NC0020184_SPECULATIVE LIMITS_19920214

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NC0020184
Gastonia — Long Creek WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
,Q'Speculative Limits
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: February 14, 1992
TlN4s document fs printed 403M reuse paper-igpnare S&szy
Content CO3M the re-WC- p MICle

I
r
�31
State o' Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street•Raleigh,North Carolina 27604
James G.Martin,Governor George T.Everett,Ph.D.
William W. Cobey,Jr., Secretary Director
February 14, 1992
Mr. John W. McLaughlin, PE
J.N. Pease Associates
P.O. Box 18725
2925 East Independence Blvd. `
Charlotte, NC 28218
SUBJECT: Proposed relocation of the Long Creek WWTP discharge.
NPDES Permit No. NC0020184.
Gaston County.
Dear Mr. McLaughlin:
On November 13, 1991, the Technical Support Branch of the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM)met with the City of Gastonia and your firm to discuss
alternate discharge locations for the City's Long Creek WWTP. As you know, the facility
is currently discharging 8 MGD of wastewater to Long Creek and has plans to expand to
16 MGD. Due to limited dilution available in Long Creek (7Q10= 3.5 cfs), the City is
concerned about meeting its toxicity limits under existing conditions as well as in the
future. The City proposes to move its discharge to the South Fork Catawba River in order
to receive the benefits of additional dilution in the receiving waters. However, discharge to
the South Fork is complicated by the presence of the Spencer Mountain Dam which diverts
water from the South Fork for a hydroelectric project operated by Duke Power. According
to the City,piping wastewater approximately 0.7 miles downstream to below the hydro
project would be prohibitively expensive and,perhaps,infeasible due to physical
obstructions. The City asked DEM to consider discharge locations either in the pool above
the dam or below the dam in the bypass reach.
DEM has previously considered discharge by the Long Creek WWTP to the bypass
reach. Speculative limits were developed and sent to you in a letter of August 23, 1991.
However, since that time new information has become available to DEM. A time of travel
study conducted by DEM on October 29, 1991,indicated that velocity in the bypass reach
was very low when the hydro project was running. A 10 hour time of travel over the 0.7
mile bypass reach indicates that the bypass reach is not a suitable discharge location for a
major facility. The braided nature of the upper end of the reach and pooling at the bottom
of the reach further enforce this conclusion. Unless the minimum release from the Spencer
Mountain Dam is significantly increased, no further consideration of the bypass reach for
the assimilation of wastewater should be made.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

2
Technical Support has now completed an analysis of the impact of discharge by
the Long Creek WWTP to the pool above the Spencer Mountain Dam. Using field data
collected during the October 1991 TOT study and hydraulic information provided by Duke
Power and the USGS, a desktop model was developed for the Spencer Mountain Dam area
of the South Fork Catawba River. The model was used to predict water quality impacts for
the following two scenarios: 1) the Long Creek WWTP with existing treatment capabilities
discharging directly to the Spencer Mountain Dam pool; 2)the Long Creek WWTP
expanded to 16 MGD with tertiary treatment discharging directly to the pool.
Results of the model indicate that the pool above the dam is not a suitable place for
the discharge of the facility's waste as currently permitted Due to operation of the Duke
Power hydroelectric facility,low stream velocities are predicted periodically in the pool
during low flow conditions. Direct BOD loading from the Long Creek WWTP is predicted
to drop dissolved oxygen levels below the instream standard. However, at tertiary limits, a
16 MGD discharge from Long Creek would have significantly lower BOD loading and is
not predicted to cause dissolved oxygen violations. Technical Support cannot recommend
that the Long Creek WWTP discharge be moved to the Spencer Mountain Dam pool unless
the facility is fast upgraded to a tertiary plant.
The presence of the Spencer Mountain Dam clearly complicates the City of
Gastonia's efforts to upgrade the Long Creek WWTP without violating instream standards
for toxicants or dissolved oxygen.
Given the current operation of the Duke Power hydro project, two options are
recommended by Technical Support:
1) Move the discharge location to below the tailrace of the Duke Power
Hydroelectric project. This Iocation is suitable for both the current discharge and discharge
from the expanded facility.
2) Keep the discharge location at its present location until after expansion of the
plant. This may require Gastonia to enter into a Special Order by Consent (SOC) if the
facility is anticipated to be out of compliance during the transition period. The discharge
could be relocated to the South Fork near the mouth of Long Creek after tertiary limits are
reached.
Three other options may be considered if conditions around the Spencer Mountain
Dam change:
1) Duke Powers' operation of the Spencer Mountain Dam is currently being
reviewed for FERC relicensing. DEM and Water Resources have both recommended that
the minimum release from the dam be increased. Duke Power has not agreed to these
recommendations. If the new FERC licence were to require a minimum release from the
dam of 50 cfs or more, the Spencer Mountain Dam area of the South Fork would be a
suitable location for the Long Creek WWTP discharge. However, the issue of minimum
release from the dam is unlikely to be resolved for a year or so,and there is no guarantee
that the release will be increased.
2) Further study of the hydraulics and water quality of the pool above the Spencer
Mountain Dam may allow for the calibration of a more detailed stream model. Such a
model could be used to reevaluate DEM's conclusions about the ability of the area to
assimilate wastewater. This study would have to be completed during a low flow period
on the South Fork and, consequently, results would not likely be available until after the
summer of 1992.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

3
3) If the existing Long Creek facility was able to meet lower summer BOD and/or
ammonia limits, equivalent to 10 mg/l BOD5 and 4 mg/1 NH3-N, the discharge could be
moved to the South Fork near the mouth of Long Creek with interim limits until the
expanded facility was completed.
I encourage you to continue to work with our staff to plan for a successful solution
to these issues. Please feel free to call Steve Bevington or myself at(919) 733-5083 if you
have any questions.
;SS.inceIy,or CIements, Asst. Chief
uality Section
JTC/SRB'-
cc Rex Gleason
Dale Overcash
Jay Sauber
Alan Clark
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 31, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Trevor Clements
THROUGH: Mike Scoville
Ruth Swanek
FROM: Stephen Bevington
SUBJECT: Gastonia-Long Creek WWTP discharge location
NPDES Permit No.NCO020184
Gaston County
BACKGROUND
Technical Support met with the City of Gastonia November 13, 1991,to discuss alternate
discharge locations for the City's Long Creek WWTP. The facility is currently discharging 8 MGD of
wastewater to Long Creek and has plans to expand to 16 MGD. Due to limited dilution available in Long
Creek(7Q10=3.5 cfs), the City is concerned about meeting its toxicity limits in the future. The City
proposes to move its discharge to the South Fork Catawba River in order to receive the benefits of
additional dilution in the receiving waters. The City has agreed that any expansion of the Long Creek
WWTP will involve upgrading the facility to an advanced tertiary plant. However,discharge to the
South Fork is complicated by the presence of the Spencer Mountain Dam which diverts water from the
South Fork for a hydroelectric project operated by Duke Power. According to the City,to pipe
wastewater approximately 0.7 miles downstream to discharge below the hydro project would be a
considerable expense. The City asked DEM to consider discharge locations either in the pool above the
dam or below the dam in the bypass reach (see schematic).
DEM has previously considered discharge by Gastonia to the bypass reach. Speculative limits
were developed and sent to the City in a letter of August 23, 1991. However,since that time new
information has become available to DEM. A time of travel study conducted by DEM on October 29,
1991,indicated that velocity in the bypass reach was very low when the hydro project was running. A 10
hour time of travel over the 0.7 mile bypass reach indicates that the bypass reach is not a suitable
discharge location for a major facility. The braided nature of the upper end of the reach and pooling at
the bottom of the reach further enforce this conclusion. Unless the minimum release from the Spencer
Mountain Dam is significantly increased,no further consideration of the bypass reach for the assimilation
of wastewater should be made.
The two remaining locations for discharge on the South Fork are above the dam and below the
tailrace of the hydro project. Past modeling has indicated that below the tailrace is an appropriate place
for the discharge of highly treated wastewater in the amounts planned for by Gastonia. The question
addressed in this analysis is,is the pond above the Spencer Mountain Dam an acceptable location for the
discharge of wastewater from the Gastonia Long Creek WWTP?
MODEL DESIGN
Operation of the hydro project controls the hydraulics of the South Fork during low flow
conditions. The turbines are turned on and off by a set of float control valves. The turbines operate
within a 36 inch elevation range at the headworks, which translates into a 18 inch fluctuation the pool.
Duke Power's operation protocol results in three possible sets of hydraulic conditions during low flow
periods. The,first of these is when the hydro project is offline for a prolonged period of time,(>8 hours),
and essentially all flow in the South Fork travels over the dam and through the bypass reach. This .

condition was not modeled because it provides the highest flows and velocities in the natural channel and
so is the least critical condition for water quality. The second condition is when the turbines are running.
In this case the majority of the flow of the South Fork passes through the turbines and as little as 15 cfs
leaks through the dam and flows down the bypass reach. The third condition exists when the turbines
have been shut off to allow the pool to refill. In this case,velocity in the pool is at a minimum,as only
the Ieakage of 15 cfs through the is dam is leaving the pool.
When the hydro project operates at low flow conditions,the hydraulics will alternate between
two conditions: the turbines on and the turbines off as the pool refills. Because this system changes with
time,a steady state model can not be used. However,a steady state model may be used to model each
condition separately. This approach was used to gain insight into how DO concentration will respond as
the turbines are turned on and off.
METHODS
A level-b model was calibrated for the Spencer Mountain Dam region of the South Fork. Four
cross sections of the pool above the dam were used to calculate velocity and depth in the pool(Table 1).
Using the relationship V=Q/A,velocity in the pool was calculated for the 7Q10 flow of 120 cfs and the
minimum flow of the dam of 15 cfs. Slope in the reaches above and below the pool were estimated from
topo maps according to DEM standard operating procedures. Because the area of interest is less than one
river mile long,runoff was assumed to be unimportant and runoff values were set to near zero. At the
dam, 105 cfs was removed from the stream so that only 15 cfs traveled through the bypass reach (model
reaches 6 and 7). This flow represented flow through the hydro channel and was reintroduced at the tail
race(reach 8). DO in the hydro channel was not modeled.
Two flow models were developed,one for when the turbines were running and one for when the
turbines were off and the pool refilling. Two discharge conditions were also modeled; 1) Gastonia's
waste,as currently permitted,piped directly to the South Fork Spencer Mountain Dam pool,and 2)
Waste from Gastonia's proposed expanded facility at advanced tertiary limits piped directly to the pool.
The existing facility discharges more total BOD than is planned for the expanded and improved plant.
RESULTS
The model predicts that under conditions where the turbines are off and the pool is refilling,a
significant oxygen debt will develop in the pool. If this condition were to exist indefinitely,the model
would predict DO violations for both the current limits(new discharge point)and proposed limits for an
expanded facility(Figure 1): However,it is unlikely that this condition will occur for longer than 8 hours
at a time because after that time the pool would refill and either the turbines would turn on or the river
would flow over the top of the dam. In either case,the velocities would increase. Figure 2 presents the
predicted DO profiles for the steady-state condition where water flows through the pool on its way to the
turbines. In this case,there is little loss of DO in the pool,but a significant DO sag exists in the bypass
reach with the DO minimum just above the tailrace. One similarity between both flow conditions is that
the discharge wastewater meeting the current permit limits produces a lower minimum DO than
discharge of more wastewater ahcrtiary limits.
Interpretation of these results must be done carefully since the models are not designed to handle
a dynamic system. BOD and DO will fluctuate as the turbines turn off and on. It is clear that if Gastonia
were to go ahead with their plans to build an expanded facility that could meet tertiary limits,it would be
unlikely to cause DO violations in the South Fork. If Gastonia simply built a pipe from its existing
discharge to the pool on the South Fork it is unclear whether DO violations would occur. Most
uncertainty results from not knowing how quickly water in the pool will deoxygenate as the pool refills.
One large part of the system that could not be modeled was the water in the hydro channel. This
water may have a velocity approaching zero for periods of up to 8 hours under normal operating
conditions. CBOD concentration would be as high as 6.95 mg/l given the existing limits or 6.35 mg/l if
the expanded facility was at full capacity. Deoxygenation would likely follow a similar pattem to that in
the pool,and so DO violations are a possibility in the hydro channel as well.

r
RECOMMENDATIONS
At present it cannot be recommended that Gastonia's Long Creek WWTP discharge at existing
limits be relocated above the Spencer Mountain Dam. Such a discharge may result in DO violations in
the pool above the dam and in the bypass reach. However,if the BOD load was reduced, the pool could
provide a suitable discharge point. Gastonia should be encouraged to develop its tertiary plant before
relocating to the South Fork Catawba River. A discharge of 16 MGD at 5 mg/I BODS and 2 mg/1 NH3-
N, (or 5 and 1) is predictedZe assimilated by the South Fork above the Spencer Mountain Dam.
However,the discharge would have to be engineered to ensure good mixing of the effluent in the pool
and a DO limit should be applied to the end of the pipe. Also,a study or engineering review would need
to be done to ensure that RanAo's water supply intake(0.65 miles upstream of the dam)would not be
affected by the discharge.
If Gastonia was unable to modify the plant before relocating the discharge to the South Fork,
they could consider meeting the same total BOD5 and NH3 loads that are proposed for the expanded
facility with the existing facility. This would mean meeting summer limits of 10 mg/l BODS and 4 mg/1
NH3-N or less.

