NC0021709_Instream Assessment_19881130

NPDES DOCUMENT :SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0021709
Jefferson WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 30, 1988
'This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reirerse side

A.
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 Director
November 30, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Coble \
THRU: David Vogt jail (J
Trevor Clements X-
Steve Tedde
FROM: Jackie Nowell,(
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for Town of Jefferson WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0021709
Ashe County
JOC Case No. 88-08
Summary
The Technical Support Unit has received a second JOC request for the
Town of Jefferson to increase the flow of its WWTP by an additional 114,000
GPD. This increase in wasteflow is for accommodating the domestic sewage
from proposed dischargers requesting connection to the Jefferson facility.
Included are a sixty home retirement village and a golf course development
with 250 homes and 130 condominiums.
Jefferson requested their first TOC. in October, 1986 for an additional
wasteflow of 75,550 GPD. The Winston-Salem Regional Office reports that
30,000 GPD of this flow has been permitted but is not yet entering the sys-
tem. Several projects that had anticipated startups have not been con-
structed. The current JOC expires August 1, 1989.
Jefferson recently completed the expansion of their facility to 0.300
MGD. The WSRO reports that the Town of Jefferson wants to continue to dis-
charge at their current JOC limits of 60 mg/1 of BOD5 and 50 mg/1 of TSS as
a precautionary measure until they are certain that the expanded facility is
operating properly and can meet final limits.
Pollulivit Prcrcnlion Pays
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

The impact of Jefferson's wasteflow on dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in
Naked Creek was evaluated using Technical Support's Level B modeling frame-
work. The results of the analysis indicate that the requested wasteflow
increase of 114,000 GPD will have an unacceptable impact on the stream (per
EEC criteria) by increasing the DO minimum by more than 0.5 mg/1. Our ana-
lysis determined that the facility can only accept an additional 64,000 GPD
under the requested JOC.
In addition, because of the industrial influent to the Jefferson WWTP,
we recommend that the facility perform monthly chronic toxicity monitoring
of its effluent; we also recommend effluent monitoring for nickel.
Analysis and Discussion
The Town of Jefferson discharges into Naked Creek which is located in
the New River Basin. U.S.G.S. flow data obtained in July, 1986 indicate
that the summer 7Q10 flow at the discharge point is 2.8 cfs, with a drainage
area of 6.4 square miles and an average flow of 12 cfs. This section of
Naked Creek has a stream classification of C and is approximately two miles
upstream of its confluence with the South Fork New River. As previously
stated, the Jefferson facility has recently completed an expansion and the
new design capacity is 0.300 MGD.
Jefferson requested their initial JOC in October, 1986 and the pre-JOC
flow was 0.1065 MGD (average flow 9/85-8/86). The requested JOC flow was
0.07555 MGD. The Post-JOC flow was 0.18205 MGD with recommended JOC limits
of 60 mg/1 of BOD5 and 50 mg/1 of TSS. For this instream assessment, the
post-JOC flow was calculated by adding the 1986 JOC flows (0.1065 MGD +
0.07555 MGD) to the 1988 JOC request of 0.114 MGD for a post-JOC flow of
0.29605 MGD. A review of compliance data from October, 1987 to September,
1988 reveal that Jefferson has been in compliance with the assigned JOC lim-
its. The maximum values for BOD5 and TSS were 44.4 mg/1 and 54 mg/1,
respectively.
A Level B model analysis was used to assess the impact of the Jefferson
discharge on dissolved oxygen in Naked Creek. Two models were run, one at
0.1065 MGD (1986 pre-JOC flow), and the other at 0.29605 MGD (post-JOC
flow). The waste input for CBOD reflected the Winston-Salem Regional
Office's recommended BOD5 limit of 60 mg/1; this yields a CBOD input of 120
mg/1 (using a CBOD/BOD5 multiplier of 2 for >10% industrial waste). Because
of Jefferson's significant contribution of ammonia to Naked Creek, a waste
input for NBOD was determined by using the average of the 1988 summertime
NH3-N values (7.98 mg/1). This yields a NBOD input of 35.91 mg/1 (using a
NBOD/BOD5 multiplier of 4.5).
The model results at 0.1065 MGD predict the DO minimum of 7.29 mg/1 to
occur at the outfall. Model results at 0.29605 MGD predict a DO minimum of
6.63 mg/1. This is a difference of 0.66 mg/1 and demonstrates an unaccept-
able depression of the instream DO level per EMC criteria. Our evaluation
determined that the maximum amount of wasteflow that the Jefferson WWTP can
accept is 0.24605 MGD. At this wasteflow the model predicts a DO minimum
of 6.79 mg/1, a difference of 0.5 mg/1 from the pre-JOC flow run (0.1065
MGD), thus meeting the standard 67(b) criteria.

Based on the model results, we recommend denial of the JOC request for
0.114 MGD. However, Technical Support will recommend approval of 0.064 MGD
additional wasteflow for the Jefferson WWTP. This is a difference of 0.050
MGD from the requested JOC flow. All model results are presented in Table
1.
In addition, Technical Support recommends that this facility perform
monthly chronic toxicity monitoring under the JOC. It is also recommended
that the facility perform effluent monitoring for nickel during the same
period.
cc: Chuck Wakild
Ken Eagleson
Kevin Bowden
Steve Reid
Central Files
WLA Files

TABLE 1. Instream Assessment Summary for the Town of Jefferson
Wasteflow Assumptions
Design Capacity
Pre-JOC (9/85-8/86)
1st JOC Flow Request
Pre-JOC + 1st JOC
2nd JOC Flow Request
Pre-JOC + 1st JOC + 2nd JOC
Model Input Summary
Headwater Conditions:
0.30000 MGD
0.10650 MGD
0.07555 MGD
0.18205 MGD
0.11400 MGD
0.29605 MGD
7Q10 2.80 cfs
Qavg 12.00 cfs
Design Temperature 23.00 °C
CBOD 2.00 mg/1
NBOD 1.00 mg/1
DO 8.58 mg/1
Wastewater Inputs:
1st Flow
2nd Flow
3rd Flow
CBOD(2.0*recommended BOD5)
NBOD(4.5*recommended NH3)
Model Output Summary
0.10650 MGD
0.29605 MGD
0.24605 MGD
60.00 mg/1
35.91 mg/1
D.O. Net Distance
Qw Min. Change < 5.0 mg/1
(MGD) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mi.)
0.1065
0.29605
0.24605
7.29
6.63
6.79
0.66
0.50
Recommended JOC Limits
0.00
0.00
0.00
Qw 0.24605 MGD
BOD5 60 mg/1
TSS 50 mg/1
Fecal 1000 /100 ml
pH 6-9 SU

1ZeLovvumulog -T-064-6A-^
V1
Facility Name %k'?I 07"WA0n_ MGM!P
Permit # /k o,2/7a 9
CHRONIC TOXICITY•MONITORING REQUIREMENT (MONTHLY)
The permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised *February 1987) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document is
/a %. The permit holder shall perform monthly monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed within thirty days from
issuance of this permit. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring•Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) into be sent to the following address:
Attention: Technical Services Branch
• North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687 -
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and.accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream..
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the.cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to subrnit
suitable test results will constitute a failure of permit condition.
7Q10 a.8 cfs
Permited Flow d, 2 fk oS .MGD
IWC% / 2
Basin & Sub -basin M. Receiving Strewn J(4itz d ei�� a.� Dv -at"
County �r• h ate /r /7 8
**Chronic Toxicity (Cerio) Monitoring at /c. %, See Part , Condition x .
• Recommended by:

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November.29, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Mauney
FROM: Steve Zoufaly JI/
THROUGH:
SUBJECT: Use Attainability Study Request
nie�
DEC _ �!
_ 1 1988
/Et'NN/CRL SERVICES
A proposed reclassification has been requested of the
Standards and Assessments Unit for the following waterbody:
Waterbody: South Fork New River
County: Ashe
Basin: New River
Subbasin Number: 050701
USGS Quad Sheet: C12NW,B13NW,B13SW
Present Classification: C
Proposed Classification: WS-III
Requested By: Town of Jefferson (McGill & Associates)
Comments: The Town of Jefferson has requested through their
consultant that a segment of the S. Fork New River
from Highway 16/88 downstream approximately one
mile be reclassified to WS-III. They have indi-
cated that this downstream segment is the most
desireable location for the proposed WTP. Attached
is a sample lab sheet indicating parameters needed.
Please specify low level metals and Fecal Strep.
Also attached is a map indicating a possible site
for sampling. One sample location and visit hope-
fully should be sufficient; your discretion.
If any further information is necessary, please let me know.
Attachments
cc: Ken Eagleson Trevor Clements
Dale Overcash Jay Sauber

twifirgliF '''Wk 1111 MR

03. tb to. zzzz_(7/a0 T
dPJ
s-
Petj Sty %w_ ,-ZgioSMGn
azIfcia
iy/'�
v/1 ! irk
Su11
ter,, S s£SS ^?
6 ��jn t 7 G+) .574.6 f 0., 1 , 7L//
rU_
3au aoa Gee,
i
/ f4 000
yt-a-nt_ /i G ty ;: G✓ /� co
1)214,) 1986
U -;; C / - > . �- 77t
TIJ
03.l61o.0d00 ("V
P4= z0S n4 2" 1 —
4A=147t&
s79,e:40g a& J
w- ro =1 z1 ds
3o z. jyccfs
1—
Sa G • O- c,rf G' 2 -

Cee46 c A cx—e-
Are-zr
-7-crea:=, 5-0 C z76__a 416--/a
P ‘,9 x-d
, /0 6 5" A16-i9
C°C , 07555" /t46-7e)
S 0C 1 it M
it^ie (-7-63"-4 50C )
•Z 96 0 S 1WC-0
/06 5— c4- y An) 3, 6
/6 6c..r z c7
6
9 6 0:5 ,t-
, 214 0-r
3, 0 7‘ s-

-*`
/06 5 /f6v
9v) , /ea° /40
2 S 61a
5-1
Ar).7q_ 7z
DA- 1,4;
94-:. /0 of
79/,.) 05
--_ 3.1 c7
C.‘/C•jr/;)
.23.k —
L9A 2,0 C76, 41
.d sit 55-C7V•f;
2
c9/1/4, er 4'4
s7fia 4 3 c-4/10+;
-
44S- C
"7q ij Xti
- I
6„.1 .745
Ad.
4hric,e.
-5 /1/41")
.5- F
0
5-23pre.,
L7.17,3pie.4.) 0
OF= Itz7c
s -79 o /aLc
(-479 /3 11 c

/iirzLe /Leah
6fic-p)
,Sow V ff6 Or, /06 S
„1-Soc L - MIk D, /d 40 s
-r�' v
o, z 6 s
64t50C-114 9
•69555 MGD
7. 2,
7,d/
1. 6 3
(26016Xss
1
Wig
,so /.7? . - Z,
3./7

WSRO JEFFERSON WWTP NC0021709 07/01/87 Q P/F 1985
-- --- --- --- --' "- --- 2.8 0.15 7.65
SELF MONITORING TOXICITY TESTING SUMMARY November 15,1988
REG FACILITY NPDES/ BEGIN FREO YEAR JAN FEB (%)
------.......... ------------ .,_____ --..______M MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 7Q10 PF IWCi4) ��
MRO HICKORY-N.E. WWTP NC0020401 07/17/87 Q P/F 1985 ww---------------- -__�
PERMIT CHR LIMT:11%, 13% 0 >5MGD 1986 60.00 5.00 11.44
IICJOC: 9/87-5/90 TOX REQNASSINUPERMITG NOV FEB MAY 1988 1987 --- --- --- --- --- ( NR ) PASS
() FAIL NR (---) PASS (---) FAIL
(---) PASS (---)
WSRO RICH POINT EAST WWTP NC0024210 09/01/87 Q P/F 1985 70 P20 NONE --- 90 P20 NONE 52 NONE P20 P15 P25
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:96%' 1986 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE FAIL --- --- bt
MONTHS:OCT JAN APR JUL 1987 --- --- NR --- FAIL --- --- (FAIL) FAIL FAIL (FAIL)
1988 --- --- (PASS) --- PASS (PASS) PASS PASS (PASS) NR
WSRO HIGH POINT WEST WWTP NC0024228 10/01/87 Q P/F 1985 80 NONE P25 --- P45 NONE 90
90 37 P25 40 P35 P20 P20 0.50 6.20 95.04
MONTHS:
LETTER CHRONIC TARGET:93% 1986 NONE 88 38.3 25 68 NONE NONE NONE 6 68.5
1987 NONE NONE NONE NR NONE NONE NR NONE59 NR ( NR ) -
1988 () --- FAIL (---) FAIL PASS (PASS) PASS PASS (---)
RRO HILLSBOROUGH WWTP NC0026433 01/01/88 Q P/F 1985
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:96% 1986 0.18 3.00 96.27
MONTHS:FEB MAY AUG NOV 1987
1988 ( NR ) --- FAIL (---) ---
MRO HOMELITE TEXTRON NC0005231 11/01/88 Q P/F 1985
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:99% 1986 0.00 0.40 100.00
MONTHS:JAN APR JUL OCT 1987
1988
NR
MRO HOMELITE TEXTRON 002 NC0005231 11/01/88 Q P/F 1985
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT: 99% 1986 0.00 0.06 100.00
MONTHS:JAN APR JUL OCT 1987
1988
MRO HUFFMAN FINISHING NC0025135 06/09/88 Q P/F 1985 (50.6) 18.3 22 (89.9) 54.7 88.2 (44.9) NONE
PERMIT CHR LIMT:69%, 84% 8 >.11 MGD 1986 (51.6) P20 (---) NONE --- (---) 24,28 40.24 0.075 0.11 69.45
--- (---) NONE --- (---) NONE ---
MONTHS:MAR JUN SEP DEC 1987 (---) 18.20 77.07 (62.2) --- P30 (---) --- P40 (---) --- NONE
1988 (---) --- P45 (---) --- --- --- --- PASs ---
MRO JACKSON BUFF CORP.-007 . NC0047473 10/01/88 M 1985
LETTER Ac TARGET:SIGNIF MORT REDUC 1986
MONTHS: 1987
1988
ARO INDUSMIN,INC NC0000400 03/01/87 Q P/F 1985 --- ___ _ _ ___ _
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:6.6% 1986 73.48 P25 65 100 88 78 P15NOE NONE NONE NONE3L 44.0 1.73 5.73
MONTHS:APR JUL OCT JAN 1987 NR PASS -----' ---
{ NR ) PASS (---) --- PASS (---) --- NR (PASS)
1988 --- --- (PASS) --- PASS (---) PASS --- (---) PASS
1.00 16.00 96.11
0.00 0.0004 100.00
NONE
ARO JACKSON COUNTY SANITARY DISTRI NC0039578 10/01/87 Q P/F 1985
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:1.4% 1986 165.0 1.50 1.38
MONTHS:NOV FEB MAY AUG 1987 --- --- (PASS)
1988 (---) FAIL PASS (PASS) PASS (---) FAIL ---
WIRO JACKSONVILLE-WIISON BAY WWTP NC0024121 11/01/88 0 P/F 1985 --- ___
LETTER ACUTE TARGET:NONE (FTHD) 1986 --- --- __ ___ _-_- -----
- --- --- --- TIDAL 4.46
MONTHS:NOV FEB MAY AUG 1987 --- NONE >90 90 76 NONE NONE P15 P25 78 81 61
1988 NONE P40 84 P35 78 80 P20 P30 NONE ---
FRO J.P. STEVENS-WAGRAM NC0005762 11/01/86 Q P/F 1985 NONEf NONEf NONE NONEf NR NR NR 101.5 3.6 5.20
LETTER CHRONIC TARGET: 5.2t 1986 NR NR- NR NR NR NR NONE NONE NONE --- FAIL
MONTHS:
1987 --- PASS --- --- PASS --- --- NR --- PASS (PASS) ---
1988 --- (PASS) --- (---) --- NR (---) PASS
PERMIT CHRONIC LIMIT:8.0% 1986 13.6 NONE 7.1 NONE NONE
MONTHS:AUG NOV FEB MAY 1987 7.3 NR 1.15 NONE NONE NONE ( NR ) ---
JOC:5/88-8/89 CHR M P/F 8% TRGT (---) --- ---
1988 (---) --- --- (---) --- NR NR NR NR NR
RRO JOHN UHSTEAD HOSPITAL NC0026824 01/11/08 0 P/F 1985 --- >40 NR NONE Nit NR NR NR P15 47 NONE 5
PERMIT CHRONIC 1,IMIT:98♦ 1986 <5 NONE: 7.6 NONE I'35 NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE FAIL FAIL 0.10 1.50 96.19
MONTHS:FEU MAY AUG NOV 1967 --- NR FAIL --- NR FAIL --- FAIL --- PASS ---
JOC: 2/88-1/90 NO TOX REO ---
1988 --- (PASS) --- FAIL (---) --- FAIL ---
LEGEND:
COLUMN HEADERS: REG-Regional Office, FREQ-Monitoring frequency, (Q-Quarterly, M.-Monthly, BM -Bimonthly, A -Annually, SA -Semiannually, OWD-Only when discharging, D-Discontinued
monitoring requirement, IS -Conducting independent study),p/F-Pass/Fail chronic bioassay, Ac-Acute, BEGIN -First month required, PF-Permitted flow, IWC-Instream waste conc.
RECORD NOTATION: f-Fathead Minnow Test, •-Ceriodaphnia sp. Acute Test, my-Mysid Shrimp Test, Chv-Chronic value, P-Mortality of stated percentage at highest concentration,
at -Performed by DEM, ( )-Beginning of Quarter, NR-Required Test Not Reported, ----Data Not Required, bt-Bad Test, I -Inactive, N-Newly Issued(To Construct),
H-Active But Not Discharging
10

