The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0026689_REPORT_19860601NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNIMO COVER SHEET NPDES Permit: NC0026689 Denton WWTP Document Type: Permit'Issuance Wasteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Report Instream Assessment (67b) Environmental Assessment (EA). Permit History Document Date: June 1, .1986 Thin document is printed oa reuse paper - ignore say ooateat oa the reverse Bide DIVISION OF ENVIRONEMENTAL MANGEMENT June 1, 1986 _MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Tedder ��p FROM: Dave Lenat x THRU: Ken EaglesonV Jimmie Overt n ap SUBJECT: Biomonitoring at the Denton WWTP, Davidson County, "Before Q After" studies The Biological Monitoring Group has completed an investigation of the effects of the Denton WWTP on UT Lick Creek. This information will be incorporated into a DEM report which will combine the biological data with the chemical/physical data. The Denton WWTP was upgraded in 1985. Biological samples were collected in May 1985 (before the upgrade) and May 19M (after the new plant was on-line). This investigation clearly indicated an improvement in water quality in UT Lick Creek in 1986, although the degree of improvement was limited by upstream urban runoff. DL/dl cc: Vince Schneider Dave Penrose Denton WWTP - "Before and After" Biological Studies The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has been conducting a series of studies to determine the success of Wastewater treatment plant upgrades. These investigations examine the biological and chemical characteristics of receiving streams before and after plant modifications. This study examined the effectiveness of a new WWTP constructed in the town of Denton. A large number of sites (6) were included in the "before" portion of the Denton sampling program. Several of these sites were established to aid in the assignment of water quality ratings. These extra stations were required because all sampling was conducted during Maya month when taxa. richness values are normally thigh. Cabin Creek (Station 5) was selected to determine the impact of agricultural runoff in this region, and Barnes Creek (Station 6, located in the Uwharrie National Forest) was selected as an unimpacted control site. Stations 1 and 2 (UT Lick Creek) were established to evaluate the direct impact of the Denton WWTP discharge. Note that UT Lick Creek above the WWTP receives "urban" runoff from the city of Denton. Stations 2 and 3 (Lick Creek) were established to measure the effects of the discharge on the next downstream system. Station decriptions are presented in Table 1. Level I/Level II Data. (Tables 2-3). In May 1985, low taxa richness values indicated Poor water quality for both sites on UT Lick Creek. The lowest value was recorded at Station 2, below Denton's discharge. The abundance and diversity of intolerant (EPT) groups also were very low at both sites on Lick Creek. These data indicate that urban runoff from the Denton area will limit the development of intolerant species in UT Lick Creek. In the 1985 collections, it was apparent that the Denton.WWTP further degrades water quality in this small stream. Taxa richness values and EPT abundance were very similar for all stations on Lick Creek and Cabin Creek. These three sites received a Good -Fair bioclassification. Comparisons of Lick Creek/Cabin Creek with the control site (Barnes Creek) clearly indicated that moderate stress occurs in these areas of agricultural land use. Furthermore, these data suggest that agricultural runoff is the primary cause of water quality problems in Lick Creek. During May 1985,the