NC0023981_201 Facilities Plan_19880315

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0023981
Lenoir — Lower Creek 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
O1 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
March 15, 1988
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reiterse aside

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 z "
_ Director
fL
'L .• "S'`.
March March 15, 1988
Mr. Daniel Small
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Small:
SUBJECT: Lenoir FNSI Comments
Greater Lenoir 201 Facilities Plan
Project No. C370393-01
Per your telephone request of March 15, 1988, please find
attached a copy of the original 1983 FNSI on the subject project.
Also attached are copies of the various instream analyses performed
on Lower Creek by our Water Quality Section. Please advise us of
any required discharge changes resulting from the proposed flood
control methods.
If additional questions arise regarding the FNSI, please
contact Ms. Stephanie. Richardson or myself at [phone].
Questions regarding Water Quality should be addressed to Mr. Tom
Stockton or Mr. Trevor Clements at [phone].
Sincerely,
T. Allen Wahab, Supervisor
Local Planning Management Unit
SR/ j h
Attac ents
cc: revor Clements, w/attachments
Reg Sutton, w/attachments
Stephanie Richardson, w/attachments
Walter Taft
Coy Batten
LPMU. w/attachments
GPF. w/attachments Pollution Prevention Pays
P.Q Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

• v
%AEO S ►qr
J�
Es,
z . 'v
z5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
scl-
REGION IV
?4, pROit�
t1
345 COURTLAND STREET
MAR 1 1983 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30308
REF: 4W-WQ
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS:
In accordance with the procedures for preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement, an environmental review has been performed on the following
proposed EPA action:
NAME OF.APPLICANT:
NAME OF PROJECT:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Lenoir, North Carolina
Lenoir Portion of the Caldwell County
Complex 201 Facility Plan
C370393-01
LOCATION: Caldwell County, North Carolina
Sub -Basin 31 of the Catawba -Broad River Basin
ESTIMATED EPA SHARE:
ESTIMATED STATE SHARE:
ESTIMATED LOCAL SHARE:
ESTIMATED TOTAL SHARE:
$1,296,750
$ 216,125
$ 216,125
$1,729,000
Final EPA eligible costs will be based on final approval of project activities.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project involves the preparation of plans and specifications and the
modification of facilities in accordance with the Caldwell County Complex 201
Facility Plan. The proposed plan will require the City of Lenoir to modify the
existing 6.0 mg -extended -aeration wastewater treatment plant to a 3.0 mgd plant.
No new interceptors or collectors are proposed. Phase I of the Sewer System Eval-
uation Survey (SSES) has been completed. Rehabilitation work will be performed
in accordance with recommendations of the SSES. The Granite Falls portion of the
Caldwell County Complex 201 Facililty Plan has been certified. Other portions
of the plan will be considered for approval and implementation at a later
date. A more detailed project description is provided in the attached environ-
mental assessment.

Page :.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT:
The purpose of this project is to aid in implementing the most cost effective
and environmentally sound method of -Jastewater management for the Lenoir portion
of the Caldwell County Complex 201 Facility Plan. Implementation of the proposed
plan will permit the City of Lenoir to: (1) assure compliance with NPDES effluent
permit limitations, and (2) provide capacity for the existing and projected popu-
lation of the service area for a 20-year planning period.
The environmental review indicated that no significant environmental impacts will
result from the proposed action if recommendations and mitigative measures are
followed. Additionally, the Caldwell County Complex 201 Facility Plan has been
examined by the agency that is designated'under Section 174 of the Clean Air
Act as being responsible for the State Air Quality Implementation Plan. This
review indicates that the proposed action will be in compliance with all
•
applicable federal and state air pollution emission limitations and standards.
Consequently, a preliminary decision has been made not to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement.
This decision was based on a careful review of the Caldwell County Complex 201
Facility Plan, prepared by the Western Piedmont Council of Governments, including
an engineering report, an environmental information document, and other supporting
data. This review indicates that proceeding with the Lenoir portion will not
affect other alternatives for the planning area. The documents along with the
environmental assessment, are available through the Region IV office. As a
convenience, a copy of the environmental assessment is attached for your review.
Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, a final decision
will be made. No administrative action will be taken on this project for thirty
(30) calendar days after release of this Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI),
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 6 published in the Federal Register dated
November 6, 1979. Therefore, if you wish to make a comment, you should write
immediately to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Edward B. Lamar, Planning Manager
North Area Grants Section
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
or telephone [phone] .
Sinrely yours,
harles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator
Attachment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
APPLICANT: Lenoir, North Carolina
Lenoir Portion of the Caldwell County
Complex 201 Facility Plan
PROJECT NUMBER: C370393-01
LOCATION: Caldwell County Sub -Basin 31 of the
Catawba -Broad River Basin
ESTIMATED EPA SHARE:
ESTIMATED STATE SHARE:
ESTIMATED LOCAL SHARE:
ESTIMATED TOTAL SHARE:
B. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY:
1. Brief Description of the Project:
$1,296,750
$ 216,125
$ 216,125
$1,729,000
The City of Lenoir currently operates a 6.0 mgd extended aeration
wastewater treatment facility (Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant) that consistently fails to discharge into Lower Creek an
effluent which meets the effluent limits (BOD = 30 mg/1, TSS =
30 mg/1, D.O. = 1 mg/1). The existing plant fs experiencing the
following: lack of standby power facilities, inaccessibility
during the flooding by Lower Creek, lack of adequate flexibility
in -process flow control between aeration basins and clarifiers,
inability to recycle sludge when operating the aeration basins in
series, lack of surface skimmers on the clarifiers, lack of
adjustable weirs on clarifiers and aeration basins,.and. inadequate
solids handling facilities. In an attempt to alleviate these
problems and as a result of revisions in flow estimates, the City
of Lenoir will convert the existing 6.0 mgd wastewater treatment
plant to a 3.0 mgd extended aeration facility. The existing
wastewater treatment plant is proposed to be reduced in hydraulic
capacity because a significant number of industries have closed
in the area and the existing plant is oversized to biologically
treat existing and future flows. Additions to the existing plant
will consist of: a pH control facility, a scum removal apparatus,
and a flow splitter box for one clarifier. The aerobic digestor
will be modified, and an aeration basin will also be modified by
the installation of partitions in order to reduce detention time.
The existing sludge drying beds are currently undersized and an
additional 50,000 square feet will be added. Standby power will
be added to the wastewater treatment plant and flood protection
wili-be provided for any facilities that must be protected.
2. Alternatives Considered in the Caldwell County Complex Facility Plan:

Page
The Lenoir portion of the Cardwell County Complex; 201 Facility Plan
was evaluated along with the other segments.(Rhodhiss, Hudson, and
Granite Falls) of the plan, and consideration was given initially,
to a regional wastewater treatment facililty. This approach was
determined to be cost ineffective, and each municipality decided to
focus on individual treatment of wastewater. Therefore, the City of
.Lenoir evaluated .the following alternatives:
a. No action - The effluent currently discharged from the existing
wastewater treatment plant violates the NPDES permit. The City
of Lenoir is under consent decree; therefore, continued discharge
under current conditions (no action) is not a viable alternative.
b. Treatment and reuse - There are no major consumers, public or pri-
vate, that utilize treated wastewater. The area has an abundant
supply of ground and surface water. Therefore, this alternative
is not considered a viable alternative.
c. Land application - This alternative has been rejected because it
is not cost effective. The application of wastewater to•.land is
restricted because of acreage requirement, poor topography, and
high cost.
d. Regional treatment - Treatment of all wastewater in the Caldwell'
County Complex at a single regional plant is uneconomical due to
the high cost of transporting wastewater over long distances.
e. Modification - The existing 6.0 mgd extended aeration facility
does not consistently meet effluent limits. Proposed modification
will permit a cost-effective correction of this problem (selected
alternative).
The above alternatives were evaluated by considering: (1) environ-
mental factors, (2) monetary costs, and (3) implementation capability.
Considering all of these factors, the selected alternative for treating
the wastewater generated is to modify the existing Lower Creek waste-
water treatment plant.
3. Probable Impacts of the Project on the Environment:
The anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed plan are dis-
cussed in detail in the facility plan, and the following conclusions
have been reached about the probable environmental impacts:
a. Water Quality: Short-term, adverse impacts on water quality will
result from erosion and sedimentation during the modification
process. The quality of effluent will neither deteriorate during
the modification process nor cause irreparable environmental harm.
b. Atmospheric Pollution: The impact on the environment caused by
''noise, odor, and dust from construction and operation should be
minimal. Implementation of this project will not contravene
federal and state air quality standards.
c. Biota: The proposed modifications will be on the site of the
existing wastewater treatment -plant. •The modifications will be
in a previously disturbed area, and no endangered or threatened
species will be impacted.

Page 3
d. Wetlands and Floodplains: General information in the 201 facility.
plan indicates that there is evidence of flooding at the existing
wastewater treatment plant. The grantee must determine specifically
what structures will be in a floodplain or wetland area before the
design work. If a determination is made that proposed structures
will be located in a floodplain or wetland area, steps must be taken
to avoid encroachment in these sensitive areas. If the proposed
structures must be located in these environmentally sensitive areas,
mitigative measures must be developed that would limit the detri—
mental impact of constructing in a floodplain or wetland area.
e. Cultural, Archaeological and Historical Resources: It has been
determined by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
that no archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed
project.
f. Land Use: The proposed project will not cause the relocation of
homes or businesses norwill it impact recreational facilities.
All proposed construction will be limited to the existing,.pre—
viously disturbed site.
g•
Aesthetics: Temporary and
from implementation of the
dust and equipment exhaust
limited aesthetic problems resulting
proposed. project will include blowing
fumes.
h. Transportation: There will
from implementation of this
be no interruption of traffic resulting
project.
i. Socioeconomic Impacts: The proposed modifications are designed to
permit more efficient use of existing wastewater treatment equip—
ment. This should result in protracted savings.
Energy Resources: Modification of the existing wastewater treat—
ment plant will reduce the consumption of electricity 40 percent
from 227,500 kilowatt hours per month to 134,500 kilowatt hours
per month.
k. Secondary Impacts: The proposed modifications are designed to
permit more efficient utililization of the existing, infrastructure
and physical plant. These facilities will not spur the generation ef-
wastewater in quantities sufficient to exceed the 20—year design
capacity.
1. Prime Agricultural Land: No construction activities are pr9posed
for any site outside the existing wastewater treatment facility.
Therefore, no prime or unique farmland will be impacted by imple—
mentation of this plan.
J•
m. Solid Waste Disposal: Sludge will be disposed of at a Stat•!
approved sanitary landfill (Permit number 14-01) in Caldwell
County that is in compliance with 40 CFR Part 257. The County of
Caldwell must determine if the sludge is hazardous/toxic or non—
hazardous under EPA regulations. If sludge is found to be
hazardous/toxic, it will be disposed of in accordance, with 40
CFR Part 761 and Parts 260-265.• Verification by the Caldwell
County Health Department that the sludge is non —hazardous or
toxic is required.

