NC0063096_Speculative Limits_20110624

NPDES DOCVNENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Meeting Notes
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
June 24, 2011
This document is printed on reuse paper - igIzore any
content on the re'rerse side

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
June 24, 2011
Ms. Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
Holly Springs WWTP
Permit No. NC0063096
Wake County
Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Ms. Sudano:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
This letter provides speculative effluent limits of 6 MGD (Phase I) and 8 MGD (Phase II) for the Holly Springs
WWTP, which is currently permitted to discharge up to 2.4 MGD to Utley Creek. The Division received the
speculative limits request in an email dated June 21, 2011 from Bill Kreutzberger of CH2M HILL. The
requested discharge location is further downstream in Utley Creek below Greentree Reservoir (location B in
the CH2M Technical Memorandum dated June 21, 2011). Previously, speculative limits were provided for a
discharge directly to Harris Lake (letter dated February 23, 2010). Please recognize that speculative limits may
change based on future water quality initiatives, and it is highly recommended that the applicant verify the
speculative limits with the Division's NPDES Unit prior to any engineering design work.
Receiving Stream. Utley Creek is located within the Cape Fear River Basin. Utley Creek has a stream
classification of C, and waters with this classification have a best usage for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Utley Creek has a summer
7Q10 flow of 0.11 cfs at the current discharge location based on USGS 1993 data.
Utley Creek is not listed as an impaired waterbody on the 2010 North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List.
The current discharge enters the headwaters of Utley Creek. Below the current discharge point, the discharge
enters Thomas Mill Pond which is shallow and subject to algal blooms. Further downstream in Utley Creek is
Greentree Reservoir, and there is some uncertainty regarding the outlet flow regime that will be operated by
Progress Energy. Hence, to alleviate water quality concerns similar to Thomas Mill Pond, this speculative
request is for a discharge point directly below Greentree Reservoir and approximately 0.7 miles from the
White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake (at its current level of 220' MSL). Harris Lake is a manmade reservoir
that provides cooling, process, and domestic water for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] ! FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterctuaiitv.orq
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Speculative Effluent Limits. Based on Division review of receiving stream conditions, CE-QUAL-W2 lake
response modeling, and QUAL2E-UNCAS stream modeling, speculative limits for the proposed expansion to
6 MGD and 8 MGD are presented in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these Limits and effluent/instream
monitoring requirements will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application. Some
features of the speculative limit development include the following:
• Nutrient Limits. Speculative nutrient limits are based on a nutrient response model developed for
discharge to Harris Lake. The model indicates that Harris Lake is highly responsive to phosphorus.
• BOD, NH3, DO Limits. Modeling indicates that there is very little impact on the dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the hypolimnion of Harris Lake with these proposed limits.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for Holly Springs WWTP (Proposed Expansion to 6 & 8 MGD)
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Daily Maximum
Flow
6 or 8 MGD
BOD5
5.0 mg/ L
7.5 mg/ L
NH3 as N
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/ L
TSS
30 mg/ L
45 mg/ L
TRC
28 ug/1
Fecal coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Dissolved Oxygen
7.0 mg/I (Daily Average, Minimum)
pH
6.0 to 9.0 standard units
Total Nitrogen
5.0 mg N/1
Total Phosphorus
0.5 mg/ I
Ortho Phosphorus
0.27 mg/1
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
90%
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES
permit for an expanded discharge will be issued with these speculative limits. Final decisions can only be
made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the expanded discharge. In
accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable wastewater treatment and disposal
alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented. Therefore, as a
component of all NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives
analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an analysis of potential
wastewater treatment alternatives. A copy of Division guidance for preparing EAA documents is attached.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document must be prepared
for all projects that: 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public lands; and 3) might have a potential
to significantly impact the environment. For existing discharges, significant impact is defined as an expansion
of > 500,000 gpd additional flow. Since the Town of Holly Springs is proposing an expansion >500,000 gpd
flow, the Town must prepare a SEPA document that evaluates the potential for impacting the quality of the
environment. The NPDES Unit will not accept an NPDES permit application for the expanded discharge until
the Division has approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the
State Clearinghouse for review and comment. A SEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) should contain a
clear justification for the proposed project. If the SEPA EA demonstrates that the project may result in a
significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement). Since your expanded discharge is subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements
discussed above will need to be folded into the SEPA document. The SEPA process will be delayed if all EAA

requirements are not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding SEPA EA/EIS requirements,
please contact Hannah Stallings with the DWQ Planning Branch at [phone].
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please feel
free to contact me [phone].
Res . ectfulleJl*C—
m Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Hardcopy:
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, PO Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Attn: Sara Myers
NC WRC, Inland Fisheries, 1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1721 Attn: Fred Harris
Central Files
NPDES Permit File/NC0063096
Email Copy:
Danny Smith/DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Kathy Stecker/Modeling TMDL Unit
Hannah Stallings/ DWQ SEPA
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
Stephanie Sudano/Holly Springs
Chuck Wakild/DWQ
Matt Matthews/DWQ SWPS
Jeff Poupart/DWQ PSB
NPDES Server/Spec Limits

TAr1411917(#
c(zoii
Belnick, Tom
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stecker, Kathy
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:32 PM
Belnick, Tom
HS
MTU cannot make any definitive statements about the potential impact of the Holly Springs discharge below
Green Tree Reservoir on dissolved oxygen concentrations based on the currently submitted model due to the
following areas of uncertainty:
1. Uncertain flow estimate. Flow estimates are uncertain as documented in:
a. "Flow Estimates on Utley Creek" meeting summary memo (CH2MHi11, May 9, 2011),
b. an email from Bill Kreutzberger to Tom Belnick on May 25, 4:46 pm, and
c. "Evaluation of Proposed Utley Creek Discharge" memo (CH2MHill, June 21, 2011).
2. Only one calibration point. There are only two monitoring stations within the model extent. The first is
UTC-5 just below Thomas Millpond, which was used to develop headwater characteristics. This leaves
one station available to calibrate the model. This second station is UTC-7, approximately 1.1 miles
downstream of Thomas Mill Pond and near the location of the proposed discharge (below Green Tree,
0.7 miles from Harris Lake). Additional calibration points would reduce uncertainty and provide
confidence that the model is accurately predicting the spatial distribution of DO concentrations.
3. Only one data point. Because the Qual2e model represents steady state conditions, only one
monitoring data point (DO = 8.0 mg/L on 8/25/09) was used to calibrate the model. DO monitoring
data collected during the summer (defined as May — September) at UTC-7 range from 6.4 (8/15/09) to
13.5 mg/L (7/9/10). The model should have been evaluated for other data points measured during
summer months.
Bottom Line
The modeling was based on uncertain flow, one calibration point, and one data point. Adequate data could
only be acquired with additional field study and installation of a flow gage. The proposed discharge is 0.7 miles
above Harris Lake, and we have already determined that the downstream arm of Harris Lake can assimilate
the proposed discharge. Based on this proximity, but not on modeling results, you may want to consider spec
limits equal to the spec limits issued for direct discharge to Harris Lake.
i

