NC0079057_Permit Issuance_19910416

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNINL COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0079057
Manteo WWTP
Document Type: ; .
' ermit Issuance - -- .
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Plan of Action
Instream Assessment
(67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
April 16, 1991
This document is printed,ort reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re Terse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey; Jr., Secretary
Luther H. paniels
Post Office Box 246
Manteo, NC 27954
Dear Mr. Daniels:
George T. Everett, Ph.D
Director
April 16, 1991
Subject: Permit No, NC0079057
Town of Manteo
Dare County
In accordance with your application for discharge permit received on April 5, 1990, we are
forwarding herewith the subject state - NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the.
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection agency dated December 6,1983.
If any iparts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within
thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written
petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
-7447. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to
be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
This permit does not affect -the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Environmental Management or permits required by the Division of
Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit
that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Ms. Rosanne Barona at
telephone number 919/733-5083.
cc: Mr. Jim !atrick, EPA
Washington Regional Office
George , verett
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Permit No. NC007057
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance wi the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful stand ds and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Town of Manteo
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Town of Manteo Wastewater Treatment Plant
off US Highway 64/264
Manteo
Dare County
to receiving waters designated as Shallowbag Bay in the Pasquotank River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall be?ome effective April 16, 1991
This permit and the uthorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 1993
Signed this day Ari116, 1991
-I
George T. E e 6tt, Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

is hereby authorized to:
1. Enter int
Permit No. NC0079057
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Manteo
a contract for construction of a wastewater treatment facility, and
2. Make an outlet into Shallowbag Bay, and
3. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Environmental
Management, construct and operate a 1.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility located at
Town of Manteo Wastewater Treatment Plant, off US Highway 64/264, Manteo, Dare
County (fee Part III of this Permit), and
4. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into
Shallowb g Bay which is classified class SC waters in the Pasquotank River Basin.

•
-+non ifDY' n5 Location fvr •pityc s'trfi
••1
4
•
2
h
1l �
•
•
2
11 1
11
11
111
11
11
11
11
11
•11
1%
11
11
11
11
11
� � t 3
1t
I1
11
•. 1
1 1
11
1% 0
110,
1lip
119.
1;0
el
Baum Point.. `v9-
vo
//
16. / I
-..r Ballast \� \ •
t - - 1/?
Point'.. \ .: o Usht
•
-5
~�Sandy• .olnt�• (.r-• ..
,•
,
3 `\�\
•
`\\\
• :2
2
2
2
. �'-'..I� -. - - • . •y• •`•• •�
•`� i �f \ -r 6 ice.. _ j-- v.� J� : • t- •
_/�, Turn• ]/ _ -
L "N D - - . .
- _ ' _ r • 'S A. 7 �, • • l►ram '�XB ...
f.
• VBM4
9x 1
1
Sand Point

•
A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0079057
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations
Monthly Avg,
Flow 1.0MGD
BOO, 5 day, 20°C— 5.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 m g / I
NH3asN 2.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen***
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 14.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Phosphorus
Acute Toxicity****
Salinity
Weekly Avg. Daily MaX
7.5 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
3.0 mg/.I
28.0 /100 ml
Monitoring
Measurennept
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
17.0 ug/I Daily
Daily
Monthly
Quarterly
*
Requirements
Sam p l e--
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
*Sample
Location
I or E
E, I
E, I
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
E, U, D
E
E
U, D
*Sample locations: E - Effluent; I - Influent; U = U1 + U2; U1 - Upstream at the mouth of Doughs Creek, U2 - Upstream near mouth of
Scarboro Creek; D = D1 + D2 + D3; D1- Downstream Shallowbag Bay approximately 800 feet northeast of Sandy Point, D2 - Downstream
Shallowbag Bay approximately 0.4 mile southwest of Ballast Point, D3 - Downstream Roanoke Sound approximately 200 feet outside of
Shallowbag Bay (see map)
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August,
and September and once per week during the remaining months of the year.
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (85
%) removal.
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
**** Acute Toxicity (Fathead Minnow 24 hr) No Significant Mortality at 90%; February, May, August and November; See Part III, Condition
E.
* * * * * See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.8 standard:units nor greater than 8.5 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0079057
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Units (specify) ' Measurement
NO2+NO3
TKN
PH
Pollutant Analysis
Monthly Avg, Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Annually
•
Requirements
Sample
Type
Composite
Composite
Grab
—*-Sa-mDie
Location
E
E
U,D
E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0079057
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations
Monthty Avg, Weekly Avg.
Flow 1.0MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C** 10.0 mg/I 15.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I
NH3 as N 4.0 mg/I 6.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen"`
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Phosphorus
Acute Toxicity****
Salinity
14.0 /100 ml 28.0 /100 ml
Daily Max
Monitoring
--Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
' Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
17.0 ug/I Daily
Daily
Monthly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sa ae
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
*Sample
Location
I or E
E, I
E, I
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
E,U,D
E
E
U, D
*Sample locations: E - Effluent; I - Influent; U = U1 + U2; U1 - Upstream at the mouth of Doughs Creek, U2 - Upstream near mouth of
Scarboro Creek; D = D1 + D2 + D3; D1- Downstream Shallowbag Bay approximately 800 feet northeast of Sandy Point, D2 - Downstream
Shallowbag Bay approximately 0.4 mile southwest of Ballast Point, D3 - Downstream Roanoke Sound approximately 200 feet outside of
Shallowbag Bay (see map)
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August,
and September and once per week during the remaining months of the year.
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (85
%) removal.
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent.concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
**** Acute Toxicity (Fathead Minnow 24 hr) No Significant Mortality at 90%; February, May, August and November; See Part III, Condition
E.
* * * * * See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.8 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0079057
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued) .
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Units (specify) Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly— Avg. Daily Max Frei a cy Type Location
NO2+NO3 Monthly • Composite E
TKN Monthly Composite E
PH Grab U,D
Pollutant Analysis Annually E

Part III
Permit No. NC0079057
E. ACUTE TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
Fathead Minnow 24 hr - No Significant Mortality
The permitt a shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using protocols defined in the
North Carol na Procedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute
Toxicity In Single Effluent Concentration". The monitoring shall be performed as a Fathead
Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 24 hour static test, using effluent collected as a 24 hour
composite. The effluent concentration at which there may be at no time significant acute mortality
in any two consecutive toxicity tests is 90% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina
procedure d cument). Effluent samples for self -monitoring purposes must be obtained during
representativ effluent discharge below all waste treatment. The first test will be performed after
thirty days from issuance of this permit during the months of February, May, August and
November.
All toxicity t sting results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring.Form (MR-1) for the month in. which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGE6C Additionally, DEM Form AT-2 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed iniassociaion with the toxicitytests as well as all dose/responsedata. Total resi
dual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring w411 begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream,
this permit may be reopened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or.limits.
•
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting (within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
F. A diffuser is required for the outfall. The outfall shall be located as far from SA and HQW
waters as possible (approximately 1000 to 1500 feet into the channel, see map) and shall be
constructed in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
G. The permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants annually at the effluent from the treatment
plant. The discharge shall be evaluated as follows: 1) A pollutant analysis of the effluent must be
completed annually using EPA approved methods for the following analytic fractions: (a)
purgeables (i.e , volatile organic compounds); (b) acid extractables; (c) base/neutral extractables;
(d) organochlorine pesticides and PCB's (e) herbicides; and (f) metals and other inorganics. The
Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (APAM) Requirement Reporting Form A and

IS
2.r.
accompanyipg memo, to be prc • ided to all discharges affected by this Monitoring requirement,.
describes the sampling and analysis requirements and lists chemicals to be included in the
pollutant analysis. This monitoring requirement is to be referred to as the "Annual Pollutant
Analysis Monitoring Requirement" (APAM).
2) Other s gnificant levels of synthetic organic chemicals must be identified and approximately
quantified. For the purpose of implementing this requirement, the largest 10 GC/MS peaks in the
purgeable, base/neutral extractable, and acid extractable fractions (or fewer than 10, if less than 10
i i
unidentified peaks occur) for chemicals other than those specified on the APA Requirement
Reporting rm A should be identified and approximately quantified as stated in the APAM
Reporting F rm A instructions. This part (item 2) of the APAM requirement is to be referred to as
the "10 significant peaks rule".

James G. Martin, Governor
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
George T. Evereu, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
April 16, 1991
Mr. David L. Lane
PO Box 1842
Nags Head, NC 27959
Subject: NPDES Permit No. NC0079057
Town of Manteo'
flare County
Dear Mr. Lane:
I wanted to respond to your letter of March 18, 1991 containing comments on the draft permit for
NPDES Permit No. NC0079057. The Division believes that the new permit will allow improvement
of water quality in Shallowbag Bay for the following reasons :
(1) The riown of Manteo is still discharging to Shallowbag Bay under NPDES Permit No.
NC0025488. This old permit with a 0.25 MGD flow has only secondary treatment limits
of 30.0 mg/1 BOD5 and 30.0 mg/1 total suspended residue with no NH3 as N (ammonia
nitrogen) limit. This permit also contains a fecal coliform limit of 1000.0/ 100 ml and a pH
limit of 6.8 to 8.5 No instream monitoring is required. The proposed permit of 1.0 MGD
has tertiary limits of 5.0 mg/1 (summer) and 10.0 mg/1 (winter) BOD5, 2.0 mg/1 (summer)
and 4.0 mg/1 (winter) NH3 as N, and 30.0 mg/1 total suspended residue. The permit also
contains a fecal coliform limit of 14.0/ 100 ml, a total residual chlorine limit of 17.0 µg/1
(0.017 ppm), a pH limit of 6.8 to 8.5, an acute toxicity limit, an annual pollutant analysis,
and has two upstream and three downstream monitoring points. Even at a flow of 1.0
MGD the total load of BOD5 and NH3 as N to Shallowbag Bay will be reduced.
The 17.0110 chlorine limit is very restrictive because low levels are necessary to protect
aquatic life in the bay. To meet this low level the plant will have to dechlorinate the
wastewater.
(2) The Division of Environmental Management does not believe that the water classification
for Shallowbag Bay would be changed from SC to SA even if the current discharge was
removed because of the presence of stormwater, marinas, and urban development in the
Manteo area.
•
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] APR 19 '
gt
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
CENTRAL FILE CQP"

Thank you for sharing your concerns about this project. If there is another feasible alternative,
this permit will not preclude the town from pursuing it. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss this matter in more detail, please contact Mr. Don Safrit at 919/ 733-5083.
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick - EPA
Senator Marc Basnight
Dr. William T. Hogarth
Washington Regional Office
Central Files
(7.121.‘
APR 1$ .9M
CENTRAL FILE COPY
..Mti 1.I•