A )'Ero-DIX 1
0
d
> r,
tf
cl
StreQ.M : /141,-d d /c
“St t1 BeanC`1
slope Catcu 4-tian S
/) 27 2 0 , — - _��b_ iz.t
?) 2 •_,IT- - a 6 v It--
a„k,, _ a. gH+, .2,'� ,4 f
N
e I CV
,27zo
0
d i st
26Fca
2;
- 75z
RAJ
z ; Ito
/,2
N
5i74_
s to,ftcC

L3S(zo
6
co
IN -STREAM ASSESSMENT REQUEST FORM
I. Facility
name / d r vN ..fe 7/4,e, s ati
L7°
Design flow e 3d Q M CO Subbasin d.S --d 7 (> / County AS 6f a
Receiving stream (/,9-Ke0/ iZ'ee e (�
Classification
II . E cisting plant data : time period averaged jQ/� 2 f /R e
flow
BOD5
NH3
, .2-3 mgd
z
mg/1
/ 0 , / 9 mg/1
DO mg/1
TSS
fecal coliform
pH l� . S - 12, / SU
21-/ mg/1
9 - /100 ml
Suggested SOC limits:
flow
BOD5
NH3
l �ZFrogd
mg/1
.mg/1
DO mg/1 ,c6,
�- '(,,I /
TSS Q
fecal coliform
pH
V °
C
mg/1
l o G CJ /100 ml
4,0- 9,0 sU
III. Previously Approved SOC flow j
Approximate percent domestic
Approximate percent industrial
Currently requested SOC flow
/ 0 0
4.298
/ / `-/l a O
percent domestic / a (9
percent industrial
frigd
mgd
ttosp ra-1 --
List industries and type of waste
6-,4Tes Rwbh e,H frost
below:
!/ Aui)Gcoar:+,/
/14
Dom e s r,,'c Goa i 71.
ads

BOARD OF ALDERMEN:
Richard Blackburn
Blufcrd Eldreth
Quinton Little
Richard Neaves
Max Yates
TOWN OF JEFFERSON
County Seat of Ashe County
Telephone [phone]
Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
October 24, 1988
Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
OCT 3 / ua
..:- ;:ri'ili:! 'ii:, ENTAL li MANAGEMENT.
41n
14,fIYbt:.
D.E. Hightower, D.V.M.
TOWN MANAGER:
Mike Dixon
Please consider this letter as a formal application from the Town of Jefferson
for allowance of additional connections to the Jefferson Wastewater Treatment
Plant. In a conversation with Steve Mauney from N.R.C.D.'s Regional Office in
Winston-Salem, it was determined that Jefferson must apply for any additional
connections that are anticipated before August, 1989. While the Town is at
this time only concerned with the hookup of the 60 unit residential retirement
village (Mountain Village Estates), future users of the system are listed.
60 unit retirement village
Residences at proposed golf course development
7 lots (Whispering Pines) recently annexed by the Town
20 new residential units (projected}
Please take note that the wastewater treatment plant has recently completed
an expansion that increases capacity to approximately 385,000 gpd. Also, the
Town is in the initial stages of planning future plant expansion. Inquiries
are being made as to land aquisition adjacent to the plant, for possible
expansion in the coming decades.
Projected flow levels from the above list of activities can be provided if
necessary. Currently, the average daily -flow of the -system is 150,000 gpd.
Feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
GX"'"-7
Seth Lawless
Interim Town Manager
SL:sr

BOARD OF ALDERMEN:
Richard Blackburn
Bluferd Eldreth
Quinten Little
Richard Neaves
Max Yates
TOWN OF JEFFERSON
County Seat of Ashe County
Telephone [phone]
Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
October 27, 1988
Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
Mayor:
D.E. Hightower, D.V.M.
TOWN MANAGER:
Mike Dixon
This letter is in conjunction with the attached correspondence from Mr.
Lawless. It includes more specific data regarding anticipated flow to
our wastewater treatment plant in the near future.
We hope that this information will facilitate the approval of the
connection of the 60 unit retirement village as soon as possible. We
feel it is also important to point out that only a portion of the
additional flow which our plant was alloted under a recent S.O.C. has
been connected. Over 30% of that 75,000 gallons has not been used,
with an anticipated motel, a 500 student school, and two fast food
restaurants not being constructed as once planned.
Since completion of our expansion, our plant has been generating
effluent data within compliance and at this time we feel confident
that we are prepared to accept additional flow to our facility.T
Respectfully yours,
Tim Church
WWTP Superintendant
TIE :slr
•
NOV c6 �
tV lv �

• Q
•
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
TOWN OF JEFFERSON
ASHE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PRESENT PLANT CAPACITY
PRESENT AVERAGE FLOW
RESERVE CAPACITY
390,000 g.p.d.
- 180,000 g.p.d.
210,000 g.p.d.
I. Committed Flow not yet entering W.W.T.P.
B.
D.
E.
Nursing Home
Woodcroft Subdivision
Retirement Village (anticipated)
Whispering Pines
Doctor' s Offices
22,500 g.p.d. Pen—-fe a;°dOy/c(
15,000 g.p.d.
10,800 g.p.d. P.vd frf
2,100 g.p.d.
1,600 g.p.d.
52,000:g.p.d.
II. Anticipated flow from the Golf.Resort based on a rate of
150 g.p.d. per bedroom. This flow will be seasonal.
250 homes
130 condominiums
Reserve capacity
Committed flow & Golf Resort flow
75,000 g.p.d.
39,000 g.p.d.
114,000 g.p.d.
210,000 g.p.d.
- 166,000 g.p.d.
44,000 g.p.d.
44,000 g.p.d. of reserve after all of the above projects
are completed
/O)000 yI

Discharger
RecelVing Stream
MODEL RESULTS
: TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP
: NAKED CREEK
SUMMER
MODEL FOR JEFFERSON @ AVG QW
IN 10/86 BEFORE FIRST SOC
The End G.O. is 8.01 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.10 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.01 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
D0 Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flo
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 7.29 0.00 1
Reach 1 120.00 35.91 0.00 0.10650
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

