NC0025453_Speculative Limits_19921217

NI3DES DOCUWEmrr SCANNINL COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0025453
Clayton WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Application
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
December 17, 1992
This document is printed on reuse paper - igZxcm a aaky
content on the reirerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
December 17, 1992
00d41�Li [ • ► u
Monica
FROM: Juan C. Mangles
THROUGH: Mike Scoville M➢S
Ruth cZ
� ,(/
Trevorr Clement
SUBJECT: Clayton 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan
NPDES Permit No. NC 0025453
Johnston County
A. Preston Howard, Jr., PE.
Acting Director
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the subject Plan. Our review
concentrated on the potential impact on the surface waters due to the discharge of
wastewater into the Neuse River. Our review indicates that the proposed NPDES permit
limitations cited in the report are in accordance with NCDEM's recommendations.
If you need further assistance on this matter, please contact me at (919) 733-
5083, ext. 515.
cc: Tim Donnelly
own of Clayton WLA
Central Files
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
December 16,1992
Mr. Robert Hyatt
Town Manager
P.O. Box 879
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Acting Director
Subject: Speculative NPDES Permit
Limitations
Town of Clayton WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO025453
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Hyatt:
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) is in receipt
of your letter dated November 30, 1992 requesting speculative limits for a discharge of
2.5 MGD into the Neuse River. In your letter you also requested interim limits for the
discharge of 1.9 MGD until completion of advanced tertiary treatment works or
diversion of the discharge to the Central Johnston County Regional Wastewater System
in Smithfield.
As you discussed with members of my staff during a meeting on November 23,
1992, the Neuse River Basinwide Management Plan prepared by NCDEM and
scheduled for approval by the Environmental Management Commission prior to April,
1993, recommends that NPDES permits in the mainstem of the Neuse River reflect a
minimum of advanced tertiary treatment levels (i.e., 5 mg/I BOD5, 2 mg/I NH3-N, and 6
mg/I DO). These requirements will apply to new and expanding facilities at permit
issuance whereas scf oduing -fcr compliance for existing discharges will be handled on
o case -by -case basis.
In the past, we have encouraged the Town of Clayton to investigate the
possibility of relocating the discharge to the Neuse River from Little Creek. This would
eliminate the potential impacts predicted by the Division to occur in Bames Pond. This
office commends your efforts to find a long term solution for the Town's wastewater
disposal problems and is willing to facilitate the relocation process to the Neuse River.
The proposed discharge site in the Neuse River Is located approximately 8 miles
downstream from the Raleigh Neuse WWiP discharge and 16.5 miles upstream from the
Town of Smithfield water intake. This river segment is classified as WS-V-NSW waters. At
this point the river has a drainage area of approximately 1,150 sq. miles and an
estimated minimum flow of 189 cfs.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

2
A field calibrated water quality model for the Neuse River from Falls Dam to
Streets Ferry was used to simulate Instream dissolved oxygen (D.O.) concentrations upon
addition of 1) a discharge of 1.9 MGD at 10 mg/I BOD5, 4 mg/I NI 13-N and 6 mg/I D.O.;
and 2) a discharge of 2.5 MGD at 5 mg/I BOD5, 2 mg/I NH3-N and 6 mg/I D.O. during
low flow critical periods. Other wastewater inputs along the river reflected existing
NPDES permit limitations. The model predicts that the North Carolina D.O. water quality
standard (5 mg/1) will be protected In the upper reaches of the stream. The model also
predicts that In the lower reaches of the stream, where substandard D.O.
concentrations are predicted, there Is no significant depression of the instream DO
concentrations wM the Clayton WWTP as compared to the instream D.Q.
concentrations predicted without the Clayton 1N1NTP.
In light of the above, NCDEM concurs with your proposal for interim oxygen
consuming limitations of 10 mg/I BOD5 and 4 mg/I NH3-N during the summer, and 16
mg/I BOD5 and 8 mg/I NH3-N during the winter at a maximum wasteflow of 1.9 MGD for
a discharge into the Neuse River. The NPDES permit will contain a schedule to comply
with advanced tertiary limitations upon any expansion above 1.9 MGD or after May
1998, whichever comes first.
The following NPDES permit limitations are being recommended from the date in
which elimination of the discharge to Little Creek is accomplished until expansion to 2.5
MGD or May 1998, whichever comes first:
Parameter
Summer
Winter
Wasteflow (MGD)
1.9
1.9
BODS (mg/1)
10
16
NH3-N (mg/1)
4
8
DO (mg/1)
6
6
Fecal Coliform (mg/1)
200
200
Total Residual Chlorine (ug/1)
28
28
Cadmium (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Copper (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Nickel (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Lead (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Silver (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)
2
2
PH (SU)
6-9
6-9
The following permit limitations are being recommended upon expansion to 2.5
MGD or after May 1998, whichever comes first, until expiration of the NPDES permit:
Parameter
Summer
Winter
Wasteflow (MGD)
2.5
2.5
BODS (mg/1)
5
10
NH3-N (mg/1)
2
4
DO (mg/1)
6
6
Fecal Coliform (mg/1)
200
200
Total Residual Chlorine (ug/1)
28
28
Cadmium (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Copper (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Nickel (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Lead (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Silver (ug/1)
Monitor
Monitor
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)
2
2
PH (SU)
6-9
6-9
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Since the potential for eutrophication in Barnes Pond due to the Town of Clayton
wastewater discharge will no longer be an. Issue upon Its relocation to the Neuse River,
the comprehensive instream monitoring program contained in the most recent NPDES
permit draft may be waived. However, before this waiver can be implemented, the
Town of Clayton should provide NCDEM with a specific date by which the discharge to
Little Creek will be eliminated. This date is required for NCDEM to modify the proposed
instream monitoring of Barnes Pond and it will be Included in the NPDES permit as a
condition to allow the interim limitations Into the Neuse River location.
Please note that the above permit limitations are only preliminary and are to be
used only for planning purposes. Final NPDES permit, limitations can only be provided
upon approval of an NPDES permit application.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Trevor
Clements of my staff at [phone], ext. 519.
SInc�G/
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
SWT/aw
cc: Trevor Clements
Tim Donnelly
Bobby Blowe
Coleen Sullins
Central Files
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Page 1
Note for Ruth Swanek
From: Trevor Clements
Date: Thu, Dec 10, 1992 8:50 AM
Subject: Clayton Discharge Relocation
To: Mike Scoville; Ruth Swanek
FYI. TIm Baldwin of McKim & Creed called about the speculative limits for Clayton's
relocation. I believe Juan is looking at the request and is running the Neuse model to look at
impacts to river of interim and final limits. What is the status of his analysis? It would be
helpful to the Town if they could at least informally know whether we will OK this option
since their scheduled to have a public meeting on the bond referendum associated with the
loan from Construction Grants on the 21st of December. Please relay this to Juan and see if
he can work it into his schedule accordingly. Keep me posted on the outcome.

J,'I�
ROBERTHYATT
Town Manager
GARY RAGLAND
Town Attorney
JESSICA COUTU, CIVIC
Town Clerk
TOWN OF CLAYTON
P.O. BOX 879
CLAYTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27520
[phone]
DOUGLAS McCORMAC
Mayor
Councilmen:
JOHN W. LEE, Mayor Pro Tem
GEORGE D. DALY, JR.
ROY E. GREEN
HUGH A. PAGE
P. DEAN STRICKLAND, O.D.
November 30, 1992
Mr. Steve Tedder, Head
Water Quality Branch
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
Re: NPDES Effluent Limits for Neuse River Discharge
Dear Mr. Tedder:
FAX [phone]
si
S.1
DEC 2 too9
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
The Town of Clayton is currently preparing an amendment to
its 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan. Under this process, the
Clayton Town Council has tentatively selected an alternative for
expanding and upgrading its existing wastewater treatment plant
and relocating its discharge from Little Creek to the Neuse
River, approximately two miles upstream from the NC 42 bridge.
For the twenty-year planning period, total wastewater flow
tributary to the Clayton plant is expected to be 2.5 MGD. As you
are aware, the town's current permit is based on a hydraulic
capacity of 1.5 MGD. On the basis of wet weather flow and
existing (but unused) allocated capacity, the plant is within 0.1
MGD of its permit limit. Under the tentatively selected plan,
the town would upgrade the plant for more stringent effluent
limits and would expand the plant to approximately 1.9 MGD. A
second phase would involve either expanding the plant from 1.9 to
2.5 MGD or discharging wastewater into the Central Johnston
County Regional Wastewater System in Smithfield via a pump
station and force main constructed by the County. The town is
currently on the priority list for Clean Water Revolving Loan
funding in 1993.

