NC0066516_Wasteload Allocation_19901022

tko-cs . 3 w c4's
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: _ NCO066S16
FACILITY NAME: %J• IVICA W
Facility Status: Exignm (70p��
(circle one)
Permit Status: RENEWAL NO AFICATM
(circle one)
Major `/ Minor
Pipe No: 00 (
Design Capacity (MGD): 2. O
Domestic (% of Flow): ID dam/ '
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
orr`crl)iWr-M CTOVAu. o%rV'\LL
Class:
Sub -Basin: o o y O 3
Reference USGS Quad: C � 3 S (please attach)
County: i A L9-
Regional Office: As Fa Mo 42 a Wa W1 WS
(circle eme)
Requested By: ""UC0`y" Date:_Jt1 () Q o
Prepared By: Date: tM7 0 0
Reviewed By: Date:
la
Modeler
Date Rec.
s
ScM
q I I I qID
A
Drainage Area (mil) •� 3 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 6 J o
7Q10 (cfs) 0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs)0- OQ2 (cfs) 0-6
Toxicity Limits: IWC.qq_ % (circle one) Acute /Chronic
Instream Monitoring: —14 �-� (`�)
Parameters
2 \M �OtAd,[ 0 t"e c0.�6
Upstream Location A4 Y S -s
Downstream Location A;' OJ s& 2'151 a
AA N c s,
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BODII (mg/1)
S
l o
NHf N (mg/1)
2
D.O. (mg/0
TSS (mg/1)
3 p
3 O
F. Col. (/ 100ml)
Zp o
1.a a
pH (SU)
kXA
� Z
2
Comments: c� e-%k � xt ��S i o 0 -/•

/< 1/.
Request No.:
PLEASE NOTE THREE WLA'S
------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROI - IWV
Facility Name: Fuquay-Varina WWTP
NPDES No.: NCO066516
Type of Waste: Domestic
Status: PROPOSED/NEW
Receiving Stream: Terrible Creek
Classification: C-NSW
Subbasin: 030403
County: Wake
Regional Office: Raleigh
Requestor: Dale Overcash
Date of Request: 091390
Quad: E 23 SE
S 8 S9 �A)
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFIC � V'
189 0208796548 rr
Drainage area: 6.49 9 Ts4 Cmi
Summer 7Q10: 0.00 cfs
Winter 7Q10: 0.`33 efs!Fr,�,�
Average flow:; 6.80 cfs
30Q2:j 0.62 cfs
-------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS -------------------------
SUMMER WINTER
Wasteflow (mgd) : 2.00 2.00 L •� -� CCorA-,-«
BOD5 (mg/1) : 5 10
NH3N (mg/1) : 1 2 C. %'<< e-'k rt4. C�.�
DO (mg/1) : 6 6
TSS (mg/1) : 30 30 % as Ses
Fecal coliform (#/100ml): 200 200
pH (su) : 6-9 6-9 ��' e
TRC (ug/1) : 17 17
Lead (ug/1): Monit Monit
Total Phosphorus (mg/1): 2 2
Whole Effluent Toxicity Requirement: Chronic/Ceriod/QRTLY @ 99%
---------------------------- MONITORING ----------------------------------
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: At dam's spillway
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: At NCSR 2751 and at NC 50 in Middle
Creek --� � ; '` ' k.— ins . ( 4v f
Instream parameters: Temp, DO, Cond, pH and fecal coliform. ' -?
----------------------------- COMMENTS -----------------------------------
Annual priority pollutant scan should be required. Permit should
indicate that these limits are for 100 % domestic waste. Permit should
indicate that the permitee should notify DEM if industrial wastes are
added to this facility. Permit should indicate that permit can be reopened
to incorporate new limits and monitoring requirements if industrial
wastes are added to the facility. The RRO should notify the permittee,
once more, that DEM may require the e imination of discharges to
intermittent streams in the �fM
. Prepared by: Date: 1n
11l o o
Juan C. Mangles
Reviewed by
AC)
Instream Assessment: Date: q(7
Regional Supervisor: Date:
Permits & Engineering: Qua Date: I4(g
QCT 16 1990
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY.

10/89
Facility Name V1 Permit # 1) C. Do 66 s
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRIRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is qCA % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform quarterl monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The firsk tFst w be perf, rmed ter thirty days from
issuance of this permit during the months of Y v �1e Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES perriiitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 d cfs
Permited Flow 1 . O MGD Recommended by:
IWC% (o 00 / ' _
Basin & Sub -basin 0 3
Receiving Strew kvv.
County WW Date
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F atV %, V Sv "1 , See Part _, Condition
(;Lf4t�_c

