19940161 Ver 1_Complete File_20000101

State of North Carolina
Department of. Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Division of Environmental Management
%Nova
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
H N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
r September 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb 9?
Subject: Draft Detailed Project Report and EA on Flood Damage for Clinton
WWTP
Sampson County
EHNR # 94-0161, DEM WQ # 10387
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/FONSI document:
Wastewater Treatment Plant Issues
A. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) savings are based on elimination of all
extraneous flows. How much of the hydraulic overloading problem at the
WWTP is associated with inflow and infiltration in the sewer system?
B. The project should discuss land application of sludge as an option of sludge
disposal instead of using sand beds at the WWTP. A cost/benefit analysis
should be made for this alternative.
C. If the dike had 2:1 slopes, what would be the wetland impacts?
D. If the dike will prevent the stream from flooding the treatment plant, why is there
a need for sumps? How would the sump pumps be controlled? The sumps
should not be used to lower the water table. They should not be used in a
manner that would increase flood damage downstream.
E. Wetland Reserve Program (1990 Farm Bill) identified farmers willing to
reestablish wetlands on prior converted farmland. Every effort should be made
to get mitigation upstream of the treatment plant on Williams Old Mill Branch.
This will help ameliorate the flooding problems at the treatment plant and
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r
1
downstream.
F. The relocation of Williams Old MITI Branch should be similar to original channel
in width, depth, gradient, substrate and meanders.
G. When a potential mitigation site is chosen, DEM should be included in the
review and approval of the site and its mitigation plan.
H. A 401 Water Quality Certification will be needed for this project.
clintwtp.ea
X576 ° 35??
MEMO
DATE: -
TO: SUBJECT:
C"I)v I di,

3,tr 7ti
LGan+m.Q ?? < er. I??a.?. O.P?
?novl--
k ji

t wa;v?'? IZJ4
From:
a SFATf -
? NY O.In
Qu"
North Carolina Department of
Health, and Natural Resources
to
Environment,
4 Printed on Recycled Paper
,: °? w
J ?..
th _ A
?? ''.,`+, yet ??• ? }" *.. ?41 k r '"?_,? ? .. ': ? . _
3 ?.?.?" 4.?' w t. ? ? ... ? ? ` , .r
? ?? ^?.
e

S-T
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney e(I
' Eric Galamb i
From: Monica Swihart
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
July 23, 1992 Director
Subject: Draft Detailed Project Report and EIS on Flood Damage on Great
Coharie Creek
Sampson County
EHNR # 92-0977, DEM WQ # 6149
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the Final EIS document:
General Issues
A. The project purpose should not be restricted to activities that are exclusively
funded by Federal programs.
B. Mitigation should be in the form of restoration rather than creation.
C. If temporary roads are constructed, will they be returned to natural conditions
after project completion?
D Please define the project completion (50 years?).
E. The EIS concludes that there will be no significant water quality and wetland
impacts. However, the USFWS report concludes that impacts will be
significant. The final report needs to remove the impact conflicts.
F. What are NED benefits (page B-11)? Why is cost/benefit analysis for relocation
of sludge beds and flood proofing limited to NED benefits? How has this
altered the cost/benefit analysis?
REGIONAL OFFICES
\ Asheville :. Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896.7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Wastewater Treatment Plant Issues
G. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) savings are based on elimination of all
extraneous flows. How much of the hydraulic overloading problem at the
WWTP is associated with inflow and infiltration in the sewer system?
H. The project should discuss building and using a sludge digester instead of sand
beds at the WWTP. A cost/benefit analysis should be made for this alternative.
1. Do the costs for the dike include acquisition of mitigation sites at 2:1 acreage
ratio, land grading, tree planting (600 stems/acre), and 3 years of monitoring?
These conditions are typically found in wetland permits and therefore should be
a cost for the dike option.
Snagging and Clearing Issues
J. Flood insurance is another (probably cheaper) alternative to eliminate the need
for clearing and snagging. What is the cost/benefit ratio for this option?
K. If snagging is performed, will the mechanical equipment be on a floating barge?
If the mechanical equipment is placed on the stream substrate, what measures
will be taken to prevent violations to the 50 NTU turbidity standard?
L. Snagging should be started at the furthest point downstream and move
upstream.
M. Relocation of cropland should be considered for Federal funding since these
croplands are prior-converted (PC) wetlands and are eligible for funding in the
Wetland Reserve Program (1990 Farm Bill).
N. According to page A-9, there will be a small change (approx. 400 acres) in
cropland with reduced flooding due to snagging and clearing. Is the small
acreage accounted for in the cost/benefit analysis or are cost/benefit
calculations performed on the entire 1345 acres of cropland in floodplain? The
cost/benefit should be calculated only on the acreage with flood reductions.
0. There are 1,724 acres of potential prime farmland in the study area. How much
of this land is currently farmed? How much is flooded on an annual basis?
How will the project have a positive impact by reducing flooding frequency and
duration on this land?
P. What justification is there for tree clearing in the 25 foot corridor?
Q. Cleared debris should not be place in the adjacent wetland allowing a flood to
wash it into the stream again. Where is the disposal area for all items?
R. A 401 Water Quality Certification will be needed for this project.
coharie.eis
cc: Eric Galamb
DEPARTMENT OF ,.. `, V RO M}::' 1,. I H1 : AL••} r..i ND NAT A1 UI':; t..•• :.! +..... _. ......
DIVISION O PLANNING AND r"lSill::.. ..'ME:.f`v..r.
PROJECT REVIEW FORM

.1. T L.. E:: DRAF T DETAILE D PROJECT RE PORT AND DRAFT RAFt' ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT
STAT EMENT ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, GREAT COHARIE CREEK,
SAMPSON COUNT Y

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI--l
;f•: UNT `( .... PAM LICC` FOREST RESOURC ES
SOIL AND WATER
...E 06/25/92
ENVIRONMENTAL
1ta7 .
MANAGEMENT .'t
.?

ENVIRONMENTAL ((t
i`I (i 14 F•1 l.v I::. I"! 1::.14 i ; ?W.? (:! )
/

?.?
,

'}:.`}::';ta4 1-: DUE TyAT}::: Pr'tRK AND F:l::t:'R i:::AT3:ON
-
'
' low
?
L.. A14 i
4 .}. Nlx
WATER I' •.
( LAND RESOURCES
OTHER ........ ..............

iANt^lGE R ,;. C(:N•;••CIFF/ E::G:LON:
N-°I'•}f. U l:. 1•';}::VIE:.W}::.I;;,'AtrENC''t :
S A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW, THE FOLLOWING IS ;_ .I TT e

': DATE:
DATE:
JUG; 26 1992
NO OBJECTION TO PROJECT AS PROPOSED VVATER QUALITY
NO COMMENT SECTION *
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
....... CONSISTENCY STATEMENT NEEDED ........ NOT NEEDED
OTHER (SPECIFY AND ATTACH COMMENTS)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Ei1: f:?i.JI E: D UNDER THE
PROVISIONS 1..17:. X 41::.1"• +'! AND ti..::.1' A
RETURN TO MELBA i'r t.: f:.'::. I::. , DIVISION ! I PLANNING ' AND
"Oommo k
o
k,

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manage
??J/' /JAG/Q
Habitat Conservation P ogram
DATE: March 25, 1992
SUBJECT: City of Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade,
Sampson County, North Carolina. State Clearinghouse
Project 192-0656 (Reference 192-0559).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the subject documents including the city of
Clintons' Notification of Intent to Apply for Assistance (Project
#92-0559) and subsequent Environmental Assessment (Project
#92-0656) for an upgrade of the exisiting Clinton Wastewater
Treatment Plant from a 3 MGD to a 5 MGD facility. We have also
reviewed a response (by copy) from the project consultants to Mr.
Reginald Sutton of the Division of Environmental Managements'
Construction Grants Section. In that correspondence the
consultants, the Wooten Company (WC), specifically address
previous NCWRC concerns about this project (November 19, 1991
memorandum). Our comments are provided in accordance with
certain provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), Section 201 of the
Clean Water Act, and North Carolina General Statutes 113-131 and
113-132.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been contacted by WC
and a formal wetland delineation has resolved NCWRC concerns
related to wetland impacts from the project. However, project
sponsors have informed NCWRC that construction of the facility
upgrade may take up to 18 months to complete and therefore our
recommendation for a restricted work period "... would be cost
prohibitive... Also, the City of Clinton will not be able to
comply with the schedule established in the Special Order by
Consent, and conditions of loan for the project financing."
While NCWRC can appreciate construction and financial
considerations by the city of Clinton, we cannot concur with
Memo Page 2 March 25, 1992
ground disturbing activities that may encompass two spawning
periods. NCWRC is willing to lessen the constraints of our
requested work period, but must recommend that no construction
activity be allowed between March 1 and June 1. We have recently
acquired information relating the presence of anadromous fish
(i.e., striped bass, Morone saxatillis) in the upper section of
Great Coharie Creek. This information serves to strengthen our
resolve to prevent sedimentation, erosion and increased turbidity
in the Great Coharie Creek watershed during the critical spawning
period.
Additionally, NCWRC must recommend that extraordinary
efforts (i.e., the use of silt curtains, silt fences and berms)
be written in, and strictly adhered to, in a comprehensive
sedimentation and erosion control plan. The Wooten Company
offers the development of a sedimentation and erosion control
plan as mitigation for project impacts. In reality, project
sponsors are bound, by legal constraints, to produce such a
document. NCWRC would, however, consider the development of a
multi-tier sedimentation and erosion control plan as acceptable
mitigation. The use of silt curtains, silt fences and berms in
conjunction with one another will greatly eliminate the
possibility of sedimentation degrading the waters of Williams Old
Mill Branch and/or Great Coharie Creek.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If we can be of additional assistance please advise,
DLS/lp
cc: Stephen Pozzanghera, Habitat Conservation Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Reginald Sutton, Construction Grants Section, DEM
I'

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
March 30, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and anage ent
FROM: Steve Tedder, Section Chie
SUBJECT: EA for Town of Clinton Wastewater Treatment Expansion
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the Town of Clinton's grant request to the
Economic Development Administration (EDA). Although the document is essentially taken from the Draft
201 Plan Amendment, it does not contain many of the principal elements of the 201 document and does not
by itself provide adequate information to allow a technically supportable analysis of the impacts of the
project. The document itself is very general and would not be acceptable as a document to comply the
requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. However, the 201 plan amendment is being
prepared and will contain all the elements essential for compliance with the state requirements. This
document may be acceptable for the purpose of considering funding under by the EDA but should not be
considered as a document appropriate to meet the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act and the NPDES permitting rules.
The major issues of concern to the DEM reviewers are:
1.) The document states that upgrading the plant will have a beneficial impact on water quality of the
receiving stream yet no information is given about the level of treatment that is expected or the
total loading reduction or other changes that will provide this improvement. (The Cohane Creek
is not in our stream records. Should it be the Great Coharie Creek?)
2.) The document fails to mention that a major reason for the expansion is to serve the Lundy
facility. It seems that the document should include a discussion of the primary and secondary
impacts of such an expansion.
3.) The document mentions several possible actions such as "adoption of adequate erosion control
measures" but never gives any indication that these are being considered By the way these
statements are worded, the reader would think these actions are being considered.other than the
existing statewide requirements.
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
March 30, 1992
Page two
4.) The document states that the "project will not have any primary adverse impacts on the quality
and quantity of water supplies" yet does not provide any information on existing sources, their
capacity and expected increases.
5.) On the "Land Use and Socioeconomic Development" section, the fifth line uses the word
"goods." Is that correct?
6.) The document states under "Erosion and Sedimentation" that 'During construction, provision of
a sufficient vegetative buffer between the edge of the construction site and stream may mitigate
the major effects." However, no description of what the writer has in mind (other than the
existing legal requirements of the Sedimentation Act) or assurances of what will be done are
provided.
7.) The document states that the proposed improvements "provide the disposal of stabilized sludge
by land application at the existing permitted sites" but does not include any information on the
amount of increase expected or the availability of sites to accept the waste. This information will
certainly be included in the 201 Plan and would seem appropriate for this assessment.
8.) The document states that the "the availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities should
encourage planned development." More supportive evidence of why this is expected would
seem appropriate.
9.) In order to be used as support for the NPDES permit, the document would need to include the
minimum requirements set forth in sections .0502 and .0503 of the N.C. Environmental Policy
Act rules. (Copy attached)
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
cc: Bobby Blowe
Mic Noland
Boyd DeVane
Clinton.EA/D 1
e Sim
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor July 9, 1991
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-0414; Amendment No. 1 to the Clinton
201 Facilities Plan, Sampson County
Attached is a memo from Mike Scoville which provides the
Water Quality Section's comments on the subject project. Serious
consideration should be given to the recommendation to upgrade
the level of'pretreatment provided by Lundy's Packing Company.
Please direct any questions relating to these comments to Mr.
Scoville.
Attachment
91-0414.mem/SEPA4
cc: Mike Scoville
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington
704/151-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.U Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Fqual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Winston-Salem
919/761-2351
°?ST
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
February 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM : Boyd DeVane
SUBJECT; Project No. 92-0559 - Clinton WWTP
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Although the "Intent to Apply" seems acceptable, it should
be pointed out that an Environmental. Document in compliance with
the NC Environmental Policy Act will. need to be prepared before a
permit is issued. The applicant should also be aware that local
concerns may push for a full disclosure of secondary impacts of
approving the permit with potential pressures for preparation of
an EIS. The Planning Branch will be glad to advise and assist
the applicant in this situation.
BD/lj
Clinton.wtp/D-5
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Iileigh Washington Wilmington WinstonSalcm
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 AA/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/.395-39(X) 919/896-7(X)7
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, R.ileigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Lqual Uppununin- Affirmative Action Employer
/_. rSbO a hj n n 3`\ ap?4c' ?'/ Hn x n0
'+-f f ? y '? • ^_ •. % ? ?' ? Y _ by ? _ -y `• ,.. L f £ '
_ o _ tt gg (\,,L f
rri
- / { - .. ?: v ?•_ " ? \ R ? I i-rt ?• ? > w ' o ti £ N ` a+ 1 _ jC?..y` „8 _ _ - y
- - fn mil- v w ;ter ?\ Q v v ` & o \ ?` ?yRj?- a: S
lit
?? ? csx _ ?1? _ .ct " J?Y •f1% T - ?_ ? K7? " r o/ l ??' ` ? ? ?./•?"
Lr>
x C,
m rn +? g 9 ?-
_
;xx
;p0
77
Csx
01
r.:?ri

A"
o P0\ ql
yam ? U

0

z

a
70! 4'
?? 5
°
E
?
4

oz
q
_

z
?? r
./ LL ?E ? j
u
;
c

y N Z

x ?} U
_ o o
u 9 z
S >. 3
' L

W

Q
W
? H
a

3
o

a
N
p W
O ?
g
S - Z
? N O
D Z m
Z
5a
.
H ?

? 6
N
?
$ O
W

r
r

G O
a 11 f
>
N
?Z N n v?
1? '? fG <? <
8
U
rl
gg
t F ? a
<
?
i U E

'?
Sy O
E
S
R V }
d
? m
W K
p
4 HaU
N
S N O
a W
S LL
e
e OW
<

i?
O
?Z
ua
?o
n?
a?
^z
?O
5u
o?
i?
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 15, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reginald Sutton
FROM: Alan Clark

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Clinton 201 Facilities Plan Revised
Dated November 5, 1991
I requested Mike Scoville of the Division's Technical Support
Branch to review the subject document to determine whether it had
addressed his earlier comments. He said it was acceptable. This
office has no further comment on the document.
Enclosure: Revised document
Clinton.Mem/SEPA5
cc: Mike Scoville

ENVIRONMENTAL CHI'S ";?T- AMENDED CLINTON 201 FACILITIES PLAN
July 30, 1991
1. Are there any dwelling units within the Town of Clinton not served b
the central collection system? If so, indicate the status of the y
septic systems.
2• Are there any facilities which will be constructed in a floodplain or
wetland area?
3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must evaluate the ro
determine if any permits will be required. p poste project to
4. The plan should provide a description of all areas in which
construction is proposed. How much land will be required for the
expansion?
5. Review cottrents have been received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the
Department of Cultural Resources, and DEM's Technical Support Section.
The attached comments should be addressed.
Attachment
SIME
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
March 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and anagement
FROM: Steve Tedder, Section Chie a(
SUBJECT: EA for Town of Clinton Wastewater Treatment Expansion
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the Town of Clinton's grant request to the
Economic Development Administration (EDA). Although the document may be acceptable for the EDA, it
clearly does not meet the requirements for the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. It must either be
revised to meet the requirements of the North Carolina act or made clear that it only applies to the federal
grant and is not intended to satisfy the environmental document requirements for the NPDES permit. .
The major issues of concern to the DEM reviewers are:
1.) The document state&-that upgrading the plant will have a beneficial impact on water quality of the
receiving stream yet no information is given about the level of treatment that is expected or the
total loading reduction or other changes that will provide this improvement. (The Cohane Creek
is not in our stream records. Should it be the Great Coharie Creek?)
2.) The document fails to mention that a major reason for the expansion is to serve the Lundy
facility. Since the primary and secondary impacts of such an expansion are not addressed, the
document should be revised to include full discussions of these impacts. The anticipated growth
in swine raising facilities should be a part of this discussion.
3.) The document mentions several possible actions such as "adoption of adequate erosion control
measures" but never gives any indication that these are being considered By the way these
statements are worded, the reader would think these actions are being considered.
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 9191486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Pollution Prevention Pays
4.) The document states that the "project will not have any primary adverse impacts on the quality
and quantity of water supplies" yet does not provide any information on existing sources, their
capacity and expected increases.
5.) On the "Land Use and Socioeconomic Development" section, the fifth line uses the word
"goods." Is that correct?
6.) The document states under "Erosion and Sedimentation" that "During construction, provision of
a sufficient vegetative buffer between the edge of the construction site and stream may mitigate
the major effects." However, no description of what the writer has in mind (other than the
existing legal requirements of the Sedimentation Act) or assurances of what will be done are
provided.
7.) The document states that the proposed improvements "provide the disposal of stabilized sludge
by land application at the existing permitted sites" but does not include any information on the
amount of increase expected or the availability of sites to accept the waste.
8.) The document states that the "the availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities should
encourage planned development." I believe more supportive evidence of why this is expected
would seem necessary.
9.) The document should include the minimum requirements set forth in sections .0502 and .0503
of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act rules. (Copy attached.)
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Clinton.EA/D 1
FICATION OF INTENT TO APPLY FOR ASSISTANCE
_orth Carolina Intergovernmental Review Process
State Clearinghouse
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE USE ONLY
ApplicatiOY1 #D # CH-1 Type or Print in Black Ink
IF PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION/LAND ALTERATION COMPLETE SIDE 2 ALSO
L PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Legal Applicant/ Recipient: a. Applicant Name' b. Organizanon Unit:
City of Clinton
c. Street/P. 0. Box: d. City: e. State. f. Zip Code.
P. 0. Box 199, 309 Lisbon Street Clinton NC 28328
g. County: h. Contact Person: Phone (include Area Code):
Sampson Tommy M. Combs, City Manager 919/592-1961
2. Type Applicant/ Recipient: (Enter Appropriate Letter) ? 3. Congressional District Of:

. Applicant.
a
a: State d. Count
County Special Purpose District
g- j. Indian Tribe Third
b. Interstate e. City h. Community Action Agency k. Other (Specify): Project:
b
c. Substare District f. School District i. Higher Education Institution .
Th i rd
4. Project Title: 5. Project Start Date: 6. Duration:
Wastewater treatment plant expansion August, 1992 24 months
7. Area of Impact (cities. counties, etc.): 8. Estimated Number of 9. Has project been reviewed before by
City of Clinton and persons benefiting State Clearinghouse:
Sampson County, North Carolina 47,297 p No
YES ro ect #
11 PROPOSFr) Ft1NnlNG
10. Type of Assistance: (Enter Appropriate Letter(s)) + 1 1. Type Application: (Enter Appropriate Letter) + El
a. Basic Grant c. Loan e. Other (Specify). a. New c. Revision e. Augmentation
b. Supplemental Grant d. Insurance b. Renewal d. Continuation
12. Type GR ANT LOAN 13. Program a. Federal Catalog No..
CASH IN-KIND b. Tale:
11 I 1 I
I O I 0
P
bli
1
0
1 750
0
c Works
u
0
3
a. Federal
, 14. Federal Agency to Receive Request (name & complete address):
b. State Economic Development Administration
Atlanta Regional Office
C. City 5,360,000 S
182
i
u
te
0
d. County 401 West Peachtree Street, N. W.

h
O Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3510
er _
t
e. 15. Estimated Date to be Submitted to Federal Agency:
f. TOTAL 1 ; 750, T O 5,360,000 - March 1,.199 - 2
111. PROJECT NARRATIVE (Purpose. Expected Accomplishments. Major I asks=Attach ,Estimates) Line Item budget
16:,
The project w.ill allow the expansion of the City of Clinton's wastewater treatment plant from,
3 MGD to 5 MGD and will immediately serve The Lundy Packing .Company. Improvements will also'
permit additional industrial, commercial and residential growth in the City.
The project will specifically address the area's economic needs as follows (1) Create long-
term job opportunities; (2) increase incomes; (3) improve the area's potential for economic
growth; (4) promote the opportunity for establishmenre of new industries and (5) create
job opportunities for low-income and underemployed individuals.
The proposed project will: (1) leverage up to $2 million to be spent by The Lundy Packing
Company for pretreatment facility improvements; (2) leverage up to $5.5 million from.the
State Revolving Loan Fund program for the City of Clinton; (3) save up to 316 existing jobs
at The. Lundy Packing Company; (4) leverage 374 new jobs at The Lundy Packing Company within-
2-5 years at its facility and (5) create 420 jobs for persons working in swine confinement
type operations in the County growing hogs for The Lundy Packing Company.
1 7. Name & Title (Certifying representauve): Signature: Date:
Tommy M. Combs, City Manager ?j & February 11, 1992...
Submit Eight (8) copies to address at bottom of Side 2 /
Side 2-Complete Only For Construction/Development
A. CURRENT PREDOMINANT LAND USE
a. Urban/Built Up c. Forest Land e. Wetland (Marsh/Swamp) (Enter Appropriate Letter) rl
b. Agricultural d. Water f. Other(Ex lain : Existing wastewater treatment 1 an t site
fj. U I ILI I ItJ
1. Water System: Name Name Line Size
® Central.. Individual.. Length: u.
a. City/Town: City of Clinton a. Wef - i --------------------
b. County., b. Other Diameter. : gals
c. Pnvare.
2. Sewer System: Name Name Line Size
u,:......„?
® Centrat 0 Individual.. Length: : i"!, oay
a. City/Town: City of Clinton a. Septic. '- ==: "----------=:2.848 MGD
b. County.- b. Other Diameter. : als
!: currentl y
c. Private.
3. Street Improvements ® NO C1 YES, describe:
4. Have any of the above utilities been constructed: ® NO ? YES, which:
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. List Known Archeological/ Historical Sites. on Project Land:
None on existing wastewater treatment plant site
2. Area Previously Surveyed by Archeologist - 13 NO YES, give date and name of principal investigator:
3. Buildings/Structures on site (abandoned barns. farmhouses, tobacco sheds, bridges, etc.):
(5 NO
? YES How man:
4. Approximate age of buildings in #3 and construction materials:
Not applicable
5. Will any of these be demolished:
? NO
? YES,which: Not applicable
6. Will any of these be rehabilitated/ renovated:
? NO
? YES,which: Not app 1 i cab 1 e
7. Attach Photographs of Structures Built Before WW II
U. LANU AL1 thAI IUNJ
1. Give number of acres to be: 2. Adiacent Land.Controlled b Project Sponsor:
a. Acquired.. b. Developed.. c. Cleared: d. Covered by impermeable surface a. Acres not yet developed.. -- b. to rlett land use.
2 (Enter letter from
A' above
3. Has any site preparation been conducted? 12 NO ? YES, describe:
E LOCAL IMPACT
I' Give information below about an individual (if known) in appropriate local government unit who can confirm
compatibility of proposed activity with existing or proposed Land Use/Economic Development Plans:
a. Name: I :b. Local Governmerit Position: ; ; c. Office Phone:
Wayne Hollowell `;PW Director, City of Clinton !i 919 )592-1961
2. List all known N. C. Permits, Authorizations. Licenses Received or.A lie d For:
Permit (R-received A-a lied for Date Permit (R-received. A-a lied for Date
NPDES ? R
EN A ? R
QA ?_.
Sludge Disposal 0 29 A p A
?R OR,
A ? A
? R R
?A ?A
F. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The 201 Facilities Plan for the City of Clinton is currently under review by.DEM which detail
the proposed expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant from 3 MGD to 5 MGD..
SUBMIT Eight (8) copes of this form and. if applicable. 8 local site maps (black & white) and, if available. 2 plat maps and 2 topographical maps with
project delineated to:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION-STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
116 WEST JONES STREET-RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
4 7V
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
El Division of Planning and Assessment Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewe d as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville CI All RIO Areas oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
'Vayetteville Air
Water ? Coastal Management 41Water Planning

?
Mooresville

Groundwater El Water Resources Environmental Health

? Raleigh
lit
"d Q
E
i iIdlife ?Solid Waste Management
t
ua
y
ng
neer Frest Resources ?Radiation Protection
? Washington Recreational Consultant nd Resources ? David Foster
F-1 Wilmington Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ?Other (specify)

? Winston-Salem ?Ot Y',k?s, nvironmental Management

FEB 19 1992

A 17-1X 1711
'y
Manager Sign-Off/Region: VVA 17-1X 1711
SECTION °ION

ate:

n-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and. SEPA
Other (specify and attach comments)
Ht1uHN rv:
Melba McGee
P 104
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
JUL 9 1492
ENV. MANAGEMENT
July 2, 1992 FAYETTEVILLE REG. 0"'CE
Water Quality Section Chief
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
To Whom It May Concern:
Ref: MGD WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
J U L 6 1992
WATER -QUALITY
SECTION
I have owned a section of land in Clinton since March of
1984. This land at 900 Jasper Street has Old Mill Branch
Creek that flows parallel to the southside. Every year, Old
Mill Branch Creek backs up water worst than the year before.
Last winter, 1991, water backed up on approximately one-half
acre,cf, my;' land where Old Mil 1 Branch over flows its banks.
This water is-still there and turning this one-half acre into
swamp land.
My neighbor at 800 Jasper St. has lost approximate one acre
of the two acres he owns for the same reason. At the present
time he is turning his land and house back over to his
mortgage company.
The City of Clinton, the County of Sampson, the State of
N.C., or the Army Corp. of Engineers, whoever is responsible
should'address the problem of Old Mill Branch before allowing
an additional 500,000 gallons of water per day to be dumped.
I object to the proposed determination based on above.
Sincerely,
4? Jeff Riley
dtb
Work [phone]
Home [phone]
e-111 P,

.r?

A-J
t7_71V Aye./?
"

.s SrA7F u
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Environmental Managemer.
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
March 30, 1992
TO: (Melba McGee, Planning and Management
r..
;FROM: Steve Tedder, Section Chief

Director
SUBJECT: EA for Town of Clinton Wastewater Treatment Expansion
a
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the Town of Clinton's grant request to the
Economit; Development Administration (EDA). Although the document is essentially taken from the Draft
201 Plan Amendment, it does not contain many of the principal elements of the 201 document and does not
by itself,provide adequate information to allow a technically supportable analysis of the impacts of the
project. The document itself is very" general and would not be acceptable as a document to comply the
requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. However, the 201 plan amendment is being
prepared and will contain all the elements essential for compliance with the state requirements. This
document may be acceptable for the purpose of considering funding under by the EDA but should not be
considered as a document appropriate to meet the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act and the NPDES permitting rules.
The major issues of concern to the DEM reviewers are:
1.) The document states that upgrading the plant will have a beneficial impact on water quality of the
receiving stream yet no information is given about the level of treatment that is expected or the
total loading reduction or other changes that will provide this improvement. (The Cohane.Creek
is not in our stream records. Should it be the Great Coharie Creek?)
2.) The documen
111, t falls to mention that a major reason for the expansion is to serve the Lundy
facility. 1,-seems that the document should include a discussion of the primary and secondary
impacts of such an expansion.
3.) The document mentions several possible actions such as "adoption of adequate erosion control
measures" but never gives any indication that these are being considered By the way these
statements are worded, the reader would think these actions are being considered.other than the
existing statewide requirements.
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Melba McGee
March 30, 1992
Page two
4.) The document states that the "project will not have any primary adverse impacts on the quality
and quantity of water supplies" yet does not provide any information on existing sources; their
capacity and expected increases.
5.) On the "Land Use and Socioeconomic Development" section, the fifth line uses the word
"goods." Is that correct?
6.) The document states under "Erosion and Sedimentation" that "During construction, provision of
a sufficient vegetative buffer between the edge of the construction site and stream may mitigate
the major effects." However, no description of what the writer has in mind (other than the
existing legal requirements of the Sedimentation Act) or assurances of what will be done are
provided.
7.) The documot states that the proposed improvements "provide the disposal of stabilized sludge
by land application at the existing permitted sites" but does not include any information on the
ainowd of increase expected or the availability of sites to accept the waste. This information will
certainly be included in the 201 Plan and would seem appropriate for this assessment.
8.) The document states that the "the availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities should
encourage planned development." More supportive evidence of why this is expected would
seem appropriate.
9•) ; In order to be used as support for the NPDES permit, the document would need to include the
minimum requirements set forth in sections.0502 and.0503 of the N.C. Environmental Policy
Act rules. (Copy attached.)
Please' feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
cc: Bobby Blowe
NEC Nol
eVane
Clinton.EA/D 1
i ?lt ? c
3
? S=
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor James S. Lofton, Secretary

June 30, 1992
Mr. Reginald Sutton
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natutal"-Resources
Division:--Of Environmental Management
Archdal,4 Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
} Dear Mr. Sutton:
Re: SCH File f92-E-4300-0894; Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact for the Proposed Upgrading and
Expansion of the Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant for the
City of Clinton
The above referenced environmental impact information has.,been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
..North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. No comments were made by
any state/local agencies in the course of this review. Therefore, no
further environmental review action on your part is required for the
compliance with the Act.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
ames S. Lofton v
JSL:jf
cc: Region M
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opp, r unity / Affirmative Action Fniploger

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
UPGRADE AND EXPAND THE EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPAMIENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CONTACT: JOHN R. BLOWE, CHIEF
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AND LOANS SECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
512 N. SALISBURY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
MAY 22, 1992

t .?
F,

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FNSI)
UPGRADE AND EXPAND THE EXISTING TREAII PLANT
Title VI of the amended Clean Water Act requires the review and
approval of environmental information prior to the construction of
publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities financed by the State
Revolving Fund (SRF). The proposed project has been evaluated for
ccapliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act and
determined to be a major agency action which will affect the
environment.
Project,Applicant: City of Clinton, North Carolina
Projeoe Number: CS370425-04
Project Description: The proposed project consists of upgrading and
expanding the existing wastewater treatment
plant from 3.0 mgd to 5.0 mgd.
Total Project Cost: $9,774,000
Revolving Loan Amount: $5,500,000
The review process did not indicate significant adverse environmental
impacts would result from implementing the proposed project, and an
environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required. The
decision was based on information in the facilities plan, a public
hearing document, and reviews by governmental agencies. An
environmental assessment supporting this action is attached. This FNSI
completes the environmental review record, which is available for
inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
No administrative action will be taken on the proposed project for at
least thirty days after notification of the FNSI is published in the
North Carolina Environmental Bulletin.
Sincerely,
(?,rt George T. Everett, Director
CT Division of Environmental Management

.. . 4
ENVIRONMEIUAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions
Figure 1 identifies the location of the proposed improvements to the
wastewater treatment plant.
Treatment Facilities. The proposed project consists of upgrading and
expanding the existing facility from 3.0 mgd to 5.0 mgd. Major new
elements will include an aerated grit removal system, a primary
clarifier, an extended aeration tank, two final clarifiers, and.
chlorination/doghlorination equipment. Major modifications to the
plant wiA include expanding the tertiary filters., converting the
exi_stih6 chlorination tank to a post aeration unit, renovating the
M"
- existing, anaerobic digester, and improving the existing aerobic
digesters.__ Several lines and pump stations will.either be replaced or
expanded to 'improve wastewater conveyance on the existing site. The
sludge will be anaerobically?and aerobically stabilized and land
applied on permitted sites. 'The effluent will continue to be
discharged into Williams Old Mill Branch.
f
S,
B. Existing Environment
'Ibpography and Soils. The City of Clinton is located in Sampson
County. The topography is gently sloping to flat. A range of soil
types exists to accomTudate a variety of land uses.
Surface-Waters. Clinton is located in the Cape Fear River Basin, and
the area is drained primarily by Coharie Creek. Clinton's treated
effluent is discharged into Williams Old Mill Branch, which is
classified Class C swamp waters.
Water Supply. The City of Clinton obtains its water supply from deep
wells.
C. Existing Wastewater Facilities
The City of Clinton currently operates a 3.0 mgd wastewater treatment
plant which was constructed in 1977 to provide advanced secondary
treatment. The facility is operating within the hydraulic design
capacity, but the average influent parameters indicate that the
strength of t'he wastewater may be beyond the plant's treatment
capability. All dwelling units within the City of Clinton are provided
central collection service. The sewerage collection system has been
evaluated and it has been determined that infiltration/inflow is not
excessive.
r
D. Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions
The City of Clinton operates a 3.0 mgd facility which is unable to
consistently comply with the following established effluent limitations:
3.
Parameter.s Summer Winter
l
BOD ' mg/l 9 17
TSS5 mg/l 30 30
NH -N, mgg/l` " Y 3 6
D.3., 6 6
Fealliform, #/100 ML 200 200
Additionally, the city has agreed to operate under a Special Order by
Consent (SOCI to improve the,existing facilities. The city is also
under a sewer connection moratorium due to NPDES permit violations.
Moreover, influent to the plant is anticipated to exceed 3.0 mgd in the
near future. Upgrading the existing plant, with an accompanying
ekPant--ion, will require even more stringent effluent limitations for
the future. The preliminary effluent limitations for the expanded
facility are:
Parameters 5.0 mcrd
BOD, mg/i 5
TSS, mg/l 30
NH3 N, mg/1 1
D.O., mg/l 6
Fecal Coliform, #/100 ML 200
*Monitoring for metals and residual chlorine will be required.
In order to meet required NPDES permit limitations and avoid the
imposition of civil penalities, it is necessary to upgrade and expand
the City of Clinton's wastewater treatment facilities.
E. Alternatives Analysis
The City of Clinton constructed a 3.0 mgd advanced secondary treatment
plant in 1977, and the facility is organically overloaded due to
industrial waste being discharged into the system. The "no-action"
alternative was examined and rejected due to the possible imposition of
civil penalties for violating the NPDES permit. Optimum operation of
the existing treatment facilities will not result in the achievement of
a treated effluent which will comply with permit requirements. A land
application system was evaluated which would require the utilization of
the existing facilities for pretreatment and disposal of the pretreated
effluent on approximately 1,670 acres for wetted and buffer areas.
-2-
This alternative was rejected due to the significant high costs. A
second alternative considered was the upgrade and expansion of the
existing plant from 3.0 mgd to 5.0 mgd. The primary focus of this
alternative was to expand the aeration tanks, clarifiers, and pure
oxygen system. This was not the most cost-effective alternative.
Accordingly, a variation of the second alternative was to expand the
pretreatment facilities, aeration basins, the tertiary filtration
system, and clarifiers. This alternative would require that the
existing pure oxygen system be converted to sludge holding facilities.
It is the most cost effective and the selected alternative.
F. kivironmexital Consequences, Mitigative Measures
Proposed' modifications will take place at the existing site with
some additional land to be provided to accommodate the new facilities.
s The U.S. Ar9V Corps of Engineers will construct a dyke to protect
existing and: proposed facilities from a 100-year flood. The Corps
visited the`?site and determined that wetland will not be impacted by
the proposed project. The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has
recuested that construction be restricted between March 1 and June 1 to
IRrevent sedimentation and increased turbidity to the Coharie Creek
watershed during the critical spawning period. Construction activities
will be arranged such that the major ground disturbing activities will
not take place during this period. Additionally, a multi-tier
sedimentation and erosion control plan will be developed and adhered to
" during construction. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's evaluation
indicates that the project should not have adverse impact on federally
listed species. The Department of Cultural Resources determined that
the project should not adversely impact historic or cultural resources.
Construction of the proposed project should have a positive long-term
impact on water quality in the Coharie Creek watershed.
G. Public Participation, Sources Consulted
A public hearing was held January 7, 1992 on the amended Clinton 201
Facilities Plan. The hearing covered the problem of the existing
facilities, the proposed alternatives for solving the problem, and the
costs to implement the selected plan. No oppositlon.to the proposed
project has been expressed. The cost to the average user will be
approximately $10.14 per month for municipal.sewer services.
Sources consulted about this project for information or concurrence
included:
a. City of Clinton
b. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Water Quality Planning Branch
-Wildlife Resources Commission
-Parks and Recreation
-Groundwater Section
-Air Quality Section
-Division of Health Services
-3-

-Division of Planning and Assessment
C. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
d. North Carolina State Clearinghouse
e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
f. U.S. Fish and wildlife service
g. Region M Council of Goverrments
1
1
l

yy ?

-4-
1 iU d , , n
.61
cj--
U7
clj
I ) 1 ?? i .. 0 1 ? 1? I' •? f ?
p,¢ ; W
Z
..ate r+?)\Jj?(\\?? ? _ c n
LLJ
?- J
LLJW
?...s aw - U
wo,
Lij
W Q
J\l` ?? l`• J o _ j W
cc:
V\ W
?-' t + r C W
C\j
?' , r r t? t' r? ? i?, t I? t i ?`• U)
fill >,?% ?--? ?" \• ^? +, ? ? ?1 11 .? tl It I I} lt4?)J,'!
Irv
26
'? k, L VP
I
DRAFT
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
South Atlantic Division
August 1993
AOL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
DRAFT
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, N.C.
w
SYLLABUS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the flood problem at the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant, located near the City of Clinton, North
Carolina. The study was conducted under authority of Section 205 of the 1948
Flood Control Act, as amended.
The recommended plan of improvement consists of a dike to protect the
wastewater treatment facility. The recommended plan will provide protection up
to the 100-year flood event. Alternatives considered included channel excavation
and plant relocation.
The estimated first cost of the recommended plan is $469,000. With
expected annual benefits of $108,700 and average annual costs estimated at
$44,700, the project benefit-cost ratio is 2.4. The recommended plan is the plan
which, among the available alternatives, maximizes net economic benefits.
Environmental impacts of the recommended plan of improvement are expected
to be minor. While some filling and excavation of wetlands will be required,
mitigation measures are included in the project plan to offset these losses. The
project will result in no net loss of wetlands. Environmental mitigation
features include the restoration of approximately 5 acres of former wetland areas
which have been converted to upland by ditching and draining. Restoration will
be accomplished by filling or blocking drainage ditches and planting trees. An
Environmental Assessment, including a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation, is attached
to this report.
DRAFT
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, N.C.
Item
Table of Contents
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
AUTHORITY
STUDY BACKGROUND
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION
REPORT ORGANIZATION
BASIN DESCRIPTION
PRIOR STUDIES AND PROJECTS
SECTION II - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Page No.
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
PUBLIC CONCERNS 4
PRIMARY STUDY AREA 4
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMY 4
THE FLOOD PROBLEM 4
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPERATIONS 4
FLOOD DAMAGES S
POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS 6
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PROJECT PLANNING 6
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES 6
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE POTENTIAL 7
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION IS TAKEN 7
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 7
SECTION III - PLAN FORMULATION
MEASURES CONSIDERED
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
DIKE PROTECTION, CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, CLINTON WASTEWATER TREAT]
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
RATIONALE FOR PLAN SELECTION AND DESIGNATION OF NED
8
8
PLANT 8
4ENT PLANT 8
9
PLAN 9

DRAFT
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, N.C.
Table of Contents--continued
Item Page No.
SECTION IV - THE SELECTED PLAN
PLAN FEATURES 10
PROJECT DIMENSIONS 10
LEVEL OF PROTECTION 10
TOP OF DIKE ELEVATION 10
INTERIOR DRAINAGE 10
FREEBOARD 12
OVERTOPPING 12
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY 12
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION FEATURES 12
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 13
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 13
PROJECT MAINTENANCE 13
RELOCATIONS 13
RIGHTS OF WAY AND REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS 13
PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS 14
PLAN IMPACTS 14
ECONOMIC IMPACTS 14
BENEFIT-COST RATIO 16
ANALYSIS OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY 17
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 18
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 18
IMPACTS ON SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES 18
SUMMARY OF PLAN EFFECTS 19
PUBLIC VIEWS 21
VIEWS OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR 21
VIEWS OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 21
DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES 22
SECTION V - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DRAFT
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, N.C.
Table of Contents-continued
List of Tables
Table No. Subject Page No.
1 Costs and Benefits for Plans of Improvement Considered 9
2 Project First Costs 15
3 Average Annual Costs, Selected Plan 16
4 Summary of Plan Effects 20
5 Cost Sharing, Selected Plan 22
List of Figures
Figure No. Subject Page No.
1 Location Map 2
2 Selected Plan 11
List of Appendixes
APPENDIX A - PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B - REPORT BY US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
iii
DRAFT
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to develop means of addressing the flood problem
at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on Williams Old Mill Branch.
The City of Clinton and the Williams Old Mill Branch basin are located in Sampson
County, North Carolina, in the southeastern portion of the State. The plan of
improvement recommended herein consists of 100-year dike protection at the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
AUTHORITY
This study was conducted under authority of Section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948, as amended. The study was initiated in response to a
request from the Sampson County Board of Commissioners. Initially, this study
included investigations of flood problems throughout the Great Coharie Creek
basin; however, as discussed below, the study has now been limited to the Clinton
Wastewater Treatment Plant on Williams Old Mill Branch. Williams Old Mill Branch
is a tributary of Great Coharie Creek.
STUDY BACKGROUND
As noted above, studies of flooding at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant were conducted ;in conjunction with studies of flooding along Great Coharie
Creek. In June 1992, the draft "Detailed Project Report and Environmental Impact
Statement for Flood Damage Reduction, Great Coharie Creek, Sampson County, North
Carolina" was completed by the Wilmington District and furnished to local
interests. The plan of improvement recommended in this detailed project report
consisted of clearing and snagging along 18.6 miles of Great Coharie Creek and
construction of a dike at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant. The potential
non-Federal sponsor at that time was Sampson County.
Following review of this report, Sampson County representatives recommended
that the District Engineer defer action on Great Coharie Creek. Sampson County
officials further requested that the District Engineer alter the project
sponsorship from the County of Sampson to the City of Clinton (see appendix A,
page., A-1, for correspondence). Accordingly, the scope of the study was revised
to limit the improvements recommended herein to flood damage reduction measures
at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment (see figure 1, following page, for location).

l

O
z
U U
Q Z

W
?o y

r
o z
V J Z Lo
U ?
O N

O
4J U
W Z
W

? Id

U
O w Z
Z_
o
Z ~
??
C7
?7 Z 0
w z
4 ¢ 3
.I

t-
a
z
a
PO? RIVER
g?
w
?J2 o
a
3 x I \'?\

a
3 a i I ca,
T?
01?1i
/
?f L
o 1
_-J
/
?'S 1
?
z
J \ 1
1 /
/ _

a j 14 ? f
SR ,Z \

/

2
P
V - / J ??
?
P JH OJaOP
O
i
O 1
SWAMP /
DPW' //
/ PvE i
1 /

1\ J -J Vf
N
1
oul d /2p z
1 3
01
\\??c' OJ

£l 511
a
v"i
N
N1
s

x

SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study included flood damage reduction needs, and measures
to address those needs, at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant (see figure 1).
STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION
Information used in evaluating the flood problem at the Clinton Wastewater
Treatment Plant was provided by officials of the City of Clinton. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service also participated in this study, and prepared the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report included as appendix B.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This document includes the Draft Detailed Project Report and Environmental
Assessment for flood damage reduction at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The detailed project report presents the results of planning studies. The
environmental assessment, printed on colored paper, presents data required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other Federal laws and executive
orders pertaining to environmental quality.
BASIN DESCRIPTION
Williams Old Mill Branch has a drainage area of 12.5 square miles and a
length of 2.1 miles. Average slope is 6 feet per mile. Williams Old Mill Branch
is a tributary of Great Coharie Creek, entering from the left bank approximately
1,000 feet upstream of NC 24 (see figure 1). The Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant is located near the junction of Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch.
Dollar Branch is a tributary of Williams Old Mill Branch, entering from the left
bank immediately downstream of the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
PRIOR STUDIES AND PROJECTS
There have been no previous Federal studies or projects on Williams Old
Mill Branch. However, the channel from the wastewater treatment plant to the
Great Coharie Creek (see figure 1) was dredged by local interests in the 1960's.

3
SECTION II PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The purpose of this report section is to analyze the flood problem at the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and to determine whether or not a need for_
Federal action 'exists Also, the environmental resources of the area are
analyzed to identify significant resources and develop guidelines to minimize
impacts of project construction.
PUBLIC CONCERNS
Representatives of the City of Clinton have identified a need for Federal
flood damage reduction measures at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant;
agencies and individuals having concerns and responsibilities related to
environmental quality have expressed concern that any flood control measures be
undertaken in a manner which minimizes adverse environmental impacts (see report
by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, appendix B).
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
The primary study area for this investigation is the flood plain of
Williams Old Mill Branch in the vicinity of the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant. This facility is located about 2 miles from Great Coharie.Creek. Actions
to address this flood problem are not expected to have a significant effect on
the flood plain of Great Coharie Creek.
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMY
The Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant and the City of Clinton are located
in Sampson County, North Carolina., The county is predominantly rural, and
agriculture is an important component of the local economy. Population of
Clinton in 1990 was approximately 8,000 persons.
THE FLOOD PROBLEM
As shown on figure 1, the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant is located at
the junction of Dollar Branch and Williams Old Mill Branch. This plant provides
wastewater treatment for the City of Clinton. Wastewater treatment operations
are described below, followed by a discussion of flood damages at the facility.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPERATIONS
The Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant was constructed in the 1950's. The
facility was renovated and expanded in the 1970's. The plant has a treatment
capacity of 3 million gallons per day. After wastewater is pumped into the
plant, solid waste is separated from wastewater and pumped into a digester.
Bacteria in the digester break down the solid waste, reducing its volume. The
remaining solid waste is pumped onto sand sludge beds to dry. Water which drains
from the solid waste is pumped back into the plant for treatment. After drying,
the sludge is removed from the plant by truck. Treated wastewater is filtered. _
and chlorinated, and discharged into--Williams OldMi11 -ranch;
4
FLOOD DAMAGES
Flooding has been a persistent problem at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
plant, and has been aggravated in recent years by poor drainage on Williams Old
Mill Branch. This stream has previously (1960's) been channelized. However,
sedimentation has reduced its effectiveness as a drainage outlet. Due to the low
elevation of the plant, flooding occurs frequently. The duration of flooding is
increased due to the lack of an adequate drainage outlet. Flood damages at the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant were evaluated in two categories. These
categories include (1) Increased Operation and Maintenance Costs, which includes
costs for treatment of extraneous flows and flood damage repairs; and (2) Costs
for Lost Plant Capacity, which represents costs the community will incur when it
becomes necessary to expand its waste treatment capacity. Flood damages in each
category are discussed below.
• Increased Operation and Maintenance Costs - Flooding results in
additional flow passing through the treatment plant. Floodwaters entering the
wastewater stream must be processed as wastewater. Treatment of these extraneous
flows results in additional operating costs for the plant. Flooding also results
in increased operation and maintenance costs for repair of damaged facilities.
The most costly damages occur when the sludge drying beds are flooded. Prolonged
submergence of these beds causes slime to form, reducing permeability and
rendering the beds useless. In order to restore the beds to service, debris must
be removed and the top layer of sand replaced. Other damages occur when
electrical switches and controls, pumps, and the digester are flooded. Roadways
to the facility are also damaged during flooding. Total additional operation and
maintenance costs due to treatment of extraneous flows and repair of flood
damages are estimated at an average annual amount of $57,100.
• Costs of Lost Plant Capacity - The operators of the Clinton Wastewater
Treatment Plant indicate that flooding and poor drainage increase average daily
flows at the plant by about 600,000 gallons (see discussion of extraneous flows,
above). The capacity of the plant is 3 millions gallons per day, and it is now
operating at or near capacity. For purposes of economic analysis, it is assumed
that plant capacity will be expanded in approximately 13 years. This 13-year
figure was based on an assumed life of approximately 40 years for the major
components of the plant. This 40-year life is now approximately two-thirds gone.
Thus, major replacement of components will be necessary in approximately 13
years. Since (1) there is now little surplus treatment capacity, and (2)
increased demands for water treatment can be expected as the population of the
community grows, additional capacity will be required to treat the extraneous
flows which now enter plant. Assuming no action is taken to prevent flooding at
the plant, the cost of providing an additional 600,000 gallons of plant capacity
to treat extraneous flows is estimated at an average annual amount of $94,900.
• Summary of Expected Annual Damages - Total average annual flood damages
at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant are estimated at $152,000 ($57,100 for
increased operation and maintenance costs and $94,900 for lost plant capacity).
.5

i
POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Total average annual damages at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant are
estimated at $152,000. This figure represents the economic benefits which would
be achieved if all flood damages at the plant were eliminated. This figure is
significant since average annual benefits for any Federal plan of improvement
must exceed average annual costs. In addition to producing net economic benefits,
any plan of improvement recommended for Federal implementation must also be
environmentally acceptable. Environmental resources of the study area are
discussed below.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PROJECT PLANNING
The purposes of this report section are (1) to identify the significant,
or potentially significant, environmental resources of the study area; and (2)
to identify potential hazardous and toxic waste sites in the area. This resource
evaluation forms a "baseline" against which environmental impacts can be
measured; identification of areas with hazardous and toxic waste potential is
accomplished so that construction activities which mightcreate - hazardous
conditions can be `avoided.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
Significant resources identified in the flood plain of Williams Old Mill
Branch include wetlands, water quality, wildlife resources, aquatic resources,
and esthetic resources. Other significant resources, including endangered and
threatened species,- prime farmlands, and cultural resources occur within the
Great Coharie Creek basin and Sampson County. However, these resources are not
present in the area likely to be affected by the plan of improvement recommended
herein (see "Selected Plan of Improvement," page 10). Significant resources
identified in the vicinity of the Clinton Wastewater Treatment, Plant are
described below. A detailed discussion of these resources is presented in the
environmental assessment attached to this report.
• Wetlands Swamp forest is the dominant wetland type bordering Great
Coharie Creek and its major tributaries. On Williams Old Mill Branch, ponding
due to a high water table and poor drainage has resulted in the development of
a 40-acre marsh downstream from the wastewater treatment plant
• Water Quality - The State of North Carolina classifies the waters of
Williams Old Mill Branch as class C-Sw. The "C" classification means that these
waters are suitable for fishing and any other uses, except for bathing or water
supply for human consumption. The "Sw" modifier indicates that these are swamp
waters. The "C" classification denotes water best suited for secondary contact
recreation, fishing and wildlife propagation, and agriculture.
I
• Wildlife Resources - A modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
performed on Williams Old Mill Branch (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984)
indicates that habitat types of Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch are
of moderate to high value for wetland dependent species (i.e., muskrat, wood
duck, and red-shouldered hawk), moderate value for terrestrial species (i.e.,
gray squirrel, cottontail, and whitefooted mouse), and moderate value for species
that occur frequently in both wet and dry habitats (i.e., whitetailed deer and
downy woodpecker).
• Aquatic Resources - The resident fish population of Great Coharie Creek
is made up of game fish including largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, bluegill,
black crappie, and redfin and chain pickerel and non-game fish including catfish,
suckers, shiners, and darters. Williams Old Mill Branch has not been sampled for
fish; however, it is assumed to contain a similar resident fish species
composition. The quality of fish habitat on Williams Old Mill Branch is not as
high as Great Coharie Creek, due to past channelization, discharge at the
wastewater treatment plant, and a lack of deep water during low flow conditions.
o Esthetic Resources - The esthetic value of Williams Old Mill Branch
upstream of Dollar Branch (see figure 1 for locations) is low, degraded by the
presence of the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Williams Old Mill Branch
retains moderate esthetic values downstream of Dollar Branch.
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE POTENTIAL
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management, was contacted regarding documented
locations of solid waste landfills and hazardous waste sites. Based on their
records, there are no documented solid and/or hazardous waste sites in the
project area. However, one possible hazardous waste site is located 1 mile north
of the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant. This site will not be disturbed by
the improvements recommended as a'result of this study (see discussion of
"Selected Plan of Improvement," page 10).
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION IS TAKEN
If no Federal action is taken to address the flood problem at the Clinton
Wastewater Treatment Plant, flood damages are expected to continue at this
facility. No significant change in environmental conditions is expected, since
the area near the plant is not suitable for development. However, water quality
degradation is expected to occur due to flooding of the facility. The long-term
impact of this flooding on environmental quality has not been quantified.
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
As discussed on page 5 of this report, total average annual damages at the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant are estimated at $152,000. Reduction of these
flood damages is the economic problem which this study will address. Development
of alternative plans of improvement is discussed in the following report section.
i
SECTION III - PLAN FORMULATION
Plan formulation in this study' consisted of evaluating various means 'of
reducing flood damages at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant. This report
section includes (1) a discussion of management measures considered; (2)
development of alternative plans; and (3) the rationale for plan selection.
MEASURES CONSIDERED
Two general categories of measures, referred to as "structural and
"nonstructural" measures, were considered to address the flood problem at the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant. "Nonstructural measures," as defined in
Federal water resources planning procedures, include measures which reduce the
damageability of structures and contents in the flood plain. These measures do
not significantly alter the depth or extent of flooding. The only nonstructural
measure which would reduce flood damages at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant is relocation of the facility. Relocation of this facility would consist
of relocation of some components and floodproofing of others. However, costs
exceed benefits for this measure. Two structural measures, consisting of channel
improvement and dike protection, were considered to reduce flood damages at the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant. These measures formed the bases for the
alternative plans discussed below.
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
The two measures determined to be potentially feasible for flood damage
reduction on Williams Old Mill Branch included channel improvement and dike "
protection. As discussed below, either of these measures would substantially
reduce flood damages at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
DIKE, PROTECTION, CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The dike protection plan consists of an earth dike 2,200 feet long. This
dike would provide protection for the facility up to the 100-year flood. Lower
dike elevations (below the 100-year flood level) were not considered acceptable,
since North Carolina regulations require 100-year protection for dikes protecting
wastewater treatment facilities. A dike elevation higher that the 100-yeas
elevation was not considered to be economically justified, and likewise was not
considered in detail. Benefits and costs for the dike alternative are shown in
table 1, following page._ As shown in the table, dike protection at the Clinton
Wastewater Treatment facility was demonstrated to be economically feasible.
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
This measure consists of channelization of Williams Old Mill Branch, along
with construction of a low dike to prevent floodwater intrusion from Dollar
Branch. In addition to reducing floodwater intrusion, this measure would also
lower the water table in areas which are frequently saturated.' This improved
drainage would reduce the duration, as well as the frequency, offlooding.
Benefits for this alternative are shown in table 1, following page.
8
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
As shown in table 1, below, both alternatives produce benefits which
exceed costs. Of the two plans, expected annual benefits are greater for the
channel plan. However, costs are also greater for the channel alternative. Net
economic benefits (expected annual benefits minus average annual costs) are
greater for the dike plan.
TABLE 1
Costs and Benefits for Plans of Improvement Considered
Project First Costs
100-Yr.
Dike Channel
$469,000 $1,091,000
Average Annual Costs
Interest and
Amortization $40,000 $93,000
Operation and Maintenance 4,700 2.000
Total Average Annual Cost $44,700 $95,000
Expected Annual Benefits
$108,700 $136,800
Benefit-Cost Ratio
2.4 to 1 1.4 to 1
Net Benefits
$108,700 $136,800
-44,700 -95,000
$ 64,000 $ 41,800
RATIONALE FOR PLAN SELECTION AND DESIGNATION OF NED PLAN
Under current Federal planning regulations applicable to projects of this
type, the plan which produces the greatest net economic benefits will be the plan
recommended for implementation, unless there are overriding considerations which
favor implementation of an alternative plan. The plan which produces the
greatest net benefits among the available alternatives is referred to as the
"National Economic Development" (NED) Plan. In this case, the NED Plan is the
dike plan described above. No overriding considerations were identified which
favor implementation of another plan. Thus, the NED plan is the Selected Plan
of Improvement, discussed in detail in the following report section.
i
SECTION IV SELECTED PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT
The purpose of this report section is to centralize information concerning
the Selected Plan. This section includes (1) a discussion of plan features; (2)
a discussion of construction and maintenance procedures; (3) an evaluation of
plan accomplishments; and (4) an evaluation of impacts, 'both positive and
negative associated with"the Selected Plan of Improvement.
PLAN FEATURES
Flood protection will be provided at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant
by construction of a perimeter dike at the facility (see figure 2, following
page). Interior drainage sumps and pumps will be included to prevent interior
flooding. The dike will protect against floodwater intrusion from Dollar Branch
and Williams Old Mill Branch. Pertinent data concerning the dike plan are
presented below.
PROJECT DIMENSIONS
The dike to be constructed around the Clinton Wastewater. Treatment Plant
is illustrated on figure 2. The dike will have a length of 2,200 feet, and will
be constructed of compacted earth. The dike will tie in to high ground near the
northeast and southeast sides of the wastewater treatment plant. Top width of
the dike will be 10 feet, with side slopes of An 8-
foot-wide by 2-foot-deep keytrench will be excavated and backfilled under the
dike to reduce seepage. A ramp will be built over the dike for a service road.
As shown on figure 2, the existing channel for Williams Old Mill Branch will be
realigned in the vicinity of the dike. The realigned channel- will be
approximately the same size as the existing channel.
LEVEL OF PROTECTION.
The level of protection provided by the dike is based on requirements
established by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM).
NCDEM regulations require that the plant sewers be protected against the 100-year
flood.
TOP OF DIKE ELEVATION
The top of dike elevations have been set based on the water profiles for
the 100-year flood on Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch.
INTERIOR DRAINAGE
Two interior ponding sites (sumps) are included in the Selected Plan to
contain interior flooding and improve drainage at the facility. Three pumps with
a combined capacity of approximately 6,000 gallons per minute will also be
provided. t
/ J
1 ` ?,
z
J U0%
W
i W
x °
w
/ J
LLI
S CL Cr- W Z
O
LL fcl:
`Z U
t-
N
u?v 0 W Z
}
F
CL !?z
F-
` co 2
/ N O J
o O 3 3
< o-
lz r U r c
o
n
0
?` 0 o W
N
? 0 w
1 ? ..o
C, C,
O ?
W?
mO
n
oe
V ,.? >
F% Om 7 tnOOtn Wz ADM
W C44C44 QO O?
W v MIC
?q ? Q I-- "
'b D Q NQ
a
w
3 \ G _Y w
O 0 (n dMM?t 0
LLJ Q W
?cococo N
i• > O 1 O 0000
ej O JWJ a v
0 W O} D
Y?
g °o
a. O z
T n• o amc?a Z ? ?N
z
a rn
N
w
O
w
11
FREEBOARD
A minimumfreeboard of 2 feet has been established for the dike near the
junction of Dollar Branch and Williams Old Mill Branch, where the 'sumps are
located. The freeboard will be increased to 2.5 feet at the end points along
Dollar Branch and Williams Old Mill Branch.
OVERTOPPING
The 'dike will be designed so that overtopping will occur at the sump
locations.- Overtopping at these locations, which will be lower than the rest of
the dike, will minimize overtopping impacts.
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY
Overtopping frequency would be about once every 400 years where there is
2 feet of freeboard (at the sump locations) and once every 500 years where the
freeboard is increased to 2.5 feet (see also discussion of Risk and Uncertainty,
page 17).
OVERTOPPING VELOCITIES
Velocities at the initial point of overtopping would be about 2.5 feet per
second for a 1-foot head on the dike. This velocity is non-erosive and would
occur only about once every 600 years; therefore, overtopping protection for the
dike structure is not needed.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Construction of the project will require the filling or excavation of 2.4
acres of wetlands. In order to offset this loss, approximately 4.8 acres of
former wetlands which have been converted to upland by ditching and draining will
be restored. Wetland restoration will be accomplished primarily by filling or
blocking drainage ditches and planting saplings. A potential mitigation area has
been identified along Williams Old Mill Branch. However, if this area is not
available or is determined to be u uitable for mitigation, about 900 acres of
prior converted areas which may be suitable for mitigation sites are located
along Great Coharie Creek.
WX
N
V
v
I L?
12
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
The Selected Plan of Improvement will be constructed by a private
contractor under contract to the Federal Government. Project construction is
expected to take about 4 months. Construction and maintenance procedures are
discussed below.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The proposed dike will be constructed of earth fill. Based on
investigations to date, fill can be obtained from an existing borrow site located
between the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant and U.S Highway 421. Construction
of the dike is expected to require approximately 13,000 cubic yards of fill.
Eight hundred linear feet of stream channel will be filled to accommodate the
dike. The channel will be relocated to provide flow along the 800-foot-long
filled reach. Other construction items include sump excavation, pump
installation, construction of an ccess ramp, andfee ce relocation and
construction. , IVI O^' S 'dl /X,
PROJECT MAINTENANCE t? " -- ` w` vi ' C* d l ~ .
Maintenance of the dike will consist -of mowing grass, and maintaining the
pumps and sump areas. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the non-Federal
sponsor (City of Clinton).
RELOCATIONS
The only relocation required for project construction is relocation of the
existing fence around the wastewater treatment plant. -
RIGHTS OF WAY AND REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS
Real estate requirements for the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant dike
will include the construction site, a borrow area, and the mitigation sites
described on the previous page. A tract of 5 acres located between the plant and
US Highway 421 is presently used as a borrow area, and appears to be a suitable
source for fill material.
13
PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The principal accomplishment of the Selected Plan of Improvement will be
protection against flooding up to the 100-year flood level. In addition, the
sumps and pumps included in the Selected Plan will improve drainage within the
facility. Flood damages at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant will be
reduced by approximately 78 percent. Elimination of all flood damages, including
costs for treatment of extraneous flows and lost plant' capacity, is not
practicable within the scope of this study. Approximately one-half of these
extraneous flows enter the wastewater treatment system from sources outside the
treatment plant, such as storm drains. Thus, some extraneous flows would
continue to enter the wastewater treatment system with. the Selected Plan of
Improvement in place. Economic benefits for the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant dike are discussed below.
PLAN IMPACTS
The purpose of this report section is to evaluate the impacts, both
positive and negative, associated with the Selected Plan. Included are two
principal categories of impacts: Economic Impacts and Environmental Impacts.
Any plan of improvement, to be considered implementable, must contribute to the
National Economic Development. This contribution is measured by the amount by
which project benefits exceed project costs. Also, the selected plan must be
consistent with preservation of the National Environmental Quality.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Economic impacts of the Selected Plan are both positive and negative.
Positive impacts consist of flood damage reduction benefits. Negative impacts
are the costs of providing the improvements. Benefits and costs for the Selected
Plan are discussed below.
• Economic Benefits - Expected annual benefits for the Selected Plan of
'Improvement are estimated at $108,700.
• Economic Costs - Determination of the economic costs of the Selected
Plan consists of three basic steps. First, project first costs are computed.
First costs include expenditures for project design and construction and related
costs of supervision and administration. First costs also include lands,,
easements, rights of way, and relocations.
Second, interest during the estimated 4-month construction period is added
to the construction first cost This figure represents the total investment
required to place the project into operation.
Third, average annual costs are computed. These costs consist of interest
and amortization of the initial investment, and the annual cost of project
operation and maintenance. The average annual costs provide a basis for
comparing project costs to project benefits, discussed previously. A summary of
computations for each of these three steps is presented on the following page.
14
Project First Costs - The total first cost of construction for the Selected
Plan is estimated at $469,000, based on October 1993 price levels. First costs
are presented in table 2, below.
TABLE 2
Pro iect First Costs. Selected Plan of Improvement
(October 1993 price levels)
--------
----------
ACCOUNT --------------------------------------- -------- --------- ------------
UNIT --------- -------------- --
TOTAL
CODE ITEM QUANTITY
--------------------------------------- UNIT
--------- PRICE
------------ AMOUNT
--------- CONTINGENCY
-------------- COST
----------
----------
O1.-.-.- --------
LANDS AND DAMAGES
01.D.-.- Aquisition Fees (Wms. Old Mill & Dollar Br.)
Federal (2 tracts @ $156 Ea) 1 JOB LS 310 100 410
Non-Federal (2 tracts @ $625 Ea) 1 JOB LS 1,250 300 1,550
O1.F.-.- Appraisals (Wms. Old Mill & Dollar Br. )
Document Preparation 1 JOB LS 1,900 500 2,400
Document Review 1 JOB LS 500 100 600
O1.M.-.- Real Estate Receipts/Payments
(Williams Old Mill & Dollar Branch)
O1.M.3.- Land Payments (5 Acres @ $56 Ea) 1 JOB LS 280 100 380
O1.M.3.- Mitigation (5 Acres) 1 JOB LS
----- 12,500
-------- 3,100
--------------- 15,600
----------
TOTAL LANDS AND DAMAGES $16,700 $4,200 $20,900
09.-.-.- CHANNELS AND CANALS
(WILLIAMS OLD MILL & DOLLAR BRANCH)
09.1.A.- Mobilization & Demobilization 1 JOB LS $10,000 $3,000 $13,000
09.1.8.- Dikes
09.1.4.A Excavation 5,600 CY 4.00 22,400 5,600 28,000
09.1.4.A Compacted Fill 13,200 CY 3.50 46,200 11,600 57,800
09.1.4.A Clearing 1 AC 1,500 1,500 400 1,900
09.1.4.A Clear and Grub 3 AC 2,500 7,500 1,900 9,400
09.1.4.- Bank Stablization
09.1.4.8 Riprap, 24" 10 CY 30 300 100 400
09.1.4.B Seeding 4 AC 1,200 4,800 1,200 6,000
09.1.R.- Asociated General Items
09.1.R.B Pavement Removal 320 SY 2.25 700 200 900
09.1.R.8 8" Bituminous Pavement 320 SY 20 6,400 1,600 8,000
09.1.R.B 6' Chain link Fence, Remove & Reset 500 LF 10 5,000 1,300 6,300
09.1.R.8 120 LF 18" Pipe, BCCMP w/flapgate 1 EA 3,200 3,200 800 4,000
09.1.R.B Pump Sta, w/2100 gpm w/conc. sta 3 EA 38,275 114,800 28,700 143,500
09.1.R.8 DIP, 12" x120 LF 1 EA 3,100 3,100 800 3,900
09.1.R.B Mitigation 5 AC 5,500
---- 27,500
--------- 6,900
-------------- 34,400
-----------
TOTAL CHANNELS AND CANALS $253,000 $64,000 $318,000
(WILLIAMS OLD MILL & DOLLAR BRANCH)
30.-.-.- ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 1 JOB LS $56,000 $14,000 $70,000
30.-.-.- Mitigation Monitoring 5 AC 6,000 30,000 7,500 37,500
31.-.-.- CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1 JOB LS
---- $18,000
-------- $5,000
--------------- $23,000
-----------
TOTAL PROJECT COST $374,000 $95,000 $469,000
WOMILL73.WK1-EFD 15 05-Au4.
Interest During Construction - Interest during construction, based on a 4
month construction period, is estimated at $6,500. Thus, the total investment
required to place the project into operation will be $475,500 ($469,000 first
costs plus $6
,500 interest over a 4 -month period).
Averap-e Annual Costs Average annual costs consist of interest and
amortization of the initial investment over an assumed project life of 50 years.
Operation and maintenance costs are also included. The interest rate used is
8-1/4 percent. As shown in table 3, below, total average annual costs are
estimated at $44,700.
TABLE 3
Average Annual Costs Selected Plan of Improvement
(8-1/4 Percent Interest Rate: 50-wear project life)
Average
Annual
Item Cost
Interest and Amortization $40,000
Operation and Maintenance 4.700
Totals $44,700
BENEFIT-COST RATIO
With expected annual benefits estimated at $108,700 and average annual
costs estimated at $44,700, the benefit-cost ratio for the Selected Plan of
Improvement is 2.4.
ANALYSIS OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
The purpose of this report section is to analyze the types and degrees of
risk and uncertainty associated with the project, as well as any project
modifications which could be made to lessen the degree of risk and uncertainty.
• Risk Analysis - The term "risk," as used in this report, refers to
situations in which the likelihood of a given event occurring can be expressed
in terms of a probability, or percent chance of occurrence. With any flood
damage reduction project, two risk factors must be considered: (1) the risk that
the level of protection provided by the project will be exceeded if a
sufficiently large flood occurs; and (2) the risk of structural failure.
During the 100-year design life of the project, the chance of a flood
exceeding the 100-year level of protection is 69 percent. The chance of a flood
overtopping the dike is 22 percent for a 400-year overtopping frequency and 18
percent for a 500-year overtopping frequency. The dike will be designed so that
overtopping will occur in the sump areas, where damage and hazard to life will
be minimized.
• Uncertainty Analysis - The term "uncertainty," as used herein, refers
to elements of the project where different outcomes are possible, but no
probability can be placed on these outcomes. In the case of the Selected Plan
of Improvement, the only significant area of uncertainty is in the location of
the environmental mitigation areas. Several sites have been identified which are
potentially suitable. Differences between these sites are not sufficient to
affect the economic feasibility or environmental acceptability of the project.
Final selection of mitigation sites will be made during preparation of Plans and
Specifications for the project.
17
j
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As discussed below, the principal impacts of the project will be the loss
of existing wetlands due to filling and stream channel relocation at the Clinton
Wastewater Treatment Plant. However, environmental mitigation measures included
in the project plan will offset these impacts. Mitigation measures are discussed
below, followed by a discussion of project impacts on each significant resource.
Possible impacts on hazardous and toxic waste sites are also discussed in this
report section.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
The project will result in the loss of 2.4 acres of 'wetlands. In order to
offset this loss, 4.8 acres of wetlands will be created by restoring prior
converted wetlands. Restoration will be accomplished by blocking or filling
existing drainage ditches and planting saplings. The areas to be used for
wetland mitigation will be selected during preparation of plans and
specifications for the project.
IMPACTS ON SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
Significant environmental resources identified within the study area
included wetlands, water quality, wildlife resources, aquatic resources, and
esthetic resources.
• Wetlands - The principal effects of the project on wetlands would be
the loss of 2.4 acres of wetlands due to dike construction. Dike construction
will require the filling of 2.1 acres of wetlands including marsh, stream, and
wooded habitat for dike construction. Excavation of 0.3 acre of marsh will be
required for stream channel relocation to allow for dike placement. However,
with the mitigation measures described above, no net loss of wetlands will result
(see Environmental Assessment, attachment A, for results of mitigation analysis).
Water Quality Construction of the project will result in temporary
increases in stream turbidity and sediment load. However, these effects will be
minor and temporary. Decreased flooding of the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant should result in improved water quality for Williams Old Mill Branch and
Great Coharie Creek downstream. However, this effect has not been quantified.
• Impacts on Wildlife Resources - Project construction and maintenance
will have a minor effect on wildlife resources, and this effect is expected to
be offset by the environmental mitigation measures described above. Construction
of the dike.will result in the loss of 2.4 acres of wetland and stream habitat
due to dike construction and the disturbance of about 5 acres of upland habitat
for dike construction, borrow area, and associated activities. Areas to be
affected are of low value for wildlife resources
18
• Impacts on Aquatic Resources - The proposed dike construction will
require the filling of about 800 linear feet of stream and its relocation, with
an associated loss of any dependent organisms. No maintenance of the relocated
channel is required after construction; therefore, recolonization of the channel
by similar organisms is expected. Overall, the effects of dike construction on
aquatic resources are expected to be minor. Water quality improvement due to
decreased flooding will be beneficial to fish and other aquatic resources.
• Impacts on Esthetic Resources The Selected Plan will further reduce
the natural appearance of Williams Old Mill Branch; however, this impact is not
considered significant.
IMPACTS ON THE FLOOD PLAIN AND COMPLIANCE WITH EO 11988
Executive Order 11988 requires that water resources projects be designed
to avoid inducing development in the 100-year flood plain. No increased
development in the 100-year flood plain is anticipated.
SUMMARY OF PLAN EFFECTS
Table 4, following page, presents a summary of project impacts. Effects
are evaluated in the following categories, or "accounts:" (1) National Economic
Development (NED), which reflects the plan's economic justification; (2)
Environmental quality, which evaluates the plan's environmental acceptability;
(3) Regional Economic Development, and (4) Other Social Effects, including health
and safety. Effects in these four categories encompass significant effects on
the human environment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. They also encompass social well being as required by Section 122 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970. As shown, the Selected Plan has minor adverse
environmental impacts. All other impacts are positive.
19
TABLE 4,
Summary of Plan Effects
1. NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Selected Plan of Improvement has a benefit-cost ratio of 2.4
(expected annual benefits of $108,700 and average annual costs of
$44,700) The Selected Plan of Improvement is the National Economic
Development (NED) Plan.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
A. Fish and Wildlife Resources - Minor losses of fish habitat.
*B. Esthetic Values No significant impact.
*C. Air and Noise Pollution - No significant impact.
*D. Water Quality - Increased turbidity during construction;
possible long-term improvement due to reduced flooding.
E. Wetlands Filling of 2.1 acres of wetlands required for dike
construction. Excavation of 0.3 acre of wetlands required for stream
channel relocation to allow dike placement; approximately 5 acres of
prior converted wetlands will be restored as a mitigation measure.
No net loss anticipated.
3. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
*A. Income and Employment - Economic benefits represent increase
in income due to reduction of wastewater treatment costs.
*B. Desirable Community Growth - Reduction in wastewater treatment
costs can be expected to have a positive effect; effect has not
been quantified.
4. OTHER SOCIAL EFFECTS
*Enhancement of Community Social Well Being - Reduction of flood threat
at wastewater treatment plant expected to have positive effect; effect
has not been quantified.
*Effect specified in Section 122 of P.L. 91-611.
20
PUBLIC VIEWS
This study has been coordinated with the City of Clinton, which is the
potential non-Federal sponsor, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
discussion, below). Coordination with interested agencies and individuals will
continue with circulation of the attached environmental assessment.
VIEWS OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR
The City of Clinton supports the plan of improvement described herein, and
has indicated its intent to act as non-Federal sponsor for the project (see
letter from City of Clinton dated 6 April 1993, appendix A,. page A-2).
VIEWS OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
In their Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (see appendix B), the
Service recommended measures which they believe should be incorporated into the
project plan. The Service's recommendations and the extent to which they have
been incorporated into the project plan are as follows.
1. USFWS RECOMMENDATION: The Service recommends compensation on a habitat
value basis for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with the perimeter dike /
construction. Such mitigation could be accomplished by creating wetlands at
upland borrow sites adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, or by restoring
nearby prior converted wetlands along Great Coharie Creek through hydrologic
restoration and reforestation.
Corps Response: The proposed mitigation area is a portion of a 5-acre PC
located on Williams Old Mill branch. If this area is not available or determined
to be unsuitable for mitigation, about 900 acres of PC are located along Great
Coharie Creek that would provide suitable alternative sites.
2. USFWS RECOMMENDATION: The mitigation acreage calculations contained in
appendix B of the draft EIS should be adjusted to use the following relative
habitat values: 0.0 at year 0; 1.5 at year 25; and 3.0 at year 50. This is more
representative of the anticipated reestablishment rate of the actual habitat
values. Under this scenario, we have calculated, in consultation with Corps
staff, that the mitigation required to compensate for unavoidable wetlands
impacts on a habitat values basis would be 4.8 acres, which is a 2 to 1 ratio of
acres impacted to acres mitigated.
Corps Response: An evaluation of wetland impacts, mitigation requirements,
and costs of alternative mitigation plans are included in Attachment A to the
environmental assessment. Your recommendations have been incorporated into this
evaluation. Dike construction will result in the loss of 2.4 acres of wetlands.
The proposed plan includes the replacement of wetland losses by the restoration
of 4.8 acres of PC on Williams Old Mill branch. The proposed mitigation plan
would require the restoration of any past efforts to drain the PC. This is
accomplished primarily through the filling or blocking of drainage ditches. The
area would be revegetated in hardwood trees by planting of saplings.
1.
21
I
L
3. USFWS RECOMMENDATION: The Service recommends that, in order to minimize the
potential for adverse impacts to anadromous and freshwater fish and other aquatic
species, the Corps consider specifying that construction activity in wetlands be
conducted in the autumn (September 1 through November 30
). This time of year is
preferable because it avoids the reproductive season of most species and also
coincides with the typical period of low flow conditions in North Carolina
streams.
j
Corps Response: Instream construction will be scheduled for autumn
(September 1 through November 30). If instream construction activities extend
beyond this timeframe, the Service will be notified.
4. USFWS RECOMMENDATION: Should the alternative regarding clearing and snagging
of Great Coharie Creek ever be reevaluated at any time in the future, all
environmental review procedures, including but not limited to the National
Environmental Policy Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act activities,
should be renewed from the beginning of the planning process and should not be
taken out of context as this report only addresses the impacts of the
alternatives for the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Corps Response: Further action on clearing and snagging of Great Coharie
Creek by the Corps of Engineers would require initiation of the NEPA process.
DIVISION OF PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES
Costs for construction of the Selected Plan of Improvement will be shared
by the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. Under current Federal
policy applicable to flood damage reduction projects, the non-Federal sponsor
must contribute 25 percent of the project first costs. Cost sharing for the
Selected Plan of Improvement is shown in table 5, below. Additional requirements
of non-Federal sponsorship are included in the. District Engineer's
"Recommendations," following page.
TABLE 5
Cost Sharing. Selected Plan of Improvement
(October 1993 price levels)
Non-Federal Contribution $117,000*
Federal Contribution $352,000
TOTAL $469,000
*Includes costs for lands, easements, and rights of way, currently estimated at
$20,490. This figure includes all items listed under "Lands and Damages" in
table 2, page 15, except "Federal Acquisition Fees" ($410). This item will, be
cost shared 75-percent Federal, 25-percent non-Federal.
22
SECTION V - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
I have concluded that Federal improvements to reduce flood damages on
Williams Old Mill Branch at Clinton, North Carolina are economically justified
and environmentally acceptable. Accordingly, Federal implementation of these
improvements is recommended.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that the Selected Plan of Improvement, described herein for
purposes of flood damage reduction on Williams Old Mill Branch, Clinton, North
Carolina, be authorized for implementation as a Federal project, with such
modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable,
at a first cost to the United States presently estimated at $352,000, excluding
interest during construction. The recommended plan consists of construction of
a dike at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on Williams Old Mill
Branch. Recommendation of this plan is made provided that, except as otherwise
provided in these recommendations, the exact amount of non-Federal contributions
shall be determined by the Chief of Engineers prior to project implementation in
accordance with the following requirements to which non-Federal interests must
agree prior to implementation:
a. Provide all lands, easements, and rights of way, including suitable
borrow and disposal areas as may be determined by the Chief of Engineers to be
necessary for construction and subsequent maintenance and inspection of the
project.
b. Accomplish without cost to the United States all relocations and
alterations of buildings, transportation facilities,. and other structures and
improvements made necessary by the construction.
C. Provide, during the process of construction, an amount equal to not
less than 25 percent of total project costs, at least 5 percent of which will be
cash. The amount to be provided shall include the value or cost of all lands,
easements, rights of way, and facility and utility alterations and relocations
necessary for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project, including
suitable borrow and disposal areas, as may be determined by the Chief of
Engineers.
d. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to project
construction and subsequent maintenance, except damages due to the fault or
negligence of the United States or its contractors.
e. Maintain and operate the project after completion without cost to the
United States in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Army.
f. At least annually inform affected interests that the project will not
provide complete flood protection.
23
i
g. Assume full responsibility for all project costs in excess of the
Federal cost limitation of $5,000,000.
h. Prior to construction, adopt ordinances and promulgate regulations to
prevent encroachment on the flood plain storage areas, channels, and rights of
way and address the following:
(1) Maintain eligibility for the National Flood Insurance Program and
provide for a program of flood insurance within the project area.
(2) Allow no additional development in the 100-year floodway along
Williams Old Mill Branch which would adversely affect flood flows or would be
susceptible to significant damages.
(3) Adopt building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations,
and other contracts as may be necessary to establish minimum 'floor elevations of
structures and other construction criteria for future developments in the flood
hazard areas to prevent future flood damages.
i. Assume _financial responsibility for cleanup of hazardous and toxic
waste, as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, which is necessitated by the project. Such costs will not be
considered part of the total project costs, nor will the sponsor receive credit
for such costs it incurs.
The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at
this time and current Departmental policies governing formulation of `individual
projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the
formulation of a national Civil Works construction program nor the perspective
of higher review levels within the Executive Branch. Consequently, the
recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to higher authority
as proposals for authorization and implementation funding..
In making the recommendations herein, I have considered all significant
aspects in the overall public interest, including environmental,, social,
cultural, and economic effects and engineering feasibility.
LAWRENCE W. SAUNDERS
Chief, Planning Division
C JIGAL
Submitted by:
Rex A. Phillips, P.E.
Study Manager
GEORGE L. A
COL, Corps of Engineers
Commanding
24
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST, 1993
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE NO.
1.00 NEED FOR FEDERAL ACTION ........................................ 1
1.01 SUMMARY .................................................... 1
1.02 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
1.03 STUDY AUTHORITY AND PUBLIC CONCERNS 1
........................
2.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................... 2
2.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................ 2
2.02 SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ...................................... 2
2.03 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT A PROJECT ........................ 7
3.00 PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND RESTRICTIONS ........................... 8
4.00 ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 9
4.01 MEASURES DROPPED FROM DETAILED STUDY ....................... 9
Clearing and Snagging on Williams Old Mill Branch 9
Relocation and Floodproofing, Clinton WTP ................ 9
4.02 PLANS EVALUATED IN DETAIL, DESCRIPTION AND IMPACTS ......... 9
Dike Construction (Proposed Plan) ........................ 10
Channel Excavation (Not selected) ........................ 10
No Action (Not selected) ................................. 13
Evaluation of Detailed Plans ............................. 13
5.00 PROPOSED PLAN .................................................. 15
6.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................. 16
6.01 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES .................................... 16
6.02 CROPLAND AND PRIME FARMLAND ................................ 16
6.03 WETLANDS ................................................... 16
6.04 FLOOD PLAINS ............................................. 17
6.05 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ......................................... 17
6.06 ENDANGERED SPECIES ......................................... 17
6.07 WATER QUALITY .............................................. 17
6.08 FISHERY RESOURCES .......................................... 18
6.09 ESTHETIC AND RECREATION RESOURCES .......................... 18
6.10 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................... 18
6.11 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC MATERIALS .............................. 18
7.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND MITIGATION PLAN .................. 19
i
7.01 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS .. .. .19
7,02 MITIGATION PLAN ... .............. 19
8.00 RELATIONSHIP OF PLANS TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ............ 20
9.00 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . .............................. ... .. 21
9.01 REQUIRED COORDINATION 21
9.02 STATEMENT RECIPIENTS ....................................... 22
10.00 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................. 23
11.00 REFERENCES ........ ........ .................... 24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Study Area 3
Figure 2: Proposed Dike Plan ...... 11
Figure 3: Channel Excavation Alternative, Clinton WTP .............. 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparison of Detailed Plans, Clinton WTP ....... 14
Table 2: Relationship of proposed plan to Environmental Requirements 20
Table 3: Mailing List for the EA/FONSI ..... ........... 22
ATTACHMENTS
A: Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Evaluation, Williams Old Mill Branch
B: Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) Guidelines, 40 CFR 230
1.00 NEED FOR FEDERAL ACTION
1.01 SUMMARY
Flooding and inadequate drainage are persistent problems at the Clinton
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP), which is located at the confluence of Dollar
Branch and Williams Old Mill Branch., a tributary to Great Coharie Creek in
Sampson County, North Carolina. Floodwaters entering the facility create
extraneous flows which must be treated as wastewater, increasing the plant's
operational costs and reducing its treatment capacity. Flooding also results
in damages to buildings and equipment and in saturation of the facility's sand
treatment beds, rendering them useless until repairs are completed. The
construction of a 100-year dike around the Clinton WTP was found to be an
environmentally acceptable and economically feasible method to reduce flood
damage, and is proposed for construction. The project is not expected to
affect prime farmland, cultural resources, endangered species, or hazardous
materials. Insignificant impacts to fisheries resources, flood plains,
important farmland, and wildlife resources were identified. Dike construction
will result in the loss of 2.4 acres of wetlands, which would be mitigated by
the proposed restoration of 4.8 acres of former wetlands that have been
converted to farmland. Although temporary impacts to water quality in
Williams Old Mill Branch may occur during construction, long-term improvements
in water quality in Williams Old Mill Branch are expected. Socieoeconomic
benefits associated with reduced flood damages at the Clinton WTP are also
expected.
1.02 INTRODUCTION
This project was originally proposed as a component of the Great Coharie
Creek Project as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
Great Coharie Creek Project, Sampson County, North Carolina, dated June 1992
and circulated for public comment in July of 1992. In addition to the
proposed dike construction as described herein, the Great Coharie Creek
Project included clearing and snagging along 18 miles of the lower Great
Coharie Creek. However, the proposed clearing and snagging has been dropped
from present consideration at the request of the local sponsor, and the scope
of the report was reduced accordingly. Comments on the Clinton WTP dike
received during circulation of the previously referenced DEIS were considered
in the preparation of this Environmental Assessment (EA). Further action on
the clearing and snagging of Great Coharie Creek would require reinitiation of
the NEPA process.
1.03 STUDY AUTHORITY AND PUBLIC CONCERNS
This study and report were conducted under the authority of Section 205 of
the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended. The potential nonfederal sponsor of
the proposed project is the city of Clinton. The primary problem in the study
area is flood damage and inadequate drainage at the Clinton WTP. The primary
public need is for reduction of those damages. There are no known areas of
controversy or major unresolved issues concerning the implementation of the
proposed action.
2.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
2.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Williams Old Mill Branch is a tributary to the Great Coharie Creek located
about 7 river miles upstream of the SR 1214 bridge crossing (see Figure 1).
Great Coharie Creek includes about 50 stream miles from its origin near Newton
Grove, North Carolina, to its confluence with the Black River. The Great
Coharie Creek drainage basin including Williams Old Mill Branch, is located
entirely within Sampson County, in the coastal plains region of North
Carolina.
2.02 SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
Significant resources occurring in the study area include prime farmland,
wetlands and flood plains, endangered species, fisheries resources, esthetic
and recreation resources, and cultural resources. These resources, as well as
water quality, and the potential presence of hazardous and/or toxic materials
are described in the sections that follow.
Prime Farmland.. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) lists several soil
associations which occur in Sampson County as potential prime or important
farmland. Prime farmland is land that on a national scale is best suited for
the production of crops and is presently used for producing food or fiber or
available for that purpose. Important farmlands are lands in addition to
prime farmland that are of statewide importance for the production of crops.
Johns sandy loam (Jo) is a soil association which occurs within the 100-year
flood plain of Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch, and is 'listed as
prime farmland, if drained Marvyn loamy sand (MaC) is also found in the
project vicinity is considered farmland of statewide importance by the SCS
(Letter dated September 10, 1992). The area of potential prime farmland was
estimated from 1985 SCS soil survey maps.
About 5 acres of cropland and 16 acres of potential prime farmland (Jo
soil) and 2 acres of farmland of statewide importance (MaC soil) occur within'
the 100-year flood plain of Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch from
U.S. Highway 421 to a point 3,750 feet downstream. No prime farmland occurs
in the immediate vicinity of the Clinton WTP.
Wetlands. Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch wetland classifications
(Cowardin et al. 1979) are based on NWI maps (dated 1989), updated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) from aerial photographs dated June 1988.
Swamp Forest (PF01C Cowardin et al. 1979) is the dominant wetland type
bordering William's Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch within the planning
area. The swamp forest has a mature, well-developed canopy with dominant
species including black gum, ash, and red maple. The soil in this area is
seasonally flooded or saturated, resulting in a sparsely vegetated understory.
About 105 acres of PF01C are estimated to occur within the 100-year flood
plain of Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch study area.
EA-2
Q U
K
L.Li V)
_
? U
Q wz
w
Z
Z Q W Z
J
U
?
} J
I- a 3
CJ V)
Q Z vi
Z?

