NC0036269_Speculative Limits_20240401

WATER&SEWER AUTHORITY
WSACC OF CABARRUS COUNTY
232 Davidson Hwy,Concord, NC 28027
704.786.1783 • 704.795.1564 Fax
Rocky River Regional WWTP
6400 Breezy Lane,Concord,NC 28025
704.788.4164 • 704.786.1967 Fax
IS0140012015•NC Star Pubic Sector•ISO 45001:2018 www.wsacc.org
March 26, 2024
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RECEIVED
Mr. Michael Montebello, Branch Chief
Division of Water Resources APR 01 2024
Water Quality Permitting Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Services Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Subject: NPDES#NC0036269 - Speculative Limits Assistance
Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Montebello:
On behalf of the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC), I am requesting your agency's
assistance in providing speculative limits for planned expansion of our Rocky River Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (RRRWWTP) of up to 50 MGD of discharge to the Rocky River.
As you are aware, WSACC sponsored the development of a calibrated and validated QUAL2K receiving
water quality model for the entire mainstem of the Rocky River, which your agency recently approved for
application (12/20/23 letter from you to Hillary Yonce of Tetra Tech). Additionally, our modeling consultant,
Tetra Tech, has been coordinating with your staff on determining critical conditions for applying the model
to develop waste load allocations. Tetra Tech recently completed modeling analyses to show the impact of
all known planned or requested discharge expansions from major permitted facilities in the basin. We have
attached the documentation of their assumptions and results as justification for our request and for your
consideration.
Tetra Tech is prepared to provide the corresponding modeling files for your review and use. Please contact
Hillary Yonce via email hillary.vonce(atetratech.com to arrange for file transfer.
The intent of this request is to focus on the speculative limits for the RRRWWT of up to 50 MGD discharge
to the Rocky River. Once these speculative limits have been determined, WSACC will then follow-up to
address limits for the Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant beyond 0.3 MGD.
it

I look forward to your response to this request at your earliest convenience. In the interim, please let us
know if there is any other information that you need from WSACC to assist you in evaluating our request for
speculative limits for the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant up to 50 MGD.
Sincerely,
Mark Fowler,
Facilities Director
Enclosures
cc: Michael Wilson, WSACC
Chad VonCannon, WSACC
Thomas Hahn, WSACC
James Sims, WSACC
Page 2 of 2

lb TETRA TECH 4000 Sancar Way, Suite 200•PO Box 14409
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Tel [phone]
MEMORANDUM
To: NC DEQ DWR Date: March 26, 2024
Cc: Black &Veatch, WSACC Subject: Rocky River Model Scenario
From: Trevor Clements, Hillary Yonce, Application to Support Speculative
Will Hicks (Tetra Tech) Limits Determination
This memo details the model application performed for critical condition scenarios, including seasonal low
flows and warm temperatures, with existing and speculative permitted flow limits for modeled wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum is intended to support the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
(WSACC) in seeking approval for the expansion of discharge capacity associated with WWTP effluent
discharge from the Rocky River Regional WWTP and/or the Muddy Creek WWTP. Assimilative capacity
of the receiving water was assessed using a QUAL2K model developed based on water quality
monitoring conducted during low flow conditions along the Rocky River mainstem and its tributaries
spanning from May to November of 2022. The model underwent calibration and corroboration and
received review and approval from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. The overall project
goal is to develop speculative limits for the Rocky River Regional WWTP and/or the Muddy Creek WWTP
that protects the designated uses of the Rocky River under the proposed net increase in wasteload
allocation (WLA).
North Carolina Water Quality Regulations (15A NCAC 02B .0206) specify that water quality standards
related to oxygen-consuming wastes be protected using the minimum average flow for a period of seven
consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in ten years (7Q10 flow). NC regulations (15A
NCAC 02B .0404) also provide for seasonal variation for the discharge of oxygen-consuming wastes, with
the summer period defined as April through October and winter period as November through March.
Additionally, all existing WLAs must be accounted for to evaluate available assimilative capacity for a
speculative WLA for the proposed WSACC expansion.
2.0 CRITICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 LOW FLOWS
To evaluate assimilative capacity in the Rocky River, the calibrated QUAL2K model was modified to
simulate critical low flow conditions. Tetra Tech estimated 7Q10 flows for the Rocky River QUAL2K model
using a drainage area-based approach. The estimates incorporated 7Q10 data from National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and United States Geological Survey (USGS) literature
I I TETRA TECH 1

