NC0020559_SPECULATIVE LIMITS_20070125

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0020559
Henderson WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
January 25, 2007
This document ie printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reverse wide

v \O�OF W A7�9
Mr. Thomas M. Spain
City of Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
1646 West Andrews Avenue
Henderson, North Carolina 27537
Dear Mr. Spain:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 25, 2007
Subject: Speculative Effluent limits
City of Henderson
Proposed Discharge at Tar Pamlico River Basin
Warren County
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for a proposed wastewater discharge of 7.0
MGD into Sandy Creek near the Warren and Vance County line.
Receiving Stream: The proposed point of discharge is to Sandy Creek, approximately half a [rule downstream of
Southerlands Pond, and 3.3 miles from Highway 401. This segment of Sandy Creek is classified B, NSW waters. A
segment downstream of the proposed discharge point is fisted in the 2006 303(d) list as biological impaired.
Proposed Discharge to Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin
'There are several issues you should be aware of pertaining to this proposal:
1) The entire Tar -Pamlico River Basin has been designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) in response to
the problems associated with nutrient loading from both point source and non -point sources. As part. of the
effort to reduce nutrient loading in the basin, the EMC adopted nutrient sensitive waters management
strategy rule in 1997. The rule specifically states that any new wastewater discharges v:th permitted fltrw
greater than or equal to 0.05 MGD, who are not members of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association, shall be
required to offset their nutrient loads by funding nonpoint source control programs approved by the Division
of Water Quality prior to the issuance of their NPDES permit and at each renewal. Based on this
management strategy, the City's discharge into the Tar Pamlico River Basin would cost approximately
$21163,330 to offset the nutrient load contribution (15A NCAC 2B. 0229 (c)). If Henderson decides to
proceed forward with this discharge, the Division recommends that the City contact Paul B. Blount at (919)
972-1290 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin Association.
^_) Sandy Creek forms the headwaters of Swift Creek. Swift Creek supports the only viable populations of the
Tar River spiny mussel (Ellipdo (Canthyria) steinstansana), a federally endangered species. Swift Creek also
supports populations in North Carolina of five other mussel species listed by the State as threatened.
Presently portions of Sandy and Swift Creeks have been reclassified Outstanding Resource Water (ORW)
because of the excellent water quality. You may wish to contact the Resources Agencies to discuss the City's
proposal (both US Fish & Wildlife and NC Wildlife Resources Commission have been copied on this letter).
3) Interbasin transfer issues must be resolved through the Division of Water Resources.
Speculative Limits: The speculative limits were developed based on an EPA -approved level B model on Sandy Creek
With an added wastewater discharge of 7.0 MGD.
Based on available information, speculative effluent limits for the proposed discharge of 7.0 MGD to Sandy Creek are
presented in Table 1. 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
request.
N "`ncamlina
,ahrrally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: w"Av.nmateraualitv.org Location: S12 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Acton Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

rvir. opain
Page 2 of 3
The model results do not show significant impact on predicted instream dissolved oxygen levels from this proposed
discharge for the speculative limitations for BOD5 and NH3 presented in Table 1. However, the Division does have
concerns regarding nutrient loading.
TABLE 1. Sneculadve Limits for a Pronosed Dsscharoe
'Effluen
•.rvt
^qQy�'
IY3 ]�Y'' 4]�5Y ikW
� y, '`YAI�,j� tlt � `„�S+V'i ..�a'Y.)
Monthl Avera e, �.rWeekk
Avera e r
Datl•.Mavmum r S
Flow
7.0 MGD
BOD5, Summer
6.7 mg/1
10.0 mg/1
BOD5, Winter
13.3 m /I
20.0 mg/1
TSS
30.0 mg/1
45.0 my/1
NH3 as N, Summer
1.1 m /I
3.3 mg/l
NH3 as N, Winter
2.4 mg/1
7.2 mg/1
TRC
19 u /l
Fecal coliform(geometric mean
200/100 ml
400/10_0 in!_
Total Nitrogen*
6 m /1
Total Phosphorus*
_
1 m /I
*Depending on membership in Tax -Pamlico River Basin Association {15A NCAC 213.0229 (c))
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES permit for
a new discharge of 7.0 MGD will be issued with these speculative limits. Final decisions can only be made after the
Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the City's proposed discharge. In accordance with the
North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable wastewater treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse
impact on the environment is required to be implemented. Therefore, as a component of all NPDES permit
applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The
EAA must justify requested flows, and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. Alternatives
to a surface water discharge, such as spray/drip irrigation, wastewater reuse, or inflow/infiltration reduction, are
considered to be environmentally preferable. A copy of the FAA requirements is attached to this letter. Permit
applications for new or expanding flow will be returned as incomplete if all EAA requirements are not
adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the DWQ NPDES'
Unit at 919-733-5083.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document must be prepared for
all projects that 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public lands; and 3) might have a potential to
significantly impact the environment. For new wastewater discharges, significant impact is defined as a proposed
discharge of >500,000 gpd and producing an instream waste concentration of > 33% based on summer 7Q10 flow
conditions. For existing discharges, significant impact is defined as an expansion of > 500,000 gpd additional flow.
Since your proposed discharge is a new wastewater discharge of >500,000 gpd flow, you must prepare a
SEPA document that evaluates the potential for impacting the quality of the environment. The NPDES
Unit will not accept an NPDES permit application for the proposed new discharge until the Division has
approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the State
Clearinghouse for review and comment. A SEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) should contain a clear
justification for the proposed project. If the SEPA EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant
adverse effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS (Environmental Impact
Statement). Since your proposed discharge is subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements discussed above will
need to be folded into the SEPA document. The SEPA process will be delayed if all EAA requirements are
not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding SEPA FA/EIS requirements, please contact
Hannah Stallings with the DWQ Planning Branch at [phone], ext. 555.

