McDowell Co. - Catawba River Environmental Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
MCDOWELL COUNTY
CATAWBA RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
AUGUST 1986
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management

Table of Contents
Page No.
Introduction
1
List of Preparers
2
Summary
3
Conclusions
5
Recommendations
6
Environmental Assessment
7
APPENDIX A: Estimate of Effects on Lake James
A-1
APPENDIX B: Archaeological Survey
B-1
APPENDIX C: List of Other Submitted Materials
C-1
Which Are Available for Inspection

INTRODUCTION
P_urn ze_,of_thi&_docume t- This environmental assessment is required
by the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 10).
Any action - involving expenditure of public moneys for a project
significantly affecting the .quality of the environment requires an
environmental assessment which includes maps and brief descriptions of:.
1. need for the proposed activity,
2. reasonable alternatives to the recommended course of action,
3. methods proposed to mitigate or avoid significant adverse
environmental impacts, and
4. environmental effects of the proposed activity and alternatives.
In this case the action- is the issuance of an NPDES (National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit for a 250000 gallon per day
wastewater treatment plant proposed to be built by McDowell County on the
Catawba River north of Marion. The plant will be built with public moneys.
This environmental assessment has been prepared to aid in the making of the
decision to issue or deny this permit.
.repar_ation__of__ hia d cum -n In accordance with the policy of the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM), the applicant (McDowell County)
has been required to prepare the draft of this environmental assessment.
They were provided with explicit guidance as to its scope, contents, and
organization, and with a'model environmental assessment which was recently
required for a different project under the construction grants program.
McDowell County contracted with its engineering consultant (Jensen
Engineering) who in turn used subcontractors for certain specialized
sections. (See list of preparers on page 2.)
Once the County, submitted its draft, the draft was reviewed
systematically within DEM and by other divisions in.this department. Their -
comments have -been used by DEM to draft pages 1 through 6 of this report.
The resulting complete draft is now ready for public review, public
comment at the public hearing on the NPDES permit, and interagency review
through the State Clearinghouse. Its accuracy and completeness are the
responsibility of DEM.
What__next2z At the public hearing on the NPDES permit, public
comments will also be taken on the accuracy 'and adequacy of this
environmental assessment. Band on these comments, DEM will decide on one
of .two courses of action:
I. Make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)v and send it to
the State Clearinghouse for review. Once that review is complete, the
permit could be issued.
II. Find that the EA revealed issues that require .a comprehensive
environmental impact statement (EIS). This would probably require at least
a six month delay in acting on the permit.

Contact gn_ern9ng_this - ocumen+. Comments or questions concerning
this environmental assessment should be directed to: Mr. Jim Smith, DEM,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611, [phone]. Comments or questions
concerning the public hearing in the NPDES permit should be directed to Mr.
Arthur Mouberry at the same address and telephone number.
List -of Prepa__rer
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Asheville Regional Office - Roy Davis
Forrest Westall
Gary Tweed
Water Quality Planning Branch - Jim Smith
McDowell County - Don King
City of Marion - Earl Daniels
Jensen Engineering (consultant to McDowell County)
George Jensen, P. E.
Michael Brookshire
Applied Ecological Consulting (subcontractor to Jensen Engineering)
Alan Haney
Robin Pursell
Chuck Sams
Neil Thomas
Archeological Consultants - C. Michael Parker
Linda G. Hall
2

SUMMARY
McDowell County proposes to build a 250,000 gallon per day (GPD)
wastewater treatment plant to serve the area of mixed development in the
"Five Lane" unincorporated area of North Marion. The plant would occupy a
one-half acre site. (See site and vicinity maps in appendices A and B.)
The plant would use conventional technology of proven reliability. It
would discharge -into the Catawba River at a point about one-half mile
above Lake James.
_The Catawba River at this -point is classified C and has no
significant water quality problems. The wasteload allocation run by DEM
for a 250,000 GPD discharge from the proposed plant gave effluent limits of
30 parts per million (ppm) by biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 30 ppm of
ammonia. These are the least restrictive limits allowed and indicate the
large assimilative capacity of the Catawba River at this point.
Lake James is an impoundment with good water quality. Using a
trophic rating scale of 1 (best) to 6 (worst), DEM rates Lake James a 2,
and the lake has experienced no algal problems. Lake James is primarily
used for hydroelectric generation but supports extensive recreational uses.
In May 1986 a nomination of Lake James for reclassification as an
Outstanding Resource Water was rejected by DEM on the grounds that its
water quality was less than excellent.
The present situation in the Five Lane creates significant water
quality and health problems, especially in Garden Creek, a tributary to the
Catawba River. Private septic tanks, sand filters, and package plants are
failing. The local health department has halted further development in the
area and some commercial establishments are now required to pump and haul
their wastes.
The proposed wastewater treatment plant will! occupy a one-half acre
site on the north bank of the river and adjacent to the right-of-way for
the proposed US 221 bypass around Marion. It lies within the 100 year
flood zone, and the plant would have to be built on 6-8 feet of compacted
fill to raise it above flood level. The soil is suitable for construction.
The site is now fallow agricultural fields.
1. Preferred alternative: build a new 250,000 gallon per day
wastewater treatment plant on the _Great Meadows site to discharge into
Catawba River above Lake James.
2. Do nothing; continue to use package plants, septic tanks,
sandfilters, and pump and haul.
3. Pump wastewater via a new forcemain across the Catawba River to
the existing Marion Wastewater Treatment Facility which discharges into
Corpening Creek which joins the Catawba River below Lake James..
4. Convert failing septic tanks and sandfilters to small private
wastewater treatment facilities (package plants).
3

Comtaar_ison
Impact
of _Major_ Impacts_
of Alter
ative A - _to -
Alt. 4
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt, 3
New WWTP
Do Nothing
Pump to Marion
Pkg Plants
Garden Creek
Improve
Still problem
Improve
Improve', may be
water quality
reliability probs
Five Lane
Eliminate
-Still problem
Eliminate
Reduce/eliminate
health problem
,Treatment
Excellent
Very poor
Excellent
Uneven,
reliability
potentially poor
Development
Lift
Continue
Lift
Lift
moratorium.
Corpening
No effect
No effect
Slight effect
No effect
Creek water
within permit
quality
limits
Catawba River
Slight effect
Still problem
Maximum
Some improvement
water quality
improvement
possible
above Lake James
Lake James
No measurable
Present effect
Improve an
Some improvement
water
change
not measurable
undetectable
possible
quality-
amount
Marion WWTP
Uses none
Uses none
Significant
Uses none
capacity
impact
_Capital cost
$730,000
$0
$1,5009000
.$0 public,
>$730,000
-Other types of -impacts were considered and found to be not adverse
(endangered species, prime agricultural, archeological and historic value,
air quality, groundwater quality, noise levels, water. supplies, and fish
and wildlife and' their habitats) or not applicable (wetlands, parklands,
other.public lands, scenic areas, recreational areas, shellfish, and toxic
substances). Detailed information on these items is listed in. Appendix C
and is available"for inspection at DEMrs offices in Raleigh.
Note _ on ,Nutrient Models,
This environmental assessment uses the Reckhow and Clements model for
phosphorus and tte Reckhow model for nitrogen in Lake James...The'error in
these models - which estimate annual mean nutrient concentrations - is
large enough to obscure any real differences among the scenarios tested. A
more appropriate analysis would have modeled the change in nutrient.
concentrations relative to existing lake conditions as shown by monitoring
data. Nevertheless,. DEM's staff analysis' agrees with the county's
consultant that the effects of.nutrients from a well -operated 25000 GPD
plant will produce an undetectably small change in Lake James' trophic
4

state. Details of these questions may be read in the staff memoranda by
Clements and Dodd which are included in Appendix A of this assessment.
Future expansion of this proposed plant beyond 250,000 GPD will require
application of the more appropriate model.
In any less clear-cut case, this modeling problem would have
invalidated the purposes of an environmental assessment. Care should be
exercised in model selection and application. Advice on appropriate models
is available from the Technical Services Branch of DEM at [phone].
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison of the relative impacts and costs of the four alternatives
leads to the following conclusions:
1. Alternative 1, the proposed new 250,000 GPD wastewater treatment
plant discharging to the Catawba River, will have no detectable short-term
or long-term impacts on Lake James or any unacceptable impacts on other
resources.
2. Alternative 2, to do nothing, will cause further impairment of
water quality in Garden Creek and the Catawba Rivers, 'fail to eliminate the
existing health hazard, and not lift the moratorium on development in the
Five Lane Community.
3. Alternative 3, to pump wastewater through a new forcemain to the
existing 3 MGD Marion Wastewater Treatment Plant which discharges to
Corpening Creek, will have no effect (or possible an undetectable
improvement) on Lake James, will eliminate the existing problems in the
Five Lane, and will avoid new construction for a while. However, it is
more expensive and would hasten the day when the Marion WWTP reaches
capacity flow without giving basis for expansion to handle the growth
projected for the Five Lane community. Capital costs would be about twice
as much as for Alternative 1.
4. Alternative 4, to encourage conversion to privately owned and
operated package plants to replace all failing systems and serve future
development in the Five Lane community, cannot guarantee long-term
stability and consistent environmental protection. NPDES permitting of
discharges into :Garden Creek would be difficult or impossible because of
Its severe impairment. Proper operation and maintenance would be difficult
to enforce. Capital costs, although entirely shifted to the private
sector, would be expected to exceed the cost of alternative 1. Lake' James
would be protected better than by Alternative 2 but -Less well than by
Alternatives 1 and 3.
5

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve Alternative 1 and issue NPDES permit for 250,000 GPD
discharge from a new McDowell County Catawba River Wastewater Treatment
Plan.
2. Although the construction site is less than one acre, require
full compliance (plan approval and inspections) with the requirements of
the sedimentation and erosion control program.
3. Require site landscaping that will effectively screen the
facility from the Catawba River and from the proposed US 221 bypass.
4. McDowell County is encouraged to reviseiland use plans for the
vicinity of the Five Lane community and to adopt a nonpoint source
pollution control strategy to protect the Catawba River and Lake James.
1.1

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MCDOWELL COUNTY
CATAWBA RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions, Funding Sources
The proposed project_ area consists of the commercial corridor located
along both sides of the "Five Lane" section of U.S. 70-221 between the
City of Marion, North Carolina and the Catawba River and adjacent
commercial and residential areas which could also be serviced by any
new wastewater collection system -built to serve the commercial
corridor.
The proposed treatment plant will .be.located on a 1/2 acre site
adjacent to the Catawba River and approximately 1,300 linear feet
upstream of U.S. 221-70 and. N.C. 226, and the'Catawba River Bridge and
adjacent to the proposed•Marion By-pass. See maps 1 and 2 in the
Appendix.
All residences and commercial and industrial facilities located along
the U.S. 70-221 corridor are currently being supplied with treated
water by the City of Marion but are not connected to or served by any
central sewage collection and treatment facilities. This lack of access
to centralized off -site sewage treatment facilities has limited the
potential growth of the area and has forced current occupants of the
area to rely upon on -site subsurface wastewater disposal systems
(septic tanks) for all their wastewater disposal needs. In some
instances the use of these on -site facilities has overtaxed the
assimilative capacities of the local soils and has resulted in'the need
for frequent and costly septic tank pumping.
While no water quality sampling was conducted as part of this project,
it is known that effluent from several of the overloaded ground
absorption systems is finding its way into the area's surface waters.
Because the entire area obtains its water from the Marion water system,.,
these inadequately treated sewage discharges.would not necessarily pose
a current hazard to public health and safety from a water use
standpoint but may indeed be a health hazard from contact or living
near affected areas.
The businesses and residents of the area have long recognized the need
for centralized,. off -site wastewater treatment. In June of 1978, the
proposed construction by the City of Marion of a sewer line, pump
station and discharge main project to serve the area was abandoned when
contractor's bids came in significantly in excess of the engineer's
estimate. Since that time, several business owners have considered the
construction of their own self -funded facilities and have approached
the City and County for assistance.
The McDowell County Board of Commissioners has long been aware of the
need for a centralized wastewater treatment system to serve this area.
The recent availability of State matching money, through Senate Bill 2
proceeds, has made it economically feasible for the County to pursue
7

the implementation of a treatment system. Therefore the McDowell County
Board of Commissioners have applied for an NPDES permit from the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development for
the discharge of 250,000 gallons per day of treated wastewater effluent
into the Catawba River.
The estimated construction cost of the proposed treatment plant and its
related collector lines is $730,000. Of this amount $365,000 will be
provided locally by the County with the remaining match of $365,000
being provided by the State via Senate Bill 2 funds. The County funds
have already been transferred to the City ofMarion because the City
will administer the funds.
B. Existing Environment
The immediate area to be serviced by the Catawba River Plant is located
along an approximately two mile stretch of U.S. Highway 70-221 and N.C.
226 in the Garden Creek area of Marion North Carolina. This area is
approximately 50 hectares in size and contains 44 businesses, 57
residences and 2 schools (City of Marion water records, 1985).
The soils in the study area consist of approximately 60% Hayesville
loam 2-10% slope and 40% Hayesville loam 10-25% slope (NC DNER, 1972).
The Hayesville loam soils consist of a brown loam surface and a friable
red clay subsoil. When these soils occur on steeper slopes, the soils
tend to be well drained with a thin surface layer (NC DNER, 1972).
These soils on slopes of <10% are generally good for most types of
urban land uses with moderate limitations which can be corrected (NC
DNER, 1972). When they occur on steeper slopes (>10%) they have severe
limitations for most land uses (NC DNER, 1972). These steeper slopes
also have severe limitations for septic tanks and moderate limitations
for sewer systems. On the moderate slopes the septic tank limitations
are moderate and the sewer limitations slight (NC DNER, 1972).
Approximately 35% of the land in the study area is undeveloped, 20%
residential, 6% transportation and utilities (including roads, utility
rights -of -way, etc.), and 4% industrial and trades (NC DNER, 1972). The
remaining area �s commercial. The undeveloped land is largely unsuited
for development,with septic tanks due to excessive slopes or soil
limitations (NC DNER, 1972).
The treatment plant itself will be located on Biltmore soil, as
determined by Larry L. Hendrix, District Conservationist with the Soil
Conservation Service. This soil is characterized as well to moderately
well drained soil on flood plains. It is not characterized as prime
farmland, it is.frequently flooded and has a high water table,
generally between 3.5 to 6.0 feet beneath the surface.
The proposed treatment plant site is within the defined 100 year flood
zone of the Catawba River. The McDowell County Flood Plain Management
Ordinance permits the construction of structures within the 100 year
flood zone but requires that they be flood proofed up to the
anticipated 100 year elevation. In the large, flat areas adjacent to
• the Catawba, the 100 year flood elevation is approximately 6 to 8 feet
above that of the stream bank, and therefore the proposed treatment

plant will be constructed on compacted fill to a suitable height above
this flood elevation.
Raising the treatment facility above the flood elevation will increase
its construction cost and require the use of a pump station to bring
flows from the lower.portions of the project.area into the plant. The
use of a submersible low area pump station will, however,.protect the
plant from overflows during flood periods.
The surface waters affected by this project are comprised primarily of
three (3) bodies: 1) Garden Creek, 2) Catawba River, 3) Lake James.
Garden Creek originates in and flows through the commercial five lane
area which comprises the bulk of the immediate service area for the
proposed treatment plant. As briefly discussed before, failing on -site
septic systems adjacent to Garden Creek contribute to its pollution and
ultimately to the pollution of the Catawba River and Lake James. This
fact is witnessed by the letter from Clifford Fields, District Health
Officer with the Rutherford -Polk -McDowell District Health Department,
included in the Appendix. Due to the fact that the City of Marion
provides water service to the immediate project area, we are not aware
of any specific ground water contamination resulting from the failure
of on -site wastewater treatment systems.
During the course of our study and investigation, we did not find nor
were we made aware of any particular water quality problems currently
being experienced in either the Catawba River or Lake James. In fact,
over the past several years, according to data on record at the Western
Regional Office of the Division of Environmental Management, the water
quality of Lake James has been improving, in respect to its trophic
level. This improvement was occurring even with a 2 MGD discharge into
the Catawba River from Old Fort Finishing in Old Fort, NC.
C. Existing Wastewater Facilities
As mentioned previously, with the exception of the wastewater treatment
plant serving the McDowell County Junior and Senior High Schools, there
are not any centralized wastewater treatment facilities within the
project area. The majority of wastewater treatment within the area is
provided by individual, on -site septic tank systems.
Many of the businesses and residences in the study area have a record
of septic system failure. Several of these septic tanks are currently
being pumped and.the contents trucked to the Greenlee Road section of
McDowell County where the estimated 4500 gallons/day of effluent is
distributed.on agricultural fields (Deter Laws, 1986). Many of the sand
filtration systems in the area are constructed less than three meters
from a major tributary stream (Deter Laws, 1986). Observations of raw
sewage on parking lot surfaces in the study area have been reported
(Jeter Laws, 1986). The high frequency of septic tank failure has
caused the McDowell County Sanitarian to Plt further development
within the study area (Deter Laws,.-1986).
1
Applied Ecological Services.report

D. Need for Proposed Facility - Population & Flow Projections
As stated in Mr. Clifford Fields' letter referred to earlier, growth
and expansion within the five lane corridor of the project area is at a
standstill due to the unavailability of land suitable for use as septic
tank drainfields. This restriction on growth potential is a major
factor in the need for centralized wastewater treatment facility. The
elimination of pollution sources to Garden Creek by the abandonment of
on -site septic tank systems is another factor illustrating the need for
this project.
Population
p projections from North Carolina Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, Division of Environmental.Management "Water Quality
Management Plan Catawba River Basin Sub -Basin 30," undated, indicate a
population projection for.Marion of 4,050 in 1990. When projections for
1980 were compared for the City of Marion with the North Carolina
Department of Revenue's 1980 Census list of Places with 1,000 or More
Population, the figures compared accurately. In the Management Plan,
3,700 was the projection for Marion for 1980. The 1980 Census lists
3,684. From this we conclude that the Management Plan's projection of
4,050 for 1990 is probably accurate. The 1990 projection represents a
9.5% increase in population over 1980 figures.
The fact that development in the five lane corridor has been at a
virtual standstill indicates that as soon as centralized sewage
collection and treatment facilities are available, there will be a push
to develop new and expanded facilities from the commercial sector to
serve the already increased population of the Marion area.
It is to be noted that the population figures given cover the.greater
Marion area which is primarily residential, while the project area is
primarily commercial and multi -family. Therefore, the wastewater needs
of the project area will develop somewhat differently than population
figures indicate. Population growth will only indirectly influence the
waste collection needs of the project area,'and extending population
growth figures to project future treatment requirements may not be
reliable.
Project area water billing records obtained from the City of Marion for
the meter reading period October 2 to November 5, 1985, indicated a
total 35 day waster usage of 1,343,900 gallons. Combined water usage for
the Junior and Senior High Schools was 465,500 gallons. The remaining
non -school commercial, residential usage was 878,400 gallons for the 35
day period. Assuming that school consumption occurs over a five day
week and that all other non -school water consumption occurs over a
seven day week, average daily consumption for the project area is
25,097 gallons per day, non -school days and 43,717 gallons per day,
school days.
It is anticipated that future wastewater treatment needs will be
affected by thefollowing factors;
1. Proposed Great Meadows Shopping Center.
10

The developers of the proposed Great Meadows Shopping
Center anticipate a future sewage flow of between 10,000
and 20,000 gallons per day.
2. Possible future abandonment of the combined Junior/.
Senior High School plant. This action would add an
additional 18,620 gallons per -day.
3. Additional business drawn to the area. Additional
development in and adjacent to the project area may be
anticipated because of the improved access to the area
which will occur with the completion of the Marion
by-pass, and the availability of several large tracts of
developable vacant land with access to the newly,
constructed sewer lines. Additional flows related to
these potential developments cannot be accurately
estimated at the present time.
4. Reestablishment of gravity drainage. At some future
time, upstream sewage flows now being diverted out of
the project area watershed to the Corpening Creek
wastewater treatment plant may be returned because of
retirement of existing pump stations, or future
shortages of treatment and discharge capacity at the
Corpening Creek plant. Additional flows related to these
events cannot be accurately estimated at the present
time.
Flow Summary: Minimum flows attributable to existing conditions equal
25,000 gallons per day. Anticipated quantifiable flows:
Junior/Senior High School 18,700 gpd
Great Meadows 120,000 gpd
Total anticipated quantifiable flow 63,700 gpd
Anticipated unquantifiable flows:
Additional business growth - unknown
Reestablishment of gravity drainage - unknown
It is recommended that an initial first stage treatment capacity of
100,000 gallons per day be provided with future plant expansion
provisions for flows up to 250,000 gallons per day.
E. Alternative Analyses
Basically there are three(3) alternatives considered to the proposed
method of providing sanitary sewer service for the project area. These
alternatives are: 1) do nothing, 2) pump wastewater to the Town of
Marion Wastewater Treatment Facility, 3) utilize small private
wastewater treatment facilities.
The do nothing option must always be considered, but in this case it is
clearly unacceptable. To do nothing would not only continue to restrict
growth and development of the area, it also would not alleviate the
documented cases of surface water pollution caused by failing septic
tank systems. If nothing is done, some businesses may be forced to
11

close or construct costly private treatment facilities, The cost of
this option, due to the limitation. of economic growth and the detriment
to the local environment, is unknown.
The option of pumping wastewater from the project area to the City of
Marion wastewater treatment facility has been given much consideration
in'the past. 1n factr plans and specifications for this alternative
were prepared for the City of Marlon and bids received in 1970, The low
bid received, approximately 1,2 million dollarsr was far in excess of
available funds and the project was abandoned,
The question of -this alternative today, in addition to its economic
feasibility, is the availability of treatment plant capacity at the
Town's Corpening Creek wastewater treatment facility, The Corpening
Creek plant has a treatment capacity of O MGA, At present, flow to the
plant averages approximately 2 MGA, The City of Marion is reluctant to
accept wastewater from outside its corporate boundary when there are
expanses of undeveloped property suitable for industrial or residential
use within their corporate limitsr which eventually will utilize the
Corpening Creek plant's reserve capacity, in fact, if a definitive
answer to this question was requested, all indications are that the
City would not accept wastewater pumped from the subject project area,
Allowing for inflation, a reasonable estimate for this option would be
1.5 million dollars,. Compared to the estimated cost of $73O,000 for
siting a plant on the'Catawba River,*the much greater assimilative
capacity of the Catawba River versus Corpening Creekr and the
insignificant impact of the proposed discharge on the Catawba River and
bake James, this option was ruled out,
The final option for providing sanitary sewer service to the project
area is by the utilization of small, private wastewater treatment
systems by individual businesses or groups o'f businesses. Although this
approach is possible, it is neither economically feasible nor desirable
from a regulatory standpoint, partly because the assimilative capacity
of Garden Creek is not large enough to handle the anticipated flows.
only certain of the existing businesses along the five lane commercial
corridor with failing septic systems could afford the expense of
constructing and operating a private wastewater treatment system, other
businesses would simply continue to pollute the area's -surface waters
with septic tank effluent until they are forced to cease their
operation, Likewise, each new business would have to bear the upfront
expense of constructing its own wastewater treatment facility. This
clearly would be a deterrent to new growth and expansion within the
project area,
As undesirable as this option is, it will be the alternative utilized
should the centralized treatment facility of the Catawba River be
rejected. From:�a regulatory standpoint this option is.undesirable due
to the additioniof numerous point source dischargers to be monitored.
With the limiteI manpower available to the Division of Environmental
Management for njonitoring point source discharges, clearly one
centralized wastewater treatment facility is more desirable than
12

numerous private dischargers. Also, the skill of the operators, the
level of maintenance, and the emphasis for quality operation of a
publicly owned wastewater treatment facility will most likely be
greater than the same afforded to a private facility.
It is difficult to project estimated costs for this option. We cannot
predict the number of existing businesses who will choose to install
private treatment facilities, nor can we estimate the number of new
businesses who will find it feasible to provide their own wastewater
treatment facility. However, it can generally be stated that a
centralized wastewater treatment facility is more cost effective, in
terms of treatment costs per gallon, than equivalent treatment capacity
in several smaller treatment plants.
F. Environmental Consequences
1. Changes in Land Use
The majority of the immediate project area, specifically the five lane
commercial corridor, is extensively developed. Implementation of a
centralized wastewater•treatment facility will not alter this land use.
It will provide for a more efficient use of property along the five
lane corridor, due to the release for other use of land being utilized
now for septic tank systems, but will not alter the overall land use,
and it should not create nonpoint pollution sources.
Area immediately adjacent to the proposed treatment plant site is
classified as a transitional district, between the intensively
developed commercial area and the undeveloped outlying rural areas.
Growth, both commercial and residential, is projected for this
transitional district. Construction of a centralized wastewater
treatment facility will enhance the prescribed land use of this area.
The area along the Catawba River presently used for agricultural
purposes may experience a change in land use due to the availability of
centralized wastewater treatment. This -change in land use will probably
take the form of commercial or residential development. This alteration
of land use, however, would have a positive impact on the water quality
of the project area. Agriculture is recognized as a primary nonpoint
source pollutor. Retirement of land from agricultural use would reduce
this nonpoint source of pollution.
2. Wetlands
Not applicable.
3. Habitat of Threatened or Endangered Species
According to a letter from V. Gary Henry, Acting Field Supervisor of
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, there
are no federally listed endangered or threatened plant -or animal
species in theimpact area of the project. A copy of this letter is
included in the Appendix.
13

4. Prime or Unique Agricultural Land
Construction of the proposed wastewater treatment plant will have
little effect on agricultural land.. The land adjacent to the proposed
treatment plant is already planned to become the Marion by-pass on the
east and the Great Meadows Shopping Center on the west. The plant
itself will be constructed on soil characterized as not meeting prime
farmland criteria. Approximately 900 linear.feet of interceptor sewer
line will be installed across prime agricultural land between U.S. 70
and the treatment facility. This sewer line will parallel the right-of-
way of the proposed Marion by-pass and will be of little consequence in
comparison to the road construction. In fact, if the land owner so
chooses, he may continue to use the sewer line right-of-way for
agricultural purposes.
5, Parklands
There are not any parklands immediate to the project area. As witness -
to this fact, included in the Appendix is a letter from Carol Tingley,
Parks Environmental Analyst of the State of North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Parks and
Recreation,
6. Public Lands Other Than Parks
There are not any public lands known immediate to the project -site.
7. Scenic Areas
There are not any designated scenic areas immediate to the project
site.
8. Recreational Areas
There are not any recreational areas immediate to the project site.
9. Archaeological and Historic Value
An archaeological survey of the proposed treatment plant site and the
900 foot connecting sewer line corridor was conducted by Dr. C. Michael'
Baker and Linda G. Hall. Based on their survey, Dr. Baker concludes
that the proposed project will not affect any significant
archaeological site in the area. A copy of Dr. Baker's report is
included in the Appendix.
10. Air Quality
The proposed wastewater treatment plant will cause no adverse effect on
the air quality,of the project area. A letter to this effect from V.
Jerry Hoyle, P.E., Regional Air Quality Supervisor, State of North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, is
included in the'Appendix.
11. Groundwater Quality
14

All wastewater and by-products of the treatment process at the proposed
treatment plant will be contained in either steel or concrete tankage.
In accordance with this, Donald Link, Hydrogeological Regional
Supervisor, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section,
has determined there will be no impact on the groundwaters of the
project area as a result of the proposed project. His letter.is
included in the Appendix.
12. Noise Levels
Abnormal but acceptable noise levels will be experienced during the
construction of the proposed project. These noise levels are common to,
normal construction practices and will not have a long-term detrimental
effect on the environment.
Noise levels experienced during the day-to-day operation of the
proposed treatment facility will be minimal and certainly
non -obstructive due to the type of -equipment planned for use at the
facility.
13. Water Supplies
Water service to the immediate project area)is provided by the City of
Marion. The City of Marion solely utilizes surface water sources, all
of which are located upstream of the proposed treatment plant
discharge. Thus, the proposed project will not have any effect on the
public water supply of the immediate project area. Also, our -protection
from contamination of the groundwater at the project site will ensure
the safety of any groundwater water supply within the project area.
The City of Morganton takes its water supply from the Catawbva River
downstream of our proposed treatment plant discharge. However, there
are two impoundments of the Catawba River between our proposed
discharge and the City of Morganton's raw water intakes, namely Lake
James and Lake Rhodhiss. Given the assimilative capacities of Lake
James and Lake Rhodhiss and the nature of our proposed discharge, the
City of Morganton's raw water supply will not be adversely affected by
the proposed project.
14. Shellfish and Their Habitats
Not applicable.:
15 and 16. Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats
Presently there are 33 NPDES permitted dischargers
Linville Rivers, tributaries to Lake James. These
from individual residences with insignificant flow
such as American Thread with a permitted discharge
cumulative total of these permitted dischargers is
not include old Fort Finishing plant which holds a
but is no longer in operation.
15
into the Catawba and
dischargers range
to major dischargers
of 2 MGD. The
5.6 MGD. This does
4.2 MGD NPDES permit

Despite the volume of these discharges, even when Old Fort Finishing
was in operation, the water quality of Lake James in terms of its
trophic state is excellent; the same is true .for the Catawba and
Linville Rivers. Nor has there been a significant detrimental effect on
wildlife or fish and their habitats as a result of these discharges.
We therefore conclude that the proposed discharge of 250,000 gpd (0.250
MGD) as proposed by McDowell County will not;have a detrimental impact
on fish and wildlife or their habitats.
17. Introduction of Toxic Substances
If constructed today, all wastewaters received for treatment at the
proposed wastewater treatment plant would be domestic in origin,
therefore toxic substances are not an initial concern. Should
industrial wastes be generated in the project area at some time in the
future, these wastes would have to be pretreated for removal of toxins
prior to their being discharged into the public facility. Such
pretreatment would be in accordance with local and State regulations.
18. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
Much concern has been expressed over the proposed project in regard to
its impact on the trophic state of Lake James. At present, on a scale
of 1 to 6, Lake James is rated as a 2 by the Division of Environmental
Management. The rating of 1 reflects the least potential for
eutrophication and is found only on remote mountainous lakes, while the
rating of 6 reflects the greatest potential for eutrophication. With.a
rating of 2 it can be stated that Lake James has excellent water
quality in regard to its trophic state;'
To ensure that the present water quality of Lake James is not
compromised by the proposed project, a study of the effect of the
proposed discharge on the water quality of Lake James was prepared by
Applied Ecological Consultants. This study utilized computer.modeling
to predict the effects of phosphorus and nitrogen loading from the
proposed project on the water quality of Lake James. The model
considers all nutrient input sources ranging from forestry, pasture and
crop sources to atmospheric sources.
Six scenarios were developed in order to adequately model the
phosphorus and nitrogen levels of Lake James before and after the
proposed wastewater treatment plant is constructed. The scenarios range
from present conditions without the proposed wastewater treatment plant
and without Old Fort Finishing, to a condition with Old Fort Finishing
discharging 4.2:MGD, the proposed project discharging 250,000 gpd along
with all other existing dischargers and nonpoint sources. This report
is included in its entirety in the Appendix.
Based on phosphorus model results and the NC Clean Lakes (1982) trophic
level classification scheme, Lake James should be classifid as
alphaeutrophic to mesotrophic. Nitrogen model results and trophic
ranges outlined.in Wetzel (1983) suggest a trophic state classification
of oligo-mesotrophic.
16

Model results suggest no significant changes in Lake trophic state for
either phosphorus or nitrogen from present conditions if the proposed
Catawba River plant operates at a flow rate of 250,000 gallons per day.
Although additional point source inputs will have an additive effect on
trophic conditions in Lake James, this plant alone will not
significantly affect Lake nutrient concentrations. Compared to the
total nutrient load the plant will contribute approximately 1.1% of
total phosphorus and 0.8% of the total nitrogen entering the Lake.
Thirty three other NPDES point sources contribute approximately 62% of
the phosphorus load and approximately 11% of the nitrogen load. This
averages to approximately 1.9% of the total phosphorus loid per point
source. For nitrogen the average is approximately 0.33%.
G. Mitigative Measures
The sewer collection lines for the gravity portion of the sewer system
will be constructed along highway rights -of -way. The proposed treatment
plant will be located in a planted pine section of formerly -farmed
land. The effluent line from the treatment plant will be located along
the proposed highway right-of-way line for the U.S. 70 Marion by-pass
to the Catawba River. Of the 1/2 acre plant site, approximately 1/4
acre of the property will be disturbed for construction and
installation of the proposed treatment plant.
There are no adverse impacts anticipated to threatened or endangered
plant or animal species. The proposed project activities will result in
limited temporary impacts to noise and dust levels. Construction
activities will cause some disruption of local traffic, but will be
minimized due to laying the sewage collection lines at the outside of
the travel surfaces of -the five lane: Crossing the five lane will be
performed by boring.under the highway as much as funds will allow. The
impact of fill for the proposed treatment plant will be minimized by
adherance to a sedimentation control plan. Since the treatment plant
will be located approximately 900 feet from the highway, there will be
very little visual impact from construction of the plant because of the
present tree cover of planted pines.
While the treatment plant itself will be located within the 100 year
flood plain, the plant will be located at such an elevation to be above
100 year flood. A pump station will be provided adjacent to the
proposed treatment plant to pump gravity flow sewage to the treatment
plant. This pump station will be flood proofed and manholes provided
with water proof covers and vents extending above the 100 year flood
level to prevent excessive flows being carried to the treatment plant
during extreme storm events where flooding may be a problem..
The majority of the sewer collection system will be constructed on
existing paved surfaces and therefore erosion will not be a problem.
Where the line runs west along U.S. 70 the excavations will be
backfilled, compacted and grassed over with a minimum disturbance of
the existing road right-of-way. We anticipate only one active creek
ibid.
17

crossing along the proposed route of the sewer line and outfall line.
Precautions will be taken to assure that the stream bed is restored to
its original grade. Proper construction methods will be followed to
ensure that no effluent exfiltrates from the line. The project will
require motorists to be temporarily inconvenienced by the disruption of
traffic. Roads and highways disturbed by construction will be properly
repaired.
The treatment plant itself will not be a hazard to groundwater
contamination because of its construction. The plant will have
disinfection facilities,. and discharged effluent will be handled in
such a way that there will be no -measurable levels of chlorine at the
discharge point.
G. Public Participation, Sources Consulted
For several years the residents and businesses along the five lane
corridor of U.S. 70 have been concerned with the lack of proper sewage
treatment facilities. In the Appendix is a copy of a petition to the
McDowell County Board of Comissioners to investigate improvements in
wastewater treatment for the area. As has been discussed in this
report, efforts by the City of Marion to provide facilities in 1978
were abandoned due to financial considerations. In the City of Marion's
initial efforts to have their present treatment facilities sited on the
Catawba River using EPA funding, pressure was brought by members of'the
Lake James property owners association which led to EPA refusing to
commit monies.
In early 1985, Mr. Ed Buchanan, representing the property owners in the
five lane area, approached an engineering firm to discuss the
feasibility of a private sewage treatment plant to serve the area. In
lengthy discussions with property owners, health officials, City,
County and State officials, support for the project has grown immensely
from that of earlier attempts. All of those consulted are realizing the
extreme difficulty these property owners have with failing systems,
high maintenance costs of their systems, possible health hazards, and
the virtual halt in the growth of the area and the effect of these
problems on the local economy.
A study for McDowell County by Jensen Engineering and Franklin R.
Schutz, P.E., in January, 1986, led to the recommendation of'the
proposed facility, its size and capacity.
April 18, 1986, Division of Environmental Management published Public
Notice of Intent to Issue State NPDES Permit for the subject project. A
copy of the draft NPDES Permit is included in the Appendix.
The City of Marion passed a resolution on July 15, 1986, allocating
funds for this project. A copy of this resolution is included in.the
Appendix.
Also included in the Appendix are several news articles concerning City
and County meetings and -public comments made during them concerning
need for the project, questions and opinions. According to these
18

articles, even the directors of the Lake James group are in agreement
with this project, considering the type and size of the system to the
constructed.
Please also refer in the Appendix to letters from the Rutherford -Polk -
McDowell District Health Department in support of this project.
In the desire to study the environmental impact of this project on the
Catawba River and Lake James in depth, a computer modeling of the
impact area was performed. This computer model was in an effort to
discover the worst case scenario and its effects upon the environment.
Results of this report are included in the Appendix.
Sources consulted and groups with whom meetings were held for
information and discussion about this project included:
Cities of Marion and Morganton, North Carolina
Counties of McDowell and Burke, North Carolina
Chambers of Commerce for the Marion and Morganton areas
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife. Service
Endangered Species Field Station
U.S. Department of Agriculture
soil Conservation Service
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Section
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Environmental Management Groundwater Section
Regional Air Quality
Division of Parks and Recreation
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
Dr. C. Michael Baker &.Linda G. Hall., Archaeological Consultants
Rutherford -Polk -McDowell District Health Department
Applied Ecological Consultants of Warren Wilson College
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Isothermal Regional Planning Commission
Sam and Byron Phillips, owners and developers of the proposed Great
Meadows Shopping Center
19

ESTIMATES OF EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
GARDEN CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
ON THE WATER QUALITY OF LAKE JAMES;
A PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN LOADING MODEL ANALYSIS
PREPARED FOR
JENSEN ENGINEERING
12 BROAD STREET
ASHEVILLE, NC, 28801
DATE: JULY 23, 1986
_ PREPARED BY:
APPLIED ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING
ALAN HANEY, PhD, ECOLOGIST
ROBIN PURSELL, ECOLOGIST
CHUCK SAMS, ECOLOGIST
NEIL THOMAS, ECOLOGIST
ao
Appendix A

EXECTUTIVE SUMMARY
Cross -sectional, "black box," empirical models were used to predict the effects of
phosphorus and nitrogen loading from a proposed wastewater treatment plant on the
receiving water body. The proposed wastewater treatment plant is located near the Garden
Creek section of Mcdowell County, NC. The receiving water body is Lake James located in
McDowell and Burke Counties.
Six scenarios were modeled. Two scenarios dealt with the present conditions of the
Lake and the nutrient inputs now flowing into the Lake. Three scenarios were concerned with
the effects of different flow rates on Lake nutrient concentrations. The final scenario was
modeled in order to show some perspective of the proposed waste water treatment plant to
recently closed Old Fort Finishing Plant. The Finishing Plant was a major point source
contributor to the Lake for many years.
Model results show that the proposed waste water treatment plant would increase
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in Lake James only slightly. Model results suggest
that there would be no significant changes in trophic state from the proposed waste water
treatment plant. Of the total nutrient load entering the Lake, the Garden Creek Plant will
contribute approximately 1.1 % of the phosphorus and 0.8% of the nitrogen.
In order to protect the water quality of Lake James a comprehensive watershed
management plan is suggested. A planning process which identifies the limitations of the
watershed, targets businesses and industry that would compliment those limitations and
provide for the needs of the residents of the watershed should be considered.
21

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE A- 1
DESCRIPTION OF LAKE JAMES AND ITS WATERSHED A- 1
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT A- 4
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MODELS A- 5
MODEL DESCRIPTION A- 6
ESTIMATION OF EXPORT COEFFICIENTS A-11
POINT SOURCE INPUTS A-18
RESULTS A-19
CONCLUSIONS A- 27
REI FENCES A- 28
22

