RichForkCreekandHambyCreekFecalColiformTMDLsApprovedFinalReport

Total Maximum Daily Loads for
Fecal Coliform for Rich Fork Creek and
Hamby Creek, North Carolina
[Waterbody ID 12-119-7 and
Waterbody ID 12-119-7-4]

Final Report
April 2004
(Approved April 2004)

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]
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TMDL Summary Sheet ………………………………………………………..……...…. iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..…………………………………………………...…………... 1
1.1 Watershed Description……………………………………………………….... 3
1.2 Water Quality Monitoring Program………………………………………….... 6
1.3 Water Quality Target…………………………………………………………..11

2.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT……………………………………………………………..12
2.1 Point Source Assessment……………………………………………………... 12
2.2 Non-point Source Assessment………………………………………………....14

3.0 ANALYTICAL APPROACH…………………………………………………………18
3.1 Flow Duration Curves…………………………………………………….……18
3.2 Load Duration Curves………………………………………………………….20

4.0 UNCERTAINTY………………………………………………………………………24
5.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD…………………………………………………24
5.1 Reduction Target…………………………..…………………………………..25
5.1.1 Critical Conditions …………………………………………………….. 25
5.1.2 Existing Condition ……………………………………………………. 25
5.1.3 Reduction Target calculations …………………………………………27
5.2 Margin of Safety …………………..………………………………………. 30
5.3 TMDL Allocation……………………..……………………………………… 30
5.3.1 Wasteload Allocation ………..……………………………………. 30
5.3.2 Load Allocation ……………………………………………………….32
5.4 Seasonal Variation……………………..…………………………….……… 32
6.0 TMDL IMPLEMENTATION ………………………………………..……………… 32
6.1 Urban Sources of pollutant Loading ………………………………………. 32
5.2 Stream Monitoring…………………………………………………………….. 33
7.0 FUTURE EFFORTS …………………………………………………………………. 34
8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION………………………………….……………………… 34
9.0 FURTHER INFORMATION ….…………………………………………………. 35
APPENDIX A Water Quality Data …….…….………………………………...….…. A-1
APPENDIX B Load Duration Calculations .…………………………………………..…B-1
APPENDIX C High Point and Thomasville WWTP Upstream/ Downstream
Monitoring Data ……………………………………………….….…..…C-1
APPENDIX D TMDL Questionaire – Davidson County (Rich Fork Creek and
Hamby Creek Watersheds)…………………………………..………….. D-1
APPENDIX E Public Notification of Public Review Draft of Rich Fork Creek and
Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs………………………………….. E-1
APPENDIX F Public Comment on the Public Review Draft of the Rich Fork Creek
and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs and DWQ Response …...…. F-1
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

iii

SUMMARY SHEET
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

1. 303(d) Listed Waterbody Information
State: North Carolina
County: Davidson
Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
Watershed: Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks Watershed – HUC 03040103

303(d) Listed Waters

Name of Stream Description Class Index # 8 Digit HU Miles
Rich Fork Creek From source to Abbotts Creek C 12-119-7 03040103 20.7
Hamby Creek From source to Rich Fork
Creek
C 12-119-7-4 03040103 12.5

Constituent(s) of Concern: Fecal Coliform

Designated Use: Biological Integrity, Propagation of aquatic life, and
Recreation.

Applicable Water Quality Standards for C Waters:
Fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100ml (MF count)
based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period,
nor exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during
such period.

2. TMDL Development:

Analysis/Modeling:

Load duration curves based on cumulative frequency distribution of flow conditions in
the watershed. Allowable load are average loads over the recurrence interval between 90th
and 10th percentile of flow. Percent reductions expressed as the average value between
existing loads (calculated using an equation to fit a curve through actual water quality
violations) and the allowable load at each recurrence interval.

Critical Conditions:

Critical conditions are accounted for in the load duration curve analysis by using an
extended period of stream flow and water quality data.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

iv
Seasonal Variation:

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 watersheds.

3. Allocation Watershed/Stream Reaches:

WLA1 Stream Monitoring
Locations and
Watershed_ID
Continuous
(counts/day)
MS4

LA
(counts/day)

MOS2

TMDL3
Percent
Reduction4
RF02 -Rich Fork
(DWQ Station -
Q5780000 - SR#1800)

9.39 x 1010

72.0%
reduction

3.21 x 1010

Implicit
Explicit

1.26 x 1011

72.0%

HA02 - Hamby
(DWQ Station
Q59060000- SR# 2790)

6.06 x 1010

71.6%
reduction

5.70 x 109

Implicit
Explicit

6.63 x 1010

71.6%

Notes:
1 WLA component separated into load from continuous NPDES facilities (WWTP) and
load from MS4. WWTPs have loads in units of counts/day based on permit limits and
design flow. MS4 load is represented as percent reduction.
2 Explicit (10%) and implicit Margins of Safety are considered
3 TMDL represents the average allowable load between the 90th and 10th percent
recurrence interval.
4 Overall reduction is based on the instantaneous standard of 400 cfu/100ml and is
assumed to be more stringent than the geometric mean standard.

4 Public Notice Date: 02/25/04

5 Submittal Date:

6 Establishment date:

7 Endangered Species (yes or blank):

8 EPA Lead on TMDL (EPA or Blank):

9 TMDL Considers Point Source, Nonpoint Sources, or both: both

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has identified a 20.7 mile segment (12-
119-7) of Rich Fork Creek and 12.5 mile segment (12-119-7-4) of Hamby Creek in the Yadkin
River Basin as impaired by fecal coliform bacteria as reported in the 2002 Integrated Report.
Rich Fork Creek is impaired from its source near the city of High Point to its confluence with
Abbotts Creek and Hamby Creek is impaired from its source to its confluence with Rich Fork
Creek. These sections of the streams are located in subbasin 03-07-07 and are designated as
class C waters.1

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. This list, contained within
Categories 4 through 7 of the Integrated Report, is submitted biennially to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review. The 303(d) process requires that a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for each of the waters appearing on Part 5 of the
Integrated Report. The objective of a TMDL is to estimate allowable pollutant loads and allocate
to known sources so that actions may be taken to restore the water to its intended uses (USEPA,
1991). Generally, the primary components of a TMDL, as identified by EPA (1991, 2000a) and
the Federal Advisory Committee (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
goals. 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.

1 Class C waters are freshwaters that are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival of wildlife.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

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 (2000a), 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, 2000a) require EPA to review all TMDLs for approval or disapproval. Once EPA
approves a TMDL, then the waterbody may be moved to Part 4a of the Integrated Report.
Waterbodies remain on Part 4a of the list 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 bacteria controls will be necessary to restore uses in Rich Fork and Hamby
Creeks. Although an 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. DWQ will begin developing the
implementation plan during public review of the TMDL.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

3
1.1 Watershed Description

Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks are located in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. From its origin in
High Point to its mouth near Lexington, Rich Fork Creek flows about 20 miles and drains into
Abbots Creek. Hamby Creek originates in Davidson County. The headwaters of Hamby Creek
flow through Thomasville, NC. The creek flows south approximately 12.5 miles and drains into
Rich Fork Creek. Figure 1 depicts the location of Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks in North
Carolina. The Rich Fork Creek watershed (including the Hamby Creek watershed) in the TMDLs
includes the drainage area above the confluence of Rich Fork Creek and Abbotts Creek. The
creeks’ watersheds lie entirely within the Abbotts Creek Watersheds (Subbasin # 03-07-07) in
Davidson County. The USGS 14-digit hydraulic unit code (HUC) for Rich Fork and Hamby
Creeks is 03040103010030. The Rich Fork Creek (48.7 sq. miles (31167.9 acres)) and Hamby
Creek (29.6 sq. miles (18943.9 acres)) watersheds comprise a total area of approximately 78.4
square miles. DWQ has an ambient water quality monitoring station (Storet number Q5780000)
on Rich Fork Creek at SR# 1800 near Thomasville. The Rich Fork Creek watershed at this point
is 27.4 square miles. The ambient monitoring site on Hamby Creek (Storet # Q5906000) is
located at SR 2790 near Holly Grove. The Hamby Creek watershed at this point is 20.9 square
miles. The ambient monitoring sites will be the evaluation points for both TMDLs since fecal
coliform data has been and will continue to be collected at these locations.

The land use/ land cover characteristics of the watershed were determined using 1996 land cover
data. The North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA), in
cooperation with the NC Department of Transportation and USEPA Region IV Wetlands
Division, contracted Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) of Rockville, Maryland to generate
comprehensive land cover data for the entire state of North Carolina. The majority of the Rich
Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds are in mixed upland hardwoods. Managed herbaceous
cover comprises the second largest land use group. High intensity development comprises the
third largest land use. Developed areas are split into high and low intensity groups. The
difference between these developed groups depends upon the concentration of impervious
surfaces in a mapped area. Land cover/land use coverage for the Rich Fork Creek and Hamby
Creek watersheds are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

4

Table 1. Estimated Land Use/Land Cover in the Rich Fork Creek Watershed
Land Use/Land Cover Description % Of Watershed Acres
Forested Mostly Upland Hardwoods 63.50 19801.33
Managed Herbaceous Cover Pasture/Uncultivated Fields 21.52 6712.29
Cultivated Lands Crop lands 0.87 270.77
High Intensity Development Over 80% Impervious Material 7.85 2448.39
Low Intensity Development 50-80% Impervious 5.61 1749.77
Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover Pasture/Uncultivated Fields 0.40 125.66
Water Bodies Water 0.25 76.471
Total: 100 31184.68

Table 2. Estimated Land Use/Land Cover in the Hamby Creek Watershed
Land Use/Land Cover Description % Of Watershed Acres
Forested Mostly Upland Hardwoods 59.49 11276.60
Managed Herbaceous Cover Pasture/Uncultivated Fields 24.9 4720.63
Cultivated Lands Crop lands 1.29 243.73
High Intensity Development Over 80% Impervious Material 6.72 1273.14
Low Intensity Development 50-80% Impervious 5.42 1027.62
Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover Pasture/Uncultivated Fields 1.87 355.27
Water Bodies Water 0.31 58.21
Total: 100 18955.2





























































































































!






"













#






























$

%


































































































































Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

6
1.2 Water Quality Monitoring Program

Water quality data available from Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek monitoring stations show
high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the creeks. Water quality data from fecal coliform
monitoring of Rich Fork Creek comes from five primary sources. These include, (1) DWQ’s
ambient monitoring, (2) Yadkin River Basin Association monitoring, (3) High Point and
Thomasville WWTPs upstream/downstream monitoring, (4) DWQ’s Special Study monitoring,
and (5) Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) monitoring. Figure 2 shows the
locations of the monitoring stations in the Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds.

Data from DWQ’s ambient monitoring stations (Q5780000 - Rich Fork Creek at SR# 1800 and
(Q5906000 - Hamby Creek at SR 2790 Near Holly Grove) were used to determine the impaired
status of the creeks. The fecal coliform samples were collected on a monthly interval beginning
in April 1995 to the present. The fecal coliform concentrations of the samples collected at the
Rich Fork station (Q5780000), and the Hamby Creek Station (Q5906000) ranged from 10
colony-forming-units (cfu)/100ml to 10,000 cfu/100ml (Figure 3), and 10 colony-forming-units
(cfu)/100ml to 16,000 cfu/100ml (Figure 4), respectively.

The fecal coliform concentrations of the samples collected by the discharger coalition at stations
Q5750000, Q5785000, and Q5790000 ranged from 13 cfu/100ml to 4,800 cfu/100ml, 61
cfu/100ml to 3300 cfu/100ml, and 34 cfu/100ml to 2500 cfu/100ml, respectively, between June
1998 and November 2002 (Appendix A). Samples are collected at the DWQ ambient monitoring
station and at the discharger coalition stations on a monthly basis. As a result, the 30-day
geometric mean of the samples could not be calculated using the minimum required 5 samples in
30 days.

Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Association discharger coalition (YPDRBA) has been monitoring
fecal coliform levels in Rich Fork Creek at SR #1755 (Q5750000), at SR #1787 (Q5785000),
and at SR #2123 (Q5790000) near High Point since 1998. Data collected at discharger coalition
stations are shown in Appendix A. Since these data are also collected on a monthly basis, the 30-
day geometric mean of the samples could not be calculated.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

7
The High Point Westside WWTP monitored instream fecal coliform concentrations at upstream
and downstream locations in years prior to the discharger coalition monitoring. The 30-day
rolling geometric mean calculated using the upstream/downstream fecal coliform concentration
data are shown in Figure 5 and the data is given in Appendix A. The city of Thomasville’s
WWTP also monitors instream fecal coliform concentration at upstream and downstream
locations. The 30-day rolling geometric mean calculated using upstream/downstream fecal
coliform concentration data collected by Thomasville are shown in Figure 6 and the data is
provided in Appendix A.

DWQ’s Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB) conducted fecal coliform monitoring in Rich
Fork and Hamby Creeks in the spring of 2001 to support the TMDL development. In this study,
60 samples were collected from four sites in Rich Fork Creek over a six and one-half week
period. The samples in Rich Fork Creek were collected at the ambient monitoring site (SR 1800)
and at the YPDRBA coalition sites (SR 1755, SR 1787, and SR 2123). In Hamby Creek, 45
samples were collected from three sites over a six and one-half week period. The Hamby Creek
samples were collected at the ambient monitoring site (SR 2790) and at SR 2025 and SR 2080.
The purposes of this study were to evaluate whether the creeks were complying with state fecal
coliform standard, and to provide information on potential bacteria sources in the watersheds.
The data summaries from this study for Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks are given in Table 3 and
Table 4, respectively.

Finally, the most recent fecal coliform monitoring data comes from a special study being
conducted by the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG). The PTCOG is monitoring
fecal coliform levels at several locations in Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks. The objective of this
project is to identify and reduce fecal coliform bacteria sources in the watersheds by identifying
point and non-point sources contributing to elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. The project is
funded by the Section 205(j) Grant. The data collected in June and July 2003 is included in
Appendix A.













 







 

!"















#

!
 $%&'!(




$
'
!







)*






































 



!

"
#
$"
$"

!

"
%


$



"
&





$
"
'

$
"
'





 

 




()*
+
*
()*,
,
(-)-.

(
-
*
/
0
(
-
0
-
,
(-0+0





$














()+0
0
(
)
*
,
*
+
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

9

Figure 4. Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform Bacteria Levels at SR 2790,
near Holly Grove, DWQ’s ambient Data
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
5/2/1995 5/2/1996 5/2/1997 5/2/1998 5/2/1999 5/2/2000 5/2/2001 5/2/2002
Date
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
#
/
1
0
0
m
L
)
400 cfu/100ml)
Figure 3. Rich Fork Creek Fecal Coliform Creek at SR# 1800 ne
Thmoasville (DWQ’s Ambient Monitoring Station)
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1/1/95 2/5/96 3/11/97 4/15/98 5/20/99 6/23/00 7/28/01 9/1/02
Date
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
m

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
C
F
U
/
1
0
0
m
L
)
400 cfu/100ml
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

10

*Upstream - Approximately 100 ft upstream of outfall; Downstream-I - Southern Railroad Bridge
above Hamby Creek; Downstream-II - NCSR#2005 (Turner Road) below Hamby Ck.

* Upstream - Culvert on Baptist Children home road; Downstream-I Bridge on SR 2012;
Downstream-II - Bridge on SR 2010.

Figure 5. High Point Westside WWTP Upstream/Dow nstream Monitoring 30-days Rolling
Geometric Mean of Fecal Coliform Bacteria (NC0024228)
1
10
100
1000
10000
1/1/95 7/1/95 1/1/96 7/1/96 1/1/97 7/1/97 1/1/98
Date
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

L
e
v
e
l
s

(
#
/
1
0
0
m
L
)
upstream dow nstream-I dow nstream-II Standard
Figure 6. Thomasville WWTP Upstream/Downstream Monitoring 30-day Rolling
Geometric Mean of Fecal Coliform Bacteria (NC0024112)
1
10
100
1000
10000
1/1/96 10/1/96 7/1/97 4/1/98 1/1/99 10/1/99 7/1/00 4/1/01 1/1/02 10/1/02
Date
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

C
o
n
c
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
#
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
SR 2017 bridge SR# 2010 Bridge Upstream Standard
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

11

Table 3. Summary of Rich Fork Creek Fecal Coliform Data from DWQ Special Study2

Fecal Coliform Levels
(Geometric Mean)
Dates Number of
days
Observations Rich Fork in
Davidson
Co. at SR
1755
Rich Fork in
Davidson
Co. at SR
1800
Rich Fork in
Davidson
Co. at SR
1787
Rich Fork in
Davidson
Co. at SR
2123
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 260 229 139 71
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 355 227 179 80
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 418 287 228 98
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 482 369 322 142

2 Complete data from the study is given in Appendix A.

Table 4. Summary of Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform Data from DWQ Special Study3

Fecal Coliform Levels
(Geometric Mean)
Dates Number of
days
Observations Hamby Creek in
Davidson Co. at
SR 2790
Hamby Creek in
Davidson Co. at
SR 2025
Hamby Creek in
Davidson Co. at
SR 2080
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 142 59 134
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 155 65 109
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 161 88 189
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 175 118 255

3 Complete data from the study is given in Appendix A.
1.3 Water Quality Target
The North Carolina fresh water quality standard for Class C waters for fecal coliform (T15A:
02B.0211) states:
Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a
geometric mean of 200/100ml (MF count) based upon at least five
consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor exceed
400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such
period; violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected during
rainfall events and, in some cases, this violation is expected to be caused
by uncontrollable non-point source pollution; all coliform concentrations
are to be analyzed using the membrane filter technique unless high
turbidity or other adverse conditions necessitate the tube dilution method;
in case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube dilution technique will
be used as the reference method.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

12
The instream numeric target, or endpoint, is the restoration objective 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 instream data to the target. For Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek fecal coliform
TMDLs, the water quality target is the instantaneous concentration of 400cfu/100ml. It is
assumed that compliance with the instantaneous part of the fecal coliform criterion will lead to
compliance with the geometric mean portion of the criterion.

In order to evaluate the fecal coliform model, monitor water quality conditions and assess
progress of the TMDL, evaluation locations were established for the Rich Fork Creek and
Hamby Creek watersheds. The evaluation location of Rich Fork Creek watershed is located in
Rich Fork Creek at SR 1800 and that of Hamby Creek watershed is located in Hamby Creek at
SR 2790. The evaluation points in both TMDLs are the ambient monitoring stations.

2.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT

A source assessment is used to identify and characterize the known and suspected sources of
fecal coliform bacteria in the watershed. The source assessment of Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks
will be used in the water quality modeling tool and in the development of the TMDL.

2.1 Point Source Assessment

General sources of fecal coliform bacteria are divided between point and non-point sources.
Facilities that treat domestic waste which are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) contribute to fecal coliform bacteria loading of streams.

2.1.1 Individually Permitted NPDES Dischargers
There are six NPDES permitted dischargers in the Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek
watersheds. Table 5 shows individually permitted NPDES wastewater treatment facilities in the
watershed. The city of High Point Westside WWTP (NC0024228) and the Thomasville WWTP
(NC0024112) are the two major discharges in these watersheds. The other four facilities are
minor discharges and their contribution to the fecal coliform loading is not significant.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

13
The city of High Point Westside WWTP discharges into Rich Fork Creek, and the city of
Thomasville WWTP discharges into Hamby Creek. The Westside WWTP primarily serves
approximately one third of High Point’s population. The Thomasville WWTP serves the city of
Thomasville and is located approximately 6.0 stream miles upstream of its confluence with Rich
Fork Creek. The High Point Westside WWTP operates at 6.2 MGD, and has a maximum
permitted effluent fecal coliform concentration of a 30-day geometric mean of 200 cfu/100ml,
and a weekly geometric mean of 400 cfu/100ml. The Thomasville WWTP has the same effluent
concentration limits and is permitted to discharge 4.0 MGD. Thomasville WWTP applies a
percentage of the residuals generated during the wastewater treatment process within Davidson
and Randolph counties (Morgan Huffman, December 2003). High Point Westside WWTP
incinerates the residuals (Tim Fitzgerald, December 2003).

Discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) submitted by NPDES facilities were reviewed to identify
facilities discharging fecal coliform bacteria in excess of permit limits. A review of DMRs from
1998 -2002 indicate High Point Westside WWTP was in noncompliance in some cases (12% of
samples exceeded the 200cfu/100ml value and 8% of the samples exceeded 400cfu/100ml).
Thomasville WWTP was in compliance with its fecal coliform permit limits and fecal coliform
bacteria levels were below permit limits. (Only 3% of samples exceeded 200 cfu/100ml and 2%
of the samples exceeded 400 cfu/100ml from 1998 to 2002). The discharge monitoring data for
High Point -Westside WWTP and Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP are included in
Appendix C.

The NPDES Phase I rule requires large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) greater than 100,000 people to obtain an NPDES storm water permit. The NPDES Phase
II addressed small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of less
than 100,000 people in urbanized areas. This rule applies to a unit of government such as a city
or county, which owns or operates an MS4. Each permitted entity is required to develop a Storm
Management Program (SWMP). Per 2000 Census data, the estimated population of the City of
Thomasville is approximately 19,800, and that of High Point is 85,839. Therefore, both cities are
automatically designated into the Phase II program. Both cities applied for permit coverage in
March 2003. For Thomasville, the jurisdiction area in Davidson County is approximately 16.4
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

14
square miles and for High Point the area in Guilford, Randolph, Forsyth, and Davidson counties
is 51.45 square miles. These four counties also fall under the Phase II rule and therefore maintain
a storm management program.

A recent EPA mandate (Wayland, 2002) requires NPDES permitted stormwater to be placed in
the wastload allocation (WLA), which had previously been reserved for continuous point source
wastewater loads. Since Hamby Creek and Rich Fork Creek watersheds are subject to MS4
permits, the WLA in Rich Fork and Hamby TMDLs will include loads from both continuous
discharge facilities and wet weather discharges.

Table 5. Permitted NPDES wastewater treatment facilities in Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek
Watersheds.

Facility Name

Flow
(MGD)
Address

Site

Receiving
Stream Permit #

Ownership

Thomasville City -
Hamy Creek WWTP

4.000 Rd. Thomasville,

Thomasville

Hamby Creek

Municipal

High Point City -
Westside WWTP

6.200
1044 West Burton
Road, Thomasville

Thomasville

Rich Fork Ck.

Municipal

Davidson Co -
WWTP

0.007
P.O.Box 2057
Lexington,

Davidson Co.

Hamby Creek

100%
Domestic
Minor
Davidson Co - Pilot
Elementary School
WWTP
0.010 P.O.Box 2057
Lexington,

Davidson Co.

Jimmys Ck.

100%
Domestic
Minor
High Point Care
Center

0.010
3830 North Main
Street, H

High Point

Rich Fork Ck.

100%
Domestic
Minor
Auman’s Mobile
Home Park

0.016
3910 North Main

High Point

Rich Fork Ck.

100%
Domestic
Minor

2.2 Non-point Source Assessment

Non-point sources of fecal coliform bacteria include those sources that can not be identified as
entering the waterbody at a specific location (e.g., a pipe). Non-point source pollution can
include both urban and agricultural sources. Fecal coliform bacteria may originate from human
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

15
and non-human sources. Table 6 lists the potential human and animal non-point sources of fecal
coliform bacteria (Center for Watershed Protection, 1999). The non-point sources of fecal
coliform bacteria in Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds include wildlife, livestock
(land application of agricultural manure and grazing), concentrated animal feed-lots, urban
development (stormwater), failing septic systems, and sewer line systems (illicit connections,
leaky sewer lines and sewer system overflows).

Table 6. Potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria in urban and rural watersheds (Center for
Watershed Protection, 1999).
Source Type Source
Human Sources Sewered watershed Combined sewer overflows
Sanitary sewer overflows
Illegal sanitary connections to
storm drains
Illegal disposal to storm drains
Non-sewered watershed Failing septic systems
Poorly operated package plant
Landfills
Marinas
Non-human Sources Domestic animals and urban wildlife Dogs, cats
Rats, raccoons
Pigeons, gulls, ducks, geese
Livestock and rural wildlife Cattle, horse, poultry
Beaver, muskrats, deer, waterfowl
Hobby farms

2.2.1 Livestock

Davidson County, with a total area of 353,278 acres is a limited producer of cattle, beef and milk
cows, chickens, and hogs and pigs. According to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, there were 19,000 cattle and calves, 1200 hogs and pigs, 4,600,000
broilers, and 1600 equines in Davidson County (NCDACS, 2003). There is one poultry operation
that houses approximately 45,000 broilers in the Rich Fork Creek watershed. There are no
confined animal operations in the Hamby Creek watershed. There are no permitted concentrated
animal feedlot operations (CAFOs) in the watershed. There are several small livestock farms
scattered throughout the watersheds. These are small operations with herd sizes varying from 1
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

16
cow to as many as 30-40 cows. The number of horses in these watersheds is estimated to be less
than 100. (Miller communications, 2003).

2.2.1.1 Livestock Grazing/Horse and Pony Grazing

Cattle, including both dairy and beef cows, and horses graze on pasture land and deposit feces
onto the land. During a rainfall runoff event, a portion of the fecal material that contains
coliform bacteria is transported to the streams. In addition, when cattle have direct access to
streams, feces may be deposited directly into a stream. There are small, scattered animal
operations which may have access to streams for their animals in the Rich fork creek and Hamby
Creek watersheds. (Miller communication, 2003).

2.2.1.2 Agricultural Manure and Residual Application/Concentrated Animal Feedlot
Operations

There is a poultry operation housing approximately 45,000 broilers in the Rich Fork Creek
watershed. The litter from this operation is land applied following a waste management plan that
was developed by Davidson SWCD personnel. Poultry litter produced by chickens is routinely
collected and applied as an alternative to fertilizer and applied predominately to pasture/hayland
(Davidson County communications, 2003). There are scattered beef cattle operations in Rich
Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds. These are small operations with herd sizes varying
from 1 cow to as many as 30-40 cows. The total number of beef cattle is estimated to be 300-400
cows. These operations are pasture operations. Cattle are on pastures year round and generally
have access to the streams. There are a few operations that prohibit livestock accessing the creek
(Miller communications, 2003). The city of Thomasville is permitted to land apply residuals
from its wastewater treatment process. The applications fields are located in Davidson and
Randolph Counties (Morgan Huffman, December 2003).

2.2.2 Failed Septic Systems

Failing septic systems have been cited as a potential source of fecal coliform bacteria to water
bodies (USEPA, 2000). There is a considerable amount of residential development scattered
throughout Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds. The Department of Environmental
Health has estimated that Davidson County has approximately 35,612 housing units on septic
systems (DEH, 1999). Septic system failure rate data in North Carolina are very limited. A study
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

17
conducted in 1981 by the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management suggested that
approximately 11% of systems that were surveyed experienced malfunctions or failures over a
year (DEH, 2000).

2.2.3 Urban Development/Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Fecal coliform bacteria can originate from various urban sources. These sources include pet
waste, runoff through stormwater sewers, illicit discharges/connections of sanitary waste, leaky
sewer systems and sewer systems overflows. Leaky sewer pipes upstream of the Westside
WWTP were reported by local resident to be one of the major causes of fecal coliform loading to
Rich Fork Creek. The majority of Highpoint’s sanitary collection system include pipelines that
generally follow the terrain and are often located in close proximity to streams and tributaries.
These pipelines transport wastewater to the Westside WWTP. This situation presents an
opportunity for raw sewage to reach the streams through broken pipelines and cracked joints.
Rich Fork, Little/ Payne, and Ensley Creeks come together just upstream of the Westside WWTP
and High Point’s sewer collection system follows the drainage systems of these creeks. Sewer
System Overflows (SSOs) are often caused by excessive volumes of rainwater entering the
collection system which exceeds the systems capacity to transport all the flow to the WWTP.
Sewer System Overflows can also be caused when sewer pipes are clogged by debris, grease,
tree roots, and other obstructions. High Point owns and operates the Westside WWTP and the
sewage collection system. From February 2002 to September 2003, High Point reported at least
16 sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) ranging from 140 gallons to 36,000 gallons within the Rich
Fork Creek watershed (High Point, 2003). The City of Thomasville operates the Hamby Creek
WWTP and the sewage collection system. In the last three years (March 2001 - August 2003),
Thomasville reported at least 23 sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) ranging from 150 gallons to
2,100,000 gallons within the Hamby Creek watershed (Thomasville, 2003).

2.2.4 Wildlife

Wildlife can be a source of fecal coliform bacteria in forested, wetland, pasture and cropland
areas. Wildlife deposit fecal material in these areas which can be transported to a stream in a
rain event. Wildlife in the Davidson county area include deer, raccoons, squirrels, and birds
(including waterfowl). The deer population is estimated to be 10-30 per square mile (WRC,
2001).
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

18
3.0 ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Establishing the relationship between instream water quality and sources of fecal coliform
bacteria is an important component of the TMDL. Load duration curves were developed as a
method to relate TMDLs to all hydrologic conditions.

Load duration curves provide a method that is entirely based on observed data to estimate the
reductions required to meet water quality standards. Load duration curves are based on a
cumulative frequency distribution of stream flow. The method used to develop both the flow
and load duration curves are described in this section and is based on work by Stiles in Kansas
(2002), Cleland (2002), and Sheely (2002).

3.1 Flow Duration Curves
In order to develop a load duration curve, the first step is to create flow duration curves. A flow
duration curve displays the cumulative frequency distribution of daily flow data over the period
of record. The duration curve relates flow values measured at a monitoring station to the percent
of time the flow values were equaled or exceeded. Flows are ranked from low, which are
exceeded nearly 100 percent of the time, to high, which are exceeded less than 1 percent of the
time.

Flow duration curves are limited to the period of record available at a monitoring station. The
confidence in the duration curve approach in predicting realistic percent load reductions
increases when longer periods of record are used to generate the graphs. One of the shortcomings
of using this method to develop TMDLs is that most ambient monitoring stations do not monitor
flow at the time of water quality sampling. However, a nearby gage in the same watershed or in
a watershed of similar topography and landuse in the same eco-region as the ungaged watershed
can be used to estimate flow. Flows on an ungaged stream can be extrapolated using a drainage
area ratio.

DWQ developed a flow duration curve using daily streamflow data collected at USGS
continuous gage on Abbots Creek near Lexington (USGS 02121500) between October 1988 and
September, 2002. This USGS gage is located in the Abbots Creek watershed (HUC 03040103 -
(Subbasin # 03-07-07)). Both Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks drain into Abbots Creek and are
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

19
located in Abbots Creek Watershed. The flow duration curves developed for Rich Fork Creek
and Hamby Creek using the flow data collected at this gage (USGS 02121500) on Abbotts Creek
are shown in Figures 7, and 8, respectively.

Creek at USGS 02121500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 10 100
Percent Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Figure 8. Flow Duration Curve for Hamby Creek Based on Abbotts Creek
at USGS 02121500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 10 100
Percent Time Flow Exceeded
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

20

3.2 Load Duration Curves

Flow duration curves are transformed into load duration curves by multiplying the flow values
along the flow duration curves by the pollutant concentrations and the appropriate conversion
factors. On the load duration curve, allowable and existing loads are plotted against the flow
recurrence interval. The allowable load is based on the water quality numerical criteria for fecal
coliform, less the margin of safety, and on flow values from the flow duration curves. The line fit
through the allowable load is called the target line.

The instantaneous standard of 400 cfu/100 ml is considered as an end point (or allowable load)
for the determination of the fecal coliform TMDL for Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek
TMDLs. In addition to the instantaneous standard of 400 cfu/100 ml, the geometric mean
standard of 200 cfu/100ml was considered at the WWTPs downstream monitoring locations as
these stations collected enough samples to calculate the geometric mean. Load duration curves
were developed using the 200 cfu/100 ml geometric mean (at least 5 samples within 30 days) and
the average flow during this period to ascertain the geometric mean standard has not been
exceeded and to determine the most stringent limit.

The positioning of monitoring data on the load duration curve provides an indication of the
potential sources and delivery mechanisms of the pollutant. In general, violations occurring on
the right side of the curve typically occur during low flow events and are indicative of
continuous pollutant sources, such as NPDES permitted discharges, leaking collection lines, or
leaking septic systems, and livestock having access to streams. Violations that occur on the left
side of the curve occur during high flow events and mainly indicate sources responding to
rainfall events. As shown in Figure 9, from 1995 to 2002, water quality violations in Rich Fork
Creek occur during high, transitional, typical, and low flow events. In Hamby Creek (Figure 10),
violations occur during typical (i.e., flows exceeded between 25 and 75 percent of the time) and
low flow (i.e., flows exceeded between 75 and 90 percent of the time) events.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

21

Figure 9. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Location (Q5780000 - SR#1800)
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load Exising load Violations
Figure 10. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Location (Q59060000- SR# 2790)
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.00E+15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load Exising load Violations
High
Flow
Trans itio
n Flo w
Typical
Flow
Low
Flow
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

22
The existing load is based on measured fecal coliform concentration and an estimate of the flow
during sampling days. The positioning of the existing load on the plot is based on the recurrence
interval of the estimated flow. Existing loads that plot above the target line indicate a violation of
water quality criterion, while loads plotting below the line represent compliance.

The Rich Fork Creek watershed was delineated into 6 subwatersheds and the Hamby Creek
watershed was delineated into 4 subwatersheds. Figure 7 illustrates the subwatershed
delineations for the Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds. The subwatershed
delineations were based, on the location of the ambient and discharger coalition monitoring sites,
and the location of WWTPs upstream/downstream monitoring locations. Load duration curves
were developed for each subwatershed from the extrapolated flow and the water quality data
collected at the monitoring locations. The fecal coliform load calculated at each monitoring
station takes into account the load coming from the watershed area upstream of the monitoring
station. A list of the monitoring stations used to develop the load duration curves for the
impaired streams are provided in Table 7.

Table 7. Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Subwatersheds
Subwatershed Stream Monitoring Station Area
(sq. mile)
RF01 Rich Fork DWQ ambient Monitoring (Q5780000 - SR#1800) 27.4
RF02 Rich Fork YPDRBA Station (Q5750000 - SR#1755) 9.83
RF03 Rich Fork YPDRBA Station (Q5785000 - SR#1787) 31.6
RF04 Rich Fork YPDRBA Station Q5790000 - SR#2123) 48.7
HA01 Hamby DWQ ambient Monitoring (Q59060000- SR# 2790) 20.9
HA02 Hamby WWTP Upstream Station (Baptist Children’ Home Road) 3.9
HA03 Hamby Thomasville’s WWTP downstream Station (SR#2017) 19.2




















































 






!