-'Mr. Spain
Psge 3 of 3
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please feel free to
contact Agycman Adu-Poku at [phone], extension 508.
Sincerely,
4 ---ffi kcAc�
Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
Supervisor, NPDES Western Program
Attachment: EAA Guidance Document
cc:. (without Attachment)
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
NPDES Permit File, NCO020559
US Fish & Wild Life/Tom Augspurger
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
"far -Pamlico River Basin Association/Paul B. Blount
P.O. Box 1847
Greenville, NC 27835
NC Wildlife Resources Cotmnission, Inland Fisheries/Fred Harris
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721

IWC Calculations
City of Henderson
NC00
Prepared By: Agyeman Adu-Poku, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 7
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 1.25
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 4.2
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.25
7Q10 (CFS)
1.25
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
7
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
7
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.85
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.85
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
89.67
IWC (%)
89.67
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
19
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.1
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
4.2
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
7
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.85
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.12
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
72.09
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
2.4
Rule of tumb never give small facility <2 ug/L of NH3
Servor/Current Versions/IWC
1 /1612007

n
SUMMER MODEL ON SANDY CREEK, LIMITS
5/1.1/5, IMPAIRED DWN 3.8 MILES FROM DSCHG
INTERBASIN TRANSFER ROANOKE TO TARPAM
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HENDERSON WWTP
Receiving Stream : SANDY CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 7.35 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 7.55 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 3.54 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 5.26 0.00 1 Reach 1 10.00 4.95 5.00 7.00000
Press any key to continue.

WINTER MODEL ON SANDY CREEK, LIMITS
10/2.5/5 , IMPAIRED DWNSTRM 3.8 MILES B/L
DSCHG, INTERBASIN TRANSFER ROA>>TARPAM
---------- MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : HENDERSON WWTP
Receiving Stream : SANDY CREEK
The End D.O. is 9.38 mg/I.
The End CBOD is 13.12 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 7.45 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
------ ---------------- ---- ---- -- ----------
Segment 1 6.33 0.00 Reach 1 20.00 11.25 5.00 7.00000
Press any key to continue.

Henderson WWTP @ 7.0 MGD expansion
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010 (CFS)
1.4
7Q10 (CFS)
1.4
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
7
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
7
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.85
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.85
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
88.57
IWC (%)
88.57
Allowable Concentration (ugi
19.19
Allowable Concentration (m
1.10
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS) 4.9
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
7
Ratio of 0.1 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.85
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
68.89
Allowable Concentration (m
2.51
6/13/2006

Facility: Henderson spec
NPDES#:nc00XXxxx
Receiving Stream: Sandy Creek
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number:
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7010 Low Flow Record Station:
w7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
HAS
54.10 miles squared
50.20 cfs
2.00 cfs
6.80 cfs
10.50 cfs
must be <400 sq. miles
Drainage Area New Site:
39.00 sq. miles
MAR New Site:
0.88
Qave per Report Equation:
34 cfs
s7Q10 per Report Equation:
1.37 cfs
w7Q10 per Report Equation:
4.88 cfs
30Q2 per Report Equation:
6.61 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 0.72 : 1
( new DA / Da at gage Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.63 : 1
Over -ride Inappropriate Site ( y ):
II Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
39.00 miles squared
0.88
34 cfs
1.41 cfs
4.89 cfs
7.21 cfs

