NC0088366_Report_20051103

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Woolfolk
From: Teresa Rodriguez
NPDES Unit
Date: November 3, 2005
Subject: Harnett County QUAL2K
1P '
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3&
This is the model report from Marziano & Minier on behalf of Harnett County for the proposed discharge
on the Little River. The contact person is Hiram Marziano.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083 (fax) 919 733-0719
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ hltp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

AMENDMENT TO WATER QUALITY MODEL
SOUTH REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
HARNETT COUNTY, NC
LITTLE RIVER SEGMENT BETWEEN US HIGHWAY 401
AND DILTON MOBILE HOME PARK
,�••FESS/.
G.,
EAL
7707
%'.-.. e d
1�°GINeE.• aF�
3-17//6—oc.
BY
Marziano & Minier, PA
PO Drawer 4428
Asheboro, N. C. 27204
[e-mail]
March, 2006
M&M Project No. 23007

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Reason for Amendment
1.2 Previous Submittals
1.3 Previous Results
2.0 SCENARIOS MODELED
2.1
Scenario 1
2.2
Scenario 2
2.3
Scenario 3
2.4
Scenario 4
3.0 MODELING PROCEDURES
4.0 RESULTS OF MODELING
4.1 Summary
4.2 Discussion of Graphs
5.0 SUMMARY
5.1 Summary of Results
5.2 Project Benefits
Amendment to River Model Page 1 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

1.0 GENERAL:
1.1 Reason for Amendment
A QUAL2K river model to the Lower Little River was prepared
by Marziano & Minier, PA of Asheboro, NC dated October 31,
2005. The river model was submitted to NC Department of
Environment & natural Resources for the purpose of justifying
the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility to be
located in South Harnett County on the Little River.
Specifically, the location is approximately 6.6 miles
downstream of the Spring Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant
discharge point. Staff of NC Department of Environment &
Natural Resources have reviewed the stream water quality
model submitted in November, 2005. As a result of the
review, the waste load allocation section of NC DENR has
requested that more specific scenarios be run for the
proposed discharge on the Little River.
1.2 Previous Submittals:
As stated, a report was prepared utilizing a QUAL2K river
model that proposed a wastewater discharge of 5.0 mgd at a
point on the Little River downstream of the Spring Lake
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The report included dissertation
relative to existing stream conditions and back up
information that was utilized to provide the base line data in
developing the stream model. Additionally, an entire print
out of the model was submitted that depicted all current
discharges in the studied section of the Little River under
summer conditions at a flow of 45.46 cfs which is the listed
7Q10 flow for that portion of the stream.
d
Amendment to River Model Page 2 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

1.3 Previous Results:
For reasons given in the previously mentioned study, the
model indicated that a stream discharge at the point indicated
would not degrade the river water quality below the standards
set by the State of North Carolina when the effluent was
treated to a tertiary level. Additionally, the report indicated
that the treatment facility proposed will employ advanced
wastewater treatment in that it will allow the biological
removal of nitrogen and phosphorus before entering the
stream.
2.0 SCENARIOS MODELED
2.1 Scenario 1:
Scenario no. 1 analyzed the steady state conditions of the
studied section of the Little River assuming that no
wastewater discharges were present. All of the flows listed
for Dilton Mobile Home Park, Ft. Bragg Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Spring Lake Wastewater treatment Plant and the
proposed South Harnett Wastewater Treatment Plant were
eliminated from the model and the results were tabulated.
2.2 Scenario 2:
This scenario modeled the section of stream under
investigation with only the existing wastewater treatment
plants operating at their permitted limits. The existing
Cooper's Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant which is
proposed to be abandoned if the South Harnett Wastewater
Treatment Plant is constructed was not included in this
scenario. Particularly since it sits several miles north of the
Amendment to River Model Page 3 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

Little River and discharges into ,Jumping Run Creek which is
tributary to the Little River.
2.3 Scenario 3:
This scenario modeled all of the existing wastewater
discharges on the studied section of the Little River and
included the discharge for the proposed South Harnett
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This scenario is
essentially the same scenario that was submitted with the
original report in November, 2005. Again, the Cooper's
Ranch WWTP was not included for the reasons listed under
Scenario 2 above.
2.4 Scenario 4:
This scenario assumed that the Ft. Bragg Wastewater
Treatment Plant discharge was relocated to the site of the
proposed South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility. The other wastewater discharges for Dilton Mobile
Home Park and Spring Lake WWTP were maintained at their
current location and permitted limits.
It would be worthwhile to note at this point that Harnett
County was notified during the week of March 13, 2006,
from the Department of Defense through Ft. Bragg personnel
that preliminary contracts are being prepared for Harnett
County to review prepatory to assuming treatment
responsibility for the Ft. Bragg Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Currently, it is expected that negotoiations for Harnett
County's acquisition of the treatment for Ft. Bragg should be
concluded in early fall, 2006. Assuming a satisfactory
outcome, then Harnett County would be in a position to
relocate this discharge to the proposed South Harnett
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This scenario included
Amendment to River Model Page 4 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

a 5.0 mgd flow for the current Harnett County design
requirements and 10 mgd flow for the Ft. Bragg treatment
facility for a total of 15.0 mgd at the proposed Little River
discharge point. Additionally, a speculative limits request
was answered by the State in February, 2004 that assumed a
15.0 mgd discharge into the Lower Little River at
approximately the same coordinates as that proposed for the
South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. This
speculative limits letter is contained in the Appendix to this
Report Amendment.
3.0 Modeling Procedures:
The above scenarios were modeled in essentially the same
manner as the original model submitted in November, 2005.
To change each model to evaluate the scenarios listed in
Article 2.0, the point inflow was changed accordingly in the
"Point Source Data Worksheet". The engineers found it be
very simple to just add or delete the point source of the
wastewater treatment facility in order to have the model
conform to the scenario that was being analyzed. As a check,
the engineer's completely changed one model scenario to
customize it exactly as the scenario would have been run had
it not been proposed to construct a new treatment plant. The
results observed were the same as those that are submitted in
this amendment to the report.
4.0 RESULTS OF MODELING:
4.1 GENERAL:
Included with this amendment are plots of various data that
the engineers selected to show the comparison between each
scenario. Each model scenario has been copied to a CD and
the CD is contained in the Appendix of one copy to this
Amendment to River Model Page 5 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

Amendment. However, to keep the volume of this report to a
minimum only certain graphs were selected for the
comparison. Those graphs are:
• Graph no. 1 stream DO - last segment - diel data
• Graph no. 2 stream DO
• Graph no. 3 travel time
• Graph no. 4 stream flow
• Graph no. 5 stream velocity
• Graph no. 6 depth of stream flow
• Graph no. 7 re -aeration in the stream section
Each of the graphs listed above are attached to this
amendment and have been printed in such a manner that
comparison between each scenario can be made on a graph
by graph basis as discussed below.
4.2 Discussion of Graphs:
Each graph is discussed in some detail below and presented
hereinafter for the reviewer to compare the scenario results:
1. Graph no. 1 compares the DO in the last segment of the
stream for each scenario. The graphs should be self-
explanatory in that the last section of each scenario
indicates that the DO of the last stream segment would be
at or above a minimum of 6 mg/I. As expected, Scenario
4 would have a lower starting and ending range due to the
fact that a major discharge of 15.0 mgd has been placed
just before that section of stream. However, as will be
seen in later graphs, the DO of the upper sections of the
stream have improved significantly as a result of this
relocation.
2. Graph no. 2 compares the dissolved Oxygen in the 20 mile
section of stream under each scenario studied. Scenario 1
Amendment to River Model Page 6 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

obviously indicates a fairly steady rate of DO in the stream
from beginning to end with minor changes due to the
three different slopes that were analyzed in the model.
Scenarios 2 & 3 are very similar. What is significant about
scenario 2 & 3 is that the oxygen sag caused by the Ft.
Bragg/Spring Lake discharge rebounds prior to reaching
the South Harnett discharge point. Scenario 3 has slightly
less DO because of the South Harnett Wastewater
Treatment Plant when compared to Scenario 2 which does
not include that discharge. Scenario 4 indicates a much
improved oxygen curve above the Spring Lake Wastewater
Treatment Plant and a slightly lower oxygen level at the
site of the South Harnett Regional Wastewater Plant when
the Ft. Bragg discharge is relocated.
3. Graph no. 3 indicates the travel time in the stream section
under each scenario analyzed. The graph should be self-
explanatory and are only presented here to indicate the
affects of the travel time by adding or deleting discharges.
4. Graph no. 4 indicates the flow in the stream section under
each scenario analyzed. The stream flow is affected by the
location of the discharge points in each scenario along
with the slope studied for each section of stream. Stream
slopes can be found in the worksheets of the model on the
CD.
5. Graph no. 5 indicates the stream velocity for each scenario
studied. Like, Graph no. 4 previously, the velocity in the
stream is a function of the location of each point source as
it is input into the model along with the slope of the
stream bed.
6. Graph no. 6 indicates the depth of stream flow and as with
graphs 4 & 5 the depth of flow is a function of the point
source input along with the stream slope.
7. Graph no. 7 indicates the re -aeration capability in each
section of the stream along the 20-mile reach studied.
Where the discharges are included under scenario 2 & 3
Amendment to River Model Page 7 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

IMPNEn CgMIY
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
14
12
10
e
6
4
5 10 16 20 25 30
SENARIO 1- NO W WTP LOAD ON STREAM SECTION
■
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ENAR102 EXISTING WWTP PERMITS ONLY ONLITTLE R. SECTION M10 CWPEWSRAN H
14
12
10 I
8
e
■
4
2
0 �-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SENARI03 ALL WWTP DISCHARGES INCLUDING PROPOSED S. HARNETT WWTP IVYIO OOPER'S RANCH
14 --
12
10 It
6
4 ■
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wpl4a)mn--oor
ENARI 4. RELOCATE FT, BRAGG GISCHARGEM PROPOSED S. HARNEUWWTP
GRAPH 1: STREAM DO -LAST SEGMENT- DIEL DATA
M1E0.MWB
W1NM
IMPSPHO MWIER PA
Gnw1Yq

14
12
10
8
e
4
2
0
14
12
10
8
8
4
2
0
—�uI wmewnl en. —-wt�Iwti
— 1
—
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
I�
��
m
==MM0
=m,
mmmmmmmi
mmmmroli
mmmmmmm
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
SENARIO] ALLN PDISCHARGES INCLUDING PROPOSED S. HARNET W E RANCHI
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
0
XPXHEITCWXIY LITM1E P.MCOEI M MHOMINIER,PR
%IINN% CmuJbq EMYes.

2.0
1.eo
1.0
1.10
120
1.00
o.w
o.W
0.0
■
0.20
OAO
55 00
25
20
/5
10
5 0
.9mc-iOiC•]Lui14S1`F'D: IIII
1.80
1.0
1.40
1.20
1.00
5.55
0.6o
0,40
0.20
0.00
05 30 25 20 15 10 5
SENARIO 2-UISTING W WfP PERMRS ONLY ON LITTLE R. SECTION IWIO COOPER'S RANCHI
IA0
1A0
1A0
1A0
1Ae
OAO
O.00
0.0
oo
000
0
15 50 IS 20 15 TO 5 0
a m a a l5 m 5 5
GRAPH 3: TRAVEL
TIME
IRRE0. MWEI
WNL MINIMPA
NAPNER LOIINM PSry bpYA
CmeJfq ErgFv

1A
12
1
0.0
0.6
OA
02
0
00 00 w m 10 10 5 0
1.0
IA
12
1
OA
0.0
0.0
02
0
OS
m u
ID
15
10 5 0
SENARIO 3 -EXISTING W WfP PERMRS
ONLY ON
LITTLE R. SECTION
MIO COOPER'S RANCHI
1.6
1.6
IA
12
1
0.0
0.6
OA
02
0
J6 M 05 20 15 10 5
SENMIO3 -ALL WWTP DISCHARGES INCLUDING PROPOSED S. HARNETT W W(P IWIO COOPER'S RANCHI
1.0
IA
12
1
0.0
0.0
oA
02
0
m 50 25 0 15 10 5
0
GRAPH 4: STREAM FLOW
MA IiNER CWNIY NIRER 4R6 WN9/.Ip MNFR PA
WN61NB G+mOgF�s�

m 0 m 15 10 5 0
SENARIO 1 -NO WWP LOAD ON STREAM SECTION
05 m 35
50
15
10 5 0
SENARI02 EXISTING W P PERMITS
ONLYLITTLE
R.
SECTION MO COOPER'S
RANCH)
0.0
m m A m 1s 10 5 0
SENARI 3 ALL PDISCHARGES INCLUDING PROPOSED S. HARNETTW P CWIO OOPER'S RANC
IS m 55 30 15 10 5 0
SENARIO 0-RELOCATE PT. BRAGG DISCHARGE TO PROPOSED S. HARNETTW T
GRAPH 5: STREAM VELOCITY
NWIEfTCLYNIV lllRE0.N]C6 MAYL�NJ MiMFA VA
OIIIbM! 0e�'9 EN��

