NC0024333_Speculative Limits_20080107

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIN` COVER SHEET
NC0024333
Monroe WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Plan of Action
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limitsh
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 7, 2008
This document is printed on reuse paper - more arty
content on the reirerse side

Michael F. Easley, Govemor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
January 7, 2008
Mr. Russell Colbath, P.E.
Director of Water Resources
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, North Carolina28111-0069
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
City of Monroe WWTP
NC0024333
Union County
Dear Mr. Colbath:
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for proposed discharges of 28 and
44 MGD for the Monroe WWTP.
Receiving Stream. This facility proposes to continue discharge to Richardson Creek, a class C waterbody
in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. This segment of Richardson Creek is listed on the 2006 303(d) list as
impaired for aquatic life based on 'biological integrity', and on the draft 2008 Integrated Report as
impaired for both 'biological integrity' and 'turbidity'. The sources of these impairments are
undetermined, however non -point sources are typically a significant contributing factor for biological
impairment. Although the impairment does not preclude an expansion at this time, the Division strongly
recommends that the Town of Monroe take steps to mitigate non -point impacts to Richardson Creek in
order to maintain its viability as a resource. The health of the receiving stream is an important criterion
that DWQ will evaluate when determining whether to allow an increased discharge. During the
development of these speculative limits, Division staff reviewed several years of instream dissolved
oxygen data. Historically the values were above 5 mg/L (aquatic life standard) and all values since late
2003 were above 6 mg/L. The Division will continue to review available instream data and, if an
expansion is granted, will likely require extensive additional instream monitoring to verify model
predictions.
Speculative Limits. Based on available information, speculative effluent limits for the proposed
discharges to Richardson Creek are presented in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and
monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal
NPDES permit modification request.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for the Monroe WWTP (28 MGD and 44 MGD)
s
Effluent Characteristic -
Effluent Limitations -: . ;
' ; .. Monthly,Average
,.
Weekly Average
BOD5 (summer)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
BOD5 (winter)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
NH3 as N (summer)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
NH3 as N (winter)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
> 6.0 mg/L
Total Residual Chlorine
•
17 pg/L
Fecal Coliform
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Acton Employer
Noy` Carolina
A7aturally

Page 2
Monroe WWTP Speculative Limits
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES
permit will be issued with these speculative limits. Final decisions can only be made after the Division
receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the Town's proposed discharge. In accordance
with the North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable wastewater treatment and disposal alternative
with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented. Therefore, as a
component of all NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering
alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested flows (based on a 20-year
horizon), and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. Alternatives to a
surface water discharge, such as spray/drip irrigation, wastewater reuse, or inflow/infiltration
reduction, are considered to be environmentally preferable. A copy of the EAA requirements is attached
to this letter. Permit applications for new or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA
requirements are not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding these requirements,
please contact the DWQ NPDES Unit at 919-733-5083.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document must be
prepared for all projects that 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public lands; and 3) might
have a potential to significantly impact the environment. For new wastewater discharges, significant
impact is defined as a proposed discharge of >= 500,000 gpd. Since your facility is proposing an
expansion of greater than 500,000 gpd of wastewater, you must prepare a SEPA document, that
evaluates the potential for impacting the quality of the environment. The NPDES Unit will not accept
an NPDES permit application for the proposed expansion until the Division has approved the SEPA
document and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the State Clearinghouse for review
and comment. A SEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) should contain a clear justification for the
proposed project. If the SEPA EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect
on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).
Since your proposed expansion is subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements discussed above will need
to be folded into the SEPA document. The SEPA process will be delayed if all EAA requirements are
not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding SEPA EA/EIS requirements, please
contact Hannah Stallings with the DWQ Planning Branch at [phone], ext. 555.
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please
feel free to contact Toya Fields at [phone], extension 551.
Attachment: EAA Guidance Document
cc: (with Attachment)
Mr. James A. Cramer, P.E.
Sincerely,
!Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
Hazen and Sawyer, P.E.
4011 WestChase Blve, Ste 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
cc: (without Attachment)
Mooresville Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
US FWS, Ecological Services, PO Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Attn: Sara Myers
NC WRC, Inland Fisheries, 1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1721 Attn: Fred Harris
2

Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) Guidance Document
North Carolina Division of Water Quality/ NPDES Unit
NOTE:. The N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will not accept an NPDES application for a new or
expanding wastewater treatment plant discharge unless all the required application requirements are
submitted. A complete NPDES application will include the following items:
NPDES Application Form (in triplicate)
Application Fee
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (in triplicate)
Local Government Review Form (non -municipals only)
Failure to submit all of the required information will result in return of the incomplete package. If you have
any questions about these requirements, contact the NPDES Unit staff at 919-733-5083. Application forms,
applicable fees, and guidance documents are available on the NPDES website at
http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES. Completed applications should be mailed to:
NCDENR/DWQ/NPDES Unit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
Background
The NPDES permit program was enacted in 1972 as part of the Clean Water Act. The original goal of the program
was to eliminate all point source discharges to surface waters by 1985. Although this goal was not achieved, the
NPDES program continues to strive toward it. In that light, an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is
required with any NPDES application for a new or expanding wastewater treatment plant discharge, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In order for an NPDES application to be approved, the EAA must
provide complete justification for a direct discharge to surface water alternative, and demonstrate that direct discharge
is the most environmentally sound alternative selected from all reasonably cost-effective options [per 15A NCAC
2H.0105(c)(2)].
The purpose of this EAA Guidance Document is to provide guidance to the regulated community for the evaluation of
wastewater disposal alternatives. The impetus behind this comprehensive guidance was based on the following: 1) a
majority of new NPDES applications were being returned as incomplete due to inadequate EAA submissions; and 2) a
few recent court cases resulted in unfavorable rulings for the NPDES discharger due in part to inadequate EAAs.
DWQ most frequently returns EAAs as incomplete due to inadequate flow justification, inadequate alternatives
evaluations, and/or lack of documentation/references used to design and cost alternatives.
Please note that this guidance document is designed primarily for domestic wastewater discharges. For other proposed
discharges such as water treatment plant discharges from ion exchange and reverse osmosis units, some alternative
disposal options may not be technologically feasible. Within this guidance document, we have attempted to point out
where such technological limitations may exist. You are urged to review NPDES permitting guidance documents on
the NPDES website, which discuss some of the limited disposal options for some discharges.
Please note that if a proposed municipal expansion is subject to SEPA Environmental Assessment
(EA)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements, the EAA requirements should be incorporated into the
SEPA document. In addition, the NPDES Unit cannot accept an application for a new/expanding NPDES discharge
until departmental review of the SEPA document is complete and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has
been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation.
The following step-by-step outline should be used for the preparation of all EAA submissions. If an EAA submission
lacks any of these basic elements, the NPDES application will be returned as incomplete.
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page I of 8

STEP 1. Determine if the proposed discharge will be allowed
Before beginning any engineering evaluation of alternatives, you must first determine if the proposed wastewater
discharge will be allowed. Otherwise, time and money may be spent needlessly for an EAA preparation that will
ultimately be rejected on the basis of existing water quality restrictions. There are several potential restrictions to a
wastewater discharge to surface waters, including.
• Zero flow stream restrictions [15A NCAC 2B.0206(d)(2)] apply to oxygen -consuming waste in zero -flow
streams. In order to determine streamflow at the proposed discharge location, contact the U.S.
Geological Survey at 919-571-4000.
• Receiving stream classification restrictions [e.g., ORW, WS, SA, NSW, and HQ class waters have various
discharge restrictions or require stricter treatment standards]. Stream classifications are available on the
DWQ website and from the DWQ Standards & Classifications Unit at 919-733-5083, while wastewater
discharge restrictions for various stream classifications are presented in state regulations [ 15A NCAC
2B.0200].
• Basinwide Water Quality Plans. These basin -specific plans list NPDES permitting strategies that may
limit wastewater discharges to particular streams within the basin due to lack of stream assimilative
capacity, etc. Basin plans are available on the DWQ website, or you may contact the DWQ Basinwide
Planning Unit at 919-733-5083.
• Impaired waters and TMDLs. Certain waterbodies listed as impaired on the 303(d) list and/or subject to
impending TMDLs may have wastewater discharge restrictions. The list of 303(d) impaired waters is
located on the DWQ website, or you may contact the DWQ Modeling/TMDL Unit at 919-733-5083.
• Presence of Endangered Species. If endangered species are present in the proposed discharge location,
there may be wastewater discharge restrictions. Endangered species information may be included in the
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, or you may contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (919-856-4520),
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (919-733-3633), or the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (919-733-
7701).
Municipal applicants.
As a public service, the NPDES Unit will evaluate whether a proposed municipal discharge is considered allowable.
The municipality needs to initiate this review by submitting a letter request for Speculative Effluent Limits to the
NPDES Unit. If the proposed discharge appears to be allowable, the NPDES Unit will prepare speculative effluent
limits for a maximum of 2 flows and 2 discharge locations using water quality models. The municipality can then use
the speculative limits to prepare preliminary engineering design and cost estimates for the direct discharge alternative
within the EAA. In limited instances where complex water quality models are necessary to develop speculative limits
and determine potential water quality impacts, some municipalities have undertaken the modeling effort (with DWQ
review) in order to expedite this portion of the NPDES permit review process.
Non -municipal applicants.
Due to staff constraints, the NPDES Unit cannot prepare speculative limits for non -municipal applicants. -Thus, it is
your responsibility to make your own determination as to whether the proposed discharge might be allowed by the
Division, by evaluating the water quality factors listed above. It is highly recommended that you discuss the proposed
discharge with the applicable DWQ Regional Office and/or NPDES Unit staff, who may be able to provide input on
the likelihood of a new/expanding discharge. As a first step, you must obtain streamflow estimates for the proposed
discharge location to ensure that the receiving stream is not subject to zero flow restrictions. Low flow data
(specifically, the summer 7Q10 and 30Q2 flow statistics) can be obtained for a nominal fee from the U.S. Geological
Survey in Raleigh at 919-571-4000. The low flow data must be submitted with the EAA, and will be used by the permit
writer to develop permit limits. You must also verify that the proposed action (i.e., construction of a wastewater
treatment plant and its appurtenances) is consistent with local zoning and/or subdivision ordinances. You will need to
request the local governments) to complete a Local Government Review Form (Attachment A), and include the
signed and notarized form with your NPDES application package.
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page 2 of 8

