NC0025879_Permit (Modification)_20111202

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING: COVER SHEET
NC0025879
Robbinsville WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
._ Y'v•:;-+..:W."'._r .ik+�W'''4i41'.K[AY�y,p".' ..
Complete File
- Historical
Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment
(67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
December 2, 2011
moment is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on time reYeri a side

kVA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
December 2, 2011
Honorable Bobby Smith
Mayor Protem of the Town of Robbinsville
P.O. Box 126
Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
NC0025879 (Major Mod.)
Robbinsville WWTP
Graham County
Facility Class III
Dear I\Ir. Smith:
Division personnel have reviewed,and approved your application for modification of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
•
This final permit modification includes the following major changes from your current permit:
• An effluent page for 0.63 MGD flow (at the new location) was added to the permit.
• An effluent page for an expansion flow of 0.85 MGD with mass -based nutrient limits was added
to the permit.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to
you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of
this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NonrthCarolina
Naturally

Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may ,
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements '
to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the
Division of Land Resources, the 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 Sergei Chernikov at
telephone number [phone].
cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
Asheville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
McGill Associates (e-copy: [e-mail])
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Seivice: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Permit NC0025879
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY.
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION 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
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, the
Town of Robbinsville
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Robbinsville WWTP
Corner of Old Hwy 129 & Knight Street
Robbinsville
Graham County
to receiving waters designated as Long Creek and Cheoah River in the Little
Tennessee River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2012.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on November
30, 2012.
Signed this day December 2, 2011.
014
oleen H. Sullins, Director
60z/ Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

i
Permit NC0025879
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or
discharge are hereby revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued
permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority
to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions,
requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
The Town of Robbinsville is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.63 MGD wastewater treatment facility with the
following components:
• Influent lift station
• Circular extended -aeration plant
• Center -feed clarifier
• Aerobic sludge digester, thickeners and belt press
• UV disinfection and
• Continuous flow measurement
This facility is located at the corner of Old Hwy 129 and Knight Street in the
Town of Robbinsville in Graham County.
2.. Discharge from said treatment works, through Outfall 001, into Long Creek,
classified C-Trout waters in the Little Tennessee River Basin, at the location
specified on the attached map.
3. After receiving an Authorization to Construct permit from the Division, construct
a new wastewater treatment facility not to exceed 0.63 MGD design flow.
4. After submitting an Engineer's Certification, discharge from treatment works at
the location specified on the attached map into the Cheoah River, a class C-Trout
water in the Little Tennessee River Basin.
5. After receiving an Authorization to Construct permit from the Division, construct
wastewater treatment facilities not to exceed 0.85 MGD design flow.
6. After submitting an Engineer's Certification, discharge from treatment works at
the location specified on the attached map into the Cheoah River, a class C-Trout
water in the Little Tennessee River Basin.

Town of Robbinsville
Robbinsville WWTP
Latitude:
Longitude:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Class:
35° 19' 43" N State Grid: Robbinsville
83° 48' 40" W Permitted Flow: 0.630 MGD
Long Creek /Cheoah River
C — Trout Sub -Basin: 04-04-04
Lat. 35° 19' 55" N
Long. 83° 48' 34" W
NPDES Permit No. NC0025879
Graham County

Permit NC0025879
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration or relocation to
the Cheoah River site, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
^ . I L ,
EFfiL,UB11Y '. �r �('.��
t.�.?v7..s.,�`�uV^B..a:.��Q�i.TT.r■XA�.�:{Q�:
c — c ERISTICS C
v � . 'se a � , lr s ;' r . - t- e a •: a r . - `
.�', :,,. �, � � � 5 ,>�.,IMIS,,Y ; r ':,� , , , ,
Y� re; ti �. .�'Y' �4 v'Vi. �0! `�. �. f��
;: in k^ k
_ .>. . .:.K_:.a. - ... _. .... .- ..
•,Y
�' i s
�� s M011TIT01tING REQUIREMENTS�� ,µ,:'
; .E ``��2; f•, tty t J�. i]� ���Y�j �M;if � H='��T �-
4 7 s � „ x j. '''' li,i. C �J �f4;,�
...-. ��'..5:'i .. _s.: -�a."S �_...1�.. r.
3•— . • —uJ-� � Y
;7 _ _
7 � .. �
<�;,� �� r. ;>, , �
5.I C .
r, .._ alit
, _ lonthly ,�:
7}0 �. gc.}!- at
, ,
,� Yerage��
S -i.f Tier---1
,A $
, Weekl I,Alage:
3 � .c.�Mic�R n� '� 4s+
, : , J . ,
� � ,,, ����_ � ���
4 I +rx: ;...,
��� Dail :-
f�+ .� .a r.�.':�`•
Maxim um
yJ r=,:•
`fit 'fi+�t ^.Y` %'t - r
p, fl asure neat
;` r.. _�_•sa'_r:�
Fre uenc
._� t--p.. a�.:s�.ry�r�::w�•
7.'Sc e7— ;.r.
Sam �e Type
+S
,' a
:�.��h .� ..s ��.
ro,
^._".fit; ' •', it
Sample
: � '�i=N�
1�:�:
, ..Location,•.
Flow
0.63 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day (20°C)2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I & E
Total Suspended
Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I & E
NH3 as N
(April 1 - Oct 31)
4.2 mg/L
12.6 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3 as N
(Nov 1 - March 31)
11.5 mg/L
34.5 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual
Chlorine3
28 ug/L
3/Week
Grab
E
•
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monitor and Report
Semi-
annually
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Monitor and Report
•
Semi-
annually
Composite
. E .
pH4
Monitor and Report ,
3/Week
Grab
E
• Footnotes:
1. Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent.
2. The monthly average effluent GODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 % removal).
3. Limits and monitoring for total residual chlorine apply only if chlorine is added to the waste
stream during the treatment process. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported
below 50 pg/L to be in compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to
. record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field
certified), even if these values fall below 50 pg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

4
Permit NC0025879
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning upon relocation to the Cheoah River site and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
•
EFFLUENT . , i '`�' '
fl
CHAR.ACTERISTICSr
:'"'axe ;: ° i `; LIMITS `
,, .u!�,. a,, •y i J7'"y �..f}. i r C:�," t , h
; ,�;:�
,'`.'.MONITORING REQUIREMENTS � ,,.
�a�
,;Ni .H'}':3� } 3z iATi 7 i i:��y.� _ .�i � V .a1X u.'',1 . ', '14,t --,
, _ 4riaa S
St-7 � L f {r�.
��>>
T .µ.( •, �'\;� 4 .f L}l- t
s ;-: ,,,' ..- . ,., ��
�� .; � ' � �
`!� -I "�. �
:: }} _ , ; ;
/. n :r ��
',: Month I 1.
) � � ,�{{� �y,� �
�. �. T. `k � 3
'' Average
i=34
.Weekl Avera a
a� .y� ^�y{ �: ks:
.ti\ .�f.Y S`'. ����
: '
'•
,Dad + . -
�,� . �y.,�::
"n, ��
; Max mum
i.' �"r'l.:: Y.;�iL^i•'l�"• .r.
easureme -
"�.v�.`wr♦.�� �'�Y �-
F. ••'T.S iAsY
, Fre uency,
� 't:\e;' .fS
:Sam le T e;',
�'�\��� ryp
� �.5 •3-•`i� f.
r -:: � ,'
-.�
., :Sam le is<•
i � i
Loc do 1 z_
Flow
0.63 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day (20°C)2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I & E
Total Suspended
Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I & E
NH3 as N
(April 1- Oct 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3 as N
(Nov 1 - March 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Nitrogens
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
45.21b/day
(annual average6)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus5
6.81b/day
(annual average6)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Residual
Chlorine3
•
28 ug/L
3/Week
Grab
E
pH4
Monitor and Report
3/Week
Grab
E
Footnotes:
1 • Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent.
2. The monthly average effluent GODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 % removal).
3. Limits and monitoring for total residual chlorine apply only if chlorine is added to the waste
stream during the treatment process. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values
reported below 50 }ig/L to be in compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall
continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory
(including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 •pg/ L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. The limits will become effective in 2 years after the facility begin operation at the new location.
6. The annual average shall be the average of composite samples collected monthly during each
calendar year.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

Permit NC0025879
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning upon expansion and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT , •
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING' REQUIREMENTS
[1 I 1 1 Y
r.. 3
'
'
Monthly
Average
Weekly Average
Dail
Maximum
Measurement -
Frequency .
•Sample Ta
Sam le
Locations
Flow
0.85 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day (20°C)2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I 8s E
Total Suspended
Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I 86E
NH3 as N
(April 1 — Oct 31)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3 as N
(Nov 1 — March 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Weekly
' Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
3/Week
Grab
E
•
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
45.2 lb/day
(annual average5)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
6.81b/day
(annual average5)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Residual
Chlorine3
28 ug/L
3/Week
Grab
E
•
pH4
Monitor and Report
3/Week
Grab .
E
Footnotes:
1 • Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I — Influent.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85 % removal).
3. Limits and monitoring for total residual chlorine apply only if chlorine is added to the waste
stream during the treatment process. The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values
reported below 50 }ig/ L to be in compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall
continue to record and submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory
(including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 pg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. The annual average shall be the average of composite samples collected monthly during each
calendar year.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0025879
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Robbinsville / Town of Robbinsville WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 126 Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
Facility Address:
Old HWY 129 & Knight St Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
Permitted Flow
0.63 MGD/0.85 MGD
Type of Waste:
800 Domestic Connections and 1 Furniture factory at 1/3 capacity
Facility/Permit Status:
Class III
County:
Graham County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Long Creek/Cheoah
River
Regional Office:
Asheville (ARO)
Stream Classification:
C-Trout
State Grid / USGS Quad:
Robbinsville
303(d) Listed?
No
Permit Writer:
Sergei Chernikov
Subbasin:
04-04-04
Date:
August 2, 2011
Drainage Area (mi2):
55.3
408111111,
Lat. 35° 19' 43" N Long. 83° 48' 40" W - existing
Lat. 35° 19' 55" N Long. 83° 48' 34" W - new
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
26
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
38
Average Flow (cfs):
160
IWC (%):
4.8
SUMMARY
This is a Major Modification for the Town of Robbinsville WWTP. The purpose of modification is
relocation from the Long Creek to Cheoah River and expansion from 0.63 MGD to 0.85 MGD.
The existing facility was built in 1986 and the equipment has to be replaced. The existing site
does not have enough space for expansion.
In 2009, the Intensive Survey Unit of the Environmental Sciences Section has conducted a
study of the water quality in the Cheoah River and its tributaries to determine if the expansion
can be allowed. Resulianfillaltudy indicated that expansion can proceed and nutrient limits.
MEW be -aid.
The EAA for the expansion was approved on July 8, 2011. The limits in the expansion phase
are based on the Speculative Limits letter issued by the Division on July 29, 2008. The
expansion phase w'I�1 at o have TN and TP limit& that have been established during the
Environmental Assessment review process, Consultation with the modeling group confirmed
thate limits are still valid (e-mails are attached).
In the existing WWTP periodic floating solids are removed by usage of a Vacuum truck. Solids
are disposed of at the Landfill for daily cover usage. During the summer months the flow
increases significantly due to a seasonal tourism.
The facility has no permitted discharging Industries and no pretreatment program.
RECEIVING STREAM
The Cheoah River watershed, including Santeetlah Lake, makes up this Little Tennessee River
Basin. The Cheoah River begins in the central portion of Graham County and flows in a NW
direction toward its confluence with the Little Tennessee River near the NC/TN state line. The
receiving water is currently Long Creek in the Little Tennessee River Basin. Water quality in
Fact Sheet
NC0025879 Major Modification
Page I

this Subbasin is generally excellent. After expansion and relocation, the facility will discharge
to Cheoah River.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
The facility has a negative compliance history. Since the last permit was issued in 2007, it has
received 3 notices of violation documenting numerous issues with operation and maintenance
of the plant, sampling, monitoring, and records.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Not required at this time.
Toxicant Analysis:
Not required at this time.
Proposed Changes:
A new effluent page for an expansion phase was added, it includes new nutrient limits.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: August 16, 2011
Permit Scheduled to Issue: October 10, 2011
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Sergei Chernikov at [phone].
CHANGES TO THE FINAL PERMIT:
• An effluent page for 0.63 MGD flow (at the new location) was added to the permit.
• Limits for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus were converted from concentration -based to
mass -based.
Fact Sheet
NC0025879 Major Modification
Page 2

ehernikov, Sergei
From: Painter, Andy
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:50 AM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Subject: RE: Robbinsville
Sergei, it's fine with us if they have mass limits (on a monthly basis right?).
However they said in the revised EA from 2010 they BNR would be implemented immediately upon completion of the
new facility, and they need to be held to that. See underlined text below...
Again sorry about the delay in response, let me know if you have any questions.
1

C. Proposed Relocation and Increase of Robbins lle WWTP Discl arg e
The proposed project includ •the construction of it new WWTP a short distance
downstream of the existing jWiP site, resin ' ' in .,the relocation of the
discharge from Long Creek to a}po icifi the Cheoah �approximately
er, 2,500
linear feet downstream of the current disear 'eat Long Creek. The project also
proposes to increase ..the discharge fr its c b ` I permitted discharge of 0.63
mullion gallons,,prr`dai GD) to 04,5 MGD to accommodate projected growth
for the 20-ye lannink mod.
' As the above ' ,sis the relocation of the discharge point 2,500 linear
$s g
feet downstream is trexpec o-have any adverse impact on the water quality
of_ tithe*' t h h River or Lake Santeetlah.
z
ince the exisfi4WWTP �. ready discharging relatively low concentrations of
4sphorous andanctititrpgen, i,iia the levels of chlorophyll a are well below the State
watr�uahty standard in the Cheoah River arm and Lake Santeetlah, increasing
the V7iJ.P discha a from 0.63 mgd to 0.85 mgd is not expected to have a
significaa�dverse`�mpact in current water quality. The speculative limitations
for BOD ac = N already require a high level of treatment. (the most stringent
required by &e State for oxygen -consuming wastes). Nonetheless, to address
NCDWQ's concerns regarding potential future chlorophyll a levels in the lake, it
is proposed that the new WWTP include biological phosphorous and nitrogen
removal (BNR) in its design and construction, and that these facility be operated
immediately upon completion of the new facility to reduce nutrients. It should be
noted that biological phosphorous and nitrogen removal (BNR) is limited by the
characteristics of the wastewater influent, and by the current treatment
technologies, and complete removal of these nutrients is not achievable.
Town of Robbinsville WWTP Page 5 of 6 August 12, 2010
Environmental Assessment Addendum No. 1
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:44 AM
To: Painter, Andy
Cc: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: RE: Robbinsville
Andy,
I have two more questions about Robbinsville. Your e-mail below verifies that the nutrient limits for 0.85 MGD
expansion phase are acceptable.(TN=6.4 mg/L, TP=1 mg/L). The Town is requesting that no nutrient limits would be
included for the first phase of the relocated facility (0.63 MGD). Is it acceptable?
They also requesting mass limits instead of concentration limits for an expansion phase (0.85 MGD). Is it acceptable?
2

ASHEVILLE
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mall Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Notice of intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission proposes to Issue a NPDES waste-
water discharge permit to the person(s) listed
below.Written comments regarding da e
per-
mit will eQaccented tlltiTl3e ayss afoter
thof teep b-
Divi9ion of Water Quality (DWQ) may, hold a
NC
public hearing should there e a signiticant de-
gree of public Interest. Please man comments
and/or Information requests to DWQ at the
above address. Interested persons may visit
the DWQ at 512 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC
to review Information on le. Additional infor-
tnation on NPDES permits and this notice may
be found on our website: http://portal.ncden.
r.org/web/wq/swp/ps/npdes/calendar, or by
calling (919) 807.630a,
The Town of Robbinsville requested major mod-
ification (expansl000n ntso 0.85 MGD) of permit
Caounty 7this°'facilittyi dischargeisin
Graham
do-
mestic wastewater to LongCreek/Cheoah Riv-
er, Little Tennessee River �asn.
Au•ust19 2011 8650
CITIZEN -TIMES
VOICE OF THE MOUNTAINS • CTTEZEN-TINIES.com
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SS.
NORTH CAROLINA
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and
State, duly commissioned, qualified and authorized by law
to administer oaths, personally appeared Elyse Giannetti,
who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that she is
the Legal Billing Clerk of The Asheville Citizen -Times,
engaged in publication of a newspaper known as The
Asheville Citizen -Times, published, issued, and entered as
first class mail in the City of Asheville, in said County and
State; that she is authorized to make this affidavit and
sworn statement; that the notice or other legal
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in The Asheville Citizen -Times on the
following date: August 19th , 2011 And that the said
newspaper in which said notice, paper, document or legal
advertisement was published was, at the time of each and
every publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
General Statues of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the
General Statues of North Carolina.
Signed this 19th day of August, 2011
(Signaof person making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me the 19th day of August,
2011.
otary Publi
My Coin
[phone] I [phone] FAX
14 O. HENRY AVE. I P.O. BOX 2090 I ASHEVILLE, NC 28802 I [phone]
¢) GAt NETT
r''�, ;1/111/171�,,,,00
ission expires the 5th day of October, 2013,E"'�' �OY�' A y�''�v
NOTARY
PUBLIC v.,`
;:448E
;•;Ioea/1te11N11

Chernikov, Sergei
From: Nowell, Jackie
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Subject: FW: Robbinsville
The modeling group verifies that the oxygen consuming limits recommended in the 2008 spec letter, the nutrient limits
listed in the mod application and in the addendum to the EA are adequate. Also see below where instream monitoring
for nutrients does not have to be added.
Jackie
From: Painter, Andy
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: Robbinsville
Hey Jackie, I talked with Kathy. We are happy with the effluent limits and we are okay without instream N and P
monitoring at this time.
1

lhernikov, Sergei
From: Nowell, Jackie
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 11:06 AM
To: Chemikov, Sergei
Subject: FW: Robbinsville WWTP EA -draft Addendum for review
Attachments: Addendum 1 to Robbinsville WWTP EA-12aug10.pdf
See attached. Andy will be talking with Kathy today to verify that the proposed limits of TN=6.4 mg/I and TP=1 mg/I are
appropriate. She attended the last meeting with the Town's consultant when nutrients were discussed.
From: Painter, Andy
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:56 AM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Subject: FW: Robbinsville WWTP EA -draft Addendum for review
• From: Kebede, Adugna
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:29 PM
To: Painter, Andy
Subject: FW: Robbinsville WWTP EA -draft Addendum for review
From: Stecker, Kathy
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Kebede, Adugna
Subject: FW: Robbinsville WWTP EA -draft Addendum for review
Please take a look and we can talk about it Wednesday if necessary. Thanks.
Kathy Stecker
NCDWQ Modeling and TMDLs
919-807-6422
Please note my new email address kathy.stecker@ ncdenr.gov
From: Stallings, Hannah
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:50 AM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy
Cc: Reid, Dianne
Subject: FW: Robbinsville WWTP EA -draft Addendum for review
Tom and Kathy —
Please let me know what you think of this addendum when you can. I have looked over it as far as my concerns are
involved.
I will not be here Thursday or Friday, so I don't know that this will get back to Mike this week.
Hannah
From: Mike Waresak jmailto:mike.waresakOmcgillen•ineers.com
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:47 PM
1