'• r
Mr. Steve Tedder
Page 2
November 30, 1992
The town has the option to continue to discharge into Little
Creek, at current discharge limitations, which are proposed to be
renewed and to be valid through May 1998. The Water Quality
staff has made it clear that there is a potential problem with
eutrophication in downstream impoundments. The Town Council
acknowledges the situation and wishes to divert the wastewater it
discharges to the Neuse River as soon as it is financially
feasible. The limits of 5:2:2 (BOD:NH3-N:P) for discharge to the
Neuse River result in a very costly treatment plant expansion and
upgrade, considering the existing customer base. This is
principally due to the requirement for tertiary filters and more
elaborate solids handling facilities. We are well aware of the
Neuse River Basin Water Quality Plan and the requirement for
5:2:2 limits throughout the main steam of the river. The town
does not question the requirement for meeting these limits,
ultimately, with the discharge into the Neuse River.
A dilemma facing the town is repayment of debt through user
charges. Phased construction will allow for more reasonable user
charges for the current customer base. As customers are added to
the system, future expansions can be made with an expanded
customer base assuring more reasonable user charges.
Thus, the town respectfully requests interim limits for
discharge of up to 1.9 MGD in the Neuse River. Specifically, the
town requests limits of 10:4:2 during summer and 16:8:2 during
winter for discharge of up to 1.9 MGD through May 1998. The town
further requests this permit contain provisions for an ultimate
discharge capacity of 2.5 MGD into the Neuse with limits of 5:2:2
beginning in May 1998. It is understood that if discharge were
to exceed 1.9 MGD prior to May of 1998, the 5:2:2 limits would be
applicable. The town further requests relaxation of the
downstream monitoring requirements that are currently written in
the draft permit for discharge to Little Creek.
These conditions would allow the town to save approximately
$1, 000, 000 in capital cost and to keep the initial construction
phase within the funds allocated on the current Clean Water
Revolving Loan funding list as well as minimize the increase in
operations and maintenance cost. Further, it would help to
mitigate the impact of increases in user charges. The projected
average sewer bill (5,500 gallons usage) would increase by
approximately $4.50 per month in lieu of $7.00 per month under
the requirement for 5:2:2 limits (immediately) into the Neuse
River. If the Division of Environmental Management can grant

Mr. Steve Tedder
Page 3
November 30, 1992
this request, we will appreciate your written acknowledgement as
soon as possible. This will allow us to complete our 201
planning process and begin the design phase.
Thank you for considering this request, and we look forward
to hearing from you.
Sincere ,
Ro ert C. H att
Town Manager
RH:jc
cc: McKim & Creed
Mr. Trevor Clement
Mr. Robert L. Blowe

10/28/92 ver 3.1
Facility:
NPDES Permit No.:
Status (E, P, or M) :
Permitted Flow:
Actual Average Flow:
Subbasin:
Clayton WWTP
NC0025453
M
2.5 mgd
0.8 mgd
030402
T 0 X I C S R E V I E W
Receiving
Stream:
NEUSE
I--------- PRETREATMENT DATA ------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- I
Stream Classification:
WS-III
I
ACTUAL
PERMITTEDI
I
7010:
189.0
cfs
I
Ind. +
Ind. + I
FREQUENCY I
INC:
2.01
I
Domestic
PERMITTED
Domestic I
OBSERVED
of Chronicl
Stn'd /
Bkg I
Removal
Domestic
Act.Ind.
Total
Industrial
Total I
Eflluent
Criteria I
Pollutant
AL
Conc. I
Eff.
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load I
Conc.
Violations)
---------
--
(ug/1)
--------
(ug/1)
--------
I %
--------
(#/d)
--------
(#/d)
--------
(#/d)
--------
(#/d)
(#/d) I
--------
(ug/1)
--------
(#vio/#sam)I
Cadmium
S
2.0
I
1 92%
0.0000
0.0044
0.00
---------
0.0834
I
0.083 I
----=---- 1
I
Chromium
S
50.0
I 76%
0.0000
0.0089
0.01
0.6255
0.626 I
1 I
Copper
AL
7.0
1 82%
0.1100
0.0249
0.13
0.1043
0.214 I
I N
Nickel
S
25.0
1 3294
0.0000
0.0107
0.01
0.4170
0.417 I
I P
Lead
S
25.0
1 81%
0.0000
0.0044
0.00
0.6260
0.626 I
I U
Zinc
AL
50.0
I 77$
0.2000
0.1115
0.31
0.2090
0.409 I
I T
Cyanide
S
5.0
I 59%
0.0000
0.0044
0.00
I
I
Mercury
S
0.012
I 0%
I
I S
Silver
AL
0.06
I
94%
0.0200
0.2085
0.229 I
I E
Selenium
S
5.00
I
0%
I
I C
Arsenic
S
50.00
I 0%
I
I T
Phenols
S
1.0
1 08
1
1 I
NH3-N
C
I 094
I
1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL
17.0
I
I
01b
I
I
I N
I
1---------------
I
I
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
PRDCT'D
I
I
--------- MONITOR/LIMIT ---------
I
I
1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- I
1
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Instream
I Recomm'd I
(
Conc.
using
using
Conc.
Based on
Based on
Based on
( FREQUENCY INSTREAM 1
( Allowable
CHRONIC
ACTUAL
PERMIT
using
ACTUAL
PERMITTED
OBSERVED
1 Eff. Mon. Monitor. 1
Pollutant
I
Load
Criteria
Influent
Influent
OBSERVED
Influent
Influent
Effluent
( based on Recomm'd ? I
I
(#/d)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
Loading
Loading
Data
I OBSERVED (YES/NO) I
---------
Cadmium
--
S
I
1
--- ------
25.64
---- ----
99.548
------ ---
0.053
---- ----
1.000
--------
0.00
--------
--------
Monitor
---------I
--------- -------- 1
1 1 A
Chromium
S
I
213.66
2488.710
0.320
22.503
0.00
I I N
Copper
AL
I
39.88
348.419
3.640
5.782
0.00
Monitor
Monitor
I I A
Nickel
S
I
37.70
1244.355
1.091
42.506
0.00
Monitor
1 I L
Lead
S
I
134.94
1244.355
0.125
17.829
0.00
Monitor
I ( Y
Zinc
AL
I
222.94
2488.710
10.740
14.101
0.00
I I S
Cyanide
S
1
12.51
248.871
0.270
0.000
0.00
I I I
Mercury
S
(
0.01
0.597
0.000
0.000
0.00
I I S
Silver
AL
I
1.03
2.986
0.000
2.055
0.00
Monitor
I I
Selenium
S
I
5.13
248.871
0.000
0.000
0.00
( I R
Arsenic
S
I
51.28
2488.710
0.000
0.000
0.00
1 1 E
Phenols
S
1
1.03
49.774
0.000
0.000
0.00
I 1 S
NH3-N
C
(
0.000
0.00
I I U
T.R.Chlor.AL
1
846.161
0.00
Limit
I I L
I
I IT
I
I I S

10/28/9A- s ver 3.1 T O X I C S R E V I E W
Facility: Clayton WWTP
NPDES Permit No.: NC0025453
Status (E, P, or M) : M
Permitted Flow: 2.5 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 0.8 mgd
Subbasin: 030402
Receiving Stream: NEUSE (---------PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- I
Stream Classification: WS-III I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I
7Q10: 187.0 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I
IWC: 2.03 $ I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl
Stn'd / Bkg I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I
Pollutant AL Conc. I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violations)
(ug/1) (ug/1) I % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam) I
--------- ------------------ I -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- I -------- --------- I
Cadmium S 2.0 ( 9244 0.0000 0.0044 0.00 0.0834 0.083 I I
Chromium S 50.0 I 768 0.0000 0.0089 0.01 0.6255 0.626 I I I
Copper AL 7.0 ( 82% 0.1100 0.0249 0.13 0.1043 0.214 I ( N
Nickel S 25.0 I 32$ 0.0000 0.0107 0.01 0.4170 0.417 I I P
Lead S 25.0 I 81q, 0.0000 0.0044 0.00 0.6260 0.626 I ( U
Zinc AL 50.0 I 77$ 0.2000 0.1115 0.31 0.2090 0.409 I I T
Cyanide S 5.0 I 59% 0.0000 0.0044 0.00
Mercury S 0.012 I 0$ ( I S
Silver AL 0.06 I 94% 0.0200 0.2085 0.229 ( I E
Selenium S 5.00 I 04 I I C
Arsenic S 50.00 ( 04 I I T
Phenols S 1.0 I 0% I I I
NH3-N C I 0$ I 1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 I 0q, I I N
I I I
I
I I I
I--------------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D-------- MONITOR/LIMIT -------- I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
I Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd
I Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM
I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Pollutant I Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd ?
I (#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO)
--------- -- I------------------------------------------------------------------I-----------------
Cadmium S I 25.37 98.516 0.053 1.000 0.00 Monitor I
Chromium S I 211.41 2462.903 0.320 22.503 0.00 I
Copper AL I 39.46 344.806 3.640 5.782 0.00 Monitor Monitor I
Nickel S I 37.31 1231.452 1.091 42.506 0.00 Monitor I
Lead S I 133.52 1231.452 0.125 17.829 0.00 Monitor I
Zinc AL I 220.60 2462.903 10.740 14.101 0.00 I
Cyanide S ( 12.38 246.290 0.270 0.000 0.00 I
Mercury S I 0.01 0.591 0.000 0.000 0.00 I
Silver AL I 1.01 2.955 0.000 2.055 0.00 Monitor
Selenium S I 5.07 246.290 0.000 0.000 0.00 I
Arsenic S I 50.74 2462.903 0.000 0.000 0.00 I
Phenols S I 1.01 49.258 0.000 0.000 0.00 I
NH3-N C I 0.000 0.00 I
T.R.Chlor.AL I 837.387 0.00 Limit I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I A
IN
IA
I L
I Y
I S
I I
IS
I
I R
IE
IS
I U
I L
IT
I S
I