All applicants.
If you condude that the proposed discharge will pass the "allowable discharge" criteria, then begin the EAA
preparation by summarizing the following general information about the proposed project:
• Provide a description of the proposed project. If the project will be constructed in phases, provide a
schedule for constructing each additional phase, and provide the projected flow per phase (see STEP 2).
• Applicant name, mailing address, phone number, contact person
■ Facility name, address, county, phone number, contact person
• EAA preparer's name, mailing address, phone number, contact person
STEP 2. Provide reasonable projections for population and flow
Residential Population Projections.
Facilities requesting an NPDES discharge permit for new or expanding domestic wastewater discharges must
document the population to be served within the service area over a 20-year planning period. The NC State
Demographics unit provides population data for each county and municipality and can be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.demog.state.nc.us. If 20-year population projections for specific areas are not available, a linear
extrapolation of population trends from the past decade should be used. Any deviation from a linear projection
method must be clearly justified. If population projections include future annexations, include a proposed annexation
schedule as well as any annexation requirements that must be met.
Municipal Flow Projections.
Justification of flow as well as a demonstration of need shall be provided. Mere speculation is not sufficient. Flow
projections should represent average anticipated flows, since permit flow limits are based on monthly averages.
Peaking factors used to design various components of the wastewater collection system (e.g., collector sewers,
interceptor sewers, pumping stations) should not be used in the justification of the average anticipated flow. For
municipal wastewater dischargers, flow must be justified using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
criteria available on the Internet at http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/201gui.html. Exceptions to these flow criteria
may be approved on a case -by -case basis provided adequate justification is supplied.
• Current Flow- Provide current flows including residential, commercial, industrial, and non -excessive
infiltration/inflow (I/I) based on actual flow data or water billing records. Current residential flow and
current commercial flow may be based on water billing records minus a 10% consumptive loss. Current
industrial flow may be based on dual metering to determine consumptive losses. Current non -excessive
I/I should also be determined in accordance with CWSRF criteria. If I/I is demonstrated to be above
CWSRF criteria, that infrastructure contributing to excessive I&I must either be repaired or replaced
prior to any request for flow expansion.
• Future Residential Flow- Provide 20-year residential flows based on projected residential growth.
Multiply the projected growth in residential population by 70 gallons per day per capita.
■ Future Commercial Flow- Provide 20-year commercial flows based on projected residential growth.
Multiply the projected growth in residential population by 15 gallons per day per capita.
• Future Industrial Flow- Provide flow for future documented industrial flow. A nominal allowance for
future unplanned industrial expansions may be considered by the Division, provided the basis is clearly
justified and current land -use plans and local zoning allow for such industrial growth.
• Future Non -excessive I/I- A nominal allowance for non -excessive I/I for new sewer lines may be
considered by the Division, provided the basis is clearly justified.
Non -Municipal Flow Projections.
Flow may be justified in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0219(1) for various activities (e.g., new subdivisions, new
schools, various commercial activities). For other proposed discharges (e.g., groundwater remediation, water
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page3of8

treatment plant filter backwash, industial facilities), the flow projections will be based on engineering design
considerations and/or production projections rather than population projections.
STEP 3. Evaluate technologically feasible alternatives
Since a goal of the Clean Water Act is to minimize or eliminate. point source discharges to surface waters, any
proposal for a new or expanding wastewater discharge must include evaluation of wastewater disposal alternatives in
addition to direct discharge. Particularly for dischargers of domestic wastewater, this evaluation should investigate the
feasibility of the following wastewater disposal alternatives:
• Connection to an existing wastewater treatment plant (public or private)
• Land application alternatives, such as individual/community onsite subsurface systems, drip irrigation,
spray irrigation
• Wastewater reuse
• Surface water discharge through the NPDES program
• Combinations of the above
In order for the applicant to eliminate a wastewater disposal alternative, you must either show that the alternative is
technologically infeasible, or that it would be cost prohibitive to implement relative to a direct discharge alternative.
Please note that for some alternatives, it might be. easier to prove an alternative is not viable based on high cost rather
than technological feasibility. For example, for a large municipal expansion that would require several hundred acres
for a land application alternative, it might be easier to simply assume that the required acreage could be purchased and
calculate the present value costs (including current market land costs) for this option, rather than evaluating whether
land application is technologically infeasible due to lack of available land and/or poor soil conditions. For those
alternatives identified as technologically feasible, you must develop and compare costs, based on a preliminary level
design effort (see STEP 4).
The Division recognizes that wastewater disposal alternatives may be limited for some non -domestic wastewater
scenarios, and a full alternatives evaluation may not be warranted. If there is some question as to whether an alternative
may be eliminated, contact the NPDES Unit staff. Some scenarios that might not require a full alternatives evaluation
include:
• Water Treatment Plant Discharges. Discharges from water treatment plants (WTPs) that utilize a
membrane technology (e.g., reverse osmosis, nanofiltration) or ion exchange system tend to generate
highly concentrated wastestreams. These wastestreams are not amenable to land application and do not
have to be evaluated for this alternative. However, since these wastestreams can also have a toxic impact
on a receiving freshwater system, proposed new discharges from these WTPs to freshwaters will not be
considered for an NPDES permit unless you can demonstrate that the environmental impacts would be
minimal based on dilution modeling. You, should investigate whether the wastewater can be piped to a
stream with sufficient dilution, or whether a local WWTP might accommodate this discharge. Please
note that discharges from WTPs that utilize greensand filtration or conventional technology produce a
wastestream that is not saline, therefore no disposal alternatives can be automatically ruled out as
infeasible for these other WTPs. Refer to the NPDES website for permitting strategies for reverse
osmosis, ion exchange, greensand filtration, and conventional WTPs.
• Groundwater Remediation System Discharges. You will need to evaluate whether WWTP connection,
land application, infiltration galleries, in -situ groundwater remediation wells, or closed -loop groundwater
remediation wells are viable disposal alternatives. While land application might be a feasible alternative in
rural areas, it would not be a feasible alternative in downtown Charlotte, where there is no land available
for wastewater application. In this instance, you may simply state that land application is infeasible based
on land constraints within the city. You will also need to evaluate connection to an existing WWTP (in
accordance with Alternative A), since there are some municipalities that have accepted this wastestream
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page4of8

in the past. If the municipality will not accept the wastestream, the connection alternative is also
considered technologically infeasible. Please note that in -situ and dosed -loop groundwater remediation
wells are permittable well types and further guidance is available through the Aquifer Protection Section.
Aside from these exceptions, you should proceed with the alternatives evaluation in accordance with the following
requirements. If you have any questions about these requirements, contact the NPDES Unit staff.
Alternative A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment System.
You must evaluate the feasibility of connecting to an existing wastewater treatment system served by a municipality or
other entity holding a valid NPDES or Non -Discharge Permit. All connection options should include an evaluation
of a gravity line and/or force main with pump station(s).
1. Existing Sewerage System:
(a) Identify whether there are existing sewer lines within a five -mile radius, or consider a greater radius if
cost effective for the project size.
(b) Provide a preliminary, indication of flow acceptance from existing municipal or private W' TPs
under consideration for connection. If a municipal or private WVC/TP cannot accept the wastewater,
include a letter documenting such and consider this alternative technologically infeasible.
(c) If an existing sewerage system will accept the wastewater, evaluate the piping/pumps/resources
necessary to connect to the existing wastewater treatment plant. Attach a topographic map or a site
drawing showing the physical route of this alternative. Conduct a Present Value Cost Analysis per
STEP 4.
2. Planned Sewerage System: Determine if a regional sewerage system within a five mile radius is projected
to be available within the next five years to receive waste from the project site. If applicable, determine
availability date and flow acceptance projection from appropriate authority.
Alternative B. Land Application.
Land application disposal alternatives include individual/community onsite subsurface systems, drip irrigation, and
spray irrigation.
1. Provide an estimate of the best case hydraulic loading rate based on County Soil Surveys or from a soil
evaluation performed by a soil scientist. Include calculations showing the hydraulic loading rate
and the total area of land needed for the land disposal system, including buffers.
2. Assess the availability of land. If insufficient land is available onsite, assume that the necessary land can
be purchased and estimate the land purchase cost based on local real estate prices. Alternatively, provide
documentation to demonstrate that insufficient land is available for sale in the project area (include
letters from adjacent property owners indicating no interest in selling property).
3. Provide a description of the wastewater treatment system and the non -discharge application system.
Include a site plan showing the proposed layout, the application area, any existing structures, proposed
structures, and other uses within the site.
4. Explain the proposed reuse plan if reclaimed water will be used by a third party.
5. Conduct a Present Value Cost Analysis per STEP 4. For the reclaimed water system* include the
potential revenue generated by selling the water.
6. Provide all calculations, documentation and maps as necessary to support assumptions and conclusions.
7. Note: The design of land application systems must meet the treatment and design requirements specified
in 15A NCAC 2H.0219 or 15A NCAC 18A.1900.
8. Note: Proposed discharges from groundwater remediation systems must evaluate the potential for an
infiltration gallery treatment alternative.
Alternative C. Wastewater Reuse.
You must evaluate reusing all or a portion of the wastewater generated. Some municipalities are currently reusing
wastewater within the confines of their WWTP property for irrigation, toilet flushing, backwashing, etc., while other
municipalities have established progressive reuse programs for residential irrigation. Reuse applications might include
golf course irrigation, crop irrigation (e.g., hardwood or pine plantation, grasses), athletic field irrigation, landscape
uses, and commercial/industrial uses. Some of these reuse applications will be evaluated under Alternative B, Land
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page5of8