PURPOSE
Public concern that operation of the proposed secondary sewage treatment plant to be
located in the Garden Creek section of McDowell County, North Carolina would potentially
esculate the eutrophication of Lake James has prompted the North Carolina NRCD
Commissioners to request further study of the effects of the proposed plant on Lake
eutrophication. The proposed plant will provide secondary treatment of sewage from an
area presently utilizing septic systems, some of which are now failing. When septic system
failure occurs, sewage runoff drains into a tributary paralleling NC 221 and US 70, enters
the Catawba river, and eventually enters Lake James.
The proposed secondary sewage treatment plant, hereafter called the Garden Creek
Plant, may reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the Catawba river and Lake James if it
replaces failing septic tanks within the area of service. Phosphorus is removed with
secondary treatment with only 20% efficiency, F i5 concentrated as a point source
pollutant at the sewage facility, and released into the Catawba river. Nitrogen is removed
more affectively than phosphorus with secondary treatment, therefore, nitrogen influent
levels may be reduced significantly by the Garden Creek Plant.
The questions to be addressed in this study are:
1. How will the proposed sewage treatment facility affect the trophic state of Lake
James?
2. How does the addition (or reduction) of nitrogen and phosphorus in the effluent of the
proposed sewage treatment plant compare to that of the areal loading
from other nutrient input sources?
DESCRIPTION OF LAKE JAMES AND ITS WATERSHED
Lake James is located in Burke and McDowell counties at longitude 81 ° 51', latitude 35`
44'. The watershed includes parts of Burke, McDowell and Avery counties covering an area
of 980 km2 (NRCD, 1982a). Lake James is the first major impoundment in the Catawba
River series. It was built in 1919 by Duke Power Company at the confluence of the Catawba
and Linville Rivers (NRCD, 1982a). The Lake is currently managed by Duke Power Company
for hydroelectric power and for recreation (NRCD, 1982a). Lake levels vary seasonally
according to management requirements.
The major tributaries to Lake James are the Linville, North Fork of the Catawba and the
Catawba rivers.. The Lake is also fed by Black, Forsythe, Paddy, Dales, and Bear Creeks. The
largest towns in the watershed are Marion and Old Fort.
The North Carolina Clean Lakes Classification of 1982 renks Lake James at 2 on a
A- 1
23

if
i r
FIGURE 1: MAP OF THE LAKE JAMES WATERSHED
(FROM NCDOT MAPS OF AVERY, BURKE,
AND MCDOWELL COUNTIES,1984)
TXYw
FOREST '
LAKE JAMES?�,-
\ , ` / Q-9 . i �• �,\,, irk-� + -. ;.R "v4_ ( .' -.
�.. 6 ' .�— . ill i✓
ttitul..GUI y �' s I' i r !� �-�'+ yc% 01' I 1 •l
MARION .r .
10
24

scale from 1-6, least to most enriched, The Lake is rated as oligo-mesotrophic (NRCD,
1982). Lake James is deep compared to most southeastern impoundments and currently has
relatively few eutrophication problems (Dingfield, gtg,. 1984).
LAKE DMENSfONS
Surface area 26.34 km2
Maximum depth 43 m
of mew. 356 xrn
106m3
Shoreline 152 miles
Drainage basin 98000 ha
(NRCD,1982a)
The climate of the area is typical of the piedmont - mountain region with mild
temperatures and moderate rainfall. The, temperature ranges from a winter average of 40.1
'F to a summer average of 76.2 'F. Precipitation is heaviest in the summer months (July)
and driest in the fall (November) with an annual average of 51.6 inches (NOAA, 1982).
TOPOGRAPHY - SOILS - VEGETATION
The watershed of Lake James lays both in the Appalachian Mountains and on the
Piedmont Plateau. The "slopes in the area range from 0 - 5% in -the flood plains and lower
valleys to 10 - 25% in the steepest portions of the watershed (McDowell County, 1982).
The Linville Gorge Wilderness area contains some of the steepest slopes. The streams
feeding into the Lake flow through .land characterized by a succession of rolling ridges and
intervening valleys,
The major soil types in the watershed are Cecil-Appling, Hayesville - Halewood and
Hayseville- Halewood- Ashe associations (Burke Soil and Water Conservation District,
1980; McDowell County, 1982). The Hayseville- Halewood association consists of
moderately deep 'upland soils which have grey -brown, friable, sandy loam and loam topsoils,
These are underlain with red to brown -yellow friable subsoils derived from schist and
gneiss patent materials. These soils generally occur on rolling topography and have
moderate limitations for septic systems, slight limitations for sewer systems and
construction activities, and are rated as good for agriculture and forestry (McDowell
County Land Use ;Plan, no date; Burke County Dept. of Community Development, no date). The
Hayeeville- Halewood- Ashe soils are stony, shallow upland soils generally on the steeper
slopes which are; derived from gneiss, schist, and granite parent materials.. This
association has severe limitations for septic systems and most construction activities,
A- 2
25

moderate limitations for sewage systems, and a poor to fair rating for agriculture and
forestry (McDowell County Land Use Plan, no date; Burke Soil and Water Conservation
District, 1980a). The Cecil- Appling association consists of moderate to deep upland soils
with gray, friable,. sandy loam topsoil and red to brownish -yellow, friable to firm subsoils
derived from granite and gneisses. These soils usually occur on the smoother topography of
the Piedmont. They,have slight to moderate limitations for septic, sewers, most
construction practices and a good to fair rating for agriculture and forestry (McDowell
County Land Use Plan, no date; Burke Soil and Water Conservation District, 1980a).
LAND USE IN THE WATERSHED
The majority of the land, 83.5%, in the watershed is forested, consisting of mixed
hardwoods and pines (NRCD, 1982a). A large portion of this land has commercial value and
is actively used. for silvicultural purposes (Dingfelder, glzi,. 1984). Agricultural uses
compose 10.1 % of the watershed (NRCD, 1982a). The major crops grown are corn, soybeans,
tobacco, hay, and vegetables. The majority of the tilled acreage is used for corn productior
and the untilled land for hay (Burke County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1980;
McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1982), Pasture land composes
approximately 3% of the total watershed. A comparatively small portion of the
watershed, 3.1 %, has been converted to urban land uses (NRCD, 1982a). Most of the
development in close proximity to the lake consists of low -density, single family housing
(Dingfelder, et al., 1984). It is estimated that only 1-5%0 of the residences within the
watershed are seasonal residences.
STUDY AREA
The area to be serviced by the Garden Creek Plant is located along an approximately 2
mile stretch of US Highway 2-21-226-70 in the Garden Creek area of McDowell. County,
North Carolina. This area is approximately 75 hectares in size and contains 44
businesses, 57 residences and 2 schools (Jensen Engineering,1986). See Figure Z.
The soils in the study area consist of approximately 60% Hayesville loam 2-10% slope
and 40% Hayesville loam 10-25% slope (NC DNER,1972). The Hayesville loam soils consist o
a brown loam surface and a friable red clay subsoil. When these soils occur on steeper
slopes, the soils tend to be well drained with a thin surface layer (NC DNER,1972). These
soils on slopes of�< 10% are generally good for most types of urban land uses with moderate
limitations which can be corrected (NC DNER,1972). When they occur on steeper slopes
(>10%) they have severe limitations for most land uses (NC DNER,1972). These steeper
A- 3
MI

GARDEN CREEK f!
Iumr4c.I ° llil
1s h
PUP. 1,161 '�• 'y / II /
I
LIM
\ 1 C
PROPOSED SITE
WWTP/
o• •u .• l; ' Y li - G .•C%'•T 7!wl i t.:.. \ ,RI „ !ta yea n»/ 07
-,r _ ." • if' "�•.. Isis , UI7 li1L lilt Isu „ �q
jS cS•`. ' q7s o 111
Litt 07
.uv f qLX ,:•! 0 ]IV7 lirl
1•ll 1\ rooi i 13a1 tlii Illl� 0
b !
.o! � o/
,1 Lso• rb °•• 'I�- 1fa7 IiN7 ^Ii717
ll)1�
...e ' �p ull u. i �. •' JZl!
°' �\ � � ; /; •',•� ]i off- ^,.•. , 0'1 „ 1 (J�
N -.\ {,,ii I�':•/ ylo 1F� MA
RION "' M �o•�Jl f o 1�
i -.3 � J• ` 17w s7 /�f � a }�r- rOP. 3,684 •°� �'�.�.'� lil oa ./a
- - - 'a., '.y \q:1 7o r w �eF %y _ '°•: ���• ae ° 70.Is d " c
!0°
` 4 '. ►t 1•rir`�.liI`' + Ls try r+o /%/ .}:>`;'.`12L:. a : I1 17771.7s lZil + .•1Ztt
ln, •; 'fai'•. � � y .'y �� .5 '•I.S l / v lio} y`� 1. 8•Ir
��+01 / .�, pn altllRV n m.' EAST MARIQN
'`• fi,...,,::r `„i %`'• !Imo
u
1711 f- - :!' °� $ y'r�� !/m )UNINC.)
t rr`• 1L POP. 1.851
:'� '+ !_cl.r C,*' .• \ /I o Oa liltsr
i.
7 D 1i1 �',i1f ,` 11 0 •!.. uJf .�', t44 !74+ :} ': 17 ILi
^���� O /. �`�. .e 0. ; /f,� IlU• !' .�• l776, .fR !I� O 14 1El!
•:• l: .. Ci4 711i �J Im L
��� �. ti+llr•I •.I .77 , •,J '�J\ " / � " .sd:.:5 �!` `t. �', 9•p� - ` ,� 70 1111
e
• • f F«t 7� `� Its: 1,L �
FIGURE 2: MAP OF THE STUDY AREA ALONG US HIGHWAY 221-226-70 _>
IN THE GARDEN CREEK SECTION OF MCDOWELL COUNTY, NC =,�17 `', _ an
(FROM NCDOT MAP OF MARION AND VICINITY,1984)Vm
t == 31Im
- .17
uu
SCALE • - � Ae
1 MIIE
_ _ 0 ..... .... . ... 4� 7

slopes also have severe limitations for septic tanks and moderate limitations for sewer
systems. On the moderate slopes the septic tank limitations are moderate and the sewer
limitations slight. (NC DNER,1972)
Approximately 35% of the land .in the study area is undeveloped, 20% residential, 6%
transportation and utilities (including roads, utility right of ways, etc.), and 4% industrial
and trades (NC DNER,1972). The undeveloped land is largely unsuited for development due
to excessive slopes or soil limitations (NC DNER,1972).
Many of the businesses and residences in the study area have a record of septic system
failure. Several of these septic tanks are currently being pumped and the contents trucked
to the Greenlee Road section of McDowell county where the estimated 4500 gallons/day of
effluent is distributed on agricultural fields (Jeter Laws,1986). Many of the sand
filtration systems in the area are constructed less than three meters from a major
tributary stream (Jeter Laws, 1986). Observations of raw sewage on parking lot surfaces
in the study area have been reported (Jeter Laws, 1986). The high frequency of septic tank
failure has caused the McDowell County Sanitarian to halt further development within the
study area (Jeter Laws, 1986).
PROPOSED WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT (Garden Creek Plant)
The proposed Garden Creek Plant site is located in the center of McDowell County near
the intersection of US Highway 70-221 (McDowell County Board of Commissioners, 1986).
The facility will serve the immediate needs of the high school and existing businesses.
Present needs are estimated at a flow rate of approximately 50,000 GPD. Anticipated future
needs for an additional 50,000 GPD include the following uses: (1) service to the proposed a
shopping center; (2) accomodation of the combined Junior -Senior High School wastewater
as a result of probable abandonment of their present facility; (3) service for present and
future residences,of the study area; (4) re-establish gravity drainage of septic effluent*
now diverted to Corpening Creek WWTP which will lead to retirement of existing pump
stations and elimination of future shortage of the treatment and discharge capacity at the
Corpeniing Creek WWTP (McDowell County Board of Commissioners, 1986).
The Public Works Preapplication Form, ED 101 D, states that the proposed WWTP
facility would handle a maximum flow. of 100,000 GPD (McDowell County Board of
Commissioners, 1986). The design capacity flow rate for the facility is 250,000 GPD
(Jensen Engineering,1986). Nutrient removal efficiencies for the facility are as follows:
Nitrogen Removal 85%; Phosphorus Removal 20% (\Jensen Engineering, 1986).
A- 4
28

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MODELS
Two nutrient models were used in this study. The phosphorus model was developed
by Reckhow and Clements (1983). The nitrogen model was developed by Reckhow (1986).
These models were developed to predict phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in
southeastern United States lakes.
The models used are "black -box," input-output, empirical models which relate
nutrient loading to watershed characteristics and human activities. The nutrient inputs
are integrated with environmental variables within the lake to predict mean nutrient
concentrations in the lake.
Phosphorus Model
Reckhow and Clements (1983) phosphorus model is a two. variable, cross -sectional
model designed to predict present and future phosphorus concentrations in southeastern
lakes. The model is based on a study of 42 lakes in 4 southeastern states (Virginia,
Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina). Most lakes used in developing this model are
artificial impoundments with low retention times and high flow rates.
TABLE 1: DATA SET CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PHOSPORUS MODEL
VARIABLES
A(km2)
Z(m)mean depth
_ TW(YO
L(9/m2)
. rOF0=011 OW 7L
0.81
19.74
447.59
1.50
9.35
41.30
0.016
0.118
1.65
0.06
4.23
93.3
qs(m/yr) 2.3 66.65 650.20
R -0.11 0.41 0.89
P(in):(mg/I) 0.015 0.063 0.259
P conc. (mg/I) 0.007 0.040 0.145
* PHOSPHORUS NPUTAND MODEL CONCENTRATION ESTIMATIONS
A-5.
29
LATE JAMES
WEAN
26.34
13.5
0.60
*2.64-13.27
22.67
NA
*0.12-0.37
*0.032-0.102

u
Nitrogen Model
The southeastern lakes nitrogen model (Reckhow,1986) is a two variable,.
cross -sectional model designed to predict present and future' nitrogen concentrations in
southeastern lakes. It was fit to 47 lakes located in Alabama,. Georgia, Maryland,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The
southern lakes nutrient models were chosen over other models because the characteristics
of Lake James fall within the data sets used to develop these models.
TABLE 2: DATA SET CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NITROGEN MODEL
DATA SET CHARACTERISTICS
LAIEJAMES
VARIABLES MNMUV
N®L1M
MAX"
MEAN
N conc (mg/I) 0.230
0.720
0.789
2.300
-0.420
N in (mg/1) 0.525
1.149
1.230
2.891
-0.670
Ln 2.80
55.7
141-.0
972.0
-15.00
Tw 0.016
0.203
0.432
3.20
0.60
qs 2.26
38.1
118.0
605.0
22.67
Z 1.50
10.1
11.0
35.1
13.5
Rn 0.01
0.33
0.35
0.68
NA
MODEL DESCRIPTION
In this study the nutrient lake concentrations, phosphorus and nitrogen were
calculated using procedures outlined in Reckhow et al: (1980), Reckhow and Clements(1983)
and Reckhow (19$6). Below are the phosphorus and nitogen loading models described in the
previous section.
P= [0.130(Pin)0.717] + [Tw0.278]
N = Nin T 1 + 0.67(Tw)-4.75
where:
P = lake phosphorus concentration
N = lake nitrogen concentration.
A- 6
30

Nutrient influence concentrations, Pin and Nin , are estimated by the same
procedure. The export coefficients which are used to define each individual nutrient's
influence characteristics will vary according to the nature of the nutrient (P or N) and
according to environmental conditions (export coefficients are defined later in this section).
This general estimation procedure is outlined below. The hydrolic retention time estimate,
Tw, is the same for both models. P and N in the above models are lake phosphorus
concentrations (mg/1) and lake nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) respectively.
The nutrient influence (Pin and Nin) is estimated by the equation
(Pin or Nin) = L/qs
where:
L = the total areal mass loading
qs = the total annual volumetric flow through the lake.
qs was calculated using the following formula
qs = Q/Ao
where:
Q = (Ad x r) + (Ao x Pr)
and where:
Ad = watershed area
r = total annual runoff
Ao = lake surface area
Pr = mean annual net, precipitation.
L was estimated by the equation:
L = M/Ao
where:
- M= (Ecf x areaf) + (Eccr x areacr) + ( Ecp x are.ap)
+. (Ecp x areau) + (Ecatm x Ao) + [(Ecst x no. capita -years) x
(1-S.R.)] + PSI
and where:
M = total mass nutrient loading
Ecf = forest nutrient loading coefficient
Eccr= crop -land loading coefficient
Ecp= pasture nutrient loading coefficient
A-7
31

Ecu= urban nutrient loading coefficient
Ecatm= atmosphereic nutrient loading (wet and dry) coefficient
Ecst= septic tank coefficient
Ao= area lake
S.R.= soil retention coefficient
PSI= point source inputs.
Lake retention time, Tw, was estimated from the equation:
Tw = WO,
where:
V = lake volume
Q = inflow water volume to the lake.
This equation includes nutrient inputs (phosphorus or nitrogen for the respective
models) for the four major land uses, wet and dry atmospheric inputs, septic tanks and
point sources. High, low and most likely coefficients were chosen to allow for uncertainty
in the range of expected nutrient runoff or inputs to the lake. Table 3 shows the values
chosen for these loading coefficients and the areas of each land. use.
The nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the lake can be estimated by using the
calculated values for Pin, Nin, and Tw, in their respective models.
Error Analysis
An error analysis was performed on all predicted nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen)
concentrations. There are two sources of error involved with this model, uncertainty within
the model and uncertainty associated with nutrient loading. The error terms are presented
within 55 and 90% confidence limits.
Model error
` For the phosphorus model:
Sm+ = antilog [log P(ml) + Smlog]- P(ml)
Sm- = antilog [log P(ml) + Smlog]- P(ml)
13

Sm+ = antilog' [log N(ml) + Smlog]- N(ml)
Sm- = antilog [log N(ml) + Smlog]- N(ml)
where:
Sm+= Positive model error
Sm-= Negative model error
P(MI) or N(ml)= most likely nutrient concentration
Error associated with nutrient loading was calculated using the following
formulas:
For the phosphorus model:
SI+= [P(high) - P(low)1/2
SI-= [P(ml) - P(low)]/2
For the nitrogen model:
Sl+= [N(high) - N(low)]/2
SI-= [N(mi) - N(low)]/2
where:
SI+ = positive loading error
SI- = negative loading error
P(high) or N(high) = high nutrient concentration
P(ml) or N(ml) = most likely nutrient concentration
P(low) or N(low) = low nutrient concentration
A- 9
33 .

Total error
Total positive and negative uncertainty were calculated by combining the error terms
calculated above using the equations below:
(St+)2 = (Sm+)2 + (SI+)2
(St-)2 = (Sm')2 + (SI')2 1
where:
St+= total positive uncertainty
SI+= total positive uncertainty
To. express the uncertainty or error terms as confidence limits the following formulas
were used:
For phosphourus:
Prob [(P(ml) - St') 5 P <- (P(ml) + St+)] >_ 0.55
' Prob [(P 2St' -< P 5 P + 2St+ > 0.90
(ml) ' ) ((ml) )l -
For nitrogen:
Prob [(N(ml) - St') <- N 5 (N(ml) + St+)] z 0.55
Prob [(N(ml) - 2St-) <- N < (N(ml) + 2St+)] >_ 0.90
A- 10
34

ESTIMATION OF EXPORT COEFFICIENTS
In the following section the procedure used to choose nutrient export coefficients will
be outlined. Assumptions, when made, are defined and any special considerations for each
step are noted.
Watershed Data
The areas of each land use, watershed areas and lake quality data was obtained from
North Carolina Clean Lakes Survey 1982. The areas were confirmed.using USGS maps and
county soil manuals. Major tributaries and watershed. bounds were determined by using USGS
7.5 minute topographical maps. Soil and forest types were obtained from McDowell and
Burke county soil and land development manuals. Personal visits were conducted to
determine any major inputs or special areas of interest and to confirm data.
Export Coefficients
The values for the export coefficients for nutrient runoff from different types of land
use were chosen from the extensive list in Reckhow et al.. (1980). A subset of coefficients
which reflect the climatological and phisical conditions simiar to those in the Watershed
are listed in Tables 4-8. The high, low and most likely coefficients represent those
considered to be most characteristic of the Watershed . Table 3 shows the export
coefficients selected for the Lake James watershed.
A- 11
35

TABLE 3: NUTRIENT EXPORT COEFFICIENTS FOR THE LAKE JAMES WATERSHED
PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN
land use area low most likely high -low' most likely. high
Ecf
109094
0.035
0.155
. 0.275
1.37
2.82
3.16
Eccr
31689
0.40
1.30
2.21
3.29
7.86
12.42
Ecp
6895
0.12
0.14
0.16
2.41
3.46
3.83.
Ecv =
4611
0.43
0.83
1.23
1.56
3.00
4.00
Ecat =
0.28
0.41
0.54
3.00
3.53
4.00
Ecst =
1.00
1.478
2.00
4.00
4.75
6.00
(kg/capita-yr)
PSI point source 4.8 8.0 16.0 3.0 6.0 12.75
(k9/yr)
S.R. soil retention 0.50 0.375 0.25 0.90 0.75 0.50
Capita -years 26991.51
Forest export coefficients
The range of listed forest export coefficients is narrow and the variation is largely
determined by forest type and age, soils, climate, and topography (Reckhow et al., 1980).
Silvicultural practices and susceptability to forest fires were also considered in choosing
the coefficients.
The Lake James watershed has two distinct types of forest cover.' In Pisgah National
Forest the forest cover is predominantly mixed pine -hardwoods and the forest is largely
undisturbed (Tom Wynn, District Forester, 1986). The soils in this area are thin and rocky
with steep slopes.' The other forest type in the watershed is composed predominantly of
pines on thicker soils than those mentioned above, with moderate slopes and fewer rocks.
This area has one of the highest rates of forest fire incidence in the region (Tom Wynn,
District Forester, 1986). Much of the land in pine forest is owned by Cresent Land and
Timber Co. :which;clearcuts approximately.1200 acre_ s every three years. (Dingf elder et al.,
1984): Forest export ccoefficients were. chosen to reflect these factors.
A-12:
36

Table 4. Nutrient Export Coefficients from Forested Watersheds
Land use
Precip.
cm/yr
Runoff
cm/yr
Location Soil Type
Total P.
k a/y.Lkg/halyr
Total N
Reference
mixed pine/
164.0
48.7
Eatonton, Ga —
0.275
—
Krebs, Golley 1977
hardwood
Decid.hard
88.90
32.0
Coshocoton,O. silt loam
0.035
2.82
Taylor et al, 1971
wood/Pine
(1.37-3.16)
Oak/Hickory
157.1
94.65
Walker Branch, Tn —
0.025
2.00
Henderson et al 1977
Oak/Hickory 136 70.7 Walker Branch, Tn — - 3.10 Henderson,Harris 1973
Table 4 shows the range of potential coefficients for forest nutrient exports. For
phosphorus, the "high " coefficient was selected from data collected at Eatonton, Georgia.
This was based on similar forest types, topography, precipitation, and runoff data for both
watersheds. The "low " coefficient was chosen from the Coshocoton, Ohio watershed. This
choice was based on watershed similarities of forest cover and rainfall. The "most likely"
coefficient is an average between the high and low export coefficients.
The export coefficients for nitrogen loading also were chosen from the Coshocoton,
Ohio watershed data. The high, low and most likely coefficients are derived from the range
reported in the Ohio data for nitrogen exports.
Crop export coefficients
The export coefficient for crops was determined using information on crop type,
fertilization practices, soils, tillage practices, and climatological data. The major crops in
this areaare corn, hay, soybeans, orchards and miscellaneous vegetables.
A-13
37

Table 5. Agricultural Nutrient Export Coefficients
Land use
Precip.
cm/yj
Runoff
cm/vr
Location
Soil Type Total P
kp-IhW=
Total N
kp-IhWZ
Reference
corn
107.7
13.0
Waddnville,Ga
sandy loam 2.121
12.42
Smith et al, 1978
254 54 -
sandy clay loam
corn
87.39
—
northern Ala..
silt loam 0.40
3.29
Bradford ,1974
100 35 35
Soybeans
143.75
55.75
Holly Springs.
silt loam 17.54
46.50
McDowell et al 1978
0 29 56
Mississippi
Soybeans
143.75
27.9
Holly Springs
silt loam 2.6
5.1
McDowell et al 1978
no till
Mississppi
0 29 56 .
Table 5 shows the export coefficients that are most similar to condition in the Lake
James watershed. Because corn is the principle row -crop grown in this area, the export
coefficients for crop lands were based on the values for this crop.
-The rainfall data, soils, and fertilization practices for corn from Watkinville, Ga. arc -
similar to the Lake James watershed and were thus picked for the high coefficient for both
the nitrogen and the phosphorus. For the reasons mentioned above, the low coefficient for
both nutrients was chosen from the northern Alabama data. The most likely point was
averaged between the high and low coefficients for both phosphorus and nitrogen. . .
Pasture export coefficients
Table 6 Nutrient Exports from Pastured Watersheds
Land use Precip. Runoff Location Soil Type Total P Total N Reference
cm/vr cm/vr kg/ha/vr kg/ja(K
Brood cattle 164.0 61.8 Eatonton, Ga — 1.35 — Krebs, Golley 1977
000
Moderate 106.1 21.3 Waynesville — 0.14 3.46 Kilmer, et al 1974
dairy grazing North Carolina (0.12-0.16) (2.41-3.83)
36 16 8
Heavy 106.1' 26.4 Waynesville — 10.99 0.16 Kilmer, et al 1974
dairy grazing North Carolina (8.31-18.05) (0.11-0.7)
A— 14.
38

Table 6 shows the listed export coefficients from pastured land. Both the nitrogen and
phosphorus coefficients were chosen from the Waynesville, NC data because of the location
and similarity of rainfall data. The coefficients from the moderate dairy grazing data were
chosen to average the variation in potential grazing intensities within the watershed. The
high, low and most likely coefficients were chosen from the range listed for nutrient
exports.
Urban export coefficients
Urban export coefficients relate the nutrient export to poopulation density and the
percent of impervious surface for urban land use. Lake James watershed has a very small
area of urban land use, consisting of mostly small towns and townships. Based aaaaon visual
observation it was determined that urban areas within the watershed generally have
impervious areas of from 20 to 30 %. Because of the terrain and wilderness areas in the
watershed, housing densities are low.
Table 7 Nutrient Exports from Urban Watersheds
.Land use Precip. Runoff Location Soil Type Total P Total.N Reference
cm/vr cm/yr _fig//h yLg/halyr
Suburban 153.0 9.4 Plantation
Knoxville
Tennessee
60% resid. 108.2 16.26 Durham
19% Comm North
12% Instit. Carolina
10% unused
60%_resid._ 108.2 24.64 Durham
19% Comm North
12% Instit. Carolina
10% unused
23% 0.43 1.56 Betson, 1978
Impervious
dolmitic bedrock
29% 1.23 -- Bryan, 1970
Impervious
29% 5.26 — Colston, 1974
Impervious
Of the listed coefficients in Table 7 the high coefficient for phosphorus was picked
from the measurrrients of Durham, N.C. due to the similarities in rainfall and impervious
area. The low coefficient was chosen from Knoxville, Tennessee -data for the above reasons.
A-15
39

The average of the high and low coefficients was used to derive the most likely coefficient.
For nitrogen, the low coefficient was derived from the Knoxville data, the high and most
likely coefficients were estimated since no data was available from similar watersheds.
The .range was kept wide to cover the uncertainty of the nitrogen coefficients.
Atmospheric coefficients
Table 8 Nutrient Inputs From Atmospheric sources,
Location Total P Total Ni-Reference
kQ a/vr kQ/ha/vr
IZrhaa
Knoxville, Tn 3.67
Wisconsin —
Rhode Island 0.82
Eatonton Ga 0.192
Forest
Walker Branch Tn 0.54
Duke Forest NC 0.28
Coweeta NC 0.19
24.8
Betson et al 1978 .
13.13 Hoeft et al 1972
10.49 Miklas et al 1974
-- Krebs and Golley 1974
8.7 Henderson 1977
3.53 Wells et al 1972
Swank, Henderson 1976
The values for the low atmospheric coefficient for phosphorus and the most likely
coefficient for nitrogen were derived from information' gathered at Duke forest, Durham, N.0
The high coefficient for phosphorus was obtained from Walker Branch watershed in
Tennessee. Both of the forests are located near urban and agricultural areas, therefore the
atmospheric nutrient loading should be similar to the Lake James watershed. The most likely
value for phosphorus resulted from the average of the high and low coefficients. High and
low values for nitrogen were estimated from the most likely coefficient derived from the
Duke forest data.:
Septic tank and Soil retention coefficients
r.
Nutrients are removed from the wastewater by biological and chemical processes
within the septic tank and drain field. The septic tank coefficient for this study was chosen
from average values listed in Reckhow and Simpson (1980).
A-16
40

The soil retention coefficient, SR, measures the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus _
that will not reach the lake from the septic tank. This coefficient may range from 0 to 1.0.
If it is assumed that all of the nutrients that enter the septic tank are transported to the
lake, the SR value will be 0. If none of the nutrients leaving the septic tank enter the lake
the value will be 1.0. The chosen S.R. value is subtracted from 1 and the difference is used
to calculate the amount of nutrient reaching the lake.
Nutrient removal is influenced by the distance of the septic tank from thew . ater body,
soil characteristics, and slope. Although the soils in the Lake James watershed are fairly
well drained and have a clay subsoil which may bind nutrients, the soils are rated as being
severely to moderately limited for septic tank use due to excessive slopes, rocks or both
(BSWCD, 1980; MCSWCD, 1982). The majority, of nutrient loading from septic tanks is from
within 100 meters of the recieving water bodies (Reckhow et. al..1980), Septic systems
located along tributaries were included in this study for two reasons: (1) the steep slopes in
the watershed and (2) the large number of houses close to the tributaries. The soils along
the tributaries are alluvial soils that have very rapid drainage causing little nutrient
adsorption by the soil (NC DNER, 1972).
The total number of septic tanks in the watershed was obtained from 1980 Census
Data (Institute of Research in Social Sciences, UNC). From visually estimates of USGS 7.5
minute topographic maps of the area it was estimated that approximately half of the septic
tanks were not within 100 meters of a tributary and were therefore not counted for use in
model calculations.
There is a high rate of septic tank failure in the watershed and many septic tank drain
fields are close to Lake James tributaries ( Jeter Laws, 1986). For these reasons it was
assumed that a large portion of the nutrients that exit septic tanks are transported to the
lake. High nitrogen coefficients were also used to account for the soluble forms of nitrogen
created in septic tank environments (Wetzel, 1983).
Capita - years
The number: of capita - years is calculated by the following formula:
Total capita -year = (permanent capita -year). + (seasonal capita -year)
= average # of
# days spent
# of living
persons per
x at unit per x
units
living unit
year/365
average # of
# days spent
# of living
Persons per
x at unit per x
units
living unit
year/365
A- 17
41

A
POINT SOURCE INPUTS, (PSI)
There are a total of 32 NPDS permits issued to businesses, organizations and
residences in the watershed (NRDC, Randy Dodd, 1986) . Of these 10 are residences, 6 are
schools, 13 are industrial -commercial, 2 are wastewater treatment facilities and 1 is a
water treatment plant. See Table 13 for a list of NPDS permits for the watershed. Permits
has been issued for one business and a one school within the study area.
Krenkel and Novotny (1980) suggest that typical waste water treatment plant
influents have a phosphorus content range of 6 mg/I (low), 10 mg/I (most likely), and 20
mg/I (high). Phosphorus concentrations in effluent were calculated using a nutrient removal
efficiency of 20%. It was assumed in model calculations that all point sources would exibit
similar phosphorus concentrations.
Nitrogen concentration values for a typical wastewater treatment influent range from
20 mg/I (low), 40 mg/I ( most likely), to 85 mg/I (high) as suggested by Krenkel and
Novotny (1980). Nitrogen concentrations in effluent were calculated using a nutrient
removal efficiency of 85%. Point source calculations are shown in Appendix 1.
A18-
42 .

RESULTS
In order to adequately model the phosphorus and nitrogen conditions of Lake James
before and after operation of the. proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant is
yy e,-Ke,.t it was felt that six different scenarios should be considered.
�-IOUTPROPOSEDWWTP
The first two scenarios address the the problems of the study area. It has been
established that many of the septic systems within the study area are located directly
adjacent to streams . The County Sanitarian has reported that many of the septic systems
in the study area are failing and several other systems are now being pumped, some daily.
Raw sewage outflows from septic systems have also been reported. Given the proximity of
the septic systems to the receiving stream and the condition of many septic systems in the
area it can be argued that such systems constitute a point source input of phosphorus and
nitrogen receving water bodies.
The model treats septic systems and point sources differently. Septic systems have
the benefit of further nutrient removal by,soil filtration. This distinction will make a
difference, particularly with phosphorus, as this nutrient is quickly bound to clay soil
particles. These conditions are modeled in Scenario 1.
With point sources nutrient removal is a function of the efficiency of the nutrient
removal system used. In the case of Scenario 2 there would be no removal of the point
source nutrients. It is expected that the Itrue relationship of nutrient input into the
receiving stream would be found somewhere between the two resulting model estimates.
See TABLE 10.
In Scenarios 3,4 and 5 the potential effects of the proposed Wastewater Treatment
Plant are considered: Three different flow rates were modeled. In Scenario 3 the model
was run ❑sing the intial customer list provided by Jensen Engineering. � The flow rate for
these users is less than 50,000 GPD. Scenario 4 considers the maximum flow rate of
100,000 GPD proposed in the McDowell County Board of Commissioners (1986) report.
Scenario 5 considers the maximum design flow rate capacity of 250,000 GPD for the
proposed WWTP (information provided by Jensen Engineering).
FOR CCMPffii90N P1�P06ES
Scenario 6 looks at the Old Fort Finishing Plant as a Wastewater Treatment Plant for
comparative purposes. Although the plant is no longer operational, proposals have been madE
to consider it as a possible Waste Water Treatment Plant for the area._ It is interesting to
A-19
43 .

compare the effects the Old Fort Finishing Plant and those of the proposed wastewater
treatment plant on nutrient concentrations in Lake James.
The Table below outlines the six scenarios and the assumptions made concerning each
set of conditions.
TABLE 9 List Of Six Scenarios with their Respective Ass umptions*-
SCENARI01 Present Conditions w/o WWTP
a 80 septic systems are counted in the study area. The removal
efficiency of nutrients is the same for all septic systems in the
watershed. Watershed septic system count is adjusted accoordingly.
b. Systems which are now being pumped are not include in these
calculations.
c. NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in point source
calculations.
SCENARIO Present Conditions w/o WWTP
a 80 septic systems in the study area are grouped together as one point
source with a nutrient removal efficiency of zero.
b. Systems which are now being pumped are not include in these
calculations.
c. Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in point source
calculations.
SCENAR103 Future Conditions w/ WWTP
a 106 customers in the study area are serviced by the Garden Creek Plant (List
Provided by Jensen Engineering).
b. Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in WWTP
calculations.
c. All systems in the study area (pumped or not) are included in WWTP
calculations .
d Garden Creek plant is operating at a flow rate capacity of < 50,000 GPD.
SCENAR104 Future Conditions w/ WWTP
a 106 customers in the study area are serviced by. the Garden Creek Plant
TUst Provided by Jensen Engineering).
b. Study area NPDS permit horder.effluent flows are included in WWTP
calculations.
C. Garden Creek plant is operating at a flow rate capacity of 100,000 GPD.
SCENARI05.- Future Conditions w/ WWTP
a 106 customers in the study area are serviced by the Garden Creek Plant
(List Provided by Jensen Engineering).
b. Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in WWTP
calculations.
c. Garden%Creek plant is operating at a flow rate capacity of 250,000 GPD.
A- 20
44

SCENARIO For Comparison Purposes Only
a. Old Fort Finishing Plant is operating as WWTP at 4.2 MGPD.
b. 106 customers in the study area are serviced by the Garden Creek Plant
(List Provided by Jensen Engineering).
` c. Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in WWTP
calculations.
* Nutrient removal efficiencies of all WWTP are assumed to be 85% for nitrogen and
20% for phosphorus
The model results for each of the six scenarios are shown in Table 10.
TABLE 10 Nutrient Concentrations of Lake James as modeled per Scenario
expressed in mg/I
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TOTAL NITROGEN
LOW MOST LIKELY HIGH LOW MOST LIKELY HIGH
1)
0.0273
0.0415
0.0636
0.2052
0.4229
0.5784
2)
0.0273
0.0415
0.0637
0.2057
0.4238
0.5805
3)
0.0273
0.0416
0.0638
0.2053
0.4231
0.5790
4)
0.0275
0.0418
0.0641
0.2056
0.4237
0.5801
5)
0.0278
0.0422
0.0649
0.2062
0,4250
0.5829
6)
0.0365
0.0545
0.0856
0.2079
0.4283
0.5900
Very little change is evident between Scenarios 1 and 2. By model definition more
phosphorus and nitrogen are removed from the study area by septic systems than by a point
source input of raw sewage. There is little effect on Lake nutrient concentrations by makinc
this distinction. This is because the nutrient input from the study area is very small in
relationship to all inputs into the lake (see Table 11).
It should be noted that NRCD lake data statistics are only listed to three significant
figures. Changes noted here are in the fourth significant figure.
When the third scenario is considered Lake concentrations fall between those exibitec
in Scenarios 1 and 2. .It is important to remember that all customers presently pumping
their septic tanks are not included in these septic system calculations. In Scenario 3
these customers have been included in the WWTP point source calculations. If it can be
assumed that the septic systems within the study area act as point sources, then the Garden
Creek Plant operating at a flow of 50,000 GPD or less would decrease nutrient
concentrations in the Lake. Again, nutrient input changes are very small in relation
to total input.
A- 21
45

In Scenario 4 flow rates have increased to the projected 100,000 GPD. There is an
increase in Lake nutrient concentrations for both phosphorus and nitrogen. Again the
changes are very slight.
In Scenario 5 flow rates reach design capacity of the plant of 250,000 GPD. The
most likely value of phosphorus increases from 0.0418 to 0.0422. This is the largest and
most significant increase in phosphorus but still would have little effect on the trophic
state of the Lake.
In Scenario 6 the Old Fort Finishing Plant is assumed to be a major point source
contributor to Lake James . If operating today the plant would nearly double the point
source effluent entering Lake James (see Table 13). Phosphorus concentrations would
increase by 0.01 mg/I and center the Lake squarely into the alpha-eutrophic category (see
Table 10). Flow data for these calculations were taken from the former NPDS permit for the
Old Fort Finishing Plant. As shown in these calculations flow rates in the range of 4 to 5
MGPD begin to have a significant affect on nutrient concentrations in Lake James.
Although nitrogen inputs into the waste water treatment plant are much greater than
phosphorus, the removal efficiency of the wastewater treatment plant is much higher than
for phosphorus. This accounts for the significant increase in phosphorus and only a small
change in nitrogen.
Lake phosphorus measurements fall well within the range of model prediction as is
shown in Table 11. Phosphorus model predictions are higher in this study than results
obtained from Dingfelder et. al. (1984). These figures should not be compared, however,
because all existing NPDS point sources -were not considered in the Dingfelder study.
Total nitrogen measurements for Lake James were not available (organic nitrogen
values were not available) for this study. Comparison of modeled nitrogen concentrations
with NCNRCD Storet data (inorganic compounds only) is not appropriate. Inorganic nitrogen
measurements are shown in Table 11.
Areal loading from all other nutrient input sources far exceeds that of the input from
septic systems within the study area and the Garden Creek Plant for all scenarios. See Table
12 for these comparisons.
The 33 NPDS permit holders contributed approximate Iy'61 of the total phosphorus
load for Scenario 4. Of this the Garden Creek Plant contributed 0.2 of thelpoint source
load and 0.3% of the total phosphorus load. Forests contributed -13% of the total phosphorus
load followed by septic systems at -11% and cropland at -8%.
Nitrogen loading relationships are very different from phosphorus. Point source
nitrogen loading is reduced substantially due to a much higher nutrient removal efficiency.
Forest land use contributes the major portion of the nitrogen load to the Lake at
-58%. Cropland contributes -19% followed by point sources at ­12%.
A- 22
46

TABLE 11 Summary of NCNRCD Storet data from 4 Sampling Stations on Lake
James
PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN
AVERAGE MAXIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM
LAKE JAMES NEAR MARIgV
NH3+ NH4- (1975-84) - - 0.050 0.220
NO2 & NO3 (1975-84) - - 0.10 0.38
ORGA<VCNMzCGEN - NA NA
TOTALNfTROGEN - NA NA
PHOS TOT (1976-84) 0.046 0.110 -
LAKEJAMES NEAR NEBO
NH3+ NH4- (1973-84) - - .
0.039
0.100
NO2 & NO3 (1975-04) -
0.11
0.37
ORGANCNTROGEN - -
NA
NA
TOTAL Nff OGEN - -
NA
NA
PROS: TOT (1971-84) 0.052 0.150
-
-
LAKE JAMES NEAR BRIDGEWATER
NH3+ NH4- (1973-84) - -
0.038
0.060
NO2 & NO3 (1971-84) - -
2.31
50.05 (`PROBABLE ERROR)
ORGANCN ROGEN -
NA
NA
TOTAL NfTROGEN: - -.
NA
NA
PHOS-TOT (1971-84) 0.043 0,100
-
-
LAKE JAMES NEAR LONCa,TOWN
NH3+ NH4- (1975-84) - 0.036 0.070
NO2 & NO3 (1975-84) - 0.06 . 0,21
ORGANCNM:CGEN - - NA NA
TOrALNffROGEN NA NA
PHOS-TOT (1975-84) 0.039 0.060 - -
A- 23
47

TABLE 12 Areal nutrient loading comparisons of all nutrient input sources: P(in); N(in)
INITIAL
most likely
kg/yr
FCAESr
12744.41
PASTURE
3694.6
CRCP
8215.34
URBAN
1245.58
ATMCSP ERE
1079.94
PONrS
61944.93
WWTP
347.14
SEPTICSYS
10544.62
TOTAL
99816.56
NTR)GEN
INITIAL
most likely
kg/yr
FCREST
231866.04,
PASTURE
9833.32
CRCP
77798.28
URBAN
9114
AWCGR-ERE
9301.55
PCNT,5CURCES
46458.69
WWIP
260.36
SEPTICSYS
16871
TOTAL
401503.24
R-lCGPI-ICRUS
100,000 GPD
most likely
kg/yr
12.77%
12744.41
3.70%
3694.6
8.2 %
8215.34
1.25%
1245.58
1.08%
1079.94
62.06%
61944.93
0.35%
1105.34
10.56%
10544.62
100.00%
100574.76
N MGEN
100,000 GPD
most likely
kg/yr
57.75%
231866.04
2.45%
9833.32
19.38%
77798.28
2.27%
9114
2.32%
9301.55
11.57%
46458.69
0.06%
829.01
4.20%
16871
100.00%
402071.89
A-24
48
250,000 GPD
most likely
kg/yr
12.7%
12744.41
3.7%
3694.6
8.2%
8215.34
1.2%
1245.58.
1.1 %
1079.94
61.6%
61944.93.
1.1 %
.2763
10.5%
10544.62
100.0%
102232.42
NTROGEN
250,000 GPD
most likely
kg/yr
57.7%
231866.04
2.4%
9833.32
19.3%
77798.28
2.3%
9114
2.3%
9301.55
11.6%
46458.69
0.2%
2072.51
4.2%
16871
100.0%
403315.39
12.5%
3.6%
8.0%
1.2%
1.1%
60.6%
2.7%
10.3%
100.0%
57.5%
2.4%
19.3%
2.3%
2.3%
11.5%
0.5%
4.2%
100.0%

110,11,1110
NPDS PERMIT LIST PROVIDED BY RANDY DODD (NCNRCD)
Phosphorus
AVERAGEEFRiENTCONTENT (m g/1)
HIGH(MG/L) 16.00
MOST UKELY(MG/L) 8.00
LOW (MG/L) 4.80
Reckhow et. al, 1980
"Krenkel and Novotny, 1980
1
Red Fox Country Club
Activated Sludge Package Plant
2
Marion Water Plant
Alum Sludge into catawba/filter b...
3
Linville Land Harbor Utilities
Extended Aeration
4
Linville River Development
Extended Aeration
5
American Thread Co.
Extended Aeration
6
McDowell County High School
Extended Aeration
7
CLinchfield
Extended Aeration
8
C-E Air Preheater
Extended Aeration
9
Pisgah Yam Dye
Filter Back Wash Water from wat...
10
Quick as a Wink
Filtered Wash
11
Travenol Laboratories
Influent Flow(see Permit 6564)
12
White Oak Condos
Package Waste Water Treatment
13
Quality Inn
Package Waste Water Treatment
14
Columbia -Carolina Corp
Primary Catch Basin- wood prod...
15
Old Fort Waste Treatment PI...
Secondary
16
Jonas Ridge Nursing Home
Secondary Package
17
BCM Partnership Motel
Secondary Package Treatment Plant
18
Linville Resorts
Secondary Treatment
19
Great Meadows
Secondary Type Package Treatment
20
Nebo Elementary Sch
Septic System
21
Western Chateau Corp.
Septic Tank
22
Beck, Harold
Septic Tank
23
Pleasant Gardens Elementar...
Septic Tank
24
Blue Ridge Village
Septic Tank
25
Jones, George
Septic Tank
26
Mountain Training Center
Septic Tank
27
Chalet Motor Lodge
Septic Tank w/dosing tank/efflue...
28
Eckenrod Apts.
Septic Tank/ Dosing tank
29
Norris Industries
Septic Tank/ with dosing tank
30
Metal Industries
Undetermined
31
Oakhill School
WTP/extended airation
32
Mull Sch
WTP/extended airation
33
Canoe Creek Sch
WTP/extended airation
TOTALS
A-25
49
"Nitrogen
(mg/1)
12.75
6.00
3.00
MILLION . Percent of Total
GALLCNSAAY Point Source Load
0.08
1.43%
0.3
5.35%
0.075
1,34%
0.015
0.27%
2
35.69%
0.05
0.89%
0.3
5.35%
0.016
0.29%
0.012
0.21 %
0.0012
0.02%
1.2
21.41 %
0.015
0.27%
0.02
0.36%
0.024
0.43%
0.8
14.28%
0.0075
0.13%
0.019
0.34%
0.5
8.92%
0.01
0.18%
0.0075
0.13%
0.008
0.14%
0.001
0.02%
0.005
0.09%
0.04
0.71 %
0.00045
0.01 %
0.018
0.32%
0.01
0.18%
0.0014
0.02%
0.0081
0.14%
0.01
0.18%
0.02
0.36%
0.01
0.18%
0.02
0.36%
5.60
100.00%

TABLE 14 CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION
ESTIMATES
The following probabilities can be read as 55%' (or 90%) of the time
the true phosphorus or nitrogen concentration in Lake James
will lie within the bounds defined by the prediction, plus or
minus the predicted uncertainty.
r
1.
Phosphorus
55%
Prob [ 0.0290 <_ P 5 0.0590 ]
900/0
Prob [ 0.0166 _5-- P S 0.0765 ]
Nitrogen
55%
Prob [ 0.2772 5 N 51.3974 ]
903/6
Prob [ 0.1314 5 N 5 2.37191.
2
Phosphorus
550/6
Prob [ 0.0290 <_ P 5 0.0590 ]
90°/a
Prob [ 0.0166 _5 P _5 0.0766 ]
Nitrogen
550/6
Prob [ 0.2778:5 N <_ 1.4006]
90%
Prob [ 0.1318 <_ N _5 2.3774]
3.
Phosphorus .
55%
Prob [ 0.0291 _< P <_ 0.0591 ]
90%
Prob [ 0.0166 <_ P <_ 0.0767]
Nitrogen
5511/6
Prob [ 0.2773 <_ N <_ 1.3982 ]
900/0 .
Prob
[ 0.1315 <_ N 5 2.3734)
4.
Phosphorus
55%
Prob [ 0.0292 _< P <_ 0.0594 ]
.9011/6
Prob [ 0.0167 <_ P <_ 0.0771 ]
Nitrogen
550/6
Prob [ 0.2777 <_ N 51.4000 ]
90'/0
Prob [ 0.1317 <_ N <_ 2.3764 ]
5.
Ph(5sphorus
55%
Prob [ 0.0296 < P <_ 0.0601 ]
90/0
Prob [ 0.0169 <_ P 5 0.07801
Nitrogen
551/6
Prob [ 0.2785 <_ N <_ 1.4044 ]
90'/0
Prob 0.1321 <_. N <_ 2.3838 ]
6.
Phosphorus,
550/6
Prob [ 0.0383 <_ P < 0.07821
90/0
Prob [ 0.0221 <_ P <_ 0.1018 ]
Nitrogen
55%
Prob [ 0.2807 < N 51.4155 ]
900/6
Prob [ 0.1332 < N <_ 2.4027 ]
i NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF THE NUTRIENT (Phosphorus or Nitrogen) INDICATE SCENARIO
NLJ BM
A-26
50.

