NC0074012_SPECULATIVE LIMITS_19941019

WDES DOCUWENT SCANNIMO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NCO074012
Lincoln County/Forney Crk WWTP .
Document Type: ,
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File -'Historical
ti..
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
October 19, 1994
Tisis documeat ins prlated oa reuMe paper - igaore say
coateat oa the reIFerfte 1"C1e

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
i; Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 19, 1994
IT
,m;A410 on K
EDFEE HNR
Mr. Richard L. French, Manager
County of Lincoln
115 West Main St.
Lincolmon, N.C. 28092
Subject: Lincoln County - Forney Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
NPDES Permit No. NCO074012
Lincoln County
Dear Mr. French:
Your request for speculative effluent limits for the Lincoln County - Forney Creek
WWTP at 0.750 MGD has been completed by the staff of the Technical Support Branch.
In order to receive final permit limits, a formal application will have to be submitted to the
Division's Water Quality Permits and Engineering Unit.
PM
Based on available information, the tentative limits for conventional constituents
Summer
Winter
Wasteflow (MGD)
0.750
0.750
BODS (mgtl)
14
28
NH3-N (mg/1)
2
4
Dissolved Oxygen
5
5
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
Fecal Coliform (#/lWm1)
200
200
pH (SU)
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (gg/1)
25
25
It should be noted that the tentative N113-N limits are based on protecting Forney
Creek against instream toxicity. North Carolina is evaluating all NPDES dischargers for
ammonia toxicity following the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance to
protect the waters for an instream criteria of 1 mg/l in the summer and 1.8 mg/1 in the
winter, under 7Q10 flow conditions. Current Division procedure dictates that summer and
winter ammonia toxicity limits lower than 2 mg/1 and 4 mg/l , respectively, will not be
assigned.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) is now recommending chlorine
limits and dechlorination for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of
chlorine for disinfection. An acceptable level of chlorine in your effluent is 25 µg/1 to
ensure protection against chronic toxicity. The process of chlorination/dechlorination or an
alternate form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to
comply with the total residual chlorine limit.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Letter to Mr. French
page 2
We hope this information provides some assistance in your planning
endeavors. As previously mentioned, final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined
after a formal permit application has been submitted to the Division. If there are any
additional questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Ruth Swanek or
Jackie Nowell of my staff at [phone].
Ao
S erely,
nald L.
Assistant Chief for Technic upport
Water Quality Section
DLS/JMN
cc: Rex Gleason
Bobby Blowe
Central, Files
WI;A File

LINCOLN CO.-FORNEY CREEK WWTP
FORNEY CREEK
030833
JMN
10/17/94
Facility requesting speculative limits for 0.750 MGD wasteflow. Over the years have done
many WLAs for various flows. Lincoln Co. is planning for growth and has often included
wastewater for many service areas that may have been deleted as plans are reviewed. A
review of EA was done by Michelle Wilson earlier this year. At that time, IA commented
that spec limits for 0.750 MGD would have to be completed as part of the assessment
process.
Basinwide Management Plan has no specific strategy for this watershed. The plan for
regionalization of flow is always supported

J�qY Cod
y a COUNTY OF LINCOLN, NORTH CAROLINA
"'•'' `' 115 WEST MAIN STREET, 3RD FLOOR CITIZENS CENTER, LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28092
to p1N�`�,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
[phone]
September 7, 1994
Ms. Colleen Sullins
Unit Supervisor
Permits and Engineering Group
Water Quality Section
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Reference: Forney Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NCO074012
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Subject: Request for Preliminary Limits
Dear Ms. Sullins:
Preliminary limits for the Forney Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant have already
been established by your office as indicated in your December 28, 1992, letter.
These limits, however, were based on a treatment plant capacity of 1.5 MGD. The
proposed service area has, since that time, been reduced and the new proposed
treatment plant capacity is 0.75 MGD. The County is subsequently hereby
requesting preliminary limits at 0.75 MGD for the Forney Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF LINCOLN
Richard L. French, Manager

LINCOLN CO-FORNEY CR W WiP
Residual Chlorine Ammonia as NR3
(summer)
7010 (CFS)
0.6
7010 (CFS)
0.6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
E-6.75
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
Oi 75-7
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.1625
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.1625
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22 '
IWC (%)
65.96
IWC (%)
65.96
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
L25y777
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
� rtd98_h
/6:3�JK-1
Ammonia as NR3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
Fecal Limit 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.75
Rado of 0.5:1 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.1625
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (%)
45.37,,�/
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
L3.70 %�N6rD
rl4.65- ,
NCO074012 10/13/94

--�� �c Wasteflor (MGD) 0.7s�
- Facility (�N�l�
Summer/Winter (circle one)
n-rf T-
C
30
- IS
/o
0—S la is zo
N113—N (Mg/1)
PotNtial�effluent limit. combinations:.
BOD5 NH3-N -
_ I� 9

f��p�/ram "F�✓F� 7s "
SUMMER
FORNEY CR @ 0.750 MGD, NH3 TO)
LIMIT = 1.4 MG/L
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : EAST LINCOLN CO-FORNEY CR WWTP
Receiving Stream : FORNEY CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.11 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 9.16 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 4.09 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flc
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach (mg/1)
---------------------- ----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
---------
Segment
1
5.78 0.00 1
Reach
1
21.00
6.30
5.00
0.7500C
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C
Reach
4
60.00
90.00
0.00
0.0210C
Reach
5
33.00
18.00
5.00
5.0000C
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C
Reach
7
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.000OC
Reach
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00OOC

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger EAST LINCOLN CO-FORNEY CR WWTP
Receiving Stream FORNEY CREEK
Summer 7Q10 0.58 Winter 7Q10
Design Temperature: 26.0
ILHIO HI SLOPE] PELOC1iY I GEPiHj Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I rift I KN I KNP, j PIR I
I wile I ft/Oil fps I ft Idesignl 020° Idesignj i201 Idesigr,l VP ;desianl @H, I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I i
Segcent I 1 1.701 12.001 0.182 1 O.S1 1 0.34 1 0.26 1 4.49 1 3.941 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.45 10.00 I
Reach I I I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segcent 1 I 1.101 9.001 0,176 1 1.26 1 0,30 1 0,23 1 3.25 1 2.861 0.48 1 0,30 1 0.48 j 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Sepent 1 1 0.401 9.001 0.177 1 1.29 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 L 27 1 2•811 0AS 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segant 1 1 0.961 9.001 0,179 1 1.29 1 0,30 1 0.23 1 3.30 1 3.901 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
---------------------------------------- ...........................................................
I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I
Segcent 1 I I.S0j 9.41 0.363 1 1.47 1 0.34 1 0.26 1 5.39 1 4,711 0.48 1 0.30 1 0AS j 0.00 I
Reach S I I I I I I I I I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segcent 1 1 1.a01 4.501 0.376 1 2.03 1 0,30 1 0. 3 i 2.`1 I 2.201 0.4a 1 0.30 1 0.15 1 0.00 1
Reach 6 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ..............................
I I I I I I I I I I I i I
Seg¢er.t 1 1 2.101 4.501 0.375 1 7.04 1 L N j 0.23 1 2.50 1 2.191 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 I O.00 1
Reach 7 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segcert 1 1 0.701 4.501 0.372 1 2.06 i 0.30 1 0.23 1 2.48 1 2.171 0.18 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0,00 I
Reach 8 1 1 1 i I I I i I I I I I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
FlOW
1
cfs
Segment 1 Reach
1
Waste 1
1.163
Headwatersl
0.600
Tributary I
0.000
* Runoff I
0.047
CBOD j
NBOD I
D.C.
1 mg/1 I
mg/l I
mg/l
121.000 I
6.300 I
5.000
2.000 I
1.000 j
7.300
I 2.000 I
1.000 1
7.300
1 2.000 1
1.000 I
7.300
Subbasin
Stream Class
1.34
030E
C
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000