Application. The design of reclaimed water systems must meet the treatment and design requirements specified in
15A NCAC 2H.0219. .
Alternative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Waters.
1. No new or expanding (additional) discharge of oxygen -consuming waste will be allowed to surface waters
of North Carolina if both the summer 7Q10 and 30Q2 streamflows are estimated to be zero, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206(d). Private applicants must contact the Federal USGS in Raleigh at
919-571-4000 and obtain (generally for a nominal fee), the receiving streamflow data (s7Q10, 30Q2,
annual average streamflow) at the proposed discharge location. This information must be included in the
EAA, and will be used to develop permit limits.
2. All direct discharge systems of oxygen -consuming wastes should be evaluated both with tertiary filtration
[BC►DS= 5 mg/1, NH3-N= 1 mg/1] and without, and assuming a weekly sampling regime.
3. Provide a description of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities, including a schematic diagram of
the major components and a site plan of the treatment facility with outfall line(s).
4. Provide documentation of the availability of required land and/or easement agreements.
5. Conduct a Present Value Cost Analysis per STEP 4.
6. Note: All direct discharge treatment systems must comply with Reliability Requirements specified in 15A
NCAC 2H.0124 as well as Minimum Design Requirements specified in 15A NCAC 2H.0219.
Alternative E. Combination of Alternatives.
You should evaluate the possibility of a combination of wastewater alternatives that would minimize or eliminate a
direct discharge alternative. For example, consider whether the facility can operate a land application system during
the dry season when streamflows are at their lowest and provide less dilution, and operate an NPDES discharge
system during the wet season when soils may not be as amenable to land application and the receiving stream
provides its greatest dilution.
STEP 4. Evaluate economic feasibility of alternatives
To provide valid cost comparisons among all technologically feasible wastewater alternatives identified in STEP 3, a 20-
year Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) must be performed. A preliminary design level effort is considered
appropriate for comparing feasible options and their associated costs. For the PVCA cost comparison, all future
expenditures are converted to a present value cost at the beginning of the 20-year planning period. A discount rate is
used in the analysis and represents the time value of money (the ability of money to earn interest). Present value is also
referred to as "present discounted value" or "present worth".
The PVCA should include all monetary costs associated with construction, startup and annual operation and
maintenance of a facility. All unit cost information must be provided, and costs must be referenced Costs can be
referenced in paragraph format by summarizing the sources utilized (e.g., vendor quotes, realtor land quotes, past
bids, Means Construction Index, etc). Vender quotes received for treatment units or other components, as well as
realtor land quotes, shall be included as well. For each treatment alternative identified as technologically feasible,
costs should include, but not be limited to, the following.
Capital Costs
■ Land acquisition costs
• Equipment costs
• Labor costs
• Installation costs
■ Design costs
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page6of8

Recurring Costs
• Operation and maintenance costs (with replacement costs)
• Laboratory costs assuming a weekly monitoring regime for discharge systems and a monthly regime for
non -discharge systems
• Operator and support staff costs
• Residual disposal costs
• Connection fees and subsequent user fees
• Permit and compliance fees
• Utility costs (power, water, etc.)
Lost Opportunity Costs
PVCA Calculation Method.
The following standard formula for computing the present value must be used in all cost estimates made under this
evaluation:
Where:
PV=C +±
° r=, (1+r)'
PV = Present value of costs.
Co = Costs incurred in the present year.
Ct = Costs incurred in time t.
t = Time period after the present year ( The present year is t = 0)
n = Ending year of the life of the facility.
r = Current EPA discount rate. EPA adjusts this rate annually on October 1, and it can be accessed from
the Internet at http:/www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/201gui.html.
If recurring costs are the same in years 1 through 20, then Ct=C and the formula reduces to:
PV=C° + (1+r)n-11
r(1+r)" J
As an example, assuming capital costs (Co) of $2 million, annual recurring costs (C) of $40,000, and a discount rate (r)
of 5.625%, the 20-year (n=20) present value of costs would equal:
PV= capital costs + recurring costs X [(1+0.05625)20 — 1] / [0.05625(1+0.05625)20]
PV= $2,000,000 + $40,000 X [1.98/0.168]
PV= $2,000,000 - + $471,428
PV= $2,471,428
PVCA Summary Table.
The EAA must include a Summary Cost Table, which summarizes present worth costs developed for all technologically
feasible wastewater alternatives. The summary should include a breakdown of capital costs and recurring costs. In
some situations, the Division may require the applicant to refine cost estimates for some alternatives, or possibly collect
actual soil data to better characterize the land application alternative. Ultimately, the final determination on cost
effectiveness is made by the Division with consideration of monetary costs as well as potential environmental impacts.
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page 7of8

Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from local governments in the issuance
of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State.
instructions to the Applicant•. Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must
• Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
• If either (or both) local govemment(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
• As evidence to the Commission that the local govemment(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government
• (City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [ ] No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [ ] No [ ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Date — Signature
(City Manager/County Manager)
State of , County of
On this day of , personally appeared before me, the said
name to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires .(Signature of Notary Public)
Notary Public (Official Seal)
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page8of8

LEVEL B Model
FACT SHEET FOR PERMIT LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
Town of Monroe WWTP
NPDES No. NC0024333
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Monroe
Permitted Flow
Current flow: 12.5 MGD; request for 28 and 44 MGD
Type of Waste:
50% Industrial, 50% Domestic
County:
Union
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Richardson Creek
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
Stream Index Number:
C
13-17-36-(5)a
Quad
H17NW
303(d) Listed?:
Yes
Level B modeler:
Toya Fields
Subbasin:
03-07-14
Date:
11/27/07
Drainage Area (mi2):
71.7 tt 553 mP N•a
7— Z i — 2 7
` ' 4 �tv�hn,_iv
Summer'7Q10 (cfs)
0.39
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.66
Average Stream Flow (cfs):
64.53
IWC (%) at Permitted Flow:
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
The City of Monroe has requested speculative effluent limits for proposed discharges of 28 and 44 MGD.
The facility is currently permitted for 10.4 and 12.5 MGD, and DWQ has previously provided limits for a
flow of 15MGD. The town requested limits at their existing location on Richardson Creek and/or two
locations on the Rocky River (if the Richardson Creek discharge could not be allowed). The Richardson
Creek scenarios were evaluated using the Level B model.
The 2007 Yadkin Basinwide Assessment Report lists two sites within AU# 13-17-36-(5). The sites are
rated as 'good' and 'good -fair', which are equal to or better than previous ratings at these sites. The
Assessment Report notes that these ratings suggest increasing water quality over the past 5 years. This
segment of Richardson Creek is listed on the 2006 303(d) list as impaired for aquatic life based on
impaired biological integrity (source unknown), and on the draft 2008 Integrated Report as impaired for
biological integrity and turbidity.
The Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association operates two monitoring stations in the vicinity of this
discharge; Q8800000 is 1.97 miles upstream and Q8820000 is 3.25 miles downstream. A comparison of
instream dissolved oxygen is included as Figure 1. Dissolved oxygen levels have been above 6 mg/L at
both upstream and downstream locations since late 2003. A background D.O. input was calculated for
the model as 5.64 mg/L based on presumed drought conditions (summer 2002) at the upstream station.
USGS was able to provide updated low- flow information for the existing outfall location. According to
"Low Flow Characteristics and Profiles for the Rocky River in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin, North
Carolina, through 2002", yields for stations in this area range from 0.55 cfsm to 0.01 cfsm. USGS staff (J.
Curtis Weaver) recommended that the lower yield be used. Combining that information with a drainage
area of 71.7 sqmi (from the 1993 WLA) produces the necessary low flow information. These flows are
slightly lower than the previously calculated flows for this location.
A level b model was run at proposed flows of 28 MGD and 44 MGD, as well as reference flows of 10.4
MGD and 12 MGD. At 10.4 MGD (and current limits) the model predicts a D.O. sag that reaches its
minimum at just over 3 miles from the discharge point. The location of the D.O. sag correlates well with
the location of the instream monitoring station. However, according to actual stream data, it appears that
Town of Monroe WWTP - NC0024333
Level B Model
Page 1

the model overcompensates for the effect of the discharge on the stream. The model predicts a minimum
D.O. of 4.63 mg/L, whereas the instream DO was actually much higher. The model does not predict sags
at the higher flows.
Based on the results of the model, recommended effluent limits for both 28 and 44 MGD are as follows:
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
BOD5 (summer)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
BOD5 (winter)
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
NH3 as N (summer)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
NH3 as N (winter)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
> 6.0 mg/L
Total Residual Chlorine
17 pg/L
Fecal Coliform
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
STATE CONTACT:
Western NPDES Program - Level B Modeling Contact: Toya Fields, (919) 733 - 5083, ext. 551
Town of Monroe WWTP - NC0024333
Level B Model
Page 2

Figure 1: Comparison of Instream Dissolved Oxygen
0.00
Jan-98 JuI-98 Jan-99 JuI-99 Jan-00 JuI-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 JuI-03 Jan-04 JuI-04 Jan-05 JuI-05 Jan-06 JuI-06 Jan-07 JuI-07
Date
Upstream Downstream DO Standard (5 mg/L)
Town of Monroe WWTP - NC0024333
Level B Model
Page 3