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCOO 6f S k
FACILITY NAME: � " �G w W t 1'
Facility Status: EX15IING C"�D
(circle one)
Permit Statue: RENEWAL NODWIC.ATION UNPFRMrrrED
(circle ��
Major mnor,_-
Pipe No: 0 (0 k
Design Capacity (MGD): C{
Domestic (% of Flow): (0
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
RECEIVING STREAM:
Class: S W
Sub -Basin:
Reference U'S,GnS Quad: 2-� S� (please attach)
W County: 4kSL
Regional Office: As Fa Mo . Ra Wa Wi WS
(circle one)
Requested By: O� C0.` Date: to 0
Prepared By: Date:
Reviewed By: Date:
l o zZ 0
Modeler
Date Rec.
s
c1�►
( it q v
C
Drainage Area (m?) Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 6 'g
7Q10 (cfs) U Winter 7Q10 (cfs)()-1130Q2 (cfs) C.0 7.
Toxicity Limits: IWC q 61 % (circle one) Acute / Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters J�!^R�1� t� L �OW�_�!' plc! 1p.O0WGQll"l
Upstream Location +�� �� �+ i S -SV �I Wes.
Downstream 4— Location �CSIL r? S U
-� C SO LAA
l 1 .
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BODE (mg/1)
S
( O
NHf N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/0
TSS (mg/1)
3Q
3 O
F. Col. (/ 100ml)
1 O O
Z 0-iD
pH (SU)
6-ci
6 - Q
-t tc C f
uad kk'Cf
4D U.,
orstS
2
�-
Comments:. e SQ K l wl t`TS
00 Y.

PR!p ::.�st No. 66
PLEASE NOTE THREE WLA'S
------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPrRQVAL FORM
Facility Name:
NPDES NO.:
Type of Waste:
Status:
Receiving Stream:
Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Quad:
Fuquay-Varina WWTP
NCO066516 RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
Domestic
PROPOSED/NEW
Terrible Creek
-----------------
1 4 --` "' I
:_zIVE
OCT 16 1990
C-NSW
189 0208796548kl7 r
030403
Drainage
ar
6.430
sq mi
Wake
Summer
7QT0:
0.00
cfs
Raleigh
Winter
7Q10:
0.33
cfs
Dale Overcash
Average
flow:
6.80
cfs
091390
30Q2:
0.62
cfs
E 23 SE
-------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS -------------------------
SUMMER
WINTER
Wasteflow (mgd) :
4.00
4.00
BOD5 (mg/1) :
5
10
NH3N (mg/1) :
1
1.9
DO (mg/1):
6
/
6 S 1`K
s
TSS (mg/1) :
30
30
fit -
Fecal coliform (#/100ml) :
200
200
pH (su) :
6-9
6-9
TRC (ug/1) :
17
17
Lead (ug/1):
Monit
Monit
-
Total Phosphorus (mg/1):
2
2
Whole Effluent Toxicity Requirement:
Chronic/Ceriod/QRTRLY
@ 99%
----------------------------
MONITORING ----------------------------------
Upstream (Y/N): Y
Location:
At dam's spillway
Downstream (Y/N): Y
Location:
At US 401 and at NC 50
(Middle Creek)
Instream parameters: Temp, DO, Cond, pH and fecal coliform.
----------------------------- COMMENTS -----------------------------------
Annual priority pollutant scan should be required. Permit should
indicate that these limits are for 100 % domestic waste. Permit should
indicate that the permitee should notify DEM if industrial wastes are
added to this facility. Permit should indicate that permit can be reopened
to incorporate new limits and monitoring requirements if industrial
wastes are added to the facility. The RRO should notify the permittee,
once more, that DEM may require the elimination of discharges to
intermittent streams in the ture
Prepared by: Date: 01 M O
Juan C. Mangles
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
CAVO Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: Dyl 1 6 1990
Date:
Date: Azfl9 a
Date:

10/89
Facility Namey 1 ��� wTr Permit # 0 C,0046
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentratio at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is W% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The fir w' e perf ed a to thirty days from
issuance of this permit during the months of Q C- , . Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at IthNNODES permitted final effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental, Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0 cfs
Permited Flow - 0 MGD
IWC% w 6
Basin & Sub -basin 4
Receiving Stre YV\
County U 16AL .
Recommended by:
Date
0
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at qq%
See Part _, Condition _.

/ rr NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: _ NCOO
FACILITY NAME:
Facility Status: EXISTM PROP06FD �.�'
(circle one)
Permit Status: RENEWAL MOOWIC,ATM
(circle one)
Major Vf Minor --
Pipe No: o o t
Design Capacity (MGD): 6 - o
Domestic (% of Flow); l O O "/
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
RECEIVING STREAM: 2 YY Ib �?
Class: ' VJ S
Sub -Basin: _n ©S O 3
Reference USA G�Sry uad: E Z 3 S (please attach)
County: w
Regional Office: As Fa Mo . Ra Wa WI WS
(circle see)
Requested By: Ckwca-'L Date: q O
Prepared By: Date:
Reviewed By: Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
+r
tcvo
�� L
Drainage Area (mil) 6 •t3 Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) CO Winter 7Q10 (cfs) •I30Q2 (cfs) • 6 �'
Toxicity Limits: IWC CA % (circle one) Acute /Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters 0 (O�
Upstream Location AA VA, s S ( w
Downstream Location VC So 21s
14L r.
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BODE (mg/1)
5-
NHS N (mg/1)
I—
t ,
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
F. Col. (/100ml)
'Zp p
10
PH (SU)
n
1
LIFO
o,>
0
A.
ft Z
Z
Cotnment•s:
'`- % C,, too'/

