NC0023981_Environmental Assessment_19970221

NPDES DOCIMENT !MANNIN`: COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0023981
Lenoir — Lower Creek WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
nvironmental Assessment (EA
Document Date:
February 21, 1997
This document is printed on reuse paper - igziore any
content on tine rezrer'se'side

MEMORANDUM
TO:
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
7/ /q7-
Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
❑ John DomeygeLe
❑ Eli,- Galaiitb (D )
❑ Greg Price (airports, coE)
❑ Steve Kroeger (utilities)
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
❑ Trish MacPherson
❑ Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/lQw)
0
* Toxicology
❑ Larry Ausley
El
Planning Branch
El
Tehnjcal Support Branch
Coleen Sullins, P&F
Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
❑ Carolyn McCaskill, PRTF, State
❑ Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
❑ Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
Operations Branch
❑ t
❑ Tom Poe, Pretreatment
❑ Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Asheville 0 Mooresville 0 Washington
❑ Fayetteville ❑ Raleigh ❑ Wilmington
❑ Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE: VO 52'0 -I-1\11-fousf FA3 1-24A,oir e,ceik
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
any, by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining. and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis:`ci c emo.doc

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
LOWER CREEK WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
EXPANSION TO 6.0 MGD
CITY OF LENOIR
CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
M ICHAEL J. WARESAK, P. E
McGffl
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
SS Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
DECEMBER, 1996
96318.00
,b
.4\N CAROI •'• •
% ..........
r r
r
w
19-95q,
•r ' /Z..
•
--i ^.•.',. ►F JAY%,+ c(.• ..I,• • ♦� N. ,. .• .% vJ
f ,, 1 •

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1- EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
SECTION 2 - NEED
SECTION 3 - ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A - LETTER TO NCDEHNR
APPENDIX B - SPECULATIVE NPDES PERMIT LIMITS
AND CURRENT NPDES PERMIT
APPENDIX C - LISTING OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
IN CALDWELL COUNTY
APPENDIX D- SCOPING COMMENTS FROM STATE REGULATORY
AGENCIES
APPENDIX E - CATAWBA RIVER BASINWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANT
EXCERPTS

.1d
-7
NEM
SECTION 1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility is located in the southwest portion of the
City of Lenoir as shown in Figure 1. The facility is currently permitted to discharge an
average flow of 4.08 million gallons per day (MGD) to Lower Creek and is currently treating
an average daily flow of approximately 2.2 MGD. The approximate service area of the lant
is shown in Figure 2. The existing plant is an(activated sludge wastewater treatment plant
with an aeration basin capacity of approximately 1.86 million gallon and six (6) floating
aerators. The existing site plan is provided in Figure 3. The proposed improvements include
(the conversion of digested sludge basin to a 4.15 million gallon aeration basin with
submerged air diffusers, and the conversion of the existing aeration basin to one anaerobic
basin and one anoxic basin. These basins are necessary to achieve nutrient removal. The
proposed improvements are shown in Figure 4.
The plant entrance road is located on the north side of the plant, which is approximately 25
feet below the highest portion of the plant. The wastewater treatment facility covers an area
of approximately 11 acres, including approximately 4.4 acres of concrete lined aeration and
sludge holding basins which cover the south half of the plant site.
The plant site in the area of these basins and to the west of these basins is relatively level, but
is elevated above the entrance road to the plant at El 1081. Between the basins and the final
clarifier located to the north, the grade drops off at slopes ranging from approximately 1:1 to
1.5:1 before sloping more moderately toward Lower Creek. The area to the south of the large
basins drops off at approximately 2:1 slope. The 100 year flood elevation at the plant is El
1064. Drainage swales on the east and west sides route stormwater from the south to the
north side of the plant. During recent construction, groundwater was not encountered
approximately 10 feet below the 100 year flood elevation, or El. 1054. The soils at the plant
site are sandy loam, with some clays present at the higher elevations. Lower Creek is a Class
C water. An aerial photograph of the plant site and surrounding property is provided as
Figure 5, and a topographical map is provided as Figure 6. As shown in Figure 4, the

proposed construction will not directly impact any surrounding property or woodlands. The
proposed construction will be limited to the existing plant site.

1
1
1
1
1
SR
1404
DISCHARGE LOCATION
SR
1387
1
1
1
1
CITY LIMITS
1
LENOIR
l 1 1
,l r 7'.
1
\
LOWER CREEK ( 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT / °. sa 1149
PLANT
/ -
,1
0
C ST%
13
rn C
A
..
to
SR
1
1

FLORF2(
/
Gi
PER 3f2
Rufus
PPR
FRI
•
i1g
MR 13$
NO MiN.
AI
Poi
Pi
.J}
).3.0
35'30'
Mulberry
Ch.
Fleming C
'� Chapel
'J
acc%
Hartland
123.1
•
LOWER CREEK WWTP
SCALE: /" Z, ices
Sooft-e6 PEP7. of
T2AN s P,
Pt4
ligL
MGM
/41
\t� Pattersan
40 Sch. ti
Lperwood
fA
1L
' 31�
atlerson
464
FIGURE 2
Grandin (.
SERVICE AREA
0Q'
RHOCOPSS
roP.7u
[CAIOWELL CO. 472 a t31y
WAKE CO. 312]
Kings
Creek
CC
)!a
J
174
.6
4`

LOWER CREEK WWTP VIEWED FROM WEST
FIGURE 5

mei
Ian
1.1
summer effluent ammonia permit limit of 7.0 milligrams per liter (mg/1). (See letter to the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality dated September 6, 1996 in Appendix A). The
City has recently submitted an application to the State of North Carolina to obtain a Special
Order by Consent (SOC) to allow time to correct the ammonia removal problem. Based on
''' preliminary engineering design, it is anticipated that one of the existing sludge holding basins
will be converted to an aeration basin to provide additional detention time.
SECTION 2 NEED
AMMONIA REMOVAL PROBLEMS
The Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility's NPDES permit previously permitted a
discharge of 6.0 MGD to Lower Creek. In 1987 plant modifications were made to down rate
the plant and the NPDES permit to a 4.08 mgd discharge in order to better treat the relatively
low flow the plant was receiving at the time, and to reduce the operating requirements.
The facility has experienced numerous problems over the past several years in meeting its
FLOW PROJECTIONS
Currently the plant is treating an average daily flow of approximately 2.2 mgd. When the
plant influent reaches 3.26 mgd, the City will be required to submit a plan of action to the
State. The Town has recently signed agreements with the nearby. towns of Gamewell and
�, Cajah's mountain for allocations to treat 450,000 gpd, with an estimated 300,000 gpd of this
flow going to the Lower Creek facility. The engineering firm McKim and Creed is currently,,
P., preparing a 201 Facility Plan for Caldwell County and, based on population and flow
projections to be included in this plan for a 20-year planning period, the projected flow for the
Lower Creek drainage basin is 5.2 MGD.
As mentioned previously, the plant was originally constructed as a 6.0 mgd plant, and the
clarifiers and chlorine contact basin are already sized for 6.0 mgd. Since the City will be
performing plant modifications to correct the ammonia removal problem, they would like to

incorporate into the project the necessary improvements to increase the plant capacity back to
WI .6.0 mgd. This will provide cost savings to the City by constructing a large capital
improvements project now instead of several smaller projects in the future. Savings should
be experienced in engineering, bidding, permitting and construction.
fail
In addition, in light of the statewide trend toward nutrient reductions in the waters of North
Carolina, the City will be incorporating removal of both nitrogen and phosphorous into this
project through a biological nutrient removal process.
riPt

P�1
PIM
SECTION 3 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
In order for an alternative to be considered acceptable, it must be capable of correcting the
ammonia problem and must include a treatment process with nutrient removal capability.
The following alternatives were evaluated:
1. Convert the existing aeration basin and sludge holding basin to a biological nutrient
removal treatment system, upgrade the influent pumps and return sludge pumps, and
modify piping as required to expand the plant to a 6.0 mgd capacity. Continue to
discharge improved quality effluent to Lower Creek. The biological nutrient removal
equipment will include multiple aeration blowers, air diffusers in the bottom of the
aeration basin, and mixers in the anaerobic and anoxic basins (see Figure 4 in Section
1).
'a' 2. Expand and modify the plant as described in Alternative No. 1 and pump 2.0 mgd of
the effluent to a spray irrigation disposal field. In addition to the treatment equipment
included in Alternative No. 1, this alternative also includes an effluent pump station at
the WWTP to transmit the effluent to the spray irrigation site, and a spray irrigation
pump station.
mat 3. Do not perform improvements to the plant
�•, Alternative No. 3 is not an environmentally feasible alternative in light of the ammonia
removal problems which the facility is currently experiencing. Since improvements to the
plant must be performed, the City of Lenoir would like this project to be the final major
capital improvements project at the facility and include the expansion to 6.0 mgd with the
f,,n improvements. Therefore, Alternative No. 3 is rejected.
Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 are identical in improvements to the WWTP, but differ in their
1114
method of effluent discharge. Alternative No. 1 continues to discharge to Lower Creek.
Alternative No. 2 requires a total of 1125 acres for a spray irrigation field sized for 2.0 MGD

0.1
(size of expansion) including 150' property line setbacks required by the State. The City of
it, Lenoir does not own land of magnitude, so this alternative includes the purchase of this land
at an estimated cost of $5,000 per acre. hi addition, the State requires storage lagoons with a
minimum 5 days of storage capacity to be used during wet or freezing weather. For this
region, we recommend a minimum of 15 days of storage, or 30,000,000 gallons. The cost of
om
this spray irrigation facility is enormous when compared to the cost of treatment plant
improvements. Total project costs for Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 are provided in Tables 3-
1 and 3-2, respectively. Table 3-3 provides operating costs and a calculated present value
cost for each alternative. Based on these cost estimates, Alternative No. 2 is not economically
feasible, although it is certainly environmentally feasible.
Therefore, Alternative No. 1 is the preferred alternative. The environmental consequences of
Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 will be evaluated in Section 4 of this report, to determine if it is
environmentally feasible.

tist
ion
TABLE 3-1
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
CITY OF LENOIR
LOWER CREEK WWTP
EXPANSION TO 6.0 MGD WITH
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Mobilization $44,500
Influent pump station improvements (2 pumps, 2 VFD's) 120,000
24-inch influent piping to anaerobic and aeration basins - 700 LF 56,000
24-inch by-pass valves - 2 @ $8,000 ea. 16,000
Biological nutrient removal equipment, including diffusers,
mixers, blowers and recirculation pumps (from Kruger) 451,800
Installation of diffusers, mixers and pumps 135,000
Installation of blowers 20,000
20-inch DIP air manifold -150 LF ® $70/LF 10,500
16-inch DIP air piping - 310 LF ® $60/LF 18,600
16-inch air valves - 2 @ $4000 ea. 8,000
12-inch air piping at blowers (including valves) 10,000
Install platforms in anaerobic and anoxic basins - 4 @ $10,000 ea 40,000
Concrete walls - 200 CY @ $500/CY 100,000
Concrete influent splitter box 20,000
D.Q. Control (includes 4 additional mixers in aeration basin) 132,300
Installation of D.O. control equipment 30,000
Return sludge pump replacement 30,000
Chlorine contact basin- raise water level w/adjustable weir 5,000
,o, Add platform & submersible pump to existing 6 MG sludge basin 15,000
4-inch sludge force main to digester - 350 LF ® $15/LF 5,300
400 kW emergency generator and automatic transfer switch 100,000
Electrical • 160.000
Construction Subtotal $1,528,000
i0�/o'Construction Contingency 152-,18O0
Total Construction Cost $1,680,800
Engineering Design 115,300
Construction Administration 46,900
Legal and Administrative Costs 3.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,843,000

TABLE 3-2
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
SPRAY IRRIGATION DISPOSAL
0.1
Treatment plant modifications $1,528,000
Property acquisition - 1,125 ac. @ $5,000/ac 5,625,000
24" transmission line - 40,000 LF @ $72/1f 2,880,000
Effluent pump station at WWTP 150,000
0.1 Spray irrigation system -1,030 ac @ $3,000/ac 3,090,000
Spray irrigation pump station 80,000
Storage lagoons - 30 mg @ $0.40/gal 12,000,000
Subtotal $25,353,000
10% Construction Contingency 2,535,300
Total Construction Cost $27,888,300
Engineering Design $1,255,000
Construction Administration 307,000
Legal and Administrative Costs 500,000
,,,., TOTAL PROJECT COST $29,950,300

COST ITEM
Capital
Annual Operating
TABLE 3-3
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
ALTERNATE NO. 1
$1,843,000
$500,000
ALTERNATE NO. 2
$29,950,300
$540,000
Alternative No. 1 - Present Value = $6,662,000
Alternative No. 2 - Present Value = $35,154,820
NOTE: Present value calculations based on a 20-year period and a discount rate of 8.25%.

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
GENERAL
The state agencies listed below were contacted for scoping comments related to the
proposed expansion. Comments received to date are included in Appendix D.
• North Carolina Division of Land Resources
• North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
• North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation
• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
• North Carolina Division of Water Resources
• North Carolina Division of Environmental Health
• North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Since there is already an existing treatment facility on the site, the primary environmental
consequence to be considered is the affect the increased discharge will have on wildlife.
The proposed nutrient removal capability of the project for nitrogen and phosphorous
removal will also be considered.
CHANGES IN LAND USE
Alternative No. 1 is limited to the existing WWTP site and will not directly affect any
other properties. The land use of the site will remain as a publicly owned wastewater
treatment facility. The potential cumulative and indirect effect of expanding the plant
capacity is that it could accelerate residential, commercial, and industrial growth in the
surrounding area. Based on an average flow of 300 gallons per day (gpd) per equivalent
residential unit (ERU), an additional 2 mgd of capacity could result in an additional 6,667

AEI
ERU's. If it is assumed that 40 percent of the growth will be industrial or commercial in
nature, this would result in approximately 4,000 residential connections, and a
combination of commercial and industrial establishments, which generate approximately
800,000 gpd. Since one large wet industry could exceed this flow, it is difficult to
estimate the number of commercial and industrial establishments. However, in general,
the cumulative and indirect effects could be some changes in land use in the surrounding
0.4
area to accommodate the future growth.
Alternative No. 2 would have the same direct, cumulative and indirect effects as
Alternative No. 1, and would have one additional direct effect. The City would need to
acquire approximately 1,125 acres to use as spray irrigation fields and wet/cold weather
storage lagoons. This would result in a change in land use for those 1,125 acres.
Additional cumulative and indirect affects would include changes in land use around the
spray irrigation fields due to negative public opinions. Residents or commercial
'igt establishments may relocate as a result of the installation of spray irrigation fields.
'g°' Alternative No. 3 would have no direct, cumulative or indirect effects on land use, except
that it could limit future growth.
WETLANDS
Alternative No. 1 is limited to the existing plant site. There are no wetlands that will be
directly impacted during construction of the proposed improvements. Alternative No. 2
includes 1,125 acres of spray irrigation fields. It is assumed that the spray irrigation
,•► fields will not be located in existing wetlands and, therefore, would have no direct effect
to wetlands.
Indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative No. 1 and No. 2 is that increased
,,, development as a result of the reserve treatment capacity could impact wetlands in the
area. Maps provided by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation, which delineate
wetlands in the service area are provided at the end of this section. Again, it is assumed
that the state regulatory offices and the Army Corps of Engineers will not allow
construction in wetlands. However, if this is not enforced, the wetlands areas shown on

0114
faq
fib
the maps could be affected. In addition, the increased sedimentation as a result of the
future construction could have adverse effects on wetlands in the area. Sedimentation
and control devices should be required by the local land resources offices in areas of
concern to minimize adverse effects to wetlands.
PRIME OR UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Alternative No. 1 will not directly affect any agricultural lands because it is limited to the
existing site. The cumulative and indirect effect is that the additional reserve capacity
could spur growth in the area and agricultural lands could potentially be converted to
residential, commercial, or industrial establishments. The Caldwell County soils survey
prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources lists the following
soils as being prime farmland:
Prime Farmland Soils
ApB
Applying sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
CeB2
Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
DnB
Davidson clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
DoB
Dougue fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MaB
Masada loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
SeB
State loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
TaB
Tate fine sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
In addition, the soils survey lists the following soils as being important to state and local
agriculture:

Ant
Aft
fair
lap
Important Farmland Soils
ApD
Applying sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
CeD2
Cecil sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Cm
Chewacla loam, occasionally flooded
Co
Congaree fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded
DnD
Davidson clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
MaD
Masada loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
TaE
Tate fine sandy loam 8 to 25 percent slopes
The general soils map for Caldwell County, and a map showing soils in the Lower Creek
WWTP service area is provided at the end of this section. According to the soils survey,
4.4
approximately 7%, or 20,686 acres of the county is prime farmland, and the largest areas
are in general areas No. 1 and No. 2. Approximately 20%, or 58,822 acres of the county
is classified as important to state and local agriculture, and the largest areas are in general
areas No. 1, 2 and 4. The Lower Creek WWTP service area includes general soils areas
No. 1 and No. 4, but not No. 2. Therefore, prime and important agricultural lands could
potentially be impacted by future development. However, the total potential amount of
land to be developed as indirect effects is 4,184 acres (see paragraphs regarding forest
rand later in this section). Mogt'ely only a portion of this landwould be classified as
prime or important farmland. Therefore, considering the total amount of land that could
potentially be impacted, the effects are considered insignificant.