Denton WWTP had no effect on the fauna of this stream. Further discussion will be limited to those sites above and below the Denton WWTP on UT Lick Creek. The two sites on UT Lick Creek were resampled in May, 1986. Taxa richness increased at the upstream site from 32 (Hay 1985) to 53 (Hay 1986). Large increases were observed for sume tolerant groups, especially Diptera. However, EPT abundance and taxa richness remained low at this site, and the bioclassification was Poor for both sampling dates. It is likely that the lower rainfall that occurred in the spring of 1986 resulted in less urban runoff from the Denton area. This allowed a limited "recovery" at station 1. A much greater increase in taxa richness occurred at Station 2 (Hay 1985:23, May 1986: 53). The increase in EPT taxa richness and abundance was suffcient to change the bioclassification from Poor in 1985 to Fair in 1986. These changes clearly indicate that the new Denton WWTP improved water quality in UT Lick Creek. However, it is possible that further improvements in water quality may be constrained by upstream nonpoint-source pollution. Level III data. (Tables 4 and 5). A complete list of all taxa found at UT Lick Creek is given in Table 4 and the data for all abundant species is summarized in Table 5. Eleven species showed substantial increases in abundance at Station 2 in 1986. These species included some intolerant taxa (Heptagenia sp., Cloeon sp., Paraleptophlebia sp. and Microtendipes sp. 1), but a number of intolerant taxa also increased at this site. Water quality in May 1985 was so poor that even some normally tolerant species were eliminated. Chironomus sp., an indicator of heavy organic loading, declined in abundance at Station 2. This change clearly indicates the better wastewater treatment by the new Denton plant. A few species increased in abundance at station 1. These increases probably reflect less urban runoff prior to the 1986 collections. More importantly, Cricotopus infuscatus gr. declined in abundance at this site. This species is often associated with toxic conditions and the shift in community composition indicates better water quality at Station 1 in 1986. The abundant species were used to calculate a biotic index for each site. Using the criteria developed for Wisconsin by William Hilsenhoff, Station 1 is .1 - TABLE 1. Station Descriptions..Denton WWTP study, Davidson County. Parameter Stream UT Lick Cr UT Lick Cr Lick Cr Lick Cr Cabin Cr Barnes Cr.* County Road # Near NC 47 SR 2505 SR 2351 NC 08 NC 08 SR 1303 Width (m) 2.0 3.0 4.5 7.0 7.0 9.0 Depth (m) Average . 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 Maximum 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.5 Substrate (x) Boulder 10 20 10 30 20 40 Rubble 20 40 10 30 10 20 Gravel 40 30 30 20 10 10 Sand 20 10 40 20 60 30 Silt 10 Trace 10 Trace Trace Trace Current Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Canopy (Y) 50 80 90 90 100 70 Erosion Moderate Moderate Severe Slight Severe Slight Comments Above WWTP Below WWTP Above UT Below UT Agriculture Control Montgomery County TABLE 2. Taxa Richness, by group, Denton WWTP study, May 1985-1986 Date: 16 Nay 1985 14 Hay 1986 Stream: UT Lick Lick Cr. Cabin Barnes UT Lick Station: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 EPHE TE 2 12 13 10 20 2. 9 PLECOPTERA 1 1 1 2 4 1 TRICHOPTERA 5 6 5 12 2 1 COLEOPTERA 5 2 9 7 11 9 9 4 ODONATA 6 2 7 5 7 7 4 5 MEGALOPTERA 2 3 3 3 1 DIPTERA: MISC. 3 3 6 3 8 6 7 4 DIPTERA: CHIRON. 