* Runoff
I 0.110
I 2.000
I 1.000
( 7.300
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
I 0.000
I 0.000
I 0.000
( 0.000
Tributary
I 0.000
( 2.000
I 1.000
I 7.300
* Runoff
I 0.110
I 2.000
I 1.000
( 7.300
Segment 1
Reach 4
Waste
I 0.033
160.000
( 90.000
( 0.000
Tributary
( 0.000
I 2.000
I 1.000
( 7.300
* Runoff
j 0.110
I 2.000
j 1.000
j 7.300
Segment 1
Reach 5
Waste
i 7.750
133.000
118.000
j 5.000
Tributary
( 0.000
( 2.000
I 1.000
I 7.300
* Runoff
I 0.110
I 2.000
I 1.000
( 7.300
Segment 1
Reach 6
Waste
( 0.000
I 0.000
I 0.000
( 0.000
Tributary
110.800
( 2.000
I 1.000
I 7.300
* Runoff
j 0.000
I 2.000
I 1.000
j 7.300
Segment 1
Reach 7
Waste
j 0.000
I 0.000
I 0.000
( 0.000
Tributary
j 0.100
j 2.000
j 1.000
I 7.300
* Runoff
I 0.000
I 2.000
I 1.000
( 7.300
Segment 1
Reach 8
Waste
j 0.000
j 0.000
I 0.000
( 0.000
Tributary
( 0.740
( 2.000
I 1.000
I 7.300
* Runoff
(, 0.000
I 2.000
I 1.000
I 7.300
k Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
/I

SUMMER
FORNEY
CR @ 0.750
LIMIT
= 1.4 MG/L
Seg
I Reach
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow
1
1
0.00
5.78
14.53
4.50
1.76
1
1
0.10
5.89
14.33
4.42
1.77
1
1
0.20
5.99
14.14
4.34
1.77
1
1
0.30
6.08
13.95
4.26
1.78
1
1
0.40
6.16
13.76
4.18
1.78
1
1
0.50
6.23
13.57
4.11
1.79
1
1
0.60
6.29
13.39
4.04
1.79
1
1
0.70
6.35
13.21
3.96
1.80
1
1
0.80
6.40
13.03
3.89
1.80
1
1
0.90
6.45
12.86
3.82
1.80
1
1
1.00
6.49
12.68
3.76
1.81
1
1
1.10
6.53
12.51
3.69
1.81
1
1
1.20
6.57
12.34
3.63
1.82
1
1
1.30
6.60
12.18
3.56
1.82
1
1
1.40
6.63
12.01
3.50
1.83
1
1
1.50
6.66
11.85
3.44
1.83
1
1
1.60
6.69
11.69
3.38
1.84
1
1
1.70
6.72
11.54
3.32
1.84
1
2
1.70
7.05
6.13
2.00
4.25
1
2
1.80
7.07
6.06
1.97
4.26
1
2
1.90
7.09
5.98
1.93
4.27
1
2
2.00
7.11
5.91
1.90
4.29
1
2
2.10
7.13
5.84
1.87
4.30
1
2
2.20
7.15
5.77
1.83
4.31
1
2
2.30
7.17
5.70
1.80
4.32
1
2
2.40
7.18
5.63
1.77
4.33
1
2
2.50
7.20
5.56
1.74
4.34
1
2
2.60
7.22
5.50
1.71
4.35
1
2
2.70
7.23
5.43
1.68
4.36
1
2
2.80
7.25
5.37
1.65
4.37
1
3
2.80
7.25
5.37
1.65
4.37
1
3
2.84
7.25
5.34
1.64
4.38
1
3
2.88
7.26
5.31
1.63
4.38
1
3
2.92
7.26
5.29
1.62
4.39
1
3
2.96
7.27
5.26
1.60
4.39
1
3
3.00
7.27
5.24
1.59
4.40
1
3
3.04
7.28
5.21
1.58
4.40
1
3
3.08
7.28
5.19
1.57
4.40
1
3
3.12
7.29
5.16
1.56
4.41
1
3
3.16
7.30
5.14
1.55
4.41
1
3
3.20
7.30
5.11
1.54
4.42
1
4
3.20
7.25
5.52
2.19
4.45
1
4
3.30
7.25
5.45
2.15
4.46
1
4
3.40
7.26
5.39
2.11
4.47
1
4
3.50
7.26
5.32
2.07
4.48
1
4
3.60
7.27
5.26
2.04
4.49
1
4
3.70
7.28
5.20
2.00
4.50
1
4
3.80
7.29
5.14
1.97
4.52
1
4
3.90
7.29
5.08
1.93
4.53
1
4
4.00
7.30
5.02
1.90
4.54
1
4
4.10
7.31
4.96
1.87
4.55
1
5
4.10
5.85
22.63
12.03
12.30
1
5
4.20
5.84
22.49
11.93
12.31
1
5
4.30
5.82
22.35
11.83
12.32
1
5
4.40
5.81
22.21
11.73
12.33
1
5
4.50
5.80
22.07
11.64
12.34
1
5
4.60
5.80
21.93
11.54
12.35
MGD, NH3 TO)