To: Stallings, Hannah
Cc: Belnick, Tom; forrest.westaIk mcgillengineers.com; Chernikov, Sergei; Stecker, Kathy; Reid, Dianne
Subject: Robbinsville WWTP EA -draft Addendum for review
Hannah,
Thank you again for giving me and Forrest the opportunity to meet with you last week to discuss the Robbinsville WWTP
Environmental Assessment. Forrest and I have developed the attached "draft' addendum for your review which
addresses the nutrient loadings and document formatting issues that we discussed at the meeting. We have also
included information regarding Ill that was requested by Tom Belnick.
We would like to make this addendum a formal submittal to the State Clearinghouse this week, if possible, so please
provide feedback on the draft addendum.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Forrest.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Waresak, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
T.828.252.0575
F.828.252.2518
2

}
Addendum No. 1 to the
Environmental Assessment
Town of Robbinsville Wastewater Treatment Plant Relocation
August 12, 2010
This document serves as Addendum No. 1 to the Environmental Assessment dated July
27, 2010 which was submitted to the North Carolina State Clearinghouse by the United
States Department of Agriculture -Rural Development (USDA-RD), through McGill
Associates, P.A. on July 30, 2010. The purpose of this agendum is to provide
clarifications and additional information based on input from the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality.
1. Clarification to Executive Summary: The second paragraph of the Executive
Summary states that the "Environmental Assessment was previously completed in
January 2009...." This sentence should be revised to read that the
"Environmental Assessment (EA) w o reviousl1 prepared in tipation of
submission to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources..." As a point of clarification, 'this Environmental Assessment was
originally prepared to meet the requirements e State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) to support a planne application for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit: ;A project scoping comment request letter
was submitted to and processed through the State Clearinghouse in 2008.
However, the actual SEPA doctithentoWasetupfeviously submitted to State
Clearinghouse prior o July 30, 2010. A final SEPA EA was never submitted for
approval.
As a further point of clarification, on J,. ary 28, 2009, a SEPA EA for the project
was submitted to the North Carolina. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) for a
completeness review However, several revisions have been made since that
document was prepared, and, therefore, the January 28, 2009 SEPA EA that was
itted for a egleteness review is no longer current and can be discarded by
NCDWQ. The completeness review for the current EA was performed by
USDA-RD as the lead agency for the EA.
2. Clarification regarding format of EA: After the SEPA EA had been prepared, the
Town of Ratufgville decided to pursue federal funding through the United States
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (USDA-RD) program. Therefore,
since federal funding is being pursued, the EA must meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since a significant effort had
already been made by the consultants in the preparation of the SEPA EA, the
NEPA EA was prepared by referencing the previously prepared SEPA document
when redundant topics were discussed and evaluated. The SEPA EA document
was included simply to provide the necessary supporting information for the
NEPA document. Its inclusion was never intended to imply any approval or
acceptance by the State of the SEPA EA. USDA-RD, as the lead agency,
reviewed the NEPA document for completeness and directed its submittal to State
1
•
Town of Robbinsville WWTP Page 1 of 6 August 12, 2010
Environmental Assessment Addendum No. 1

Clearinghouse and appropriate federal agencies for review. The EA that was
submitted on July 30, 2010 to State Clearinghouse is a NEPA EA that has been
reviewed for completeness by USDA-RD.
3. Infiltration/Inflow: The NCDWQ guidance document titled "Guidance for the
Preparation of Engineering Reports" was utilized to estimate the amount of
Infiltration and Inflow (I/1) in the Town's existing system, and to estimate the
amount of I/I that is excessive. This guidance document directs that I/1 be
estimated based on the average daily flow of the three (3) wettest consecutive
months. This NCDWQ guidance document further defines infiltration greater
than 3,000 gallons per day per inch -mile (gpdim) of pipe als being excessive. The
NCDWQ guidance document includes the non -excessive I/1 in the flow projection
as current flow, but does not allow for increases in I/I for the purpose of
estimating a 20-year future flow.
The three (3) wettest consecutive months in Robbinsville over the past year were
October, November and December of 2009. During these months, the average
daily flow was approximately 0.477 Ma& Basedpn the Town's . ted 80.16
inch -miles of sanitary sewer pipe, and using the NCDWQ guidance document
criteria, the Town has approximately 4,489 gpdim of I/1 in the existing system.
This exceeds the 3,000 gpdim threshold inc lid'd in the NCDWQ guidance
document. Therefore, only!900 gpdim has • een included in the 20-year
wastewater flow projection for :this, project, resulting in. an I/1 of 240,480 gpd.
The Town has several sewer rehabilitation projects planned that should reduce the
amount of I/1 in the system. ,®
4. Mitigation Measures for Water Quality Issues: The speculative permit limits
issued by N j 'Q for ft expanded discharge include monthly average limits of
5 mg/1 for BOD in the summer and 10g/1 for BOD in the winter. To achieve
this limit of treatment for BOD reduction, tertiary filters have been included in the
proposed design of the new treatment facility.
The speculative permit limits also included monthly average limits of 1 mg/1 for
onia nitrogen in the summer, and 2 mg/1 for ammonia nitrogen in the winter,
an • instates that ins eam monitoring of phosphorous and nitrogen will be required,
and the letter further states that no permit limit for phosphorous and nitrogen are
expected to be imposed. However, the scoping comment memorandum issued by
NCDWQ -te,, ft - ovember 19, 2008 indicated a concern that the increased
discharge may cause chlorophyll a standard exceedances and recommended
modeling ttf demonstrate that the phosphorous content would not cause
impairment of the downstream surface waters. After further discussions with
NCDWQ, the following information is offered to address this concern. This
information should be inserted into Section 3.6.3 (page 13) of the EA.
Town of Robbinsville WWTP Page 2 of 6
Environmental Assessment
August 12, 2010
Addendum No. 1

a
Evaluation of Impacts of Phosphorous and Nitrogen Loadings
A. Background Information
The 1997 Little Tennessee River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan
prepared by NCDENR noted nuisance algal blooms in the West Buffalo Creek
arm of Lake Santeetlah. NCDWQ identified trout farms as the largest
contributors to the alga blooms, which resulted in the buyout of four (4) trout
farms funded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fu d. Based on the 2005
special study conducted by NCDWQ, it appears that dismantling of the trout
farms was successful because approximately 92 percent of the alga blooms were
diminished. It is noted that West Buffalo Creek comes into the lake well below
the Town's discharge (existing or proposed) anhat thobbinsville discharge
does not affect the West Buffalo Creek arm of the lake..
NCDWQ has reported that in October 2008 an algal bloom occurred near the
confluence of Mountain Creek and theoah Rimer arm of the la should be
noted that levels of nutrients and chlorophyll a in all areas of Lake Santeetlah,
with the exception of the noted West Buffalo Creek Arm, are low and well below
the Trout water standards fokraEhlorophyll a. Q's Environmental Sciences
Assessment report for the Li a Tennessee (2005, the most recent available)
describes Lake Santeetlah as low in nutrients and enrichment level. The lake is
considered oligotrophic. The noted bloom occurred during an extensive historic
drought in the region nd stream fewpAgrosMagfern North Carolina were at the
lowest levels ever recorded. Discussions with the DWQ staff that evaluated the
bloom indi that the c use of the bloom was likely triggered by normal lake
nutrient loa . mg combined with the c 'tical flow/weather conditions. The 2008
bloom when considered in relation to aother data available from this portion of
the Lake is not indicative of the lake's overall oligotrophic status.
The 2007 (latest) Little Tennessee River Basinwide Plan prepared by NCDWQ
recommended that the West Buffalo Creek arm of the lake be removed from the
i' . • ired Water L: which has occurred. The status of Lake Santeetlah in this
most recent plan remains supporting with no violations of chlorophyll a and based
on the referenced 2005 Assessment Report, the lake is low in nutrients and has
excellent wjarity.
v
B. Existing Data
1. NCDWQ Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) Station G955000 (Cheoah
River at SR 1138 at Robbinsville): This monitoring station is located
upstream of the Town of Robbinsville's existing wastewater treatment plant
discharge, and therefore can be used for establishing background levels in the
river during base flow. The Total Phosphorous (TP) concentration for
samples collected over approximately 33 years averaged 0.04 mg/1 in the
Town of Robbinsville WWTP Page 3 of 6 August 12, 2010
Environmental Assessment Addendum No. 1

3.
qA/ _
Cheoah River, and the Total Nitrogen (TN) concentration during this same
period averaged 0.30 mg/1.
2. NCDWQ Lake Monitoring Program: This data includes periodic samples
from August 1981 to May 2009, and was provided by NCDWQ. Only the
data collected from the Cheoah River arm of the lake is pertinent to this
evaluation. This data shows the following average concentrations: Total
Phosphorous - 0.02 mg/1, Total Nitrogen — 0.21 mg/1, and Chlorophyll a
(CHL) — 3.65 ug/1. The maximum sampled concentration for CHL for this
time period of 28 years was 6 ug/1. The State water quality standard for CHL
in waters classified by North Carolina as Trout water'is 15 ug/1. Therefore,
the level of CHL in the lake is well below the State water quality standard.
Considering the current status of the lake, it is still helpful to look at the
nutrient concentrations in the lake. The 1 rations' typically utilized to
determine which nutrient will limit algal growth. In the 15 . samples of Lake
Santeetlah, the average N:P ratio is 10.2:1. It is generally accepted that a ratio
above 16:1 indicates a phosphorousitation "A ratio betwee • and 20:1
indicates that a joint limitation is likely. Noting the average ratio in this
particular case, it is clear that a joint limitation conclusion maybe weak but it
is possible that phosphorus or nitrogen ma . limiting at different times of
the year. In any event, t1 burrent condition of the lake shows that nutrient
loading is not causing a problem.
Existing WWTP Effluent: Effluent data from the existing wastewater
ates an average phosphorous
concentration' in the' effluent '1.3 mg/1, with a maximum concentration of
3.6 m : ffluenteitrogen m e eatment plant discharge for this same
period averaged 8.6 mg/1, with a maji num of 14 mg/1. Generally these levels
are at the low end -of -What is expected from a municipal wastewater treatment
facility, particularl the values for TP.
An evaluation of the existing WWTP data in reference to the flow of the Cheoah
ver near wher - it enters the lake and nutrient concentrations in the current
disc • ge shows a the .'PP and TN concentrations during normal flow periods
(using the average flow estimated at the proposed point of discharge, 160 cfs) are
very nearly the same above and below the discharge (the existing WWTP
discharge rujtsn an approximate increase of 0.005 mg/1 TP and 0.03 mg/1 TN
at the average stream flow level, values which are within the variation of the lab
analysis results for these parameters). During higher flows the percentage change
in stream nutrient levels would be even smaller. Also, the concentration data in
the river and the lake (the upper arm) are similar in level. This indicates that the
WWTP is not significantly affecting the concentration of nutrients in the upper
part of the lake.
Generally eutrophication evaluations look at mass loading to a water body over
the growing season or on an annual basis. The annual watershed loading for the
Cheoah River can be estimated using the average ambient concentrations and the
flow characteristics of the river. However, the ambient data reflects
treatment plant-,bktween 2004®an
Town of Robbinsville WWTP Page 4 of 6
Environmental Assessment
August 12, 2010
Addendum No. 1

4
concentrations in the river during mainly base flow periods (sampling is not
directed at measuring runoff during storm events). Nutrient loading typically
increases dramatically from a watershed during precipitation events, while point
source loading remains relatively constant. Over any particular period, using base
flow concentrations from a watershed will greatly under -predict the overall
loading contribution from a watershed. The degree of this difference is effected
by the development level in the watershed and the amount of precipitation over
the review period. The relative impact of the WWTP both as it exists today and
even after ex an esult in a significant chap a in base chlorophyll
a levels in the
Considering the data available and the overall trophic status of the lake, certainly
the existing loading to the system is not resulting in water quality problems. The
relative role of the WWTP in producing the existing trophacconditions appears to
be limited. The existing WWTP is already discharging relatively low levels of
both phosphorous (1.3 mg/1) and nitrogen (8.6 mg/1). This proposed project
represents an opportunity to provide a much weeded upgrade to the Town's
treatment system and help assure protection of good water quality iiilake.
C. Proposed Relocation and Increase of Robbinsville WWTP Discharge
The proposed project includestbe construction of a new WWTP a short distance
downstream of the existing WWTP site, resulting in the relocation of the
discharge from Long Creek to a point on the Cheoah River, approximately 2,500
linear feet downstream of the current discharge at Long Creek. The project also
proposes to increj a he discharge from its curref permitted discharge of 0.63
million gallons per day (MGD) to 0.85 MGD to accommodate projected growth
for the 20- aylanninriod.
As the above analysis reflects the relocation of the discharge point 2,500 linear
feet downstream is not expected to have any adverse impact on the water quality
of the Cheoah River or Lake Santeetlah.
Since the existing WWTP is already discharging relatively low concentrations of
phosphorous and nitrogen, and the levels of chlorophyll a are well below the State
water quality standard in the Cheoah River arm and Lake Santeetlah, increasing
the WWTP discharge from 0.63 mgd to 0.85 mgd is not expected to have a
significant adverse impact in current water quality. The speculative limitations
for BOD and NH3-N already require a high level of treatment. (the most stringent
required by the State for oxygen -consuming wastes). Nonetheless, to address
NCDWQ's concerns regarding potential future chlorophyll a levels in the lake, it
is proposed that the new WWTP include biological phosphorous and nitrogen
removal (BNR) in its design and construction, and that these facility be operated
immediately upon completion of the new facility to reduce nutrients. It should be
noted that biological phosphorous and nitrogen removal (BNR) is limited by the
characteristics of the wastewater influent, and by the current treatment
technologies, and complete removal of these nutrients is not achievable.
Town of Robbinsville WWTP Page 5 of 6
Environmental Assessment
August 12, 2010
Addendum No. 1

In order to demonstrate that the project will have no adverse impacts on water
quality, existing and proposed phosphorous and nitrogen loadings have been
calculated as shown below:
Nitrogen and Phosphorous Loadings
Town of Robbinsville WWTP
Parameter
Current Flow
0395 mgd
Current Permitted Flow
0.63 mgd
20-year Projected Flow
0.85 mgd
Concentration
Loading
Concentration
tzgLoadingN,
Concentration
Loading
Phosphorous
1.3 mg/1
4.281b/day
1.3 mg/1
6.8 lb/day
0.96 mg/1
6.8 lb/day
Nitrogen
8.6 mg/1
28.31b/day
8.6401
45.2 lb/day
6.37 m_
45.2 lb/day
The table above projects that the future phospt2sous loadings are expected to
average no more than 6.8 you _ • er day, and that the future nitrogen loadings are
expected to average no more than 45.2, pounds per day. These loadings are
equivalent to those allowed by the current permit. Since the facility already has
approval for dischar. ing up to 00.63EIVIGIkat ilsaisurretit location without biological
nutrient removal ' at the facility, the base level of allowable nutrient loading
is reflected b the current ermit. In order to maintain these loadings at the future
flow rate o,� mgd,
tc effluent concentrations for phosphorous and nitrogen
would be 0.96 mg/1, and 6.37 mg/1, res fictively, which are achievable using the
treatment technologies for nutrient removal proposed for the new facility. The
associated NPDES p : � fl ss m ng for this new facility would address the nutrient
issue when the expansion permit is issued. Typically nu_limitations_are-set
ass limitatio nd not concentrations. Regardless, the facilities proposed
would be able to reduce utrients su ciently to meet the levels indicated and
would be operated as a BNR facility upon completion Therefore, this evaluation
concludes that the proposed expanded discharge from 0.63 mgd to 0.85 mgd will
have no si k h iu : t impact on the water quality of the downstream waters.
v
Town of Robbinsville WWTP Page 6 of 6
Environmental Assessment
August 12, 2010
Addendum No. 1

McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
May 24, 2011
Mr. Tom Belnick
NPDES Program Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Belnick:
© f [1w1
IMAY 2 6 2011
DENR-xA; E.R QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
RE: Major Modification to NPDES Permit
NPDES Permit Number NC0025879
Wastewater Treatment Plant Relocation
Town of Robbinsville
Graham County, North Carolina
The Town of Robbinsville is seeking to relocate its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
and expand the capacity of the proposed WWTP from its current permitted capacity of 630,000
gallons per day (gpd) to a future capacity of 850,000 gpd utilizing a phased -construction
approach. On behalf of the Town of Robbinsville, please find enclosed the required application
fee as well as one (1) original and two (2) copies of the following documents in support of the
requested major modification to the Town's existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit:
• Application Form 3510-2A
• Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
• Project Narrative
• Project Maps (2 each)
• Finding of No Significant Impact (4 pages)
A copy of the speculative limits letter issued by the Division of Water Quality regarding
the proposed relocated WWTP may be found in appendix A of the enclosed EAA. An
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been completed for the proposed project. The EA was
reviewed by the required State and Federal agencies and made available for public comment.
The EA review process culminated in the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact by the
United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Development office.
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802 • 55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801
828-252-0575 • Fax: [phone]

Mr. Tom Belnick
May 24, 2011
Page 2
If you require additional information or would like to discuss the project, please feel free
to call me. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this important project.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
MICHAEL J. WARESAK, PE
Senior Project Manager
MW jw
Enclosures
cc: Bobby Cagle, Mayor, Town of Robbinsville
Bobby Smith, Mayor Pro Tem, Town of Robbinsville
Mandy Sharpe, Town of Robbinsville (w/ enclosure)
Jeff Bishop, PE, McGill Associates
P:/2006/06561 /letters/tb24may l 1.doc

USDA
Development
eper
Devell opment
United States Department of Agriculture
Rural Development
State Office
(Exh. E. - SI 1794-1)
SUBJECT: Town of Robbinsville
Proposed — Wastewater Treatment Plant Relocation
Finding of No Significant Impact
TO: Project File
The attached Environmental Assessment has been prepared and reviewed in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
6941 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); and 7 CFR Part 1794, Rural Utilities Service's
Environmental Policies and Procedures. Upon review of the environmental
documentation included and referenced in the Environmental Assessment, I find
that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the human
environment and for which an Environmental Impact Statement will not be
prepared.
it -)Randall A. Gore
State Director
Rural Development
Date
4405 Bland Road, Suite 260 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • TDD: [phone] • Web: htfp://www.rurdev.usda.gov/nc
Committed to the future of rural communities.
"USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender."
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call [phone] (voice), or [phone] (TDD).

Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact
and
Final Notice of Potential Floodplain Conversion
The USDA, Rural Utilities Service has received an application for financial assistance from the Town of
Robbinsville, NC. The proposed project consists of constructing a new wastewater treatment plant on a 12
acre parcel of land on Sandhole Road, adjacent to the Cheoah River. The project will be conducted in
phases with the first phase to include sewer system rehabilitation to reduce collection system
infiltration/inflow and a new 630,000 gallon per day (GPD) capacity wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
The WWTP will include advanced treatment to the tertiary level to comply with anticipated requirements to
reduce nitrogen and phosphorus limits, as well as reduced biochemical oxygen demand. The WWTP
improvements include a mechanical bar screen, biological nutrient removal, clarifiers, filters, UV
disinfection equipment, liquid sludge holding, and a backup generator. fBebause of space limitations-atthe,
uexisting=WW€^Psite ffTown•Vill ortsstrC tF new --plant- t a-new:.locationt necessitating the construction
of approximately 2,000 linear feet of 12-inch gravity sewer and a new influent pump station with
approximately 900 linear feet of 10-inch force main to convey flow from the existing WWTP to the new
plant. Finally the project includes construction of a waterline to provide service to the new WWTP facility
and rerouting of Sandhole Road to provide access to adjacent property. Thesecond,ptlasa,.to:b.
constructed atan undetermined later date, consists of an increase to the plant treatmentcapacity.;to
850,00G GPD ,ta.rneet the 20-year flow projection,
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act and agency regulations, the Rural Utilities Service
has assessed the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment was first published on August 5, 2010 for a 30 day comment period. All
comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Upon consideration of the applicant's proposal, federal and
state environmental regulatory and natural resources agencies, and public input, the Rural Utilities Service
has determined that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which
an Environment Impact Statement will not be prepared. The basis of this determination is a thorough
review and analysis of the information reported in the original Environmental Assessment (EA - July 29,
2010 revision), as supplemented by Amendment No. 1 to the EA dated December 28, 2010 including
Addendum Number 1 (August 27, 2010), a Memorandum to Hannah Stallings, NCDWQ from Mike
Waresak, McGill Associates, P.A. (dated September 8, 2010), as well as federal and state environmental
regulatory and natural resource agencies and public comments regarding the proposed project.
In order to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental impacts, the Rural Utilities Service will require the
applicant to incorporate the mitigation measures as outlined in Section 4.0 of the Environmental
Assessment. The potential adverse impact to important resources will be mitigated as described in
Section 4.0 of the report through design including construction outside of the floodway and above the 500
year floodplain. If construction in the floodplain is necessary open top basin walls will extend a minimum of
2 feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation and water -tight hatches will be required. Disturbance to
riparian vegetation will be minimized and all disturbed area in the floodplain will be restored to pre -
construction conditions with native vegetation, and no fill will be allowed. The Town will be required to
adopt a binding resolution prohibiting sewer service for new construction located in the 100-year
floodplain. Water Quality will be maintained using 50 foot vegetative stream buffers where possible, but in
no case will the 25-foot minimum trout buffer be encroached upon. Directional boring will be used to avoid
disturbing stream and riparian buffers. Conditions of Nationwide Permit 12 will be adhered to and
construction equipment will be kept out of stream channels.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for review at the Town of Robbinsville town hall
located at 4 Court Street Robbinsville, NC 28771, at McGill Associates, PA, 55 Broad Street, Asheville,
NC 28801, or the USDA Rural Development Area Office located at 84 Coxe Avenue, Suite 1 E, Asheville,
NC 28801. For further information contact Pamela H. Hysong at the above Rural Development Office or
by calling 828-254-0916 Extension 7.
"USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender." To file a complaint of discrimination, write
USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or
call [phone] (voice), or [phone] (TDD).
A general location map of the proposal is shown below.

NORTH CAROLINA
GRAHAM COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, Nancy Waldroup, a Notary Public of Graham County
and North Carolina, duly commissioned, qualified and authorized by law to ad-
minister oaths, personally appeared, Barbara Bonnette, who, being duly sworn,
deposes and says: that she is the Typesetter of The Graham Star, engaged in
the publication of a newspaper known as The Graham Star, published, issued
and entered as periodical mail in the Town of Robbinsville, in Graham County,
in the state of North Carolina. That she is authorized to make this affidavit and
sworn statement: That the notice or other legal advertisement — a true copy of
which is ttached hereto -- was published in The Graham Star on the following
dates a r►. �t / O J JD f I and that The Graham Star in
which such notice, paper, document or legal advertisement was published was,
at the time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes ofNorth
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of
the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This
fh
rs day of MD..
&t,baxg, .emn
Barbara Bonnette
, 2011.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1 5 day of
2011.
,A., p.4)
0,Iotary Public)
My commission expires (� ' .`�j , 2 d (C1 .

Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Notice of Potential Floodplain Conversion
The USDA, Rural Utilities Service has received an application for financial assistance from the Town of Robbinsville,
NC. The proposed project consists of constructing a new wastewater treatment plant on a 12 acre parcel of land
on Sandhole Road, adjacent to the Cheoah River. The project wilt be conducted in phases with the first phase to
include sewer system rehabilitation to reduce collection system infiltration/inflow and a new 630,000 gallon per day
(GPD) capacity wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The WWTP will include advanced treatment to the tertiary level
to comply with anticipated requirements to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus limits, as well as reduced biochemical
oxygen demand. The WWTP improvements indude a mechanical bar screen, biological nutrient removal,. clarifiers,
filters, UV disinfection equipment, liquid sludge holding, and a backup generator, Because of space limitations at
the existing WWTP site. the Town will construct the new plant at a new location, necessitating the construction of
approximately 2,000 linear feet of 12-inch gravity sewer and a new influent pump station with approximately 900
linear feet of 10-inch force main to convey flow from the existing WWTP to the new plant Finally the project Includes
construction of a waterline to provide service to the new WWTP facility and rerouting of Sandhole Road to provide
access to adjacent property. The second phase, to be constructed at an undetermined later date, consists of an
increase to the plant treatment capacity to 850,000 GPD to meet the 20-year flow projection.
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act and agency regulations, the Rural Utilities Service has assessed
the potential environmental effects of the proposed project The Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment
was first published on August 5, 2010 for a 30 day comment period. All comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
Upon consideration of the applicant's proposal, federal and state environmental regulatory and natural resources
agencies, and public input, the Rural Utilities Service has determined that the proposal will not have a significant
effect on the human environment and for which an Environment Impact Statement will not be prepared. The basis
of this determination Is a thorough review and analysis of the information reported in the original Environmental
Assessment (EA - July 29, 2010 revsion), as supplemented by Amendment No. 1 to the EA dated December 28, 2010
including Addendum Number 1 (August 27.2010). a Memorandum to Hannah Stallings, NCDWQ from Mike Waresak,
McGill Associates, P.A. (dated September 8, 2010), as well as federal and state environmental regulatory and natural
resource agencies and public comments regarding the proposed project
In order to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental Impacts, the Rural Utilities Service will require the applicant
to incorporate the mitigation measures as outlined in Section 4.0 of the Environmental Assessment. The potential
adverse impact 10 important resources will be mitigated as described in Section 4.0 of the report Through design
including construction outside of the floodway and above the 500 year floodplain. If construction in the floodplain is
necessary open top basin walls will extend a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year floodplain,elevation and water-
tight hatches will be required. Disturbance to riparian vegetation will be minimized and all disturbed area in the
floodplain will be restored to pre -construction conditions with native vegetation. and no fill will be allowed. The Town
will be required to adopt a binding resolution prohibiting sewer service for new construction located in the 100-year
floodplain. Water Quality will be maintained using 50 foot vegetative stream buffers whore possible, but in no case
will the 25-foot minimum trout buffer be encroached upon. Directional boring will be used to avoid disturbing stream
and ripanan buffers. Conditions of Nationwide Permit 12 will be adhered to and construction equipment will be kept
out of stream channels.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for review at the Town of Rohbinsviile town hall located at 4
Coon Street Robbinsvlile, NC 28771, at McGill Associates, PA. 55 Broad Street,'Ashevillo. NC 28801, or the USDA
Rural Development Area Office located at 84 Coxe Avenue, Suite 1 E, Asheville, NC 28801. For further information
contact Pamela H. Hysong at the above Rural Development Office or by calling 828-254-0916 Extension 7.
•
'USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.' To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA,
Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue. S.W.. Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-
3272 (voice), or [phone] (TDD).
A general i;,, proposal is shown to the right.
r.
£4:\'P.. :r/.f _�. �'frs:. •!: ,21^lic•.:a WASTEVVATER A1ER 1REA MENI PLANT RELOCATION
.r
!PROPOSED .-
4INFLUENT PUMP STATION AND
;'FORCE MAIN TO PROPOSED WWII'
Mc
A S S O C I A "I" P, S
.1Ytii`t. 7,1\A. (:i'
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
}3
• r- . `r. :1.w

Project Narrative — Town of Robbinsville WWTP and Effluent Discharge Relocation
The Town of Robbinsville has an existing 0.63 million gallons per day (mgd) permitted
discharge to Long Creek, which is a tributary to the Cheoah River. The Town is planning to
construct a new treatment facility and a new outfall location approximately %2 mile downstream,
with a discharge to the Cheoah River. After the new treatment facility is placed into operation.
the existing treatment facility will be decommissioned and the existing 0.63 mgd permitted
discharge to Long Creek will be discontinued. The proposed discharge is 0.63 million gallons
per day (mgd) for the initial phase, and 0.85 mgd for the future phase. The Town has completed
the Environmental Assessment review and approval process, and has obtained a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for 0.85 mgd to be constructed in 2 phases.
The first phase wastewater treatment plant will be constructed to a capacity of 0.63 mgd. The
0.63 mgd facility will include two (2) treatment units to provide dual train reliability, with each
unit capable of treating 0.315 mgd. The future third treatment unit will have a treatment capacity
of 0.22 mgd to bring the total plant capacity to 0.85 mgd.
Each treatment unit will include the .capability to achieve partial nitrogen and phosphorous
removal through biological nutrient_ removal, aeration, secondary clariaicatior, and aerobic
sludge storage/digestion.
The following design and construction details will be incorporated into the first phase to allow
for easier expansion to 0.85 mgd in the future second phase:
• Site grading and layout will be designed to accommodate three (3) treatment trains, two
(2) to be constructed in Phase 1, and the third to be constructed in Phase 2.
• The influent pump station will provide space for additional pumping units for Phase 2.
• Where practical, piping will be sized to accommodate the future capacities.
• Flow splitting capability will be designed to easily add the flow split to the third
treatment unit.
• Adequate space for expansion will be provided around the first phase tertiary filters and
disinfection treatment units.

JUL-11-20 10 03:40 From: To:182B2522518 Paee:3'9
12 North Main Street
RobbinsviIle, NC 28771
Department of Planning and
Economic Development
Josh Carpenter, Planner
July 12, 2010
The Town of Robbinsville
4 Court Street
Robbinsville, NC 28771
Dear Elected Officials,
[phone] Office
[e-mail]
Graham County would like to support the Town of Robbinsville's effort in the expansion of your waste water
treatment capacity. Additional waste water facility would greatly enhance the economic development opportunities in
the Town and County. We believe that the Town of Robbinsville is economic hub of Graham County and positive
investments fn the Town create opportunity for all Graham County citizens.
Graham County has been in the process of developing projects that would require waste water access. These
projects are outlined below and we believe would bring many benefits to the Town and surrounding area.
• Justice Center and County Service Building, 30,000 sq ft. facility
• Downtown Agricultural Center, 2,250 sq. ft. facility
• Call and Data Center, 10,000 sq, ft. facility
Other Initiatives that Graham County is in support of are the revitalization of Robbinsville and the attraction of
new business within the Town limits. These projects go hand -in -hand and both will create the need for additional waste
water capacity.
If Graham County can be of assistance in anyway please contact us. We thank you for your efforts to improve
the quality of life for the citizens of Graham County.
Sincerely,
Mr. Mickey Duvall, County Manager
r. Josh Carpenter, fsianner and Economic Developer
07/13/2010 TITS 14:34 [TX/RX NO 9882] U003

TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE — NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
FUTURE SERVICE AREA
SUMMARY OF SOIL SUITABILITY FOR
SEPTIC TANK DRAIN FIELDS
June 28, 2011
Based on information obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
website (National Cooperative Soil Survey "Web Soil Survey"), the soils in the projected future
Robbinsville sewer system service area were evaluated with respect to their suitability for septic
system drain fields. Due to limitations in the on-line soil survey software, the future service area
was divided into seven sub -areas. According to the Soil Survey, approximately 95% of the
future service area soils are rated as "Very Limited" for septic system drain fields. The
predominant soil types in the future service areas are Junaluska-Brasstown complex and
Snowbird Loam, both of which are rated as "Very Limited". "Very Limited" means that the soil
has one or more features that are unfavorable for septic system drain fields. For Junaluska-
Brasstown soils, the unfavorable characteristics include excessive slope, shallow bedrock depth,
and poor seepage in the bottom layer. The Snowbird Loam soil type has all of these same
unfavorable characteristics, and also includes "slow water movement" as an additional
unfavorable characteristic. Other soil types in the future service area have rocky conditions
which also is unfavorable for septic drain fields.
Based on the review of the soil information, existing septic system drain fields in the future
service area appear to have limited functional lives before poor soil percolation issues result in
the need to repair or abandon the existing drain fields. As regulatory rules continue to tighten to
protect groundwater and stream water quality, new construction permits could become more
difficult to obtain, and public sewer service is needed to allow for continued economic growth in
the service area. Therefore, existing and future residences and commercial establishments will
have compelling reasons to connect to public sewer service when it becomes available.
Attached to this summary are maps showing the limits of each of the seven sub -areas in the
future service area. The areas rated as "Very Limited" are shaded in red, and the areas rated as
"Somewhat Limited" are shaded in yellow. The descriptions below provide specific soil
information from the Soil Survey for the seven sub -areas for the Robbinsville sewer system
future service area.
West Graham County Area — 93% of Area Rated as Very Limited for Septic Drain Fields
Predominant Soil Types/Septic Drain Field Suitability Rating:
Junaluska-Brasstown: Very Limited
Ditney-Unicoi Rock: Very Limited
Snowbird Loam: Very Limited
Spivey-Santeetlah: Very Limited
Page 1

Snowbird Creek Area (West Graham County) — 96% of Area Rated as Very Limited
Predominant Soil Types/Septic Drain Field Suitability Rating:
Junaluska-Brasstown: Very Limited
Snowbird Loam: Very Limited
Thurmant-Dillard: Very Limited
Eastern Robbinsville Area — 99% of Area Rated as Very Limited
Predominant Soil Types/Septic Drain Field Suitability Rating:
Junaluska-Brasstown: Very Limited
Reddies fine sandy: Very Limited
Snowbird Loam: Veiy Limited
Soco-Stecoah: Veiy Limited
Eastern Graham County Area — 95% of Area Rated as. Very Limited
Predominant Soil Types/Septic Drain Field Suitability Rating:
Junaluska-Brasstown: Very Limited
Cullowhee-E1a: Very Limited
Snowbird Loam: Very Limited
Lonon-Northcove, 8 to 15% slope: Somewhat Limited
Soco-Stecoah: Very Limited
Sylco-Cataska: Very Limited
Highway 129 South Area — 98% of Area Rated as Very Limited
Predominant Soil Types/Septic Drain Field Suitability Rating:
Dellwood Reddies: Very Limited
Ditney-Unicoi Rock: Very Limited
Snowbird Loam: Very Limited
Sylco-Cataska: Very Limited
Unison Loam: Very Limited
Northern Graham County Area — 96% o of Area Rated as Very Limited
Predominant Soil Types/Septic Drain Field Suitability Rating:
Junaluska-Brasstown: Very Limited
Ditney-Unicoi Rock: Very Limited
Snowbird Loam: Very Limited
Soco-Stecoah: Very Limited
Spivey-Santeetlah: Very Limited
Spivey-Whiteoak: Very Limited
Thurmant-Dillard: Very Limited
Page 2

Southern Robbinsville Area — 91 % of Area Rated as Very Limited
Predominant Soil Types/Septic Drain Field Suitability Rating:
Junaulska-Brasstown: Very Limited
Lonon-Northcove, 8 to 15% slope: Somewhat Limited
Snowbird Loam: Very Limited
Thurmant-Dillard: Very Limited
Page 3

Map Scale: 1:39,600 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
The soil surreys that comprise your AO1 were mapped at 1:12,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
El very limited Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoifsurvey.nres.usda.gov
0 Somewhat limited Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
Not limited This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) fisted below.
Not rated or not available
Political Features
Urban Areas
p Cities
Septic Tank Absorption Fields -Graham County, North Carolina
(West Graham County)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of interest (AO1)
Area of Interest (AO1)
Soils
Sod Map Units
Soil Ratings
Soil Survey Area: Graham County. North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 7, Aug 18, 2008
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Water Features compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Oceans imagery displayed on these maps. As a result. some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Transportation
Rails
.rr Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/22/2011
Page 2 of 13
•

35'20'30'
m
Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Graham County, North Carolina
(West Graham County)
237900 238900 239700 240600 241500 242403
Map Scale: 129,600 if printed on A size (6.5" x 11 ") sheet.
0 500 1,000
2,000
Meters
3,000
0
USDA Natural Resources
NOM Conservation Service
2,000 4,000
8,000
Feet
12,000
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
243300
244200
2451C0
5
m
6/22/2011
Page 1 of 13
3: 23' 3T'
35' 20' 37"

35' 10' 55'
35'1T20-
co
Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Graham County, North Carolina
(Snowbird Ck Area -West Graham County)
237600 232400 239200 240000
Map Scale: 1:35,100 If printed on A size (8.5" x 111 sheet.
0 450 900
1,800
240300 241600
1 1
2405C0
Meters
2,700
Feet
0 1,500 3,000 6,000 9,000
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
1 1
241600 242400
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
243200
I I
;e000
m
am
6/22/2011
Page 1 of 12
35' 20' 6"
35' 1 T 27"

