margin of safety is an additional factor of the TMDL that accounts for some of the uncertainty in the
relationship between pollutant loads and receiving water quality. This margin of safety can be provided
implicitly through conservative analytical assumptions and/or explicitly by reserving a portion of the load
capacity. This TMDL utilizes an explicit margin of safety (MOS): the geometric mean target is set at 175
cl'u/100m1 (MOS = 25 cfu/100m1) and the instantaneous limit is set to 360 cfu/100m1 (MOS =40 cftt/1001nl).
30

Crowders Creek TMDL
4.5 Allocatioiz
Final Report
I'he continuous waste load allocation (Table 11) is based on the maximum permitted loading, calculated as
permitted Flow for the Crowders Creek W W'TP plus the minor point sources (6.07 MGD times the 200
cfu1100mL fecal coliform standard). The Crowders Creek WWTP must also must meet monthly geometric
mean of 200 cfull00m1 and cannot exceed 400 cful I00tnl maximum.
"fable 11. "Total maximum daily load allocation for the Crowders Creek watershed (detailed in Appendix).
Units;pc r day.,,
% Reduction <
% of-TlVlDI
TMDL
2.21E+I1
NC Continuous WLA
8.27E+09
0%
3.7%
NC MS4 WLA plus LA -
2.13E+1 l
79%
NC MS4 WLA
7.45E+111
79%
33.7°In
NC LA
I.15E+11
79%n
51.8%n
SC LA
2.361'.+11}
79%
10.7%n
Station CW-023
--
79%
Station CW-024
--
79%n
Station CW-192
--
79%n
Equivalent to a 79% reduction in existing loading (1998-2002).
TMDL minus continuous WLA
NPDES permitted stormwater iticluding that associated with MS4s (small municipal separate storm sewer
systems) must also be included in the wastcload allocation.; Kings Mountain is not an MS4 town, therefore,
their juriscliction within Crowders Creek must be broken out to calculate this portion of the WLA. Kings
Mountain covers 34.1% of the area in WS I and 2. The nonpoint source load from these two subwatersheds
is 19.5%, of the total watershed nonpoint loading. Accordingly, a ratio o1 6.G5% (34,1 %r,* 19.5%) is used to
separate the Kings Mountain LA (1.4E+10 unitsld) from the nonpoint source loading in the remainder of the
watershed (Appendix IV).
3 According to the Phase 11 rules, MS4 perminees are responsible for reducing (lie loads associated with slormwater
outfalls for which it owns or otherwise has responsible control.
31

Crowders Creek'I'MM Final Report
Except for Kings Mountain, the entire NC portion of the Crowders Creek watershed falls within Phase 11
boundaries. Therefore, all fecal loadings from urban land uses within this area were assigned to the WLA
component. Loadings from land uses such as agricultural and forested areas are considered nonpoint sources
and are reported as LAs. A loading ratio based on relative land use and loading rate is used to apportion the
load between WLA and LA ("fable 12). The distribution of the urban (developed land uses) and non -urban
land uses, 14.5 % and 86.5%n, respectively, was determined from the landuse coverage within WARM.F. In
addition, the relative loading rates between the urban and rural landuse types were determined based
modeled unit -loading rates (Table 10).
A load is allocated to SC based on land use and unit loading rates in the border subwatersheds.
Subwatersheds 4, 7, and 11 are split between SC and NC. The land uses are relatively homogenous within
each subwatershed. 'these watersheds are predominately rural in character. WS 4 and I 1 are approximately
one half in SC and WS 7 is approximately one quarter in SC. The TMDL loading per unit area was multiply
by the land use area to generate fecal loading in each of these subwatersheds. As a result, SC is
approximately 1617o of the watershed and will receive a load allocation that is 10.7% of the total nonpoint
source load (see Appendix VI for detail).
Table 12. Relative fecal coliform loading rates in the Crowders Creek watershed.
12.elat>vGxUttd;Us�
Relattvt,iLciadingaR rtc J,Y
Loading Raiic "�
Urban Land
14.5%
81.3%
42.6%
Non-Urhan Land
85.5%
18.6%
57.4%
32

Crowders Creek "TMDL
final Report
5 Implementation Plan
The "TMDL analysis was performed using the best data available to specify the Fecal coliform reductions
necessary to achieve water quality criteria. The intent of meeting the criteria is to support the designated use
classifications in the watershed. A detailed implementation plan is not included in this'I'MDL. The
involvement of local governments and agencies in both NC and SC will be needed in order to develop the
implementation plan. An implementation plan will be developed under a NC 319 grant to Dr. Jy Wu with
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (refer to section 7).
6 Stream Monitoring
Fecal coliform monitoring will continue on a monthly interval at the ambient monitoring sites on Crowders
Creek. Monitoring of fecal coliform concentrations will allow evaluation of progress towards the goal of
achieving water quality standards and intended best uses.
7 Future Efforts
This "TMDL represents an early phase of a long-term restoration project to reduce Fecal coliform loading to
acceptable levels in the Crowders Creek watershed. NCDWQ in cooperation with SC and local governments
should evaluate the progress of implementation strategies and refine the TMDL as necessary. in the next
phase based on NC's five-year basin management cycle. This will include recommending specific
implementation plans for reduction of fecal coliform loading.
The NC 319 Grant program has recently funded a project entitled. Restoring and Assessing, Fecal Coliform
/mpairmen! of Crowders Creek. The principal investigator is Dr. Jy S. Wu with the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The project, an extension of work associated with
the "TMDL, airns to begin restoring the impaired section of the Crowder Creek due to fecal coliform.
Components of the project include installation of new and/or retrofit of existing; structural best management
practices (BMps) and/or low impact design (LIDS) at strategic locations of the Crowders Creek watershed or
at its Blackwood Creek sub -watershed. in addition, a watershed restoration plan for long-term fecal coliform
33

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
mitigation for the Crowders Creek watershed will be developed. The plan will integrate the efforts of" TMDL
modeling, a bacterial source tracking (BST) study by NCDWQ (scheduled for summer 2004), and additional
monitoring and analyses to be performed by the investigators.
S Public Participation
A draft of the Crowders Creek TMDL was publicly noticed through various means, including notification in
the local newspapers of NC and SC. Copies of the affidavits of publication are provided in Appendix IX.
The draft TMDL and public comment information was distributed electronically to known interested parties.
The TMDL was also available from the Division of Water Quality's website at
hupa/h?o.enr.statc.nc.us/tnu[l/ during the comment period. The comment period occurred from March 23,
2004 through May G, 2004. A public meeting was held on April 28 at the Gaston Citizen's Resource Center
in Dallas. NC to present the 'TMDL and answer questions. Nine citizens attended the public meeting" One
comment was received from Mr. Alton C. Boozer, Chief of the South Carolina Bureau ol' Water. A copy of
the letter is located in Appendix X. 'rhe comments were positive and no response is needed.
9 Further Information
Further information concerning North Carolina's TMDL program can be found on the Internet at the
Division of Water Quality website: httpa/h2o.cnr.state.ttc.us/tmdl/.
Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members of the DWQ
Modcling/TMDI_ Unit:
J. Todd Kennedy, Modeler (todd.kenne([e-mail]),
Michelle Woolfolk, Supervisor ([e-mail]).
34

Crowders Creek'lNDL
10 References
Final Report
Bowie. G.L. W.B. Mills, D.B. Porcella, C.L. Campbell, J.R. 11'agenkopf, G.L. Rupp, K.M. Johnson. P.W.H.
Chan, and S.A. Gherini. 1985. Rates, constants, and kinetic formulations in surface water quality modeling.
2' edition. EPA/600/3-85/040. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
Canale, R. P., M.T. Auer, E.M. Owens, T.M. Heidtke, S.W. Effler. 1993. Modeling Fecal Coliform Bacteria
—I1. Model Development and Application. Water Research, 27(4):703-714.
Crane, S.R. and .I. A. Moore. 1986, Modeling enteric bacterial die -off: A review. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 27:41 1-439.
Cleland, B.K. 2002. TMDI. Development from the "Bottom Up" — Part If: Using load duration curves to
connect the pieces. Proceedings from the WEF National TMDL Science and Policy 2002 Conference.
Giese, G.L. and R.R. Mason, Jr. 1993. Low -flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey water -supply paper 2403.
Giffin, Mark. 2003. South Carolina DEI-IC. Personal Communication.
Gordon, R.D. 2003. A fecal Coliform soUrCC assessment for the Crowders Creek watershed. Gaston County,
North Carolina. Civil Engineering Independent Study. Final Project. UNC Charlotte.
Hudson, Craven. 2002, Gaston County Cooperative Extension. Persona! communication.
Mallin. M.A., K.E. Williams, E.C. Esham, and R.P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human development on
bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications, 10(4):1047-1056.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 2001. Agricultural Statistics Division -County Statistics.
www.ncagr.con>/stats/cntysumm/ and]tttp://,c.ovinfo.library.orst.edtl/C i� bitll:tstute'?Notlh+Carolina.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. North Carolina State University (NCSU), College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, Raleigh, Livestock Manure Production and Characterization in North
Carolina. January 1994.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Health (NCDEH). NCDFNR. 1999. North Carolina On -Site
Wastewater Non -Point Source (NPS) Pollution Program. www.cleii.enr.state.IIC.tlti/OWW/Ilc)tlpOilllsotirce/
NPS.htm June 24. 1999.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Health (NCDEH). NCDENR. 2000. Report on the Proper
Maintenance of Septic Tank Systems in Accordance with Section 13.5 of H13 1 160 (Clean Water Act of
1999). http://www.deh.enr-.siate.nc.us/(.)tvw/Mitiiiienance.Pl)l". March 15, 2000,
North Carolina Equine Survey. 1996. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics. NC Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Raleigh, NC — 27611. hitp://www.a r.state.ne. I [ats.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. February 2002. Fecal Coliforin Total Maximum Daily Load for
the Irwin, McAlpine, little Sugar and Sugar Creek Watersheds, Mecklenburg County. Catawba River Basin.
Final report submitted to EPA.
35

Crowders Creek TMDL Final Report
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. August 2002. Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load for the
Clark Creek Watershed, Catawba and Lincoln County. Catawba River Basin. Final Report.
Office of Water. 1997. Guidelines for preparation of the comprehensive state water quality assessments.
EPA-841-B-97-00. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
Stiles, T.C. 2002. Incorporating hydrology in determining TMDL endpoints and allocations. Proceedings
from the WEF National TMDL Science and Policy 2002 Conference.
Systech Engineering. October 2001. Watershed Analysis Risk Management Frame Work (WARM.F): Update
One: A Decision Support System for Watershed Analysis and Total Maximum Daily Load Calculation.
Allocation and Implementation. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1005181.
Thomann, R.V. and Mueller, J.A. 1987. Principles 4f Siuface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper
and Row, New York, NY.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1985. Rates. constants, and kinetics formulations in surface
water quality modeling (11 ed.). Athens, GA: EPA-600-3-85-040.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Guidance for Water Quality -Based Decisions: The
TMDL_ Process. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington, DC,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Advisory Committee (FACA). Draft final TMDL Federal
Advisory Committee Report. 4/28/98,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2000a. Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and
Management Regulation and Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program in
Support of Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and managernent Regulation; Final Rule. Fed. Reg.
65:43586-43670 (July 13. 2000).
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2000b. Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Bacteria — 1986. DRAT~ T. Office of Water. EPA--823- D-00-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2000c. Bacterial Indicator Tool. User's Guide. Office of
Water. EPA-823-B-01-003. March 2000.
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). January 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs:
First Edition. http:l/www.elrt.�Zuv/uwotivland]/techsu�.html.
36

r
Crowders Creek TMDL
11 Appendix
Final Report
Appendix 1. Water gUality data collected in the Crowders Creek watershed (1997-2002).
Station #
Station Description
Date
Fecal ColilOrm
Temp
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
2/28/2001
280
11.7
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
3/5/2001
320
10.8
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
3/12/2001
270
10.7
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
3/19/2001
400
10.1
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
3/26/2001
1285
10.0
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
4/5/2001
400
13.8
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
7/5/2001
4700
22.5
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
7/10/2001
265
22.4
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
7/17/2001
395
23.0
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
7/24/2001
2900
23.0
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
7/31/2001
2000
22.1
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
8/7/2001
132
23.2
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
8/14/2001
5600
23.7
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
8/21/2001
245
22.5
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
8/28/2001
375
21.9
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
9/4/2001
97000
20.7
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
9/10/2002
410
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
9/12/2002
240
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
9/17/2002
2800
13WC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
9/19/2002
1200
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1 136
9/24/2002
900
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
10/l/2002
520
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
10/8/2002
3000
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
10/15/2002
2400
BWC
Blackwood Creek at SR 1136
10/22/2002
5900
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
2/28/2001
41
11,2
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
3/5/2001
210
10.8
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
3/12/2001
76
10.6
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
3/19/2001
66
8.6
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
3/26/2001
315
10.1
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTII)
4/5/2001
115
13.5
CC2
Crowders Creck at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
7/5/2001
265
21.9
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream W WTI')
7/ 10/2001
84
22.7
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
7/17/2001
50
22.1
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
7/24/2001
330
22.7
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
7/31/2001
50
22.4
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
9/7/2001
41
23.6
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
8/14/2001
3600
24.1
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
8/21/2001
60
23.3
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
8/28/2001
83
23.0
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
9/4/2001
36000
20.7
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 109 (Upstream WWTP)
9/10/2002
2600
37

Crowders Crcek TMDL
Final Report
, 1 ,
Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
9/12/2002
130
CCrowders
2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
9/17/2002
1000
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
9/19/2002
2200
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
9/24/2002
370
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
10/l/2002
520
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
10/8/2002
670
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1 108 (Upstream WWTP)
10/15/2002
400
CC2
Crowders Creek at SR 1108 (Upstream WWTP)
10/22/2002
5800
CO
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
2/28/2001
120
11.2
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
3/5/2001
550
11.3
CO
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
3/12/2001
250
11.2
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
3/19/2001
74
10.3
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
3/26/2001
174
11.1
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
4/5/2001
114
13.8
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
7/5/2001
3000
22.1
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
7/10/2001
120
24.2
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
7/17/2001
29
23.5
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
7/24/2001
305
24.4
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state lime
7/31/2001
78
23.5
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
8/7/2001
55
25.0
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
8/14/2001
122
24.6
CO
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
8/21/2001
120
24.2
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
8/28/2001
375
24.4
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
9/4/2001
107000
20.4
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
9/10/2002
250
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
9/12/2002
400
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
9/17/2002
1100
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
9/19/2002
770
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
9/24/2002
380
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state lime
10/l/2002
270
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
10/8/2002
220
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
10/15/2002
400
CC3
Crowders Crk at SR 2424 at NC/SC state line
10/22/2002
4300
CC 1
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
2/28/2001
18
11.7
CC]
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
3/5/2001
220
10.1
CCI
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
3/12/2001
80
9.9
CC1
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
3/19/2001
37
9.9
CC1
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
3/26/2001
200
9.5
cc[
Crowders Creek at SR 1 131
4/5/2001
230
10.7
CC l
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
7/5/2001
3300
23.1
CCl
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
7/10/2001
83
24.0
CCl
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
7/17/2001
260
23.9
CC 1
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
7/24/2001
140
24.1
CC l
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
7/31/2001
380
23.5
CC1
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
8/7/2001
235
25.1
CC1
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
8/14/2001
5000
25.0
cc]
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
8/21/2001
60
25.4
CCl
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
8/28/2001
365
22.8
CC1
Crowders Creek at SR 1131
9/4/2001
6000
20.9
38

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP cffluent
2/28/2001
106
11.3
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
3/5/2001
370
11.2
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluerII
3/12/2001
90
11.5
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
3/19/2001
72
10.4
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
3/26/2001
145
10.7
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
4/5/2001
92
13.9
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
7/5/2001
1603
21.4
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
7/10/2001
33
26.3
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP eftluent
7/17/2001
9
27.0
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
7/24/2001
36
27.5
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
7/311200E
6
27.2
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
8/7/2001
12
28.2
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
8/14/2001
152
26.9
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
9/21/2001
23
27.8
CCE
Crowders Creek WWTP effluent
9/29/2001
20
27.9
CCE
Crowders Creek W W'I'P effluent
9/4/2001
21500
21.3
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1103
2/28/2001
270
11.2
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
3/5/2001
300
10.8
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
3/ 12/2001
220
10.6
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1103
3/19/2001
76
8.6
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1103
3/26/2001
1125
10.1
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
4/5/2001
630
13.5
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
7/5/200t
44
21.9
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1103
7/10/2001
48
22.7
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1103
7/17/2001
35
22.1
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
7/24/2001
86
22.7
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
7/31/2001
58 -
22.4
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1103
8/7/2001
20
23.6
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
8/14/2001
385
24.1
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
8/21/2001
530
23.3
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1 103
8/28/2001
108
23.0
SCC
South Crowders Creek at SR 1103
9/4/2001
28000
20.7
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
2/29/2001
94
11,3
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
3/5/2001
330
11.1
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
31121200E
240
10.7
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1109
3/19/2001
60
10.0
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1109
3/26/2001
106
10.6
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1109
4/5/2001
215
13.6
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
7/5/2001
4000
22.7
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
7/10/2001
465
23.0
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SIt 1 109
7/17/2001
35
22A
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 t09
7/24/2001
365
22.6
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
7/31/2001
320
122.5
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1109
8/7/2001
335
23.7
Sl-CC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1109
8/14/2001
555
24.0
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
8/21/2001
50
23.2
SFCC
South Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1109
8/28/2001
27
22.7
SFCC
ISouth Fork Crowders Creek at SR 1 109
9/4/2001
46000
20.6
CC4
ICROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambicnt)
1/8/1998
42000
15
39