CONCLUSION
Based on phosphorus model results -and the NC Clean Lakes (1982) trophic level
classification scheme, Lake James should be classified as alphaeutrophic to mesotrophic.
Nitrogen model results and trophic ranges outlined in Wetzel (1983) suggest a trophic state
classification of oligo-mesotrophic. See Appendices 2 and 3 for trophic state indexes.
Model results suggest no significant changes in Lake trophic state for either
phosphorus or nitrogen from present conditions if the proposed Garden Creek Plant operates
at a flow rate of less than 250,000 gallons per day.
A single nutrient point source of the magnitude of the proposed wastewater treatment
plant will not significantly effect the water quality of Lake James: It is recognized,
however, that the cummulative effect of additional nutrient point sources can degrade
water quality of Lake James.
It should be noted that much can be done to improve water quality by reducing the
nutrient load of domestic wastewatar. . Watershed phosphorus detergent bans will
substancially reduce the total nutrient load to septic or sewage systems (Reckhow ILIL,
1980). It is estimated that 50-75% of the total phosphorus in domestic wastewater
originates from phosphorus detergents. Low flush toilets, no -water toilets, wastewater
recycle for toilet flushing, and suds -saver clotheswashers can reduce waste flow by up to .
35% (Reckhow et. al., 1980).
Proper lake management requires a comprehensive understanding of watershed
dynamics and a well thoughtout watershed management plan. Default or crisis management
on a project by project basis can not adequately protect any of the concerned parties.
A planning process which identifies the limitations of the watershed, targets
complimentary business and industry, and provides for the the needs of the residents of the
watershed should,,be sought after by business leaders, the Lake Association, County
Governments and other intersted parties.
A- 27
51

References
Burke County Department of Community Development, no date. Land Use
Survey and Analysis- Burke County North Carolina.
Burke Soil and Water Conservation District, 1980. Burke Soil and Water
conservation district - Long range conservation program. Burke Soil and
Water Conservation District, Human Resources Building, Morganton NC.
Burke Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors, no date. Burke
County: An appraisal of potential for outdoor recreational development.
Burke Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors. Compiled by: Soil
Conservation Service, USDA.
Dingfelder, J., L. Lamont, C. Pace, 1984. Estimation of phosphorus
concentrations in Lake James: An application of the Reckhw and Clements
water quality model. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke
University, Durham, NC.
Hill, C.L., J.F.Rinehardt and T.E. Dillard. Water resources data North
Carolina water year 1984. US. Geological Survey, Water Data Report
NC-84-1. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh NC.
Krenkel, P.A. and Vladimir Novotny 1980. Water Quality Management,
Academic Press, New York, pp. 201-202.
Laws, Jeter. Personal communication 7-15-86. Environnmental Survey
conducted with the Sanitarian, McDowell county.
Marr, Joe. Personal communication, 7-15-86. Phone conservation _with an
Environmental'technician, Duke Power co.
McDowell Counnty Board of Commissioners, 1986. Public works
preapplica tion ' form ED 101 D ; SAI number 56-600318.
A-28
52

McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1982. McDowell
county soil and water conservation district- Long range conservation
program.
N.C. Department of Natural and Economic Resources, 1972. Land use
analysis and land development plan for Marion, NC. N.C. Department of
Natural and Economic Resources., Office of Industry, Tourist, and
Community Resources.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1984.
Analysis of major point source impact on total phosphorus levels in
Rhodhiss Lake. Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982.
Headwaters of the Catawba river and North Fork Catawba river -water
quality study sub -basin 03-08-30. N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Section, water quality operations monitoring and technical
services.
N.C. Department of'Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982.
North Carolina clean lakes classification survey 1982. Division of
Environmentla Management, Water Quality Section, N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh NC.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982.
Water Quality progress in North Carolina 1982-83 305b report Division of
Environmentla Management, Water Quality Section, N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh NC.
NCDOT, 1984.. Maps of Avery, Burke, and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
NCDOT, 1984.: Map of Marion, NC -and Vicinity, North Carolina Department
of Transportation.
A-29
53

NOAA, 1982. Monthly normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating
and cooling degree days 1951-80. North Carolina. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data and Information Service.
National Climactic Center, Asheville, NC.
Reckhow, Kenneth H., 1986. A Cross -sectional analysis of trophic state
relationships in southeastern lakes. School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Duke University, Durham; NC.
Reckhow, K.H. and J.T. Clements, 1983. A Cross -sectional model for
phosphorus in southeastern lakes. School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, J.T. Simpson, 1980. Modeling phosphorus
loading and lake response under uncertainty: A manual and compilation of
export coefficients. US EPA. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-80-011.
US EPA, 1980. Restoration of lakes and inland waters. International
Symposium on Inland Waters and .Lake Restoration, September 8-12, 1980,
Portland, Maine. US EPA. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology 2 ed. CBS College Printing, Philadelphia, Pa.
A-30
54

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMO .
TO: Jim Smith
THROUGH: Steve Tedder
Meg Kerr
FROM: Trevor Clements�\~~
�
SUBJECT: McDowell County Environmental Assessment
Per your request, I have reviewed the environmental assessment
for the proposed Catawba River WWTP which is to be located in North
Marion, NC. I agree with the consultant's general conclusion that
construction of a well operated, centralized treatment facility is
more favorable than creation of several smallo private treatment
facilities. Removal of the existing sources of wastewater (often —
raw sewage) will undoubtedly improve water quality in Barden Creek.
It appears that the area of greatest concern involves impacts to
Lake James. Although agree with the consultant's conclusion that
trophic state impacts to Lake James from a 0.25 mgd WWTP should be
minimal, I do have some commento wayarAing the methods used to reach
this conclusion (see below).
CDMMENTS
Qy@Call_M@Qed--The consultants used cross -sectional, black -box
prediction models for evaluation of alternative development
scenarios. The specific models used by the consultants were not
developed to evaluate individual lake responses to changes in
nutrient loading within a given watershed. Rather, the models were
developed to provide a first cut estimate for annual average
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations when actual lakes data is
missing or insufficient. The error associated with these models is
too large for evaluating small changes in nutrient loading. In
fact, it would take a very substantial change in loading from one
alternative to another for the model to predict statistically
significant differences in nutrient concentrations.
A more appropriate analysis might have involved assessment of
the impacts by only modeling the change in nutrient concentrations
, relative to existing lake conditions. Adequate lakes monitoring
data was available to estimate mean lake N and P concentrations with
much greater accuracy than can be expected from the black -box
z models. Estimating the changes only would substantially reduce the
error in the impact predictions for the alternative scenarios (See
Reckhow, 1983, E��i���[� �_f�[_L���_M�����l���l2t' chap. 8"
vol. 1). In order to performsuch an analysis correctly, however,
J\-3l 55

one would need a model which can predict an individual lake`s
response to changes in loading (See Reckhow, 1986, "A Cross -
Sectional Analysis of Trophic State Relationships in Southeastern
U.B. Lakes," or Walker, 1985,
Nut[le[lt_BQuat--Nutrient budgets are h6lpful in identifying and
comparing sources of loading within a watershed. However, they are
subject to large error when export coefficients are relied upon.
One way of checking the reliability of the overall loading estimate
is to use a model like that used by the consultant to predict a mean
concentration and compare the result with the observed mean.
The estimates of point source loading in the consultant's
nutrient budget were probably not reliable. The consultant did not
delineate differences in loading between industrial and domestic
plants, and did not account for differences in nutrient removal
efficiencies for separate treatment technologies. Also, I did not
agree with the loading rates suggested by the consultant, even for
secondary treatment (P-loading appeared too high and N-loading too
low).
Othg[--Additional comments are written in the margins of the
report, if you are interested in further details.
JTC:JTC
CC: Randy Dodd
` A-32
56

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 7, 19B6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Smith
FROM: Randy Dodd LD
THRU: Meg Kerr jMK
Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: McDowell County
Catawba River WWTP Assessment
I have reviewed pertinent portions of the subject document, and
would like to offer the following comments:
1) I agree with the observation (pp 6-7) that centralized
treatment is preferable to satellite private facilities;
2) On page 12, disinfection is briefly mentioned. Ultra-
violet disinfection should not be ruled out as an
alternative;
3) Note that emerging treatment technologies
show promise for cost-effective nutrient removal. These
include the use of aquatic plants (artificial wetlands)
and biological (aerobic/anaerobic) processes for waste-
water treatment;
4) I strongly agree with the recommendation for a compre-
hensive watershed management plan.
5) At several points in the modeling analysis, wastewater
concentrations and removal efficiencies are discussed.
Nitrogen removal efficiencies are grossly overestimated,
unless nitrificiation- denitrification is being designed.
Phosphorus effluent concentrations are about 25% too high
for typical domestic wastewater. Note that several of
the point sources discharge industrial wastewater.
6) While TP and TN are important management parameters,
algal productivity or biomass (perhaps as measured by
chlorophyll a) is of primary concern in protecting the
uses of the Take. Is any information available to extra-
polate the results of this study to the eutrophic response
of the lake (i.e., phytoplankton studies, algal assays...)?
A-33
57

Jim Smith
August 7, 1986
- page two -
An overall comment: the involved parties should be commended for
this effort in wastewater management planning and watershed planning.
Please advise if questions.
RCD:mlt
Attachment
A-34
58

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND EVALUATION
OF THE
G R EAT MEADOWS T R EATM ENT PLANT S I T E,
MCDOWELL SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY,
MCDOWELL COUNTY,CH 86-C-0000-1008
JULY 229 1986
prepared by
C. MICHAEL BAKER & LINDA G. HALL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
WEAVERVILLE, NC
prepared for
JENSEN ENGINEERING
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ASHEV I LLE , NC
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
An archaeological field survey was conducted
by the report authors on July 14, 1986 near the
Town of Marion in McDowell County, North Carolina.
The investigation focused on a 100 x 200 foot
wastewater treatment plant site as well as a 900
foot connecting pipeline corridor that are proposed
for construction as the McDowell Sewage Treatment
Facility (CH 86-C-0000-1008). The project site is
located within the floodplain of the Catawba River
adjacent to U.S. Highway 70. The purpose of the
study was to determine the presence and
significance of any historic or prehistoric
cultural resources that might be affected by the
proposed project.
Both pedestrian survey and subsurface testing
techniques were applied during the study of the
project area. Ground cover and deep silt deposits
associated with past flooding were the principal
limiting factors affecting archaeological site
detection. The walkover of the project area
recovered no archaeological materials from the
ground surface. In. addition, deep shovel tests in
the location of the proposed treatment plant and
along the pipeline route recovered no evidence
indicating the presence of any buried
archaeological sites.
M1
59 .

Based on these findings, it is concluded that
the proposed project willnot affect any
significant archaeological site in the area.
Therefore, no additional archaeological study will
be necessary and it is recommended that the project
receive clearance for construction from the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation 0ffi.ce.
INTRODUCTION'
This report describes an archaeological survey
that was conducted on July 14, 1986 within limited
floodplain areas of the Catawba River near the Town
of Marion, McDowell County, North Carolina. This
work was performed pursuant to federal regulations
that pertain to the protection of significant
historic cultural resources, and in response to a
recommendation for the same by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office tsee Appendix).
A project entitled the McDowell Sewage Treatment
Facility (CH 86-C-0000-1008) will involve
construction of the Great Meadows Treatment Plant
Site (100 x 200 feet) and a connecting pipeline
segment measuring 900 feet in length.
The treatment plant wi l l consist of a smal l 1 i-ft
station. Other construction measures are proposed
but these are not located in areas where
archaeological site occurrence is considered
likely.
The facility.. -locations that were investigated
will be situated in the floodplain of the Catawba
River as shown on the accompanying maps. This
general location is approximately three miles
northwest of the Town of Marion, adjacent to U.S.
Highway 70, and approximately one-fourth mile'west-
(i .e, actually, southwest) of the junction of tt6s
highway with U.S. Highway 221. As one -travels west
from this intersection along Highway 70} the
project is situated on the north side of the road
and between a Wendy's Restaurant and the .Joseph
Mc Dowe 1 l ' House .
This. work was commissioned by Jensen
Engineering of Asheville' North Carol i ria and i t , was
performed by the report authors, No formal ,scope
of work was developed for this i nyest i gat i on .
However, it was understood that the work would
fol 1 ow te ' Guide l.i nes for Preparation of
Archaeological Survey Reports, Reviewed by the
Archeology Branch,. Division of Archives and
History,,North Carolina Department of. Cultural.
Resources.' lAn interirn field report was prepared
t
�i 3

m
/ v
PRoposmn TREATMENT
FL-", •T SITM
�I�
a
0
t°
S• ZZI � t1.S.7O
PROJECT
UICIIVITY
MAP
NoPoseo
M L DOWE LI
ASTEM%ATER TREATMEP• T �LArJ1-
c�oPoBy-
SHT OF WAY PASS

on July 15, 1986 and provided to the project
sponsor.
PROJECT. SETTING
The ..project area is.generally, located within.
the upper.Catawba River Basin in the west central -
section of North Carolina. It is'situated wi.thin
McDowell County and near the County Seat of Marion.
The treatment f ac i 1 i ty is 1 ocated -near the
community of Garden Creek and within a floodplain
area that is approximately 300 feet from -.the south
bank of the Catawba Ri ver . A small unnamed
tributary (and perhaps a modern drainage to the
Catawba River) flows from south to north several
hundred -feet to the east of the project.
The affected acreage of the project wi l l be
minimal and generally contained within a 100 x 200
foot area that w 1 1 1 comprise the treatment
facility, and along a narrow 900 f.00t'pipeline
corridor. - The area presently exists as fallow
agricultural fields that have grown up in.tall
weeds. A bordering field immediately adjacent to
and west of the pipeline route was 'clean
cultivated" at the timeof the survey and afforded
excellent ground surface visibility..
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Review of the archaeological site records of
the Archeology Branch, N.C. Division of Archives
and History indicated that six prev iously.recorded
archaeological sites were located -within one mile
of the project area (see Appendix).- Thus, selected_
f l oodp l.a i.n areas of the upper Catawba River were
known beforehand to be probabilistic locations for
multi -component prehistoric and historic cultural
reg-ources. Modern archaeological investigations
have been limited, however, and little formal
research has been undertaken and reported. Because
of this:, specific factors that might mark selected
f►.00dplain localities as archaeological site areas,
within otherwise undifferentiated stretches of
broad floodplain, remain elusive.
McDowell County was formed in 1842 from
Rutherford and Burke Counties-. It is named for
Major Joseph McDowell ( 1857-96) , a regiona-1 .
historic figure who was a member of. Congress and
the commission that was establ ished'. to settle the
North Carolina - Tennessee boundary line (Powell
5
63

1968). The house of Joseph McDowell stands today
and is situated adjacent to Highway 70 and less
than one-fourth mile east of the project (N.C.
Division of Archives and History 1.979). It is
presently a retail store.
The most relevant aspect of the history of the
county that applies to the present investigation is
the published record of the Catawba River floods of
1916 and 1940 (Fossett 1976). The 1916 flood was,
by far, the more devasting. Following a lengthy
period of heavy rainfall that had saturated the
soils of the western portion of the state, a
hurricane from the Gulf Coast passed through
dumping as much as 22 inches of rain w ithin a 24
hour period. A tremendous flood ensued which
destroyed all of the river bridges in McDowell
County and most of those over smaller tributaries.
Fifty percent of all the public and country roads
were destroyed. In addition, one report indicates
that seventy-five percent of all lands along the
river and its tributaries were permanently damaged.
In this regard it should be noted that the Clear
Creek and Buck Creek areas (see Locational Map) are
described as having been particularly ravaged by
the floodwaters (Fossett 1976).
The prehistory of western North Carolina has
been summarized by Keel (1976)9 Dickens (1976)9 and
Purringt.on (1983). The earliest known occupation
by prehistoric peoples of the.North Carolina
Mountains was during the Paleo-Indian Period which
dates from 12000 to 8000 B.C. The material remains
most widely acknowledged to indicate the presence
of human populations during this period are fluted
projectile points. Recent summaries of North
Carolina prehistory also place the Hardaway and
Palmer complexes within the Paleo-Indian. period.
In addition to projectile points, end and side
scrapers)v gravers, drills, flake knives and
spokeshaves are found at archaeological sites
dating _to this period. Hunting, possibly including
some me.gafauna, and collecting of wild p.lants
provided subsistence for these early populations.
The beginning of the Archaic period (8000-500
B.C. ) c;o.i nc i des with the termination of boreal
forest conditions. It is generally, divided into
Early, Middle, and Late subperiods,-and is typified
by the .Kirk, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and
Savannah River complexes (Coe 1964). During this
period the at l at l ( spear thrower) came i:n to 'use .
Projectile point styles changed gradually as
hafting methods varied over time. Hunting and
6
64

gathering continued to be important means of
subsistence, but mobility decreased somewhat as
local resources began to be exploited more
intensively. Large bowls were carved from
soapstone.
The Woodland period began around 700 B.C. and
lasted until ca. A.D. 1000. Significant
developments during this period included the
introduction of pottery and agriculture.
Cord -marked and fabric -impressed ceramic vessels
dating to the Early Woodland, Swannanoa phase, are
the earl i est known formes. Corn was the primary
agricultural commodity, although hunting and
gathering still remained important strategies for
supplying food and raw materials. The bow and
arrow began to be utilized and settlements became
increasingly more permanent and floodplain-oriented
during this period. Participation in economic
exchange systems well -beyond the mountain region
becomes apparent during the Middle Woodland period,
and concurrently, ceramic styles show strong
influences from other regions.
The Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000-1838) is
subdivided into the Pisgah (early) and Qualla
(late) phases. Stockaded villages, square to
rectangular dwellings, platform mounds, and flexed
burials are characteristics associated with the
Pisgah phase. Subsistence continued to incl.ude
hunting, gathering, and horticulture. The Qualla
phase represents the latest Native American culture
in western North Carolina which continued into
historic times up to the removal of the Cherokees
in 1838 (Purrington 1983).
SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
An archaeological site is any area yielding
evidence' of past human behavior . , Either artifacts
or particular soil configurations (e.g. features)
may indicate the presence of a site. in practice,
an archaeological site is usually defined on the
basis of'two or more artifacts that occur proximal
to one another on the same landform.
At the time of the fieldwork, the 100 x 200
foot treatment plant site was overgrown in high
weeds and the ground surface was less than 15
percent visible. Because of this, three subsurface
tests were placed along the center length axis of
the plant site at 100 foot intervals (i..e`. one at
either end and one in the middle). These
7
65

subsurface tests along the first floodplain terrace
Of the Catawba River revealed very deep and
generally undifferentiated flood deposits. The
tests measured 50 x 50 centimeters in horizontal
dimension and each was excavated to a depth of 1.25
meters. Excavated soils were sifted through
quarter -inch hardware cloth. No artifacts were
recovered and no anthropic soils were observed to
indicate the presence of an archaeological site at
this -location. It shoul,d be noted, however, that.
one machine -cut square nail was recovered from a
sand lense in the westernmost test unit (.see Soil
Profiles). This artifact which had obviously
washed from some upstream locality served to
indicate the historic affinity of the silt deposits
in the area. Thus, any archaeological site that
might, occur in the immediate vicinity would be
deeply buried and consequently, buffered from
construction by a thick protective b1anket of silt.
The proposed pipeline corridor was also
overgrown. However, because a recently excavated
field drainage ditch represented the specific
pipeline route, spoil dirt piles on either side of
the ditch were v i-s i bl a to a greater , degree , thus
allowing ground surface inspection. In addition, a
recently cultivated field immediately adjacent to
the pipeline corridor on the west provided a
comparative sample of the area's surface soils.
Ne"i then the walkover of the clean cultivated field
nor inspection of the spoil dirt pi.les along the
previously excavated ditch yielded any evidence to
indicate the presence of a site in 'the area.
A series of six shovel tests was also placed
along the pipeline route. The tests measured 25 x
25 centimeters and, were spaced at 50 meter
intervals, These testswere located in the bottom
of the excavated ditch as it was determined by the
initial test on this terrace that the upper 40 to
50 centimeters of the soil prof i le was a uniform
silt deposit. Soils from these tests were not
screened, but were closely inspected using a
trowelling technique. Compared to that found _by
the treatment plant tests, the stratigraphy of the
pipeline corridor was found to differ in relation
to its h;gher elevation along the second floodplain
terrace of the river, and its 'front' to''back'
orientation., However, no evidence was recovered to
indicatejthat the terrace area, along the:ipipeline
routes held intact archaeological materials within
the observed soil deposits. One small broken
quartzite cobble was recovered from the sand lense
stratum in the northernmost shovel test, however,
8
66

its -presence in the sand lense indicated it had
been carried to this location by flood waters.
Nonetheless, the specimen was a definite artifact
(i.e. a probable bipolar anvil and hammerstone),
and it probably points.t.o an undetermined site
locality upstream. In combination with the
previously discussed nail, it also reflects the
damaging effects of the documented historic
flooding along the Catawba River.
Soil profiles representing the observed
stratigraphy within the described shovel tests,
both along the pipeline and at the.treatment plant
site, are shown on the accompanying figure. The
floodplain profile was represented by two of the
three tests at the treatment plant locality. The
third (easternmost) test lacked the sand tense
stratum.' The terrace front'profile was represented
by the first two tests. along the northern 'end of
the pipeline route, while the terrace back profile
was represented by -the remaining four tests. The
general stratum below -the silt layers was darker in
coloration than the silt and may represent a
remnant pre -flood plowzone. The organic content of
this zone (and its corresponding darker coloration)
appeared to increase directly in relation:to its
distance from the river (and away from the terrace
front), perhaps representing 'backswamp deposits'
behind an original natural levee terrace landform.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Archaeological survey methods including
subsurface testing techniques were applied to the
investigation of a proposed treatment plant site
and pipeline corridor within floodplain areas of
the upper Catawba River. These measures failed to
recover evidence to indicate the occurrence of any
archaeological sites within the proposed°project
area. It is not impossible that archaeological
materials are deeply covered by silt deposits
within the general floodplain locality. However,
even if these exist, theywould not ,be threatened
by the lift station facility because deep
excavations are not required for its construction.
In sum, no significant historic or prehistoric
cultural. resources will be.adversely affegted by
the proposed project.
The physical record of . the 1916 ;and :'I 940
floods within the project area is the vast, 'thick
deposit o.f silt that blankets the floodplain. It
is possible that, the silt strata in this particular
6
67

PROJECT AREA SOIL PROFILES
FLOODPLAIN TERRACE FRONT TERRACE BACK
silt
sand lense
silt
silt
sand lense
silt
clay
yellow
orange
clay
C 10 cm
68
silt
clay
loam
yellow
orange
clay

�0'w lD C 0 7 0 �70 7 w .rQraC -4,
7 m 7 m 7 .+ M —. --s M —• (. m m OM
m n 7 -Oro .+ 0 Iv c a l r+ N 0
vmpi 7X-3-rto -m7.+wm7711
7 n m a) iv u, e+ m a -•n m to my
0 m 0 0 £Ou7 00z w
C-.N N `C fi 0 - + .+c 7 n � !�
n w iD a 0 .+ .+ 7 7 m .+ 7 7 Op 7
.+ 7 -• n 7 7 eft -• vl - .t 0 m 0 7
x n c ww n7 cna7v .+m
7 wv 0+,+w0 7-ccgmm77w0
m -r0 - c n 0— 7£ to --•N n
n D 0Qa7m w771r cn IN
m -IN 7 0 m -•7 aim 0 1 ^m f+ I+
-3.+f+ rm 7 .+0 7 r+-•o 7 m 0 -•
c m c 7 0 7vID w C a,+7 am a7 0
m 7 am 4, - -•Qm m0 to n 7
m x u1 v n 7 r+ v 0 w m 7 n r+
na, m .+10w 0c3 'Ow07ou
'•' 0 0 .70 c 7 w Cl N-, .+ 7 7 7 m 7
M 7 4%-+, m n m aI m--h-,.70 7 -4, to
ID to -• 7 w C. m -.0
ww,+-•n ram-'IOO�+
w 7a -7 U 7 r+to 70 —•8 n c c 7
3 -• m -• 0 m ID 0 7 m £ .+ w 7 .+ -.
n .+ 7 v 0 ,+ 0 X. 7 .+ w 3 w 7 n
m vID 0 0 74%9D 7N ra.+ x
- 7 0 o w -+,m Cl m 0 -.to m
�.N O- m n .+0 -•7
0 am M 0 73m v O w 77 a
77mw -•wmw ,+7nto it
m n a v 7-3 7 w 0 0 OM - 0 7
nn,+a 7m.+m4%Xa C-t+0wi+0w
01 -• ,Cwmm7a +7
.7 pi .+ C_. 7 ,+ O w n a w c-. ,+
N 7 -• m m -.0 7 n ,+ -r pr 7 r+ 0
.+mm0 n0►•3anw w nm7-•
7 7 w 7 .+m f+mv 7N 2v n 3m m 3
ca w 7 -+wm 77w7-4, _.
nm:E .+-•vwm. to0Ove+-7-
m N -7 -•0 c ITto - 0 -•p
- a 0 v - mwN. cOc7
0,+,+ 077Q •Cam
.7 7 w 0 m No m -10 7
• w7 .+.+no-• K7''w I
f+ 0 .+ n m>> w I
,+ ,+ m w w a -• a
3• a 7 c
ID m

REFERENCES CITED
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina
Piedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society,
54(5).
Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: the Pisgah;
Phase in the Appalachian Summit
Region. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. The
Seeman Printery, Durham, NC.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: a Study of the
Appalachian Summit. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
N.C. Division of Archives and History
1979 Guide to North Carolina Historical
_Highway Markers. Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Powell, William S.
1968 The North Carolina Gazetteer. The
University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: an Overview of
the Prehistoric Archaeology of North
Carolina's Western Mountain Region.
In M. Mathis and J. Crow (eds.),
The Prehistory of North Carolina: an
Archaeological Symposium. N.C.
Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
12
70

APPENDIX C
LIST OF OTHER SUBMITTED MATERIALS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION
The following items were submitted by McDowell County and Jensen
Engineering to support their original draft environmental assessment. They
have been omitted from the printed final environmental assessment to keep it
under the maximum allowable page length. In the judgement of DEM these
materials are not critical to the decision on the proposed facility. In case,
however, anyone wishes to review them, they are available during normal
working hours at three places:
Water Quality Planning Branch, DEM, Roan 621, Archdale Building,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh
DEM, Asheville Regional Office, 159 Woodfin Street, Asheville
County Manager's Office, hIcDowell County, Marion
Detailed project maps.
Appendix 1 (to Appendix A) - NPQES Point Source Permit Holders and Their
Estimated Flows and Annual Phosphorus Output.
Appendix 2 (to Appendix A) - Total Phosphorus Trophic Classification Table
from Weiss and Kuenzler (1976).
Appendix 3 (to Appendix A) - Total Nitrogen Trophic Classification from
Wetzel (1983).
Appendix 4 (to Appendix A) - Calculations for Second Scenario.
Appendix 5 (to Appendix A) - Calculations for Third Scenario.
Letter from L. L. Hendrix, Soil Conservation Service, June 25, 1986,
conveying soil data and maps and stating that proposed plant site is
not prime farmland.
Letter from C. Fields, Rutherford -Polk -McDowell District Health
Department, July 15, 1986, endorsing proposed treatment plant and
citing the health problems and development moratorium in the Five
Lane community.
Letter from V. G. Henry, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 13, 1986,
advising that no federally listed or proposed endangered or
threatened plant or animals species in the impact area of the
proposed project and listing species which are under status review
and which may be in the project area.
Letter from C. Tingley, N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation, July 7,
1986, stating that no existing or proposed state trails or State
Natural and Scenic River nomination is involved at this site, that
Catawba River is included in the National Rivers Inventory, and
urging visual screening of the plant from the river.
Letter from D. Brook, N. C. Division of Archives and History, June 30,
1986, recommending that the project site be surveyed for
archaeological resources. (See Appendix B of this environmental
assessment for results of survey.)
Letter from V. J. Hoyle, Regional Air Quality Supervisor, DEM, Asheville,
June 11, 1986, finding no adverse effects on air quality and warning
of odor problem if improperly designed or operated.
Letter from W. D. Baker, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, June 9,
1986.
C-1
71 APPENDIX C

Letter from D. Link, Hydrogeological Regional Supervisor, DEM, Asheville,
June 12, 1986, finding no threat to groundwater so long as plant
tanks are constructed of concrete or steel.
Petition to McDowell County Board of Commissioners from 37 landowners or
business operators in the Five Lane Community, recognizing "that we
have a problem because of inadequate waste water treatment
facilities."
Public notice of intent to issue at state NPDES permit, April 9, 1986, for
proposed facility (NPDES No. NC0065595).
Draft NPDES permit No. NC0065595P undated but prior to April 9, 1986.
Resolution concerning grants to local governments for water and sewer
projects, City of Marion, July 15, 1986, approving expenditure of
$399,200 of wastewater funds provided under Senate Bill 2, Chapter
480, 1985 General Assembly Session Laws towards 50% of the cost of a
new 100,000 GPD wastewater treatment plant. These funds have been
suballocated from McDowell County to the City of Marion.
Agenda of County -City Meeting, October 28, 1985, showing discussion of
Five Lane water -sewer problem.
Clipping file from McDow.11_lgws, 1985-86, pertaining to project and water
quality problems in the Five Lane community.
Letters received from citizens and local officials in support of project
or in opposition and demanding an environmental impact statement.
Memorandum from M. McGee, NRCD Environmental Assessment Review
Coordinator, August 15, 1986s conveying critical written comments
from C. A. Tingley (Parks and Recreation) requesting description of
existing on -site vegetation and requirement of vegetative screen
between plant and river (both added to EA); from P. Thomson (N. C.
Division of Community Assistance) noting problems with certain land
development statistics (problems would not affect conclusions of EA),
and B. Wilson (N. C. Division of Land Resources) noting that EA fails
to address the geology and mineral resources within the C1/2 acrel
project area.
C-2
72 APPENDIX C

:>•
Oi itV States
Soil
15 North
Garden Street
t�epartment of
agriculture
Conservation
Service
Marion,
North Carolina 28752
June 25,
1986
Jensen Engineering Company
Post Office Box 18149
Asheville, North Carolina 28814
Attention: Mr. Michael Brookshir
VF
JUN [ 7 1986
JENSEN ENGINEERING
Dear Mr. Brookshir:
I am enclosing a soils map of the property for the Marion Waste Water Treatment
Plant as you requested on June 18, 1986. The soils near this site are Rosman (11)
and Biltmore (70). From the scale drawing the site is to be located on Biltmore .
loamy fine sand soil. This is not a prime farmland soil type. However, the
Rosman soil does meet prime farmland criteria.
The Biltmore soil is frequently flooded and does have a high water table between
3.5 and 6.0 feet of the surface.
Sincerely,
r`
Larry L. Hendrix
District Conservationist
LLH:mb
attachments (3)
® The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
Appendix C

NCO139 S 0 1 L I N T E R P R E T A T 1 0 N S RECORD
F:IU},•.; :: MLRA(S)t 130 ,::.:;;::.{':.•
t • REV. REH,MAB, 2-83 11Cill BiLTMORE SERIES
TYPIC UDIFLUVENTS SANDY MI . , XED�•.MESIC.�;}:i rr�'_ittS:ITA?.YJr ►'';' :.'.
THE BILTMORE•SERIES'CONSISTS OF WELL DRAINED TO MODERATELY'WELL DRAINED SOILS ON FLOOD PLAINS -IN THE SOUTHERN
t ::.APPALACHIANS..THEY FORMED IN,SANDY ALLUVIUM. ;TYPICALLY THE SURFACE LAYER IS DARK YELLOWISH BROWN FINE -SANDY LOAM 10
'1 ::.INCHES THICK. THE NEXT LAYER TO 50 INCHES IS YELLOWISH BROWN LOAMY SAND .,THE SUBSTRATUM TO 60IINCHES IS LIGHT YELLOWISH':
,•i ' BROWN LOAMY SAND. SLOPES RANCE FROM 0 TO 5 PERCENT. . L
ESTI
IDEPIHI
i I(IN.)I ' USDA TEXTURE : I j UNIFIED,•`, j•�:'I is r+`s AASHTO ';yid.. P3 INl THAN 3" PASSING SIEVE 110.+ 1 LIMIT ITICITYI
i 1 I 1 I' :'. I PCT I I 11 i1DEX I
tI10-601LS��LFS, S• p== tISHi�SP-SM ?'x �..•: N_. - ,. - ..,� - - - - - t - 1 ..
cn;�.� �i• rA�: t tA-2,t��+ '7"'"')IW ,f•• 1 •0-8:195-100 85-100 55-85"`10-35'1't - 1 NP
' a1. I:.I ��.j•_; `Y:;,.:• r' i1 ':YT
�'^.1.lid :.:Ce.:•csr.';1. 1 ''!:
nti41•;�I—, 1�'•ttr-n.t?'(77i-ViI
!, 1.;'
.
r - ;
i - — I' p. _ - -'1, .. i TTt_>,•,•t,:.� hf I T?ti 1. A-F•' >:;?1i'Y:%ti`• ' 1 ;i` I - . .I
:... ... ( _. _ I 3r.r r-.•l -mom; I . I. .., .�� » _. :. _,;, I .�, I 1
fI(1N.)I(PCT)I DENSITY I BILITY .IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)I SWELL A FACTORSIEROD.IHATTER I-' j
;1;: ::•;:/I I :I C/CIfi3) I j.1N I IN/IN I (PH) I IPOTENT IALI-R-irICROUPI (PCT I 1LOW
t y j 110-601 4-1211.60-1.75 1 6.0-20 17. 0.06-0.10 •1' 15.1-7.8 13 z ' - J' ' I ' ' � LOW , .1.10 IMODERATEI
, ; ; , I f y i3,'.; ; I '�.)•.'.°'iK7 I .;: I I I i Y
• t !� :r^ Ii' `iI '!1r ,.,.-- 1 -1 a+l �#.,• f
:i::T. a,::'• 1° :i4c+•.. 1• .1•:;,r� :Jf'• ,.,.. ,. I� 1 ;'�,,�•;t.'�':.:::.,.+:`::"'
i ' 1 .1 I 1 I � .. 1 I . �.`F�; .y ..:f'- ",;, ?-.f . Lr-�`�i:t'• ,!'>Ft •')i,•y �!• i' ,') :J.': •. .
•;, .. •! .1 '.I'' ,.. r�. ,` .. r•:1�=_.t'� 1' . •r. •,;. t l ;.:.f;• •z<I,:.+�'�.;;1- • 1':,1''I ;:;�'-a'.:••z::. _ •.:-�
i� 1' ,il •I 1 I I, l .'+, I,ii`r. s,; fi I• ..•. .I - •s: y:
! t•- —i t t r 3 1 , I r IGRPI FROST I'-
_ I FT)•s'I'• . I ,• =1 IN I' I IN I - 1 IN �I IN I I ACTION 1
' sti%s..»if•,icl••.•a• a:�.;.':.� ;,►.7..;+s•itY•...';ctiiar CONSTRSANITARY FACILITIES :A)UCTION MATERIAL t
A
t "ISEPTIC-TANK 1' a, 1' +i l� is +ti H83'ItY.C�itt `'a. ;,::), s,i �u"II 'r' � !',•.I !'' ra,, r;''`.:•:: `� � 1l.
ABSORPTION I :S lyxr i 4, t,
cIrr.RQADFILL:
5 wilO:jTllMl, "j:•L,• •j l 5• r:.'j.ri::•': d::Ji':
FIELDS
. 1
:! •'.:,Si�.'11 I r ,,.;,,:-1';: II ,)' t 1•;.::•i. t• ,. '('=;; 1
SEVERE
1 '• SEWAGE ' I �. _ ' y..Cr :>
i t riL1 ::rcti 3T1i- sro_tT, i II^ '•y 1' ,.. .
1 • LAGOON tijt . )':' 1: ;_:'.Ts r1:.• :it, t . :1 J 1: ^r:•: ; i
( ,.I "1. I ,e y t ,••:.:II SAND I is :, ,r:..•, j•::'•'
1 I AREAS' i 1 •+ 'k t Yr :1 I�. 1' 'I • 1 H 2;B P.��(.?tr'•�iit'� r:i'1;;r r' :'r�.�.:•.') I �_ .�y�'^`.� ��•
1 . 1'.•SANITARY; I, 1.. ,.1; , . :;a h;i'iyll:l.t �•' ::I;•:.. ::,. 1
.LANDFILL,' I -!
!.r -•r;'.:; ::i' iYy; r1GRAVEL;"" 1: I
1 TREN 1 w ':�•L... ;::r:. }I
l r„1.. r21- SANITARY.-, I '_ ..,:asi . ' i.: " •; i
1='LANDFILL I - c im;:r-.i'_--r+t�r�'%-f=11p� 3ila_L�.. _)lzti!4' i'.•'�;1
3 I AR f 'i~ `i`h fa!f.'�*-II TOPSOIL'•—'1• afi r•,F�Z'tk 1'r;
J.
1FDOK-5LLPAGE,Too SANDY
I. DAILY I,
i 1 COVER FOR' WATER MANAGEMENT (A)
i ..---•- I- LANDFILL-1! - j
cr I . .. r,.l , ...... __ .. _,.�h i,T'�TTiI`<!�Y j•;:3;'^ti�J I Ifs"' ppNp'.. , L.. • •- ----r'..._,..--:....- t 1 .
_ ,t<ii-inr7; <.. .: TITRESERVOIR
Irf3':+v':lL:i�_'.T:.C. .i:, ::t II ,:;.• ,.,);F :_._
1 'iit?!1 i+:}j BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT A
i - fr;t•: + I ' SHALLOW ' I " NCil: -
(EXCAVATIDNS 1 "1 t I = j;-5.:.:`::1:; ;::I IEMBANKMENTS'I
=.T::• 1I DIKES AND
• i ''.k• I i � .i:• .1.• i•' ,. 1� LEVEES
' •�' ,. 1..DWELLINGS!
,1 _ > :• i .:.•-t..•'.,:. : I I • �• l _ i' . -
+? vrj ,.•.F:' ;ti,--,••r �4%r *i- t r I I EXCAVATED, r
1 _.: _7?T_*i 1 t• WITHOUT �: I t _ c "i i r�; ,� , . i.rammi.}� mii <,. ; I .�11i,;?iii r. __�
BASEMENTS `:'I7•--==F^' i.t S'z,f`,?j� err rYyrl�.:I I -,PONDS •..:..� I -
�( QU R FED' 1.
1 ;.,.• I I ''' I , . t!i 'TaAJ�# Ir:rr,.l! 1
j.. ----I DWELLINGS I ' .. ti; •` .� I I .:i:3 t:+i�•.( 1
r I
I.
WITH I i'1 w�;r^:+�'n•,:II''�DRA 1 :.;? q:..q�e' .•!1+'�'o`fJlir?4:.
1' :f c'..17.r,t, .a; INAGS.•1
r. I BASEMENTS 1 'r• r.• ,� ,l,
! SMALL., `. I �`'' .�'' .;,...,.. r..,• i
-I•COt4IERCIAL I `L _=';}i;:•' I1, 13-54s DROUGHTY SLOPE FLOODING:;.t::
i - y• ,.•� I I; IRRIGATIONi I.
BUILDINGS I t ! C?'.;:>,,:.' 'a i:• :t•
,.; I LOCAL I t.: r:,: =sit' i.i<ti%o}:.eIIITERRACESSII
ROADS AND ti' I . I - c,,;k,«. ^:,•.<' 7. -1
t ::L:•:.?1-.. , :G•-. ° ..r,rr`' 1 I: AND
STREETS I i,' .fi . rn < . „
t 1 ''!'.. '.+r. �1i ;°<.' ,,��r,'..,IIDIVERSIONS'INZI:
•i 's.l ,
ILANDS CAP ING I FREQs-SEVERE-FLOODING ,r.-,~��.i..,ll"• GRASSED'�I ".:•vS
. AND GOLF 1 1 •srJ ' ;. i {' 'WATERWAYS r S?:;47;YL 1
II I i
t I 'FAIRWAYS :t yY^ ..i;� l I1 1 l,:aY •l,Et:k!dt ,
----� -. - - • I -! l .. . ��' 4!E:'i':��'� ` 11 .;, PP..4.T113i'f' -.k?!9I [ � 1
! : I ,.. :,• I •tS44 4^1 i.: i�;.. 1 i. iTA4-s �:'i: i s r4!'q.in: li Y.
t .r •o. �:�; �.itir`: .I;•J..(.+R,.. 'Iti; °Ji^,° <<.iilai. Y.1)��l'•:'.c.'J:u.i:iTA:.: ^y