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

24
4.0 Uncertainty

The lack of agreement between modeled and observed fecal coliform concentrations is due in
part to the high degree of uncertainty associated with predicting any water quality variable,
especially fecal coliform. The inability to accurately predict specific observed fecal coliform
concentrations can be attributed to approximations in the analytical method, lack of sufficient
information in source assessment, gaps in our scientific knowledge, natural variability in
instream fecal coliform concentrations, field and laboratory measurement error, and lack of
current site specific model input parameters (where model is used) including decay rate, flow,
rainfall data and landuse information. The available models used to predict fecal coliform
concentrations are not adept at characterizing prediction uncertainty. Because uncertainty
associated with generalized approach is expected to be large, the results should be interpreted in
light of the limitations of the methodology used and prediction uncertainty. Simple methods like
Load Duration Curve can be used to guide initial decision making but continued observation of
the watershed and stream, as fecal coliform controls are implemented (e.g., exclusion fencing,
leaky sanitary sewer repairs), is expected to be our best approach for determining the appropriate
level of management.

5.0 Total Maximum Daily Load

A total maximum daily load is the total amount of pollutant that can be assimilated by the
receiving water body while achieving water quality standards. A TMDL is comprised of the sum
of wasteload allocations (WLA) for point sources, load allocations (LA) for non-point sources
and a margin of safety (MOS). This definition is expressed by the equation:

TMDL =
WLAs +
LAs + MOS

The objective of the TMDL is to estimate allowable pollutant loads and to allocate to the known
pollutant sources in the watershed so 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. In the Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek fecal coliform TMDLs, loads
are expressed in terms of counts per day, and represent the maximum one-day load the streams
can assimilate and maintain the water quality criterion.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

25
5.1 Reduction target
To determine the amount of fecal coliform load reduction necessary to comply with the water
quality criteria, the period of critical conditions and the existing loading must be established.

5.1.1 Critical Conditions
The critical condition for non-point source fecal coliform bacteria loading is an extended dry
period followed by a rainfall event. During the dry weather period, fecal coliform bacteria builds
up on the land surface, and is washed off by rainfall. The critical condition for point source
loading occurs during periods of low stream flow when dilution is minimized. Water quality data
has been collected during both time periods. Water quality violations in Rich Fork Creek occur
during all flow condition. In Hamby Creek, violations occur during typical and low flow events.
The load duration curve approach addresses the load reductions required during all flow regimes.
Critical conditions are accounted for in the load duration analysis by using an extended
period of stream flow records and water quality data available for the streams. Water quality
data used in the Rich Fork Creek include data collected from January 1993 to September 2002,
and the water quality data uses for Hamby Creek TMDLs include data collected from May 1995
to September 2002, and the streamflow data bigan in 1988.

5.1.2 Existing Conditions

The load duration curves for Rich Fork Creek, and Hamby Creek at their respective DWQ
ambient monitoring stations are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. Load duration curves
for the streams at the other monitoring stations are provided in Appendix B. Existing conditions
are based on the instream water quality violations. The violations in Rich Fork occur at all flow
condition, and Hamby Creek violations occur during typical and low flow conditions. The
violations indicate that impairment occurs during wet and dry weather conditions in both
streams. Superimposed on the graphs is a trend line through the data points violating the water
quality criterion. In the load curve approach, the trend line equation is used to calculate the
existing load at each duration interval. As shown in Figures 12 and 13. A power curve provided
the best fit for the Rich Fork data, and an exponential curve provided the best fit for Hamby
Creek data, as determined by the correlation coefficient.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

26
To represent the TMDL as a single value, the existing load was calculated from the trend as the
average of the load violations between the 10th and 90th duration interval. Flows occurring less
than 10 percent of the time were considered extreme flood conditions while flows occurring
greater than 90 percent of the time were considered extreme drought conditions. Extreme flow
conditions were not considered in the TMDL analysis.

Using the trend line equation for fecal coliform in Rich Fork Creek, the calculated existing load
between the 10th and 90th percentile ranges between 2.71 x1010 and 1.78 x 1012 counts/day. The
average of these values, or 4.49 x 1011 counts/day, represents the total existing load in Rich Fork
Creek. For Hamby Creek, the calculated existing load between the 25th and 90th percentile ranges
between 3.14 x 1010 and 1.04 x 1012 counts/day. The average of these values, or 2.33 x 1011
counts/day, represents the total existing load in Hamby Creek. For Hamby Creek TMDL most
violations occur between the 25th and 90th percentile ranges. Therefore, the average load was
calculated from the existing load between the 25th and 90th percentile ranges. Calculations of the
existing loads for other monitoring stations within these watersheds are provided in Appendix B.

Figure 12. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek DWQ Ambient
Monitoring Location (Q5780000 - SR#1800)
y = 3E+12e-0.0523x
R2 = 0.7864
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load
Exising load Violations Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

27

5.1.3 Reduction Target Calculations

The TMDL values represent the maximum daily load the stream can assimilate and maintain
water quality standards. The load duration curve methodology can be used to show that water
quality standards can be achieved under a range of flow conditions. The target load is based on
the instantaneous fecal coliform standard of 400 cfu/100ml less the MOS. The existing load is
calculated from the trend curve through all violations. Once the existing load and the target load
are calculated, the percent reductions required to achieve the numerical water quality criterion
are determined.

The percent reduction is calculated as the difference between the average trend curve load
estimates and the average of the allowable load estimates. At each recurrence interval between
10 and 95 (at each 5th percentile) the existing loads were calculated from the trend equation, and
the allowable loads were calculated from the TMDL target value, which includes the MOS. The
allowable load was exceeded in Rich Fork Creek during all flow conditions. Therefore, loads
between the 10th and 90th percentile ranges were used to calculate average load and the percent
reduction. For Hamby Creek TMDL most violations occur between the 25th and 90th percentile
ranges. Therefore, loads between the 25th and 90th percentile ranges were used to calculate the
Figure 13. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Location (Q59060000- SR# 2790)
y = 7E+15x-2.7369
R2 = 0.8918
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.00E+15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load
Exising load Violations Power (Exising load Violations)
High
Flow
Trans it io
n Flo w
Typical
Flow
Low
Flow
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

28
average load and the percent reduction. The average of the existing and target loads for Rich
Fork Creek were 4.49 x 1011 counts/day and 1.26 x 1011 counts/day, respectively. This equates to
a 72% load reduction. The average of the existing and target loads for Hamby Creek were 2.33 x
1011 counts/day and 6.63 x 1010 counts/day, respectively. This equates to a 71.6% load reduction.
Calculations of the existing loads, target load, and percent reduction for Rich Fork and Hamby
Creek at the DWQ monitoring stations are given in Table 8 and 9, respectively. Calculations of
the existing loads, target load, and percent reduction for other monitoring stations within these
watersheds are provided in Appendix B.

Table 8. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek

Interval Existing Load Target load Reduction
(cnts/day) (counts/day) (percent)
90 2.7095E+10 1.44E+10 46.9
85 3.5194E+10 1.91E+10 45.8
80 4.5712E+10 2.54E+10 44.4
75 5.9375E+10 3.32E+10 44.1
70 7.7120E+10 4.24E+10 45.0
65 1.0017E+11 5.19E+10 48.2
60 1.3011E+11 6.31E+10 51.5
55 1.6899E+11 7.54E+10 55.4
50 2.1950E+11 8.84E+10 59.7
45 2.8511E+11 1.05E+11 63.2
40 3.7032E+11 1.21E+11 67.4
35 4.8100E+11 1.39E+11 71.1
30 6.2476E+11 1.62E+11 74.1
25 8.1149E+11 1.94E+11 76.1
20 1.0540E+12 2.46E+11 76.6
15 1.3690E+12 3.12E+11 77.2
10 1.7782E+12 4.48E+11 74.8

Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 4.4925E+11
Allowable Load: 1.26E+11
Percent reduction: 71.97%

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

29

Table 9. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Hamby Creek
Interval Existing Target Load Reduction
Load (cnts/day) (counts/day) (percent)
90 3.1371E+10 1.4768E+10 52.9
85 3.6684E+10 1.8987E+10 48.2
80 4.3304E+10 2.3206E+10 46.4
75 5.1671E+10 2.9535E+10 42.8
70 6.2409E+10 3.6919E+10 40.8
65 7.6443E+10 4.4303E+10 42.0
60 9.5165E+10 5.2742E+10 44.6
55 1.2075E+11 6.2235E+10 48.5
50 1.5674E+11 7.2784E+10 53.6
45 2.0913E+11 8.4387E+10 59.6
40 2.8868E+11 9.5990E+10 66.7
35 4.1604E+11 1.1076E+11 73.4
30 6.3440E+11 1.2869E+11 79.7
25 1.0449E+12 1.5295E+11 85.4
20 1.9245E+12 1.9240E+11 90.0
15 4.2292E+12 2.4261E+11 94.3
10 1.2829E+13 3.4725E+11 97.3

Average Values between the 90th and 25th percentile

Existing load: 2.3341E+11
Allowable Load: 6.6304E+10
Percent reduction: 71.59%

The percent reductions based on the geometric mean standard of 200 cfu/100ml less the MOS
were calculated at the WWTPs downstream monitoring stations (Old Hwy 29 for Rich Fork
Creek (Figure RF5a) and SR 2017 for Hamby Creek (Figure H3a)). Percent reductions were also
calculated at the same locations based on the instantaneous standard of 400 cfu/100ml less the
MOS to determine the most stringent limit (Figure RF5 and Figure H3). The results indicate that
reductions based on the instantaneous standard are higher than the reductions based on the
geometric mean standard at both sites. For Rich Fork Creek, the reductions were 69% and 61%
for the instantaneous and the geometric mean standards, respectively. For Hamby Creek, the
reductions were 82% and 64% for the instantaneous and the geometric mean standards,
respectively. Based on these results, the instantaneous standard was more stringent than the
geometric mean standard and was used to calculate the TMDLs for both streams.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

30
5.2 Margin of Safety

There are two methods for incorporating a MOS in the analysis: a) implicitly incorporate the
MOS using conservative model assumptions to develop allocations; or b) explicitly specify a
portion of the TMDL as the MOS and use the remainder for allocations. In the Rich Fork Creek
and Hamby Creek TMDLs both implicit and explicit MOS were used.

For TMDLs developed using load curves, the assumption that reductions are needed at all flows
between the 10th and 90th duration interval results in percent reductions higher than what is
required based on observed data violations. To provide an explicit margin of safety, the
allowable load curve used 360 cfu/100ml instead of the instantaneous standard of 400 cfu/100ml.
This provides a 10% margin of safety.

5.3 TMDL Allocations

The TMDLs determined above must be allocated to a wasteload allocation (WLA) and a load
allocation (LA). The TMDL value is reduced by the WLA, if any, to obtain the LA component.
TMDL components for Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds and the percent
reductions needed to comply with the water quality criteria are provided in Table 10.

5.3.1 Waste Load Allocations (WLA)

There are two major NPDES permitted facilities in the Rich Fork Creek watershed. The City of
High Point’s Westside WWTP discharges into Rich Fork Creek, and the city of Thomasville’s
WWTP discharges into Hamby Creek. The WLAs are expressed separately to continuous
facilities and MS4 areas. Waste Water Treatment Plants discharge fecal coliform bacteria at all
weather conditions while MS4 areas discharge in response to storm events. Both WWTPs
discharging in the streams have permit limits that meet instream water quality standards. Both
facilities are required to meet their permit limits and no load reductions are needed. The WLAs
assigned to the WWTPs are based on the weekly average permit criterion of 400 cfu/100ml.
These facilities cannot exceed a monthly geometric mean concentration of 200 cfu/100ml. Any
future facility permitted to discharge fecal coliform bacteria in the watersheds will be required to
meet permit limits. The city of High Point and the city of Thomasville are automatically
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

31
designated into the Phase II program. Both cities have applied for permit coverage in March
2003. Guilford, Randolph, Forsyth, and Davidson Counties are also designated into the Phase II
program. The WLA assigned to the MS4 areas is expressed in terms of percent reduction of
coliform concentration required to attain standards. Any future MS4 located within the
watershed boundaries of the impaired streams will be prescribed a WLA based on the percent
reduction required in the TMDL.

Table 10. Fecal Coliform TMDL Components for Rich Fork and and Hamby Creeks
(Evaluation Locations shown in bold)

WLA1 Stream Monitoring
Locations and
Watershed_ID
Continuous
(counts/day)
MS4

LA
(counts/day)

MOS2

TMDL3
Percent
Reduction4
RF01 - Rich Fork
(YPDRBA Station
(Q5750000 - SR#1755)

0

74.7%
reduction

8.83 x 1011

Implicit
Explicit

8.83 x 1011

74.7%

RF02 -Rich Fork
(DWQ Station -
Q5780000 - SR#1800)

9.39 x 1010

72.0%
reduction

3.21 x 1010

Implicit
Explicit

1.26 x 1011

72.0%

RF03
Rich Fork (YPDRBA
Station (Q5785000 -
SR#1787)

9.39 x 1010

76.1%
reduction

3.09 x 1012

Implicit
Explicit

3.18 x 1012

76.1%

RF04 - Rich Fork
(YPDRBA Station
Q5790000 - SR#2123)

9.39 x 1010

55.6%
reduction

4.74 x 1012

Implicit
Explicit

4.84 x 1012

55.6%

RF05 -- Rich Fork
(WWTP Upstream)

0

88.2%
reduction

8.83 x 1011

Implicit
Explicit

8.83 x 1011

88.2%

RF06 -- Rich Fork
(WWTP Downstream - Old
Hwy 29)

9.39 x 1010

69.0%
reduction

1.64 x 1011

Implicit
Explicit

2.57 x 1011

69.0%

HA01 -Hamby
(WWTP Upstream - Baptist
Children Home Rd.)

0

86.4%
reduction

3.23 x 1011

Implicit
Explicit

3.23 x 1011

86.4%

HA02 - Hamby
(DWQ Station Q59060000-
SR# 2790)

6.06 x 1010

71.6%
reduction

5.70 x 109

Implicit
Explicit

6.63 x 1010

71.6%

HA03 Hamby
(WWTP downstream
Station -SR#2017)

6.06 x 1010

82.6%
reduction

1.51 x 1012

Implicit
Explicit

1.57 x 1012

82.6%

Notes:
1 WLA component separated into load from continuous NPDES facilities (WWTP) and load from
MS4. WWTPs have loads in units of counts/day based on permit limits and design flow. MS4 load
is represented as percent reduction.
2 Explicit (10%) and implicit Margins of Safety are considered
3 TMDL represents the average allowable load between the 90th and 10th percent recurrence interval.
4 Overall reduction is based on the instantaneous standard of 400 cfu/100ml and is assumed to be
more stringent than the geometric mean standard.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

32
5.3.2 Load Allocation

There are two modes of transport for non-point source fecal coliform bacteria loading into the
stream. Loading from failing septic systems and animals in the stream are considered direct
sources to the stream and are independent of precipitation. The second mode involves loading
resulting from fecal coliform accumulation on land surfaces and is transported to the stream
during storm events. Runoff from agricultural areas, urban stormwater washoff, and SSO events
contribute to the loading during storm events. The positioning of monitoring data on the load
duration curve provides an indication of the potential sources and delivery mechanisms of the
pollutant. Violations in Rich Fork Creek occur during all weather conditions. In Hamby Creek,
violations occur during typical and low flow events. The LA allocation components provided in
Table 10 are calculated as the difference between the TMDLs and the WLA components.
Calculations of the TMDL, existing, and percent reduction for other monitoring stations within
these watersheds are provided in Appendix B.

5.4 Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation was incorporated in the load duration curves by using the entire period of
record flow recorded at the gages. Seasonality was also addresses by using all water quality data
between 1995 and 2002 associated with the impaired streams, which was collected during
multiple seasons.

6.0 TMDL Implementation

The TMDL analysis was performed using the best data available to specify the percent
reductions necessary to achieve water quality criteria to support the designated use classifications
in the watersheds.

6.1 Urban Sources of pollutant Loading

The city of High Point and the city Thomasville applied for MS4 permit coverage in March
2003. Each permittee is required to develop a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP). The
SWMP covers the duration of the permit (5-year renewable) and comprises a comprehensive
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

33
planning process which involves public participation and intergovernmental coordination to
reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable using management
practices, control techniques, public education, and other appropriate methods and provisions.
With respect to fecal coliform reduction, additional activities and programs conducted by the
city, county, and state agencies are recommended to support the SWMP:
• Field screening and monitoring program to identify the types and extent of fecal
coliform water quality problems, relative degradation or improvement over time,
areas of concern, and source identification.

• Requirements that all new and replacement sanitary sewage systems are designed to
minimize discharges from the system into the storm sewer system.

• Mechanisms for reporting and correcting illicit connections, breaks, surcharges, and
general sanitary sewer system problems with potential to release to the municipal
separate storm sewer system.

6.2 Stream Monitoring

The continued monitoring of fecal coliform concentrations at multiple water quality sampling
points in the watersheds will allow for the evaluation of progress towards the goal of reaching
water quality standards by comparing the instream data to the TMDL target. It is also critical in
characterizing sources of fecal coliform contamination and documenting future reduction of
loading. Fecal coliform monitoring will continue on a monthly interval at the ambient monitoring
sites (Q5780000 - at SR#1800 for Rich Fork, and Q59060000- at SR# 2790 for Hamby Creek)
and at the three discharger coalition monitoring sites in Rich Fork Creek watershed (Q5785000 -
at SR#1787, Q5750000 - at SR#1755, and Q5790000 - at SR#2123). In addition to this data
collection, further fecal coliform monitoring may be considered. Additional monitoring beyond
the ambient and discharger stations’ monitoring could aid in a fecal coliform source assessment
in the watershed and further aid in the evaluation of the progress towards meeting the water
quality target and the water quality standard. Future monitoring efforts should be refined and
enhanced in order to characterize dry and wet season base flow conditions and storm responses.
The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) required in the MS4 permit is a good means of
achieving the continued and enhanced monitoring. The Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
(PTCOG) is also conducting fecal coliform bacteria monitoring at several locations within the
Rich Fork Creek watershed to assess fecal coliform impairment and to identify potential sources.
The PTCOG working in conjunction with the City of High Point, City of Thomasville, and
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

34
Davidson County have received a 205(j) grant to help identify and cleanup fecal coliform
bacteria sources in the Rich Fork and Hamby Creek watersheds. The overall goal of the project is
to improve water quality in the Rich Fork and Hamby Creek watersheds of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin. This will be accomplished through sampling efforts throughout the watershed to
identify and clean up fecal coliform bacteria sources. Upstream and downstream samples will be
taken at potential problem areas until the source or source areas are identified. Also, this project
will help increase public awareness about fecal coliform bacteria water quality issues as the
results of the study will be shared with area media, environmental groups and educational
institutions (PTCOG, 2003). This project would provide the first step in an implementation plan
of identifying contributing sources in the watershed. The study will also provide significant
insight into specific areas within the watersheds for further investigations.

7.0 Future Efforts

This TMDL represents an early phase of a long-term restoration project to reduce fecal coliform
loading to acceptable levels in Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek watersheds. DWQ in
cooperation with the City of High Point, City of Thomasville, and the counties involved
(Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, and Randolph Counties) should evaluate the progress of
implementation strategies and refine the TMDL as necessary, in the next phase (five-year cycle).
This will include recommending specific implementation plans for identified problem areas.
Potential mechanisms of reduction of fecal coliform loading should be explored. These include,
BMP implementation, local regulations or ordinances related to zoning, landuse, or storm water
runoff controls. 319 nonpoint source grants may be a good source of funding for BMP
implementation. The involvement of local governments and agencies will be needed in order to
develop implementation plans.

8.0 Public participation

The counties, extension service and soil and water conservation districts have supplied septic
data and agricultural information to aid in the source assessment portion of the TMDL. The City
of High Point and the City of Thomasville have supplied information on WWTPs. A draft of the
TMDL was publicly noticed through various means, including notification in the local
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

35
newspapers, High Point Enterprise and Thomasville Times on February 26, 2004. DWQ
electronically distributed the draft TMDL and public comment information to known interested
parties. The TMDL was also available from the Division of Water Quality’s website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/ during the comment period. A public meeting was held on March
18, 2004 as a part of the public comment period. The public comment period ended on March
25, 2004. Two written comments were received from the public and responses are provided in
this document.

9.0 Further 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/
Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members of the
DWQ Modeling/TMDL Development Unit:
Adugna Kebede, Modeler
e-mail: [e-mail]

Michelle Woolfolk, Supervisor
e-mail: [e-mail]

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

36
REFERENCES

Center for Watershed Protection. 1999. Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Concentrations,
Sources and Pathways. Watershed Protection Techniques 3(1): 554:565.

City of Thomasville. 2003. Personal communication with Morgan Huffman. November 2003.

City of High Point. 2003. City of Salisbury Collection System Overflows (July 1999- June
2000). City of Salisbury Utility Management Department.

City of High Point. 2003. Personal communication with Tim Fitzgerald, December 2003.

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.

Division of Environmental Health (DEH). NCDENR. 1999. North Carolina On-Site Wastewater
Non-Point Source (NPS) Pollution Program. www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/non-
pointsource/NPS.htm June 24, 1999.

Division of Environmental Health (DEH). NCDENR. 2000. Report on the Proper Maintenance
of Septic Tank Systems in Accordance with Section 13.5 of HB 1160 (Clean Water Act of 1999).
March 15, 2000.

Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. Public Review Draft
Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load for Irwin, McAlpine, Little Sugar and Sugar Creek
Watersheds.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 2001. Agricultural Statistics Division-County
Statistics. www.ncagr.com/stats/cntysumm/ and http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/ag-
state?North+Carolina.

North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC), 2003. 2000- Whilte –Tail Dear
Population Distribution in North Carolina. www.ncwildlife.com

Miller, A. 2003. Davidson County Soil & Water Conservation District. Personal communication
with Andy Miller. 2003.

Sheely, L.H. July 2002. Load Duration Curve: Development and Application to Data Analysis
for Streams in the Yazoo River Basin, MS. Special Report – Summer 2002. Jackson Engineering
Gradutae Program.

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

Tad, H. S. 2002. Davidson County Health Department. 2002. Personal communication with Tad
H. Stetler. February 2002.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

37
Davidson County Extension Service. 2001. Personal communication with Jim Cowden. January
2002.

Schueler, Thomas R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection
Techniques, Vol. 1, no. 3. Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, MD.

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. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Advisory Committee (FACA). Draft final
TMDL Federal Advisory Committee Report. 4/28/98.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2000a. 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).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2000c. Implementation Guidance for Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria – 1986. DRAFT. Office of Water. EPA-823-D-00-001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1985. Rates, constants, and kinetics
formulations in surface water quality modeling (II ed.). Athens, GA: EPA-600-3-85-040.

Wayland, R. 2002. November 22, 2003 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 NPDES permit requirements based on those allocations.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-1

APPENDIX A WATER QUALITY DATA

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-2
List of Tables

Table A- 1. Rich Fork Creek Ambient Monitoring Station at SR 1800 (Q5780000) Fecal
Coliform Concentration Monitoring Data ………………………………...…….. 3
Table A- 2. Hamby Creek Ambient Monitoring Station at SR 2790 (Q5906000) Fecal
Coliform Concentration Monitoring Data ………………………………………..4
Table A- 3. Rich Fork Creek DWQ Special Study Monitoring Data …………………………6
Table A -4. Hamby Creek DWQ Special Study Monitoring Data …………………………….7
Table A- 5. Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Association Discharger Coalition Fecal Coliform
Concentration Monitoring Data (SR 1755 near High Point (Q5750000))…….…. 8
Table A- 6. Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Association Discharger Coalition Fecal Coliform
Concentration Monitoring Data (SR 1787 near High Point (Q57850000))…....… 9
Table A- 7. Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Association Discharger Coalition Fecal Coliform
Concentration Monitoring Data (SR 2123 near High Point (Q5790000))….……10
Table A- 8. High Point Westside WWTP Upstream/ Downstream Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Monitoring Data (NC0024228) ………………………………………………….11
Table A- 9. Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP Upstream/ Downstream Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Monitoring Data (NC0024112) ………………………………………..15
Table A- 10. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) 303(d) Rich Fork Creek
Fecal Coliform TMDL Project Monitoring Data Summary …………………….20
Table A- 11. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) 303(d) Rich Fork Creek
Fecal Coliform TMDL Project Monitoring Data Summary …………………….20

List of Figures

Figure A- 1. Flow at USGS gage on Abbots Creek near Lexington (USGS2121500) ……… 21

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-3
Table A-1. Rich Fork Creek Ambient Monitoring Station at SR 1800 (Q5780000)
Fecal Coliform Concentration Monitoring Data

Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration (cfu/100ml)
Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration (cfu/100ml)
01/04/95 40 12/30/98 73
02/07/95 170 01/14/99 180
03/15/95 60 02/11/99 10
05/02/95 7000 03/11/99 36
06/05/95 1000 05/06/99 250
07/11/95 710 06/01/99 160
10/11/95 710 07/06/99 780
11/02/95 270 08/03/99 100
01/16/96 1000 09/01/99 380
02/14/96 27 10/13/99 560
03/07/96 870 11/02/99 1800
04/03/96 150 12/13/99 710
05/01/96 2100 01/04/00 260
06/04/96 720 02/02/00 560
07/01/96 290 03/06/00 110
08/08/96 1600 04/10/00 280
09/03/96 1500 05/15/00 680
10/01/96 10000 06/19/00 280
11/06/96 10 07/15/00 230
12/03/96 180 08/21/00 270
01/06/97 250 09/05/00 420
02/04/97 27 10/19/00 120
03/03/97 590 11/27/00 500
05/01/97 1400 12/13/00 920
06/02/97 390 01/04/01 140
07/01/97 190 04/24/01 160
08/13/97 600 06/11/01 420
09/03/97 07/23/01 240
10/02/97 360 08/13/01 2000
11/04/97 220 09/12/01 540
12/02/97 150 10/16/01 330
01/13/98 18 11/14/01 62
02/04/98 240 01/08/02 650
03/11/98 570 02/12/02 130
04/01/98 100 03/21/02 250
05/05/98 470 04/30/02 120
06/03/98 170 05/30/02 87
08/06/98 160 06/25/02 240
09/03/98 350 07/18/02 270
10/01/98 300 08/14/02 230
11/03/98 390 09/23/02 930

*L= Actual value is known to be greater than value given.
J= Estimated value.
A= Value reported is the mean of two or more determination
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-4
Table A- 2. Hamby Creek Ambient Monitoring Station at SR 2790 (Q5906000) Fecal
Coliform Concentration Monitoring Data

Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration (cfu/100ml)
Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration (cfu/100ml)
05/02/95 6000 03/11/99 54
06/05/95 140 05/06/99 140
07/11/95 260 06/01/99 64
08/01/95 170 06/07/99 910
09/07/95 100 08/03/99 70
10/11/95 200 09/01/99 570
11/02/95 1200 10/13/99 920
01/16/96 310 11/02/99 490
07/01/96 1100 12/13/99 210
08/08/96 3000 01/04/00 200
09/03/96 1200 02/02/00 110
10/01/96 16000 03/06/00 64
11/07/96 100 04/15/00 310
12/03/96 130 05/13/00 320
01/06/97 220 06/19/00 150
02/04/97 73 07/18/00 160
03/03/97 54 08/21/00 590
05/01/97 82 09/05/00 310
06/02/97 100 10/19/00 110
07/01/97 320 11/27/00 240
08/13/97 440 12/13/00 82
09/03/97 01/04/01 54
10/02/97 140 04/24/01 190
11/04/97 27 06/11/01 260
12/02/97 10 07/23/01 160
01/13/98 10 08/13/01 210
02/04/98 110 09/12/01 220
03/11/98 36 10/16/01 68
04/01/98 600 11/14/01 340
05/05/98 360 01/08/02 320
06/03/98 150 02/12/02 100
08/06/98 140 03/21/02 99
09/03/98 110 04/30/02 110
10/01/98 290 05/30/02 220
11/03/98 140 06/25/02 150
12/30/98 82 07/18/02 220
01/14/99 10 08/14/02 290
02/11/99 36 09/23/02 480

*L= Actual value is known to be greater than value given.
J= Estimated value.
A= Value reported is the mean of two or more determination.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-5
Table A- 3. Rich Fork Creek DWQ Special Study Monitoring Data

Rich Fork in Davidson Co. at SR 1755
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 260
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 355
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 418
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 482

Rich Fork in Davidson Co. at SR 1800
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 229
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 227
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 287
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 369

Rich Fork in Davidson Co. at SR 1787
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 139
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 179
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 228
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 322

Rich Fork in Davidson Co. at SR 2123
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 71
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 80
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 98
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 142

All Stations
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 60 156
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 60 184
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 60 228
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 60 300

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-6

Table A -4. Hamby Creek DWQ Special Study Monitoring Data

Hamby Creek in Davidson Co. at SR 2790
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 142
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 155
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 161
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 175

Hamby Creek in Davidson Co. at SR 2025
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 59
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 65
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 88
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 118

Hamby Creek in Davidson Co. at SR 2080
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 15 134
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 15 109
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 15 189
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 15 255

All Stations
Dates Number of
days
Observations Geometric Mean
4/10/2001 to 5/8/2001 29 45 104
4/17/2001 to 5/15/2001 29 45 103
4/24/2001 to 5/22/2001 29 45 139
5/1/2001 to 5/29/2001 29 45 174

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-7

Table A- 5. Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Association Discharger Coalition
Fecal Coliform Concentration Monitoring Data

Rich Fork Creek at SR 1755 near High Point (Q5750000)

Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration
(cfu/100ml)
Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration
(cfu/100ml)
6/18/1998 290 3/6/2001 57
7/28/1998 170 4/4/2001 230
8/19/1998 100 5/1/2001 36
10/8/1998 640 5/7/2001 140
12/1/1998 300 5/24/2001 260
1/5/1999 125 6/21/2001 360
2/2/1999 120 7/30/2001 490
3/12/1999 760 8/21/2001 640
4/9/1999 2100 9/25/2001 620
5/5/1999 13 12/4/2001 130
5/14/1999 100 1/15/2002 140
5/18/1999 280 2/12/2002 80
6/21/1999 1300 3/5/2002 73
7/26/1999 4800 4/9/2002 130
8/16/1999 630 5/7/2002 110
9/29/1999 750 5/7/2002 110
12/3/1999 740 5/14/2002 280
1/14/2000 160 5/21/2002 730
2/16/2000 1000 6/27/2002 370
3/21/2000 2400 07/09/02 430
4/18/2000 26 8/6/2002 270
5/5/2000 2200 9/24/2002 230
5/12/2000 310 10/8/2002 1100
5/18/2000 110 11/5/2002 280
6/22/2000 3600

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-8

Table A- 6. Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Association Discharger Coalition
Fecal Coliform Concentration Monitoring Data

Rich Fork Creek at SR 1787 near High Point (Q57850000)

Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration
(cfu/100ml)
Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration
(cfu/100ml)
6/3/1998 66 6/9/2000 350
7/14/1998 210 1/4/2001 140
8/6/1998 200 2/13/2001 290
9/8/1998 1300 3/6/2001 120
10/16/1998 200 4/4/2001 190
11/18/1998 215 5/7/2001 200
12/1/1998 275 6/4/2001 150
1/5/1999 800 7/17/2001 120
2/2/1999 3300 8/7/2001 170
3/12/1999 61 9/11/2001 220
4/9/1999 120 10/9/2001 310
5/5/1999 90 11/13/2001 68
6/10/1999 180 12/4/2001 63
7/13/1999 1100 1/15/2002 63
8/5/1999 180 2/12/2002 190
9/14/1999 200 3/5/2002 63
10/15/1999 410 4/9/2002 73
11/5/1999 290 5/7/2002 250
12/3/1999 1100 6/11/2002 140
1/14/2000 250 07/09/02 140
2/16/2000 100 8/6/2002 182
3/21/2000 2700 9/24/2002 125
4/18/2000 160 10/8/2002 67
5/5/2000 240 11/5/2002 64

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-9

Table A- 7. Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Association Discharger Coalition
Fecal Coliform Concentration Monitoring Data

Rich Fork Creek at SR 2123 near High Point (Q5790000)

Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration
(cfu/100ml)
Date Instream Fecal Coliform
Concentration
(cfu/100ml)
6/3/1998 66 6/9/2000 100
7/14/1998 40 1/4/2001 44
8/6/1998 300 2/13/2001 600
9/8/1998 300 3/6/2001 91
10/16/1998 125 4/4/2001 240
11/18/1998 130 5/7/2001 130
12/1/1998 71 6/4/2001 200
1/5/1999 560 7/17/2001 520
2/2/1999 2000 8/7/2001 53
3/12/1999 68 9/11/2001 42
4/9/1999 65 10/9/2001 63
5/5/1999 130 11/13/2001 52
6/10/1999 68 12/4/2001 90
7/13/1999 450 1/15/2002 110
8/5/1999 71 2/12/2002 120
9/14/1999 220 3/5/2002 230
10/15/1999 280 4/9/2002 80
11/5/1999 430 5/7/2002 130
12/3/1999 370 6/11/2002 46
1/14/2000 220 07/09/02 53
2/16/2000 160 8/6/2002 145
3/21/2000 2500 9/24/2002 210
4/18/2000 240 10/8/2002 164
5/5/2000 100 11/5/2002 34