James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH: Mr. Michael W. Street,
Research Section
FROM: Dr. William T. Hogarth,
RE:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 769 • Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769
William T Hogarth, Director
[phone]
11 March 1991
Mr. George T. Everett, Director
Division of Environme tal Management
c-----
ief
irector
NPDES Permit No. NC0079057 - Town of Manteo
The N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries has received the public notice of
intent to issue a NPDES permit to the Town of Manteo. This permit for the
facility proposes a discharge of 1.0 MGD of treated domestic and industrial
waste water from one outfall into Shallowbag Bay, a Class SC stream.
This agency objects to the issuance of this permit based on the following
reasons.
Shallowbag Bay serves as a nursery area for spot, croaker, spotted
seatrout, weakfish, shrimp, blue crabs, and other commercially and
recreationally important species. An oyster resource exists in the area, but
presently cannot be harvested due to the water classification/closure. These
oysters, however, produce spat that may enhance the adjacent areas. Doughs
Creek and Scarborough Creek, tributaries to Shallowbag Bay, are designated
Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) and classified as High Quality Waters (HQW).
Shallowbag Bay serves as a "Secondary Nursery Area" (SNA) though not
officially designated.
Since 1989, Shallowbag Bay has been pending "SA" upgraded from "SC" and
is dependent solely on the removal of the discharge. The increased diffusion
into Shallowbag Bay may eventually result in future degradation of the
adjacent "SA" waters of Roanoke Sound.
1
dt
APR le1991
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Fits MP/

11 March 1991
Memorandum
To: Mr. George T. Everett
Page 2
The I!MF understands that the chlorine residual allowed in the effluent
will be 1.17 ppm. Research indicates that this level of chlorine is lethal to
shrimp larvae, and probably to blue crab larvae as well. Blue crabs support
the most important fishery of the Roanoke-Croatan sounds area, and Shallowbag
Bay is an extremely important producer of blue crabs, as well as a major
nursery area. In addition, the effluent limit of 1.0 million gallons per day
is four times the present volume. What will be the dilution effects of this
increased fresh water flow into the estuarine system?
These two issues of larval mortality caused by chlorine residual and
dilution o estuarine waters by fresh water should be addressed before
issuance o any NPDES permit.
WTH/MWS/ph
t j`� 37
APR 19 ViM
CENTRAL FIL COPY
11%

s
MEMO,,
To: 1 rr
Aco. to Akan OaAt, is find.' en d, melba_ (bias roof need
Co m nu tti-s (G wat h nC C &ro m mt.( fa Cor rm ). plat' En doN
l(D. zv1 had L)ni en 4 .4 WL 1 o ! rrKND CA Shoue
CdreSs cm�iCk a 1 ()')U(7. t ,just be&rl %51amm,nG i rri G-(4,
Th safc F 1oc►(tCfeSicned o .cfm6D, but- dir= d r o
J
al l mGD 1/41*Q.AArc applied kir i m D p LmrL- l di92e
wt-h d, asked Alan abcv/ ,f. Pe alx) a'isayees 1 Sa,d
ant fbld Manfeo Could have ! inTD pe.cmri. This cold
traii r F c.oa ta. a d Face 1111,1 Fu.fzku Can we, G% -
pLAJ31 f tb 0. Le MC70 ? % F Coo e_ doe} r2of /eke Ile
l Lit c oo lir?y Q,�h
uonzah or? Hop L3 to
5ktil ieConyyndahort) (Mo/.e - r did 6664 ,prior dr A
-11Q,cp. 25 a mic fDNtorn w 0p !D bo c w II ,CCi' to
dlc3C.u33 triar?7eo C eu to edop mctnnec, cord &
lret cderryCarl toe cfisccoo above
inu,Pi pno ( 1b
Fro m• (LY k
DATE•
,c3,/
any 3
i [gig/
SUBJECT:
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 12, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Edythe McKinney
THROUGH: Trevor Clements?'
FROM: Ruth Swanek
SUBJECT: City of Manteo's Proposed Expansion
NPDES No. NC0079057
Dare County
Per your recent request, I have compiled some information
regarding the proposed expansion of the Manteo WWTP to 1 MGD. I
have attached a copy of a topographical map (Attachment 1) indicat-
ing where the existing Manteo discharge is and where the proposed
outfall would be. The proposed outfall location was determined by
DEM after consulting with Shellfish Sanitation and Marine Fisheries
(see Attachment 2 memo dated July 23).
The proposed outfall should be an improvement over the exist-
ing discharge for many reasons. First, the proposed facility has
been assigned very stringent limits which will result in reduced
loading to Shallowbag Bay. A comparison of the existing and pro-
posed Manteo discharge limits is given below:
Year Round Summer Winter
Parameter Existing Proposed Proposed
Flow (MGD) 0.25 1 1
BOD5 (mg/1) 30 5 10
NH3-N (mg/1) NL 2 4
DO (mg/1) NL 6 6
TSS (mg/1) 30 30 30
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) 1000 14 14
pH (SU) 6.8-8.5 6.8-8.5 6 8-8.5
Chlorine (ug/1) NL 17 17
These limits correspond to the following summer permitted
loadings for BOD5 and ammonia: •••
Existing Proposed‘'
% Decrease
62.6 41:7 •': • 33
41.7 16.7 60
GODS (lb/d)
NH3-N (lb/d)
The reader should note that an ammonia concentration of.20 mg/1 was
assumed for the existing permitted load. .However, the compliance
data indicate that the facility can meet:'11.mg/1 which results in

•
an ammonia loading of 22.9 lb/day. The proposed outfall still has
a reduced load, but of only 27%.
The above limits also indicate that there should be less
impact to the shellfish in the area due to the low fecal coliform
limit assigned to the facility. In addition, the waste should be
less toxic since a chlorine limit of 17 ug/1 was assigned. The
current acility has no limit, and compliance data indicate that
daily values can be as high as 3500 ug/l. In addition to the
chlorine limit, the proposed facility will be required to pass an
acute quarterly toxicity test. Finally, the new dissolved oxygen
limit should be beneficial to water quality.
In addition to receiving more stringent limits, the proposed
Manteo o tfall will receive the waste of a proposed outfall known
as Roano a Properties or Pirates Cove. The NPDES permit for Roan-
oke Prop rties expired April 30, 1990, but may have been renewed if
the Manteo discharge was not planned. Roanoke Properties had the
followin7 limits:
Parameter Limit
Flow (MGD) 0.1
BOD5 (mg/1) 30
TSS (mg/1) 30
pH (SU) 6-9
Fec 1 Coliform (#/100 ml) 1000
Therefor, if Roanoke Properties had renewed its NPDES permit,
loading would have been further reduced.
Fin lly, the proposed Manteo permit contains other clauses
which ma a it more stringent than the current permit. The Town
will be required to monitor at 5 locations within Shallowbag Bay as
well as monitor its effluent. Currently, effluent monitoring only
is required of the facility. The facility must also consist of a
dual train treatment process with standby power in order to prevent
the need to bypass untreated wastewater during plant upsets.
Technical Support believes that the proposed discharge will be
an improvement from the existing outfall if the final NPDES permit
contains the stringent permit limits, instream monitoring, and
standby ower.
If you have any questions or -comments or need further infor-
mation, please do not hesitate to contact me at -5083, extension
507.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 30, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bobby Blowe, Construction Grants
THROUGH: Trevor Clementsr
FROM: Ruth Swanek 2C3
SUBJECT: Town of Manteo
NPDES No. NC0079057
Shallowbag Bay (030151)
Dare County
The final wasteload allocation (WLA) for the proposed Manteo
WWTP was recently completed, and I have attached a copy along with
pertinent maps and toxicity requirements for your information. The
WLA has been sent to the Permits and Engineering Unit, and they
will be drafting the NPDES permit.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at
extension 507.
Attachments
cc: E. Leo Green, F.T. Green & Associates, P.A.
Luther Daniels, Town of Manteo
Alan Clark
Roger Thorpe

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC007G57
FACILITY NAME: oon o/ I-lcni-eo
Facility Status: Papased
Permit Status: A to
Major V Minor
Pipe No.: bpi
Design Capacity:
1
Domestic (% of Flow): qg.. 5 %
c
Industrial (% of Flow): 0.05
Comments:
560 6PO Pram Weeptr3 wish 13retaen1
PLOTTE
RECEIVING STREAM: ShM!/cr q ' &j
Class: sr,
Sub -Basin:
Reference USGS Quad: 2319A(to
County: )✓C
Regional Office: ith5firbfivi
Requested by: Qp�eai
Prepared by: /'-
Reviewed by:
e /3sJ
(please attach)
Date: «lillQd
Date: 7/21//4'�
Date: 28 is
2
Drainage Area (mi )
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
h�GS/iz/
so
c5(.e-73
Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfsLyidat Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC %
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters 72 Dfl SIT
o
Upstream see 01adz& Location fb(a.l OP
30Q2 (cfs)
Chronic
Downstream Map Location (5 /6ca1.7-00j r
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
ai)5 (mmrLe)
5
/0
N/ 3-N (radii)
Do (rn(5 1.Q)
2
y
b
le
-135 (mrIf)
30
cad
F. Col. (/iooml)
I
/4,1
pH (Su)
OS- 8.5
6.8- 8.5
Chlc/r/)e (451)%
1-7406
1 i May
eccw nerd ehlueroL
miy)1ltwinGiar 7P
of dual frrin
TT! /402 -A/tail-7
FocililishaiId artsisi
trerimmF frtre.as 4
skifhJ Mier igrryntivizi
d ki ii
be re�uirS f?ul0
&th ill l crr4-ran hr
abic Itne. <oc fx�sl�ff e
oC dredcad raric'd
mrS
Comments: (11011nP1 tZhich Jexlene(5 1'i'an-1 l of O npWq
ftrperylicu.1ra la ray_ rhrinnol aaalialnd /mp) Cuff alkshltd teas
Clcr s pazsibl� tb centrr c tb alla0 / nor4 wn a-7
shtuid cr 5tf !WC i lchan►5 rP�pe kyhtxald�c. & r
e►roygh tb,azrt/c/a/iq a /4 ouifa lchac1d burr

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 27, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
THROUGH: Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
FROM:
2Q
Roger K. Thorpe, Water uality Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Wasteload Allocation
Town of Manteo
Dare County
By copy of this memo we are returning the wasteload allocation for the
Town of Manteo to the Technical Support Branch unsigned. The Regional
Office does not recommend the expansion of Manteo's discharge in
Shallowbag Bay. There is very little lunar tide effect in this bay;
therefore, there is poor flushing. Even with advance treatment, it is
felt that there is a high potential for dissolved oxygen violations.
If there are unfavorable wind conditions over an extended period,
there may be dissolved oxygen violations due to either the organic
material in the wastewater or algae that is produced as a result of
the nutrients in the discharge.
There is also the potential for toxic effects from the fresh water on
the two primary nursery areas at the head of the Bay. A diffused
discharge out into the Bay would be a better situation than a bank
discharge; however, it is felt that water quality standard violations
would still be likely under worst case conditions.
RKT/cm
Attachment
cc: Trevor Clements
rN ^I,1
1 �•1►.. 0 2 1990
• 3 NCH