W ATF9P
Michael F. Easley, Governor
�DF
(,
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`0
h
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 15,2005
CERTIFIED MAIL 10c'AR-_L+10-000(0-g010 0116
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Mark Warren
City of Henderson
PO Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy
1NPESo DPermit N. NC0020559
City of Henderson WWTP
Vance County
Dear Mr. Warren:
This is to inform you that a review of your toxicity self -monitoring report form for the month of April 2005
indicates a violation of the toxicity limitation specified in your NPDES Permit You should undertake necessary actions to
eliminate or reduce effluent toxicity to acceptable levels.
In addition, this correspondence contains important information on the Division's Copper and Zinc Action Level
Policy which is triggered by two or more toxicity limit violations that occur during the toxicity testing calendar quarter
specified by the toxicity testing special condition of your NPDES Permit. Attachments addressing policy implementation
and a copy of the Division's Toxicity Reduction Guidance have been included with this Notice of Violation.
You should initiate follow-up toxicity testing upon a single WET test failure which occurs during the toxicity testing
calendar quarter.
Your facility is currently monitoring for copper and the data indicate that the level of copper in your effluent has the
potential to cause an exceedance of the NC water quality action level for this parameter in your receiving stream during low
stream flow conditions. The policy states that whenever a facility experiences two or more toxicity limit violations during a
toxicity testing calendar quarter, the NPDES Permit will be modified to include numeric limits for copper and/or zinc
UNLESS the permittee provides one or more of the following:
1. Instream measurements of dissolved metal during low flow conditions that demonstrate compliance with
the Action Level standard
2. A revision of the prospective permit limit using improved inputs that in concert with existing or additional
monitoring data demonstrates compliance with the Action Level standard
3. Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) results that definitively rule out copper and/or zinc as causes of
effluent toxicity
4. Demonstration by an alternative method approved by the Division and EPA that copper and/or zinc is not
the cause of toxicity
No Y hCarolina
aAurullil
Nonh Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internal: w esh.encstalemc.us 4401 Reedy Creek Rd. Raleigh, NC 27607 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycledll0°/ Post Consumer Paper

f
Page 2
City of Henderson
June 15, 2005
The Division has evaluated your copper monitoring data. The Division has also developed a prospective NPDES
permit limit based on your facility's instream waste concentration, the copper action level criterion and a translator
procedure. Based on this data your prospective copper permit limit is 15 µg/L.
The permittee, upon experiencing two or more toxicity limit violations during a toxicity testing calendar
quarter must either provide DWQ with:
a) Written notification indicating acceptance of the prospective copper and/or zinc permit
limit. Notification is due within 30 days after the date of the second WET Notice of
Violation,
b) Written notification indicating your choice of option(s) as noted on page one of this correspondence.
Notification is due within 30 days after the date of the second WET Notice of Violation. DWQ
approval of options 1-3 (previous page) is not necessary as the Division expects work to rule out
copper and/or zinc as causative effluent toxicants to begin immediately upon the second WET permit
limit violation.
Written notification (a or b above) shall be sent to:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Please note that if you choose item b) above, you will be given nine months to submit documentation that eliminates
copper as a causative effluent toxicant. Your final report should be comprehensive and include all data used to support your
conclusion(s). Should the data indicate copper as the source of effluent toxicity or if the data are inconclusive as to copper's
role as a toxicity source, then the NPDES Permit will be reopened and the metal limit specified above will be applied to the
permit. The report is due nine months after the date of the second WET Notice of Violation.
Three copies of the final report shall be submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
You should consider submitting the above correspondence certified mail.
Failure to notify DWQ of your acceptance of a limit, failure to notify DWQ of your option selection or failure to
make acceptable demonstration to DWQ that copper is not a causative effluent toxicant within the stated time frames will
result in reopening of the NPDES Permit to include a copper numeric limitation, as appropriate.

Page 3
City of Henderson
June 15, 2005
If the effluent is toxic, then we expect work to commence immediately with toxic effluent samples. Failure to
initiate work with toxic effluent samples during the study period is unacceptable and will be considered a failure to make
acceptable demonstration as cited above. We recommend a minimum of three separate sampling events during the nine
month period to definitively rule out copper as a causative effluent toxicant.
Please note that your actions to notify DWQ of prospective limit acceptance or to notify DWQ of plan option(s) and
subsequent submission of a plan are contingent upon two or more toxicity NPDES permit limit violations occurring during a
toxicity testing calendar quarter.
Also note that the WET limit will remain in your NPDES permit regardless of whether metals are the source of
effluent toxicity. The data resulting from your actions to disprove copper as a source of effluent toxicity will determine
whether an NPDES Permit limit will be assigned for this parameter. You are responsible for initiating actions to address
these issues.
You may consider entering into a Special Order by Consent (SOC) with DWQ. A SOC provides regulatory relief
for specific NPDES permit limit violations and, if signed, will contain a requirement to conduct a Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation. The SOC will contain a compliance schedule, stipulated penalties for failing to meet milestone activity dates and
may contain upfront penalties to settle past permit limit violations.
Additional information regarding the Division's Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy can be found at the following
web site - http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us. Click on the "Aquatic Toxicology" Unit and go to the prompt "AT Downloadable
Files" located at the bottom of the page. This web site also contains EPA's "Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Guidance for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants." Section 4 of this document contains pertinent information on Toxicity
Identification Evaluations.
If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please contact me or Mr. Kevin Bowden at (919) 733-
2136.
Sincerely,
Matt Matthews
Aquatic Toxicology Unit Supervisor
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Ken Schuster — Raleigh Regional Office (no attachments)
Dave Goodrich - Point Source Branch (no attachments)
Marshall Hyatt-USEPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta, GA
30303 (no attachments)
Central Files (no attachments)
Aquatic Toxicology Unit Files (no attachments)