35* 19' 13'
Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Graham County, North Carolina
(East Robbinsville)
246400 246300 247200 247600 248000
245200 245600 248000 2-= 00
Map Seale: 1:17,900 if printed on A size (8.5"x 111 sheet.
0 200 400
800
Feet
0 500 1.000 2,000 3.000
USDA Natural Resources
i Conservation Service
Meters
1,200
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
i0
6/22/2011
Page 1 of 11
35' 20' 38"
35' 19' 17"

35' 20' 55"
35' 18' 59"
O
eNI
;-
247500
247500
248000
248000
248500
248500
249000
249000
Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Graham County, North Carolina
(Eastem Graham County)
Map Scale: 125.700 If printed on A size (8.5"x 11") sheeL
249500
249500
250000
250000
0
350 700
1,400
Meters
2.100
Feet
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
9,4500
250500
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
251000
251000
251500
251500
252000
252000
252500
252500
6/22/2011
Page 1 of 14
35" 21' 0"
35' 19' 3"

25' 18' 4
35' 16' 14'
8
8
o_
245400
1
240080
�I
245400 246000
246600
Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Graham County, North Carolina
(Hwy 129 South)
247200
247800
h7
14E
rTla
29,
-ram
ceo
248400
^Wi
249' 00
249300 250200
• _� =ram ',:
rt—^
ior,f.>v-1
246600 247200 247800 248400 245000
Map Scale: 126,500 If printed on A size (8.5' x 11') sleet
0 350 700
1,400
Feet
0 1,000 2,000 4.000 6.000
USDA Natural Resources
i Conservation Service
Meters
2,100
Web Soll Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
249600
T I
250200
0
—o
0
0
OI
8
8
0
8
c
CO
6/22/2011
Page 1 of 15
35' 18' 19"
35' 16' 19"

Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Graham County, North Carolina
(North Graham County)
24 $000 242500 2431000 243500 244000 244500 245000 245500
35'22'35
35' 20' 45"
246000
242500 243000 243500 244000 244500 240000 245500 246000 24o500
Map Scale: 124,900 If printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet.
0 300 600
1,200
Meters
1,800
Feet
1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
USDA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
247000
c
h
to
6/22/2011
Page 1 of 13
35' 22' 43'
35' 20' 50"

244000
35'19'6"
0
0
in
35'1T47'
244000
244400
244800
244400 244800
Septic Tank Absorption Fields —Graham County, North Carolina
(South Robbinsville)
2451200
2451
6600 2400 246400 246800 24 i 00
245200 245600
Map Scale: 1:17.300 If printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
0 200 400
800
Feet
0 500 1.000 2,000 3,000
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Meters
1.200
246000 246400 246800 247200
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
247600
35'19'9'
m
r �P 35' 1 T 51"
247600 t1
m
6/22/2011
Page 1 of 10

;Chernikov, Sergei
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mike,
Chernikov, Sergei
Monday, June 20, 2011 8:23 AM
'[e-mail]'
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Belnick, Tom;
Poupart, Jeff
RE: town of Robbinsville application
You have addressed the issue of the I&I and the soil suitability in the Town of Santeetlah. The unresolved issues are:
1) Soil suitability in other communities that are going to connect to the expanded WWTP. Please review the
Graham County Soil Survey, it has the soil suitability information.
2) Documentation supporting the intent of these communities to connect. The General Assembly just passed a bill
that significantly complicates the annexation procedures. Therefore, we cannot simply assume that Robbinsvile
can annex unincorporated communities in its vicinity.
Best regards,
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Mike Waresak [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:21 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: town of Robbinsville application
Sergei,
Please see responses in red to your comments. I believe these also answer your questions in your previous email as
well. As you can see from our responses, we believe we have adequately addressed your comments. If you do not
agree, we respectfully request a meeting with NCDWQ to discuss this application to expedite the review process.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Mike
1

Mike Waresak, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
T.828.252.0575
F.828.252.2518
From: Chernikov, Sergei [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:05 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: town of Robbinsville application
Mike,
I found another permit for Graham County. NC0023086 — Fontana Village Resort. It looks like they already have an
existing treatment facility and don't have an incentive to connect. Fontana Village is outside of the future service area.
Therefore, this comment is not relevant.
I have a few more questions:
For all the communities that you list on page 7 and Town of lake Santeetlah: How are they being served right now? Do
you have a confirmation that they are willing to connect to the new facility? See attached existing and future service
area map. The expanded Robbinsville service area and the western portion of Graham County, which includes Lake
Santeetlah and the Town of Lake Santeetlah, is served by onsite sewage disposal systems. The reason that the residents
and businesses would want to connect to a municipal sewer system is because many septic systems in the area have
problems due to the unsuitable or marginally suitable soil conditions, and the community is very concerned about
preserving the water quality of Lake Santeetlah, which is jeopardized by failing septic systems. Expansion and economic
development is also restricted by lack of adequate seweage systems. Attached is a letter from the Graham County
Health Department from a previous report which states that "A municipal system is the only answer for this area to
guarantee public health, to promote future expansion and protection of the existing residence. This would not only help
the Town, but also the public health around the lake area."
What is the distance between the Robbinsville and the proposed western graham County service area? It would be
useful to have maps for the proposed expanded service area in Robbinsville and western Graham County. Please see
the attached map of the existing and future sewer service areas. The scale on the map is 1" = 4500 feet.
Do you have a letter from the County Health Department stating that those soils (in the communities listed on page 7)
are not suitable for septic systems? See attached letter from the Health Department.
In the Table C-2 of the EAA, you list current I/1 as 240,480 gpd, this number is very high. Your application lists average
WWTP flow as 262,000 gpd. This means that residential, commercial, and industrial flow represents only about 21,500
gpd, or about 8% of the total flow. It seems very unreasonable. This number (21,500 gpd) is contradicted by the
numbers presented on page 9 of the EAA. I think that you should estimate I/1 by using a different methodology. Please
refer to page 9 of the EAA for the correct flow table. Page 9 of the EAA shows the current flow for residential,
commercial and industrial, and it totals about 114,200 gpd. The 262,000 gpd from page 6 of the NPDES permit
application is simply the average flow from the 3 operating reports used for the effluent testing information as required
in the instructions for the permit application. Other days and months have much higher flows. Page 3 of the same
2

NPDES permit application indicates the average daily flow for the past 3 years being around the amount of 354,722 gpd
� hown on page 9 of the EAA. We did already calculate the actual I/1 based on NCDWQ-CG&L criteria (see attached), and
it worked out to be about 4,489 gpd per inch -mile of pipe. CG&L in the past has always required us to only include 3,000
gpd/inch-mile as "non -excessive" I/1 in the future flow projections. This has previously been established as a credible
method for 1/I calculation. Actual I/1 is significantly higher, but we have used the lower number as previously required
by NCDWQ. We believe this method to be credible. In the future, the collection system size would likely more than
double based on the future service area, so the "future" I/1 will work out to only around 1500 gpd/in-mile.
For a future flow, I/I of 240,480 also seems excessive. It would represent about 30% of the total WWTP flow, which is to
high. Our Guidance states: Future Non -excessive I/1- A nominal allowance for non -excessive I/I for new sewer lines may
be considered by the Division, provided the basis is clearly justified. 30% of the total flow cannot be considered
"nominal". Although, 3,000 gpd-inch-mile is considered non -excessive, 3,000.1 gpd-inch-mile would be considered
excessive. For a new sewer line that will be built, the I/I should be significantly lower. It is also unreasonable to have
the same I/1 number for existing and future facility with a different service areas and age of the sewer lines. We agree
that newer sewer lines would have very little I/1, at least initially. That is one reason why we did not increase the I/1. In
actuality, the collection system size would likely more than double based on the future service area, so the "future" I/1
will work out to around 1500 gpd/in-mile. Perhaps that would be more in line with what you would expect as "nominal"
1/I. It seems more appropriate to estimate I/1 based on length and size of sewer line, not based on a % of the total flow.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Mike Waresak [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Subject: RE: town of Robbinsville application
Thanks Sergei. Feel free to call me if you want to discuss the application and EAA.
Mike
Mike Waresak, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
3

McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning . Finance
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
T.828.252.0575
F.828.252.2518
From: Chernikov, Sergei [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:38 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: town of Robbinsville application.
Mike,
I received you message regarding the application. I remember our meetings and the issues we discussed, I don't have
any questions about the EA portion of the application since the FONSI was already issued.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
4

Town of Robbinsville
I&I Calculations
Infiltration Calculation
Billed Water to
Expected Flow
Month
WWTP Flow (MG)
Sewer Customers
Estimated I&I (MG)
(MG)
(90%) (MG)
October
November
December
13.237
16.027
14.663
4.064
3.938
4.022
3.657
3.544
3.620
9.580
12.483
11.043
Total = 43.927
Infiltration Rate (GPD per Inch -Mile of Pipe)
12.024
10.821
I&I Rate (GPD/Inch-
Estimated I&I (MG)
Number of Days
Inch -Miles of Pipe
Mile)
33.106
92
80.16
4,489
33.106
-- Infiltration Rate > 3,000 gpd/in-mile; therefore, infiltration is considered "excessive"
Inflow Calculation
Per State guidance, estimate based on WWTP flow following 1-inch rain event preceded by 5 dry weather day!
Date
Precipitation (in)
WWTP Flow (MGD)
4-Apr-10
5-Apr-10
6-Apr-10
7-Apr-10
8-Apr-10
9-Apr-10
0
0
0
0
0
1.89
0.296
0.292
0.299
0.289
0.309
0.661
Number of
WWTP Flow (gpd)
Inflow (gpd/capita)
Persons Served
661,000
945
699
- # persons served assumes 450 residential customers with 2.1 persons/householc
- Inflow considered "excessive" if above 275 gpd/capita

;Chernikov, Sergei
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:46 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: town of Robbinsville application
Mike,
I have several questions about Western Graham Service Area:
1) How are they being served now?
2) Why would they want to connect to Robbinsville WWTP?
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Mike Waresak [mailto:mike.waresak(amcgillengineers.com1
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Subject: RE: town of Robbinsville application
Thanks Sergei. Feel free to call me if you want to discuss the application and EAA.
Mike
Mike Waresak, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
T.828.252.0575
F.828.252.2518
1

From: Chernikov, Sergei jmaiito:sergei.chernikov@ ncdenr.govl
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:38 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: town of Robbinsville application
Mike,
I received you message regarding the application. I remember our meetings and the issues we discussed, I don't have
any questions about the EA portion of the application since the FONSI was already issued.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
2

Chernikov, Sergei
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:05 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: town of Robbinsville application
Mike,
I found another permit for Graham County. NC0023086 — Fontana Village Resort. It looks like they already have an
existing treatment facility and don't have an incentive to connect.
I have a few more questions:
For all the communities that you list on page 7 and Town of lake Santeetlah: How are they being served right now? Do
you have a confirmation that they are willing to connect to the new facility?
What is the distance between the Robbinsville and the proposed western graham County service area? It would be
useful to have maps for the proposed expanded service area in Robbinsville and western Graham County.
Do you have a letter from the County Health Department stating that those soils (in the communities listed on page 7)
are not suitable for septic systems?
In the Table C-2 of the EAA, you list current I/I as 240,480 gpd, this number is very high. Your application lists average
WWTP flow as 262,000 gpd. This means that residential, commercial, and industrial flow represents only about 21,500
gpd, or about 8% of the total flow. It seems very unreasonable. This number (21,500 gpd) is contradicted by the
numbers presented on page 9 of the EAA. I think that you should estimate I/1 by using a different methodology.
For a future flow, I/I of 240,480 also seems excessive. It would represent about 30% of the total WWTP flow, which is to
high. Our Guidance states: Future Non -excessive I/1- A nominal allowance for non -excessive I/I for new sewer lines may
be considered by the Division, provided the basis is clearly justified. 30%0 of the total flow cannot be considered
"nominal". Although, 3,000 gpd-inch-mile is considered non -excessive, 3,000.1 gpd-inch-mile would be considered
excessive. For a new sewer line that will be built, the I/1 should be significantly lower. It is also unreasonable to have
the same I/1 number for existing and future facility with a different service areas and age of the sewer lines.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
1

+ s
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Mike Waresak fmailto:mike.waresakCa�mcgillengineers.coml
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Subject: RE: town of Robbinsville application
Thanks Sergei. Feel free to call me if you want to discuss the application and EAA.
Mike
Mike Waresak, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
T.828.252.0575
F.828.252.2518
From: Chernikov, Sergei fmailto:sergei.chernikovOncdenr.govl
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:38 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: town of Robbinsville application
Mike,
I received you message regarding the application. I remember our meetings and the issues we discussed, I don't have
any questions about the EA portion of the application since the FONSI was already issued.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
2

041/21/2002 21:58 8284794009
GRAHAM COUNTY, HEALTH PAGE 02
GRAHAM COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 546
Robbinsville, N.C. 28771
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
September 19, 2001
Jean Crews-Kaelin
NC Rural Economic Development Center
4021 Carpi Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in reference to the Town of Santeetlah's need for a municipal wastewater
system. Anicipal system will serve all residences in the Town of Santeetlah and the
proposed expansion of the existing lodging facility.
Several houses in this area are currently served by individual wastewater systems located
approximately 10 to 20 feet from Lake Santeetlah. The systems consist of a metal tank
and 0 to 30 feet of a nitrification field. The proximity to the lake and the composition of
the system presents concern for proper treatment before leaking into the lake area. Some
of the residences have repaired their old systems, but several others are still waiting the
time machine before their old systems also present problems.
We currently have evaluated lots in the Town that are unsuitable for a repair. If or when
their current system fails the residence will no longer have an approved wastewater
system resulting in abandonment of the residence. Other individuals have requested
approval for additions onto their residence only to be denied due to lack of space for a
wastewater system.
Several lots in the Town have been classified as unsuitable due to poor soil conditions,
lack of space and setbacks from water sources. Approval could be granted to the vacant
lots with access to a municipal system.
The scenarios stated above are only a few oldie problems and horror stories relating to
wastewater systems in the Town of Santeetlah. A municipal system is the only aoswer
for this area to guarantee public health, to promote future expansion and protection of the
existing residence. This would not only help the Town, but also the public health around
the lake area.
Sincerely,
Alicia Parham, RS
Environmental 1 ealth Specialist
04/22/2002 MON 10:07 [TX/RX NO 8276] Q 002

ti
Town of Robbinsville EAA (NC0025879)
Graham County
Purpose: Relocation from the Long Creek to Cheoah River and expansion from 0.63 MGD to 0.85 MGD
The facility was built in 1986 and the equipment has to be replaced. The existing site does not have
enough space for expansion.
Current average flow is 262,000 gpd. I/1 in the EAA is 240,480 gpd, or 92% of the current flow.
Existing WWTP serves: 964 residents (450 residential properties x 2.142 persons per household ), several
industrial customers (Stanley Furniture is the largest), and 157 commercial properties.
EAA claims that the Graham County Health Department deemed most soils in the area are not suitable
for septic tanks due to the thin soil layer (bedrock near the surface), proximity to the lakes and
mountain topography. However, there is no confirmation letter.
North Carolina Office of State Budget estimates annual growth rate for this area at 0.15%.
Within 20 years, the population will increase to 1,004 people.
EAA claims that the future service area will expand and include 8 unincorporated communities and the
Town of Lake Santeetlah. However, there is no documentation that would confirm that claim.
Alternatives:
1) Construction of the new facility with the tiered permit 0.63 MGD and 0.85 MGD — the lowest
cost.
2) New facility with reuse.
3) Connection to the existing WWTP. — None within 5 mile radius.
4) Land application.

•
•
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
Table C-2: Estimated Future Wastewater Flows
•
_
Type of Flow
Approximate Flow - 2011
(GPD)
Projected Flow - 2031
(GPD) .
Residential
44,276
47,076
Commercial/Institutional
31,536
32,136
Industrial
38,430
38,430
Robbinsville Expanded Service Area
280,330
Western Graham County Service Area
193,630
Industrial Reserve
11,424
Infiltration/Inflow
240,480
240,480
Total Flow_
354,722
843,506
Flow Calculation Notes:
Current and future flows are based on the guidelines published the NCDENR DWQ
Construction Grants and Loans Section for engineering and planning documents.
1. Current Residential = 49,196 gpd x 0.90 = 44,276 gpd
2. Future Residential = 44,276 gpd + ((1,004 - 964 persons) x 70 gpd/capita)=47,076gpd
3. Current Commercial/Institutional = 35,040 gpd x 0.90 = 31,536 gpd
4. Future Commercial/Institutional = 31,536 gpd + ((40 x 15 gpd/capita) = 32,136 gpd
5. Current Industrial = 42,700 gpd x 0.90 = 38,430 gpd
6. Robbinsville Expanded Service Area = 3,298 persons x 85 gpd/capita = 280,330 gpd
7. Western Graham County Service Area = 2,278 persons x 85 gpd/capita = 193,630 gpd
8. Industrial Reserve = 10% current = (44,276 + 31,536 + 38,430)gpd x 0.10=11,424gpd
9. Infiltration/Inflow based on non -excessive I/I (3,000 gpd-inch-mile)
= 3,000 gpd x 80.16 inch -miles of sewer pipe = 240,480 gpd
I
McGill Associates, P.A. 9 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Town of Robbinsville — NPDES Permit Application — May 2011
Supplemental Information
Section A11.b:
With regards to removal of nitrogen and phosphorous, please refer to Addendum No. 1 of the
Environmental Assessment which was written in response to comments received from NCDWQ
during the Environmental Assessment review process. During this review process, it was agreed
that the discharge would not increase nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to the receiving stream.
Phase 1 of the project will match the Town's current discharge of 0.63 mgd, and no nitrogen and
phosphorous loading increases are anticipated. Therefore. at the 0.63 mgd discharge. it is
proposed that no limits be included in the permit for nitrogen and phosphorous. At the Phase 2
discharge of 0.85 mgd, the limits proposed are 6.4 mg/1 for Total Nitrogen. and 1 mg/1 for Total
Phosphorous.