Request No.: 5673
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name: Town of Manteo
NPDES No.: NC0079057
Type of Waste: 99.95% Domestic
Status: Proposed
Receiving Stream: Shallowbag Bay
Classification: SC (Town proposing it SA)
Subbasin: 030151 Drainage area:
County: Dare Summer 7Q10:
Regional Office: WaRO Winter 7Q10:
Requestor: Barona Average flow:
Date of Request: 4/11/90 30Q2:
Quad: D36NW
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS
v.,As-:INGTON OFFICE
JUN396:9u
b.E.M.
Tidal
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (mgd) : 1.00 1.00
BOD5 (mg/1) : 5 10
NH3N (mg/1) : 2 4
DO (mg/1) : 6 6
TSS (mg/1) : 10 10
Fecal Coliform (/100m1): 14 14
pH (su): 6.8-8.5 6.8-8.5
Chlorine (ug/1) : 17 17
Toxicity Testing Req.: Acute/Fathead Minnow 24 Hr/No Sig. Mortality
and Chronic/Quarterly/99% (See Attached)
MONITORING
Upstream (Y/N) : Y
Downstream (Y/N): Y
Location:
Location:
COMMENTS
See attached map for locations
(,fio Fa! of 5 (ccah ons )
Recommend instream monitoring of DO, temp, pH, salinity, fecal coliform.
Recommend additional monthly effluent monitoring for TP, TN, NOx, TKN.
TSS limit assigned due to proximity to PNAs of Doughs and Scarboro Cks.
Fecal coliform limit of 14 assigned due to proximity to SA waters.
Town will drop pursuit of SA waters class, but may pursue SB waters.
Scarboro Creek and Doughs Creek are PNAs and HQW waters.
Facility should consist of dual train treatment process with standby
power. Recommend diffuser be required, and that outfall be as far from
SA and HQW waters as possible. (A- IDcO -15Oo Pt. ,nb channel)
Model very sensitive to assumptions for SOD, reaeration, and salinity.
Therefore, in absence of field information, state-of-the-art treatment
should be required.
Recommended by: 2,(ii C.
C.
Reviewed by r'
Tech Support Supervisor: j,` 2 Date:
Regional Supervisor: J Date:
Per is & Engineering: Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICA SUPPORT BY: JUG 07 1990
Date: (ibk)
7/5/fo

• 1 n6{-recn? ,Samplinj Loccthon Sul pfppaxd ffbdeo dLsch9r'
%
tIayenCr k;
California.'
I128
Turn
8a sli!
Sand Point
Motlter,Vineyard
VMANTEO
(BM 5)
ct
5'
•-*wit i - 1,G
♦ \ \ .
Manteo\s °«
, ♦ •" E 6 ".e5
• Well Fields
Site / \• . \ 1Kc,c,
R O A N.•O•\.K E ISLAND
2
Baum Point
• <(e
co
XeoQ
Sandy Point . Qtoe
• a
4
a
0
0
Xr
Light
O
Ballast
Point
()Light
Light
U
— - ;`
may;
\\_
Ashbee Harbor.
S
•
,5fl
aft.,
`Skyco
1
3
5
2
6
2
Light'
o
- - - --tea
6
2
2
A'NOKE SOUND 6
-
.$ '/- ` --

Facility Name 1 Lc,n of MonkO Permit # NCO 019067
ACUTE TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
Fathead Minnow 24 hr - No Significant Mortality
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterLv basis using protocols defined in the
North Carolina Procedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute
Toxicity In A S'ngle Effluent Concentration". The monitoring shall be performed as a Fathead
Minnow ime hales promelas) 24 hour static test, using effluent collected as a 24 hour
composite. The effluent concentration at which there may be at no time significant acute mortality
in any two cons cutive toxicity tests is 90% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina
procedure docu ent). Effluent samples for self -monitoring purposes must be obtained during
representative a fluent discharge below all waste treatment. The first test will be performed after
thirty days from issuance of this permit during the months of Feb, Mal, Auuc , Ntue
All toxicity tes u a results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Mon toring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGE6C. • dditionally, DEM Form AT-2 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Test data shall
performed in as
chlorine of the
disinfection of
Attention: Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
ociation with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
ffluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
e waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North
Carolina Divisi n of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream,
this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test res Its will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0 - ' � 1 cfs
Permitted Flow 1, 0 MGD
IWC% 100 test'.)
Basin & Sub-Bsin efuNgsk PA551
Receiving Stream .Shallt ahaac Ba9
County Dam
Recommended by:
PLC C. Suxu./i
Date 3121140
**Acute Toxicity(Fathead Minnow 24hr) No Significant Mortality at 90%, Fib MaLsAo�C . Nov,
See Part 3 , Condition 11 .

• Nola!' WA, teOt /s c�, add had /b ahead /*mice°
(,S� wed 51atlga), Yhi3 f,e.� Q�i , 2'� hr- NocsJc. 1-6/alto vddue�
v� d, PAenavilnwcse 5 1414of di.schct e, fa �4
8/89
Facility Name 'own of /flank('
Permit # NCO()79_057
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test proFedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *June 1988) or subsequent versions.
The effluent
significant mn
document).
compliance v
issuance of tl
sampling for
all treatment processes.
oncentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
�rtahty is qq % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
e permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish
"th the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from
is permit during the months of Fek arty Au , N.o r . Effluent
his testing shall be performed at the NPDE permitted final effluent discharge below
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge M nitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in ssociation with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of th effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test quirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any t t data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failu
control organi
and will requi
suitable test rf
re to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
sm survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
re immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
sults will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0 - fida/ cfs
Permited FloNV MGD Recommended by:
IWC% /00 1 ( +,
Basin & Sub -basin HoL.5451
Receiving Stream 5h2//&tt 6
County J' ve
Date *NM laLS�
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 9g %, ,Oy. rA W, See Part 3 Condition 14 .

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 24, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bobby Blowe, Construction Grants
THROUGH: Trevor Clements -
FROM: Ruth Swanekl0
SUBJECT: Town of Manteo
Discharge location in Shallowbag Bay
NPDES No. NC0079057
Dare County
I have attached a copy of a topographical map which indicates
the preferred discharge location for the Town of Manteo's proposed
1 MGD outfall into Shallowbag Bay. The site was reviewed by mem-
bers of the Environmental Sciences Branch, the Washington Regional
Office, the Division of Marine Fisheries, and Shellfish Sanitation.
You will note that the site is a description along a line to allow
some flexibility in light of other potential constraints. DEM
would like to have the outfall as close to the center of the Bay as
possible. However, the Town must determine what distance the
outfall must be from the navigation channel to allow for the safe
passage of boats. There may also be a minimum distance required by
the Coast Guard or other parties interested in navigation, and the
Town should investigate any pertinent rules or laws.
The Town will be required to bury the pipe at a depth great
enough to prevent damage from trawlers in the Bay from the shore-
line to the outfall, and they will also be required to mark the
actual outfall location with a light.
As soon as the wasteload allocation is finalized, I will for-
ward you a copy. I anticipate completion by next week.
If you have any question;, x�ension 507.
_ a chment
E. Leo Green, F.T. Green
Alan Clark
Roger Thorpe

•
42-
3
• 4:
ilONAL
owe
•••••••
..•
Itt• • -•
•••4•••
• • 1
/
10 ij
li 0
0 ',1
#
'''•,' .-..-....... // \\
--- •,... - . ,;•
. ,44. -'-' ' , /4
'..•'-'•'
, \•,, . ti . • . •
‘4
2
3
7
- '., •
,6 --/ /..L.,
/ -• 5
1-3 .0\ ' (BM 5i '• -•• / /
• *\\6. \ '' ' I ' ' ( / /
!.-_-.,--,',•:, ,' ... t ..1 '.....‘ ‘ / / ,-- -
2
2
0
• ./
'Lenz
7
Baum Point
• "
• •
pp••••••j...i.f..A 1 ;;ACen% '. :•• '-•
AA.-10:1 • '•*••••'• •'' ...`....'\' 1 -- 4
....__-.-. -',•-,-7_...._•__„!-..... .
• .•
'• ''•;•,/." 1.,'. 41t1.•.-t• ,i--,-_-- .,•.,.•-,.....';:._„• --.,.f--t:r-- '-.1
i
.\.:.,------— Sandy Point / / 6•
'
l
8
• -,.,
/ /
Shiallowbag
4 / /
Light ///
• \ • ' • ,"# *-
tlaveia 6
i 0. 7 '.'•.'?•‘' .9 •
_
• Wrtk
• *
•
• -;,/ Manteo\
I \ .•
•
.\\
.t "••••••; • .••••• • ;
•AWell Field\,
- s, .
.„.„...
• -, •. ' / 7 ,, ' -=•• , • ' ' i
• ,c , , ,-- .•% (
\
.2 -
- .... _
c= .
2
N
Ballast
Point
Bay
Wing 441,3 tint
zdobt, to center
- toaxi
- 75-attotb
-S-L A N
..••••••..
.• • • • • •
• • -
Light
\ •
• ••••-•

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 23, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:
WLA File
FROM: Ruth Swanek "RCS
SUBJECT: Discharge location for the Town of Manteo
Proposed 1 MGD outfall into Shallowbag Bay
NPDES No. NC0079057
Dare County
The Town of Manteo did not specify a given outfall location in
their permit application and EIS. There are no hydraulics studies
on Shallowbag Bay, and staff of the Division of Environmental Man-
agement *re asked to determine where the best outfall site for the
proposed Manteo outfall would be. Staff of the Environmental
Sciences tranch who were familiar with the area met and proposed an
outfall site. The chosen site and reasoning are presented in the
attachedletter to Harrel Johnson of Marine Fisheries. Harrel was
asked to evaluate the site we proposed. He and his staff thought
that the site proposed by DEM was as good as any if we could not
ask Mantep to perform hydraulics studies on the system before
issuing them a permit. Due to the timing of Construction Grants
funding, it was not possible to make this request. Harrell also
thought that the outfall should not be moved further into the Bay
since individuals did trowl out in the Bay even though it is closed
to shellfishing.
The proposed discharge site was evaluated by Steve Vohs and
Ben Midget of Shellfish Sanitation in Manteo. They said that the
proposed outfall site should not result in a closure of shellfish-
ing area in Roanoke Sound. However, they requested that the out -
fall be buried since there is a shrimp trowling area nearby. They
also requested that the actual outfall location be clearly marked
with a light.
The Washington Regional Office (WRO) was also asked to
evaluate the site. The WRO thought the site should be moved fur-
ther out into the Bay since flushing may be better out there. All
the parties agreed that mixing is probably better further out in
the Bay, but did not want to risk closing the existing shellfish
area in Roanoke Sound. Therefore, a second outfallsitewas sent
to Bob Benton of Shellfish Sanitation in Morehead City since he
evaluates closure lines (see letter of July 16). He stated that
the new proposed outfall site should not effect the closure line
and thoug1it that it was better to move the outfall out into the Bay
than to put it at the original proposed site.