INRNErtC.
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
ou
0.4
am
0.3
025
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
35
30
25 M
15
10 5 0
SENARIO2 EXISTING
W P PERMITS ONLY ON LITTLER
SECTION
LWIO COOPER'S
RANCH
0,45
0.4
O
0.]3
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.13
0.1
0.05
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
0.46
QA
0.30
0.3
025
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
AS 30 25 20 15 10
SENAR104-RELOCATEFT RRAGG DISCHARGE TO PROPOSED S. HARNETT4 P
GRAPH S: DEPTH OF STREAM FLOW
IliTE0.11CCE
011YAy
5 0
IMFdIlYJMMER P/.
Camk9E5Y'•s�

w
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35 20 25 20 15 10 5 0
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35 30 26 20 15 10 5 0
SENARIO 3-ALL WWrP DISCHMGES INCLUDING PROPOSED P CWIOCOOPER'S RANCH
60
35
30
25
20
13
10
5
0
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
d-RELOCATE BRAGG DISCHARGE TO PROPOSED S. HARNETT
GRAPH 7: REAERATION IN THE STREAM SECTION
IUPNETTCWNIY mEpYAG P➢PW WNiE fl. PA
�<molYp Fipm�

the re -aeration coefficients are depressed somewhat due
to the BOD load on the stream. However, relocating the
Ft. Bragg discharge to the new location approximates a re -
aeration curve very similar to that in scenario 1 where no
wastewater load is placed on the stream.
5.0 SUMMARY:
5.1 Summary of Results:
As previously indicated, the model for each scenario is
included on the CD in the Appendix of this amendment (only
one (1) copy has been provided. The model uses Microsoft
Excel 2000 or later and can be used to view the actual input
changes and results of each stream parameter that the model
studies. The curves presented herein were presented to
indicate the ability of the stream to recover oxygen levels as a
result of the discharges. The curves presented appear to
legitimately represent the changes that would occur in the
stream under each scenario. This is evident when the curves
were compared to each other on the sheets provided.
In reviewing the data presented, it is the engineer's opinion
that a discharge at the point indicated in the previous study
of the Little River would maintain the river water quality,
particularly when the discharge proposed is at a tertiary level
and utilizes advanced wastewater treatment.
5.2 Project Benefits:
Project benefits for a South Harnett Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant on the Little River include:
Elimination of failing septic tanks in South Central
Harnett County. Harnett County currently pumps in
Amendment to River Model Page 8 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

excess of 180 septic tanks that have failed and can
not be replaced. This occurrence of septic tank
failures is certainly expected to continue into the
future due to the density of development in that area
of Harnett County.
• The location of this regional plant will allow the
elimination of the Cooper's Ranch wastewater
treatment plant which is located on a stream that, in
the engineer's opinion, is more sensitive than the
point in the Little River studied.
• There is a very real likelihood that Harnett County can
successfully acquire the wastewater treatment
contract for the base at Ft. Bragg. Should that
happen, Harnett County intends to relocate that
discharge to the location of the proposed South
Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. In
every model studied, this has the affect of
significantly improving the water quality in this 20-
mile reach of the Little River.
• The Spring Lake WWTP could be eliminated sometime
in the future and be served economically by the S.
Regional WWTP.
Amendment to River Model Page 9 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

o f \NA
t3 �
February 11, 2004
Rodney. Tart, Director
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
P.O. Box 1119
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
Dear A& Tart:
Michael F. Easley, Govern.
State of North Carolir
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretai
Department of Environment and Natural Resource
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Directc
Division of Water Qualit
Subject: Speculative Limits Request
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
Harnett County
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for a 15 MGD discharge
into the Lower Little River. (N_35° 13.831' .& �VirT 780 53.197'). The proposed discharge is for a Regional
System consolidating the wastewater treatment facilities of Harnett County, Spring Lake and Fort Bragg
A level B model was used to evaluate the effect of the proposed discharge on the receiving stream. The
model predicted that secondary treatment limits would result in oxygen levels below the stream
standard. Water quality limits were calculated for BOD and ammonia. The model results show that the
dissolved oxygen levels would be above the stream standard with limits of 25 mg/l for BOD and 2.5
mg/l for ammonia during the summer and 30 mg/l for BOD and 8.2 mg/1 for ammonia during the
summer.
The Division can not guarantee that an NPDES permit will be issued at the proposed location.
Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application
for the proposed discharge and after the public has an opportunity to comment on the project.
Speculative Effluent Limits
Speculative limits are presented in the attached effluent sheets and are explain as follows:
B OD and Ammonia — The B OD and ammonia limits are water quality based limits to protect the
receiving stream.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - TSS limits -are minimum treatment requirements for domestic
wastewater.
Fecal Coliform, pH - The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH represent water quality
standards for Class C waters (T15A NCAC 2B .0219).
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) — Facilities that use chlorine disinfection receive a total chlorine
limit to protect against chlorine toxicity in the receiving stream.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
Visit us on the INTERNET @ www.enr.state.nc.us

Mr. Rodney Tart
February 11, 2004
Page 2
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus - Monitoring for these parameters is required to evaluate
and protect water quality in the receiving stream.
Please be advised that the limits and monitoring frequencies on the attached pages were based on
the information presented in the speculative limits request. In addition, it was assumed that the proposed
WWTP will be a Class IV facility. This assumption was used to develop an estimate of the monitoring
frequencies that would be required for each parameter. A complete evaluation of these limits and
monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will be
addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application.
Please be aware that you will have to evaluate this project for environmental impacts before
receiving a modified permit. Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste treatment facilities
using public funds or public (state) lands must first prepare -an environmental assessment (EA) when
wastewater flows: (1) equal or exceed 0.5 MGD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of the
receiving stream. The NPDES Unit will not accept a permit application for a project requiring an
environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and sent a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
An Environmental Assessment should .-ontain a clear justification for the proposed `project. It
should -provide an analysis of potential alternatives, including a thorough evaluation of non -discharge
alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives or alternatives to expansion, such as spray irrigation, water
conservation, or inflow and infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a
surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the preferred
alternative must be the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact
on the environment. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect on
the quality of the environment, you must then .prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Todd
Kennedy of the Water Quality Planning Branch can provide further information regarding the
requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act. You can contact Mr. Kennedy at 919-733-5083, ext.
555.
The Division would be agreeable to meet with representatives of Harnett County to discuss these
limits presented here and the future plans for regionalization. Should you have any questions or if you
need any additional information, please feel free to contact Teresa Rodriguez [phone], extension
553.
Sincerely,
/Iv-� 4.
David A Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: Central Files
Fayetteville Regional Office, Paul Rawls
NPDES Unit
Mr. Hiram J. Marziano — Marziano & Minier, PA
P.O. Box 4428
Asheboro, North Carolina 27204

SPECULATIVE LR%OgrATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The following table presents speculative limits -and associated monitoring requirements for the pro os
Harnett County WWTP. Preparation of these limits does not guarantee that the Division will issue
NPDES permit. In addition, it does not guarantee that these limits will remain unchanged if a pernu .
issued to the Harnett County Department of Utilities. A complete evaluation of these limits ai
monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants -will l
addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application. `
During the period the e
p beginning on effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, _�, Peinite
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be linuibd. anc�-�n�cc nitQi?ed
the Permittee as specified below:
I. Sample Locations: E -Effluent, I— Influent, U — Upstream, D —Downstream. Instream monitoring
requirements to be determined upon application receipt.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall -not exceed 85% of the
respective influent value (85% removal required)..
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 15 percent; February, May, August, and November.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

14
12 -
10
s
6
4
2
0
35
Rill
25
— DO(mgO2/L)
— - DO(mgO2/L) Max
- - DO sat
Little River (71712005)
r-,
o�
o�
15
10
5
■ DO (mg02/L) data — - DO(mgO2/L) Min
❑ Minimum DO -data ❑ Maximum DO -data,
0

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
35
30
25
Little River (71712005)
v�
KII
15
10
5
DO(mgO2/L) ■ DO (mgO2/L) data — - DO(mgO2/L) Min
— - DO(mgO2/L) Max ❑ Minimum DO -data ❑ Maximum DO -data
�- - DO sat

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
Name: HC5MGD
RIM
Topo Quad Manchester
Facility Name
Harnett County Public Utilities
NPDES No.
Proposed
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Domestic
Date of flow estimate
10/2/2002
Facility status
Drainage Area (mi)
405.56
Receiving stream
Lower Little River
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
45.46
Stream class
C
W inter7Q10 (cfs)
94.33
Subbasin
30614
Average flow (cfs)
504.64
County
Harnett
30Q2 (cfs)
106.66
Regional Office
FRO
IWC at discharge (%)
14.5
Segment/Reach
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Length of reach (mi)
1.1
1.15
0.6
1.45
2
0.5
0.6
3.5
6.5
Incremental length
Waste characteristics
Flow (MGD
Dilton MHP
Ft Bragg
Spring Lk
HCO
0.015
8
1.5
�,' 5
sumemr CBOD (mg/1)
45
24
42
7.
summer NBOD (m /l)
90
13.5
36
4.5
DO (mg/1)
5
5
5
winter CBOD
45
45
45
15
winter nBOD
90
49.5
90
18
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
QA (cfs/mi)
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
Tributary characteristics
Mud Ck Tank Ck Gib.Ck Jp Rn Ck UT
s7Q10 cfs/mi)
2.3
1.1
1.8
1.3
0.4
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
4.6
2.3
4.2
2.8
0.8
QA (cfs/mi)
20
10
57
37
4.5
Slope
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.51
3.8F
3.81
3.81
2.8
4.6
i

PROFILE.OUT
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HARNETT COUNTY 5 MGD
Receiving Stream : LOWER LITTLE RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.57 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 4.23 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.75 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
1
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
WLA
DO Min CBOD
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1)
---------------------- ----
5.28 10.90 9
Press any key to continue.
45.00
24.00
0.00
0.00
42.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
WLA WLA
NBOD DO Waste F1oW
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
---- ------------
90.00
13.50
0.00
0.00
36.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
SUMMER
Seg # (
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
F1oW
1
1
0.00
7.17
2.03
1.06
35.02
1
1
0.11
7.15
2.01
1.05
35.07
1
1
0.22
7.14
2.00
1.03
35.11
1
1
0.33
7.13
1.99
1.02
35.15
1
1
0.44
7.11
1.97
1.01
35.19
1
1
0.55
7.10
1.96
1.00
35.24
1
1
0.66
7.09
1.95
0.99
35.28
1
1
0.77
7.08
1.93
0.97
35.32
1
1
0.88
7.07
1.92
0.96
35.37
1
1
0.99
7.06
1.91
0.95
35.41
1
1
1.10
7.05
1.90
0.94
35.45
1
2
1.10
6.52
7.62
4.19
47.85
1
2
1.22
6.46
7.58
4.15
47.90
1
2
1.33
6.40
7.53
4.10
47.94
1
2
1.45
6.34
7.48
4.06
47.99
1
2
1.56
6.29
7.43
4.02
48.03
1
2
1.68
6.24
7.38
3.97
48.08
1
2
1.79
6.18
7.34
3.93
48.12
1
2
1.91
6.13
7.29
3.89
48.17
1
2
2.02
6.09
7.24
3.85
48.21
1
2
2.14
6.04
7.20
3.81
48.26
1
2
2.25
5.99
7.15
3.77
48.30
1
3
2.25
6.05
6.92
3.64
50.60
1
3
2.31
6.02
6.90
3.62
50.62
1
3
2.37
6.00
6.87
3.60
50.65
1
3
2.43
5.98
6.85
3.58
50.67
1
3
2.49
5.96
6.83
3.56
50.69
1
3
2.55
5.94
6.81
3.54
50.72
1
3
2.61
5.92
6.78
3.52
50.74
1
3
2.67
5.90
6.76
3.50
50.76
1
3
2.73
5.88
6.74
3.49
50.79
1
3
2.79
5.86
6.72
3.47
50.81
1
3
2.85
5.85
6.70
3.45
50.83
Page 1
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.01500
8.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.50000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
5.00000

PROFILE.OUT
1 4
2.85
5.72
6.55
3.37
51.93
1 4
3.00
5.69
6.50
3.33
51.99
1 4
3.14
5.66
6.46
3.29
52.05
1 4
3.29
5.63
6.41
3.25
52.10
1 4
3.43
5.60
6.36
3.21
52.16
1 4
3.58
5.58
6.31
3.16
52.22
1 4
3.72
5.55
6.26
3.12
52.27
1 4
3.87
5.53
6.21
3.08
52.33
1 4
4.01
5.51
6.17
3.05
52.39
1 4
4.16
5.49
6.12
3.01
52.44
1 4
4.30
5.47
6.07
2.97
52.50
l 5
4.30
5.45
7.60
4.37
54.83
1 5
4.50
5.44
7.53
4.30
54.90
1 5
4.70
5.44
7.46
4.24
54.98
1 5
4.90
5.44
7.39
4.17
55.06
1 5
5.10
5.44
7.32
4.11
55.14
1 5
5.30
5.45
7.25
4.05
55.22
1 5
5.50
5.45
7.18
3.99
55.29
1 5
5.70
5.46
7.11
3.92
55.37
1 5
5.90
5.46
7.05
3.86
55.45
1 5
6.10
5.47
6.98
3.81
55.53
1 5
6.30
5.48
6.91
3.75
55.61
1 6
6.30
5.53
6.76
3.66
57.41
1 6
6.35
5.54
6.74
3.65
57.42
1 6
6.40
5.54
6.73
3.63
57.44
1 6
6.45
5.54
6.71
3.62
57.46
1 6
6.50
5.54
6.70
3.61
57.48
1 6
6.55
5.54
6.68
3.59
57.50
1 6
6.60
5.55
6.66
3.58
57.52
1 6
6.65
5.55
6.65
3.56
57.54
1 6
6.70
5.55
6.63
3.55
57.56
1 6
6.75
5.55
6.62
3.54
57.58
1 6
6.80
5.56
6.60
3.52
57.60
1 7
6.80
5.59
6.50
3.47
58.90
1 7
6.86
5.59
6.48
3.45
58.92
1 7
6.92
5.60
6.46
3.43
58.95
1 7
6.98
5.60
6.44
3.42
58.97
1 7
7.04
5.60
6.43
3.40
58.99
1 7
7.10
5.61
6.41
3.39
59.02
1 7
7.16
5.61
6.39
3.37
59.04
1 7
7.22
5.61
6.37
3.36
59.06
1 7
7.28
5.61
6.35
3.34
59.09
1 7
7.34
5.62
6.34
3.32
59.11
1 7
7.40
5.62
6.32
3.31
59.13
1 8
7.40
5.58
6.29
3.29
59.53
1 8
7.75
5.53
6.18
3.20
59.67
1 8
8.10
5.48
6.07
3.10
59.81
1 8
8.45
5.44
5.97
3.01
59.94
1 8
8.80
5.41
5.86
2.93
60.08
1 8
9.15
5.38
5.76
2.84
60.22
1 8
9.50
5.36
5.66
2.76
60.35
1 8
9.85
5.34
5.56
2.68
60.49
1 8
10.20
5.33
5.47
2.60
60.63
1 8
10.55
5.32
5.37
2.53
60.76
1 8
10.90
5.32
5.28
2.45
60.90
1 9
10.90
5.28
5.53
2.69
68.65
1 9
11.55
5.51
5.38
2.57
68.90
1 9
12.20
5.70
5.24
2.46
69.16
1 9
12.85
5.86
5.10
2.36
69.41
1 9
13.50
6.01
4.97
2.26
69.66
1 9
14.15
6.13
4.84
2.16
69.92
1 9
14.80
6.24
4.71
2.07
70.17
1 9
15.45
6.34
4.59
1.99
70.42
Page 2

PROFILE.OUT
16.10 6.42 4.46 1.90 70.68
16.75 6.50 4.35 1.82 70.93
17:40 6.
Page 3

SUMMER fi S L
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HARNETT COUNTY 5 MGD
Receiving Stream : LOWER LITTLE RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.60 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 4.67 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 2.08 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment
1
---------------------- ----
5.23 10.90 9
----
Reach
1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01500
Reach
2
24.00
13.50
5.00
8.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
42.00
36.00
5.00
1.50000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
9
7.50
4.50
5.00
15.00000

SUMMER
FCC
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HARNETT COUNTY 5 MGD
Receiving Stream : LOWER LITTLE RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.62 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 4.84 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 2.22 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment
1
---------------------- ----
5.21 10.90 9
----
--
----------
Reach
1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01500
Reach
2
24.00
13.50
5.00
8.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
42.00
36.00
9.00
1.50000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
9
7.50
4.50
5.00
20.00000