Project Narrative — Town of Robbinsville WWTP and Effluent Discharge Relocation
The Town of Robbinsville has an existing 0.63 million gallons per day (mgd) permitted
discharge to Long Creek, which is a tributary to the Cheoah River. The Town is planning to
construct a new treatment facility and a new outfall location approximately 1/2 mile downstream,
with a discharge to the Cheoah River. After the new treatment facility is placed into operation,
the existing treatment facility will be decommissioned and the existing 0.63 mgd permitted
discharge to Long Creek will be discontinued. The proposed discharge is 0.63 million gallons
per day (mgd) for the initial phase, and 0.85 mgd for the future phase. The Town has completed
the Environmental Assessment review and approval process, and has obtained a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for 0.85 mgd to be constructed in 2 phases.
The first phase wastewater treatment plant will be constructed to a capacity of 0.63 mgd. The
0.63 mgd facility will include two (2) treatment units to provide dual train reliability, with each
unit capable of treating 0.315 mgd. The future third treatment unit will have a treatment capacity
of 0.22 mgd to bring the total plant capacity to 0.85 mgd.
Each treatment unit will include the capability to achieve partial nitrogen and phosphorous
removal through biological nutrient removal, aeration, secondary clarification, and aerobic
sludge storage/digestion.
The following design and construction details will be incorporated into the first phase to allow
for easier expansion to 0.85 mgd in the future second phase:
• Site grading and layout will be designed to accommodate three (3) treatment trains, two
(2) to be constructed in Phase 1, and the third to be constructed in Phase 2.
• The influent pump station will provide space for additional pumping units for Phase 2.
• Where practical, piping will be sized to accommodate the future capacities.
• Flow splitting capability will be designed to easily add the flow split to the third
treatment unit.
• Adequate space for expansion will be provided around the first phase tertiary filters and
disinfection treatment units.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RELOCATION
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
_1_ •
\)!:'
;iT 1`7 L_
PROPOSED
1 k.•. INFLUENT PUMP STATION AND
FORCE MAIN TO PROPOSED WWTP
PROPOSED
SEWERSEWER LINE TO PROPOSED ,;•,'`';
;=INFLUENT PUMP STATION
Mc
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING•PLANNING •FINANCE
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE• NC 2ESOI PH, [phone] FIRM LICtNSE a C•C459
0: VON \06561\PER — EA DrawInga\06561 — USDA PER — Flgurae_luly 10.dwg
\c

FUTURE
0.22 MGD
PACKAGED
WWTP
(PHASE II)
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MECHANICAL BAR
SCREEN CHANNEL
NOTE: `-
1. PACKAGED WWTP TO INCLUDE:
- AERATION
-BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN /
AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL (PARTIAL)
- SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
- AEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION
McGill
ASSOCIATES
ENG1NEERING•PLANNING•F1NANCE
/
EMERGENCY BACK-UP
POWER GENERATOR
DISK FILTER
0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
LN TREATMENT
CHANNEL
D.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
WWTP OUTFALL
/✓ 0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
55 iiROAD STREET I� ASHEVTLLE, NC FE. [phone]

NC Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: January 5, 2010
To: Kathy Stecker
From: Jim Fisher ,
Sam Whitaker =51L)
Through: Pete Caldwell °C.
Subject: Lake Santeetlah / Cheoah River Study
Sub basin 040404
Request
The Intensive Survey Unit (ISU) of Environmental Sciences (ESS) was requested by the Planning Section,
to conduct sampling in the Cheoah River Arm of Santeetlah Lake and its tributaries in conjunction with
the proposed relocation and expansion of the Robbinsville wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
Introduction
The Town of Robbinsville has proposed a relocation of its WWTP (Permit NC0025879) to a larger 12 acre
site on the Cheoah River, 0.2 miles downstream from its present site on Long Creek in Robbinsville. The
Town currently operates a 0.63 MGD circular extended aeration tank WWTP with an average flow of
0.30 MGD in the lower part of Robbinsville, and is constricted in space for sludge handling facilities and
replacement of an aged out WWTP.
Algae bloom reports in the Cheoah River arm of Santeetlah Lake (Vander Borgh, 2008) and the close
proximity of the proposed outfall to lake waters have prompted the Planning Section to have concerns
about chlorophyll a concentrations in the lake. This lake has a history of algae blooms associated with
nutrient enrichment from trout farms in the Snowbird and Buffalo Creek arms of the Lake.
Study Reach
In conjunction with the routine five year rotation of the Ambient Lakes Sampling Program in the Little
Tennessee Basin, ISU added additional sampling sites to the normal three Santeetlah Lake sites (figures
1&2). These additional sites were located upstream and downstream of the current Robbinsville WWTP
outfall in Long Creek, on the Cheoah River upstream and downstream of the confluence with Long
Creek, and an additional lake site midway between the US Hwy. 129 Bridge and the headwaters of the
Lake.
cc: Roger Edwards
Keith Haynes
Ed Williams

Figure 1
Legend
Robbinsville Sample Sites
Municipal Areas
j Area Lakes
Santeetlah Sample Sites
Streams 0 0.1 0.2
0.4 0.6
Miles
0.8
Rabbinsville
Existing
wVVrP
Site
New I
WVVf P
Site
W

Figure 2
Santeetlah Sample Sites

Sampling Sites (Upstream to Downstream)
LTNSLCR1 — Cheoah River at Old US Hwy. 129 Bridge (SR 1138) upstream of confluence with Long Creek
LTNSLLC1 — Long Creek at Park on Knight St. upstream Robbinsville WWTP
LTN SLLC2 - Long Creek just downstream US Hwy. 129 (Tapaco Rd.) Bridge, downstream of the
Robbinsville WWTP outfall
LTNSLCR2 — Cheoah River at powerline downstream of site for proposed relocation of Robbinsville
WWTP, downstream of confluence with Long Creek
LTNSLCR3 — Cheoah River arm of Santeetlah Lake upstream of US Hwy 129 (Tapaco Rd.) upstream of
Deyton Camp
Parameters
Physical measurements; Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Specific Conductivity, pH, Depth,
Analytical measurements; Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Nitrite + Nitrate
Nitrogen (NO2+NO3), Total Phosphorus (Tot. P.), Total & Suspended Solids, Turbidity, Chlorophyll a, and
Phytoplankton
Results
Sampling for this study started the 6th of May 2009. A reconnaissance of the sampling sites on Long
Creek and the Cheoah River upstream and downstream of the Robbinsville WWTP was done on the
evening of the 5th of May. One of the Cheoah River sites was relocated further downstream for better
access to the river. A rainstorm the evening of the Sth and most of the next day turned Long Creek and
the Cheoah River into raging torrents, so sampling of those sites was suspended. Staff did get the
Santeelah Lake stations sampled the evening of the 6th of May between rain showers.
Comparisons of data collected at the sampling sites on Long Creek between the station downstream of
the Robbinsville WWTP outfall (LTNSLLC2) and the station upstream of the outfall (LTNSLLC1), showed
some parameters influenced by the introduction of wastewater to the stream (Table 1). Temperature
and specific conductivity showed small rises, with temperature increases in the 0.2 to 0.3 °C range, and
conductivity with an 8 µmhos average rise. Chemical samples showed a rise in ammonia (NH3) levels in
two samples (0.06 and 0.09 mg/L increase), a rise in total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) in two samples (0.10
and 0.06 mg/L increase). A small rise was also observed in two samples of Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3) (0.08 and 0.10 mg/L increase) One sample had a rise in Total Phosphorus (Tot. P) of
0.04.mg/L Total Solids had one sample rise of 8 mg/L. Suspended Solids and Turbidity were
inconclusive.
Comparisons of data from the sampling sites on the Cheoah River between the downstream station at
the power line (LTNSLCR2) and the upstream station at Old US 129 (SR 1138) Bridge, station LTNSLCR1,
showed very little change. Water temperature showed a 0.2°C rise, while conductivity and dissolved
oxygen stayed the same. Chemical samples showed a slight (0.02 mg/L) rise in NO2+NO3 at the
downstream site. These small changes may be attributable to other sources since the distance between
these stations is approximately 3600 feet . The effect of the Robbinsville WWTP effluent does not show

Table 1
Station
Location
River and Creek Stations
LTN SLCR1 Cheoah River at Old US 129
Bridge (SR 1138)
LTN SLLC1 Long Creek at Park on Knight St.
upstream Robbinsviile WWTP
outfall
LTN SLLC2 Long Creek just downstream US
129 (Tapaco Rd.) Bridge,
downstream of the Robbinsviile
WWTP outfall
LTN SLCR2 Cheoah River at powerline
downstream of site for proposed
relocation of Robbinsviile WWTP
Lake Stations
LTN SLCR3 Cheoah River arm of Santeetlah
Lake upstream of US Hwy 129
(Tapaco Rd.) upstream of
Deyton Camp
LTN 037B Cheoah River arm of Santeetlah
Lake, 1 mile upstream of
Snowbird Creek Arm
Lat/Long Date Time Depth
(decimal) (m/d/y) (hrs) (m)
35.3292
83.80973
35.3279
83.81066
35.3292
83.81084
35.3325
83.80704
5/6/2009
6/2/2009
7/6/2009
8/4/2009
9/1/2009
5/6/2009
6/2/2009
7/6/2009
8/4/2009
9/1/2009
5/6/2009
6/2/2009
7/6/2009
8/4/2009
9/1/2009
5/6/2009
6/2/2009
7/6/2009
8/4/2009
9/1/2009
35.3402 5/6/2009
83.8129 6/1/2009
7/6/2009
8/3/2009
8/31/2009
35.34463
83.83664
5/6/2009
6/1/2009
7/6/2009
8/3/2009
8/31/2009
Rained out
0830 0.15
1930 0.15
0900 0.15
0825 0.15
Rained out
0800 0.15
1910 0.15
0815 0.15
0750 0.15
Rained out
0815 0.15
1920 0.15
0845 0.15
0805 0.15
Rained out
0915 0.15
1945 0.15
0915 0.15
0845 0.15
1630
1700
1610
1700
1715
1715
1730
1640
1730
1800
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Lab Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
DWQ Standards for Trout Waters
Cheoah River & Long Creek are Class C Trout and Santeetlah Lake is B Trout waters
Agtite4 shaded values have Lab qualification codes that may render them not accurate
J8 Temperature limits exceeded - cooler malfunctioned
P- Elevated PQL due to matrix interferences and / or sample dilution
X2- Sample analyzed but not reported due to preservative contamination - field error
Physical / Chemical Data - Cheoah River Arm
Of Santeetlah Lake, Cheoah River, and Long Creek
at Robbinsviile
Temp. D.O. pH Spec. Cond. Secchi NH3 TKN NO2+NO3 Tot. P. Chla Tot. solids Sus. Solids Turbidity
(°C) (mg/L) (su) (µmhos) (m) (mg/I) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µ/L) (mg/L) (mg/I) (NTU)
14.9
21.7
17.0
17.7
14.1
20.2
15.8
16.8
14.3
20.3
16.1
17.1
14.9
21.4
16.8
17.6
19.5
25.8
27.9
27.8
26.8
9.2
8.0
8.9
8.5
9.4
8.2
9.1
8.7
9.4
8.1
9.0
8.6
9.3
8.0
9.0
8.6
8.9
8.2
8.2
8.5
8.3
19.6 8.9
25.7 8.2
27.6 8.0
27.8 8.5
26.3 8.6
6.9 33
7.0 37
7.2 38
7.1 39
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.2
6.9
7.3
8.1
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.4
8.1
8.3
29.0 6.0 6.0-9.0
28
34
29
35
34
42
37
45
33
38
37
40
28
26
27
25
26
23
23
24
23
24
1.5
2.5
1.6
1.8
2.0
3.5
4.4
2.0
2.7
2.0
0.02 Ragg
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
0.08 MIA8
0.11 0.30
<0.02 <0.20
0.03 0.26
<0.02
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 <0.20
0.16
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.27
0.28
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.20
0.02 ',P
0.02 <1.0
egg <1.0
<0.02 <1.0
YY
0.02 ;P,
0.02 <1.0
gigg <1.0
0.02 <1.0
0.02i
0.03 <1.0
tDitit <1.0
0.06 <1.0
46
48
48
32
12
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
4.4
3.3
3.7
2.2
42 9.2 5.5
50 <6.2 5.5
46 7.8 5.8
34 7.8 6.4
50 8.2 5.3
49 7.2 6.1
49 7.2 5.4
36 7.8 5.7
0.02 gwei 36
0.02 <1.0 50
2'}" <1.0 56
0.02 <1.0 34
Surface Grab Samples
<6.2 4.0
6.8 4.6
6.5 3.5
<6.2 2.6
<0.02 0.21
0.04Wa
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02 0.20
<0.02 <0.20
<0.02
0.03
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
0.12 0.03 3.4
0.06 <0.02 1.7
<0.02 <0.02 8.5
<0.02s 4.3
<0.02 0.02 2.6
0.11
0.09
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 2.8
<0.02 Wig
<0.02 3.3
r',2 3.3
<0.02 3.6
44
28
41
26
28
38
34
29
19
17
Photic Zone Samples
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
<12
<12
<12
8.6
2.3
3.4
3.4
2.7
5.0
1.1
1.3
3.2
1.4
0.02 0.20 0.02 0.02 1.0 12
15
6.2
1.0
10.0

up in the samples to the extent that it does in the previous samples taken on Long Creek, where rises in
temperature, conductivity, and nutrients indicate the presence of wastewater.
Data from the lake station in the Cheoah River arm of Santeetlah Lake (LTNSLCR3) and upstream on the
Cheoah River at the power lines (LTNSLCR2) show differences between lotic waters and flowing waters.
The surface measurements for temperature in the lake show the lake to be warmer than the River by
almost a 10 degree difference. DO levels are about the same, pH levels are about the same, except for
an 8.1 su in the lake the first of August. Specific conductivity levels are lower in the Lake. Chlorophyll.a
levels show a high of 8.5 pg/L in July with an average of 4.1 µg/L, which is a low value. Chlorophyll a
values in the river were all below detection, but staff did notice some attached algae on some of the
rocks in the river. The chemical parameters show an elevated NOx value of 0.12 mg/L, and turbidity of
8.6 NTU in May, probably attributable to storm runoff.
Comparisons of data between the lakes stations LTNSLCR3 (Cheoah River Arm) and LTN037B further out
in the lake, show similar physical characteristics, with the exception of secchi disk readings which are
lower by a meter, on average. The chemical data shows slightly higher chlorophyll a, total solids, and
turbidity readings in the Cheoah River Arm above US 129. Proximity to tributary streams might account
for these higher values. The Cheoah River arm of the lake is a backwater area with trees sticking up out
of the water, and the water is always a light lime green.
Conclusions
The data collected in this small summer long study showed that some parameters are influenced by the
wastewater from the Robbinsville WWTP in Long Creek. Temperature, specific conductivity, and the
chemical parameters Nitrogen and Phosphorus, show small rises in Long Creek downstream the outfall.
Comparisons of data from the sampling sites on the Cheoah River between the downstream station near
the proposed location of the new WWTP and the upstream station above Long Creek showed very little
change in water quality parameters. Comparisons of data from the lake station in the Cheoah River arm
of Santeetlah Lake and upstream on the Cheoah River near the site of the proposed new WWTP mainly
show differences between lotic and flowing waters and not the effects of wastewater.
References: 2008 Vander Borgh Algal Analysis Report, Mountain Creek Area of Santeetlah Lake
Attachments:
Maps of the Study Area
2009 Vander Borgh Santeetlah Lake Algal Assemblage Report

• Santeetlah Lake Algal Assemblage Report December 15, 2009
Study Overview
Algal assemblages were characterized in the Cheoah Arm of Santeetlah Lake and its tributaries in conjunction
with the proposed relocation of the Robbinsville Waste Water Treatment Plant. Algal samples were collected
monthly from May to August at three stations: LTNSLCR3 in the Choeah River, LTN037D midlake and
LTN037E near the dam. Stations LTN037D and LTN037E are ambient monitoring stations and have historic
algal assemblages data associated with them.
Methods
Sample Collection and Analysis: Samples were collected from the photic zone, preserved in the field and taken
concurrently with chemical and physical parameters. Samples were quantitatively analyzed to determine
assemblage structure, density (units/ml) and biovolume (m3/mm3)
Algal Bloom Determination: For the purpose of this report, algal blooms were determined by the measure of
unit density (units/nil). Unit density is a quantitative measure of the number of filaments, colonies or single
celled taxa in the waterbody. Blooms are considered mild if they are between 10,000 and 20,000 units/ml.
Moderate blooms are those between 20,000 and 30,000 units/ml. Severe blooms are between 30,000 and
100,000 units/ml. Extreme blooms are those 100,000 units/ml or greater.
Algal Assemblage Dominance: An algal group is considered dominant when it comprises 40% or more of the
total unit density or total biovolume. A taxon is considered dominant when it comprises 30% or more of the
total unit density or total biovolume.
Results
Algal assemblage densities remained below bloom levels throughout the study. Algal densities were < 4,000
units/ml and biovolumes < 1,000 mm3/m3 with the exception of LTNSLCR3 in July when biovolumes slighty
exceeded 1,000 mm3/m3 (Tables 1 & 2). The assemblages were dominated by cryptomonads in May and June
then shifted to bluegreens from June through August. Although algal densities were slightly higher in the
Cheoah River as opposed to the lake stations, the difference was neglegable.
These results follow historic algal data trends observed in Santeetlah Lake. Assemblage composition, densities
and biovolumes were all comprable to those in 2004 (Tables 3 & 4).
No problematic algae, such as the filamentous bluegreen Anabaena which bloomed in the Cheoah River below
Robbinsville in 2008, was noted during this study.
Ecological Implications
Algal assemblages, denisites and biovolume were characteristic of oligotrophic mountain lakes. These waters
tend to foster growths of golden algae, such as cryptomonads, chrysophtes and diatoms. Bluegreen algae,
commonly considered indicators of nutrient enrichment, were present but at low levels and not forming the
types of blooms which are characteristic of reservoirs in the piedmont.