Pag:. 4
4. Probable Adverse Environmental Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided:
General adverse impacts which cannot be avoided are: (1) minimum
erosion, siltation, and sedimentation; (2) limited changes in water
and air quality; (3) slight aesthetic impairment; and (4) minimal loss
of vegetative cover.
5. Steps to Minimize Harm to the Environment:
Specific adverse impacts to the natural and man-made environment
can be caused by proposed project activities. The following infor-
mation gives the major impacts and mitigative measures which'will be
used to limit those impacts:
Impacts Mitigative Measures
Wetlands and Prior to design work, steps must be
Floodplains taken to determine specifically what
structures will be in a floodplain or
wetland area. Steps must be.taken to
avoid construction in these environ-
mentally sensitive areas. If con-
struction in these sensitive areas
cannot be avoided, mitigative measures
must be imposed to limit the impact
of constructing in a floodplain or
wetland area.
Sludge Disposal
Verify and confirm to the Division of
Environmental Management that the sludge
is toxic/hazardous or non -hazardous.
If the sludge is found to be toxic and/
or hazardous, it will be disposed of
in'accordance with 40 CFR Part 761 and
Parts 260-265.
6. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and
the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity:
Although the proposed project recommended by this study will have
some adverse im-pact on the natural and man-made environment, the
impact on the environment will generally be short term in nature.
The benefits provided by the project to long-term productivity will
more than offset the short-term uses and impact on the environment.
The proposed project will maintain, if not enhance, the quality of
surface waters in the area.
7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources:
,The proposed project will involve the commitment of materials and energy
during the actual construction. These resources will be irretrievable
once committed to the project. However, the commitment of these resources
will help to protect the quality of the environment in the planning area.
Therefore, the expenditures are justified.
8. Public Objections to Project, If .Any, and Resolution:

No public objections have been voiced before, during, or after the
public hearing in relation to the environmental effects of the pro—
posed project. It has been estimated that the average monthly sewer
bill will be approximately $4.50. The user charge for this project
has been evaluated for compliance with EPA's affordability criteria,
and it has been determined that this will not be a high cost project -
because the estimated annual user charge is 0.3 percent of the median
family income ($16,546.40) for Caldwell County. Final user charge
cost will be calculated subsequent to the preparation of the pre—
liminary engineering report.
9. Agencies Consulted Regarding This Project:
a. A-95 State Clearinghouse
b. North Carolina Department of Human Resources
c. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
d. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
e. City of Lenoir
f. County of Caldwell
g. Western Piedmont Regional Council of Governments
10. Reasons for Concluding That There Will Be No Significant Adverse
Impacts:
a. Water quality conditions will be enhanced by this project.
b. No -public objections regarding the environmental effects of the
project have been voiced before, during, or after the public
hearing.
c. Parks, recreation areas, or unique scientific areas will not be
impacted by the proposed project.
d. No rare or endangered species will be impacted by this project.
e. There will be no displacement of population associated with this
project.
f. The proposed project is in compliance with the_.State's Air
Quality Implementation Plan.
g. All solid waste resulting from this project will.be properly
disposed of in compliance with federal and state regulations.
h. No archaeological or historical resources will be impacted by
the proposed plan.
i. This project will not have a deleterious impact on prime or unique
agricultural land.
j. The proposed project is in compliance with the Statewide 208
Water Quality Management Plan.

Page - 6
k. It has been determined that the existing wastewater treatment plant
is located in a floodplain area. Flood protection will be implemented
for existing structures in the floodplain. Mitigative measures will be
implemented to minimize the impact of any new construction that occurs
within the floodplain, if floodplain encroachment cannot be avoided.