6 7 20 18 24 22 15 19 OLIGOCHAETA -5- 4 5 5 6 4 5 5 CRUSTACEA 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 MOLLUSCA 2 1 8 6 6 9 5 4 OTHER 4 3 5 4 2 4 SUBTOTAL (EPT) 2 1 18 22 17 36 4 11 TOTAL 32 23 83 76 91 101 53 56 RATING Poor Poor ' Good —Fair ---> Excellent Poor Fair TABLE 3. "EPT" Abundance•, Denton WWTP Study, May 1985-1986 Date: 16 May 1985 14 May 1986 Stream: UT Lick Lick Cr. Cabin Barnes UT Lick Station: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 EPHEHEROPTERA 4 0 63 63 45 124 6 42 PLECOPTERA 0 3 10 10 20 24 0 10 TRICHOPTERA 0 0 14 23 32 45 2 10 TOTAL 4 3 87 96 97 193 8 62 • Rare=1, Common=3, Abundant=10; summed for all EPT taxa. Date: May 1985 May 1986 Station: 1 2 1 2 DIPTERA: RISC. Simulium vittatum A R A A S. venustrum - - - R Tipula sp. R R A C Hexatoma sp. - - R - Pseudolimnophila sp. - - R - Palpomyia (complex) R R - - Anopheles sp. - - C R Tabanus sp. - - C - Ephydridae - - R - Chironomus sp. C VA A A Polypedilum illinoense - - C A P. scalaenum - - - R Phaenopsectra flavipes - R R P. sp. 2 - - - R Dicrotendipes sp. - - - R Cryptochironomus fulvus - - - R Paratendipes sp. - - - R Hicrotendipes sp. - - - A Rheotanytarsus sp. - - - C Paratanytarsus sp. — - - R - Tanytarsus sp. - - C - Cricotopus bicinctus A R A A C. infuscatus gr. A - R R C. vieriensis gr. - R - C. varipes gr. - - - R Coynoneura sp. - - R R Thienemaniella sp. - - - C Tvetenia bavarica gr. - - - R Nanocladius sp. - - R - Synorthocladius sp. - - R - Conchapelopia gr. A - A A Procladius sp. C - R C Psectrotanypus dyari A C A R Natarsia sp. - C C R Zavrelimyia sp. - C R - Opisthopora C C C C Lumbriculidae A - A - Ilyodrilus/Tubifex A A A A Limnodrilus hoffineisteri R C R - Dero sp. - - - C Nais sppp. A R R R Haplotaxis gordiodes - - - R TABLE 4. Taxa List and relative abundance, UT Lick Creek, May 1985 and 1986. Date: May 1985 May 19M Station: 1 2 1 2 Baetis flavistriga R - C R B. Pluto - - - C B. pygmaeus - - - R Cloeon sp. - - C A Paraleptophlebia sp. - - - A Caenis sp. C - - R Stenonema femoratum - - - C Stenacron interpunctatum - - - C Heptagenia sp. - - - A PLECOPTERA Perlesta placida - - - A TRICHOPTERA Cheumatopsyche sp. - - R A Nectopsyche exquisita - - R - COLEOPTERA Stenelmis sp. R - C R Tropisternus sp. C R A - Helophorus (?) sp. R R - R Enochrus sp. - - R - Helichus sp. - - R - Peltodytes sp. - - C - Hydroporus sp. R A - A Laccophilus sp. C - R R Copelatus sp. - - C R Rhantus sp. - - R - Laccornis (?) sp. - - R - ODONATA Argia sp. A - A - Enallagma sp. C - - - Lestes sp. C - C - Calopteryx sp. C - A C Boyeria vinosa - C C R Aeshna sp. R - - - Somatochlora sp. - - C R Pachydiplax longipennis - R - R Plathemis lydia R - - - MEGALOPTERA Sialis sp. - - - R CRUSTACEA Cambarus sp. Crangonyx sp. Asellus sp. HOLLUSCA Physella sp. Henetus dilatus Ferrissia rivularis Stagnicola sp. Pisidium sp. OTHER Hydracarina Placobdella papillifera Date: May 1985 May 1986 Station: 1 2 1 2 A R A C C - R R R A - A A A A A - - R c A - A A - - R C - - R - - - R - TABLE 5. Distribution of abundant taxa, Denton WWTP study, May 1985-1986. Date: May 1985 May 1986 Station: 1 2 1 2 BI* A.Species becoming abundant at Station 2 EPHEMEROPTERA Heptagenia sp. - - - A 1.0 Cloeon sp. - - C A 2.0 Paraleptophlebia sp. - - - A 2.0 PLECOPTERA Perlesta placida - C - A 3.0 TRICHOPTERA Cheumatopsyche sp. - - R A 3.5 DIPTERA: MISC. Simulium vittatum A R A A 3.5 DIPTERA: CHIRON. Microtendipes sp. 1 - - - A 2.0 Polypedilum illinoense - - C A 4.0 Cricotopus bicinctus A R A A 4.0 Conchapelopia gr. A - A A 4.0 MOLLUSCA Ferrisia rivularis A - A A 3.5 MEAN BI 3.00 B. Species becoming abundant at Station 1 COLEOPTERA Tropisternus sp. C R A - 3.0 ODONATA Calopteryx sp. C - A C 3.5 DIPTERA: MISC. Tipula sp. R R A C 3.0 MEAN BI 5-2 C. Species with no change in abundance COLEOPTERA Hydroporus sp. R A - A 3.5 ODONATA Argia sp. A - A - 4.0 DIPTERA: CHIRON. Psectrotanypus dyari A C A R 4.0 OLIGOCHAETA Lumbriculidae A - A - 3.0 Ilyodrilus/Tubifex spp. A A A A 4.5 CRUSTACEA Cambarus sp. A R A C 3.0 Asellus sp. R A - A 3.5 MOLLUSCA Physella sp. A A A A 5.0 MEAN BI 3.8 Date: May 1985 Station: 1 2 4.Species declining in abundance at Station 2 DIPTERA: CHIRON. Chironomus sp. C VA MEAN BI 5. Species declining in abundance at Station 1 DIPTERA: CHIRON. Cricotopus infuscatus gr. A - OLIGOCHAETA Nais sp. A R MEAN BI May 1986 1 2 BI A A 4_0 4.0 5.0 R R 3.5 4. 