Table 1. Algal densities and dominance in Santeetlah Lake during 2009.
Station Date Density (units/ml) Dominant Group Group % Dom
Dominant Taxa Taxa % Dom
LTNSLCR3 5/6/09 1,200
LTN037D 5/6/09 500
LTN037E
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
5/6/09
6/1/09
6/1/09
6/1/09
7/6/09
7/6/09
7/6/09
8/3/09
8/3/09
8/3/09
8/31/09
8/31/09
8/31/09
200
1,000
400
500
1,700
1,200
1,400
2,700
2,700
2,100
2,200
3,100
3,300
Cryptomonads
Cryptomonads
Cryptomonads
Cryptomonads
Cryptomonads
Cryptomonads
Cryptomonads
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
78
56
83
69
79
62
40
43
44
55
70
78
71
74
82
Table 2. Algal biovolumes and dominance in Santeetlah Lake during 2009.
Station Date Biovolume (mm3/m3) Dominant Group Group % Dom
Komma
Komma & Centric
Diatoms
Komma
Cryptomonas
Komma
Komma
Cryptomonas
Chroococcus
No Dominant
Planktolyngbya
Pseudanabaena
Pseudanabaena &
Chrooccus
Planktolyngbya
Planktolyngbya
Planktolyngbya
72
51&31
76
46
55
57
37
31
0
42
47
42 & 33
56
52
66
Dominant Taxa Taxa % Dom
LTNSLCR3 5/6/09 300
LTN037D 5/6/09
LTN037E 5/6/09
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTNSLCR3
LTN037D
LTN037E
6/1/09
6/1/09
6/1/09
7/6/09
7/6/09
7/6/09
8/3/09
8/3/09
8/3/09
8/31/09
8/31/09
8/31/09
100
< 100
700
100
100
1,200
200
100
900
800
200
700
700
200
Chrysophytes & 49 & 49
Cryptomonads
Greens 44
Cryptomonads & 56 & 43
Greens
Cryptomonads 86
Cryptomonads 95
Cryptomonads 63
Cryptomonads 54
Dinoflagellates 47
Cryptomonads 43
No Dominant 0
Diatoms 58
Diatoms 42
Diatoms 72
Diatoms 83
Greens 69
Mallomonas & 47 & 32
Komma
Oocystis 39
Oocystis & 43 & 35
Komma
Cryptomonas 83
Cryptomonas 79
Komma 40
Cryptomonas 54
No dominant 0
No dominant 0
Tabellaria 35
Tabellaria 55
Tabellaria 40
Tabellaria 71
Tabellaria 71
Oocystis 36

Table 3. Algal densities and dominance
Station Date Density (units/ml)
in Santeetlah Lake during 2004.
Dominant Group Group % Dom
Dominant Taxa Taxa % Dom
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTN037D
LTN037E
6/16/04
6/16/04
7/28/04
7/28/04
8/25/04
8/25/04
900
1,000
1,300
1,600
2,000
1,400
Table 4. Algal biovolumes and dominance
Station Date Biovolume (mm3/m3)
No dominant
Cryptomonads
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
Bluegreens
0 No Dominant
45 Komma
51 No Dominant
69 No Dominant
48 Chrysochrom u!!na
53 No Dominant
in in Santeetlah Lake during 2004.
Dominant Group Group % Dom
0
45
0
0
31
0
Dominant Taxa Taxa % Dom
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTN037D
LTN037E
LTN037D
LTN037E
6/16/04
6/16/04
7/28/04
7/28/04
8/25/04
8/25/04
< 100
< 100
200
100
200
200
Report prepared by:
Mark Vander Borgh
Environmental Biologist
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Diatoms
Cryptomonads
No Dominant
No Dominant
No Dominant
No Dominant
45 No Dominant
73 Komma
0 Synura
0 No Dominant
0 No Dominant
0 Cryptomonas
0
73
30
0
0
30

Total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia were generally less than the DWQ Water Quality
Laboratory detection levels in 2009. Nitrite plus nitrate values were extremely elevated, however and
may have been associated with the exceptionally low phytoplankton productivity in this reservoir. As
nitrate is assimilated by algae, it is reduced to ammonia. If algal biovolume is very low, nitrate and nitrite
concentrations may be elevated while ammonia levels are low. Chlorophyll a values in Lake Cheoah
ranged from <1.0 ug/L to 3 pg/L. Overall, nutrient and chlorophyll a values observed in 2009 were either
similar to or less than values previously measure since 1988 when this lake was first monitored by DWQ.
Based on the calculated NCTSI scores, Lake Cheoah was determined to have very low biological
productivity (oligotrophic) in 2009. This lake has been found to be consistently oligotrophic since 1988.
Santeetlah Lake
Santeetlah Lake is located on the Cheoah River in the mountains of western North Carolina. The lake is
owned by the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) and is used to generate hydroelectric power as
well as for recreational purposes. Santeetlah Lake is a deep lake with a maximum depth of 213 feet (65
meters) and a mean depth of 56 feet (17 meters). The lake has a volume of 195 x 106m3 and a mean
hydraulic retention time of 161 days. Major tributaries to Santeetlah Lake include the Cheoah River,
Santeetlah Creek, West Buffalo Creek and Snowbird Creek. The watershed covers 174 mil (450 km2 )
and consists of rugged, mountainous terrain, almost all of which is forested. Santeetlah Lake is
designated B Tr.
Surface dissolved oxygen and water temperature values in 2009 were similar to those values previously
observed by DWQ for this reservoir. Values for surface pH were near neutral from May through July, then
rose slightly in August and September, suggesting that algal productivity may have been increasing in the
lake. Nutrient concentrations were low as were chlorophyll a values.
In August, 2008, the Asheville Regional Office reported an algal bloom in the Cheoah River arm of
Santeetlah Lake downstream of the US Hwy 129 bridge. An analysis of a phytoplankton sample from the
bloom indicated that the dominant algae were filamentous blue greens Anabaena plantonica, Anabaena
spirodes and/or Anabaena circinalis. Filamentous blue-green algae form significant blooms that discolor
the water and produce taste and odor problems in drinking water. In 2009, no surface blooms of
Anabaena sp. were observed in the Cheoah River by DWQ staff.
DWQ Intensive Survey Unit Page 15 10/14/2010

Based on the calculated NCTSI scores for 2009, Santeetlah Lake continues to demonstrate low biological
productivity (oligotrophic). In September 2008, a fish consumption advisory was announced for
Santeetlah Lake due to high levels of mercury found in walleye fish. Santeetlah Lake is also under the
statewide consumption advisory for largemouth bass — also associated with elevated levels of mercury
found in this fish.
In response to a request from the DWQ Planning Section in early 2009, the Intensive Survey Unit also
conducted a water quality study of the Cheoah River Arm of Santeetlah Lake to assess current water
quality conditions near the site of the proposed relocation and expansion of the Robbinsville Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) and outfall. Robbinsville proposed a relocation of the existing WWTP (NPDES
Permit NC0025879) to a larger 12-acre site on the Cheoah River, approximately 0.2 mile downstream of
the present location on Long Creek. DWQ field staff sampled sites located upstream and downstream of
the current Robbinsville WWTP outfall on Long Creek, upstream of the confluence of Long Creek and the
Cheoah River, at the vicinity of the proposed new outfall on the Cheoah River and upstream of US Hwy
129 on the Cheoah River. Study results indicated that the current discharge does affect nutrient
concentrations in Long Creek, but its effect appears to be negligible downstream in the Cheoah River and
in the lake (NCDWQ-ESS Interoffice Memorandum, January 5, 2010).
Calderwood Lake
Calderwood Lake, completed in 1930 by the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) to produce power
for their plant in Tennessee, is currently owned by a subsidiary of ALCOA called the Tallassee Power
Company (TAPOCO). It is located on the edge of the Great Smoky Mountains on the North
Carolina/Tennessee border. Calderwood Lake is a narrow, but deeply channeled reservoir surrounded
forests. The upstream drainage area is 1,856 square miles with the Little Tennessee River (Lake Cheoah
discharge) as the major inflow. Calderwood Lake is classified C Tr
Calderwood Lake was sampled monthly from June through September in 2009. Surface dissolved
oxygen was elevated due to the cold temperature of the lake water. Surface water temperatures ranged
from 11.8C to 21.2°C and surface dissolved oxygen ranged from 8.8 mg/L to 10.1 mg/L. Secchi depths
ranged from 3.2 to 7.8 meters, indicating that the clarity of the water of Calderwood Lake is very good.
Nutrient concentrations were very low as were chlorophyll a concentrations. Based on the calculated
NCTSI scores for 2009, Calderwood Lake was determined to exhibit very low biological productivity
(oligotrophic). This lake has been consistently oligotrophic since it was first monitored by DWQ in 1988.
DWQ Intensive Survey Unit Page 16 10/14/2010

7
Michael F. Easley. Governor
William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins. Director
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
November 19, 2008
TO: Melba McGee
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
THRU: Dianne Reid, Supervisor'�(1"
Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program
FROM: Hannah Stallings, SEPA Coordinator
Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program
SUBJECT: Scoping Document
Graham County
Robbinsville WWTP Expansion
DENR#09-0110, DWQ#14047
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the subject project and has the following connnents
and concerns:
1. Please find attached DWQ's SEPA EA Guidance and EAA Guidance Document that Robbinsville
should use in the development of its environmental document. Both of these documents and other
guidance can be accessed at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/sepa/.
2. Please find enclosed DENR's Guidance for Preparing SEPA Documents and Addressing Secondary
and Cumulative Impacts. This document will aid in the identification of and mitigation for secondary
and cumulative impacts that may accompany the proposed WWTP expansion.
3. The EA should include the NPDES permit number (NC0025879).
4. The Division of Water Quality (Division) sent out speculative NPDES permit effluent limits on
7/19/2008. As stated in the speculative letter, the applicant will need to prepare an Engineering
Alternatives Analysis (EAA), in accordance with Division guidance, before any approval of the
proposed expansion. The EAA will need to justify the requested expansion flow of 1.0 MGD, as well
as evaluate alternatives to a direct discharge to surface waters.
5. DWQ is concerned that an increased discharge at the proposed location may cause standards
violations, especially chlorophyll a exceedances. Therefore, we request that Robbinsville provide
modeling to demonstrate that the phosphorus content of its proposed 950,000 MGD discharge would
not cause impairment of surface waters. Please contact Kathy Stecker, Supervisor of the Modeling
and TMDL Unit, at [phone] or [e-mail] for guidance on model
development.
Please contact me at 807-6434 if I can be of any additional help.
Thank you.
Cc: Roger Edwards — ARO
. Mailing Address
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Location
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
No thCarolina
�atura//J
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748

Re: EA Scoping; Robbinsville WWTP relocation/upgrade
Subject: Re: EA Scoping; Robbinsville WWTP relocation/upgrade
From: Kathy Stecker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:18:25 -0500
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
CC: Hannah Stallings <[e-mail]>, Andy Painter <[e-mail]>,
Adugna Kebede <[e-mail]>, jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
I'm not sure further explanation is required, but I'll offer it anyway.
I thought applicants had to demonstrate that their discharge would not cause standards
violations. Of course we also want them to demonstrate that they would not contribute
to existing problems... Level B looks at DO to make sure standards are still attained
with the expanded discharge, right? Why not require the same for chlorophyll? That's
where we're coming from.
Is there a concern with the timing of our recommendation? I.e., are we too late in
the process?
Thanks!
Tom Belnick wrote:
Hannah- NPDES folks just met with the Modeling Unit. NPDES used a Level B model
for the spec limits and did not evaluate nutrient loading, since the lake is no
longer listed.as impaired for chl-a, and the Level B model does not predict
nutrient response. However, there is concern about the additional TP loading with
this expansion, and Modeling may have additional modeling recommendations for the
EA Scoping request. I think you mentioned a deadline of Wednesday, and I'll be out
Wednesday morning.
Hannah Stallings wrote:
Tom -
Andy with Modeling and TMDL Unit sent these comments:
Because of the increased proximity to Santeetlah Lake and increased
discharge, a modeling study should be completed to determine that water
quality standards will not be exceeded in the Cheoah River and downstream
Santeetlah Lake (particularly the Cheoah River stem of the lake). The
discharger should take advantage of the best nutrient removal technologies to
preserve or improve the quality of the receiving waters.
We are concerned about a discharge being moved to 0.4 miles from the Lake. Our
concerns are based on 15A NCAC 02B .0219 (3). Can we require any more modeling
to determine that moving the discharge will not contravene water quality
standards? Or was this already taken care of when y'all issued the spec.
limits?
You (or whoever did the work on this one) may want to talk to Andy. Feel free
to talk to me too, though.
Hannah
Tom Belnick wrote:
Hannah- I offer the following comments on this EA Scoping Request (DWQ#
14047):
1. The EA should include the NPDES permit number (NC0025879).
2. The Division of Water Quality (Division) sent out speculative
NPDES permit effluent limits on 7/19/2008. As stated in the
speculative letter, the applicant will need to prepare an
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA), in accordance with
Division guidance, before any approval of the proposed
expansion. The EAA will need to justify the requested expansion
flow of 1.0 MGD, as well as evaluate alternatives to a direct
discharge to surface waters.
1 of 2 11/18/20084:39 P

[Fwd: Re: EA Scoping; Robbinsville WWTP relocation/upgrade]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: EA Scoping; Robbinsville WWTP relocation/upgrade]
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:20:39 -0500
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Jackie- fyi.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
N.C. Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
919-807-6495 (fax)
om.belnick@ncmail :yet
Subject: Re: EA Scoping; Robbinsville WWTP relocation/upgrade
From: Hannah Stallings <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:37:05 -0500
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Tom -
Andy with Modeling and TMDL Unit sent these comments:
Because of the increased proximity to Santeetlah Lake and increased discharge, a
modeling study should be completed to determine that water quality standards will
not be exceeded in the Cheoah River and downstream Santeetlah Lake (particularly
the Cheoah River stem of the lake). The discharger should take advantage of the
best nutrient removal technologies to preserve or improve the quality of the
receiving waters.
We are concerned about a discharge being moved to 0.4 miles from the Lake. Our
concerns are based on 15A NCAC 02B .0219 (3). Can we require any more modeling to
determine that moving the discharge will not contravene water quality standards? Or
was this already taken care of when y'all issued the spec. limits?
You (or whoever did the work on this one) may want to talk to Andy. Feel free to talk
to me too, though.
Hannah
Tom Belnick wrote:
Hannah- I offer the following comments on this EA Scoping Request (DWQ# 14047):
1. The EA should include the NPDES permit number (NC0025879).
2. The Division of Water Quality (Division) sent out speculative
NPDES permit effluent limits on 7/19/2008. As stated in the
speculative letter, the applicant will need to prepare an
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA), in accordance with
Division guidance, before any approval of the proposed
expansion. The EAA will need to justify the requested expansion
flow of 1.0 MGD, as well as evaluate alternatives to a direct
discharge to surface waters.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
N.C. Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
1 of2 11/18/2008 12:56 PM

FUTURE
0.22 MGD
PACKAGED
WWTP
(PHASE II)
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MECHANICAL BAR
SCREEN CHANNEL
PACKAGED WWTP
0.315 MGD
(PHASE I)
NOTE:-
1. PACKAGED WWTP TO INCLUDE:
-AERATION
-BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN /
AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL (PARTIAL)
-SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
-AEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION
/
L._ McGii1
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING•PLANNING•FINANCE
EMERGENCY BACK-UP
POWER GENERATOR
PACKAGED WWTP
0.315 MGD
(PHASE I)
DISK FILTER
0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
UV TREATMENT
CHANNEL
0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
WWI? OUTFALL
0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
55 BROAD STREET AS {E TL .E, NC PH. (82S) 252-0575

•
Mc
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING•PLANNING•FINANCE
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE, NC 28SUI FH. Iti'_Si 252-0575 FIRM LICENSE s C-0459
0:\2006\06561\PER — EA Drawings\06561 — USDA PER — Flgures_July 10.dwg
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RELOCATION
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
•

ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RELOCATION
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
mim MIKE WARESAK, PE
McGill
ASSOCIATES
Engineering • Planning • Finance
Asheville, North Carolina
JANUARY 2009
REVISED MAY 2011
off_ 6- AL r� _
P
° 950
G n
_'" V IN a • c.2 \
9,414, �aN�91�\\`
06561

Owl
•
min
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION 1
,m B. CURRENT SITUATION 4
C. FUTURE SITUATION 5
r=, D. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 10
E. PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS 15
0.1 F. SITE ISSUES 20
faml
Appendices
1 Existing NPDES Permit No. NC0025879 with Speculative Limits Letter
2 Preliminary Cost Estimates
McGill Associates, P.A. i Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

A. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Town of Robbinsville is a small cormnunity located in central Graham
County, in the southwestern portion of North Carolina. The existing Robbinsville
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located adjacent to US 129 on the north
side of town, near the confluence of the Cheoah River and Long Creek. The
WWTP was originally constructed in 1964 with a capacity of 130,000 gpd. There
were major upgrades installed at the plant in 1986, when the capacity was
increased to 630,000 gpd. Robbinsville currently operates their wastewater
treatment plant under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit Number NC0025879. The plant receives wastewater flow from
residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Robbinsville and currently
treats, on average, approximately 395,000 gpd.
Since the plant was last upgraded in 1986, treatment equipment is nearing the end
"melt'userui iiie. fhere is limited solids -handling capacity at the existing plant„
"'Sliege-must -for a period of time and then pumped and hauled to anotheit
`factitty for processing.. Upgrades to the existing facility to accommodate
treatment improvements and future growth are restricted by its site. The WWTP
is located on a small parcel which is surrounded on the south and east by existing
buildings, on the north by US 129, and on the west by Knight Street. There is no
room to improve the existing WWTP at its current site.
For this reason the Town of Robbinsville needs to relocate their existing treatment
plant to a new, larger location. The new WWTP will be constructed on a 12-acre
parcel of land owned by the Town and situated north of Robbinsville and the
exiting plant near the Cheoah River. The new outfall will be downstream of the
existing outfall and on the Cheoah River instead of Long Creek, which is tributary
to the Cheoah River. The existing WWTP would remain in service while the.
:replacement plant is being installed. Upon start-up, testing, and
approvals ne new plant's components, the existing plant will be demolished and
4he existing outfall to Long Creek will be abandoned.:.d
McGill Associates, P.A. 1 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

The Robbinsville area has experienced moderate growth in recent years and there
has been interest by surrounding communities to connect to Robbinsville's
sanitary sewer system. Robbie sville will need to expand itswastewater treatment
capacity to a total of 850,000 gpd during the twenty-year planning period to
accouiL-for future growth and to provide service to the .surrounding .rouununit
Several alternatives are evaluated in Section D of this report and the most
appropriate cost effective solution for replacement of the existing wastewater
treatment plant was selected. It is assumed that costs to expand the collection
system, and to connect new consumers, are similar in price and scope for each
viable treatment option. Treatment alternatives have been evaluated on an
estimated construction cost basis as well as a present worth basis over a twenty-
year operations period, and have been conducted in accordance with the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality (NCDENR DWQ) guidelines.
Construction of the new WWTP will utilize two construction phases to attain the
ultimate 850,000 gpd capacity. The first phase WWTP will be constructed to a
capacity of 0.63 mgd. The new 0.63 mgd facility -will- include two (2) packaged
treatment units to provide dual train reliabilit ach`un
0.315 mgd. After the new treatment facility is placed into operation, the existing
treatment facility will be decommissioned -and the existing 0.63 mgd permitted
discharge to Long Cook will be aisconiriued. The future second phase will
include a third packaged treatment unit that will have a 0.22 mgd capacity to
bring the total WWTP capacity to 0.85 mgd. The new WWTP is proposed to
include a mechanical bar screen, tertiary disk filter, ultra violet treatment tank,
operation building, and steel packaged treatment units with aeration, secondary
clarification, partial biological- nitrogen and -phosphorous removal, and sludge
digestion capabilities, In addition, it will be necessary to construct approximately
2,000 linear feet of gravity sewer, an influent pump station and approximately
1,000 linear feet of force main to convey wastewater from the existing WWTP to
McGill Associates, P.A.
January 2009, Revised May 2011
2 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