PUBLIC LANDS SUCH AS PARKS
According to the Caldwell County map prepared by Champion Map Corporation, there
are no known local, state, or national parks in the vicinity of the Lower Creek WWTP.
The Pisgah National Forest does not extend into the WWTP service area. Therefore,
Alternative No. 1 will have no direct, cumulative, or indirect impacts to public lands.
Alternative No. 2 will require that additional land be purchased by the City for spray
irrigation fields that would have restrictions on public access. Therefore, the direct effect
of Alternative No. 2 would be less land with full public access. The cumulative and
indirect effect of Alternative No. 2 could be less land available for public parks. This is
not considered a significant impact.
SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
Based on scoping comments received from the North Carolina Division of Parks and
Recreation, there are no known high quality natural communities or significant natural
areas within a one (1) mile radius of the proposed Lower Creek WWTP (see Appendix
D). Therefore, all alternatives will have no direct effects on scenic and recreational
areas, since none currently exist. Alternative No. 1 will also have no indirect or
cumulative effects. Alternative No. 2, however, may have the cumulative and indirect
effect of limiting potential scenic and recreational areas due to the 1,125 acres required
for the spray irrigation fields. However, based on the large amount of uninhabited land
available in Caldwell County, the impact should be insignificant. Alternative No. 3
obviously will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.
. AREAS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL VALUE
Scoping comments from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources indicate
that there are no known properties of architectural, historic or archaeological significance
which will be impacted by Alternative No. 1. Since Alternative No. 1 is limited to the
existing plant site, no direct, cumulative or indirect effects will result. Alternative No. 2
includes 1,125 acres of off -site spray irrigation fields, and the locations for these fields
would need to be examined to ensure that they do not affect properties of architectural,

1114
historic, or archaeological significance. Obviously, Alternative No. 3 will have no direct,
cumulative or indirect effects.
O,, AIR QUALITY
Based on the other plants that utilize biological nutrient removal processes, no odor
problems are expected to result from these plant improvements. Therefore, Alternative
No. 1 will have no direct impacts to air quality. As flow to the plant increases, more
sludge will be removed to be treated, which will result in three indirect and cumulative
effects. The first is that more dry lime will be used to treat the sludge, potentially
creating the potential for additional release of lime particulates into the air. The City has
an air quality permit to operate the existing lime silo and the silo includes a dust collector
to capture lime dust that 'may be released during loading of the silo. This therefore,
should keep any degradation of air quality to a minimum. The second indirect effect is
that the odors in the immediate area may increase as additional sludge is generated. As
part of this project, the City is considering covering the basin, which holds and thickens
the liquid sludge to minimize nuisance odors to operators and nearby property owners.
Alternative No. 2 includes spray irrigation fields, which may have some odor in the
Kat immediate areas of the sprayed effluent. These odors, however, are not considered to be
a significant nuisance.
Oft
. The third indirect effect is that the reserve plant capacity could potentially encourage
industrial growth in the area. Depending on the type of industries that develop, the
industries could generate byproducts that would be a detriment to the quality of the air.
aal The North Carolina Division of Air Quality has strict requirements that industries must
follow in order to preserve the quality of the air. The indirect effects will be directly
dependent on the types of industries that develop and the degree of enforcement of the
North Carolina air quality regulations. With propoer enforcement of regulations, the
effects should be insignificant.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY
During construction of the proposed expansion, care will be taken to prevent the
accidental discharge of wastewater to the ground. Any direct impacts to groundwater is a
Prni
result of Alternative No. 1 will be minimal and will be limited to the plant site.
Alternative No. 2 includes a spray irrigation fields that will discharge effluent to the land
surfaces. This water will have been treated and will receive further treatment as it
percolates through the soil. The required 150 foot setback from adjacent property lines,
and 100 foot setback from wells will help minimize the direct impacts of Alternative No.
2 to groundwater. However, Alternative No. 2 would clearly have a greater potential for
adversely affecting groundwater than Alternative No. 1.
Indirect and cumulative effects to groundwater as a result of increased development in
the area will be dependent on the enforcement of setbacks from wells. Local health
officials are required to locate septic tanks such that they will not impact drinking wells.
If proper enforcement of regulations is practiced the indirect and cumulative effects
should be insignificant.
fail
NOISE LEVELS
The direct effects to noise levels for Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 are that the new
aeration blowers will produce additional noise. The blowers will include silencers of
minimize the noise. If the noise generates complaints from local residents, the blowers
may have to be enclosed in a building. There will also be a temporary increase in noise
due to the construction of the project. This will be limited primarily to daylight hours,
except in emergencies or when work must be done during the low flow periods (i.e.,
during the night). These direct effects are considered to be insignificant because steps
will be taken if nearby property owners complain about excessive noise.
The indirect and cumulative effects are that this increased development would most likely
result in increased noise due to normal urban and rural development, traffic, factories, or
other industries. These indirect and cumulative effects would be basically the same for

both Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2. This noise level will be no more than normal for a
typical community of this size, and are considered insignificant.
FOREST LAND
ROI
Alternative No. 1 is limited to the existing plant site and will not require the removal of
any trees. Indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative No. 1 would include the
potential for removal of surrounding forest land to accommodate future development that
may result from the reserve wastewater treatment capacity. The following criteria will be
used to estimate the amount of forest land that could potentially be impacted by future
development:
• Commercial and industrial - 0.1 gpd/SF
• Residential - 300 gpd/acre
0,
• Residential land use - 70 percent of total available
• Commercial/Industrial land use - 40 percent of total available
'"' Based on the above criteria and assuming 60 percent of future development (1.2 mgd)
will be residential, it is estimated that approximately 4,000 acres of land could be
�► required for future residential development. Further, it is estimated that approximately
184 acres of land could be required for future commercial and industrial development. If
it is assumed that 80 percent of this land is forest land, and using the land use criteria
listed above, it is estimated that approximately 2,240 acres of forest land could be
pi► removed due to future residential development, and approximately 59 acres of forest land
could be removed due to future commercial and residential development,, for a total of
„RS 2,299 acres of forest land to be impacted due to indirect and cumulative effects. It is
noted that these are merely projections based on average assumptions, and these figures
could change dramatically if at least one large wet industry were to be constructed.
Another indirect impact would be construction of sewer lines to accommodate future
development, and the removal of trees to install the sewer lines. Normally, for ease of
construction, unwooded routes are selected for sewer lines. However, it can reasonably

fart
AlMI
be expected that some trees would need to be removed. For this project, it is estimated
,,,., that approximately 5 acres of forest land could be cleared for installation of future sewer
lines.
Alternative No. 2 includes approximately 1,125 acres of spray irrigation fields that would
fart
impact surrounding forest lands. If it is assumed that 80 percent of the land used
will be forest land, it is estimated that Alternative No. 2 would impact approximately 900
acres of forest land. Based on scoping comments provided by the North Carolina
Division of Forest Resource s(see Appendix D), the Division would prefer that effluent
not be sprayed directly on wooded areas. The estimated 900 acres of forest land would
need to be removed to satisfy this request.
1.4 It is unlikely that enough cleared land could be found to accommodate the required
acreage based on density of forest land surrounding the project area. The indirect and
cumulative effects of Alternative No. 2 would be the same as Alternative No. 1.
It is clear that Alternative No. 1 would have less direct impact to forest land and would
be preferred over Alternative No. 2. Alternative No. 1 will have no direct effects to
forest land. Because of the vast amounts of forest land available in Caldwell County, the
indirect and cumulative effects for both alternatives are considered insignificant.
awl
SURFACE WATERS
This project is located in the Catawba River drainage basin. The Catawba River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan prepared by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management in July 1995, indicates that Lower Creek is experiencing
problems with sedimentation and elevated fecal coliform levels due to non -point and
point source discharges (see Appendix E). Lower Creek received a Fair beathos rating
and a Fair -Good fish rating. The basinwide management plant also lists Lower Creek as
being "partially supporting", meaning that the stream has experienced some degradation
due to the excessive sedimentation and fecal coliform levels. Lower Creek has been
listed as a high priority for a sediment control program.

The basinwide management plan indicates that the sediment and fecal coliform levels
being experienced by Lower Creek are attributed to both wastewater discharges and
urban stormwater. Fecal coliforms are currently reduced at the Lower Creek WWTP by
chlorination and are limited by the NPDES permit. Alternative No. 1 would increase the
discharge to Lower Creek by 2 mgd and would increase the level of fecal coliforms in
Lower Creek, since the requirements of the NPDES speculative permit for fecal coliform
removal is identical to the current requirement. During construction of the expansion, the
contractor will be required to install sedimentation and erosion control devices to prevent
sediment from entering the stream. This will minimize the temporary direct effect of
additional sediment entering the stream during construction. It is the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality's responsibility to set permit limits that will not be harmful to
the surface waters. Assuming this is accomplished, the direct effect of the expansion
should not be harmful to the creek.
The direct effects of Alternative No. 2 would be identical to Alternative No. 1 with
respect to temporary sediment impacts to Lower Creek during construction of the
expansion. Regarding fecal coliform levels, since Alternative No. 2 is a non -discharge
alternative, there would be no effect to fecal coliform levels.
Indirect and cumulative effects of both Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 would be the
potential for sediment entering the creek during the construction of future development.
The North Carolina Division of Land Resources requires that erosion and sedimentation
control be practiced during construction. If the regulations are properly followed and
enforced, additional sediment to the creek should be minimized.
Additionally, potential future development will increase the amount if impervious areas
and could result in additional sediment entering Lower Creek as run off from roofs and
paved areas. This situation should be monitored closely by the Division of Land
Resources to minimize adverse impacts. This monitoring should make the effects
insignificant.

WATER SUPPLIES
IMP
There are no known water supply intakes on Lower Creek. The point of discharge is
Porn approximately nine (9) miles upstream of the point where Lower Creek flows into the
Catawba River. The nearest downstream water supply intake is the City of Lenoir's Lake
Rhodhiss Water Treatment Plant on the Catawba River, approximately 10 miles downstream
of the point that Lower Creek enters the Catawba River. Therefor, it does not appear that
Alternative No. 1 will directly affect any existing water supplies in the area. It is noted,
however, that, according to the regional North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) office, Lower Creek itself is classified as a WS-4 water
supply.
Alternative No. 2 is a non -discharge alternative and therefore, will not directly affect any
surface water supplies. Additionally, the state required setback of 100 feet from wells for the
spray irrigation field should minimize any impacts to wells.
(.4 Indirect and cumulative effects of Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 would be similar to those
discussed in the Surface Water Section related to increased sedimentation. Increased
sedimentation could make treatment of the water more difficult. In addition, if fecal coliform
levels continue to increase as follow increases due to future development, the quality of the
water as a water source could degrade. The State Division of Water Quality's monitoring
should make these effects insignificant.
SHELLFISH OR FISH AND THEIR HABITATS
The basinwide management plan gives J ower Creek a Fair -Good fish rating; , Excessive
sedimentation and fecal coliform levels have prevented the creek from achieving a higher
rating. A listing of rare species that may be located in Caldwell County as provided by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program is included in Appendix C. Four (4) invertebrates
are listed as rare in North Carolina, but no fish or shellfish are listed as endangered or
threatened on a national level.

pin
Ammonia nitrogen (NH3), total nitrogen and phosphorous are nutrients present in most
0.1 effluent discharges from wastewater treatment plants. Ammonia -nitrogen and phosphorous
can be assimilated by algae and aquatic plants and could cause excessive growths
(euthophication) that create water quality problems. Additionally, biological nitrification of
the ammonia can occur which, if excessive, could deplete the dissolved oxygen (D.O.)
concentration in the stream and have an adverse affect on fish. Nitrates can be used by algae
AIM
and other plants to make protein, and if excessive, could contribute to eutrophication. Total
nitrogen removal by denitrification removes nitrates before they are discharged to the stream.
10,4
this project is to reduce the ammonia concentration in the effluent to less than 2.0 mg/l. This
would comply with the speculative limits issued by NCDEHNR (See Appendix A). Between
011114
Since the plant has been experiencing difficulty in removing ammonia, the main objective of
September, 1995 and August, 1996, the plant was only able to achieve an average effluent
ammonia concentration of 11.3 mg/1. At the current flow of 2.2 mgd, the amount of
ammonia discharged to Lower Creek will be reduced from 207 pounds per day to
approximately 37 pounds per day. For Alternative No. 1, at 6.0 mgd, approximately 100 gpd
will be discharged, which will directly decrease the amount of ammonia discharged to the
stream. Since Alternative No. 2 is a non -discharge alternative for the 2 mgd expansion, 4
mgd will continue to be discharged to Lower Creek. At 4.0 mgd, approximately 67 gpd of
ammonia would be discharged to the stream.
The Plant does not currently have effluent limit for phosphorous, but the goal of this project is
�► to reduce phosphorous to a concentration of 2 mg/1 in the effluent. This should also help to
minimize the potential for eutrophication.
Indirect and cumulative effects for Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 would be similar to those
discussed in the Surface Water Section. Increased sedimentation and fecal coliform levels
could eventually be a detriment to fish and their habitats. The sediment and fecal coliform
levels should be monitored carefully by the State to ensure that the fish rating for Lower
Creek does not drop below Fair -Good.

WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS
A listing of rare species that may be located in Caldwell County as provided by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program is included in Appendix C. The spruce fir moss spider is
the only listed species that is endangered.
Alternative No. 1 is limited to the plant site and should not directly impact any wildlife or
their habitats. Alternative No. 2 includes 1,125 acres of spray inigation fields and most
likely, would have a direct impact on wildlife present at the spray irrigation sites. The treated
effluent that is sprayed on the ground is not expected to be harmful to wildlife, but wildlife in
the area may relocate to another habitat. Indirect and cumulative effects of both Alternatives
No. 1 and No. 2 are that as new development occurs, construction of homes and buildings
will push any wildlife present to other habitats. Based on the large amounts of uninhabited
land in Caldwell County, wildlife should not have difficulties establishing new acceptable
habitats. Therefore, the indirect and cumulative effects should be insignificant.
INTRODUCTION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Because this project will significantly reduce ammonia nitrogen the amount of ammonia
discharged to the stream and the design flow of 6..0 mgd will actually be significantly less
than that currently being discharged at 2.2 mgd. At the design effluent concentration of 2.0
mg/1., 100 ppd of ammonia nitrogen will be discharged at 6.0 mgd, compared to 207 ppd
currently being discharged.
ANA The facility currently does not have an effluent limit for chlorine residual, and, according to
the City, an average of approximately 200 micrograms per liter is currently discharged. The
City recently installed a dechlorination facility designed to reduce chlorine residual in the
effluent by adding sulfur dioxide. Based on the speculative permit limits, it is anticipated that
a chlorine residual limit of 28 micrograms per liter will be included with the new NPDES
0.1
permit. At the current flow of 2.2 mgd, approximately 3.7 pounds per day of chlorine is
discharged at a concentration of 200 micrograms per liter. And the project design flow of 6.0
mgd, and at the expected limit of 28 micrograms per liter, the amount of chlorine discharged

RIEW
to Lower Creek will be reduced to 1.4 ppd, for Alternative No. 1. For Alternative No. 2, the
amount of chlorine discharge at 4.0 mgd is about 0.9 ppd.
The facility is currently monitoring copper, zinc, cadmium and cyanide. According to the
City, copper averages approximately 10 micrograms per liter, and zinc averages
approximately 50 micrograms per liter. The current NPDES permit limits cadmium to 4.9
micrograms per liter, and cyanide to 12 micrograms per liter. At the project design flow of
6.0 mgd, 0.5 ppd of copper, 2.5 ppd of zinc, 0.25 ppd of cadmium, and 0.6 ppd of cyanide
would be discharged to the stream. NCDEHNR has indicated that a chronic toxicity testing
requirement with quarterly monitoring will remain a condition of the NPDES permit. During
1996, the plant has reportedly failed the toxicity testing on one occasion (February, 1996).
NCDEFINR indicated that a complete evaluation of limits and monitoring requirements for
metals and other toxicants will be addressed at the time of formal NPDES permit application.
In addition, Alternative No. 2 would directly introduce ammonia and chlorine to the land that
the effluent is sprayed on. The low levels are not expected to be harmful to the land. Treated
effluent is often used to irrigate golf courses and even some cropland in other states.
The direct effects of the project for both Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 would be a reduction in
ammonia and chlorine to the creek. There should not be any indirect or cumulative effects for
either alternative.
RESULTS
Table 4-1 compares the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of Alternatives
No. 1 and No. 2. Since Alternative No. 3 is not considered a viable option, it is not included
in the table. Alternative No. 3 is the "do nothing" alternative and would have no effects.