22 Number of abundant species/site 12 5 14 16 Mean Biotic Index 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.3 Water Quality Rating Poor V. Poor Poor Fair *81 = Biotic Index values, values -vary from 0-5, with lower numbers being characteristic of intolerant species and higher numbers being characteristic of tolerant species. DENTON WWTP PRE —CONSTRUCTION STUDY 1985 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY SECTION FEBRUARY 1986 An intensive study of the Town of Denton's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and its receiving stream, an unnamed tributary (UT) to Lick Creek, was conducted in May and June of 1985. The purpose of the study was to document WWTP performance, water quality and biological community structure in the receiving stream and effluent impacts both before and after completion of the new $1,400,000 Denton WWTP. INTRODUCTION The Town of Denton is located in southeastern Davidson County near the intersection of N.C. Highways 109 and 47. Denton has an estimated population of 949 (1980 census). This small manufacturing town, less than one square mile in area, was served by a 0.15 MGD secondary WWTP from 1958 until September 1985. Degradation of an unnamed tributary to Lick Creek by Denton's WWTP effluent resulted in a state —issued moratorium which prevented, except for residences within the town limits, additional sewer tie—ins to the facility (December 20, 1972). The moratorium remained in effect until construction of a new WWTP for Denton was completed in September 1985. Poor wastewater treatment at the Denton facility resulted from several causes: hydraulic overloading storm water infiltration to sanitary sewers biological overloading of WWTP components deteriorated condition of WWTP components poor facility maintenance 1 Effluent impacts on the UT to Lick Creek were compounded by negligible stream flow and a leak in the influent line which allowed raw sewage to enter the receiving stream above the Denton outfall. (Figure I). OBSOLETE FACILITY The old Denton WWTP consisted of the following components (Figure 1): bar screen grit chamber twelve -inch bypass line to chlorine contact chamber combination primary clarifier/digester high -rate trickling filter secondary clarifier (modified Imhoff tank) chlorine contact chamber four sludge drying beds. TRICKLINGGAR SEEN C111T CNARBER FILTER RmINART I SECONDARY CONTACT tIARIFIER/ CLARIFIER CLAMBER DIGESTER INFLUENT LEAK TO CREEK FEN - OLD DENTON FACILITY figure T WSCHARCE TO W TO LITZ CREEK Most components of the old Denton facility had deteriorated. Cracks in the primary clarifier allowed a continuous flow of wastewater to leak onto surrounding surfaces. Upper surfaces of the trickling filter retaining wall were severly eroded. Pumps and motors throughout the plant were in need of replacement. Secondary clarifier, chlorination basin, and sludge drying bed structures all had visible cracks in retaining walls., Of all treatment processes in the Denton facility, only chlorination of effluent appeared to be operative and effective. 