CITY OF HENDERSON
Post Office Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434
Henderson Water Reclamation Facility
1646 West Andrews Avenue
Henderson, North Carolina 27537
Phone
[phone] FAX: (,5.2�492-33 4
Mr. Gil Vinzani
Supervisor
NPDES Permitting Eastern North Carolina
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: City of Henderson
Request for Speculative Limits for a proposed wastewater treatment plant to be located o Sandy
Dear Mr. Vinzani, `
The City of Henderson owns approximately 40 acres of land located in Warren County just over'tlie Vance County line
adjacent to state road 1523. Sandy Creek adjoins the property to the North and East -
The City wants the Division of Water Quality to develop speculative discharge limits for a 7.0 MGD wastewater treatment
plant located in this area.
I have enclosed a topographic map showing the property, road and Sandy Creek.
I have put an X mark on the creek to indicate the proposed point of discharge. This is estimated and may vary by several
hundred feet if the plant location is approved.
I know there have been a lot of past issues related to location of a wastewater treatment plant on Sandy Creek (political
opposition, some ORW classification in the Sandy Creek Basin and endangered species such as the Blue Spineymussel.
The City wants to know if it is possible for a wastewater treatment plant to be located on Sandy Creek and what the
discharge limits and any other possible requirements or restrictions would be.
Please contact me at my office # 252-431-6081 or cell # 252432-0446 if you have any questions. Thank You.
S�in/eerely
Thoomasmas MM... Spa'
Director HWRF
C: Jerry Moss, City Manager
Mark Warren, Assistant City Manager

Roanoke River Basin
Subbasin 03-02-10
Assessment
Waterbody and Description Unit (AU) Class
Impaired
Subbasin Use
Year
Listed Category and Reason for Listing
Potential Source(s) Miles or Acres
Impaired Uses
AL- Aquatic Life REC. Recreation
Roanoke Summary Information
FW- Freshwater
Shellfish Harvesting Fish Consumption Category
Miles and Acres
Category Count of AUs
S- Salt water
O- Overall 2
9,690.1
FW Acres
2 30
3
626.7
FW Acres
3 394
5
1,802.0
FW Acres
4a 1
2
222.4
FW Miles
5 19
3
1,721.9
FW Miles
6 6
4a
14.2
FW Miles
5
233.3
FW Miles
6
21.1
FW Miles
Tar Pamlico River Basin
Subbasin 03-03-01
Fishing Creek 28.11a C NSW
03-03-01
6
From source to SR 1649
AL
1998 6 Impaired biological integrity
2.4 FW Miles
Fishing Creek 28-11b C NSW
03-03-01
6
From SR 1649 to #1 outfall
AL
1998 6 Impaired biological integrity
0.5 FW Miles
Fishing Creek 28-11c C NSW
03-03-01
8
From #1 ouffall to SR 1608
AL
1998 6 Impaired biological integrity
0.9 FW Miles
Major Municipal Point Source
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Major Municipal Point Source
Fishing Creek 28-11d C NSW
03-03-01
g
From SR 1608 to Coon Creek
AL
1998 6 Impaired biological integrity
1.0 FW Miles
Major Municipal Point Source
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Tar Pamlico River Basin
Subbasin 03-03-02
Sandy Creek 28-78-1-(8)b B NSW
03-03-02
6
From NC 401to N.C. Hwy. 561
0
2000 6 Impaired biological integrity
11.3 FW Mlles
DRAFT for PUBLIC REVIEW
North Carolina 303(d) List- 2006
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Tar Pamlico Basin 03-03-02
Page 81 of 126