I E I
Request
PLEASE NOTE THREE WLA'S W'
------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATIOl : PROV'A"LK ORM
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Status:
Receiving Stream:
Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Quad:
Fuquay-Varina <W.WTR
NCO066516
Domestic
Ef' PROPOSED/N� EfGH REGIONAL OFFICE
Terrible Creek
No. : SS 59 (C)
-------------------
7
OCT 16 i990
C-NSW
' 89 0208796548r;4j,, _:
030403
Drainage
area:
;
6.430
T"P..'rrna�r
sq mi
Wake
Summer
7Q1'p :
0.00
cfs
Raleigh
Winter
7Q10:
0.33
cfs
Dale Overcash
Average
flow:
6.80
cfs
091390
30Q2:
0.62
cfs
E 23 SE
-------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS -------------------------
SUMMER WINTER
Wastef low (mgd) : 6.00 6.00 -4--L�
BOD5 (mg/1) : 5 10
NH3N (mg/1) : 1 1.9
DO (mg/1) : 6 6 574a-� 4s
TSS (mg/1) : 30 30
Fecal coliform (#/100ml): 200 200
PH (su) : 6-9 6-9
TRC (ug/1) : 17 17
Lead (ug/1): Monit Monit
Total Phosphorus (mg/1): 2 2
Whole Effluent Toxicity Requirement: Chronic/Ceriod/QRTRLY @ 99%
---------------------------- MONITORING ----------------------------------
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: At dam's spillway
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: At US 401 and at NC 50 (Middle Creek)
Instream parameters: Temp, DO, Cond, pH and fecal coliform.
----------------------------- COMMENTS -----------------------------------
Annual priority pollutant scan should be required. Permit should
indicate that these limits are for 100 % domestic waste. Permit should
indicate that the permitee should notify DEM if industrial wastes are
added to this facility. Permit should indicate that permit can be reopened
to incorporate new limits and monitoring requirements if industrial
wastes are added to the facility. The RRO should notify the permittee,
once more, that DEM may require the elimination of discharges to
intermittent streams in the uture
Prepared by: ( Date: q l y
Juan C. Mangles
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
0*0 Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
Date:
Date:
Date:
OCT 16 1990
A2 ZL2 e�
T/lG 6&

10/89
�---��
Facility Name v — �' �� Permit #
U Co o66 sl b
CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests,
using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentrakon at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform quarterl monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The firVte
st willbe perfo ed after thirtydays from
issuance of this permit during the months ofNPDFN
C • . Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed atpermitted inal effluent discharge below
all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental, Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting cliemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests perfonned by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 4 cfs
Permited Flow MGD Recommended by:
IWC%
Basin & Sub -basin t7
Receivin e Y r kW_
g
uk
County ( to Dat
**Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F atu%, 4 9 nV_O_ , See Part , Condition

2.0
j y
j- 6
a� N3 —

„'STA7�u
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury" Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
January 10, 1990
R. Paul Wilms
- Director
Mr. Alan Keith, P.E:
Diehl & Phillips; P:A.
219 East Chatham Street
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Subject: 7Q10 Issue for Terrible Creek
Proposed Fuquay-Varina WWTP (NC0066516)
'Wake County
Dear Mr. Keith•
Your letters of December 5 and 18 were recently brought to my attention,
with particular focus being placed on the issue of the 7Q10 in Terrible
Creek. I have discussed this matter thoroughly with members of my Water
Quality staff and hope, through this letter, to clarify any misunder-
standing that exists between DEM and the Town.
The'intended.purpose.of our recent correspondence was to provide the Town
.:and its consultant with up-to-date information so that the environmental
assessment (EA) can proceed with the best available knowledge of the
existing and future water quality constraints. Based on a thorough review
of your letter and input from my staff, it is my conclusion that
determination of the exact 7Q10 flow is not the main issue. Whether the
7Q10 is zero or 0.1 cfs,-the prime concern is that the receiving stream
will be dominated by the discharge of 6.0 MGD of treated wastewater
during critical flow periods. Since 1986 when your initial discussions with
Director Wilms took place, the Water Quality Section has performed several
highly intensive water quality surveys of low flow, effluent dominated
streams. It is through experience.with these cases that revised
recommendations for Fuquay-Varina are offered so that potential problems
can be avoided. It is important for you to realize.that my recommendations
here would apply with or without invoking the Division procedures for
allocating wastes to zero 7Q10 streams.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.=7687 Telephone [phone]
An Fmial (7nnnrninit-v Affirmative Art -inn Fmn1—