1 / - 2 3 - qZ
C. M0,�
icf - 733
1 'yl�
ro�w•�
�/1-`�((w� ?'C��,
��i I �I� 2 3 3 - 3'09 J
, f3
,
�84
lji
` I K��LEZ
1 r M
733-50�i3
r�Jo�
��8 M2
��tii - WGZ
�33-SAS 3

DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 20, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Tedder
FROM: Juan C. Mangles j r
l
THROUGH: Mike Scoville K_76
Trevor Clements
SUBJECT: Town of Clayton Speculative WLA Request
NPDES Permit No. NC0025453
Johnston County
On March 5, 1992 DEM's Water Quality Section received a request for a speculative WLA for
expansions from 1.5 MGD to 1.6 MGD and 1.95 MGD of the subject facility. The Town wanted to
increase their permitted flow using the existing hydraulic capacity of their wastewater treatment facility.
The Technical Support Branch (TSB) responded to the Town of Clayton by letter dated May 8, 1992.
This letter stated that the facility discharges into a S7Q10 = 0 and a 30Q2> 0 flow stream as per USGS
information dated 3-12-90. Therefore, summer (winter) oxygen consuming effluent limitations were
recommended at BODS = 5 (10) mg/l and DO = 6 mg/l as per NCAC Title 15, Subchapter 2B, Section
.0206 (d) (1). Also, based on current Divisional procedures, a summer (winter) 1 (1.8) mg/l NH3-N
limitation was required to protect the stream from ammonia toxicity. In addition, information collected
by Greg Price and myself during the summer 1990 indicated high probability of algal blooms to occur
under appropriate conditions. Therefore, based on 15 NCAC 2B .0211 (b) (3) (A), a 0.5 mg/1 total
phosphorus (TP) limitation and a comprehensive instream monitoring program to assess eutrophication
were recommended upon expansion.
The Town challenged USGS flow statistics based on a 7Q10 flow estimate of 0.2 cfs contained
in a WLA dated 3-9-87. Based on this discrepancy between flow estimates, USGS re-evaluated flow
characteristics in June 1992 and provided TSB with the following flow statistics: S7Q10 = 0.1 cfs, 30Q2
= 0.79 cfs and QAVG = 6.9 cfs.
In light of the new flow statistics a new speculative WLA was prepared. An initial Level B was
performed but there remained to be a considerable amount of uncertainty in its accuracy. To address
some of the uncertainty regarding water quality conditions, eutrophication potential, and hydraulic
characteristics of the stream in the transition zone between the stream and the pond, a field visit was
performed by TSB on 8-26-92.
Physical and chemical data collected during the field survey proved to be very useful. A beaver
dam was discovered upstream from the discharge which resulted in very low flow at the discharge point.
From the discharge site the stream flows for approximately 2.5 miles downstream into a pond with a
surface area of approximately 13 acres. Near NCSR 1560, approximately 2 miles downstream from the
discharge, the stream did not seem to have significant advective transport as far upstream as we could see
from the bridge. Downstream from NCSR 1560 we were able to perform two cross -sections. However,
approximately 1,200 ft downstream from the NCSR 1560 bridge, the channel was too deep to continue
our survey. Boat launching in this area was not safe.
The TSB crew was able to gain access to the pond from a different route and collect some
physical and chemical data in the pond by boat. The headwaters of the pond consisted of a series of

channels resembling a swamp/wedand situation without defined stream channel as far upstream as we
could observe. Although a substantial rainstorm had occurred the previous week that should have flushed
the pond, eutrophication of the pond was apparent as evidenced by dissolved oxygen concentrations as
high as 17 mg/l.
Conversations with Town of Clayton WWTP personnel indicated that the pond has accumulated
sediments during the last years at its headwaters, probably from erosion associated with a peat operation
in the area The sediment accumulation has resulted in a dam like situation at the headwaters of the pond
and creates a second impoundment of the creek upstream of the pond during low flow periods.
This information and the data collected during the TSB survey were used to develop a level B
model to simulate DO concentrations in the receiving stream from the discharge site to the headwaters of
the pond. The model indicates that at current NPDES permit limitations of wasteflow =1.5 MGD, BODS
=17 mg/l, NH3-N = 7 mg/1 and DO = 6 mg/l, a minimum DO of 3.5 mg/l is predicted approximately
1.75 miles downstream from the discharge. The model also indicates that if the wasteflow is eliminated
from the system a minimum DO of 4.9 mg/l is predicted at milepoint 1.25. Simulations for 1.6 MGD and
1.9 MGD at advanced tertiary treatment (i.e. 5 mg/l BOD5,1 mg/l NH3-N and 6 mg/1 DO) predicted a
minimum DO of 5.8 mg/l.
Considering that 1) this stream is only partially supporting its intended uses; 2) the stream is
currently on NC`s 303 (d) list; and 3) based on the results of our analysis, it seems inappropriate for the
Town of Clayton to expand any further than their current permitted 1.5 MGD wasteflow at the existing
NPDES permit limitations. Expansions beyond this permitted flow will require advanced tertiary
treatment. Since any future expansions above 1.5 MGD will result in an instream waste concentration
(IWC) greater than 33%, an Environmental Analysis (EA) is required as part of the NPDES permit
application process. The EA should include an economic analysis of all other waste disposal alternatives.
The analysis should also include potential waste disposal requirements for the next 30 years. Should a
discharge alternative be the most economically and environmentally feasible alternative, then advanced
tertiary treatment should be required. Also, in light of the eutrophic pond downstream, any expansion
should include nutrient removal using state-of-the-art technologies to mitigate downstream impacts.
Please let us know if you would like to meet with us to further discuss this matter. If you concur
with the above recommendations, a written response to the Town of Clayton can be prepared within the
next two weeks.
Finally, it may be appropriate for the Raleigh Regional Office to investigate the source of
sediments in the headwaters of the pond and recommend any necessary measures to mitigate the
problem. It is believed that part of the nutrient enrichment observed in the pond may be attributed to
nonpoint source runoff.
cc:
WLA Files
Central Files
Tim Donnelly

ROBERTHYATT
Town Manager
GARY RAGLAND
Town Aamney
JESSICA COUTU, CIVIC
Town Clerk
TOWN OF CLAYTON
P.O. BOX 879
CLAYTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27520
[phone]
DOUGLAS McCORMAC
Mayor
Coundlmen.,
JOHN W. LEE, Mayor Pro Tom
GEORGE D. DALY, JR.
ROY E. GREEN
HUGH A. PAGE
P. DEAN STRICKLAND, O.D.
FAX [phone]
t
October 16, 1992
Mr. Trevor Clements
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Clements:
oci ? A992
ICr�L 3J?NOBS BR�NCM
1ECNN
RE: 201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Town of Clayton
The town is preparing an amendment to its 201 Sewage
Facilities Plan.
Treatment and discharge options under consideration include
prospective discharges at the following locations.
1.
Neuse
River
01
at N.C. 42 Not
2.
Neuse
River
at NCSR 11-5 0
3.
Little
Creek
at current discharge point
4.
Little
Creek
immediately below Barnes Pond
5.
Swift
Creek
immediately below Little Creek confluence
Required treatment capacity is expected to be approximately
2.5 MGD.
Please be advised that Johnston County is considering siting
a new water treatment plant intake on the Neuse River
approximately 7,000 feet upstream from the new U.S.70 bridge
(formerly US 70A). The proposed withdrawal is 4.0 MGD. Absent
this, it is expected that the existing Smithfield WWTP withdrawal
will be increased by approximately 2.0 MGD.

a w
Mr. Trevor Clements
Page Two
October 16, 1992
Please provide preliminary discharge limitations for the
foregoing sites at your earliest opportunity. In order to
maintain its position on the FY 93 EPA priority list, the Plan
Amendment must be completed within 45 days.
Please contact our engineering consultants, Tim Broome or
Tim Baldwin, of McKim & Creed at 919/233-8091 if you have any
questions or require additional information.
RH:ty
cc: McKim & Creed
Rob Brown
SFert
,
Ratt
Town Manager