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
Name: HCFB15
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Harnett County Public Utilities
Topo Quad Manchester
NPDES No.
Proposed
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Domestic
Date of flow estimate
10/2/2002
Facility status
Drainage Area (mi)
405.56
Receiving stream
Lower Little River
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
45.46
Stream class
C
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
94.33
Subbasin
30614
Average flow (cfs)
504.64
County
Harnett
30Q2 (cfs)
106.66
Regional Office
FRO
IWC at discharge (%)
33
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
1
1 21
31
41
51
6
7
8
Length of reach (mi)
2.251
1 0.6
1.451
21
0.51
0.6
3.5
6.5
Incremental length
Waste characteristics
Dilton MHP
Spring Lk
HCO
Flow (MGD)
0.015
1.5
15
sumemr CBOD (mg/1)
45
42
7.5
summer NBOD (mg/1)
90
36
4.5
DO (mg/1)
5
5
winter CBOD
45
45
winter nBOD
901
90
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 0.391
1 0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.39
0.39
0.39
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 0.521
1 0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.52
0.52
0.52
QA (cfs/mi)
1 7.21
1 7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.2
7.2
7.2
Tributary characteristics
Mud Ck Tank C Gib.Ck Jp Rn Ck UT
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 2.31
1.11
1.8
1.3
0.4
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 4.61
2.31
4.2
2.8
0.8
QA (cfs/mi)
1 201
101
57
37
4.5
Slope
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.51
3.8
3.8
3.8
2.81
4.6

PROFI5.OUT
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HARNETT CO & FT BRAGG
Receiving Stream : LOWER LITTLE RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.99 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 3.20 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.56 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
Segment
1
------ --------- -------
6.14 10.90 8
Reach
1
Reach
2
Reach
3
Reach
4
Reach
5
Reach
6
Reach
7
Reach
8
Press any
key
to continue.
WLA
CBOD
(mg/1)
45.00
0.00
0.00
42.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
WLA WLA
NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
---- ------------
90.00
0.00
0.00
36.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
SUMMER
Sey #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
0.00
7.17
2.03
1.06
35.02
1
1
0.23
7.14
2.00
1.03
35.11
1
1
0.45
7.11
1.97
1.01
35.20
1
1
0.68
7.09
1.95
0.98
35.29
1
1
0.90
7.07
1.92
0.96
35.37
1
1
1.13
7.05
1.89
0.94
35.46
1
1
1.35
7.03
1.87
0.91
35.55
1
1
1.58
7.01
1.84
0.89
35.64
1
1
1.80
7.00
1.82
0.87
35.73
1
1
2.03
6.98
1.79
0.85
35.81
1
1
2.25
6.97
1.77
0.83
35.90
1
2
2.25
6.98
1.78
0.84
38.20
1
2
2.31
6.98
1.78
0.83
38..22
1
2
2.37
6.98
1.77
0.83
38.25
1
2
2.43
6.97
1.76
0.82
38.27
1
2
2.49
6.97
1.76
0.82
38.29
1
2
2.55
6.97
1.75
0.81
38.32
1
2
2.61
6.97
1.75
0.81
38.34
1
2
2.67
6.96
1.74
0.80
38.36
1
2
2.73
6.96
1.73
0.80
38.39
1
2
2.79
6.96
1.73
0.79
38.41
1
2
2.85
6.96
1.72
0.79
38.43
1
3
2.85
6.96
1.73
0.80
39.53
1
3
3.00
6.96
1.71
0.78
39.59
1
3
3.14
6.95
1.70
0.77
39.65
1
3
3.29
6.95
1.69
0.76
39.70
1
3
3.43
6.94
1.67
0.75
39.76
1
3
3.58
6.94
1.66
0.74
39.82
1
3
3.72
6.94
1.65
0.73
39.87
1
3
3.87
6.93
1.63
0.72
39.93
1
3
4.01
6.93
1.62
0.71
39.99
1
3
4.16
6.93
1.61
0.70
40.04
1
3
4.30
6.93
1.59
0.69
40.10
Page 1
0.00
0.01500
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00000
5.00
1.50000
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00000
5.00
15.00000

PROFI5.OUT
1 4
4.30
6.82
3.81
2.62
42.43
1 4
4.50
6.76
3.76
2.57
42.50
1 4
4.70
6.70
3.72
2.51
42.58
1 4
4.90
6.65
3.67
2.46
42.66
1 4
5.10
6.60
3.63
2.41
42.74
1 4
5.30
6.55
3.58
2.36
42.82
1 4
5.50
6.51
3.54
2.31
42.89
1 4
5.70
6.47
3.50
2.26
42.97
1 4
5.90
6.43
3.46
2.22
43.05
1 4
6.10
6.39
3.41
2.17
43.13
1 4
6.30
6.36
3.37
2.12
43.21
1 5
6.30
6.39
3.24
2.04
45.01
1 5
6.35
6.39
3.23
2.03
45.02
1 5
6.40
6.40
3.22
2.02
45.04
1 5
6.45
6.40
3.21
2.01
45.06
1 5
6.50
6.40
3.20
2.00
45.08
1 5
6.55
6.40
3.19
1.99
45.10
1 5
6.60
6.41
3.19
1.98
45.12
1 5
6.65
6.41
3.18
1.98
45.14
1 5
6.70
6.41
3.17
1.97
45.16
1 5
6.75
6.41
3.16
1.96
45.18
1 5
6.80
6.41
3.15
1.95
45.20
1 6
6.80
6.44
3.12
1.92
46.50
1 6
6.86
6.44
3.11
1.91
46.52
1 6
6.92
6.44
3.10
1.90
46.55
1 6
6.98
6.44
3.09
1.89
46.57
1 6
7.04
6.45
3.08
1.88
46.59
1 6
7.10
6.45
3.07
1.87
46.62
1 6
7.16
6.45
3.06
1.86
46.64
1 6
7.22
6.46
3.05
1.85
46.66
1 6
7.28
6.46
3.04
1.84
46.69
1 6
7.34
6.46
3.03
1.83
46.71
1 6
7.40
6.46
3.02
1.82
46.73
1 7
7.40
6.47
3.01
1.81
47.13
1 7
7.44
6.47
3.01
1.81
47.15
1 7
7.47
6.47
3.00
1.80
47.16
1 7
7.51
6.46
3.00
1.79
47.18
1 7
7.54
6.46
2.99
1.79
47.19
1 7
7.58
6.46
2.98
1.78
47.20
1 7
7.61
6.46
2.98
1.78
47.22
1 7
7.65
6.46
2.97
1.77
47.23
1 7
7.68
6.45
2.97
1.76
47.24
1 7
7.72
6.45
2.96
1.76
47.26
1 7
7.75
6.45
2.95
1.75
47.27
1 7
7.79
6.45
2.95
1.75
47.28
1 7
7.82
6.45
2.94
1.74
47.30
l 7
7.86
6.44
2.94
1.73
47.31
1 7
7.89
6.44
2.93
1.73
47.33
1 7
7.93
6.44
2.92
1.72
47.34
1 7
7.96
6.44
2.92
1.72
47.35
1 7
8.00
6.44
2.91
1.71
47.37
1 7
8.03
6.44
2.91
1.70
47.38
1 7
8.07
6.44
2.90
1.70
47.39
1 7
8.10
6.43
2.90
1.69
47.41
1 7
8.14
6.43
2.89
1.69
47.42
1 7
8.17
6.43
2.88
1.68
47.43
1 7
8.21
6.43
2.88
1.67
47.45
1 7
8.24
6.43
2.87
1.67
47.46
1 7
8.28
6.43
2.87
1.66
47.48
1 7
8.31
6.43
2.86
1.66
47.49
1 7
8.35
6.42
2.86
1.65
47.50
1 7
8.38
6.42
2.85
1.65
47.52
1 7
8.42
6.42
2.85
1.64
47.53
Page 2

PROF15.OUT
1 7
8.45
6.42
2.84
1.63
47.54
1 7
8.49
6.42
2.83
1.63
47.56
1 7
8.52
6.42
2.83
1.62
47.57
1 7
8.56
6.42
2.82
1.62
47.58
1 7
8.59
6.42
2.82
1.61
47.60
1 7
8.63
6.42
2.81
1.61
47.61
1 7
8.66
6.42
2.81
1.60
47.63
1 7
8.70
6.41
2.80
1.60
47.64
l 7
8.73
6.41
2.80
1.59
47.65
1 7
8.77
6.41
2.79
1.58
47.67
1 7
8.80
6.41
2.78
1.58
47.68
1 7
8.84
6.41
2.78
1.57
47.69
1 7
8.87
6.41
2.77
1.57
47.71
1 7
8.91
6.41
2.77
1.56
47.72
1 7
8.94
6.41
2.76
1.56
47.73
1 7
8.98
6.41
2.76
1.55
47.75
1 7
9.01
6.41
2.75
1.55
47.76
1 7
9.05
6.41
2.75
1.54
47.78
1 7
9.08
6.41
2.74
1.54
47.79
1 7
9.12
6.41
2.74
1.53
47.80
1 7
9.15
6.41
2.73
1.53
47.82
1 7
9.19
6.41
2.72
1.52
47.83
1 7
9.22
6.41
2.72
1.52
47.84
1 7
9.26
6.41
2.71
1.51
47.86
1 7
9.29
6.41
2.71
1.51
47.87
1 7
9.3-3
6.41
2.70
1.50
47.88
1 7
9.36
6.41
2.70
1.50
47.90
1 7
9.40
6.40
2.69
1.49
47.91
1 7
9.43
6.40
2.69
1.49
47.93
1 7
9.47
6.40
2.68
1.48
47.94
l 7
9.50
6.40
2.68
1.48
47.95
1 7
9.54
6.40
2.67
1.47
47.97
1 7
9.57
6.40
2.67
1.47
47.98
1 7
9.61
6.40
2.66
1.46
47.99
1 7
9.64
6.40
2.66
1.46
48.01
1 7
9.68
6.40
2.65
1.45
48.02
1 7
9.71
6.40
2.65
1.45
48.04
1 7
9.75
6.40
2.64
1.44
48.05
1 7
9.78
6.40
2.64
1.44
48.06
1 7
9.82
6.40
2.63
1.43
48.08
1 7
9.85
6.40
2.63
1.43
48.09
1 7
9.89
6.40
2.62
1.42
48.10
1 7
9.92
6.40
2.62
1.42
48.12
1 7
9.96
6.41
2.61
1.41
48.13
1 7
9.99
6.41
2.61
1.41
48.14
1 7
10.03
6.41
2.60
1.40
48.16
1 7
10.06
6.41
2.59
1.40
48.17
1 7
10.10
6.41
2.59
1.39
48.19
1 7
10.13
6.41
2.58
1.39
48.20
1 7
10.17
6.41
2.58
1.38
48.21
1 7
10.20
6.41
2.57
1.38
48.23
1 7
10.24
6.41
2.57
1.37
48.24
1 7
10.27
6.41
2.56
1.37
48.25
1 7
10.31
6.41
2.56
1.36
48.27
1 7
10.34
6.41
2.55
1.36
48.28
1 7
10.38
6.41
2.55.
1.35
48.29
1 7
10.41
6.41
2.54
1.35
48.31
1 7
10.45
6.41
2.54
1.35
48.32
1 7
10.48
6.41
2.53
1.34
48.34
1 7
10.52
6.41
2.53
1.34
48.35
1 7
10.55
6.41
2.53
1.33
48.36
1 7
10.59
6.41
2.52
1.33
48.38
l 7
10.62
6.41
2.52
1.32
48.39
Page 3

PROFI5.OUT
1
7
10.66
6.41
2.51
1.32
48.40
1
7
10.69
6.41
2.51
1.31
48,42
1
7
10.73
6.42
2.50
1.31
48.43
1
7
10.76
6.42
2.50
1.31
48.44
1
7
10.80
6.42
2.49
1.30
48.46
1
7
10.83
6.42
2.49
1.30
48.47
1
7
10.87
6.42
2.48
1.29
48.49
1
7
10.90
6.42
2.48
1.29
48.50
1
8
10.90
5.96
4.10
2.33
71.75
1
8
11.55
6.14
4.00
2.23
72.00
1
8
12.20
6.29
3.90
2.14
72.26
1
8
12.85
6.42
3.80
2.05
72.51
1
8
13.50
6.53
3.70
1.97
72.76
1
8
14.15
6.63
3.61
1.89
73.02
1
8
14.80
6.71
3.52
1.81
73.27
1
8
15.45
6.79
3.43
1.74
73.52
1
8
16.10
6.86
3.35
1.67
73.78
1
8
16.75
6.92
3.26
1.60
74.03
1
8
17.40.
6.97
3.18
1.54
74.28
Seg # (
Reach #
( Seg Mi (
D.
Page 4

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
Name: HCFBSL
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Harnett County Public Utilities
Topo Quad Manchester
NPDES No.
Proposed
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Domestic
Date of flow estimate
10/2/2002
Facility status
Spec Limits
Drainage Area (mi)
405.56
Receiving stream
Lower Little River
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
45.46
Stream class
C
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
94.33
Subbasin
30614
1Average flow (cfs)
504.64
County
Harnett
30Q2 (cfs)
106.66
Regional Office
FROI
IWC at discharge (%)
40
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Length of reach (mi)
2.251
0.61
3.3
0.51
0.6
3.5
6.5
Incremental length
Waste characteristics
Dilton MHP
HCO
Flow (MGD)
0.015
20
summmr CBOD (mg/I)
45
7.5
summer NBOD (mg/1)
90
4.5
DO (m /1)
5
winter CBOD
45
winter nBOD
90
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.391
1 0.391
0.391
1 0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.521
1 0.521
0.521
1 0.521
0.52
0.521
0.52
QA (cfs/mi)
7.21
1 7.21
7.21
1 7.21
7.2
7.21
7.2
Tributary characteristics
Md Ck Tank C Gib.Ck Jp Rn Ck UT
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 2.31
1.11
1.8
1.3
0.4
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 4.6
2.3
4.2
2.8
0.8
CIA (cfs/mi)
20
10
57
37
4.5
Slope
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.51
3.8
3.81
2.8
4.6