The results of the environmental consequences analysis is that neither Alternative No. 1 or
No. 2 will have any significant impacts on the environment except related to land use changes
and fish and their habitats. Land use changes are expected as indirect and cumulative effects
of Alternative No. 1, and as direct, indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative No. 2.
However, these land use changes in and of themselves are not considered to be harmful to the
environment. The effects of the project on fish and their habitats will actually directly
improve as the ammonia and chlorine levels of the effluent discharged to Lower Creek are
lowered through advanced treatment methods (i.e., ammonia removal and dechlorination).
fi
Other subjects, most notably air quality, forest land and surface waters rely on mitigative
measures by contractors, developers and state regulators to result in no significant impacts as
a result of the proposed expansion.
TABLE 4-1
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
SUBJECT
NO. 1
NO. 2
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
DIRECT
INDIRECT &
DIRECT
INDIRECT &
CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE
Land Use Changes
None
Significant
Significant
Significant
Wetlands
None
Insignificant
None
Insignificant
Prime Agricultural Lands
None
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Public Lands
None
None
Insignificant
Insignificant
Scenic & Recreational Areas
None
None
None
Insignificant
Archeological or Historical Areas
None
None
Insignificant
Insignificant
Air Quality
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Groundwater Quality
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Noise Levels
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Forest Land
None
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Surface Waters
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Water Supplies
None
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Fish & their Habitats
Improved
Insignificant
Improved
Insignificant
Wildlife & their Habitats
None
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
NOTE:
Significant = Project will have a significant impact on subject
None = No impact
Insignificant = No significant impact
Improved = Alternative will improve conditions for subject.

NORTH CAROLINA USER NOTES
MARINE SYSTEM
M1UBL - Ocean; boundaries extend from the outer edges of continental
shelf shoreward to the landward limit of low tide along beaches and
the seaward limit of the estuarine system in coastal inlets.
M1UB2L - Inlet shoals on the ocean side of an imaginary line connecting
uplands of adjacent barrier islands, usually across the narrowest
point of an inlet.
M2US2P - Unconsolidated shoreline (beach) as determined by land
difference between low and high tide; M2US2N zone is included here.
Special cases
M2RS2P - Beach outcroppings of coquina limestone, found at Ft. Fisher,
New Hanover County.
M2RS2Pr - Rip -rap jetties that extend into the ocean and that were
constructed to stabilize navigation channels through'inlets.
ESTUARINE SYSTEM
E1UBL - Open water of sounds and bays (i.e. Albemarle Sound) and
unvegetated pools within saltmarshes; extends from leeward side of
barrier islands to shore of mainland and to mouths of rivers and large
tidal creeks, approximately to where ocean -derived salts are less than
0.5 ppt. For larger coastal rivers such as the Neuse or Pamlico, an
arbitrary point, where the river narrows to less than a mile in width,
was selected as the upstream limit of this wetland type.
E1UB2L - Inlet shoals on the embayment side of an imaginary line
connecting uplands of adjacent barrier islands, usually across the
narrowest point of an inlet.
E1UB3L - Open water of coastal rivers or streams extending from E1UBL to
the palustrine system. Adjacent shoreline vegetation is usually
saltmarsh.
E2US2M - Shoals occasionally exposed by wind tides along eroding
headlands
E2US2N - Sand flats usually derived from beach overwash and thus
located leeward of barrier islands; exposed during low tide.
E2US2P - Sandy overwash islands, spits, and infrequent beaches that abut
E1UBL.
E2US3M (E2US3N, E2US3P] - Large expanses of tidal mudflats within
saltmarsh. Areas of unconfined dredged material are mapped as E2US3Ps.
r)

E2EM1N - Saltmarsh community dominated by smooth cordgrass. The 10111111
boundaries of this wetland type may include areas of open water, tidal
mudflats and shellfish beds (ElUBL, E2US3N, and E2RF2N, respectively).
E2EM1P - Saltmarsh dominated by needle rush. In certain broad areas
subject to inundation by freshwater, as around the eastern and
southern shores of Dare and Hyde Counties, two distinct marshes are
visible: the typical needle rush zone and a second marsh of sawgrass,
giant cordgrass, cattails and switchgrass. For mapping purposes, the
marshes are differentiated by water chemistry modifiers; needle rush
is E2EM1P5 and mixed saltmarsh is E2EM1P6.
E2SS1P - Mixed shrub and saltmarsh flats that occur along the upper
limits of E2EM1P on barrier islands, as a transitional zone around
dredged material islands, along tidal creeks with substantial
freshwater inflow, and on moist to somewhat dry saline soils. Due to
the use of winter photograhpy, the deciduous shrubs of this wetland
type were masked by groundcover forbs, thus giving the appearance of
marshlands.
E2SS3P - Southern waxmyrtle and/or yaupon dominated shrublands in
interdune swales, on washover flats of barrier islands, and
infrequently, as transitional areas between estuarine and palustrine
wetlands.
E2SS7P - Any combination of Southern waxmyrtle, yaupon, red bay,
loblolly bay, sweet bay with pine or cedar (less than 20 ft. tall) on
barrier islands but more commonly as the transitional wetland between
estuarine and palustrine areas. Southern red cedar shrublands occur
on calcareous mud near Mann's Harbor, Dare County; along creeks and
the upper shores on New River estuary, Onslow County; near the
Shallotte River, Brunswick County; and possibly elsewhere. Similar
vegetation on dredged material is mapped as E2SS7Ps.
Special cases
E1UB3Lx - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and other dredged navigation
channels where the channel alignment obviously did not coincide with
existing streams.
E1AB3L - Shoalweed beds found adjacent to Emerald Isle near the western
end of Bogue Sound. Other areas of seagrass beds exist in New River
estuary of Onslow County and in Currituck Sound.
E2RF2P - Shellfish beds visible when the aerial photograph used in
wetland delineation was taken.
E2F04P - Loblolly pines with needle rush understory, usually located
within the broader expanses of E2EM1P as near the mouth of Pungo
River, in eastern Pamlico County and along the lower Pamlico and Neuse
Rivers. Possible inconsistency in interpretation; may be mapped
elsewhere as PF04A, PF04B.

RIVERINE SYSTEM
R1UB3V - Broad,
such as the
- Broad, sluggish, freshwater stretches of coastal plain rivers
such as the Scuppernong, Perquimans, Northeast Cape Fear, etc. where
the level of water in the channel is affected by wind or lunar tides.
R2UB3H - Stream channels in the coastal plain upstream from tidal
effects; velocity is slow, turbidity high, and stream bottoms covered
by sandy silt or mud.
R2UBH (R3UBH) - Piedmont and mountain streams where bottom conditions
are unknown.
R2UB3H - Typical muddy bottom stream channel in the piedmont; may become
R3UBH in the western piedmont or where shoals (R3RB1G) are prominent.
R3UB1H - Common stream type in mountains; occasionally becoming R3RB1H
in areas of shoals; hornleaf riverweed is commonly associated with
larger cobbles and boulders; aquatic mosses sometimes abundant.
R4SBC - Upper reaches of mountain streams.
Special cases
R1AB3V - Aquatic beds comprised cf water lilies and spadderdock are
common along large blackwater tributaries and coastal rivers such as
the Northeast Cape Fear and Black River.
LACUSTRINE SYSTEM
L1UBH - Carolina bay lakes larger than 20 acres and other large natural
lakes such as Great Lake in Croatan National Forest and Sawyer Lake in
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
L2AB3H - Thickly vegetated shallow bottom of Lake Mattamuskeet and
Phelps Lake, perhaps others. Mapped as L2AB3/UB2H and L2AB2/UBH at
Lake Mattamuskeet and L20WH and L2AB6H at Phelps Lake.
L2US3Gh - Exposed drawdown zone in certain large impoundments in the
piedmont and mountains as along the Yadkin River in High Rock Lake and
the Little Tennessee River in Lake Hiwassee.
Special' cases,
L1UB1Hx - Flooded pits larger than 20 acres where limestone, phosphate,
or other materials have been removed.
L1UB3Hh - Hydroelectric and water supply impoundments found mostly in
the piedmont and mountains.
L2UB3Kx - Phosphate mine slime pond.

min
L2AB3K3h - Wildlife impoundments with submerged aquatic plants as in
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.
L2US3Khs - Unvegetated, diked disposal areas for dredged material.
L2EM2K3h - Wildlife impoundments containing spikerush and other
nonpersistant emergent plants as along the south shore of Lake
Mattamuskeet and in eastern Pamlico County.
PALUSTRINE SYSTEM
PUBH - Natural ponds, smaller than 20 acres, occurring as interdune
swales, as karst features (Sunny Point and Boiling Springs Lakes),
as small Carolina bays, and as other flooded depressions of
undetermined origin.
PAB3H - Shallow ponds colonized by water lilies, spadderdock, water
shield, various species of pondweeds, or other aquatic plants.
PEM1A [PEM1C, PEM1F] - Freshwater marshes with varying degrees of
wetness; occasionally applied to powerline rights -of -way and
undrained field depressions. PEM1A is frequently applied to areas
recently cleared for agriculture or silviculture. Dominant plants may
include bullrushes, spikerushes, rushes, beakrushes, sedges, panic
grasses, cattails and arrowheads.
PEM1B - Marshes or boggy areas in peatlands, Carolina bay depressions,
or rarely, mountain bogs.
PSS1A [PSS1C] - Cutover timberlands, abandoned bottomlands fields, and
infrequently, site -prepared silvicultural lands.
PSS4A [PSS4C] - Pine scrublands of loblolly and/or pond pine, abandoned
lowland fields where pines have invaded, and occasional wet pine
plantations.
PSS7A [PSS7B, PSS7C] - Mixed shrub assemblages of broadleaf evergreens
and pines, sometimes mixed with cedars, or in the mountains, red
spruce.
PSS1B - Non -alluvial scrub -shrub swamps dominated by titi or red
maple as in Gull Rock Game Lands, Hyde County.
PSS3B - Gallberry or mixed bay shrub areas in peatlands; shrublands
regenerating after forest fires. Also very rare montane bogs, covered
mostly by species of rhododendron.
PSS4B - Scrub pinelands often over peat, and when mixed with or
dominated by Atlantic white cedar, mapped as PSS4Bg.
PSS3C - Broad-leaved evergreen scrub -shrub swamps. Dominant shrubs
include waxmyrtles, sweet bay, red bay and greenbriars; Japanese
privet is common in some parts on the inner coastal plain.
yi

PSS6C - (PSS6F) - Mixed baldcypress-hardwood shrub, willow, or
buttonbush swamps.
PSS2F - Scrub pond cypress or baldcypress, often found as a pond fringe.
PF01A - Bottomland forest in the mountains and piedmont where the
streamflow is moderate and alluvium is fairly well -drained; dominant
trees are river birch, sweetgum, red maple, yellow poplar, sycamore,
014
American elm, sugarberry, bitternut hickory, swamp chestnut oak and
box elder. Shingle oak is sometimes common in the mountains. Toward
the eastern piedmont and on the driest bottomlands of ttheocoastt al
plain, loblolly pine can be a frequent component.
ype
`"'t. also occurs outside of bottomlands in certain parts of the coastal
plain as in Pamlico, Bertie, and western Hyde Counties. On these
sites, the soil has high base saturation and is usually silty or
raft clayey.
PF04A (PF04C] - Loblolly pine forests, occasionally mixed with longleaf
pine and/or pond pine on the coastal plain; shortleaf pine in the
piedmont; white pine and hemlock in the mountains.
PF05A (PF05B] - Burned -over forest; possible to have salt kill in outer
4414 coastal plain.
PF01B - Infrequently occurring non -alluvial hardwood swamps, dominated
oig+ by sweet gum or red maple and black gum.
PF04B - Pond pine and sometimes loblolly pine forests on peat soils or
qui saturated mineral soils in the coastal plain; red spruce or pitch pine
in the mountains. Atlantic white cedar forests are mapped PF04Bg.
PF06B - Non -alluvial swamps of baldcypress and/or black gum;
occasionally red maple is present.
PF07B - Mixed forest of evergreens, usually one or more species of
pine and loblolly bay, red bay, or sweet bay; associated with
peatlands; coastal plain only.
PF01C - A forest type of limited occurrance in the western piedmont but
common east of the Uwharries, especially in the Triassic Basin and on
the western coastal plain. Species are much the same asinFO1Aumwith
increased dominance of swamp chestnut oak, overcup oak,g
�` black Southern red oak, Shumard oak, laurel oak, willow oak, river birch and
water hickory.
PF06C - A common inner coastal plain forest type with baldcypress
invariably present; otherwise, similar to PF01C.
PF07C - Dune ridge swales; dominated by bays, live oak, pine.or cedar.
Found in many maritime forest areas.
PFO2F - Pond cypress or baldcypress swamps; originally reserved for
baldcypress-tupelo gum swamps.
R•,

AMER
Avow
PFO6F - Predominantly baldcypress and black gum, or tupelo gum and
Carolina ash in the wettest sites; frequent along coastal plain rivers
and large creeks. Blackwater river swamps in SE NC may also have
water elm.
PF05G - Forest killed from excessive flooding as in the upper reaches of
impoundments (human -made or beaver).
PF06G - Forested ponds or fringes of ponds were some combination or
single species of the following occur: pond cypress, baldcypress,
water tupelo, black gum, willow and red maple.
Special cases
PRB1Gx - Quarry pool in an area with active mining.
PRB1Hx - Abandoned quarries that remain permanently flooded.
PUB1Gx or Hx - Gravel pit containing water, usually located in a
floodplain.
PUB2Gx or Hx - Sand pit containing water, usually in a floodplain
or in riverine sand ridges.
PUB3Gx - Large, shallow roadside borrow pits, often seen along newer
highways such as interstate highways; sites are mostly former uplands.
PUBHh - Farm or golf course ponds that are irregular in outline,
located near the headwaters of small drainages wher the flow of water
has been obstructed by human -made dams. The lower case "h" modifier
is applied to other wetlands that occur upstream from the ponds and
that have hydrologies affected by impoundment.
PUBHx - Excavated irrigation ponds, usually rectangular in outline.
PUB3Kr - Regular -shaped wastewater lagoons, sometimes constructed in
uplands adjacent to wetlands; with concrete, gravel, or cobble
substrates, and flooded with wastewater. Lagoons associated with
farming operations may also be mapped as farm ponds or irrigation
ponds.
PEM1Khs - Diked dredged material disposal areas, often colonized by
common reed or cattails.
PEM1N - Freshwater or very midly brackish water marshes formerly used
for wild rice cultivation with little or no evidence of prior
impoundment; Cape Fear region.
PEM1Sh - Partly impounded marshes formerly used for wild rice
cultivation; generally restricted to lower Cape Fear region.
—
PEM2Kh - Small wildlife impoundments with nonpersistant grasses and
sedges.
PSS1Gb - Mixed shrub and marsh (PAB3Gb, PEM1Gb) areas in beaver ponds.

In mapping eastern North Carolina, exceptions always arise and many
different combinations of alphanumerics have been tried. The earlier maps
contain mixed classes and mixed subclasses. Unfortunately, this practice
fool
has all but eliminated any reasonable chance at data processing, in that
the number of permutations is staggering.
Although certain mixed categories more accurately depict the actual field
conditions, for example, PF04/SS3B for pocosin wetlands with a pond pine
overstory and a gallberry and bay understory, we are refraining from
execessive use of mixed groups. Current NWI convention guidelines allow
only these combinations or their reciprocals: for SS 1/3 and 1/4, for FO,
1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 2/4, and 6/7. In North Carolina, an SS1/3 is almost
impossible to find without pines (4), and the F02/4 doesn't exist here.
Therefore, the likely combinations are SSI/4, SS4/1, F01/2, F02/1 (must be
verified by field truthing), F01/3, F03/1 (rare or nonexistent), F01/4,
F04/1, F06/7, and F07/6.
Ak
Early maps also show frequent use of combinations such as EM/SS, FO/SS,
etc. We have tried to eliminate all of these mixed classes.
04
Revised: May, 1988
NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
P.O. Box 27687
ow Raleigh, NC 27611
04

PoR
SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative No. 3 was dismissed previously as an unacceptable alternative because it would
not correct the ammonia removal problem. In addition, Alternative No. 3 does not expand
the plant, and based on population projections, the plant capacity is inadequate for a 20-year
planning period. The environmental consequences analysis indicates that mitigative measures
would result in no significant harmful impacts to the environment by either Alternative No. 1
or Alternative No. 2. Alternative No. 2 is not financially feasible, so, Alternative No. 1 is the
recommended alternative. It is recommended that the City proceed with the construction of a
biological nutrient removal facility and expand the plant to a capacity of 6.0 mgd.