W c
M
?
j
a
J
r
w
o ? RIVER
P
V / Z w W g?

? \
w J \ Z
I
f
Z /J L_-?/ S. 101

/ ?
U JY
\ J

'
z ?
Zen 1 ?

1 f
-711
-a1
F- -

2 IN JaOpP

Sow
P?
O /
I\-?-? - /OEPJ? i//
% y
2
ti

1\ j
M w

I ? /
/?? y
" 'TIDI
1
a
/tiPP tv
z
OLLI
1 w(Xl

2 op
?" /

sl sn
o
a
N
/
? o
o s
?
Hp1
N
?
S
y
t ?
?
? I
\ W
'^ 1
1
\ I
( I

a?
s.
tko
.rl
W
EA-3
On Williams Old Mill Branch, ponding, due to a high water table and poor
drainage, has resulted in the development of an approximately 40-acre
persistent emergent marsh (PEM1F wetland, Cowardin et al. 1979). The primary
plant components of this marsh are arrow-arum, cattail, and hibiscus.
Hummocks within the marsh support small trees (primarily red maple). Remnant
dead hardwoods (PF05 wetland, Cowardin et al. 1979) are scattered throughout`
the marsh in some areas providing potential nesting cavities.
As the elevation increases and flooding occurs only temporarily, a
bottomland hardwood community (PF01A wetland Cowardin et al. 1979) made up of
sweetgum, willow oak, red maple, and black gum is found. A dense understory
composed of greenbrier, honeysuckle, American holly, and young overstory
species is common. There is less than 1 acre of this community on Williams
Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch.
Flood Plains. The 100-year flood plain of Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar
Branch downstream of U.S. Highway 421 covers an estimated 207 acres. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance' Study of Sampson
County, North Carolina (July 1991), includes a floodway on Williams Old Mill
Branch.
Wildlife Resources. The wooded swamp, emergent marsh, bottomland hardwoods,
wooded upland, and surrounding agricultural land in the Coharie basin provide
a diverse habitat for wildlife species.
A modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) performed on Williams Old
Mill Branch (USFWS 1984) indicates that habitat types on Williams Old Mill
Branch and Dollar Branch are of moderate-to-high value for wetland dependent
species (i.e., muskrat, wood duck, and red-shouldered hawk), moderate-to-no
value for terrestrial species (i.e., gray squirrel, cottontail, and
whitefooted mouse), and moderate value for species that occur frequently in
both wet and dry habitats (i.e., whitetailed deer and downy woodpecker).
Endangered Species. The Wilmington District, USACOE initiated informal
consultation on the project by a letter dated February 13, 1984 The USFWS
responded by a letter dated March 19, 1984, and provided a list of species
which may be present in the project area. The USFWS list included the red
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), which were both endangered. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) was contacted by telephone in 1984 and it was determined at
that time that no species under their jurisdiction were expected to occur in
the project area.
Since our previous coordination with the USFWS and NMFS, the American
alligator was delisted in 1987 and Section 7 coordination requirements under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, no longer apply. The
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), an endangered fish under NMFS
,jurisdiction, previously thought to be extirpated from North Carolina, was
discovered in the Cape Fear River Basin in 1987; pondberry (Lindera
melissaefolia), an endangered plant not previously known from Sampson County,
North Carolina, was discovered there in 1991.
EA-4
The USFWS has determined in their Final Coordination Act Report (See
Appendix B) that based on available information, there are no federally-listed
or proposed endangered or threatened plant or animal species under their
jurisdiction in the impact area of the currently proposed project. The
shortnose sturgeon has not been found nor is expected to occur in the vicinity
of the Clinton wastewater treatment plant; however, (although not documented)
the species may occur downstream of the proposed project area in lower
Williams Old Mill Branch or Great Coharie Creek.
Water Quality. North Carolina's Classifications and Water Quality Standards
assigned to the waters of the Cape Fear River Basin list the waters of
Williams Old Mill Branch, and Dollar Branch as class C-Sw. The "C"
classification means that these waters are suitable for fishing and any other
uses, except for bathing or water supply for human consumption. The "Sw"
modifier indicates that these are swamp waters. Swamp waters may exhibit pH's
as low as 4.3. Dissolved oxygen values in swamp waters may be lower than
class C waters if caused by natural conditions.
Water quality data from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management's (NCDEM) station on the Great Coharie Creek at SR 1214 was
reviewed for the period of record (May 1974 through December 1984). The
station is located downstream of Williams Old Mill Branch and Clinton's WTP
discharge. Most parameters were sampled from 90 to 98 times during the period
of record. Metals were sampled 27 times, with the exception of Iron, which
was sampled 14 times, and Mercury, which was sampled 26 times. This data
indicates that the only contravention of the North Carolina water quality
standards occurred as follows: Once for cadmium, copper, iron, and lead;
twice for dissolved oxygen and zinc; and six times for mercury. Elevated
fecal coliform was identified on 19 out of 98 samples.
Water quality in the Black River located about 25 miles downstream of the
study area is considered to be good. Portions of the Black River are
designated as high quality waters by the State of North Carolina. A portion
of the Black River is presently under consideration by the NCDEM for
designation as an outstanding resource water.
Fisheries Resources. Fish populations of the Great Coharie Creek and its
tributaries have been sampled by Louder in 1962 (Louder 1963) and by the
USACOE/USFWS team in 1983. Thirty-two species of fish were collected. Fish
collected were typical of a southeastern blackwater stream community,
including both resident and anadromous species. Louder (1963) classifies the
upper reach of the Great Coharie as a redfin warmouth stream and the middle
and lower reaches as a largemouth. bass stream.
The resident fish population of the Great Coharie Creek is made up of game
fish including largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, black crappie,
and redfin and chain pickerel and nongame fish including catfish, suckers,
shiners, and darters. These species would be expected to use all areas of the
Great Coharie Creek and it's major tributaries including Williams Old Mill
Branch and Dollar Branch.
Anadromous species including the American shad, hickory shad, and striped
bass were not collected in the 1962 or 1983 sampling effort, but are
documented to occur in the lower reach of the Great Coharie (Baker 1968). The
EA-5
sea lamprey, also an anadromous species, was collected in the lowerGreat
Coharie Creek in 1983. Anadromous species are not known to occur in Williams
Old Mill Branch or Dollar Branch.
Two species of fish, the broad-tail madtom (Noturus, new species) and
thinlip chub, (H_ybopsis, new species) were collected in the lower reach of the
Great Coharie Creek in 1983. These fish are presently undescribed in the
literature and their distribution is not well known. Preparation of
descriptions of both of these species is intended by Dr. R. E. Jenkins of
Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia. These species are state-listed as special
concern (NCDPR 1991). Submerged logs, stumps, and other debris are the
preferred habitat of the broadtail Madtom (NCDMF 1991). These 'species are not
known to occur in Williams Old Mill Branch or Dollar Branch.
Williams Old Mill Branch has not been sampled for fish; however, it is
assumed for this study to contain a similar resident fish species composition
as the Great Coharie Creek. The quality of fish habitat on Williams Old Mill
Branch is not as high as the Great Coharie Creek. The primary factors
contributing to this lower value include past channelization, point source
discharge of the Clinton WTP, and a lack of deepwater areas during low flow
conditions. Although evidence of past channelization is apparent, the stream
shows signs of recovery since it was last channelized in 1962. An aquatic HEP
(USFWS 1984) of the area generally showed Williams Old Mill Branch to provide
moderate; value habitat for species analyzed. Analyzed species were bluegill,
warmouth, pirate perch, yellow bullhead, and ironcolor shiner. This stream
does not support a significant sport fishery as it is not navigable, and
evidence of bank fishing in the project area is not apparent.
Esthetic and Recreation Resources. The esthetic value of Williams Old Mill
Branch upstream of and including Dollar Branch is low, degraded by the
presence of the Clinton WTP. Williams Old Mill Branch retains a moderate
natural esthetic value downstream of Dollar Branch; however, past
channelization and low user availability limits its value as an esthetic
resource. The stream is not navigable, and wading is impractical over most of
its length due to unstable soils. The only point from which the stream is
easily viewed is the U.S. Highway 421 road crossing, where the creek looks
like a drainage ditch overgrown with vegetation.
Cultural Resources. An assessment of historical and archaeological resources
known or deemed likely to exist in the project area was undertaken by a staff
archaeologist with the Wilmington District. The probability of encountering
sites is based on the parameters of elevation, disturbance, and soil type.
The use of these parameters and the conclusions presented below are justified
by past studies and recent field inspections within the project area.
Sampson County is relatively well known architecturally. A survey
conducted during 1979 - 1980 documented over 600 structures within the county
of potential historic value. None of these will be affected by the proposed
project. Historic archaeological sites are not well known and have not
received attention in the literature. Within the project area, soils tend to
be poorly drained and in otherwise poor topographic settings for dwellings.
Neither Williams Old Mill Branch nor Dollar Branch offer good access or stream
flow for navigation. Inspections of the project area have not indicated the
presence of mills or mill-related structures.
EA-6
No prehistoric sites are expected to occur within the project area. This
is due to the predominance of marsh and other poorly drained Bibb-Johnson
soils within the project area. Past archaeological surveys have indicated
that there is a negative correlation between the Bibb-Johnson soils and site
location. Williams Old Mill Branch above Dollar Branch and the Dollar Branch
portion of the project area are of low potential due to modern disturbance,
soil type, and the restricted limits of the project area. However, the
Williams Old Mill Branch portion of the study area downstream of Dollar Branch
is generally undisturbed, contains limited areas of slightly higher elevation
and are considered to have a moderate probability for site location.
Hazardous and Toxic Materials. Information on known or suspected solid or
hazardous waste sites was requested from the North Carolina Division of Solid
Waste Management (NCDSWM) by letter dated August 15, 1991. The following
information was provided by the NCDSWM in a Memorandum dated October 7, 1991.
According to current records, there are no Comprehensive Environmental,
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)/Inactive Hazardous Sites
located within the study area.
There are 33 known active Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
hazardous waste sites in Sampson County, many of which are small generators.
It is not expected that the proposed project or alternatives would impact any
of these sites or that the sites would adversely affect the proposed plan or
alternatives.
According to the city of Clinton (Letter dated August 21, 1991), an
abandoned fill area located about 1,000 feet west (downstream) of the Clinton
WTP on the southern bank of Williams Old Mill Branch was used by the city of
Clinton for the disposal of municipal waste beginning in early 1950 through
about 1975. The NCDSWM recommends that this site not be disturbed. It is not
expected that leachate from this site would have contaminated sediments of
Williams Old Mill Branch upstream of Dollar Branch.
2.03 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT A PROJECT
Although some land use changes are expected, the overall environmental
conditions within the basin, without a project, should remain the same. If no
action is taken to alleviate flood and drainage problems, they will continue
as will the associated monetary losses. In addition, any adverse
environmental impacts on water quality in Williams Old Mill Branch that
presently occur as a result of the malfunction of the Clinton WTP during
floods would continue. No action by the Corps on Williams Old Mill Branch and
Dollar Branch would not preclude action being taken by landowners and/or local
government.
EA-7
3.00 PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND RESTRICTIONS
Specific planning objectives developed for this study are as follows:
Reduce flood damages to the Clinton WTP
* Provide drainage to restore on-site wastewater treatment
capacity at the Clinton WTP.
Specific planning restrictions were developed through coordination with
resource agencies and conservation groups and/or are mandated by law or
executive order. They include the following:
Impacts to wetlands, black water stream habitat, and fisheries
resources must be minimal. No fill material should be placed in
wetlands if a practical alternative exists.
* The spawning activities of anadromous fish must not be disrupted.
Additional development in the 100-year flood plain must not be
induced by this project.
Endangered.species (potential species include shortnose sturgeon,
red-cockaded woodpecker, and pondberry) must not be jeopardized by
this project.
EA-8
4.00 ALTERNATIVES
Consideration was given to both structural and nonstructural solutions to
meet the planning objectives developed for this study. Nonstructural measures
included flood insurance, flood plain zoning and evacuation, and
floodproofing. Structural measures included channel excavation, clearing and
snagging, and dikes. All measures were evaluated to determine if they
effectively met planning objectives. Those measures which did not meet any of
the objectives were dropped from further study. A benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio
was calculated for all remaining measures. Measures for which the costs for
implementation exceeded the benefits were dropped from further study when that
situation became apparent.
4.01 MEASURES DROPPED FROM DETAILED STUDY
Clearing and Snagging on Williams Old Mill Branch
Clearing and snagging would not provide drainage, or significantly reduce
the flood problem at the Clinton WTP as sediment blockage, not limbs and
debris, is causing flooding at the plant.
Relocation and Floodproofing, Clinton WTP
This alternative includes the relocation of the 30 sludge beds combined
with floodproofing the main pumping station for raw sewage and the digestor
building. Relocation of the sludge drying beds and floodproofing buildings in
the flood plain would meet primary study objectives by providing flood
protection and eliminating the sludge bed drainage problem. Relocation of the
sludge drying beds would avoid wetland impacts and terrestrial impacts would
be minor since an existing disturbed area large enough to accommodate the
approximately 2.5 acres of sludge drying beds is available adjacent to the
plant. Relocation of the sludge beds and floodproofing the main pumping
station and the digestor building would eliminate all the damages.
Under current Federal policy, economic benefits claimable for relocation of
structures are limited to: (1) savings in insurance premiums, and (2) benefits
from beneficial use of the vacated flood plain properties. However, the flood
damages related to the sludge beds are not subsidized by outside agencies, and
it is not likely that the vacated land would be used for any beneficial
purpose such as recreation, so there would be no benefits from saved premiums
or future use of the vacated flood plain. Flood damages related to the
pumping station and digestor building were quantified, but would account for
only an expected annual value of $6,000, which is not enough to offset the
cost of floodproofing 0140,000, construction cost x .086463, interest cost).
Although this plan minimizes environmental impacts and eliminates wetland
losses it is not economically justified.
4.02 PLANS EVALUATED IN DETAIL, DESCRIPTION AND IMPACTS
In addition to no action, two plans to address flooding and drainage
problems at the Clinton WTP were evaluated in detail. They include the
proposed dike construction and stream channel excavation, which was not
selected.
EA-9
Dike Construction (Proposed Plan)
This plan consists of a 2,200-foot-long dike around the perimeter of the
Clinton WTP as shown on Figure 2. This..dike would provide protection from the
1OO?year flood from Williams Old Mill Branch on the north side and from Dollar
Branch on the west side of the Clinton WTP. Borrow material is expected to
-come from the existing borrow site between the Clinton WTP and U.S. Highway
421.
Construction of this alternative would require thefilling of 2.1 acres of
wetlands including marsh, stream, and wooded habitat for dike construction.
Excavation of.about 0.3 acres of wetlands would be required for stream channel
relocation to allow for dike placement. Based on a wetland impact and
mitigation evaluation (Attachment B), 4.8 acres of mitigation land would be
required to offset wetland impacts. Eight hundred linear feet of stream
channel would be filled as a result of dike construction resulting in a loss
of dependent and immobile aquatic organisms. Although construction would
result in temporary impacts to water quality due to increased turbidity during
construction, flood protection to.the.Clinton WTP and an Associated reduction
in malfunction of the WTP would be expected to improve the overall water
quality in Williams.Old Mill Branch. Construction would not be expected to
disturb areas that contain HTW. No significant impacts to wildlife and
cultural or esthetic resources are anticipated: as a result of this plan.'
Channel Excavation (Not selected).
The stream channel excavation would consist of deepening and widening the
channel on Williams Old Mill.Branch from its U.S.'Highway '421 crossing to a
point about 7,300 feet downstream as shown on Figure 3. This channel would
consist of a 10-foot bottom width, 27-foot top width, 5.5-foot depth, and side
slopes of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical along the entire reach. The
construction of a low dike on the southwest side of the Clinton WTP would
protect the plant from flood waters of Dollar Branch, a tributary to Williams
Old Mill Branch and eliminate the need for channel construction on Dollar
Branch. Along a 3,000-foot-long section of Williams Old Mill Branch the
channel would be realigned to the north side of the existing marsh where no
defined channel is present. Excavated material would be placed adjacent to
the channel to form a dike between the channel and marsh. The dike would
divert the waters of Dollar-Branch into the marsh so that the marsh habitat
would be preserved. This plan is shown on Figure 3.
Construction of this alternative would require the excavation (4.1 acres)
and filling (6.5 acres) of 10.6 acres of wetlands and result in the drainage
of 33.6 acres of wetlands. An additional 15.2 acres of wetlands, which are
permanently flooded under the existing condition, would not be completely
drained by the channel. These 15.2 acres would be expected to continue to
function as a wetland; however, revegetation by a less flood tolerant
vegetative community would be expected. Approximately 7,300 linear feet of
fish habitat would be degraded and continually disturbed by stream channel
construction and maintenance. Sediment testing would be required to determine
if stream sediments have been contaminated by HTW leachate from a nearby
abandoned streamside landfill. Survey would be required to locate any
existing cultural resources. Channel construction would reduce existing
adverse water quality impacts due to malfunction of the Clinton WTP during
EA-10
r
X/
.ZJ
W
1-Z
NQ
x=
w u 0-
X
J N 0J
\' 4
? /
'fib •? ?- x //
OR-
or
?-
a
Z
U
M QC
M
? U ? n, cci

?Z z
Lz
0
00 UA Z0
J?-
OZ W? W?

(f) C) 00
of
g O
Maui
J
J

0
O

N W
1L.
Q
M
J

O H

0
0

Z
0
U
LLJ
11 V)
V)
N
0
U
J
a
U
a
}
H
W
U
N
O
z°.
EA-11
cn
co
w
v

W -j

W + `
W
a o
I ?R C.) CL
xN
3,10 W o

MAN 0? TO, j U W }
l15 42? z ? ?
?s a21 r ? a U ?
o
3 o
a
a o
y a ?
C ?? .dam 0:0
A
do Ul
N
N 88 - ?? a ? O isJ
Za l 9t °o'o y i 3:12 V
O N
`dto' e I ?d LL. 0
o t{. _
?? t a o o? N z ?
t a
o t
rn m?
t
?j o{ 3
LLI
Z w
Z 3 O a ?'-
? p
O XL X ?
M O ?0. _ }. W p
Q ° nd OW-
w
0
N r
L'n_t ')
high flow conditions; however, channel construction would be expected to
increase stream sediment load and stream velocities such that net impacts,
although unquantified, would be expected to be adverse.
No Action (Not selected)
If no action is taken to reduce flood damages or provide drainage to
restore on-site wastewater treatment to the Clinton WTP on Williams Old Mill
Branch, existing conditions would be maintained.
Evaluation of Detailed Plans
Table 1 compares the economic benefits and environmental impacts of plans
evaluated in detail and the no-action plan for the Clinton WTP.
Although the channel alternative provides net economic benefits in excess
of its costs, this alternative does not maximize net economic benefits and is
not proposed. Wetland fill is required for the construction of this .
alternative. Excavated materials cannot be placed in wetlands unless the
activity is water dependent and placing the fill in wetlands is the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (40 CFR 230.10(a)). The dike
plan maximizes net economic benefits, is considered a practical alternative
that would require significantly less wetland fill and associated
environmental impacts, and is the proposed plan. A no-action alternative
would not address the needs identified in the study area or project objectives
and is not proposed.
EA-13
CL
•r.
J
V
w
J
W
Z

Z
H
Z
H
J
v
Ww
O
Z
O
a
Z
5
A
3 C
O 1-
N
•r Z
r ?•1
V
.0
O
CL. 3C
d
O
O
r--
0
(A
L
A
CL
E
O
V
rl
d
O
M
I-
C. U C
~ \ r
3 00 to d
N
c C• ++ L
o ? a U
C O O ¢
f c
r 4- O r N O
r 0) r N r
V W A
a 0 "44
O m 4; C L

-
4.)
U
•r C
• J
r N O
d C 4- ,-
W J
Q •r r O
r= LL.
-
4.) d LL. N
O d 41 N (A d li
z r+ U L
to >,
4)
L
N a > d
V
3 N
(D o -
o a
41
0 ¢ = 10 7
0
0 Q O N
-a w Q' to U O a
C
3. -T V-4 2 Z tO •-
•+ U-
3
a
c

V ? r
t
I- a0 •r
3 W
i a
l
C N +A d 4)
O
4
) - to a a c
N i • O
- L .-
C O C.- r fA
W D
L) E c

C C 4-b r
G) c r• O U r•
O) Q 1p r r
IO. O r Q •r ?- 4.t
E 4J 4-)
I r E LL. •r W
0) •r ?•n LL. O
O 2' Q U W N J
O N a
N Z L.
d O O N a 3 N
U O O E L to 3 a %-
= •r ?-? U a r• 0 U
A ¢
N t0 ? O go C
J= 44 1= Z N J N r
LL• d'
4•) 4.) 4-3
U V U
to to to

E
a.. E
?•4 E
1..1
Z Z Z

4•) C N
d C •r v c
a ?
ro E rt
.
E i o
to
0) ¢
G O E

N LL. L
C
.. 4

N Y
d r N

10 C z
O E

d
Q ? O
G ?
(D 4J
v (A W
O c (A 0)
O i i
w r 4•) •r t
)

4% .1.4 d 1n 3 -4
4d 4d
a go
E E
ar rr
O O
Z Z
a
c ?
>f m 4.1
O 3 '- N
O r C
r a r •r
LL. O
_O N
A W O to
CD - (A 4J
CO to E 41
L •r
• Q r
Q C 3 C
f'7
N N O N•
u
U
N
C.
E
V)
d
L
a
eri
eP
to
1/1
d • O)
a
o N as
c L.
L
N
4J • E -
i O ••.• 4.? 7 d
t N
F-•
N a to
N OC L 0) Q w-
tA d 4J E IA (A
4-) a O) 4- to 1-y 4J 4J
r o 00
to )0 O) )
0 41 to
'06 U 06 06
E J x to
H
E
?
•) L d W
U
o-
r
L F- •r
r d • r N 4• r r
d c 4J 00 (D •r go a '0 a
•r a O c •r r• c •r- d •r d
4-) C d (D 4.) •r tm 4J L 4J i
C O O) E C x •r C •r C •r
d CL i •r d N. d 7. d 7
4J 4J -W U 4-)
C 4J 0) 0 Z . .
d O N N d ?-+ d 3 CL cr
a
d
to
to
c

cU
L X 4; 4;
3 a W U U

> CL
d L O N N
-)
4 4.b
U U C. a
a CL °7 c c

U U

H 4; > d - 4- 4- 4•)
s ? '
a 07
O
i i c c
4 O ? ?
Q 4
- C • • E
W C J N N ?--•
N
Z d Z Z 2
F
- O
C
O
•r
4-) 4) 4-a 4-) 4d 4-) 4-) 4)
to u 7 A to ro

L
E E •)
E 4 E E E E
r•? ?-? w (A
N
?•-•
b•?
?-?
c
2 z Z V i 2 2 2

c
;
w 4 a
) 3
L r Q L N
3 O U
•'- 4J Jf 4•) 4-)
N d 7
4•) w O d 7 d
r0 L d > i 4.t •r H O 4J
r O N 4J 0) (A 0 fo
Y O +j S.
to Q) E d
.
? 3 r L CL I= IS
to 0)) O Q

d O N O 4) d L 7
7
4- 'a 4))
3 L r
r a C. to •= C. O Q N
r C
a ? N U U
)" 1
0
0 0) U a G
•r r0 a N O¢ E r CC (1) •r
3 L Y L N L
C +) a U A r.
•¢ U L •r C a L C •r •r = r
U O d d 7 4.) O) 4••) 4•+ 4••1 •r
Q >s w m i 7 41 N •r. (3) C to 4-
a 1 a 7 1S V) fN G 0) •r a
I? 7 a C U d to 4-) 4•) a C
O 4-) d O U i s O to O C to
N N Cr d 0 LL. •r 1.0 Z W CL O J
41
C a
U iO T N C a
,r JJ N Y d 10 to C
E S.
C
•r
CC
d
r0
O O •r a r CCft
C N C. 16 (A 0) c0 V) O N to
O d
U U a
C: E a
•--• C r
C. )n
a d d
4- U L
d )A O
d (LI
•r r U
4a •r r 0)
(0 U O
O
d i 10 \ to C •r L CA d i rO 4•) i i a
0 7 r d r a to r 7 C •r i d d 4) 7 i
,r O C• E E O r' a 0 /O U d t L L- 4-) O t0
U (A O •r L O 4•) r• N a d 4-) )A U 4- r 0 N
O 0) L L c0 r• 0) •r d C O. to •r d to d to
N cz w C. )L LL. 3 3 OL W N 3 W w W U w _
O . N
r? N ch d• to tO - 1?_ O Ol 11 1-4 P4
EA-14
5.00 PROPOSED PLAN
The proposed plan is the construction and maintenance of an earth dike
around the Clinton WTP (Figure 2) providing 100-year flood protection. The
dike would have a length of 2,200 feet, a 10-foot top width with 3 horizontal
to 1 vertical side slopes. An 8-foot-wide by 2-foot-deep keytrench would be
excavated and backfilled under the dike to reduce seepage. A ramp would be
built to allow the service road to be built over the dike.
The top of dike elevation is determined by the existing water surface
profile and is designed to protect against a 100-year flood event. Freeboard
for the dike was set at 2 feet. The maximum heights of the dike are 6.5 feet
along Williams Old Mill Branch and 5.7 feet along Dollar Branch. The dike
centerline would beset parallel to and 35 feet away from the Clinton WTP
perimeter fence. The dike would be angled away on the west side to allow
construction of the service road ramp. The ends of the dike are at high
ground near the northeast and southeast sides of the Clinton WTP.
About 800 linear feet of Williams Old Mill Branch adjacent to the Clinton
WTP perimeter fence would be realigned 95 feet away from the fence to allow
construction of the dike outside the fence. The new channel would be 10 feet
wide and 2 feet deep. This new channel is only intended as a relocation, not
as a channel improvement project.
Interior drainage would be collected at two shallow sumps. One would be
located between the sludge drying beds and the north fence. A second sump
would be located on the west side between the dike and the existing drainage
ditch.
EA-15
6.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
6.01 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
The proposed plan would improve community service provided by the Clinton
WTP; however, any impacts on overall socioeconomic conditions in the
surrounding area including employment, property and tax values, community and
regional growth, and community cohesion would be insignificant. Forced
displacement of people, businesses, and farms is not expected.
6.02 CROPLAND AND PRIME FARMLAND
No cropland or potential prime farmland was identified in the potential
impact area for the proposed dike plan. The action could cause the loss of up
to about 2 acres of soils considered to be farmland of statewide importance;
however, the existing land use in this area would be expected to preclude
present or future crop production on the site. About 50 percent of Sampson
County meets the requirements for farmland of state and local importance
(Brandon, 1985).
No impacts to prime farmland are expected as a result of the proposed
plan. The loss of 2 acres of important farmland without potential for crop
production is considered insignificant.
6.03 WE'T'LANDS
Dike construction would require the filling of 2.1 acres of wetlands
including marsh, stream, and wooded habitat for.dike construction. Excavation
of about 0.3 acres of marsh would be required for stream channel relocation to
allow for dike placement. Based on the Williams Old Mill Branch Habitat
Evaluation (See Appendix B), 4.8 acres of mitigation lands would be required
to offset wetland losses from construction of the proposed plan. With
mitigation, the proposed plan would not result in a net loss of wetland value.
In order to minimize wetland impacts, the final dike alignment will be
placed to avoid wetlands to the degree practical. The partial or total use of
sheetpile in place of the proposed earth dike would further reduce or
eliminate the requirement for the placement of fill in wetlands and/or waters
of the U.S. However, it is estimated that total construction of the proposed
dike by sheetpile would result in additional project costs of about $459,000
or $164,000 for each acre of wetlands avoided. The use of sheetpile is,
therefore, not considered practical. The wetlands to be impacted by the
proposed plan are considered to be of only moderate value due to their
location and disturbed nature. It is expected that any impacts could be
offset through mitigation by the creation or restoration of wetlands offsite.
Estimated total project cost for mitigation for these methods range from about
$67,006 for restoration to $150,000 for creation. If the borrow site is
located in.an area suitable for mitigation, wetland creation cost would be
reduced to about $100,000.
EA-16
The proposed plan is considered to be the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative (40 CFR 230.10(a)), and no practical alternatives were
identified that would further reduce or eliminate the need for wetland fill
(EO 11990). The proposed plan is, therefore, considered to be implementable
under existing wetland regulations.
6.04 FLOOD PLAINS
Since the area to be protected is located in the flood plain and
established floodway there is no alternative to locating the dike in the flood
plain or floodway and no practical alternative to the dike is available. No
methods to reduce flood plain impacts were identified. The plan is considered
to be in compliance with EO 11988. The proposed dike around the Clinton WTP
is partially within the established floodway and, therefore, according to the
local flood plain management ordinance, must not cause the water surface to
increase greater than 1 foot above the 100-year frequency flood event.
It is believed that this can be shown by better defining the hydraulic
model in and around the Clinton WTP. However, minor realignment of the
proposed dike and channel may be required.
6.05 WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Construction of this alternative would result in the loss of 2.4 acres of
wetland and stream habitat due to dike construction and the disturbance of
about 5 acres of upland habitat for dike construction, borrow area and
associated activities. Areas to be impacted are considered of low value for
wildlife resources, due to their location and disturbed nature. Impacts to
wildlife, due to wetland losses, would be offset by improved habitat value in
mitigation areas. Any impacts to wildlife resources as a result of this plan
are expected to be minor.
6.06 ENDANGERED SPECIES
No impacts to endangered species are expected. Consultation with the
USFWS and NMFS as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is
complete.
The red-cockaded woodpecker and pondberry are not expected to occur in the
proposed project impact area. Although shortnose sturgeon may occur
downstream, due to the relatively small aquatic impact area of the proposed
plan, it is expected that any sedimentation during construction would-be
limited to the immediate project area and not affect the species downstream.
By letter dated August 3, 1992, the NMFS agreed with our Biological Assessment
of potential impacts to the endangered shortnose sturgeon and conclusion that
this project will not affect the shortnose sturgeon or any other species under
their jurisdiction.
6.07 WATER QUALITY
The filling and relocation of about 800 linear feet of stream channel on
Williams Old Mill Branch would result in an increased sediment load during
construction in areas downstream. Erosion of diked areas during construction
would increase sediment input; however, immediate seeding would minimize these
EA-17
impacts. It is not expected that suspended-sediment concentrations would be
high enough to significantly impact aquatic organisms. These impacts would be
expected to be minor, temporary, and limited to the vicinity of the
construction area. The reduction in flooding and the decreased potential for
malfunction of the Clinton WTP would be expected to improve water quality in
the Williams Old Mill Branch and Great Coharie Creek downstream. Since the
proposed plan involves more than 1 acre of land disturbance, the project plans
and specifications will be provided for review to the North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Commission (NCSECC), Land Quality Section, in accordance
with the MOA between.Corps and the NCSECC.
6.08 FISHERY RESOURCES
The proposed dike construction would require the filling of about 800
linear feet of existing stream channel, with an associated loss of any
dependent organisms. No maintenance of the relocated channel is required
after construction; therefore, recolonization of the relocated channel by
similar organisms would be expected after project completion. The 2.1 acres
of wetland habitat filled for dike construction would be lost as potential
habitat for fish or other aquatic resources. Due to the small area affected
and the moderate value of existing resources, this loss is considered
insignificant.
The temporary increase in stream sediment load due to channel
construction, as described in paragraph 6.07, is not expected to have a
significant impact on resident fish in Williams Old Mill Branch or anadromous
fish in Great Coharie Creek. Water quality benefits provided by the proposed
plan would also be beneficial to fish and other aquatic organisms.
6.09 ESTHETIC AND RECREATION RESOURCES
The proposed plan would further reduce the natural appearance of the
Williams Old Mill Branch and the Dollar Branch project area; however, due to
its low value as an esthetic resource, this is not a significant impact. No
significant noise or air pollution would result from the proposed or
alternative plans.
6.10 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The probability of impacts on cultural and historical resources due to the
proposed action is expected to be low. Impacts to these resources are
considered unlikely, due to the lack of undisturbed nonwetland sites in the.
project area.
6.11 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC MATERIALS
The proposed plan is not expected to disturb any areas containing
hazardous or toxic materials or contaminated sediments.
EA-18
7.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS AND MITIGATION PLAN
7.01 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Several elements were incorporated into the proposed plan to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
1. Instream construction will be scheduled to be conducted between September
1 and November 30. If instream construction activities extend beyond this
time frame the Service will be notified.
2. The final dike alignment will be determined during preparation of plans
and specifications. The dike.will be placed to avoid wetland fill or
creek channel realignment to the degree practical. Any wetlands filled or
excavated for dike construction will be mitigated by replacement as
described in section 7.02.
3. A detailed mitigation plan including specific site determinations,
planting plans, and monitoring will be developed during preparation of
plans and specifications.
7.02 MITIGATION PLAN
An evaluation of wetland impacts, mitigation requirements, and costs of
alternative mitigation plans are included in Attachment A. Dike construction
will result in the loss of 2.4 acres of wetlands. The proposed plan includes
the replacement of wetland losses by the restoration of 4.8 acres of prior
converted wetlands located either on Williams Old Mill Branch or Great Coharie
Creek. As shown in Attachment A, the restoration of PCs was found to be the
least costly mitigation alternative.
The proposed mitigation plan would require the restoration of any past
efforts to drain the PC. This would be primarily accomplished through the
filling or blocking of drainage ditches. The area would be revegetated in
hardwood trees by planting of saplings.
The proposed mitigation area is-located on a portion of a 5-acre PC
located on Williams Old Mill Branch. If this area is not available or
determined unsuitable for mitigation, about 900 acres of PC are located along
Great Coharie Creek that would provide suitable alternative sites.
Species to be planted include a variety of hardwood tree seedlings native
to the area. It is proposed that at least six tree species would be planted
at density expected to provide no less than 320 trees/acre surviving for three
years. Mast producers would be preferentially selected; however, no more
than 20 percent of any given species would be planted. It is proposed that
monitoring would be conducted annually for 3 years or until the success
criteria are met.
Final dike alignment and design may reduce wetla fill and/or channel
realignment and, therefore, reduce the required mitigation area. Any
recalculation of mitigation requirements would be consistent with procedures
outlined in Attachment A.
EA-19 p?
8.00 RELATIONSHIP OF PLANS TO ENVIRONMENTAL REMNEN M
Table 2 summarizes the relationship of the proposed plan to environmental
requirements. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local
policies has been examined. Full compliance is defined as having met all the
requirements of the statute, E0, or other envir onmental requirement for the
current stage of planning.
Table 2: Relationship of proposed plan to Envi ronmental Requirements
Federal Policies Prop osed Action
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 Full Compliance
National Historic Preservation Full Compliance
Act of 1966, as amended
National Environmental Policy Full Compliance
Act of 1969, as amended
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended Full Compliance
Clean Air Act, as amended Full Compliance
Coastal Zone Management Act Not Applicable
of 1972, as amended
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 Not Applicable`
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Full Compliance
Estuary Protection Act Full Compliance
Federal Water Project Recreation Act Full Compliance
Hazardous and Toxic Materials Full Compliance
Marine Protection, Research, and Not Applicable
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Full Compliance
as amended
River and Harbor and Flood Control Act Full Compliance
of 1970, Public Law 91-611, Section 122
Water Resources Development Act of Full Compliance
1976, Public Law 94-587, Section 150
Water Resources Development Act of Full Compliance
1986, Public Law 99-662, Section 906
Watershed Protection and Flood Full Compliance
Prevention Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Full Compliance
Land and Water Conservation-Fund Act Full Compliance
Executive Orders (EO), Memoranda, etc.
EO 11988, Flood Plain Management Full Compliance
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands Full Compliance
EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement Full Compliance
of the Cultural Environment
State and Local Policies
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) of 1974 Not Applicable
City of Clinton Land Development Plan, 1982 Full Compliance
EA-20
9.00 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The public has been involved in this study through public meetings, public
notices, scoping letters, and through the involvement off' their elected
representatives. A public meeting was.held by the Sampson County
Commissioners in May 1981 to seek the local interest opinions on the problems
and needs of the area. A notice of intent was published is the Federal
Register in February 1984. Scoping letters providing information on the
status of the study and providing opportunities for comment were mailed to
conservation groups, State and Federal resource agencies, and interested
individuals in February 1984, October 1990, and July 1991. These documents
notified the public of the area's flooding and drainage problems, alternative
solutions, and significant resources in the project map area and requested
input to be considered in the study. Other agencies, project sponsors,
elected officials, and conservation groups have been involved throughout the
planning process by participation in telephone conversations, meetings, and/or
field studies.
This project was originally proposed as a component of the Great Coharie
Creek Project as described in the Draft Detailed Project Report and
Environmental. Impact Statement (DEIS), Great Coharie Creek Project, Sampson
County, North Carolina, dated June 1992 and circulated for public comment in
July of 1992. In addition to the proposed dike construction as described
herein, the Great Coharie Creek Project included clearing and snagging along
18 miles of the lower Great Coharie Creek. However, since the proposed
clearing and snagging was not supported by the local sponsor it has been
dropped from present consideration. The scope of this report was reduced
accordingly. Comments on the Clinton WTP dike, received during circulation of
the previously referenced DEIS, were considered in the preparation of this
report. Comments generally covered three topic areas including; (1) a need
for clarification of the discussion of the relocation alternative versus dike
construction, (2) alignment of the dike to minimize wetland fill and stream
channel realignment, and (3) need for recomputation of mitigation ratios, with
additional details on proposed mitigation plans. Concern (1) is addressed in
section 4.01 of this report, concern (2) in sections 6.03 and 7.01 and concern
(3) in sections 7.01, 7.02, and Attachment B.
9.01 REQUIRED COORDINATION
A final USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report is included as an
Appendix B to the Detailed Project Report. The views and recommendations of
the USFWS, and Corps responses, are listed in the Public Views section of the
Detailed Project Report.
A 404 (P.L. 95-217) Public Notice is being circulated concurrent with the
public review of this EA. A section 404(b)(1) evaluation is included in
Attachment B to the EA. A section 401 Water Quality Certificate for the
proposed project will be requested from the State of North Carolina.
EA-21
9.02 STATEMENT RECIPIENTS
The EA/FONSI will be circulated for review and comment to the concerned
agencies and individuals listed on Table 3.
Table 3:' Mailing List for the EA/FONSI
Federal Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Forest Service, USDA
Regional Environmental Officer
HUD, Atlanta Regional Office,
Advisory Council on Historic Preser.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Energy
Federal Highway Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric..Ad,.
Federal Emergency Management Ad.
Department of Health and Human Ser.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of the Interior
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Fifth Coast Guard District
Conservation Groups
National Wildlife Federation Capitol Group, Sierra Club
Conservation Council of N.C. Izaac Walton League
National Audubon Society N.C. Coastal Federation
N.C. Wildlife Federation Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
State Conservationist, Sierra Club Cape Fear Group Sierra Club
South River Association N.C. Alliance for Conservation Action
State and Local Agencies and Officials
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Wildlife Resources Comm.
North Carolina Council of Govern.
Region M
Chamberof Commerce
Director of Public Works,
Sampson County
Dr. William S. Price,
State Historic Preservation Officer
Mr. John N. Morris, Director
Division of Water Resources
City Manager, City of Clinton N.C.
County Manager, Sampson County
District Conservationist
Director of Public Works
City of Clinton
Board of Sampson County Comm.
Mayor, City of Clinton, N.C.
Interested Groups and Individuals and Libraries
Cape Fear Technical Institute
Dr. Vince Bellis
Ms. Catherine Sloan
Wilson Library, Chapel Hill
Librarian, NCDNRCD
Ms. Mary Wilson
Ms. Frances Johnson
Lt. Col. Edward Cerny
Mr. Floyd Jones
M.S. Williams
Mrs. Annie Kerr
Dr. Anne B. McCrary
Mr. James Dockery
N.C. State Library'
Randall Library, UNC-Wilmington
Sampson County Library
Mr. Harold Lamb
Ms. Cami Driver
Mr. John Kent
Mrs. Marsha Huskey
Mr. Raymond Williams
Mr. Wayman Alston
EA-22
10.00 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment on Flood Damage Reduction
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Clinton, North Carolina, dated
August 1993 and the information developed during preparation of the Detailed
Project Report. Based on our review, we have determined that the proposed
action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment;
therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.
Date:
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Date:
George L. Ca,jigal
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
.
EA-23
11.00 REFERENCES
Brandon, Clarence E. 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
Cowardin, L. M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F. C.; and LaRoe, E. T. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. P. 103.
Leab, Roger J. 1990. Soil Survey of Bladen County, North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service.
Louder, Darrell E. 1963. Survey and Classification of the Cape Fear River
and Tributaries, North Carolina. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish and
Restoration, Job I-G, Project F-14-R. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh. p. 15 and figures and appendixes.
Simmons, C. E. and S. A. Watkins. 1982. The effects of channel excavation
on water quality characteristics of the Black River and on ground water
levels near Dunn, North Carolina. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, Raleigh. Water Resources Investigations.
82-4083. p. 28.
USFWS. 1984. Modified 1976 Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
Analysis of Alternatives for Providing Flood Control on Williams Old Mill/
Dollar Branches, Sampson County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Ecological Services,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

EA-24
ATTACHMENT A
WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EVALUATION
WILLIAMS OLD MILL BRANCH
A-1
WETLAND MITIGATION ANALYSIS
The following wetland mitigation analysis was performed on the proposed
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant dike. A Mitigation Analysis Sheet is
attached.
MITIGATION GOAL - HABITAT UNITS
Wetland Types: Wetland classifications are based on a system developed for
the National Wetlands Inventory Program (Cowardin, et al. 1979). Using this
system, the following wetland types were identified in the Williams Old Mill
Branch Study Area. Habitat types potentially impacted by the proposed dike
are shown on the attached Mitigation Analysis Sheet.
PF01A - Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
PF01C - Palustrine, forest, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
PF05 - Palustrine, forest, dead
PEM1F - Palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded
Potential activities related to implementation of the proposed plan and
associated potential wetland impacts were identified as listed below.
Activities associated with the proposed dike are shown on the attached
Mitigation Analysis Sheet.
Filled: Wetlands filled for project construction and converted to upland.
Excavated: Wetlands excavated for channel construction and converted to
aquatic habitat.
Value (Relative Wetland Value): A 5 point wetland value system was
established with ratings of High (5), High to Moderate (4), Moderate (3),
Moderate to Low (2) and low (1) with nonwetland areas having a value of 0.
The highest values were assigned to seasonally to permanently flooded wetlands
located in areas downstream of and remote to existing human development
concentrated upstream of Dollar Branch. Lower relative values wereassigned
to areas located upstream of Dollar Branch in close proximity to the Clinton
Wastewater Treatment Plant, U.S. Highway 421 and residential development along
Dollar Branch. No value distinctions were made between the value of existing
seasonally flooded forested habitats (PF01c and PF05) and emergent marsh
(PEM1f) as all of these habitat types contribute significantly to the
diversity and existing habitat value in the project area. Temporarily flooded
wetland habitat PF01A was assigned a relatively lower value.
Wetland habitats affected by the proposed
relative to the degree of potential impact.
and, therefore, converted to nonwetlands were
values associated with the proposed dike are
Analysis Sheet.
construction were devalued
Areas to be filled or excavated
assigned a value of 0. Habitat
shown on the attached Mitigation
A-2
Existing Condition: Wetland acres and associated Habitat Units under present
condition.
Acres Present. Wetland classifications and acres under the existing
condition on William's Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch are based on NWI
maps, updated by the Corps and the USFWS from aerial photographs dated June
1988. Wetland acres potentially impacted by the proposed dike are shown on
the attached Mitigation Analysis Sheet.
Habitat Units. Habitat units for the existing condition were calculated
by multiplying the relative habitat value by wetland acres present.
With Project: Wetland acres and associated Habitat Units with the proposed
project in place.
Acres Present. Wetland acres were recalculated for the "with project
condition," considering conversion of existing areas of natural habitat to
modified conditions due to project implementation
Habitat Units. Habitat units were also recalculated for the "with project
condition."
Net Change: Changes in an area of a given wetland type and corresponding
changes in habitat units, due to project implementation, were determined.
Acres. Net losses or gains in acres by habitat type were determined by
subtracting the habitat units available under the with project condition from
those available under the existing condition.
Habitat Units. Net losses or gains in Habitat units were also calculated.
Mitigation Goal (Goal): The study mitigation goal is no net loss of wetland
value.
Habitat Units. Our specific goal is the total replacement of habitat
units lost.
MITIGATION ACRES REQUIRED
Mitigation Plans: Two mitigation alternatives were evaluated for the proposed
Williams Old Mill Branch - 100-Year Earth Dike Plan to determine mitigation
acres required to replace habitat units lost due to project construction as
shown on the attached Wetland Mitigation Analysis Sheet. These included: (1)
the creation of forested wetlands on an upland site, and (2) restoration of
forested wetland on a prior converted wetland site.
A-3
Habitat Units/Acre: Relative wetland values were assigned to a given acre of
mitigation land (based on criteria described above for the existing condition)
assuming a progressive increase in value over time as vegetation on the site
matures.
Year 0, Year 25, and Year 50. Target years were assigned. It is assumed
that the site would have a value of 0 at year 0 and reach its maximum
potential at year 50.
Average Annual Habitat Units Per Acre (Av. An. HUs): Relative values,
assigned for target years 0, 25, and 50, were annualized.
Mitigation Goal: See Mitigation Goal above.
Acres Needed: The number of mitigation acres needed was determined by
dividing the Mitigation Goal by the Average Annual Habitat Units Per Acre as
shown on the attached Wetland Mitigation Analysis Sheet.
MITIGATION COST
Potential mitigation costs were calculated for each alternative. Costs
were evaluated for a typical wetland restoration alternative, and two wetland
creation plans including one scenario where material excavated for wetland
creation is suitable as fill for dike construction, and a second scenario
where it is not. The costs for replacement of the dike with a sheetpile and
avoiding wetland impacts were also calculated.
INCREMENTAL COST PER HABITAT UNIT
The cost per habitat unit for alternative mitigation scenarios were
compared to determine the least costly mitigation alternative. The
restoration of wetlands on PCs is the least costly alternative and is the
proposed mitigation plan.
A-4
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DIKE - WETLAND MITIGATION ANALYSIS
MITIGATION GOAL- HABITAT UNITS
Wetland Type Value Existing Condition With Project Net Losa Goal
Rel.
Value Acres
Present Habitat
Units Acres
Present Habitat
Units Acres Habitat
Units Habitat
Units
Forested Wetlands (PF01 C)
Emergent Marsh PEM1 3
3 34.0
8.0 102
24 32.8
6.8 3
3 1.2
12 3.6
3.6 3.6
3.6
Total 42.0 126 39.6 2.4 7.2 7.2
MITIGATION ACRES REQUIRED
Mitigation Plans Habitat Units /Acre Av. An. MIL Acres
@ Given Interval HUs Goal Needed
Yr.0 Yr. 25 Yr. 50
Create Forested Wetlands on Uplands 0.0 1.0 2.5 1.1 72 6.4
Restrore Prior Converted Farmland to PF01 C 0.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 7.2 4.8
MITIGATION COST
Mitigation Plans Land
Cost Monitor Excavate
or Install Site
Prep Plant
Veg. Acres
Need Cost
per HU. Total
Cost
Sheetpl a Replaces Dike $0 $0 $459,000 $0 $0 n/a $63,750 $459,000
Create PF01C On Upland $2,500 $6,000 $11,700 $1,000 $2,000 6.4 $41,244 $148,480
Create PF01C at Borrow Site $2,500 $6,000. $5,000 $1,000 $2,000 6.4 $29,333 $105,600
Restore PC to PF01 C $2,500 $6,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,000 4.8 $18,667 $67,200
Restore PC to PF01C
Create PF01 C at Borrow
Site
Create PFO1 C On Upland
Sheetple Replaces Dike
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000
Excel/Cowet
A-5
ATTACHMENT B
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) GUIDELINES, 40 CFR 230
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Dike
City of Clinton, North Carolina
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-PD-E-93-82-0017
This Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation covers all discharges of material into
waters of the United States associated with the construction and maintenance
of this project, as described in Section 5.00 of the Environmental Assessment
(EA), and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on Flood Damage Reduction,
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Dike, City of Clinton, North Carolina. A
Section 404 (P.L..95-217) Public Notice (No. CESAW-PD-E-93-82-0017) is being
circulated concurrent with public review of the EA and Section 404(b)(1)
Evaluation. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate is required and will be
requested from the state of North.Carolina.
B-1
Flood Damage Reduction, Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Clinton,NC
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 21
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging
practicable alternative and if in
a special aquatic site, the
activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access
or proximity to, or be located in
the aquatic ecosystem to fulfill
its basic purpose (if no, see
section 2 and information
gathered in the NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water
quality standards or effluent
standards prohibited under Section
307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize the
existence of federally listed
endangered or threatened species
or their habitat; and 3) violate
requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if
no, see section 2b and check
responses from resource and water
quality certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant
degradation of waters of the U.S.
including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms
dependent on the aquatic
ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and
recreational, esthetic, and economic
values (if no, see section 2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps
have been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
Proceed to Section 2
YESIXI NO( I* YESI I NOI I
YESIXI .N01_I* YESI_I NOI-I
YESIXI NOI_I* YESI_I NOI-I
YESIXI No1_I* YESI_I N01 I
* see notes 1 and 2 page B-7
B-2
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
I I X I I