The second site noted is a description rather than a specific
point. This is because everyone felt that the outfall should be
near the center of the Bay, but were not sure how far the outfall
should be from the dredged channel to allow for safe navigation.
The Town of Manteo will be responsible for contacting the Coast
Guard or any other party who has jurisdiction over the navigation
routes to determine the required safety distance.

IONAL
ower
2
3
7
a-
_ •
O
yLight
7 _%
Baurn Point
3
Light/ d 1
// \\ 6`
// \ \AN
/ // \\\N`,
/6 ma/ // \\\\\
/ 4.....1
\ \
.4.> \\\
-46 4 �r Ballast \,
-- C /i Point
Sandy Point
i tieu
//
Shia'llowbag Ba?J
4
`Light //`
9/`�� .J
2 _ I
o Light
o Li

brie 1'r ; 1
JUL 23 1990
A)MIN TAB;, .x. ta1G[S i!
!uwn of Mantra
July 19, 1990
Mr. George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: Town of Manteo, Project No. CS370798-01
Dear Mr. Everett:
With the resignation of our Town Manager recently and in order to
keep the correspondence flowing in a timely manner, please
continue to direct all information pertaining to the above
referenced project to my attention at the address given on the
letterhead. Please notify those in the Division of Environmental
Management related to this subject.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Luther H. Daniels
Mayor
dhd
c: F. T. Green & Associates
Washington Regional Office
JUL 31)1990
P.O. Box 246, Mantco. North Carolina 27954 Te(ephonc 919-4 i 3 -2.133

N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH ,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
FAX: {919) 733/2622
ZELECOP�YTO: doh 8enion /IJIh ain;'flth[ri
FAXIsIl
ER: (91Q)7211 • A2.5<!
FROM:
NO. OF P
CO
PHONE: (qlq) 733 -c.5.0g3
ES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 5
Please_ revieth Ctffcthed lefter reidnS plowed
DufF�t// ‘Sdo rcor til log. Zxfercia79 Elie Citou/e
& ,sheAshoj• T 60/// ea!/ you ci:t. ct �'P./1222cs
Iv di3ciCss. yha.-i&

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, jr., Secretary July 16, 1990 Director
Bob Benton
Shellfish Sanitation
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Subject:
Dear Mr.
Town of Manteo's Proposed 1 MGD WWTP into Shallowbag Bay
NPDES No. NC0079057
Dare County
enton:
As yu may be aware, the Town of Manteo has requested an NPDES
permit for a 1 MGD discharge into Shallowbag Bay. This discharge
will replace its current 0.25 MGD WWTP, its 0.125 MGD rotary dis-
tributor Isystem, and the 0.10 MGD proposed Pirates Cove discharge.
The Director of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
stated that this permit request will be granted, and therefore,
a wasteload allocation approval form was recently completed for the
facility.
Since there are concerns regarding the flushing characteris-
tics of the bay, the proximity to shellfishing and primary nursery
areas, and the level of uncertainty associated with the assimila-
tive capacity of the receivingwater, very stringent limits have
been recommended for the facility (Attachment 1). You should note
that both the Manteo and Pirates Cove discharges currently have
secondary limits in their NPDES permits (i.e. 30 mg/1 BOD5, and no
ammonia 14.mit). In addition they have solids limits of 30 mg/1,
fecal coliform of 1000 /100 mi (would change to 200 upon permit
renewal), and no toxicity limit. Therefore, the increased flow may
not have very detrimental impacts on the system if the new plant is
capable of meeting the advanced tertiary limits recommended.
One of the final decisions which needs to be made concerning
the proposed discharge is the exact site where it should be
located. Originally, a point approximately 1000 feet off the shore
was proposed (see attachment) in order to keep the discharge as far
from the Open shellfish areas of Roanoke Sound as possible. How-
ever, mixing will be better further out in the bay. Therefore,
another s to has been proposed and is also marked on the attached
Pollution Prevcndon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

topo map. However, we would like to make sure that this outfall
site will not result in the closure of portions of Roanoke Sound to
shellfisIing, and I would appreciate it if you or your staff would
review the information for this purpose. If you believe that there
is a better outfall site in Shallowbag Bay, I would like to be
informed of that as well.
Please try to review the information soon as I will be calling
you in t next few days to discuss the issues. If you have any
questions or comments, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
C QS,004,0,k
Ruth C. Swanek
Water Quality Section

Request No.: 5673
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Status:
Recei ing Stream:
Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regi•nal Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Quad:
RECOMMENDED
Wast =flow (mgd) :
=0D5 (mg/1) :
NH3N (mg/1)
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1) :
Fecal Coliform (/100m1) :
pH (su) :
Chlo ine (ug/1) :
Toxicity T sting Req.:
Town of Manteo
NC0079057
99.95% Domestic
Proposed
Shallowbag Bay
SC (Town proposing it
030151
Dare
WaRO
Barona
4/11/90
D36NW
Summer
1.00
5
2
6
10
14
SA)
Drainage
Summer
Winter
Average
EFFLUENT LIMITS
Winter
1.00.
10
4
6
10
14
area:
7Q10: Tidal
7Q10:
flow:
30Q2:
6.8-8.5 6.8-8.5
17 17
Acute/Fathead Minnow 24 Hr/No Sig. Mortality
an4 Chronic/Quarterly/99% (See Attached)
Upstream (Y/N) : Y
Downstream (Y N) : Y
MONITORING
Location: See attached map for locations
Location: ( 5 lcCahons )
COMMENTS
Recommend instream monitoring of DO, temp, pH, salinity, fecal coliform.
Recommend add tional monthly effluent monitoring for TP, TN, NOx, TKN.
TSS limit assg ned due to proximity to PNAs of Doughs and Scarboro Cks.
Fecal colifor limit of 14 assigned due to proximity to SA waters.
Town will dro pursuit of SA waters class, but may pursue SB waters.
Scarboro Cree and Doughs Creek are PNAs and HQW waters.
Facility shou d consist of dual train treatment process with standby
power. ,Reco end diffuser be required, and that outfall be as far from
SA and HQW wa ers as possible. (0 4000 00 ke+ (nbc,hOnteI)
Model very sensitive to assumptitns for SOD, reaeration, and salinity.
Therefore, in absence of field information, state-of-the-art treatment
should be re fired.
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Tech Support -Supervisor: Date:
Regional Supervisor: Date:
Date:
Permits & Engineering:
Date: tck1g0
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:

•
•
• wtt
\\ ♦
\\
\ \\
Manteo\ "„ •
ell eid
Sit ) \\\ ^A
Se
' ' \
4.
O A
o
Ashbee Harbor.,,
Pier Rules
a9Q
11 \
\1
Baum Point
3
oLight
5
7
2
;Skyco
1i
2
6
G
5/
`11— .�-
2
d
2
2
oKE sou"
--
nr..r.•r.I viRAINIA- tell•
3
1
RIDGE
3976
3975
55,
"74
973
3710con•N
= - 35°521:

MEMO
TO: l r-cvoc
DATE• 7 /13
SUBJECT: (I o ✓l i-e.C)
,4hou3ht d scharg_ point e hod been reoolved .
am send;r 5 coj fo &b Ber n of Shc11Ft &nr*Zftan
ace_ if we «Go move ou:1- (,it 10C.t9 f me►- Lolo
C Dien (-0GferSQ c,k. (are. Sound . 1,)(20 boas colic ernecl
P(bp oed pbir)�, c'f'u50" mac) 1-vat1-natx Foonf*ir-
(Alb a c- q,kw_ coil be ,7 T %J Cbmpla'd s. All icrtr6ci
a@ree, 4 4(e wi! I bel(-er mix;( o 4,{.,cl LW- we d
fb matt Sukk- 51 f211.6 h G ts-a- c w Roartbr_ Sound bo Il OiL
C_
Grn &I-e5 to CA)4 LAAj (-) &b. &-ler is Ou cY or&
unfit 1Y1 et. l ohou d bp_ ciit ft. mic fb h am afcu-‘
li Cn Ties. Dr wed.
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 29, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger Thorpe
FROM: Ruth Swanek RCS
SUBJECT: Town of Manteo
NPDES No. NC0079057
Dare County
Per our recent telephone conversation, I have attached a copy
of the letter which was sent to Harrel Johnson concerning Manteo's
discharge point. Please review the enclosed information and pro-
vide any comments as soon as possible. If you will be unable to
comment by July 9, please let me know.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, C
\Wam W. Cobey,
Harrel Jo
Division.
Route .6,
Elizabeth
Subject:
Dear
vemor
:, Secretary
June 29, 1990
nson
f Marine Fisheries
ox 203
City, NC 27909
George T. Everett, M.D.
Director
Town of Manteo's Proposed 1 MGD WWTP into Shallowbag Bay
NPDES No. NC0079057
Dare County
Mr. ohnson:
permit fo a 1 MGD discharge into Shallowbag Bay. This discharge
As 17u may be aware, the Town of Manteo has requested an NPDES
will repl ce its current 0.25 MGD WWTP, its 0.125 MGD rotary dis-
tributor ystem, and the 0.10 MGD proposed Pirates Cove discharge.
The Director of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
stated th4t this permit request will be granted, and therefore,
a wastelo d allocation approval form was recently completed for the
facility.
Sinc there are concerns regarding the flushing characteris-
tics of t e bay, the proximity to shellfishing and primary nursery
areas, an4 the level of uncertaintly associated with the assimila-
tive caps ity of the receiving water, very stringent limits have
been rec`o ended for the facility (Attachment 1). You should note
that both he Manteo and Pirates Cove discharges currently have
secondary limits in their NPDES permits (i.e. 30 mg/1 BOD5, and no
ammonia li it) . In additio'i they have solids limits of 30 mg/1,
fecal coliform of 1000 /100 ml (would change to 200 upon permit
renewal), nd no toxicity limit. Therefore, the increased flow may
not have v ry detrimental impacts on the system if the new plant is
capable of meeting the advanced tertiary limits recommended.
One othe final decisions which needs to be made concerning
the proposed discharge is the exact site where it should be
located. have discussed this matter with members of our
Environmen al Sciences Branch, and they believe that it should be
placed as ar from Roanoke Sound as possible in order to prevent
the shell ishing area immediately outside of Shallowbag Bay from
being clos1d. They also felt that it should be in the vicinity of
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

the existing WWTP. Since the existing plant is near the mouth of
Doughs Cr0ek which is classified as high quality waters (HQW), the
proposed point was moved south of the existing point. I have
enclosed a copy of a topographical map which shows the proposed
discharge point for Manteo's new plant, Manteo's existing discharge
point, th proposed Pirates Cove discharge point, and stream
classifications. I would appreciate it if you or your staff would
review th information, and provide any comments you may have about
the propo ed outfall site. If you believe that there is a better
site in Shallowbag Bay, please mark in on the map, and return it to
me. If you believe that this discharge point is as good as any,
please inticate that to me as well.
Plea
cannot re
or commen
e try to make any comments by Monday, July 9. If you
iew the information by then or have any other questions
s, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
lei uiL C. Zwri,,,,a
Ruth C. Swanek
Water Quality Section
cc: Stev9 Tedder
Bobby Blowe, Construction Grants
Roger Thorpe, WaRO