- \$ �'� --�• zao (a. \ - ���,. iSGNA _-a zao�y — \ r I �( )ii j J tbc6 _
., a' as ' �_ _ -:Sn �- •-1—\_�'^o _ •..fin � _ � ~' ' :.o, / ('�. / ; a � r •..
iJl x76a tqa
. a'�a' n?t' IA< �IIo,S V ` 1.". �\ �5, /:\ a�-�,� a�'•` ..� ISO
C •lN•
16 GRAVITY OUTFA •ll� �^
(ALT. 1AKt 5-A
/
l � ale<� •3a _ / .\ - � � (/./
� •�•!.' �:7.•�• •' � � � l(fl it . � ! V o a � �1
/ \ •9 f'i �. � s 11 1 � r - Il '�� � - ��•b -.I ,� r YL_rb (, `I'
•a. kr aakl. 1
Y
,
1 t� as 'j 1 a01ew' y''�' +a, �� ^ i _ 0 c� — �: � � i <!L✓ � .jj�
i l �/ . � i7 a' .I J �' � �- % ' • Q i`i-�ao;_ ��;: (I � /rim : L� ',I.
��!/�„/ '•� r -(16" FORCE MAIN-
�� - / )
O _
CL►���AYT•�ON " :C' f '- . " ji w/ \(A
L
T.
`1'1 �fn�►TP �/ -Oe al��Jo\I `•i •i �°.��'
I� Jy �� • J pA 12000 1000 0 2000 40C
JtF f FORCE MAIN 1. `
GRAPHIC SCALE
Page 39 FIGURE 6.1
ALTERNATE 1 /1 A
`�\A I A., ; I IIDI P An I:- /CT lr-) ANIn rI AYT(

.. c
JCM
10-14-92
Speculative Analysis for Clayton WLA
TSB requested USGS to review the flow estimates provided for Clayton's WWTP discharge site as per
Steve Tedder's request. We had previously recommended 5 and 1 limits upon expansion based on S7Q10
= 0 and 30Q2 > 0 flow policy. The Town complained that the receiving stream was not a zero flow
stream. USGS revised the flow statistics and provided a S7Q10 = o.1 cfs and a 30Q2 = 0.79 cfs on 6-25-
92.
This facility discharges into Little Creek, a tributary to Swift Creek, approximately 2.5 miles upstream
from a pond. Data collected by me and Greg Price of TSB on 7-9-90 indicated oxygen supersaturation in
the pond and borderline levels of Corr Chlorophylla (42 ug/1). In addition, AGPT test results indicated a
potential for eutrophication under appropriate conditions. Therefore, a 0.5 mg/l TP was also
recommended in the previous speculative WLA.
I developed a level B to simulate the requested flow increases of wasteflow from 1.5 MGD to 1.6 MGD
and 1.9 MGD under the new 7Q10 flow of 0.1 cfs. I was not satisfied with the reaeration rate that the
model was predicting (thought it was too high); therefore, attempted to estimate different rates based on
QUAL2E outlined options. I also visited the discharge site and did a crude survey of the receiving
stream on 8-26-92 to get a better idea of the stream characteristics.
During the 8-26-92 visit the following data were collected:
Hydraulics
'Rite Little Creek Upstream Instant Q=1.140. cfs; Inst. V = 0.51 ft/sec
Site.2: Tributary Upstream (few feet from discharge pipe) Instant Q = 0.855 cfs; Inst. V = 0.51 ft/sec
Site 3: Effluent Q = 0.74 MGD (1.15 cfs) (48 hour average record)
Site 4: X-sect immediately upstream from discharge (thought to be more representative of stream channel
than the site where the flow was taken) = 9.975 ft2
Site 4: Average Depth immediately upstream from discharge = 0.81 ft
Desktop Estimated Instant Q immediately below discharge = 3.15 cfs
Desktop Estimated Instant V immediately below discharge (assumes same X-sect area immediately
upstream from discharge) = 0.314 ft/sec
Site 5: 500 ft downstream from NCSR 1560 Instant Q = 3.3 cfs; Instant V = 0.12 cfs; X-sect = 26.92 ft2;
average depth =1.2 ft.
Site 6: 1000 ft downstream from NCSR 1560 X-section = 52.25 ft2; Inst. Q = 3.3 assuming negligible
run-off within 500 ft, a V = 0.063 ft/sec was estimated.
A series of depth profiles were taken in the pond and the data is attached.
Physical and Chemical Data!
S'= DO = 4.1 mg/l; Temp = 22.9 C
Ske 2 DO = 4.5 mg/l; Temp = 23.0 C
Site • DO = 6.2 mg/l; Temp. = 26 C; BODS = 4.97 mg/1; NH3-N =1.4 mg/l; (long term BOD taken but
not available yet)
Other physical and chemical parameters were taken in the pond and data sheets are attached.

o` c
Visual observations: A beaver dam was located upstream from the discharge and very little flow was
coming through. Near NCSR 1560, approximately 2 miles downstream from the discharge, the stream
was not moving very rapidly in this area. The stream seemed to be backed up upstream as far as we
could see from NCSR 1560. There are not access roads between the discharge and NCSR 1560; therefore
we could not survey upstream to see the extent of the containment. At NCSR the stream bed was too
deep to perform any measurements. Surface leaves did not seem to move in this zone. Approximately
1000 ft downstream from NCSR 1560 the stream was too deep to continue our survey. Information with
the Clayton WWTP operator indicated that sediments have accumulated in the headwaters of the pond
causing a the stream to be backed up before it starts to branch out in a series of channels, like a delta,
immediately above the pond. We were able to visit the pond and the delta zone. This delta zone is more
like a swamp/wetland without a defined stream bed. No organic sediments which could be attributed to
the wastewater treatment plant were observed in this area.
Using the physical and chemical data collected during the 8-26-92 survey, a level B was developed from
Clayton WWTP to the delta zone. We cannot model the delta/ transition zone.
Analysis
The model was segmented as shown in the attached schematic.
The model calculated an average velocity of 0.345 ft/sec for reach 1. This velocity compared favorably
to the 0.316 ft/sec inst. velocity estimated below the discharge based on field data. However, velocities
of 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01 ft/sec were input into reaches 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. This velocities
produced level B estimates for depth which compared favorably to the data obtained in the field.
ka rates were developed using the Churchill et al equation (based on depth and velocity). This method
provided the best estimate of DO concentrations as compared to the observed DO concentrations. Also,
the equation was developed from data collected immediately downstream from dams releasing low DO's.
In our case, the beaver dam located upstream from the discharge produces low DO concentrations
immediately below from it. Other methods resulted in ka values too low or too high which failed to
approximate the observed DO concentrations. ka rates of 6.3, 4.8, 2.4, 0.7, 0.2, and 0 were entered for
reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively.
After the ka rates were input, slope estimates that would produce similar velocities and depths as those
already calculated by the model were entered by trial and error. The measured slope of 18 ft/mi was
maintained for the first reach. However, slopes of 8, 3.5. 0.3, 0.03 and 0.0001 ft/mi were input for
reaches 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively. These estimates predicted velocities and depths which compared
favorably to the previously calculated by the model when entering my own velocities. Also, the
predicted instream DO profile compared favorably to the observed DO's collected in the field.
This model was then used to allocate wastewater from Clayton's WWTP
BLS:
The model predicts that at 1.5 MGD DO standard violations will occur at milepoint 1.75 (3.53 mg/1)
The model predicts that if no discharge existed a minimum DO of 4.87 mg/l will occur at milepoint 1.25
The model predicts that at advanced tertiary limits at wasteflows of 1.6 and 1.9 MGD, the minimum DO
in the stream is 5.8 mg/l.