y
u Y.
Mr. Alan Keith
Page Two
There is a very strong probability that water quality violations will occur
if the proposed facility is designed and constructed to only meet the
existing draft NPDES permit limitations, which were prepared in 1986 and
which reflect an advanced secondary level of treatment. We now know that
the assimilative capacity in an effluent dominated stream is extremely
limited and, therefore, if a low flow stream is to be used as a receiving
stream for wastewater, a highly advanced, state-of-the-art, tertiary
treatment plant will be required. The Division would be derelict in its
duty not to point this out at this stage of the planning process (i.e.,
before public monies are spent on constructing the facility).
Furthermore, you should be aware that this same requirement is being placed
on all new or expanding discharges within the lower Neuse River Basin.
Comprehensive modeling analyses which have incorporated the entire basin
below Falls Lake have demonstrated that the assimilative capacity of the
lower basin is nearly exhausted. Therefore, all NPDES permits for new or
expanding discharges are being issued to reflect highly advanced, tertiary
levels of treatment. Let me assure you that Fuquay-Varina is not being
handled independent of other NPDES permitting decisions within the lower
Neuse Basin.
Finally, other comments directed to the EA development process by the
Technical Support Branch were also offered with an eye on the future. As
you know, the lower Neuse Basin was designated as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters (NSW) by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in January,
1988. The current management strategy requires WWTPs to meet 2 mg/l of
total phosphorus. The EMC has directed DEM to review the impact of this
control strategy in the early to mid 1990's. In light of the potential
for revised nutrient limitations during the early lifetime of the proposed
Fuquay-Varina facility, you are encouraged to design the plant with
maximum flexibility toward meeting more stringent removal requirements.
Once again, it has been the experience of Division staff that multi -staged
aerobic/anaerobic activated sludge designs best meet this criterion and we
would like to make sure that any economic cost comparisons utilized in the
assessment consider this aspect.
You should also be made aware that the Division is under the direction of
EPA Region IV to develop a water quality standard for ammonia based on
toxicity. DEM has agreed to an interim level of control for new or
expanding facilities, and the Division has placed development of a water
quality standard for ammonia on this .upcoming year's agenda. Since federal
criteria require maintenance of an instream concentration of approximately
1.0 to 1.5 mg/1 NH as Nitrogen, and because your facility's discharge
will constitute be?weep 97 and 99(+) percent of the instream flow under low

Mr. Alan Keith
Page Three
flow conditions, your effluent concentration of ammonia will need to meet
the federal and state criteria. Therefore, you will need to plan on
designing this facility to achieve nitrification. Furthermore, our
research shows that where nitrification is required for an activated
sludge plant, operation and maintenance costs can be lowered by
incorporating denitrification. A secondary benefit of adding
denitrification is the reduction of overall nitrogen loading from the
project, which is a mitigating factor to include within the EA.
Therefore, based upon the above discussion, you are directed to base your
facility design and alternative cost comparisons for the environmental
assessment on meeting summer (winter) NPDES permit limitations of 5 (10)
mg/l BOD5, 1 (2) mg/1 NH3-N, and 6 (6) mg/l dissolved oxygen. Per the
NSW classification, a preliminary limit of 2 mg/l of total phosphorus will
apply. Also, dechlorination will be required. The draft NPDES permit and
wasteload allocation will be revised accordingly.
I hope that this letter provides you with adequate clarification of what the
Division is trying to achieve through the environmental assessment and
planning process. Let me take this opportunity to remind you that the
Division must be able to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) based upon the outcome of the EA in order to proceed with the
permitting process. It is incumbent upon the Division to ensure that a
FONSI is warranted, and that reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate
the degree of environmental impact associated with the project.
Should you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to call
Alan Clark or Trevor Clements of my Water Quality staff at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
arles Wakild
Acting Director
cc: Steve Tedder
Trevor Clements
Alan Clark
Tim Donnelly
Don Safrit
Central Files

DIEHL & PHILLIPS, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Telephone [phone] WILLIAM C. DIEHL, P.E.
JOHN F. PHILLIPS, P.E.
219 East Chatham Street, Cary, North Carolina 27511
December 18, 1989
Mr. Alan R. Clark
Water Quality Planning Branch
NC Dept Environment, Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for Terrible Creek WWTP
and Interceptor Sewers; Town of Fuquay-Varina .
Dear Alan: -
As your are aware, we have submitted Addendum No. 1 to the
Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in order to address
comments made by -the review agencies. I explained in our
telephone conversation on December 13, 1989 that we are most
interested in resolving this matter as soon as possible.
The Town has been informed that Director Wilms is leaving DEM
shortly. There are a number of issues ,regarding this project
which have been, in the past, discussed directly between the
Town of Fuquay-Varina officals and Director Wilms. For this
reason, we would like to impress upon you the urgency of
resolving the EA before Director Wilms leaves DEM.
We request that the Terrible Creek EA receive the highest
priority possible. If we can be of assistance in any way,
please contact our office. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Yours very truly,
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
- 1 -/1 -- . � .
Alan Keith, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. William Lee
Mr. L. W. Bennett, Jr.
Mr. William C. Diehl, P.E.