APPENDIX A

"E. McGffl
ASSOCIATES
September 6, 1996
North Carolina Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Facility Assessment Unit
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
RE: Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Lenoir
Caldwell County, North Carolina
NPDES #NC 0023981
Dear Sir:
The purpose of this letter report is to evaluate the City of Lenoir's Lower Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant with respect to ammonia removal.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is rated for a capacity of 4.08 MGD and
is currently treating flows of approximately 2.2 MGD. The facility has experienced numerous
problems over the past several years in meeting its summer effluent ammonia permit limit of
7.0 milligrams per liter (mg/1). The ammonia limit is in effect between April 1 and October
31. Table 1 below summarizes the average monthly effluent ammonia results between the
years 1994 and 1996.
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259. Asheville, NC 28802 • 55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801
704-252-0575 • FAX [phone]

North Carolina Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources
September 6, 1996
Page 2
TABLE 1
AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT AMMONIA LEVEL (MG/L)
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
YEAR
1994
1995
3.4
6.1
11.0
7.2
10.9
6.7
*9.8
6.5
2.9
*7.9
6.5
*8.2
6.5
6.96
6.6
6.99
*9.6
4.0
4.5
4.1
6.7
8.1
3.7
4.7
*Exceeds Discharge Permit Limit.
1996
8.9
14.9
12.0
*12.3
*18.7
*15.4
*15.4
*17.2
The results shown in Table 1 indicate that in addition to exceeding the permit limit on
nine (9) occasions since 1994, two (2) other months were barely under the limit of 7.0 mg/1,
and four (4) other months were 6.5 mg/1 _ or greater.
According to the Asheville Regional Division of Water Quality Office, the Lower
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant has received ten (10) Notices of Violation during the past
five (5) years for failing to meet the monthly average for effluent ammonia.
EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREATMENT OPERATIONS
The Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant includes a mechanical bar screen, grit
removal equipment, an influent pump station, an aeration basin with one (1) 50 hp and seven
(7) 25 hp floating aerators, two circular clarifiers, a chlorine contact chamber, and a sludge

A�1
North Carolina Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources
aft September 6, 1996
Page 3
handling facility. The sludge handling facility includes two (2) large sludge holding lagoons,
a dissolved air floatation thickener, a digester/sludge holding tank, a belt filter press for
dewatering, and lime pasteurization facility. One of the large sludge holding lagoons is in the
process of being drained, and the City plans to empty the other sludge lagoon in the near
future.
,.� In order to achieve ammonia removal, the ammonia in the wastewater must be
converted to nitrate through a series of complex reactions. This process is referred to as
biological nitrification. The most significant parameters which have an effect on nitrification
include the pH and temperature of the wastewater, the dissolved oxygen concentration in the
aeration basin, the hydraulic detention time of the aeration basin, and the mixed liquor of the
aeration basin.
0.4
In the attached memorandum from McGill Associates, P.A., dated August 16, 1995,
numerous operational changes that have been made to attempt to correct the ammonia removal
problems are summarized. There changes included replacement of deficient aerators to
increase the dissolved oxygen concentration, increased dosages of caustic soda and reduced
dosages of sodium bicarbonate to increase the pH, and increased rate of return sludge to
aft
increase the mixed liquor concentration. In addition, bench scale testing was performed
during the summer of 1995 and it was determined that the influent wastewater could be
nitrified if the dissolved oxygen level could be raised to 2.0 mg/1. Unfortunately, the
sophistication of the bench scale testing equipment was not at a level that could reliably
provide the quantity of air needed to achieve a dissolved oxygen level of 2.0 mg/I, nor the
hydraulic detention time required for nitrification.
The various operational changes that have been made over the past several years have
been unsuccessful in allowing the facility to meet its effluent ammonia limit. Based on these
past attempts, it is our opinion that additional aeration is required for the plant to meet its
effluent ammonia limit at . both current and future flows, and that additional hydraulic
detention time is required for the plant to meet its effluent ammonia limits at capacity flow,
and possibly, at current flow. It is recommended that the sludge holding basins which are
adjacent to the aeration basin be completely drained and inspected to determine if Ieakage has
�► been occurring into the existing aeration basin. It is also recommended that the belt press
filtrate recycle stream be evaluated•for high ammonia levels and resulting effect on ammonia
removal efficiency.
04,
To protect the City of Lenior from third party lawsuits, the Asheville Regional
Division of Water of Water Quality Office has recommended that the City of Lenoir apply to
the Division of Water Quality for a Special Order by Consent (SOC).

North Carolina Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources
September 6, 1996
Page 4
EFFLUENT LIMITS DURING SOC
The maximum average monthly effluent ammonia level that has been recorded since
1994 is 18.7 mg/1. Since it may be necessary to temporarily take the aeration basin off line
wit
during construction of the improvements, and to allow for other variances in treatment, the
City should request that the effluent ammonia limit be revised to 30 mg/1 during the SOC
,.., period.
CONCLUSIONS
404
It is recommended that the proposed improvements be based on providing ammonia
removal to below the permit limit at the plant capacity flow of 4.08 MGD. Consideration
should be given during design for future expansion of the aeration system to meet future
flows, and future permit limits. Treatment alternatives that are specifically designed to
provide nitrification should be evaluated, with additional consideration given to future permit
limitations which could include a lower ammonia limit, a total nitrogen limit, and/or a
phosphorous limit. State regulatory personnel have indicated that nutrient removal
requirements such as these could be part of future discharge permits.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
fallA
MICHAEL J. WARESAK, P.E.
Awl
MJW/vf
cc: Jim Hipp
L.D. Hagaman
T. S. Childers
film
93171.01 /bridges/Icttcrs/ac28aug6.doc

Pon
Memorandum
Date: 08/16/95
To: Jim Hipp - City Manager
From: Danny Bridges - McGiII Associates, P.A.
Subject: Ammonia levels at Lower Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a summary of the actions taken
to date at the Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to achieve, continual compliance
with the 7 mg/1 ammonia limit for effluent from the facility. Please note that the limit for
ammonia is seasonal and is effective from April until October of each year, with the
remaining five (5) months currently not being limited.
1. June 18, 1993 - Seven (7) 25 Hp aerators and one (1) 50 Hp aerator were in
service in the facility's aeration basin.
2. June 18, 1993 - Return of sludge into aeration basin increased from 50 % to
100%
3. June 18, 1993 - Caustic Soda added at splitter box to increase pH from 6.2 to
7.0 +.
4. July 5, 1993 - Sodium Bicarbonate, which was being fed for additional carbon
source and minor pH adjustment was reduced from 300 to 150 pounds per day.
5. August 23, 1993 - Results of previous actions were an increase in pH to 6.8, no
increase in dissolved oxygen in aeration basin, and ammonia level of effluent
dropped from 11 + mg/1 to less than 1 mg/l. Note: Lack of dissolved oxygen in
aeration basin was still a concern due to the actual DO level of 0.8 mg/1 versus
the proposed level of 1.5 mg/1.
6. August 23, 1993 - A written plan of action was sent from our office to T.S.
Chihlers, chinclude 'foi wing Meet with EEE (aerattrr ufacturer),
technical personnel on site to resolve lack of DO in aeration basin; Reduce
Sodium Bicarbonate by 50 pound increments, allow one week for basin to
stabilize and monitor ammonia and pH levels in basin to determine critical feed
rate; Reduce Caustic Soda by 1 gallon increments , allow one week for basin
to stabilize and monitor pH to determine critical pH for nitrification; Elevate
DO level in basin to 2.5 mg/1 to determine DO effect on ammonia level of
aeration basin effluent; Once critical pH is determined, increase Caustic Soda
to elevate pH to 7.0 + and monitor ammonia levels in effluent.
1

A■1
Memorandum
fag
SIA
7. September, 1993 though December, 1993 - Discussions and testing concerning
the limited amount of DO in the aeration basin continued between City
,a•► personnel, McGill Associates, Hydro Management Services Inc., EEE
Aerators, and Aerators Inc., in an effort to alleviate further excessive ammonia
levels for the limit period beginning in April, 1994. The joint conclusion was to
0.4
allow Aerators Inc. to provide three(3) 25 Hp aerators for use in the aeration
basin for a trial period of three (3) months in order to determine if DO levels
would be increased and to determine if the excessive maintenance on the EEE
Aerators could be reduced.
8. January, 1994 through February 1994 - Arrangements were made with
mit Aerators, Inc. for the delivery and trial use of the three (3) Aerators, Inc.
aerators. The units were delivered and installed in April, 1994 and were
operated until July, 1994 to determine effects of the new units. The units did
operate continuously without kicking out, however the effects on the DO levels
were only minimal.
9. July 15, 1994 - Letter provided by Aerators Inc., which noted that the units
were operating within the expected amperages, but also noted that the DO
levels ranged from 0.1 mg//1 to 1.3 mg/1. Additional testing was performed by
Aerators Inc. as well as Lower Creek personnel in order to monitor BOD, COD,
oxygen uptake rates, ammonia levels, etc.
10. September, 1994 - Ammonia levels were taken at every basin or structure that
involved plant process or sludge holding. The levels were extremely elevated
in the sludge holding basins (100 + mg/1) as well as readings in the 30s for the
dissolved air flotation chamber. These results led to the possibility that liquid
from the sludge holding basins may be leaking into the aeration basin or into the
clarifier troughs. If leakage was occurring from the holding basins, this
problem could be alleviated after completion of the ongoing improvements at
the facility which would allow the holding basins to be cleaned out.,
11. February and March, 1995 - Lower Creek WWTP personnel perform
additional testing by doing an influent oxygen consumption study. Results did
not show any significant abnormalities in influent DO, oxygen uptake rate,
alkalinity, COD or BOD.
12. April, 1995 - 7 mg/1 ammonia limit back in effect. April monthly average is
6.52 with a minimum of 4.98 and a maximum of 9.96
AMR
Mk
2

A�1
Memorandum
401114
13. May, 1995 - Lower Creek staff and McGill Associates continue to review plant
process parameters. Hydro Management Services' C.D. Malone, P.E. is
involved in continued discussions for a solution to elevated and erratic effluent
ammonia levels. The discussions led to the possibility of adding more aeration
to the aeration basin, therefore it was proposed to perform 2 to 3 months of
bench scale testing to determine oxygen uptake rates as well as to better
determine the effects of pH, additional carbon source and retention time on the
nitrifier organisms in the wastewater stream at Lower Creek WWTP.
14. August, 1995 - Approximately 2 months of data has been accumulated from
the bench scale unit. This information is being used to make a
recommendation to the City of Lenoir on a permanent resolution to the erratic
and elevated effluent ammonia levels. A recommendation will be presented
to City staff in September, after the evaluation is completed.
3

APPENDIX B

01114
Date: February 5, 1997
Conversation between:
Subject:
Summer
TELEPHONE MEMORANDUM
Jackie Nowell of the Division of Water Quality (919-733-5083)
and Mike Apke, McGill Associates.
Lower Creek WWTP Speculative Limits Per Jackie Nowell,
the speculative limits for the Lower Creek WWTP for the
proposed 6.0 mgd expansion are as follows:
BOD5 22 mg/1
NH3 2 mg/1
TSS 30 mg/1
D.O. 5 mg/1
Fecal 200
pH 6 to 9
Chlorine Residual - 28 micrograms per liter
Winter
BOD5 30 mg/1
NH3 4.6 mg/1
The rest are the same as summer, except no D.O. requirement.

p• DEM-P & E
Fax:[phone] Dec 9 ' 96 1?`-42' P. 01/02
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of: Environmental Management
James 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 16, 1994 .
and fax transmittal
Mr. T.S. Childers, Wastewater Supervisor post'�• wand
Town of Lenoir
P.O. Box 958
Lenoir, N.C. 28645-0958
Subject Lenoir- Lower Creek Wastewater Tr
NPDES Permit No. NC0023981 •
Caldwell County
Dear Mr. Childers:
1Pr'a
vogp
VA IN IF{
Your request for speculative effluent limits for the expansion of the Lenoir - Lower
Creek WWTP to an initial design flow of 5.0 MOD and a future design flow of 7.0 MGD
has been completed by the staff of the Technical Support Branch. As you are already
aware, a fortxial application will have to be submitted to the Division's Permits and
Engineering Unit to receive final effluent limitations and an environmental document will
have to be prepared because of the expansion of more than 0.5 MGD.
Based on available information, the tentative limits at 5.0 MOD for conventional
constituents ale:
Summer Winter
RODS (mg/1) 30 30
NH3-N (mg/1) 2.2 5.2
Dissolved Oxygen 5 5
TSS (rng/1) 30 30
Fecal Coliform (#/100m1) 200 200
pH (SU) 6-9 6-9
Chlorine (µg/l) 28 28
The tentative summer and winter limits at 7.0 MGD are:
Summer Winter
BOD5 (mg/1) 17 30
NH3-N (mg/1) 2 4
Dissolved Oxygen 5 5
TSS (mg/1) 30 30
Fecal Coliform (#/I00m1) 200 200
pH (SU) 6-9 6-9
Chlorine (µg/1) 28 28
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer ' 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

DEM-P & E
Letter to Mr. Childers
PEI page 2 wer _
It should be noted that the tentative NH3-N limits are based on protecting
Lars for reekanunnia
against instresum toxicity. North Carolina is evaluating all NPDES
to protect the
toxici following the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)guidance
in the winter, under
waters for an inseam criteria of 1 nZgjl in the summer
thatlammonia toxicity limits
7Q 10 flow conditions. Current Division procedure
lower than 2 mg/1(summer) and 4 rig/1(winter) will not be assigned.
The Division of Environmental Management(DEM) is now recommending chlorine
limits and dechlorination for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of
.chlorine for disinfection. An acceptable level of chlorine in your effluent
28 on or an
to
ensure protectionThe process of chlorination/
against acute toxicity.
alternate form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to
comply with the total residual chlorine limit
The instreanm waste concentration (IWC) at the expanded flow of 5,0 MGD is 40%
and at 7 MGD is 48%. A chronic toxicity testing requirement with quarterly monitoring
will remain a condition of the NPDES permit A complete evaluation f addreS and
ed the time
(.4 will
requirements for metals and other toxicants will have to
of formal NPDES application. Information concerning these constituents is not readily
available but the Town can assume that effluent limits and/or monitoring inforEffluentum,
�► lead,cyanide, copper, zinc, and silver will continue.
chromium, nickel, Y � It is recommended that
monitoring for total phosphorus and total nitrogen will be required.
instream monitoring for temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and conductivity be
�., continued.
This information should provide some assistance in your planning endeavors.
Final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a formal permit
application
imaster,
been submitted to the Division. If there arc any additional questions concerning this
please feel free to contact Ruth Swanek or Jackie Nowell of my staff at [phone].
(0111
Fax
Dec 9 '96 1r=4't r. Uz/
ere1y,
Donald L. Safrit,
Assistant Chief for Tec
DLS/3MN
cc: Forrest Weston
Mike Waresa c, P.E., McGill Associates
Bobby Blow*
Central Files
WLA11c

P�1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. T. S. Childers, Jr.
P. O. Box 958
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
A75:CA
411,
�EHNR
April 15,1995
Subject: NPDES Pewit Issuance
Permit No. NC 0023981
Lenoir (Lower Cheek WWTP)
Caldwell County
Dear Mr. Childers:
In accordance with the application for a discharge permit, the Division is forwarding herewith the
subject 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 parts. measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
ptablc to you you have the right to an adjudicatory bearing upon writtcn request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to
Chapter 150E 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 cast of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be requ1rc4 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 Mr. Jay Lucas, P.E., at telephone
number [phone], extension 502. •
Aul
Sincerely,
/44121-- 4Volige/A-
A. Preston Howard, Jr.. P. E.
cc: CCnual'fcs
Asheville Regional Office
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Permits and Engineering
Facilities Assessment Unit
Aquatic Survey and Toxicology
Operator Training and Certification Unit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 2762 -0535 Telephone 91a-733.5083 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Sox recycled/ 10% pest-onsum.r paw
Z0'd
6P:60 S661-9Z-8d3