2 PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY SITES Seven sites were sampled for physical and chemical parameters in the 1985 survey (Table I). Sites UTLCI., UTLC3, LCUPS, and LCDNS were examined for benthic macroinvertebrate populations. The new WWTP (UTLC4) was not sampled in 1985 as it was still under construction. Site locations are shown in Figure 2. nonUH SURVEY SITP.S 1985 MAP i SITE CLASS MI 9111 DEFER AVF]GGF. FTDM SIMSIRATIE RAW nESCRTPr10N 1 Or TO LICK CREEK AT PEACOCK AVENUE C 3' 2" 0.OR CIS RTY, SA'D STEEP sinrF, 'WA1.I. TRFFS (UIIGI) snEm NIlE (91) 0 ANTI PINT-S 2 DWIDN WTP EFFUIENr (OU) F7AWO 0.150 M.D (FTI)6S OF (Una) 94 0.27 0.259 FTf"rr.D) 3 Ur TO LICK CREEK 3000' ON.S. 0I1) WM AND C 4' 7" 1.36 CFI ALrAK-(Ih}MD RTTF. ST nn_, TIMT.-L.1 NED, 100' UPS. RV WIP OUIE'ALL (unf3) SH 0.90 RIO:.ti IInTI}tt:Rl.TI 4 1EN10N W7P EFFIJ"U (NEW PLANT) O.Y'O H:D (UnrA) 91 0.91 5 Ur TO LICK CI✓mC AT SR 2505 C 10, 9" 4.02 CFI Alf-MTRE11 (TYnY.. SIDFV., 7P.Ffj.1 �}T (UIIC5) SH 1.55 RICKS 6 Ur TO LICK CREEK AT SR 1002 C 15, 2' En DATA AVATIARE ROO:, SAD =,P SIf)IE, V1NE-MT3T.D (Un,C6) SH 2.56 7 LICK CREEK AT SR 2351 C 18, 1' 11.60 CPS RXX, SAM) SLEEP SDTT,, Tx E-LI'.FD, (LA1PS) 1.04 SM U.S. 01FUIDEE. Ur LICK CR. LNFJrWU 4 8 LICK CREEK AT SR 1002 C 20' 1' 26.10 CES KrK, SkND MT.P SIDPE, TREE-i_IREU, (LCTM) 1.52 Sf D.S. CONFULDCE UI LICK CR. LNTFW.Ff DI TABLE 1 DENTON SITES FIGURE 2 3 ?5)) t3 p 1 2 3 MILES FACILITY PERFORMANCE Secondary WWTP's are capable of removing 857 to 90% of influent BOD (Eckenfelder, 1970). Self —monitoring data from February 1976 to April 1978 and January 1983 to February 1985* indicated that the Denton WWTP had BOD removal rates of 83% and 75%, respectively, and an 80% average removal rate in two 1985 Technical Services comparisons. During the 1985 intensive survey this rate of BOD removal resulted in effluent BOD5 levels as high as 170 mg/1 (permit limit: 85 mg/1) and instream BOD5 levels as high as 26 mg/1 at site UTLC3 (Appendix). Figure 3 shows survey site BODS averages and BOD longterm (BOD LT) levels. *(May 1978 through December 1982 and March 1985 through September 1985 self —monitoring data are not available). DENTON SITES :•0I5 AND :11 LT .•• VERAGE :11 1 .1 m :•1 1 Em 1 BODLT :;off 30 EFFLUENT BOD5=110 i?-2 :11 10 r:;•; a ,.•. 1 G. LGDNS STATIONS Facility self —monitoring data from February 1976 to April 1978 and January 1983 to February 1985 show an average effluent suspended residue level of 26 mg/l (permit limit: 50 mg/1) while 1985 intensive survey effluent levels averaged 39 mg/1. Figure 4 shows intensive survey site total and suspended residue averages. 4 DENTON SITES RESIDUE AVERAGES 1985 AVERAGE RESIDUES (mg/1) LEGEND 250 O 225 TOTAL RES. 200 175 SUSP. RES. ISO - MM 125 EFFLUENT TOT. RES. 10D AVG. =443 75 50 25 0 LCUPS UTLC1 EFF UTLC3 UTLCS UTLC6 LCONS STATIONS FIGURE 4 Effluent fecal coliform levels were relatively low in survey samples. Two of five samples (1200/100 ml, 1800/100 ml) were above the permit limit of 1000 colonies/100 ml. Intensive survey averages for effluent nutrient levels are shown below. Effluent ammonia sample concentrations were elevated although no ammonia limit was designated in the town's interim permit. Parameter Survey Effluent Average NH3 17 mg/l TKN 29.6 mg/l NO2+NO3 0.09 mg/1 PO4 5 mg/l Tot. P 7.8 mg/1 Downstream NH3 concentrations (UTLC3) averaged 9.8 mg/l in survey samples (Figure 5). i DENTON SITES-NH3 AVERAGES 1965 11 AVERAGE NH3 (mg/1) A 4 7 LCUPS UTLC1 EFF UTLC3 UTLCS UTLC6 LOONS STATIONS FIGURE 5 LEGEND NN EFFLUENT AVG.