" S
DIEHL & PHILLIPS, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Telephone [phone]
December 5, 1989
WILLIAM C. DIEHL, P.E.
JOHN F. PHILLIPS, P.E.
219 East Chatham Street, Cary, North Carolina 27511
Mr. Alan R. Clark
NC Dept Environment, Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Addendum No. 1 to Draft Environment Assessment
Terrible Creek WWTP and Interceptor Sewers
Town of Fuquay-Varina, NC
Dear Mr. Clark:
Enclosed are eight (8) copies of Addendum No. 1 to the Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above referenced project.
Addendum No. 1 is to the Environmental Assessment submitted to your
office on August 25, 1989. A copy of the comments on the EA by review
agencies which were received from you are attached. We request that you
review the Addendum in order that the EA may continue in accordance with
the State Environmental Policy Act.
T
here are some comments which were not addressed in the Addendum. We
eel that it is more appropriate to handle these comments in this
letter. Specifically, memos regarding the 7Q10 in Terrible Creek
require discussion.
The Town of Fuquay-Varina has had numerous discussions with the staff of
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) since 1986 regarding the
size and discharge point of the proposed Terrible Creek WWTP. The
initial NPDES discharge permit application filed on April 9, 1986 showed
the discharge point at the location used in the EA. A discharge of 6.0
mgd was proposed. In response to the initial permit application, DEM
staff indicated that Terrible Creek had too low a 7Q10 flow to allow any
wastewater discharge. As a result of this DEM staff comment, Town of
Fuquay-Varina officals met with Mr. Paul Wilms and his staff, and all
parties agreed to relocate the proposed discharge location to the
confluence of Middle Creek and Terrible Creek, the closest point where
7Q10 flows would allow a wastewater discharge. Because of the
additional land area serviced by this relocated treatment plant, the
permit request was revised to reflect a 12 mgd flow.

Mr.*Alan R. Clark
•December 5, 1989
Page 2
During August, 1986 the Town of Fuquay-Varina noticed a public notice
for wastewater discharge into Terrible Creek (see attached). Because
the Town had been clearly informed that no wastewater discharges were
going to be allowed into Terrible Creek, and because of the millions of
dollars extra construction cost associated with relocating the plant to
the Middle Creek/Terrible Creek confluence, the Town requested a meeting
with Mr. Paul Wilms and his staff. This meeting was held October 24,
1986, and at this meeting, the Town was told that the flow in Terrible
Creek had been recalculated, and that there would be no problem with a 6
mgd wastewater discharge at the original location downstream of Johnsons
Pond. Based on this new information, on November 11, 1986, the Town of
Fuquay-Varina withdrew the amendment to the discharge permit thereby
returning the proposed plant site to Terrible Creek with a 6 mgd flow.
Because of the apparent confusion at DEM regarding Terrible Creek stream
flow data, in a November 4, 1986 letter (copy attached), Diehl and
Phillips, P.A. requested that the US Geological Survey (USGS) confirm
the 7Q10 in Terrible Creek at the original proposed WWTP site. C. Ed.
Simmons, Chief Hydrologic Records Section, responded on November 17,
1986 that "the minimum 7-day, 10-year discharge at this site is
estimated to be 0.05 to 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs)." A copy of Mr.
Simmons' letter is attached. Further, this letter states that a site
visit to the Johnsons Pond dam by a USGS staff hydrologist observed
leakage into Terrible Creek estimated at 0.1 cfs, although the leakage
will vary.
Also attached is a letter of November 17, 1989 from you regarding USGS
data on 7Q10 in which you state 7Q10 (summer) flow is 0.03 cfs. The DEM
memorandum included with your letter appears to show 7Q10 to be 0.02
cfs.
The reason for this narrative is to inform you of the history of the
project. As you can see, the Town has been given conflicting direction
from DEM regarding the flow in Terrible Creek. The project has now
apparently come full circle. First the Town was told Terrible Creek had
insufficient flow for the proposed discharge, then they were told there
was sufficient flow to permit the WWTP. A draft NPDES permit was issued
after the reversal. Now it appears that the State considers 7Q10 to be
0.02 cfs and recommends much stricter discharge limits than the draft
permit.
Quite frankly, we are extremely concerned over the back and forth
direction the permitting process has taken. The Town has spent a
considerable amount of its funds to prepare the Draft Environmental
Assessment and plan for the Terrible Creek WWTP. The decision to
proceed with the EA was based upon DEM statements at an October 24, 1986
meeting where the Town was told that flow in Terrible Creek was
sufficient to permit the WWTP at the original proposed site.

,Mr. Alan R. Clark
December 5, 1989
Page 3
Let me again emphasize the importance of the proposed Terrible Creek
WWTP to Fuquay-Varina's future growth. We are most concerned that the
Town has been misguided by the State thus wasting valuable funds and
time on a critical project which we were led to believe was feasible.
It is our request that a careful review of the correspondence dating
back to 1986 between the Town of Fuquay-Varina and the Division of
Environmental Management be undertaken by your staff. We certainly_ hope
that a reason for the changes in the 7Q10 would be found in the file.
Further, we cannot readily accept the most recent 7Q10 for Terrible
Creek in that it varies by a factor of five (0.1 cfs in the DEM modeling
notes and 0.02 in the November 17, 1989 memo) from the flow used to
model the proposed discharge in 1986. It'is our opinion that the EA
should proceed based upon the Draft NPDES permit issued in 1986.
We are very interested in resolving the issue of flow in Terrible Creek
and proceeding with the Environmental Assessment. Should -there be a
need, the Town is prepared to meet to discuss this project with the
Director of the Division of Environmental Management. If you require
any additional information please contact Diehl & Phillips at 467-9972.
Yours very truly,
T wn of Fuquay-Va
1�--LK' a
William U. Lee
Town Manager
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
Alan Keith, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. William C. Diehl, P.E.
Mr. L. W. Bennett, Jr.