Permit No. NC0023981
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE_EL1M1NATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
g
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
�► City of Lenoir
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
SR 1149
Caldwell County
•
to receiving waters designated as Lower Creek in the Catawba River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, andother conditions set forth in
Parts 1, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective June 1, 1995
This permit and authorization t4 discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2000
Signed ins day April 4,5, 1995
/7.66.- 11-64.
A. Preston How , 3r. uector
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
•
£0'd
60:60 S66Z-9Z-bde

is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NC0023981
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of Lenoir
1. Continue to operate a 4.08 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of a mechanical bar
screen, aerated grit removal, influent pump station, aeration basin, caustic feed, dual,
clarifiers, sludge thickener (dissolved air flotation), disinfection, aerobic digester, sludge
holding tanks, and drying beds located at Lower Creek WWTP, on SR 1149, Lenoir,
Caldwell County (See Part III of this Permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into
Lower Creek which is classified as class C waters in the Catawba River Basin.
•
b0'd
0G :60 S66Z-9Z-2ld3

f�1
• OW
I<•+n0
mn •
)00 PEET
AI
011101
S0'd
• ' , • '4 ... `_ _•
M04GAN tON / 1 •144
1
4 mks
35d
e► •'
1-..•
• •
+:.1:•
OUTFALL
•48
Le4o,',, .1.0.,4e 4-et ,%iis)—(4-
1000 • -
•
t1 „•
SCALE 1:24000
0
•
•
•
4o
6000 ,oc
0S :60 S661-9Z-8db
I K1LOMET

l 1 I
13 l 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I. (I). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ANI) MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0023981
n: hiring the period beginning on the effect#ve date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
:om outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Mont Characteristics
low
00, 5 day, 20 °C"
H3asN
issolved Oxygen
otal Suspended Residue"
ecal Colilorm (geometric mean)
otal Residual Chlorine
Mon.Avg.
4.08 MGD
30.0 TO
7.0 mg/1
30.0 mg/I
200/100 ml
Dischargel.Imitatlons Monitoring
Measurement
Wesejcly Avg. Ma= Frequency
Continuous
45.0 mg/I Daily
Daily
45.0 mg/I
400/100 ml
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Requirements
Sa DPie
Type
Recording
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Grab
'Sample
hocatlon
I or E
E,I
E
E,U,D
E,I
E,U,D
E
Sample location: E-Effluent, I Influent. U - Upstream 50 feet, D - Downstream at NCSR 1142 (Corpening Bridge).
1P stream and Downstream monitoring shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3/Week during June, July, August, and September,
nd once per week during the rest of the year.
*The monthly average effluent GODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
lfluent values (85% removal).
"The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 40%, February, May, August, and November; See Part III, Condition G.
'he pH shall not be less than 6.0 standar4 units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent
• y grab sample.
In
• 'here shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
ii
tD
1

k. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AM) MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
o:
)wring the period beginning on the e€fective date of the permit and lasting until
torn outfall serial number 001. Such disgharges shall be limited and monitored
:Ojuent Characteristics • Discharge limitations
'otal Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
"otal Phosphorus
emperature, °C
:admium
yanide
topper
:Inc
onductivity
Thronic Toxicity""
APR-26-1995
weekly Avq. Mkt(
4.9 pg/I
12 pg/I
SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0023981
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
by the permittee as specified below:
M2nitor1n4 Reatirernenta
Measytrenint
F1equency •
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
2/Month
2/Month
3/Week
Quarterly
Semple
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
•SamR1
!Location
E
E
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
U,D
E

1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
os .(1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0023981
m •
uring periodbeginning the be innin on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
)in outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
fluent Characteristics
)D, 5 day, 20 'C"
43 as N
'tal Suspended Residue —
cal Coliform (geometric mean)
4tal Residual Chlorine
Mon, Ava.
4.08 MGD
30.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/I
200/loq rni
pisrchargpLlmlttIons
Weekly Avq. Pally Max
45.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/1
400/100 rnl
Monitoring Requirements
Meaauremertt Sample
Frequency Type
Continuous Recording
Daily Composite
3/Week Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Grab
Daily Grab
'Sample
location
or E
E,I
E
E.1
E,U,D
E
;ample location: 5-Effluent, I Influent, U - Upstream 50 feet, D - Downstream at NCSR 1142 (Corpening Bridge).
pstream and Downstream monitoring shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3/Week during June, July, August, and September,
td once per week during the rest of the year.
The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
fluent values (85% removal).
*Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 40%, February, May, August, and November: See Part III, Condition G.
le pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored,daily at the effluent
N r grab sample.
iere shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A.(1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0023981
wring the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
=rom outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
;tiluent Characteristics
rota! Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
total Phosphorus
femparature, °C
cadmium
cyanide
. opper
zinc
;onductivity
'.hronic Toxicity"'
U)
m
APR-26-1995
Limitations
Weekly Ayq. pally Pax
4.9 pg/I
12 wg!!
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Weakly
Weekly
2/Month
2/Month
3/Week
Quarterly
Regjlrements
Sample
Type
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
'Sample
Location
E
E
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
U,D
E

twffl
fairl
. PART I
Section B. Schedule ofCamigianat
1. The per mince shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in
accordance with the following schedule:
Pennittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the permit unless
specified below.
2. Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to operate the
existing facilities at optimum efficiency.
3. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of compliance,
the ermittee shall submit either a report otprogress or, in the case of specific actions being
required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter
case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next schedule requirements.
low
8t 'd.
£S:60 S66t-9Z-ddd

Part II
page 2 of 14
6. Concentration Measurement
a. The "average monthly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the stern of
the concentranons of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar month
on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily
discharges sampled and/or measured during such month (arithmetic mean of the daily
concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration of a
composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow
value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day. The average monthly count for
fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for simples collected daring a
calendar month. This limitation is identified as "Monthly Average" under "Other Limits" in
Part I of the permit.
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the
concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar week
(Sunday/Saturday) on which daily discharges are sampled and measured divided by the
cumber of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such week (arithmetic mean of
�., the daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration
of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by
flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day. The average weakly count
for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during
a calendar week. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" under "Other Merits" in
Part 1 of the permit.
,, -c. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a pollutant discharge during a
calendar day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar day the concentration of
pollutant calculated from it is the "Maximum Daily Concentration". It is identified as
"Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit
itt
d. The "average annual concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the stun of the
concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar year on
which daily discharges are suppled and measured divided by the number of daily
discharges sampled and/or measured -during such year (arithmetic mean of the daily
concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration of a
composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow
witvalue) of all the samples collected during that calendar day . The average yearly count for
fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during a
calendar year. This limitation is identified as "Annual Average" under "Other Limits" in
fm+ Part I of the permit.
e. T e "daiiyaverage corteentration" (fordisoIved'oxygen) is the raininitint allowshler amount
of dissolved oxygen required to be available in the effluent prior to discharge averaged
over a calendar day. If only one dissolved oxygen sample is taken over a calendar day, the
sample is considered to be the "daily average. concentration" for the discharge. It is
identified as "daily average" in the text of Part L
tam
f. The "quarterly average concentration" is the average of all samples taken over a calendar
quancr. it is identified as "Quarterly Average Limitation" in the text of Part i of the permit.
g. A calendar quarter is defined as one of the following distinct periods: January through
March. April through June, July through September, and October through December.
411111
it'd
£S : 60 S66 Z-9Z-ddi

Part II
Page 4of 14
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the summation of each
concentration times its respective flow divided by the summation of the respective flows.
10. Calendar ply
A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next
day. However, for purposes of this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably
Pal represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
11. FIA'1o!rinuLG1ACt]nM •
A hazardous substance means any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
12. Toxic Pollutant
A toxic pollutant is any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
SECTION B1 GENERAL CONDITIONS
�•► 1. )may to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions .of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
• constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit
termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification: or denial of a permit renewal
application.
a. The pernittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage
sludge use or disposal established under section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act within the
time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions or standards
for sewage sludge use or disposal. even if the permit has not yet been .modified to
incorporate the requirement.
•► b. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition is subject to
a civil penalty not to exceed S25.000 per day for each violation. Any person who
negligently "violates any permit condition is subject to criminal penalties of S2,500 to
$25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. Any
person who knowingly violates permit conditions is subject to criminal penalties of S5,000
to $50400, pet &Iva Violations OtriMPASONDellt for not more thanwl ycara; arlbotit., Also,
any person who violates a permit condition may be assessed an administrative penalty not
to exceed $ 10,000 per violation with the maximum amount not to exceed $125,000. [Ref:
Section 309 of the Federal Act 33 U.S.C. 1319 and 40 CFR 122.41 (a)]
fam • c. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars. ($10,000) per
violation may be assessed against any person who violates or fails to act in accordance with
the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [Ref: North Carolina General Statutes
143.215.6A)
d. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating
section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any permit condition or
limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act. Administrative penalties for Class 1 violations are not to exceed S10,000 per violation,
with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed $25,000.
Zt'd
bS : 60 S66 i-9Z-?ode

Part II
epri Page 6of 14
9. ThalcaragdY
If the perminec wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date
of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit
001
10.Fila'
The permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive
automatic authorization to discharge beyond the expiration daze, the permitsee shall submit such
information, forms, and fees as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits no lager
than 180 days prior to the expiration date. Any permittee that has not requested renewal at least
faM 180 days prior to expiration, or any perrniuee that does not have a permit after the expiration
and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration. will subject the permittee to
enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33 USC 1251 et seq.
011111
11. Signatory Regyirement
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
�' signed and certified.
a. - All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section,
a responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice
president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other
A`' person who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the corporation,
or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing production or operating facilities
employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures
exceeding 25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents
has been assigned or delegated to the manager in .accordance with corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general parmer or the proprietor,
respectively', or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal
executive officer or ranking elected official
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing
Authority shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
1.1
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for
the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant
manager, operator of a well or well field, superintendent, a position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be
either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority.
I II Al
Et
SS:60 S66t-9Z-add

fag
Part II
Page 8 of 14
2. proper Operation and Maintenance
The perrnittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the perinittee to
achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This
provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a pertainee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the
conditions of the permit.
3. ..tietAidliaLgrildiXt.agLintianst.
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
condition of this permit.
4. Bvna�,_g nf,Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
•(1) "Bypass" means the known diversion of waste steams from any portion of a treatment
facility including the collection system, which is not a designed or established or.
operating mode for the facility.
• (2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to
the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and
permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the
absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to
be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.
'These bypasses arc not subject to the provisions of Paragraphsc. and d. of this section.
c. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it
shall submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass;
including an evaluation of the anticipated quality and affect of the bypass.
•
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permitter shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as
required in Part II, E. 6. of this permit. (24 hour notice).
d. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement action
against a permitter for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property
damage;
(B) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal
bt'd
SS:60 S66t-9Z-ddti

1.4
regulations governing the disposal of sewage sludge. Upon promulgation of 40 CFR Put 503,
any permit issued by the Permit Lssuing Authority for the utilization/disposal of sludge may be
reopened and modified, or revoked and reissued, to incorporate applicable requirements at 40
CFR Part 503. The permittee shall comply with applicable 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the
Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge (when promulgated) within the time provided in the
regulation, even if the permit is not modified to incorporate the requirement. The permittee
shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any significant change in its sludge use or disposal
practices.
7. Power Failures _ •
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards as required by DEM
Regulation, Title 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H, .0124 Reliability,
to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during electrical power
failures either by means of alternate power sources, standby generators or retention of
aim inadequately treated effluent.
VIM
PPR
4114
PPM
Part lI
Page 10 of 14
SEC'ITON - _ MONTTO 1NG A`ND C
1. Begzseniative Sampling
Sarnples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of the
volume and nature of the permitted discharge. Samples collected at a frequency less than daily
shall be taken on a day and time that is characteristic of the discharge over the entire period
which the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in
this permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any. other
wastestream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be changed without
notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority.
2. Retagling
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month
and reported on a monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (DEM No. MR 1, LL 2,
3) or alternative forms approved by the Director, DEM, postmarked no later than the 30th day
following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the.issuance of the permitor in the
case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge.
Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the
following address:
3. Plow Meast<ttemenU
Division ofErivironmental Management
• Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
. Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific
practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of
the volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained
to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements arc consistent with the accepted capability of
that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a maximum
deviation of less than + 10% from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected
St'd
9S:60 S66t-9Z-Ndti

AIR
Put II
Page 12of14
8. Inspection and Enty
The pernnittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by law, to;
a. Enter upon the perrnittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit; •
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of this penait;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (ncluding monitoring and control
equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or
as otherwise authorized by the Clean water Act, any substances or parameters at any
location.
SECTION E. R EPORT1NG REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Dischatte
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the arms and conditions of this
' permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a
level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit.
2. Planned Change4
The perrnittee shall give notice to the Director as soon .as possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining
whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29 (b): or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of
pollutants discharged. This notification applies topollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements under 40 CFR Pan 122.42
(a) (1).
c.... The, altrsatiost. o►rr addition sesultscin & significant change~ iwthe pet iftee sludgernse or
disposal practices, and such alternation, addition or change may justify the application of
permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including
notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application
process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. Anticipated Noncompliant{
The perminec shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
•
9t'd
LS:60 S66ti-9Z-8dd

Pali II
Page 14 of 14
8. Otiv Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit
application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the
Director, it shl promptly submit such facts or information.
9. Noncompliance Notification
The permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional
office of the Division as soon as possible, but in no ca.se'tnore than 24 hours or on the next
working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence• of any of the
following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of
significant amounts of wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the
dumping of the contents of a sludge digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous
substance through the facility; or any other unusual circtunstanees.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility
incapable of adequate wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of
pumps, aerators, compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass
directly to receiving waters without treat rent of all or any portion of the influent to such
station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter form
within 5 days following -first knowledge of the occurrence.
10. Availability of ReZZLS
•
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3(a)(2) or Section 308 of
the Federal Act, 33 USC 1318. all reports prepared in accordance with the terms. shall be
available for public inspection at the offices of the Division of Environmental Management. As
required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential: Knowingly making any
false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided
for in NCGS 143-215.1(b)(2) or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
11. penaltieslor Falsification of,jinrlg
The Clean Wad Act provides thaw andperson who know0gly-makerarrpfalse a etm-
representation. or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
Lt'd
LS:60 S661-9Z-dd1

fml
Part III
Page 1
PART M
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
ResUtitcmonislor-COntina p Indusl Users.
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to
inputs from industries using the municipal system may be present in the pesmittee's
discharge. At such time as sufficient information becomes available to establish
limitations for such pollutants, this pcsmit may be zevised to specify ,Ca lluetnt linalo noes
for any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with bes p gy
or
water quality standards.
2. Under no circumstances shall the perminee allow introduction of the following wastes
in the waste treatment system:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not
limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in
40 CFR 261.21;
(.4 b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case
Discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to
accommodate such Dischargcs;
c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the
POTW resulting in Interference;
p.' d. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a
Discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference
with the POTW;
c. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in
Interference, but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW
Treatment Plant exceeds 40°C (104°F) unless the Division, upon request of the
POTW, approves alternate temperature limits;
f. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in
rpm amounts that will cause interference or pass through;
Poiltitants.whiehrlesiikin, the presence of toxic gases, vapors, =James wi hin..the
PEI POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the
POTW.
3. With regard to 'the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be
necessary for the pennittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment
Pogi Standards (40 CFR, Part 403) to cnsure compliance by the permittce with all applicable
effluent limitations. Such actions by the perinittee may be necessary regarding some or
all of the industries discharging to thefnunicipal system.
INI
8t•d
SS : 60 S661-9Z-2ldEi

