NC0069841_wasteload allocation_19880505

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
May 5, 1988
Mr. Jim Greenfield
USEPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Subject: Field Survey Notes on South Fork Crooked Creek
near proposed Union County 201 Site
Dear Mr. Greenfield:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Enclosed, per your telephone request, is a copy of our field survey
notes for South Fork Crooked Creek. As you will note, the receiving stream
for the proposed Union County WWTP is subject to zero flow conditions and
pooling. From the site description, I think you will agree that if a
discharge is placed into these waters tertiary treatment will be required to
prevent nuisance conditions and contamination of the groundwater system.
For your information, the facility has been warned that future expansion
will not be considered favorably by the Division at the currently proposed
discharge location (per Division procedure for 7Q10=0, 30Q2=0 streams). An
alternative location (w/ a positive 30Q2) has been identified downstream for
the county's consideration.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Sinc ely, l
,Trevor Clements, Supervisor
•6hnical Support Unit
q�
r
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27697, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

ti
d`%�"&�-k
�
ejCam ✓ �' n'�- 6c) L eceivnor -
C
ko,,fL
Sa feed'
l ee. C01rc� c+E d `s as -� � (&WS
ciold
-4od.IaIf7. (1 / 0S'
A CC) C-0 CC o r r e )
'stja _ U , 675 c�'S
VaQL = 0. V C s

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 22, 1988
MF.MOR A KMT TM
TO: R. Paul Wilms
THRU: Trevor Clemen.ts��
Steve Tedder
FROM: David Vogt
SUBJECT: Speculative WLA for Proposed Union County WWTP
Per your request, I have performed a Level-B analysis for a
discharge to Crooked Creek immediately below the confluence of the
North and South forks (attached). The results again demonstrate
the Level-B modeling axiom of increased wasteflow actually improving
an allocation. This is because increases in wasteflow provide
corresponding increases in streamflow, resulting in more momentum
being generated within the stream channel. Velocity is thus
increased and the decay versus reaeration rates in the model are
shifted more toward increased oxygen replenishment.
However, previous field studies show that an increase in wasteflow
does not always correlate with increased velocity (e.g., the infamous
Crabtree Creek WLA). This is mainly due to the Level-B Model relying
on our own empirical equation for estimating velocity as well as the
Tsivoglou empirical criteria for estimating'reaeration. As you know,
empirical relationships are based on cross -sectional data that have
upper and lower boundary conditions. If the stream being modeled
falls outside the range of streams used to specify these empirical
formulae, then the use of the velocity and reaeration equations is
suspect and may produce erroneous results.
Because Crooked Creek appears to differ in numerous ways from the
typical piedmont stream, I would suggest that we perform some field
studies this summer before a commitment is made to the effect that
unlimited expansion (say up to 10 MGD) will be allowed if Union County
sites their plant at this location. It is probably safe to say that
limited expansion will be allowed if the plant is designed for tertiary
treatment.
I have attached a revised -schematic of the area in question for.
reference. If you need additional information before making a decision
on this matter, please contact Trevor Clements or myself.

Results of Level-B Analysis for a Discharge to Crooked Creek
at a Site Immediately Below the Confluence of the North and
South forks.
Limits*
Wasteflow (MGD) BOD5 (m /1)
1.3** -
2.0 -
3.0 5
4.0 7
5.0 10
10.0 18
1) Assumes new plant is designed for nitrification process.
Thus, 2 mg/1 ammonia was assigned to all scenarios.
2) Assumes 6 mg/1 effluent dissolved oxygen.
3) Uses empirical formulae that may be mis-specified; therefore
suggest 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 2 mg/1 NH3-N limits until field studies
determine flow/velocity relationship.
*^ Permitted design wasteflow at current most likely site for
construction of WWTP.

