Micaville_SpecWWTP

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AT401i •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary G H N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 13, 1995
Mr.Mark W.Bennett,Mayor
Town of Burnsville
P.O. Box 97
Burnsville, NC 28714-0097
Subject: Request for Speculative Limits
Town of Burnsville
Dear Mayor Bennett:
The Technical Support Branch received your request for speculative limits for the Town of
Burnsville on November 13. The project has been assigned to Jackie Nowell for review.
It normally takes approximately thirty days for the modeler to review the available water
quality information and draft a response.
If you have any questions or coinments, please contact Ms. Nowell (ext. 512) or me (ext
503) at(919)733-5083.
Sincerely,
�\3Wacck_
Ruth C. Swanek, Supervisor
Instream Assessment Unit
cc: Asheville Regional Office
John T. Coxey, P.E., McGill Associates, P.A.
V
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

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Jr., Governor
B. H
Jonathan B. Howes,Secretary
A, Preston Howard,Jr., P.E., Director C) F.= HNF;Z
Asheville Regional Office
WATER QUALITY SECTION,
I`
March 5, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
THROUGH Forrest R. Westall
Regional Water Quali ervisor
FROM: Max L. Haner /�,
Environmental Chemist / O
Subject : Environmental Review #97-510
Burnsville-Micaville Wastewater
Treatment Plant Improvements
Yancey County, North Carolina
Review of the proposed 300, 000 gpd wastewater treatment project for
Burnsville-Micaville area has generated the following comments from
the Asheville Regional Office. while the proposed treatment scheme
may well prove to be the most environmentally sound alternative
available, the information included with this assessment was not
sufficient to support this conclusion. The initial review of this
project (95-0723) resulted in several concerns which have not been
adequately addressed. A site map should be provided with enough
detail to judge the impact to stream and wetland resources. While the
map included with the assessment shows an overview of the location of
the proposed treatment plant and where the sewer and water lines will
be constructed, specific stream crossings and construction methods
are not shown and wetland areas cannot be identified. Construction
of a sewer line or water line along Little Crabtree Creek undoubtedly
will affect wetland areas of concern. We would urge the applicant to
minimize the number of stream crossings and wetland impacts . The
applicant should be aware that stream and wetland mitigation may be
required if impacts exceed one acre of the disturbed area.
Ideally, an NPDES permit should be issued prior to submittal of this
assessment; thereby assuring proper consideration of all available,
Interchange Building,59 Woodfin Place N4F�� FAX [phone]
Asheville,North Carolina 28801 �� An Equal Opportunity/Affirmo ive Action Employer
Voice 704-251-6208 -vmrm 60%recycles/10°,6 post-consumer paper

Page Two
March 5, 1997
environmentally sound and economically feasible alternatives. Absent
issuance of the NPDES permit, the assessment document must fully
evaluate the alternatives to this proposed treatment scheme to
include cost comparisons and projected environmental impacts . ARO
would like to review the environmental assessment being prepared by
the US Dept of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.
Should you have questions or wish to discuss these concerns in more
detail, please advise.
xc : Michelle Suverkrubbe

WATER QUALITY PLANNING Fax:[phone] Mar 5 '97 9:24 P.01f01
its 4&
. . .. •• • �:N0�`hN�:filiCi�;liiPr':rSY�Wlu�tbbe
,.
'. ��p�y. . . <Ji�c�Cic'N�dv►�cll� i
Fcb 25,19'97.1fl;44 A.M
. •. '•�iuib�d[;: •Bisuavi�e F 'Tl";�17,051ii'
:tar ''��M�chelle:�Suve�i
:Gc Caft at't Ruth:gwanek
i
A ip�culativa r ;.vitas ttc is I. 95 fay the iroru�vi110-Micevitic W TP,a p mo
of1.3;IKCiD toW in>ha•tlie.Srnz ►`i' Ri
:.;. aW
W drabi4m am at
estimated OA=15 f'cfa atBd 7QIO-35 cfs, The IW
j :•;:.wad �Ii31'96:' : =�. �•
tylinft. /ficg:200 and Res.a=28. •wmraummended. �
'.,PT.ease Owtmr i me if aMitiond info is n � �
• .. .��' '• i `fir;: �� �
i :'�Po'st-It brand fbx tran,90tta4 merrio•767i or pepea P i ,
From
Phone
Fax k

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Section
March 9, 1997
Memorandum
TO: Michelle Suverkrubbe
FROM: Coleen Sullins
SUBJECT: Proposed Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Environmental Assessment
Yancy County
I have reviewed the draft environmental assessment. The document is of a check list nature and does not
satisfactorily meet the requirements expected of such a document. However,the proposed facility does
not meet the Division's minimum criteria to require an environmental assessment. The application
procedures for a new NPDES permit and the criteria for an environmental assessment,however, are very
similar. Therefore,these comments are being made in order to assure that the applicant is familiar with the
minimum NPDES application requirements.
Prior to selecting an alternative for the disposal of wastewater, an applicant must first review all feasible
alternatives. After selecting the most environmentally sound of the economically feasible alternatives,
development of an environmental assessment is appropriate. The Divission's policy is that non-discharging
systems are generally preferable to a discharge. In fact,the NPDES acronym stands for the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The North Carolina Administrative Code(NCAC)T15A 2H
.0105(c) and 2B .0201(c)require that an alternatives analysis be performed documenting efforts to
consider non-discharge alternatives. If the non-discharge alternative is feasible,that option should be
pursued. The check list provided for review does not provide enough information to determine whether
such an alternatives analysis was performed.
Attached for your information is a copy of the pertinent sections of the administrative code and a guidance
document for the preparation of engineering alternatives analyses. If you have any questions,please call
me at extension 550.
cc: fifvhff ? 11;Asheville Regional Office
Ruth Swanek
Central Files
3 199�
,�}a�a aio�a�a 9cM.,A-

n/
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt,Jr„ Governor E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard,Jr., P.E., Director
Asheville Regional Office
WATER QUALITY SECTION
May 13 , 1997
Mr. John Ogden
Regional Environmental Officer
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
Atlanta Regional Office - Suite 1820
401 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3510
Subject : Proposed Burnsville-Micaville
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Ogden:
In continuation of our telephone conversation on this date,
this letter is in regards to the location of the proposed
wastewater treatment facility to serve the Burnsville-Micaville
section of Yancey County, North Carolina and this Agency' s
position on an anticipated NPDES permit applicaiton. As you are
aware, this facility is proposed to be sited in a rural area near
the end of North Carolina Secondary Road 1307 (Wyatt Town Road) ;
at a location which would appear to allow gravity sewer service
from the largest segment of both the Burnsville and Micaville
areas . At design, the facility would discharge approximately . 300
MGD of treated wastewater to the South Toe River which bears a
Class C-Trout" waters classification. The South Toe River is the
largest river in this area of Yancey County. At the proposed
point of discharge, the river has a drainage basin of
approximately 84 square miles, with a seven-day, ten-year minimum
stream flow of 35 cfs and an average flow estimated at 151 cfs .
It is important to recognize that an NPDES permit applcation
for this project has not yet been submitted. However, prelimnary
evaluation of this proposed project in consideration of siting
criteria used by this Agency (Title 15A,, North Carolina
Administrative Code 2H . 0200) , indicates that the site on Wyatt
Town Road is suitable for location of a wastewater treatment
facility. Based upon the above discussion and upon receipt of a
complete NPDES permit application for this project, this Agency
Interchange Building,59 Woodfin Place P- 4 FAX [phone]
Asheville,North Carolina 28801 Nof C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 704-251-6208 5010 recycles/10%post-consumer paper

- - - _
`I
I
,� - - --- Paged
May 13 , 1997
i
would process the permit request. Following the required public
notice period, a formal public meeting on the subject of whether
to issue a NPDES permit likely would be scheduled. Please
understand that a complete NPDES permit application package
includes an Alternatives Analysis which demonstrates that the
discharge permit is the most environmentally sound of the cost
effective alternatives suitable for this project .
In regards to your request to provide summary of those
concerns expressed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) , I would request that you contact Ms .
( Stephanie E. Goodreau, Mt . Region Coordinator with the Habitat
Conservation Program; telephone (704) 652-4257 in Marion, North
Carolina
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in the most
important matter. Should you have questions or wish to discuss
this matter in more detail, please advise .
Yo s
4truly,
ax L. Haner
Envnronmental Chemist
xc : Nann Guthrie
Stephanie Goodreau
Ernie Seneca
Minnie Powell
Ray Burroughs
Rick Herndon
Ann Francis
1. ; Coleen Sullins
Roy M. Davis
Forrest R. Westall

'"-VAN 2 '97 10:44 M -- t i,r �r ,. P.i/5
Post4t"Fax NOW 7871 �� - pate
1�.�"aV� From
�'� �' Sozrd of Comrnissionera '
county Manager Co.n5ea6 Co. L�l�
Minnie Powell t?avJd McIntosh,Chairman
(7tl41682.973$ i Phone p Phone# dandy C , "her
FAX[phone] lofts Rtnffro,W+nher
FAX 0 FO O , rr' [phone]
i 1
Roorn 11,Courthouse • Burnsville,North Carolina 28714
April 14� 1997
+,irk 75
The I-Ionorable fames B.IduA Jr.
Office of the Governor
116 West Jones Sleet
Raley,North CWdina 27601.-8001
RE: BURNSVILL•E WCAVIILE WASTE WATER TREATMENT FA.CU=
Dear Governor Hunt:
l am enclosing a copy of a letter dated 10 April, 1997 firanx Mr. tatter Ljokey with
Taylor Tipp addressed to the Yalncey County Eaanontic Development Conunission- As
y0a can see from the letw r, Mr. Lackey feels that the "citizens, commissioners, Ecoxwvnic
Development Cammaissiota, eto." are not fully in support of the efforts to locate a
wastewater treatment facility in the Ivffcavi&Comitxu*. As you are aware,US has bekm
an ongoing project for more than four yOM& The fWal grant application was 81*611iftd to
the EDA by the Town of B>f»lle on January 10, 1997,
Please be advised that a petition cordainiiw more than three Inmdred skpatmvs,
against the location of the wastewater tseah wnt plant has beet dm6tcd throughout the
cormunity, and a copy provided to flue EDA. By letter of 2$ 1bLarch, A&. Jotm Ogden
with the EDA advised Mayor Charlie Hensley that the public controversy would have to be,
resolved before the grant process could continue. I want to take this opportunity to give
you some background mforn aatiron as to the source of this pe#ition-
The resistance to this project has boon generated by art individual Who awns
property across the river front the proposed location of the treatment plant- This individual
watts to develop his prr)periy for me as seasonal rentals, with several cabins located on a
hilW& overlooking the valley iu which the wastewater treatment plant would be localeA
Thm,gentleman knew that plans omsted for the facility before, &- purchased the propo"
de-vokpinent property. He cme into my office approximately two months ago and
wanted to know if the wastewater treatment plant oould be moved about a mile down the
river, away from sight of his properly. I achedulad a meeting with this individua t to discum
the matter with Mr.Da-Ad Metntodi,Chahum of the Yancey County ComtttWionexs. At
this meeting, W Mohdosh and I fiftmed hint that the grant proposal had already been
submittcd to the EDA, and that changing the site at ft labs date would be impossible. I
1f-monrtt muchelt-Nordi Carrolina,,F first.State Park•Fltgltest point in Eastern America

MAY '97 10:45AM P.215
Governor James B. Hunt 2 14 April, 1997
also informed hins of the benefits to the entire County,trot just itrticamMe, and par"culady to
the future of the individuals working A Taylor Togs. I also informed hint that if the TDwn
of Burnsville did not moeave the ep tt herding frc+ana the FDA, the project would not gn
forward as neither the town nor the county could afford the $2,000,000.00 cost of the
wastowater treatment plant.
since meet%with this individual, I have received Copies ofltis p"ons, and IuIW
spoken with him several more times. Each time,he has assured me that his intention is not
to eliminate the waste water treatment facility, but simply to move it. Each time, I have
eVlained to him that moving th4 site is nut a simple ratter that could be aceontrt odated
using the grant proposal wt&h has been submitted. I havo told hum that to move the plant
would at best delay the project by several Yeats, and at worst would end it altogether.
However, he has spearheaded the raistanco to dire project and has been responsible for
cimulation of'the petition which has been sent to the FDA. Many of the sWmtu res on the
petition ate of people who do not live in the Micaville community, and some do not even
live in Yancey County. If this individual's efforts am successful, then an entire community
will be:depraved of a badly needed water and sower=vacu-
As you will mote 110M Mr. Ogden's letter, the petitioners lie stated their
opposition to ilia project its due to its location in ae msiden ial area and a flood plain. There
have also been allegations that the project has been somehow kept secret from the pWQli,
and that all information in the newspaper concerning the wastewater treatment plant has
been placed at the back,of the paper in the legal section where it cannot be seen. We ha lc
provided itdr. Ogdm with complete documentation that three public hearings have been
held thus far, and also with copies of various front-page articles regarding the project front
the Yancey Common Times Jouwal. .Mr. hick Herndon with Region D, who has bamt
respon,5r�le for writing the grant, has also provided Mr. Ogden with documentation
=uring hint that the property is not in a flood plain, nor in a residential community. In
fact, the site is at the end of a wooded, sparsely populated dead-end mad.
We hm scheduled another public hearing for 7:00 o'clock P.M. on M00d2y, the
286 of April. WO haw asked rgM=`nta`UVes from other effected industry in the
cotn11f1unity, fim Region D,from the water quality division of the NCDEMP, and from
McGill and Associdw, the ectgirteering firm responsible for the design of the project, to be
present at this meeting. We haves also requested that Representative Bob Hunter and
Congregsatan Charles Taylor be present if at all possible. At this r=etin& I would hope
that those most concerned will understand that the propose it location of the Burr ille-
Micaville waste water treatment plats will provide a tmrch needed sWVIce to the entire
Eaat=end of the county. Furthermore, it is lily sincere belief that it is the residents of
Wyatt'Town Road, and the entire Iviicavllle community, who will benefit most hoot the
location of wastewater treatment plant.

MY 12 197 10:45AM P.3i5
Governor Imnes B.Bunt 3 14 April, 1997
I have spoken with Mr. Lackey, and he has informed me that he.has been waiting
for water and sewer sMiic4 to Taylor Toga for more:than five years, and that he is tired of
promises. He Anther informed me that there are other counties that would love to havc
'Taylor Togs relocate there. I catutot stress to you enough the iml A=ce of Taylor Togs
to the economic welt-being of Yancey County. We cannot afford to lose the three htmdtad
plus jobs which Taylor 'fogs provides to thiB area, I understand that you have -been
instrumental in acquisition of funding for this project, and that you are acquainted with
Grier Lackcy. If possible, please contact Mr. Lackey on behalf of Yancey Courtly and
advise bun slut Yancey County, the Town.of Burnsville,the EDC, and the Majority of the
%tw= remain committed to this proj&t. Any assistance which you cart give Yanc-CY
County in rrroving this project forward wil be grew*appreeiated.
With b -trds4�
Mitmic . Powell
Coun Manager
MBP

MAY A2 '97 10:46AM P.4/5
n.
W&DEPARTMENT OF.G!D•mmERdrp.
`�, ire�at#oiri�c�Qe!vei hter:t`I�e#e�(i�'iis"�raEian
# Atlanta kGgiflnat omm
Suite 1820 ..
401 West Peaeihiree:Street,N.W.
l'Q`dx'oh 2$r 1997 +erne,.!! Atlanta,Georgia 303013-3510,
The Honorable Charlie M. Hensley
Mayor, Town of Burnsville
P.O. Sox 97, 1 Town Square
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Re: Burnsville} -- Micaville
Water & Wastewater Systems Improvements
Dear Mayor Hensley.
This letter will serve to officially register concerns that the
Economic Development Administration (EDA) has regarding public
controversy over the subject project. As a result of the public
notification stating that EDA was performing an environmental
assessment, our agency has received letters and petitions in
opposition to the project which total approximately 307 signatures.
The •petjtaenem-•statie that'"tlte�•��t� elm"r�p►pc�s�,t�on to xe.rZocatioxx���'�:�,,
.�f•• tiae-�rast-ewater• �trea�ertt�plant•�,beca�tse�af•�..su.�xrop+��seci�,xp+�at�.tn
i 4 � loaci�,Yr�v ., =�d,,iin„.. t- esi�deztt air rest. it is our understanding
that some form of public notificat�oa was performed for the CDBG �a
funds for this project_ Dies you receive any inquiries for that
notice? c� }: s�a �su�asttiate- ha#,�hyau�,havedexatey ,�t,,�
,e�uatltxat-+ed�•�•1°t�z"=iati.'srves.-fori�'th�"''ls� sr�d•��x't►j�cto. ta"_
Please respond to these concerns at your earliest convenience.
Keep in mind that EDA must complete its environmental review prior
to any award of grant. Also be advised
be� quredrsefcrre"thi, •situatc ►�can" esreso3�►ed� You are
encouraged to contact the petitioners to mediatee, this controversy.
�i��sa�t'1'E�' xt�lt:,:�reyfer'...thatM> t.�°���i�Z.try"°this•�probl�t•,=lo�.l•�:y,
�towev�rho+al�••that•-�nat=.,b�e�poss�3��e=�x,��e. Z•1`��.ttemp�'a�:sr'escx-lutiort�
This may require a lengthy negotiation period. g
determineti•i'fraV•°an•eanviroriMe ntal ,.-s111pae✓t'ttateWgnt .: S)`�ie',:.regtx�red
�you:�ar .;alex� +irs armed.:.tbat.,•.aXI.,•costs- for..wits:rpre3par,�t9iquacm��•,be�
Abe xxes, g:�+ a�cappli cant• Such a finding would, iu all likelihood,
disqualify you from funding this year due to the lengthy
preparation, time for .i�1S's.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitata to contact John
Ogden, Bratvironmental Officer, telephone number 404/730-3010.
Sincare3ly,
J n es
eq' nvironmental Officer
E osurees

MA'S' 12 '97 10:46AM p,5i5
INC.
rPA
F&ly
.Baxx 180-M9cavifta,NC755-704.675a1Y53
April 10, 1997
Yancey County Economic Development Commission
Burnsville, NC 28714
Beginning in late 1991 we started working with Yancey County
Commissioners and Economic Development CommissBon to bring
water and sewer to the eastern area of Yancey County,
We feel water and sewer are a vital past of growth in any
community and have been pleased we were a.gxessively pursuing
assistance from state and federal governments to provide
water and sewer. With some promises of progress toward water
and sewer we bought additional property for expansion and have
delayed expansion in other areas of the state.
In late 1993 we started a similar project in Alexander County
of a 40,000t sq. ft. facility, 150+ new jobs and an investment
in excess of $5 million which required both roads and an
expanded sewer facility. We secured over $800,000 in state
and federal funds in less than 6 months. This project has
been complete and in operation for 18 months, Yet, 6 years
later there is still no action on the project here in
Yancey County,
As a result, we feel the citizens, commissioners, Economic
Development Commission, etc_ are not fully supporting this
project and seem to feel we are not an asset to the
community. Therefore, we wish to withdraw our petition for
water and sewer effective today, April 10, 1997.
We would like to thank the past and present commissioners and
Economic Development Commission for the hard.. work put into
this project. However, we feel our jabs and expansion will
be more welcome in ether areas.
Sincerely,
"1`A YLO TOGS, INC.
5 _...
ier A. Lackey, President
CC: Yancey County Manager
Region D Council on Government
Editor Yancey C=mon Times Journal
.'own of Burnsville

y
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
i
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C)FE H N F 1
A. Preston Howard,Jr., P.E., Director
October 9, 1995
Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Mayor
Town of Burnsville
P. O. Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714-0097
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment
Burnsville-Micaville
Wastewater System
Yancey County, NC
Dear Mayor Bennett:
The Construction Grants,,and Loans Section has completed its review of the subject
Environmental°Assessment and has the attached comments. A revised Environmental
Assessment, which incorporates responses to these comments, should be submitted for our
review and approval as soon as possible.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone],
extension 614.
Sincerely,
Cecil �. Madden, Jr., P.E.
Supervisor
Facilities Evaluation Unit
Attachment (all cc's)
RRS:vk
cc: McGill &Associates
Don Evans
1 '4, . � :�iI N OCT ►99`f
DMU
FEU - File WATER U li
ASHEVItI
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

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
BURNSVILLE-MICAVILLE
OCTOBER 4, 1995
1. The proposed Burnsville-Micaville project has been submitted to the review
agencies, and the attached review comments must be addressed so that the review
process can continue.
2. The proposed improvements are currently being evaluated as a minimum criteria
project, and a complete environmental assessment is normally not required.
However, if the flow from a new treatment plant or an expansion exceeds one-third
the 7Q10 of the receiving stream and/or significant environmental impacts are
anticipated from construction/operation activities, a complete environmental
assessment will be required. This action includes submitting the project for a
review to the State Clearinghouse by the Construction Grants and Loans Section.
Therefore, please submit the appropriate documentation about the 7Q10 and flow
for the proposed discharge point.
3. Speculative effluent limitations for the proposed treatment plant must be requested
to determine the potential water quality impacts. This information is also necessary
to complete the evaluation of this project.
4. If a complete environmental assessment is required, a public hearing will also be
mandatory.