Part III
Page 3
5. Industrial User Pretreatment Permits (IUP) & Allocation Tables
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, the permitter shall issue to all significant
industrial users, permits for operation of pretreatment equipment and discharge to the
permittee's treatment works. These permits shall contain limitations, sampling
protocols, reporting requirements, appropriate standard and special conditions, and
compliance schedules as necessary for the installation of treatment and control
technologies to assure that their wastewater discharge will meet all applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements. The permittee shall maintain a current
Allocation Table (AT) which summarises the results of the Headworks Analysis
(HWA) and the limits from all Industrial Uscr Pretreatment Permits (IUP). Permitted
YUP loadings for each parameter cannot exceed the treatment capacity of the POTW as
determined by the HWA;
6. Authorization to Construct (A to C) •
The permittee shall ensure that. an Authorization to Construct (A to C) is issued to all
applicable industrial users for the construction or modification of any pretreatment
facility. Prior to the issuance of an Authorization to Construct (A to C), the proposed
pretreatment facility and trzatsnent process must be evaluated for its capacity to comply
with all Industrial Uscr Pretreatment Permit (IUP) limitations;
7. POTW Inspection & Monitoring of their SNs
The permittee shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as
described in its Division approved pretreatment program inorder to determine,
independent of information supplied by industrial users, compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards. The permittee must:
7a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (Mils) at least once per
calendar year, and •
7b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (Sills) at least twice per
calendar year for all permit -limited pollutants, once during the
period from January 1 through June 30 and once during the
period from July 1 through December 31, except for organic
compounds which shall be sampled once per calendar year,
8. SIU Scif Monitoring and Reporting
The permittee shall require all industrial users to comply with the applicable monitoring
and reporting requirements outlined in the Division approved pretreatment program, the
industry's pretreatment permit, or in 15A NCAC 2H .0908;
9. Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
The permittee shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all
pretreatment standards promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the Clean
Water Act (40 CFR 405 et.seq.), prohibitive discharge standards as set forth in
40 CFR 403.5 and 15A NCAC 2H .0909, and specific local limitations. A1I
enforcement actions shall be consistent with the Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
approved by the Division;
6t'd
6S:60 S66t-9z-bd11

fmt
. Part III
Page 5
12. Record Keeping
The permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years records of monitoring activities
and results, along with support information including general records, water quality
records, and records of industrial impact on the POTW;
13. Funding and Financial Report
The permittee shall maintain adequate funding and staffing levels to accomplish the .
objectives of its approved pretreatment program;
'mr' 14. Modification do Pretreatment Programs
Modifications to the approved pretreatment program including but not limited to local
limits modifications, POTW monitoring of their Significant Industrial Users (SIUs),
'q and Monitoring Plan modifications, shall be considered a permit modification and shall
be governed by 15 NCAC 2H .0114 and 15A NCAC 2H .0907.
C. Construction
No construction of wastewater treatment facilities or additions to add to the plant's treatment
capacity or to change the type of process utilized at the treatment plant shall be begun until
Final Plans and Specifications have been submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management and written approval and Authorization to Construct has been issued.
fur, D. Groundwater Monitoring
The permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Environmental
Management, conduct groundwater monitoring as may be required to determine the
compliance of this NPDES permitted facility with the current groundwater standards.
E. Publicly Owned Tmatmtnt Work&
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which
would be 'subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those
pollutants; and
,.., 2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into
that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of
the permit.
FM 3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the
quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (2) any anticipated
impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the
�., POTW.
0Z'd
6S:60 S66t-9Z-2d1

Pan III Permit No. NC0023981
FoR G. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/PAIL PERMIT U1s1TT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
'" 1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 40 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform Quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty
Novdays em thember a Effluent ffective date
of this permit during the months of February, May, August, s
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing 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 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
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
0.' disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
R.4 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 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: Failure -to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minijni m
control organism -survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid -test
and will requite immediate retesting(w� initial of monitoring event). Failure Xsvbmit.,,,_,
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
tZ'd 00:0t S66t-9Z-8de

folA
PART IV
ANNUAL ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE REQUIREMENTS
A. the permittce must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within 30
,g, (thirty) days after being billed by the Division, Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in
accordance with 1SA NCAC 2H .0105(b)(4) may cause this Division to initiate action to
revoke the permit.
ZZ'd
00:0t S66t-9Z-dde

A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) PeimitNo. NC0023981
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
from outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
DischargeLimltatlona monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Weekly Avg. Dales Frequency
Flow 4.08 MGO Continuous
BOO, 5 day, 20 °C" 3Q.0 mg/1 45.0 mg/I Daily
NH3 as N 7,0 mg/I Daily
Oissofved Oxygen*** Daily
Total Suspended Residue" 30.0 mg/1 45.0 mgll Daily
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 ml 400/100 ml Daily
Total Residual Chlorine Daily
Samptc 'Sample
?IRS Location
Recording I or E
Composite E,I
Composite E
Grab
Composite el
Grab E,U,D
• Grab
*Sample location: &Effluent, I Influent, U - Ulstream 50 feet, D - Downstream at NCSR 1142 (Corpening Bridge).
Upstream and Downstream monitoring shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3/Week during June, July, August, and September,
and once per week during the rest of the year.
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent values (85% removal).
***The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 tng/1.
****Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 40%, February, May, August, and November; See Part Ili, Condition G.
The H shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent
p
by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
S66t-92-bdd

1 1 1
I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 B1 1 1 I
A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0023981
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
from outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics ' Discharge Limitations
flirt. Avq. Weekly Avq. Daily Max
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3.+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Temperature, 4C
Cadmium
Cyanide
Copper
Zinc
Conductivity
Chronic Toxicity
4.9 µgII
12 iagll
Measurement
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
2/Month
2/Month
3/Week
Quarterly
Monitoring Requirements
Sample
I
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
'Sample
Location
E
E
E.11,0
E
E
E
E
U,D
E
S66 t -92- Idd
m
m

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ➢
A.(1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0023981
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
from outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5 day, 20 GC"
NH3 as N
Total Suspended Residue"
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Dlscharajklmitations
Mn. Av9. Weekly Avq. Daily Max
4:08 MGO
30.0 mg/l 45.0 mg/I
30.0 mgft
200/100 ml
45.0 mg/I
400/100 mt
Measuriunent
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
3/Week
Daily
Daily
Daily
Miliatiming Requirements
IML4
LE O ....
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
.Samp1q
Locjtion
1 or E
E,I
E
EJ
E,U,D
E
*Sample location: E Effluent, I -Influent, U - Upstream 50 feet, D - Downstream at NCSR 1142 (Corpening Bridge).
Upstream and Downstream monitoring shall be grab samples and shall be conducted 3/Week during June, July, August, and September,
and once per week during the rest of the year.
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total. Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent values (85% removal).
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 40%, February, May, August, and November; See Part III, Condition G.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 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.
S66ti-9z-bdd

l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A.(I). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0023981
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
from outfall serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Temperature, 'C
Cadmium
Cyanide
Copper
Zinc
Conductivity
Chronic Toxicity
plscharge Limitations
Weekly Avq. pally Maus
4.9 µgll
12 µgII
Monitoring
Measurement •
Frequ@DwY
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
2/Month
2/Month
3/Week
Quarterly
Requirements
Ample
Ins
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
'S
Location
E
E
E,U,Q •
E
E
E
E
U,D
E
ry
m
T
m
m

o, APR-26-1995 10:02
P. 2?
PART I
40:ion B. Schedule of Comnliancc
�•► L The permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in
accordance with the following schedule:
Permittre shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the permit unless
wed below.
2. Perrnittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to operate the
last existing facilities at optimum efficiency. •
rim
foal
fmn
3. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of compliance,
the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of specific actions being
. required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter
case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next schedule requirements.

Ior
Pik
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Requiremers for Con
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to
inputs from industries using the municipal system may be present in the permittee's
discharge. At such time as sufficient information becomes available to establish
limitations for such pollutants, this permit may be rzvised to specify effluent limitations
for any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or
water quality standards.
2. Under no circumstances shall the permittee allow introduction of the. following wastes
in the waste treatment system:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not
limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in
40 CFR 261.21;
fiat
b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case
Discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to
accommodate such Discharges;
Part III
Page 1
fir
c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the
POTW resulting in Interference;
"p' d. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a
Discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference
with the POTW;
e. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in
Interference, but in no cast heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW
Treatment Plant exceeds 40°C (104°F) unless the Division, upon request of the
POTW, approves alternate temperature limits;
f. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in
amounts that will cause interference or pass through;
g.; Pollutants which resiticin-th.presence of toxic gasest vapors, or fus es, s ithitt„tb . •:,
POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety pro
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants. except at discharge points designated by the
POTW.
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be
necessary for the permittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment
„q Standards (40 CFR, Part 403) to ensure compliance by the pesmittee with all applicable
effluent limitations. Such actions by the permittee may be necessary regarding some or
all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.
s=�
8Z'd
£0 : 0 t S66t-9Z-21d 3

6Z ' d 1d101
Part III
Page 3
5. Industrial Uscr Pretreatment Permits (IUP) & Allocation Tables
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, the permitter shall issue to all significant
industrial users, permits for operation of pretreatment equipment and discharge to the
permittee's treatment works. These permits shall contain limitations, sampling
protocols, reporting requirements, appropriate standard and special
conditions,
control
and
compliance schedules as necessary for nd1schar c will treatmentn of meet all applicable
technologies to assure that their wastewaterg
pretreatment standards and requirements. The permitter shall maintain a current
Allocation Table (AT) which summarizes the results of the Headworks Analysis
(HWA) and the limits from all Industrial Uscr Pretreatment Permits (IUP). Permitted
IUP loadings for cach parameter cannot exceed the treatment capacity of the POTW as
determined by the HWA;
6. Authorization to Construct (A to C)
The permittee shall ensure that an Authorization to Construct(A to C) is issued to all
applicable industrial users for the construction or modification of any pretreatment
facility. Prior to the issuance of an Authorization to Construct (A to C), the proposed
pretreatment facility and treatment process must be evaluated for its capacity to comply
with all Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) limitations;
7. POTW Inspection & Monitoring of their SIUs
The permittee shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as
described in its Division approved pretreatment program in order to determine,
independent of information supplied by industrial users, compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards. The permittee must:
7a. Inspect all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per
calendar year, and
7b. Sample all Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least twice per
calendar year for all permit -limited pollutants, once during the
period from January 1 through June 30 and once during the
period from July 1 through December 31, except for organic
compounds which shall be sampled once per calendar year;
8. SIU Self Monitoring and Reporting
The permittee shall require all industrial users to comply with the applicable monitoring
and reporting requirements outlined in the Division approved pretreatment program, the
industry's pretreatment permit, or in 15A NCAC 2.I-I.0908;
9. Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
The perrnittee shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all
pretreatment standards promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the Clean
Water Act (40 CPR 405 et.seq.), prohibitive discharge standards as set forth in
40 CFR 403.5 and 1 5A NCAC 2H .0909, and specific local limitations. All
enforcement actions shall be consistent with the Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
approved by the Division;
6Z'd
20:0t S66t-9Z-Idd

ni
APPENDIX C

trAlt
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. MCKnelly, Director
October 9, 1996
'"`' Mr. Michael Waresak
McGill Associates
P.O Box 2259
Asheville, NC 28802
AIC‘TA
�EHNR
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Areas in the Proposed Sewer System
Improvement Project Area in Lenoir, Caldwell County, North
Carolina
"q Dear Mr. Waresak:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program does not have records
m., of known rare species, high quality natural communities, or
significant natural areas occurring at or within a 1-mile radius of
the City of Lenoir sewer system improvement project area. To our
knowledge, this project area has not been systematically
inventoried and we cannot definitively state that rare species or
significant natural areas do not occur there.
flirt Enclosed is a list of rare species that are known to occur in
Caldwell County. If suitable habitat for any of these species
occurs in the project area, then those species may be present at
,,,, the project site. If it is necessary to be certain that this site
does not contain rare species, a field survey would need to be
conducted.
AM
Contact me at the address below or call me at [phone] if you
have any questions or need further information. Please note that
our office has a new telephone number.
Sincerely,
Inge Smith Terrill
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
/ist
Enclosures
470
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 O% post -consumer paper

awe
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM COUNTY SPECIES LIST COVER SHEET
The county species list from the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the elements (rare species, natural communities,
geologic features, and special animal habitats) known to occur in a county. The information on this printout is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The Heritage
Program's Biological and Conservation Database (BCD) is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised
as new information is received. The BCD was developed and is being maintained using methodology developed by The Nature
Conservancy. The enclosed list cannot be considered a definitive record of natural heritage elements, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys. When this information is used in any document, we request that the printout date be
given and that the NC Natural Heritage Program be credited.
This cover sheet explains the four columns of status codes that are given on the right-hand side of the county list printout.
STATE PROTECTION
CODE STATUS
E Endangered
T Threatened
SC Special Concern
C Candidate
CODE STATUS
P_ Proposed (E, T, or C)
SR Significantly Rare
EX Extirpated
WL Watch List
Plant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage
Program (NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources). E, T, and SC species are protected by state law
(Plant Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and
conservation action. WL indicates a species not warranting active monitoring, but believed to of conservation concern.
Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E, T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina, March 16,
1992, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program (NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources). SR and
EX statuses are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and
conservation action. WL indicates a species not warranting active monitoring, but believed to of conservation concern.
FEDERAL PROTECTION
This status is designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are protected
under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. Unless otherwise noted,
definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
CODE STATUS
E Endangered
T Threatened
P
L
C
Proposed
Listed
Candidate
FSC Federal
Species of
Concern
T(S/A) -
DEFINITION
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range."
A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a
significant portion of its range."
A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
A taxon officially listed as endangered or threatened.
A taxon under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support listing. This category
was formerly designated as a Candidate 1 (C1) species.
Formerly defined as a taxon under consideration for which there is insufficient information to support
listing; formerly designated as a Candidate 2 (C2) species. Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
does not recognize this designation.
In reference to the American alligator - this species is threatened due to similarity of appearance with
other rare crocodilians and is listed for trade purposes. The species is no longer biologically endangered
or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Please note that the US Fish and Wildlife Service no longer recognizes the following categories:
3A Candidate 3A A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but for which there is "persuasive evidence of
extinction."
3B Candidate 3B A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but which current taxonomic understanding does not
support as a distinct entity meeting the Endangered Species Act's definition of "species."
3C Candidate 3C A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but which has been "proven to more abundant or
widespread than previously believed and/or [which isj not subject to any identifiable threat."

Poi
GLOBAL AND STATE RANKS
worldwide ranks and "State" to statewide ranks.
These ranks are determined by The Nature Conservancy's system of measuring rarity and threat status. "Global" refers to
STATE RANK DEFINITIONS
rir S 1 Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S2 Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3 Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
S4 Apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences.
ran
S5 Demonstrably secure in North Carolina and essentially ineradicable under present conditions.
SA Accidental or casual; one to several records for North Carolina, but the state is outside the normal range of the species.
SH Of historical occurrence in North Carolina, perhaps not having been verified in the past 25 years, and suspected to be
PiE' still extant in the state.
SR Reported from North Carolina, but without persuasive documentation for either accepting or rejecting the report.
SX Believed to be extirpated from North Carolina.
ram, SU Possibly in peril in North Carolina, but status uncertain; more information is needed.
S? Unranked, or rank uncertain.
B Rank of breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
N Rank of non -breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
Z Population is not of significant conservation concern; applies to transitory, migratory species.
GLOBAL RANK DEFINITIONS
G1 Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G2 Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
G4 Apparently secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
G5 Demonstrably secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
GH Of historical occurrence throughout its range.
GX Believed to be extinct throughout its range.
`.' GU Possibly in peril, but status uncertain; more information is needed.
G? Unranked, or rank uncertain.
G_Q Of questionable taxonomic status.
T_ Status of subspecies or variety; the G rank refers to the species as a whole.
ADDITIONAL DEFINTTIONS
Species names marked with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
Historic record - the species was last observed in the county over 50 years ago.
** Obscure record - the date and/or location of the species observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Fin **** Historic, Obscure, and Incidental record.
Fon
Scientific‘ andcomcmoa na ares-listed'inlrarenhcses are synonyms listed` in US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992, Endangered and
Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book).
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR JULY 1996

SCIENTIFIC AND
COMMON NAME
STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
Caldwell
Vertebrates
*COCCYZUS ERYTHROPTHALMUS SR S2B,SZNG5
BLACK -BILLED CUCKOO
*CYPRINELLA ZANEMA POP 1 SR S3 G3T3
rim SANTEE CHUB - PIEDMONT POPULATION
*NEOTOMA MAGISTER SC FSC S1S2 G3G4
ALLEGHENY WOODRAT
forl
Invertebrates
*MACROMIA MARGARITA SR FSC S1S2 G2G3
MARGARET'S RIVER CRUISER
MICROHEXURA MONTIVAGA SR LE Si G1
SPRUCE -FIR MOSS SPIDER
OPHIOGOMPHUS EDMUNDO SR FSC* Si? G1
EDMUND'S SNAKETAIL
SPEYERIA DIANA SR FSC S3 G3
DIANA FRITILLARY
Pm
Vascular plants
*ACONITUM RECLINATUM SR S3 G3G4
TRAILING WOLFSBANE
ow' CARDAMINE CLEMATITIS C FSC S2? G2
MOUNTAIN BITTERCRESS
EPILOBIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM SR - S1 G5
sin PURPLE WILLOWHERB
GEUM GENICULATUM T FSC S2 G2
BENT AVENS
fm, LIATRIS HELLERI T-SC LT Si G1
HELLER'S BLAZING STAR
LILIUM GRAYI T-SC FSC S3 G3
GRAY'S LILY
`_' *MONOTROPSIS ODORATA C FSC S2 G3
SWEET PINESAP
PANAX TRIFOLIUS SR S2 G5
mil DWARF GINSENG
*PLATANTHERA PERAMOENA C - S1 G5
PURPLE FRINGELESS ORCHID
fm, QUERCUS PRINOIDES C - SH G5
DWARF CHINQUAPIN OAK
*RHODODENDRON V ASEYL.. SR - S3., . G3
PINK -SHELL AZALEA
'� *TOFIELDIA GLUTINOSA C S1 G5
STICKY BOG ASPHODEL
*TRICHOPHORUM CESPITOSUM C - S2 G5
rim DEERHAIR BULRUSH
*VERBENA RIPARIA C FSC* SH GH
RIVERBANK VERVAIN
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR JULY 1996
f`" Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.