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
2/ 66/1998
230
8
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
3/11/1998
220
8
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
4/28/1998
400
15
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
5/20/1998
420
21
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
6/23/1999
350
23
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
7/22/1998
610
26
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
8/10/1998
1100
23
CC4
CROWDERS CRK Al' SC 564 (NC Ambient)
9/21/1998
1600
23
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
10/29/1998
82
I6
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
1 1/23/1998
64
10
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
12/30/1998
400
7
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
1/27/1999
220
9
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
2/23/1999
73
5
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
3/18/1999
180
12
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
4/27/1999
120
17
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
5/24/1999
100
22
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
6/22/1999
230
19
CC4
CROWDERS CRK ,VI'SC 564 (NC Ambient)
8/3/1999
110
25
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
8/23/1999
210
23
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
9/13/1999
170
21
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
10/19/1999
240
16
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
1 l/4/1999
420
11
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
12/6/1999
800
13
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
1/5/2000
710
9
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
2/21/2000
100
8
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
3/22/2000
440
12
CC4
CROWDERS CRK ATSC 564 (NC Ambient)
4/18/2000
210
16
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
5/17/2000
130
17
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
6/20/2000
260
22
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
7/27/2000
220
22
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
9/13/2000
230
22
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Anihient)
10/19/2000
82
16
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
11/29/2000
190
8
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
12/28/2000
54
4
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
1/29/2001
18
6
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
2/13/2001
230
8
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
4/23/2001
240
18
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
5/29/2001
580
19
CC4
CROWDIRS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
6/14/2001
190
24
CC4
CROWDERS CRK A'I' SC 564 (NC Ambient)
7/23/2001
66
23
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
8/22/2001
110
23
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
9/18/2001
81
18
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
10/22/2001
200
17
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
11/29/2001
260
15
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
12/17/2001
360
12
CC4
CROWDERS CRK Nf SC 564 (NC Ambient)
1/16/2002
200
6
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
2/14/2002
100
8
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
3/18/2002
700
12
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
4/25/2002
320
18
40

Crowders Creek'l'1vIDL
Final Report
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
5/22/2002
280
14
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
6/13/2002
210
23
CC4
CROWDIERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
7/l/2002
260
25
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Amhient)
8/13/2002
87
24
CC4
CROWDLRS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
9/9/2002
190
22
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
10/24/2002
320
15.3
CC4
CROWDERS CRK AT SC 564 (NC Ambient)
1 1/20/2002
160
9.6
41

Crowders Creel: TMDl-
Final Report
Appendix ll. Land use by WARMI~ subwatershed based on 1993-1996 landcover in the Crowders Creek
watershed.
WARMF LU
°h
ni^2
111i^2
l
1119
Deciduous Forest
27.59
6.85E+06
2.64
Evergreen Forest
12.9
3.20E+06
1.24
Mixed Forest
7.19
1.79E+06
0.69
Pasture
6.77
1.68E+06
0.65
Cultivated
14.55
3.61E+06
1.39
Recr. Grasses
2.46
6.111'-+05
0.24
Water
0.24
5.96E+04
0.02
Barren
1,21
3.001 +05
0. t2
Low Int. Develop.
12.63
3.14E+06
1.21
High Int. Develop.
3.49
8.67E+05
0.33
Comm I Industrial
10.24
2.54E+06
0.98
Wetlands
0.74
1.84E+05
0.07
TOTAL
100
9.59
2.48 Fi+07
1118
%
Deciduous Forest
56.8
9.27E+06
3.58
Evergreen Forest
11.41
1.86E+06
0.72
Mixed Forest
5.8
9.47E+05
0.37
Pasture
5.4
8.81E+05
0.34
Cultivated
7.72
1:26E+06
0.49
Recr, Grasses
2.35
3.84E+05
0.15
Water
0.13
2.12E+04
0.01
Barren
0.32
5.22E+04
0.02
Low Int. Develop,
4.74
7.74E+05
0.30
High Int. Develop.
1.6
2.61E+05
0.10
Comm / Industrial
2.78
4.54E+05
0.18
Wetlands
0.92
1.50E+05
0.06
TOTAL,
100
6.30
1.63E+07
3
1102
%n
Deciduous Forest
65.61
1.95E+07
7.53
Evergreen Forest
11.01
3.27E+06
1.26
Mixed Forest
7.8
2.32E+06
0.89
Pasture
5.22
1.55E+06
0.60
Cultivated
7
2.08E+06
0.80
Recr. Grasses
0.08
2.38E+04
0.01
Water
0.37
1.10E+05
0.04
Barren
0.16
4.75E+04
0.02
Low Int. Develop.
1.71
5.08E+05
0.20
High Int. Develop.
0
0.00E+00
0.00
Comm I Industrial
0.48
1.43E+05
0.06
Wetlands
0.54
1.60E+05
0.06
TOTAL
100
42

Crowder:s Creek'I'MDL
Final Report
2.97E+07
4
1106
%
Deciduous Forest
15.05
4.89E+06
1.89
1vergreen Forest
23.78
7.73E+06
2.98
Mixed Forest
14.75
4.79E+06
1.85
Pasture
17.74
5.77E+06
2.23
Cultivated
22.79
7.41E+06
2.86
Recr. Grasses
0.23
7.48E+04
0.03
Water
0.28
9.10E+04
0.04
Barren
2.17
7.05E+05
0.27
Low Int. Develop.
1.65
5.36E+05
0.21
High Int. Develop.
0
o.00r-_+00
0.00
Comm 1 Industrial
0.36
1.17E+05
0.05
Wetlands
1.21
3.93E+05
0.15
'TOTAL
100
3.25E+07
5
1111
%n
Deciduous Forest
34.16
1.89E+07
728
Evergreen Forest
13.76
7.60E+06
2.93
Mixed Forest
8.18
4.52E+06
1.74
Pasture
4.29
2.37E+06
0.91
Cultivated
5.94
3.28E+06
1.27
Rem Grasses
1.85
1.02E+06
0.39
Water
0.3
1.66E+05
0.06
Barren
0.38
2.10E+05
0.08
Low Int. Develop.
16.86
9.31E+06
3.59
1-ligh Int. Develop.
5.45
3.01E+06
1.16
Comrn / Industrial
8.35
4.61E+06
1.78
Wetlands
0.47
2.5917-+05
0.10
TOTAL
too
5.521?+07
6
1110
%
Deciduous Forrest
43.52
3.641E+06
1.40
Evergreen forest
15.63
1.31E+06
0.50
Mixed Forest
8.34
6.97E+05
0.27
Pasture
4.85
4.05E+05
0.16
Cultivated
8.1
6.77E+05
0.26
Kerr. Grasses
0.85
7.10E+04
0.03
Water
0.1
8.35E+03
0.00
Barren
0.17
1.421"-+04
0.01
Low Im. Develop.
14.58
1.221E+06
0.47
High lnt. Develop.
1.61
L35E+05
0.05
Conan / Industrial
1.69
1.41E+05
0.05
Wetlands
0.56
4.68E+04
0.02
TOTAL
100
8.351E+06
7
1101
Deciduous Forest
0
0.0017'+00
0.00
43

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
Evergreen Forest
24.13
2.78E+06
1.07
Mixed Forest
20.68
2.38E+06
0.92
Pasture
20.74
2.39E+06
0.92
Cultivated
27.08
3.12E+06
1.20
Recr. Grasses
0
0.00E+00
0.00
Water
0.29
3.341?+04
0.01
Barren
0.18
2.07E+04
0.01
Low [tit. Develop.
4
4.60E+05
0.18
High Int: Develop.
0.02
2.30E+03
0.00
Comm I Industrial
0.51
5.87E+04
0.02
Wetlands
2.36
2.72E+05
0.10
TOTAL
100
I.15E+07
8
1108
%
Deciduous Forest
53.53
1.64E+06
0.63
Evergreen Forest
11.97
3.66E+05
0.14
Mixed Forest
12.69
3.88E+05
0.15
Pasture
8.6
2.63E+05
0.10
Cultivated
7.75
2.37E+05
0.09
Recr. Grasses
021
6.421:+03
0.00
Water
0
0.001"+00
0.00
Barren
0.21
6.42E+03
0.00
Low Int. Develop.
1.92
5.87E+04
0.02
High Int. Develop.
0
0.00E+00
0.00
Comm / Industrial
L58
4.83E+04
0.02
Wetlands
1.53
4.68E+04
0.02
TOTAL
100
3.06E+06
9
1099
%
Deciduous Forest
19.96
3.75E+06
1.45
Evergreen Forest
18.92
3.53E+06
1.36
Mixed Forest
9.15
1.72E+06
0.66
Pasture
13.28
2.49E+06
0.96
Cultivated
16,27
3.06E+06
1.18
Recr. Grasses
2.12
3.98E+05
0.15
Water
0.27
5.07E+04
0.02
Barren
0.75
1.41 E+05
0.05
Low Int. Develop.
11.28
2.12E+06
0.82
High Int. Develop.
1.2
2.25E+05
0.09
Comm / Industrial
6.54
1.23E+06
0.47
Wetlands
0.36
6.76E+04
0.03
TOTAL
100
1.88E+07
10
1100
%
Deciduous Forest
6.32
1.46E+05
0.06
Evergreen Forest
12.28
2.84E+05
0.11
Mixed Forest
18.38
4.26E+05
0.16
Pasture
30.22
7.00E+05
0.27
44

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
Cultivated
20.91
4.82E+05
0.19
Recr. Grasses
0.74
1.71 E+04
0.01
Water
0.59
1.37E+04
0.01
Barren
1.69
3.91E+04
0.02
Low Int. Develop.
4.63
1.07F.+05
0.04
High Int. Develop.
0
0.00E+00
0.00
Cornet I Industrial
1.25
2.89E+04
0.01
Wetlands
3.09
7.16F,+04
0.03
TOTAL
100
2.32E+06
11
1095
%
Deciduous Forest
41.83
1.59E+07
6.15
1?vergreen Forest
17.08
6.50E+06
2.51
Mixed Forest
10.39
3.96E+06
1.53
Pasture
9.68
3.68E+06
1.42
Cultivated
11.88
4.52E+06
1.75
Recr. Grasses
0.97
3.69E+05
0.14
Water
0.4
1.52E+05
0.06
Barren
0.2
7.61E+04
0.03
Low Int. Develop.
5.45
2.07E+06
0.80
High lnt. Develop.
0.5
1.90L-+05
0.07
Cornet / Industrial
1.11
4.23E+05
0.16
Wetlands
0.5
1.90E+05
0.07
TOTAL
100
3.81 E+07
2.41 E+08
108.79
45

Crowders Creek TMDL
Appendix M. Calibrated soil layer parameters.
Final Report
Subwatershed Soil Layer Area Thickness Initial Field Sat. Horizontal Vertical Root Density Soil
m2 cIn Moisture Capacity Moisture Cond. cnt/d Cond. cm/d Distr, g/cm3 Tortuosity
-
1
1
24829000
25
0.20
0.15
0.20
9800
3
0.75
0.2
10
2
24829000
60
0.28
0.20
0.30
3000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
24829000
50
030
0.25
0.30
2500
80
O.l
1.3
10
4
23180000
100
0.37
0.28
0.37
1500
60
0.05
1.5
10
2
l
16321000
25
0.20
0.15
0.20
9800
3
0.75
0.2
10
2
16321000
60
0.30
0.20
030
3000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
16321000
50
0.35
0.25
0.30
2500
80
0.1
1.3
10
4
15239000
100
0.37
0.28
0.37
1500
60
0.05
1.5
10
15239000
100
0.37
0.28
0.37
1500
60
0.05
1.5
10
3
1
29711000
25
0.22
0.15
0.20
9800
3
0.75
0.2
10
2
29711000
60
0.30
0.20
0.30
3000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
29711000
75
0.35
0.25
0.30
1000
80
0.1
1.3
10
'
4
27737000
150
0.37
0.28
0.37
300
60
0.05
1.5
10
4
1
32506000
25
0.22
0.15
0.20
9800
3
0.75
02
10
2
32506000
60
0.30
0.20
0.30
3000
40
0.1
1.3
l0
3
32506000
75
0.35
0.25
0.30
1000
80
0.1
1.3
10
4
30343000
150
0.37
0.28
10.37
300
60
0.05
1.5
10
5
1
55196000
40
0.24
0.15
0.20
9700
25
0.75
0.2
10
2
55196000
80
0.32
020
0.35
2000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
55196000
50
0.38
0.28
0.35
2000
60
0.1
1.3
10
4
51529000
150
0.38
0.27
0.36
300
60
0.05
1.5
10
6
1
8354000
40
0.22
0.15
0.20
9700
25
0.75
0.2
10
2
8354000
80
0.30
0.20
0.35
2000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
8354000
75
0.38
0.28
0.35
2000
60
0.1
1.3
10
4
7798700
150
0.38
0.22
0.36
300
60
0.05
1.5
10
7
1
11509000
40 10.22
0.15
0.20
9700
25 10.75
10.2
Ito
46

I
Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
2
11509000
80
030
0.20
0.35
2000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
11509000
75
0.38
0.28
0.35
2000
60
0.1
1.3
10
4
10743000
150
0.38
0.22
0.36
300
60
0.05
1.5
10
8
1
3056600
40
0.22
0.15
0.20
9700
25
0.75
0,2
10
2
3056600
80
0.30
0.20
0.35
2000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
3056600
75
0.38
0.28
0.35
2000
60
0.1
1.3
10
4
2853600
150
0.38
0.22.
0.36
300
60
0.05
1.5
10
9
1
18777000
40
0.22
0.15
0?0
9700
25
0.75
0.2
l0
2
18777000
80
0.30
0.20
0.35
2000
40
0.1
1.3
!0
3
18777000
75
0.39
0.28
0.35
2000
60
0.1
1.3
10
4
17530000
150
0.38
0.22
0.36
300
60
0.05
L5
10
10
1
2315900
40
0.20
0.15
0.20
9700
25
0.75
0.2
10
2
2315900
80
0.30
0.20
0.35
2000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
2315900
75
US
0.28
0.35
2000
60
0.1
1.3
10
4
2161800
150
0.38
0.22
0.36
300
60
0.05
1.5
10
11
1
38067000
40
0.22
0.15
0.20
9700
25
0.75
0.2
10
2
39067000
80
0.30
0.20
0.35
2000
40
0.1
1.3
10
3
38067000
75
0.38
0.28
0.35
2000
60
0.1
1.3
10
4
35537000
150
0.38
0.22
0.36 1300
60
0.05 i
1.5
10
47

Crowders Creek TMDL
Appendix IV. Load allocation calculation for Kings Mountain,
Final Report
TMDL Loading
Loading per unit area
Fecal Loading
WARMF LU
%
111112
mi^2
ha
IE6/ha)yr
IE6/yr
1
1119
Deciduous Forest
27.59
6850404
12.644941
685.0397
Deciduous Forest
282
193181,196
Evergreen Forest
12.9
3202980
11.23667
320.2976
Evergreen Forest
380
121713.1069
Mixed Forest
7.19
1785227
0.689276
178.5225
Mixed Forest
415
74086.83272
Pasture
6.77
1680944
0.649012
168.0942
Pasture
9910
11665813,452
Cultivated
14.55
3612663
1.394849
361.266
Cultivated
388
140171.19
Recr. Grasses
2.46
610800.8
0.23583
61.08002
Recr. Grasses
217
13254.36367
Water
0.24
59590.32
0.023008
5.959026
Water
312
1859.216125
Barren
1.21
300434.5
0.1 15998
30.04342
Barren
166
4987 208211
Low Int. Develop,
12.63
3135941
1,210787
313.5937
Low Int. Develop.
11600
3637687.447
High Int. Develop.
3.49
866542.6
10.334572
86.65417
High Int. Develop.
25600
2218346.761
Comm / Industrial
1024
2542520
10.981667
254.2518
Comm / Industrial
14100
3584950.066
Wetlands
0.74
183736.8
10.070941
18.37366
Wetlands
0
0
Sutra
11656050-94
2
IH8
%
Deciduous Forest
56.8
9270442 �3.579318
927,0432
1
jDecidUOUs Forest
282
261426.1917
Evergreen Forest
11,41
1862249 10.719014
186.2247
Evergreen Forest
380
70765,38819
Mixed Forest
5.8
946629.E 10,365494
94,66287
Mixed Forest
415
39285,08911
Pasture
5.4
881344.8 10.340287
88,13439
Pasture
9910
873411.8234
Cultivated
7.72
1259997
0.486485
125.9995
Cultivated
388
48887.82074
Recr. Grasses
2.35
383548.2 10.148083
38.35478
1
Recr. Grasses
217
8322987617
Water
0.13
21217.5E
O.008 992
2.121754
Water
312
661.98721
Barren
0.32
52227.84 10.020165
5,222779
Barren
166
866.981277
Low Int. Develop.
4.74
773624.9
0.298697
77.36241
Low Int. Develop.
11600
897403.9634
High Int. Develop.
1.6
261139.2
0.100826
26.11389
High Int. Develop.
25600
668515.6835
Comm I Industrial
2.78
453729.4
0.175185
45.37289
Comm / Industrial
14100
639757.7578
Wetlands
0.92
150155 10.057975
15.01549
Wetlands
0
0
Sum
3509305.674
in units/d
48