10
RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT' A
1T SLVERE-F - t I
t {' '' I I '''` '' "\ ".:! .;•1`a :' "�':`. ':'II 1-2-3%OCCASt MODERATE -SLOPE FLOODING I
I CAMP AREAS 1 :•i'• :? ', !! +;.; :'•` I IPLAYGROUNDS I FREO: SEVERE-FLDODING
I. ... _.
I FREp:.MODERATE- FLOOD ING..' ,••• •I11-• •• PATHS... 1 FREp: MODERATE -FLOODING... .... I
IPICNIC AREASI .1 �_ 11 AND
11 TRAILS I !
i II I { .
' DETERMINING
1 —1 -
I BILITY
1 • W"n I Wtur 1 UA15 1 GAtlBAGE 1
I+ 1 SILAGE t I I I
GRA55 HAY-11 ,PA4TURET i
{ { {
1
! PHASE
I
IIRTRRTTM(BU) I (TONS) ! 1 1 (CRATES) 1
(TONS) . 'i (AUM) I 1
KO NIRK(BU)
RR. IN
TT
Ili-yI
:iI i.:d'tl'i
{
'• .`
'`�'� �j-
i; !_ t'
I ! : . I':. �•s• i:!til t �: i7: t ii'. 1•:.:
1
•;s���:i'
1 I :. : I I I 1
1;":`� tI..
....I
....•1 _'�»_
!.�i;<..:I:
.I. � 1• i`;1'•!!�1_ j; !'•����,�}
�.
1
'•`
Z.
i
1' i'•, 1
{
I
{ ! 1
1 ' I -. {; .Cli.:i 17C•^.I,?;.. j: )� j
... -f :(C(�
.- _
11'
1 i I: I•'; I 1 I! 1 1
1 ; I ` 1 ' I I 1
-,:....,,
i .. , I � ..`
1'::, 1....:,.1';•`;:`:' 1 :` ;':•I:r',':�'. 1 ..., 1 t 1•''•
I '••._. 1 I • 1
_... I
{
DETERMINING ,'
PHASE" '' ' '
'IINDXICLASI SITETMWI TREES TO PLANT I
1
ISYNI
I'IHAZARDILIMIT•IMORT'YIHAZARDICOMPETI�"
1
1 1
,(NORTHERN RED OAK
!{
I I• (YELLOW -POPLAR I
i
I
I+'!t" I 1'.••.:. I (WHITE OAK
I I! IAMERIGN SYCAMORE I
• 1
._ ........._.._:...,_. :.:
11
I..;. I..,
I fit' I. 1 (BLACK OAK
'.-.1.:.__. IAMER ICAN SYCAMORE..I...I...;.:IEASTERN
1 .1 ILOBLOLLY. PINE I
WiiITE PINE I
IBLACK WALNUT
I'
(EASTERN WHITE PINE
196 112 1
IWHITE ASH
I 1' 1
1
ct. ...I.:•'1'
T-I
IRIVER BIRCH
.-....... I . I LOBLOLLY PINE ... .
I 1 1 :i.. ....
.197.. 191.i.._._.._
. 1
1 I
1� ,r , 1 . I 1 I
I I i:::.•1.'� ';
. I
1 I
I I 11 ' I I I
I
1j
{ { I• 1
I
II
NONE
1 1
I I
- - nlwt.trc tWtl11"" JUI'" LIIY (C) -
1 -POTER I
1 1 DETERMINING I iitE1�1
1 PHASE 1 SEED ILEGUME I HERB.11 TREES IPLANTS'I (PLANTS I'WATER IWILDLF IWILDLF IWILDLF IWILDLF I
il
wu
I ''1'''' •I
1. I I
' I I : � I 1
I I' I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I '• I I I I I
I -PERCENTAGE MPOsrTTON
1 COMMON PLANT NAME .I .SYMBOL"'1-„
MY-iETCFiI T-BPS �iER)TIATFi��CSF --I
I (NLSPN) IIBLUEBERRY-
ACCI
IRHODOBENDRON :I. RHODO ,i. ;l p I
{ I I
I
I I I I
I POTENTIAL PRODUCTION
FAVORABLE YEARS .:::, .,..,. 1
I
NORMAL YEARS
UNFAVORABLE YEARSFOOINUTES
{ I 1
A RATINGS BASED ON NSH-PART 11, SECTION 403, 3/78
B. RATINGS BASED ON SIMILAR SOILS IN "WOODLAND REPORT" W-1,.6/69
(COMUS).
-,PROGRESS
C RATINGS BASED ON SOILS MEMO-74, 1/72 , '.

i
FLUVENTIC HAPLUMBREPTS, COARSE -LOAMY, MIXED, MESIC
THESE WELL TO MODERATELY WELL DRAINED, NEARLY LEVEL SOILS ARE ON THE FLOOD PLAINS IN APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN VALLEYS.
2 TYPICALLY THEY HAVE A DARK BROWN LOAM SURFACE LAYER ABOUT 15 INCHES THICK WHICH OVERLIES A DARK YELLOWISH BROWN LOAMY
SUBSOIL. THE SUBSTRATUM IS STRATIFIED LOAMY ALLUVIUM. SLOPES ARE-O TO 3 PERCENT.
I ESTIIJAIED SOIL PROPER
IDEPTHI!
(IN.)i USDA TEXTURE .i UNIFIED-.:I'...-.:;;AASHTO ? ' I>3 INI THAN 3" PASSING SIEVE NO. 1 LIMIT ITICITYI
I _ - 1 I(PCT)I I [INDEX
I O Tr
150-6015R-CR-S-CR-C ,ISM, ML, CL-ML, SM-SCIA-4,; :, 115-35175-95 65-65 60-80 36-55 I t25 INP-7
1 1 1
1 - 1 1 I I I
I(IN.)1(PCT)I.DENSITY I BILITY IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)1 SWELL IFACTORSIEROD.IMATTER I
1' I 1 (C/CM3) I (IN/HR) I (IN/IN) I (PH) I IPOTENTIALIir-T7-IGROUPI 1 (PCT) I-5TEE1- _ICGNCRETEI
150-601 - 11.35-1.60 1 6.0-20 1 0.08-0.12 I5.1-6.5 I:;' .- , ! L011 1.101 I I I 2_5
1 I ,I 1 r j 1 e •. I t' 11 .I 1 I 1'
' 1 1 I I I j I I"• I I 'I
... 14—
FLOODING I HI I CEMENTED PAN I —BE
I.
1
1 Cummo I (FT) 1" I I(IN 1
IGRPI FROST I
- I (IN) I: MN)�I(IN) 1 1 ACTION I
-N:APRI
SANITARY FACILITIES A)
1
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL A
[SEPTIC TANK 1
i ABSORPTION I
I
r
FAIR-THIN
FIELDS
11 ROADFILL
-
r FLOODIN
1 SEWAGE I ,
II !
1
I
II ;
1I SAND: I
AREASN I
II
1
1I sEVEREM-EPAG
SANITARY
1
1
1 LANDFILL I
I-' (TRENCH) I
I II I
I
I1 f GRAVELLLPAGE
I SANITARY 1
LANDFILL I r
(AREA) I
I I
II TOPSOIL I
11 1
11
I' DAILY I COVER FOR 1
I
,j! -
'WATER MANAGEMENT (A)
j LANDFILL i,. ,... ..
::11 , pCVCttC
C �,r '•': 11 '' POND :•:'I,.
aeern
11. RESERVOIR., I
,..
BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT .(A)
-r
!1 AREA 1
1
I
LOOD I NuI
1- SHALLOW ' I
IEXGVATIONS I
[[EMBANKMENTS
I
11 DIKES AND I.
11 LEVEES I
I DWELLINGS -1
• WITHOUT I
r.. 11 EXCAVATED-.' I„
. • 1
BASEMENTS -
.. 11 PONDS 1 ,
"" "•' -
I i
' I I AQU I FER FED I "
II I
_ ......_
" � 1
1
I DWELLINGS -
II
I
[ BASEMENTS I
1 1
I
II' DRAINAGE I
I •• II 1
II
1
1I SEVERh-FLOODING
I SMALL I
I
I
I COMMERCIAL I
' II I
II IRRIGATION I
1
l BUILDINGS I
..
I
1
, if
I
LOLL I
ROADS AND I :
11 TERRACES I
I
I
STREETS • I..
1 1
�. II AND 1
11 DIVERSIONS I '-..'
I
-•., 1
ILANDSGPING I FREQ: SEVERE -FLOODING
1
- I AND GOLF I
I I GRASSED I ..
_ %" �:•; I I' WATERWAYS I
::• :. 1
.. ... - .... ...
FAIRWAYS I
. , ••
.. ... .. I
r
I

T-SE`viRE=FLUDDT RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT to
l 1i069-HODERATE_—FLOMI 1
I CAMP AREAS I II I FREQ: SEVERE
IIPLAYCROUNDS I I.
s. I : SI I I
I FREQ: MODERATE -FLOODING II PATHS I FREQ: SEVERE -FLOODING
IPICNIC AREASI
i 1 .......... , .,_...
AND
r l i'= : TRA I LS
II i
Luwr I CAPA= - - -
DETERMINING''' 1 BILITY Ii ILECLME HAY I - CRASS PHASE I I (BUY I (TONS) 1 (AUM) I 1 I I 1 1 1 MRITTTm. TF7mR_ I IRR_A1
I
I
1
IFREQ 12W I 1 110 11.4.0 1 1 8.5 1 1 1 11 1 I I •.1 I 1
1 I :• I _.:. 1 ;i.,•1,..•. '.I':•`: I`.°•:' 1 11' �1,. 1 1 1 I•`.1
I•' :' � I I� I .i I I".. 1' `'••I' I :I'.. 1 1"`•-' I '�' :1 'I I'. t i I � 1' 1 I 1 •�. I I�• I i I 1� ! I 1 I ;1 1
I I. I
--no-u -1 t0) -- -
lullul
DETERMINING. ISYHI I TREES 70 PLANT
1
PHASE I IHAZARDILIMIT�IMORT-YIHAZARDICOMPETI
I IINDXICLASI I
[EASTERN WHITE PINE 1100 113 [BLACK WALNUT . 1
I'... I '•: I } . 'I ;''. 1 I I'•. 1 INORTHERN RED OAK 190 1 4 [EASTERN WHITE. PINE
1 1 I 1 I I IAMERICAN SYCAMORE 195 1 1
IBLACK WALNUT 1100 I I 1
1 I 1 I 11 s I IYELLOW-POPLAR I105 1 8 1
IN
ICLA-S
• 1 1 I I I I - I I 1 ,1 1
- -
I DETERMINING j "-"" Ines rurc mtJI JAI tLLMtNTS
I PHASE I SEED ILEGUME I HERB.•I TREES IPLANTS
I I IPLANTS I WATER IWILDLF IWILDLF IWILDLF IWILDLF IK IV. POORI GOOD
I. I . I• I.. i I.......:..1.. I I I . •
I COMMON PLANT NAME I SYMBOL 1 1
I NLSPN) I I I I I I
1 I I ..
I
'I
I I 1 I 1 1 I I
I
I FAVORABLE YEARS I I
I NORMAL YEARS I
I UNFAVORABLE YEARS I I 1 IFOOINUTES
1
I
A RATINGS BASED ON NSH, PART I[, SECTION 403, 3-78.`I
B WOODLAND RATINGS BASED ON --SOIL SURVEY INTERPRETATIONS FOR WOODLANDS" PROGRESS RE, JULY 1969
C WILDLIFE RATINGS BASED PORT W-12
ON SOILS MEMORANDUM-74, JAN. 1972 .

WIN`f�"- 1 al•T i ct '
{-f..- sic/ s1`rwQ'� a : y �� ie� f`' r'+']l'i� � C s'� 4 y `}ai l• `� V i , .7r;r%j s -> i �� I , t . d tii - ; �� .. f s'�" •��
3 c Yq ..� 1r t �3ay� r ��}. +��. • ll L�rc�3� � a{ c �� Y � 'tea 4. +` >,(y' ✓ , a, ' / ! �` � • •�K_, '•a _ `r V 3 �
! ..1�� . �4%.Y -+r '�'y'+`a ... '�s, �/1y� �l,IIi"/7.'1�` J t :, i rtl}: � '�vt�-�-i f v � .,% . �;�I p������� ,,J�i s `::L�� /Y3i�Q •. '�pT�. J"
l f. L_ , �, t < ✓ •-{f... t t'� - if• in S 1'.' - , i2f J�, ,� 0. ^'' P. =�\. �_a•,. ,•:E'•.- �: Y. +rn - 'i�7�•• • -icS, I*N ��� T �j y.J 1 ' `L �� lr?'4� ��S �� �` h•`r i, r.. ' r. +�'' � �I `i r' ti� � �va� �3 '��v . �•7.�
Yy J �'J"7? /1 1 .• k � a. � :•„ 'y 5 '�, � 5 t:,1 .�.' _ ,d ', ":� ..fl
�' 's 3 7bf g' f ��'Sit , `� ,;�' 4 � +=�\LLy. ''r `�.✓ J•, ''`+ ♦ �' y .1 7/ r,a e• as. 4i. r .�'a' •• of '�f ''� ic'
yta;..tt"cxl '•�"n: r'-�.%'t f ).Y,",a::. }:1 ~':i:•F #-a
rf,YfkN
IV
�3 •�'• " .� \ u r � '� 1. , �r ..- �{�,p �.�i �t(S,RMy�r,7dA ti.W .7�rIV >'�,.y�'y• t -,�
,•�fti' f ``«_�\ ��'{ i (� � ��'..f•rP .,Jt Tf
r' J!'rr �:�Y �` ,.i; •"'J i1� �4•' .. 1�1 �`$11�E '11.izk 1
tr f .r. ;SL 3:% i. :'�' • .a; n,Yfr, +. j {'.,� *'`- 1.i7 '��� r, .. :5 ^� _j- 771i 1v7 r!� E !� �a �,t
'+. ��':'f,;3�'i•,,�n a �,• 1. 1}. - �lr `yj�V/�ta�rj t `� °�'�' (� ,;�+ ,s vo.i fi''� •�• !T xy is r54��Y
��'T�+ ri jZ �riGd _� � < < ,'•r t r., .. r\ar / I' ./'� y` � 'y�.y�/�i��3. •.\`m�T�t 1., ,,,, •j6 :fir •rS ,r �ry
ayW:''
r %:�. i;t., 1t'rr,J "'t� «`t• j:•,i -7; ���CC�j `l,i�Y' .,; •v `�`` ss. o�,i' -.' >Si +„'•r. '"l;yP`• �.i': .)�•� 1 wt�r,s4
i�1yi raw. yt�4 i f ' � r'• •/ • � •�-w��'-\�• fr �'+^`.., wit• `• '�\�,�.'. rri r i. '��` �. A Fj• '�vy.,t ti..+�;
'. j, t- I arti�s. '� .t -:C. / . FF//''�� .1,, • �'� �1 ;.w.e r ?l�V.e.. ' y r „'/� 3 +j..it f r a'v'.y !. y'. 'h� ot. I...3`' + t Nr 1 �'•
•'.7Q k t! . � ' �' �1/���r r ,+ �[� � "ir7 � d '''; (, •I i i', }. ,'' ;s ',f, �4 'cr1 it yy"'t� •Sv'
V r 1 ''i � t '~r � -,.� � __." _ ' "�• % , ^ r - r7 �•r � 3 �,
3 t'1 -s ��C. '�; ` �^�`. ' �sM%jtiiti' ��_ � 1p��`C. � �, �� i�� x t•,,,t •' �(� . + .ti�ryy r,Y � , �. l., n- J ; t l ,s!
1 t �ti • /•. ,s'%ir a �l ���'��� 11 % , r'� 1' A:
V•"Ic.e4M ^�:I ) r •y r -S i l! t �' :3: S { a <.�- T S .3 �F:
Ij r •P r � Y•C•S'. `/ , � � •► .%^r �•�.: � t''J'��'O t7: rl+ rt jt '�(). «., ,,'t 's 3 3... a .,w, _.r.
14
` - ,� �`r,f. 'J�r�I'�.rK • ,1 ''�,t".�' `��r,.ij.r'�t �ar•1, y �;, t� \Tt 'l � '. #)� �iF �'' - :a." / f+lt7� � t .a �
f r r/1 jr �\��"`J' �'�� •2^'1.7c ,.��T, ,�Fi ,�J iY�. ,rrr /: ��r �t y !\r? "1jy :4.. » 1 fx Z n �/r�
•sd a- / �'' { 1r,{ vy � ,:,� y''•3%. „�!. i.:�'� t .:r tit r�' ',` �4 f �� � � !f `•'�
,•r`: ® fl 6i��11. t "+ �,. t' f )t F, ins i (• •r 9 � '+ "I �p•r t �.:f ar,� ',"�a r � A�.iy'`Eit-,• � 'f• •�. `v�(. ,•."�.+..'� "'^-•'(" �`6'"i.. . 'l� I N i, '*t' ~�<-r .;n t"•'r.
/ w" ` •. :- ��,Y��� '�4�',� '�v '-sa r rJ •:�s, y* L`7� `•r .r i.,.'
.. �� ... � \Sr5 �...,� / 1 ti s .. ^.•'l.'t""`•"`. \ `. .S it -r _ � i, s • S .:��'• 4T':'7"=' .•Y: '� ,•�
V, r' ` _ ram• e J l a'. �, v,: :'
' i ,1` `\, Y� ��.�l�,t�y{jI y. 'I� ( :\ 'n`•'� 1� �5� r, r ate• •.���.5�'dt'1 � - �''� 1
• 11► • • ,�,��'�"7' f' .1 + `l � • J� 1 '�► �'t i'ityd, 'si . • Yt ] ., .'r�V rq'a`,, "(fri ��e�� , . r � •'i�
• � 1 i ( J 1. •1
�:Z � rF .. ���� �� r /�L �[� �[^ "� `� � 5,.i1�'���A /if1i �-�J��'• r S', �`• ~•'% ���' } •.4` ,r .q, •"� 't� .
+,i . / �„F1'• ., a � �� : 1 r ?}q:,t- � a�' 3. 1 . h �• 3\ ' j •_ , t J `+sal r.r`.. Z :.I'."+ � :4 `sl'�
C [•� f ,y� 1 hjll. ry 1) r tH + ..Jl' t� \\ �jM1r t, .r y`t + t' ,�.. C � 'Y., w• .
••+`� L� 1T ��, ' �` y � f! I ��•A �.+ { (- ^i'l ., r. _ . ( ;+• � �� + r ' p1 .�3 �•1 j� • • � � � 1`�� � �� p• � � i
.F i^'►rilA�-"• ea„�•-4 ,y„G •'�f f,; •r 'a v i�•;,\K �. •jr ! � ! •. 'Y' 1 a" i••�I'_ 'r,Jr r! ,° �t��� • ,�
t `•'' } q ,ail �� . 4 r✓'L':.�.• a i � � � �tr•t'?1� .,tsy�' �?, G 3•! 3 `" p 4 � i ,v rY� ,� il, a�
".lr
�A• i�:: . � '�`—' T ;i . _ t^��w : ,� ,," 't//,;%... • , y+y'�',��jJ:� �.rr:� . r'; rl�i=, •':.i�, �� \ ��?`�.q t!. g?� ''� �.:t, .I
/ .Y ,t4 �1 }'' it• rfe;.{j'!'jP'.{y. T �¢}� i�j- r•jl Shiirf "'' r .1 [, '(�.�^"�'.HS ,1�1�, -` _d'• r� \ i i i:! "7- l
G \ !,',.,,�� •" ] v' yr.f. ntv _Jrr f t•�} � �. •t: Y.j . t �,. �l; •o:. �.j V .? F:T rf!• •:7'�
v:. ""�:�; lr � v/E7, r ( a k c;. ti:t,.l•. I' •,t I-`�"S'� ~r !'VC
�� .;. ^'y,•„r's«-•� i �3 �• Fi��SJi' -tr F`e•' }. aA�'�i.T � ;�.....•� .sY �t 7 tY` ;"� �.- _ .�(, ��.
.+ -Y+4 ' 1: jFYr t r_. Y;� "�' _ '_ �_"".'ii�.' :�15. .._ _ �1� ..:}Z �'�••! ,1 Si rr��►..r �-. ..�

7
�Gifixtr.� c7��z� �efuzx�rt
McDowell
O. .971
Rutherford
Polk 2op%ao?
July 15, 1986
Mr. George Jensen
Jensen Contractors
12' Broad. Street
P. 0. Box 18149
Asheville, NC 28814
Dear Mr. Jensen:
Z!!S JUL 17 1966 U
JENSEN ENGINEERING
As you are aware, the staff of the Rutherford -Polk -McDowell District Health
Department is very pleased to witness the achievements which your engineering
firm is making toward the development and completion of the proposed sewage
system for the five -lane area of Marion, North Carolina along Highway 70 West.
Currently, the McDowell County Health Department has records to substantiate
that the Smoke House Restaurant, Harvest Drive -.In, Marion Machine Shop,
Service Distributors, Western Sizzlin, Darrell Ford -Mercury, have all had
repairs to.the original septic tank systems which were installed some ten
to twelve years ago. In addition, there are five other sewage systems which
are being pumped on a regular basis, namely, Pizza Hut, Hardee's, Golden
Chicken, Lady Marion Plaza, and its apartment complex. Other systems are
being pumped and hauled on a less frequent basis, meaning once or twice a
year. In addition, it is important that any reviewer of your discharge
permit application remember that most of the systems in the five -lane area
were installed prior to 1973. This clearly indicates that many systems
are in excess of 13 years of age. As you are aware, we have basically been
forced to place building growth in this area at a stand still due to the
current ground saturation effect due to the number of septic tanks and
drainfields existent in this area. On occasion, there have been leaks from
some of these systems into the Garden Creek and consequently Catawba River.
This usually occurs in heavy rain or wet seasons.
We have both informed and demonstrated to you that the five -lane area or
Highway 70 West section of Marion is certainly a number one priority in
our minds for municipal sewage installation. Thusfar, we have publicly
supported this project in its entirety on every given occasion. Please use
this letter as the District Health Department's endorsement to your
Appendix D

Mr. George Jensen
Page 2
July 15, 1986
procurement of a sewage discharge permit.
Best regard
Clifford Fields
District Health Officer
CF:bg
cc. Fred Matthews, Sanitarian Supervisor
Don King, McDowell County Manager.

EXECTUTIVE'SUMMARY
Cross -sectional, "black box," empirical models were used to predict the effects of -
phosphorus and nitrogen loading from a proposed wastewater treatment plant on the
receiving water body. The proposed wastewater treatment plant is located near the Garden
Creek section of Mcdowell County, NC. The receiving water body is Lake James located in
McDowell and Burke -Counties.
Six scenarios were modeled. Two scenarios dealt with the present conditions of the
Lake and the nutrient inputs now flowing into the Lake. Three scenarios were concerned wit
the effects of different flow rates on Lake nutrient concentrations. The final scenario was
modeled,in order to show some perspective of the proposed waste water treatment plant to
recently closed Old Fort Finishing Plant. The Finishing Plant was a.major point source
contributor to the Lake for many years. .
Model results show that the proposed waste water treatment plant would increase
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in Lake James only slightly. Model results suggest
that there would be no significant changes in trophic state from the proposed waste water
treatment plant. Of the total nutrient load entering the Lake, the Garden Creek Plant will
contribute approximately 1.1 % of the phosphorus and 0.8% of the nitrogen.
In order to protect the water quality of Lake James.a comprehensive watershed
management plan is suggested. A planning process which identifies the limitations of the
watershed, targets businesses and industry that would compliment those limitations and
provide for the needs of the residents of the watershed should be considered.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
28

t-,
Public concern that operation.of the proposed secondary sewage treatment plant to be
located in- the Garden Creek section of McDowell County, North Carolina wouldpotentially
esculate the eutrophication of Lake James has prompted the North Carolina NRCD
Commissioners to request further study of the effects of the proposed plant on Lake
eutrophication. The proposed plant will provide secondary treatment of sewage from an
area presently utilizing septic systems, some of which are now failing. When septic system
failure occurs, sewage runoff drains into a tributary paralleling NC 221 and US 70, enters.
the Catawba river, and eventually enters Lake James.
The proposed secondary sewage treatment plant, hereafter called the Garden Creek
Plant, may reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the Catawba river and Lake James if it
replaces failing septic tanks within the area of service. Phosphorus is removed with
secondary treatment with only 20% efficiency, _Ir ;5 concentrated as a point source -
pollutant at the sewage facility, and released into the Catawba river. Nitrogen is removed
more affectively than phosphorus with secondary treatment, therefore, nitrogen influent -
levels may be reduced significantly by the Garden Creek Plant.
The questions to be addressed in this study are:
1. How will the proposed sewage treatment facility affect the trophic state of Lake.
James?
2. How does the addition (or reduction) of nitrogen and -,phosphorus in the effluent of the
proposed sewage treatment plant compare to that of the areal loading
from other nutrient input sources?
DESCRIPTION OF-LAKE-JAMES AND ITS WATERSHED
Lake James is located in Burke, and McDowell counties at longitude 81 ° 51', latitude-35' -
44'. The watershed includes parts of Burke, McDowell and Avery counties covering an area
of 980 km2 (NRCD, 1982a). Lake James.is the first major impoundment in the Catawba
River series. It was built in 1919 by Duke Power Company at the confluence of the Catawba
and Linville Rivers (NRCD, 1982a). The Lake is currently managed by Duke Power Company
for hydroelectric power and for recreation (NRCD, 1982a). Lake levels vary seasonally
according to management requirements.
The major tributaries to Lake James are the Linville, North Fork of the Catawba and the
Catawba rivers. The Lake is also fed by Black, Forsythe, Paddy, Dales, and Bear Creeks. The
largest towns in the watershed are Marion and Old Fort.
The North Carolina Clean Lakes Classification of 1982 renks Lake James at 2.on a

. .f` \�• .i. n � ; rj — war � ',..._r
«w � ter— ...'•• `:C •�• .. /
41
• � � ... it W; / -�
FIGURE 1: MAP OF THE LAKE JAMES WATERSHED
(FROM NCDOT MAPS OF AVERY, BURKE,
AND MCDOWELL COUNTIES,1984)
nomu
FORESTAAA
LAKE JAMES� -
• = �`�p,..•.c,.,r � ` +� � °� � :J_ � �.: �~ �a ` -�— �••.r� yr � ••l
10
MARION
cl
� `"��' - \/'.�/._ _•� a � max_ _ `� _ _ �.i:-• �
n �• _ _ �; • , �v � . �; r. • j,- � •• ' � tom/ � • � . - � ..,:
1 ii� 1 •�— i '.. It""- . .. • 1 — — �"
R U T.. M, E R f^ A 0- _ C -0 U `I- T -

e
scale from 1-6, least to most enriched. The Lake is rated as oligo-mesotrophic (NRCD,
1982). Lake James is'deep compared to most southeastern impoundments and currently has
relatively few eutrophication problems (Dingfield, et al. 1984).
LAKE DMENSICNS
Surface area 26.34 km2
.. Maximum depth 43 m
Mean Volume 356 x 106m3
Shoreline 152 miles
Drainage basin.98000 ha
(NRCD,1982a)
The climate of the area is typical of the piedmont - mountain region with mild
temperatures and moderate rainfall. The temperature ranges from' a winter average of 40.1
'F to a summer average of 76.2 `F. Precipitation is heaviest in the summer months (July)
and driest in the fall (November) with an annual average of 51.6 inches (NOAA, 1982).
TOPOGRAPHY - SOILS - VEGETATION
The watershed of Lake James lays both in the Appalachian Mountains and on the
Piedmont Plateau. The slopes in the area range from 0 - 5% in the flood plains and lower -
valleys to 10 - 25% in the steepest portions of the watershed (McDowell County, 1982).
The Linville Gorge Wilderness area contains some of the steepest slopes. The streams
feeding into the Lake flow through land characterized by a succession of rolling ridges and
intervening valleys..
The major soil types in the watershed are Cecil-Appling, 'Hayesville - Halewood -and
Hayseville- Halewood- Ashe associations (Burke Soil and Water Conservation District,
1980; McDowell County, 1982). The Hayseville- Halewood association consists of
moderately deep upland soils which have grey -brown, friable, sandy loam and loam topsoils..
These are underlain with red to brown -yellow friable subsoils derived from schist and
gneiss parent materials. These soils generally occur on rolling topography and have
moderate limitations for septic systems, slight limitations for sewer systems and
construction activities, and are rated as good for agriculture and forestry (McDowell
County Land Use Plan, no date; Burke County Dept. of Community Development, no date). The
Hayeeville- Halewood- Ashe soils are stony, shallow upland soils generally on the steeper .
slopes. which are derived from gneiss,schist, and granite parent materials. This
association has severe limitations for septic systems and most construction activities,
2

moderate limitations for -sewage systems, and a poor to fair rating for agriculture and
forestry (McDowell County Land Use Plan, no date; Burke Soil and Water Conservation
District, 1980a). The Cecil- Appling association consists of moderate to deep upland soils
with gray, friable, sandy loam topsoil and red to brownish -yellow, friable to firm subsoils
derived from granite and gneisses. These soils usually occur on the smoother topography of
the Piedmont. They have slight to moderate limitations for septic, sewers, most
construction practices and a good to fair rating for agriculture and forestry (McDowell
County Land Use Plan, no date; Burke Soil and Water Conservation District, 1980a).
LAND USE IN THE WATERSHED
The majority of the land, 83.5%, in the watershed is forested, consisting of mixed
hardwoods and pines (NRCD, 1982a). A large portion of this land has commercial value and
is actively used for silvicultural purposes (Dingfelder,-gL_a1. 1984). Agricultural uses
compose 10.1 % of the watershed (NRCD, 1982a). The major crops grown are corn, soybeans,
tobacco, hay, and vegetables. The majority of the tilled acreage is used:for. corn produetior
and the untilled land for hay (Burke County Soil and Water Conservation_ District, 1980;
McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1982). Pasture land composes
approximately 3% of the total watershed. A comparatively small portion of the
watershed, 3.1 %, has been converted to urban land uses (NRCD, 1982a). Most of the
development in close proximity to the lake consists of low -density, single family housing
(Dingfelder, et al.,,1984). It is estimated that only 1-5% of the residences within the
watershed are seasonal residences.
STUDY AREA
The area to be serviced by the Garden Creek Plant - is located along an approximately 2
mile stretch of US Highway 221-226-70, in the Garden Creek area of McDowell County,
North Carolina. This area is approximately 75 hectares in size and contains 44
businesses, 57 residences and 2 schools (Jensen Engineering, 1986). See Figure 2.
The soils in the study area consist of approximately 60% Hayesville loam 2710% slope
and 40% Hayesville loam 1.0-25% slope (NC DNER,1972). The Hayesville loam soils consist o
a'brown loam surface and a friable red clay subsoil. When these soils occur on steeper
slopes, the soils tend to be well drained with a thin surface layer (NC DNER,1972). These
soils on slopes of <_ 10% are generally good for most types of urban land uses with moderate .
limitations which can be corrected (NC DNER,1972). When they occur on steeper slopes
(>10%) they have severe limitations for most land uses (NC DNER,1972). These steeper
3

.. 11 .. . I-,'
r GARDEN CREEK j J
1111,4pN .ss
POP. 1,161 'a°' •'1 r1J
1
1'- If00
PROPOSED SITE
PROP #Qe
T r 1 `
' p O QU
�—
WWTP/ . \ .77 v..;'.. I 1lIT •-'^
0i r l .A•' `r�t ^ . � S� la4! ► �,�'; 1 1#Sa !#!7 ,�`' a` 1170/ .07
Ilo, .l4 Js 70 �• 1 'L677 "\7 Oa p
!77>' 0 . p7
uf] � �'.nv ` .; I1C{ n1 ! li o � )7Y '1 1)rl 1♦70. 1� '
q � I;nt ,i ,Idi unl )77 I)11��0 Y �011 07 tr:�/
.• .f1 '. I.NI �� Y � V •
It]0
,lu# '7;Q t� 01 o c1 �� 't 125 ILIi 3/
'�•...<... .;t� ,r,?::i: p � ..,..r ,Ifaa'i`1•.-.'.C' !]�fF 10 01 e �:
_mil u.),]::y• a`'.° La.. MARION;i' 1 H �' 1j�'#f o LnL�.vp
/�+'
~f%''�• \ 17oe .37 ]ne e T POP. 3,684 t'.:^�./ o r?.
i Q r
�... 7. 10 y; �y') Il:I 70 I V� �, � .::..;~•� 6.70.If O�Ib n) - :.i-;rQ
i'. v1 r 17re rsJ-cis . 17 OE C. 11111 1� ' 7 ) V — . • lZIY
�'' 17
\ ,120e .:; - `•^ti ,os :::`.:'7 i•Ir A�or IZ'.1 Lau .71 Vll;c::
c`' 1703 EAST MARION
#"'•.i 1J17 ?� - <`f:;' ♦1 0 N',.r voq _ •S y,y (UNINC.)
} . '; !n# )0 r`• 1LIL y{ POP. 1,851
I71. 1 q 119] 1 1� 'Ill. •!1' : y. - p, • 15 0 .It L7Q1 Al
p y4.{7,�::: IB 179. 77 • y�
.7 !7!}'•!7u .._ ,. o,l naq �� "g <k; !Tui $ ':..1) .713 �7�+
��r ,� �e0. ./,R ']4! �• <77e� •D 14l0 .I/1211 !.Ul •���r pt
\ pS
J .I '� �����• Y•,Ifwriwdloni`� •. d J J LZ91 �,'��
.. !+rr w.) 4• a7 • r •: 'b� // ` Q4 9q )o JL)1
..ti` 1 1� .:'.174, JJ \ ,7'7 J .n., �.`. :::: :+:• Ugi�" rU �'� i�''„ \
I]I.
, \ nva /-;^ti./�' p �yls � rr.:R �11L10 o y l~t•�r� "—'--•---- '
!Lqa "IV
FIGURE 2: MAP OF THE STUDY AREA ALONG US HIGHWAY 221-226-70IN THE GARDEN CREEK SECTION OF MCDOWELL COUNTY, NCis
(FROM NCDOT MAP OF MARION AND VICINITY,1984) a' "_
1L7a
SCALE • .... 1 1
. _171T
1 7N
nil

slopes also have severe limitations for septic tanks and moderate limitations for sewer
systems. On the moderate slopes the septic tank limitations are moderate and the sewer
limitations slight. (NC DNER,1972)
Approximately 35% of the land in the study area is undeveloped, 20% residential, 6%
transportation and utilities (including roads, utility right of ways, etc.), and 4% industrial
and trades (NC DNER,1972). The undeveloped land is largely unsuited for development due
to excessive slopes or soil limitations (NC DNER,1972).
Many of the businesses and residences in the study area have a record of septic system
failure'. Several of these septic tanks are currently being pumped and the contents trucked
to the Greenlee Road 'section of McDowell county where the estimated 4500 gallons/day of
effluent is distributed on agricultural fields (Jeter Laws, 1986).' Many of the sand
filtration systems in the area are constructed less than three meters from a major
tributary stream (Jeter Laws, 1986). Observations of raw sewage on parking lot surfaces
in the study area have been reported (Jeter Laws, 1986). The high frequency of septic tank
failure has caused the McDowell County Sanitarian to halt further development within the
study area (Jeter Laws, 1986).
PROPOSED WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT (Garden Creek Plant)
The proposed Garden Creek Plant site is located in the center of McDowell County near
the intersection, of US Highway 70-221 (McDowell County Board of Commissioners, 1986).
The facility will serve the immediate needs of the high school and existing businesses.
Present needs are estimated at a flow rate of approximately 50,000 GPD. Anticipated future
needs for an additional 50,000 GPD include the following uses: (1) service to the proposed a -
shopping center; (2) accomodation. of the. combined Junior -Senior High School wastewater
as a result of probable abandonment of their present facility; (3) service for present and -
future residences of the study area; (4) re-establish gravity drainage of septic effluent
now diverted to Corpening Creek WWTP which will lead to retirement of existing pump
stations and elimination of future shortage of the treatment and discharge capacity at the
Corpening Creek WWTP (McDowell County Board of Commissioners, 1986)..
The Public Works Preapplication Form, ED 101 D, states that the proposed WWTP
facility would handle a maximum -flow of 100,000 GPD (McDowell County Board of
Commissioners, 1986). The design capacity flow rate for the facility is 250;000 GPD.
(Jensen Engineering,1986). Nutrient removal efficiencies for the facility are as follows:
Nitrogen Removal 85%; Phosphorus Removal 20% (\Jensen Engineering,1986).