PF 20.OUT
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HARNETT CO FT BRAGG SPRING LAKE 20 MGD
Receiving Stream : LOWER LITTLE RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.91 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.85 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.34 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach
#
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1) (mgd)
Segment
------
1 6.20
---------
10.75
-------
7
----
----
-- ----------
Reach
1
45.00
90.00
0.00 0.01500
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
7
7.50
4.50
5.00 20.00000
Press any
key to continue.
SUMMER
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O. (
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
7.17
2.03
1.06
35.02
1
1
0.23
7.14
2.00
1.03
35.11
1
1
0.45
7.11
1.97
1.01
35.20
1
1
0.68
7.09
1.95
0.98
35.29
1
1
0.90
7.07
1.92
0.96
35.37
1
1
1.13
7.05
1.89
0.94
35.46
1
1
1.35
7.03
1.87
0.91
35.55
1
1
1.58
7.01
1.84
0.89
35.64
1
1
1.80
7.00
1.82
0.87
35.73
1
1
2.03
6.98
1.79
0.85
35.81
1
1
2.25
6.97
1.77
0.83
35.90
1
2
2.25
6.98
1.78
0.84
38.20
1
2
2.31
6.98
1.78
0.83
38.22
1
2
2.37
6.98
1.77
0.83
38.25
1
2
2.43
6.97
1.76
0.82
38.27
1
2
2.49
6.97
1.76
0.82
38.29
1
2
2.55
6.97
1.75
0.81
38.32
1
2
2.61
6.97
1.75
0.81
38.34
1
2
2.67
6.96
1.74
0.80
38.36
1
2
2.73
6.96
1.73
0.80
38.39
1
2
2.79
6.96
1.73
0.79
38.41
1
2
2.85
6.96
1.72
0.79
38.43
1
3
2.85
6.96
1.73
0.80
39.53
1
3
3.18
6.96
1.70
0.77
39.66
1
3
3.51
6.95
1.67
0.74
39.79
1
3
3.84
6.95
1.64
0.72
39.92
1
3
4.17
6.95
1.61
0.70
40.05
1
3
4.50
6.95
1.58
0.68
40.18
1
3
4.83
6.95
1.55
0.65
40.31
1
3
5.16
6.95
1.52
0.63
40.44
1
3
5.49
6.96
1.49
0.61
40.56
1
3
5.82
6.96
1.47
0.60
40.69
1
3
6.15
6.97
1.44
0.58
40.82
1
4
6.15
6.67
1.38
0.55
42.62
Page
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 # I Reach
PF 20.OUT
6.20
6.68
1.38
0.55
42.64
6.25
6.69
1.37
0.55
42.66
6.30
6.70
1.37
0.55
42.68
6.35
6.71
1.37
0.54
42.70
6.40
6.72
1.36
0.54
42.72
6.45
6.73
1.36
0.54
42.74
6.50
6.74
1.36
0.54
42.76
6.55
6.75
1.35
0.53
42.78
6.60
6.75
1.35
0.53
42.80
6.65
6.76
1.35
0.53
42.82
6.65
6.56
1.31
0.51
44.12
7.25
6.69
1.27
0.49
44.35
7.25
6.69
1.28
0.49
44.75
7.60
6.73
1.26
0.48
44.89
7.95
6.77
1.23
0.46
45.02
8.30
6.80
1.21
0.45
45.16
8.65
6.83
1.19
0.44
45.30
9.00
6.87
1.17
0.42
45.43
9.35
6.90
1.15
0.41
45.57
9.70
6.93
1.13
0.40
45.71
10.05
6.95
1.11
0.39
45.84
10.40
6.98
1.09
0.38
45.98
10.75
7.01
1.07
0.36
46.12
10.75
6.20
3.66
2.03
77.12
11.40
6.31
3.57
1.94
77.37
12.05
6.40
3.48
1.87
77.62
12.70
6.48
3.39
1.79
77.88
13.35
6.56
3.31
1.72
78.13
14.00
6.63
3.23
1.65
78.38
14.65
6.70
3.15
1.58
78.64
15.30
6.76
3.07
1.52
78.89
15.95
6.81
3.00
1.46
79.14
16.60
6.86
2.92
1.40
79.40
17.25
6.91
2.85
1.34
79.65
seg Mi
D.
Page 2

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
Name: LITRV
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Existing Discharges
Topo Quad
Manchester
NPDES No.
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Date of flow estimate
10/2/2002
Facility status
Drainage Area (mi)
318
Receiving stream
Lower Little River
Summer7010 (cfs)
35
Stream class
C
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
74
Subbasin
30614
Average flow (cfs)
369
County
rn
Haett
30Q2 (cfs)
Regional Office
FRO
IWC at discharge (%)
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
1
21
31
41
51
6
7
8
Length of reach (mi)
1.11
1.151
0.61
1.451
21
0.5
0.6
5
Incremental length
Waste characteristics
Dilt MHP
FBrag
Sp Lk
Flow MGD)
0.015
8
1.5
sumemr CBOD (mg/1)
45
24
42
summer NBOD (mg/1)
90
13.5
36
DO (mg/1)
5
5
winter CBOD
45
45
45
winter nBOD
90
901
90
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.39
0.39
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
1 0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.52
0.52
QA (cfs/mi)
1 7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.2
Tributary characteristics
UT Tk Ck Gibs Ck Jp Rn Ck UT
s7010 cfs/mi)
2.3
1.1
1.8
1.31
0.4
w7Q10 (cfs/mi)
4.61
2.3
4.2
2.81
0.8
QA (cfs/mi)
20
10
57
371
4.5
Slope
2.3
2.3
2.31
2.5
3.81
3.8
2.81
4.6

PF 20.OUT
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HARNETT CO FT BRAGG SPRING LAKE 20 MGD
Receiving stream : LOWER LITTLE RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.91 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.85 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.34 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste F1oW
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach
#
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1) (mgd)
Segment
------
1 6.20
---------
10.75
-------
7
----
----
-- ----------
Reach
1
45.00
90.00
0.00 0.01500
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
7
7.50
4.50
5.00 20.00000
Press any
key to continue.
SUMMER
Seg # (
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
F1oW
1
1
0.00
7.17
2.03
1.06
35.02
1
1
0.23
7.14
2.00
1.03
35.11
1
1
0.45
7.11
1.97
1.01
35.20
1
1
0.68
7.09
1.95
0.98
35.29
1
1
0.90
7.07
1.92
0.96
35.37
1
1
1.13
7.05
1.89
0.94
35.46
1
1
1.35
7.03
1.87
0.91
35.55
1
1
1.58
7.01
1.84
0.89
35.64
1
1
1.80
7.00
1.82
0.87
35.73
1
1
2.03
6.98
1.79
0.85
35.81
1
1
2.25
6.97
1.77
0.83
35.90
1
2
2.25
6.98
1.78
0.84
38.20
1
2
2.31
6.98
1.78
0.83
38.22
1
2
2.37
6.98
1.77
0.83
38.25
1
2
2.43
6.97
1.76
0.82
38.27
1
2
2.49
6.97
1.76
0.82
38.29
1
2
2.55
6.97
1.75
0.81
38.32
1
2
2.61
6.97
1.75
0.81
38.34
1
2
2.67
6.96
1.74
0.80
38.36
1
2
2.73
6.96
1.73
0.80
38.39
1
2
2.79
6.96
1.73
0.79
38.41
1
2
2.85
6.96
1.72
0.79
38.43
1
3
2.85
6.96
1.73
0.80
39.53
1
3
3.18
6.96
1.70
0.77
39.66
1
3
3.51
6.95
1.67
0.74
39.79
1
3
3.84
6.95
1.64
0.72
39.92
1
3
4.17
6.95
1.61
0.70
40.05
1
3
4.50
6.95
1.58
0.68
40.18
1
3
4.83
6.95
1.55
0.65
40.31
1
3
5.16
6.95
1.52
0.63
40.44
1
3
5.49
6.96
1.49
0.61
40.56
1
3
5.82
6.96
1.47
0.60
40.69
1
3
6.15
6.97
1.44
0.58
40.82
1
4
6.15
6.67
1.38
0.55
42.62
Page
1

PF 20.OUT
1
4
6.20
6.68
1.38
0.55
42.64
1
4
6.25
6.69
1.37
0.55
42.66
1
4
6.30
6.70
1.37
0.55
42.68
1
4
6.35
6.71
1.37
0.54
42.70
1
4
6.40
6.72
1.36
0.54
42.72
1
4
6.45
6.73
1.36
0.54
42.74
1
4
6.50
6.74
1.36
0.54
42.76
1
4
6.55
6.75
1.35
0.53
42.78
1
4
6.60
6.75
1.35
0.53
42.80
1
4
6.65
6.76
1.35
0.53
42.82
1
5
6.65
6.56
1.31
0.51
44.12
1
5
7.25
6.69
1.27
0.49
44.35
1
6
7.25
6.69
1.28
0.49
44.75
1
6
7.60
6.73
1.26
0.48
44.89
1
6
7.95
6.77
1.23
0.46
45.02
1
6
8.30
6.80
1.21
0.45
45.16
1
6
8.65
6.83
1.19
0.44
45.30
1
6
9.00
6.87
1.17
0.42
45.43
1
6
9.35
6.90
1.15
0.41
45.57
1
6
9.70
6.93
1.13
0.40
45.71
1
6
10.05
6.95
1.11
0.39
45.84
1
6
10.40
6.98
1.09
0.38
45.98
1
6
10.75
7.01
1.07
0.36
46.12
1
7
10.75
6.20
3.66
2.03
77.12
1
7
11.40
6.31
3.57
1.94
77.37
1
7
12.05
6.40
3.48
1.87
77.62
1
7
12.70
6.48
3.39
1.79
77.88
1
7
13.35
6.56
3.31
1.72
78.13
1
7
14.00
6.63
3.23
1.65
78.38
1
7
14.65
6.70
3.15
1.58
78.64
1
7
15.30
6.76
3.07
1.52
78.89
1
7
15.95
6.81
3.00
1.46
79.14
1
7
16.60
6.86
2.92
1.40
79.40
1
7
17.25
6.91
2.85
1.34
79.65
Seg #
Reach #
seg Mi
D.
Page 2

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION Name: LITRV
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Existing Discharges
Topo Quad
Manchester
NPDES No.
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Date of flow estimate
10/2/2002
Facility status
Drainage Area (mi)
318
Receiving stream
Lower Little River
Summer7010 (cfs)
35
Stream class
C
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
74
Subbasin
30614
Average flow (cfs)
369
County
Harnett
30Q2 (cfs)
Regional Office
FRO
IWC at discharge (%)
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
1
2
31
4
51
61
71
8
Length of reach (mi)
1.1
1.15
0.61
1.451
21
0.51
0.6
5
Incremental length
Waste characteristics
Dilt MHP
FBra g
Sp Lk
Flow (MGD)
0.015
8
1.5
sumemr CBOD (mg/1)
45
24
42
summer NBOD (mg/1)
90
13.5
36
DO (mg/1)
5
5
winter CBOD
45
45
45
winter nBOD
90
901
90
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
w7010 (cfs/mi)
0.52
0.52
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.521
0.52
0.52
QA (cfs/mi)
1 7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.2
Tributary characteristics
UT Tk Ck Gibs Ck Jp Rn Ck UT
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
2.31
1.11
1 1.8
1.3
0.4
w7010 (cfs/mi)
4.6
2.31
1 4.2
2.8
0.8
QA (cfs/mi)
201
101
1 57
37
4.5
Sloe
2.3
2.3
2.31
2.51
3.81
3.8
2.8
4.6

PROF LIT.OUT
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : EXISTING CONDITIONS
Receiving Stream : LOWER LITTLE RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 6.03 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 5.36 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 2.54 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste F1oW
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach
#
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1) (mgd)
Segment
------
1 5.44
---------
4.70
-------
5
----
----
-- ----------
Reach
1
45.00
90.00
0.00 0.01500
Reach
2
24.00
13.50
5.00 8.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
5
42.00
36.00
5.00 1.50000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
7
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Reach
8
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00000
Press any
key to continue.
SUMMER
PROFILE EXISTING DISCHARGES
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi (
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
( FlOW
1
1
0.00
7.17
2.03
1.06
35.02
1
1
0.11
7.15
2.01
1.05
35.07
1
1
0.22
7.14
2.00
1.03
35.11
1
1
0.33
7.13
1.99
1.02
35.15
1
1
0.44
7.11
1.97
1.01
35.19
1
1
0.55
7.10
1.96
1.00
35.24
1
1
0.66
7.09
1.95
0.99
35.28
1
1
0.77
7.08
1.93
0.97
35.32
1
1
0.88
7.07
1.92
0.96
35.37
1
1
0.99
7.06
1.91
0.95
35.41
1
1
1.10
7.05
1.90
0.94
35.45
1
2
1.10
6.52
7.62
4.19
47.85
1
2
1.22
6.46
7.58
4.15
47.90
1
2
1.33
6.40
7.53
4.10
47.94
1
2
1.45
6.34
7.48
4.06
47.99
1
2
1.56
6.29
7.43
4.02
48.03
1
2
1.68
6.24
7.38
3.97
48.08
1
2
1.79
6.18
7.34
3.93
48.12
1
2
1.91
6.13
7.29
3.89
48.17
1
2
2.02
6.09
7.24
3.85
48.21
1
2
2.14
6.04
7.20
3.81
48.26
1
2
2.25
5.99
7.15
3.77
48.30
1
3
2.25
6.05
6.92
3.64
50.60
1
3
2.31
6.02
6.90
3.62
50.62
1
3
2.37
6.00
6.87
3.60
50.65
1
3
2.43
5.98
6.85
3.58
50.67
1
3
2.49
5.96
6.83
3.56
50.69
1
3
2.55
5.94
6.81
3.54
50.72
1
3
2.61
5.92
6.78
3.52
50.74
1
3
2.67
5.90
6.76
3.50
50.76
1
3
2.73
5.88
6.74
3.49
50.79
1
3
2.79
5.86
6.72
3.47
50.81
1
3
2.85
5.85
6.70
3.45
50.83
Page
1