11WRC ',hCF , FRLLS LAKE TEL : 919-52S-9S39 Rug 28 , 95 15 : 17 No .004 P .02
Worth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street,Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-73.3-3391
Charles R. Fullwood,Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
;:•- Dept,
e t. tIEnviiroonment, Health, and Natural Resources
�CUB/✓ `
NROM`�-'��' Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 28, 1995
SUBJECT: DEHNR Project No. 736, Environmental Assessment for the Burnsville-Micaville
Water and Wastewater Improvements, Yancey County.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
Environmental Assessment(EA) for the Burnsville-Micaville Water and Wastewater
Improvements in Yancey County. 'Ihese continents are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act(G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1
NCAC 25).
Project sponsors propose to construct a 0.3 million gallon per day wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) on the South'foe River to serve Burnsville and Micaville. Approximately 13,000
linear feet of 8-inch water line and 25,000 linear feet of 12-inch sewer line will be installed as
part of this project. According to Mr. John Coxey of McGill Associates,water and sewer lines
will cross several streams.
Before we can concur with a Finding of No Significant Impact, the EA should be revised
to include the following information:
1) Names of streams to be crossed by water and sewer lines and the nature of each crossing
(e.g., buried in substrate, elevated on piers, attached to a bridge).
2) Acknowledgment that the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (919/733-7701)has
been contacted regarding state or federal listed animal or plant species in the project area.
3) The nature of the land to be disturbed by water and sewer line installation. Will most be
installed along highway right-of-way?
4) The level of treatment wastewater will receive at the new WWTP.

11111C HCF ,FRLLS LRKE TEL :[phone] Rug 28 '95 9 :23 No .001 F .03
DEHNR No. 7-16 Page 2 August 28, 1995
i
In addition, listed below arc several recommendations for installing water and sewer lines
to minimize adverse impacts to fisheries and wildlife resources. The EA should discuss these
measures and note which recommendations will be incorporated in the project:
1) Where crossings are necessary, utility lines should cross streams at right angles to
minimize impacts to riparian areas.
2) utility lines crossing streams should be attached to bridges or buried in the stream bottom
to maintain fish movement upstream and downstream and prevent debris from collecting
at the pipe and causing a hydrologic change. We do not recommend elevating lines on
piers because these structures often catch debris, increase sedimentation downstream, and
result in the formation of islands.
3) 1f concrete will be used, construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry
and causing a fish kill.
4) An undisturbed buffer zone should be left between streams and all land disturbance
(except at stream crossings). We prefer a buffer zone of at least 50 feet wide to control
sedimentation into streams, provide shade, and maintain a travel corridor for wildlife.
5) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented where soil is disturbed and
maintained until project completion.
6) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control. We prefer a
"seed as you go" strategy rather than allowing a large amount of soil to remain bare.
7) Yancey County is one of 25 trout counties in the state; therefore, the U.S. Army Corps of
F..ngineers has given biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) authority to review applications for nationwide and general 404
permits in this county. Project sponsors should send a copy of the permit application to
me at the same time one is sent to the Corps,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
August 25, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To- Monica S wihart `=� V V l G�IJ-QGL,1�1
TAU: Ruth Swanek"R-�)
Carla Sanderson
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell p►,1�
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for the Burnsville-Micaville WW Improvements
Project No. 736
Yancey County
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed the EA for the subject project. The
assessment does not contain information concerning potential effluent limitations for the
proposed project. Our records do not indicate that Burnsville or Micaville have reuested
speculative limits from the Division in order to determine what level of treatm q
ent the
proposed facility should have. It is our recommendation that the Town submit a written
request for speculative effluent limits for this facility. This request should include a map
showing the location of the proposed discharge point and should also contain any pertinent
information about constituency of the wastewater,i.e.industrial ,commercial,etc. This
request should be sent to:
Donald L. Safrit
Asst. Chief for Technical Support Branch
DEM/Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
me. If there are additional questions concerning this recommendation,please contact
cc: Forrest Westall
WLA File
G�
cr
�► r�c �,�r� .�
*/Q6AC
� �

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Air Quality Section
August 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment nSection
From: Alan Klimek, Chief /
Subject: Project No. 736
Environmental Assessment
Burnsville-Micaville
Water and Wastewater Improvements
Yancey County, North Carolina
The environmental assessment has been reviewed by the Air Quality Section. The proposed project
involves the a water line extension and construction of a new wastewater treatment plant.
An air permit may be required for this modification of the facility. The expansion of the wastewater
treatment plant may include sources of particulate emissions and control devices (lime silos and odor
scrubbers for example).
Care should be taken by the contractors to comply with open burning provisions during land clearing
for the construction of pumping stations and pipelines. Adequate wetting, reseeding and covering of
disturbed areas should be utilized during earth moving and pipeline trenching operations to mitigate
any adverse impacts from fugitive dust emissions. Furthermore, odor control measures may be needed
should malodorous emissions prove to be a problem.
Should you require further information in this regard, please advise.
c: Lesley Biller
yancey.ea

t �
State of North Carolina /
Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW.— PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 day%
facilities,sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES- permit to discharge into surface water and!or Application 180 days before begin activity.On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual.Additionally,obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time.30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
❑ Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
❑ Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well, (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
❑ Dredge and Fill Permit owner.On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct &operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
❑ facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
❑ must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
❑ NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N!A
prior to demolition.Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
❑ Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
e Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office(Land Quality Sect.)at least 30 20 days
days before beainninc activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and$20.00 for each additional acre or part must accompany the plan (30 days)
❑ The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual.Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
❑ Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land.Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited.The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
❑ North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C.Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
❑ Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required"if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C.with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved.Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
❑ Oil Refining Facilities N/A (N/A)
If permit required,application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C.qualified engineer to:prepare plans. 30 days
❑ Dam Safety Permit Inspect construction,certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program.And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification.A minimum fee of S200.00 must ac-
company the application.An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
�✓ �, Continued on reverse

` Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
❑ Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
U Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
❑ descriptions &drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
❑ CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
❑ Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
❑ Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks(USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
❑ Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000(Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. (NIA),
* Other comments(attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES d below.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marke
❑Asheville Regional Office ❑Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
❑Mooresville Regional Office ❑Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
❑Washington Regional Office ❑Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
❑Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, INC 27106
[phone]

ANENT OFT
�Ny�'y9 United States Department of the Interior PRID N
vi AMERICA��
o
� a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ygRCH s%5 Asheville Field Office ®�� N
XXXXXX XN*NK(X XXXXXXXX
X %AW X*�Kr"XM 86)aXXX
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 11, 1995 :�°y :.• :;
C.
Mr. Reginald R. Sutton
North Carolina Depar-ment of Environmiient,
Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Sutton:
Subject: Environmental assessment for proposed sewer and water
improvements for the Towns of Burnsville and Micaville, Yancey
County, North Carolina
We received a copy of the subject document on August 15, 1995, requesting
our comments. The following comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e) , and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act) .
According to the information provided in the document, this project will
involve the construction of a water line, sewer lines, and a new
300,000-gallon-per-day wastewater treatment plant in the Burnsville/
Micaville area . The purpose of this project is to improve water and
sewer service to the Towns of Burnsville .and Micaville.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) found the environmental
assessment to be lacking in detail with regard to project description,
location, and possible impacts to fish, wildlife, stream, and wetland
resources within the project area. The map provided with the assessment
was difficult to read and to determine the exact locations of the
proposed water line, sewer lines, and the new wastewater treatment plant.
Also, there was no information as to the degree (i .e. , secondary or
tertiary) and type of effluent treatment (i .e. , effluent will be
dechlorinated before discharge) at the new plant or where wastewater
effluent will be discharged. The above-mentioned information would be
helpful for our review of the project.
The Service is concerned about the potential impacts this project could
have on two federally listed species: (1) the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) , a federally endangered freshwater mussel

species, and (2) Virginia spiraea (SSpiraea virginiana) , a federally
threatened plant species. There are also two other rare species of
concern to us--the hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) , an
amphibian, and the olive darter (Percina squamata) , a fish species.
Alasmidonta raveneliana is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Historical records for the
species in North Carolina include the following river systems:
Nolichucky River, Little Tennessee River, Little River, Swannanoa River,
and French Broad River. Only two populations of the species are known to
survive--one population in the Little Tennessee River (Macon and Swain
Counties) and one population in the Nolichucky River, which includes the
main stem of the Nolichucky River (Mitchell and Yancey Counties) and the
North Toe River (Mitchell and Yancey Counties) . In 1992, one specimen
was found in the Cane River in Yancey County. Habitat and water quality
degradation resulting from impoundments, stream channelization, dredging,
industrial and sewage effluent, and the runoff of silt and other
pollutants are believed to have contributed to this species' decline.
Spiraea virginiana is a slender, branching, rosaceous shrub growing to
1.5 meters tall . This species occurs primarily within the scour zone on
the banks of high gradient streams or on braided features, such as point
bars , natural levees , or meander scrolls, of the lower reaches of
streams. It may also occur within floodplain areas but is most often
found at the water's edge. There are several known populations of
Spiraea virginiana along the South Toe River and Cane River in Yancey
County.
Percina sou amata and Crvptobranchus alleganiensis are not federally
listed, but the Service requests assistance in protecting these rare
aquatic species. Percina squamata is a small member of the family
Percidae, with a range that is widely scattered in the upper Tennessee
River system. This fish species can be commonly found in deep, swift
rapids and runs near boulders in main river channels . This species is
known to occur in the South Toe River just north/northeast of Micaville.
Crvptobranchus alleganiensis is a large, flattened aquatic salamander
with gray-brown, wrinkled skin and five toes on each hind foot. This
species occurs in large streams and rivers beneath large flat stones or
logs in shallow, clear running water. It is known from a section of the
South Toe River just south of Celo.
In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate
Federal regulatory agency to review its activities or programs and to
identify any such activities or programs that may affect endangered or
threatened species or their habitats . If it is determined that these
proposed activities may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be
initiated. Thus, the Service recommends that: (1) the issue of effluent
discharge and its potential impacts on both federally listed and other
aquatic species be addressed, and (2) if appropriate habitat is available
within the project impact area, surveys be conducted for S i��raea
virginiana.

Finally, the Service is also concerned about the lack of detail on
potential impacts to streams and wetlands. Apparently, there will be
several stream crossings associated with the sewer line construction,
along with possible wetland impacts. The assessment does not identify
the crossing locations nor does it detail any specific mitigative
measures that will implemented to reduce any adverse impacts to aquatic
resources in these streams. Regarding wetlands, the assessment states:
"At the present time, it is not known if wetlands will be impacted.
During the survey phase of the project, a determination will be made as
to this possible impact. " The Service believes that pertinent wetland
and fish and wildlife surveys should be conducted prior to the completion
of the environmental assessment so that resource agencies can provide
substantive comments on the analyses of the alternatives presented and
the impacts to natural resources associated with the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward
to receiving additional information. If there are any questions, please
contact Ms. Janice Nicholls of our staff at 704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In
any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
Log Number 4-2-95-118.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Currie
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms . Linda Pearsall , Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
Mr. Chris McGrath, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
42 Concord Road, Asheville, NC 28803

7 f
„a STATE
4y P�emu'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
William S. Price, Jr., Director
August 28, 1995
MEMORANDUM c ;a ;*;,_:;w; :l;;�
TO: Reginald R. Sutton
Construction Grants Section
Division of Environmental Management
DEHNR
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State sstoric Prese vation Officer/�
SUBJECT: Burnsville Micaville 201 facilities plan, water and
wastewater improvements, Yancey County, 95-C-
0000-0723, ER 96-7261
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the above plan.
We note that an archaeological survey will be provided for the project. We look
forward to receiving copies of the report.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
Ofif.ir4;l Sent T(�
GPF/SRF
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ���

I
'I
Il
1
fi
1 @McGM
A S S O C I A T E S
July 21, 1997
Y
� t
Mr. John Ogden ;
Regional Environmental Officer
U. S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
Suite 1820
401 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3510
RE: Water and Wastewater System
Improvements
Town of Burnsville, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Ogden:
I have been authorized by the Town of Burnsville to prepare this response to your July
7, 1997. letter to Mayor Hensley. We are in respectful disagreement with the finding of
significant environmental impact and other related determinations outlined in your letter and
believe they have been reached with either a lack of information, or erroneous information
having been provided to you. The Town responded to your March 28, 1997 letter which
initially registered your concerns, with a letter dated May 1, 1997 from Mayor Hensley, along
with some 30 pages of related attachments. An additional response to your March 28, 1997
letter was provided by Yancey County in an April 7, 1997 letter from the County Manager.
Your May 2, 1997 fax to the County Manager implies that it was sent prior to your
receipt of the May 1, 1997 letter from the Town. Since your letter of March 28, did not
mention the need to address the evaluation of additional project alternatives or alternative sites,
the May 2 fax was the first indication that you wished to evaluate alternate sites for the
proposed wastewater treatment plant. Had we understood the basis of your brief comment, I
am certain some clarifying communication from our office would have resulted.
Your May 15, 1997 fax transmitting letters from Messrs. Robinson and Mr. Leiner,
both containing significant inaccurate information about the project, and informing us of your
scheduled visit to the project area within two (2) weeks, also states the EDA could live with a
change in the wastewater treatment plant site as suggested by Mr. Leiner. With our
knowledge of the area and of the Burnsville wastewater system, we felt it best to await your
visit to better determine your specific concerns. This also seemed appropriate since the basis
of your initial letter dated March 28 stated concerns related to "public controversy" over the
project, which we think does not exist based on factual information, particularly with the
E n g i n e e r i n g • P l a n n i n g F i n a n c e
McGill Associates, P.A.•P.O. Box 2259,Asheville,NC 28802•55 Broad Street,Asheville,NC 28801
704-252-0575 • FAX [phone]

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 2
initial petition stating opposition to the location of the wastewater treatment plant because of
its location in a flood zone and in a residential area, both inaccurate conclusions.
You also mentioned an interior memorandum dated June 13, 1997 to your Regional
Director in your July 7 letter. Please be advised that we do not have a copy of this document,
but would like to have it sent to us for our files.
With regard to "public controversy" of the project and specifically the siting of the
wastewater treatment plant, we have previously informed you that many of the signatures on
the initial petition objecting to the project do not live nor own property in the vicinity of the
South Toe River. There are a few people who object to the project for their personal reasons
and their objections should certainly be evaluated, but this has not created a community
controversy.
The communications between EDA and representatives of the Town did not make it
clear as to your precise "concerns with the evaluation of alternate locations and treatment
processes included in the application". Only with your site visit on May 28 did we have
conversations other than Mr. Leiner wanting to relocate the treatment plant site.
With regard to the evaluation of alternatives to the project and particularly to the
wastewater treatment issue, we have evaluated additional alternatives that relate to alternative
sites and alternate discharges, a copy of which is included herein. You stated during the June
23 conference call that you did not want any wastewater treatment plant discharge anywhere
on the South Toe River. With that statement negating any further evaluation of sites along the
South Toe River, we evaluated an additional site near the confluence of the South Toe River
and the North Toe River that would discharge below their confluence, the land application of
the wastewater discharge from the currently proposed site on either strip-mined land or
forested land by either spray irrigation or drip irrigation and the transporting of all wastewater
to the existing wastewater treatment plant that discharges to the Cane River. The analysis
indicates that all of these alternatives are financially prohibitive when compared with the
proposed site.
Based on the environmental comments received on the North Toe River and the
environmental characteristics of the Cane River, it is questionable that either alternative would
mitigate the overall environmental impacts. We do not believe that there are any other
reasonable alternatives to consider. If any are identified, they would be addressed during the
discharge permitting process in accordance with the Clean Water Act administered by the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, as outlined in their letter to you dated May 13, 1997.

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 3
i
I
We have reviewed the 201 Facilities Plan that was prepared in 1977 and find that the
20 year plan was fairly accurate in its assumptions. The Town has proceeded in its phased
implementation when it was necessary and found it to be a helpful document. It is now 20
years later, and the implementation of the plan has been completed.,
A brief comment on each of the potentially significant environmental impacts listed in
your letter is'as follows:
• Aquatic Habitat Impacts/Terrestrial Habitat Impacts.
These impacts are addressed in the comments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
• Aesthetics
The recommended treatment plant site is not visible from any of the residences on
Wyatt Town Road and may barely be visible from those properties across the river.
The attached aerial photograph taken on January 7, 1997 shows the site being screened
from the residences on Wyatt Town Road by a ridge and heavy trees. Although Mr.
Leiner says he intends to place rental cabins on the river opposite the treatment plant
site, they will not be visible during the summer months and marginally visible during
the winter months, which is out of season for any tourist activity. The site design
would contains complete natural buffers of sufficient depth to provide visual screening
in all directions.
• Recreational and Scenic Resources
Based on the use of the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, there may be some
intermittent impacts in the immediate area of the discharge. Since there are currently
four (4) wastewater discharges upstream that will be eliminated and combined in the
subject project and a substantial portion of discharge to the Cane River will be
eliminated, the overall recreational impacts will be insignificant.
1
• Flooding Potential
The preferred site for the wastewater treatment plant contains 25 acres, which allows
all of the treatment process facilities to be floodproofed above the 100 year flood
elevation as designated by the federal flood maps. There has been discussion about the
1977 flood in Yancey County. This flood event was the 500 year flood in most areas
of Yancey County, but we do not have any knowledge of its impact on the proposed
site or any other sites that could be identified. The proposed site does allow the
opportunity to remove all treatment structures from the flood area.

i
a
Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 4
I
I
• Water Quali, Degradation
The water quality impacts have been addressed by the State review of the project by the
Division of Water Quality
• SQ&ty/Contamination
The classification of the South Toe River is C-Trout in the area of the project. Class C
waters are protected for secondary recreation, including wading, boating and other uses
where activity takes place in an infrequent, unorganized or incidental basis. Class C
waters are not protected by the State for recreational swimming, regardless of a
wastewater discharge.
• Wetlands Impacts
There are not an identified wetlands at an locati�
Y Y
complete wetlands survey will be conducted with m L
where necessary. The Asheville office of the Corp:
project and ready to assist when final facilities location
by their written comments.
• Economic Resources Loss (Tourism)
There is not currently significant tourism activity to
project. The lower portion of the South Toe Rivei
industry since its accessibility is very limited, rendering
tourism use. The upper reaches of the South Toe River and the Cane River are the
portions of these rivers that have tourism use and are not impacted by this project.
• PropeiV Devaluation
There is no credible evidence that property values will decrease as a result of the
project and a valid argument that they will increase with the provision of public water
and sewer service. It is important to understand how a state of the art wastewater
treatment plant functions.
• Noise/Traffic Sqfeo
These items have been addressed elsewhere in this response.