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-10
Table A- 8. High Point Westside WWTP Upstream/ Downstream Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Monitoring Data (NC0024228)
1995
Date UC-111 DC-9C1 DC-9D1 Date UC-11 DC-9C DC-9D
1/4/1995 400 200 260 7/21/1995 380 140 150
1/10/1995 7/26/1995 60000 60000 60000
1/11/1995 600 680 1100 7/27/1995 4500 3600 4500
1/18/1995 400 500 1400 7/28/1995 550 1400 7400
1/25/1995 800 100 100 8/2/1995 440 250 400
2/1/1995 450 760 900 8/3/1995 240 150 240
2/8/1995 20 100 8/4/1995 300 650
2/15/1995 200 300 400 8/9/1995 310 170 330
2/22/1995 220 540 480 8/10/1995 300 1800 350
3/1/1995 6000 6000 6000 8/11/1995 270 130 310
3/8/1995 100 200 200 8/16/1995 340 160 360
3/15/1995 150 350 100 8/17/1995 430 330 500
3/22/1995 1200 1200 1000 8/18/1995 390 130 430
3/29/1995 400 800 1600 8/23/1995 2300 2000 2300
4/5/1995 150 200 8/24/1995 580 57 580
4/12/1995 280 340 8/25/1995 57 50 280
4/19/1995 620 240 8/30/1995 1400 730 450
4/26/1995 440 160 8/31/1995 770 600 3400
5/3/1995 4000 4900 6900 9/1/1995 440 330
5/10/1995 1400 600 1300 9/6/1995 400 460
5/17/1995 460 40 180 9/7/1995 240 270
5/24/1995 400 250 530 9/8/1995 310 230
5/31/1995 1300 1400 2600 9/13/1995 440 480
6/7/1995 9000 17000 16000 9/14/1995 170 620
6/8/1995 1800 1200 1300 9/15/1995 210 150
6/9/1995 6400 900 600 9/20/1995 420 260
6/14/1995 780 1600 800 9/21/1995 130 230
6/15/1995 440 300 240 9/22/1995 220 1400
6/16/1995 180 480 120 9/27/1995 420 2300
6/21/1995 2000 1600 360 9/28/1995 130 1100
6/22/1995 550 1200 840 10/4/1995 480 1200 570
6/23/1995 16000 2300 35000 10/11/1995 220 440 520
6/28/1995 2000 550 5200 10/18/1995 75 200 230
6/29/1995 2400 2000 5500 10/25/1995 590 300 200
6/30/1995 2100 14000 3000 11/1/1995 1300 550
7/5/1995 1400 600 1300 11/8/1995 6000 6000
7/6/1995 500 250 550 11/15/1995 270 480
7/7/1995 60000 13000 4800 11/30/1995 2200 2300
7/12/1995 1100 540 580 12/6/1995 300 83 250
7/13/1995 460 300 370 12/13/1995 400 380 340
7/14/1995 320 280 310 12/20/1995 2000 920 1000
7/19/1995 3000 2600 3000 12/27/1995 170 230 150
7/20/1995 1200 400 560 12/27/1995 170 230 150
1Upstream - Approximately 100 ft upstream of outfall; Downstream-I - Southern Railroad Bridge above Hamby
Creek; Downstream-II - NCSR#2005 (Turner Road) below Hamby Ck.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-11
Table A- 8 (continued) - 1996

Date UC-11 DC-9C DC-9D Date UC-11 DC-9C DC-9D
1/3/1996 3400 1100 680 7/25/1996 1180 300 510
1/10/1996 2000 7/26/1996 600 600 600
1/17/1996 3000 7/31/1996 414 360 1040
1/24/1996 580 180 100 8/1/1996 2860 1200 1200
1/31/1996 6000 1500 330 8/2/1996 1850 7600 9500
2/8/1996 2200 330 330 8/7/1996 6500 1360 3500
2/14/1996 33 33 33 8/8/1996 2800 6420 9550
2/21/1996 500 900 480 8/9/1996 940 867 1550
2/28/1996 120 67 120 8/14/1996 2500 1400 2400
3/6/1996 220 180 520 8/15/1996 1100 1800 4150
3/13/1996 200 36 64 8/16/1996 350 317 933
3/27/1996 130 100 57 8/21/1996 208 133 450
4/3/1996 183 167 100 8/22/1996 340 560 1500
4/10/1996 420 475 350 8/23/1996 220 220 5100
4/17/1996 390 840 200 8/28/1996 1200 1200 12800
4/24/1996 370 147 240 8/29/1996 2000 1200 1000
5/1/1996 700 100 1950 8/30/1996 300 600 390
5/15/1996 500 210 240 9/11/1996 8600 1800 467
6/5/1996 560 288 580 9/12/1996 5000 18400 17000
6/6/1996 300 200 420 9/13/1996 600 667 833
6/7/1996 383 70 310 9/18/1996 415 400 450
6/12/1996 860 280 670 9/19/1996 410 215 250
6/13/1996 2360 203 570 9/20/1996 185 240 132
6/14/1996 1180 243 230 9/25/1996 208 263 220
6/19/1996 660 205 410 9/26/1996 223 510 500
6/20/1996 7820 600 1980 9/27/1996 193 360 210
6/21/1996 1580 580 300 10/2/1996 1200 3000 1200
6/26/1996 230 310 210 10/9/1996 1900 6000 2600
6/27/1996 520 80 554 10/16/1996 186 294 971
7/1/1996 430 200 435 10/23/1996 54 120 250
7/2/1996 270 130 100 10/30/1996 109 49 310
7/3/1996 1200 600 460 11/6/1996 86 120 120
7/10/1996 560 187 765 11/13/1996 295 275 200
7/11/1996 1000 77 200 11/20/1996 216 390 590
7/12/1996 530 200 310 11/27/1996 350 168 286
7/17/1996 220 258 1540 12/4/1996 210 97 460
7/18/1996 470 140 487 12/11/1996 136 91 164
7/19/1996 530 590 1420 12/18/1996 88 224 218
7/24/1996 1200 175 880 12/27/1996 27 321 136
1Upstream - Approximately 100 ft upstream of outfall; Downstream-I - Southern Railroad Bridge above Hamby
Creek; Downstream-II - NCSR#2005 (Turner Road) below Hamby Ck.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-12
Table A- 8 (continued) -1997

Date UC-11 DC-9C DC-9D Date UC-11 DC-9C DC-9D
1/2/1997 82 140 132 7/23/1997 21800 12600 16800
1/8/1997 88 128 188 7/28/1997 550 200 1000
1/15/1997 180 410 180 7/29/1997 430 580 440
1/22/1997 185 84 78 7/30/1997 490 600 500
1/29/1997 237 780 640 8/4/1997 400 280 390
2/5/1997 182 290 220 8/5/1997 7250 6000 2450
2/12/1997 340 63 490 8/6/1997 3350 1000 2200
2/19/1997 112 206 112 8/11/1997 200 238 371
2/26/1997 204 58 73 8/12/1997 1000 288 114
3/5/1997 600 330 360 8/13/1997 380 370 560
3/12/1997 97 150 180 8/18/1997 1000 200 188
3/19/1997 600 340 226 8/19/1997 420 159 250
3/26/1997 2840 455 3300 8/20/1997 600 820 480
4/2/1997 136 108 194 8/25/1997 505 270 300
4/9/1997 470 370 280 8/26/1997 280 395 1040
4/16/1997 194 136 164 8/27/1997 475 270 250
4/23/1997 25600 1200 1200 9/2/1997 5500 188 980
4/30/1997 1550 6000 3700 9/3/1997 1150 360 440
5/7/1997 760 450 680 9/4/1997 1540 200 340
5/14/1997 560 163 144 9/8/1997 540 84 246
5/21/1997 1200 480 620 9/9/1997 620 80 530
5/28/1997 960 280 580 9/10/1997 9400 555 3300
6/3/1997 9550 4200 8600 9/15/1997 350 250 686
6/4/1997 2400 5400 4550 9/16/1997 410 400 780
6/5/1997 900 1040 520 9/17/1997 605 340 740
6/9/1997 375 180 1100 9/22/1997 450 280 360
6/10/1997 620 440 640 9/23/1997 279 560 640
6/11/1997 557 80 320 9/24/1997 1350 430 1110
6/16/1997 950 370 880 9/29/1997 1150 338 3800
6/17/1997 280 520 855 9/30/1997 400 300 629
6/18/1997 405 760 880 10/1/1997 560 164 1100
6/23/1997 430 330 735 10/8/1997 330 460 760
6/24/1997 380 210 343 10/15/1997 280 12500 1133
6/25/1997 300 600 605 10/22/1997 555 143 229
6/30/1997 176 180 320 10/29/1997 450 380 410
7/1/1997 100 80 980 11/5/1997 220 225 271
7/2/1997 3310 2520 1210 11/12/1997 62 144 78
7/7/1997 167 38 63 11/19/1997 148 120 172
7/8/1997 176 99 255 11/26/1997 290 148 88
7/9/1997 164 152 435 12/3/1997 390 120 224
7/14/1997 184 148 340 12/10/1997 170 168 287
7/15/1997 565 260 230 12/17/1997 155 120 168
7/16/1997 285 157 430 12/23/1997 1290 1400 500
7/21/1997 2670 1200 1200 12/31/1997 673 310 270
7/22/1997 5000 10900 6000
1Upstream - Approximately 100 ft upstream of outfall; Downstream-I - Southern Railroad Bridge above Hamby
Creek; Downstream-II - NCSR#2005 (Turner Road) below Hamby Ck.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-13

Table A- 8 (continued) - 1998

Date UC-11 DC-9C DC-9D Date UC-11 DC-9C DC-9D
1/7/1998 2850 3400 4650 3/25/1998 800 65 88
1/14/1998 153 135 100 4/1/1998 400 50 192
1/21/1998 330 153 153 4/8/1998 189 88 250
1/28/1998 2600 3650 2900 4/15/1998 152 132 420
2/4/1998 2267 950 2350 4/22/1998 260 460 530
2/11/1998 189 65 88 4/29/1998 153 141 176
2/18/1998 2550 2425 2100 5/6/1998 475 365 300
2/25/1998 840 113 100 5/13/1998 465 206 222
3/4/1998 360 141 171 5/20/1998 121 136 152
3/11/1998 470 260 135 5/27/1998 22000 1370 940
3/18/1998 2083 238 238
7/21/1997 2670 1200 1200
7/22/1997 5000 10900 6000
1Upstream - Approximately 100 ft upstream of outfall; Downstream-I - Southern Railroad Bridge above Hamby
Creek; Downstream-II - NCSR#2005 (Turner Road) below Hamby Ck.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-14
Table A- 9. Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP Upstream/ Downstream Fecal
Coliform Bacteria Monitoring Data (NC0024112)

Date Upstream DS-I1 DS-II1 Date upstream DS-I DS-II Date upstream DS-I DS-II

01/03/96 4100 290 227 07/31/96 383 117 100 05/20/97 340 10
01/18/96 1066 100 333 09/04/96 6300 6000 5800 05/28/97 320 250
01/24/96 416 20 383 09/05/96 7200 4300 3600 06/02/97 500 800
01/29/96 682 20 200 09/09/96 500 267 217 06/03/97 6000 450
02/08/96 1800 164 170 09/10/96 583 883 233 06/04/97 2100 200
02/12/96 160 10 60 09/12/96 6300 1266 1333 06/09/97 880 110
02/19/96 254 10 60 09/16/96 683 233 233 06/10/97 587 167
02/26/96 636 20 27 09/17/96 6500 4300 517 06/11/97 1220 240
03/05/96 430 30 50 09/18/96 1017 283 500 06/16/97 350 210
03/12/96 300 191 91 09/23/96 750 400 283 06/17/97 440 120
03/20/96 4500 2500 3300 09/24/96 567 400 250 06/18/97 900 175
03/25/96 291 40 90 09/26/96 533 216 417 06/23/97 600 180
04/03/96 654 110 409 10/03/96 8000 783 617 06/24/97 380 170
04/11/96 534 80 173 10/09/96 7200 6500 6300 06/25/97 400 260
04/15/96 245 109 110 10/16/96 250 60 50 06/30/97 620 160
04/23/96 210 10 4 10/22/96 80 40 40 07/01/97 100 6000
04/28/96 55 20 20 10/28/96 300 36 80 07/02/97 6500 6200
05/08/96 1600 138 162 11/06/96 76 40 07/07/97 210 240
05/13/96 645 209 272 11/12/96 104 4 07/08/97 600 180
05/20/96 464 155 118 11/19/96 5800 44 07/09/97 2700 150
05/28/96 6500 6000 336 11/25/96 184 208 07/14/97 370 160
06/03/96 4700 155 127 12/02/96 5000 1900 07/15/97 450 340
06/04/96 616 55 163 12/10/96 328 300 07/16/97 400 150
06/05/96 2500 91 191 12/18/96 4 4 07/21/97 5900 6000
06/10/96 3600 327 645 12/23/96 140 16 07/22/97 6000 3400
06/11/96 5000 491 634 12/30/96 44 44 07/23/97 6000 6000
06/12/96 733 110 236 01/06/97 4500 77 07/28/97 680 200 370
06/17/96 4000 518 327 01/14/97 6000 4 07/29/97 3400 120 200
06/18/96 683 236 245 01/22/97 208 4 07/30/97 6000 160 160
06/24/96 4400 218 100 01/28/97 120 4 08/04/97 340 340 170
06/25/96 4500 273 127 02/04/97 80 68 08/05/97 2700 400 550
06/26/96 1083 190 200 02/12/97 132 240 08/06/97 10 10 10
07/01/96 933 255 155 02/18/97 800 350 08/11/97 160 160 1500
07/02/96 700 200 218 02/24/97 600 675 08/12/97 250 180 140
07/03/96 617 327 100 03/03/97 288 60 08/13/97 260 150 150
07/08/96 517 182 100 03/12/97 108 28 08/18/97 130 120 170
07/09/96 800 191 100 03/18/97 160 24 52 08/19/97 2000 80 270
07/10/96 5000 2100 70 03/24/97 92 36 1700 08/20/97 430 160 60
07/15/96 200 382 145 03/31/97 2000 28 48 08/25/97 490 200 140
07/16/96 2000 2200 3000 04/07/97 2500 20 84 08/26/97 600 170 260
07/17/96 4700 445 118 04/14/97 450 130 6000 08/27/97 600 220 270
07/22/96 516 218 73 04/21/97 50 140 50 09/02/97 2500 3800 200
07/23/96 6000 682 591 04/28/97 6000 4800 168 09/03/97 200 210 240
07/24/96 1267 1433 433 05/01/97 600 09/04/97 230 270 200
07/29/96 2000 2000 216 05/06/97 320 90 09/08/97 320 130 230
07/30/96 583 583 500 05/12/97 260 110 09/09/97 430 300 220
1 Upstream = Baptist Children’s Home Road; DS-I = SR 2017 bridge; DS-II = SR 2010 bridge

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-15
Table A- 9 (continued)

Date Upstream DS-I1 DS-II1 Date upstream DS-I DS-II Date upstream DS-I DS-II

09/11/97 200 210 120 06/09/98 220 210 200 09/23/98 160 220 200
09/15/97 480 370 180 06/10/98 300 250 210 09/28/98 300 140 50
09/16/97 170 250 100 06/15/98 6000 5000 650 09/29/98 600 320 40
09/18/97 300 160 30 06/16/98 6000 4900 3700 09/30/98 340 400 240
09/22/97 230 530 200 06/17/98 760 560 300 10/05/98 590 270 140
09/23/97 60 260 120 06/22/98 360 200 170 10/12/98 200 130 70
09/24/97 180 150 90 06/23/98 250 180 200 10/19/98 80 150 200
10/01/97 90 270 150 06/24/98 480 190 250 10/26/98 190 100 80
10/06/97 500 240 60 06/29/98 280 180 260 11/02/98 1 1 1
10/14/97 200 320 120 06/30/98 230 150 180 11/09/98 1 1 1
10/21/97 460 490 440 07/01/98 900 600 3800 11/16/98 200 176 104
10/27/97 4700 4000 220 07/07/98 170 70 80 11/23/98 20 130 80
11/01/97 6000 160 70 07/08/98 400 120 120 11/30/98 60 420 60
11/10/97 240 80 70 07/09/98 320 136 232 12/01/98 250 350
11/19/97 140 240 140 07/13/98 220 130 150 12/07/98 223 205 80
11/24/97 510 110 120 07/14/98 320 230 90 12/15/98 600 108 2000
12/01/97 3400 600 800 07/15/98 220 150 290 12/22/98 375 190 220
12/08/97 40 30 60 07/20/98 590 360 430 12/28/98 390 380 260
12/15/97 150 5 90 07/21/98 600 320 2100 02/01/99 115 125 100
12/22/97 150 110 140 07/22/98 250 200 210 02/08/99 173 187 90
12/29/97 210 110 200 07/27/98 320 190 400 02/15/99 280 320 55
01/05/98 140 160 70 07/28/98 210 260 410 02/22/99 118 105 75
01/12/98 2700 60 70 07/29/98 450 220 210 03/01/99 105 323 110
01/20/98 6000 2300 500 08/03/98 300 150 160 03/09/99 25 95 60
01/26/98 260 80 110 08/04/98 510 130 150 03/16/99 3800 220 166
02/01/98 100 250 70 08/05/98 200 190 180 03/23/99 550 120 210
02/09/98 60 130 60 08/10/98 7100 5400 6200 03/30/99 70 55 154
02/16/98 450 210 60 08/11/98 2000 490 5500 04/05/99 300 15 20
02/24/98 6000 590 73 08/12/98 620 260 500 04/12/99 120 130 50
03/02/98 400 40 10 08/17/98 6300 610 260 04/20/99 45 210 60
03/10/98 4500 2000 600 08/18/98 390 330 220 04/26/99 115 273 100
03/16/98 140 40 200 08/19/98 500 240 210 05/04/99 210 200 110
03/24/98 410 50 60 08/24/98 150 300 170 05/11/99 100 140 250
03/30/98 90 90 154 08/25/98 2600 230 200 05/18/99 316 193 135
04/06/98 490 150 210 08/26/98 100 110 30 05/24/99 185 193 100
04/13/98 160 60 100 08/31/98 200 190 180 06/01/99 260 140 150
04/21/98 3100 600 200 09/01/98 70 60 80 06/02/99 247 183 100
04/27/98 230 40 50 09/02/98 40 170 100 06/03/99 300 180 100
05/05/98 610 200 400 09/08/98 100 150 120 06/07/99 217 110 40
05/12/98 3100 500 400 09/09/98 4800 410 2000 06/08/99 323 145 100
05/19/98 610 110 170 09/10/98 170 420 130 06/09/99 237 105 71
05/26/98 1300 130 140 09/14/98 100 150 100 06/14/99 333 280 125
06/01/98 2900 200 230 09/15/98 30 170 180 06/15/99 400 193 100
06/02/98 1800 80 150 09/16/98 105 125 50 06/16/99 1217 100 87
06/03/98 2200 190 90 09/21/98 400 240 110 06/21/99 6000 6000 1700
06/08/98 600 200 300 09/22/98 550 160 150 06/22/99 3200 500 2233
1 Upstream = Baptist Children’s Home Road; DS-I = SR 2017 bridge; DS-II = SR 2010 bridge

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-16

Table A- 9 (continued)

Date Upstream DS-I1 DS-II1 Date upstream DS-I DS-II Date upstream DS-I DS-II

06/23/99 950 453 160 10/25/99 100 510 100 07/06/00 830 400 210
06/28/99 4600 900 200 11/01/99 110 150 100 07/10/00 360 400 125
06/29/99 450 190 110 11/08/99 40 206 100 07/11/00 300 340 290
06/30/99 280 305 55 11/15/99 47 125 140 07/12/00 600 240 100
07/06/99 297 175 105 11/23/99 223 100 203 07/17/00 500 320 165
07/07/99 307 213 300 12/01/99 200 250 350 07/18/00 420 200 110
07/08/99 310 230 6000 12/06/99 115 306 135 07/19/00 320 400 100
07/12/99 340 350 100 12/13/99 340 150 203 07/24/00 3700 250 320
07/13/99 5000 433 203 12/20/99 300 100 210 07/25/00 5200 2100 3200
07/14/99 3400 390 320 12/29/99 203 206 160 07/26/00 2400 223 203
07/19/99 320 200 100 01/04/00 180 200 205 07/31/00 125 320 100
07/20/99 300 35 75 01/11/00 6000 4800 3500 08/01/00 >6000 500 110
07/21/99 200 52 42 01/21/00 727 500 600 08/02/00 4000 2000 2700
07/26/99 380 300 207 01/28/00 50 140 08/07/00 360 500 150
07/27/99 600 600 203 02/03/00 3800 100 220 08/08/00 290 400 145
07/28/99 300 720 400 02/07/00 450 100 210 08/09/00 200 190 320
08/02/99 120 283 100 02/15/00 303 116 226 08/14/00 200 350 223
08/03/99 653 330 35 02/21/00 183 150 105 08/15/00 2400 590 226
08/04/99 300 400 62 03/01/00 100 450 3000 08/16/00 300 500 180
08/09/99 480 210 300 03/07/00 206 110 100 08/21/00 360 220 200
08/10/99 180 280 70 03/15/00 6000 100 50 08/22/00 300 330 100
08/11/99 200 280 100 03/20/00 400 210 2000 08/23/00 450 400 100
08/16/99 6000 1100 2600 03/28/00 2000 340 110 08/28/00 200 200 100
08/17/99 2000 780 400 04/03/00 590 145 100 08/29/00 590 500 300
08/18/99 300 600 210 04/12/00 200 105 110 08/30/00 250 370 100
08/23/99 440 430 192 04/17/00 450 150 125 09/05/00 520 400 350
08/24/99 590 343 204 04/26/00 600 225 220 09/06/00 500 450 170
08/25/99 390 420 263 05/01/00 440 260 250 09/07/00 590 330 550
08/30/99 600 300 149 05/09/00 200 193 100 09/11/00 130 213 266
08/31/99 350 290 163 05/15/00 175 320 200 09/12/00 210 410 140
09/02/99 300 125 217 05/23/00 2700 609 636 09/13/00 200 350 100
09/07/99 350 400 250 05/31/00 720 420 330 09/18/00 233 203 100
09/08/99 360 330 300 06/05/00 2300 490 450 09/20/00 4000 300 3300
09/09/99 340 750 610 06/06/00 4200 226 250 09/21/00 560 400 110
09/13/99 207 247 150 06/07/00 563 290 260 09/25/00 360 350 100
09/14/99 250 380 210 06/12/00 400 100 100 09/26/00 5900 6000 5800
09/15/99 610 320 115 06/13/00 580 300 100 09/27/00 3300 200 400
09/20/99 227 257 227 06/14/00 400 360 240 10/02/00 217 257 183
09/21/99 60000 310 1250 06/19/00 500 100 110 10/12/00 60 170 65
09/22/99 430 400 135 06/20/00 500 250 100 10/16/00 100 105 95
09/27/99 135 470 203 06/21/00 230 110 100 10/23/00 125 100 105
09/28/99 60000 5900 600 06/26/00 400 300 100 10/30/00 105 140 100
09/29/99 4100 4900 3300 06/27/00 150 135 145 11/08/00 140 100 105
10/04/99 253 650 105 06/29/00 >60000 >60000 280 11/13/00 110 100 203
10/11/99 4700 700 400 07/03/00 490 480 180 11/21/00 420 400 105
10/18/99 590 125 150 07/05/00 370 330 55 11/27/00 2800 420 2800
1 Upstream = Baptist Children’s Home Road; DS-I = SR 2017 bridge; DS-II = SR 2010 bridge

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-17

Table A- 9 (continued)

Date Upstream DS-I1 DS-II1 Date upstream DS-I DS-II Date upstream DS-I DS-II

12/05/00 100 125 110 07/18/01 140 150 72 01/15/02 60 24 59
12/11/00 125 100 173 07/23/01 150 100 105 01/24/02 58 24 84
12/18/00 420 100 190 07/24/01 300 115 215 02/07/02 12 9 11
12/27/00 110 100 145 07/25/01 200 100 125 02/15/02 10 19 59
01/04/01 430 400 50 07/30/01 6000 160 170 02/20/02 100 22 20
01/08/01 125 100 105 07/31/01 330 210 200 03/01/02 200 145 70
01/16/01 100 100 100 08/01/01 440 273 240 03/06/02 7 26 103
01/24/01 200 60 110 08/06/01 100 100 105 03/14/02 666 1750 1550
01/29/01 88 80 96 08/07/01 2500 200 216 03/19/02 108 80 132
02/05/01 25 45 160 08/08/01 135 270 100 03/27/02 6000 3250 900
02/13/01 6300 36 340 08/13/01 1433 680 400 04/03/02 1000 750 500
02/20/01 2500 50 140 08/14/01 12000 6000 880 04/10/02 840 60 150
02/26/01 3000 105 450 08/15/01 440 480 3000 04/17/02 120 90 46
03/07/01 400 100 95 08/20/01 447 380 100 04/25/02 20 296 40
03/13/01 300 25 100 08/21/01 260 500 100 05/01/02 16 130 30
03/19/01 400 21 56 08/22/01 800 240 110 05/08/02 50 120 40
03/27/01 46 7 25 08/27/01 6000 173 175 05/15/02 650 570 420
04/02/01 3100 300 410 08/28/01 2800 500 100 05/22/02 175 50 130
04/09/01 200 27 60 08/29/01 440 572 185 05/28/02 138 115 245
04/16/01 203 73 150 09/05/01 340 300 290 06/03/02 900 370 130
04/24/01 100 300 28 09/06/01 160 540 480 06/05/02 480 205 30
04/30/01 230 40 22 09/07/01 110 410 100 06/07/02 800 600 175
05/08/01 22 250 80 09/10/01 30 210 50 06/10/02 220 100 60
05/14/01 20 80 31 09/11/01 140 175 110 06/12/02 110 150 80
05/22/01 727 250 23 09/12/01 110 160 85 06/14/02 155 135 100
05/30/01 250 110 120 09/17/01 100 200 75 06/17/02 105 90 170
06/04/01 213 100 67 09/18/01 135 180 195 06/19/02 25 120 150
06/05/01 500 95 100 09/19/01 130 165 100 06/21/02 50 135 75
06/06/01 135 100 110 09/24/01 280 240 220 06/24/02 185 250 140
06/11/01 390 304 60 09/25/01 6000 5500 2700 06/26/02 185 90 155
06/12/01 320 185 92 09/26/01 2300 260 200 07/01/02 295 230 225
06/13/01 370 110 60 10/01/01 350 110 80 07/05/02 320 200 100
06/18/01 350 158 50 10/09/01 50 100 55 07/08/02 70 75 60
06/19/01 213 125 125 10/16/01 330 180 30 07/10/02 95 90 60
06/20/01 170 110 64 10/23/01 75 220 100 07/12/02 2440 680 760
06/25/01 5900 6000 4900 10/29/01 50 240 100 07/15/02 2060 140 40
06/26/01 6200 4200 2500 11/06/01 42 60 44 07/17/02 960 180 40
06/27/01 220 200 210 11/12/01 50 60 58 07/19/02 980 200 160
07/02/01 4500 600 3000 11/19/01 2790 80 32 07/22/02 540 380 340
07/03/01 1100 300 500 11/27/01 155 75 60 07/24/02 4000 600 4120
07/05/01 5800 6100 4500 12/04/01 57 48 42 07/26/02 tntc tntc tntc
07/09/01 280 167 100 12/12/01 3800 2000 3400 07/29/02 280 220 240
07/10/01 100 95 90 12/19/01 2200 240 200 08/02/02 296 100 240
07/11/01 20 24 6 12/27/01 112 24 276 08/05/02 25 200 106
07/16/01 1 1 1 01/02/02 25 33 38 08/07/02 200 160 60
07/17/01 1 1 1 01/09/02 60 15 58 08/08/02 60 300 160
1 Upstream = Baptist Children’s Home Road; DS-I = SR 2017 bridge; DS-II = SR 2010 bridge

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-18

Table A- 9 (continued)

Date Upstream DS-I1 DS-II1 Date upstream DS-I DS-II Date upstream DS-I DS-II

08/12/02 180 240 40 09/09/02 1850 1100 700 10/16/02 14600 9850 10550
08/14/02 760 280 80 09/11/02 450 700 200 10/23/02 2200 300 250
08/15/02 800 340 140 09/13/02 100 200 150 10/30/02 10450 8700 5350
08/19/02 420 160 120 09/16/02 11500 10150 13900 11/06/02 9300 430 5700
08/21/02 540 140 60 09/18/02 4250 750 1600 11/15/02 600 33 433
08/22/02 440 220 180 09/20/02 4700 12600 11100 11/21/02 233 1 367
08/26/02 160 440 640 09/23/02 3800 5600 2950 11/27/02 85 50 77
08/27/02 22000 3560 2580 09/25/02 2200 500 150 12/04/02 62 85 100
08/28/02 3250 1900 1450 09/27/02 11900 1450 800 12/13/02 2000 300 270
09/03/02 100 350 450 10/02/02 1200 1000 300 12/18/02 69 54 110
09/04/02 10150 10000 3750 10/09/02 550 250 150 12/23/02 62 23 50
09/06/02 3950 1750 1400
1 Upstream = Baptist Children’s Home Road; DS-I = SR 2017 bridge; DS-II = SR 2010 bridge

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-19

Table A- 10. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) 303(d) Rich Fork Creek
Fecal Coliform TMDL Project Monitoring Data Summary

Date Previous
Rainfall
Lexington Ave
(RF1)
Midway School
(RF2) (RF2a)
Kanoy Rd RF3 Old Hwy 29
(RF4)
6/5/2003 <48 2670 5900 6200
6/23/2003 48 940 5700 665 386
6/24/2003 72 1060 860 520 410
7/1/2003 72+ 520 540 860 162
7/9/2003 48 476 670 530 370
7/16/2003 48+ 1014 negative 5900 positive negative 420 negative
7/17/2003 72+ 300 negative 900 positive 540 positive 345 positive
7/25/2003 48 493 negative 1160 negative 1090 650 positive 680 negative
Geometric Means:
1st 5/30 518 1174 730 358
2nd 5/30
Total 749 1683 820 1090 888 525
Note: All data reported in cfu/100ml.
State Limit 200cfu/100mL
Shading designates 5/30 sampling

Appendix VIII-a. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) 303(d) Hamby Creek
Fecal Coliform TMDL Project Monitoring Data Summary

Previous Lake Rd Squire Bowers Rd
Date Rainfall Lake Rd H1 Baptist
Rd H1a
Squire Bowers Rd
H2
Hilltop Rd H2a DNA
Human
6/5/2003 <48 19200 4300 5800
6/23/2003 48 1538 585 7
6/24/2003 72 2200 420 600
7/1/2003 72+ 553 300 500
7/9/2003 48 903 220 390
7/16/2003 48+ 1242 positive 570 positive 330 negative
7/17/2003 72+ 980 negative 230 positive 335 negative
7/25/2003 48 455 positive 430 440 360 negative 31 320 negative
Geometric Means:
1st 5/30 773 315 370
2nd 5/30
Total 1435 430 440 489 31 337
Note: All data reported in cfu/100ml.
State Limit 200cfu/100mL
Shading designates 5/30 sampling

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

A-20

Figure A- 1. Flow at USGS gage on Abbots Creek near Lexington
(USGS2121500)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Oct-88 Jul-90 Apr-92 Jan-94 Oct-95 Jul-97 Apr-99 Jan-01
Date
Fl
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-1

APPENDIX B LOAD DURATION CALCULATIONS FOR RICH FORK AND
HAMBY CREEKS

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-2

List of Tables

Table RF1. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, upstream of Westside WWTP……………………….……...… 3
Table RF2. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, YPDRBA data at SR 1755 near High Point YPDRBA
Monitoring ……………………………………………………………………… 4
Table RF2a. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, DWQ Ambient Monitoring Location
(Q5780000 - SR#1800) …………………………………………………………. 5
Table RF3. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, YPDRBA data at SR 1787 near High Point ….…………….. 6
Table RF4. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, YPDRBA data at SR 2123 near High Pooint ..……………….. 7
Table RF5. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, Westside WWTP monitoring data at Old Hwy 29 …………… 8
Table RF5a. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, Westside WWTP Geometric mean data at Old Hwy 29 …...… 9
Table H1. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Hamby Creek, @ Baptist Children Home Road WWTP Upstream
Monitoring Site ……………………………………………………………….…10
Table H2. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Hamby Creek, DWQ Ambient Monitoring Location (Q59060000- SR# 2790) ..11
Table H3. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Hamby Creek, WWTP Monitoring @ SR2017 Bridge …………………………12
Table H3a. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Hamby Creek, @ SR2017 Bridge WWTP Monitoring site (Geometric Mean)…13

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-3

List of Figures

Figure RF1. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek upstream of Westside WWTP ……...…3
Figure RF2. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek at SR 1755 near High Point )YPDRBA
Monitoring) ……...……………………………………………………………..…4
Figure RF2a. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek at DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Location (Q5780000 - SR#1800)……………………………………………....…5
Figure RF3. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek YPDRBA data at SR 1787 near
High Point ……………………..………………………..….……...…………….. 6
Figure RF4. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek YPDRBA data at SR 2123 near
High Pooint ………………………..…….………………………………………. 7
Figure RF5. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek at Old Hwy 29 (Westside WWTP
monitoring) ……………………………………………………………………… 8
Figure RF5a. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek at Old hwy 29 (Westside WWTP
Down stream monitoring Geometric mean data) ….……………….……..…...… 9
Figure H1. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek, @ Baptist Children Home Road WWTP
Upstream Monitoring Site …………………….………………………………... 10
Figure H2. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek, DWQ Ambient Monitoring Location
(Q59060000- SR# 2790) ………………………………………………………...11
Figure H3. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek at SR2017 Bridge WWTP Monitoring
site ..…………………………………………………………………………...…12
Figure H3a. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek at SR2017 Bridge WWTP Monitoring
site (geometric mean)…………………..……………………………………...…13

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-4
Table RF1. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach in
Rich Fork Creek, upstream of Westside WWTP

Interval Existing Load
(counts/day)
Target load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(percent)
95 7.99E+09 3.67E+09 54.1
90 1.09E+10 6.39E+09 41.5
85 1.49E+10 9.40E+09 37.0
80 2.04E+10 1.24E+10 39.3
75 2.78E+10 1.57E+10 43.4
70 3.80E+10 1.92E+10 49.4
65 5.20E+10 2.34E+10 54.9
60 7.10E+10 2.79E+10 60.6
55 9.70E+10 3.22E+10 66.7
50 1.32E+11 3.80E+10 71.3
45 1.81E+11 4.33E+10 76.1
40 2.47E+11 4.94E+10 80.0
35 3.38E+11 5.67E+10 83.2
30 4.61E+11 6.69E+10 85.5
25 6.30E+11 7.93E+10 87.4
20 8.61E+11 9.78E+10 88.6
15 1.18E+12 1.25E+11 89.4
10 1.61E+12 1.81E+11 88.8
5 2.20E+12 3.38E+11 84.6
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 3.18E+12
Allowable load: 5.78E+11
Percent reduction: 81.84%

Figure RF1. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek upstream of Westside
WWTP
y = 3E+12e-0.0624x
R2 = 0.7518
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.00E+15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Exising load Violations
existing Load Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-5
Table RF2. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Rich Fork Creek, YPDRBA data at SR 1755 near High Point YPDRBA Monitoring

Interval Existing Load
(cnts/day)
Target load
(cnts/day)
Reduction (%)
(percent)
95 2.07E+10 3.67E+09 82.3
90 2.54E+10 6.39E+09 74.9
85 3.12E+10 9.40E+09 69.9
80 3.82E+10 1.24E+10 67.6
75 4.69E+10 1.57E+10 66.4
70 5.75E+10 1.92E+10 66.5
65 7.05E+10 2.34E+10 66.8
60 8.65E+10 2.79E+10 67.7
55 1.06E+11 3.22E+10 69.6
50 1.30E+11 3.80E+10 70.8
45 1.59E+11 4.33E+10 72.9
40 1.96E+11 4.94E+10 74.7
35 2.40E+11 5.67E+10 76.4
30 2.94E+11 6.69E+10 77.3
25 3.61E+11 7.93E+10 78.0
20 4.42E+11 9.78E+10 77.9
15 5.42E+11 1.25E+11 77.0
10 6.65E+11 1.81E+11 72.8
5 8.15E+11 3.38E+11 58.5
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 3.49E+12
Allowable load: 8.83E+11
Percent reduction: 74.70%