PUBLIC NOTICR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
$NVIRONMENTAL MANAG WNT COMMISSION
POST OFFICE BOX-27687
RAL91GH, NORTH CXROLINA 27611-7687
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A STATE NFOES PERMIT
Public notice of intent to issue a State NPDFS permit to the followings
1.- NPDFS No, NCO0484.11, Odense Fish and Oil Company, Inc, has applied
for a permit renewal. The.facility diacharges 0,0015 MGD of fish rinse
and packing water from three outfalla into the'Pamlico Sound located in
Hatteras on NO Highway 12 at Hatteras Harbor in Dare County,
2. NPDFS No. NCO035858. Town of .Iameoville has applied for a permit
renewal. The facility discharges 0,15 MGD of treated domestic wastewater
from one outfall into the Roanoke River located 11400 feet north of US
Highway 64 and approximately 0.7 mile went of the intersection of US
Highway 64 and NG Highway 171 in Margin County,
3. NPDES No. NCO067709, Shellbrook Apartments has applied.for a new
discharge.parmit, The facility discharges swimming pool backwash water
from one outfall into an unnamed tributar� to Mine Creek located on
Shellbrook Court in Raleigh,'Wak*7,"Cotinty.
4. NPDFS No. NCO067237, Fvana and McDougald, Inc. - Dunallie Downs
Subdivision has applied for, a new discharge permit. The facility
proposes to discharge :0,10214GD of treated domestic wastewater from one
outfall into Terrible,Preak located south of Raleigh approximately one
mile eaat of NCSR 2751.in`Wake County:
5. NPDFS No. Nc0067628. Weawyn Swim Club has applied for a new
discharge permit. The facility proposes to discharge filter backwash
water from a -swimming pool from one outfall into an unnamed tributary to
Walnut Creek located on Barringer Street in southwest Raleigh in Wake
County.
6, NPDFS No, NF0049662, Canterbury Utility Corporation has applied for
a permit renewal. The facility.discharges 0.25 MGD of treated domestic
wastewater from one outfall into Upper Barton Creek located at Hawthorne
Subdivision on North Hawthorns Road approximately 2.5 miles from its
intersection with NCSR 1834 in Wake County',
7. NPDFS No. NCO050393, Copley Triangle Associates/Marketplace Mall hzi
applied for a permit renewal, The facility discharges 0.050 MGD-of
treated domestic wastewater from one outfall into Stirrup Iron Creek
located on Airport Road at I-40 in'Wake County.
On the basis of preliminary staff review and application of Article 21 c
Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina, Public Law 92-500 and
other lawful standards and regulations, the North Carolina Environmental
issu
oona Management
eneffective Octobere1,, 19861andodischarge subject
persto special
pare
conditions,
-21-

Persons wishing to comment upon or object to the proposed determinations
.are invited to submit same in writing to the above address no later than
September 15, 1986. All comments received prior to that date will be
considered in the formulation of final determinations regarding the
proposed permit. A public -hearing may be held where the Director of the
Division of Environmental Management finds a significant degree of publi
interest in a proposed.permit.
A copy of the draft permit to available by writing or calling the
Division of Environmental Management, Archdale Building, Raleigh, NC,
919/733-5083 or Port
Items 1 -- 2: the Washington Regional Office, 1424 Carolina Avenue,
Washington, NC, 919/946-6481, and
Items 3 - 7; the Raleigh Regional Offiea, 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh,
NC, 919/733-2314.
The application and other information -may be inspected at these
loca'tione during normal office hours. Copies of the information on file
are available upon request and payment of the coats of reproduction. Al
such comments or requests regarding a proposed permit should make
reference to the NPAES permit number listed above.
i
Date -_�1---�•-_.�—.. I
69
Paul Wilms, Director
Environmental Management
-22-

DIEHL & PHILLIPS, LI , P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Telephone [phone]
U. S. Geological Survey
P. O. Box 2857
Raleigh, NC 27602
ATTN: Mr. Bob Miekle
WILLIAM C. DIEHL, P.E.
JOHN F. PHILLIPS. P.E.
219 East Chatham Street, Cary, North Carolina 27611
November 4, 1986
f2E: Town of Fuquay-Varina
Terrible Creek
Wastewater Discharge
Request
Gentlemen:
The Town of Fuquay-Varina is working with the Division of
Environmental Management to finalize a proposed wastewater
discharge into Terrible Creek, at a location just downstream of
Johnsons Pond; as shown on the attached map. The Town of
Fuquay-Varina would like USGS to provide them with the 7 day, 10
year flow data for this proposed discharge location, as well as
some commentary on how the data was calculated, such as how close
the nearest gauging station is, or the equation used to estimate
the runoff. Also,..the Town is interested in knowing if this
stream has ever been studied by USGS to confirm the 7Q10 flow
estimate.
We would appreciate your assistance in this matter, as the
7Q10 flow at this location is of vital importance to the future
of the Town of Fuquay-Varina. Please forward all information to
me, and if I can.provide further information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
DIEHL & PHILLIPS, P.A.
---William C. Diehl, P.E.
Enclosure
cc: Mr. L. W. Bennett, Jr.
Mr. James S. Stuart