L�eVOa_�rC, O rIreCA_. I✓I'Jv�rAcf Igo Srr�1 � pp
U✓,loet couj l 37Q10=o. lo`fcfs
( to = 44.3 cos
Slope = tb3
// Dq s 'F7.3 NI
NC (+► � w 5Est
Secon4�o0.rXS 57g10= 6• 1o1c-S
►A = 43.2 cfs SR tS'q7
Il
DR. �ralnae a�eu- Cr�,lest�
57g1o: S,. m-1 74 io
7.1 les
5*cs LA'dfA. USES =D n„„ti efS were_-8 9 mrltr
cedcr,. I' -E4 USGSr. 1
t=S� WCfG AS ✓if-! t 1~,S vSi•sll
�G L� �^CM r4..1 10 a
A 01ck '�e area S.
V
#So3ti02Q.Qtlaz.2=y7p..o61S
DA_ 35Mio
z7cs 8b' Est
3�csr2.1 .,, 1PfS703
18oQa = f°Ne twy Got
-o?cs.4.'+•8i .t=3n'0t..:3
0Z
8c�4-s�s
M, le
No�'Ei.'�ork � {�roPOSec1' S�fiC
EO ��wr�e�E
?� D� • 1247. 5160
DA
s7a t o = o
Qa ; S.i c; s
3oQi so .sRtStS- .sl�e = 7•z rt
Nc_ NwY 7,} -`
F�resQ._1 �Fc�teck' Ile. CI•31 MtiD)
DV
I- zi-�

u ✓) I d n Ca . LA) ul I VO
ape cu /k4/ o P- W s
d,A) C4v� f i ve E
A)c7rp-
�c,��e�X
2I Sf / •�•�� I �
IQGntic+X�
U
a2, J ZY7,
S74ra = B.DUCTS
QA = .3a c45
J Dv
Nvr svu o� CrvoV-oj Creek
If7.3 M� z
£s t
S741 d, 14Dl4S
94 = -�3, z cis
R2,
-bit-3& 1
F's-F
Nc6or S�Qro=0.O8Z ��s
QA = 3Y• 3 c�s
s �qro= a.�o�cfs
Q,4 = Sr4.3c4s
SR 4 s q7
Al cite
OL Est sM-s Use.
�W 4tom S,t 6-10,j
-1vt re.
he- s7(Qrox
514 -x
A x Z. 3 z-
:04 x 3 S
Nee44 -t-
/Cep 3
G,
Cis
S7gjo R.O. C�G�
d.ao3
6,602
4.Ooo
QA R Q,
/4.7
r u n aJ 1. o /nCs D

HDR Infrastructure, Inc.
of North Carolina
A Centerra Company
January 11, 1988
6400 Fairview Road
Telephone Water Resources
P.O. Box 11257
704 364-1800 Wastewater
Charlotte, North Carolina
Hazardous Waste
28220-1257
Bridges
Transportation
Industrial
Mr. Steve Tedder
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Level B Analysis
Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Union County, North Carolina
EPA Project C370379-08
Dear Mr. Tedder:
240-001-018(27)
In Allen Wahab's two December 22, 1987, letters to EPA Region IV and
✓�� Union County regarding effluent limits and grant eligibility for the
✓✓✓ Crooked Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, there was reference to the
Level B analysis performed by your office. We are scheduled to meet
with the NCDEM Construction Grants group and members of your Water
Quality group on January 19 to discuss these items and the grant
eligibility determination by EPA.
We respectfully request that your office provide us with a copy of the
Level B analysis and related data. We request that you send the copy
to our office at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can be
familiar with the analysis prior to the meeting.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
HEIR Infrastructure,, Inc. of North Carolina6�;� /
" ..
Edward C. Fiss, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager
ECF/nct
cc: Mr. Bill Summerlin
Mr. T. Allen Wahab
Ms. Stephanie Richardson
6' 'E
JA N1 1
� t