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 5
• Air QuaW
Air Quality issues are not an issue in that air emissions will not result from the
treatment processes and odor is not emitted under normal operating circumstances.
This is the case with the existing Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant with
residences in the close proximity.
• Construction Impacts and Sa eo
Construction impacts are minimal and temporary during various construction activities.
Soil erosion potentials are minimized through a continuously monitored sedimentation
and erosion control plan approved by,the State Division of Land Quality.
• Operational Impacts and Safety
The operational records of the existing wastewater treatment plant show minimal
treatment upsets resulting in a water quality rating of the receiving stream (Cane River)
being excellent. The treatment plant design contains complete redundant duplicity in
process equipment with standby generator power backup.
• Public Controversy
This item has been addressed elsewhere in this response.
• Indirect. Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts
These impacts will be minimal due to certain characteristics of the project area to be
much more heavily influenced by other factors. The continued growth of the U.S. 19-
E corridor is more dependent on transportation infrastructure than on the provision of
water and sewer service.
• Sustainable Development LM�acts/Environmental Justice Issues
1
i
The items are much too complex to address in the time allowed. We do not feel that
they create significant impacts when considered in the larger framework of the project
area and the community.
While we understand the contents of.your July 7 letter, we do not agree with your
determination that the seven (7) listed Indicators of Significance will be exceeded. Taken
separately, we comment as follows:

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 6
Traffic
We assume that this refers to construction traffic during that phase of the project and
operational traffic after completion of construction. Any related traffic along U.S. 19-E and
other roads leading to the intersection with Wyatt Town Road, would be insignificant based on
current traffic movement. Wyatt Town Road is a paved, NCDOT maintained, dead end road
with approximately twelve (12) residences along its frontage. Much of the property is owned
in large tracts for the purpose of timber cutting as evidenced by the attached aerial photograph
taken this past January 1997. With the construction of a packaged treatment plant delivered in
modular sections, there is very little construction traffic along Wyatt Town Road of any size
or significance. Most of the construction materials, with the exception of the modular
treatment units, occasional cast-in-place concrete and concrete blocks, are delivered in small
utility trucks or pickup trucks. With logging trucks frequenting the road, this access road is
not more impacted than most roads leading to many other treatment plants.
With regard to operational traffic, there will be two (2) pickup trucks arriving and
leaving the site each day, a pickup truck delivering materials three (3) times per week and
sludge composting mulch deliveries every three (3) months.
Noise
The noise generated by the treatment plant will not significantly impact any adjoining
properties. The aeration blowers are the most significant noise producers and are to be housed
in a fully enclosed insulated building. There are not other activities that produce significant
noise that can be heard off site. This seems insignificant when compared to logging activities
on contiguous properties.
Land Use Incompatibility
The treatment plant is proposed on a site that is mostly wooded, with extensive natural
wooded buffers to remain. The topography of this site is such that the treatment facilities will
be located well above the river elevationllso as not to be visually intrusive. The treatment plant
will be barely visible, if at all, from 1contiguous properties with the area being sparsely
populated.
Endangered Species Impacts
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, has indicated that this
project could potentially impact two federally listed species. The Appalachian Elktoe is a
federally endangered freshwater mussel species that is know to be present in the area, and the
Virginia Spiraea is a federally threatened plant species that is know to be present along the

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 7
South Toe River and the Cane River. In addition, two other species are rare and the Service
requests assistance in protecting these species. These include the Percina Squamata (a fish
species) and the Cryptobranchus Alleganiensis (a salamander), which are both known to occur
in the South Toe River.
We contacted Mr. John Fridell of the Fish and Wildlife Service and he indicated that
the primary concern for the Virginia Spiraea would be a change in flow to the stream.
According to the Division of Water Quality, the estimated average flow of the South Toe
River is 151 cfs, and the 7 day-10 year low flow is 35 cfs. The proposed discharge as a result
of this project is 0.46 cfs, or 0.3 percent of the average flow in the river and 1.3 percent of
the low flow. Therefore, the Virginia Spiraea would not be significantly impacted by this
project. Mr. Fridell indicated that the primary concern with the other species would be related
to toxicity. The speculative discharge limits issued by the Division of Water Quality for this
project set a maximum chlorine level of 0.028 mg/l on the effluent. For the design flow of
300,000 gpd, this would equate to approximately 0.07 pounds per day of chlorine that would
be discharged to the South Toe River. This is an extremely small amount of chlorine and
would not significantly impact any of the federally listed or rare species. The treatment plant
would in fact remove chlorine completely from the discharge through cascade aeration as it
enters the river. Metals and other chemicals that could be present in waste streams from
system users are controlled through the existing pretreatment program (40 CFR 403), which
requires the industries to provide pretreatment facilities to maintain the levels of contaminants
in their effluent at acceptable levels prior to entering the sewer system.
In a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Fridell, he said that the furthest
known upstream location of the Elktoe is downstream of the confluence of the South Toe and
North Toe Rivers, near the Jacks Creek tributary, so the Service would not be very concerned
with impacts to the Elktoe. If the proposed discharge were further downstream, the Service
would be more concerned about impacts to the Elktoe. The Virginia Spiraea would be more
of a concern, primarily during construction because it is present in the floodplains. A survey
would need to be conducted for the.Virginia Spiraea, and if it is found to be present at the
proposed location of the discharge outfall, they would require that the outfall be moved
downstream. If the survey shows that the species is present upstream or downstream of the
discharge outfall, the Service would probably not require any relocation of the discharge
outfall.
The other two species of concern are not currently federally listed. John said that since
the South Toe River is a trout water, the discharge permit restrictions that will be required
because it is a trout water would be sufficient to protect both of these species.
John also said that, besides the survey for the Virginia Spiraea, the Service would
recommend that dechlorination be required, as well as backup power facilities. Chlorine
discharge would be their primary concern, and also that adequate pretreatment is provided for

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 8
any industrial dischargers, which is included in the approved industrial pretreatment program
for the Town.
Ecologically Critical Areas
In December 1995, we requested from the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, speculative discharge limits for the
wastewater treatment plant at the proposed location. A copy of the December 20, 1995,
_response is attached.
We subsequently spoke with Jackie Nowell of the Division of Water Quality, who
prepared the waste load allocation analysis. ,She said that a computer model was run based on
the worst case summer season 7Q10 flow to check for deoxygenation and reaeration of the
river. The predicted BOD and ammonia waste loads are added to the river as part of the
computer model. The model first checks for typical loadings that would occur for secondary
treatment (30 mg/1 BOD, 20 mg/1 ammonia) to see if the dissolved oxygen in the stream could
be maintained at an acceptable level. If an acceptable DO level cannot be maintained at
secondary treatment limits, the model applies more stringent limits until an acceptable DO
level is achieved. The predicted existing background DO for the South Toe River is 7.7 mg/l.
For trout waters the State is required to project the waters so that a minimum of 6.0 mg/l DO
is maintained. For this project, based on the speculative limits issued, the model predicts that
a level of 7.6 mg/l will be maintained during the summer 7Q10 of the South Toe River at 35
cfs.
With regards to ammonia, the State protects for an overall river maximum level of 1.0
mg/1 in the summer, and 1.8 mg/l in the winter. For this project, it was determined that the
proposed discharge could exceed 20 mg/l of ammonia (59 mg/1 in the summer and over 100
mg/l in the winter) and still meet the State's maximum criteria. When this occurs, the State
does not set an ammonia limit greater than 20 mg/l, but instead requires the Town to
constantly monitor ammonia levels.
Fecal coliform is determined by ,a dilution ratio analysis. If the dilution ratio is less
than 330:1, the State criteria requires that a fecal limit of 200 be issued. In this case, the
dilution ration was 75:1.
The State requires that all 7Q10 positive flow trout streams have a maximum chlorine
level of 28 micrograms per liter.

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 9
Total suspended solids is determined by the State requirement that all waters except for
those designated as High Quality Waters (HQW), have a TSS limit of 30 mg/l. The South Toe
River at the location of the proposed discharge and downstream to its confluence with the
North Toe River, has a Class C-Trout classification and is not designated as HQW.
An evaluation of the expected impacts on endangered species and ecologically critical
areas in the South Toe River could be assisted by review of the impacts that the existing 0.80
mgd wastewater treatment plant has had on the Cane River over the past thirty (30) years.
The Cane River has very similar characteristics in that its headwaters are at the Blue Ridge
Parkway flowing through National Forest lands and sparsely populated farmland and woodland
toward Burnsville. It has slightly smaller watershed above the wastewater discharge of 57
square miles with an annual average flow of 97 cfs and a 7 day-10 year low flow of 19 cfs.
The Burnsville discharge constitutes 6.7 percent of the 7Q10 flow, which is more than five (5)
times the proposed ration in the South Toe River. The existing Burnsville Wastewater
Treatment Plant is the only discharge in the Cane River watershed as opposed to four (4)
existing wastewater discharges in the South Toe River watershed. It is planned that all four
(4) of these existing discharges will be eliminated by the proposed project. An overview of
the water quality in the Cane River conducted by the Division of Water Quality in 1995
resulted in a rating of Excellent and included the documented existence of the Appalachian
Elktoe downstream from the discharge. The findings and conclusions resulted form data
collected for water chemistry at a single ambient site, two (2) invertebrate sites and four (4)
fish collection sites, all downstream from the existing Burnsville Wastewater Treatment
Discharge.
Displacement or Relocation
We assume that this indicator refers to the displacement or relocation of persons as a
result of the project. If this assumption is correct, we do not understand its basis since no
displacement or relocation of persons will occur as a result of the project, either directly or
indirectly. If it refers to the displacement or relocation of environmental habitat, this will also
not occur in any significant manner.
4
Public ControversX
As previously stated, the subject project has the public objection of a few people .who
believe that they will be negatively impacted as a result of its implementation. We understand
their personal concerns and would take all reasonable measures to successfully mitigate them,
while considering the prevailing weight of the positive project impacts. The perception of
pubic controversy has resulted from a vocal few, but does not exist in the Burnsville-Micaville
community.

Mr. John Ogden
July 21, 1997
Page 10
We hope the information provided with this response will be helpful in any further
evaluation of this project. We believe that a review of the factual information provided by
several credible sources such as the existing wastewater treatment operating history by the
Town, the existing water quality rating of the Cane River, the opinions of the U.S.
Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources-
Division of Water Quality, and several other similar groups (none of which have objected to
the project), will show that the project as planned, will not have significant environmental
impacts.
We very much respect the feelings of those property owners along and in the area of
the South Toe River in objecting to the project. We have given them more public opportunity
than required to speak about their objections and to provide information that will be beneficial
to us all. We have been guided by factual information from experts rather than personal
emotion in trying to make the best decisions for the overall community.
We would welcome an increase in the EDA Grant to cover the additional costs of the
other alternatives, but do not feel that it can be justified on an environmental basis. Our
previous offer to meet with the EDA staff in Atlanta to further discuss this project will remain
in place as long as necessary to assure that you have the most.complete information. On
behalf of the Town of Burnsville and Yancey County, we appreciate your effort in assisting
with complex issues in a confined timeframe. We remain available at all times and look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Mc L AS OCIATE A.
�G
GARY R. McGILL, P.E.
GRM:jlj
cc: Lola Smith
Charlie Hensley
David McIntosh
Tom Storie
Minnie Powell
Rick Herndon
93240.00/bridges/j o2 1ju17.doe

FACILITY i� '�1 �/��P �� �u �,�-i? �ti�(/d"
COUNTY CLASS
MAILING ADDRESS
_---
zcs S431
���c1ecN��`' �' �,b S�s4�'4 ✓
CtQ4 Y '.
�*Ay ca o C. fsc�
RESP �3?/oSSc16 OPERATOR
OF,
LcfG�►- �l�- '
TELEPHONE NO.
WHERE LOCATED
, 0
C -ram- o J f q�
4-0 7 3 0-- 0 2-T
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER NC_ C
STATE FEDERA'
DATE ISSUED
EXPIRATION DATE
STREAM: NAME
CLASS '
7Q10 to 4- , S - 3 2-7
SUB-BASIN -
I NAMU� Nd
30

i
77a"%.��d
,�.1
_
a
J,
•
r
l a L M1
„1
77
OKI-
:
h U4
S `
n
1 un �irti ,�r ea-cS
Y414N
3
e
;i
-`--

Aegion D Councdof Governments
NORTh CAROHNA'S HIGH COUNTRY REciON
E-mail Address: regionddataaloona.net
Phillip):rye
/ Chairman of the Board
Linda Craig
reiauary2l, 1998 Vice-Chairman
Velma Burnley
Secretary
Edward Hardin
Treasurer
Forrest Westall Richard Fender
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Executive Director
Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Westall:
I am conducting an environmental assessment for a CDBG Economic
Development Grant of $1,000,000 and an Economic Development Administration
(EDA) Grant of $1,500,000 for the Town of Burnsville in Yancey County, North
Carolina. This project includes the construction of a wastewater treatment facility
and water and sewer lines. The total project cost is $4,480,000.
You may recall that this project has previously gone through the NC State
Clearinghouse Review process (Clearinghouse #94-0429, #95-0723, and#97-0510).
Please note that the project location has been changed in order to make this project
more feasible. Thus, another Clearinghouse Review is necessary for this revised
project.
The town plans to construct a 300,000 gallon per day wastewater treatment
plant on a tract of land off S.R. 1308 north of Micaville, with a discharge point on the
North Toe River, downstream of the confluence with the South Toe River. S.R.
1308 intersects US Highway 19-E between Burnsville and the Town of Spruce Pine
at Micaville and the proposed site is approximately 4.5 miles from the intersection
with Hwy. 19-E.
The proposed plant is sized to accommodate the existing customers in the east
Burnsville area which are currently pumped to the gravity portion of the sewer
system in addition to the new customers which can easily be served by the
interceptor line to the new plant. Also, there is a great potential for additional
customers in the east Burnsville/US Hwy. 19-E area even without population growth
as lateral collector lines are added to serve neighborhoods, trailer parks, and
businesses currently without acceptable sewer service. The proposed facility would
be a package design utilizing an activated sludge treatment process. The treatment
(continued next page) D
PHONE [phone] EXECUTIVE R T B U I L"I1I 1PG'rF A Region \hi
FAX [phone] P.O. BOX 18 0, N H C A R O L I N A 6 0 1 0
WEB D D R E iand.boone. et
1-800-735-2962(TT) r•.. Sf� !/i'r C r'C'rY$EC j' � Council of
1-800-735-8262(VOICE) � Governments
`" ""^ ------
€ -NoRTh Canolinn's HIGH COMM REyion+

i
i
Page 2
process will include both chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent prior to
discharge into the North Toe River.
Initial construction will also involve the installation of 44,000 linear feet of 12-
inch interceptor gravity sewer to serve the Micaville area including the existing
Taylor Togs manufacturing plant, and continued up Little Crabtree Creek as it
follows US 19-E into Burnsville. The sewer service from the proposed project will
allow several existing pump stations in east Burnsville to be removed from service.
This project also includes the construction of 13,000 linearfeet of 8-inch
water line from the Windom area east of Burnsville along Highway 19-E to Micaville.
This line will provide water service for the corridor, eliminating the use of wells which
are susceptible to groundw-ter contamination.:
A location map of the project area is enclosed. ase send me any
comments you may have on this project by February 5, 1998. They mayT�e senf �
me at Region Council of Governments, PO Box 1820, one, NC 28607-1820.
They may also be faxed to my attention at (704) 265-5439 or e-mailed to
[e-mail]. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me at [phone], extension 1-14 or Rick Herndon at extension 125.
Thank you for your assistance._
Sincerely,
44�
Stacy L. Franklin
Community Development Planner
Enclosure

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources ,r
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality NCDENR
James-B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY SECTION
February 5, 1998
Ms . Stacy L. Franklin
Community Development Planner
Region D Council of Governments
Post Office Box 1820
Boone, North Carolina 28607-1820
Subject : Comments and Recommendations
Proposed Burnsville-Micaville
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dear Ms . Franklin:
Your January 21, 1998, letter to this office requesting
review of the newly revised wastewater treatment facility project
which will serve the Burnsville-Micaville Area has been referred
to me for comment and recommendations . As you are aware, we have
been following this project since its inception in 1994 and we
continue to believe that an improved sewer service capability to
this area will result in an overall improvement to current water
quality concerns in this part of the French Broad River Basin.
The most immediate and visible benefit to result from this
project would be the elimination of at least four (4) NPDES
permitted wastewater discharges to area surface waters totaling
approximately 14, 300 gpd. Additionally, a reduction in flow to
Burnsville' s existing wastewater treatment plant via the
elimination of at least four (4) pump stations should reduce the
operational stress to the solids handling system and improve
permit compliance . In this regard, we recommend that a proposed ,
wastewater treatment facility design include provision for
treatment and disposal of solids generated by this facility.
Ideally, an NPDES permit application should be filed prior to
submittal of an environmental assessment which would assure proper
and formal consideration of all available environmentally sound
and economically feasible treatment alternatives . Absent issuance
of the NPDES permit, the assessment document must fully evaluate
the alternatives to this proposed treatment scheme to include cost
comparisons and projected environmental impacts .
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

M J ,
Page 2
February 5, 1998
Upon filing the assessment for NC State Clearinghouse Review
process, site maps also should be provided with sufficient detail
to judge the impact to stream and wetland resources to result from
sewer and water line construction. Specific stream crossings and
construction methods should be shown and wetland areas should be
identified. We would urge the applicant to minimize the number of
stream crossings and wetland impacts . The applicant should be
aware that stream and wetland mitigation may be required if
impacts exceed one acre of the disturbed area.
Thank for the opportunity to comment in this matter. Should
you have questions or wish to discuss this letter in more detail,
please advise .
Your ;' 4
ul
�'j
Max You
Environmental Chemist
xc : David McIntosh
Tom Storie
Ray Burrows
Michelle Suverkrubbe

BURNSVILLE-MICAVILLE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - ALTERNATIVES
The following are alternatives for the construction of new sewer facilities in the East
Burnsville-Micaville area.
Alternative 1
No additional sewer facilities provided for the Micaville area. Existing homes and
businesses could continue to rely on septic fields for sewage treatment and wells for
water supply.
This alternative would create environmental concerns due to much of the area being
in the flood plain of Little Crabtree Creek and soil types being unsuitable for septic
fields. According to the County Health Department, the area has experienced septic
tank problems. This could cause possible contamination of groundwater and water
supply wells in the area.
This alternative would inhibit significant growth in the area east of Burnsville. It
would also risk the potential loss of the existing jobs at Taylor Togs along with any
jobs from future expansion of the Taylor Togs and Hickory Springs plants.
i
Alternative 2
The area could be served by the construction of sewer pump stations to provide
sewer service to the area. A pump station at the Micaville area and an intermediate
Page 1

pump station would be required to handle the proposed service area. The
intermediate pump station is required due to the large elevation difference and the
high headloss created by the long force main. Also, the existing pump station at
OMC would have to be upgraded or replaced to handle the additional volume that
would be generated by the additional volume of wastewater. The existing discharge
force main and gravity sewer line to the WWTP are not adequate to carry the
additional flow from the east side of town, so parallel lines will need to be installed
between the OMC pump station and the WWTP. These parallel lines would include
a parallel 8-inch force main and a parallel 10-inch gravity sewer line to the plant.
This alternative would increase the Town's operating and maintenance costs for the
system due to the additional pump stations. Emergency power would have to be
available for all the pump stations to avoid any sewage spills during power failures.
Additional gravity collector lines would still have to be built if any significant service
area is to be established and revenues increased to cover construction costs.
In addition, all of the additional sewage flows would continue to go to the Towr's
existing wastewater treatment facility, which creates the need for additional
operation and maintenance costs at that plant and expansion of the facility to handle
any future growth. The existing plant site is extremely restrictive and additional
property would need to be purchased to expand the plant. The adjacent property is
steep and would require either pumping or extensive sitework, making expansion of
this plant more costly than normal.
1
i
Page 2

Alternative 3
This alternative includes the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant at
Site 1 (original site) off S.R. 1307 in the Micaville area east of the Town of Burnsville
with a discharge of treated effluent into the South Toe River . Gravity collector lines
extending to the existing gravity portion of the Town's sewer system would be
constructed to provide service to the East Burnsville and Micaville area.
This alternative assures that future economic growth can continue for both sides of
customers. This alternative provides the most maintenance-free system for the
Town, minimizing the dependence on pump stations and provides a large customer
base in an area which can expect future population growth. This alternative also
allows several pump stations to be taken off-line, which will provide more reliable
and less costly sewer service to the area.
From an environmental aspect, this alternative also provides a good option, since it
provides sewage treatment to customers now using failing septic tanks which are a
potential source of groundwater contamination of wells and water pollution. Many of
the potential customers are now facing problems with their current systems and
would welcome the opportunity to connect to the new sewer system.
Alternative 4
This alternative would be construction of the gravity collection lines and the
construction of a wastewater treatment facility in the Micaville area which would
utilize spray irrigation instead of discharging to the South Toe River.
Page 3

This alternative does provide sewer service to the area and also allows several
sewer pump stations, both public and private, to be taken off-line. This would
provide more reliable service to the East Burnsville - Micaville area relieving the
area of its dependence on pump stations.
This alternative has high construction costs however, due the necessity of building
the treatment plant and then installing an effluent pump station and a large amount
of irrigation pipe and sprinklers to spray the effluent onto a suitable site instead of a
discharge to the river. The State also requires a wet/winter weather storage basin be
provided to store the effluent during times when effluent cannot be applied to the
land. A minimum of 15 days of storage, or 4.5 million gallons is recommended for
this area. In addition, there would be much additional land required that would have
to be suitable for land application of the effluent water. This additional land makes
this alternative even more expensive. Assuming a loading rate of 0.10 gpd/sf for
irrigation and 150' property setbacks as required by the State, this method would
require approximately 95 acres for spray irrigation. The loading rate of 0.10 gpd/sf is
based on obtaining land that is not extremely steep and unwooded. According to
Dr. Bob Rubin of North Carolina State, steep, forested land would require an even
lower application rate of approximately 0.06 gpd/sf to prevent runoff and to protect
the trees from root rot disease. In addition, the North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources has indicated to our office on other projects that they would prefer that
treated wastewater not be sprayed onto forest land for disposal. The additional
costs for this method is dependent on the proximity of the irrigation field to the
treatment plant. Due to the toppgraphy of the area, it is unlikely one site can be
found that is sufficient, meaning several sites may be required.
Page 4

Alternative 5
This alternative includes the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant
at Site 2 off S.R. 1308 (north of Site 1) in the Micaville area east of the Town of
Burnsville with a discharge of treated effluent into the North Toe River ,
This alternative is basically the same as Alternative 3 with the same advantages
and costs except for the additional costs of extending gravity lines to the new
location further from the Micaville area. Due to the low population density in the
additional area, few new customers would be provided. . The proposed location will
be an extremely difficult site on which to construct a facility and will require extensive
sitework, much more so that the sites selected for Alternative 3 and for the existing
WWTP expansion in Alternative No. 2. In addition, difficult construction conditions
along the river will increase the cost of the sewer line, and the proposed location will
require a relatively long and expensive road to be constructed to provide access to
the site. All of these factors result in a much more costly construction cost for this
alternative.
The following economic analysis to calculate the present worth of the proposed
improvements compares the various alternatives based on the capital costs and
projected operation and maintenance costs.
i
Page 5

PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE 1 No construction - No present worth
ALTERNATIVE 2
Construction Costs
• 11,000 LF of 10" Sewer @ $40.00/LF $444,000
• 3 pump stations @ $100,000/EA 300,000
• 26,400 LF of 8" Force Main @ $27/LF 712,800
• 25,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer @ $42.50/LF 1,062,500
• Lateral Sewer Lines 62,000
• 8-inch water line extension 320,000
• Backup Generators - 3 @ $35,000/EA 105,000
• Expansion of existing WWTP plant 750,000
TOTAL $3,756,300
• Property Acquisition for WWTP expansion 25,000
• . Easement Acquisition for pump stations 30,000
• Engineering 234,700
• Construction Administration 73,200
• Legal/easement Acquisition for sewer lines 80,000
• Contingencies and miscellaneous 337,110
::>:::<:>:::<:::::::<:»:::::;:::<::
.TAL.P
O&M Costs (Annual)
• Increase O&M for OMC Pump Station $ 5,000
• 0&M for 2 Pump Stations @ $13,000/EA $26,000
• Estimated 0&M on Force Main ($500/mile) 2,500
• Increased O&M at Existing WWTP ($0.25/gal) 75,000
• Estimated 0 & M on gravity sewer 72,000
TOTAL O&M COSTS $180,500
Present worth of 0&M @ 5% interest for 20 year period 2,249,391
Capital Cost 4,536,310
L..P
RESENT
1iU�.RTM
ALTERNATE 2
Page 6

ALTERNATIVE 3
Construction Costs
1
• Wastewater Treatment Plant 600,000
25,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $42.50/LF 1,062,500
• Lateral sewer lines 62,000
• Water line extension 320,000
TOTAL $2,044,500
• Land Costs/Easements 125,000
• Engineering 142,400
• Construction Administration 61,000
• Legal/Adminstrative Costs 55,000
• Contingencies and miscellaneous 219,850
.. :... ..:. xi'a'` l :,y i;i ?%riC.i'.iil.. '" '4':'':::>i r':•: _. :<
:::::::....:::::: . : T: A P.t. .
:...::::................................:.:.:::...:::.:::::::Q:T:.: ::::.:::C ,. :::::::t). ..... ...::.:.:::::::;:::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::::::::::.:::: ::::::::::. ? S.Q.
.........................................................:::::::::::::: ::.. :::.:::::::.::.:::::::::::::::
O&M Costs (Annual)
• Estimated 0&M for Water Line 2,500
• Estimated 0&M for Sewer Lines 50,000
• Estimated 0&M for WWTP 75,000
TOTAL O&M COSTS $127,500
Present worth of 0&M @ 5% interest for 20 year period 1,588,930
Capital Cost 2,647,750
TAI..PRE'
SENTALTERNATE.3... :.:...... 4 23....
>:<:::::<::<::;::::::>•<:.:::::::<;:.. ::..:::.:.;:::::::.::.::::::..:::::: ...............:..'1. .....: .:,:.. ..: .:.:.:..,. ... .. ... ,. ,.:: �.:.:r.:::.::::.�::::::::::.:
1
Page 7

ALTERNATIVE 4
Construction Costs
• Wastewater Treatment Plant 600,000
• 25,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $42.50/LF 1,062,500
j Spray Irrigation Piping (52,000 LF 2" pipe @ $8/1-17) 416,000
• 1320 Sprinkler Heads @ $50 ea. 66,000
• Spray Irrigation Pump Station 100,000
• 15 day storage lagoon (4.5 MG) 1,800,000
• 6" Pipe to Spray Irrigation Field (estimated 5000' @ $27/1-F) 135,000
• 8-inch water line extension 320,000
TOTAL $4,499,500
• Property for Wastewater Treatment Plant $25,000
• 95 Acres for Spray Irrigation @ $5,000/acre 475,000
• Engineering 272,200
• Construction Administration 81,000
• Legal/easement Acquisition 60,000
• - Contingencies and miscellaneous 403,800
<:>: TOTAL.P:ROJ ECT
O&M Costs (Annual)
• 0&M for Water Line $2,500
• 0&M for Effluent Pump Station $15,000
• Estimated 0&M on Force Main 500
• Estimated 0&M for Sewer Lines 50,000
• Estimated 0&M for WWTP 75,000
TOTAL O&M COSTS $143,000
I
Present worth of O&M @ 5% interest for 20 year period 1,782,066
Capital Cost 5,816,500
r
T..O.TAL.PRESE NT.:WORTH..:.AL.TERN
Page 8

ALTERNATIVE 5
Construction Costs
• Wastewater Treatment Plant 900,000
• 3000 LF access road to WWTP 200,000
• 25,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $70/LF 1,750,000
• 25,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $42.50/LF 1,062,500
• 8-inch water line extension 320,000
TOTAL $4,232,500
• Property for Wastewater Treatment Plant $ 25,000
• Engineering 259,500
• Construction Administration 78,500
• Legal/easement Acquisition 100,000
• Contingencies and miscellaneous 379,850
.......:.:.;:...
50
:::::. :::::::
O&M Costs.(Annual)
• Estimated 0&M for Water Line 2,500
• Estimated 0&M for Sewer Lines 100,000
• Estimated O&M for WWTP 75,000
TOTAL O&M COSTS $177,500
Present worth of O&M @ 5% interest for 20 year period 2,212,005
Capital Cost 5,075,350
T TA RE ENT W RTH.
.. Q . ALTERNATE:5
Page 9

6URNSVILLE-MICAVILLE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Description Present Value
1 Do not construct water and sewer improvements $ 0
2 Pump sewage to existing WWTP and expand WWTP $6,785,701
3 Construct new WWTP, discharge to South Toe River $4,236,680
4 Construct new WWTP, discharge by spray irrigation $ 7,598,566
5 Construct new WWTP, discharge to confluence of $ 7,287,355
North Toe and South Toe Rivers
,11
Page 10

NC CREPT OF COMMERCE Fa:x:7046549859 Jul 16 '97 10:41 P.01
y
{E i
N. C.,D'epar'tmeni of Coinmerce
Businessandustry Dev.Div.
3 General Aviation Drive
Fletcher,N. C. 29732
FA.fir
Phone. [phone]$52 Fax: 704/6S4-9839
TO.Max Haner
FAX NUMBER:251-6425-
;
Ia12,OM:Ray BLlrrow5
DATE: 7117/97 ('
199�
RE:'Yancey Sewer Project "
!D
Number of rages(including cover sheet): 15
CDIVIMENTS: Here are the following:
Ms.Powell's letter to Gov.Hunt
My draft reply for Gov_Hint
5-mail cover for my Draft
Copy of Cit-Times.Editorial for background
Project summary-in case you don't have it
I Qgden's latest(I believe)letter that has been responded to this week

NC CREPT OF COMMERCE Fax:704C549859 Jul 16 '97 10:41 P.02
tj5f3.3I1997 a9t 37 7a425i6468 _ _ _ —�-�
P.La's
767 Date f3 Pases*
��Bt-i!'Fax NOW
T° jcG v— tad l ++rs
po.1owl,
orr�tYm �lye
F� �� •�' FUN Jk owc7 FuK +1 site/)
Ruw►1i^I,�nuq�+R
ApA
.. 14
100
Lamp soapy " Le,APA 2w Baas Ift. cbmix" As
C3tLer '
pia.��l+4itrei6n �� �#��"�17C�'��a l �
id -ftdto
Wm lig)16qm
am am au so la f"w
vompmoEt Goviog��tr 'tm� vmji"dt �
ugVt do d=y 14 iGfi97
go�► „ be:advbtit� bm lbm� °
aatriawt 1 1 . wy]Dupe hLwar'hI& jdhA
adi'PvJ Dupe+at�i vwajl k"*a b"
►I>Ms]F�DAttd�l�+'rda' nf1& �syrlo�s�
>�a..tb+xrra�mt�t. d�t�c1 �
+�to&WAv hb tmw'm tug h r 1 1bs Ian jw
bWWt I SWdo l �
AS
lGdts tjOG�fi�� C���►,auto xk i fsm eta a�d•��• Z
tV4�ts� n'�,�r��.+..�'.�h W�i"dpal�d't•"Pud►.Y..�a`•r�

14C CREPT OF COMMERCE Fa:x:7046549859 Jul 16 '97 10:42 P.03
a5/1311997 8907 7842516452 PAt3a +os
P.
MRY
i
'. ... 1W
mmtI
aA!off efibb bipA by Mil � � i M
jia. fir,�t 3f d�TOM
dbe tea ' 'VNEW400. if ro
to WWA il.o oduoab►eooStE d44 74 +
eon A"
� lmxm d Ole"old Opel w 1
�W. +�i�rtbGi ��ut
,p6►iia , wo
arm nave i6, ► ►I
+, 80 WWAW t�r1M6""*1G - cam �¢ Itu
W�Wswo soma M 0 aswaw!yc� wa w.4d aA IL
�opte►�Brat �,
t °° rar ash
, womemis ►
,p dwkihw In iv�aa
�� h+�'sraeaodwr��otd s -
a, lox remmx lkvm
o
I.wainfo ammmm WP"Mbwtm �
mdim i�
L,Uu"ix.McAm Not
oc;,dw i,ado«A arse paodk.pm.�.�►d �
'Vice � i � � d
20 of ARM W6 rAW . "'"' a#'do�ad1�t
aall�t{oll '.aws ,,.n,aapem� " arr a�tlfil!pF 4 abe '
. waswa
'e' pd►ma
wg
W y+ '�sm lfr 2nd fie ate

NC OEPT OF COMMERCE Fax:704E549859 Jul 16 '97 10:43 P.04
P151t8r��s7 es:0" 71K95IG S2 •"'° --
maes
rw Is �r sc�:rlet
14 APL LT
�rweo�wrmm;te+v+��tc}�'[ypR ifiaSm�xuAmo��+x��, t�e art �'
Ro ides ixsxmtd w thd 6wa�olow gooft Unt Woo We 1a�sh►e
r * wurots�atd�
to oo�o ryc�c�t 0,mas r�em ym hog'bows
-rqw cv �
kid is °fi �br 1[�pdaat i�+da my a0
1W.107W. Ir rice*oaeticria-Laces m IgW4f'ym* m"
How

NC C1EPT OF COMMERCE Fa:x:7046549859 Jul 16 '97 10:43 P.05
July 14, 1887
DRAFT
Ms. Minnie B. Powell
County Manager, Yancey County
Room 11
Courthouse
Burnsville, NC 28714
SUBJEGT: Burnsville/Micavilie Wastewater Treatment Facility
Dear Ms, Penwell:
Getting to the bottom of the current situation of Taylor Togs and its relationship
to the wastewater treatment project has taken an unusually long time because of the
many agencies, especially federal, that have been Involved as well as the constantly
uhanging conditions that have been occurring as a result of the few but vocal objections
about the site location.
Our investigation leaves no doubt that the delays which have occurred, including
the recent public controversy, were beyond the control of the county and the Town of
Burnsville.

NC C1EPT OF COMMERCE Fa:x:7046549:859 Jul 16 '97 10:44 P.06
Since the inception of the waste treatment project, our Department of
Environment, Health &Natural Resources (DEHNR) as well as the Business/industry
Development Division of the Department of Commerce(NCDOC) have been actively
involved. Both departments are fully supportive. DFHNR recognizes the need of they
community to meet future environmental needs as the Burnsville-Micaville corridor
grows, regulations continue to tighten and existing independent wastewater systems
deteriorate with age. NCDOC has long recommended and supported a wastewater
treatment facility as necessary for continued economic growth in that area.
The retention and expansion specialist in the NCDOC's Western Regional Office,
Raymond Burrows, has worked with Grier Lackey of Taylor Togs on a confidential basis
singe Taylor Togs started Its Micaville operation and has over the years continued to
provide aid and support for expansion and increasingly productive operations. lam
assured that Grier I-ackey now recognizes that past delays in the project have been
beyond the control of Yancey County and Burnsville. Grier also realizes that the
current administrations of both the county and the town are doing everything within their
power to assemble and work with the necessary agencies to design, develop and
finance this vital project_
Since Mr. Lackey's letter of April 10, 1997 to the Yancey County EDC which
indicated that Taylor Tags can no longer commit to the creation of the ad Itional SO

14C INEPT OF COMMERCE Fax:[phone]:359 Jul 16 '97 10:44 P.07
jobs requlmd for CDBG financing, he has clarified Taylor Togs situation and his
position. While it is accurate that several communities have, in the past, sought Taylor
Togs location, Grier also recognizes that those communities had substantially more
local resources to call upon than does Yancey and Burnsville.
Insofar as community commitment is concerned, Mr. Lackey also understands
that Taylor Togs has the full support with the exception of those few individuals such as
Mr. Karlton Lud Leiner whose actions were documented in the Asheville Citizen Time
editorial of April 28, 1997.
As a result of these several program delays, which Mr. Lackey recognizes were
beyond your control, the apparel industry and its forecast have changed substantially.
Because of these changes, Mr. Lackey can no longer honestly commit to the 80
additi though he will, of course, strive tg do so If the eject is carried o
fruition.
Following your letter, there have been a continuing series of meetings with
Yancey County EDC, Region D and our Western Regional Offices,of DEHNR and
NCDOC to plan for contacts with other businesses in an effort to identify the possibility
of several smaller job creation commitments as a replacement for Taylor Togs in the
project. This effort is proceeding concurrently with the efforts to satisfy the concerns of
Mr. John Ogden of the FDA's Atlanta office that the vocal opposition of Marlton Lud
Leiner and his friends have created.
Rest assured that the State of North Carolina Is doing everything that can be
done to support this project and aid Taylor Tags in its efforts to retain and create jobs in

NC E1EPT OF COMMERCE Fax:7O46549859 Jul 16 '97 10:45 P.O8
Micaville_ If you would like a personal report from either DEHNR or NCDOC
Business/Industry Division, please feel free to contact our local representatives whose
addresses and phone numbers are:
Forrest Westall, Regional Water Quality Supervisor
N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
59 Woodfin place
Asheville, NC 28$0'l
Telephone: [phone]
Ray Burrows, Retention/Expansion Specialist
N. C. Dept. of Commerce
8 General Aviation drive
Fletcher, N. C. 28732
Telephone: [phone]
As you have done in the past do not hesitate to request aid from appropriate
state agency local offices, and If they are unable to provide you with information and aid
that you seek,feel-free:to write me or contact me again.
Sincerely,
James B. Hunt, Jr.
Governor

T CREPT OF COMMERCE Fax:[phone] Jul 16 '97 10;45 P.09
�k�rig�6i ,�"2 t d3�Pf'7/�}'7, 3`a�ly.-ar-Tc�g� —Bette-�+�r mover
To: kla.n.gston
From: NC Department of Commerce - Western Division <nedocQiQa.com>
Subject: Taylor Togs - Letter for Governor's Signature
GC:
Bac:
K-A.ttaChraeutS: C:\MSOFFICE\BURROWS\POWELL.]DOC;
Kay, here is a draft letter as promised and I would like to share with you
some additional information that will provide Governor Hunt with
substantial background..
We are faxing the Asheville Citizen. Times editorial mentioned in the
letter. it is, in my opinion, a suecinct review of the whole project.
Also, in STRICT CONFIDENCE, Grier Lackey described to me the fragility of
their contract with Levi ,Strauss which represents about 80% of their
Micavil.le business. As a result, I have initiated an effort to identify
ether possible Customers as well as other products into which Taylor Togs
might diversify.
Basically, crier recognizes that he has an exceptionally productive and
effective facility that could do a variety of operations, not just jeans
and feels a responsibility to his worlr�ers and the community to do
everything possible to maintain this facility and grow it despite the
steady erosion of the apparel industry to Mexico and other off $hare
locations.
If you have any questions please call,
Ray Burxvws
rigid E0--r—NC'•ISeplirtt e—n-me p-g-C

NC CREPT OF COMMERCE - Fa:x:7046549:359 Jul 16 '97 10:46 P.10
Asheville Citizens Times
Monday, April 28, 1997
Monkey wrench t own into years
of economic develMmeut Plata.
��.
Can one man tabotage half a Dreams,"even if you don't build it,they Will came.
aiecade of sound economic develop it key part of the expansion is bringing the water
mint planning? and Bearer lines to the Taylor'Fogs plant in Micaville
icarlton Lud Leiner may—with a where owner Grier Lackey has panned to expand his
little help from misinformed'Yriends" clothing manufacturingpinut.
devastate 7fancey County's econo- Lackey bought additional land for expansion and
his Wipport has been instrumental in moving the pro-
Leiner, a MOW businessman. ject to this point.
has a simple economic inbuvat. Leiner's petition now Also has jeopardized Lack
He He wants to build some vacation ey's")port fbr the project.Frustrated with the pray
cabins along the South River and he's 3eet's delays,Gtekey withdrew his support in an April
Wdere _ concerned about their view. Leiner is 10 letter sent to the yQncey County manager's office
convinced that he doesn't want a new and the Yancey County Ecoaomie Development Cam-
wastewater treatment plant within eyesight of his mission.
Potential vacationers. Should Taylor Togs take its jobs and proposed$12
Never mind tllnt the proposed plant and site selee- ndllion elsewhere,as Lackey suggested in the letter,
flan was is the works before Leiner wanted the plant more than 30o people employed at the Micaville plant
moved elsewhere. could furl themselves out of work. The proposed
Leiner asked the county commissioners to move expansion had been expected to create 78 to 2W new
the treatment plant sa It will not interfere with his ,lobs6
development plans. The water and sewer expansion his been plagued
He spearheaded a petition drive opposing the loft- with delayo.
Von of the proposed plant nttd gathered enough s3igna- It toes needed and should lave been completed
tunes to pemuade the U.S.Department of Commerce's five yoare ago.
Economic Development Administration to put the Nmv,After five years, three public hearing and
breaks on a$1 tniflion giant until the"pablie controver- publication of numerous newspaper notices, Leiner
sy"is resolved,that's one of three federal grants that claima the county tried to keep the plant a secret Hert
will find the project along with state,county and city also MA419 claims that the plant Would pollute the South
money. t IToe River and will be built in a food plain.
Leiner did not fat the.facts stand in the way of County, city and state officials, along with the
gathering signatures and already sotne petitioners Yancey Colony Economie Development Commission,
have withdrawn their oppoeltion.A public meeting set have invested too much energy,time and money in this
for Monday night was called to resolve any linganng vital project to allow anyone to sabotage the project at
controversy. this point.
County and city officials tried as best they could to Water rind sewer lines must be extended to that
explsin to Leiner that the proposed plant has been in part of the county, if the project is not mnacd this
the works for more than live years;that it is in thedinal year, building tho plant will only become more costly
stages of npproval and the crucial EDA grant to corn- and the delays will likely cast county residents their
plete the funding is contingent on the plant being built jobs,
fnstead of spending his energyfighting a project
on the chosen location. g
Simply ut, moving the plant at this point in the that.is in the hest intetest of l OCU County residents
proses would at best delay the project Or a year or at and future residents, Leiner should look for creative
worst stop it completely for the foreseeable future- ways to develop his property.
The proposed$2.5 million plant would complete There are plenty ofexAmPies-
the water and sewer line expansion east along the 03, Yancey County Commissroner Qhairman David.
IN corridor from the pumping station at the OMC McIntosh tells of visiting an exclusive community in
plant through Micaville,bringing water and sewer lines Charleston, S.C., where $i300,0011 to $1 million new
toBrirnsviile Elementary School,iGastYanceyMiddle homes were built near a water treatment plant.
School and a boat of businesses along the route that In Annapolis, Md., developer Jerome barks
oloug with the schools currently depend on septic tanks bought hind across from a malfunctioning wastewater
and their own pumping stations. treatment plant and built townhouses that sold for
It would allow many existing businesses and $300,00 in IDS&
homes currently dependent on peptic Lanka to receive Perks worked NAth county and city officials ulna
city water and server services. footed the bill from correcting the problems that
That area of Yancey County is developing rapidly caused odors at the plant and Parks paid for building a
-Mth new housing and busnesses, dirt berm as a landscape barrier along half a mile of
$ince County Commissioners hove been umvilliug to road.And these are not isolated examples.
tackle the thorny isque of land use planning,they have Lelneds stubborn persistence that the county
an obligation to the residents and the businesses In the cater to his desires can only damage the quality of lira
county to provide the infrastructure to support existing for Yancey County's other residents and reinforce the
itevelopment. otrreotype of the outoider wbo maven intn the twenty
They also have an obligation to support and intent on takingtvitboutgiving back to the c mmnnity.
encourage the businesses which provide a livelihood to hit>irry is a r>;
eoimty residents It's too late to stop the development Yaxcal Biondi celrtmni9t :nho Eiuea in
alnna vOR '1`n ngranhraeP n linn frnm field Of {Cotinitt.fiRr Cplitrftn!lTY17CQYs Ori 1b1OTitlfk►-

h4C CREPT OF COMMERCE Fax".7046549659 Jul 16 '97 10:46 P.11
BUTtNSVl<LLE-MCAVILLE AREA WASTEWATER TREATMFNT PLANT
TO BENEFIT TAYLOR.TOGS,INC.
P.ROJECTSUMMARY
The Town of Burnsville plans to construct a 300,000 GPD (gallons per flay)
wastewater treatment plant,2S 0001inear feet of gravity sewer line,and 13,000 linear Feet
wastew a t,
P
of water line at a total project cost of approximately$2,647,750. This project is designed
to directly benefit Taylor Togs, Inc., a jeans manufacturer, which presently operates its
own exisdog 10,000 GPD (gallons per day) wastewater treatment plant in Micaville.
This plant is near the limit of its maximum capacity and may fail soon. Taylor Togs,Inc.,
needs the 300,000 gallons per day wastewater treatment plant in order to retain 407
existing industrial jobs and to create at least 50 new jobs. Other businesses in the
Micavillo area have expressed their support for this project and pledge to create jobs in
the next five years,including Gouge Tracking, Hickory Springs Manufacturing, and the
Silver Bullet Store. It is estimated that this project will retain and create over 800 jobs
for the Ivficayffle area and Yancey County.
The project includes the construction of the 300,000 gallons per day wastewater
treatment plant on a 9.5 acre tract of land located at the end of Wyatt Town Road (State
Road #1307) near U.S. Highway 19E in the Micaville area of Yancey County,
irnmediately outside the eastern portion of the Burnsville municipal limits. The project
site is located in a sparsely populated area acid is not in a floodplain. Due to the slope of
the area,the wastewater treatment plant will not be visible from Wyatt Town Road.
Project tasks include the construction of the 300,000 gallons per day wastewater
treatment plant, 25,000 linear feet of gravity sewer line, and 13,000 linear feet of water
line. Taylor Togs, Inc., is presently served by a 10,000 gallons per day wastewater
treatment plant which is at its maximum capacity. Improvements must be made in the
near future or Taylor Togs,Inc.,will be unable to retain its existing 407 industrial jobs in
Micaville. Once the project is completed, Taylor Togs, Inc., expeete to increase its
work-force by 50 employees in the next two years. Of these,approximately 30 of the new
jobs will be for low and mode-raw income individuals.
This project has been iri the works since 1991_ Since 1995, the Town of
Burnsville has sponsored three public hearings(May 2, 1995;May 23, 1995;January 15,
1997) concerning this project to solicit citizen input. At least ten days no ice was given
prior to each bear'mg
in a notice published in the Yancey Common Times-Journal. Two
legal notices of Finding of No Significant Impact on the Environment were published iri
the local paper in October, 1995 and February 1997 re$pectively. A Notice of EDA
,Assessment was published in the Asheville Citimn Times from February 19-21, 1997
soliciting coimnews on the project. Also, pumerous articles have been publisher) in the
Yancey Common Times-Journal about the project,most of which were on the front page.
No opposition to this project was heard by the Town until March, 1997. In March,the
Town received a petition containing over 300 signatures, stating that the proposed site is
in a floodplain and in a residential area. Mr. Lud Leiner, owner of property across the
river from the proposed site,spearheaded this campaigu to move the site elsewhere.