PROF LIT.OUT
1
4
2.85
5.72
6.55
3.37
51.93
1
4
3.00
5.69
6.50
3.33
51.99
1
4
3.14
5.66
6.46
3.29
52.05
1
4
3.29
5.63
6.41
3.25
52.10
1
4
3.43
5.60
6.36
3.21
52.16
1
4
3.58
5.58
6.31
3.16
52.22
1
4
3.72
5.55
6.26
3.12
52.27
1
4
3.87
5.53
6.21
3.08
52.33
1
4
4.01
5.51
6.17
3.05
52.39
1
4
4.16
5.49
6.12
3.01
52.44
1
4
4.30
5.47
6.07
2.97
52.50
1
5
4.30
5.45
7.60
4.37
54.83
1
5
4.50
5.44
7.53
4.30
54.90
1
5
4.70
5.44
7.46
4.24
54.98
1
5
4.90
5.44
7.39
4.17
55.06
1
5
5.10
5.44
7.32
4.11
55.14
1
5
5.30
5.45
7.25
4.05
55.22
1
5
5.50
5.45
7.18
3.99
55.29
1
5
5.70
5.46
7.11
3.92
55.37
1
5
5.90
5.46
7.05
3.86
55.45
1
5
6.10
5.47
6.98
3.81
55.53
1
5
6.30
5.48
6.91
3.75
55.61
1
6
6.30
5.53
6.76
3.66
57.41
1
6
6.35
5.54
6.74
3.65
57.42
1
6
6.40
5.54
6.73
3.63
57.44
1
6
6.45
5.54
6.71
3.62
57.46
1
6
6.50
5.54
6.70
3.61
57.48-
1
6
6.55
5.54
6.68
3.59
57.50
1
6
6.60
5.55
6.66
3.58
57.52
1
6
6.65
5.55
6.65
3.56
57.54
1
6
6.70
5.55
6.63
3.55
57.56
1
6
6.75
5.55
6.62
3.54
57.58
1
6
6.80
5.56
6.60
3.52
57.60
1
7
6.80
5.59
6.50
3.47
58.90
1
7
6.86
5.58
6.48
3.45
58.92
1
7
6.92
5.57
6.46
3.43
58.95
1
7
6.98
5.57
6.44
3.41
58.97
1
7
7.04
5.56
6.42
3.40
58.99
1
7
7.10
5.55
6.40
3.38
59.02
1
7
7.16
5.54
6.38
3.36
59.04
1
7
7.22
5.53
6.36
3.35
59.06
1
7
7.28
5.53
6.34
3.33
59.09
1
7
7.34
5.52
6.33
3.31
59.11
1
7
7.40
5.51
6.31
3.30
59.13
1
8
7.40
5.48
6.28
3.28
59.53
1
8
7.75
5.54
6.18
3.20
59.67
1
8
8.10
5.61
6.08
3.12
59.81
1
8
8.45
5.67
5.98
3.04
59.94
1
8
8.80
5.73
5.89
2.96
60.08
1
8
9.15
5.79
5.80
2.88
60.22
1
8
9.50
5.84
5.71
2.81
60.35
1
8
9.85
5.89
5.62
2.74
60.49
1
8
10.20
5.94
5.53
2.67
60.63
1
8
10.55
5.99
5.44
2.60
60.76
1
8
10.90
6.03
5.36
2.54
60.90
Seg
Page 2

NC,FE�L HC�D15
N
ac I y
N G N I t
v
w� f/CO2UNGp—
NC5MGp
ia�,k Ck Z-
SIQ,O-(.OA= tOCfS I.I ck �I
wa-4�1o>a,3ch R r
v,
DA- 46.3
S 7910= 1,Y �.
w?Did =Y,Z
_ 3J 3
Wo �SN60
D Iton MHP NCOD-02gV ,alp H69
DA-- 318 S7010=35C{3 '7A
"'• ` w7wto- 7y ch
rr ��55 �JCOOh3964 8K/�p
DA- 319 m;L 57WI0= 35,S' w3gIU= 7V. Y
V / C rn,&c Vt/
- S x�lo = a 3 cik Goa' 06 CA
35(,.S.m,-z = yyy[h
r--- s7w1v_ YUcft u,?C�io= A3 CAS
In
as = 9. q 2
Q4=-37c�s
-S:79,0=1.3CA w Wlo=ZPcs
tP,= 3,L miZ m
Wa= 4,s
m I
--P d 44CO 5M�
�- hA- 40S-S(�i-miZ
- w?Qlo> qW ci-s
3062 10(o.loc :k
r
it

NC oo o 39 t,
plc 0030`1 —1-o
riv+i3ra�c�
�cooaay�9
J��ion NNE
Qw° tlGi�
Sa ,�5
HCO
bA �
== 34SyGG4f4 Fas
el
W 319
S-7¢W'= 3i(�w_,o15
�.d
;7e
waCh�,�r1co
`53 c%s
ar 371k
s}4ro = 35 C-�S
393,6
f
4,1 rni
1lCrnitttio.
s�grc•1.3 cts
L
30
u: qI,c C}-�12�vz-
4g5.ScFs
K I. I mO G,ol — 4.45
(� 1 Ra R3 ay a
kek.
Qq= l0 c.4�
S7 to- r,l CFt
� r
flar�Jf�' C9 i,,,. � 119Ci�
/Ck 9.0
4NJ"
wa4ic: � y.2

'2
zLev, /30 A
sppL nq k-ke
ielo�
G'L•R u��o r ibv awl
:na�c✓ �� =�39S! 7�,�=
35G,b' m' mi-
S�iO= 39113(/�lt)=
w?Qry 83 cis
v9gv rs Cis _
-
U. ?3
f
�"
yu l
m-z
L)T vV,
UT
o r -..�k
U
iiJ 9gro = .� ��D. Q3���
S QUO �, C�s
- - -
a � G / .•',•'� = i! 5 Cis
- q5, 5 C �
p awr_C1 ot- %teed: .-
G;beonaak
DH=.a9,q miZ �a.a�
.,,�', i�(}=r-I(�.JYni' �piUSGS#1Ua10335�00�i
31 c�6 5 �0
�
= o;o9jM�z
cis ��,�i
r5k—to arsa
l
J'. 2� ram_

Cj+fb RMr _dt -Li nd¢n
off/ 3 s" U'� o 0
DA = 45Ot m'iz
C4N= 5S-7
S 4/0= Z/ 2 &
-
DKl = 30,3
ST - C�u l c at. w Vn -
�= 95,t�.

a 1'4104
• 2_
i 5tQ a I o 33R6O S�i
(2,,, it R-2t
AA =
lQ,'G miZ
aiL�G��S C
znQa=
3,F c� _
C,
s � q iQ =
a. fr e k
s ;�?"o L
- o, cfY
_ a, D �l ch/mi
Lo 7,01O -
/, 8 ens
/9. 3o h
-
W
/, F- =
0, 093
A&.Gce ",tL-->3y,f
w� l Ddk far (L 2, r JLP�K o4-- 3 5 mi 2
QYFV = 35 ,'niZ
•m,z
S 7Qio , 35
LDWQf- Li.4a VZ�u.4/.. a�" Lin6,.A.n LF,, . osGA
mil- UCQIC�S,
C
c}s�miz
rr'' G �F59 rnia
5 6�/7 = �{7.is Cts 57s� �• = 47.(, ck _
(� 0• I o zi
qgq
w7gr0� Log ck, = o 237 Ck /"q'
�,j n,: L
_ ggl.9 GAS
4/,� . / 8 cj�-,
cd7�Q/o = clas,j� x 2�7

%gym O ata - -
- Z r L fi`/e �i u t� -t All -I)JA dAa joCi
J
872?0000 -
a�CS�zi�
y G�- ii/'�-2 �S �C!/J(..E.i' dYl, vSt L} Gn J� '%✓✓ i +_L. �/-. `_. '7L2f., Y ;:C_/ J Gn

cy
do- b V/S �1/ im
/4 9 950 3'1
aa, 03izv6
2.1�S5N
2 ao Ivc,4�
9 59' 3? 7 = 31
Z-
0. _ ova
(djSdeCo,�e ��
JA
3qk k 7,5(0 'y0s,5Is
30 457 b
30.ylJOG
y. 37oo rn,*z
aooa m ice e 2 ..3 9d mi Z

D
3s -7 55 { -
l�•7�Ood5
0.27Q0077
- yU
CC)
y 7q759-
Q ca PoV �/o
0
(C, F. Fla rj - USC9 5 �Oo
Nufu ao
..A4 u
- aa. ,3rslQQq4
a',- aa.=i7sU 4�j
j- a3 35X
rn
-573oof1

RUAL CU-U
---
?Ord fj Uvi%'o n �vvu� �
---
lqq
—-- —
$ ✓lode - - —
DA = Ic'.2 w z dn-uOILQ.mid
-
raa w� ion
w7Q10 = q.7
d_ Io's
S�glo = 3.I Cis
�i

1/30/0`
AIIWastConc-NH3 TRC.XLS
Allowable Waste
Concentration
facility
NPDES Number
SUMMER
IWINTER
Ammonia as NH3
Ammonia as NH3
7Q 10(cfs)
45.56
1 7Q 10(cfs)
94.33
Design Flow (MGD)
15
Design Flow (MGD)
15
Design Flow (cfs)
23.25
Design Flow (cfs)
23.25
Stream Std (mg/1)
1.0
Stream Std (mg/1)
1.8
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (m
0.22
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mi
0.22
IWC %
33.7891
IWC M
19.774
Allow Conc. (mg/1)
2.5311
Allow Conc. (mg/1)
8.21
Resdual Chlorine
7Q 10(cfs)
45.56
Design Flow (MGD)
15
Design Flow (cfs)
23.25
Stream Std (ug/1)
17.0
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (ugl
0.0
IWC ((Yo) 1
33.789
Allow Conc. (u /1)
1 50.31
Page 1

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
H at -no } '0.
Topo Quad
NPDES No.
t 0000 3 1 yea
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
DomehtiC
Date of flow estimate
Facility status
a c l_i m; �-S
Drainage Area (mi )
Receiving stream
L-Ouw I-'fflQ Zvkr
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
Stream class
C
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
Subbasin
0?)-A(o-14
lAverage flow (cfs)
County
14ff
3002 (cfs)
Regional Office
f-po
I IWC at discharge (%)
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
I I
I a
1 3
Length of reach (mi)
1.1
1.(Sl
0. (a
I 1,01S
a
Incremental length
Waste characteristic 7ilfvn F ..) (Sp. Lk NnCo,
Flow(MGD)
0,15
g
I.5
a.y
CBOD m /1
y5
)q
NBOD (m /I)
90
1" .5
I
1
1 3(o
zz vs vs
DO m /I
S
Runoff charactericstics
s7010 (cfs/mi)
0,39
QA (cfs/mi)
�, a
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD m /I
DO (m /I
Tributary characteristics
s7Q10 cfs/mi)
1:3
CIA (cfs/mi)
o
10
57
CBOD m /I
NBOD (m /I
DO (m /I
SIo a
a.3
a.3
a,3
S
3.f(
3.5,
3A
WMbirn2 -for 5 NGD,
Q4 -� 3.4S m
SIB -',I 3 - (o
I S NGr�
75
a4S/oas/Y 5'

7, 4 ° 7, 14 m
Q10R-
aq,
QAV-R bI fs�-tto
mi

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION � # lve� a " I d S C //CJ File:
Facility Information C U
Flow Information
Facility Name
P a ju ji U Vt t,
Topo Quad
NPDES No.
C G 3 4
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
oyng6
Date of flow estimate
Facility status
4P l -:
Drainage Area (mi)
3 Q ? ir, z
Receiving stream
1, if( r^ 40uar
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
qq. y
Stream class
A
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
$
Subbasin
O3-0& —/
Average flow cfs
5
County
fiQYY12 13OQ2
cfs)
Re ional Office
—Q � ¢ L2 ki
IWC at discharge (%)
Sketch of discharge locati n
35q P'°p�
��` Clis<Au.Kp
tj
� Y ti 1
Flow LAJ0)-r
m
—v m
D°
3J5 Y11 i � c3oD
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
f�
Length of reach (mi)
2, rrI
Incremental length
1 .01
Waste characteristics
Flow (MGD)
,,),
CBOD m /I
q 5.
NBOD (m /I)
q0
DO (m /I
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi
QA (cfs/mi)
CBOD m /1)
NBOD (m /I
DO (m /1)
Tributary characteristics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi
QA cfs/mi
CBOD m /I
NBOD (m /I
DO (mg/1)
Slope

C000r [ '44e �
Ozos o2.
��3addod
� (* kk lzicLv
� 1��3 oao1�
CY• Y
,,,7
Liao Co 000
��Wro 9010
- � SLO
UPS
Sp v-"n
1-5 )qbb
A =
3S(o.S rnr
40
cS
yqq
6a/qS— w
�fJf/3 ,V
8' s
4
77
�� = 3aq • 3 gn!` 2
-7q,L! cfs
r fad
�, 0
41oi-
t sN CA -
U
LL 2 nr All!-f e�1�n�,jPrin�
21y2 00000
o/,5 A/G

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
Hrvnsf
File:
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Cx u,�' Cr a
Topo Quad
NPDES No.
fq
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Date of flow estimate
Facility status
Drainage Area (mi )
Receiving stream
Lower Li fill rz a-,k r
Summer7Q10 cfs
Stream class
G
Wlnter7Q10 cfs
Subbasin
c)3 . (c -i
!Average flow cfs)
County
�KL,t(-
T (cfs)
Regional Office
FrZJ
IWC at discharge (%)
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
R I
i( 2
R S
RS
2 (0
2
Length of reach (mi)
I.1
1,15
0,U
I •N5
a
45
1 , &
Incremental length
.115
C*
, /116
2
D5
0&
Waste characteristics
Flow (MGD)
o. 01S
2.1
CBOD m /I
5
P4
4 2
415
NBOD (m /I)
90
LO'S
—
vr9.s=Y
DO (m /I)
5
S
S
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 cfs/mi
3q
QA (cfs/mi)
�.
CBOD (m /1)
NBOD m /I
DO (m /I
Tributary characteristics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
a• 3
I. I
I
I- 3
CIA cfs/mi
2g
/ p
5
;q. q
CBOD (mg/1)I
NBOD m /I
DO m /I
Slope
312,
, v 3,g
8r5Z]
n�
'tarnsz a- rur,-- w(, ib �cl.�- Q e-u.vr.w.-.e.� ✓�, nR.r� ais;/�u.••�
Ilrns3 3`4
ru,rl — _G_.(l a alt RztAJ) 5
nuoo=-ay
rn�lk c(bco= SX 1e5 = 1,15
j4rn�,,5 -
l: h CQ 60 = 5. 7-
Cob C-OD
15* 2&
RUeJ f2vd
S& RUn3
cQu)= 5
lei+ React-- - R<ua, 4 =.3�45 m; Kj= 9 MI
-(NaN34)
012
DO '(p ? fir Eb
�nri b0-' �' am Rs

5 M61)
Bob U /5" e r3old
+ * 0 Lcxlxl, . - aoD — 3D
Ayn - A�
Z 30 1 13ols, 5
� / � C.r3oD= y5
66d _ y5 ' = a q, 5
t� O = Co
S
QUA bD( `!`�� �9'
bD - 3, to J m
m
�3o� = 5
� ��30�
+ �—
y�
I
n�d0_
j ; iJc7 Ca
�hd
d �
; q ,-z
m'"

Hiram Marziano
From: Kenny Fail [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:44 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Rodney Tart
Subject: FW: Data
MCFRBA Data
77-01-98 to 1231...
Hj,
Here is some historical data that has been collected by the MCFRBA over the past few years. Site 27 is the
Manchester Road sample point and Site
7 is at Hwy 210. Both of these points are above our proposed treatment plant site.
--Original Message ---
From: Chad Ham [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:23 PM
To: Kenny Fail
Subject: Data
Kenny,
Here is all the data we have collected through December 2004. I have
2005 data through April but haven't put it into the spreadsheet yet. If you want it I can send the files that I got
from the lab. The Site 27 is Lower Little River at Manchester Road and Site 7 is Lower Little River at NC 210.
Call me if you have questions.
Chad
«MCFRBA Data 07-01-98 to 12-31-04.xls>>
The information contained in this communication (including any
attachment) is privileged and confidential information that is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Access
to this communication by anyone else is unauthorized. If the reader is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this transmission in error, please reply and notify us of this error and delete this message.
Finally, the recipient should check this communication and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The
Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville, NC, accepts no liability for any damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this communication.