• 1
�
1 �
1f,
SUMMER
EXISTING
LIMITS
AT 1.5 MGD
UNDER
7Q10
FLOW
MODEL
RESULTS
Di schal'gei
i :
TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CREEK
__--_---____-_.,____-_____w_-______________-__...._---____________-_Y__-___
The End
D.O.I'is 3.53
mg/1.
The End
CBOD
! i s 27.64
mg/ 1 .
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
7s 24.91
mg/1.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO M i n
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste F l o
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach
# (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment
1
3.53
1.75 1
Reach
1
34.00
31.50
6.20
1.50000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

SUMMER
EXISTING;
LIMITS AT 1.5 MGD
UNDER
7Q10 FLOW
Seg # j -Reach #
j Seg Mi j
D . C. (
CCCD
N6DD
Flow �
1 1
0.00
6.24
32.68
30.24
2.43
1 11
0.25
5.15
31.91
29.42
2.43
1 !1
0.50
4.46
31.15
28.61
2.43
1 1
0.75
4.02
30.41
27.83
2.43
1 '1
1.00
3.76
29.69
27.07
2.43
1 ij
1.25
3.61
28.99
26.33
2.43
1 11
1.50
3.55
28.31
25.61
2.43
1 1
1.75
3.53
27.64
24.91
2.43
1 '2
1.55
3.53
27.64
24.91
2.43
1 3
1.45
3.53
27.64
24.91
2.43
1 j4
1.35
3.53
27.64
24.91
2.43
1 15
1.25
3.53
27.64
24.91
2.43
1 6
1.15
3.53
27.64
24.91
2.43
Seg # Reach # j
Seg Mi (
D.C.
C6CD
N6CD
Flow
i

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Di schar'ge:r' : TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CREEK
Subbasi n : 0304
Stream Class: w--NS
Summer, 7-110 1 : 0.1 Winter, 7Q10 0.54
Design Temper%ature: 27.0
ILENGTH I
SLOPEI VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KH I K11
I KHR
I KNR
I SOD I SOD I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mi1
fps
I ft Idesignl
@201
Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201
Idesignl @201
Idesignl @201 1
Segment
1
1I#
1 1.151
18.001
0.283
1 0.76 1 0.44 1
0.32
1 7.34 1
6.301
0.51 1 0.30
1 0.51
1 0.00
1 1.71 1 1.10 1
Reach
---------------------
1
I I
#
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# I #
I I
I
(
I
I
Segment
1
I I
1 0.201
I
18.001
0.224
I I I
1 0.85 1 0.35 1
0.25
I I
1 5.59 1
I
4.801
I
0.51 1 0.30
I
1 0.51
I
1 0.00
I I I
1 1.71 1 1.10 1
Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1 1 I
# 1
1
1
1
1
1
Segment
1
1I
1 0.101
I
'3.501
0.176
I I I
1 0.96 1 0.31 1
0.22
I I
1 2.79 1
. I
2.401
I
0.51 1 0.30
I
1 0.51
I
1 0.00
I I I
1 1.71 1 1.10 I
Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1 1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
Segment
1
I I'
1 0.101
I
0.301
0.086 1
I I I
1.37 1 0.28 1
0.21
I (
1 0.82 1
I
0.701
I I
0.51 1 0.30
I
1 0.51
I
1 0.00
I I I
1 1.71 1 1'10 1
Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1
1
1 1 1
1 I
1
1
1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1, 0.10I
I
0.031
0.044 1
I I I
1.91 1 0.28 1
0.20
I I
10.23 1
I
0.201
I
0.51 1 0.30
I
1 0.51
I
1 0.00
I I I
1 1.71 1 1.10 1
Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51
1
I
I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
Segment
1
I I
I 0.101
I
0,001
0.004 1
I( I(#
6.10 1 0.28 1
0.20
1 0.00 1
I
0.001
I
0.51 1 0.30
I
1 0.51
I
1 0.00
I I I
1 1.71 1 1.10 1
Reach
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 1
I
I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I Flaky
1
CB D
1
NEUD I
D.U.
I
I c f s
I
Mg
I
mg/7 I
Mg/1
I
Segment
1
Reach 1
Waste
1 2.325
134.000
1 3-1.500
I
6.200
Headwater'mI
0.100
1
2.000
1
1.000 1
7.170
Tr•i butar,y
1 0.000
1
2.000
1
1.000 1
7.
1 70

Funorti"
0.000
2.UUU
1.000 1
1.110
Segment 1
Reach 2
was -to
I 0.000 (
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 (
7.170
Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 (
1.000 (
7.170
Segment 1
Reach a
Taste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I.
0.000 (
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 (
2.000 I
1.000 (
7.170
Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 4
Waste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 i
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 i
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 5
Waste
I 0,000 I
0.000 I
0.000 {
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Runoff
0.000 (
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 6
Waste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 I
2.000 (
1.000 (
7.170
Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Runoff
i
i
flow is in
cfs/mi 1 e

*** MODEL ISUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CREEK
Summer- 7Q10 : 0.1
Design Temperature: 27.0
Subbasi n : 0304.
Stream Class: C-NS
Winters 7-1 0 to0.54
ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I KN I KNR I KNR I SOD I SOD I
I mile I ft/mi1 fps I ft (designl @201 (designl @20' Idesign) @20" (designl @201 idesignl @201 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I! I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 1.751 18.001 0.297 1 0.76 1 0.45 1 0.33 1 7.34 1 6.301 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1.10 1
Reach i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!
Segment 1 1 0.201 18.001 0.235 1 0.86 1 0.35 1 0.25 1 5.59 1 4.801 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1.10 I
Reach 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment i 1 0.101 3,501 0.185 1 0.97 1 0.31 1 0.22 1 2.79 1 2.401 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1.10 1
Reach 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.101 0.301 0,091 1 1.38 1 0.28 1 0.21 1 0.82 1 0.701 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1,71 I MO I
Reach 4 1 I I I I I I I I I I !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.101 0.031 0,046 1 1.92 1 0.28 1 0.20 1 0.23 1 0.201 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.11 1 1.10 1
Reach 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.101 0.001 0.005 ( 6.14 1 0.28 1 0.20 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.11 1 1.10 1
Reach s 1 I I ! I I I I I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow 1
U-BOD 1
NBOD I
D• 0,
I cfs I
mg/l I
mg/, I
mg/l
Segment ' 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 2.480 1
10.000 1
9.000 1
0.000
Headwaters
1 0.100 1
2.000 1.-
1.000 1
7 . 170
Tributary
1 0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.170
*'Runoff
{ 0.000 1
2.000 {
1.000 1
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
1 0.000 I
0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.170
Runoff
{ 0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
1 0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000 {
0.000
Tributary
1 0.000
( 2.000 1
1.000 (
7.170
i * 1 P11rAnff
I n. nnn I
,)_ nnn I
i_ nnn I
7_ i 7n

i!
gment 1
Reach 4
tk)�ste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
T,r, butar%y
I 0.000 (
2.000 I
1.000 i
7.170
Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 5
Waste
I 0.000 (
0.000 (
0.000 (
0.000
Tributary
0.000 (
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
*,Runoff
I 0.000 (
2.000 (
1.000 i
7.170
Segment 1
Reach G
Waste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 (
2.000 I
1.000 (
7.170
* Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 (
1.000 I
7.170
Runoff flow is in cf s/mi 1 e
Aw
1

SUMMER
ADVANCED TERTIARY AT 1.6 MCD
UNDER 7Q10 FLOC!
------------ MODEL
RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving Stream
LITTLE CREEK
i
The End D.O.
is 5.91
mg/1.
The End CBOD
is 8.24
mg/1.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------
is 7.22
mg/1.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flo
(mg/1)
Mi1epoint Reach
--------
# (mg/1)
_..w_
(mg/1)
____
(mg/1)
__
(mgd)
__-...____-
..egment 1
5.88
1.00 1
Reach 1
10.00
9.00
6.00
1.60000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 4 '
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0:00000

f
SUMMER
ADVANCED TERTIARY AT 1.9 MGD
UNDER 7Q10 FLOW
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----~-----~---
Discharger : TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving S 'ream : LITTLE CREEK
The End D.O. is 5.89 mg/1.
The End CBOT is 8.38 mg/1.
The End .NBOD is 7.42 mg/1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DO Min
i
(mg/1 ) Mi 1 epoi nt Reach #
Segment 1 5.87 1.25 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
WLA
WLA
WLA
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flo
(mgd)
10.00
9.00.
6.00
1.90000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0100000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Di schat-ger TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving Str,eam LITTLE CREED
Summer, 7 1 1 0 : 0. 1
Design Temperature 27.0
Subbasin : 0304
Stream Class: C-NS
Wi nter% 7-1 0 0.54
I LE116T1i I SLOPE[ VELOCITY I DEPTH I Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KH I K11 I Ki1R I K11P, I SOD I SOD I
I mile I flit/mil fps I ft Idesignl @200 Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I
Segment 1 1 1.751 18,001 0.336 1 0.78 1 0.47 1 0.34 1 7.34 1 6,301 0.51 1 0.30 1 0,51 1 0,00 1 1,71 1 1.10 1
Reach 1( I I I I I I I I I ( I I
---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0,201 8,001 0,266 1 0.87 1 0,36 1 0.26 1 5,59 1 4,801 0.51 1 0,30 1 0,51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1,10 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
--------------------- ---
1I
Segment 1 1 0,101 3.501 0,209 1 0.99 1 0,31 1 0.23 1 2.79 1 2,401 0.51 1 0,30 1 0,51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1,10 1
Reach 3
---------------------- 7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I
Segment 1 1 0,101 0,301 0,103 1 1,4i 1 0,29 1 0.21 1 0.82 1 0,701 0,51 1 0,30 1 0,51 1 0,00 1 1,71 1 1,10 1
Reach 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II I I I I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 0,101 0.031 0.053 1 1.96 1 0,28 1 0,20 1 0.23 1 0,201 0.51 1 0,30 1 0,51 1 0,00 1 1,71 1 1,10 1
Reach 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I I I I I I I i I I I I I I
Segment i 1 0,101 0,001 0,005 1 6.27 1 0.28 1 0.20 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1.10 1
Reach 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Floe, I
c f s 1
Segment 1 Reach
1
Waste 1
2.945 i
Hea dwater%s l
0.100 1
Tributary 1
0.000 1
*!Runoff I
0.000 I
;egmetit 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 1
Tr,i butar•y I 0.000
* Runoff I 0.000 1
=BOD 1
NBOD i
D . 01
mg/1 I
mg/l !
mg/1 I
10.000 1
9.000 1
6.000
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.170
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.170
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.170
0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 1 7.170
2.000 I 1.000 1 7 . 170
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributar•y I 0.000
* Pilnnff I n nnn I
0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 1 7.170
,?_nnn I i_nnn 1 7_i7n