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Mr. Bill Summerlin
Union County
P. 0. Box 218
Monroe, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Summerlin:
December 22, 1987
28110
R. Paul Wilms
Director
SUBJECT: Meeting Summary
Crooked Creek Portion -
Union County 201 Facility Plan
Project No. C370379-01
This letter serves as a summary of the first portion of the
December 18, 1987 meeting in regards to permit limitations for
the proposed facility. As stated it is current DEM policy to deny
NPDES permits for discharges to streams with 7Q10 and 3002 flows
equal to 0 cfs. Such is the case for the discharge location of
the subject facility; however, since a permit had.been issued'under
a previous policy it will be recognized.
Based on the fact that the 30Q2 flow is zero for the entire
south fork of Crooked Creek no further expansion be -allowed,
i.e. plant size will be limited to 1.3 mgd. Additionally, DEM
will require effluent and stream monitoring by the facility in an
effort to determine if water quality.problems are resulting from the
discharge. The Mooresville Regional Office will also perform random
field testing to verify compliance and accuracy of submitted monitoring
data.
Should water quality problems arise, permit revisions may be
necessary. This could come in the form of more stringent limits,
a reduction in permitted flow ,levels or other actions.
RECEIVED
DEC ? q ,q87
Pollution Prevention Pays
PC! Box 27W Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611-7697 Telephone [phone]
fECHIV_.ICAL SERVICES 8PANCH

Page 2
For more detail concerning these water quality/permit
limitations we recommend that you contact Mr. Trevor Clements
or Mr. Steve Tedder at [phone].
Sincerely,
T. Allen Wahabbb, Supervisor
Local Planning Management Unit
SR/jh/
cc: VTrevor Clements
Steve Tedder
Mooresville Regional Office
HDR Infrastructure
Walter Taft
Coy Batten
EMU
LPMU
GPF

--j)l'ror- di -Or
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 21, 1987
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Wahab
THRU: Trevor Clements
FROM: David Vogt OV
SUBJECT: Limits for the Union County WWTP
Since NPDES permits have been already approved for the three
discharge sites that Union County has applied for authorization to
construct a WWTP, DEM will abide by the limits in these permits.
The limits will apply to any one of the sites that Union County
wishes to construct a treatment plant. These limits are:
Summer
Winter
BOD5
(mg/1)
5
10
NH3-N
(mg/1)
2
4
DO
(mg/1)
6
6
TSS
(mg/1)
30
30
Fecal
Coliform (#/100 ml)
1000
1000
PH
(S.U.)
6-9
6-9
Permitted design flows for each of the sites are as follows:
NCO069531: 0.10 MGD
NCO069841: 1.30 MGD
NCO031186: 0.45 MGD
DEM had granted these limits in accordance with existing procedure,
that is, if 7Q10=0 and 30Q2>0 then do not model but give limits of 5 mg/l
BOD5 and 2.mg 1 NH3-N. Since the time that these limits were approved,
DEM attempted to do field sampling but observed no streamflow at any of
the three sites. Thus, we were unable to do a time -of -travel study or
collect water samples for analyzing background conditions.
Subsequently, DEM asked USGS to check their 30Q2 estimates for each
of the three sites. After performing a field survey, USGS revised the
previously positive 30Q2 to zero 30Q2 for the entire south fork of
Crooked Creek. Because of this DEM will not permit any future design
flow expansion (assuming current operational procedures). DEM will also
require effluent and stream monitoring by the facility in order to
ascertain if water quality problems are occurring at or downstream of
the facility's discharge. The Mooresville Regional Office of DEM will
also perform random field sampling to check for compliance and accuracy
of submitted monitoring data. If water quality problems are observed,
permit revision may be necessary.

I feel that is important for Construction Grants to inform the
applicant of the limitations of building a wastewater treatment plant
on the South Fork of Crooked Creek. This should be done in writing so
that there is no question among any of the parties involved, including
EPA, what the position of DEM is in this matter.
If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me
at 733-5083, ext. 161.
cc: Dale Overcash
Thurman Horne