I i
I I I I
X I I
I I X I I
I i I
I I i
X I I

I I
I I I I
X I I
I
I
iXl I I
I I
I I I I
I I X I I
I I X I I
I I I i
I I X I I
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges. I
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes. I
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private I I I
water supplies. I X I I
(2) Recreational and commercial I ( I I
fisheries impacts. I I X I I
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.) I X ( I
(4) Esthetic impacts. I I X I I
(5) Effects on parks, national and I I I I
historical monuments, national I I I I
seashores, wilderness areas, I 1 ( i
research sites, and similar I I I i
preserves. I I X I I
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3 '
* See notes B-7
B-3
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . .I_I
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I_I
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances. . . . . . . . . . .
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other _
sources . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (_ I
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I_I
List appropriate references.
(1) Draft Detailed Protect Report and Environmental"Assessment on
Flood Damage Reduction, Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Dike
City of Clinton, N.C. (dated August 1993).
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredged or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES.IXI NO I_I*
Proceed to Section 4 * See note 3/. page B-7.,
B-4
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(2) Current velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction. . . . . . . . .
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I _ I
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type _
of material, settling velocities). . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(8) Number of discharges per unit of _
time .........................II
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
(1) Draft Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment on
Flood Damage Reduction, Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Dike City
of Clinton, N.C. (dated August 1993).
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable . . . .YES IXI NO I_I*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken. YES IXI NO I_I*
For fisheries resources and water quality, see sections 2.00, 5.00, 6.00
and 7.00 of the of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. Also see
note 3/-, page B-7.
B-5
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. -Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO I_I*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO I_I*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO i_I*
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES IXI NO 1_1*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function YES IXI NO i_I*
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO I_I*
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic _
ecosystem.' YES IXi NO I_I*
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES IXI NO 1_1*
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the _
inclusion of the following conditions: I_I
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative. . . . . 1_1
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . .
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . I_I
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Date:
George L. Cajigal
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage
indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this "short form
procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of
compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the
economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is
inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
COUNTY OF SAMPSON
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Kermit D. Williamson. Chairman
Raeford Daughtry, Vice-Chairman
Larry M. Bell
Johnny L. Melvin. Sr.
Norman Wayne Naylor
February 3, 1993
Mr. Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P O Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Saunders:
In regular session on February 1, 1993, the Sampson County Board
of Commissioners, voted unanimously to accept the following
modifications to the Great Coharie Creek project.
> to consider only the second component of the project,
the construction of a dike to protect the Clinton
Wastewater Treatment Plant on Williams Old Mill Branch
at this time;
> to defer the clearing and snagging of the lower portion
of the Great Coharie until a later date to be determined;
and
> to alter the project sponsorship from the county of
Sampson to the City of Clinton.
COUNTY MANAGER
Jerry D. Hobbs
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Ted B. Lockerman
Thank you for your assistance with this project to reduce flooding
in the Great Coharie Creek basin. Please feel free to contact our
office should there be any additional questions.
Sincerely,
. `/j' 6
Jer y D. Hobbs
County Manager
cc: Rex Phillips, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Tommy Combs, Clinton City Manager
,4, - i
313 East Rowan Road • Clinton, North Carolina 28328
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]

CITY OF CLINTON
P.O. BOX 199
CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28328-0199
Office of City Mana
April 6, 1993
Mr. Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Saunders:
The following is in regard to the flood damage reduction project for the
Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant. We have reviewed the detailed project
report. The City of Clinton offers the following comments:
1. The Project Cooperation Agreement is approved in concept.
2. The City will finance its portion of the local cost (estimated at
$104,500) through the sale of general obligation bonds approved by
the City's voters in 1991. These monies already have been included
in the capital projects budget for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
3. We recognize that we will be responsible for project maintenance
following construction. We are making plans to do this.
Because of the change in plans for Greater Coharie Creek and the flood damage
reduction for the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the City of Clinton intends to
act solely as project sponsor for the work.
We look forward to working with you on this necessary project. We stand ready
to provide you with additional information or assist in any way to bring this
project to its completion.
Sincerely,
Tommy Combs, City Manager
cc: Mr. Wayne Hollowell, Director of Public Works
Mr. Dan Boone, The Wooten Company
A-Z
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
GREAT COHARIE CREEK
SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
SUBMITTED TO:
THE WILMINGTON DISTRICT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
R. Wilson Laney
Michael Crocker
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
RELEASED BY:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 1993
;3_I
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 11, 1993
Colonel Walter S. Tulloch
District Engineer
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-0890
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
¦
TAKES
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
Attached is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Final
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Report on Flood Damage
Reduction.Project, Great Coharie Creek Basin, Sampson County, North
Carolina. This report identifies fish and wildlife resources
located in the project area, the potential effects of the various
study alternatives on these resources, and provides the Service's
recommendations on this proposed project. It is provided in
accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667) and should be
incorporated in its entirety into your Detailed Project Report when
that document is circulated for review. It has been reviewed by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and their
letter of concurrence is included.
Eight years have elapsed since preparation of the original draft
report. Significant, environmentally-positive changes have been
made in the project design during coordination efforts among the
Corps, the Service and the WRC leading up to this Final Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report. We commend you and your staff in
this effort.
The Service has determined that the proposed project, as revised,
will not cause significant adverse impacts to the fish and wildlife
resources and habitats of the Great Coharie Creek ecosystem.
Mitigation measures for addressing the minor wetland impacts
associated with the revised project are provided in this report and
should be incorporated into the specifications for the proposed
project.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide this report to you and
your staff.
Sincerely,
L"C?
L. K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
P`3
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
May 25, 1993
Mrs. Linda K. (Mike) Gantt, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mrs. Gantt:
We have reviewed the Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act Report for the proposed Flood Damage Reduction Project for
Great Coharie Creek, Sampson County, North Carolina. This letter
partially fulfills coordination requirements under provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
The report is well written and provides a good description
of the environmental setting, project alternatives, potential
impacts to fisheries and wildlife resources, and proposed
mitigation for offsetting these impacts. The Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) fully concurs with the report and agrees that
the selected alternative, involving construction of a 2200 foot
long perimeter dike around the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant, is the least environmentally damaging. 'In addition, the
WRC fully supports the mitigation plan for offsetting adverse
environmental impacts associated with the alternatives
considered. Staff biologists also recommend restricting all
construction activity to September 1 through March 1 to minimize
impacts to anadromous and freshwater fish species.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
document. If we can provide further assistance, please call on
us.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
cc: Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist MAY 28 1953
Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
S-4-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Great Coharie Creek basin is located in the central portion of
Sampson county in a predominantly agricultural portion of North
Carolina's Coastal Plain. The Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP), located between two tributaries to Great Coharie Creek, is
flooded regularly, severely hampering plant operations and
sometimes resulting in release of improperly treated wastewater to
the adjacent streams and wetlands.
Fish and wildlife habitat resources of Great Coharie Creek basin
are significant. The National Park Service included 75 percent of
the Great Coharie Creek in its 1982 Nationwide Rivers Inventory
prepared for considering rivers eligible for National Wild and
Scenic River designation. These blackwater streams and adjacent
forested wetlands provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of fish
and wildlife, including anadromous fish. The forested wetlands
also provide significant contributions to maintaining water quality
and instream production.
After considering a number of alternatives, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) determined that most are technically infeasible
or not cost-effective. The project, as previously proposed,
included the clearing and snagging of 44 miles of Great Coharie
Creek, as well as various alternatives for reducing flooding of the
Clinton WWTP. Following revision by the Corps (USACE 1992) of the
scope of the proposed clearing and snagging of Great Coharie Creek
to the lower 18.6 miles, the clearing and snagging portion of the
project was deferred at the request of the project sponsor, Sampson
County, in a February 3, 1993, letter to the Corps. The current
project includes only the Corp's selected plan for the Williams Old
Mill Branch and Dollar Branch portion of the project: construction
of a dike around the WWTP. This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report, therefore, does not address former aspects of the project
along Great Coharie Creek.
Existing fish and wildlife resources in the area around the Clinton
WWTP could likely be improved through the Corps' preferred
alternative, construction of a dike around the WWTP, as this would
reduce pollution entering the adjacent wetlands and streams.
Compensatory mitigation as outlined in the Corps' draft DPR, and
modified as recommended in this report, would offset unavoidable
impacts to the approximately 2.4 acres of wetlands that would be
excavated or filled as part of the proposed project.
Based on available information, there are no Federally-listed or
proposed endangered or threatened plant or animal species in the
impact area of the currently proposed project. Therefore, the
requirements of Section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1)
new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in
v
[3-5,
a manner which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
vi
a-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF FIGURES AND APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES . . 6
EVALUATION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Endangered and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . 9
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Selected Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . 13
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
SUMMARY AND SERVICE POSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
APPENDIX
vii
R-7
LIST OF FIGURES AND APPENDICES
Page
FIGURES
1. Great Coharie Creek basin in Sampson County, North
Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Proposed dike around City of Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
APPENDIX
Comments received from State and Federal review agencies on
the Revised Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
viii
i3-$
INTRODUCTION
The Great Coharie Creek Basin is located in the central portion of
Sampson County in a predominantly agricultural portion of North
Carolina's coastal plain (Figure 1). The City of Clinton's
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located within the floodplain
of William Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch, tributaries of Great
Coharie Creek. Flood damages to the WWTP result primarily from
seasonal flooding, and prevention of efficient operation of the
WWTP (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, hereinafter USACE, 1982, 1992).
According to the Corps, physical flood damages to WWTP equipment
occur almost annually as a consequence of flooding.
The Corps' present study was initiated at the request of the
Sampson County Board of commissioners with the support of the
Honorable Charles O. Whitley, Member of Congress. The request was
preceded by a public hearing on May 18, 1981 during which former
Secretary of Commerce, D. M. "Lauch" Faircloth, a landowner in the
basin, expressed support for a clearing and snagging project and
conveyed support from other larger landowners including Georgia
Pacific and International Paper Company (USACE 1982). Previous
projects implemented in the watershed include dredging of Williams
Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch around 1963 and Corps clearing
and snagging of Great Coharie Creek from August 1958 to February
1961. Further, the Corps' Wilmington District prepared an
unfavorable Detailed Project Report on Great and Little Coharie
Creeks in 1969 (USACE 1969). That investigation concentrated on
areas near and downstream from the confluence of Great and Little
Coharie Creeks.
Recently, the Sampson County Board of Commissioners, meeting in
regular session on February 1, 1993, voted unanimously to consider
only the wastewater treatment plant component of the project, to
defer the clearing and snagging of the lower portion of the Great
Coharie Creek, and to shift project sponsorship to the City of
Clinton. Based on this, the Corps has agreed to modify the
Detailed Project Report to delete clearing and snagging. This Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, therefore, only addresses the
currently proposed project, which is construction of a dike around
the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Service believes the fish and wildlife resources within Great
Coharie Creek and its associated tributaries are of very high
quality and that any proposed project which would adversely affect
them should be thoroughly and cautiously evaluated. The high
quality of the resource base is reflected in the fact that the
National Park Service has included the lower 33 miles of Great
Coharie Creek, 27 miles of Little Coharie Creek, 24 miles of Six
Runs Creek and the entire Black River downstream of Great Coharie
Creek within its Nationwide Rivers Inventory which lists segments
eligible for inclusion within the National Wild and Scenic River
System (U.S. Department of Interior, hereinafter USDI, 1982).
1
72 -/

GREAT A
HIGHWAY
YUNICI?A
f?l
ONE MILE
Figure 1. Great Coharie Creek basin in Sampson County, North Carolina.
L3 - in 2
Every consideration must be given to measures which will eliminate
or minimize adverse impacts to these significant systems in the
planning of any proposed projects which could ultimately affect
them.
The objectives of this report are:
? to describe the Corps' selected project plan;
? to provide a background of biological information on the area
to allow full and equal consideration of fish and wildlife
resources in developing and selecting alternatives;
? to define and, where possible, quantify the environmental
impacts on the proposed plan; and
? to present methods and recommendations which may be used for
mitigation and thereby avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or
eliminate adverse impacts and compensate for remaining adverse
impacts; and to present methods and recommendations which may
be used for enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in the
project area.
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Great Coharie Creek basin and the adjacent Little Coharie Creek
basin occupy the entire central portion of Sampson County within
the upper coastal plain segment of the Cape Fear River basin
(Figure 1). The study area considered by this report encompasses
primarily Great Coharie Creek, selected tributaries, and the
associated wetlands. Great Coharie Creek flows generally southward
for approximately 50 miles, originating in headwater swamps such as
Sevenmile and Kill Swamps and Beaverdam Creek near Newton Grove.
Little Coharie Creek joins Great Coharie Creek approximately ten
miles above the confluence of Great Coharie with the Black River,
which is formed by the Six Runs Creek and Great and Little Coharie
Creek watersheds. The city of Clinton is located midway along the
eastern boundary of the Great Coharie Creek basin and occupies much
of the watershed of Williams Old Mill Branch. Williams Old Mill
Branch and its tributary, Dollar Branch, border the city of
Clinton's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which is constructed
partially within their respective floodplains.
Soil maps in the Soil Survey of Sampson County, North Carolina
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1985) indicate that soils present
within the floodplain of both Little and Great Coharie Creeks are
largely of the Bibb-Johnston Association. This association is
described as poorly drained to very poorly drained nearly level
soil on floodplains. Surface layers usually are brownish to
grayish sandy loam overlying gray stratified sandy and silty
subsurface layers. The water table is within 8 inches of the
surface from 6 to 11 months each year. Flood limitations are
3
13-II
listed as severe for most uses, with flood hazard very frequent but
of brief duration. The association is rated as well suited for
wetland wildlife, suited for woodland wildlife and poorly suited
for openland wildlife. Both Bibb and Johnston soils are hydric and
typically support wetland vegetation if no hydrological alteration
has occurred (National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils 1987).
The study area is characterized by low to moderate relief and
relatively slow-moving streams and rivers. Elevation within the
Great Coharie Creek basin gradually decreases from west to east and
north to south, ranging from around 190 feet above mean sea level
(msl) near Newton Grove to 50 msl at the confluence with the Black
River.
The climate of the entire Cape Fear River basin is classified by
the U. S. Weather Service as humid-subtropical (Cape Fear River
Basin Study 1983). The study area is characterized by relatively
short, mild winters; long, hot, humid summers; and pleasant
transitional seasons. Mean maximum July temperatures exceed 900 F
in the study area and mean minimum January temperature are around
400 F. The freeze-free season lasts for more than 270 days.
Temperature extremes seldom reach 00 F or exceed 1000 F.
Precipitation within the study area averages more than 50 inches
per year. Rainfall is highest in the summer months and lowest in
the fall.
Water Oualit
Water quality within Great Coharie Creek and its tributaries has
been classified using a variety of criteria by the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development's
(NCDNRCD) Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM).
Explanation of the classification schemes are contained in reports
prepared by the NCDNRCD (1982, 1983), The Cape Fear River Basin
Study (1983) and in the North Carolina Administrative Code (15 NCAC
2B). The water quality classification assigned to Great Coharie
Creek and the majority of its tributaries is class C-Sw (N.C.
Administrative Code, 15 NCAC 2B .0311). Class C waters are defined
as those best used for fishing, secondary recreation, agriculture
and other usage except for primary recreation or as a source of
water supply for drinking, culinary or food-processing purposes.
Standards applicable to Class C waters include the following: (1)
floating solids, settleable solids, and sludge deposits--only such
amounts attributable to sewage and/or industrial wastes as will
not, after reasonable opportunity for dilution and mixture of the
same with the receiving waters, make the waters unsafe or
unsuitable for fish and wildlife or impair the waters for any other
best usage established for this class; (2) pH - normal for the
waters in the area, ranging between 6.0 and 8.5; (3) dissolved
oxygen (DO) - for non-trout waters, not less than a daily average
value of 5.0 milligrams/liter (mg/1) with a minimum instantaneous
value of not less than 4.0 mg/1; (4) toxic wastes, oils,
deleterious substances, and colored or other wastes - only such
4
13-/2.
amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or
wastes as will not render the waters injurious to fish and wildlife
or adversely affect the palatability of same, or impair the waters
for any other best use established for this class (arsenic and
chromium have individual standards and are not to exceed
concentrations of 0.1 mg/1); (5) fecal coliforms - should not
exceed a log mean of 1,000/100 milliliters (ml) based upon sampling
procedures outlined in the N.C. Administrative Code (exceptions are
permissible where uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution prevents
attainment of the standard); (6) temperature - not to exceed 2.8
degrees Centigrade (C) or 5.04 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) above the
natural water temperature and in no case to exceed 320 C (89.6°F)
for coastal plain waters (15 NCAC 2B .0211(e)).
The added "Sw" designation also classifies Great Coharie and the
majority of its tributaries as "Swamp waters," defined by the N.C.
Administrative Code as waters which are topographically located so
as to generally have very low velocities and certain other
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams draining
steeper topography. The "Sw" classification indicates that streams
so designated may exhibit a Ph as low as 4.3 and DO values lower
than the standards if they are caused by natural conditions.
Some limited monitoring of physical and chemical parameters has
been conducted within Little and Great Coharie Creeks by the NCDEM
(NCDNRCD 1982). Additional data are available for stations sampled
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) during
the 1960's (Louder 1963). Water quality within the Great Coharie
Creek basin is characteristic of that found in blackwater streams
of the inner coastal plain, except where nutrient concentrations
and DO levels may be influenced by discharges from wastewater
treatment plants. According to an NCDEM degraded streams list
which characterizes stream reaches based on firsthand knowledge of
the NCDEM staff (Cape Fear River Basin Study 1983; NCDNRCD 1982),
Great Coharie Creek from NC 24 to the confluence with Little
Coharie Creek is cited in the NCDEM list for bacterial problems.
In summary, water quality within the study area from a fish and
wildlife perspective appears to be relatively good based on the
information available. Problems do exist below the WWTP on
Williams Old Mill Branch which is the only identified point source
within the Great Coharie Creek watershed. Comparisons with 1960's
data suggest that the requirement for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits may have improved conditions
within Great Coharie Creek (Dave Penrose, NCDEM, personal
communication). The major sources of potential water quality
problems within the basin at this time appear to be flooding of the
WWTP and nonpoint source nutrient-, sediment- and pesticide-laden
runoff from agricultural runoff or construction activities within
the basin.
5
I3. l3
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES
Fish and wildlife resource and habitat concerns related to the
present study focus on conservation of the palustrine, forested and
emergent wetlands within the floodplains of Great Coharie Creek,
Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch and maintenance of the
wetland and aquatic communities associated with these streams.
Resources present within Great Coharie Creek downstream of the
proposed project are of exceptional quality as indicated by the
inclusion of the stream within the National Park Service inventory
(USDI 1982). Wetlands adjacent to the streams provide a buffer for
the adverse impacts associated with agricultural runoff; provide
valuable fish and wildlife habitat; and provide an important
recreational amenity for Sampson County residents. With the
exception of the Clinton WWTP, Great Coharie Creek and its adjacent
wetlands presently are relatively unaffected by point-source
runoff, but are subject to increased nonpoint-source runoff if
additional agricultural and forestry activities occur within its
floodplain.
The Service recommends the following planning objectives for the
study area and has employed them as guidelines throughout the
various planning phases:
? To conserve the study area's fish and wildlife habitats
by avoiding construction activities in wetlands or
deepwater habitat, as defined by Cowardin et a1. (1979),
to the maximum extent practical;
? To conserve the functional attributes and capabilities of
the Great Coharie Creek ecosystem by avoiding and/or
minimizing project features which would significantly
impair the normal hydrological regime of the system; and
? To mitigate any functional impairment through institution
of conservation measures which will act to retain and/or
preserve habitat values of the system.
In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended, these planning objectives should be given full and equal
consideration with other features of the study area.
EVALUATION METHODS
Aquatic resource conditions within the study area are assessed
based on existing study area data for water quality, hydrological
regimes, and fish diversity. A modified Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP) performed on Williams Old Mill Branch in 1984 (USDI
1984) provides some useful background information, although
conditions have changed somewhat since that time. Data gaps for
the study area are supplanted by literature values from other
similar systems within North Carolina, where possible. Future
6
5-/?
aquatic resource conditions are assessed based on the impacts of
the proposed alterations upon similar ecosystems as derived from
the literature and personal communications with individuals having
recognized expertise in various fields. Literature-derived life
requisite data and assessments of relative abundance of various
taxa within different zones or habitat types are employed to
predict the impacts of each alternative upon herpetofauna, mammals,
waterfowl, and migrant and breeding birds.
The Williams Old Mill Branch - Dollar Branch project area wetlands
were identified and delineated jointly by Service and Corps
personnel based on 1988 aerial photography (111= 6601) and on-site
observations and classified using Cowardin et al.'s (1979)
methodology. For the purpose of assessing impacts and subsequently
identifying mitigation measures, habitats within the study area
which would be impacted by the various alternatives are classified
according to the criteria set forth in the Service's Mitigation
Policy (Federal Register, Volume 46, Number 15, January 23, 1981).
All Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally
Flooded wetlands are Resource Category 2. All remaining Palustrine
Emergent, Palustrine Shrub-Scrub and Riverine wetlands and
blackwater deepwater habitats associated with Great Coharie Creek
are also classified as Resource Category 2.
Nomenclature of all taxa discussed within this report follows:
Radford, et al. (1964) for plants; literature as referenced for
invertebrates; Robins et al. (1980) for fishes; Collins et al.
(1982) for herpetofauna; Eisenmann et al. (1982) for avifauna; and
Jones et al. (1979) for mammals.
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Aquatic Resources
Without project construction, wetlands associated with Williams Old
Mill and Dollar Branches would probably continue to exhibit some
changes associated with increased frequency and/or duration of
inundation and discharge from the Clinton WWTP, but it is unlikely
that the wetlands would be otherwise significantly affected by
increased urbanization because of the poorly drained soils and
annual flooding which occur there.
Palustrine forested wetlands along Williams Old Mill Branch have
been transforming into Palustrine Emergent or Palustrine Scrub-
shrub wetlands and this trend may continue for some time if present
conditions persist. Dead standing timber and dead scrub-shrub
stands occur in the floodplain above and below the WWTP outfall.
The area of dead timber appears to have increased since 1984 (Chuck
Wilson, USACE, personal communication), and it is possible that
additional trees may be killed. No positive cause of mortality has
been identified at this time; however, it appears that continuous
saturation and/or growing season flooding coupled with effluent
from the WWTP has killed intolerant trees and shrubs. Increased
7
C3' /S
discharges from the WWTP could enlarge the area of dead timber if
there is a cause-and-effect relationship present. The possibility
that tree mortality is related to contaminants, such as chlorine,
in the WWTP effluent cannot be ignored. The increased flooding
frequency and/or duration may be due, in part, to an increase in
aquatic and emergent plant productivity which typically occurs with
the input of high levels of nutrients into wetlands. Beaver
activity downstream could possibly be involved as well.
Overall, aquatic habitat values and water quality appear to have
been substantially affected by past activities and are unlikely to
improve under existing conditions. Fishery resources are minimal
and macrobenthic diversity may decline further as pollution-
intolerant species are eliminated from the affected wetlands.
Wildlife Resources
Wildlife habitat in the Williams Old Mill - Dollar Branch watershed
has already been affected by urbanization and changes in habitat
composition and water quality associated with the Clinton WWTP.
Although it is anticipated that future wildlife resources for the
project area around the WWTP will remain somewhat similar to the
present, it is difficult to predict this accurately because of the
continuing changes in habitat composition in that area. Aerial
photography and ground observations indicate that some former
forested wetlands along Williams Old Mill Branch are undergoing
transition to emergent wetlands, as evidenced by dead standing
timber and observations of persons familiar with the area. Marsh-
nesting and cavity-nesting species, for example, have likely
benefitted from the changes, at least in the short term, while
species preferring forested wetlands or higher water quality have
likely declined. Habitat composition and quality and associated
wildlife communities should eventually stabilize if sewage effluent
does not change significantly and other disturbances are minimized.
Endangered and Threatened Species
Based on available information, there are no Federally-listed or
proposed endangered or threatened plant or animal species in the
impact area of the currently proposed project. Therefore, the
requirements of Section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1)
new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
There are "candidate" species which, although not now listed or
officially proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, are
under status review by the Service. Current candidate species for
Federal-listing which have been recorded from Sampson County and
8
a-/.6
may occur within the study area include three animals and five
plants: Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), American
sandburrowing mayfly (Dolania americana), Carolina crawfish frog
(Rana areolata capito), pondspice (Litsea aestivalis), Carolina
bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana), spring-flowering goldenrod
(Solidaao verna), wireleaf dropseed (Suorobolus teretifolius), and
a liverwort (Cvlindrocolea andersoni). The spring-flowering
goldenrod is also on the N.C. Protected Plant List maintained by
the N.C. Department of Agriculture. Candidate species are not
legally protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as threatened or endangered. These species may be listed
in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act.
In the meantime, the Service would appreciate any efforts to
protect these species.
In addition to those species which are afforded legal protection
through Federal and State laws, additional species of State concern
listed by Cooper et a1. (1977) occur within Sampson County and
possibly within the study area. These species are listed in the
proceedings of the State symposium held to evaluate endangered and
threatened biota of North Carolina and have no legally mandated
status. Plant species listed for Sampson County include all the
above-listed Federal candidate plants. Two freshwater mussel
species, the pod lance (Elliptio folliculata) and the eastern lamp
mussel (Lampsilis radiata), both state listed as Special Concern,
occur in the Great Coharie Creek watershed (Appendix, North
Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, February 17, 1992). Vertebrate
species listed by Cooper et a1. (1977) and their respective status
are: thinlip chub-special concern (SC); broadtailed madtom (SC);
eastern diamond back rattlesnake-endangered (E); pine barrens
treefrog-threatened (T); Carolina crawfish frog (SC); turkey
vulture (T); Cooper's hawk (T); red-shouldered hawk (T); American
Kestrel (T); red-tailed hawk (SC); red-headed woodpecker (SC);
eastern bluebird (SC) ; loggerhead shrike (SC) ; and the prothonotary
warbler (SC).
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
In addition to the no action alternative, the following three
structural alternatives have been considered: (1) relocation of
WWTP Facilities, (2) channel excavation and dike construction, and
(3) construction of a perimeter dike around the WWTP. The
perimeter dike construction alternative is identified as the Corps'
selected plan (USACE 1992). The no action alternative would not
meet the objectives of reducing flood damage to the WWTP. The two
structural alternatives not selected and the selected plan are
described briefly in thi section. Additional details on the
9
J'" /7
alternatives analysis and the selected plan are provided in the
Corps' Draft Detailed Project Report (USACE 1992).
The relocation of the Clinton WWTP facilities alternative involved
relocating those facilities at the WWTP which are currently in the
floodplain to higher ground. Essentially this would have required
relocating sludge drying beds to adjacent upland areas and
floodproofing of other components. Relocation of the WWTP sludge
drying beds and floodproofing of other affected facilities would
have had no significant adverse impacts upon aquatic resources
within the floodplain. Benefits in water quality likely would have
resulted in an improved aquatic environment capable of supporting
species which might have been eliminated under the present
conditions. Similar effects are anticipated to result from the
selected plan.
The channel excavation and dike construction alternative involved
excavation of approximately 7,300 feet of Williams Old Mill Branch
downstream from the U.S. Highway 421 crossing and construction of
an 1,100-foot-long dike on the southwest side of the WWTP along
Dollar Branch. Excavated material would have been deposited
adjacent to the channel on or behind any existing spoil piles and
used to construct a dike and travelway parallel to the channel.
The channel would have followed existing alignment except for a
700-foot section adjacent to the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) and a section downstream which would have been relocated to
the North to avoid a large section of the existing marsh. The dike
would be similar in design to the perimeter dike. Materials for
dike construction would have come from excavation of Williams Old
Mill Branch and from an existing off-site borrow area.
Channel excavation of Williams Old Mill Branch with dike
construction along Dollar Branch would have resulted in filling
approximately four acres of forested wetland and 1.5 acres of marsh
and in the alteration and/or draining of 43 acres of forested
wetland and 12 acres of marsh.
Selected Plan
The Corps' selected plan (USACE 1992) involves construction of a
dike around the WWTP. A 2200-foot long dike would be constructed
around the perimeter of the WWTP (Figure 2). The dike would end at
high ground near the northeast and southeast sides of the WWTP.
The dike centerline would be set parallel to and 35 feet away from
the WWTP perimeter fence. The maximum heights of the dike would be
6.5 feet along Williams Old Mill Branch and 5.7 feet along Dollar
Branch. The dike would provide protection from the 100 year flood
with two feet of freeboard. The dike would have a 10-foot top
width and side slopes would be 3:1 (horizontal: vertical). Assuming
an average height of 6 feet, the dike would occupy approximately
2.3 acres (46-foot bottom width x 2200-foot length).
10
/3-4
a
7 /
'h.
z a
? J V
to V F- y g
?
Nz z
w
o
?

W >- w
LU
.
z
i? ?- W

w V oC
LL k-
W U
z
-
v z
i
w
2 0 w .
*
E < 0

W wz
O J
• ?
3 ?

0
O .• a o
O ?
o L&I
N w
°
N
o O^
O
Lt1-: . .
r Ow
z Ow nOOtn Ili OM
in w c4c4Nc4 QO .O.-
LU .. Wo Q
n Q
Iil
y b
ROB Y LLY
a
W 0 n tn.?tMMe!
i_ O > 0000
0
\ve o w a. IL. a
LLJ
N
O p O

.z
a z
re- a T•N
IL
Figure 2. Selected Plan.
?X
z

Construction of the dike, as proposed, would require relocation of
about 800 feet of the Williams Old Mill Branch channel which is
currently adjacent to the perimeter fence. The new channel would
be located 95 feet away from the fence and would be 10 feet wide
and 2 feet below normal ground. The relocation is only intended to
allow construction of the dike, not as a channel improvement
project. An option which would not require relocation of this
section of channel is the use of steel sheetpile rather than an
earth dike in this section. Recent information from the Corps
indicates this option was dropped because the cost of sheetpile was
too high.
JInterior drainage would be collected at two shallow sumps which
would normally drain to Williams Old Mill Branch via a culvert
f fitted with a f lapgate to prevent backf low during highwater events
1A pump station would be installed to prevent overflow of the sump
when the flapgate is closed. An effluent pumping station, although
.required for a diked WWTP by the State, is not considered as part
of the flood control project by the Corps.
<q
IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
The construction of a perimeter dike around the WWTP would provide
the same benefits as the channel excavation/dike alternative but
without draining of the adjacent wetlands. The perimeter dike
would involve relocating an approximately 800-foot section of the
Williams Old Mill Branch channel; however, this also would have
been required for the channel excavation/dike alternative. A total
of 2.4 acres of wetlands adjacent to the WWTP would have to be
filled. This includes 1.2 acres of semi-permanently flooded,
persistent emergent wetlands (PEM1F) along Williams Old Mill Branch
upstream of it's confluence with Dollar Branch and 1.2 acres of
seasonally flooded, deciduous forested wetlands (PF01C) along
Williams Old Mill Branch downstream of that point.
The wetland and aquatic communities in the area around the WWTP
would likely exhibit a shift in species composition back toward
less pollution tolerant species. The existing, luxuriant growth of
aquatic plants in the wetlands around the WWTP serves as filter for
the WWTP effluent that is flushed into the wetlands during floods,
but it is also an indication of high levels of nutrient input. If
the proposed plan eliminates flooding of the WWTP, inputs to the
aquatic system would be limited to the treated effluent, and water
quality should improve after the existing high levels of nutrients
are removed from the system. Flooding frequency and duration in
these adjacent wetlands may also be reduced, returning more to the
historical conditions, as the dense aquatic plant growth that is
due to high nutrient input gradually shifts to the forested wetland
habitat that once existed, as evidenced by the presence of dead
standing trees and analysis of old aerial photographs.
The Corps' mitigation plan presented in the draft EIS (USACE 1992)
and additional mitigation recommendations to offset these
12
A-7.0
unavoidable losses are discussed in greater detail in the following
section of this report. Overall, impacts upon wildlife resources
in the Williams Old Mill - Dollar Branch area would be relatively
minor compared to the channel excavation alternative.
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES
The involvement of the Service in land and water resource
development is in response to Congressional mandate through the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667) which directs that fish and wildlife resource
conservation shall receive full and equal consideration and be
coordinated with other features of Federal water resource
development projects.
Fish and wildlife and their habitats are valuable public resources
which are conserved and managed for the people by State and Federal
governments. If proposed land or water developments may reduce or
eliminate the public benefits that are provided by such natural
resources, then State and Federal resource agencies have a
responsibility to recommend means and measures to mitigate such
losses.. In the interest of serving the public, it is the policy of
the Service to seek to mitigate losses of fish, wildlife, their
habitats and provide information and recommendations that fully
support the Nation's need for fish and wildlife resource
conservation as well as sound economic and social development
through balanced multiple use of the Nation's natural resources.
The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines the
term "mitigation" in the National Environmental Policy Act
regulations to include:
(a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing
impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over
time by preservation and maintenance operations during
the life of the action; and (e) compensating for the
impact by replacing or providing substitute resource or
environments. (40 CFR Part 1508.20(a-e)).
The Service has adopted this definition of mitigation in its
Mitigation Policy published in the Federal Register on January 23,
1981 and believes that the specific elements represent the
desirable sequence of steps in the mitigation planning process.
The Service Mitigation Policy identifies four resource categories
which are used to guide service recommendations on mitigation of
project impacts. A brief description of these four categories
follows:
13
.B -Z./
Resource Category 1 - Habitat to be impacted is of high
value for evaluation species and is unique and
irreplaceable on a national basis or in the ecoregion
section.
Resource Category 2 - Habitat to be impacted is of high
value for evaluation species and is relatively scarce or
becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion
section.
Resource Category 3 - Habitat to be impacted is of high
to medium value for evaluation species and is relatively
abundant on a national basis.
Resource Category 4 - Habitat to be impacted is of medium
to low value for evaluation species.
According to the guidelines present in the Service's Mitigation
Policy, Palustrine Forested wetlands of the project site fall into
Resource Category 2 -high value habitat becoming scarce on a
national level. Blackwater Riverine Lower Perennial and
Intermittent and Palustrine Shrub-Scrub and Emergent habitats
within the study area are also Resource Category 2 wetlands. The
mitigation goal for this type calls for no net loss of in-kind
habitat value, and the Service recommends measures to rectify,
reduce or eliminate losses over time. If losses remain likely to
occur, then the Service will recommend that those losses be
compensated. The policy identifies four means of achieving the
goal: (1) creation of similar habitat; (2) restoration of
previously altered habitat; (3) increased management of similar
habitat to replace losses; or (4) a combination of these.
The categorization of both the Palustrine Forested wetlands and the
blackwater Riverine and associated wetlands as Resource Category 2
is justified based on the scarcity of both habitat types, the
development pressures to which they are subject, and their high
value to fish and wildlife resources. Both are limited in
distribution to the southeastern United States and constitute very
small percentages of the total available wildlife habitat when it
is considered that all wetlands within the contiguous U.S.
constitute only five percent of the land surface (Hefner et al.
1983). Palustrine Forested wetlands have been and are currently
being converted for agricultural forestry use at a rapid rate on a
regional basis. Blackwater systems within the southeast in general
have been extensively channelized in the past and presently remain
subject to alteration as agricultural use of floodplains increases
the demand for flood protection and drainage. The high value of
these systems to fish and wildlife resources, as documented in this
report, becomes even greater as uplands are converted for
residential, commercial and other uses.
Application of the Service's 1976 or 1980 Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP) analysis for the selected plan would be
14
R ZZ
beneficial; however, in the absence of a full HEP analysis, the
simple habitat evaluation contained in the Corps' draft EIS (USACE
1992) is beneficial for assessing impacts of the proposed project
upon existing fish wildlife resources in the project area and in
developing mitigation recommendations for this project. The
modified HEP done in 1984 for Williams Old Mill/Dollar Branches
(USDI 1984) also provides useful background information even though
project specifications have changed.
The first priority in mitigation, as described in the CEQ
regulations and adopted by the Service in its mitigation policy, is
to avoid the adverse impacts of the project through: design; use
of nonstructural alternatives; or to construct no project.
Constructing no project would fail to address the identified
flooding problems and would cause pollution problems resulting from
flooding and improper operation of the WWTP to continue.
Relocation of the Clinton WWTP to an upland location, would result
in virtually no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
The Corps, however, determined this alternative is economically
unfeasible to meet the proposed flood control objectives.
Therefore, the Corps' selected plan is the least environmentally
damaging, practical alternative.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The present condition of the fish and wildlife resources and
wetland habitat adjacent to the Clinton WWTP could likely be
improved through implementation of appropriate measures which would
reduce flooding of the WWTP. The perimeter dike construction plan
selected by the Corps would reduce flooding, while also minimizing
adverse impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Although the Service
believes the best solution would be to permanently relocate to an
adjacent upland site all portions of the WWTP operation which are
currently located in the floodplain of Williams Old Mill and Dollar
Branches, the plan selected by the Corps is acceptable to the
Service provided the following recommendations are implemented:
1. The Service recommends compensation on a habitat value basis
for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with the perimeter
dike construction. Such mitigation could be accomplished by
creating wetlands at upland borrow sites adjacent to the WWTP
or by restoring nearby prior converted wetlands along Great
Coharie Creek through hydrologic restoration and
reforestation.
2. The mitigation acreage calculations contained in Appendix B of
the draft EIS should be adjusted to use the following relative
habitat values: 0.0 at year 0, 1.5 at year 25, and 3.0 at
year 50. This is more representative of the anticipated
reestablishment rate of the actual habitat values. Under this
scenario, we have calculated, in consultation with Corps'
staff, that the mitigation required to compensate for
unavoidable wetland impacts on a habitat value basis would be
15
,8 -ZZ
4.8 acres, which is a 2 to 1 ratio of acres impacted to acres
mitigated.
3. The Service recommends that, in order to minimize the
potential for adverse impacts to anadromous and freshwater
fish and other aquatic species, the corps consider specifying
that construction activity in wetlands be conducted in the
autumn (September 1 through November 30). This time of year
is preferable because it avoids the reproductive season of
most species and also coincides with the typical period of low
flow conditions in North Carolina streams.
4. Should the alternative regarding clearing and snagging of
Great Coharie Creek ever be reevaluated at any time in the
future, all environmental review procedures, including but not
limited to the National Environmental Policy Act and Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act activities, should be renewed from
the beginning of the planning process and should not be taken
out of context as this report only addresses the impacts of
the alternatives for the Clinton WWTP.
SUMMARY AND SERVICE POSITION
Fish and wildlife resources and adjacent wetland habitat associated
with Great Coharie Creek are of significant value from State,
Regional and National perspectives. The lower 33 miles of Great
Coharie Creek are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System and support a diverse fish and wildlife fauna.
The Service commends the Corps and the Sampson County Board of
Commissioners for dropping the clearing and snagging of Great
Coharie Creek from the current project and for selecting an
alternative for the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant/Williams Old
Mill and Dollar Branches portion of the project, which among the
economically feasible alternatives, results in fewer adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife resources of the adjacent wetlands and
probably would bring about significant benefits over the long-term.
16
~ZI
LITERATURE CITED
Cape Fear River Basin Study. 1983. Status of water resources in
the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh. 135 pp.
Collins, J.T., R. Conant, J.E. Huheey, J.L. Knight, E.M. Rundquist,
and H.M. Smith. 1982. Standard common and current scientific
names for North American amphibians and reptiles. Second
Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles,
Herpetological Circular No. 12. 29 pp.
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson and J.B. Funderburg (eds). 1977.
Endangered and threatened plants and animals of North
Carolina. Proc. Symp. on Endangered and Threatened Biota of
North Carolina. N.C. State Museum of Natural History,
Raleigh. 444 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington,
D..C. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
Eisenmann, E., B.L. Monroe, Jr., K.C. Parkes, L.L. Short, R.C.
Banks, T.R. Howell, N.K. Johnson and R.W. Storer. 1982.
thirty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union
check-list of North American birds. Supplement to the Auk.
99(3):icc-16cc.
Hefner, J.M., J.D. Brown and B.C. Wilen. 1983. Trends in Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal wetlands. Coastal Zone 83:372-379.
Jones, J.K., Jr., D.C. Carter and H.H. Genoways. 1979. Revised
checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1979.
Occ. Pap. The Museum, Texas Tech. Univ. 62:1-17.
Louder, Darrell E. 1963. Survey and classification of the Cape
Fear River and tributaries, North Carolina. Final Report,
Federal Aid in Fish and Restoration, Job I-G, Project F-14-R.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 15 pp. plus
Figures and Appendices.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1987. Hydric Soils
of North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. 14 pp.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. 1982. North Carolina water quality inventory -
305(B) report, calendar years 1980 and 81. Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh. 309 pp.
17
1983. North Carolina basic water monitoring program
data review 1981-82. Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section, Raleigh. 209 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the
vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1,183 pp.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner,
R.N. Lea and W.B. Scott. 1980. A list of common and
scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada
(Fourth Edition). American Fisheries Society. Spec. Publ.
No. 12:1-172.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1969. Detailed Project
Report on Great and Little Coharie Creeks, Sampson County,
North Carolina. Wilmington District, Wilmington, N.C.
1982. Reconnaissance report for Great Coharie Creek,
Sampson County, North Carolina. Wilmington District,
Wilmington, N.C. 10 pp. plus Appendices.
1992. Draft detailed project report and environmental
impact statement on flood damage reduction, Great Coharie
Creek, Sampson County, North Carolina. Wilmington District,
Wilmington, N.C. DPR-45 pp., EIS-50 pp., plus Appendices.
U.S. Department Agriculture. 1985. Soil survey of Sampson County,
North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, N.C. 117
pp. plus Plates.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1982. The nationwide rivers
inventory. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1984. Modified 1976 Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (HEP) analysis of alternatives for
providing flood control on Williams Old Mill/Dollar Branches,
Sampson County, North Carolina. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Raleigh, N.C.
18
0 026
APPENDIX
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM STATE AND FEDERAL
REVIEW AGENCIES ON THE REVISED DRAFT FISH AND WILDLIFE
COORDINATION ACT REPORT
0.0
?n
_ D
Ows.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Dr. Philip K. McKnelly
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary - Director
February 17, 1992
L.K. Mike Gantt
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Re: Natural Heritage Elements, Great Coharie Creek, Sampson
County
Dear Ms. Gantt,
The Natural Heritage Program agrees completely that the proposed
clearing and snagging of Great Coharie Creek and the
channelization of Williams O1d.Mill Branch would have major
adverse impacts on several of the most significant aquatic
habitats remaining in the coastal plain of North Carolina.
As we commented through the state clearinghouse (Aug 19, 1991),
there are several state listed species present in this area that
would be affected by this project. Of particular concern are the
freshwater mussels. The pod lance (Elliptio folliculata) and the
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), both state-listed as
special concern, were found within this watershed in 1991 during a
survey conducted by John Alderman (NCWRC, Nongame Program). He
also reported that mussel densities in this watershed were
extremely high; in some reaches, mussels completely pave the
bottom.
Although currently only five species have been identified within
this watershed itself, Great Coharie Creek is one of the main
headwaters of the Black River, which contains a mussel fauna that
is extremely rich for a blackwater stream. John Alderman reported
a total of ten species for the Black River, including the Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), a candidate for federal listing and
state listed as threatened, and the yellow lamp mussel (Lampsilis
cariosa), state listed as threatened. With regard to both
diversity and density of mussels, the Black River and its
tributaries are second in the coastal plain only to Swift Creek
and Lake Waccamaw. ..
73
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FEB 2 1 1992

Virtually all the impacts to the aquatic fauna mentioned in your
report will have adverse effects on the mussel community. We
would especially like to emphasize the effects of increased
sedimentation that would result from the channelization of
Williams Old Mill Branch, the repeated snagging and clearing of
Great Coharie Creek, the bulldozing used to create and maintain an
open access-way.close to the stream bank, and the rapid runoff
from agricultural fields -- one of the claimed benefits of this
project.
We are also concerned about the impacts to the riparian areas
along both Great Coharie Creek and the Black River. The Black
River in particular contains a nationally significant stand of
extremely old cypress -- probably the oldest trees east of the
Rocky Mountains (a large part of this area was recently acquired
by The Nature Conservancy). Changes in flooding and sedimentation
resulting from the clearing and snagging operations in the
headwaters of this watershed could have an impact on the survival
of this stand as well as other old-growth riparian forests in the
watershed. Loss of these old trees, in turn, could affect the
survival of other species associated with old growth cypress,
particularly Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesqui), a
candidate for federal listing and state listed as special concern
(NHP has a record for this species from near the confluence of the
Black and South Rivers, in Bladen County).
If we can provide any additional information, please let us know.
We also strongly suggest that you contact John Alderman for more
information regarding the mussel fauna in this area.
Sincerely,
5??ks,
P. I
Stephen P. Hall
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
.,q
e ?` SG?TF v
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 769 • Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769
James G. Martin, Governor - William T. Hogarth, Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary [phone]
18 February 1992
Ms. L.K. Mike Gantt, Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 2763673726
Dear Mike:
Attached are the comments of the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries on the proposed work on the Great Coharie Creek watershed, Sampson
County.
Please contact the Division if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Street
Section Chief, Research
Enc.
13 -30
FEB 2 0 1992

11 February 1992
TO: Bill Hogarth
TH UGH: Mike Street
eJ2
FROM: Fritz Rohde "
-
SUBJECT: Great Coharie Creek flood control alternatives
In general, I concur with the Fish and Wildlife Service's report on the proposed
work for Great Coharie Creek and the conclusions and recoimnendations that the service
reaches. I am opposed to the desnagging of the creek. Submerged 1
other debris provide habitat for a number of aquatic species, especially sunfishes.
They are also the preferred habitat of the broadtail madtan, Noturus n. sp, a species
of special concern to the Wildlife Resources Ccmaission. Although not well
documented, there is high probability that Great Coharie Creek is a nursery area for
some anadramous species, such as American shad, and quite possibly could be a
spawning area. I also feel that the Clinton astewater Treatment Plant could be
protected just by the dike without destroying any aquatic habitat through stream
modification or relocate the plant to higher ground.
PV&CI!A-
--s1 FEB 171992
G Division of N4- ' -
Research Ee:.-

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
February 11, 1992
Ms. L.K. Mike Gantt, Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, N.C. 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Gantt:
John N. Morris
Director
The Division-of Water Resources has reviewed the Service's Draft Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Great Coharie Watershed; IMPACT OF
FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVES UPON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES WITHIN GREAT COHARIE
CREEK AND SELECTED TRIBUTARIES, SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. The Division
concurs with the Service's conclusions and supports the general recommendations
and specific recommendations for both Great Coharie Creek and Williams Old
Mill/Dollar Branches.
Sincerely,
CrN. r<
Jeffrey G. Bruton
Environmental Specialist
cc: John D. Sutherland
E3^3a
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FEB 19 1992
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
NQV 8 4'991
ARC
,,
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
CLINTON 201 FACILITIES PLAN
CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
= to i 8089 =
2
%
N. N
R M??.?1 u ti lea. r ? , M '?y.?+ ! ? >' ! 4 I
SHANKAR R. MISTRYYj PH.D., P.E.
IIF
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
ENGINEERING & PLANNING 4 ARCHITECTURE
RALEIGH/GREENVILLEt NORTH CAROLINA
.,
Revised November 5, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. Description of the Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Plan Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Unit Operation/Processes Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Comminution/Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Grit Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C. Primary Clarification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
D. Trickling Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
E. Intermediate Lift Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
F. Pure Oxygen First Stage System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
G. Pure Oxygen Second Stage System . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
H. Filtration System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
I. Chlorination System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
J. Postaeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
K. Anaerobic Sludge Digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
L. Aerobic Sludge Digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
M. Sludge Drying Beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3. Capacity Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.0 DESIGN BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1. Waste Flows and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2. Effluent Limitations
4.0 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
1. Optimum Operation of the Existing Waste Treatment Facilities . . . 55
2. Alternative Waste Treatment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1. Alternative No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
A. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B. Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . 60
D. Estimated Salvage Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
E. Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2. Alternative No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
tt
B. Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . 66
D. Estimated Salvage Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
E. Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3. Alternative No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
A. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
B. Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . 72
D. Estimated Salvage Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
E. Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4. Summary of Alternative Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
1. Description . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2. Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4. User Charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5. Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . 77
1. Primary Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
A. Beneficial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
B. Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2. Secondary Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3. Adverse Impacts That Can Not Be Avoided
Mitigative Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
A. Primary Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B. Secondary Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C. Mitigative Measures to Adverse Primary Impacts . . . . . 86
D. Mitigative Measures to Adverse Secondary Impacts . . . . 88
4. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Environmental Changes
That Would Be Involved If Proposed Project Should
be constructed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6. Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
1. Institutional Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2. Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3. Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

LIST OF EXHLBITS
Page No.
1. Schematic Flow Diagram of the Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Trickling Filter System - Influent and Effluent BOD5 Vs Time 18
3. Trickling Filter System - Influent and Effluent TSS Vs Time . . . . . . 19
4. Trickling Filter System - Influent and Effluent NH3 Vs Time . . . . . . 20
5. Trickling Filter System - % BOD, TSS and NH3 Removal Rate Vs
Hydraulic Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. First Stage Unox System - Influent and Effluent BOD5 Vs Time . . . . . 28
7. First Stage Unox System - Influent and Effluent TSS Vs Time . . . . . . 28
8. First Stage Unox System - Influent and Effluent NH3_N Vs Time . . . . . 29
9. First Stage Unox System - Percent BODS Removal Vs F/M . . . . . . . . . 30
10. First Stage Unox System - Percent BOD5 Removal Vs MCRT . . . . . . . . 31
11. Second State Unox System - Influent and Effluent BOO5 Vs Time . . . . . 36
12. Second Stage Unox System - Influent and Effluent TSS Vs Time . . . . . . 37
13. Second Stage Unox System - Influent and Effluent NH3-N Vs Time . . . . 38
14. Second Stage Unox System - % NH3 Removal Vs Hydraulic
Retention Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
15. Second Stage Unox System - % NH3 Removed Vs MCRT . . . . . . . . . . . 40
16. Second Stage Unox System - % NH3 Removed Vs Nitrification Rate . . . . 41
17. Second Stage Unox System - % NH3 Removed Vs BOD5/NH3-N Ratio . . . . . 42
18. Tertiary Filtration System - Influent and Effluent TSS Vs Time . . . . 45
19. Tertiary Filtration System - Influent and Effluent NH3-N Vs Time . . . 46
20. Schematic Flow Diagram for Alternative No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
21. Schematic Flow Diagram for Alternative No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
22. Schematic Flow Diagram for Alternative No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
23. Schematic Flow Diagram for Alternative No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
24. Location Map - Proposed Wa ste Treatment Improvements . . . . . . . . . 91

LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
1. Design Data of Clinton WWTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Plant Performance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Trickling Filter System Performance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. First Stage Unox Carbonaceous System Performance Data . . . . . . . . . 25
5. Second Stage Unox Nitrification System Performance Data . . . . . . . . 34
6. Tertiary Filtration System Performance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
APPENDIX
1. Design Wastewater Flow
2. Evaluation of Unox First Stage and Second Stage Activated Sludge Systems
3. Preliminary Design
4. Supporting Design Calculations for Evaluation of Sludge Handling Facilities
5. NPDES Permit
6. Sludge Disposal Permit
7. Response to State Review Comments
8. Minutes of the Public Hearing and Implementation Resolutions

AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
CLINTON 201 FACILITIES PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Clinton operates a 3.0-mgd advanced-type wastewater treatment
plant which discharges its effluent into William Old Mill Branch, a tributary to
Coharie Creek. A review of the operating data from July 1986 through March 1989
indicates that the plant has an excellent performance record in terms of BODS
(Biochemical Oxygen Demand), TSS (Total Suspended Solids), and NH3-N (Ammonia
Nitrogen) removals. However, despite the excellent NH3-N removals, the plant has
experienced for most of the time marginal compliance and occasional noncompliance
with its effluent NH3-N limits. The significantly higher ammonia loading
received at the plant as a result of the industrial waste discharges, in
particular from Lundy Packing Company, appears to be the primary reason for
marginal compliance and occasional noncompliance with the effluent NH3-N limits.
The higher NH3-N loading at the plant is also limiting the quantity of wastewater
that can be safely processed by the wastewater plant.
In recent years the City of Clinton has also received several inquiries
concerning the excess capacity at the plant for the possible location of
prospective industries in the Clinton area. The plant is designed to handle
average wastewater flow of 3.0 mgd. However, due to higher BOD5 and NH3-N
loadings received at the plant, it may not have 3.0-mgd capacity available to
accommodate industrial growth as well as future residential and commercial
growth.
The current NPDES Permit expires on October 31, 1991. During the renewal
process of this permit, it is anticipated that the discharge limitations, more
particularly on NH 3-N, Fecal Coliform, and chlorine residual, would be more
stringent. Also, the EPA sludge regulations (40 CFR Part 257 and proposed to 40
CFR 503) require that the sludge disposed of by land application must be
- 1 -
stabilized by a PSRP (Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens) process prior
to application or incorporation. The existing aerobic and anaerobic sludge
digestion facilities at the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant may not be
adequate to meet PRSP process design criteria of sludge stabilization.
Recognizing the plant's marginal compliance and occasional noncompliance
with the effluent NH3-N, future compliance requirements with anticipated
stringent effluent limits on NH3-N, Fecal Coliform and chlorine residual and EPA
sludge regulations, and the need to provide adequate waste treatment facilities
to support residential, commercial, and industrial growth in the Clinton 201
Planning Area for the next 20-year planning period, it is necessary to upgrade
and expand the Clinton wastewater treatment plant. This Amendment No. 1 to the
Clinton 201 Facilities Plan includes the recommended improvements for upgrading
and expansion of the Clinton wastewater treatment plant.
2.0 EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES
2.1 Description of the Existing Facilities
The Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant was constructed in 1977 to provide
advanced-type treatment for wastewater with an average daily flow of 3.0 million
gallons and BODS, TSS, and NH3-N concentrations of 503 mg/L, 300 mg/L, and 30
mg/L, respectively. Effluent limitations established for the plant's discharge
into William Old Mill Branch, a tributary to Coharie Creek, are summarized in
Table 1. The unit operations/processes at the plant include comminution, grit
removal, primary clarification, trickling filter, secondary clarification,
intermediate pumping, two-stage pure oxygen activated sludge system for
carbonaceous BODS removal and nitrification, tertiary filtration, chlorination,
postaeration, anaerobic sludge digestion, aerobic sludge digestion, sludge
dewatering on sand beds, and ultimate disposal of sludge by land application.
Exhibit 1 is a schematic flow diagram of the treatment plant. Detailed design
data of the plant are given in Table 1.
- 2 -
TABLE 1
DESIGN DATA OF CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Design Year 1995
Population Equivalent (based upon 0.20 lb BOD5/Capita/Day) 63,000
Design Flows, mgd r
Average daily flow 3.00 -?
Maximum daily flow 5.43
Design Influent Wastewater Characteristics
pH 7.0
BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day), mg/L 503
TSS (Total Suspended Solids), mg/L 300
NH3-N (Ammonia Nitrogen), mg/L 30
Total alkalinity as CaC03 , mg/L 110
Effluent Limitations Summer Winter
(Apr - Oct) Nov - Mar
Average daily flow, mgd 3.0 3.0
BOD5, mg/L 9 17
TSS, mg/L 30 30
NH3 -N, mg/L 3 4
D.O., mg/L 6 6
Fecal Coliform, #/100 mL 1000 1000
pH 6-9 6-9
Parshall Flumes
Dollar Branch Outfall Measurement Flume Size, inch 12
Mill Branch Outlet Flow Measurement Flume Size, inch 9
Comminutor
Number of units 1
Unit size, inch 24
Unit capacity, mgd 5.43
Grit Chamber
Number of units, 12 ft diam 1
Surface area, sq ft 113
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq ft at maximum flow 48,000
Primary Clarifier
Number of units, 70-ft diam x 10 ft SWD 1
Unit volume, gal 287,864
Detention time, hr, @ ADF 2.30
Detention time, hr, @ ADF plus 0.2 mgd secondary
sludge return 2.16
- 3 -
TABLE 1
DESIGN DATA OF CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(Continued)
Unit surface area, sq ft 3,848
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq ft @ ADF 780
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq ft @ ADF plus 0.2 mgd
secondary sludge return 832
Unit weir length, ft 220
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin ft, @ ADF 13,636
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin ft, @ ADF + 0.2 mgd secondary
sludge return 14,545
Filter Lift Pumps
Number of pumps 2
Pump capacity, ea., gpm 4200
Trickling Filter
Number of units, 125-ft, inside diameter 1
Average depth of filter media, ft 7
Size of filter media, inch 2-4
Unit surface area, acres 0.2817
Filter media volume, ac-ft 1.972
1000 cu ft 85.9
Recirculation ratio to ADF 1.0
Hydraulic loading mgd/ac at no recirculation 10.64
at 50% recirculation 15.97
at 100% recirculation 21.29
Net organic loading, lb BOD5 /ac-ft/day 4467
Net organic loading, lb 8005/1000 cu ft/day** 102.55
*Considering 30% B005 removal in primary clarification and
excluding BOD of recirculated flow.
Secondary Clarifier
Number of units, 70 ft diam,
Unit volume, gal
Detention time, hr, at ADF
Unit surface area sq ft
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq
Unit weir length, ft
Weir overflow rate gpd/lin ft
x 9 ft SWD 1
259,047
2.07
3,848
ft, @ ADF 780
220
@ ADF 13,642
- 4 -
TABLE 1
DESIGN DATA OF CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(Continued)
Intermediate Lift Pumps
Number of pumps, variable speed type 2
Pump capacity, ea., gpm 4860
Pure Oxygen Carbonaceous 8005 Removal System
Aeration Tank
Number of trains (aeration tanks operated in parallel) 2
Number of stages, 25 ft x 25 ft x 7 ft, ea., operated in
series in each train 3
Stage volume, gal 32
725
Total volume, gal ,
196
350
Retention time, hr, @ ADF ,
1.57
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass to nitrification 1
75
Influent BODS, mg/L .
120
lb/day @ ADF 3,000
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass to nitrification 2
700
Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), mg/L ,
3
200
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), mg/L ,
2
250
F/M loading (lb/BODS /day)/lb MLVSS ,
0.73
Volumetric load, lb BOD/1000 cu ft/day 103
Averaged dissolved oxygen level, mg/L 25
Oxygen dissolution required, ton/day 1
26
Oxygen utilization, wt. % of feed .
90
Oxygen generation, ton/day 1.4
Clarifiers
Number of units, 100 ft x 28 ft x 9.75 ft SWD 2
Unit volume, gal 204,204
Total volume, gal 408,408
Detention time, hr, @ ADF 3.26
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass to nitrification 3.63
Unit surface area, sq ft 2,800
Total surface area, sq ft 5,600
surface overflow rate, gpd/sq f t @ ADF 536
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass to nitrification 482
Unit weir length, ft 248
Total weir length, ft 496
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin ft, @ ADF 6,048
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass to nitrification 5,440
Recirculation and Waste Sludge Pumps
Number of pumps 2
Pump capacity, gpm, @ 21 ft TDH and 850 rpm, ea. 1,250
- 5 -
TABLE 1
DESIGN DATA OF CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(Continued)
Pure Oxygen Nitrification System
Aeration Tank
Number of trains (aeration tanks operated in parallel) 2
Number of stages, 31.5 ft x 31.5 ft x 8.6 ft, SWD, each
operated in series in each train 3
Stage volume, gal 63
830
Total volume, gal ,
382
976
Retention time, hr, @ ADF ,
3
06
Return sludge flow, mgd .
1.80
% of ADF 60
Influent BODS , mg/L 21
lb/day 525
Influent NH3 -N, mg/L 23
lb/day 575
Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), mg/L 4
800
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), mg/L ,
3
360
F/M lb BODS /day)/lb MLVSS ,
0.05
Organic loading, lb BOD/1000 cu ft/day 10
Sludge retention time (SRT), days 24
5
Average dissolved oxygen level, mg/L .
> 5
Oxygen dissolution required, ton/day -2
07
Oxygen utilization, wt. % of feed ,
90
Oxygen generation, ton/day 2.30
Clarifiers
Number of units, 100 ft x 28 ft x 10.25 ft SWD 2
Unit volume, gal 214
676
Total volume, gal ,
429,352
Detention time, hr, @ ADF 3.43
Unit surface area, sq ft 2,800
Total surface area, sq ft 5,600
X
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq ft, @ ADF 536
Unit weir length, ft 248
Total weir length, ft 496
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin ft, @ ADF 6,048
Recirculation and Waste Sludge Pumps
Number of pumps 2
Pump capacity, gpm, @ 29 ft TDH and 1000 rpm, ea. 1500
Tertiary Filtration System
Number of filters, 12 ft x 22 ft, ea. 4
Unit surface area, sq ft 264
Total surface area, sq ft 1,056
-6-
TABLE 1
DESIGN DATA OF CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(Continued)
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft @ ADF 1.97
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft @ max. daily flow 3.57
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft @ peak daily flow 4.93
Maximum wash rate at 70? F, gpm/sq ft 20
Designed minimum filter run , hr, at a net loss of head
of 8 ft and suspended so lids loading of 50 mg/L, at an
average filtration ra te of 3.0 gpm/sq ft 12
Filter media: Anthracite: 2 ft-3 in depth of media. Particle sizes
ranging from 1.0 mm to 1.4 mm with not more
than 13 percent by weight being larger than 1.4
mm nor more than 18 % by weight being smaller
than 1.0 mm. Anthracite specific gravity is
approximately 1.57 and has a hardness (mohr
scale) of 3.0 or more.
Sand: 12-in depth of media. Particle sizes ranging
from 0.59 mm to 0.42 mm with not more than 10%
by weight being larger than 0.42 mm nor more
than 18% by weight being smaller than 0.35 mm.
Specific gravity of sand is 2.63.
Gravel: 13-inch depth of media which consists of the
following:
4-in 1/8 in x No. 16 mesh
3-in 1/8 in x 3/8 in
3-in 3/8 in x 5/8 in
3-in 5/8 in x 1 in
Underdrain system: Wheeler bottom type
Filter backwash pumps: 2 pumps each rated @ 5280 gpm @ 40 ft, TDH,
1170 rpm. The drive horsepower is 60 HP, ea.
Surface wash pumps: 2 pumps each rated @ 264 gpm capacity @ 220 ft TDH
1770 rpm. The drive horsepower is 20 hp, each.
Mudwell Pumps: 2 pumps each rated @ 420 gpm @ 40 ft THD, 1770 rpm. The
drive hp is 7.5 hp, each.
Other features: Filtration system is designed with automatic backwash
system and influent conditioning with polymer and
chlorine.
Chlorination System
Chlorine Contact Tank
Number of tanks
Total capacity, gal
Detention time @ ADF, minute
1
62,500
30
- 7 -
TABLE 1
DESIGN DATA OF CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
(Concluded)
Chlorine Feed System
Number of chlorinators 2
Chlorine feed rate, mg/L, average 8
maximum 15
Chlorine storage, number of one-ton cylinders 1
Postaeration
Number of aerators, submerged self-aspirating type 1
Aerator horsepower, hp 7.5
Anaerobic Sludge Digesters
Number of digesters, 50 ft diam. x 21 ft SWO, ea. 2
Unit volume, gal 308,426
Total volume, gal 616,852
Heated digester Primary only
Primary digester is equipped with gas mixing system.
Anerobic Sludge Digesters
Number of tanks, 37.5 ft x 37.5 ft x 13.5 ft SWD 2
Unit volume, gal 142,000
Total volume, gal 284,000
Number of 25-hp aerator, each tank 1
Total number of 25-hp aerator 2
Aeration capacity provided, hp/1000 cu ft 1.31
Sludge Drying Beds
Number of beds, 120 ft-0 in x 24 ft-4 in 30
Unit bed area, sq ft 2919.6
Total bed area, sq ft 87,588
Lime Feed System (For Nitrification System)
Lime storage bin capacity, cu ft 1,400
Lime feed rate, lb/hr, maximum 250
- 8 -

UJi a? imn- a ?tlNI
?

a¢ in
a 4c
wt- m xw
m ~
U. WIZ z Q-CZ
?
- CL
WO Q>UJ !w -H =U °? z
JL
OI QQU H<
U
aW <C7m W3 J
ca 1 z
Z
N 0 t ~

M U3 1
I
W
'V

I I o s
N¢ c
~-
F W J
3
we U Q
I j
¢O
O-j I U
-JH
V
\\
xm
Um Q \ 7
t_ \

\
HF-
Hz \
\ O
r LL. Cie
15 u
a
¢H
1-
I xcy..?-j t3i
wcc
aM
j
H¢w
u
X F- 3
ca m i 1--"

I 1-40
?
cu C3
E
?7 I m

I
I I ¢ 11-4
I j I U.
w
Z z w
0
a co
o I
I
j H ¢
a
° z
LL
Q
T U3 <z
CL i °W w J a
I
C cw
N o
I I w L`' I w z v cxn O
cc
-j I
°= L
--- I S I
Y
?a p

° x H d aLU
I
m
Hw
O I
"
" cu
~ I
I w
wc
n I E.-
¢
x w¢ I

(M LU I a
m y -- i
¢ I r ---
----- ------ ----- - --- -

' v ,
i
I I I
I I
I I z
{ Z
<H
cn Wl?H ¢1
1
cc
¢< I xw?<„ Cr'
° W N U m
i

I
1 w
"Cr
OW i
WLU
ZC I
<C I`
W
W
¢
U
N
a
m
to
w
m
U
Z
M
¢
w
c?
J
N
z
J
U.
H
w
0
<
3
w
m
3C
¢
- 9 -
2.2 Performance Evaluation
2.2.1 Plant performance
Operating data (Table 2), as reported in the monitoring reports from
July 1986 through March 1989, were reviewed to evaluate the plant influent
characteristics and plant performance.
Referring to Table 2, the average influent wastewater flow during the
period (July 1986 through March 1989) ranged from 1.55 to 2.21 mgd and
averaged 1.82 mgd. The plant is designed for an average daily flow of 3.0
mgd, and its discharge limitation on flow, as given in the NPDES Permit, is
also 3.0 mgd. This indicates that the plant is well within its hydraulic
design and permit limits.
Average influent BOD5 concentrations during the period at the plant
ranged from 234 to 685 mg/L and averaged 402.19 mg/L. Design influent BODS
is 503 mg/L. The average BO05 of 402.19 mg/L is well within the design
BODS of 503 mg/L. However, referring to Table 2, it can be seen that in
the months of January, October, November, and December of 1987 and January
and April of 1988 the average monthly BODS values were higher than the
design value. The possible cause of these high BODS values may be higher
BODS concentrations in the Lundy Packing Company's discharge and
supernatant recycle from the anaerobic digester. Average effluent BOD5
concentrations ranged from 2.0 to 8.6 mg/L and averaged 3.87 mg/L. Average
BODS removal during the period was 99.04 percent. The discharge limita-
tions on BODS, as given in the NPDES Permit, are 17 mg/L for winter months
(November through March) and 9 mg/L for summer months (April through
October). Referring to effluent BODS values given in Table 2, the plant
has no problems in complying with the discharge limitations on BODS.
Average influent TSS concentrations during the period at the plant
ranged from 158 to 528.94 mg/L and averaged 312.83 mg/L. Design influent
- 10 -
TSS is 300 mg/L. Referring to Table 2, it can be seen that for 19 months
during the period the influent TSS value exceeded the design value. The
high influent TSS value may be attributed to the Lundy Packing Company's
discharge and supernatant recycle flow from the overloaded anaerobic
digester. Average effluent TSS concentrations ranged from 3.0 to 17.09
mg/L and averaged 9.02 mg/L. Average TSS removal during the period was
97.12 percent. The discharge limitation on TSS, as given in the NPDES
Permit, is 30 mg/L. Referring to effluent TSS values in Table 2, the plant
has no problem in complying with the discharge limitations on TSS.
Average influent NH3-N-concentrations at the plant ranged from 32 to
69 mg/L and averaged 54.17 mg/L. Design influent NH3-N is 30 mg/L.
Referring to Table 2, it can be seen that during the entire period the
influent NH3-N value exceeded the design value. The high influent NH3-N
value may be attributed to the Lundy Packing Company's discharge as a
primary source and the supernatant recycle flow from the anaerobic digester
as a secondary source. Average effluent NH3-N concentrations ranged from
0.13 to 13.34 mg/L and averaged 2.44 mg/L. Average NH3-N removal during
the period was 95.5 percent. The discharge limitations on NH3-N, as given
in the NPDES Permit, are 4.0 mg/L for winter months and 3.0 mg/L for summer
months. Referring to Table 2, the plant did not comply with the effluent
limitations in the months of May, September, and October of 1989. It is
believed that the limitation of the pure oxygen system to supply necessary
oxygen to adequately handle the higher BODS and NH3-N loadings received at
the plant and higher NH3-N loading to the nitrification system are the
primary reasons for noncompliance on the NH3-N limits.
2.2.2 Unit Operations/Processes Performance
Performance of the major unit operations/processes incorporated at the
Clinton Wastewater treatment plant is discussed as follows. Probable
- 11 -
TABLE 2
PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
Mo/Yr Avg Dly pH SOD-5 %80D-5 TSS %TSS NH3 %NH3
Flow Removal
Removal
Removal
Infl ? Effl Infl Effl
Infl
Effl
[mgd] [mg/ll [mg/t] [mg/ t] ? [mg/ l] [mg/ l] ? [mg/ l]
(1)
--------- (2)
-----------
--------
I--(3)---!
-------- (5)
---------- (6)
- (7) (8) (9)