=21.3 Denton's interim permit required no specific effluent dissolved oxygen level. Intensive survey data revealed effluent D.O. levels ranging from 0.3 mg/l to 5.8 mg/1 (Appendix). Each sampling run showed significant decreases in D.O. levels between upstream station (UTLCI) and downstream station (UTLC3) (Figure 6). Furthermore, upstream self -monitoring data during the periods 2/76-4/78 and 1/83-7/83 showed an average D.0 level of 6.1 while a downstream data showed average D.O. levels of 3.5. (Data from 5/78-12/82 and 8/83-9/85 is not available.) DENTON SITES DISSOLVED OXYGEN AVERAGES 1985 AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN (09/1) 10 9 8 7 6 5 DO STD 4 3 2 1 0 LCUPS UTLC1 EFF UTLC3 UTLCS UTLC6 LCDNS STATIONS FIGURE 6 0 Additional evidence of low D.O. levels in II.T. to lick Creek below Denton's outfall (UTLC3) is shown by low taxa richness of benthic macroinvertebrates and a dominance of organic pollution indicator species (Chironomus sp.) (Table 2). The receiving stream below Denton's outfall should be capable of supporting a normal stream community although UTLC1 is dry during low flow periods. This upstream site receives urban runoff from surrounding areas. Low flow and runoff may account for the prevalence of pond -type and toxic assemblage benthic macroinvertebrates, respectively. Table 2. Taxs Richness, by Group, UT Lick Creek, 15-20 May 1985. Stream: UT Lick Cr. Lick Cr. Croup Station ll: 1** 2 3 4 *Ephemeroptera 2 - 12 13 *Plecoptera - I 1 1 *Trichoptera - - 5 8 Coleoptera 5 2 9 7 Odonata 7 2 7 5 Megaloptera - - 2 3 Diptera: Misc. 3 3 6 3 Diptera: Chiron. 6 7 20 18 Oligochaeta 5 4 5 5 Crustacea 3 2 4 4 Mollusca 2 1 9 6 Other - - 4 3 Total 33 22 84 76 *Subtotal (EPT) 2 1 18 22 #Unique species 3 1 8 8 Bioclassification Fair** Poor Good -Fair (N.C. Division of Environmental Management, 1983). **Temporary stream, does not support normal stream fauna Samples were collected on at least two occasions at all stations for analysis of cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel., lead, and zinc. Detected metals at specific sites are shown below. These concentrations are greater than North Carolina water quality standards (15 NCAC 2B.02, January 1, 1985). 7 Station Date Copper Nickel Zinc UTLCI 6/27/85 30 ug/1 UTLC2 (eff) 5/15/85 30 ug/l 110 ug/1 5/29/85 40 ug/1 6/11/85 60 ug/l 6/27/85 70 ug/1 UTLC3 5/15/85 90 ug/1 300 ug/1 2500 ug/1 6/27/85 30 ug/1 Levels of all other metals were below DNRCD Laboratory detection limits (Appendix). Other components detected in Denton's effluent on 5/29/85 include 11 mg/1 phenols, 0.11 ug/1 organotin, and six unidentified organic peaks. Bioassay samples (24—hour composite) collected May 15-16, 1985 from Denton's secondary clarifier were not toxic at 100% concentration to Daphnia ulex organisms subjected to acute toxicity tests. Chronic toxicity evaluations were not performed. Effluent metal and phenol concentrations may be reduced when Denton implements its influent industrial pretreatment program. The town's program was approved by DEM on 7/24/85. The first pretreatment report is due to DEM in February 1986. CONCLUSION The town of Denton's old WWTP was not capable of providing adequate wastewater treatment because of deteriorated facility conditions. Excessive effluent concentrations of BOD, nutrients, ammonia, solids, and metals combined with low effluent dissolved oxygen levels and occasional zero upstream flow all combined to cause biological impairment of UT to Lick Creek. Denton's effluent appeared to have minimal impact on Lick Creek because of Lick Creek's assimilative capacity and partial instream effluent treatment provided by UT to Lick Creek. Commencement of operation of Denton's new 0.300 MGD facility in September 1985 should improve physical, chemical, and biological conditions in the receiving stream. An intensive survey to be conducted in the Spring of 1986 will serve to document any detectable improvements. L REFERENCES Eckenfelder, Wesley W. 1970. Water Quality Engineering for Practicing Engineers. Barnes and Noble Inc. New York. Pg. 6. N.C. Division of Environmental Management. 