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 29, 1990
Reggie Sutton, Construction Grants
Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning
lan Klimek aA
Boyd DeVane ;3D
Amendment to Dare County Complex 201 Facilities Plan,
Town of Manteo (Revised dated April 15, 1990)
These comments represent those of the Technical Support and
Planning Branches. The Washington Regional Office is providing
comments under separate cover.
Ruth Swanek's comments, attached, identify several
issues that need to be addressed including the effects of this
project on proposed and nearby existing SA waters; impacts of
increased freshwater into Shallowbag Bay; and cost comparisons
between the discharge and nondischarge alternatives taking into
account long term monitoring and facility class. It should also
be noted that the Town has recently submitted an application for
a 1.0 MGD Discharge Permit, at the recommendation of the
Director. This exceeds the size of the discharge facility
described in the 201 document by 0.4 MGD. Accordingly, it is
recommended that the EA in the 201 document be revised, as
needed, to describe and assess the impacts that would be
associated with a 1.0 MGD facility. This would eliminate the
need to produce a second EA to address the 0.4 difference.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either
Ruth or me.
Attachment
Manteo.Mem/SEPA1
cc: Alan Wahab
Steve Tedder
Trevor Clements
Jim Mulligan
Dale Overcash

F.T.GREEN& ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS / PLANNERS 1 SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 609 / 303 NORTH GOLDSBORO STREET
TELEPHONE [phone]
/ WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27893
JUN 25 1990
V;._...
�i �. t •. 1 1'
•
June 22., 1990
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Attention:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
Town of Manteo
NPDES Permit Application
No. NC0079057
Dear Mr. Tedder:
1990
As discussed in our telephone conversation of June 20, 1990,
it has been requested by the Local Planning Management Unit of
DEM that we identify the exact location of the diffuser discharge
point relative to the above referenced NPDES application. It is
my understanding from our conversation that you will instruct
Ms. Ruth C. Swanek of your staff to arrange a meeting at the site
with all Agencies involved with this decision in order that this
exact location might be established.
Please have Ms. Swanek contact me at her earliest
convenience concerning her plans for this.
ELG/sht
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Luther Daniels
Chad Olsen
Daniel Khoury
Lee Fleming
Respectfully,
F. T. GREEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 18, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Clark
THROUGH: Trevor Clements�y���
FROM: Ruth Swanek RCS
SUBJECT: Town of Manteo
201 Facilities Plan
I have reviewed the 201 Facilities Plan for the Town of Manteo
and offer the following comments:
1. I agree with the statement that the selected alternative
will have a positive impact on the dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion in Shallowbag Bay since it will include the flow from the
Pirate's Cove discharge and the existing Manteo discharges.
The new facility will be receiving advanced tertiary limits
while the existing dischargers to the bay have secondary lim-
its. However, there will be an increase in permitted flow to
the pay, and the freshwater input from the wastewater may have
a toxic impact on the marine environment. Little is known
about the flow and flushing patterns in Shallowbag Bay, and
the wind could drive the wastewater into the primary nursery
areas (PNAs) of Doughs Creek and Scarboro Creek. In addition,
Sha4owbag Bay drains to Roanoke Sound which is classified as
SA waters. The 201 plan did not adequately address the pro-
ximity of the selected discharge point to these high quality
waters. In addition, the Town had requested that Shallowbag
Bay be reclassified to SA waters, and the 201 plan did not
address the implications of the selected alternative on the
reclassification. The proximity to high quality waters should
be adequately addressed before the land application alterna-
tives are discarded.
2. The 201 plan evaluates a 0.6 MGD WWTP while the permit
application requested a wasteload allocation for a 1.0 MGD
plant.
3. The 201 plan does not state what the assumed water quality
limits were for evaluating the different alternatives.
4. The only costs considered in the operation and maintenance
costs section were the ,operator salary, FICA, insurance, and
retirement. A non -discharge alternative may have lower cost
depending on monitoring requirements and the facility's class.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at
extension 507.

Wildli
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
e Resources Commission
on Baker
ROUTING SLIP
Division of Parks and Recreation
Carol Tingley
Office of Coastal Management
Steve Benton
Groundwater Section, Division of
Enviro1mental Management
Perry Nelson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
L.K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
John Fridell
Environmental Review for
Air Quality Section
Ogden Gerala
State Clearinghouse
Chrys Baggett
Corps of Engineers
Cliff Wineforder
Cultural Resources
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Division of Environmental Health
Linda Sewall
Water ' ty Planning
Clark
ktivu.A4 gylccJ
You are requested to review the attached 201 Facility Plan. Your
connects will be incorporated in the project environmental review and
circulated to interested government agencies and public groups.
Your response is requested by CS:\j‘...1V W71 t �'(� (� •
Reviers are requested to return the plan with your comments to:
Interoffice:
Mailing
Address:
Reginald R. Sutton
Division of Environmental Management
Construction Grants Section
Raleigh, NC
Reginald R. Sutton
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 5, 1990
Bobby Blowe, Construction Grants
Trevor Clements)-C`
Ruth SwanekRC,S
Town of Manteo
Proposed 1.0 MGD Discharge
NPDES No. NC0079057
I am writing this memo
Manteo wasteload allocation
by Technical Support staff,
its. The changes are:
Total Suspended Solids
to update you on the status of
(WLA). The wasteload has been
and a few changes were made to
the
reviewed
the lim-
The TSS limits was changed to 10 mg/1 due to the proximity of
the discharge to Doughs Creek and Scarboro Creek. Both of these
streams are classified as high quality waters (HQW) since they are
primary nursery areas (PNAs). The tide and wind may occassionally
drive the effluent back into these channels, and thus limits which
protect the PNA designation were assigned (see 15 NCAC
2B.0201.d.1.B.ii).
Toxicity
Due to the proximity to HQW (Roanoke Sound, Scarboro Creek,
Doughs Creek), a chronic limit at 99% was assigned to the facility
in addition to the acute fathead minnow test assigned earlier.
You should note that the WLA has not yet been reviewed by the
Washington Regional Office staff or the Permits and Engineering
Unit. Any comments that they make will be reviewed and incorpor-
ated into the final WLA and draft permit. Therefore, the limits
may be further revised, and I will inform you of any changes.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at
extension 507.

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 5, 1990
Manteo WLA File
Shallowbag Bay - 030151
Dare County
Ruth Swanek
Proposed 1 MGD Outfall
Addendum to May 21, 1990 memo
This memo is intended to explain how the limits were derived
for the non -oxygen consuming wastes for the proposed Manteo facil-
ity.
Total Sus ended Solids
A TS limit of 10 was mg/1 assigned due to the proximity to
g g
the high ality waters in Roanoke Sound, Scarboro Creek, and
Doughs Creek. Both Scarboro Creek and Doughs Creek are primary
nursery areas (PNAs), and 15 NCAC 2B.0201.d.1.B.ii requires a TSS
limit of 10 mg/1 in PNAs for new facilities. Although the proposed
discharge is not directly to these waters, the tides and wind will
drive the effluent up into these channels.
Fecal Coliform
The ecal coliform limit of 14 /100 ml was assigned due to the
proximity to SA waters in Roanoke Sound.
Toxicity
Due
Scarboro
assigned
assigned
o the proximity to high quality waters (Roanoke Sound,
reek, Doughs Creek), a chronic limit at 99% was also
.o the facility. An acute fathead minnow 24 hour test was
per Division procedure for facilities in tidal waters.
Mae: 6itu- T edd . & Cuwid rtbf alto z5 -to i c ll� d an NCB ()InC_ i1,0� cam. j
a H Calki ham). = k l� ct 049 ?. /-.

TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 21, 1990
Manteo WLA File
Shallowbag Bay - 030151
Dare County
Ruth Swanek
Proposed 1 MGD outfall
The Technical Support Branch received a WLA request for the
Town of Manteo on April 12, 1990. The Town has requested an NPDES
permit to discharge 1 MGD of wastewater into Shallowbag Bay, clas-
sified a SC waters and located in the Pasquotank River Basin. The
Town has been pursuing a reclassification of the waters from SC to
SA, by c anging its current outfall (Shallowbag Bay) to a land
application system. According to staff of Construction Grants, the
Town is 7unning into problems with its proposed land application
system. Due to the nature of the soils in the area, the wastewater
will lea h into SA waters with little treatment. Therefore, the
Town has decided to pursue an outfall into Shallowbag Bay which
will include flow from its current 0.25 MGD outfall into Shallowbag
Bay, its 0.125 MGD rotary distribution system, and the 0.10 MGD
Pirates Cove discharge (a.k.a. Roanoke Properties). Alan Wahab of
Construction Grants believes that the Town is still interested in
pursuing a reclassification to SB waters for Shallowbag Bay.
The Georgia Estuary Model (GAEST - version 2.1) was used to
evaluate the discharge. GAEST is a steady state, one dimensional
analysis of tidally affected coastal waters for review of dissolved
oxygen. the model is segmented, unbranched, and tidally aver-
aged.
The model for Shallowbag Bay was segmented to account for
changes in width (see hand written notes). Two different scenarios
were evaluated (see notes). The width and length of each segment
were measired on the topographical map, and the depth was estimated
from the ontour lines on the topo map. The cross -sectional areas
and volumes were then calculated using the estimated measurements.
Arabi nt data were pulled from stations in Croatan and Roanoke
Sounds (s ations 0208117950 and 0208117975 respectively) to obtain
estimates of temperature, chloride, and salinity. Since there is
little freshwater flow into the Bay, the chlorides and salinity
measurements should be similar to those outside the Bay. There-
fore, concentrations similar to the average ones in Roanoke Sound
were inpu . The 75th percentile temperature at both sites (29 C)
was also 'nput for each model segment.