MODEL INPUTS FOR LEVEL B ANALYSIS
GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility Name: 11)Oiv KO E LjGJ'
e
NPDESNo.: k) C O O ,? G1 3 3 y
Type of Waste: SO �/p /iju J S
14/ r--)L / $
O'-)7D 75)r)-)r
.f , C
Facility Status: DC/ 51-111/6
IF 1 C RC,2L,(
S 1
Receiving Stream: P I (7M(4-
SDVO (Pr
(4:
Stream Classification: C
Subbasin:/fihKI W O 3 - O
7- /Lf
County: Vn) I 0 N
Regional Office: _moo ?FSV I L I,
E.
Topo Quad: /4 1 i It/iJ
FLOW INFORMATION
USGS# O 1L r,2 )3 - gieN
>Son1 e SJZ
17si
Date of Flow Estimates: 01003 (
j S65 7ci ' /
o—J IOt-i (A6„:i-4fat,)&
D,^-''i
47
Drainage Area (rni2): rib -7
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 0, 39 /7/5C
,X
In
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
l
L
Average Flow (cfs): 4 li,7i
30Q2 (cfs): 0, 'I 1 S
IWC at Point of Discharge (%): •.
c
c:_ In A /)1
b Ad . f1gl
m Cumulative IWC (%):
2: �} hi%�
6 S rYiud %� d <iZ<'wW+vY} " -' :•-:.CF
v �� `
:6; :. ��
vim•'-"'•«:F.c:}•f<2iµ::'<•1
,j
/
�.?'. , �v�.�G%y,�'v<}:>r:�::
c:N... > s<.
/
,.�'y:Y tivY.�3•.
i�i'} }.°✓,•'F ..:�7•.
.2a 9iJ yid
!_�4... }} }.Y; ...:: :�;::
i.. ,'Y�:�ei
:y: y t..
C: }' .......: t `::+..::
?iit4�:..�y5
s •tea :Y•
{' i CC: .^R- ,</' . .<tt<'`Y
v ..:. ...:, _.:_,t.... r..,?'x°0,�.°1�`., . i. % .-....
y}}ii
:C o, SY4
...,,.:. ff.jL;... f??;. R'..•
.'2i'f: r^yf#'�-'�`l:.�N„.:.��+}��
� •,.S`7�' .n{<% .v.
.:.<<:"
k:�<S�k'd�.•-,
:.�.r°�'.al ��ir�c"-{ry'r��:�ai•<•,raii'ryiy
:�'%✓m. a.F
::..ri•,.<.;y tz-?>r.:c�
MODEL INPUT INFORMATION
P
e a
LENGTH OF REACH (miles)
INCREMENTAL LENGTH (miles)
0, /
0, I
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
FLOW (MGD)
02F
CBOD (mg/I) (S /L o?
in
NBOD (mg/1) // /L !f, S')
L/ S�
D.O. (mg/1)
S
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs/miP)
0, /
QA (cfs/mi11)
0. -7 i
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/I)
D.O. (mg/I)
TRIBUTARY CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs)
0, OF
QA (cfs)
13 . a.,
CBOD (mg/l)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (rng/l)
SLOPE (fpm)
3' 03
3. 0,3 .
Name of facility

SUMMER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : MONROE WWTP
Receiving Stream : RICHARDSON CREEK
The End D.O. is 5.32 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 8.94 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 3.82 mg/l.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)• (mgd)
5.01 0.00 1
10.00 4.50 5.00 28.00000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
1214)41
vCt I"
(41 '2 61re 7&YY? zLnikif (tc`°\ ek
1?/1__g /-(11/V-/-1,\_at
lot,)

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
Receiving Stream :
Summer 7Q10
Design Temperature:
MONROE WWTP
RICHARDSON CREEK
0.39
26.0
Subbasin : 030714
Stream Class: C
Winter 7Q10 : 0.66
LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY I DEPTH Kd I Kd I Ka Ka KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @20° design @20° design
Segment 1
Reach 1
1.30
3.03
0.676
2.08
0.31
0.24
2.06 1 1.80
0.48
Segment 1
Reach 2
2.00
3.03
0.634
2.16
0.31
0.23
1.93
1.69
0.48
$
Flow CBOD
cfs mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 10.000
Headwaters 2.000
Tributary
* Runoff
Segment 1
Waste
Tributary
* Runoff
43.400
0.390
0.000
0.130
Reach 2
0.000
0.080
0.130
NBOD D.O.
mg/1 I mg/1
4.500 5.000
1.000 5.640
2.000 1.000 7.300
2.000 1.000 7.300
0.000
2.000
2.000
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
7.300
7.300

SUMMER
Seg #
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Seg #
Reach #
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Reach #
Seg Mi f D.O.
0.00 5.01
0.10 5.02
0.20 5.03
0.30 5.04
0.40 5.05
0.50 5.06
0.60 5.07
0.70 5.08
0.80 5.09
0.90 5.10
1.00 5.12
1.10 5.13
1.20 5.14
1.30 5.15
1.30 5.15
1.40 5.16
1.50 5.17
1.60 5.18
1.70 5.18
1.80 5.19
1.90 5.20
2.00 5.21
2.10 5.22
2.20 5.23
2.30 5.23
2.40 5.24
2.50 5.25
2.60 5.26
2.70 5.27
2.80 5.28
2.90 5.28
3.00 5.29
3.10 5.30
3.20 5.31
3.30 5.32
Seg Mi f D.O.
CBOD
9.93
9.90
9.87
9.84
9.81
9.78
9.75
9.72
9.69
9.66
9.63
9.60
9.57
9.54
9.53
9.50
9.47
9.44
9.41
9.38
9.35
9.32
9.29
9.26
9.23
9.20
9.17
9.14
9.11
9.08
9.05
9.03
9.00
8.97
8.94
CBOD
NBOD ( Flow I
4.47 43.79
4.45 43.80
4.43 43.82
4.41 43.83
4.39 43.84
4.37 43.85
4.35 43.87
4.33 43.88
4.31 43.89
4.29 43.91
4.27 43.92
4.25 43.93
4.23 43.95
4.21 43.96
4.21 44.04
4.19 44.05
4.17 44.06
4.15 44.08
4.13 44.09
4.11 44.10
4.09 44.12
4.07 44.13
4.05 44.14
4.03 44.16
4.01 44.17
3.99 44.18
3.97 44.19
3.95 44.21
3.93 44.22
3.91 44.23
3.90 44.25
3.88 44.26
3.86 44.27
3.84 44.29
3.82 44.30
NBOD f Flow I

Lc-), e
elevation
1
In P-0.018092
P 0.9820706
0.15 km
Date
1/17/2002
2/14/2002
3/7/2002
4/11/2002
5/912002
5/15/2002
5/22/2002
5/28/2002
6/5/2002
6/13/2002
6/19/2002
6/25/2002
7/2/2002
7/11/2002
7/17/2002
7/23/2002'
8/8/2002
8/14/2002
8/19/2002
8/28/2002
9/4/2002
9/11/2002
9/18/2002
9/26/2002
10/10/2002
11/7/2002
12/11/2002
1/9/2003
2/13/2003
3/20/2003
4/10/2003
5/7/2003
5/15/2003
5/21/2003
5/27/2003
6/4/2003
6/12/2003
6/18/2003
6/25/2003
7/17/2003
7/30/2003
8/13/2003
8/28/2003
9/10/2003
9/25/2003
10/30/2003
11/20/2003
12/11/2003
1/15/2004
2/12/2004
3/11/2004
4/8/2004
5/13/2004
5/26/2004
6/10/2004
6/23/2004
7/15/2004
7/28/2004
8/12/2004
8/24/2004
9/23/2004
9/29/2004
10/28/2004
11/18/2004
12/16/2004
1/27/2005
2/17/2005
3/17/2005
4/14/2005
5/12/2005
5/25/2005
6/22/2005
6/29/2005
7/14/2005
7/27/2005
8/18/2005
8/31/2005
9/7/2005
9/22/2005
10/20/2005
11/17/2005
12/15/2005
1/26/2006
2/23/2006
3/16/2006
4/13/2006
5/11/2006
5/24/2006
6/15/2006
6/28/2006
7/20/2006
7/26/2006
8/17/2006
8/30/2006
9/14/2006
9/27/2006
10/19/2006
11/16/2006
12/14/2006
Temp.
rc)
5.80
8.00
8.00
17.60
21.30
21.50
15.80
23.50
24.40
22.90
24.60
24.40
23.80
24.20
23.10
26.20
21.90
21.80
27,60
20.90
20.60
21.20
22.70
20.20
17.90
11.60
7.50
7.50
6.10
11.60
8.50
17.30
18.90
16.80
17.30
18.60
22.80
21.10
23.90
25.60
26.70
24.20
26.50
23.80
23.10
16.90
14.70
8.70
5.80
2.90
7.90
11.60
20.10
23.00
20.90
24.30
23.10
22.80
22.80
22.40
1840
16.40
18.20
8.60
3.80
6.20
6.50
5.50
10.40
14.50
20.80
20.80
19.70
21.40
23.60
22.80
22.40
18.70
19.60
16.40
940
3.70
3.20
5.30
9.20
12.20
12.70
15.50
20.60
21.90
22.80
22.60
21.30
23.80
20.60
19.90
1670
15.60
9.60
7_a . mra 22.81
Stroamtlew
616
DO
(mg/L)
9.20
8.10
9.20
7.00
5.60
9.50
7.80
5.70
5.60
5.90
5.70
5.50
5.60
5.60
6.00
5.10
5.50.
5.60
5.20
5.80'
5.90
5.70
5.60
5.70
5.90
6.20
7.30
7.10
9.40
10.60
11.30
9.30
6,60
9.40'
8.90
8.90
6.80
7.50
7.50
6.50
5.60
7.20
5.70
6.30
7.10
8.60
9.80
10.60
10.50
10.80
10.90
10.40
6.90
7.00
6.80
6.20
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.40
6.70
6.50
7.30
10.30
9.70
9.60
10.10
8.80
8.10
6.40
6.50
6.70
7.00
6.20
6.10
6.40
6.60
7.10
7.30
7.80
9.70
10.30
9.40
10.10
9.80
9.80
9.30
7.10
6.50
6.20
6.30
6.70
6.50
6.70
6.20
6.50
6.30
9.30
Cp I % sat
12.29 74.89
11.63 69.64
11.63 79.10
9.38
8.71
8.67
9.74
8.35
8.21
8.44
8.17
8.21
8.30
8.24
8.41
7.94
8.61
8.62
7.74
8.77
8.83
8.72
8.47
8.90
9.32
10.68
11.77
11.77
12.19
10.68
11.49
944
9.13
9.54
9.44
9.19
8.46
8.74
8.28
8.02
7.87
8.24
7.89
8.30
8.41
9.52
9.97
11.44
12.29
13.25
11.66
10.68
8.91
8.43
8.77
8.22
8.41
8.46
8.46
8.52
9.23
9.62
9.26
11 46
12.94
12.16
12.07
12.38
10.98
10.02
879
8.79
8.99
8.69
8.33
8.46
8.52
9.17
9.00
9.62
11 25
12.97
13.15
12.44
11.30
10.54
10.42
9.80
8.83
8.61
8.46
8.49
8.71
8.30
8.83
8.95
9.56
9.78
11.19
74.64
64.32
109.55
80.09
68.30
68.25
69.90
69.73
67.03
67.48
67.99
71.35
64.25
63.92
64.95
67.19
66.10
66.84
65.34
66.09
64.07
63.30
58 03
62.00
60.30
77.10
99.21
98.34
98.55
72.27
98.58
94.31
96.87
80.40
85.81
90.55
81.00
71.20
87.42
72.20
75.92
84.43
90.37
98.27
92.69
85.47
81.49
93.49
97.34
77.40
83.09
77.50
75.42
74.92
74.49
74.49
73.92
69 37
69.67
70.17
63.68
79.61
79.76
79.53
81.59
80.11
80.87
72.79
73.93
74.56
80.56
74.43
72.13
75.10
71.98
78.85
75.91
69.36
74.77
78.35
75.54
89.38
92.98
94.04
94.88
80.44
75.54
73.31
74.21
76.96
78.33
75.91
69.27
68.02
64.41
83.09
(median 75.101
mean
e listed:u..: -turn
77.20
Cp Equilibrium oxygen concentration at nonstandard pressure, mg/L
C' Equilibrium oxygen concentration at standard pressure of 1 atm, mg/L
P nonslandard pressure. atm, relative to standard partial pressure
Pwv Parlial pressure of water vapor, aim, computed from
In Pwv = 11.8571 • (3840.70/T) - (216,961/T2)
where T = temperature, °K
O 0.000975 - (1.426 X 101 1) + (6.436 x 10� 12)
t temperature °C
To calculate percent saturation:
Determine nonstandard atmospheric pressure, P (atm), at altitude, h (km).
InP= 5.251n(1-h/44.3)
Calculate the equilibrium oxygen concentration al nonstandard pressure.
Cp = Cx P St-Pwv/PI (1-OP)
(1-PIw) (1-0)
Determine % saturation based on DO concentration (mg/L)
% saturation = (100 x DO) / Cp
/10 MI1-II"7
I
e,o)�-, ti4c :. Uoin.''-\