i
'Segment 1
Waste
Reach 4
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
jr-i butary
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
* Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
j Segme nt 1 Ruch 5
Vaste
I 0.000
0.000 I
j ri butary
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
Runoff
i
( 0.000 I
2.000 I
!Segment 1
Reach G
Waste
1 0.000 I
0.000 I
!Tributary
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
,* Runoff
1 0.000 1
2.000 1
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
!I
0.000 ( 0.000
1.000 I 7.170
1.000 ( 7.170
0.000 I 0.000
1 .000 I 7. 170
1.000 I 7.170
0.000 I 0.000
1.000 I 7.170
1.000 I 7.170

SUMMER
ADVANCED
TERTIARY AT 1.9 MCD
UNDER
7Q10 FLOW
j Seg # Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O. (
CBOD (
NBOD
Flow �
1 1
0.00
6.04
9.74
8.74
3.04
1 1
0.25
5.96
9.53
8.54
3.04
1 11
0.50
5.91
9.33
8.34
3.04
1 11
0.75
5.89
9.13
8.15
3.04
1 1
1.00
5.87
8.94
7.96
3.04
1 1
1.25
5.87
8.75
7.77
3.04
1 ;1
1.50
5.88
8.57
7.59
3.04
1 1
1.75
5.89
8.38
7.42
3.04
1 12
1.55
5.89
8.38
7.42
3.04
1 3
1.45
5.89
8.38
7.42
3.04
1 14
1.35
5.89
8.38
7.42
3.04
1 15
1.25
5.89
8.38
7.42
3.04
1 16
1.15
5.89
8.38
7.42
3.04
Seg # Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD (
Flow

r_ t
1 Dl schar'ger
Receiving Stream
I I I "a I.11 $-, 5... J W I•t1.1M 1\ I tam I M
TOWN OF CLAYTuN
: LITTLE CREEK
Subbasi n 0304`
Stream Class: C-NS'
Summer 7 ,t 10 : 0 . 1
Design Temperature: 27.0
Winter• 70,10 : 0.54
ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I OEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I K11 I KNR I KNR I SOD I SOD I
I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 1
--------------------- 7---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
Segment 1 1 1,751 18.001 0,100 1 0.26 1 0.45 1 0.33 1 7.34 1 6.301 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.11 1 1.10 1
Reach 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.201 8.001 0.020 1 0.57 1 0.29 1 0.21 1 5.59 1 4.801 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 MO I
Reach 2 1 l l I I I I I I I ! I I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I i I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 I 0,101 .3,501 0.016 1 0.64 1 0.28 1 0.20 1 2.79 1 2.401 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.11 1 1,10 I
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.101 10,301 0.008 1 0.92 1 0.28 1 0.20 1 0.82 1 0.701 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.11 1 1.10 I
Reach 4 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Segment i 1 0.101 0.031 0.004 1 1.28 1 0.28 1 0.20 1 0.23 1 0.201 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1,i0 I
Reach 5 1 I ! ! I I I I I I I ! I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment i 1 0.101 0.001 0.000 1 4.09 1 0.28 1 0.20 1 0.00 1 0.001 0.51 1 0.30 1 0.51 1 0.00 1 1.71 1 1,10 I
Reach 6 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F 1 ow
I CBOD I
NB01D 1
I cfs 1
mg/l I
mg/l
Segment I
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.000 1
34.000 1
31.500 1
Headwaters
I 0.100
1 2.000
1 1.000 I
Tr•i butary
0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
Runoff
i
I 0.000
I 2.000
( 1.000 I
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
I 0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
Tributary
1 0.000
1 2.000
I 1.000 1
* Runoff
1 0.000
1 2.000
I 1.000 1
6.200
7.170
7.170
7 . 170
0.000
7.170
7.170
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0,000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.170
Runoff ( 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 ( 7.170
Segment 1 Reach 4
%Alaste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170

ir1.r r r w r a
w• w w w
r.. . .. w w
.. w w ...
3 -.
4egment 1
Reach 5
�aste
I 0.000 (
0.000 (
0.000
I 0.000
Tributary
( 0.000 I
2.000 (
1.000
7.170
Runoff
( 0.000,1
2.000 I
1.000
(. 7.170
egment 1
Reach G
aste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
( 0.000
Tributary
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000
I 7.170
Runoff
1 0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000
I 7.170
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mi 1 e
r+r ru» r—ry

NO DISCHARGE
j UNDER 7Q10 FLOW
MODEL RESULTS_______
Discharger : TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CREEK
-End-D.O. is wr4.89__; _�:______.��.w.�______.�_____________..__..__..___�.__
The m/
The End CE'OD, is 1 . 24 mg/l .
The End i' BODis 0.58 mg/1.
------------ ------------------------------------------------ -----------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CLOD
NEOD
DO
Waste Flo
(mg/1) Mi 1 epoi nt Reach #
------ --------- -------
(mg/1)
____
(mg/1)
-w-_
(mg/1)
__
(mgd)
_________
Segment
1 4.87 1.25 1
Reach
1
34.00
31.50
6.20
0.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0100000
Reach
G 1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

I"S., eg # Re.sch #
Seg Mi
1 1
0.00
1 11
0.25
1 ;1
0.50
1 1
0.75
1 1
1.00
1 1
1.25
1 !1
1.50
1
1
1 .75
1
2
1.55
1
13
1 .45
1 4
1.35
1 5
1.25
1 6
1.15
I Seg # I Re ' Ch #
Seg Mi
NO DISCHARGE
UNDER
7P10 FLOW
G.O. I
CBOD
NBOD
I Flow
7.17
2.00
1.00
0.10
5.59
1.87
0.92
0.10
5.08
1.74
0.85
0.10
4.93
1.63
0.79
0.10
4.88
1.52
0.73
0.10
4.87
1.42
0.68
0.10
4.88
1.32
0.62
0.10
4.89
1.24
0.58
0.10
4.89
1.24
0.58
0.10
4.89
1.24
0.58
0.10
4.89
1.24
0.58
0.10
4.89
1.24
0.58
0.10
4.89
1.24
0.58
0.10
D.O. I
CBOD
NBOD
I Flow I

a
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger ' : TOWN GE CLAYTON
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CREEK
Summer 7Q101 : 2.0
Design Temperature: 24.0
Subbasi n : 0304
Stream Class: C-NS
Winter 7Q10 : 0.54
ILENGTHI SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd
I Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KH
I KH
I KNR
I KHR
I SOD I
SOD I
--------------------
I mile lift/mil
--------------------------------------------i-------------------------------------------------
fps
I ft
Idesignl @200
Idesignl
@201 Idesignl @200
Idesignl @201
Idesignl
@201 1
Segment
1
1 1.751 18.001
0.345
1 0.78
1 0.41
1 0,34
1 6.87 1
{
6,301
0.41
1 0.30
1 0.41
1 0.00
1 1.42 1
1.10 1
Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1
Segment
1
I1 !
1 0.201! 8.001
0.272
I
1 0.88
I
1 0.32
I
1 0.26
I I
1 5.24 1
{
4.801
0.41
(
1 0.30
I
1 0.41
I
1 0.00
I I
1 1.42 1
I
1.10 1
Reach
2
1 1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
I
1
{
{
----------
Segment
1
I I
1 0.101 3.501
0.214
I
1 0.99
I
1 0.27
I
1 0.23
I I
1 2.62 1
I
2.401
0.41
l
1 0.30
I
1 0.41
I
1 0.00
I l
1 1.42 1
1.10 1
Reach
--------------------
3
1 I 1
i----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I
I
I I
{
(
I
I
I
Segment
1
1I I
1 0.101 0.301
0.105
I
1 1.41
I
1 0.25
I
1 0.21
I I
1 0.16 1
I
0,101
0.41
I
1 0.30
I
1 0.41
I
1 0.00
I 1
1 1.42 1
i
1.10 1
Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 II I
I
i
I
I I
I
I
I
Segment
1
1I I
I 0,101 , 0.031
0.054
I
1,1,97
I
1 0.24
I
1 0.20
I I
1 0.22 1
1
0.201
0.41
I
1 0.30
I
1 0.41
I
1 0.00
I I
1 1.42 1
i
1.10 1
Reach
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------
5
1 I I
!
I
!
I I
I
l
I
I
I
Segment
1
I I, I
1 0,101 10.001
0.005
I
1 6.30
I
1 0.24
I
1 0.20
I I
1 0.00 1
I
0.001
0.41
I
1 0.30
I
1 0.41 1
I
0.00
I I
1 1.42 1
I
1.10 1
Reach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 1 1
1
1
I
1 1
1
1
----------------
1
1
1
1
>~ 1 ow
i
cf
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
1.147 1
Headwaters l
2.000 1
Tributary 1
0.000 1
* Runoff I
0.000 {
Segment 1 Reach- 2
Taste I 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.000
1
* Runoff I 0.000 1
Segmw<nt 1 Reach
Waste 1 0.000 I
Tri butar•v 1 0.000 1
CE3OD 1
NBOD i
D. O. I
mg/1 I
mg/1 !
mg/1 I
9.940 (
6.300 1
6.200
2.000 1
1.000
4.100
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.560
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.580
0.000 I
0.000 1
0.000
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.580
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.580
0.000 1
0.000 i
0.000
2.000 I
1.000 1
7.580