SFC 75 ft downstream of Long Creek. f i/27�R r
Dist. Depth Delta D Ave Depth Weigthed D SFC 500 ft downstream of Long Creek.
0 0 15 5.465 81.975 Dist. Depth Delta D Ave Depth Weigthed D
15 10.93 20 11.78 235.6 0 0 20 4.7 94
35 12.63 20 12.63 252.6 20 9.4 20 9.615 192.3
55 12.63 20 12.98 259.6 40 9.83 20 9,63 192.6
75 13.33 20 13.28 265.6 60 9.43 20 10.18 203.6
95 13.23 20 12.78 255.6 80 10.93 20 10.43 208.6
115 12.33 20 11.13 222.6 100 9.93 20 9.93 198.6
135 9.93 10 4.965 49.65 120 9.93 20 5.03 100.6
145 0 140 0.13 10 0.065 0.65
D = 11.19 fi 150 0
W = 145 ft D = 7.94ft
XA = 1623.23 sq. ft W= 150 ft
Vel 120 = 0.074 ft/sec XA= 1190.95 sq. ft
Vel 15 = 0.009 tt/sec Vel 120 = 0.101 ft/sec
Vel 15 = 0.013 ft/sec
600 feet upstream of Spencer Mountain Dam. 100 feet upstream of Spencer Mountain Dam.
Dist. Depth Delta D Ave Depth Weigthed D Dist. Depth Delta D Ave Depth Weigthed D
0 0 20 3.015 60.3 0 0 25 1.965 49.125
-ti 20 6.03 20 6.345 126.9 25 3.93 20 4.03 80.6
40 6.66 20 5.645 112.9 45 4.13 20 4.48 89.6
60 4.63 20 3.78 75.6 65 4.83 20 4.53 90.6
80 2.93 20 3.98 79.6 85 4.23 20 4.18 83.6
100 5.03 20 3.98 79.6 105 4.13 20 4.13 82.6
120 2.93 20 3.88 77.6 125 4.13 20 3.83 76.6
140 4.83 20 4.18 83.6 145 3.53 20 4.13 82.6 1.
160 3.53 20 6.33 126.6 165 4.73 20 4.08 81.6
180 9.13 20 9.18 183.6 185 3.43 20 3.83 76.6
200 9.23 20 8.83 176.6 205 4.23 20 4.18 83.6
220 8.43 20 8.83 176.6 225 4.13 20 4.53 90.6
240 9.23 15 4.615 69.225 245 4.93 20 6.33 126.6
255 0 265 7.73 20 8.23 164.6
D = 5.60 ft 285 8.73 20 8.33 166.6
W= 255 ft 305 7.93 10 3.965 39.65
XA= 1428.73 sq. ft 315 0
Vel 120 = 0.084 ft/sec D = 4.65 ft
Vel 15 = 0.010 ft/sec W = 315 ft
XA = 1465.18 sq. ft
Vel 120= 0.082 ft/sec
Vel 15= 0.010 ft/sec

ra�xl/R!
Estimated DO profile of South Fork Catawba River at the Spencer Mountain Dam with
the Hydroelectric Project Off and the Pool Refilling.
7.5
ESP
6.5
6 8 MGD, 11 mg/l BOD 5,7 mgA NH3
DO (mgA) ❑ 16 MGD,5 mgA BOD5,2 mgA NH3
5.5
- DO standard
5 - -- - - - - - - - -
4.5 1152� t<L��■t■■■ �l�r■
4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Discharge Dam Tailrace
Distance (miles)
Estimated DO profile of South Fork Catawba River at the Spencer Mountain Dam with
the Hydroelectric Project On and Pool Flowing.
7.5
7
6.5
6 8 MGD, 11 mgA BOD 5,7 mo NH3
DO (mg/l) ❑ 16 MGD,5 mgA BOD5,2 mgA NH3
5.5 DO standard
5 - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4.5
4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t 1 1.2 1.4
Discharge Dam Tailrace
Distance (miles)
�1

Poo
- F-2� � (�►`�-- . . - 1 .055 . 01 .07 N-5 aS .31
ue'�c �I v�✓
C Ud s3 Os,
-Yd 00
- 7 L�f ��ffJ ---- , o I_ o! -°/ - 01.- . 61
- 76? 10r ° °s
—qoo
o 1,6 �.
JJ
Flow ►-"ovei "i 4A.C.4 r-y lacc.0 toy
— --vdIj ,
kid, = t os ILr
�6Q f �Ag { � ��� ��cco.,�ll 7
acr'-

SRC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
)a1a 7/Q1
So,,A irk Gv4w�04- . --- -- ----- --- ---- - - - - -�-
�pk R i
re Ca T4,Oi, - -
/t/G.00ao/f
.R3
R�
V
r

�
~ GUMMER
TURBINES ON AND POOL FLOWING.
GASTONIA AT 16 MGD, 5&2'
| Seg # | Reach # | Seg Mi 1 D.O. | CBOD 1 NBOD | Flow |
1 1 0 .00 7 .30 2.00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 0.01 7-30 2.00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 (). 02 7. 31 2 .00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 O.03 7. 31 2.00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 04 7 . 31 2 . 00 1 . 00 91 . 90
1 1 0.05 7.31 2.00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 0 . 06 7. 32 2. 00 1 . 00 91 . 90
1 1 0 '07 7. 32 2.00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 0 . 08 7.32 2. 00 1 . 00 91 . 90
1 1 0.09 7. 32 1 .99 1 .00 91 .90
1 . 1 0 ' 10 7'33 1 ' 99 1 .00 91 .90
1 2 0. 10 6.85 6.59 2.65 120.00
1 2 0. 11 6.83 6.59 2.64 120. 00
1 2 0. 11 6.82 6.58 2.64 120.00
1 2 0. 12 6.81 6.57 2.63 120.00
1 2 0. 12 6.80 6'56 2.63 120.00
1 2 0. 13 6.79 6'56 2'62 120. 00
1 2 0. 13 6.78 6.55 2.62 120.00
1 2 0. 14 6.77 6. 54 2.61 120.00
1 2 0. 14 6 .76 6.34 2. 61 120.00
1 2 0 ' 15 6. 75 6.53 2 . 60 120 .00
1 2 0. 15 6.74 6.52 2'60 120.00
1 2 0 . 16 6. 72 6.51 2 .59 120 . 00
1 3 0' 16 6. 72 6'51 2 .59 120.00
1 3 0. 16 6.72 6 . 51 2.59 120 .00
1 3 0. 17 6.71 6.50 2.59 120.00
1 all 0. 17 6. 70 6. 50 2. 58 120.00
1 3 0. 18 6.69 6.49 2.58 120.00
1 3 0 . 18 6'69 6' 49 2'57 120.00
1 3 0. 19 6.68 6.48 2.57 120.00
1 3 0. 19 6. 67 6. 48 2,57 120 .00
1 3 0.20 6.66 6.47 2.56 120 .00
1 3 0 .20 6. 65 6. 47 2.56 120 .00
1 3 0'21 6. 65 6.46 2.56 120'00
1 3 0.21 6'64 6.46 2.55 120 .00
1 3 0.22 6.63 6.45 2.55 120.00
1 4 0. 22 6. 63 6. 45 2.55 120'00
1 4 0.22 6.62 6.45 2.54 120.00
1 4 0 . 23 6.62 6.44 2 . 54 120.00
1 4 0.23 6.61 6.43 2.54 120.00
1 4 0'24 6.60 6'43 2.53 120'00
1 4 0.24 6.59 6.42 2.53 120.00
1 4 0.25 6.58 6 .42 2.52 120.00
1 4 0'25 6.57 6.41 2.52 120.00
1 4 0.26 6.57 6'40 2.51 120.00
1 ' 4 0.26 6.56 6.40 2.51 120.00
1 4 0 . 27 6'55 6'39 2 . 50 120 '00
1 4 0. 27 6 .54 6.38 2 .50 120.00
1 4 0.28 6.53 6 . 38 2. 50 120 . 00
1 4 0.28 6.52 6.37 2 .49 120.00
1 4 0.29 6.52 6. 37 2.49 120100
1 5 0.29 6.52 6'37 2.49 120.00
1 5 0.29 6.51 6'36 2,48 120.00
1 5 0.30 6'50 6.35 2.48 120.00
1 5 0. 30 6. 49 6.35 2.47 120'00
1 5 0. 31 6 '49 6.34 2.47 120.00
1 5 0. 31 6.48 6'33 2 .47 120'00
1 5 0. 32 6 .47 6'33 2'46 120.00

1 5 ' 0.33 6.45 6. 32 2.45 120 .00
1 5 0.33 6.45 6.31 2.45 120. 00
� A. 5 0.34 6.44 6'30 2.44 120.00
1 5 0.34 6.43 6'30 2.44 120'00
1 5 0.35 6.42 6.29 2.44 120.00
1 5 0.35 6.42 6'28 2.43 120' 00
1 6 0.35 6.40 6.32 2 '44 15.00
1 6 0.48 6.38 6 ' 27 2.41 15'00
1 6 0.45 6.37 6.23 2.38 15.00
1 6 0.50 6.35 6' 19 2.35 15 . 01
1 6 0.55 6.34 6. 15 2.33 15.01
1 6 0.60 6.33 6. 11 2.90 15. 01
1 7 0.57 6. 30 6. 31 2'75 15.08,
1 7 0'62 6. 22 6 . 25 2.70 15. 08
1 7 0.67 6' 15 6. 18 2'66 15.08
1 7 0.73 6' 07 6. 12 2.61 15,09
1 7 0.77 6.00 6.06 2.56 15.09
1 7 0.82 5' 94 6. 00 2. 52 15 . 09
1 7 0.87 5.87 5.94 2. 47 15.09
1 7 0 .92 5' 81 5 .88 2. 43 15' 09
1 8 0.92 6. 34 6.23 2.43 120.09
1 8 2 .02 6. 36 6.21 2. 42 120. 09
1 8 1 . 12 6. 38 6.20 2.41 120'09
'1 8 1 .22 6. 40 6. 18 2.40 120 ' 09
1 8 1 .32 6.42 6' 16 2. 39 120.09
| Sag # | Reach # | Sag Mi | D.O. | CBOD | NBOD | Flow |