Table B-29 Use Support Ratings Summary (2002) for Monitored and Evaluated Freshwater
Streams (miles) and Lakes (acres) in Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-14
Use Support Category
Units
Supporting
Impaired
Not Rated
No Data
Total'
Aquatic Life/Secondary Recreation
miles
162.7
373
2.5
289.0
491.5
acres
0.0
0.0
347.0
0.0
347.0
Fish Consumption'
miles
0.0
491.5
0.0
0.0
491.5
acres
0.0
347.0
0.0
0.0
347.0
Primary Recreation
miles
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
6.4
acres
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Water Supply
miles
149.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
149.6
acres
335.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
335.8
Total stream miles/acres assigned to each use support category in this subbasin. Column is not additive because some stream
miles are assigned to more than one category.
These waters are impaired based on fish consumption advice issued for three species of freshwater fish due to mercury
contamination. Refer to page 98 of Section A for details.
14.2 Status and Recommendations for Previously Impaired Waters
This section reviews use support and recommendations detailed in the 1998 basinwide plan,
reports status of progress, gives recommendations for the next five-year cycle, and outlines
current projects aimed at improving water quality for each water. Portions of two streams were
Impaired at the time of the 1998 Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin plan. Richardson Creek and Lanes
Creek are discussed below.
14.2.1 Richardson Creek (12.5 miles from dam at Lake Lee to SR 1649)
1998 Recommendations
The 1998 basin plan discusses naturally low dissolved oxygen, excess nutrients and
sedimentation in Richardson Creek. Recommendations are that no new discharges of oxygen -
consuming wastes be permitted above the Monroe WWTP discharge. The plan also states that !LA"
further investigation into the causes and sources of water quality impacts is needed before more ' •
specific recommendations to improve water quality can be made.
Status of Progress
Richardson Creek was sampled at six locations over the most recent basinwide planning period.
Biological samples were collected at four sites and water chemistry samples were collected at
four sites. Richardson Creek above Lake Lee received a Good -Fair bioclassification, two
samples downstream of the Monroe WWTP and Lake Twitty, respectively, received Fair
bioclassifications, and the most downstream location near the mouth of the stream received a
Good bioclassification. Good instream and riparian habitat were observed at all four biological
monitoring stations; however, algae were prolific. Although the stream remains Impaired below
the Monroe WWTP, the benthic macroinvertebrate community is steadily improving. Between
1990 and 2001, the EPT abundance increased from 16 to 46, suggesting real change in water
quality.
Section B: Chapter 14 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-14 240

Water chemistry samples revealed low dissolved oxygen concentrations at SR 1751 upstream of
the Monroe WWTP discharge and slightly depressed concentrations at SR 1006 downstream of
the WWTP discharge. Water chemistry data also show extremely high nutrient levels,
nitrate/nitrite nitrogen and total phosphorus.
The headwaters of Richardson Creek are a mix of agricultural and urban land uses. The portions
of watershed draining into Lake Monroe and Lake Lee are primarily in agricultural land use and
many small tributaries are dammed for farm ponds. The watershed draining into Richardson
Creek immediately below Lake Lee and into Lake Twitty is primarily urban, and stormwater
from Monroe, Wingate and Unionville likely impacts the stream. Channelization is extensive
throughout the urban portions of the watershed. Nutrient concentrations are high in all three
lakes, although DWQ does not currently have sufficient data to assign use support ratings for
aquatic life at this time. None of the three dams currently has a minimum instream flow
requirement (refer to Section A, Chapter 2 for details).
The City of Monroe worked extensively in recent years to upgrade its WWTP. Two violations of
the flow limitation in the winter of 2000 were reported over the most recent review period;
otherwise, the Monroe WWTP has maintained full compliance with its NPDES permit.
2002 Recommendations
DWQ will work with the Division of Water Resources in order to determine whether a minimum
instream flow requirement is feasible and/or necessary for the Lake Lee dam. Local actions are
needed to reduce nutrients from all sources (agriculture, wastewater infrastructure and
stormwater runoff) in the Richardson Creek watershed above SR 1649 and Salem Creek.
Water Quality Improvement Initiatives
The City of Monroe initiated a project in 1997 to demonstrate the effectiveness of extended
detention constructed wetlands as an alternative to simple detention ponds. This project was
funded in part through the Clean Water Act — Section 319 Program (page 267).
14.2.2 Lanes Creek (36.8 miles from SR 1929 to Rocky River)
1998 Recommendations
The 1998 basin plan discusses low flow and suggests that Lanes Creek has little capacity to
assimilate wastewater. Recommendations are for extensive data collection in the event that a
NPDES discharge permit is proposed. The plan also recommends more widespread
implementation of BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution in the watershed.
Status of Progress
No discharges have been permitted into Lanes Creek. A fish community sample collected in
2001 in the upper section of stream received a Fair bioclassification, and both fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate communities have received Fair or Poor bioclassifications in the past at
several locations along the stream. The stream continues to be rated Impaired.
2002 Recommendations
Further investigation into the causes and sources of these water quality impacts is needed before
specific recommendations to improve water quality can be made. However, local actions are
Section B: Chapter 14 - Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-14 241

fiLocv_\ aoo i ybi(i/u 0/7-'4/fuGvi 1-)Ss (s s m-if-Li T` R P°,T
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample
Waterbody
Location
Date
Bioclassification
RICHARDSON CR
SR 1649
08/23/06
Good -Fair
County
Subbasin
8 digit HUC
Index Number
Latitude
Longitude
UNION
14
03040105
13-17-36-(5)
350420
802430
Level IV Ecoregion
Stream Classification
Drainage Area (mi2)
Stream Width (m)
Stream Depth (m)
Carolina Slate Belt
156
22
0.3
Visible Landuse (%)
Forested/Wetland
Urban
Agriculture
Other (describe)
50
0
50
0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
NPDES Number
Volume (MGD)
Monroe WWTP
NC0024333
10.4 MGD
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
25.4
6.6
600
0
slightly turbid
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Sample Date
5
20
8
6
14
6
6
7
5
4
81
Sample ID
Substrate
ST
Site Photograph
Good mix of boulder, cobble, gravel and sand
EPT
BI
EPT BI
Bioclassification
08/23/06
10063
57
14
5.9
5.4
Good -Fair
08/23/01
8609
46
10
6.4
6.2
Fair
08/20/96
7172
46
12
6.2
5.6
Fair
07/24/90
5392
57
10
6.9
6.1
Fair
07/08/87
4132
57
10
6.9
5.9
Fair
Taxonomic Analysis
Baetis tricaudatis , Chimarra and Leucotrichia pictipes were collected for the first time at this site in 2006. No clear stressor was suggested from
indicator taxa present in this reach. Intolerant taxa present were Baetis tricaudatus (TV=1.6) and Pyralidae (TV=2).
Data Analysis
This sampling site is located midway in the Richardson Creek watershed, and is located below the Town of Monroe and its WWTP. Substrate here
was typical of Slate Belt streams. Richardson Creek at SR 1649 rated Fair in four samples since 1987. In 2006 the bioclassification increased to
Good -Fair due to a decrease in Biotic Index and an increase in the number of EPT taxa found at the site. This suggests increasing water quality in the
past 5 years.

`) - � � ��'v � S �; vL,� + %� r�Ss � S S tr/t. i Kf Pp e (`
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample
Waterbody
Location
Date
Bioclassification
RICHARDSON CR
SR 1600
08/23/06
Good
County
Subbasin
8 digit HUC
Index Number
Latitude
Longitude
ANSON
14
03040105
13-17-36-(5)
350929
801411
Level IV Ecoregion
Stream Classification
Drainage Area (mi2)
Stream Width (m)
Stream Depth (m)
Carolina Slate Belt
235
18
0.3
Visible Landuse (%)
Forested/Wetland
Urban
Agriculture
Other (describe)
50
0
50
0
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within 1 mile)
NPDES Number
Volume (MGD)
Monroe WWTP
NC0024333
10.4 MGD
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
28
7.6
296
0
clear
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Riffle Habitat (16)
Left Bank Stability (7)
Right Bank Stability (7)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Sample Date
5
20
12
4
12
7
7
2
5
2
76
Sample ID
Substrate
ST
Site Photograph
Good mix of boulder, cobble, gravel and sand
EPT
BI
EPT BI
Bioclassification
08/23/06
10064
N/A
24
N/A
4.2
Good
08/23/01
8608
N/A
24
N/A
4.0
Good
08/21/96
7176
N/A
18
N/A
3.9
Good -Fair
Taxonomic Analysis
Although Stenacron interpunctatum and Hydropsyche phalerata were not collected in 2006 as in previous years, Tricorythodes robacki, Triaenodes
marginatus , and Leucotrichia pictipes were present for the first time at this site. Intolerant taxa found in 2006 include Leucrocuta (TV=2.4),
Stanacron pallidum (TV=2.7), Acroneuia abnormis (TV=2.1), Neoperla (TV=1.5), Lepidostoma (TV=0.9), Ceraclea ancylus (TV=2.3), Triaenodes
injustus (TV=2.5), and Hydropsyche demora (TV=2.1).
Data Analysis
This site in Anson County is located near the confluence with the Rocky River. Richardson Creek at SR 1600 recievd a Good bioclassification in
2006, the same rating given in 2001. The 1996 rating was Good -Fair. Increases in the number of EPT present account for the increase in 2001 and
2006. The Good rating at this site indicates recovery, as the upstream sampling location had a Good -Fair rating in 2006.