Figure RF2. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Ck YRBA data at SR 1755 near
High Point YRBA Monitoring
y = 1E+12e-0.0468x
R2 = 0.7223
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Exising load Violations
Existing Load Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-6
Table RF2a. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Rich Fork Creek, DWQ Ambient Monitoring Location (Q5780000 - SR#1800)

Interval Existing Load
(cnts/day)
Target load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(Percent)
95 2.0861E+10 8.07E+09 61.3
90 2.7095E+10 1.44E+10 46.9
85 3.5194E+10 1.91E+10 45.8
80 4.5712E+10 2.54E+10 44.4
75 5.9375E+10 3.32E+10 44.1
70 7.7120E+10 4.24E+10 45.0
65 1.0017E+11 5.19E+10 48.2
60 1.3011E+11 6.31E+10 51.5
55 1.6899E+11 7.54E+10 55.4
50 2.1950E+11 8.84E+10 59.7
45 2.8511E+11 1.05E+11 63.2
40 3.7032E+11 1.21E+11 67.4
35 4.8100E+11 1.39E+11 71.1
30 6.2476E+11 1.62E+11 74.1
25 8.1149E+11 1.94E+11 76.1
20 1.0540E+12 2.46E+11 76.6
15 1.3690E+12 3.12E+11 77.2
10 1.7782E+12 4.48E+11 74.8
5 2.3097E+12 8.50E+11 63.2
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 4.4925E+11
Allowable load: 1.26E+11
Percent reduction: 71.97%

Figure RF2a. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Location (Q5780000 - SR#1800)
y = 3E+12e-0.0523x
R2 = 0.7864
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load
Exising load Violations Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-7
Table RF3. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Rich Fork Creek, YPDRBA data at SR 1787 near High Point

Interval Existing Load
(counts/day)
Target load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(perecent)
95 1.1186E+11 1.6232E+10 85.5
90 1.2226E+11 2.7705E+10 77.3
85 1.3431E+11 3.7222E+10 72.3
80 1.4839E+11 4.9713E+10 66.5
75 1.6500E+11 6.0783E+10 63.2
70 1.8483E+11 7.5258E+10 59.3
65 2.0878E+11 9.0661E+10 56.6
60 2.3816E+11 1.0457E+11 56.1
55 2.7479E+11 1.2253E+11 55.4
50 3.2142E+11 1.3749E+11 57.2
45 3.8223E+11 1.5589E+11 59.2
40 4.6392E+11 1.7576E+11 62.1
35 5.7784E+11 2.0304E+11 64.9
30 7.4457E+11 2.3648E+11 68.2
25 1.0049E+12 2.8915E+11 71.2
20 1.4504E+12 3.4125E+11 76.5
15 2.3278E+12 4.4106E+11 81.1
10 4.5345E+12 6.3250E+11 86.1
5 1.4177E+13 1.1980E+12 91.5
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 1.3284E+13
Allowable load: 3.1811E+12
Percent reduction: 76.05%

Figure RF3. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Ck YRBA data at SR 1787 near
High Point
y = 2E+14x-1.6445
R2 = 0.9155
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Exising load ViolationsExisting Load Power (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-8
Table RF4. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Rich Fork Creek, YPDRBA data at SR 2123 near High Point

Interval Existing Load
(counts/day)
Target load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(percent)
95 6.5816E+10 2.47E+10 62.5
90 7.2740E+10 4.21E+10 42.1
85 8.0853E+10 5.66E+10 30.0
80 9.0449E+10 7.56E+10 16.4
75 1.0192E+11 9.24E+10 9.3
70 1.1580E+11 1.14E+11 1.2
65 1.3281E+11 1.38E+11
60 1.5401E+11 1.59E+11
55 1.8090E+11 1.86E+11
50 2.1579E+11 2.09E+11 3.1
45 2.6223E+11 2.37E+11 9.6
40 3.2607E+11 2.67E+11 18.0
35 4.1744E+11 3.09E+11 26.0
30 5.5520E+11 3.60E+11 35.2
25 7.7792E+11 4.40E+11 43.5
20 1.1755E+12 5.19E+11 55.9
15 2.0015E+12 6.71E+11 66.5
10 4.2376E+12 9.62E+11 77.3
5 1.5277E+13 1.82E+12 88.1
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 6.4110E+11
Allowable load: 2.85E+11
Percent reduction: 55.62%

Figure RF4. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Ck YRBA data at SR 2123 near
High Point
y = 3E+14x-1.85
R2 = 0.9571
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Exising load Violations
Existing Load Power (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-9
Table RF5. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Rich Fork Creek, Westside WWTP monitoring data at Old Hwy 29
Interval Existing Load
(counts/day)
Target load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(percent)
95 1.74E+11 1.82E+10 89.5
90 1.87E+11 3.17E+10 83.1
85 2.03E+11 4.66E+10 77.0
80 2.21E+11 6.13E+10 72.2
75 2.42E+11 7.80E+10 67.7
70 2.66E+11 9.53E+10 64.2
65 2.95E+11 1.16E+11 60.7
60 3.30E+11 1.38E+11 58.0
55 3.73E+11 1.60E+11 57.1
50 4.26E+11 1.88E+11 55.8
45 4.93E+11 2.15E+11 56.5
40 5.81E+11 2.45E+11 57.9
35 7.00E+11 2.81E+11 59.9
30 8.68E+11 3.32E+11 61.8
25 1.12E+12 3.93E+11 64.9
20 1.53E+12 4.85E+11 68.3
15 2.28E+12 6.17E+11 73.0
10 4.02E+12 8.96E+11 77.7
5 1.06E+13 1.68E+12 84.2
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 8.32E+11
Allowable load: 2.57E+11
Percent reduction: 69.04%

Figure RF5. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek WWTP monitoring data at
Old Hwy 29
y = 1E+14x-1.3956
R2 = 0.5459
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.00E+15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Exising load Violations
existing Load Power (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-10
Table RF5a. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Rich Fork Creek, Westside WWTP Geometric mean data at Old Hwy 29

Interval Existing Load
(counts/day)
Target load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(percent)
95 4.60E+10 1.56E+10 66.2
90 5.61E+10 2.24E+10 60.0
85 6.85E+10 2.81E+10 59.0
80 8.35E+10 3.77E+10 54.9
75 1.02E+11 4.77E+10 53.1
70 1.24E+11 6.10E+10 50.9
65 1.51E+11 7.12E+10 53.0
60 1.85E+11 8.43E+10 54.4
55 2.25E+11 9.93E+10 55.9
50 2.75E+11 1.13E+11 58.8
45 3.35E+11 1.30E+11 61.1
40 4.09E+11 1.60E+11 60.9
35 4.98E+11 1.97E+11 60.5
30 6.08E+11 2.31E+11 62.0
25 7.41E+11 2.79E+11 62.4
20 9.04E+11 3.42E+11 62.2
15 1.10E+12 4.15E+11 62.4
10 1.34E+12 5.05E+11 62.5
5 1.64E+12 6.60E+11 59.8
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 7.21E+12
Allowable load: 2.82E+12
Percent reduction: 60.86%

Figure RF5a. Load Duration Curve - Rich Fork Creek WWTP monitoring data
at Old Hwy 29, Geometric Mean
y = 2E+12e-0.0397x
R2 = 0.694
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Exising load Violations
existing Load Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-11
Table H1. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Hamby Creek, @ Baptist Children Home Rd. WWTP Upstream Monitoring Site

Interval Existing Load
(counts/day)
Target Load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(percent)
95 5.2791E+09 1.9497E+09 63.1
90 6.9570E+09 2.7853E+09 60.0
85 9.1683E+09 3.5811E+09 60.9
80 1.2082E+10 4.3769E+09 63.8
75 1.5923E+10 5.5706E+09 65.0
70 2.0984E+10 6.9632E+09 66.8
65 2.7654E+10 8.3559E+09 69.8
60 3.6443E+10 9.9475E+09 72.7
55 4.8027E+10 1.1738E+10 75.6
50 6.3292E+10 1.3728E+10 78.3
45 8.3409E+10 1.5916E+10 80.9
40 1.0992E+11 1.8104E+10 83.5
35 1.4486E+11 2.0890E+10 85.6
30 1.9090E+11 2.4272E+10 87.3
25 2.5158E+11 2.8848E+10 88.5
20 3.3154E+11 3.6288E+10 89.1
15 4.3692E+11 4.5758E+10 89.5
10 5.7580E+11 6.5494E+10 88.6
5 7.5881E+11 1.2313E+11 83.8
Average Values between the 90th and 25th percentile
Existing load: 2.3655E+12
Allowable load: 3.2262E+11
Percent reduction: 86.4%
Figure H1. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek Load Duration Curve @ Baptist
Chidren Home Rd. WWTP Upstream Monitoring Site
y = 1E+12e-0.0552x
R2 = 0.6775
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load
Exising load Violations Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-12
Table H2. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Hamby Creek, DWQ Ambient Monitoring Location (Q59060000- SR# 2790)

Interval Existing
Load (counts/day)
Target Load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(percent)
95 2.7056E+10 1.0337E+10 61.8
90 3.1371E+10 1.4768E+10 52.9
85 3.6684E+10 1.8987E+10 48.2
80 4.3304E+10 2.3206E+10 46.4
75 5.1671E+10 2.9535E+10 42.8
70 6.2409E+10 3.6919E+10 40.8
65 7.6443E+10 4.4303E+10 42.0
60 9.5165E+10 5.2742E+10 44.6
55 1.2075E+11 6.2235E+10 48.5
50 1.5674E+11 7.2784E+10 53.6
45 2.0913E+11 8.4387E+10 59.6
40 2.8868E+11 9.5990E+10 66.7
35 4.1604E+11 1.1076E+11 73.4
30 6.3440E+11 1.2869E+11 79.7
25 1.0449E+12 1.5295E+11 85.4
20 1.9245E+12 1.9240E+11 90.0
15 4.2292E+12 2.4261E+11 94.3
10 1.2829E+13 3.4725E+11 97.3
5 8.5524E+13 6.5284E+11 99.2
Average Values between the 90th and 25th percentile
Existing load: 2.3341E+11
Allowable load: 6.6304E+10
Percent reduction: 71.59%

Figure H-2. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek DWQ Ambient Monitoring
Location (Q59060000- SR# 2790)
y = 7E+15x-2.7369
R2 = 0.8918
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.00E+15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load
Exising load Violations Power (Exising load Violations)
High
Flow
Trans itio
n Flo w
Typical
Flow
Low
Flow
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-13
Table H3. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Hamby Creek, WWTP Monitoring @ SR2017 Bridge

Interval Existing Load
(counts/day)
Target Load
(counts/day)
Reduction
(percent)
95 1.7797E+10 9.5011E+09 46.6
90 2.3666E+10 1.3573E+10 42.6
85 3.1470E+10 1.7451E+10 44.5
80 4.1848E+10 2.1329E+10 49.0
75 5.5648E+10 2.7146E+10 51.2
70 7.3999E+10 3.3933E+10 54.1
65 9.8401E+10 4.0719E+10 58.6
60 1.3085E+11 4.8475E+10 63.0
55 1.7400E+11 5.7201E+10 67.1
50 2.3138E+11 6.6896E+10 71.1
45 3.0768E+11 7.7560E+10 74.8
40 4.0914E+11 8.8225E+10 78.4
35 5.4405E+11 1.0180E+11 81.3
30 7.2346E+11 1.1828E+11 83.7
25 9.6203E+11 1.4058E+11 85.4
20 1.2793E+12 1.7684E+11 86.2
15 1.7011E+12 2.2299E+11 86.9
10 2.2621E+12 3.1916E+11 85.9
5 3.0081E+12 6.0003E+11 80.1
Average values between the 90th and 25th percentile
Existing load: 9.0501E+12
Allowable load: 1.5721E+12
Percent reduction: 82.63%

Figure H3. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek @ SR2017 Bridge
WWTP Monitoring Site
y = 4E+12e-0.057x
R2 = 0.7223
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing Load
Exising load Violations Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

B-14
Table H3a. Calculations of Percent Reduction using Load Duration Curve Approach
in Hamby Creek, @ SR2017 Bridge WWTP Monitoring site (Geometric Mean)

Interval Existing Load Target Load
(counts/day) (counts/day)
Reduction (%)
(percent)
95 1.9383E+10 8.0141E+09 58.7
90 2.3722E+10 1.0809E+10 54.4
85 2.9032E+10 1.3007E+10 55.2
80 3.5531E+10 1.6937E+10 52.3
75 4.3484E+10 2.0731E+10 52.3
70 5.3218E+10 2.5979E+10 51.2
65 6.5131E+10 2.9974E+10 54.0
60 7.9710E+10 3.5416E+10 55.6
55 9.7553E+10 4.1222E+10 57.7
50 1.1939E+11 4.6682E+10 60.9
45 1.4612E+11 5.3465E+10 63.4
40 1.7882E+11 6.5079E+10 63.6
35 2.1885E+11 7.9845E+10 63.5
30 2.6784E+11 9.3509E+10 65.1
25 3.2780E+11 1.1222E+11 65.8
20 4.0117E+11 1.3702E+11 65.8
15 4.9098E+11 1.6598E+11 66.2
10 6.0088E+11 2.0162E+11 66.4
5 7.3539E+11 2.6218E+11 64.3
Average Values between the 90th and 10th percentile
Existing load: 1.8701E+11
Allowable load: 6.7618E+10
Percent reduction: 63.84%

Figure H3a. Load Duration Curve - Hamby Creek @ SR2017 Bridge WWTP
Monitoring site (Geometric Mean)
y = 9E+11e-0.0404x
R2 = 0.7258
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
1.00E+13
1.00E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Flow Exceeded
Lo
a
d

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
/
d
a
y
)
Allowable Load Existing LoadExising load Violations Expon. (Exising load Violations)
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-1

APPENDIX C WWTP EFFLUENT FLOW AND FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA
CONCENTRATION

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-2

Tables

Table C- 1. High Point Westside (Rich Fork Creek) WWTP Effluent Flow and Fecal
Coliform Bacteria Concentration ………………………………………………....3
Table C- 2. Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP Effluent Flow and Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Concentration …………………………………………………………..20

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-3
Table C- 1. High Point Westside (Rich Fork Creek) WWTP Effluent Flow and Fecal
Coliform Bacteria Concentration
Date Flow (cfs)FC Conc.Date Flow (cfs)FC Conc.Date Flow (cfs)FC Conc.
1/1/1996 5.15 2/21/1996 6.66 7000.4/12/1996 5.2 3.
1/2/1996 5.96 160.2/22/1996 5.78 54.4/13/1996 4.78
1/3/1996 5.45 2.2/23/1996 5.49 230.4/14/1996 4.79
1/4/1996 4.95 2.2/24/1996 5.19 4/15/1996 6.38 18.
1/5/1996 4.85 36.2/25/1996 5.4/16/1996 6.23 15.
1/6/1996 4.55 2/26/1996 5.49 20.4/17/1996 5.79 2140.
1/7/1996 4.6 2/27/1996 5.33 16.4/18/1996 5.74 600.
1/8/1996 4.7 10.2/28/1996 5.78 11.4/19/1996 5.7 1500.
1/9/1996 5.15 5.2/29/1996 5.04 7.4/20/1996 5.54
1/10/1996 5.36 2200.3/1/1996 5.24 1900.4/21/1996 5.16
1/11/1996 5.2 1600.3/2/1996 5.4/22/1996 5.5 120.
1/12/1996 5.2 3/3/1996 4.61 4/23/1996 5.31 1280.
1/13/1996 5.6 3/4/1996 4.9 25.4/24/1996 4.93 940.
1/14/1996 6.2 3/5/1996 4.95 1000.4/25/1996 4.93 68.
1/15/1996 7.3/6/1996 6.6 1200.4/26/1996 5.56 60.
1/16/1996 7.33 7.3/7/1996 9.5 820.4/27/1996 4.38
1/17/1996 7.72 10.3/8/1996 7.7 100.4/28/1996 4.16
1/18/1996 9.31 60.3/9/1996 6.1 4/29/1996 6.14 23.
1/19/1996 9.21 18.3/10/1996 5.6 4/30/1996 7.87 6000.
1/20/1996 7.23 3/11/1996 6.2.5/1/1996 5.26
1/21/1996 6.5 3/12/1996 6.04 5/2/1996 5.1 3.
1/22/1996 6.2 7.3/13/1996 5.74 2.5/3/1996 4.89 3.
1/23/1996 5.96 5.3/14/1996 5.74 3.5/4/1996 4.57
1/24/1996 7.37 4000.3/15/1996 5.74 5/5/1996 4.37
1/25/1996 6.5 140.3/16/1996 5.45 5/6/1996 5.31 3.
1/26/1996 6.7 49000.3/17/1996 5.3 5/7/1996 5.28 2.
1/27/1996 10.7 3/18/1996 5.79 2.5/8/1996 4.94 2040.
1/28/1996 7.4 3/19/1996 9.58 25.5/9/1996 4.77 2060.
1/29/1996 7.2 15.3/20/1996 6.89 18.5/10/1996 4.81 8.
1/30/1996 7.32 3.3/21/1996 6.59 3.5/11/1996 4.9
1/31/1996 7.52 10.3/22/1996 6.39 13.5/12/1996 4.21
2/1/1996 6.34 11.3/23/1996 5.99 5/13/1996 4.98 4.
2/2/1996 9.5 3/24/1996 5.59 5/14/1996 4.92 2.
2/3/1996 7.52 3/25/1996 5.38 5.5/15/1996 5.31 10.
2/4/1996 6.83 3/26/1996 5.19 16.5/16/1996 5.18 13.
2/5/1996 5.98 94.3/27/1996 5.67 470.5/17/1996 4.92 25.
2/6/1996 6.27 7.3/28/1996 7.07 600.5/18/1996 4.41
2/7/1996 7.35 18.3/29/1996 5.81 27.5/19/1996 4.25
2/8/1996 8.04 170.3/30/1996 5.24 5/20/1996 4.19 23.
2/9/1996 7.06 120.3/31/1996 5.53 5/21/1996 4.11 5.
2/10/1996 6.17 4/1/1996 7.43 20.5/22/1996 4.04 20.
2/11/1996 5.68 4/2/1996 6.29 15.5/23/1996 4.19 8.
2/12/1996 5.51 26.4/3/1996 6.19.5/24/1996 4.19 5.
2/13/1996 5.53 34.4/4/1996 5.75 5/25/1996 3.8
2/14/1996 5.61 19.4/5/1996 5.19 5/26/1996 3.77
2/15/1996 5.61 5700.4/6/1996 4.78 5/27/1996 5.43 13.
2/16/1996 5.6 710.4/7/1996 4.78 5/28/1996 4.34 47.
2/17/1996 5.13 4/8/1996 5.66 8.5/29/1996 4.17 39.
2/18/1996 4.85 4/9/1996 6.04 5.5/30/1996 3.89 7.
2/19/1996 5.78 2000.4/10/1996 5.27 9.5/31/1996 4.1
2/20/1996 7.35 2100.4/11/1996 5.2 8.6/1/1996 3.66
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-4
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

6/2/1996 3.66 7/23/1996 4.7 210.9/12/1996 5.71 135.
6/3/1996 4.4 6.7/24/1996 4.29 48.9/13/1996 5.19 80.
6/4/1996 4.3 7/25/1996 5.97 42.9/14/1996 3.23
6/5/1996 4.2 7/26/1996 4.25 220.9/15/1996 2.94
6/6/1996 4.58 7/27/1996 3.47 9/16/1996 3.49 55.
6/7/1996 4.25 33.7/28/1996 5.66 9/17/1996 3.49 1080.
6/8/1996 4.4 7/29/1996 4.54 21.9/18/1996 4.02 230.
6/9/1996 4.43 7/30/1996 4.61 24.9/19/1996 4.07 39.
6/10/1996 4.52 3.7/31/1996 5.09 51.9/20/1996 4.69.
6/11/1996 4.25 3.8/1/1996 5.42 16.9/21/1996 3.66
6/12/1996 4.56 10.8/2/1996 4.5 2.9/22/1996 3.47
6/13/1996 4.32 3.8/3/1996 4.05 9/23/1996 3.84 7.
6/14/1996 4.26 8/4/1996 3.9 9/24/1996 3.5 6.
6/15/1996 3.86 8/5/1996 4.63 10.9/25/1996 3.33 6.
6/16/1996 3.72 8/6/1996 4.66 23.9/26/1996 3.43 2.
6/17/1996 4.57 15.8/7/1996 5.57 90.9/27/1996 3.2 16.
6/18/1996 4.37 170.8/8/1996 4.78 27.9/28/1996 3.06
6/19/1996 5.62 480.8/9/1996 4.71 7.9/29/1996 2.93
6/20/1996 4.42 60.8/10/1996 3.95 9/30/1996 3.11 5.
6/21/1996 4.38 130.8/11/1996 4.01 10/1/1996 5.58 900.
6/22/1996 3.91 8/12/1996 6.34 23.10/2/1996 4.48.
6/23/1996 3.77 8/13/1996 5.20.10/3/1996 3.86 92.
6/24/1996 4.35 2.8/14/1996 4.22 5.10/4/1996 4.55 26.
6/25/1996 4.18 5.8/15/1996 3.76 9.10/5/1996 3.92
6/26/1996 4.16 9.8/16/1996 3.72 8.10/6/1996 2.93
6/27/1996 4.16 24.8/17/1996 3.15 10/7/1996 3.79 6.
6/28/1996 4.14 23.8/18/1996 3.18 10/8/1996 5.2
6/29/1996 3.75 8/19/1996 3.36 10/9/1996 4.87 21.
6/30/1996 3.41 8/20/1996 3.35 1.10/10/1996 4.08 5.
7/1/1996 3.64 1.8/21/1996 3.55 5.10/11/1996 3.78 5.
7/2/1996 3.82 8/22/1996 3.47 40.10/12/1996 3.57
7/3/1996 3.59 4.8/23/1996 3.55 260.10/13/1996 3.58
7/4/1996 3.2 8/24/1996 7.44 10/14/1996 3.75 4.
7/5/1996 3.17 3.8/25/1996 4.02 10/15/1996 3.95 21.
7/6/1996 3.03 8/26/1996 4.09 5.10/16/1996 3.63 1.
7/7/1996 3.06 8/27/1996 4.64 6.10/17/1996 3.66 1.
7/8/1996 3.68 8/28/1996 4.41 56.10/18/1996 3.79 3.
7/9/1996 4.18 25.8/29/1996 4.52 5910.10/19/1996 3.11
7/10/1996 3.89 1440.8/30/1996 4.45 1020.10/20/1996 3.08
7/11/1996 3.94 7.8/31/1996 4.53 10/21/1996 3.43
7/12/1996 4.41 6.9/1/1996 3.23 10/22/1996 3.44 2.
7/13/1996 3.22 9/2/1996 2.64 10/23/1996 3.44
7/14/1996 3.41 9/3/1996 11.8 20.10/24/1996 3.42 82.
7/15/1996 5.04 9/4/1996 10/25/1996 3.23 36.
7/16/1996 4.7 2.9/5/1996 10/26/1996 2.91
7/17/1996 3.89 55.9/6/1996 8.55 10/27/1996 2.86
7/18/1996 3.93 35.9/7/1996 9.07 10/28/1996 3.26 250.
7/19/1996 4.31 1.9/8/1996 7.61 10/29/1996 3.28 102.
7/20/1996 3.99 9/9/1996 5.41 25.10/30/1996 3.19 21.
7/21/1996 3.67 9/10/1996 7.62 140.10/31/1996 3.1 600.
7/22/1996 4.44 55.9/11/1996 6.79 210.11/1/1996 3.5 4.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-5

Table C- 1 (Continued…)

11/2/1996 3.22 12/23/1996 3.7 1.2/12/1997 3.93 46.
11/3/1996 2.66 12/24/1996 4.16 2/13/1997 5.06 53.
11/4/1996 3.23 7.12/25/1996 3.49 2/14/1997 7.27 450.
11/5/1996 3.18 4.12/26/1996 3.8 2/15/1997 7.25
11/6/1996 3.35 33.12/27/1996 3.82 2/16/1997 5.83
11/7/1996 3.52 8.12/28/1996 3.6 2/17/1997 5.57 4.
11/8/1996 4.77 4.12/29/1996 3.53 2/18/1997 5.06 48.
11/9/1996 3.32 12/30/1996 4.85 2/19/1997 4.89 42.
11/10/1996 3.12/31/1996 4.06 2/20/1997 4.49 30.
11/11/1996 3.37 3.1/1/1997 3.34 1.2/21/1997 4.84 30.
11/12/1996 3.55 11.1/2/1997 3.74 9.2/22/1997 4.18
11/13/1996 3.36 12.1/3/1997 3.62 2/23/1997 3.85
11/14/1996 3.49 13.1/4/1997 3.52 2/24/1997 5.01 4.
11/15/1996 3.31 5.1/5/1997 3.96 2/25/1997 3.01 5.
11/16/1996 2.99 1/6/1997 3.99 1.2/26/1997 4.39 20.
11/17/1996 3.1/7/1997 4.06 1.2/27/1997 5.3 22.
11/18/1996 3.46 14.1/8/1997 4.06 1.2/28/1997 6.97 1190.
11/19/1996 3.72 22.1/9/1997 7.11 5.3/1/1997 6.12
11/20/1996 3.12 430.1/10/1997 5.76 47.3/2/1997 5.36
11/21/1996 3.66 1060.1/11/1997 4.91 3/3/1997 5.93 9.
11/22/1996 2.98 4450.1/12/1997 4.38 3/4/1997 5.06 600.
11/23/1996 2.76 1/13/1997 4.01 1480.3/5/1997 5.63 14.
11/24/1996 2.7 1/14/1997 4.04 2060.3/6/1997 5.64 10.
11/25/1996 3.54 85.1/15/1997 4.37 1890.3/7/1997 4.95 8.
11/26/1996 3.49 54.1/16/1997 6.06 2860.3/8/1997 4.34
11/27/1996 2.8 7.1/17/1997 4.52 31.3/9/1997 4.31
11/28/1996 3.84 1/18/1997 3.89 3/10/1997 4.5 280.
11/29/1996 3.1/19/1997 3.75 3/11/1997 4.3 750.
11/30/1996 3.96 1/20/1997 4.06 3/12/1997 4.21 760.
12/1/1996 6.38 1/21/1997 4.06 30.3/13/1997 4.43 18.
12/2/1996 4.98 16.1/22/1997 4.19 440.3/14/1997 5.71 55.
12/3/1996 4.23 42.1/23/1997 3.98 1090.3/15/1997 4.31
12/4/1996 3.88 2.1/24/1997 4.48 170.3/16/1997 3.85
12/5/1996 5.52 9.1/25/1997 4.6 3/17/1997 4.06 6.
12/6/1996 4.63 220.1/26/1997 3.8 3/18/1997 4.26 20.
12/7/1996 5.58 1/27/1997 4.12 54.3/19/1997 6.27 1030.
12/8/1996 4.69 1/28/1997 5.07 94.3/20/1997 5.43 56.
12/9/1996 4.1 1/29/1997 4.46 310.3/21/1997 4.69 11.
12/10/1996 3.93 5.1/30/1997 4.2 54.3/22/1997 3.74
12/11/1996 3.92 2.1/31/1997 5.13 96.3/23/1997 3.27
12/12/1996 5.44 1.2/1/1997 3.99 3/24/1997 3.62 17.
12/13/1996 6.41 42.2/2/1997 3.6 3/25/1997 4.47 33.
12/14/1996 4.64 2/3/1997 3.79 48.3/26/1997 5.05 100.
12/15/1996 4.42 2/4/1997 3.96 1.3/27/1997 3.99 10.
12/16/1996 4.27 2.2/5/1997 4.1 13.3/28/1997 3.86
12/17/1996 5.11 1.2/6/1997 3.99 22.3/29/1997 3.4
12/18/1996 4.58 78.2/7/1997 4.02 5.3/30/1997 3.72
12/19/1996 4.51 3.2/8/1997 4.46 3/31/1997 3.65 5.
12/20/1996 3.94 2.2/9/1997 3.74 4/1/1997 3.45 5.
12/21/1996 3.94 2/10/1997 4.93 14.4/2/1997 3.36 55.
12/22/1996 3.49 2/11/1997 3.98 9.4/3/1997 3.31 3.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-6

Table C- 1 (Continued…)

4/4/1997 3.23 3.5/25/1997 2.93 7/15/1997 2.41 3.
4/5/1997 3.05 5/26/1997 3.2 7.7/16/1997 2.62 60.
4/6/1997 4.79 5/27/1997 3.2 30.7/17/1997 2.37 6.
4/7/1997 5.7.5/28/1997 2.24 13.7/18/1997 2.44 9.
4/8/1997 3.67 24.5/29/1997 2.28 1.7/19/1997 2.15
4/9/1997 3.57 20.5/30/1997 3.04 16.7/20/1997 2.39
4/10/1997 3.39 13.5/31/1997 2.94 7/21/1997 2.45 74.
4/11/1997 3.46 6.6/1/1997 2.92 7/22/1997 4.13 21.
4/12/1997 4.9 6/2/1997 3.51 72.7/23/1997 3.94 3720.
4/13/1997 3.57 6/3/1997 3.19 9.7/24/1997 4.35 12.
4/14/1997 3.61 5.6/4/1997 3.05 10.7/25/1997 3.36 56.
4/15/1997 3.47 4.6/5/1997 2.94 6.7/26/1997 2.86
4/16/1997 3.39 8.6/6/1997 3.45 1.7/27/1997 2.73
4/17/1997 3.31 4.6/7/1997 3.8 7/28/1997 3.18 26.
4/18/1997 3.06 11.6/8/1997 3.29 7/29/1997 3.15 17.
4/19/1997 2.85 6/9/1997 2.81 1.7/30/1997 3.62 37.
4/20/1997 2.78 6/10/1997 2.86 1.7/31/1997 3.53 25.
4/21/1997 3.89 3.6/11/1997 2.94 2.8/1/1997 3.45 38.
4/22/1997 4.98 210.6/12/1997 3.82 3.8/2/1997 2.75
4/23/1997 6.3 4060.6/13/1997 3.32 600.8/3/1997 2.89
4/24/1997 4.93 21.6/14/1997 2.75 8/4/1997 3.54 68.
4/25/1997 4.42 15.6/15/1997 2.65 8/5/1997 4.6 110.
4/26/1997 4.8 6/16/1997 2.95 3.8/6/1997 3.94 48.
4/27/1997 5.14 6/17/1997 3.12 4.8/7/1997 4.21 75.
4/28/1997 4.63 13.6/18/1997 2.99 8/8/1997 4.6 17.
4/29/1997 5.88 1282.6/19/1997 2.96 8/9/1997 3.41
4/30/1997 5.67 320.6/20/1997 3.05 150.8/10/1997 3.2
5/1/1997 4.73 2250.6/21/1997 2.69 8/11/1997 3.87 4.
5/2/1997 4.32 120.6/22/1997 2.66 8/12/1997 3.88 170.
5/3/1997 5.33 6/23/1997 3.11 12.8/13/1997 3.94 130.
5/4/1997 4.36 6/24/1997 3.09 8/14/1997 3.78 300.
5/5/1997 4.8 92.6/25/1997 3.13 2.8/15/1997 2.73 66.
5/6/1997 4.56 11.6/26/1997 3.18 8/16/1997 2.47
5/7/1997 3.79 44.6/27/1997 3.03 1.8/17/1997 3.
5/8/1997 3.87 12.6/28/1997 2.74 8/18/1997 3.4 140.
5/9/1997 3.72 22.6/29/1997 2.5 8/19/1997 4.22 45.
5/10/1997 2.93 6/30/1997 2.86 4.8/20/1997 3.03 35.
5/11/1997 2.9 7/1/1997 3.32 8.8/21/1997 2.52 29.
5/12/1997 3.4 15.7/2/1997 2.98 11.8/22/1997 2.36 30.
5/13/1997 3.35 35.7/3/1997 2.81 12.8/23/1997 1.96
5/14/1997 3.32 58.7/4/1997 2.75 8/24/1997 2.05
5/15/1997 3.16 27.7/5/1997 2.5 8/25/1997 2.29 7.
5/16/1997 3.05 52.7/6/1997 2.53 8/26/1997 2.36 66.
5/17/1997 2.89 7/7/1997 2.98 8/27/1997 2.32 84.
5/18/1997 2.82 7/8/1997 2.94 56.8/28/1997 2.38 59.
5/19/1997 3.03 600.7/9/1997 3.23 2.8/29/1997 2.5 29.
5/20/1997 3.21 21.7/10/1997 2.89 3.8/30/1997 2.11
5/21/1997 2.92 55.7/11/1997 2.72 8/31/1997 2.09
5/22/1997 3.1 21.7/12/1997 2.34 9/1/1997 2.63
5/23/1997 2.81 20.7/13/1997 2.27 9/2/1997 2.8 82.
5/24/1997 2.54 7/14/1997 2.53 1.9/3/1997 2.57 34.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-7