OEM
IMM
N.
10111
the proposed relocated WWTP. The capital cost for the recommended alternative
is estimated to be approximately $7,964,000.
Construction Schedule:
..Phe t (4:63-:mgd4.:
Phase 2 (0.22 rgd)
Begin Construction
End Construction
Begin Construction
End Construction
Applicant Information:
Name: Town of Robbinsville
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 126
Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
Phone Number: [phone]
Contact: Bobby Cagle, Jr. (Mayor)
April, 2012
ilr
January, 2014
November, 2014
Facility Information:
Name: Robbinsville WWTP
Mailing Address: 6 Knight Street
Robbinsville, North Carolina 28771
County: Graham
Phone Number: [phone]
Contact: Michael J. Ladd, ORC (Earth Environmental Services)
Preparer's Information:
Name: McGill Associates, P.A.
Mailing Address: 55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone Number: [phone]
Contact: Michael J. Waresak, PE
McGill Associates, P.A.
-• January 2009, Revised May 2011
3 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

OM
MIM
Oft
IOW
B. CURRENT SITUATION
1. Existing Wastewater Collection System
The Town of Robbinsville is located in central Graham County, North
Carolina and has a population of approximately 738 residents according to
2008 population data provided by the North Carolina Office of State
Budget and Management (OSBM) website: (http://www.osbm.state.nc.us).
The sanitary sewer collection system is owned and operated by the Town
of Robbinsville. Wastewater is collected from the Town of Robbinsville
as well as some outlying areas.
2. Wastewater Treatment Plant
Wastewater is treated at the Robbinsville WWTP, which currently has a
capacity of 630,000 gpd prior to its discharge into Long Creek, a Class
C;Tr water in the Little Tennessee River Basin, under NPDES permit
number NC0025879.4The existing fasibity consisbs of an influent pumping
:station, grit removal. a comminutor, a circular extended aeration tank with
center clarifier. sludge holding, UV disinfection, and gravity effluent to
Long Creel. Current average daily wastewater flows to the treatment
facility are approximately 395,000 gpd. The Robbinsville WWTP has
generally demonstrated the capability of complying with its NPDES
Permit limits for the last several years.
3. Population and Demographics
The existing Robbinsville WWTP accepts sanitary flow frofl'r
approximately 450 residential properties and 157 commercial properties in
the Robbinsville area. There is also a large industry, Stanley Furniture, and
several smaller industries which are connected to RobbiRsville's sanitary
sewer systewi According to OSBM data, the average household
population density for Graham County is 2.142 persons per household.
Therefore, the current residential service ` usbulation consists of
Apgroximately 964 persons in an appiiimially 430-acre area ceallked on,
,the Town of Robbinsville. „A more detailed explanation of current service
population estimates is provided in Section C of this report.
McGill Associates, P.A.
January 2009, Revised May 2011
4 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

FIR
Pug
1151
C. FUTURE SITUATION
Robbinsville Service Area Population Projections
Graham County has become a popular tourist destination with attractions
such as the Great Smoky Mountains, the Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest,
Fontana Lake, Lake Santeetlah, the Appalachian Trail, the Cherohala
Skyway, the Tail of the Dragon, and the Stecoah Valley Cultural Arts
Center. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
currently has plans to construct a new four lane highway (Corridor K
Bypass) which is proposed to connect NC Highway 28 with US Highway
129. The proposed Corridor K Bypass will generally follow NC Highway
143 and connect to US Highway 129 south of the Robbinsville town
limits. NCDOT has indicated that the proposed Corridor K Bypass is
scheduled to begin construction in 2016. It is anticipated that the
proposed Corridor K Bypass will increase travel and tourism in the Town
of Robbinsville area and spur commercial growth and wastewater service
demand along the proposed route.
Graham County has been experiencing moderate growth over the past
several years. According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and
Management (OSBM) website, Graham County's population grew from
7,993 in April 2000 to 8,087 in July 2008. This data represents an annual
growth rate of approximately 0.15%. It is anticipated that the growth rate
will gradually increase as a result of the proposed Corridor K Bypass and
several other projects and developments planned for the area. Graham
County is currently planning projects for the area which include a new
30,000 square -foot Justice Center and County Service Building, a
Downtown Agricultural Center and a Call and Data Center. Additionally,
private development to accommodate tourism, such as 24-room motel, has
been initiated in the area.
McGill Associates, P.A.
January 2009, Revised May 2011
5 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

PM
The Graham County Health Department has confirmed that many of the
existing septic systems in the area are inadequate and do not meet current
State requirements. Clusters of higher density development and
inadequate septic systems have created many situations where property
owners are unable to address their current septic system problems.
Problems include inadequate areas for leach fields, systems located in
close proximity to the lake, insufficient capacity in septic tanks, and
inadequate systems due to existing topography. In addition, there are
areas where subsurface conditions consist of a relatively thin layer of soil
over bedrock. In these situations, the wastewater from these systems
follows the subsurface bedrock layers without receiving the benefit of
natural purification through the soil, with the potential to surface in Lake
Santeetlah.
The most cost effective solution for providing sewer service to the
residents of the western Graham County service area is to construct a
centralized sanitary system that would pump flow via a series of pump
stations to the relocated Robbinsville WWTP. The relocated WWTP
should therefore have enough capacity for not only the Town of
Robbinsville and area surrounding the Town, but also for the western
Graham County service area.
The existing Robbinsville WWTP serves 450 residential customers and
157 businesses within the Town and immediate surrounding area.
According to the OSBM website, the average household size in the service
area is 2.142 persons per household. The resulting existing service area
population is 964 persons. Assuming an annual growth rate of 0.15%, the
estimated population within the existing service area will increase to
approximately 1,004 persons in the 20-year planning period.
It is anticipated that the Town of Robbinsville will expand its service area
to the southern Tulula Creek drainage basin along US Highway 129 and to
McGill Associates, P.A.
'o January 2009, Revised May 2011
6 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

1 art
MEI
Picti
the eastern Sweetwater Creek drainage basin along NC Highway 143,
which comprise the major developed corridors of the area and present the
greatest potential for growth. These service areas include the communities
of Bear Creek, Cheoah and Tulula; these communities consist primarily of
residences with some small businesses which developed along the
highways. Based on a residence count within the future expanded service
area, approximately 1,493 existing homes, or 3,198 persons could
potentially be served by the proposed WWTP. Assuming that the
expanded service area grows at 0.15% annually, it is estimated that the
population within the service area will increase ately 3,298
persons in the 2 - iod.
The future western Graham County service area is generally located along
US Highway 129 and NC Highway 143 west of the Town of Robbinsville.
The western Graham County service area includes the Town of Lake
Santeetlah, as well as the unincorporatedGcommunities ff Santeetlah
Shores, Buffalo Creek, Ground Squirrel Branch, Cross Creek, and
Snowird. The western Graham County service area consists primarily of
permanent and seasonal residential homes mainly clustered in the Town of
Lake Santeetlah and in the communities around the lake. Based on an
existing residence count within the western service area, approximately
1,026 homes, or 2,198 persons may be served by the proposed WWTP.
The OSBM website indicates that the Town of Lake Santeetlah grew at a
rate of 0.75% annually between 2000 and 2008; however, for the purposes
of this report it is assumed that the western Graham County service area
will grow at a rate of 0.15% annually. Assuming that the service area
grows at 0.15% annually, it is estimated that the population within the
service area will increase to approximately 2,278 persons in the 20-year
planning period.
The total projected future population to be served by the proposed WWTP
rat during the 20-year planning period is 6,580 persons. The projected
McGill Associates, P.A.
0.2 January 2009, Revised May 2011
7 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

O ft
MIMI
N INA
o ft
N MI
service area will accommodate anticipated growth along the existing
major developed corridors and Santeetlah Lake areas. Extending sewer
service to these areas is feasible since most existing housing and future
anticipated development is located near local drainage features. Table C-1
below summarizes expected population growth within the future
Robbinsville WWTP service area.
Table C-1: Robbinsville WWTP Service Population Projection
Year
Service Area
2011
2021
2031
Existing Robbinsville
964
984
1004
Expanded Robbinsville
3198
3248
3298
Western Graham County
2198
2238
2278
Total Population
6,360
6,470
6,580
Percent Increase
2%
2%
3. Future Wastewater Flows
The future wastewater demands are estimated based on the current flows
and projected population growth within the existing Robbinsville service
area as well as the expanded Robbinsville and western Graham County
service areas. Table C-2 below shows estimated flow increases for the 20-
year planning period. The future population in 2031 to be served by the
Robbinsville WWTP is approximately 6,580 persons. Residential
wastewater flows from this increase are estunated.at 70 gpd-per capita:,In
accordance with North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality (NCDENR DWQ) Construction
Grants & Loans guidelines, AIMMOMON wastewater figs from alit
increase are estimated at 15 gpd per capita., According to the flow
projections, a capacity of approximately 850,000 gpd is necessary at the
proposed Robbinsville WWTP.
McGill Associates, P.A.
January 2009, Revised May 2011
8 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

tad
ince
Table C-2: Estimated Future Wastewater Flows
Type of Flow
Approximate Flow - 2011
(GPD)
Projected Flow 2031
(GPD)
Residential
44,276
47,076
Commercial/Institutional
31,536
32,136
Industrial
38,430
38,430
Robbinsville Expanded Service Area
280,330
Western Graham County Service Area
193,630
Industrial Reserve
11,424
Infiltration/Inflow
240,480
240,480
Total Flow
354,722
843,506 -'S, rt'
Lid Flow Calculation Notes:
Current and future flows are based on the guidelines published the NCDENR DWQ
Construction Grants and Loans Section for engineering and planning documents.
1. Current Residential = 49,196 gpd x 0.90 = 44,276 gpd
2. Future Residential = 44,276 gpd + ((1,004 - 964 persons) x 70 gpd/capita) =47 076gpd
3. Current Commercial/Institutional = 35,040 gpd x 0.90 = 31,536 gpd
4. Future Commercial/Institutional = 31,536 gpd + ((40 x 15 gpd/capita) = 32,136 gpd
5. Current Industrial = 42,700 gpd x 0.90 = 38,430 gpd (17
�► 6. Robbinsville Expanded Service Area = 3,298 persons x 85 gpd/capita = 280,330 gpd
7. Western Graham County Service Area = 2,278 persons x 85 gpd/capita = 193,630 gpd
8. Industrial Reserve = 10% current = (44,276 + 31,536 + gpd x 0.10 = gp
9. Infiltration/Inflow based on non -excessive I/I (3,000 gpd-inch-mile) . St'1,'t..
= 3,000 gpd x 80.16 inch -miles of sewer pipe = 240,480 gpd /
tad
tant
tied
mei
Ind
rid
11;.ii).f _
g6w-ef oit/
f il%("-1-P4' avi&sift 0,26 2- .1,4
O 0.47( J,26ti �,026 114 &b
McGill Associates, P.A.
9 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

D. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Note: The following alternatives are based on the ultimate WWTP capacity of 0.85 mgd.
1. Alternative No. 1 No Action
This alternative consists of no action being taken to relocate the existing,
outdated Robbinsville WWTP to a new, larger site. Many treatment
components of the existing facility are nearing the end of their useful
lives. Lack of space becomes an issue which will lead to increased
replacement costs or the inability to replace treatment equipment at all as
it fails. Also, as was shown in the flow projections, the existing treatment
plant will approach its capacity in the corning years. 43y2021, ._thq
wastewater flow is expected to exceed the plant's capacity& At this flow
rate the Town of Robbinsville will need to limit connections to its system
and would likely not be able to provide sewer service to the western
Graham County service area.
Existing properties in the areas immediately surrounding Robbinsville and
in the western Graham County service area have on -site septic systems.
Without the ability to connect to public sewer systems, and as these septic
systems fail, area surface waters would experience negative impacts from
untreated or improperly treated wastewater. Failing septic systems present
health issues for residents exposed to contaminated surface waters. Also
groundwater contamination could become an issue, especially with older
shallow private wells.
Therefore, "No Action" is not a feasible alternative and will not be
discussed in further detail.
McGill Associates, P.A. 10 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

2. Alternative No. 2 Proposed Robbinsville WWTP at a new location
with Ultimate 850,000 gpd Capacity
This option includes the construction of a new WWTP on a 12-acre parcel
north of the existing WWTP near the Cheoah River. The WWTP would
be constructed in two phases. The capacity of the new WWTP would be
0.63 mgd after Phase 1 is completed; the capacity would be increased to
0.85 mgd after Phase 2 of the project is completed. Under this alternative
the plant will discharge treated effluent to the Cheoah River, a Class C;Tr
water in the Little Tennessee River Basin, which will require a new
NPDES permit. It should be noted that the existing WWTP outfall to
Long Creek and its associated NPDES permit will be eliminated after
completion of this project.
The NPDES permit for the existing Robbinsville WWTP allows 0.63 mgd
of treated effluent to be discharged to Long Creek with secondary
treatment limits. Since the proposed plant outfall is closer to Lake
Santeetlah than the outfall permitted with the existing plant, the discharge
limits must meet tertiary criteria according to NCDENR DWQ. Table D-1
below provides a summary of the preliminary design criteria for the
proposed Robbinsville WWTP at its capacity of 850,000 gpd. Figure 1
and Figure 2, located at the end of this section, illustrate the general
project area and the preliminary proposed WWTP site layout.
Robbinsville would continue to pump sludge from their sludge holding
tank on a regular basis.
McGill Associates, P.A.
11 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

4101
•
MO
WNW
This Alternative consists of installing steel package type treatment plant
units. Ilse. treatment facility is proposed to include a mechanical bac
screen, aeration, secondary clarifiers, tertiary disk filter, ultra violet
.treatment tank: aerobiadigester;-operations building, and effluent line t4
the Cheoah—Niiiire In addition, it will be necessary to construct
approximately 2,000 linear feet of gravity sewer, an influent pump station
and approximately 1,000 linear feet of force main to convey wastewater
from the existing WWTP to the proposed relocated WWTP. The
preliminary estimated cost for this option is S7,964,000.
Table D-1:
Proposed Robbinsville WWTP Preliminary Design Parameters (0.850 MGD)
Influent Characteristics (mg/I)
Effluent Re•uirements (mg/I)
BOD 1 TSS
TN
P
=. •g_
TSS
TN
P
250 1 250
25
4
5 / 10
30
6.4 I
1
Treatment Units
r
cn
Influent Screen
Capacity
Manual Bar Screen
2.5 mgd peak flow
Activated Sludge Process
Volume
Air Required
Aeration Basins
850,000 gal.
3,800 SCFM
Settling
Volume
Overflow Rate
Clarifiers
167,000 gal.
400 gpd/sf @ ADF
Disinfection
Type
Ultra Violet Light
Open Channel, Low Intensity / High Output
Solids Handling
Status
Storage
Volume
Air Required
Aerobic Digester
198,000 gal.
660 SCFM
Sludge Disposal
Capacity
E
Removed by contract sludge hauler
N/A
Status: E = Existing, P= Proposed
McGill Associates, P.A. 12 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

t
3. Alternative No. 3 Optimum operation of Existing Facilities
An alternative to increasing discharged flow at the proposed WWTP
location is to rehabilitate the existing WWTP and replace portions of the
existing collection system to decrease the amount of I/1 into the collection
system. Although some reduction in I/I is possible through collection
system rehabilitation and/or replacement projects, the capital costs
required to reduce I/I volumes to accommodate future flows is currently
unknown. Furthermore, since the existing WWTP is not equipped with
dual train treatment processes, the rehabilitation of the existing WWTP
components while keeping the treatment processes operational would not
be possible without extensive pump and haul activities during
construction. There is not sufficient space available at the current site to
accommodate redundant treatment facilities and/or sludge storage and
treatment facilities. The pump and haul scenario would require a
sufficient number of tanker trucks to haul approximately 395,000 gallons
per day with additional tanker trucks on hand to accommodate peak flows
during wet weather. The tanker trucks would have to haul the wastewater
to three separate WWTP's within a one -hour radius since no single
neighboring WWTP has sufficient capacity to accept the all of the
Robbinsville WWTP flows. Additionally, user charge fees for disposal
would apply, which would greatly increase construction cost. The total
cost, logistics, and risks involved with pumping and hauling wastewater
from the existing WWTP during construction activities makes this
Alternative infeasible.
4. Alternative No. 4 Proposed WWTP with Land Application / Reuse
The planned total flow of 850,000 gpd at the proposed new treatment plant
results in an increase of 220,000 gpd over the current plant capacity and
discharge permit. A typical acceptable land application rate for soils in
this region is 1" per week, which equates to 0.089 gpd per square foot. At
220,000 gpd, the area required would be 2,471,900 square feet, or
approximately 57 acres. Approximately 64 acres will be required to meet
McGill Associates, P.A. 13 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

two
•
mir
kosi
lizO
Visi
unv
kezi
tad
set back limits. Based on a review of current property listings of 50 acres
or greater in Graham County near Robbinsville, the market price for land
appears to be approximately $30,000 per acre. Therefore, the cost of the
64 acres would be estimated at approximately $1,920,000, assuming that a
suitable site for land application could be located and purchased. In
addition to the cost of the property, there would be significant capital costs
associated with providing for wet/freezing weather storage facilities
(typically 30 days minimum), a 5-day holding pond for insufficiently
treated effluent, installation of a pumping and transmission system to
convey the effluent to the site, and installation of an irrigation system. All
of the above costs would be in addition to the required 850,000 gpd
wastewater treatment facility. It should be noted that the actual volume of
wet/freezing weather storage required would be based on a water balance
evaluation, and may be greater than the assumption of 30 days of storage.
The preliminary estimated cost is $17,371,000.
5. Alternative No. 5 Regional System / Connection to Existing
..• Treatment Facility
There are no other public- or privately -owned wastewater treatment
..' facilities within a 5 mile radius of the Town of Robbinsville; therefore,
this option will not be evaluated further.
two
ago
mei
MO
wad
wid
6. Alternative No. 6 Proposed WWTP with Conjunctive Reuse
Relocation of the existing facility to a new WWTP site with Conjunctive
Reuse would include a land application reuse system and all of the other
facilities described above in the Land Application option, with the
exception of the wet/freezing weather storage facilities, and the 5-day
holding pond. The storage and 5-day holding pond would not be required
because if the facility were to be permitted with conjunctive reuse, the
treated effluent could be discharged to the Cheoah River during periods
when the irrigation system could not be utilized due to weather or
insufficiently treated effluent. The preliminary estimated cost for this
option is $11,660,000.
McGill Associates, P.A. 14 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Se
. Ba
1EV
1940
•
i93
( PROPOSED
INFLUENT PUMP STATION AND
.. ,-.' FORCE MAIN TO PROPOSED WWTP
il( r�
PROPOSED
'SEWER LINE TO PROPOSED
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
EXISTING DISCHARGE
TO LONG CREEK TO
BE ELIMINATED
>ird1Gap\ •
Erg /
2(17
‘ ?A7`#Soait Ch
•
k.
y,.
ASSOCIATESMc
ENGINEERING•PLANNING•FINANCE
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE, NC 2R1401 PH. (R2R) 252-057S F1RM LICENSE # C-O459
0:\2006\06561\PER — EA Drowings\06561 — WIMP LOC MAP I-28-11.dwg
FIGURE 1- PROPOSED PROJECT AREA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RELOCATION
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROPOSED
RELOCATED WWTP SITE
0 2i. Ti 1• n. 9 ._
SCALE: 1"= 2000'!�;�
•