1
5
4.80
5.79
21.66
11.35
12.38
1
5
4.90
5.79
21.53
11.25
12.39
1
5
5.00
5.79
21.39
11.16
12.40
1
5
5.10
5.79
21.26
11.06
12.41
1
5
5.20
5.79
21.13
10.97
12.42
1
5
5.30
5.79
21.00
10.88
12.43
1
5
5.40
5.80
20.87
10.79
12.44
1
5
5.50
5.80
20.74
10.70
12.45
1
5
5.60
5.81
20.61
10.61
12.46
1
5
5.70
5.82
20.48
10.52
12.47
1
5
5.80
5.83
20.36
10.43
12.49
1
5
5.90
5.83
20.23
10.34
12.50
1
6
5.90
6.51
11.78
6.01
23.30
1
6
6.00
6.48
11.72
5.97
23.30
1
6
6.10
6.44
11.67
5.92
23.30
1
6
6.20
6.41
11.61
5.87
23.30
1
6
6.30
6.38
11.55
5.83
23.30
1
6
6.40
6.35
11.50
5.78
23.30
1
6
6.50
6.32
11.44
5.74
23.30
1
6
6.60
6.29
11.39
5.70
23.30
1
6
6.70
6.27
11.33
5.65
23.30
1
6
6.80
6.25
11.28
5.61
23.30
1
6
6.90
6.22
11.22
5.56
23.30
1
6
7.00
6.20
11.17
5.52
23.30
i
5
7.10
6.19
11.11
5.n8
23.30
t
6
7.20
6.17
11.06
5.44
23.30
i
6
7.30
5.15
11.01
5.40
23.30
1
6
7.40
5.14
10.95
5.35
23.30
1
6
7.50
6.12
20,90
5.31
23.30
1
6
7.6^
6.11
10.65
5.27
�3.30
i
6
7.70
6.10
10.79
5.23
3.3J
1
7
7.70
6.10
i0.76
5.21
23.40
1
7
7,80
5.0'
.0.71
5.17
2'.4G
1
7
7.90
6.09
1Q.c,
5.13
23.40
1
7
8.00
6.08
10.60
5.09
1
7
8.10
6.07
10.55
5.05
2 ,nn
1
7
8.20
6.06
10.50
5.01
23.40
1
7
8.30
6.06
10.45
4.98
23.40
1
7
8.40
6.05
10.40
4.94
23.40
1
7
8.50
6.05
10.35
4.90
23.40
1
7
8.60
6.04
10.30
4.86
23.40
1
7
8.70
6.04
10.25
4.82
23.40
1
7
8.80
6.04
10.20
4.79
23.40
1
7
8.90
6.04
10.15
4.75
23.40
1
7
9.00
6.03
10.10
4.71
23.40
1
7
9.10
6.03
10.05
4.68
23.40
1
7
9.20
6.03
10.00
4.64
23.40
1
7
9.30
6.03
9.95
4.60
23.40
1
7
9.40
6.03
9.91
4.57
23.40
1
7
9.50
6.04
9.86
4.53
23.40
1
7
9.60
6.04
9.81
4.50
23.40
1
7
9.70
6.04
9.76
4.46
23.40
1
7
9.80
6.04
9.72
4.43
23.40
1
8
9.80
6.08
9.48
4.32
24.14
1
8
9.90
6.08
9.43
4.29
24.14
1
8
10.00
6.09
9.39
4.26
24.14
1
8
10.10
6.09
9.34
4.22
24.14
1
8
10.20
6.09
9.30
4.19
24.14
1
8
10.30
6.10
9.25
4.16
24.14
1
8
10.40
6.10
9.21
4.13
24.14
1
8
10.50
6.11
9.16
4.09
24.14
Seg n
l Peach
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow

,l�,q,��,udE F,2NYWT 7S •,
WINTER
FORNEY CR @ 0.750 MGD, NH3 TO)
LIMIT = 3.7 MG/L
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : EAST LINCOLN CO-FORNEY CR WWTP
Receiving Stream : FORNEY CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 8.94 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 8.25 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 4.29 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flc
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach n (mg/1)
---------------- ----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
---------
Segment
1
------
6.82 4.10 5
Reach
1
45.00
16.65
5.00
0.7500C
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C
Reach
4
60.00
90.00
0.00
0.0210C
Reach
5
33.00
18.00
5.00
5.000OC
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C
Reach
7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C
Reach
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000C

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : EAST LINCOLN CO-FORNEY CR WWTP
Receiving Stream : FORNEY CREEK
Summer 7Q10 : 0.58 Winter 7Q10
Design Temperature: 14.0
IL"SHOHI HOPEI VELOCITY I OEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KH I KH I KHR I KHR I
I mile I ft/nil fps I ft Idesignl VP Idesignl i201 Idesignl 020, Idesigni V01 I
............... -----•-•---....---••---•.......................•-••--•............••..............
I I I I I I I I I I i I
Segcent 1 1 '1.101 12.001 0.240 1 0.65 1 0.21 1 0.27 1 4.55 1 5.191 0.15 1 0.30 1 0,19 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
............................. --••-•-•-••-•••••-•.....-•-••------••....-•••••-•••••......•-•••-••----
I I I I I I i I I I I I I
Segnent 1 I 1.101 9.001 0.203 1 1.31 1 0.16 1 0.23 1 2.88 1 3.291 0.19 1 0.30 1 0.19 1 0.00 1
Reach
.....................................................................................................
I I I I I I I i I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0,401 9.001 0.204 1 1.32 1 0.18 10.23 1 2,91 1 3.311 0.19 1 0.30 1 0.19 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
••-------•---•----•-•--••--------•--...----•----•-•-------------•••--•......•••••••••--..............
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segcent 1 1 0.901 9.001 0.207 1 1.33 1 0.18 1 0.23 1 2.34 1 3.351 0,19 1 0.30 1 0.19 1 0.00 1
Reach 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
.....................................................................................................
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segcent 1 1 1.801 9.H 1 0.401 1 1.48 1 0.20 1 0.26 1 4.41 1 5,021 0.19 1 0.30 1 0.19 1 0.00 I
Reach 5 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
••••.••••-•-•••-•---•......•--•--••••••-••-•••-•••-••••--•--••••••••••-•••••••-•-•••-••••••.........
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Secment 1 1 1.501 4.501 0.518 1 2.14 1 0.18 1 0.23 1 1.79 1 2.041 0.19 1 0.30 1 0.19 1 0.00 1
Read 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
•.....-••--•-•--•-----•--•--••-••-•--•-•-••••-•---•-----------•----•........................••••••-•-
1I I I I I I I I I I I I
segment 1 I 2.101 4.4 1 0.516 1 2.15 1 0.18 1 0.23 1 1.79 1 2.041 0.19 1 0.30 1 0.19 1 0.00 1
Reach i t I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
....-•-------•••----•--•-•-•--•-••---•-•-••-•-•.............•-------•---•----..............-••-•....
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segcent 1 1 0.701 4.501 0.516 1 2.20 1 0.18 1 0,23 1 1.79 1 2.041 0.19 1 0,30 1 0.19 1 0.00 1
Reach R I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------•--•-......•--••........--•................•••••---•••••••••••----.............................
1
Flow
I
cfs
Segment 1 Reach
1
Waste 1
1.163
Headwaters)
1.340
Tributary I
0.000
* Runoff 1
0.118
i CBOD
I NBOD I
D.O.
1 mg/1
1 mg/l I
mg/1 I
1 45.000
1 16.650 1
5,000
i 2.000
1 1.000 I
9.280
I 2.000
1 1.000 1
9.280
1 2.000
I 1.000 1
9.280
Subbasin : 030E
Stream Class: C
1.34
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000

* Runoff I 0.160 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste ( 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 i 2.000 ( 1.000 1 9.280
* Runoff ( 0.160 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste 1 0.033 1 60.000 1 90.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0.160 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste ( 7.750 ( 33.000 1 18.000 ( 5.000
Tributary ( 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
* Runoff ( 0.160 ( 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary ( 22.000 i 2.000 I 1.000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 7
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.200 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 8
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 1.600 ( 2.000 1 1.000 I 9.280
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 9.280
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