United States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
P.O. Box 2857
,Raleigh, NC 27602
November 17, 1986
Mr. William Diehl
Diehl and Phillips, P.A. Consulting Engineers
219 East Chatham Street
Cary, North Carolina 275.11
Dear Mr. Diehl:
Subject: 0208796548, Terrible Creek below SR 1404 near Five Points, North
Carolina. The site is located approximately 0.5 mile below SR 1404 and 1.4
miles north of Five Points, North Carolina. The drainage area is
approximately 6.4 square miles-(4,096 acres).
The minimum 7-day, 10-year discharge at this site is estimated to be 0.05 to
0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs). The estimate is based on streamflow data
collected at a continuous record gaging station on Middle Creek 9.3 miles
downstream from the requested site, and a low flow, partial record station
on Swift Creek.
There is a dam located immediately upstream from this site. It is difficult
to estimate the effect of a dam on minimum flow, because of unknown leakage
and seepage, increased evaporation and other unknowns. The estimate above
reflects natural flow conditions and ignores the effect of the dam.
However, in a visit to the site on November'13, 1986 by one of our staff
hydrologists, it was observed that the dam leaks and flow was estimated at
0.1 cfs. Two small tributaries to Terrible Creek in the immediate vicinity
were dry. Leakage from the dam will vary so it is impossible to predict
what future flow may be.
Please call if you have my questions.concerning this information or if I can
be of further. assistance.
Sincerely,
Ed. Simmons
Chief, Hydrologic Records
Section
HCG/sv

• � ,,�s.�SWFv
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary November 17 , 19 8 9 Director
Mr. Alan R. Keith, P.E.
Diehl and Phillips, P.A.
219 East Chatham St
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Mr. Keith:
Enclosed is a memorandum dated November 17, 1989 from our
waste load allocation modeling group concerning stream flow data
at the proposed Terrible Creek wastewater treatment plant site.
Recent data from the USGS indicates that the 7Q10 (summer) flowis
0.03 cfs as opposed to 0.1 cfs that was used in calculating the
draft limits two years ago. Accordingly,.it appears that more
restrictive limits will be required.
As discussed on the phone, this information should be made a
part of the addendum you have been preparing for the Terrible
Creek WWTP environmental assessement. If you have any questions
regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Tom Stockton.
Sincerely,
CMG-- /L1, &�
Alan R. Clark
Enclosure
cc: Tom Stockton
Don Safrit
6
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North'Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Final nnnnrniniry Affirrnitivr Arrinn Fmnlnvrr

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 17, 1989
TO: Alan Clark
THROUGH: Tom Stocktonl(;5
FROM: Juan C. Mangles Ir
SUBJECT: Comments to EA review made by N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the
Division of Water Resources
Fuquay-Varina WWTP on Terrible Creek
NPDES Permit No. NC0066516
Wake County
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the comments from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission and the Division of -Water Resources submitted to you on
September 22, 1989 and September 15, 1989 respectively.
Our response to these comments is in light of concerns about the hydrologic
characteristics of the receiving stream at the point of discharge and their
implications in regard to the effluent limitations contained in 'the draft NPDES
permit. The Division of Water Resources has indicated that the USGS Master File
contains different flow statistics at the point of discharge than those given in
the Environmental Assessment (EA). The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission is
concerned that the recommended effluent limitations would not protect water quality
levels to support aquatic biota in a stream with a S7Q10 of 0.10 cfs.
A review of our files indicates that the point of discharge is in Terrible
Creek, approximately 0.3 mi. downstream from NCSR 1404 (latitude: 35 36' 56";
longitude: 28 45' 07"). The wasteload allocation performed in July, 1986 used
flow statistics estimated at USGS station 0208796548 at the point of discharge. At
this site, the USGS provided flow estimates of: DA:- 6.43 sq. mi.; QA: 7.00 cfs;
S7Q10: 0.10 cfs and 30Q2: 0.80 cfs. Jim Mead of the Division of Water Resources
indicated that thl flow statistics used in their comments are estimates from a USGS
station located upstream from the proposed discharge site. Recent communication
with Ms. Amy Fogleman of USGS, indicated that the S7010 figure provided in 1986 was
the round -off value of 0.07 cfs. Current DEM procedures consider all flow estimates
of less than 0.05-cfs to be zero. To clarify this situation I requested USGS to
update the flow statistics at the discharge site. The 1989 update indicates the
following: DA:.6.43 sq. mi.; QA: 6.80 cfs; S7Q10: 0.02 cfs and 30Q2: 0.62 cfs (see
attachment).'
Existing regulations (15 NCAC 2B ..0206 (d) (1) as amended effective October 1,
1989)' do not allow new or expanded (additional) discharges of oxygen consuming
wastes to 7Q10-0 cfs and 30Q2 s 0 cfs streams. Where the 30Q2 flow is estimated to
be greater than zero, effluent limitations for new or expanded (additional)
discharges of oxygen consuming waste are set at BODS n 5 (10) mg/l, NH3-N a 2 (4)
mg/1 and DO s 6 mg/l. However, based on protecting for instream ammonia toxicity
impacts, the NH3-N limitation is set at 1 (2) mg/l.