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MODELS
Two nutrient models were used in this study. The phosphorus model was developed
by'Reckhow and Clements (1983). The nitrogen model was developed by Reckhow (1986).
These models were developed to predict phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in =
southeastern United States lakes.
w. The models used are "black -box," input-output, empirical models which relate
nutrient loading to watershed characteristics and human activities. The nutrient inputs
are integrated with environmental variables within the lake to predict mean nutrient
concentrations in the lake.
Phosphorus Model
Reckhow and Clements (1983) phosphorus model. is a two variable, cross -sectional
model designed to predict present and future phosphorus concentrations in southeastern
lakes. The model is based on a study of 42 lakes in 4 southeastern states (Virginia,
Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina). Most lakes used in developing this model are
artificial impoundments with low retention times and high flow rates.
TABLE .1: DATA SET CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PHOSPORUS MODEL_. .
DATA SET CHARACTERISTICS LAKE JAMES
VARIABLES MNMUN MAXLILM WAN
A(km2) 0.81 19.74 447.59 26.34
Z(m)mean depth 1.50 9.35 _ 41.30 13.5
Tw(yr) 0.016 0.118 1.65 0.60
L(g/m2). 0.06 4.23' 93.3 *2.64-13.27
qs (m/yr) 2.3 66.65 650.20 22.67 . .
R -0.11 0.41 0.89 NA
P(in) (mg/1) 0.015 0.063 .0.259 *0.12-0.37..
P conc.(mg/1) 0.007 0.040 0.145
' *0.032-0.102
* PHOSPHORUS WPUf AND MODELCONCENTRATION ESTIMATIONS -
5

Nitrogen Model
The southeastern lakes nitrogen model (Reckhow,1986) is a two variable,
cross -sectional model ;designed to predict present and future nitrogen concentrations in
-southeastern lakes. It was fit to 47 lakes located in Alabama, Georgia, Maryland,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, .Virginia, and West Virginia. The
southern lakes nutrient models were chosen over other models because the characteristics
of Lake James fall within the data sets used to develop. these models.
TABLE 2: DATA`SET CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NITROGEN MODEL
DATA SET CHARACTERISTICS LAZE JAMES
VARIABLES MNMUV LUD M MAXVI M MEAN
N cons (mgA) 0.230 0.720 0.789 . 2.300' - �0.420
N in (mg/1). 0.525 1.149 1.230 2.891 -0.670
Ln 2.80 55.7 141-.0 972.0 -15.00
Tw 0.0.16 0.203 0.432 3.20 0.60:.
qs 2.26 38.1. 118.0 605.0 22.67
Z. .1.50. 10.1 11.0 35.1' 13.5.
Rn 0.01 0.33 0.35 0.68 NA
MODEL DESCRIPTION
In this study the nutrient lake concentrations, phosphorus and nitrogen were
calculated using procedures outlined in Reckhow et al. (1980), Reckhow and Clements(1983)
and Reckhow (1986). Below are the phosphorus and nitogen loading models described in the
previous section.
P= [0.130(Pin)0.717]T LTw0.278)
N = Nin T 1 + 0.67(Tw)-0.75
where:
P = lake phosphorus concentration
N = lake nitrogen concentration
6

Nutrient influence concentrations, Pin and Nin , are estimated by the same
procedure. The export coefficients which are used to define each individual nutrient's
influence characteristics will vary according to the nature of the nutrient (P or N) and
according to environmental conditions (export coefficients are defined later in this section).
This general estimation procedure is outlined below. The hydrolic retention time estimate,
Tw, is the same for both models. P and .N in the above models are lake phosphorus
concentrations (mg/I) and lake nitrogen concentrations (mg/I) respectively.
The nutrient influence (Pin and Nin) is estimated by the equation
(Pin or Nin) = Uqs
where:
L = the total areal mass loading
qs = the total annual volumetric flow through the lake.
qs was calculated using the following formula
qs = Q/Ao
where:
Q = (Ad x r) + (Ao x Pr)
and where:
Ad = watershed area
r- = total annual runoff
Ao =lake surface area
Pr = mean annual net precipitation.
L was estimated by the equation:
L = M/Ao
where:
- M= (Ecf x areaf) + (Eccr x areacr) + ( Ecp x areap)
+ (Ecp x areas) + (Ecatm x Ao) + [(Ecst x no. capita -years) x
(1-S.R.)] + PSI
and where:
M = total mass nutrient loading
Ecf = forest nutrient. loading coefficient
Eccr= crop -land loading coefficient
Ecp= pasture nutrient loading coefficient
rA

.,
Ecu= urban nutrient loading coefficient
Ecatm= atmosphereic nutrient loading (wet and dry) coefficient
Ecst= septic tank coefficient
Ao= area lake
S.R.= soil retention coefficient
PSI= point source inputs.
Lake retention time, Tw, was estimated from the equation:
Tw = WO
where:
V = lake volume
Q = inflow water volume to the lake.
This equation includes nutrient inputs (phosphorus or nitrogen for the respective
models) for the four major land uses, wet and dry atmospheric inputs, septic tanks and.
point sources. High, .low and most likely coefficients were chosen to allow for uncertainty
in the range of expected nutrient runoff or inputs to the lake. Table 3 shows the values
chosen for these loading coefficients and the areas of each land use.
The nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the lake can be estimated by using the
calculated values for Pin, Nib, and Tw, in their respective models.
Error Analysis ,
An error analysis was performed on all predicted nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen)
concentrations. There are two sources of error involved with this model, uncertainty within
the model and uncertainty associated with nutrient loading. The error terms are presented
within 55 and 90% confidence limits.
Model error
For the phosphorus model:
Sm+ = antilog [log P(ml) + Smlog]- P(ml)
Sm- = antilog [log P(ml) + Smlog]- P(ml)
For the nitrogen model:
8

6
u011e1juaou03 }ueuinu mol = (Mol)N Jo (mol)d
uolleijueouoo juaulnu AleMll Isow = (Iw)N ao (Iw)d -
uolleilueouoo luau}nu y6ly = (4614)N Jo (4614)d .
aaJa 6ulpe01 e/UIe58u = -IS
JoJJa 6ulpeol anlJlsod = +IS
:eiegm
ZlI(mOON _ (Iw)N] =-IS
Z/I(MOI)N:_ (LI61N)Nl =+IS
:lepow u960jllu etal god
Z/I(mol)d - (IW)dl =-IS
Z/I(Mol)d - (yfi14)dl =+IS .
:lapow sruoydsoyd ey} jod
aelnwao;
5ulmollo; 9y1 6ulsn pajelnoled_sem 6ulpeol juaulnu %Minn pajeloosse joil3
Joija u
uolleilueouoo }uauinu AleMll Isow =(Iw)N Jo (Iw)d
JoJJa lapow enl69N =_wS
JoaJa lepow enl4lsod =+wS
:eJatann
(Iw)N _I6oiwS + OW)N Sol] 60111M = _wS
(Iw)N _I6oIwS + OW)N-6011 6oIIJUB _ +WS

Total error
Total positive, and negative uncertainty were calculated by combining the error terms
calculated above using the equations below:
(St+)2 = ($m+)2 + (SI+)2
(St-)2 = (Sm-)2 + (SI-)2
where:
St+= total positive uncertainty
SI+= total positive uncertainty
To express the uncertainty or error terms as confidence limits the following formulas
were used:
For phosphourus:
Prob [(P(ml) - St-) < P < (P(ml) + St+)] ? 0.55
Prob [(P(ml) - 2St-) <_ P _< (P(ml) + 2St+)] ? 0.90
For.nitrogen:
Prob [(N(ml) - St-) <_ N <_ (N(ml) + St+)] >_ 0.55
Prob [(N(ml) - 2St-) :5 N <_ (N(ml) + 2St+)] >_ 0.90

ESTIMATION OF EXPORT COEFFICIENTS
In the following section the procedure used to choose nutrient export coefficients will
be outlined. Assumptions, when made, are defined and any special considerations for each:
step are noted.
Watershed Data
The areas of each land use, watershed areas and lake quality data was obtained from
North Carolina Clean Lakes Survey 1982. The areas were confirmed. using USGS maps and,
county soil manuals. Major tributaries and watershed bounds were determined by using USGS
7.5 minute topographical maps. Soil and forest types were obtained from McDowell and
Burke county soil and land development manuals. Personal visits were conducted to
determine any major inputs or special areas of interest and to confirm data.
Export Coefficients
The values for the export coefficients for nutrient runoff from different types of land
use were chosen from the extensive list in Reckhow et al.. (1980). A subset of coefficients
which reflect the climatological and phisical conditions simiar to those in the Watershed
are listed in Tables 4-8. The high, low and most likely coefficients represent those
considered to be most characteristic of the Watershed Table 3 shows the export
coefficients selected for the Lake James watershed.

W
TABLE 3: NUTRIENT EXPORT COEFFICIENTS FOR THE LAKE JAMES WATERSHED
PHOSPHORUS NITROGEN
land use area low most likely high low most likely high .
Ecf . =
109094.
0.035
0.155.
0.275
1.37
2.82
3.16
Eccr =
31689.
0.40
1.30
2.21
3.29
7.86
12.42
Ecp -
' 6895
0.12.
0.14
0.16
2.41
3.46
3.83
Ecv =_
4611
0.43
0.83
1.23
1.56
3.00
4.00
Ecat, =
0.28
0.41
0.54
3.00
3.53
4.00
Ecst. =
1.00
, 1.478
2.00
4.00
4.75
6.00
(kg/capita-yr).
PSI point source 4.8 8.0. '.' 16.0 3.0 ' 6.0 12.75
(kg/yr)
S.R. soil retention 0.50 0.375 0.25 0.90 0.75 0.50
Capita -years = 26991.51
Forest export coefficients
The range of listed forest export coefficients is narrow and the variation is largely
determined by forest type and age, soils, climate, andtopography (Reckhow et al., 1980).
Silvicultural practices and susceptability to forest fires were. also considered in choosing
the coefficients.
The Lake James watershed has two distinct types of forest cover. In Pisgah National
Forest the forest cover is predominantly mixed pine -hardwoods and the forest is largely
undisturbed (Tom Wynn, District Forester, 1986). The soils in this area are thin and rocky
with steep slopes. The other forest type in the watershed is composed predominantly of
pines on thicker soils than those mentioned above, with moderate slopes and fewer rocks.
This area has one of the highest rates of forest fire incidence in the region (Tom Wynn,
District Forester, 1986). Much of the land in pine forest is owned by Cresent Land and
Timber. Co. which clearcuts approximately 1200 acres every three years. (Dingfelder et al.,
1984). Forest export ccoefficients were chosen to reflect these factors.
f
12

Table 4. Nutrient Export Coefficients from Forested Watersheds
Land use Precip. Runoff Location Soil Type Total P Total N Reference
cm/vr cm/vr kg/ha/yjkg/ha/yr
mixed pine/ 164.0 48.7 Eatonton, Ga — 0.275 — Krebs, Golley 1977
haniwood-
Decid.hard 88.90 32.0 Coshocoton,O. silt loam 0.035 2.82 Taylor et al, 1971
wood/Pine (1.37-3.16)
Oak/Hickory 157.1 94.65 Walker Branch, Tn -- 0.025 2.00 Henderson et al 1977
Oak/Hickory 136 70.7 Walker Branch, Tn - --- 3.10 Hendetson,Harris 1973
Table 4 shows the range of potential coefficients for forest nutrient exports. For
phosphorus, the "high " coefficient was selected from data collected at Eatonton, Georgia.
This was based on similar forest types, topography, precipitation, and runoff data for both
watersheds. The. "low " coefficient was chosen from the Coshocoton, Ohio watershed. This
choice was based on watershed similarities of forest cover and rainfall. The "most likely"
coefficient is an average between the high and low export coefficients.
The export coefficients for nitrogen loading also were chosen from the Coshocoton,
Ohio watershed data. The high, low and most likely coefficients are derived from the range
reported in the Ohio data for nitrogen .exports.
Crop export coefficients
The export coefficient for crops was determined using information on crop type,
fertilization practices, soils, tillage practices, and climatological data. The major crops in
this area are corn, hay, soybeans, orchards and miscellaneous vegetables.
13

Table 5. Agricultural Nutrient Export Coefficients
Land use Precip. Runoff Location Soil Type Total P Total N Reference
cm/yr cm/yr . kgLhalyr kg/ Lyr .
corn 107.7 110 Watidnville,Ga sandy loam 2.21 12.42 Smith et a4.1978. .
254 54 sandy clay loam
cam 87.39 northern Ala. silt loam 0.40 3.29 Bradford ,1974
100 35 35
Soybeans 143.75 55.75 Holly Springs silt loam. 17.54 46.50 McDowell et al 1978
0 29 56 Mississippi
Soybeans 143.75 27.9 Holly Springs silt loam 2.6 5.1 - McDowell et al 197&
no till Mississppi
02956.
-Table 5 shows the export coefficients that are most similar to condition in the Lake
JAmes watershed. Because corn is the principle row -crop grown in this area; the export
coefficients for crop lands were based on the values for this crop:
The rainfall data, soils, and fertilization practices for corn from Watkinville, Ga- are
similar to the Lake James watershed and were thus picked for the high coefficient for both
the nitrogen and the phosphorus. For the reasons mentioned above, the low coefficient for.
both nutrients was chosen from the northern Alabama data. The most likely point- was
averaged between the high and low coefficients for both phosphorus and nitrogen.
Pasture export coefficients
Table 6 Nutrient Exports from Pastured Watersheds
Land use Precip. Runoff Location Soil Type Total P Total N Reference ) .
cm/vr cm/yr kg/ha/yr kg/hatyr
Brood cattle 164.0 61.8 Eatonton, Ga — 1.35 — Krebs, Golley 1977
000
Moderate . 106.1,
dairy gig
36 16 8
Heavy 106.1
dairy grazing
21.3 Waynesville —
North Carolina.
26A Waynesville —
North Carolina
14
0.14 3.46
(0.12-0.16) (2.41-3.83)
10.99 0.16
(8.31-18.05) (0.11-0.7)

Table 6 shows the listed export coefficients from pastured land. Both the nitrogen and
phosphorus coefficients were chosen from the Waynesville, NC data because of the location
and similarity of rainfall data. The coefficients from the moderate dairy grazing data were
chosen to average the variation in potential grazing intensities within the watershed. The
high, low and most likely coefficients were chosen from the range listed for nutrient
exports.
Urban export coefficients
Urban export coefficients relate the nutrient export to poopulation density and the
percent of impervious surface for urban land use. Lake James watershed has a very small .
area of urban land use, consisting of mostly small towns and townships. Based aaaaon visual
observation it was determined that urban areas within the watershed generally have
impervious areas of from 20 to 30 %. Because of the terrain and wilderness areas in the
watershed, housing "densities are low.
Table 7 Nutrient Exports from Urban Watersheds
Land use Precip. Runoff Location Soil Type Total P Total N Reference
cm/vr cm/vr kg/haly r kgwr
Suburban 153.0 9.4 Plantation 23% 0.43 1.56 Betson; 1978
Knoxville Impervious.
...Tennessee dolmitic bedrock
60% resid. 108.2 16.26 Durham 29% 1.23 — ' Bryan, 1970
19% Comm North Impervious
12% Instit Carolina
10% unused
60% resid._ . 108.2 .24.64 Durham 29% 5.26 — Colston, 1974
19% Comm North Impervious
12% .Instil Carolina
10% unused
Of the listed coefficients in Table 7 the high coefficient for phosphorus was picked
from the measurments of Durham, N.C. due to the similarities in rainfall and impervious
area. The low coefficient was chosen from Knoxville, Tennessee data for the above reasons.
15

The average of the high and low coefficients was used to derive the most likely coefficient.
For nitrogen, the low coefficient was derived from the Knoxville data, the high and most
likely coefficients were estimated since no data was available from similar watersheds.
The range was kept wide to cover the uncertainty of the nitrogen coefficients. -
Atmospheric coefficients .
Table 8 Nutrient Inputs From Atmospheric sources
Location Total P Total N . Reference
koa/yr k8(ha/yr
' Urban
Knoxville, Tn 3.67 24.8 Betson et al 1978.
AEIIciillsre
Wisconsin — 13.13 Hoeft et al 1972
Rhode Island 0.82 10.49. Miklas et al 1974
Eatonton Ga 0.192 — Krebs and Golley 1974
Forest
Walker Branch Tn 0.54 8.7 Henderson 1977
Duke Forest NC 0.28 3.53 Wells et al 1912
Coweeta NC 0.19 Swank, Henderson 1976
The values for the low atmospheric coefficient for phosphorus and the most likely
coefficient for nitrogen were derived from information gathered at Duke forest, Durham, N.0
The high coefficient for phosphorus was obtained from Walker Branch watershed in
Tennessee. Both of the forests are located near urban and agricultural areas, therefore the
atmospheric nutrient loading should be similar to the Lake James watershed. The most likely
value for phosphorus resulted from the average of the high and low coefficients. High and
low values for nitrogen were estimated from the most likely coefficient derived from the
Duke forest data.
Septic tank and Soil -retention coefficients
Nutrients are removed from the wastewater by biological and chemical processes
within the septic tank and drain field. The septic tank coefficient for this study was chosen_
from average values listed in Reckhow and Simpson (1980).

The soil retention coefficient, SR, measures the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus
that will not reach the lake from the septic tank. This coefficient may range from 0 to 1.0.
If it is assumed that all of the nutrients that enter the septic tank are transported to the
lake, the SR value will be 0. If none of the nutrients leaving the septic tank enter the lake
the value will be 1.0. The chosen S.R. value is subtracted from 1 and the difference is used
d
to calculate the amount of nutrient reaching the lake.
Nutrient removal is influenced by the distance of the septic tank from the water body,
soil characteristics, and slope. Although the soils in the Lake James watershed are fairly
well drained and have a clay subsoil which may bind nutrients, the soils are rated'as being.
severely to moderately limited for septic tank use due to excessive slopes, rocks or both
(BSWCD, 1980; MCSWCD, 1982). The majority of nutrient loading from septic tanks is from
within 100 meters of the recieving water bodies (Reckhow et. al..1980). Septic systems
located along tributaries were included in this study for two reasons: (1) the steep slopes in-.
the watershed and (2) the large number of houses close to the tributaries. The soils along
the tributaries are alluvial soils that have very rapid drainage causing little nutrient -
adsorption by the soil (NC DNER, 1972).
The total number of septic tanks in the watershed. was obtained from 1980 Census
Data (Institute,of Research in Social Sciences, UNC). From visually estimates of USGS 7.5
minute topographic maps of the area it was estimated that approximately half of the septic
tanks were not within 100 meters of a tributary and were therefore not counted for use in
model calculations.
There isa, high rate of septic tank failure in the watershed and many septic tank drain
fields are close to Lake James tributaries ( Jeter Laws, 1986). For these reasons it was
assumed that a large portion of the nutrients that exit septic tanks are transported to the .
lake. High nitrogen coefficients were also used to account for the soluble forms of nitrogen
created in septic tank environments (Wetzel, 1983).
Capita - years
The number of capita - years is calculated by the following formula:
Total capita -year = (permanent capita -year) + (seasonal capita -year)
average # of # days spent # of living
persons per x at unit per x units
.living unit year/365
average # of # days spent # of living
persons per x at unit per x units
living unit year/365
17

POINT SOURCE INPUTS, (PSI)
There are a total of 32 NPDS permits issued to businesses, organizations and
residences in the watershed (NRDC, Randy Dodd, 1986) . Of these 10 are residences, 6 are
schools, 13 are industrial -commercial, 2 are wastewater treatment facilities and 1 is a
water treatment plant. See Table 13 for a list of NPDS permits for the watershed. Permits
has been issued for one business and a one school within the study area.
Krenkel and Novotny (1980) suggest that typical waste water treatment plant
influents have a phosphorus content range of 6 mg/I (low), 10 mg/I (most likely), and 20
mg/I (high). Phosphorus concentrations in effluent were calculated using a nutrient removal
efficiency of 20%. It was assumed in model calculations that all point sources would exibit
similar phosphorus concentrations.
Nitrogen concentration values for a typical wastewater treatment influent range from
20 mg/I (low), 40 mg/I ( most likely), to, 85 mg/I (high) as suggested by Krenkel and
Novotny (1980).. Nitrogen concentrations in .effluent were calculated. using a nutrient.
removal efficiency of 85%. Point source calculations are shown in Appendix 1.

RESULTS
In order to adequately model the phosphorus and nitrogen conditions of Lake James
before and after operation of the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant is
it was felt that six different scenarios should be considered.
VJrFK=PROPOSEDINUV rP
The first two scenarios address the the problems of the study area. It has been
established that many of the septic systems within the study area are located directly
adjacent to streams . .The County Sanitarian has reported that many of the septic. systems
in the study area are failing and several other systems are now being pumped, some daily.
Raw sewage outflows from septic systems have also been reported. Given the proximity of
the septic systems to the receiving stream and the condition of many septic systems in the
area it can be argued that such systems constitute a point source input of phosphorus and
nitrogen recf�ving water bodies.
The. model treats septic systems and point sources differently. Septic systems -have
the benefit of further nutrient removal by soil filtration. This distinction will make a
difference, particularly with phosphorus, as this nutrient is quickly bound to clay soil
particles. These conditions are modeled in Scenario 1.
With point sourced nutrient removal is a function of the efficiency of the nutrient
.removal system used. In the case of Scenario 2 there would be no removal of the point
source nutrients. It is expected that the true relationship of nutrient input into the
receiving stream would be found somewhere between the two resulting, model estimates.
See TABLE 10.
WrrH PROPOSEDWNTP
In Scenarios 3,4 and 5 the potential effects of the proposed Wastewater Treatment
Plant are considered. Three different flow rates were modeled. In Scenario 3 the model
was run asing the intial customer list provided by Jensen Engineering. The flow rate for
these users is less than 50,000 GPD. Scenario 4 considers the maximum flow rate of
100,000 GPD proposed in the McDowell County Board of Commissioners (1986) report.
Scenario 5 considers the maximum design flow rate capacity of 250,000 GPD for the
proposed WWTP (information provided by Jensen Engineering).
_FOR CCMPAR RCN PURPOSES
Scenario 6 looks at the Old Fort Finishing Plant as a -Wastewater Treatment Plant for
comparative purposes. Although the plant is no longer operational, proposals have been madE
to consider it as a possible Waste Water Treatment Plant for the area. It. is interesting to
19

compare the effects the Old Fort Finishing Plant and those of the proposed wastewater
treatment plant on nutrient concentrations in Lake James.
The Table below outlines the six scenarios and the assumptions made concerning each
set of conditions.
TABLE 9 List Of Six Scenarios with their Respective Assumptions*
SCENARIOI Present Conditions w/o WWTP
a 80 septic systems are counted in the study area. The removal
efficiency of nutrients is the same for all septic systems in the
watershed. Watershed septic system count is adjusted accoordingly.
b. Systems which are now being pumped are not include in these
calculations.
C. NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in point source
calculations.
- - SCENAR102 Present Conditions w/o WWTP
a 80 septic systems in the study area are grouped together as one point
source with a nutrient removal efficiency of zero.
b. Systems which are now being pumped are not include in these
calculations.
c. Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in point source
calculations.
SCENARRM Future Conditions w/ WWTP
a 106 customers in the study area are serviced by the Garden Creek Plant (List
_ Provided by Jensen Engineering).
b. Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in WWTP
calculations.
c. All systems in the study area (pumped or not) are included in WWTP
calculations .
d Garden Creek plant is operating at a flow rate capacity of < 50,000 GPD.
SCENARl04 Future Conditions w/ WWTP
a 106 customers in the study area are serviced by the Garden Creek _Plant
b.. SList Provided by Jensen Engineering).
tudy area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in WWTP .
calculations.
- c.. Garden Creek plant is operating at a flow rate capacity of 100,000 GPD.
SCENARl05 Future Conditions w/ WWTP
a 106 customers in the study area are serviced by the Garden Creek Plant
(List Provided by Jensen Engineering).
1 Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in WWTP
calculations.
c. Garden Creek plant is operating at a flow rate capacity of 250,000 GPD.
.20

SCEMAR106 For Comparison Purposes On Iy
a. Old Fort Finishing Plant is operating as WWTP4.2 MGPD.
b. 106 customers in the study area are serviced by the Garden Creek Plant
(List Provided by Jensen Engineering).
c. Study area NPDS permit holder effluent flows are included in WWTP'
calculations.
' Nutrient removal efficiencies of all WWTP are assumed to be 85% for nitrogen and
20% for phosphorus. ,
The model results for each of the six scenarios are shown in Table 10.
TABLE 10 Nutrient Concentrations of Lake James as modeled per Scenario .
expressed in mg/1
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TOTAL NITROGEN
LOW MOST LIKELY, HIGH_ . LOW MOST LIKELY HIGH
1) 0.0273 0.0415 0.0636 :. 0.2052- 0.4229 0.5784
2) 0.0273- 0.0415 0.0637 0.2057 0.4238 0.5805
3) 0.0273 0.0416 0.0638 0.2053 0-.4231 0.5790
4) 0.0275 0.0418 0.0641 0.2056 0.4237 0.5801
5) 0.0278 0.0422 0.0649 0.2062 0.4250 0.5829
6) 0.0365 0.0545 0.0856 0.2079 0.4283 0.5900
Very little change is evident between Scenarios 1 and 2. By model definition more -
phosphorus and nitrogen are removed from the study area by septic systems than by a point
source input of raw sewage. -There is little effect on. Lake nutrient concentrations by making.
this distinction. This is because the nutrient input from the study area is. very small in "
relationship to all inputs into the lake (see Table.11).
It should be noted that NRCD.lake data statistics are only listed to three significant.
figures. Changes noted here are in the fourth significant figure.
When the third scenario is considered Lake concentrations fall between those exibitec . .
in Scenarios 1 and 2. It is important to remember that all customers presently pumping
their septic tanks are not included in these septic system calculations. In Scenario 3
these customers have been included in the WWTP point source calculations. If it can be
assumed that the septic systems within the study area act as point sources, then the Garden
Creek Plant operating at a flow of 50,000 GPD or less would decrease nutrient
concentrations in the Lake. Again,, nutrient input changes are very small in relation
to total input.
21

In Scenario-4 flow rates have increased to the projected 100,000 GPD. There is an
increase in Lake nutrient concentrations for both phosphorus and nitrogen._ Again the
changes are very slight.
In Scenario 5 flow rates reach design capacity of the plant of 250,000 GPD. The
most likely value of phosphorus increases from 0.0418 to 0.0422. This is the. largest and
most significant increase in phosphorus but still would have little effect on the trophic
state of the Lake.
In Scenario 6 the Old Fort Finishing Plant is assumed to be a major point source
contributor to Lake James. If operating today the plant would nearly double the point
source effluent entering Lake James (see Table 13). Phosphorus concentrations would,
increase by 0.01 mg/I and center the Lake squarely into the alpha-eutrophic category (see -
Table 10). Flow data for these calculations were taken from the former NPDS permit for the
Old Fort Finishing Plant. As shown in these calculations flow rates in the range of 4 to 5:
MGPD begin to have a significant affect on nutrient concentrations in Lake James.
Although nitrogen inputs into the waste water treatment plant are much greater than
phosphorus, the removal efficiency of the wastewater treatment plant is.much higher than
for phosphorus. This accounts for the significant increase in phosphorus and only"a small
change in nitrogen.
Lake phosphorus measurements fall well within the range of model prediction as is
shown in Table 11. Phosphorus model predictions are higher in this study than results.
obtained from Dingfelder et. al. (1984). These figures should notbe compared, however,.
because all existing NPDS point sources were not considered in the Dingfelder study.
Total nitrogen measurements for Lake James were not available (organic nitrogen
values were not available) for this study. Comparison of modeled nitrogen concentrations
with NCNRCD Storet data (inorganic compounds only) is not appropriate. Inorganic nitrogen
measurements are shown in Table 11.
Areal loading from all other nutrient input sources far exceeds that of the input from
septic systems within the study area and the Garden Creek Plant for all scenarios. See Table _
12 for these comparisons.
The 33 NPDS permit holders contributed approximately'61 % of the total phosphorus
load for Scenario 4. Of this the Garden Creek Plant contributed 0.2% of tf point source
load and 0.3% of the total phosphorus load. Forests contributed -13% of the total phosphorus
load followed by septic systems at -11 % and cropland at -8%.
Nitrogen loading relationships are very different from phosphorus. Point source
nitrogen loading is reduced substantially due to a much higher nutrient removal efficiency.
Forest land use contributes the major portion of the nitrogen load to the Lake at
-58%. , Cropland contributes -19% followed by point sources at 12%.
22

TABLE 11 Summary of NCNRCD Storet data from 4 Sampling Stations on Lake
James
PHOSPHORUS
NITROGEN
AVERAGE
MAXMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
LAKE JAMES NEAR MARION
.. NH3+ NH4- (1975-84)
-
0.050
0.220
NO2 & NO3 (1975-84) -
=
= 0.10
0.38-
ORGAMNTR0G6V - .
-
NA
NA
TOTALNffROGEN -
-
NA-
NA
PHOS TOT (1976-84) 0.046
0.110
-
-
LAIEJAMES NEAR NEBO
NH3+ NH4- (1973-84) -
-
0.039
0.100
NO2 &.NO3 (1975-84) -
0.11
0.37 ,
ORGANCNTROGEN -
-
NA .:
NA
TOTAL NfTROGEN -
-
NA
NA
PHOS TOT (1971-84) 0.052
0.150
-
-
LAKEJAMES NEAR BRIDGEWATER
-
NH3+ NH4- (1973-84) -
-
0.038
0.060
NO2 & NO3 (1971-84) -
-
2.31
50.05 ('PROBABLE ERROR)
ORCaAMNM:CGEN -
-
NA
NA
TOTALNffROGEN . _
-
NA-,i
NA
PHOS-TOT (1971-84) 0.043
0.1 QO
-
-
LAKE JAMES NEAR LCNGTC7N/N
NH3+ NH4- (1975-84) -
-
0.036-
0.070
NO2 & NO3 (1975-84) -
-
0.06
0.21
ORGANICNTROGEN -
-
NA
NA .
TOTALNUROGEN -
-
NA
NA
PHOS TOT (1975-84) . 0.039
0.060
-
23

TABLE 12 Areal nutrient'loading comparisons.of all nutrient input sources: P(in); N(in)
INITIAL ..
_ .
100,000 GPD
250,000 GPD
most likely
most likely..-
most likely
kg/yr
kg/yr'
=
kg/yr
REST
12744.41
12.77%
12744.41
-12.7%
12744.41
12.5%
PASTURE
3694.6
3.70%
3694.6.
3.7%
3694.6
3.6%
CRCP
8215.34
8.23%.
'8215.34,,,.
8.2%.
8215.34
8.0%
URBAN
1245.58
1.25%
1245.58.
1.2%
1245.58
1.2%
A7NICSPHEFE
1079.94
1.08%.
1079.94
1.1 %
1079'.94
1.1 %
POINf SCURCES
61944.93
62.06%
61944.93
61.6%
61944.93.
60.6%
IMNTP
347.14
0.35%
1105.34
1.1 %
2763
2.7%
SEMICSYS
10544.62
10.56%
10544.62.
= 10.5%
10544.62
10.3%
TOTAL
99816.56
100.00%
_ 100574.76
100.0%.
102232.42
100.0%
N :K)GE N,
INITIAL
N ::CGE N
100,000 GPD
NITROGEN
250,000 GPD
_
most likely
most likely
most likely
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
FCPEST
231866.04
57.75%
231866.04
57.7%
231866.04
57.5%
PASTURE
9833.32
2.45%
9833.32
2.4%
9833.32
2.4°/6
CFCP
77798.28
1 %38%
77798:28
19.3%
77798.28
19.3%
URBAN
9114
2.27%
9114
2.3%
9114
2.3%
A7 viOSR-E:E
9301.55
2.32%
9301.55 _
2.3%
9301.55
2.3%
PCINTSCURCES
46458.69
11.571%
46458.69:
11.6%
46458.69
11.5%
WWTP
260.36
0.06%
829.01.
0.2%
• 2072.51
0.5%
SE MICSYS
16871
4.20%
16871'
4.2%
16871
4.2% _
TOTAL
401503.24
100.00%
402071..89
100.0%
403315.39
100.0%

TABLE 13.
NPDS PON TSOURCE PERMIT HCLDERS
NPDS PERMIT UST PROVIDED BY RANDY DODD (NCNRCD)
Phosphorus
"Nitrogen
AVERAGEEFRLENTCCNTENT.
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
HIGH(MG/L)
16.00
12.75
MOST UKELY(MG/L)
8.00
6.00
LOW (MG/L) -
4.80
3.00
Reckhow et. al; 1980
"Krenkel and Novotny, 1980
MILLION
Percent of Total
NPDS PERMTTHOLDER
SYSTFM
C441CN9DAY,
Point Source Load
1
Red Fox Country Club
Activated Sludge Package Plant
0.08
1.43%
2
Marion Water Plant
Alum Sludge into catawba/filter b...
0.3
5.35%
3
Linville Land Harbor Utilities
Extended Aeration
0.075
1.34%
4
Linville River Development
Extended Aeration
0.015
0.27%
5
American Thread Co.
Extended Aeration .
2
35.69%
6
McDowell County High School
Extended Aeration
0.05
0.89%
7
CU'nchfield
Extended Aeration .
0.3
5.35%
8
C-E Air Preheater
Extended Aeration
0.016
9.
Pisgah Yam Dye
Filter Back Wash Water from wat...
0.012
: 0:21,%
10
Quick as a Wink
Filtered Wash
0.0012
0.02%
11
Travenol Laboratories ;_
Influent Flow(see Permit 6564)
1.2
21.41%
12
White Oak Condos
Package Waste Water Treatment
0.015
0.27%
13
Quality Inn
Package Waste Water Treatment
0.02
.0.36%
14
Columbia -Carolina Corp
Primary Catch Basin- wood prod...
0.024,
0.43%
15
Old Fort Waste Treatment PI...
Secondary
0.8
14.28%
16
Jonas Ridge Nursing Home
Secondary Package
0.0075
0.13%
17
BCM Partnership Motel
Secondary Package Treatment Plant
0.019
0.34%
.18
Linville Resorts
Secondary Treatment
0.5
8.92%
19,
Great Meadows
Secondary Type Package Treatment
0.01
0.18%
20
Nebo Elementary Sch
Septic System
0.0075
0:13%
21
Western Chateau Corp.
Septic Tank
0.608
0.14%
22
Beck, Harold
Septic Tank
0.001
0.02%
23
Pleasant'Gardens Elementar...
Septic Tank
0.005
0.09%
24
Blue Ridge Village
Septic Tank
0.04
0.71 %
25
Jones, George
Septic Tank
0.00045
0.0.1 %
26
' Mountain Training Center
Septic Tank
0.018
- 0.32%
27
Chalet Motor Lodge
Septic Tank w/dosing tank/efflue:..
0.01 .
0.18%
28
Eckenrod Apts.
Septic Tank/ Dosing tank'
0.0014
0.02%
29
Norris Industries
Septic Tank/ with dosing tank
0.0081
. 0.14%
30
Metal Industries .
Undetermined
0.01
0.18%
31
Oakhill School
WTP/extended airation
0.02
0.36%
32
Mull Sch
WTP/extended airation
0.01
0.18%
33
Canoe Creek Sch
WTP/extended airation
0.02
0.36%
"
TOTALS
5.60
100.00%

,
TABLE 14 CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION
ESTIMATES
The following probabilities can be read as 55% (or 90%) of the time
the true phosphorus, or nitrogen concentration in Lake James
will lie within the .bounds defined by the prediction, plus or
minus the predicted uncertainty. -
1. Phosphorus
550/0
Prob [ 0.0290 <_ P <_ 0.0590 ]
900/6
Prob [ 0.0166 <_ P <_ 0.0765 ]
Nitrogen
55 0
Prob [ 0.2772 <_ N <_ 1.3974 ]
900/6
Prob [ 0.1314 <_ N <_ 2.3719]
2 Phosphorus
55%
Prob [ 0.0290 <_ P <_ 0.0590 ]
900/0
Prob [ 0.0166 <_ P <_ 0.0766 ]
Nitrogen
55%
Prob [ 0.2778:5 N <_ 1 A006]
90%
Prob [ 0.1318 <_ N 5 2:3774] j.
3. Phosphorus
550/0
Prob [ 0.0291 <_ P <_ 0.0591 ]
900
Prob [ 0.0166 <_ P _< 0.0767]
Nitrogen
550/6
Prob [ 0.2773 _< N <_ 1.3982 ]
90/0
Prob.[ 0.1315 <_ N <_ 2.3734]
4. Phosphorus
550/6
Prob [ 0.0292 _< P <_ 0.0594 ]
900/0
Prob [ 0.0167 <_ P <_ 0.0771 ]
Nitrogen
55%
Prob [ 0.2777 _< N _< 1.4000 ]
90%
Prob [ 0.1317 <_ N _< 2.3764 ]
5. Phosphorus
..55%o
Prob [ 0.0296 <_ P <_ 0.0601 ]
90/6
Prob [ 0.01695 P _< 0.0780 ]
Nitrogen
55%
Prob [ 0.2785 <_ N <_ 1.4044 ]
900/0
Prob [ 0.1321 _<. N <_ 2.3838]
6. Phosphorus
.550/6
Prob [ 0.0383 <_ P <_ 0.0782 ]
900/0
Prob [ 0.0221 '<_ P <_ 0.1018 ]
Nitrogen
55%
Prob [ 0.2807 5 N <_ 1.4155 ]
900%
Prob [ 0.1332 5 N _< 2.4027 ]
'NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF THE NUTRIENT (Phosphorus or Nitrogen) INDICATE SCENARIO
NlVIBER

CONCLUSION
Based on phosphorus model results and the NC Clean Lakes (1982) trophic level .
classification scheme, Lake James should be classified as alphaeutrophic to mesotrophic.
Nitrogen model results and trophic ranges outlined in Wetzel (1983) suggest a trophic state
classification of oligo-mesotrophic. See Appendices 2 and 3 for trophic state indexes.
Model results suggest no significant changes in Lake trophic state for either
phosphorus or nitrogen from present conditions if the proposed Garden Creek Plant operates
at a flow rate of less than 250,000 gallons per day.
A single nutrient point source of the magnitude of the proposed wastewater treatment
plant will not significantly effect the water quality of Lake James. It is recognized,
however, that the cummulative effect of additional nutrient point sources can degrade
water quality of Lake James.
It should be noted that much can be done to improve water quality by reducing the. -
nutrient load of domestic wastewatar . Watershed phosphorus detergent bans will
substancially reduce the total nutrient IoAd to septic or sewage systems (Reckhdw et: al.,
1980). It is estimated that 50-75% of the total phosphorus in domestic wastewater
originates from phorphorus detergents. Low flush toilets, no -water toilets,. wastewater
recycle for toilet flushing, and suds -saver clotheswashers can reduce waste flow by up to!
35% (Reckhow et. al., 1980).
Proper lake management requires a comprehensive understanding of watershed
dynamics and a well thoughtout watershed management plan. Default or crisis management
on a project by project basis can not adequately protect any of the concerned parties.
A planning process which identifies the limitations of the watershed, targets
complimentary business and industry, and provides for the the needs of the residents of the
watershed should be sought after by business leaders, the Lake Association, County
Governments and other intersted parties.

N
References
Burke County Department of Community Development, no date. Land Use=
- Survey and Analysis- Burke County North Carolina.
Burke Soil and Water Conservation District, 1980. Burke Soil and Water
conservation district - Long range conservation program. Burke Soil and
Water Conservation District, Human Resources Building, Morganton NC.
Burke Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors, no date. Burke
County: An appraisal of potential for outdoor recreational development
Burke Soil and Water Conservation District, Supervisors. Compiled by: Soil
Conservation Service, USDA.
Dingfelder, J., L. Lamont, C. Pace, 1984. Estimation of phosphorus
concentrations in Lake James: An application of the Reckhw and Clements
water quality model. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke,.,
University, Durham; NC.
Hill, C.L., J.F.Rinehardt and T.E. Dillard. Water resources data North
Carolina water year 1984. US. Geological Survey Water Data Report _
NC-84-1.. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh NC.
Krenkel, P.A. and Vladimir Novotny 1980. Water Quality Management.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 201-202.
Laws, Jeter. Personal communication 7-15-86. Environnmental Survey.
conducted with the Sanitarian, McDowell county.
Marr, Joe. Personal communication, 7-15-86. Phone conservation with an
Environmental technician, Duke .Power co.
McDowell County Board of Commissioners, 1986. Public works
preapplication form ED 101 D ; SAI number 56-600318. =

I
McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1982. McDowell
county soil and water conservation district- Long range conservation
program.
N.C. Department of Natural and Economic Resources, 1972. Land use
analysis and land development plan for Marion, NC. N.C. Department of
Natural and Economic Resources, Office of Industry, Tourist, and
Community Resources.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1984.
Analysis of major point source impact on total phosphorus levels in -
Rhodhiss Lake. Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development..
N.C.- Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982.
Headwaters of the Catawba river and North Fork Catawba river -water
quality study sub -basin 03-08-30. N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, Water.
Quality Section, water quality operations monitoring and technical
services.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982.
North Carolina clean lakes classification survey 1982. Division of .
Environmentla Management, Water Quality Section, N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh NC.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1982.
Water Quality progress in North Carolina 1982-83 305b report. Vivision of
Environmentla Management, Water Quality Section, N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh NC.
NCDOT, 1984. Maps of Avery, Burke, and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
Department .of Transportation.

NOAA, 1982. Monthly normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating
and cooling degree days 1951-80. North Carolina. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data and Information Service.
National Climactic Center, Asheville, NC.
Reckhow, Kenneth H., 1986. A Cross -sectional analysis of trophic state
relationships in southeastern lakes. School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Reckhow, K.H. and J.T. Clements, 1983. A Cross -sectional model for
phosphorus in southeastern lakes. School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, J.T. Simpson, 1980. Modeling phosphorus
loadina and lake response under uncertainty: A manual and compilation of
export coefficients. US EPA. Office. of .Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-80-011.
US EPA, 1980. Restoration of lakes and inland waters. International
Symposium on Inland Waters and Lake Restoration, September 8-12, 1980,
Portland, Maine. US EPA. Office of Water Regulations'and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology 2 ed. CBS College Printing, Philadelphia, Pa.