WINTER
FORNEY
CR @ 0.750
LIMIT
= 3.7 MG/L
Seg r
Reach
Seg Mi
D.O. (
CBOD
NBOD
FLOW
1
1
0.00
7.29
21.98
8.27
2.50
1
1
0.10
7.48
21.77
8.20
2.51
1
1
0.20
7.66
21.56
8.12
2.53
1
1
0.30
7.81
21.36
8.05
2.54
1
1
0.40
7.95
21.16
7.98
2.55
1
1
0.50
8.07
20.96
7.91
2.56
1
1
0.60
8.18
20.76
7.84
2.57
1
1
0.70
8.28
20.57
7.77
2.59
1
1
0.80
8.37
20.38
7.70
2.60
1
1
0.90
8.45
20.19
7.64
2.61
1
1
1.00
8.52
20.00
7.57
2.62
1
1
1.10
8.59
19.81
7.50
2.63
1
1
1.20
8.65
19.63
7.44
2.64
1
1
1.30
8.70
19.45
7.38
2.66
1
1
1.40
8.75
19.27
7.31
2.67
1
1
1.50
8.80
19.09
7.25
2.68
1
1
1.60
8.84
18.92
7.19
2.69
1
1
1.70
8.87
18.75
7.13
2.70
1
2
1.70
9.07
10.85
4.24
5.11
1
2
1.80
9.09
10.77
4.20
5.13
1
2
1.90
9.12
10.68
4.17
5.15
1
2
2.00
9.14
10.60
4.14
5.16
1
2
2.10
9.•16
10.52
4.10
5.18
1
2
2.20
9.18
10.43
4.07
5.19
1
2
2.30
9.20
10.35
4.04
5.21
1
2
2.40
9.22
10.27
4.01
5.23
1
2
2.50
9.23
10.19
3.97
5.24
1
2
2.60
9.25
10.11
3.94
5.26
1
2
2.70
9.27
10.04
3.91
5.27
1
2
2.80
9.28
9.96
3.88
5.2°
1
3
2.80
9.28
9.96
3.88
5.29
1
3
2.84
9.29
9.93
3.87
5.30
1
3
2.88
9.29
9.90
3.86
5.30
1
3
2.92
9.30
9.87
3.84
5.31
1
3
2.96
9.30
9.84
3.83
5.31
1
3
3.00
9.31
9.81
3.82
5.32
1
3
3.04
9.31
9.78
3.81
5.33
1
3
3.08
9.32
9.75
3.80
5.33
1
3
3.12
9.32
9.72
3.78
5.34
1
3
3.16
9.33
9.69
3.77
5.35
1
3
3.20
9.33
9.66
3.76
5.35
1
4
3.20
9.28
9.96
4.28
5.39
1
4
3.30
9.29
9.89
4.25
5.40
1.
4
3.40
9.30
9.81
4.22
5.42
1
4
3.50
9.32
9.74
4.18
5.43
1
4
3.60
9.33
9.66
4.15
5.45
1
4
3.70
9.34
9.59
4.12
5.47
1
4
3.80
9.35
9.52
4.09
5.48
1
4
3.90
9.36
9.45
4.05
5.50
1
4
4.00
9.37
9.38
4.02
5.51
1
4
4.10
9.38
9.31
3.99
5.53
1
5
4.10
6.82
23.13
12.17
13.28
1
5
4.20
6.95
23.04
12.12
13.30
1
5
4.30
7.07
22.95
12.07
13.31
1
5
4.40
7.18
22.85
12.02
13.33
1
5
4.50
7.28
22.76
11.98
13.34
1
5
4.60
7.38
22.67
11.93
13.36
MGD, NH3 TO),

1
S
4.80
7.56
22.48
11.84
13.39
1
5
4.90
7.64
22.39
11.79
13.41
1
5
5.00
7.72
22.30
11.74
13.42
1
5
5.10
7.79
22..21
11.70
13.44
1
5
5.20
7.86
22.12
11.65
13.4E
1
5
5.30
7.92
22.03
11.61
13.47
1
5
5.40
7.98
21.94
11.56
13.49
1
5
5.50
8.04
21.85
11.51
13.50
1
5
5.60
8.09
21.77
11.47
13.52
1
5
5.70
8.14
21.68
11.42
13.54
1
5
5.80
8.19
21.59
11.38
13.55
1
5
5.90
8.23
21.50
11.34
13.57
1
6
5.90
8.88
9.44
4.94
35.57
1
6
6.00
8.88
9.42
4.93
35.57
1
6
6.10
8.88
9.40
4.92
35.57
1
6
6.20
8.88
9.38
4.91
35.57
1
6
6.30
8.88
9.36
4.90
35.57
1
6
6.40
8.88
9.34
4.89
35.57
1
6
6.50
8.88
9.32
4.88
35.57
1
6
6.60
8.88
9.30
4.87
35.57
1
6
6.70
8.88
9.28
4.85
35.57
1
6
6.80
8.88
9.2E
4.84
35.57
1
6
6.90
8.88
9.24
4.83
35.57
1
6
7.00
8.88
9.22
4.82
35.57
1
6
7.10
8.88
9.20
4.81
35.57
1
6
7.20
8.88
9.18
4.80
35.57
1
6
7.30
8.88
9.17
4.79
35.57
1
6
7.40
8.88
9.15
4.78
35.57
1
6
7.50
8.88
9.13
4.77
35.57
1
6
7.60
8.88
9.11
4.76
35.57
1
6
7.70
8.88
9.09
4.75
35.57
1
7
7.70
8.88
9.05
4.73
35.77
1
7
7.80
8.88
9.03
4.72
35.77
1
7
7.90
8.88
9.01
4.71
35.77
1
7
8.00
8.88
8.99
4.69
35.77
1
7
8.10
8.89
8.97
4.68
35.77
1
7
8.20
8.89
8.95
4.67
35.77
1
7
8.30
8.89
8.94
4.66
35.77
1
7
8.40
8.89
8.92
4.65
35.77
1
7
8.50
8.89
8.90
4.64
35.77
1
7
8.60
8.89
8.88
4.63
35.77
1
7
8.70
8.89
8.86
4.62
35.77
1
7
8.80
8.89
8.84
4.61
35.77
1
7
8.90
8.89
8.82
4.60
35.77
1
7
9.00
8.90
8.80
4.59
35.77
1
7
9.10
8.90
8.79
4.58
35.77
1
7
9.20
8.90
8.77
4.57
35.77
1
7
9.30
8.90
8.75
4.56
35.77
1
7
9.40
8.90
8.73
4.55
35.77
1
7
9.50
8.90
8.71
4.54
35.77
1
7
9.60
8.90
8.69
4.53
35.77
1
7
9.70
8.90
8.68
4.52
35.77
1
7
9.80
8.91
8.66
4.51
35.77
1
8
9.80
8.92
8.37
4.36
37.37
1
8
9.90
8.92
8.35
4.35
37.37
1
8
10.00
8.93
8.34
4.34
37.37
1
8
10.10
8.93
8.32
4.33
37.37
1
8
10.20
8.93
8.30
4.32
37.37
1
8
10.30
8.93
8.29
4.31
37.37
1
8
10.40
8.94
8.27
4.30
37.37
1
8
10.50
8.94
8.25
4.29
37.37
I Seg #
I Reach #
1 Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow

SUMMER
W/ FORNEY CR @ 14 & 8, NO TOX
LIMIT
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger EAST LINCOLN CO-FORNEY CR WWTP
Receiving Stream FORNEY CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.01 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 9.16 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 4.54 mg/1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach (mg/1) (mg/1)
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 8
5.06 1.00 1
21.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
33.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WLA
DO
Waste Flc
(mg/1)
(mgd)
5.00
0.7500(
0.00
0.0000(
0.00
0.0000(
0.00
0.0210(
5.00
5.0000(
0.00
0.0000(
0.00
0.0000(
0.00
0.0000(