. ^ `
°
SUMMER
TURBINE8 ON AND POOL FLOWINB'
GASTONIA AT 8 MGD ,
| S e g # | Reach # 1 Seg Mi | D.O CBOD � NBOD � Flow |
1 1 0. 00 7.30 2 . 00 1 . 00 104 . 30
1 1 0.01 7.30 2.00 1 .00 104. 30
1 1 0.02 7.31 2.00 1 .00 104 .�0
1 1 0.O3 7.31 2.00 1 .00 104. 30
1 1 0.04 7'31 2.00 1 .00 104 .30
1 1 0.05 7.31 2.00 1 .00 104 .30
1 1 0'06 7.32 2'00 1 .00 104' 30
1 1 0.07 7.32 2.00 100 104.30
1 1 0'08 7.32 2. 00 1 '00 104 '30
1 1 0.09 7'33 2.00 1 .00 104.30
1 1 0. 10 7.33 1 .99 1 .00 104. 30
A. 2 0. 10 7.09 7.30 4. 15 120.00
1 2 0. 11 7.07 7'29 4' 14 120.00
1 2 0, 11 7.06 7.29 4. 13 120.00
1 2 0' 12 7.04 7. 28 4. 12 120'00
1 2 0. 12 7.03 7.27 4. 12 120.00
1 2 0. 13 7.01 7. 26 4. 11 120.00
1 2 0. 13 7.0O 7.25 4. 10 120.00
1 2 0, 14 6.98 7'25 4.09 120'00
1 2 0. 14 6.97 7.24 4.08 120.00
1 2 0. 15 6.95 7.23 4.08 120.00
1 2 0. 15 6.94 7.22 4.07 120.00
1 2 0. 16 6.92 7. 21 4 .06 120.00
1 3 0. 16 6.92 7.21 4 .06 120.00
� 3 0. 16 6.91 7. 21 4 .05 120 .00
1 3 0. 17 6.90 7'20 4.05 120. 00
1 3 0 . 17 6.89 7 .20 4.04 120.00
1 3 0. 18 6.88 7. 19 4.04 120.00
1 3 0. 18 6. 87 7. 19 4 -0'23 120'00
1 3 0. 19 6.86 718 4 .02 120.00
1 3 0. 19 6.85 7 . 17 4 .02 120. 00
1 3 0.20 6.84 7 . 17 4.01 120.00
1 3 0 .20 6. B3 7' 16 4 .01 120.00
1 3 0.21 6'82 7. 16 4.00 120.00
1 3 0. 21 6.81 7. 15 4 .00 120'00
1 3 0.22 6.80 7 ' 15 3'99 �20.00
1 4 0 . 22 6.80 7. 15 3'99 120.00
A. 4 0.22 6.79 7. 14 3.98 120.00
1 4 0.23 6 . 77 7. 13 3. 98 120 '(DO
1 4 0.23 6.76 7. 12 3.97 120.00
1 4 0 '24 6.75 7. 12 3.96 120.00
1 4 0. 24 6.74 7. 11 3.96 120.00
1 4 0.25 6.73 7 . 10 8.95 120. 00
1 4 0.25 6.71 7. 10 3.94 120. 00
� 4 0.26 6. 70 7.09 3. 93 120 .00
1 4 0.26 6.69 7.08 3.93 120.00
1 4 0'27 6 ' 6B 7.08 3. 92 120,00
1 4 0.27 6.67 7.07 3.91 120.00
1 4 0 . 28 6'66 7.06 3.91 120. 00
1 4 0.28 6.65 7.06 3.90 120.00
1 4 0'29 6 .63 7.05 3.89 120.00
1 5 0.29 6.63 7.05 3.89 120.00
1 5 0 '29 6. 62 7.04 3.89 120,00
1 5 0.30 6'61 7.04 3.88 120.00
1 5 0 . 30 6' 60 7 .03 3.87 120.00
1 5 0. 31 6.59 7.02 3.87 120.00
1 56.58 7'01 3.86 120.00
1 5 0. 32 6.57 7.01 3.85 120.00

. `
1 5 ` 0. 33 6.55 6.99 3.84 120.00
1 5 0. 33 6. 54 6. 99 3. 83 120.00
1 5 0. 34 6.52 6.98 3.83 120'00
� 1 5 0. 34 6'51 6 . 97 3.82 120.00
1 5 0. 35 6.50 6.97 3.81 120.00
1 5 0.35 6.49 6. 96 3.G1 120 .00
1 6 0.35 6 .51 6.95 3.77 15.00
1 6 0.40 6.47 6.90 3'73 15'00
1 6 0.45 6.43 6.86 3.69 15.00
1 6 0. 50 6.40 6.81 3.64 15' 01
1 6 0.55 6.37 6' 77 3.60 15.01
1 6 0. 60 6.34 6. 72 3. 56 15'01
1 7 0. 57 6.30 6.92 4.01 15.08
1 7 0'62 6. 20 6. 85 3. 93 15 .08
1 7 0.67 6. 10 6. 78 3.87 15.08
1 7 0.72 6. 00 6. 71 3. 80 15.09
1 7 0.77 5.90 6.65 3.73 15.Q9
1 7 0 .82 5 . 81 6 '58 3' 66 15'09
1 7 0.87 5.72 6.52 3.60 15.09
1 7 0. 92 5. 64 6.45 3.54 15.09
1 8 0.92 6.38 6.90 3 . 78 120.09
1 8 1 . 02 6 . 39 6.88 3.76 120 . 09
1 8 1 . 12 6.40 6.86 3.74 120.09
1 8 1 . 22 6.41 6.84 3 . 73 120.09
A. 8 1 .32 6.42 6.82 3.71 120.09
1 Beg Reach # 1 Beg Mi 1 D . D. 1 CBOD } NBOD 1 Flow �

`
- SUMMER
TURBINES OFF , POOL REFILLING.
GASTONIA AT 16 MGD, 5&2.
| Beg # | Reach # | Seg Mi | D.O. | CBOD | NBOD | Flow |
l 1 0.00 7.30 2 . 00 1 .00 91 . 90
1 1 0.01 7.30 2.00 1 .00 91M0
l 1 0.02 7.31 2. 00 1 .00 91 . 90
1 1 0.03 7.31 2.00 1 .00 91 .90
l 1 0.04 7'31 2 . 00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 0 .05 7.31 2.00 1 .00 91 .90
1 1 0.06 7.3e 2'00 1 .00 91 '90
1 1 0.07 7.32 2.00 1 '00 91 .90
1 1 0.08 7.32 2' 00 1 '00 91 '90
1 1 0.09 7.32 1 .99 1 '00 91 .90
1 1 0. 10 7'33 1 '99 1 .00 91 .90
1 2 0. 10 6'85 6.59 2.65 120.00
1 2 0' 11 6.75 6.53 2.61 120'00
1 2 0. 11 6.67 6.48 2.57 120.00
1 2 0 ' 12 6.58 6.42 2.52 120 .00
1 2 0. 12 6.49 6.36 2.48 120.00
1 2 0. 13 6.41 6, 31 2 '44 120'00
1 2 0 . 13 6.33 6.25 2.40 120.00
1 2 0. 14 6 .25 6. 19 2, 37 120.00
1 2 0. 14 6. 17 6. 14 2. 33 120.00
1 2 0 . 15 6 ,09 6 ' 08 2'29 120 . 00
1 2 0. 15 6'02 6.03 205 120.00
1 2 0. 16 5.94 5. 98 2'22 120.00
1 3 0. 16 5.94 5.98 2'22 120.00
1 3 0' 16 5.90 5'94 2' 19 120.00
1 3 0. 17 5'85 5.90 2. 17 120.00
1 3 0 . 17 5.81 5.87 2 . 15 120'00
1 3 0. 18 5.76 5'83 2. 12 120.00
1 3 0. 18 5.72 5.79 2 . 10 120'00
1 3 0 . 19 5.67 5.76 2.07 120.00
1 3 0 . 19 5. 63 5.72 2 .05 120'00
1 3 0.20 5.59 5.69 2.03 120.00
1 3 0.20 5. 55 5. 65 2.01 120 . 00
1 3 0.21 5.51 5.62 1 .98 120'00
1 3 0.21 5.47 5'58 1 .96 120 '00
1 3 0.22 5.43 5.55 1 .94 1 SO.W0
1 4 0.22 5.43 5.55 1 . 94 120.00
1 4 0.22 5.39 5.50 1 .91 120.00
1 4 0.23 5. 36 5'46 1 '88 120.00
1 4 0.23 5.32 5.41 1 .86 120. 00
1 4 0'24 5.28 5'37 1 .83 120.00
1 4 0. 24 5.25 5. 33 1 .03 120.00
1 4 0 -25 5. 22 5. 29 1 .78 120 '00
J. 4 0.25 5. 19 5.24 1 .75 120'00
1 4 0'26 5' 15 5.20 1 . 73 W0. 00
l 4 0.26 5. 12 5. 16 1 .70 120.00
1 4 0 '27 5. 10 5' 12 1 .68 120 .00
1 4 0.27 5.07 5.08 1 .65 120.00
1 4 0 .28 5.04 5 .04 1 . 63 120.00
1 4 0.28 5.02 5.00 1 .61 120.00
1 4 0 . 29 4 . 99 4.96 1 ' 58 120 .00
1 5 0.29 4.99 4.96 1 .58 120.00
1 5 0 '29 4 '98 4 .92 1 .56 120'00
1 5 0.30 4.96 4.88 1 .54 120.00
' 1 5 0.30 4'95 4.84 1 '51 120. 00
1 5 0.31 4.93 4.80 1 .49 120.00
1 5 0.31 4 .92 4 . 76 1 .47 120. 00
1 5 0.32 4.91 4.72 1 .45 120.00

. ` .
1 5 ` C . 4.89 4.65 1 .41 120.00
1 5 0.33 4.88 4 . 61 1 . 39 120.00
_ A. 5 0.34 4.87 4.57 1 .37 120.00
1 5 0.34 4.86 4.54 1 .35 120'00
1 5 0.35 4.86 4.50 1 .33 120.00
1 5 0.35 4.85 4'46 1 . 81 120.00
1 6 0.35 4.84 4.48 1 .31 15.00
1 6 0.40 4 .90 4.45 1 .29 15'00
1 6 0.45 4.96 4.42 1 .28 15.00
1 6 0.50 5.01 4 ' 39 1 '26 15'01
1 6 0.55 5'07 4.36 1 .25 15.01
1 6 0'60 5' 12 4 -33 1 '23 15.01
1 7 0.57 5.09 4'54 1 .69 15.08
1 ? 0.62 5.07 4'50 1 .66 15.08
1 7 0.67 5.05 4.45 1 .63 15.08
1 7 0.72 5.03 4 .41 1 .60 15.09
1 7 0.77 5.02 4 .36 1 .57 15.09
1 7 0.82 5.00 4 .32 1 '55 15.09
1 7 0.87 4.99 4.28 1 .52 15.09
1 7 0.92 4'98 4 .24 1 .49 15. 09
1 8 0.92 5.05 4'06 1 - 14 120'09
1 8 1 .02 5. 11 4 .05 1 . 14 120.09
1 8 1 . 12 5. 18 4.04 1 . 13 120.09
1 8 1 '22 5.24 4 .03 1 . 13 120 .09
1 B 1 .32 5. 30 4.02 1 . 12 120.09
| Seg # | Reach # 1 Seg Mi | D .O . | CBOD | NBOD | Flow |
'
''