Memorandum- Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
(Table 1). The NPDES fact sheet for Mallard Creek WWTP and Long Creek WWTP provided 7Q10
estimates for each respective waterway. Significant studies and statistical evaluations have been
conducted by USGS to characterize low flow conditions across the Rocky River watershed. Unique
differences in geology across the watershed reveal variable low flow rates systemwide, which were used
to modify boundary condition flows seasonally in the model. USGS estimated annual and winter 7Q10
flows for individual tributaries across the watershed using a network of partial-record and continuous-
record local USGS flow gages (Weaver 20161, Weaver and Fine 20032). Unit-area low flow statistics were
assigned to the tributaries they were developed for based on drainage area, and where necessary,
applied to adjacent modeled tributaries without records (Table 2).
Low flow estimates at the Rocky River Regional WWTP outfall and the most downstream gage (USGS
02126000 Rocky River near Norwood) were used as anchor points for the low flow water balance.
Residual flows unaccounted for by tributaries were calculated from interim drainage areas as added
baseflow. The Rocky River Regional outfall 7Q10 estimate from the NPDES fact sheet for summer and
winter are 20.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 31.9 cfs, respectively. The Norwood USGS gage
estimates a 7Q10 of 47 cfs during summer and 79 cfs during winter.
Table 1. 7Q10 low flow estimates for Rocky River tributary locations from USGS and NPDES facilities.
Location of Estimate Source ID Summer Winter Summer Winter
(gage or Drainage 7Q10 7Q10 7Q10 Unit 7Q10 Unit
permit) Area (sq mi) Flow Flow Area Flow Area Flow
(cfs) (cfs) (cfsm) (cfsm)
West Branch Rocky River 02123932 4.98 0.50 0.90 0.100 0.181
(South Prong) near Cornelius2
Clarke Creek near Harrisburg2 02124080 21.9 1.00 2.30 0.046 0.105
Mallard Creek WWTP NC0030210 37.5 0.64 2.1 0.017 0.056
Coddle Creek near Concorde 02124230 57.9 5.60 9.00 0.097 0.155
Reedy Creek at Rocky River2 02124320 30.9 1.60 3.00 0.052 0.097
Irish Buffalo Creek near 02124374 45.5 3.10 8.20 0.068 0.180
Faggarts Crossroads2
Dutch Buffalo Creek at NC 49 02124471 45.1 0.70 2.20 0.016 0.049
near Mount Pleasant2
Goose Creek at Fairview2 02124692 24.0 0.30 1.00 0.013 0.042
Crooked Creek3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.001 0.010
Weaver,J.C.,2016,Low-flow characteristics and flow-duration statistics for selected USGS continuous-record streamgaging
stations in North Carolina through 2012(ver. 1.1,March 2016): U.S.Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5001,
89 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155001/.
2 Weaver,J.C.and J.M. Fine.2003. Low-flow characteristics and profiles for the Rocky River in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin,
North Carolina,through 2002. U.S.Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4147.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034147/pdf/VVRIR_03-4147_Revised_2012Oct.pdf
3 Direct communications with Curtis Weaver(USGS)via email on September 25,2019, based on nine total nearby selected USGS
sites from Crooked Creek and Richardson Creek basins,six partial-record sites,and three continuous-record stream gages.
I I TETRA TECH 2

Memorandum-Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
I
Location of Estimate Source ID Summer Winter Summer Winter
(gage or Drainage 7Q10 7Q10 7Q10 Unit 7Q10 Unit
permit) j Area (sq mi) Flow Flow Area Flow Area Flow
(cfs) (cfs) (cfsm) (cfsm)
Long Creek WWTP NC0024244 64.0 1.60 9.50 0.025 0.148
Little Bear Creek at Saint 02124944 12.4 0 (Zero) 0.30 0 (Zero) 0.024
Martine
Big Bear Creek near Richfield2 02125000 55.6 0(Zero) 0.20 0(Zero) 0.004
Richardson Creek near 02125500 163 0.50 1.60 0.003 0.010
Marshville2
Lanes Creek near Trinity2 02125696 87.7 0(Zero) 0.05 0(Zero) 0.001
cfsm=cubic feet per second per square mile,sq mi=square mile
Table 2. Estimated 7Q10 low flow for boundary conditions of the Rocky River QUAL2K model application.
QUAL2K Model Boundary Drainage Applied Unit Area Calibration I Summer I Winter
Condition Area (sq mi) Discharge from Model Flow 7Q10 Flow 7Q10 Flow
Table 1 (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
Dye Creek headwaters 3.96 West Branch Rocky 1.06 0.40 0.72
Rocky River as a tributary 3.72 West Branch Rocky 0.33 0.37 0.67
West Branch Rocky River 22.9 West Branch Rocky 2.11 2.30 4.14
Clarke Creek 28.1 Clarke Creek 1.26 1.28 2.95
Mallard Creek headwaters 34.7 Mallard Creek WWTP 3.53 0.59 1.94
Coddle Creek 74.3 Coddle Creek 6.72 7.19 11.55
Back Creek 15.5 Reedy Creek 0.04 0.80 1.50
Reedy Creek 43.1 Reedy Creek 5.15 2.23 4.18
Irish Buffalo Creek 110 Irish Buffalo Creek 8.86 7.49 19.82
Dutch Buffalo Creek 98.7 Dutch Buffalo Creek 2.17 1.53 4.81
Clear Creek 24.5 Goose Creek 1.82 0.31 1.02
Goose Creek 42.3 Goose Creek 0.92 0.53 1.76
[ )TETRA TECH 3