I
Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
Grand Sum for entire Crowders= 2.13E+1 1
Grand Sum
15165357
4.15E+10
Grand Sum for WS I and 2
14.15E+10
19.51%
34.10%
1
Kings Mtn LA
5171387
1212980.7
19.51% 134.10%
6.65%
5.17E- 12
1.42E+10
49

Crowders Creek TMDL
Appendix V. Modeled fecal coliform loading scenarios.
Final Report
Simulated Fecal Coliform Loading
Current Conditions
Geometric Mean
SC Instantaneous
SC Instantaneous
11-6/d
wl modified point source
w/ modified point source
crowd calibfin
crowd tmdl
crowd_tmdl 2
crowd_tmdl_3
Managed Flow
10
0
0
0
Groundwater Pumping
0
0
0
0
Deciduous Forest
29100
6510
10900
11900
Evergreen Forest
18100
3990
6680
7290
Mixed Forest
12400
2720
4550
4970
Pasture
284000
60200
101000
I10000
Cultivated
14300
3160
5280
5770
Recr. Grasses
817 1177
296
323
Water
270
60
101
110
Barren
300
74
122
133
Low 1nt. Develop,
304000
64400
108000
118000
High Int. Develop.
155000
32800
54900
59900
Comm / Industrial
179000
37900
63400
69200
Wetlands
0
0
0
0
General Nonpoint Sources
0
0
0
0
Direct Precipitation
0
0
0
0
Direct Dry Deposition
0
0
0
0
Type 1 Septic System
6670
699
1200
1310
Type 2 Septic System
0
0
0
0
Type 3 Septic System
2780
291
499
547
Unpermitted Surface Mines
0
0
0
0
Unpermitted Deep Mines
0
0
0
0
Permitted Surface Mines
0
0
0
0
Permitted Deep Mines
0
0
0
0
General Point Sources
25300
8220
25300
8220
Islonpoint Total
1006737
212981
356927
389453
TOTAL
1036000
221000
382000
397000
Reduction Required
79%
63%
61%
50

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
Appendix VI. Load allocation calculations for South Carolina portion of Crowders Creek.
Subwatersheds 4,7, and I 1 are split between SC and NC.
The landuses are relativeiy homogenous within each subwatershed. These watersheds are predominately rural in character.
4 and 1 I are 1/2 in SC and 7 is 1/4 in SC.
TMDL Loading
WARMF LU
%
m^2
mi^2
ha
Loading per unit area
Fecal
Loading
NC
SC
Subwatershed 4
IE6/ha/yr
IE6/yr
1106
Deciduous Forest
115.05
4892273.40
1.89
489.23
Deciduous Forest
282
137961.97
Evergreen Forest
23.78
7730117.04
2.98
773,01
Evergreen Forest
380
293744.15
Mixed Forest
14.75
4794753.00
1.85
479,47
Mixed Forest
415
198982.05
Pasture
17.74
5766706-32
2.23
576,67
Pasture
9910
5714800.2.
Cultivated
22,79
7409299.72
2.86
740.83
Cultivated
388
287441.74
Recr. Grasses
0.23
74765.64
0.03
7.48 -
Recr. Grasses
217
1622.4128
Water
0.28
91019.04
0.04
9.10
Water
312
2839-7912
Barren
2.17
705397,56
0.27
70.54
Barren
166
11709,588
Low Int, Develop.
1.65
536362.20
0.21
53.64
Low Int. Develop.
11600
62217953
High Int. Develop,
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High Int. Develop.
25600
0
Comm / Industrial
0.36
117024.48
0.05
1 1.70
Comm / Industrial
14100
165004.35
Wetlands
121
393332.28
0.15
39.33
Wetlands
0
0
1255
Sum
7436285.8
3718143
3718143
Subwatershed 7
1101
Deciduous Forest
0A0
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deciduous Forest
282
0
Evergreen Forest
24.13
2777218 22
11.07
277.72
Evergreen Forest
380
105534.19
Mixed Forest
20.6$
2380143.92
0.92
239.01
Mixed Forest
415
98775,874
Pasture
20,74
2387049-56
0.92
238.70
jPasture
9910
2365563.7
Cultivated
27.08
3116745.52
1.20
311.67
lCultivated
388
120929.61
Recr. Grasses
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
IRecr,
Grasses
217
0
Water
0.29
33377.26
0.01
3.34
lWater
312
1041.3695
Barren
0.18
20716.92
0.01
2.07
Barren
166
343.90053
Low Int. Develop.
4.00
460376.00
0.18
46.04
Low Int. Develop.
11600
534035.63
High Int. Develop.
0.02
230L88
0.00
0.23
High Int. Develop.
25600
5892-8069
51

Crowders Creek TMDL
Final Report
Comm / Lidustrial
0.51
58697.94
0.02
5.87
Comm / I ndustrial
14100
82764.013
Wetlands
2.36
271621.84
0.10
27.16
Wetlands
0
0
4.44
Sum
3314881.E
2486161
828720
Subwatershed I
1095
Deciduous Forest
41.83
1592380257
6.15
1592.38
Deciduous Forest
282
449050,78
Evergreen Forest
17.08
6501997.32
2.51
650.20
Evergreen Forest
380
247075.65
Mixed Forest
10.39
3955254.8E
1.53
395.53
Mixed Forest
415
164142.91
Pasture
9.68
3684972.72
1.42
368.50
Pasture
9910
3651804.3
Cultivated
11.88
4522466.52
1.75
452.25
Cultivated
388
175471.53
Recr. Grasses
0.97
369258.63
0.14
36.93
Recr. Grasses
217
8012.9043
Water
0.40
152271,60
0.06
115.23
Water
312
4750.8692
Barren
0.20
76135.80
0.03
7.61
Barren
166
1263.853
Low Ent. Develop.
5.45
2074700.55
0.80
207.47
Low Int. Develop.
11600
2406650.2
High Int. Develop.
0.50
190339.50
0.07
19.03
High Int. Develop.
25600
487268.63
Comm I Industrial
1.11
422553.69
0.16
42.26
Comm I Industrial
14100
595800.11
Wetlands
0.50
190339.50
0.07
19.03
Wetlands
0
0
14.70
Sum
8191291.8
4095646
4095646
Units are IE6/yr
Grand
Total
31.69
Grand Sum
18942459
10299950
8642509
SC
14.7352
15.9%
54.37%
45.63%
Total Crowder
92.9
'Total Nonpoint Crowder
Loading
77737956
4,7,11 percent of total
24.37%n
13.25%
11.12%n
52

Crowders Creek TMDL
Appendix VII. Crowders Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL Allocation Worksheet
Final Report
Crowder's Creek Watershed
Fecal Coliform Allocation Worksheet
units/d
% of'rNIDL
T1L11D L 12.21
E+ I 1
Continuos WLA *
S.27E+09
3.7%n
Background LA **
1.30E+10
MS4 WLA plus LA ***
2.13E+11
SC LA ****
2.36E+10
10.7%
Kings Mtn LA
1.41E+10
MS4 WLA plus NC LA
1.89E+I I
MS4 WLA
7.45E+10
33.7%n
NC LA
1.15E+11
51.8%
100%
* Based on maximum ermitted loading, calculated as permitted flow (wwtp plus small
pt. Sources = 6.07 tngd) times 200 cfu/mL standard.
Crowders Creek W%VTP will need to reduce loading to also meet the 400 cfu/100ml instantaneous standard.
** Back round is based on 5.9% loading derived from this landuse(forested/wetland/greens ace.
***TMDL minus continous WLA minus Background LA.
**** Based on landuse and unit load rates in border watersheds.
53

Crowders Creek "I"MDI- Final Report
Appendix VIII. Septic system loading estimates for the Crowders Creek watershed.
acres
population served
pop/acre
pop/sgmi
North Crowders Subwatershed
Census Tract
Septic Systems
Density
13737
(number)
(people/system)
316*
259
2,78
720
318
88
2.89
254
331
107
2.78
296
317.02
167
2.77
463
317.01
237
2.66
629
2363
0.17
110
Central Crowders Subwatershed
Census Tract
Septic Systems
Density
9175
(number)
(people/system)
332.01
181
3.41
616
317.02
229
2.77
633
317,01
127
2.66
339
334
579
2.94
1702
3290
0.36
229
Blackwood Creek Subwatershed
Census Tract
Septic Systems
Density
2202
(number)
(people/system)
318
20
2.89
58
331
73
2.78
204
332.01
328
3,41
1119
1382
0.63
402
South Crowders Subwatershed
Census Tract
Septic Systems
Density
10686
(number)
(people/system)
317.02
13
2.77
36
334
163
2.94
480
317.01
942
2.66
2507
3023
0.28
181
Lower Crowders Subwatershed
Census Tract
Septic Systems
Density
8792
(number)
(people/system)
332.02
409
2.71
1108
333.02
744
1.79
1331
334
304
2.94
894
3334
0.38
243
Grand Total
13391
0.36
233
Notes: Data from Gordon (2003). Per Gordon (2003), because tract boundaries do not exactly follow watershed
boundaries, tract % and acreages may not add correctly. For tracts that lie significantly outside of watershed
boundaries, population estimates were adjusted accordingly. Calculations in italics are by NC DWQ.
54

CroNvders Creek TMI)L
Final Report
Appendix [X. Affidavits of Publication for Public Notices
• tuu.lc IlS,Itr
;1l-i1`1DA VIT 01i INSEkTION OF :tl.)1'1:1t'CJwI 191?,� � •�^
'E'!u# {,�r►sf{In f:asr.4^[[l�
.}rr•'.1 "" o•'�
r f:»pre eri�
l�ulhrnlp, tii;
mh/Ay dI tia
n�+K""'+'
t;yW,tn l;ls:at,i
-
,t,h
pn,R+nlrr,w"'
f,_4tC�tt�tr iirr WfcW L'!tl,t r1AWAIr:ltty M a;s # ill Jts:'IYttf t:aricq {s1E%11a. tli- ra_q!x
tq
i.
IhLI 11C ai rrr.,-,I-lit
4,T;
1� ra'rrv*,
IY?iFL]{=tkCtlTs�-1'�:rr't,t.7hh:FP.t1[�t 11/�!I_l' l..!1iSt
Ys„ov„ ry,c: a;xihl
i'Mlr:l.tl��kt[R?W7,IF,F44t' Pllti
�wru.•x �«w
„paf r�r war kc:r'
hhpp.� � arar..wa.a,
a�+Fp W>wi m'u'i1
,tilutirirl„ 7i� ! r - [ x:lili�:,i} ' [Kµi{fi'r'r r t_ c',!uLrfurl;i,li�„tr(al,i+!�inrssrr[
-
rHt rr.t+.-�
w�,,rtnxv!
N1ARr,t.:a.XW
!�It{i,�x 1lirthtirl� t
r Iy' il.hdacrrv�l;
SutatrfntnI&tjtwl;bw:Kim Ilk,.[3.,{aY'll La4;,�_____,_.___,
ig
l r
�t�itiY t,_yrit
''�is+li Yrxrr t1, r..Nrr..u'; Publir-
;,.�5• GiC:]EI Il1�i�r,r F=tl:i rr3 %[DIZtn1f~ I,I, =1klA
55

Crowders Creek'FMDL
Blatt taf .Soulh Carolina
t�ll?•77rF 01: MFIK
I! kisiL#ti`�f! :-'m a4v s rt rmv! :aat ahc �: dne alk wli7iie,1 m:traa,,v qk
att . �ia'tn, F.va�ir ncK=g�!Fer aattk:hmj is YZI& $.C,, a.t.f 11ml, 0.6
Fa '9rl :t�r.?c« tS�Xilllnt� ar=r�,; c.'n=� pjbL, lmJ its s. d . «ww Vic, 7e icc a ezd
,4��. �,7T ,W,�JIIGC�R1Vu ►t�Ew l.p - titSt.t'.ESt:I'�sitkl7i tsaix]Exti 2�� F�''7 da�p'cl
i-$ - _ _ _ _ _� ki. E •e �'°.-Yj S;'�' 37F Oil (f.w �y4 ti ; a Gt
tawon. I:.; c"11 aFww crar 0.
51iieFr.e7:it L :k'm
Final Report
56

Crowders Creek TMD1.
Appendix X. Comments on the Crowders Creek TMDIa
4`'tNl
11s i:RW��
FFF��� TT
II..,,II, ha..,Sltl
tr4 jj"' ++l_ L-;.
ife.=CJ,1
1:.1+.4 t!tRl,f]bxr:�.re
;js:.,3:r.�'t7.1`Lh��sc�,' dL4•�irisxfiFr:-amt:x�z
t5ltifll ti. �iI!}I
vVillct' iuXivi`luulunkftramh
Nt. tlii'ivgul'A «'i!IcI'Q!i:tllly
1q,0 1x rdd �mfYibe t;rnl.t'
kalcipl� ;cC''i u�!3.16J
tiul;jhl: t:cttn ...-" i r.01vi-i011
Ctl:ck Fk-c:l i..alifc}rsts `lid DL
fix tity�cll l xn.}intl thltsutln mt at I.Irzxllt .IFI€I fst5'IfrtnFT€trr,ul I::ulll l'.'I I;tiCi}}Ila:)
il'L'll'a't:{I Ilr�t% r'Mi11i,i�,'fir,'.'ft„�I !J€Itdt° �.tx+.�l�'i1: `��!'�ti:1 I;:.dr;�rrtr,�i,l� l,ll.•II IL!v� F,�f.,k..l�'1'1 f14
1,1 teck'ttvi All id•!illlfrh i;,; I I ti�,11il, (:ILIWL-r'a t~malt iSILtL'i fle;ir GMS.I€:IEVY, Nc. ----rj f1'rw% ilia;l
Yl,k& t.'VnE,'. SC:. 1114 MDE41-11 hits hC.V1 litnlll (41 tip i:lipuilyd by Ie cal. all: fo fill lfti['eclitl
ilt 41111 ll:i3K =1 lltawd i';it b:tllt :Sti!1E lit , Tiv-,'I'Irf(i)•i..:Ils; r:l€ :� 7'.1 a reda4iisur in
Is+alturi f11 f4uhtce. ti.14161ins Slot Inlowtut
Sr1)IfliC sufllsvtUIticT.+lLiLIFuLLOw--i4wv WWI ill luid'fiiurntl:llitlns, 'I'lif: t:urf4
r,llllr.r.l,ni:urm kit t:-Z111 inli[�IItC}�l EY3:l the ilteMn Gi Ntlulb C.Ul ilEilt.i S'i:111+I 4WIlilj
w-m!tflyd, The puideliltl'. lklirm-m II'.at Ilse lllilltry„7 ki araL mini 41 1'•Itdina will cnzlm:: (lie,
str:iml lit rn.c hulb 111C-i:ISl:lFli:l;:i:r,�2.ut111 �.I;�illtl�CficsncLi lrittll .)I ZS"Abils (;wllw's
ils�ttlrtf, 'Cpr. "tell?I, Illb" plrrritl� a lasgc"Urrlri n i11: Stfelti•, Tho TIT bl. will ;Fffccl
Ihrrtr :10j4djiiLmd shm l Mina.. 0- V-023, cW-41•l. fnxi C:%V-I!17_;
In :Ilt€li€i•':tl. Ni"i7VT'i Ilia, Ctita�*l: a e I'J 11401'ecl ra di:vF_II)p In 91171-1@ilWI1lLtlM f11:111 fiarl>hii,
T'L';l'11' til`I)1X-:XlWTa €lueminnOn ih:,dam up ii fTsuw'duin Cwc4_
�II1r:i:f4l'i.
!.III I,t�, [t Ef11^tll r.;1 1ti :Iha`
Alwb iliilliel
F.rit:'f -'w ill
r tip: I I=Wliee. LVA IC.�pYt d
Final Report
pf,I.sls
I .a L 1­1
I. Ifwlnrlle�l�t
i! + S 1 10 L l 0 1., II .% ti 1 ti1 :, l 1' Olt- I I i, t. tt'; r tl l t l
va}rs711c•liWtrrt � ti:,�*rolRw+:i�:+rl I'i.trstlll�!i!'lt3�,l� � .w.+rii><utl
57