�
SUMMER
TURBINES OFF , POOL REFILLING .
GASTONIA AT 8 MGD , 11&7.
| Seg # | Reach If | Set Mi | D.O. | CBOD | NBOD | Flow |
1 1 0.00 7.30 2. 00 1 '00 104 .30
1 1 0.01 7.30 2. 00 1 .00 104.30
1 1 31 2 ' 00 1 .00 104 '30
1 1 0.03 7.31 2.00 1 .00 104.30
1 1 0.04 7'31 2 '00 1 .00 104 .30
1 1 0.05 7.31 2.00 1 .00 104. 30
7.32 2.00 1 .00 104 .30
1 1 0.07 7.32 2.00 1 .00 104.30
1 1 0'08 7.32 2.00 I .00 104 . 30
1 1 0.09 7.33 2.00 1 .O0 104.30
1 1 0. 10 7' 33 1 .99 1 . 00 104. 30
1 2 0. 10 7.09 7. 30 4 . 15 120.00
1 2 0. 1 :1 6.96 7 . 24 4.08 120 .00
1 2 0 . 11 6.84 7. 17 4 .02 120.00
1 2 0. 12 6.73 7. 11 3'95 120 .00
1 2 0. 12 6.61 7.04 3.89 120.00
1 2 0. 13 6.50 6.98 3.83 120'00
1 2 0. 13 6.39 6.92 3.76 120.00
1 2 0. 14 6.28 6.86 3.70 120'00
1 2 0. 14 6. 17 6.80 3.64 120.00
J. 2 0. 1� 6.07 6. 74 3.59 120 .00
1 2 0. 15 5.97 6.68 3.53 120.00
1 2 0 . 1 5' Ell 7 6. 62 3.47 120'00
1 3 0. 16 5.87 6. 62 3.47 120. 00
1 3 016 5. 80 6. 58 3.43 120.00
1 3 0. 17 5.74 6.54 3.40 120.00
1 3 0. 17 5.68 6.49 3.36 120.00
1 3 0. 111.3 5.62 6.45 3.32 120.00
1 3 0. 18 5.56 6.41 3.28 120.00
' 1 3 0. 19 5.50 6.38 3.25 120.00
1 3 0. 19 5.44 6.34 3.21 120.00
1 3 0.20 5.38 6.30 3. 18 120.00
1 3 0.20 5.33 6.26 3 ' 14 120.00
1 3 0.21 5.27 6.22 3. 10 120.00
1 3 0.21 5.22 6. 1B 3.07 120.Ci0
1 3 0.22 5. 17 6. 14 3.04 120.00
1 4 0.22 5. 17 6. 14 3 .04 120'00
1 4 0.22 5. 11 6.09 2.99 t20.00
1 4 0.23 5.06 6.04 2 .95 120 .00
1 4 g.23 5.00 6.00 2.91 120,00
1 4 024 4 .95 5'95 2.86 120.00
1 4 0.24 4.90 5.90 2.82 120.00
1 4 0.25 4 .86 5.85 2.78 120.00
1 4 0.25 4.81 5.81 2.74 120.00
1 4 0'26 4.76 5. 76 2.70 120.00
1 4 0.26 4.72 5.7l 2.66 120.0O
1 4 0.27 4.68 5.67 2.63 120'00
1 4 0.27 4.64 5.62 2.59 120.00
1 4 0.28 4.60 5.58 2 .55 120.O0
1 4 0.28 4.56 5.53 2.51 120.00
1 4 0.29 4 .53 5.49 2.4B 120.00
1 5 0.29 4.53 5.49 2.48 120.00
1 5 0.29 4 .50 5. 44 2.44 � 12000
1 5 0.30 4 .48 5.40 2.41 120.00
1 5 0.30 4 .45 5.36 2.37 120.00
1 54 .43 5.81 2.34 120.00
1 5 0.31 4.41 5.27 2.30 120 .00
1 5 0.32 4.39 5.23 2.27 120'00

0. 33 4.35 5. 14 2.20 120.00
' 1 5 0. 33 4 . 33 5. 10 2. 17 120'00
' 1 5 0. 34 4.32 5.06 2. 14 120.00
` 1 5 0. 34 4 . 30 5.02 2 . 11 120.00
1 5 0. 35 4.29 4.98 2.08 120.00
1 5 0 . 35 4 .28 4 '94 2'05 120.00
1 6 0.35 4.26 4.95 2.05 15.00
1 6 0 .40 4 . 33 4 '92 2.03 15 . 00
1 6 0.45 4.39 4.89 2.00 15.00
1 6 0.50 4 '45 4 '85 1 '98 15' 01
1 6 0-55 4.51 4.82 1 .96 15.01
1 6 0.60 4.57 4 . 79 1 .93 15.01
1 7 0'57 4.55 5. 00 2.39 15.08
1 7 0 '62 4'52 4'95 2'35 15'08
1 7 0.67 4.50 4.90 2.30 15.08
1 7 0. 72 4.47 4 .85 2.26 15'09
1 7 0. 77 4.45 4.80 2'22 15.09
1 7 0.82 4.43 4.75 2. 18 15.09
1 7 0.87 4.41 4'71 2' 15 15.09
1 7 0.92 4. 39 4' 66 2. 11 15 .09
1 8 0.92 4.47 4.49 1 .76 120'09
1 8 1 .02 4 .55 4.48 1 .75 120.09
1 8 1 . 12 4.62 4.47 1 .74 120.09
1 8 1 '22 4 . 69 4. 46 1 .74 120'09
1 8 1 .32 4. 76 4.44 1 .73 120.09
| Seg # | Reach # | Sag Mi D. D. | CBOD | NBOD 1 Flow |

` . . .
�
*** MODEL SUMMARY D:ATA ***
Discharger : GASTONIA - LONG CREEK WWTP Subbasin : 030836
Receiving Stream : SOUTH FORK T RVE CAAWBA IR Stream �lass: WS-III
-
Summer 7010 : 116 .7 Winter 7Q10 : 220.0
De��igw Temperature: 26.0
|LENGTH/ SLOPE/ VELOCITY / DEPTH/ Kd / Kd / Ka ' | Ka / KN | KN 1 KNR KNR / SOD / SOD t
| aile | fVmi| fps | ft |deu gn| @201 |dpsign| �201 |desigM @20 |design| @2O« :design; &20" |
__-_---___-_---_---_-___--'--__--__--__-__---_________---_--__-___--_____-_-
Smtent \ | 0.0: 7.80| 0.646 3.08 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 5.06 | 4.44| 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach l | I | |
----'-------'---''-------------------------------------------------
Seuent 1 | 0.06( O.M 0.074 !11.19 | 0.26 | 0.20 0.23 | 0.201 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
ileach 2
________________________________________________________________________________
Segmerit 1 | 0.06| 8.0| 0.101 | 7.94 | 8.27 | 0.20 1 0.29 | 0.25| 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 0.00 |
Reach 3 < | | | | ( |
____________________________________________________________________________________
Spgmmot 1 0.07| O.N| 0.084 | 5.60 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.41 | 0.36| V.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Lich 4 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
____________________________________________________________________________
aeguent \ | 0.07| 0.0| 0.0FI 1 4.65 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.49 | 0.45| 0.400 | 0.30 | 0.4R | 0.00 | 0.00
Reach 5 | | | | | | | | | | | , | |
_______________________________________________________________________________
S»gment 1 | 0.25| 7.00� 0.126 | 2.82 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 1.31 1.15! 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 0.00 |
Reich 6 | | | | | < | | | | | | |
-----------------------------------_______---__---____---__--__--_----_---__---_----__-__-
Spgment } | 0.38< 4.W 0.0B | 3.50 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.49 0.43< 0.40 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 �
Reach 7
_______________________________________________________________________________
Segaen \ | 0.401 4.40| 0.650L | 3.50 | 0.30 | 0.23 | 2.98 | 2.53| 0'48 | 0.30 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach 8 i
_---_-___-__---__---_-___--___---__-___--___-_--'--'--_____-__---___
| Flow | CBOD | NBOD | D.O. |
| cfs | mg/ l | mg/l |
Segment 1 Reach 1
Wast O00
Headwaters | 91 .900 | 2.000 | 1 .000 300
Tributary 0' 2'1'00 | 1 .()00
* Runoff | 0.010 ( 2.000 | 1 .000 | 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste | 24.800 | 24.250 9 . 000 5.000
Tributary � 3.300 | 2.000 | 1 .000 | 7.30�

Segment 1 Reach 3
�
Waste 0.000
Tributary 00 7 . 300
* Runoff | 0.010 | 2 . 000 | 1 .000
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste
Tributary | 0'000 ( 2.000 � 1 .000 | 7.300
* 10 .000 | 1 .000
Segment 1 Reach 5
W 0. 000 | 0. 000 | 0.0O0
Tri 00 butary | 0. 0 | 2.000 | 1 .000 | 7300
* Runoff | 0'010 | 2.000 | 1 .000
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste 0. 000 | 0. 000 | 0' 000
Tributary 105'000 | 6.280 | 2.430 6.420
* Runoff 10 | 2 1 .O00 | 0.O00
Segsent 1 Reach 7
Waste | 0, 077 | 45' 000 | 90. 000 | 0'00y
Tributary | 0.000 | 2'000 | 1 .000 | 0.000
* Runoff | 0. 010 } 2 .000 | 1 . 000
Segment 1 Reach 8
Waste | 0' 000 | 0.000 | 0. 000 | 0 .000
Tributary ( 105.000 | 6.280 | 2.430
* Runoff | 0 .010 | 2 '000 | 1000
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

� .
. �
/ *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : GASTONIA - LONG CREEK WWTP Subbasin : 0�0836
Receiving Stream : SOUTH RIVER Stream Class: WG-III
Summer 70 10 : 116. 7 Winter 7Q10 : 220.0
Design Temperature: 26.0
/LEHGTHI SLOPE| VELOCITY / DEPTH; Kd | Kd | Ka / Ka / KN / KN | KNR | KN0 | SOU � SOD �
| mile | ft/mi| fps | ft ;design; @201 |dssigrj| �201 idesiOo| 2201 |design| 3201 |dpxigo| &281 �
_____________________________________________________________________________
Se0men 1 | 0.0| 7.80| 0.646 | 3.08 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 5.06 | 4.44| 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 0.00 | 0.00 �
React, l | | i | ( | | | | | | | |
-'-------------------------'-------------------------------------'-------'----
Segmmd 1 | 0.061 0.M 0.0017 |11.19 1 0.26 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.20| 0.48 | 0.30 1 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach 2
-----'-----------------------------------------------------------------'------'--
Segment \ | 0.061 0.101 0.013 | 7.94 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.25| 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach 3 | | | | |
-----'-----------'----'--'--------------'--''---------------------'---------------
Segoe/t \ | 0.07| O.10| 0.010 | 5.60 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.41 | 0.361 0.48 ( 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach 4
___________________________________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Segment l | 0.07| 0.0| 0.00 4.65 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.49 | 0.43, 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 \
Reach 5
_'--__--__---_--___--__-__---________--___-_-''__'_-_---_-___--__'--__--__--_-
Segmen I | 0.25| 7.00| 0.126 | 2.82 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 1,31 1.151 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach 6 |
---------'------------'----------------------------------------------'---------'---
Segmen ) | 0.88| 4.001 0.082 | 3.50 | 0.27 | 0.20 0.49 | 0.43! 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.48 0.00 0.00 | 0.00 |
Reach 7 | | | |
__-__--'-_____-______'--_---_-'--_----_____--__---_'---__--_---__--__---_______
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sngmpnt 1 | 0.40� 4.40| 0.652 3.50 | 0.30 | 0.23 | 2.88 | 2.53� 0.48 ( 0.30 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 0.00 |
Reach 8 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
______________________________________________________________________
| Fl CBOD | NBOD D'O. |
mg/ l |
Segment 1 Reach 1
WE,Ste | D000 0.000 | 0.000 | 0'000
Headwaters | 91 '900
Tributary | 0 .000 | 2 . 000 | 1 . 000 | 7. 300
* Runoff � 0.01 2'000 1 .000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste | 24.800 | 24' 250 | 9.000 | 5'000
Tributary | 3.300 | 2.000 | 1 .000 | 7.30O

�
Segment 1 Reach 3
�
Waste 1 0.000 | 0 .000 | 0'000 | 0.000
Tributary | 0.000 | 2 .000 | 1 .000 7.300
* Runoff | 0 .010 | 2 .000 | 1 . 000 | 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste | 0.000 | 0'000 | 0.000 | 0 '000
Tributary | 0.000 < 2.000 | 1 . 000 1 7.300
* Runoff | 0.010 | 2'000 | 1 .000 | 7'300
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste | 0.000 1 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000
Tributary | 0.000 | 2.000 i 1 .000 | 7. 300
* Runoff | 0.010 1 2'000 | 1 .000 | 7'300
Segment l Reach 6
Waste | 0 .000 1 0.000 | 0 . 000 | 0.000
Tributary 1 -105.000 | 4.460 | 1 . 310 | 4.850
* Runoff | 0.010 1 2 .000 1 1 .000 1 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 7
Waste | 0 .077 | 45.000 | 90. 000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0'000 | 2.000 | 1 .000 | 0.000
* Runoff | 0.010 | 2'000 | 1 .000 1 0'000
Segment 1 Reach 8
Waste | 0.000 | 0' 000 1 0 '000 1 0 .000
Tributary 1105.000 | 4.040 | 1 '090 | 5.060
* Runoff | 0 . 010 1 2 .000 | 1 .000 1 0.000
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