!fit Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.580
!Segment 1
Reach-4
'Taste
0.000
0.000
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
( 0.000 (
2.000 I
1.000
7.580
Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000
7.580
Segment 1
Ruch 5
Vaste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
0.000
Tri butary
0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000 (
7.580
Runoff
I 0.000 I
2.000 I
1.000
7.580
Segment 'I
Reach 6
Waste
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 0.000
2.000
1.000 I
7.580
Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000 I
7.580 ,
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mi 1 e
t
r

SUMMER
EXISTING
CONDITIONS ON 8-26-92
Seg # Reach
Sig Mi (
D.O. (
CBOD
NBOD (
Flow �
1 1
0.00
4.87
4.89
2.93
3.15
1 1
0.25
5.45
4.81
2.88
3.15
1 11
0.50
5.88
4.72
2.83
3.15
1 1
0.75
6.20
4.63
2.78
3.15
1 1
1.00
6.44
4.55
2.73
3.15
1 1
1.25
6.62
4.47
2.68
3.15
1 !1
1.50
6.76
4.38
2.63
3.15
1 11
1.75
6.86
4.31
2.58
3.15
1 2
1.55
6.86
4.31
2.58
3.15
1 3
1.45
6.86
4.31
2.58
3.15
1 4
1.35
6.86
4.31
2.58
3.15
1 5
1.25
6.86
4.31
2.58
3.15
1 116
1.15
6.86
4.31
2.58
3.15
Seg # Reach #
Seg M7
D.O.
CBOD (
NBOD
Flog

s.
<
I
MODEL RESULTS
MUMMER
EXISTING CONDITIONS ON 8-26-92
Discharger~ ; :
TOWN OF CLAYTON
Receiving Steam :
LITTLE CREEK
__-_________-_____________w_--_w_____----.._---..ti___--_____w..__---___-_
The End D .O. I i s 6.86
mg/l .
The End CBOD 7s 4.31
mg/l.
The End NBOD ; i s 2.58
mg/1 .
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste F 1 o
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
__ _ _�.
(mg/1)
_.�__
(mg/1)
____
(mg/1)
_._
(mgd)
__ ___._w_
Segment 1 � 4.87
q.Oq...
�
Reach 9
9.94
6.30
6.20
0.74000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
React, 4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 5 ,
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

Little River Streambed Gradient Representation
230
225
220
215
w 210
200
195
190
185
l8
14
•
17
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Distance (miles)

If Little Creek Slope Calculations...JCM, 8/4/92
Dist
Cum. Dist.
Elevation
Slope
0.00
0.00
230
0.40
0.40
220
25.00
0.70
1.1,0
210
14.29
0.50,
1.60
200
20.00
0.60
2.20
190
16.67
2 • ��

Reaer%ati on Worksheet 1 0/ 1 3/92
Mode 11er•:
JCM
Stream Name:
Little Creek
Reach Number,:
1
Reach Length:
1.75
Ca l i b or- Al 1 oc :
CALIBRATION.
Ave. Vet. (fps) :
,0.3k5
Ave. Depth (ft):
0.78
Manning Coef-:
0.025
Flow (cfs) :
2
Chur,chi l l -e�t . al ..
6.3, /da- , i
O' C,on nor-, _66'bbi n s :
' 1'1- /da y
Owens et . al .:
1 6 .-9 /clay
Thackston-Krenkel:
1.5 /clay
Langbi en -Durum:
1-. 7 - /day .
Tsi Vogl out _
_B T ..
.0. 2 /day
u*=
0.0438
F=
0.0088
c=
0.1100
se=
0.0000
kµ
1.8000

Thackston and Krenkel
Thackston and Krenkel
Tsi vogl ou and Wallace
Tsi vogl ou and Wallace
Level B
II
Reaeration Worksheet
10/13/92
I
Modeller:
JCM
.
Stream name:
Little Creek
Reach Number:
2
Reach Length:
0.2
Cal i b or, Al l oc:
CALIBRATION
Ave. Vet. (fps):
0.3
u*=
0.0349
Ave. Depth (ft):
0.84
F=
0.0067
Manning Coef :
0.025
c=
0. 1 1 00
Flow (cfs) :
2
5e=,
0.0000
slope (ft/mi):
0
1<=
1.8000
Churchill et . al .:
4.8
/day
O'Connor -Dobbins:
9.2
/clay
Owens et.al.:
13.4
/day
Thackston-Krenkel:
1.1
/day
Langbi en --Durum:
2.9
/day
Tsi v.ogl ou:
0.1
/day
Level B Tsi vog-lou:
0.0
/day

i
Reaerati on Wor,ksheet
1 0/ 1 3/ J2
Modeller:
JCM
Stream Name:
Little Creek
Reach Number,:
i Reach Length:
0.1
Ca 1 i b or, Al 1 oc :
CALIBRATION
Ave. Vet. (fps):
0.2
u*=
0.0185
Ave. Depth (ft):
1.02
F=
0.0032
i Manning Coef:
0.025
c=
0.1100
Flow (cfs) :
2
5e=
0.0000
i slope (ft/mi):
0
I<=
1.8000
Chur~chi 1 1. et.a1 .: 2.4 /day
O 1 C onnor-'Dobbi ns : 5.6 /day
Owens et.al.: 7.1 /day
Thackston-Krenkel: 0.5 /day
Langbi en-Dur,um: 1 . 5 /day
Tsi vogl ou : 0.0 /day
Level B Tsi vogl ou: 0.0 /day
Thackston and Krenkel
Thackston and Krenkel
Ts,i vogl ou and Wallace
Tsi vogl ou and Wallace
Level B

Reaeration Worksheet
10/13/92
Modeller:
JCM
Stream Name:
Little Creek
Peach Number:
4
Reach Length:
0.1
Calib or Al1oc:
CALIBRATION
Ave. Vel. (fps):
0.1
u*=
0.0062
Ave. Depth (ft):
1.45
F=
0.0009
Manning Coef :
0.025
c-
001100
Flow (cfs) :
2
Se=
0.0000
slope (ft/mi } :
0
k=
1 .8000
Churchill et.al.:
0.7
/day
O' Connor --Robbins :
2.3
/day
Owens et.al.:
2.3
/day
Thackston-Krenkel:
0.1
/day
Langbien-Durum:
0.5
/day
Tsi vogl ou :
0.0
/day
i Level B Tsi vogl ou :
i
i
0.0
/day
Thackston an;d Krenkwl
Thackston and Krenkel
Tsi vogl ou and Wallace
Tsi vogl ou and Wallace
Level B

! Reaerati on Worksheet
10/ 13/92
Modeller%:
JCM
Stream Name:
Little Creek
Peach Number:
5
Reach Length:
0.1
Calib or Alloc:
CALIBRATION
Ave. Vel . (fps) :
0.05
U*=
0.0021
Ave. Depth (ft):
2.05
F=
0.0003
Manning Coef :
0.025
C=
0. 1 100
Flow (cfs) :
2
Se=
0.0000
Slope {ft/mi) :
0
k=
1 .8000
Churchill et.al .:
0.2
/day
O'Connor -Dobbins:
1.0
/day
Owens et.al.:
0.8
/day
Thackston--Krenkel:
0.0
/day
Langbi wn--Durum:
0.1
/day
Ts vogl ou:
0.0
/day
! Level B Tsi vogl ou:
0.0
/day
Thackston and Krenkel
Thackston and Krenkel
Tsi vogl ou and Wallace
Tsi Vogl ou and Wallace