07/86
1.86
7.09
267.09
3.75
98.60 --------
351.32 ----------
6.73 ----------
98.08 --------
49.64 ----------
1.75 ---------
96.47
8.11
08/86 1.93 7.22 310.38 2.40 99.23 325.43 5.43 98.33 47.38 2.20 95.36
8.16
09/86 1.78 6.67 265.19 3.92 98.52 361.33 14.74 95.92 46.00 3.00 93.48
7.96
10/86 1.76 7.21 411.74 2.96 99.28 426.26 7.99 98.13 61.74 0.99 98.40
8.01
11/86 1.74 6.95 481.00 3.51 99.27 528.94 17.09 96.77 62.00 0.87 98.60
7.79 -
12/86 1.74 7.24 379.00 4.02 98.94 453.20 12.38 97.27 63.00 1.18 98.13
8.02
01/87 2.21 6.90 519.81 6.23 98.80 389.90 13.36 96.57 57.90 3.93 93.21
7.86
02/87 2.10 6.98 395.00 4.70 98.81 359.00 10.00 97.21 48.00 1.69 96.48
7.72
03/87 2.12 6.72 427.00 5.50 98.71 427.00 15.00 96.49 38.00 0.57 98.50
8.12
04/87 1.99 7.21 368.00 4.24 98.85 333.00 11.00 96.70 32.00 0.58 98.19
7.88
05/87 1.72 7.36 319.00 4.01 98.74 416.00 13.00 96.88 45.00 0.79 98.24
8.01
06/87 1.65 7.26 234.00 3.00 98.72 348.00 9.00 97.41 46.00 0.59 98.72
8.21
07/87 1.71 7.00 257.00 2.51 99.02 283.00 9.00 96.82 47.00 1.01 97.85
8.17
08/87 1.79 6.98 323.00 2.00 99.38 251.00 7.00 97.21 53.00 2.01 96.21
7.68
09/87 1.97 6.91 431.00 3.00 99.30 301.00 12.00 96.01 57.00 2.45 95.70
8.45
10/87 1.64 6.83 623.00 3.50 99.44 422.00 10.00 97.63 69.00 1.84 97.33
7.42
11/87 1.55 6.75 534.00 3.30 99.38 360.00 11.00 96.94 63.00 2.55 95.95
7.63
12/87 1.68 6.50 648.00 5.90 99.09 414.00 11.00 97.34 69.00 3.14 95.45
7.31
01/88 1.71 6.15 685.00 8.60 98.74 310.00 14.00 95.48 60.00 3.60 94.00
7.64
02/88 1.67 6.00 475.00 3.70 99.22 234.00 11.00 95.30 53.00 3.12 94.11
7.18
03/88 1.74 6.31 496.00 2.10 99.58 230.00 8.00 96.52 59.00 2.66 95.49
8.36
04/88 1.66 6.38 518.00 2.10 99.59 314.00 8.00 97.45 60.00 2.51 95.82
7.50
05/88 1.79 6.32 361.00 2.80 99.22 219.00 7.00 96.80 55.00 9.57 82.60
7.06
- 12-
TABLE 2
PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
(continued)
--------------------------------------------- ----------- --------
Mo/Yr Avg Dly pH SOD-5 %BOD-5 TSS %TSS NH3 %NH3
Flow Removal
Removal
Removal
Infl Effl
Infl
Effl
I
nfl

? Effl

?
[mgd] [mg/Li [mg/ti [mg/l1 [mg/Li [mg/t3 [Mg/11
(t)
--------I ---(2)---I --------I --(3)-
--- (4)
-------- (5)
----------- (6)
-- (7) (8) (9) (10) C11)

06/88
1.98
6.57
323.00
3.90
98.79 ------
158.00 ----------
3.00 ----------
98.10 --------
49.00 ---------
2.00 ----------
95.92
7.01
07/88 1.80 6.32 461.00 4.90 98.94 274.00 8.00 97.08 53.00 2.23 95.79
7.52
08/88 1.93 6.57 407.00 4.10 98.99 186.00 9.00 95.16 49.00 0.41 99.16
7.40
09/88 1.87 6.50 349.00 4.10 98.83 232.00 6.00 97.41 54.00 8.77 83.76
7.70
10/88 1.74 6.57 267.00 4.00 98.50 217.00 2.00 99.08 52.00 13.34 74.35
7.89
11/88 1.70 6.55 314.00 3.40 98.92 235.00 4.00 98.30 55.00 0.22 99.60
7.58
12/88 1.76 6.81 367.00 3.50 99.05 213.00 9.00 95.77 67.00 0.28 99.58
8.68
01/89 1.76 6.74 304.00 3.20 98.95 234.00 5.00 97.86 57.00 0.13 99.77
7.20
02/89 1.83 6.61 333.00 3.30 99.01 250.00 5.00 98.00 54.00 0.13 99.76
7.27
03/89 2.04 6.18 419.00 5.40 98.71 267.00 3.00 98.88 56.00 0.42 99.25
7.43

Averages:

1.82

6.92 ----

402.19 --------

3.87 ------- -
- ---
99.04 ------
-------
312.83 ----------
----------
9.02 ----------
----------
97.12 --------
--------
54.17 ----------
----------
2.44 ---------
---------
95.50
* 508.00 ** 380.00
* Average of BOD-5 values higher than 400 mg/l.
** Average of TSS values higher than 300 mg/l.
- 13 -
causes of operational problems, if any, are also noted for each of the unit
operations/processes.
A. Comminution/Screening
A two-channel concrete structure houses a comminutor in one channel
and a manually cleaned one-inch bar screen in another channel, called the
bypass channel. The comminutor and screen are designed for a hydraulic
loading rate of 5.43 mgd. The present hydraulic loading rate to the
comminutor and screen is 3.64 mgd, is well within the design hydraulic
loading rate. The bypass channel with the manually cleaned bar screen is
provided for use when the comminutor is out of service for either repairs
or maintenance. The comminutor and screen were installed in 1973. The
comminutor's cutter assembly has worn out because of its age and needs to
be replaced with a new one. The worn cutter assembly is affecting the
comminutor performance in terms of not properly shredding the debris
contained in the influent wastewater.
B. Grit Removal
A 12-ft diameter grit chamber equipped with mechanical grit collection
and removal equipment is provided at the plant. The design hydraulic
surface loading rate for the grit chamber is 48,000 gpd/sq ft at maximum
daily flow of 5.43 mgd. The present hydraulic surface loading rate to the
grit chamber is 32,200 gpd/sq ft, at maximum daily flow of 3.64 mgd, which
is well within the design hydraulic surface loading rate. The grit
collection and removal equipment was installed in 1973. The grit removal
screw is in deteriorating condition and needs to be replaced.
C. Primary Clarification
One primary clarifier, 70-ft diameter x 10-ft SWD., is provided at the
plant. Design detention time, surface overflow rate, and weir overflow
rate at average daily flow of 3.0 mgd are 2.3 hr, 780 gpd/sq ft,
- 14 -
13,636 gpd/lin ft, respectively. Present detention time, surface overflow
rate, and weir overflow rate at the average daily flow of 1.82 MGD are 3.8
hr, 473 gpd/sq ft, and 8,273 gpd/lin ft, respectively. The clarifier is
operating within its design parameters. No separate clarifier performance
data in terms of BOD5 and TSS removals are available. However, considering
the loading conditions, the expected BOD5 and TSS removals would most
probably be in the range of 25-30 and 60-65 percent, respectively. The
sludge removal mechanism is in good condition. However, at times the
clarifier has experienced operational problems due to shock loads of high
solids and oil and grease received at the plant. A review of the treatment
plant operation data and monitoring data of the industrial waste discharges
into the Clinton sewer system indicates that Lundy Packing Company's
discharge may be the primary source of these shock loads received at the
plant.
D. Trickling Filter
The Trickling Filter system at the plant consists of two filter lift
pumps, each rated at 4,200 gpm, one 125-ft diameter trickling filter and a
70-ft diameter secondary clarifier. Design and present hydraulic and
organic loadings for the trickling filter system are summarized below:
Loading Parameter Design Present
Hydraulic loading, mgd/ac, at no. recirc. 10.64 6.46
at 50% recirc. 15.97 9.69
at 100% recirc. 21.29 12.92
at 330% recirc. -- 21.29
gpd/sq ft, at no. recirc. 244.60 148.38
at 50% recirc. 366.90 222.58
at 100% recirc. 489.20 296.78

Organic loading, lb BODS at
/ac 330% recirc.
-ft/day --
4,467 489.68
2,167
lb B005/1000 cu ft/day 102.55 49.75
Considering the present loading conditions, the filter system is
operating well within the design loading parameters.
- 15 -
TABLE 3
TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA
Mo/Yr Avg Dly Clarifier Surface Detention Time Trickling Filter Loading Rate
flow Overflow Rate Hydraulic ( Organic
Primary Secondary Primary ISecondaryl Loading Loading
[mgd] [gpd/sq ft] [gpd/sq ft] [hrs] [hrs] [[gpd/sq ftll [mgadl 1[#80D/1000cf]
--------- - (1) 1
------ (2)
--------------- (3)
------------- (4)
--------- ( (5) 1
- (6) (7) 1 (8)

07/86
1.86
483.37
483.37
3.71 -----------
3.34 ------------
151.65 -------
6.60 ---------------
48.23
08/86 1.93 501.56 501.56 3.58 3.22 157.36 6.85 58.16
09/86 1.78 462.58 462.58 3.88 3.49 145.13 6.32 45.83
10/86 1.76 457.38 457.38 3.93 3.53 143.50 6.25 70.36
11/86 1.74 452.18 452.18 3.97 3.57 141.87 6.18 81.26
12/86 1.74 452.18 452.18 3.97 3.57 141.87 6.18 64.03
01/87 2.21 574.32 574.32 3.13 2.81 180.19 7.85 111.53
02/87 2.10 545.74 545.74 3.29 2.96 171.22 7.45 80.54
03/87 2.12 550.94 550.94 3.26 2.93 172.85 7.53 87
89
04/87 1.99 517.15 517.15 3.47 3.12 162.25 7.06 .
71.10
05/87 1.72 446.99 446.99 4.02 3.61 140.24 6.11 53.27
06/87 1.65 428.79 428.79 4.19 3.77 134.53 5.86 37.49
07/87 1.71 444.39 444.39 4.04 3.64 139.42 6.07 42.67
08/87 1.79 465.18 465.18 3.86 3.47 145.94 6.35 56.13
09/87 1.97 511.95 511.95 3.51 3.16 160.62 6.99 82.44
10187 1.64 426.20 426.20 4.21 3.79 133.71 5.82 99.20
11/87 1.55 402.81 402.81 4.46 4.01 126.38 5.50 80.36
12/87 1.68 436.59 436.59 4.11 3.70 136.98 5.96 105.70
01/88 1.71 444.39 444.39 4.04 3.64 139.42 6.07 113.73
02/88 1.67 433.99 433.99 4.14 3.72 136.16 5.93 77
02
03/88 1.74 452.18 452.18 3.97 3.57 141.87 6.18 .
83.79
04/88 1.66 431.39 431.39 4.16 3.75 135.34 5.89 83.49
05/88 1.79 465.18 465.18 3.86 3.47 145.94 6.35 62
74
06/88 1.98 514.55 514.55 3.49 3.14 161.43 7.03 .
62.09
07/88 1.80 467.78 467.78 3.84 3.45 146.76 6.39 80
56
08/88 1.93 501.56 501.56 3.58 3.22 157.36 6.85 .
76.26
09/88 1.87 485.97 485.97 3.69 3.32 152.47 6.64 63.36
10/88 1.74 452.18 452.18 3.97 3.57 141.87 6.18 45.11
11/88 1.70 441.79 441.79 4.06 3.66 138.61 6.03 51
83
12/88 1.76 457.38 457.38 3.93 3.53 143.50 6.25 .
62
71
01/89 1.76 457.38 457.38 3.93 3.53 143.50 6.25 .
51.95
02/89 1.83 475.57 475.57 3.78 3.40 149.21 6.50 59.17
03/89 2.04 530.15
----- 530.15 3.39 3.05 166.33 7.24 82.99

Averages:

1.82 -

471.87 ------------

471.87 ------- -

3.83 -------------

3.45 -----------

148.04 --------
--------
6.45 ----
--------------
70.70
- 16 -
TABLE 3
Mo/Yr BOD-5
Inf[ Eff
[mg/t) [mg/ 11
(9) (10)
---------------------------
07/86 267.09 32.73
08/86 310.38 28.05
09/86 265.19 32.24
10/86 411.74 38.17
11/86 481.00 55.53
12/86 379.00 60.30
01/87 519.81 102.57
02/87 395.00 97.00
03/87 427.00 197.00
04/87 368.00 60.00
05/87 319.00 43.00
06/87 234.00 38.00
07/87 257.00 40.00
08/87 323.00 72.00
09/87 431.00 80.00
10/87 623.00 73.00
11/87 534.00 57.00
12/87 648.00 83.00
01/88 685.00 78.00
02/88 475.00 48.00
03/88 496.00 57.00
04/88 518.00 57.00
05/88 361.00 43.00
06/88 323.00 43.00
07/88 461.00 71.00
08/88 407.00 59.00
09/88 349.00 52.00
10/88 267.00 41.00
11/88 314.00 48.00
12/88 367.00 49.00
01/89 304.00 68.00
02/89 333.00 62.00
03/89 419.00 77.00
Averages: 402.19 61.90
TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA
%BOD
Removed
(11)
87.75
90.96
87.84
90.73
88.46
84.09
80.27
75.44
53.86
83.70
86.52
83.76
84.44
77.71
81.44
88.28
89.33
87.19
88.61
89.89
88.51
89.00
88.09
86.69
84.60
85.50
85.10
84.64
84.71
86.65
77.63
81.38
81.62
84.61
(continued)
Infl
[mg/ 11
(12)
351.32
325.43
361.33
426.26
528.94
453.20
389.90
359.00
427.00
333.00
416.00
348.00
283.00
251.00
301.00
422.00
360.00
414.00
310.00
234.00
230.00
314.00
219.00
158.00
274.00
186.00
232.00
217.00
235.00
213.00
234.00
250.00
267.00
312.83
[SS %TSS
Removed
Eff
[mg/I)
(13) (14)
--------------------
21.09 94.00
21.19 93.49
44.14 87.78
23.87 94.40
49.65 90.61
36.60 91.92
30.43 92.20
33.00 90.81
95.00 77.75
50.00 84.98
30.00 92.79
20.00 94.25
24.00 91.52
33.00 86.85
56.00 81.40
60.00 85.78
28.00 92.22
20.00 95.17
36.00 88.39
27.00 88.46
31.00 86.52
26.00 91.72
23.00 89.50
38.00 75.95
100.00 63.50
73.00 60.75
49.00 78.88
34.00 84.33
28.00 88.09
36.00 83.10
40.00 82.91
52.00 79.20
39.00 85.39
39.64 87.33
NI
InfI
[mg/ U
(15)
49.64
47.38
46.00
61.74
62.00
63.00
57.90
48.00
38.00
32.00
45.00
46.00
47.00
53.00
57.00
69.00
63.00
69.00
60.00
53.00
59.00
60.00
55.00
49.00
53.00
49.00
54.00
52.00
55.00
67.00
57.00
54.00
56.00
54.17
O-N ( %NH3
Removed
Eff
[mg/ 11
(16) (17)
--------------------
46.50 6.33
40.48 14.56
37.76 17.91
49.39 20.00
58.76 5.23
61.20 2.86
61.62 -6.42
63.00 -31.25
88.00 -131.58
41.00 -28.13
44.00 2.22
47.00 -2.17
37.00 21.28
51.00 3.77
57.00 0.00
41.00 40.58
59.00 6.35
68.00 1.45
57.00 5.00
53.00 0.00
52.00 11.86
57.00 5.00
49.00 10.91
38.00 22.45
42.00 20.75
42.00 14.29
46.00 14.81
54.00 -3.85
54.00 1.82
69.00 -2.99
59.00 -3.51
56.00 -3.70
54.00 3.57
52.54 3.02
- 17 -
G
a0 ?
x ?
U ?
4.
w
.. a
a
aa
G
O
G
U
00
2
G.
a)
00 ti
a
z
0
V)
Q
ti
Q
LL.
00
00
z
0
Q
Q
U.
r-
00
0
z
0
V)
00 1
LO
O
m
c
a?
a
w

y N
.L:
a ?-
o co
E _
? w
Q
0
co
a?

(I/°LT) S-Clog
- 18 -
°° ° ° o o °° °° o °
^?
h c o In d- c") CA
E
C)
^?1
W
7Z
FPMM Inn
to ?
(/1
V)
xc
U
a
a

3
z
0
U
0)
w
CF)
00
ti
Q
Z
0
V)
Q
ti
Q
U-
00
00
ti
Q
Z
0
V)
ti
Q
U-
r-
00
ti
Z
0
V)
00
.n
(A
V)
C
7
W
W
C
0
a?
n
V)
r
r

M
co
x
LU
(i/$?l SSl
- 19 -
0 0 0 0 C) CD
c0 w c7 N C) C)

to >
x ?
a?
4..
L"' LL.I
a
a
z
0
• py
U
F-
L
I
L
i
r
i
i
I

r

r

c°n 0°0 (D °
(I/'Sw) EHN
-20-
0)
00
7
U.
0)
00
ti
Q
Z
O
Q
Q
LL,
00
00
In
tz
z
O
Ln
Q
ti
-C?
L
CQ
G
LL.
I\
00
Z.
O
V)
00
c?
Z
Z
G
7
LL.I
V)
a
0
E
a?
F=
Z
G
Q1
ci
Q

m
x
UJ
O
00
Q?
r-j
+j 00
.-, .5
0
0
.a
V
.U
x
U
O
rr r
0
O
O
?MM^^
V)
to?R
c
W co
O =
N
(D
i
Q
0
m
o\°
O
CP
Uj
17

O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O 00 (o Ir N N to 00 O N `t

LO
m
x
LU
ienouiaNd a?e;ua3Jad
- 21 -
Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 show the trend charts of the trickling filter
system influent and effluent concentrations of BOD5, TSS, and NH3-N versus
time, respectively. Exhibits 5 shows the percent BOD5, TSS, and NH3-N
removals versus Hydraulic Loading Rate.
Performance data (Table 3) of the trickling filter system including
primary clarification, indicate that the average BOD5, TSS, and NH3-N
removals during the period were 84.61, 87.33, and 3.02 percent,
respectively. Except for NH3-N removal, the B005 and TSS removals were
within the 80-85 percent expected range of trickling filter system
performance. The low percentage of NH3-N removal may be attributed to
higher organic and NH3-N loadings received at the plant and subsequent
septic conditions in the primary clarifier. Mechanically, the filter lift
pumps, trickling filter distributor, and the secondary clarifier mechanism
are in good.condition.
E. Intermediate Lift Pumps
Two intermediate lift pumps, each rated at 4,860 gpm, are provided at
the plant to pump the trickling filter system effluent to the pure oxygen
carbonaceous BOD5 removal (first stage) system. The pumps are variable
speed type. However, at the present time, the variable speed control
system is not properly functioning. The control system has been a constant
maintenance item, and getting parts for its repair is a major problem. The
system warrants replacement with a more reliable control system.
Mechanically, the pumps are in good condition, and, except for the control
system, there are no operational problems with the pumps.
F. Pure Oxygen Carbonaceous B005 Removal (First Stage) System
The pure oxygen carbonaceous BOD5 removal system at the plant consists
of two, three-stage aeration tanks, equipped with six 7.5 hp surface
aerators for oxygen dissolution and mixing, two rectangular clarifiers (100
- 22 -
ft x 28 ft x 9.75 ft, SWD., each), two 1250-gpm sludge recirculation, and a
PSA oxygen generation system with a backup liquid oxygen system which is
also designed to supply oxygen to the second stage nitrification system.
Design and present operating conditions of the system are summar ized below:
Operating Parameter Design Present
Aeration Tank
Average daily flow, mgd, total 3.0 2.11
exclude 10% bypass 2.7 1.90
Operating Parameter Design Present
Retention time, hr, @ average daily flow 1.57 2.23
@ average daily flow excluding
10% bypass 1.75 2.47
Return sludge flow rate, mgd 0.54 0.40
% of average daily flow 18 19
% of average daily flow
excluding 10% bypass 20 21
BODS, mg/L, Influent 120 61.90
mg/L, Effluent 21 33
Ammonia Nitrogen, NH3-N, mg/L Influent - 53
mg/L Effluent - 36
Mixed liquor suspended solids, MLSS, mg/L 3,200 2,905
Mixed liquor Volatile suspended solids, MLVSS, mg/L 2,250 2,343
F/M loading, lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS 0.73 0.28
Volumetric loading, lb BOO/day/1000 cu ft 103 41.5
Average dissolved oxygen level, mg/L 25 12.5
Oxygen dissolution required, ton/day 1.26 1.10
Oxygen utilization, wt% of feed 90 90
Oxygen purity, percent 100 92
Oxygen generation, ton/day 1.4 1.328
Clarifier
Retention time, hr, @ ADF 3.26 4.59
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass 3.63 5.09
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq ft
@ ADF 536 377
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass 482 339
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin ft
@ ADF 6048 4254
@ ADF excluding 10% bypass 5440 3830
- 23 -
Considering the present operating conditions, the First Stage Pure
Oxygen activated sludge system is operating within the design conditions.
However, it is noticed that despite the low hydraulic and organic loadings
to the system, the oxygen generation requirement has approached close to
its design parameter. The most probable causes for this are: (1)
nitrification occurring at a low organic loading condition and (2) drop in
the feed oxygen purity from 100 to 90 percent. It is also noted that, at
times, the oxygen purity in vent gas has dropped significantly below the
desired vent oxygen purity of 40%. The most probable cause for this may be
organic shock loads, received at the plant from Lundy Packing Company
discharge.
Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 show the trend charts of the First Stage system
influent and effluent concentrations of BOD5, TSS, and NH3-N versus time,
respectively. Performance data (Table 4) of the system indicates that the
average BOD5, TSS, and NH3-N removals during the period were 40.85, 38.09,
and 29.97 percent respectively. The BOD5 and TSS removals are not in the
expected 80 to 90 percent removal range. A possible explanation for this
could be: (1) low influent BOD5 and TSS concentrations, (2) high solids
carryover in the clarifier effluent, and (3) effect of 10 to 20 percent of
the influent flow bypass on the effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations.
Referring to Exhibits 9 and 10, it can be seen that optimal BOD5 removal
can be achieved by operating the system in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 F/M and
2.5 to 3 days MCRT.
Mechanically, the PSA oxygen generation system, backup liquid oxygen
system, surface aerators, gas safety and control equipment, clarifier
mechanisms, and sludge recirculation/waste pumps are in good condition.
However, this equipment, more particularly the PSA oxygen generation
- 24 -
TABLE 4
FIRST STAGE UNOX CARBONACEOUS SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE DATA

Mo/Yr
Avg My
pH
D.O. -
Range ----------
MLSS ----------
MLVSS ------------
RAS --------
RAS ---------
%RAS ---------
? Waste -----------
Sludge ? --------
F/M ? -------
MCRT
Flow [mg/L1 TSS Flow Flow
[mgd] (mg/13 [mg/ U [mg/L3 ( [mgd] [#/day] ][gal/daylI [days]
(1)
-------- (2)
--------- (3)
------- (4)
--------------- (5)
---------- (6)
---------- (7)
----- (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

07/86
1.71
6.35
2.00 -
20.00
3426.00
2533.00 -------
14325.00 --------
0.29 ---------
16.96 ---------
756.00 -----------
6452.00 --------
0.11 -------
5.69
08/86 1.96 6.51 2.00 - 17.00 2756.19 2057.14 15463.10 0.39 19.90 615.48 4534.95 0.14 5.41
09/86 1.95 6.68 5.30 - 20.00 3375.71 2642.86 14907.50 0.37 18.97 917.65 6031.65 0.12 2.67
10/86 1.93 6.39 5.60 - 18.00 3485.65 2854.35 13486.96 0.33 17.10 1435.87 12812.25 0.13 3.17
11/86 1.58 6.15 1.80 - 20.00 2995.88 2394.71 10644.12 0.32 20.25 1389.71 14958.33 0.19 3.00
12/86 1.42 6.06 10.20 - 18.00 2873.00 2296.50 11695.00 0.21 14.79 1011.25 9844.80 0.19 3.85
01/87 2.43 6.68 10.20 - 20.00 3299.05 2657.62 15246.43 0.35 14.40 2010.87 15326.94 0.48 2.04
02/87 2.31 6.76 12.20 - 20.00 2548.00 2093.00 14725.00 0.32 13.85 1498.00 12692.00 0.55 2.07
03/87 1.99 6.74 5.80 - 18.20 2893:00 2435.00 18209.00 0.36 18.09 1587.00 10765.00 0.82 2.39
04/87 1.70 6.70 10.40 - 20.00 2728.00 2201.00 12918.00 0.42 24.71 1515.00 13579.00 0.24 2.52
05/87 1.44 6.47 8.00 - 20.00 2602.00 2022.00 11285.00 0.46 31.94 1407.00 15099.00 0.03 2.07
06/87 1.51 5.68 0.10 - 20.00 2574.00 2038.00 10575.00 0.47 31.13 1299.00 13583.00 0.14 2.79
07/87 1.74 6.03 3.40 - 15.00 2507.00 2033.00 12359.00 0.42 24.14 630.00 5775.00 0.17 4.46
08/87 2.04 5.95 1.30 - 14.40 3054.00 2200.00 16083.00 0.51 25.00 1231.00 9321.00 0.34 3.22
09/87 2.08 5.96 6.00 - 15.40 2998.00 2418.00 13842.00 0.60 28.85 1357.00 11519.00 0.35 2.64
10/87 1.88 5.74 5.60 - 16.20 3141.00 2635.00 11452.00 0.36 19.15 1469.00 15929.00 0.27 2.70
11/87 1.83 6.17 10.80 - 20.00 2941.00 2418.00 10797.00 0.26 14.21 1411.00 16316.00 0.22 2.86
12/87 1.96 5.89 8.20 - 18.00 3178.00 2658.00 11954.00 0.40 20.41 1795.00 18419.00 0.31 2.66
01/88 2.09 6.41 12.60 - 20.00 3323.00 2787.00 13309.00 0.39 18.66 1878.00 16955.00 0.30 2.56
02/88 2.06 6.56 5.00 - 19.80 2838.00 2348.00 12375.00 0.37 17.96 1511.00 13819.00 0.21 2.65
03/88 2.13 6.46 11.20 - 17.20 2547.00 2136.00 11729.00 0.36 16.90 1189.00 12085.00 0.29 2.76
04/88 1.98 6.51 13.00 - 18.00 2763.00 2300.00 11150.00 0.36 18.18 1288.00 13547.00 0.25 2.66
05/88 2.18 6.47 0.50 - 20.00 3111.00 2531.00 14024.00 0.36 16.51 1572.00 NA 0.19 2.54
06/88 2.57 6.47 4.20 - 16.60 3018.00 2352.00 12388.00 0.39 15.18 1638.00 15918.00 0.24 2.67
07/88 2.44 5.89 1.20 - 13.80 2436.00 1959.00 10127.00 0.39 15.98 1335.00 16847.00 0.45 2.59
08/88 2.71 6.38 0.50 - 16.00 2514.00 2007.00 11274.00 0.48 17.71 1133.00 11956.00 0.41 2.56
09/88 2.69 6.20 6.70 - 20.00 2793.00 2065.00 11957.00 0.49 18.22 1185.00 10951.00 0.34 2.69
10/88 2.41 6.27 4.70 - 20.00 2720.00 2195.00 12061.00 0.47 19.50 1159.00 12023.00 0.23 2.89
11/88 2.63 5.71 2.00 - 20.00 2961.00 2425.00 12868.00 0.41 15.59 1537.00 14404.00 0.27 2.30
12/88 2.74 6.11 8.90 - 20.00 3016.00 2511.00 13189.00 0.45 16.42 1395.00 12906.00 0.27 2.57
01/89 2.31 6.25 11.00 - 20.00 2786.00 2301.00 11842.00 0.41 17.75 1484.00 14878.00 0.35 2.60
02/89 2.30 6.20 8.20 - 20.00 2825.00 2400.00 10898.00 0.43 18.70 1385.00 14825.00 0.30 2.53
03/89 2.82 6.34 16.00 - 20.00 2868.00 2420.00 13884.00 0.47 16.67 1210.00 9889.00 0.46 2.55
Averages: 2.11 6.28 6.50 18.53 2905.89 2343.16 12819.46 0.40 19.21 1340.45 12623.78 0.28 2.89
- 25 -
TABLE 4
FIRST STAGE UNOX CARBONACEOUS SYSTEM
(continued)
asazaassaasssssaesssszssszaszsazss:s::saazsaasaassssszzszssszazzssassazssssssz:sass::zzasszsasaasssszxsxxsesxs
Mo/Tr Hydr #NH3 REM/l BOD-5 X800-5 TSS %TSS NH3 Y.NH3
lRet Time # MLVSS I Removal Removal Removal
Infl Efft Infl Effl ( Infl Efft
[hra) [mg/ t l [mg/ L3 ( [mg/ ti [mg/ 13 ( [mg/ t) [mg/ 11
(1)
-------- (14)
--------- (15)
----------- (16)
------- (17)
---------- (18)
---------- (19)
-------- (20)
---------- (21)
---------- (22)
-------- (23)
---------- (24)

07/86
2.76
0.91
32.73
27.64
15.55
21.09
16.18
23.28
46.50
28.31 ---------
39.12
08/86 2.40 1.29 28.05 24.67 12.05 21.19 13.43 36.62 40.48 35.05 13.41
09/86 2.42 2.09 32.24 40.05 -24.22 44.14 71.05 -60.97 37.76 42.29 -12.00
10/86 2.44 1.03 38.17 48.04 -25.86 23.87 22.78 4.57 49.39 41.04 16.91
11/86 2.98 2.10 55.53 36.4' 34.32 49.65 18.53 62.68 58.76 30.28 48.47
12/86 3.32 1.45 60.30 36.50 39.47 36.60 17.80 51.37 61.20 27.67 54.79
01/87 1.94 1.78 102.57 52.52 48.80 30.43 31.33 -2.96 61.62 46.38 24.73
02/87 2.04 2.33 97.00 49.00 49.48 33.00 27.00 18.18 63.00 44.00 30.16
03/87 2.37 4.97 197.00 38.00 80.71 95.00 24.00 74.74 88.00 35.00 60.23
04/87 2.77 2.47 60.00 31.00 48.33 50.00 18.00 64.00 41.00 38.00 7.32
05/87 3.27 1.37 43.00 32.00 25.58 30.00 16.00 46.67 44.00 34.00 22.73
06/87 3.12 0.95 38.00 26.00 31.58 20.00 17.00 15.00 47.00 19.00 59.57
07/87 2.71 1.32 40.00 35.00 12.50 24.00 20.00 16.67 37.00 18.00 51.35
08/87 2.31 1.96 72.00 36.00 50.00 33.00 19.00 42.42 51.00 29.00 43.14
09/87 2.27 3.09 80.00 43.00 46.25 56.00 29.00 48.21 57.00 25.00 56.14
10/87 2.51 2.74 73.00 76.00 30.00 60.00 28:00 53.33 41.00 28.00 31.71
11/87 2.58 1.36 57.00 42.00 26.32 28.00 18.00 35.71 59.00 45.00 23.73
12/87 2.40 0.94 83.00 30.00 63.86 20.00 10.00 50.00 68.00 35.00 48.53
01/88 2.25 1.73 78.00 34.00 56.41 36.00 14.00 61.11 57.00 46.00 19.30
02/88 2.29 1.52 48.00 18.00 62.50 27.00 14.00 48.15 53.00 53.00 0.00
03/88 2.21 1.98 57.00 28.00 50.88 31.00 18.00 41.94 52.00 50.00 3.85
04/88 2.38 1.43 57.00 20.00 64.91 26.00 25.00 3.85 57.00 54.00 5.26
05/88 2.16 1.27 43.00 18.00 58.14 23.00 24.00 -4.35 49.00 47.00 4.08
06/88 1.83 2.66 43.00 11.00 74.42 38.00 10.00 73.68 38.00 41.00 -7.89
07/88 1.93 7.98 71.00 26.00 63.38 100.00 10.00 90.00 42.00 20.00 52.38
08/88 1.74 6.31 59.00 24.00 59.32 73.00 21.00 71.23 42.00 25.00 40.48
09/88 1.75 4.09 52.00 20.00 61.54 49.00 23.00 53.06 46.00 35.00 23.91
10/88 1.96 2.39 41.00 13.00 68.29 34.00 19.00 44.12 54.00 39.00 27.78
11/88 1.79 1.94 48.00 23.00 11.00 28.00 26.00 7.14 54.00 30.00 44.44
12/88 1.72 2.52 49.00 26.00 46.94 36.00 23.00 36.11 69.00 42.00 39.13
01/89 2.04 2.57 68.00 34.00 50.00 40.00 14.00 65.00 59.00 32.00 45.76
02/89 2.05 3.19 62.00 42.00 32.26 52.00 23.00 55.77 56.00 32.00 42.86
03/89 1.67 2.91 77.00 59.00 23.38 39.00 27.00 30.77 54.00 39.00 27.78
:saesass aasssasasass:ssaaa:sassaassss:assszess::saaassssszsaasa:szzss:asssssz::assassszssz:saz::azssasssssxszz
Averages: 2.31 2.38 61.90 33.33 40.85 39.64 21.46 38.09 52.54 35.94 29.97
- 26 -

R'J
U
c
c
D
Z
O
a
O?
ZE
V!
Mil C
A ?
c / 'C
C
V1 c
47
r•..r
Ln
0
p
c
O
U
a
m
0
Z
O
a
a
Lc.
00
(XI
Z
O
00
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
.?
N ? ? ? ? ? ?? f^`1 O Q1 d0 1? CO In ?7' f'7 N ^
1[/&U) S-CIO-a

o°
H +
.L'
C
O
O
E
f"
C
a
N
i
O
co

H
m
S
x
w
- 27 -
i
'r
..O
t0
U
O
z?
^^,, N
C
C
N
Q
U
O QTY 000 O (a ? V, Cl N
11/21 SPHOS PalmadsnS [slo.L
Cf
m
E
cl
00
O
Z
0
a
a
00
f:.4
z
0
vi
a
a
w
00
00
Z
0
f/1
00

H +
.T
.r
C?
C
tL_G
1-"
C
47
7
C

r?l
F-
m
W
- 28 -
Cn
Gr
Cd
U
0
z?
^, h
W >
C
C
Lw Z
L
c
U
CEO U) (?') N
II/1 CHN
-29 -
cn
00
C,
00
Z
4
Q
00
00
Z
O
(A
Q
00
QO
Z
O
C
z
H +
.G
C
0
E
u
E
F=
c
a?
C
Z
13
co
m
x
w
U
0
a? >
v?
v? Q
.? o
? m
r1 U
?Ly G.
fl,
0
U
00
0

0
0

N
O

00'i 00 O (OD O O O N O O O N O
r- 11,
M
m
X
w
paAOWa)4 S-Qpg jua-3sad
- 30 -
CC3
U
0
a?
r? o
V J
f
uU
Q..
4?1
0
4•a
U
0
0) co r- C) O O ? O O O O O O N O "T CO) N
z
Lf)
V)
O
C
cu
u
C
ro
a?

(n
N
0
I-
m
x
w
paAOWald S-Clog Jua3Jad
- 31 -
system, gas safety and control equipment, and the clarifier mechanism,
require exceptionally high and costly maintenance.
G. Pure Oxygen Nitrification (Second Stage) System
The pure oxygen nitrification system at the plant consists of two,
three-stage aeration tanks equipped with six 7.5-hp surface aerators for
oxygen dissolution and mixing, two rectangular clarifiers (100 ft x 28 ft x
10.25 ft SWO., ea), two 1500-gpm sludge recirculation and waste pumps, and
a PSA oxygen generation system with a backup liquid oxygen system, which is
designed to supply oxygen to both First-Stage and Second-Stage systems.
Design and present operating conditions of the system are summarized as
follows:
Operating Parameter
Design Present
Aeration Tank
ADF, mgd 3.00 2.11
Retention time, hr, @ ADF 3.06 4.32
Return Sludge Flow rate, mgd 1.80 0.76
% of ADF 60 36
8005, mg/L, Influent 21 33
Effluent 8 3
NH3-N, mg/L, Influent 23 36
Effluent 2 1
TSS, mg/L, Influent 25 22
Effluent 25 23
Mixed liquor suspended solids, MLSS, mg/L 4800 8295
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, MLVSS, mg/L 3360 2143
F/M loading, lb BOD /day/lb MUSS, 0.05 0.085
Organic (volumetric} loading, lb BOD5/1000 cu ft/day 10 11.34
Waste sludge quantity, lb/day 0 1035
Mean cell residence time, days 24.5* 18.25**
Average dissolved oxygen level > 5.0 > 5.0
Oxygen dissolution required, ton/day 2.07 2.53
Oxygen utilization, wt % of feed 90 90
Oxygen purity, percent 100 92
Oxygen generation, ton/day 2.3 3.055
*Based upon zero sludge wasting
**Based upon sludge wasting
- 32 -
Clarifier
Retention time, hr, at ADF 3.43 4.88
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq ft 536 377
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin ft 6048 4254
Lime Feed System
Lime storage bin capacity, cu ft 1400 1400
Lime feed rate, lb/hr, maximum 250 -
Considering the present operating conditions, the system is operating
at higher than design BOO5 and NH3-N loadings. Such operating conditions
have already exceeded the design oxygen generation requirements. A review
of the plant operation record indicates that the supplemental oxygen is
provided by the backup liquid oxygen system.
Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 show the trend charts of the second-stage
system influent and effluent concentrations of BOD5, TSS, and NH3-N versus
time, respectively. Performance data (Table 5) of the system indicate that
the average BOO 59 TSS, and NH3-N removals during the period were 86.60,
23.50, and 93.43 percent, respectively.
Referring to Table 5, the plant did not comply with the effluent NH3-N
limit of 3.0 mg/L in the months of May, September, and October 1988. The
operating conditions during these months were summarized as follows:
Operating Parameter May 1988 Sept 1988 Oct 1988
Average daily flow, mgd 2.18 2.69 2.14
NH3-N, mg/L, Influent 47 35 39
Effluent 8.86 8.5 14.8
BOD5, mg/L, Influent 18 20 13
Effluent 2.8 4.10 4
MLVSS, mg/L 2411 1233 1260
MCRT, days 2.02 3.73 4.31
Hydraulic retention time, hour 4.22 3.42 3.81
BOD5/NH3-N ratio 0.38 0.57 0.33
NH3-N removed/lb MLVSS/day 0.09 0.152 0.107
Referring to Exhibits 14, 15, 16, and 17, it can be seen that optimal
nitrification could be achieved by operating the system at hydraulic
retention time of 4.5 to 6 hours, MCRT of 7 to 10 days, nitrification rate
- 33 -
TABLE 5
SECOND STAGE UNOX NITRIFICATION SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE DATA

Mo/Yr
Avg Dly
pH
D.O. Range - ------
MLSS ---------
MLVSS -----------
RAS --------
RAS --------
%.RAS ? ---------
Waste ----------
Sludge --------
? MCRT ? ---------
HydrL
Flow TSS Flow Flow Ret Time
[mgd] (mg/l] [mg/l] ( [mg/Li [mg/t1 I NO] I I [#/day] 1[gal/day) J[day] [hours]
(1)
-------- (2)
---------- (3) (
-------
----- (4)
--------- (5) (
----------- (6)
--------- (7)
----------- (8)
-------- (9)
------- (10) (11) (12) 1 (13)

07/86
1.71
6.75
2.00
- 20.00
5696.00
1639.00
15684.00
0.72 -
42.11 ---------
686.00 ----------
5211.00 --------
5.65 ---------
5.38
08/86 1.96 6.71 1.20 - 19.00 3249.05 1740.48 11716.67 0.67 34.18 205.95 2366.01 12.13 4.69
09/86 1.95 6.48 1.40 - 17.00 4004.29 2411.90 11569.05 0.80 41.03 245.24 2727.35 12.18 4.71
10/86 1.93 6.69 0.50 - 20.00 4576.52 2357.39 12334.78 0.75 38.86 385.87 3439.04 10.38 4.76
11/86 1.58 6.75 6.00 - 20.00 3447.06 1782.35 8929.41 0.65 41.14 394.12 5217.45 7.56 5.82
12/86 1.42 6.71 1.50 - 20.00 3307.00 1895.50 10007.50 0.62 43.66 493.75 6088.71 8.44 6.47
01/87 2.43 6.73 5.20 - 20.00 3555.71 2167.62 12347.62 0.72 29.63 170.65 2146.95 10.44 3.78
02/87 2.31 6.78 1.80 - 18.60 3754.00 2375.00 14303.00 0.67 29.00 424.00 3781.00 8.75 3.98
03/87 1.99 6.79 3.40 - 20.00 3299.00 2115.00 11727.00 0.80 40.20 276.00 3037.00 10.27 4.62
04/87 1.70 6.79 6.00 - 20.00 3403.00 1637.00 11150.00 0.63 37.06 492.00 4840.00 7.13 5.41
05/87 1.44 6.60 1.00 - 20.00 3929.00 1612.00 13210.00 0.61 42.36 670.00 5486.00 5.81 6.38
06/87 1.51 6.54 0.80 - 20.00 4750.00 1522.00 14892.00 0.69 45.70 1162.00 9279.00 3.41 6.09
07/87 1.74 6.52 2.80 - 20.00 3498.00 1568.00 11398.00 0.57 32.76 530.00 5840.00 6.22 5.28
08/87 2.04 6.43 0.30 - 14.40 4000.00 1712.00 13914.00 0.66 32.35 605.00 5168.00 5.89 4.51
09/87 2.08 6.71 0.50 - 20.00 7999.00 2360.00 25960.00 0.79 37.98 1608.00 7648.00 3.89 4.42
10/87 1.88 6.83 1.40 - 16.80 6883.00 2084.00 18680.00 0.76 40.43 1194.00 8383.00 4.37 4.89
11/87 1.83 6.96 0.60 - 20.00 8420.00 2243.00 22139.00 0.77 42.08 1402.00 7843.00 4.16 5.02
12/87 1.96 6.91 5.00 - 20.00 3990.00 1008.00 11721.00 0.70 35.71 62.00 451.00 6.20 4.69
01/88 2.09 6.98 4.10 - 17.20 4834.00 1417.00 15356.00 0.69 33.01 42.00 181.00 5.36 4.40
02/88 2.06 7.26 1.00 - 16.40 15016.00 3046.00 48407.00 0.78 37.86 1962.00 4063.00 3.93 4.46
03/88 2.13 6.94 1.20 - 14.80 13651.00 2741.00 45039.00 0.74 34.74 1197.00 3125.00 5.22 4.32
04/88 1.98 7.04 1.00 - 13.60 15280.00 2554.00 50040.00 0.74 37.37 3810.00 7954.00 1.92 4.64
05/88 2.18 6.81 0.70 - 14.60 15405.00 2411.00 50484.00 0.75 34.40 3405.00 NA 2.02 4.22
06/88 2.57 6.73 2.20 -120.00 15776.00 2206.00 47684.00 0.71 27.63 4857.00 13378.00 1.34 3.58
07/88 2.44 6.85 1.70 - 20.00 14455.00 2216.00 40125.00 0.79 32.38 1911.00 5820.00 2.72 3.77
08/88 2.71 6.70 0.50 - 20.00 12404.00 2487.00 34002.00 0.84 31.00 1707.00 6002.00 3.64 3.39
09/88 2.69 6.86 7.80 - 20.00 6824.00 1233.00 21065.00 0.79 29.37 473.00 2080.00 3.73 3.42
10/88 2.41 7.37 7.10 - 20.00 9820.00 1260.00 30891.00 0.94 39.00 210.00 490.00 4.31 3.81
11/88 2.63 6.78 9.00 - 20.00 18964.00 2531.00 48637.00 0.99 37.64 1042.00 2686.00 4.95 3.49
12/88 2.74 7.08 4.10 - 20.00 13991.00 2519.00 39873.00 0.90 32.85 273.00 NA 6.78 3.35
01/89 2.31 6.85 8.20 - 20.00 11957.00 3061.00 30153.00 0.94 40.69 602.00 2469.00 10.74 3.98
02/89 2.30 7.03 1.20 - 20.00 12980.00 3385.00 34175.00 0.94 40.87 859.00 2936.00 9.27 4.00
03/89 2.82 6.76 8.30 - 20.00 10637.00 3430.00 32268.00 0.96 34.04 823.00 2994.00 9.71 3.26

Averages:
2.11
6.81
3.02
21.89
8295.59
2143.25 ---------
24844.91 --------
0.76 --------
36.64 ---------
1035.74 ----------
4617.11 --------
6.73 ---------
4.51
- 34 -
TABLE 5
SECOND STAGE UNOX NITRIFICATION SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE DATA
(continued)
Mo/Yr #NH3 Rem/ BOD-5 Y.BOD-5 TSS %TSS NH3 %NH3 BOD-5/
#MLVSS
i Removal
i
Removal
?
Removal
? NH3
? Infl ? Effl Infl ? Effl i i Infl Effl
Ratio
[mg/ 11 [mg/ti [mg/ti [mg/ti [mg/13 [mg/l3 i
--(1)- (14) (15) (16)
---- (17)
-------- (18)
---------- (19)
--- (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

07/86

0.07

27.64

3.75

86.43

16.18 -------

16.91 ---------

-4.51 ---------

28.31
----------
1.81
----------
93
61
---------
0
98
08/86 0.10 24.67 2.40 90.27 13.43 15.43 -14.89 35.05 1.97 .
94
38 .
0
70
09/86 0.08 40.05 3.92 90.21 71.05 23.81 66.49 42.29 3.31 .
92
17 .
0
95
10/86
11/86 0.09 48.04 2.96 93.84 22.78 21.09 7.42 41.04 0.96 .
97.66 .
1.17

12/86 0.07 36.47 3.51 90.38 18.53 27.24 -47.00 30.28 0.96 96.83 1.20

01/87 0.05 36.50 4.02 88.99 17.80 18.85 -5.90 27.67 0.84 96.96 1.32

02/87 0.12 52.52 6.23 88.14 31.33 24.29 22.47 46.38 3.96 91.46 1.13

03/87 0.11 49.00 4.70 90.41 27.00 23.00 14.81 44.00 1.58 96.41 1.11

04/87 0.08 38.00 5.50 85.53 24.00 23.00 4.17 35.00 0.58 98.34 1.09

05/87 0.10 31.00 4.24 86.32 18.00 17.00 5.56 38.00 0.62 98.37 0.82 ,

06/87 0.08 32.00 4.01 87.47 16.00 18.00 -12.50 34.00 0.67 98.03 0.94

07/87 0.05
0 26.00 3.00 88.46 17.00 21.00 -23.53 19.00 0.50 97.37 1.37

08/87 .05 35.00 2.51 92.83 20.00 19.00 5.00 18.00 0.78 95.67 1.94

09/87 0.09 36.00 2.00 94.44 19.00 19.00 0.00 29.00 1.45 95.00 1.24

10/87 0.05 43.00 3.00 93.02 29.00 19.00 34.48 25.00 2.66 89.36 1
72

11/87 0.06 76.00 3.50 95.39 28.00 21.00 25.00 28.00 2.04 92.71 .
2.71

12/87 0.09 42.00 3.30 92.14 18.00 21.00 -16.67 45.00 2.87 93.62 0
93

01/88 0.16 30.00 5.90 80.33 10.00 28.00 -180.00 35.00 3.01 91.40 .
0
86

02/88 0.16 34.00 8.60 74.71 14.00 46.00 -228.57 46.00 3.46 92.48 .
0
74

03/88 0.09 18.00 3.70 79.44 14.00 30.00 -114.29 53.00 3.53 93.34 .
0
34

04/88 0.10 28.00 2.10 92.50 18.00 27.00 -50.00 50.00 2.94 94.12 .
0.56

05/88 0.10 20.00 2.10 89.50 25.00 27.00 -8.00 54.00 2.79 94.83 0
37

06/88 0.09 18.00 2.80 84.44 24.00 22.00 8.33 47.00 8.86 81.15 .
0.38

07/88 0.12 11.00 3.90 64.55 10.00 18.00 -80.00 41.00 1.92 95.32 0
27

08/88 0.05
0 26.00 4.90 81.15 10.00 34.00 -240.00 20.00 2.12 89.40 .
1.30

09188 .07
0 24.00 4.10 82.92 21.00 21.00 0.00 25.00 0.32 98.72 0.96

10/88 .15 20.00 4.10 79.50 23.00 26.00 -13.04 35.00 8.50 75.71 0.57

11/88 0.12 13.00 4.00 69.23 19.00 36.00 -89.47 39.00 14.86 61.90 0.33

12/88 0.08 23.00 3.40 85.22 26.00 27.00 -3.85 30.00 0.23 99.23 0
77

01/89 0.12 26.00 3.50 86.54 23.00 40.00 -73.91 42.00 0.23 99.45 .
0.62

02/89 0.06 34.00 3.20 90.59 14.00 16.00 -14.29 32.00 0.10 99.69 1.06

03/89 0.06 42.00 3.30 92.14 23.00 16.00 30.43 32.00 0.13 99.59 1
31
0.08 59.00 5.40 90.85 27.00 13.00 51.85 39.00 0.43 98.90 .
1.51

verages:
0.09
33.33
3.87
86.60
21.46
23.50
-28.62 --
35.94 ----------
2.45 ----------
93.43 -------
1.01
- 35 -
V1
G..
z
o?
H
I
W ?
O
U
a
v
c:.
r-.
C
c
O
U
O
Oo

cl N O
O
a/Flu) S-QO8
m
ao
2
ao
Z
O
a
a
00
QO
pn
0
Z
O
a
G
a
(ir
00
00
"9
Q
.Z
O
N
a
r-
00
Ln
0
O
m
w
N +
.r
C
c?
G
E
t-
I
Q
a
C
C
0
H
m
x
w
- 36 -
z
^^o
?r O
v'
F-
v J
U w
v
ro
u?
I^? V
r?
I
c
0
U
(1/Mm) SP!IOS papuadsns IB;o.L
-37-
cl
L
c?
O
z
0
a
a
iL
00
00
c
z
0
N
a
a
r?
W
00
00
z
0
a
00
9
C
v
Lsd

C
O
C
a?
F-
( n
LU9
E--r
+.d
C
Orr
C
Irk

N
m
x
LLJ
Q ? a o

z
H
? z
d?
c / C
U `w
GO
y
rC,
0
..r
U
1[/&u1 EHN
-38-
O
co
ti
0
z
0
(A
Q
2
Q
Q
z
0
Q
CQ
G
4L
fJ
W
M .I J
z
0
Q
z
Lil
y +
.C
C
O
E
4)
E
F=
f'7
z
V
AC.
W
1
C

M
F
m
X
W
LO N O
ca..?
z
o?
O
c
y
U >
0
Z
?i
..r
U
C Qtnj 000 to
O
paAouuaH N-£HN luaOJad
- 39 -
W to
rr
to
to
to
uj
N
L
ry c
U _
u
E
ao c
? w
e
u
c.
',
cc
N
Ci
?lr
m
x
w
Ln
..r
z
x
0
N
M >
O
U ?
? M
z
G
0
G
U

rn
y
n >1
M

Gl::?? LO

E3
13? cn

CD LO CD
U-) Lr) CD
CD a) 0) 00 ?
°
LO
m
X
w
paAOWaU ICI-CNN luaDJad
- 40 -
cn
z
x
O
0
W u
(-ice z
U
d?
cn E
U
00 0 a
PanoLuavd £NN WaOJad
- 41 -
ca
c
a
0
(/l
N
O
O ?
Z
w
C
O
m
c; u
Z
to
O
O
a

m
x
LU
r^?
v I
?.i.r
• a.r
z
0 w
?n C
vZ
(? g
v 1 y
U ?
v ;
o
0
G
..r
U

I

? . r

I
r-
i

I
I
C (M (M 00 00 ^ On to O
Co Co
panouuaU N-EHN ;ua:)Jad
ca
cV
N
fV
Qq
0
z
A
Z
vi
0
m
Co
0
N
O
r*l
m
x
Lu
- 42 -
of 0.06 to 0.08 lb NH3 removed/day/lb MLVSS, and influent BOO/NH3 ratio of
1.0 to 1.5, respectively. The operating parameters value reported for the
months of May, September, and October of 1988 were out.of the above
described operating parameters range for optimum performance of the
nitrifications system. Accordingly, operation of the system out of the
desired range of operating parameters could have been one of the reasons
for noncompliance with the effluent NH3-N limit. It should be emphasized
that the influent BOO/NH3 ratio and maintenance of adequate sludge
inventory in the system are important factors in operation of a separate
stage nitrification system. A lower influent BOD/NH3 ratio will tend to
keep a higher fraction of autotrophic nitrifiers biomass and, hence, the
higher nitrification rate. However, at a low influent BOD/NH3 ratio, it
will be difficult to maintain desired nitrifying sludge inventory because
of its poor settling characteristics and resulting loss in the clarifier
effluent as dispersed solids. Since the synthesis of nitrifiers in a
separate nitrification system is often less than the solids loss in the
clarifier effluent, an unstable condition may result which will
significantly affect the performance of the nitrification system. In order
to minimize the solids loss in the clarifier effluent and subsequently
improve the nitrification performance, a high fraction of heterotrophic
biomass to enhance bioflocculation must be maintained in the mixed liquor.
This can be achieved by either maintaining the influent BOD/NH3 ratio to
the nitrification system in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 by bypassing a portion
of the influent flow of the First Stage Carbonaceous System to the Second
Stage Nitrification System or by periodically transferring solids from the
First-Stage System to the Second-Stage Nitrification System.
Considering the nitrification rate of 0.06 to 0.08 lb NH3-N removed/
day/lb MLVSS, maintenance of adequate sludge inventory in the aeration tank
- 43 -
TABLE 6
TERTIARY FILTRATION SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE DATA
Mo/Yr Avg Dty TSS %TSS NH3
Flow Removal Removal
Infl Effl Infl Effl
[mgd) [mg/ Li [mg/ 0 [mg/ l7 [mg/ ii
(1)
--------- (2)
----------- (6)
---------- (7)
--------- (8)
----------- (9)
------- (10) (11)

07/86
1.86
16.91
6.73
60.20 -----
1.81 ---------
1.75 ---------
3.31
08/86 1.93 15.43 5.43 64.81 1.97 2.20 -11.68
09/86 1.78 23.81 14.74 38.09 3.31 3.00 9.37
10/86 1.76 21.09 7.99 62.11 0.96 0.99 -3.13
11/86 1.74 27.24 17.09 37.26 0.96 0.87 9.37
12/86 1.74 18.85 12.38 34.32 0.84 1.18 -40.48
01/87 2.21 24.29 13.36 45.00 3.96 3.93 0.76
02/87 2.10 23.00 10.00 56.52 1.58 1.69 -6.96
03/87 2.12 23.00 15.00 34.78 0.58 0.57 1.72
04/87 1.99 17.00 11.00 35.29 0.62 0.58 6.45
05/87 1.72 18.00 13.00 27.78 0.67 0.79 -17.91
06/87 1.65 21.00 9.00 57.14 0.50 0.59 -18.00
07/87 1.71 19.00 9.00 52.63 0.78 1.01 -29.49
08/87 1.79 19.00 7.00 63.16 1.45 2.01 -38.62
09/87 1.97 19.00 12.00 36.84 2.66 2.45 7.89
10/87 1.64 21.00 10.00 52.38 2.04 1.84 9.80
11/87 1.55 21.00 11.00 47.62 2.87 2.55 11.15
12/87 1.68 28.00 11.00 60.71 3.01 3.14 -4.32
01/88 1.71 46.00 14.00 69.57 3.46 3.60 -4.05
02/88 1.67 30.00 11.00 63.33 3.53 3.12 11.61
03/88 1.74 27.00 8.00 70.37 2.94 2.66 9.52
04/88 1.66 27.00 8.00 70.37 2.79 2.51 10.04
05/88 1.79 22.00 7.00 68.18 8.86 9.57 -8.01
06/88 1.98 18.00 3.00 83.33 1.92 2.00 -4.17
07/88 1.80 34.00 8.00 76.47 2.12 2.23 -5.19
08/88 1.93 21.00 9.00 57.14 0.32 0.41 -28.12
09/88 1.87 26.00 6.00 76.92 8.50 8.77 -3.18
10/88 1.74 36.00 2.00 94.44 14.86 13.34 10.23
11/88 1.70 27.00 4.00 85.19 0.23 0.22 4.35
12/88 1.76 40.00 9.00 77.50 0.23 0.28 -21.74
01/89 1.76 16.00 5.00 68.75 0.10 0.13 -30.00
02/89 1.83 16.00 5.00 68.75 0.13 0.13 0.00
03/89 2.04 13.00 3.00 76.92 0.43 0.42 2.33

Averages:
1.82
23.50
9.02
59.82 -------
2.45 ---------
2.44 ---------
-5.06
- 44 -
1•a
O
..r
CCS
vi
?V)
d-, a,
a
Q? a
a
z
O
4-4
z
`.J
2
rn
00
ti
D
z
O
Q
Q
u..
00
00
Q
z
O
Q
Q
u.
oo
0
z
O
V)
Q
00
n
a?
0
FV

0
E
a?
V)
a
a?
a

00
m
x
W
(1/Sui) spcjoS papuadsnS Is;o I
- 45 -
C) 0 U- U-) `? m m N N In O In O
V)
?rr
4r
0
(-L
.? z
a?
w
4? w
.II
w
2 a
0
U
2
U-
Oi
00
Q
z
O
Q
ti
7 z
Q °
a?
? a
U. 0
00
D
z
O °
E
V) a,
Q
Q ?
Z
0
D `=
c
Z
O
V)
00
n
a)
i-
X
W
(1/Ww) CHN
- 46 -
U-) (n N .^, O m GO n t o m v- m N - O
is also important for optimal operation of the nitrification system. This
is illustrated by the following example using the operation data of October
1988.
Average daily flow = 2.14 mgd
Influent NH -N = 39 mg/L
Operating MMS = 6845 lb = 2160 mg/L
Nitrification tank volume = 0.38 million gal.
Desired nitrification rate = 0.07 lb NH3-N/day/lb MLVSS
NH3-N Loading to Nitrification Tank
= 39 mg/L NH3-N x 8.34 x 2.14 mgd
= 696 lb NH3-N/day
MLVSS Needed in the Nitrification Tank
Considering 0.07 lb NH3-N removed/day/lb
MLVSS, the MLVSS needed in the aeration tank
696 lb NH3-N/day
0.07 lb NH3-N removed/day/lb MLVSS
= 9943 lb MLVSS
= 9943 lb MLVSS = 3137 mg/L MLVSS
8.34 x 0.38 mil. gal
From the above calculaitons it is evident that to achieve complete
nitrification the sludge inventory in the aeration tank should be
maintained at 9943 lb MLVSS, or the MLVSS concentration in the aeration
tank should be maintained at 3137 mg/L. The operating MLVSS concentration
for October 1988 was 2160 mg/L which was significantly less than the
desired 3137 mg/L MLVSS needed to achieve complete nitrification.
A review of the operating data indicates that it is difficult to
maintain desired MLVSS concentration in the aeration on a consistent basis
due to solids loss by hydraulic washout and/or low influent BOD/NH3-N
ratio. If the system needs to be operated at low MLVSS concentration, then
the aeration tank capacity needs to be expanded to maintain the desired
solids inventory needed to achieve optimal nitrification. This is
illustrated by the following example using the operating data of October
1988.
- 47 -
Average daily flow = 2.14 mgd
Influent NH -N = 39 mg/L
Operating M MS = 2160 mg/L
Desired Nitrification Rate = 0.07 lb NH3-N/day/lb MLVSS
NH3-N Loading to Nitrification Tank
= 39 mg/L NH3-N x 8.34 to 2.14 mgd
= 696 lb NH3-N/day
MLVSS Needed in the Nitrification Tank
696 lb NH,-N/day
0.07 lb NH3-N/day/lb MLVSS
= 9943 lb MLVSS
Nitrification Tank Volume Needed:
Considering an operating MLVSS concentration of 2160 mg/L, the
nitrification tank volume needed is:
Tank Volume, mil, gal = 9943 lb MLVSS
8.34 x 2160 mg/L
= 0.552 million gallons
The existing aeration tank volume is 0.38 million gallons. This means
that in order to operate the nitrification system at low MLVSS
concentration of 2160 mg/L the aeration tank capacity will have to be
expanded to 0.552 million gallons.
Mechanically, except for the lime feed system, the surface aerators,
clarifier mechanisms, and sludge recirculation and waste pumps are in good
condition. The lime feed system needs major overhaul. The clarifier
mechanisms require exceptionally high and costly maintenance.
H. Tertiary Filtration
The tertiary filtration system at the plant consists of four, 12-ft x
22-ft, each, multimedia filters. Design and present operating conditions of
the filtration system are summarized as follows:
Operating Parameter Design Present
Average daily flow, mgd 3.0 2.11
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft, @ ADF 1.97 1.38
- 48 -
Exhibit 18 shows the trend chart of the filtration systems influent
and effluent TSS concentrations. Performance data (Table 6) of the
filtration system indicate that the average TSS and NH3-N removals during
the period were 59.82 and -5.06 percent, respectively. No BOD removal data
are available; however, it is expected that the BOD removal by the
filtration system should be in the range of 30 to 40 percent. The reported
59.82 percent TSS removal is lower than the expected 80 to 90 percent TSS
removal by the filtration system. Low TSS removal in the filtration system
could be attributed to: (1) the dispersed solids and inert fine solids of
lime contained in the nitrification system effluent and (2) inadequate
filter media in the system. The negative NH3-N removal might be attributed
to the following factors: (1) improper backwashing of filters, and (2)
occurrence of anaerobic microsites in the filter media causing mineraliza-
tion of organic nitrogen associated with solids and oil and grease and
subsequent release of NH3-N in the filtration system effluent. The
filtration system at the Clinton WWTP is not designed to remove soluble
NH3-N.
Mechanically, the filtration system is in good condition. However,
during the last 12 years of operation, the filtration system has lost some
filter media, and refurbishment of media is necessary for the optimal
performance of the filtration system.
I. Chlorination System
The chlorination system at the plant consists of a chlorine contact
tank and chlorine feed system. Design and present operating conditions of
the system are summarized as follows:
- 49 -
Operating Parameter Design Present
Average daily flow, mgd 3.0 2.11
Detention time, min, @ ADF 30 42
Chlorine feed rate, mg/L 8 6
lb/day 200 105
Fecal coliform, #/100 mg 1000 < 200
Mechanically, the chlorination system is in good condition and has no
operating problems.
J. Postaeration
The postaeration system at the plant consists of a 7.5-hp submerged
aspirating type aerator which is installed in the chlorine contact tank.
The system is designed to raise dissolved oxygen in the plant effluent to
6.0 mg/L. The system is performing adequately.
K. Anaerobic Sludge Digestion
The anaerobic sludge digestion system at the plant consists of two
sludge digestion tanks, one primary and another secondary. The primary
digestion tank is equipped with gas heating and mixing equipment. The
digestion process is designed for 40 percent volatile solids reduction at
95° F. At present, the digestion process is operated at 0.031 lb VSS/
cu ft/day solids loading and 35.56 days of sludge retention time. The
digestion process is operated well under the typical anaerobic digestion
process design standards of 0.15 to 0.40 lb VSS/cu ft/day solids loading
rate and 10 to 20 days sludge retention time. No performance data on the
volatile solids reduction are available. However, considering the present
loading conditions, the expected volatile solids reduction should range
between 40 to 50 percent. Mechanically, the digestion system is in good
condition.
L. Aerobic Sludge Digestion
The aerobic sludge digestion system at the plant consists of two
aeration tanks (37.5-ft x 37.5-ft x 13.5-ft SWD., ea) each equipped with a
-50-
25-hp surface aerator. The digestion process is designed for 15 days of
sludge retention time and 40 percent volatile solids reduction. At present
the digestion process is operated at 0.035 lb VSS/cu ft/day solids loading
and 16.5 days sludge retention time. The digester is operated well within
the typical aerobic digestion process design standards of 0.024 to 0.15 lb
VSS/cu ft/day solids loading rate and greater than 15-day sludge retention
time.
No performance data on the volatile solids reduction are available.
However, considering the present loading conditions, the expected volatile
solids reduction should be.in the range of 40 to 50 percent. Maintenance
records indicate that the surface aerators have problems with their
fiberglass floats, and the aerators need replacements.
M. Sludge Drying Beds
There are 30, 120-ft x 24-ft, 4-in., each sludge drying beds provided
at the plant. At present only the portion of the digested sludge generated
at the plant is dewatered on the sludge drying beds for ultimate disposal
to land by land application. Most of the digested sludge is hauled in a
liquid state to the 600-acre land application sites for ultimate disposal.
The sludge drying beds are primarily used as backup facilities for the land
application sludge management program.
2.3 Capacity Evaluation
Based upon the performance evaluation of the overall treatment plant
and the unit operations/processes at the plant, it is evident that the
plant has a problem being in consistent compliance with the effluent NH3-N
limitations. Referring to the evaluation of the UNOX first and second
stage activated sludge systems, given in the Appendix, it is evident that
the average and peak oxygen generation requirements under present loading
conditions are 4.383 ton O2/day and 6.61 ton 02/day, respectively. The
- 51 -
design average and peak oxygen generation requirements are 3.70 ton 02/day
- and 5.62 ton 02/day, respectively. The design capacity of the PSA oxygen
generation system is 6.0 ton 02/day. This indicates that the present
loading conditions have already exceeded the design average and peak oxygen
generation requirements. This means that even though the plant is designed
to handle an average daily flow of 3.0 million gallons, its hydraulic
capacity is limited by the capability of the oxygen generation system to
handle the present BOO5 and NH3-N loadings received at the plant. the
limitation of the oxygen generation system to supply necessary oxygen to
adequately handle the higher BOO5and NH3-N loadings received at the plant
and higher NH3-N loading to the nitrification system are the primary
reasons for consistent noncompliance with the effluent NH3-N limit.
Considering an average influent BOD5 and NH3-N concentrations of 400
mg/L and 50 mg/L, respectively, overall treatment plant and unit
operations/ processes performance data, and supplemental oxygen supplied by
the backup liquid oxygen system, a reasonable estimate of average daily
flow that can be handled by the plant is approximately 2.15 mgd. Under
these conditions, the, nitrification system will be operated at 2600 mg/L
MLVSS, influent NH3 of 36 mg/L, influent BOD5/NH3 ratio of 1.0 to 1.5,
nitrification rate of 0.08 lb NH3/day/lb MLVSS and alkalinity requirement
of 7.14 lb alkalinity/lb NH3 removed. Should the nitrification system be
operated at lower MLVSS concentrations (<2600 mg/L) and 0.07 lb NH3/day/lb
MLVSS nitrification rate, then expansion of the nitrification aeration tank
capacity will be necessary.
- 52 -
3.0 DESIGN BASIS
3.1 Waste Flows and Characteristics
Based upon the operating data of the existing wastewater treatment
facilities, the future population projection, existing industrial flow, and
anticipated industrial growth in the Clinton area during the next 20-year
planning period, the following design waste flows and waste characteristics
are developed for the proposed wastewater treatment plant improvements.
Average daily flow, mgd 5
Maximum daily flow, mgd 10
Peak daily flow, mgd 12.5
8005 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), mg/L 250
TSS (Total Suspended Solids), mg/L 250
TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen), mg/L 40
NH3-N (Ammonia-Nitrogen), mg/L 25
Total Alkalinity as CaC031 mg/L 200
pH 7
Temperature, °C Winter = 10°C; Summer = 28°C
Details of the flow determination are given in Appendix of this report.
3.2 Effluent Limitations
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management was requested to
provide effluent limitations for upgrading and expansion of the wastewater
treatment plant to 5.0 mgd. The preliminary effluent limitations as provided
by the NCDEM are summarized below:
Average daily flow, mgd 5
BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), mg/L 5
TSS (Total Suspended Solids), mg/L 30
NH -N (Ammonia-Nitrogen),
D mg/L 1
. . (Dissolved Oxygen), mg/L 6
Fecal Coliform, #/100 mL 200
pH 6-9
MBAS, mg/L 0.5
Copper, mg/L -
Zinc, mg/L -
Silver, mg/L -
Total residual chlorine, mg/L 0.017
Cyanide, ug/L 5.0
Cadmium, ug/L 2.0
Chromium, ug/L 50.0
- 53 -
Nickel, ug/L 88.0
Land, ug/L 25.0
Fluoride, mg/L 1.8
Chronic toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 99
The NCDEM indicated that the final effluent limitations will be provided
upon completion of its analysis on the receiving stream.
- 54 -
4.0 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
4.1 Optimum Operation of the Existing Waste Treatment Facilities
The consideration of alternatives for optimizing the performance of the
existing waste treatment facilities is a required step in any upgrading and
expansion situations. Referring to Section 2.2 on performance evaluation, the
plant is operated at its optimum efficiency in terms of percent BOD5, TSS, and
NH3-N removals. However, based upon the evaluation of the existing wastewater
treatment facilities to handle the present and future wastewater treatment
needs the following conclusions are drawn.
1. The plant violated its effluent NH3-N limit of 3.0 mg/L in the
months of May, September, and October of 1988. Except for these
violations, the plant stays in marginal compliance with its
effluent NH3-N limit.
2. The existing oxygenation system is operating at its maximum
capacity with the present influent BOD5 and NH -N loadings on the
plant, and is not capable of handling any additional loads.
3. Due to hydraulic washout of solids and solids loss from the
clarifiers due to low influent BOD$/NH3 N ratio to the
nitrification tank, it is difficult to maintain the desired
operating MLVSS concentration in the aeration tank for optimal
nitrification.
4. Optimal nitrification could be achieved by operating the system at
a hydraulic retention time of 4.5 to 6 hours, MCRT of 7 to 10
days, nitrification rate of 0.06 to 0.08 lb NH3-N removed/day/lb
MLVSS, and influent BOD5/NH3-N ratio of 1.0 to 1.5.
5. The plant's capacity is limited by: (1) the capability of the
oxygen generation system to handle the present BOD5 and NH3-N
loadings received at the plant, and (2) difficulty of maintaining
an adequate solids inventory in the nitrification tank to handle
the higher NH3 N loading.
6. Based upon average influent BODS and NH3-N concentrations of 400
mg/L and 50 mg/L, respectively, unit operations/processes
performance data, and supplemental oxygen supplied by the backup
liquid oxygen system, a reasonable estimate of average daily flow
that can be handled by the plant is approximately 2.15 mgd. Under
these conditions the nitrification system will be operated at 2600
mg/L MLVSS, influent NH3-N of 36 mg/L, influent BODS/NH3-N ratio
of 1.0 to 1.5, nitrification rate of 0.08 lb NH3-N removed.
- 55 -
Operating the nitrification system at MUSS lower than 2600 mg/L
will require expansion of the nitrification aeration tank
capacity.
7.
Based upon the present and future wastewater treatment needs, the
plant should be upgraded and expanded to 5.0 mgd capacity as
described in Section 4.0 of this report.
- 56 -
4.2 Alternative Waste Treatment Systems
The following alter-natives are considefed-and evaluated to meet the City
of Clinton's present and future waste treatment needs.
4.2.1 Alternative No. 1
A. Description
This alternative (Exhibit 20) considers upgrading and expansion of the
existing waste treatment plant to 5.0 mgd as described below.
1. Replace the existing bar screen at the raw wastewater pump station
with a mechanical screen. The screen opening will be 0.5 inch..
Provide a belt conveyor to transfer the screenings removed to the
dumpster.
2. Provide variable speed controls for the pumps at the raw wastewater
pump station.
3. Replace the existing screen on the William Branch influent outfall
sewer with a mechanical screen equipped with a belt conveyor. The
screen openings will be 0.5 inch.
4. Provide a new aerated grit removal system designed to provide 5.0
minute detention time at maximum flow of 10.0 mgd. Use the existing
grit removal system to handle the peak flow and as a dual or standby
unit.
5. Expand the existing pr
flow distribution box,
design detention time,
at 5.2 mgd (consisting
recycle flow) are 2.65
respectively.
imary clarification facilities by providing a
a new 70 ft diam x 10 ft SWD clarifier. The
surface overflow rate and weir overflow rate
of 5.0 mgd average daily flow and 0.2 mgd
hr, 676 gpd/sq ft and 11,829 gpd/lin ft,.
6. Provide a splitter box ahead of the trickling filter for processing
3.0 mgd average daily flow by the trickling filter system and by-
passing the remaining 2.0 mgd average daily flow to the intermediate
life pump station.
7. Use the existing two 4200 gpm capacity filter lift pumps.
8. Use the existing 125 ft diameter trickling filter. The design
recirculation ratio to the average daily flow of 3.0 mgd is 1.0. The
design hydraulic loading at 100 percent recirculation is 21.29
mgd/ac. The design organic loading is 50.97 lb BOD5/1000 cu ft/day.
9. Use the existing secondary clarifier, 70 ft diam X 9 ft SWD, as a
part of the trickling filter system. The design detention time,
- 57 -
surface overflow rate and weir-overflow rate at 3.0 mgd average daily
flow are 2.07 hr, 780 gpd/sq ft and 13,642 gpd/lin ft., respectively.
10. Expand the existing intermediate lift station by providing one
additional 4860.gpm variable speed pump. Replace the variable speed
controls of the existing pumps.
11. Expand the pure oxygen first stage (carbonaceous BOD removal) and
second stage (Nitrogenous BOD removal) system to handle 5.0 mgd
average daily flow.
12. Overhaul and relocate the existing lime feed system to feed hydrated
lime. The design lime feed is 1.0 to 2.0 ton/day.
13. Expand the existing tertiary filtration system by providing one
additional 12 ft X 22 ft filter cell with necessary piping and
controls. Design filtration rate at 5.0 mgd average daily flow with
one filter down is 3.29 gpm/sq ft. The design filtration rate at
10.0 mgd maximum daily flow with one filter down is 6.57 gpm/sq ft.
14. Provide a new chlorine contact tank designed to provide 30-minute
detention time at average daily flow of 5.0 mgd. Replace one of the
existing chlorinator that need repair and reached its useful life
with a new chlorinator.
15. Provide dechlorination facilities consisting of sulfur dioxide feed
system, chlorine residual analyzer, necessary piping, controls,
housing, scale and one one-ton or two 500 lb sulfur dioxide
cylinder(s). The design feed rate for sulfur dioxide will be 1.0
mg/L SO2/1.0 mg/L C12 removed. The sulfonators will be paced with
the effluent flow and chlorine residual analyzer.
16. Use the existing chlorine contract tank for post aeration. Provide a
new diffused air system for post aeration.
17. Provide heating and mixing equipment for the secondary anaerobic
digestion tank. The design solids loading and hydraulic retention
time will be 0.061 lb vss/cu ft/day and 24.86 days, respectively.
18. Expand the existing aerobic sludge digestion facilities by providing
additional sludge digestion volume of 248,000 gallon. Provide three
25 hp aerators, including one standby for the new digestion
facilities.
19. Expand the existing laboratory and administration facilities to
provide space for laboratory, offices and conference or training
area.
20. Dispose the aerobically and anaerobically stabilized sludges by land
application on the existing permitted land application sites.
- 58 -
21. Provide diking and stormwater pumping for floodwater protection. It
should be noted that the floodwater protection will be handled by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers by separate contract arrangements.
B. Construction Cost
Mechanical screen replacement at the raw wastewater $ 70,000.00
pump station
Raw wastewater pump station improvements 70,000.00
Mechanical screen replacement on the William Branch 70,000.00
influent outfall sewer
Aecate grit removal system 150,000.00
Primary clarification, including distribution box 230,000.00
Distribution box and by-pass for trickling filter 15,000.00
Intermediate lift station. improvements 90,000.00
Expansion of the first stage aeration tanks 518,000.00
Expansion of the first stage clarification 410,000.00
Expansion of the first stage recirc pump station 75,000.00
Expansion of the second stage aeration tanks 655,000.00
Expansion of the second stage clarification 410,000.00
Expansion of the second stage recirc pump station 75,000.00
Expansion of pure oxygen system 1,500,000.00
Expansion of tertiary filtration system 500,000.00
Chlorine contact tank, including one chlorinator 90,000.00
Dechlorination Facilities 55,000.00
Post aeration facilities 25,000.00
Anaerobic sludge digester improvements 175,000.00
Aerobic sludge digestion expansion 200,000.00
Lime feed system overhaul 100,000.00
Expansion of admin. and laboratory facilities 100,000.00
Sitework and piping 945,000.00
Electrical 395,000.00
Instrumentation and control 60,000.00
Total Construction Cost $ 6,983,000.00
Contingencies 698,000.00
Engineering 355,000.00
Construction administration and inspection 165,000.00
- 59 -
Operation and maintenance manual- 20,000.00
Start-up services 20,000.00
Land = 2.0 ac @ $4,000/ac. 8,000.00
Loan closing 2% 165,000.00
Total Project Cost $8,414,000.00
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance Co sts
Expense Item Existing After
Expansion