14$164Pfor &roll t Ale OCID (13ocil
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
GIH2MHILL
Evaluation of Proposed Utley Creek Discharge
PREPARED FOR: NC Division of Water Quality
PREPARED BY: Klaus Albertin\ CH2M HILL
COPIES: Stephanie Sudano\Town of Holly Springs
Bill Kreut verger\ CH2M HILL
DATE:
Background
The Town of Holly Springs ("Town") is evaluating wastewater treatment and disposal
options to meet their growing demands. The Town current' dischar es effluent from their
water a lu a,tPQ f1cihtaWRF) to the headwat f„�T y„ tri to the to
,..0.41rXrakarrm of Harris Lae. own has received speculative limits for a discharge to
the White Oak Creearm of Harris Lake. The Town is interested in exploring the potential
for an alternative discharge location to Utley Creek below Thomas Mil Pond or Greentree
Reservoir. Discharging to Utley Creek will result in a shorter effluent line, less habitat
disturbance, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and resulting lower capital and operating
costs. This alternative has already been evaluated in a draft Environmental Assessment
(EA); however review of this EA/alternative by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) and other state/federal agencies cannot proceed until speculative limits
have been issued for this discharge location. This memo describes the approach used to
provide technical support for a decision regarding speculative effluent limits.
Approach
The QUAL2E-UNCAS model was used to evaluate the potential impacts to dissolved
oxygen (DO) concentrations as a result of the proposed discharge below either the Thomas
Mill Pond or Greentree Reservoir locations. QUAL2E-UNCAS is steady state stream water
quality model that is widely applied to support this type of evaluation (US EPA, 1987).
The first proposed discharge location (Location A) is directly below Thomas Mill Pond and
approximately 1.7 miles from the lake at its current level of 220' MSL and approximately 1.1
miles from the 240' MSL contour if the lake is raised to support expansion of the Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power facilities (see Attachment A-1). The second proposed discharge
location (Location B is direct' below Greentre n • t 0.7 miles
'from the lake at its current level of 220' MSL and at the 240' MSL contour if the lake is raised
to support expansion of the Shearon Harris Nuclear
Model Setup
ties (see Attachment
The model requires stream geometry, meteorological inputs, inflow information, instream
observations, and point source characteristics to predict instream water quality. The
QUAL2E model was setup to represent Utley Creek for a calibration period and for
b/toli
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
evaluating the proposed discharge during critical conditions; 7-day, 10-year low flow (7Q10
flow) and summer temperatures.
Stream Visit
Utley Creek is regularly visited as part of an ongoing monitoring program; however, a more
detailed field examination was performed on February 18th, 2011. The stream was walked
from the proposed discharge location below Thomas Mill Pond to its confluence with the
White Oak Arm of Harris Lake. Estimates of geometry were determined at regular intervals
and at areas where the stream characteristics changed significantly. The creek was highly
variable with sections changing from wide, straight, shallow areas to meandering, narrower,
pooled sections.
Based on the field observations, the model was split into three distinct reaches. The
characteristics as generalized in the model are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1
Utley Creek Reach Characteristics
Reach Segment Length (mi) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Type
Thomas Mill Pond 0.8 12 1 Relatively wide and straight,
to 1st Tributary occasional impedances from
vegetation or geology —
moderate Manning's n
1st Tributary to 2nd 0.5 10 1 - 2 Meandering with a few deeper
Tributary pools— higher Manning's n
2nd Tributary to
Harris Lake
0.4 15 1 Meandering but wider with fewer
pools, backwater near
confluence with Harris Lake —
moderate Manning's n
TABLE 2
Utley Creek Reach Characteristics
Reach Segment Top Elevation (ft)
Bottom Elevation
(ft)
Slope (ft/ft) Manning's n
Thomas Mill Pond 262 248
to 1st Tributary
1st Tributary to 2nd 248 238
Tributary
2nd Tributary to 238 220
Harris Lake
0.0065
0.0037
0.0043
0.035
0.040
0.035
2
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Inflow
Utley Creek is not monitored for flow. The current NPDES permit for the Utley Creek
WWTP is based on a 7Q10 value of 0.11 cfs. In researching this value, it was based on an
analysis by USGS that used three stations in the Raleigh area and the actual rate identified
by USGS was 0.11 cfs/mil (Personal Communication with USGS, 2011). This rate was used
to estimate a 7Q10 flow value for the new discharge location of 0.24 cfs based on the
drainage area of 2.25 mi2.
Scaling of flows from the USGS gage on Middle Creek near Clayton (USGS 02088000) was
used to develop a surrogate flow timeseries for Utley Creek for use in model calibration.
The Middle Creek watershed at this gage was identified as having similar characteristics as
the Utley Creek watershed although the Middle Creek flows are somewhat augmented by
discharges.
The Utley Creek flows were estimated by scaling the Middle Creek flows by the ratio of the
drainage areas. The relevant information for this approach is provided in Table 3. The
uncertainty analysis component (UNCAS) will be used to provide the estimate of the
impacts that these assumptions will have on model results.
The Middle Creek gage data was used to determine an appropriate time period for selecting
data from the monitoring program for model calibration. Review of the gage data indicated
that the lowest flow during the water quality monitoring period for Utley Creek occurred in
August 2009 as shown in Figure 1. As described in the next section, dates when monitoring
was performed were identified to select a specific calibration date.
TABLE 3
Drainage Area Ratios Used for Calibration Flow Estimates of Utley Creek
Middle Ck Utley Creek Utley Creek Trib Trib Total
Direct drainage Direct drainage 1 2
below TMP above TMP
Drainage (ac) 53,440 319.6 1437.7 178.6 463.6 2399.5
Drainage (mi sq) 83.5 0.50 2.25 0.28 0.72 3.75
Ratio to Middle Creek 1 0.006 0.027 0.003 0.009 0.04
Monitoring
Monthly to bi-weekly water quality monitoring was performed at five locations (UTC-1,
UTC-4, UTC-5, UTC-7, and UTC-10A) in the Utley Creek watershed (see Attachment A- 1)
from July 2009 to the present. The monitoring data collected are provided in Attachment A-
2. The August 25, 2009 date was selected for model calibration since it occurred during a
low flow period and field and laboratory monitoring data was collected on this date.
3
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. ' COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Meteorology
Temperature, cloud cover, and windspeed data was obtained for August 25, 2009 from the
Raleigh -Durham International Airport meteorology station for use in the model.
FIGURE 1
Results of the Utley Creek QUAL2E Calibration Run
u
u
O
100
10
1
Estimated Flow in Utley Creek
i
vmJAA
0.1
�����\ctio\titi� 1�ti�ti�ti�ti ti�\ti�ti�\���ti�\ a�ti�`�h�ti�\� ��ti~\��ti�\ ��ti�`� a1\�oy��~�\�ti�ti�\�
Model Calibration
The model was set up using the information described above. The model was run in steady
state mode for temperature, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen. The algal component was
turned off since past experience has shown the model results to be less conservative if run
with the algal simulation turned on. The estimated headwater and tributary flows were
estimated based on the scaling flows using information in Table 3. The scaling factor for the
Middle Creek flows at Thomas Mill Pond was determined to be 0.027 using the ratio of
drainage areas.
For August 25, 2009, the flow in Middle Creek was 18 cfs resulting in an estimated
headwater flow for Utley Creek below Thomas Mill Pond of 0.48 cfs. Station UT-5 is at a
location near the outlet of Thomas Mill Pond. The data from this location was used to
develop the headwater characteristics for the calibration. Values for the headwater input are
provided in Table 4. Monitoring has also been performed at a location approximately 1.1
miles downstream from Thomas Mill Pond identified as UTC-7. The data for UTC-7 was
used to check the calibration of the model.
4
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Model parameters were, in general, set to acceptable literature values. The values for key
parameters and inputs are provided in Table 5. The results of the calibration run are
provided in Figure 2. The QUAT 7F, input file for this run is provided in Attachment A-3.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are above saturation in the headwaters due to algal
blooms in Thomas Mill Pond. The model shows DO levels decreasing from these elevated
levels and equilibrating by the time DO is measured at Station UTC-7. These results
demonstrate that the model accurately predicts water quality in Utley Creek.
TABLE 4
Headwater Inputs
Parameter
Value Comment
Headwater Characteristics
Flow (mgd) 2.56 Combination of WRF discharge and
estimated watershed flow
CBOD, 5-day (mg/L) 2 Assumed
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 11.0 From UTC-5 monitoring
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.17 From UTC-5 monitoring
Nitrate (mg/L) 1.31 From UTC-5 monitoring
Nitrite (mg/L) 0.1 Assumed
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.68 From UTC-5 monitoring
Orthophosphorus (mg/L) 0.53 Assumed
TABLE 5
Values for Key QUAL2E Settings and Parameters
Parameter
Value Units
Rearation model O'Connor -Dobbins
Algal simulation No
Channel Specification Trapezoidal
Dispersion coefficient 60.0
Organic-N Hydrolysis 0.2 1/day
Ammonia Oxidation rate 0.2 1/day
BOD Deoxygenation Coefficient 0.23 1/day
Nitrite Oxidation rate 10.0 1/day
SOD uptake 0.1 gm/ft2/day
5
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
FIGURE 2
Results of the Utley Creek QUAL2E Calibration Run
Utley Creek QUAL2E DO Calibration
August 25, 2009
12
0
10
3
c:
E 6
0
0
4
2
0
7 r
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Distance below Thomas Millpond
• DO Sat (mg/L)
DO Sim (mg/L)
—O—DOObs (mg/L)
Uncertainty Analysis
Based on the model results and an understanding of the Utley Creek system, it is expected
that equilibration with the air and sediment would play the dominant role in controlling
dissolved oxygen concentrations. The UNCAS component of the QUAL2E model was run to
test out this assumption and to determine whether any given parameter can significantly
skew model results. This analysis is performed using the lst Order analysis component. The
results of this are shown in Table 6. These results show that DO levels are controlled by
rearation. The most significant factors are the temperature of the discharge and the air
pressure, both of which affect gas saturation. Varying these two factors, and therefore the
amount of DO which can be dissolved in the water column, has a greater affect than decay
of organic matter or the DO in the effluent. Since travel time is short between the discharge
and the lake, there is limited time for decay of organic matter and the associated impacts to
DO.
The UNCAS component was also used to run a Monte Carlo analysis. This module ran 500
simulations, adjusting parameters to determine the range of possible DO concentrations.
This sensitivity analysis is useful in situations where there is uncertainty associated with
model inputs. The results show that lowest DO concentrations are expected to be at the end
of the third reach and be in the range of 7.3 to 8.1 mg/L. The complete Monte Carlo analysis
results are provided in Table 7.The 1st Order analysis and Monte Carlo runs support the
conclusion that the discharge will have a minor effect on instream DO and that levels will
remain well above the water quality standard.
6