Memorandum-Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
QUAL2K Model Boundary Drainage Applied Unit Area Calibration Summer Winter
Condition Area (sq mi) Discharge from Model Flow 7Q10 Flow 7Q10 Flow
Table 1 (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
Crooked Creek 50.4 Crooked Creek 2.37 0.05 0.50
Island Creek 21.9 Crooked Creek 0.48 0.02 0.22
Long Creek headwaters' 32.0 Long Creek WWTP 0.05 0.11 0.67
Little Long Creek' 29.1 Long Creek WWTP 0.63 1.48 8.79
Little Bear Creek 12.5 Little Bear Creek 0.27 0.00 0.30
Big Bear Creek 96.1 Big Bear Creek 2.09 0.00 0.35
Richardson Creek 234 Richardson Creek 7.54 0.72 2.30
Cribs Creek 19.5 Richardson Creek 0.42 0.06 0.19
Lanes Creek 138 Lanes Creek 1.93 0.00 0.08
The 7Q10 estimate for Long Creek is located downstream of the confluence of Long Creek and Little Long Creek.The 7Q10
estimate for each boundary condition was calculated by applying the combined estimate to the ratio of each calibration flow over the
combined calibration flow.
2.2 WARM TEMPERATURES
Critical low flow conditions can be paired with conservative warm-weather conditions when preparing
model conditions for assimilative capacity evaluation modeling. Although 7Q10 low flows are not likely to
occur in tandem with the warmest weather conditions, the conservative approach provides a margin of
safety in the evaluation.
Long-term monitoring data by the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Association at a site on the Rocky River at
Flowes Store Road (Q7780000) maintains a biweekly to monthly record of water temperature
observations. Monitoring records from 1998 to present indicate that the month with the highest average
water temperatures occur in the month of July. Long-term mean water temperature for July is 25.0 °C,
while the coldest month on average is typically January at 6.5 °C. An evaluation of monitoring data for all
July dates in the period of record at Flowes Store Road revealed a 75th percentile water temperature of
approximately 26.4 °C. The warmest winter month (based on the NPDES permit seasonal delineation as
November 1 -March 31) based on the same evaluation at the Flowes Store Road site on the Rocky
River indicates that the warmest month is typically November at 11.9 °C. The 75th percentile water
temperature for all Novembers on record is approximately 13.1 C.
The 75th percentile summer warm water temperature was applied to each point source WWTP. Point
source tributary temperatures from the calibration model were utilized, as values aligned with the 75th
percentile temperature. The 75th percentile winter warm temperature was applied to each point source
nTETRA TECH 4

Memorandum- Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
WWTP and tributary, with the exception of Crooked Creek, for which the temperature was derived from
model simulation specific to that creek.
Associated with warm seasonal water temperatures, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations for headwater
and tributary boundary conditions were modified for the winter scenario to reflect the same relative
percent DO saturation observed during the summer.
3.0 PERMITTED AND SPECULATIVE WWTP EXPANSIONS
The following municipal WWTP NPDES permittees are included in the baseline QUAL2K model for the
Rocky River system (Table 3). Included in this table are the more typical effluent discharge volumes in
summer 2023 which were used in the calibrated model, as well as currently permitted and speculative
design average flow(DAF) volumes. The status of Authorization to Construct(ATC)from the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources is provided in the last column with regard to future effluent flows.
NPDES permitted and speculative limits for water chemistry characteristics are detailed in Section 4.
Table 3. Modeled WWTP typical, permitted design average, and speculative design average flows.
WWTP Owner Receiving NPDES ID Mean Permit Current Future ATC or
Water Flow Date DAF Speculative DAF
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Rocky River Mooresville Dye Br NC0046728 3.95 10/7/2019 7.5 No change
Mallard Charlotte Mallard Cr NC0030210 7.22 12/17/2019 12.0 16.0(ATC issued)
Creek Water
Rocky River WSACC Rocky Riv NC0036269 19.70 9/29/2021 26.5 30.0, 34.0(ATC issued)
Regional 40.0, 50.0(speculative)
Muddy Creek WSACC Rocky Riv NC0081621 0.14 5/10/2021 0.30 1.0 (no ATC)
West Stanly Stanly Co. Rocky Riv NC0043532 0.43 12/11/2023 1.2 2.5 (no ATC)
Long Creek Albemarle Long Cr NC0024244 1.78 3/23/2023 12.0 16.0(no ATC)
Norwood Norwood Rocky Riv NC0021628 0.07 2/6/2024 0.75 No change
New Crooked Union Co. Crooked Cr TBD1 Implicit2 TBD1 1.91 6, 12.0 1
Creek'.2
Grassy Union Co. Crooked Cr NC0085812 Implicit2 4/5/2022 0.05 0.12 (no ATC)
Branch2
Monroe2 Monroe Richardson Cr ! NC0024333 Implicit2 12/17/2021 12.5 15.4(no ATC)
Speculative limits for a new outfall to Crooked Creek(CC)are currently under evaluation by DWR.A new outfall is anticipated to
incorporate flows from existing CC#2(NC0069841)which discharges to Crooked Creek at 1.9 MGD.
2 Effluent flows from these WWTPs were modeled implicitly based on simulation of their receiving waters as boundary conditions to
the mainstem Rocky River model segments.
MGD=million gallons per day
lilt TETRA TECH 5

