LowerCKTurbidityTMDLEPAFinal.pdf

i

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
For Turbidity

Final Report

EPA Approved Date: April 12, 2005

Lower Creek (Subbasin 03-08-31)
Catawba River Basin
North Carolina

Prepared by:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
ii
INDEX OF TMDL SUBMITTAL

303(d) List Information

State: North Carolina
Counties: Caldwell and Burke
Basin: Catawba River Basin

303(D) LISTED WATERS
Stream name Description Class Index # Subbasin Miles
Lower Creek From Zack’s Fork to Caldwell Co SR 1143 C 11-39-(0.5)b 30831 5.1
Lower Creek From Caldwell County SR1143 to a point
0.7 miles downstream of Bristol Creek
WS-IV 11-39-(6.5) 30831 6.8
Lower Creek From a point 0.7 miles downstream of
Bristol Creek to Rhodhiss Lake, Catawba
WS-IV CA 11-39-(9) 30831 1.8

14 digit HUC or Cataloging Unit(s): 03050101080010 and 03050101080020
Area of Impairment: 13.7 miles
Water Quality Standard Violated: Turbidity
Pollutant of Concern Turbidity
Applicable Water Quality Standards for Class C and
WS-IV Waters:
Turbidity not to exceed 50 NTU
Sources of Impairment: Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Municipal
Point Sources, Non-urban development

Public Notice Information

A draft of the TMDL was publicly noticed through various means, including notification in a local
newspaper, Lenoir News Topic, on 02/10/05. The TMDL was also available from the Division of
Water Quality’s website during the comment period at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/TMDL_list.htm. The public comment period began 02/10/05 and was
held for 30 days.

Public notice date: February 10, 2005
Submittal date: March 16, 2005
Establishment date:
Did notification contain specific mention of TMDL proposal? Yes
Were comments received from the public? No
Was a responsiveness summary prepared? No

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
iii
TMDL Information

Critical conditions: Turbidity exceedences occur under both wet and dry conditions
predominantly during late spring to early fall seasons. The TMDL was
developed using WARMF using data from 1992-2003. Water years 1992-
1997 were used to calibrate the model and verification was performed using
water years 1998-2003.
Seasonality: Seasonal variation in hydrology, climatic conditions, and watershed
activities are represented through the use of a continuous flow gage and the
use of all readily available water quality data collected in the watershed.
Development tools: WARMF model
Supporting
documents:
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) For Turbidity in Lower Creek, NC
Division of Water Quality (2004)

TMDL summary

TMDL Allocations
Existing TSS
Load 1998-
2003 (kg/day)
TMDL - TSS
Load (kg/day)
Required
Reduction (%)
Wasteload Allocations
WLA - NC0023981
(6.0 MGD, 30 mg TSS/L limit) ----- 681 0%
WLA - NC0043231
(0.009 MGD, 30 mg TSS/L limit) ----- 1.0 0%
WLA - NC0048755
(0.005 MGD, 30 mg TSS/L limit) ----- 0.6 0%
WLA – MS4 stormwater 1 15,639 4,377 72%
WLA – NCG010000
(General Construction Permits) 50 NTU
Sum of WLAs 5,060
Load Allocations/ non permitted
Load Allocation 2 48,284 13,542 72%
Non-Permitted Stormwater
below MS4 area 3 41,587 11,682 72%
Sum of LAs 25,224

Margin of Safety - Explicit 10%

Total TSS Load at outlet to Lake
Rhodhiss (kg/day) 105,500 30,280 72%

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PUBLIC NOTICE INFORMATION.........................................................................................................II
TMDL INFORMATION............................................................................................................................III
TMDL SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................III
INDEX OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................. VII
INDEX OF TABLES...............................................................................................................................VIII
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................. 1
TMDL COMPONENTS.................................................................................................................................. 1
WATER QUALITY TARGET........................................................................................................................... 2
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.1 Land use/ Land cover.............................................................................................................. 4
1.1.2 Geology................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.3 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 1
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM.................................................................................................. 1
1.1.4 Biological Monitoring............................................................................................................. 2
1.1.5 Chemical Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 4
2.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................................... 5
ASSESSMENT OF POINT SOURCES ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 NPDES-Regulated Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities .................... 6
2.1.2 NPDES General Permits ........................................................................................................ 6
ASSESSMENT OF NONPOINT AND STORMWATER SOURCES .......................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Stormwater Discharges in the Lower Creek Basin................................................................. 8
2.1.4 Water Quality Assessment ...................................................................................................... 9
3.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................................ 11
PARAMETER ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................................ 12
MODEL RESULTS....................................................................................................................................... 14
4.0 TMDL CALCULATION ..................................................................................................................... 22
TMDL ENDPOINTS.................................................................................................................................... 23
CRITICAL CONDITIONS AND SEASONAL VARIATION.................................................................................. 23
MARGIN OF SAFETY .................................................................................................................................. 24
RESERVE CAPACITY.................................................................................................................................. 24
TMDL CALCULATION...............................................................................................................................24
ALLOCATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1 Wasteload Allocations..........................................................................................................24
4.1.2 Load Allocations................................................................................................................... 25
5.0 FOLLOW – UP MONITORING......................................................................................................... 26
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................................... 27
7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................................................................................................ 29
8.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION........................................................................................................ 29
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
v
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX A. CALDWELL COUNTY, NC SOILS (NRCS, 1991) ..................................................... 33
APPENDIX B. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE RESULTS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
IN THE LOWER CREEK WATERSHED SAMPLES COLLECTED SEPTEMBER 2002.............. 34
APPENDIX C. NC DWQ AMBIENT MONITORING RESULTS FOR TSS AND TURBIDITY AT
STATION C1750000 .................................................................................................................................. 36
APPENDIX D. DATA SOURCES............................................................................................................. 38
APPENDIX E. MONTHLY AVERAGE EFFLUENT TSS CONCENTRATIONS (MG/L) AT THE
CITY OF LENOIR - LOWER CREEK WWTP DURING YEARS 1999-2003.................................... 39
APPENDIX F. GENERAL PERMITEES LOCATED WITHIN THE LOWER CREEK
WATERSHED............................................................................................................................................ 40
APPENDIX G. METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING THE LOAD DURATION CURVE.......... 41
APPENDIX H. CALIBRATED SOIL LAYER PARAMETERS IN WARMF..................................... 42
APPENDIX I. STREAMBANK EROSION VALUES AND TOTAL TSS LOADING VALUES FOR
YEARS 92-97 (CALIBRATION DATASET), 97-03 PERIOD, AND TMDL PERIOD (BASED ON
97-03 PERIOD) FOR EACH SUBWATERSHED IN THE LOWER CREEK BASIN. ...................... 45
APPENDIX J. NONPERMITTED STORMWATER LOADING WAS IDENTIFIED IN
SUBWATERSHEDS 14 AND 16 BASED ON THE EXCESSIVE STREAMBANK EROSION
LOAD. CURRENT CONDITION 97-03 SCENARIOS WERE COMPARED TO SCENARIOS
WITHIN WARMF IN WHICH ALL URBAN AREAS WERE CONVERTED TO MIXED FOREST.
THE PERCENT CHANGE IN LOADING BETWEEN THESE SCENARIOS BECAME THE
BASES FOR CHOOSING THE PERCENT OF CURRENT STREAMBANK EROSION LOADING
THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO STORMWATER LOADING. CURRENTLY, NO MS4 AREA IS
CONTAINED WITHIN EITHER OF THE TWO SUBWATERSHEDS. ............................................ 46
APPENDIX K. TSS LOADING OUTPUT FROM THE WARMF MODEL DURING THE 1997-2003
FOR THE MS4 ("HICKORY URBANIZED AREA" WITHIN THE LOWER CREEK
WATERSHED) AREA IDENTIFIED BY LANDUSE WITHIN EACH SUBWATERSHED............ 47
APPENDIX L. TMDL SCENARIO USING TSS LOADING OUTPUT FROM THE WARMF
MODEL DURING THE 1997-2003 PERIOD FOR THE MS4 ("HICKORY URBANIZED AREA"
WITHIN THE LOWER CREEK WATERSHED) AREA IDENTIFIED BY LANDUSE WITHIN
EACH SUBWATERSHED........................................................................................................................ 48
APPENDIX M. TSS LOADING OUTPUT FROM THE WARMF MODEL DURING THE 1997-
2003 FOR NONPOINT SOURCES (NON- MS4, "HICKORY URBANIZED AREA" AND NON
PERMITTED LOADING WITHIN THE LOWER CREEK WATERSHED) AREA IDENTIFIED
BY LANDUSE WITHIN EACH SUBWATERSHED............................................................................. 49
APPENDIX N. TMDL SCENARIO USING TSS LOADING OUTPUT FROM THE WARMF
MODEL DURING THE 1997-2003 FOR NONPOINT SOURCES (NON- MS4, "HICKORY
URBANIZED AREA" AND NON PERMITTED LOADING WITHIN THE LOWER CREEK
WATERSHED) AREA IDENTIFIED BY LANDUSE WITHIN EACH SUBWATERSHED............ 50
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
vi
APPENDIX O. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF LOWER CREEK
TURBIDITY TMDL .................................................................................................................................. 51

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
vii

INDEX OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. LOWER CREEK WATERSHED AND SURROUNDING AREA. IMPAIRED STREAM LENGTH IS
BASED ON THE 2004 INTEGRATED LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS (2004 INTEGRATED 305(B)
AND 303(D) REPORT).......................................................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 2. LAND USE/ LAND COVER DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE LOWER CREEK WATERSHED........ 1
FIGURE 3. LOWER CREEK WATERSHED INCLUDING FISH AND BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING, LOCATIONS.................................................................................................................. 3
FIGURE 4. WATER QUALITY MONITORING FOR TURBIDITY IN LOWER CREEK AT AMBIENT
STATION C1750000 (LOWER CREEK AT SR 1501 NEAR MORGANTON) FOR YEARS 1997-
2003....................................................................................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 5. LOWER CREEK WATERSHED INCLUDING ACTIVE AND INACTIVE AMBIENT CHEMICAL
MONITORING, AND MAJOR AND MINOR NPDES PERMITTED FACILITIES..................................... 5
FIGURE 6. POWER REGRESSION BETWEEN TOTAL NONFILTERABLE SOLIDS AND TURBIDITY AT
LOWER CREEK AT STATION C1750000 USING DATA COLLECTED DURING YEARS 1997-2003.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 7. LOAD DURATION CURVE FOR TURBIDITY AT LOWER CREEK, AMBIENT STATION
C1750000 (YEARS 1997-2003) AND ESTIMATED FLOW AT USGS 02141245 USING FLOW
DATA FROM USGS STATION 02140991 (JOHNS RIVER AT ARNEYS STORE)............................. 11
FIGURE 8. LOWER CREEK AS REPRESENTED IN THE WARMF MODEL. SUBWATERSHEDS WERE
LABELED 1-16 TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING WASTELOAD AND LOAD ALLOCATIONS................. 13
FIGURE 9. SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLOW AT LOWER CREEK USGS STATION, 02141245...... 15
FIGURE 10. SCATTER PLOT FOR LOWER CREEK HYDROLOGY CALIBRATION, 1992-1997.............. 16
FIGURE 11. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FLOW CALIBRATION FOR LOWER CREEK, 1992-1997.16
FIGURE 12. CUMULATIVE FLOW PLOT CALIBRATION FOR LOWER CREEK, 1992-1997................... 17
FIGURE 13. SIMULATED AND OBSERVED TEMPERATURE CALIBRATION IN LOWER CREEK, 1992-
1997..................................................................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 14. SCATTER PLOT FOR LOWER CREEK TEMPERATURE CALIBRATION 1992-1997............ 18
FIGURE 15. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TEMPERATURE CALIBRATION FOR LOWER CREEK,
1992-1997........................................................................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 16. SCATTER PLOT FOR LOWER CREEK TSS CALIBRATION 1992-1997.............................. 19
FIGURE 17. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TSS CALIBRATION FOR LOWER CREEK, 1992-1997..19
FIGURE 18. SIMULATED AND OBSERVED TSS IN LOWER CREEK DURING 1998-2003 USING
CALIBRATED MODEL.......................................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 19. SIMULATED AND OBSERVED TSS IN LOWER CREEK, 1998-2003, CLOSE-UP VIEW.... 21
FIGURE 20. SCATTER PLOT FOR LOWER CREEK TSS 1998-2003....................................................... 21
FIGURE 21. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TSS FOR LOWER CREEK, 1998-2003........................... 22

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
viii

INDEX OF TABLES
TABLE 1 DETAILED LAND USE/ LAND COVER DISTRIBUTION WITHIN LOWER CREEK WATERSHED.1
TABLE 2 NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS TO THE 50 NTU TURBIDITY STANDARD IN LOWER CREEK
CLASSIFIED BY FLOW RANGE.............................................................................................................. 9
TABLE 3 FLOW STATISTICS FOR USGS GAGE STATION #02140991 DURING YEARS 1985-2004..... 10
TABLE 4 HYDROLOGY PARAMETER RANGES FOR LOWER CREEK WATERSHED............................. 13
TABLE 5 REACTION RATES FOR LOWER CREEK WATERSHED............................................................ 14
TABLE 6 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LOWER CREEK HYDROLOGY CALIBRATION, 1992-1997..... 15
TABLE 7 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LOWER CREEK TEMPERATURE CALIBRATION, 1992-1997..18
TABLE 8 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LOWER TSS CALIBRATION 1992-1997................................... 19
TABLE 9 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LOWER CREEK TSS 1998-2003............................................... 21
TABLE 10 EXISTING TSS LOADING BY LAND USE SOURCES IN THE LOWER CREEK WATERSHED.22
TABLE 11 NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS TO THE 50 NTU STANDARD FOR EACH MONTH DURING THE
1998-2003 PERIOD............................................................................................................................. 23
TABLE 12 UNALLOCATED TMDL LOAD AND PERCENT REDUCTION................................................. 24
TABLE 13. LOWER CREEK TMDL WASTELOAD AND LOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR TURBIDITY
EXPRESSED AS KG/DAY TSS............................................................................................................. 26

1
1.0 Introduction
Problem Definition
The 2002 North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (also
known as the Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) identified Lower Creek in the
Catawba River Basin as impaired by elevated turbidity. Based on this report, the impaired
segments (assessment units 11-39-(0.5)b, 11-39-(6.5), and 11-39-(9)) include the portion
of Lower Creek from the confluence of Zack’s Fork and Lower Creek in Caldwell
County to Rhodhiss Lake in Burke County (subbasin 03-08-31). As per the 2002
Integrated Report, the three stream segments of interest totaled 12.7 miles. Recently,
tools that improve the accuracy of measuring stream length have been used to measure
theses segments and have determined a total length of 13.7 miles. This report will
establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for turbidity for Lower Creek
downstream of the confluence with Zack’s Fork and will serve as a management
approach or restoration plan aimed toward reducing loadings of sediment from various
sources in order to attain applicable surface water quality standards for turbidity.

TMDL Components
In accordance with Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1315(B)), the State of North Carolina is required to biennially prepare and submit to the
USEPA a report addressing the overall water quality of the State's waters. This report is
commonly referred to as the 305(b) Report or the Water Quality Inventory Report. In
accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the State is also required
to biennially prepare and submit to USEPA a report that identifies waters that do not
meet or are not expected to meet surface water quality standards (SWQS) after
implementation of technology-based effluent limitations or other required controls. This
report is commonly referred to as the 303(d) List. The 303(d) process requires that a
TMDL be developed for each of the waters appearing on Category 5 of North Carolina’s
Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (formerly Part 1 of North Carolina’s
303(d) list). The objective of a TMDL is to quantify the amount of a pollutant a water
body can assimilate without violating a state’s water quality standards and allocate that
load capacity to point and nonpoint sources in the form of wasteload allocations (WLAs),
load allocations (LAs), and a margin of safety (MOS) (USEPA, 1991). Generally, the
primary components of a TMDL, as identified by EPA (1991, 2000) and the Federal
Advisory Committee (USEPA FACA, 1998) are as follows:

Target identification or selection of pollutant(s) and end-point(s) for consideration.
The pollutant and end-point are generally associated with measurable water
quality related characteristics that indicate compliance with water quality
standards. North Carolina indicates known pollutants on the 303(d) list.
Source assessment. All sources that contribute to the impairment should be identified
and loads quantified, where sufficient data exist.
Reduction target. Estimation or level of pollutant reduction needed to achieve water
quality goal. The level of pollution should be characterized for the waterbody,
highlighting how current conditions deviate from the target end-point. Generally,
this component is identified through water quality modeling.
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
2
Allocation of pollutant loads. Allocating pollutant control responsibility to the
sources of impairment. The wasteload allocation portion of the TMDL accounts
for the loads associated with existing and future point sources. Similarly, the load
allocation portion of the TMDL accounts for the loads associated with existing
and future non-point sources, stormwater, and natural background.
Margin of Safety. The margin of safety addresses uncertainties associated with
pollutant loads, modeling techniques, and data collection. Per EPA (2000), the
margin of safety may be expressed explicitly as unallocated assimilative capacity
or implicitly due to conservative assumptions.
Seasonal variation. The TMDL should consider seasonal variation in the pollutant
loads and end-point. Variability can arise due to stream flows, temperatures, and
exceptional events (e.g., droughts, hurricanes).
Critical Conditions. Critical conditions indicate the combination of environmental
factors that result in just meeting the water quality criterion and have an
acceptably low frequency of occurrence.

Section 303(d) of the CWA and the Water Quality Planning and Management regulation
(USEPA, 2000) require EPA to review all TMDLs for approval or disapproval. Once
EPA approves a TMDL, then the waterbody may be moved to Category 4a of the
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. Waterbodies remain in Category 4a until
compliance with water quality standards is achieved. Where conditions are not
appropriate for the development of a TMDL, management strategies may still result in
the restoration of water quality.

The goal of the TMDL program is to restore designated uses to water bodies. Thus, the
implementation of sediment controls throughout the watershed will be necessary to
restore uses in the most downstream portion of Lower Creek. Although a site-specific
implementation plan is not included as part of this TMDL, reduction strategies are
needed. The involvement of local governments and agencies will be critical in order to
develop implementation plans and reduction strategies. Implementation discussion will
begin during public review of the TMDL.

Water Quality Target
Turbidity is a unit of measurement quantifying the degree to which light traveling
through a water column is scattered by the suspended organic and inorganic particles.
The scattering of light increases with a greater suspended load. Turbidity is commonly
measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), but may also be measured in Jackson
Turbidity Units (JTU).

Lower Creek has been classified by the NC DWQ as Class C above its intersection with
Caldwell County SR 1143. From Caldwell County SR 1143 to a point 0.7 miles down
stream of Bristol Creek, Lower Creek is classified as WS-IV. The remainder of Lower
Creek (to Rhodhiss Lake) is classified as WS-IV CA. Class C waters are defined as
“Waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
3
water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental
manner.” Water supply watershed (WS) classification is assigned to watersheds based on
land use characteristics of the area. A Critical Area (CA) designation is also listed for
watershed areas within a half-mile and draining to the water supply intake or reservoir
where an intake is located. For turbidity, Class WS-IV, and WS-IV (CA) have the same
water quality standard as Class C. The North Carolina fresh water quality standard for
turbidity in Class C waters (T15A: NCAC 2B.0211 (3)k) states:

The turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams,
lakes or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not
designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity
exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity
level cannot be increased. Compliance with this turbidity standard can be met
when land management activities employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) [as
defined by Rule .0202 of this Section] recommended by the Designated Nonpoint
Source Agency [as defined by Rule .0202 of this Section]. BMPs must be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation,
operation and maintenance of such BMPs;

The in-stream numeric target is the restoration objective that is expected to be reached by
implementing the specified load reductions in this TMDL. The target allows for
evaluation of progress toward the goal of reaching water quality standards for the
impaired stream by comparing the in-stream data to the target. In the Lower Creek
watershed, the applicable water quality target is the 50 NTU standard.

Watershed Description
The Lower Creek watershed includes the City of Lenoir and drains primarily the
southwest portion of Caldwell County into the upper reaches of Lake Rhodhiss (see
Figure 1). Lower Creek is predominantly located within the Northern Inner Piedmont
ecoregion, however, portions of the headwaters are located in the Eastern Blue Ridge
Foothills region. The watershed also includes Zacks Fork Creek [AU#11-39-1, 8.2 mi.],
Spainhour Creek [AU#11-39-3, 4.3 mi.], Greasy Creek [AU#11-39-4, 4.5 mi.], and
Bristol Creek [AU#11-39-8, 5.6 mi.]. Lower Creek consists of two USGS 14-digit
hydrologic unit codes (HUCs); units 03050101080010 and 03050101080020.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
4
Figure 1. Lower Creek watershed and surrounding area. Impaired stream length is based
on the 2004 Integrated List of Impaired Waters (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
Abingdon Creek
Lower Creek
Blair Fork
Husband Creek
Celia Creek
Whites Mill Creek
Bristol Creek
Zacks Fork Creek
Fork Creek
Caldwell County
Burke County
Spainhour Creek
Greasy Creek
Husband Creek
Lower Creek
Gamewell
Lenoir
HudsonCajah Mtn
Urban Area Boundaries
Lower Creek Watershed
County Boundary
Lower Creek and Tributaries
Impaired stream length
4048Miles
N
Lower Creek Watershed

1.1.1 Land use/ Land cover
The land use/land cover characteristics of the watershed were determined using 1996 land
cover data that were developed from 1993-94 LANDSAT satellite imagery. The North
Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, in cooperation with the NC
Department of Transportation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV Wetlands Division, contracted Earth Satellite Corporation of Rockville,
Maryland to generate comprehensive land cover data for the entire state of North
Carolina. Land cover/land use data for the Lower Creek watershed is identified in Figure
2. During the formation of this geographic dataset, the proportion of synthetic cover was
used to identify developed land as either low density developed (50-80% synthetic cover)
or high density developed (80-100% synthetic cover) (Earth Satellite Corporation, 1997).
1
Figure 2. Land use/ land cover distribution within the Lower Creek watershed.
Lower Ck Landuse
Open Water
Low Intensity Residential
High Intensity Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Pasture/Hay
Row Crops
Urban/Recreational Grasses
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
Lower Creek and Tributaries
N
4048Miles
Lower Creek Watershed

1
Table 1 Detailed land use/ land cover distribution within Lower Creek watershed.
Land use/ Land cover Acres
Watershed
area (%)
Water Open Water 57 0.1%
Developed Low Intensity Residential 3,824 6.1%
High Intensity Residential 772 1.2%
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 1,538 2.4%
Forested Upland Deciduous Forest 22,840 36.4%
Evergreen Forest 13,377 21.3%
Mixed Forest 13,127 20.9%
Pasture/Hay 3,854 6.1% Herbaceous
Planted/Cultivated Row Crops 2,594 4.1%
Urban/Recreational Grasses 271 0.4%
Wetlands Woody Wetlands 434 0.7%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 25 0.04%
Barren Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 88 0.1%
Transitional 21 0.03%

As identified in Table 1, 1993-94 LANDSAT satellite imagery identify Forest (78.6%),
Herbaceous Planted/Cultivated (10.6), and Developed area (9.7%) as the predominant
landuses in the Lower Creek watershed.

1.1.2 Geology
Portions of Burke and Caldwell Counties lie within the Northern Inner Piedmont and
Southern Crystaline Ridge and Mountain Ecoregions (Level 4). Predominantly, two rock
types occur in the Lower Creek watershed; metamorphic rocks of the Inner Piedmont,
Milton belt, and Raleigh belt (gneiss, schist and amphibolite) and metamorphosed
granitic rock, (NCGS, 1991).

1.1.3 Soils
Soils types and characteristics vary throughout the Lower Creek watershed. A full list of
soils found in Caldwell County is located in Appendix A. As seen in Appendix A, the
predominant soils include Cecil sandy loam, Chestnut gravelly loam, Chestnut and
Edneyville soils, Evard fine sandy loam, and Pacolet fine sandy loam. (USDA, 1991).
Each of these soils has an erosion hazard of “severe” or “very severe” indicating their
potential for future erosion in inadequately protected areas. The estimated erosion for
each erosion classification is based on estimated annual soil loss in metric tons per
hectare. Values were determined using the Universal Soil Loss Equation assuming bare
soil conditions and using rainfall and climate factors for North Carolina. A “severe”
classification indicates a estimated loss of 10 to 25 tons per hectare and a “very severe”
indicates more than 25 tons per hectare of annual erosion.

Water Quality Monitoring Program
Water quality monitoring performed by the NCDENR has shown occasional violations of
the water quality standard for turbidity (81 out of 81 samples or 22% between 1/1997 and
3/2004). As part of this TMDL, chemical and biological assessments were conducted
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
2
throughout the Lower Creek watershed to characterize the impact of turbidity
impairment. Both chemical and biological assessments suggest significant water quality
and habitat impairment and support the inclusion of Lower Creek on the Impaired Waters
List (2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).

1.1.4 Biological Monitoring
The DWQ maintains an extensive biological monitoring network of ambient stations. In
the Lower Creek watershed recent monitoring conducted by DWQs Environmental
Sciences Branch has included a watershed survey (1997), a reconnaissance survey (May
2002), an assessment for basin wide monitoring plans (1999 and 2004), and monitoring
for biological stressors (2003). Most recently, in March 2003, an intensive monitoring
effort was conducted that included benthic macroinvertebrate populations, fish
populations, physical and water chemistry characteristics, and site descriptions and
instream and riparian habitats at seventeen locations in the Lower Creek watershed.
These locations are shown in Figure 3. A summary of fish and benthic invertebrate
results from this study are presented in Appendix B.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
3
Figure 3. Lower Creek watershed including fish and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring,
locations.
N
Lower CreekBurke County
Caldwell County
NC 90
NC 18
NC 18
NC 18
NC 90
NC 18ASR 1305
SR 1142
SR 1501
SR 1513
SR 1531
US 321A
OLD NC 18
OLD NC 18
NC 18 BYPASS
Piney Rd
NC 18 BUS HARRISBURG ST, LENOIR
SR 1303, FAIRVIEW RD
Urban Area Boundaries
County Boundary
Lower Creek and Tributaries
Impaired Streamlength
Fish Monitoring
Good-Fair
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Stations
Not Impaired
Good-Fair
Fair
Poor
Not Rated
Lower Creek Watershed
4048Miles
Lower Creek Watershed

Most notable in this study was the widespread finding of severe streambank erosion with
little riparian buffer protection. Each site sampled in the 2002 Lower Creek study showed
impacted water quality resulting in reduced benthic fauna. Sandy habitat coupled with
urban/industrial runoff from the City of Lenoir produced the most stressed benthic
communities as demonstrated in Lower Creek, lower Zack’s Fork and lower Spainhour
Creek. Tributary catchments such as Abingdon Creek, Greasy Creek, Husband Creek,
Bristol Creek, and the UT to Spainhour Creek that were not affected by urban nonpoint
runoff from the City of Lenoir supported more diverse benthic communities.
Agricultural runoffs from farms (cropland and animals) located in tributary catchments
were thought to affect the benthic communities in these streams, but not as severely as
urban runoff from the City of Lenoir. The UT to Spainhour Creek and the Bristol Creek
watershed (including White Mill Creek) were the only streams that supported a benthic
community that contained long-lived stoneflies and philopotamid caddisflies. For more
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
4
extensive discussion of results, see NCDWQ (2003) and Appendix B. While this
biological information is not used directly in calculation the TMDL, it will be a primary
information source when implementing the load and wasteload reductions set forward in
this TMDL.

1.1.5 Chemical Monitoring
Lower Creek was listed as impaired on North Carolina’s 1998 and 2000 303(d) Reports
based on turbidity data collected in the early 1990s throughout the Lower Creek
watershed. Since that time, monitoring has continued at station C1750000 (Lower Creek
at SR 1501 near Morganton) on a monthly basis and violations to the turbidity standard
continue to occur. Turbidity concentrations at station C1750000 ranged from 4.4 NTU to
1400 NTU with an average of 64 NTU, a median value of 21 NTU, and mode value of 27
NTU. Turbidity monitoring for years 1997-2003 are presented below in Figure 4 and in
Appendix C. Figure 5 shows the monitoring station locations in the Lower Creek
watershed.

Figure 4. Water quality monitoring for turbidity in Lower Creek at ambient station
C1750000 (Lower Creek at SR 1501 near Morganton) for years 1997-2003.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04
Date
Tur
b
i
d
i
t
y

(
N
T
U
)

a
n
d

S
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
NC DWQ Ambient Data
Streamflow (estimated)
50 NTU Standard

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
5
Figure 5. Lower Creek watershed including active and inactive ambient chemical
monitoring, and major and minor NPDES permitted facilities.
Lower CreekBurke County
Caldwell County
NC0048755, Monte Carlo Trailer Park
NC0023981, Lower Ck WWTP
LOWER CRK AT US 321 LENOIR
LOWER CRK AT SR 1188 AT LENOIR
ZACKS CRK AT US 321A AT LENOIR
BLAIR FK AT US 321A NR LENOIR
BLAIR FK AT MOUTH NR LENOIR
SPAINHOUR CRK AT NC 18 BYPASS AT LENOIR
LOWER CRK AT SR 1501
NR MORGANTON MARION
NC0043231, Cedar Rock Country Club
LOWER CRK AT GAMEWELL SR 1143
N
Lower Creek Watershed
4048Miles
Urban Area Boundaries
County Boundary
Lower Creek and Tributaries
Impaired Streamlength
Inactive Ambient Monitoring Locations
Active Ambient Monitoring Location
NPDES - Major
NPDES - Minor
Lower Creek Watershed

2.0 Source Assessment
A source assessment is used to identify and characterize the known and suspected sources
of turbidity in the Lower Creek watershed. This section outlines the assessment
completed for the purpose of developing this TMDL. The NCDENR’s Geographic
Information System (GIS) was used extensively to watershed characterization. Data
sources used in assessing Long Creek are identified in Appendix D.

Assessment of Point Sources
Two categories are included under this discussion; NPDES-regulated municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities and NPDES general permitted facilities.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
6
2.1.1 NPDES-Regulated Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Discharges from wastewater treatment facilities may contribute sediment to receiving
waters as total suspended solids (TSS) and/or turbidity. Municipal treatment plants and
industrial treatment plants are required to meet surface water quality criteria for turbidity
in their effluent. Since these facilities are routinely achieving surface water quality
criteria, this TMDL will not impose additional limits to current practices or existing
effluent limits for POTWs and industrial treatment plants. When effluent turbidity
concentrations exceed surface water quality criteria, and result in permit violations,
action will be taken through the NPDES unit of North Carolina’s Division of Water
Quality.

Currently, there is one major NPDES permitted wastewater treatment plant discharger
and two minor NPDES permitted facilities located in the Lower Creek watershed. The
Lower Creek WWTP (NC0023981) has a permitted flow of 6.0 MGD with an effluent
TSS limit of 30 mg/l on a monthly average and 45 mg/L on a weekly average. Cedar
Rock Country Club (NC0043231) discharges to Lower Ck at a permitted flow of 0.009
MGD with a monthly average TSS limit of 30 mg/L and daily maximum TSS limit of 45
mg/L. Monte Carlo Trailer Park (NC0048755) discharges to Lower Creek at a permitted
flow of 0.005 MGD with a monthly average TSS limit of 30 mg/L and daily maximum
TSS limit of 45 mg/L. Monthly effluent averages for NC 0023981 are located in
Appendix E.

2.1.2 NPDES General Permits
Twenty-six general permitted facilities are located in the Lower Creek watershed. A list
of these facilities is presented in Appendix F. General permitted facilities, while not
subject to effluent TSS or turbidity limitations, are required to develop a stormwater
pollution prevention plan, and conduct qualitative and/or quantitative measurements at
each stormwater discharge outfall and vehicle maintenance area. Sampling methodology
and constituents to be measured are characteristic of the volume and nature of the
permitted discharge. For example, general permits for mining operations require the
permitee to measure settleable solids, total suspended solids, turbidity, rainfall, event
duration, and flow in stormwater discharge areas. Measurements of pH, oil and grease,
total suspended solids, rainfall, and flow are required in on-site vehicle maintenance
areas. Similarly, monitoring is required in mine dewatering areas, wastewater associated
with sand/gravel mining, and in overflow from other process recycle wastewater systems.

Facilities submitting a notice of intent (NOI) for coverage under a general permit, prior to
establishment or approval of a TMDL for a priority pollutant(s) for stormwater
discharges (i.e. wet weather flows), may be covered under a general permit during its
term. For such facilities continued coverage under the reissuance of a general permit is
subject to the facility demonstrating that it does not have a reasonable potential to violate
applicable water quality standards for such pollutants due to the stormwater discharge(s).
In part, the decision to reissue is based on the submission of water quality measurements.
For facilities that do have a reasonable potential for violation of applicable water quality
standards due to the stormwater discharge(s) the facility shall apply for an individual
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
7
permit 180 days prior to the expiration of their general permit. Once the individual permit
is issued and becomes effective the facility will no longer have coverage under the
general permit.

All construction activities in the Lower Creek watershed that disturb one or more acres of
land are subject to NC general permit NCG010000 and as such are required to not cause
or contribute to violations of Water Quality Standards. As stated in Permit NCG010000,
page 2, “The discharges allowed by this General Permit shall not cause or contribute to
violations of Water Quality Standards. Discharges allowed by this permit must meet
applicable wetland standards as outlined in 15A NCAC 2B .0230 and .0231 and water
quality certification requirements as outlined in 15A NCAC 2H .0500”. Monitoring
requirements for these construction activities are outlined in Section B (page 5) of
NCG010000. As stated, “All erosion and sedimentation control facilities shall be
inspected by or under the direction of the permittee at least once every seven calendar
days (at least twice every seven days for those facilities discharging to waters of the State
listed on the latest EPA approved 303(d) list for construction related indicators of
impairment such as turbidity or sedimentation) and within 24 hours after any storm event
of greater that 0.5 inches of rain per 24 hour period.” (NCG010000, Section B)

As per 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B), where a TMDL has been approved, NPDES
permits must contain effluent limits and conditions consistent with the requirements and
assumptions of the WLA in the TMDL. While effluent limitations are generally
expressed numerically, EPA guidance on NPDES-regulated municipal and small
construction storm water discharges is that these effluent limits be expressed as best
management practices (BMPs) or other similar requirements, rather than numeric effluent
limits (EPA, 2002). Compliance with the turbidity standard in Lower Creek is expected
to be met when construction and other land management activities in the Lower Creek
watershed employ adequate BMPs. Upon approval of this TMDL, DWQ will notify the
NC Division of Land Resources (DLR) and other relevant agencies, including county and
local offices in the Lower Creek watershed (Caldwell and Burke Counties) responsible in
overseeing construction activities, as to the impaired status of Lower Creek and the need
for a high degree of review in the construction permit review process.

Assessment of Nonpoint and Stormwater Sources
Nonpoint and stormwater sources include various erosional processes, including
sheetwash, gully and rill erosion, wind, landslides, dry ravel, and human excavation that
contribute sediment during storm or runoff events. Sediments are also often produced as a
result of stream channel and bank erosion and channel disturbance (EPA, 1999).

Nonpoint sources account for the vast majority of sediment loading to surface waters. A
few of these sources include:

Natural erosion occurring from the weathering of soils, rocks, and uncultivated
land; geological abrasion; and other natural phenomena.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
8
Erosion from agricultural activities. This erosion can be due to the large land area
involved and the land-disturbing effects of cultivation. Grazing livestock can
leave areas of ground with little vegetative cover. Unconfined animals with direct
access to streams can cause streambank damage and erosion.

Erosion from unpaved roadways can be a significant source of sediment to rivers
and streams. Exposed soils, high runoff velocities and volumes and poor road
compaction all increase the potential for erosion.

Runoff from active or abandoned mines may be a significant source of solids
loading. Mining activities typically involve removal of vegetation, displacement
of soils and other significant land disturbing activities.

Soil erosion from forested land that occurs during timber harvesting and
reforestation activities. Timber harvesting includes the layout of access roads, log
decks, and skid trails; the construction and stabilization of these areas; and the
cutting of trees. Established forest areas produce very little erosion.

Streambank and streambed erosion processes often contribute a significant
portion of the overall sediment budget. The consequence of increased streambank
erosion is both water quality degradation as well as increased stream channel
instability and accelerated sediment yields. Streambank erosion can be traced to
two major factors: stream bank characteristics (erodibility potential) and
hydraulic/gravitational forces (Rosgen, online). The predominant processes of
stream bank erosion include: surface erosion, mass failure (planar and rotational),
fluvial entrainment (particle detachment by flowing water, generally at the bank
toe), freeze-thaw, dry ravel, ice scour, liquifaction/collapse, positive pore water
pressure, both saturated and unsaturated failures and soil piping.

2.1.3 Stormwater Discharges in the Lower Creek Basin
Urban runoff can contribute significant amounts of turbidity and is addressed and
regulated under the Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (EPA, 2000). Amendments were
made to the Clean Water Act in 1990 and most recently in 1999 pertaining to permit
requirements for stormwater dischargers associated with industrial activities and
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). MS4s can discharge sediment to
waterbodies in response to storm events through road drainage systems, curb and gutter
systems, ditches, and storm drains. This rule applies to a cities or counties which own or
operate a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). As a result of the Phase II Rule,
MS4 owners are required to obtain a National Point Source Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for their stormwater discharges to surface waters.

An MS4 becomes part of the Phase II program in one of three ways; (1) automatic
designation, (2) state designation, or (3) petitioning. According to the 2000 US Census
Urbanized Area, the Lower Creek watershed includes portions of the Hickory “Urbanized
area.” This area includes portions of Lenoir, Gamewell, and Cajah’s Mountain. The total
Phase II area included as part of the Hickory Urbanized area within the Lower Creek
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
9
watershed is approximately 13,187 acres (20.6 mi2), or approximately 21% of the total
Lower Creek watershed.

2.1.4 Water Quality Assessment
When streamflow gage information is available, a load duration curve (LDC) analysis is
useful in identifying and differentiating between storm-driven and steady-input sources
(Stiles 2002, Cleland 2002, ASIWPCA 2002). ). This method determines the relative
ranking of a given flow based on the percent of time that historic flows exceed that value.
Flow data have been collected by USGS at the primary site (USGS Gage 02140991) from
1985 to the present. Excursions that occur only during low-flow events (flows that are
frequently exceeded) are likely caused by continuous or point source discharges, which
are generally diluted during storm events. Excursions that occur during high-flow events
(flows that are not frequently exceeded) are generally driven by storm-event runoff. A
mixture of point and nonpoint sources may cause excursions during normal flows. Table
2 identifies the number of turbidity samples exceeding the 50 NTU criterion under a
variety of flow conditions.

Table 2 Number of violations to the 50 NTU turbidity standard in Lower Creek classified
by flow range.
Percent of Time Flows are Equaled
or Exceeded
Total number of
samples
Number of samples
>50 NTU
0% - 10% (high flows) 8 6
10% - 40% (moist conditions) 20 4
40% - 60% (mid-range flows) 15 2
60% - 95% (dry conditions) 34 5
95% - 100% (low flows) 4 1
All flows 81 18

Because turbidity is measured as NTUs and not as a concentration, another parameter that
is measured as a concentration must be used to represent turbidity loadings in the
watershed. For this TMDL, total nonfilterable solids (or TSS, method 00530) was
selected based its correlation with turbidity. The correlation was determined using the
below formula:

()()
yx
yi
n
i
xi
xy
yxn
σσ
µµ
ρ ⋅
−−
=
∑
=1
1
where: 11≤≤−xyρ

Given this, a linear regression was developed between turbidity and TSS to allow for the
use of TSS values in developing a LDC. This regression is shown in Figure 6. Steps used
to develop the LDC are presented in Appendix G.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
10
Figure 6. Power regression between Total Nonfilterable Solids and Turbidity at Lower
Creek at station C1750000 using data collected during years 1997-2003.
y = 1.3772x0.8938
R2 = 0.7865
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Turbidity NTU
To
t
a
l

N
o
n
f
i
l
t
e
r
a
b
l
e

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
m
g
/
L
)

Using the drainage-area and point source adjusted flow values, flow duration graphs were
developed for the Lower Creek ambient station. Monitoring data was then matched up
with the flow duration ranking based on the collection date. Flow gage information is not
available in the Lower Creek watershed, thus, daily flow data (during 1985 through 2004)
from a nearby USGS Station #02140991, Johns River at Arneys Store, was used to
establish the historic flow regimes and define ranges for the high, typical, and low flow
conditions. Flows at the Lower Creek ambient station near SR 1501 were estimated based
on a drainage area ratio between USGS station #02140991 and the watershed area
upstream of SR 1501. Flows were also adjusted to account for the Lower Ck WWTP
(NC0023981). Table 3 presents flow statistics for station #02140991 obtained from the
USGS and LDC analysis.

Table 3 Flow statistics for USGS gage station #02140991 during years 1985-2004.
Parameter Value
Drainage Area 201 mi2
Average flow 346 cfs
Minimum flow 19 cfs
Maximum flow 16,100 cfs
High Flow Range (> 10% exceed) > 607 cfs
Nonpoint Source Contributions from runoff (10-85%) 117- 607 cfs
Low Flow Range (95-100%) < 86 cfs

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
11
Figure 7 shows TSS data as a function of estimated flow duration at the Lower Creek
ambient station. As shown in Figure 7, the surface water quality violations occur under
all flows ranges and are likely attributable to a variety of point and nonpoint sources.

Figure 7. Load duration curve for Turbidity at Lower Creek, ambient station C1750000
(years 1997-2003) and estimated flow at USGS 02141245 using flow data from USGS station
02140991 (Johns River at Arneys Store).
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Percent of Days Flow is Exceeded
TS
S

(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
)

SWQS with MOS = 50 NTU or 45.5 mg/L TSS
DWQ Data - TSS measured
DWQ Data - TSS data estimated

3.0 Technical Approach
Based on the preliminary source and data assessment, the Watershed Analysis Risk
Management Framework (WARMF) model was selected to evaluate turbidity in Lower
Creek. WARMF is a decision support system designed to support the watershed approach
and TMDL calculations. The model has been applied to watershed regions in the USA
and Taiwan (Systech Engineering, 2001).

WARMF contains several embedded models adapted from the ILWAS model,
ANSWERS, SWMM, and WASP. The model simulates hydrology and water quality for
the landscape of a river basin. WARMF divides a watershed into land catchments, river
segments, and reservoirs and uses the continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) model for
flow routing and mass balance within a given soil layer or river segment.

Simulated parameters include flow, temperature, water depth and velocity, and
constituent concentrations. In the case of total suspended solids (surrogate for turbidity),
the model simulates the deposition and transportation of sand, silt and clay from the land
surface, instream sources, and point source discharges. The soil erosivity factor is a
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
12
function of soil type and is available from Natural Resources Conservation Service. Data
entry boxes are provided for a soil erosivity factor, and percents of clay, silt, and sand in
the surface soil. The erosion and deposition of soil particles are calculated separately for
clay, silt, and sand. Algorithms for sediment erosion and pollutant transport from farm
lands and other land uses were adapted from ANSWERS and the universal soil loss
equation. The model also includes a facility for calculating TMDLs for non-point source
loads under different control levels of point source loads and vice versa.

In December 2003, NCDWQ entered into a contract with Systech to update the WARMF
model to add three additional data years to extend the model database through September
2003. The new version of WARMF, used in the development of this TMDL, included
updates or improvements to meteorology, air quality, USGS gage data, water quality
data, NPDES point source data, septic system data, and reservoir release data.

Parameter Adjustment
The Lower Creek watershed is represented as 16 catchments within the model (Figure 8).
Simulations were run for the Lower Creek watershed within WARMF. Hydrology and
water quality results were compared to observed data. Model parameters were adjusted to
improve the model results and reduce the error between simulated and observed data.
During hydrology calibration, parameters for soil thickness, initial soil moisture, field
capacity, saturated moisture and hydraulic conductivity were adjusted (see Appendix H).
In addition precipitation weighting factors were adjusted to improve the water balance.
Table 4 lists ranges of values set for the Lower Creek watershed. WARMF’s
autocalibrator tool was used to improve the hydrology calibration. Using this tool,
multiple simulations are performed while small parameter adjustments are made until
model results are improved.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
13
Figure 8. Lower Creek as represented in the WARMF model. Subwatersheds were labeled
1-16 to assist in identifying wasteload and load allocations.
2
1
4
7
15
5
9
11
3
812
10
14
13
16
6
Husband Creek
Greasy Creek
Spainhour Creek
Fork Creek
Zacks Fork Creek
Bristol Creek
Whites Mill Creek
Celia Creek
Husband Creek
Blair Fork
Lower Creek
Abingdon Creek
Lower Creek
Urbanized area in Lower Ck watershed
WARMF Subwatersheds
Lower Creek and Tributaries
101234Miles

Table 4 Hydrology Parameter Ranges for Lower Creek Watershed.
Parameter Lower Range Upper Range
Soil thickness 20 cm 400 cm
Initial Mositure 0.3 0.4
Field Capacity 0.2 0.25
Saturated Moisture 0.35 0.5
Horizontal Conductivity 500 cm/d 10,000 cm/d
Vertical Conductivity 7.5 cm/d 300 cm/d
Precipitation weighting 0.8 1.3

Some of the input parameters that affect suspended sediment concentrations include
buffer zone coefficients, livestock exclusion, and bank vegetation and stability factors.
For each land catchment draining to a stream, a percent buffered parameter is specified.
This is representative of the percent of runoff that will pass through a buffer before
entering the stream. Other buffer inputs include buffer width, slope and roughness. Buffer
parameters for the entire Catawba River Basin (including Lower Creek) were set based
on a GIS study performed by a Duke Energy intern in 2001 (Job 2001). In the Lower
Creek watershed, percent buffered ranged from 47% to 87% buffered, buffer width was
assumed to be 20 m and slope and roughness were set at 0.01 and 0.3 respectively. In the
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
14
Lower Creek Watershed Report published by Western Piedmont Council of Governments
(WPCOG 1998), it was stated that Lower Creek and many tributaries have steep incised
banks that lack vegetation. The stream data collection performed by WPCOG indicated
that bank erosion ranged from moderate to severe. It was also stated that at many
locations, animals have direct access to the streams. Coefficients for bank erosion and
vegetation as well as livestock exclusion BMPs were set based on this qualitative
information. To account for livestock having direct access to streams, it was specified
that in the pasture landuse, 5 percent of the loading from livestock was directly deposited
to the stream instead of being applied to the land surface. Empirical factors for bank
vegetation and bank stability factors were set to equal 0.003. A typical range for these
parameters is from 0.0 to 0.01, with a higher value representing less vegetation and less
bank stability. Based on stream substrate data collected by WPCOG (1998), which
indicated a composition of mostly sand and some gravel and silt, the stream substrate for
Lower Creek was set to be 60% sand, 20% silt and 40% clay in WARMF. Other
parameters that were adjusted during calibration include soil and steam reaction rates.
Table 5 summarizes a few reaction rates specified for the Lower Creek watershed.

Table 5 Reaction rates for Lower Creek Watershed.
Reaction Soil Stream
BOD Decay 0.1 day-1 0.5 day-1
Nitrification 0.01 day-1 0.1 day-1
Fecal Coliform Decay 0.1 day-1 1 day-1

Model Results
Simulated results were compared to all available data from 1992 through 2003 for the
primary Lower Creek monitoring station at SR 1501 near Morganton. Measured stream
flow data was only available from 1/1/1993 through 9/30/1994. Therefore, the hydrology
calibration was performed for this time period. Water quality calibration was performed
using water years 1992 through 1997. Then, model verification was performed by
holding all model coefficients constant and running simulations on water years 1998
through 2003. The following plots show both calibration and verification results for
hydrology and various water quality parameters. Figure 9 shows the simulated stream
flow in Lower Creek compared to observed data for 1993 and 1994. The model captured
the general hydrograph and recession though some peaks flows were under predicted and
others were over predicted. Table 6 and Figure 10 present the summary statistics and a
scatter plot for the hydrology calibration. This data shows a good comparison of mean,
minimum and maximum flow values between simulated and observed. The correlation
coefficient (R2) is 0.698 and relative and absolute errors are 0.15 and 1.029 respectively.
Figure 11 shows the frequency distribution of flow for both simulated and observed and
Figure 12 shows a cumulative flow comparison. Both plots indicate good agreement with
the overall water balance.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
15
Figure 9. Simulated and observed flow at Lower Creek USGS station, 02141245.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1/1/1993 4/2/1993 7/2/1993 10/1/1993 12/31/1993 4/1/1994 7/1/1994 9/30/1994
Date
Fl
o
w

(
c
m
s
)
Simulated Flow Observed Flow

Table 6 Summary statistics for Lower Creek hydrology calibration, 1992-1997..

Mean Minimum Maximum
#
Points
Relative
Error
Absolute
Error
RMS
Error
r-
squared
Lower Ck 92-97 3.186 1.26 83.09 638 0.15 1.028 2.16 0.689
Observed 3.549 1.22 50.41 638 0 0 0 1

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
16
Figure 10. Scatter plot for Lower Creek hydrology calibration, 1992-1997.

Figure 11. Frequency distribution of flow calibration for Lower Creek, 1992-1997.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
17
Figure 12. Cumulative flow plot calibration for Lower Creek, 1992-1997.

Figure 13 shows the simulated and observed temperature in Lower Creek for 1992-1997.
The simulation shows good agreement with the seasonal pattern of temperature. Table 7
and Figures 14 and 15 show the summary statistics, scatter plot, and frequency
distribution plot. The results indicate a good match of simulated with observed including
an R2 of 0.815. The seasonal pattern of temperature in years 1997-2003 also matched
well with a resulting R2 of 0.82.

Figure 13. Simulated and observed temperature calibration in Lower Creek, 1992-1997.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
9/1/1992 8/27/1993 8/22/1994 8/17/1995 8/11/1996 8/6/1997
Date
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
C
)
Simulated Temperature Observed Temperature

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
18
Table 7 Summary statistics for Lower Creek temperature calibration, 1992-1997.

Mean Minimum Maximum
#
Points
Relative
Error
Absolute
Error
RMS
Error
r-
squared
Lower Ck 92-97 14.28 1.326 24.97 76 0.512 2.212 2.902 0.815
Observed 14.05 3 25.5 76 0 0 0 1

Figure 14. Scatter plot for Lower Creek temperature calibration 1992-1997.

Figure 15. Frequency distribution of temperature calibration for Lower Creek, 1992-1997.

Table 8 and Figures 16 and 17 show the summary statistics, scatter plot, and frequency
distribution plot for TSS calibration in Lower Creek for 1992-1997. The results indicate a
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
19
good match of simulated with observed including an R2 of 0.816. Similar results found
for 1998-2003.

Table 8 Summary statistics for Lower TSS calibration 1992-1997.

Mean Minimum Maximum
#
Points
Relative
Error
Absolute
Error
RMS
Error
r-
squared
Lower Ck 92-97 75.54 8.281 35260 51 3.657 36.97 90.3 0.814
Observed 59.2 3 558 51 0 0 0 1

Figure 16. Scatter plot for Lower Creek TSS calibration 1992-1997.

Figure 17. Frequency distribution of TSS calibration for Lower Creek, 1992-1997.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
20

Figures 18 and 19 show a plot of observed and simulated TSS in Lower Creek for water
years 1998-2003. The results indicate a good match of simulated with observed including
an R2 of 0.736. Figures 20 and 21 show the scatter plot and frequency distribution plot for
TSS calibration in Lower Creek for 1998-2003

Figure 18. Simulated and observed TSS in Lower Creek during 1998-2003 using calibrated
model.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
10/1/1997 10/1/1998 10/1/1999 9/30/2000 9/30/2001 9/30/2002 9/30/2003
Date
To
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Simulated TSS Observed TSS

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
21
Figure 19. Simulated and observed TSS in Lower Creek, 1998-2003, close-up view.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10/1/1997 10/1/1998 10/1/1999 9/30/2000 9/30/2001 9/30/2002 9/30/2003
Date
To
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
Simulated TSS Observed TSS

Table 9 Summary statistics for Lower Creek TSS 1998-2003.

Mean Minimum Maximum
#
Points
Relative
Error
Absolute
Error
RMS
Error
r-
squared*
Lower Ck 92-97 44.61 5.2 6518 43 27.68 62.97 226.2 0.736
Observed 52.23 3 580 43 0 0 0 1
* based on exclusion of one false recording measurement taken during 1/19/2000

Figure 20. Scatter plot for Lower Creek TSS 1998-2003.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
22
Figure 21. Frequency distribution of TSS for Lower Creek, 1998-2003.

Existing TSS loading (1998-2003) predicted by the calibrated model is presented below
in Table 10. Streambank erosion was the largest TSS contributor at 98% of the total TSS
load. The remaining 2% of the total TSS load was distributed among the remaining urban
and nonurban landuses. The City of Lenior WWTP was the only significant point source
in the Lower Creek watershed with TSS effluent requirements.
Table 10 Existing TSS loading by land use sources in the Lower Creek watershed.
Landuse/ Landcover
Simulated 1998-2003
TSS Load (kg/day)
Percent of Total
TSS Load
Deciduous Forest 279 0.26%
Evergreen Forest 209 0.20%
Mixed Forest 206 0.20%
Pasture 294 0.28%
Cultivated 399 0.38%
Recreational Grasses 6.4 0.01%
Barren 32 0.03%
Low Int. Develop. 399 0.38%
High Int. Develop. 156 0.15%
Commercial / Industrial 301 0.29%
Stream Bank Erosion 103,204 97.9%
TOTAL 105,500 100%

4.0 TMDL Calculation
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) represents the assimilative or carrying capacity
of a waterbody, taking into consideration point and nonpoint sources of pollutants of
concern, natural background and surface water withdrawals. A TMDL quantifies the
amount of a pollutant a water body can assimilate without violating a state’s water quality
standards (in our case, Class C and WS-IV freshwaters) and allocates that load capacity
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
23
to known point and nonpoint sources in the form of wasteload allocations (WLAs), load
allocations (LAs). In addition, the TMDL must include a margin of safety (MOS), either
implicitly or explicitly, that accounts for the uncertainty in the relationship between
pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving waterbody. This definition is expressed by
the following equation:

TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS

A TMDL is developed as a mechanism for identifying all the contributors to surface
water quality impacts and setting goals for load reductions for pollutants of concern as
necessary to meet the SWQS. The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR §130.2(1))
states that TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time, toxicity, or other
appropriate measures. This TMDL will be expressed in terms of both a mass per time
(kg/day) and percent reduction based on modeled stream flow and instream TSS
concentrations and will be calculated for the most downstream water quality limited river
segment of Lower Creek (segment above the confluence with the Catawba River). A total
of 93 TSS values were used in this TMDL analysis; 51 collected during 1992-1997
period used in calibrating WARMF and 42 collected during 1998-2003 used to develop
the TMDL reduction.

TMDL Endpoints
TMDL endpoints represent the instream water quality targets used in quantifying TMDLs
and their individual components. As discussed in Section 3, turbidity as a measure is not
applicable to the estimation of loading to a stream. TSS was selected as a surrogate
measure for turbidity. Based on the regression analysis, a TSS limit of 46 mg/L was
determined to be equivalent to a turbidity measure of 50 NTU. As will be discussed in
Section 4.3, a 10% explicit margin of safety was applied to the endpoint and resulted in a
reduction of the target value from 50 NTU to 45 NTU (46 mg TSS/L to 41 mg TSS/L).
The criteria used to develop this TMDL was a 1 day maximum concentration of 41 mg
TSS/L to be met 90% of the time.

Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation
In Lower Creek, elevated turbidity concentrations occur under both low and high flow
conditions (Figure 7). The majority of turbidity violations during 1998-2003 occurred
during the summer months between April and September with the most violations
occurring in May (four violations) and June (five violations). Table 11 shows the number
of violations in each month during the 1998-2003 period. The TMDL has been set such
that the turbidity standard is met under all seasons and flow conditions for the 1998-2003
period.
Table 11 Number of violations to the 50 NTU standard for each month during the 1998-
2003 period.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Violations (#) 0 2 0 2 4 5 3 2 2 1 0 1

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
24
Margin of Safety
A Margin of Safety (MOS) is provided to account for “lack of knowledge concerning the
relationship between effluent limitations and water quality” (40 CFR 130.7(c)). The MOS
may be incorporated into a TMDL either implicitly, through the use of conservative
assumptions to develop the allocations, or explicitly through a reduction in the TMDL
target. For this TMDL, an explicit margin of safety was incorporated in the analysis by
setting the TMDL target at 45 NTU, or equivalent 41 mg TSS/L, which is 10% lower
than the water quality target of 50 NTU or equivalent 46 mg TSS/L.

Reserve Capacity
Reserve capacity is an optional means of reserving a portion of the loading capacity to
allow for future growth. Reserve capacities are not included at this time. The loading
capacity of each stream is expressed as a function of the current load (Section 4.0), and
both WLAs and LAs are expressed as reductions for the entire Lower Creek watershed.
Therefore, the reductions from current levels, outlined in this TMDL, must be attained in
consideration of any new sources that may accompany future development. Strategies
for source reduction will apply equally to new development as to existing development.

TMDL Calculation
Using WARMF model runs for water years 1998-2003, a TSS reduction of 72% is
needed to order to meet water quality standards for turbidity at the outlet of the Lower
Creek watershed.
Table 12 Unallocated TMDL load and percent reduction.

Current Load
(kg/day)
Target Load
(kg/day)
Reduction
Required
Lower Creek Watershed 105,500 30,280 72%

Allocations
Additional analysis is required to address the TMDL reduction by identifying point and
nonpoint contributors of turbidity and calculating wasteload and load allocations.

4.1.1 Wasteload Allocations
As previously discussed, one major and two minor NPDES-permitted facilities are
located in the Lower Creek watershed. Each of these facilities is subject to monthly TSS
effluent limitation of 30 mg TSS/L. For the purposes of this TMDL, wasteload
allocations for NC0023981, NC0043231, and NC0048755 are based on permitted flow
and effluent TSS limits and do not result in additional reductions for these facilities.

As per Phase II stormwater rules, MS4 (small municipal separate storm sewer systems)
permittees are responsible for reducing pollutant loads associated with stormwater
outfalls for which it owns or otherwise has responsible control. The City of Lenior and
Town of Gamewell are located in the Lower Creek watershed and are part of the overall
Hickory Urbanized area as delineated by the 2000 US Census (NCDWQ, 2004b). To
estimate turbidity loading for this MS4 area within the Lower Creek watershed, steps
were taken to identify the percent of MS4 area within each of the 15 subwatersheds in the
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
25
Lower Ck watershed (as shown in the WARMF diagram in Figure 8) and the associated
landuse / land cover within each MS4 area. WARMF allows the user to calculate landuse
based loading within each subwatershed. Given this, subwatershed and landuse specific
TSS loading from WARMF outputs were used in conjunction with the MS4 area and its
corresponding landuse within each subwatershed to identify TSS loading on a
subwatershed scale for the MS4 area.

TSS loading from streambank erosion represented a significant portion of the overall
loading (See Appendix I). The fraction of loading from streambank erosion attributed to
the MS4 area was determined in all subwatersheds that contained MS4 area by
multiplying the annual streambank erosion load (kg/year) in each subwatershed by the
percent of MS4 area in that subwatershed. To determine TSS stormwater loads in
subwatersheds downstream of the MS4 area, scenarios were run in WARMF in which all
of the urban area (low density, high density and commercial / industrial) was converted to
the mixed forest landuse category. The relative difference between current conditions
(1998-2003) and this altered landuse condition was used to determine the loading
attributable to general, non-permitted stormwater and was determined only for
subwatersheds 14 and 16. Streambank erosion TSS loading in 14 and 16 is further
outlined in Appendix J. Wasteload allocations and are shown below in Table 9 and
detailed in Appendices K and L.

4.1.2 Load Allocations
As earlier noted, Lower Creek is primarily composed of forested (78%) urbanized (10%)
and agricultural (10%) land uses. Load allocations were calculated using WARMF and
are shown below in Table 13 and detailed in Appendices M and N.
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
26

Table 13. Lower Creek TMDL Wasteload and Load Allocations for Turbidity expressed as
kg/day TSS.
TMDL Allocations
Existing TSS
Load 1998-
2003 (kg/day)
TMDL - TSS
Load (kg/day)
Required
Reduction (%)
Wasteload Allocations
WLA - NC0023981
(6.0 MGD, 30 mg TSS/L limit) ----- 681 0%
WLA - NC0043231
(0.009 MGD, 30 mg TSS/L limit) ----- 1.0 0%
WLA - NC0048755
(0.005 MGD, 30 mg TSS/L limit) ----- 0.6 0%
WLA – MS4 stormwater 1 15,639 4,377 72%
WLA – NCG010000
(General Construction Permits) 50 NTU
Sum of WLAs 5,060
Load Allocations/ non permitted
Load Allocation 2 48,284 13,542 72%
Non-Permitted Stormwater
below MS4 area 3 41,587 11,682 72%
Sum of LAs 25,224

Margin of Safety - Explicit 10%

Total TSS Load at outlet to Lake
Rhodhiss (kg/day) 105,500 30,280 72%
1 WLA for MS4 based on the landuse area within the Hickory “Urbanized” area as defined by Phase II
boundaries. The MS4 WLA was determined within each of the 16 subwatersheds based on the type of
landuse in the MS4 area in that subwatershed and the landuse loading as determine by the WARMF
model. Streambank erosion attributable to the MS4 area was determined by multiplying the relative
percent of MS4 area in a subwatershed by the total TSS load within that watershed.
2 Equal to TMDL minus WLA and nonpermitted stormwater. LA is further broken down by landuse in
Appendix N.
3 Nonpermitted stormwater TSS loading occurring in subwatersheds 14 and 16; subwatersheds in which no
MS4 area exists. This load was determined by comparing current conditions to conditions in which urban
landuses were converted to mixed forest. In subwatersheds 14 and 16, TSS loading increased 59% and
53%, respectively, when comparing current conditions to modified landuse WARMF scenarios. The load
given is the sum of stormwater loads in subwatersheds 14 and 16.

5.0 Follow – up Monitoring
Turbidity monitoring will continue on a monthly interval at the ambient monitoring
station at SR 1501 near Morganton and will allow for the evaluation of progress towards
the goal of reaching water quality standards. Discuss EEP monitoring and study here.
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
27
Additional monitoring could focus on identifying critical areas of streambank erosion and
turbidity source assessment in the watershed. This would further aid in the evaluation of
the progress towards meeting the water quality standard.

6.0 Implementation
Turbidity impairments in the Lower Creek watershed are primarily due to excessive
stream channel and bank erosion. This erosion is, in part, a result of higher flows and
volumes associated with increased urbanization and impervious surface in the Lower
Creek watershed. Enforcement of stormwater BMP requirements for construction sites,
education on farm practices, and consideration of urban stormwater controls for sediment
are potential management options for improving turbidity levels. Other TSS sources
include runoff from disturbed landuses, such as agriculture and construction areas where
conversion from rural to urban uses is occurring. While stormwater controls are required
on construction sites, significant loadings can occur due to initial periods of land
disturbance before controls are in place or during high rainfall periods during which the
controls are inadequate. North Carolina Phase II rules require development,
implementation, and enforcement of an erosion and sediment control program for
construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land. In addition, Phase II rules
require the development, implementation, and enforcement of a program to address
discharges of post-construction storm water runoff from new development and
redevelopment areas.

Implementation of conservation management plans and best management practices are
the best means of controlling agricultural sources of suspended solids. Several programs
are available to assist farmers in the development and implementation of conservation
management plans and best management practices. The Natural Resource Conservation
Service is the primary source of assistance for landowners in the development of resource
management pertaining to soil conservation, water quality improvement, wildlife habitat
enhancement, and irrigation water management. The USDA Farm Services Agency
performs most of the funding assistance. All agricultural technical assistance is
coordinated through the locally led Naturally Resource Conservation Service offices (Soil
Conservation Districts). The funding programs include:

• The Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) is designed to provide
technical, financial, and educational assistance to farmers/producers for
conservation practices that address natural resource concerns, such as water
quality. Practices under this program include integrated crop management,
grazing land management, well sealing, erosion control systems, agri-chemical
handling facilities, vegetative filter strips/riparian buffers, animal waste
management facilities and irrigation systems.

• The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is designed to provide technical and
financial assistance to farmers/producers to address the agricultural impacts on
water quality and to maintain and improve wildlife habitat. CRP practices include
the establishment of filter strips, riparian buffers and permanent wildlife habitats.
This program provides the basis for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
28
Program (CREP). In 1999 The North Carolina DENR Departments of
Environmental Protection and Agriculture, in partnership with Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC), submitted a proposal to the USDA to offer financial
incentives for agricultural landowners to voluntarily implement conservation
practices on agricultural lands through CREP. The goals for this program are to
significantly reduce the amount of nutrients entering estuaries from agricultural
sources through a voluntary, incentive-based program; to assist North Carolina in
achieving the nutrient reduction goals for agriculture in the area; to significantly
reduce the amount of sediment entering water courses; to enhance habitat for a
range of threatened and endangered species dependent on riparian areas; and to
decrease excess pulses of freshwater in primary nursery areas. NC CREP will be
part of the USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The enrollment of
farmland into CREP in North Carolina is expected to improve stream health
through the installation of water quality conservation practices on North Carolina
farmland.

• The Soil & Water Conservation Cost-Sharing Program is available to
participants in a Farmland Preservation Program pursuant to the Agriculture
Retention and Development Act. A Farmland Preservation Program (FPP) means
any voluntary FPP or municipally approved FPP, the duration of which is at least
8 years, which has as its principal purpose as long-term preservation of significant
masses of reasonably contiguous agricultural land within agricultural
development areas. The maintenance and support of increased agricultural
production must be the first priority use of the land. Eligible practices include
erosion control, animal waste control facilities, and water management practices.
Cost sharing is provided for up to 50% of the cost to establish eligible practices.

Management Strategies
Management measures are “economically achievable measures for the control of the
addition of pollutants from existing and new categories and classes of nonpoint and
stormwater sources of pollution, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction
achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint and stormwater source
pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or
other alternatives” (USEPA, 1993). Development of effective management measures
depends on accurate source assessment. A few projects recently completed, underway
and planned are identified below.

Lower Creek and its tributaries are currently the subject of an intensive watershed study
under management of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) with
involvement of the Western Piedmont Council of Governments (WPCOG) and MACTEC
Engineering and Consulting, Inc. As part of this study, MACTEC will be conducting an
extensive data-gathering effort, collecting water quality data, assessing riparian buffers,
stream channel alteration, streambank erosion, stormwater runoff and non-point sources
of pollution, and summarizing this information in the development of a watershed
management plan for the Lower Creek watershed. The final report is envisioned to be the
“blueprint” for state and local government and other stakeholders in the Lower Creek
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
29
watershed when addressing watershed-wide problems such as turbidity. The final report
will include recommendations toward selecting and implanting traditional and non-
traditional restoration projects and/or actions. Final product deliverables are anticipated
to be completed by December 2005.

7.0 Public Participation
The City of Lenoir in Caldwell County was notified of the Lower Creek turbidity TMDL.
The TMDL was publicly noticed and comment on the TMDL was requested on February
10, 2005. The comment period was through March 11, 2005. No written comments were
received. A copy of the public notification is located in Appendix O.

8.0 Additional Information
Further information concerning North Carolina’s TMDL program can be found on the
Internet at the Division of Water Quality website:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/index.htm

Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members
of the DWQ Modeling/TMDL Unit:

Brian Jacobson, Modeler
E-mail: [e-mail]

Narayan Rajbhandari, Modeler
Email: [e-mail]
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
30

References
ASIWPCA TMDL, “Brown Bag,” Conference Call on Load Duration Curve
Methodology, June 12, 2002.

Cleland, B.R. 2002. TMDL Development from the “Bottom Up” – Part II: Using load
duration curves to connect the pieces. Proceedings from the WEF National TMDL
Science and Policy 2002 Conference.

Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat), 19980612, Statewide Land Cover - 1996:
EarthSat, Raleigh, North Carolina

Job, Scott. 2001. GIS Characterization of Riparian Zones for Muddy Creek and the
Catawba River Basin. Duke Energy. 2001.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2002. Data Analysis: Methodology Used
in Kansas Lake TMDLs: Explanation of Bacteria TMDL Curves (PDF): Kansas
TMDL Curve Methodology. Online: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/tmdl/Data.htm.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, 2002, Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2002
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report (Final), North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, 2003, TMDL Study of Lower Creek/Spainhour Creek. Catawba River
Basin, Subbasin 31, Caldwell County.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, 2004a, Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report (Draft), North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, 2004b. Stormwater Unit: 2000 US Census Urbanized Areas. Online at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/NPDES_Phase_II_Stormwater_Program_2000_Cens
us.htm

North Carolina Geological Survey. 1991. Generalized Geologic Map of North Carolina.
Raleigh, NC 27687.

Rosgen. D.L., A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate. Wildland
Hydrology, Inc. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Online at:
http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/assets/Streambank_erosion_paper.pdf
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
31
Sheely, L. H. July 2002. Load Duration Curves: Development and Application to Data
Analysis for Streams in the Yazoo River Basin, MS. Special Project – Summer
2002. Jackson Engineering Graduate Program.

Stiles, T.C. 2002. Incorporating hydrology in determining TMDL endpoints and
allocations. Proceedings from the WEF National TMDL Science and Policy 2002
Conference.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1991. Soil survey of Caldwell County, North
Carolina.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil
Data Mart. Online at:
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=NC027&UseState=NC

United States Department of Agriculture. Agreement between The State of North
Carolina and The U.S. Department of Agriculture Commodity Credit Corporation
concerning the implementation of the North Carolina Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program Online at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/NCok.htm

United States. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Guidance for Water
Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, Washington, DC.

United States. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Guidance Specifying
Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.
EPA-840-B-92-002. Washington, DC.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Revisions to the Water
Quality Planning and Management Regulation and Revisions to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program in Support of Revisions to the
Water Quality Planning and management Regulation; Final Rule. Fed. Reg.
65:43586-43670 (July 13, 2000).

United States. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Federal Advisory Committee
(FACA). 1998. Draft Final TMDL Federal Advisory Committee Report. April.

United States. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). October 1999. Protocols for
Developing Sediment TMDLs – First Edition. EPA 841-B-99-004. Washington,
DC.

Wayland, R. 2002. November 22, 2002 Memo from Robert Wayland of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to Water Division Directors. Subject:
Establishing TMDL Waste Load Allocations for stormwater sources and NDPES
permit requirements based on those allocations.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
32
WPGOG. 1998. Western Piedmont Council of Governments. Lower Creek Watershed
Project. October 1998.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
33

Appendix A. Caldwell County, NC Soils (NRCS, 1991)
Map symbol Map unit name Acres Percent
ApB Appling sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 475 0.2
ApD Appling sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1,245 0.4
AsF Ashe stony sandy loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes 559 0.2
AsG Ashe stony sandy loam, 40 to 80 percent slopes 1,045 0.3
Bn Buncombe loamy sand, frequently flooded 1,040 0.3
BtF Burton stony loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes 1,010 0.3
CeB2 Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 15,056 5.0
CeD2 Cecil sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded 37,373 12.3
CfB2 Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded 2,930 1.0
CfD2 Cecil-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded 2,524 0.8
ChG Chestnut gravelly loam, 50 to 80 percent slopes 37,545 12.4
CKE Chestnut and edneyville soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes 5,861 1.9
CKF Chestnut and edneyville soils, 25 to 50 percent slopes 36,352 12.0
Cm Chewacla loam, occasionally flooded 8,874 2.9
Co Congaree fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded 4,492 1.5
DnB Davidson clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 227 <0.1
DnD Davidson clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 184 <0.1
DoB Dogue fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 1,084 0.4
EaE Evard fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 11,044 3.6
EaF Evard fine sandy loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes 23,179 7.6
ESF Evard and Saluda fine sandy loams, 25 to 60 percent slopes 12,921 4.3
HaD Hayesville fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1,875 0.6
HaE Hayesville fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 2,203 0.7
HbD Hibriten very cobbly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1,254 0.4
HbF Hibriten very cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes 8,179 2.7
MaB Masada loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 2,508 0.8
MaD Masada loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 4,015 1.3
PaE Pacolet fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 34,879 11.5
PaF Pacolet fine sandy loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes 21,879 7.2
Po Potomac very cobbly loamy sand, frequently flooded 662 0.2
Pt Pits, quarries 96 <0.1
RnE Rion sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 1,406 0.5
RnF Rion sandy loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes 5,501 1.8
Ro Roanoke loam 201 <0.1
RSF Rock outcrop-Ashe complex, 25 to 80 percent slopes 4,368 1.4
SeB State loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 1,077 0.4
TaB Tate fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 260 <0.1
TaE Tate fine sandy loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes 2,639 0.9
UaB Urban land-Arents complex, occasionally flooded 684 0.2
UmC Urban land-Masada complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 682 0.2
W Water 2,112 0.7
Wk Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded 2,161 0.7

34
Appendix B. Benthic macroinvertebrate results and site characteristics in the Lower Creek watershed Samples collected
September 2002.

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
35
(this page left intentionally blank.)

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
36

Appendix C. NC DWQ Ambient Monitoring Results for TSS and Turbidity at
Station C1750000
DATE
TOTAL NONFILTRABLE RESIDUE
MG/L (method 00530)
TURBIDITY, NEPHELOMETRIC
TURBIDITY UNITS NTU (method 82079)
1/14/97 33 21
2/25/97 34 27
3/31/97 3 19
4/22/97 60 38
5/27/97 49 30
6/25/97 48 35
7/29/97 68 52
8/26/97 22 19
9/30/97 29 27
10/28/97 22 27
11/18/97 7 5.7
12/10/97 11 9.7
1/21/98 26 24
2/17/98 580 610
3/24/98 28 22
4/21/98 110 90
5/13/98 42 34
6/17/98 140 140
7/14/98 24 24
8/25/98 10 9.9
9/29/98 68 130
11/18/98 6 6.4
12/16/98 13 14
1/19/99 33 31
2/10/99 13 9.5
3/24/99 13 9.9
4/21/99 8 11
5/5/99 110 1400
6/16/99 50 22
7/28/99 22 21
8/11/99 22 9.9
10/20/99 210 170
12/14/99 60 390
1/19/00 6 11
2/29/00 14 9.3
3/28/00 14
4/12/00 15 16
5/17/00 15 7.9
6/28/00 38
7/26/00 20
8/15/00 9.5
9/5/00 200
10/18/00 5.2
12/6/00 3 5.4
1/10/01 13
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
37
DATE
TOTAL NONFILTRABLE RESIDUE
MG/L (method 00530)
TURBIDITY, NEPHELOMETRIC
TURBIDITY UNITS NTU (method 82079)
2/7/01 9 14
4/3/01 30 33
5/31/01 18
6/26/01 110 110
7/12/01 19 18
8/15/01 47
9/27/01 24 14
10/23/01 8 7.6
11/7/01 4.6
12/4/01 4.4
2/13/02 16
3/26/02 16 20
4/25/02 25
5/31/02 110
6/18/02 27
7/2/02 140
8/20/02 67
9/18/02 25 36
10/23/02 18
11/4/02 9.7
12/17/02 16 20
1/22/03 9.2
2/25/03 55
3/10/03 18 23
4/23/03 31
5/7/03 60
6/4/03 150 160
7/16/03 80
8/12/03 60
9/9/03 12 16
10/14/03 9.9
11/13/03 12
12/2/03 9 11
1/7/04 10
2/10/04 35
3/3/04 12 15

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
38

Appendix D. Data Sources
The NCDENR’s Geographic Information System (GIS) was used extensively to describe
the Lower Creek watershed characteristics. The following is general information
regarding the data used to describe the watershed:

• Ambient chemical monitoring locations: NC DENR Div of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section, 9/30/2000, Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Sites: NC
DENR Div of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• Biological monitoring locations: NC DENR Clean Water Management Trust
Fund, NC DENR - Div. of Water Quality, Biological Assessment Unit,
11/15/2000, Benthic monitoring results: NC DENR - Div. of Water Quality,
Biological Assessment Unit, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• City of Lenoir Boundary: NC Department of Transportation-GIS Unit, 2002,
Municipal Boundaries - Powell Bill 1999: NC Department of Transportation,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
• County boundaries: information NC Center for Geographic Information &
Analysis, 12/01/1998, Boundaries - County (1:100,000): NC Center for
Geographic Information & Analysis, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• Detailed stream coverage: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information
and Analysis, 4/19/2001, Hydrography (1:24,000): North Carolina Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis, Raleigh, NC.
• Hydrologic Units: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 12/01/1998,
Hydrologic Units - North Carolina River Basins: USDA, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• Land use/Land cover information: Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat),
6/12/1998, Statewide Land Cover - 1996: EarthSat, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• NPDES Permitted Facilities: NC DENR Division of Water Quality, Planning
Branch, 10/11/2000, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Sites: NC
DENR Division of Water Quality, Planning Branch, Raleigh, North Carolina.
• Roads: NC Department of Transportation - GIS Unit, 9/21/1999, Transportation -
NCDOT Roads (1:24,000): NC Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
• Stream Gaging Stations: NC DENR-Division of Water Resources, 12/01/1998,
Stream Gaging Stations: NC DENR-Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
• Streamflow gage data was obtained online from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) at: http://nc.water.usgs.gov/.
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
39

Appendix E. Monthly average effluent TSS concentrations (mg/L) at the City of
Lenoir - Lower Creek WWTP during years 1999-2003.
City of Lenoir - Lower Creek WWTP (NC0023981)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
January 20.9 14.6 8.4 10.7 5.8
February 40.2 13.7 16.0 7.6 69.4
March 28.3 12.1 74.6 9.6 14.7
April 75.9 8.7 7.1 8.3 9.8
May 103.4 6.6 7.1 9.4 7.6
June 76.1 10.0 7.6 13.1 14.1
July 28.8 5.1 7.4 6.5 7.9
August 7.6 7.3 7.5 5.9 6.3
September 6.6 8.4 7.9 5.1
October 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.5
November 8.1 10.7 8.0 5.8
December 13.5 9.3 8.5 6.2

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
40

Appendix F. General Permitees located within the Lower Creek watershed.
Permit
Number Facility Name DWQ Description
NCG020026 Vulcan Construction Materials LP - Vulcan Construction Materials - Lenoir Quarry Mining Activities Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG030148 Neptco Inc - Neptco Incorporated Metal Fabrication Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG050023 Meridian Automotive Systems - Meridian Automotive Systems Apparel/Printing/Paper/Leather/Rubber Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG050229 Sealed Air Corporation - Sealed Air Corporation Apparel/Printing/Paper/Leather/Rubber Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG080186 United Parcel Service - United Parcel Service-Lenoir Transportation w/Vehicle Maintenance/Petroleum Bulk/Oil Water Separator
Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG080260 Caldwell Freight Lines Inc - Caldwell Freight Lines Incorporated Transportation w/Vehicle Maintenance/Petroleum Bulk/Oil Water Separator
Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG120060 Republic Services Of NC LLC - Republic Services Of NC LLC - Lenoir Landfill Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG140097 Hamby Brothers Concrete Inc - Hamby Brothers Concrete Incorporated Ready Mix Concrete Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge COC
NCG170313 American & Efird Inc - American & Efird Incorporated-Nelson Textile Mill Products Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180080 Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc - Broyhill Furniture Ind-Whitnel Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180081 Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc - Broyhill Furniture Ind- Harp Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180082 Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc - Broyhill Furniture Ind-Caldwel Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180084 Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc - Broyhill Furniture Ind Incorporated Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180101 Kincaid Furniture Co - Kincaid Furniture Co-Plant #5 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180152 Bernhardt Furniture Co - Bernhardt Furniture Co-Cen Lum Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180153 Bernhardt Furniture Co - Bernhardt Furniture Co-Plt 5 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180154 Bernhardt Furniture Co - Bernhardt Furniture Co-Plt 7 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180155 Bernhardt Furniture Co - Bernhardt Furniture Co-Plt 3 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180156 Bernhardt Furniture Co - Bernhardt Furniture Co-Plt 2 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180157 Bernhardt Furniture Co - Bernhardt Furniture Co-Plt 1 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180169 Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. - Thomasville Furniture Ind., Inc. - Lenoir
Plant
Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180189 Fairfield Chair Co - Fairfield Chair Co-Plnt #2 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180190 Fairfield Chair Co - Fairfield Chair Co-Plt #1 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG180230 Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc - Broyhill Plant 54 & 123 Furniture and Fixtures Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG210133 H Parsons Inc - H Parsons Incorporated Timber Products Stormwater Discharge COC
NCG500072 Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. - Thomasville Furniture Co - Lenoir Non-contact Cooling, Boiler Blowdown Wastewater Discharge COC
NCG500178 Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc - Broyhill-Miller Hill Complex Non-contact Cooling, Boiler Blowdown Wastewater Discharge COC
NCG500179 Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc - Broyhill - Virginia Street Complex Non-contact Cooling, Boiler Blowdown Wastewater Discharge COC
NCG550801 Blessed Hope Church - Blessed Hope Church Single Family Domestic Wastewater Discharge COC
NCG550977 Mountain View Pediatrics - Mountain View Pediatrics Single Family Domestic Wastewater Discharge COC
NCS000066 Neptune Inc - Neptune Inc Stormwater Discharge, Individual

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
41

Appendix G. Methodology for developing the Load Duration Curve

The load duration curve method is based on comparison of the frequency of a given flow
event with its associated water quality load. In the case of applying the NTU criteria, a
correlation is necessary between NTU and TSS to allow for calculation of a load in mass
per time units. Data from the Lower Creek ambient station (Station Q3735000) was used
in this TMDL resulted in the below equation:

TSS concentration (mg/L) = (1.3772* Turbidity (NTU)^0.8938)
R2 = 0.8435

A LDC can be developed using the following steps:

1. Plot the Flow Duration Curve, Flow vs. % of days flow exceeded.
2. Develop TSS-turbidity correlation.
3. Translate turbidity values to equivalent TSS values using the linear regression
equation from the correlation.
4. Translate the flow-duration curve into a LDC by multiplying the water quality
standard (as equivalent TSS concentration), the flow and a units conversion factor;
the result of this multiplication is the maximum allowable load associated with each
flow.
5. Graph the LDC, maximum allowable load vs. percent of time flow is equaled or
exceeded.
6. Water quality samples, expressed as estimated TSS values, are converted to loads
(sample water quality data multiplied by daily flow on the date of sample).
7. Plot the measured loads on the LDC

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
42

Appendix H. Calibrated soil layer parameters in WARMF.
Subwatershed Soil Layer Area (m2)
Thickness
(cm)
Initial
Moisture
Field
Capacity
Sat.
Moisture
Horizontal
Cond.
Vertical
Cond.
Root
Distribution
Density
g/cm3
Soil
Tortuosity
1 1 34165000 65 0.3 0.3 0.42 10020 8.5 0.75 0.2 10
2 34165000 27.5 0.3 0.26 0.47 1320 51 0.1 1.3 10
3 34165000 102.499 0.3 0.32 0.548 1000 99.5 0.1 1.3 10
4 31895000 109.999 0.3 0.28 0.44 300 300 0.05 1.5 10
2 1 33897000 65 0.3 0.3 0.42 10020 8.2 0.75 0.2 10
2 33897000 27.5 0.3 0.26 0.47 1320 50 0.1 1.3 10
3 33897000 102.499 0.3 0.32 0.548 1000 98 0.1 1.3 10
4 31647000 109.999 0.3 0.28 0.44 300 300 0.05 1.5 10
3 1 11808000 65 0.3 0.3 0.42 10020 8.2 0.75 0.2 10
2 11808000 27.5 0.3 0.26 0.47 1320 50 0.1 1.3 10
3 11808000 102.499 0.3 0.32 0.548 1000 100 0.1 1.3 10
4 11808000 109.999 0.3 0.28 0.44 300 300 0.05 1.5 10
4 1 22815000 65 0.3 0.3 0.42 10020 7.5 0.75 0.2 10
2 22815000 27.5 0.3 0.26 0.47 1320 50 0.1 1.3 10
3 22815000 102.499 0.3 0.32 0.548 1000 98 0.1 1.3 10
4 22815000 109.999 0.3 0.28 0.44 300 300 0.05 1.5 10
5 1 12295000 65 0.3 0.3 0.42 10020 8.5 0.75 0.2 10
2 12295000 27.5 0.3 0.26 0.47 1320 50 0.12 1.3 10
3 12295000 102.499 0.3 0.32 0.548 1000 101 0.1 1.3 10
4 12295000 109.999 0.3 0.28 0.44 300 300 0.03 1.5 10
6 1 843051 65 0.1 0.3 0.42 10020 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 843051 27.5 0.2 0.26 0.47 1320 49.5 0.1 1.3 10
3 843051 102.499 0.28 0.32 0.548 1000 100 0.1 1.3 10
4 843051 109.999 0.23 0.28 0.44 300 300 0.05 1.5 10
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
43
Subwatershed Soil Layer Area (m2)
Thickness
(cm)
Initial
Moisture
Field
Capacity
Sat.
Moisture
Horizontal
Cond.
cm/d
Vertical
Cond.
cm/d
Root
Distribution
Density
g/cm3
Soil
Tortuosity
7 1 15621000 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 15621000 57.5 0.31 0.2 0.41 1460 48 0.1 1.3 10
3 15621000 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 98 0.1 1.3 10
4 15621000 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
8 1 7525800 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 7525800 57.5 0.31 0.35 0.41 1460 50.5 0.1 1.3 10
3 7525800 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 100 0.1 1.3 10
4 7525800 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
9 1 14150000 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 14150000 57.5 0.31 0.25 0.41 1460 50 0.1 1.3 10
3 14150000 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 99 0.1 1.3 10
4 14150000 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
10 1 10651000 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 10651000 57.5 0.31 0.25 0.41 1460 49 0.1 1.3 10
3 10651000 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 100 0.1 1.3 10
4 10651000 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
11 1 21611000 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 21611000 57.5 0.31 0.15 0.41 1460 48 0.1 1.3 10
3 21611000 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 99 0.1 1.3 10
4 21611000 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
12 1 15144000 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 15144000 57.5 0.31 0.2 0.41 1460 49 0.1 1.3 10
3 15144000 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 99 0.1 1.3 10
4 15144000 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
13 1 5697900 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 5697900 57.5 0.31 0.15 0.41 1460 48 0.1 1.3 10
3 5697900 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 98 0.1 1.3 10
4 5697900 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
44
Subwatershed Soil Layer Area (m2)
Thickness
(cm)
Initial
Moisture
Field
Capacity
Sat.
Moisture
Horizontal
Cond.
cm/d
Vertical
Cond.
cm/d
Root
Distribution
Density
g/cm3
Soil
Tortuosity
14 1 9346200 62.5 0.31 0.203 0.5 10220 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 9346200 57.5 0.31 0.101 0.41 1460 50 0.1 1.3 10
3 9346200 207.5 0.33 0.23 0.39 1200 100 0.1 1.3 10
4 9346200 405 0.355 0.2 0.355 525 300 0.05 1.5 10
15 1 29122000 65 0.25 0.2 0.45 10000 7.5 0.75 0.2 10
2 29122000 50 0.3 0.2 0.35 1300 50 0.1 1.3 10
3 29122000 200 0.35 0.2 0.45 1000 100 0.1 1.3 10
4 29122000 400 0.35 0.12 0.35 500 300 0.05 1.5 10
16 1 4267000 65 0.25 0.2 0.45 10000 10 0.75 0.2 10
2 4267000 50 0.3 0.2 0.35 1300 50 0.1 1.3 10
3 4267000 200 0.35 0.2 0.45 1000 100 0.1 1.3 10
4 4267000 400 0.35 0.12 0.35 500 300 0.05 1.5 10

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
45
Appendix I. Streambank erosion values and total TSS loading values for years 92-97 (calibration dataset), 97-03 period, and
TMDL period (based on 97-03 period) for each subwatershed in the Lower Creek Basin.

streambank erosion values from WARMF output total TSS Loading values from WARMF output
Values are in kg/day Values are in kg/day
Subwatershed 92-97 97-03 TMDL Subwatershed 92-97 97-03 TMDL
1 181 36 10 1 676 144 40
2 164 25 7 2 573 140 39
3 3,170 999 279 3 3,380 1,200 336
493 32 9 4 399 177 50
53.80 0.30 0.08 5 80.30 17.80 4.98
6 6,880 2,210 619 6 6,890 2,220 623
7 149 41 11 7 368 209 58
8 11,800 3,710 1,040 8 12,000 3,860 1,080
9 31,600 9,010 2,520 9 32,000 9,280 2,600
10 41,100 11,400 3,190 10 41,600 11,600 3,260
11 304 77 22 11 707 423 119
11 13 649 182 12 338 215 60
12 138 36 10 13 2,560 713 200
14 122,000 31,500 8,840 14 122,000 31,600 8,860
15 418 78 22 15 741 238 67
16 179,000 43,400 12,200 16 179,000 43,400 12,200
Entire watershed 397,013 103,204 28,961 Entire watershed 403,312 105,437 29,597

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
46

Appendix J. Nonpermitted stormwater loading was identified in subwatersheds 14
and 16 based on the excessive streambank erosion load. Current condition 97-03
scenarios were compared to scenarios within WARMF in which all urban areas
were converted to mixed forest. The percent change in loading between these
scenarios became the bases for choosing the percent of current streambank erosion
loading that is attributable to stormwater loading. Currently, no MS4 area is
contained within either of the two subwatersheds.

97-03 current
conditions
97-03, urban
LULC changed
to mixed forest
97-03 current
conditions
97-03, urban
LULC changed to
mixed forest
Managed Flow 0 0 0 0
Groundwater Pumping 0 0 0 0
Deciduous Forest 258 446 279 470
Evergreen Forest 181 267 209 299
Mixed Forest 182 403 206 434
Pasture 276 387 294 407
Cultivated 363 576 399 616
Recr. Grasses 6.13 17.3 6.36 17.6
Water 0 0 0 0
Barren 26.3 51.6 32.1 57.9
Low Int. Develop. 377 0 399 0
High Int. Develop. 155 0 156 0
Comm / Industrial 296 0 300 0
Wetlands 0 0 0 0
General Nonpoint Sources 0 0 0 0
Stream Bank Erosion 59700 24200 103000 48600
Direct Precipitation 0 0 0 0
Direct Dry Deposition 0 0 0 0
Type 1 Septic System 0 0 0 0
Type 2 Septic System 0 0 0 0
Type 3 Septic System 0 0 0 0
Unpermitted Surface Mines 0 0 0 0
Unpermitted Deep Mines 0 0 0 0
Permitted Surface Mines 0 0 0 0
Permitted Deep Mines 0 0 0 0
General Point Sources 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 61900 26300 106000 50900
Attributable to the Stormwater 59%53%
Subwatershed 16 with no
Urban loading (LC9703_NPS)
Subwatershed 14 with no
Urban loading (LC9703_NPS)

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
47

Appendix K. TSS loading output from the WARMF model during the 1997-2003 for the MS4 ("Hickory Urbanized Area"
within the Lower Creek watershed) area identified by landuse within each subwatershed..
MS4 Allocation - Load kg/day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Managed Flow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Groundwater Pumping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deciduous Forest 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.00 1.12 19.32 14.61 4.46 0.82 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Evergreen Forest 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.38 6.47 7.33 1.45 0.52 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixed Forest 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.38 8.98 7.32 2.11 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pasture 0.70 0.19 0.00 0.53 0.13 0.00 3.27 15.64 34.86 21.28 0.97 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cultivated 1.21 0.86 0.00 2.58 0.35 0.00 12.44 37.54 66.25 18.37 4.67 0.00 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recr. Grasses 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.39 0.10 0.00 0.34 0.42 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Barren 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 4.49 4.74 0.60 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
Low Int. Develop. 12.03 48.84 34.15 58.81 10.17 3.25 3.72 15.38 33.44 6.99 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Int. Develop. 3.49 42.25 27.39 44.45 4.22 4.41 1.88 4.15 4.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
Comm / Industrial 17.66 61.06 71.04 40.22 5.67 3.51 1.10 28.50 11.57 2.35 0.00 0.00 2.81 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetlands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Nonpoint Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stream Bank Erosion 5699911022102371062871469103000
Direct Precipitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Direct Dry Deposition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 1 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 2 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 3 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unpermitted Surface Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unpermitted Deep Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permitted Surface Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permitted Deep Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Point Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MS4 Load per watershed (kg/day)40 160 1,132 158 21 2,221 27 3,851 6,477 1,527 9 017000
Total MS4 load (kg/day)15,639

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
48
Appendix L. TMDL scenario using TSS loading output from the WARMF model during the 1997-2003 period for the MS4
("Hickory Urbanized Area" within the Lower Creek watershed) area identified by landuse within each subwatershed..
MS4 Allocation - Load kg/day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Managed Flow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Groundwater Pumping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deciduous Forest 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.31 5.43 4.08 1.25 0.23 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Evergreen Forest 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 1.81 2.04 0.41 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixed Forest 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.11 2.51 2.05 0.59 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pasture 0.20 0.05 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.92 4.37 9.75 5.960.270.000.340.000.000.00
Cultivated 0.34 0.24 0.00 0.72 0.10 0.00 3.48 10.51 18.53 5.11 1.31 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recr. Grasses 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.12 1.27 0.000.000.000.050.000.000.00
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Barren 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.26 1.33 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Low Int. Develop. 3.37 13.69 9.56 16.45 2.85 0.91 1.04 4.32 9.38 1.96 0.00 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Int. Develop. 0.98 11.84 7.64 12.46 1.18 1.23 0.53 1.16 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Comm / Industrial 4.94 17.13 19.89 11.21 1.59 0.98 0.31 8.00 3.24 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetlands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
General Nonpoint Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stream Bank Erosion 1.43 1.69 279.00 3.08 0.02 619.00 0.55 1040.00 1758.45 411.16 0.26 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00
Direct Precipitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Direct Dry Deposition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 1 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 2 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 3 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unpermitted Surface Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unpermitted Deep Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permitted Surface Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permitted Deep Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Point Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MS4 Load per watershed (kg/day)11 45 316 44 6 622 7 1,079 1,811 427 2 0 5 0 0 0
Total MS4 load (kg/day)4,377
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
49
Appendix M. TSS loading output from the WARMF model during the 1997-2003 for nonpoint sources (non- MS4, "Hickory
Urbanized Area" and non permitted loading within the Lower Creek watershed) area identified by landuse within each
subwatershed..
NPS Allocation - Load kg/year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516
Managed Flow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Groundwater Pumping 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Deciduous Forest 0.42 0.44 0.00 0.56 0.20 0.00 41.74 0.00 6.95 46.59 68.63 27.57 3.57 19.56 21.31 0.00
Evergreen Forest 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.23 0.08 0.00 19.25 0.00 5.64 27.08 57.67 37.91 4.84 17.31 28.46 0.04
Mixed Forest 0.16 0.18 0.00 0.37 0.13 0.00 26.79 0.00 4.66 23.85 51.85 39.90 4.16 15.93 27.68 0.00
Pasture 3.89 0.54 0.00 0.35 0.63 0.00 12.12 0.00 9.30 49.05 58.00 26.08 7.79 12.70 17.67 0.00
Cultivated 4.06 1.01 0.00 2.50 0.66 0.00 36.86 0.00 10.26 48.82 58.93 32.69 16.34 20.58 31.99 0.01
Recr. Grasses 0.050.00 0.000.040.03 0.000.81 0.00 0.77 0.000.000.000.450.980.300.00
Water 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Barren 0.160.03 0.000.260.05 0.002.62 0.00 1.50 2.042.261.881.660.721.050.01
Low Int. Develop. 9.97 4.09 0.00 4.97 4.34 0.00 17.24 0.00 5.91 14.67 37.76 1.08 23.35 15.07 24.78 0.00
High Int. Develop. 0.24 0.60 0.00 0.62 3.52 0.00 3.01 0.00 0.01 1.22 1.72 0.18 0.28 0.81 0.37 0.00
Comm / Industrial 23.47 0.61 0.00 4.13 1.74 0.00 3.58 0.00 1.66 6.85 5.87 0.00 3.06 4.57 7.02 0.00
Wetlands 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
General Nonpoint Sources 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Stream Bank Erosion 31 19 0 21 0 0 39 0 2723 9931 76 649 33 12915 78 20398
Direct Precipitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Direct Dry Deposition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 1 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 2 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 3 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unpermitted Surface Mines 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Unpermitted Deep Mines 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Permitted Surface Mines 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Permitted Deep Mines 0.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
General Point Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NPS Load per watershed (kg/day) 74 27 - 35 12 - 203 - 2,769 10,151 419 816 98 13023 239 20398
Total NPS load (kg/day)48,264
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
50
Appendix N. TMDL scenario using TSS loading output from the WARMF model during the 1997-2003 for nonpoint sources
(non- MS4, "Hickory Urbanized Area" and non permitted loading within the Lower Creek watershed) area identified by
landuse within each subwatershed..
NPS Allocation - Load kg/year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516
Managed Flow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Groundwater Pumping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deciduous Forest 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.16 0.05 0.00 11.68 0.00 1.94 13.06 19.17 7.72 1.00 5.47 5.96 0.00
Evergreen Forest 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 5.38 0.00 1.57 7.61 16.10 10.61 1.36 4.84 7.96 0.01
Mixed Forest 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00 7.49 0.00 1.30 6.69 14.48 11.17 1.17 4.46 7.75 0.00
Pasture 1.09 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.00 3.39 0.00 2.60 13.75 16.18 7.28 2.18 3.55 4.98 0.00
Cultivated 1.14 0.28 0.00 0.70 0.18 0.00 10.31 0.00 2.87 13.59 16.48 9.15 4.57 5.77 8.97 0.00
Recr. Grasses 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.08 0.00
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Barren 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.42 0.57 0.63 0.53 0.46 0.20 0.29 0.00
Low Int. Develop. 2.79 1.15 0.00 1.39 1.22 0.00 4.81 0.00 1.66 4.11 10.57 0.30 6.55 4.23 6.95 0.00
High Int. Develop. 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.98 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.48 0.05 0.08 0.23 0.10 0.00
Comm / Industrial 6.56 0.17 0.00 1.15 0.49 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.47 1.92 1.64 0.00 0.86 1.28 1.96 0.00
Wetlands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Nonpoint Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stream Bank Erosion 8.67 5.40 0.00 5.78 0.07 0.00 10.85 0.00 761.55 2778.84 21.34 182.00 9.23 3624 22.00 5734
Direct Precipitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Direct Dry Deposition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 1 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 2 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Type 3 Septic System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unpermitted Surface Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unpermitted Deep Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permitted Surface Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permitted Deep Mines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Point Sources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NPS Load per watershed (kg/day) 21 8 - 10 3 - 57 - 775 2,840 117 229 28 3655 67 5734
Total NPS load (kg/day)13,542

Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
51
Appendix O. Public Notification of Public Review Draft of Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL .

Lower Creek, Catawba River Basin

Now Available Upon Request

Lower Creek Turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load

Is now available upon request from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. This TMDL study was prepared as a requirement
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 303(d). The study identifies the sources of pollution, determines allowable loads
to the surface waters, and suggests allocations for turbidity

TO OBTAIN A FREE COPY OF THE TMDL REPORT:

Please contact Ms. Robin Markham [phone], extension 558 or write to:

Ms. Robin Markham
Water Quality Planning Branch
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Interested parties are invited to comment on the draft TMDL study by March 4, 2005. Comments concerning the reports should be
directed to Narayan Rajbhandari at the above address. The draft TMDL is also located on the following website:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/
Lower Creek Turbidity TMDL November 2004
52