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TABLE 6
Sensitivity Analysis Results for Dissolved Oxygen
Reach 1
Reach 2 Reach 3
Manning's n
Variance 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002
Variance (%) 0.41% 0.73% 1.04%
Wet Bulb Temperature
Variance 0 0.0001 0.001
Variance (%) 0.09% 0.57% 4.42%
Atmospheric Pressure
Variance 0.0054 0.0062 0.0066
Variance (%) 28.63% 29.19% 30.40%
Sediment Oxygen Demand
Variance 0.0001 0.0007 0.0016
Variance (%) 0.34% 3.42% 7.37%
Point Load Temperature
Variance 0.0116 0.0135 0.0122
Variance (%) 61.44% 64.14% 55.64%
Point Load DO
Variance 0.0017 0.0003 0
Variance (%) 8.84% 1.59% 0.09%
7
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TABLE 7
Monte Carlo Analysis Results for Dissolved Oxygen
REACH 1
REACH 2 REACH 3
Simulation Mean 7.89 7.81 7.72
Bias 0.00 0.00 0.00
Minimum 7.56 7.46 7.30
Maximum 8.28 8.21 8.11
Range 0.72 0.74 0.82
Std Dev 0.14 0.15 0.15
Coefficient of Variance 0.02 0.02 0.02
Skew Coefficient 0.15 0.08 0.02
Scenario Evaluation
The calibrated model was used to test the potential discharge of 6 mgd and 8 mgd at
Location A and Location B to determine what impacts this discharge would have on
nutrients and DO for an Utley Creek discharge. A baseline run was also done to evaluate
predicted DO when no point source is included in Utley Creek. The environmental
conditions are summer meteorology and low flow conditions. At the time the model was
developed, the headwater flow of Utley Creek had not been determined. Therefore, a
headwater flow of 0.01 cfs was used as a conservative estimate. It was not considered
necessary to update these model runs based on the estimated 7Q10 flow of 0.24 cfs because
of the effluent dominated nature of the discharge scenarios.
The headwater DO was set to 4.0 mg/L to represent the potentially poor quality water being
released from the Thomas Mill Pond. Other headwater conditions remained as in the model
calibration run. As noted above, the actual flow from the pond is assumed to be minimal.
Progress Energy originally developed the Greentree Reservoir for the purposes of wildlife
management. The area can be flooded to a shallow depth through the use of a water control
structure at the downstream end of the area. Progress Energy is proposing to use this area as
a wetlands demonstration area (Progress Energy, 2011). The timeframe and specific
operational strategies are undefined at this time. The QUAL2E model was modified to
reflect the potential use of the area as a wetland/stream system by modifying the slope and
Manning's n numbers in the middle reach of the model. For the scenario runs, the slope for
the middle reach was changed from 0.0037 to 0.0001 and the Manning's n was changed from
0.04 to 0.15. This reduces the velocity in the middle reach by approximately an order of
magnitude.
8
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Location A Scenarios
The WRF discharge for the Location A scenarios is located at the first model element below
Thomas Mill Pond. The information in Table 8 is based on the previously issued speculative
limits for Harris Lake and was used to characterize the proposed discharge. The exception
to this is the DO limit for both Phase I and Phase II were set to 6.0 mg/L. Since the effluent
pipeline and new cascade have not been designed yet, it is not known whether a similar
cascade system can be installed at the new location. The results for the baseline and 6 mgd
and 8 mgd scenarios are shown in Figure 3. The QUAT .OF. input files for the baseline, 6 mgd,
and 8 mgd runs are provided in Attachment A-4, A-5, and A-6, respectively.
Location B Scenarios
The WRF discharge for the Location B scenarios is located at the first model element below
Greentree Reservoir. The information in Table 8 is based on the previously issued
speculative limits for Harris Lake and was used to characterize the proposed discharge. As
with the Location A scenarios, the DO limit was set to 6.0 mg/L. The results for the baseline
and 6 mgd and 8 mgd scenarios are shown in Figure 4. The QUAT .OF. input files for the 6
mgd and 8 mgd runs are provided in Attachment A-7 and A-8, respectively.
TABLE 8
Holly Springs WRF Discharge Characteristics
Parameter
Phase I Phase II
Flow (mgd) 6.0 8.0
BOD, 5-day (mg/L) 5.0 5.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 6.0 6.0
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 1.0 1.0
Total N (mg/L) 5.0 5.0
Nitrate (mg/L) 3.9 3.9
Nitrite (mg/L) 0.1 0.1
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.5 0.5
Orthophosphorus (mg/L) 0.27 0.27
9
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
FIGURE 3
Results of the Utley Creek QUAL2E Location A Allocation Run
Utley Creek QUAL2E DO
Location A Scenario Comparison
9
8.5 Discharge Location
8
7.5
00
E 7
0
O 6.5
6
5.5
5 •
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.S 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 L4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Distance below Thomas Millpond (miles)
- Baseline
- 6mgd
- - 8mgd
FIGURE 4
Results of the Utley Creek QUAL2E Location B Allocation Run
0
8.5
S
7.5
E7
O
0 6.5
6
5.5
5
Utley Creek QUAL2E DO
Location B Scenario Comparison
Discharge Location
f
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Distance below Thomas Millpond (miles)
6mgd
- - 8mgd
- Baseline
10
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
The baseline run shows a consistent DO level near 7.4 mg/L for the sections above and
below Greentree Reservoir, approximately 0.1 mg/L lower than saturation. A drop in DO to
approximately 6.5 is seen in the middle reach due to low velocities in the simulated
wetland/stream system of Greentree Reservoir. Under the baseline condition, the DO levels
never reach saturation since SOD removes a fraction of the available DO.
Under the scenario runs, virtually all of the flow is from the WRF. The instream DO
concentration is dominated by rearation associated with the additional flow from the WRF.
The same pattern of a jump in DO due to rearation from the increased flow, followed by
gradually decreasing DO is seen for both locations. The main difference seen between the
two scenarios is that location of the DO jump is further downstream for the Location B
scenarios as would be expected. The Location A scenarios maintain a slightly higher DO in
the Greentree Reservoir section whereas the Location B scenarios result in a slightly higher
DO at the end of the simulated section at the 220' elevation.
Conclusions
The model results demonstrate that the proposed discharge at either location will not
adversely impact and can potentially improve water quality conditions in the lower section
of Utley Creek. Flow from the WRF currently enters Thomas Mill Pond which is shallow
and subject to algal blooms. The flow leaving theyond is often of marg.a, i c uality. Both
discharge locations maintain DO levels above the water quality standard. Introduction of
the effluent from the WRF will provide a steady baseflow of high quality water in the ower
section o Utley Creek. Ilk u derstood that there is some uncertainty regarding the
o eratin re a that will be used b Pro er for Greentree Rese at long
eriods of deep impoun ent ma result in . .e_ • uali co ditions similar to what has
occurre. m omas ill and if the discharge is at Location ocation A. Location B below Greentree
'--Reservoir eviates s concern.
An evaluation of a discharge to Harris Lake was documented in the report Evaluation of
Potential Holly Springs Discharge Scenarios (CH2M HILL, 2009). Speculative limits for a lake
discharge were provided by DWQ on February 23rd, 2010 (DWQ, 2010). The modeling
presented in this technical memorandum demonstrates that the speculative limits are also
appropriate for a discharge to Utley Creek. Since the effluent pipeline and new cascade have
not been designed yet, it is not known whether a similar cascade system can be installed at
the new location. Based on the modeling results, especially the slope of DO decline and the
short distance to Harris Lake, it is our professional opinion that an effluent DO of 6 mg/L
would also protect water quality in the creek. The limits shown in Table 9 are therefore
requested from DWQ.
11
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TABLE 9
Requested Holly Springs WRF Speculative Limits
Parameter Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Flow (mgd) 6.0/8.0
BOD, 5-day (mg/L) 5.0 7.5
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 1.0 3.0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 30.0 45.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 6.01 6.01
pH 6.0 — 9.0 6.0 — 9.0
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/L) 28.02 28.02
Total N (mg/L) 5.0 5.0
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.5 0.5
Orthophosphorus (mg/L) 0.27 0.27
'Minimum daily average
2 Daily maximum
References
CH2M HILL. 2009. Evaluation of Potential Holly Springs Discharge Scenarios. Raleigh, NC.
DWQ. 2010. Speculative Limits, Town of Holly Springs WWTP. North Carolina Division of
Water Quality. February 23, 2010.
Personal Communication with USGS. 2011. Meeting with Town of Holly Springs, CH2M
Hill, and Curtis Weaver/USGS and Jeanne Robbins/ USGS on May 9, 2011.
Progress Energy. 2011. Letter to the Town of Holly Springs Regarding Plans for Utley Creek
and Greentree Reservoir.
US EPA. 1987. The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS:
Documentation and User Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development. Athens, GA.
USGS. 2005. DFLOW 3.1 User's Guide. U.S. Geological Survey.
12
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Attachment A-1. Utley Creek Monitoring and Proposed Discharge Location Area Map
Utley Creek Monitoring and Proposed Discharge Locations
0 0.150.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Miles
14
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Belnick, Tom
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:11 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Poupart, Jeff; Stecker, Kathy
Cc: Wakild, Chuck; Clark, Alan; Matthews, Matt; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Request for Speculative Permit Limits for the Town of Holly Springs
Attachments: Utley Ck QUAL2E TM-6-21-2011 Final.pdf
Dear Tom, Jeff and Kathy —The purpose of this email is to request speculative permit limits for the Town of Holly Springs
to discharge to Utley Creek below Greentree Reservoir (Location B in the attached Technical Memorandum). In
reviewing information for the Town's draft EA, we determined that additional analysis was necessary to actually
evaluate a discharge into the White Oak arm of Harris Lake. The prior alternative developed for this stopped short of the
lake — primarily to avoid wetland impacts. While the team working on the EA is evaluating a route and impacts to
discharge directly to the lake, we thought it would also be appropriate to request speculative limits to the Creek below
Greentree Reservoir since we already had modeling information that could be adapted for this location. If acceptable —
this location will have fewer wetland impacts than discharging directly to the lake.
The attached TM includes a description of Utley Creek and development of the model. It includes some modifications to
the model to simulate the wetland like nature of the Greentree Reservoir operated in a partially submerged state — as
being planned by Progress Energy. The model includes discharge scenarios below Thomas Mill Pond (Location A) and
below Greentree Reservoir (Location B). It is this latter location that we are requesting speculative limits for based on
the past concerns of water quality problems in impoundments and the uncertainty in how Progress plans to operate the
Greentree Reservoir.
We believe this analysis is relatively straightforward. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
contact me so that we can get information to address these as quickly as possible.
Thanks
Bill Kreutzberger
Bill Kreutzberger I CH2M HILL! Charlotte Office; Direct Phone [phone] (Mobile (/04)904-5918 IEmail -
[e-mail]
1