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : EAST LINCOLN CO-FORNEY CR WWTP Subbasin : 030E
Receiving Stream : FORNEY CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 0.53 Winter 7Q10 : 1.34
Design Temperature: 26.0
1LEHG H1 SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I i;d I Ka I Ka I KN I K11 I KNR I DIR I
I mile I ft/mi1 fps I ft Idesianl 5201 ;desianl f20o Idesianl 920, Idesianl @201 1
....................................................................................................
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Sequent 1 1 1.701 12.001 0,182 1 0.81 1 0,34 1 0.26 1 4.49 1 3.941 0.45 1 0.30 1 0.46 10.00 I
Reach I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I
................................................. 7---------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
Seamen I 1 1,101 9,001 0.176 1 1.28 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 3,25 1 2.561 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.0 1 0,00 1
Reach 2
.....................................................................................................
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Seament 1 1 0.401 9.001 0.177 1 1.29 1 0.30 10.23 1 3,27 1 2,671 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.46 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Seanent 1 1 0.901 9.001 0.179 1 1.29 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 3.30 1 2.901 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 4 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
Sequent 1 I 1,801 9.501 0.393 i 1,47 1 0.34 1 0.26 1 5,39 1 4,731 0.H 1 0,30 1 0.48 1 0,00 I
Reach 5 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1.801 4.501 0.376 1 2.03 1 0.30 1 0.21 1 2.51 1 2.201 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 6
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 2.101 4,501 0.375 1 2,04 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 2 SO 1 2.191 0.46 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment I 1 0,701 4.501 0.372 1 2.08 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 2.18 1 2.171 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Flow
l
cfs
Segment 1 Reach
1
Waste 1
1.163
Headwatersl
0.600
Tributary I
0.000
* Runoff i
0.047
l CBOD
I NBOD I
D.O. 1
1 mg/l
l mg/1 1
mg/l I
l 21.000
136.000 1
5.000
l 2.000
1 1.000 I
7.300
l 2.000
I 1.000 I
7.300
l 2.000
I 1.000 I
7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 i 0.000 l 0.000

* Runoff I 0.110 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste ( 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.110 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.033 160.000 190.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.110 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste I 7.750 133.000 118.000 I 5.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.110 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 110.800 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 7
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.100 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 8
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.740 I 2.000 I 1.000 ( 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

I
SUMMER
W/ FORNEY
CR @ 14 & 8, NO TOX
LIMIT
Seg
Reach r
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
5.78
14.53
24.09
1.76 .
1
1
0.10
5.61
14.33
23.64
1.77
1
1
0.20
5.46
14.14
23.21
1.77
1
1
0.30
5.35
13.95
22.78
1.78
1
1
0.40
5.26
13.76
22.37
1.78
1
1
0.50
5.19
13.57
21.96
1.79
1
1
0.60
5.14
13.39
21.56
1.79
1
1
0.70
5.10
13.21
21.16
1.80
1
1
0.80
5.08
13.03
'_0.78
1.80
1
1
0.90
5.07
12.86
20.40
1.80
1
1
1.00
5.06
12.68
20.02
1.81
1
1
1.10
5.07
12.51
19.66
1.81
1
1
1.20
5.08
12.34
19.30
1.82
1
1
1.30
5.09
12.18
18.95
1.82
1
1
1.40
5.12
12.01
18.60
1.83
1
1
1.50
5.14
11.85
18.26
1.83
1
1
1.60
5.17
11.69
17.93
1.84
1
1
1.70
5.20
11.54
17.60
1.84
1
2
1.70
6.39
6.13
8.19
4.25
1
2
1.80
6.39
6.06
8.04
4.26
1
2
1.90
6.39
5.98
7.89
4.27
1
2
2.00
6.39
5.91
7.75
4.29
1
2
2.10
6.40
5.84
7.60
4.30
1
2
2.20
6.41
5.77
7.46
4.31
1
2
2.30
6.42
5.70
7.32
4.32
1
2
2.40
6.44
5.63
7.19
4.33
1
2
2.50
6.45
5.56
7.05
4.34
1
2
2.60
6.46
5.50
6.92
4.35
1
2
2.70
6.48
5.43
6.80
4.36
1
2
2.80
6.50
5.37
6.67
4.37
1
3
2.80
6.50
5.37
6.67
4.37
1
3
2.84
6.51
5.34
6.62
4.38
1
3
2.88
6.51
5.31
6.57
4.38
1
3
2.92
6.52
5.29
6.52
4.39
1
3
2.96
6.53
5.26
6.47
4.39
1
3
3.00
6.54
5.24
6.43
4.40
1
3
3.04
6.54
5.21
6.38
4.40
1
3
3.08
6.55
5.19
6.33
4.40
1
3
3.12
6.56
5.16
6.29
4.41
1
3
3.16
6.57
5.14
6.24
4.41
1
3
3.20
6.58
5.11
6.19
4.42
1
4
3.20
6.53
5.52
6.81
4.45
1
4
3.30
6.54
5.45
6.68
4.46
1
4
3.40
6.56
5.39
6.56
4.47
1
4
3.50
6.57
5.32
6.44
4.48
1
4
3.60
6.59
5.26
6.32
4.49
1
4
3.70
6.60
5.20
6.21
4.50
1
4
3.80
6.62
5.14
6.10
4.52
1
4
3.90
6.64
5.08
5.99
4.53
1
4
4.00
6.66
5.02
5.88
4.54
1
4
4.10
6.67
4.96
5.77
4.55
1
5
4.10
5.62
22.63
13.48
12.30
1
5
4.20
5.61
22.49
13.36
12.31
1
5
4.30
5.61
22.35
13.25
12.32
1
5
4.40
5.60
22.21
13.14
12.33
1
5
4.50
5.60
22.07
13.03
12.34
1
5
4.60
5.60
21.93
12.92
12.35