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
4.0 SCENARIO DETAILS
The six model scenarios developed included simulation of critical conditions (low flow and warm
temperatures) to capture existing and speculative WWTP permitted limits for flow and water chemistry.
For these scenarios, each WWTP was modeled at permit limits for flow and various water quality
constituents to capture an extremely conservative theoretical scenario under which assimilative capacity
of the Rocky River is evaluated (Table 4).
Scenarios 1 and 2 simulate summer and winter critical conditions respectively, with all WWTPs at existing
permitted limits. For the WWTPs modeled, effluent simulation was characterized by approved limits for
flow, DO, ammonia (NH3), and 5-day biochemical and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(BODS, CBODS).
Scenarios 3, 4, 5, and 6 simulate critical summer and winter conditions with all WWTPs at existing
permitted limits again, with the following two exceptions:
a. New Crooked Creek WWTP was conservatively included at the maximum flow rate in discussion
between Union County and NC DEQ of 12.0 MGD. Inputs to the Rocky River model for the
Crooked Creek tributary are pulled directly from Union County's Crooked Creek critical conditions
QUAL2K model, simulating the 12.0 MGD discharge located around the Grassy Branch area.
b. Rocky River Regional WWTP modeled at speculative permit limit flows of 40 MGD (scenarios 3
and 4) and 50 MGD (scenarios 5 and 6).
Model inputs for the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant(RRRWWTP) of NH3 permit
limits were calculated by season and flow tier using the same methodology documented in the
RRRWWTP NPDES fact sheet dated 9-29-2021. NH3 limits were established using site-specific WLA
calculations put forth for ammonia criteria by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 20134. A
summary of these calculations is included in Appendix A.
4 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/aquatic-life-ambient-water-quality-criteria-for-ammonia-
freshwater-2013.pdf
( )TETRA TECH 6

Memorandum- Rocky River Scenario Application
Table 4. Scenario application and simulation of 1M/VfPs for the Rocky River QUAL2K model.
Permit Scenario ', Mooresville Mallard WSACC Muddy ! West Long Norwood New C I
Limits RR WWTP Creek RRRWWTP Creek Stanly Creek WWTP WWTP1.
WWTP 1 WWTP WWTP WWTP
Existing 34.0 6.0
DAF Flow 7.5 16.0 1.0 2.5 16.0 0.75
(MGD) Future Interim 40.0 12.0
Future 50.0
Mean DO Existing Monitor
>_6.0 >_6.0 >6.0 >_5.0 >_6.0 >_5.0 >_6.0
(mg/L) Future only
Summer Existing 1.6
Monitor
NH33 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0
(mg/L) Future Interim 1.5 only
Future 1.5
1.8
Winter Existing 3.5
NH3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 Monitor 1.9
(mg/L) Future Interim 3.4 only
Future 3.2
Summer Existing 4.2 as 10.0 as
BODS 5.0 CBOD5 CBOD5 5.0 10.0 5.0
(mg/L) Future
5.0 30.0
Winter Existing 8.3 as 20.0 as
BODS 10.0 CBOD5 CBOD5 10.0 20.0 10.0
(mg/L) Future
Existing Monitor Monitor
TN and Monitor only Monitor Monitor only Monitor only only Monitor Monitor
TP (mg/L) Future only only (+TKN, (+TKN, only only
NOX) NOX)
Modeled in separate QUAL2K of Crooked Creek(CC).
2 Modeled Implicitly as assimilated along Richardson Creek,speculative limits.
3 NH3 limits for WSACC RRRWWTP are determined based on site-specific chronic toxicity,see Appendix A.
'All future limits for new CC flow and water quality are TBD.
mg/L=milligram per liter, NOX=nitrogen dioxide,TKN=total Kjeldahl nitrogen,TN=total nitrogen,TP=total phosphorus
I I TETRA TECH 7

Memorandum-Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
5.0 SCENARIO APPLICATION RESULTS
Model results for all six scenario applications indicate that existing water quality standards are met
downstream of the RRRWWTP discharge under expanded flow tiers from 34 MGD up to 40 and 50 MGD.
The observed conditions that were modeled as part of the baseline calibration condition indicated very
low instream NH3 concentrations along the Rocky River at 0.03 mg/L and DO concentrations staying
above the instream DO water quality standards as well, at 6.24 mg/L (Table 5).
Results for summer critical conditions with WWTPs simulated at currently permitted limits for flow and
water quality indicate that maximum instream concentrations hit about 1.0 mg/L where the outfall enters
the river(allowable by site-specific NH3 toxicity criteria), which rapidly declines. When RRRWWTP
effluent flows increase to 40 and 50 MGD, model results indicate that NH3 concentrations increase very
slightly (to 1.07 mg/L), while DO concentrations improve from current limits (5.47 mg/L DO instream at 34
MGD increasing to 5.76 and 5.80 mg/L for 40 and 50 MGD respectively).
TN and TP concentrations at the terminus of the Rocky River under typical summer conditions were
simulated when calibrated to be 9.37 and 0.62 mg/L respectively, while existing permit limits bring these
values up to 15.88 and 1.11 mg/L, respectively. The increased flow tiers of 40 and 50 MGD from
RRRWWTP increase concentrations at the terminus to 17.31 and 18.37 mg/L TN respectively, and 1.34
and 1.44 mg/L TP, respectively.
These scenario results indicate that increased flow capacity from RRRWWTP is not likely to exacerbate
low DO concentrations instream. While NH3 concentrations do increase in the immediate vicinity of the
outfall, site-specific permit limits for NH3 would have to decrease from the currently permitted 1.6 mg/L
NH3 at 34 MGD down to 1.5 mg/L NH3 for both the 40 and 50 MGD flow tiers. Total nutrient
concentrations increase at the terminus of the Rocky River under RRRWWTP expanded flow tiers due to
increased loading under both seasonal critical conditions.
Table 5. Water quality results downstream of RRRWWTP by scenario.
Scenario RRRWWTP Minimum Maximum TN at Rocky TP at Rocky
j Flow DO below NH3 below River Outlet 1 River Outlet
(MGD) RRRWWTP RRRWWTP (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L)
0 Baseline Calibration Model 19.7 6.24 0.03 9.37 0.62
Existing Maximum Permit Limits
1 Summer Critical Conditions 5.74 1.02 15.96 1.13
34
2 Winter Critical Conditions 7.27 2.06 18.30 1.12
.-} Intermediate Permit Limits'
3 Summer Critical Conditions 5.76 1.01 17.31 1.34
40
4 Winter Critical Conditions 7.24 2.12 19.71 1.32
Final Permit Limits
5 Summer Critical Conditions 5.80 1.07 18.37 1.44
50
6 Winter Critical Conditions 7.18 2.15 20.81 1.42
1 New Crooked Creek VVVVTP flow limits were 12.0 MGD for scenario 3-6.
TETRA TECH Nib TETRA