'. 1�foIrIriea-, PITMI Filr Akto 63011,
C/usif
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CU412MHILL
Evaluation of Proposed Utley Creek Discharge
PREPARED FOR:
NC Division of Water Quality
PREPARED BY: Klaus Albertin\CH2M HILL
COPIES:
DATE:
Background
Stephanie Sudano\Town of Holly Springs
Bil - tzberger\CH2M HILL
The Town of Holly Springs ("Town') is evaluating wastewater treatment and disposal
options to meet their growing demands. The Town currently discharges effluent from their
water reclamation facility (WRF) to the headwaters of Utley Creek, a tributary to the White
Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake. The Town has received speculative limits for a discharge
directly to the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake. The Town is interesting in exploring the
potential for an alternative discharge location to Utley Creek below Thomas Mill Pond.
Discharging to Utley Creek will result in a shorter effluent line, less habitat disturbance,
lower greenhouse gas emissions, and resulting lower capital and operating costs. This
alternative has already been evaluated in a draft Environmental Assessment (EA); however
review of this EA/alternative by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and
other state/federal agencies cannot proceed until speculative limits have been issued for
this discharge location. This memo describes the approach used to provide technical
support for a decision regarding speculative effluent limits.
Approach
The proposed WRF discharge location is directly below Thomas Millpond and
approximately 1.7 miles from the lake at its current level of 220' MSL and approximately 1.1
miles from the 240' MSL contour if the lake is raised to support expansion of the Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power facilities (see Attachment A-1). The QUAL2E-UNCAS model was
used to evaluate the potential impacts to dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations as a result of
the proposed discharge. QUAL2E-UNCAS is steady state stream water quality model that is
widely applied to support this type of evaluation (US EPA, 1987).
Model Setup
The model requires stream geometry, meteorological inputs, inflow information, instream
observations, and point source characteristics to predict instream water quality. The
QUAL2E model was setup to represent Utley Creek for a calibration period and for
evaluating the proposed discharge during critical conditions; 7-day, 10-year low flow (7Q10
flow) and summer temperatures.
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Stream Visit
Utley Creek is regularly visited as part of an ongoing monitoring program; however, a more
detailed field examination was performed on February 18th, 2011. The stream was walked
from the proposed discharge location below Thomas Millpond to its confluence with the
White Oak Arm of Harris Lake. Estimates of geometry were determined at regular intervals
and at areas where the stream characteristics changed significantly. The creek was highly
variable with sections changing from wide, straight, shallow areas to meandering, narrower,
pooled sections.
Based on the field observations, the model was split into three distinct reaches. The
characteristics as generalized in the model are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1
Utley Creek Reach Characteristics
Reach Segment Length (mi) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Type
Thomas Millpond to 0.8 12 1 Relatively wide and straight,
1st Tributary occasional impedances from
vegetation or geology —
moderate Manning's n
1st Tributary to 2nd 0.5 19 1 - 2 Meandering with a few deeper
Tributary pools— higher Manning's n
2nd Tributary to
Harris Lake
0.4 15 1 Meandering but wider with fewer
pools, backwater near
confluence with Harris Lake —
moderate Manning's n
TABLE 2
Utley Creek Reach Characteristics
Reach Segment Top Elevation (ft) Bottom Elevation Slope (ft/ft) Manning's
(ft)
Thomas Millpond to 262
1st Tributary
1s` Tributary to 2nd 248
Tributary
2nd Tributary to 238
Harris Lake
248 0.0065 0.035
238 0.0037 0.040
220 0.0043 0.035
2
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Inflow
Utley Creek is not monitored for flow. The current NPDES permit for the Utley Creek
WWTP is based on a 7Q10 value of 0.11 cfs. In researching this value, it was based on an
analysis by USGS that used three stations in the Raleigh area and the actual rate identified
by USGS was 0.11 cfs/mil (Personal Communication with USGS, 2011). This rate was used
to estimate a 7Q10 flow value for the new discharge location of 0.24 cfs based on the
drainage area of 2.25 mil.
Scaling of flows from the USGS gage on Middle Creek near Clayton (USGS 02088000) was
used to develop a surrogate flow timeseries for Utley Creek for use in model calibration.
The Middle Creek watershed at this gage was identified as having similar characteristics as
the Utley Creek watershed although the Middle Creek flows are somewhat augmented by
discharges.
The Utley Creek flows were estimated by scaling the Middle Creek flows by the ratio of the
drainage areas. The relevant information for this approach is provided in Table 3. The
uncertainty analysis component (UNCAS) will be used to provide the estimate of the
impacts that these assumptions will have on model results.
The Middle Creek gage data was used to determine an appropriate time period for selecting
data from the monitoring program for model calibration. Review of the gage data indicated
that the lowest flow during the water quality monitoring period for Utley Creek occurred in
August 2009 as shown in Figure 1. As described in the next section, dates when monitoring
was performed were identified to select a specific calibration date.
TABLE 3
Drainage Area Ratios Used for Calibration Flow Estimates of Utley Creek
Middle Ck Utley Creek Utley Creek Trib Trib Total
Direct drainage Direct drainage 1 2
below TMP above TMP
Drainage (ac) 53,440 319.6 1437.7 178.6 463.6 2399.5
Drainage (mi sq) 83.5 0.50 2.25 0.28 0.72 3.75
Ratio to Middle Creek 1 0.006 0.027 0.003 0.009 0.04
Monitoring
Monthly to bi-weekly water quality monitoring was performed at five locations in the Utley
Creek watershed (see Attachment A- 1) from July 2009 to the present. The monitoring data
collected are provided in Attachment A- 2. The August 25, 2009 date was selected for model
calibration since it occurred during a low flow period and field and laboratory monitoring
data was collected on this date.
3
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Meteorology
Temperature, cloud cover, and windspeed data was obtained for August 25, 2009 from the
Raleigh -Durham International Airport meteorology station for use in the model.
FIGURE 1
Results of the Utley Creek QUAL2E Calibration Run
V
u
0
100
10
Estimated Flow in Utley Creek
0.1
oc) 00 000 oc) cf) oc) 6%, ONO 01O 01O OHO O,• O, O, O,•
O O,O OHO O,O
ftsv
41,
Model Calibration
The model was set up using the information described above. The model was run in steady
state mode for temperature, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen. The algal component was
turned off since past ex erience has shown th odel results to be less conservative iTrun
with the algal simulation turned on. The estimate headwater and ributary f o weir" -
estimated based on the scaling flows using information in Table 3. The scaling factor for the
Middle Creek flows at Thomas Millpond was determined to be 0.027 using the ratio of
drainage areas.
For August 25, 2009, the flow in Middle Creek was 18 cfs resulting in an estimated
headwater flow for Utley creek below Thomas Millpond of 0.48 cfs. Station UT-5 is at a
location near the outlet of Thomas Millpond. The data from this location was used to
develop the headwater characteristics for the calibration. Values for the headwater input are
provided in Table 4. Monitoring has also been performed at a location approximately 1.1
miles downstream from Thomas Millpond identified as UTC-7. The data for UTC-7 was
used to check the calibration of the model.
4
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Model parameters were, in general, set to acceptable literature values. The values for key
parameters and inputs are provided in Table 5. The results of the calibration run are
provided in Figure 2. The QUAL2E input file for this run is provided in Attachment A-3.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are above saturation in the headwaters due to algal
blooms in Thomas Millpond. The model shows DO levels decreasing from these elevated
levels and equilibrating by the time DO is measured at Station UTC-7. These results
demonstrate that the model accurately predicts water quality in Utley Creek.
TABLE 4
Headwater Inputs
Parameter
Value Comment
Headwater Characteristics
Flow (mgd) 2.56 Combination of WRF discharge and
estimated watershed flow
CBOD, 5-day (mg/L) 2 Assumed
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 11.0 From UTC-5 monitoring
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.17 From UTC-5 monitoring
Nitrate (mg/L) 1.31 From UTC-5 monitoring
Nitrite (mg/L) 0.1 Assumed
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.68 From UTC-5 monitoring
Orthophosphorus (mg/L) 0.53 Assumed
TABLE 5
Values for Key QUAL2E Settings and Parameters
Parameter
Value Units
Re -aeration model O'Connor -Dobbins
Algal simulation No
Channel Specification Trapezoidal
Dispersion coefficient 60.0
Organic-N Hydrolysis 0.2 1/day
Ammonia Oxidation rate 0.2 1/day
BOD Deoxygenation Coefficient 0.23 1/day
Nitrite Oxidation rate 10.0 1/day
SOD uptake 0.1 gm/ft2/day
5
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
FIGURE 2
Results of the Utley Creek QUAL2E Calibration Run
12
Utley Creek QUAL2E DO Calibration
August 25, 2009
10 •
E 6-
O
a
4
2
0 7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 l.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Distance below Thomas Millpond
--a—DOSat (mg/L)
--El—DO Sim (mg/L}
--BB—DOObs (mg/L)
Uncertainty Analysis
Based on the model results and an understanding of the Utley Creek system, it is expected
that equilibration with the air and sediment would play the dominant role in controlling
dissolved oxygen concentrations. The UNCAS component of the QUAL2E model was run to
test out this assumption and to determine whether any given parameter can significantly
skew model results. This analysis is performed using the 1st Order analysis component. The
results of this are shown in Table 6. These results show that DO levels are controlled by
rearation. The most significant factors are the temperature of the discharge and the air
pressure, both of which affect gas saturation. Varying these two factors, and therefore the
amount of DO which can be dissolved in the water column, has a greater affect than decay
of organic matter or the DO in the effluent. Since travel time is short between the discharge
and the lake, there is limited time for decay of organic matter and the associated impacts to
DO.
The UNCAS component was also used to run a Monte Carlo analysis. This module ran 500
simulations, adjusting parameters to determine the range of possible DO concentrations.
This sensitivity analysis is useful in situations where there is uncertainty associated with
model inputs. The results show that lowest DO concentrations are expected to be at the end
of the third reach and be in the range of 7.3 to 8.1 mg/L. The complete Monte Carlo analysis
results are provided in Table 7.The 1st Order analysis and Monte Carlo runs support the
conclusion that the discharge will have a minor effect on instream DO and that levels will
remain well above the water quality standard.
6
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TABLE 6
Sensitivity Analysis Results for Dissolved Oxygen
Reach 1
Reach 2 Reach 3
Manning's n
Variance 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002
Variance (%) 0.41% 0.73% 1.04%
Wet Bulb Temperature
Variance 0 0.0001 0.001
Variance (%) 0.09% 0.57% 4.42%
Atmospheric Pressure
Variance 0.0054 0.0062 0.0066
Variance (%) 28.63% 29.19% 30.40%
Sediment Oxygen Demand
Variance 0.0001 0.0007 0.0016
Variance (%) 0.34% 3.42% 7.37%
Point Load Temperature
Variance 0.0116 0.0135 0.0122
Variance (%) 61.44% 64.14% 55.64%
Point Load DO
Variance 0.0017 0.0003 0
Variance (%) 8.84% 1.59% 0.09%
7
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TABLE 7
Monte Carlo Analysis Results for Dissolved Oxygen
REACH 1
REACH 2 REACH 3
Simulation Mean 7.89 7.81 7.72
Bias 0.00 0.00 0.00
Minimum 7.56 7.46 7.30
Maximum 8.28 8.21 8.11
Range 0.72 0.74 0.82
Std Dev 0.14 0.15 0.15
Coefficient of Variance 0.02 0.02 0.02
Skew Coefficient 0.15 0.08 0.02
Scenario Evaluation
The calibrated model was used to test the potential discharge of 6 mgd and 8 mgd below
Thomas Millpond using the speculative limits for the Harris Lake discharge to determine
what impacts this discharge would have on nutrients and DO for an Utley Creek discharge.
A baseline run was also done to evaluate predicted DO when no point source is included in
Utley Creek. The environmental conditions are summer meteorology and low flow
conditions. At the time the model was developed, the headwater flow of Utley Creek had
not been determined. Therefore, a headwater flow of 0.01 cfs was used as a conservative
estimate. It was not considered necessary to update these model runs based on the
estimated 7Q10 flow of 0.24 cfs because of the effluent dominated nature of the discharge
scenarios.
The headwater DO was set to 4.0 mg/L to represent the potentially poor quality water being
released from the Millpond. Other headwater conditions remained as in the model
calibration run. As noted above, the actual flow from the pond is assumed to be minimal.
The WRF discharge for the scenarios is located at the first segment below Thomas Millpond.
The information in Table 8 was used to characterize the proposed discharge. The results for
the baseline and 6 mgd and 8 mgd scenarios are shown in Figure 3. The QUAL2E input files
for the, baseline, 6 mgd, and 8 mgd runs are provided in Attachment A-4, A-5, and A-6,
respectively. The discharge parameters shown in Table 8 are based on the previously issued
speculative limits for Harris Lake.
8
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TABLE 8
Holly Springs WRF Discharge Characteristics
Parameter
Phase I Phase II
Flow (mgd)
BOD, 5-day (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
Total N (mg/L)
Nitrate (mg/L)
Nitrite (mg/L)
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Orthophosphorus (mg/L)
6.0 8.0
5.0 5.0
7.0 7.0
1.0 1.0
5.0 5.0
3.9 3.9
0.1 0.1
0.5 0.5
0.27 0.27
FIGURE 3
Results of the Utley Creek QUAL2E Allocation Run
8.5
Utley Creek QUAL2E DO
Scenario Comparison
7.5
▪ ac
E 7
O
• 6.5
6
5.5
5 . V , T
T
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Distance below Thomas Millpond
- Baseline
�,_.. 6mgd
- _- 8mgd
9
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
The baseline run shows a consistent DO level near 7.4 mg/L, approximately 0.1 mg/L lower
than saturation. Under the baseline condition, the DO levels never reach saturation since
SOD removes a fraction of the available DO. Under the scenario runs, all of the flow is from
the WRF. The initial instream DO is controlled by the DO concentration of effluent but is
quickly dominated by rearation associated with the additional flow. The same pattern of
gradually decreasing DO is seen. The DO level remains slightly, approximately 0.25 mg/L,
below saturation for both the scenarios.
Conclusions
The model results demonstrate that the proposed discharge will not adversely impact and
can potentially improve water quality conditions in the lower section of Utley Creek below
Thomas Millpond. Flow from the WRF currentl ent omas Mill and which is shallow
and subject to algal blooms. a eaving the pond is often of marginal quality.
Introduction of the effluent from the WRF will provide a steady baseflow of high quality
water in Utley Creek below Thomas Millpond.
An evaluation of a discharge directly to Harris Lake was documented in the report
Evaluation of Potential Holly Springs Discharge Scenarios (CH2M HILL, 2009). Speculative
limits for a lake discharge were provided by DWQ on February 23rd, 2010 (DWQ, 2010). The
modeling presented in this technical memorandum demonstrate that the speculative limits
are also appropriate for a discharge to Utley Creek. The limits shown in Table 9 are
therefore requested from DWQ.
The effluent DO level of 7 mg/ L provides a good margin of protection for the creek and can
be achieved by the current discharge cascade system. Since the effluent pipeline and new
cascade have not been designed yet, it is not known whether a similar cascade system can be
installed at the new location. Based on the modeling results, especially the slope of DO
decline and the short distance to Harris Lake, it is our professional opinion that an effluent
DO of 6 mg/L would also protect water quality in the creek. After preliminary design of
facilities, the Town of Holly Springs may request that this effluent limit be re-evaluated.
10
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TABLE 9
Requested Holly Springs WRF Speculative Limits
Parameter Monthly Average
Flow (mgd) 6.0/8.0
BOD, 5-day (mg/L) 5.0
Ammonia-N (mg/L) 1.0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 30.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 7.01
pH 6.0 — 9.0
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/L) 28.02
Total N (mg/L) 5.0
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.5
Orthophosphorus (mg/L) 0.27
'Minimum daily average
2 Daily maximum
References
Weekly Average
7.5
3.0
45.0
7.01
6.0 — 9.0
28.02
5.
0.5
0.27
CH2M HILL. 2009. Evaluation of Potential Holly Springs Discharge Scenarios. Raleigh, NC.
DWQ. 2010. Speculative Limits, Town of Holly Springs VWVrf P. North Carolina Division of
Water Quality. February 23, 2010.
Personal Communication with USGS. 2011. Meeting with Town of Holly Springs, CH2M
Hill, and Curtis Weaver/USGS and Jeanne Robbins/USGS on May 9, 2011.
US EPA. 1987. The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS:
Documentation and User Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development. Athens, GA.
USGS. 2005. DFLOW 3.1 User's Guide. U.S. Geological Survey.
�77
re aziit
11
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Attachment A-1
Map of Utley Creek Proposed Discharge and Existing Monitoring Locations
12
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Utley_Creek
I larris Lake
0 0.2 0.4
— _ __. ■
Attachment A-1. Utley Creek Discharge Location Area Map
0.8 1.2 1.6
Miles
13
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Attachment A-2
Utley Creek Monitoring Data
14
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL •

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Insert pdf here.
15
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Attachment A-3
Utley Creek Calibration Input File
16
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

r
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TITLE01
TITLE02
TITLE03 NO
TITLE04 NO
TITLE05 NO
TITLE06 YES
TITLE07 YES
TITLE08 NO
TITLE09 YES
TITLE10
TITLE11 YES
TITLE12
TITLE13 YES
TITLE14 NO
TITLE15 NO
ENDTITLE
LIST DATA INPUT
WRITE OPTIONAL SUMMARY
NO FLOW AUGMENTATION
STEADY STATE
TRAPEZOIDAL X-SECTIONS
NO PRINT LCD/SOLAR DATA
PLOT DO AND BOD
FIXED DNSTM COND (YES=1)=
INPUT METRIC (YES=1) =
NUMBER OF REACHES
NUM OF HEADWATERS =
TIME STEP (HOURS) =
MAXIMUM ITERATIONS =
LATITUDE OF BASIN (DEG) =
STANDARD MERIDIAN (DEG) =
EVAP. COEFF. (AE) _
ELEV. OF BASIN (ELEV) _
ENDATA1
O UPTAKE BY NH3 OXID(MG 0/MG N)= 3.43
O PROD BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) = 1.6
N CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG N/MG A) = 0.085
ALG MAX SPEC GROWTH RATE(1/DAY)= 2.5
N HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L) = 0.2
LIN ALG SHADE CO (1/H-UGCHA/L)=0.00075
LIGHT FUNCTION OPTION (LFNOPT) = 1.0
DAILY AVERAGING OPTION (LAVOPT)= 2.0
NUMBER OF DAYLIGHT HOURS (DLH) = 14.0
2.0
0.44
UTLEY CK CALIBRATION
WHITE OAK SUBBASIN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL I IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL II IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL III IN
TEMPERATURE
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
ALGAE AS CHL-A IN UG/L
PHOSPHORUS CYCLE AS P IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-P, DISSOLVED-P)
NITROGEN CYCLE AS N IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-N, AMMONIA-N, NITRITE-N, NITRATE-N)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN MG/L
FECAL COLIFORMS IN NO./100 ML
ARBITRARY NON -CONSERVATIVE
0.0
0.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
30.0
35.6
75.0
0.00103
240.0
ALGY GROWTH CALC OPTION(LGROPT)=
ALG/TEMP SOLR RAD FACTOR(TFACT)=
ENDATA1A
ENDATA1B
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
ENDATA2
ENDATA3
FLAG FIELD RCH= 1.0 4
FLAG FIELD RCH= 2.0 5
FLAG FIELD RCH= 3.0 8
1.ORCH=Below TMP
2.ORCH=Below Trib 1
3.ORCH=Below Trib 2
5D-ULT BOD CONV K COEF =
OUTPUT METRIC (YES=1) =
NUMBER OF JUNCTIONS =
NUMBER OF POINT LOADS =
LNTH COMP ELEMENT (DX)=
TIME INC. FOR RPT2 (HRS)=
LONGITUDE OF BASIN (DEG)=
DAY OF YEAR START TIME =
EVAP. COEFF. (BE) _
DUST ATTENUATION COEF. =
O UPTAKE BY NO2 OXID(MG 0/MG N)=
O UPTAKE BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) =
P CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG P/MG A) =
ALGAE RESPIRATION RATE (1/DAY) =
P HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L)=
NLIN SHADE (1/H-(UGCHA/L)**2/3)=
LIGHT SATURATION COEF (INT/MIN)=
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
ALGAL PREF FOR NH3-N (PREFN) =
NITRIFICATION INHIBITION COEF =
FROM
FROM
FROM
1 6 2 2
2 6 2 2 2
2 6 2 2 2 2 2 5
1.7
1.3
0.8
TO
TO
TO
17
0.23
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.1
1.0
78.9
237.0
0.00016
0.06
1.14
2.0
0.014
0.05
0.04
0.0
0.11
0.92
1300.0
0.9
10.0
1.3
0.8
0.0
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HELL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
ENDATA4
HYDRAULICS RCH= 1.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 15.0 0.0065 0.035
HYDRAULICS RCH= 2.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 0.0037 0.040
HYDRAULICS RCH= 3.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 0.0043 0.035
ENDATA5
TEMP/LCD RCH= 1.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 2.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 3.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
ENDATA5A
REACT COEF RCH= 1.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 2.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 3.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6
N AND P COEF RCH= 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6A
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 1.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 2.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 3.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6B
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 1.0 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 2.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 3.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7A
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 1.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 2.0 0.11 80.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 3.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
ENDATA8
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.02 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.06
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA8A
ENDATA9
HEADWTR-1 HDW= 1.0ThomasMP 2.25 80.6 11.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA10
HEADWTR-2 HDW= 1.0 0.00.E+00 17.8 1.5 0.29 0.10 2.98 0.7 0.69
ENDATA10A
POINTLD-1 PTL= 1.0HS WRF 0.0 0.00 80.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 2.0Trib1 0.0 0.06 80.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 3.0Trib2 0.0 0.16 80.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA11
POINTLD-2 PTL= 1.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-2 PTL= 2.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
POINTLD-2 PTL= 3.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
ENDATA11A
ENDATA12
DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY-1 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0E+00
ENDATA13
ENDATA13A
BEGIN RCH 1
18
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