Table C- 1 (Continued…)
9/4/1997 2.58 2490.10/25/1997 2.34 12/15/1997 2.68 21.
9/5/1997 2.4 770.10/26/1997 3.84 12/16/1997 2.77 10.
9/6/1997 2.11 10/27/1997 2.31 48.12/17/1997 2.62 32.
9/7/1997 2.07 10/28/1997 2.42 11.12/18/1997 2.7 27.
9/8/1997 2.33 380.10/29/1997 2.61 100.12/19/1997 2.56 52.
9/9/1997 3.13 1080.10/30/1997 2.67 33.12/20/1997 2.35
9/10/1997 3.02 650.10/31/1997 2.53 6.12/21/1997 2.45
9/11/1997 2.64 60.11/1/1997 2.31 12/22/1997 3.92 31.
9/12/1997 2.64 40.11/2/1997 3.11 12/23/1997 3.05 62.
9/13/1997 1.86 11/3/1997 3.11 11.12/24/1997 4.29
9/14/1997 2.21 11/4/1997 3.14 23.12/25/1997 2.85
9/15/1997 2.48 440.11/5/1997 2.56 38.12/26/1997 2.92
9/16/1997 2.59 110.11/6/1997 2.68 102.12/27/1997 4.41
9/17/1997 2.57 51.11/7/1997 2.52 102.12/28/1997 3.12
9/18/1997 2.38 66.11/8/1997 2.24 12/29/1997 3.29 24.
9/19/1997 2.34 42.11/9/1997 2.14 12/30/1997 3.65 60.
9/20/1997 2.05 11/10/1997 2.7 82.12/31/1997 3.11 39.
9/21/1997 1.98 11/11/1997 2.78 34.1/1/1998 2.74 14.
9/22/1997 2.5 53.11/12/1997 3.240.1/2/1998 3.03
9/23/1997 2.56 900.11/13/1997 4.12 250.1/3/1998 2.92
9/24/1997 3.93 340.11/14/1997 3.1 500.1/4/1998 2.78
9/25/1997 2.78 84.11/15/1997 2.28 1/5/1998 2.99 290.
9/26/1997 2.57 42.11/16/1997 2.21 1/6/1998 5.12 700.
9/27/1997 2.23 11/17/1997 2.48 114.1/7/1998 7.59 5720.
9/28/1997 2.5 11/18/1997 2.62 1050.1/8/1998 7.85 2560.
9/29/1997 2.68 76.11/19/1997 2.63 900.1/9/1998 5.23 78.
9/30/1997 2.61 42.11/20/1997 2.65 1430.1/10/1998 3.82
10/1/1997 2.6 21.11/21/1997 4.15 3750.1/11/1998 3.47
10/2/1997 2.56 34.11/22/1997 2.85 1/12/1998 3.62 37.
10/3/1997 2.58 15.11/23/1997 2.48 1/13/1998 5.28 65.
10/4/1997 2.23 11/24/1997 2.78 125.1/14/1998 3.6 20.
10/5/1997 2.62 11/25/1997 2.77 200.1/15/1998 7.59 1630.
10/6/1997 2.53 18.11/26/1997 2.86 42.1/16/1998 7.54 57.
10/7/1997 2.67 10.11/27/1997 2.27 1/17/1998 5.11
10/8/1997 2.68 1700.11/28/1997 2.57 1/18/1998 4.17
10/9/1997 2.56 68.11/29/1997 2.52 1/19/1998 5.7
10/10/1997 2.62 180.11/30/1997 3.89 1/20/1998 4.44 24.
10/11/1997 2.27 12/1/1997 3.16 20.1/21/1998 4.30.
10/12/1997 2.21 12/2/1997 2.85 33.1/22/1998 4.97 19.
10/13/1997 2.56 24.12/3/1997 3.05 25.1/23/1998 6.42 48.
10/14/1997 2.75 44.12/4/1997 2.96 29.1/24/1998 5.61
10/15/1997 2.78 60.12/5/1997 2.64 13.1/25/1998 4.29
10/16/1997 2.82 63.12/6/1997 2.31 1/26/1998 4.3 24.
10/17/1997 2.77 17.12/7/1997 2.29 1/27/1998 7.22 23.
10/18/1997 2.48 12/8/1997 2.8 1.1/28/1998 6.43 37.
10/19/1997 3.16 12/9/1997 2.89 9.1/29/1998 5.86 50.
10/20/1997 3.6 11.12/10/1997 2.98 11.1/30/1998 4.96 8.
10/21/1997 2.72 4.12/11/1997 2.68 4.1/31/1998 4.12
10/22/1997 2.82 20.12/12/1997 2.57 7.2/1/1998 3.86
10/23/1997 2.75 88.12/13/1997 2.34 2/2/1998 4.16 1.
10/24/1997 2.76 55.12/14/1997 2.32 2/3/1998 6.43 1.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-8

Table C- 1 (Continued…)

2/4/1998 8.1 1220.3/27/1998 3.86 24.5/17/1998 2.93
2/5/1998 7.45 340.3/28/1998 3.46 5/18/1998 3.03 1.
2/6/1998 5.54 1.3/29/1998 3.42 5/19/1998 2.87 1.
2/7/1998 4.53 3/30/1998 3.73 18.5/20/1998 3.17
2/8/1998 4.07 3/31/1998 3.59 14.5/21/1998 2.83 7.
2/9/1998 4.04 4/1/1998 3.94 78.5/22/1998 2.79 76.
2/10/1998 4.02 1.4/2/1998 3.41 110.5/23/1998 3.21
2/11/1998 4.82 1.4/3/1998 4.51 30.5/24/1998 2.51
2/12/1998 4.26 4/4/1998 3.36 5/25/1998 2.84 78.
2/13/1998 3.93 1.4/5/1998 2.38 5/26/1998 4.03 1.
2/14/1998 3.4 4/6/1998 3.41 13.5/27/1998 3.13 8.
2/15/1998 3.33 4/7/1998 3.28 66.5/28/1998 3.08 6.
2/16/1998 6.84 3.4/8/1998 3.36 33.5/29/1998 2.84 3.
2/17/1998 6.6 1.4/9/1998 5.52 40.5/30/1998 3.19
2/18/1998 6.64 1470.4/10/1998 3.71 5/31/1998 2.53
2/19/1998 5.59 1.4/11/1998 3.1 6/1/1998 2.93
2/20/1998 4.89 3.4/12/1998 2.86 6/2/1998 2.98 1.
2/21/1998 4.01 4/13/1998 3.48 6.6/3/1998 3.48 3.
2/22/1998 4.19 4/14/1998 3.74 1.6/4/1998 3.12 5.
2/23/1998 6.79 31.4/15/1998 3.78 2.6/5/1998 2.95 4.
2/24/1998 4.64 2.4/16/1998 5.3 6.6/6/1998 3.98
2/25/1998 4.37 3.4/17/1998 8.11 1080.6/7/1998 2.79
2/26/1998 4.19 4.4/18/1998 8.11 6/8/1998 2.29
2/27/1998 4.48 4.4/19/1998 8.16 6/9/1998 2.93 3.
2/28/1998 3.7 4/20/1998 7.49 6.6/10/1998 3.79 14.
3/1/1998 3.46 4/21/1998 5.95 3.6/11/1998 3.06 3.
3/2/1998 3.86 1.4/22/1998 5.02 1.6/12/1998 3.87 2.
3/3/1998 3.66 1.4/23/1998 4.7 6/13/1998 2.48
3/4/1998 3.55 2.4/24/1998 4.21 4.6/14/1998 3.88
3/5/1998 3.47 1.4/25/1998 3.69 6/15/1998 5.41 17.
3/6/1998 3.38 12.4/26/1998 3.47 6/16/1998 3.5 1.
3/7/1998 3.46 4/27/1998 3.73 4.6/17/1998 3.08 13.
3/8/1998 7.18 4/28/1998 3.41 6.6/18/1998 2.38 50.
3/9/1998 7.43 1220.4/29/1998 3.36 11.6/19/1998 2.94
3/10/1998 5.82 56.4/30/1998 3.47 42.6/20/1998 2.58
3/11/1998 4.83 5700.5/1/1998 3.95 66.6/21/1998 2.52
3/12/1998 4.47 700.5/2/1998 2.96 6/22/1998 2.89
3/13/1998 4.34 5/3/1998 3.3 6/23/1998 2.88 10.
3/14/1998 3.94 5/4/1998 3.63 47.6/24/1998 2.88 1.
3/15/1998 3.92 5/5/1998 3.26 46.6/25/1998 2.74 37.
3/16/1998 3.97 3040.5/6/1998 3.03 60.6/26/1998 2.63 9.
3/17/1998 3.95 1880.5/7/1998 5.23 7.6/27/1998 2.38
3/18/1998 5.37 190.5/8/1998 6.9 29.6/28/1998 2.3
3/19/1998 6.77 165.5/9/1998 4.5 6/29/1998 3.2 5.
3/20/1998 6.42 96.5/10/1998 5.72 6/30/1998 3.64 1.
3/21/1998 5.68 5/11/1998 5.32 4.7/1/1998 2.87 5.
3/22/1998 4.72 5/12/1998 4.19 4.7/2/1998 2.68 11.
3/23/1998 4.53 4.5/13/1998 3.81 1480.7/3/1998 2.41
3/24/1998 4.2 6.5/14/1998 3.52 31.7/4/1998 2.26
3/25/1998 4.15 19.5/15/1998 3.25 33.7/5/1998 2.26
3/26/1998 4.08 13.5/16/1998 3.09 7/6/1998 2.64
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-9

Table C- 1 (Continued…)

7/7/1998 2.7 1.8/27/1998 2.47 5.10/17/1998 1.53
7/8/1998 2.79 1.8/28/1998 2.38 2.10/18/1998 2.29
7/9/1998 2.7 1.8/29/1998 2.48 10/19/1998 2.87 2.
7/10/1998 2.63 3.8/30/1998 2.39 10/20/1998 2.46 21.
7/11/1998 2.33 8/31/1998 2.62 31.10/21/1998 2.31 1.
7/12/1998 2.29 9/1/1998 2.51 58.10/22/1998 2.49 1.
7/13/1998 2.72 34.9/2/1998 2.51 1600.10/23/1998 2.28 6.
7/14/1998 2.58 25.9/3/1998 4.31 4.10/24/1998 2.36
7/15/1998 2.64 40.9/4/1998 2.96 16.10/25/1998 2.43
7/16/1998 3.02 15.9/5/1998 2.1 10/26/1998 2.74 11.
7/17/1998 2.64 52.9/6/1998 2.02 10/27/1998 2.13 12.
7/18/1998 2.18 9/7/1998 2.38 10/28/1998 2.42 10.
7/19/1998 2.24 9/8/1998 3.31 2850.10/29/1998 2.62 60.
7/20/1998 2.51 9/9/1998 2.67 6.10/30/1998 2.14 6.
7/21/1998 2.47 9/10/1998 2.46 45.10/31/1998 1.89
7/22/1998 2.63 42.9/11/1998 2.13 7.11/1/1998 1.92
7/23/1998 2.58 477.9/12/1998 2.11/2/1998 1.9 24.
7/24/1998 2.48 480.9/13/1998 2.03 11/3/1998 2.75 74.
7/25/1998 2.07 9/14/1998 2.48 1.11/4/1998 2.41 30.
7/26/1998 2.01 9/15/1998 2.47 6.11/5/1998 2.36 91.
7/27/1998 2.95 27.9/16/1998 2.52 9.11/6/1998 2.16 16.
7/28/1998 2.64 1.9/17/1998 2.52 3.11/7/1998 1.91
7/29/1998 2.51 16.9/18/1998 2.53 5.11/8/1998 2.01
7/30/1998 2.46 9/19/1998 2.22 11/9/1998 2.65 12.
7/31/1998 2.7 2.9/20/1998 2.24 11/10/1998 2.61 12.
8/1/1998 2.06 9/21/1998 2.99 11/11/1998 2.85 54.
8/2/1998 1.96 9/22/1998 2.94 4.11/12/1998 2.38 52.
8/3/1998 2.49 9/23/1998 2.53 11/13/1998 2.3 15.
8/4/1998 2.37 9/24/1998 2.43 1.11/14/1998 2.54
8/5/1998 2.34 1065.9/25/1998 2.47 6.11/15/1998 2.13
8/6/1998 2.47 5.9/26/1998 2.08 11/16/1998 3.05 186.
8/7/1998 3.26 9/27/1998 2.12 11/17/1998 2.46 9.
8/8/1998 3.16 9/28/1998 2.48 4.11/18/1998 2.32 176.
8/9/1998 4.36 9/29/1998 2.48 46.11/19/1998 2.46 7.
8/10/1998 4.84 9/30/1998 2.18 5.11/20/1998 2.32 44.
8/11/1998 3.7 17.10/1/1998 2.5 7.11/21/1998 1.94
8/12/1998 3.56 10/2/1998 2.28 11.11/22/1998 1.93
8/13/1998 3.44 3.10/3/1998 1.98 11/23/1998 2.5 8.
8/14/1998 2.53 1.10/4/1998 2.07 11/24/1998 2.38 31.
8/15/1998 2.29 10/5/1998 2.48 1.11/25/1998 2.63 6.
8/16/1998 2.62 10/6/1998 2.51 3.11/26/1998 1.96
8/17/1998 2.91 10.10/7/1998 2.69 13.11/27/1998 1.98
8/18/1998 2.66 8.10/8/1998 3.04 43.11/28/1998 1.86
8/19/1998 2.53 1.10/9/1998 2.49 7.11/29/1998 1.92
8/20/1998 2.41 1.10/10/1998 2.28 11/30/1998 2.45 88.
8/21/1998 2.39 5.10/11/1998 2.3 12/1/1998 2.46 258.
8/22/1998 2.07 10/12/1998 2.52 6.12/2/1998 2.51 245.
8/23/1998 2.11 10/13/1998 2.51 2.12/3/1998 2.49 99.
8/24/1998 2.45 10.10/14/1998 2.52 3.12/4/1998 2.28 47.
8/25/1998 2.37 3.10/15/1998 2.44 4.12/5/1998 2.06
8/26/1998 2.51 1.10/16/1998 2.37 41.12/6/1998 2.13

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-10
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

12/7/1998 2.47 115.1/27/1999 3.62 1.3/19/1999 2.88 3.
12/8/1998 3.35 13.1/28/1999 3.37 2.3/20/1999 2.56
12/9/1998 2.69 8.1/29/1999 3.1 11.3/21/1999 4.01
12/10/1998 2.36 9.1/30/1999 2.83 3/22/1999 3.1 39.
12/11/1998 2.25 700.1/31/1999 2.64 3/23/1999 3.1 3.
12/12/1998 2.79 2/1/1999 4.46 2.3/24/1999 3.31 11.
12/13/1998 3.69 2/2/1999 3.97 13.3/25/1999 3.05 1.
12/14/1998 2.64 5.2/3/1999 3.43 90.3/26/1999 2.81
12/15/1998 4.18 4.2/4/1999 3.22 3/27/1999 2.49
12/16/1998 3.31 39.2/5/1999 2.99 7.3/28/1999 2.5
12/17/1998 2.56 2.2/6/1999 2.77 3/29/1999 2.87
12/18/1998 2.4 9.2/7/1999 2.7 3/30/1999 2.93
12/19/1998 2.16 2/8/1999 2.94 3/31/1999 2.97 2.
12/20/1998 2.15 2/9/1999 3.01 3.4/1/1999 5.01 24.
12/21/1998 2.63 1.2/10/1999 2.98 82.4/2/1999 3.25
12/22/1998 2.49 3.2/11/1999 3.02 8.4/3/1999 3.25
12/23/1998 3.1 8.2/12/1999 2.74 4/4/1999 2.94
12/24/1998 4.96 2/13/1999 2.5 4/5/1999 2.66 3.
12/25/1998 2.66 2/14/1999 2.26 4/6/1999 3.03
12/26/1998 2.45 2/15/1999 2.72 1.4/7/1999 2.99 57.
12/27/1998 2.34 2/16/1999 2.65 4/8/1999 3.11.
12/28/1998 2.71 3.2/17/1999 3.2 34.4/9/1999 2.94 4.
12/29/1998 2.73 4.2/18/1999 3.32 62.4/10/1999 2.55
12/30/1998 2.48 11.2/19/1999 3.71 2100.4/11/1999 2.85
12/31/1998 2.48 12.2/20/1999 3.25 4/12/1999 2.98 1.
1/1/1999 2.27 2/21/1999 2.89 4/13/1999 2.83 2.
1/2/1999 4.45 2/22/1999 3.52 1.4/14/1999 2.69 1.
1/3/1999 5.72 2/23/1999 2.97 6.4/15/1999 3.14 12.
1/4/1999 3.45 18.2/24/1999 2.95 4.4/16/1999 2.6 5.
1/5/1999 4.57 2.2/25/1999 2.96 39.4/17/1999 2.24
1/6/1999 3.05 3.2/26/1999 2.84 6.4/18/1999 2.32
1/7/1999 2.86 118.2/27/1999 2.63 4/19/1999 2.91 1.
1/8/1999 2.86 2.2/28/1999 2.6 4/20/1999 5.03 2.
1/9/1999 2.48 3/1/1999 2.77 4/21/1999 3.82 113.
1/10/1999 2.33 3/2/1999 2.88 2.4/22/1999 4.08 135.
1/11/1999 2.77 3/3/1999 3.22 2150.4/23/1999 3.88 15.
1/12/1999 2.81 3/4/1999 2.84 18.4/24/1999 3.5
1/13/1999 2.81 10.3/5/1999 2.72 4.4/25/1999 3.42
1/14/1999 3.21 12.3/6/1999 2.53 4/26/1999 4.16 6.
1/15/1999 3.01 13.3/7/1999 2.31 4/27/1999 4.9 11.
1/16/1999 2.41 3/8/1999 2.95 53.4/28/1999 5.23 107.
1/17/1999 3.43 3/9/1999 3.09 3.4/29/1999 7.66 10.
1/18/1999 5.26 3/10/1999 2.87 6.4/30/1999 8.46 2650.
1/19/1999 3.59 1.3/11/1999 2.9 5/1/1999 5.57
1/20/1999 3.09 7.3/12/1999 2.74 2.5/2/1999 4.54
1/21/1999 3.05 3/13/1999 2.65 5/3/1999 4.93 1.
1/22/1999 2.86 10.3/14/1999 3.78 5/4/1999 4.51 4.
1/23/1999 6.15 3/15/1999 3.55 127.5/5/1999 4.49 10.
1/24/1999 11.11 3/16/1999 3.12 5/6/1999 4.36
1/25/1999 5.54 5.3/17/1999 3.11 17.5/7/1999 3.96
1/26/1999 4.02 2.3/18/1999 3.12 1.5/8/1999 3.67

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-11
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

5/9/1999 3.52 6/29/1999 2.86 62.8/19/1999 3.65 107.
5/10/1999 4.12 6/30/1999 4.5 8/20/1999 4.7 53.
5/11/1999 3.9 7/1/1999 5.57 95.8/21/1999 3.45
5/12/1999 3.89 7/2/1999 3.88 300.8/22/1999 3.34
5/13/1999 4.22 1.7/3/1999 2.85 8/23/1999 4.47
5/14/1999 10.19 4.7/4/1999 2.62 8/24/1999 4.78 9.
5/15/1999 5.39 7/5/1999 2.86 8/25/1999 5.71 46.
5/16/1999 4.48 7/6/1999 3.05 1.8/26/1999 6.3 118.
5/17/1999 4.69 7/7/1999 3.34 1.8/27/1999 5.48 88.
5/18/1999 4.85 7/8/1999 3.12 94.8/28/1999 3.97
5/19/1999 4.5 16.7/9/1999 3.96 9.8/29/1999 3.84
5/20/1999 4.29 8.7/10/1999 3.75 8/30/1999 3.89 47.
5/21/1999 4.67 7/11/1999 3.68 8/31/1999 3.86 5.
5/22/1999 4.47 7/12/1999 4.31 12.9/1/1999 3.9 17.
5/23/1999 4.11 7/13/1999 3.61 30.9/2/1999 3.84 30.
5/24/1999 4.46 2.7/14/1999 3.44 42.9/3/1999 3.71 2.
5/25/1999 4.41 7/15/1999 3.27 102.9/4/1999 3.71
5/26/1999 4.05 40.7/16/1999 3.36 38.9/5/1999 6.71
5/27/1999 4.23 1.7/17/1999 2.71 9/6/1999 4.36
5/28/1999 4.23 145.7/18/1999 2.79 9/7/1999 4.15 3.
5/29/1999 3.66 7/19/1999 3.19 5.9/8/1999 3.66 98.
5/30/1999 3.46 7/20/1999 3.34 9/9/1999 3.9 3.
5/31/1999 3.93 1.7/21/1999 3.79 14.9/10/1999 3.4 21.
6/1/1999 4.1 40.7/22/1999 3.56 25.9/11/1999 3.21
6/2/1999 4.18 1.7/23/1999 3.3 2.9/12/1999 3.04
6/3/1999 4.21 43.7/24/1999 2.89 9/13/1999 3.43
6/4/1999 3.71 39.7/25/1999 2.79 9/14/1999 3.43
6/5/1999 3.83 7/26/1999 3.29 5.9/15/1999 6.06 30.
6/6/1999 3.67 7/27/1999 3.22 10.9/16/1999 4.32 48.
6/7/1999 3.6 26.7/28/1999 3.17 1480.9/17/1999 3.44 5.
6/8/1999 3.45 7/29/1999 3.5 180.9/18/1999 3.18
6/9/1999 3.11 3.7/30/1999 3.15 52.9/19/1999 3.13
6/10/1999 2.5 225.7/31/1999 2.71 9/20/1999 3.49 116.
6/11/1999 3.09 8/1/1999 2.71 9/21/1999 3.39 29.
6/12/1999 2.62 8/2/1999 3.07 5.9/22/1999 3.21 5.
6/13/1999 2.74 8/3/1999 3.03 9/23/1999 3.2 185.
6/14/1999 3.08 1.8/4/1999 2.92 16.9/24/1999 3.02 27.
6/15/1999 3.33 8/5/1999 2.91 6.9/25/1999 2.84
6/16/1999 4.43 22.8/6/1999 2.74 38.9/26/1999 2.91
6/17/1999 3.31 23.8/7/1999 2.56 9/27/1999 5.28 3.
6/18/1999 2.95 3.8/8/1999 2.54 9/28/1999 4.61 96.
6/19/1999 2.87 8/9/1999 3.14 12.9/29/1999 6.98 117.
6/20/1999 3.85 8/10/1999 3.05 20.9/30/1999 4.6 1200.
6/21/1999 3.36 2.8/11/1999 3.08 97.10/1/1999 3.6 42.
6/22/1999 3.3 8/12/1999 3.06 4.10/2/1999 3.28
6/23/1999 3.41 18.8/13/1999 3.12 55.10/3/1999 3.25
6/24/1999 3.67 4.8/14/1999 5.23 10/4/1999 3.89 38.
6/25/1999 3.06 1.8/15/1999 3.95 10/5/1999 3.58 9.
6/26/1999 2.65 8/16/1999 3.81 39.10/6/1999 3.58 13.
6/27/1999 2.89 8/17/1999 3.05 12.10/7/1999 3.74 18.
6/28/1999 3.01 8/18/1999 3.53 100.10/8/1999 3.68 637.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-12
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

10/9/1999 3.14 11/29/1999 3.37 133.1/19/2000 3.82 1.
10/10/1999 4.2 11/30/1999 3.23 480.1/20/2000 4.78 174.
10/11/1999 5.1 220.12/1/1999 3.06 1120.1/21/2000 3.76 3.
10/12/1999 3.82 100.12/2/1999 3.33 440.1/22/2000 3.49
10/13/1999 4.96 114.12/3/1999 3.34 108.1/23/2000 4.05
10/14/1999 3.74 275.12/4/1999 3.12 1/24/2000 4.19 11.
10/15/1999 3.53 16.12/5/1999 3.33 1/25/2000 4.10.
10/16/1999 3.21 12/6/1999 3.65 200.1/26/2000 4.1 18.
10/17/1999 3.97 12/7/1999 3.28 78.1/27/2000 3.96 32.
10/18/1999 2.97 11.12/8/1999 3.28 34.1/28/2000 3.91 2.
10/19/1999 3.54 13.12/9/1999 3.38 40.1/29/2000 3.96
10/20/1999 4.63 143.12/10/1999 3.57 230.1/30/2000 6.71
10/21/1999 3.55 175.12/11/1999 2.96 1/31/2000 6.28 64.
10/22/1999 3.42 617.12/12/1999 3.01 2/1/2000 5.57 19.
10/23/1999 2.83 12/13/1999 4.39 238.2/2/2000 5.05 8.
10/24/1999 2.79 12/14/1999 5.17 4800.2/3/2000 5.34 24.
10/25/1999 3.15 14.12/15/1999 3.84 455.2/4/2000 5.13 2500.
10/26/1999 3.08 16.12/16/1999 3.72 115.2/5/2000 4.49
10/27/1999 3.19 198.12/17/1999 3.49 56.2/6/2000 4.34
10/28/1999 3.16 104.12/18/1999 3.23 2/7/2000 4.78 4.
10/29/1999 2.7 3.12/19/1999 3.19 2/8/2000 4.61 11.
10/30/1999 2.76 12/20/1999 3.64 52.2/9/2000 4.61 9.
10/31/1999 2.97 12/21/1999 4.71 44.2/10/2000 4.4 1.
11/1/1999 3.41 5.12/22/1999 3.86 265.2/11/2000 4.43 14.
11/2/1999 3.79 480.12/23/1999 3.57 600.2/12/2000 7.44
11/3/1999 2.99 500.12/24/1999 3.23 2/13/2000 6.12
11/4/1999 3.03 175.12/25/1999 2.99 2/14/2000 7.21 17.
11/5/1999 3.02 105.12/26/1999 3.19 2/15/2000 5.55 15.
11/6/1999 2.74 12/27/1999 3.52 210.2/16/2000 5.03 5.
11/7/1999 2.68 12/28/1999 3.4 1170.2/17/2000 4.81 3.
11/8/1999 3.11 14.12/29/1999 3.39 620.2/18/2000 5.44
11/9/1999 3.07 57.12/30/1999 3.41 367.2/19/2000 4.54
11/10/1999 3.06 44.12/31/1999 3.2 2/20/2000 4.17
11/11/1999 3.08 62.1/1/2000 2.91 2/21/2000 5.43 1.
11/12/1999 2.78 105.1/2/2000 3.13 2/22/2000 4.46
11/13/1999 2.53 1/3/2000 3.63 5.2/23/2000 4.39
11/14/1999 2.67 1/4/2000 3.63 3.2/24/2000 4.38 1.
11/15/1999 2.91 4.1/5/2000 3.47 2/25/2000 4.25 168.
11/16/1999 2.86 45.1/6/2000 3.44 2.2/26/2000 4.
11/17/1999 3.04 198.1/7/2000 3.2 12.2/27/2000 3.92
11/18/1999 3.24 258.1/8/2000 3.02 2/28/2000 4.09 59.
11/19/1999 3.21 20.1/9/2000 3.92 2/29/2000 3.95 460.
11/20/1999 2.98 1/10/2000 6.36 8.3/1/2000 4.02 126.
11/21/1999 3.22 1/11/2000 4.31 21.3/2/2000 3.99 37.
11/22/1999 3.57 23.1/12/2000 3.95 1.3/3/2000 3.85 7.
11/23/1999 3.49 19.1/13/2000 3.8 3/4/2000 3.49
11/24/1999 3.44 13.1/14/2000 3.45 4.3/5/2000 3.49
11/25/1999 3.05 1/15/2000 3.23 3/6/2000 3.84 308.
11/26/1999 4.99 1/16/2000 3.23 3/7/2000 3.84 4300.
11/27/1999 3.24 1/17/2000 3.54 3/8/2000 3.83 5300.
11/28/1999 3.12 1/18/2000 3.87 1.3/9/2000 3.85 5467.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-13
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

3/10/2000 3.73 3962.4/30/2000 4.08 6/20/2000 3.81 16.
3/11/2000 3.73 5/1/2000 4.4 5.6/21/2000 3.76 5.
3/12/2000 3.26 5/2/2000 4.17 7.6/22/2000 3.78 100.
3/13/2000 3.64 74.5/3/2000 4.12 4.6/23/2000 3.52 3.
3/14/2000 3.64 232.5/4/2000 4.05 820.6/24/2000 3.48
3/15/2000 3.64 60.5/5/2000 3.95 83.6/25/2000 3.48
3/16/2000 6.93 118.5/6/2000 3.6 6/26/2000 3.6 1.
3/17/2000 4.97 33.5/7/2000 3.62 6/27/2000 3.58 32.
3/18/2000 3.69 5/8/2000 4.24.6/28/2000 4.29 62.
3/19/2000 3.49 5/9/2000 3.93 14.6/29/2000 4.12 135.
3/20/2000 6.58 2.5/10/2000 3.96 142.6/30/2000 3.42 50.
3/21/2000 6.92 32.5/11/2000 3.96 700.7/1/2000 3.07
3/22/2000 5.61 2.5/12/2000 3.87 370.7/2/2000 3.05
3/23/2000 4.81 4.5/13/2000 3.36 7/3/2000 3.31
3/24/2000 4.37 1.5/14/2000 3.27 7/4/2000 3.44 43.
3/25/2000 4.07 5/15/2000 3.79 7/5/2000 3.65 130.
3/26/2000 3.69 5/16/2000 3.82 115.7/6/2000 3.53 5.
3/27/2000 3.69 1.5/17/2000 3.86 1.7/7/2000 4.03 6.
3/28/2000 4.62 5/18/2000 3.92 9.7/8/2000 3.13 28.
3/29/2000 4.25 4.5/19/2000 3.65 46.7/9/2000 3.15 280.
3/30/2000 4.12 1.5/20/2000 3.84 7/10/2000 3.61 110.
3/31/2000 4.12 5.5/21/2000 3.92 7/11/2000 3.62 172.
4/1/2000 3.89 5/22/2000 3.77 640.7/12/2000 3.77
4/2/2000 3.71 5/23/2000 3.68 224.7/13/2000 4.09
4/3/2000 6.32 21.5/24/2000 3.71 86.7/14/2000 3.43
4/4/2000 4.84 4.5/25/2000 3.93 300.7/15/2000 3.1
4/5/2000 4.49 5/26/2000 3.41 79.7/16/2000 3.12
4/6/2000 4.47 2.5/27/2000 3.41 7/17/2000 3.51 8.
4/7/2000 4.32 4.5/28/2000 3.46 7/18/2000 3.59 21.
4/8/2000 5.47 5/29/2000 3.54 7/19/2000 3.62 58.
4/9/2000 4.3 5/30/2000 3.57 7.7/20/2000 3.54 145.
4/10/2000 4.46 57.5/31/2000 3.67 2.7/21/2000 3.35 205.
4/11/2000 4.37 4.6/1/2000 3.74 36.7/22/2000 3.55
4/12/2000 4.32 17.6/2/2000 3.56 59.7/23/2000 6.86
4/13/2000 4.78 19.6/3/2000 4.57 7/24/2000 4.3 2081.
4/14/2000 4.53 6/4/2000 3.58 7/25/2000 4.11 245.
4/15/2000 4.79 6/5/2000 4.29 100.7/26/2000 3.85 70.
4/16/2000 4.32 6/6/2000 3.83 24.7/27/2000 3.75 550.
4/17/2000 4.74 3.6/7/2000 3.65 46.7/28/2000 3.54 290.
4/18/2000 4.49 2.6/8/2000 3.62 23.7/29/2000 3.24
4/19/2000 4.25 6/9/2000 3.58 2.7/30/2000 3.28
4/20/2000 4.19 21.6/10/2000 3.26 7/31/2000 4.6 440.
4/21/2000 3.78 6/11/2000 3.35 8/1/2000 4.38 9400.
4/22/2000 3.42 80.6/12/2000 3.62 250.8/2/2000 3.96 119.
4/23/2000 3.51 21.6/13/2000 3.69 450.8/3/2000 3.84 480.
4/24/2000 4.28 35.6/14/2000 3.65 98.8/4/2000 4.56 2400.
4/25/2000 4.2 13.6/15/2000 3.82 1070.8/5/2000 3.47
4/26/2000 4.23 6/16/2000 3.69 122.8/6/2000 3.42
4/27/2000 4.15 6/17/2000 3.32 8/7/2000 3.81 251.
4/28/2000 6.64 6/18/2000 3.34 8/8/2000 3.79 1410.
4/29/2000 4.53 6/19/2000 3.86 8/9/2000 4.61 5200.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-14
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

8/10/2000 4.52 26000.9/30/2000 3.16 11/20/2000 3.55
8/11/2000 3.59 100.10/1/2000 3.14 11/21/2000 3.33 19.
8/12/2000 3.33 10/2/2000 3.55 3.11/22/2000 3.3 2.
8/13/2000 3.32 10/3/2000 3.68 8.11/23/2000 2.78
8/14/2000 3.72 1404.10/4/2000 3.64 9.11/24/2000 2.86
8/15/2000 3.7 2884.10/5/2000 3.57 32.11/25/2000 3.89
8/16/2000 3.82 535.10/6/2000 3.35 8.11/26/2000 3.13
8/17/2000 3.82 79.10/7/2000 3.11/27/2000 3.51 1.
8/18/2000 4.93 12.10/8/2000 2.85 11/28/2000 3.43
8/19/2000 3.24 10/9/2000 3.31 11/29/2000 3.36 1.
8/20/2000 3.28 10/10/2000 3.37 1.11/30/2000 3.25 2.
8/21/2000 3.81 5.10/11/2000 3.4 25.12/1/2000 3.12 1.
8/22/2000 3.77 12.10/12/2000 3.13 3.12/2/2000 2.93
8/23/2000 3.66 190.10/13/2000 3.13 12/3/2000 2.92
8/24/2000 3.59 152.10/14/2000 2.97 12/4/2000 3.32
8/25/2000 3.44 9.10/15/2000 3.03 12/5/2000 3.35
8/26/2000 3.22 10/16/2000 3.53 12/6/2000 3.28
8/27/2000 3.32 10/17/2000 3.67 12/7/2000 3.34
8/28/2000 3.7 1.10/18/2000 3.64 31.12/8/2000 3.19 5.
8/29/2000 3.6 11.10/19/2000 3.54 12/9/2000 3.
8/30/2000 3.96 12.10/20/2000 3.5 12/10/2000 2.94
8/31/2000 4.02 17.10/21/2000 3.26 12/11/2000 3.34
9/1/2000 3.45 4500.10/22/2000 3.31 12/12/2000 3.3 1.
9/2/2000 4.24 10/23/2000 3.68 1.12/13/2000 3.37 24.
9/3/2000 4.71 10/24/2000 3.73 9.12/14/2000 3.43 20.
9/4/2000 3.95 10/25/2000 3.7 6.12/15/2000 3.38 3.
9/5/2000 3.73 32.10/26/2000 3.47 3.12/16/2000 4.19
9/6/2000 3.65 1.10/27/2000 3.41 12/17/2000 3.44
9/7/2000 3.57 7.10/28/2000 3.06 12/18/2000 3.41 7.
9/8/2000 3.57 4.10/29/2000 2.96 12/19/2000 3.69 5.
9/9/2000 3.23 10/30/2000 3.48 12/20/2000 3.49 4.
9/10/2000 3.28 10/31/2000 3.36 6.12/21/2000 3.53 1.
9/11/2000 3.69 11/1/2000 3.38 1.12/22/2000 3.29
9/12/2000 3.6 3.11/2/2000 3.33 12/23/2000 3.09
9/13/2000 3.73 1.11/3/2000 3.23 12/24/2000 2.99
9/14/2000 3.69 1.11/4/2000 3.03 12/25/2000 2.88
9/15/2000 3.48 8.11/5/2000 2.95 12/26/2000 3.26
9/16/2000 3.12 11/6/2000 3.6 12/27/2000 3.37 4.
9/17/2000 3.21 11/7/2000 3.66 12/28/2000 3.31
9/18/2000 4.92 2.11/8/2000 3.71 12/29/2000 3.31
9/19/2000 4.29 200.11/9/2000 3.91 31.12/30/2000 3.04
9/20/2000 3.75 9.11/10/2000 3.24 12/31/2000 2.87
9/21/2000 3.94 8.11/11/2000 2.96 1/1/2001 2.93
9/22/2000 4.09 3.11/12/2000 2.95 1/2/2001 3.3 4.
9/23/2000 4.16 11/13/2000 3.56 1/3/2001 3.2 1.
9/24/2000 3.43 11/14/2000 4.02 33.1/4/2001 3.26 1.
9/25/2000 4.91 11/15/2000 3.33 9.1/5/2001 3.23 3.
9/26/2000 4.03 17.11/16/2000 3.35 2.1/6/2001 3.05
9/27/2000 3.68 59.11/17/2000 3.39 1/7/2001 3.1
9/28/2000 3.65 11/18/2000 2.82 1/8/2001 3.86 5.
9/29/2000 3.43 7.11/19/2000 3.22 1/9/2001 3.35 4.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-15
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