Gastonia MS4 Review, NCS000429
May 19, 2004
KBP
Background
The City of Gastonia reports 66,277 permanent residents. The town is in Gaston County and the
City's MS4 drains into the Catawba River Basin only, although a portion of the city limits (Crowders
Mountain State Park) drains to the Broad River Basin. The zoning jurisdiction area is 57.58 square
miles, and the MS4 area served is 44.18 square miles. Land use is reported as 27% residential, 2%
industrial, 33% open, and 38% commercial. The application identifies fifteen major receiving waters,
thirteen classified C, one classified B, and one classified WS-V. The responsibilities for elements of the
Stormwater Management Program are spread throughout city and county government with
approximately 16 different people or departments identified as contributing to the Program.
Application review
a) The four -page permit application has been signed and sufficiently completed. OK
b) Section 7.1 Public Education - Sufficient content (year one actions, minorities and
disadvantaged included by virtue of public school program, brochures, PLUS utility mail
outs to home owners and businesses, TV spots, stream signage, storm drain labeling,
cooperate with KGB, Big Sweep, and Stream Clean.) Web site not proposed, but
considering the other extensive measures, ok. OK
c) Section 7.2 Public Involvement - Sufficient content (Citizens' Advisory Panel input on the
development and implementation of the program, PLUS volunteer drain marking, stream
clean-ups, coordination with KGB.) OK
d) Section 7.3 Illicit Discharges - Sufficient content (develop program, establish ordinance,
mapping, dry weather flow inspections, training, PLUS mail out education efforts.) OK
e) Section 7.4 Construction Site Runoff - Sufficient content (reliance on DLR program for
sediment and erosion control, PLUS consider adoption of the superior Gaston County
erosion program.) OK
f) Section 7.5 Post Construction Management - Sufficient content (Commitment to adopt the
Post Construction provisions of the Temporary Rule PLUS pre-existing city regulations with
like objectives.) OK
g) Section 7.6 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping - Sufficient content (inventory of
facilities, training, PLUS inspections, tracking tools.) OK
h) Staffing and budget - Sufficient. The Management Program activities fall to a wide variety
of departments and personnel, including the Citizens Advisory Panel. The city already has
staff positions and departments addressing stormwater, and no new positions are
indicated. No budget information is provided, but an administrative agency is already in
place, presumably with adequate budget. OK
i) Timing - Sufficient. Some public education BMPs start in the first year. Other minimum
measures are timely. OK
j) Measurable goals - Sufficient. OK
k) Program is consistent with temporary rules in effect at the time of submittal.
Program is approvable as is.
September 7, 2004 subsequent review of Gastonia's MS4 Stormwater Management Program against
the final provisions of Session Law 2004-163 and the Stormwater Management Rule (SMR): OK.
Program is consistent with the Law and the SMR. Program is approvable as is.
August 25, 2005 final preparation of the permit for signature with effective date of September 1,
2005. Selected public comments incorporated to accomplish minor changes in the permit.
A►1s]

Permit processing summary and public comments record
The City of Gastonia, NCS000429
KBP
1. Application dated 3/6/03, received at DWQ 3/10/03.
2. Permit writer's review 5/19/04, rev. 9/7/04.
3. Advance courtesy copy of permit sent to Gastonia 9/28/04.
4. 10/18/04 comments from Gastonia along with a mark-up of the draft permit.
Annotated comments on the draft are as follows. Public comment document control
number 203.
/o, a. Part I.4. - Gastonia's only authority in the ETJ is for zoning: request limit
C17 �"�'�`'r requirement to only Gastonia's zoning jurisdiction in the ETJ.
lVo b. Part I.7. - request eliminate the water quality requirement.
IVb c. Part I.8(b). - request eliminate Division's option to require control of
incidental waters.
Yes d. Part II.A.1. - request substitute "mechanisms" for "authorities."
�✓o e. Part II.A.5. - Gastonia cannot guarantee funding of the SMP. Request add
"The permittee will, to the maximum extent practicable" maintain adequate
funding..."
C_o,,f ek rFf:�
Part II.A.7. - request additional explanation that Gastonia may use another
program to control construction site runoff.
n/o g.
Part II.A.8. - request rewording to "..to reduce the potential for pollutant
loading..." And, request constraining responsibility of BMP maintenance and
operation to the owners.
IVo, h.
Part II.A.11. - request rewording TMDL portion to impose no new
requirements on Gastonia.
No L
Part II.B.2(a) - requests the removal of requirements for outreach to
disadvantaged and minority communities.
Alo j.
Part II.B.2(b) and (d) - believes that some citizens cannot afford internet
service, and proposes other means of outreach.
No, k.
Part II.B.2(c) - request delete as included in revised (a).
Ao I.
Part II.C.1(b) - request removal of economic and ethnic as components of the
objectives of this minimum measure.
Mo m.
Part II.D.1(a) -- requests add "To the maximum extent practicable, detect..."
I/o n.
Part II.D.2. - request limiting applicability to extent authorized under existing
N o.
law rules and statutes.
Part II.D.2(c) - request not to have to achieve complete identification of
stormwater drainage system components.
p.
Part II.E.2(a) - requests avoidance of responsibility for sufficiency of the
program by rewording to require only maintaining the local agreement with
Gaston County.
i✓a. q.
Part II.E.2(b) - requests similar avoidance for management of construction
site wastes requirement.
/✓a r.
Part II.E.2(c) - request delete requirement to educate construction site
operators as not provided for in the law or rules pertaining.
ZEH��Part
ICounty
II.E.(d)(e)(f) - request additional clarification of reliance on Gaston
program.
A16 t.
Part II.F.1(b) - request replace "Ensure" with "Promote".
y
CC
Part II.F.2(a) - request delay of develop and adopt an ordinance until the end
of the second year because of resistance from developers.
^16lVo,v.
Part II.F.2(b) - request avoidance of annual inspection reports on structural
BMPs. Request editorial removal of "combination of".

I-
lV w. Part II.F.2(c) - request elimination of fecal coliform management
requirement.
x x. Part II.F.2(f) - comment related to a paragraph no longer present in the draft
permit. Gastonia apparently wants to eliminate the requirement that the city
be responsible in any way for fecal coliform management.
X y. Parts II.F.2(h) and (j) - comments relate to sections no longer in the draft
permit.
/Vo z. Part II.F.3(b) - request model practices applicable only to areas within
Gastonia's "zoning jurisdiction" instead of their "jurisdictional area."
aa. Part II.F.3(b)(iii) - request eliminate model practice provisions wrt 1-year,
24-hour storm, drawdown time, 85% TSS removal, inclusion of 2H .1008(c)
design criteria, and 30' buffer. Deed restriction requirements suggested to be
replaced by mechanisms allowed under current statutes and regulations to
insure subsequent development is consistent with approved plans.
�� bb Part II.G.2(a) - request delay of o&m program development until year 3.
ok cc. Part II.G.2(b) - request delay of inspection and evaluation until year 3.
Editorial language change to remove the word "Specifically".
dd Part II.G.2(d) - request delay of annual review of Phase I facilities to year 3.
Editorial language change to remove the word "Specifically".
No ee. Part III.1. - request removal of all references to monitoring and sampling
here, and at all places in the permit.
Part III.2(g) - request delete requirement for an annual report on areas of
water quality improvement or degradation.
f,�u✓ed gg Part IV.4. - request exclude notification of non -listed pollutants. Also request
delete "quantity" in first sentence.
No hh. Part IV.6. - request removal of 24-hour reporting requirement.
Alo ii. Part V.A.1(a) - request delete entire paragraph for toxics due to implicit need
for sampling and testing.
/Vo jj. Part V.A.2 - request delete entire Duty to Mitigate paragraph due to implicit
need for sampling.
Mo kk. Part V.A.3 - request delete Gastonia's responsibility for consequential
damages as the extension of liability is beyond the scope of Phase II
requirements.
/vo Il. Part V.A.8 - request delete entire paragraph on penalties for tampering.
A/o mm. Part V.C.1-3. - request removal of all references to monitoring and
sampling.
nn. Part V.C.4. - request recognition that a private system may discharge into
Gastonia's MS4, and that system and its discharge would be beyond
_ Gastonia's control.
yes! y s o 0o Part VIII.18,19,21 - request delete definitions of representative storm event,
-� Section 313 Water Priority Chemical, and toxic pollutant.
5. 10/20/04 MRO sign -off on the draft permit.
6. 11/01/04 public notice published for the draft permit.
7. 11/08/04 letter to Gastonia notifying the city of the public notice and comment
period.
8. 11/08/04 draft permit revised in accordance with some comments (TMDL) and
posted on SPU website.
9. 11/12/04 public comment from Michelle Woolfolk on TMDL language in draft permit.
Public comment document control number 204.
10. 12/03/04 comments from NCLM, public comment document control number 205.
x a. Part II.A.1 - covered in Gastonia's comments
IV6. b. Part II.A.11 - suggest clarify that TMDL required only if required.

/�&r C-,, c.
Part II.b - implementation schedules erroneously imply that cities have to
,5 "v eaf
take action earlier than the law and rules require.
Al'o d.
Part II.D.2(b) - suggest constrain permittee's obligation to only enforcing
existing rules and statutes, rather than obligating the permittee to establish
such authority as may be necessary to prohibit illicit discharges.
d/rear/J clear1 e.
Part II.E. - clarify that a permittee may rely upon the existing state program.
X f.
Part II.F.2(k) - not applicable to Gastonia.
/,/o g.
Part VIII - suggest redevelopment definition revision as per session law.
11. 12/10/04
additional comments from Gastonia on the draft permit. Public comment
control
document 206.
x a.
Gastonia concurs with NCLM comments in 12/3/04 letter.
�✓d b.
Gastonia objects to any reference to testing, again.
s�eci���s c.
Gastonia objects to any permit language that extends their responsibilities
beyond that indicated by the rules or statutes.
yd.
Many of the comments in this email are re -iterations of Gastonia's 10/18/04
comments and permit mark-up, and will not be repeated in this listing.
Part I.1 - request clearly define the terms Stormwater Management Program,
and Stormwater Plan.
/��'•d f.
Part I.7. - Gastonia cannot comply with the monitoring implied by this
requirement that discharges shall not violate water quality standards.
f/a g.
Part I.8.(b) - request removal of the word "emergency" as a descriptor of fire
fighting.
/'1b. h.
Part II.D.1(c) - Gastonia will comply with guidelines established by EMC for
appropriate enforcement procedures and actions. Meaning, I guess, until the
EMC establishes those guidelines, Gastonia has no obligation?
X i.
Part II.F.1(b) -- comment that the rules don't require the expansion of an MS4
to include treatment works.
12. 12/31/04 public comment period expires.

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
11 /6/2002
THE CITY OF GASTONIA
DANNY CREW, CITY MANAGER
P.O. BOX 1748
GASTONIA, NC 28053-1748
Subject: NPDES Phase lI Stormwater Program
Danny Crew:
In 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Phase I stormwater program was promulgated under the
Clean Water Act. Phase I relies on National Pollutant discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage to
address Stormwater runoff from: (1) "medium" and "large" municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally
serving populations of 100,000 or greater, (2) construction activity disturbing 5 acres of land or greater, and (3) ten
categories of industrial activity. The NPDES Stormwater Phase 11 Final Rule was promulgated in December 1999 and is
the next step in EPA's effort to preserve, protect, and improve the Nation's water resources from polluted storm water
runoff. The Phase II program expands the Phase I program by requiring additional operators of MS4s in urbanized areas
and operators of small construction sites, through the use of NPDES permits, to implement programs and practices to
control stormwater runoff. Phase 1I is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by
instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of stormwater discharges that have the greatest likelihood of
causing continued environmental degradation.
The NPDES Stormwater Phase II Final Rule requires nationwide coverage of all operators of small MS4s that are
located within the boundaries of a Bureau of the Census defined "urbanized area" based on the latest decennial Census.
We are writing to you to remind you that the City of Gastonia has been identified as being located within a census
designated urbanized area in both the 1990 and 2000 decennial census. As a regulated community, you are required to
develop a stormwater management program and apply for stormwater permit coverage, if you own and operate a small
MS4 or file a certification that the City of Gastonia does not own or operate a small MS4. The deadline for submitting
your application package or non -ownership certification is March 10, 2003. Application and certification documents, as
well as additional information on the NPDES stormwater program, are available for download at our web site. Our web
address is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/storinwater.htm1. You may also contact us for hard copies of the documents. If
you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact me (919-733-5083, ext.525) or Darren England
(919-733-5083, ext. 545)
Sincerely,
Bradley Bennett, Supervisor
Stormwater and General Permits Unit
cc: Central Files
Stormwaler and General Permits Unit Files
Mooresville Regional Office
e�A
45ENR
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1- 800-623-7748

`0�0 11F \NATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
rAlan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
0 'C
March 11, 2003
Joseph E. Bieker, PE
Stormwater Administrator
City of Gastonia
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Subject: NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program
Application for discharge permit
Application Number NCS000429
Gaston County
Joseph E. Bieker, PE:
The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater and General Permits Emit hereby acknowledges receipt of
your NPDES Phase II Stormwater permit application package on March 10, 2003. The submitted package
contained the required form SWU-264, comprehensive stormwater program narrative, and $715.00
application fee.
A preliminary review of your application package has been conducted and it appears to be complete. No
further information is required at this time. This application has been assigned application number
NCS000429. Please include this number with all future correspondence.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Darren England at telephone number
[phone], extension 545.
Sincerely,
Bradley Bennett
Stormwater & General Permits Unit
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
NCDENR
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748 �.

w A
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
September 28, 2004
Joseph E. Bieker, Stormwater Administrator
115 W.Second Avenue
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Subject; NPDES Permit Number NCS000429
City of Gastonia
Dear Mr.Bieker:
Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft Phase II NPDES
Stormwater Permit for the City of Gastonia. Following an appropriate public
notice and comment period, we anticipate this permit will become effective in the
4th quarter of 2004.
We believe that this draft permit will provide your community with the
flexibility vital for your community, while at the same time safeguarding and
protecting our natural environment for future generations of North Carolinians.
We look forward to receiving your comments on this draft permit and
continuing to work together for the benefit of your community and North
Carolina. Please provide your comments by Friday, October 15, 2004. You will
also have an opportunity to submit comments during the public comment period
in November, 2004. If you have any questions about this draft permit please
contact me at [phone], ext. 584.
Sincerely,
Ken Pickle
Permit Writer
cc: Stormwater Permitting Unit
Mooresville Regional Office
ADgn
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone] Custorner Service
1-877-623-6748

Page I of 2
Lj�f [G CDf�1/17��i��aGl�'J4tPr)
r1
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Bieker, Joe" <[e-mail]>
"Ken Pickle" <[e-mail]>
"Bombardier, Flip" <[e-mail]>; "Pruitt, Felix" <[e-mail]>;
"Magee, Melissa" <[e-mail]>
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 8:34 AM
NCS000429 Gastonia MS4 draft permit —draft response.doc
RE: Draft MS4 permit
October 18, 2004
Ken Pickle
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
RE: Response to Draft Permit #NCS000429
Mr. Pickle:
Please find attached the electronic copy of the above referenced document. We have incorporated our
amendments using Microsoft Word. By way of annotation, we submit the following:
? In part I, §4 we wish to clarify that our authority ends at our City Limits, with the exception of certain
zoning authority within the City's pre -specified extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The ETJ is limited
and finite. There is no expectation that our ETJ will increase ever. Accordingly, we will exercise those
zoning functions required there, but we cannot affect any other action in those regions.
? Part II, §A, sub§5, the City of Gastonia has established a freestanding, and self funding Stormwater
Utility to address this permit. While a Utility provides substantial latitude with regards to funding, and
the City is fully committed to managing the impacts of urban runoff, there are limits to our ability to
guarantee funding.
? Part lI, § B, sub§2, T (a), the City of Gastonia does not discriminate on the basis of Race, Creed, Color,
Gender, or Socio-Economic Status. We request the removal of such distinctions from our permit.
? Part 11, § B, sub§ 2,1(b)&(d), the -City -finds -that -while we -do •not -discriminate on the basis -of
economic stems-mat-our�constituency-is ijhserved:by=the.-expectationahatahey canrafford'tlie_liigh-speed
einternet connections•ne-cessa y-to•properly distribute-our-messag_ e ;We believe that other_media uch.as
-aeributoRfour_messaGoverrmenAcess Cable,ttrts_h,oge.
? Part II, § B, sub§ 2,1(c), the last phrase is redundant to the modified T (a).
? Part II, § C, sub§ 1, y[ (b), as mentioned, the City requests the removal of language that favors any
group over another.
? Part II, § E, sub§ 2, (c), we cannot find a foundation for requirement for educational material for
Construction Site Runoff Controls in USEPA Stormwater Phase II guidelines, SB 1210, or the EMCs
final rule. Accordingly we believe the requirement to provide these material exceeds the scope of phase
2 intentions.
? Part I1, § F, sub§ 2, certain processes cannot be undertaken without the enabling ordinance in place. It
is expected that with the substantial burden to be placed on developers, there will be significant
resistance to the adoption of this ordinance, it is therefore expected that such adoption will not be
accomplished until the end of the second year.
? Part II, § F, sub§ 2, T (0, considering the degree of urbanization in the City of Gastonia, the only
reasonable sources of fecal coliform are from domestic/industrial waste water systems. The City is
currently discussing our collection system permit with the Division, and both our treatment plants are
1 /21 /2005