PLOT RCH 1 2 3
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
19
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M H111, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

r
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Attachment A-4
Utley Creek Baseline Scenario Input File
20
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TITLE01
TITLE02
TITLE03 NO
TITLE04 NO
TITLE05 NO
TITLE06 YES
TITLE07 YES
TITLE08 NO
TITLE09 YES
TITLE10
TITLE11 YES
TITLE12
TITLE13 YES
TITLE14 NO
TITLE15 NO
ENDTITLE
LIST DATA INPUT
WRITE OPTIONAL SUMMARY
NO FLOW AUGMENTATION
STEADY STATE
TRAPEZOIDAL X-SECTIONS
NO PRINT LCD/SOLAR DATA
PLOT DO AND BOD
FIXED DNSTM COND (YES=1)=
UTLEY CK BASELINE
WHITE OAK SUBBASIN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL I IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL II IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL III IN
TEMPERATURE
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
ALGAE AS CHL-A IN UG/L
PHOSPHORUS CYCLE AS P IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-P, DISSOLVED-P)
NITROGEN CYCLE AS N IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-N, AMMONIA-N, NITRITE-N, NITRATE-N)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN MG/L
FECAL COLIFORMS IN NO./100 ML
ARBITRARY NON -CONSERVATIVE
0.0
INPUT METRIC (YES=1) = 0.0
NUMBER OF REACHES = 3.0
NUM OF HEADWATERS = 1.0
TIME STEP (HOURS) = 1.0
MAXIMUM ITERATIONS = 30.0
LATITUDE OF BASIN (DEG) = 35.6
STANDARD MERIDIAN (DEG) = 75.0
EVAP. COEFF. (AE) = 0.00103
ELEV. OF BASIN (ELEV) = 240.0
ENDATA1
O UPTAKE BY NH3 OXID(MG 0/MG N)= 3.43
O PROD BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) = 1.6
N CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG N/MG A) = 0.085
ALG MAX SPEC GROWTH RATE(1/DAY)= 2.5
N HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L) = 0.2
LIN ALG SHADE CO (1/H-UGCHA/L)=0.00075
LIGHT FUNCTION OPTION (LFNOPT) =
DAILY AVERAGING OPTION (LAVOPT)=
NUMBER OF DAYLIGHT HOURS (DLH) =
ALGY GROWTH CALC OPTION(LGROPT)=
ALG/TEMP SOLR RAD FACTOR(TFACT)=
ENDATA1A
ENDATA1B
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
ENDATA2
ENDATA3
FLAG FIELD RCH= 1.0 4
FLAG FIELD RCH= 2.0 5
FLAG FIELD RCH= 3.0 8
1.0
2.0
14.0
2.0
0.44
1.ORCH=Below TMP
2.ORCH=Below Trib 1
3.ORCH=Below Trib 2
5D-ULT BOD CONV K COEF =
OUTPUT METRIC (YES=1) =
NUMBER OF JUNCTIONS =
NUMBER OF POINT LOADS =
LNTH COMP ELEMENT (DX)=
TIME INC. FOR RPT2 (HRS)=
LONGITUDE OF BASIN (DEG)=
DAY OF YEAR START TIME =
EVAP. COEFF. (BE) =
DUST ATTENUATION COEF. _
O UPTAKE BY NO2 OXID(MG 0/MG N)=
O UPTAKE BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) =
P CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG P/MG A) =
ALGAE RESPIRATION RATE (1/DAY) =
P HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L)=
NLIN SHADE (1/H-(UGCHA/L)**2/3)=
LIGHT SATURATION COEF (INT/MIN)=
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
ALGAL PREF FOR NH3-N (PREFN) =
NITRIFICATION INHIBITION COEF =
FROM
FROM
FROM
1 6 2 2
2 6 2 2 2
2 6 2 2 2 2 2 5
1.7
1.3
0.8
TO
TO
TO
21
0.23
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.1
1.0
78.9
237.0
0.00016
0.06
1.14
2.0
0.014
0.05
0.04
0.0
0.11
0.92
1300.0
0.9
10.0
1.3
0.8
0.0
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
ENDATA4
HYDRAULICS RCH= 1.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 15.0 0.0065 0.035
HYDRAULICS RCH= 2.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 0.0037 0.040
HYDRAULICS RCH= 3.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 0.0043 0.035
ENDATA5
TEMP/LCD RCH= 1.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 2.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 3.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
ENDATA5A
REACT COEF RCH= 1.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 2.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 3.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6
N AND P COEF RCH= 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6A
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 1.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 2.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 3.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6B
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 1.0 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 2.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 3.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7A
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 1.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 2.0 0.0 80.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 3.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
ENDATA8
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATABA
ENDATA9
HEADWTR-1 HDW= 1.0ThomasMP 0.01 80.6 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA10
HEADWTR-2 HDW= 1.0 0.00.E+00 17.8 1.5 0.29 0.1 2.98 0.7 0.69
ENDATA10A
POINTLD-1 PTL= 1.OHS WRF 0.0 0.0 80.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 2.0Trib1 0.0 0.0 80.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 3.0Trib2 0.0 0.0 80.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA11
POINTLD-2 PTL= 1.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 3.4 0.27 0.23
POINTLD-2 PTL= 2.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
POINTLD-2 PTL= 3.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
ENDATA11A
ENDATA12
DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY-1 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0E+00
ENDATA13
ENDATA13A
BEGIN RCH 1
22
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

PLOT RCH
3
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
23
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M.HILL, INC: ; COMPANY CONFBDENTIAL