Memorandum- Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
Based on the model results, existing DO water quality standards and site-specific NH3 toxicity criteria
should maintain aquatic habitat integrity based on current regulations (Table 6). Instream condition
requirements are met downstream of the RRRWWTP if the increased flow tiers of 40 and 50 MGD:
1. Maintain existing CBOD5 limits of 10 mg/L in summer and 20 mg/L in winter,
2. Maintain existing DO daily average of greater than or equal to 6.0 mg/L, and
3. Decrease NH3 limits from 1.6 to 1.5 mg/L in summer(both 40 and 50 MGD tiers), and
4. Decrease NH3 limits from 3.5 to 3.4 and 3.2 mg/L for the 40 and 50 MGD tiers, respectively.
Table 6. Speculative limits for Rocky River Regional WWTP based on assimilative capacity evaluation.
Phased Flow Tier Flow DO NH3(mglL) CBOD5(mg/L)
(MGD) (mg/L)
Summer Winter Summer Winter
Constructed Permitted (Current Operation) 26.5 >_6.0 1.7 3.9 15.4 22.6
Intermediate Permitted (ATC) 30 >_6.0 1.6 3.7 10 i 20
Final Permitted (ATC) 34 ? >_6.0 1.6 3 3.5 10 20
Intermediate Proposed 40 >_6.0 1.5 3.4 10 20
Final Proposed 50 >_6.0 1.5 3.2 10 20
Summer and winter period model results for flow, DO, ammonia, conductivity, TN, and TP are presented
graphically below in Section 5.1 (Figures 1 -6) and Section 5.2 (Figures 7- 12), respectively. For the
summer results, the baseline calibration model results are included for comparison since they represent
close to critical summer conditions.
OTETRA TECH 9

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
5.1 SUMMER SCENARIOS MODELING RESULTS BY PARAMETER
v o. C
3 = _5m i v "
lil
U,
un
d CC -V O Y 3V O O o0 to
N
9 '• m N N 'OmdCCa. V O O C C
a V C
V CO C VV .K2
250 i I♦♦ • ♦ V ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ V ♦ •
200 I
IT'
__.150 __ �•_•—•—
o '...�•—•—•
100
•
Y
50 c
1.--/--- m
O 0 C 3
h r 8 2 O M C
.r--= C o l Y E Y N C Lfl F.
- _ U _
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
Baseline 34MGD —•-40MGD - - -50MGD
Figure 1. Rocky River simulated baseline and expansion streamflow, summer critical conditions.
a o 0
. ut
N K Y 13
L.
N > m m N Y •OL. H
[O . 'O Y 1, 3 -C T O 00 CO W
j. O p/o W �a S. V O C0 L C
p O lS o m CC CC': O� '�
2 f
I
13
12 `♦ V ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ V 1
11
10
E
8 8 ` '-r
: fl -
WI C 7
5 rn 3 e a o w N c E
> vvs o Ln `m Y V m an y
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
Baseline 34 MGD —•-40 MGD - --50 MGD WQS 4.0 mg/L
Figure 2. Rocky River simulated baseline and expansion instream DO, summer critical conditions.
11
TETRA TECH 10

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
d
0e72 ? a o
c a) ro m t v.x v
a; ct) a uyy i o o m L
oQ mu vm N 7 cca 0 (-1 u 2
II
o
1.2 !l
A ♦ V DWR allowable♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
1.0
site-specific NH3 standard'-'-‘12.•i1
0B
J\
00 -----is..............: ,
,1
E
O
c
0.2 c c 0
y) N O N O V1 C
CI
N
O1 3 wa E d N c u?
• N O N a N Y U R N o
0.0 t�'��� N Z a
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
Baseline 34 MGD —•-40 MGD - - -50 MGD NH3 Toxicity Limit
Figure 3. Rocky River simulated baseline and expansion instream ammonia, summer critical conditions. I
a.
a) c
o
tn
N CC 4) E CO T COm IA Y 12 IA
CU
0) C m>> , 1 d co C 2 'O O O C L C
600 11
1
'V ♦ V ♦ ♦♦ ♦ _< ♦ _♦ _
500 ' ,N_._._�^ :_._.`.� .�.�.�..
�4�
•�A.300
ti
c
c
V 200 '.
ar
C
3 LOOl d E 0) N C In
to N O V) . U 2 in0 i(NI
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
Baseline 34 MGD —•-40 MGD - - -50 MGD
Figure 4. Rocky River simulated baseline and expansion instream conductivity, summer critical
conditions.
I 1 TETRA TECH 11