4
Page 2 of 2
under NPDES permits. This leaves only private wastewater treatment systems as a realistic source of
fecals. The City has no authority, or capacity to manage, review, or otherwise address these systems as
a source of fecal coliforms in our streams. We cannot meet any expectation that we should manage
these sources in any way.
? Part II, § F, sub§ 2,1 (h), we would suggest that this paragraph would make more sense after (i), and
? Part II, § F, sub§ 2, 9[ (j}, we wish to discuss a regionally appropriate design storm.
? Part 11, § F, sub§ 2, y[ (j}, we wish to discuss a regionally appropriate detention/drawdown target, not
to exceed 72 hours.
? Part II, § F, sub§ 2, T 0), we do not believe that the criteria in 15NCAC 2H.1008(c) are appropriate
for our MS4, or the receiving waters.
? Part IV, as this permit does not require monitoring, charting, sampling, measuring or other such
analysis, we request the removal of these references.
? Part II, § 6, due to the specific and administrative nature of this permit; at this time, the City cannot
contemplate any discrete violation of this permit that could be tied to any 24 hour period. We feel this
section is inappropriate, and request that it be removed.
? Part V, § C, sub§ t-3, as mentioned, we request the removal of references to testing, sampling,
measuring, or other analytical procedures not otherwise mentioned in this permit.
? Part V, § C, sub§ 4, we request the recognition that an MS4 may be interconnected with private
systems beyond the Municipality's control.
<<NCS000429 Gastonia MS4 draft permit draft response.doc»
-----Original Message -----
From: Ken Pickle [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:02 PM
To: Bieker, Joe
Subject: Draft MS4 permit
<< File: NCS000429 Gastonia MS4 draft permit.doc » Joe,
Let me know if you have any questions.
Ken
1 /21 /2005

Lam print Yl I1210(X)i 9: 1+ A Ni Qf9 (XFi;.A4PIAM I MMiJA 1- 40 AM NCS000429
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION of WATER QUALITY
PERMIT NO. NCS000429
TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER UNDER TI-tE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the Ni
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution(
City of Gas
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater
located:
-215. 1, other lawful
a En=vi -onmental
pal separate storm sewer system
within the City,of Gasto`iia Jurisdictional Area
,0�'Gaston,�:ounty
to receiving waters Anthony Creek' ,'BessemEr Branch, Blackwood Creek, Burton Branch,
Catawba Creek, Crowders Creek, 'Duharts,Creek, Jule Allen Branch, Kagler Creek, Long Creek,
McGill Creek, Oates Creek, Rankin Lake, Robinwood Lake, and unnamed tributaries to them, all
within the Catawba River basin in accordance with theEmiter-in
i
its, aiid conditions set forth in Parts 1, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII hereof.
This permit shall become effective Month Day, Year.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on Month Day, Year.
Signed this day Month Day, Year.
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

L
L,,] printed I2s200S1,:s3AM12Nz00.3-; 4F,%U nP00444il0,W NCS000429 f!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I PERMIT COVERAGE
PART II FINAL LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS FOR PERMITTED DISCHARGES
SECTION A: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
SECTION B: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
SECTION C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
SECTION D: ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION
SECTION E: CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS
SECTION F: POST -CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS
SECTION G: POLLUTION PREVENTION AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
PART III PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
PART IV REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
PART V STANDARD CONDITIONS
SECTION A: COMPLIANCE AND LIABILITY
SECTION B: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
SECTION C: MONITORING AND RECORDS
PART VI LIMITATIONS REOPENER
PART VII ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE
REQUIREMENTS
PART VIII DEFINITIONS

NCS000429
PART I PERMIT COVERAGE
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until
expiration, the City of Gastonia is authorized to discharge stormwater from the municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) to receiving waters Anthony Creek, Bessemer
Branch, Blackwood Creek, Burton Branch, Catawba Creek, Crowders Creek, Duharts
Creek, Jule Allen Branch, Kagler Creek, Long Creek, McGill Creek, Oates Creek, Rankin
Lake, Robinwood Lake, and unnamed tributaries to them, all within the Catawba River
Basin. Such discharge will be controlled, limited and monitored in accordance with the
permittee's Stormwater Management Program -repel, that being Part 11 Sections B
through G hereof, herein referred to as the Stormwater Plan. The Stormwater Plan
includes components of the permittee's Phase 11 Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit
Application, Stormwater Management Program Report, and any approved modifications.
2. All discharges authorized herein shall be adequately managed in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this permit. Any other point source discharge to surface waters
of the state is prohibited unless it is an allowable non-stormwater discharge or is covered
by another permit, authorization, or approval.
3. This permit does not relieve the permittee from responsibility for compliance with any
other applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, standard, ordinance, order, judgment, or
decree.
4. Except as set forth in section 4A of this part, This this permit covers activities associated
with the discharge of stormwater only from the MS4 ✓
b areas as described in the approved local Stormwater Plan to
control potential pollution from the MS4. The permit applies to current and future
J-i,ffisdietienal ai-eas of the extents of the MS4, as well as areas that seek coverage
under this permit through inter -local or other similar agreements with the permittee.
Agreements for coverage under this permit must be approved by the Division of Water
Quality, herein referred to as the Division.
4A. For purposes of Section F of Part i1 of this pertnit, this permit shall cover the permittee's
zoning jurisdiction.
5. The Division may deny or revoke coverage under this permit for separate entities and may
require independent permit coverage as deemed necessary. In addition, the permittee may
petition the Division to revoke or deny coverage under this permit for specific entities.
6. Under the authority of Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations 40 CFR Part 122, 123 and 124, North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.1
and Session Law 2004-163 and in accordance with the approved Stormwater Plan, all
provisions contained and referenced in the Stormwater Plan are an enforceable part of this
permit. The permittee will develop and implement its approved Stormwater Plan in
accordance with Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the Clean Water Act, provisions outlined by the
Director, and the provisions of this permit.
Part I Page 1 of 2

N C S 000429
8. The permit authorizes the point source discharge of stormwater runoff from the MS4. In
addition, discharges of non-stormwater are also authorized through the MS4 of the
permittee if such discharges are:
(a) Permitted by, and in compliance with, another NPDES discharge permit including
discharges of process and non -process wastewater, and stormwater associated
with industrial activity; or
(b) Determined to be incidental non-stormwater flows that do not significantly impact
water quality and may include:
• water line flushing;
• landscape irrigation;
• diverted stream flows;
• rising groundwaters;
• uncontaminated groundwater infiltration;
• uncontaminated pumped groundwater;
• discharges from potable water sources;
• foundation drains;
• air conditioning condensate (commercial/residential);
• irrigation waters (does not include reclaimed water as described in I5A
NCAC 2H .0200);
• springs;
• water from crawl space pumps;
• footing drains;
• lawn watering;
• residential car washing;
• flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
• dechlorinated swimming pool discharges;
• street wash water;
• flows from emei-genyfire fighting
ON:rr■
Part I Page 2 of 2

NCS000429
PART II FINAL LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS FOR PERMITTED
DISCHARGES
SECTION A: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The permittee will implement, manage and oversee all provisions of its Stormwater Plan to
reduce pollutants discharged from the MS4. This includes, but is not limited to, the following
areas:
The permittee will develop and maintain adequate legal .,uthe=ice mechanisms, such as
rules, regulations, ordinances. policies and procedures to implement all provisions of the
Stormwater Plan. The permittee will keep the Division advised of the status of
development of appropriate ordinances and legal auesmechanisms and will pursue
these authorities in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Stormwater Plan. Any
changes to the schedule must he approved by the Director.
2. The permittee's Stormwater Plan will be implemented and managed such that the
discharge of pollutants from the MS4 is reduced to the maximum extent practicable. It is
anticipated that in order to meet this provision, implementation of the Stormwater Plan
will occur with emphasis given to priority areas and to management measures and
programs that are most effective and efficient at varying stages of the plan's
implementation.
The permittee will implement the appropriate components of the Stormwater Plan to
assure that, to the maximum extent practicable, illicit connections, spills, and illegal
dumping into the MS4 are prohibited.
4. The permittee will implement provisions of the Stormwater Plan as appropriate to
Fnenitoi- and assess the performance of the various management measures that area part
of the Stormwater Plan. This will include, but is not limited to, the provisions of this
permit and the applicable provisions of the permittee's Stormwater Plan.
The permittee will, to the maximum extent practicable, maintain adequate funding and
staffing to implement and manage the provisions of the Stormwater Plan.
6. The permittee will implement appropriate education, training, outreach, and public
involvement programs to support the objectives of this stormwater discharge permit and
the Stormwater Plan.
7. The permittee will implement a program to reduce pollution from construction site runoff
as described in the permit application and in accordance with this permit. Per §7,(a),(1v)
fo the permanent rule adopted by the NCEMC, the permittee may implement and enforce
this program through another local program approved by the Department.
Part II Page I of 12

NCS000429
The permittee will implement an appropriate post -construction site runoff control
program to regulate new development and redevelopment by requiring structural and non-
structural best management practices to protect water quality, to reduce the potential for
pollutant loading, and to minimize post -development impacts. This program will include
provisions for long-term operation and maintenance by the owner of structural or non-
structural SMPs.
9. The permittee will evaluate municipal operations and develop and implement an
appropriate program for municipal activities and ongoing operation and maintenance of
municipal facilities to reduce the potential for stormwater pollution.
10. Proposed permit modifications must be submitted to the Director for approval.
11. The permittee shall comply, within existing regulations, with any TMDL developed
during the coverage of this permitAlithin one year after- reeeiving notiee that the
either- to the impaiFed sti;eafn segment er to a tizibetafy of that stream segment and subm4
submit infer-mation on the leeation of eutfalls with the potential for- b b
palkitant(s) E)f eeneein in the next sten:nwater- Plan annual repeFt due at least one yeaf
after netise e� the TMPL. Subsequent annual Fepei4s shali iiielude the FestiltS Of the -
The Division will eensidef the menitefing results in deteimining whethe
additional BM?s are needed to eentr-el the pollutant(s) of cencern to the MaXiFYIHM extent
{r-aetieabl;e. if additional BMPs are -needed to aehieve-the required level -ofeoflt-al.Thbe required to submit a timetable fief ineer-peration of these -BMPs into
Part Il Page 2 of 12

NCS000429
SECTION B: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
1. Objectives for Public Education and Outreach
(a) Distribute educational materials to the community.
(b) Conduct public outreach activities.
(c) Raise public awareness on the causes and impacts of stormwater pollution.
(d) Inform the public on steps they can take to reduce or prevent stormwater
pollution.
2. BMPs for Public Education and Outreach
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the Public
Education and Outreach Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of any goals.
BMP
Measurable Goals
YR
11
'YR
2.
YR •
3
YR
4
YR
5
(a) Establish a Public
Education and
Outreach Program
Develop a public education program and
implement within 12 months of the permit
issue date. lneE .,-.,,,-.,te out, -each elements
foi: r i
fieant m fits .,9d disadvantage
X
X
X
X
X
ni
b
eemfflunjties,raroet all segments of the
community, including households and
businesses.
x
X
x
x
X
(b)
sites Post n slettel. art.. les ..
ties,
., QTT�iieti vi and
(c) Public education
materials for schools;
Develop general stormwater educational
material targeting school children.
X
X
X
(d) Public education
material dissemination
Distribute written material through
various media including utility
+Tva4er+tsbi 1 i inserts.
X
X
X
X
X
Part I1 Page 3 of t2

NCS000429
SECTION C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
1. Objectives for Public Involvement and Participation
(a) Provide opportunities for the public to participate in program development and
implementation.
(b) Reach out and engage fflie and ethnie groupsall segments of the
community.
(c) Comply with applicable State and local public notice requirements.
2. BMPs for Public Involvement and Participation
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the Public
Involvement and Participation Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of
any goals.
Measurable Goals
YR
YR=
YR.
'`YR
,
-
1
�2x
x
3
' 5 :
(a) Administer a Public
Conduct a least one public meeting to
X
X
X
X
X
Involvement Program
allow the public an opportunity to review
and comment on the Stormwater Plan.
(b) Organize a volunteer
Organize and implement a volunteer
X
X
X
X
X
community
stormwater related program designed to
involvement program
promote ongoing citizen participation,
(c) Establish a Citizens
Establish a citizens advisory panel to
X
X
X
X
X
Advisory Panel
review the Stormwater Plan, to review the
annual report, and to advise the permittee
on the Stormwater Plan.
Part I1 Page 4 of 12

NCS000429
SECTION D: ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION
1. ObJectives for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
(a) Deto the maximum extent practicable, detect and eliminate illicit discharges,
including spills and illegal dumping.
(b) Address significant contributors of pollutants to the MS4. The permittee may
require specific controls for a category of discharges, or prohibit that discharge
completely, if one or more of these categories of sources are identified as a
significant contributor of pollutants to the MS4.
(c) Implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions.
(d) Develop a storm sewer system map showing all outfalls and waters receiving
discharges.
(e) Inform employees, businesses, and the general public of hazards associated with
illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste.
2. BMPs for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs, to the extent authorized by law or
allowable under existing rules and statutes, to mect the objectives of the Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of any
goals.
.
MsuraheGoas
YR.ei
Y
YR13MP
u
�, .. ,
12,
a
` 3'
;;4
„j
5'
(a) Develop/Implement
Develop and implement an Illicit
X
X
X
X
X
lllicit Discharge
Discharge Detection and Elimination
Detection and
Program. Include provisions for program
Elimination Program
assessment and evaluation.
(b) Establish and
Establish and maintain adequate legal
X
X
X
X
maintain appropriate
authorities to prohibit illicit discharges
legal authorities
and enforce the approved Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination Pro ram.
(c) Develop a Storm
Identify and map,
X
X
X
X
Sewer System Base
locations of, and mappiftt4, stormwater
Map
drainage system components. At a
minimum, mapping components include
outfalls, drainage areas, and receiving
streams.
(d) Implement illicit
Develop and (implement an inspection
X
X
X
X
discharge detection
program to detect dry weather flows at
procedures
system outfalls. Establish procedures for
tracing the sources of illicit discharges and
for removing the sources. Develop
procedures for identification of priority
areas likely to have illicit discharges.
Part 11 Page 5 of 12

NCS000429
Eini
lilGoa�
Y1R�
YgRI'R
.M:`1. A`n� .. ..::.i�..�?-,..._
r� _ Sa c
.-• Y. _- $ "`\ . .-'...i, _ lt.a: :#'PIk d ✓.:^ .rniS
R.,.^-. i.
z3
�. :: -.
fix..
„4
.i :�:
Continue to update the map of drainage
system components on a priority basis per
the approved Illicit Discharge Program.
(e) Conduct employee
Conduct training for municipal staff on
X
X
X
X
cross -training
detectin and reporting illicit discharges.
(f) Provide public
Inform public employees, businesses, and
X
X
X
X
X
education
the general public of hazards associated
with illegal discharges and improper
disposal of waste.
(g) Establish a public
Establish and publicize a reporting
X
X
X
reporting mechanism
mechanism for the public to report illicit
discharges.
Part II Page 6 of 12

NCS000429
SECTION E: CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS
1. Objectives for Construction Site Runoff Controls
(a) Reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction activities disturbing one
or more acres of land surface and those activities less than one acre that are part of
a larger common plan of development.
(b) Provide procedures for public input, sanctions to ensure compliance, requirements
for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment
control practices, for review of site plans which incorporates consideration of
potential water quality impacts, and procedures for site inspection and
enforcement of control measures.
(c) Establish requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as
discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and
sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water
quality.
2. BMPs for Construction Site Runoff Controls
The permittec shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the
Construction Site Runoff Controls Program and shall notify the Division prior to
modification of any goals.
BMI'
Measurable Goals
YR
1
YR
2
YR
3
YR
4
YR
5
(a) Implement a
program and
establish a
regulatory
mechanism for
erosion and
sediment control
Develop a-reg i' neehanism.
. ., ,o�..,:,:,, . o.•Sio, .,,,tea
^br
i
X
X
X
X
X
Mpleffle"i E)b
, .,t , sites
nt.-els onst.-uetien an'
sediment
pFoyiding
eemplinee-Maintain inter -local agreement for
the administration of the Gaston County
Erosion Control and Sedimentation program.
Maintain communication to encourage the
effective administration of said program inside
the City Limits.
-am+ the_pei-mitte .,c o_1v.-•r.-. �I t�_�-.-+.+�
pi 1'r 7
1�.�.r_s•ol..i,-.n the GaStn.i GOURt.e SOP EfO-S;---
On
Sed4 Or-dinaneC'Th
and Tentat;on GtTt1'tr-el
to the that
b y eNtent
th��,• �,tkf:e��il_ofthe foil
cpp�����r��r-��j�,,rv�i-r[� �zict�irc.rug.-v�-ir��tvr[v'vr'rrrb
ijY P-s-.
Part Il Page 7 of 12