SCIENTIFIC AND STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
COMMON NAME PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
ogim
Nonvascular plants
BAZZANIA NUDICAULIS C FSC S2 G2G3
mil A LIVERWORT
*BRACHYTHECIUM POPULEUM SR SH G5
MATTED FEATHER MOSS
,am ENTODON SULLIVANTII SR - S2 G3G4
SULLIVANT'S ENTODON
PLAGIOCHILA SULLIVANTII VAR SULLIVANTII C FSC S2 G2T2
A LIVERWORT
"" RHYTIDIUM RUGOSUM SR S2 G5
GOLDEN TUNDRA -MOSS
mi Natural communities
ACIDIC COVE FOREST - S5 G5
W, FRASER FIR FOREST Si G1
HIGH ELEVATION RED OAK FOREST - S5 G5
ma MONTANE ALLUVIAL FOREST Si G2?
MONTANE OAK --HICKORY FOREST - S5 G5
RED SPRUCE—FRASER FIR FOREST - S2 G2
ram►
fulA
AMOI
MIR
PEA
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR JULY 1996
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.

II
' I
I
APPEIsTMIX D
col

MID
01.4
RIM
MIN
AMR
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
January 16, 1997
Mr. Michael J. Waresak, P.E.
McGill Associates, P.A.
P. O. Box 2259
Asheville, NC 28802
SUBJECT: ' Scoping comments for City of Lenoir's proposal to expand the Lower Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Caldwell County.
Dear Mr. Waresak:
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our scoping comments regarding a proposal by the
City of Lenoir to expand the Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant from a capacity of 4.08 million gallons per
day (MGD) to 6.0 MGD. According to your letter, the expanded facility will include a biological nutrient removal
process that will leave only very low limits of ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the effluent. The project will
not involve disturbing the stream banks.
We have no objection to this proposal. Lower Creek is somewhat degraded from sedimentation and
pollution, and the increased level of treatment likely will be beneficial to water quality.
We usually comment on projects of this nature through the State Clearinghouse. To ensure that all
appropriate state agencies have the opportunity to comment, you should send future requests for comments to the
State Clearinghouse to distribute as necessary. The address is as follows:
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Administration Building Suite 5106
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, 27603-8003
919/733-7232
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
Sincerely,
Stephanie E. Goudreau
Eastern Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Received
JAN 2 0 NY/
McGill Assoc.

MINIM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
January 24, 1997
Mr. Michael J. Waresak, P. E.
McGill Associates, P.A.
P. O. Box 2259
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
AR7211
DEHNR
Re: EA Scoping for Lower Creek WWTP Expansion for the City of Lenoir in Caldwell County
Dear Mr. Waresak:
We have reviewed your brief above subject scoping notice of January 13, 1997, and have the
following comments:
I. We have no apparent objections to the concept of the proposed improvements.
II. Type of Information that we would like to see in this Environmental Document to Address
Impacts to Woodland - The following should be addressed for each alternative or project.
1. The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be
taken out of forest production or removed as a result of new right-of-way purchases,
easements, spray irrigation and all construction activities. Emphasis needs to be
directed towards reducing impacts, whenever possible to the following types of
woodland in the following order of priority -
a. High site index productive land that is currently under active forest
management.
b. Productive forested wetlands.
c. Lower site index productive land that is currently under active forest
-- management. Received
d. Unique or unusual forest ecosystems.
e. Unmanaged, fully stocked woodland. 1997
f. Unmanaged, cutover rural woodland. JAN 2 $
g. Urban woodland.
McGill Assoc•
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be
involved within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody
material that is to be removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first,
including energy chips. If wood products cannot be sold, then efforts should be made
P. O. Box 29581, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0581
Voice 919-733-2162 FAX [phone]
,:,, w, r r 11,C Krt.yOr
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

to haul the material off or run through a tub grinder and turned into mulch. This
practice is encouraged to accomplish the following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on nearby highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public, towns and cities.
5. Woodland, Land Clearing and Open Burning - If any open burning is needed, the
contractor should comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
The regulation of open fires are covered under G.S. 113-60.21 thru 113-60.31 all
inclusive. Land clearing contractors should make particular note of G.S. 113-60.23
High Hazard Counties requiring a special permit from our local county rangers and
113-60.24 for Open Burning in Non -High Hazard Counties requiring a regular burning
permit from our local burning permit agents.
Caldwell County is a non -high hazard county and G.S. 113-60.24 would apply.
Certain conditions may exist at the time that would prevent the issuance of this
permit. Also there may be other local requirements such as most cities do not now
allow any burning and some counties now have a buming ordnance that would take
precedence.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-
way and construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected
from construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs
root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the
root systems of trees.
7. Use of New, Existing Spray Fields and/or Expansion (If applicable here) -
We are more concemed here if the following conditions pertain to this portion of the
project -
a. If the existing spray fields are wooded (pines are more of a problem than
hardwoods) and the rates of the spray irrigation are to be increased, we would
be concerned.
b. Or, if the new spray fields are to be expanded into woodland, especially pines,
we would be concemed.
c. If'expansion is needed; we would recommend that existing agriculture fields be
considered first instead of any woodland. If woodland is used, suggest that
hardwood tree areas be considered over pine areas. In other words, pine areas
would be the last to consider.
d. We need to know the effects of spraying effluent on tree growth, form and
increased susceptibility to insect and disease problems.
We are not completely sure of the desirability of spraying waste on pine woodland
because of the following reasons -
a. We have found that accelerated tree growth from applying waste can cause the
following problems-
(1) Trees can become more susceptible to ice damage, bark beetle attacks

and shepherds crook.
(2) A reduction in crown vigor class can occur.
b. If pine trees are to be treated, fertilization can increase disease susceptibility
and poor initial survival of reproduction. Two diseases we are concerned with
are Pitch canker and Fusiform rust.
Pitch canker - Pitch canker is a fungus disease caused by the fungus Fusarium
moniliforme var. subgluttinans. It is fairly common in the South. The first
symptom of the disease is usually top dieback of infected trees, although
occasionally the first symptom is a copious resin flow from some point along the
bole of the tree. As the disease progresses, the top dieback becomes more
pronounced and eventually, severely infected trees die. The disease is known
to be vectored by insects, particularly several species of weevils who carry
spores or vegetative portions of the fungus from tree to tree. Occurrence of the
disease has been strongly linked to fertilization, although the mechanism for
increased susceptibility is not understood. Fertilization effects, however, may
be chronic rather than acute. That is, annual nitrogen applications may not
cause immediate effects, but if the practice is continued for a number of years a
pitch canker problem may eventually develop. For example, we apply nitrogen
to our seed orchards that consist of pines from 1-25 years of age. At a rate of
approximately 95 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year, no problems occurred
for over 15 years. Then, our shortleaf pine seed orchard was almost completely
wiped out by pitch canker, and at least 70% of our Virginia pine seed orchard
trees are affected. On longleaf pine we have encountered pitch canker
problems when over 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year was applied. We
have seen some problems in our loblolly pine seed orchard where nitrogen has
been applied at the rate of around 100 pounds per acre per year, but the
incidence of disease has been minimal.
Fusiform rust - Fusiform rust is another fungus disease. It is caused by the
fungus Cronartium fusiform. This disease is initiated when a fungus spore alights
on a needle fascicle or a small twig. The disease causes swelling or gall on the
twig. The swelling gradually elongates and moves down the twig into the trunk
of the tree. Once in the tree trunk, the disease cankers the tree. Although trees
may live for many years with trunk cankers, the point where a canker occurs is
weak, and affected trees are easily broken at canker points. As trees grow
older, they become Tess susceptible to the disease.
If pine woodland is to be involved, we would suggest that -
a. nitrogen rates be kept to less than 100 lbs. per acre per year,
D. and that phosphatelapplications at the same time should be kept under
10 lbs. per acre per year rates.
Also, if waste spray irrigation is to be applied to woodland, that short rotations,
periodic harvesting and reforestation be carried out in order to maintain vigorous tree
growth, remove dying trees and to remove the stored nitrogen and phosphorous. On
the surface it would appear that applying waste to trees would be desirable, but we
have concerns as indicated above and we recommend proceeding with caution.
8. Water and sewer lines and treatment plants -
a. Normally new water distribution lines do not impact much woodland because

they are generally placed within existing rights -of -ways. We think this is a good
idea.
b. New sewer lines do impact woodland and productive woodland because they
normally run adjacent to creeks and streams of water.
c. WWTP are normally larger facilities and can have higher impacts to woodland.
d. Water plants can impact woodland if they are constructed next to rivers and/or
streams.
e. We would mainly be concerned if any master plans proposed new construction
of facilities that in turn would have the potential to impact any woodland, if any
construction was proposed for any existing woodland acres. Therefore, the
Master Plans should take the following into consideration:
1. Avoid woodland if at all possible.
2. If woodland cannot be avoided, then address all impacts to this
woodland.
9. Any cumulative impacts to woodland as a result of the expansion to the water and
sewer or other improvements in the service area. Of particular concem would be a
good estimate of future loss of woodland acres from future development coming into
the service area as a result of increase waste capacity ability or from these
improvements.
If no woodland is to be impacted, then the document needs a clear statement that no
woodland will be impacted as a result of the entire project.
Efforts should be made to address the above items and to reduce impacts to woodland.
We would hope that the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related
resources in that area.
Sincerely,
LOffol
Donald H. Ro • bins
Staff Forester
pc: Derryl Walden, Mike Thompson, Warren Boyette - CO
Tommy Thompson - R3
Don Weiller -D2
File

A.►
'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
C. Dewey Botts, Director
MEMORANDUM
.AT57A
LDEEF-1NJI
January 22, 1997
oft TO: Melba McGee icso
o
FROM: David Harrison Fe e fry
4 SUBJECT: Proposed Lower Creek WWTP Expansion 4P I�of9,
If the proposed expansion is limited to existing property owned by the City of Lenoir, there will
be no impacts to Prime or Important Farmlands.
If the proposed expansion includes acquisition of additional land, then the Environmental
"„4 Assessment should include information on the amount and location of Prime or Important
Farmland that will be impacted. Alternatives that reduce impacts to Prime or Important
Farmland soils are preferred. A listing of these soils in North Carolina is available through the
MLRA Team Leader, North Carolina State Office, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
USDA, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, N.C. 27609, [phone].
The Prime Farmland designation is not limited to land currently being cultivated. It is intended
to identify the best soils that can be used as farmland without regard to the present vegetative
cover. Only areas that are already built-up or within city limits are exempted from consideration.
,.w P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
January 28, 1997
Mr. Michael J. Waresak
McGill Assoicates
P.O. Box 2259
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
AAA
EDEEl-1NJF
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and Significant Natural
Areas in the Proposed Lower Creek WWTP Expansion, City of Lenoir,
_.. Caldwell County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Waresak:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program does not have records of known rare species, high
quality natural communities, or significant natural areas occurring at or within a 1-mile radius of the
proposed Lower Creek WWTP expansion project area. To our knowledge, this project area has not
been systematically inventoried and we cannot definitively state that rare species or significant
natural areas do not occur there.
Enclosed is a list of rare species that are known to occur in Caldwell County. If suitable habitat for
any of these species occurs in the project area, then those species may be present at the project site.
If it is necessary to be certain that this site does not contain rare species, a field survey would need
to be conducted.
Contact me at the address below or call me at [phone] if you have any questions or need
further information.
Sincerely,
AvvikGt
Amalie Couvillion
Protection Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
/ACC
Enclosures
Received
FEB 3 1997
McGiII Assoc.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

SCIENTIFIC AND STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
COMMON NAME PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
Caldwell
Vertebrates
*COCCYZUS ERYTHROPTHALMUS SR S2B,SZNGS
BLACK -BILLED CUCKOO
rib *CYPRINELLA ZANEMA POP 1 SR - S3 G3T3
SANTEE CHUB - PIEDMONT POPULATION
*NEOTOMA MAGISTER SC FSC S1S2 G3G4
411 ALLEGHENY WOODRAT
Invertebrates
*MACROMIA MARGARITA SR FSC S1S2 G2G3
cia MARGARET'S RIVER CRUISER
MICROHEXURA MONTIVAGA SR LE S1 G1
• SPRUCE -FIR MOSS SPIDER
+e+ OPHIOGOMPHUS EDMUNDO SR FSC* Si? G1
EDMUND'S SNAKETAIL
SPEYERIA DIANA SR FSC S3 G3
DIANA FRITILLARY
Vascular plants
*ACONITUM RECLINATUM SR S3 G3G4
POI TRAILING WOLFSBANE
CARDAMINE CLEMATITIS C FSC S2? G2
MOUNTAIN BITTERCRESS
ma EPILOBIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM SR - S1 G5
PURPLE WILLOWHERB
GEUM GENICULATUM T FSC S2 G2
BENT AVENS
am
LIATRIS HELLERI T-SC LT S1 G1
HELLER'S BLAZING STAR
LILIUM GRAYI T-SC FSC S3 G3
rim GRAY'S LILY
*MONOTROPSIS ODORATA C FSC S2 G3
SWEET PINESAP
PANAX TRIFOLIUS SR - S2 G5
DWARF GINSENG
*PLATANTHERA PERAMOENA C - S1 G5
PURPLE FRINGELESS ORCHID
RIO
QUERCUS PRINOIDES C - SH G5
DWARF CHINQUAPIN OAK
*RHODODENDRON VASEYI t SR - S3 G3
Am PINK -SHELL AZALEA
*TOFIELDIA GLUTINOSA C - S1 G5
STICKY BOG ASPHODEL
im *TRICHOPHORUM CESPITOSUM C S2 G5
DEERHAIR BULRUSH
*VERBENA RIPARIA C FSC* SH GH
RIVERBANK VERVAIN
Fla NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR JULY 1996
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.

NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM COUNTY SPECIES LIST COVER SHEET
aft
The county species list from the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the elements (rare species, natural communities,
geologic features, and special animal habitats) known to occur in a county. The information on this printout is compiled from a
401 variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The Heritage
Program's Biological and Conservation Database (BCD) is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised
as new information is received. The BCD was developed and is being maintained using methodology developed by The Nature
Conservancy. The enclosed list cannot be considered a definitive record of natural heritage elements, and it should not be
"a considered a substitute for field surveys. When this information is used in any document, we request that the printout date be
given and that the NC Natural Heritage Program be credited.
This cover sheet explains the four columns of status codes that are given on the right-hand side of the county list printout.
STATE PROTECTION
CODE STATUS
E Endangered
T Threatened
SC Special Concern
C Candidate
CODE STATUS
P_ Proposed (E, T, or C)
SR Significantly Rare
EX Extirpated
WL Watch List
Plant statuses are dc;termined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage
Program (NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources). E, T, and SC species are protected by state law
(Plant Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and
conservation action. WL indicates a species not warranting active monitoring, but believed to of conservation concern.
Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E, T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina, March 16,
1992, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program (NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources). SR and
EX statuses are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and
conservation action. WL indicates a species not warranting active monitoring, but believed to of conservation concern.
FEDERAL PROTECTION
This status is designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are protected
under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. Unless otherwise noted,
definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
CODE STATUS
E Endangered
T Threatened
P_
L
Proposed
Listed
Candidate:,
FSC Federal
Species of
Concern
T(S/A) -
DEFINITION
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range."
A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a
significant portion of its range."
A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
A taxon officially listed as endangered or threatened.
A. taxu4,undeg:-consideration for which. ther isLsufficient information to supgamlisting—. This, category
was formerly designated as a Candidate 1 (C1) species.
Formerly defined as a taxon under consideration for which there is insufficient information to support
listing; formerly designated as a Candidate 2 (C2) species. Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
does not recognize this designation.
In reference to the American alligator - this species is threatened due to similarity of appearance with
other rare crocodilians and is listed for trade purposes. The species is no longer biologically endangered
or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Please note that the US Fish and Wildlife Service no longer recognizes the following categories:
3A Candidate 3A A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but for which there is "persuasive evidence of
extinction."
3B Candidate 3B A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but which current taxonomic understanding does not
support as a distinct entity meeting the Endangered Species Act's definition of "species."
3C Candidate 3C A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but which has been "proven to more abundant or
art widespread than previously believed and/or [which is] not subject to any identifiable threat."