1/10/2001 3.38 8.3/2/2001 3.71 29.4/22/2001 3.64
1/11/2001 3.38 36.3/3/2001 4.6 4/23/2001 4.12 1.
1/12/2001 3.38 11.3/4/2001 5.04 4/24/2001 4.62
1/13/2001 3.07 3/5/2001 4.7 360.4/25/2001 5.05 6.
1/14/2001 2.94 3/6/2001 4.12 31.4/26/2001 3.81 3.
1/15/2001 3.45 3/7/2001 3.89 840.4/27/2001 3.66
1/16/2001 3.37 1.3/8/2001 3.72 94.4/28/2001 3.37
1/17/2001 3.47 9.3/9/2001 3.56 72.4/29/2001 3.32
1/18/2001 4.31 3.3/10/2001 3.31 4/30/2001 3.73
1/19/2001 5.31 15.3/11/2001 3.21 5/1/2001 3.7 3.
1/20/2001 4.84 3/12/2001 4.05 740.5/2/2001 3.7 3.
1/21/2001 3.49 3/13/2001 3.87 358.5/3/2001 3.76 4.
1/22/2001 3.59 3/14/2001 3.82 1.5/4/2001 3.44 5.
1/23/2001 3.62 2.3/15/2001 5.81 19.5/5/2001 3.31
1/24/2001 3.54 5.3/16/2001 4.36 4.5/6/2001 3.24
1/25/2001 3.45 3/17/2001 3.62 5/7/2001 3.55 3.
1/26/2001 3.45 3.3/18/2001 3.71 5/8/2001 3.64 12.
1/27/2001 3.23 3/19/2001 4.06 2.5/9/2001 3.6 70.
1/28/2001 3.17 3/20/2001 5.84 59.5/10/2001 3.67 5.
1/29/2001 3.59 3/21/2001 7.01 16.5/11/2001 3.43 10.
1/30/2001 3.88 3/22/2001 5.11 8.5/12/2001 3.13
1/31/2001 3.54 72.3/23/2001 4.32 17.5/13/2001 2.95
2/1/2001 3.4 3/24/2001 3.93 5/14/2001 3.44 1.
2/2/2001 3.27 3/25/2001 3.64 5/15/2001 3.5
2/3/2001 3.14 3/26/2001 4.27 5/16/2001 4.5 2.
2/4/2001 3.16 3/27/2001 3.87 3.5/17/2001 3.88
2/5/2001 3.45 3/28/2001 4.24 5/18/2001 3.54 2.
2/6/2001 3.41 3/29/2001 7.77 45.5/19/2001 3.14
2/7/2001 3.44 345.3/30/2001 7.47 205.5/20/2001 3.23
2/8/2001 3.36 80.3/31/2001 7.47 5/21/2001 3.92 1.
2/9/2001 3.45 100.4/1/2001 7.15 5/22/2001 3.74 46.
2/10/2001 3.27 4/2/2001 5.7 10.5/23/2001 3.43 1.
2/11/2001 3.17 4/3/2001 5.69 5.5/24/2001 3.51 1.
2/12/2001 4.21 240.4/4/2001 4.92 16.5/25/2001 4.87
2/13/2001 3.1 820.4/5/2001 4.77 2.5/26/2001 4.44
2/14/2001 3.98 7.4/6/2001 4.53 13.5/27/2001 3.04
2/15/2001 4.23 18.4/7/2001 4.08 5/28/2001 3.64
2/16/2001 5.42 24.4/8/2001 4.04 5/29/2001 3.58 2.
2/17/2001 5.82 4/9/2001 4.36 5/30/2001 3.42 94.
2/18/2001 4.07 4/10/2001 4.3 70.5/31/2001 3.42 4.
2/19/2001 4.22 13.4/11/2001 4.25 6/1/2001 4.3
2/20/2001 4.07 32.4/12/2001 4.09 1.6/2/2001 3.23
2/21/2001 3.89 50.4/13/2001 4.01 6/3/2001 3.08
2/22/2001 4.09 615.4/14/2001 3.63 6/4/2001 3.55 1.
2/23/2001 4.01 185.4/15/2001 3.53 6/5/2001 3.54 8.
2/24/2001 3.7 4/16/2001 4.03 2.6/6/2001 3.59 7.
2/25/2001 4.8 4/17/2001 3.9 3.6/7/2001 3.52 56.
2/26/2001 4.25 77.4/18/2001 3.97 2.6/8/2001 3.6 40.
2/27/2001 4.01 117.4/19/2001 4.11 2.6/9/2001 3.05
2/28/2001 3.86 88.4/20/2001 3.98 3.6/10/2001 3.01
3/1/2001 3.77 60.4/21/2001 3.69 6/11/2001 3.5 3.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-16
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

6/12/2001 3.5 250.8/2/2001 3.33 2.9/22/2001 2.88
6/13/2001 4.28 8.8/3/2001 3.32 9/23/2001 2.86
6/14/2001 3.57 4.8/4/2001 3.02 9/24/2001 4.54
6/15/2001 3.55 1.8/5/2001 3.9/25/2001 3.54 3.
6/16/2001 3.09 8/6/2001 3.43 2.9/26/2001 2.74 3.
6/17/2001 2.89 8/7/2001 3.39 32.9/27/2001 3.22
6/18/2001 3.39 8/8/2001 3.74 78.9/28/2001 2.93 2.
6/19/2001 2.7 8/9/2001 3.39 8300.9/29/2001 2.77
6/20/2001 3.18 1.8/10/2001 3.58 14.9/30/2001 2.77
6/21/2001 3.21 8/11/2001 3.68 10/1/2001 3.26
6/22/2001 3.87 16.8/12/2001 3.23 10/2/2001 3.17
6/23/2001 2.89 8/13/2001 4.18 3.10/3/2001 3.26
6/24/2001 2.9 8/14/2001 3.52 245.10/4/2001 3.19 119.
6/25/2001 4.22 8/15/2001 3.4 148.10/5/2001 3.18 1.
6/26/2001 3.76 8/16/2001 3.4 10/6/2001 2.84
6/27/2001 3.5 1.8/17/2001 3.5 1.10/7/2001 2.72
6/28/2001 3.41 1.8/18/2001 3.42 10/8/2001 3.08
6/29/2001 3.26 8/19/2001 3.18 10/9/2001 3.04
6/30/2001 2.96 8/20/2001 3.43 23.10/10/2001 3.21
7/1/2001 3.91 8/21/2001 3.5 225.10/11/2001 3.13 62.
7/2/2001 3.33 4.8/22/2001 3.33 1.10/12/2001 3.04 6.
7/3/2001 3.3 2.8/23/2001 3.62 2.10/13/2001 2.97
7/4/2001 3.95 8/24/2001 3.43 62.10/14/2001 3.67
7/5/2001 3.31 3.8/25/2001 2.98 10/15/2001 3.45 112.
7/6/2001 3.09 8/26/2001 2.99 10/16/2001 3.3
7/7/2001 2.9 8/27/2001 3.35 10/17/2001 3.28 7.
7/8/2001 3.41 8/28/2001 3.42 2.10/18/2001 3.39 2.
7/9/2001 3.4 40.8/29/2001 3.32 23.10/19/2001 3.3 11.
7/10/2001 3.24 1.8/30/2001 3.44 1.10/20/2001 2.97
7/11/2001 3.39 5.8/31/2001 3.32 40.10/21/2001 3.01
7/12/2001 3.2 24.9/1/2001 3.10/22/2001 3.41 36.
7/13/2001 3.11 60.9/2/2001 2.87 10/23/2001 3.4 2.
7/14/2001 2.76 9/3/2001 3.15 10/24/2001 3.49 12.
7/15/2001 2.78 9/4/2001 3.73 10/25/2001 3.24 24.
7/16/2001 3.14 21.9/5/2001 3.38 165.10/26/2001 3.06
7/17/2001 3.26 58.9/6/2001 3.34 2.10/27/2001 2.67
7/18/2001 3.45 4.9/7/2001 3.24 8.10/28/2001 2.71
7/19/2001 3.36 12.9/8/2001 3.02 10/29/2001 3.24 1.
7/20/2001 3.16 3.9/9/2001 3.17 10/30/2001 3.14 1.
7/21/2001 2.9 9/10/2001 3.56 10/31/2001 3.09
7/22/2001 2.87 9/11/2001 3.33 1.11/1/2001 3.23 1.
7/23/2001 3.36 7.9/12/2001 3.29 3.11/2/2001 3.16 3.
7/24/2001 3.35 35.9/13/2001 3.22 49.11/3/2001 2.81
7/25/2001 4.23 35.9/14/2001 3.12 11/4/2001 2.7
7/26/2001 3.87 268.9/15/2001 2.76 11/5/2001 3.13
7/27/2001 3.78 15.9/16/2001 2.83 11/6/2001 3.09 1.
7/28/2001 2.94 9/17/2001 3.3 2.11/7/2001 3.11
7/29/2001 3.12 9/18/2001 3.2 2.11/8/2001 3.15
7/30/2001 3.67 52.9/19/2001 3.29 11/9/2001 3.01
7/31/2001 3.45 460.9/20/2001 3.85 8.11/10/2001 2.79
8/1/2001 3.53 7.9/21/2001 3.21 11/11/2001 2.8

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-17
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

11/12/2001 3.07 21.1/2/2002 3.11 2/22/2002 3.66 210.
11/13/2001 3.14 1/3/2002 3.11 2/23/2002 3.38
11/14/2001 3.16 1/4/2002 3.36 5.2/24/2002 3.32
11/15/2001 3.17 1/5/2002 3.24 2/25/2002 3.74 14.
11/16/2001 3.2 5.1/6/2002 4.46 2/26/2002 3.68 1500.
11/17/2001 2.91 1/7/2002 3.68 2/27/2002 3.6 16.
11/18/2001 2.91 1/8/2002 3.38 1.2/28/2002 3.66 4.
11/19/2001 3.28 2.1/9/2002 3.37 11.3/1/2002 3.66 5.
11/20/2001 3.16 6.1/10/2002 3.31 84.3/2/2002 5.26
11/21/2001 3.14 1/11/2002 3.21 190.3/3/2002 4.99
11/22/2001 2.73 1/12/2002 3.04 3/4/2002 4.28 1.
11/23/2001 3.1 1/13/2002 2.95 3/5/2002 4.04 10.
11/24/2001 3.38 1/14/2002 3.3 3/6/2002 4.08
11/25/2001 3.19 1/15/2002 3.31 3/7/2002 3.97
11/26/2001 3.36 1/16/2002 3.27 3/8/2002 3.9 1.
11/27/2001 3.35 22.1/17/2002 3.41 3/9/2002 3.77
11/28/2001 3.35 2.1/18/2002 3.25 3/10/2002 3.55
11/29/2001 3.4 1/19/2002 6.6 3/11/2002 3.97 3.
11/30/2001 3.35 13.1/20/2002 3.66 3/12/2002 4.83
12/1/2001 2.91 1/21/2002 3.97 3/13/2002 6.36 18.
12/2/2001 2.87 1/22/2002 3.69 3.3/14/2002 5.04 190.
12/3/2001 3.16 2.1/23/2002 8.27 7.3/15/2002 4.42 81.
12/4/2001 3.11 5.1/24/2002 6.39 320.3/16/2002 4.11
12/5/2001 3.18 1/25/2002 5.38 143.3/17/2002 4.71
12/6/2001 3.05 2.1/26/2002 4.15 3/18/2002 4.63 16.
12/7/2001 2.99 1/27/2002 3.88 3/19/2002 4.42 19.
12/8/2001 2.85 1/28/2002 4.02 150.3/20/2002 4.7 8.
12/9/2001 2.68 1/29/2002 4.14 2.3/21/2002 5.34 23.
12/10/2001 4.82 40.1/30/2002 3.96 1.3/22/2002 4.36 3600.
12/11/2001 3.3 1219.1/31/2002 3.96 1.3/23/2002 4.02
12/12/2001 3.06 1.2/1/2002 3.83 3/24/2002 3.82
12/13/2001 3.06 44.2/2/2002 3.41 3/25/2002 4.15 138.
12/14/2001 2.98 20.2/3/2002 3.41 3/26/2002 4.93 97.
12/15/2001 2.7 2/4/2002 3.64 3/27/2002 4.55 198.
12/16/2001 2.65 2/5/2002 3.61 3.3/28/2002 4.04 36.
12/17/2001 3.85 1.2/6/2002 4.9 14.3/29/2002 3.84
12/18/2001 3.3 3.2/7/2002 5.32 420.3/30/2002 3.77
12/19/2001 3.12 3.2/8/2002 4.45 76.3/31/2002 4.12
12/20/2001 3.08 5.2/9/2002 4.08 4/1/2002 4.12 32.
12/21/2001 3.03 1.2/10/2002 4.19 4/2/2002 4.04 7.
12/22/2001 2.85 2/11/2002 4.07 8.4/3/2002 3.83 2.
12/23/2001 3.12 2/12/2002 4.03 1.4/4/2002 3.7 1.
12/24/2001 2.89 2/13/2002 3.97 4/5/2002 3.65
12/25/2001 2.45 2/14/2002 3.79 21.4/6/2002 3.43
12/26/2001 2.8 1.2/15/2002 3.65 4.4/7/2002 3.52
12/27/2001 2.93 7.2/16/2002 3.49 4/8/2002 3.93
12/28/2001 2.9 2/17/2002 3.54 4/9/2002 4.17 2.
12/29/2001 2.72 2/18/2002 3.83 1.4/10/2002 4.17.
12/30/2001 2.52 2/19/2002 3.92 8.4/11/2002 3.93 18.
12/31/2001 2.91 4.2/20/2002 3.88 530.4/12/2002 3.91 8.
1/1/2002 2.73 2/21/2002 3.82 145.4/13/2002 3.67

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-18
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

4/14/2002 3.87 6/4/2002 3.23 302.7/25/2002 7.22
4/15/2002 4.1 370.6/5/2002 3.23 121.7/26/2002 4.74
4/16/2002 5.24 19.6/6/2002 3.49 10.7/27/2002 3.29
4/17/2002 3.39 510.6/7/2002 3.18 110.7/28/2002 3.15
4/18/2002 3.33 27.6/8/2002 2.7 7/29/2002 3.36
4/19/2002 3.29 42.6/9/2002 2.7 7/30/2002 3.32
4/20/2002 3.06 6/10/2002 3.06 8.7/31/2002 3.28
4/21/2002 3.06 6/11/2002 3.08 116.8/1/2002 3.2
4/22/2002 3.42 1.6/12/2002 3.11 12.8/2/2002 3.17
4/23/2002 3.27 12.6/13/2002 3.39 31.8/3/2002 2.84
4/24/2002 3.24 5.6/14/2002 3.14 110.8/4/2002 2.74
4/25/2002 3.15 3.6/15/2002 2.68 8/5/2002 3.13
4/26/2002 2.97 1.6/16/2002 2.59 8/6/2002 3.
4/27/2002 2.9 6/17/2002 2.4 2.8/7/2002 3.03
4/28/2002 2.96 6/18/2002 3.04 17.8/8/2002 2.91
4/29/2002 3.17 6/19/2002 3.05 5.8/9/2002 2.93
4/30/2002 3.27 39.6/20/2002 2.94 148.8/10/2002 2.6
5/1/2002 3.36 1.6/21/2002 2.81 52.8/11/2002 2.68
5/2/2002 3.5 6/22/2002 2.59 8/12/2002 3.03
5/3/2002 3.25 6/23/2002 2.62 8/13/2002 3.02
5/4/2002 3.59 6/24/2002 2.93 37.8/14/2002 3.71
5/5/2002 2.97 6/25/2002 2.97 262.8/15/2002 3.92
5/6/2002 3.44 1.6/26/2002 6.18 38.8/16/2002 3.17
5/7/2002 3.44 94.6/27/2002 5.2 102.8/17/2002 2.93
5/8/2002 3.53 2.6/28/2002 3.59 8500.8/18/2002 2.97
5/9/2002 3.51 6/29/2002 3.13 8/19/2002 3.17
5/10/2002 3.28 1.6/30/2002 2.93 8/20/2002 3.17
5/11/2002 3.09 7/1/2002 3.61 39.8/21/2002 3.27
5/12/2002 3.12 7/2/2002 3.41 82.8/22/2002 3.07
5/13/2002 4.23 7/3/2002 3.36 56.8/23/2002 3.02
5/14/2002 3.39 11.7/4/2002 2.91 8/24/2002 2.71
5/15/2002 3.28 2.7/5/2002 2.91 9.8/25/2002 2.82
5/16/2002 3.3 5.7/6/2002 2.69 8/26/2002 4.04
5/17/2002 3.32 49.7/7/2002 2.7 8/27/2002 3.75
5/18/2002 3.33 7/8/2002 3.11 12.8/28/2002 3.76
5/19/2002 2.71 7/9/2002 3.35 280.8/29/2002 3.51
5/20/2002 3.28 7/10/2002 4.82 54.8/30/2002 4.39
5/21/2002 3.13 7/11/2002 4.67 185.8/31/2002 6.57
5/22/2002 3.16 76.7/12/2002 3.38 5.9/1/2002 5.6
5/23/2002 3.17 162.7/13/2002 3.07 9/2/2002 3.82
5/24/2002 3.1 3.7/14/2002 3.46 9/3/2002 3.94
5/25/2002 2.76 7/15/2002 3.34 8.9/4/2002 3.63
5/26/2002 2.79 7/16/2002 3.31 8.9/5/2002 3.39
5/27/2002 3.08 7/17/2002 2.6 2.9/6/2002 3.29
5/28/2002 3.25 1.7/18/2002 3.19 6.9/7/2002 3.06
5/29/2002 3.19 7/19/2002 2.94 3.9/8/2002 3.01
5/30/2002 4.01 1.7/20/2002 2.75 9/9/2002 3.45
5/31/2002 3.23 3.7/21/2002 2.7 9/10/2002 3.39
6/1/2002 4.04 7/22/2002 3.35 8.9/11/2002 3.3
6/2/2002 3.43 7/23/2002 4.03 243.9/12/2002 3.22
6/3/2002 3.35 280.7/24/2002 6.06 440.9/13/2002 3.14

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-19
Table C- 1 (Continued…)

9/14/2002 4.47 10/21/2002 4.67 11/27/2002 3.82
9/15/2002 4.95 10/22/2002 4.6 11/28/2002 3.38
9/16/2002 4.05 10/23/2002 4.22 11/29/2002 3.51
9/17/2002 3.57 10/24/2002 3.87 11/30/2002 3.5
9/18/2002 7.36 10/25/2002 3.88 12/1/2002 3.36
9/19/2002 5.79 10/26/2002 3.55 12/2/2002 3.85
9/20/2002 4.48 10/27/2002 3.5 12/3/2002 3.81
9/21/2002 3.91 10/28/2002 6.16 12/4/2002 3.81
9/22/2002 3.82 10/29/2002 7.34 12/5/2002 3.81
9/23/2002 3.88 10/30/2002 5.79 12/6/2002 7.27
9/24/2002 3.82 10/31/2002 4.55 12/7/2002 5.97
9/25/2002 3.88 11/1/2002 4.06 12/8/2002 5.7
9/26/2002 4.82 11/2/2002 3.71 12/9/2002 5.57
9/27/2002 4.22 11/3/2002 3.52 12/10/2002 5.85
9/28/2002 3.52 11/4/2002 3.93 12/11/2002 7.67
9/29/2002 3.36 11/5/2002 6.19 12/12/2002 6.6
9/30/2002 3.63 11/6/2002 5.66 12/13/2002 8.13
10/1/2002 3.65 11/7/2002 4.41 12/14/2002 6.11
10/2/2002 3.67 11/8/2002 4.08 12/15/2002 5.32
10/3/2002 3.64 11/9/2002 3.8 12/16/2002 5.21
10/4/2002 3.46 11/10/2002 3.82 12/17/2002 4.95
10/5/2002 3.14 11/11/2002 5.02 12/18/2002 4.85
10/6/2002 3.07 11/12/2002 8.32 12/19/2002 5.19
10/7/2002 3.47 11/13/2002 6.17 12/20/2002 6.03
10/8/2002 3.44 11/14/2002 5.1 12/21/2002 4.6
10/9/2002 3.39 11/15/2002 4.64 12/22/2002 4.38
10/10/2002 4.27 11/16/2002 7.68 12/23/2002 4.48
10/11/2002 7.98 11/17/2002 7.3 12/24/2002 7.25
10/12/2002 5.28 11/18/2002 6.61 12/25/2002 7.28
10/13/2002 6.14 11/19/2002 5.56 12/26/2002 6.23
10/14/2002 5.45 11/20/2002 5.06 12/27/2002 5.34
10/15/2002 6.39 11/21/2002 4.78 12/28/2002 4.78
10/16/2002 7.78 11/22/2002 4.44 12/29/2002 4.52
10/17/2002 6.2 11/23/2002 4.02 12/30/2002 4.78
10/18/2002 5.07 11/24/2002 4.03 12/31/2002 5.5
10/19/2002 4.48 11/25/2002 4.15
10/20/2002 4.46 11/26/2002 4.04

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-20
Table C- 2. Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP Effluent Flow and Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Concentration

Date Flow(cfs) FC conc. Date Flow(cfs) FC conc. Date Flow(cfs) FC conc.
1/1/1996 2.28 2/16/1996 2.97 6000.4/2/1996 3.7 4.
1/2/1996 3.37 2/17/1996 2.42 4/3/1996 3.38
1/3/1996 3.21 2/18/1996 2.35 4/4/1996 3.11
1/4/1996 2.85 2/19/1996 3.27 4/5/1996 2.48
1/5/1996 2.65 2/20/1996 3.56 1.4/6/1996 2.34
1/6/1996 2.14 2/21/1996 3.63 1.4/7/1996 2.15
1/7/1996 2.35 2/22/1996 3.18 4/8/1996 3.04
1/8/1996 2.26 2/23/1996 2.9 4/9/1996 3.91
1/9/1996 2.84 2/24/1996 2.44 4/10/1996 3.14
1/10/1996 3.2/25/1996 2.22 4/11/1996 3.12 3.
1/11/1996 2.65 16.2/26/1996 2.91 4/12/1996 2.84
1/12/1996 2.77 2/27/1996 2.94 4/13/1996 2.48
1/13/1996 2.63 2/28/1996 2.86 4/14/1996 2.38
1/14/1996 3.05 2/29/1996 2.71 4/15/1996 3.21
1/15/1996 4.26 3/1/1996 2.58 4/16/1996 3.51
1/16/1996 4.4 3/2/1996 2.29 4/17/1996 3.06
1/17/1996 4.52 3/3/1996 2.12 4/18/1996 2.89
1/18/1996 4.67 3.3/4/1996 2.78 4/19/1996 2.84
1/19/1996 5.56 3/5/1996 2.8 32.4/20/1996 2.5
1/20/1996 3.68 3/6/1996 3.63 1.4/21/1996 2.32
1/21/1996 3.06 3/7/1996 4.82 23.4/22/1996 2.92
1/22/1996 3.48 3/8/1996 4.56 2000.4/23/1996 2.94
1/23/1996 3.44 3/9/1996 2.97 4/24/1996 3.
1/24/1996 4.07 3.3/10/1996 2.63 4/25/1996 2.82
1/25/1996 3.5 6000.3/11/1996 3.36 3550.4/26/1996 3.07
1/26/1996 3.02 9.3/12/1996 3.23 1600.4/27/1996 2.3
1/27/1996 5.16 3/13/1996 3.26 4/28/1996 2.14
1/28/1996 3.41 3/14/1996 3.14 4/29/1996 2.71
1/29/1996 3.76 3/15/1996 3.09 4/30/1996 2.64
1/30/1996 3.86 1.3/16/1996 2.55 5/1/1996 3.11
1/31/1996 4.06 3/17/1996 2.46 5/2/1996 2.76
2/1/1996 3.43 3/18/1996 3.02 5/3/1996 2.6
2/2/1996 4.88 3/19/1996 4.6 1.5/4/1996 1.99
2/3/1996 4.27 3/20/1996 4.01 2.5/5/1996 1.83
2/4/1996 3.36 3/21/1996 3.45 5.5/6/1996 2.62
2/5/1996 3.59 3/22/1996 3.06 5/7/1996 2.69
2/6/1996 4.2 3/23/1996 2.51 5/8/1996 2.84
2/7/1996 3.9 3/24/1996 2.34 5/9/1996 2.97
2/8/1996 4.47 1.3/25/1996 3.11 5/10/1996 2.76
2/9/1996 3.88 3/26/1996 3.18 5/11/1996 2.35
2/10/1996 3.11 3/27/1996 3.13 5/12/1996 2.13
2/11/1996 2.77 3/28/1996 4.42 1.5/13/1996 2.92
2/12/1996 3.32 1.3/29/1996 3.28 5/14/1996 3.19 1850.
2/13/1996 3.19 3/30/1996 2.53 5/15/1996 3.22 175.
2/14/1996 3.12 3/31/1996 2.62 5/16/1996 3.09 1.
2/15/1996 3.04 1.4/1/1996 4.14 1.5/17/1996 2.94

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-21
Table C- 2 (Continued)

Date Flow(cfs) FC conc. Date Flow(cfs) FC conc. Date Flow(cfs) FC conc.
5/18/1996 2.3 7/4/1996 1.74 8/20/1996 3.03 22.
5/19/1996 2.09 7/5/1996 1.7 8/21/1996 3.04 4764.
5/20/1996 2.87 7/6/1996 1.78 8/22/1996 2.94 2300.
5/21/1996 3.03 7/7/1996 1.76 8/23/1996 2.93 133.
5/22/1996 2.99 7/8/1996 2.68 8/24/1996 3.11
5/23/1996 2.87 7/9/1996 2.77 7.8/25/1996 2.93
5/24/1996 2.84 7/10/1996 2.74 13.8/26/1996 3.32
5/25/1996 2.1 7/11/1996 2.98 8/27/1996 3.46
5/26/1996 1.92 7/12/1996 3.09 8/28/1996 3.39
5/27/1996 2.65 7/13/1996 1.97 8/29/1996 3.17
5/28/1996 3.62 7/14/1996 1.82 8/30/1996 2.88 3.
5/29/1996 3.02 7/15/1996 2.49 8/31/1996 2.39
5/30/1996 3.05 7/16/1996 2.92 9/1/1996 2.07
5/31/1996 2.74 7/17/1996 2.75 9/2/1996 2.27
6/1/1996 2.02 7/18/1996 3.03 9/3/1996 4.67
6/2/1996 1.98 7/19/1996 2.75 9/4/1996 5.75 2.
6/3/1996 2.73 7/20/1996 2.06 9/5/1996 5.07
6/4/1996 3.21 7/21/1996 1.74 9/6/1996 6.51
6/5/1996 2.62 1.7/22/1996 3.08 9/7/1996 4.38
6/6/1996 2.83 7/23/1996 2.83 9/8/1996 3.34
6/7/1996 2.59 7/24/1996 2.81 200.9/9/1996 3.78
6/8/1996 2.3 7/25/1996 3.37 9/10/1996 3.88
6/9/1996 2.84 7/26/1996 3.3 9/11/1996 4.83
6/10/1996 3.27 7/27/1996 2.11 9/12/1996 5.2 2.
6/11/1996 2.9 7/28/1996 2.43 9/13/1996 4.
6/12/1996 2.88 7/29/1996 2.98 1.9/14/1996 2.91
6/13/1996 2.9 7/30/1996 2.94 9/15/1996 2.59
6/14/1996 2.79 7/31/1996 2.91 9/16/1996 3.75
6/15/1996 2.58 8/1/1996 3.78 9/17/1996 3.8
6/16/1996 2.36 8/2/1996 3.65 9/18/1996 3.35
6/17/1996 2.98 8/3/1996 2.77 9/19/1996 3.36 10.
6/18/1996 3.08 8/4/1996 2.38 9/20/1996 2.89
6/19/1996 3.19 8/5/1996 2.06 9/21/1996 2.39
6/20/1996 2.94 8/6/1996 2.65 9/22/1996 2.32
6/21/1996 2.81 5.8/7/1996 3.52 28.9/23/1996 3.06
6/22/1996 2.24 8/8/1996 2.92 1.9/24/1996 3.09
6/23/1996 1.88 8/9/1996 2.66 9/25/1996 3.03
6/24/1996 2.84 1.8/10/1996 2.12 9/26/1996 2.95 12.
6/25/1996 3.03 8/11/1996 1.93 9/27/1996 2.88
6/26/1996 2.83 8/12/1996 4.12 1.9/28/1996 2.38
6/27/1996 2.81 8/13/1996 4.05 9/29/1996 2.35
6/28/1996 2.56 8/14/1996 3.24 9/30/1996 3.05
6/29/1996 1.9 8/15/1996 3.04 10/1/1996 4.52
6/30/1996 1.78 8/16/1996 2.76 10/2/1996 5.1.
7/1/1996 2.24 8/17/1996 2.25 10/3/1996 4.19 2.
7/2/1996 2.23 2.8/18/1996 2.04 10/4/1996 3.46
7/3/1996 2.07 10.8/19/1996 2.95 42.10/5/1996 2.79

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-22

Table C- 2 (Continued)

10/6/1996 2.69 11/23/1996 2.49 1/10/1997 4.99
10/7/1996 3.49 2.11/24/1996 2.35 1/11/1997 3.78
10/8/1996 5.39 11/25/1996 3.21 1/12/1997 3.26
10/9/1996 4.37 11/26/1996 3.66 33.1/13/1997 3.88
10/10/1996 3.95 5.11/27/1996 3.14 1/14/1997 3.82 2.
10/11/1996 3.38 11/28/1996 2.37 1/15/1997 3.7
10/12/1996 2.87 11/29/1996 2.26 1/16/1997 5.07
10/13/1996 2.68 11/30/1996 2.92 1/17/1997 4.05
10/14/1996 3.2 12/1/1996 4.72 1/18/1997 3.23
10/15/1996 3.2 1.12/2/1996 4.52 1.1/19/1997 2.94
10/16/1996 3.16 12/3/1996 3.6 1/20/1997 3.91
10/17/1996 3.06 12/4/1996 3.56 1/21/1997 3.88
10/18/1996 3.29 12/5/1996 4.03 1/22/1997 3.75
10/19/1996 2.53 12/6/1996 4.42 1/23/1997 3.69
10/20/1996 2.31 12/7/1996 3.94 1/24/1997 3.84
10/21/1996 3.16 12/8/1996 3.63 1/25/1997 3.73
10/22/1996 3.24 12/9/1996 3.89 1/26/1997 3.01
10/23/1996 3.13 12/10/1996 3.73 1/27/1997 3.72
10/24/1996 3.01 12/11/1996 3.54 1/28/1997 4.27
10/25/1996 2.79 12/12/1996 3.52 1/29/1997 3.98
10/26/1996 2.32 12/13/1996 4.97 1.1/30/1997 3.74
10/27/1996 2.21 12/14/1996 3.53 1/31/1997 3.5
10/28/1996 2.97 12/15/1996 3.06 2/1/1997 3.
10/29/1996 3.18 12/16/1996 3.5 2/2/1997 2.56
10/30/1996 3.06 12/17/1996 3.74 2/3/1997 3.44
10/31/1996 2.98 12/18/1996 3.94 2/4/1997 3.57
11/1/1996 2.83 12/19/1996 4.52 2/5/1997 3.73
11/2/1996 3.59 12/20/1996 3.59 2/6/1997 3.39 1.
11/3/1996 2.24 12/21/1996 2.81 2/7/1997 3.34
11/4/1996 2.98 12/22/1996 2.65 2/8/1997 3.49
11/5/1996 2.97 12/23/1996 2.8 1.2/9/1997 2.87
11/6/1996 3.12 12/24/1996 3.1 2/10/1997 3.57
11/7/1996 3.01 12/25/1996 2.73 2/11/1997 3.3 4000.
11/8/1996 3.65 12/26/1996 2.75 2/12/1997 3.13 3600.
11/9/1996 2.91 12/27/1996 3.04 2/13/1997 3.5
11/10/1996 2.38 12/28/1996 2.72 2/14/1997 5.35 3000.
11/11/1996 3.09 1.12/29/1996 2.69 2/15/1997 5.44
11/12/1996 3.08 12/30/1996 3.49 2/16/1997 3.87
11/13/1996 2.99 12/31/1996 3.58 2/17/1997 4.1.
11/14/1996 2.87 1/1/1997 2.55 2/18/1997 3.7 7.
11/15/1996 2.87 1/2/1997 3.42 2/19/1997 3.44
11/16/1996 2.32 1/3/1997 3.17 2/20/1997 3.29
11/17/1996 2.16 1/4/1997 2.72 2/21/1997 3.62
11/18/1996 3.39 1/5/1997 3.26 2/22/1997 3.1
11/19/1996 3.42 1/6/1997 3.76 2/23/1997 2.74
11/20/1996 3.14 1.1/7/1997 3.5 2/24/1997 3.37
11/21/1996 3.41 1/8/1997 3.47 2/25/1997 3.43 1.
11/22/1996 3.29 1/9/1997 5.31 2/26/1997 3.65

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-23
Table C- 2 (Continued)