.✓ 4'
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Attachment A-5
Utley Creek 6mgd Scenario Input File
24
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TITLE01
TITLE02
TITLE03 NO
TITLE04 NO
TITLE05 NO
TITLE06 YES
TITLE07 YES
TITLE08 NO
TITLE09 YES
TITLE10
TITLE11 YES
TITLE12
TITLE13 YES
TITLE14 NO
TITLE15 NO
ENDTITLE
LIST DATA INPUT
WRITE OPTIONAL SUMMARY
NO FLOW AUGMENTATION
STEADY STATE
TRAPEZOIDAL X-SECTIONS
NO PRINT LCD/SOLAR DATA
PLOT DO AND BOD
FIXED DNSTM COND (YES=1)=
UTLEY CK 6MGD SCENARIO
WHITE OAK SUBBASIN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL I IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL II IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL III IN
TEMPERATURE
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
ALGAE AS CHL-A IN UG/L
PHOSPHORUS CYCLE AS P IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-P, DISSOLVED-P)
NITROGEN CYCLE AS N IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-N, AMMONIA-N, NITRITE-N, NITRATE-N)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN MG/L
FECAL COLIFORMS IN NO./100 ML
ARBITRARY NON -CONSERVATIVE
0.0
INPUT METRIC (YES=1) = 0.0
NUMBER OF REACHES = 3.0
NUM OF HEADWATERS = 1.0
TIME STEP (HOURS) 1.0
MAXIMUM ITERATIONS 30.0
LATITUDE OF BASIN (DEG) = 35.6
STANDARD MERIDIAN (DEG) = 75.0
EVAP. COEFF. (AE) • 0.00103
ELEV. OF BASIN (ELEV) 240.0
ENDATA1
O UPTAKE BY NH3 OXID(MG 0/MG N)= 3.43
O PROD BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) = 1.6
N CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG N/MG A) = 0.085
ALG MAX SPEC GROWTH RATE(1/DAY)= 2.5
N HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L) = 0.2
LIN ALG SHADE CO (1/H-UGCHA/L)=0.00075
LIGHT FUNCTION OPTION (LFNOPT) =
DAILY AVERAGING OPTION (LAVOPT)=
NUMBER OF DAYLIGHT HOURS (DLH) =
ALGY GROWTH CALC OPTION(LGROPT)=
ALG/TEMP SOLR RAD FACTOR(TFACT)=
ENDATA1A
ENDATA1B
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
STREAM REACH
ENDATA2
ENDATA3
FLAG FIELD RCH= 1.0 4
FLAG FIELD RCH= 2.0 5
1.0
2.0
14.0
2.0
0.44
1.ORCH=Below TMP
2.ORCH=Below Trib 1
3.ORCH=Below Trib 2
5D-ULT BOD CONV K COEF =
OUTPUT METRIC (YES=1) =
NUMBER OF JUNCTIONS =
NUMBER OF POINT LOADS =
LNTH COMP ELEMENT (DX)=
TIME INC. FOR RPT2 (HRS)=
LONGITUDE OF BASIN (DEG)=
DAY OF YEAR START TIME =
EVAP. COEFF. (BE) _
DUST ATTENUATION COEF. _
O UPTAKE BY NO2 OXID(MG 0/MG N)=
O UPTAKE BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) =
P CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG P/MG A) =
ALGAE RESPIRATION RATE (1/DAY) =
P HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L)=
NLIN SHADE (1/H-(UGCHA/L)**2/3)=
LIGHT SATURATION COEF (INT/MIN)=
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
ALGAL PREF FOR NH3-N (PREFN) =
NITRIFICATION INHIBITION COEF =
FROM
FROM
FROM
1 6 2 2
2 6 2 2 2
1.7
1.3
0.8
TO
TO
TO
25
0.23
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.1
1.0
78.9
237.0
0.00016
0.06
1.14
2.0
0.014
0.05
0.04
0.0
0.11
0.92
1300.0
0.9
10.0
1.3
0.8
0.0
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
FLAG FIELD RCH= 3.0 8 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 5
ENDATA4
HYDRAULICS RCH= 1.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 15.0 0.0065 0.035
HYDRAULICS RCH= 2.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 0.0037 0.040
HYDRAULICS RCH= 3.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 0.0043 0.035
ENDATA5
TEMP/LCD RCH= 1.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 2.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 3.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
ENDATA5A
REACT COEF RCH= 1.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 2.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 3.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6
N AND P COEF RCH= 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6A
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 1.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 2.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 3.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6B
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 1.0 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 2.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 3.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7A
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 1.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 2.0 0.0 80.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 3.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
ENDATA8
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA8A
ENDATA9
HEADWTR-1 HDW= 1.0ThomasMP 0.01 80.6 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA10
HEADWTR-2 HDW= 1.0 0.00.E+00 17.8 1.5 0.29 0.1 2.98 0.7 0.69
ENDATA10A
POINTLD-1 PTL= 1.0HS WRF 0.0 9.28 80.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 2.0Trib1 0.0 0.0 80.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 3.0Trib2 0.0 0.0 80.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATAII
POINTLD-2 PTL= 1.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 3.4 0.27 0.23
POINTLD-2 PTL= 2.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
POINTLD-2 PTL= 3.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
ENDATAIIA
ENDATA12
DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY-1 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0E+00
ENDATA13
ENDATA13A
26
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
BEGIN RCH 1
PLOT RCH 1 2 3
27
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

r
r r
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
Attachment A-6
Utley Creek 8mgd Scenario input File
28
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
TITLE01
TITLE02
TITLE03 NO
TITLE04 NO
TITLE05 NO
TITLE06 YES
TITLE07 YES
TITLE08 NO
TITLE09 YES
TITLE10
TITLE11 YES
TITLE12
TITLE13 YES
TITLE14 NO
TITLE15 NO
ENDTITLE
LIST DATA INPUT
WRITE OPTIONAL SUMMARY
NO FLOW AUGMENTATION
STEADY STATE
TRAPEZOIDAL X-SECTIONS
NO PRINT LCD/SOLAR DATA
PLOT DO AND BOD
FIXED DNSTM COND (YES=1)= 0.0
INPUT METRIC (YES=1) = 0.0
NUMBER OF REACHES = 3.0
NUM OF HEADWATERS = 1.0
TIME STEP (HOURS) = 1.0
MAXIMUM ITERATIONS = 30.0
LATITUDE OF BASIN (DEG) = 35.6
STANDARD MERIDIAN (DEG) = 75.0
EVAP. COEFF. (AE) = 0.00103
ELEV. OF BASIN (ELEV) = 240.0
ENDATA1
O UPTAKE BY NH3 OXID(MG 0/MG N)= 3.43
O PROD BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) = 1.6
N CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG N/MG A) = 0.085
ALG MAX SPEC GROWTH RATE(1/DAY)= 2.5
N HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L) = 0.2
LIN ALG SHADE CO (1/H-UGCHA/L)=0.00075
LIGHT FUNCTION OPTION (LFNOPT) = 1.0
DAILY AVERAGING OPTION (LAVOPT)= 2.0
NUMBER OF DAYLIGHT HOURS (DLH) = 14.0
ALGY GROWTH CALC OPTION(LGROPT)= 2.0
ALG/TEMP SOLR RAD FACTOR(TFACT)= 0.44
ENDATA1A
ENDATA1B
STREAM REACH 1.ORCH=Below TMP
STREAM REACH 2.ORCH=Below Trib 1
STREAM REACH 3.ORCH=Below Trib 2
ENDATA2
ENDATA3
FLAG FIELD RCH= 1.0 4
FLAG FIELD RCH= 2.0 5
FLAG FIELD RCH= 3.0 8
UTLEY CK 8MGD SCENARIO
WHITE OAK SUBBASIN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL I IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL II IN
CONSERVATIVE MINERAL III IN
TEMPERATURE
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
ALGAE AS CHL-A IN UG/L
PHOSPHORUS CYCLE AS P IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-P, DISSOLVED-P)
NITROGEN CYCLE AS N IN MG/L
(ORGANIC-N, AMMONIA-N, NITRITE-N, NITRATE-N)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN MG/L
FECAL COLIFORMS IN NO./100 ML
ARBITRARY NON -CONSERVATIVE
5D-ULT BOD CONV K COEF =
OUTPUT METRIC (YES=1) =
NUMBER OF JUNCTIONS =
NUMBER OF POINT LOADS =
LNTH COMP ELEMENT (DX)=
TIME INC. FOR RPT2 (HRS)=
LONGITUDE OF BASIN (DEG)=
DAY OF YEAR START TIME =
EVAP. COEFF. (BE) _
DUST ATTENUATION COEF. _
O UPTAKE BY NO2 OXID(MG 0/MG N)=
O UPTAKE BY ALGAE (MG 0/MG A) =
P CONTENT OF ALGAE (MG P/MG A) =
ALGAE RESPIRATION RATE (1/DAY) =
P HALF SATURATION CONST (MG/L)=
NLIN SHADE (1/H-(UGCHA/L)**2/3)=
LIGHT SATURATION COEF (INT/MIN)=
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
TOTAL DAILY SOLAR RADTN (INT) =
ALGAL PREF FOR NH3-N (PREFN) =
NITRIFICATION INHIBITION COEF =
FROM
FROM
FROM
1 6 2 2
2 6 2 2 2
2 6 2 2 2 2 2 5
1.7
1.3
0.8
TO
TO
TO
29
0.23
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.1
1.0
78.9
237.0
0.00016
0.06
1.14
2.0
0.014
0.05
0.04
0.0
0.11
0.92
1300.0
0.9
10.0
1.3
0.8
0.0
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

r r
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
ENDATA4
HYDRAULICS RCH= 1.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 15.0 0.0065 0.035
HYDRAULICS RCH= 2.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 0.0037 0.040
HYDRAULICS RCH= 3.0 60.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 0.0043 0.035
ENDATA5
TEMP/LCD RCH= 1.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 2.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
TEMP/LCD RCH= 3.0 240.0 0.06 0.3 78.0 74.0 30.1 4.4
ENDATA5A
REACT COEF RCH= 1.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 2.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REACT COEF RCH= 3.0 0.23 0.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6
N AND P COEF RCH= 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N AND P COEF RCH= 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6A
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 1.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 2.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALG/OTHER COEF RCH= 3.0 10.0 0.6 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA6B
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 1.0 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 2.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-1 RCH= 3.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL COND-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA7A
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 1.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 2.0 0.0 80.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
INCR INFLOW-1 RCH= 3.0 0.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.E+00
ENDATA8
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INCR INFLOW-2 RCH= 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA8A
ENDATA9
HEADWTR-1 HDW= 1.0ThomasMP 0.01 80.6 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA10
HEADWTR-2 HDW= 1.0 0.00.E+00 17.8 1.5 0.29 0.1 2.98 0.7 0.69
ENDATA10A
POINTLD-1 PTL= 1.0HS WRF 0.0 12.38 80.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 2.0Trib1 0.0 0.0 80.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
POINTLD-1 PTL= 3.0Trib2 0.0 0.0 80.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ENDATA11
POINTLD-2 PTL= 1.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 3.4 0.27 0.23
POINTLD-2 PTL= 2.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
POINTLD-2 PTL= 3.0 0.00.E+00 0.0 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.06
ENDATA11A
ENDATA12
DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY-1 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0E+00
ENDATA13
ENDATA13A
BEGIN RCH 1
30
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL. INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

4
PLOT RCH 1 2 3
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK DISCHARGE
31
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M RILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