Tar Pamlico
River Basin
' ' o 11,
Waters with impaired biological integrity.
Assessment
year
Waterbody and Description
Unit (ALq
Class
Subbasfn
ImpairedUse
Listed Category and Reason for Listing
Potential Source(s) Miles Acres
Fishing Creek
28-11b
C NSW
30301
1998
6
From SR1649 to Oxford WWTP
0.4
Overall
1998
6 Impaired biological integrity:
stressors not identified
Fishing Creek
28-11c
C NSW
30301
199
66
From Oxford WWTP to SR 1608
0.9
Overall
1998
6 Impaired biological integrity:
Municipal Point Sources
stressors not identified
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Fishing Creek
28-11d
C NSW
30301
1998
6
From SR1608 to Coon Creek
1.0
Overall
1998
6 Impaired biological integrity:
Municipal Point Sources
stressors not identified
2. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Fishing Creek
28-11a
C NSW
30301
2000
6
From Coon Creek to Tar River
6.1
Overall
1 2000
6 Impaired biological integrity:
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
stressors not identified
Tar Pamlico River Basin
Waters with impaired biological integrity.
Assessment Year
Waterbody and Description Un/t (At9 Class Subbasin ImpairedUse Listed Category and Reason for Listing Potential Source(s) Mlles Acres
Stony Creek (Boddies Millpond) 28-68 C NSW 30302
From source to Tar River
SaridyCreek 28-78-1-(8)a B NSW 30302
c_
1998 6 23.3
Overall 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity: 1 Source Unknown
stressors not identified
2000 6
"w"""' vi I a rulI LJ°`' riwy +u I Overall 2000 6 Impaired biological integrity:
stressors not identified
Sandy Creek 28-78-1-(8)b B NSW 30302 2000 6
From Hwy 401 to NC Hwy 561 Overall 1 2000 6 Impaired biological integrity:
stressors not identified
3.8
12.2
Monday, April 26, 2004 North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List-2004 Page 73 of 112 River Basin: Tar Pamlico

7p 2- -5-
75
-C �. 71�7 t-
�b ter, V ;; 5 -, Z, <,

Low -flow characteristics for Sandy Creek near Vance/Warren County ...
Subject: Low -flow characteristics for Sandy Creek near Vance/Warren County lines... Re: Request for
Flow estimate
From: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:14:03 -0400
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
Jackie,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for Sandy Creek near the Vance and Warren
County lines, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow and discharge files here at the USGS office indicates the previous determination
of a 7010 discharge for Sandy Creek near Coleys Crossroads (station id 02082684, drainage area listed
as 33.7 sqmi, at SR 1523 just downstream of Southerlands Pond). The 7Q10 estimate provided was "use
1 - 3 cfs" (based on a 7Q10 yield of about 0.06 cfs per sqmi drainage area), determined in 1969 in
response to a request. Notes for the 1969 request indicate the 7Q10 yield came from a downstream
partial -record site near Alert (station id 02082710, drainage area 54.1 sqmi).
In 1972, this same yield appears to have been applied to another site on Sandy Creek about 1.4 miles
downstream from SR 1523 (station id 0208268580, drainage area approximately 38 sqmi).
Although I did find the drainage area and other site characteristics for the site number you mentioned in
your previous email (station id 0208268701, drainage area 39.0 sqmi), I did not see any previous low -flow
estimates associated with this site.
Given the previous estimates mentioned above date back to 1969 and 1972, the question about whether
any new data has come forth will obviously arise in this kind of situation.
Limited streamflow data appears to exist for the upper areas of the Sandy Creek basin, particularly sites
having sufficient data to allow for a low -flow analysis. The closest site on Sandy Creek where USGS has
collected sufficient discharge records to permit a low -flow analysis appears to be the partial -record site
located downstream in Franklin County near Alert (station id 02082710, drainage area 54.1 sqmi). The
discharge record consists of 20 miscellaneous measurements collected from 1954 through 1970.
Subsequent re -analyses of the partial -record site near Alert have apparently resulted in modified low -flow
yields for this location. The following low -flow characteristics for the partial -record site were published in
the most recent statewide low -flow report for North Carolina, "Low -flow characteristics of streams in North
Carolina" (USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, Giese and Mason, 1993):
Mean annual runoff = 0.9 cfs per sqmi
7Q10 yield = 2.0 cfs (equivalent to yield of 0.037 cfs per sqmi)
winter 7Q10 = 6.8 cfs (equivalent to yield of 0.1257 cfs per sqmi)
30Q2 = 10.0 cfs (equivalent to yield of 0.1848 cfs per sqmi)
In the absence of any other information or analyses, it appears the above yields could be considered
applicable to your point of interest at SR 1523 where the drainage area is listed as 33.7 sqmi. You can
apply these yields using this drainage area to obtain flow estimates. In doing so, please be aware that the
no outflow or seepage characteristics associated with the Southerlands Pond are specifically factored in
the above yield estimates for the partial -record site. Without any discharge records immediately
downstream of the dam, the actual effects of the impoundment on low flows cannot be determined.
I of 2 7/5/2006 3:22 PM

Low -flow characteristics for Sandy Creek near Vance/Warren County
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
#MR4###R#RM##RM#+###+RM#+##+R#4+###RM#R##M*RR##MM#RR#*#RMlRR#f !l1f111f!
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] H Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
*******************************R*************+R****#*****!1f*R1fl11fl1f
Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
06/27/2006 11:19 AM
Hello Curtis,
Hope that you are well. I
Average flow and 30Q2 flow
River Basin. The discharge
(B29SE8), in Warren County,
Road 1523 .
I found an old USGS station
the point that I described
point is 39 square miles.
If you can provide the flow
Please call me at 733-5083
Thank you very much
Jackie Nowell
NPDES Western Program
To John C Weaver <[e-mail]>
cc
Subject Request for Flow estimate
m looking for the 7Q10 (summer and winter),
.t a point on Sandy Creek in the Tar Pamlico
point is located on the Vicksboro quad
below Southerlands Pond and just below State
site 0208268701, that seems to be very near
above. The estimated drainage area at that
estimates I would greatly appreciate it.
ext 512 if more info is needed
2 of 2 7/5/2006 3:22 PM