Various CBOD and NBOD oxidation rates were input to the
model, and the final ones used were 0.1 /day with no settling.
The reaerration rate used was estimated from the equation 2/Depth.
It was assumed that the average depth was 5 feet which resulted in
a reaeration rate of 0.4 /day. This reaeration rate seems low for
a bay since it should be highly influenced by the wind. However,
staff of the Washington Regional Office stated that there are times
when the water is very calm. So this rate may reflect a worst case
condition. The initial SOD rate input was 2.5 g/sq m/day based on
a review
of 2-3 g
as 0 in
dipersio.
Roy Burk
tem.
of data in North Carolina which indicates an average SOD
sq m/day. The net photosynthesis to respiration was input
rder to provide a conservative estimate. Finally, the
rate input was 0.1 sq mi/day based on a conversation with
of Georgia who stated that it should be low in that sys-
The model results indicated that DO violations would occur
without ny wastewater entering the system at the above rates.
However, very little change was predicted in the DO minimum
concentration (0.06 mg/1) when the wasteflow (1 MGD) was assigned
secondar4 limits. The model was sensitive to SOD, reaeration, and
salinity which affects the DO saturation. The different model seg-
mentation scenarios did not have a large impact on dissoved oxygen
concentrations. Since no field data existed to test these model
assumptidns, it was decided that the facility should receive limit
which re lect technology. In addition, the facility was assigned a
fecal co iform limit of 14 due to the proximity to SA waters.
The Washington Regional Office does not support the proposed
Manteo WWITP. Staff there also indicated that Scarboro Creek is a
primary nursery area (PNA). Review of the high quality waters list
revealed that both Scarboro Creek and Doughs Creek are classified
as HQW due to being PNAs. Therefore, the discharge should beout
into the Bay to avoid harm to these areas, but as far as possible
from Wm:: waters. It appears that a discharge point 1000-1500
feetshore should be the best site.

To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Date: 5/y5-/gd
6
JUN 0 6 1990
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. ,_, .
County - DARE FEC ii iCAL SU¢'s'v i BRANCH
Permit No. NC0079057
PART I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Town of Manteo
PO Box 246
Manteo, N. C. 27954
2. Date of Investigation: May 7, 1990
3. Report Prepared by: Dick Denton
4. Person(s) Contacted and Telephone Number(s): Mayor
Luther Daniels, Frank Stacko. Phone no. 919-473-3513
5. Directions to Site: The WWTP is located in the heart
of downtown Manteo, sitting out on a dock over the bay.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35° 54' 15" N
Longitude: 750 39' 52" W
7. Size (land available for expansion and upgrading):
land is available on the north end of the island
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included)
relatively flat, no greater than 10 - 15 feet
above sea level
9. Location of nearest dwelling: The nearest home is
approximately 75 yards from the proposed facility.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
SHALLOWBAGBAY
a. Classification: SC
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-01-51
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: Shallow Bagbay borders SA waters
which are classified for shellfishing. Downstream uses
include fishing, sport and commercial. Scarboro Creek and
Doughs Creek are Primary Nursury areas and are immediately
adjacent to and flow into Shallowbag Bay.

PART II -- DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. Type of wastewater: 99.5% Domestic
0.5% Industrial
. Volume of Wastewater: 1.00 MGD (Design Capacity)
b.
Types and quantities of industrial wastewater:
Industrial = a brewery which discharges
approximately 1500 gallons per
week of brewery waste.
. Prevalent toxic constituents in wastewater:
none
• Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
None
In development Approved
Should be required Not needed
2. Firoduction rates (industrial discharges only) in
ounds per day: NA
3. Description of industrial process (industries only)
and applicable CFR Part and Subpart:
NA
4. T e of treatment (specify whether proposed or
existing): proposed WWTP will consist of a dual train
activated sludge treatment system, including flow
equalization, standby power, a multi -channel aeration
system wherein the wastewater is subjected to alternation
anaerobic/aerobic sludge zones in order to accomplish the
biolo ical process, tertiary filters, and UV disinfection.
5. Sludge handling and disposal scheme: sludge is
aerobically digested and dewatered. Ultimate sludge
disposal will be by means of land application.
6. T
n
eatment plant classification: (Less than 5 points
rating; include rating sheet.)
7. SC Code(s): 9199
Wastewater Code(s): Primary 01 Secondary
OMB AM
PART 7I -- OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction
G ant Funds (municipal only)? yes
2. Sp cial monitoring requests:
a. The type sediment which makes up the bottom of the
bay ha yet to be defined. It is to be noted that if much

of the bottom is of the organic "muck" type bottom which
has a high sediment oxygen demand one could expect
dissolved oxygen violations during much of the summer
months without the proposed discharge. It is important
to know and understand exactly how the discharge is
affeCting the bay with respect to dissolved oxygen within
the hater column. Therefore, it is the Regions
recommendation that the facility be required to perform an
exte lsive monitoring program within the mixing zone and
outsf.de the mixing zone to measure the impact of the
effluent with respect to dissolved oxygen.
b. The facility should not be allowed to discharge into
the bay when conditions with respect to D.O. are not
favorable.
c. The proposed discharge and Shallowbag Bay are located
immediately adjacent to designated PNA waters. It is to
be noted that fresh water in a salt water marine
envi'onment is TOXIC to most of the marine organisms.
Litt e is known of the flow and flushing patterns within
the ay. The proposed WWTP will be permitted for the
disp sal of one million gallons per day of wastewater
whic is fresh water. The facility should be required to
perf rm monitoring with respect to salinity in the areas
adja ent to the PNA waters and within the PNA waters.
d. he facility is proposing to disinfect the wastewater
with UV lights. UV disinfection effectiveness is limited
give a wastewater contaminated with an unusual amount of
solids. Given the close proximity to SA waters and the
facility's history of washing solids from the clarifier
into the bay the Region recommends that the facility
provides some type of an alternative for disinfecting the
wastewater.
3. Additional effluent limits requested: The Region
recommends that the WWTP be a tertiary plant regardless of
the p rmit limits.
4. 0
allow
prese
diffu
her: Under no circumstances should the Town be
d to discharge from a shoreline discharge as
tly proposed. The discharge, if permitted should be
ed and located in a channel in deep water and in no
case be located in shallow water near the shoreline.
PART IV -- EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The R'gional office does not recommend issuing the permit
for a discharge into Shallowbag Bay. As proposed the
point of discharge will be immediately adjacent to the
mouth of Scarboro Creek which is a Primary Nursery Area
and d fined as all waters south of a line beginning at a
point on the east shore 35-39-33 W running 246 degrees(M)

IC•
to a point on the west shore 35- 53'-59" N - 75-39'-36"W.
This is a bay area with poor flushing. Even with advanced
treatment it is felt that dissolved oxygen violations
could result in addition to the potential toxic impacts of
the additional fresh water from the discharge on the
marine organisms in the PNA waters. There is very little
lunar tide effects in this bay. Therefore the only way
the wastewater will be flushed out of the bay is by wind
actibn . If there is unfavorable wind action over an
extended period there may be dissolved oxygen violations
due to either the organic material in the wastewater or
algae that is produced by the nutrients in the discharge.
Unf a orable winds and currents can form fresh water
curthins and push them into the PNA areas, thus causing a
toxiity problem with respect to fresh water in a salt
wate environment.
A di fused discharge out into the bay would be a better
situ,tion than a bank discharge, however, it is felt that
dissolved oxygen violations and toxicity with respect to
fresh water intruding into the PNA's would still be
likely.
Signature of report preparer
21—
Water Q ality Regional Supervisor
siqo
Date
( /C/O

4
•
%{ :• *I.
7
Seapla
Ramp
2
\
Burnside Headquarters' -
(Historical Site) J
2
ter
• •
9
2
• •
▪ **_4 •
•
y
•
y yy
04
•
turn
Basin
2
2
1aBaum Point
+�` 4 i.. \ \` ought
"' Sandy Point y,Q� ' ,.
S /terlowbag Bay I `_,!J
_ ___ A 1 i \
L.-- `` '` tt 16
_ _ yv...._„„_.,..\. ...
_ _.,,
-« ��� Light
11
1
111
11
11
11
11
11
1l
11 11 3 ( C..)
1 /
11-6
110
1.1I;
\¢
1
'16
1 t .-
1\s
7
sc
Q�
6 d0R - - - _ - -r- — -- _
• - - -- _ _ - - - —.A--- s-\
3
ughtd \
/c .....cer,eL
�; \;\\
i// ... _ ti l
\ • r `q
4 � \\\
7
\ 2
\ Ballast \\
Point \\\
-or, - '4- _ •r1.- .4,...- w -0.j..
• - -W. r V 0 ....4.0 _ me.- ..4- -
- ,•. ,� " .� -- -4.--• -.r . - - ..- .. 11 • y` - A
-u^ - - ..... ` h • •%i
-ti4• -di- 44- - - : BM'A, i
-' -- - - --�s- — -0- - 11
- - --. , 4
11
11
II
•
- •

(;tAP 6)
(Prohibited arcan aru uhntlud)
•
5
4
}
4,1
v..r•
c
a
Rev. 7/3/84
Rev. 12/1/8
i.v. 7/12//84
Rev. 12/30/81
! Rcv. 11/10/82
v o
n U ,{ rl
u .c t
M Y a
X
CROATAN
8 0 0 1 E
V �y
`Fee Cron
Sou. Q n
c_z
C i:
SOUND e;
ISLA N
4
^0L
4
0
O 45,v L y
o �ecpO oC * i �r O
• + oo , 4
0
4 RECEIVED
WASHINGTON OFFICE
MAY, 2 31990
w
b. E. M.
PAMLICO SOUND
person shall take or attempt to take any oysters or clams or possess, sell, or offer for sale any oysters or clams
.ken from the following areas, at any time: (See back of sheet for continued description)
C 0 JN D AREA
i
All waters in Shallot•:bsg Bay and itR tributaries southwest of a straight line from I3uum Point to Ballast Point,
•
4
All thewaters within a line beginning at the eouth side of the mouth of Broad Creek and running to Channel Marker F1
R"10"; t:,ence to Channel Marker R'"8"; thence due southwest to a point on tiho shore; thence along the shore in a
northerly direction to the point of beginning, to include Mills Creek and its tributaries.
Those waters around the Villa Condominium STP Outfall beginning at a point 350 571 54" N - o 38'46" yards in a southwesterly direction to a point in the sound at 35° 57 4E3 N 75 3875 61I thence in 200
so'�tthccsterly direction to a point in the sound at° �o' 11: +o � 50" Wj thenoe 400 yards in a
to a point on shore at 35° 57' 45" N fi5° 38: 36" W 57 38"N " 39"W; thence in northeasterly dircctio
All those watersrin Roanoke Sound bounded by a line beginning at a point on the
54'30"N - 75 36' 10" W; thence in a westerly direction 2700 yards to a point
75° 37' 40" W: thence in a southerly direction 21500yards to a point at 35 53'
eu�zerly direction 2200 yards to the shore at 35 53' 26" N — 75 36' 00" W,
tributaries.
east shore near Whalebone at 35°
in the Sound at 35° 54' 02" N 04" N - 75° 37' 11" W; thence in
to include all creeks and

Alt those waters bounded by a line beginning at a point on Ballast Point
at 35° 54' 33" N - 75° 38' 40" W; thence in a straight line to the east
side of the causeway draw bridge at 35 53' 40" N -- 75° 38' 07" W; thence
to Channel Marker #24 at 35° 53' 22" N - 75° 37' 50" W; thence across
channel to marsh at 35a53' 20" N.- 75° 37' 55" W; thence across John's
Creek in a northerly direction along shore back to the point of beginning.
This will close Pirates Cove and all other tributaries within said boundary.
Broad Creek. A11 those watersin Broad Creek north of a straight
line beginning at a point on the west shore at 36° 51' 47" N - 75° 38'
15" W; thence across the creek to a point on the east shore at 36° 51'
57" N - 75. 37' 54" W; to include all of Johns Creek. '
Oregon Inlet Fishing Center - All those waters within Oregon Inlet Fishing Center
and extending beyond the dockage facilities 325 feet.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 21, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bobby Blowe, Construction Grants
FROM: Ruth Swanek gCS
SUBJECT: Town of Manteo Proposed 1 MGD Discharge
NPDES No. NC0079057
Shallowbag Bay - 030151
Dare County
I have attached a copy of the wasteload allocation approval
form for the Town of Manteo's proposed discharge. I am forwarding
this information to you for planning purposes, but you should note
that these are not the final recommended limits. The Washington
Regional Office and Permits and Engineering Unit will receive the
approval form and make comments on it. Their comments may be
included in the final approval form.