NCS060429
AMR = '
Measurable Goals ` "
YR:
YR
YR'.
, YR
YR-
1
2:
3
4
5'.
(b) Develop
Requ-tre-Through the Gaston County ECS
X
X
X
X
X
requirements on
program, require construction site operators to
construction site
implement erosion and sediment control BMPs
operators
and to control construction site wastes that
may cause adverse water quality impacts.
(c) Provide
New he developed by
X
X
X
X
X
fflatffiak Fnay
educational and
the
peFmiaee may use materials
training materials
t^
,dep*ad rr^r^ 6-theF ^
nd adapted
for construction
ttee'^
the peffflCORStFU66OR FURE4 C;(,^tFOIS
site operators
Pr-egr-affl.Encourage operator participation in
the Gaston County ECS annual training
program.
(d) Institute plan
Iry -Through the Gaston County ECS
X
X
X
X
X
reviews
program, review construction plans and
establish procedures that incorporate water
quality considerations in construction site plan
reviews.
(e) Establish public
EstablishDevelopand implement procedures
X
X
X
X
X
information
for receipt and consideration of erosion and
procedures
sedimentation information submitted by the
public. Publicize the procedures and contact
information. The procedures must lead
directly to a site inspection or other timely
follow-up action.
(f) Establish
EstabiisTThrough the Gaston County ECS
X
X
X
X
X
inspection and
program, implement procedures for site
enforcement
inspection and enforcement of control measure
procedures
requirements. The procedures should include
prioritizing areas of inspections based on local
criteria.
Part II Page 8 of 12

NCS000429
SECTION F: POST-CONS'l'RUCTION S1'CE RUNOFF CONTROLS
1. Objectives for Post -Construction Site Runoff Controls
(a) Manage stormwater runoff from new development / redevelopment that drains to
the MS4 and disturbs an acre or more of land surface, including projects less than
an acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale.
(b) Ensure Promote long term operation and maintenance of BMPs.
(c) Ensure controls are in place to minimize water quality impacts.
2. BMPs for Post -Construction Site Runoff Controls
The permittee's stormwater management ordinance and any subsequent amendments and the
additional BMPs below shall be implemented throughout the permittee's jurisdictional area to
meet the objectives of the Post -Construction Site Runoff Control Program.
BMP -
Measurable Coals
YR
YR
YR
YR'
•YR,
1
2
31.
4
5
(a) Establish a Post-
Construction Site
Runoff Controls
Develop, adopt by -ordinance (or similar
regulatory mechanism), implement, and
enforce it program to address post -
X
X
X
X
X
Program (hereafter
construction runoff controls for new
the Program)
development and redevelopment. The
ordinance must be reviewed and approved
by the Department prior to
implementation. Ensure that controls are
in place to prevent or minimize water
quality impacts.
(b) Establish strategies
which include BMPs
Develop and implement strategies that
include a eembi^afien of structural and/or
X
X
X
X
X
appropriate for the
non-structural BMPs.
MS4.
adequate long-term operaTo a'nd
maintenance of structural BMPs. keqtiii�e
Part I1 Page 9 of 12

NCS000429
fe6 l 6614 M tO rhaand implement an eversight program to
FaaXifflUM to r
must eeer-dinate this p;-egr-am with the
e9unty health do .,.4Ffl ..,r
3. The evaluation of Post -construction Stormwater Management Program measures.
(a) Those areas within the jurisdictional area of the permittee that are already subject to the
existing state stormwater management programs listed herein are deemed
compliant with the post -construction stormwater management model practices
identified in (b) below. The listed programs are: the Water Supply Watershed
protection programs for WS-I - WS-IV waters, the HQW and ORW waters
management strategies, the Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy, the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy, and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed
program.
(b) Model Practices. For those areas within the - zoning jurisdiction of the
permittee
that are not subject to the post -construction stormwater management provisions of
another existing state stormwater management program, the permittee's Post -
construction Stormwater Management Program must equal or exceed the
stormwater management and water quality protection provided by the following
model practices.
(i) The permittee may issue a local stormwater management permit to a
development or redevelopment project as either a low density project or a
high density project.
(ii) A project may be permitted as a low density project if it meets the following
criteria:
(A) No more than two dwelling units per acre or 24% built -upon area;
(B) Use of vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
(C) All built -upon areas are at least 30 feet landward of perennial and
intermittent surface waters; and,
(D) Deed restrictions and protective covenants are required by the
locally issued permit and incorporated by the development to
ensure that subsequent development activities maintain the
development (or redevelopment) consistent with the approved
plans.
(iii) A project not consistent with the requirements for a low density project may
be permitted as a high density project if it meets the following requirements:
Part II Page 10 of 12

NCS000429
(c)
(d)
(A) The stormwater control measures must control and treat the difference between the
pre -development and post -development conditions for the unapproved
design storm. R, A 1, .a.- ElOW tifflo FREISt be H FfliHifntiffl E-2n h, h,.t E+
designed
aN,efage annual removal oftotal suspended solids-,
r • . �a
r
sui-faGe waters; and,
(E) Deed res venants are required by the leeally
I'o the extent allowed under existing
statutes and regulations, the permittee shall develop and maintain mechanisms to
ensure that subsequent development activities maintain the development (or
redevelopment) consistent with the approved plans.
Watershed Protection Plans. Public bodies may develop and implement
comprehensive watershed protection plans that may be used to meet part, or all, of
the requirements for post -construction stormwater management.
A regulated entity may develop its own comprehensive watershed plan, may use
the model ordinance developed by the Commission, may design its own post -
construction practices based on the Division's guidance and engineering standards
for best management practices, or it may incorporate the post -construction model
practices to satisfy, in whole or in part, the requirements for post -construction stormwater
management.
Part I1 Page 1 1 of 12

NCS000429
J
SECTION G: POLLUTION PREVENTION AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
1. Objective for Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal
Operations
Prevent or reduce stormwater pollution from municipal operations.
2. BMPs for the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal
Operations
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the Pollution
Prevention and Good Housekeeping Program and shall notify the Division prior to
modification of any goals.
. BMP .
Measurable Goals` "
YR.
YR
-YR
YR
'YR .
.. _ .
1
z.�
3
4
.S
(a) Develop an operation
Develop an operation and maintenance
-x
x
X
X
Ix
and maintenance
program that has the ultimate goal of
program
preventing or reducing pollutant runoff
from municipal operations.
(b) Inspection and
Develop an inventory of all facilities and
-x
X
X
Ix
evaluation of facilities
operations owned and operated by the
and operations
permittee with the potential for generating
polluted stormwater runoff. Speci€ eall
in ee'Inspect'We potential sources of
polluted runo4, the stormwater controls,
and conveyance systems. Evaluate the
sources, document deficiencies, plan
corrective actions, and document the
accomplishment of corrective actions.
(c) Conduct staff training
Conduct staff training specific for
X
X
X
X
pollution prevention and good
housekeeping procedures.
(d) Review of municipally
Conduct an annual review of the industrial
x
X
X
X
owned or operated
activities with a Phase I NPDES
regulated industrial
stormwater permit owned and operated by
activities
the permittee. Specifieally r-eviewReview
the following aspects: the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan where one is
required, the timeliness of any monitoring
reports required by the Phase I permit, and
the results of inspections and subsequent
follow-up actions at the facilities.
Part I1 Page 12 of 12

NCS000429
PART [II PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
1. Implementation of the Stormwater Plan will include documentation of all program
components that are being undertaker�nrdi utmt limited to, °�
sampling, inspections, maintenance actiry+Hes; e&= ienal programs, implement;atie�-e
IMPS —and enforcerrrer►tacti-oTm. Documentation will be kept on -file by the permittee for
a period of five years and made available to the Director or his authorized representative
immediately upon rccluest.
2. The permittee's Stormwater Plan will be reviewed and updated as necessary, but at least
on an annual basis. The permittee will submit a report of this evaluation and Fnenitoi-milg
information to the Division on an annual basis. This information will be submitted by
[Set date two months after permit year's end] of each year and cover the previous year's
activities from [Insert start date] to [Insert end date]. The permittee's reporting will
include appropriate information to accurately describe the progress, status and results of
the permittee's Stormwater Plan and will include, but is not limited to, the following
components:
(a) The permittee will give a detailed description of the status of implementation of
the Stormwater Plan. This will include information on development and
implementation of all components of the Stormwater Plan for the past year and
schedules and plans for the year following each report.
(b) The permittee will adequately describe and justify any proposed changes to the
Stormwater Plan. This will include descriptions and supporting information for
the proposed changes and how these changes will impact the Stormwater Plan
(results, effectiveness, implementation schedule, etc.).
(c) The permittee will document any necessary changes to programs or practices for
assessment of management measures implemented through the Stormwater Plan.
In addition, any changes in the cost of, or funding for, the Stormwater Plan will be
documented.
(d) The permittee will include a summary of data accumulated as part of the
Stormwater Plan throughout the year along with an assessment of what the data
indicates in light of the Stormwater Plan.
(e) The permittee will provide information on the annual expenditures and budget
anticipated for the year following each report along with an assessment of the
continued financial support for the overall Stormwater Plan.
(f) The permittee will provide a summary of activities undertaken as part of the
Stormwater Plan throughout the year. This summary will include, but is not
limited to, information on the establishment of appropriate legal authorities,
project assessments, inspections, enforcement actions, continued inventory and
Part Itl Page I of 2

NCS000429
f
review of the storm sewer system, education, training, and results of the illicit
discharge detection and elimination program.
The Director may notify the permittee when the Stormwater Plan does not meet one or
more of the requirements of the permit. Within 30 days of such notice, the permittee will
submit a plan and time schedule to the Director for modifying the Stormwater Plan to
meet the requirements. The Director may approve the corrective action plan, approve a
plan with modifications, or reject the proposed plan. The permittee will provide
certification in writing (in accordance with Part IV, Paragraph 2) to the Director that the
changes have been made. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the
Director's ability to conduct enforcement actions for violations of this permit.
4. The Division may request additional reporting information as necessary to assess the
progress and results of the permittee's Stormwater Plan.
Part I Q Page 2 of 2

NCS000429
PART IV REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
1. Monitoring Records
The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all Galibration
I m nie rune. . eeerds d all original ehnrt i-eeo •dings Fes,.• continuous MoHi �.-..i5
r-r �.t,vi c� i t,
strame nt„tio and copies of all reports required by this permit for a period of at least
five years from the date of the , report, or application. This period
may be extended by request of the Director at any time prior to the end of the five year
period.
2. Report Submittals
(a) Duplicate signed copies of all reports required herein, shall be submitted to the
following address:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
(b) All applications, reports, or information submitted to DWQ shall be signed by a
principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or duly authorized
representative. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official;
(ii) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of a regulated facility or activity or
an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmentallstormwater matters; and
(iii) The written authorization is submitted to the Director.
(c) Any person signing a document under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall
make the following certification:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
Part IV Page I of 3

NCS000429
information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing
violations."
3. Recording Results
For each measufement, sample, inspection, or maintenance activity performed of
^'leeted pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the
following information:
(a) The dates, exact place, and time of sampling, mo ffients inspection, or
maintenance activity;
(b) The individual(s) who performed the inspection, or
maintenance activity;
(c) The date(s) analyses were performed;
(d) The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
4. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible�of any planned changes
or activities which could significantly alter the nature of Eluantitr of the proposed
Stormwater Plan.pollatarits diseharged. This t}et-i€ieati mt includespollutants
which aFe not specifically listed in the permit or subjec+te Mit-g
5. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned changes
which may result in noncompliance with the permit requirements.
Part IV Page 2 of 3

NCS000429
a
7. Annual Reporting
The permittee will submit reporting and meniteii — information on an annual basis per
Part lII of this permit on forms provided by the DWQ.
S. Additional Reporting
The Director may request reporting information on a more frequent basis as deemed
necessary either for specific portions of the permittee's Stormwater Plan, or for the entire
Program.
9. Other information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in applying
to be covered under this permit or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit
such facts or information.
Part IV Page 3 of 3

NCS000429
PART V STANDARD CONDITIONS
SECTION A: COMPLIANCE AND LIABILITY
1. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for
permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification: or denial of permit
coverage upon renewal application.
IN
r r
IN 1101111
l a
(b) The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by
Section 309(d) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
(28 U.S.C. §2461 note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31
U.S.C. §3701 note) (currently $27,500 per day for each violation). Any person
who negligently violates any permit condition is subject to criminal penalties of
$2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than I year,
or both. Any person who knowingly violates permit conditions is subject to
criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for
not more than 3 years, or both. Also, any person who violates a permit condition
may be assessed an administrative penalty not to exceed $11,000 per violation
with the maximum amount not to exceed $137,500. [Ref: Section 309 of the
Federal Act 33 USC 13 t9 and 40 CFR 122.41(a)]
(c) Under state law, a daily civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000) per violation may be assessed against any person who violates
or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a
permit. [Ref: North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.6A]
(d) Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for
violating sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of this Act. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and the Act, administrative
penalties for Class I violations are not to exceed the maximum amounts
authorized by Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. §2461 note) as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. §3701 note) (currently $11,000 per
violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed
$27,500). Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and the Act, penalties for Class II violations
Parts V, VI, VII & VIH Page I of 9

NCS000429
are not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by Section 309(g)(2)(B) of
the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. §2461
note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. §370I
note) (currently $1 1,000 per day for each day during which the violation
continues, with the maximum amount of any Class U penalty not to exceed
$ l 37,500).
IPTMPNP.vr or
Y
l�l�liflY��V r1il Y�lirr �a�Il�Ll•9ll
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3,
143-215.6A, 143-215.613, 143-215.6C or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319.
even though the responsibility foi- effective eempliHnee may be tempoi-ar0y suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittce is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-215.75 et sect. or Section 31 1 of the
Federal Act, 33 USC 1321.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal
property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or
regulations.
6. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,
shall not be affected thereby.
Parts V, VI, VII & VIII Page 2 of 9

NCS0004-9
7. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information
which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying,
revoking and reissuing, or terminating the coverage issued pursuant to this permit or to
determine compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director
upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
N4171`0
P,
9. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
10. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit
condition.
SECTION B: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE of POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
tre tffie t and ,., ,tree (and related appurtenances) which are owned and/or operated by
the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. —Leper epefation
Parts V, V1, V1I & V11I Page 3 of 9

NCS000429
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
condition of this permit.
SEC'rION C: MONITORING AND RECORDS
ON 4
3. Test 11'r-eced u res
4.1. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an
authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Director), or in the case of a facility
which discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer system, an authorized
representative of a municipal operator or the separate storm sewer system receiving the
discharge, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required
by law, to;
(a) Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located
or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
Parts V, V1, VLI & Vill Page 4 of 9

NCS0004?9
(b) Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this permit;
(c) Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (ineltiding, Rd
eeotrel went), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit;
which are under the permitees control, and
(d) Sample of at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, a7ay substances er
pafafnetexs at any location that is under the permitees control.
5. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3(a)(2) or Section
308 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of
this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Division of Water
Quality. As required by the Act, analytical data shall not be considered confidential.
Knowingly making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of
criminal penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-215.613 or in Section 309 of the Federal
Act.
PART VI LIMITATIONS REOPENER
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and modifying the
permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules,
and regulations contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A
of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
PART VII ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE
REQUIREMENTS
The permittee must pay the administering fee within 30 thirty days
after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H .0105(b)(4) may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit.
Parts V, VI, Vll & V111 Page 5 of 9

NCS000429
PART VIII DEFINITIONS
Act
See Clean Water Act.
2. Best Management Practice BMP
Measures or practices used to reduce the amount of pollution entering surface waters.
.BMPs can be structural or non-structural and may take the form of a process, activity,
physical structure or planning (see non-structural BMP).
3. Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as
amended, 33 USC 1251, et. seq.
4. Division (DWO)
The Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
5. Director
The Director of the Division of Water Quality, the permit issuing authority.
6. EMC
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
8. Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 3 l I of the Clean
Water Act.
9. Illicit Discharge
Any discharge to a MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater except discharges
Pursuant to an NPDES permit (other than the NPDES MS4 permit), allowable non-
stormwater discharges, and discharges resulting from fire -fighting activities.
Parts V, VI, VII & VIII Page 6 of 9

NCS000429
10. Industrial Activity
For the purposes of this permit, industrial activities shall mean all industrial activities as
defined in 40 CFR 122.26.
11. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8) means a conveyance or system of conveyances
(including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters,
ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains):
(1) Owned or operated by the United States, a state, city, town, county, district,
association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having
jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other
wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer district, flood
control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an
authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management
agency under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) that discharges to
waters of the United States or waters of the State.
(ii) Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
(iii) Which is not a combined sewer; and
(iv) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined in 40
CFR 122.2
12. Non-stormwater Discharge Categories
The following are categories of non-stormwater discharges that the permittee must
address if it identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to the storm sewer
system: water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising
groundwater, uncontaminated groundwater infiltration, [as defined in 40 CFR
35.2005(20)], uncontaminated pumped groundwater, discharges from potable water
sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, water
from crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn watering, individual residential car
washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool
discharges, and street wash water (discharges or flows from fire fighting activities are
excluded from the definition of illicit discharge and only need to be addressed where they
are identified as significant sources of pollutants to waters of the United States).
13. Non-structural BMP
Non-structural BMPs are preventive actions that involve management and source controls
such as: (1) Policies and ordinances that provide requirements and standards to direct
growth to identified areas, protect sensitive areas such as wetlands and riparian areas,
maintain and/or increase open space, provide buffers along sensitive water- bodies,
Parts V, VI, VIl & V1I1 Page 7 of 9