New Facilities (proposed facilities that are being constructed for the
first time)
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 - 0, then deny the permit. Present applicant with
available alternatives.
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 > 0, then summer/winter limits are 5 & 2/10 & 4
If 7Q10 ) 0, then run model for both summer and winter limits.
Existing Facilities, No Wasteflow Changes (existing facilities that are
applying for permit renewal - waste flow and waste characteristics are
unchanged)
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 - 0, then give old limits. Require that the
discharge be eventually removed. Do not
give winter limits if not in old permit.
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 > 0, then give old limits. Notify discharger
that the next permit will have summer/
winter limits of 5 & 2/10 & 4.
If 7Q10 > 0, then run model for both summer and winter.
Existing Facilities, Expanding (Previously permitted facilities that are
now requesting an increase in design flow)
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 - 0, then no expansion is allowed. Facility is
notified that the discharge will eventually
be discontinued.
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 '> 0, then summer/winter limits are 5 & 2/10 & 4.
If 7Q10 > 0, then run model for both summer and winter.
Existing, Unpermitted Facilities (Existing facilities that are discovered
to be illegally discharging wastewater to the waters of the state. Regard-
less of stream flow, enforcement action should be taken. Facility should be
given notice that they have 30 days to apply for a permit.)
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 - 0, then summer/winter limits are 5 & 2/10 & 4.
Facility is notified that the discharge will
eventually be discontinued.
If 7Q10 - 0 and 30Q2 > 0, then summer/winter limits are 5 & 2/10 & 4.
A
If 7Q10 > 0, then run model for both summer and winter.

�7
N o r-tk
-Fdtk
apeilox 7 'nil.
es
from X mod: cL,n Tr4, l
\NrC-
4rlo7te ct, I�ne
Y 74WfssvedT
^� ales
S,2lSrS
0.FPPOK
(o ow; ltz
to (Ylonroe
S,Q rood
S..oM.IC.s
NCoo64841
i w = 6.&S-
f. 3p
I sSuect 7-��-87
�Oppr Stof�.c.Lr. ��
d0qjvcS'rte0,M—
'T�p.
m, it,
PESSt luC.,
30�4
0.5
.;Ies

J400 j
0
StrecLm : Crooke Nc (06
SIoPe
COAC-AcLtion s
Ape- �
= s6a-�sA �
�, � 1�
1`
slob
= 5S'o - q7o
►o- .2,1
``
y 70 - 410
)3,6 —lo
z 3
b '7 8 4
d{staocc
mtv
Guon
elty
dist
�ist SI o 4
6"o
a,i
ad
S.zo
S3
,5oo
7•Z
6.7
t-170
bo
!a , o
*.(a
/o i! t L 1.31 /S-

. .
,
SUMMER
UC_CC_PW/LBDATA 24
UNION CO WWTP/CROOKED
CREEK
---------- MODEL
RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
UNION CO WWTP
Receiving Stream :
------------------------------------------------------------
CROOKED CREEK
The End
D.O.
is 8.01
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 0.87
mg/l.
The End
______________________________________________________________________
NBOD
is 0,28
mg/l.
`
WLA
WLA
WLA
�
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste Flow
_
(m[l/l)
______
Milepoint Reach
_________
# (mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
.
Segment
1
4.20
_______
1.90 1
____
____
__ __________
Reach
1
7.50
9.00
6.00
1.30000
Reach
2 -
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

;..... !"!!..11.}EL.. ', lWI!!`!AR Y DAI-A
I:.}i. s;ct-iarge:'r !.!!`.! !: E:l!'t! CC) !- WI"F' #::it..ti:rt:r,:t�:> i. � i 03071
a t-t-e�,un
{:at_tlnin r- [*: 10 . 4) „ t--r :a i w i. rlt"e. r ` ("110
;LENGTH! SLOPE! VELOCITY 1 DEPTH! Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN ; KNR 1 KNR
1 mile 1 ft/mi! fps 1 ft !design! ,g200 ;design! 2200 ;design! 220' !design! &201 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 1 2.101 4.801 0.100 1 1.18 ; 0.28 1 0.21 1 0.90 1 0.861 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach i
-------------------------- ..-----------------------------•------------------------------------------•---
!
Segment 1 1 7.901 8.901 0.114 1 1.11 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 2.07 1 1.821 0.48 1 0.30 ; 0.49 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i i 7 1 i 1 i i i I
Segment 1 1 3.601 16.70; 0.131 ! 1.04 1 0.32 1 0.24 1 4.50 1 3.951 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,
1
": 1
wa!:., t ear 1
2.015 1
1AS^.'tsi(:1lotcater"!:x•;
f).075 !
..l'r i In t..t t:: t -r- y 1
c r. S:r 0 1
1=:t_trttlJ: J.
.. 00;:3 1
Sez'gnner-it: 1. Rezic:hi 2
FZt..trt(:+i--f' 1 C) .. 002 1
* FZ t..t rt c 'fi" 3- ! c_r . c_r 01. 1
lM01) 1 1\1130D ! I.} .. 0 „ 1
rn n,:3 / I- ! ni g / 1 1 n-1 c3 / J. 1
2 . c_rc` 0 1 1.. trc:)c_) ! „r . 30(
2 .. 00o 1 1.., 000 0 1 7 . 300
0.000
2.000 ! 1.. !_)00 1 ! ..::3(")R_)
2 . � )t::rt.r ! I .. 000 ! 7. 300
2.. 0('1t..) ! 1. .'..'i_r C.) !1-7
...3(..)0
2.rIr; 0 !
ltttrtc�t'' 1 7.r.:�IJ i.! in c —Fs/cni l