Salaries, including fringe benefits $207,724.00 $317,500.00
Utilities:
Electrical 136,250.00 222,000.00
Natural gas 3,750.00 5,500.00
Telephone 3,500.00 4,500.00
Supplies:
Liquid Oxygen 33,250.00 40,000.00
Lime 60,000.00 22,000.00
Chlorine 6,000.00 7,000.00
Sulfur dioxide 0.00 1,500.00
Polymer 10,000.00 12,000.00
Laboratory Chemicals & Equipment 4,000.00 4,500.00
Other 500.00 500.00
Travel and Miscellaneous 7,100.00 7,500.00
Maintenance and Repair 63,750.00 75,000.00
Insurance and Liability 12,970.00 15,000.00
Contracted Services
Lotepro Corp. Maint. Contract 17,100.00 30,000.00
Professional Service 17,000.00 20,000.00
Laboratory Analysis 9,500.00 10,000.00
Sludge Disposal Cost 33,500.00 40,000.00
Capital Outlay 26.200.00 35.000.00
Total Annual 0&M Costs $652,094.00 $869,500.00
D. Estimated Salvage Value
Treatment Works: 1/3 x $6,983,000 = $2,328,000.00
Land: $8,000 x 1.80611* 14,500.00
Total Estimated Salvage Value $2,342,500.00
* Land appreciation single payment future worth
factor at 3.0% for 20 years = 1. 80611
E. Economic Analysis
- 60 -
1. Basic Considerations
a. Planning.period = 20 years
b. Interest rate = 8.875 %
C. Single payment present worth factor at 8.875 %
for 20 years = 0.1826
d. Uniform series present worth factor at 8.875 %
for 20 years = 9.2104
2. Pres ent Worth Cost
a. Initial Capital Cost $8,414,000.00
b. Present worth of annual 0&M costs
$869,500 x 9.2104 8,008,500.00
C. Present worth of salvage value
$2,342,500 x 0.1826 428.000.00
Net Present Worth Cost (a+b-c) $15,994,500.00
- 61 -
H
r
Z
g Z
H H U fI ?
rH U)
RL ?u a u
W z °.
?-o. r,r o n<
A
0.4
H Wi
in I
F-
W Z
U- W
HJ ? T?
LL
W V
?S z
H ~
z I.t,
WQ
fly 9 H fl] H > M
J O
--- - --?--? hd a u a
--?- I LL Z
I z ww
I I o
I LLJ
¢ in a
cx?W < ( w= °? I w a
CL F- M
?w ji wz
wi a ? o?
wl JfCl) CU
I .,.......-_? ?I N LL
G w
W5 m
30--H i H iM a i QCD~ M
=Q
H I ..,c, lI J7U x 4:l
I_-•- i NW ti w M
F-ICECL
-..r.. r I I o I m
ao 0
I I I I
aio ai 0
< 3 Z ! I L OCD
I<
x6 r
0 LL
r' -----J I I I w
g I I H I z M
+ I I a
I (n
ac ?--I I I I w w
-------- -----?__L wm °wi
?H w
w J j l =' I m=
j ?--? --?--? rno
I u
12C I U]
a sN
m
Worn
~ Z --- o
ow --- ---
H
H
4.2.2 Alternate No. 2
A. Description
This alternative (Exhibit 21) considers upgrading and expansion of
the existing waste treatment plant to 5.0 mgd as described below.
1. Replace the existing bar screen at the raw wastewater pump
station with a mechanical screen. The screen opening will be
0.5 inch. Provide a belt conveyor to transfer the screenings
removed to be dumpster.
2. Provide variable speed controls for the pumps at the raw
wastewater pump station.
3. Replace the existing screen on the William Branch influent
outfall sewer with a mechanical screen equipped with a belt
conveyor. The screen openings will be 0.5 inch.
4. Provide a new aerated grit removal system designed to provide
5.0 minute detention time at maximum flow of 10.0 mgd. Use
the existing grit removal system to handle the peak flow and
as a dual or standby unit.
5. Expand the existing primary clarification facilities by
providing a flow distribution box, a new 70 ft diameter x 10
ft SWD clarifier. The design detention time, surface overflow
rate and weir overflow rate at 5.2 mgd (consisting of 5.0 mgd
average daily flow and 0.2 mgd recycle flow) are 2.65 hr,
676/gpd sq ft and 11,829 gpd/lin ft, respectively.
6. Provide a splitter box ahead of the trickling filter for
processing 3.0 mgd average daily flow by the trickling filter
system and by-passing the remaining 2.0 mgd average daily flow
to the intermediate lift pump station.
7. Use the existing two 4200 gpm capacity filter lite pumps.
8. Use the existing 125 ft diameter trickling filter. The design
recirculation ratio to the average daily flow of 3.0 mgd is
1.0. The design hydraulic landing at 100 percent
recirculation is 21.29 mgad. The design organic loading is
50.97 lb BOD5/1,000 cu ft/day.
9. Use the existing secondary clarifier, 70 ft. diam x 9 ft SWD,
as a part of the tickling filter system. The design detention
time, surface overflow rate and weir overflow rate at 3.0 mgd
average daily flow are 2.07 hr, 780 gpd/sq ft and 13,642
gpd/lin ft, respectively.
- 63 -
10. Expand the existing intermediate life statiorr by providing one
additional 4860 gpm variable speed pump. Replace the variable
.speed controls of the existing pumps.
11. Provide new aeration tanks for single stage air activated
sludge system designed to provide 15.96 hour detention time at
average daily flow of 5.0 mgd. The aeration tanks will be
equipped with either diffused air or low speed mechanical
aerators (for carrousel type oxidation ditch). Detailed
design calculations for the aeration tank are given in the
Appendix. The existing first stage aeration tanks and
clarifiers will be used as a part of the aerobic sludge
stabilization/storage facilities. The existing first stage
aeration tanks and clarifiers will also be piped so that these
facilities can be used as anaerobic/anoxic tanks for
biological nutrient removal in future with minor modification
such as by providing mixers and recycling of nitrified mixed
liquor. The existing PSA oxygen generator system will be sold
to a prospective buyer.
12. Provide two 90-ft diam X 15 ft SWD clarifiers with suction and
heavy sludge withdrawal lines. The design surface overflow
rate at average daily flow of 5.0 mgd is 400 gpd/sq ft.
Provide a full diameter skimmer for each clarifier.
13. Provide a new sludge recirculation and waste pump station
equipped with three (3) 2000 gpm, each recirculation pumps;
two (2) 300 gpm, each waste sludge pumps; two (2) 150 gpm,
each scum pumps; and housing piping, flow metering and
necessary controls.
14. Overhaul and relocate the existing lime feed system to feed
hydrated lime. The design lime feed is 0.5 to 1.0 ton/day.
15. Expand the existing tertiary filtration system by providing
one additional 12 ft x 22 ft filter cell with necessary piping
and controls. The design filtration rate at average 5.0 mgd
and maximum 10.0 mgd daily flows with all filters on line will
be 2.63 gpm/sq ft and 5.26 gpm/sq ft, respectively. The
design filtration rate at average and maximum daily flows with
one filter down for service or repair is 3.29 gpm/sq ft and
6.57 gpm/sq ft., respectively.
16. Provide a new chlorine contact tank designed to provide 30-
minute detention time at average daily flow of 5.0 mgd.
Replace one of the existing chlorinator that need repair and
reached its useful life with a new chlorinator.
17. Provide dechlorination facilities consisting of sulfur dioxide
feed system, chlorine residual analyzer, necessary piping,
controls, housing, scale and one one-ton or two-500 lb sulfur
dioxide cylinder(s). The design feed rate for sulfur dioxide
- 64 -
will be 1.0 mg/L SO /1.O.mg/L C12 removed. The sulfonator
will be paced with the effluent flow and chlorine residual
analyzer.
18. Expand the existing aerobic sludge digestion facilities by
providing'additional sludge digestion volume of 248,000.
Provide three 25 hp aerators, including one standby for the
new digestion facilities.
19. Provide heating and mixing equipment for the secondary
anaerobic digestion tank. The design solids loading and
hydraulic retention time will be 0.061 lb vss/cu ft/day and
24.86 days, respectively.
20. Expand the existing aerobic sludge digestion facilities by
modifying the existing first and second stage systems for use
as a part of aerobic sludge digestion facilities. The total
available aerobic sludge digestion capacity would be 1,700,000
gallons.
21. Dispose the anaerobically and aerobically stabilized sludges
by land application on the existing permitted land application
sites (872 acres).
22. Expand the existing laboratory and administration facilities
to provide space for laboratory, offices and conference or
training area.
23. Provide diking and stormwater pumping for floodwater
protection. It should be noted that the water proctection
will be handled by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers by
separate contract arrangements.
B. Construction Cost
Mechanical screen replacement at the raw wastewater $ 70,000.00
pump station
Raw wastewater pump station improvements 70,000.00
Mechanical screen replacement on the William Branch 70,000.00
influent outfall sewer
Aerated grit removal system 150,000.00
Primary clarification, including distribution box 230,000.00
Distribution box and bypass for trickling filter 15,000.00
Intermediate life station improvements 90,000.00
Piping and modification of first stage system 150,000.00
Aeration tanks, including influent box 1,820,000.00
Final Clarifiers 760,000.00
- 65 -
Sludge recirculation and waste pump station 130,000.00
Lime feed system overhaul 100,000.00
Expansion of tertiary filtration system 500,000.00
Chlorine contact tank and chlorinator 90,000.00
Dechlorination Facilities 55,000.00
Post aeration 25,000.00
Anaerobic sludge digestion improvements 195,000.00
Aerobic sludge digestion improvements 50,000.00
Expansion of admin and laboratory facilities 100,000.00
Sitework and piping 790,000.00
Electrical 370,000.00
Instrumentation and controls 60,000.00
Total Construction Cost $ 5,890,000.00
Contingencies 589,000.00
Engineering 305,000.00
Construction administration and inspection 140,000.00
Operation and maintenance manual 20,000.00
Start-up services 20,000.00
Land = 2.0 ac @ $4,000/ac 8,000.00
Loan closing 2% 138,000.00
Total Project cost $7,110,000.00
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Expense Item Existing After Expansion
Salaries, including fringe benefits $207,724.00 $ 275,000.00
Utilities:
Electrical 136,250.00 172,000.00
Natural gas 3,750.00 5,500.00
Telephone 3,500.00 4,500.00
Supplies:
Liquid Oxygen 33,250.00 0.00
Lime 60,000.00 11,500.00
Chlorine 6,000.00 7,000.00
Sulfur dioxide 0.00 1,500.00
Polymer 10,000.00 5,500.00
Laboratory Chemicals & Equipment 4,000.00 4,500.00
Other 500.00 500.00
Travel and Miscellaneous 7,100.00 7,500.00
- 66 -
Maintenance and Repair 63,750.00 40,000.00
Insurance and Liability 12,970.00 15,000.00
Contracted Services
Lotepro Corp. Maint. Contract 17,100.00 0.00
Professional Services 17,000.00 20,000.00
Laboratory Analysis 9,500.00 10,000.00
Sludge Disposal Cost 33,500.00 40,000.00
Capital Outlay 2200.00 30.000.00
Total Annual 0&M Costs $652,094.00 $650,000.00
0. Estimated Salvage Value
Treatment Work: 1/3 X $5,890,000 = $ 1,963,500.00
Land: $8,00 X 1.80611 4.500.00
Total Estimated Salvage Value $ 19978,000.00
E. Economic Analysis
1. Basic Considerations
a. Planning period = 20 years
b. Interest rate = 8.875%
C. Single payment present worth factor at 8.875% for 20 years =
0.1826
d. Uniform series present worth factor at 8.875% for 20 years =
9.2104
2. Present Worth Cost
a. Initial Capital Cost $ 7,110,000.00
b. Present worth of annual 0&M costs
$650,000.00 X 9.2104 5,987,000.00
C. Present worth of salvage value
1,978,000.00 X 0.1826 361.000.00
Net Present Worth Cost (a+b-c) $ 12,736,000.00
- 67 -
h 0
4H
[]Q r---- ,_--
s U)
Q
ILI f-
H LL
rZi J
2W
Q H
Cl LL
Z H
°a
m C.3
Z
N
Y W
H J
?U-
lY
LL
Q
x cc
H Q
Qom. U
a
H ?
Wcc
z
0
H
Q

_ _ H
ir
H cc .4 O I
F-l
L u I- W
0
F-
z
It
W
z
0
H
c?W? QQ
ft IBM JJ¢
o t?naOi a I~<N o
- :? cl?
-? 4 Q
o I I a w H
I I H C pp
I W< I lL z W
I HU !-?A ¢ N O
W9 a
Gr
Q I cW O m ? FH- I U X w a.
CL <NO
I I
I H I
I
? QI <I-N
H
O!
J
U3 H
?w?a
I rill ?I 7 cD o
xv mHH C
S%CZ
cn
o 0
En
i i 1 I I 1
Q F-- I I
o ?+ a
fi I --------- -------I I z
I I z ?I 0 Q
I
------ _ ?.? CDM ?o
I I I ?_ _
W ? I -. I N¢ t-J
I --.----
--?-
U W 3 N
HWF-
OMM
C
D 4 ----?iWJ'--- ---
OW QcnO
1 Z
? H
N
0
Z
W
H
Q
Z
Cc
w
a
" cc
/x.10
?. IL
H x
Hm <c
_ cc
X LID
W.
C
0.
Li
H
a
W
U
Cl)
4.2.3 Alternative No. 3
A. Description
This alternative (Exhibits 22 and 23) considers use of the existing
waste treatment system, except tertiary filtration, as a pretreatment
facility and disposal of pretreated effluent by land application. A
detailed design description of this alternative is given below.
1. Replace the existing bar screen at the raw wastewater pump
station with a mechanical screen. The screen opening will be
0.5 inch. Provide a belt conveyor to transfer the screenings
removed to the dumpster.
2. Provide variable speed controls for the pumps at the raw
wastewater pump station.
3. Replace the existing screen on the William Branch influent
outfall sewer with a mechanical screen equipped with a belt
conveyor. The screen openings will be 0.5 inch.
4. Provide a new aerated grit removal system designed to provide
5.0 minute detention time at maximum flow of 10.0 mgd. Use the
existing grit removal system to handle the peak flow and as a
dual or standby unit.
5. Expand the existing primary clarification facilities by
providing a flow distribution box, a new 70 ft diameter X 10 ft
SWD clarifier. The design detention time, surface overflow rate
and weir overflow rate at 5.2 mgd (consisting of 5.0 mgd average
daily flow and 0.2 mgd recycle flow) are 2.65 hr, 676 gpd/sq ft
and 11,829 gpd/lin ft, respectively.
6. Provide a splitter box ahead of the trickling filter for
processing 3.0 mgd average daily flow by the trickling filter
system and by passing the remaining 2.0 mgd average daily flow
to the intermediate lift pump station.
7. Use the existing two 4200 gpm capacity filter life pumps.
8. Use the existing 125 ft diameter tricking filter. The design
recirculation ratio to the average daily flow of 3.0 mgd is 1.0.
The design hydraulic landing at 100 percent recirculation is
21.29 mgad. The design organic leading is 50.97 lb BOD5/1000 cu
ft/day.
9. Use the existing secondary clarifier, 70 ft diam X 9 ft SWD, as
a part of the trickling filter system. The design detention
time, surface overflow rate and weir overflow rate at 3.0 mgd
- 69 -
average daily flow are 2.07-hr, 780 gpd/sq ft and 13,642 gpd/lin
ft, respectively.
i
10. Expand the existing intermediate lift station by providing one
additional 4860 gpm variable speed pump. Replace the variable
speed controls of the existing pump.
11. Modify the existing UNOX first stage and second stage system to
operate as single stage system.
12. Use the existing chlorination facilities for effluent
disinfection. Provide an effluent transport system consisting
of an effluent pump station, equipped with three 4860-gpm
variable speed pumps, and 20,800 linear feet of 30-inch diameter
force main.
13. Provide an effluent storage facility designed to provide 45 days
storage of average daily flow.
14. Prove a 1290 wet acre site for a solid-set spray irrigation
system for disposal of effluent by land application. The design
hydraulic application rate is 1.0 inch/wk. The total acreage
requirement, including buffer zones, is estimated to be 1670
acres.
15. Provide heating and mixing equipment for the secondary anaerobic
digestion tank. The design solids loading and hydraulic
retention time will be 0.072 lb VSS/cu ft/day and 21.16 days,
respectively.
16. Expand the existing aerobic sludge digestion facilities by
providing additional sludge digestion volume of 590,000 gallons.
Provide on 75-hp aerator. Provide one 75-hp and one 25-hp
motors for standby.
17. Dispose of the anaerobically and aerobically digested sludges by
land application on the existing permitted land application
sites. (872 acres).
B. Construction Cost
Mechanical screen replacement at the raw $ 70,000.00
wastewater pump station
Raw wastewater pump station improvements 70,000.00
Mechanical screen replacement on William Branch 70,000.00
influent outfall sewer
Aerated grit removal system 150,000.00
Primary clarification, including distribution box 230,000.00
- 70 -
Distribution box and by pass for trickling filter 15,000.00
- Intermediate life station improvements 90,000.00
Modification of UNVX first and second stage system 30,000.00
Lime feed system overhaul 100,000.00
Anaerobic sludge digestion improvements 195,000.00
Aerobic sludge digestion expansion 200,000.00
Effluent pump station 300,000.00
30-inch diam 20,800 lin feet force main 832,000.00
Road crossings, 400 ft @$300/ft 120,000.00
Effluent Storage lagoon 70 acre @ $3,800/ac 266,000.00
Sitework and piping (treatment works and lagoon) 450,000.00
Spray irrigation pump station 300,000.00
Spray irrigation system, 1290 acres @ $5,550/ac 7,095,00.00
Groundwater monitoring wells 30,000.00
Access roads and fencing 275,000.00
Site preparation and crop establishment 915,000.00
Electrical 350,000.00
Instrumentation and control 60,000.00
Total Construction Cost $ 12,213,000.00
Contingencies 1,221,000.00
Engineering 584,000.00
Construction administration and inspection 284,000.00
Operation and maintenance manual 25,000.00
Start-up services 20,000.00
Land = 1,800 ac x $3,000/ac 5,400,000.00
Loan closing, 2% 395,000.00
Total Project Cost $ 20,142,000.00
- 71 -
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Expense Item Existing
Salaries, including 'fringe benefits
Utilities
Electrical
Natural gas
Telephone
Supplies
Liquid Oxygen
Lime
Chlorine
Polymer
Laboratory Chemicals and Equipment
Other
Travel and Miscellaneous
Maintenance and Repair
Insurance and Liability
Contracted Services
Lotepro Corp. Maint. Contract
Professional Services
Laboratory Analysis
Sludge Disposal Costs
Capital Outlay
Total Annual O&M Costs
D. Estimated Salvage Value
$207,724.00
136,250.00
3,750.00
3,500.00
32,250.00
60,000.00
6,000.00
10,000.00
4,000.00
500.00
7,100.00
63,750.00
12,970.00
17,100.00
17,000.00
9,500.00
33,500.00
26.200.00
$652,094.00
Treatment Works: 1/3 x $(12,213,000 - 832,000)
Force Main: 112 x $832,000
Land: $5,400,000.00 x 1.80611
Total Estimated Salvage Value
E. Economic Analysis
1. Basic Considerations
After
Expansion
$265,000.00
210,000.00
5,500.00
4,500.00
40,000.00
22,000.00
7,000.00
0.00
4,500.00
500.00
7,500.00
70,000.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
10,000.00
40,000.00
35,000.00
$781,500.00
$3,794,000.00
416,000.00
9.756,000.00
$13,966,000.00
a. Planning period = 20 years
b. Interest rate = 8.875%
C. Single payment present worth factor at 8.875% for 20 years
= 0.1826
d. Uniform series present worth factor at 8.875% for 20 years
= 9.2104
2. Present Worth Cost
a. Initial Capital cost $20,142,000.00
b. Present worth of Annual 0&M Costs
$781,500.00 x 9.2104 7,198,000.00
_72-
C. Present worth salvage-value
$13,966,000 x 0.1826 2.550.000.00
Net.Present Worth Cost (a+b-c) $24,790,000.00
4.2.4 Summary of Alternative Evaluations
Cost Parameter Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3
1. Capital cost of
the project $ 8,414,000.00 $7,110,000.00 $20,142,000.00
2. Annual operation
of maintenance
costs 869,500.00 650,000.00 781,500.00
3. Estimated Salvage
Value 2,342,500.00 1,978,000.00 13,966,000.00
4. Present worth of
annual oper. and
maint. costs 8,008,500.00 5,987,000.00 7,198,000.00
5. Present worth of
Salvage Value 428,000.00 361,000.00 2,550,000.00
6. Net Present
Worth Cost $15,994,500.00 $12,736,000.00 $24,790,000.00
From the above alt ernative evaluati on it is evident that Alternative
No. 2 provides the mo st cost effective solution for wastewater treatment
and disposal needs of the Clinton 201 Planning area.
- 73 -
wz
f- O
4 H
H 1-
Q
N
W r-
h LL.
z H
H J
>-Q
MW
< H
H
Q
(nd
V.
Q ?
J
F-1
H
c?
I
I
I
I
i
g I
? I
N I
N
N
W
zl--
H U
CC Q
0F-Y.
S O <
UUF-
m
1T
H
U.
H
Q
U
z
O W
H
F-
U)
H
IL
H
m
a
N
a
?I
I
n:
I
I
m
a
U
cn z
w

l ?
J O

e
i lL H
?fnm z w
°
in a
w d

<
Q
CLM
M CL
11 11
N
zzOFw-
Q?N-H
W
Q ? O
Jmu
H
NWCL
z I I H?a
<o
Hy I I
I < I I tno_i
I H I I oJW j
N I I
H
I
I ai I I W
-------? I co
I < o m
I II Wm z
r-------- ----- W m
:3 cc
H OW
I ?, I N
L-? --?•--? p I mz
_ WW Ch
- -- ¢ N Jj
mw=? J
-pOp W? -
z -- - -
Q ?L'JJ' - -- -
Q(no
(•)
O
Ate...
w
z
9..x.1
CM cr.
cv o
9- LL
/H? x
¦ ¦ ¦
H Q
X
W H
cl
0
LL
H
W
tT
V n
10,
••l?i;-. j' • •?1' ?r: Z '? `'t +.'^?+ I f'N+?i/' / i ,F.? ` ?? ti/.
`ry1"' ? ?' ?'r ?? c c / l? ?1 ??
?i • «? / /
,,-,.••?• •? -? iC`' _.7 ?• ???yD? •'S? 1 tl',? (rl ?I f ? cv / ?• A ?GI? `I f h 'Q/V? J / ?? `I i-'\
`i?• •j? --? I • • ?"= `F:c? ??I --. J f ,- ' r'?/?. ? `??I (T?' ^ `? ~? J
, life - ? :,D o^- ? • ` ? x`•?.? ? I n? ' Y•' i ? \?'f°•? t ? ? \`? • /' I \ c' I ??-
000,
Ul , ,??' ,,I . ??" _ ? rrj? ¦ I 1 1 L, ? v, v' ? ??I ` ? O ? r? ???.i'-?+i y ? •` ? ? ?'.,? v
>y s ,.%U t , / r., ?.- sN' _ ':y?-' ,???-•,,a , /1 `I ?. Z W / ?' } H 1 \,.? J/ i I 1!
?'??` t' J/t .1' o . \ ?/ /r +?? \? /'l"'` t° \ f? W Q Q J \ l I l \ % ' /^l ?/?_
1 J Q O a f- t / i 1 k'? LI
a .-?
LL C C-0
:?L' J:A/ \^ or/ o o' 0/r" I•? J z f/ i r'?/ ^\? \ \ / / = ?? Igo
/ ' ? ? .Y n'-\•?' 1, 'r \ i ?. / r _ • `: ? I = f•'I , ? ? '??' i / i ,r
z CL F_
./ -1 / J"_ f I ?L\l,? I .+?%, '~ ?-,lI I `? v /? ?• _j<
7-1
"???=?"i ,a.L ? '`'zr :'?\r J _J a 1 ? ?? I? •?'.,?. .' i /IfI ? ?• .• i' • /? .\'?. _ r ?\
ILL
\. •'e '` •`e \, ? C ),r ,r •/ I m ..I'•'r -?? ???•\ .I: :,qr \'-'• ?,.. r I, \\lii 11.\ ? `\ \ty/ lii? ? ' ? 1??._/ i ?'1 /f?r?'?r'
'?I , ' DJ. ? . / R Y \ '•\ ' ? - 1 '? ?i ? /? I .??y .;/ ?' ?? " / ? i ' r •1 ? \\\? I i ? II?? ?I ?,, ? ?? t ?. ?-?? .. I ????,.,\
D.I. h Y ????./?. ??? ? i ` `? ?'•• I O ??'\"? ?,? \ '/ i ^ 1'. ?S ?_ ?r?; ?ri? -`\\ U?\??? I ' '?..? ?
i r . .I ?w••?- •! ... : ?- , ! _ 7 "a %r,/'•,'? m '\ 'li A ??y ail( ` r•??/? 1? ?,i:.'? //'??. ' I•\? ti `- /// ??
LLI
'L ?rrl_1? \~•?
{'?
Q ( t ?\- ;."'I .?'i?''-1\ 'ry1, U;. ,? , i 41 /! •.1?... ?`''????? ` --'' ?....` ` ` ( ,4`' `J i-f .l?ol /`'' ; U C !
W
l _ ?
CC W
. ;: W Ul '? f { ,? -? { r ?' V A ?^' ?'V` ?•?•"?? ? L..?''".'v ? ?? ? I? ! ' ,i.;.:/ ?\.`/ ?- tV?•.: ? v
! ; 1 rcc }' rn 1! , r; 1.. ,• ?'?-. i i J \1._ .,??' .11 4?;1 ? ?/?/y I .? r+ ! I ?1 /' ! 1 ,? \f \ \I \,N1 ,?_ ('{?
L
D j ? • . /' ? ? ? ?r?' ^\ I !? '? .(??1.•'"-?,4ir A??.I v.-/-- Y,' ? ? \ / r ?.. • ?D.?,? „ . D. \ \ ? 11 , •I?? \ ' / 0 r
3 W
zc_
,! , I ? - I ri'I? S,• ? ° '?' j??rj i ?!0 I ?% 1}.,' ,\,•,°n 'I v \ ??..?. „? Jam' /^ l• ?'?/? ?? r f?'?., i ? r V1 ? 1 O In I 1
tit cu
°. \ l` ?? j,?l \ ( iT'o . ' .1. ') /-••?,?r ?' ..f? ?C'' \ i \ •?' \u \ \ li,ri \, ' t!p J ^? J jr`ai % '\/ r M/ • ? I• r \`\1? \ J?? ?,J II .L U Z
X F-i C[:
A ' . J.GGI } ? ? . 1•'. ? ' ? 1 ?r!^ ? \ ? ? .?"•r -1- ? ? ; (! ? 1? . ?-? / ? 1 ? II rn i ?-??J ,?,?? I ` i // / lll? ? . /
?? T - Y `• ./? •? _` \ v C ?' 1i - >`. n'. r ?• .\ pr? I \ _! I I "fi?J / .../+ I ''I I'\\ I'? ? ti:il ?1??', of <
_? r? ' L'• ( ;. v ? ' \ r'?,. `\•: ? ? ? tom-,/ f •' ?' ? ?/?/• ? 1 •?1'??,I r ? J
-? ?jj ,_1\ ? `-ii_. I •°v - r' •/_ ` `` ?^..?\:.;?\ _`? L?``\'\ I ??V l??\;\ \ Q J
Lli
L - N rjt . ?V 1/x?.\?_ 11,-?? y ism yl '? S1'??•, ,/? :`1 .n , ` ?? ' '? ,m..J JJ?'r?J I I' 'I : '\? .?'?.•? • 1\ /li:;, Q
? ?. { .-fir"'-c. i_?! - J ?? _'?.' _ . J• •?. \ f?J ? _ _ , , J;/...? r % j;:; ' 1 \ . '-\ ,S}? .; -J I, ? ??? i a, 4 .
` ?• _ 't, ' \ .? o ' t'?? ?. ? .. .;r-?? ? ?`?1M? li (I r,,.?t ?r% ?1 ;8 '?il'??,?? .l• I `:\J, `h1?' \) i` ,?,! ' ?
ln
,
o' !n' ?'B OgOSM& : g $I MN N Mrs
aIW R ) ?t •in-=sz mc-, ln[t $ $
Cl)
5.0.. PROPOSED. IMPROVEMENTS :
-- 5.1 Description
Based upon the evaluation of the alternative treatment and disposal
systems presented in Section 4.0 it is determined that Alternative No. 2
provides the most cost-effective solution to the wastewater treatment and
disposal needs of the Clinton 201 Facilities Planning Area. Accordingly,
Alternative No. 2 as described in Section 5.2.2 is proposed for implementation
to provide the wastewater treatment and disposal needs of the planning area.
The location map for the proposed waste treatement improvements is shown on
exhibit 24.
5.2 Construction Costs
Treatment Plant
From Section 4.2.2 $7,110,000.00
5.3 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Treatment Plant
From Section 4.2.2 $ 650,000.00
Collection System
From budget estimate $ 150.000.00
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 800,000.00
5.4 User Charge
1. Basic Considerations
a. Town's financial obligation = $7,110,000.00
b. Number of sewer customers = 2,865.00
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs = 800,000.00
d. Existing Annual Debt Service = 337,850.00
e. Annual Water Consumption = 1,213,400,830 gal/yr
f. Interest Rate = 4.0 percent
g. Term period = 20 years
h. Equal prinicpal payments = $355,500.00
i. First year interest at 4.0% = 286,400.00
j. Total prinicipal and interest for first year = $639,900.00
- 76 -
2. User, Charge
= $337,850.00 + 639,900.00 + $800,000.00 x 1000
1,213,400,830 gal/yr.
= $1.465/1000 gallons
Using a rate of $1.465/1000 gallons, a typical customer using 4000
gallons of water per month would have a monthly user charge of $5.86/month.
5.5. Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Project
The proposed project will have both beneficial and adverse impacts on
the human environment. These impacts are classified as primary and secondary
effects which are discussed as follows.
1. Primary Impacts:
Primary impacts are the effects that result directly from the
construction of the project. These impacts could be beneficial or
adverse, which are discussed as follows:
A. Beneficial Impacts:
Upgrading the plant by providing additional clarification,
phosphorus removal, and disinfection facilities will have a
beneficial impact on water quality of William Old Mill Branch and
subsequently of Coharie Creek. Also, the present and future
septic tank operations in the Planning Area (which could be
considered as a significant source of pollution problems if the
septic tanks are malfunctioning and not properly maintained) may
be eliminated with the implementation of the proposed project.
As the project is planned to coordinate the land use goals
depicted in the current available land use plans, it should
facilitate the implementation of proposed land use plans.
Further, availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities
- 77 -
v. should.erLcourage:planned res44ential,.commercial, and industrial
development in. the area and thus should result in the enhancement
of socioeconomic conditions in the Planning Area.
B. Adverse Impacts:
Water Quality: A short-term adverse impact on water quality
will be the increased siltation and turbidity resulting from
erosion during and immediately after construction of the proposed
project. Also, the oxygen demanding constituents in sediments may
temporarily reduce the dissolved oxygen level in the receiving
stream. However, these impacts may be significantly reduced with
the adoption of adequate erosion control measures (temporary and
permanent).
The proposed improvements at the wastewater treatment plant
will have minimal, if not undetectable, adverse impacts on water
quality.
Atmosphere: The State of North Carolina is divided into
eight air quality control regions to implement the established
ambient air quality standards. A review of the existing air
quality data of the planning areas, indicates that the annual mean
concentrations of particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, and
nitrogen dioxide have not exceeded the established ambient air
quality standards.
During construction there will be short-term adverse impacts
on the air quality. One result will be the generation of dust
during construction activities, should dry conditions prevail
during construction. Another impact will result from an increase
- 78 -
in air pollution caused by Uwe construct on-related traffic..--The
former could be.significantly mitigated by using standard methods
of dust control such as watering. The latter may also become
significant as the construction-related traffic will be passing
through a residential area, even though the plant is relatively
isolated. During operation of the waste treatment facility, odor
is not expected to be a significant problem; however, this
potential is always minimized by proper plant operation and
maintenance.
Land: Construction of wastewater collection and treatment
facilities requires excavation for sewer installation and erection
of components of wastewater treatment facilities. Exposed soils
during and after construction will be subjected to erosion by
precipitation and surface runoff. This loss of top soil due to
erosion is not only a waste of valuable natural resources, but it
will also create an undesirable sediment deposition in local
streams. The increase in sediment deposition in stream beds will
affect the water-carrying capacity of stream channels and, over a
long period, can also result in increased flood stages. In the
case of the proposed project, erosion and sedimentation will occur
during and immediately after construction, but this impact will be
of a short-term nature. The use of erosion control measures
during construction as required by the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Land
Quality, should minimize this impact.
- 79 -
:.: Di sruption:!of?:Natural--Aarainage-..Pattern: Disruption of the
natural drainage pattern could create ponding or wet areas near
the construction corridor areas, which might result in potential
breeding areas for mosquitoes. Proper design and inspection
during construction should mitigate this problem.
Biology: During the installation of sewers and construction
of treatment facilities, the ground will be plowed by excavation
and movement of construction equipment. This may affect the
population dynamics of the soil microflora and microfauna.
However, these effects will be minimal since the excavated earth
will be returned to the trench and the disturbed areas will be
reseeded. It is also recognized that erosion and sedimentation
during and immediately after construction of the project will
increase the turbidity in the local streams, which may inhibit
aquatic flora and fauna growth and affect the established
predator-prey relationship. However, adoption of adequate erosion
control measures should mitigate these effects.
Water Supply: Currently, the City of Clinton obtains its
water supply from deep wells. The proposed project will not have
any primary adverse impacts on the quality and quantity of water
supplies.
Archaeological and Historical: The known historic and
archaeological areas are listed in the Appendix of the Clinton 201
Facilities Plan. Neither of these areas is located on the
property of the proposed project.
- 80 -
.. ,:Construction=Inconveniace:. The proposed project. will cause
minor inconvenience to traffic during sewer system evaluation and
rehabilitation and construction of the waste treatment facilities
due to movement of construction equipment. However, this impact
will be of short-term duration. Generally, the contract(s) for
any phase of this work would be for no more than a year, and
construction traffic would very likely be intermittent.
Land Use: The impact of the proposed project on land use is
principally secondary and long-term. This impact will be
discussed later in the section on secondary impacts. Construction
of the proposed project will not cause any relocation of families.
Since the existing treatment plant sites have traditionally been
- used for waste treatment facilities; no changes in the land use
are anticipated as a direct result of the proposed project.
Natural Resources: Commitments of natural resources
constitutes a long-term adverse impact. A primary impact will
result from the use of building materials and pipelines for
construction of the project. Also, the use of materials such as
chlorine, lime, polymer, fuel, lubricants, and chemicals during
the operational phase could be considered a long-term adverse, but
necessary, impact on natural resources.
Mineral resources in the Planning Area are limited. The
most valuable geological resources are the sands and gravel that
may be used for construction. Due to gently sloping to flat
topographic conditions, there is no existing danger of natural
landslides. The nature of the surficial sands and clays requires
- 81 -
---x".I.that :excavations,have shallowpslopes-.to prevent slides. There are
-- no major faults in the Planning Area. The nearest major fault is
the Jonesboro Fault which terminates in
seismic risk of the Planning Area is Zoi
regional seismic hazard index is 7.09.
conditions, the proposed project should
secondary adverse impacts on geological
resources within the Planning Area.
2. Secondary Impacts:
Granville County. The
ie 1, and the average
Considering the geologic
have no primary or
formations and mineral
Secondary impacts of the project are: (1) indirect or induced
changes in the patterns of land use and population growth, and (2) other
environmental effects resulting from changes in land use and population
growth.
Water Quality: A secondary, long-term adverse impact from this
project will be the decreased water quality as increased urbanization
leads to an increased amount of runoff. The urban runoff from built-up
areas is comprised primarily of soluble and suspended matter. These
constituents come from the degradation of asphaltic and concrete
pavements, various contributions from motor vehicles, fallout from the
atmosphere, vegetation, litter, spills, and other sources. Constituents
of urban runoff may lower the dissolved oxygen content of receiving
waters by adding oxygen-demanding materials in streams. Research has
also shown that urban runoff contains high concentrations of heavy
metals, which might inhibit biological activity in receiving streams.
Adoption and implementation of a storm water management policy could
mitigate this impact to a great extent.
-g2-
:Atmospher:e:.....Development --of he Plann:ing.Area will increase the
traffic volume which may increase the concentration of pollutants such
as nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, etc., in the ambient air. The
construction activities of development will also increase the
concentration of particulate matter in the vicinity of construction
sites; however, this impact could be mitigated by adopting adequate
measures such as watering. Also, because of the open nature of the area
and present quality of the local atmosphere, it is anticipated that
there will be minimal adverse secondary impacts on air quality from
increased development in the area.
Another possible secondary long-term adverse impact on the atmos-
phere will be the noise resulting from the construction activities of
. development in the area. Traffic-related noise will also increase due
to population growth. However, this impact could be mitigated by
adopting the same measures as discussed in the primary impacts.
Erosion and Sedimentation: Development of a watershed can
increase the amount of erosion and resultant sedimentation in two ways.
First, run-off from construction sites that have been stripped of
vegetation carry large quantities of silt into waterways. Secondly, an
increase in runoff causes increased erosion of channel banks. These two
sources can greatly increase the total sediment loading on a receiving
stream.
The adverse impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation will
create undesirable sediment deposition in stream beds. The continuation
of this deposition can affect the water-carrying capacity of stream
channels and increase flood stages. Also, increased turbidity in
- 83 -
tstreams-may, inhibit. aquatic: flora.#pd fauna,. and?.may-- change the
established. predatoriwey relationships. Increased turbidity may impair
the photosynthetic activity of rooted aquatic plants. In the case of
the proposed project, the impacts associated with erosion and
sedimentation will occur; however, these impacts could be mitigated by
adopting strict erosion control measures. All construction areas will
be graded, compacted, and seeded to minimize erosion and subsequent
siltation of streams.
Land Use and Socioeconomic Development: Provision of adequate
wastewater treatment facilities may increase development pressure in all
sections of the Planning Area regardless of their intended use of
helping the City in implementing the intended land use goals for the
area. Development pressure can be regarded as a-secondary, long-term
adverse impact, whereas implementation of land use goods can be regarded
as a secondary, long-term beneficial impact. In the case of the
proposed project, no adverse impacts on the land use are anticipated
since the project is coordinated with the land use goals depicted in the
current available land use plan and zoning ordinance.
Another secondary, long-term beneficial impact of the proposed
project will be the continued economic and social development of the
Planning Area. Provision of adequate water and wastewater treatment
facilities ensures that residential, commercial, and industrial
development can take place, thus enhancing conditions for economic
development. The influx of Federal funds afforded by these projects
provides employment opportunities that can also help the social
development potential for families near or below the poverty level.
- 84 -
,.._ _ No. signif:i.cant ..change in th%xate of . popul-ation growth is
?. indicated by the population study.- Population-densities may change
slightly in that the urban area will become larger and the rural
population density may decrease slightly. The project should induce no
major changes in employment, standard of living, or tax base.
Community Services and Utilities: Development of the Planning Area
will require an increase in community services such as water supply,
transportation, power, fuel, etc.
A secondary, long-term adverse impact on the water supply will
result from an increased demand for water as the Planning Area grows.
The City's water supply is currently derived from deep wells. The water
supplies are probably adequate to meet the increased demand as the City
grows. The development of the Planning Area will also demand an
increase in the supplies of fuel and electricity. The availability of
electricity and fuel in the Planning Area is adequate to meet the future
increased demand. Development of the Planning Area is not expected to
cause a drastic need for the expansion of the main transportation
system.
3. Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided and Mitigative Measures
The adverse impacts that cannot be avoided are:
A. Primary Impacts:
1. Erosion and Sedimentation
2. Construction Inconvenience and Annoyance
3. Wastewater and Sludge Disposal
B. Secondary Impacts:
1. Erosion and Sedimentation from Developmental Activity
- 85 -
.2. ..C.hanges:in,Water,and Air Qualities
C. Mitigative Measures to-Adverse Primary Impacts
The adverse primary impacts that are listed cannot be
totally avoided; however, there are measures that can be
taken to reduce the adverse effects.
1. Erosion and Sedimentation: Pursuant to the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (N.C. General
Statutes, Chapter 113-A, Article 4), the State of North
Carolina has prepared guidelines entitled "Rules and
Regulations for Erosion and Sediment Control" in an effort
to restrict the discharge of sediment to receiving streams.
An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be made a
..part of the plans and specifications for all of the
wastewater treatment improvements and related projects and
will be followed to mitigate the erosion and sedimentation
impacts.
During construction, provision of a sufficient
vegetative buffer between the edge of the construction site
and stream bank may mitigate the major effects. Special
erosion control efforts must be taken for stream crossings,
steep banks, and other cases that require disturbance of
natural stream banks. Techniques and available materials
for erosion and sedimentation control are presented in the
Environmental Technology Review publication, "Guidelines for
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Implementation,"
and the Office of Water Programs Operations publication,
- 86 -
"Comparative .Cost of Easion and ,Sediment Control r
Construction Activities."
2. Construction Inconvenience and Annoyance: During
construction, disruption of traffic and inconvenience to
motorists could be minimized by proper planning of
construction activities. The noise effect during
construction can be minimized by operating equipment during
daylight hours and maintaining muffler systems on all the
machinery used in construction.
3. Wastewater and Sludge Disposal: Disposal of effluents
into the receiving streams is not expected to have a
significant impact on the receiving streams since the
proposed treatment facilities are planned to produce
effluent quality that will protect the current assigned
water quality. If the plant becomes inoperable due to power
failure, it might significantly affect the water quality of
the receiving streams; however, an alternate power source is
available at the plant, and multiple treatment units at the
plant should mitigate these effects. The proposed
improvements provide the disposal of stabilized sludge by
land application at the existing permitted sites. The
sludge is to be applied at agronomic rates, just as any
fertilizer should be applied; the crop is to be removed from
the site; and the soil and sludge samples are to be taken on
a periodic basis to ensure proper operation of the land
application system.
- 87 -
D._ Mitigative Measures to?Adverse,.Secondary Impacts: _
-- 1. . Erosion and Sedimentation: To mitigate this effect,
erosion control plans should be prepared for any new
development and construction activities and approved by
local and state agencies.
2. Water and Air Quality: Urbanization of the watersheds
will contribute pollutants to watercourses. It may become a
national concern in the future to reduce the impacts of
nonpoint sources of pollution caused by surface runoff.
Accordingly, it may become necessary to collect and treat
wastewater runoff from municipalities. However, at the
present time, adoption and implementation of drainage and
sedimentationcontrol ordinances could appreciably mitigate
the impact of urbanization on water quality.
No significant impact on air quality is expected from
the proposed project.
4. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
The construction of the proposed project will pose slight adverse,
but limited, effects on man's environment which are deemed to be of
short-term nature. The project will cause minor erosion and subsequent
siltation of local streams. This will be of short-term duration;
however, careful attention will be given to these considerations during
design, recognizing the current policies of local and state regulatory
agencies for erosion and sediment control. The provision of temporary
- gg -
?- ..and permanent ?controJ_measures wiles be.planned to 'minimize any
-- short-term effects and to avoid any substantial long-term effects.
The proposed projects can certainly be classified as long-term
productive facilities. In considering the 20-year projection of
population and waste loads for the design of wastewater treatment
facilities, it can be clearly seen that the proposed project is not a
short-term solution in meeting the wastewater treatment needs of the
Clinton 201 Planning Area. Construction of the project should protect
the assigned water quality standards of the receiving streams since the
treatment facilities will be designed on the water quality objective
basis.
The availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities
should encourage planned development, thereby resulting in more job
opportunities in the Planning Area.
In summary, the long-term benefits of eliminating potential health
hazards, protecting the environment, and enhancing the socioeconomic
conditions of the Planning Area will definitely outweigh any possible
short-term adverse effects.
5. An_y Irreversible and Irretrievable Environmental Changes That
Would be Involved If Proposed Project Should be Constructed
Certain commitments of man's resources are inevitable when
construction of the project takes place and the facilities become
operational. Labor and other capital resources committed to the project
would be irretrievable. Physical elements such as materials used in the
construction of the treatment facilities are irretrievable. The land
area where construction takes place is also irreversibly committed
- 89 -
-unless the treatment-:p4ent is abantloned at:,some. future date due to
improved technology. In the case of plant breakdown, there would be
adverse effects on the aquatic environment. These effects would be
irreversible until the plant becomes operational. The possibility of
complete failure is very small, because the principal treatment units
will be designed on the Class II reliability basis. Also, dual pumps
and standby power will be provided at the pumping stations. Moreover,
proper operation and maintenance will further minimize this possibility.
The above commitment of resources will be out-weighed by the
proposed project by providing the long-term benefits of enhancing water
quality as well as the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
people of the Planning Area.
6. Public Participation
(Reserved)
- 90 -
Ce3i:Nil, SI;h
\?._ \ ?? r,. f\ I I' .• nsY •? {i,\ 1. r,o r. / . ?\)? ?f: r t _ I J? ` ?
OPOSED a
WASTE ch != r
TREATMENT ?0? /l;l, Sand
IMPROVEMENTS tA-A
?, - ?I ??`?r < < - "?
V I'4
_. i1J '!f:`' •./ • •?! `-1C'l' ?,' ^,rr I o? 'UI^ -. 1:?a? -
--yam- .r ...+?"r'' '"/ "' y 1 I i •• O , n ? •. .
d4h
" Se_ o. 1 ?',• `?1' { tlCLk T .•„,; ',
lioyol Mil(
Calr ra • .t 1 ? ? Rio ?_ i _? t L1,? M *°r. ,.-•?. ?? ? ? ,,, •<:' + • ? 1.
.i ?'?? ovi2r ? r 1 • Y I • t d ,?' 1 ;• 6,. -_ `Z` ?? ••Fl?hef ) ? '? ?
VVT
?:.
4. VIA,-
.` ?Geave Trailer
i??l ? ? j _ 'SCI ( i` ),ol \. ?'?, ??? ` ?JE,, c - -? oLr •, / '\\_,??_??
1;val La
•f ??? rj{ { Park
.' \? 1 ? C. ,? Iii , r r ?r •>>. \ ". _
INTON
•• t \\ll ` ;l :•• \7?=?'-.'.? • •t• /I'll r?o?\ ? ( ist •'_??' ? '•?yL
• S.n ( •', °••\ I `.S / \\ 'GT Park',
\,1 Colb9?'1" ,( , .?--- -'\--. '{ 11.11. `?.•11 , en .. ?`?` ?,(,1 J : ) •. •• ' ??
"do
55 \
(k;
_ r 1167 : -. ? ll??r A j / ? 7 ??, • \\ / ??( .• ' :1.. ' ..'
,p ?. I rll(?fl.rc??' -{??•.' •. `n1) •. \ f 1.• ••4,f
r ((f - 1 ?` 11111) ?l t
n1?K. Ni ..?UIVT ?? o?_ (('(?\ \ \ 111 1
.? ? 1 ??' • tr _ ; • ? •?. CoMlllwl Ilefgl•r. ?"
Cem i(i r / 1 101(
o ?1 V" ' 11? •r? r I ? ? ??
,S ?• I ` ?? r?---?",/. .i •\'' , Nigh ? \\ .(1;1F ?__- _> '17I
Rq o%
1127) co
I Pino \ ) ??'s _\
Ridge
I It cc)
61
SCALE: 1"= 2000'
EXHIBIT 24
LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED WASTE TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS
-84-
6.0. IMPLEMENTATION _"...
-- 6.1 Institutional Responsibilities
The City of Clinton has the legal authority and financial capability to
construct and operate the proposed wastewater treatment improvements. A copy
of the resolution of intent of the City Council to construct and operate the
proposed improvements is given in the Appendix.
6.2 Implementation Schedule
The implementation schedule is summarized as follows:
1. Submit amendment to the 201 Facilities Plan by September 30, 1991.
2. Submit plans and specifications for the proposed wastewater
treatment improvements by June 15, 1992.
3. Obtain N.C. Division of Environmental Management approval of the
plans and specifications by September 15, 1992.
4. Begin construction of the proposed improvements by December 15,
1992.
5. Complete construction of the proposed improvements by July 15,
1994.
6. Comply with the effluent limitations by Octboer 15, 1994.
6.3 Financing
The estimated project cost for all of the proposed waste treatment
improvements is $7,110,000. The project will be financed by using low
interest loan funds from the EPA revolving loan program. The City's request
for a loan will be processed by the Local Government Commission as if it were
a bond referendum application. Approval of the loan will be made by the
Commission, and a vote of the public will not be required.
The amendment should be submitted to NCDEM's 201 Facilities Planning
Unit for review. A public hearing on the recommended improvements should be
.scheduled and conducted, and a summary of the hearing be made a part of the
_92_
...Amendment.-..... Ouri ng-the..201: revi ew , proceW., the _ 201: Facilities Planning Unit
staff will give preliminary approval of the design concept so that design of
the project can begin to comply with the implementation schedule.
Questions regarding the Amendment should be addressed to The Wooten
Company (at 919-828-0531).
- 93 -
APENDIX
1. Design Wastewater Flow
2. Evaluation of Unox First State and Second Stage Activated Sludge Systems
3. Preliminary Design
4. Supporting Design Caluclations for Evaluation of Sludge Handling
Facilities
5. NPDES Permit
6. Sludge Disposal Permit
7. Response to State Review Comments
8. Minutes of the Public Hearing and Implementation Resolutions
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOW
Residential:
2500 service x 3.3 person/service x 75 gpcd = 0.618 mgd
Commercial:
400 connections = 0.220 mgd
Institutional:
.Hospital = 0.050 mgd
Industrial:
Alcatel Network = 0.040 mgd
Lundy Packing 0.850 mgd
Mary Gran Nursery 0.060 mgd
Spectrum Glass 0.110 mgd
Hamilton Beach 0.130 mgd
RUS Uniforms - 0.040 mgd
Prison Laundry 0.060 mgd
Nest A Way 0.010 mgd
Fujicone 0.060 mgd
Sub Total 1.360 mgd
..Infiltration/Inflow 0.600 mgd
Total Average Daily Flow 2.848 mgd
DESIGN WASTEWATER FLOW
Residential:
. 14,800 person x 75 gpcd = 1.110 mgd
Commercial:
0.220 mgd x 1.2 _ = 0.264 mgd
Institutional:
0.050 mgd x 1.5 = 0.075 mgd
Industry (Permitted Flow/Future CoMMittment)
Alcatel Network = 0.060 mgd
Lundy Packing 1.300 mgd
Mary Gran Nursery 0.060 mgd
Spectrum Glass 0.200 mgd
Hamilton Beach 0.200 mgd
RUS Uniforms 0.050 mgd
Prison Laundry 0.200 mgd
Nest A Way 0.050 mgd
FuJicone 0.140 mgd
Sub Total 2.260 mgd
Future Industrial Growth = 0.226 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow
Existing = 0.600 mgd
Future: 14800 - 8231 x 0.500 mgd = 0.400 mgd
8231
Total Average Daily Flow = 4.935 mgd
For Design Purpose Use = 5.000 mgd
16,000
14,000
0
12,000
o I
10,0001
0
a
1,0001
_r
6 , 000
;d
Xj
=Y
OOOJ
000
1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR
2010 2020
Evaluation of Unox First State and Second Stage Activated Sludge Systems
EVALUAT IQN
OF
UNOX FIRST AND SECOND STAGE ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEMS
1. FIRST STAGE (CARBONACEOUS BOD5 REMOVAL) SYSTEM
A. Design Operating Conditions Average
Average daily flow, mgd, excludes 10% bypass to second stage 2.7
BO05, mg/L, Influent 120
Effluent 21
Total aeration tank volume, gal 196,000
Hydraulic retention time, hr 1.75
Return sludge flow rate, mgd 0.54
% of ave daily flow 20
Mixed liquor suspended solids, MLSS, mg/L 3,200
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, MLVSS, mg/L 2,250
F/M loading, lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS 0.73
Volumetric loading, lb BOO/day/1000 cu ft 103
Average dissolved oxygen level, mg/L 25
Oxygen dissolution required, ton 02/day 1.26
Oxygen utilization, wt % of feed 90
Oxygen purity, percent 100
Oxygen generation required, ton 02/day 1.4
Peak Oxygen generation required, ton 02/day 2.22
B. Existing Operating Condition (For the July 1986-March 1989 period)
ADF, mgd, 2.11 mgd x 0.9 = 1.90
B005, mg/L, Influent 61
Effluent 33
TSS, mg/L, Influent 40
Effluent 22
NH3-N, mg/L, Influent 53
Effluent 36
Total aeration tank valume, gal 196,000
Hydraulic retention time, hr(1) 2.47
Return sludge flow rate, mgd 0.40
% of ave daily flow 21
Mixed liquor suspended solids, MLSS, mg/L 2,905
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, MLVSS, mg/L 2,343
F/M loading, lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS(2) 0.25
-1-
Volumetric loading, lb BOD/day/1000 cu ft (3) 36.88
Waste sludge quantity, lb/day 13.40
Mean cell residence time, MCRT, day (4) 2.81
Average dissolved oxygen level, mg/L 12.5
Oxygen dissolution required, ton 02/day(s) 1.10
Oxygen utilization, wt q of feed 90
Oxygen purity, percent 92
Oxygen generation, ton 02/day(6) 1.328
Peak oxygen generation, ton 02/day(7) 2.1
(1) Hydraulic Retention Time, hr
Aeration tank volume, gal x 24 hr
Ave daily flow, gal/day day
196,000 gal x 24 hr
1,900,000 gal/day day
= 2.47 hr
(2) F/M Loading, lb BOD/day/lb MUSS
BOD, mg/L x 8.34 x ADF, mqd
MLVSS, mg/L x 8.34 x Aeration tank Vol., mil. gal
61 mg/L x 8.34 x 1.9 mqd
2343 mg/L x 8.34 x 0.196 mil. gal
0.25
(3) Volumetric Loading, lb BOD/day/1000 cu ft
BOD, mg/L x 8.34 x Ave daily flow, mgd x 1000
Aeration tank volume, cu ft
= 61 mg/L x 8.34 x 1.9 mqd x 1000
196,000 gal x cu ft/7.48
= 36.88
(4) Mean Cell Residence Time, MCRT, days
MLSS, mg/L x 8.34 x Aer. tank Vol., mil gal
Waste sludge, lb/day + TSSE, mg/L x 8.34 x Ave daily flow, mgd
= 2905 mg/L x 8.34 x 0.196 mil gal
1340 lb/day + 22 mg/L x 8.34 x 1.9 mgd
- 2 -
= 4748.62
1688.61
= 2.81
(5) Oxygen Dissolution Required, ton 02/day
The total oxygen requirement for the pure oxygen system consists of
the individual oxygen requirements for BOD oxidation, ammonia oxidation,
endogenous respiration, and dissolved oxygen elevation.
Oxygen dissolution required/day:
[A (Q) (BOD ) + 4.25 (Q) (NH )
+ B(V) (MNSS) + (Q+R) D0) %.34
Where: A = lb 02/lb BOD removed = 0.8
Q = Ave daily flow to areation tank, mgd = 1.9 mgd
800 = BODS removed, mg/L = 61-33 = 28 mg/L
(NH3-N? = NH3 removed, mg/L = 53-36 = 17 mg/L
B = lb 02/lb MLVSS under aeration = 0.122
V = Volume of aeration tank, mil. gal = 0.196
MLVSS = Mixed liquor volatile solids, mg/L = 2,343 mg/L
R = Recycle flow rate, mgd = 0.40 mgd
DO = Dissolved oxygen elevation, mg/L = 12.5 mg/L
02 dissolution required/day
_ [0.8 (1.9)(28) + 4.25 (1.9)(17)
+ 0.122 (0.196)(2343) + (1.9 + 0.4)(12.5)] 8.34
[42.56 + 137.27 + 56.02 + 28.751 8.34
= 2206.76 lb 0 /day
= 1.10 ton 02/?ay
(6) Oxygen Generation Require, ton 02/day
Assuming 90% oxygen utilization and 92 percent oxygen purity, the
required oxygen generation for the average loading condition is:
= 1.10 ton 0 /day
0.90 x 0.9i
= 1.328 ton 02/day
(7) Peak Oxygen Generation Required, ton 02/day
= 1.328 ton 02/day x 1.585
= 2.10 ton 02/day
- 3 -
2. SECOND STAGE (NITRIFICATION) SYSTEM
A. Design Operating Condition Average
Ave daily flow, mgd 3.0
BOO 59 mg/L, Influent 21
Effluent 5
NH 3-N, mg/L, Influent 23
Effluent 2
Total aeration tank volume, gal 380,000
Hydraulic retention time, hr 3.06
Return sludge flow rate, mgd 1.80
% of influent flow 60
Mixed liquor suspended solids, MLSS, mg/L 4880
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, MLVSS, ml/L 3360
F/M loading, lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS 0.05
Volumetric loading, lb B00/day/1000 cu ft 10
Mean cell residence time, MCRT, day* 24.5
Average dissolved oxygen level, mg/L >5
Oxygen dissolution require, ton 02/day 2.07
Oxygen utilization, wt % of feed 90
Oxygen purity, percent 100
Oxygen generation required, ton 02/day 2.30
Peak oxygen generation required, ton 02/day 3.40
*Based upon zero sludge waste.
B. Existing Operating Conditions (For July 1986-March 1989 period)
Ave daily flow, mgd 2.11
BOOS, mg/L Influent 33
Effluent 3
NH3-N, mg/L Influent 36
Effluent 1
TSS, mg/L Influent 22
Effluent 23
Total aeration tank volume, gal 380,000
Hydraulic retention time, hr(l) 4.32
Return sludge flow rate, mgd 0.76
% of ADF 36
Mixed liquor suspended solids, MLSS, mg/L 8295
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, MLVSS, mg/L 2143
F/M loading, lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS(2) 0.085
- 4 -
Volumetric loading, lb BOD/day/100 cu ft(3) 11.43
Waste sludge quantity, lb/day 1035
Mean cell residence time, MCRT, days (4) 18.25
Average dissolved oxygen level, mg/L >5
Oxygen dissolution required, ton 02/day(5) 2.53
Oxygen utilization, wt % of feed 90
Oxygen purity, percent 92
Oxygen generation required, ton 02/day(6) 3.055
Peak oxygen generation required, ton 02/day (7) 4.51
Hydraulic Retention Time, hr
= 380,000 gal x 24 hr
2,110,000 gpd day
= 4.32
2 F/M Loading, lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS
= 33 mg/L x 8.34 x 2.11 mgd
2143 mg/L x 8.34 x 0.38 mil gal
= 0.085
3 Volumetric Loading, lb BOD/day/1000 cu ft
= 33 mg/L x 8.34 x 2.11 mqd x 1000
380,000 gal x cu ft/7.48 gal
= 11.43
4 Mean Cell Residence Time, MCRT, days
= 8295 mg/L x 8.34 x 0.380 mil gal
1035 lb/day + 23 mg/L x 8.34 x 2.11 mgd
= 18.25
5 Oxygen Dissolution Required, ton 02/day
lb 02 Required/day:
[A (Q) (BOD) + 4.25 (Q) (NH3)
+ 8 (V) MLVSS) + (Q + R) %01 8.34
Where: A = lb 0z/lb BOD removed = 0.8
Q = Ave daily flow, mgd = 2.11
BODR = 33-3 = 30 mg/L
(NH3) = 36-1 = 35 MG/l
= lb 02/lb MLVSS under aeration
0.023 (T - 15)
= 0.2e
- 5 -
0.023 (30 - 15)
= 0.2e = 0.28
V = Volume of aeration tank, mil gal = 0.38
MLVSS = Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, mg/L = 2,143
R = Recycle flow rate, mgd = 0.76
DO = Dissolved oxygen elevation, mg/L = 5 mg/L
lb 02 Required/day:
[080(28 1(0.38) )(2143) 5 + (2.11 ) + (057
+ 6) 5.0] 8.34
= [50.64 + 313 86 + 228.01 + 14.351 8.34
= 5061.21 lb 0 /day
= 2.53 ton 02/day
6 Oxygen Generation Required, ton 02/day
= 2.53 ton 0 /day
0.90 x 0.62
= 3.055 ton 02/day
7 Peak Oxygen Generation Required, ton 02/day
= 3.055 ton 02/day x 3.40
2.30
= 4.51 ton 02/day.
- 6 -
3. TOTAL OXYGEN GENERATION REQUIRED FOR FIRST AND SECOND STAGES
A. Total Oxygen Generation Required at Average Conditions.
Ton 02/day = 1.328 + 3.055
= 4.383 > design 5.62 ton 02/day.
From the above oxygen generation requirements, it can be seen that
the present loading conditions have already exceeded the design oxygen
generation requirements. The design capacity of the PSA oxygen
generation system is 6 ton 02/day. This means that even though the plant
is designed to handle an average daily flow of 3.0 mil gal, its hydraulic
capacity is limited by the oxygenation capacity provided at the plant.
Considering the operating data and supplemental oxygen supplied by the
backup liquid oxygen system, a reasonable estimate of average daily flow
that can be handled by the oxygenation system is approximately 2.25 mgd.
It should be noted that the existing operation data show an influent
average daily flow of 1.82 mgd, while to the First and Second Stage
Systems is 2.11 mgd. The influent flow to the First and Second Stage
Systems is approximately 15 percent higher than the plant's influent
flow. the only additional flow contribution to the First and Second
Stage Systems is filter backwash waste return which could account for a
maximum of 5 percent of the process flow. The flow differences could be
attributed to improper calibration of the influent and intermediate pump
station flowmeters. Considering 5 percent filter backwash waste flow
addition to the-First and Second Stage Systems, the estimated average
influent flow that can be handled at the plant is approximately 2.15 mgd.
- 7 -
-PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CLINTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
DESIGN DATA
1. Flows and Waste Characteristics
Average daily flow, mgd
Maximum daily flow, mgd
Peak daily flow, mgd
BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), mg/L
TSS, (Total Suspended Solids), mg/L
TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen), mg/L
NH -N' (Ammonia Nitrogen), mg/L
Total Alkalinity as CaCo3, mg/L
pH
Temperature, °C
2. Effluent Limitations
Average daily flow, mgd
BOD5, mg/L
TSS, mg/L
NH -N,mg/L
D.6. mg/L
Fecal Coliform, #/100 ml
pH
MECHANICAL SCREEN
5
10
12.5
250
250
40
25
200
7
Winter = 10°C; Summer = 28°C
5.0
5
30
6
1000
6-9
Replace the existing screen on the William Branch influent outfall sewer
with a 0.5 inch opening mechanical screen.
RAW WASTEWATER PUMP STATION
Replace the existing bar screen with a 0.5 inch opening mechanical
screen, Provide variable speed controls for the pumps.
GRIT REMOVAL SYSTEM
Provide a new aerated grit removal system designed to provide 5.0- minute
detention time at maximum flow of 10.0 mgd. Use the existing grit removal
system to handle the peak flow and as a dual or standby unit.
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION
1. Existing Units
Number of units, 70-ft dia x 10-ft SWD 1
Unit volume, gal 287,864
Unit surface area, sq ft 3846.5
Unit weir length, ft 219.8
Detention time, hr, at 3.0 mgd ADF 2.3
at 3.0 mgd ADF + 0.2 mgd 2.16
-1-
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq.ft,-at 3.0 mgd ADF 780
at 3.0 mgd ADF + 0.2 mgd 832
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin ft, at 3.0 mgd ADF 13,648
at 3.0 mgd ADF + 0.2 mgd 14,558
2. Evaluation of the existing clarifier for 5.0 mgd flow.
a. Hydraulic Retention Time:
1. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow
= 287,864 gal 24 hr
5,000,000 gpd day
= 1.38 hr
2. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow + 0.2 mgd recycle
287,864 gal _ 24 hr
5,200,00 gpd day
= 1.328 hr
The above detention times are less than a typical design range of
1.5 to 2.5 hr.
b. Surface Overflow Rate:
1. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow
= 5,000,000 gpd
3846.5 sq ft
= 1299 gpd/sq ft
2. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow + 0.2 mgd recycle
= 5,200,000 gpd
3846.5 sq ft
= 1352 gpd/sq ft
The above overflow rates are higher than a typical design range of
600 - 1000 gpd/sq ft.
C. Weir Overflow Rate:
1. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow
= 5,000,000 gpd
219.8 lin ft
= 22,747 gpd/lin ft
2. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow + 0.2 mgd recycle
- 2 -
= 5,200,000 gpd
219.8 lin ft
= 23,657 gpd/lin ft
The above overflow rates are higher than a typical design standard of
15,000 gpd/lin ft. Considering the detention time and hydraulic loading
conditions, expansion of the primary clarification facilities will be
necessary to handle the average daily design flow of 5.0 mgd.
Considering 800 gpd/sq ft. design hydraulic loading rate, the required
clarification facilities for 5.0 mgd average daily influent flow + 0.2 mgd
recycle flow is estimated as follows:
Required surface area, sq ft 5,200,000 qpd
800 gpd/ sq ft
= 6,500 sq ft
Considering 3846 sq ft available surface area of the existing primary
clarification, additional surface area required is = 6,500 - 3,846 = 2654 sq ft
Required size of the clarifier:
IT x d = 2654 sq ft
4
d2 = 2654 x 4
n
d = 58.14 ft.
Considering symmetrical design with the existing unit (70 ft dia x 10 ft
SWD) for operational ease and improved performance provide one additional 70
ft. diameter clarification with 10 ft sidewater depth. The design detention
time and hydraulic loading rates for the expanded primary clarification
facilities are estimated as follows:
1. Hydraulic Retention Time
a. at 5.0 mgd ave daily flow
= 287.864 gal x 2 24 hr
5,000,000 gpd x day
= 2.76 hr.
- 3 -
b. at 5-0 mgd.ave daily flow-+0.2 mgd recycle f-low
287,864 al x 2 24 hr
= 5,200,00 gpd x 2
= 2.65 hr.
2. Surface Overflow Rate:
a. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow
_ 5.000.000 gpd
3846.5 sq ft x 2
= 650 gpd/sq ft
b. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow + 0.2 mgd recycle flow
_ 5.200.000 gpd
- 3846.5 sq ft x 2
= 676 gpd/sq ft
3. Weir Overflow Rate:
a. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow
_ _5,00,000 qpd
219.8 lin ft x 2
= 11,374 gpd/lin ft
b. at 5.0 mgd ave. daily flow + 0.2 mgd recycle flow
_ 5.200.000 gpd
219.8 lin ft x 2
= 11,829 gpd/lin ft
3. Expected Performance:
Hydraulic Loading Factor = Actual Plant Loading, gpd/sq ft
800 gpd/sq ft
676 qpd/so ft
= 800 gpd/sq ft
= 0.845
From the attached Figure 17 the percent BODs removal at 0.845 hydraulic
factor ranges from 29 to 38 percent with an average of 33 percent. The percent
TSS removal ranges from 54 to 70 percent with an average of 60 percent. Using
design 30 percent BOD5 removal and 60 percent TSS removal, the BODs and TSS
concentrations in the primary clarification effluent are estimated as follows:
BOD5, mg/L = 250 mg/L x 0.70 = 175 mg/L
TSS, mg/L = 250 mg/L x 0.40 = 100 mg/L
- 4 -
100 Underioad Overload
90 v
Y
v
G
Q
BU
0
y 7U
U
r
0
; 60 - -- -
a
m