1985. 15 NCAC 2B .02 — Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. Pg. 32. N.C. Division of Environmental Management. 1983. Qualitative Sampling of Benthic Macroinvertebrates: A Reliable, Cost —Effective, Biomonitoring Technique. N.C.D.E.M. Biological. Series 8108. Raleigh, N.C. IOpp. a 9 APPENDIX- DENTON DATA 1985 0 STATION DATE BOD5 COD FECAL TOT RES SUSP RES TOC TURB I TEMP DO PH CORD BOD LT .FLOW ng/l ❑g/l col/100 ml rtg/l rtg/l rg/l NIU °C mg/l su urrhos ng/l cfs MCI 5/15/85 1.4 7 330 150 10 5 15 27 8.7 160 4.7 0.10 UnG2 (EFF) 5/15/85 170 360 <10 440 55 100 60 26 0.3 470 368 Irm 5/15/85 26 81 380 260 16 33 19 25 1.2 300 106.4 0.51 UH.C5 5/15/85 13 48 270 220 13 20 16 25 4.5 301 67.2 MC6 5/15/85 5.8 22 60 180 5 20 7.6 25 5.9 200 13.4 IMPS 5/15/85 1.8 16 30 100 6 6 17 25 6.2 80 5.3 ILMS 5/15/85 2.0 18 230 130 27 6 27 26 6.0 85 6.3 UI1.C1 5/22/85 0.6 6 1200 140 8 <5 14 24 9.0 7.7 157 0.07 = (EFF) 5/22/85 120 280 <10 370 58 93 60 24 5.8 6.9 450 UIl.C3 5/22/85 17 74 1600 230 22 24 20 21 5.6 6.6 399 0.19 LW5 5/22/85 9 33 570 190 14 13 13 21 7.0 7.0 281 =6 5/22/85 2.6 21 90 170 8 10 9.9 22 7.7 6.9 205 LCl1PS 5/22/85 1.3 19 740 120 29 9 34 22 7.8 6.8 76 LCM 5/22/85 1.4 19 150 120 22 8 33 22 7.6 6.8 85 UILC5 5/23/85 0.47 UIIG6 5/23/85 0.35 D*UffNI 5/29/85 120 UILC2 (F.FF) 5/29/85 28 130 <10 280 26 18 25 4.4 6.7 390 MCI 6/11/85 1.0 13 900 160 7 5 26 25 7.5 6.6 188 2.8 INFT.l1ENI 6/11/85 200 645 UMC2 (EFF) 6/11/85 37 150 <10 300 14 43 50 26 4.8 6.9 420 167 =3 6/11/85 9.8 51 50 190 13 16 29 26 5.9 6.9 225 45.2 UILC1 6/27/85 1.7 13 1800 160 9 6 10 23 8.9 7.4 177 9.9 11 UILC2 (EFF) 6/27/85 82 250 <10 380 42 72 38 27 4.4 6.8 560 265 UN3 6/27/85 16 98 1,200,000 280 14 35 13 21 2.7 7.3 423 109 U1LC5 6/27/85 >7.4 49 240 11 19 11 20 4.6 7.3 363 65 UILC6 6/27/85 20 21 210 210 11 15 4.1 121 6.7 7.0 292 13.4 IC11PS 6/27/85 0.9 18 130 93 15 10 24 22 7.2 6.8 85 5.6 LcDFS 6/27/85 0.9 23 10 130 32 12 45 24 4.9 6.5 97 6.7 I APPENDIX- DENTON DATA 1985 STATION DATE I PHENOLS ORGANOTIN I PK /1 I PK 12 1 PK /3 1 PK 14 1 PK 15 1 PK UTLC2 (EFF) 5/29/85 mg/I 11 ug/I 0.11 ug/1 34 ug/I 22 ug/I 16 ug/I 130 ug/I 66 ug/I 24 I APPENDIX- DENTON DATA 1985 STATION DATE NH3 TKN NO2+NO3 PO4 TOT P HARD Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb 7n erg/1 ug/l ng/l ❑g/1 rtg/l rrg/l ug/1 ug/1 uA/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l UILC1 5/15/85 .02 .2 .26 .05 .16 69 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 LMC2 (EFF) 5/15/85 19 42 .04 5.7 10 59 <20 <50 30 <0.2 <100 <100 110 UILC3 5/15/85 13 15 0.01 3.7 5.2 59 <20 <50 90 <0.2 300 <100 2500 UILC5 5/15/85 11 9.9 0.57 2.6 4.2 50 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 U11I6 5/15/85 0.76 2.8 3.1 .70 1.2 53 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 LCUPS 5/15/85 0.08 0.4 0.57 <0.01 0.08 42 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 LCEW 5/15/85 0.09 0.4 0.55 0.04 0.21 36 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 ,100 <100 <20 UI1C1 5/22/85 0.03 0.2 0.26 0.06 0.11 82 LMC2 (EFF) 5/22/85 18 19 0.06 5.0 7.9 70 ULLC3 5/22/85 9.1 11 0.02 2.5 3.9 74 UILC5 5/22/85 6.0 7.1 0.61 1.8 2.6 76 LM,C6 5/22/85 0.68 1.9 2.9 0.69 0.94 74 LLlIPS 5/22/85 0.06 0.3 0.83 0.01 0.09 66 LcTtz 5/22/85 0.07 0.4 0.89 0.04 0.16 58 UI1C5 5/23/85 UILC6 5/23/85 INfL.IIFNP 5/29/85 16 21 0.19 4.5 7.5 UILC2 (EFF) 5/29/85 16 22 0.16 3.5 5.2 42 