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
d d C
Ocol
i
d iiitew Y I
01
'-O uO13 L 13 O 0 to 2 C u moc t7 U `�
30
ii
,• • • • •• • I . _• • • • • •
25 _a
E 15
t.........•\...........„L______:.--"-L
i-
•
10 � �
Y I
C 0
5 0 N tn C N C
v O1 3 E w N c in i E
iv V1 0 cn C f0 _leV ini Gl
O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Baseline 34 MGD —• -40 MGD - - -50 MGD
Figure 5. Rocky River simulated baseline and expansion instream total nitrogen, summer critical
conditions.
✓ w o
N . 0) ,y N 7• m m" Yt ft, 0m3' iii
-o
ce
4.5 1i I
4.0 • ♦ • •• • • • • • • • •
3.5
3.0
1I �
N
�E •.........
11.5 •• r; I
10 \\.......11,...:N).,..it_.
cC ,a
N
In ri fp 0 in C
0.5 5 N 3 LO d E a, N C in E
C1 D Li _LDl2 U i i•Z a n H
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Baseline 34 MGD —•-40 MGD - - -50 MGD
Figure 6. Rocky River simulated baseline and expansion instream total phosphorus, summer critical
conditions.
(*TETRA TECH 12

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
5.2 WINTER SCENARIOS MODELING RESULTS BY PARAMETER
a C
7 N
C1
m d w
d
T Y
i co 'O.X L 9 O 0 no roo N
4 O m G u cc.c v 0 0 o c c
g 3 V Vm z cc�- p V _, .-
300
250 r
r
200 __s �__
r«
r---.
150
I-
100 i I
50 v, V .„, W I cO in c
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
34 MGD —•-40 MGD - - -50 MGD
Figure 7. Rocky River simulated expansion streamflow, winter critical conditions.
0.
v 0. w c
v m
on
N Cr d ? coan_c o Y .
�, O all to m -0U N .c Y 9 O O c _c c
D O rj 2 V pp K cc.2 2 7 0u fq
2 v J
2 cc_ p 2 oc
13
12n V ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ i
11
10r........_...............
E �s�
O 8
0
7
6 ..
c N
ul 5 "13 rn 3 a E ., o c i�
CI
... —_____�__________ --____ �__�_LL �J S2 +___�___________z ___________�_�____id.h__
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—34 MGD —•-40 MGD - --S0 MGD WQS 4.0 mg/L ---DO Saturation
Figure 8. Rocky River simulated expansion instream DO, winter critical conditions.
(lb]TETRA TECH 13

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
v C. C
a O O 0
CC COYon
m d > m Y v N
0 0 v 2 um CC oc a o 1 L9 u 2u co
a—
2s
•r V ♦ V ♦♦ ♦ i♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ •
2.0 s DWR allowable
i site-s.ecific NH3 standard --a .. , y
J �..•t
1.5 . . ^..
E
c •�...
J1.0 if
0.5 c
0 0 C O
0 ofO N 0 tll C
1:3m 3 nd E a`"i N c uu E
p
iy U r N Z a an
0.0 l? ,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
34 MGD —•-40 MGD - - -50 MGD NH3 Toxicity limit
Figure 9. Rocky River simulated expansion instream ammonia, winter critical conditions.
hi
d d w C
. Si
y ce v ? 0 m -0 N
i ce Y 'O Y m '=-Ca 'O u G! cc C +'G m K a"L J 2 J
600
vf • • • •• • iv • I v v • * •
500 1 -
300
ti
c
io 200 I
c
100 00 i N 0 C c
on w 0 111 5 o' 3 AOa € v N c In" -E
p 1 N a+ ni _. Y U m in W
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
34MGD —•-40MGD - - -50MGD
Figure 10. Rocky River simulated expansion instream conductivity, winter critical conditions.
OTETRA TECH 14

Memorandum- Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
a, a c
N 2_u to N CC N O, mco -O
N
0) co
f0 O U tY L ' CO C _c CO 4.0 Nuf
30 ii I iL7
it') 8 m 0 Ul C
N 3 H a E Y v m u1 E
0
LL1i2 0 fz a n i`
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
34 MGD —•-40 MGD - - -50 MGD
Figure 11. Rocky River simulated expansion instream total nitrogen, winter critical conditions.
0.
a, y C
2 v o
d Y `° v,[ fl m L T O 0 m m W
a, 0 3 m -o 0 a, L ,�, .0 0 o c .c c
p V Vm aac v` -I _1
4.5 11
4.0 , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ly ♦ • ♦ ♦ * •
3.5
3.0
-a2.5 ^- ♦
E •1s -
F2.o - .
1.0 ( c
c co 0
v 0 N C
rn w
0.5 � .� m c
a 0 tO a F. 0 N c rq E
re aj
o.o
o M Ia 2 w ,n z a m 1-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
34 MGD —•-40 MGD - - -50MGD
Figure 12. Rocky River simulated expansion instream total phosphorus, winter critical conditions.
TETRA TECH 15