Q 50
1 Range of basin performance,

a SS removal
._
z 40

a
Q ,
W 90 ----
cc

20 c
4
u C
- v
10 w' Range of basin performance,
V
S
BOO removal
0
0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 J .0 4.0
Hydraulic Loading Factor a Actual Plant Loading
Daalgn Loading
Fiyurc 17. EsLimated r emovals of suspended solids and BOD in primary
basins at various hydraulic loadings.
-5 -
TRICKLING FILTER SYSTEM ?.
1. Existing Units
Number of units, 125 ft inside diameter 1
Average depth of filter media, ft 7
Size of the filter media, inch 2 - 4
Unit surface area, acres 0.2817
Filter media volume, ac-ft 1.972
1000 cu ft 85.9
Recirculation ratio to OF 1.0
Hydraulic loading, mgd/ac at no recirculation 10.84
at 50% recirculation 15.97
at 100% recirculation 21.29
Net organic loading, lb BOD5/ac-ft/day* 4467
Net organic loading, lb BODS/100 cu ft/day* 102.55
*Considering 30% BOD removal in primary clarifier and excluding
BOD of recirculated Flow.
Number of filters, lift pumps, 4200 gpm capacity, each 2
2. Proposed Use of the Trickling Filter System For 5.0 mgd Flow
Use the existing trickling filter system to process 3.0 mgd
average daily flow by providing a splitter box ahead of the trickling
for by-passing the remaining flow of 2.0 mgd.
Expected Tricking Filter System Performance Using NRC Formula
E = 100
1 + 0.0085 ( w ) 112
VF
Where E = percent BOD removal efficiency through filter and setting tank
W = BOD5 loading to filter, lb/day
= 175 mg/L x 8.34 x 3.0 mgd
= 4378.5 lb/day
V = Volume of filter media in acre ft = 1.972
F = Number of passes of organic material
(1+R) = 1+1 =1.65
(1+0.1R)2 (1+0.1x1)2
R = Recirculation ratio = 3/3 = 1.0
E=
100
1 + 0.0085 ( 4378.5 ) 1/2
1.72 x 1.65
=76%
Considering 76 percent BOD5 removal efficiency of the trickling system,
the trickling filter system effluent BOD is:
= 175 mg/L BODs x (1-0.76)
= 42 mg/L
- 6 -
BOD5 Concentration in the Blended Bypass-TrUkling Filter Effluent
BOD5 , mg/ L= 175 mg/ L x 2.0 mgd + 42 mg/ L x 3.0 mgd
5.0 mgd
= 95.2 mg/L
Use 100 mg/L BOD5 for design of activated sludge system.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM (Single Stage Air Activated Sludge System)
1. Aeration Tank
a. Design Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
BOD5: Influent = 100 mg/L; Effluent = 5 mg/L
TKN: Influent = 32 mg/L; Effluent = 3 mg/L
NH -N: Influent = 22 mg/L; Effluent = 1 mg/L
Total alkalinity: Influent = 200 mg/L; Effluent = 60 mg/L
Temperature: Winter 10°C; Summer = 25°C
Mixed liquor suspended solids, MLSS = 2500 mg/L
Sludge retention time at 10°C = 25 days
Net sludge production, Yn = 0.7 lb solids/lb BOD removed
MLVSS/MLSS = 0.75
b. Volume of Aeration Tank, million gallons
BOD x Yn x SRT
MLLSS x 8.34
_ (100 - 5) mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.7 x 25
2500 x 8.34
= 3.325 million gallons
c. Detention time, hr
_ 3.325 mil. gal 24 hr
5.0 mgd x day
= 15.96 hr
d. F/M Ratio, lb BOD5/lb MLVSS
100 mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
2500 mg/L x 0.75 x 8.34 x 3.325 mil. gal
= 0.08
- 7 -
-- e.-.-- Volumetric Loading, lb BOB/1000=cu ft/day
_ 100 mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd 7.48 gal
3,325,000 gal x cu ft x 1000
= 9.38 lb BOD/1000 cu ft/day
Provide aeration tanks for new single-stage, air-activated sludge system
designed to provide an 15.96-hour detention time at an average daily flow of
5.0 mgd. The aeration tanks will be equipped with either diffused air or low
speed mechanical aerators (for Carrousel-type oxidation ditch). The design
calculations for these aeration systems are given in the following sections.
The existing first stage aeration system will be piped such that it can be
easily converted into anaerobic/anoxic tanks for biological phosphorus and
nitrogen removal or aerobic sludge stabilization facilities.
2. Aeration System
a. Design Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
BODO Influent = 100 mg/L; Effluent = 5 mg/L
TKN: Influent = 30 mg/L; Effluent = 2 mg/L
NH3-N: Influent = 25 mg/L; Effluent = 1 mg/L
Temperature = 25°C
b. Oxygen Requirements
lb 02/lb BOD removed = 1.3
lb 0 /lb NH3-N removed = 4.6
All the TKN is converted to NH3-N.
BODS removed, lb/day
_ (100 - 5) mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
= 3961.5 lb/day
NH3-N removed, lb/day
_ (30 - 1) mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
= 1209.3 lb/day
Actual Oxygen Requirement, AOR, lb 02/day
= 3961.5 x 1.3 + 1209.3 x 4.6
= 10713 lb 0 /day
= 446 1b 02/gr
c. Aeration System
1. Fine Bubble Dome Type Diffused Air System
Design Considerations
AOR = 446 lb 02/hr; Temperature = 25°C
P = 0.9; a = 0.5
- 8 -
Oxygen Transfer Efficiency-
EW = E. x SF x a [ B Csc1 - Co 1 x 1.024 T-20
CSC
Where:
EW = Oxygen transfer efficiency in wastewater
E = Oxygen transfer efficiency in clean water = 23%
S9 = Safety factor = 0.9
a = Oxygen transfer rate factor = 0.5
P = Oxygen saturation factor = 0.9
CSC = Oxygen saturation concentration of clean water at standard
condition and at the middepth of the tank.
= CS [Depth x 0.433 psi/ft + 14.71
2
14.7
= 9.2 [15 x 0.433 psi/ft + 14.71
2
14.7
= 11.23
CSCi = Corrected CS value for site conditions of temperature and
barometric pressure, mg/L
= CSTW [Depth x 0.433 psi/ft + Patm]
2
14.7
= 8.4 [15 x 0.433 psi/ft + 14.71
2
14.7
= 10.25
Co = Steady state dissolved oxygen concentration in aeration tanks =
2.0 mg/L at average conditions.
TW = Average wastewater temperature = 25°C
EW = 23 x 0.9 x 0.5 [0.9 x 10.25 - 21 x 1.02625-20
11.23
= 7.497 = 7.5%
Air Requirements
1. To Satisfy Oxygen Need
lb 02 In day 1 lb air 1 ft3 air
Air Req. = day x E x 1440 Minx 0.23 lb 02 x 0.075 lb air
- 9 -
10,713 lb 02 100% dW_ 1 lb air x 1 ft3 air
day x 7.5 x 1440 Minx 0.23 lb 02 0.075 lb air
= 5750 scfm
Number of Sanitaire or Norton Diffusers Required
Considering 1.15 scfm/diffuser, the number of diffusers required:
= 5750 scfm
1.15 scfm/diffuser
= 5000
2. To Satisfy Mixing Need
Considering 0.12 scfm/sq ft, the aeration requirement for
mixing is :
= 3,325,000 gal cu ft 1 0.12 scfm
x 7.48 x 15 ft SWD x sq ft
= 3556 scfm
Considering the above aeration needs, it is evident that the aeration need is
limiting the oxygen requirement.
Blower Discharge Gage Pressure:
Hydrostatic pressure = 6.49
Diffuser Losses, psi = 0.31
Miscellaneous Line Losses, psi = 0.50
Total = 7.30
Provide three 150-hp Lamson 1210 Blowers, each rated at 3000 scfm
at 7.30 psig, including one standby blower.
2. Carrousel Type Low Speed Surface Aerators:
a. Design Considerations:
AOR = 446 lb 02/hr; Temperature = 25°C
0 = 0.90; a = 0.85
Residual Oxygen Concentration in aeration tank = 2.0 mg/L
Aeration requirement for mixing = 0.5 hp/1000 cu ft
Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate: 3.25 lb 02/hp/hr
b. Field Transfer Rate of the Aerator:
FTR = SOR NJ - Crl x 1.024T-20 x 0.85
Csc
_ 3.25 f8.4 x 0.9 - 2.01 x 1.02425-20 x 0.85
9.2
= 1.88 lb 02/hp/hr
- 10 -
c.. Total Aeration Capacity Required=-to Satisfy Oxygen deed:
446 lb 0 hr
1.88 lb 02J2hp/hr
= 237 hp
d. Aeration Requirement for Mixing
Considering 0.5 hp/1000 cu ft aeration requirement for mixing, the
total aeration required for mixing is:
= 3,325,000 gal x 7.C48 gal 1000 cu ft
= 222 hp
Considering the above aeration need, it is evident that aeration
needs is limited by the oxygen requirement. Therefore, provide
four 100-hp aerators and one standby 100-hp motor with gear
reducer.
2. Clarifier
a. Design Considerations:
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
Surface overflow rate = 400 gpd/sq ft
b. Total Surface Area Required
Surface Area, sq ft = _5_,000,000 gpd
400 gpd/sq ft
= 12,500 sq ft
Provide two (2) clarifiers. Therefore, surface area per
clarifier:
= 12,500 sq ft
2
= 6250 sq ft
c. Size of the clarifier:
n (d2) = 6250 sq ft
4
d2 = 6250 x = 7962
d = 89.2 ft
- 11 -
Provide two:90-ft diam x 15-ft--SWD clarifiers with suction and
heavy sludge withdrawal line. Provide scum arm to cover full
diameter of the tank.
3. Sludge Recirculation and Waste Pumps:
Provide three sludge recirculation pumps each rated at 2000 gpm
capacity, two sludge waste pumps each rated at 300 gpm capacity and two
scum pumps each rated at 100 gpm capacity.
ALKALI FEED SYSTEM
1. Design Considerations:
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
Total alkalinity as CaC03: Influent = 200 mg/L; Effluent = 60 mg/L
Ammonia Nitrogen: Influent = 25 mg/L; Effluent = 1.0 mg/L
2. Estimated Alkalinity Loss Due to Nitrification
For each mg/L of NH3-N oxidation, approximately 7.14 mg/L of natural
alkalinity is used up in biological nitrification. Accordingly, the
total alkalinity required for nitrification is:
= (25 - 1) mg/L x 7.14 mg/L HC03
mg/L NH3-N
= 171.4 mg/L
Considering 200 mg/L available alkalinity in wastewater and 50 mg/L
residual alkalinity requirement in the treated wastewater, the
additional alkalinity requirement is:
= 171.4 + 60 - 200
= 31.4 mg/L
3. Chemical Requirement for Alkalinity:
a. Hydrated Lime:
Considering that 0.76 mg/L of hydrated lime is required to raise 1.0
mg/L of alkalinity, the total quantity of lime required is:
0.74 mg/L lime
= 31.4 mg/L alkalinity LO mg/L alkalinity x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
= 969 lb/day
= 0.48 ton/day
b. Quicklime
Considering that 0.78 mg/L of quicklime is required to raise 1.0 mg/L of
alkalinity, the total quantity of quicklime required is:
- 12 -
=131.4 mg/L alkalinity 0.78 mg/L mime x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
f.0 mg/L alkalinity
= 1021 lb/day
= 0.51 ton/day
c. Soda Ash
Considering that 1.68 mg/L of soda ash is required to raise 1.0 mg/L of
alkalinity, the total quantity of soda ash required is:
= 31.4 mg/L alkalinity x 1.68 mg/L soda ash x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
1.0 mg/L alkalinity _
= 2199 lb/day
= 1.10 ton/day
d. Caustic Soda
Considering that 0.8 mg/L of caustic soda is required to raise 1.0 mg/L
alkalinity, the total quantity of caustic soda required is:
= 31.4 mg/L alkalinity x 0.8 mg/L caustic soda x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
1.0 mg/L alkalinity
= 1047.5 lb/day
= 0.523 ton/day
Considering the cost, quality, and safety aspects of the chemicals
hydrated line is recommended for alkali feed. Use of lime will also be
beneficial in land application of sludge.
TERTIARY FILTRATION
1. Existing Facilities
Number of filters, 12 ft x 22 ft ea 4
Unit surface area, sq ft 264
Total surface area, sq ft 1056
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft @ ave. daily flow 1.97
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft @ max. daily flow 3.57
Maximum wash rate at 70°F, gpm/sq ft 20
Filter media: 2 ft 3 in. anthracite; 12 in. sand, 13 in. gravel.
Filter backwash pumps: 2 pumps each rated at 5280 gpm at 40 ft TDH
and 1170 rpm. The drive horsepower is 60
hp, each.
Surface wash pumps: 2 pumps each rated at 264 gpm capacity at 220 ft
TDH and 1770 rpm. The drive horsepower is 20
hp, each.
Mudwell pumps: 2 pumps each rated at 420 gpm at 40 ft TDH and 1770
rpm. The drive horsepower is 7.5 hp, each.
- 13 -
Evaluation of the Existing Tertiary Filters-for 5.0 MGD Flow.
1. Filtration Rate
a. At average daily flow with all filters on line.
Filtration Rate = 5,000,000 dx dayx 1
ay 1440 1056sq ft
= 3.29 gpm/sq ft
b. At average daily flow with one filter down
Filtration Rate = 5,000,00 gal day 1
gay X440 Min x/92 sq ft
= 4.38 gpm/sq ft
c. At maximum daily flow with all filters on line
Filtration Rate = 10,000,000 x day x 1
day 1440 1056sq ft
= 6.57 gpm/sq ft
d. At maximum daily flow with one filter down
Filtration Rate = 10,000,0 gal day 1
92Y 1440 Min 762 sq ft
= 7.0 gpm/sq ft
From the above filtration rates, the filtration rate at maximum daily
flow with one filter down is significantly higher than a desired 5.0
gpm/sq ft. Accordingly, expansion of the filtration system will be
necessary. Provide one additional 12 ft x 22 ft filter cell with
necessary piping and controls.
Design filtration rates are as follows:
a. At average daily flow with all filters on line
Filtration Rate = 5,000,000 gal x day 1
day 1440 min x 1320 sq. ft.
= 2.63 gpm/sq ft
b. At average daily flow with one filter down
Filtration Rate = 5,000,000 gal day 1
day x 1440 minx 1056 sq ft
= 3.29 gpm/sq ft
c. At maximum daily flow with all filters on line
- 14 -
Filtration Rate = 10,000,000 pa day 1
day x 1440 minx 1320 sq ft
= 5.26 gpm/sq ft
d. At maximum daily flow with one filter down.
Filtration Rate = 10,000,000 gal day 1
day x 1440 minx 1056 sq ft
= 6.57 gpm/sq ft
From the above filtration rates, the filtration rate at maximum daily
flow with one filter down is higher than a desired 5.0 gpm/sq ft.
However, considering backwashing of filters during low flow period and
no significant effect on the filtration system performance, except the
filter run time, it is recommended to expand the existing filtration
system by adding one more filter.
CHLORINATION SYSTEM
Provide a new chlorine contact tank designed to provide a 30 minute
detention time at an average daily flow of 5.0 mgd. Use the existing chlorine
feed system.
DECHLORINATION
Provide dechlorination facilities consisting of sulfur dioxide feed
system, chlorine residual analyzer and necessary piping and controls.
POSTAERATION
Use the existing chlorine contact tank for postaeration. Replace the
existing aspirating type aeration with diffused air aeration system.
SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES
1. Estimates of Sludge Quantities
a. Sludge Quantities produced in Primary Clarification and Trickling
Filter System.
1. Basic Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
Influent BOD = 250 mg/L
Influent TSS = 250 mg/L
Expected BOD removal in primary clarifier = 30 percent
Expected BOB removal in trickling filter = 76 percent
Expected TSS removal in primary clarifier = 60 percent
Fraction of applied BOD in trickling filter converted into
excess biological sludge = 0.3
Percent solids in combined (P + T.F.) sludge = 4.0
- 15 -
Filtration Rate = 10,000,000 gad. day 1
day x 1440 minx 1320 sq ft
= 5.26 gpm/sq ft
d. At maximum daily flow with one filter down.
Filtration Rate = 10,000,000 gal day 1
day x 1440 minx 1056 sq ft
= 6.57 gpm/sq ft
From the above filtration rates, the filtration rate at maximum daily
flow with one filter down is higher than a desired 5.0 gpm/sq ft.
However, considering backwashing of filters during low flow period and
no significant effect on the filtration system performance, except the
filter run time, it is recommended to expand the existing filtration
system by adding one more filter.
CHLORINATION SYSTEM
Provide a new chlorine contact tank designed to provide a 30 minute
detention time at an average daily flow of 5.0 mgd. Use the existing chlorine
feed system.
DECHLORINATION
Provide dechlorination facilities consisting of sulfur dioxide feed
system, chlorine residual analyzer and necessary piping and controls.
POSTAERATION
Use the existing chlorine contact tank for postaeration. Replace the
existing aspirating type aeration with diffused air aeration system.
SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES
1. Estimates of Sludge Quantities
a. Sludge Quantities produced in Primary Clarification and Trickling
Filter System.
1. Basic Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
Influent BOD = 250 mg/L
Influent TSS = 250 mg/L
Expected BOO removal in primary clarifier = 30 percent
Expected BOO removal in trickling filter = 76 percent
Expected TSS removal in primary clarifier = 60 percent
Fraction of applied BOD in trickling filter converted into
excess biological sludge = 0.3
Percent solids in combined (P + T.F.) sludge = 4.0
- 15 -
2. ..Sludge Produced in Primar*.Clarification, lb/day
= 250 mg/L x 0.60 x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
= 6255 lb/day
3. Sludge Produced in the Trickling Filter System, lb/day
= 250 mg/L x 0.70 x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.3
= 2189 lb/day
4. Total Sludge Produced in Primary Clarifier and Trickling
Filter System, lb/day
= 6255 + 2189
= 8,444 lb/day
b. Sludge Quantity Produced in Single Stage Activated Sludge System
1. Basic Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
BOD5: Influent = 100 mg/L; Effluent = 5 mg/L
TSS: Influent = 60 mg/L; Effluent = 10 mg/L
NH -N: Influent = 25 mg/L; Effluent = 1 mg/L
Total Alkalinity: Influent = 200 mg/L; Effluent = 60 mg/L
Sludge Retention Time = 20 day
Temperature = 10°C
Net Sludge Yield, Yn, lb solids/lb BODR = 0.70
Percent solids in waste sludge = 1.0 percent
2. Sludge Produced in Activated Sludge System, lb/day
= (100 - 5) mg/L BOD x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.7 lb solids
= 2773 lb/day lb BODR
2. Sludge Digestion Facilities
a. Anaerobic Digestion (For Primary/Trickling Filter Sludge)
1. Existing Facilities
Number of digesters, 50 ft diam x ft SWD, ea 2
Unit volume, gal 308,426
Total volume, gal 616,852
Heated digester Primary Only
Primary digester is equipped with gas mixing system
2. Evaluation of the Existing Anaerobic Digester for 5.0 mgd
Flow
Type of sludge fed: Primary and Trickling Filter sludge
Sludge quantity: 8440 lb/day
- 16 -
24,800 gal.4day of 4.0% solids and 1.02
sp. gr. of sludge
Percent Volatile solids in sludge: 60 percent
Available Digestion Volume: First Stage = 41,233 cu ft
Second Stage = 41,233 cu ft
Total = 82,466 cu ft
Solids Loading Rate, lb VSS/cu ft/day:
1. Using First Stage Digester Volume:
8440 lb/day x 0.6
41,233 cu ft
= 0.123 lb VSS/cu ft/day
2. Using Total Available Digestion Volume:
_ 8440 lb/day x 0.6
82,466 cu ft
= 0.061 lb VSS/cu ft/day
Solids (Hydraulic) Retention Time, days:
1. Using First Stage Digester Volume:
308,246 gal
24,800 gal/day
= 12.43 days
2. Using Total Available Digestion Volume:
= 616,852 gal
24,800 gal/day
= 24,86 days
The solids loading rate and solids (hydraulic) retention time are within
the typical anaerobic digester design range of 0.15 - 0.40 lb VSS/cu ft/day
and 10 - 20 days, respectively. However, with only primary digester being
heated, the anaerobic digestion system will not be able to meet the
requirement of 15 days sludge retention time at 35°C to 55°C for significant
pathogen reduction necessary for land application of sludge. Accordingly,
heating mixing of the secondary digestion tank will be necessary.
- 17 -
b. Aerobic Digestion.(For.Waste Activated Sludge Stabilization) -
1. Existing Facilities
Number of tanks, 37.5 ft x 37.5 ft x 13.5 SWD 2
Unit Volume, gal 142,000
Total Volume, gal 284,000
Number of 25 hp aerator in each tank 1
Aeration capacity provided, hp/1000 cu ft 1.31
2. Evaluation of the Existing Aerobic Digester for 5.0 mgd Flow:
Type of sludge fed: Waste activated sludge
Sludge quantity: 2773 lb/day = 32,597 gal/day at 1.0%
solids and 1.02 sp gr
Percent volatile solids in sludge: 75 percent
Available digestion volume: 18,984 cu ft
Solids Loading Rate, lb VSS/cu ft/day
2773 lb/day x 0.75
18,984 cu ft
= 0.109 lb VSS/cu ft/day
Solids (Hydraulic) Retention Time, Days
_ 284,000 gal
32,597 gal/day
= 8.71 days
The solids loading rate is within the typical design range of 0.024 -
0.14 lb VSS/cu ft/day. However, the solids retention time is less than 40
days at 20°C necessary for significant reduction of pathogens for land
application of sludge. Accordingly, expansion of the aerobic digestion
facilities will be necessary. Modify the existing second stage UNOX system
for use as aerobic sludge digestion facilities. This will add additional
digestion volume of 810,000 gallons. The total aerobic digestion volume will
be 1,094,000 gallons. Accordingly, the hydraulic retention time will be:
= 1,094,000 gallon = 33.56
32,597 gal/day
- 18 -
Considering.batch operation,:38% volatile solids-reduction and 2 percent
solids in sludge withdrawn from digester for ultimate disposal, the sludge
retention tine will be:
1.094.000 gal
(2773 x 0.75 x 0.62 + 2773 x 0.25)/(8.34 x 0.02)
= 92.0 days
The above retention time is more than adequate to meet the PSRP
(Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens) requirement for aerobic sludge
digestion process of 60 days sludge retention time at 15°C and 40 days sludge
retention time at 20°C.
- 19 -
Supporting Design Caluclations for Evaluation of Sludge Handling Facilities
SUPPORTING DESIGN CALCULATIONS
FOR
EVALUATION OF SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES
1.0 ALTERNATIVE NO.1
1. Estimate of Sludge Quantities
A. Sludge Quantities Produced in Primary Clarification and Trickling
Filter System
1. Basic Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
Influent BOD5 = 250 mg/L
Influent TSS = 250 mg/L
Expected BOD removal in primary clarifier = 30 percent
Expected BOD removal in trickling filter = 76 percent
Expected TSS removal in primary clarifier = 60 percent
Fraction of applied BOD to trickling filter converted
into excess biological sludge = 0.3
Percent solids in combined (P + TF) sludge = 4.0
2. Sludge Produced in Primary Clarification, lb/day
= 250 mg/L x 0.60 x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd
= 6255 lb/day
3. Sludge Produced in the Trickling Filter System, lb/day
= 250 mg/L x 0.70 x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.3
2139 lb/day
4. Total Sludge Produced in Primary Clarifier and Trickling
Filter System, lb/day
6255 + 2189
8444 lb/day
B. Sludge Produced in First Stage (Carbonaceous BOD removal)
Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge System
1. Basic Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
BOD5: Influent = 100 mg/L; Effluent = 30 mg/L
NH -N: Influent = 25 mg/L; Effluent = 20 mg/L
Ne sludge yield: 0.7 lb solids/lb BOD removed
2. Sludge Produced in First Stage System, lb/day
(100-30) mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.7
2043 lb/day
C. Sludge Produced in Second Stage (Nitrogenous BOD removal) Pure Oxygen
Activated Sludge System
1. Basic Considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
BOD5: Influent = 30 mg/L; Effluent = 5 mg/L
- 1 -
NH3-N: Influent = 20 mg/L; Effluent = 1 mg/L
Sludge Yield: 0.5 lb solids/lb BOB removed
0.285 lb solids/lb NH3-N removed
2. Sludge Produced in Second Stage System, lb/day
a. Due to BOD removal
(30-5) mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.5
521 lb/day
b. Due to NH33-N removal
(20-1) mg/L x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.285
225 lb/day
c. Total sludge quantity
521 + 225
746 lb/day
2.0 SLUDGE DIGESTION FACILITIES
1. Anaerobic Sludge Digestion (For Primary and Trickling Filter Sludges)
A. Existing Facilities
Number of digesters, 50-ft diam x 21-ft SWD, ea. 2
Unit Volume, gal 308,426
cu ft 41,233
Total Volume, gal 616,852
cu ft 82,466
Accessories: Only primary digester is equipped with
heating and gas mixing equipment.
B. Evaluation of the Existing Anaerobic Digesters for 5.0 mgd Flow
Type of sludge fed: Primary and trickling filter sludges
Sludge quantity: 8,444 lb/day
24,800 gal/day at 4.0% solids and
1.02 sp. gr. of sludge
Percent volatile solids in sludge: 60 percent
Available Digestion Volume: First stage = 41,233 cu ft
Second stage = 41,233 cu ft
Total = 82,466 cu ft
Solids Loading Rate, lb VSS/cu ft/day
1. Using First Stage Digester Volume
_ 8,444 lb/day x 0.6
41,233 cu ft
= 0.122 lb VSS/cu ft/day
2. Using Total Available Digestion Volume
8,444 lb/day x 0.6
82,466 cu ft
= 0.061 lb VSS/cu ft/day
- 2 -
Sludge Hydraulic Retention Time, days
1. Using First Stage Digestion Volume
308,426 gal
24,800 gal/day
= 12.43 days
2. Using Total Available Digestion Volume
_ 616,852 gal
24,800 gal/day
= 24.87 days
The solids loading rate and sludge hydraulic retention time are within the
typical anaerobic sludge digester design range of 0.15 to 0.40 lb VSS/cu ft/day and
10-20 days, respectively. However, with only primary digester being heated, the
anaerobic digestion system will not be able to meet the requirement of 15 days sludge
retention time at 35° C to 55°C for significant pathogen reduction necessary for land
application of sludge. Accordingly, heating and mixing of the secondary digestion
tank will be required.
2. Aerobic Sludge Digestion (For Waste Activated Sludges from First and
Second Stage Pure Oxygen Systems)
A. Existing Facilities
Number of tanks, 37.5 ft x 37.5 ft x 3.5 ft SWD 2
Unit Volume, gal 142,000
cu ft 18,984
Total Volume, gal 284,000
cu ft 37,968
Number of 25-6p aerators in each tank 1
Aeration capacity, provided, hp/1000 cu ft 1.31
B. Evaluation of the Existing Aerobic Digestion Facilities for 5.0 mgd
Flow
Design Considerations
Sludge quantities: First Stage = 2,043 lb/day
= 24,500 gal/day at
1.0% solids
Second Stage = 746 lb/day
9,000 gal/day at
1.0% solids
Percent volatile solids in first stage sludge = 80 percent
Percent volatile solids in second stage sludge = 75 percent
- 3 -
Expected feed solids concentration to digester = 10,000 mg/L
Percent volatile solids reduction = 40 percent
Temperature: Winter = 15°C; Summer = 25°C
Sludge retention time at 15°C = 60 days (PSRP Criteria)
Aeration requirements: For oxygen need = 2 lb 02/lb/VSS
reduced
For mixing = 25 cu ft/min/1000 cu ft
= 1.3 hp/1000 cu ft
Average operating MLSS concentration = 21,000 mg/L
Expected thickened solids concentration = 21,000 mg/L
Supernatant TSS concentration = 300 mg/L
3. Volume of Aerobic Digestion Tank
Sludge Retention Time, days
Total solids in aerobic digestor
lb solids loss/day in supernatant + solids wasted per day
MLSS conc. in digestor x 8.34 x digestor volume, mil. gal
[(supernatant PSS conc.)(1-f) + (Waste sludge conc.)(f)] x 8.34 x (influent flow)
Where f is the fraction of influent flow retained in the digestor and
(1-f) is the fraction that leaves as a supernatent.
f = (Influent SS conc.)(fraction of solids not destroyed)
thickened solids concentration
Fraction of solids not destroyed
_ (2043+746)lb solids/day-(2043 x 0.8 x 0.4 +746 x 0.75x 0.4)lb solids reduced
(2043 + 746) lb solids/day
_ 2789 - 877
2789
= 0.69
f = 10.000 mg/L x 0.69
30,000 mg/L
= 0.23
Aerobic Digestor Volume, mil. gal:
60 days = 21.000 mg/L x 8.34 x Digestor Volume, mil. gal
[(300 mg/L)(1-0.23) + (30,000 mg/L)(0.23)] x 8.34 x 0.0335 mil. gal
= 175.140 x Digestor Volume, mil. gal
[231 + 6,900] x 0.279
= 88.00 x Digestor Volume, mil. gal
- 4 -
Digestor Volume, mil. gal = 60
88.00
= 0.682 mil. gal
The volume of the existing aerobic sludge digestion tank is 284,000 gallons.
Accordingly, expansion of the aerobic sludge digestion capability is required by
providing additional (682,0000-284,000 = 398,000 gallons) sludge digestion capacity.
3. Aeration Requirements
a. For oxygen need
Volatile solids in First Stage Sludge, lb/day
2043 lb/day x 0.8
1634 lb VSS/day
Volatile solids in Second Stage Sludge, lb/day
746 lb/day x 0.75
560 lb VSS/day
Total Volatile Solids in Combined Sludge
1634 + 560
2194 lb VSS/day
Considering 40 percent volatile solids reduction in the aerobic sludge digestion
and 2.0 lb 02/lb VSS reduction oxygen requirement, the total amount of oxygen
required is:
= 2194 lb VSS/day x 0.4 x 2.0 lb 02/lb VSS
= 1755 lb 0 /day
= 73.13 lb 62/hr
Considering 2 lb 02/hp/hr field oxygen transfer rate of surface mechanical
aerator, the total required horsepower is:
73.13 lb 02/hr
2.0 lb 02/hp/hr
= 36.56 hp
b. For Mixing Need
Considering 1.3 hp/1000 cu ft mixing horsepower requirement, the total amount
of horsepower required for mixing is:
794,000 gal x 7.4cu ft 8 gal x 101.3 ho
00 cu ft
= 118 hp
- 5 -
From the above aeration requirement calculations, it is evident that the air
requirement will be MIXING LIMITING. Considering the available 50-hp aeration
capacity in the existing aerobic digester, the additional aeration capacity required
for the new digestion facility will be 118 - 50 = 68 horsepower.
- 6 -
2.0 FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
1. Estimate of Sludge Quantities
A. Sludge Quantities Produced in Primary Clarification and Trickling
Filter System
1. Primary clarification sludge quantity = 6255 lb/day
2. Trickling clarification sludge quantity = 2189 lb/dav
3. Total sludge quantity = 8444 lb/day
B. Sludge Quantity Produced in Single Stage Air Activated Sludge System
1. Basic considerations
Average daily flow = 5.0 mgd
BOD5: Influent = 100 mg/L; Effluent = 5 mg/L
TSS: Influent = 60 mg/L; Effluent = 10 mg/L
NH -N: Influent = 25 mg/L; Effluent = 1 mg/L
Total Alkalinity: Influent = 210 mg/L; Effluent = 60 mg/L
Sludge Retention Time = 20 days
Temperature = 10°C
Net Sludge Yield, Yn = 0.7 lb solids/lb BOO removed
Percent Solids in Waste Sludge = 1.0 percent
2. Sludge Produced in Activated Sludge System, lb/day
_ (100-5) mg/L BOD x 8.34 x 5.0 mgd x 0.7 lb solids
lb BOD5
= 2775 lb/day
2.0 SLUDGE DIGESTION FACILITIES
1. Anaerobic Sludge Digestion (For Primary and Trickling Filter Sludges)
A. Existing Facilities
Number of digesters, 50-ft diam x 21-ft SWD, ea. 2
Unit Volume, gal 308,426
cu ft 41,233
Total Volume, gal 616,852
cu ft 82,466
Accessories: Only primary digester is equipped with
heating and gas mixing equipment.
B. Evaluation of the Existing Anaerobic Digesters for 5.0 mgd Flow
Type of sludge fed: Primary and trickling filter sludges
Sludge quantity: 8,444 lb/day
24,800 gal/day at 4.0% solids and
1.02 sp. gr. of sludge
Percent volatile solids in sludge: 60 percent
Available Digestion Volume: First stage = 41,233 cu ft
Second stage = 41,233 cu ft
Total = 82,466 cu ft
- 7 -
Solids Loading Rate, lb VSS/cu ft/day
a. Using first stage digester volume
_ 8444 lb/day x 0.6
41,233 cu ft
= 0.122 lb VSS/cu ft/day
b. Using total available digestion volume
_ 8444 lb/day x 0.6
82,466 cu ft
= 0.061 lb VSS/cu ft/day
Sludge Hydraulic Retention Time, days
a. Using first stage digestion volume
= 308.426 gal
24,800 gal/day
= 12.43 days
b. Using total available digestion volume
= 616.852 gal
24,800 gal/day
= 24.87 days
The solids loading rate and sludge hydraulic retention time are within the
typical anaerobic sludge digester design range of 0.15 to 0.40 lb VSS/cu ft/day and
10-20 days, respectively. However, with only primary digester being heated, the
anaerobic digestion system will not be able to meet the requirement of 15 days sludge
retention time at 35°C to 55°C for significant pathogen reduction necessary for land
application of sludge. Accordingly, heating and mixing of the secondary digestion
tank will be required.
2. Aerobic Sludge Digestion (For Waste Sludges from Single Stage Air
Activated Sludge System)
A. Existing Facilities
Number of tanks, 37.5 ft x 37.5 ft x 3.5 ft SWD 2
Unit Volume, gal 142,000
cu ft 18,984
Total Volume, gal 284,000
cu ft 37,968
- 8 -
Number of 25-hp aerators in each tank 1
Aeration capacity provided, hp/1000 cu ft 1.31
B. Evaluation of the Existing Aerobic Digestion Facilities for 5.0 mgd
Flow
Design Considerations
Sludge quantities: = 2,773 lb/day
= 33,250 gal/day at
1.0% solids
Percent volatile solids in waste sludge = 75 percent
Expected feed solids concentration to digester = 10,000 mg/L
Percent volatile solids reduction = 40 percent
Temperature: Winter = 15°C; Summer = 25°C
Sludge retention time at 15°C = 60 days (PSRP Criteria)
Aeration requirements: For oxygen need = 2 lb 02/lb/Vss
reduced
For mixing = 25 cu ft/min/1000 cu ft
= 1.3 hp/1000 cu ft
Average operating MLSS concentration = 21,000 mg/L
Expected thickened solids concentration = 21,000 mg/L
Supernatant TSS concentration = 300 mg/L
3. Volume of Aerobic Digestion Tank
Sludge Retention Time, days
_ Total solids in aerobic digestor
lb solids loss/day in supernatant + solids wasted per day
MLSS conc. in digestor x 8.34 x digestor volume, mil. gal
[(supernatant TSS conc.)(1-f) + (Waste sludge conc.)(f)] x 8.34 x (influent flow)
Where f is the fraction of influent flow retained in the digestor and
(1-f) is the fraction that leaves as a supernatent.
f = (Influent SS conc.)(fraction of solids not destroyed)
thickened solids concentration
Fraction of solids not destroyed
= 2773 lb solids/day-(2773 x 0.75 x 0.4) lb solids reduced
3152 lb solids/day
_ 2773 - 832
2773
= 0.70
f = 10,000 mg/L x 0.7
30,000 mg/L
= 0.23
- 9 -
Aerobic Digestor Volume, mil. gal:
60 days = 21,000 mg/L x 8.34 x Digestor Volume, mil gal
[(300 mg/L)(1-0.23) + (30,000 mg/L)(0.23)] x 8.34 x 0.033 mil. gal
= 175,140 x Digestor Volume, mil. gal
[231 + 6,900] x 0.275
= 89.31 x Digestor Volume, mil. gal
Digestor Volume, mil. gal = 60
89.31
= 0.672 mil. gal
The volume of the existing aerobic sludge digestion tank is has 284,000 gallons.
Accordingly, expansion of the aerobic sludge digestion capability is required by
providing additional (672,000-284,000 = 388,000 gallons) sludge digestion capacity.
C. Aeration Requirements
1. For oxygen need
Volatile solids in Waste Sludge, lb/day
= 2773 lb/day x 0.75
- 2080 lb VSS/day
Considering 40 percent volatile solids reduction in the aerobic sludge digestion
and 2.0 lb 02/lb VSS reduction oxygen requirement, the total amount of oxygen
required is:
2080 lb VSS/day x 0.4 x 2.0 lb 02/lb VSS
1664 lb 02/day
69.3 lb 02/hr
Considering 2.0 lb 02/hp/hr field oxygen transfer rate of surface mechanical
aerator, the total required horsepower is:
= 69.3 lb 0
2.0 lb 02/hp/hr
= 34.66 hp
b. For Mixing Need
Considering 1.3 hp/1000 cu ft mixing horsepower requirement, the total amount
of horsepower required for mixing is:
- 10 -
=672,000 gal x f x 1.30 hp
7.48 gal 1000 cu ft
= 116 hp
From the above aeration requirement calculations, it is evident that the air
requirement will be MIXING LIMITING. Considering the available 50-hp aeration
capacity in the existing aerobic digester, the additional aeration capacity required
for the new digestion facility will be 116 - 50 = 66 horsepower.
Modify the existing First Stage UNOX System (604,000 gal) and second stage UNOX
System (810.000 gal) for use as aerobic sludge stabilization/storage facilities. The
available volume for sludge storage will be 284,000 + 604,000 + 810,000 - 672,000 =
1,926,000 gallon which is equivalent to 30.85 days storage of daily waste activated
sludge production. If the First Stage UNOX System is converted to use as anaerobic/
anoxic tanks in the future than the available sludge storage volume will be reduced
to 422,000 gallon which is equivalent to 12.69 days waste sludge production.
- 11 -
P ab
Table 3-1. Regulatory Definition of Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSR s?
Aerobic Digestion: The process is conducted by agitating sludge with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions at residence times
ranging from 60 days at 15°C to 40 days at 20°C, with a volatile solids reduction of at least 38%. sand
which
basins
beds,
the Alp Drying: Liquid sludge is allowed to drain and/or dry of 3 monthsris nunderdrained eeded! for 2 months of whi htempe aturesaaverage onla daily basis fudge
depth is a maximum of 9 inches. A minimum
above 0°C.
Anaerobic Digestion: The process is conducted in the absence of air at residence times ranging from 60 days at 20°C to 15 days at
35°C to 55°C, with a volatile solids reduction of at least 38%.
Composting: Using the within-vessel, static aerated pile, or windrow composting methods, the solid waste is maintained at minimum
operating conditions of 40°C for 5 days. For 4 hours during this period the temperature exceeds 55°C.
Lime Stabilization: Sufficient lime is added to produce a pH of 12 after 2 hours of contact. and Other Methods: Other methods or operating
to the creduction onditions m y b eyed acceptable any if pathogens
above method or attraction of the waste (volatile of the solids) are reduced to an extent equivalent
Source: 40 CFR 257, Appendix If.
a15°C = 59°F,20°C = 68°F,0°C = 32°F,35°C = 95°F,55°C = 131°F,40°C = 104°F.
b9 inches = 23 centimeters.
Table 3-2. Regulatory Definition of Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRPs)a within method, the Composting: hUsing the e static aerated pileecompost nlg method, the so dllwaste slmaintained at operating conditions of 55 *C o greater for 9
55
3 days. Using emperature
least days. Using the windrow duri g the high temperature period, there willll lbe a mi imum of lie turn gs off the w ndrow. days dung the
composting period.
content Heat Drying: particles ereach emperaturesie Ilindexcess r of 80*C, or the wet bulb temperat re of'the gas stream is ( n contaclwith/then
lower. Sludge sludge at the point where it leaves the dryer is in excess of 80°C.
Heat Treatment: Liquid sludge is heated to temperatures of 180°C for 30 minutes.
Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion: Liquid sludge is agitated with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions at residence times of 10
days at 55°C to 60°C, with a volatile solids reduction of at least 38%.
an extent th dor perati to the conditions m y b achieved y if of the athoge s and vector attraction of the waste (volatilp
Other Methods: Other
solids) are reduced
Any of he processes listed below, if added to a PSRP, further reduce pathogens
Beta Ray Irradiation: Sludge is irradiated with beta rays Irom an accelerator at dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature
(ca. 20°C).
Gamma Ray Irradiatio : Sludge is laude (ca. it 0gamma rays from certain isotopes, such as 60Cobalt and 137Cesium, at dosages of
at least 1.0 megarad at room
Pasteurization: Sludge is maintained for at least 30 minutes at a minimum temperature of 70°C.
Other Methods: Other methods or operating conditions may be acceptable if pathogens are reduced to an extent equivalent to the
reduction achieved by any of the above add-on methods.
Source: 40 CFR 257, Appendix If.
355°C = 131 °F, 80°C = 176°F, 180°C = 356°F, 60°C = 143°F, 70°C = 158°F.
12
e e• SfNt e?
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, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. Tommy M. Combs
P.O. Box 199
Clinton, N.C. 28328
Dear Mr. Combs:
June 29, 1990
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
it
Subject: Permit No. N00020117
Town of Clinton
Sampson County
In accordance with the requirements of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 122.62(a)(2), we are forwarding herewith the subject State - NPDES permit. This
permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute
143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the US
Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6, 1983.
If any 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,
Post Office Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Unless such demand is made,
this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4.
addresses the requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of
this discharge.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits
which may be required by the Division of Environmental Management or permits required
by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or
Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please
Overcash at telephone number 919/733-50
c: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Fayetteville Regional Office
in erely
Direct r.
o
. O y „CO
#A W17
7t W ,
Poiludon Premidon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
contact Mr.. Dale
c?Q?
Permit No. N00020117
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General !tatute 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,
Town of Clinton
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Norman H. Larkins WWTP
junction of US Highway 421 & 421/701 Bypass
Clinton
Sampson County
to receiving waters designated as Williams Old Mill Branch in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, U, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective August 1, 1990
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 1991
Signed this day June 29, 1990
George T. Everett, Jhwad)C
Division of Environmental M agement
By Authority of the Environmen X14 gent Commission
UL Y 3 1990 ???fff ffu(u(/
JUL.-
13'
CENTt?,?L FILE Copy
Permit No. N00020117
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Clinton
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate the existing 3.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of a
comminutor with mechanically cleaned screens and grit collector, Parshall flume with flow
recorder and automatic sampler, primary clarifier, high rate trickling filter, secondary clarifier,
first stage pure oxygen aeration basin followed by a dfarif er, second stage pure oxygen aeration
basin followed by a clarifier, sludge pumps for each stage, multi-media filters, chlorine contact
chambers, post aeration basin, aerobic and anaerobic sludge digestors, and sludge drying beds
located at Norman H. Larkins WWTP, junction of US Highway 421 & 4211701 Bypass,
Clinton, Sampson County (See Part III of this Permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Williams
Old Mill Branch which is classified Class C-Swamp waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
JUL 131 LJ
990
CENTRAL FILE COPY
- ...'. 1-/ 1.11( ?'``\''\?/ --- I' Ir. 1/. •1 ?? ??\I/./
4 170-
r• y f`
lei
' ? `?. __ -_ - ?.. `?•? .\ ? ? -.rte ?E ? i1+
75
\ roe
tae
.JA
'AL .1 K •/ 1 ?..._ ... i
.. TV
\ _ r f-
? '.\ ?• `rr+' as ? ? ,• ?• ``
` ?, ?.??? • f 7 J ?? `- ?-?? ?``+, ? Off"
L y2- J/
1 `?' ^` •\ \ \• x .,? ` -:'`^ \ ?` ?4-? r {-?? •` t} ?? V '? .ire --?`? ??i??`r 1 / 1
170/ 7
![-891069, } •t r .J
... 4?
.f •?,r?•- ?. ic: C/?? .1 ?!? li7`1'''?,•<?Zc- /.. y.? .1 T}?yiI, 1T E
w o

0 - - Z) D
- u.i ui w ui u.i w ui w w w
?
S ? `? rn
0 m
.. m m m m
Z m -2 0 00 00 0 00
cn W v
cc E
U E
U E
U E
U E
Z 3 cD 0 C7 C7 U
o
W
?
a4 N

O
3
-? o
.. o
N

C
o T T T T T >. T ? C =
0
O a v c
o (
0 cis
0 0 0 0 0 0
? 0
? a`

o
Q

v? ? o
cd
°
r,E
-
-
-
o
.b ,d rn
E o?
E rn
E o
Ln o ern o
ui v o

(-?
??r ? Q1
E O
E ?
E O
+
? •?? 0 0 .
0 0 0
? °' c? o
N
a
z °?

. co
" E +
m U
M

Z
a
m
E (D

-
c z

+

y
y v,

?1^ W

W U

N

m m C O

U
c\l
O
Z

?y
f3, n
bA
C >1
O
E
o

(D

m
0
a W
c

W
q o a
z
m
o
m
° 0
s
c
.^i 7 fA 0 O V A
Z
a
W

Q 3 D
m ?u
° co
Z N
0 E
0 :?
°
ti f
- 0 ii t
- F
- a
1? V)
oo
? a
bz t)
E
?n
an •? ?
C7 w
0
a s U b
0
? ? a o
?.. E
E
c ? ? o
0
3 a
Av» o:
u b ?? °?
wo
b ¢ bA c?
0
O ? n
• V p CIO
O
rr 1
°°
arN q boo
..: >01 04
o O
3 o (i; w
E. ?. W .0
W ?' O pore O
yob > v 0 ,?
cd •d .?'
08
CS. b u'3 a _ Q
CENTRAL FILE COPS'
0
0
w w w w w w w w w w w
r.
'~ o
N w
m m m m m m m m m m
U ?? C to 0 y vi v> N cn co N
m O O O O O O O O O O
o N m E 0 E E E E E E E E E
Z o 0 0 0 v U 0 0 0 0
c
U N
•n k.' c? m m m m m m m C C C
a
Q •cd. rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
° > > > E E
N to N 0 o6 ui O
LO co N
r? c
ti
O ..
a
m
C
,.
O U
z ?rr
U
C:
'SO
0%
Z tlo-4
P ' g
m
V T off c LI ?S?1
W O O = E 1JU ' fA 9n•
A o m .U ° m E= m E u ,.Q
`. ? o c E as E m ?$ Q
c ° ? 2 m °_ ENTRA1.
w ° s >, s m o > r!i_E ?,Opy
o o o U U Z J iL m 6 N Fo
p~ O
d w
U
U
Z .
Z
.. o
a •?
0 3
M
? U
? a
a?
0 O
Z
3 -?
C
?b
a ?4?
v °
(0(..,?
Fr y N
•? U
0
a '$ a
o?
Q 0
Q
0 t
.E o
W w w W W W W W W W ¢ cl
O O
ti N
? m m m m m m O
C
E o -0 ti
m 0 0 0 0---- 0 0 0 °
oC U U U O (7 0 C7 U U U a3
75
O ? 7 a p O
w O >. 2. V
7 m vU
O c1S f? (C R1 fCS fC RS O O 7 U U CO
U o 0 0 0 0 0 0?? o ? ? a ?
o cn
°
o
o N -d c
U ?p y
t3 p+ ?, O '? -??+ ? c?
E C? o •-
rn rn rn o Q w ., c"? a? .o
E E E H i y an °' o
c X 0 0 0 co A5 °o G
Lei Le), CC o
O N O 'd ti ?r
N e b o
m E ? .a ? '? ? Q? ? •>
CD 0) 0) 0
E E E „? ' 'b a b
0 0'a
o ao u (_, a 'b o
co o v N 4.9 A •0 a,o
°° A
y 3 U `D w
z W °' ri U b
Y U U '? '? ?' .C
dA
V m ~ W a) 0 U a"
1
E y'b > U a
(D 0
0-0 >
M 5 W
C) cc CM
cis o o CD t z O y Oar 8 ?? O>
ed GL O U
V N IV X E U 0 'x (u
m O o m m r ?° b v1i Q"
c' a _ O7 cn A,b ,? ?E N act 0" o
Un Cn to ? U cc m Z 0- 'c
3 c E °
r
m H D H~ H H LL Z LL U
r-
'" o
o
o
O ?
U ?
z
z b
? N
0
M ?
ai
U •?
? a
0
z •?
3 ?
O
C/1 bA
N
cz
.d
a?
,r
O
w
O
O 'D
N
z cu
C)
S
a
y v?
ti
A o
Q
m

w w w w w w w w w w w
0
N m m m O m m m m m
C N N N .N N V1 •N to to
d O O O O O O O O O
CL a a o. n. a n. d 0.
0 0 0 0
m 0 0 0 0 0
? N C7 C7 U U U U U U U U U
O
cc
c
L
O
C
O 3
m C
Q
C
«
?c
C
J
m
N -Cd
t
V
Y Y Y ?Y ?Y >Y ??C 'r' L L fl,

> > > > > E E
0 0 0 0 0 00 LO
6 N O 00 to .- O
LO 00 N

i
Q! i
«
V N
C13 N
L T

co
c
U Q
« >

C E
> >
m co U m O L
. E :2
U L
C E O m
U 7 m
w
a U U U U Z -j u. 0 N cn
JUL Cil
"go ?l
Cry TRAM
r `
PART I
Section B. Schedule of Compliance
1. The, permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in
accordance with the following schedule:
Permittee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the
permit unless specified below.
2. Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to operate the
existing facilities at optimum efficiency.
3. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the ca i-P ?.
actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or no
In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance, any re al actions
taken, and the probability of meeting the next schedule requirements. PJUL IS
lq
CENTRAL c;Ur'Y
Part II
Page 1 of 14
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority.
The Director of the Division of Environmental Management.
2. DEM or Division
Means the Division of Environmental Management, Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources.
3. EM
Used herein means the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
4. Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended,
33 USC 1251, et. seq.
5. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "monthly average discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily discharges are
sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during such month. It is therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the
weights of the pollutant found each day of the month and then dividing this sum by the
number of days the tests were reported. The limitation is identified as "Monthly
Average" in Part I of the permit.
b. The "weekly average discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during the calendar week (Sunday - Saturday) on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during such week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found
by adding the weights of pollutants found each day of the week and then dividing this
sum by the number of days the tests were reported. This limitation is identified as
"Weekly Average" in Part I of the permit.
c. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a pollutant discharged
during a calendar day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar day the weight
of pollutant calculated from it is the "maximum daily discharge." Thi . s
identified as "Daily Maximum," in Part I of the permit.
"Jut` I3 1990 t?
rFIV T??L FlLE COPS'
Part II
Page 2 of 14
d. The "average annual discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during the calendar year on which daily discharges are
sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during such year. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the
weights of pollutants found each day of the year and then dividing this sum by the
number of days the tests were reported. This limitation is defined as "Annual Average"
in Part I of the permit.
6. Concentration Measurement
a. The "average monthly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum
of the concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
month on which-daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such month (arithmetic mean of the
daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration
of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted
by flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day. The average
monthly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for
samples collected during a calendar month. This limitation is identified as "Monthly
Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit. r
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum
of the concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
week (Sunday/Saturday) on which daily discharges are sampled and measured divided
by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such week
(arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is
equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the
arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during that
calendar day. The average weekly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric
mean of the counts for samples collected during a calendar week. This limitation is
identified as "Weekly Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
c. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a pollutant discharge during
a calendar day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar day the concentration
of pollutant calculated from it is the "Maximum Daily Concentration". It is identified
as "Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
d. The "average annual concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of
the concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
year on which daily discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such year (arithmetic mean of the
daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration
of a composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted
by flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day . The average
yearly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples
collected during a calendar year. This limitation is identified as "Annual Average"
under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
e. The "daily average concentration" (for dissolved oxygen) is the minimum allowable
amount of dissolved oxygen required to be available in the effluent prior to discharge
averaged over a calendar day. If only one dissolved oxygen sample is taken over a
calendar day, the sample is considered to be the "daily average concentration" for the
discharge. It is identified as "daily average" in the text of Part I.
Part II
Page 3 of 14
The "quarterly average concentration" is the average of all samples taken over a
calendar quarter. It is identified as "Quarterly Average Limitation" in the text of Part I
of the permit.
g. A calendar quarter is defined as one of the following distinct periods: January through
March, April through June, July through September, and October through December.
7. Other Measurements
a. Flow, (MGD): The flow limit expressed in this permit is the 24 hours average flow,
averaged monthly. It is determined as the arithmetic mean of the total daily flows
recorded during the calendar month.
b. An "instantaneous flow measurement" is a measure of flow taken at the time of
sampling, when both the sample and flow will be representative of the total discharge.
c. A "continuous flow measurement" is a measure of discharge flow from the facility
which occurs continually without interruption throughout the operating hours of the
facility. Flow shall be monitored continually except for the infrequent rimes when
there may be no flow or for infrequent maintenance activities on the flow device.
8. Types of Samples
a. Composite Sample: A composite sample shall consist of:
(1) a series of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour period of
discharge and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of
individual sample collection, or
(2) a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period with the
time intervals between samples determined by a preset number of gallons passing
the sampling point. Flow measurement between sample intervals shall be
determined by use of a flow recorder and totalizer, and the present gallon interval
between sample collection fixed at no greater than 1/24 of the expected total daily
flow at the treatment system, or
(3) a single, continuous sample collected over a 24 hour period proportional
to the rate of flow.
In accordance with (1) above, the time interval between influent grab samples shall be
no greater than once per hour, and the time interval between effluent grab samples shall
be no greater than once per hour except at wastewater treatment systems having a
detention time of greater than 24 hours. In such cases, effluent grab samples may be
collected at time intervals evenly spaced over the 24 hour period which are equal in
number of hours to the detention time of the system in number of days. However, in
no case may the time interval between effluent grab samples be greater than six (6)
hours nor the number of samples less than four (4) during a 24 hour sampling period.
b. Grab Sample: Grab samples are individual samples collected oycr a period of time not
exceeding 15 minutes; the grab sample can be taken manually.
9. Calculation of Means
a Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean
of any set of values is tfz surmett?? ?6.t0he
individual values divided by the number of individual values.

Part II
Page 4 of 14
b. Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values is the Nth root of the
product of the individual values where N is equal to the number of individual values.
The geometric mean is equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms
of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the geometric mean, values of
zero (0) shall be considered to be one (1).
Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the summation of each
concentration times its respective flow divided by the summation of the respective
flows.
10. Calendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next
day. However, for purposes of this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
11. Hazardous Substance
A hazardous substance means any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant
to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
12. Toxic Pollutant
A toxic pollutant is any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water
Act.
SECTION B GENERAL CONDITIONS
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is ground for enforcement action; for
permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit
renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(4) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in
the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not
yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
b. Any person who violates a permit condition is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$25,000 per day for each violation. Any person who negligently violates any permit
condition is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. Any person who knowingly violates
permit conditions is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,.000 _er'day of
violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. SJ` violates a permit condition may be assessed an administrative cl?trtcs "t T
$10,000 per violation with the maximum amount not to excee 25 p00. - [Ref. 4a L1
CFR 122.41(a)] ?UL t??C a
Ff?7'Ft'r l II..E= jy)py
Part II
Page 5 of 14
2. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human
health or the environment.
3. Civil and Criminal_ Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II, B-3) and "Power
Failures" (Part II, B-6), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS
143-215.3,143-215.6 or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319. Furthermore, the
permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the
responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee
is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Act,
33 USG 1321. Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such
as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily
suspended.
5. Prone , Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal
property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or
any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or
regulations.
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore
physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
7. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall
not be affected thereby.
8. Duty to Provide Information
The peimittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Permit Issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this perm' ne
compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to
Authority upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this pe ? tS5 c
J UL 13 1990 D
9. Duty to Reaon v
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after awixpiiaiieopr
date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit.
Part II
Page 6 of 14
10. Expiration of Permit
The permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive
automatic authorization to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall submit
such information, forms, and fees as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits
no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date. Any discharge that has not requested
renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, or any discharge that does not have a permit
after the expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will
subject the permittee to enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33
USC 1251 et. seq.
11. Signato ReAuirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
signed and certified.
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this
Section, a responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer
or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or
any other person who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the
corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing production or
operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales
or expenditures exceeding 25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to
sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with
corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal
executive officer or ranking elected official.
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Pen-nit Issuing
Authority shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility
for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or well field, superintendent, a position of
equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may
thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.);
and
]I-
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Author.
VUL i 199 ??
CENTRAL FILE ("a;'y
Part II
Page 7 of 14
c. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section
shall make the following certification:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of
my knowledge and believe, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines
and imprisonment for knowing violations."
12. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause.The filing of a
request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition.
13. Permit Modification. Revocation and Reiss lance or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening
and modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as
allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15 of the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Subchapter 2H.0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
14. Previous Permits
All previous National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits issued to this
facility, whether for operation or discharge, are hereby revoked by issuance of this permit.
The conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions of this permit authorizing discharge
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System govern discharges from this
facility.
SECTION C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
1. Certified Operator
Pursuant to Chapter 90A-44 of North Carolina General Statutes, the permittee shall
employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator in responsible charge (ORC) of the
wastewater treatment facilities. Such operator must hold a certification of the grade
equivalent to or greater than the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment
facilities. The permittee shall notify the Division's Operator Training and Certification Unit
within five days of any change in the ORC status.
r } 1?
J U L 13 1990 .
f'1w?ai, t' t? CGPy
Part II
Page 8 of 14
2. Proper eration and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to
achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
3. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
condition of this permit.
4. Bypassing of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
(1) "Bypass" means the known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a
treatment facility including the collection system, which is not a designed or
established or operating mode for the facility.
(2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage
to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial
and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur
in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss
caused by delays in production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations
to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient
operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Paragraphs c. and d. of
this section.
c. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it
shall submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass;
including an evaluation of the anticipated quality and affect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass
as required in Part II, E. 6. of this permit. (24-hour notice).
d. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement action
against a permittee for bypass, unless:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal 8r severe :>
property damage;
JUL f?.1 .:y
CENTRAL. Fli_E GQ"'? '
Part II
Page 10 of 14
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and in a
manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the
State or navigable waters of the United States. The permittee shall comply with all existing
federal regulations governing the disposal of sewage sludge, and with applicable 40 CFR
Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge when promulgated. Upon
promulgation of 40 CFR Part 503, any permit issued by the Permit Issuing Authority for
the disposal of sludge may be reopened and modified, or revoked and reissued, to
incorporate applicable requirements at 40 CFR Part 503. The permittee shall notify the
Permit Issuing Authority of any significant change in its sludge use or disposal practices.
7. Power Failures
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards as required by DEM
Regulation, Title 15, North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H, .0124
Reliability, to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during
electrical power failures either by means of alternate power sources, standby generators or
retention of inadequately treated effluent.
SECTION D. MONITORING A RECORDS
1. Representative Sampling
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of the
volume and nature of the permitted discharge. Samples collected at a frequency less than
daily shall be taken on a day and time that is characteristic of the discharge over the entire
period which the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points
specified in this permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is
diluted by any other wastestream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall
not be changed without notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority.
2. Re rtine
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each
month and reported on a monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (DEM No.
MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director, DEM, postmarked no later
than the 30th day following the completed reporting period.
The fast DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in
the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of
discharge. Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be
submitted to the following address:
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
R J
J U-1. 13 1990 L
"F I
Part 11
Page II of 14
3. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific
practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements
of the volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and
maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted
capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with
a maximum deviation of less than + 10% from the true discharge rates throughout the range
of expected discharge volumes. Once-through condenser cooling water flow which is
monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part I of this permit and
based on the manufacturer's pump curves shall not be subject to this requirement.
4. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations
published pursuant to NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq, the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts,
and to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, and Regulation 40 CFR 136.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must
produce minimum detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge
requirements and all data generated must be reported down to the minimum detection or
lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are determined capable of
achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements,
then the most sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level)
approved method must be used.
5. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly
renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this
permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
6. Records Retention
The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration
and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, for a period of at least 3
years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at any time.
7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the
permittee shall record the following information:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed; , r
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses; D
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
J U L C?NTRQt ?ii.? copy

Part II
Page 12 of 14
8. InsWction and Entrv
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative, upon the
presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to;
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control
equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance
or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any
location.
SECTION E. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this
permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a
level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit.
2. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for
determining whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29 (b); or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity
of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject
neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements under 40
CFR Part 122.42 (a) (1).
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the
permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
4. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director. The
Director may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permittee and
incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act.
Part lI
Page 13 of 14
5. Monitoring RepQrts
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this peanut.
a. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) (See
Part II. D. 2. of this permit).
b. If the petmtittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the permit,
using test procedures specified in Part II, D. 4. of this permit, the results of this
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the
DMR.
c. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an
arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Director in the permit.
6. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. The permittee shall report to the central office or the appropriate regional office any
noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall
be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time
the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall
contain a description of the noncompliance, and its cause; the period of noncompliance,
including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the
anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce,
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
b. The following shall be included as information which must be reported within 24 hours
under this paragraph.
(A) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(B) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(C) Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by
the Director in the permit to be reported within 24 hours.
c. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for reports under
paragraph b. above of this condition if the oral report has been received within 24
hours.
7. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part II. E. 5
and 6. of this permit at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain
the information listed in Part II. E. 6. of this permit.
8. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant fPermit
application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or inti>i$?;
Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. "
J
U L 13 1990
CENTRAL. FIj,? r -y
Part II
Page 14 of 14
9. Noncompliance Notification
The permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional
office of the Division as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next
working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the
following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of
significant amounts of wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as
the dumping of the contents of a sludge digester; the known passage of a slug of
hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility
incapable of adequate wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of
pumps, aerators, compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass
directly to receiving waters without treatment of all or any portion of the influent to
such station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter
form within 15 days following first knowledge of the occurrence.
10. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3(a)(2) or Section 308
of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be
available for public inspection at the offices of the Division of Environmental Management.
As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly
making any false statement on any such report may result-in the imposition of criminal
penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-215.1(b)(2) or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
' f
JUL is 1°90
CENTRAL FILE COPY
PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Requirements for Control of Pollutants Attributable to Industrial Users,
Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to inputs
from industries using the municipal system may be present in the permittee's discharge. At
such time as sufficient information becomes available to establish limitations for such
pollutants, this permit may be revised to specify effluent limitations for
any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or water
quality standards.
2. Under no circumstances shall the permittee allow introduction of the following wastes in
the waste treatment system:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not
limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 Degrees
Fahrenheit or 60 degrees centigrade using the test methods specified in ATSM
standards D-93-79, D-93-80, or D-3278 (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR
260.11). This prohibition does not apply to any aqueous solution containing less than
24 percent alcohol by volume which would otherwise be a hazardous waste under 40
CFR 261.21 by virtue of having a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit or 60 degrees centigrade;
b. Wastes which will cause corrosive structural damage to treatment works, and in no case
discharges with a pH less than 5.0 standard units unless the system is specifically
designed to accommodate such discharges;
c. Solid or viscous substances in amounts which cause obstructions to the flow in sewers
or interference with the proper operation of the treatment works;
d. Wastewaters at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause an
inhibition or disruption of the POTW, its treatment processes, operation, or sludge
use and disposal;
e. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the treatment works, resulting
in interference but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the treatment
works influent exceeds 40°C (104°F) unless the works are designed to
accommodate such heat;
f. Petroleum oil, non biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in
amounts that will cause interference or pass through;
g. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the
POTW in quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be necessary
for the permittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40
CFR, Part 403) to ensure compliance by the permittee with all applicable effluent
limitations. Such actions by the permittee may be necessary regarding some or all of the
industries discharging to the municipal system.
Part III
4. The permittee shall require any industrial discharges into the permitted system to meet
Federal Pretreatment Standards promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act.
Prior to accepting wastewater from any significant industrial user, the permittee shall either
develop and submit to the Division a Pretreatment Program for approval per 15 NCAC 2H
.0907(a) or modify an existing Pretreatment Program per 15 NCAC 2H .0907(b).
5. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to incorporate or
modify an approved POTW Pretreatment Program or to include a compliance schedule for
the development of a POTW Pretreatment Program as required under Section 402(b)(8) of
the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations or by the requirements of the approved
State pretreatment program, as appropriate.
B. Pretreatment Program Implementation
Under authority of sections 307(b) and (c) and 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations 40 CFR Part 403, North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3 (14)
and implementing regulations 15 NCAC 2H .0900, and in accordance with the approved
pretreatment program, all provisions and regulations contained and referenced in the
Pretreatment Program Submittal are an enforceable part of this NPDES permit.
The permittee shall operate its approved pretreatment program in accordance with section
402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act, the Federal Pretreatment Regulations 40 CFR Part 403, the
State Pretreatment Regulations 15 NCAC 2H .0900, and the legal authorities, policies,
procedures, and financial provisions contained in its pretreatment program submission. Such
operation shall include but is not limited to the implementation of the following conditions and
requirements:
1. The permittee shall develop, in accordance with 40 CFR 403.5(c), specific limits to
implement the prohibitions listed in 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b).
2. Within 120 days of the effective date of this permit the permittee shall draft and submit a
monitoring program for the collection of facility specific data to be used in a wastewater
treatment plant headworks analysis for the development of specific local pretreatment
standards as required by paragraph 1 above. The permittee shall modify and implement the
monitoring program based on comments received by the Division within 180 days of the
effective date of this permit.
3. 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit the permittee shall submit a headworks
analysis based on the data collected via the monitoring program required by paragraph 2
above.
4. The permittee shall issue permits for construction, operation and discharge to all significant
industrial users in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1. These permits shall contain
limitations, sampling protocols, reporting requirements, appropriate standard conditions,
and compliance schedules as necessary for the installation of control technologies to meet
applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. Prior to the issuance of a permit
to construct or as a condition of the permit an evaluation of the treatment process proposed
must be made as to its capacity to meet the permit limitations.
5. The permittee shall carry out inspection, surveillance, and monitoring requirements as
described in its approved pretreatment program in order to determine, independent of
information supplied by industrial users, compliance with applicable pretreatment
standards. The permittee must inspect all significant industrial users (SIUs) once per
calendar year and sample all SIUs at least twice per calendar year, once during the period
beginning January 1 and ending June 30 and once during the period beginning July 1 and
ending December 31.
Part III
6. The, permittee shall enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of categorical
pretreatment standards promulgated pursuant to section 307(b) and (c) of the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR 405 et.seq.), prohibitive discharge standards as set forth in 40 CFR 403.5,
and specific local limitations. All enforcement actions shall be consistent with any
Enforcement Response Plan approved by the Division.
7. The permittee shall require all industrial users to comply with the applicable monitoring and
reporting requirements outlined in the approved pretreatment program, the industry's
pretreatment permit, and/or in 15 NCAC 2H.0918.
8. The permittee shall submit twice per year 2 copies of a pretreatment report describing its
pretreatment activities over the previous six months. A report shall be submitted to the
Division by August 1 of each year describing pretreatment activities for January 1 through
June 30 of that year, and a like report shall be submitted by February 1 of each year for
activities conducted from July 1 through December 31 of the previous year. These reports
shall contain the following information:
a. a narrative summary of actions taken by the permittee to ensure compliance with
pretreatment requirements and standards
b. a list of any substantive changes made in the approved pretreatment program
c. a compliance status summary of all significant industrial users
d. a list of those significant industrial users in reportable noncompliance with pretreatment
requirements and standards, the nature of the violations, and actions taken or proposed
to correct the violations on forms approved by the Division.
e. sampling and analytical results recorded on forms approved by the Division
f. upon request, other information which in the opinion of the Director is needed to
determine compliance with the pretreatment implementation requirements of this permit
g. a pretreatment program summary on forms approved by the Division.
9. The permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years records of monitoring activities and
results, along with support information including general records, water quality records,
and records of industrial impact on the POTW.
10. The permittee shall publish annually, pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8 (f) (2) (vii), a list of
significant industrial users that have significantly violated pretreatment requirements and
standards during the previous twelve month period.
11. The permittee shall maintain adequate funding and staffing levels to accomplish the
objectives of its approved pretreatment program.
12. The permittee shall maintain adequate legal authority to implement its approved pretreatment
program.
13. The permittee shall update its industrial user survey at least once every five years.
14. Modifications to the approved pretreatment program including but not limited tic Wpagimits
modifications and monitoring program changes shall be considered petmi ft?
shall be governed by 15 NCAC 2H.01 14.