Level 6
4
Reaer•ati on Wor•kshWet
1 0/ 1 3/92
Modeller,:
JCM
Stream Name:
Little Creek
Reach Number:
6
Reach Length:
0.1
Cal i b or, Al l oc :
CALIBRATION
Ave. Vel. (fps):
0.01
a*=
0.0003
Ave. Depth (fit):
3
F=
0.0000
Manning Coef :
0.025
c=
0 . 1 100
Flow (cfs) :
2
8e=
0.0000
slope (ft/mi) :
0
k=
1.8000
Chur,chi l l et.al .: 0.0 /day
O'Connor -Dobbins: 0.2 /day
Owens et . al .: 0.1 /day
Thackston-Kr•enkel: 0.0 /day
Langb en -Durum: 0.0 /day
Tsi vogl ou : 0.0 /day
Level L Tsi vogl ou: 0.0 /day
Thackston
and
Kr,enkel
Thackston
and
Krenkel
Tsi vogl ou
and
Wallace
Tsi vogl ou
and
Wallace

For Lab Use ONLY
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY FIELD -LAB FORM (DM1)
JC1 f4.-'1
U-3
COUNTY #
PRIG
SAMPLE TYPE
RIVER BASIN A140f1_ A
❑AMBIENT
❑
❑ STREAM
❑ EFFLUENT
REPORT TO: ARO FRO MRO RRO WaRO WIRO WSRO US
QA
AT BM
❑
❑ CHAIN
j;]�
0 LAKE
❑ INFLUENT
COMPLIANCE
Other
❑EMERGENCY
OF CUSTODY
❑ESTUARY
Shipped by: Bus Courier, Staff. Other
. _::257� �9_ ��
Lab Number:
Date Recei d:/)Sj2.2Time: J2!/
Rec'd by: From: Bus -Courier and Del
DATA ENTRY BY: Cl(f�_
DATEREPORTED: ago a26
COLLECTOR(.S): / / /9 (14-elrw
�/Estimated BOD Ran e: 0-5/5.25/25.65/40-134 or I00 plusSTATION LOCATION: C� lvn / �d .& TP
g _
Seed: Yes ❑ No ❑ Chlorinated: Yes ❑ No ❑ REMARKS:
Station # Date Begin (yy/mm/dd) Time Begin Date End Time End Depth DM DB DSM Value Type Composite SarnijC. Type
14100 0, �7'w A H L T li C G GNXX
1
BOD5 310 mg/I
2
COD High 340 mg/1
3
COD Low 335 mg/i
4
Coliform: MF Fecal 31616 /10oml
5
Coliform: MF Total 31504 /loom]
6
Coliform: Tube Fecal 31615 /100ml
7
Coliform: Fecal Strep 31673 /100ml
8
Residue: Total 500 mg/I
9
Volatile 505 mg/1
10
Fixed 510 mg/1
11
Residue: Suspended 530 mg/l
12
Volatile 535 mg/I
`13
Fixed 540 mg/l
14
pH 403 units
15
Acidity to pH 4.5 436 mg/1
16
Acidity to pH 8.3 435 mg/I
17
Alkalinity to pH 8.3 415 mg/l
18
Alkalinity to pH 4.5 410 mg/1
19
TOC 680 mg/1
20
Turbidity 76 NTU
Chloride 9.40 mg/l
hl a: Tri 32217 ug/t
Chi a: Corr 32209 3 ug/l
a 32213 G ug/l
Theophytin
Color: True 80 Pt•Co
Color:(pH ) 83 ADMI
Color: pH 7.6 82 ADMI
Cyanide 720 mg/l
Fluoride 951 mg/I
Formaldehyde 71880 mg/1
Grease and Oils 556 mg/l
Hardness Total900 mg/l
Specific Cond. 95 uMhos/cm2
MBAS 38260 mg/l
Phenols 32730 ug/l
Sulfate 945 mgA
Sulfide 745 Ong/l
NH3 as N 610 mg/l
TKN as N 625 I mg/l
f
02 plus NO3 as N 630 !# 6� mg/i
P: Total as P 665 D mg/I
PO4 as P 70507 mgA
P: Dissolved as P 666 mg/1
Cd-Cadmium 1027 ug/1
Cr-ChromfunuTotal 1034 uyl
Cu-Copper 1042 ug/1
NI -Nickel 1067 ug/1
Pb-Lead 1051 ug/l
Zn-Zinc 1092 ugA
Ag- ilver 1077 ug/I
AI -Aluminum 1105 ug/l
Be -Beryllium 1012 ug/l
Ca -Calcium 916 m9A
Co -Cobalt 1037 ug/l
Fe -Iron 1045 ugA
Li -Lithium 1132 ug/l
Mg -Magnesium 927 mg/l
Mn-Manganese 1055 ug/1
Na Sodium 929 mg/1
Arsenic. -Total 1002 ttg/I
Se-Selenlum 1147 ug/i
Hg-Mercury 71900 ug/1
Organochlorine Pesticides
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Acid Hetbicides
Base/ Neutral Extractable Organics
Acid Extractable Organics
Purgeable Organics (VOA bottle reg'd)
Phytoplankton
!�ampling Point %
Conductance at 25 C
water Temperature a
D.O. mgA
pH
Alkalinity
pH 8.3 pH 4.5
Acidity
pli 4.5 pH 8.3
Air Temperature (C)
2
194
10
300 it
400 10
82244 431
82243 182242
20
Salinity %
Precipltion On/day)
Cloud Cover %
Wind Direction (Deg)
Stream Flow Severity Turbidity Severity
Wind Velocity M/H 14ean Stream Depth ft.
Stream Width ft.
480
145
132
136
11351 1350
35 b4
4
DM1/Revised 10/86

C
INTENSIVE SURVEY FIELD DATA
Sub-basin:-J-;�C)g04-
Survey Area: IT'r(�G c
Date: 9Z O; Zb
Station
No.
Storet
No.
Time
Temp.
00010
D 0
00300
Se
00066
Cond.
00095
pN
00400
Seccni
00077
T .
.6
l0:5 5
s.
oc7
l-In1�
•/
'I//� r
%-
-
.'stN W�
J/%!'1
4
/yPj-J/�/•.
S cO

`�-- -) G . 9 a : /t9: /.7
Cider
�y
Cp rKc�
9 • � �
�. Ar T"^
fI l Do s.

.�ms�mm�r�c�nmmm
►�r�nMo,
MCIFWA
mmmi
m
,
mmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmm
®®Mmm■®mm■mm
mmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmm
mmommmmmmm■
mmmmmmmmmmmm
m®�m■mmmm■m
mmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmm�
mmmmmmmmmmmml
mmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmm
Mmmmm
Mmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmm■mm
._.
©nnmmmmm�m
r���mmmmm�lmm
o��mmmm�l
�1■�ma
®��®■■■mmmm
m���mmmm
�'
■■
�mom=
nmmm■■i!�■�
mmmM
mil�
mm1Enm
N�
Mmlmm■■■
mm
mmll�i7■■■■mm
MEIMm■■■M■■■
mmimmmmmmmmm
mlldlmm■
l
mmmmmmmmmmm
mml■lmmmmmmm■m
:0 I .0
30 y
31 zs iv
J

u 'o
c mom
-NONE
man.
M!mm��
M___mmm
t

r y
STRATIFIED FIELD DATA -
Station amber
Dcte
Time
C)M
De +h
2 %
Location
300 010
D.0.
Temo.
400
DH
94a
Cona- - -Salinity
80
78
ecchi
.Sati
5
/70�o
Y•'
�
cc
S 3
. 0
VAA
. S
3, 1-
cU
\7
-
l OS
5
— ---
k�, iLL
t

clayton wwtp
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10: 0.1000 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 0.0000 mg/l
AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1000.00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 1.6000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 8.53 ug/l
0.008527 mg/l
NH3 Limit: 1031.451 ug/l
1.031451 mg/l
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10: 0.5400 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 0.0000 mg/l
AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1800.00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 1.6000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 39.34 ug/l
0.039337 mg/l
NH3 Limit: 2144.032 ug/l
2.144032 mg/l
clayton wwtp
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10: 0.1000 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 0.0000 mg/l
AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1000.00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 1.9000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 7.22 ug/l
0.007224 mg/l
NH3 Limit: 1026.485 ug/l
1.026485 mg/l
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10: 0.5400 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 0.0000 mg/l
AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1800.00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 1.9000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 34.09 ug/l
0.034088 mg/l
NH3 Limit: 2089.711 ug/l
2.089711 mg/l
(WINTER)
(WINTER)

i
clayton wwtp
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10: 0.1000 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 0.0000 mg/l
AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1000.00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 1.5000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 9.07 ug/l
0.009072 mg/l
NH3 Limit: 1033.548 ug/l
1.033548 mg/l
AMMONIA ANALYSIS
7Q10: 0.5400 cfs
NH3 Effl. Conc: 0.0000 mg/l
AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1800.00 ug/l
Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l
Design Flow: 1.5000 MGD
Predicted NH3 Downstream: 41.47 ug/l
0.041465 mg/l
NH3 Limit: 2166.967 ug/l
2.166967 mg/l
(WINTER)