>K* MODEL SUMMARY DATA >
Discharger~ : TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP 5ubbasi n : 050701
Receiving Stream : NAKED CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 . 2.8 Winter 7Q10 3.4
Design Temperature: 23.
ILENGTH1 SLOPEI VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 K11 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR
mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft (design' @20° 'design' @20° 'design' p20° 'designN20°
L I I 11 1 1 1 1 I 1
Segment 1 1 0.121 54,001 0.396 1 0.16 10.59 10.51 141.04 1 38.451 0,63 1 0,50 1 0.63 10.00
Reach 1( I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
Segment 1
Reach 2
1 11 1 1 I I I 1 I
1,291 19.001 0.332 10.98 10.36 10.31 112,12 111.351 0,38 1 0.30 10,38 10.00
I I 1 11 1 I 1 I 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 1.001 8.401 0.918 1 2.82 10.31 1 0.21 1 1.24 I 6,181 0.38 10.30 1 0,38 10.00
Reach 3 i i 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 I
1 Flow I Cs0D 1 ND?D 1 D.0. I
' cfs ' mg/1 I mg/1 1 mg/1 1
Segment 1 'each 1
Waste 1 0.165 1120.000 135.010 1 0.000
Headwaters 1 2.800 1- 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.720
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7,720
* Runoff 1 1.350 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
* Runoff 1 1.350 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
Segment 1 •Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary 1 104.000
* Runoff 1 0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
0.000 1 0.000
1.000 1 7.720
1.000 1 7.720

Meg # I Reach # I Seg Mi j D.O. I CBOD
1 1 0.00 7.29 8.57
1 1 0.06 7.65 8.35
1 1 0.12 7.90 8.14
1 1 0.18 8.06 7.94
1 1 0.24 8.17 7.75
1 1 0.30 8.25 7.57
1 1 0.36 8.30 7.40
1 1 0.42 8.33 7.24
1 1 0.48 8.36 7.08
1 1 0.54 8.37 6.93
1 1 0.60 8.39 6.79
1 1 0.66 8.40 6.65
1 1 0.72 8.40 6.52
1 2 0.72 8.40 6.52
1 2 0.75 8.39 6.46
1 2 0.78 8.38 6.41
1 2 0.81 8.37 6.35
1 2 0.84 8.36 6.29
1 2 0.87 8.35 6.24
1 2 0.90 8.35 6.19
1 2 0.93 8.34 6.13
1 2 0.96 8.33 6.08
1 2 0.99 8.33 6.03
1 2 1.02 8.32 5.98
1 2 1.05 8.32 5,93
1 2 1.08 8.32 5.89
1 2 1.11 8.31 5.84
1 2 1.14 8.31 5.79
1 2 1.17 8.31 5.75
1 2 1.20 8.30 5.70
1 2 1.23 8.30 5.66
1 2 1.26 8.30 5.62
1 2 1.29 8.30 5.57
1 2 1.32 8.30 5.53
1 2 1.35 8.30 5.49
1 2 1.38 8.30 5.45
1 2 1.41 8.30 5.41
1 2 1.44 8.30 5.37
1 2 1.47 8.30 5.34
1 2 1.50 8.30 5.30
1 2 1.53 8.30 5.26
1 2 1.56 8.30 5.22
1 2 1.59 8.30 5.19
1 2 1.62 8.30 5.15
1 2 1,65 8.30 5.12
1 2 1.68 8.30 5.08
1 2 1.71 8.30 5.05
1 2 1.74 8.30 5.02
1 2 1.77 8.30 4.98
1 2 1.80 8.30 4.95
1 2 1.83 8.30 4.92
1 2 1.86 8.30 4.89
'I 2 1.89 8.30 4.86
1 2 1.92 8.30 4-83
1 2 1.95 8.31 4.80
1 2 '1.98 8.31 4.77
1 2 2.01 8.31 4.74
1 3 2.01 7.75 2.14
s 0 11 1 10 ') 1 1.
SUMMER
MODEL FOR JEFFERSON @ AVG QW
IN 10/86 BEFORE FIRST SOC
NE,OD I Flow i
2.94 2.97
2.88 3.05
2.81 3.13
2,75 3.21
2.69 3.29
2.63 3.37
2.58 3.45
2.53 3.53
2 .48a.61
2.43 3.69
2.39 3.78
2.35 3.86
2.30 3.94
2.30 3.94
2.29 3.98
2.27 4.02
2.25 4.06
2.23 4.10
2,22
2,20 . 2 24. 14
4.18
2.19 4.22
2.17 4.26
2.15 4.30
2.14 4.34
2.12 4.38
2.11 4.42
2.09 4,46
2.08 4.50
2.07 4.54
2.05 4.59
2.04 4.63
2.03 4.67
2.01 4.71
2.00 4.75
1.99 4.79
1.98 4.83
1.96 4.87
1.95 4.91
1.94 4,95
1.93 4.99
1.92 5.03
1.90 5.07
1.89 5.11
1.88 5.15
1.87 5.19
1.86 5.23
1.65 5.27
1.84 5.31
1.83 5.35
1.82 5.40
1.31 5.44
1.80 5.48
1.79 5.52
1.78 5.56
1,77 5.60
1.76 5.64
1.75 5.68
1.04 109.68
n1. i n° FP

1 3, 2.21 7,81 2.13 1♦03 109.68,
1 3 2.31 7.84 2.13 1.03 109.68
1 3 2.41 7.87 2.12 1.03 109.68
1 3 2.51 7.90 2.12 1.03 109.68
1 3 2.61 7.92 2.12 1.02 109,68
1 3 2.71 7.95 2.11 1.02 10:9.68
1 3 2..81 7.97 2011 1.02 109.68
1 3 • 2.91 7.99 2.10 1 . 02 109.68-
1 :3 3.01 8.01 2.10 1.01 `109.68
19eg 4 1 Reach # 1 Seg Mi I Q. O. .cBop 1 NBOD 1 Flow I

Discharger
Receiving Stream
MODEL RESULTS
TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP
NAKED CREEK
SUMMER
MODEL FOR JEFFERSON @ CURRENT
SOC QW REQUEST(TOTALS ALL QWS)
The End D.O. is 8,00 mg/1.
The E.nd CBOD is 2.37 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.09 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flo
(mg/1) Mi lepoi nt Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 6.63 0.00 1
Reach 1 120.00 35.91 0.00 0.29605
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

c, * MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP Subbas i n : 050701
Receiving Stream : NAKED CREEK Stream Class: W
Summer 7Q10 : 2.8 Winter 7Q10 : 3.4
Design Temperature: 23.
'LENGTH! SLOPE I VELOCITY 1 DEPTH! Kd 1 Kd I Ka 1 Ka I KN I Kit I KNR 1 KNR
mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign! @20° ldesignl @20° ldesignl p20° !design l @20°
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.721 54,001 0.421 1 0.77 1 0.61 1 0,53 143,63 1 40.881 0,63 1 0,50 1 0,63 1 0.00
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
Segment 1
Reach 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.291 19,001 0,347 1 0,99 1 0,36 1 0,32 112.67 1 11,87) 0.38 1 0,30 1 0,38 1 0,00
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1,001 8,401 0.920 1 2,82 1 0.31 1 0,27 1 7,26 1 6.801 0.38 1 0,30 1 0,38 1 0.00
Reach 3 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 Flow 1 CBC'D 1 NBOD 1 D.O.
1 cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1
Segment 1 each 1
Waste 1 0.459 1 120.000 1 35.910 1 0.000
Headwaters I 2.800 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
>k Runoff 1 1.350 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.720
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000
* Runoff 1 1.350
Segment 1 Reach 3
i^?a•s'te I 0.000
Tributary 1104.000
* Runoff I 0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
' Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
7.720
7.720
0.000
7.720
7.720