• Prrogress firvairgy
Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
P 0 Box 8
128 South Main Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Eu,4441
Subject: Progress Energy Shearon Harris Expansion Project
Plans for Utley Creek and GreenTree Reservoir
Dear Ms. Sudano:
Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress) is pursuing permits
and approvals to construct and operate two new nuclear power generation units at the existing Shearon
Harris Nuclear Plant near New Hill, NC. The project also includes expansion of Harris Lake by raising its
spillway elevation from 220' above mean sea level (amsl) to 240' amsl. As part of the 'permitting
process, Progress expects to be required by federal and state permitting agencies to provide
compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and streams resulting from the lake rise.
Progress has identified the Utley Creek system as a candidate for restoration and/or enhancement
activities that would be part of the overall compensatory mitigation plan for the Harris expansion
project. The area currently known as the Green Tree Reservoir will be inundated when the lake rises to
the 240' elevation. When inundated, the Green Tree Reservoir area is expected to support aquatic
vegetation typical of fringe and emergent wetlands currently found around Harris Lake, as well as create
conditions conducive to the development of bottomland hardwood wetlands in adjacent areas.
Over the next several years, Progress intends to use the Green Tree Reservoir area to conduct a pilot
project to study the development of fringe, emergent and forested wetlands at the 240' elevation. The
study will involve ad'usting water levels behind the water control structure at the Green Tree and
monitoring vegetative planting pots to eva uate various p ant species and wetland formation rates.
These studies will help Progress and the federal and state permitting agencies evaluate the potential for
wetlands to successfully form at the new lake level. When Harris Lake is raised to its future elevation,
this area will become part of the lake.
If you have questions or would like additional information please feel free to contact Linda Hickok at
919-546-7095.
Alan Madewell ,
Manager - Environmental Energy Supply - Carolinas
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Pt) Hex 1551
Raleigh, %C 21607

• Belnick, Tom
•
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Wakild, Chuck; Clark, Alan; Poupart,
Jeff; Matthews, Matt; Reid, Dianne; Blaisdell, Daniel; Manning, Jeff; Colson, Kim; Behm,
Pamela
Subject: Holly Springs NPDES Permit - Modeling and letter from Progress Energy
Attachments: Utley Ck QUAL2E TM-6-3-2011.pdf; Progress Energy Letter 06022011.pdf
Tom and Kathy — Attached is technical memorandum describing the water quality modeling analysis and a letter from
Progress Energy describing their plan for a mitigation project in the Greentree Reservoir area of Utley Creek that would
include a wetland area — similar to what will be there when the lake level is raised.
Please contact me or Stephanie Sudano if you have any questions or require additional information.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger 1 CH2M HILL] Charlotte Office) Direct Phone [phone] (Mobile [phone] 'Email -
biI I. kreutzberger@ch 2m. com
From: Wakild, Chuck[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Belnick, Tom; Clark, Alan; Reid, Dianne; Stecker, Kathy; Manning, Jeff; Blaisdell,
Daniel; Colson, Kim; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Subject: FW: Holly Springs NPDES Permit
FYI. We are relying on the current USGS flow metrics and expect to hear from Holly Springs within a few weeks for the
modeling and Progress Energy agreement.
From: Wakild, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:29 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Sullins, Coleen; Matthews, Matt; Clark, Alan; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Holly Springs NPDES Permit
Stephanie,
We have reviewed the request from the Town of Holly Springs to relocate their discharge point to Utley Creek just
downstream of Thomas Mill Pond. The DWQ can reissue the Holly Springs NPDES Permit provided all of the necessary
support documentation demonstrates compliance with water.quality standards downstream of the relocated discharge
point. The following processing steps and demonstrations are necessary:
• _Holly Sprines will be provided speculative effluent limits for the new location if they submit a water quality
modeling analysis which demonstrates compliance with standards and they submit documentation that the
downstream reservoir (Greentree Reservoir) will remain unimpounded into the future. We understand that
Progress Energy owns and operates that asseThive must agree to this condition.
If and when speculative e ` uent limits are provided, Holly Springs must revise and resubmit an Environmental
Assessment (EA) document for processing through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This process
1

requires a public comment period. The best case outcome for Holly Springs is a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).
o If and when a FONSI is issued, Holly Springs may submit an NPDES Permit application reflecting the new location
and increased effluent flow. Processing of this permit application also requires a public comment period.
o If and when the revised NPDES Permit issues, Holly Springs must submit engineering plans and specifications for
the construction of a new effluent transport and discharge structure at the new location. After review, DWQ will
issue an Authorization to Construct (ATC). Depending on the particular design, there may be a need for
approvals to impact wetlands as well.
Issuance of these approvals is never absolutely certain given the opportunities for public input. Also, the length of time
it will take to complete these steps is dependent on not only DWQ review time, but how long various submittals take to
prepare and the quality (completeness and thoroughness) of those submittals, and what information may be brought
forward from the public. I believe the absolute minimum time needed to complete this entire process from where we
are today to issuance of the ATC is 12 months.
If you have questions, call me at 919-807-6358.
Please note my new email address: chuck.wakild(i?ncdenr.gov
E-mail is a public record and e-mail messages are subject to public review and may be disclosed to third parties. E- mail is subject to the Public Records Law and
applicable records retention schedule.
2

r
THE TOWN OF
Iiolly
Springs
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
www.hollyspringsne.us
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
October 28, 2010
Mr. Matt Matthews
NC Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Town of Holly Springs Utley Creek WRF Project 10-007
Discharge Alternatives Evaluation
Dear Mr. Matthews:
This letter is in follow up to several conversations over the past couple of
weeks between our consultant, myself, and both you and Hannah Stallings and
also to your letter of October 22, 2010.
We acknowledge receipt of your decision regarding removal of our discharge
from its current location, primarily because of water quality concerns related to
Thomas Mill Pond (TMP). However, our current EA and EAA documents
evaluate three possible discharge locations in the Harris Lake watershed.
These include a discharge at our present location above TMP, a potential
discharge point below TMP, and a potential discharge directly to Harris Lake
(where we currently have speculative limits). We believe that the former Green
Tree Reservoir no longer functions as a reservoir and is primarily a stream (as
indicated in the photo and 2010 Google Earth image attached to this letter).
Therefore, we believe the specific water quality issues that you used as a basis
for the decision to move our discharge, do not apply to a discharge below
TMP.
Holly Springs hereby requests speculative permit limits at the location on
Utley Creek immediately below TMP as indicated in our EA and EAA. We
plan to incorporate this information — once we receive it. - into our EA
document for our discharge. We will then submit a revised document to Ms.
Stallings.
In order to expedite the development and issuance of speculative limits, we
would like to offer assistance in the form of a consultant to work with DWQ to
develop the speculative limits. We are requesting a meeting at your earliest
convenience to discuss what DWQ would like to see in such a scope of work.

October 25, 2010
Mr. Matt Matthews
NC Division of Water Quality
Page 2
As you may know, we need to move forward as expeditiously as possible on
this project.
As promised in an earlier conversation, attached is the additional data from the
Utley Creek monitoring that we have been conducting.
Thank you for consideration of this request. Please contact me at 919-291-
9796 or 919-5 57-3 93 5 should you need any additional information from us.
Sincerely,
Stephanie L. Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
cc: Hannah Stallings, DWQ
Mike Slusher, PE, DMP
Phil May, Carolina Ecosystems
Carl Dean, Town Manager, TOHS
John Schifano, Town Attorney, TOHS
Amy Moore, Director Public Utilities, TOHS
Project file paper/electronic/correspondence 13386
/sls

PPOES -arm
d- 61eIVC004399L
ATAi
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
Stephanie L. Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
October 22, 2010
Subject: Town of Holly Springs
Utley Creek WRF Project 10-007
Discharge Alternatives Evaluation
Ms. Sudano,
In response to your letters of May 7 and October 8, 2010 and based on my review of data
submitted by the Town, data collected by Division of Water Quality field staff, and
conversations with Linda Hickok of Progress Energy, I reaffirm the Division's longstanding
previous decision directing Holly Springs to remove its wastewater discharge from Utley Creek.
Thank you for providing the follow-up information regarding plant startup and phosphorus
monitoring data demonstrating that phosphorus removal at the wastewater facility has
significantly improved since the fall 2009 noncompliance.
As you pointed out, the NC water quality standard of 40 ug/L for chlorophyll a does not apply to
Thomas Mill Pond due to its size. However, I believe that the elevated chlorophyll levels
recorded in the pond indicate a potential for severe algal blooms. Such blooms, as well as fish
kills, have occurred historically in the pond and prompted the Division's initial decision to
remove the discharge from the creek. The size of the pond has not changed significantly despite
the failure of the pond's dam structure. In addition, conversations with Linda Hickok of Progress
Energy indicate that restoration of the dam structure is still a possibility, though there are
currently no definite plans for this.
During our siaff's site visit in September, conductivity was measured at the wastewater effluent,
upstream, and downstream of the wastewater outfall. The values collected are as follows:
Upstream 65 umhos/cm
Effluent 348
Thomas Mill Pond near dam 344
Greentree Reservoir near dam 331
Surface Water Protection Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury Si Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877.623-6748
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity! Affirmative Action Employer
None Cazolina
�turally

Stephanie Sudano
10/22/2010
Page 2 of 2
As suggested by the level of conductivity measured in the receiving stream, I remain concerned
about the potential adverse effects on the aquatic life of Utley Creek. Also, keep in mind that
these values were collected within a few days of a major rain event.
In your letter and in the EA document, there is an "adaptive approach" described that implies an
evaluation of the discharge's effect on the creek either at the current discharge location or at a
location downstream of Thomas Mill Pond. Typically, such studies would logically occur prior
to a new or expanding wastewater discharge occurring in a receiving stream, as opposed to after,
as is described here.
As stated in previous communications, continued discharge to Utley Creek is not an option. If
you have further questions regarding this issue, please call me at [phone] or email me at
matt.matthews@ncdenr. gov.
Sincerely,
a
Matt Matthews
Surface Water Protection Section Chief
cc: Coleen H. Sullins
Jeff Poupart
Danny Smith
Tom Belnick
Jay Sauber
Hannah Stallings