CIS6 s Jodi ) 5'?
yg,It!
r7Ji0 = 0,3` at
30Q.9- O;7c-is
3,3'
LThri/ ok-Lh.-/7-v, 49( fi E
_2.0.57al° 4/01g�. s) - (0. 0F4/j) - (0,311s)
0"0/3mr ` 0./3 C...sI1)
go.,R io `1 Jq5) ^`O%3Scfs) - (o $4armi.)_
0C1,03611 = o: yeas/,y„
-Ow -/(is)-(i3,aJcfs)-(00) /&.4' )
ha..) � = 81 7 / ei1/Al,,
Alf
Jae ed.414qtea.o -n, 3
�Q �n a �1 ,6) 0,S(2) i 3t o
lD,�-t �)•
= ,.
P
gti
7/.
$7Q)r0 = 0.3f 0-
w70rO-0,66,ass
3OQa 7 0, 518 ,.(r
61)
us j
)
QA =
=0.0g
(,) QtD = 0.13S-
c
U
1

6.5
4.5
Comparison of Modeled Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
(effluent DO = 6 mg/L)
Model is artifically extended
beyond this point
0
1 2 3 4 5
Stream Mile (incremental length 0.1)
10.4 MGD 12.5 MGD —28 MGD —44 MGD
6
7
8

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
9/1/02
3/20/03
10/6/03
Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen
4/23/04
,
11/9/04 5/28/05
Date
12/14/05
7/2/06
Facility D.O. Downstream D.O. — Upstream D.O. —Actual Flow
1/18/07
- 12.
10.
6.
4.
2.
0.
8/6/07
Discharge Flow (MGD)

Comparison of Instream Dissolved Oxygen
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
J
C1
8.00
0
ci
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jan- Jul-98 Jan- Jul-99 Jan- Jul-00 Jan- Jul-01 Jan- Jul-02 Jan- Jul-03 Jan- Jul-04 Jan- Jul-05 Jan- Jul-06 Jan- Jul-07
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Date
Upstream Downstream DO Standard (5 mg/L)

35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
U
Q.
E
w
~ 15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Comparison of Instream Temperatures
1
A
1 /1 /98 5/16/99 9/27/00 2/9/02
Date
6/24/03 11/5/04 3/20/06 8/2/07
Upstream Downstream

16.00
Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Upstream of the Monroe WWTP
14.00 -
12.00 -
10.00 -
6.00 -
4.00 -
i
35.00
30.00
25.00
- 20.00
- 10.00
2.00 -
0.00
5.00
0.00
Jan- Jul-98 Jan- Jul-99 Jan- Jul-00 Jan- Jul-01 Jan- Jul-02 Jan- Jul-03 Jan- Jul-04 Jan- Jul-05 Jan- Jul-06 Jan- Jul-07
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Date
Dissolved Oxygen DO Standard (5 mg/L) Temperature]

Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Downstream of Monroe WWTP
16.00
14.00 -
12.00 -
10.00 -
J
E 8.00-
E
0
6.00 -
4.00
2.00 -
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
ov
Q
a►
15.00 I-
10.00
5.00
0.00 1 0.00
Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul-
98 98 99 99 00 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07
Date
Dissolved Oxygen DO standard (5 mg/L) Temperature

7
6.5
6
rn
E
c
m
rn
f5.5
5
4.5
4
Comparison of Modeled Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
(effluent DO = 5 mg/L)
Model is artifically extended
beyond this point
0
1 2 3 4 5
Stream Mile (Incremental length 0.1)
10.4 MGD 12 MGD —28 MGD 44 MGD

Assessment Unit Number
Description
Classification
Draft 2008 Integrated Report All Assessed Waters
Name
DWQ Subbasin Miles/Acres
Use
Overall Support
Category Watershed(s) Category
Usc
Support
Rating
Reason for
Rating
Parameter of
Interest
YAD 03040105
Collection Listing IR
Year Ycar Category
YAD 03040105
13-17-36-(1) Richardson Creek
From source to a point 0.2 mile downstream of mouth of
Beaverdam Cr.
WS-IV
03-07-14 7.6 FW Miles
13-17-36-(3.5) Richardson Creek (Lake Lee)
From a point 0.2 mile downstream of mouth of Beaverdam
Creek to Monroe Water Supply Dam
WS-IV;CA 03-07-14
2.5 FW Miles
3c 030401050501
'il 030401050501
Aquatic Life Impaired Standard Violation
Aquatic Life Not Rated Data Inconclusive
Water Supply Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Chlorophyll a
Ecological/biological Integrity
FishCom
2006 2008 5
2006 3a
Water Quality Standards Water 2006
Supply
`13-17-36-(5)al Richardson Creek
From Monroe Water Supply Dam (Lake Lee) to Watson Creek
13-17-36-13
03-07-14 13.1 FW Miles
030401050506
Aquatic Life Impaired Standard Violation
Aquatic Life Impaired No Criteria Exceeded
Recreation Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
1
Turbidity
2006 2008 5
Ecological/biological Integrity 2006 1998 4s
Benthos
Fecal Coliform (recreation) 2006
1
13-17-36-(5)a2 Richardson Creek
From Watson Creek to Negro Head Creek (Salem Creek)
C 03-07-14 4.7 FW Miles
2 030401050504
030401050506
Aquatic Life Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Recreation Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
13-17-36-(5)b Richardson Creek
From mouth of Negro Head Creek (Salem Creek) to Rocky
River
C 03-07-14
15.3 FW Miles
2 030401050506
030401050508
030401050708
Aquatic Life
Ecological/biological Integrity 2006
Benthos
Fecal Coliform (recreation) 2006
Supporting No Criteria Exceeded
Ecological/biological Integrity 2006
Benthos
1
"Draft 2008 Integrated Report All Assessed Waters" Thursday, November 15, 2007
Page 1 of 1

Yadkin River Basin Subbasin 03-07-12
Assessment Impaired Year
Waterbody and Description Unit (AU) Class Subbasin Use Listed Category and Reason for Listing
Potential Source(s)
Miles or Acres
Rocky River
13-17b C 03-07-12 5 8.5 FW Miles
From mouth of Reedy Creek to mouth of Dutch Buffalo Creek
AL 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity Major Municipal Point Source
AL 2004 5 Standard violation: Turbidity
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Rocky River 13-17c C 03-07-12 5 21.6 FW Miles
From the mouth of Dutch Buffalo Creek to the mouth of Island Creek
AL 2004 5 Standard violation: Turbidity
South Fork Crooked Creek 13-17-20-2a
C 03-07-12 6 5.6 FW Miles
From source to SR 1515
O 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity Agriculture
Construction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
South Fork Crooked Creek 13-17-20-2b
C 03-07-12 6 8.8 FW Miles
From SR 1515 to Crooked Creek
O 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity Construction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Yadkin River Basin Subbasin 03-07-13
Little Long Creek 13-17-31-4 C 03-07-13 6 7.3 FW Miles
From source to Long Creek
O 1998 6 Historical listing decision: Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Yadkin River Basin Subbasin 03-07-14
Lanes Creek 13-17-40-(1)
WS-V 03-07-14
6 27.4 FW Miles
From source to Marshville Water Supply Dam (located 0.1 mile downstream of
Beaverdam Creek)
AL 2004 6 Impaired biological integrity Source Unknown
Lanes Creek
13-17-40-(12) C 03-07-14 6 27.1 FW Miles
From Marshville Water Supply Dam (located 0.1 mile downstream of Beaverdam
Creek) to Rocky River
Richardson Creek
O 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity
Agriculture
13-17-36-(5)a C 03-07-14 6 9.9 FW Miles
From Monroe Water Supply Dam (Lake Lee) to mouth of Negro Head Creek
AL 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity Source Unknown
North Carolina 303(d) List- 2006 Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Yadkin Basin 03-07-14 Page 124 of 125

Re: [Fwd: Re: Richardson Creek]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Richardson Creek]
From: Jennifer Everett <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:56:03 -0500
To: Dianne Reid <[e-mail]>
CC: Dave Toms <Dave.Toms @ ncmail.net>, Toya Fields <Toya.Fields @ ncmail.net>
Nope it is not.
Jennifer
Dianne Reid wrote:
Jennifer, Is this one of the sites in one of Stressor Studies? Dianne
Original Message
Subject:Re: Richardson Creek
Date:Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:30:50 -0500
From:Dave Toms <dave.toms @ncmail.net>
To:Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
CC:Dianne Reid <[e-mail]>, Susan A Wilson
<Susan.A.Wilson @ncmail.net>
References:<4732283B.6080901 @ncmail.net> <473317F8.2090803 @ncmail.net>
<473374CF.6070705 @ncmail.net> <[e-mail]>
<473C6FDE.2060201 @NCMail.net> <[e-mail]>
Biological samples are a cumulative assessment of all factors impacting
a stream. It is a risky assumption to conclude that because an
impairment is not based on DO, an expanded discharge would not further
degrade the biological community.
Toya Fields wrote:
> It depends on what the stream is impaired for. If its impaired for DO
> then we would not (i.e. Union County), but this stream isn't impaired
> for DO. I'll check with those guys. Thanks for the additional input.
> Dianne Reid wrote:
» I didn't think we could allow increased discharge to impaired streams
» period. Definitely check with Bryn and Eric. Would also check with
» Cam for draft 303(d) rating.
» Dianne
» Dave Toms wrote:
»> This data is from the most recent Yadkin biological assessment
»> report. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/bar.html
»>
»> Its a single DO reading from early in the morning on 7-19-06. There
»> is not much you can assume from this single reading. A reasonable
»> hypothesis is that overnight algal respiration used up the DO and
»> daytime photosynthesis hadn't pushed levels back up. Ambient
»> readings are usually taken mid day, so you would not expect to pick
»> up low evening DO levels - if they regularly exist. Evidence of
1 of 3 12/11/2007 1:57 PM