Part III
C. Construction
No construction of wastewater treatment facilities or additions to add to the plant's treatment
capacity or to change the type of process utilized at the treatment plant shall be begun until Final
Plans and Specifications have been submitted to the Division of Environmental Management
and written approval and Authorization to Construct has been issued.
D. Groundwater Monitoring
The permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Environmental
Management, conduct groundwater monitoring as may be required to determine the compliance
of this NPDES permitted facility with the current groundwater standards.
E. Publicly Owned Treatment Work
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which
would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those
pollutants; and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that
POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the
permit.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the quality
and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (2) any anticipated impact of the
change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.
JUL T f;vp
Gr NTRAL F)LE ???
Part III
Permit No. N00020117
F. POLLUTAN'T' ANALYSIS MONITORING CONDITION
The permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants annually at the effluent from the treatment plant.
The discharge shall be evaluated as follows: 1) A pollutant analysis of the effluent must be
completed annually using EPA approved methods for the following analytic fractions: (a)
purgeables (i.e., volatile organic compounds); (b) acid extractables; (c) base/neutral extractables;
(d) organochlorine pesticides and PCB's (e) herbicides; and (f) metals and other inorganics. The
Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (APAM) Requirement Reporting Form A and
accompanying memo, to be provided to all discharges affected by this monitoring requirement,
describes the sampling and analysis requirements and lists chemicals to be included in the
pollutant analysis. This monitoring requirement is to be referred to as the "Annual Pollutant
Analysis Monitoring Requirement" (APAM).
2) Other significant levels of synthetic organic chemicals must be identified and approximately
quantified. For the purpose of implementing this requirement, the largest 10 GC/MS peaks in the
purgeable, base/neutral extractable, and acid extractable fractions (or fewer than 10,-if less than 10
unidentified peaks occur) for chemicals other than those specified on the APA Requirement
Reporting Form A should be identified and approximately quantified as stated in the APAM
Reporting Form A instructions. This part (item 2) of the APAM requirement is to be referred to as
the "10 significant peaks rule".
G. 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 99% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from issuance of this
permit during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
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
disinfection of the waste stream.
??' S`+ r
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, thenglbnt 1'y 1990
CENTPAL VILE cCQpy,
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 reopened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting (within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.

wR c
JUL ? ? 1590
CLATRAL FILE CQFy
PART IV
ANNUAL ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE FEE REQUIREMENTS
A. The permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance fee within 30
(thirty) days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a
timely manner in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0105(b)(4) may cause this Division
to initiate action to revoke the permit.
, ?Lvl C
a»?. w 1t
JUL 1 ?0?g? '
C PJ'. r A4 i. F1I_tc cope

A' ??.lwta4
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
Mr. Tommy M. Combs, City Manager
City of Clinton
Post Office Box 199
Clinton, North Carolina 28328
Dear Mr. Combs:
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
September 11, 1990
Subject: Permit No. WQ0002890
City of Clinton
Land Application of Sludge
Sampson County
In accordance with your application received June 29, 1990, we are forwarding herewith
Permit No. WQ0002890, dated September 11, 1990, to the City of Clinton for the continued
operation of a land application of sludge program..
inns permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until March 31,1995, and shall be
subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay particular attention to the
monitoring requirements in this permit. Failure to establish an adequate system for collecting and
maintaining the required operational information will result in future compliance problems.
Issuance of this permit hereby voids Permit No. WQ0002890 issued April 11, 1990.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable to you,
you have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within 30 days
following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming
to Chapter 150B of North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 11666, Raleigh, NC 27604. Unless such demands are made this permit shall
be final and binding.
If you need additional informatio=ing this, matter, please contact Mr. John
Seymour at 919/ 733-5083.
T. Everett
cc: Sampson County Health Department
Fayetteville Regional Office
The Wooten Company
Groundwater Section
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH
SLUDGE LAND APPLICATION PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North
Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
CITY OF CLINTON
Sampson County
FOR THE
operation of a sludge land application program consisting of disposing of the sludge from the
facilities listed in condition No. H - 4 which include two additional sludge sources to the sites
described in condition No. VI - 6 with no discharge of wastes to the surface waters, pursuant to
the application received June 29, 1990 and in conformity with the project plan, specifications, and
other supporting data subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources and considered a part of this permit. .
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until March 31, 1995, and shall be
subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1. This permit shall become voidable if the soils fail to adequately absorb the wastes
and may be rescinded unless the sites are maintained and operated in a manner
which will protect the assigned water quality standards of the surface waters and
ground waters.
2. The land application program shall be effectively maintained and operated as a
non-discharge system to prevent the discharge of any wastes resulting from the
operation of this program.
3. The issuance of this permit shall not relieve the Permittee of the responsibility for
damages to surface or groundwaters resulting from the operation of this facility.
4. In the event that the land application program is not operated satisfactorily, including
the creation of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall cease applying sludge to the
sites and take any immediate corrective aptions, including the construction of
additional or replacement wastewater treatment or disposal facilities.
5. No crops for direct human consumption shall be raised on these sites for a period
of 18 months following sludge application.
6. Maximum slope for sludge application shall be 10% for surface application and
18% for subsurface applications.
7. The following buffers zones shall be maintained:
a) 400 feet from residences under separate ownership for surface
application method, however the buffer zone requirement may be reduced
to a minimum of 100 feet upon written consent of the owner.
b) 200 feet from residences under separate ownership for injection method,
however the buffer zone requirement may be reduced to a minimum of 100
feet upon written consent of the owner.
c) 100 feet from "SA and SB" classified waters and public surface water
supplies for both methods,
d) 50 feet from "WS" classified waters and other streams, creeks, lakes,
rivers, and surface water drainage ways for injection method.
e) 100 feet from "WS" classified waters and other streams, creeks, lakes,
rivers and surface water drainage ways for surface application
method,
f) 100 feet from property lines for both methods,
g) 50 feet from public right of ways for surface application methods,
h) 25 feet from public right of ways for subsurface disposal methods,
i) 10 feet from upslope interceptor drains and surface water diversions for
both methods,
j) 25 feet from downslope interceptor drains, surface water diversions,
groundwater drainage systems and surface drainage ditches for both
methods.
8. A copy of this permit shall be kept at the land application site when sludge is being
applied during the life of this permit. A spill prevention and control plan shall be kept
in all sludge transport and application vehicles.
9. All sludges included in this permit must be stabilized by a process to significantly
reduce pathogens (as described in 40 CFR Part 257, Appendix II) prior to
application or incorporation. An evaluation of all sludges as specified in condition
1 14 must be conducted as to their ability to demonstrate compliance with this
requirement. A copy of this report must be submitted to the Assistant Chief for
Operations, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, 44e
Operations Branch, PO Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611-7687, within six (6)
months of the permit issue date of April 11, 1990.
10. Specific sludge application area boundaries shall be clearly marked on each site prior
to and during sludge application.
11. No sludge at any time shall be stored at any application site.
II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. The facilities and disposal sites shall be pr9Perly maintained and operated at all
times.
2. A suitable vegetative cover shall be maintained in accordance with the crop
management plan approved by this Division.
2
3. The application rates shall = exceed the following loading rates:
Annual Loading:
Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN)
Coastal Bermuda = 400 pounds/ acre/ year
Fescue = 200 pounds/ acre/ year
Corn = 200 pounds/ acre/ year
Soybean and small grain =150 pounds/ acre/ year
Phosphorus, P =100 Pounds/ acre/ year
Cadmium, Cd = 0.45 pounds/ acre/ year
solids*
For Aerobically Digested Sludges'
37,922 gallons/acre/year (4.7 dry tons/acre/year)
For Anaerobically Digested Sludges*
35,112 gallons/acre/year (4.4 dry tons/ acre/ year)
` These loading rates are based on loading rates of 100 lbs/acre for Phosphorus. If
the constituent of the sludge changes such that the field is loaded at rates of less than
100 pounds per acre then the loading rate shall be the hydraulic capacity of the field
or 100 lbs per acre of phosphorus, whichever is less shall be the loading rate.
4. No sludges other than the following are hereby approved for land application in
accordance with this permit:
Source County Permit No. Estimated Volume ( gallon earl
City of Clinton Sampson NC0020117 2,591,000 gallons/year
5. The lifetime heavy metal loadings shall Pte. exceed the following for the
corresponding Cation Exchange Capacities (CEC):
CEC < 5
Lead (lbs/acre) 500
Zinc (lbs/acre) 250
Copper (lbs/acre) 125
Nickel (lbs/acre) 50
Cadmium (lbs/acre) 4.5
6. Prior to application, the sludge will be sampled and analyzed for routine nutrient
analysis. Representative sludge samples will be collected from the aerobic digester,
delivered to a qualified laboratory familiar with sludge analysis, and analyzed for
TKN, NH4-N, P, K, and % solids. This information will then be utilized to
calculate the specific application rate for the field and crop.
7. This sludge application permit is based on an agricultural agronomic three (3) year
site rotation.
8. The Permittee shall employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator to be in
responsible charge of the land application operation. The operator must hold a
certificate of the grade at least equivalent to the classification assigned to the
land application program by the Certification Commission.
3
9. Adequate procedures shall be provided to prevent surface runoff from carrying any
disposed or stored sludge material into any surface waters.
10. Animals shall not be grazed on sludge applied land within a 30-day period
following the sludge application. Application sites that are to be used for grazing
shall have fencing that will be used to prevent access after each application.
11. Surface applied sludge- will be plowed or disced within twenty-four (24) hours
after application on lands with no cover crop established.
12. For areas that are prone to flooding or within the 100-year flood elevation, sludge
may be applied only during periods of dry weather. The sludge must be
incorporated into the soil within twenty-four (24) hours of application.
13. Appropriate measures must be taken to control public access to the land application
sites during active site use and for the 12-month period following the last sludge
application event. Such controls may include the posting of signs indicating the
activities being conducted at each site.
14. Adequate provisions shall be taken to prevent wind erosion and surface runoff
from conveying pollutants from the sludge application area onto the adjacent
property or into the surface waters.
15. Sludge shall not be applied in inclement weather or until 24 hours following a
rainfall event of 1/2-inch or greater in 24 hours. Any emergency sludge disposal
measures must first be approved by the Division of Environmental Management.
16. The site shall be adequately limed to a soil pH of at least 6.5 prior to sludge
application. Sludge may be applied to sites with a pH of less than 6.5 provided a
sufficient amount of lime is also applied to achieve a final pH of the lime, sludge and
soil mixture of at least 6.5.
III. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQMEMENTS
1. Any monitoring (including groundwater, surface water, sludge, soil, or plant
tissue analyses) deemed necessary by the Division of Environmental Management
to. insure protection of the environment will be established and an acceptable
sampling and reporting schedule shall be followed. If monitoring data indicates
minimal or no concern to the Division, reduction of monitoring requirements may be
pursued after two annual reporting periods.
2. Proper records shall be maintained by the Permittee tracking all disposal activities.
These records shall include, but are not necessarily -limited to the following
information:
a) source of sludge
b) date of sludge application
c) location of sludge application (site, field, or zone #)
d) method of application
e) weather conditions
0 soil conditions
g) type of crop or crop to be grown on field
h) volume of sludge applied in gallons/acre and dry tons/acre
4
i) annual and cumulative totals of dry tons/acre of sludge, annual and
cumulative pounds/acre of each heavy metal (which shall include, but not
be limited to lead,nickel, cadmium, copper and zinc), annual pounds/acre
of plant available nitrogen (PAN), and annual pounds/acre of
phosphorus applied to each field.
3. A representative annual soils analysis shall be conducted of each site receiving
sludge in the respective calendar year and the results maintained on file by the
Permittee for a minimum of five years. The soils analysis shall include but is not
necessarily limited to the following parameters:
Standard Soil Fertility Test Manganese
% Base Saturation
Phosphorus
Potassium
Lead
Zinc
Magnesium
pH
Cation Exchange Capacity
Sodium
Nickel
Cadmium
Copper
Calcium
4. A quarterly sludge analysis and annual EP Toxicity analysis shall be conducted by
the Permittee quarterly and the results maintained on file by the Permittee for a
minimum of five years. If land application occurs at a frequency
less than quarterly, sludge analysis will be required for each instance of land
application. The sludge analysis shall include but is not necessarily limited to the
following parameters:
% total solids Magnesium
Chlorides Sulfate
Phosphorus Potassium
Lead Zinc
Copper Nickel
Cadmium Chromium
Sodium Calcium
Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen pH
Plant Available Nitrogen (by calculation)
The EP Toxicity analysis shall include the following parameters:
Arsenic Barium
Cadmium Chromium
Lead Mercury
Selenium Silver
Endrin Lindane
Methoxychlor Toxaphene
2,4-D 2,4,5 -TP Silvex
5. Three copies of all monitoring and reporting requirements as specified in conditions
III 1, III 2, 1113 and 111 4 shall be submitted annually on or before March 1 of
the following year to the following address:
NC Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
Facility Assessment Unit
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
5
Y
6. Noncompliance Notification:
The Permittee shall report by telephone to the Fayetteville, Regional Office
telephone no. [phone], as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24
hours or on the next working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the
occurrence of any of the following:
a. Any occurrence with the land application program which results in the
land application of significant amounts of wastes which are abnormal in
quantity or characteristic.
b. Any failure of the land application program resulting in a release of
sludge material to receiving waters.
C. Any time that self-monitoring information indicates that the facility has
gone out of compliance with the conditions and limitations of this permit
or the parameters on which the system was designed.
d. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render
the facility incapable of adequate sludge treatment.
e. Any spillage or discharge from a vehicle or piping system transporting
sludge to the application site.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in
letter form within 15 days following first knowledge of the occurrence. This report
must outline the actions taken or proposed to be taken to ensure that the problem
does not recur.
IV. GROUNDWATER REO MMENTS
1. Any groundwater quality monitoring as deemed necessary by the Division of
Environmental Management shall be provided.
2. No land application of waste activities shall be undertaken when the seasonal high
water table is less than three feet below land surface.
3. No land application of sludge shall be undertaken on site number 6 (D.M. Faircloth
Farm) where gullies are located. The gullies are occupied by Rains and Leon type
soils having a seasonal high water table of between 0 and 1.0 feet below land
surface.
V. INSPECTIONS
1. The Permittee or his designee shall inspect the sludge storage, transport, and
disposal facilities to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors and
discharges which may cause or lead to the release of wastes to the environment, a
threat to human health, or a nuisance. The Permittee shall keep an inspection log
or summary including at least the date and time of inspection, observations made,
and any maintenance, repairs, or corrective actions taken by the Permittee. This
log of inspections shall be maintained by the Permittee for a period of three years
from the date of the inspection and shall be made available upon request by the
Division of Environmental Management or other permitting authority.
6
2. Any duly authorized officer, employee, or representative of the Division of
Environmental Management may, upon presentation of credentials, enter and
inspect any property, premises or place on or related to the disposal site and
facility at any reasonable time for the purpose of determining compliance with this
permit; may inspect or copy any records that must be kept under the terms and
conditions of this permit; or may obtain samples of groundwater, surface water,
or leachate.
VI.
1. This permit shall become voidable unless the land application activities are carried
out in accordance with the conditions of this permit and in the manner approved
by this Division.
2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes
described in the application and other supporting data. '
3. This permit is not transferable. In the event there is a desire for the facilities to
change ownership or a name change of the Permittee, a formal permit request must
be submitted to the Division of Environmental Management accompanied by an
application fee, documentation from the parties involved, and other supporting
materials as may be appropriate. The approval of this request will be considered
on its merits and may or may not be approved.
4. Prior to any transfer of this land, a notice shall be given to the new owner that
gives full details of the materials applied or incorporated at this site.
5. This permit shall become voidable unless the agreements between the Penmittee
and the landowners/lessees are in full force and effect.
6. The following are approved sites for sludge application (see attached map):
Site No. Owner/Ussee Application Area (excluding buffers)
[acres]
#1 Ray Williams 25 acres
#2 Ray Williams 15 acres
#3 Cornet and Howard Boney 10 acres
#4 Cornet and Howard Boney 28 acres
#5 Uuch Faircloth 600 acres
#6 D.M. Faircloth 171 acres
#7 Sampson County/City of
Clinton Airport 23 acres
Total Acreage 872 acres
7. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Environmental
Management in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6.
8. Whe annual administering and compliance fee must be paid by the Permittee within
thirty -(30) days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee
accordingly may cause the Division to initiate action to revoke this permit as
specified by 15 NCAC 2H.0205 (c)(4).
7
9. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
10. A set of approved documents for the subject project must be retained by the applicant
for the life of the permit.
11. The Permittee, fat least six (6) months prior to the expiration of this Permit, shall
request its extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Commission will review
the adequacy of the facilities described therein, and if warranted, will extend the
permit for such period of time and under such conditions and limitations as it may
deem appropriate.
12. This permit may be modified, or revoked and reissued to incorporate any conditions,
limitations and monitoring requirements the Division of Environmental Management
deems necessary in order to adequately protect the environment and public health.
13. The permittee shall provide updated landowners agreements to the Fayetteville
Regional Office within 90 days of the issuance of this permit.
14. Issuance of this permit hereby voids Pemnit WQ0002890 issued April 11, 1990.
Permit issued this the 11th day of September, 1990
CAROLINA ENVI90NMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
L)Vy?-Ovj 'A4??
George T. Everett, for
Division of Enviro tal M ge ent
By Authority of the En ' e Management Commission
Permit No. WQ0002890
8
it" if. Itl° .s.° •. ILA ... G
iL12 >
IW 1171 ... ? e c ?:.:
• 114E
•?? J? Ls lilt 11Q1
J t i , '? Lrl? '•?p _ ft am nw I
7 11H ILn 3::` _
r7 r ?l 701 Z • 1p W hill / 1 llll
/4 `! > .: ? 1111 J q. y 1,
1
:
a °71 J 7 T?•M 1°S
Jlll J !11! i .?` 771 11J1 1Ja ILL Jim ?'? 1.7
uu ??
'* 1. ° 1 7 IJ 1.111 LLL
Lail
ISIa
Cl1NTON??;
90/.7117 un
1111 S.W" . un 7 1ML
24
t?
?•: Yj 7w•r yM IttJ 1.8
? / 1111 11L
G
't:>?: • t, .? IIN till
? fir ?9 ?? . y - 7
> Jl!! a?wrl UL 1? 1311 la„ '•r Ila L"1 11tl
1L1 '° 1w 11?
.? 1? 7 n
' It?f 7, I T f 1 '. !ol ' Im .. ? JJl! 11'1 1.1 LL
1 , , ^ 1114
-• - i ?/1 Im 7 Ilia
it"
un jai
Ill! ,? Ji01 ./ ?? ;i? lilt ` 1177
?. Y r
JAW
l? JiN ?• .jl, y 1711 UIL J
Ila
an UK
% Ufa 1111 ,7 •/ i1?D bww 1711 w
! JILL d Cad 1 X171 `? !•7
w. f A w 47
It•??r r im
? 1 j Illf
sui
lay UK ` Sl ~' J171 Im uu liM ° ? LIE
°
LLU SITEt2`
LLsZ ,
11? ! ° 'Y a Nu
UK JiLL llll ? 9 c+7d 1 • .
y L HILL LII
us Ii0 nu
11!! • Jill ?
3.1
9 am lit /17f
JILL J>LL V i
lia %
C1111Mi1 -:
y lilt llltll ' 1• J tt qy y
' tit •ff u. :i? r /l;S:'?tl 7
S as
?4 tall !tl! 7)' l ? %
1t - - llll y,p,?•, T e
? 1117 177 17H ?Ih
1111 J 1211 2.1
li.•
lull f 11 ^ ?' 9 °'
1141 • ' Ina Mr7
!1!l yw 11
ffi 70
Soul'
,•,1 ` ! I 0 IJ t' Il :? Law
d 7u ql 10 wMl?lr •
? l°t! T ROSEWIO
Ilol 4 .t
Igl JO 114Y La.
! s` ti 13
24
N>s ? ??? , ? 50
1111 JP
!t. l:lJ 1 ?r
)P l4 1. 16
ll? JIM
SITE# 1 - AIRPORT SITE
+1 :? SITEf2 - CHESTNUTT FARM SITI
N i
t
EXHIBIT 1
LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1's2 MILES
LAND APPLICATION SITES
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
?. 7.111 To w rt R5:.1lF •••.,194U s J?!1?.
79e2f- 30- 740000. E I 741 65 MI 10 JUNG li s ' AN" U. 5 701 743 20'
35e 00'- -
( '"? '? ?:.))I 1131/
S: : ? / ?. rse --- ?/, , • 101 •?, ;!' ? .
C to •rso L ix ?i • ((\\?? R;"l Lane.
lub Park •? 5 i l
. v` .lam • . /` 1\ .r ,L ``,? ? r .?1 ?,.?, .
les
lit
`• v.
idb .. ' 1•
?? is / 1 ? •• 0
11 \
I 4r.
% 41
. _<< . _ ..
11 Q
l'b
/ • ,? , \ d
?elll roo ! :?'•:._ (?; (gym
3°72
(•> - (•(. I?', i `J
IL/ ( i1 ftem.± . , C"
160
57' 30'
d\, off
7 ?? f'? I t _ J i'
6)
EXHIBIT 2
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP - SITE #1
SCALE: 10e 2000'
„an nnn I FFPT ?3A 7B° 2?1 30" I 741• f

139 l? r

%

`iARIE ?.... tom; Zf/i
- Q-

IL
I
czz)
cr
L-
l/,
1206

i
< < - : Cem
r ti LAJ?
1207
SCALE: 1'= 2000
EXHIBIT 3
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP - SITE *2
12.85
x
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
SOIL MAP
Owner C,4 F t Ntoa - Qj4-v*4 Operator Cm c.t
Countv -State N • C
Soil survey sheet (s) or code nos. .-proximate scale I'= '37o
Prepared by U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service cooperating
with '?5 aMe.)c ^i Conservation Distnct
EXHIBIT 4
SOIL MAP - SITE #1

' SCS-CPA-015 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

' 12•x5 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
"
SOIL MAP
Owner v N? 1 CL, JVA Operator ITY r' F i_ ??a N
Countv S A- ",P ° ?+ State N . C
Soil survey sheet (s) or code nos. Aproximate scale ?- + 3Zo
Prepared by U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva tion Service cooperating
I with -5A),A k r4 Conservation District
7.30
738 -
K" 71
730
a -:
736, 7 -To
0 % ?••?R`
..tea,. -:ti .•- r.F 36 A . - .._ wr. r}?':ri••^• , I01
30
r ???"' .ay ` ?.? _ •r--?,,'i7t?'f ..ice • .]. 1 -
ti :.' F" ' ., .may-s.••-... ,`:. ?• '`•;,? d.c `'. , • 1??''*?,. !?^
i? '?1? its ? - ,rfX•:.r- \t.?- ,•
zip''" = Y?l ?: - .. - -- ??;' .:,• _.. t '?
Mein .1,/a Syr s2 .?? ..-•? • •. `• • • ? • .-? .. C ?a4? '.
.V`?.: .r ?? 'fir' ? --•ir•'.? yl ,..': 4 ? -cY : •? ? ?V ?? t.
365 mac:.{,a
EXHIBIT 5
SOIL MAP -SITE *2
r _'?"?- auk ..tea--•+? 4W_ ? ?' • ••i ? ? ?, • N T? ? .
e
Q?
•? .(.?Yf•r.
Vc? Aft
?J
d
Otp
-F
1
-m , -
0%
r
1
t?

EXHIBIT 6
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION

-iF
• ? A
e o •

_ Q •
00 4,
?+ t

O
r
• 1 t
?TM Fem.`.
C
r? .
Y T,
. ti

aft
rl
•. v
l? ?

i/
lod SrA7F a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management -
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
September 19, 1990
To: Division of Environmental Management Wastewater Sludge
Permit Holders and Applicants
Subject: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Requirements
In the past it has been required that all wastewater sludges either being considered for
or being utilized in a land application program be analyzed for toxic characteristics by the
Extraction Procedure (EP Toxicity) leach test, as well as being analyzed for ignitability,
corrosivity, and reactivity. The Environmental Protection Agency has now promulgated a new rule
which revises the method used to identify those wastes that are defined as hazardous. The new
rule, which will become effective on September 25, 1990, appears in the March 29, 1990, Federal
Register and is known as the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The new rule
t 'replaces the Extraction Procedure (EP Toxicity) leach test with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
'Procedure (TCLP) and adds twenty-five organic chemicals the list of toxic constituents of
;concem.
E
Any requests for wastewater sludge land application permits for new sources or permit
renewals, which are received by the Division of Environmental Management on or after September
25, 1990, must provide the TCLP analysis. Additionally, for all existing permits that currently
,i require periodic EP Toxicity analysis, that requirement is automatically replaced by the requirement
for the TCLP analysis. The Division is incorporating this requirement in accordance with 40 CFR
1.24. "
If you have any questions or need 'additional information, please contact Mr. Donald
Safrit or Mr. Randy Jones at telephone number 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
olVu °---
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportuniry Affirmative Action Employer
llrnltnl :,Ltl?:'• C-urvnurnczilions AnC
[itvuui nq nl.d IhUIt:CUpn huLltc Allaus ?-
Ageitcy (A•1071 /o-?(/?, ? Cho-ostc Le e
E a PINA L Environmental News
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1990
EPA REGULATES ADDITTONAL I{AZARDOUS WASTES
.......- Robin Woods 202 382-1377
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today
that, in order to help protect the nation's groundwater, wastes
containing 25 toxic organic chemicals are now subject to the
safeguards of federal hazardous waste regulations. These
chemicals are known to have contaminated groundwater at hazardous
waste sites. Most of the pollutants and wastes subject to
today's regulation are generated in land-based treatment systems
to remove toxic contaminants prior to discharge into surface
waters. Thus, this regulation will help close the loop to assure
safe management and groundwater protection.
The new rule will increase the quantity of hazardous waste
controlled under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Some 1.8 million metric tons per year of nonwastewaters,
which account for most of the anticipated compliance cost, may be
subject to the rule. Additionally, 700 million metric tons of
wastewater also may be affected. Much of that volume, however,
is already managed in wastewater treatment tanks approved under
the Clean Water Act. EPA expects additional use of such tanks to
comply with this rule.
Don R. Clay, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emerqency Response, said, "Today's action- is a significant
step towards preventing future growdwater pollution. This rule
is expected to avoid billions of dollars in future costs to clean
up contaminated groundwater."
R-36
(more)
- 2 -
4

With this rule, EPA expects 17,000 additional generators to
will be affected. The 12 major industries affected include: pulp
and paper, petroleum refining, miscellaneous petroleum and coal
products, wholesale petroleum marketing, organic chemicals,
pharmaceuticals, plastics production and products, rubber and
miscellaneous plastics products, synthetic rubber, synthetic
fibers, textile mills, lumber and wood products, and pipelines,
except those for natural gas.
As a result of today's rule, 200 to 400 surface impoundments
currently used to dispose of the wastes also will be regulated
under RCRA for the first time. Such facilities are known to
contaminate groundwater. Facility operators may apply for RCRA
permits for the impoundments, providing they meet certain
standards, such as installing double liners, and cleaning up any
contamination. Because of the stringent requirements, however,
the agency expects most of the impoundments to close, unless the
operators undertake process changes to eliminate their hazardous
wastes. RCRA requires the owner to follow certain closing
procedures and to clean up contamination, as necessary.
Estimated total costs of compliance range from $250 to
$400 million a year, with the largest compliance costs predicted
for the petroleum refining, pulp and paper, synthetic fibers,
wholesale petroleum marketing and organic chemicals industries.
Wastes produced by large generators will be subject to the
new test within six months. Wastes produced by small generators
will be affected within a year. The test, referred to as the
"Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)," replaces the
current test (the "EP Toxicity" test) because the new one can
determine levels of 25 organic substances in addition to the 14
metals and organics that the EP test covers. Under the federal
rules, generators are not necessarily required to test if they
know their waste meets the hazardous waste criteria. Howeyer, if
they are not sure, only the testing procedure can determine their
need to comply.
Some small-quantity generators, such as vehicle service
stations and leather processors, also may be affected. Small-
quantity generators are those that produce between 220 and 2,200
pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar month. Generators of
these amounts have generally been subject to most of the federal
hazardous-waste.rp-quirements since September 1988. EPA and the
states can provide information to these businesses to help them
determine if they are additionally affected.
R-36 (more)
ILIA, 1 ' 41juu a u
- 3 -
The rule and testing procedure will be published in the
Federal Register within the next two weeks. The public can get
additional information through EPA's waste hotline at 800-424-
9346 or 382-3000 in Washington, U.C. The hotline is open from
8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday.
R-36

###
d
FACTS AND FIGURES
ON THE TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC (TC) RULE
What the Rule Does: Adds 25 chemicals to the eight metals and six pesti-
cides on the existing list of constituents regulated under RCRA. The rule also
establishes regulatory levels for the new organic chemicals Listed, and re-
places the Extraction Procedures leach test with the `roxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure.
When It Takes Affect: Generators must comply with this regulation within
six months of the date of notice in the Federal Register; small quantity gen-
erators must comply within one year.
Who It Affects: The rule will bring waste above regulatory levels into the
system primarily from the following industries.
Major Industrial Sectors Analyzed
For the Regulatory Impact Analysis
n
y
QrganlcChemlcals =
Petrotepm )E?efining, A.
.., ., G...?HroF..• fwi.i?Jla??alLeutlr?1$ '' r
Tz?'rPClIne9, except Natural Gash
??° r cl estns
:?a v
Kiila,6hjutid,.??, eljaoet?usll?Slc:9:Y'i'lxiucts'
?- Symth?tlc??lie?'s r? '
A s ' ° Sy-1th txc-Rubbec
<• : Lri-???;.r?r??Teict?Ce`,M1lts. ? ?` '
'?° ="?i??['bol?iile Betro(ett x?al- n ?'
otentiolly Affected Industries:
Generators: 15,000-17,000
New Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFe):
tion to the existing 5,000 TSDFs.
200-9:00, in addi-
Estimated Economic Savings: Approximately $3.8 billion in damage to
ground water resources avoided.
Estimated Quantity of Waste Affected: Some 1.8 million metric tons per
year of nonwastewaters, which account for most of the cost, may be subject to
the rule. Additionally, 750 million metric tons of wastewater may also be
affected.
March 1990 NS E PA
TABLE 1: TC CONSTITUENTS AND THEIR REGULATORY LEVELS
NEWLY ADDED CONSTITUENTS
6.
Reaulatory Re uq latory
Constituent Level (mg/1) Constituent Level (mgfl)
benzene 0.5 hexachlorobenzene 0.13
carbon tetrachloride 0.5 hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene 0.5
chlordane 0.03 hexachloroethane 3.0
chlorobenzene 100.0 methyl ethyl ketone 200.0
chloroform 6.0 nitrobenzene 2.0
o-cresol 200.0 pentachlorophenoi 100.0
m-cresol 200.0 pyridine 5.0
p-cresol 200.0 tetrachloroethylene 0.7
1,4-dichlorobenzene 7.5 trichloroethylene 0.5
1,2-dichloroethane 0.5 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 400.0
1,1-dichioroethylene 0.7 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 2.0
2,4-dinitrotoluene 0.13 vinyl chloride 0.2
heptachlor 0.008
EP CONSTITUENTS (BEING RETAINED AT CURRENT LEVEE
arsenic 5.0 silver 5.0
barium 100.0 endrin 0.02-
cadmium 1.0 lindane _ 0.4
chromium 5.0 methoxychior 10.0
lead 5.0 toxaphene 0.5
mercury 0.2 2,4-D 10.0
selenium 1.0 2,4,5-TP (siivex) 1.0

rSTATE
? F
i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resol
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
September 3, 1.991
Honorable A. E. Kennedy, Jr., f;ayor.
't'own of Clinton
Post Office Box 199
Clinton, North Carolina 283/1-8-0199
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
SUBJECT: Amendmerit to Clinton
201 Facilities Plar_
Prcject No. CS370425-04
Dear bkxyor Kennedy :
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has ccuple.ted its review of
the subject 201 Facilities Plan Amendment and has the attached comnents. A
response to these comments should be submitted for our review as soon as
possible.
if you have questions concerning this matter, please contact ne at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Blaisdell, Acting Supervisor
Facilities Evaluation Unit
RB:mm
Enclosure
cc: The Wooten Ccmpany w/attachment
Fayetteville Regional office - w/attachment
ITU - w/attachment
EM - w/attachrP-nt
SRF - w/attachment
JOB NAFAE:
CLIENT:
JOB N0: FILE INDEX:
Poaudon Pnwendon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
C LIMMN TES HNICAL CU-24TiIS
1. Please provide a breakdcx,m of flows including: current
daw--stic/con:rercial, current industrial, current infiltration inflow,
design dam--stic/ccncrercial, design industrial and design
infiltration/inflow. An anticipat(-A increase in flaw from Lindy should
be included.
2. A statement concerning the existence of excessive infiltration/inflow
should be provided. If I/I are excessive, a cost-effective analysis
comparing rehabilitation versus rxanspartation/treatment will he
required.
3. Could the grit removal system be renovated to handle the expanded flow?
4. What would be the purpose of a standby grit removal systc-L?
5. Please describe the work to be done within the existing aeration tank.
6. Does the 18.9 hours detention time within the aeration tanks include
the anaerobic/anoxic zone?
7. She following information concerning the "diking and stormwater piping"
should be provided.
a. A map of the site indicating the proposed dike should be provided.
b. What is the elevation of the 25-year and 100-year flood.? This
information should be indicated on the map in (7a) above.
C. How will the stornTnter runoff be handled.? Will any wastewater be
pumped by the stormwater system?
8. In lieu of the chlorination/dechlorination, was the cost effectiveness
of U.V. system considered?
9. Are there any patent fees with any of the alternatives? If so, those
costs should be included in the cost estimates and cost effective
analysis.
10. Are there any costs included in the cost estimates for demolition or
rEnx)val of existing structures? Please be advised that although this
is likely an ineligible cost for SRF funding, those costs should be
included in the present worth analysis.
11. The design wastewater flows section says existing flow is 1,320,000
(domestic) and 1,642,000 (industri_-il) for a total of 2,962,000 gpd.
Plant records do not reflect this. Please ccmrent.
12. Leo the existing land application sites have sufficient capacity to
handle the anticipated sludge production of the upgraded and expanded
plant for the 20-year design period?
-Page. 2-
13. Dcx, s L11e town =rently have sufficient equipment to handle
transportation a.rd application of sludge at design flow?
14. Has the request for the NPDF.S peinut at the expanded flaw been
submitted? 1-;bat is the suitus of this request?
15. Are there aiiy areas within the service area tbat reuui.re: sewer service
aue to public health or cater quality problems?
16. Please discuss the potential open space and recreational oppcrtunL-ities
associated with this project.
17. Please be advised that all real property associated with the proix:sed
project nest be: acquired it accordance: with the Uniform Relocation and
Peal Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The following costs
are unallowable under the Act:
a. The costs of acquisition of sewer rights-of-way (i.e. legal
administrative, engineering).
b. Any amount- paid by the recipient for eligible lwid in excess of
just compensation based on appraised value, negotiation or
condemnation proceedings.
C. Removal, relocation or replacement of utilities located on land
privilege.
18. Please be advised that pursuant to the North Carolina. Administrative
Code, Section 15 14CAC 2M.0202, agreement to a debt instrument by loan
applicants shall include the payment of 2% closing fee. Is a cost for
this fee included in the estimated costs? If not, is should be a part
of the estimates and cost-effectiveness analysis.
19,. Please be advised that receipt of a loan from the North Carolina Water
Pollution Control Revolving Funds is contingent on the review and
approval of the proposed loan by the Local Government Camrmssion. It
should be noted that the LGC: will also set the term of that loan.
20. Please be advised that a loan under the SRF program cannot be awarded
until the user charge system and sewer use ordinance have been approved.
21. The following information concerning the Dollar Branch outfall should
be provided:
a. The size and capacity of the existing line,
b. The age of the, existing outfall.
C. A breakdown of current and future flows within the outfall.
d. A map of the existing and proposed outfall.

-Page 3-
e. A statr ?nr_ concerning the excessiveness of !/I with-i3; f-h,e outfall.
f. Documentation must N? provided dc-mr .strating that the purpose of
the proposed outfall is not primarily to serge an industry.
22. Population projections for Clinton and the 201 area should be
provided. Dar.. Blaisdell of this office should be contacted concerning
this.
23. Please not that the current discount interest rate is 8 7/8a. The cost
effective analysis should be revised.
24. Will the proposed flcx.-cl control system changes prevent surcharging of
the primary clarifier and. overflcxa of the secondary clarifier and
chlorine tank?
25. Can the pretreated wastewater- go directly to the anaerobic tar ?
26. A public hearing regarding the 201 Fzcilities Plan is required. Thirty
days notices of the hearing is also required. The selected alternative
and expected user charges should be discussed and a transcript or
detailed minutes of the public hearing itrust be provided. An affidavit
of publication should also be provided.
CCMiMEN TS
0
(7;11, EON 201 i IICILIT.%ES PI I??d
duly 30, 19911
1. Are there any dwelling wiits within the Tcx..,ri of Clinton not served bZ,
the central collection system? If so, indicate the status of the
septic systems.
2. Are there any facilities which will be constricted in a floodplain or
wetland area?
The U.S. Army Corps of Encrineers must evaluate the proposed project to
determine if anv permits will be recruircd.
4. The plan should provide a description of all areas in which
construction is proposed. How much land will be required for the
expansion?
5. Review com ents have been received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the
Departmnent of Cultural Resources, and DEM's Technical Support Section.
The attached ccnments should be addressed.
Attachment
l4
Nor.t Caro ina Wildlife Resources Conin.zission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, Nortll Carolina 27604-1185, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 1991
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment.
DEHNR
FROM: Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
SUBJECT: State Project Number 414: Environmental Review of
Amendment #1 to the Clinton 201 Facilities Plan,
Clinton, Sampson County, North Carolina
Professional staff biologists with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed Amendment #1
to the Clinton 201 Facilities Plan and are familiar with habitat
values associated with the proposed project area. These comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661 et'seq. ), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended), and the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as
amended; 1 NCAC-25).
The NCWRC is concerned over impacts to fisheries, wildlife,
and wetland resources within and adjacent to the proposed
construction site. Wetlands are important to a wide variety of
terrestrial and avian wildlife species as nesting and feeding
areas, as well as key travel corridors. Wetlands also function
as a buffer between surface waters and adjacent uplands and serve
to filter sediment and other pollutants associated with runoff.
Wetlands and riparian areas are especially important in urban and
developing areas as they often represent vestigial. wildlife
habitat. It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands
should be avoided. In cases where wetland losses are
unavoidable, the NCWRC will recommend mitigation of the losses.
The Town of Clinton is proposing to upgrade and expand the
towns existing wastewater treatment plant from 3 mgd to 4 mgd.
The primary justification for the upgrade and expansion appears
to be the plants marginal, and at times., noncompliance with its
14PDES permit for its effluent NH3-N limits. In addition, the
1)].ants NPDES permit expires 331 October 1991. and the town i.,s
MEMO TO: Melba tic (;nn DATE. 07/15/9]. Pa e
anticipating even more stringent effluent limitations for i_ts
11113-1,1 discharge. The treatment plant is located in northv. est
Clinton and discharges into Williams Old Mill Branch, a tributary
to Coharie Creek. Both streams are classified C-Swamp streams by
the Division of Environmental Management.
The NCWRC recognizes the need for adequate sewage treatment
for public health benefit and the need to reduce adverse impacts
to surface water quality. While the document is well written and
provides a good description of proposed project alternatives and
economic analysis, it does not adequately address all
environmental concerns and requires revision. The natural
resources associated with the proposed project site have not been
adequately described and the potential adverse impacts to
wildlife, fisheries, and the water quality of Williams Old Mill
Branch have not been adequately addressed. In accordance with
our review of Amendment #1, we provide the following comments:
(1) The NCWRC supports the preferred alternative
(#2) for upgrading and expansion of the
Clinton wastewater treatment plant. However,
while this may be the most cost-effective
alternative for wastewater treatment and
disposal., it may not be the,, most
environmentally sound alternative. Because
the document contains insufficient
information for us to properly evaluate
potential impacts to fish and wildlife
resources, we recommend that complete
inventories for wildlife, fisheries and
wetland resources within, adjacent to, or
utilizing the proposed project construction
site (discharge pipe) be provided. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the
inventories.
(2) There must be adequate description of any
streams and/or wetlands affected by the
project, including a project map identifying
wetland areas. Identification of wetlands
may be accomplished through coordination with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If
the COE is not consulted, the person
delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed. In addition, the need for
channelizing, filling, or relocating portions
of streams/ditches must be adequately
justified and the extent of such activities
must be noted.
(3) Accurate data on State and Federally listed
rare, threatened, and endangered species,
including State and Federal species of
M1,,1.10 TO: ?-1e.1 1) a H(-(;eC, DATE: 07 /1 5 / 9.11
Page
special. concern, within, adjacent to, or
utilizing the proposed project construction
site should be provided. A listing of
designated species can be developed through
consultation with the Natural. Heritage
Program, N.C. Division of Parks and
Recreation, P.O. Box 27687, Ral.eigh,_N.C.,
27611, [phone] and Mr. Cecil. C. Frost,
Coordinator of the NCDA Plant Conservation
Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, N.C.
27611, [phone].
In addition, the NCWRCIs Nongame and
Endangered Species Section maintains
databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge
for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may
be obtained from Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager,
Nongame and Endangere& Species Section',
Division of Wildlife Management, N.C.
Wildlife Resources commission, 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, N.C. 27604-1188,
[phone].
(4) we recommend pretreatment of industrial waste
and utilizing alternative methods of
wastewater disinfection (ozonation or UV
radiation), if at possible. If chlorination
is the only viable option for disinfection
then a dechlorination unit, as well as a
backup. dechlorination unit, should be
installed to prevent excessive chlorine
levels entering Williams Old Mill Branch.
(5) We also recommend all proposed construction
activities occur between September 1 and
March 1 unless documentation can be provided
indicating specific construction activities
will not release appreciable amounts of
sediment and turbidity. This recommendation
is based on potential negative impacts of
sedimentation and turbidity from construction
on spawning activities of freshwater species
(primarily sunfish and largemouth bass).
These impacts are especially damaging during
the spring and summer and can also effect the
production of aquatic food organisms and
feeding of fish. Turbidity can be extremely
stressful during summer periods of warm water
temperatures.
MEMO TO: Melba t,ic_Gee DATE: 07
Page 4
'].'hank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
201. Facilities Plan Amendment. if we can provide further
assistance, please call on us.
cc: Keith W. Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Tom Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
\,,o;,,fw United States Department of the Interior
T ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1 'o Raleigh Field Office s?
?- Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 8, 1991
Mr. Reginald R. Sutton
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Sutton:
v j rd"Sl?,, x>??' 4? n I f
JUL 1.5 1991
Loc&i P12nninj Man3g n"t klf"'
DEM . oNRCD
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed Amendment No. 1 to
the Clinton 201 Facilities Plan, Clinton, Sampson County, North Carolina.
These comments are submitted in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
In accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the
Service has reviewed the subject proposal with regard to the effects the
proposed actions may have on wetlands and related fish and wildlife
resources. Staffing limitations currently prevent us from conducting a
field inspection of the work sites. Therefore, we are unable to provide you
with site-specific recommendations at this time. If any of the proposed
work may impact wetland, habitats, we recommend that you consult the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers regarding the need for Department of the Army
permits to perform work in wetlands for which they may have regulatory
responsibility. The Corps' contact person in this regard is Dr. Wayne
Wright, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and
threatened (T) species which may occur in the area of influence of this
action. Any assessment of potential impacts to Federally-listed species
should include an assessment of appropriate habitats available for the
species within the project impact area and, if appropriate habitat is
available, surveys should be conducted. If the proposed project will be
removing pine trees greater than or equal to 30 years of age in pine or
pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active red-cockaded
woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of
project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the
project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to
adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this
office for further information.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this
project.
Sincerely yours,
Debbie Scruggs
Acting Supervisor
Attachment

REVISED APRIL 19, 1991
Sampson County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) -
There are species which, although not now listed or offi.ci.ally prcoosed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C) species are not legally protected under the Act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, thev
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of candidate species which may occur ,::thin the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notificaticn. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, vie would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Spring -flowering goldenrod (Solidaco verna) - C
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - C
'?? ?. ? 1 t?COx
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric [.horsey, Secretary \Villiam S. ('rice, Jr., Director
July 5, 1991?(a
MEMORANDUM
TO. Reginald R. Sutton
Construction Grants Section
Division of Environmental Management
DEHNR .
FROM : David Brook C i, ` 1"Q it
Deputy State JHioric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Amendment 1 to Clinton 201 Facilities Plan, Sampson Co.
ER-91-8287
Thank you for you memorandum of June 17, 1991 concerning the
above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed
project area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register,of Historic Places will be
affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection
with this project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located
the following structures of historical or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Marcheston Killett Farm, West side SR 12221 1.8 miles North of us
701. Placed in the National Register of Historic Places on
March 17, 1986.
William H. Moore house, Clinton vicinity, West side US 701,
0.2 mile South of US 421 Bypass.
(Former) Epworth Methodist Church, Butlers Crossroads vicinity,
West side US 701, 0.4 mile North of Butlers Crossroads.
Red Hill Church, Butlers Crossroads vicinity, East side SR 1222,
0.6 mile North of US 701.
H.W. Moose House, Ivanhoe, East side SR 1100,
OqML C EN T
OT) Qf?:
0.2 mile South of SR 11.02.
W.J. Powell F-louse, Clinton vicinity, Southeast corner
SR 1214 & SIZ 1.222_ .
Edwin Peterson House, Clinton vicinity, East side SR 1-222,
0.6 mile South of SR 1214.
James U. Moore House, Clinton vicinity, West side US 421,
0.2 mile South of US, '701.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 1.06 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1.966, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have
questions concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Renee
Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 91.9/733-4763.
I-.
J ?• .-?? --- ..?%•-_--J'c7.? mIS--- :ti7,?-=?•?ate ?-?'\`
,? ?I. ?r !i 1 ?..re: H'/ r:;"'::?? ? ? / d3¢1.F'?:1\% ,? Yr9{_??r/.ti ?•a ..xY?`?4f. rri
I y ??

?la i _ f? J? _: Y I

cn f ? o? ? '?? ' ao

? ..-r to ??'? I r` ,?_ I\?-' r.e ; ?, ? ' ? .: `e??;?; ,?? r';!(-.-J a - ?••._ ?. _ ; e.. t:7? ?!? "' ? )' ?%??- ;l? 1, ??% tJ'.'?U' ??•,? ??f. t?l r' ` ??6"'"•J ? -/' ? ?? J ? L ` f ,i.
Ala
_I?? ?• '??'?' ?? f{ JET •1 ?.. ? :.( ' ` ^,?• -! ,VI -?y^ -
,i
''1 ? I ?,..... .. ?!` `~\? ? ? r .I ? i"•.y- may'` •??"``' o ? ? r'?? ?'
J I ---- U -? ?. -_ 1 • r ? i?,•,•'' ?:?. ?: -o'er; ?_-N'?}rr? 'rte ?, ?:_:/ '.
"? 7I ? _ ) \'•?r/.?. JI ?? ?? {?• ? qYS? a ? 1 1. ,y T, ?r,ya ` ,` ,1?
7 ? ,n ?? ??;• G - '° f ?i.ll?pli5 g -,U''• -C .1?Ys `,•;' ?. t' ?? .+o r
^\,?'``?' ? :.?.y < ..• 1 ?? (, 1 - 1.<7+ :'- ?};t'!' i?,te*'1 .?„•v:=y= %e'?}?' r ? C•C! - ?.3'? s? t
• ?' iy-\ _ r ?' 1 _.?.\t`.f `l. ,???.1'ribx d ?? 'rY.l? ?• ^t ?? p?? ? _? -
• "?- J `; ?? •• -r--. ` _.it--/ . <?• w ?_? _? S/? ?-??:? • ''? ; /r??.°^???? ? o: ,?: : ?; cal;
^ ?`- OV 1 • .? t. ?jy -- _! _ '" 'e •`?? S-- r±_'3 =' ?T `??'??• -.-1`?• V - . ` to K r'
Z b /j- 7?•1 ?` ?? 1 Joie .ty,? .. r^ --1 ?.
,'! M1 O ' :.. i ? , •` -? S -. ?\ a ._..f ? i?t h ?4?.• •' N-i J s? 1
t ?? r / 1 t , - _ ' •. Y7 F C` `L? t li"S•'' r `r `' . i • C?' 1 y
Mel
i `S `.. -1-?.,,r_ ? \. ?t '1 ? 1' _ \ 1 r. ;>'j?; ita_ • ? •,!?. e''?v ?L ?• _ -`a r : ?>
? ') r?, •-? , t??`.,'/'w/' _.: ? j?? ]?-v°. -' ?ia::.? nys e ?•??f •;"='g?,y.??C?ItiY? i••. ?) -' .Xii?i?
_ 1 ; ? ? 7??? III I -?'?( ?,?1? !( ,:/(?, .- J':'•Yi'i.Y ?_? aF? /(?l`
=\x
=E?
' tale J. ? r ' ? ?. \ •-?? ?? fffly q- _.Y.; v
^ ? R. _ J.l? !1'??:/????n?rJ?. ?l _: _. tt 1 .l ib` - i? ? :/f ?,.y ? J: ? \? -.Y/, ?:
n C 1 t?• { ., r f?f I.t 1' `l .•. yT, ^ 'rJ ? '? .p ..`_?' w` ?- . S_?'>? / ?? ?? /! i. s I
' ??'??.!1??,'If 1 IfF'I? 9?a. ?t tom.` ? ?` ?'`?[ r'' .It ,.. ' ? •eN. y-u..--? -
'' '.Ir.__'E;"'_'f_.---T-•{?'j? •?:I `I• 1 `Lcf. _ l't? h:.':• .t =1a?•'''^...a'.:r,?:._ ?. ,_4i ?- ,
I Jll : {i `. ., .IJ t ) 1 •. ? r`ftiVt:Cl`.R,r7??° Y;. It°''g=..l'-e'?,.e]<??"{:' \'?` 'l
_U '??? i?? '• ?;,?? ', a ?? ? .}s +=??? +'r'••I'I t 1?#.=. .r { .t?ri?,t•,•.'#§F; I' ?$?t;l !fe'• ?-;•v,.z?'{;?? ?..^...Y,7 r"? c.:
YJ ' ?Va%s? ?.. ??; ? L ! `? ( ? ti.} "/' / ? , +T= i:i ?. `',t`i"'' '•,,,I- •3 . ' ,`.l.tpv.? a ?;_. Y,? Ir'P??ttk ? ti• `? } t•`,f • .n ??
J <? ?_,?:? f'A?y? ?. ?? ' , ? •r ? ?• "?, ,coq. ,J+ ? v:r.? '..:c :1 j'. 1.]?' ??.au-•?,,•.?'•#ri? = ? ?.'••?:;7 ?`6;,
--mss=•? \ 0 ?f"?? 7.?- _ ? .--? ..r._._?ty'•s?c?; ? ' ?.,..? 'a F? r cc . ? •w
( ,--.4_ ? ? 1:? .. ?' •, ^'? ?'• x. ' %? ,: a??.:• T? ?:c ::r•-:i 'Ox oil T? -?
clt - •?. t •. _ ? ??: .try _ •-: ?= ? o•?:/. ?.. ? 1!.:
V ,Y, ?'t ??/ tel. ' F Li; '? f? r-`• `l >? %.s??..+
: -_•?.- Il.c la_.i.rG???•f t": _ ` ,1 ..L•?? \._ .?? l?. `\?\?\'_"j?l-I' ,%?)?' ? (`??? :? L. - ? ,. ??:? ?'f'
Division of Environmental Ma nageTii ell(
July $, 1991
To: Alan Clark
From: Mike Scoville Mrl5
Through: Ruth Swanck 2C?
Trevor Clements V 1/L
l
Subject: Review of Amendment No. 1 to the Clinton 201 Facilities Plan
I have reviewed the 201 facilities plan submitted to DEM by the Wooten Company describing the
Town's plans to expand their ` WTP to 4.0 MGD. I generally found the document very thorough and
complete, and have only two comments.
1) On page 53, in the "Effluent Limitations" section, preliminary summer NPDES limits ate
listed, but only for domestic parameters. Recommended limits also include chlorine, whole effluent
toxicity, and a variety of metals. Also, the fecal coliform should be 200/100 rnl. Because the discharge
is to a site with a zero 7Q10, the metals and toxics limits will be the state instream standards.
2) The beginning of the report indicates several. times that the Clinton WWTP has been out of
compliance with it's NH3-N limit due to excessive NH3-N loading from Lundy Packing Company (a meat
processing and packaging company). It might be suggested that some of the Town's treatment capacity
could be saved by requiring Lundy Packing Company to achieve better NH3-N treatment through it's
pretreatment program. Currently Lundy has in their pretreatment permit only a limit for total oxygen
demand (TOD), which is somewhat unconventional and offers the Town no consistent control of the
influent ammonia. Setting up separate BOD and ammonia limits for Lundy would guarantee a more
consistent influent ammonia, would share the cost of additional treatment (since ammonia is apparently
the only problematic parameter), and would hopefully facilitate easier compliance of the WWTP with
their 1.0 mg/1 ammonia limit.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me.
cc: Alwin Basden
RESPONSE OF CLINTON TECHNICAL COMMENTS
1. Breakdown of the current and design wastewater flow is attached.
2. The infiltration/inflow is not excessive. It should be noted that the
sewer system was evaluated and rehabilitated in the last plant upgrade
during 1976. As a part of maintenance the City will continue its
efforts to find and correct the new sources of infiltration/inflow in
the sewer system.
3. The existing grit removal system is not adequate the handle the
expanded maximum flow of 10.0 mgd. Aerated grit removal system is
considered for the proposed improvements for the following reasons:
(1) ease of operation and maintenance, (2) improved performance of
primary clarification and tricking filter systems, (3) the grit removed
will contain less putrecible organic matter when compared with the
existing unit, and (4) aeration will enhance oil and grease removal in
the primary clarification. The existing unit will be used to handle
the peak flow or as a dual or standby unit when the aerated grit
removal system is taken out of service for maintenance or repair.
4. As stated in the above response the existing grit removal system will
be used to handle the peak flow or as a dual or standby unit when the
aerated grit removal system is taken out of service for maintenance or
repair.
5. Except the piping modifications no work will be done within the
existing aeration tank.
6. The design detention time for the aeration tank is 15.96 hour. The
revised 201 plan does not call for anaerobic/anoxic zones. The
existing first stage system will be piped for use as sludge
stabilization storage facility as well as for use as anaerobic/anoxic
zones for future nutrient removal requirement. If in future the
existing first stage system is used as anaerobic/anoxic zones then the
detention time provided by the first stage system will be in addition
of the 15.96 hour detention time provided for the aeration tank.
7. Diking and stormwater piping will be handled by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers by separate contract arrangement.
8. In lieu of the chlorination/dechlorination the cost effectiveness of
U. V. System was also considered. The chlorination/dechlorination
system was cost-effective. See the attached cost-effective analysis.
9. No patent fees are involved in the alternatives
10. No demolition or removal costs of the existing structures is involved
in the proposed project.
11. The design wastewater flow section has been revised. See the attached
wastewater flow data and the plant influent data for July 1991.
12. The existing land application sites have more than adequate capacity to
handle the anticipated sludge production of the upgraded and expanded
plant for the 20-year design period. The permitted sites have 872
acres of land area, excluding buffer, for land application of sludge.
The area required for Clinton sludge management will be approximately
45 to 50 acres.
13. The Town will purchase additional sludge handling equipment on as
needed basis in future using capital improvement fund.
14. The permit amendment request to include the expanded flow of 5.0 mgd
will be submitted by November 15, 1991.
15. There are no known areas within the service area that require sewer
service due to public health or water quality problems.
16. The proposed project involves improvements at the wastewater treatment
plant site and no recreational opportunities such as greenway, hiking
trail, etc. are associated with this project.
17. The additional real property required for the project will be acquired
in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970.
18. 2% closing fee is included in the revised cost estimates.
19. The comment is acknowledged.
20. User charge system and sewer use ordinance will be submitted to the
NCDEM for their approval prior to approval of the plans and
specification of the proposed wastewater treatment improvements.
21. Since Lundy is planning to pretreat and discharge of equalized flow
over 7 day period, the Dollar Branch Outfall sewer replacement is
deleted from the 201 Facilities Plan.
22. Population projections for Clinton and 201 area are attached.
23. The cost-effective analysis is revised using the current discount
interest rate of 8 7/8%. See the revised 201 Plan.
24. The flood control system handled by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under
separate contract arrangement will prevent surcharging primary
clarifier, secondary clarifier and the chlorine contract tank.
25. A by-pass will be provided so that portion of the pretreated wastewater
can be by-passed to the future anaerobic tanks.
26. A public hearing regarding 201 Facilities Plan will held in the month
of December 1991. A copy of the minutes of the public hearing and a
copy of the affidavit of publication will be submitted in December
1991.
COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
FOR
CHLORINATION/DECHLORINATION vs U. V. DISINFECTION SYSTEM
1. Chlorination/Dechlorination System
A. Construction Costs
Chlorine contact tank and chlorinator $ 90,000.00
Dechlorination Facilities 55,000.00
Sitework and piping 15,000.00
Total Construction Cost $160,000.00
Contingency and Engineering 32 000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST 192,000.00
B. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Salary $15,000.00
Electrical 500.00
Chlorine 7,000.00
Sulfur dioxide 1,500.00
Maintenance 500.00
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS 24,500.00
C. Estimated Salvage Value
Treatment Works: 1/3 x $160,000.00 $53,300.00
0. Economic Analysis
1. Basic Considerations
a. Planning period = 20 year
b. Interest rate = 8.875%
C. Single payment present worth factor at 8.875% for 20 years =
0.1826
d. Uniform series present worth factor at 8.875% for 20 years =
9.2104
2. Present Worth Cost
a. Initial capital cost
b. Present worth of annual ON costs
$24,500 x 9.2104
C. Present worth of salvage value
$53,300 x 0.1826
Net Present Worth Cost (a + b - c)
II. U V Disinfection System
A. Construction Cost
U V disinfection system, including channels
Sitework and piping
Electrical
Total Construction Cost
Contingencies and Engineering
Total Project Cost
192,000.00
225,000.00
9,700.00
407,800.00
$385,000.00
15,000.00
20 000.00
420,000.00
84 000.00
504,000.00
B. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Salary $10,000.00
Electrical 7,500.00
Maintenance 5,000.00
Total Annual 0 & M Cost 22,500.00
C. Estimated Salvage Value
Treatment Works: 1/3 X $420,000.00 $140,000.00
0. Economic Analysis
1. Basic Considerations
Same as for Chlorination/dechlorination system
2. Present Worth Cost
a. Initial capital cost $504,000.00
b. Present worth of annual 0 & M Costs
$22,500 X 9.2104 207,000.00
C. Present worth of salvage value
$140,000 x 0.1826 25.500.00
Net Present Worth Cost (a + b - c) $685,500.00
From the above cost analysis it is evident that the chlorination/
dechlorination system is more cost effective than the UV disinfection system
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOW
Residential:
2500 service x 3.3 person/service x 75 gpcd = 0.618 mgd
Commercial:
400 connections = 0.220 mgd
Institutional:
Hospital = 0.050 mgd
Industrial:
Alcatel Network = 0.040 mgd
Lundy Packing 0.850 mgd
Mary Gran Nursery 0.060 mgd
Spectrum Glass 0.110 mgd
Hamilton Beach 0.130 mgd
RUS Uniforms 0.040 mgd
Prison Laundry 0.060 mgd
Nest A Way 0.010 mgd
Fujicone 0.060 mqd
Sub Total 1.360 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow 0.600 mqd
Total Average Daily Flow 2.848 mgd
DESIGN WASTEWATER FLOW
Residential:
14,800 person x 75 gpcd = 1.110 mgd
Commercial:
0.220 mgd x 1.2 _ = 0.264 mgd
Institutional:
0.050 mgd x 1.5 = 0.075 mgd
Industry (Permitted Flow/Future Committment)
Alcatel Network = 0.060 mgd
Lundy Packing 1.300 mgd
Mary Gran Nursery 0.060 mgd
Spectrum Glass 0.200 mgd
Hamilton Beach 0.200 mgd
RUS Uniforms 0.050 mgd
Prison Laundry 0.200 mgd
Nest A Way 0.050 mgd
Fujicone 0.140 mqd
Sub Total 2.260 mgd
Future Industrial Growth = 0.226 mgd
Infiltration/Inflow
Existing = 0.600 mgd
Future: 14800 - 8231 x 0.500 mgd = 0.400 mqd
8231
Total Average Daily Flow = 4.935 mgd
For Design Purpose Use = 5.000 mgd
--------- -- ------
16 , 000 - ---- -- ! - -- ---
14, 000
0
0
12,000{
Z -
10 , 000
- -
--_-.-ANNEXATIo :--_- wi
3, 000
6 , 000 -- -
=W
i
4 , 000
9,000
1950 1960 '1970 1980 1990 2000-----2010 -----.----?_020
YEAR
NORMAN H. LARKIIIS ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY bAGE 1
ES PERMIT ONC0020117
-/ OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA J6L 1991

PLANT INFLUENT DATA
------- ----- -------- ------- --------- ------ -- -"-=_ -
----- ----------- ---------- ----------
Primary -----------
Clarifier ----- -------- -----------
Secondary
Flow Lbs Gal to Surface Blanket Filter Filter Weir Rate
Date
------- Day
----- MOD
-------- BOD-5
------- NH3-N
--------- TSS
------ pH
------ Removed
-- Digest Loading Level Gal/Sq' Lbs/Cu' Overflow

01-Jul
-Mon
2.35
119
17
196 -
7.16 ---------
3,068 ----------
12,262 ----------
611 -----------
0.0 ---------
192 ---------
27 -----------
9,782
02-Jul -Tue 2.84 580 60 300 7.16 4,666 18,650 686 0.0 215 148 11,101
03-Jul -Wed 2.55 610 68 304 7.55 3,142 12,557 663 0.0 208 151 10,692
04-Jul -Thu 2.66 691 0.0 217 11,192
05-Jul -Fri 3.68 247 31 244 7.40 4,649 18,582 957 0.0 300 88 15,833
06-Jul -Sat 2.46 639 1.0 201 10,282
07-Jul -Sun 1.59 413 2.7 130 6,324
08-Jul -Mon 2.74 114 15 416 7.22 9,283 37,103 712 1.5 223 30 11,556
09-Jul -Tue 2.62 650 67 332 7.41 5,903 23,595 681 1.5 214 165 11,010
10-Jul -Wed 2.79 677 72 380 7.51 7,116 28,440 725 1.5 227 183 11,783
11-Jul -Thu 3.05 667 88 290 7.13 5,725 22,883 793 1.8 249 197 12,966
12-Jul -Fri 3.04 663 102 268 7.92 3,963 15,841 790 1.8 248 195 12,921
13-Jul -Sat 2.04 530 1.7 166 8,371
14-Jul -Sun 1.54 400 1.5 126 61096
Jul -Mon 3.55 260 18 156 7.10 4,382 17,515 923 1.5 289 90 15,241
ul -Tue 4.03 370 38 304 6.76 8,072 32,261 1,048 1.5 329 145 17,425
-Jul -Wed 3.40 387 50 116 6.96 1,963 7,847 884 1.5 277 128 14,559
18-Jul -Thu 3.55 410 62 188 6.98 3,524 14,087 923 1.5 289 141 15,241
19-Jul -Fri 3.73 543 58 140 7.08 2,107 8,420 970 1.0 304 196 16,060
20-Jul -Sat 2.44 634 0.0 199 10,191
21-Jul -Sun 1.77 460 0.0 144 7,143
22-Jul -Mon 2.92 200 15 304 7.46 7,020 28,056 759 0.8 238 57 12,375
23-Jul -Tue 2.76 630 42 228 6.92 4,454 17,803 717 1.0 225 169 11,647
24-Jul -Wed 2.77 637 37 260 6.97 4,981 19,907 720 1.0 226 171 11,692
25-Jul -Thu 2.80 543 40 112 7.01 (2,347) (9,380) 728 0.0 228 147 11,829
26-Jul -Fri 2.55 530 42 112 7.16 (1,716) (6,858) 663 0.0 208 131 10,692
27-Jul -Sat 2.01 522 0.0 164 8,235
28-Jul -Sun 1.65 429 0.0 135 6,597
29-Jul -Mon 3.17 95 17 176 7.04 4,246 16,972 824 0.5 258 29 13,512
30-Jul -Tue 3.32 237 27 188 6.79 4,067 16,255 863 1.0 271 76 14,195
31-Jul -Wed 1.19 200 10 76 7.97 (21) (85) 309 1.0 97 23 4,504

Total
83.35
88,248
352,711 --------- --------- -----------
Minimum 1.19 95 10 76 6.76 (2,347)
Maximum 4.03 677 102 416 7.97 9,283
Average 2.69 428 45 231 7.21 4,011 16,032 699 0.9 219 122 11,324
(Tues-F ri Averages) 461 48 246
MAXIMUM
n MET ERS 3.00 21,600 800 1,000 102/1000 13,642
GPD/SQ' GPD/SQ' GPD/LF
RMAN H. LARKINS ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
ES PERMIT ON00020117
Y OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL EFFLUENT
PAGE
JUL 19!
------ ------ ------ --------- ---------
% ---------
% ---------
% -----
; ---------
Oxygen;; --------------------------------------------- -------
Fecal BOD-5 NH3-N TSS ;Rain Use ;; Plant Notes ... JUL 1991
Date
------ Day
------ pH
------ Coliform
--------- Removal
--------- Removal
--------- Removal
--------- ;Inch
----- Inches;;
---------

