NC0025534_Report_19921101

NPDES DOCIMENT :MCANNINO COVER SHEET
dalik
*
*
Ink
.,
11,4
..
0104
0044
NPDES Permit:
NC0025534
Hendersonville WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
November 1, 1992
This document is printed on reuse paper - more any
content on the rezrerse side

A Water Quality Analysis of the Proposed and Existing Discharges
to Mud and Clear Creeks in Hendersonville, NC
Henderson County
Prepared by
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
November 1992

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEM has developed a field calibrated QUAL2E model of Mud and Clear Creeks
to determine the existing and potential impacts on the receiving waters of the permitted
discharges. A major issue is the overallocation of assimilative capacity indicated by both
modeling and the results of instream biomonitoring in portions of the basin. There is
• currently no instream self -monitoring required of the Hendersonville WWTP, the only
major facility discharging to Mud Creek. This report examines the impact of the
Hendersonville WWTP's proposed expansion from 3.2 to 6.0 MGD and the effluent
limitations necessary to protect water quality. In addition, there are seventeen other
facilities which currently discharge wastewater to Mud and Clear Creeks. Twenty-two
additional facilities are permitted to discharge to Mud and Clear Creeks and their
tributaries within the bounds of the QUAL2E model but have not yet constructed
treatment facilities.
The analysis centered on the evaluation of the DO/BOD relationship in Mud and
Clear Creeks. Existing water quality monitoring data, along with the results of the
QUAL2E modeling, indicate that Mud Creek below the Hendersonville WWTP is a
marginal system with respect to assimilative capacity. With the seventeen existing
discharges at their permitted loads (Hendersonville at 6.0 MGD), the model predicts a
DO sag to 2.6 mg/1 at the mouth of Mud Creek. The model indicated that reducing
Hendersonville's limits to BOD5 = 10 mg/1, NH3-N = 2 mg/1, and DO = 6 mg/1, and
assuming all discharges to Allen Branch, East Flat Rock Development, East Henderson
High School, and Blue Ridge Technical College connect to Hendersonville would protect
the 5.0 mg/1 stream standard for dissolved oxygen under critical summer conditions.
With no discharges, a DO sag to 5.8 mg/1 is predicted due to the warm water
temperatures and low stream bed slope.
Effluent toxicity issues were also examined. A few significant industrial users
discharge to Hendersonville WWTP and General Electric, the only other major
discharge, is expected to tie-in to the Hendersonville WWTP in the future. Both
facilities have had toxicity problems in the past. Hendersonville will receive revised
metals limits and toxicity testing requirements upon permit renewal.
All new and expanding discharges should implement treatment consistent with
that required for Hendersonville, i.e., meet limits of BOD5 = 10 mg/1, NH3-N = 2 mg/1,
and DO = 6 mg/1. This strategy should encourage regionalization of wastewater
treatment and reduce the proliferation of small package plants. In addition, self -
monitoring requirements will be added to permits and an ambient water quality
monitoring site at the mouth of Mud Creek will be added to DEM's existing monitoring
network.
"4t

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
INTRODUCTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING STREAM 1
A. Basin Characteristics 1
B. Streamflow 1
C. Water Quality Data 2
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 2
A. Model Segmentation 2
B. Model Calibration 4
1) Hydraulics 4
a. Time -of -Travel Data 4
b. Instantaneous Flow and Cross -sectional Measurements 6
2)Instream conditions 8
3)Calibration Point Loads 9
4)Reaction rates 9
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 16
MODEL APPLICATION 16
A. Headwater Conditions 16
B. Point Loads 17
C. Model Runs 17
1)Existing Discharges/Permitted Loads 17
2)Most Discharges/Permitted Loads 17
3)Hendersonville only/Existing Load 17
4)Most Discharges/Existing Loads and Hendersonville/Advanced Treatment17
5)No Discharges 17
EFFLUENT TOXICITY 24
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
1. Mud and Clear Creeks map 3
2. Mud and Clear Creeks model milepoints 5
3. CBOD Calibration 11
4. Organic N Calibration 12
5. NOx Calibration 13
6. NH3-N Calibration 14
7. DO Calibration 15
8. Allocation: All discharges/permitted loads 19
9. Allocation: Most discharges/permitted loads 20
10. Allocation: Hendersonville only/existing load 21
11. Allocation: Hendersonville and Naples/advanced treatment 22
12. Allocation: No Discharges 23
iii

LIST OF TABLES
1. Existing discharges 2
2. Time -of -Travel 6
3. Instantaneous flow and cross -sectional data 6
4. Hydraulics' coefficients and exponents 7
5. Observed vs. Predicted Hydraulics 8
6. Headwater conditions for model calibration 8
7. Calibration point loads 9
8. Headwater conditions for model allocations 16
9a. Model inputs 18
9b. Point loads 18
10. Model summary 17
iv

INTRODUCTION
's
A water quality model of Mud Creek and Clear Creek in Hendersonville, NC was developed by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) as part of the French Broad River basin planning
effort to evaluate the effects of discharges and develop a management strategy for the protection of water
quality. In addition, the City of Hendersonville has requested permit limits for an expansion of the
WWTP from 3.2 to 6.0 MGD, and Henderson County is considering construction of a regional WWTP
(Naples Area WWTP, .07 MGD) approximately 2 miles below the Hendersonville WWTP.
There are indications that the assimilative capacity of Mud Creek for oxygen -consuming wastes
has been exceeded. Approximately 40 discharges are permitted for discharge to Mud Creek and its
tributaries. Though Level B modeling (desktop modeling which incorporates the use of empirical
equations and DEM procedures to establish model input parameters), to date, has not included all
discharges in one model, revisions to existing wasteload allocations were necessary in order to permit a
new facility and protect the dissolved oxygen standard of 5.0 mg/1. In order to protect the water quality
of Mud Creek from further degradation, a field calibrated model (QUAL2E) has been developed for the
reallocation of discharge limits.
DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING STREAM
A. Basin Characteristics
Mud Creek originates in Henderson County. The creek flows through a valley approximately 16
miles from the headwaters to the French Broad River. Major tributaries include Bat Fork and Clear
Creek. The channel is distinct, canopied in some sections, and is typically U-shaped with steep banks
and a rocky bottom. Some sections of the stream have been channelized. Mud Creek is slow -moving
with an average stream bed gradient of 4.2 feet per mile. Clear Creek is slightly steeper with an average
stream bed gradient of 9.17 feet per mile. Lower Bat Fork has been channelized and is nearly flat;
during low flow periods the velocity is near zero.
Currently, Mud Creek is impacted by runoff from residential and agricultural areas as well as a
number of existing discharges (Table 1). Two major facilities are located within the Mud Creek
drainage area: the Hendersonville WWTP which discharges 5.3 miles from the mouth and General
Electric which discharges to Bat Fork.
B. Streamflow
Mud Creek drains an area of approximately 113 square miles before -joining the French Broad
River. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated the 7Q10 at Hendersonville's discharge point
to be 17.4 cfs. The 7Q10 is statistically the lowest seven day average flow occurring in a 10 year period,
and is used by DEM as the low flow criteria at which water quality standards must be maintained. This
low flow estimate was used as the design flow condition in the allocation runs of the QUAL2E model.
The instream waste concentration (IWC) reveals the influence Hendersonville WWTP's
discharge on Mud Creek. It is calculated as follows:
IWC (%) = [Wasteflow / Wasteflow + 7Q10] * 100
Currently, Hendersonville's IWC is 22%. Upon expansion to 6.0 MGD, the IWC will increase to
35%. The existing discharges in Hendersonville have a combined permitted wasteflow of 3.8528 MGD.
At 3.2 MGD, Hendersonville's WWTP is 83% of the total wasteflow discharged to Mud Creek. Upon
expansion, the City WWTP will be 88% of the permitted wasteflow.
1

Table 1. Existing discharges included in model calibration (not = no limit).
FACILITY
Wasteflow (mgd)
BOD5/NH3-N/DO (mg/1)
30/11.5/2
1. Hendersonville WWTP
3.2
2. American Retirement
.035
30/nol
3. Greystone Subdivision
.06
30/nol
4. Absorba
.006
30/nol
5. Holiday Inn
.025
30/nol
6. Hampton Inn
.0178
30/nol
7. Ramada Inn
.025
30/nol
8. Carolina Village
.05
30/nol
9. Cedars of Clear Creek
.018
30/nol
10. Balfour School
.0025
9/3/6
11. TNS Mills
.0995
28/nol/5
12. Henderson Rest Home
.007
5/2/6
13. Mountain View Rest Home
.005
5/2/6
14. Benson Apartments
.008
30/5.4
15. Seneca Foods
.09
170/
16. Heritage Hills
.04
30/nol
17. Fletcher Academy (001)
(002)
.06
.1
30/nol
30/nol
18. BO-IN
.004
30/11
Total
3.8528 _
na
C. Water Quality Data
No instream monitoring is currently required of the Hendersonville WWTP. Instream
monitoring above and below the WWTP will be required when the permit is renewed in the fall of 1992.
An ambient water quality monitoring site will be added at the mouth of Mud Creek as part of the revised
ambient network for the French Broad River Basin.
A 1985 biological monitoring survey of 2 sites on Mud Creek, one above and one below the
Hendersonville WWTP, indicates poor water quality upstream of the WWTP and very poor conditions
below the plant. The upstream site receives domestic waste, urban runoff and effluent from the General
Electric plant. The downstream site is additionally impacted by the Hendersonville WWTP. Instream
effects of toxicity were noted (DEM, 1991). A 1989 study of 5 sites on Bat Fork Creek, a tributary to
Mud Creek, upstream of the Hendersonville WWTP, found poor water quality at the 4 sites below the
General Electric discharge. Results indicated that the effluent was seriously impacting the biota although
nonpoint source runoff was also a problem (DEM, 1991).
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The DO/BOD relationship in Mud Creek was evaluated through the development and
application of a QUAL2E-UNCAS water quality model. QUAL2E-UNCAS is a one-dimensional, steady
state model that is supported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and offers the capability of
uncertainty analysis.
A. Model Segmentation
The QUAL2E model includes Mud Creek from the 4th St. Bridge upstream of the
Hendersonville WWTP to the French Broad River (7.8 miles), (Fig. 1). The Hendersonville WWTP
discharges 5.3 miles from the mouth just above the confluence with Clear Creek. The Clear Creek
tributary is modeled as well from SR 1582 to the junction with Mud Creek (3.3 miles).
2

Fig. 1. Mud Creek Schematic.
4
FREN H BROAD
RIVER Q
-off
��o,
MUD CREEK
B er Creek
NC 25
Hendersonville WWYTP
`11.
Britto
N
Featherstone Creek
SR1'06
26
N 4
R1
SR 503 Allen
ain St
NC
4th Av
Kin
3
Creek
SR 1 82
lipen
CLEAR CREEK
'ILGeneral Electric
A T-O-T Station

There is little change in slope below the WWTP. The average slope below the confluence of
Clear Creek and Mud Creek is 3.7 feet per mile. Average depth is 2 feet. Six hydraulic reaches were
used to represent the stream system. Additional model reaches were determined by road crossings,
tributaries, and discharge sites for a total of 12 model reaches (Fig. 2). For the calibration, all discharges
including those to tributaries are entered as direct point sources to Mud Creek. For model allocation,
Level B models were run for tributaries with discharges and the end conditions entered as point sources.
Model From To Hydraulic
Reach Description Mile Mile Reach
I Mud Creek at 4th Ave. 8.40 7.00 M1
2 Drainage ditch 7.00 6.90 M1
3 Main St. 6.90 6.50 M1
4 Britton Creek 6.50 5.80 M2
5 Hendersonville WWTP 5.80 5.70 M3
6 Clear Creek at SR 1582 3.30 2.20 Cl
7 Wolfpen Branch 2.20 0.70 CI
8 Allen Branch 0.70 0.00 Cl
9 Junction w/Clear Creek 5.70 3.70 M3
10 Brookside Camp Rd. 3.70 1.70 M4
11 NC 25 1.70 0.60 M5
12 Rugby Rd. to French Broad River 0.6 0.00 M5
B. Model Calibration
1) Hydraulics
Several time -of -travel (T-O-T) studies performed by DEM were critical to the characterization
of the system hydraulics. The physical characteristics of Mud Creek determine the rate of transport of
the discharges and thus govern the severity of their impact. It is therefore necessary to determine the
relationships between streamflow (Q), velocity (V), and channel shape to provide an accurate
characterization of transport processes. The time -of -travel data, with the associated width (W) and depth
(D) information, were used to develop exponential relationships. These relationships take the following
form:
log (V) = log(a) + b log (Q)
log (D) = log(c) + d log (Q) or,
log (W) = log(e) + f log (Q)
VaQb
D=cQ
W_eQf
where, to maintain continuity, a*c*e=1 and b+d+f=1.
Two sources of data were available for calibration of these functions, data from dye studies
performed by DEM along Mud Creek and instantaneous flow and cross -sectional measurements taken by
DEM.
a. Time -of -Travel Data
DEM performed time -of -travel dye studies along Mud Creek under two flow regimes (Table 3).
At each flow two dye studies were conducted, one covered Mud Creek from the 4th Ave. bridge to the
mouth of Mud Creek, a distance of 7.8 miles; the second covered Clear Creek from SR 1582 to the
confluence with Mud Creek, a distance of 3.3 miles. A high flow study was conducted July 10, 1991 at
a flow of 111.85 cfs (Brookside Camp Rd.). The low flow study was done October 16,1991 at a flow of
79.58 cfs (Brookside Camp Rd.). The data obtained from these studies are summarized below.
4

Fig. 2. Model Milepoints
Clear Creek
zeach element mile
6.28
6-29
6- 30
6-31
6- 32
6.33
6- 34
6.35
6-36
6-37
6- 38
7.39
7-40
7- 41
7- 42
7- 43
7-44
7- 45
7-46
7-47
7-48
7- 49
7- 50
7- 51
7- 52
7- 53
8- 54 0.7 Allen Branch
8- 55 0.6 Carolina Village
8- 56
8- 57
8- 58
8- 59
8-60
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
27
2.6
2.5
2.4
23
22
SR1582
Wolfpen
Branch
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
American Retirement
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Williams IMP
Greystone Subdivision
Cedars ofClear Cre
Mind Creek
teach element mile
1- 1 8.4 4th Ave
1- 2
1- 3
1- 4
1- 5
1- 6
1- 7
1- 8
1- 9
1- 10
1- 11
1-12
1- 13
1- 14
2- 15 7 Bat Fozk
3- 16 6.9 Main St
3-17
3- 18
3- 19
4- 20 6.5 Britton Creek
4- 21
4- 22
4- 23
4-24
4- 25
4- 26
5- 27 5.8 Hendersonville wwtp
9- 61 5.7 Junction w/ Clear Creek
9-62
9- 63 5.5 , Ba four School
9- 64 5.4 Quality Floors
9- 65
9-66
9-67
9-68
9-69
9- 70
9- 71
9-72
9-73
9- 74
9- 75 4.3 7NSMills
9-76
9-77
9- 78
9.79
9- 80 3.8 Featherstone C1c
8.3
8.2
8.1
8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.1
6
5.9
5.6
5.3
5.2
5.1
5
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
10- 81 3.7 Broolside Camp Rd
10-82
10- 83 3.5 Nathan Benson Apts.
10- 84
10- 85
10- 86 3.2 Seneca Foods
10- 87 3.1 Heritage Hills, Kyocera
10- 88
10- 89
10- 90
10- 91
10- 92
10- 93
10- 94
10- 95
10- 96 22 Fletcher Academy
10- 97
10- 98
10- 99
10- 100
11- 101 1.7 Naples l3W?P
11- 102
11- 103
11- 104
11- 105
11- 106 1.2 Geneco
11- 107 1.1 Veach's
11- 108
11- 109
11- 110
11- 111 0.7 BO-IN, Bowers'
12- 112 0.6 RugbyRd
12- 113
12- 114
12- 115
12- 116
12- 117
3.6
3.4
3.3
3
29
28
27
26
2.5
24
23
21
2
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
French "tad River
5

Table 2. Time -of -Travel (DEM, 1992).
High Flow Stud
Station
Date
Flow (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Distance (mi)
Velocity (fps)
CLEAR CREEK
SR 1582- Allen Branch
7/10/91
35.66
4 hrs 20 min
2.6
.88
Allen Branch - Mud Creek
7/10/91
36.64
1 hr 25 min
0.7
.72
total
na
na
5 hrs 45 min
3.3
0.84
MUD CREEK
4th Ave - Main St.
7/10/91
40.3
2 hrs 0 min
1.4
1.03
Main St. - WWTP
7/10/91
54.34
1 hrs 45 min
1.1
.92
WWTP - Brookside Rd.
7/10/91
85.23
4 hrs 35 min
2.2
.70
Brookside Rd. - NC 25
7/10/91
115.4
3 hrs 55 min
1.95
.73
NC 25 - Rugby Rd.
7/10/91
120
1 hrs 45 min
1.15
.96
total
na
na
14 hrs 0 min
7.8
0.82
Low Flow Stud
Station
Date
Flow (cfs) ,
Time (hrs)
Distance (mi)
Velocity (fps)
CLEAR CREEK
SR 1582- Allen Branch
10/16/91
26.42
7 hrs 0 min
2.6
..54
Allen Branch - Mud Creek
10/16/91
30.78
1 hr 30 min
0.7
.68
total
na
na
_
8 hrs 30 min
_
3.3
0.57
MUD CREEK
4th Ave - Main St.
10/16/91
29.95
2 hrs 20 min
1.4
0.88
Main St. - WWTP
10/16/91
43.38 ,
2 hrs 0 min
1.1
0.807
WWTP - Brookside Rd.
10/16/91
64.07
5 hrs 40 min
2.2
0.57
Brookside Rd. - NC 25
10/16/91
81.87
4 hrs 30 min
1.95
0.635
NC 25 - Rugby Rd.
10/17/91
84.8
2 hrs 15 min
1.15
0.75
total
na
na
16 hrs 45 min
7.8
0.68
b. Instantaneous Flow and Cross -sectional Measurements
The instantaneous flow was measured at twelve sites under two flow regimes, a low flow and a
high flow. Cross -sectional data are inherent in the measurement of flow; other cross -sectional data
include width and depth measurements collected at sites longitudinally along the stream channel (Fig. 2).
The cross -sections at the flow sites correspond to the measured flows during the T-O-T studies (Table 3).
Table 3. Instantaneous flow and cross -sectional data (DEM.1991).
Station
Date
Depth (ft)
Width (ft)
Flow (cfs)
CLEAR CREEK
,
SR 1582
7/91
.
1.15
38.5
35.65
SR 1582
10/91
0.97
27.5
21.28
ab. Allen Branch
7/91
1.58
38.5
35.67 (42.3*)
ab. Allen Branch
10/91
1.79
41
31.56 (25.2*)
ab. Mud Creek
7/91
,
1.68
30
37.6 (44.2*)
ab. Mud Creek
10/91
1.46
30
30.01 (26.4*)
* calculated based on upstream yields
6

Table 3 (cont). Instantaneous flow and cross -sectional data (DEM,1991).
Station
Date
Depth (ft)
Width (ft)
Flow (cfs)
MUD CREEK
4th Ave
7/91
0.73
33
30.55
4th Ave
10/91
0.925
23
21.285
Main St.
7/91
1.26
35.7
50.66
Main St.
10/91
1.09
37
38.62
bl. WWTP
7/91
1.59
37.6
58.63
bl. WWTP
10/91
1.44
38.7
48.56
Brookside Rd.
7/91
2.10
53.4
111.85
Brookside Rd.
10/91
1.14
46.7
79.58
Brookside Rd.
10/91
2.19
43
-
NC 25
7/91
-
-
119*
NC 25
10/91
3.0
70
84
NC 25
10/91
4.0
80
Rugby Rd.
7/91
-
-
121*
Rugby Rd.
10/91
1.99
46.3
85.58
* calculated based on upstream yields
Clear Creek
Since there was no slope change between the two reaches on Clear Creek, the T O-T data were
averaged to create one hydraulic reach (C1). A linear regression on the log -transformed flow data vs.
velocity data yielded coefficients and exponents for the hydraulic equations. Due to inconsistencies in
measured flows, the equations did not balance. In July, there was a small (2 cfs) increase in flow over the
3.3 mile reach, while an 8.5 cfs increase was expected based on the increase in drainage area. In
October, there was a 9 cfs increase from SR 1582 to the confluence of Mud Creek when only a 5 cfs
increase was expected. When the flows for the lower two Clear Creek stations were revised using yields
(Table 3), the hydraulic equations balanced properly.
Mud Creek
The first Mud Creek hydraulic reach, M1, balanced properly using linear regressions of low flow
vs. high flow velocity, width, and depth data. Since back -calculations could not be used to correct the
width exponent for reach M2 (b+d >1), a width exponent of 0.2 was assumed for the reach. Though 0.2
is a typical exponent of Piedmont rather than mountain streams, its use is valid since the low slopes of
Mud Creek are also more typical of Piedmont streams and the other reaches all have width exponents
around 0.2. The depth equation for M2 was then solved from the revised width and velocity equations.
For reaches M3, M4, and M5, the depth coefficients and exponents were back -calculated using the
coefficients and exponents for the velocity and width equations. Based on linear regressions and the
above adjustments, the following coefficients and exponents were derived:
Table 4. Hvdraulics coefficients and exponents.
Hydraulic
Reach
Velocity (ft/sec)
Depth (ft)
Width (ft)
Coefficient
Exponent
Coefficient
Exponent
Coefficient
Exponent
Cl
0.05
0.74
0.94
0.10
19.69
0.16
M1
0.15
0.53
1.10
0.01
6.28
0.46
M2
0.09
0.58
0.62
0.22
17.78
0.2
M3
0.03
0.72
1.96
0.07
17.87
0.21
M4
0.11
0.41
0.45
0.35
20.81
0.24
M5
0.03
0.71
1.11
0.10
28.14
0.19
7

These functions accurately reproduced the average velocity and width observed during the TO-
T studies at the flows measured during the T-O-T studies (Table 5). The predicted depths are out of the
observed ranges (by up to 20%) in some cases. However, field staff confirmed that the cross -sections
were measured only at places in the stream which were easily accessible, hence the measured depths may
not be representative of the entire reach.
Table 5. Predicted vs. observed values.
Low Flow Stud
REACH
Observed
Velocity (fps)
Predicted
Velocity
Observed
Widths (ft)
Predicted
Width
Observed
Depths (ft)
Predicted
Depth
CLEAR CREEK
, ,
SR 1582 - Mud Creek
0.57
0.57
27.5-41
32.8
0.97 -1.79
1.3
MUD CREEK
4th Ave - Main St.
0.88
0.88
23-37
30
0.93 -1.09
1.13
Main St. - WWTP
0.81
0.81
37-38.7
37.8
1.09 -1.44
1.42
WWTP - Brookside Rd.
0.57
0.57
38.7-46.7
42.8
1.14 - 2.19
2.63
Brookside Rd. - NC 25
0.64
0.64
43-80.0
59.9
1.14 - 4
2.15
NC 25 - Rugby Rd.
0.75
0.75
46.3-80
65.4
1.99 - 4
1.73
Hi Flow Stud
REACH
Observed
Velocity (fps)
Predicted
Velocity
Observed
Widths (ft)
Predicted
Width
Observed
Depths (ft)
Predicted
Depth
CLEAR CREEK
SR 1582 - Allen Branch
0.84
0.84
30 - 38.5
35.67
1.15-1.68
1.37
MUD CREEK
4th Ave - Main St.
1.03
1.03
33 - 35.7
34.39
0.73-1.26
1.14
Main St. - WWTP
0.92
0.92
35.7-37.6
39.54
1.26-1.59
1.49
WWTP - Brookside Rd.
0.70
0.70
37.6-53.4
45.44
1.59-2.1
2.68
Brookside Rd. - NC 25
0.73
0.73
53.4-80
65.06
2.1
2.43
NC 25 - Rugby Rd.
0.96
0.96
80
69.89
na
1.79
2) Instream conditions
The model was calibrated to instream data collected by DEM on July 10,1991. Long-term
BODs were taken at 6 sites on Mud and Clear Creeks, the Hendersonville WWTP effluent, and 1
tributary. A design temperature of 72°F was assumed based on data from Mud Creek and Clear Creeks
collected during July 1991. The headwater CBODs and NH3-Ns are based on long-term BOD results on
data collected on Mud Creek and Clear Creek on July 10,1991.
Table 6. Headwater conditions for the model calibration.
Clear Creek
Mud Creek
Q (cfs)
35.65
30.55
Temperature (°F)
68
_
70
DO (mg/1)
7.8
7.1
CBOD (mg/1)
2.4
2.6
OrgN (mg/1)
0.47
0.12
NH/-N (mg/1)
0.03
0.08
Nitrate (mg/1)
0.58
0.42
8

3) Calibration Point Loads
For the calibration, all discharges including those to tributaries are entered as direct point
sources to Mud Creek. Long-term BOD data was collected at Allen Branch which includes the upstream
discharges. Since no water quality data were collected at Bat Fork due to an observation of stagnant flow
conditions, flow and water quality was estimated in order to calibrate the model. To balance the flows, a
20 cfs input from Bat Fork was needed. Since there are a number of upstream discharges, background
water quality was not assumed. The headwater data for Mud Creek at 4th Avenue was used as a starting
point. Additional CBOD and NOx were added at Bat Fork in order to calibrate the model. Due to the
large number of discharges to Bat Fork and its tributaries, and nonpoint source impacts this assumption is
valid. The DO of 7.1 mg/1 at Mud Creek was reduced by 10% to account for stagnant water conditions
and the effects of pollutant loading.
Point loads for individual discharges were taken from the July 1991 DMRs for each facility.
Most facilities monitor only once per month so the monthly average was used for the calibration. The
DMRs indicated that most facilities are treating their effluent well below permitted limits. The effluent
data was confirmed by the Asheville Regional Office. A multiplier of 1.5 was used to convert BOD5 to
CBOD. Due to the small wasteflows of these discharges the Organic N and Nitrate inputs were assumed
to be unimportant to the model.
Table 7. Point Loads - July 10 1991.
FACILITY
Wasteflow'
(cfs)
Temp
(F)
DO
(mg/1)
CBOD
(mg/1)
OrgN
(mg/1)
NH3-N
(mg/1)
Nitrate
(mg/1)
1.Bat Fork
20
70
6.5
4
.12
0.08
1.2
2. Hendersonville WWTP
4.11
75.7
7.2
35.7
1
16
.1
3. American Retirement
.025
80.6
5
2.85
0
.5
0
4. Greystone Subdivision
.023
78.8
5
2.4
0
.6
0
5. Allen Branch
1.12
69.8
7.4
2.27
.33
.07
1.9
a. Absorba
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
b. Holiday Inn
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
c. Hampton Inn
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d. Ramada Inn
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6. Carolina Village '`
.067
82.4
5
1.5
0
.2
0
7. Cedars of Clear Creek ' -
.025
84.2
5.7
3
0
.2
0
8. Balfour School -= •
.002
59
7
4.5
0
.5
0
9. TNS Mills
.09
67.3
8.3
8.55
0
0
0
10. Henderson Rest Home
.005
73.4
6
1.2
0
.25
0
11. Mountain View Rest Home
.003
71.6
6
18.6
0
1.4
0
12. Benson Apartments
.01
73.4 ,
1
2.85
0
.2
0
13. Seneca Foods - -
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
14. Heritage Hills
.05
73.4
1
2.7
0.
1.9
0
15. a. Fletcher Academy (001)
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
b. Fletcher Academy (002)
.11
77
1
5.7
0
.5
0
16. BO-IN
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
4) Reaction Rates
The calibration of reaction rates for Mud Creek involved fitting the model predictions to
observed data, with rates and constants that are theoretically sound. Using the hydraulic equations above,
the model was calibrated to data from DEM's intensive water quality survey of July 10, 1991. Headwater
and effluent characteristics for this date are summarized above in Tables 6 and 7.
9

Calibration sequence of parameter estimation was as follows:
(1) the rate of organic N hydrolysis to NH3,
(2) the organic N settling rate,
(3) the NH3-N oxidation rate,
(4) the Nitrite oxidation rate,
(5) the CBOD decay rate,
(6) the CBOD settling rate,
(7) the SOD rate, and
(8) the reaeration rate.
Three distinct segments of the model were calibrated, Mud Creek from 4th Ave. to the
Hendersonville WWTP (reaches 1-4), Clear Creek from SR 1582 to the confluence with Mud Creek
(reaches 6-8), and Mud Creek from the WWTP to the confluence with the French Broad (reaches 5, 9-
12). The following rates were input and assumed to be constant throughout each reach:
Reaches 1-4 Reaches 6-8 Reaches 5, 9-12
BOD decay 0.2 0.2 0.3
BOD Settling 0.001 0.001 0.001
Org-N > NH3-N 0.05 0.3 0.3
Org-N Settling 0.01 0.20 0.10
NO2 > NO3 5 5 5
NH3-N Oxidation 0.3 0.3 0.6
Sediment Oxygen Demand 0.1 0.1 0.1
Reaeration Thackston and Krenkel formula
These rates were within the ranges cited in the literature (USEPA, 1985) . The rates produce
good fits of predicted to observed data (Figures 3-7). As expected the headwater segments (i.e., reaches
1-4 and 6-8) which are upstream of the Hendersonville WWTP have different reaction rates due to lower
wasteflows. There is less organic nitrogen discharged to Mud Creek above the WWTP so the reaction
rates are lower. Similarly, below the WWTP, there are more BOD and NH3-N present and the reaction
rates are higher.
The sediment oxygen demand (SOD) rate represents the oxygen demand exerted by the
sediments of the stream bed. An SOD of 0.10 gm/ft'/day was input as a first estimate. No SOD was
measured due to the rocky nature of the riverbed. DEM's field staff report that there are pockets of
sediment which may be exerting oxygen demand on the stream.
Aside from point sources, the only source of DO in the stream that was included in the model
was the reaeration of the water at its surface. The reaeration rate (ka) is the most difficult of the
parameters to measure and was therefore used as the final calibration parameter. Reaeration is important,
since the primary purpose of this model is to predict the DO concentrations of Mud Creek based on the
characteristics of the permitted discharges.
The Thackston and Krenkel equation produced reaeration rates of 2.5-3 for Mud Creek above
the WWTP, 1.5-2 for Clear Creek, and 1-1.5 for Mud Creek below the WWTP, which provided a good
estimate of the DO levels under calibration conditions. This reaeration equation was developed in 1966
based on an investigation of several rivers in the Tennessee Valley Authority System. Since Mud Creek
and Clear Creek are located in the mountains near the TVA area, use of this equation is appropriate.
10

Fig. 3. CBOD Calibration
0
Mud Creek, predicted
-0- Mud Creek, observed
Clear Creek, predicted
-O-- Clear Creek, observed
I I I I I I I I I
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
milepoint
11

Fig.4.OrgN Calibration
0
MN
IN
N.
ilip
IIIIMM
L
Mud Creek, predicted
--0--- Mud Creek, observed
Clear Creek, predicted
-0-- Clear Creek, observed
— 0.5
— 0.45
— 0.4
— 0.35
— 0.3 ,�
c
.2 - 0 5
z
P.
O — 0.2
♦
— 0.15
— 0.1
— 0.05
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
milepolnt
12
0

Fig.5. NOx Calibration
Mud Creek, predicted
---0- Mud Creek, observed
Clear Creek, predicted
-0-- Clear Creek, observed
0
— 0.9
— 0.8
— 0.3
— 0.2
— 0.1
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
milepoint
13
0

Fig.6. NH3-N Calibration
‘ -- 1.2
Mud Creek, predicted
--0 Mud Creek, observed
Clear Creek, predicted
-0-- Clear Creek, observed
1
— 0.8
0)
E
— 0.6 Z
A
z
— 0.4
— 0.2
t] u .....--]
I ! ( I I I I 0
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
milepoint
14

Fig.7. DO Calibration
I
9.00
I
8.00
o
0
Mini NM.
0
7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00
mifepoint
15
o
Mud Creek, predicted
--13-- Mud Creek, observed
Clear Creek, predicted
--0 — Clear Creek, observed
I
3.00
I
2.00
I
8
7
0 — 6
— 5
— 4 g
2
1.00 0.00
3
2
1
0

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the calibration run. Emphasis was placed on the
sensitivity coefficient matrix for predicted DO as the goal of the modeling is to allocate discharges in
order to meet the DO standard. From the matrix, model inputs can be ranked for their influence on
predicted DO. Above the WWTP, the headwater DO and initial temperature are most influential in
predicting DO. Below the WWTP initial temperature and the hydraulic equations are most influential.
The temperature controls the decay rates which drive the DO consumption. Below the WWTP, SOD is
predicted to be the 5th most influential parameter in predicting DO. The sensitivity analysis indicated
that the reaeration rate is relatively insignificant to the DO predictions.
The sensitivity of the model to point source input errors for the calibration and allocation was
also examined. Since the model was insensitive to changes in the water quality data input for Bat Fork,
and because this reach of the model is not in the predicted DO sag zone, errors in the water quality
assumptions should not be significant to the model results. Since the Hendersonville WWTP makes up
83% of the permitted wasteflow to Mud Creek, the model is fairly insensitive to input errors for point
source loading for the remaining discharges. Point loads of ammonia rank sixth in importance of
parameters influencing DO in the lower model reaches. The remaining point loads were of less
importance to the predicted DO.
MODEL APPLICATION
Level B model runs have indicated that the assimilative capacity of Mud Creek for oxygen
consuming wastes has been over allocated. Hence, the QUAL2E model was run to reallocate the
wasteloads of the existing facilities and to determine wasteload allocations for the Hendersonville
WWTP and the proposed Naples Area WWTP.
A. Headwater conditions
Level B models were developed for the discharges above the QUAL2E study area. However,
the use of observed values from the intensive survey are more conservative than the Level B results, i.e.
higher NBOD and CBOD and lower DO levels. Hence, the same headwater conditions will be used for
both the calibration and allocation, with the exception of temperature and flow. The allocation model
was run under critical summer conditions of low flow (summer 7Q10) and high temperatures (23° C,
73.4° F). DO saturation was calculated based on the intensive survey data and then applied at 23°
Celsius. DO saturation was 85% on Clear Creek and 80% on Mud Creek.
Table 8. Headwater conditions for the model allocations.
Clear Creek
Mud Creek
Q (cfs)
10
8
DO (mg/1)
7.3
6.85
CBOD (mg/1)
2.4
2.6
OrgN (mg/1)
0.47
0.12
NHq-N (mg/I)
0.03
0.08
Nitrate (mg/1)
0.58
0.42
B. Point Loads
A multiplier of 1.5 based on long-term BOD data was used to convert Hendersonville's BOD5
to CBOD as well as for the other facilities. The values for the nitrogen components were estimated by
analyzing long-term BOD data from North Carolina municipalities under various treatment scenarios.

Level B models were run for Bat Fork, Britton Creek, Allen Creek, Featherstone Creek, and Byers Creek
in order to determine the input loads for Mud and Clear Creeks. The model results and each discharge's
limits are listed below (Table 9a,b).
C. Model Runs
The QUAL2E allocation model was run under a variety of loading scenarios in order to
determine what level of wastewater treatment is necessary to protect water quality. The results of these
model runs are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10. Mud Creek model summary.
End Conditions
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
DO (mg/1)
2.6
2.8
2.9
5.1
5.8
CBOD (mg/1)
7.8
7.6
6.9
4.1
1.7
ON (mg/1)
1.22
1.22
1.19
.24
.07
NHS-N (mg/1)
1.72
1.60
1.46
.46
.08
NOx (mg/1)
1.40
1.36
1.32
1.30
.43
DO sag (mg/1)
2.6
2.8
2.9
5.1
5.8
Mile
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
1) All discharges at permitted loads under summer 7Q10 conditions (including Hendersonville at 6.0
MGD).
The DO profile generated by the model indicates that the DO will sag to 2.6 mg/1 at mile 11.6
which is the end of the model. The DO is still dropping at the mouth of Mud Creek and background
levels of CBOD (2 mg/1) and NBOD (1 mg/1) have not been achieved (Fig. 8)
2) Most discharges at permitted loads under summer 7Q10 conditions.
A number of discharges are scheduled to connect to the city treatment facility within the next
year including all discharges to Allen Branch, GE process wastewater, East Flat Rock Development, East
Henderson High School, and Blue Ridge Technical College. Without these discharges, the model
predicts a minimum DO of 2.8 mg/1 at the mouth of Mud Creek (Fig. 9)
3) Only Hendersonville at existing limits under summer 7Q10 conditions.
The model predicts the DO will drop to 2.9 mg/1 at the mouth of Mud Creek (Fig. 10).
4) Hendersonville and Naples WWTPs with advanced treatment, plus most discharges at existing limits
under summer 7Q10 conditions.
If Hendersonville meets advanced limits, i.e., BOD5=10 mg/1, NH3-N=2 mg/1, and DO=6 mg/1,
and connects the 5 facilities listed in scenario 2) and the Naples WWTP is constructed at .07 MGD with
these same limits, the model predicts the DO will drop to 5.1 mg/1 at the mouth of Mud Creek (Fig. 11).
End CBOD and NBOD are 4.1 mg/1 and 2.1 mg/1 respectively.
5) No discharges under summer 7Q10 conditions.
12).
With no discharges, the minimum DO is predicted to be 5.8 meat the end of the model (Fig.
17

Table 9a. Model Inputs (Level B results).
TRIBUTARY
-facility
Point
Load
Wasteflow
(cfs)
Temp
(F)
DO
(mg/1)
CBOD
(mg/1)
OrgN
(mg/1)
NH3-N
(mg/I)
Nitrate
(mg/1)
BAT FORK
1
8.36
73.4
6.89
5.14
0.10
1.64
0.50
a. Flat Rock Playhouse
.015
-
0
45
10
20
2
b. Our Lady of the Hills
.015
-
0
45
10
20
2
c. GE (process waste)
.775
-
5
45
10
20
2
d. Spaeth Travel Trailer (p)
.077
-
0
45
10
20
2
e. Raeban's (p)
.002
-
0
45
10
20
2
f. East Flat Rock Dev.(p)
.077
-
0
45
10
20
2
g. E. Hend. High School
.015
-
0
45
10
20
2
h. Blue Ridge Tech. Coll.
.018
-
0
45
10
20
2
i. Hidden Gap MHP
.084
-
5
45
10
20
2
j. Montaperto
.05
-
0
45
10
20
2
BRITTON CREEK
2
1.01
73.4
7.98
2.65
0.10
0.59
0.50
a. Dellwood Apts.
.02325
-
5
45
10
20
2
b. Stonebrook STF
.0124
-
0
45
10
20
2
ALLEN BRANCH
7
0.58
73.4
5.73
8.00
0.10
2.90
1.0
a. Absorba
.0093
-
0
45
10
20
2
b. Holiday Inn
.03875
-
0
45
10
20
2
c. Hampton Inn
.02759
-
0
45
10
20
2
d. Ramada Inn
.03875
-
0
45
10
20
2
e. CCI, Inc. (p)
.011625
-
0
45
10
20
2
f. Kreinhop Residence (p)
.0116625
-
0
45
10
20
2
g. Sugarloaf Village MHP (p)
.0341
-
0
45
10
20
2
FEATHERSTONE CREEK
13
1.00
73.4
6.0
7.5
1
2
5
a. Henderson Rest Home
.0105
73.4
6
7.5
1
2
5
b. Mountain View Rest Home
.0075
71.6
6
7.5
1
2
5
Table 9b. Point Loads.
FACILITY
Point
Load
Wasteflow
(cfs)
Temp
(F)
DO
(mg/1)
2
CBOD
(mg/I)
45
OrgN
(mg/I)
10
NH3-N
(mg/1)
11.5
Nitrate
(mg/1)
3
Hendersonville WWTP
3
4.96 / 9.3
75.7
American Retirement
4
.0575
80.6
0
45
10
20
2
Williams MHP
5
.0093
75
0
45
10
20
2
Greystone Subdivision
6
.09
78.8
0
45
10
20
2
Carolina Village
8
.075
82.4
0
45
10
20
2
Cedars of Clear Creek
9
.027
84.2
0
45
10
20
2
Balfour School
10
.0038
59
6
13.5
1
3
5
Quality Floors
11
.0014
75
6
7.5
1
1
5
TNS Mills
12
.15
67.3
5
42
10
• 20
2
Benson Apartments
14
.012
73.4
0
45
2
5.4
5
Seneca Foods
15
.135
75
2
255
5
11.5
3
Heritage Hills
16
.06
73.4
0
45
10
20
2
Fletcher Academy (001)
17
.09
75
0
45
10
20
2
Fletcher Academy (002)
17
.15
77
0
45
10
20
2
Naples Area WWTP (new)
18
.07
75
0
15
1
2
5
Geneco
19
.0058
75
0
45
10
20
2
Veach's Auto Clinic
20
.0000775
75
0
45
10
20
2
BO-IN
21
.006
75
0
45
10
11
3
Bowers MHP
22
.00775
75
2.0
45
10
11.5
3
18

Fig. 8. All discharges at permitted Toads (Hendersonville at 6.0 MGD)
Hendersonville WWTP
Clear Creek
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
milepoint
19
8
- 6
-�- 5
rn
— 4 g
0
— 3
— 2
— 1
0
0

Fig.9. Most discharges/Permitted Toads (H'ville at 6 MGD)
I
Hendersonville WWTP
AA
Clear Creek
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
milepoint
20
— 8
— 7
— 6
— 5
c
0
_ 4 E
0
0
— 3
— 2
— 1
0
0

Fig. 10. Hendersonville WWtP (6.0 MGD) only at existing limits
Hendersonville WWTP
Clear Creek
8
7
6
— 5
v)
— 4 g
0
0
1 1 1 f f 1 f
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
milepoint
21
2
1
0

Fig.11. Hendersonville and Naples WWTPs with advanced treatment.
Hendersonville WWTP
Clear Creek
9 8
7 6
5 4
milepoint
22
3
2
1
— 8
— 7
— 6
— 5
— 4 E
0
0
— 3
— 2
— 1
0
0

Fig.12. Mud Creek with no discharges.
8
7
A — 6
Clear Creek
— 5
— 4 E
0
3
2
1
I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
mitepoint
23

The DO sag with no discharges is 5.8 mg/I (Scenario 6). Under existing limits, Hendersonville is
responsible for 93.5% of the DO sag. With Hendersonville at BOD5=10 mg/I, NH3-N=2 mg/1, and
DO=6 mg/I, Hendersonville is responsible for 70% of the DO depletion . The remaining discharges are
responsible for 0.2 mg/1 of DO depletion under both scenarios.
EFFLUENT TOXICITY
Due to the poor water quality documented in Mud Creek and Bat Fork, the toxic characteristic of
Hendersonville WWTP and General Electric's effluent is an important issue. The State of North Carolina
requires whole effluent toxicity tests that are designed to protect the integrity of instream biota
discharges with potentially toxic components. Since both facilities are classified as major (> 1.0 MGD
for domestic plants), quarterly chronic toxicity tests at the IWC are required.
General Electric Lighting Systems is permitted to discharge oxygen -consuming wastes as well as
metals. GE conducts quarterly whole -effluent toxicity tests at 72.1% and has failed 10 tests in this 5
year permit cycle including failing 3 out of the last 5 tests. An intensive on -site toxicological evaluation
conducted at the plant in June 1989 determined that the effluent was not toxic during the tests but
downstream water quality was impacted. The effluent was found to be of variable toxicity depending on
process changes. GE plans to divert its process wastewater to the Hendersonville WWTP within the year.
This will alleviate a source of toxicity to Bat Fork.
Hendersonville is currently conducting quarterly pass/fail tests at 11 % . The City has passed all
tests in the last year but has failed 8 tests during this 5 year permit cycle. Upon expansion,
Hendersonville will be required to test at 35%. Annual pollutant scans are also required of all major
facilities. Together with chemical specific self -monitoring effluent data, this information provides an
indication of the quality of the effluent and its potential impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Limits for
toxic parameters may be developed based on the results of the annual monitoring and pretreatment
information.
Specific toxicity issues include ammonia and chlorine. To protect against ammonia toxicity,
limits based on instream ammonia criteria of 1 mg/1 are required of new/expanding discharges.
Hendersonville will be required to meet a summer ammonia limit of 2 mg/1 to protect against both
ammonia toxicity and violations of the DO standard. All new or expanding facilities are required to
meet a chlorine limit between 17 and 28 ug/1 to avoid instream toxicity if chlorination is chosen as the
method of disinfection or use alternate disinfection.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Previous permitting procedures for discharges to Mud Creek and its tributaries have led to an
over allocation of the capacity of Mud Creek to assimilate oxygen -consuming wastes. Without additional
treatment of the wastewater, instream water quality standards are expected to be violated and no
additional wastewater discharges may be permitted. The major discharges to Mud Creek and its
tributaries, the Hendersonville WWTP and General Electric, will be targeted for improvement, General
Electric and a number of small discharges are scheduled to connect to the City WWTP within the year as
the City increases its discharge to 6.0 MGD. In addition, an upgrade to the City treatment facility should
be undertaken in order to achieve a better quality effluent. Advanced treatment at the Hendersonville
plant, i.e., BOD5=10 mg/1, NH3-N=2 mg/1, and DO=6 mg/1, is expected to protect the instream DO
standard. All new/expanding discharges should be permitted at equivalent limits to Hendersonville
WWTP to maintain and protect water quality standards.

REFERENCES
DEM, 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams: Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983 - 1990. ,
DEHNR/DEM/WQ, Raleigh, NC 27604.
DEM, 1992. Memorandum to Betsy Johnson. Results of Hendersonville Intensive Survey.
DEHNR/DEM/WQ.
DEM, 1992. Memorandum to Ruth Swanek. Long-term BOD Analysis for Hendersonville WWTP.
DEHNR/DEM/WQ.
USEPA, 1985a. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA 30613.
USEPA, 1985b. Computer Program Documentation for the Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model
QUAL2E. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA 30613.
25

TITLE01
TITLE02
TITLE03 NO
TITLE04 NO
TITLE05 NO
TITLE06 NO
TITLE07 YES
TITLE08 NO
TITLE09 NO
TITLE10
TITLE11 YES
TITLE12
TITLE13 YES
TITLEI4 NO
TITLE15 NO
ENDTITLE
NO LIST DATA INPUT
WRITE OPTIONAL SUMMARY
NO FLOW AUGMENTATION
STEADY STATE
DISCHARGE COEFFICIENTS
NO PRINT LCD/SOLAR DATA
NO PLOT DO AND BOD
FIXED DNSTM CONC (YES=1)=
INPUT METRIC (YES=1) =
NUMBER OF REACHES
NUM OF HEADWATERS
TIME STEP (HOURS)
MAXIMUM ROUTE TIME (HRS) =
ENDATA1
O UPTAKE BY NH3 OXID(MG 0/MG N)=
O PROD BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) =
N CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG N/MG A) =
ALG MAX SPEC GROWTH RATE(1/DAY)=
N HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L)=
LIN ALG EXCO (1/FT) / (UG-CHLA/L)=
LIGHT FUNCTION OPTION (LFNOPT) =
DAILY AVERAGING OPTION (LAVOPT)=
NUMBER OF DAYLIGHT HOURS (DLH) =
ALG GROWTH CALC OPTION(LGROPT)=
ALG/TEMP SOLR RAD FACTOR(TFACT)=
ENDATA1A
ENDATA1B
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
ENDATA2
ENDATA3
FLAG FIELD RCH=
FLAG FIELD RCH=
FLAG FIELD RCH=
FLAG FIELD RCH=
FLAG FIELD RCH=
FLAG FIELD RCH=
FLAG FIELD RCH=
CALIBRATION
MUD CREEK
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL I TDS MG/L
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL II TP MG/L
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL III
TEMPERATURE
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN MG/L
ALGAE AS CHL-A IN UG/L
PHOSPHORUS CYCLE AS P IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-P; DISSOLVED-P)
NITROGEN CYCLE AS N IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-N; AMMONIA-N; NITRITE-N; NITRATE-N)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN MG/L
FECAL COLIFORMS IN NO./100 ML
ARBITRARY NON -CONSERVATIVE
0
0
12
2
30
3.43
1.6
.085
2.5
0.3
.0088
1
2
14
1
1
1 RCH=4th Ave., Mud
2 RCH=Drainage ditch
3 RCH=Main St.
4 RCH=Britton Creek
5 RCH=Hville WWTP
6 RCH=SR 1582, Clear
7 RCH=Wolfpen Branch
8 RCH=Allen Branch
9 RCH=Junction
10 RCH=Brookside Camp
11 RCH=NC 25
12 RCH=Rugby Rd.
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
14
1
4
7
1
11
15
5D-ULT BOD CONV K = 0
OUTPUT METRIC (YES=1) = 0
NUMBER OF JUNCTIONS = 1
NUMBER OF POINT LOADS = 16
LNTH COMP ELEMENT (DX) = 0.1
TIME INC. FOR RPT2 (HRS) =
O UPTAKE BY NO2 OXID(MG 0/MG N)= 1.14
O UPTAKE BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) = 2.00
P CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG P/MG A) = 0.012
ALGAE RESPIRATION RATE (1/DAY) = 0.2
P HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L)= 0.04
NLINCO (1/FT) / (UG-CHLA/L) ** (2/3) = .054
LIGHT SATURATION COEF(LNGY/MIN)= .03
LIGHT AVERAGING FACTOR (AFACT) = 1.0
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (LNGYS)= 400
ALGAL PREF FOR NH3-N (PREFN) = 0.8
NITRIFICATION INHIBITION = 0.5
FROM 8.40 TO 7.00
FROM 7.00 TO 6.90
FROM 6.90 TO 6.50
FROM 6.50 TO 5.80
FROM 5.80 TO 5.70
FROM 3.30 TO 2.20
FROM 2.20 TO 0.70
FROM 0.70 TO 0.00
FROM 5.70 TO 3.70
FROM 3.70 TO 1.70
FROM 1.70 TO 0.60
FROM 0.6 TO 0.00
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6-
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 6,
3
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 6.2 2 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 2
115,(,\.{- 3-0‘) r c

FLAG FIELD RCH= 8.0 7 6 6 2 6 2 2 2
FLAG FIELD RCH= 9.0 20 4 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 6
FLAG FIELD RCH= 10.0 20 6 2 6 2 2 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2
FLAG FIELD RCH= 11.0 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6
FLAG FIELD RCH= 12.0 6 2 2 2 2 2 5
ENDATA4
HYDRAULICS RCH= 1.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 2.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 3.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 4.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 5.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 6.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 7.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 8.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 9.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 10.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 11.0
HYDRAULICS RCH= 12.0
ENDATA5
ENDATA5A
REACT COEF RCH= 1.0 0.2 0.001 0.1 5
REACT COEF RCH= 2.0 0.2 0.001 0.1 5
REACT COEF RCH= 3.0 0.2 0.001 0.1 5e )
REACT COEF RCH= 4.0 0.2 0.001 0.1 5
REACT COEF RCH= 5.0 0.3 0.001 0.1 5 z rv v
REACT COEF RCH= 6.0 0.2 0.001 0.1 5 t d J �--
REACT COEF RCH= 7.0 0.2 0.001 0.1 5 � -7 )�
REACT COEF RCH= 8.0 0.2 0.001 0.1 5 l d �pci
REACT COEF RCH= 9.0 0.3 0.001 0.1 5 ) ��'
REACT COEF RCH= 10.0 0.3 0.001 0.1 5 r
REACT COEF RCH= 11.0 0.3 0.001 0.1 5
REACT COEF RCH= 12.0 0.3 0.001 0.1 5
ENDATA6
N AND P COEF RCH= 1.0 .05 .01 0.3 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 2.0 .05 .01 0.3 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 3.0 .05 .01 0.3 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 4.0 .05 .01 0.3 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 5.0 .30 .10 0.6 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 6.0 .30 .20 0.3 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 7.0 .30 .20 0.3 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 8.0 .30 .20 0.3 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 9.0 .30 .10 0.6 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 10.0 .30 .10 0.6 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 11.0 .30 .10 0.6 0 .10
N AND P COEF RCH= 12.0 .30 .10 0.6 0 .10
ENDATA6A
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 1.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 2.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 3.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 4.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 5.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 6.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 7.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 8.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 9.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 10.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 11.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 12.0
ENDATA6B
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 1.0 72.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 2.0 72.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 3.0 72.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 4.0 72.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 5.0 72.0
0.15 0.53 1.10 0.01 0.025
0.15 0.53 1.10 0.01 0.025
0.15 0.53 1.10 0.01 0.025
0.09 0.58 0.62 0.22 0.025
0.03 0.72 1.96 0.07 0.025
0.05 0.74 0.94 0.10 0.025
0.05 0.74 0.94 0.10 0.025
0 s 0.74 0.94 0.10 0.025
0.72 1.96 0.07 0.025
0.11 0.41 0.45 0.35 0.025
0.03 0.71 1.11 0.10 0.025
0.03 '.71 1.11 0.10 0.025

INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
ENDATA7
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
INITIAL
ENDATA7A
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
COND-1
COND-1
COND-1
COND-1
COND-1
COND-1
COND-1
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
COND-2
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INFLOW-1
INCR INFLOW-1
INCR INFLOW-1
INCR INFLOW-1
ENDATAB
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INCR
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INFLOW-2
INCR INFLOW-2
INCR INFLOW-2
INCR INFLOW-2
ENDATA8A
STREAM JUNCTION 1
ENDATA9
HEADWTR-1 HDW= 1.0Mud Creek
HEADWTR-1 HDW= 2.0Clear Creek
ENDATAI0
HEADWTR-2 HDW= 1.0 0.0 0.0
HEADWTR-2 HDW= 2.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA10A
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH='
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
0.0
0.3
1.2
2.0
0.3
2.5
3.3
1.5
5.8
4.0
2.0
1.2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
72 7 2
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
RCH=
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
1.0Bat Fork
2.0Hville WWTP
3.0American Ret
4.0Sunny Pines
5.0Allen Branch
6.0Carolina Vil
7.00edars
8.0Balfour Sch
9.OTNS Mills
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
JNC= Clear Creek 27
30.55 70.0 7.1 2.63
35.65 68.0 7.8 2.38
0.0 0.12 0.08 0.0 0.42
0.0 0.47 0.03 0.0 0.58
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 70.0
4.11 75.7
.025 80.6
.023 78.8
1.12 69.8
.067 82.4
.025 84.2
.002 59.0
0.09 67.3
6.5
7.2
5.0
5.0
7.4
5.0
5.7
7.0
8.3
4.00
35.7
2.85
2.4
2.27
1.5
3.0
4.50
8.55

POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
POINTLD-1
ENDATAII
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
POINTLD-2
ENDATAIIA
ENDATA12
ENDATA13
ENDATA13A
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
PTL=
10.0Hend Rest Hm
11.0Mt View R H
12.0Benson Apts
13.0Seneca Foods
14.0Heritage Hil
15.0Fletcher Aca
16.0B0-IN
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 .005 73.4 6.0
0.0 .003 71.6 6.0
0.0 0.01 73.4 1.0
0.0 0.00 75.7 2.7
0.0 0.05 73.4 1.0
0.0 0.11 77.0 1.0
0.0 0.00 75.7 1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
16.0
0.50
0.60
0.07
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.25
1.40
0.20
0.00
1.90
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
18.6
2.85
255
2.70
5.70
45.0
1.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00