SUMMER
MODEL AT EXP. FLOW OF 7 MGD
IN SANDY CREEK BL SOUT. POND
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : HENDERSON WWTP
Receiving Stream : SANDY CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 7.36 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 7.64 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 3.60 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 5.24 0.00 1
Reach 1 10.00 4.95 5.00 7.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger :
HENDERSON WWTP
Subbasin :
030302
Receiving Stream :
SANDY CREEK
Stream Class:
B NSW
Summer 7Q10 :
1.25
Winter 7Q10 : 4.2
Design Temperature:
26.0
LENGTHI
SLOPEI VELOCITY
DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I
KN
------------
mile
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I ft/mij
fps
ft
Idesignj
@201
Idesignj
@200 Idesigni
Segment 1 3.80I 10.00 0.475 11.30 1 0.37 1 0.28 17.04 1 6.181 0.48
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Flow
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 10.850
Headwaters 1.250
Tributary 0.000
* Runoff 0.000
mg/D g/D I mg/l
10.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
4.950
5.000
1.000
7.300
1.000
7.300
1.000
7.300

Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
1
1
0.00
5.24
9.17
1
1
0.10
5.42
9.13
1
1
0.20
5.58
9.09
1
1
0.30
5.73
9.04
1
1
0.40
5.87
9.00
1
1
0.50
6.00
8.96
1
1
0.60
6.11
8.91
1
1
0.70
6.22
8.87
1
1
0.80
6.32
8.83
1
1
0.90
6.41
8.79
1
1
1.00
6.49
8.74
1
1
1.10
6.56
8.70
1
1
1.20
6.63
8.66
1
1
1.30
6.70
8.62
1
1
1.40
6.76
8.58
1
1
1.50
6.81
8.54
1
1
1.60
6.86
8.50
1
1
1.70
6.90
8.45
1
1
1.80
6.95
8.41
1
1
1.90
6.98
8.37
1
1
2.00
7.02
8.33
1
1
2.10
7.05
8.29
1
1
2.20
7.08
8.25
1
1
2.30
7.11
8.21
1
1
2.40
7.14
8.17
1
1
2.50
7.16
8.14
1
1
2.60
7.18
8.10
1
1
2.70
7.20
8.06
1
1
2.80
7.22
8.02
1
1
2.90
7.24
7.98
1
1
3.00
7.26
7.94
1
1
3.10
7.27
7.90
1
1
3.20
7.29
7.87
1
1
3.30
7.30
7.83
1
1
3.40
7.31
7.79
1
1
3.50
7.32
7.75
1
1
3.60
7.34
7.72
1
1
3.70
7.35
7.68
1
1
3.80
7.36
7.64
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
SUMMER
MODEL AT EXP. FLOW OF 7 MGD
IN SANDY CREEK BL SOUT. POND
NBOD
Flow
4.54
12.10
4.51
12.10
4.49
12.10
4.46
12.10
4.43
12.10
4.41
12.10
4.38
12.10
4.35
12.10
4.32
12.10
4.30
12.10
4.27
12.10
4.25
12.10
4.22
12.10
4.19
12.10
4.17
12.10
4.14
12.10
4.12
12.10
4.09
12.10
4.07
12.10
4.04
12.10
4.02
12.10
3.99
12.10
3.97
12.10
3.95
12.10
3.92
12.10
3.90
12.10
3.87
12.10
3.85
12.10
3.83
12.10
3.80
12.10
3.78
12.10
3.76
12.10
3.73
12.10
3.71
12.10
3.69
12.10
3.67
12.10
3.64
12.10
3.62
12.10
3.60
12.10
NBOD
Flow

Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
1
1
0.00
5.24
9.17
1
1
0.10
5.42
9.13
1
1
0.20
5.58
9.09
1
1
0.30
5.73
9.04
1
1
0.40
5.87
9.00
1
1
0.50
6.00
8.96
1
1
0.60
6.11
8.91
1
1
0.70
6.22
8.87
1
1
0.80
6.32
8.83
1
1
0.90
6.41
8.79
1
1
1.00
6.49
8.74
1
1
1.10
6.56
8.70
1
1
1.20
6.63
8.66
1
1
1.30
6.70
8.62
1
1
1.40
6.76
8.58
1
1
1.50
6.81
8.54
1
1
1.60
6.86
8.50
1
1
1.70
6.90
8.45
1
1
1.80
6.95
8.41
1
1
1.90
6.98
8.37
1
1
2.00
7.02
8.33
1
1
2.10
7.05
8.29
1
1
2.20
7.08
8.25
1
1
2.30
7.11
8.21
1
1
2.40
7.14
8.17
1
1
2.50
7.16
8.14
1
1
2.60
7.18
8.10
1
1
2.70
7.20
8.06
1
1
2.80
7.22
8.02
1
1
2.90
7.24
7.98
1
1
3.00
7.26
7.94
1
1
3.10
7.27
7.90
1
1
3.20
7.29
7.87
1
1
3.30
7.30
7.83
1
1
3.40
7.31
7.79
1
1
3.50
7.32
7.75
1
1
3.60
7.34
7.72
1
1
3.70
7.35
7.68
1
1
3.80
7.36
7.64
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
SUMMER
MODEL AT EXP. FLOW OF 7 MGD
IN SANDY CREEK BL SOUT. POND
NBOD
Flow
4.54
12.10
4.51
12.10
4.49
12.10
4.46
12.10
4.43
12.10
4.41
12.10
4.38
12.10
4.35
12.10
4.32
12.10
4.30
12.10
4.27
12.10
4.25
12.10
4.22
12.10
4.19
12.10
4.17
12.10
4.14
12.10
4.12
12.10
4.09
12.10
4.07
12.10
4.04
12.10
4.02
12.10
3.99
12.10
3.97
12.10
3.95
12.10
3.92
12.10
3.90
12.10
3.87
12.10
3.85
12.10
3.83
12.10
3.80
12.10
3.78
12.10
3.76
12.10
3.73
12.10
3.71
12.10
3.69
12.10
3.67
12.10
3.64
12.10
3.62
12.10
3.60
12.10
NBOD
Flow

Re: Henderson spec
Subject: Re: Henderson spec
From: Cam McNutt <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[e-mail]>, Trish MacPherson <[e-mail]>
CC: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Z think this is in the ORW mgmt strategy area for Swift Creek. Better
check this first and also the Tand E species plans here may apply as
well. Sites improved to GF but could have been due to drought
conditions.
I of 1 6/27/2006 11:59 AM

Re: Henderson spec
Subject: Re: Henderson spec
From: michelle woolfolk <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:55:02 -0400
To: Cam McNutt <[e-mail]>, Trish MacPherson <[e-mail]>
CC: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hey guys, what do you know about this creek? What's up with the delisting of a
portion of Sandy Creek? Did the "upstream" bug site really improve, or is the site
good -fair? Any information you can provide would be great so I can get back to
Jackie with an answer. Jackie, what would the IWC be with this discharge?
Thanks
Michelle
Jackie Nowell wrote:
Your bestest buddy again.
Henderson wants spec limits for 7 MOD into Sandy Creek in the Tar Pamlico Basin.
They want to discharge in the portion of the creek that was listed on the 303d
list in 2004 but has been de -listed in the draft 2006 list. (just below the dam at
Southerlands Pond, in Warren County, class B NSW +). A preliminary Level B model
shows that with tertiary limits and an effluent DO limit of 6 mg/l, the discharge
will not violate the DO standard. The model length was 3.8 miles and ended just
above the impaired segment. The predicted DO minimum is 5.26 mg/l at the discharge
point, End CBOD was 7.55 mg/l and End NBOD was 3.54 mg/l. However, since it is
above the 303d listed segment of Sandy Creek, is it our guidance/policy that we do
not allow the discharge?
Jackie
Michelle Woolfolk <[e-mail]>
Environmental Supervisor
Modeling & TMDL Unit, NCDWQ
I of, 1 6/27/2006 1 1:57 AM

?zoo r.� S�-,•.d� ��1� �,r�� d�
_ii_Y'r�-=74cF5—
cry
,,7¢to = Ir 4 di
// 71A, - 7 > i01^,
r