AMS and Coalition Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Cape Fear River Basin - 2004
Location: Lower Little R. at NC 210 near Spring Lake
Station M B7300000 Subbasin: CPF14
Latitude: 35.20205 Longitude:-78.95300 Stream class: C
Agency: MCFRBA NC stream index: 18-23-(24)
Time period: 09/10/1998 to 08/28/2003
result ND EL
Field
D.O. (mg/L)
64
0 <4
64
0 <5
pH (Si)
64
0 <6
64
0 >9
Spec. conductance
64
0 N/A
(umhos/cm at 25-P
Water Temperature (°C)
64
0 N/A
Other
TSS (mg/L.)
63
8 N/A
Turbidity (NTtJ)
64
0 >50
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N
63
7 N/A
NO2 + NO3 as N
62
0 N/A
TKN as N
63
4 N/A
Total Phosphorus
62
1 N/A
Fecal coliform (#/100mL)
# results: Geomean
# > 400:
% > 400:
63 97.4
6
9.5
Results not
meeting EL
Percentile
#
%
Min
loth
25th
50th
75th
90th
Max
0
0
52
6.5
7.1
8.6
103
113 '
12
0
0
52
6.5
7.1
8.6
10.3
11.3
12
17
26.6
4.8
5A
5.9
63
6.8
7
72
0
0
4.8
5.4
5.9
63
6.8
7
72
18
30
38
47
62
99
232
2.6
7.6
10.9
16.6
22.5
25.8
272
0
2
2
4
6
9
43
0
0
1
2
3
4
7
9
45
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.11
026
0.61
0.04
0.09
0.12
02
029
0.47
0.89
0.01
02
029
0Al
0.6
0.77
1.11
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.14
031
0.54
Kev:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL. number and percentage of observations not meeting evaluation level
Refer to hiip: //11wu% esb. enr. staie. nc. us/bar. him! for full BAR text

AMS and Coalition Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basmwide Assessment Report - Cape Fear River Basin - 2004
Location: Lower Little R. at SR 2023 near Lobelia
Station #: B7245000 Subbasin: CPF14
Latitude: 35.20371 Longitude:-79.21592 Stream class: WS-M HQW
Agency: DWQ NC stream index: 18-23-(10.7)
Time period: 09/10/1998 to 07/14/2003
result ND EL
Field
D.O. (mg/L)
56
0
<4
56
0
<5
PH (SU)
56
0
<6
56
0
>9
Spec. conductance
55
0
N/A
(umhos/c m at 25-P
Water Temperature (°C)
56
0
N/A
Other
Chloride (mg/L)
22
0
>250
Hardness (mg/L as
26
0
>100
CaCO3)
TSS (mg/L)
29
8
N/A
Turbidity (NTU)
55
0
>50
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N
33
10
N/A
NO2 + NO3 as N
33
2
>10
TKN as N
32
1
NIA
Total Phosphorus
34
7
N/A
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)
34
0
N/A
Arsenic, total (As)
34
34
>10
Cadmium, total (Cd)
34
34
>2
Chromium, total (Cr)
34
34
>50
Copper, total (Cu)
34
26
>7
Iron, total (Fe)
34
0
>1000
Lead, total (Pb)
34
34
>25
Manganese, total (Mn)
33
0
>200
Mercury, total (Hg)
34
34
>0.012
Nickel, total (Ni)
34
34
>25
Zinc, total (Zn)
27
24
>50
Fecal coliform (#/100mL)
# results: Geomean
# > 400:
% > 400:
54 54.8
2
3.7
Results not
meeting EL
Percentile
#
%
Min
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Max
0
0
5.5
6.1
6.9
8
10.1
11.8
16.6
0
0
5.5
6.1
6.9
8
10.1
11.8
16.6
38
67.9
3.1
52
5.5
5.8
6.1
6.9
7.6
0
0
3.1
52
5.5
5.8
6.1
6.9
7.6
27
29
33
36
38
44
52
1
5.4
9.9
16.7
21
23.7
27
0
0
3
4
4
5
5
7
15
0
0
6
6
12
16
24
36
76
1
1
1
2
3
5
8
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
5
33
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.19
027
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.12
0.16
02
024
0.1
02
02
0.3
0.4
0.58
0.7
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.5
79
135
160
205
252
330
430
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
3
6
7
20.6
230
245
428
730
915
1300
1500
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
11
14
20
28
36
49
78
0
0
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
12
15
Key:
# result number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non4etect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentage of observations not meeting evaluation level
Refer to http://linvii7.e.vb.eitr.statc�.nr.tislbar.htnt1forfull BAR text

AMS and Coalition Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Cape Fear River Basin - 2004
Location: Lower Little R. at SR 1451 at Manchester
Station #: B7280000 Subbasin: CPF14
Latitude: 35.19323 Longitude:-78.98561 Stream class: C
Agency: DWQ NC stream index: 18-23-(24)
Time period: 09/14/1998 to 07/10/2003
result ND EL
Field
D.O. (mg/L)
57
0
<4
57
0
<5
pH (SU)
55
0
<6
55
0
>9
Spec. conductance
57
0
NIA
(umbos/cm at 25-Q
Wales Temperature (OC)
57
0
N/A
Other
TSS (mg/L)
28
5
NIA
Turbidity QTM
55
0
>50
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N
32
8
NIA
NO2 + NO3 as N
32
2
N/A
TKN as N
31
2
N/A
Total Phosphorus
32
2
N/A
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (Al)
33
0
NIA
Arsenic, total (As)
33
33
>50
Cadmium, total (Cd)
33
33
>2
Chromium, total (Cr)
33
33
>50
Copper, total (Cu)
33
21
>7
Iron, total (Fe)
33
0
>1000
Lead, total (Pb)
33
33
>25
Mercury, total (Hg)
30
30
>0.012
Nigel, total (Ni)
33
33
>98
Zinc, total (Zn)
26
22
>50
Fecal coliform (#/100mL)
# results: Geomean
# > 400:
% > 400:
53 92
7
13.2
Results not
meeting EL
Percentile
#
%
Min
loth
25th
50th
75th
90th
Max
0
0
53
6.7
72
8.7
11
122
15.1
0
0
53
6.7
72
8.7
11
12.2
15.1
16
29.1
53
5.7
5.9
63
6.8
73
7.5
0
0
53
5.7
5.9
6.3
6.8
73
7.5
13
31
36
44
52
61
158
3
5.7
11
17
222
252
27.1
1
1
3
3
5
11
17
0
0
2
2
2
3
4
7
18
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
026
0.45
0.57
0.01
0.05
0.11
0.14
022
034
0.5
0.1
0.12
02
0.3
0.5
0.69
1
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.19
0.5
130
154
170
230
305
470
1600
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
5
11
6
182
240
364
430
670
945
1260
1400
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
15
18
# result number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentage of observations not meeting evaluation level
Refer to hup: //wivir. esh. enr. slate. nc. us/bar. hind for full BAR text

AMS and Coalition Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Cape Fear River Basin - 2004
Location: Lower Little R. at SR 1451 at Manchester
Station #: B7280000 Subbasin: CPF 14
Latitude: 35.19323 Longitude:-78.98561 Stream class: C
Agency: MCFRBA NC stream index: 18-23-(24)
Time period: 07/16/2003 to 08/28/2003
result
ND
EL
Field
D.O. (mg/L)
2
0
<4
2
0
<5
PH (Si)
2
0
<6
2
0
>9
Spec. conductance
2
0
N/A
(umhos/cm at 25-P
Water Temperature CC)
2
0
N/A
Other
TSS (mg/L)
2
0
N/A
Turbidity (NM
2
0
>50
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N
2
0
N/A
NO2 + NO3 as N
2
0
N/A
TKN as N
2
0
N/A
Total Phosphorus
2
0
N/A
Fecal coliform (#/100mL)
# results: Geomean
# > 400:
% > 400:
2 147.5
0
0
Results not
meeting EL
Percentile
#
%
Min
loth
25th
50th
75th
90th
Max
0
0
6.8
6.8
6.8
7
7.1
7.1
7.1
0
0
6.8
6.8
6.8
7
7.1
7.1
7.1
2
100
5A
SA
5A
SA
5.5
5.5
5.5
0
0
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.5
40
40
40
41
42
42
42
24
24
24
25
26
26
26
5
5
5
7
8
8
8
0
0
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.79
1
1
1
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.08
Key:
# result: number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentage of observations not meeting evaluation level
Refer to esb. etar. state. nc. us/bay. hind for full BAR text

bacteria, and chlorophyll a. However, violations of pH, and manganese.
water quality standards were recorded for turbidity,
Table 36. Waterbodies monitored in Subbasin 13 in the Cape Fear River basin for basinwide
assessment, 1998 - 2003.
B-1 Upper Little R Harnett SR 1222 Good -Fair Good -Fair l
B = benthic macminvertebrate mnitoring site.
River and Stream Assessment
Due to high summer flows (Appendix 1), the Upper
Little River at NC 27 and Barbecue Swamp were
not sampled. These two sites should be sampled
during basinwide monitoring in 2008.
Upper Little River, SR 1222
This site was located downstream of Lake Trace.
The rivers 54 square mile watershed
encompasses forest and agricultural land uses
with primarily forest and small fallow fields
immediately adjacent to the site. The river was 12
meters wide and the water was clear but tannin
stained. The riparian zone was intact and
extensive on the left bank, while the right bank
was fairly wide but fragmented. The canopy
provided adequate shading, but banks were
sparsely vegetated, allowing moderate erosion.
Substrate was mostly sand, but some rubble and
gravel were also present. Instream habitats were
woody debris, leaves, undercut banks, and root
mats. Pools, though infrequent, were a variety of
sizes. The habitat score was 70.
Upper Little River at SR 1222, Harnett County.
The site was rated Good -Fair; a rating it has held
since 1988. However, the EPT BI was at an all
time high in 2003 (Figure 65). 2003 EPT S
declined to mid -range when compared to the other
years (17 vs. 21 in 1998, 13 in 1993, and 19 in
1988). Though no real changes in water quality
were indicated, if the EPT BI trend continues, the
site will likely decline in rating.
6
5.5
'm
a 5
w
4.5
4
1988 1993 1998 2003
Year
Figure 65. EPT Biotic Index (EPT 81) at the Upper
Little River at SR 1222, Harnett County,
1983 - 2003.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report- Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
131

CAPE FEAR RIVER SUBBASIN 14
Description
This subbasin encompasses the entire Lower Little
River watershed (Figure 66). Major tributaries
include Nicks, Crane, Buffalo, and Anderson
Creeks and Jumping Run. This subbasin is
almost entirely within the Sand Hills ecoregion
(Griffith et aL 2002) (Figure 1). The lowermost
reaches of the Little River are within the
Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces. The
(Lower) Little River is classified as High Quality
Waters from its source to Crane Creek.
Almost 80 percent of the subbasin is forested and
less than three percent of the area is urban (Table
37). The urban areas include the Towns of
Southern Pines, Pinehurst, and Spring Lake.
There are 10 NPDES permitted dischargers in the
subbasin with three of these facilities having a
permitted flow greater than 0.5 MGD:
Heater Utilities Inc.'s Woodlake Country
Club WWTP discharging 1 MGD into Crane
Creek;
the Town of Spring Lake's WWTP
discharging 1.5 MGD into the Lower LitUe
River; and
the US Army's Fort Bragg WWTP and WTP
discharging 8 MGD into the Lower Little
River.
Table 37. Land use in Subbasin 14. Based upon
CGIA coverage 1993 -1995 (total area =
484 square miles (NCDENR 2000).
Land use
Percent
Water
2
Cultivated crop
8
Pasture
8
Urban
2
Forest
79
• u/[-r. erk•niir-=•axon•.
* Fitt rprmu'dY �ttft5^l.-18M1tc-'.
t� . L+tt Mnnf-fnp 5lalatt
* F`e - -
Ise
Figure 66. Sampling sites in Subbasin 14 in the Cape Fear River basin. Monitoring sites are
listed in Table 38.
Overview of Water Quality
Three benthos and eight fish community
assessment sites were surveyed in this subbasin
in 2003 (Table 38). High summer flows prevented
collection from the three remaining established
benthos sites. One benthos site showed
improvement over the 1998 survey — Anderson
Creek was rated Good, an improvement from
Good -Fair. The remaining two benthos collections
declined from the 1998 survey. Nicks Creek
declined from Good to Good -Fair and the Lower
Little River was rated Good -Fair, compared to its
previous Excellent rating. Both declines may be
attributed to the 2002 drought conditions.
A special study on Little Crane Creek concluded
that the stream was not impaired. Mill Creek was
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report— Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
132

also sampled for benthos during a special study,
resulting in an Excellent rating and a candidate for
potential reclassification to ORW.
There are no NPDES permitted facilities in the
watersheds of the Little River, Nicks, James, Flat,
Buffalo, and Anderson Creeks or Muddy Run
where fish community assessment were
performed. Six of the eight streams sampled for
fish community assessments were sampled for the
first time in 2003. However, criteria have not been
developed for rating these Sand Hill streams, so
all of them are classified as Not Rated.
Fort Brag's WTP and WWTP discharges 8.0 MGD
into the Little River and the Town of Spring Lake's
WWTP discharges 1.5 MGD into the Lower Little
River. Both facilities remained within compliance
for whole effluent toxicity testing requirements for
2003.
Only one lake was monitored in this subbasin in
2003. Old Town Reservoir is an impoundment of
Mill Creek and is mainly used for recreation.
Water clarity was considered good and
concentrations of chlorophyll a, metals, and
nutrients were within water quality standards
throughout 2003. The reservoir was considered
mesotrophic in June and July and eutrophic in
August.
Three ambient monitoring sites are located on the
Lower Little River in this subbasin: at Lobelia, at
Manchester, and at Spring Lake. Water quality
standards were met at all three stations for
nitrate+nitrite nitrogen, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
metals, fecal coliform bacteria and chlorophyll a.
However, all three sites reported pH values that
statistically exceeded water quality standards.
Table 38. Waterbodies monitored in Subbasin 14 in the Cape Fear River basin for basinwide
assessment, 1998 and 2003.
Map #
Waterbody
County
Location
1996
2003
B-1
Nicks Cr
Moore
NC 22
Good
Good -Fair
B-2
Lower Little R
Moore
SR 2023
Excellent
Good -Fair'
B-3
Anderson Cr
Harnett
SR 2031
Good -Fair
Good
F-1
Nicks Cr
Moore
NC 22
Not Rated
Not Rated
F-2
Little R
Moore
NC 22
—
Not Rated
F-3
James Cr
Moore
off SR 2026
—
Not Rated
FA
Flat Cr
Hoke
Manchester Road
—
Not Rated
F-5
Buffalo Cr
Moore
SR 1001
Not Rated
Not Rated
F-6
Jumping Run
Cumberland
NC 210
—
Not Rated
F-7
Muddy Cr
Cumberland
SR 1001
—
Not Rated
F-8
Anderson Cr
Harnett
SR 2031
Not Rated
Not Rated
L-1
Old Town Reservoir
Moore
'B = benthk; macroinvertebrate monitoring sites; F = fish community monitoring sites; L = lake monitoring sites
3sampled in 1996.
River and Stream Assessment
Due to high summer flows (Appendix 1), only three
of the six proposed benthic macroinvertebrate
sites could be sampled. The Lower Little River at
NC 87/24 and at US 401 and Jumping Run at SR
2031 were not sampled in 2003, but should be
sampled during the next round of basinwide
monitoring in 2008.
Eight streams were sampled in this subbasin for
fish community assessments. Six of these, the
Little River, Jumping Run, and James, Flat, and
Muddy Creeks, were sampled for the first time for
fish community assessments in 2003. However,
criteria have not been developed to assign ratings
to these communities and all of them are classified
as "Not Rated". Many of the streams had high
quality instream and riparian habitats (Appendix
2). Based upon the instream, riparian, and
watershed characteristics, sites on James, Flat,
and Muddy Creeks were qualified as new regional
reference sites. General characteristics of Sand
Hills streams and their fish fauna are discussed in
Appendix 8.
Little River, NC 22
The watershed of the Little River drains central
Moore County. The river bordered a golf course
NCDENR, Division of Water quality
Basimwide Assessment Report — Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
133