NCS000429
minimize impervious surfaces, and/or minimize disturbance of soils and vegetation; (2)
policies or ordinances that encourage 1nfiII development in higher density urban areas,
and areas with existing storm sewer infrastructure; (3) education programs for developers
and the public about minimizing water quality impacts; (4) other measures such as
minimizing the percentage of impervious area after development, use of measures to
minimize directly connected impervious areas, and source control measures often thought
of as good housekeeping, preventive maintenance, and spill prevention.
14. Outfall
The point of wastewater or stormwater discharge from a discrete conveyance system. See
also point source discharge of stormwater.
15. Permittee
The owner or operator issued this permit.
16. Point Source Discharge of Stormwater
Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including, but not specifically limited
to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, or discrete fissure from which
stormwater is or may be discharged to waters of the state.
17. Redevelopment
Means any rebuilding activity other than a rebuilding activity that;
(1) Results in no net increase in built -upon area, and
(ii) Provides equal or greater stormwater control than the previous development.
�0 Ca�.�;,ti., 2 � Z 111/.,ro.• D.•;.,.•:r„ �l•1E}1�}Ei3-1
s
Parts V, VI, VLI & VIM Page 8 of 9
Parts V, VI, VLI & VIM Page 8 of 9

NCS00042 9'
Y
1
R
RIR�I:�lls7T. AlT1E'L!'J��:!{ f1. SM
r Y
a I � ■ I
20. Stormwater Runoff
The flow of water which results from precipitation and which occurs immediately
following rainfall or as a result of snowmelt.
Parts V, VI, VII & VIII Page 9 of 9

o�(3� W A
O Y
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
pf North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen M. Sullins, Deputy Director
= 6 ivIs1on.of CWaret;QualityT
•AN11 KI&TIIr,f,t nnon1lnnm-n
STAFF REVIEW AND EVALUATION MOORES!- "tom GFFICE
NPDES Stormwater Permit }�
Facility Name: City of Gastonia
NPDES Permit Number: NCS000429
OCT 0 1 2004
Facility Location:
City of Gastonia
Type of Activity:
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
Receiving Stream:
Anthony Creek, Bessemer Branch, BirkWo di Creek �
Burton Branch, Catawba Creek, Crowders Creek, Duharts
Creek, Jule Allen Branch, Kagler Creek, Long Creek,
McGill Creek, Oates Creek, Rankin Lake, Robinwood
Lake, and unnamed tributaries to them.
River Basin:
Catawba River Basin
Stream Classification:
B, C, WS-V
Proposed Permit Requirements:
See attached draft permit
Compliance Schedule:
See Part V, Section A of the attached draft permit
Basis for Monitoring:
Not applicable
Basis for Other Requirements:
Not applicable
Response Requested by (Date):
October 15, 2004
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
NPDES Stormwater Permit Application Form
Narrative Application Supplement: Stormwater Management Program Report
Recommendation: Based on the documents reviewed, the application information submitted
on March 10, 2003 is sufficient to issue an Individual Stormwater Permit.
Prepared by (Signature) ) � J Date Gi ,o A,
Stormwater Permitting Unit Supervisor Date -J 140A
61
T�
Concurrence by Regional OfficAPP? - 112-ee Date
11011,
Water Quality Supervisor
Date
N. C. Division of Water Quality IG 17 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone]
A
NCDE"NR
Customer Servicc
1-877-623.6748

1941M Kula ION I-bi CO I I Loroll—myl—IT-411 10,

GASTON GAZETTE
1893 REMOUNT RD.
P.O. BOX 1538
GASTONIA, N.C. 28053
54260055
AD NUMBER
If you're not a Gazette subscriber, you can aubscribeto the weekend
at half price for B months. Simply check the "Yea" box below and
add $21.00 to yourdue amount. New orders only. No mall
Dlyduot '6 2.00 if
paid ,within 10 days
subacriptione.
TIMESRUN
,;' -`CLASS
START4DAYi-{t
eSTOP`.pAY,€
- AQ TAKER
LINES,
1 1 /01/04
/01 /04 RPh
i l bec
56
_ _ `. _ - _ .._ _ -..KEEP THIS.STUB FOH YUUH HEGQRUL _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ ,
AST DUE PAFTER 10 DAYS. A $20.00 CHARGE
`WILL BE ADDED TO ALL RETURNED CHECKS. Yeal 1've added $21.00 to my payment.- -
.'PAY THIS AMOUNT.r�
116. 24
AD NUMBER,i
C • ' 55
PUBLIC NOTICE STA
TO: 30292309
NCDENR/DWG?/NPDES
Attn. Carolyn Bryant
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 2769.9--1617
i
itify that th,
-PLEASE RETURN THIS STUB WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
NPDES PHASE II STORMWATER PERMIT
Measuring 5.77 Inches appeared in The Gaston Gazette, a newspaper published in
Gaston County, Gastonia, NC, in issues:
NOVEMBER 01, 2004
ME s
Linda Seiboth
Legal Advertising
Swo' to an _ ' � I Yre me his 1 day of , 2004
tR y
f ' r
Carla Norris Potter, Notary Public
My Commission Expires September 14, 2008

The Knight Publishing Co., Inc.
Charlotte, NC
North Carolina } ss Affidavit of Publication
Mecklenburg County}
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES
CAROLYN BRYANT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CTR
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
REFERENCE: 30045571
5282994 YP/Public Notice
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,.
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of the Knight Publishing Company a
corporation organized and doing business under the
laws of the State of Delaware, and publishing a
newspaper known as The Charlotte Observer in the
city of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg and State
of North Carolina and that as such he/she is
familiar with the books, records, files and
business of said Corporation and by reference to
the files of said publication
the attached advertisement was inserted. The
following is correctly copied from the books and
files of the aforesaid Corporation and
Publication.
PUBLISHED ON: 11/01
_ I PUBLIC NOTICE '
—STA
OF NORTH CARLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL TN ALL MANAGEMENTO
OCOMMISSION
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
The &.RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699.1817
y of Gastonia has appfretl for an Ni Phase If Stormwster
Permit it: tlischai storrnwatar from their municipal separate Storm
sewer system (MS4) located within the Gly of Gastonia ffurlsdictional
area, Gaston Courrty to recaving,watera, Anthony Crepi�, Bessemer Branch, BlRckwood Creak, Burton Branch, Catawba Crook, Crowder,
Creak, Duharts Creek, Julie Allen Branch. Ke I(N Creek, Long McGill Creek, Oates Creek, Rankin Lake, Robmwood Lake and unnametl tributaries to them, all within the Catawba River Basin.
Copies pf the tlreh permit No. NCS0pp429, are available at .
--
Ken Pickle or by oorltoclinp;
NG Division of Water Ouahty
1617 Mail Sari Canter
Raleigph, NC 27699.1617 _
Telephore Number: (919) 733-5pW, extension 5a4
Ken.pickl o(pncrRai I. ne l
All comments and request should reference draft permit number
VLP52a-:994
AD SPAC 6 LINE
FILED O 1./0 4
----- - --- - - + - - -- ---------- - _f-- - - - ------
NAME: C TITLE: _ _
_— — DATE: NOV 9-ZOO-------
In Tes imony Whe f I have hereunto set my hand and,af e my seal, the
day and year afo gaid. e
Note j�[� — ---- My Commission Expires:--/--/—T
W Commts9ion Expires May 17, 2006

Re:.QUistion re stormwater permits
Subject: Re: Question re stormwater permits
From: Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:29:23 -0500
To: Ken Pickle <ken.pickle@ncmail. net>
CC: Bradley Bennett <bradley.bennett @ ncmail. net>, Mike Randall
<Mike.Randall @ ncmai1.net>
Dang it, you made me go back and pay attention!!! Here it is....
Hickory (subject to Clark Creek fecal TMDL.
It seems to me that all the counties on the web site should have
this clause since there are impaired waters and/or TMDLs in each of
those counties.
Also, the Jordan Lake TMDL will probably include Eton College -- do
you want to have the language in there now?
Michelle
Ken Pickle wrote:
Michelle,
Thanks for checking. I was the permit writer for Gastonia, I knew
they had non -supporting waters, and I thought that I had added the
TMDL language to their permit. Looks like a glitch from my desk.
Thanks, again for checking. We'll have to add it in the final
version of the permit.
It was our intent to add the TMDL language to each draft permit
with impaired waters, non -supporting waters, or an assigned TMDL.
Thanks again for checking. Any others that you saw?
Ken
Michelle Woolfolk wrote:
Hey guys,
I glanced through the stormwater permits on the web site and have
a question: /
Several municipalities that are subject to TMDLs do not have the
TMDL language under Permit Conditions (e.g., Gastonia). Is there
a rationale for this? Several other permits that are not subject
to TMDLs also don't have the permit language, but I know they
will be subject to a TMDL in the near future. Is there a
rationale for excluding the TMDL language from specific
municipalities?
mew
1 of 2 l 1/4/2004 1:38 PM

Re: r,:�ion re stormwater permits f ,
-Q� � �dC 6t_- C1o�--d 2.0A—
Subject: Re: Question re stormwater permits
From: Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:05:07 -0500
To: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
CC: Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>, Mike Randall
<Mike.Randall @ ncmai 1. net>
OK, here are a few more
Elon College (part of the Jordan watershed)
Hickory (Clark Creek, CTB)
Alamance Co (Jordan watershed)
Forsyth County (Salem and Muddy Creeks - TMDL will be completed
next year)
High Point (Richland Cr (CPF), Muddy Cr (CPF), East Fork Deep R
(CPF), Rich Fork (YAD) fecal and turbidity TMDLs).
Another question: Do we have to approve the monitoring plan? What
if DWQ doesn't get the data we want (i.e., the municipality chooses
to monitor something that is completely worthless)? where is the
check for that?
Michelle
Ken Pickle wrote:
Michelle,
Thanks for checking. I was the permit writer for Gastonia, I knew
they had non -supporting waters, and I thought that I had added the
TMDL language to their permit. Looks like a glitch from my desk.
Thanks, again for checking. We'll have to add it in the final
version of the permit.
It was our intent to add the TMDL language to each draft permit
with impaired waters, non -supporting waters, or an assigned TMDL.
Thanks again for checking. Any others that you saw?
Ken
Michelle Woolfolk wrote:
Hey guys,
I glanced through the stormwater permits on the web site and have
a question:
Several municipalities that are subject to TMDLs do not have the
TMDL language under Permit Conditions (e.g., Gastonia). Is there
a rationale for this? Several other permits that are not subject
to TMDLs also don't have the permit language, but I know they
will be subject to a TMDL in the near future. Is there a
of 2 1 1/12/2004 2:39 PM

Re: Qu ion re stormwater permits
r
rationale for excluding the TMDL language from specific
municipalities?
mew
MICHELLE WOOLFOLK
NCDWQ PLANNING BRANCH
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
PH:919/733-5083 x505 FX:919/715-2941
[e-mail];
2 of 2 11 / 12/2004 2: 39 PM

\PJ A.7-Michael F. Easley, Governor
RQ� William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0) 7 Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
�i Coleen 11. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
November 8, 2004
.toe Bicker. Stormwater Administrator
POB 1748
Gastonia. North Carolina 28053-1748
Subject: NPDES Permit Number NCS000429
Cify of Gastonia
Dear Mr. Bleker:
On July 12, 2004 the North Carolina General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 1210 (S 1210)
- Phase II Stormwater Management. The Governor signed the bill on August 2, 2004. This bill
addresses implementation of the federal NPDES Phase II stormwater program in North Carolina.
In S 1210, the General Assembly provided a framework that will allow state and local
government agencies to begin implementing the program. The bill establishes minimum
stormwater management requirements for municipal storm sewer systems and also applies
stormwater controls to some developing areas around these municipalities.
Phase 11 Draft permits for local governments were publicly noticed the week of
November 1, 2004 for those communities identified in the 1990 U.S. Census. Your community's
permit has been noticed and copies of the draft permit are available at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/phase2_draft_permits.htm
We took forward to receiving your comments on this draft permit and continuing to work
together for the benefit of your community and North Carolina. All comments and request
should reference draft permit number NCS000429. Please provide your comments by Friday,
December 10, 2004. If you have any questions about this draft permit don't hesitate to contact
me at [phone], ext. 584.
Sincerely,
Ken Pickle
cc: Stormwater Permitting Unit
Mooresville Regional Office
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone]
NC©ENR
Cuslomer Service
1-877-623-6748

IL
Fab «c�.� �a��r G�d� � #--
December 3, 2004
Mr. Mike Randall
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on Draft Phase II Individual Permits issued to notice•on November
1, 2004.
Dear Mike:
On behalf of the North Carolina League of Municipalities, and our 123.members subject
to the Phase II NPDES Stormwater permit requirements, i am submitting, comments on
the draft permits issued'November 1, 2004. These comments are in addiiion4o comments
submitted by the individual cities and should not be construed to be in conflict with those
comments on their individual permits.
Program Implementation
Part II, Section A(1)(a)
The first sentence of this section,implies that cities are required to create a new authority
in order to implement the Phase II program. - We suggest that this sentence be rewritten to
read, "The permittee will develop and maintain adequate legal mechanism; such as rules,
v regulations, ordinances, policies and procedures to implement all provisions of the
Stormwater Plan."
TMDL Language
Part II, Section A(1)(k)
This language appears to establish a new program implementation goal beyond the six
minimum measures required by the federal rule. Based on -my conversations with you
and other members of the Division of Water Quality staff, this provision' will undergo a
substantial rewrite to clarify that the additional requirements are only necessary if and
when a TMDL is established within a permittee's jurisdiction. This is an important
clarification and should be clearly communicated to all the permittees.
Implementation Dates
The draft permits create a false impression that permittees are required to implement the
six minimum measures earlier than required under current statute or rules: Under the
federal rule, permittees will have 5 years to fully implement their Phase` IL, program.
Senate bill 1210 requires that the post construction minimum measure be' Jmplemented
within 24 months of the date of permit issuance. Throughout both the template permit
and draft permits issued to Phase II cities, minimum measures are required"to be
implemented within the first year. No permittee should be required to implement the
minimum measures prior to what is prescribed by the federal rule, legislation, or relevant
provisions of the temporary rule.

Illicit Discharge
Part 1I, Section D(2)(b)
Please clarify the intent of this section. As discussed under program implementation
above, this language suggests that permittees must seek new authority to implement their
program. The first sentence in Section D(2) should be rewritten to read, "The permittee
shall implement the following BMPs to the extend authorized by law or allowable under
existing rules and statutes." Municipalities have authority in existing statutory law to
implement the illicit discharge and detection program as to their MS4. Permittees should
not have to seek additional authority to implement this minimum measure.
Construction Site Runoff Controls
Part II, Section E
Based on comments received from our member cities, it is unclear that a city may rely
upon the existing state program to meet this minimum requirement. Please incorporate
this clarification where appropriate.
Post Construction Site Runoff Controls
Part 11, SectionF(2)(k)
Draft permits issued to municipalities located within CAMA counties set the density
threshold 12 percent. This provision is not consistent with current regulations or
legislation. A reduced density threshold should not be imposed on the permittee unless
agreed to by the permitee, or otherwise required by statute or regulation.
.5
Definitions
Part VIII, Number 17.
Senate bill 1210 clarified the definition of redevelopment. The new, clarified version of
the definition should be included in the permit.
Thank for you for the opportunity to comment on the draft individual Phase II permits.
Please contact me should have any questions. We look forward to the opportunity to
comment on the draft Phase II general permit in the coming months.
Sincerely,
, Anita S. Watkins
cc: Robin W. Smith, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, DENR