P E A S E
a r c h i t e c t u r e E n g i n e e r i n g P l a n n i n g i n t e r i o r s
FFig
CF
1,E
November 25, 1991 19911
Mr. Don Carmichael ; j' � p�
Director of Public Works/Utilities
CH
City of Gastonia
Post Office Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Reference: Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Gastonia, North Carolina
J-N. Pease Associates ' Commission No. 90087-00
Subject: EA/FONSI
Dear Mr . Carmichael :
Enclosed is a copy of the State of North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management' s approval of the Environmental
Assessment for the referenced project. The approval refers to
measures required in the EA and our responses to State
comments .
Enclosed is a copy of these documents in case you did not
receive them originally.
If you have any questions or comments , please let us know.
Sincerely,
John W. McLaughlin, P.E.
JWM/lw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Sam Wilkins
Mr. John Shuler
Mr. J. Philip Bombardier
Dr. Robert Goldstein
t'Mr_.,Trevor-C- ements
Mr. Don Garbrick
J.N. Pease Associates PO. Ho\ 18725 2925 Last lndcpcndence Blvd. Charlotte,\C 28218 704 376-0423

rf' f
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 19, 1991
MEM RAND M
TO: Don Safrit, Permits and Engineering
FROM: Alan C1arK Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI for Proposed Long Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion, Duharts Creek Pump Station Enlargement
and Sewerline Construction in City of Gastonia, Gaston
County
Attached is a November 4, 1991 letter from Secretary James
Lofton stating that the EA/FONSI for the subject project has met
the requirements of the NC Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) and
that no further review under NCEPA is necessary. Mr. Lofton' s
letter was also accompanied by. a memorandum from the 'NC Division
-of Archives and History. This memorandum may be disregarded as
it concerns a different project and was mistakenly included with
the letter.
The EA includes a number of mitigation measures aimed "at
minimizing environmental impacts, some of which are highlighted
in an August 30, 1991 letter to me from the project consultant,
John W. McLaughlin, P .E. , of J.N. Pease Associates . These
mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, planting and
. soil stabilization requirements recommended by the Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) , and protection of big-leaf magnolia
populations during project construction as recommended by the
Division of Parks and Recreation . This August 30 letter is
referenced in the FONSI .
It is recommended, therefore, that the permit be issued witr,
the condition that the work be done in accordance with the
mitigation measures and recommendations set forth in a) the
Environmental Assessment for this project dated July 1, 1991, and
b) the Finding of -No Significant Impact dated September 5 , 1991
including the referenced J.N. Pease letter dated August 30, 1991
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions .
Attachments (FONSI, 8/30 letter, Lofton letter)
EdenFons .Mem/SEPA4
cc : John W. McLaughlin (w/ Lofton letter)
Melba McGee (w/ Lofton letter)
Rex Gleason (w/ attachments)

r ,
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor James S. Lofton,Secretary
November 4, 199.1
Mr. Alan Clark
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Clark:
Re: SCH File #92-E-4220-0158; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Proposed Lang
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Duharts Creek
Pump Station Enlargement, and Sewerline Construction in
Gastonia, NC
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act..
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local
agencies in the course of this review. Because of the nature of
the comments , it has been determined that no further State
Clearinghouse review action on your part is needed for
compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in
project development.
Best regards .
nce ely,
l
Ja e S . Lofton
JSL: jt
Attachments
cc : Region F
116 West Jones Street Raleigh,North Carolina 27603-8003 *Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

;M S
TAtr
•4y Q..r.fPr �'
North Ca ro(i Cultur
n ._parse
)ames G. Martin, Governor 00'1991 `^; ��� o� ���� a,
Patric Dorsey, Secretary SE ���� �, SErv •�-S ^oJ �S .
CRET, ki°I
October 15, 1991 `.,� 4CC1.
--MEMORANDUM 9 b 2 _---
TO: Alan R. Clark U ;.s .•sue
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
DEHNR
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: - Raw Water Intake and Pumping Facility,
Gaston County, CH 92-E-4300-0158, ER 89-7829
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We are unable to concur with the Finding of No Significant Impact for this
project until we have received written assurance that specific actions will be
taken to mitigate potential adverse effects upon two archaeological sites
which have been determined potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (31 GS223, 31 GS226). The document submitted for review
identifies these sites as concerns, but fails to specifically state what forms
of mitigation will be employed. If a realignnWnt of the proposed corridor is
selected as a mitigative strategy, we should be advised of the new location
and provided an opportunity to review the design change. Upon receipt of
this information, we will continue our review for this project.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator,-at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
1�
109 East f ones Strect Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

11-13�(
-- - - - - - -- - -- --- -- -- -- -- -
-
----- 46-
Ll - - - --- - -
- haw- ON�,�=4�-'V.ne _... ,-
_.

SWE
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G.Martin,Governor George T. Everett, MD.
William W.Cobey,Jr.,Secretary Director
October 22, 1991
Mr. John W. McLaughlin, P.E.
J.N. Pease Associates
P.O. Box 18725
2925 East Independence Blvd.
Charlotte, N.C. 28218
Subject: Gastonia-Long Creek WWTP Expansion and Relocation
NPDES Permit No. NCO020184
Gaston County
Dear Mr. McLaughlin:
Our staff has again reviewed the Long Creek expansion project for the City of
Gastonia and these are our recommendations. In your letter dated August 30th, we
were asked to consider the option of Gastonia discharging their effluent upstream
of the Spencer Mountain Dam to "obtain full use of the 125 cfs minimum flow". The
location of the outfall above the channel and dam does not appear to be accept-
able. There is concern with 8 MGD of wasteflow discharging above the dam. This
may create the potential for water quality problems in the backwater areas of the
impoundment. In addition, because the South Fork Catawba River is classified for
water supply usage (WSIII) , there may be concerns from Health Services or other
State agencies. We recommend the City of Gastonia to continue the initial pro-
posal to relocate the discharge below the Dam.
Regarding the interim limits recommended in the Division's August 23rd letter,
Technical Support will reconsider and assign winter limits with higher allowable
BOD while the facility is being upgraded. The City has emphasized to the Division
that they were building a plant that could meet advanced tertiary treatment,
nutrient removal, etc., to address the Division's basinwide water quality con-
cerns. It is our opinion that the request for an outfall where the City can uti-
lize 125 cfs for dilution is unnecessary because the plant will be achieving best
available technology. The Division again recommends that Gastonia plan for
advanced tertiary limits for the plant's expansion. The revised interim limits
recommended for BODS, NH3-N, and dissolved oxygen (DO) are:
Summer Winter
BOD5 15 mg/l 30 mg/1
NH3-N 7 mg/l 14 mg/l
DO 5 mg/l nr
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O.Box 27687,Raleigh,North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal ODDortunity Affiwnative Action EmNover

In addition, alternate combinations of BOD5 and NH3-N could be considered. For
instance, a summer BOD5 limit of 18 mg/1 could be considered if the NH3-N limit is
reduced to 3. 8 mg/l, etc.
These interim limits represent a temporary increase in loading to this basin,
which is in opposition to the direction the Division is pursuing with regard to
basinwide management. Therefore, the interim limits will be tied to an NPDES
requirement for an upgrade of the Long Creek facility to meet advanced tertiary
treatment within a specific period of time, so that there are assurances that our
ultimate goals will be met .
The North Carolina water quality standard for fecal coliform was revised in
October, 1989 to 200/100m1. NPDES permit limitations are being changed to reflect
this new standard at permit renewal or upon permit modification. The City's final
limit for fecal coliform will be 200/100ml. However, the City of Gastonia should
contact the Mooresville Regional Office if they wish to pursue a compliance sched-
ule that would be incorporated with the revised permit for meeting the new fecal
limit. The Division has typically allowed twelve months for facilities to achieve
compliance.
I hope that this correspondence will answer any questions that the Town has
concerning this relocation. Please feel free to continue to contact me.
Si erely
Trevor Clements, Asst. Chief
ter Qtality Section
JTC/JMN
cc: Steve Tedder
Don Safrit
Rex Gleason
Central Files
WLA—File

�J
P E A S E
Architecture Engineering PIannitl Interiors ,
August 30, 1991 '0 `�
fi {' 1
1991
Mr. J. Trevor Clements
Assistant Chief !,Al SUPr
Water Quality Section O � ��ANL'Ff
North Carolina Department of Environment ,
Health, and Natural Resources +�
Division of Environmental Management ;
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Reference: Long Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Gastonia, North Carolina
J.N. Pease Associates ' Commission No. 90087 .00
Subject: Speculative Limits for Outfall Extension
at 8 MGD
Dear Trevor:
Let me express the thanks of the City of Gastonia and J.N.
Pease Associates for the time and efforts you and your staff
spent in getting the speculative limits for the referenced
project to us so promptly.
On Friday, August 23, 1991, we discussed the situation at the
Spencer Mountain Dam with Mr. Ed Bruce of Duke Power Company.
Mr. Bruce indicated that the 25 cfs minimum release, in
accordance with F.E.R.C., is an instantaneous flow; but the
minimum average daily flow is 125 cfs .
The average flow would seem to correlate better with the 7Q10
of the river than the instantaneous flow. Please review this
matter, and let us know what effect - if any - this will have
on the speculative limits you have already provided.
We also learned that Duke Power Company can cut off flow
through either the side channel , with the turbines, or over the
spillway. The total minimum average flow would still be at
least 125 cfs ; but it could be sent completely over the
spillway, completely through the side channel , or a combination
of both.
For this reason, we will ask to relocate our outfall just
upstream from the channel and dam. To obtain full use of the
125 cfs minimum flow, we will have to locate here.
J.N. Pmse Associates 1?O, Bux 18725 2925 East independence Blvd. Charlotte,NC 28218 704 376-6423

Mr. J. Trevor Clements
Page 2
August 30, 1991
A blown-up copy of a USGS map of this area , snowing the
pertinent outfall data, is enclosed.
Please also consider the fact that the proposed interim limits
for BOD5, NH3, and Fecal Coliform are lower than the City's
current winter limits for these same pollutants . Using the
proposed interim limits, the City would have had four monthly
failures for BOD and two for Fecal Coliform over the last 12
months. A chart is included to allow easy comparison of these
limits.
Thank you for your reconsideration of this matter; if you need
additional information, please let us know.
(3n
erely,
a
W. McLaughlin, P.E.
JWM/lw
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Samuel L. Wilkins
Mr. John Shuler
Mr. D. Rex Gleason
Mr. Donald Garbrick

UBi.9i9.1 1 41 '$704 867 0120 GA STON, IA P1V&-U ITN PEASE ASSOC 004
i
LONG CREEK LIMITS
819O-7191
S!*� WINTER PROpCSED LIMIT
PAAAN ilM APR_. OCT; VM. - MAR,. PROPOSO NOMLT FAILURES
am 5 11 22 l5 4
MH3 7 14 7
OO 5 5 5
FECAL COLIFORM 1000 1000 200 2
PH 6-4 6-9 6-9
CK• 60 60 150
Ni 64 64 265
Pb 30 30 34
Cn 6 6 15
Hg 0.04

rr -
� e c�
\\ 700
OUTFALL LOCATION
PROPOSED 8126 / 91
SPENCER MTN . DAM
00
I + 4.
r
r. Sd
`��� •tip �1 _ti:,;�.,�. 4.
�Ij * OUTFA_ LL LOCATION ''
SPECULATIVE LIMITS
ff
'r IREFORMING OF i r
SOUTH FORK RIVER
,i
�oJ
—.nrndr � 'i�k �r-
SCALE APPROX . 1`' - 1000
/ 4
CZ7
1

V•K'P...•.0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Jaynes G.Martin,Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Wiliam W.Cobey,Jr.,Secretary Director
October 2, 1991
Mr, Steve Coffey
615 Oberlin Rd.
Suite 100
Raleigh, N.C. 27605
Dear Mr. Coffey:
Enclosed is the information you requested on Long Creek in the Catawba River
Basin. The packet includes a subbasin map and list of Long Creek dischargers
(note the attached memo which explains the subbasin system) , USGS stream flow
information on Long Creek and some tributaries, and a computer printout of com-
pliance information submitted by the dischargers. Please accept my apology for
the delay in getting this to you. I hope this information will be helpful in your
project.
If you have any questions or additional information is needed, please feel
free to contact me at (919) 733-5083-
S' erely, n
ac ] ~=Novel*1;�._��
Envi onmental Modeler
Po3ludon Pmwndon Pays
P.O.Box 27687,Raleigh.North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Frig u!Onrsnrh miry Aff'innvivP Art-inn FmnlnvPr