2/27/1997 3.65 4/16/1997 3.37 1.6/3/1997 3.12
2/28/1997 5.22 4/17/1997 3.51 6/4/1997 2.78
3/1/1997 4.76 4/18/1997 3.27 6/5/1997 2.89 1.
3/2/1997 4.01 4/19/1997 2.54 6/6/1997 3.34
3/3/1997 4.46 4/20/1997 2.45 6/7/1997 2.35
3/4/1997 3.98 4/21/1997 3.24 1.6/8/1997 2.14
3/5/1997 4.04 2.4/22/1997 3.88 3.6/9/1997 2.78
3/6/1997 4.35 4/23/1997 5.53 6/10/1997 2.93
3/7/1997 3.62 4/24/1997 4.57 6/11/1997 2.6
3/8/1997 2.93 4/25/1997 3.74 6/12/1997 2.87
3/9/1997 2.69 4/26/1997 2.92 6/13/1997 4.123
3/10/1997 3.4 2.4/27/1997 3.55 6/14/1997 2.73
3/11/1997 3.43 4/28/1997 5.73 1.6/15/1997 2.28
3/12/1997 3.37 4/29/1997 6.04 6/16/1997 2.94
3/13/1997 3.2 4/30/1997 4.75 6/17/1997 3.74
3/14/1997 4.13 5/1/1997 4.51 6/18/1997 2.98
3/15/1997 4.36 5/2/1997 3.94 6/19/1997 3.03
3/16/1997 2.99 5/3/1997 4.26 6/20/1997 2.81
3/17/1997 3.35 5/4/1997 3.6 6/21/1997 2.15
3/18/1997 3.59 2.5/5/1997 4.2.6/22/1997 2.01
3/19/1997 5.17 5/6/1997 3.86 25.6/23/1997 2.89
3/20/1997 4.71 5/7/1997 3.68 6/24/1997 2.85
3/21/1997 3.97 5/8/1997 3.58 6/25/1997 2.8
3/22/1997 3.06 5/9/1997 3.6 6/26/1997 2.81
3/23/1997 2.7 5/10/1997 2.76 6/27/1997 2.5
3/24/1997 3.52 5/11/1997 2.54 6/28/1997 2.03
3/25/1997 3.39 5/12/1997 3.05 6/29/1997 1.95
3/26/1997 4.08 5/13/1997 3.29 1.6/30/1997 2.08
3/27/1997 3.6 5/14/1997 3.03 7/1/1997 2.43 1.
3/28/1997 3.22 5/15/1997 3.1 7/2/1997 2.24
3/29/1997 3.2 5/16/1997 2.9 7/3/1997 2.08
3/30/1997 2.8 5/17/1997 2.4 7/4/1997 1.91
3/31/1997 3.62 5/18/1997 2.28 7/5/1997 2.15
4/1/1997 3.25 5/19/1997 3.03 7/6/1997 1.89
4/2/1997 3.28 5/20/1997 2.98 7/7/1997 2.76
4/3/1997 3.24 5/21/1997 3.02 7/8/1997 2.84 1.
4/4/1997 3.15 5/22/1997 2.95 7/9/1997 2.73
4/5/1997 2.54 5/23/1997 2.87 7/10/1997 2.85
4/6/1997 3.08 5/24/1997 2.3 7/11/1997 2.65
4/7/1997 3.81 2.5/25/1997 2.54 7/12/1997 2.1
4/8/1997 3.49 5/26/1997 2.97 7/13/1997 1.98
4/9/1997 3.69 3.5/27/1997 3.13 7/14/1997 2.4
4/10/1997 3.55 5/28/1997 2.91 1.7/15/1997 2.8 22.
4/11/1997 3.14 5/29/1997 2.99 7/16/1997 2.44 3.
4/12/1997 3.77 5/30/1997 2.83 7/17/1997 2.63 45.
4/13/1997 3.17 5/31/1997 2.32 7/18/1997 2.2 10.
4/14/1997 3.61 6/1/1997 2.28 7/19/1997 1.9
4/15/1997 3.46 6/2/1997 3.27 7/20/1997 2.54

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-24
Table C- 2 (Continued)

7/21/1997 3.04 2.9/10/1997 3.1 10/31/1997 2.27
7/22/1997 3.45 9/11/1997 2.78 11/1/1997 2.54
7/23/1997 4.54 9/12/1997 2.3 11/2/1997 2.34
7/24/1997 4.36 9/13/1997 2.03 11/3/1997 2.77
7/25/1997 3.3 9/14/1997 1.93 11/4/1997 2.66
7/26/1997 2.29 9/15/1997 2.71 11/5/1997 2.71
7/27/1997 2.12 9/16/1997 2.78 11/6/1997 2.67
7/28/1997 3.08 1.9/17/1997 2.61 11/7/1997 2.54
7/29/1997 3.13 9/18/1997 2.58 11/8/1997 2.05
7/30/1997 3.25 9/19/1997 2.66 11/9/1997 1.9
7/31/1997 2.86 9/20/1997 2.13 11/10/1997 2.66
8/1/1997 2.58 9/21/1997 1.95 11/11/1997 2.64
8/2/1997 2.21 9/22/1997 2.65 11/12/1997 2.71
8/3/1997 2.05 9/23/1997 2.69 11/13/1997 3.64
8/4/1997 2.79 9/24/1997 3.9 11/14/1997 3.95
8/5/1997 2.79 1.9/25/1997 3.04 1.11/15/1997 2.2
8/6/1997 2.64 9/26/1997 2.71 11/16/1997 2.05
8/7/1997 2.55 9/27/1997 2.11 11/17/1997 2.62 2.
8/8/1997 2.43 9/28/1997 2.16 11/18/1997 2.68 46.
8/9/1997 2.08 9/29/1997 2.7 11/19/1997 2.65 80.
8/10/1997 1.97 9/30/1997 2.71 11/20/1997 2.58 36.
8/11/1997 2.87 10/1/1997 2.88 11/21/1997 3.42 4.
8/12/1997 2.79 2.10/2/1997 2.44 11/22/1997 3.4
8/13/1997 2.73 3.10/3/1997 2.49 11/23/1997 2.31
8/14/1997 2.54 4.10/4/1997 2.02 11/24/1997 2.7
8/15/1997 2.32 10/5/1997 1.97 11/25/1997 2.75
8/16/1997 2.18 10/6/1997 2.68 11/26/1997 2.6
8/17/1997 1.96 10/7/1997 2.65 11/27/1997 2.09
8/18/1997 2.25 10/8/1997 2.74 11/28/1997 2.01
8/19/1997 2.5 5.10/9/1997 2.65 11/29/1997 2.34
8/20/1997 2.79 1200.10/10/1997 2.71 11/30/1997 3.27
8/21/1997 2.5 100.10/11/1997 2.08 12/1/1997 3.36
8/22/1997 2.51 10/12/1997 1.94 12/2/1997 3.09
8/23/1997 2.04 10/13/1997 2.77 12/3/1997 2.99 1.
8/24/1997 1.93 10/14/1997 2.77 12/4/1997 3.
8/25/1997 2.59 10/15/1997 2.86 12/5/1997 2.78
8/26/1997 2.73 10/16/1997 2.72 12/6/1997 2.58
8/27/1997 2.81 10/17/1997 2.65 12/7/1997 2.1
8/28/1997 2.61 .1 10/18/1997 2.16 12/8/1997 2.89 15.
8/29/1997 2.46 10/19/1997 3.11 12/9/1997 2.85
8/30/1997 1.93 10/20/1997 2.88 1.12/10/1997 3.05 1.
8/31/1997 1.88 10/21/1997 2.68 12/11/1997 2.8 6.
9/1/1997 1.96 10/22/1997 2.73 12/12/1997 2.67
9/2/1997 2.63 3050.10/23/1997 2.83 12/13/1997 2.17
9/3/1997 2.21 10/24/1997 2.57 12/14/1997 2.05
9/4/1997 2.55 10/25/1997 2.02 12/15/1997 2.77
9/5/1997 2.49 10/26/1997 3.02 12/16/1997 2.91
9/6/1997 2.06 10/27/1997 3.26 1.12/17/1997 2.05
9/7/1997 1.89 10/28/1997 2.74 1.12/18/1997 4.3 1.
9/8/1997 2.61 10/29/1997 2.78 5.12/19/1997 2.68
9/9/1997 2.77 10/30/1997 2.64 12/20/1997 2.26

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-25
Table C- 2 (Continued)

12/21/1997 2.18 2/10/1998 3.39 600.4/2/1998 3.69 1.
12/22/1997 3.47 2/11/1998 3.47 15.4/3/1998 3.57
12/23/1997 2.62 2/12/1998 3.56 10.4/4/1998 3.97
12/24/1997 4.2 2/13/1998 3.14 5.4/5/1998 2.98
12/25/1997 3.2 2/14/1998 2.6 4/6/1998 3.35 1.
12/26/1997 2.74 2/15/1998 2.35 4/7/1998 3.59 1.
12/27/1997 3.71 2/16/1998 3.91 2.4/8/1998 3.5
12/28/1997 3.27 2/17/1998 5.97 4/9/1998 4.63
12/29/1997 2.97 2/18/1998 4.8 4.4/10/1998 3.37
12/30/1997 3.44 2/19/1998 4.06 20.4/11/1998 3.
12/31/1997 3.02 2/20/1998 3.61 4/12/1998 2.82
1/1/1998 2.55 2/21/1998 2.91 4/13/1998 3.25
1/2/1998 2.72 2/22/1998 2.69 4/14/1998 3.57 1.
1/3/1998 2.75 2/23/1998 4.31 1.4/15/1998 3.48
1/4/1998 2.64 2/24/1998 3.61 2.4/16/1998 3.82 1.
1/5/1998 3.3 2/25/1998 3.48 4/17/1998 6.19 7.
1/6/1998 3.93 2/26/1998 2.89 4/18/1998 4.84
1/7/1998 5.49 2/27/1998 2.7 4.4/19/1998 4.76
1/8/1998 5.98 2/28/1998 2.6 4/20/1998 5.58 6.
1/9/1998 4.38 3/1/1998 2.4 4/21/1998 4.55 1.
1/10/1998 3.06 3/2/1998 2.86 1.4/22/1998 4.37 2.
1/11/1998 2.67 3/3/1998 2.8 14.4/23/1998 4.18 2.
1/12/1998 3.08 3/4/1998 3.07 4/24/1998 3.8
1/13/1998 3.1 3/5/1998 3.3.4/25/1998 3.8
1/14/1998 2.95 3/6/1998 2.57 4/26/1998 2.92
1/15/1998 4.62 3/7/1998 2.19 4/27/1998 3.63 1.
1/16/1998 4.98 3.3/8/1998 4.06 4/28/1998 3.45 5.
1/17/1998 3.83 3/9/1998 5.62 23.4/29/1998 3.16
1/18/1998 3.04 3/10/1998 4.36 270.4/30/1998 3.31
1/19/1998 4.31 3/11/1998 4.07 5/1/1998 3.49
1/20/1998 3.65 1.3/12/1998 3.97 37.5/2/1998 2.87
1/21/1998 3.37 3/13/1998 3.62 5/3/1998 2.98
1/22/1998 3.6 3/14/1998 3.2 5/4/1998 3.41
1/23/1998 5.59 3/15/1998 2.9 5/5/1998 3.51
1/24/1998 4.21 3/16/1998 3.55 5/6/1998 3.28
1/25/1998 3.44 3/17/1998 3.6 5/7/1998 4.23 1.
1/26/1998 3.68 3/18/1998 3.87 5/8/1998 4.98 2.
1/27/1998 5.21 3/19/1998 5.55 5/9/1998 3.69
1/28/1998 5.58 3/20/1998 4.81 5/10/1998 3.46
1/29/1998 4.35 3/21/1998 4.2 5/11/1998 5.29
1/30/1998 3.62 3.3/22/1998 3.86 5/12/1998 4.36 1.
1/31/1998 3.04 3/23/1998 3.9 5/13/1998 3.78
2/1/1998 2.76 3/24/1998 3.8 5/14/1998 3.67 1.
2/2/1998 3.32 3/25/1998 3.6 5/15/1998 3.4 3.
2/3/1998 3.92 3/26/1998 3.55 5/16/1998 2.87
2/4/1998 5.26 3/27/1998 3.2 5/17/1998 2.7
2/5/1998 5.46 3/28/1998 2.8 5/18/1998 3.28 1.
2/6/1998 4.28 4.3/29/1998 5.5 5/19/1998 3.23 3.
2/7/1998 3.3 3/30/1998 3.34 5/20/1998 3.25
2/8/1998 2.97 3/31/1998 3.24 5/21/1998 3.33 3200.
2/9/1998 3.52 4/1/1998 3.74 5/22/1998 3.04

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-26
Table C- 2 (Continued)

5/23/1998 3.08 7/13/1998 2.62 9/2/1998 2.5
5/24/1998 2.47 7/14/1998 2.68 9/3/1998 3.16
5/25/1998 2.92 7/15/1998 2.65 9/4/1998 3.81
5/26/1998 3.27 7/16/1998 3.44 9/5/1998 2.27
5/27/1998 3.34 1.7/17/1998 3.02 9/6/1998 2.01
5/28/1998 3.09 7/18/1998 2.23 9/7/1998 2.24
5/29/1998 3.05 6.7/19/1998 2.17 9/8/1998 3.39 1.
5/30/1998 2.56 7/20/1998 2.84 1.9/9/1998 2.75
5/31/1998 2.39 7/21/1998 2.49 9/10/1998 2.75
6/1/1998 3.12 7/22/1998 2.75 9/11/1998 2.53
6/2/1998 3.04 1.7/23/1998 2.75 9/12/1998 2.24
6/3/1998 3.23 7/24/1998 2.67 9/13/1998 2.18
6/4/1998 3.27 7/25/1998 2.3 9/14/1998 2.51
6/5/1998 2.96 7/26/1998 2.01 9/15/1998 2.7
6/6/1998 3.37 7/27/1998 2.95 9/16/1998 2.68
6/7/1998 2.56 7/28/1998 2.79 9/17/1998 2.6
6/8/1998 3.16 7/29/1998 3.9/18/1998 2.42
6/9/1998 2.98 7/30/1998 2.75 9/19/1998 2.14
6/10/1998 3.43 7/31/1998 2.65 9/20/1998 2.12
6/11/1998 2.97 8/1/1998 2.18 9/21/1998 2.78
6/12/1998 2.91 8/2/1998 1.94 9/22/1998 2.8
6/13/1998 2.43 8/3/1998 2.4 10.9/23/1998 2.51
6/14/1998 2.31 8/4/1998 2.42 9/24/1998 2.5
6/15/1998 4.28 2.8/5/1998 2.46 9/25/1998 2.3
6/16/1998 3.18 20.8/6/1998 2.41 9/26/1998 2.1
6/17/1998 3.14 8/7/1998 2.45 9/27/1998 2.02
6/18/1998 2.98 8/8/1998 2.88 9/28/1998 2.44
6/19/1998 2.8 8/9/1998 2.83 9/29/1998 2.37
6/20/1998 2.34 8/10/1998 3.86 9/30/1998 2.55
6/21/1998 2.12 8/11/1998 3.09 10/1/1998 2.31
6/22/1998 3.01 8/12/1998 3.56 3.10/2/1998 2.39
6/23/1998 2.98 8/13/1998 3.55 1.10/3/1998 1.97
6/24/1998 2.8 4.8/14/1998 2.65 10/4/1998 2.
6/25/1998 2.78 8/15/1998 2.27 10/5/1998 2.69
6/26/1998 2.49 8/16/1998 2.14 10/6/1998 2.62
6/27/1998 2.25 8/17/1998 3.3 10/7/1998 2.62 1.
6/28/1998 2.07 8/18/1998 2.89 1.10/8/1998 3.26
6/29/1998 2.39 8/19/1998 2.89 10/9/1998 2.76 600.
6/30/1998 2.32 8/20/1998 2.62 10/10/1998 2.19
7/1/1998 2.08 3900.8/21/1998 2.55 10/11/1998 1.93
7/2/1998 2.13 8/22/1998 2.28 10/12/1998 2.6
7/3/1998 2.22 8/23/1998 2.09 10/13/1998 2.67
7/4/1998 2.01 8/24/1998 2.86 10/14/1998 2.73
7/5/1998 2.8/25/1998 2.69 10/15/1998 2.45
7/6/1998 2.87 8/26/1998 2.59 10/16/1998 2.58 16.
7/7/1998 2.5 1.8/27/1998 2.56 10/17/1998 1.93
7/8/1998 2.77 8/28/1998 2.51 10/18/1998 1.96
7/9/1998 2.67 8/29/1998 2.24 10/19/1998 2.67 1.
7/10/1998 2.42 10.8/30/1998 2.27 10/20/1998 2.56
7/11/1998 2.11 8/31/1998 2.65 10/21/1998 2.38
7/12/1998 1.98 9/1/1998 2.63 10/22/1998 2.36

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-27
Table C- 2 (Continued)

10/23/1998 2.27 12/13/1998 3.71 2/2/1999 4.55 1.
10/24/1998 1.9 12/14/1998 2.86 2/3/1999 3.64 1.
10/25/1998 2.12/15/1998 2.95 2/4/1999 3.29
10/26/1998 2.36 12/16/1998 4.4 5.2/5/1999 3.07 2.
10/27/1998 2.36 12/17/1998 2.7 4.2/6/1999 2.83
10/28/1998 2.4 1.12/18/1998 2.4 2/7/1999 2.55
10/29/1998 2.4 12/19/1998 2.21 2/8/1999 3.03
10/30/1998 2.98 8.12/20/1998 2.07 2/9/1999 2.83
10/31/1998 2.03 12/21/1998 2.27 2/10/1999 2.97
11/1/1998 1.8 12/22/1998 2.19 2/11/1999 2.9 4.
11/2/1998 2.49 12/23/1998 2.06 2/12/1999 2.87
11/3/1998 2.8 12/24/1998 4.6 2/13/1999 2.46
11/4/1998 2.4 12/25/1998 2.82 2/14/1999 2.33
11/5/1998 4.5 12/26/1998 2.24 2/15/1999 2.78 4.
11/6/1998 2.26 12/27/1998 1.78 2/16/1999 2.81
11/7/1998 1.98 12/28/1998 2.46 2/17/1999 2.84
11/8/1998 1.89 12/29/1998 2.55 4.2/18/1999 3.73
11/9/1998 2.57 12/30/1998 2.48 1.2/19/1999 3.05
11/10/1998 2.57 12/31/1998 2.34 2/20/1999 3.36
11/11/1998 3.02 1/1/1999 2.14 2/21/1999 2.53
11/12/1998 2.55 300.1/2/1999 2.63 2/22/1999 2.98
11/13/1998 2.46 1.1/3/1999 5.29 2/23/1999 2.92 10.
11/14/1998 2.48 1/4/1999 3.43 2.2/24/1999 2.9 56.
11/15/1998 2.42 1/5/1999 3.03 2/25/1999 2.87
11/16/1998 2.84 600.1/6/1999 2.9 1.2/26/1999 2.64 8.
11/17/1998 2.77 4600.1/7/1999 2.75 1.2/27/1999 2.44
11/18/1998 2.64 4900.1/8/1999 2.13 2.2/28/1999 2.47
11/19/1998 2.47 7.1/9/1999 1.87 3/1/1999 2.95 3.
11/20/1998 2.5 1/10/1999 1.6 3/2/1999 2.72 10.
11/21/1998 2.05 1/11/1999 1.78 2.3/3/1999 3.11 10.
11/22/1998 1.9 1/12/1999 2.37 3/4/1999 2.98 30.
11/23/1998 2.58 1/13/1999 2.47 1.3/5/1999 2.66
11/24/1998 2.45 1/14/1999 2.69 3/6/1999 2.37
11/25/1998 2.38 1/15/1999 3.61 3/7/1999 2.24
11/26/1998 2.29 1/16/1999 2.52 3/8/1999 2.75 1.
11/27/1998 2.02 1/17/1999 2.66 3/9/1999 2.83 2.
11/28/1998 2.04 1/18/1999 4.84 3/10/1999 2.82 1.
11/29/1998 1.93 1/19/1999 3.57 3/11/1999 2.74
11/30/1998 2.43 1/20/1999 3.19 3/12/1999 2.64
12/1/1998 2.43 22.1/21/1999 3.07 1.3/13/1999 1.82
12/2/1998 2.41 1/22/1999 2.89 3/14/1999 2.85
12/3/1998 2.5 1.1/23/1999 2.89 3/15/1999 3.5
12/4/1998 2.49 1/24/1999 3.65 3/16/1999 3.1 10.
12/5/1998 2.07 1/25/1999 4.64 1.3/17/1999 2.89 5.
12/6/1998 1.94 1/26/1999 3.44 1.3/18/1999 2.72
12/7/1998 2.6 8.1/27/1999 3.33 3/19/1999 2.4
12/8/1998 2.67 1/28/1999 3.32 3/20/1999 2.17
12/9/1998 3.32 1/29/1999 3.21 3/21/1999 3.01
12/10/1998 2.58 1.1/30/1999 2.8 3/22/1999 3.16
12/11/1998 2.54 1/31/1999 2.57 3/23/1999 2.97
12/12/1998 2.21 2/1/1999 3.84 7.3/24/1999 3.05

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-28
Table C- 2 (Continued)

3/25/1999 2.95 5/15/1999 2.29 7/5/1999 2.11
3/26/1999 2.59 5/16/1999 2.25 7/6/1999 2.32
3/27/1999 2.41 5/17/1999 2.73 7/7/1999 2.35
3/28/1999 2.29 5/18/1999 2.7 7/8/1999 2.36
3/29/1999 2.76 1.5/19/1999 2.89 7/9/1999 2.3 5.
3/30/1999 2.8 5/20/1999 2.77 7/10/1999 2.12
3/31/1999 2.78 1.5/21/1999 2.52 7/11/1999 1.97
4/1/1999 2.9 5/22/1999 2.15 7/12/1999 3.13 1.
4/2/1999 2.29 5/23/1999 2.07 7/13/1999 3.25 1.
4/3/1999 2.14 5/24/1999 2.87 7/14/1999 2.82 5.
4/4/1999 2.04 5/25/1999 2.68 20.7/15/1999 2.7 12.
4/5/1999 2.8 2.5/26/1999 2.72 12.7/16/1999 2.72
4/6/1999 2.79 5/27/1999 2.62 7/17/1999 2.48
4/7/1999 2.8 8.5/28/1999 2.64 7/18/1999 2.2
4/8/1999 2.72 2.5/29/1999 2.16 7/19/1999 2.63
4/9/1999 2.51 5/30/1999 1.98 7/20/1999 2.74
4/10/1999 2.45 5/31/1999 2.48 7/21/1999 2.85
4/11/1999 2.1 6/1/1999 2.56 6.7/22/1999 3.44.
4/12/1999 2.67 1.6/2/1999 2.65 2.7/23/1999 2.58 89.
4/13/1999 2.78 6/3/1999 2.54 67.7/24/1999 2.18
4/14/1999 2.6 1.6/4/1999 2.39 7/25/1999 2.01
4/15/1999 2.86 7.6/5/1999 2.06 7/26/1999 2.58 1.
4/16/1999 2.41 15.6/6/1999 1.98 7/27/1999 2.66 208.
4/17/1999 2.25 6/7/1999 2.65 7/28/1999 2.59
4/18/1999 2.11 6/8/1999 2.64 30.7/29/1999 2.62
4/19/1999 2.63 6/9/1999 2.63 1.7/30/1999 2.34
4/20/1999 2.6 6/10/1999 2.65 7/31/1999 2.19
4/21/1999 2.51 6/11/1999 2.59 8/1/1999 1.99
4/22/1999 2.44 6/12/1999 2.09 8/2/1999 2.52 1.
4/23/1999 2.2 6/13/1999 2.01 8/3/1999 2.38 2.
4/24/1999 1.9 6/14/1999 2.68 14.8/4/1999 2.12
4/25/1999 1.9 6/15/1999 2.64 3.8/5/1999 2.41 4.
4/26/1999 2.64 6/16/1999 3.21 8/6/1999 1.95 8.
4/27/1999 2.95 2.6/17/1999 2.8 1.8/7/1999 2.
4/28/1999 3.4 1.6/18/1999 2.57 8/8/1999 2.2
4/29/1999 3.6 164.6/19/1999 2.13 8/9/1999 2.44 1.
4/30/1999 4.92 260.6/20/1999 2.79 8/10/1999 2.42 23.
5/1/1999 3.01 6/21/1999 2.71 8/11/1999 2.5 2.
5/2/1999 2.52 6/22/1999 2.68 8/12/1999 2.5
5/3/1999 2.91 6/23/1999 2.68 8/13/1999 2.16
5/4/1999 2.83 1.6/24/1999 2.63 8/14/1999 2.24
5/5/1999 2.95 10.6/25/1999 2.57 8/15/1999 3.22
5/6/1999 2.21 12.6/26/1999 2.21 8/16/1999 2.57
5/7/1999 2.58 6/27/1999 2.21 8/17/1999 2.54
5/8/1999 2.19 6/28/1999 2.53 2.8/18/1999 2.49
5/9/1999 2.11 6/29/1999 2.57 1.8/19/1999 2.51
5/10/1999 2.89 6/30/1999 2.69 8/20/1999 2.52 1.
5/11/1999 2.84 7/1/1999 3.4 8/21/1999 2.59
5/12/1999 2.71 7/2/1999 3.2 8/22/1999 2.06
5/13/1999 2.6 7/3/1999 2.35 8/23/1999 2.82
5/14/1999 3.7/4/1999 1.98 8/24/1999 2.68 5.

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-29
Table C- 2 (Continued)

8/25/1999 3.99 250.10/15/1999 3.02 12/5/1999 2.15
8/26/1999 3.02 10/16/1999 2.62 12/6/1999 3.03 3.
8/27/1999 4.15 10/17/1999 2.76 12/7/1999 2.71 9.
8/28/1999 2.53 10/18/1999 2.94 12/8/1999 2.34 15.
8/29/1999 2.34 10/19/1999 2.99 16.12/9/1999 2.57 12.
8/30/1999 2.68 10/20/1999 3.87 12/10/1999 3.06 7.
8/31/1999 2.63 10/21/1999 3.54 5000.12/11/1999 2.28
9/1/1999 2.67 10/22/1999 3.04 9600.12/12/1999 2.13
9/2/1999 2.6 3.10/23/1999 2.48 12/13/1999 2.74 1.
9/3/1999 2.51 10/24/1999 2.31 12/14/1999 4.27
9/4/1999 2.08 10/25/1999 2.85 5450.12/15/1999 3.21 7.
9/5/1999 3.82 10/26/1999 2.76 39.12/16/1999 2.87 20.
9/6/1999 3.01 10/27/1999 2.69 162.12/17/1999 2.67 3.
9/7/1999 2.97 10/28/1999 2.6 5.12/18/1999 2.45
9/8/1999 2.77 4.10/29/1999 2.56 1.12/19/1999 2.21
9/9/1999 3.02 10/30/1999 2.24 12/20/1999 2.87
9/10/1999 2.77 10/31/1999 2.17 12/21/1999 3.33
9/11/1999 2.23 11/1/1999 2.64 4.12/22/1999 3.14
9/12/1999 2.1 11/2/1999 3.35 67.12/23/1999 2.81 14.
9/13/1999 2.62 9.11/3/1999 2.7 7.12/24/1999 2.48
9/14/1999 2.67 9.11/4/1999 2.62 2.12/25/1999 2.19
9/15/1999 3.36 53.11/5/1999 2.36 6.12/26/1999 2.26
9/16/1999 4.4 11/6/1999 2.18 12/27/1999 3.99
9/17/1999 2.65 1.11/7/1999 2.08 12/28/1999 2.34
9/18/1999 2.35 11/8/1999 2.63 2.12/29/1999 2.45
9/19/1999 1.43 11/9/1999 2.61 12/30/1999 2.31 1.
9/20/1999 2.69 3.11/10/1999 2.58 1.12/31/1999 2.41
9/21/1999 2.66 11/11/1999 2.6 4.1/1/2000 2.05
9/22/1999 2.69 1.11/12/1999 2.54 38.1/2/2000 2.1
9/23/1999 2.49 11/13/1999 2.23 1/3/2000 2.68
9/24/1999 2.55 11/14/1999 2.15 1/4/2000 2.99
9/25/1999 2.03 11/15/1999 2.67 3.1/5/2000 2.96 2.
9/26/1999 2.04 11/16/1999 2.63 1/6/2000 2.39 22.
9/27/1999 3.42 11/17/1999 2.66 1/7/2000 2.62 4.
9/28/1999 4.45 8.11/18/1999 2.32 4.1/8/2000 2.24
9/29/1999 4.11 10.11/19/1999 2.41 2.1/9/2000 2.78
9/30/1999 3.87 10.11/20/1999 2.18 1/10/2000 4.38 3.
10/1/1999 3.11/21/1999 2.18 1/11/2000 3.12 7.
10/2/1999 2.49 11/22/1999 2.61 3.1/12/2000 3.13
10/3/1999 2.27 11/23/1999 2.43 1/13/2000 3.02 5.
10/4/1999 2.88 3.11/24/1999 2.48 1.1/14/2000 2.98 1.
10/5/1999 2.09 11/25/1999 2.08 1/15/2000 2.47
10/6/1999 2.85 1.11/26/1999 2.99 1/16/2000 2.27
10/7/1999 2.68 11/27/1999 2.36 1/17/2000 2.88
10/8/1999 2.52 11/28/1999 2.13 1/18/2000 3.
10/9/1999 2.22 11/29/1999 2.75 1/19/2000 3.04 2.
10/10/1999 2.62 11/30/1999 2.64 1.1/20/2000 3.72 10.
10/11/1999 4.4 12/1/1999 2.52 3.1/21/2000 3.01
10/12/1999 3.26 2.12/2/1999 2.66 7.1/22/2000 2.46
10/13/1999 3.98 12/3/1999 2.58 108.1/23/2000 2.81
10/14/1999 3.6 30.12/4/1999 2.24 1/24/2000 3.17

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-30
Table C- 2 (Continued)

1/25/2000 3.14 3/16/2000 3.7 6.5/6/2000 2.5
1/26/2000 3.14 3/17/2000 4.26 12.5/7/2000 2.4
1/27/2000 3.24 2.3/18/2000 2.78 5/8/2000 2.11
1/28/2000 3.1 1.3/19/2000 2.74 5/9/2000 2.99 1.
1/29/2000 2.7 3/20/2000 4.5/10/2000 2.99
1/30/2000 3.98 3/21/2000 3.25 4.5/11/2000 2.92
1/31/2000 4.66 3/22/2000 2.25 5/12/2000 2.3 1.
2/1/2000 4.32 3/23/2000 3.21 5/13/2000 2.43
2/2/2000 4.04 2.3/24/2000 3.2 5/14/2000 2.43
2/3/2000 4.05 2.3/25/2000 2.76 5/15/2000 2.89
2/4/2000 3.97 1.3/26/2000 2.76 5/16/2000 2.85
2/5/2000 3.36 3/27/2000 3.49 5/17/2000 2.94
2/6/2000 2.98 3/28/2000 3.33 5/18/2000 3.18
2/7/2000 3.47 3/29/2000 3.11 5/19/2000 2.88
2/8/2000 3.38 1.3/30/2000 3.03 1.5/20/2000 2.44
2/9/2000 3.42 20.3/31/2000 2.88 1.5/21/2000 2.46
2/10/2000 3.22 3.4/1/2000 2.53 5/22/2000 4.16 2.
2/11/2000 3.04 30.4/2/2000 2.32 5/23/2000 3.11
2/12/2000 3.98 4/3/2000 3.52 5/24/2000 2.86 2.
2/13/2000 3.58 4/4/2000 3.45 5/25/2000 3.3 1.
2/14/2000 4.87 4/5/2000 3.3 5/26/2000 2.81
2/15/2000 4.02 4/6/2000 3.24 2.5/27/2000 2.82
2/16/2000 3.61 4/7/2000 2.98 1.5/28/2000 2.43
2/17/2000 3.32 4/8/2000 3.34 5/29/2000 2.69
2/18/2000 3.99 4/9/2000 3.12 5/30/2000 2.62
2/19/2000 2.87 4/10/2000 3.37 5/31/2000 2.54
2/20/2000 2.59 4/11/2000 3.2 1.6/1/2000 2.5
2/21/2000 2.95 4/12/2000 3.15 6/2/2000 1.91 4.
2/22/2000 3.1 33.4/13/2000 3.5 6/3/2000 2.24
2/23/2000 3.16 2.4/14/2000 3.06 2.6/4/2000 2.2
2/24/2000 2.91 4/15/2000 3.69 6/5/2000 2.71 1.
2/25/2000 3.06 7.4/16/2000 3.17 6/6/2000 2.75
2/26/2000 2.69 4/17/2000 3.44 6/7/2000 2.54 3.
2/27/2000 2.54 4/18/2000 3.54 6/8/2000 2.51 4.
2/28/2000 3.2.4/19/2000 3.31 6/9/2000 2.21 2.
2/29/2000 3.09 4/20/2000 3.14 2.6/10/2000 1.91
3/1/2000 2.97 5.4/21/2000 2.62 6/11/2000 1.95
3/2/2000 2.97 4/22/2000 2.39 6/12/2000 2.42
3/3/2000 2.94 3.4/23/2000 2.34 6/13/2000 2.57
3/4/2000 2.44 4/24/2000 2.9 6/14/2000 2.5 2.
3/5/2000 2.42 4/25/2000 3.25 6/15/2000 2.8
3/6/2000 2.96 1.4/26/2000 2.9 6/16/2000 2.47 1.
3/7/2000 2.94 2.4/27/2000 3.06 6/17/2000 2.03
3/8/2000 2.97 3.4/28/2000 4.08 6/18/2000 1.97
3/9/2000 2.94 1.4/29/2000 3.58 6/19/2000 2.62
3/10/2000 2.73 22.4/30/2000 2.82 6/20/2000 2.5
3/11/2000 2.55 5/1/2000 3.13 6/21/2000 2.57
3/12/2000 2.29 5/2/2000 3.35 6/22/2000 2.45
3/13/2000 2.76 39.5/3/2000 3.14 6/23/2000 2.41
3/14/2000 2.8 8.5/4/2000 3.07 6/24/2000 2.03
3/15/2000 2.84 10.5/5/2000 2.91 3.6/25/2000 1.93

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-31
Table C- 2 (Continued)