SUMMER
UC_CC_PW/LBDATA
24 2MGD
UNION CO
WWTP/CROOKED
CREEK
---------- MODEL
RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
UNION CO WWTP
Receiving
______________________________________________________________________
Stream
:
CROOKED CREEK
The End
D.O.
is
7.97
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is
1.47
mg/l.
The End
______________________________________________________________________
NBOD
is
0.71
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO
Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste
Flow
(mg/l)
Milepoint Reach
# (mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
_________ _______
Segment
1
4.85
2.00 1
____
____
__ ______
----
Reach
Reach
1
2
7.50
9.00
6.00
^
^
2 00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
^
0.00
^
0 00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

SUMMER
UC_CC_PW/LBDATA 24/ 2MGD
UNION CO WWTP/CROOKED CREEK
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : UNION CO WWTP
Receiving Stream : CROOKED CREEK
______________________________________________________________________
The End D.O. is 7.89 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 3.13 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.37 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
5.04 2.10 1
____
Reach
1
11.00
9.00
6.00
3.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

SUMMER
UC_CC_PW/LBDATA 24/
4 MOD
UNION CO WWTP/CROOKED
CREEK
---------- MODEL
RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
UNION CO WWTP
Receiving Stream :
______________________________________________________________________
CROOKED CREEK
The End
D.O.
is 7.82
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 5.25
mg/l.
The End
______________________________________________________________________
NBOD
is 1.96
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/l)
-----
Milepoint Reach
--------- -------
# (mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mgd)
Segment
1
5.09
2.10 1
----
----
--
-------- --
Reach
Reach
1
2
15.00
9.00
^
6.00
^
4 00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
^
0.00
^
0 00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

SUMMER �I�
10 A�~-
---------- MODEL
RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
UNION CO WWTP
Receiving
______________________________________________________________________
Stream :
CROOKED CREEK
The End
D.O.
is 7.50
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 14.69
mg/l.
The End
NBOD
____________________________________________________________
is 4.17
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/l)
------
Milepoint Reach
_________ _______
# (mg/1)
____
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mgd)
Segment
1
5.00
2.10 1
---
Reach
Reach
1
2
27.00
9.00
6.00
^
^
10 00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
^
0.00
^
0 00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

✓n a
/)AS vC, S7 " t°

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary August 21, 1987 Director
Mr. Gerry Geise
U. S. Geological Survey
Box 2857
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Gerry:
There appears to be a problem with the 30Q2 flow statistics for the
South Fork of Crooked Creek in Union County (see attached memo). Since
Technical Services is now processing a WLA for a regional WWTP that wishes
to discharge near USGS station # 02.1247.5160, we need an accurate 30Q2 for
this site. I would appreciate you having your staff review the data,
calculations, etc. that were used in projecting this statistic.
If I can provide further assistance, please contact me at 733-5083
(ext. 161) .
DV:gh
CC: Trevor Clements
Jay Sauber
Carla Sanderson
Sincerely,
David Vogt
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