APPENDDC 1.
NPDSFUNTSOUPCEPEFU[rHOLDERSANDTHMESMMTED
NPOS PERMIT LIST PROVIDED BY RANDY DODD (NCNRCD)
' Phosphorus
"Nitrogen
AV9:it9FFL1JENTCONT:..
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
HIGH(MG/L)
16.00
12.75
MOST LIKELY(MG/L)
8.00
6.00
LOW (MG/L)
4.80
3.00
' Reckhow et. al, 1980
"Krenkel and Novotny, 1980
MILLION
Percent of Total
LITERS
NPDSPERMITHOLDER
SYSTEM
GA LCNMAY Point Source Load
YEAR
1
Red Fox Country Club
Activated Sludge P...
0.08
1.43% .
110534024.56
2
Marion Water Plant
Alum Sludge into c...
0:3
5.35%
414502592.10
3
Linville Land Harbor Utill...
Extended Aeration
0.075
1.34%
103625648.02
4
Linville River Development
Extended Aeration
0.015
0.27%
20725129.60
5
American Thread Co.
Extended Aeration
.2
35.69%
2763350614.00
6
McDawell County High Sch...
Extended Aeration
0.05
0.89%
69083765.35
7
CUnchfield
Extended Aeration
0.3
•5.35%
414502592.10
8
C-E Air Preheater
Extended Aeration
' 0.016
0.290/6
22106804.91
9
Pisgah Yam Dye
Filter Bads Wash ...
0.012
0.21 %
16580103.68
10
Quick as a Wink
Filtered Wash
0.0012
0.02%
1658010.37
11
Travenol Laboratories
Influent Flow(see ....
1.2
21.41 %
1658010368.40
12
WhbOakCaidos
PacragsWaste Wat..
0.015
0.270/a
20725129.60
13
Quality Inn
Package Waste Wat..
0.02.
0.36%
27633506.14
14
Columbia -Carolina Corp
Primary Catch Bas...
0.024
0.43%
33160207.37
15
Old Fort Waste Treatment...
Secondary
0.8
14.28%
1105340245.60
16
Jonas Ridge Nursing Home
Seccnday Pact age
0.0075
0.13%
10362564.80
17
BCM Partnership Motel '
Secondary Package...
0.019
0.34%
26251830.83
. -18
Linville Resorts
SecardaryTmatme...
0.5
8.92%
690837653.50
19
GrreatMeadows
SecandaryType Pa..
0.01
0.18%
13816753.07
20
Nebo Elementary Sch
Septic System
0.0075
0.13%
10362564.80
21
Western Chateau Corp,
Septic Tank
0.008
0.14%
11053402.46
22
Beck Harold
Septic Tank
0.001
0.02%
1381675.31
23
Pleasant Gardens Element...
Septic Tank
0.005
0.09%,
6908376.53
24
Blue Ridge Village
Septic Tank
0.04
0.71 %
55267012.28
25
Janes, George
Septic Tank
0.00045
0.01 %
621753.89
26
Mountain Training Center
Septic Tank
0.018
0.32%
24870155.53
27
Chalet Motor Lodge
Septic Tank w/dosi...
0.01
0.18%
13816753.07
28
Eccenrod Apt&
Septic TanW Dosin...
0.0014
0.02%
1934345.43
29
Norris Industries
Septic TanW with ...
0.0081
0.14%
11191569.99 .
30
Metal Industries
Undetermined
0.01
0.18%
13816753.07
31
Oakhill School
WTP/extended air...
0:02
0.36%
27633506.14 .
32
Mull Sch
WTP/extended air...
0.01
0.18%
13816753.07
33
Canoe CreekSch
WTP/extended air,,,
0.02
0.36%
27633506.14
TOTALS
-5.60
100.00%
7743115671.72
AS %OFTOTAL PSI
A)
PR PCSIDWWtP'
0.25
4.27%
345418826.75
NOT NU DED N CALCULATIONS
AS %CFTOTAL PSI
B)
OLD FORT FINISHING RANT
WWTP
4.2
42.84%
5803036289.40 ,
NOT NCU DED N CALCULATIONS
L6TCCNTNLEDCN NEXTPAGE
KILOGRAMS/YR
PHCSPHORB
LOW
530.56
1989.61
497.40
99.48
13264.08
331.60
1989.61
106.11
79.58
7.96
7958.45
99.48
132.64
159.17
5305.63
49.74
126.01
3316.02
66.32
49.74
53.06
6.63
33.16
265.28
2.98
119.38 -
66.32
9.28
53.72
66.32
132.64
66.32
132.64
37166.96 .
1658.01
27854.57
Page 1.

APPENODC 1.
CONTINUED_
NPDSPOWSOLMECALCLIAMNS
KLOGRAM'SMR
IQOGRAMSIYR
PHOSR-rFW
MCGIAMSMR
KLOGPAMSIYR KLOGRAMSIYR
MOST UKELY
HIGH
N ROGEN
LOW
NMROGEN
MOSTLII<ELY
Nr MGEN
HIGH
1
884.27
1768.54
331.60
663.20
1409.31
2.
3316.02
6632.04-
1243.51
2487.02
5284.91
3
829.01
1658.01
310.88
621.75
1321.23
4.
165.80'
331.60
62.18
124.35
264.25
5
22106.80
. 44213.61
8290.05
16580.10
35232.72
6 "
552.67
1105.34
207:25
414.50
880.82
7
.3316.02
6632.04
1243.51
2487.02
5284.91
_ 8
176.85
- 353.71.
66.32
132.64
281.86
9
132.64.
265.28
49.74°
99.48
211.40
10
13.26
26.53
4.97,
9.95
21.14
11
13264.08
26528.17
4974.03
9948.06
21139.63 .
12
165.80
331.60
.62.18
124.35
264.25
13
221.07
442.14
82.90
. , 165.80 `
352.33
14
.265.28
530.56
99.48
198.96
422.79
15.
8842.72
- 17685.44'
3316.02
.` 6632.04
14093.09
16 _
82.90
.165.80
31.09 '
62.18
132.12
17
210.01
420.03
78.76
.. 157.51'
334.71 .
18
5526.70
-11053.40
2072.51
4145.03
8808.18
19
110.53
221.07
41.45
82.90
176.16
20
82.90
165.80
31.09
62.18
132.12
21
88.43
176.85
33.16
66.32
140.93
22 -
11.05
22.11
4.15
8.29
17.62
23
55.27
- 110.53'
20.73
41.45
88.08
24
442.14
'. 884.27
165.80
331.60
704.65
25
4.97
9.95
1.87.
3.73
7.93
26.
198.96
397.92
74.61
149.22
317.09
27
110.53
221.07
41.45
82.90
176.16
28
15.47
30.95
5.80
11.61
24.66
29
89.53
179.07
33.57
67.15
142.69
30
110.53
221.07
41.45
82.90
176.16
31
221.07
442.14
82.90
165.80
352.33
32
110.53
221.07
41.45
82.90
176.16
33
221.07
442.14
82.90
165.80
352.33
61944.93
123889.85
23229.35
46458.69
98724.72
27,53.35
5526.70
1036.26
2072.51
4404.09
46424.29
` 92848.58
17409.11
34818.22
73988.71
Page 1.1

APPENDIX 2: TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TROPHIC CLASSIFICATION
Mean
Group
Trophic Group
Total Phos. mg/I
Range mg/I
Hyper Eutrophic
0.420
> 0.15
Beta Eutrophic
0.117
0.08 - 0.15
Alpha Eutrophic
0.052
0.04 - 0.08
Mesotrophic
0.030
0.02 - 0.04
Oligomesotrophic
0.017
0.001- 0.02
Oligotrophic
0.009
< 0.001
(NC CLEAN LAKES SURVEY, 1982 - developed by Weiss and Kuenzler 1976)
APPENDIX 3: TOTAL NITROGEN TROPHIC CLASSIFICATION
Trophic Group
INORGANIC N mg/I
ORGANIC N mg/I
Hyper Eutrophic
>1.500
> 1.200
Eutrophic
0.500 - 1.500
0.700 - 1.200
Meso Eutrophic
0.300 - 0.650
0.400 - 0.700
Oligo-Mesotrophic
0.200- 0.400
0.200- 0.400
Ultra-oligotrophic
< 0.200
< 0.200
(Wetzel- Limnology 1983)

WWTPO.0% WWTP0.0'/6EFFICIENT
250000GPD
250000GPD
100000GPD
100000GPD
TDTAL TOTAL
M XLOADVCLLTvE
WXLLIAD
WLCM
MULDAD
K"LOAD
AVERAGE EFFLLENTCONTENT WA)
Phosphorus Nitrogen
A)
250000 (Gal/day)
H-OSRI3Fi,6
NfROUN
MO6R-10FI N6
. NTROUN -
LOW (MG/L)
6 20
.345418827
(liters/year)
2,072.51
6.908.38
829.01
2.763.35
MOST LIKELY (MG/L)
10 40
B)
100000 (G al/Day)
3,454.19
13,816.75
1,381.68
5,526.70
HIGH(MG/L)
20 85
138167531 (liters/year
6.908.38
29.360.60
2,763.35
11.744.24
GALLONS/
CALLOW
GALLS
LITERS/
KGYEAR
MWEAR
KGYEAR
KGYEAR
KGYEAR
KGYEAR
CLGTClVERS
TYPE
ASS NJTES
35 days
[Ay
YEAR
YEAR
B436RIME
R136PFCRE
R tO6R iOFlJlS
NITROGEN
NITROGM
NITFC)UN
LOW
MOSTIIKELY
HIGH
LOJV
MJ6TLI0_LY
HIGH
1
MARICNMAGICWAND
BUSNESS
MY70W
503.00
1,437.14
524,556.10
1.985,660.85
11.91
19.86
39.71
39.71
79.43
168.78
2
B41EW M3TCRCO
BUSINESS
HM70W SLISPEC1ED...
165.00
471.43
172,071.95
651,363.19
191
6.51
13.03
13.03
26.05
55.37
3
REM-ERWrIESCHOOL
BIJSINESS
FMIY 70 W
8.00
22.86
8,343.90
31,585.10
0.19
0.32
0.63
0.63
1.26
2.68
4
NCDDNELL.HCUSE
BLISTESS
HM70W
29.00
82.86
30,243.90
114,485.62
0.69
1.14
2.29
2.29.
4.58
9.73
5
hCDOWELLTWNCNEMA
BUSINESS
HWY 70 SUSPECTED...
250.00
714.29
260,715.85
986.916.86
5.92
9.87
19.74
19.74
39.48
83.89
6
OUR ETV1MD
BUST ESS
HM70W
10.00
28.57
10,428.05
39,474.46
0.24
0.39
0.79
0.79
1.58
3.36
7
HARVESTDRNE N
BUSINESS
HM70W
220.00
628.57
229,428.05
868,479.65
5.21
8.68
17.37
17.37
34.74
73.82
8
VIESTERNAUTO
BUSFESS
HWY 70
14.00
40.00
14,600.00
55,267.01
0.33
0.55
1.11
1.11
2.21
4.70
9
ASSOURSERVICE
BLISI`ESS
VYESTWOCDCPATFAU
13.00
37.14
13,556.10
51,315.42
0.31
0.51
1.03
1.03
2.05
4.36
10
BAIElAY/WERICAN
BUSINESS
HWY 70 W
16.00
45.71
16,684.15
63,156.38
0.38
0.63
1.26
1.26
2.53
5.37
11
LNITED011-MARKETERS(...BMESS
133.00
380.00
138.700.00
525,036.62
3.15
5.25
10.50
10.50
21.00
44.63
12
MAFTIONSCRAPMETAL .
BUSINESS
FMIY70W .
1.00
2.8fi
1.043.90
3,951.59
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.34
13
CAROLNATF E
BL ESS
HWY 70 W
75.00
214.29
78,215.85
296,079.20
1.78
2.96
5.92
5.92
11.84
25.17
14
CSSSPORTSNG
BUSAESS
HM70W
5.00
14.29
5.215.85
19,744.14
0.12
0.20
0.39
0.39
0.79
1.68
15
TDX400,1FC6PDONS
BUSINESS
HM70W
26.00
74.29
27,115.85
102,644.66
0.62
1.03
2.05
2.05
4.11
8.72
16
LUIEDOLMN1KETERS
BUSINESS
100.00
285.71
104,284.15
394,758.45.
2.37
3.95
7.90
7.90
15.79
33.55
17
BOCNERSRHYTI MGM
BL1SlESS
MY 70 W
9.60
25.71
9,384.15
35,522.87
0.21
0.36
0.71
0.71
1.42
3.02
18
BILLS RADIATOR SHOP
BUSINESS
HM70W
155.00
442.86
161,643.90
611,888.73
3.67
6.12
12.24
12.24
24.48
52.01
-19
WLSON, LOCKY
FESEENCE
VA SIWOODCHATFAU
17.00
48.57
17,726.05
67.107.97
0.40
0.67
1.34
1.34
2.68
5.70
20
BOYTERMMICES
RESIDENCE
WESTWOCDCUATEAU
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
21
EARLY, NOMAN
RESIDENCE
VESTWO DO-ATEALI
20.00
57.14
20,856.10
78.948.93
0.47
0.79
1.58
1.58
3.16
6.71
22
MCKINNEY.CHA JO IE
FESCQJCE
VwESIW0CDCHATEAU
19.00
54.29
19,815.85
75,011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
3.00
6.38
23
PEEKRARBARA
RESIDENCE
VESNYOCDCHATFAU
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
24
RANDALL,CHRS
RESIDENCE
VESIWOCDCHATEAU
12.00
34.29
12,515.85
47,377.65
0.28
0.47
0.95
0.95
1.90
4.03
25
HAYNES,DEBRA
RESIDENCE
VIESTWOCDCHATEAU
68.00
194.29
70,915.85
268.445.70
1.61
2.68
5.37
5.37
10.74
22.82
26
EZELL,RHODA
RESIDENCE
VWSIVVOCDCPATEAU
27.00
77.14
28,156.10
106,582.43
0.64
1.07
2.13
2.13
4.26
9.06
27
PITTMAN,RICHARD
RESIDENCE
V%ESTVVOCDCPATENJ
67.00
191.43
69,871.95
264,494.10
1.59
2.64
5.29
5.29
10.58
22.48
28
BAGWELL, WALTER
RESIDENCE
NESIWOCDCf WTEAU
72.00
205.71
75,084.15
284,224.43
1.71
2.84
5.68
5.68
11.37
24.16
29
HUSKNS,GRADY
RESIDENCE
HM70W
18.00
51.43
18,771.95
71.059.56
0.43
0.71
1.42
1.42
2.84
6.04
30
WALL, MARGARET
FESCQJCE
HWY 70 W
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
31
ELLIOT.FAYE
RESIDENCE
VESTWOODCHATEAU
25.00
71.43
26,071.95
98,693.07
0.59
0.99
1.97
1.97
3.95
8.39
32
LACY, LOU
RESIDENCE
VIESIWOODCHATEAU
23.00
65.71
23,984.15
90,789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72 .
33
H3MSSEE,JOSEPH
RESIDENCE
VAESIWOODCMTEAU
15.00
42.86
15,643.90
59.218.60
0.36
0.59
1.18
1.18
2.37
5.03
34
KACHALIA,DI ESH
IESCQJCE
WESTWOCDCFATEAU
76.00
217.14
79,256.10
300,016.98
1.80
3.00
6.00
6.00
12.00
25.50
35
SFTTLES,JAkfS
RESIDENCE
W6STWDCDCHATFALI
18.00
51.43
18,771.95
71,059.56
0.43
0.71
1.42
1.42
2.84
6.04
36
FCVAER,SISAN
RESIDENCE
VESTWOCDCHATEAU
25.00
71.43
26,071.95
98,693.07
0.59
0.99
1.97
1.97
3.95
8.39
37
WY-9CKS SAN
RESIDENCE
VESTWOCO"TEAU
27.00
77.14
28,156.10
106,582.43
0.64
1.07
2.13
2.13
4.26
9.06
38
HOLLINGSWORTH,TE,JR
FESE&EE
15.00
42.86
15,643.90
59,218.60
0.36
0.59
1.18
1.18
2.37
5.03
39
WLSON,JEFF
TESCQJCE
VESIVA ()CHATEAU
19.00
54.29
19,815.85
75,011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
.3.00
6.38
40
MACKFORD, IDA
RESIDENCE
VEST1 i4TFAU
21.00
60.00
21,900.00
62.900.52
0.50
0.83
1.66
1.66
3.32
7.05
41
DNAH,BHUTA
RESIDENCE
V1ESIMCDCHATEAU
1.00
2.86
1,043.90
3,951.59
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.34
42
CiOJER,DORQT1i1f
RESIDENCE
WESTWOODCMTEAU
17.00
48.57
17,728.05
67.107.97
0.40
0.67
1.34
1.34
.2.68
5.70
43
CPEAI FRAN
RESIDENCE
WESTWOCOVLLACE
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
44
HOLLFIELD, GLBERT
RESIDENCE
HM70W
20.00
57.14
20,856.10
78.948.93
0.47
0.79
1.58
1.58
3.16
6.71
45
ATKNS,JUNE
RESIDENCE
%&ESrWOODVUAGE
23.00
65.71
23,984.15
90,789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72
46
GFEErE,WW
RESIDENCE
WE.STWOCDCHATFAU
26.00
74.29
27,115.85
102,644.66
0.62
1.03
2.05
2.05
4.11
8.72
47
ADKIN, MARK
RESIDENCE
VIESTWt7CDCHATEAU
19.00
54.29
19,815.85
75,011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
3.00
6.38
48
CRAVIA.EY,JA ES
RESIDENCE
VESTMODC! WTEAU
36.00
102.86
37,543.90
142.119.12
0.85
1.42
2.84
2.84
5.68
12.08
49
DICKS, MKE
RESIDENCE
UIESTWOCDCa-ATFAU
59.00
168.57
61,528.05
232,909.01
1.40
2.33
4.66
4.66
9.32
19.80
50
HOLLNGSWORiH,TE
RESIDENCE
29.00
82.86
30,243.90
114,485.62
0.69
1.14
2.29
2.29
4.58
9.73
51
IVAFTTN,BOBBY
RESIDENCE
HWY 70
47.00
134.29
49.015.85
185.545.18
1.11
1.86
3.71
3.71
7.42
15.77

52
MCFALLS,EDNA
FESCENCE
VESTV40CDCFATEALJ
47.00
134.29
49,015.85
185,645.18
1.11
1.86
3.71
3.71
7.42
TS.77
53
SWCLAIR, KAY
RESCENCE
VIESiWOCDCF
4TEAU
30.00
85.71
31,284.15
118.423.39
0.71
1.18
2.37
2.37
4.74
10.07
54
FROCTORTFTCN
RESEENCE
HWY 70 W
57.00
162.86
59,443.90
225,019.64
1.35
2.25
4.50
4.50
9.00
19.13
55
SNYDERRAYMCPD
FESCENCE
WESNVOCDCHATEALLI
49.00
140.00
51,100.00
193,434.54
IA6
1.93
3.87
3.87
7.74
16.44
56
HOYT, LYTLE, JR
FESCENCE
VESTIAOC)DCFATEAU
41.00
117.14
42,756.10
161.849.45
0.97
1.62
3.24
3.24
6.47
13.7fi
57
WYAT- AMES
FESCENCE
VWSTWOODCFiATEALJ
31.00
88.57
32,328.05
122,374.98
0.73
1.22
2.45
2.45
4.89
10.40
58
GFEEiyHO&ER
FESCENCE
MESTVIiODD VA
EAU
41.00
117.14
42.756.10
161,849.45
0.97
1.62
3.24
3.24
6.47
13.76
59
FRANIMJOYCE
FESCENCF
V ESiVVOCDa-
ATEAU
37.00
105.71
38,584.15
146,056.90
0.88
1.46
2.92
2.92
5.84
12.41
60
VALENTInE,LOIS
FESCENCE
VESiIAKXDCHATFAU
31.00
88.57
32,328.05
122,374.98
0.73
1.22
2.45
2.45
4.89
10.40
61
PRESNELL, PANSY
FESCENCE
HWY 70 W
60.00
171.43
62,571.95
236,860.60
1.42
2.37
4.74
4.74
9.47
20.13
62
VIMTTENERKATHY
FESDENCE
VIE TACCOCHATEAU
38.00
108.57
39,628.05
150,008.49
0.90
1.50
3.00
3.00
6.00
12.75
63
BRAMEY, DAVD
FESCENCE
HWY 70 W
85.00
242.86
88,643.90
335,553.67
2.01
3.36
6.71
6.71
13.42
28.52
64
MILLER RAY,
FESCENCE
VESTIAOCOCHATTA)
29.00
82.86
30,243.90
114.465.62
0.69
1.14
2.29
2.29
4.58
9.73
65
LCNG,JAMES
FESEENCE
62.00
177.14
64,656.10
244,749.96
1.47
2.45
4.89
4.89
9.79
20.80
66
PARTKER,PAM
RESCENCE
NESiV1OCDCHATEAU
43.00
122.86
44,843.90
.169,752.63
1.02
1.70
3.40
3.40
6.79
14.43
67
GLENyCFAFENCE
FESCENCE
VESTVVOCOCHATEA
U
29.00
82.86
30,243.90
114,485.62
0.69
1.14
2.29
2.29
4.58
9.73
68
BROM IAKARL
FESCENCE
MY 70
52.00
148.57
54,228.05
205.275.50
1.23
2.05
4.11
4.11
8.21
17.45
69
BRVMC GLEN
RESCENCF
100.00
285.71
104,284.15
394.758.45
2.37
3.95
7.90
7.90
15.79
33.55
70
FEESE DALE
FESCENCE
NESiVVOCDCHAlEW
101.00
288.57
105,328.05
398,710.04
2.39
3.99
7.97
7.97
15.95
33.89
71
PMASEY MALD
FESCENCE
VESiVVOCDCMIEAU
82.00
234.29
85,515.85
323,712.71
1.94
3.24
6.47
6.47
12.95
27.52
72
PADGET,GETNE
FESCENCE
104.00
297.14
108,456.10
410,551.00
2.46
4.11
6.21
8.21
16.42
34.90
73
DUNCAN,LEFL'N
FESCENCE
VVEMVVOCOCMTEAU
69.00
197.14
71.956.10
272,383.47
1.63
2.72
5.45
5.45
10.90
23.15
74
SAMTHdGYCE
FESCENCE
HWY 70 W
35.00
100.00
36,500.00
138,167.53
0.83
1.38
2.76
2.76
5.53
11.74
75
SMTH,DOLLY
FESCENCF
ZIONHILLTRAIER
15.00
42.86
15,643.90
59,218.60
0.36
0.59
1.18
1.18
2.37
5.03
76
MATONFCCDDMMM
FESTALIRANT HWY 70 W
781.00
2.231.43
814,471.95
3.083,111.73
18.50
30.83
61.66
61.66
123.32
262.06
77
HAFDESOFMARION
FESTALL PNO MY 70 W
9JSFECTED...
603.00
1,722.86
628,843.90
2,380,433.12
14.28
23.80
47.61
47.61
95.22
202.34
78
SHIRLEY RESTAURANT
RESTALJR NT
577.00
1,648.57
601,728.05
2,277,788.46
13.67
22.78
45.56
45.56
91.11
193.61
79
PRZAHUT
FESTALLIFVWT HWY 70
9-6FECTED...
320.00
914.29.
333.715.85
1.263,251.92
7.58
12.63
25.27 ,
25.27
50.53
107.38
80
ROBBNSOLCA
FESTALF" HWY 70 W
107.00
305.71
111,584.15
422.391.96
2.53
4.22
BAS
0.45
16.90
35.90
81
JLINIORHGHSCHCCL '
SC}iJCL
NPDSPERMT
1,507.00
4.305.71
1.571.584.15
5.949,093.19
35.69
59.49
118.98
118.98
237.96
505.67
82
SENIOR HGH SCHOOL (2)
aMa
NPDSPERMiT
336.00
960.00
350,400.00
1,326,408.29
7.96
13.26
26.53
26.53
53.06
112.74
83
JUNIOR Hui SCHOOL (2)
9 M
NPDSPER Tr
253.00
722.86
263.843.90
998.757.81
5.99
9.99
19.98
19.98
39.95
84.89
84
Si NICRHGHSCHOCL
so-o .
NPDSPERMT
2,559.00
7,311.43
2,668.671.95
10.102.022.29
60.61-
101.02
202.04
202.04
404.08
858.67
85
CIUICKASAVWNK
BLUFM
HWY70W
NPDSPERMT
1,209.00
3,454.29
1.260,815.85
4.772,707.20
28.64
47.73
95.45
95.45
190.91
405.68
86
9fL.TERASS.
D-UESS
WRIONPLAM
PIMPING
24.00
68.57
25,028.05
94,741.48
0.57
0.95
1.89
1.89
3.79
8.05
87
DE13BESMLLSICHaJSE
BUSNESS
WRIONPLAZA
PJIWM
32.00
91.43
33,371.95
126.326.57
0.76
1.26
2.53
2.53
5.05
10.74
Be
cARCLNAENTERPRBE.S
BLISTESS
WIONPLAZA
PUMPNG
17.00
48.57
17.728.05
67,107.97
0.40
0.67
1.34
1.34
2.68
5.70
89
FEVOO
DM ESS
L MICNPLAZA
PUMPNG
23.00
65.71
23,984.15
90,789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72
90
CR0659DNS MMTEH0P
BUSINESS
WRKJN PLAM
PUMPNG
105.00
300.00
109.500.00
414.502.59
2.49
4.15
8.29
8.29
16.58
35.23
91
ffWNBROCKSAMCY
BUSINESS
MMIONPLAZA
R1M'NG
12.00
34.29
12.515.85
47.377.65
0.28
0.47
0.95
0.95
1.90
4.03
92
SHELTER ASS. (2)
BUSINESS
WRIONPLAZA
RRAVC
20.00
57.14
20,856.10
78.948.93
0.47
0.79
1.58
1.58
3.16
6.71
93
SEARSRC:EB ICK
DUSrnESS
MARICNPIAZA
PUNPNG
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
94
OCN EFASHrM
BLEMSS
MMIONPLAZA
PL PWG
19.00
54.29
19,815.85
75,011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
3.00
6.38
95
N7RTHAESTERJB"
BUSINESS
M4RIONPLAZA
PUMPING
23.00
65.71
23.984.16
.90,789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72
96
ROSESSICRE
BUSNESS
WRIDNPLAZA
PUMPING
312.00
891.43
325,371.95
1,231.666.82
7.39
12.32
24.63
24.63
49.27
104.69
97
NELLYDEWYSTSALCN
BIJ,SPESS
MMIONPIAZA
RJMPWG
76.00
217.14
79,256.10
300.016.98
1.80
3.00
6.00
6100
12.00
25.50
98
SIKESi`IOWNC.
BL ESS
WRIONFiAZA
RJMPNG
11.00
31.43
11,471.95
43,426.05
0.26
0.43
0.87
0.87
1.74
3.69
99
MWIC NW&FACT1 Rta.. BLESS
VWESPAOCDCHW.. 1 CF5FALU...
3.00
8.57
3,128.05
11,840.96
0.07
0.12
0.24 .
0.24
0.47
1.01
100
FIRSTCFTiZENSBkw
LESS
HIGHWAY 70
11.00
31.43
11.471.95
43,426.05
0.26
0.43
0.87
0.87
1.74
3.69
101
NATXJNALPROP .ANALYSTS
BUSINESS
M4RDNPLAM
PL PNG
7.00
20.00
7,300.60
27.633.51
0.17
0.28
0.55
0.55
1.11
2.35
102
VIESiACMCNAT.LLN
BUSfESS
%WSTMCDCHA..
RJMPNIG
127.00
362.86
132,443.90
501,354.70
3.01
5.01
10.03
10.03
20.05
42.62
103
HARRSTEETER
I31St`ESS
MMIONPLAZA
PUiuPNG
108.00
308.57
112,628.05
426,343.55
2.56
4.26
8.53
8.53
17.05
36.24
104
NOFIMAN,LECFVA
FESCMNCE
MESTM ffl U
4.00
11.43
4,171.95
15.792.55
0.09
0.16
0.32
0.32
0.63
1.34
105
DBAGCLDFREDOHO"
FESTAURANTHIGHWAY 70
RJMPEACH...
8.00
22.86
8,343.90
31.585.10
0.19
0.32
0.63
0.63
1.26
2.68
106
CAOSSBDWNT.
FESTALRANrNORM PLAZA
RIMPNG
274.00
782.86
285,743.90
1,081.658.33
6.49
10.82
21.63
21.63
43.27
91.94
107
TMALS
13,439.00
38.397.19
14,014,974.35
53.052,449.28
318.31
530.52
1,061.05
1,061.05
2,122.10
4,509.46
TUrALSAFTERFEMOVALCFWASTEBENGPUWM&NPDSPERWM
6,608.598.75
25.016.267.69
150.10
250.16
500.33
500.33
1,000.65
2,126.38

APPENDD(5 CALCULAT)ONSFORTHWDSCFNARIO
5TH SCENARIO DATA
4TH SCENARIO DATA
WWTP20.0%
8S.0%EFFICIENi
2W000GPD
2500DDGPD
10D000GPD
10D000GPD
TOTAL
TOTAL
MMUCADVCLUJNE
PAX LOAD
MAXLwD
MAXLM
MAXLM
AVERAGE EFRUJENTCCt1ffNTWA)
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
A)
250000 (Gal/day)
R-IOSH-10RUS
NffFccE J
Hima-xW
NITFIC EN
LOW (MG/L)
6
20
345418827 (liters/year)
2.072.51
• 6,908.38
829.01
2,763.35
MOST LIKELY (MCA)
10
40
B)
100000 (Gal/Day)
3,454.19
13,816.75
1,381.68
5,526.70
HIGH(MG/L)
20
85
138167531 (liters/year
6,908.38
29,360.60
2.763.35
11.744.24
GALLCYJS/
GALLONS/
GALLOW
LITERS/
KG1YEAR
KGNEAR
KGNFJAR
WWEAR
KGYEAR
KGNEAR
CxSR1FJ]S
TYPE
ACAS
WTES
35 days
DAY
YEAR
YEAR
RFDSFTICR S
R-IO6R-IOA.6
PHORIICRS
NITF OCEN
NITRGCEN
NIiAOCEN
LOW
MDSTLKELY
HIGH
LOW
MOSTLKELY
HIGH
1
MARK WGICV0M
BUSINESS
HWY 70W
503.00
1,437.14
524,556.10
1,985,660.85
11.91
19.86
39.71
39.71
79.43
168.78
2
1341EWM7TCROD
BUSINESS
MA/Y70W RSFECiiD...
165.00
471.43
172,071.95
651,363.19
3.91
6.51
13.03
13.03
26.05
55.37
3
R RI-ERDANCE93CM
BUSINESS
RNY 70 W
8.00
22.86
8,343.90
31,585.10
0.19
0.32
0.63
0.63
1.26
2.68
4
WDOAEILHOUSE
BUSINESS
HWY 70 W
29.00
82.86
30.243.90
114,485.62
0.69
1.14
2.29
2.29
4.58
9.73
5
MCDOIAELLTWNCINENAA
BUSINESS
MY 70 SISPECiEO...
250.00
714.29
260,715.85
986.916.86
5.92
9.87
19.74
19.74
39.48
83.89
6
CURETWOR.D
BUSINESS
HINY 70 W
10.00
28.57
10,428.05
39.474.46
0.24
0.39
0.79
0.79
.1.58
3.36
7
HARVESTDRNE IN
BUSINESS
FMIY 70 W
220.00
628.57
229,428.05
868,479.65
5.21
8.68
17.37
17.37
34.74
73.82
8
NESTERNAUTO
BUSINESS
HWY 70
14.00
40.00
14,600.00
55,267.01
0.33
0.55
1.11
1.11
2.21
4.70
9
AS90C.FMSERVICE
BUSINESS.
V&STWOCDCHATEAU
13.00
37.14
13.556.10
51.315.42
0.31
0.51
1.03
1.03
2.05
4.36
10
BARCLAYAMEROAN
BUSINESS
HM 70 W
16.00
45.71
16,684.15
63,156.38
0.38
0.63
1.26
1.26
2.53
5.37
11
U Nl1EDOLMARKEfERS(...
BUSINESS
133.00
380.00
138,700.00
525,036.62
3.15
5.25
10.50
10.50
21.00
44.63
12
ImARION SCRAP METAL
BUSINESS
HWY 70 W
1.00
2.86
1,043.90
3,951.59
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.34
13
CARDLNATIRE
BUSINESS
HWY70W
75.00
214.29
78,215.85
296,079.20
- 1.78
2.96
5.92
5.92
11.84
25.17
14
CBSSPORTSNO
BUSINESS
HWY 70W
5.00
14.29
5,215.85
19,744.14
0.12
0.20
0.39
0.39
0.79
1.68
15
TE)CAMROBWOS
BUSINESS
FMIY70W
26.00
74.29
27,115.85
102.644.66
0.62
1.03
2.05
2.05
4.11
8.72
16
UlrlI ED(x-MARKETERS
BUSINESS
100.00
285.71
104,284.15
394.758.45
2.37
3.95
7.90
7.90
15.79
33.55
17
BOCNERSRHv7HE IGTR
BISNESS
HWY 70 W
9.00
25.71
9,384.15
35.522.87
0.21
0.36
0.71
0.71
1.42
3.02
18
BLLs RADIATOR SHOP
BUSINESS
FM/Y 70 W
155.00
442.86
161,643.90
611.888.73
3.67
6.12
12.24
12.24
24.48
52.01
19
WLSON,LOCKY
FESCENCE
VIESiV OCDCHATEAU
17.00
48.57
17,728.05
67,107.97
0.40
0.67
1.34
1.34
2.68
5.70
20
BOYfERFRANCES
FESDENCF
VESTWOODCHATEAU
22.00
62.86
22.943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.14
1.74
3.47
7.38
21
EARLY,NOF&M
RES[ENCE
VESiACCDCHATEAU
20.00
57.14
20,856.10
78.948.93
0.47
0.79
1.58
1.58
3.16
6.71
22
MYIMY,CRgRL M
RESCENC£
VWSW40CDC1MTEALJ
19.00
54.29
19,815.85
75,011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
3.00
6.38
23
PEEK BARBARA
FESCENCE
VkSfVAXDCMTEALJ
22.00
62.66
22,943.90
86.852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
24
RANDALL,CHRIS
RESICENCE
1AESSi1hOCDCHATEAU
12.00
34.29
12,515.85
47,377.66
0.28
0.47
0.95
0.95
1.90
4.03
25
HAYNES,DEBRA
FESCENCE
WESiWCCDC MTEAU
68.00
194.29
70,915.85
268.445.70
1.61
2.68
5.37
5.37
10.74
22.82
26
EZELI,RHODA
FESE NCE
V�ESiVK7 DCHATEAU
27.00
77.14
28.156.10
106.582.43
0.64
1.07
2.13
2.13
4.26
9.06
27
PITTAMN,RICHARD
RESCENCF
VIESiMCDCHATEAU
67.00
191.43
69,871.95
264,494.10
1.59
2.64
5.29
5.29
10.58
22.48
28
BAGVVELL, WALTER
RESEENCE
MSMOCOCHATEALI
72.00
205.71
75.084.15
284,224.43
1.71
2.84
5.68
5.68
11.37
24.16
29
HUSKM,GRADY
RESIDENCE
HWY 70 W
18.00
51.43
18,771.95
71,059.56
0.43
0.71
1.42
1.42
2.84
6.04
30
WALL,MARGARET
RESCENCE
HWY 70 W
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
31
ELLIOT,FAYE
RESCENCE
VWSiV1KXDCHATEAU
25.00
71.43
26,071.95
98,693.07
0.59
0.99
1.97
1.97
3.95
8.39
32
LACY, LOU
RESCENCE
VYESiWOODCPATEAU
23.00
65.71
23.984.15
90.789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72
33
HENNESSEE,JOSERH
RESEEN E
VIESiACCMIATEAU
15.00
42.86
15.643.90
59,218.60
0.36
0.59
1.18
1.18
2.37
5.03
34
KACHALK DNESH
RESCENCE
WESiWOOD"TEAU
76.00
217.14
79,256.10
300.016.98
1.80
3.00
6.00
6.00
12.00
25.50
35
SURLES,.PhES
RESCENCE
VESINVOCDCHATEAU
18.00
51.43
18,771.95
71,059.56
0.43
0.71
1.42
1.42
2.84
6.04
36
FOWLER,SUSAN
RESCENCE
VESNYCCOCHATEAU
25.00
71.43
26,071.95
98,693.07
0.59
.0.99
1.97
1.97
3.95
8.39
37
kXSICKSlSAN
FESEENCF
VESIMCDCHATEAU
27.00
77.14
28,156.10
106.582.43
0.64
1.07
2.13
2.13
4.26
9.06
38
I- IDLUJGSWDRiH,TEA
RESCQN£
15.00
42.86
.15,643.90
59,216.60
0.36
0.59
1.18
.1.18
2.37
5.03
39
WLSON,JEFF
RESIDENCE
V0;S HATEAU
19.00
54.29
19.815.85
75.011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
3.00
6.38
40
BIACKFORD, DA
FESCENCE
"ESW OCOCMTEAU
21.00
60.00
21,900.00
82.900.52
0.50
0.83
1.66
1.66
3.32
7.05
41
DIAH, BHULA
FiESCENCE
VIESiMCM ATEAU
1.00
2.86
1.043.90
: 3.951.59
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.34
42
GI-GVER,DOFIOiMf
RESIDENCE
VIESIMCOCHATEAU
17.00
48.57
17,728.05
67,107.97
0.40
0.67
1.34
1.34
2.68
5.70
43
CIEAi FRAN
RESICENCE
MESTWOCOVLIACE
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
.86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
44
HOLLFELD, GLBERT
RES[ENCE
ENVY 70 W
20.00
57.14
20.856.10
78.948.93
0.47
0.79
1.58
1.58
3.16
6.71
45
ATKNS,JUNE
RESCENCE
MSiWOCDVLIACE
23.00
65.71
23,984.15
90,789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72
46
GREE E,WW
FESCENCE
MESMOCDCHATEAU
26.00
74.29
27,115.85
102,644.66
0.62
1.03
2.05
2.05
4.11
8.72
47
ADKIN, MARK
RESCENCE
NESPAOCDCHNTEAU
19.00
54.29
19.815.85
75.011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
3.00
6.38
48
CRAVVIEY,JANES
RESCENCE
WESMKJCDC HATEAU
36.00
102.86
37,543.90
142,119.12
0.85
1.42
2.84
2.84
5.68
12.08
49
DICKS, M KE
FESCENCE
NESiACCDCHATEAU
59.00
168.57
61,528.05
232.909.01
1.40
2.33
4.66
4.66
9.32
19.80
50
HXLNGSWORiRTE
R SCENCE
29.00
82.86
30,243.90
114,485.62
0.69
1.14
2.29
2.29
4.58
9.73
51
MARTN,BCDBY
FESCENCE
HWY70
47.00
134.29
49,015.85
185,545.18
1.11
1.86
3.71
3.71
7.42
15.77