Therefore, based on the issues discussed above, it is recommended that the
following effluent limitations be contained in the final permit:
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
SUMMER
WINTER
SUMMER
WINTER
SUMMER
WINTER
Flow (MGD):
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
BODS (mg/1):
5
10
5
10
5
10
NH3-N (mg/1):
1
2
1
2
1
2
Total Phosphorus (mg/1):
2
2
2
2
2
2
DO (mg/1) :
6
6
6
6
6
6
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
These limitations assume the discharge is 100% domestic. The EA should also
discuss the ramifications of a total phosphorus limit of 0.5 mg/l to 2 mg/l and a
total nitrogen limit of 3 mg/1 to 6 mg/l in terms of alternative plant designs and
associated costs (see memo dated 9-12-89).
If you need further assistance on this matter, please contact me at ext. 515.
Attachment
cc: Tim Donnely
Don Safrit
Steve Tedder
WLA File
Central Files
t c a9--
/�1o4w4�a�r-

0A North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Don Baker, Program Manager,_- ,
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
DATE: September 22, 1989
SUBJECT: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant, Town of
Fuquay Varina, Wake County, North Carolina.
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has completed a
review of the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA).
Professional biologists on our staff conducted an
investigation regarding the proposed project and wildlife
and fisheries habitat values of the area. Generally the
Draft EA was complete and well written with regard to
potential impacts on fish and wildlife and mitigation
measures to avoid potential impacts.
The Draft EA was deficient in the fact that sites for
the construction of the wastewater treatment plant and the.
proposed gravity flow pipeline was not given. Wetlands
associated with construction of the pipeline and treatment
plants should be identified and mitigation measures to
offset potential impacts should be addressed.
Additionally, the Draft EA mentions that impacts to
Johnson's pond will occur. Specific impacts and mitigation
measures designed to minimize them should be identified.
Johnson's pond is owned and operated by the American Legion
and is a popular recreation area frequently used by the
public.

Memo Page 2 September 22, 1989
The Draft EA lists 5 alternative measures. Alternative
3 would be the most desirable from a fish and wildlife
standpoint.
Stream flows in Terrible Creek average 7.0 cubic feet
per second with a 7Q10 of 0.1 cfs. The existing flow to
effluent discharge ratio should be examined and addressed
during various seasons to ensure sufficient water quality
levels to support aquatic biota. Additionally, this
_
discharge will flow into Middle Creek which already has an
effluent discharge from the Town of Cary. Middle Creek has
a confirmed population of the dwarf wedge mussel
(Alasmidonta heterdon) - a Federally proposed endangered
species. There is a high probability that this species also
occurs in Terrible Creek. Further studies to determine the
affects on biotic communities in both streams should be
addressed before a permit is issued.
DB/lp
cc: Mr. Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
September 15, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland
SUBJECT: Fuquay-Varina Draft EA, Terrible Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant and Interceptor Sewers
We have the following comments:
1. In the Table of Contents, Section 4.0 is entitled, "Need for
Proposed Facility - Population and Flow Projection." On page
4, however, the title changes to "Need for Proposed Facility
and Population Projections." Table 4-1 gives the population
projections for the project area; it is normal engineering
practice to design a wastewater treatment plant to meet 20
year projections. According to Table 4-1, the 20-year
population would be 4,578. At 100 gallons per capita per day
of wastewater flow, the design size should be 457,800, or
500,000 gpd or b.5 mgd. How do the engineers arrive at a
design of 2.0 mgd? No flow projections are provided to
justify a 2.0 mgd plant, nor expansions to 4 or 6 mgd.
2. Figure 5 shows the 20-year growth area of Fuquay Varina.
Much of that growth will be downstream of the proposed
Terrible Creek WWTP location. To use that location,
expensive pump stations would need to be employed. In view
of the next comment (3), we would suggest that after 20
years, an expanded WWTP should be built, not at the proposed
location, but at a site further downstream, on"Terrible Creek
or on Middle Creek.
3. The EA refers to the Middle Creek Instream Flow Study
conducted by the Division of Water Resources in 1987. That
study, however, addresses the effects of increased flows in
Middle Creek, not its tributaries. We are concerned about
the impact of large sewage flows on Terrible Creek. Our
study suggested a 0.40 "screening ratio'! of WWTP discharge in
mgd to drainage area in square miles (see page.8 of the
study. The drainage area at the point of discharge is
approximately 6 square miles, yielding a ratio of 1.0 for a 6
mgd plant. Approximately 3.5 miles of stream would be
affected between the discharge point and the confluence of
Terrible and Middle Creeks. Staff from the Wildlife
Resources Commission ar.e checking to see what habitat is
present in Terrible Creek, and if further evaluation of the
hydraulic -impacts on the Creek are necessary.

Melba McGee
Page Two
September 15, 1989
4. We are also concerned about the flow statistics for Terrible
Creek referred to on page 3 of the EA. Our version of the
USGS Master File lists the average flow near the discharge
point as 5.56 cfs rather than 7.0 cfs. The Master File also
lists the.7Q10 as 0.1 cfs at the mouth of Terrible Creek, not
at the discharge point.
CC: Mr. Don Baker
Mr. Jim Mead
Mra Don Sherry