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 40 UILCI 6/11/85 0.04 0.3 0.41 0.02 0.08 69 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 INFLUENT 6/11/85 18 29 0.22 7.7 12 UIIG2 (EFP) 6/11/85 14 16 0.14 3.7 5.7 49 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 60 UILC3 6/11/85 4.9 6.4 0.15 1.2 1.6 63 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 UDL1 6/27/85 0.01 0.2 0.04 0.03 0.11 57 <20 <50 30 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 UILC2 (EFF) 6/27/85 18 49 0.07 7.3 11 48 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 70 =3 6/27/85 12 13 0.01 4.6 6.0 57 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 30 UILC5 6/27/85 9.8 10 1.0 2.9 4.2 48 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 UIV,6 6/27/85 0.82 3.2 4.2 1.5 2.1 50 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 LCUPS 6/27/85 0.06 0.4 0.41 0.01 0.08 32 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 ICDW 6/27/85 0.06 0.4 0.48 0.04 0.19 30 <20 <50 <20 <0.2 <100 <100 <20 .k' •, D BEFORE AND AFTER STURIE SUMMARY STUDY PLAN In the spring and summer of 1985, the Technical Services Branch will be conducting the second set of before and after studies. The objective of these studies is to quantify the improvement in the receiving streams located below wastewater treatment plants which are currently in the process of improving their facilities. In an effort to improve the quality of data we will be preforming more in-depth studies on each facility as follows: 1. Three to four sampling runs for physical and chemical data will be collected before and after plant modifications. The parameters to be sampled are: BOD5 Turbidity Chlorophyll BODult Fecal Coliform TOC COD Residue,total Hardness N+P Residue,suspended Metals Dissolved oxygen temperature pH Residual chlorine Conductivity Flow (metals are Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Mercury, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc) 2. A time of travel study with slug sampling during the before and after runs to determine velocities so that data collected can be modeled to determine conditions under 7Q10 flow. 3. Benthic macro -invertebrate sampling 4. Acute Bioassay screening of each facility 5. Fish community structure analysis to determine if improvements in populations resulting from improved water quality. 6. Plant inspections, hopefully will be preformed by regional personnel during the time of the study. The wastewater treatment plants which will be studied as part of this study will be: Facility Completion Date DENTON June 1, 1985 new plant, new location LEXINGTON Fall, 1985 new plant, new location combines 2 old plants OLD FORT 1987 renovating old plant BUTNER 1987 renovating old plant DENTON—LICK CREEK STUDY STATION NUMBER LOCATION TSYADLCI ut to Lick Creek at Peacock Ave. TSYADLC2 Denton WWTP (old plant) Effluent TSYADLC3 ut to Lick Creek at a point 100' above new discharge point TSYADLC4 Denton WWTP (new plant) Effluent TSYADLCS ut to Lick Creek at SR-2505 TSYADLC6 ut to Lick Creek at SR-1002 TSYADLC7 Lick Creek at SR-2351 TSYADLC8 Lick Creek at SR-1002 w�LAP r r 1, �'I �1��. // �.�L i '. -s✓�f_ y��7• n 1//r% f X3Ism . - -• 01 ,.Q.rn � F. 3' ; J•.n', r(• ,; I � / �' ,�. \ i �i �:/ �; i,',� Ijl� ., •�~� .'�i � � _r`3 .. ��' 'rt' /. •e- . �:(! :.. . /. � � /�;, I�b ( ��` rP �- - }.P`�- is :. � � `l ..j /. )� \ ti. �/ •fir-✓ %/ u � (—� \°^.� 't .�' l'. i � --I ..J ! .— \ �' _ .. — :. / _ � 1, /_ r �� - I +• � _ - f =00 TSYADLC7 s e 23Si J f = TSYADLCI 1 • Li i TSYADLC2 _ (OLD)X. TSYADLC6 1TSYAD He . ng / v� TSYADLC8 s °! p I 6 1. o ° / ...`;�/ DENTON WWTP (NEW) 7. TSYADLCS w ow n ��_• '% \ is :.. ,-y ..�� - '.,�'_. FEET