Re: [Fwd: Re: Richardson Creek]
»> nutrient enrichment was present in the stream (dense periphyton
»> growth). You might want to get opinions from Bryn Tracy and Eric
»> Fleek at the lab.
»>
»> My over all concern about permitting to these sensitive streams is
»> part of a larger philosophical argument about water quality
»> maintenance. Are we working to maintain and improve stream health
»> or is the threshold between Supporting/Impaired the target to which
»> we allow degradation (is that even legal?). If the latter, what
»> happens when we miss and the stream becomes Impaired? We then have
»> to make a TMDL and go back to the discharger to push them for
»> upgrades and additional treatment. That seems like a lot of extra
»> work and suffering by all involved. In this case, I argue for the
»> most conservative limits from the outset.
»>
»> Toya Fields wrote:
»>
»» Do you know when that measurement was taken? I looked at data from
»» the ambient stations and most of it is above 6 (all is above 5).
»» Do you have any other DO data for this stream? Anything you could
»» send me would be helpful (data, studies, etc).
»»
»» Toya
»»
»» Dave Toms wrote:
»»
»»> Thats true for the benthic and ambient samples, but the fish
»»> community is declining and rated poor. Bryn also measured 1.8 DO
»»> at the fish site (nc207, above the WWTP). Some other things to
»»> consider are the large poultry operations in the watershed and the
»»> fact that its a slate belt stream. It has very low flow and is
»»> sensitive to nutrient inputs. Because of this, other dischargers
»»> in the area have caused DO problems. I'm thinking of Badin,
»»> Troy, Rockingham
»»>
»»> Dave.
»»>
»»> Toya Fields wrote:
»»>
»»» Hi Dave,
»»»
»»» We received a speculative limits request for the Monroe WWTP for
»»» potential expansions to 28 and 44 MGD. This facility discharges
»»» to Richardson Creek in sub basin 03-07-14. The last basin plan
»»» states that although the stream is impaired, the benthic
»»» community is steadily improving and suggests "real change" in
»»» water quality. The ambient data that we have in this area also
»»» looks pretty good. I was wondering if you had any additional
»»» information about the health of this stream that we should
»»» consider while reviewing this speculative limits request.
»»»
»»» Thanks,
»»» Toya
»»»
»»>
»»
»>
>
Dave Toms
Basin Planner
Planning Branch : Basinwide Planning Program Unit
DENR : Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
2 of 3 12/11/2007 1:57 PM

Re: Richardson Creek
Subject: Re: Richardson Creek
From: Dave Toms <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:30:50 -0500
To: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
CC: Dianne Reid <[e-mail]>, Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Biological samples are a cumulative assessment of all factors impacting a stream. It
is a risky assumption to conclude that because an impairment is not based on DO, an
expanded discharge would not further degrade the biological community.
Toya Fields wrote:
It depends on what the stream is impaired for. If its impaired for DO then we
would not (i.e. Union County), but this stream isn't impaired for DO. I'll check
with those guys. Thanks for the additional input.
Dianne Reid wrote:
I didn't think we could allow increased discharge to impaired streams period.
Definitely check with Bryn and Eric. Would also check with Cam for draft
303(d) rating.
Dianne
Dave Toms wrote:
This data is from the most recent Yadkin biological assessment report.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/bar.html
Its a single DO reading from early in the morning on 7-19-06. There is not
much you can assume from this single reading. A reasonable hypothesis is
that overnight algal respiration used up the DO and daytime photosynthesis
hadn't pushed levels back up. Ambient readings are usually taken mid day,
so you would not expect to pick up low evening DO levels - if they regularly
exist. Evidence of nutrient enrichment was present in the stream (dense
periphyton growth). You might want to get opinions from Bryn Tracy and Eric
Fleek at the lab.
My over all concern about permitting to these sensitive streams is part of a
larger philosophical argument about water quality maintenance. Are we
working to maintain and improve stream health or is the threshold between
Supporting/Impaired the target to which we allow degradation (is that even
legal?). If the latter, what happens when we miss and the stream becomes
Impaired? We then have to make a TMDL and go back to the discharger to push
them for upgrades and additional treatment. That seems like a lot of extra
work and suffering by all involved. In this case, I argue for the most
conservative limits from the outset.
Toya Fields wrote:
Do you know when that measurement was taken? I looked at data from the
ambient stations and most of it is above 6 (all is above 5). Do you have
any other DO data for this stream? Anything you could send me would be
helpful (data, studies, etc).
Toya
Dave Toms wrote:
Thats true for the benthic and ambient samples, but the fish community
is declining and rated poor. Bryn also measured 1.8 DO at the fish
site (nc207, above the WWTP). Some other things to consider are the
1 of 2 12/11/2007 1:56 PM

Re: Richardson Creek
large poultry operations in the watershed and the fact that its a
slate belt stream. It has very low flow and is sensitive to nutrient
inputs. Because of this, other dischargers in the area have caused
DO problems. I'm thinking of Badin, Troy, Rockingham
Dave.
Toya Fields wrote:
Hi Dave,
We received a speculative limits request for the Monroe WWTP for
potential expansions to 28 and 44 MGD. This facility discharges to
Richardson Creek in sub basin 03-07-14. The last basin plan states
that although the stream is impaired, the benthic community is
steadily improving and suggests "real change" in water quality.
The ambient data that we have in this area also looks pretty good.
I was wondering if you had any additional information about the
health of this stream that we should consider while reviewing this
speculative limits request.
Thanks,
Toya
Dave Toms
Basin Planner Planning Branch : Basinwide Planning Program Unit
DENR : Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Phone# [phone] ext. 577
Fax# [phone]
http://h2o.enr.state.ric.us/ba.sinwide
2 of 2 12/11/2007 1:56 PM

Re: Richardson Creek
Subject: Re: Richardson Creek
From: Cam Mcnutt <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:03:27 -0500
To: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
CC: Bryn Tracy <[e-mail]>, eric Fleek <[e-mail]>, Dave Toms
<[e-mail]>
Cleaned up assessment and removed one unneeded split. The Impaired waters are lake
Lee (3.5) and Richardson Creek 13-17-36-(5)al. Monroe discharges into al but benthos
have in improved in a2. Also Monroe Wtp has discharge into trib of al as well.
Current official BIMs name is Negro Head Creek (Salem Creek).
Bryn Tracy wrote:
Toya Fields wrote:
Hi Guys,
We received a speculative limits request for the Monroe WWTP for potential
expansions to 28 and 44 MGD. This facility discharges to Richardson Creek in
sub basin 03-07-14. The last basin plan states that although the stream is
impaired, the benthic community is steadily improving and suggests "real
change" in water quality. The ambient data that we have in this area also
looks pretty good. I was wondering if you had any additional information about
the health of this stream that we should consider while reviewing this
speculative limits request.
If you could let me know soon, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
Toya
We do not have any fish data from that creek below the WWTP; our site on the creek
is above Lake Lee. As you know, water is scare in that portion of the state even
in wet years. Many, if not all the streams, go dry or become a series of slowing
moving or stagnant, disconnected pools. Any additional water added to the stream,
as long as it is highly treated effluent, would probably benefit the aquatic
environment. That is what we have seen in nearby Crooked Creek. Right now during
our drought, Richardson and Crooked Creek are probably 100% effluent.
I would also check with the NCWRC nongame biologists to see if there are any T&E
species (i.e., Carolina Heelsplitter) in that stream. They might benefit from
extra water, too.
Cam McNutt <[e-mail]>
DENR DWQ Planning
Content -Type: application/pdf
richardson creek assessment v2.pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 12/11/2007 1:56 PM

Re: Richardson Creek
Subject: Re: Richardson Creek
From: Bryn Tracy <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:42:21 -0500
To: Cain Mcnutt <cam. mcnutt @ ncmail.net>
CC: Toya Fields <toya.fields @ ncmail.net>, Eric Fleek <Eric.Fleek @ncmail.net>, Dave Toms
<[e-mail]>
Cam Mcnutt wrote:
Here is the 2008 draft assessment for Richardson Creek. Let me know if you have questions on the
terminology. I have not finished the explanation document yet
Toya Fields wrote:
Sorry guys, the AU is 13-17-36-(5)a
Cam Mcnutt wrote:
Any chance you have the AU or Index number?
Cam
Toya Fields wrote:
Hi Guys,
We received a speculative limits request for the Monroe WWTP for potential
expansions to 28 and 44 MGD. This facility discharges to Richardson Creek in sub
basin 03-07-14. The last basin plan states that although the stream is impaired, the
benthic community is steadily improving and suggests "real change" in water quality.
The ambient data that we have in this area also looks pretty good. I was wondering if
you had any additionalinformation about the health of this stream that we should
consider while reviewing this speculative limits request.
If you could let me know soon. I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
Toya
Negro Head Creek? Cam that is the old name for that creek. It is now known as Salem Creek.
1 of 1 12/ 11 /2007 1:56 PM

Re: Richardson Creek
Subject: Re: Richardson Creek
From: Cam Mcnutt <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:27:05 -0500
To: Toya Fields <toya.tields @ ncmail.net>
Any chance you have the AU or Index number?
Cam
Toya Fields wrote:
Hi Guys,
We received a speculative limits request for the Monroe WWTP for potential
expansions to 28 and 44 MGD. This facility discharges to Richardson Creek in sub
basin 03-07-14. The last basin plan states that although the stream is impaired,
the benthic community is steadily improving and suggests "real change" in water
quality. The ambient data that we have in this area also looks pretty good. I
was wondering if you had any additional information about the health of this
stream that we should consider while reviewing this speculative limits request.
If you could let me know soon, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
Toya
Cam McNutt <[e-mail]>
DENR DWQ Planning
1 of 1 12/11/2007 1:56 PM