which had narrowed the riparian zone along side
the right bank.
Little River, NC 22, Moore County.
The Little River was sampled for the first time for
fish community assessment in 2003. Thirteen
species were present and the dominant species
were the bluegill and coastal shiner.
Nicks Creek, NC 22
The watershed of Nicks Creek is adjacent to and
south of the Little River watershed; the creek is a
tributary to the headwater area of the Little River.
The 26.8 square mile watershed is primarily
forested. The benthic macroinvertebrate site is
above the culverts whereas the fish community
site is below the culverts.
Nicks Creek at NC 22, Moore County.
During fish community sampling, woody debris
lines, far back in the riparian zone and resulting
from the extremely high flows of early June 2003
(refer to Cabin Creek, Subbasin 10), were evident.
In 2003, only 36 fish were collected of which 11
were bluegill. Fifteen species were present in
2003. In all; 20 species have been documented
from this site based upon 1996 and 2003 data.
At the upper portion of the benthic site was a
broad open area that appeared to be a
constructed lake or wetland area (Figure 67). A
rip -rap and earthen dam retained an impoundment
and wetland areas surrounded the vicinity. A rip -
rapped still water channel ran from the dam outfall
to Nicks Creek, suggesting that the stream likely
received waters and sediment from the
impoundment at some point. In the uppermost
portion of the sampling reach, the stream took a
90 degree turn above the confluence with the
constructed channel. Nicks Creek appeared
channelized above that confluence, suggesting
that it had been diverted around the impoundment
area.
Figure 67. Vlew from top of the dam of the
"impoundment" near Nicks Creek at NC
22, Moore County.
Overall, the riparian zones were fragmented, but
relatively broad. Banks were well -vegetated and
somewhat eroded. Along the stream banks were
berms and large quantities of overbank deposits
(perhaps from dredging associated with or as a
result of upstream impoundment activities)
reached well into the floodplain (Figure 68).
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Baslnwide Assessment Report- Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
134

Figure 68. Overbank deposits, Nicks Creek at NC
22, Moore County.
At the benthic site the stream was five meters
wide and flow was high, giving the appearance of
a large swift -moving run. Sand was the dominant
substrate, although gravel and cobble were also
present. Instream habitats were relatively
plentiful. Pools were infrequent and the same
size. Overall habitat was scored a 76.
The benthic community was rated Good each time
it was sampled until 2003, when it declined to
Good -Fair. The EPT BI has gradually increased
and the EPT S has gradually declined since 1988
(Figure 69).
5 24
4.5
m 4 20 y
3.5 rL
W 3 16 w
2.5
2 12
1988 1993 1998 2003
Year
KEPT BI 6 EPTS
Figure 69. EPTBiotic Index (EPT BI) and EPT taxa
richness (EPT S) at Nicks Creek at NC
22, Moore County, 1988 - 2003.
The loss of Macrostemum and Acroneuria,
abundant in previous samplings, was noteworthy.
Flooding in the area and resulting scour may
partially explain deterioration of the benthic
community in 2003. It was uncertain the degree to
which the impoundment and its construction or
maintenance activities affected the stream.
Lower Little River, SR 2023
The water level at this site was too high to permit
sampling during the regular basinwide monitoring
period. Results of a sample collected in January
2003 as part of a study on the impact of the 2002
drought was substituted for the basinwide sample.
The Lower Little River originates in Moore County
northwest of Pinehurst in the Sand Hills ecoregion
(Griffith et al. 2002) and flows east along the Hoke
County line into Cumberland County. At SR 2023,
the river's drainage area is 154 square mile, with
mostly forest and some pasture land adjacent to
the sampling reach. Riparian areas were intact
and extensive, banks were stable, and instream
habitat was abundant as woody debris, undercut
banks, root mats, leaves, and macrophytes
provided area for colonization for greater than 50
percent of the reach. Gravel was the dominant
substrate. The river at the time of sampling was at
high flow and appeared primarily as a run with few
pools. The habitat score was 94.
Downstream view of the Lower Little River at SR
2023, Moore County, January 2003.
The benthic community still showed drought
impacts in January 2003 (Figure 70). In October
2002, the community was rated Good -Fair, it was
still Good -Fair in January 2003. Between 1988
and 1998, the stream had been rated Excellent.
Other drought impacted streams took until summer
2003 or later to recover (DWQ unpublished data).
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report— Cape Fear River Basin -August 2004
135

35
2e
vl 21
F
W 14
7
0
flu
1988 1990 1993 1998 2002 2003
Year
Figure 70. EPT taxa richness (EPT S) at the Lower
Little River at SR 2023, Moore County,
1988 - 2003. Note: 1990, 2002, and
2003 data were based upon EPT
samples.
James Creek, off SR 2026
The watershed of James Creek begins near the
Weymouth Woods Sand Hills Nature Preserve and
includes southeastern Moore and northwestern
Hoke counties and Fort Bragg.
James Creek off SR 2026, Moore County.
In 2003, only 20 fish representing seven species
were collected at this site; the dominant species
was the dusky shiner.
Flat Creek, Manchester Road
The watershed of Flat Creek includes the property
of Fort Bragg in northern Hoke County. The
monitoring site was approximately 0.5 mile above
the creek's confluence with the Little River. Above
the concrete culverts which run under Manchester
Road, the stream is a typical Sand Hills stream
(Appendix 2). However below the culverts the
stream has unique clay -sandstone type riffles and
fast flowing chutes. This substrate and channel
type were also found in sections of Jumping Run
and Anderson Creek.
Flat Creek at Manchester Road, Hoke County.
Seventy-three fish representing 12 species were
collected at this site; the dominant species was the
margined madtom.
Buffalo Creek, SR 1001
Buffalo Creek is in the south-central corner of
Moore County and also drains southwestern
Harnett County. This site is part of the NC Natural
Heritage Program' s Buffalo Creek Pipewort
Natural Area (Carter and LeGrand 1989).
Buffalo Creek at SR 1001, Moore County.
The fish community was sampled in 1998 and
2003. Only eight species are known from this site;
six were collected in 1998 and seven in 2003. In
1998 28 fish were collected; in 2003 only 14. This
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report- Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
136

stream had the lowest diversity and abundance of
any Sand Hills site in 2003.
Jumping Run, NC 210
The watershed of Jumping Run drains southern
Harnett County and a small portion of northern
Cumberland County. There is one NPDES
permitted discharger (0.4 MGD) in the middle of
the watershed. The monitoring site was
approximately 0.4 mile above the stream's
confluence with the Little River. This site had very
fast flows and deep chutes.
Jumping Run at NC 210, Cumberland County.
Its fauna may have been influenced by the site's
proximity to the Little River. Large specimens of
spotted sucker, spotted bass, and flathead catfish
were collected. The latter two species are exotic
species that were introduced in the 1960s into the
Little River and the upper reaches of the mainstem
Cape Fear River. In 2003 spotted bass were
found at Hector and Kenneth Creeks (Subbasin
07), Jumping Run, Muddy and Anderson Creeks,
and Gum Log Canal (Subbasin 15).
Muddy Creek, SR 1001
The watershed of Muddy Creek drains southern
Harnett County west of NC 24/87 and a small
portion of northern Cumberland County. The
monitoring site was approximately 0.7 mile above
its confluence with the Little River. This site is part
of the NC Natural Heritage Program' s Overhills
Sand Hills Significant Natural Heritage Area
(LeBlond and Some 2002).
Muddy Creek at SR 1001, Cumberland County.
The pH (4.4 s.u.) was the lowest of any site in the
Sand Hills in 2003 (Appendix 14). The dominant
species was the redbreast sunfish and sawcheek
darter.
Anderson Creek, SR 2031
The watershed of Anderson Creek, in southern
Harnett County, is on the eastern edge of the
Sand Hills and borders the Southeastern
Floodplains and Low Terraces and the Rolling
Coastal Plain ecoregions. The monitoring site was
approximately 1.3 miles above its confluence with
the Little River. The stream at this location has a
drainage of area of 34.7 square miles.
Land use adjacent to the sampling reach was
mostly forest with some residences. Riparian
areas were intact, but the left bank was narrowed
by residences. Erosion areas were present, but
vegetation was diverse and held banks well even
at high flows. The dominant bottom substrate was
sand though a fair amount of gravel was also
present. At high flow the stream is a swift run.
Instream habitat was relatively abundant and
included woody debris, leaf packs, root mats,
undercut banks, and some macrophytes.
NCDENR, Division of Water duality
Basinwide Assessment Report- Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
137

Downstream view of Anderson Creek at SR 2031,
Hamett County.
The fish community was sampled in 1998 and
2003. Seventeen species are known from this site
and in both years the bluegill and dusky shiner
were the dominant species.
The benthic community improved from Good -Fair
in 1993 and 1998 to Good in 2000 during a special
study. The site remained Good in 2003. A
number of intolerant taxa were collected in 2003,
two of which, Acroneuria lycorias (Abundant) and
Oecetis georgia (Rare), were not previously
collected from the site.
SPECIAL STUDIES
Crane Creek Watershed
Seven sites Within the Crane Creek watershed
(Moore and Harnett counties) were assessed in
April 2002 at the request of the Watershed
Assessment and Restoration Project Unit's local
Watershed Planning Initiative. More than 75
percent of the watershed is forested with only one
percent developed and the remainder used for
agriculture. During a prolonged statewide drought,
the forested sub -watersheds had lower
conductivity and pH than did the sub -watersheds
with slightly greater percentage of agricultural
landuse. Aquatic and riparian habitats were of
high quality throughout the watershed. Fish
community characteristics were similar to those
from regional reference sites in the Sand Hills,
although conductivity was greater in the Crane
Creek watershed than at the reference sites. The
benthic macroinvertebrates rated most of the sub -
watersheds Good but with some indications that
stream flow in the smaller watersheds may
become intermittent during low flow periods each
year. Two smaller sub -watersheds, although not
rated, did not have any evidence of being
impaired. Thus, based on these evaluations, no
impaired drainages were identified in this
watershed (Biological Assessment Unit
Memorandum F-020815).
SPECIAL STUDIES
Little Crane Creek
Flow was not adequate during the 2002 to include
sampling of Little Crane Creek as part of the
Crane Creek Watershed Assessment and
Restoration Project. In April 2003 Little Crane
Creek was sampled at NC 24/27 and off US 1. An
additional sample from Crane Creek at SR 1810
was included to aid in data interpretation. The
sites did not appear to have fully recovered from
the 2002 drought, however, the Little Crane Creek
watershed was not impaired (Biological
Assessment Unit Memorandum B-030815). This
confirms the 2002 report conclusion that no
impaired drainages could be identified in the
Crane Creek watershed.
Stoney Creek Watershed Assessment and
Restoration Project
Anderson Creek at SR 2031 was sampled in
September 2000 as a part of the Stoney Creek
(Neuse River Basin, Wayne County) Watershed
Assessment and Restoration Project. It was
intended to serve as a reference stream for the
study. The location and the results proved too
dissimilar to Stoney Creek to be included in the
study (Biological Assessment Unit Memorandum
B-021023).
Mill Creek HQW Request
Mill Creek at SR 1853 (Moore County) was
sampled in July 2000 to verify its potential for
reclassification as Outstanding Resource Waters.
The EPT sample was rated Excellent with an EPT
BI of 3.78 and EPT S of 26 (Biological Assessment
Unit Memorandum B-000712).
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report— Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
138

Table 2. Trends in bioclassification at basinwide sites in the Cape Fear River basin, 1983 -
2004. Full Scale and EPT samples: G (Good), , F
(Fair), and Swamp samples: , M (Moderate), and
Other samples: iWIMpalred @M , Not Rated (NR). Blank = no sample. Stable = —>
= stable, improving = T, and declining =1.
Haw R
Alamance
NC 87
L Troublesome Cr
Rockingham
SR 2600
p
OZ
S Buffalo Cr
Guilford
US 70
y
Horsepen Cr
Guilford
US 220
-,
Reedy Fk
Guilford
SR 2728
j
Stony Cr
Caswell
SR 1100
Haw Cr
Alamance
SR 2158
-,
03
L Alamance Cr
Alamance
SR 2309
-,
Big Alamance Cr
Alamance
NC 49
j
Stinking Quarter Cr
Alamance
SR 1136
-,
04
Marys Cr
Alamance
SR 2174
-,
Cane Cr
Orange
SR 1114
■
Dry Cr
Chatham
SR 1520
j
Pokeberry Cr
Chatham
SR 1711
->
06
Morgan Cr
Orange
NC 54
-,
07
NO Is Cr
Harnett
SR 1441
j
08
Richland Cr
Guilford
SR 1145
-r
09
Deep R
Randolph
SR 2615
t
Sandy Cr
Randolph
SR 2481
-,
Richland Cr
Randolph
SR 2873
-r
Brush Cr
Randolph
NC 22142
--r
10
Mill Cr
Moore
SR 1275
r
-i
Buffalo Cr
Moore
NC 22
-r
12
Rocky
Chatham
US 64
-�
Hadands Cr
Chatham
NC 902
-r
14
Anderson Cr
Hamee
SR 2031
i
Nicks Cr
Moore
NC 22
FM
-r
Lower L River
Moore
SR 2023
MA
-i
16
Turnbull Cr
Bladen
SR 1511
y
17
Hood Cr
Brunswick
US 74176
-r
19
Black R
Sampson
NC 411
-r
L Coharie Cr
Sampson
SR 1214
T
22
L Rockfish Cr
Duplin
SR 1165
-.
23
Angola Cr
Pander
NC 53
?
Lillington Cr
Pander
SR 1520
-r
LAKE ASSESSMENT
In 2003, 33 lakes in the basin were monitored as
part of the Lakes Assessment program. Each lake
was sampled three times during the summer.
There were a variety of water quality concerns
documented during this time period:
➢ The summer of 2003 had significantly more
precipitation than the previous summer.
Precipitation from June 1 to August 31, 2003
ranged from 15 to 25 inches
(http://water.dnr.state.sc.us/climate/sercc/ind
ex.html). This rainfall resulted in an
increase in nonpoint source nutrient and
sediment runoff.
➢ Algal blooms were recorded at 50 sites
during 2003. The frequency of blooms
increased throughout the summer (13 in
June, 17 in July, and 20 in August). One-
third of the lakes experienced blooms, seven
of which had blooms that persisted
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report- Cape Fear River Basin - August 20G4
32