FUTURE
0.22 MGD
PACKAGED
WWTP
(PHASE II)
FIGURE 2 -PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
MECHANICAL BAR
SCREEN CHANNEL
PACKAGED WWTP
0.315 MGD
(PHASE I)
NOTE:
1. PACKAGED WWTP TO INCLUDE:
-AERATION
- BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN
AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
- SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
- AEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION
McGill
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING•PLANNING•FINANCE
55 E Rr1 I) STREET ASHEVTLLE, NC PH. [phone]
GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(PARTIAL) /
/
EMERGENCY BACK-UP
POWER GENERATOR
PACKAGED WWTP
0.315 MGD
(PHASE I)
DISK FILTER
0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
UV TREATMENT
CHANNEL
0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)
WWTP OUTFALL
0.63 MGD (PHASE I)
0.85 MGD (PHASE II)

,
E. PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
A present worth analysis has been performed on the technically feasible
alternatives to determine the most cost effective solution for meeting the future
wastewater treatment needs of the Town of Robbinsville. These alternatives
include Alternative No. 2 — Proposed Robbinsville WWTP at a new location with
Ultimate 850,000 gpd Capacity, Alternative No. 4 - Land Application/Reuse, and
Alternative No. 6 — Proposed WWTP with Conjunctive Reuse.
Alternative No. 2 — Proposed Robbinsville WWTP at a new location with
850,000 gpd Capacity
The estimated capital cost for Alternative is $7,964,000. Table E-1 below
presents an itemized cost estimate for this Alternative.
McGill Associates, P.A. 15 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Wel
Uri
hind
lad
..d
NMI
and
Table E-1
Capital Cost for Alternative No. 2
Proposed Robbinsville WWTP at New Location with Ultimate 850,000 gpd Capacity
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE -
EXTENSION
PART A - Sewer Lines and Pump Station
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$16,000
$16,000
2
12" DIP Sanitary Sewer
1,900
LF
$48
$91,200
3
8" DIP Sanitary Sewer
250
LF
$40
$10,000
4
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes w/ Watertight lids
12
EA
$1,800
$21,600
5
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes w/ Watertight lids and Vents
2
EA
$2,000
$4,000
6
Sanitary Sewer Service Taps per detail
(including max. 20' of 4" pipe)
4
EA
$500
$2,000
7
20" Dia. X 0.250" wall thickness steel encasement pipe, bored
and jacked
80
LF
$275
$22,000
8
Submersible Sewer Pump station complete with site work and
emergency generator
1
EA
$375,000
$375,000
9
10" DIP Sewer Force Main
900
LF
$35
$31,500
10
CABC shoulders and parking lots
200
TONS
$20
$4,000
11
Washed Stone Undercut per 6" depth
620
LF
$4
$2,480
12
Rock Excavation
250
CY
$60
$15,000
13
Select Backfill
250
CY
$12
$3,000
14
Silt Fence installation per details
740
LF
$3
$2,220
SUBTOTAL - PART A
$600,000
PART B - Wastewater Treatment Plant
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
2
Mechanical Bar Screen and Channel
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
3
0.85 MGD Steel Package Plant with Aeration, Biological
Nitrogen and Phosphorous Removal, Secondary Clarification,
and Aerobic Sludge Digestion
1
LS
$2,750,000
$2,750,000
4
Disk Filters
1
LS
$500,000
$500,000
5
UV Disinfection System
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
6
Clarifier Splitter Box
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
7
Sludge Pump Station
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
8
Operations Building
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
9
Sitework, including bypass road
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
10
Yard Piping
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
11
Electrical
1
LS
$800,000
$800,000
SUBTOTAL - PART B
55,900,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$6,500,000
10% Contingency
$650,000
Preliminary Engineering
$25,000
Environmental Assessment
$40,000
Design/Contract Administration
$429,000
Construction Observation
$250,000
Geotechnical during design
$5,000
Material Testing
$5,000
Easement Acquisition
$30,000
Legal/Administration
$30,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$7,964,000
McGill Associates, P.A.
January 2009, Revised May 2011
16 Town of Robbinsville
Engineering Alternatives Analysis

.
Wei
tad
hod
citi
ml
Ind
mei
taw
Mid
lad
imid
two
.d
IINIS
Based on similarly sized facilities, the annual O&M costs are estimated at $0.50
per gpd, or $425,000 per year for an 850,000 gpd facility.
The twenty-year present worth cost of Alternative No. 3, using a discount rate of
5.125% (per current NCDENR DWQ Construction Grants and Loans guidelines)
is calculated below:
PW = $7,964,000 + $425,000 x (P/A, 5.125%, 20 yr.)
PW = $7,964,000 + ($425,000 x 12.33) = $13,204,250
PRESENT WORTH = $ 13,204,250 for ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
Alternative No. 6 — Proposed WWTP with Conjunctive Reuse
In order to estimate the cost for constructing a new 850,000 gpd-capacity
Robbinsville WWTP with a land application system; several assumptions had to
be made.
These assumptions include:
1. Adequate land for disposal can be found within 10,000 LF of the
proposed WWTP site.
2. Land Application site is approximately square with no unsuitable
areas and only acreage necessary for irrigation is purchased.
3. Site elevations are technically feasible to be irrigated with a single
pump station.
These assumptions were made based on a best -case scenario and it is therefore
likely that the actual costs associated with constructing these facilities would be
greater than the estimates represented here. Based on the cost estimates presented
here the cost of constructing a land application system (Alternative No. 4) will be
significantly greater than Alternative No. 6 and therefore it is not necessary to
perform a more detailed estimate for Alternative No. 4.
McGill Associates, P.A. 17 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Table E-2
Capital Cost for Alternative No. 6
Proposed WWTP with Conjunctive Reuse
ITEM
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
,
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$60,000
$60,000
2
850,000 GPD WWTP w/
Tertiary Treatment
1
LS
$5,900,000
$5,900,000
3
Collection System
Improvements
1
LS
$600,000
$600,000
3
Spray Irrigation Pump
Station
1
LS
$100,000.00
$150,000
4
Spray Irrigation Force
Main to Site
10,000
LF
$35.00
$350,000
5
Spray Irrigation
Distribution Pipe
45,000
LF
$15.00
$675,000
6
Spray Irrigations Spray
GunROUNDED
130
EA
$1,500.00
$195,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$7,930,000
Contingencies (10%)
$793,000
Preliminary Engineering
$25,000
Environmental Assessment
$40,000
Design / Contract Administration
$555,000
Construction Observation
$317,000
Geotechnical Services during Design
$20,000
Materials Testing during Construction
$10,000
Land/Easement Acquisition
$1,940,000
Legal/Administration
$30,000
TOTAL ROUNDED PROJECT COST
$11,660,000
The annual O&M costs for this alternative would be similar to the O&M costs
described in Alternative No. 2 for the WWTP, plus additional O&M costs for the
spray irrigation system. Table E-3 includes an estimate of the annual O&M costs
for Alternative No. 6.
McGill Associates, P.A. 18 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

Table E-3
Annual O&M Cost Estimate for Alternative No. 6
Proposed WWTP with Conjunctive Reuse and Spray Irrigation System
Item
Annual Cost
WWTP O&M (Alt. No.2)
$425,000
Spray Irrigation System
$25,000
Total
$450,000
The twenty-year present worth cost of Alternative No. 6, using a discount rate of
5.125% (per current NCDENR DWQ Construction Grants and Loans guidelines)
is calculated below:
PW = $11,660,000+ $450,000 x (PIA, 5.125%, 20 yr.)
PW = $11,660,000 + ($450,000 x 12.33) = $ 17,208,500
PRESENT WORTH = $ 17,208,500 for ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
Present Worth Analysis Conclusions
Based on the above analysis, the 20-Year Present Worth to construct a new
wastewater treatment plant (Alternative No. 2) is $13,204,250, and the 20-Year
Present Worth for the Proposed WWTP with Conjunctive Reuse and Spray
Irrigation System (Alternative No. 6) is $17,208,500. Therefore the recommended
alternative is to construct a new wastewater treatment plant with a treatment
capacity of 850,000 gpd.
McGill Associates, P.A. 19 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

F. SITE ISSUES
. A portion of the property purchased for the proposed wastewater treatment plant
is located within the 100-year floodplain of the Cheoah River. The 100-year
`'o flood elevation is approximately 1954-feet. Construction of the proposed WWTP
will have to been completed in accordance with Graham County zoning and
wi' floodplain administration requirements, as well as all necessary permits will be
obtained prior to construction.
twa
WEI
knii
Wel
hid
lad
lamil
WEI
Imei
kall
timi
MO
WO
McGill Associates, P.A. 20 Town of Robbinsville
January 2009, Revised May 2011 Engineering Alternatives Analysis

I
dr TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RELOCATION
Preliminary Cost Estimate
„rei Proposed Alternative - Relocate WWTP
Ord
lad
met
Wel
WOO
ITEM NO. '= DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT I UNIT PRICE EXTENSION
PART A - Sewer Lines and Pump Station
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$16,000
$16,000
2
12" DIP Sanitary Sewer
1,900
LF
S48
$91,200
3
8" DIP Sanitary Sewer
250
LF
$40
$10,000
4
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes
w/ Watertight lids
12
EA
S1,800
$21,600
5
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes
w/ Watertight lids and Vents
2
EA
$2,000
$4,000
6
Sanitary Sewer Service Taps per detail
(including max. 20' of 4" pipe)
4
EA
$500
$2,000
7
20" Dia. X 0.250" wall thickness steel
encasement pipe, bored and jacked, complete
with carrier pipe
80
LF
$275
$22,000
8
Submersible Sewer Pump station complete
with site work, fencing, pumps, piping,
electrical and emergency generator
1
EA
$375,000
$375,000
9
10" DIP Sewer Force Main
900
LF
$35
$31,500
10
CABC shoulders and parking lots
200
TONS
$20
$4,000
11
Washed Stone Undercut per 6" depth
increments as directed by Engineer
620
LF
$4
$2,480
12
Rock Excavation
250
CY
$60
$15,000
13
Select Backfill
250
CY
$12
$3,000
14
Silt Fence installation per details
740
LF
$3
$2,220
SUBTOTAL - PART A
$600,000
PART B -Wastewater Treatment
Plant (Prase 1 and
Phase 2)
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
2
Mechanical Bar Screen and Channel
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
3
0.85 MGD Steel Package Plant with
Aeration, Biological Nitrogen and
Phosphorous Removal, Secondary
Clarification, and Aerobic Sludge Digestion
1
LS
$2,750,000
$2,750,000
4
Disk Filters
1
LS
$500,000
$500,000
5
UV Disinfection System
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
6
Clarifier Splitter Box
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
7
Sludge Pump Station
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
8
Operations Building
1
LS
$250,000
S250,000
9
Sitework, including bypass road
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
10
Yard Piping
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
11
Electrical
1
LS
$800,000
S800,000
SUBTOTAL - PART B
S5,900,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$6,500,000
10% Contingency
$650,000
Preliminary Engineering
$25,000
Environmental Assessment
$40,000
Design/Contract Administration
$429,000
Construction Observation
$250,000
Geotechnical during design
$5,000
Material Testing during Constr.
$5,000
Easement Acquisition
$30,000
Legal/Administration
$30,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$7,964,000

8
1
TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RELOCATION
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Proposed WWTP with Conjunctive Reuse
ITEM NO. I DESCRIPTION I QUANTITY I UNIT I UNIT PRICE 1 EXTENSION
PART A - Sewer Lines and Pump Station
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$16,000
$16,000
2
12" DIP Sanitary Sewer
1,900
LF
$48
$91,200
3
8" DIP Sanitary Sewer
250
LF
$40
$10,000
4
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes
w/ Watertight lids
12
EA
81,800
$21,600
5
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes
w/ Watertight lids and Vents
2
EA
82,000
84,000
6
Sanitary Sewer Service Taps per detail
(including max. 20' of 4" oiael
4
EA
$500
$2,000
7
20" Dia. X 0.250" wall thickness steel
encasement pipe, bored and jacked, complete with
rarrier nine
80
LF
$275
$22,000
8
Submersible Sewer Pump station complete with
site work, fencing, pumps, piping, electrical and
Pmprnenry nanaratnr
1
EA
$375,000
$375,000
9
10" DIP Sewer Force Main
900
LF
$35
$31,500
10
CABC shoulders and parking lots
200
TONS
$20
$4,000
11
Washed Stone Undercut per 6" depth increments
as directed by Enoineer
620
LF
$4
$2,480
12
Rock Excavation
250
CY
$60
$15,000
13
Select Backfill
250
CY
$12
83,000
14
Silt Fence installation per details
740
LF
83
82,220
SUBTOTAL - PART A
$800,000
- PART B - Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
2
Mechanical Bar Screen and Channel
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
2
0.85 MGD Steel Package Plant with Aeration,
Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorous Removal,
Secondary Clarification, and Aerobic Sludge
Digestion
1
LS
82,750,000
$2,750,000
6
Disk Fitters
1
LS
$500,000
$500,000
7
UV Disinfection System
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
8
Clarifier Splitter Box
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
9
Sludge Pump Station
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
12
Operations Building
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
13
Sitework, including bypass road
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
14
Yard Piping
1
LS
8200,000
8200,000
15
Electrical
1
LS
$800,000
$800,000
SUBTOTAL - PART B
85,900,000
PART C :-' Wastewater Disposal
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$60,000
$60,000
2
Spray Irrigation Pump Station
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
3
Spray Irrigation Force Main to Site
10,000
LF
$35
$350,000
4
Spray Irrigation Distribution Pipe
45,000
LF
$15
$675,000
5
Irrigation Spray Guns
130
EA
81,500
$195,000
SUBTOTAL - PART C
$1,430,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$7,930,000
_ T
10% Contingency
$793,000
Preliminary Engineering
$25,000
Environmental Assessment
840,000
Design/Contract Administration
$555,000
Construction Observation
$317,000
Geotechnical during design
$20,000
Material Testing during Constr.
$10,000
Land/Easement Acquisition
$1,940,000
Legal/Administration
$30,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$$ 11, 660, 000

TOWN OF ROBBINSVILLE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RELOCATION
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Proposed WWTP with Land Application/Reuse
ITEM NO.1 DESCRIPTION- : ` ` : I QUANTITY I UNIT I UNIT PRICE' I . EXTENSION
PART A - Sewer Lines and Pump Station .
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$16,000
$16,000
2
12" DIP Sanitary Sewer
1,900
LF
$48
$91,200
3
8" DIP Sanitary Sewer
250
LF
$40
$10,000
4
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes
w/ Watertiaht lids
12
EA
$1,800
$21,600
5
4' Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manholes
w/ Watertight lids and Vents
2
EA
$2,000
$4,000
6
Sanitary Sewer Service Taps per detail
Iincludina max. 20' of 4" doe)
4
EA
$500
$2,000
7
20" Dia. X 0.250" wall thickness steel
encasement pipe, bored and jacked, complete
with rarrit.r hint.
80
LF
$275
$22,000
8
Submersible Sewer Pump station complete with
site work, fencing, pumps, piping, electrical
and ornornt.nmi nt.nt.ratnr
1
EA
$375,000
$375,000
9
10" DIP Sewer Force Main
900
LF
$35
$31,500
10
CABC shoulders and parking lots
200
TONS
$20
$4,000
11
Washed Stone Undercut per 6" depth
increments as directed by Engineer
620
LF
$4
$2,480
12
Rock Excavation
250
CY
$60
$15,000
13
Select Backfill
250
CY
$12
$3,000
14
Silt Fence installation per details
740
LF
$3
$2,220
SUBTOTAL - PART A
$600,000
. PART B - Wastewater Treatment Plant (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
2
Mechanical Bar Screen and Channel
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
3
0.85 MGD Steel Package Plant with Aeration,
Biological Nitrogen and Phosphorous Removal,
Secondary Clarification, and Aerobic Sludge
Dinestion
1
LS
$2,750,000
$2,750,000
4
Disk Filters
1
LS
$500,000
$500,000
5
UV Disinfection System
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
6
Clarifier Splitter Box
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
7
Sludge Pump Station
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
8
Operations Building
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
9
Sitework, including bypass road
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
10
Yard Piping
1
LS
$200,000
$200,000
11
Electrical
1
LS
$800,000
$800,000
SUBTOTAL - PART B
$5,900,000
PART C - Wastewater Disposal
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$180,000
$180,000
2
Spray Irrigation Pump Station
1
LS
$150,000
$150,000
3
Spray Irrigation Force Main to Site
10,000
LF
$35
$350,000
4
Spray Irrigation Distribution Pipe
45,000
LF
$15
$675,000
5
Irrigation Spray Guns
130
EA
$1,500
$195,000
6
30-Day Storage Facility
1
LS
$4,000,000
$4.000,000
7
5-Day Holding Pond
1
LS
$600,000
$600,000
SUBTOTAL - PART C
$6,150,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$12,650,000
__.._.._.__
10% Contingency
$1,265,000
Preliminary Engineering
$25,000
Environmental Assessment
$40,000
Design/Contract Administration
$885,000
Construction Observation
$506,000
Geotechnical during design
$20,000
Material Testing during Constr.
$10,000
Land/Easement Acquisition
$1,940,000
Legal/Administration
$30,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
$17,371,000