14C CREPT OF COMMERCE Fa:x:7OA6549:359 Jul 16 '97 10:47 P.12
The Town of Burnsville received a letter dated March 28, 1997 from Mr. John
Ogden, Re gioual .Environmental Officer, Economic Development Administration,
Atlanta Regional Office. This letter officially registers the EDA. s concerns regarding the
public controversy that has recently surfaced concerning this project. This letter states
that this controversy must be settled before the EDA.will award the grant. The letter also
suggests that the controversy may delay the project at least a, year or kill the project
entirely.
The Town of Burnsville held a public meeting on April 28, 1997 to gain citizen
input and answer questions about the proposed project. Over 120 persons attended this
meeting, most of which were i.n support of the project. Also, a petition with over 350
signatures in favor of the project and a letter of support from Rep. Charles Taylor were
presented to the Mayor.
The Town and County hope to resolve this issue without indefinitely postponing
the project.
PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES
Economic Development Administration(FDA) $1,000,000
Community Development Block Chant $700,000
Appalachian regional Coxmnission(,ARC) $200,000
N.C.State Revolving Loan $444,618
Local Gash fiom the Town of Burnsville and Yancey County 303 132
TOTAL COST $2,647,750

NC E1EPT OF COMMERCE Fa:x;7046549859 Jul 16 '97 10:48 P.13
a'
For Taylor Togs to withdraw from the Bwmsville-Micaville Water and Sewer Project,
based on information from Pat Dixon(FDA Columbia SC),they need to write EDA in
Atlanta and tell thorn why.
The letter needs to be addressed to: William J. Day,Jr.
Regional Director
US Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
Atlaxda Regional Office
401 West Peachtree Street,I .W., Suite 1820
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3510
The letter needs to address the following points:
What are the company's intentions. if they want to withdraw from the project
they need to tell why and that Taylor Togs would like the forms, that have been signed for
EDA.to be rcturned to the company.
They need to discuss what they are going to do if the water and sewer system is
built. Will they still want to hook-up to the new system. What will be his water and
sewer needs.

h4C CREPT OF COMMERCE Fa:x:7046549;659 Jul 16 '97 10:48 P.14
3-id9-T��7 1 j :�.�vcm rrux•� ,r+u"�, ,• •-„.w.. --
M ' r/UT/.S7 XI:$T PAX4tl4 730 aozTc Ok AAANTA �TQaF/h�4
F* A[sr1Y9A�[OF ADA
al A+imk+fr,6tlNTon
AUmM
AitbQ T N.
W.
. �7y7].�►' 7x i�t97
]?'.Oi_ B= 97, 1 TCHM SgWLII
6wLL.te, North Ca=lina. 2871A
79Nrc Bu�q�1.I.� -- i#�-cawti+�1.TI.Ls
Watar & Mwtaitter Syntms ]nFJmov"amts
Dear mhywr sm toy:
Thies 16t;ter viX3. SUPD=t the mcanDW&O iulstr sti no o
(RM) fi Vg of 0i .CY at 6 v'i��taj tt agw ted with
tbs 1.0t atmem of y4mw lea ew4tex� tv tm
the South Too River. Yca icbm .d -xim �i'*r a spy pseeVto w
cor_xk ►ndflttu'�c with your otfietas H` xs 5/15 �7, FaX-. Vown
an ixtmmu'r
Uftm,� uW aeqi 33i=Meccc 6j13 271E o'ttlaG WW
eve_
za agUntl= bAVL- bees r X= Ph=e 8,tm0&W be•tw
jm.be town cmd repreoeutmt;i� Of Fes,, mumt 3 rc�urtig C?ie
gro".rarenca calf. = boated on 6/23/97 vhioxr Um uttundad IIY
youxualf, Vexious s reV4VLt-atiV4H for =d XaWzAy C0=1� f
HCCMM4e pgVa Di&t jct and your AU a1mg with rVael.t, f-1 a
{ .I
wry mar, gmjeot mngi.mear_
!bs -you will n=a ift t�Ue a paces gags Z it C!Le=
that 1; had cong nth evoi.-w+-f. of ei ri.ve lacstk3oos
and treaba=t 0XVC08sca inaltdod In the SWII tyou, mukiAg tbae
you xr-,esr&.ZUUtet Uneee and explm addi.t3.arle�l. w
an
gi. r;n two other mIr'eatiVGm ae OL y a ragaest. Q1
appo=.to haw.been evaluated earLlo= E��Ldlmm
rt �e
esseatiallY to3.atecl that T �e to either cost
or -tq*V0VAjpb a rgstraLtuts. T tales 360oe Wltb thme ZIndU+gs dad
bml�L wc. tmt th0= awe ;L�d apcion mucZs an rim two I have
repogmwndadg +qua audirg th€ WcUtlng WWZP su l a 34nd aMLifrAtAon
•,fthodology "Umr oA PJWDAICUmd etsIap --I-ud EM&M or oa, forwetod
a,7S'rQ'ar of low w gate relief. Y am iu y acmd you to
I�1ubgex UU4:.Qe pnteaGjml aubstit'uti ova, "Ir_bmIp th&7 W=L d b*
aai3X - a sue& �t r COX# I�nr" to6.Zt' a
�ass�ty of wwaxtimm fxm his cam. tim to =1,Ic3p�x'
I%"texmAti'ves. r Casa pupamt timt ya= I3Xh 2 11 whatowater
Tx"fttw=CCa.I its Wi 4�at1 be sEtditetl_
Thm emmoi7. cm
{yf
40 C".1 a 115aa?1508 &UMq Wlt;12 =A"U $Mr. Q riecti �X_c3a-
i
i

NC CREPT OF COMMERCE Fax:[phone] Jul 16 '97 10:49 P.15
U7J�07/S7 19:26 FAR 41)4 lad ZDZS /a7Y/► AY1.6L��A
�na�inv4l
Act
e
I it ,[Rlowi y
9
e ai.r�e r3AO V404 Xor X a te>�tr3ve y�i►g � C�
daa tnski'� p��tee®
1177s, it was trom mace two >!We iaa ear WO)"M arbSa
with. your project as dsaio7ad-
HtzenclAU Y. :Lt al7pea n tbaC CwWarytMM 'apeltzwM Imaup- I,vpa
the gmmb The River 113 in rwmr of exttii.tug � � on tb-- giver-
It tom; ��+r,7. t= W -)MvAte ter ci.13tl" i% shah a
way t zmts they make � vae of grwQIf Y, U ice. 37CI mvdx LX
,vi@trc#1.1i EGG a edit d a ic*tire�'i er wadi
VODUW tj O 'u sty �Flbx ative fvr � ,• �e see bbat tlat�
i,u�i.V'JCJU2IS Ind families, Who resi,da ix� a I4"w �
:,�'..,'--.- south . vi" This �,.rb e.Ct as 4 F�iVS
int�8�.m an g4e* JAVM Y 1$ epctyle e8. il,D3# �ntitt� h
gxcxan x� OZ Wbed* k� Of pYOb�s
obvia��r not an "my tank no Mato= *Uch a yan and Up an. in
l ebl,* raa*, lio't�eVGZ tbere brO 0;LSVdf:.cant ash!
.Wj4$CU - ISr, bg **J00d in the fib decal mton to locaM the th
I�iit�v3,XZe.
The La11CW1.II0 eVkVi 4 a I impaata l e beem, idaZWLfi sd 90
PMe=;Ia11 A €J-cast am " the 14wat:Lon at ate 11"TR anYWIMM
.a,T.mv u3p gautk q'ae RjvTLx a" Mgt be Gift lily Wad
exami_uedr
,. �re�t�t.al >�'xt:91t Ik>�actil
- z�st�balarg
ReCzeat�c �. and• scebAo kego�v=eg
W.,ter 0=3AtyrAM11MA&IC10A
W ftticaho impacts
gC40=91,0 0AWOUVCe
Pg alparty moval aat i an
Naise
Trat€i,a AMd 8afetY
A4V QPML -ty
0aW==Wti nn IMOP&Gtn mid
Bafety
S
a z
pab3,i.0 fey
x4dat'afts, Se0Cpg wy Bud 0==36t;ivdi 7-wPWvtE
=A D,raative 17.02-2 st#.g At a� t 7� ��lsu3i i b�6 olr
8iaxi.fa.C3=aw h ,=e to bsk U&Gd, is then ela "Mi"tic= of Whether
8sx �fia1. Ct 13ta>T t; 1p=gk is red fo= an UM
Poop-

14C CREPT OF COMMERCE Fa:K:7046549859 Jul 16 '97 10:50 P.
7-09-1:`391 1 1 :. 1AM rRt w•� rv,,.- ..__..
U7lu•7187 xil
r
does Wt
of di mt-a s o Cif cmam` Ui31t UmEAM
� SWC1 b�OWei Md V8
is requI%'Ol�. Ca � W*Aj. ¢. b'W ea actillm 'mlS�t be
avaluat" an n r<wr RA. ly-aaae b�ls. �zy I ' two llaay:
�s rat the iu� mto= =a *=eelbtd., an RIO regw%r�ed_ It 5'"
'hat eaal eediag mW om of qua. � - i I* 31_ntlfc;ators may
tfi1 nsoesm3t-y tva: Ha ]GCB.' 1 ed that in
i. an to the tahma cited vatoat:Lal SmFa=j%' cue'
fallowipa xudivatcxv Of 3iWLtf1L=W a will be el=mcdede
* UO3LOC
* Laud Wse xuvampk E ty
tIm4Bn3W=ioa�.l„yCea
* PubidLo Cbntxove=y
zRaplacemmt roe` 26410mtion
Theo 3.ndicat*vp tmh4a t,sabUfm writIz thft at potiantUlly
�:.'gnit.'e mmt �iactle and t l Gcs}m %Lum ra-p+'a" a caternartv",
1.a iw to r"comend de#iatl of your apylixamat CM G0ViXVrAM&MtaI
q=xmdW. =& +Doer. .10 t U ve tkw lama n= mooro to mincer the
IwAot $ISM psa14eGO M07C WioU14 it be tianl a in UnIs Cana.
Ih iav* tot tugsit�i.tm has ham bbd. tI�kNW* r]I► a
t aAd avartiai invastaigaC.i= of t�is f iLctm mod tkpmWh
olxs aWUY 4�-au-l=cmmentoU La was motive orduss ,and Levx1a.1rums
pert to HM'se MPA covv1:L-=cv
T. strongly EmmeSC tbat you xecimaider our R x kRJG' F
offftC to d=z=me yo= grant BW=t for tniff
+af ft to
t-�
defray tho aA �a1 saa,rats {ft sLt+ � s
) �aGi� mu.
EkI ter"at-1vo- such a 4o=* of a Cm will a.t bath mm-Itiou
=a tIo y as a whale- It ill our underm that your AM
&a v=Went3.y Wv�,3 0ftt:IW new altam t1iil s a m 0i�ug them cast
a $=M=es ae tola, nth w ntud, r balitVe eJNXk, ecte
�Chelae this freak_
-� ��rrQU uIvw Wqr quest;Lpum f plegua ap n= UW t to tx GC no ft
Siuc
i Ernr � Q� • a�
IRMO
: ,$ ,�.

AUS 06 '97 12:02PM PA/-P
•. k ''„ •?. :J::fig=�rey y';���',;�L�:!'1:�'jr'w9�' r�'��V �,11,•i
ime HELMS
�qnitd Mate
WASH rc�rOK 00 MICI-' + - RECEIVED _F
of 13'E
k 1997
July 8, 1997
_ / ~^•`.i•�f�'+fir' i'{��,i•
RES,
Mr. jornathan Howes, Secretary
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural. Resources
512 xorth Salisbur;r Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Secretary Howes:
by
Enclosed please find a copy of a recant NC letter Sent
to ehis
Mark Yob re a r P• a- ox 211 wast 1 water treatmentplant in Yancey
concerns regarding proposed .
County.
Certainly, 1 would appreciate your Looking into this situation
and advising me of your finding's. please correspond with me about
this matter through my Hickory Office, p. 0. Box 2944, hickory, XC
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
JESSE 14EWS:j ks -
1'a�t-iY Fax Note 7671 0 -{a a Z-
Enclosure ITO
�¥
P
r J °•�..
AUG `6 /99?,

AUG 06 '97 12:OSPM P.2/2 '
RobinsonMark �3 u
PO sox$21
Micaville,NC 2$755 S7 J!11f_ - si i e: �.
TV. Senator Jesse Helms
this letter on the behalf of a lot of people in Yancey County considering
1 am writing ve tree scare
the waste water treatment platrt.We.have been misinform . cY
tactics by telling people Uloy were going to logo their job if thet didni iixed incomes
goththrough.They have tried liberal scare tactics by telling us that old people on
needed it,because of the area and cannot afford a septic tW&But what abort the
people that don't live next to a sower line to be hooked up to and cannot afford a septic
f tl%e high taxes brought on by this sewer plant?Even if the plant was
system because of E
taxes are go up because of the cause.growth the sewer line will ce.Wl�t the
whole thing is about is the big malt making the money and the little man stuck
with the sewer plant ill.I own land on down below the proposed sl on
te ri sometimes
b
where three-hundred thousand gallons ofUeated water'would nil,possibly
untreated.Burnsville has already been accused of dumping sewer in the river with their
plant.People below it are already frustrated with theme.Burnsville cannot even keep
their own sewer pipes fixed in town. It is reported that there are broken sewer pipes
letting sewer out trial goes unattended for days.So how do they think they're going to
keep our sewer pipes and plash going? I have already been told by the town council
that the plant they have is not overloaded.Burnsville has hooked up a resolt
town sewer system five miles out,a place that a.normal man cannot go, unless you
own,a mullion dollar home on it. Yancey County doesn't need to grow anymore.It
already takes forever to get into the road because of traffic.Yancey County is a pretty
place to come and visit.People don't want to come here to see growth,unless ifs a tree.
The only people benefiting from all of this will be real-estate people and trailer park
owners.
respectfully,
Mark Robinson

a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Atlanta Regional Office
* Suite 1820
401 West Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3510
August 8, 1997
In reply refer to
Project No. 04-01-04236
The Honorable Harold Bennett
Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Burnsville
and Councilmen
P.O. Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Dear Mayor Bennett and Council:
An environmental review has been completed by the Economic
Development Administratior__ with a Finding of Significant
Environmental .Impact regarding the location of your proposed
wastewater treatment plant on the South Toe River. Based upon—the
Environmental Review we are unable to give favorable consideration
to your application this fiscal year.
If the city desires EDA to give further consideration to its
application, alternative site information should be submitted to
EDA along with a revised budget and pertinent information on an
environmentally acceptable new site as required in the EDA
application.
We recognize the city's urgency to construct a waste water
treatment facility to meet the industrial/commercial requirements
of this section of Yancy County. If alternative site information
is submitted to EDA by October 31, 1997, EDA will give priority
consideration to your request for funding consideration early in
Fiscal Year 98 (FY 98 Begins October 1, 1997, and ends September
30, 1998) . Should budget costs increase, EDA would be willing to
consider a modest increase in the EDA grant.
Please contact Patricia Dixon, Economic Development Representative,
at 803/765-5676 for guidance in this matter.
If we do not receive alternate site information by the afore
mentioned date, we will assume the city is no longer interested in
applying for EDA financial assistance and will consider the
application withdrawn.
Sincerel
4Dire
4
Day, Jr.
Atlanta Region
CC: Patricia Dixon, EDR
Rick Herndon, Region D Council of Governments

_ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Atlanta Regional. Office
* * Suite 1820
401 West Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3510
August 8, 1997
The Honorable Harold Bennett
Mayor Pro tern, Town of Burnsville
P.O. Box 97, 1 Town Square
Burnsville,North Carolina 28714
Re: Burnsville--Micaville
Water&Wastewater Systems Improvements
Dear Mayor Bennett:
This letter will further support and justify the Economic Development Administration's (EDA)
• Finding of Significant Environmental Impact associated with the location of Burnsville's
proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) on the South Toe River. I have read Mr. McGill's
response to my July 7 letter to the town. As a clarification regarding dates of correspondence, I
remind you that there was confusion within Yancey County as to the actual date of the public
hearing, evidenced from their April 21, 1997 letter to me announcing the public hearing was set for
May 28 rather than April 28.
I labored under this misunderstanding until I was telephonically notified to the contrary. The town's
May 1 letter to me was not received in this office until May 6. My May 2 fax did ask for a better
evaluation of alternatives, however, you will also note that my March 28 letter to the town
specifically asked for a substantiation that alternatives were "adequately addressed." I had nothing
in my files on this subject until'I requested it in writing for the second time. This request had been
reiterated in telephone calls to various authorities for the applicant.
In regards to the flooding concerns, I was informed that this subject was discussed in the public
hearing. At that meeting, a town representative supposedly stated that a repeat of the disastrous
1977,flood, which allegedly reached the proposed site, would cause a "washout" to the proposed
.WWTP on the South Toe River. I am also informed that the stochastic, 1984 Federal Emergency
Management Agency(FEMA) study ended at the confluence of Little Crabtree Creek and the South
Toe, upstream from the proposed WWTP site. Given the documented 1977 flood disaster, I am
recommending that FEMA re-evaluate the flooding potentials on the South Toe. With all due
respect, a significant amount of time and resources has been spent by the Government on
Burnsville's application this year trying to resolve the problems which were created not by EDA,
but by the choice of the South Toe River for the WWTP and outfall. EDA has spent hundreds of
man-hours, travel expenses and support costs trying to mediate and fairly evaluate both sides of this
polarized issue nand to rationally reach an equitable resolution. Again, as I explained in my March
28 letter to the former mayor, EDA needed evidence that the town had "adequately evaluated
alternatives for the proposed project." It is still my professional opinion that this has not been done
in a thorough and cost effective.way.