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
It TETRA TECH 16

Memorandum-Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
APPENDIX A: SITE-SPECIFIC NH3 CRITERIA FOR RRRWWTP
NC DWR calculated the site-specific NH3 criteria for RRRWWTP in August 2021 based on the equation
for the chronic criterion magnitude:
CCC = 0.8876 x ( 0.0278 1.1994 x (2.126 x 10
J 0 028x(20-M (T,7)))
1 + 10(7.688-pH) + 1 + 10(pH-7.688)
For each increasing flow tier, the proportion of wasteflow relative to 7Q10 streamflow increases
incrementally, and the relative mix is used to calculate the site-specific instream NH3 concentration which
was determined to be 1.2 mg/L in summer, and 2.3 mg/L in winter. Applicable for each scenario are
seasonal background water quality concentrations and 7Q10 seasonal low flows.
Table 7. Site-specific NH3 wasteload allocation calculations by seasonal flow scenario.
Parameter L Summer Winter
Existing Proposed Proposed Existing Proposed Proposed
Permit Interim Future Permit Interim Future
Maximum Maximum
Instream Conditions
7Q10 Flow(cfs) 20.7 31.9
Instream Temperature (°C) 25.75 13.54
Instream pH 7.6 7.4
Instream NH3 (mg/L) 0.22 0.22
Effluent Conditions
Effluent Flow(MGD) 34 40 50 34 40 50
Effluent Temperature(°C) 27 20
Effluent pH 6.8 6.5
Mixed Instream Conditions
Mixed Temperature(°C) 26.6 26.7 26.7 17.6 17.8 18.1
Mixed pH 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8
Mixed NH3 (mg/L) 1.2 2.3
Proposed NH3 Effluent Concentration
Calculated Effluent NH3(mg/L) 1.6 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.4 3.2
I I TETRA TECH A-1 Appendix A

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
APPENDIX B: MODEL RESULTS FOR MALLARD AND LONG CREEKS
Rocky River modeling and scenario application both included explicit simulation of the mainstems of both
Mallard Creek and Long Creek. Model results for these streams are included below, with graphical
presentation showing scenario conditions, with comparison to the baseline calibration model results
during summer(Figure 13- Figure 36). Scenario results represent seasonal critical conditions with the
wastewater treatment plant that discharges to each stream (Mallard Creek VWVfP and Long Creek
VWVTP) at currently permitted limits for flow and water quality. Although RRRWWTP flow tiers were
increased to 40 and 50 MGD, those scenarios do not produce any changes to these two tributaries, so
those results were not included below.
B.1 MALLARD CREEK SCENARIO GRAPHICS
A
W
30
25
20
N
3 15
0
LL
10
' I
N
5 nC
C
G F
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Baseline —Scenario Results
Figure 13. Mallard Creek simulated baseline and expansion streamflow during summer critical conditions.
frit TETRA TECH B-1 Appendix B

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
Ta
C
8
6 6
5
OD
E 4
0
Ca
2
v
A 7
1 C c
O
j O a)to
0 a ~
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
Baseline Scenario Results WQS 4.0 mg/I
Figure 14. Mallard Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream DO during summer critical
conditions.
To
a
a
1.2
1
0.8
J\
OD
E
0.6
0.4
� I
c
0.2 c r c
o `
o
0 146- L
OJ
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Baseline —Scenario Results —NH3 Toxicity Limit
Figure 15. Mallard Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream ammonia during summer critical
conditions.
CTETRA TECH B-2 Appendix B
1

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
A
700
600
500
400 '
300
v
.)
v 200
v
ro
G L C
100 G
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Baseline -Scenario Results
Figure 16. Mallard Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream conductivity during summer critical
conditions.
c
7,
30
25
20
E 15
10
w
S 0 t c
: I r
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Baseline -Scenario Results
Figure 17. Mallard Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream total nitrogen during summer critical
conditions.
I I TETRA TECH B-3 Appendix B

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
CA
6
5
4
Cr
E3
a
2
1 z
G L _C
� E
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Baseline -Scenario Results
Figure 18. Mallard Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream total phosphorus during summer
critical conditions.
00 m
c y �
4y1 m
C
J J m
35
30
25
,7 20
it 15
10
T N
3
E
Y = coZ� i-
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Baseline -Scenario Results
Figure 19. Long Creek simulated baseline and expansion streamflow during summer critical conditions.
TETRA TECH B-4 Appendix B

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
m
[O -
aJ
41 00 al m
fb
J J JY+ m
9
8 • i V
7
6
sa,5
E
O 4
a
3
2 1 VI
— aJ 7
n W a) M C
1 na .0 '-I E
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
Baseline Scenario Results WQS 4.0 mg/L
Figure 20. Long Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream DO during summer critical conditions.
a
m r a
a m 00 CO41
0
J
al
y C m
:3J JY.+ m
1.2 i / • •
1
\�0.8
0'
E
c 0.6
0
E
E
a 0.4
0.2 aa)i — N
N yvj a/ ml C00
C
jy co
= W I I--
0 •
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Baseline —Scenario Results —NH3 Toxicity Limit
Figure 21. Long Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream ammonia during summer critical
conditions.
I 1 TETRA TECH B-5 Appendix B