- MEMO
DATE:
TO: I -' (/Y!r SUBJECT: c !r, Ch_.
SFPUe Cak @ /,Jcat r.:> cyc)[ � 5(� UZI4- w/ r9c �- Ga0�eo
fip cCeer►►-a�Re jp � S JJ
tp ,��C, �'P�eK, 5rn (LAG C�- a�l)ch C10f l
Cbf.. J t,��';� Qbcive perxer ffib,]: ,+ - 14e
�11Cwr v� U'1 FD
1�0 Cv(�kj vF ((L_4rCiG,'_� 3A-bt,05/t rrUp, .0( �J CP_
Q -/fin kA!)n6 Cx wk txw)
lZbkL CO W 1 HW'Y, /qSF � c f h r fn
vn Neck r_.vtl,
7 E4e ")�,-Ylb ,Gumjed Cmc. Go toell 0-0 CACfUal 1_�,D
Pull HP :ueel)
be& �U&) fiord. V
Ana b LAM. ��t1
�1� aberl�r2
cite /00
Icy 5 k I ��-
ffi� z %1�) 5/ - 37J3 need
un th,r .
�J From:
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Printed on Recycled Paper

c
1I
1
- - - flax
3z, 3,?5 - eS' .23, 71,r
lye Y
i ,

70 Olt
3.5s
N13dV = cgs � 3�• 33S - If, sS = P 3, 7,fS .
.� G3+� - /U�,_�_._�_-- --'� ----- - cry� _ •- /�,/S, �- ---- ___- - -
AM
/3 �. z
i'
Au
-
dv :�,,,-

WINTER
MODEL FOR LIMITS FOR GASTONIA
RELOCATION
------------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : PROPOSED GASTONIA--S F CATAWBA
Receiving Stream : SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 8 . 44 mg/1 .
The End CBOD is 15 . 63 mg/l .
The End NBOD is 6. 33 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 . 47 0 . 65 2
Reach 1 45 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 05000
Reach 2 121 .25 63 . 00 0 . 00 8 . 00000
Reach 3 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00000
Reach 4 273 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 .30000
Reach 5 45 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 60000
Reach 6 297 .20 0 . 00 0 . 00 1 . 00000
Reach 7 45 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00090

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : PROPOSED GASTONIA-S F CATAWBA Subbasin 030836
Receiving Stream : SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER Stream Class: WSIII
Summer 7Q10 : 121 . 0 Winter 7Q10 : 223 . 0
Design Temperature : 14 . 0
ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I
I mile I ft/miI fps I ft Idesignl @2016 Idesignl @204 Idesignl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0 . 101 4 .501 0 .214 1 2 .79 1 0 . 16 1 0 .21 1 0 . 74 1 0 . 851 0 . 19 1
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I € I I 1 I
Segment 1 1 0 . 551 4 .501 0 .289 1 2 . 94 1 0 . 16 1 0 .21 1 1 . 01 1 1 . 151 0 . 19 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------_----------------------
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 1 . 801 4 .501 0 . 625 1 3 . 77 1 0 . 17 1 0 .22 1 2 . 17 1 2 . 471 0 . 19 €
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I l I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 2 . 301 4 .501 0 . 626 1 3 . 78 1 0 . 17 1 0 .22 1 2 . 18 1 2 . 481 0 . 19 1
Reach 4 € 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------__-----------------------------------
I I I I I 1 I I I I
Segment 1 1 0 .701 4 . 501 0 . 630 1 3 . 78 1 0 . 17 10 .22 1 2 . 19 1 2 . 491 0 . 19 1
Reach 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I €
Segment 1 1 0 . 201 4 . 501 0 . 635 1 3 . 78 1 0 . 17 1 0 . 22 1 2 .21 1 2 .511 0 . 19 1
Reach 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
€ I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 2 . 001 4 . 501 0 . 635 1 3 . 78 1 0 . 17 1 0 . 22 1 2 .21 1 2 .511 0 . 19 1
Reach 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Flow I CBOD I NBOD 1 D.O. I
I cfs I mg/l I mg/1 I mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0 . 077 1 45 . 000 190 . 000 1 0 . 000
Headwatersl 25 . 000 1 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 1 9.280
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 .280
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 12 . 400 1121 . 250 1 63 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9. 280

Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 96. 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9. 280
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste 1 0 . 465 1273 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0 , 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste 1 0 . 930 1 45. 000 1 90 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 I 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste 1 1 . 550 1297 .200 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2. 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9.280
Segment 1 Reach 7
Waste 1 0 . 001 1 45. 000 1 90 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9. 280
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

WINTER
MODEL FOR LIMITS FOR GASTONIA
RELOCATION
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow
1 1 0 . 00 9.25 2 . 13 1 .28 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 01 9.25 2 . 13 1 .27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 02 9.25 2 . 13 1 .27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 03 9 . 25 2 . 13 1 .27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 04 9 . 25 2 . 13 1 .27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 05 9 .25 2 . 13 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 06 9 . 25 2 . 13 1 .27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 07 9 . 26 2 . 13 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 08 9 . 26 2 . 13 1 .27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 09 9 . 26 2 . 12 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 10 9. 26 2 . 12 1 .27 25 . 08
1 2 0 . 10 6 . 19 41 .54 21 . 69 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 15 6 . 12 41 . 47 21 . 65 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 20 6. 05 41 . 40 21 . 61 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 25 5 . 99 41 . 32 21 .56 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 30 5 . 92 41 . 25 21 .52 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 35 5. 85 41 . 18 21. 48 37. 48
1 2 0 . 40 5 . 79 41 . 11 21 . 43 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 45 5 . 72 41 . 04 21 . 39 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 50 5 . 66 40 . 97 21 . 35 37 . 48
1 2 0 .55 5 . 59 40 . 90 21 . 31 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 60 5 . 53 40 . 83 21 . 26 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 65 5 . 47 40 . 76 21 .22 37 . 48
1 3 0 . 65 8 .21 12 . 88 6. 68 133 . 48
1 3 0 . 75 8 .22 12 . 86 6. 67 133 . 48
1 3 0 . 85 8 .23 12 . 84 6. 65 133 . 48
1 3 0 . 95 8 . 24 12 . 82 6. 64 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 05 8 . 25 12 . 80 6. 63 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 15 8 .26 12 . 78 6. 62 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 25 8 .27 12 . 76 6 . 60 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 35 8 .28 12 . 73 6.59 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 45 8 .29 12 . 71 6.58 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 55 8 . 30 12 . 69 6.57 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 65 8 . 31 12 . 67 6.56 133 . 48
1 3 1 .75 8 . 32 12 . 65 6.54 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 85 8 . 33 12 . 63 6.53 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 95 8 . 34 12 . 61 6.52 133 . 48
1 3 2 . 05 8 . 35 12 . 59 6.51 133 . 48
1 3 2 . 15 8 . 36 12 .57 6.50 133 . 48
1 3 2. 25 8 . 36 12 . 55 6. 48 133. 48
1 3 2 . 35 8 . 37 12 .52 6 . 47 133 . 48
1 3 2 . 45 8 . 38 12 . 50 6 .46 133 . 48
1 4 2 . 45 . 8 . 35 13 . 41 6. 44 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 55 8 . 36 13 . 39 6. 42 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 65 8 . 37 13 . 36 6. 41 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 75 8 . 37 13 . 34 6. 40 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 85 8 . 38 13 . 32 6 . 39 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 95 8 . 39 13 . 30 6. 38 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 05 8 . 40 13 . 28 6. 37 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 15 8 . 40 13 .25 6. 35 133 . 94
1 4 3 .25 8 . 41 13 .23 6. 34 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 35 8 . 42 13 . 21 6. 33 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 45 8 . 42 13 . 19 6. 32 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 55 8 . 43 13 . 17 6 .31 133 . 94
1 4 3. 65 8 . 44 13 . 14 6. 30 133. 94
1 4 3 . 75 8 . 44 13 . 12 6.28 133 . 94

1 4 3 . 85 8 . 45 13 . 10 6.27 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 95 8 . 45 13 . 08 6. 26 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 05 8 . 46 13 . 06 6 . 25 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 15 8 . 47 13 . 04 6 . 24 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 25 8 . 47 13 . 01 6 . 23 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 35 8 . 48 12 . 99 6.22 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 45 8 . 48 12 . 97 6.20 133 . 94
1 4 4 .55 8 . 49 12 . 95 6. 19 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 65 8 .50 12 . 93 6. 18 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 75 8 . 50 12 . 91 6. 17 133 . 94
1 5 4 . 75 8 . 44 13 . 13 6. 75 134 . 87
1 5 4 . 85 8 . 45 13 . 11 6. 74 134 . 87
1 5 4 . 95 8 . 45 13 . 09 6. 72 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 05 8 . 46 13 . 06 6. 71 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 15 8 . 47 13 . 04 6. 70 134 . 87
1 5 5 .25 8 . 47 13 . 02 6. 69 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 35 8 . 48 13 . 00 6. 67 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 45 8 . 48 12 . 98 6 . 66 134 . 87
1 6 5 . 45 8 . 38 16.21 6. 59 136. 42
1 6 5 . 47 8 . 39 16.20 6 . 58 136 . 42
1 6 5 . 49 8 . 39 16. 20 6. 58 136. 42
1 6 5 . 51 8 . 39 16 . 19 6.58 136. 42
1 6 5 .53 8 . 39 16. 19 6.58 136. 42
1 6 5 .55 8 . 39 16 . 18 6.57 136. 42
1 6 5 .57 8 . 39 16. 18 6.57 136. 42
1 6 5 .59 8 . 39 16. 17 6 . 57 136. 42
1 6 5 . 61 8 . 39 16. 17 6 . 57 136 . 42
1 6 5 . 63 8 . 39 16. 16 6 . 56 136 . 42
1 6 5 . 65 8 . 39 16. 15 6 .56 136 . 42
1 7 5 . 65 8 . 39 16. 15 6.56 136 . 42
1 7 5. 75 8 . 39 16 . 13 6.55 136. 42
1 7 5 . 85 8 . 39 16 . 10 6.54 136. 42
1 7 5 . 95 8 . 40 16. 08 6 . 53 136 . 42
1 7 6. 05 8 . 40 16. 05 6 . 52 136 . 42
1 7 6 . 15 8 . 40 16. 02 6.50 136 . 42
1 7 6. 25 8 . 40 16. 00 6. 49 136. 42
1 7 6. 35 8 . 41 15 . 97 6. 48 136. 42
1 7 6 . 45 8 . 41 15 . 94 6. 47 136. 42
1 7 6 . 55 8 . 41 15 . 92 6. 46 136. 42
1 7 6. 65 8 . 41 15 . 89 6. 44 136. 42
1 7 6. 75 8 . 42 15 . 87 6. 43 136 . 42
1 7 6. 85 8 . 42 15 . 84 6. 42 136. 42
1 7 6 . 95 8 . 42 15 . 81 6. 41 136. 42
1 7 7 . 05 8. 42 15. 79 6. 40 1.36. 42
1 7 7 . 15 8 . 43 15 . 76 6 . 39 136 .42
1 7 7 . 25 8 . 43 15 . 74 6. 37 136. 42
1 7 7 . 35 8 . 43 15 .71 6. 36 136. 42
1 7 7 . 45 8 . 44 15 . 69 6 . 35 136 . 42
1 7 7 . 55 8 . 44 15 . 66 6. 34 136 . 42
1 7 7 . 65 8 . 44 15 . 63 6. 33 136. 42
Seg # l Reach # Seg Mi D.O. CBOD NBOD Flow

gastonia-sf catawba river
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10 : 25 . 0000 cfs
NH3 Effl . Conc: 9.2400 mg/l
AL (1/1 . 8 mg/1) : 1000 . 00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc. : 220 . 0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 8 . 0000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 3210 .59 ug/l
3. 210588 mg/l
NH3 Limit: 2572 .580 ug/l
2 .572580 mg/l
AMMONIA ANALYSIS (WINTER)
7Q10 : 25. 0000 cfs
NH3 Effl . Conc: 9. 2400 mg/l
AL (1/1 . 8 mg/1) : 1800 . 00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc. : 220 . 0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 8 . 0000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 3210 . 59 ug/1
3 .210588 mg/l
NH3 Limit : 4985 . 483 ug/l
4 . 985483 mg/l