52
NCFALLS,FDNA
FES(>mm
VIESTWOCDCHATEA
I
47.00
134.29
49,015.85
185,645.18
1.11
1.86
3.71
3.71
7.42
T5.77
53
SNCLAIR, KAY
FESCENCE
VIEsT OCDCHATEAU
30.00
85.71
31,284.15
118,423.39 .
0.71
1.18
2.37
2.37
4.74
10.07
54
PROCTORTRCN
FESCENCE
HM 70 W
57.00
162.86
59,443.90
225,019.64
1.35
2.25
4.50
4.50
9.00
19.13
55
SfIYDERPAY&M
FESCENCE
VIESLVIOCDCHATFAU
49.00
140.00
51,100.00
193,434.54
1.16
1.93
3.87
3.87
7.74
16.4,
56
HOYT,LYRE,JR
FESEENCE
V1ESPACCDCFATEAL)
41.00
117.14
42,756.10
161,849.45
0.97
1.62
3.24
3.24
6.47
13.76
57
WYATT,JAMES
FESEENCE
VCSiV1OCDCtWTFA
LJ
31.00
88-.57
32,328.05
122,374.98
0.73
1.22
2.45
2.45
4.89
10.40
58
GFEENHa%ER
FESEENCE
V1EST OCDCFATEAU
41.00
117.14
42,756.10
161,849.45
0.97
1.62
3.24
3.24
6.47
13.76
59
FRWMJOYCE
FESEENCE
NFSIIM1O(DG-ATEAL)
37.00
105.71
38.584.15
146,056.90
0.88
1.46
2.92
2.92
5.84
12.41
60
VALENTM,LOIS
FESCENCE
VES1V4OCD"TEAU
31.00
88.57
32,328.05
122,374.98
0.73
1.22
2.45
2.45
4.89
10.40
61
PFES AaLPANSY
FESEENCE
HWY 70 W
60.00
171.43
62,571.95
236,860.60
1.42
2.37
4.74
4.74
9.47
20.13
62
VIA-IIiEAEERKATHY
FESEENCE
. VIESTWOCDCHATEAU
38.00
108.57
39,628.05
150,008.49
0.90
1.50
3.00
3.00
6.00
12.75
63
BRADLEY,DAVD
FESEENCE
MNY 70 W
85.00
242.86
88,643.90
335,553.67
2.01
3.36
6.71
6.71
13.42
28.52
64
MLLER,RAY
FESCENCE
VIESWX Da ATEAU
29.00
82.86
30,243.90
114.485.62
0.69
1.14
2.29
2.29
4.58
9.73
65
LCNG.JMES
FESEENCE
62.00
177.14
64,656.10
244.749.96
1.47
2.45
4.89
4.89
9.79
20.80
66
PAFI(ER,PAM
FESEENCE
VESFV40CDO-ATEALJ
43.00
122.86
44,843.90
169,752.63
1.02
1.70
3.40
3.40
6.79
14.43
67
GLENyCXAFENCE
FESCENCE
VESIMCOCHNTEAU
29.00
82.86
30,243.90
114.485.62
0.69
1.14
2:29.
2.29
4.58
9.73
68
BROWKAFTL
FESCENCE
HWY70
52.00
148.57
54.228.05
205.275.50
1.23
2.05
4.11
4.11
8.21
17.45
69
agts KGU7J
FESEENCE
100.00
285.71
-104.284.15
394.758.45
2.37
3.95
7.90
7.90
15.79
33.55
70
FEESE,DALE
FESCENCE
VESFW000CI ATEALJ
101.00
288.57
105,328.05
398,710.04
2.39
3.99
7.97
7.97
15.95
33.89
71
BMASEY,DONALD
FESCENCE
VESMOODCHATEAU
82.00
234.29
85,515.85
323,712.71
1.94
3.24
6.47
6.47
12.95
27.52
72
PADGET,CEIE
FESEENCE
104.00
297.14
108.456.10
410,551.00
2.46
4.11
8.21
8.21
16.42
34.90
73
aw-W,LEFXN
FESEENCE
V►EMWOCDCHVUEJW
69.00
197.14
71.956.10
272,383.47
1.63
2.72
5.45
5.45
10.90
23.15
74
SWFHdOYCE
FESEENCE
HWY 70 W
35.00
100.00
36.500.00
138.167.53
0.83
1.38
2.76
2.76
5.53
11.74
75
SMiTH,DOLLY
FESEENCE
ZKNJHLLTRAI.ER
15.00
42.86
15,643.90
59,218.60
0.36
0.59
1.18
1.18
2.37
5.03
76
MARCNFOCOE CMCE
FESTAURANT MY 70 W
781.00
2.231.43
814.471.95
3.083,111.73
18.50
30.83
61.66
61.66
123.32
262.06
77
HMCESCEMARION
FESrAURWTHWY70W
SUSPECTED...
603.00
1,722.86
628.843.90
2,380,433.12
14.28
23.80
47.61
47.61
95.22
202.34
78
SHALEYFESTAURANT
FESTALItM
577.00
1,648.57
601.728.05
2,277.788.46
13.67
22.78
45.56
45.66
91.11
193.61
79
PIZZAHUT
FESTALWO HWY 70
SLFECF®...
320.00
914.29
333,715.85
1.263,251.92
7.58
12.63
25.27
25.27
50.53
107.38
80
FOMNSOLOD
FESTAUAWT MY 70 W
107.00
305.71
111,584.15
422.391.96
2.53
4.22
8.45
8.45
16.90
35.90
81
JLAIORHIGHSCHOOL
S=
NPDSPERu1<T
1,507.00
4,305.71
1,671.584.16
5,949.093.19
35.69
59.49
118.98
118.98
237.96
505.67
82
W"HIGI-ISCHOOL(2)
SZHM
NPDSPERAMT
336.00
960.00
350,400.00
1.326.408.20
7.96
13.26
26.53
26.53
53.06
112.74
83
JUNIORHGiSCHOOL (2)
SXU
NPDSPERMFT
253.00
722.86
263,843.90
998.757.81
5.99
9.99
19.98
19.98
39.95
84.89
84
SFNOR"SCHM
Sai7CL
NPDSPERNYT
2,559.00
7,311.43
2,668,671.95
10.102,022.29
60.61
101.02
202.04
202.04
404.08
858.67
85
GLJICXASAWN(
B)SPESS
MMY70W
NPDSPERMFT
1,209.00
3,454.29
1.260.815.85
4,772,707.20
28.64
47.73
95A5
95.45
190.91
405.68
86
SI ELTERASS.
BMS ESS
W DNRA7A
RMNIG
24.00
68.57
25,028.05
94.741.48
0.57
0.95
1.89
1.89
3.79
8.05
87
DEBBESMJSCHWSE
BLMr ESS
MARL NRAZA
PLIWN1G
32.00
91.43
33,371.95
126.326.57
0.76
1.26
2.53
2.53
5.05
10.74
88
CaFaMHffERMSES .
BLMF ESS
MARIDNRAZA
PUNPWG
17.00
48.57
17,728.05
67,107.97
0.40
0.67
1.34
1.34
2.68
5.70
89
FEVOO .
BISMSS
MARIDNRAM
P INPWG
23.00
65.71
23,984.15
90.789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72
90
CROSSBONSAMS-CP
B UESS
MARIONRAZA
RAFWG
105.00
300.00
109,500.00
414,602.59
2.49
4.15
8.29
8.29
16.58
35.23
.91
BRAINaROCKSAGENCY
BUESS
MARCNPLAZA
PUWNIG
12.00
34.29
12.515.85
47,377.65
0.28
0.47
0.95
0.95
1.90
4.03
92
SHELTER ASS. (2)
B1SMSS
MARL NRAZA
RMWG
20.00
57.14
20.856.10
78,948.93
0.47
0.79
1.58
1.58
3.16
6.71
93
SEAFIS{iCEBUCC
BISMSS
WRIONRAZA
PUNPWG
22.00
62.86
22,943.90
86,852.11
0.52
0.87
1.74
1.74
3.47
7.38
94
CCNNEFASHMS
BISFNESS
MARCNPLAZA
FU PWG.
19.00
54.29
19,815.85
75.011.15
0.45
0.75
1.50
1.50
3.00
6.38
95
NCRTF hAiESFERdBMK
BJSNESS
AMRDNRMA
R"WG
23.00
65.71
23,984.15
90.789.88
0.54
0.91
1.82
1.82
3.63
7.72
96
WEESSUE
BISFNESS
WRIONPLAZA
PUNPWG
312.00
891.43
325,371.95
1;231,666.82
7.39
12.32
24.63
24.63
49.27
104.69
97 .
N]lYDEAMSALCN
BISFNESS
AMRCNPLAZA
RINPNIG
76.00
217.14
79,256.10
300,016.98
1.80
3.00
6.00
6.00
12.00
25.50_
98
SHCESHC7UVPC.
BJSMSS
WRIONRAZA
PUNPWG
11.00
31.43
11.471.95
43,426.05
0.26
0.43
0.87
0.87
1.74
3.69
99
WRICNMMA.FACRJFM..
D-RIESS
VESFVOO(DCRk.. IOF5FALU...
3.00
8.57
3.128.05
11.840.96
0.07
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.47
1.01
100
FL9STCMZEN5BAN(
BISTESS
HIGHWAY70
11.00
31.43
11,471.95
43,426.05
0.26
0.43
0.87
0.87
1.74
3.69
101
NAMOLPROP.ANALYSTS
BJSPESS
WRIONMAZA
RINPWG
7.00
20.00.
7,300.00
27;633.51
0.17
0.28
0.55
0.55
1.11•
2.35
102
MSIMUCO"T.LCN
B MESS
VESFVLO(DC}W..
PUNPNJG
127.00
362.86
132,443.90
501,354.70
3.01
5.01
10.03
16.03
20.05
42.62
103
WMISTEETER
BISPESS
MARIDNRAZA
RMM
108.00
308.57
112,628.05
426.343.55
2.56
4.26
8.53
8.53
17.05
36.24
104
NORMATMLECNA
FESC04CE
VIESN OCDC F ATFAU
'
4.00
11.43
4.171.95
15,792.55
0.09
0.16
0.32
0.32
0.63
1.34
105
CBAGC DFRED(HO"
FESIALPANr
MHWAY70
R.NPEAC H...
8.00
22.86
8,343.90
31,585.10
0.19
0.32
0.63
0.63
1.26
2.68
106
CRD6SBOWIJT:
FESTALJAANTMRmRA7A
FLwm.
274.00
782.86
285.743.90
1,081,658.33
6.49
10.82
21.63
21.63
43.27
91.94
107
TUTALS
13.439.00
38,397.19
14,014,974.35
53,052,449.28
318.31
530.52
1.061:05
.1,061.05
2.122.10
4,509.46
TOTALSAFFERFEM(NALOFWASTEBBNGPUtuP®BNPDSPERWM
6.608,598.75
25,016,267.69
150.10
250.16
500.33
500.33
1.000.65
2,126.38

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ENDANGERED SPECIES FIELD STATION
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASIIEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
June 13, .1986
Mr. Michael A. Brookshire
Jensen Engineering
Consulting Engineers
P. 0. Box 13149
Asheville, NC 28814
Dear Mr. Brookshire:
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-86-461
J U N 14 1986
JENSEN ENGINEERING
Your June 6, 1986, letter regarding the proposed wastewater treatment plant
to be located adjacent to the Catawba River in McDowell County, North
Carolina, was received June 9, 1986. We have reviewed the project as,
requested with regard to endangered and threatened species.
Based on our records, it is our belief that there are no federally listed or
proposed endangered or threatened plant or animal species in the impact area
of the project, and that the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, (Act) are fulfilled. There are species
which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as
endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service and
may be listed at some time in the future. A list of the species under
status review which may occur within the project area is attached.
The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency under Section 7 of the
Act are detailed in the enclosed material. Please retain this
information in your files for use in future Section 7 consultations.
If you have questions, please contact us at [phone] (FTS 672-0321).
Your concern for endangered species is appreciated, and we look forward to
working wi-th you on endangered species matters in the future.
Sincerely yours,
V. Gary Henry
Acting Field Supervisor
CC:
Ms. Deborah S. Paul, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC 27611
Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
NC
Mr. Rob Sutter, North Carolina Departmen-t'of Agriculture, Pesticide and Plant
Protection Division, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, ES, FWS,.Raleigh; NC
Regional Director, Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta, GA 30308, Appendix F

United States Del)artment of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ENDANGERED SPECIES FIELD STATION
100 O'TIS STREET, RO0M 224
ASHEVILLE', NORTH CAROLINA 28801
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-86-461
STATUS REVIEW SPECIES
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response for
the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species may be listed
in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Endangered
Species Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
to avoid impacting them.
PLANTS
Short -styled oconee-bells - Shortia galacifolia
Gray's lily - Lilium grayi
Roseroot - Sedum rosea var. roanensis
Carey's saxifrage - Saxifraga careyana
Broadleaf coreopsis - Coreopsis latifolia
White leaved sunflower - Helianthus glaucophyllus

State of North Carolina
Y.U. Box 27687, Kaleigh, North Carolina 276117687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Appendix G

v ri 3�
�} L.
V o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
June 30, 1986
Mr. Don King (� Q
County Manager
P. 0. Box 1450 U
Marion, N.C. 28752 JUL 1986
Re: McDowell Sewage Treatment Facility,
McDowell County, CH 86-C-0000-1008 JENSEN EN GIN EERING
Dear Mr. King:
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
Six archaeological sites are located within one mile of the project
area. Therefore, we recommend that the two -acre project area adjacent
to the Catawba River be surveyed as well as the corridor adjacent to the
proposed Marion bypass. The proposed sewer line that runs beside
Highway 70 will not need to be surveyed.
Since this appears to be the same project, will you please explain why
the maps enclosed with your paperwork are different from those enclosed
by Jensen Engineering (letter.of June 6, 1986).
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or
expressed an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina.
Individual files providing additional information on the consultants may
be examined at the Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section's
Archaeology Branch, 421 North Blount Street. If additional names are
desired-, we recommend -that you consult the current listing of the
members of the Society of Professional Archeologists, or contact the
society's secretary/treasurer, Mr. William Lovis, Michigan State University
Museum, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Any of the above persons, or any
other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted in order to conduct
the recommended investigations.
In addition, we have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the
planning area.
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Appendix H

July 23, 1986
Mr. Stephen R. Claggett,.Chief Archaeologist
Archaeology Branch.
Division of Archives and History .
NtC, Department of Cultural Resources -
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re$ McDowell Sewage Treatment Facility
-
McDowell County. CH 86-C-0000-1008
Dear .Sieve =
.:lease find enclosed the required two copies of a report concerning an:
archaeological survey of the referenced project area. An additional
copy of the report has been provided to Ma, Lee Novick at the Archives.'
and History Western Office in Asheville. ,
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please
let us know. We look forward to receiving your comments.
Sincerely yours,.
C. Michael Baker, Ph.D.-
cc Jensen Engineering
enclosures:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
OF THE
MC'DOWELL SEWAGE
TREATMENT
FACILITY
CH 88-0-0000-1
BY
C, MICHAEL BAKER,
AND
LINDA G, HALL

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND EVALUATION
OF THE
GREAT MEADOWS TREATMENT PLANT SITE,
MCDOWELL SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY,
M.CDOWELL COUNTY, CH 86-C-0000-1008
JULY 229 1-986
prepared by
C. MICHAEL BAKER & LINDA G. HALL:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
WEAVERVILLE, NC
prepared for _
JENSEN ENGINEERING
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ASHEV I LLE 9, NC
MANA G EM ENT SUMMARY
An archaeological field survey was conducted'
by -the report authors on July. 14, 1986 near -'the
Town of Marion in McDowell County, North Carolina.
The investigation focused on a 106 x 200 foot
wastewater treatment plant site as well as a 900
foot connecting pipeline corridor that are .proposed
for construction as the McDowell.Sewage Treatment
Facility <:CH 86-C-0000-1008). The project site.'is
located within the floodpIain of the Catawba River
adjacent to U.S. Highway 70. -The purpose.of the
study was to determine the presence and
significance of any historic or prehistoric
cultural resources that might be affected.by the
proposed project.
Both pedestrian survey and subsurface testing
techniques were applied during the study of the
project area. Ground cover and deep silt deposits
associated with past flooding were the"prin-cipal
limiting factors affecting archaeological site
detection. The walkover of the project area
recovered no archaeological materials from the
ground surface . In addition, deep shovel testsin
the location of' the proposed treatment plant and
along the _pipeline route recovered no evidence
indicating the presence of any buried
archaeological. sites.

b
Based on these findings, it is concluded that
the proposed project will not affect any'
significant archaeological site in the area.
Therefore, no additional archaeological study will
be necessary and it is recommended that the project
receive clearance for construction from the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.
INTRODUCTION
This report describes an archaeological survey
that was conducted on July 14, 1986 within limited
floodplain areas of the Catawba River near the Town -
of Mar i on , McDowel 1 County, North Carol i na. This
work was performed pursuant to federal regulations
that pertain to the protection of significant
historic cultural resources, and in response to a
recommendation far the same by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office (see Appendix).
A project entitled the McDowell Sewage Treatment
Facility (CH 86-C-0000-1008) will involve
construction of the Great Meadows Treatment Plant
Site (100 x-200 feet) and a connecting pipeline
segment measuring 900 feet in length.
The treatment plant will consist of a small lift
station. Other construction measures are proposed
but these are not located in areas where
archaeological site occurrence is considered
likely.
The facility locations that were investigated
will be situated in the floodplain of the Catawba
River as shown on the accompanying maps. This
general location is approximately three miles
northwest of the Town of Marion, adjacent to U.S.
Highway 70, and approximately one-fourth mile west
Ci.e. actually, southwest) of the junction of this
highway with U.S. Highway 221. As one travels west
from this intersection along Highway 70, the
project -i s situated on the north side of the road
and between a Wendy's Restaurant and the Joseph
McDowell House.
This work was commissioned by Jensen
Engineering of Asheville, North Carolina and it was
performed by. the report authors. No formal scope
of work was developed for this investigation.
However, it was understood that the work would
follow the 'Guidelines for Preparation of
Archaeological Survey Reports, Reviewed by the
Archeology Branch, Division of Archives and
History, North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources.' An interim field report was prepared
3

ZZI U.S.70
. %j
� I
PROPosEn � TREATMEhIT ��
P�ctit-r STe
ti
PROJECT
VICINITY
MAP
PROPoseo
MG Dov�IELL 60L11JTy'
WASTEVfP�TEEZ TRI�,TMEnIT PLArJT
` � PROPpc,�Ep BRIO \
RIClH- OF' �Xlyly- PA-.S

. f
on July 15, 1986 and provided to the project
sponsor.
PROJECT SETTING
The prof ec.t area is generally located
the upper Catawba River Basin in the west central
section of North Carolina. It is situated within.
McDowell County and near the County Seat. of Marion."
The treatment facility is located near the
comrnun i ty of `Garden Creek and within a f l oodpl a i n '
area that is approximately 300 feet from the south
bank of the Catawba River. A small unnamed.
tributary (and perhaps a modern drainage to the =
Catawba River) flows from south to north several
hundred. feet to the east of the project..
The affected acreage of the project will be
minimal and generally contained within a 100.x 200.
foot area that will comprise t-he treatment
facility, and along .a narrow 900 foot pipeline
corridor. The area .presents y exists as -Fallow
agricultural fields that ihave grown up in tal"1
weeds. A bordering field immediately adjacent to _
and west of the pipeline route was 'clean -_
cultivated' at the time of the survey and afforded -
excellent ground surface visibility.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Review of the archaeological site records of
the Archeology Branchg"N.C. Division of Archives
and History indicated that six previously recorded
archaeological sites were located within one mile
of the project area (see Appendix). Thus, selected..
floodplain areas of the upper Catawba River were
known. beforehand to be probabi_1 i st i c 1 ocat i ons .-For.-
multi-component prehistoric and historic cultural
res-ources. Modern archaeological investigations.,.
have been limited, however, and little formal
research has been undertaken and reported. Because
of this, specific factors that might mark selected
floodplain localities as archaeological site areas,....::
within otherwise undifferentiated stretches of
broad floodplain, remain elusive.
McDowell- County was formed in' 1842 from
Rutherford and Burke Counties. It. is named for-.
Major Joseph McDowell (1 857-96) , a regional.
historic figure. who, was a member of Congress -and
the commission that was established to settle the
North Carolina - Tennessee boundary line (Powell
5

' 1968). The house of Joseph McDowell stands today
and is situated adjacent to Highway 70 and less
than one-fourth mile east, of the. project (N.C.
Division of Archives and History 1979). It is
presently a retail store.
The most relevant aspect -of. the his . tory of the
county that applies to the present investigation is,
the published record of the.Catawba River floods of
1916 and 1940 (Fosse.tt 1976) The 1916.flood was,
by far, the more devasting. Following a lengthy
period of heavy rainfall that had saturated the.
soils of the western portion of'the.state, a
hurricane from the Gulf Coast passed through --
dumping as much as 22 inches -of rain within --a' 24.
hour period. A tremendous flood ensued which
destroyed all of the river bridges in McDowell
County and most of.those over smaller tributaries.
Fifty. percent of all the public and country roads
were destroyed. In addition, one report indicates.
that seventy-f i v,e percent of al 1. l ands along the
river and its tributaries were permanently.damaged...
In this regard it should be noted that the Clear
Creek: and Buck -Creek areas (see Locational Map) are.
described as having been particularly ravaged by
the floodwaters {Fossett 1976).
The prehistory of western North Carolina has-
been summarized by Keel (1976)9 Dickens (1976), and
Purrington <1983). The earliest known occupation'
by prehistoric peoples of.the North Carolina
Mountains was during the Paleo-Indian Period which
dates from 12000 to 8000 B.C. The material remains
most widely acknowledged to. i nd i c.ate the presence
of human populations during this period are -fluted
projectile points. Recent summaries of North
Carolina prehistory also place the Hardaway and
Palmer -complexes within the Paleo-Indian period.
In addition to projectile points, end and side
scrapers, gravers, drills,. flake knives and
spokeshaves.are found at archaeological sites
dating to this period. Hunting, possibly including
some megafauna, and collecting. of wild plants
provided subsistence for these early populations.
The beginning of the Archaic period (8000-500'
B.C.) coincides with the termination ofboreal
forest conditions. It is generally div-ided into
Early, Middle, and Late subperiods, and is typified
by the Kirk, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and
Savannah River complexes (Coe 1964). During this
period'the.atlati (spear,thrower) 'came into. use.
Projectile point styles changed gradually as.
hafting methods varied over time. Hunting.and
6

' v
gathering continued to be important means of
subsistence, but mobility decreased somewhat as
-local resources began to•be exploited more
intensively. Large bowls were carved from
soapstone.
The Woodland period began around 700 B.G. and
lasted until ca. A..D..1000. Significant
developments during this period included the.
introduction of pottery and agriculture.
Card —marked and fabric —impressed ceramic vessels
dating.to the Early Woodland-,.Swannanoa phase, are
the.earliest known forms. Corn was the primary
agricultural commodity, although hunting and
gathering still remained important strategies for_
supplying food and raw materials. The bow and
arrow -began to be utilized and settlements became
increasingly more permanent and floodplain—oriented_
during this period. Participation in economic
exchange systems well —beyond the mountain region
becomes apparent during.the Middle.Woodland period,,:':
and concurrently, ceramic styles show strong
influences from other regions.
The Mississippian.Period _(A.D. 1000-1838) is
subdivided into the Pisgah -(early) and Qualla
(late) phases. Stockaded,villages, square to
rectangular dwellings, platform mounds, and flexed
burials are. characteristics -associated with the
Pisgah phase. Subsistence continued to include
hunting, gathering, and hort.iculture.. The Qualla
phase represents the latest Native American culture
in western North,Carolina which continued into
historic times -up to the removal of the Cherokees
in 1838 (Purri.ngton 1983).
SURVEY( METHODS AND RESULTS
An archaeological site is any area yielding
evildence of past human behavior. Either artifacts
or particular soil configurations (e.g. features).
may indicate the presence of a site. In prac.tice,,
an archaeological. site is usually defined on the
basis of two or ;more artifacts that occur proximal-,
to one another on the same landform.
At the t ime, of the f iel dwork, the 100 x 200
foot treatment plant site was overgrown in high
weeds and the ground surface was less. than 15,.
percent visible. Because of this, three subsurface:
tests were placed, along the center length. axis of
the ,plant site .at .100 foot intervals (i .e. one at
either -end and one in the middle)-.- These

subsurface tests along the first f 1 oodpl a i n terrace
of. the Catawba River revealed very deep and
generally undifferentiated flood deposits. The
tests measured 50 x 50 centimeters in horizontal
dimension and each was excavated to a depth of 1 .25 ,
meters. Excavated soils were sifted through
quarter -inch hardware cloth. No artifacts were
recovered and no-anthrop-ic soils were observed to
indicate the presence of an archaeological site at
this location. It- should be'noted, however, that
one machine -cut square nail was recovered from a
sand lense i,n.the westernmost test unit (see Soil
Prof'i,I es) Th i s art i fact which had obviously
washed from some upstream locality served to
indicate the historic affinity of the silt deposits
in the area. Thus, any archaeological site that
might occur in the immediate vicinity would be
.deeply buried and consequently, buffered from
construction by a thick protective blanket of silt.
The. proposed p i pel.i ne' corridor was also.
overgrown. However, because a recently excavated
field drainage d-i tch represented the specific'
pecifis
pipeline route, spoil dirt piles on either side of.
the_ ditch were visible to a greater degree, thus
o .allwing ground surface inspection. In addition, a.
recently cultivated field immediately adjacent to
.the pipeline corridor on the west provided a,
comparative sample of the area's surface soils.
Neither the walkover of the clean cultivated field
nor inspection of the spoil dirt piles along the
.previously excavated ditch yielded any evidence to
indicate the presence of a site in the area.
A series of six shovel tests was also placed
along the pipeline route. The tests measured 25 x
25 centimeters and were spaced at 50 meter
intervals. These tests were located in the bottom
of the excavated ditch as it was -determined by the
initial test -on this terrace that the upper 40 to
50 centimeters of the -soil profile was -'a uniform
silt deposit. Soils from these tests were not
screened, but were closely inspected using a
trowel 1 i ng 'techn i que . Compared to that found by
the treatment plant tests, the stratigraphy of the
pipeline c-orridor was found to differ i.n relation
to its higher elev'ation along the second..floodpla.in
terrace 'of the river,, and its 'front' to 'back'
orientation. However, no evidence was recovered to
indicate. that the terrace area, along the pipeline
route, held intact archaeological materials within
the observed soil deposits. One ..smalI broken
quartzite, cobble was recovered from the .sand 1 ense
stratum in the northernmost shovel test, however,
8

ti
its presence in the sand lense indicated -it had
been carried to this location by flood waters..
Nonetheless, the specirnen.was a definite artifact
(i.e. a probable bipolar anvil and hammerstone),
and it probably points to an undetermined site
locality upstream. In combination with the
previously discussed nail, it also reflects the
damaging effects.of the documented historic
flooding along the Catawba River..
Soil profiles representing the observed
stratigraphy within the described shovel tests,
both along the pipeline and at the treatment plant
site, are shown on the accompanying figure. The.
f l oodp l a i n profile was represented by two .of -the
three tests at the treatment plant locality. T-he
third (.easternmost) test lacked the sand lense
stratum. The terrace front profile was represented
by the first two tests along the northern end of
the -pipeline route, while the terrace back profile
was -represented by the"remaining four tests. The
general stratum below the silt.layers was darker in
coloration than the silt and may represent a
-remnant pre -flood plowzone. The organic content of-
this"zone (and its corresponding darker coloration)
appeared to increase directly in relation to its
distance from the river (and away from the terrace
front), perhaps representing 'backswamp deposits'
behind -an original natural levee terrace landform.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Archaeological survey methods including
subsurface testing techniques were'appli-ed to the
investigation of a proposed -treatment plant site
and pipeline corridor within floodplain areas of
the upper Catawba River. These measures failed to
recover evidence to indicate the occurrence of any
archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. It is not impossible that archaeological
materials are deeply covered -by s i 1 t. deposits -
with.in the general floodplain locality. However,
even if these exist, they would not be threatened
by the lift station facility because deep
excavations are not required for its construction.
In Burn, no significant historic or -prehistoric
cultural resources will be adversely affected by
the .proposed project.
-.The"physical record of the 1916 and 1940
floods within the project area is the vast, thick
deposit of silt that blankets the floodp lain. It
i,s possible, that the silt.strata in this particular
9 -

PROJECT AREA SOIL PROFILES
FLOODPLAIN TERRACE FRONT TERRACE BACK
silt
I sand lense
silt
silt
sand lense
silt
clay
yellow
orange
clay
C 10 cm
silt
clay
loam
yellow
orange
clay

fl.00dplain location are thicker than similar
upstream areas --on the south side of the river --due
to the constricted configuration of the floodplain
between the river channel and the adjacent upland
terrace slopes (see Project Locational Map). In
addition, the bridge that was located across the
river just downstream from the project probably
slowed the current sufficiently to allow even"
heavier alluvial deposition. In any case, the
floodwaters no doubt destroyed many archaeological.-
sites within certain areas of the floodplain as a
result of scouring, and at the same time protected
others with a deep covering of silt. It is not
unlikely that both processes are represented at the
general location. of the proposed project.
Based upon these findings, additional
archaeological study of the project area wi-11 not
be necessary. Therefore, it is recommended that,
the project receive clearance for construction.
11

b APPENDIX
P1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 30, 1986
Mr. Don King
County Manager
P. 0. Box 1450
Marion, N.C. 28752
Re: McDowell Sewage Treatment Facility,
McDowell County, CH 86-C-0000-1008
Dear Mr. King:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
JENSEN ENGINEERING
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
Six archaeological sites are located within one mile of the project
area. Therefore, we recommend that the two -acre project area adjacent
to the Catawba River be surveyed as well as the corridor adjacent to the
proposed Marion bypass. The proposed sewer line that runs beside
Highway 70 will not need to be surveyed.
Since this appears to be the same project, will you please explain why
the maps enclosed with your paperwork are different from those enclosed
by Jensen Engineering (letter of June 6, 1986).
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or
expressed an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina.
Individual files providing additional information on the consultants may
be examined at the Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section's
Archaeology Branch, 421 North Blount Street. If additional names are
desired, we recommend that you consult the current listing of the
members of the Society of Professional Archeologists, or contact the
society's secretary/treasurer, Mr. William Lovis, Michigan State University
Museum, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Any of the above persons, or any
other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted in order to conduct
the recommended investigations.
In addition, we have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the
planning area.
109 East_lones Strrct • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]

Mr. Don King
June 30, 1986, Page Two
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, -
David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc:V ichael A. Brookshire
Jensen Engineering
P. 0. Box 18149
Asheville, N.C. 28814
Glenn M. Rhodes, Assistant Director
Isothermal Planning and Development Commission
P . 0. Box 841
Rutherfordton, N.C. 28139
Clearinghouse

REFERENCES CITED
Coe , - Jof f r e L .
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina
Piedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society,
54C5) .
Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: the Pisgah"
Phase in the Appalachian Summit
'Region. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 _History of McDowell County.. The
-Seeman Printery, Durham, NC.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: a Study of the
Appalachian Summit. University -of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
N.G. Division of Archives and History
1979 Guide to North Carolina Historical
Highway Markers. Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh. -
Powell, William S.
1968 The North Carolina Gazetteer. The
University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: an Overview of
the Prehistoric Archaeology of North
Carolina's Western Mountain Region.
In M. Mathis and J. Crow (eds.),
The Prehistory of North Carolina: an
Archaeological Symposium. N.C.
Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
12

. YRHN`�•
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary.
June.11, 1986
Mr. Michael A. Brookshire
'Jensen Engineering
P. 0 Box 18149
Asheville, -NC 28814 -•
SUBJECT: Proposed Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant
McDowell County
Dear. Mr.'Brookshire:
We expect that the proposed wastewater treatment plant
will cause -no adverse affect on the air quality of the
community. Also, if no air pollution control devices will
-be constructed, no air quality permits are required..
'If the facility were to.be inadequately designed or
poorly operated, it could become a source of objectionable
odors.
Please let me know if you,need more information..
Sincerely,
J�y H e, P.E.
egzonal Air. Quality
Supervisor
VJH : a
)EN
SEN ENGWEERHYrG
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, P.O. Box 370, Asheville, N.C. 28802-0370 • Telephone [phone]I .
- An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Appendix I

1 \ V L 1.1 l �/GLl VLi11Q
Wilcffife
Resources Commission
Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Mr. Michael A. Brookshire
Jensen Engineering
Consulting Engineers
12 Broad Street
P. 0. Box 18149
Asheville, N. C. 28814
Dear Mr. Brookshire:
June 9, 1986 D
J U N -12 1986
JENSEN ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: McDowell Co. E.A., Project
No. 85148 - Waste Water
Treatment Plant
I'm afraid there is insufficient data accompanying your June
6 letter for us to evaluate the effect of the proposed plant on
fish and wildlife resources.
In reality, the purpose of the E.A. is to provide sufficient
information to make that determination. We, therefore, recommend
that your E.A. contain the following information relating to fish
andwildlife impacts. Impacts upon other resources likely will re-
quire additional data.
1. Listings of fish and wildlife resources in the
project area that may be impacted.
2. Listing of discharge components and their concen-
trations under "worst case" circumstances.
3. Seasonal fluctuations in discharge correlated with
stream flows.
4. Possible impacts resulting from cumulative impacts
-of the proposed discharge in association with other
discharges into the river.
Please advise if we may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
W. Donald Baker
Environmental Program Coordinator
WDB/gs Habitat Conservation Section
Jerry W. Wright, Jarvisburg Donald A. Thompson, Mount Gilead
Chairman Vice -Chairman
Richard W. Adams, M.D., Statesville Joe Carpenter, Jr., Fayetteville Stuart R. Paine, Southern Pines .
J. C. D. Bailey, Rocky Mount John C. Hamrick, Jr., M.D., Shelby Eugene Price, Goldsboro'.
Cy W. Brame, Jr., North Wilkesboro William H. McCall, M.D., Asheville M. Woodrow Price, Gloucester
Eddie C. Bridges, Greensboro Allan D. Miles, Sr., Concord
Appendix J

State of North Carolina ;
Department_ of Natural Resources and Community Development
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin; Governor S..Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION.
June:12 1986
Mr. Michael A. Brookshire
Jensen Engineering
12 Broad Street
Post Office Box 18149
Asheville, NorthCarolina28814
Subject: Environmental Assessment
Project Number 86148
McDowell'County North. Carolina_
Dear Mr. Brookshire: -
After reviewing your project description for a,100,000
gallon per day (gpd) wastewater treatment plant that can be..
expanded to 250,000 gpd I can see no threat to the groundwaters
on site provided the tanks are of concrete or steel construction :.
as described.
If I -can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate:
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Donald Link
'Hydrogeological Regional Supervisor...
xc: terry Nelsen
U
JuN-13 1936
JENSEN ENGINEERING
DR"
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin .Place, P.O. Box.370, Asheville, N.C. 28802-0370 • Telephone [phone] -
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Appendix

TO: McDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
We, the undersigned, owners.and/or occupants of property and/or businesses
located along Hwy. 70 West outside the City Limits of the City of Marion
recognize that we have a problem because of inadequate waste water treatment
facilities.
We hereby petition the McDowell County Board of Commissione rs toy investigate
any and all ethods 'whereby waste water from this area can,,be treated..
NAME BUSINESS
ADDRESS—P
Q-4- A4, ,2L
NE
BUSINESS
ADDRESS .
X.64�t A-1
NAME f.. &e J
ADDRESS (! i'-, -X
- A-22.
NAME -BUSINES' 2-:1
ADDRESS
I A ;9
NAME__ -�/
K
ADDRESS
BUSINESS
NAME BUSINESS
ADDRESS
NAME BUSINESS
ADDRESS.. 15el;r 70,
7( 6 2, r7 Cv,
NAME --/,C( A-f L�6-d ee4Wa,11 a-,� BUSINESS t/
ADDRESSlo,
Appendix L

rl
TOz MCDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS i
We, the undersigned, owners and/or occupants of property and/or businesses
located along Hwy. 70 West outside the 'City Limits of the City of Marion
recognize that we have a problem because of inadequate waste water treatment
facilities.
We hereby pe'tition the McDowell County Board of Commissioners to investigate
any and eth do hereby waste water from this area -can be treated.
NAME 1 - BUSINESS,//i�ri��vo
xawf ,,�4••!p� �/i� 5-� BUSINESS����LY' ff�l�'-_�= •
ADDDRERSSS&"
NAME `( --- -- -•- BUSINESS_���
ADDRESSf 4. /l%��' �cL . ��Yfa✓r - - ! .7 �`�F _7.
NAME--'- --_—BUSINESS _-_____.------•-- --
ADDRESS_ -
NAME BUSINESS
----'— -- —'--`----------
ADDRESS __ -- ------------ ---
NAME _----- ----- --- BUSINESS-.-- ------------ ------
ADDRESS -----------
NAME, BUSINESS
ADDRESS--- ---=-- .. ---- _
NAME. BUSINESS
ADDRESS _—'--
� I:
TO: McDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
i'
We, the undersigned, owners and/or occupants of property and/or businesses
located along Hwy. 70 West outside the City Limits of the City of Marion
recognize that we have a problem because of inadequate waste water treatment
facilities.
We hereby petition the McDowell County Board of Commissioners to investigate
any and all
methods
-whereby waste water from this area•ca�n be treated..
NAME /`OJT yASFA� BUSINESS_�Y /Y.94el1AN f `14Z241-
�O , iu •, pwc�- F� -%C H O Cd 20
ADDRESS - r------- -�------------------------
NAME
ADDRES--------------- --
NAIi _ --i_�"yV.BUSINESS4
ADDRESS
NAME
ADDRESS -- ------ ---- .... --
BUS INP.SS
ADDRESS ------'--- ---------------------------- --
--_ BUSINESS
ADDRESS _.. __.._....._.. ____
NAME_ — BUS INESS_ -- _ __-
ADDRESS •.
ADDRESS_ ---------r '---- -----...

i,
TO: McDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
We, the undersigned, owners and/or occupants of property and/or businesses
located along Ilwy. 70 West outside the City Limits of tl:e City of Marion
recognize that we have a problem because of Inadequate waste water treatment
facilities.
We hereby petition the McDowell County Board of Commissioners to Investigate
any and all methods whereby waste water from this area•can be treated.
NAME f —___BUSINESS ( C�Ay✓ �� �I � Dw��71'�
ADDR_E_. -n-�--
BUSINESS�- -----•,' -/--! ---..._1/ a—
ADDRESS ------- ------ ------ --
NAME -- ----•- BUSINESS _/• `�fy
ADDRESS fti•y__ _ �niy •v. y^e�_.../. - _... ------ -
NAME_BUSINESS- rlr CO'Af
ADDRESS.- - -j• U L./�.1`F
NAME—— _ r
_.BUSINESS_
ADDRESS N",4 %/) UJ !//2iLt�±/_ %1 `s---y_�•-7�� _ —_
NAME
ADDRESSy
NMII_ _!-1�---•-•----- USINESS
ADDRESS_-__-..__._.--._-.__-...-•-^-------
NAME: ISUSiN1itiS
ADDRESS•--P_.o------
TO: NcDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �I
We, the undersigned, owners and/or occupants of property and/or businesses
located along Hwy. 70 West outside the City Limits of tl,e City of Marion
recognize that we have a problem because of inadequate :caste water'treatment
facilities.
We hereby petition the McDowell County Board of Commisr.;.ners to Investigate
any and all methods whereby waste water from this area can be^treated.
NAME ujy�- / I 1 e _-BUSINESS,_-
ADDRESS 433Oa 2co _._,oti/-C'_-._?Y20--
NAME BUSINI:S
ADDRESS—J(ap 7/ A6V 717--- ----- —
NAME ------_-•- --•_-'-.BUSINESS
ADDRESS l730- ._%U _.. _- - / - • C_ PTSZ_
NMiE.JI.E, s��.15C -----BUSINESSVYC�`�-'�--=?'yJ�
ADDRESS.l�
-�JP
NAME _- -_,-ISUSINI:SS_
ADDRESS
NAM
s.
NAME BUSINESS./� � ,{r•�%�
ADDRESS'.--
NMIF:_ _ ISUSINFSS SC/`V i.C,�• .Ji�7!.-.-._J�
ADDRESS----

TO: MCDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
We, the undersigned, owners and/or occupants of property and/or businesses
located along Hwy. 70 West outside the City Limits of tlw City of Marion
recognize that we have a problem because of inadequate waste water treatment
facilities.
We hereby pe[ltlon the McDowell County Board of Commissioners to investigate
any and all methods whereby waste water from this area -can be treated.
NAME@"a4-_ —w—,�BUS I,N,E�SS�
'%A1?U 0
ADDRESSJ�J
D /_
NAME BUSI.NIitiSAr®_.J•�.s _ �,r
`� o tiles=°�-—-----'- -- -'-'
ADDRESS— d�P•� --_
//! BUSLNES/Z 1:.!
ADDRESS•�(7� —FEZ- /F�fN+�r'1� ✓ i�----......._...------ —
NAMF �;;•- BUSINESS ,9�, 1.� _—_�__—
ADDRESS.— •__ 101
��`_� __—__r•"�`�L/LGv_.. �-
NAM ._...__._..._ _ .... -^---------- --- . _...
BUS I NI:SS
ADDRESS.---... �._..______._...___.._....._..,..__....-__..__..... .__--_--...
NAME _ ►SUSINIiSS
NAME -- - —___--BUSINESS----------- —
ADDRESS
NMIE BUSINESS
ADDRESS-----------•--_-�
1i
TO: 'McDOWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .
i•
We, the undersigned, owners and/or occupants of property and/or businesses
located along Hwy. 70 West outside the City Limits of the City of Marion
recognize that we have a problem because of inadequate,waste water treatment
facilities.
We hereby petition the McDowell County Board of Commissioners to investigate
any and all methods whereby waste water from this nreu, can be treated.
NAME _ .cry `( P�G� yO f BUSINESS a ,, 0X G1,,, _ �,
ADDRESS�O.—
NAMBUSINESS��—
�r
NAME
ADDRESS 4so F.sll d► "1I0A)
A'
NAME _
'BUSINESS___
ADDRESS
NAME
—
--BUSINESS--
- --_' —
ADDRESS
NAME -----------
---------
BUSINFSS
ADDRESS
NAME
ADDRESS
NAME BUSINESS �------_-•------- �_--
ADDRESS --
..
ij.
H
� I.

rUBLIU NUIlUb
STATE OF NORTH.CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
POST OFFICE BOX 27687
RALEIGH,.NORTH CAROLINA 27611-7687
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A STATE NPDES PERMIT
Public notice -of intent to..issue a State NPDES permit to the following:
1. NPDES No. NC0064882. NMW Enterprises, Inc. has applied fora new
discharge permit. The facility proposes to discharge 0.001 MGD of
treated domestic wastewater -from one outfall into McElroy Branch located
adjacent to US Highway 276, approximately 0.1 mile west of its
intersection with US Highway 19 in'Haywood County.
2. NPDES No. NC0065131. Mr..Jim Frederes - Fox Park Mobile Home Park
has applied for a new discharge permit.. The facility proposes to
discharge 0.024 MGD of treated domestic wastewater .from one outfall into
an unnamed tributary to. Jonathans Creek located adjacent to NCSR 1389,_
0.3 mile from its intersection with.US Highway 276 in Haywood County.
3. NPDES No. NC0065463. The Haywood County School Board, Maggie -Rock
Hill Elementary School has applied for a new discharge permit. The-
facility.proposes to discharge 0.010 MGD of treated domestic wastewater
from one outfall into Jonathans.Creek located 0.3 mile from the
intersection of NCSR 1394 and US 276 on NCSR 1394 in Haywood County.
(,4 NPDES No. NCO065595. The McDowell County Board of Commissioners_ -
North Marion Wastewater Treatment Facility has applied for a new
discharge permit. The facility proposes to discharge 0.250 MGD of,
treated domestic wastewater from one outfall into the Catawba River
located just west of the intersection of US Highwy, 70 and NC Highway
226-221 in McDowell County.
5. NPDES No. N00047.66.0. Quick.as.a Wink Car Wash has applied for a
permit renewal. The facility discharges 0.0012 MGD of treated industris
wastewater from one outfall into, Garden Creek located on NC Highway 221
North just outside the Marion city limits -in McDowell County.
6. NPDES No. NC0021857. 'The Town. of Newland has applied for a permit
renewal. The facility discharges .0.16 MGD of treated domestic wastewate
from one 'outfall into the North Toe River' located on NCSR. 1117, 0.3 mile
south of the -intersection of NCSR 1157 and NCSR 1117 in Avery County.
7. NPDES No. NC.0026654. The Town of Crossnore has applied for a. permit
renewal. The facility discharges 0..07 MGD of treated domestic wastewatc.
from one outfall into Mill Timber Creek located ona gravel drive 0.5
mile south of the intersection of. US Highway 221 and NCSR.1143 in Avery
County.
8. NPDES No. NCO048259. Mr. Fred Cunningham has applied for a permit
renewal. The facility' discharges industrial wastewater from a sand
dredging operation from one outfall into the Little Tennessee River
located 0.5 mile off of NCSR 1646 and'a private road, 1.0 mile north of
the intersectton of NCSR 1644 and NCSR 1646,in Macon County...
Appendix M

,9'. NPDES No. NC0065285. The Appalachian Trout Growers Marketing
Association has applied for a new discharge permit. The facility
proposes to discharge 0.010 MGD of treated domestic and industrial
wastewater from one outfall into Tucker Creek located 0.5 mile from the
intersection of NCSR 1379 and NC.215 on NCSR 1379 in Transylvania County
On the basis of preliminary staff review and application of Article 21 o
Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina, Public Law 92-500 and
other lawful standards and regulations, the North Carolina Environmental
.Management Commission proposes to issue a permit to discharge to the
persons listed above effective June 1, 1986 and subject to special
'conditions.
'Persons wishing to comment upon or object to the proposed determinations
are invited to submit same in writing to the above address no later Char
May 17, 1986. All comments received prior to that date will be
considered in the formulation of final determinations regarding the'
proposed permit. A public hearing may be held where the Director of the
Division of Environmental Management finds a significant degree of publj
interest in a proposed permit.
A copy of the draft -permit is available by writing or calling the
Division of Environmental Management, Archdale Building, Raleigh, NC,
919/733-5083 or the Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59
Woodfin Place, Asheville, NC, 704/253-3341.
The application and other information may be inspected at these locatiol
during normal office hours. Copies of the information on file are
available upon request and payment of the costs of reproduction. All
such comments or requests regarding a proposed permit should make
reference,to the NPDES permit number lis d above.
D a t e-Z
R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management

r� v�
. a
kid
Permit No. NCO065595
APR 20 1986
JENSEN ENGINEERING
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF -NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-'
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P= E R M I T-
To DischargeWastewater Under The
-NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE. ELIMINATION SYSTEM,:-
In compliance with the.provisions of North Carolina General
Statute. 143-215.1, other lawful- standards and regulations promulgated
_- and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission,
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,- as amended,
McDowell County, Board of Commissioners..
is hereby -authorized to discharge, wastewater from a -facility located
a t.:
North Marion Wastewater Treatment. Plant -
McDowell County
to receiving waters designated as -the Catawba River in the.Catawba
River Basin
i.n accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and
other conditions set forth in, Parts -I, II, and .III hereof.
This permit shall be effective-
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire'at
midnight on
Signed this, day of
R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division .of Environmental Management,
By Authority of the Environmental
Management Commission

Permit No. NCO065595
• ,. ,
SUPP..LEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
McDowell County Board of Commissioners.
is hereby authorized to:
1. Enter into a contract.for construction of a wastewater-
treatment plant, and
2. Make an outlet into the Catawba River, 'and
3., After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the
Division of Environmental Management, construct and operate -'a
0.250 MGD extended aeration package type wastewater treatment,
plant located at -North Marion Wastewater Treatment Plant in
McDowell County (See Part III of this permit), and
4. Discharge from said treatment works into the Catawba River
which is classified Class "C" waters in the Catawba River
Basin.