Ennt
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
February 12, 1997
Michael J. Waresak, P.E.
McGill Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 2259
Asheville, NC 28802
Re: Lower Creek WWTP Expansion, Lenoir, Caldwell
County, ER 97-8271
Dear Mr. Waresak:
Heceived
FFR 1 4 1997
McGii, Assoc.
Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1997, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
,,,,, project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
)6-0-/k/et)
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
fan
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

n
i
iru,
APPENDIX E

flon
CATAWBA RIVER BASINWIDE
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PLAN
July, 1995
Prepared by:
North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
P.Q. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
[phone]
This. document was approved and -endorsed by the NC Environmental Management
Commission on February 9, 1995 to be used as a guide by the NC Division of
own Environmental Management in carrying out Its Water Quality Program duties and
responsibilities in the Catawba River Basin.
MEI
Cover Photo Credits
Top left: Charlotte Skyline. NC Division of Travel and Tourism
a�q Top right Cowan: Ford Dam. Lake Norman. Dube Power
Bottom left: Johns River. NC Division of Water Resources
Bottom right: NC Division of Travel and Tourism

The Marion WWTP was found, in 1990, to impact Corpening Creek as the benthos rating changed
from Fair upstream to Poor downstream. Crooked Creek and North Muddy Creek received Good
bioclassifications in 1992, while South Muddy Creek was rated Good -Fair.
Fish tissue samples have been collected from two locations in the subbasin (High Shoals Creek
and Lake James near Bridgewater). Metal samples from High Shoals Creek were all lower than
FDA and EPA criteria and organic results were all lower than detection levels. A total of nine
samples were collected from the Lake James location. All metals were lower than FDA criteria.
One sample contained dieldrin.
Assessments have been made of Lake Tahoma and Lake James. Lake Tahoma, which is privately
owned, has a phytoplankton population dominated by oligotrophic indicators, suggesting that this
lake fully meets it designated uses. Lake James, which is owned by Duke Power Company, is the
most upstream of the major impoundments of the Catawba chain lakes system. The catchment is
primarily forested and characterized by rolling hills. Water quality and phytoplankton data from
Lake James have indicated that the lake is fully meeting all of its designated uses.
Potential ORW/HQW Streams
Based on DEM surveys in 1992, the following stream segments may be eligible for HQW
designation:
1. Mill Creek above Graphite (above RR bridge).
2. Little Buck Creek (all)
3. Armstrong Creek above the confluence with Three-mile Creek. Presently only a small
headwater section has received special designation.
4. Toms Creek was rated Excellent, but was sediment impacted.
4.4.2 Subbasin 31 • Upper Catawba Basin (Rhodhiss Lake)
Description
Catawba subbasin 31 is located in the mountain ecoregion, and contains the cities of Morganton,
Lenoir, Drexel and Granite Falls (Figure 4.19). The Catawba River (including Lake Rhodhiss)
flows generally eastward, with major tributaries flowing, south, especially Warrior Fork and the
Johns River. Portions of these stream's headwater tributaries are designated as HQW because they
are native trout waters. Portions of this catchment are within the Pisgah National Forest, including
Wilson Creek, and have received ORW designation. The Johns River catchment also contains
some high quality areas, but this area has widespread agricultural land use, especially cultivation of
ornamental shrubs and trees.
Overview of Water Opality
Benthos data indicate very good water quality in areas within the Warrior Fork and Johns River
watersheds.... Portions of these -watersheds; are within the Pisgah. National Forest. ...Both, Llpger
Creek in the Warrior Fork watershed; and Wilson Creek in the Johns River watershed have
received Excellent bioclassifications since 1983.
Point source discharges in the Lenoir area appear to have impacted water quality in Lower Creek.
•ft This creek received a Fair benthos rating and a Fair -Good NCIBI (fish') rating. Fecal conform
bacteria exceeded the state criterion 8 times (36%) at the Lower Creek ambient monitoring station.
Benthos collections indicated sedimentation problems in Silver Creek, Canoe Creek, McGalliard
Creek and Bailey Fork. Good -Fair bioclassifications were assigned to them. Fish community
assessment of Canoe Creek indicated a NCIBI score of Fair, while McGalliard Creek received a
Poor -Fair NCIBI rating.
FER
,�, 4 - 20

Table 4.3 Monitored Stream Segments in the Catawba River Basin (1988-1992) (2 of 3)
Chem
Biological Rating
Station
Station
WO
Index .
Rating
Problem
Overall
Number
Location
Class.
No.
Miles
89-93
88
89
90
91
92
Param.
Rating
Source
Upper Creek at SR-1407,
WS 111 B T
1 i-36.2-(13)
1.6
G
S
Upper Creek at SR 1439
WS-1II BT
11-36-2-(13)
3.9
G
S
Johns River at SR -1367, Caldwell
B
t1-36-(9)
10.2
G
E
S
NP
Anthony Cr, Avery/Caldwell Co..ab Gregg
CTr
11.36-10.3a
1.8
G-F
ST
NP
Anthony Creek. SR 1362, Caldwell
CTr
11.36.10.3b
2.8
-
G
S
NP
Johns River, SR 1356 Caldwell Co
C
11.36•(26)
22.3
G
E
S
NP
Mulberry Cr, SR 1368. Caldwell
El HOW
11-36.32•(11
2.4
E
S
Mulberry Cr, SR 1310. Caldwell
C
11.35.32•(11
5.3
G
S
02140304
Wilson Cr nr Gregg, US 221, Avery
BTrORW
11.36.34a
0.6
PS
E
E
pH(25)
S
0214031250
Wilson Cr at SR1358, Edgemont, NC, Cald.
BTrORW
11.30-34b
22.5
PS
E
E
pH(20)
S
0214042720
N. Harper Cr near Kawana. USFS 458
CTrORW
t1-36.34.14
6.1
PS
Hg(20)
PS
Johns River at SR-1438.Burke Co.
CHWV
11.36•(34.6)
4.8
•
E
S
02141245
Lower Creek near Morganton, SR-1501
WS-N
11-39-(6.5)
6.6
NS
F
F
Faecal, Sad
PS
NP,P
Smokey Cr, SR 1515 Burke Co
WS-N
11.41-(1)
7.4
G
Sad
S
NP
McGittiard Cr. Church St. Burke Co
WS-IV
11.44•(0.5)
4.3
4
G-F
Sod
ST
NP
SUBBASIN 32
Upper little R. SR 1744. Caldwell
WS-N
11-56-(5.5)
7.9
G
S ,
NP
Middle Little R. SR 1153. Alexander
C
t 1.62
21.5
G
S
Duck Cr. NC 127, Alexander
C
11.62.2-(4)
4.6
•
GF
Sad
ST
INP
02142000
Lower Little R at Sr1313 nr All Heating Sprgs
C
11-80a
8.2
NS
_
G-F
I.Facal.Sod
ST
NP
- Lower Little River at Sr-1131
C
11-69b
15.8
G
Sad
S
NP
Muddy Fit, ab Schneider Milss Alexander
C
11.69.4a
5.5
_
GFSed
ST
NP
Muddy Fk. be Schn. Mills. NC 16, Alexander
C
11.69.4b
1.6
F
Sod
PS
NP,P
E k Shoal Cr. SR 1605, Alexander
WS-N ,
11.7311.5)
4.8
_
GF
Sod
ST
NP
Lyle Cr. NC 64/70. Catawba Co
WS-N
11.76-(3.5)
6.4
G
Sod
S
NP
0214253830
Norwood Creek near East Monbo. SR-1328
WS-IVCA
11-62•(3)
0.6
S
,
Sad
S
NP
SUBBASIN 33
_
McDowell Creek at SR-2136, Mecklenburg
WS-N
11-115•(1.5)
5.0
F
Sod
PS
McDowell Creek at SR-2128, Mecklenburg
WS-IV 1
11-115-(1.5)
3.0,
GF
Sad
ST
Gar Cr, SR 2074, Mecklenburg
WS-IV
11.116-(1)
3.5
G
S
02142808
Catawba R. Near Thrlf/NC-27,Meck.
WS-N CA
11-(117)
5.9
S
S
0214272204
Dutchman Cr at Mt. Island, SR•1918
WS-IV
11.119-(0.5)
7.2
PS
E
E
Turb.F.cal
S
NP
Killian Cr. SR 1511. Lincoln Co
C
11.119.2-(0.
14.7
•
E
S
NP.P
SUBBASIN 34
02142900
Long Creek near Paw Creek. SR-2042
_
WS-1V
_
11.120-(2.5)
8.4
PS
G-F
Facal,Turb
ST
Stlgat CYbel: Wt+M. SR 1156. Meek."'.
G
11.137a
0.2
P
Sad
02146381
Sugar Creek at NC HWY 51 at Pineville. NC
A
C
11.9
PS
Fecal. Sad
PS
NP. P
02146800
Sugar Creek near Fort Mill. SC Hwy 160
,11.137b
C
11.137c
8.8
NS
P
F
F
GF
Facal,Turb.S.
ST
NP
Irwin Cr at NC 21/SR 2523. Meck.
C
-
11-137.1a
7.3
G-F
ST
NP,P
02146300
Irwin Cr nr Charlotte & ab WWTP. Mock.
C
11.137.1b
4.5
N5
P
Facal.Turb(1,
laNP
Stewart Creek al SR 2050. Mecklenburg
C
11-137-1-2
0.6
_
F
PS
NP
McCullough Br at NC 51, Mecklenburg Co.
C
11.137.7
2.6
P
NS
P
02146530
Little Sugar Creek at Pineville. US Hwy 51
C
11.137.6b
4.6
NS
,
P
Faea1,NH3.So1
NS
NP
02146600
McAlpine Creek at SR 3356
C
11-137-9a
8.3
NS
Fooal.Tutb.S.
NS
PP
02146750
McAlpine Creekat NC 51. Meck
C
6.3
S
F
Sod
PS
N?
0214676115
McAlpine Cr al Dorman Rd. SC (SR 2964)
,11.137.9b
C
tt-137-ed
1.1
NS
F
Faca1.NH3.Sai
PS
NP
Walker Branch at NC 49. Mecklenburg Co.
C
11.137.10.1
3.2
,
GF
ST
SUBBASIN 35
02143069
S Fork Calaw R near Starown. NC Hwy 10
WS-IV
11-12940.5)
16.5_ NS
GF
F
GF
Fecst.Turb. SI
ST
NP

Chapter 6 - Bosinwide Goals, Water Quality Concerns and Recommended Management Strategies
Table 6.1 Management Strategies for Impaired Freshwater Streams in the Catawba Basin
Subbasin
Stream Name
Use
Rating
Source
Planned Management Strategy
NPS (319)
Priority
3 0
Corpening Creek
PS/NS
NP
BMP implementation
High
31
Lower Creek
PS
NP, P
BMP targeting for sediment control
High
3 2
Big Branch
PS to NS
P
Troutman WWTP received toxicity limit.
Powder Spring Br.
PS
P
Point source discharge removed
3 3
McDowell creek
PS
McDowell Creek Study
UT Fites Creek
NS
P
Point source discharge removed
3 4
McCullough Br
PS
P
Charlotte Stormater Prog.
Dixon Branch
NS
P
Point source discharge removed
Mcintyre Creek
PS
P
Point source discharge removed
Walker Branch
PS
P
Point source discharge removed
Sugar creek
PS
NP, P
Upgrade WWTPs, Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
Little Sugar Creek
NS
NP
Upgrade WWTPs, Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
Irwin Creek
PS
NP, P
Upgrade WWTPs, Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
Stewart Creek
PS
NP
Upgrade WWTPs, Charlotte Stormater Prog.
Medium
Brier Creek
NS
NP
Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
McAlpine Creek
PS/NS
NP
Upgrade WWTPs, Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
Irvins Creek
NS
NP, P
Upgrade WWTPs, Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
Fourmile Creek
PS
NP
Charlotte Stormater Prog.
Medium
'
McMullen Creek
NS
NP
Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
Steele Creek
NS
NP
Charlotte Stormater Prog.
High
3 5
Clark Creek
PS to NS
NP
Color Study, Toxicity TMDL
High
Bills Branch
PS
P
Point source discharge removed
'
3 6
Long Creek
P S
NP, P
Long Creek Watershed Study, WWTP P upgrade
High
Dallas Branch
PS
NP
Long Creek Watershed Study
High
3 7
Catawba Creek
PS/NS
NP, P
Nutrient removal (Section 6.4)
High
Crowders Creek
PS/NS
NP, P
Nutrient removal (Section 6.4), QUAL2E
High
UT Crowders Cr
PS
Nutrient removal (Section 6.4), QUAL2E
McGill Creek
NS
P
Investigate sources
'
Abernethy Creek
PS/NS
NP, P
Nutrient removal (Section 6.4), QUAL2E
High
UT Abernethy Cr
NS
P
Nutrient removal (Section 6.4), QUAL2E
High
Mill Creek
NS
P
Point source discharge removed
High
Sixmile Creek
PS
P
Encourage regional WWTP
INIT IONS
DEFINITIONS
PS
Partially Supporting classified uses
NS
Not Supporting classified uses
NP
Impairment due to Nonpoint Source pollution, though specific sources may not be known.
P
Impairment attributed to Point source pollution
UT
Unnamed tributary
Use Rating
Use support rating - See Section 4.5 and Appendix IV for explanation
Color Study
See Section 6.7 for discussion
QUAL2E
Type of water quality model used to determine
oxygen -consuming waste limits for dischargers
6-3

Chapter 6 - Basinwide Goals, Water Quality Concerns and Recommended Management Strategies
DEM's role in sediment control is to work cooperatively with those agencies that administer the
sediment control programs in order to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and protect
water quality. Where programs are not effective, as evidenced by violation of instream water
quality standards (section 3.2.4), and where DEM can identify a source, then appropriate
enforcement action can be taken. Generally, this would entail requiring the land owner or
responsible party to install acceptable best management practices (BMPs). BMPs vary with the
type of activity, but they are generally aimed at minimizing the area of land -disturbing activity and
the amount of time the land remains unstabilized; setting up barriers, filters or sediment traps (such
as temporary ponds or silt fences) to reduce the amount of sediment reaching surface waters; and
recommending land management approaches that minimize soil loss, especially for agriculture.
Some control measures, principally for construction or land development activities of 1 acre or
more, are required by law under the state's Sedimentation'and Erosion Control Act administered by
the NC Division of Land Resources. For activities not subject to the act such as agriculture,
sediment controls are carried out on a voluntary basis through programs administered by several
different agencies. The NC Agricultural Cost Share Program administered by the NC Division of
Soil and Water Conservation provides incentives to fanners to install BMPs by offering to pay up
to 75% of the average cost of approved BMPs. A federal Farm Bill program administered by the
Soil Conservation Service provides an incentive not to farm on highly erodible land (HEL) by
taking away federal subsidies to a farmer that fails to comply with the provision.
The NC Cost Share Program totals are cumulative for an approximate 10-year period. The cost
share figures include a wide array of BMPs including conservation tillage, terraces, diversions,
critical area plan, sod -based rotation, crop conservation grass, crop conservation trees, filter strip,
field border, grass waterway, water control structure and livestock exclusion.
Despite the combined efforts of all of the above programs for construction, forestry, mining and
agriculture, there were still 376 miles of streams in the Catawba Basin found to be impaired by
sediment, thus pointing to the need for continued overall improvements in sediment control. The
following streams have been identified as being impaired or threatened by sediments and so should
receive high priority as sediment control programs are implemented. The Linville River, as noted
earlier, is one of four state -designated scenic rivers, and Waxhaw Creek provides habitat for a
federally -endangered mussell, the Carolina Heelsplitter.
Stream Subbasin Stream Subbasin
Linville River 03-08-30 South Fork Catawba 03-08-35
Lower Creek 03-08-31 Long Creek 03-08-36
Lower Little River 03-08-32 Twelve Mile Creek 03-08-38
Clark Creek 03-08-35 Waxhaw Creek 03-08-38
6.7 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR CONTROLLING COLOR
The discharge of color is to be regulated such that only such amounts as will not render the waters
injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and the wildlife or adversely
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses.
However, the practical application of this regulation must take into account the various ways in
which color is perceived in the environment. Color in natural waters is rarely the result of one
specific chemical, rather a mixture of many dissolved and/or suspended constituents contribute to
color. Also, the stream bed and sediments may also contribute to color. Because color is
perceived differently by different people and in different lighting conditions, no general definition
of color impairment can be specified by a simple set of criteria.
6-19