1
5
4.80
5.60
21.66
12.71
12.38
• 1
5
4.90
5.61
21.53
12.60
12.39
1
5
5.00
5.61
21.39
12.49
12.40
1
5
5.10
5.62
21.26
12.39
12.41
1
5
5.20
5.63
21.13
12.29
12.42
1
5
5.30
5.63
21.00
12.18
12.43
1
5
5.40
5.64
20.87
12.08
12.44
1
5
5.50
5.65
20.74
11.98
12.45
1
5
5.60
5.66
20.61
11.88
12.46
1
5
5.70
5.67
20.48
11.78
12.47
1
5
5.80
5.68
20.36
11.68
12.49
1
5
5.90
5.69
20.23
11.58
12.50
1
6
5.90
6.44
11.78
6.68
23.30
1
6
6.00
6.40
11.72
6.63
23.30
1
6
6.10
6.36
11.67
6.58
23.30
1
6
6.20
6.33
11.61
6.52
23.30
1
6
6.30
6.29
11.55
6.47
23.30
1
6
6.40
6.26
11.50
6.42
23.30
1
6
6.50
6.23
11.44
6.37
23.30
1
6
6.60
6.21
11.39
6.33
23.30
1
6
6.70
6.18
11.33
6.28
23.30
1
6
6.80
6.16
11.28
6.23
23.30
1
6
6.90
6.13
11.22
6.18
23.30
1
6
7.00
6.11
11.17
6.13
23.30
1
6
7.10
6.09
11.11
6.09
23.30
1
6
7.20
6.07
11.06
6.04
23.30
1
6
7.30
6.06
11.01
5.99
23.30
1
6
7.40
6.04
10.95
5.95
23.30
1
6
7.50
6.03
10.90
5.90
23.30
1
6
7.60
6.01
10.85
5.85
23.30
1
6
7.70
6.00
10.79
5.81
23.30
1
7
7.70
6.01
10.76
5.79
23.40
1
7
7.80
6.00
10.71
5.74
23.40
1
7
7.90
5.99
10.65
5.70
23.40
1
7
8.00
5.98
10.60
5.66
23.40
1
7
8.10
5.97
10.55
5.61
23.40
1
7
8.20
5.96
10.50
5.57
23.40
1
7
8.30
5.96
10.45
5.53
23.40
1
7
8.40
5.95
10.40
5.48
23.40
1
7
8.50
5.95
10.35
5.44
23.40
1
7
8.60
5.94
10.30
5.40
23.40
1
7
8.70
5.94
10.25
5.36
23.40
1
7
8.80
5.94
10.20
5.32
23.40
1
7
8.90
5.94
10.15
5.27
23.40
1
7
9.00
5.93
10.10
5.23
23.40
1
7
9.10
5.93
10.05
5.19
23.40
1
7
9.20
5.93
10.00
5.15
23.40
1
7
9.30
5.93
9.95
5.11
23.40
1
7
9.40
5.93
9.91
5.07
23.40
1
7
9.50
5.94
9.86
5.03
23.40
1
7
9.60
5.94
9.81
5.00
23.40
1
7
9.70
5.94
9.76
4.96
23.40
1
7
9.80
5.94
9.72
4.92
23.40
1
8
9.80
5.99
9.48
4.80
24.14
1
8
9.90
5.99
9.43
4.76
24.14
1
8
10.00
5.99
9.39
4.72
24.14
1
8
10.10
6.00
9.34
4.69
24.14
1
8
10.20
6.00
9.30
4.65
24.14
1
8
10.30
6.00
9.25
4.61
24.14
1
8
10.40
6.01
9.21
4.58
24.14
1
8
10.50
6.01
9.16
4.54
24.14
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seq Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 20, 1994
TO: Monica Swihart
FROM: LMichelle—WilsomAWA
THRU: Ruth Swanek i_`
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: Revised EA for Lincoln County -Forney Creek WWTP
NPDES permit # NC00740120
CG-201 Facility Plan
Project # 634
Catawba 03-08-33
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed the revised
Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by J. N. Pease Associates
for the expansion of the Lincoln County -Forney Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The revised EA was found to thoroughly and
clearly address the concerns raised in our June 10, 1994
memorandum regarding the original EA. Once the speculative
effluent limits, which have been formally requested by Lincoln
County in their letter addressed to Coleen Sullins on September 7,
1994, are derived they also should be included in the revised EA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the
revised Environmental Assessment. Please let me know if I can be of
any further assistance in this matter.
cc: Mooresville Regional Office
Permits and Engineering
Central Files

� %jam' -� 0, 75•���.
TJT
IC)- so
-:9 li rxf1 -ai /11 145 W3 N Z Z FCpl = Zvv
Wdv C Y Oki
4
Dr vi3,� k eAld(l,td ROVZ f a i J �1 i �.o (Ydr
v
h-e pry vl led. JrcZolr �pr�
o �
3 9 l�v e_c Use. ► �i r Q, (k1 ro
IVv C9 P o w ol [Yc�f LC T� du p LA.)c-C, L Pez
�:r-0,(,'
b
2-( Sc �� j l �({ Y I r" • /✓r� �f !/(Ji�� j' [% L :' i'J
/ eS

AOnG�� ��
No rr�o
prdyalt'l

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
GENERAL
1. The EA portion has been rewritten to direct most of the comments and is
included herein; however since the time of the rewrite, the Lincoln County
District has elected not to include the Catawba County contributions within
its system. This 201 Revision has, consequently, reevaluated the alternates
and elected to use Alternate IA as the selected alternate. Alternate IA differs
from the previous selected alternate (I) in the following manner:
a. The entire portion of the collection system including gravity sewers,
pump station, and force mains within Catawba County are eliminated.
b. The - Forney Cieek' Wastewater Treatment Plant has been reduced in
,, apacity. from 1.5 MGD to 0.75 MGD. No difference, apart from this, are
anticipated in effluent quality requirements.
c. With some minor changes, the collection system within Lincoln County
will remain the same as before. See figures included with Response to
Comments.
2. To reflect the above changes, disregard all references to Catawba County.
COMMENT
1. An 8.5' x 11" USGS topographic map showing all proposed facilities, i.e., line
length and sizes, treatment plant, pump stations, and appurtenances must
be provided in the facility plan.
RESPONSE
The entire rewritten EA is included hereafter. Figures 4-e, 4-g, 4-h, 4-i, 4-j,
and 4-k have been marked up to include line lengths and sizes, the treatment
plant, and the pump stations as requested. (These are for Lincoln County
only.)

COMMENT
2. The facility plan appears to be improperly collated. Special attention should
be directed to Sections 3 and 5.
RESPONSE
The rewritten EA appears to be properly collated.
COMMENT
3. The executive summary indicates that environmental impacts are to be
quantified when a final route is chosen. This objective should be
accomplished prior to submitting the report for review.
RESPONSE
The final routes have been selected and are now shown within the EA.
COMMENT
4. A public hearing must be properly advertised and documented. A summary
or transcript must be provided. Typically, this occurs after departmental
review, but must be complete prior to State Clearinghouse circulation.
RESPONSE
ra A public hearing will be held. See response to Comment 16 of the Technical
Section.
COMMENT
5. The US Army Corps of Engineers should evaluate the project.
RESPONSE
There are not facilities to be constructed within the flood plain. There are
some minor crossings of wetlands within existing street rights -of -way and
should be covered under a Nationwide Permit. A copy of this EA will be
furnished to the Corps of Engineers for their comment.
COMMENT
6. The source of raw water should be discussed.

n
RESPONSE
The revised EA addresses this questions Under Section 3.9 (Pages 11 through
14).
COMMENT
7. The revised site -specific environmental assessment should include a detailed
-
analysis of the following:
9
a. Wetlands
b. Flood Plain Areas
c. Endangered Species
d. Cultural Resources
e. Surface Waters
4
f. Stream Crossings
f
�.
g. Habitats to be Disturbed/Impacted
h. Previously Undisturbed Areas
i. Secondary Impacts
j. Construction Distance from Streams
k. Economic Impact and User Fees
1. Recreation
m. Prime Agricuitmal Land
n. Mitigative Measures
o. Others

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 10, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Swihart
FROM: Michelle --&I. Wilson 1'11nlw
THRU: Ruth Swanek KL5
SUBJECP: EA for Lincoln County -Forney Creek WWTP (NC0074012)
Project number 634. CG-201 Facilities Plan.
(Catawba 03-08-33)
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed the Environmental
Assessment for the proposed expansion of the Lincoln County -Forney Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Additional information should be provided in a
couple of areas. On December 28, 1992, Technical Support determined the
following speculative effluent limits for the original proposed expansion to 1.5
mgd:
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (mgd) 1.5 1.5
BODS (mg/1) 12 30
NH3-N (mg/1) 1.2 2.7
DO (mg/1) 5 5
TSS (mg/1) 30 30
Fecal Coliform (/100ml) 200 200
pH (SU) 6-9 6-9
The discharge limits included in the subject report (BODS = 5 mg/I, NH3N = 1
mg/1) appear to be based on a meeting in which a regional 5 mgd plant was
discussed. In addition, the document states that the subject facility has
reduced its proposed design capacity to 0.75 mgd. The Division has not
determined speculative effluent limits which would be necessary to protect
instream water quality at this newly proposed waste flow. The Town needs to
contact the Division to formally request speculative effluent limits at 0.75 mgd.
If a tertiary treatment system is constructed it will enable the facility to meet
the necessary effluent limits; however, this level of treatment will probably
not be needed to meet the effluent limits for the smaller facility described in
this document.
Secondly, the document makes no mention of possible future industrial
users and it gives no consideration to the resulting waste characteristics
caused by future, industrial :users. The document should outline any future
industrial recruitment plans and the associated waste stream characteristics
and pretreatment needs. Lincoln County has been informed of the basinwide
water quality management plan for the Catawba River Basin in 1995 and
wasteload allocations may be affected by this strategy. Final effluent
limitations will be determined after a formal permit application has been
submitted to DEM.
cc: Rex Gleason