A. U LUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Final -
'f
on
During the period b� innln on the effective date of the Parmi�d las ing until
expirat n�
• the permittee is authoritel to discharge from outfall(s) serial
pumberts)001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by.the plrmittse
as specified below:,
Effluent Characteristics Discharge , Umitalloni
�+f4r�1 toM n4 Maui rasrse
d bs da Other -Units Mecify)
Monthl '
Heasuramnt
am I q
Sample
l.ac_o
Mgntm, , . weeKlY Avg,
Flow 0.250 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5Day, 200C 30.0 mg/l 45.0 mg/1
2/Month
Composita
L I
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/1 45.0 mg/1
2/Month '
Composite
E
NH3 as, N
Monthly
Composita
E
Fuel Coliform (geometric mean) 1000.0/100 ml 2000.0/100 ml
2/Month
Grab
E
Residugl Chlorine
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Weekly
Grab.
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TM)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly .
Composite
B
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent
i
The N shall not be less than 6.�
p an standard units nor greater
9:0
than .standard wits and
w
CD
shall
be monitored 2/Month at the effluent by grab sample.
� K
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or vi;ible foam in other than trats ants.
L $C

Page 12A
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
P.O. Box 27687
RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA
27611.7687
NOTI FICATION OF
INTENTTO ISSUE
Persons wishing to
(Continued From
comment upon or object
Page I1A)
to• the proposed deter-
minations are invited to
A S ATE
submit same in writing to
NPDES�PERMIT
the above address no later
than;. May 17, 1986. All
comments received prior
Public notice of Intent
to that date will be con-
to Issue a State NPDES
sidered in the formulation
permit, to the following:
of final determinations
NPDES No. NC0065595.
regarding the proposed
permit. A public hearing
The McDowell Count Y
may be held where the
Board of Commissioners -
Director of the Division of
North Marion
Environmental•
Wastewater Treatment
Management finds a
Facility has applied for a
significant degree of
new discharge permit.
public Interest In a
The facility proposes to
proposed permit.
discharge 0.250 MGD of
A copy of the draft
treated d o m e s t i c
permit is available by
wastewater from one
writing or calling_ the
outfall Into the Catawba
D i v i s i o n of En -
River located just west of
v i r o n m e n t a I
the intersection of US
Management, Archdale
Highway 70 and N.C.
Building, Raleigh, N.C.,
Highway 226.221 in Mc-
919.733-5083 or the
Dowell County.
Asheville Regional Office,
NPDES No. NC0047660.
Interchange Building, 59
Quick as a Wink Car Wash
Woodfin Place, Asheville,
has applied for a permit ""'"
N.C., 704.253.3341.
renewal. The facility
The application and
discharges 0.0012 MGD of
other information may be
treated industrial
inspected at these
wastewater - from one
locations during normal
outfall into Garden Creek
office hours. Copies of the
located on NC Highway
information on file are
221 North just outside the .
available upon request
Marion city limits in
and payment of the costs
McDowell County.
of reproduction. All such
On the basis of
comments .or requests
preliminary staff review
regarding a proposed
and application of Article
21 of Chapter 143, General
permit should make
Statutes of North
reference to the NPDES
permit number listed
Carolina, Public Law 92-.
above.
Soo and other lawful
standards and
DaTeApril9, 1486
regulations, . the North
Carolina Environmental
ArthurMouber
uberWilmr
Management Com-
R. Paul
Director
mission proposes to issue
Division of
a permit to discharge to
the. persons listed above
Environmental
effective June 1, 1986, and
Management
g
subject to special con-
April 1486c
ditions.
n

RESOLUTION
CONCERNING GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FOR WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 2, Chapter 480, 1985 General Assembly Session Laws ..
allocated funds to local governments for water and sewer funding not to exceed 50
percent of the total project cost subject to certain provisions; and,.
WHEREAS, the City of Marion, McDowell County, North Carolina, has been
suballocated the balance of McDowell County's allocation which totals $213,800 for
water projects and $399,200 for wastewater in FY 1985-86 and FY 1986-87; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Marion has determined the need exists to construct
_ a 100,000 gallon per day waste treatment facility and related collection lines estimated
to cost approximately $800,000; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Marion has determined the need exists to construct
a 2 million gallon water storage facility estimated to cost approximately $600,000.
NOW THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marion
that $213,800 in water project funds be allocated for the construction of a 2 million
gallon storage tank and $399,200 in wastewater funds be allocated for.the construction
of a 100,000 gallons per day waste treatment facility and associated collection lines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned figures are based on
preliminary engineering estimates and, therefore, subject to change. Should these
projects not materialize or be over lunderestimated, the City hereby requests
authorization to change this allocation formula, or by resolution, appropriate said
funds to another project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Marion will match. these funds with an amount
equal to the state funds.
ADOPTED this the 15th day of July, 1986.
ATTEST:
ti
f
. Earl DaniPis, ity Manager A. Ever.Rde Clark, Mayor.
City of Marion City Marion
Appendix N

COUNTY —CITY MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS' BOARD ROOM
AGENDA
OLD BUSINESS:
—DISCUSSION OF 5—LANE WATER —SEWER PROBLEM
—REPORT FROM ISOTHERMAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
—REPORT FROM GEORGE JENSEN OF PRIVATE FUNDING FOR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
NEW BUSINESS:
—BY—PASS DELAY PROBLEMS
OTHER BUSINESS
Appendix 0

-rive-Lane.-'Annexation-.Aband6ned
it tr4lf+F
t Maya
Couny.-A-A
S: ?'O-.Sewe"
��:�::- ,..tom:.._,
kT'�6E
ts:A" well
Staff Writer - co,npq�, �Po un
County we d 100 Percent pet!qqa�
-Viding local matching' funds .(some`-' 16 prpperty owners 15-,.thaQ-_-
McDo)vell
.p.
0 f tomorrow, S, which may �ompp�qpq_pMe_iax�. area 0 v, I don't know wheip
County, not the City of
businp�ses), f'.dompptiq_treabniA,-� the money would corne&'­
Marion, will likely be'the fundingplafit'
.
witif dfichargii Into �de.th� sew a D
sewer ervice, andele
agency for sewer service to U.S. 70
Catawba River an!`enOugh.capaclt3` 1: - abld:
Nest (the five -lane) ii.and when
to hindlR;"rne.&oWth. in the ai�eeki,;-_`- Daniels has repeatly opposed ad -
such service becomes A reality.'
which has seen growth strangled b.*-.- dinktfij five lane q., the: seweF-,,'.
That was the - consensus Tuesday
a failure of septIq'.iyite`m' an(fi served by'the Cor,':`. '
*felp curren tly
night as the Municipal-Cognty Plan-
state ban on new septic seirvice'16�i-. penin ..
9 Creek treatment plant south -�
nin g Committee met for two hours
the area. Of Marion. He has said that _pianf is
reviewing proposals: from the
Annexation of the five -lane 'bi'y"i 'designed'to treat industrial waste
Isothermal Planning and Develop-
Marion was abandoned In thelight ofit and, overlaiding it*, with domestic
ment Commission and Marion City
opposition by about 25 percent fViast6wig hurt the capacity of the el -
Manager
Manager Earl Daniels.
property owners.thqre.aqd Is k
Both proposals featured similar
money on Marion's part (!e COUNTY, Page 2)-'
_7 'Y
04 e ACE Ow ell News
Count
(Continued�FYoin
:PA .ge
ty to serve neW. Industries.in the
future.
be'hammered out; but -"MArion tyi'.:`-' Plim which delays completion of the -
'said '-I%Iari
"I want to sea somebody get the
CouncUrnin'-Urry. Bro.wn he"-.,
BYp'ass4or,'ds'much as`.t%yo.
didn't feel that.aspect: of the- p y Each�!.-6afa' :*'III ,
permit to discharge," Marion Mayor.
James Segars said of the first step
needed'to be discussed'at this stage resolutions protesting., the',delay -at.'
1".
:The fixe-la ne" sewer... -problems" their res'u'lai"; m-e eitin' gs.nexikiek'
ding a waste treat—
necessary in bullbeen-
* ... . . .
ment plant. - .. .
'h' :
ave -,on, the agenda-*of'l _- ght,,where'm
. .. ­ ... ;,. e �� I - cal.ve always
. . W .. 'if
- . . .
Efforts by the city to build treat-,
governments. since earl this year:,''`.beei4�'�Seigars.siid�l'�-!in�.-the eighth
when the state. health: x of seven-ypqr .. . a; .
meat - plant on the Catawba - River:
. ; I .. .. . Y er p* pl L"'.
beghn...:presiiiringc-: five -lane'- "Y-- . . ....
were scuttled In 1979 whea'opposl-'
Ousinessei*:td-stbli dlsc6iging'rjWfj­
tion from the Lake. James Eh-:
jew'ige �'ihr;ugh':..falle'd"i.septic;f-
-systems
vironmental Association persuaded-
into Garden Creek.:.-;
Ahe U.S.. Environmental Protection
'. ' -Daniels'also reported to the com_ I
Agency to ' ban such a plant In that
mittgeonthe'�'AitC'grant Uie*'city" -Is
location.
applying for expand its reservoir..-
Anticipation of another such fight'.
-..'.'.We have one water tisi.i.who usisY.-
was discussed Tuesday night.,.-
halt. our..' storage. :capaqlty,'.: every-­
Segars said the ,group .is still a*c-.*-
day," Daniels sald.ind remlndid that;
tive.
committee that the state Division of.
The committee reviewed a pre -
Health Services has'sald no newma-
application from Isothermal to the.
Community. Development;
u e Block'
joi water users could be,a0ded to the
;., .n ; . _'
. .
Grant. program::'. That': dociunent,
Mari6 - syst!T -j g-storage
III,
• upgraded.'-':-',;t�-.-
"i=1 *:.
calls for construction 'oft$1.2.'
­t . *e.,.,m. . ;
Committe'a
million project with.$750,000 coming:
larnefited..the.'recent. adopLIon;_of.'a:,.'-
from CDBG, $200,000 from. the'Ap-..'.
st.4te. Tyanspp
palachlikn - Regional. Commission.,::
e
$125,OW coinIng:*;rrom:.th . e state
through a matching "ter and sewer'.
program and., -.$125,000'-�'from
. t` wh
ich: McDowell' County;`.part:_ - o hich: -
may come.from five. -lane. property'
owriers.
-The pre -application will be sub-
mitted to the McDowell County Com-
miasioners at their meeting Mon-'
day. If that pre-applIcatlon Is ap-'_
proved, County Manager Don King
will apply for the discharge permit-,.
Both county * rerpresentatives on
the committee, Commission Chatri,
man -Bill Wiseman • and -Commis
In
sloner Haskell Davis, expressed sup-!
port forthe Isothermal proposal, buC..
said it -would have to be revliwedby:'-.
their entire boArd. Both'also talked;'..
'_,,#out the. need - for. supp;ri'ioi the
project from.1 aI,property'. ' .. owners.-..,
.,.Danteli'---i'ald'.'-'th'e:.,*city ..`wo'uId;';,
operate the Catawbi' lt6r plant for
the county If an arrangement could;,

I
Catawba. River. Plan : All
Sewer Pro. ec t
XOVing.**S16-WA
l;fforts to build a sewer treatment missioners Wednesday at 9 a.m. In .. -
plant on ;the Catawba River are the courthouse annex.;
progressing slowly with some -set- Marion Mayor Everette -Clark,, a
backs• member of ,Municipal -County
:McDowell County .Manager Don' • =Planning Committee; is talking with
King said Monday that an offer by property owners ' in -the . northern
Spruce Pine developer Sam Phillips section- of the five-lane"(U.S. `70
to donate five acres for the proposed. West) about possible sites, fot. 'a '
sewage treatment plant on the river.. plant.
may not be worth much to McDowell Clark, King, County Commission
.
County. Chairman ' Bill Wiseman,: engineer
Its behind Wendy s and right on Frank Schultz and Ed .Buchanan
'the 'river," King said. "It's In the . who owns the Western Sizzlin' on -the
flood way, which is that part of the five -lane, iecently toured the area
flood plain where the river actually looking for: potenttal sites for a
flows during a flood. The engineers sewerplant.
say even If we build dikes we can't Until- a site Is secured the -county
control the river in the flood way." - can't apply for a discharge permit
King will report to the McDowell, from the state.:•::
County Commissioners and others • Sewer service, or the -lack of it; for
Interested in water and sewer efforts the five -lane haste peen a' topic. of
at a special meeting of.the .com--=—,.:. ,.__...
public discussion fo�`nearI* a year.
�e �l since the. state health department
said a
)? number of businesses on the
fivelane'are operating outside legal
G limits for their septic systems;.'
j After the 9 a.m:.meeting Wed
aesday, King said, *the com-
�,5_. �� . missioners will tour the water and
�\ sewer plant at Old Fort :Fhjghing,
..) which local officials believe could be
donated to the county by ' United' '
. Merchants', the company. which
owns * Old • Fort Finishtng's •now
empiyplant.

s
CountyOkays
Water
. Sewer
ndS
St
udy..Fu.
The McDowell County Com- ' stream end of larion's present
misstoners appropriated 13,000 system which la about five miles
Wednesday for a study of the water. west of Marion on Mackey's Creek.
= and • sewer ' plants -at Old Fort That would provide water service
• Ftnlahh!g.: ..:. • . along U.S. 70. from Old Fort • to
The' -. ,study irill 'recommend
Marton.• :: ;
potential uses for the facilities.: Harmon Bald the plant would be
liW Day, an engineer whose flan easier to''sell . Q'ithe water plant
worfcs for .United Merchant, has weren't connected to It.
promised a rougb draft of the study • The commissioners' interest in the
by Feb. 1 so the -Town of Old Fort project, as well as a possible sewer
and the county will have some ideas, ' plant on the.Catawba River to serve
' for proceeding with possible uses for the five-lape area, Is stimulated by.
�e.--two plants United
Merchant , the availability of atwut.j350,000 this
Ole the Old Fort Finishing facility' 'year and150,000 nett year for
and has indicated it may donate.the water and sewer project. The funds
' water ,aad . sewer facilities to the ' Have to be matched by local sources,
county, ••• • ..,i: � 'but *so far that hurdle has not stop -
The commisslonerstook the action' ped eztenslve discussion of both the
during -a`,special 'called. meeting 'Old Fort andfivelaneprojects.
which was attended -by a'number of ! Pr14te`,en&6r � Frank Schultz,
officials from the N.C. Department ' whoseifirni has - been studying the
- . of Natural:. Resources and 'Com-. 8ve-lane, was•on' hand Wednesday
munity Development '' ,' for a discussion of that project.
Gary Tweed,- of NRCD, said his " Schultz discussed two potential
`:!agency wouldyl[ka, to review the � saes for i'proposed sewer plant'or
! studyassoon asItIssubmitted totlie, "the:Catawbi*EWver•� which .would
t serve the five -lane area. ' to
Day said the Feb,:l report -would ''•'' One ls.' a_ five=acre plot. of . land
alit!gNybeadraft'Lair;:;:�'.,:;' { which Spruce Plne':developer Sam
" Qave4dk�+lto eiege°glFJiasi.1? 1 iF ''>s!>111 R'B'6UP' !' tbAonate for -the
speFt�a'dapprow0dru�•oI water sewed.planj:-I'hlllipahopestobulld.E
'• plapt.'to provide•: public=..dr Ing '•} shoPPtag'.' �+! behind WendY'i
water, `tsaid: he'de:ltkwi,to me .'i<.; restaurant; as U.S,'; 70 near Wes:
-hanyway-l.i ;C,%%: i S.`r�Tc "$'a::�.',McDowell `Junior; High School.
iifj.The'.W. ednesdaymeetfng_came on-`1PhiWps has`told local officials the
,: We.heels of;a'De . 2 meeting.where , f. center:wlll employ :up to 400 people,
;:DAY. hinted that United. Merchanta •: zand'he will notbe:'able to build the
would pe...willing.to donate the water ;;`center without some way of treatinr
::... i t►.C• tar 'C•j.F�'iY•r .'
and sewer plant to the county. Rep..: waste:
�pb: Hunter` and.. McDowell; Com- The "bth& `site Js"east of U.S.-P
'`!t*tteer of 100�,Executive Dlfector S:behtnd'YHollifleld "Sales. Ttie;
��' iTack Harmon were oa•hand at that s •ptropeirtY, Is' owned :by a' couple: o
peeling talking: about:' the ad local'famllies; among them Mario,
vantages of the gift to the eounty-:and 6 City Councllmen`Joe Tyler and loco
tpCom100: i +?n Y:.Y::::S iJ1;li: contractor%' John',)•LaughridgG':
_'?s:Hunteetalkedahoptthepossibtlity' •family.
Y of building, a water line. to the- up- ^ " .(See COUNTY; Page 2)
,tJi:`f.'i:}sib .., ?i;i.i :a.,:ii :•i! ..�:t0:1 `�I�l JIl• d4•i
C
O ty t. : •s • • ontinued From: Pa e' 1)
tc g
• Schultz 'said .he favors the Tyleo- • ' service to U.S. 221 and N.C. 228 north heating and air conditioning con- .
Laughridge site because it's larger, of the Catawba River. tractor, to install a heat pump and
less visible. and provides more room Beicausa' • of , wanting to provide • air conditioner in. the administrative
fore:pansion.:•t.::: ; •:,:i'f-.•:, , maximum servlce,.Schultz talked •.•annexfori5,388. • .. • .
` Schultz said, .current•,.fivelane abouit possibly building a plant with The board agreed to call the old
needs are for about 25,000 gallons a d8j1Y capacity of 100,000 gallons at •,,Contel • telephone , office. the ad-,
per day In waste treatment.:He said a coat of about j550,000 including the `.; mintstrative annex after saying they
if McDowell•Mgh.School and:West .. cost iof,collection lines or a 250,000- .; were tired of calling It the Contel
McDowell Junior high are :included gallon plant for $75O, ' ' building:.:::
on;the aystema••they,:would add Tltie commissioners also voted to "There we go spending the taz- '
.-on
another 20,000 gallons. •The'PhWips 'acccipt a bid of $10,478 for a mapping payers' : money' again," Come
shopping • center :would: add , more . machine for the taxoMce. It was the., ' missloner Haskell •Davis lamented
waste, as would the addition of. any - 'only! bid submitted and could be ' • "as County Manager Don King
t
residences -or,hew development In accepted because it had been bid for • submitted the request for funding.
the fivelane area: . •: • • the second time..'. The ;5,388 will.come out of new
Commissioner ..Glenn: Spaulding Tb,e commisstoneri also accepted funds collected by delinquent tax
expressed an interest in' providing a prroposal from Donald HW, a local collector Pat Ryan.. .

rub iii
;.,..;• ,•;...fi. '
l the. :. .,• ,,,,.�"`•'''� .1:.:{_ ;,
)rtion
The a e mes
irgini
:gan;: : O
aster,e M.G. ..Oo
The . .i
0 .
WWI
r:
Tocess
tcity,.: county . and state officials Co ' ,j
moo -:gathered ;iA.�: the McDowell -Co'nty; ��'` Commission:; Chairinaii Bill A.
u b ' ' ••Commissioners' board room ;Wed= Wiseman mentioned some'hinY
g
: o . ': Shuping not; . having a local; :phone
.eca nesday. morning to talk about a sewer number, 'a reference' - to Wiseman's :
Toni' ;.plant on the •Catawba River, another disdain for LJEA's ir}volvement.i ' the
ag,. organization was represented which. 1979 incident and his::repeated'charges
:'may ' offer 'the most positive wrinkle in that :the ou is . made u ,,Out-,.`*
un'� ,Ahe whole process.. P ; ,. py of :
' r Jim siders."
togShuping, the president.. of the '
gti P.-Lake ''James Environmental . But Shuping graciously let Wiseinan's.t'
� .-Association, and -Frank Thompson an poor manners roll off ;his back, and. h�
•. attitude generally appears. to be one :of '
un•, ..mmediate past president of that group, . s co-operation rather than_ confrontation; ; -
[e,: t;,attended the. Wednesday gathering: r . ; , y.°soiriething Wiseman could learn from:'"';,"y'
:Sf "We would rather be' part of the • .::- ' Shu in said his ' •
ni Iidecision-making process 'rather''•than.`•"�""" P g 'oupa:total.purpose
ul „ •,.is > o protect.the •water..•quality .of Lake,.
is :T fight it later, Shuping 'told the com=,�,�EJames.:+and .its tr'butaries: •''Irl' recent.. `
�,.:.' ,�missioners who'are considering a sewer_.�tl.'months lZ the y've •fought <<'a �sewa
►li plant • which would discharge into the...• •.. dischar ex ermit 'for:: g
•�. Catawba River •:•the main trib tary r- e ' g' ~ P y a; e�Pgro.un • '
u of permit has .been delaw
s Lake. James.. ,.,�f , t. . yed ,. hile. the ..:
' EAis credited "" " eatmet�t.system is being redesigned.`;,��
e LJ the
P ?�s• , g �.;'He.also'talked:.about::.the..reasons.•his.;:..
ti . vironmentaT= Proteation' : .
a• the Cata ` group is ;interested ;irt rotectin Lake"'
i4Q,axing . : _Wba.River"sitefo the .James."-;. g , e_;
•, 1
City�oiMarion's sewer.plant in 1979; E• : "The"§tateades the •en r: `•'
r.'•�
l•{ +. ti E: ;�; n �•.' : gr vironmental.
�.>- e'a25-member oup,. ualit , gr ; com os d of • '
P,•. e q • y of lakes on a scale�of one •tq�'sia.
tkIDout,half McDowell Countians and half Sig is the s. �. '-
rkeresider mee e r most ontamindted-vkt-h z e-i-i'`$.;YtQ'elect a�.,� .being.. a rountain ke.d of directoTswho conduct'business' `'' "�J ,<,.. <: .iTre,; y
' ames.is.:presen yea; tw;of:and; not:�:•
yie ween general membership meetings: �.: 'degrade Ihiee Years•"Shu ' "said: '
Among LJEA's McDowell;; directors,
,r r :. *.. The groupsinterest in preserping`ttiis
a.;officers':• are Bob'.:. Penn,, water uali is' n'4:
Dameron f . ; . q ty right o the.npioneyTtie,
;Harry Stone and Bill 7ordan. , . group's strategy of tieing: itiivolved• at
$hoping ' said;:iii" an' interview.; this,. " stage shows an interest'in ayoidiri'gq
morning that his board. has not;voted to conflict while still protecting the lake'as
oppose the 'Catawba: River :.site, :but'. ' a: home for ` -.facility: gamefish",
.:and fiat'•;
•rther..hopes;tobe:-representd�at all; recreation' :nd ;. a3meetindiscussirig>;;tigs
assure that" strict treatment standards:fit;:�."'`:,
' *V' We know from ;their:recor , , ... :. •.:., . 11 • ds that. mos
are motif such a:plant is,built` y q�:#wx} >y(>!' off our county: commissioners. are:' con=:'
.. . . / .. .,..;; •.: ,• t. {; ,r rest P% •. , ..
r
�. Most .of. our members; are;�'busingssr;-.cerned: with.; environmental'°protection';
men"arid we'dont. a t "to a• o" v ti r • .. 1.
: w n , t p; growtlt::.� gas :much :as the LJEA and ' its: leaders,
along the U.S. 70. corrider.. in.McDowellr: are..: What is ;important is, thatthe,liges'";
Pounty. We know: there• are;• serious .'..of: communicatiovkre'ykept'' oper and ;'
�pvater, .and sewer., problems
in . that :: that! all ' parties . act in' mutual 'res ect
P g P..
;. area, Shu in said.. andforthep4bli6'good: -:;� 4,4;Y

ow
0.
..... ..... -----
-::01. 7&'-Great Miqdowj,'JtlEt;tlrFdhwIkrg itU_aplIie=P
J.. B int at q in jf;�- Regional_ t. CA
.ykATJOBE funds I)i toward the'projecL.The • county. also
Staff
applied I about' $350AW aiailabli. tbi�-
..,;.The' Municipal -County; the- center is planed Idea e:t',has bo"
'11-�Shoppiogl 'ind t6fita
Writer
t!f. for, matching
;�4opping ed by"' dlin d
.Spruce
... ..... . 1 - -'!, "
Commitee voted. Tuesday' QiZF;�­'prube Pfii� developer Sam t� year an another PW,OWhvailahl6 pi is appripi�� f6i ihqfii�&ey
put a sewer plant on -�ie,. off U.S. 70 - across from the'entran4* --"TW next-. thiiig:4i've.­ Oot,;. next year from a special state wate.r.
me :--.,2!nd sewer fund, but those sums -have - Junioi ,tackle ii-where t4 m94y,!On'6
River. to Wesf'. M00ijell High!
C,
mill; County McDowell ger Don &161: 7..:_'`:".:":.''from;""'oun y. - ommiss
1Bill.
Engineen. Frank::Schutz recom-'..: wisemafi`i9dof 6- th",­
llin� called it �'Weeasiest-dep we'll tea .-Ano Another hi*90,.7. *a]s::. cliareii
co- -thil which is 6sti[lla, The committe*e.. recoin;.. i�eiidea't�'Ad committee' t: M.': project hi t6 Shdpin
take.!' 91'
. I . . plant
- $ E116".
ended -to the. McDoWeft- County., plint-be built which ii�uidserve iii�ident"%t thi lAi;.
in _780,000.
unty. Ws. applied tiou,'said all J6
Jil th6 ea I
Commisiddners that i! discAiarge fr6 kifl�&6tj.. :..:;;McDowell
permit be applied for that 4111 serve limits to�lhi iivil� Hi $2qq.o00 -APpalac:h.iaii--.':,j
r Ohl� ($ee SEWER, �P;19e 24)
J
W
Yag& 2
. V . - .r *:­�.I­ i..;-
7%wl v
day4�
jA 'jabdiitthepi*je'q'thgdIi6_- -Of-thd-mi*
qu q
hns*ered toliissatisfa ti oaid g•my.. ..- -j�- . . .1 IJ ...
blem, Wise mm.. .-.of. ANote
4-1 x.
i'as'��o:n 411;i" 14p#ted. y the state one.6
k th - I . .. - f, iii. A.- . .1'.
regular e: -'constructipit, of., purest' e anticipated f
4"Ithad'notbeeii
ted� for;:
Ca-, 6
2, 1 f C
.1ftil61i sewer plani.gn I& WOW` q: 11�sso�iation A 9 j .14.t�-kepp:# that o bmzebWoner;L--. ja it's il:&r: 6e'
Pith
P.M. '-Didwi
RiverinI978 APR
4. Shuping several' qu
eity ironment
• "V9
Schute...al', had'.:nb-. estimatdig� tbL-
ce, theLA6would)e�higbly.- T. diinin
t,­afio�t the pMect- Tud�ddyjbut on' t6b. '
t&
ge.he
thdie •questioni wert 19, co
"-d.-Plant.- pera -Ideal ' ­k�ntbofir& id
ti
9t.
answbred, fid"r-n1inlikelit4i ',Ahe' pose
PP
'inilgin City'Ma6ge_!r_ FArl' ,'gov
wn of 250,(
said V
`-;ald IT don't- belie v*e" yo*u'liiy'e'an*":':--.,'6liMii,'- --bly'.A.'' y..,:. go. 'to
choick" but ..to a0ply��:10- thi" ghllons - perhe oi�ld be five-IiM-fti.
it 6[istifi g-personn :X . jI.L.
the se eal,
��t and ab-buV; 1)6i4� vi­ .year setic systems
yg p
'with the Catawba Riverphint.,' ge Cataidm 4!�� IWAs •-it atiR-,;
QV! thitt.area ve failed
. _'. . 1. .. A `d'
Id -
Frank of: th6'�, oper 64
Shaping and -Ate. if iiid einmiiw own
an Aid'. WDPIO-g
Ait.
who is aUio'�iui- _offk+x--%.of th':, bTth� McDowell 100frepresen- CiiA.
, - , , , 1,
assomptinn. nave aden-1- -- - iM:Brown isia� Bioii&
ataw
I o wduld b�
thi� C

r�at�l!„�1E'tt
A State And National Award -Winning Park Newspaper And Member Of The Associated Press ' Monday, July 14, 1986 25 Cet
Monday, July 14, 1986 (The McDowell New
Sewer;
have never been Issued in the
first place," Wiseman said. -
'Now they're asking the county
to help out. I feel like the state
ought to be helping us. It Is, to a
great extent, a state problem to
start with."
Wiseman said . the General
Assembly's pork barrel money,
which has funded $140,000 for the
Madison County courthouse,
should perhaps be considered as
a way to fund the five -lane
project, despite the fact that he
considers the pork barrel "Junk."
Commissioner Glenn
Spaulding, who had earlier
spoken out in favor of funding the
$400,000 for the project, said the
county can handle any _'road-
blocks" that may arise later with
its "ingenuity." and he asked the
board, "Aren't we missing an
opportunity to address a problem
that's plagued the county ,for
yam?
-� 0 it's going to cost money,
the -benefits derived from It
1 far ouhveight the costs."
y :p�'!It's getting to the point where
�t11ey can't flush their commodes
.down there without it going into
the streets," Spaulding added. "I
don't like that situation, myself."
Those in favor of the funding,
Including Spaulding, Daniels,
Birdsong, Marion Councilman
Angus Stronach and Marton
Mayor Everette Clark, agreed
that the growth potential of the .
five -lane area with a sound water
and sewer system would increase
'the county's tax base to a point
-where it would soon recoup the
$400,000. . .
(Continued From Page 1)
Spaulding said he didn't know
how many potential industries
have turned their backs on Mc.
Dowell County because of the
sewer problems on the five -lane.
Another - solution to the
problem, Spaulding said, would
be letting the city annex the five -
lane area and do the job them.
selves.
"We can't afford if, really,"
Clark said later after questioning
exactly who Is obligated to
correct the problem.
Clark also reinforced the Idea
that "growth will snowball" on
the five -lane once the problem is
addressed, and "the tax base will
increase drastically. I may be
looking the wrong way, but I
really think that's what is going
to happen."
Birdsong told the com-
missioners that everything Is
falling in place for them to make
a move toward handling the
situation: land was donated on
which to possibly locate the waste
treatment plant, the city Is of-
fering financial help,'the state is
offering to pick up half the tab
with matching funds and soma
five -lane merchants are ready to
pitch in another $25,000 to help
out.
"I don't understand why it is
difficult for the county to see it as
a gift," he said. "This Is a gift. I
don't understand what's so .
complicated about this. You're
getting off easy."
Davis, who was at that point
undecided on the situation, said
he didn't know if Birdsong was
trying to convince him to commit
the money, or if he was trying to
preach to him.
"Call it what you want,
Haskell," Birdsong said.
"Talking to me that way didn't
sell me on this," Davis answered.
Former Marlon Councilman
Larry Brown also stood up at the
meeting and told the com-
missioners they had two good
points which made the proposal
"a legitimate expenditure:" an
Increase in the tax base and the
possible health hazard caused by
the present means by which the
waste was being discharged
"Sooner or later we're going to
have to do something about
that," Commissioner Bob Love
said, adding that if the county
puts off the project until next
year, it will only cost more.
Spaulding said the cost for the
project already has taken a.
$125,000 jump from last year's
estimated cost of $605,000.
"Now how much is It going to
be in a year from now?"
Spaulding asked.
After about an hour -and -a -half
of working the problem over,
with hesistation from some
commissioners to commit the
money, Daniels told the board,
"You're not really obligated to
spend the funds until you spend
the funds," adding that the city
will be able to "sit on it," look at
the bids that are received to have'
the job done, and then "deter-
mine whether or not to do it."
"If we lose this j013,000, and we
don't get any money (from the
state), we'll have to pick up the
tab," Spaulding said. "Now
where In the world Is that going to
come from?"
"Are you ready to spend the
$400,000.'..obligate the
$400,000...before we even get it
Into -the county treasury?"
Wiseman asked when calling for
a vote. He also asked that the
minutes show, he warned the
county ' of the' possible con-
sequences that could happen as a
result of committing the money.
Love moved that the board
allocate the funds and "get this
monkey off.ourback."
The board also voted
unanimously to send a resolution
to the state announcing Its In-
tentions to match and use the
$613,000, to allocate the funds to
the city and use it for Its three.
priorities: the five -lane, the
reservoir and the armory,
respectively.

Vr
F
O
ewerFunding.,'...­
..A-
The McDowell County Commissioners in McDowell so as riot to show partiality
on Monday answered the ultimate to one particular area.
question for public servants: "What is Hogwash.
best for my constituents?" As has always . been the case, the
And they answered correctly by county commissioners should 'allocate'
voting to allocate $400,000 .to the City of funding to serve the needs of all areas of
Marion to help build a much -needed' the county as those needs arise,.
sewer system to serve the five -lane regardless of whether the money is.
section of U.S. 70, U.S. 221 and N.C. 226 needed in North Cove, Nebo, Glenwood,
just north of the city. the five -lane area or anywhere else in
Only Commission Chairman . Bill McDowell.
Wiseman voted against providing the Right now, the pressing need is along
funds, which can be matched by state the five -lane, and to 'suggest Ahat a
money. sewer system there will not be
Wiseman argued that the problem of beneficial to, everyone in .McDowell
failing septic tank systems being County is ridiculous at best.
operated by some businesses on the five- What new industry or large motel
lane constitutes a state problem, since chain would locate -.there with the
the state issued discharge permits for knowledge that they would have to,
those businesses. handle their own sewage?'
But the Marion City Council and the New - development will greatly
remainder of the county commissioners broaden the county's tax base, putting.
apparently !.see it as ...a;m
; community that $400,000 back in the"6ounty's coffers.
problem .when. raw sewage is .:tieing -: •in short order,::
dumped into. Garden Creek, and - we Sewer ' service along the - five -lane
commend them for their efforts . to do makes sense to anyone willing to think -
something about it. about it. In fact, it's essential if Mc -
We expect the state will do its part Dowell County, is to continue on a
with matching funds, but we have to progressive track.
help ourselves, as well.. Marion has agreed -to oversee the
The $400,000 being allocated by the construction and -financing of the
county involves that amount in back project, which is no small task,'and we
taxes which the county recently learned commend both the city council and the
was owed by' Baxter -Travenol county commissioners for recognizing
Laboratories. The company.has agreed . -the- need . for this project, ' working
to pay the taxes, and that's good enough together on it and coming up with a.
for us. solution - which will be good . for
We've heard the lame. argument that everyone.
the money from Baxter ..should be - That's what. good government -Is all
divided up evenly among communities - about.

5=,La.ne Se. iNier
By MARC LaVECCHIA -
The city further resolved to match
Staff Writer
that money. • .
Another step was taken Tuesday
The resolution .states that "The
toward the long haul'of answering
aforementioned figures are based on
the sewer problems on the five -lane,
prellminary . engineering eclinates
. The Marion City Council passed a
and, therefore, subject to'change.
resolution announcing its intention';
Should these projects not
to match state money to • fund a
materialize or be over/un-
100,000-gallon-a-day wastewater
derestimated, the city hereby
treatment facility to strvice
requests authorization to change
businesses on the long stretch of U.S.
this allocation formula, or be
70 north of Marion.
resolved, appropriate said funds to
Merchants in that area have been
another project.':
dumping their rawsewege into
' The council needed to pass the
Garden Creek, causing back-ups and
resolution to tie down the state funds
health hazards for years- and
before. the state's Dec.1 deadline. If
prompting concerns from both city
the city did not annoubee its in -
and county officials.
tentions to use it,. the• state w_ ould
The McDowell Board of - Com-
have taken the money away.
mMoners approved Monday the
L The five -lane sewer project Is
allocation of $400,000 to the City of
estimated. to cost-$730,000. City of -
Marion, with the understanding that
ficials approached the com-
the city would handle all financial
missioners this. month requesting
and managerial aspects of the
some help in matching the state
project with the state.
funds. The commissioners approved
The state also has $213,800 to be
that allotment after ad hour -and -a-
used for the construction of, a two
million gallon water storage facility.
• (See SEWED, Pape 2A)
Sewer
half meeting Monday.
If all aspects of the project are
approved by the state, the city will
then control $2,220,000 with which to
construct the wastewater treatment
plant, the reservoir and, if enough
funds are left over, the National
;Guard Armory, another concern of
the commissioners.
The city must now await state
,,approval for construction of the
wastewater plant It will take about
30 days before the state's public -
"bearing will be held on the project,
and then up to another 90 days.
before approval is actually given
and a building permit issued, CIty
Manager Earl Daniels said.
Council members agreed they
were optimistic and eager to solve
;the five -lane sewer problem, which•
has plagued the county for years.
Commission Chairman Bill
WIseman said Monday he was
against the county -giving the
:$400,000 to the project because tie -
;ups along the way would inevitably
;force the county and city to fork out
:more funds than are presently ex-
pected.
"Having dealt with (similar)
projects, those things do happen,"
said City Manager Earl Daniels.
"It's just a part of the process, and
you have to deal 'with it just like
anything else."
"I think the long-range effect has
been all • plus," said. Councilman
Angus Stronach, adding that the
commissioners "did'what we had
suggested, and now it's up to us to go
with it."
"As far as I'm concerned, we're
committed to the five -lane sewer
project," said Councilman Robert
Ayers. "If there's any way it's going
to be done,. we're going to see it's
done." . .
(Continued From Page 1)
Mayor Everette Clark said the
city has run into problems before,
but "What you have to do Is work
with those problems and overcome
it. We'll work with it from every
possible angle and move on with it."
"The time right now ought to be of
optimism," . added Councilman
Steve Little. "We're going about this
very optimistically and very en-
thusiastically.'
Ayers added that he looks forward
to helping the five -lane merchants
and hopes someday to "welcome
them into the city."