Seg 11 I Reach 4t 1 Seg Mi 1 D.U. 1 CBOD
1 1 0.00 6.63 18.62
1 1 0.06 7.16 18.12
1 1 0.12 7.52 17.64
'1 1 0.18 7.75 17.19
1 1 0.24 7,92 16.76
1 1 0.30 8.03 16.34
1 1 0.36 8.10 15.95
1 1 0.42 8.16 15.57
1 1 0.48 8.20 15.21
1 1 0.54 8.22 14.86
1 1 0.60 8.24 14.53
1 1 0.66 8.26 14.21
'1 1 0.72 8.27 13.90
1 2 0.72 8.27 13.90
1 2 0.75 8.25 13.76
1 2 0.78 8.24 13.63
1 2 0.81 8,22 13.49
1 2 0.84 8.21 13.36
1 2 0.87 8,19 13.23
1 2 0.90 8,18 13.10
1 2 0.93 8,17 12.98
1 2 0.96 8,16 12.86
1 2 0.99 8,15 12.74
1 2 1,02 8.15 12.62
1 2 1.05 8.14 12.50
1 2 1.08 8. 1 3 12.39
1 2 1.11 8.13 12.28
1 2 1.14 8.12 12.17
1 2 1.17 8.12 12.06
1 2 1.20 8.12 11,95
1 2 1.23 8.11 11.85
1 2 1.26 8.11 11.74
1 2 1.29 8.11 11.64
1 2 1.32 8.11 11.54
1 2 1.35 8.11 11.44
1 2 1.38 8.11 11.35
1 2 1 .4 1 8. 1 1 11.25
1 2 1.44 8,11 11.16
1 2 1.47 8.11 11.07
1 2 1.50 8. 1 1 10.98
1 2 1,53 8.11 10.89
1 2 1.56 8.11 10.80
1 2 1.59 8. '1 1 1 0. 7 1
1 2 1.62 8.11 10.63
1 2 1.65 8.11 10.54
1 2 1.68 8.11 10.46
1 2 1.71 8.12 10.38
1 2 1.74 8.12 10.30
1 2 1.77 8.12 10.22
1 2 1.80 8.12 10.14
1 2 1.83 8. 1 2 10.06
1 2 1.86 8,12 9.99
1 2 1.89 8.13 9.91
1 2 '1 92 8.13 9.84
1 2 1.95 8,13 9.77
1 2 1.98 8.13 9.70
SUMMER
MODEL FOR JEFFERSON @ CURRENT
SOC QW REQUEST(TOTALS ALL QWS)
NE0D I Flow I
5.92 3.26
5.76 3.34
5.62 3.42
5.48 3.50
5.35 3.58
5.23 3.66
5.11 3.74
4.99 3.83
4.88 3.91
4.78 3.99
4.68 4.07
4.58 4.15
4.49 4.23
4.49 4.23
4.45 4.27
4,40 4.31
4.36 4.35
4.32 4.39
4.29 4.43
4.25 4.47
4.21 4.51
4.17 4.55
4.14 4.60
4,10 4.64
4.07 4.68
4.03 4.72
4.00 4.76
3.96 4.80
3.93 4.84
3.90 4.88
3,87 4.92
3.84 4.96
3.81 5.00
3.78 5.04
3.75 5.08
3.72 5.12
3.69 5.16
3.66 5.20
3.63 5.24
3.61 5.28
3.58 5.32
3.55 5.36
3.53 5.41
3.50 5.45
3,47 5.49
3.45 5.53
3.42 5.57
3.40 5.61
3.38 5.65
3.35 5.69
3.33 5.73
3.31 5.77
3.28 5.81
3.26 5.85
3.24 5.89
3.22 5.93

k ; . V 1 0. 1J :3.Q.:: ..3.4U tiJ„:J!
1 .. 3. 2.01 7.74 2.41 1.12 109.97
° 1 3 2.11 7.77 2.41 1.12 109.97
1 3 2.21 7.80 2.40 1.11 109.97
1 3 2.31 7.83 2.40 1.11 109.97
1 3 2.41 7.86 2.39 1.11 109.97
1 3 2.51 7.89 2.39 1.11 109.97
1 3 2.61 7.91 2.38 1.10 109.97
1 3 2.71 7.94 2.38 1.10 109.97
1 3 2.81 7.96 2.38 1.10 109.97
1 3 2.91 7.98 2.37 1.09 109.97
1 3 3.01 8.00 2.37 1.09 109.97
beg # I Reach # I beg M; I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD- I Flow I

Discharger
Receiving Stream
MODEL RESULTS
TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP
NAKED CREEK
SUMMER
MODEL FOR AMOUNT OF QW THAT
MEETS 67B RULE OF <0.5 MG/L
The End D:O. is 8.01 mg/1.
The End CBOQ is 2.29 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.07 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flo
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach 4t (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 6.79 0.00 1
Reach 1 120.00 35.91 0.00 0.24605
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

** c MODEL SUMMARY DATA :t; ,ut
Discharger' TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin : •050701
Receiving Stream : NAKED CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 2.8 Winter 7Q10 : 3.4
Design Temperature: 23.
'LENGTH! SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR
' mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft 'design' @20° 'design' @20° 'design' @20° 'design' @20°
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0,721 54.001 0.414 1 0,11 ' 0.60 1 0.52 142,95 1 40,241 0,63 1 0.50 10,63 1 0.00
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1.291 19.001 0.343 1 0.99 1 0.36 1 0.32 112,52 1 11,731 0.38 1 0.30 1 0,38 1 0.0O
Reach 2 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1.001 8.401 0.919 1 2.82 1 0,31 1 0.27 1 7.25 1 6,791 0,38 1 0.30 1 0,38 1 0.00
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 #
I Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD 1 D.O.
I cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0.381 1120.000 1 35.910 1 0.000
Headwaters 1 2.800 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.720
* Runoff 1 1.350 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000
* Runoff 1 1.350
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary I104.000
* Runoff ( 0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
7.720
7.720
0.000
7.720
7.720

SUMMER
MODEL FOR AMOUNT OF QW THAT
MEETS 678 RULE OF <0.5 MG/L
I 8eg # I Reach # I weg Mi I D.O. 1 0800 1 NBOD I Flow I
1 1 0.00 6.79 16.15 5.18 3.18
1 1 0.06 7.28 1 5. 7 1 5.05 3.26
1 1 0.12 7 .6 1 15.30
0 4.93 3.34
4
1 1 0.18 7.83 14.90 4.81 3.42
1 1 0.24 7.98 14.53 4.69 3.51
1 1 0.30 8.08 14.17 4.58 3.59
1 1 0.36 8.15 13.83 4.48 3.67
1 1 0.42 8.20 '13.50 4.38 3.75
1 1 0.48 8.24 13.19 4.28 3.83
1 1 0.54 8.26 12.88 4.19 3.91
1 1 0.60 8.28 12.60 4. 1 1 3.99
1 1 0.66 8.29 12.32 4.02 4.07
1 1 0.72 8.30 12.05 3.94 4.15
1 2 0.72 8.30 12.05 3.94 4.15
1 2 0.75 8.29 11.93 3.90 4.19
1 2 0.78 8.27 11.82 3.87 4.23
1 2 0,81 8.26 11.70 3.83 4.27
1 2 0.84 8.24 11.59 3.80 4.32
1 2 0.87 8.23 11.48 3.77 4.36
1 2 0.90 8.22 11.37 3.73 4.40
1 2 0.93 8.21 11.26 3.70 4.44
1 2 0.96 8.20 11.15 3.67 4.48
1 2 0.99 8.20 11.05 3.64 4.52
1 2 1.02 8.19 10.95 3.61 4.56
1 2 1.05 8.18 10.85 3.58 4.60
'I 2 1.08 8.18 10.75 3.55 4.64
'I 2 1.11 8.17 10.65 3.52 4.68
1 2 1.14 8.17 10.56 3.49 4.72
1 2 1.17 8.17 10.47 3.46 4.76
1 2 1.20 8.16 10.37 3.43 4.80
1 2 '1 . 2 3 8.16 10.28 3 .4 '1 4.84
1 2 1.26 8.16 10.20 3.38 4.88
'I 2 1.29 8.16 10.11 3.35 4.92
1 2 1.32 8.16 10.02 3.33 4.96
1 2 1.35 8.15 9.94 3.30 5.00
1 2 1.38 8.15 9.86 3.28 5.04
1 2 1.41 8.15 9.77 3.25 5.08
1 2 '1.44 8.15 0.69 3.23 5.13
1 2 1.47 8.15 9.61 3.20 5.17
1 2 1.50 8.15 9.54 3.18 5.21
1 2 1.53 8.15 9.46 3.16 5.25
1 2 1.56 8. 1 5 9.38 3. 1 3 5.29
1 2 1.59 8.16 9.31 3.11 5.33
1 2 1.62 8.16 9.24 3.09 5.37
1 2 1.65 8.16 9.17 3.07 5.41
1 2 1.68 8.16 9.09 3.05 5.45
1 2 1.71 8.16 9.02 3.02 5.49
1 2 1.74 8. 1 6 8.96 3.00 5.53
1 2 1.77 8.16 8.89 2.98 5.57
1 2 1.80 8p8. 1 6 8.82 2.96 5 •6 1
1 2 1.83 8.17 8.76 2.94 5.65
1 2 1.86 8,17 8.69 2.92 5.69
1 2 1.89 8.17 8.63 2.90 5.73
1 2 1.92 8.17 8.56 2.88 5.77
1 2 1. 9 58 . 176.50 2.86 5.81
1 2 1.98 8. 1 8 8.44 2.65 5.85
1 2 2.01 8.18 8.38 2.83 5.89
1 3 2.01 7.74 2.34 1.10 109.89
i .z ) 11 . 7Q '') "21. 1 in 1nQ AQ