••
•
.•
-
•••.•—•
• N
••.j, owe • •••••••
. •
•
•
•
VI . • •••
1 / 2
// 'T''. • i''''.? ' •,\ ., • 1 : I '• '--• i / ``'t .".1*.
\ 4./ 1 I. . •••••••.
el • . .... . ' i• \
/ I/ • "7.'6 ... P. • ..., \
i 40,,c7 ....\ ....."1.. :,1„..... ".....,:.......N.
.i•IN..:*• 'I ......
•ij ! • •...*/
•••••, : i \...../
'''' '.:••''',..,.
....1.7 (.7.4...
•
• •.: •
• . .
•
• •
L c...
;•• f •
•
' . ;(4.•
/ `' • ..... •
it • 47, ,.
•*-7"2.0e7: 'etaekk...4r •
,/-
• t• • •
. A
4 ip •/OM •
••
Nme. *40 r......„••r 3,1.7ft.
e***•• •
•
• •
•
t
7::Nyi•ti:at-- •
•
:•;*--;:, v-tr`
• .* • •
r,14.irA
• ..Ni ' . ...• "....... .1 ..,
..• .• 41.. wr: • it• 4:-.4.4:'. ••• : h , * • i , , • •ev,c
.:. ',AY ' .-k •4 ..
j ...**** t'llirie 4•TGilt. lim. r • ...rtf. • • • • 1 *. ' s04ABN 11".".• ..itia • ••..
:0"a`......; •
• •
k'o • 41
• „ •
. • -.dr,. •
.1.*: 13;4", • .
1,11:14.2*: • - ••••1 •
• • 'A.
gjpol, • ▪ 'TO *T.
, • • cw" " ' • - • -I .• • •
• -t • 741, AaPe. . t
•14., • • - <:•'•• — 4.- • Cha•...,;e•••••t
.1 • rs • i,„‘ • ••?,,ts•
4% ""t,.tr4h44?r•
1114't•rt7: '• • , ..•
,1(100 .• • • NrV▪ V• •
• ig V•
i
•
. ititi; P4
; •
A
• ru. 41. • E,494" roast----,rr • • 01) •
r • • • :4
11457,.. 4.1." . .tf4",• ria:PAVol- ;aka f•-.f.G• ...te• . • r
' r114
• ••"" arg*-004/1744.-7-: w, • t• 4
• •
•
c•
itt.14.4t.TA
.Z•••
Zile* :MO.; t. 14froirtOr
. •
ttoe1444t A
-:.-.1*.trwift,. •
. .,: - 4 e.!"i• , A •
. 10. ....6.of ;
st•4,-.7dr.
•ir"*. • . • "st . -• • r.01,10 •
•'•• - 7 •
- /es .••"" 4 .4*.• ; • 7" '44 • *
It,. • •I .74 1541,‘•
• ;
'17t .! I'
, • • ;3",, ' • •
• " • . • AA' •' • ,• •
j'as z••• .;••• • • ; ni,..:711•:, •
1•4 A ts
It • .
• c.a.'
4,:••••••f• •
. • •
•fq i!
• ZE • .•
...I . •
• -771.1.7) %.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DECEMBER 12, 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dick Peace
FROM: Randy Dodd gttiol)
THRU: Trevor Clements
Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: Lenoir Lower Creek
Instream Impact Assessment
Lenoir has requested a SOC to add on 145,000 gpd of domestic waste
to the Lower Creek WWTP. A "Level B" modeling analysis has been per-
formed to determine the impact of the additional waste on the stream.
The Lower Creek plant has had several violations of its BOD, TSS, and
NH3N limits. Self -monitoring data from the facility are attached. In
performing the analysis, average values for NH3N (8 mg/1) and BOD5
(25.2 mg/1) were used. BODult was set as (8 x 4) + 25.2 = 57.2 mg/1.
Lower Creek is a "C" stream, with a 7Q10 flow of 11 cf s . Under
current operational conditions, a D.O. minimum of 7.07 mg/1 is expected
to occur 2.0 miles below the outfall. With the additional 145,000 gpd,
a D.O. minimum of 7.03 mg/1 is expected to occur 2.1 miles below the
outfall. The additional D.O. depletion is not considered to be signif-
icant.
Instream and effluent monitoring data indicate that no impact is
anticipated related to high fecal coliform counts. Of some concern is
the fact that "instream disinfection' is occurring, as indicated by
instream monitoring data. Since the waste is domestic, no toxic impact
is anticipated.
Please advise if you have any questions.
RD:mlt
cc: Rick Hiers
L. P. Benton, Jr.

TABLE A
CITY OF LENOIR
SUMMARY OF MONTHLY SELF -MONITORING DATA
LOWER CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT SAMPLES MONTHLY AVERAGES
Month Flow BOD TSS Fecal Coliform NH3 as N D. 0. pH
MGD mg/1 mg/1 /100 ml mg/1 mg/1 Units
Sept./84 1.9 19 20 3 *11.7 6.8 7.16-7.47
Aug./84 1.9 26 17 8.6 10.2 --- 6.94-7.46
July/84 2.0 18 14 5.3 *13.4 --- 6.91-7.51
June/84 --- 24 10 12 2.2 7.6 6.59-7.16
May/84 4.3 21 *33 2.2 7.9 8.1 6.95-7.48
April/84 2.9 26 *43 2.4 7.2 8.7 6.65-7.42
March/84 2.6 17 *48 2.4 0.4 9.2 6.80-7.43
Feb./84 2.4 23 *60 2.8 *13.5 10.0 6.83-7.39
Jan./84 2.1 12 *54 2.7 5.2 10.1 6.90-7.40
Dec./83 2.9 26 *47 4.4 5.8 10.7 6.81-7.22
Nov./83 2.0 *34 22 4.0 8.2 8.5 6.41-7.03
0ct./83 1.8 *56 28 7.6 10.4 7.1 6.90-7.36
Avg. 2.44 25.2 33 4.8 8.0 8.7 6.59-7.51
Permit 6.0 30 30 1000 11 5.0 6.0-9.0
Effluent
Limitations
*Violation of NPDES Permit Effluent Limitations

'�N��78/MY 12/12y84
COMPL%ANC-- EVALUATION ANALY%I% REPORT
PERMIT--NCO02398i PTPE-~00i REPORT PERIOD: 8310 -8409 LOC---U
FACILITY--LENOIR (LOWER CREEK WWTP) DE%I-N FLOW-- 6^OOOO CLAES--3
LOCATION--LENOIR REC.TON/COUNTY--O3 CAI DWELL
� 0031O 31616 1,,:)0 33OO 00340
MONTH BOD FEC COLI DO COD
^
`83/10 2^82 3644.3 M5 9.11
`83ii 3.42 515.3 i0.66 7.9
'
'83y12 2.5 -3 234.9 11.35 8^2
: i . 84/�2 86 695.6 10.67 9.1
;84/02 2.17 722.1 10.77 15.0
^
84/03 3^82- 16,30^4 1 '.48 1lei- .�
<84/04 2.40 1009.6 9^85 7^0
`
�
�84/05 �.42 2810^0 '^8.72 18.0
`
84/06 3.13 285.2 7^97 8.3
.84107 1.96 2395.1 13.3
`
~
84/88 2.82 i7325.9 12^1
'
`
84/09 595.4 8.70
�AVERAGE 2.85 1289.3) 9.72 i0.9
'MAXIMUM 7^70 25000.0 12^70 40°5
MTNIMUM i.00 LE%JTHAN 7.08 LE%"TT HAN
i�NIT M�/L �/iOOML MG/L M�/L
�
,
~° .-�mm_'���^
-_
'

' G KEX78 /M Y 12/12/84
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALY%I� REPORT
PERMIT~-NCOO23q8i pIPE--O0i REPLOC---D
FACIL%TY~-L�NOIR (LOW:R CREEK WWTP) DF%IG,FLOW-- 6.000% CLASS-3
LOCATION--LENOIR RE�ION/COUNTY--03 CALDWELL
`
�
0O3i0 3f6i6 0O3OO �W34O
�MONTH BOD FEC C8LI DO COD
3.878.i2 9^9
:83�1i 2.94 166.2 10.74 8.5
'
�8 12 2.30 16.8 11.60 i0.4
^
' ��4��i 3 10 . 97 i i . 4
^
�
_84/02 1.92 12^5 10.85 15.9
�
~
4 i3 19, 6 10.46 16.5
84/03 ,
A
^84/04 2^13 .9 9.85 9.4
�84/05 3.36 1�4.� . 8^54 17.W
� ^ ^
`
c84/06 01,69 2 31� 8.6 8.i1 i2.8
�
� 8 4 /07 2.71 1549.9 13.2
84°/08 3.91 991^5 13.8
{
�
84/09 61.014
�A�E�ACE 3.09 365.5 �.75 i3.5
' 1� 90 �7 0
MA�IMUM 9.�� 10400.0^ ^
��INIMUM 1 .20 LE�%THAN 7.0W |'E%%THAN
|(NTT MT/L M�/L
`
^
�
+
'
���

67(b) INSTREAM ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
1. Dissolved Oxygen:
- Is D.O. decreased less than 0.5 mg/1?
- Is the affected stream segment less than 0.5 miles?
Comments -�
YES NO
2. Fecal Coliform
- Is the fecal
Comments
mac_
coliform►
{,
below the water quality standard?
04-6.6 kg, .;:. IL L., (-4' 2 sue,{ uteri
:.� •
•
�--
3. Toxics:
- Were toxics included in the additional flow?
Did these cause a predicted increase in the concentration
of toxics in the receiving stream?
- Are stream standards violations predicted at low flow?
Comments
4. Other Parameters: - Were any other parameters predicted to significantly
impact water use?
Comments

A large increase in both ST and SEAT
is noted for data collected from the
s
■
■
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
South Fork between 1982 (40/12) and 1984 (67/26). This observation suggests a
positive trend in water quality. Additionally, the 1982 fauna was dominated by a
toxic assemblage of chironomids. This assemblage was not abundant in 1984, again
indicating an improvement in water quality. This improvement may be, in part,
due to the upgrading of wastewater treatment plants in the Henry Fork watershed.
Sugar Creek at Fort Mill, S.C. has been given a Poor bioclassification
(45/9). Many tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates were abundant and included:
imnodrilus hoffineisteri, L cervix, Polypedilum illinoense. Cricotoous
bicinctus, Rheotanytarsus and Physella.
Few between -year trends in water quality have been noted at Sugar Creek.
Rioclassification also was Poor at this site in 1982 (30/5). Slightly higher
taxa richness values recorded from this site in 1984 were the result of more
intensive collections from snag and bank habitats.
A marginal bioclassification of Good/Fair has been assigned to Lower Creek
near Morganton (60/18). Many of the abundant or common benthic macroinvertebrate
taxa are tolerant forms. These include Limnodrilus cervix, Hvdroosyche
venularis, Cheumatoosyche, Polypedilum,illinoense and several
Cricotoous/Orthocladius species. These results may reflect the discharge of
several wastewater treatment plants, including the Lenoir plant (3 MGD
permitted flow) and a mobile home park. The habitat ranking has been downgraded
to Fair due to excessive sedimentation.
Long Creek near Bessemer City has been assigned a Good/Fair
biuclassification, based on taxa richness .values (62/17). The substrate at this
location is very sandy, therefore the habitat ranking was downgraded to Fair.
Turbid conditions noted during the collection period are probably the result of
non -point runoff.
—33—

ZI/W/LLE:
W/LSON C/7.
LOWER CR.
ST ..,150
FIGURE 8. TAXA RICHNESS OF BEI\1THIC
MACROINVERTEBRATES (ST) IN THE
UPPER CATAWBA RIVER BASIN 1984
EPIIEMISIOP TEM
PLE COPTERA
F-77]
TR ICOPTIERA
COLE OPTERA
F37:71
D IP TERA
F7
ODON A T A
111OL USCA
OT1 1ER
N

North Carolina Division Of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Technical Services Branch
Intensive Survey Unit
14 August 1987
MEMORANDUM
To: Trevor Clements
Thru: Jay Sauber
From: Howard Bryant H.M Q.
Subject: Lenoir's Lower Creek WWTP BOD-Longterm
Date Collected: 6 May 1987 Setup: 7 May 1987
Collector: M. Payne
Sample Description
day BOL' Replicates NH3 TKO; NOX TOT N
Lenoir Lower Creek 0
Grab 5. 18.i 5
6 May1987
7 27.0 5
NBOD = 13 x 4.57 = 59 11 51.0 4
CBOD = 127 - 59 = 68 13 77.8 4
15 95.2 4
20 101.2 3
24 104.5 3
30 108.5 3
40 113.3 2
50 117.5 1
60 120.9 1
70 123.2 1
80 125.4 1
90 126.9 1
13.0 17.0 0.12 18.1
15.0 21.0 1.1 22.1
0.35 4.9 15.0 19.9
0.05 3.1 17.0 20.1
0.04 "" 3.4 15.0 18.4
Comments:
Cary Lab BOD-5 = 13.0
Sample was dechlorinated- 2 drops thlo
pH - 7.05
Test evaluation - Good

•
,VrE' f/C( $uVoJL4.0,4T,99
2. IY/2, V5o 0
DAs/b.2...,'z
to% S74ra.. 3.1 c6
1S4. V7pr! s 4.2 ell
4.1t /34 = 72 **,1
(II* /03.7
,5srJ79/S'c'i
LJ'tw77,N s 21,44,
eZ0JA) ski-0)m
9//
c/74: QLO;? - ` C L/ ‘)6)7f2
C-;rt/C
Q3083/
Oa. I'Y/I, /24
«t 9 •r s,c4
10 S79 /4 : r. )se
is*. c..74r, J . t., ds
• ID4
= 2.2
fr/.94: 3,z cf /
16, est'S7Plor. 0,43c''
D'1 63141,
yet : 9/. 9ch
.170/3 s /2.Vai
woq,s . 21 c (4
t st G.7913 : 0,
r. •F:"
/Z, //i 0 64M/1 d (iY4 £t wlI/ //
UTS �J` Hvt k� cl Crl.,
/. 2
.57i/s 7,1 id = c�,,Z,r,,
c,, 79 /.) 7 i i
<1-17 •a,,.fs3 t,, d 2, l y /Z, / t o'u
9 ff
s%/J
L "4 rF
Mr /6, L .,r zr.
w79/) = &,2 c1
0L.iraa. //oc
f : 4.4i.0'
414- = 3.3 c.1
4,47pI4 :2.3cit
21 a'•/Y/t. 091' (7/A)
Aix 915,m;1'
44: 7ocs�
S7piJ z fr, V c i
i lick
?opt c 2Sc f
Oki
2// 2/P 7
Z646/A GJrr1 rfi
04464
d, :69c(
3 c6
14�'�747iJ /7.7c,
Erouq t : 2yYc6
3/l G/f7 ,4 4140
P/,a= 11. Of MGo ' 6 Ar4 o.
,1,4,1E p o�?
/06v,
cAL /'a v>✓ S
#V (�z.iy/2. /zcriJ
L S 7L i TV(fr
0,r= 2.t•
PE,-3,Zc6
5 757/) = 0, yc4
w7Q/) = 0,1 c4

Z o),- c.> 4)7/47
c3
73of 3/
7F 95,N•
1s 0J Z, O /a /L . /
is
(,)L07-,7
/E�c/= /f1c A./L
S% 9 /J /, 4/- 0,M/c4/4,
y
ioy l / t N = a. S/ UZ//K
£S//,s/.Qft) A O// OW7-
P
i71 9 c4/M/L 1 ` 1,9�// = 65 (.4
J
f Sf 57n') ' (. /?Y: 6/..i'' i 47. S M/
1-2 3 cl
f s71 107p31 ci5/.,,' )617, 9 aw, z 7 cl7
-71cSe.
//rJe 9. S cis t- > 3e
is0
67p1J = 4%3 c
44/70 /7.7
q/fe.,4
/d c{ /7 7c
3c6 • C. 3
. )5/ le-
= s 3
, rn,,'
579/' , : ,,3 cr5�•�r:
. 3% C .,r, ,
7Rie Fcau (/71154(16oa/v cRre�)
c7g. 9,9 oc
5-7y?/a : / 3sc&s

• S/1/
7-g/,o FL w CUT/ L(.+EK C ,eE /
.;„1 ,,;„„
3,0.i,,
S77td44
c.., 7pAs =
7/2 e Fc au (/?fL,,J/2 c,.)
S. / ch/.“.
4/6- &Ai
sib-s�.,
/0d: .?, (,,f, ,
90,4
�/11(20 ,,,;� = 15 ' c 4/ii.f. z
/'/ck
02,6
a4.6(6 — 233c
2,4 .a; 1
0. 6/ c�r�....
//i /S c 44., Z
i46 Fan.) BUT Z Lmitx c2Fri J
Y.2c/
7Qis = 0,13 c c
07p/a = 0,1
P4 e-4
if; .
2

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : CITY OF LENOIR-LOWER CREEK WWTP
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEK
The End D.O. is 6.45 my/1.
The End CBOD is 11.32 mg/1.
The End N 0D is 0.00 mg / 1.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste F 1 o
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd).
. 07
2.90 4
65 0.00 5.00 6.0000
O 0.00 0.00 0.0000i
O 0.00 0.00 0.0000,
00 0.000 0.00 0.0000,
O 0.00 0.00 0.0000i
O 0.00 0.00 0.0000

•
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : CITY OF LENO I R-LOWER CREEKSubbas i n : 030831
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 9.3 Winter- 7Q10 : 17.7
Design Temperature: 24.
:LENGTH: SLOPE: VELOCITY : DEPTH: K1 : K1 1 K2 : K2 : KM : KN 1 KNR KNR
mile 1 ft/ail fps 1 ft (design; 220' :design: 220' :design: 320' :design: 420'
Segment 1 : 0.80: 5.30: 0.409 1 1.74 1 0.46 : 0.39 1 3.07 : 2.82: 0.00 1 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 :
Reach 1 1
Segment 1 1 0.80 5.30 0.411 11.81 1 0.46 : 0.39 1 3.09 1 2.831 0.00 1 0.00 10.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1
Segment 1 1 0.50 5.30 0.411 : 1.82 1 0.46 : 0.39 1 3.09 : 2.84: 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 : : 1 1 I 1 1 1 :
1 I 1 : 1' 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 2.601 5.301 0.414 1 1.86 1 0.46 1 0.38 1 3.11 1 2.86: 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 :
Reach 4 : : 1 : 1
Segment 1 1 3.00 6.80 0.462 1 1.96 1 0.47 1 0.39 : 3.02 1 2.77: 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 5 1 11
Segment 1 1 2.00: 6.801 0.477 1 2.06 1 0.47 1 0.39 1 3.11 1 2.85: 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 6 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
1 Flow 1 CBOD
: cfs : mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 9.300 1 65.000
Headwaters: 9.30O 1 2.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 0.000
* Runoff I 0.130 1 2.000
1 NBOD
1 mg/1
•
D.O.
mg/1
0.O0O 1 5.000
0.000 I 7.650
0.000 1 0.000
0.0O0 1 7.650
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 '1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 1.350 1 2.000 1 0.000 I 7.650
* Runoff I 0.130 1 2.000=0 I 0.00O 1 7.650
,
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste : 0. 000 : 0.000 : 0.000 : 0.000
Tributary 1 0.160 1 2.000 1 0.0O0 1 7.650
* Runoff : 0.130 1 2.000 : 0.000 : 7 A0',A

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : CITY OF LENO I R--LOWER CREEK WWTP
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEK
The End D.O. is 8.38 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 16.11 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg / 1 .
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste F'10a..
(mg/1) Milepciint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 5.85 0.80 1
Reach 1 110 0.00 0.00 6.00000
Reach ? 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 5 0 0.00 0.00 0.-00000
Reach 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : CITY OF LENO I R--LOWER CREEKSub b as i n : 030831
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7010 • 9.3 Winter 7Q10 : 17.7
Design Temperature: 15.
:LENGTH: SLOPE: VELOCITY 1 DEPTH: K1 : K1 1 K2 1 K2 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR
1 mile ftlmi: fps 1 ft :design: 220' :design: 220' :design: 320' :design: 220' 1
Segment 1 1 0.80 5.30: 0.542 1 1.83 1 0.32 1 0.40 1 2.27 2.531 0.00 1 0.00 : 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 '
1 1
1 1
Segaent 1 1 0.80: 5.301 0.556 1 1.90 1 0.31 1 0.40 1 2.33 1 2.59: 0.00 : 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1
1 :
Segment 1 1 0.501 5.30: 0.559 1 1.91 1 0.31 1 0.40 1 2.34 1 2.61: 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 ''
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 , I... 1 1 1 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 2.60 5.301 0.569 1 1.97 1 0.31 : 0.40 1 2.38 1 2.651 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 4 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 3.00 6.801 0.658 1 2.07 1 0.32 : 0.41 : 3.53 1 3.931 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 5 :
1 1
1 1 , 1 1
Segment 1 1 2.001 6.801 0.691 1 2.19 1 0.32 1 0.41 : 3.71 1 4.131 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 :
Reach 6: : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD 1 D.O.
1 cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 9.300 : 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 : 0.000
Headwaters: 17.700 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200
Tributary : 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 : 0.000
* Runoff 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200
Segment 1 Reach 2
_ Waste 1 0.000
Tributary 1 2.600
* Runoff 1 0.380
0.000 1 0.000 : 0.000
2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200.
2.000 : 0.000 1 9.200
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 0.000 : 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.300 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200
* Runoff 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 0.00 4 Prii,

MODEL RESULTS
SUMMER
MODEL
QW=4.08 MGD
Discharger : CITY OF LENOIR-LOWER CREEK WWTP
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEL
The End D.O. is 6.33 me / 1 .
The End CBOD is 9.47 rug/ l .
The End NBOD is 0.00 rug / 1 .
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach E
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flaw
(mg/1) Milepuint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
5.09 2.10 3
75 0.00 5.00 4.08000
O 0■00 0.00 0.00000
O 0.00 0.00 0.0C)00t_)
O 0.00 0.00 0.00000
O (_).f_)t.) (_).t_)fi 0.00000
c_) 0.00 0.00 0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : CITY OF LENO I R--LOWER CREEKSubbas i n : 030831
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer WHO : 9.3 Winter 7010 : 17.7
Design Temperature: 24.
:LENGTH: SLOPE: VELOCITY 1 DEPTH: KI 1 KI 1 K2 1 K2 1 KN 1 KN KNR KNR 1
: mile : ft/mil fps : ft :design: 220' design: 220' :design: 220' :design: 320' :
Segment 1 : 0.80: 5.30: 0.359 : 1.71 : 0.46 : 0.38 : 2.70 : 2.47 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 1
Reach 1 :
Segment 1 : 0.80: 5.30 0.365 : 1.77 : 0.46 : 0.38 : 2.74 : 2.51 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 :
Segment 1 : 0.50: 5.30 0.365 : 1.78 1 0.46 : 0.38 : 2.75 1 2.52 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 1
Reach 3 ' I
Segment 1 1 2.60: 5.30 0.371 : 1.83 1 0.46 1 0.38 : 2.79 : 2.55 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 :
Reach 4 :
Segment 1 1 3.00: 6.80 0.423 : 1.93 1 0.47 : 0.39 : 4.08 : 3.74 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 1 0.00
Reach 5 : 1 1
Segment 1 1 2.00: 6.80 0.442 1 2.03 : 0.47 1 0.39 : 2.88 : 2.64 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 1
Reach 6 1
: Flow 1 CBOD h1BOD 1
1 cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 6.324 1 75.000 :. 0.000 1
Headwaters: 9.300 1 2.000 1 0.000 :
Tributary : 0.000 1 0.00) 1 0.000 1
* Runoff 1 0.130 1 2.000 : 0.000 1
D.O.
mg/ 1
5.000
7.650
0.000
7.650
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 : 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary : 1.350 1 2.000 : 0.000 1 7.650
- * Runoff 1 0. 130 : 2.000 : 0.000 1 7.650.
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste : 0.000 : 0.000 0.000 : 0.000
Tributary 1 0.160 1 2.000 0.000 : 7.650
* Runoff 1 0.130 1 2.000 0.000 : 7.60E

MODEL RESULTS
WINTER
MODEL
OW=4.08
Discharger : CITY OF LENOIR—LOWER CREEK WWTP
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEK
The End D.O. is 8.76 mg/1.
The End CE;OD is 11.88 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint reach # (rang/ 1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
SenSrient 1 6.78 0.00 1
Reach 1 110 0.00 0.00 4.08000
Reach 8 i 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0 0.00 .0.00 0.00000
Reach 4 0 00.00 0.00 0.000E0
Reach 5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : CITY OF LENOIR-LOWER CREEKSubbasin : 030831
Receiving Stream : LOWER CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7010 : 9.3 Winter 7O10 : 17.7
Design Temperature: 15.
;LENGTH; SLOPE: VELOCITY 1 OEPTH: K1 1 KI 1 K2 1 K2 : KN KN 1 KNR 1 KNR 1
1 mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft ►design; 220' ;design; 220' ;design; 220' ;design; 320'
Segr"ent 1 1 0.80: 5.30: 0.497 1 1.80 1 0.31 1 0.39 1 3.07 1 3.42 0.00 1 0.00 ; 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 1 ; 1
Segment 1 1 0.80; 5.30 0.514 1 1.87 1 0.31 : 0.39 1 2.15 1 2.40 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 ;
Reath 2 ; ; ; 1
Segment 1 1 0.501 5.30 0.518 ; 1.89 1 0.31 1 0.39 1 2.16 1 2.41 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 2.601 5.30 0.530 1 1.94 1 0.31 1 0.39 1 2.22 2.471 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 4 1
Segment 1 ; 3.001 6.80 0.623 1 2.05 1 0.32 1 0.41 ; 3.34 1 3.73 0.00 1 0.00 ; 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 5 1
Segment 1 1 2.001 6.801 0.659 1 2.17 1 0.32 1 0.41 1 3.54 3.951 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 6 : 1 1 1
1 Flaw 1 CEIOD 1 NI3OD 1 D.O. 1
1 cfs : rng/1 1 rig/1 : mg/1 1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste : 6.324 1 1 1 C? .0� 0 ; 0.000 0.000
Headwaters: 17.700 : 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200
Tributary 1 0.000 1 0.00E 1 0.000 1 0.000
* Runoff 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 0.000 : 9.200 4.
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 0,000
Tributary 1 2.600
•-* Runoff 1 0.380
0
0.000 1
2.000 ;
• 2.0 0 0 1
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste : 0.000 : 0.000
Tributary 1 0.300 1 2.000
* Runoff : 0.380 1 2.000
0.000 : 0.000
0.000 1 9.200
0.000 ; 9.200
0.000 : 0.000
0.000 ; 9.200
0.000 1 9.200