Request No.: 5673
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Status:
Receiving Stream:
Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Re Tonal Office:
Requestor:
Da e of Request:
Quad:
Town of Manteo
NCO079057
99.95% Domestic
Proposed
Shallowbag Bay
SC (Town proposing
030151
Dare
WaRO
Barona
4/11/90
D36NW
it SA)
Drainage
Summer
Winter
Average
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS
Wasteflow (mgd) :
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1) :
Fecal Coliform (/100m1) :
pH (su) :
CGllatnt. [AV)
Toxicity Testing Req.:
Summer
1.00
5
2
6
30
14
6.8-8.5
area:
7Q10: Tidal
7Q10:
flow:
30Q2:
Winter
1.00
10
4
6
30
14
6.8`/ •5tc;kl mac)
Acute/Fathead Minnow 24 Hr/No Sig. Mortality
MONITORING
Upstream (Y/N): N Location:
Downstream (*/N): N Location:
COMMENTS
Fecal coliform limit of 14 assigned due to proximity to SA waters.
Town will drgp pursuit of SA waters class, but may pursue SB waters.
Scarboro Creek and Doughs Creek are PNAs and HQW waters.
Facility should consist of dual train treatment process with standby
power. Reco� end diffuser be required, and that outfall be as far from
SA and HQW waters as possible l000•idb, $4 udb bra)
Model very sensitive to assumptions for SOD, reaeration, and salinity.
Therefore, in absence of field information, state-of-the-art treatment
should be required.
Recommended by: C _ SOCL/11-1
Date: 61a11a0
Reviewed by
Tech Suppor Supervisor: Date:
Regiona Supervisor: Date:
Permits & 7ngineering: Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:

RAn JAT .A/APRIL THROU3H OCTO3ER
STATI3N,M 9; 00Jj
DATa 3005 NH3N TK'i 03
D 52432 1 e 6 O. J5 ) 04 7.0
362332 1.7 0005 0o4 809
072732 2. o 0.05 3,. 5 405
362 582 2e3 3.05 0.9 500
392282 1.5 0.05 005 7.5
10 882 1.5 0034 0.6 9.0
041863 1e0 0002 0.4- 10.9
052383 i.0 0.01 0.5 8.3
062133 1e3 0001 Tat 6.2
072083 2.0 3.01 0.4 0e4
083033 1..9 04,31 0 a5 74,5
091583 3.3 a o 80.0
10242,3 1♦4 0001 2.0 9e3
34173 4 1. 0 01,601 003 13.9
051034 105 . . 706
052634 1.1 . . 802
071 Od 4 1.7 3.01 0.4 8..1
081564 207 . . 8o0
U92784 2.1 s a 7.03
102284 1.4 0031 3.3 806
341935 101 0.01 0.3 509
081435 2.1 3.31 0.4 6.7
103135 1s3 0.03 003 906
J42256 1.7 04402 002 9.3
372286 3.6 0.01 3.7 6147
102736 2..1 0.01 0444 8.3
STATIJN=M7500000
DATE 3UD5 ;3H3N TKM DO
352482 1.7 0.35 004 6 ♦0
0623 ;2 1♦3 04405 03,4 9.0
372832 2.1 0035 0.6 6.7
382532 2445 0005 0.7 702
J92282 2.3 3.05 0.5 606
102752 • O.JS 0.445 •
102852 L.0 • e 902
342083 1.5 3.32 0 a i 10.5
352333 1.7 0.01 005 3.3
06213 3 lea 0.3 1 U.44 o.8
;72033 1..9 0.31 :Jest 6.06
083083 263 0.J1 0.3 6♦2
091533 209 . . 6.9
102433 1.9 3.01 0443 9..5
341784 1.43 0001 0.3 904
351 08 t l ♦'t O O .
051084 a s o 1. `#
J62634 ..J e 0 8o0
0 10 4 2.0 3.3 .3 8.3
381534 3a4 a o f8 00
92734 3.1 •. ♦ 6.5
132284 2.0 0027 005 7.0

� r"►,! tATA/APRIL T iRDU:�H 0L,TO ER
STATILA=M7500000
DATE 3005 N 13N TKN DO
041935
0814S 5
I031U5
it223
072286
102736
1.7 0.01 0.2 3.9
245 0.02 0.7 7.3
1.9 0.02 003 8.3
1.4 0.04 Dab ci.b
4.3 0.02 0.5 609
2.9 0,001 0. 2 842

BACKGROUND VALUES FJR C300 AND 'BOO
A PR I L THROUGH OC T 0.0 Fit
STATIOM=Mo900000
3005 C50D_JEF NBOD
1470 2455 0092

BACKGROUND VALUES FOR C:303 AND NBDD
APRIL TH OJG1 QCTO3ER
STATION=M7500000 -
I3JD5 CBOD_DEF N3O )
1095 2492 1.17

c
RAW DATA/.`'COVE BiR T-iR3UGH MAR,L'H
.STAT10 1=M3900330
DATE 3035 NH31 TKN 00
1 11 g 8 2
121482
312683
321583
033083
111733
12.1563
0125.84
321384
)32764
112984
:11035
312436
1.6 0o03 0.4 10+0
1.3 0632 0.4 12.2
1.5 0.01 0.4 13.0
163 0.02 006 .10.5
1.9 0631 U.4 1102
162 + • 1.2
2o1 6 . 1001
1.9 34,3: 043 13.8
166 . . 1102
1.1 . . 11.2
3.0 . • 11..5
1.3 3002 363 1162
2.2 3. ,'3 68 12.3
STATION= 7 500003
DATE 6005 NH 3 N TKN 00
11.1882 1.3 0.32 0+4 908
121482 107 0.02 U.4 11 03
012683 1+6 0..01 004 13a0
321533 164 0+04 0 o4 9.3
033033 2.4 0.01 0.4 10.9
111783 1.9 4, . 1168
121583 2.1 . .. 9.4
012 564 2. 1 0.32 0+5 1200
021384 268 •. . 10.6
032784 1.4 . . 10+3
,
�9.34 � 7., � . a 1Ls0
011 035 1+7 0401 3.4 11.6
012485 2.3 0.50 1.0 12.0

BACKGROUND VALUES FOR CBO;3 AND NBOD
NOVEMBER THROUGH MARCH
---- STATION=M6900J00
S0D5 CBOD_DEF Nc3DD
1a 60 2.40 0.94

BACKGROUND VALUES FOR CSOD AND NBOD
NOVEMBER THRJUGH MARCH
STAT ION=117500000
BOD5 CbOD_DEF NBOD
1.90 2. 8 5 0.94

(1E0 „ea
o3Oi r
Pei
(.515)1Ro
-?iron of /fonfho he b ,Qukuin l 5freOm re-c/c 1Fth_6c- 0I' -
5 lattc5 All ivvn 5C,- attlefo ft L5/9, /- 1,0ever ate rpc cnwc, l,3
s.5 i unn o r cetlz )0i-v/jL efni', h
_ _ u0/6 prppoiecr Icvd cO cc*
o
// nature o" /, 5, - /and a4o ecl _5-e4(,\e wit/ ,b-e
en Gl/11-0 .S/9 ztaiul,- I.
/loho i-5 pi rpayi') 07)
..e (f)ii a-) ()hut, ` ("due/do p?oriS to Oboreor2 / 6o
I q W400P its 5 / 16 J roiGA-c. 0/0lr�tu r (/ zoo'Q�J
/ (RJR P rieo
_d_ t7e- 4fric •/0/-16D afedei Cove_ Cgcs ch�.c -e r ccoueoallk
- - _co»ih / ci /thhatO foco/-) ply_ or, tom/?5 � Pu &. u e-
,513 %,6 cth»» Jr
L ` /out
5 ‘,(1(. ),
1ZY AV?
FeCa,Q Cyr` - 3tv /4/ /i/,')-t d,c `J/1)a4,u27 fb
u�Fers -
Chlomie. lam, / iv/ ckeI'iofirla 4ortL.

a. 1
103015
eha llow(5
eGi5 /101 g0
I
- t.,
zlyea m . Fyehi at i F1UkJ ' .01 I -I C7 O
h.-cam ever n- .12 = 0
azoo Do '- r s a [Tii-, ki
t rr' ) t. Let tit ) (,m-ii )
tihr'em
3.5 1,5 A 7000
i DOu rt5
--
bream 3. o 1. 2. i, 0 1 i obi
CV1C LLC i5jia1fLt,�
y
+tom
ciaf-a bi e �}Stabo-
_o_m
l

•
lTw of J` QtifeU
E Sh• locoba j (Bo
y
030 b!
Pak Coef(icie06
C8oOu removal
�tecoe.e 20°G_)
ov,cfc,.h.on
e r,Zo • c
1J3007La rea+a. )
t8we e, 20'C )
ii87 t7 k OVec. h on Roc. ahc»
CeGo e. e 20°C.
I
L &Qe. e 2d °G )
1!
r
2
.z •Z •q
-'-5 —--,5
.2. • 2. .5 - .5--- Q4
3
.2 .z .5 ,5 .4
-z .z_ ,5 ,5 ..</
`�
_
`z .z .5 . ,5 `'
--- —
. (2
-
.2. •z ,5 ,5 •q
.z. .z .5 .5 4
a $
,z _ .2 ,5 ,5 .4
bes_n_g,J.44,-,
• 2._Ict.A.)
Some. no oe: (t n3_ U bei r2w'44l
_L..&1-
to
bean L4. .�/dC.l
.Kn -
A33t,6me - no e'lE(i
(a'aumt 7 = 5 Fly each - 'L! (,,5eerru 1� �i' .,, o
i.-- i'QJD
,
l'llShLLJ(eve i n ew)
fithid
Loads 3 - Os me ?lane,
%tbttAt-
Cali &Y
oo - Non t.auciiIcy Le.
i