Table 5. Selected water quality standards for parameters sampled as part of the ambient
monitoring system.'
Standards for All Freshwater
Aquatic Human Water Supply
Standards to Support Additional Uses
Trout Swamp
Parameter , unless noted
Life
Health Classifications
Water HOW Waters
Arsenic
50
Cadmium
2.0
0.4
Chloride
230'0002
250,000
Chlorophyll a, corrected
403
153
Chromium, total
50
Coliform, total (MFTCC/100 ml)°
503 (WS4 only)
Colifomr, fecal (MFFCC/100 ml)5
2003
Copper, total
72
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
5.e7
6.0 3.7
Hardness, total (mg/L)
100
Iron (mg/L)
12
Lead
253
Manganese
200
Mercury
0.012
Nickel
88
25
Nitrate nitrogen
10,000
pH (units)
6.0 - 9.e 7
Selenium
5
Solids, total dissolved (mg/L)
500
Solids, total suspended (mg/L)
10 Trout, 20 othere
Turbidity (NTU)
50,253
103
Zinc
502
Standards apply to all classifications. For the protection of water supply and supplemental dassifications, standards listed under
Standards to Support Additional Uses should be used unless standards far aquatic rife or human health are listed and are more
stringent Standards are the same for all water supply classifications (Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B 0200, off. April 1, 2001).
2Adion level.
3Refer to 2B.0211 for narrative description of limits.
4Membrane filter total c olifomr count per 100 ml of sample.
MMembrane filter fecal colifomr count per 100 ml of sample.
eAn instantaneous reading may be as low as 4.0 mg/L, but the daily average must be 5.0 mg/L or more.
'Designated swamp waters may have a dissolved oxygen less than 5.0 mg/L and a pH as low as 4.3, If due to natural conditions.
$For effluent limits only, refer to 213.0224(1 Xb)(i).
Parameter , unless noted
Standards for All Saltwater
Aquatic Life Human Health Class SA
Standards To Support Additional Uses
HQW Swamp Waters
Arsenic
50
Cadmium
5.0
Chlorophyll a
403
Chromium, total
20
Colifonn, fecal (MFFCC/100mif
2003 143
Copper, total
35
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
5.09
6.0 3 e
Lead
253
Mercury
0.025
Nickel
8.3
pH (units)
6.8 - 8.5$
3.6
Selenium
71
Silver
0.15
Solids, total suspended (mg/L)
10 PNA', 20 other
Turbidity (NTU)
253
Zinc
865
'Standards are based on consumption of fish only unless dermal contact studies are available, see 28.0208 for equation.
CClass SA = shellfishing waters, see 213.0101 for description.
3See 28.0220 for narrative description of limits.
4MFFCC1100ml means membrane f€ter fecal coliforrn count per 100 ml of sample.
5values represent action levels as specified in 26.0220.
"Designated swamp waters may have a dissolved oxygen less than 5.0 mg/L and a pH as low as 4.3 s.u., if due to natural
conditions.
'PNA = Primary Nursery Areas.
$Far effluent limits only, see 213.0224.
@Swamp waters, poorly flushed tidally Influenced streams, or embayments, or estuarine bottom waters may have lower values if
caused by natural conditions.
NCDENR, Division of water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report — Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
39

Table 1. Percent distribution of bioclassifications by subbasin for all rateable benthic
macroinvertebrate sites in the Cape Fear River Basin, 2003.
Bioclassifications
Subbasin Poor Fair Good -Fair Good Excellent Not Rated Not Impaired Severe Moderate Natural
01 50 50
02 25 25 33 17
03 38 38 12 12
04 27 64 9
05 20 20 60
06 17 33 17 33
07 14 7 7 37 14 14 7
08 47 47 6
09 31 22 8 31 8
10 33 67
11 100
12 23 23 8 46
13 50 50
14 67 17 16
15 18 27 18 37
16 75 25
17 25 50 25
18
19 75 25
20 100
21
22 14 58 14 14
23 12 13 25 25 25
Long-term data was associated with 36 sites in the
basin (Table 2); 26 sites had stable water quality,
5 sites had declining water quality, and 5 sites had
improving water quality. Reedy Fork declined
from Good -Fair (two samples) to Fair. This
decline was likely due to very low flows resulting
from the variable discharges from Lake Townsend
during the 2002 drought. Stony Creek declined
from Good (two samples) to Not Rated. This site
lost roughly one-half of its EPT diversity in 2003
and the BI increased significantly. The decline in
rating was largely the result of extremely low flows
during 2002 although changes in upstream
landuse could not be ruled out as a contributing
factor in this site's decline.
Big Alamance Creek declined from Good -Fair (two
samples) to Fair. This decline was likely the
combined effects of drought and the increased
nonpoint inputs during the very wet year of 2003.
However, landuse changes in the catchment could
also be a contributing factor in the decline. Dry
Creek had been rated Poor, Good, and Good -Fair.
In 2003 this site declined slightly to Fair which may
be the result of the effects of the 2002 drought and
the increased nonpoint pollution inputs from the
wet year observed in 2003. Neill's Creek had a
substantial decline in bioclassification from Good -
Fair (two samples) to Poor. The decline could not
be attributed to drought alone as other nearby
streams showed no such impacts. Given the
drastic decline, the most likely explanations was a
toxicant spill or that this stream dried up
completely during 2002.
Little Troublesome Creek improved from Poor (two
samples) to Fair (last three samples). This modest
improvement was due to the relocation of the
Town of Reidsville's WWTP to the Haw River. The
Deep River has shown steady improvement ever
since initial samples in 1983 and 1985 were rated
Fair. From 1986 to 1996 the site was rated Good -
Fair; in 2003 it was rated Good. The improved
ratings were attributed to upgrades at the
numerous WWTPs located upstream.
Improved ratings were also noted from Anderson,
Little Coharie, and Angola Creeks. While specific
reasons for these improvements were not readily
apparent, many of these sites regularly experience
low flow conditions. It was possible that the high
flows in the lower basin a result of the very wet
year in 2003 may have improved ordinarily low
dissolved oxygen concentrations and increased
the amount of instream habitat suitable for
invertebrate colonization. However, use of BMPs
in the catchment cannot be ruled out. Continued
monitoring at these sties will help determine if
improvements are due to anthropogenic
intervention (i.e., BMPs) or are rather the result of
natural inter -annual variation.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report— Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
31

million menhaden. About one-half of the events
investigated in the basin could not be attributed to
an obvious cause.
Yearly kills reported decreased during the
monitoring period from 14 events in 1999 to just
three reports in 2003. The decrease has not been
associated with any improvements in water quality
throughout the basin.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
Benthic macroinvertebrates have been collected at
842 sites in the basin since 1983. In 2003, more
sites (n = 47) were rated Good -Fair than any other
bioclassification and totaled 30 percent of all sites
rated (Figure 8). Only 18 percent of the sites rated
Good, Excellent, or Natural; 29 percent of the sites
rated Poor, Fair, or Severely stressed.
Nine subbasins (e.g., 01 - 05, 08, 09, 12, and 13)
had high percentages of streams rated Fair (Table
1). In addition, Subbasins 02, 03, and 09 also had
high percentages of streams rated Poor. These
subbasins contain catchments that are dominated
by urban and suburban areas of Reidsville,
Greensboro, Burlington, Graham, Mebane,
Pittsboro, Durham, Research Triangle Park,
Greensboro, High Point, Asheboro, Ramseur, Siler
City, and Sanford. The large amount of
impervious surfaces combined With point (e.g.,
VW TPs) and nonpoint sources of pollution all
contributed to these low bioclassifications.
All of these subbasins, other than Subbasins 05
and 13, are located in the Carolina Slate Belt
ecoregion and are characterized by low summer
flows. Moreover, Subbasin 05 is located in the
Triassic Basin ecoregion and has zero flow for
most, if not all of the summer and is also
characterized by very poor instream habitat.
These factors, combined with the effects of
urbanization and drought, contributed to the lower
bioclassifications in these subbasins.
Conversely, Subbasins 07, 09, 10, 14, 19, and 23
had the greatest percentages of Good and
Excellent ratings. Subbasins 07 and 14 are
located in the Sand Hills ecoregion and are
characterized by year-round flow. Landuse in
these two subbasins is mostly rural, agricultural,
and forested instead of urbanized. Although
Subbasins 09 and 10 are located in the Carolina
Slate Belt, these subbasins have landuse which
are mostly Composed of rural residences,
agriculture, and forest. Even though Subbasin 09
had a high percentage of Poor and Fair ratings,
most of these bioclassifications were associated
with urbanized areas near Asheboro. The Good
and Excellent ratings were obtained from streams
whose catchments were mostly rural, agricultural,
and forest in composition.
so
45
40
a 35
Swamps
30
n 25
0
u 20
Z 15
10
5
0
p
9
O
9 C 9
O m O S
O
i
O
i
O
o.
IL N
u
tg Z rc
w
z° E
y
0
Z
Bioclassification
Figure 8. Distribution of bioclassifications for 157 benthic invertebrate samples collected in
the Cape Fear River basin in 2003.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report— Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
30

Figure 3. Fish community and benthic macroinvertebrate assessment sites rated Good,
Excellent, or Natural in the Cape Fear River basin, 2003. Stars = fish sites and
circles = benthic macroinvertebrate sites.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report— Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004
21

MARZIANO & MINIER, P.A. coNsurnNG ENGINEERS
SUBJECTS .mCi,(-,yA&--V\
t. LZ--y-,P
WORK- �� `�
DATE_
SET Up BY
l \mil ,
COMPUTED BY
CHECKED BY
PROJECT NO.
FILE NO
PAGE NO. OF
f j
S G Q V C.GL
5 o0
_
_
co
-
,'�r�. l40 _-1.
130 LA: t oo `o.ai:41
yo -
15
S O .6wqck
do Flo �.
a

HCOA1.DT2 Page 1
1
HARNETT CO
LOWER LITTLE
RIVER
491.26
03614 HARNETT
FAYETTEVILLE
TR
2/1/04
BYCS
42.180
96.100
0.000
405.560
0.000
28
U
9
0 35.000
2.000
1.000
7.050
369.000
0
0
2.905
6.400
4.000
1.150
0.115
0.01500
45.000
90.000
0.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.050
0.000
2.300
0.287
2.859
0.582
0.210
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
YTY
CNC
Y
1.150
0.115
8.00000
24.000
49.500
5.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.050
0.000
2.300
0.360
2.984
0.729
0.212
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
YTY
CNC
Y
0.600
0.060
0.00000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
2.300
2.000
1.000
7.050
20.000
2.300
0.366
3.039
DOMESTIC
C
7.830 0.000

HCOA1.DT2 Page 2
0.741 0.212 0.300
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
YTY
CNC
Y
3.500
0.350
0.00000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
1.100
2.000
1.000
7.050
10.000
2.300
0.369
3.085
0.746
0.212
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
YTY
CNC
Y
0.500
0.050
0.00000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
1.800
2.000
1.000
7.050
57.000
2.300
0.362
3.188
0.733
0.211
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
YTY
CNC
Y
0.600
0.060
0.00000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
1.300
2.000
1.000
7.050
37.000
2.300
0.360
3.242
0.728
0.211
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
YTY
CNC
Y
3.200
0.320
0.00000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
0.400
2.000

HCOAI.DT2 Page 3
YTY
CNC
Y
NTY
CNC
Y
NTY
CNC
Y
1.000
7.050
4.500
3.800
0.418
3.040
1.396
0.218
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
6.500
0.650
9.00000
15.000
15.930
5.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
7.050
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.050
0.000
3.800
0.490
3.166
1.639
0.220
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
5.160
0.516
0.00000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.200
0.390
2.000
1.000
0.000
1.400
2.000
1.000
0.000
42.000
2.700
0.440
3.425
1.045
0.213
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000
Wasteflow (mgd)
5-Day BOD (mg/1)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
pH (SU)

Re: QUALM
Subject: Re: QUAL2K
From: Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:43:09 -0400
To: teresa rodriguez <[e-mail]>
CC: Gil Vinzani <[e-mail]>, Adugna Kebede <[e-mail]>
Please ask the consultant to burn the model files and a report to a CD and send it to
you. If this consultant has not submitted a QUAL2E model to us in the past, you
should show them one of DWQ's QUAL2E modeling reports, or one of CH2M Hill's reports,
as a guide. We don't review QUAL2E or QUAL2K models without a report and all final
reviews must include a CD so that we can verify inputs. A contact name should be
provided because we always have questions.
You seem to indicate that a special field study was conducted for this model. We
will need a copy of the study plan and any data collected for the modeling as well.
Hopefully, there is a field study report or technical memorandum for the Little River
field study.
Please be aware that once the Modeling & TMDL Unit receives a QUAL2E/QUAL2K model for
review, it takes a minimum of 30 days for us to review it.
Michelle
teresa rodriguez wrote:
Michelle, we had a meeting today with Harnett County and their consultant, Hi
Marziano, he presented a QUAL2K model that they want to use to evaluate a new
discharge on the Little River. The reason they are doing this is because we ran a
level B model but the results indicated low DO, so we told them they couldn't
discharge to the proposed location. We told them that we would solicit your input on
this. They sent me a model run, it is not their final request, they just want us to
give them guidance to start working on the permit application. They did some
measurements and sampling to get some of the model inputs, I asked him to send us
the data inputs and where they came from. We would like to get some comments from
your group regarding the use of this model.
I am going to send the files to you by forwarding the emails he sent me because the
system can't handle them as attachments. They are zip files, there are instructions
on his emails on how to save them, if you have any problems opening them let me know
and I'll try to find another way.
Thanks,
Teresa
Michelle Woolfolk <michelle.woolfolk c ncmail.net>
Modeling & TMDL Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1 of 1 8/8/2005 12:45 PM

ft Data Zoom u&