J
Ja
EFFLUENT LONGTERM BOD'S AND NITROGEN VALUES
(all values in mg/l )
TOT
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION DAY BOD NH3 TKN NOX N
Gastonia Long Creel:: 0 0.46 4.3 5.1 9.4
Composite
October 7-8, 1966 5 4 .9
Time: 1100-1100
NBOD = 1 .9 4.57 = 8.7 12 9.5
CBOD = 30.0 - 8.7 = 21 .3 16 11 .5 0.11 3.7 5.9 9.6
22 13.9
32 17.1 0.19 2.9 6.2 9. 1
40 19.5 0. 19 �-.9 6.4 9.3
62 24.8 0.11 3.5 6.4 9.9
71 26.9
92 30.0 0.11 3.1 7.0 10.1
Hickory Henry Fork 0 1 .3 4,2 6.3 10.5
Composite 3 13.1
September 8-9, 1986 5 20.5 2.2 4.6 5.9 10.5
NBOD = 3.7 4.57 = 16.9 7 28. 1
CBOD = 78.9 - 16.9 = 62.0 9 36.1
12 46.0 0.40 4.5 8.3 12.8
14 50.7
19 58.4
28 64.3 0.14 2.7 9.7 12.4
33 66.7
41 69.4 0.06 2. 1 4.4 6.6
50 71 .9
60 74 .3
90 75.4
122 78.9 0.07 1 .3 10.0 1 1 .3
Newton WWTP 4: -- D,�Z 1) 0.31 1 .5 1 .1 2.6
Composite 5 2.8
v,�e�v
Sec�tember 9-10, 1986 13 6.7 0.37 1 .9 1 .i 3.�.
Stop at day 60 T 18 9 .4 0.40 3.6 1 .0 4.6
NBOD = 0.9 * 4.57 = 4.1 27 13.3
CBOD = 22.0 - 4.1 = 17.9 32 15.3
p 40 17.6 c f.04 2.4 1 .9 4.3
49 19.8
0.05 .80 2.0 2 13.
91 24.7
J
1 121 7-,7.7 ().(-)g
High Point Eastside i1 0.31 1 .8 10.0 11 .8
Composite S 4 .6
October 28-29, 1986 11 7 .7

lei- llz�
(P4.
574,
-41
.__.-•-_ •-•--- '---�- III' - -- _"�W- -`� `�`�__�. - -'_--- -�``-�''- -�".J - `�- - - -
. �i �:. ' 7G�=/ G.y..�. h...�- �- -�c.,.e, � � �t-••-+v-� .¢.tom,
/2
I ,
+44
�1
'i
II
I
V

09/18/91 ver 3.1 T 0 X I C S R E V I E W
Facility: gastonia-sf catawba river
NPDF.s Permit No.: nc0020184
Status (E, P, or M) : m
Permitted Flow: 8.0 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 5.9 mgd
Subbasin: '030836
Receiving Stream: sf catawba river I---------PRETREATMENT DATA--------------I----EFLLUENT DATA---- I
Stream Classification: wsfii I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I
7410: 25.0 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I
IWC: 33.16 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.1nd. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I
Pollutant AL Conc. i Eff_ Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violationsl
(ug/1) (ug/1) I % (#/d) ($/d) (//d) (4/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/fsam} l
--------- -- -------- -------- I -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- I --------- ---------- I
Cadmium S 2.0 l 92% 0.1 0.1 0.10 I I
Chromium S 50.0 I 85% 1.6 1.1 2.70 1 30.0 '1/12 I I
Copper AL 7.0 I 90% 2.8 0.6 3.34 1 40.0 '0/12 I N
Nickel S 88.0 I 39% 2.5 4.5 6.98 1 30.0 10112 I P
Lead S 25.0 I 81% 0.8 0.2 1.06 1 30.0 10/12 1 U
Zinc AL 50.0 I 84% 6.4 1.6 8.01 I 126.0 10/12 I T
Cyanide S 5.0 59% 0.7 0.2 0.90 I 0.0 10/12 I
Mercury S 0.012 86% 0.0 0.0 0.01 I 0.0 10/12 l S
silver AL 0.06 1 94% 0.1 0.0 0.08 4.0 10/12 1 E
Selenium 3 5.00 l 06 I C
Arsenic S 50,00 1 0* I I T
Phenols S NA 0% I l I
NH3-N C I 08 I I O
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 I 096 I I N
I I I
I I I
I I I
I--------------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D ---------MONITOR/LIMIT--------- 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- I
I Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd I
{ Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREOUENCY INSTREAM I
I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor. I
Pollutant I Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd ? I
I (#/d) (ug/1) {ug/1) (ug/1) jug/1) Loading Loading Data l OBSERVED (YES/NO) I
--------- -- I --------- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------I --------- -------- I
Cadmium S I 4.61 6.032 0.162 0.000 0.00 Monitor I I A
Chromium S I 63.75 150.806 6.002 0.000 9.95 Monitor Limit I NCAC NO I N
Copper AL l 12.90 21.113 6.749 0.000 13.26 Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I A
Nickel S I 26.58 265.419 86.041 0.000 9.95 Limit Limit 1 NCAC NO 1 L
Lead S I 24.24 75.403 4.C70 0.000 9.95 Monitor Limit I NCAC NO I Y
Zinc AL I 57.56 150.806 25.898 0.000 41_78 Monitor Monitor I Monthly YES I S
Cyanide S I 2.25 15.081 7.457 0.000 0.00 Limit NCAC NO 1 I
Mercury S I 0.02 0.036 0.028 0.000 0.00 Limit I NCAC NO I S
Silver AL 1 0.18 o.1B1 0.097 0.000 1.33 Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I
Selenium S 1 C.92 13.081 0.000 0.000 0.00 l } R
Arsenic S I 9.21 150.806 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I E
Phenols S I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I S
NH3-N C 0.000 0.00 I I U
T.R.Chlor.AL 51.274 D.CO I I L
I I I T
I I I s
I I I

OB/21/91 ver 3.1 T 0 X I C S R E V I E W
Facility: gastonia-sf catawba river
NPDES Permit No.: nc0020184
Status (E, P, or M) : m
Permitted Flow: 0.0 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 5.9 mgd
Subbasin: 1030836
Receiving Stream: sf catawba river i---------PRETREATMENT DATA--------------I----EFLLUENT DATA---- I
Stream Classification: wsiii I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I
7Q10: 25.0 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I
IWC: 33.16 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl
Stn'd / Bkg I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I
Pollutant AL Conc. I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violationsl
(ug/1) (ug/1) i (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/dl (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam) l
--------- -- -------- -------- I -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- I -------- --------- I
Cadmium S 2.0 I 92% 0.1 0.1 0.10 1 S
Chromium S 50.0 I 89% 1.6 1.1 2.70 l 70.0 11/12 l I
Copper AL 7.0 I 90% 2.8 0.6 3.34 I 100.0 10/12 ( N
Nickel S 88.0 l 39% 2.5 4.5 6.98 I 50.0 10/12 1 P
Lead S 25.0 l Bl9 0.8 0.2 1.06 I 0.0 10/12 I U
Zinc AL 50.0 I 84% 6.4 1.6 8.01 l 220.0 10/12 l T
Cyanide S 5.0 I 59% 0.7 0.2 0.90 I 0.0 10/12 I
Mercury S 0.012 86% 0.0 0..0 0.01 I 0.0 10/12 I S
Silver AL 0.06 I 90 0.1 0.0 0.08 I 0.0 10/12 I E
Selenium S 5.00 I 0% I I C
Arsenic S 50.00 I 08 I I T
Phenols S NA I 0% I I I
NH3-N C I O% I 1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 { 0% I I N
E I I
I I I
I I I
1--------------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D ---------MONITOR/LIMIT--------- 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- I
l Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd I
l Conc, using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM
I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED l Eff, Mon, Monitor. )
Pollutant ) Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Re comm'd ? I
I (#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO) I
--------- -- I --------- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------I --------- -------- I
LCadmium i S 1 4.61 (6.032 0.162 0.000 0.00 Monitor I I A
Chromium S I 83.75 150.806, 6.002 0.000 23.21 Monitor Limit I NCAC NO I N
Copper._ AL I 12.90 t21.113 6.749 0.000 33.16 Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I A
Nickel S I 26.56 �265.419 86.041 0.000 16.58 Limit Limit I NCAC NO I L
kLead S I 24.24 75.403 4.070 0.000 0.00 Monitor I NCAC NO I Y
.Zinc AL I 57.58 .150.806 25.898 0.000 72.94 Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I S
;Cyanide S I 2.25 15,001 7.457 0.000 0.00 Limit I NCAC NO ) I
Mercury S I 0.02 '0.036 0.028 0.000 ❑.00 Limit I NCAC NO I S
Silver AL 1 0.18 L.181 _ 0.097 0.000 0.00 Monitor I Monthly NO I
Selenium S I 0.92 15.081 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I R
Arsenic S I 9.21 150.806 C.000 0.000 0.00 ( I E
Phenols S I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I S
NH3-N C ( 0.000 0.00 I I U
T.R.Chlor.AL I 51,274 0.00 I I L
I I I T
I I I S
I I I

SUMMER
MODEL W/ BOD5=22, SAME AS LONG
CK WINTER LIMIT
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : PROPOSED GASTONIA-S F CATAWBA
Receiving Stream : SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D .O. is 6.25 mg/1 .
The End CBOD is 13 . 40 mg/l .
The End NBOD is 3 . 16 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 . 08 0 . 65 2
Reach 1 45 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 05000
Reach 2 106. 70 31 . 50 5 . 00 8 . 00000
Reach 3 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00000
Reach 4 273 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 30000
Reach 5 45 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 60000
Reach 6 297 . 20 0 . 00 0 . 00 1 . 00000
Reach 7 45 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00090

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : PROPOSED GASTONIA-S F CATAWBA Subbasin 030836
Receiving Stream : SOUTH FORK CATAWBA RIVER Stream Class : WSIII
Summer 7Q10 : 121 . 0 Winter 7Q10 : 223 . 0
Design Temperature : 26 . 0
ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I
I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl @203,� Idesignl @204 Idesignl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I l 1 I
Segment 1 1 0 . 101 4 . 501 0 .214 1 2 . 79 1 0 .28 1 0 .21 1 0 . 97 1 0 . 851 0 . 48 1
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I l I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0 . 551 4 . 501 0 .289 1 2 . 94 1 0 .28 1 0 . 21 1 1 .31 1 1 . 151 0 . 48 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 1 . 801 4 .501 0 . 625 1 3 . 77 1 0 . 29 1 0 .22 1 2 . 82 1 2 . 471 0 . 48 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1
------------W-----------------------------------------------------------------.--
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 2 . 301 4 . 501 0 . 626 1 3 .78 1 0 .29 1 0 .22 1 2 . 83 1 2 . 481 0 . 48 1
Reach 4 1 1 l 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0 . 701 4 .501 0 . 630 1 3 . 78 1 0 . 29 1 0 . 22 1 2 . 84 1 2 . 491 0 . 48 1
Reach 5 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0 . 201 4 .501 0 . 635 1 3 . 78 10 . 29 10 .22 1 2 . 87 1 2 .511 0 . 48 1
Reach 6 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I l I 1 I I
Segment 1 1 2 . 001 4 . 501 0 . 635 1 3 . 78 1 0 .29 1 0 . 22 1 2 . 87 1 2 .511 0 . 48 1
Reach 7 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Flow I CBOD I NBOD I D.O. I
I cfs I mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/l I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0 . 077 1 45 . 000 1 90 . 000 1 0 . 000
Headwatersl 25 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 12 . 400 1106. 700 1 31 .500 1 5 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300

Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 196 . 000 l 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 I 7 . 300
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 { 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste 1 0 . 465 1273 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste 1 0 . 930 145. 000 l 90 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 I 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
* Runoff i 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste 1 1 . 550 1297 .200 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 300
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 I 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 I 7 . 300
Segment 1 Reach 7
Waste I 0 . 001 1 45 . 000 190 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 .300
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 .300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
MODEL W/ BOD5=22, SAME AS LONG
CK WINTER LIMIT
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD Flow
1 1 0 . 00 7 . 28 2 . 13 1 . 28 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 01 7 . 28 2 . 13 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 02 7 .28 2 . 13 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 03 7 .27 2 . 13 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 04 7 .27 2 . 13 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 05 7 .27 2 . 12 1 . 27 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 06 7 .27 2 . 12 1 . 26 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 07 7 .27 2 . 12 1 . 26 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 08 7 .27 2 . 12 1 .26 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 09 7 .27 2 . 12 1 .26 25 . 08
1 1 0 . 10 7 .27 2 . 12 1 .26 25 . 08
1 2 0 . 10 6.52 36 . 72 11 .26 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 15 6. 37 36. 61 11 .21 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 20 6 .23 36.50 11 . 15 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 25 6. 10 36. 39 11 . 10 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 30 5 . 96 36. 28 11 . 04 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 35 5 . 83 36. 18 10 . 98 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 40 5 . 70 36. 07 10 . 93 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 45 5 .57 35 . 96 10 . 87 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 50 5 . 44 35. 86 10 . 82 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 55 5 . 32 35 .75 10 . 77 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 60 5 .20 35 . 64 10 . 71 37 . 48
1 2 0 . 65 5 . 08 35 .54 10 . 66 37 . 48
1 3 0 . 65 6. 68 11 . 42 3 . 71 133 . 48
1 3 0 . 75 6. 67 11 . 38 3 . 69 133 . 48
1 3 0 . 85 6 . 66 11 . 35 3 . 68 133 . 48
1 3 0 . 95 6 . 65 11 . 32 3 . 66 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 05 6 . 64 11 . 29 3 . 64 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 15 6 . 63 11 .25 3 . 63 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 25 6 . 62 11 .22 3 . 61 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 35 6 . 61 11 . 19 3 . 59 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 45 6 . 61 11 . 16 3 . 58 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 55 6 . 60 11 . 12 3 .56 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 65 6.59 11 . 09 3 .54 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 75 6.59 11 . 06 3 .53 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 85 6.58 11 . 03 3 .51 133 . 48
1 3 1 . 95 6. 57 11 . 00 3 . 49 133 . 48
1 3 2 . 05 6 . 57 10 . 97 3 . 48 133 . 48
1 3 2 . 15 6 .56 10 . 93 3. 46 133 . 48
1 3 2. 25 6. 56 10. 90 3. 45 133 . 48
1 3 2 . 35 6.55 10 . 87 3 . 43 133 . 48
1 3 2 . 45 6.55 10 . 84 3 . 41 133 . 48
1 4 2 . 45 6.53 11 . 75 3 . 40 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 55 6.52 11 . 72 3 . 39 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 65 6. 52 11 . 68 3 . 37 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 75 6 .51 11 . 65 3 . 35 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 85 6.51 11 . 62 3 . 34 133 . 94
1 4 2 . 95 6. 50 11 .58 3 . 32 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 05 6 . 50 11 .55 3 . 31 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 15 6. 49 11 . 52 3 . 29 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 25 6. 49 11 . 48 3 .28 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 35 6. 49 11 . 45 3 .26 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 45 6 .48 11 . 42 3 . 25 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 55 6. 48 11 . 38 3 . 23 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 65 6. 48 11 . 35 3 .22 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 75 6 . 48 11 . 32 3 .20 133 . 94

1 4 3 . 85 6. 47 11 .29 3 . 19 133 . 94
1 4 3 . 95 6. 47 11 .25 3 . 17 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 05 6. 47 11 .22 3. 16 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 15 6. 47 11 . 19 3 . 14 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 25 6. 47 11 . 16 3. 13 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 35 6. 46 11 . 13 3 . 11 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 45 6. 46 11 . 09 3 . 10 133 . 94
1 4 4 .55 6. 46 11 . 06 3 . 09 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 65 6. 46 11 . 03 3 . 07 133 . 94
1 4 4 . 75 6. 46 11 . 00 3 . 06 133 . 94
1 5 4 . 75 6. 42 11 .23 3 . 66 134 . 87
1 5 4 . 85 6 . 42 11 .20 3 . 64 134 . 87
1 5 4 . 95 6. 41 11 . 17 3 . 62 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 05 6 . 41 11 . 14 3 . 61 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 15 6 . 41 11 . 10 3. 59 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 25 6 . 41 11 . 07 3. 57 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 35 6. 41 11 . 04 3 . 56 134 . 87
1 5 5 . 45 6. 41 11 . 01 3 .54 134 . 87
1 6 5 . 45 6. 33 14 .26 3 .50 136. 42
1 6 5 . 47 6 . 33 14 .25 3 .50 136. 42
1 6 5. 49 6 . 33 14 .25 3 . 49 136. 42
1 6 5 .51 6 . 33 14 .24 3 . 49 136. 42
1 6 5 .53 6 . 33 14 .23 3. 49 136. 42
1 6 5 .55 6 . 33 14 .22 3. 48 136. 42
1 6 5 .57 6 . 32 14 .21 3. 48 136 . 42
1 6 5 . 59 6 . 32 14 .21 3.48 136 . 42
1 6 5 . 61 6 . 32 14 .20 3 .47 136 . 42
1 6 5 . 63 6. 32 14 . 19 3 . 47 136 . 42
1 6 5 . 65 6. 32 14 . 18 3 . 47 136 . 42
1 7 5 . 65 6. 32 14 . 18 3 . 47 136. 42
1 7 5 . 75 6. 31 14 . 14 3 . 45 136. 42
1 7 5 . 85 6 . 31 14 . 10 3 . 44 136. 42
1 7 5 . 95 6 . 30 14 . 06 3. 42 136. 42
1 7 6. 05 6 . 30 14 . 02 3. 41 136 . 42
1 7 6. 15 6 . 29 13 . 98 3. 39 136 . 42
1 7 6 . 25 6 .29 13 . 94 3. 37 136 . 42
1 7 6 . 35 6.28 13 . 90 3 . 36 136 . 42
1 7 6 . 45 6.28 13 . 86 3 . 34 136 . 42
1 7 6 . 55 6.27 13 . 82 3 . 33 136 . 42
1 7 6. 65 6.27 13 . 78 3 . 31 136. 42
1 7 6. 75 6. 27 13 .75 3 . 30 136. 42
1 7 6 . 85 . 6 .26 13 . 71 3. 28 136. 42
1 7 6 . 95 6.26 13 . 67 3 . 27 136 . 42
1 7 7 . 05 6. 26 13. 63 3. 25 136. 42
1 7 7 . 15 6.25 13 . 59 3 .24 136 . 42
1 7 7 .25 6.25 13 . 55 3 .22 136 . 42
1 7 7 . 35 6.25 13 . 51 3 .21 136. 42
1 7 7 . 45 6. 25 13 . 48 3 . 19 136. 42
1 7 7 . 55 6 .25 13 . 44 3 . 18 136. 42
1 7 7 . 65 6.25 13 .40 3 . 16 136 . 42
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D .O. I CBOD NBOD I Flow I

6i
rCEIVED
SEE 1 7-1991
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTS
SUPPORT BRANCH
(September 13 , 1991
MEMORANDUM TO: Trevor Clements n �/
FROM: D. Rex Gleason
SUBJECT: Speculative Limits for Long Creek WWTP
Expansion into the South Fork Catawba River
Gaston County, North Carolina
Appropriate staff of this Office have reviewed your August
23, 1991 letter to Mr. John W. McLaughlin, P. E. , which set forth
speculative limits for a discharge from the City of Gastonia' s
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant into the South Fork Catawba
River. The limits reflect a discharge into the river at a point
just below the Spencer Mountain Dam.
Our review indicated that the Lead (Pb) limit set forth in
your letter may not be correct, as our calculations suggest a
limit of 75. 6 ug/1 ( instead of the 34. 0 ug/l in your letter)
based on the water quality standard.
It is also suggested that limits be developed for a point
upstream of the dam, if they would be any different than for
downstream. This Office understands that the City is now
considering discharging upstream of the dam.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact
Richard Bridgeman or me.
DRG:se

i
P E A S E
A r c h i t e c t u r e E n g i n e e r i n g P I i n,n,i n g [ n t e r .: o r s
August 30, 1991 R;7 '' E®
Mr. Alan R. Clark 5EP 0 5 1991
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department -of Envi �dPPORT BRANCH
Health, and Natural Resources L< <
Division of Environmental Management ,.._�.�•.
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Reference: Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
and Outfall Expansion
Gastonia , North Carolina
J.N. Pease Associates ' Commission No. 90087-00
Subject : Environmental Assessment Comments
Dear Mr. Clark :
This letter is in response to the comments included in your
letter dated August 14, 1991. Our response to the comments
will follow the order and form shown in your letter.
1. Wildlife Resources Commission
(1) We will incorporate right-angle stream crossings
in our design wherever possible.
(2) We will specify the use of Partridge Pea 10-15
pounds/acre, VA-70 shrub lespedeza 20 pounds/
acre, and Korean lespedeza 15-20 pounds/acre in
early spring as long as the DEM Land Quality
Section will approve their use.
(3) Stringent erosion control measures are already
required by the DEM, Land Quality Section. We
will have observers in the field and Land Quality
personnel will inspect the project on a regular
basis to assure compliance.
(4) We will provide temporary ground cover on bare
surfaces as soon as practical during
construction. The DEM, hand Quality Section
requires temporary ground cover within 30 days if
an area is disturbed and not being actively
worked. We will , however, require permanent
ground cover within 15 days of project
completion.
J.N. Pease Associates RO. flax I872ti 92i F.atit Inclepenelence lil%,Ci. CharlirtIc.NC 2821ti 704 37G-642i

•
Mr. Alan R. Clark
Page 2
August 30, 1991
2. Mooresville Regional Office - Interg_overnm_ental Review
Form
We acknowledge receipt of the Intergovernmental Review
Form. We are aware of, and will pursue, a permit to
construct and operate a wastewater treatment plant , an
NPDES Discharge Permit modification, an Erosion
Control Permit from the Mooresville Regional DEM Land
Quality Office, and any permitting required prior to
any open-air burning.
3. DEM Air Quality Section
(a) All work will comply with applicable State and
Federal air pollution standards.
(b) Any open burning will be done as required by
State regulation.
(c) We will specify that fugitive dust emissions are
to be minimized by wetting, reseeding, or other
acceptable means .
(d) Offensive odors from pump stations associated
with this project will be controlled.
4. Division of Water Resources
1. Alternative No. 2 was selected for several
reasons. It is the lowest cost alternative based
on Present Worth and allows much of the potential
system expansion to be done in a later phase,
therefore leaving the City with flexibility as to
when future work begins if growth trends change.
Alternative No. 2 does not require any expansion
at the existing Catawba Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant . This plant is on a low-flow
stream which is basically part of the impoundment
for Lake Wylie. Expansion at this plant was
discouraged by State Water Quality personnel .

Mr. Alan R. Clark
Page 3
August 30, 1991
Alternative No. 2 focuses system expansion at the
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant where a 54-
inch outfall extension to the South fork River is
also planned. The flow in the South Fork is
higher than that at the existing discharge point
on Long Creek.
There are other reasons, but the ones listed here
are the primary factors.
2. I have included a copy of Section 3 of our
original Wastewater System Master Plan for
Gastonia. It has a full explanation of our
population and flow projections. The City of
Gastonia has at least 20 Permitted Industrial
Users. The majority of these are textile
knitting, dyeing, and finishing operations which
consume large quantities of water compared to the
number of employees. The term used for these
types of industries is "Wet Industry."
The total proposed system capacity is 42 MGD for
Alternative No. 2.
3. Obviously, the system expansion will allow for
future growth into previously undeveloped areas.
Because the expansion is being focused in the
Long Creek Basin, where approximately 70 percent
of the existing flow is industrial , much of the
new growth will occur here. We have already
discussed this plan with local leaders , including
the Mayor, City Council , planning personnel ,
utility staff personnel , and economic development
personnel . It fits well with future land-use
patterns and plans . Please reference Section 4.2
"Land Use" in the Environmental Assessment.
5. Division of Parks and Recreation
Please refer to Section A.11, "Protected Species
and Natural Areas" in the Environmental
Assessment . Dr. Goldstein was responsible for
including the big-leaf magnolia populations into
the N.H.P. data base.

Mr. Alan R. Clark
Page 4
August 30, 1991
We will locate these populations relative to our
work and insure that they are protected wherever
possible in accordance with the mitigative
measures in the Environmental Assessment.
If you have any further comments or need additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
John W. McLaughlin, P.E .
JWM/lw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Samuel Wilkins
Mr. John Shuler
Mr. J. Philip Bombardier
Dr. Robert Goldstein
tMr:Tr_e.vor_-C]''ements,
Mr. Donald Garbrick