imap://ken.pickic%40dwq,denr.ncniai 1. net @ cros.ncmai 1.net:143/fete...
Subject: Response to Draft Permit NCS000429 � �~
From: "Bieker, Joe" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:48:31 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Bombardier, Flip" <[e-mail]>, "Pruitt, Felix" <[e-mail]>,
"Jordan, Matt" <[e-mail]>, "Magee, Melissa" <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Mr. Pickle:
The City of Gastonia has received and reviewed the draft permit (#NCS000429) for
discharge of storm water to the waters of the state. In general, we find that this
document is in line with the guidelines of the EPA for Phase IT programs and our
application under SWU-268-103102. However, there are several issues that do not
appear to fit into these guidelines, nor our permit application, nor the existing
rules or statutes pertaining to this issue.
As such, we must begin by voicing our concurrence with the issues presented by the
NCLM in their correspondence with Mr. Randall, dated December 3, 2004 (please see
Attachment A). Additionally, we must categorically protest any reference to testing,
sampling, monitoring, measuring, and the like. These references imply a degree of
responsibility for water quality not mentioned in any other Phase II guideline either
from the S or the USEPA. Furt ermore, w i e we recognize that this permit is
Fnot the only expression of our responsibilities to water quality, and that s/
cross-references help the Division to maintain oversight of water quality matters, we
do not agree with any permit language that extends any other scope of responsibility,
or our Phase 11 responsibilities beyond those indicated by approved rules or
statutes.
in attached the electronic copy of the above referenced document (Attachment
9). We have incorporated our amendments using Microsoft Word. By way of annotation,
we submit the following:
On the title page, this permit does not have any conditions or requirements
Ior testing or quantitative monitoring. We wish to remove such references.
In Part I, §1, we wish to clearly define the terms "Stormwater Management
Program", and "Stormwater Plan".
in Part I, §4, we wish to clarify that our authority is contained within our
City Limits, and to only those stormwater pipes we own and maintain; with the
exception of certain zoning authority within the City's pre -specified
extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The ETJ is limited and finite. There is no
expectation that our ETJ will increase in the future. Accordingly, we will exercise
those zoning functions required there, but we cannot affect any other action in those
regions. For this reason, we would request the addition of §4A..
Part I, §7; while we will move forward with plans to take steps to reduce the
/j impacts of urbanization on the waters of our community, we cannot commit to the
✓ monitoring implicit in such as guarantee as this section implies.
Part I, §8, sub§(b); we feel the adjective "emergency" to be inappropriate,
and request its removal, and we request that while it is within the authority of the
Division to re -open this permit, without testing (for which we should not be held
responsible), there is no expectation that any of these permitted discharges would
ever contribute to water quality issues in our MS4.
Part II, §A, sub51; per the recommendations of our legal staff and the NCLM.
Part IT, §A, sub§4; undue reference to monitoring, testing, sampling etc.
Part II, §A, sub§5; the City has established a freestanding, and self
funding Stormwater Utility to address this permit. While a Utility provides
substantial latitude with regards to funding, and the City is fully committed to
managing the impacts of urban runoff, there are limits to our ability to guarantee
funding.
Part I1, §A, sub§7; as noted, the approved and adopted rule allows for
utilization of other stage or local programs meeting these goals. It is not our
intent to shirk this responsibility, but to clarify our authorization to utilize
other approved programs.
Part IT, §A, sub§8; this phase of the Stormwater guidelines does not indicate
a need for testing. Without testing, firm guarantees appear inappropriate. The
City will endeavor to implement BMPs in an effort to reduce loadings.
Part II, §A, sub§11; the City can find no basis for these new requirements in
143 12/10/2004 1 1:59 AM

i m ap://ken. pic k 1c%n4Odwq.denr, nc mai 1, net @ c ms. nem ai 1. net:143/fete...
SB1210 or the EMCs final rule as referenced in SB 1210. We stand willing to work
with any TMDLs under the current TMDL program and regulations.
Part II, § B, sub§2, I (a); the City does not discriminate on the basis of
Race, Creed, Color, Gender, or Socio-Economic Status. We request the removal of such
distinctions from our permit.
Part II, §B, sub§2, I (b)&(d); the City finds that while we do not
discriminate on the basis of economic status, that our constituency is ill served by
the expectation that they can afford the high speed internet connections necessary to
properly distribute our message_ We believe that other media such as Government
Access Cable, and utility bill inserts are superior media for the distribution of our
message.
Part II, §B, sub52, I (c ); the last phrase is redundant to the modified 4
(a) .
Part II, §C, sub§1, I (b); as mentioned, the City requests the removal of
language that favors any group over another.
Part II, § D, sub§1, Y(c ); the City will comply with the guidelines
established by the rule adopted by the EMC.
- Part II, §E, sub§2; the Rule and SB1210 clearly authorize the utilization of
another approved program.
Part II, §E, sub§2, I (c ); we cannot find a foundation for requirement for
educational material for Construction Site Runoff Controls in USEPA Stormwater Phase
Il guidelines, SB 1210, or the EMCs final rule. Accordingly we believe the
requirement to provide these materials exceeds the scope of Phase 2 intentions.
However, we will to encourage the participation in the program required of the Gaston
County Ordinance and Program.
Part II, §F, sub91, T(b); neither the Rule nor SB1210 require an expansion of
the MS4 to include Ltreatment works) The City will establish appropriate mechanisms
for the pursuit of the goal of promoting (to the extent of requiring within said
mechanism) Long term operation and maintenance of BMPs.
- Part II, §F, sub§2; certain processes cannot be undertaken without the
enabling ordinance in place. It is expected that with the substantial burden to be
placed on developers, there will be significant resistance to the adoption of this
ordinance, it is therefore expected that such adoption will not be accomplished until
the end of the second year.
Part II, §F, sub§2, 1(b); we find the phrase "a combination of" confusing,
and do not believe its removal changes the intent of this paragraph.
Part II, §F, sub§2, 1(b); the City will exercise appropriate authority to
pursue the goal of long-term operation and maintenance.
Part II, §F, sub§2, 1(b); it remains to be determined what management steps
will be appropriate to pursue the above referenced goals.
art I §F, su ng a degree of urbanization in the
City of Gastonia, the only reasonable sources of fecal coliform are from /
domestic/industrial waste water systems. The City is currently discussing our /
collection system permit with the Division, and both our treatment plants are under YYY
NPDES permits. This leaves only private wastewater treatment systems as a realistic
source of fecals. The City has no authority, or capacity to manage, review, or
otherwise address these systems as a source of fecal coliforms in our streams. We
cannot meet any expectation that we should manage these sources in any 3gay.
ar , su § I we wish o clarify mi e authority.
Part II, §F, sub§j, 1(b), sub-1(iii); since this is a permit specific to the
City's MS4, we feel it would be most appropriate to determine goals that are
significant to this region.
Part IV; as this permit does not require monitoring, charting, sampling,
measuring or other such analysis, we request the removal of these references.
Part 11, §6; due to the specific and administrative nature of this permit; at
this time, the City cannot contemplate ariy discrete violation of this permit that
could be tied to any 24 hour period. We feel this section is inappropriate, and
request that it be removed.
Part V, §A, sub§1; T(a), references to 307(a) are not appropriate to this
permit due to the implicit need for sampling and testing
Part V, §A, sub§2; while inputs to the MS4 are discrete and finite, they
number greater than 8,000 in the City, the implication for the need for sampling
should be removed.
Part V, §A, sub§3; the extension of liability is beyond the scope of Phase II
requirements.
Part V, §A, sub§8; there are no measuring or monitoring technologies required
in this permit; therefore, this section is un-necessary.
2 of 3 12/10/2004 1 1:59 AM

y
imap:Hken.pickle%40dwq.(Ienr.ncmai 1.net @ crns.ncmai I.net:143/fete...
Part V, §B, sub§l; since there are no quantitative measurements in this
permit, there is no need for the technology described herein.
Part V, § C, sub§ 1-3, as mentioned, we request the removal of references to
testing, sampling, measuring, or other analytical procedures not otherwise mentioned
in this permit.
- part V, §C, sub§4; we request the recognition that an MS4 may be
interconnected with private systems beyond the Municipality's control.
Part VII, as we understand, this fee should simply be administrative in
nature; there should not be a need for testing, monitoring, sampling or the like.
Part VIII; several definitions are recommended for removal as the terms do
not appear in the permit.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. We look forward to working with the
Division to finalize this permit, and await your expeditious response to our
comments.
<<formal response to second draft permit.doc>> <<NCMLtoDWQ_120304.pdf>>
Joe
Joseph E. Bieker, PE
City of Gastonia
Stormwater Utility Administrator
POBox 1748
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
704-869-1062
[e-mail]
3 of 3 12/10/2004 1 1:59 AM

f imap://[e-mail]].net:143/fete...
Subject: Response to Draft Permit NCS000429
From: "Bieker, Joe" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:48:31 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Bombardier, Flip" <[e-mail]>, "Pruitt, Felix" <[e-mail]>,
"Jordan, Matt" <mattj @cityofgastonia.com>, "Magee, Melissa" <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Mr. Pickle:
The City of Gastonia has received and reviewed the draft permit (#NCS000429) for
discharge of storm water to the waters of the state. In general, we find that this
document is in line with the guidelines of the EPA for Phase II programs and our
application under SWU-268-103102. However, there are several issues that do not
appear to fit into these guidelines, nor our permit application, nor the existing O
rules or statutes pertainin to th,is_i.ssue. �
As -such, we must begin by voicing our concurrence with the issues presented b�see
NCLM in their correspondence with Mr. Randall., dated December 3, 2004 (p ease
c en i iona y, we mus ca egorica y protest any re erence testing,
ampling, monitoring, measuring, and the like. These references imply a egree o
re'Sponsibil'ity or water qua"-ity not mentioned in any other Phase II guideline either
from the State, or the USEPA. Furthermore, while we recognize that this permit is
not the only expression of our responsibilities to water quality, and that
cr ss-references het the Div's'on to maintain oversight of water quality matt we O
do not agree with any permit language that extends any other scope o responsibility,
or our Phase II responsibilities beyond those indicated by approved rules or
statutes.
Please ind attached the electronic copy of the above referenced document (Attachment
B). We have incorporated our amendments using Microsoft Word. By way of annotation,
we submit the following:
On the title page, this permit does not have any conditions or requiremen t
for testingor quantitative monitoring. We wish to remove such references
n ar we wzs to clearly define t e terms "Stormwater Management jN
Program", and "Stormwater Plan".
�n ar —I; 94, o c arify that our authority is containe within our
ity Limits, and to only those stormwater pipes we own and maintain; with the O
exception of certain zoning authority within the City's pre -specified
extraterritorial. jurisdiction (ETJ). The ETJ is limited and finite. There is no
expectation that our ETJ will increase in the future. Accordingly, we will exercise
those zoning functions required there, but we cannot affect any other action in those
regions. For this reason, we would request the addition of §4A..
.I- we will move forwar witlans to`lake steps to reduce the
impacts of urbanization on the waters of our community, we cannot commit to the
monitoring implicit in such as guarantee as this section implies.
t 8, su b we fe'erChe- adjective "emergency" to be inappropriate, Q
and request its removal, and we request that while it is within the authority of the
Division to re -open this permit, without testing (for which we should not be held
responsible), there is no expectation that any of these permitted discharges would
evesrik�u e to__�w_ate q j,ty issues n our M. 4.
Part II, §A, sub§l; per the recommendations of our legal staff and the NCLM:0
Part II, §A, sub§4; undue reference to monitoring, testing, sampling etcQ
Part II, §A, sub§5; the City has established a freestanding, and self
funding Stormwater Utility to address this permit. While a Utility provides
substantial latitude with regards to funding, and the City is fully committed to
managing the impacts of urban runoff, there are limits to our ability to guarantee kV
funding.
Part II, §A, sub§7; as noted, the approved and adopted rule allows for
utilization of other state or local programs meeting these goals. It is not our 1p
intent to shirk this responsibility, but to clarify our authorization to utilize
other approved programs.
- Part II, §A, sub§8; this phase of the Stormwater guidelines does not indicate it
a need for testing. Without testing, firm guarantees appear inappropriate. The
City will endeavor r.mpleme.n_t-BM.2s. ia-an-e-ffor-t to-reduce—iadin_ s.
ar II, §A, sub§11; the City can find no basis for these new er�quirements in
1 of 3 12/ 10/2004 1 l :49 AM

imap://[e-mail]:143/fete...
SS1210 or the EMCs final rule as referenced in SB 1210. We stand willing to work u
with -any TMDLs under the current TMDL program and re ulations. 13
�___,/Part II, § B, sub§2, I (a); the City does not discriminate on the basis of
Race, Creed, Color, Gender, or Socio-Economic Status. We request the removal of such
distinctions from our permit.
Part II, §B, sub§2, I (b)&(d); the City finds that while we do not Iq
discriminate on the basis of economic status, that our constituency is ill served by
the expectation that they can afford the high speed internet connections necessary to
properly distribute our message. We believe that other media such as Government
Access Cable, and utility bill inserts are superior media for the distribution of our
message.
Part II, §B, sub§2, I (c ); the last phrase is redundant to the modified 115
(a) .
Part 11, §C, sub§1, I (b); as mentioned, the City requests the removal of 19
language that favors any group over another.
Part 11, § D, sub§1, 1(c ); the City will comply with the guidelines
established by the rule adopted by the EMC.
Part 11, §E, sub§2; the Rule and SB1210 clearly authorize the utilization of(g)
another approved program.
Part 11, §E, su q c we cannot in a oundation for requirement for
educational material for Construction Site Runoff Controls in USEPA Stormwater Phase
II guidelines, SB 1210, or the EMCs final rule. Accordingly we believe the
requirement to provide these materials exceeds the scope of Phase 2 intentions.
However, we will to encourage the participation in the program required of the Gaston
County Ordinance and Program.
ar suI ); neither the Rule nor SB1210 require an expansion of
the MS4 to include treatment works. The City will establish appropriate mechanisms
for the pursuit of the goal of promoting (to the extent of requiring within said
mechanism) long term operation and maintenance of BMPs.
Part II, §F, sub§2; certain processes cannot be undertaken without the
enabling ordinance in place. It is expected that with the substantial burden to be
placed on developers, there will be significant resistance to the adoption of this
ordinance, it is therefore expected that such adoption will not be accomplished until
the end of the second year.
Part 11, §F, sub§2, q(b); we find the phrase "a combination of" confusing,
and do not believe its removal changes the intent of this paragraph.
Part II, §F, sub§2, 1(b); the City will exercise appropriate authority to
pursue the goal of long-term operation and maintenance.
Part II, §F, sub§2, 1(b); it remains to be determined what management steps
will be appropriate to pursue the above referenced goals.
Part 11, §F, sub§2, I (c ); considering the degree of urbanization in the
City of Gastonia, the only reasonable sources of fecal coliform are from
domestic/industrial waste water systems. The City is currently discussing our
collection system permit with the Division, and both our treatment plants are under
NPDES permits. This leaves only private wastewater treatment systems as a realistic
source of fecals. The City has no authority, or capacity to manage, review, or
otherwise address these systems as a source of fecal coliforms in our streams. We
cannot meet any expectation that we should manage these sources in any way.
Part II, §F, sub§3, 1(b); we wish to clarify our limited authority.
Part 11, §F, sub§2, q(b), sub-1(iii); since this is a permit specific to the
City's MS4, we feel it would be most appropriate to determine goals that are
significant to this region.
Part IV; as this permit does not require monitoring, charting, sampling,
measuring or other such analysis, we request the removal of these references.
Part II, §6; due to the specific and administrative nature of this permit; at
this time, the City cannot contemplate any discrete violation of this permit that
could be tied to any 24 hour period. We feel this section is inappropriate, and
request that it be removed.
Part V, §A, sub§l; 1(a), references to 307(a) are not appropriate to this
permit due to the implicit need for sampling and testing
Part V, §A, sub§2; while inputs to the MS4 are discrete and finite, they
number greater than 8,000 in the City, the implication for the need for sampling
should be removed.
Part V, §A, sub§3; the extension of liability is beyond the scope of Phase II
requirements.
Part V, §A, sub§8; there are no measuring or monitoring technologies required
in this permit; therefore, this section is un-necessary.
2 of 3 12/10/2004 H A9 AM

iinap:Hken. pick le%40dwq.denr.ncmai1.net@ern smcmail. net:143/1etc...
Part V, §B, sub§l; since there are no quantitative measurements in this
permit, there is no need for the technology described herein.
Part V, § C, sub§ 1-3, as mentioned, we request the removal of references to
testing, sampling, measuring, or other analytical procedures not otherwise mentioned
in this permit.
- Part V, §C, sub§4; we request the recognition that an MS4 may be
interconnected with private systems beyond the Municipality's control.
Part VII, as we understand, this fee should simply be administrative in
nature; there should not be a need for testing, monitoring, sampling or the like.
Part VIII; several definitions are recommended for removal as the terms do
not appear in the permit.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. We look forward to working with the
Division to finalize this permit, and await your expeditious response to our
comments_
<<formal response to second draft permit.doc>> <<NCMLtoDWQ_120304.pdf>>
Joe
Joseph E. Bieker, PE
City of Gastonia
Stormwater Utility Administrator
POBox 1748
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
704-869-1062
[e-mail]
3 of 3 12/10/2004 11:49 AM

�,.y�*ra�,� .a.
t°;�, .,Lit. �' ��'',�
Aas-
f y3 �r�. -a i
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
August 25, 2005
Edward C. Munn, City Manager
181 S. South St.
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Subject: NPDES Permit Number NCS000429
City of Gastonia, Gaston County
Dear Mr. Munn;
In accordance with your application for a stormwater discharge permit received on March
10, 2003, and as amended, we are forwarding herewith the subject state - NPDES permit. This
permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215 .l and
the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection
agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
Numerous comments were received during the public comment period. The attached
document summarizes comments regarded by DWQ as -the foremost and DWQ's response to
those comments. You may review all the comments and response to comments at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/NPDES Phase U Stormwater Pro ram.htm
As a result of comments received during the comment period, DWQ revised the TMDL
language for communities that are or may be subject to TMDLs during the term of their permit.
The revisions were editorial in nature and necessary to clarify the additional requirements a
community would be subject to if 1) the permitted MS4 is or becomes subject to an approved
TMDL, and 2) following notice of such by the Division.
If any parts contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter.
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office
Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7447. Unless such demand is made, this
decision shall be final and binding.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Environmental Management or permits required by the Division of
Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or any other state, federal or local governmental
permit that may be required.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617
512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal opportunity/Affirm alive Action Employer — 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
One
NorthCarolina
Aiturally

fi.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mike Randall at
telephone number 919/733-5083 ext. 545.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Mike Mitchell, EPA Region IV
DWQ Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Mooresville Regional Office