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
tm
c i to
y
ro
[O W
W C a, co
J .�.1 J m
500
450 ♦ ♦ ♦
400
-••E,350
1 300
i250
ti
v 200
c
0
v 150 -
100 — 0) ?
N L CO C
50 te r 4 E
c
N
0 co Z,i-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Baseline —Scenario Results
Figure 22. Long Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream conductivity during summer critical
conditions.
gb° i .
mre
CD CU CO
V.. to Y 0
a+ C 2.1
m
J J
35
V
30
25
20
E
15
10
ai h
5 A N -c cov , c
c t r E
Y
N
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Baseline —Scenario Results
Figure 23. Long Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream total nitrogen during summer critical
conditions.
CTETRA TECH B-6 Appendix B

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
v
o COot
m
0.1
0) C .
Y
J J no
1.4 I
V i • V
1.2
1
0.8
oa
E
0.6
0.4
T N N
.2 W
0 N N 00 C
_
OD t'' L s-1 E
2 m Z 01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Baseline -Scenario Results
Figure 24. Long Creek simulated baseline and expansion instream total phosphorus during summer
critical conditions.
I
30
/ 1
25
20
N
15
0
10
Ii
0'�
A 2 iW
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 25 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Scenario Results
Figure 25. Mallard Creek simulated expansion streamflow during winter critical conditions.
( TETRA TECH B-7 Appendix B

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
a.
P.
To
12
1 i
• 10
is
J
E 6
O
0
4 I
-o
2 C L G_
O y C
C
O �
U
d i--
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Scenario Results ------- WOS 4.0 mg/L ———DO Saturation
Figure 26. Mallard Creek simulated expansion instream DO during winter critical conditions.
1
E
a
's
2
2 I
1.8
1.6
1.4
-4
n�1.2
E
C 1
O
E 0.8
a
0.6
0.4 A N
C L C
O
0.2 c E
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Scenario Results —NH3 Toxicity Limit
Figure 27. Mallard Creek simulated expansion instream ammonia during winter critical conditions.
n TETRA TECH B-8 Appendix B
I

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
A
700
•
600
500
400
300
.)
U 200
N N
C N O
100 O t C
— W E
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Scenario Results
Figure 28. Mallard Creek simulated expansion instream conductivity during winter critical conditions.
30
25
20
J\
OD
E 15
10
17 H
5
O L C
'5 `o E
o '
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Scenario Results
Figure 29. Mallard Creek simulated expansion instream total nitrogen during winter critical conditions.
TETRA TECH B-9 Appendix B

Memorandum—Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
d
A
A
2
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
E 2.5
o_
2
1.5
C L C
0.5 - $
f0 i � H
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Scenario Results
Figure 30. Mallard Creek simulated expansion instream total phosphorus during winter critical conditions.
B.2 LONG CREEK SCENARIO GRAPHICS
a
0 3 3
m
SO
JIS
40
35
30
25
20
0
LL
15
10
T4.1 a, N
7
5 N N QI rn C
00 .0 E
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Scenario Results
Figure 31. Long Creek simulated expansion streamflow during winter critical conditions.
(*TETRA TECH B-10 Appendix B
1

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
00
m L.
0) 00 4/ CO 00
J J = co
12 1 i i i
8
J\
E 6
8
4
2 N 7
iu c
C .-Ico c
c t l E
Y ra
= COZ H
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
Scenario Results WQS 4.0 mg/L — — —DO Saturation
Figure 32. Long Creek simulated expansion instream DO during winter critical conditions.
m
i
m v
Si 00 01 CO
— C - bo
J J J m
2 1 i Jt
1.8 f
'H0
a)Y ra
.11
co 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Scenario Results —NH3 Toxicity Limit
Figure 33. Long Creek simulated expansion instream ammonia during winter critical conditions.
OTETRA TECH B-11 Appendix B

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
a
OD f-
0
m
J
cu
✓ 0.0 N CO
— C _m
J▪ J J m
450
40U • = 1
350 1
E 300
u
-250
200
c
0
150
100 N
T — W
N N .0 M C
50 C « NI E
,-2O -
0
_ m __Zil- , i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Scenario Results
Figure 34. Long Creek simulated expansion instream conductivity during winter critical conditions.
D.
CO
J m
a) to IL,
▪ C DO
▪ J IDm
301 i Jr •
25
20
\J
00
•
E 15
z
10
5 A v r col c
v m
t' s .-u E
i[ 1 2 m Zj
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
-Scenario Results
Figure 35. Long Creek simulated expansion instream total nitrogen during winter critical conditions.
OTETRA TECH B-12 Appendix B

Memorandum— Rocky River Scenario Application March 26, 2024
iim
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
\J
m
E 0.5
0.
~ 0.4
0.3
0.2 > — w w
N N d M C
0.1 : m s E
Y = m Z H
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from Headwaters(mi)
—Scenario Results
Figure 36. Long Creek simulated expansion instream total phosphorus during winter critical conditions.
1
frt.TETRA TECH B-13 Appendix B