�G -,20/ /�(ill 17 of
I Pa-n -�a
olve rc
J
60- 71,1 slovle-f . V41jel lo�le7 IV7 re� 7 -f
�� L� n t o C �d� / C1 f� 1✓ �rJ �!'Iq���Prs , s� 46w
SAW tea../ f-e h"14 7sea
,s
�.�
4/,e - h✓Q 19r ?
(/,?`-1 el902� Gr h � �PLO�yIGI'I CGCF`Lli � Q r / Z/Z % ISIAIJ 41, &
u h o/ 12130 is/w) SOS
�p-e /✓lL �t/�CQ Qfl' �%12�01/'� J Z-p O%S�t�%� • ��!/ f'!f'P ,.1" /7J
� 1-e /41 rt a SAC �/l !� v'c° rJr �'�i� i1 eA 11y le:Wl aW
/ J
V/odn AAeil- `'e vefT
b"L W tap /3
r Pd PSI f �d o % rlo ovn eJ k . Avc c/"e,ii / ,f 4lei r
Se v� rd P roese cY r owlov lo2 «/ h oo/p ew If /h
A ✓.ea have 13eeO M a e /7/��
J
Cd /'T -I ke,`C'/ h7
�- �e mew ( s s� o
G wdew 6✓ descrip 1--i oh o /,h l4-eJ vt
it, - Comoue i on i✓t��2ad�� orb6n iZu
Ix
%e,�te_ A-� D -- a #rat,,k � /7 ew /h ��/PJ A

An i -T I ,, Io ve 4� A ex- shCl . 3-) u1�zG�
IAJt- kt- V1 1
7j 0/,-,0
/� J��-e /0
QA.I e-o�ell� AT
275
Z/7
�e cam �l-I 4y 441
�'/ wl GOYIJfYUGfC�V--
6
ltaAz 1r 40/p I
vd� Wer-o- ill ale r-cel

1.0. NEED FOR THE PROJECT.
The background and need for the sewer project in Lincoln County were summarized
by J.N. Pease Associates (1992). Previous studies had been performed in both Lincoln and
Catawba counties, indicating the need for centralized sewer service to meet increasing
wastewater treatment demands (Hazen & Sawyer, 1987, 1989; Espey-Huston and
Associates, 1991; NCDC, 1992).
Lincoln County currently operates a 0.05 MGD package wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP)' on Forney Creek south of N.C. 73. Two public schools are the major wastewater
- contributors to this plant, which currently operates at half�its permitted capacity.
Southeastern Catawba County currently has no publicly owned WWTPs, but has six private
.package WWTPs, some of which have had recurring compliance problems.
Residential development along the western shore of Lake Norman in Catawba and
Lincoln Counties has been rapid during the past two decades, and is expected to continue.
Governors Island, a private development, operates a 0.02 MGD package WWTP on Lake
Norman. All other residences in the area use private septic systems. Many of these existing
septic systems were permitted under less stringent standards than those which DEM currently
_ requires, and are failing to comply with the newer standards. Septic systems in the project
area have expected useful lifespans of only 10 to 12 years due to the low porosity of soils
in the region (Tom Spurling, Catawba County Department of Environmental Health, personal
communication).
Several proposed commercial developments -in --the area have been indefinitely
r�p
ostponed pending construction of a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system
hat will comply with increasingly stringent federal and state water quality standards. .
The eastern Lincoln County and southeastern Catawba County sewerline and new
Forney Creek WWTP project was proposed to alleviate failing septic systems in the area,
provide wastewater service to areas of anticipated development, discontinue the use .of
package WWTPs discharging to the lake, and provide a higher level of treatment and more
reliable compliance than the existing Forney Creek package WWTP can achieve.
2.0. ALTERNATIVES.
Several alternatives for sewer service in the Lake Norman area were considered by
both Lincoln County and Catawba County in studies by Hazen & Sawyer (1987, 1989),
Espey-Huston and Associates (1991), NCDC (1992), and J.N. Pease Associates (1992). They
include the no -action alternative and several build alternatives.
Catawba County considered the following build alternatives:
a) collect sewerage from the western shoreline of Lake Norman westward and
southward along N.C. 150 to Killian Crossroads, and convey it to a treatment plant
with a discharge into Lake Norman;
0

_ The project as proposed should comply with applicable state and federal air pollution
standards, and will not likely contravene other provisions or requirements of the State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality (Alan Klimek, DEM Air Quality Section, scoping letter).
Negative secondary and cumulative impacts on air quality may occur when increased
population results in more emissions of pollutants from industrial users and transportation.
Major pollutants from transportation include carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds (hydrocarbons) and lead. Nationwide, lead emissions from automobiles have
decreased." The contribution to lead emissions from transportation was 80°/d in 1970, 84%
in 1980, and only 34% in 1988. The decrease in lead emissions is a result of the phasing out
of leaded gasoline. However, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from motor
vehicles have changed little from 1970 through 1988, as benefits from fuel efficiency and
pollution control technology were offset by the increase in vehicles. No such benefits are
seen with respect to carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles, which today are a
major contributor to the total. These secondary and cumulative negative impacts on air
quality may be reduced in the future by improved fuel efficiency and engine design. However,
it is reasonable to expect a cumulative increase in ozone levels in the two counties as a
consequence of induced growth.
4.6. Noise.
Short-term impacts of noise will be associated with construction. Noise levels will be
greatest at the construction site, but will be mitigated by distance, vegetation buffers and
restriction of construction to daylight hours. There is no evidence of negative health effects
from noise due to operation of wastewater collection systems and pump stations. Thus, long-
term direct negative impacts are insignificant. Secondary and cumulative negative impacts
may accrue from induced growth requiring expanded and additional transportation corridors.
4.7. Surface Water Resources.
4.7.1. The No -Action Alternative.
The no -action alternative will allow continuing degradation of surface water resources
from the failing septic systems in the project area. Within the project area, septic systems
have a life span of 10-12 years. During the frequent failures of septic systems, localized
surface water contamination occurs. Many residential lots have no options for repair or
installation of a new system to correct the existing problem (Tom Spurling, Catawba County
Department of Environmental Health, personal communication). The sewer project will relieve
these problems and reduce further septic degradation of water quality in Lake Norman and
area streams. New development in the area without sewer service may result in additional
surface water. degradation.
29