6/26/2000 2.54 8/16/2000 2.72 21.10/6/2000 2.58
6/27/2000 2.46 8/17/2000 2.82 54.10/7/2000 2.21
6/28/2000 2.89 8/18/2000 2.9 7.10/8/2000 2.18
6/29/2000 2.74 2.8/19/2000 2.44 10/9/2000 2.71
6/30/2000 2.28 8/20/2000 2.29 10/10/2000 2.71
7/1/2000 1.9 8/21/2000 2.77 2.10/11/2000 2.68
7/2/2000 1.79 8/22/2000 2.88 10/12/2000 2.72
7/3/2000 1.97 8/23/2000 2.84 10/13/2000 2.46
7/4/2000 1.92 8/24/2000 2.8 10/14/2000 2.24
7/5/2000 2.18 8/25/2000 2.55 3.10/15/2000 2.12
7/6/2000 2.23 8/26/2000 2.28 10/16/2000 2.69
7/7/2000 2.9 8/27/2000 2.24 10/17/2000 2.76
7/8/2000 2.12 8/28/2000 3.11 10/18/2000 2.49
7/9/2000 2.04 8/29/2000 2.81 10/19/2000 2.68 9.
7/10/2000 2.49 8/30/2000 2.73 10/20/2000 2.59 3.
7/11/2000 2.51 8/31/2000 3.01 1.10/21/2000 2.25
7/12/2000 2.83 2.9/1/2000 2.56 9.5 10/22/2000 2.18
7/13/2000 3.3 9/2/2000 2.99 10/23/2000 2.77
7/14/2000 2.76 9/3/2000 2.95 10/24/2000 2.61 1.
7/15/2000 2.43 9/4/2000 2.84 10/25/2000 2.69 21.
7/16/2000 2.17 9/5/2000 2.75 10/26/2000 2.62
7/17/2000 2.79 9/6/2000 2.76 10/27/2000 2.45
7/18/2000 2.82 9/7/2000 2.72 10/28/2000 4.22
7/19/2000 2.67 9/8/2000 2.71 3.10/29/2000 2.24
7/20/2000 2.66 9/9/2000 2.37 10/30/2000 2.61
7/21/2000 2.78 3.9/10/2000 2.22 10/31/2000 2.53
7/22/2000 2.45 9/11/2000 2.8 11/1/2000 2.92
7/23/2000 2.55 9/12/2000 2.66 11/2/2000 2.59
7/24/2000 3.59 9/13/2000 2.34 11/3/2000 2.51 1.5
7/25/2000 3.1 9/14/2000 2.56 11/4/2000 2.25
7/26/2000 3.09 2.9/15/2000 2.97 11/5/2000 2.1
7/27/2000 2.79 1.9/16/2000 2.91 11/6/2000 2.68
7/28/2000 2.8 9/17/2000 2.16 11/7/2000 2.7
7/29/2000 2.36 9/18/2000 2.73 11/8/2000 2.76 3.
7/30/2000 2.21 9/19/2000 4.05 11/9/2000 2.91 29.
7/31/2000 3.04 1.9/20/2000 2.89 3.11/10/2000 2.62
8/1/2000 3.8 4.9/21/2000 2.77 11/11/2000 2.21
8/2/2000 3.02 9/22/2000 2.7 11/12/2000 2.16
8/3/2000 2.92 9/23/2000 3.3 11/13/2000 2.6
8/4/2000 3.14 9/24/2000 2.47 11/14/2000 3.29
8/5/2000 2.5 9/25/2000 3.57 11/15/2000 2.72 6.5
8/6/2000 2.38 9/26/2000 3.63 4.11/16/2000 2.77 5.
8/7/2000 2.82 9/27/2000 2.97 11/17/2000 2.61 2.
8/8/2000 2.82 9/28/2000 2.8 11/18/2000 2.26
8/9/2000 2.83 9/29/2000 2.81 11/19/2000 2.46
8/10/2000 3.82 9/30/2000 2.34 11/20/2000 2.92
8/11/2000 2.8 10/1/2000 2.39 11/21/2000 2.76 1.
8/12/2000 2.38 10/2/2000 2.68 11/22/2000 2.58
8/13/2000 2.2 10/3/2000 2.8 11/23/2000 2.18
8/14/2000 2.81 1.10/4/2000 2.65 11/24/2000 2.2
8/15/2000 2.81 6.10/5/2000 2.82 11/25/2000 2.91

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-32
Table C- 2 (Continued)

11/26/2000 2.58 1/16/2001 2.54 3/8/2001 2.98
11/27/2000 2.74 1/17/2001 2.51 3/9/2001 2.78
11/28/2000 2.74 1/18/2001 3.3 1.3/10/2001 2.55
11/29/2000 2.74 1.1/19/2001 3.72 3/11/2001 2.31
11/30/2000 2.65 1/20/2001 4.16 3/12/2001 2.87
12/1/2000 2.46 1/21/2001 2.88 3/13/2001 3.08
12/2/2000 2.29 1/22/2001 2.91 3/14/2001 2.81
12/3/2000 2.15 1/23/2001 2.88 3/15/2001 3.81
12/4/2000 2.4 1/24/2001 2.87 3/16/2001 3.33
12/5/2000 2.3 1.1/25/2001 2.7 3/17/2001 2.86
12/6/2000 2.71 1/26/2001 2.28 3/18/2001 2.66
12/7/2000 2.55 1/27/2001 2.25 3/19/2001 2.99
12/8/2000 2.54 1/28/2001 2.63 3/20/2001 3.34
12/9/2000 2.14 1/29/2001 2.41 3/21/2001 4.5
12/10/2000 2.09 1/30/2001 2.99 3/22/2001 3.91
12/11/2000 2.51 1/31/2001 2.72 3/23/2001 3.14 2.
12/12/2000 2.67 2/1/2001 2.32 3/24/2001 2.76
12/13/2000 2.82 2/2/2001 2.4 3/25/2001 2.55
12/14/2000 2.79 2/3/2001 2.15 3/26/2001 2.97
12/15/2000 2.45 1.2/4/2001 2.08 3/27/2001 2.84
12/16/2000 2.62 2/5/2001 2.42 3/28/2001 2.83
12/17/2000 3.12 2/6/2001 2.58 2.3/29/2001 4.08
12/18/2000 2.77 2/7/2001 2.6 3/30/2001 4.65
12/19/2000 2.95 2/8/2001 2.51 3/31/2001 3.83
12/20/2000 2.65 2/9/2001 2.32 4/1/2001 4.17
12/21/2000 2.65 2/10/2001 2.33 4/2/2001 3.99
12/22/2000 2.45 2/11/2001 2.06 4/3/2001 3.65
12/23/2000 2.2 2/12/2001 3.4/4/2001 3.7
12/24/2000 2.21 2/13/2001 2.8 4/5/2001 3.29
12/25/2000 2.03 2/14/2001 2.96 4/6/2001 3.27
12/26/2000 2.26 2/15/2001 2.95 1.4/7/2001 2.51
12/27/2000 2.55 2/16/2001 3.4/8/2001 2.67
12/28/2000 2.52 2/17/2001 4.6 4/9/2001 3.01
12/29/2000 2.37 2/18/2001 3.4/10/2001 2.89
12/30/2000 2.32 2/19/2001 3.08 4/11/2001 2.85
12/31/2000 2.27 2/20/2001 2.85 4/12/2001 2.65
1/1/2001 2.34 2/21/2001 2.8 4/13/2001 2.53
1/2/2001 2.68 2/22/2001 2.9 4/14/2001 2.33
1/3/2001 2.57 2/23/2001 2.55 4/15/2001 2.33
1/4/2001 2.68 2/24/2001 2.63 4/16/2001 2.78
1/5/2001 2.6 2/25/2001 3.13 4/17/2001 2.83
1/6/2001 2.32 2/26/2001 3.29 4/18/2001 2.95
1/7/2001 2.25 2/27/2001 2.98 4/19/2001 2.88
1/8/2001 2.81 2/28/2001 2.79 4/20/2001 2.79
1/9/2001 2.59 3/1/2001 2.69 4/21/2001 2.26
1/10/2001 2.63 3/2/2001 2.75 4/22/2001 2.12
1/11/2001 2.58 3/3/2001 2.6 4/23/2001 2.74
1/12/2001 2.56 3/4/2001 3.88 4/24/2001 2.92
1/13/2001 2.37 3/5/2001 3.85 4/25/2001 3.65
1/14/2001 2.08 3/6/2001 3.28 4/26/2001 2.92
1/15/2001 2.63 3/7/2001 3.06 4/27/2001 2.6

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-33
Table C- 2 (Continued)

4/28/2001 2.22 6/18/2001 2.64 8/8/2001 1.9
4/29/2001 2.16 6/19/2001 2.53 8/9/2001 1.83
4/30/2001 2.56 6/20/2001 2.48 8/10/2001 2.29 10.
5/1/2001 2.6 6/21/2001 2.56 8/11/2001 1.97
5/2/2001 2.55 6/22/2001 2.68 8/12/2001 2.12
5/3/2001 2.61 6/23/2001 2.33 8/13/2001 2.54
5/4/2001 2.3 6/24/2001 1.9 8/14/2001 2.54 5.
5/5/2001 2.12 6/25/2001 4.25 8/15/2001 2.34
5/6/2001 1.96 6/26/2001 2.63 8/16/2001 2.18 2.
5/7/2001 2.55 1.6/27/2001 2.61 8/17/2001 2.17
5/8/2001 2.55 6/28/2001 2.59 1.8/18/2001 2.59
5/9/2001 2.36 6/29/2001 2.89 8/19/2001 1.93
5/10/2001 1.62 6/30/2001 2.01 8/20/2001 2.29
5/11/2001 2.54 7/1/2001 1.95 8/21/2001 2.39
5/12/2001 2.13 7/2/2001 2.44 8/22/2001 4.49
5/13/2001 1.97 7/3/2001 1.97 8/23/2001 2.32
5/14/2001 2.6 7/4/2001 2.8 8/24/2001 2.5
5/15/2001 2.5 7/5/2001 2.99 8/25/2001 2.2
5/16/2001 3.03 7/6/2001 2.9 8/26/2001 2.
5/17/2001 2.99 7/7/2001 2.1 8/27/2001 2.4
5/18/2001 2.5 7/8/2001 2.43 8/28/2001 2.24
5/19/2001 2.22 7/9/2001 2.66 8/29/2001 2.24
5/20/2001 2.25 7/10/2001 2.51 8/30/2001 2.49
5/21/2001 2.82 1.7/11/2001 2.7 8/31/2001 3.17
5/22/2001 2.75 7/12/2001 2.5 9/1/2001 1.95
5/23/2001 2.6 7/13/2001 2.51 9/2/2001 1.78
5/24/2001 2.59 7/14/2001 2.13 9/3/2001 1.95
5/25/2001 2.49 7/15/2001 2.14 9/4/2001 2.6
5/26/2001 3.41 7/16/2001 2.48 9/5/2001 2.59
5/27/2001 2.04 7/17/2001 2.42 9/6/2001 2.29
5/28/2001 2.67 7/18/2001 2.52 9/7/2001 2.31
5/29/2001 2.69 7/19/2001 2.54 9/8/2001 1.97
5/30/2001 2.56 8.7/20/2001 2.43 9/9/2001 1.99
5/31/2001 2.52 7/21/2001 2.07 9/10/2001 2.39
6/1/2001 3.03 1.7/22/2001 1.95 9/11/2001 2.33 1.
6/2/2001 2.34 7/23/2001 2.29 9/12/2001 2.33
6/3/2001 2.03 7/24/2001 2.54 2.9/13/2001 2.86 1.
6/4/2001 2.57 7/25/2001 2.69 2.9/14/2001 2.03
6/5/2001 2.5 4.7/26/2001 3.21 1.9/15/2001 1.99
6/6/2001 2.62 2.7/27/2001 2.77 2.9/16/2001 1.93
6/7/2001 2.63 7/28/2001 2.13 9/17/2001 2.41
6/8/2001 2.54 7/29/2001 2.23 9/18/2001 2.37
6/9/2001 2.08 7/30/2001 2.61 9/19/2001 2.4
6/10/2001 1.93 7/31/2001 2.5 9/20/2001 2.78 5.
6/11/2001 2.6 8/1/2001 2.53 9/21/2001 2.34 4.
6/12/2001 2.59 8/2/2001 2.54 9/22/2001 1.98
6/13/2001 3.1.8/3/2001 2.47 9/23/2001 1.9
6/14/2001 2.92 1.8/4/2001 2.03 9/24/2001 3.03
6/15/2001 2.82 8/5/2001 1.91 9/25/2001 2.93
6/16/2001 2.26 8/6/2001 2.53 9/26/2001 2.46
6/17/2001 2.8/7/2001 2.24 9/27/2001 2.47

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-34
Table C- 2 (Continued)

9/28/2001 2.36 11/18/2001 1.9 1/8/2002 2.69
9/29/2001 2.07 11/19/2001 2.25 1/9/2002 2.53
9/30/2001 2.03 11/20/2001 2.24 3.1/10/2002 2.6
10/1/2001 2.28 11/21/2001 2.14 1/11/2002 2.31 3.
10/2/2001 2.46 11/22/2001 2.05 1/12/2002 2.3
10/3/2001 2.32 11/23/2001 1.82 1/13/2002 2.08
10/4/2001 2.32 11/24/2001 2.36 1/14/2002 2.47
10/5/2001 2.29 1.11/25/2001 1.89 1/15/2002 2.43
10/6/2001 2.04 11/26/2001 2.21 1/16/2002 2.34
10/7/2001 1.96 11/27/2001 2.27 1/17/2002 2.3
10/8/2001 2.46 11/28/2001 2.3 1.1/18/2002 2.39 7.
10/9/2001 2.34 11/29/2001 2.25 1/19/2002 2.59
10/10/2001 2.29 11/30/2001 2.32 1/20/2002 3.81
10/11/2001 2.35 12/1/2001 2.02 1/21/2002 3.45
10/12/2001 2.29 12/2/2001 1.87 1/22/2002 3.1 3.
10/13/2001 1.99 12/3/2001 2.33 1/23/2002 5.03
10/14/2001 2.28 12/4/2001 2.3 1/24/2002 4.26
10/15/2001 2.46 12/5/2001 2.26 1/25/2002 4.38
10/16/2001 2.45 12/6/2001 2.28 1/26/2002 3.26
10/17/2001 2.7 12/7/2001 2.09 1/27/2002 2.05
10/18/2001 2.43 12/8/2001 1.86 1/28/2002 3.01
10/19/2001 2.36 12/9/2001 1.77 1/29/2002 2.83
10/20/2001 2.2 12/10/2001 3.12 1/30/2002 2.66
10/21/2001 2.01 12/11/2001 3.1/31/2002 2.69
10/22/2001 2.26 13.12/12/2001 2.42 2/1/2002 2.62 9.
10/23/2001 1.84 12/13/2001 2.44 3.2/2/2002 2.36
10/24/2001 2.27 12/14/2001 2.5 3.2/3/2002 2.23
10/25/2001 2.31 12/15/2001 2.07 2/4/2002 2.5
10/26/2001 2.29 12/16/2001 1.94 2/5/2002 2.64
10/27/2001 1.99 12/17/2001 2.99 2/6/2002 2.72
10/28/2001 2.14 12/18/2001 2.55 29.2/7/2002 3.74
10/29/2001 2.42 12/19/2001 2.44 2/8/2002 3.06
10/30/2001 2.4 5.12/20/2001 2.24 2/9/2002 2.53
10/31/2001 2.36 12/21/2001 2.13 8.2/10/2002 2.66
11/1/2001 2.37 12/22/2001 1.99 2/11/2002 3.
11/2/2001 2.3 12/23/2001 1.94 2/12/2002 2.72 1.
11/3/2001 2.06 12/24/2001 2.48 2/13/2002 2.71 2.
11/4/2001 1.97 12/25/2001 1.86 2/14/2002 2.52
11/5/2001 2.45 1.12/26/2001 2.08 2/15/2002 2.49 1.
11/6/2001 2.25 12/27/2001 2.13 2/16/2002 2.41
11/7/2001 2.37 12/28/2001 2.03 2/17/2002 2.34
11/8/2001 2.39 12/29/2001 1.95 2/18/2002 2.53 4.
11/9/2001 2.25 12/30/2001 1.9 2/19/2002 2.99 4.
11/10/2001 2.04 12/31/2001 2.1 2/20/2002 2.12 1.
11/11/2001 1.99 1/1/2002 1.8 2/21/2002 2.49 1.
11/12/2001 2.37 1/2/2002 2.2 2/22/2002 2.46 3.
11/13/2001 2.27 1/3/2002 2.2 2/23/2002 2.43
11/14/2001 2.36 1/4/2002 2.6 2/24/2002 2.26
11/15/2001 2.34 7.1/5/2002 2.3 2/25/2002 2.21
11/16/2001 2.12 4.1/6/2002 3.07 2/26/2002 2.54
11/17/2001 1.96 1/7/2002 3.12 3.2/27/2002 2.52

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-35
Table C- 2 (Continued)

2/28/2002 2.52 4/21/2002 2.14 6/12/2002 2.06 5.
3/1/2002 2.4 4/22/2002 2.5 6/13/2002 2.11
3/2/2002 3.03 4/23/2002 2.76 3.6/14/2002 2.12 12.
3/3/2002 3.43 4/24/2002 2.64 10.6/15/2002 1.87
3/4/2002 2.96 4/25/2002 2.55 3.6/16/2002 1.7
3/5/2002 2.9 4/26/2002 2.75 18.6/17/2002 2.08 1.
3/6/2002 2.75 3.4/27/2002 2.11 6/18/2002 2.15
3/7/2002 2.73 8.4/28/2002 2.01 6/19/2002 2.05 1.
3/8/2002 2.9 4/29/2002 2.46 6/20/2002 2.07 52.
3/9/2002 2.22 4/30/2002 2.47 6/21/2002 2.05 14.
3/10/2002 2.32 5/1/2002 2.52 6/22/2002 1.79
3/11/2002 2.8 1.5/2/2002 2.33 6/23/2002 1.79
3/12/2002 3.17 1.5/3/2002 2.42 6/24/2002 2.19
3/13/2002 4.26 1.5/4/2002 2.27 6/25/2002 2.17 2.
3/14/2002 3.61 2.5/5/2002 2.52 6/26/2002 2.9 11.
3/15/2002 3.17 3.5/6/2002 2.45 6/27/2002 2.86
3/16/2002 2.7 5/7/2002 2.39 6/28/2002 2.37
3/17/2002 2.86 5/8/2002 2.24 6/29/2002 2.19
3/18/2002 3.31 5/9/2002 2.5 6/30/2002 1.66
3/19/2002 3.5/10/2002 2.32 7/1/2002 1.84 1.
3/20/2002 3.07 5/11/2002 2.03 7/2/2002 1.54
3/21/2002 3.95 3.5/12/2002 1.88 7/3/2002 2.
3/22/2002 3.32 5/13/2002 2.63 7/4/2002 2.
3/23/2002 2.92 5/14/2002 2.69 3.7/5/2002 2.1
3/24/2002 2.72 5/15/2002 2.26 7/6/2002 2.06
3/25/2002 3.09 5/16/2002 2.48 7/7/2002 1.98
3/26/2002 3.06 5/17/2002 2.11 7/8/2002 2.94 1.
3/27/2002 3.39 5/18/2002 2.32 7/9/2002 2.46
3/28/2002 2.96 5/19/2002 2.02 7/10/2002 1.96 1.
3/29/2002 2.75 5/20/2002 2.37 2.7/11/2002 2.5
3/30/2002 2.47 5/21/2002 2.45 7/12/2002 2.62
3/31/2002 2.63 5/22/2002 2.41 7/13/2002 2.05
4/1/2002 3.68 5.5/23/2002 2.36 2.7/14/2002 2.17
4/2/2002 2.48 3.5/24/2002 2.4 7/15/2002 1.96
4/3/2002 2.9 5/25/2002 1.96 7/16/2002 2.83
4/4/2002 2.75 5/26/2002 1.8 7/17/2002 1.8 2.
4/5/2002 2.63 5/27/2002 2.29 7/18/2002 2.71
4/6/2002 2.61 5/28/2002 2.28 3.7/19/2002 1.83 1.
4/7/2002 2.27 5/29/2002 2.37 2.7/20/2002 2.15
4/8/2002 2.74 10.5/30/2002 2.29 7/21/2002 1.9
4/9/2002 2.75 4.5/31/2002 2.23 7/22/2002 2.48 2.
4/10/2002 2.98 2.6/1/2002 2.27 7/23/2002 2.62
4/11/2002 2.62 5.6/2/2002 1.9 7/24/2002 2.84
4/12/2002 2.65 4.6/3/2002 2.19 7/25/2002 3.01
4/13/2002 2.46 6/4/2002 2.27 7/26/2002 3.38
4/14/2002 2.45 6/5/2002 2.21 7/27/2002 2.23
4/15/2002 2.8 6/6/2002 2.41 2.7/28/2002 2.05
4/16/2002 2.63 6/7/2002 2.67 3.7/29/2002 2.39
4/17/2002 1.95 2.6/8/2002 2.7/30/2002 2.39 7.
4/18/2002 2.63 2.6/9/2002 1.81 7/31/2002 2.35 1.
4/19/2002 2.57 3.6/10/2002 2.18 8/1/2002 1.95
4/20/2002 2.28 6/11/2002 2.16 8/2/2002 2.28
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

C-36
Table C- 2 (Continued)

8/3/2002 1.9 9/23/2002 2.63 11/13/2002 4.57
8/4/2002 2.9/24/2002 2.73 11/14/2002 3.85
8/5/2002 2.24 9/25/2002 2.61 11/15/2002 3.3
8/6/2002 2.48 9/26/2002 3.64 11/16/2002 4.26
8/7/2002 2.37 9/27/2002 3.42 11/17/2002 5.6
8/8/2002 2.21 9/28/2002 2.9 11/18/2002 4.91
8/9/2002 2.17 9/29/2002 2.55 11/19/2002 3.97
8/10/2002 2.01 9/30/2002 2.85 11/20/2002 4.65
8/11/2002 1.95 10/1/2002 2.81 11/21/2002 2.6
8/12/2002 2.49 10/2/2002 2.77 11/22/2002 3.36
8/13/2002 2.5 10/3/2002 2.7 11/23/2002 2.86
8/14/2002 2.59 10/4/2002 2.5 11/24/2002 2.76
8/15/2002 2.7 10/5/2002 2.24 11/25/2002 2.98
8/16/2002 2.59 10/6/2002 2.17 11/26/2002 2.99
8/17/2002 2.21 10/7/2002 2.58 11/27/2002 2.87
8/18/2002 2.1 10/8/2002 2.67 11/28/2002 2.62
8/19/2002 2.36 10/9/2002 2.41 11/29/2002 2.49
8/20/2002 2.54 10/10/2002 2.54 11/30/2002 2.54
8/21/2002 2.36 10/11/2002 3.86 12/1/2002 2.59
8/22/2002 2.3 10/12/2002 3.68 12/2/2002 2.82
8/23/2002 2.27 10/13/2002 3.8 12/3/2002 2.76
8/24/2002 2.05 10/14/2002 3.18 12/4/2002 3.02
8/25/2002 1.97 10/15/2002 3.45 12/5/2002 1.9
8/26/2002 3.35 10/16/2002 5.34 12/6/2002 1.47
8/27/2002 2.87 10/17/2002 4.06 12/7/2002 2.84
8/28/2002 2.99 10/18/2002 3.29 12/8/2002 2.64
8/29/2002 2.69 10/19/2002 2.87 12/9/2002 3.24
8/30/2002 3.63 10/20/2002 2.42 12/10/2002 2.86
8/31/2002 3.86 10/21/2002 3.1 12/11/2002 4.64
9/1/2002 4.69 10/22/2002 3.33 12/12/2002 3.97
9/2/2002 2.97 10/23/2002 2.87 12/13/2002 4.78
9/3/2002 2.9 10/24/2002 2.97 12/14/2002 4.42
9/4/2002 3.10/25/2002 2.88 12/15/2002 3.78
9/5/2002 2.74 10/26/2002 2.64 12/16/2002 3.64
9/6/2002 2.59 10/27/2002 2.6 12/17/2002 3.48
9/7/2002 2.3 10/28/2002 3.82 12/18/2002 3.3
9/8/2002 2.2 10/29/2002 4.61 12/19/2002 3.25
9/9/2002 2.62 10/30/2002 4.36 12/20/2002 4.05
9/10/2002 2.61 10/31/2002 3.51 12/21/2002 3.34
9/11/2002 2.6 11/1/2002 3.13 12/22/2002 2.97
9/12/2002 2.42 11/2/2002 2.76 12/23/2002 2.9
9/13/2002 2.36 11/3/2002 2.61 12/24/2002 4.06
9/14/2002 2.54 11/4/2002 2.92 12/25/2002 .45
9/15/2002 3.88 11/5/2002 3.38 12/26/2002 3.47
9/16/2002 3.87 11/6/2002 4.58 12/27/2002 3.06
9/17/2002 3.07 11/7/2002 3.62 12/28/2002 2.81
9/18/2002 3.37 11/8/2002 3.16 12/29/2002 2.67
9/19/2002 3.57 11/9/2002 3.06 12/30/2002 2.73
9/20/2002 2.46 11/10/2002 2.88 12/31/2002 2.7
9/21/2002 2.19 11/11/2002 3.26
9/22/2002 2.91 11/12/2002 5.01
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

D-1

APPENDIX D: TMDL QUESTIONAIRE – DAVIDSON COUNTY (RICH FORK
CREEK AND HAMBY CREEK WATERSHEDS)

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

D-2
TMDL QUESTIONAIRE – Davidson County (Hamby Creek Watershed)

Manure Application
1. Is manure from beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, poultry, sheep, or horses collected and applied to agricultural
lands? Only extremely limited amounts around feeders – mostly beef cattle on pasture.
Can you approximate the percentage of livestock that is collected and applied to agricultural land?
Example: 30 percent swine, 100 percent dairy cattle, and 100 percent poultry are collected and applied.

Animal Type Percent Collected and Applied
Beef Cattle Less than 5%
Dairy Cattle No commercial operations in watershed
Swine No commercial operations in watershed
Poultry No commercial operations in watershed
Sheep No commercial operations in watershed
Horses No commercial operations in watershed

2. Is manure imported (poultry litter) into the county? Yes or No (circle correct answer)

2a. Are there any confined poultry operations? How do they manage their poultry litter?
Where (and how, and when) do they land apply? None in this watershed

3. If so, is data available to calculate the loading rates? Yes or No (circle correct answer)
What are the rates if known? __________________

4. Dairy cattle are assumed to be confined 40 percent of the time and grazing 60 percent. Dairy cattle are assumed
not to have access to streams. No commercial dairy operations in this watershed
How is the liquid residual from cleaning barns after milking disposed of?
It could be assumed that the majority of the operation’s parlor waste is collected with the waste system. If this
is a significant amount available for runoff, please indicate. ___

Stream Access

5. Do beef cattle have access to streams? Yes or No (circle correct answer)
Could you approximate the percentage beef cattle having stream access within the watershed? 95%__

6. Are hogs confined or do they have limited stream access? Confined _ Limited access __
No commercial swine operations in this watershed
7. Percent of beef cows with access to forested areas __100____%

8. Do you think the estimated number of 22-38 deer per square mile is accurate? Yes or No (circle correct answer)
No estimate. Contact NC Wildlife Resources Commission

9. Do you have any other estimate on deer population? ___________ per square mile

Septic System Contribution

10. What do you estimate the septic system failure rate in your county to be? _________%
EPA assumes 20 percent. No estimate. Contact Davidson County Health Department

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report

D-3

TMDL QUESTIONAIRE – Davidson County (Rich Fork Creek Watershed)

Manure Application
1. Is manure from beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, poultry, sheep, or horses collected and applied to agricultural
lands? Only in very limited amounts from beef cattle operations from around feeders. One poultry
operation applies waste in this watershed.
Can you approximate the percentage of livestock that is collected and applied to agricultural land?
Example: 30 percent swine, 100 percent dairy cattle, and 100 percent poultry are collected and applied.

Animal Type Percent Collected and Applied
Beef Cattle Less than 5%
Dairy Cattle No commercial operations in
watershed
Swine No commercial operations in
watershed
Poultry 100% only 1 operation
Sheep No commercial operations in
watershed
Horses No commercial operations in
watershed

2. Is manure imported (poultry litter) into the county? Yes or No (circle correct answer)

3. If so, is data available to calculate the loading rates? Yes or No (circle correct answer)
What are the rates if known? _____

4. Dairy cattle are assumed to be confined 40 percent of the time and grazing 60 percent. Dairy cattle are assumed
not to have access to streams. No commercial dairies in this watershed
How is the liquid residual from cleaning barns after milking disposed of?
It could be assumed that the majority of the operation’s parlor waste is collected with the waste system. If this
is a significant amount available for runoff, please indicate. _ __

Stream Access

5. Do beef cattle have access to streams? Yes or No (circle correct answer)
Could you approximate the percentage beef cattle having stream access within the watershed? 95 _%

6. Are hogs confined or do they have limited stream access? Confined _ % Limited access __
No commercial swine operations in this watershed
7. Percent of beef cows with access to forested areas _100_____%

8. Do you think the estimated number of 15-30 deer per square mile is accurate? Yes or No (circle correct answer)
No estimate. Contact NC Wildlife Resources Commission

9. Do you have any other estimate on deer population? ___________ per square mile

Septic System Contribution

10. What do you estimate the septic system failure rate in your county to be? ___;
EPA assumes 20 percent. No estimate. Contact Davidson County Health Department.
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
E-1

APPENDIX E PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF RICH
FORK CREEK AND HAMBY CREEK FECAL COLIFORM
TMDLS

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
E-2
Appendix E-1. Public Notice

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality Division of Water Quality

Now Available Upon Request

Fecal Coliform
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Rich Fork and Hamby Creeks
Public Review Draft – February 2004

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 the pollutants, determines allowable
loads to surface waters, and suggests pollutant allocations.

TO OBTAIN A FREE COPY OF THE TMDL REPORT:

Please contact Ms. Robin Markham [phone], extension 558 or write to:
Adugna Kebede
Water Quality Planning Branch
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

The draft TMDL is also located on the following website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the draft TMDL study by March 25, 2004.
Comments concerning the report should be directed to the Division of Water Quality at the
above address.

Public Meeting Notice
A public meeting to discuss the TMDL will be held on
March 18 at 10:00 AM at the following address:
Thomasville Public Library (Conference Room)
14 Randolph Street
Thomasville, NC 27360
Phone: (336)- 474-2690

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer
Service 1 800 623-7748
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
E-3
Appendix E-2. Affidavit of Publication from High Point Enterprise Public Notification

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
E-4

Appendix E-3. Affidavit of Publication from Thomasville Times Public Notification

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-1

APPENDIX F. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
OF THE RICH FORK CREEK AND HAMBY CREEK
FECAL COLIFORM TMDLS AND DWQ RESPONSE

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-2
Appendix F-1. Public Comments on the Public Review Draft of the Rich Fork
Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-3
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-4

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-5
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-6
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-7
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-8
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-9

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-10
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-11

Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-12

Appendix F-2. DWQ Response to Public Comment on the Public Review Draft of the Rich
Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs

Comments were received from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, and Ms.
Mary C. Cridlebaugh, a resident of the City of High Point, North Carolina. As discussed in the
TMDL, the Load Duration Curve (LDC) methodology is a simple method based on observed
data to estimate the reductions required to meet water quality standards. Load duration curves
are based on a cumulative frequency distribution of stream flow and water quality data from
monitoring stations within the watersheds. As with all modeling approaches there is uncertainty
associated with the methodology.

The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League commented that the watersheds are
undergoing rapid land use changes and the assumptions about land use and land cover should
reflect the current conditions. DWQ recognizes that the age of land cover/land use data (1996)
adds to uncertainty in the document. However, DWQ has used the best available information to
develop this TMDL. The methodology employed to determine the TMDLs (the Load Duration
Curve Methodology) is not dependent on direct land use inputs. The land use/land cover
information is included in the document to illustrate the various sources that contribute to
impairment and to aid in future implementation. As up-to-date land use/ land cover data becomes
available the land use/ land cover information included in the TMDL can be updated.

The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and Ms. Mary C. Cridlebaugh pointed
out that there is lack of adequate water quality monitoring in the watersheds especially upstream
of the Westside WWTP. A number of water quality monitoring stations, sampled by various
organizations, are located within the TMDL area. Monitoring data indicate that fecal coliform
concentrations in streams reaches throughout the watershed are high by most measures. Both
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek are listed on the 303(d) list based on the fecal coliform data
collected at DWQ’s monitoring stations located at SR# 1800 and SR#2790. Data collected at the
other stations are used in the TMDL document to assess observed bacteriological conditions in
watersheds. It is our recommendation that monitoring at the existing stations within the
watersheds continue to help evaluate progress in achieving water quality goals. We support
future monitoring efforts to characterize dry and wet season base flow conditions and storm
responses. The Piedmont Triad Council of Governments is currently conducting an extensive
Rich Fork Creek and Hamby Creek Fecal Coliform TMDLs Final Report
F-13

monitoring study within the watersheds with a goal of identifying and reducing fecal coliform
loads from various sources within the watersheds. Data for this study are being collected from a
number of sites both upstream and downstream of the Westside WWTP. DWQ will forward the
recommendation concerning monitoring upstream of the WWTP to the PTCOG so that further
monitoring may be included in their study.

Ms. Mary C. Cridlebaugh gave a detailed source assessment of fecal coliform loading to
Rich Fork Creek and reported that broken and/or leaky sewer lines between the City of High
Point and the Westside WWTP appear to be the major source of fecal coliform loading to the
creek. An assessment of potential sources of fecal coliform loads within the watershed was
performed as part of the TMDL development process. A more detailed source assessment is
more costly in terms of time and effort, but in the long run a detailed assessment will better
support future implementation decisions. We agree that a more detailed examination of leaky/
broken sewer lines between the City of Highpoint and the Westside WWTP and within the whole
watershed will aid future implementation of the TMDL and will help achieve the recommended
reduction target. DWQ will refer the issues raised concerning leaking sewer lines and related
spills to DWQ’s Winston-Salem Regional Office for further follow up and assessment.

The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League commented on the Phase II stormwater
program and the delay in permit issuance for High Point and Thomasville. The City of High
Point and the City of Thomasville applied for MS4 permit coverage in March 2003. Each
permittee is required to develop a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP), a means of
achieving continued and enhanced monitoring. A field screening and monitoring program will be
included in the SWMP to identify the types and extent of fecal coliform water quality problems,
relative degradation or improvement over time, areas of concern, and source identification. More
information on the Phase II Stormwater Program implementation can be obtained from the
Stormwater and General Permits Unit of the DWQ (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/stormwater.html).

Due to the level of uncertainty in the modeling assumptions and the input data, the DWQ
supports an adaptive management approach to reducing the fecal coliform levels within Rich
Fork Creek and Hamby Creek.