•.
7614h1
5r
16-E
Of inante 0
kW a5 Owl-
PC3
b /Iu l co
tt +,,
it-kCt
MGnfto
°1F'
rIvio
t
CAD oe00,4 5«Qin ok im
S aC431_0_,
( LP) (m 1 (41 r,I) 1b13
1001b
I.0
o o 5
2
\Lfl.
3
cps = 0 (8006) A.5Sw, e
q
N&O,c . k4, 5 ( N,3 )
5
Le
1
8
Ainti ctl
Condthiyo tLP, runbi Pn1
chin (-s.k- 0SWietn cl Ronca. LSOLAns
C$00u Do
rnct - zee.
i
!
<9.q
(i. La
.1, 12-
2
a. 9
u.Le
f, 64
3
0?.9
to, ix
. qz
7
c9.9
is,U
+ 11 q
6
�.c
IP,t�
. -613
7
.7. l
(t.tt
-
. 2.L[ •
S
r.1
U.,U)
OF
I
1
c .iina }
- 1, 600, 5- ((rlino
I- ! )
j
i{
- I,Sotr•k5
(<_Yl(v.in:h.1)
t!
i i
C flt04 Li I 1 -1 " C)9 p. C3 Ca('! Rcico E..1yit - , -A,,,1 J I' .. -7.3 I"
1I
!,
I!

s WW1
O ; S
.. D3
•' WCS
loi n 5/5fa
f5 i
a
on c..- m Occirk i- 3
wicl) a Cro..)s-cho -Drr4'vn
d- No F4- CF-+) _ (1-icc.. ('coo F43) Col+ 3-1 'Jai-0
i DOD Li 0).4 6, t
z goo La 5 , ki 0. t
3 two tt q. u 0, 1
e1t
. e�
Len5f h vp I Vo I bc9FP) Pn...p Clone 500 �e.r
Cc;r_ (All 113) (old co tP4-) C00 msrit !rn�I;�
1
isclm.
3 5 1.1/449: 1Q 49 a • 5 Qq fgt)00 ! a
z
55o 4.I a30.& Is 99 50C4 ! C
"1a6- 1. a5 54. 2E-1 5 a 1 5000 i 6
if
CJw- i :-be'ec,,-,ltr„._L ft4i,i-.- (DO-`; 'Za ,lif �.1ficit /C rc". b .i
YlJ.)
: Ch 3L dV - 5Ca0, Lip ,.cc_c ce° ! r'1 �z:l�'C
,r-1 - VO O
1 /
--)
1 -Icoci
�+ii ,�,} .= �if•,,nyt° � �_' cry
Chcc;iG
f J
`
e C'L - 5 �1-I - 7- / - cone— -7,1;Ciir;s fi_l (t';)� 4- -- - = ., iie. i K.,c_ii', c-tJri
1J
.
` v %
j
a) Il) r1- -- -L .4
f
i1 i
II ii t
1!

Pan Ito
haf I owize
C3o, I
iedo„ 5e5ner) to I -3

mown bf i teo
oJI 3 89
/61
O
me,i�6 3bown
of)
dia5ram
tF G1c eJ . Doi,tG
oP cc& ID
e Ff 1uevj I: U)ou-Wd wave !
Cv ee ts. �CcU bOrD C. . ry ou ii are .3ee h c wi
Crecj Chant/lc 1
u tr i, c�er
cCnorr til
ec ureme.v I7. 11 v t-
oed
-Ion
NO
Wld4-h
LPf)
pep ill CrcA5 -6echorlai
(.. Ai- ) Area (ioc o of 2)
Oispers1on
crni -idcj )
140o
'1 5.c,
of I
2
I g-oo
cg t o: g
O.
3
acoo
Cf 15, C.r
0, 1
4
20.00
q 10 kI
o. 1
+5
3000
St (2,0
D. I
!a
kikloo
5 22. o
0.1
7
52O0
LP 31, Z.
D. J
g
5F00
0 2q,0
0.i
S
Lto coo
S 2. 0
O.1
1 ‹.,-y)ie-,..-,
rid. t i,-.4 :i
.in^.cn t%\!'ii art, c'r'.. n-, ! `.rr_
-:-..
,-. CY... .C.hi!
.gCt:1
..,.r-.�v`4u.
r'
W.ciuns
: �v• r illi vi iL .P y�l Ai :`
d- mow iliiYl
-,-J :.c .r v—
o id
` .v'i•�. I
L.�
occur
• '-.' ..' 1—, 11 , ,..w �,,.iJ :`a— `a.,--....1
i
Q:) we II ao Iatcter der -bit -Li,
8racit
e t) E a 1- Mu ui-tom. 0
(- b o (
l,-1/
u (� rake (). i m; a1 uCtc.)
k.)n-
all Z-,eynetab
i
=1-hs.,
,, 3
cam• ec1
ct,.
ec« 1 e r mode 1
dome. be'Pav
-►cfl
-v. t .Lry
icAz
1,)kQ,r)
('r)rm
ci
! 0 rcd e...
(«- ct
6 (---:'5
,
t" t
sAOLC 3 .
"1 .9) . ►
` c-IEDIA.3,00 fC 'e..S
Lodi pobablL
1i ! Ah.C—oa
cL coirfr►VCthve .
1

0
'cm 0C. Ma 1-eo
hallou)tac5 "Bac.)
015/
5f !q
500
4-10
& nnen 1- Zcifa
i. __
f,en�r4-h rrl VO1 Vul "De��f'h Tema Corond( SOD — cf P1O
L rt v) t m;1 3LL,) t f +) C °d____ (me) C (m2/d ,j(
�, 2g a ,5 4 5 2q coo a, 5
'fib �,cL�{.�13 f� 2�°�� a. o
v 10.ki0 _D-7,2D 6 2q Soo a•6 0
ieo° Ce.`?2 y u . a '4- zq sow a.5
i too 1 � MO 139. of 4.5 2qi goo° 0. 5
goo a3,c4 1ioi.v3 6.,5 2ct.coo a,o
q O �c 59b a i 3 4 i 5. 5 2.61 Novo *2`5 — —
qco a3,kto
0
175. 04 2q 5coo a,5 0
(rye ctcie.(MtF'aelf_ jo.__GtveACcke_ 0f c{o t,'•_,WI-r_ar3
hfY)e,3 4-heIerish
u CA c,c e s_.c-h orl d�,( per,; c.r_) ev4-hcr %ct
e k4-hCr er)cf
1 ennp-- PGnch` LA. -C( 0 7° C, L44-1t6 �J 754-" C1a`hie +Cm p 1.;-• C(ocJctr Roc, r-dc:_. z.)J1-d.)
G.-1. ►cle• (xic c a arbbieint La. CIan -f 0r_I_-1 q50) Woar►0 e
C)ao_3 ) L5Ovr;cb heo.r_ fMaoko_—_ill Set. uppef bowicis.
rc�afan RoG�pxe-
00
av C, _ 4P T ? ,
fi&Doo iflc1LP
ct))�,�
is4c-12 ma's i —
i\- •t fl / it r-V1 l d = da& i vahc `
bec ,n w1 5000
toe_ io.oer
re \, i �� )C aoc,,, Iat)! N C. cod caw eAct( raiLs0C a -3 5(,v)atctt,•
iet- pip.. co f gin r, a.tiac ,oiii _.__OJS«, 0

aiol,Fc0
•C3ct5
ti
Apposed --N)
Mankb a`'
�tr
cis
J
y Scu

14 3
C.ondC,9 (u)J 5 e Imo )
I
31
p Saa : a.1.) aye
(If
Sor = 15 043 -, I5
(CJ3Dc : 30
1,03bD
0.5
)
Do :tied . a, i4
Al-L.
)7)-, - 5 tui-t.3 z a
(c r c) - 10
Db» 9 )
Do c),11
!�
un
�:
AO LOCiatt
Do 1 0,i8
i
. -& axe
f ,ram _ , J_. _- _ r.- :
"-
l
o� Io
min - 5.51f
_J
rl0 10a,062-
_
Zit c..D,
500 h) ).5
_ -
b
b0 rnin - 3.5t.e
auec,,oR 5c 1.5 8bD to O. t o o g_cat,fFb 0.3
rnmn r 3.q0
soD__ to 0,5 P.ctk�,o Po tWcpj,
',TN) m,n
At- awe. (abo 0,,4) Ii„o4H��
�7p rvart A. a7
_Luttoot_raw) 00=1 0141 l,rntfs
-00 m.vf ti 5.'0�1
Pod/A no 61,15inve. to 1,0ciaki.u-TA, A- unpin

t.)�I) rncij aUbi011,5 c. run MCddQGCLf,K.
s00 = 1 (gniaday
800 cJcay = -I Icaj
Ddcay- .1 I
uo ream Dccumtreom C&JD =
a. q
Up*hream (;lwn4slream IJ&, u. = f . 0
= 0.7 /75!)
tO'// Mang- 44 h 5i,./hw 6Jcd - q ,,mac.
Al- abore rctto a) =I (ioltls
Do rn - ‘5: 06
o chi s taec k)ea k bc,t-
�U /f2 n = 6, OCc
CJhGn 86oJr cifL I ca t rl i f 1-0
O Chlondlo ib iOt�D
Db --
�. C,1�uon clp bC (.k 6-000
(-DO min : 5412
(b„ = I (1( i) (' /44s
'ot) Cj1) 5.4/ rhp
t000
7 S 1� LQtn.h.) 4Ch(ordeo

3r th 's
- ( T ' sfeacicu `5 t- 'm ,s a� hc1n oikderi
MO _% 66 thd' 1/cra br ocicad c d y
l
fth
,, - - - --
2 non - Coe- val.?' (°0 'uf3oD)
.5 chon
(
kb ' 6L45.ke' Pwec---
z e
e ot--
14044
# ,5tjrn.cit/- -- /00
ti
achoro = 5 m e/u13
/ .
,
: Jlo-rr-,
r

N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH ,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
FAX: [phone]
TELECOP TO: & mid e-� -eve va hh - She f IFri- .San i k thooe. (*Vitro
5
FAX : ER: (G I G '4 7. - )q o
FROM: 2u4+ Swanek PHONE: {Q1C1 ) 733-50F3
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: p)
CO +fir a recent- cnriverxtficn (�i�h �y <Q,A.ber 1have.a�f heci a +apo map Ind; ccfimJ -Fie piro3eci ou-Ffall
c�i fFoy-he. ()ea) ! age (i)!o rP iP- (ec e. provide
J
COmrrnnt
cc5 (2 i hie . honks