4.7.2. Direct Impacts of Construction
- Impacts during construction include temporary increases in turbidity and sediment load
in streams due to disturbance of soils and vegetation in the project area. ,Due to the size of
this project, erosion and sedimentation damage could be a major impact if adequate controls
are not provided (N.C. Division of Land Resources, scoping comments). The N.C. Division of
Land Resources requires that construction activities be conducted in accordance with the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. The Act requires that all contractors follow an erosion
control plan prepared by the project engineer and approved by the DEHNR Mooresville regional
office at least 30 days prior to land clearing.
Increased concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metal ions may also
occur, due to operation of construction vehicles in and adjacent to streams and due to the
escape of these substances from roadside soils. Because the project area is predominantly
rural residential, these impacts are not likely to be severe. The contractor will be required to
perform any necessary vehicle maintenance away from waters and wetlands, and to collect
and properly dispose of any used vehicle fluids.
In addition to standard erosion control practices and construction BMPs, WRC, DEM,
and COE offer the following design and construction guidelines (combined and summarized)
for protecting water quality, wetlands, and aquatic habitats. WRC will concur with a Finding
of No Significant Impact provided that these guidelines are implemented to the maximum
extent practicable (S. Goudreau, WRC, letter 16 December 1993).
Minimize the number of stream crossings. Avoid stream crossings in areas of high
quality aquatic habitats, such as riffles and segments with extensive aquatic
vegetation. Slow moving, sandy or silty segments are preferred. Construct crossings
perpendicular to the stream (except where a diagonal crossing would reduce impacts
to wetlands or high quality habitats). All pipelines crossing streams should be buried
below the natural stream bed, suspended from bridges, or elevated on pilings to avoid
creating barriers to fish movement and debris jams. Segments of abandoned
sewerlines across streams should be removed.
Minimize wetland impacts. The WWTP and pump stations should not be constructed
in wetlands. The sewerline should traverse wetlands only where no feasible non -
wetland alternative exists. Construction in previously disturbed or non -forested
wetlands is preferred over construction in forested wetlands. Fragmentation of large
wetlands should be avoided.
Topsoil in wetland construction areas should be stockpiled separately from subsoil, and
redistributed on the surface following construction. Temporary storage of excavated
soil should be within the off -stream side of the construction corridor, unless wetlands
or high quality natural areas indicate otherwise.
Original topographic contours should be restored to minimize hydrologic alteration of
wetlands. Anti -seep collars may be required at intervals along the buried pipeline to
prevent the gravel -filled trench from acting as a drainage ditch.
We

Where the pipeline is parallel to a stream, allow a 50 foot undisturbed vegetated buffer
zone between the construction corridor and the stream bank to protect the roots of
bank -stabilizing riparian trees, allow for stormwater infiltration and deposition of eroded
soil and pollutants, and to preserve a travel corridor for wildlife. In floodplains, avoid
areas of mature forest where a previously disturbed alternative exists. Where existing
development or steep contours allow less than 25 feet of undisturbed vegetated buffer
alongside streams, additional sediment control measures should be used.
-. Riparian trees should be preserved wherever possible. Where trees must be removed
for construction, the stumps and roots should be left intact for bank stabilization and
subsequent sprouting. The permanent access road should be maintained by hand
cutting of trees and large shrubs, rather than mowing, to maximize natural habitat
value. Herbicide use for access maintenance is discouraged.
_ Areas cleared for construction should be revegetated with an annual groundcover plant
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities. WRC prefers a "seed as you go"
strategy rather than allowing large areas of soil to remain bare for extended periods.
Use of an annual rather than perennial groundcover in wetlands will interfere less with
the eventual re-establishment of native vegetation. After completion of construction,
wetlands and floodplain areas should be replanted with native perennial plant species.
Channelization of natural stream meanders should be avoided wherever possible. Rip -
rap stabilization of the stream channel should be used only below the high water mark
where woody vegetation typically does not grow. The tops of the stream banks
should be stabilized by revegetating with native riparian plants.
Uncured concrete is toxic to aquatic life. If concrete is used at stream crossings,
coffer dams should be used to prevent contact with stream water while the concrete
is curing.
4.7.3. Impacts of Wastewater Discharge and Induced Development.
Forney Creek has a drainage basin area of 9 square miles at the proposed discharge,
and a 7-day duration, 10-year frequency (7010) low flow of 0.5 cfs. Killian Creek below its
confluence with Forney Creek, 1 .5 miles downstream of the proposed WWTP discharge, has
n� a drainage basin area of 47 square miles and a 7010 flow of 3.1 cfs. The proposed Forney
Creek WWTP has a design capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD). During 7010
j. conditions, the treated wastewater will comprise 82% of the instream flow in Forney Creek
and 43% of the instream flow in Killian Creek. Based on meetings between Lincoln County
officials, project engineers, and DEM representatives, it is expected that tertiary treatment will
be required and thauthe effluent discharge limits will include 1 .0 mg/I ammonia and 5.0 mg/I
The 7010 flow of the receiving stream may decrease as impervious sur ace area in e
watershed increases, which may affect future NPDES limits.
31

Increased residential and commercial development induced by the project will result in
more impervious sur ace area, less rainwater infiltration, and greater potential for
r: contamination associated with urban runoff. :Good stormwater design and management
practices can ameliorate these negative impacts, The Lincoln County and Catawba County
watershed protection ordinances, effective 1 January 1994, will limit potential adverse water
quality impacts in those portions of the service area that lie within water supply watersheds.
Davenport (1989) compared water quality between streams draining rural,
semideveloped, and urban areas receiving 1) only non -point source impacts, and 2) combined
non -point source and point source impacts in Guilford County, N.C. In streams receiving only
non -point sources, conductivity and concentrations of major ions (Ca, Mg, Na, Cl, and SO,)
increased with urbanization at,base flows. Suspended se iment and heavy metals (Hg, Cu,
Ni, and Zn) were elevated in urbanized streams during high flows, when road surface runoff
is greatest. Total organic carbon, orthophosphate, and fluoride concentrations increased with
urbanization during all flow conditions. Streams receiving point source impacts (wastewater
outfalls) exhibited significant increases in arsenic, copper, mercury, phosphorus, zinc, several
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides. Total
dissolved solids, conductivity, and total organic carbon were also elevated below outfalls.
Water quality impacts of the proposed Lincoln and Catawba County project will be less
severe than those observed by Davenport (1989) in Guilford County, due to improved
treatment technology, re uir or ateL-c—=role and vegeated buffe_rL. water supply
watersheds, fewer commercial and industrial wastewater generators in the system, and less
'overall development density. Nonetheless, some water quality degradation is likely due to
induced urban growth, especially in small streams, but the magnitude of these effects cannot
be readily predicted.
The project will increase water use in the service area. Potable water and irrigation
water in the project service area will be supplied in part by private wells and in part by Lincoln
County and Catawba County public distribution systems that treat raw water from Lake
Norman and the South Fork Catawba River. Future NPDES effluent limits on discharges into
these waters may be affected if municipal raw water withdrawals are increased to
accommodate induced growth. All municipalities providing public water systems must prepare
a water supply plan that addresses long-term needs, in accordance with N.C. General Statute
143-3550).
4.8. Groundwater Resources.
The no -action alternative will allow continued risk of groundwater contamination from
failing septic systems. The build alternative will reduce the number of septic systems and
reduce the potential for fecal contamination of groundwater. As yet there have been no
documented cases of well contamination in the project area due to septic system failures
(Tom Spurling, Catawba County Department of Environmental Health, pers. comm.).
32