NORTH CRROLINR OIUISION Of ENUIRONMENTRL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section / Technical Seruices Branch
I ntenslue Surueg Unit
RUGUST 17, 1987
To: Trevor Clements
David Voght
From: Jay Sauber J,�
Subject: intensive Survey Crooked Creek
On August 12, 1987, an attempt was made to perform data collections for a wasteload allocation
review of South Fork Crooked Creek. Field survey information collected during this visit revealed
a no discharge condition for the entire reach under investigation. Attached you will find a
summary of our field notes. Since it was obvious that rainfall had occurred recently, we should
probably have the estimate on the 3OQ2 flow re-established.
cc Steve Tedder

South Fork Crooked Creek - Union County
A survey of South Fork Crooked Creek in Union county ,was conducted on
87/08/ 12. A no -flow condition with intermittent stagnant pools existed
from SR 1515, (proposed discharge site), to SR 1504, 5.3 mi les downstream.
The creek appeared to have been dry for a long time as weeds had grown in
the creekbed between the pools. This condition existed even though
standing water in area ditches and driveway puddles indicated a recent
rain had occured.
Stagnant water was observed in the Creek at SR 1004, 7.75 miles below
the proposed discharge location. A heavy scum and algal growth covered
the surface of the water at this station. Several poultry operation were
located just upstream from the the station and may have contributed to
the scum and algal problem.
Many poultry and agricultural operations are located throughout the
survey reach.

Crooked Creek at SR1515 ( 0 Discharge - No Flow)
Rock and clay bottom with intermittent muddy pools indicating recent
rain event. Stream channel approx. 50 feet wide with 4 foot clay banks.
Crooked Creek at SR 1501 (0 Discharge - No Flow)
Muddy clay bottom with few rocks. Shallow intermittent muddy pools.
Stream channel approx. 50 feet wide with 4-6 foot banks. Heavy weed
growth between pools.
Crooked Creek at SR 1514 (0 Discharge -No Flow)
Stagnant intermittent pools with sand and mud bottom. Grass and
weeds growing between pools. Stream channel approx. 50 feet wide with
4-6 foot banks.
Crooked Creek at SR1367 (0 Discharge -No Flow)
Stagnant pools with rocky bottom. Grass growing between pools.
Stream channel 50 feet wide with 6 foot banks.
Crooked Creek at SR 1508 (0 Discharge -Flow)
Muddy stagnant pools. Grass and weeds between pools. Stream channel
approx. 20 feet wide with 3-4 foot banks. Rock and muddy sand bottom.
Crooked Creek at SR 1504 (0 Discharge - No Flow)
Large stagnant pools, (closer together than at previous stations). No
weed growth between pools. Rock and muddy sand bottom. Stream channel
approx. 25 feet wide with 3 foot banks.
Crooked Creek at SR1004 (0 Discharge -No Flow)
Continuous pooling at station with no flow detectable. Heavy scum and
algal growth on surface of water. Stream channel width approx. 15 feet
wide. Poultry operations located just upstream.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 21, 1987
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jay Sauber
THROUGH: Steve Tedder
Trevor C em-�!nts
FROM: David Vogt
SUBJECT: Preliminary Study Flan for the Proposed Union Co. WWTP
to be Located on the South Fork of Crooked Creek:
Per your request, I am providing you with suggestions of how to
meet the modeling needs for assessing the impact of the proposed Union
Co. WWTP #2 on the South Fork of Crooked Creek. After a reconnaissance
is done of the area, the plan can be modified to correspond with field
observations.
Here are my suggestions:
- Survey from SR 1008 nr Indian Trail (map G-lb-SW) to SR 1004 nr
Denton Crossroads Cemetery (map G-16-SE).
- Run time -of -travel analyses from SR 1515 to Ski 1004.
- Take flows at SR 1515, 2nd ut, SR 1501, SR 1508, and SR 1004.
- Sample for chlorides at flow sites.
- I have marked on the maps the existing dischargers to the stream.
We may wish to take effluent samples above SR 1515 at a later date
if CBOD and/or NBOD are determined to be above background levels.
During reconnissance:
- Check ut coming in from the north at Route-74; this ut has an
industrial discharger (Glenwove, Inc.) located upstream. also
check the ut located 0.2 miles west of SR 1513 (this ut provides
additional flow for the South. Fork of Crooked Creek.
- Examine the effect that a series of small ponds are having on the
hydrology of the stream. These ponds are located just upstream of
Route 74.
- Sample for an instream long-term BOD just upstream of SR 1515.
- Temperature, DO, pH, and conductivity should be sampled at SR 1108,
both sides of ponds, Route 74, SR 1515, mouth of 2nd ut, SR 1501,
SR 1514, SR 1367, SR 15O8, SR 1504, and SR 1004.
].