01-Jut
-Mon
7.09
432
98.15%
97.82%
99.49%
0.4
101 ---------------------------------------------
Calculated Monthly Plant Oxygen Demand ---> -------
457,25!
02-Jul -Tue 7.14 576 99.67% 99.80% 99.33% 0.2 15
03-Jul -Wed 6.83 1 99.54% 99.7$% 98.68% ; 0.3 33 On Peak KWH ---> 85,500 KW Demand ---> 45!
04-Jul -Thu ; 1-.,6 . 36 Off Peak KWH --> 158,500 KW Demand ---> 45!
05-Jut -Fri 6.47 77 97.29% 89.68% 97.13% ; 0.9 10 Gas Therms ----> 404
06-Jul -Sat 0.0 13
07-Jul -Sun ; 0.0 18 Natural Gas ---> $185.14
08-Jul -Mon 7.05 82 98.51% 94.27% 99.52% 0.0 23 Electric Cost -> $13,315.56
09-Jul -Tue 6.75 432 99.66% 99.85% 99.70% 0.0 40 Oxygen Cost ---> $6,450.00 Based on $10.00 per Inc
10-Jul -Wed 6.61 147 99.60% 99.71% 99.21% ; 0.6 37 Cost/1,000,000 Gallons Plant Flow --------> $237.1-
11-Jul -Thu 6.41 59 99.63% 98.07% 98.97% ; 0.9 20 Cost/1,000 Lbs of Oxygen Demand ----------> S43.2:
12-Jul -Fri 6.56 505 99.64% 86.76% 97.39% ; 0.0 38
13-Jul -Sat ; 0.0 28 SHIPMENTS RECEIVED DURING MONTH
14-Jul -Sun 0.0 8
-Jul -Mon 6.72 71 98.73% 77.78% 98.72% ; 2.2 11 Lime 52,220 Pounds Delivered on ---> July 8
-Jul -Tue 6.23 57 99.35% 99.50% 98.88% ; 2.4 11 Lime --- Pounds Delivered on ---> ---
17-Jul -Wed 6.33 42 99.48% 99.80% 99.14% 0.0 23
18-Jul -Thu 6.31 5 98.63% 95.97% 95.74% 0.6 29 Oxygen 4,780 Gallons Delivered on --> July 5
19-Jul -Fri 6.20 10 99.15% 94.83% 89.29% 0.8 22 Oxygen 4,661 Gallons Delivered on --> July 1!
20-Jul -Sat ; 0.0 14 Oxygen 2,552 Gallons Delivered on --> July 2:
21-Jul -Sun ; 0.0 6 Oxygen --- Gallons Delivered on --> ---
22-Jul -Mon 6.85 3 96.20% 94.20% 97.70% ; 0.0 51 Oxygen --- Gallons Delivered on --> ---
23-Jul -Tue 6.70 13 99.25% 98.86% 96.49% ; 0.0 15
24-Jul -Wed 6.34 1 99.25% 92.16% 98.08% ; 0.0 14 26.11 Total Tons Lime Received
25-Jul -Thu 6.72 1 99.17% 92.50% 95.54% 0.0 29 11,993 Total Gallons Oxygen Received
26,Jul -Fri 6.45 1 98.85% 92.86% 98.21% ; 0.0
27-Jul -Sat ; 0.5 July 2 - flooded trickling filter
28-Jul -Sun ; 0.1 July 8 b 11 - Robert Gribbs w/ Lotepro worke d on P?
29-Jul -Mon 6.79 80 94.53% 82.35% 99.43% ; 2.6 July 29-30 - PLANT FLOODED!!!!.
30-Jul -Tue 7.04 270 98.14% 99.63% 40.43% ' 4.5
„
Old plant processes did not run from Jul
y 30 t;
31-Jul -Wed 6.93 1,296 97.15% 96.80% 61.84% ; 0.0 Aug 2 due to approximately 3 ft of creek water
======---'-- ------ -°° °° ° ------- ------°- --------------------- " in low areas; since the boiler room and lift
Total 118.6 645 pump area were flooded, main breaker was shut
Minimum off to protect electrical equipment and pumps
Maximum 1,296 ;4.50 101
Average 6.66 36 98.62% 94.68% 93.58% ; 0.6 26

MAXIMUM "
off AMETERS 6-8.5 200
„
AN H. LARKINS ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
S PERMIT ONC0020117
OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PLANT INFLUENT DATA
PAGE 1
AUG 1991
------ ------ -------- -------- ------- -------- ------ ----------- ---------- -----------
Primary -----------
Clarifier -------- --------- -----------
Secondary
Flow Lbs Gal to Surface Blanket Filter Filter Weir Rate
Date
------- Day
----- MGD
-------- BOD-5
-------- NH3-N
--
---- TSS
--
- pH Removed Digest Loading Level Gal/Sq' Lbs/Cu' Overflow

01-Aug
-Thu
3.40
200 -
9 --
---
104 ------
7.42 -----------
1,369 ----------
5,473 -----------
884 -----------
0.5 --------
277 ---------
66 -----------
14,559
02-Aug -Fri 3.49 423 52 332 6.72 7,662 30,623 907 0.8 285 143 14,968
03-Aug -Sat 2.70 702 0.0 220 11,374
04-Aug -Sun 2.50 650 0.0 204 10,464
05-Aug -Mon 3.42 74 9 104 7.01 2,616 10,456 889 0.0 279 25 14,650
06-Aug -Tue 3.20 537 60 380 7.19 8,190 32,733 832 0.0 261 167 13,649
07-Aug -Wed 3.30 547 64 188 7.30 2,652 10,600 858 0.0 269 175 14,104
08-Aug -Thu 3.00 440 70 164 7.52 1,726 6,900 780 0.0 245 128 12,739
09-Aug -Fri 3.29 480 66 284 7.12 7,452 29,785 855 0.0 268 153 14,058
10-Aug -Sat 2.53 658 0.0 206 10,601
11-Aug -Sun 1.71 445 0.0 139 6,870
12-Aug -Mon 2.74 100 13 112 7.36 1,817 7,263 712 0.0 223 27 11,556
13-Aug -Tue 4.47 200 20 212 7.25 4,705 18,804 1,162 0.4 364 87 19,427
14-Aug -Wed 4.32 310 42 220 7.04 1,601 6,400 1,123 0.5 352 130 18,744
ug -Thu 3.65 350 50 92 7.06 121 483 949 0.1 298 124 15,696
ug -Fri 3.41 440 58 120 7.12 1,034 4,134 886 0.0 .278 146 14,604
17-Aug -Sat 2.49 647 0.8 203 10,419
18-Aug -Sun 2.37 616 0.0 193 9,873
19-Aug -Mon 4.04 66 16 172 7.35 5,303 21,195 1,050 0.0 329 26 17,470
20-Aug -Tue 4.01 267 35 200 7.03 3,712 14,835 1,042 0.0 327 104 17,334
21:-Aug -Wed 2.53 283 50 104 7.35 408 1,631 658 0.0 206 69 10,601
22-Aug -Thu 3.67 427 56 152 7.42 724 2,893 954 0.0 299 152 15,787
23-Aug -Fri 3.21 553 80 156 7.42 1,307 5,225 834 0.0 262 172 13,694
24-Aug -Sat 2.50 650 0.0 204 10,464
25-Aug -Sun 2.06 535 0.0 168 8,462
26-Aug -Mon 4.14 50 12 88 7.11 1,465 5,855 1,076 0.0 338 20 17,925
27-Aug -Tue 4.83 200 33 128 7.03 3,787 15,137 1,256 0.0 394 94 21,065
28-pug -Wed 4.06 237 35 92 7.26 994 3,973 11055 0.2 331 93 17,561
29-Aug -Thu 3.97 400 60 120 7.39 1,745 6,976 .1,032 0.0 324 154 17,152
30-Aug -Fri 3.58 475 70 84 7.12 (1,463) (5,848) 931 0.0 292 165 15,378
31-Aug -Sat 2.68 691 0.0 217 11,192
Total 101.25 58,929 235,527
Minimum 1.71 50 9 84 8.72 (1,463)
Maximum 4.83 553 80 380 7.52 81190
Average 3.27 321 45 164 7.21 2,679 10,706 849 0.1 266 110 13,950
(Tues-Fri Averages) 360.74 48.76 185.85
MAXIMUM
ETERS 3.00 21,600 800 1,000 102/1000 13,642
Iff -------- ---------- -GPD/SO-- -------- GPD/SO-- --------- --GPD/LF
WAN H. LARKINS ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
S PERMIT ONC0020117
OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL EFFLUENT
PAGE 7
AUG 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% % % Oxygen;;
Fecal BOD-5 NH3-N TSS ;Rain Use ;; Plant Notes ... AUG 1991
Date Day pH Coliform Removal Removal Removal ;Inch Inches;;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01-Aug -Thu 7.08 310 98.75% 98.56% 88.46% 0.4 153 Calculated Monthly Plant Oxygen Demand ---> 439,321
02-Aug -Fri 6.54 1,254 99.48% 99.81% 99.40% ; 0.3 17
03=Aug -Sat 0.0 5 On Peak KWH ---> 90,500 KW Demand ---> 455
04-Aug -Sun ; 0.0 4 Off Peak KWH --> 158,500 KW Demand ---> 455
05-Aug -Mon 7.01 13 94.73% 98.56% 94.23% ; 0.0 51 Gas Therms ----> 281
06-Aug -Tue 6.45 720 99.66% 99.75% 98.42% 0.0 18
07-Aug -Wed 6.79 2,500 99.27% 90.94% 96.81% ; 0.7 30 Natural Gas ---> $312.67
08-Aug -Thu 6.68 370 98.00% 95.71% 96.34% 0.0 28 Electric Cost -> $13,503.90
09-Aug -Fri 6.86 1,810 98.08% 95.61% 76.76% 1.3 37 Oxygen Cost ---> $7,840.00 Based on $10.00 per Inch
10-Aug -Sat ; 0.0 23 Cost/1,000,000 Gallons Plant Flow --------> $210.80
11-Aug -Sun ; 0.0 5 Cost/1,000 Lbs of Oxygen Demand --=-------> $48.58
12-Aug -Mon 7.05 340 92.80% 86.15% 97.32% ; 3.1 7 ----------------------------------------------------
13-Aug -Tue 6.99 400 98.75% 98.90% 98.11% ; 0.0 26 SHIPMENTS RECEIVED DURING MONTH
14-Aug -Wed 6.71 1,420 97.65% 99.24% 50.91% ; 0.6 27
1?ug -Thu 6.68 450 97.51% 95.20% 93.48% 0.1 34 Lime 50,260 Pounds Delivered on ---> Aug. 3
ug -Fri 6.77 4,920 97.95% 85.17% 80.83% 0.0 41 Lime 52,380 Pounds Delivered on ---> Aug. 16
ug -Sat 0.0 28
18-Aug -Sun ; 0.4 23 Oxygen 1,000 Gallons Delivered on --> Aug. 5
19-Aug -Mon 6.93 264 94.55% 99.31% 96.51% 0.4 30 Oxygen 4,500 Gallons Delivered on --> Aug. 12
20-Aug -Tue 6.90 5,000 96.93% 99.23% 91.00% ; 0.0 31 Oxygen 4,670 Gallons Delivered on --> Aug. 20
21-Aug -Wed 6.48 11180 96.75% 99.12% 86.54% 0.0 43 Oxygen 3,995 Gallons Delivered on --> Aug. 26
22-Aug -Thu 6.66 80 98.08% 97.32% 96.05% 0.0 43 Oxygen 3,969 Gallons Delivered on --> Aug. 31
23-Aug -Fri 6.91 216 98.43% 88.75% 70.51% 0.0 28
24-Aug -Sat ; 0.3 34 51.32 Total Tons Lime Received
25-Aug -Sun 0.0 18 18,134 Total Gallons Oxygen Received
26-Aug -Mon 7.02 152 78.40% 90.83% 95.45% ; 1.1
27-Aug -Tue 6.83 11,200 88.50% 99.33% 32.03% ; 1.0 Aug 5 - Intermediate pumps back on automatic after
28-Aug -Wed 6.66 3,050 93.84% 99.14% 78.26% ; 0.0 big July flood; large amount of solids pumped
29-Aug -Thu 6.60 180 93.75% 84.67% 80.83% ; 0.0 to head of tertiary treatment-used more 02
30-Aug -Fri 6.60 615 96.93% 87.14% 79.76% 0.0 Aug 9-12 - Heavy electrical strom on Friday(9th);
31-Aug -Sat ; 0.0 intermediate flow meter not recording properly
-----------------------------;; Aug 12 - Heavy rainfall caused flooding; lift pumps
----------------------------------------------------------
Total 9.7 784 turned off 6 intermediate pumps put on manual;
Minimum 13 intermediate pumps not put on automatic til
Maximum 11,200 ;3.10 153 Aug 15 at gam - then low DO readings at both
Average 6.78 631 95.85% 94.93% 85.37% 0.3 31 stages & effluent for Aug 15 6 16
MAXIMUM
„
PARAMETERS 6-8.5 200 '
^ A14 H. LARKINS ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
I? 9 PERMIT ON00020117
OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PLANT INFLUENT DATA
PAGE 1
5( F•1
iii! 1991
------- ------ ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ----------- ---------- ----------
Primary -----------
Clarifier --------- --------- -----------
Secondary
Flow Lbs Gal to Surface Blanket Filter Filter Weir Rate
Date
------- Day
----- MOD
-------- BOD-5
-----
-- NH3-N
--
-
- TSS
- PH Removed Digest Loading Level Gal/Sq' Lbs/Cu' Overflow

01-Sep
-Sun
2.65 -
--- -
--
--- ------
--- -------
--- -----------
0 ----------
0 ----------
689 -----------
0.0 ---------
216 ---------
0 ----------=
11,146
02-Sep -Mon 2.35 --- --- --- --- 0 0 611 0.0 192 0 9.782
03-Sep -Tue. 3.55 --- 12 180 7.88 5,002 19,991 923 0.0 289 0 15,241
04-Sep -Wed 3.25 --- 50 128 7.35 2,288 9,144 845 0.0 265 0 13,876
05-Sep -Thu 3.19 62 360 7.24 6,452 33,760 829 0.0 2(3 n c I?,F•4
06-Sep -Fri 3.04 --- 70 140 7.24 947 3,787 790 0.0 248 ^ 17,911!
07-Sep -Sat 2.91 --- --- --- --- 0 0 12,'29
08-Sep -Sun 1.93 --- --- -- --- 0 50'1 0.0 t5' 0 7.871
09-Sep -Mon 2.69 --- 13 148 7.55 2,967 11,860 699 0.0 219 0 11,328
10-Sep -Tue 3.06 44 144 7.34 2,919 11,268 795 0.0 249 0 13,012
11-Sep 41ed 2.80 --- 60 260 -1.116 4,630 18,507 728 0.0 228 0 11,829
1?-S?o -Thu 2.97 --- 52 172 7.24 2,759 11,028 772 0.0 242 0 12,602
13-Sep -•rri 2.80 --- 58 176 7.37 2,517 10,062 728 0.0 228 0 11,829
14-Sep -Sat 2.76 --- --- --- --- 0 0 717 0.0 225 0 11,647
nten -Sun 1,64 --- --- --- --- 0 0 426 0.0 134 0 61551
yep -lion 2.79 --- 21 128 6.98 2,022 8,082 725 0.0 227 0 11,783
17-Sep -Tue 2.76 --- 60 144 7.42 2,537 10,140 717 0.0 225 0 11,647
18-Sep -Wed 2.25 --- 74 126 7.25 995 3,979 585 0.0 183 0 9,327
19-Sep -Thu 3.51 --- 80 180 7.32 3,476 13,894 912 0.0 286 0 15,059
20-Sep -Fri 3.79 --- 72 208 7.39 4,548 18,177 985 0.0 309 0 16,333
21-Sep -Sat 2.23 --- --- --- --- 0 0 580 0.0 182 0 9,236
22-Sep -Sun 1.73 --- --- --- --- 0 0 450 0.0 141 0 61961
23-Sep -Mon 2.80 --- 17 136 7.48 2,925 11,691 728 0.0 228 0 11,829
24-Sep -Tue 2.84 --- 41 220 7.40 3,775 15,087 738 0.0 232 0 12,011
25-Sep -Wed 4.22 --- 56 324 6.90 9,482 37,898 1,097 1.0 344 0 18,289
26-Sep -Thu 4.11 --- 56 304 7.11 6,782 27,104 1,068 1.5 335 0 17,789
27-Sep -Fri 3.35 --- 27 132 7.03 2,037 8,140 871 0.5 273 0 14,331.
28-Sep -Sat 2.90 --- --- --- --- 0 0 754 0.0 236 0 12,284
29-Sep -Sun 1.88 --- --- --- --- 0 0 489 0.0 153 0 7,643
30-Sep -Mon .3.03 --- 14 136 7.29 (330) (1,320) 0 0.0 0 0 0
Total 82.75 70,631 282,299
Minimum 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 (330)
Maximum 4.22 0 80 360 7.88 9,482
Average 2.78 0 34 125 4.88 2,354 9,410 717 0.1 225 0 11,670
(Tues-F ri Averages) 0.00 46.73 180.50
MAXIMUM
MET ERS 3.00 21,600 800 1,000 102/1000 13,642
GPD 30' GPD/301 GPD/LF
MAN H. LARKINS ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
) ES PERMIT ONC0020117
Y OF CLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL EFFLUENT
PAGE
SZ_ SrT
3?L 1991
------- ----- ------ --------- ---------
% ---------
% --------
% ------ ---------
Oxygen;; -------------------------------------------- --------
Fecal BOD-5 NH3-N TSS ;Rain Use ;; Plant Notes ... JUL 1991
Date
------- Day
----- pH
------ Coliform
--------- Removal
--------- Removal
-
- Removal
---
-- ;Inch Inches;;

01=Sep
-Sun
ERR -
-
-----
ERR --
-
ERR ------
0.9 ---------
--- --------------------------------------------
Calculated Monthly Plant Oxygen Demand ---> --------
112,824
02=Sep -Mon ERR ERR ERR ; 0.0 ---
03-Sep -Tue 7.16 170 ERR 96.17% 93.89% 0.0 --- On Peak KWH ---> --- KW Demand ---> 45!
04-Sep -Wed 6.81 22 ERR 79.00% 92.97% ; 0.0 --- Off Peak KWH --> --- KW Demand ---> 45°
05-Sep -Thu 6.46 84 ERR 64.19% 96.39% 0.0 --- Gas Therms ---->
06-Sep -Fri 6.27 24 ERR 61.43% 92.86% ; 0.0 ---
07-Sep -Sat --- --- ERR ERR ERR 0.0 --- Natural Gas >
08-Sep -Sun --- --- ERR ERR ERR 0.0 --- Electric Cost >
09-Sep -Mon 6.89 1 ERR 99.04% 99.32% 0.0 --- Oxygen Cost ---> $0.00 Based on $10.00 per IncF
10-Sep -Tue 6.98 16 ERR 98.73% 99.31% 0.0 --- Cost/1,000,000 Gallons Plant Flow --------> $O.OC
11-Sep -Wed 6.83 1 ERR 95.00% 97.69% 0.1 --- Cost/1,000 Lbs of Oxygen'Demand ----------> $O.OC
12-Sep -Thu 6.66 1 ERR 89.68% 97.67% ; 0.0 --- " ------------------===c=====___=====c======= ==a==___
13-Sep -Fri 6.60 1 ERR 86.21% 98.86% 0.0 --- SHIPMENTS RECEIVED DURING.:MONTH
14-Sep -Sat --- --- ERR ERR ERR 0.0 ---
-Sep -Sun --- --- ERR ERR ERR 0.0 --- Lime 52,060 Pounds Delivered on ---> Sept. 9
-Sep -lion 6.77 1 ERR 99.52% 98.44% ; 0.0 --- Lime 50,280 Pounds Delivered on ---> Sept. 16
17-Sep -Tue 6.82 29 ERR 99.67% 99.31% ; 0.0 --- Lime --- Pounds Delivered on ---> ---
16-Sep -Wed 8.66 1 ERR 93.78% 96.03% 0.0 --- Lime --- Pounds Delivered on ---> ---
19-Sep -Thu 6.48 1 ERR 76.25% 97.78% 2.2 ---
20-Sep -Fri 6.68 57 ERR 65.28% 72.12% 0.0 --- Oxygen 4,589 Gallons Delivered on --> Sept. 11
21-Sep -Sat --- --- ERR ERR ERR 0.0 --- Oxygen 4,600 Gallons Delivered on --> Sept. 14
22-Sep -Sun --- --- ERR ERR ERR 0.0 --- Oxygen 4,419 Gallons Delivered on --> Sept. 2C
23-Sep -Mon 6.99 19 ERR 92.94% 99.26% 0.2 ---
24-Sep -Tue 6.33 60 ERR 99.49% 99.55% ; 0.2 --- 51.17 Total Tons Lime Received
25-Sep -Wed 6.42 432 ERR 96.96% 97.99% 1.1 --- ;; ****** Total Gallons Oxygen Received
26-Sep -Thu 6.35 148 ERR 92.50% 99.67% 0.0 ---
27-Sep -Fri 6.28 55 ERR 96.52% 58.33% 0.0 --- ;;
28-Sep -Sat --- 15 ERR ERR ERR 0.0 --- ;;
29-Sep -Sun --- --- ERR ERR ERR ; 0.0 --- ;;
30-Sep -Mon 6.62 --- ERR 25.00% 83.09% ; 0.0 ---
„
„
-------
Total ----- ------ --------- --------- --------- -------
4.7
0
Minimum 0
Maximum 432 ;2.20 0
Average 4.75 ERR ERR ERR ERR 0.2
------- ----- ------ --------------------------- --------------------
MAXIMUM
AMET ERS 6-8.5 200 '
RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
AMENDMENT TO CLINTON 201 FACILITIES PLAN
1. There are no dwelling units within the Town of Clinton that are not
served by the central sewer collection system.
2. The proposed facilities will be constructed to protect from the 100 year
flood elevation. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will provide diking
for flood protection by separate contract arrangements.
3. A request has been submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to
determine any permit will be required.
4. The areas where the proposed construction will take place is attached.
Approximately 9.8 acres of land will be required for the proposed
expansion.
5. Response to the N. C. Fish and Wildlife Resources Commission.
1. Inventories for wildlife, fisheries and wetland resources within,
adjacent to, or utilizing the proposed project construction site is
attached. It should be noted that there is no construction of
discharge pipe or any other outfall sewer interceptor is proposed in
this project. Majority of the proposed improvements will take place
at the existing plant site.
2. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineer have been requested for wetlands
identification and permit requirements for this project. A copy of
the Corps of Engineers evaluation will be submitted later upon
receiving it.
3. State and Federally listed rare, threatened, and endangered species
within an adjacent to the proposed project construction site is
listed below.
Species Listing
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Soliduco verna) Candidate
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) Candidate
4. The City of Clinton do have a pretreatment program. The Lundy
Company will provide pretreatment facility to pretreat their
wastewater to domestic level prior to discharge into the City sewer
system. An alternative utilizing UV disinfection was also
evaluated, however, chlorination/dechlorination was more cost-
effective. Dechlorination facilities with back up will be part of
the proposed waste treatment improvements project for removal of
chlorine in the effluent prior to its discharge into William Old
Mill Branch.
5. Because of the schedule established in the Special Order by consent
and conditions of loan, scheduling the project construction between
September 1 and March 1 will be difficult. However, it should be
noted that the project will have a erosion and sedimentation control
T plan and strict adherence of this plan will be implemented by
providing on site inspection during construction of this project.
6. Response to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have been consulted regarding the need for
the COE permits for the proposed project. The Corps of Engineers
response concerning this matter will be submitted later upon receiving
it.
The proposed project does not involve clearing of land with pine trees
greater than or equal to 30 year of age in pine or pine/hardwood.
The listing of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate species provided by
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Resources is appreciated and the listing will
be included as a part of the 201 Plan.
7. Response to the N. C. Department of Cultural Resources.
The listing of structures of historical and architectural importance
within the general area of the project provided by the N. C. Department
of Cultural Resources is appreciated. This list will be included as a
part of the 201 Facilities Plan.
8. Response to the Division of Environmental Management Comments (by Mr.
Mike Scoville)
1. See the revised page 53 for effluent limitations.
2. The comment on setting up separate limit for BOD and NH5N is
acknowledged. The Lundy Packing Company is planning to pretreat
their wastewater to domestic level prior to its discharge into the
City Sewer system. The pretreatment improvements at Lundy will be
implemented prior to completion of this project. The Lundy
pretreatment permit will be revised to include separate limit on BOD
and NH5N.
List of protected and rare species with potential habitat in the Sampson
County Project area.
Federal N.C
Scientific Name Common Name Status Status
Animals
Hybopsis n.sp. Thinlip chub - Sc
Noturus n.sp. Broadtail madtom - SC
Hyla andersoni Pine barrens treefrog SR
Rana areolata Crawfish frog SR Sc
Ambystoma tigiinum Tiger salamander - T
Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic glass lizard SR T
Aimophila aestivalis Bachmans sparrow SR SC
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E E
Plants
Dionaea muscipula Venus' flytrap - S.C.
Drosera filiformis Threadleaf sundew C S.R.
Hexastylis lewisii Lewis' heartleaf SR C
Pteroglossaspis ecristata Eulophia SR E
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod C E
Sporobolus teretifolius Wireleaf dropseed SR T
Federal Status
E Endangered
SR Status review
N. C. Status
E Endangered
T Threatened
C Candidate for listing
SC Special concern
S.R. Significantly rare
most
"?l
Minutes of the Public Hearing and Implementation Resolutions

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 11, 1993
Mr. John Dorney
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Post office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
¦
TAKES
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
¦
JUN 'V' I.? lJ ','J i.5
a 09 ? 4 ??o J 1
.GROUP _
Dear"orney:
Attached is the Service's Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) Report for Flood Damage Reduction, Great Coharie
Creek, Sampson County, North Carolina. This report identifies
fish and wildlife resources located in the project area, the
potential effects of the various study alternatives on these
resources, and provides Service recommendations to minimize
adverse impacts to public fish and wildlife resources. This
report is being provided to the Corps of Engineers in
accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667).
We appreciate your comments regarding the Draft FWCA Report,
and we have incorporated them as well as those from other State
and Federal agencies into the Final Report. Technical questions
should be directed to the attention of Mike Crocker of this
office. He may reached at 919-856-4520. Thank you again for
your assistance in the planning of this project.
Sincerely yours,
rwk?
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
,G
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
551 F Pylon Drive
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh,*North Carolina 27636-3726
lip
r
L--

r?
b
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
GREAT COHARIE CREEK
SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL
-FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT

SUBMITTED TO:
THE WILMINGTON DISTRICT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
R. Wilson Laney
Michael Crocker
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
RELEASED BY:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 1993

4
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services "
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 11, 1993
Colonel Walter S. Tulloch
District Engineer
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
28402-0890
TAKE?? ¦i
PRIDE INS
AMERICA?M
Attached is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Final
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Report on Flood Damage
Reduction Project, Great Coharie Creek Basin, Sampson County, North
Carolina. This report identifies fish and wildlife resources
located in the project area, the potential effects of the various
study alternatives on these resources, and provides the Service's
recommendations on this proposed project. It is provided in
accordance with-Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667) and should be
incorporated in its entirety into your-Detailed Project Report when
that document is circulated for review. It has been reviewed by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and their
letter of concurrence is included.
Eight years have elapsed since preparation of the original draft
report. .-Significant, environmentally-positive changes have been
made in the project design during coordination efforts among the
Corps, the Service and the WRC leading up to this Final Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report.. We commend you and your staff in
this effort.
The Service has determined that the proposed project, as revised,
will not cause significant adverse impacts to the fish and wildlife
resources and habitats of the Great Coharie Creek ecosystem.
Mitigation measures for addressing the minor wetland impacts
associated with the revised project are provided in this report and
should be incorporated into the specifications for the proposed
project
We appreciate this opportunity to provide this report to you and
your staff.
Sincerely,
L. K. Mike Gantt
supervisor
L

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
May 25, 1993
Mrs. Linda K. (Mike) Gantt, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mrs. Gantt:
We have reviewed the Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act Report for the proposed Flood Damage Reduction Project for
Great Coharie Creek, Sampson County, North Carolina. This letter
partially fulfills coordination requirements under provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
The report is well written and provides a good description
of the environmental setting, project alternatives, potential
impacts to fisheries and wildlife resources, and proposed
mitigation for offsetting these impacts. The Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) fully concurs with the report and agrees that
the selected alternative, involving construction of a 2200 foot
long perimeter dike around the Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant, is the least environmentally damaging. -'-In^addition, the
WRC fully supports the mitigation plan for offsetting adverse
environmental impacts associated with the alternatives
considered. Staff biologists also recommend restricting all
construction activity to September1 through March 1 to minimize
impacts to anadromous and freshwater fish species.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
document. If we can provide further assistance, please call on
us.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
cc: Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries BiologistY 28
+? Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist ISM
h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Great Coharie Creek basin is located in the central portion of
Sampson County in a predominantly agricultural portion of North
Carolina's Coastal Plain. The Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP), located between two tributaries to Great Coharie Creek, is
flooded regularly, severely hampering plant operations and
sometimes resulting in release of improperly treated wastewater to
the adjacent streams and wetlands.
Fish and wildlife habitat resources of Great Coharie Creek.basin
are significant. The National Park Service included 75 percent of
the Great Coharie Creek in its 1982 Nationwide Rivers Inventory
prepared for considering rivers eligible for National Wild and
Scenic River designation. These blackwater streams and adjacent
forested wetlands provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of fish
and wildlife, including anadromous fish. The forested wetlands
also provide significant contributions to maintaining water quality
and instream production.
After considering a number of alternatives, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) determined that most are technically infeasible
or not cost-effective. The project, as previously proposed,
included the clearing and snagging of 44 miles of Great Coharie
Creek, as well as various alternatives for reducing flooding of the
Clinton WWTP. Following revision by the Corps (USACE 1992) of the
scope of the proposed clearing and snagging of Great Coharie Creek
to the lower 18.6 miles, the clearing and snagging portion of the
project was deferred at the request of the project sponsor, Sampson
County, in a February 3, 1993, letter to the Corps. The current
project includes only the Corp's selected plan for the Williams Old
Mill Branch and Dollar Branch portion of the project: construction
of a dike around the WWTP. This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report, therefore, does not-address former aspects of the project
along Great Coharie Creek.
Existing fish and wildlife resources in the area around the Clinton
WWTP could likely be improved through the Corps' preferred
alternative, construction of a dike around the WWTP, as this would
reduce pollution entering the adjacent wetlands and streams.
Compensatory mitigation as outlined in the Corps' draft DPR, and
modified as recommended in this report, would offset unavoidable
impacts to the approximately 2.4 acres of wetlands that would be
excavated or filled as part of the proposed project.
Based on available information, there are no Federally-listed or
proposed endangered or threatened plant or animal species in the
impact area of the currently proposed project. Therefore, the
requirements of Section 7 of the Act are'~-ftdfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1)
new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF FIGURES AND APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES 6
EVALUATION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Endangered and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . 8
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . 9
i.
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 9
Selected Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . 13
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
SUMMARY AND SERVICE POSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
APPENDIX

vii
11
LIST OF FIGURES AND APPENDICES
Pare
FIGURES
1. Great Coharie Creek basin in Sampson County, North
Carolina . . . . . . .. . 2
2. Proposed dike around City of Clinton Wastewater Treatment
Plant . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . it
APPENDIX
Comments received from State and Federal review agencies on
the Revised Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
s
vial
INTRODUCTION
The Great Coharie Creek Basin is located in the central portion of
Sampson County in a predominantly agricultural portion of North
Carolina's coastal plain (Figure 1). The City of Clinton's
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located within the floodplain
of William Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch, tributaries of Great
Coharie Creek. Flood damages to the WWTP result primarily from
seasonal flooding, and prevention of efficient operation of the
WWTP ('U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, hereinafter USACE, 1982, 1992).
According to the Corps, physical flood damages to WWTP equipment
occur almost annually as a consequence of flooding.
The Corps' present study was initiated at the request of the
Sampson County Board of Commissioners with the support of the
Honorable Charles O. Whitley, Member of Congress. The request was
preceded by a public hearing on May 18, 1981 during which former
Secretary of Commerce, D. M. "Lauch" Faircloth, a landowner in the
basin, expressed support for a clearing and snagging project and
conveyed support from other larger landowners 'including Georgia
Pacific and International Paper Company (USACE 1982). Previous
projects implemented in the watershed include dredging of Williams
Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch around 1963 and Corps clearing
and snagging of Great Coharie.Creek from August 1958 to February
1961. Further, the Corps' Wilmington District prepared an
unfavorable Detailed Project Report on Great and Little Coharie
Creeks in 1969 (USACE 1969). That investigation concentrated on
areas near and downstream from the confluence of Great and Little
Coharie Creeks.
Recently, the Sampson County Board of Commissioners, meeting in
regular session on February 1, 1993, voted unanimously to consider
only the wastewater treatment plant component of the project, to
defer the clearing and snagging of the lower portion of the Great
Coharie Creek, and to shift project sponsorship to the City of
Clinton. Based on this, the Corps has agreed to modify the
Detailed Project Report to delete clearing and snagging. This Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, therefore, only addresses the
currently proposed project, which is construction of a dike around
the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Service believes the fish and wildlife resources within Great
Coharie Creek and its associated tributaries are of very high
quality and that any proposed project which would adversely affect
them should be thoroughly and cautiously evaluated. The high
quality of the resource-base is reflected in the fact that the
National. Park Service has included the lower 33 miles of Great
Coharie Creek, 27 miles of Little Coharie Creek, 24 miles of--Six
Runs Creek and the entire Black River downstream of Great Coharie
Creek within its Nationwide Rivers Inventory which lists segments
eligible for inclusion within the National Wild and Scenic River
.System (U.S. Department of Interior, hereinafter USDI, 1982).
1
NEWTON
anovF
mc 30.55
US 421\\ CR M4"3
CR MU
CR 14P
Ito,
CR 17"
R14" NUS 421
Wts
CR 1324
CR 1311
US 423
A
SALEM Una
'm 24
HC 2
ROSE&GRO
CR 1140 h.
cm 1214f
CR 1211
GIN
U S701
GREAT /
SAMPSON COUNTY . WC
HIGHWAY
MUNICIPAL AND WATERSHED
ONE MILE -
Figured. Great Coharie Creek basin in Sampson County, North Carolina.
2
Every consideration must be given to measures which will eliminate
or minimize adverse impacts to these significant systems in the
planning of any proposed projects which could ultimately affect
them.
The objectives of this report are:
? to describe the Corps' selected project plan;
? to provide a background of biological information on the area
to allow full and equal consideration of fish and wildlife
resources in developing and selecting alternatives;
? to define and, where possible, quantify the environmental
impacts on the proposed plan; and
? to present methods and recommendations which may be used for
mitigation and thereby avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or
eliminate adverse impacts and compensate for remaining adverse
impacts; and to present methods and recommendations which may
be used for enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in the
project area.
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Great Coharie Creek basin and the adjacent Little Coharie Creek
basin occupy the entire central portion of Sampson County within
the upper coastal plain segment of the Cape Fear River basin
(Figure 1). The study area considered by°this report encompasses
primarily Great Coharie Creek, selected tributaries, and the
associated wetlands. Great Coharie Creek flows generally southward
for approximately 50 miles, originating in headwater swamps such as
Sevenmile and Kill Swamps and Beaverdam Creek near Newton Grove.
Little Coharie Creek joins Great Coharie Creek approximately ten
miles above the confluence of Great Coharie with the Black River,
which is formed by the Six Runs Creek and Great and Little Coharie
Creek watersheds. The city of Clinton is located midway along the
eastern boundary of the Great Coharie Creek basin and occupies much
of the watershed of Williams Old Mill Branch. Williams Old Mill
Branch and its tributary, Dollar Branch, border the city of
Clinton's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which is constructed
partially within their respective floodplains.
Soil maps in the Soil Survey of Sampson County, North Carolina
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1985) indicate that soils present
within the floodplain of both Little and Great Coharie Creeks are
largely of. the Bibb..-Johnston Association. This association `,is
described as;poorly drained to very poorly drained nearly level
soil on floodplains. Surface layers usually are brownish to
grayish sandy loam overlying gray stratified sandy and silty
subsurface layers. The water table is within 8 inches of the
surface from 6 to 11 months each year. Flood- limitations are
3
listedas severe for most uses, with flood hazard very' frequent but w
of brief duration. The association is rated as well suited for
wetland wildlife, suited for woodland wildlife and poorly suited
for openland wildlife. Both Bibb and Johnston soils are hydric and
typically support wetland vegetation if no hydrological alteration
has occurred (National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils 1987).
The study area is characterized by low to moderate relief and
relatively slow-moving streams and rivers. Elevation within the
Great Coharie Creek basin gradually decreases from west to east and
north to south, ranging from around 190-feet above mean sea level
(msl) near Newton Grove to 50 msl at the confluence with the Black
River.
The climate of the entire Cape Fear River basin is classified by
the U.S. Weather Service as humid-subtropical (Cape Fear River
Basin Study 1983). The study area is characterized by relatively
short, mild winters; long, hot, humid summers; and pleasant
transitional seasons. Mean maximum July temperatures exceed 900 F
in the study area acid mean minimum January temperature are around
400 F. The freeze-free season lasts for more than 270 days.
Temperature extremes seldom reach 00 F or exceed 1000 F.
Precipitation within the study area averages more than 50 inches
per year. Rainfall is highest in the summer months and lowest in
the fall.
Water Ouality
Water quality within Great Coharie Creek and its tributaries has `
been classified using a variety of criteria by the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Developments
(NCDNRCD) Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM).
Explanation of the classification schemes are contained in reports
prepared by the NCDNRCD (1982, 1983), The Cape Fear River Basin
Study (1983) and in the North Carolina Administrative Code (15 NCAC w
2B). The water quality classification assigned to Great Coharie
Creek and the majority of its tributaries is 'class C-Sw (N.C.
Administrative Code, 15 NCAC 2B .0311). Class C waters are defined
as those best used for fishing, secondary recreation, agriculture
and other usage except for primary recreation or as a source of
water supply for drinking, culinary or food-processing purposes.
Standards applicable to Class C waters include the following: (1)
floating solids, settleable solids, and sludge-deposits--only such
- amounts attributable to sewage and/or industrial wastes as will
not, after reasonable opportunity for dilution and mixture of the
same with the receiving waters, make the waters unsafe or
unsuitable for fish and wildlife or impair the waters for any other
best 'usage established for this class; (2) pH - normal for the
waters in the area, ranging between 6.0 and 8.5; (3) dissolved
oxygen (DO) - for non-trout waters, not less than a daily average
value of 5.0 milligrams/liter (mg/1) with a minimum instantaneous
value of not less than 4.0 mg/1; (4) toxic wastes, oils,
deleterious substances, and colored or other wastes only such
4

u amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or
wastes as will not render the waters injurious to fish and wildlife
or adversely affect the palatability of same, or impair the waters
for any other best use established for this class (arsenic and
chromium have individual standards and are not to exceed
concentrations of 0.1 mg/1); (5) fecal coliforms - should not
exceed a log mean of 1,000/100 milliliters (ml) based upon sampling
procedures outlined in the N. C. Administrative Code (exceptions are
permissible where uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution prevents
attainment of the standard); (6) temperature - not to exceed 2.8
degrees Centigrade (C) or 5.04 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) above the
natural water temperature and in no case to exceed 320 C (89.60F)
for coastal plain waters (15 NCAC 2B..0211(e)).
The added "Sw" designation also classifies Great Coharie and the
majority of its tributaries as "Swamp waters," defined by the N.C.
Administrative Code as waters which are topographically located so
as to generally have very low velocities and certain othail--,
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams draining
steeper topography. The "Sw" classification indicates that streams
so designated may exhibit a Ph as low as 4.3 and DO values lower
than the standards if they are caused by natural conditions.
Some limited monitoring of physical and chemical parameters has
been conducted within Little and Great Coharie Creeks by the NCDEM
(NCDNRCD 1982). Additional data are available for stations sampled
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) during
the 1960's (Louder 1963). Water quality within the Great Coharie
Creek basin is characteristic of that found in blackwater streams
of the inner coastal plain, except where nutrient concentrations
and DO levels may be influenced by discharges from wastewater
treatment plants. According to an NCDEM degraded streams list
which characterizes stream reaches based on firsthand knowledge of
the NCDEM staff (Cape Fear River Basin Study 1983; NCDNRCb 1982),
Great Coharie Creek from NC 24 to the confluence with Little
Coharie Creek is cited in the NCDEM list for bacterial problems.
In summary, water quality within the study area from a fish and
wildlife perspective appears to be relatively good based on the
information available. Problems do exist below the WWTP on
Williams Old Mill Branch which is the only identified point source
within the Great Coharie Creek watershed. Comparison's with 1960's
data suggest that the requirement for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits may have improved conditions
within Great Coharie Creek (Dave Penrose, NCDEM, personal
communication). The major sources of potential water quality
problems within the basin at this time appear to be flooding of the
WWTP and nonpoint source-nutrient-, sediment- and pesticide-laden
runoff from agricultural runoff or construction activities within
the basin.
5
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES'
Fish and wildlife resource and `habitat concerns related to the
present study focus on conservation of the palustrine, forested and
emergent wetlands within the floodplains of Great Coharie Creek,
Williams Old Mill Branch and Dollar Branch and maintenance of the
wetland and aquatic communities. associated with these streams.
Resources present within Great Coharie Creek downstream of the
proposed project are of exceptional quality as indicated by the
inclusion of the stream within the National Park Service inventory
(USDI 1982). Wetlands adjacent to the streams provide a buffer for
the adverse impacts associated with agricultural runoff;`provide-
valuable fish and wildlife habitat; and provide an important
recreational amenity for Sampson County residents. With the
exception of the Clinton WWTP, Great Coharie Creek and its adjacent
wetlands presently are relatively :unaffected by point-source
runoff, but are subject to increased nonpoint-source runoff if
additional agricultural and forestry activities occur within its
floodplain.
The Service recommends the following planning objectives for the
study area and has employed them as guidelines throughout the
various planning phases:
? To conserve the study area's fish and wildlife habitats
by avoiding construction activities in wetlands or
deepwater habitat, as defined by. Cowardin et al. (1979),
to the maximum extent practical;
? To conserve the functional attributes and capabilities of
the Great Coharie Creek ecosystem by avoiding and/or
minimizing project features which would significantly
impair the normal hydrological regime of the system; and
? To mitigate any functional impairment through institution
of conservation measures which will act to retain and/or
preserve habitat values of the system.
In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended, these planning objectives should be given full and equal
consideration with other features of the study area.
- - EVALUATION. METHODS
Aquatic resource conditions within the study area are assessed
based on existing study area data for water quality, hydrological
regimes, and fish diversity. A modified Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP) performed on Williams Old Mill Branch in 1984"(USDI
1984) provides some useful background information, although
conditions have changed somewhat since that time. Data gaps for
the study area are supplanted by literature values from other
similar systems within North Carolina, where possible. Future
6 ,.

aquatic resource conditions are assessed based on the impacts of
the proposed alterations upon similar ecosystems as derived from
the literature and personal communications with individuals having
'recognized expertise in various fields. Literature-derived life
requisite data and assessments of relative abundance of various
taxa within different zones or habitat types are employed to
predict the impacts of each alternative upon herpetofauna, mammals,
waterfowl, and migrant and breeding birds.
The Williams Old Mill Branch - Dollar Branch project area wetlands
were identified and delineated jointly by Service and Corps
personnel based on 1988-aerial photography (111= 6601) and on-site
observations and classified using Cowardin et al.'s (1979)
methodology. For the purpose of assessing impacts and subsequently
identifying mitigation measures, habitats within the study area
which would be impacted by the various alternatives are classified
according to the criteria set forth in the Service's Mitigation
Policy (Federal Register, Volume 46, Number 15, January 23, 1981).
All Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally
Flooded wetlands are Resource Category 2. All remaining Palustrine
Emergent, Palustrine Shrub-Scrub and Riverine wetlands and
blackwater deepwater habitats associated with Great Coharie Creek
are also classified as Resource Category 2.
Nomenclature of all taxa discussed within this report follows:
Radford, et al. (1964) for plants; literature as referenced for
invertebrates; Robins et al. (1980) for fishes; Collins et al.
(1982) for herpetofauna; Eisenmann et a1. (1982) for avifauna; and
Jones et al. (1979) for mammals.
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Aquatic Resources
Without project construction, wetlands associated with Williams Old
Mill and Dollar Branches would probably continue to exhibit some
changes associated with increased frequency and/or duration of
inundation and discharge from the Clinton WWTP, but it is unlikely
that the wetlands would be otherwise significantly affected by
increased urbanization because of the poorly drained soils and
annual flooding which occur there.
Palustrine forested wetlands along Williams Old Mill Branch have
been transforming into Palustrine Emergent or Palustrine Scrub-
shrub wetlands and this trend may continue for some time if present
conditions persist. Dead standing timber and dead scrub-shrub
stands occur in the floodplain above and below the WWTP outfall.
The area of dead timber appears to have increased since 1,984 (Chuck
Wilson, USACE, personal communication), and it is possible that
additional trees may be killed. No positive cause of mortality has
been identified _at this time; however, it appears that continuous
saturation and/or growing season flooding coupled with effluent
from the WWTP has killed intolerant trees and shrubs. Increased
7
discharges from the WWTP could enlarge the area of dead timber if
there is a cause-and-effect relationship present. The possibility
that tree mortality is related to contaminants, such as chlorine,
it
in the WWTP effluent cannot be ignored. The increased flooding
frequency and/or duration may be due, in part, to an increase in
aquatic and emergent plant productivity which typically occurs with
L? the input of high levels of nutrients into wetlands. Beaver
activity downstream could possibly be involved as well.
Overall, aquatic habitat values and water quality appear to have
been substantially affected by past activities and are unlikely to
improve under existing conditions. Fishery resources are minimal
and macrobenthic diversity may decline further as pollution-
intolerant species are eliminated from the affected wetlands.
Wildlife Resources
Wildlife habitat in the Williams Old Mill - Dollar Branch watershed
has already been affected by urbanization and changes in habitat
composition and water quality associated with the Clinton WWTP.
Although it is anticipated that future wildlife resources for the
project area around the WWTP will remain somewhat similar to the
present, it is difficult to predict this accurately because of the
continuing changes in habitat composition in-that area. Aerial
photography and ground observations indicate that some former
forested wetlands along Williams Old Mill Branch are undergoing
transition to emergent wetlands, as evidenced by dead standing
timber and observations of persons familiar with the area. Marsh
nesting and cavity-nesting species, for example, have likely
benefitted?from the changes, at least in the short term, while
species preferring forested wetlands or higher water quality have
likely declined. Habitat composition and quality and associated
wildlife communities should eventually stabilize if sewage effluent
does not change significantly and other disturbances are minimized.
Endangered and Threatened Species
Based on available information, there are no Federally-listed or
proposed endangered or threatened plant or animal species in the
impact area of the currently proposed project. Therefore, the
requirements of Section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1)
new information reveals impacts of-this identified action that may-
affect- - listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner which was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
There are "candidate" species which, although not now listed or
officially proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, are
under status review by the Service. Current candidate species for
Federal-listing which have been recorded from Sampson County and
8

may occur within the study area include three animals and five
plants: Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), American
sandburrowing mayfly (Dolania americana), Carolina crawfish frog
(Rana areolata capito), pondspice (Litsea aestivalis), Carolina
bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana), spring-flowering goldenrod
(Solidauo verna), wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius), and
a liverwort (Cylindrocolea andersoni). The spring-flowering
goldenrod is also on the N.C. Protected Plant List maintained by
the N.C. Department of Agriculture. Candidate species are not
legally protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as threatened or endangered. These species may be listed
in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act.
In the meantime, the Service would appreciate any efforts to
protect these species.
In addition to those species which are afforded legal protection
through Federal and State laws, additional species of State concern
listed by Cooper et al. (1977) occur within Sampson County and
possibly within the study area. These species are listed in the
proceedings of the State symposium held to evaluate endangered and
threatened biota of North Carolina and have no legally mandated
status. Plant species listed for Sampson.County include all the
above-listed Federal candidate plants. Two freshwater mussel
species, the pod lance (Elliptio folliculata) and the eastern lamp
mussel (Lampsilis radiata), both state listed as Special Concern,
occur in the Great Coharie creek watershed (Appendix, North
Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, February 17, 1992). Vertebrate
species listed by Cooper et al. (1977) and their respective status
are: thinlip chub-special concern (SC); broadtailed madtom (SC);
eastern diamond back rattlesnake-endangered (E) ; pine barrens
treefrog-threatened (T); Carolina crawfish frog (SC); turkey
vulture (T); Cooper's hawk (T); red-shouldered hawk (T); American
Kestrel (T); red-tailed hawk (SC); red-headed woodpecker (SC);
eastern bluebird (SC) ; loggerhead shrike (SC) ; and the prothonotary
warbler (SC).
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
In addition to the no action alternative, the following three
structural alternatives have been considered: (1) relocation of
WWTP Facilities, (2) channel excavation and dike construction, and
(3) construction of a perimeter dike around the WWTP. The
perimeter dike construction alternative is identifiedas the Corps'
selected plan (USAGE°1992). The no action alternative would not
meet the objectives of reducing flood damage to the WWTP. The two
structural alternatives not selected and the selected plan are
described briefly in thi section. Additional details on the
9
alternatives analysis and the selected plan are provided in the
Corps' Draft Detailed Project Report (USACE 1992).
The relocation"of`'the Clinton WWTP facilities alternative involved
relocating those facilities at the WWTP which are currently in the
floodplain to higher ground. Essentially this would have required
relocating sludge drying beds to adjacent upland areas and
floodproofing of other components. Relocation of the WWTP sludge
drying beds and floodproofing of other affected facilities would
have had no significant adverse impacts upon aquatic resources
within the floodplain. Benefits in water quality likely would have
resulted in an improved aquatic environment capable of supporting
species which might have been eliminated under the present
conditions. Similar effects are anticipated to result from the
selected plan.
The channel excavation and dike construction alternative involved
excavation of approximately 7,300 feet of Williams Old Mill Branch
downstream from the U.S. Highway 421 crossing and construction of
an 1,100-foot-long dike on the-southwest side of the WWTP along
Dollar Branch. Excavated material would have been deposited
adjacent to the channel on or behind any existing spoil piles and
used to construct a dike and travelway parallel to the channel.
The channel would have followed existing alignment except for a
700-foot section adjacent to the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) and a section downstream which would have been relocated to
the North to avoid a large section of the existing marsh. The dike
would be similar in design to the perimeter dike. Materials for
dike construction would have come from excavation of Williams Old
Mill Branch and-from an existing off-site borrow area.
Channel excavation of Williams Old Mill Branch with dike
construction along Dollar Branch would have resulted in filling
approximately four acres of forested wetland and 1.5 acres of marsh
and in the alteration and/or draining of 43 acres of forested
wetland and 12 acres of marsh. '
Selected Plan
The Corps' selected plan (USACE 1992) involves construction of a
dike around the WWTP. A 2200-foot long dike would be constructed
around the perimeter of the WWTP (Figure 2). The dike would end at___ -
high ground near the northeast.-and southeast sides of the WWTP.
The-dike centerline would be set parallel to and 35 feet away from
the WWTP perimeter fence. The maximum heights of the dike would be
6.5 feet along Williams Old Mill Branch and 5.7 feet along Dollar
Branch. The dike would provide protection from the 100 year flood
with two feet of freeboard. : The dike would have a 10-foot top
width and side slopes would be 3:1 (horizontal: vertical). Assuming
an average height of 6 feet, t e dike would occupy approximately
2.3 acres (46-foot bottom width x 2200-foot length).
0
? ?? 2 ? I
3'
... X?. .. hU °'
a W
• ? '. _ ,? 1n F- to m
• _
Z
X ' Oz
C14
x?•'.. ac z ?MI
o
W .
F- w
.. 0 d a z
?- w tll LL. t- z ci
Ct: z
LIJ
v ° ` ?Z
X o 3
Co °
w IW- Co z
o Q 3 ?-
I
a
r U r n
n°.
N w
o
X oCY
1 N ...
O or
ILL?LtJ1
100010 ?Z ?M
0 L d
? ? NNtVN QO .O'' -
? `• oza Q '
Q
D Y Q
Z ?
FO- -• D 10-d Mt7tt O
} j O '0000
fj O w u- `-.-.r.- O..
0 -1 Oa" M
F- D
Y D N
? a
N
0 O
4r a Z
. C4
IL z IL
rn
Figure 2. Selected Plan.

Construction of the dike, as proposed, would require relocation of
about 800 feet of the Williams Old Mill Branch channel which is
currently adjacent to the perimeter fence. The new channel would
be located 95 feet away from the'fence and would be 10 feet wide
and 2 feet below normal ground. The relocation is only intended to
allow construction of the dike, not as a channel improvement
project. An option which would not require relocation of this
section of channel is the use of steel sheetpile rather than an
earth dike in this section. Recent information from the Corps
indicates this option was dropped because the cost of sheetpile was
too high. _
Interior drainage would be collected at two shallow sumps which
would normally drain to Williams Old Mill Branch via a culvert
fitted with a f lapgate to prevent backf low during highwater events.
A pump station would be installed to prevent overflow of the sump
when the flapgate is closed. An effluent pumping station, although
required for a diked WWTP by the State, is not considered as part
of the flood control project by,the Corps.
IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
The construction of a perimeter dike around the WWTP would provide
the same benefits as the channel excavation/dike alternative but
without draining of the adjacent wetlands. The perimeter dike
would involve relocating an approximately 800-foot section of the
Williams Old Mill Branch channel; however, this also would have
been required for the channel excavation/dike alternative. A total
of 2.4 acres of wetlands adjacent to-the WWTP would have to be
filled. This includes 1.2 acres of semi-permanently flooded,
persistent emergent wetlands (PEM1F) along Williams Old Mill Branch
upstream of it's confluence with Dollar Branch and 1.2 acres of
seasonally flooded, deciduous forested wetlands (PF01C) along
Williams Old Mill Branch downstream of that point.
The wetland and aquatic communities in the area around the WWTP
would likely exhibit a shift in species composition back toward
less pollution tolerant species. The existing, luxuriant growth of
aquatic plants in the wetlands around the WWTP serves as filter for
the WWTP effluent that is flushed into the wetlands during floods,
but it is also an indication of high levels of nutrient input. If
the proposed plan eliminates flooding of the WWTP, inputs to the
aquatic system would be limited to_the-treated effluent,- and water
quality should improve-after the existing high levels of nutrients
are removed from the system. Flooding frequency and duration in
these adjacent wetlands may also be reduced, returning more to the
historical conditions, as the dense aquatic plant growth that is
due to high nutrient input gradually shifts to the forested wetland
habitat that once existed, as evidenced by the presence of dead
standing trees and analysis of old aerial photographs.
The Corps' mitigation plan presented in the draft EIS (USAGE 1992)
and additional mitigation recommendations to offset these
12

unavoidable losses are discussed in greater detail in the following
section of this report. Overall, impacts upon wildlife resources
in the Williams Old Mill - Dollar Branch area would be relatively
minor compared to the channel excavation alternative.
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES
The involvement of the Service in land and water resource
development is in response to Congressional mandate through the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act_(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667) which directs that fish and wildlife resource
conservation shall receive full and equal consideration and be
coordinated with other features of Federal water' resource
development projects.
Fish and wildlife and their habitats are valuable public resources
which are conserved and managed for the people by State and Federal
governments. If proposed land or water developments may reduce or
eliminate the "public benefits that are provided by such natural
resources, then State and Federal resource agencies have a
responsibility to recommend means and measures to mitigate such
losses. In the interest of serving the public, it is the policy of
the Service to seek to mitigate losses of fish, wildlife, their
habitats and provide information and recommendations that fully
support the Nation's need for fish and wildlife resource
conservation as well as sound economic and social development
through balanced multiple use of the Nation's natural resources.
The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines the
term "mitigation" in the National Environmental Policy Act
regulations to include:
(a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing
impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the-action
and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over
time by preservation and maintenance operations during
the life of the action; and (e) compensating for the
impact by replacing or providing substitute resource or
environments. (40 CFR Part 1508.20(a-e)).
The Service has adopted this definition of mitigation in its
Mitigation Policy published in the Federal Register on January 23,
1981 and believes that the specific elements represent the
desirable sequence of steps in the mitigation planning process
The Service Mitigation Policy identifies four resource categories
which are used to guide Service recommendations on mitigation of
project impacts. A brief description of these four categories
follows:
13

Resource Category 1 Habitat to be impacted is of high
value for evaluation species and is unique and
irreplaceable on a national basis or in the..ecoregion
section.
Resource Category 2 - Habitat to be impacted is of.high
value for evaluation species and is relatively scarce or
becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion
section.
Resource Category 3 - Habitat to be impacted is of high
to medium value for evaluation species and is relatively
abundant on a national basis.
Resource Category 4 - Habitat to be impacted is of medium
to low value for evaluation species.
According to the guidelines present in the Service's Mitigation
Policy, Palustrine Forested wetlands ©f the project site fall into
Resource Category 2 -high value habitat becoming scarce on a
national level. Blackwater Riverine Lower Perennial and
Intermittent and Palustrine Shrub-Scrub and Emergent habitats
within the study area are also Resource Category 2 wetlands. The
mitigation- goal for this type calls for no net doss of -in-kind
habitat value, and the Service recommends measures to rectify,
reduce or eliminate losses over time. If losses remain likely to
occur, then the Service will recommend that those' losses 'be
compensated. The policy identifies four means of achieving the
goal: (1) creation of similar habitat; (2) restoration of
previously altered habitat; (3) increased management of similar
habitat to replace losses; or (4) a combination of these.
The categorization of both the Palustrine Forested wetlands and the
blackwater Riverine and associated wetlands as Resource Category 2
is justified based on the scarcity of both habitat types,, the .
development pressures to which they are subject, and their high
value to fish and wildlife resources. Both are limited in
distribution to the southeastern United States and constitute very
small percentages of the total available wildlife habitat when it
is considered that all wetlands_ within the contiguous U.S.
constitute only five percent of the land surface (Hefner et al.
1983). Palustrine Forested wetlands have been and are currently
being converted for agricultural--forestry-use at a-rapid rate on a
regional basis. Blackwater systems within the southeast in general
have been extensively channelized in the past and presently remain
subject to alteration as agricultural use of floodplains increases
the demand for flood protection and drainage. The high value of
these systems to fish and wildlife resources, as documented.:.i-n this
report, becomes even greater as uplands are converted for
residential, commercial and other uses.
Application of the Service's 1976 or 1980 Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP) analysis for the selected plan would be
R
14

beneficial; however, in the absence of a full HEP analysis, the
simple habitat evaluation contained in the Corps' draft EIS (USACE
1992) is beneficial for assessing_impacts of the proposed project
upon existing fish wildlife resources in the project area and in
developing mitigation recommendations for this project. The
modified HEP done in 1984 for Williams Old Mill/Dollar Branches
(USDI 1984) also provides useful background information even though
project specifications have changed.
The first priority in mitigation, as described in the CEQ
regulations and adopted by the Service in its mitigation policy, is
to avoid the adverse impacts of the project through: design; use
of nonstructural alternatives; or to construct no project.
Constructing no project would fail to address the identified
flooding problems and would cause pollution problems resulting from
flooding and improper operation of the WWTP to continue.
Relocation of the Clinton WWTP to an upland location, would result
in virtually no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
The Corps, however, determined this alternative is economically
unfeasible to meet the proposed flood control objectives.
Therefore, the Corps' selected plan is the least environmentally
damaging, practical alternative.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The present condition of the fish and wildlife resources and
wetland habitat adjacent to the Clinton WWTP could likely be
improved through implementation of appropriate measures which would
reduce flooding of the WWTP. The perimeter dike construction plan
selected by the Corps would reduce flooding, while also minimizing
adverse impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Although the Service
believes the best solution would be to permanently relocate to an
adjacent upland site all portions of the WWTP operation which are
currently located in the floodplain of Williams Old Mill and Dollar
Branches, the plan selected by the Corps is acceptable to the
Service provided the following recommendations are implemented:
1. The Service recommends compensation on a habitat value basis
for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with the perimeter
dike construction. Such mitigation could be accomplished by
creating wetlands at upland borrow sites adjacent to the WWTP
or by restoring nearby prior converted wetlands along Great
Coharie Creek through hydrologic restoration and
reforestation.
2. The mitigation acreage calculations contained in Appendix B of
the draft EIS should be adjusted to use the following relative
habitat values: - 0.0 at year 0, 1.5 at year 25, . and 3.0 at
year 50. This is more representative of the anticipated
reestablishment rate of the actual habitat values. Under this
scenario, we have calculated, in consultation with Corps'
staff, that the mitigation required to compensate for
unavoidable wetland impacts on a habitat value basis would be
15
It

4.8 acres, which is a 2 "to 1 ratio of acres impacted to acres
mitigated. _
3. The Service recommends that, in order to minimize the
potential for adverse impacts to anadromous and freshwater
fish and other aquatic species, the Corps consider specifying
that construction activity in wetlands be conducted in the
autumn (September 1 through November 30). This time of year
is preferable because it avoids the reproductive season of
most species and also coincides with the typical period of low
flow conditions in North Carolina streams.
4. Should the alternative regarding clearing and snagging of
Great Coharie Creek ever be reevaluated at any time in the
future, all environmental review procedures, including but not
limited to the National Environmental Policy Act and Fish, and
Wildlife Coordination Act activities, should be renewed from
the beginning of the planning process and should not be taken
out of context as this report only addresses the impacts of
the alternatives for the'-Clinton WWTP.
SUMMARY AND SERVICE POSITION
Fish and wildlife resources and adjacent wetland habitat associated
with Great Coharie Creek are of significant value from State,
Regional and National perspectives. The lower 33 miles of Great
Coharie Creek are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System and support a diverse fish and wildlife fauna.
The Service commends the Corps and the Sampson County Board of
Commissioners for dropping the clearing and snagging of Great
Coharie Creek from the current project and for selecting an
alternative for the Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant/Williams Old
Mill and Dollar Branches portion of the project, which among the
economically feasible 'alternatives, results in fewer adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife resources of the adjacent wetlands and
probably would bring about significant benefits over the long-term.
"
16

LITERATURE CITED
Cape Fear River Basin Study. 1983. Status of water resources in
the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh. 135 pp.
Collins, J.T., R. Conant, J.E. Huheey, J.L. Knight, E.M. Rundquist,
and H.M. Smith. 1982. Standard common and current scientific
names for North American amphibians and reptiles. Second
Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles,
Herpetological Circular No. 12. 29 pp.
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson and J.B. Funderburg (eds). 1977.
Endangered and threatened plants and animals of North
Carolina. Proc. Symp. on Endangered and Threatened Biota of
North Carolina. N.C. State Museum of Natural History,
Raleigh. 444 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater' habitats of the
United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington,
D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
Eisenmann, E., B.L. Monroe, Jr., K.C. Parkes, L.L. Short, R.C.
Banks, T. R. Howell, N.K. Johnson and R.W. Storer. 1982..
thirty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union
check-list of North American birds. Supplement to the Auk.
99(3):icc-16cc.
Hefner, J.M., J.D. Brown and B.C. Wilen. 1983. Trends in Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal wetlands. Coastal Zone 83:372-379.
Jones, J.K., Jr., D.C. Carter and H.H. Genoways. 1979. Revised
checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1979.
Occ. Pap. The Museum, Texas Tech. Univ. 62:-1-17.
Louder, Darrell E. 1963. Survey and classification of the Cape
Fear River and tributaries, North Carolina. Final Report,
Federal Aid in Fish and Restoration, Job I-G, Project F-14-R.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 15 pp. plus
Figures and Appendices.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1987. Hydric Soils
of North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. 14 pp.
North Carolina Department of'Natural Resources and Community
Development. 1982. North Carolina water quality inventory -
305(B) report, calendar years 1980 and 81. Division of
Environmental Management,. Raleigh. 309 pp.
N
17
it
1983. North Carolina basic water monitoring program
data review 1981-82.° Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section, Raleigh. 209 PP.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the
vascular flora of the Carolinas:. The University,-.of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1,183 pp.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner,
R.N. Lea and W.B. Scott. 1980.- A list of common and
scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada
(Fourth Edition). American Fisheries Society.. Spec. Publ.
No. 12:1-172.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1969. Detailed Project
Report on Great and Little Coharie Creeks, Sampson County,
North Carolina. Wilmington District, Wilmington, N.C.
1982. Reconnaissance report for Great Coharie Creek,
Sampson County, North Carolina. Wilmington District,
Wilmington, N.C. 10 pp. plus Appendices.
1992. Draft detailed project report and environmental
impact statement on flood damage reduction, Great Coharie
Creek, Sampson County, North Carolina. Wilmington District,
Wilmington, N.C. DPR-45 pp., EIS-50 pp., plus Appendices.
U.S. Department Agriculture. 1985. Soil survey of Sampson County,
North Carolina. -Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, N.C. 117
pp. plus Plates.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1982. The nationwide rivers
inventory. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1984. Modified 1976 Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (HEP) analysis of alternatives for
providing flood control on Williams Old Mill/Dollar Branches,
Sampson County, North Carolina. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Raleigh, N.C.

18
s
APPEND-IX
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM STATE AND FEDERAL
REVIEW AGENCIES ON THE REVISED DRAFT FISH AND WILDLIFE
COORDINATION ACT REPORT
z
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Dr. Philip K McKnellY
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
February 17, 1992
L.K. Mike Gantt _
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 T"
Director
Re: Natural Heritage Elements, Great Coharie Creek, Sampson
County
Dear Ms. Gantt,
The Natural Heritage Program agrees completely that the proposed.
clearing and snagging of Great Coharie Creek and the
channelization of?Williams Old.Mill Branch would have major
adverse impacts on several of the most significant aquatic
habitats remaining in the coastal plain of North Carolina.
As we'commented through the state clearinghouse (Aug 19, 1991),
there are several state listed species present in this area that
would be affected by this project. Of particular concern are the
freshwater mussels. The pod lance (Elliptio folliculata) and the
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), both state-listed as
special concern, were found within this watershed in 1991 during a
survey conducted by John Alderman (NCWRC, Nongame Program). He
also reported that mussel densities in this watershed were
extremely high; in some reaches, mussels completely-pave-the -
bottom. -
Although currently only five species have been identified within
this watershed itself, Great Coharie Creek is one of the main
headwaters of the Black River, which contains a mussel faun,a.,that,
is extremely rich for a blackwater stream. John Alderman reported
a total of ten species for the Black River, including the Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), a candidate for federal listing and
state listed as threatened, and the yellow lamp mussel (Lampsilis
cariosa), state listed as threatened. With regard to both
-diversity and density of mussels, the B1ack.River'and its
tributaries are second in the coastal plain only to Swift Creek
and Lake Waccamaw.
r
FEB 2 1 1992
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687. Telephone [phone]

Virtually all the impacts to the aquatic fauna mentioned in your
report will. have adverse effects on the mussel community. We
would especially like to emphasize the effects of increased
sedimentation that would result from the channelization of
Williams Old.Mill Branch, the repeated snagging and clearing of
Great Coharie Creek, the bulldozing used to create. and maintain an
open access-way-close to the stream bank, and the rapid runoff
from agricultural fields -- one of the claimed benefits of this
project.
We are also concerned about the impacts to the riparian areas
along both Great Coharie Creek and the Black River. The Black
River in particular contains a nationally significant stand of
extremely old cypress -- probably the oldest trees east of the
Rocky Mountains (a large part of this area was recently acquired
by The Nature Conservancy). Changes in flooding and sedimentation
resulting from the clearing and snagging operations in the
headwaters of'this watershed could have an impact on the survival
of this stand as well as other old-growth riparian forests in the
watershed. Loss 61 these old trees, in turn, could affect the
survival of other species associated with old growth cypress,
particularly Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesqui), a
candidate for federal listing and state listed as special concern
(NHP has a record for this species from near the confluence of the
Black and South Rivers, in Bladen County).
If we can provide any additional information please let us know.
We also strongly suggest that you contact John Alderman for more
information regarding the mussel fauna in this area.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Hall y.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program

- dM,Sfq]gq - ?
ti
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 769 • Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769
James G. Martin, Governor
„_,_ , .._;,: • William T. Hogarth; Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary [phone]
18 February 1992
Ms. L.K. Mike Gantt, Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Dear Mike:
t
Attached are the comments of the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries on the proposed work on the Great Coharie Creek watershed, Sampson
County.
Please contact the Division if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Street
Section Chief, Research
Enc.
FEB 2 0 1992
A
•-11 February 1992
T0: Bill Hogarth
THROUGH: Mike Street
FROM: Fritz Rohde ?-?
SUBJECT: Great Coharie Creek flood control alternatives
In general, I concur with the Fish and Wildlife Service's report on the proposed
work for Great Coharie Creek and the conclusions and recamiendations that the Service
reaches. I am opposed to the desnagging of the creek. Subznerged logs, stumps, and
other debris provide habitat for a number of aquatic species, especially sunfishes.
They are also the preferred habitat of the broadtail madtoan, Noturus n. sp, a species
of special concern to the Wildlife Resources Commission. Although not well
documented, there is high probability that Great Coharie Creek is a nursery area for
some anadromous species, such as American shad, and quite possibly could be a --
spawning area. I also feel that the Clinton astewater Treatment Plant could be
protected just by the dike without destroying any aquatic habitat through stream
modification or relocate the plant to higher ground.
F E B 171992
C. Division of N?
Research : ec.
ti
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health; and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John N. Morris
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
February-11, 1992
Ms. L.K. Mike Gantt, Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
. P. 0. Box.33726
Raleigh, N.C: 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Gantt: ..
The Division-of Water Resources has reviewed the Service's Draft Fish }
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Great Coharie Watershed; IMPACT OF
FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVES UPON_NISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES WITHIN GREAT COHARIE
CREEK AND SELECTED TRIBUTARIES, SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. The Division
concurs with the Service's conclusions and supports the general recommendations
and specific recommendations for both Great-Coharie-Creek and Williams Old
Mill/Dollar Branches.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey G. Bruton
Environmental Specialist
cc: John D. Sutherland
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FEB 19 1992 Gd
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer