Brown Creek TMDL Final Report_EPA Approved.

Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load for the Brown
Creek Watershed, Anson County, North Carolina
(Water Body ID: 13-20b)

Final Report
(EPA Approved: September 14, 2011)

Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin

Prepared by:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Planning Section, Modeling & TMDL Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
i

Summary of TMDL Submittal
303(d) List Information
State North Carolina
Basin Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
303(d) Listed Waters

Name of Stream Description Class AU# 8 Digit HU Miles
Brown Creek From mouth of Lick Creek
to Yadkin-Pee Dee River
C 13-20b 03040104 28.5

WQ Standard Violated Dissolved Oxygen

Pollutant of Concern Total Ultimate Biological Oxygen Demand
(TBODu)

Sources of Impairment Nonpoint sources from upland watershed

Public Notice Date: July 12, 2011
Submittal Date: To be determined
Establishment Date: To be determined
EPA Lead on TMDL (EPA or blank):
DOT a Significant Contribution (Yes or Blank):
Endangered Species (yes or blank):
MS4s Contributions to Impairment (Yes or Blank):
TMDL Considers Point Source, Nonpoint Source, or both: Nonpoint Source

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
ii

TMDL Information

Critical condition Summer.
Seasonality Evaluated the DWQ’s ambient data from 1998-2007 to
examine seasonal variation in dissolved oxygen
concentration.
Development tools River and stream water quality model, QUAL2K.

Loading allowed at critical condition:
Waste Load Allocation (WLA): 0 lb TBODu per day.
Load Allocation (LA): 19.31 TBODu lbs per day.
Margin of Safety (MOS): 2.15 TBODu lbs per day.
TMDL (WLA+LA+MOS): 21.46 TBODu lbs per day.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Sources TBODu
Loading
Reduction
Waste Load Allocation (WLA) WWTP 0%
Load Allocation (LA) Potential non-point sources include
stormwater runoff, illegal disposal,
malfunctioning septic systems, illicit
discharges of domestic waste, and
applications of chemical fertilizer,
poultry litter, and bio-solid.
31%

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
iii

Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Watershed Description ......................................................................................... 3
1.2 Water Quality Target: North Carolina Water Quality Standard............................ 3
1.3 Water Quality Assessment .................................................................................... 4
1.4 Flow Assessment ................................................................................................... 9
2 Source Assessment ................................................................................................. 11
3 Modeling Approach ................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Modeling Setup ................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Model Calibration ................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Pollutant of Concern ........................................................................................... 18
4 Total Maximum Daily Load ..................................................................................... 19
4.1 Seasonal Variation ............................................................................................... 20
4.2 Model Uncertainty .............................................................................................. 20
4.3 Estimation of Existing Load ................................................................................. 20
4.4 Estimation of Target Load ................................................................................... 21
4.5 Estimation of Margin of Safety (MOS) ................................................................ 22
4.6 Estimation of Waste Load Allocation (WLA) ....................................................... 22
4.7 Estimation of Load Allocation (LA) ...................................................................... 22
4.8 Load Reduction .................................................................................................... 22
5 Summary and Future Considerations ..................................................................... 24
5.1 Future Monitoring ............................................................................................... 24
5.2 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................... 25
5.3 Public Participation ............................................................................................. 25
5.4 Additional Information ........................................................................................ 26
6 References .............................................................................................................. 26
7 Appendix A. Special Study Data .............................................................................. 28
8 Appendix B. QUAL2K Input Tables .......................................................................... 32
9 Appendix C. Brown Creek Pictures ......................................................................... 41
10 Appendix D. Public Announcement ........................................................................ 44

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
iv

List of Tables
Table 1. Monthly average water quality in Brown Creek at the ambient station, Q9155000
(1998-2007). ..................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Averaged physical and chemical concentrations observed during the special study
period, April through October, 2010, in Brown Creek. .................................................... 6
Table 3. Hydrologic responses in Brown Creek at NC HWY 742 during water sampling periods. . 9
Table 4. Average values of different organic matters in Brown Creek during the study period,
April – October, 2010. .................................................................................................... 12
Table 5. Calculation of existing load for TBODu ........................................................................... 20
Table 6. Calculation of target load for TBODu .............................................................................. 21
Table 7.Calculation of TMDL for TBODu ....................................................................................... 22
Table 8.Estimation of load reduction for TBODu .......................................................................... 23

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
v

List of Figures
Figure 1. Brown Creek Watershed showing water quality monitoring sites and dissolved oxygen
impaired segment of the Creek (red color line) ............................................................... 2
Figure 2. Quartile distribution of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) at (1) Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar
Hill Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and (5) Grassy Island Road, April
through October 2010. ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Quartile distribution of Total Nitrogen (TN) at (1) Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar Hill
Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and (5) Grassy Island Road, April
through October 2010. ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Quartile distribution of Total Phosphorus (TP) at (1) Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar
Hill Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and (5) Grassy Island Road, April
through October 2010. ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Quartile distribution of measured Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) at (1)
Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar Hill Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and
(5) Grassy Island Road, April through October 2010. ....................................................... 8
Figure 6. Cross sectional view of Brown Creek at NC Hwy 742. ................................................... 10
Figure 7. Observed versus simulated water temperature in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road
to the confluence of the Pee Dee River. ........................................................................ 15
Figure 8. Observed versus simulated pH in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road to the
confluence of the Pee Dee River. ................................................................................... 16
Figure 9. Observed versus simulated Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral
Spring Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River. .................................................... 16
Figure 10. Observed versus simulated Total Nitrogen (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring
Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River. ............................................................... 17
Figure 11. Observed versus simulated Total Phosphorus (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral
Spring Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River. .................................................... 17
Figure 12. Observed versus simulated Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral
Spring Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River. .................................................... 18
Figure 13. Model simulated Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentrations for the TMDL scenario to
determine a load of total ultimate Biological Oxygen Demand (TBODu)that would not
violate water quality standard for DO in Brown Creek. ................................................. 21
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
1

1 Introduction
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has identified a 28.5 mile segment
of Brown Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin as impaired by low Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
since 1998. It is reported on the 2010 303(d) Report of Impaired Waters due to violations of the
North Carolina water quality standard (NCDENR 2010). The impaired segment is located from
the mouth of Lick Creek, near Mineral Spring Road, to Pee Dee River (Figure 1). This section of
the creek is located in sub-basin 03040104 and designated as Class C water1. According to
Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementing regulations, the State is required to develop a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the impaired segment in the creek. The TMDL process
establishes the allowable pollutant loadings or other quantifiable parameters for the creek
based on the relationship between pollutant sources and in-stream water quality conditions.
This allows water quality-based controls to be developed to reduce pollution and to restore and
maintain water quality in the creek.

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires EPA to review all TMDLs for approval or disapproval.
Once EPA approves a TMDL, then the water body may be moved to Category 4 of the 303(d)
list. Water bodies remain on Category 4 of the list until compliance with water quality standards
is achieved.

This report represents a DO TMDL for Brown Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Although an implementation plan for Total Ultimate Biological Oxygen Demand (TBODu) is not
included as a part of this TMDL, reduction strategies are needed. Involvement of local
governments and agencies will be necessary in order to develop implementation plans and
reduction strategies.

1 Class C waters are freshwaters that are protected for secondary recreation such as fishing, wildlife, fish
consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
2

Figure 1. Brown Creek Watershed showing water quality monitoring sites and dissolved oxygen
impaired segment of the Creek (red color line)

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
3

1.1 Watershed Description
Brown Creek starts from South Carolina (SC) State near the borderline between
Chesterfield County and Union County in North Carolina (NC) and ends at the Pee Dee River in
NC (Figure 1). The impaired segment of the creek runs through Anson County in NC.

The Brown Creek watershed has an area of approximately 197.23 square miles,
comprising predominantly forested land (66.2%) and agricultural land (22.0%) (Source: The
2006 National Land Cover Data). The forested land includes 25.5% deciduous forest, 33.7%
evergreen forest, 4.2% mix forest, and 2.7% shrub/scrub. The agricultural area includes 13.0%
Pasture/hay lands, 7.6% grasslands/Herbaceous lands, and 1.5% cultivated crops. Other uses
are comprised of 5.6% urban lands, including residential area, 5.6% woody wetlands, 0.25%
barren land, 0.03% non-forest wetland and 0.2% water.

The Brown Creek watershed is within the Triassic Hydrologic area and is composed of
sedimentary rocks, including shale, sandstone, and arkose (a mixture of quartz and clay
minerals). Permeability is low in the watershed due to presence of clay material underneath
surface soil. Therefore, usually base flow remains low in this watershed. As a result tributaries
receive less water, and sometimes no water, especially during summer period when
precipitation stays sporadic (See Appendix C, Figure C5). The 7Q10 flow is estimated to be zero
for the creek (Giese and Mason, 1993).

1.2 Water Quality Target: North Carolina Water Quality Standard
The North Carolina fresh water quality standard for Class C waters for DO (15A NCAC:
02B.0211) states:
Dissolved Oxygen: not less than 6.0 mg/L for trout water; for non-trout waters, not less
than a daily average of 5.0 mg/L with a minimum instantaneous value of not less than 4.0 mg/L;
swamp water, lake coves or backwaters, and lake bottom waters may have lower values if
caused by natural conditions.
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
4

The in-stream numeric target, or endpoint, is the restoration objective that is expected
to be reached by implementing the specified load reductions in the TMDL. The target allows for
the evaluation of progress towards the goal of reaching water quality standards for the
impaired stream by comparing the in-stream data to the target. In the Brown Creek watershed,
the water quality target for DO is the daily average of 5mg/L.

1.3 Water Quality Assessment
The DWQ monitors a suite of water quality parameters, including DO, at ambient
stations throughout the state on a monthly basis. There is one DWQ ambient station
(Q9155000) in Brown Creek at Pinkston RIV Rd (Figure 1). DO levels at the station are
responsible for the 303(d) listing of a portion of the creek. Table 1 summarizes nutrient
concentrations at the station from 1998 to 2007.
Table 1. Monthly average water quality in Brown Creek at the ambient station, Q9155000
(1998-2007).
Month DO
mg/L
Temperature
Degree C
TKN
mg/L
NOx
mg/L
TN
mg/L
TP
mg/L
pH
1 9.89 6.99 0.62 0.12 0.74 0.12 6.42
2 10.64 6.97 0.30 0.07 0.37 0.07 6.66
3 9.39 12.04 0.43 0.07 0.50 0.11 6.81
4 8.06 16.13 0.40 0.12 0.52 0.10 6.86
5 5.81 17.95 0.58 0.19 0.77 0.09 6.75
6 3.92 22.21 0.47 0.13 0.60 0.07 6.80
7 3.01 25.13 0.82 0.09 0.91 0.11 6.75
8 3.57 24.39 0.65 0.08 0.73 0.12 6.70
9 3.67 21.41 0.48 0.08 0.55 0.12 6.69
10 4.39 17.60 0.50 0.03 0.53 0.14 6.79
11 4.78 12.57 0.50 0.04 0.54 0.12 6.67
12 8.88 7.37 0.73 0.05 0.77 0.11 6.96

On average, DO concentrations were below the State’s standard, 5 mg/L, during
summer and fall (June through November) in Brown Creek. Therefore, a question is raised
about possible sources that reduced DO concentration. To answer the question, the DWQ
conducted a bi-weekly special study during summer period, April through October 2010, at the
following five different locations along the impaired segment of the creek: Mineral Spring Road,
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
5

Poplar Hill Church Road, NC HWY 742, US HWY 52, and Grassy Island Road (Figure 1). The
objectives of the special study were to analyze TN, TP, and organic matter at the five different
locations; to compare the results to the USGS national background averages; and to estimate
their relative contribution from background sources. The national background averages are 1.0
mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L for TP (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/index.html). The averaged
values were estimated from nutrient concentrations in streams from undeveloped areas in the
USA. A detailed study plan is well documented by Rajbhandari, 2010 and the observed data are
presented in Appendix A.

Quartile distributions of DO, TN, TP, and BOD5 concentrations that were observed
during the special study period in Brown Creek are presented in Figures 2 to 5. Summaries of
the observed concentrations are presented in Table 2. During the study period, only a few
observations (7% to 14%) met the DO standard in the creek (Figure 2). On average, DO
concentration was lowest (1.8 mg/L) at Mineral Spring Road (Table 2). The concentration
gradually increased to 3.4 mg/L downstream. Overall, the concentrations were below 5 mg/L
throughout the study locations.

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
6

Table 2. Averaged physical and chemical concentrations observed during the special study
period, April through October, 2010, in Brown Creek.
Locations No.
of
Obs.
BOD5
(mg/L)
TOC
(mg/L)
TKN
(mg/L)
NOx
(mg/L)
TN
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
Cond1.
(µS)
pH Temp2
(deg C)
DO
(mg/L)
Mineral
Spring
Road
14 12.05 23.79 3.08 0.03 3.11 0.65 175.00 6.82 21 1.81
Poplar Hill
Church
Road
13 8.94 14.46 1.74 0.02 1.75 0.25 128.92 6.78 22 2.78
NC HWY
742
14 3.50 13.44 1.04 0.07 1.11 0.16 123.43 6.89 21 3.01
US HWY
52
14 5.86 14.42 1.73 0.13 1.86 0.27 135.36 6.96 22 3.44
Grassy
Island
Road
14 1.70 13.74 0.95 0.39 1.34 0.19 128.21 6.92 22 3.44
1. Cond. = Conductivity
2. Temp. = Water Temperature.

Figure 2. Quartile distribution of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) at (1) Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar
Hill Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and (5) Grassy Island Road, April through
October 2010.

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

O
x
y
g
e
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5
Stream Sections
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
7

Figure 3. Quartile distribution of Total Nitrogen (TN) at (1) Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar Hill
Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and (5) Grassy Island Road, April through October
2010.

Figure 4. Quartile distribution of Total Phosphorus (TP) at (1) Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar Hill
Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and (5) Grassy Island Road, April through October
2010.

To
t
a
l

N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 2 3 4 5
Stream Sections
To
t
a
l

P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1 2 3 4 5
Stream Sections
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
8

Figure 5. Quartile distribution of measured Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) at (1)
Mineral Spring Road, (2) Poplar Hill Church Road, (3) NC HWY 742, (4) US HWY 52, and (5) Grassy
Island Road, April through October 2010.

Figures 3 and 4 clearly reveal that the low DO concentrations in Brown Creek were due
to anthropogenic activities in upland watershed and around near Peachland City and Polkton
City. Almost all concentrations of TN and TP exceeded the USGS national background averages
(1 mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L for TP) at upstream locations, Mineral Spring Road and Poplar Hill
Church Road. Only a few observations exceeded the USGS national background averages at the
downstream locations, NC 742 to Grassy Island Road. These results suggest that the low DO
concentration in Brown Creek was due to some potential sources in the watershed that also
contributed N and P. Usually N is found in human waste discharges, animal droppings, and
fertilizer runoff. P is found in fertilizer and some detergents.

Figure 5 further demonstrates that organic matter was concentrated at the upstream
watershed near Peachland City and Polkton City. Averaged BOD5 concentrations were greater
in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road and Poplar Hill Church Road. Usually organic matter
(e.g., vegetation and human and animal waste) increases BOD5 in a water body. Since the creek
runs through Triassic land where infiltrability is very low, it is expected that any accumulated
BO
D
5

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5
Stream Sections
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
9

nutrients and organic matter in the lands would transport to the creek through surface runoff
after a rainfall event. A detailed assessment of the probable sources is discussed in source
assessment, below.

1.4 Flow Assessment
There was no USGS gauge station in Brown Creek. Considering accessibility the DWQ
staff selected a location in Brown Creek at NC HWY 742 for undertaking flow measurement
(velocity, depth, and discharge rate) while collecting water samples from the creek. The flow
data is presented in Table 3 and a cross sectional diagram of the location is presented in Figure
6.
Table 3. Hydrologic responses in Brown Creek at NC HWY 742 during water sampling periods.
Date Precipitation1
(in)
Discharge
(cfs)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Depth
ft
4/14/2010 0 4.57 0.12 1.04
4/21/2010 0 2.37 0.08 0.77
5/12/2010 0 0.64 0.03 0.53
5/17/2010 1.3 10.33 0.23 1.21
5/27/2010 0 2.16 0.08 0.74
6/16/2010 0 0.76 0.03 0.61
6/22/2010 0 0.26 0.01 0.49
7/13/2010 0.29 0.78 0.03 0.62
7/27/2010 0.59 5.84 0.13 1.15
8/10/2010 0 0.16 0.01 0.47
8/24/2010 0.02 0.70 0.03 0.55
10/14/2010 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.45
1. Precipitation source: Anson County Airport.

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
10

Figure 6. Cross sectional view of Brown Creek at NC Hwy 742.

Brown Creek at NC Hwy 742 was approximately 66 ft wide with maximum water depth
of 1.6 ft. Approximately, water level starts at 19ft and ends at 57 ft from the bank. Discharge
while collecting water samples ranged from 0.16 cfs to 10.33 cfs. The highest discharge was
observed during the storm event of 1.3 inches on May 17, 2010. There was a total storm event
of approximately 13.56 inches during the study period (April through October, 2010). The
relationships among the flow, discharge, and depth are expressed by the following equations:
V = 0.04 Q 0.76 R-Square = 0.98--------------------(1)
D = 0.56 Q 0.26 R-Square = 0.94--------------------(2)
Where, V = Velocity in ft/sec, D = Water depth in ft, and Q = Discharge in cfs.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
De
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
Brown Creek X- Section
Water Level
Bankfull
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
11

2 Source Assessment
The source assessment characterizes the known and suspected sources of a pollutant to
the impaired water body. Generally, sources of TN, TP, and organic matter may be point or non-
point in nature. Point sources are typically those regulated under the NPDES system, permitted
discharges for which the DWQ has significant information. There were two NPDES industrial
stormwater dischargers to Brown Creek: the Anson Waste Management Facility (NCG120064)
and Southeastern PET Resin Recyclers (NCG030225). Both facilities were under a general
stormwater permit that requires semi-annual discharge monitoring to guide stormwater
pollution prevention efforts. These facilities were considered to be contributing almost
negligible loads to the creek.

Non-point sources are diffuse sources that typically cannot be identified as entering a
water body at a single location. In order to characterize possible non-point sources in Brown
Creek, the water quality parameters - BOD5, TOC, and tannin and lignin - that were collected
during the special study period were examined. The observed BOD5 concentrations were
further converted into Labile (biologically active and unstable) Organic Carbon (LOC) and
Refractory (poorly biodegradable) Organic Carbon (ROC) by using equations 3 and 4 to examine
whether the sources were anthropogenic eutrophication or not. The equations were derived by
Hendrickson et al., 2007, considering that LOC and ROC decompose simultaneously, albeit at
different rates. Their first-order decay rates were 0.075 day -1 and 0.001 day -1, respectively.

LOC (mg/L) = (BOD5*74.906 – TOC)/61.54 --------------------- (3)
ROC (mg/L) = TOC-LOC ------------------------------------------- (4)

The above equations represent the St. Johns River, which is one of the largest
blackwater rivers of the southeast U.S., draining a 24,765 km2 area in Atlantic coastal plain river
estuary in northeast Florida. The river is slow moving and receives nutrients from adjoining
swamp water. Although there are some differences in physiological characteristics compared to
Brown Creek, it could be assumed that any information drawn from the river would be
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
12

applicable to this study, because the creek is slow moving and receives organic matter from
adjoining forested, agricultural, and urban watersheds. Table 4 displays average values of LOC,
ROC, and Tannin and Lignin in Brown creek during the study period.

Table 4. Average values of different organic matters in Brown Creek during the study period,
April – October, 2010.
Location LOC1
(mg/L)
ROC2
(mg/L)
Tannin and
Lignin3
(mg/L)
Mineral Spring Road 14.28 9.51 2.7
Poplar Hill Church Road 10.64 3.82 1.9
NC HWY 742 4.04 9.40 1.7
US HWY 52 6.90 7.52 1.5
Grassy Island Road 1.85 11.89 1.5
1. LOC = Labile organic carbon. It was estimated using equation 3.
2. ROC = Refractory organic carbon. It was estimated using equation 4.
3. Measured organic compounds.

Hendrickson et al., 2007, found highest concentration of LOC and lowest concentration
of ROC in domestic waste. In addition they found highest concentration of ROC in dairy, row
crop, and undeveloped watershed runoff and lowest in urban runoff. In this study, LOC
concentrations upstream, near Mineral Spring Road and Poplar Hill Church Road, were higher
than ROC concentrations (Table 3). Therefore, it is assumed that some anthropogenic sources
such as malfunctioning septic system, chemical fertilizer application, poultry litter application,
stormwater runoff (unfiltered water flowing across impervious surfaces due to urbanization)
from Peachland City and Polkton City, Illicit discharges of domestic waste (direct pipeline) and
bio-solid application would have been contributing organic matters to the creek. For examples,
approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Mineral Spring Road, there was a parcel of cultivated land
that was in the middle of the stream floodway. It was extensively ditched. This parcel would be
a possible source of N and P input into the creek. Further down the road, approximately 4
miles, there was a permitted land application of bio-solids (WQ0000057), which would also be a
possible source of BOD input into the creek (Source: Personal communication with Art
Barnhardt, Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquifer Protection).
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
13

The above assumption that the low DO status in Brown Creek was due to anthropogenic
sources is further supported by the low values of tannin and lignin concentrations in the creek
(Table 4). The low values suggest that decaying organic matters from plant materials, mainly
from background sources, were insignificant. Therefore, it is assumed that organic matter
contributions from background sources were negligible in the creek.

3 Modeling Approach
Based on Federal TMDL guidance and requirements, development of the DO TMDL for
Brown Creek was conducted for a critical low flow condition using a modeling program called
QUAL2K (Q2K), Version 2.11 (Chapra et.al, 2008). The model is a river water quality model that
is intended to represent a modernized version of the QUAL2E model (Brown and Barnwell
1987). The model is one dimensional; therefore it assumes that the channel is well-mixed
vertically and laterally. The model employs steady state hydraulics. It uses a diel heat budget,
computes diel water-quality kinetics, and simulates point and non-point loads and abstractions.

The Q2K model is implemented within the Microsoft Windows environment. Fortran
language is used for numerical computations. Excel is used as the graphical user interface. All
interface operations are programmed in the Microsoft Office macro languages. Details of the
model applications are well documented in Chapra et al., 2008.

3.1 Modeling Setup
The Q2K model requires a water body to be divided into different sections so that each
section will have roughly uniform hydraulic characteristics. For this study, Brown Creek was
divided into five sections at Mineral Spring Road, Poplar Hill Church Road, NC HWY 742, US
HWY 52, and Grassy Island Road. These sections were then populated with following input
parameters. The corresponding input values for each section are presented in Appendix B.

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
14

• Geographic Characteristics: An internet GIS program called Google Earth (Earth Viewer
3D) was utilized to generate the geographic information such as longitude and latitude,
time zone, and elevation.
• Meteorological characteristics: The meteorological data such as air temperature, dew
point temperature, wind speed, and cloud cover were acquired from the State Climate
Office of North Carolina, North Carolina State University (NCSU). Besides these
parameters, the model also requires a percent shading coverage. Based on the DWQ
staff’s field observation it was estimated to be 35% on average.
• Physical, chemical and biological parameters: The key water quality parameters like
ammonia, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), TN, TP, BOD5, TOC, pH, Conductivity, and water
temperature were collected during the special study period (April – October, 2010).
• Hydraulic characteristics: The model either uses Manning’s n or flow rating coefficients
to estimate travel time for routing water constituents. For this study, Manning’s n was
used. Based on the DWQ staff’s field observation, values for Manning’s n ranges from
0.075 to 0.15 for Brown Creek where bottom garbles, weedy reaches, timber stands,
and underbrush were common (See Appendix C, Figure C1).

3.2 Model Calibration
Model calibration was performed for a low flow stage that was observed on August 10,
2010 in Brown Creek. On that day discharge was recorded at 0.16 cfs (velocity = 0.01 ft/sec and
depth = 0.47 ft) (Table 3). Calibration was then completed by adjusting a number of key
coefficients so that the model reproduced the following observed water quality parameters:
Water Temperature, pH, TKN, TN, and TP, and DO. The adjusted coefficients are presented in
Appendix B and observed and simulated graphs are presented in Figures 7 to 12. The model
seems to be predicting slightly higher TKN and TP concentrations towards downstream (Figures
9 and 11). It could be due to model limitation when examining the contribution of nonpoint
sources of pollutants to river water quality degradation. The model is not set up to account for
contributions from nonpoint sources in the watershed. Therefore, a variation may deviate from
the model assumptions (Shanahan et al. 1998). Considering the data and information available
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
15

the model is considered reasonably calibrated. Overall, the model simulated pollutants of
interest within the range shown by the observed data and reproduced the general water quality
trends reasonably well.

Figure 7. Observed versus simulated water temperature in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road
to the confluence of the Pee Dee River.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0510152025303540
Wa
t
e
r

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
D
e
g
r
e
e

C
)
Distance from Mineral Spring Road (km)
Simulated Temperature Observed Temperature
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
16

Figure 8. Observed versus simulated pH in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road to the
confluence of the Pee Dee River.

Figure 9. Observed versus simulated Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral
Spring Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0510152025303540
pH
Distance from Mineral Spring Road (km)
Simulated pH Observed pH Simulated pHsat
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0510152025303540
To
t
a
l

K
j
e
l
d
a
h
l

N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Distance from Mineral Spring Road (km)
Simulated TKN Observed TKN
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
17

Figure 10. Observed versus simulated Total Nitrogen (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring
Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River.

Figure 11. Observed versus simulated Total Phosphorus (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring
Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River.

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
010203040
To
t
a
l

N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Distance from Mineral Spring Road (km)
Simulated TN Observed TN)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0510152025303540
To
t
a
l

P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Distance from Mineral Spring Road (km)
Simulated TP Observed TP
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
18

Figure 12. Observed versus simulated Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) in Brown Creek at Mineral Spring
Road to the confluence of the Pee Dee River.

3.3 Pollutant of Concern
Based on the Q2K modeling, the pollutant of concern for DO is ultimate total biological
oxygen demand (TBODu), which includes both carbonaceous (CBODu) and nitrogenous
(NBODu). The equations below show the relationships:

TBODu = CBODu + NBODu ------------------------ (5)
NBODu = TKN * ron ----------------------------------- (6)
Where ron is a nitrification ratio which is estimated to be 4.57 on average (Chapra et. al,
2008).

During summer period Brown Creek receives almost negligible amount of flow from its
tributaries (Appendix C: Picture C5), thereby diminishing tributary nutrient loads and enhancing
sediment oxygen demand (SOD). Therefore, bottom sediments in the creek play substantial
roles to reduce oxygen during summer period when warm temperature enhances biological
processes which consumes oxygen through oxidation of organic carbon (CBOD) and nitrification
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0510152025303540
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

O
x
y
g
e
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Mineral Spring Road (km)
Simulated DO Observed DO Simulated Saturated DO
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
19

of ammonia (NBOD). As per equation 5, sum of oxidation and nitrification equates a value to
TBODu. For this study, a value for TBODu is estimated as follows.

Figure 13 represents the calibration or baseline model run for DO in Brown Creek. This
DO curve, calculated by the Q2K model, corresponds to an input value of 4.3 mg/L for TKN and
9.6 for CBODu. The TKN concentration represents a measured value whereas the CBODu
concentration represents an estimated value. The CBODu concentration was estimated by
dividing the measured BOD concentration by a constant 2.5 (Thomas and Mueller, 1987). Using
equations 5 and 6, TBODu was then estimated to be 29.25 mg/L (TBODu = 9.6 + 4.3*4.57).

4 Total Maximum Daily Load
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) can be defined as the total amount of pollutant that
can be assimilated by the receiving water body while achieving water quality standards. A
TMDL can be expressed as the sum of all point source loads (WLAs), non-point source loads
(LAs), and an appropriate margin of safety (MOS), which takes into account any uncertainty.
This definition can be expressed by equation 7:

TMDL = ∑WLAs + ∑LAs + MOS ---------------(7)

The objective of the TMDL is to estimate allowable pollutant loads and to allocate the
loads to the known pollutant sources in the watershed so that the appropriate control
measures can be implemented and the water quality standard can be achieved. 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. For this study, TMDL is expressed as mass per
day (Daily Load) to represent the maximum daily load of TBODu that can be assimilated by
Brown Creek while maintaining the DO water quality standard of 5 mg/L.
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
20

4.1 Seasonal Variation
DO concentrations in Brown Creek tend to be lowest during summer period and highest
during winter period (Table 1). Conditions of low temperature and high flow during winter and
early spring (cold weather months) generally increase DO concentration. High nutrient loads
during colder weather months tend to be flushed through the creek rapidly, making nutrients
unavailable for eventual DO consumption. Considering this natural phenomenon, this study
focuses on TBODu loadings during summer period (warm weather month) only. It is assumed
that basing the TMDL on warm weather months would protect the creek during cold weather
months as well.

4.2 Model Uncertainty
The Q2K model is not adept at characterizing prediction uncertainty. Because of the lack
of certain site specific information, professional judgment and literature values were used to
calculate the DO loading. Therefore, the model results should be interpreted in light of the
model limitations and prediction uncertainty.

4.3 Estimation of Existing Load
An existing load for the pollutant, TBODu, was calculated based on a critical flow, the
existing TBODu concentration, and a conversion factor (190.50). Equation 8 is used to estimate
the existing load and the results are given in Table 5.

Load (lbs/day) = Critical Flow (m3/s) * TBODu (mg/L) * 190.50 ------------------------- (8)

Table 5. Calculation of existing load for TBODu
Location Flow1
(m3/s)
TBODu
(mg/L)
Conversion
Factor
Existing Load
(lbs/day)
Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road 0.005 29.25 190.50 27.86
Note: 1. Flow is based on field measurement at NC 742 on 8/10/2010

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
21

4.4 Estimation of Target Load
The calibrated Q2K model was run by gradually decreasing the TKN value, an ingredient
of TBODu (Equations 5 and 6), while keeping the rest of the calibrated parameters the same, to
bring the modeled in-stream DO concentration at or above the North Carolina fresh water
quality standard, 5 mg/L. Figure 13 represents the DO concentration above the water quality
standard when the optimum value for TKN was set to 2.83 mg/L. The optimum value for TBODu
was then used to estimate a target load using Equations 5, 6, and 8. The results are given in
Table 6, below.

Figure 13. Model simulated Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentrations for the TMDL scenario to
determine a load of total ultimate Biological Oxygen Demand (TBODu) that would not violate
water quality standard for DO in Brown Creek.

Table 6. Calculation of target load for TBODu
Location Flow1
(m3/s)
TBODu
(mg/L)
Conversion Factor Target Load
(lbs/day)
Brown Creek at Mineral Spring road 0.005 22.53 190.50 21.46
Note: 1. Flow is based on field measurement at NC 742 on 8/10/2010

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0510152025303540
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

O
x
y
g
e
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Distance from Mineral Spring Road (km)
Simulated DO Observed DO Simulated Saturated DO
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
22

4.5 Estimation of Margin of Safety (MOS)
TMDL should reflect a MOS based on uncertainty in the modeling analysis, data
collection, and point and non-point load estimates. MOS may be incorporated into a TMDL
either implicitly, through the use of conservative assumptions to develop allocations, or
explicitly through a reduction in the TMDL target. For this study, an explicit MOS was
incorporated in the analysis by setting the TMDL target at 10% lower than the estimated water
quality target of 21.46 lb/day for TBODu. The MOS was thus estimated to be 2.15 lb/day.

4.6 Estimation of Waste Load Allocation (WLA)
There were no waste water treatment plants in the Brown Creek Watershed. However,
there were two NPDES industrial stormwater dischargers: Anson Waste Management Facility
(NCG120064) and Southeastern PET Resin Recyclers (NCG030225). Both facilities were under a
general stormwater permit that requires semi-annual discharge monitoring to guide
stormwater pollution prevention efforts. These facilities were considered to be contributing
almost negligible loads to the creek. Therefore, the WLA was set to zero for this study.

4.7 Estimation of Load Allocation (LA)
Using Equation 7, above, LA was estimated by subtracting the targeted load capacity
(TMDL) from WLA and MOS. The results are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.Calculation of TMDL for TBODu
Location WLA
(lb/day)
LA
(lb/day)
MOS
(lb/day)
TMDL
(lb/day)
Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road 0 19.31 2.15 21.46

4.8 Load Reduction
The total load reduction required for TBODu in order to maintain the water quality
standard of 5 mg/L for DO in Brown Creek was estimated by subtracting the existing load from
LA. The results are presented in Table 8.
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
23

Table 8.Estimation of load reduction for TBODu
Location Existing
Load
(lb/day)
LA
(lb/day)
Load
Reduction
(lb/day)
Load
Reduction
(%)
Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road 27.86 19.31 8.55 31%

The 31% load reduction is required from non-point sources from the upstream watershed and
around Peachland City and Polkton City. The reduction does not include background sources,
because the organic matters such as ROC and Tannin and Lignin concentrations were
substantially low in the creek (Table 4). It is, therefore, assumed that nutrient contributions from
background sources are negligible in the creek.

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
24

5 Summary and Future Considerations
Brown Creek in Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin was listed as impaired since 1998 on North
Carolina’s 303(d) Report of Impaired Waters due to violations of the North Carolina water
quality standard for DO. According to the Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the federal Clean Water Act
(CWA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementing regulations, the
State is required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the impaired segment in
the creek.

In the process of developing this TMDL, the DWQ conducted a special study from April
through October 2010. The staff observed that the impaired segment of the creek (AU# 13-
20b), 28.5 miles, appeared to exhibit anthropogenic impact from upland watershed near
Peachland City and Polkton City. The Q2K model was used to simulate instream DO
concentrations and to allocate TBODu load to various non-point sources. There were no point
sources. However, there were two NPDES industrial stormwater dischargers, which were
considered to be contributing almost negligible loads to the creek.

In order for the water quality target to be met, the final allocation of the load requires
the non-point sources to reduce TBODu loading by approximately 31%. Most importantly, it
appears to reduce the loading from anthropogenic activities in upland watershed and around
the Cities of Peachland and Polkton. These activities include stormwater runoff, malfunctioning
septic systems, illicit discharges of domestic waste, chemical fertilizer application, poultry litter
application, and bio-solid application.

5.1 Future Monitoring
It is recommended to continue DO monitoring on a monthly interval at the ambient site.
The continued monitoring will allow the DWQ to evaluate progress towards the goal of
reaching water quality standards by comparing the instream DO load to the TMDL target. If
future monitoring for DO indicates the standard has been met, the monitoring data may be
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
25

used to support delisting the Brown Creek from the 303(d) list. If reductions are achieved but
the standard is still not met, the TMDL may be revised.

5.2 Implementation Plan
This TMDL was developed using the best data available to specify TBODu load reduction
necessary to achieve water quality criteria for DO in Brown Creek. The intent of meeting the
criteria is to support the designated use classifications in the watershed.

Implementation plans are not a required component of a TMDL. The involvement of
local governments and agencies will be needed in order to develop meaningful implementation
plans. While developing the plan it should be noted that the TMDL requires a 31 % reduction of
TBODu from non-point sources, mainly at around the cities of Peachland and Polkton. In
addition to the reduction, future growth in urban landuses should also be accompanied by
nutrient and organic matter control measures.

North Carolina State University, Soil Science Department, is currently implementing an
extension program to educate stakeholders in the Brown Creek Watershed about poultry litter
BMPs and subsurface application technology. The program aims at reducing N and P
contributions from the poultry litter application in farmlands to the creek. The extension
programs will help to meet some of this TMDL’s target. Therefore, the DWQ staff should
coordinate with the university staff to layout a concrete action plan in order to make sure that
the activities would be advantageous to meet the goal of reaching water quality standard for
DO in the creek.

5.3 Public Participation
A draft of the TMDL was publicly noticed through various means. NCDWQ electronically
distributed the draft TMDL and public comment information to known interested parties
through Water Resources Research Institute (WRRI) of The University of North Carolina web
site at http://www.ncsu.edu/wrri. The announcement is provided in Appendix D. The TMDL was
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
26

also available from the NCDWQ website at (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu) during
the comment period. The public comment period lasted from July 12, 2011 – August 18, 2011.
NCDWQ received one comment, noting a typo in a facility name. This was corrected. Several
internal comments were also received, suggesting clarifying languages. No substantive changes
were made.

5.4 Additional Information
Further information concerning North Carolina’s TMDL program can be found on the
Internet at the Division of Water Quality website:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl/tmdls. Technical questions regarding this TMDL
should be directed to the following members of the DWQ Modeling/TMDL Unit: Narayan
Rajbhandari, Senior Environmental Specialist, [e-mail] and Kathy
Stecker, Supervisor, [e-mail].

6 References
Brown, Linfield C and Thomas O. Barnwell, Jr. 1987 The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Models
QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS: Documentation and User Manual. Environmental Research
Laboratory Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Athens, Georgia.

Chapra, Steve, Greg Pelletier, and Hua Tao. December 2008. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework
for Simulating River and Stream Water Quality, Version 2.11. Documentation and Users
Manual. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Tufts University, Medford, MA.

Clark , Gregory M, David K. Mueller, and M. Alisa Mast. August 2000. Nutrient Concentrations
and Yields in Undeveloped Stream Basins of the United States. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association. 36(4): 849-860.

Giese, G.L. and Robert R. Mason, Jr. 1993. Low-Flow Characteristics of Streams in North
Carolina. United State Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2403. USGS Map Distribution,
Box 25286, MS 306, Federal Center, Denver, CO – 80225.

Hendrickson, John, Nadine Trahan, Emily Gordon, and Ying Ouyang. February 2007. Estimating
Relevance of Organic Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Loads to a Black Water River Estuary.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43(1): 264-279.
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
27

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). 2010. Water Quality Assessment and Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report
(Final). http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment.

NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). May 2007.
Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards. NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B.0100, .0200 &
0.300. 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC – 27699-1617.

Rajbhandari, Narayan B. March 17, 2010. Memorandum: A special study request for assessing
low dissolved oxygen in Brown Creek, Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
Intensive Survey Unit, Raleigh, NC.

Shanahan, P., M. Henze, L. Koncsos, W. Rauch, P. Reichert, L. Somlyódy and P. Vanrolleghem.
1998. River water quality modelling: II. Problems of the art. Wat. Sci. Tech. 38(11): 245-252.

Thomann and Mueller. 1897. Principals of surface water quality modeling and control. Harper
and Row, New York.

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

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

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients and
Pesticides. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225.

DO

T
M
D
L

f
o
r

B
r
o
w
n

C
r
e
e
k

28

7
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
.

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

S
t
u
d
y

D
a
t
a

Ta
b
l
e

A
1
.

P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

a
n
d

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

d
u
r
i
ng

t
h
e

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

s
t
u
d
y

p
e
r
i
o
d
s
,

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

A
u
g
us
t

2
0
1
0
,

t
o

a
s
s
e
s
s

l
o
w

d
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

o
x
y
g
e
n

co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

B
r
o
w
n

C
r
e
e
k
.

Sa
m
p
l
e

S
i
t
e
s

Da
t
e

BO
D
5

TO
C

NH
₃

TK
N

NO
x

TN

To
t
a
l

P

Te
m
p
.

Co
n
d
.

pH

D.
O
.

mm
/
d
d
/
y
y
y
y

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

˚C

µS

mg
/
L

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

3/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

NA

8.
2
0

0.
0
1

0.
5
2

0.
0
1

0.
5
3

0.
0
8

11
.
0
0

91
.
0
0

6.
6
0

8.
3
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

4/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

2.
6
0

19
.
0
0

0.
2
2

NA

0.
0
1

NA

0.
3
0

16
.
7
0

15
4
.
0
0

6.
7
0

2.
0
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
0

2.
4
0

17
.
0
0

0.
2
1

1.
5
0

0.
0
1

1.
5
1

0.
3
0

14
.
8
0

15
5
.
0
0

6.
7
0

1.
9
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

5/
1
2
/
2
0
1
0

5.
8
0

18
.
0
0

0.
5
0

2.
0
0

0.
0
1

2.
0
1

0.
5
4

16
.
3
0

18
9
.
0
0

6.
9
0

0.
2
2

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

5/
1
7
/
2
0
1
0

6.
1
0

17
.
0
0

0.
4
6

2.
0
0

0.
0
3

2.
0
3

0.
3
8

20
.
7
0

18
0
.
0
0

6.
9
0

1.
5
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

3.
9
0

17
.
0
0

0.
4
4

1.
8
0

0.
2
8

2.
0
8

0.
3
7

19
.
6
0

16
8
.
0
0

6.
7
0

3.
6
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0

5.
7
0

30
.
0
0

0.
4
6

2.
4
0

0.
0
1

2.
4
1

0.
5
5

23
.
6
0

17
5
.
0
0

6.
7
0

0.
3
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

10
.
0
0

36
.
0
0

0.
6
6

3.
0
0

0.
0
1

3.
0
1

0.
9
4

24
.
3
0

20
1
.
0
0

6.
8
0

0.
5
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

7/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0

8.
8
0

19
.
0
0

0.
7
1

2.
7
0

0.
0
1

2.
7
1

0.
5
8

23
.
8
0

15
5
.
0
0

6.
8
0

0.
8
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

7/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

6.
0
0

34
.
0
0

0.
3
5

2.
2
0

0.
0
1

2.
2
1

0.
6
4

25
.
8
0

17
1
.
0
0

6.
6
0

0.
1
1

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

8/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

24
.
0
0

24
.
0
0

0.
3
3

4.
3
0

0.
0
1

4.
3
1

0.
9
2

24
.
8
0

17
5
.
0
0

6.
7
0

2.
6
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

8/
2
4
/
2
0
1
0

25
.
0
0

17
.
0
0

0.
4
2

4.
3
0

0.
0
1

4.
3
1

0.
8
3

24
.
6
0

18
0
.
0
0

6.
8
0

2.
9
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

9/
9
/
2
0
1
0

29
.
0
0

38
.
0
0

0.
5
2

6.
0
0

0.
0
1

6.
0
1

0.
9
1

21
.
8
0

18
6
.
0
0

6.
9
0

1.
6
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

18
.
0
0

25
.
0
0

0.
7
1

4.
6
0

0.
0
1

4.
6
1

0.
7
3

21
.
8
0

18
1
.
0
0

7.
0
0

6.
1
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

10
.
0
0

17
.
0
0

1.
0
0

3.
0
0

0.
0
1

3.
0
1

0.
7
3

16
.
9
0

16
4
.
0
0

7.
0
0

2.
0
0

Mi
n
e
r
a
l

S
p
r
i
n
g

R
d
.

10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

14
.
0
0

24
.
0
0

0.
4
4

3.
3
0

0.
0
1

3.
3
1

0.
6
9

16
.
7
0

17
0
.
0
0

7.
0
0

1.
2
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

3/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

NA

8.
4
0

0.
0
1

0.
5
2

0.
0
1

0.
5
3

0.
0
7

10
.
7
0

82
.
0
0

6.
7
0

9.
5
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

4/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

2.
6
0

15
.
0
0

0.
0
6

NA

0.
0
1

NA

0.
1
6

15
.
9
0

13
1
.
0
0

6.
9
0

4.
0
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
9

1.
1
0

0.
0
1

1.
1
1

0.
1
4

15
.
7
0

12
9
.
0
0

6.
8
0

3.
4
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

5/
1
2
/
2
0
1
0

4.
0
0

13
.
0
0

0.
2
7

1.
3
0

0.
0
1

1.
3
1

0.
2
0

17
.
5
0

14
1
.
0
0

6.
9
0

2.
7
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

5/
1
7
/
2
0
1
0

5.
3
0

13
.
0
0

0.
1
9

1.
3
0

0.
0
3

1.
3
3

0.
2
3

20
.
6
0

12
4
.
0
0

6.
6
0

1.
1
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

2.
4
0

14
.
0
0

0.
3
4

1.
2
0

0.
0
4

1.
2
4

0.
2
1

20
.
6
0

13
1
.
0
0

6.
7
0

3.
0
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0

7.
2
0

15
.
0
0

0.
1
7

1.
8
0

0.
0
1

1.
8
1

0.
3
1

24
.
7
0

13
8
.
0
0

6.
6
0

1.
7
0

DO

T
M
D
L

f
o
r

B
r
o
w
n

C
r
e
e
k

29

Ta
b
l
e

A
1

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

Sa
m
p
l
e

S
i
t
e
s

Da
t
e

BO
D
5

TO
C

NH
₃

TK
N

NO
x

TN

To
t
a
l

P

Te
m
p
.

Co
n
d
.

pH

D.
O
.

mm
/
d
d
/
y
y
y
y

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

˚C

µS

mg
/
L

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

4.
7
0

15
.
0
0

0.
1
5

1.
2
0

0.
0
1

1.
2
1

0.
2
2

25
.
2
0

14
5
.
0
0

6.
9
0

1.
6
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

7/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0

9.
4
0

15
.
0
0

0.
1
3

1.
9
0

0.
0
4

1.
9
4

0.
1
9

24
.
5
0

14
0
.
0
0

7.
0
0

2.
1
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

7/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

18
.
0
0

16
.
0
0

0.
0
2

3.
0
0

0.
0
1

3.
0
1

0.
3
5

27
.
0
0

13
6
.
0
0

6.
8
0

1.
6
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

8/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

27
.
0
0

18
.
0
0

0.
0
2

2.
8
0

0.
0
1

2.
8
1

0.
3
3

25
.
9
0

13
1
.
0
0

7.
0
0

4.
5
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

8/
2
4
/
2
0
1
0

4.
7
0

13
.
0
0

0.
1
1

1.
0
0

0.
0
1

1.
0
1

0.
1
5

25
.
1
0

98
.
0
0

6.
6
0

1.
0
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

9/
9
/
2
0
1
0

6.
7
0

14
.
0
0

0.
1
1

1.
4
0

0.
0
1

1.
4
1

0.
2
0

21
.
4
0

12
7
.
0
0

6.
7
0

8.
6
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

17
.
0
0

15
.
0
0

0.
0
9

2.
9
0

0.
0
1

2.
9
1

0.
3
6

21
.
3
0

13
4
.
0
0

6.
8
0

1.
4
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

8.
8
0

14
.
0
0

0.
0
9

1.
7
0

0.
0
1

1.
7
1

0.
3
1

16
.
4
0

10
2
.
0
0

6.
8
0

3.
4
0

Po
p
l
a
r

H
i
l
l

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
.

10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

4.
9
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
1

1.
1
0

NA

NA

0.
1
7

18
.
0
0

10
8
.
0
0

6.
8
0

3.
0
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

3/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

NA

8.
3
0

0.
0
1

0.
4
4

0.
0
1

0.
4
5

0.
0
6

10
.
7
0

83
.
0
0

7.
0
0

10
.
8
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

4/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

14
.
0
0

0.
0
6

NA

0.
0
7

NA

0.
3
3

16
.
0
0

12
7
.
0
0

7.
0
0

6.
2
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

11
.
0
0

0.
0
5

0.
7
4

0.
1
0

0.
8
4

0.
1
0

15
.
2
0

12
5
.
0
0

6.
9
0

5.
9
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

5/
1
2
/
2
0
1
0

2.
4
0

11
.
0
0

0.
0
9

0.
8
2

0.
0
5

0.
8
7

0.
0
7

16
.
8
0

14
3
.
0
0

7.
0
0

3.
1
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

5/
1
7
/
2
0
1
0

3.
5
0

11
.
0
0

0.
1
1

0.
8
4

0.
0
6

0.
9
0

0.
1
3

20
.
2
0

13
7
.
0
0

7.
0
0

3.
1
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

12
.
0
0

0.
0
8

0.
7
9

0.
1
9

0.
9
8

0.
1
5

20
.
2
0

11
9
.
0
0

6.
9
0

3.
7
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

23
.
0
0

0.
0
9

1.
2
0

0.
0
9

1.
2
9

0.
1
4

24
.
8
0

14
7
.
0
0

6.
8
0

1.
9
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

2.
7
0

16
.
0
0

0.
0
5

1.
2
0

0.
0
3

1.
2
3

0.
1
6

24
.
8
0

16
1
.
0
0

7.
0
0

2.
1
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

7/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0

2.
5
0

17
.
0
0

0.
0
5

1.
1
0

0.
0
2

1.
1
2

0.
1
0

24
.
0
0

16
5
.
0
0

7.
0
0

1.
8
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

7/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

3.
1
0

12
.
0
0

0.
0
7

0.
9
1

0.
1
1

1.
0
2

0.
2
1

25
.
7
0

96
.
0
0

6.
8
0

3.
2
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

8/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

13
.
0
0

0.
1
4

1.
0
0

0.
0
9

1.
0
9

0.
2
0

25
.
4
0

10
9
.
0
0

6.
9
0

3.
0
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

8/
2
4
/
2
0
1
0

2.
1
0

9.
2
0

0.
1
2

0.
9
2

0.
1
8

1.
1
0

0.
2
1

24
.
9
0

91
.
0
0

6.
7
0

1.
9
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

9/
9
/
2
0
1
0

5.
4
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
2

1.
1
0

0.
0
1

1.
1
1

0.
2
0

21
.
5
0

11
1
.
0
0

6.
8
0

5.
4
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

17
.
0
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
1

2.
2
0

0.
0
1

2.
2
1

0.
2
9

21
.
6
0

11
8
.
0
0

7.
0
0

3.
2
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

3.
0
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
4

0.
8
0

0.
0
1

0.
8
1

0.
1
5

16
.
6
0

98
.
0
0

6.
8
0

2.
1
0

N.
C
.

H
W
Y
.
7
4
2

10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

3.
3
0

14
.
0
0

0.
0
1

0.
8
9

0.
0
1

0.
9
0

0.
1
6

16
.
7
0

10
8
.
0
0

6.
8
0

1.
7
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

3/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

NA

7.
6
0

0.
0
1

0.
4
1

0.
0
1

0.
4
2

0.
0
6

10
.
3
0

88
.
0
0

7.
0
0

11
.
1
0

DO

T
M
D
L

f
o
r

B
r
o
w
n

C
r
e
e
k

30

Ta
b
l
e

A
1

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

Sa
m
p
l
e

S
i
t
e
s

Da
t
e

BO
D
5

TO
C

NH
₃

TK
N

NO
x

TN

To
t
a
l

P

Te
m
p
.

Co
n
d
.

pH

D.
O
.

mm
/
d
d
/
y
y
y
y

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

˚C

µS

mg
/
L

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

4/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
1

NA

0.
0
4

NA

0.
1
0

15
.
3
0

13
4
.
0
0

7.
0
0

6.
9
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

9.
9
0

0.
0
1

0.
6
1

0.
0
6

0.
6
7

0.
0
8

15
.
1
0

13
8
.
0
0

7.
1
0

6.
9
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

5/
1
2
/
2
0
1
0

2.
4
0

10
.
0
0

0.
1
0

0.
9
5

0.
0
8

1.
0
3

0.
1
1

18
.
3
0

15
4
.
0
0

7.
1
0

4.
2
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

5/
1
7
/
2
0
1
0

3.
2
0

11
.
0
0

0.
0
9

0.
8
2

0.
0
8

0.
9
0

0.
1
4

21
.
3
0

13
5
.
0
0

6.
9
0

3.
8
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

12
.
0
0

0.
0
8

0.
8
0

0.
3
5

1.
1
5

0.
1
4

20
.
8
0

13
1
.
0
0

7.
0
0

5.
2
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0

3.
7
0

21
.
0
0

0.
1
6

1.
4
0

0.
1
1

1.
5
1

0.
2
1

25
.
6
0

14
6
.
0
0

6.
8
0

1.
3
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

5.
9
0

17
.
0
0

0.
2
5

1.
5
0

0.
0
5

1.
5
5

0.
2
8

27
.
1
0

16
6
.
0
0

7.
0
0

0.
8
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

7/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0

29
.
0
0

28
.
0
0

4.
9
0

10
.
0
0

0.
0
1

10
.
0
1

1.
2
0

25
.
4
0

22
8
.
0
0

7.
2
0

0.
5
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

7/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

5.
1
0

20
.
0
0

0.
1
3

1.
4
0

0.
6
7

2.
0
7

0.
4
5

25
.
8
0

12
7
.
0
0

6.
9
0

3.
5
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

8/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

2.
2
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
7

0.
8
9

0.
1
2

1.
0
1

0.
2
0

26
.
0
0

10
8
.
0
0

7.
0
0

4.
6
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

8/
2
4
/
2
0
1
0

2.
4
0

10
.
0
0

0.
1
0

0.
9
7

0.
2
3

1.
2
0

0.
1
7

25
.
3
0

88
.
0
0

6.
7
0

3.
9
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

9/
9
/
2
0
1
0

4.
3
0

12
.
0
0

0.
1
6

1.
1
0

0.
0
1

1.
1
1

0.
1
9

23
.
0
0

11
8
.
0
0

6.
9
0

2.
2
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

4.
1
0

11
.
0
0

0.
0
4

1.
1
0

0.
0
1

1.
1
1

0.
1
5

22
.
7
0

12
5
.
0
0

7.
0
0

4.
0
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

5.
8
0

13
.
0
0

0.
1
1

1.
1
0

0.
0
7

1.
1
7

0.
1
9

16
.
4
0

11
0
.
0
0

6.
9
0

4.
0
0

U.
S
.

H
W
Y
.

5
2

10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

12
.
0
0

14
.
0
0

0.
0
1

1.
6
0

0.
0
1

1.
6
1

0.
2
4

16
.
5
0

12
1
.
0
0

6.
9
0

3.
3
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

3/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

NA

8.
2
0

0.
0
1

0.
4
4

0.
0
1

0.
4
5

0.
0
6

9.
9
0

89
.
0
0

7.
1
0

11
.
4
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

4/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

13
.
0
0

0.
0
3

NA

0.
0
5

NA

0.
1
0

16
.
4
0

13
0
.
0
0

7.
0
0

6.
4
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

10
.
0
0

0.
0
3

0.
6
3

0.
0
8

0.
7
1

0.
0
9

15
.
5
0

13
5
.
0
0

7.
0
0

5.
9
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

5/
1
2
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

10
.
0
0

0.
1
7

0.
7
8

0.
0
5

0.
8
3

0.
1
1

17
.
4
0

15
3
.
0
0

6.
9
0

8.
2
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

5/
1
7
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

10
.
0
0

0.
0
7

0.
6
6

0.
0
7

0.
7
3

0.
1
1

22
.
6
0

14
8
.
0
0

7.
0
0

3.
1
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

16
.
0
0

0.
0
5

0.
7
9

0.
5
2

1.
3
1

0.
1
4

21
.
1
0

12
3
.
0
0

6.
8
0

4.
7
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

22
.
0
0

0.
1
0

1.
1
0

0.
1
1

1.
2
1

0.
2
2

26
.
0
0

14
6
.
0
0

6.
9
0

1.
4
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

15
.
0
0

0.
1
1

1.
1
0

0.
0
8

1.
1
8

0.
2
1

27
.
0
0

16
2
.
0
0

6.
9
0

1.
7
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

7/
1
3
/
2
0
1
0

2.
2
0

14
.
0
0

0.
1
1

0.
9
8

0.
0
1

0.
9
9

0.
2
2

24
.
7
0

17
9
.
0
0

7.
1
0

1.
0
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

7/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

6.
3
0

29
.
0
0

0.
2
8

2.
4
0

3.
8
0

6.
2
0

0.
6
0

25
.
0
0

83
.
0
0

6.
2
0

4.
6
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

8/
1
0
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

10
.
0
0

0.
1
0

0.
7
7

0.
2
3

1.
0
0

0.
1
6

26
.
4
0

12
0
.
0
0

7.
1
0

3.
6
0

DO

T
M
D
L

f
o
r

B
r
o
w
n

C
r
e
e
k

31

Ta
b
l
e

A
1

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

Sa
m
p
l
e

S
i
t
e
s

Da
t
e

BO
D
5

TO
C

NH
₃

TK
N

NO
x

TN

To
t
a
l

P

Te
m
p
.

Co
n
d
.

pH

D.
O
.

mm
/
d
d
/
y
y
y
y

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

mg
/
L

˚C

µS

mg
/
L

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

8/
2
4
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

9.
3
0

0.
0
6

0.
8
2

0.
2
6

1.
0
8

0.
1
6

25
.
6
0

80
.
0
0

6.
7
0

3.
5
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

9/
9
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

11
.
0
0

0.
1
0

0.
9
2

0.
0
7

0.
9
9

0.
1
8

23
.
7
0

11
7
.
0
0

7.
4
0

2.
9
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
0

2.
9
0

10
.
0
0

0.
0
1

0.
7
8

0.
0
1

0.
7
9

0.
1
8

22
.
7
0

13
5
.
0
0

6.
9
0

1.
3
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
0

1.
0
0

14
.
0
0

0.
0
4

0.
8
1

0.
1
0

0.
9
1

0.
1
5

17
.
1
0

10
0
.
0
0

6.
7
0

3.
2
0

Gr
a
s
s
y

I
s
l
a
n
d

R
d
.

10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
0

2.
4
0

12
.
0
0

0.
0
1

0.
8
2

0.
0
1

0.
8
3

0.
1
6

17
.
4
0

11
4
.
0
0

6.
9
0

3.
0
0

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
32

8 Appendix B. QUAL2K Input Tables
Table B1. Headwater Data Inputs
Headwater
Parameters Units
Input
Values Source
Headwater Flow cum/s 0.01 Field Measurement at NC742
Temperature C 24.80 Field Measurement
Conductivity umhos 175.00 Field Measurement
Inorganic Solids mgD/L 6.00
Averaged TSS data for 2007 summer period at DWQ
ambient site, Q9155000
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 2.60 Field Measurement
CBODslow
mgO2/
L 0.00 Assumed negligible slow CBOD in the water body
CBODfast
mgO2/
L 9.60
Estimated from f-ratio (measured BOD/CBOD = 2.5)
(Thomann and Mueller, 1987)
Organic Nitrogen ugN/L 3970.00
Estimate from measured TKN and NH4 (TKN = Org N +
NH4)
NH4-Nitrogen ugN/L 330.00 Field Measurement (Assumed NH4 ≈ NH3)
NO3-Nitrogen ugN/L 10.00 Field Measurement (Assumed NOx ≈ NO3)
Organic
Phosphorus ugP/L 460.00 Assumed 50% of measured TP
Inorganic
Phosphorus (SRP) ugP/L 460.00 Assumed 50% of measured TP
Phytoplankton ugA/L NA
Internal Nitrogen
(INP) ugN/L NA
Internal
Phosphorus (IPP) ugP/L NA
Detritus (POM) mgD/L 2.00 Based on calibration of the model
Pathogen
cfu/100
mL NA
Alkalinity
mgCaC
O3/L 18.00 Based on calibration of the model
Constituent i NA
Constituent ii NA
Constituent iii NA
pH s.u. 6.70 Field Meaurement
NA = Not available

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
33

Table B2. Reach Data Inputs
Reach parameters
Units
Mineral Spring Rd to
Popular Hill Ch Rd
Popular Hill Ch Rd
to NC742
NC742 to
US52
US52 to Grassy
Island Rd Sources
Reach Number 1 2 3 4
Reach length (km) 7.39 9.89 8.06 10.88 GIS Coverages
Downstream

Latitude 34.99 35.04 35.07 35.08 GIS Coverages

Longitude 79.80 79.85 79.90 79.97 GIS Coverages
Location
Upstream (km) 36.22 28.83 18.94 10.88 GIS Coverage
Downstream (km) 28.83 18.94 10.88 0.00 GIS Coverage
Elevation
Upstream (m) 83.00 76.00 70.00 64.00 GIS Coverage
Downstream (m) 76.00 70.00 64.00 57.00 GIS Coverage
Rating Curves
Channel Slope 0.0009 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006 GIS Coverage
Manning’s n 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Professional judgment
Bottom Width m 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
X-section
measurement at NC
742
Side Slope 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Professional
judgment
Side Slope 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Professional
judgment
Weir Height (m) NA NA NA NA No data available
Prescribed
Reaeration (/d) 1.00 0.15 0.07 0.07 Professional judgment
Prescribed
Dispersion (m2/s) NA NA NA NA No data available
Bottom Algae
Coverage 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Field observation
Bottom SOD
Coverage 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Field observation
Prescribed SOD
gO2/m2/d NA NA NA NA No data available
Prescribed CH4
flux
gO2/m2/d NA NA NA NA No data available
Prescribed NH4
flux
(mgN/m2/d) NA NA NA NA No data available
Prescribed Inorg P
flux
(mgP/m2/d) NA NA NA NA No data available
NA = Not available

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
34

Table B3. Meteorological Data Inputs
Time

Air Temperature Dew Point Wind Speed Cloud Cover Shade
(Degree C) (Degree C) (m/s) (%) (%)
12:00 AM 22.72 22.72 1.56 45.0% 35.0%
1:00 AM 22.78 22.78 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
2:00 AM 22.28 22.28 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
3:00 AM 22.61 22.61 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
4:00 AM 22.89 22.89 1.56 45.0% 35.0%
5:00 AM 22.78 22.78 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
6:00 AM 23.22 23.22 1.56 45.0% 35.0%
7:00 AM 24.00 23.78 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
8:00 AM 24.50 23.89 1.56 45.0% 35.0%
9:00 AM 25.50 23.00 1.56 45.0% 35.0%
10:00 AM 27.00 22.61 1.56 45.0% 35.0%
11:00 AM 28.78 23.22 2.06 45.0% 35.0%
12:00 PM 30.50 23.00 2.59 45.0% 35.0%
1:00 PM 31.61 23.72 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
2:00 PM 31.89 23.39 2.06 45.0% 35.0%
3:00 PM 32.61 23.61 3.08 45.0% 35.0%
4:00 PM 31.61 23.28 4.11 45.0% 35.0%
5:00 PM 30.50 24.00 3.62 45.0% 35.0%
6:00 PM 27.28 25.61 3.08 45.0% 35.0%
7:00 PM 23.72 23.61 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
8:00 PM 22.72 22.61 3.62 45.0% 35.0%
9:00 PM 23.28 20.61 0.00 45.0% 35.0%
10:00 PM 23.00 22.11 2.59 45.0% 35.0%
11:00 PM 23.50 22.61 0.00 45.0% 35.0%

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
35

Table B4. Water Column Rate Inputs
Parameter Value Units Symbol
Stoichiometry:
Carbon 40 gC gC
Nitrogen 7.2 gN gN
Phosphorus 1 gP gP
Dry weight 100 gD gD
Chlorophyll 3 gA gA
Inorganic suspended solids:
Settling velocity 1.304 m/d vi
Oxygen:
Reaeration model User specified
User reaeration coefficient α α
User reaeration coefficient β β
User reaeration coefficient γ γ
Temp correction 1.024 qa
Reaeration wind effect None
O2 for carbon oxidation 2.69 gO2/gC roc
O2 for NH4 nitrification 4.57 gO2/gN ron
Oxygen inhib model CBOD oxidation Exponential
Oxygen inhib parameter CBOD oxidation 0.60 L/mgO2 Ksocf
Oxygen inhib model nitrification Exponential
Oxygen inhib parameter nitrification 0.60 L/mgO2 Ksona
Oxygen enhance model denitrification Exponential
Oxygen enhance parameter denitrification 0.60 L/mgO2 Ksodn
Oxygen inhib model phyto resp Exponential
Oxygen inhib parameter phyto resp 0.60 L/mgO2 Ksop
Oxygen enhance model bot alg resp Exponential
Oxygen enhance parameter bot alg resp 0.60 L/mgO2 Ksob
Slow CBOD:
Hydrolysis rate 2 /d khc
Temp correction 1.047 qhc
Oxidation rate 0 /d kdcs
Temp correction 1.047 qdcs
Fast CBOD:
Oxidation rate 5 /d kdc
Temp correction 1.047 qdc
Organic N:
Hydrolysis 0 /d khn
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
36

Table B4 continued
Parameter Value Units Symbol
Temp correction 1.07 qhn
Settling velocity 0.003 m/d von
Ammonium:
Nitrification 3 /d kna
Temp correction 1.07 qna
Nitrate:
Denitrification 1 /d kdn
Temp correction 1.07 qdn
Sed denitrification transfer coeff 10 m/d vdi
Temp correction 1.07 qdi
Organic P:
Hydrolysis 0 /d khp
Temp correction 1.07 qhp
Settling velocity 0.004 m/d vop
Inorganic P:
Settling velocity 0.004 m/d vip
Inorganic P sorption coefficient 0.073 L/mgD Kdpi
Sed P oxygen attenuation half sat constant 1.831 mgO2/L kspi
Phytoplankton:
Max Growth rate 2.5 /d kgp
Temp correction 1.07 qgp
Respiration rate 0.1 /d krp
Temp correction 1.07 qrp
Excretion rate 0 /d kep
Temp correction 1.07 qdp
Death rate 0 /d kdp
Temp correction 1 qdp
External Nitrogen half sat constant 15 ugN/L ksPp
External Phosphorus half sat constant 2 ugP/L ksNp
Inorganic carbon half sat constant 2.00E-05 moles/L ksCp
Light model Half saturation
Light constant 57.6 langleys/d KLp
Ammonia preference 25 ugN/L khnxp
Subsistence quota for nitrogen 0 mgN/mgA q0Np
Subsistence quota for phosphorus 0 mgP/mgA q0Pp
Maximum uptake rate for nitrogen 0 mgN/mgA/d rmNp
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
37

Table B4 continued
Parameter Value Units Symbol
Maximum uptake rate for phosphorus 0 mgP/mgA/d rmPp
Internal nitrogen half sat constant 0 mgN/mgA KqNp
Internal phosphorus half sat constant 0 mgP/mgA KqPp
Settling velocity 0.15 m/d va
Bottom Algae:
Growth model Zero-order
Max Growth rate 999.991 mgA/m2/d or /d Cgb
Temp correction 1.07 qgb
First-order model carrying capacity 1000 mgA/m2 ab,max
Respiration rate 1 /d krb
Temp correction 1.07 qrb
Excretion rate 0.5 /d keb
Temp correction 1.05 qdb
Death rate 0.09 /d kdb
Temp correction 1.07 qdb
External nitrogen half sat constant 0.052 ugN/L ksPb
External phosphorus half sat constant 96.379 ugP/L ksNb
Inorganic carbon half sat constant 1.00E-05 moles/L ksCb
Light model Half saturation
Light constant 76.319 langleys/d KLb
Ammonia preference 99.982 ugN/L khnxb
Subsistence quota for nitrogen 2.524 mgN/mgA q0N
Subsistence quota for phosphorus 0.002 mgP/mgA q0P
Maximum uptake rate for nitrogen 149 mgN/mgA/d rmN
Maximum uptake rate for phosphorus 5.009 mgP/mgA/d rmP
Internal nitrogen half sat constant 0.384 mgN/mgA KqN
Internal phosphorus half sat constant 0.102 mgP/mgA KqP
Detritus (POM):
Dissolution rate 7.179 /d kdt
Temp correction 1.07 qdt
Fraction of dissolution to fast CBOD 0.00 Ff
Settling velocity 2 m/d vdt
Pathogens:
Decay rate 0.8 /d kdx
Temp correction 1.07 qdx
Settling velocity 1 m/d vx
Light efficiency factor 1.00 apath
DO TMDL for Brown Creek
38

Table B4 continued
Parameter Value Units Symbol
pH:
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide 360 ppm pCO2
Constituent i
First-order reaction rate 0 /d
Temp correction 1 qdx
Settling velocity 0 m/d vdt
Constituent ii
First-order reaction rate 0 /d
Temp correction 1 qdx
Settling velocity 0 m/d vdt
Constituent iii
First-order reaction rate 0 /d
Temp correction 1 qdx
Settling velocity 0 m/d vdt

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
39

Table B5. Light and Heat Inputs
Parameter Value Unit Symbol
Photo-synthetically Available Radiation 0.47
Background light extinction 0.3 /m keb
Linear chlorophyll light extinction 0.0088
1/m-
(ugA/L) ap
Nonlinear chlorophyll light extinction 0.054
1/m-
(ugA/L)2/
3 apn
ISS light extinction 0.052
1/m-
(mgD/L) ai
Detritus light extinction 0.174
1/m-
(mgD/L) ao
Solar shortwave radiation model
Atmospheric attenuation model for solar Bras
Bras solar parameter (used if Bras solar model is selected)
atmospheric turbidity coefficient (2=clear, 5=smoggy, default=2) 5 nfac
Ryan-Stolzenbach solar parameter (used if Ryan-Stolzenbach solar
model is selected)
atmospheric transmission coefficient (0.70-0.91, default 0.8) 0.7 atc
Down welling atmospheric long wave IR radiation
atmospheric long wave emissivity model Brunt
Evaporation and air convection/conduction
wind speed function for evaporation and air convection/conduction
Brady-Graves-
Geyer
Sediment heat parameters
Sediment thermal thickness 10 cm Hs
Sediment thermal diffusivity 0.005 cm2/s as
Sediment density 1.6 g/cm3 rs
Water density 1 g/cm3 rw
Sediment heat capacity 0.4 cal/(g oC) Cps
Water heat capacity 1 cal/(g oC) Cpw
Sediment diagenesis model
Compute SOD and nutrient fluxes Yes

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
40

Table B6. Water Quality Data Inputs
Reach Numbers 1 2 3 4 Sources
Distance from
headwater(km) 36.00 29.00 19.00 11.00 Gis Coverage
Cond (umhos) 131.00 109.00 108.00 120.00 Field Measurement
ISS (mgD/L) NA NA NA NA Data not available
DO (mgO2/L) 4.50 3.00 4.60 3.60 Field Measurement
CBODs (mgO2/L) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Assumed negligible slow CBOD in the water body
CBODf (mgO2/L) 10.80 0.40 0.88 0.40
Estimated from f-ratio (measured BOD/CBOD = 2.5)
(Thomann and Mueller, 1987)
Norg (ugN/L) 2780.00 860.00 820.00 670.00
Estimate from measured TKN and NH4 (TKN = Org N +
NH4)
NH4 (ugN/L) 20.00 140.00 70.00 100.00 Field Measurement (Assumed NH4 ≈ NH3)
NO3 (ugN/L) 10.00 90.00 120.00 10.00 Field Measurement (Assumed NOx ≈ NO3)
Porg (ugN/L) 165.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 Assumed 50% of measured TP
Inorg P (ugP/L) 165.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 Assumed 50% of measured TP
Phyto (ugA/L) NA NA NA NA Data not available
Detr (mgD/L) NA NA NA NA Data not available
Pathogens
(cfu/100 mL) NA NA NA NA Data not available
Alk (mgCaCO3/L) NA NA NA NA Data not available
Constituent i NA NA NA NA Data not available
Constituent ii NA NA NA NA Data not available
Constituent iii NA NA NA NA Data not available
pH 7.00 6.90 7.00 7.10 Field Measurement
Bot Alg
(mgA/m^2) NA NA NA NA Data not available
TN (ugN/L) 4310.00 2810.00 1090.00 1010.00 Field Measurement
TP (ugP/L) 330.00 200.00 200.00 160.00 Field Measurement
TSS (mgD/L) NA NA NA NA Data not available
NH3 (ugN/L) 20.00 140.00 70.00 100.00 Field Measurement
CBODu (mgO2/L) 10.80 0.40 0.88 0.40
Estimated from f-ratio (measured BOD/CBOD = 2.5)
(Thomann and Mueller, 1987)
TOC (mgC/L) 18.00 13.00 13.00 10.00 Field Measurement
TKN (ugN/L) 2800.00 1000.00 890.00 770.00 Field Measurement

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
41

9 Appendix C. Brown Creek Pictures

Figure C1. Brown Creek at the DWQ’s ambient station, Q9155000 (7/12/2009).

Figure C2. The DWQ staffs (Sam Whitaker on left and Jim Fisher on right) were collecting a
bathymetric data and flow velocity at the crossing of Brown Creek and NC Hwy 742 on
10/27/2010.

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
42

Figure C3. The DWQ staffs (Sam Whitaker and Heather Patt) were collecting water samples at
the crossing of Brown Creek and Poplar Hill Church Road on 7/12/2009.

Figure C4. A substantial algae growth in Brown Creek at Poplar Hill Church Road on 7/27/2010.

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
43

Figure C5. Lick Creek at the confluence of Brown Creek at Mineral Spring Road, showing no flow
condition on 7/12/2009.

DO TMDL for Brown Creek
44

10 Appendix D. Public Announcement
The WRRI Daily Digest
Volume 1 : Issue 780 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
201107/2 : DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Oxygen for Brown Creek, Anson County, Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin, North Carolina
"Rajbhandari, Narayan" <[e-mail]>
201107/3 : Invitation: USGS North Carolina Lecturship Presentation - Pavement Sealcoat, PAHs and the
Environment
Holly S Weyers <[e-mail]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:09:02 -0400
From: "Rajbhandari, Narayan" <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Rajbhandari, Narayan" <[e-mail]>,"Patt, Heather"
<[e-mail]>,"Schneier, Joan" <[e-mail]>,
"Barnhardt, Art" <[e-mail]>,"Hill, Thomas A"
<[e-mail]>, "Georgoulias, Bethany"<[e-mail]>

Subject: DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Oxygen for Brown Creek, Anson County, Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin, North Carolina
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Now Available for Public Comment

DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Oxygen for Brown Creek, Anson County, Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin, North Carolina

July 14, 2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality

This draft TMDL report was prepared as a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 303(d).
Interested parties are invited to comment on the draft TMDL report by August 18, 2011. Comments concerning
the report should be directed to Narayan Rajbhandari at [e-mail] or write to:

Narayan Rajbhandari
NC Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

The draft TMDL can be downloaded from the following website:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl/tmdls#Draft