BAKERS QUA
4854 11 NENORTH CAROUNA
539 (MIDLAND)
?.Jr ,'MINUTE. S
7 32'30" E R71 E S
543
544 c"
Ib u
.56 . 8
5
9 581
'Cern
U nion Gro% Ch
Z %
575,,
Ben ivilossma cis
•em
v1.
tentons-Cron roads
619
v�Frierdly
593
Cern
Urian ClLu I
%
�N
;J.
X64.
2?
6
ZA
6�8
4
on,
(I pil

TATI(:JN
CROOKED CR FK_ -
OIST, TOTAF_ REACH
CATION
� ,T�BETIN FN
cc!
SFCC at SR 1008
0.0
0.0
SFCC at HWY 74
2.05
2.05
Ct3
SFCC atSRl515
0.0 -Op
----
CC-1
SFCC at SR 1501
1.0
20
CC5
SFCC at SR 151 q
0.7
2.7
CC6
SFCC at SR 1367
0.8
3,5
CC
SFCC at SR 1508
0.85
4.35
CC8
SFCC at SR 1504
0.95
5.3
CCy
- - - _
SFCC at SR 1004
_ _
2.45
- - - - - - -
7.75 (dye survey)
_ -
Add Itlonal atiQM.
CC I A G01 Ponds at HWY76
CC i B UT from N at. HWY76
CC3A UT 0,2 miles W of SR 1513

5ui�.Lt --pj Ln
Physical Parameters
Time--of-Travel
Flows and Chloride
PN, Solids, Fecal, Phyto
Chi, metals, and SQDLT
CC 1, CC I A, CC I B, CC?, CC3, COA CC4, CCS,
CC6, CC7, CC8, CC9
CC3, CC4, CCS, CC6, CC7, CC8, CC9
CC3, COA, CC I, CCS, CC6, CC7, CC8, CC9
CC

Crooked Creek at SR 15 15 ( 0 Discharge - No Flow)
Rock and clay bottom with intermittent muddy pools Indicating recent
rain event. Stream channel approx. 50 feet wide with 4 foot clay banks.
Crooked Creek at SR 1501 (0 Discharge -No Flow)
Muddy clay bottom with few rocks. Shallow intermittent muddy pools.
Stream channel approx. 50 feet wide with 4-6 foot banks. Heavy weed
growth between pools.
Crooked Creek at SR 1514 (0 Discharge -No Flow)
Stagnant Intermittent pools with sand and mud bottom. Grass and
weeds growing between pools. Stream channel approx. 50 feet wide with
4-6 foot banks.
Crooked Creek at SR 1367 (0 Discharge-- No Flow)
Stagnant pools with rocky bottom. Grass growing between pools.
Stream channel 50 feet wide with 6 foot banks.
Crooked Creek at SR 1508 (0 Discharge - Flow)
Muddy stagnant pools. Grass and weeds between pools. Stream channel
approx. 20 feet wide with 3-4 foot banks. Rock and muddy sand bottom.
Crooked Creek at SR 1504 (0 Discharge - No Flow)
Large stagnant pools, (closer together than at previous stations). No
weed growth between pools. Rock and muddy sand bottom. Stream channel
approx. 25 feet wide with 3 foot banks.
Crooked Creek at SR 1004 (0 Discharge -No Flow)
Continuous pooling at station with no flow detectable. Heavy scum and
algal growth on surface of water. Stream channel width approx. 15 feet
wide. Poultry operations located just upstream.

r
;.