1 . 3, 2.21 7.81 2.33 1.09 109.89
1 3 2.31 7.84 2.33 1.09 109.89
m 1 3 2.41 7.88 2.32 1.09 109.89
1 3 2.51 7.89 2.32 1.08 109.89
1 3 2.61 7.92 2.31 1.08 109.89
1 3 2.71 7.94 2. 3 1 1.06 109.89
1 3 2.81 7.96 2.30 1.08 109.89
1 3 2.91 7.98 2.30 1.07 109.89
1 3 3.01 8.01 2.29 1.07 109.89
15eg # ( Reach # 1 Seg M7 j D.Q. 1 CBOD i NBQD 1 Flow I

Discharger
Receiving Stream
MODEL RESULTS
TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP
NAKED CREEK
The End D.O. is 8.01 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 2.20 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1 . 04- mg/1.
SUMMER
MODEL FOR JEFFERSON @ FIRST
POST SOC QW (1986)
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flo
(mg/1) Mi l epoi nt Reach # (mg/1) 0mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 7.01 0.00 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
120.00 35.91 0.00 0.18205
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

'K** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *
Discharger : TOWN OF JEFFERSON WWTP
Receiving Stream : NAKED CREEK
Summer 7Q10 : 2.8
Design Temperature: 23.
Subbasin : 050701
Stream Class: C
Winter 7Q10 : 3.4
ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 OEPTHI Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR
1 mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft 'design l @20° 'design' N20° [design l 1120° ldesignl H2O°
I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i
Segment 1 1 0.721 54.001 0.406 1 0.17 1 0.59 1 0.52 142,08 1 39.421 0.63 1 0.50 1 0.63 1 0,00
Reach 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f
I I I 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1,291 19.001 0.338 1 0,99 1 0.36 1 0.32 112.34 1 11.561 0.38 1 0.30 1 0.38 1 0.00
Reach 2 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1.001 8.401 0.918 1 2.82 1 0.31 1 0,27 1 7.25 1 6.791 0.38 1 0.30 1 0.38 1 0.00
Reach 3 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD I D.O. I
cfs 1 mg/1 I mg/1 1 mg/1 1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0.282 1120.000 1 35.910 1 0.000
Headwaters) 2.800 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
* Runoff 1 1.350 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000
* Runoff 1 1.350
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary 1104.000
* Runoff I 0.000
0.000
2,000
2.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
0.000
(�} ('�
1 . (� 0 0 0
1.000
0.000 1
1.000 1
1.000 1
0.000
7.720
7.720
0.000
7.720
7.720

I Se9 if 1 Reach # 1 Seg Mi I D.O. 1 CBOD
1 1 0.00 7.01 12.80
1 1 0.06 7.45 12.46
1 1 0.12 7.74 12.13
1 1 0.18 7.93 11.82
1 1 0.24 8.06 11.53
1 1 0.30 8.15 11.2h
1 1 0.36 8.22 10.98
1 1 0.42 8.26 10.72
1 1 0.48 8.29 10.47
1 1 0.54 8.31 10.24
1 1 0.60 8.33 10.01
1 1 0.66 8.34 9.80
1 1 0.72 8.35 9.59
1 2 0.72 8.35 9.59
1 2 0.75 8.33 9.50
1 2 0.78 8.32 9.40
1 2 0.81 8.31 9.31
1 2 0.84 8.30 9.22
1 2 0.87 8.29 9.14
1 2 0.90 8.28 9.05
1 2 0.93 8.27 8.97
1 2 0.96 8.26 8.89
1 2 0.99 8.25 8.81
1 2 1.02 8.25 8.73
1 2 1.05 8.24 8.65
1 2 1.08 8.24 8.57
1 2 1.11 8.23 8.50
1 2 1 . 14 8.23 8.43
1 2 1.17 8.23 8.35
1 2 1.20 8.23 8.28
1 2 1.23 8.22 8.21
1 2 1.26 8.22 8.14
1 2 1.29 8.22 8.08
1 2 1.32 8.22 8.01
1 2 1.35 8.22 7.95
1 2 1.38 8.22 7.88
1 2 1.41 8.22 7.82
1 2 1.44 8.22 7.76
1 2 1.47 8.22 7.69
1 2 1.50 8.22 7.63
1 2 1.53 8.22 7.58
1 2 1.56 8.22 7.52
1 2 1.59 8.22 7.46
1 2 1.62 8.22 7.40
1 2 1.65 8.22 7.35
1 2 1.68 8.22 7.29
1 2 1.71 8.22 7.24
1 2 1.74 8.22 7.19
1 2 1.77 8.22 7.13
1 2 1.80 8.23 7.08
1 2 1.83 8.23 7.03
1 2 1.86 8.23 6.98
1 2 1.89 8.23 6.93
1 2 1.92 8.23 6.88
1 2 1.95 8.23 6.83
I 2 1.98 8.23 6.79
1 2 2.01 8.24 6.74
1 3 2.01 7.75 2.25
1 .) ') 14 1 7 Q r) ') 1
SUMMER
MODEL FOR JEFFERSOM © FIRST
POST SOC QW (1986)
NBOD 1 Flow I
4.20 3.08
4.09 3.16
3.99 3.24
3.90 3.33
3.81 3.41
3.72 3.49
3.64 3.57
3.56 3.65
3.48 3.73
3.41 3.81
3.34 3.89
3.27 3.97
3.21 4.05
3.21 4.05
3.18 4.09
3.15 4.14
3.13 4.18
3.10 4.22
3.07 4.26
3.05 4.30
3.02 4.34
3.00 4.38
2.97 4.42
2.95 4.46
2.93 4.50
2.90 4.54
2.88 4.58
2,86 4.62
2.34 4.66
2.81 4.70
2.79 4.74
2.77 4.78
2.75 4.82
,2.73 4.86
2.71 4.90
2.69 4.95
2.67 4.99
2.65 5.03
2.64 5.07
2.62 5.11
2.60 5.15
2.58 5.19
2.56 5.23
2.55 5.27
2.53 5.31
2.51 5.35
2.50 5.39
2.48 5.43
2.46 5.47
2.45 5.51
2.43 5.55
2.42 5.59
2.40 5.63
2.3.9 5.67
2.37 5.71
2.36 5.76
2.34 5.80
1.07 109.80
n7 inn Qn

1 3,
1 3
a., 1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
i 3
1 3
I Seg # I Reach
#I
2.21
2.31
2.41
2.51
2.61
2.71
2.81
2.91
3.01
Seg M;
7.81
7.84
7.87
7.89
7.92
7.94
7.97
7.99
8.01
D.Q.
1
2.24 1.07 109.80
2.24 1.06 109.80
2.23 1.06 109.80
2.23 1.06 109.80
2.22 1.05 109.80
2.22 1.05 109.80
2.21 1.05 109.80
2.21 1.05 109.80
2.20 1.04 109.80
CBOD 1 NBOD 1 Flow I

Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
Discharger: TOWN OF JEFF ERSON WWTP
Receiving stream NAKED CREEK
Stream Class: 0
USGS Zone: 1
7Q10: 2.800 cf
Design flow: 0.246 mgd
Actual flow: 0.118 mgd
Percent industrial: 60.0 %
Ii 12.0 %
Standard/AL
(mg/1)
0.002
0.05
0.015
0.05
0.025
0,05
0.005
0.0002y
0.01
r
AL•
AL
6
AL
Removal
E f f
76%
83%
3 2 %
8'l%
7 t %
59%
86%
94%
Actual
Allowable Domestic
Load (a) Load
(lbs/d y) (1bs/day)
0.40 0.010
3.35 0.000
1.42 0.050
1.18 0.020
2 . 120.0i:?0
3.50 0 . 110
0..20 0.010
0.02 0.000
0.000
(
2.68 0. 000
Total USGS Predicted
Influent Background Effluent
Load Reserve Conc Conc (b)
(lbs/clay) (lbs/day) (mn/1) (mg/l )
0,02
0.00
• 0.08
0.09
0.02
2.23
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.38
3.35
1. 314.
1.09
2.10
1.27
0.19
0.02
2.68
0.013
0.004
0.005
0.012
0,0003
1 1/17/88
0.0016
0.0000
0.0138
0.0622 >
0.0039
0.5209 >
0.0042
0.0000
0.0000
Actual
Industrial
Load
(1 b s/d y )
0•010
0.000
0.030
0.070
0.000
2.120
0.000
0.000
0.000
Allowable
Effluent
Conc (c)
(mg/1)
0,0167
0.3216
0.0958
0,4171
0.1718
0,290
0•.0417

Jefferson
�uO
POL.
BOD
TSS
NH3
CD
CR
CU
CN
PB
HG
NI
AG
ZN
POL.
BOD
TSS
NH3
CD
CR
CU
CN
,PB
HG
NI
AG
ZN
/ TOTAL POUNDS OF POLLUTANT COMPARED TO ACTUAL POUNDS/DAY
( ALLOWABLE
TOTAL
POUNDS/DAY
2 5 ° '625.50
.0 625.50
432.35
0.03
3.33
0.73
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.76
0.03
0.J30-
3,/8
ACTUAL
UNCONTROL.
POUNDS/DAY
78.90
78.90
8.97
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.11
ALLOWABLE ACTUAL
INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL
POUNDS/DAY POUNDS/DAY
546.60
546.60
423.38
0.02
3.33
0.69
0.08
0.07
0.02
0.74
0.03
85.79
64.21
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
2.12
S, 3 9--- ,og
3•-zq.
TOTAL POUNDS OF POLLUTANT/DAY USING SAFETY FACTOR OF
ALLOWABLE EXPANSION ACTUAL
TOTAL AND UNCONT.
POUNDS/DAY SAFETY FACTOR POUNDS/DAY
625.50
625.50
432.35
0.03
3.33
0.73
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.76
0.03
0.90
187.65
187.65
129.70
0.01
1.00
0.22
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.23
0.01
0.27
78.90
78.90
8.97
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.11
REQUIRED
IND. REMOVAL
POUNDS/DAY
04)0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ao0
30 %
ALLOWABLE ACTUAL
INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL
POUNDS/DAY POUNDS/DAY
358.95
358.95
293.68
0.01
2.33
0.47
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.51
0.02
0.52
85.79
64.21
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
2.12
REQUIRED
INDUST.
REMOVAL
POUNDS/DAY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.61

INFORMATION ON Jefferson'
INDUSTRIES AND DISCHARGE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (MG/L)
NAME NAME NAME
banes gates hosp
FLOW 0.006 0.048 0.011
(MGD)
POL
� �--� r, A,- c va
BOD 391.000) (38.00
TSS 194':000 :"' ., r ... � }
NH3 -1.000 * -1.000 * -1.000 *
CD 0.020 0.020 0.0201--
CR -1.000 * -1.000 * -1.000 *
CU 0.020 0.060 0.050 -I-
CN -1.000 * -1.000 * -1.000 *
PB -1.000 * -1.000 * -1.000 *
HG -1.000 * -1.0 * -1.000 *
NI 0.060 0.140 0.110 - •
AG -1.000 *-1_..G10 1Q, * -1.000
ZN 0.570 0.570 (5.220)0.040 A.
1061. ,.i--4✓ `"' f�
INDUSTRIES AND DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS (POUNDS/DAY)
NAME NAME NAME
hanes gates hosp
POL
BOD 19.57 15.21 51.01
TSS 9.71 23.22 31.28
NH3 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 *
CD 0.00 0.01 0.00
CR 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 *
CU 0.00 0.02 0.00
CN 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 *
PB 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 *
HG 0.00 * 0.00
0.00
NI 0.00 0.06 0.01
AG 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 *
ZN 0.03 2.09 0.00
* = DEFAULT DATA USED

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 3, 1986
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Steve Mauney
FROM: Randy Dodd
THUR: Meg Kerry\
Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: Jefferson lnstream Assessment
The Town of Jefferson has requested an SOC to add on 75,550 gpd of
domestic wastewater. The Town is currently in violation of BOD and TSS
final effluent limitations. Jefferson's WWTP is currently discharging an
average of 0.1065 mgd, with a permitted flow of 0.15 mgd.
A level B model has been run to assess the impact of the additional
flow on the receiving stream. A discussion of the impact of the additional
flow on the instream toxicity is also presented.
Major Level B model inputs are presented below:
Source
0w (mgd) current 0.1065 Average 6/86-8/86
with additional 0.18205 SOC request
BODE (mg/I) 60 SOC limit
NHa-NH,-N (mg/I) 12 Average 6/86-8/86
7010 (cfs) 2.8
The predicted D.O. sag occurs at the outfall. At the current waste -
flow, the D.O. minimum is 7.65 mg/I. With the SOC flow, the D.O. minimum is
7.36 mg/1 (0.29 mg/I additional impact).
Of primary concern in considering the additional flow is the effect on
the instream waste concentration (IWC) and the potential for an increase in
the instream toxicity. A comparison of toxicity testing results and the IWC
at current and SOC discharge levels illustrates this concern:

Source Teat LC60
Tech Services
Self
4 Daphnia Static
Fathead Minnow flow through
Ceriodaphnia life cycle
8.2-55%
6.76%
3.6%
2 Daphnia 13.6%, none
IWC
Design Current SOC
7.65% 5.6% 9.14%
Acute instream toxicity would therefore likely be occurring at 7010
streamflow conditions. The effect of increasing the wasteflow would be to
increase the IWC. However, it is not known how the additional wasteflow
will affect the effluent toxicity. While the diluting effect of the addi-
tional domestic wastewater could conceivably be anticipated to reduce the
effluent toxicity (LC50), it could also be anticipated that additional
hydraulic loading would result in a lower level of removal of toxic consti-
tuents because of the decreased hydraulic retention time, and an increased
probability of upsets and/or short circuiting.
In view of the current acute effluent (and instream) toxicity, it is
recommended that serious consideration be given to SOC issuance until the
subject facility can demonstrate achievement of toxicity goals.
Please advise if questions.
RD/gh
cc: Kent Wiggins
Page Benton

.. , ..,
. .
1
A
-
. .... '
r
--.7e-ci:C°4t' -SO'''IN
,
1.0e) a 1 e'
to
.
-..:-k...!_ii r
. (1
,....,
4. IS20.67
•
"Xo t
1:
5, i y
1 .1"
t2'
,N.% .0
D f'-.D 6 %
„,..,
(I)
.
u) 1
k-?.-,..-
42,--.
6 , t-I--
,...-:\.
•
....:1
,
---
4
-
-4 4. 16
21 b
11-) ? r) 1(
• ...,t
I,
(
•
(Sioto
7— /-4 C:0
_
-
2
0
.
.
. _
.
- -I; X :
•
•-•-•
r .
c-.)
. 2
...
' •
.:.
(..... t•
.
1
1. , -...
f,------, .- ,. (
(,•-• !
- 2,, ...,..,
....
.-,,,A.,
K
,,-
• -
.-.9
l
Ch.,....
• 2,
•-• ., • ., (4....,_
,„
..,_,
,(4,...?•-•-t
,
,
-
.C..?-7t?
•
1:-A,.-..,
p
....--
-- _

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
Receiving Stream
JEFFERSON
NAKED CREEK
The End D.O. is
The End CBOD is
The End NBOD is
8.59 mg/l.
8.05 mg/la
0.00 mg/l.
Segment 1
Reach 1
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach *
7.36 0.00
1
WLA
CBOD
(mg/1)
WLA
MBOD
(mg/1)
WLA
DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) (mgd)
108 0.00 0.00 0.18205

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : JEFFERSON
Receiving Stream : NAKED CREEK
Summer 7010 : 2.8
Design Temperature: 21.
Subbasin : 050701
Stream Class: C
Winter 7010 : 3.4
:LENGTH: SLOPE! VELOCITY ► DEPTH! K1 1 K1 1 K2 1 K2 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR I
1 mile 1 ft/mil fps I ft !design! 820° !designs 820° !design: 820° :design! 820° I
Segment 1 I 1.501 46.001 0.100 11.41 10.41 1 0.39 18.46 1 8.28! 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 1
Reach 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
1 Flaw 1 CBOD NBOD 1 D.O.
1 cfs I mg/1 mg/1 1 mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1 noLitt,
Waste 1 0.165 1108.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Headwaters! 2.800 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 8.100
Tributary 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Runoff 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 -,
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

- Discharger
Receiving Stream
MODEL RESULTS
JEFFERSON
: NAKED CREEK
The End D.O. is 8.72 mg/l.
The End CBOD is .J.43 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg/1.
Segment 1
Reach 1
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
7.65
0.00
108 0.00 0.00 0.10650

Request Form for In -stream Assessment for 67B
NAME OF FACILITY_ p/(, '/ 4J' /
COUNTY a;L_ REGION U/SIgv y DESIGN FLOW , /s-0 m L)
RECEIVING STREAM , /9-/ce( OTca-k
BACKGROUND DATA :
A. Why is SOC needed? (Facility is out of compliance with which
effluent limits?)
2o!
`p_cs
B. History of SOC requests:
1. Monthly Average waste flow
prior to any SOC , /06 S— mgd
Time period averaged
2. Previously approved SOC' s : / /O'I/ e_
Date:
thru
/9617 /1".--,6
flow: mgd
Date: flow: mgd
total of previously approved SOC flow: mgd
3. Flows lost from plant
(facilities that have gone
off line) ,
4. Current SOC request
5. Total plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC flow minus losses)
flow:
© mgd
flow: 7-5-33 _mgd
flow: , l g2O.S mgd
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? Why/why n'otlr,
yes
SUBBAsilLosa2 % 0j
41
OCT 2 R 4985
TECHNICAL. SERVICES BP., N
1

C. Please attach DMR summary for past year for all permitted parame-
ters. If possible, include reports from previous years if
facility has been under SOC for more than a year.
CURRENT SOC REQUEST :
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a combin-
ation, please specify percentages.
Pcpic$ /; c wQ s %
B. What type of industry? Please attach any pertinent data.
✓v/.
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
GODS_
60
mg/1
NH3 mg/1
DO mg/1
TSS S-0
mg/1
fecal coliform #/100m1
pH
other parameters
SU
D. What is the basis for these limits?
pe,„
,'. A" `�✓ ./�`-c- c/vim

JEFFERSON
DATE TOWN State
BOD TSS FC BOD TSS
6/16-17 27 18 50 190
6/18-19 32 40
6/23-24 35 140
6/25-26 26 20
6/30, 7/1 33 27
7/2-3 30 26
7/7-8 42 21
7/9-10 28 29 200 32
7/14-15 48 28
7/16-17 42 No Data Reported
7/21-22 71 38 66 53
7/23-24 Lost Data 45 49
7/28-29 72 32
7/30-31 57 45
8/4-5 32 26 28 16
8/6-7 28 13
8/11-12 81 13 54 25
8/13-14 46 10
`3 3 gy G/

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 13, 1986
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Steve Mauney
THROUGH: Larry Ausley&."
Ken Eag I esone
Steve W. Tedder
FROM: Matt Matthews rlirl
SUBJECT: Preliminary On -Site Toxicity Testing Results of Jefferson WWTP
Facility: Jefferson WWTP
Facility Contact(s): Mike Dixon, Howard Poe
Dates of On -site Test: 860721-860726
Aquatic Toxicology Contact(s): Matt Matthews, Jane Poole
Receiving Stream: Naked Creek Basin: NEW01
Permitted Flow: 0.15(MGD) 7010: 2.4(cfs) I.W.C.: 8.83(%)
N.P.D.E.S. *: NC0021709
Telephone *: [phone]
Wastewater.Treatment Processes: Bar screen, -.aeration .basin,- c.Iar if ier, chlorine
contact chamber, aerated digestor and sand sludge drying.
Preliminary Reasons for Conducting on -site Toxicity Tests: 48 hour Daphnia pulex
static bioassay LC.. of 8.2% reported for a sample collected 860205. Records of
high metals.
Previous Toxicity Test Results of Jefferson WWTP and Associated Industrial
Dischargers:
Facility
Jefferson WWTP
N N
Gates Rubber Co., Well *4
M N N N *3
▪ " Effluent
Ashe Memorial Hospital
bat
860205
860710
• 860710
860710
860710
860710
Test Tvoe
48 hr Daphnia pulex
N N N
N N N
N N N
N N N
N N N
N
N
N
N
Result
static LCso=8.2%
" P21
" LCso=80%
" LCso:None
" LCso=<5%
" LCso:34%
On -Site Effluent Sampling Point: Basin just prior to chlorine contact
On -Site Dilution Water Source: Naked Creek at N.C. 88/16
On -site toxicity Test Results:
Facility
Jefferson WWTP •
N
" Influent
" Persistence
Date
860726
860726
860724
860724
860624
Test TYDI
96 hr fathead minnow flow -
through
7 day Ceriodaphnia life
cycle
48 hr Daphnia pulex static
24 hr Daphnia pulex static
Result
LCso:6.76%
LC60=3.6%
LC60:55%
LC60:6.6%
LCso=none

*Hanes Knitting 860424 24 hr Daphnia pulex static LCs0=28%
*Ashe Memorial Hospital 860724 " " " " " LCso=none
*Gates Rubber Co. - Effluent 860724 " " N N
" LCso=(5%
* " " " - Well *3 860724 " " " " " LCso=none
* " • " - Well *4 860724 II II ti LCso=84%
*Jefferson City Well 860724 " " " If
LCso=none
* Performed at Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory In Cary, N.C.
Chemistry Sampling Locations:
01 - Naked Creek t N.C. 88/16-upstream of Jefferson WWTP-dilution water source
02 - Jefferson WWTP effluent taken from basin just prior to chlorination
02A - Jefferson WWTP influent taken from aeration basin influent weir
03 - Naked Creek t SR-1585-downstream of Jefferson WWTP
Initial Comments and Conclusions:
The Jefferson WWTP effluent resulted in a 96 hour fathead minnow LCso of
6.76%. The cladoceran Ceriodeohnie displayed a comparable LCso of 3.6% while a
48 hour Daphnia pulex static bioassay resulted in an LCso of 55%. The difference
in toxicity observed in this last bioassay as compared with the toxicity dis-
played by the Ceriodaphnia life cycle and fathead minnow flow -through bioassays
most likely can be attributed to the difference in length of sampling times for
the bioassays (96 hrs and 116 hrs for the fathead and Ceriodaphnia collections
respectively, as opposed to 24 hrs for the Daphnia pulex bioassay) and the
increased toxicity generally observed in bioassays as exposure times increase.
Given the above toxicity results and the facility's instream waste concentration
of 8.83% during low stream flow conditions, the effluent would be expected to
cause significant acute toxicity in the receiving stream. Of the three indus-
trial contributors tested, it would appear that Gates Rubber contributes the
greatest and most consistent toxicity to Daphnia pulex, with Ashe Memorial Hospi-
tal and Hanes Knitting each showing some acute toxicity in at least one test.
Analysis of macroinvertebrate samples collected from Naked Creek above and
below Jefferson WWTP indicates a reduction in taxa richness of the more sensitive
intolerant insect orders. Mayfly, Stonefly and Caddisfly taxa totaled 31
upstream and 6 downstream. Reduction in taxa richness of these orders indicates
a decline in water quality below the plant discharge.
There are no chemical analyses results available at this time. These will be
disseminated as they become available.
If any further information is needed at this time, please call either myself
or one of the Aquatic Toxicology contacts listed on page one at [phone].
MM:ps