I)V£r
TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream
Subbasin
Stream Index Number
Map Number
Class
Robin Gut
TAR07
29-28-15-5-3
F32SW5
SA;HQW,NSW
Rocky Branch
TAR02
28-40
D27SW2
WS-IV;NSW,CA
Rocky Branch
TAR04
28-79-22-6-2
C26NW2
C;NSW
Rocky Creek
TAR01
28-6.5
B24SW7
C;NSW
Rocky Creek
TAR04
28-79-3
B25NE9
C;NSW
Rocky Swamp
TAR04
28-79-28-(0.3)
B27SEB
C;NSW
Rocky Swamp (Bellamy Lake)
TAR04
28-79-28-(0.7)
B27SEB
WS-IV;NSW
Rodman Creek
TAR07
29-4-(1)
E30SEB
C;Sw,NSW
Rodman Creek
TAR07
29-4-(2)
E30SEB
SC;NSW
Rose Bay
TAR07
29-44
F33NW9
SA;HQW
Rose Bay
TAROS
29-44
F33NW9
SA;HQW
Rose Bay Canal
TAROS
29-44-1-1
F33NE1
SC
Rose Bay Canal
TAR08
29-70-5-2-1-1
F33NE1
SC
Rose Bay Creek
TAROK
29-44-1
F33NW6
SA;HQW
Rose Branch -
TAR02
28-55-4
D26NE5
C;NSW
Rose Canal
TAR08
29-60-4-1-1
F34NW3
C;Sw
Ross Creek
TAR07
29-29-5-1
F32NW6
SA;HQW,NSW
Ross Swamp
TAR06
28-103-4-1
D30SW1
C;Sw,NSW
Rowland Creek
TAR07
29-19-2
E31SEB
C;NSW
Ruin Creek
TAR01
28-17-2-(2)
B25SW1
C;NSW
Ruin Creek (L. Marguerite)
TAR01
28-17-2-(1)
B25SW4
B;NSW
Runyon Creek
TAR07
29-3-(l)
E30SE9
C;NSW
Runyon Creek
TAR07
29-3-(2)
E30SE6
SC;NSW
Russell Creek
TAR07
29-34-13-2
E33SW4
SC;NSW
Rutman Creek
TAR07
29-34-18-2
E33SW5
SC;NSW
Sage Bay
TAR08
29-57
F34NE1
SA;HQW
Sage Gut
TAR07
29-34-35-4-1
F32NW3
C;Sw,NSW
Saint Clair Creek
TAR07
29-26-(1)
F32NW4
C;Sw,NSW
Saint Clair Creek
TAR07
29-26-(2)
F32NW4
SC;NSW
Sally Kearney Creek
TAR01
26-16-1-(1)
C25SW1
WS-II;HQW,NSW
Sally Kearney Creek
TAR01
28-16-1-(2)
C25SW1
WS-IV;NSW
Sally Kearney Creek (Old Franklinton Lake)
TAR01
28-16-1-(1.5)
C25SW1
WS-II;HQW,NSW,CA
Salt Pit Creek
TAR07
29-34-46-7
F32NE6
SA;HQW,NSW
Sampson Landing Creek
TAR07
29-35-6-2
F32SE6
SA;HQW,NSW
Sams Branch -
TAROS
28-89
E29NWB
WS-IV;NSW
Sand Beach Creek
TAR07
29-33-5
F32SE4
SA;HQW,NSW
Sand Creek
TAR01
28-12
C24NEB
C;NSW
Sand Hole Creek
TAR08
29-87
G35MI8 '
SA;HQW
Sandy Bay
TAROS
29-76
E35SE1
SA;HQW
Sandy Creek
TAR02"
28-78-1-(8)
B25SES
B;NSW:+
Sandy Creek
TAR02
28-78-1-(14) ✓
C26NW9
C;NSW:+
Sandy Creek
TAR02
28-78-1-(19)
C27SW1
C;ORW,NSW
Sandy Creek (Fox Reservoir, Roland Pond, Club
TAR02
28-78-1-(1)
B25SE4
C;NSW:+
Pond, Weldons Mill Pond, Southerlands Pond)
Sandy Cross Community House Branch
TAR02
28-51
1)27NW8
WS-NpNSW,CA
Sandy Out
TAR07
29-34-30
E32SE8
SC;NSW
Sanger Creek
TAROB
29-58
F34NE1
SA;HQW
Sapony Creek
TAR02
28-55-(1)
D26NE1
C;NSW
Sapony Creek
TAR02
28-55-(5.5)
D26NE9
WS-IV;NSW
Sasnett Mill Branch
TAR03
28-03-3-3
D28SE1
C;NSW
Satterthwaite Creek
TAR07
29-34-48
F32NE4
SA;HQW,NSW
Savage Mill Run
TAR04
28-79-32-4
D29NW2
WS-IV;NSW
Sawmill Branch
TAR02
28-64
D27NW9
WS-IV;NSW,CA
Schoolhouse Branch
TAR05
28-93
E29SW3
C;NSW
Schoolhouse Gut
TAR07
29-33-6-4
F32SW6
SA;HQW,NSW
Schooner Creek
TAR07
29-28-14
F32SW1
SA;HQW,NSW
Scott Creek
TAR07
29-34-35-6
E32SW8
SC;NSW
Page 13 of 17

p zo 3 z7k000
7 ��� z 3 jai 9 �c; Pi zSSE
v Zo�3 Z�
JI
3Y, 70
37,
SM
gf�(, rkk ?,f(u C .� J-;4 c
3LP 17zo 7a /b �,-/
3�,/627- %G16P1%
6 zrs�
/5- Y& /s ue
p
Ij
cT

rpr�nva)/`
d
7
Stream
Ma.inSte.m
Bro.AJ
Slo C41�� l4fia., S
o,.
Z8V L Ia
�qqGC
/ 7jJAi
elc.v
C o eve
dist
dist
Sle
300
0
j o
,1.-70
/, 677/j
-.Y-7
13,"1
d*(stan«