Re: Richardson Creek
Subject: Re: Richardson Creek
From: Dianne Reid <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:12:14 -0500
To: Dave Toms <[e-mail]>
CC: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>, Susan A Wilson <[e-mail]>
I didn't think we could allow increased discharge to impaired streams period.
Definitely check with Bryn and Eric. Would also check with Cam for draft 303(d)
rating.
Dianne
Dave Toms wrote:
This data is from the most recent Yadkin biological assessment report.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/bar.html
Its a single DO reading from early in the morning on 7-19-06. There is not much
you can assume from this single reading. A reasonable hypothesis is that
overnight algal respiration used up the DO and daytime photosynthesis hadn't
pushed levels back up. Ambient readings are usually taken mid day, so you would
not expect to pick up low evening DO levels - if they regularly exist. Evidence of
nutrient enrichment was present in the stream (dense periphyton growth). You
might want to get opinions from Bryn Tracy and Eric Fleek at the lab.
My over all concern about permitting to these sensitive streams is part of a
larger philosophical argument about water quality maintenance. Are we working to
maintain and improve stream health or is the threshold between Supporting/Impaired
the target to which we allow degradation (is that even legal?). If the latter,
what happens when we miss and the stream becomes Impaired? We then have to make a
TMDL and go back to the discharger to push them for upgrades and additional
treatment. That seems like a lot of extra work and suffering by all involved. In
this case, I argue for the most conservative limits from the outset.
Toya Fields wrote:
Do you know when that measurement was taken? I looked at data from the ambient
stations and most of it is above 6 (all is above 5). Do you have any other DO
data for this stream? Anything you could send me would be helpful (data,
studies, etc).
Toya
Dave Toms wrote:
Thats true for the benthic and ambient samples, but the fish community is
declining and rated poor. Bryn also measured 1.8 DO at the fish site
(nc207, above the WWTP). Some other things to consider are the large
poultry operations in the watershed and the fact that its a slate belt
stream. It has very low flow and is sensitive to nutrient inputs. Because
of this, other dischargers in the area have caused DO problems. I'm
thinking of Badin, Troy, Rockingham
Dave.
Toya Fields wrote:
Hi Dave,
We received a speculative limits request for the Monroe WWTP for
potential expansions to 28 and 44 MGD. This facility discharges to
Richardson Creek in sub basin 03-07-14. The last basin plan states that
although the stream is impaired, the benthic community is steadily
improving and suggests "real change" in water quality. The ambient data
1 of 2 12/11/2007 1:56 PM

Re: Richardson Creek
that we have in this area also looks pretty good. I was wondering if you
had any additional information about the health of this stream that we
should consider while reviewing this speculative limits request.
Thanks,
Toya
Dianne Reid <[e-mail]>
Supervisor
Basinwide Planning Unit
DENR DWQ
2 of 2 12/11/2007 1:56 PM

Low -flow characteristics for Richardson Creek near Monroe...Re: Ric...
Subject: Low -flow characteristics for Richardson Creek near Monroe...Re: Richardson Creek
From: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:38:59 -0400
To: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
CC: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Toya,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for a location on Richardson Creek in Union
County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center office indicates the
low -flow characteristics you cited in your email were determined in response to a 1989 request for
Richardson Creek below Joes Branch near Monroe (station id 0212524845, drainage area 71.7 sqmi).
The low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area, or cfsm) used in this request were
based on the flow characteristics at a downstream USGS partial -record site at Richardson Creek near
Wingate (station id 02125310, drainage area 89 sqmi).
As you may be aware, in the absence of site -specific data for low -flow analyses, estimates of the 7Q10
discharge are determined by assessing the range of low -flow yields at nearby locations where the 7Q10
has been previously determined. In the 1989 request, the low -flow yield used for 7Q10 discharge was
0.006 cfsm.
The most recent low -flow information published for streams in Union County is in a basinwide low -flow
report completed in 2003. It is USGS Water -Resources Investigations Report 03-4147, "Low -Flow
Characteristics and Profiles for the Rocky River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, North Carolina,
through 2002" (Weaver and Fine, 2003). An online version of the report is available through
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034147/. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data
through 2002) for continuous -record gaging stations and partial -record sites within the Rocky River basin.
The report also provides low -flow discharge profiles (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, and 7Q2) for the Rocky
River from its headwaters in Mecklenburg County to its mouth.
In Table 6 of this report, there are 2 nearby partial -record sites on Richardson Creek for which 7Q10
discharge estimates are provided (station id's 02125223 and 02125310). Expressing these estimates as
7Q10 low -flow yields (again, flow per square mile of drainage area, or cfsm) provides some indication of
the yield range that could potentially be applicable to your location. The 7Q10 low -flow yield range is from
about 0.006 to about 0.01 cfsm.
Sta. 02125223 Richardson Creek at SR 1751 near Monroe (drainage area 54.6 sqmi)...values from Table
6 on page 22 of report.
x 7f 7m'
Average flow = 0.9 cfsm C 5L 53
7Q10 = 0.3 cfs (0.0055 cfsm) 0 •3 9
3002 = 0.7 cfs (0.0128 cfsm) _ 9a
winter 7Q10 = 0.5 cfs (0.0092 cfsm) 0 -.6b
7Q2 = 0.5 cfs (0.0092 cfsm)
) ( (9/(1 6Gfi) di,od7avpc
7/, J`i • l o,f
uses ). i a s i to ci��-
r
Sta. 02125310 Richardson Creek near Wingate (drainage area 89 sqmi)...values from Table 6 on page
22 of report.
1 of 3 10/10/2007 4:28 PM

Low-fjow characteristics for Richardson Creek near Monroe...Re: Ric...
Average flow = 0.9 cfsm
7Q10 = 0.9 cfs (0.0101 cfsm)
30Q2 = 3.9 cfs (0.0438 cfsm)
winter 7Q10 = 2.3 cfs (0.0258 cfsm)
7Q2 = 2.1 cfs (0.0236 cfsm)
The drainage area for the upstream site (02125223, at Secondary Road 1751) is listed as 54.6 sqmi, and
the 7Q10 low -flow yield is practically identical to that used in the 1989 request. However, note the
low -flow yield for the published 7Q10 discharge at the Wingate partial -record site increased to about 0.01
cfsm following the analyses completed for the Rocky River report.
Putting the above pieces of information together, it would be appropriate to use the low -flow yields from
the upstream partial -record site, as these values are the more conservative in range of yields among the
two sites. Selecting the more conservative values reflects the need to acknowledge the uncertainty in the
range of yields that could be used for estimating low -flow characteristics at ungaged sites in this reach.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
***********************************************************************
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
***********************************************************************
Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
09/17/2007 05:01 PM
Hi Curtis,
To John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
cc
Subject Richardson Creek
We got a speculative effluent limits request for the City of Monroe in
Union County. They have an existing discharge to Richardson Creek at
lat/long 34 59 48 / 80 29 28. It looks like there may be a record
station in the very near vicinity.
The streamflow information that we have for this point is:
2 of 3 10/10/2007 4:28 PM

Low -flew characteristics for Richardson Creek near Monroe...Re: Ric...
' DA: 71.7 sqmi
QA: 64 cfs
7Q10 (summer): 0.43 cfs
7Q10 (winter): 1.0 cfs
I believe those flow estimates are from 1989. Is there any updated
information available for this location? This may end up being a very
visible project and we just want to make sure we have the most accurate
information possible.
Thanks, as always!
Toya
Toya Fields - [e-mail]
Environmental Engineer I
Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
Tel: [phone] x 551
Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 10/10/2007 4:28 PM

HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
May 17, 2007
Ms. Susan Wilson
Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Speculative Limits
City of Monroe WWTP
Monroe, North Carolira
NPDES Permit No. NC0024333
Dear Ms. Wilson:
L
Hazen and Sawyer, RC.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
" A
"Y 1 8 2007
Hazen and Sawyer is assisting the City of Monroe in the planning for future expansion of the
The of Monroe Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). plant is currently permitted for a
capacity of 10.4 mgd. Speculative limits were previously provided for expansion of the
Monroe WWTP to a design capacity of 15 mgd for discharge to Richardson Creek.
The City is currently evaluating two (2) alternatives to meet its future wastewater needs. The
first alternative would involve a phased expansion of the WWTP to an ultimate capacity of 28
mgd. The second alternative would involve regional participation with Union County Pub!ic
Works and would include phased expansion of the WWTP to an ultimate capacity of 44 mgd.
Recognizing that these flows represent large increases over previous requests, the City
requests the following:
1. Speculative NPDES discharge limits for Richardson Creek discharges of
QR rnnrt 2rr,1 mr,r4
2. If limits cannot be provided for item #1 due to flow conditions or other factors,
the City request a definition of the maximum flow that can be permitted for
discharge to Richardson Creek with corresponding speculative NPDES
discharge limits.
3. Speculative NPDES discharge limits for discharges of 28 mgd and 44 mgd to
the Rocky River_ near the intersection with North Carolina Highway 200 or a
split discharge with the maximum flow that may be discharged to Richardson
Creek per 2. above and the balance discharged to the Rocky River near the
intersection with North Carolina Highway 200.
Weson_05.17.07 Itr.
5ftlf +t61,D TAIL 60A10(07)
New York. NY • Philadelphia, PA • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Greensboro. NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairlax, VA • Baltimore, MD • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton. FL • Sarasota, FL • Miami, FL

HAZEN AND SAWYER
Ms. Susan Wilson
May 17, 2007
Page 2
4. Speculative NPDES discharge limits for discharges of 28 mgd and 44 mgd to
the Rocky River at the confluence with Richardson Creek or a split discharge
with the maximum flow that may be discharged to Richardson Creek per 2.
above and the balance discharged to the Rocky River at the confluence with
Richardson Creek.
Thank you for your review of this request for speculative limits and for your assistance on this
important project.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
Jaynes A. Cramer, P.E.
Vice President
JAC!bpr
cc: Mr. Russ Colbath
Wilson 05.17.07Itr.