I concur that the petition in opposition to the town's project does include individuals who do not
live in the county. I have thus placed my emphasis on the comments from the residents of
Micaville who will be most directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed project. Nevertheless,
those intercounty individuals who use the river for recreation and enjoyment do have a right to
remark upon the proposed action and their opposition was duly noted and evaluated. The counter
petition in favor of the project does indeed show an equivalent amount of signatures.
Notwithstanding this documentation,those in opposition have similar claims against the town's
petition.
Mr. McGill's comments relative to the NPDES permit are noted. However, the Federal monies for
this project will be committed based upon National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)
documentation by EDA and cannot be put offuntil some future and uncertain outcome of said
permit. And while I am on this subject, let me clearly draw this distinction: that this is not a State
project--rather a Federal undertaking subject to a greater universe of interpretation and evaluation.
The major Federal Action in this instance is the awarding of public funds to the Town of Burnsville
for the construction of a WWTP, the proposed location of which has received significant citizen
opposition on environmental grounds.
Any Federal agency which funds this project must comply with the now close to 30 Federal
statutes, Executive Orders and their myriad regulations. Each Federal agency has its own policies
and procedures which specify how it is to comply with said laws, however, in a court of law, the
Statute takes precedence. In any case, I am not disputing the need to expand the town's wastewater
treatment capacity for future growth, although you have certified to EDA that you currently have an
excess capacity of several hundred thousand gallons in the existing plant. Rather, I have
determined that the location proposed and insisted upon by the town and its agents will generate
significant environmental impact in the short and long-terms due to the reasons cited in this and in
my previous communications.
I have yet to be informed of what the Burnsville 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan addressed on
alternatives. Perhaps this 201 plan could be updated as EDA has recommended in other
controversial projects. You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) for
guidnce and funding for this endeavor.
I have spoken with EPA on the Environmental Justice(Executive Order 12898) aspect of this
undertaking. According to this authority,this project would be very much subject to EPA's review
and consultation. Environmental Justice is a somewhat new requirement which states that" . . .
Federal agencies are to make the achievement of environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations, and allowing all portions of the population a meaningful opportunity to
participate in the development of, compliance with, and enforcement of Federal laws, regulations
and policies, affecting human health or the environment regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income."
Burnsville Recommendation Page 2

Mr. McGill's responses to the environmental issues I outlined in my July 7 letter to the town have
been duly evaluated. While I comprehend his disagreement with the pertinence of these subjects, I
am convinced that they are all still valid topics of study which, at a minimum, need to be carefully
evaluated and scrutinized under the microscope of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), not
only for their individual impacts but, moreover, for their collaborative, indirect and cumulative
effects. The environmental topics listed in the above letter can be grouped under three broader
areas of concern: natural environment, human environment and safety.
My analysis of these individual topics show that all those associated with the natural environment
will clearly be impacted due to the nature of the fairly pristine environment of the river, above and
below Burnsville's proposed location. Human environmental issues would include but not be
confined_to topics of economic resources, property devaluation, noise/traffic and public
controversy. Safety concerns would accrue from the construction and operation of the plant,
especially as it relates to overloading and flooding potential.
Environmental Justice and sustainable development issues are also deemed significant in this case
due to the economic status of the residents and the potential to use this pristine river in a more
sustainable way such as a recreational area. Overriding all of these analyses are the undefined
secondary, indirect and cumulative impact issues that this project would obviously create. I
disagree with all of Mr. McGill's rebuttal to my environmental concerns, although I agree with his
statement that they "are much too complex to address in the time allowed."
The South Toe is a fragile and delicate environment consisting of pristine natural areas only
minimally disturbed by scattered mid to low income residents. To put an expandable WWTP in the
middle of this environment subject to mechanical and human error presents obvious risks. I wonder
how many of those who are proponents of this project would hesitate in their zeal should they
suddenly find their home relocated in the impact area? And while I quite agree that there may also
be a psychological bias against,projects like this, the facts, here recounted, stand out as clear
evidence that this is not a good site for a WWTP.
Please, also note that although I have listed seven Indicators of Significance which triggered my
recommendation for an EIS, our Directive 17.02-2, EDA Program To Implement The National
Environmental Polipy Act of 1969 And Other Federal Environmental Mandates As Required,
declares that even one Indicator can trigger an EIS if there is significant environmental impact
potential. I am not dissuaded from my decision by Mr. McGill's argument against the exceeding of
these Indicators.
Traffic will very clearly increase within a residential and natural area, especially as the area is
further developed.in the long-term. Land use will definitely be altered by the location of a
municipal facility in a residential area. The U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service (FWS) have implied the
need for a biological assessment to evaluate the presence of Federal species of concern and
expressed their apprehension regarding the potential "impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems."
Taken by itself, this subject might be mitigable. In the broader context of all potential impacts
contributing to environmental, human and safety effects, however-- it is only a spoke in the wheel.
Burnsville Recommendation Page 3

Again, the issue has become one of cumulative impacts, of which my evaluation has found that
there is indeed significant concern for the separate and collective consequences of this Major
Federal Action. Let me also reiterate that I would not personally sanction such an environmental
impact statement on the South Toe River given the obvious alternatives that have not been
reasonably studied.
Therefore, I still believe that after a careful and laborious weighing of all the original and new
information relative to the location of the WWTP on the South Toe River, the facts still clearly lead
to the conclusion that the locational impacts of the project will significantly outweigh the economic
benefits accrued by its construction. This decision has not been easy and I'm sure will not be
popular with the majority. Furthermore, it has not been made in a vacuum, rather it has been
systematically and rigorously determined by professional evaluation, careful and thorough field
assessment, duly diligent public disclosure and countless hours of study and communication with
all pertinent parties and authorities.
Sincerely,
J hn
e 'o al Envir ental Officer
Burnsville Recommendation Page 4

Al
- _ Wvj
W-C. GL
(4et ti-12>
J
�A 44 X(4s- ,N�Sc, - No paC
wo
AJ
f

i
t UW`(Lvllk Pueo,4cuox7• v Y VV� C/ 7��•Ko;n
- -
-------------
ws m
- ----- ---
f
CR
- ---- ----
All-
......1_ c
Yv` `
Cq
c

210 VT is
9- v
_E
OV-�PaA--? e l
w r
G
s
C
6
N
l
is
I'

9 ?
I�L r-
61—1 c
------------------
J
L� b
710

n
r--
oe
T► \ ca✓ -
- - A
l
0
------—--- -- `" - — — c�

i
�:
"�.
D J � -
�.I _ �� � `_ 4�.
R - � =
`'Q'`
_�___________.�_.T i_ -._ __ ._._ ___.� __ _�. _ -_.._. V�- ^��_ _��__
- ; - .
--- ----���--�- Q � - �-� -.. --------y..__..� -----------
- -�- V -- - - - --
-=--._=- � ___-- ---�-c��=---.-�-���--- - - - -- --
f,
- .-
.�
,I .�-,�
------- - --- -s--------.- - -- --- ------ -
.-.---_._.�Js - ___ ._ _.__ - _ -
-_._- __,
i�l � -
_,____________ .,1 _-__ -____-_.� ,._ __ _ ___ ___. _ -_
'i
i

2 'P�
�, �
t' ..j 0 n
I� S
.got ononc d ,,{ el p
` `me Tannin
�
Can one`:sman sabotage half a Dreams;"even if you don't build it,they will come.
decade of sound economic' develbp A key part of the~expansion is bringing the water::
ment planning? and sewer:'lines to the Taylor Togs plant in Micaville
Karlton.lud Leiner may with a where owner Grier Lackey has planned to expand his
httle help from misinformed ``.friends" clothing manufae'turing-plant.
devastate Yancey County!V'econo- Lackey bought;.additional"land for expansion and
MY. his,support has been instrumental in moving the pro-
` Leiner, a retied," businessman, jectto this point
has a simple economic interest Leiner's petition now,also has jeopardized Lack-
He ;ani&'td build some vacation ey's support for the project,Frustrated with the pro-,
p cabins along the South River and he's jeces,delays, Lackey withdrew his support in an April
Were. concerned'about their view. Leiner is 10 letter sent to the Yancey County managers office
convinced that he doesn't want a new and the Yancey County,Economie,Development Com-
wastewater treatment plant':within"eyesight of his mission.
potential vacationers. Should Taylor Togs take its jobs and proposed$1'.2
Never mind that the proposed plant and site selec- million elsewhere, as Lackey suggested in the letter,
tion was in`the works before Leiner wanted the plant more than 300 people employed at the,Micaville plant
moved elsewhere. could find themselves out of work. The proposed
Leiner asked the county commissioners to move expansion had been expected to create 75 to 200 new
the'treatment plant so.it will not interfere with his jobs.
development plans., The water and sewer expansion has been plagued
He.spearheaded a petition drive opposing the loca- with delays.
tion of the proposed plant and,gathered enough signa- It was needed and should have been completed
tures to persuade the.U.S..Department of Commerce's five years ago.
Economic Development Administration to put the _ Now, after five years, three public hearing and
breaks on a$1 million grant until the"public controver- publication of numerous newspaper notices, Leiner
sy"is resolved.That's one of three federal grants that claims the county tried to keep the plant a secret.He's
will fund the project along with state, county and city also made claims that the plant would pollute the South
Toe River and will be built-in a food plain.
Leiner, did not let the facts stand in the way'of County, city and state officials, along with the
gathering signatures and: already.some petitioners Yancey County Economic Development Commission,
have withdrawn their opposition.A public meeting set have invested too much energy,time and money in this
for Monday night wavealled to resolve any lingering vital project to allow anyone to sabotage the project at
;controversy. this point.
County and city officials.tried as best they could to Water and sewer lines must be extended to that
explain to Leiner.that the proposed plant has been in part;of the county. If the project is not funded this
.,the works for morethan five years;that it is in the final year, building the plant will only become more costly
stages of approval"and the,crucial EDA grant to com- and the delays will likely cost county residents their
°plete the funding is tontingenb`on the.plant being built jobs.
on the chosen location: Instead'of spending his energy fighting a project .
Simply put, moving the plant at this point in the that is in the best interest of Yancey County residents
process would at best delay the project for a year or at ,and future residents, Leiner should look for creative
1worst stop it completely.for-the foreseeable future. ways to develop his property.
The proposed $2.5 'million plant would complete There are plenty of examples.
the water and sewer line expansion east along the U.S. Yancey County Commissioner:Chairman David
19E'corridor from the pumping station at the OMC McIntosh tells of visiting an exclusive community in
plant through Micaville,bringing water and sewer lines Charleston, S.C., where $800,000 to $1 million new
to Burnsville Elementary School, East Yancey Middle homes were built near a water treatment plant.
School and a host of businesses along the route that In Annapolis, Md., developer Jerome Parks
along with the schools currently depend on septic tanks bought land across from a malfunctioning wastewater
and their own pumping stations. treatment plant and built townhouses that sold for
It would allow`many existing businesses .and $300,000 in 1984.
homes currently dependent on septic tanks to receive Parks worked with county and city officials who
city water and sewer services. footed the bill from correcting the problems that
That area of Yancey County is developing rapidly caused odors at the plant and Parks paid for building a
with new housing and businesses. dirt berm as a landscape barrier along half a mile of
Since county commissioners have been unwilling to road.And these are not isolated examples.
tackle the thorny issue of land use planning,they have Leiner's stubborn persistence that the county
an obligation to the residents and the businesses in the cater to his desires can only damage the quality of life
county to provide the infrastructure to support existing for Yancey County's other residents and reinforce the
development. stereotype of the outsider who moves into the county
They also have an obligation to support and intent on taking without giving.back to the community.
encourage the businesses which provide a livelihood to
county residents. It's too late-to stop the development Riviere is a regional columnist who lives in
along 19E..'To paraphrase a line from "Field of Yancey County.Her column appears on Mondays.

y ^WOW
--- -----------
pv
------------

Nell;
GCS _ - -
M.

ct,c c v-o trrn n
tnl
75!"
,ems AcAt-
I _ I�,,,�Y� �� ��C��/ // ✓fir �'
4V
_ �GSr C � f ✓Rye f
� � 4

i,
r

7z
Zr

��xl., n tl a.r ..�,"w�ffi•�M`����^'V'��' -:ray � �N }� {• � L � / �•�,�'Ri �)��"t a:^4 'tt�pi�t�'k`d
4�` idEv �1 m'v.4 �+c�"�^ �`r 5r5. t. 'i " �t: +€`y .Y, �y � ✓
Y, ! 7; � y"�N+t3�� r .,rv^t c 1 �V''�+ P kc.�Y�.? f•?yi �� r '1v41r,,
.,�� r -.. � A r a rl r ."�.t'1 s . �I� 1 1 1 a•Yq
�yr :r :t„� Y," � a r � 1 ���r S � •� 1 1 1 •aa,a
t,Ikk�J v � l Stt �t}k ~y �y l,. r Ab:a �n; a., 1�'� � •�.
ri.Sbr 4r s'�`✓f ' rh n,',�`Y � .3�uta+ ,t ,l rh ��• -.J aa } t N.
,�r<1 �?y,. ?w5"?��..� •' x�y k rk.. '^�, � .f 'rr 1_ �k .Y, A �` {",�.� t.°.y. ,r
t 7r�� ��'rA .�.S:=.� WL, �� �, t s'�'`.' u�•r e `"a'< ,.�� r'/,. ..7 `.1, �
rr
fi• 1 ��t "s' :^f. .`Y` '� 11 +hf!iR�,:d tr _l - ;;f,yl I { 1. 1 ,,,y } l h" j
Y ,,r,, 'S6 s. K yi �..,•aawt +� '� � i•i•kt ��h'e 1 �' '. "'�� ,. t` ;
V
TAW
� 'S Nr -A,a �rk'�t tis .��{ Zx�ja'`i 5 F '. � A� r 1 1 1 y�... \ 1�k1 i l .�'� � t y:,•
��� ^,r 4�4.1.4Ma!%t .jai k 1}� •'��'hre��t Y� �'"�'' " n,r •, �+°''� §r a�' •n ° ' � b,•� �
n,w �v. 1S � � y 5�� r r•��t Y
k��Y a.. � 4 y:�y�t � '1. Y�6� �' p,v � "k. { w:, �>P � -;4 5cra•,�5 ��. t,k'{ i �.1. 'S
r l\5�K 1•F4 v N '�'', � 1� ! :"� • `H + //((te�r.$"wd' .4 � • �r a
�..`S,- :*.`ir � 1 c53WF_ ! <�LL� x r�� F ��.Se, �' `_•nk r t
�� ."�s t�'A'f*�`�.��,' �, � !'�. ,� ,.; �„ ,j��°fit 't A �i•. ��. K ,�P;� vi.` � ,la
o'?�,°�' 'ty''tr'S �,�-t��j �a�SY�S`�v'.;��t/. � ��; y+��'� ;i1 Mii�.�,�!L�.,,,r• � � 1 1 p `, f��'x` ��t�'�,,: J A
-w 4t r+xr h
Wft
.`�"Ot�Y
S>
Y M
° ��•��1 t� '•j ,rk ��v �'�t I`�h�1�,3-�,..� ,..�_ � 3. � � K1�y 4° �as 3 i ��ti ��.
.;re �+, `..A 4r'i��'9° �rt1.��l,b, 5�r1 y..h' �3,.`��/. 1 4 1 y�{�•.i�� '3`4^"' 1#`
+"Vol,
h }•,, 5�'�> �+r.�.� :j- .� I,y'S 4Yby..;�ha�R?4:��>;`h�'�L /,'tr m4 � {s � � "•.1 �vt �_: �.:',..

� . t����✓�}� r�e sk.,��y ����+ i St y sr��t'14� ��
kv
!; �> ns�'�r+aq,yy. Te st �'•di' .s. S� J t tP s t F;�� tr '• vv
ty mb
M{
ti .t' r, v 5 � itkt ty . �•
WASTE TREATMENT QUESTIONS'
1. EXPLAIN THE STEPS NECESSARY IN GAINING APPROVAL
AND CONSTRUCTING THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY.
a. WHAT STEP ARE YOU AT CURRENTLY?
b. WHAT IS THE PLANNED SCHEDULE FOR THE REMAINING
STEPS?
2. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED LOCATING THE FACILITY
FURTHER DOWNSTREAM ? FURTHER DOWNSTREAM WOULD
SEEM TO OFFER THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING AWAY FROM
RESIDENCES AND NOT VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
a. WHAT ARE YOUR REASONS FOR NOT CONSIDERING THIS
AS AN OPTION?
3. THE PROPOSED FACILITY:
a. HOW LARGE WILL IT BE ( SIZE AND VOLUME)?
b. DO YOU HAVE AN ENGINEERING DRAWING OF HOW THE
FACILITY WILL LOOK?
c. WHAT CHEMICALS WILL BE USED TO OPERATE THE
FACILITY?' .
d. HOW WILL THE WATER BE TREATED BEFORE IT ENTERS
THE RIVER?
e. WHAT IS THE PERMIT CLASSIFICATION OF THE FACILITY?
f. THE EFFLUENT RETURNING TO THE RIVER WHAT WILL BE
CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL LIMITS?
b
g. WHAT IMPACT COULD THE FACILITY HAVE ON TIME
DRINKING WATER IN THE AREA AND DOWN STREAM

h. WHAT MONITORING SYSTEMS WILL BE IN'PLACE?
(i.e. CONTINUOUS MONITORING OR SAMPLING)
i. WHO WILL MANAGE THE FACILITY?
j. WILL THE FACILITY BE COVERED ON A ROUND THE CLOCK
BASIS OR ON A PERIODIC BASIS?
k. WILL THE LANDSCAPING BE SO DESIGNED AS TO CONCEAL
THE FACILITY FROM VIEW?
1. IN THE EVENT OUR CHILDREN SHOULD PLAY AROUND THE
FACILITY, WILL THEY BE SAFE?
m. HOW MUCH OF AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WILL THERE BE
ON THE WYATT TOWN ROAD- WILL THIS EQUIPMENT BE
HEAVY.EQUIPMENT?
n. WHERE WILL THE LINES BE CONSTRUCTED?
3. WHAT TYPES OF SYSTEM FAILURES COULD OCCUR?
a. DO YOU HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR POSSIBLE
FAILURES /COULD WE HAVE A COPY?
b. IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE, WHAT ARE
THE ALTERNATIVES TO PREVENT A MALFUNCTION?
c. CAN YOU GUARANTEE THERE WILL NEVER BE A TIME
WHEN IMPROPERLY TREATED MATERIAL WILL ENTER THE
RIVER?
4. APPRECIATE WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE ON THE WYATT
TOWN ROAD IF THE FACILITY IS LOCATED AT THE
PROPOSED SITE. AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE ROAD YOU
HAVE A GARBAGE DUMP THAT NO ONE SEEMS °
ABLE/WILLING TO MAINTAIN. AT THE END OF THE-ROAD
YOU WOULD HAVE A WASTE TREATMENT PLANT. TELL US

r �
Y<t }��� J"`4m�Y 2d Y rZ i � ♦ 4F�r_, t �.r i,✓`+�c�,*,. 7,.
Y T d{ Pt4.7j 1 l Jk C;
i
WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE YOU:CAN MAINTAIN THE WASTE
TREATMENT FACILITY ANY BETTER THAN YOU CAN
MAINTAIN THE GARBAGE DUMP.
a. WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH THE GARBAGE DUMP AND THE
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT
ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE ADJOINING LAND OWNERS?
b. WILL PROPERTY TAX RATES BE REDUCED TO REFLECT
DECLINE IN PROPERTY VALUES TO THOSE AFFECTED?
c. WILL THERE BE REIMBURSEMENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS
IN THE AREA FOR LOSSES EXPERIENCED IN PROPERTY
VALUES?
a

l+ .F.R�J4:C3$ ffi'Sy t" Ei ON
,
t
0. r
of Ono
Can .man sabotage half a Dreams,"even if you don't build it,they will come.
decade of sound economic"develop `, A key part of the',expansion is bringing the water
ment planning? and sewer.lines to.,the Taylor Togs plant in Micaville
I{arlton:,Lud Leiner may with a where owner.Grier'Lack' has planned.to expand his
little help from misinformed I,`filends" clothing-manufactiirin ' lant.
. devastate Yancey County'skeeono, --"., .Lackey bough,, litional•land for expansion and
my his;support has been instrumental in moving the pro-
ti Leiner, 'a reed businessman, ject,to this,point
>- has a sii
urlple economic interest :,. Lemees petition now.also has.jeopardized Lack=
a..'
Pat He�t!ants to build some vacation ey's support for the project: Frustrated with the pro..
cabins on the South River and he's ,ject's delays, Lackey withdrew his support in an'April`
Were concerned`about their view. Leiner is 10 letter sent to the Yancey County manager's office
convinced that he doesn't want a`new and the Yancey County:Economic Development Com-
wastewater treatment plant within eyesight of his mission.
potential vacationers. Should Taylor Togs-take its jobs and proposed$1.2
Never mind that the proposed plant and site selec- million elsewhere, as Lackey suggested in the letter,
tion was in the works before Leiner wanted the plant more than 300 people employed at the Micaville plant
moved elsewhere. could find themselves out of work. The proposed
Leiner asked the county commissioners to move expansion had been expected to create 75 to 200 new
the treatment plant so it will not interfere with his jobs.
development plans.. The water and sewer expansion has been plagued
He spearheaded a petition drive opposing the loca- with delays.
tion of the proposed plant and gathered enough signa- It was needed and should have been completed
tures to persuade the.U.S.Department of Commerce's five years ago.
Economic Development.Administration to put the .. Now, after five years, three public hearing and
breaks on a$1 million grant until the"public controver- publication of numerous newspaper notices, Leiner
sy"is resolved.That's one of three federal grants that claims the county tried to:keep the plant a secret.He's
will fund the project along with state, county and city also made claims that the plant would pollute the South
money. Toe River and will be built in a food plain.
Leiner did not,let the facts stand in the way'of County, city and state officials, along with the
gathering signatures and already some petitioners Yancey County Economic Development Commission,
have withdrawn their opposition.A public meeting set have invested too much energy,time and money in this
for Monday night was.:called to resolve any lingering vital project to allow anyone to sabotage the project at
controversy. this point.
County and city officials.tried as best they could to Water and sewer lines must be extended to that
explain to Leiner.that the proposed plant has been in part.of the county. If the proJect is not funded this
the works for more than five years;that it is in the final year, building the plant will only become more costly
stages of approval and the;crucial EDA grant to com- and the delays will likely cost county residents their
plete the funding is.'contingent on the plant being built .jobs.
on the chosen location. Instead of spending his energy fighting a project
Simply put, moving the plant at this point in the that is in the best interest of Yancey County residents
process would at best delay the project for a year or at . ;and future residents, Leiner should look for creative.
worst stop it completely.for the foreseeable future. ways to develop his property.
The proposed $2.5'`million plant would complete There are plenty of examples.
the water and sewer.line expansion east along the U.S. Yancey County Commissioner Chairman David
19E corridor from,the pumping station at the OMC McIntosh tells of visiting an exclusive community in
plant through Micaville,bringing water and sewer lines Charleston, S.C., where $800,000 to $1 million new
to Burnsville Elementary School, East Yancey Middle homes were built near a water treatment plant.
School and a host of businesses along the route that In Annapolis, Md., developer Jerome Parks
along with the schools currently depend on septic tanks bought land across from a malfunctioning wastewater
and their own pumping stations. treatment plant and built townhouses that sold for
It would allow many existing businesses .and $300,000 in 1984.
homes currently dependent on septic tanks to receive Parks worked with county and city officials who
city water and sewer services. footed the bill from correcting the problems that
That area of Yancey County is developing rapidly caused odors at the plant and Parks paid for building a
with new housing and businesses. dirt berm as a landscape Barrier along half a mile of
Since county commissioners have been unwilling to road.And these are not isolated examples.
tackle the thorny issue of land use planning,they have Leiner's stubborn persistence that the county
an obligation to the residents and the businesses in the cater to his desires can only damage the quality of life
county to provide the infrastructure to support existing for Yancey County's other residents and reinforce the
development. stereotype of the outsider who moves into the county
They also have an obligation to support and intent on taking without giving back to the community.
encourage the businesses which provide a livelihood to
county residents. It's too late-to stop the development Riviere is a regional columnist who lives in
along 19E. 'To paraphrase a line from "Field of Yancey County.Her column appears on Mondays.

NNN
r ine :� 3
� �� 2nd site considered 260p
\` f �, (too steep)�--
em' ,
-'WostlteRbe °�� C e
7 fay w, `;\
31
Lud Leiner
`-�, �� �� ',,, ■ Property
---- l.i.;. \
�
--/"
O 1 \Vet
tu
�/ •
1'`site considered
(not available) \\
Wif
)� Wyatt Town Road
/f j �ter_'-..•..' � 1`
•�■ faylor Togs,Inc. c� ; �I \ Q C�i�° ►\
• • i'� -'-�!■�• • Ili / � � \%j�//'/'/�'i%� '�:/�'iiJ'��'�% l/ If � • ••
:= l
�— - -•- MICAVILLE, N.C.
�—
C� �• - N3552.5—W8207.5/7.5
1960
f ) • - J��' o PHOTOREVISED 1978
AMS 4555 1 NW—SERIES V842
SCALE 1:24000
0 1 MILL
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
.5 0 1 KILOMETER
- ) `1 � /� o� • , - � ���• CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

05/13/97 TUE 09:43 FAX [phone] REGION D COG [it00-t
I INC-
i
i P.O.Box 180-Micaville,NC 26755-704-675.4153
I
I
April 23, 1997
Herndon
Mr. Rick B e
Region D. Council of Governments
Post Office Box 1820
Boone, North Carolina 28607
Dear Mr. Herndon:
As per the attached .letter, it has boon a long time since we
first requested water and sewer for our :Facility. Since that
time business has changed drastically due to NAFTA.
We wish to withdraw our support of this project and would like
to get your release from all agreements we have endorsed. what-
ever might be .required to accomplish this, please let us know
as soon as possible.
We wish to thank you and Region D for all your help in this pro-
ject but six years is too long to predict the future growth of
a company.
Since ely,
Gr or A. .Lackey
President-
GAL/wr
attachments
Post-lum brand fax transmittal memo 787iu of pages
CO. Go0.
Dept, ,�F�r Phpno#

t.; `�~+ �4.5�y:.. .1F,. :'S `.,'' L` �i ::5�: ,.�,..�r...N:•iIi•�:.j':M:'s..;.4.� ., Ii��]!•h;.
- ;i tg;:�. ..Y :<'. ,.�i% ;'r,�::.;:�;r};�s-,�,;7• ;, ::�• ..rK.:ri.,:. ..r'�•{t':�`..:.' $ �. �•J•V'•' �:'••• �
.y.n.:W:s; .4. •:f:i.. r��. ';i�a:•+•:' _ s¢:- �P,k ',.t.',.: ?'.5:'.,:• :.f,r:4-.�.: r.f�:�"•
#M OARq�
SW Of Burnavik
FAX TRANSMIWTAL
DAT'L.' 16 07
A
TO. Ate-1
TO/FAQ#
Number of Pages '
We W i L.L AJA P-99 is—(
bt X C -1:00 ►t om -1-6 V.DA3 'I A L.G
K o
r; CP t-
P.O Em 97 - riurtok,North C mime M4 - Dhow M4)6M M0 • FillC(704)582-TM,
T0'd zsv9TSZb0LT 01 3-1-IIi1a4anH 3❑ t4pia wodzi €0:TT L66T-9T-HciU

WASTE TREATMENT QUESTIONS
I. EXPLAIN TBE STEPS NECESSARY IN GAINING APPROVAL
AND CONSTRUCTING THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY.
a, WHAT STEP ARE YOU AT CURRENTLY?
b. WHAT.IS'TH.E PLANNED SCHEDULE FOR THE REMAINING
STEPS?
2.HAVE YOU CONSIDERED LOCATING THE FACILITY
FURTHER'DOWNSTREAM ? FURTHER DOWNSTREAM WOULD
SEEM TO O.��`F�E'�R7��THE
y ADVANTAGE
�+O��F�BEING AWAY FROM
RESIDENCES NOT VISIBLE TO HE PVBLIC.
a. WHAT ARE YOUR REASONS FOR NOT CONSIDERING THIS
AS AN OPTION?
3. THE PROPOSED FACILITY:
a. HOW LARGE WILL IT BE(SIZE AND VOLUME)?
b.DO YOU HAVE AN ENGINEERING DRAWING OF HOW THE
FACILITY'WILL LOOK?
Q WHAT,..W ICALS WILL BE USED TO OPERATE THE<: •
d.HOW WILL THE WATER BE TREATED BEFORE IT ENTERS
THE RIVER?
e. WHAT IS THE PERMIT CLASSIFICATION OF THE FACILITY?
L THE EFFLUENT RETURNING TO THE RIVER WHAT WILL; BE
CHEMICAL AND MICR.OBIOLOGICA.L. LIMIT'S?
g.WHAT INWACT COULD THE FACILITY HAVE ON THE ti
DRINKING WATER IN THE AREA AND DOWN STREAM
Z©'ck ZS179TSZti0LT 01 3�-1I11SPd2 a d0 F4P101 WOdd £O:TT L65T-9T—ddd

b. WHAT MONITORING SYSTEMS WILL BE IN PLACTE?
(i'.e. CONTINUOUS MONITORING OR SAMPLING)
i. WHO WILL, MANAGE THE FACILITY'
j. WILL THE FACILITY BE COVERED ON A ROUND THE CLOCK
BASIS OR ON-A PERIODIC BASIS?
k. WILL THE LANDSCAPING BE SO DESIGNED AS TO CONCEAL
THE FACILITY FROM VIEW?
I. IN THE EVENT OUR CHILDREN SHOULD PLAY AROUND THE
FACILITY,WILL THEY BE-SAFE?
m. HOW MUCH OF AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WILL THERE BE
ON TIDE W'YATT TOWN ROAD- WILL THIS EQUIPMENT BE
HEAVY EQUIPMENT?
a. WHERE WILL,THE LINES BE CONSTRUCTED?
3. WHAT TYPES OF SYSTEM FAILURES COULD OCCUR?
a. DO YOU HAVE A CONTINGENCY FLAN FOR POSSIBLE
FAILURES I COULD WE HAVE A COPY?
b. IN THE EVENT OF AN.ELECTRICAL FAILURE,WHAT
THE ALTERNATIVES TO PREVENT A MALFUNCTION? ``.
c. CAN YOU GUARANTEE THERE WILL NEVER BE A TIME
WHEN IMPROPERLY TREATED MATERIAL WILL ENTER THE
RIVER?
4.APPRECIATE WHAT YOU WORLD HAVE ON THE WY'ATT
TOWN ROAD IF TuE FACILITY IS LOCATED AT THE
PROPOSED SITE, AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE ROAD YOU
HAVE A GARBAGE DUMP THAT NO ONE SEEMS
ABLE/WILLING TO MAINTAIN. AT THE END OF THE ROAD
YOU WOULD HAVE A WASTE'TREATMENT PLANT. 'TELL US
©'d ZSb9TS3VOLT Ol 3-rlin hwa d0 t4pin WOtd VO:TT L66T-9T-NclU

170'd "1d101
WIxY WE SHOULD BELIEVE YOU CAN MAINTAIN THE WASTE ,
TREATMENT FACILITY ANY B#,TTER THAN YOU CAN
MAINTAIN THE GARBAGE DUMP.
a.WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH THE GARBAGE DUMP AND THE
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT
ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE ADJOINING LAND OWNERS?
b. WILL PROPERTY TAX RATES BE REDUCED TO REFLECT
DJECLINE IN PROPERTY VALUES TO THOSE AFFECTED?
c,WILL THERE BE REIMBURSEMENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS
IN THE AREA FOR LOSSES EXPERIENCED IN PROPERTY
VALUES?
VO'd ES09TGZVOLT Ol 3-nin PIaml 3O NP101 WOad 50:TT L66Z-9T-adu

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt,Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary �E '""'' N R
A. Preston Howard,Jr., P.E., Director
Asheville Regional Office
WATER QUALITY SECTION
April 4, 1997
Ms . Diane Carroll
Post Office Box 63
Micaville, North Carolina 28755
Subject : Proposed Burnsville-Micaville
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dear Ms . Carroll :
Your letter to Senator Jesse Ledbetter concerning the
proposed Burnsville-Micaville wastewater treatment plant has been
referred to me for answer. As you know, the Town of Burnsville
wishes to provide public sewer to the corridor between Burnsville
and Micaville to address expected economic growth in that area.
The public notice was placed in the newspaper to inform you and
your neighbors of this project and to give you the opportunity to
express your concerns . Mr. Tom .Storie, Town Manager, has advised
me that a public meeting will be scheduled in the near future to
further discuss this matter.
Thank you for your letter. You can rest assured that nothing
about this project . has been finalized at this time. Also,
regulatory procedures prevent this matter from moving forward
without full consideration of all environmental matters and
compliance with environmental rules and regulations . Please call
me at telephone (704) 251-6208 if you wish to discuss this matter
in more detail .
pncerely,
Roy M. Davis, Regional supervisor
Division of Water Quality
xc : Senator Jesse Ledbetter
Mr. Tom Storie
Max L. Haner
Interchange Building,59 Woodfin Place I'A FAX [phone]
Asheville,North Carolina 28801 i; An Equal FAX
Action Employer
Voice 704-251-6208 N50%recycles/10%post-consumer paper

s Sy
�r (�awlina orneral xrr�l
�4ex�tt#e C��rxmber
,,state Ugisjalifre P It$
Falei$4 Z7681-2809
SENATOR JESSE LEDBETTER (1
DISTRICT 28 March 27, 1997 COMMITTEES:
APPROPRIATIONS
HOME ADDRESS: - 25 BRADDOCK WAY GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 COMMERCE
TELEPHONE: [phone]
" LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FAX: [phone] RULES
RALEIGH ADDRESS: LOB ROOM 520
RALEIGH,NC 27601-2808
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]. -
Ms. Diane Carroll
P. O. Box 63
Micaville,NC 28755
Dear Ms. Carroll:
Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed sewer plant in Micaville. I
appreciate your taking the time and effort to express your views.
I am forwarding a copy of your letter to the Department of Environmental Health
and Resources and requesting that,they respond to your request.
Please let me know if you have other concerns.
Sincerely,
Jesse I. Ledbetter
JIL/psh
c: DEHNR
59 Woodfm Place
Asheville,NC 28801

} d„a STATE
p�ETitifE �LI�FiTTC�IEx
,state1 1egis-lStifTE �auil ltg
�"i$h 27601—ZSDS
SENATOR JESSE LEDBETTER
DISTRICT 28 March 27, 1997 COMMITTEES:
APPROPRIATIONS
HOME ADDRESS: 25 BRADDOCK WAY GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 COMMERCE
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCAL,CjQYE RNMENT
FAx: [phone]
RALEIGH ADDRESS: LOB ROOM 520 �� 1�
RALEIGH, NC 27601-2808 \tl{
V �'', •
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAx: [phone]
DEHNRFG����1G
59 Woodfm Place
Asheville,NC 28801
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from one of my constituents, Ms. Diane
Carroll, regarding a proposed sewer plant in Micaville.
My concern is that the treatment plant may not be adhering to all state statutes as
far as ground water and air quality are concerned. I would appreciate your checking on
this for Ms. Carroll.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
( 1
1, }
esse I. Ledbetter
JIL/psh
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Diane Carroll

r
A.
r �
< J
zj
��! <
C
a c'.' D - 's LJ h 19
41,
i I
L1 i'1n� _r� r- IZ% ' r1
�U
i7Tr. 12
LJ,� s , _ �- ► � �,mot

, h E
cZsCJzc�d ^�
CL,
� r ,
4
lOL C
L Q U s o 0—
LJ Az
-, p• v.ricLS � C n�� ci,5
Z i L W�rao�J CL. A Q
4`r ct 4� S — �'Y t o o 1 a, V�c� �1 cCL
Soil S � rd
two
As___— _-

al r G2 c LJ
11 ► �, -�1,, IH3 l � � 1=J=
t
A, ,
46
A 5 c t t7L t q t�.s LJ Q
r5_ Lj
R n14 S 4
Qn✓" _
i0nz dlr

"✓ '7 1l�',? PROPOSED OUTFALL;�
- MICAVILLE "ALTERNATIVE 6
t IMPROVEMENTS �
PROPOSED�300`000 GPD
' ey/(
VWTP ALTERNATIVE 6 PROPOSED 'Pr
JRNSVILLE \N,
NORTH CAROLINA PROPOSED '� ? ;.;L;;;';:;"' ' %FARCE MAIN ,
N PUMP STATION �j ", ALTERNATIVE E',
"=2000' '/ ALTE,tNMQTIVE 6 ,
\
M A T E S P OPOSED 300,000 GPD
nning • Finance `` e` �Tp ALTERNATIVE 5
'A.. P.0. Box 2259 nk n
Carolina 28802 11 PROPOSED 12-INCH v \\\\
f I � .
TOBER, 1997 � � C GRAVITY SEWER .,
U ALTERNATIVE 5 a
u
ti
1 nl
\
I -
u
d
O I
`-- Z
-- R C
Ce
zv
goo \\• ' o =' ///fA M ^
600 _SOU,TH TO;E-RIVER.;,_S
J 0 p PROPOSED 300 000 GPD -
o
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
p ALTERNATIVE 3
�-J ti PROP.OSED;$-IN H, __ _ __ a li Yo
• �4, e
ATER LINE'EXTENSION;,A v e
p• j � U \
rINCH�. _s aI ,;.�;;,,;..✓. _-• � L: -- a I_
tR LINE •s. ' _ �� T Way
A PROPOSED
SPRAY'IRRIGATION FIELD =
ALTERNATIVE 4
• - C

r;h 11 1� �1 , �' �� ♦1 �- f' �; BURNSVILLE
TER AND E
WA WE
TOWN OF B
r�l; r� ;` ' rlb� ': �i� `�i ► �'ir �, ' r�'��; ' ; ' �; ;`\ ��( ; YANCEY COUNTY
SCALE
� l;' ,il�lji r�" ,, �N \� �,.�}�/ji � �� 1 293-�•� % _�--1'_f �, I
Engineering • PI
McGill Associates
Asheville. Nortl
1�;;I , 1 : f}f � �•.. �� �� REVISED O(
I i I \ �) • ,gyp '.� 1• �� . ��—\ �\ ) �'' °�"117
s°
`i� of ;' '�J�:. -:���`-ti� ..� � � �•.
'� i� �, _ � � �� � � 'f � S� t.J _ � ♦1. �J}1 ` lam%
''f8 %�i"_ \I�,t jib �f(� \ �./�. ��L • •� �ti_�,i'. ii a ��i li�'� / J 1 � �CSi � ��0; l� -.� • �
I r, i XISTING PRIVATE
. 1 : ' •�: 1t",—mark .� PUMP �J J SCHOOL
,�. , .. !; STATION
(TOWN OF;:BURNSVILL �� 1, • S• •o` :��.. t��� PUMP STATION
indoi
(t-Mit�� %• ;',.'.�r�� ( `%i •ji EXISTING PRIVATE •'
•I •:�•• � ,( )", .f. 1 Tan i_�
it PUMP STATION
EXISTING BURNSVILLE vai
;
URNSVILLE WATER PLANT :'`i'; ' F PUMP STATION 8 Tral�er• - :� /Q ,
ark 1143
PROPOSED 1.
:� � j Ia ' , ��,.;-,`'�1-- _ ';a'192 •� .('�'.1� � `I��'\..�, �GRAVITY'SEW
�, ��"

State of North Carolina r"W
Department of Environment, oy
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Fl
December 20,1995 .� m.�.
The Honorable Mark Bennett,Mayor
9
Town of Burnsville DEC 2 9 1995
P.O. Box 97
Burnsville, N.C. 28714-0097 WATER QUALITY SECTI N
ASHEVILLt REGIONAL
Subject: Request for Speculative Limits for Burnsville-Micaville WWZP
Yancey County
Dear Mr. Bennett
An analysis for speculative effluent limits for the Burnsville-Micaville WWTP at the
design flow of 0.300 MGD has been completed by the staff of the Instrearn Assessment
Unit. Please be advised that the limits given are speculative. In order to receive final
permit limits, a formal application indicating the WWTP design capacity and a justification
for the facility will have to be submitted to the Division's Permits:and Engineering Unit.
Per North Carolina's anti-degradation. policy (15A NCAC 2B.0201 .(c)(1)), each
application for an NPDES permit expansion to discharge treated waste will require
documentation of an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives pursuant to North
Carolina Regulation 15A NCAC 211.0105 (c)(2).
The proposed facility will discharge into the South Toe River which has a stream
classification of C Trout. The estimated drainage area at the discharge point is 84 square
miles. The estimated average flow is 151 cfs,and the summer 7Q10 flow is approximately
35 cfs.
4$ased on available information,the tentative limits at 0.3 MGD are:
BOD5(mg/1) 30
NH3-N(mg/1) monitor
TSS (mg/1) 30
Fecal (/100ml) 200
pH (SU) 6-9
Chlorine(4g/1) 28
The Division of Environmental Management(DEM)recommends 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 28 µg/1 to ensure protection
against acute 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
A complete evaluation of limits and monitoring requirements for metals and other
toxicants will have to be addressed at the time of formal NPDES application. Information
concerning these constituents is not readily available but effluent limits and/or monitoring
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

1
Letter to Mr.Bennett
-- page 2 - -
for cadmium,chromium,copper, lead,nickel,zinc or other chemical specific parameters
may be recommended.
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(ext. 503) or
Jackie Nowell(ext. 512) of my staff at(919)733-5083.
,. S erely,
Donald L. S E.
Assistant Chief Tec Support
Water Quality Section
DLS/JMN
cc: Forrest Westall
Bobby Blowe
John T. Coxey, McGill Associates, P.A.
Central Files
WLA File

j
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BURNSVILLE-MICAVILLE
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
i I-
JOHN T. COXEY, P.E. . Cq�D
,. �Essl ••.
4 �
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A. E L
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7293
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA �.
�'0 ••:OGINEDa••
T. co
93240.00 �'`�' y ��'�

1. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Burnsville and Micaville are mountain communities in Western North Carolina with a
population of approximately 2,200 people. Burnsville is the county seat of Yancey County
and borders Madison, Buncombe, McDowell and Mitchell counties with the State of Tennessee
to the north. Both communities are located in the Toe River Valley, which ranges in elevation
from approximately 2,500 feet to approximately 6,600 feet, which is the top of Mount
'I
Mitchell, the highest peak east of the Rocky Mountains. The entire Toe River valley shares an
economic base which consists of various manufacturing facilities employing people from the
entire valley, not just the Burnsville area. Burnsville and Micaville are connected to the
proposed route of the Interstate 26 extension by an excellent road, U.S. 19E, making the area
accessible for both existing and future development.
Land use is predominantly rural in nature with many small farms growing a variety of
crops, including tobacco which is a major crop for the area.
There are many streams traversing the area of the Toe River Basin. Because of the
rural nature of the area, stream surface waters are generally of high quality.
Groundwater is of excellent quality. There are no major users of ground water for
' potable supply. Groundwater use is essentially a supply for individual residences which are
inumerous throughout the area.
i

2. NEED FOR PROJECT
The ability of the Town of Burnsville to provide water and sewer service is of vital
interest to the economic well-being of the citizens of both the Town and the surrounding
community.
There are businesses along U.S. 19-E and in Micaville; which are currently unable to
expand due to the lack of water and sewer service east of Burnsville and the unreliability of
septic fields due to much of the area being in the flood plain.
Additional waste treatment capacity east of Town in the Micaville area would also
allow for future growth in this area without the expense of constructing and maintaining
I
additional pump stations, which incur high annual operation and maintenance costs. Also, the
diversion of a portion of the existing flow to the new facility will create additional treatment
capacity at the existing treatment plant, allowing further connections on the west side of town
without a costly expansion of this facility.
An extension of a water line to Micaville would additionally open up the area for future
development.
The construction of a wastewater treatment facility on the east side of Burnsville would
allow for the removal of the existing pump stations mentioned above, eliminating the high
costs and maintenance required to keep them operating properly.
Page 2

3. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Alternative 1
No additional water and sewer service for the Micaville area. Existing homes and
businesses could continue to rely on septic fields for sewage treatment and wells for water
supply.
This alternative would create concerns due to much of the area being in the flood plain
of Little Crabtree Creek which is unsuitable for septic fields and could cause possible
i
contamination of wells.
This alternative would assure that no significant growth could occur in the area east of
Burnsville. It would also risk the potential loss of the existing jobs at the Taylor Togs
manufacturing plant along with any jobs from a future expansion of the Taylor Togs and
Hickory Springs plants.
Alternative 2
The area could be served by the construction of a water line extension and construction
of pump stations to serve the area. A pump station at the Micaville area and an intermediate
pump station would be required. Also, the existing pump station at OMC would have to be
replaced to handle the additional volume that would be generated by the service area.
This alternative would add more costly, high maintenance items for the Town of
PBurnsville to operate. Additional gravity collector lines would still have to be built if any
significant service area is to be established and revenues increased.
Page 3

In addition, all of the additional sewage flows would continue to go to the Town's
existing wastewater treatment facility which create the need for additional operation and
maintenance costs at that plant, or a possible expansion to handle any future growth.
Alternative 3
A water line extension and construction of a new wastewater treatment plant in the
Micaville area east of the Town of Burnsville, with gravity collector lines extending to the
existing gravity portion of the system.
This is the preferred alternative for the Town of Burnsville because it.assures that
future economic growth can continue for both sides of the Town and at the same time offers
water and sewer service to hundreds of new customers previously without any option. This
alternative provides the most maintenance-free system for the Town and provides a large
customer base in an area which can expect future population growth.
This alternative also is the best option from an environmental aspect since it provides
sewage treatment to customers now using failing septic tanks which are a potential source of
groundwater contamination of wells and water pollution. Many of the potential customers are
now facing problems with their current systems and would welcome the opportunity to connect
to the new water and sewer system.
Page 4

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Changes in Land
The only possible change in land use would occur as a result of construction of the
sewer plant site. The site is presently partially wooded with some grassy areas. Construction
of the water and sewer lines would not alter the present land use either during or after
construction.
I
�I
B. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
At the present time, there are no known prime or unique agricultural lands in the
project area.
C. Public Lands
No portion of the project will be constructed on public land.
D. Scenic and Recreational Areas
There are no recreational areas that are impacted by the project. The entire project
area, due to its location in the mountains is very scenic, however, the scenic beauty of the area
will not be adversely impacted by the project.
E. Shellfish and Fish Habitats
No shellfish habitats will be impacted. There will be several stream crossings during
construction of the sewer lines, however, all state, federal, and local regulations pertaining to
adverse environmental impacts will be strictly enforced during construction and over the life of
the project to prevent adverse impacts on fish habitats.
Page 5

F. Water Supplies
The Town of Burnsville currently has as its water supply two mountain intakes on
Bowlens Creek and an intake on the.Cane River. Water is treated by a 1.0 MGD treatment
plant. Extension of the water line will utilize additional treated water however, there is ample
reserve capacity at the treatment plant, as well as adequate supply from its intakes.
G. Toxic Substances
There will be no toxic substances associated with the project.
H. Historic/Archaeological Properties
At this time, there are no known historic/archaeologic resources within the project
area.
I. Wildlife and Endangered Species
There are presently no significant known wildlife resources or identified endangered or
threatened species in the project areas. Any adverse impact to wildlife resources would be
insignificant and due to temporary soil erosion during construction and temporary noise levels
of construction machinery. This insignificant impact is of a temporary nature and will not be
realized upon completion of the project. The proposed project will have no long-term effect
on wildlife resources.
J. Wetlands and Flood Plains
A portion of the gravity sewer lines will be constructed within flood plain areas.
Various construction practices, such as utilization of watertight manhole covers, will be used
to assure that there will be no significant adverse impact to flood plain areas. At the present
Page 6

time, it is not known if wetlands will be impacted. During the survey phase of the project, a
determination will be made as to this possible impact.
K. Air Quality
j
The only effect on air quality will be on a short-term basis during construction due to
dust and exhaust fumes. This impact will, however, be of little significance.
L. Groundwater Quality
All discharges associated with the project will be in the form of treated wastewater
effluent. Effluent parameters for BOD5, SS, fecal, coliform, etc. will be consistent with
maintaining the existing groundwater quality in the area. Effluent will have been treated by
means of an extended aeration activated sludge treatment facility. Construction of the sewer
lines and water lines will not adversely impact groundwater in the area.
M. Odor and Noise
Any noise or odors generated as a result of the project will be on a short-term basis
from the operation of construction equipment. These nuisance conditions will end as the
project is completed.
N. Impact on Receiving Waters
All discharges associated with the project will be in the form of treated wastewater
effluent. Effluent parameters for BOD5, TSS, fecal coliform, etc. have not been determined,
but these parameters will be consistent with maintaining the existing stream water quality in
the area. Effluent will be treated by an approved activated sludge treatment facility.
Page 7

O. Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts on commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments in the area
will be all positive. The new water and sewer system will serve to enhance these areas of
Yancey County and allow a progressive pattern of growth in the economy of the area.
Page 8

5. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
All applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to adverse economical
impacts will be strictly enforced during construction and over the life of the project. An
archeological survey will be provided for the project. Applicable Corps of Engineers permits
will be obtained as well as the appropriate erosion and sedimentation control plan approval.
Page 9

\\.1(' _ .wf�'�i�'�//�`\\��\ @,� 1'. ,�t,,\,� I �\4? � - ,I- �. �,�':•.- �� ;/ __ - ..Sri' JX ,t.,`,\ \� �.\•.•:�& j: - � v �.i
ky Kn b%.`°t,\f �.,/(r,/,��, \ -� ��\�-' r---�� ''� i..�..111-- , ,ll. •rJ `,��/�1-" \ �\�• \���������'`~-�' ��li(�i 1 '`I\�\\." �i^ .� .,�,,.I
'!�` -�;��— I b�J' Ir1 /�€, - .�`�� ee \�_ ':: �;• �\ ' �li �.�L r�'e8:-? ;.I Nl \\�,�'��//�.?� �= %J '�i` � 1'� `,ll',1` �. �: �? '!I!
� ;� �-�_ �,Jil.(IIlr, ,, ,�";�;�\�:�>>�,1;��• lrl) �I;i��, — $'. ��i;;l;,"�,�)1�\`�r��;:' .-�-��>�\\1 •aU ;�I�� �•;•.�✓ � �.� '` ,�,. {{1�� - ��—�- ����i llll r/% �� 'i•. ,y � �\`1�, ri/�,�-�'.`�� I`l ��\ b,'it \ /r�� _ ;1;1;_,. \ .���/ ��._' .J \ U� ! � ��. `lil ;1
'en Alt ..� \..i 1 ��\11�)I,y, i l Il I - -, /. 4� 1`l.�))SrJ✓ 1 1 i _ rl
/.` 1 h i`-' Z: '\'l �r J• `a;`? a� ,1' f :: •r L�'� �I \JI Sr v{f' i��. \\ ) i,� :� .`: �!i \�.��\�I�:Ab mar \.
/.I'� (^ 1 i` /, `�. ,.1' ,t. �• a III, )•,.(� i��:. l��'���\- �...�. \ ( 1 \ 1' \ a:-.:.=-._,
Ct \...,.• '\.,. � ,�,a\ ,. `� (' •j.f. ..I- ( `.'r l -al.•' d \• \ ,_,F-'.'e,. )1 •1 r-, i III�{,` N,- �E,9p
.I',i', f� `���..��=-may' 1\ .1I �^ -1 �r �( ,.�. II •))�I _- �>I I �(I 1__s. �- _ 1 "_
--`�1 h'( -3. ` _�� \) ��x � i �•`� r �� /,^` t.o �• 1, �-,;,I�1�\�\(�` ��� � \i� g\�` :-J`?i. // l.c`✓�'_,+ jird;
��
C.
I � ',L��".!�/�L�t'^ .1.��/ -"�a•\�1•- ����J
�\-:. �1��i`\� !�l � /"� '� ( ��\I � � J/ �� IJ`n\ � \ �.i- C•r � 'r;1� ��'-\� �-� ���'.:i .�•'lv. .\� ���L,, •,�i
i ,�,))Jll\�1i 1, `(•r: IICO) � !
�Pack:
^-li,��,�1-!"-�! ..\;�' �� ''•.r�':, :1 t1.. �C ,l �?O\i!•. �/ t� y��'J li ;;�ll• :� � `L 1'-' _--- L•-==-_:...�1�,.I `� )])1 ,�ad'I -
'.1'• 1� �%-� -/,.. ♦P\ 1' � '1�fs..� /�\'(N '•.� :,e�. 1 -`r NG CEM jj 6 q�Cer�;'.\ AJu '��\',•!"� ___- /� / '(l %/111 r _3
lll,BURNSUILTs_E, 'tI'. �� e 'i h •) -� _�J� `/`' t - �./ l _ \ � ..) .�:. 9Ii _I/ c L l � � �_ �.� \� �I(I�<:`1
'�.. \ ( M LHT 8101�: •.'6: `4. �. .�' I '} .•1. F' ',f. 1• '$',. l�J 8/ � '�\� "� ...,�� � �`
-�. �� � �i��s, t t�•J� � � �O / �� �` �—��Q� I)/�"�\\�\�
pp ,•,,_ Mt 6 TtgTO £/ .l �i� ''•` =: WintloFi N. CJr�iirX-•,.1 ( •©`i,7� - >�`�
-i. �\. �. �• .,_ � :,� `, ,v - - bar till,'
266T A
1-v
,,r. zna � \.-��.. ;�\ r:/' �, ym, ,`' \`(I .I ` .� �-^tom:-, -'J• � 2 (`� �� q\\\ .� ) O 1 � ',��\` �,�(_`\
/r ° t Mitchp� :�-�•i�l(� r a. I. t-' � r �\ ��I �^'� \ � '\v� `� \�.��,S (.
k. r .l� •r(-�1�`�`( %_' o sGa � .)' }•1� 1 )\, )) k`� M1I• i)I, %��^:\�•:" /]ar 1 _ - � - - i�' �� .ice r _�i:l l`<`����.(f
� ,.L ��i c��'J��/i,,ll�J.S,.,� ; _,..,�� :,'fir �>, �. �; `��'z'B'. :L�,J t• r R 1.1t'lE'�:; �� �� � �/-� -=� s � ,, •-
�....- (ter � �� rat 3-,/:!v)���• i\ -_- ` 1 zvs !. _ _ ----'.L: �•Ifl ./%'L J,� J n..�- �. �`.-'' � -r',, '� ,
• ma •' ,
/- ' .6i 1) , "��.'•;.'c__ _•fin 'a '7._�_ _ �}�,, r,�\/ - -
_ .4 } ''\ "\....v 'y_ I � I /`�,'I,„ Jul �.:�. -�, _ I/.• \ '�� DCl •a: �J-r=.' �� /�• - ,\
��'`l`� L:.._`� 'f 'I�i l .-/� .`; .r. �`•," !",`IJ :: � 'r'il}L ''If 1- \ � `/ � "'� -,•�' ;a�p�et .1�-�- za�oo�"
• ,�• ��- -. - = -1 Hr ezo ..�. '✓�l`\I ��/((� -�. �� .J 1��\!_ r;J'.. '(,'J.-:�'J - .,.. �. `H,.\
1 1 _ _ — f '•i'JJ/I��/:r\�.� I`/�� L!' ���%� \ ■F. ' II �.�^ / {+)J �• /II/�'I/1'1/G - -
��N, 1 \ I 'I ( \� J� ,'i�' \ �_ • 1'i l.. ,"\^— r to �. l� �� j=\1 '
.�`\�\\_`�\�'../v,(•,rI��./.�111\/1�Rk�V`/,\,rJ��.nj,�J`\.�!�L`,B1'A�'N/K-S�i"fLf)"l�'�i:S;�t fJ$t ,��l lL\r1\,e�,_`t��.. %�,.��♦ ,�L-_`-.w:.'f.✓O'��1'\�(I\_(l�``.,mi l\`,�:j,;,:�/���r 1
"Ilk ,a,901% /1 �1�(J,.1_ i t,'t, ,�Jl1i/J�l in/i�i,'l;�\(�m i))��J,��• •J,• �..�./�(;`e"ms �� !l � �.\,--/ �•�•`�:�` ������ ���fJJ 1))1))
O
..'�i /,l✓�/-" \ .�;. "t• �- 1t�_. .._-' i .-�l .,__.�,�r(// � \�;`� ,, ''l�Sr--ic ` , �`'l '�° -:, ,�• Bl➢RNSVILLE—MICAVILLE
' 1 I'1 \v` �ti �.�J � �._ � _ � °<� l ',rl'•. �.•�i ) �,I:l� )1 �; �2. f'(\ �r .
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
I �•'i = .. T'��`; ., , )1)i�l:_ `�l! �c S �< i TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
�--��� ' a'•• e�rn`H'si�•�� tom/ \� -1.,-\I, 14 " �
\�iI \ ��_ _`1.. aw,en re, h•%I2822:, ,, �,11,C•�`��-� `l�\ ,L/ \(_. \ ?:. t . .f,-=a.I•;. YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
c. -C• i' )',/ ��;\: `��'1 �li I� •�� -,.i;..�` •;-af t,}� lii�,'1��\ -- \.1 ,tsJ ��, td�1))) r SCALE 1 - 2000
/��( l;• / �"ti. ,U, !� '�! �'t�. �.-'r� r •h ��� , ( .•� IS `�1 Jltb /%� I �.?���° _ McGILL ASSOCIATES,P.A.
Ir�l '%II S 'tJ1.1• tll �J rim ��`i `Z '/, \,��`� 11 .,t<< 'i�
CONSULTING 13C1PEERS
�gn
astEvuLF,Noanl cnaOLru
!L-;Fall i",1, M .'aJ ',2" ..�\��\_((t tiC� I�t����• ..L l..na�\\,.�--�:'_; .�1'/.J. ,�.✓.

State of North Carolina
:.I Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
i
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt,Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 12, 1995
Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Mayor
Town of Burnsville
P. 0. Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714-0097
SUBJECT: Preliminary Engineering Report
Burnsville-Micaville
Wastewater System
Yancey County, NC
Dear Mayor Bennett:
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its review of the subject
Preliminary Engineering Rep6rt�and has the attached comments. A report which incorporates
responses to these comments should be submitted for our review and approval as soon as
possible.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone],
extension 623.
Sincerely,
Rob Brown
Project Manager
Facilities Evaluation Unit
Attachment (all cds)
RB:vk � W
cc: McGill &Associates
Don Evans AN"
-
FEU
File
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

BURNSVI LE TF�CIMCAL COlVIlMiENTS
1. A letter from the County discussing soils conditions and failed septic tanks would
assist in justifying the proposed wastewater project.
2. The proposed project will benefit the Taylor Togs and Hickory Springs plants and the
County Board of Education. Advise if any funds are anticipated from the beneficiaries
through assessments or out right contributions.
3. Would the plant be designed to someday accept the flow from the westside plant?
This could be considered and discussed.
4. What limits are anticipated at the Toe River site? If not already done, the Water
Quality Section of this Division should be contacted and speculative limits obtained.
5. What is the stream classification for the Toe River at and below the discharge point?
Is any opposition anticipated due to the stream type?
6. The $290,250 for water line extension is not eligible for funding through the
Construction Grants. and Loans Section of the Division of Environmental Management.
7. Will a mandatory hookup be implemented? Since Burnsville will be the grant
Recipient, who would have the authority to implement this program? We would
strongly recommend a mandatory hookup.
8. A more detailed breakdown of the proposed project should be provided, including unit
sizes, pump sizes, line sizes, etc.
9. Provide preliminary process calculations and advise how sludge will be handled to
comply with the 503 Regulations.
10. A draft copy of the intergovernmental agreement between Burnsville and Micaville
and Yancey County should be provided in the revised report. Before final approval of
this project can be given, a fully executed intergovernmental agreement will be
required.
11. How will this project affect the user charge for the typical customer (5,000 gpm) in
the Burnsville system? The user charge before and after this project should be
documented and an explanation of the anticipated increase provided.
12. Our funding on this project will be limited to 1/2 the non-federal share of the project
cost up to 25%"of the total project. What will be the source of funding for the
remaining portion of the project?
13. An environmental assessment should be performed to determine the environmental
' impacts of this project. The assessment should follow the attached outline. Any
questions concerning the assessment should be directed to Mr. Reg Sutton, of this
office, at [phone], extension 612.
14. Provide 18 copies of the revised report.

lI Environmental Assessment
An environmental assessment should be included as a separate section of the facility
plan. The Army Corps of Engineers should also be contact regarding 404 permit
F requirements. An environmental assessment is a concise but accurate document
describing the following items:
1. Existing Environment - Describe in concise terms the demographics,
topography, land use, soils, geology, surface waters, and groundwater. This
should cover the area of the project.
2. Need - Describe the need for the proposed project.
3. Alternative Analysis - Discuss alternatives to the proposed action including the
alternative of doing nothing to meet the need. .
4. Environmental Consequences - State clearly but concisely the environmental
impacts of the selected treatment and disposal alternative. Impacts to be
addressed should include at least a brief discussion of the following categories:
a) Changes in land
b) Wetlands and floodplains
c) Prime or unique agricultural lands
d) Public lands such as parks (state, federal, or local)
e) Scenic and recreational areas
f j Areas of archeological or historical value
g) Air quality
h) Groundwater quality
i) Nuisance conditions (i.e. odor, noise, etc.)
j) Water supplies
k) Shellfish or fish and their habitats
1) Wildlife and their habitats (identify any threatened or endangered
species)
m) Introduction of toxic substances
n) Impacts on receiving waters
o) Indirect impacts
5. Mitigative Measures - Describe methods proposed to mitigate or avoid
significant adverse environmental impacts.
6. A reproductable 8 1/2" x 11" site location map showing site of proposed
project, and any significant features such as wetlands, parks, historic sites, etc.
NOTE: Application for any required permits such as NPDES permit, land application
sludge permit, non-discharge permit should be submitted early in the 201
planning process. NPDES permit applications will not be received until
departmental review of the Environmental Assessment is complete and the
FNSI is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation.

n APR ~ 2OW
WATER UALITY SCCTIO�d
North .Carolina 11-MPF Ii„! R G1O{�AL p F�E
Department of Commerce
James B. Hunt;Jr., Governor April 1 , 1993 S. Davis Phillips, Secretary
Mr. David McIntosh, Chairman
Economic Development Commission
P.O. Box 246
Burnsville, NC 28714
SUBJECT: . Micaville Sewage Treatment Project
Dear David:
As promised at our meeting on March 19th, I reviewed the
project with our environmental specialist, Paul Jordan, when I
w s in Raleigh. Upon my return I met with Mike Parker of
D HNR' s Water Quality Section and discussed his evaluation of
t e project.
There is no doubt that the project will have the full
s pport of the Water Quality Section in this regional office.
As I understand it, they have expressed concern about sewage
ploblems in the Micaville area and believe that a treatment
f cility as proposed is the most appropriate answer. It is
not just Taylor Togs' growth, but growth in the Micaville area
at the intersection of U. S. 19-E and Rt. 80, an increasingly
u�ed route to the Blue Ridge Parkway, Mt. Mitchell and the
resort developments at the foot of Mt. Mitchell . This local
growth and. steady development of commercial enterprises in
the 4-mile economic corridor of 19-E from Burnsville to
Micaville will ultimately demand treatment. As a result,
Taylor Togs ' needs now and the jobs created by that need offer
an opportunity to act now at reasonable cost and avoid crisis
action in the future.
Business / Industry Development Division • Western Regional Office .
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801, 704/251.6246, Fax: [phone] ���
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

1
Mr. David McIntosh
Page 2
April 1 , 1993
At this point the planned location with discharge into
the South Toe downstream of Micaville appears suitable
according to Mike Parker. While there can be no guarantee of
a permit at this time, only circumstances that are now
unforeseen would appear to prevent it. In any event , the best
way to act is to make permit application immediately.
Mike Parker has provided the enclosed application package
based on ownership by Burnsville. Two permits, one for the
treatment plant itself and the other for the construction of
the sewer system are required. Mike assures me that he will
be available to aid you during the process and you can look to
this office and our department for whatever aid we might be
able to provide to make sure there is smooth passage when any
multiple agencies of the state might be involved.
At the time of our meetings in Raleigh, our Finance
Center had not yet received Rick Herndon' s letter, and Bruce
Strickland has been involved in dealing with many anticipated
changes from' the Federal level but I will follow up with him
as °soon as possible. At any time if you should face a
situation that you feel I would be helpful , please call on me .
Sincerely,
Ray urrows
Retention/Expansion Specialist
RB:mh
Enclosure
cc: Rick Herndon
Grier Lackey
Mike Parker
Bruce Strickland

i It
`t�)!' .S
off_
T `
4
f