NC0063096_Speculative Limits_20141119

OILS f llt
zo►ySpecs fM0401
1, WENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Ms. Kendra Parrish, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Dear Ms. Sudano:
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
November 19, 2014
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
Holly Springs WWTP
Permit No. NCO063096
Wake County
Cape Fear River Basin
This letter provides speculative effluent limits for expanded discharges of 6 MGD and 8 MGD for the Holly
Springs WWTP, based on the proposal to maintain the discharge point (Outfall 001) at its existing location in
Utley Creek. The Division received the speculative limits request in a letter dated October 23, 2014. Previous
speculative limits were prepared for a proposed discharge location further downstream in Utley Creek below
Greentree Reservoir (2011 speculative limits) as well as a proposed discharge directly to Harris Lake (2010
speculative limits). 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. The drainage area
upstream of this site is 0.79 square miles. The estimated low flow statistics provided by USGS (May 12, 2014)
include the following: Annual 7Q10 flow (0.01 cfs), Winter 7Q10 flow ( 0.09 cfs), Annual 30Q2 flow (0.13 cfs),
and Annual Average flow (0.95 cfs). The current discharge location is to the headwaters of Utley Creek located
in HUC 03030004, and tributary to the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake. Harris Lake is a manmade
reservoir that provides cooling, process, and domestic water for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Within Utley Creek, the discharge travels through Thomas Mill Pond and Greentree Reservoir, and there has
been some uncertainty regarding the flow regime through these waterbodies based on Duke Energy
operations. Utley Creek is not listed as an impaired waterbody on the Draft 2014 North Carolina 303(d)
Impaired Waters List.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Ralegh, North Carolina 27604 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: 919-807�6492 \ Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolinat
Internet www ncwateroualitv.om NaturallY

Page 2
Holly Springs/Speculative Limits
November 19, 2014
Speculative Effluent Limits. Based on Division ' review of receiving stream conditions, QUAL2K stream
modeling, and previous CE-QUAL-W2 lake response modeling, speculative limits for the proposed expansion
to 6 MGD and 8 MGD at the current discharge location 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 modification. The latest QUAL2K stream modeling indicates that the expanded flow at the current
discharge location would improve water quality conditions through Thomas Millpond (due to reduced
residence time) and the dissolved oxygen condition within Utley Creek would be maintained above the water
quality standard. The speculative nutrient limits were originally developed to protect downstream Harris
Lake from excessive nutrient enrichment.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for Holly Springs WWTP (Proposed Expansion to 6 & 8 MGD) at Existing
Discharge Location
Effluent Characteristic
Effluent tions
Monthly Average .
Weekl Avera a :.
Dail Maximum
Flow
6 or 8 MGD
BOD5
5.0 m / L
7.5 m / L
NH3 asN
1.0m /L
3.0m /L
TSS
30 m /L
45 mg/ L
TRC
17 u /1
Fecal coliform(geometric mean)
200/ 100 ml
400/ 100 ml
Dissolved Oxygen
6.0 mg/1 (Daily Average, Minimum
H
6.0 to 9.0 standard units
Total Nitrogen
5.0 mg N/1
Total Phosphorus
0.5 m / l
Ortho Phosphorus
0.27 m / 1
Chronic Toxicity Pass/ Fail
90 %
State Environmental Policy AcAct _(SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. The Towns current NPDES permit provides
for expansion to 6 and 8 MGD at a new discharge location on Utley Creek below Greentree Reservoir, which is
in accordance with the 2011 SEPA FONSI. The Town is currently pursuing an EA Amendment to include the
proposal to retain the expanded flows at the current discharge location. -Following successful conclusion of the
SEPA process, the Town will then need to apply for an_NP-DES permit modification requesting the change in
discharge location for the expanded flows.

Page 3
'Holly Springs/Speculative Limits
November 19, 2014
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please feel
free to contact me [phone].
Re pectfull
om Behuck
Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Hardcovy:
Central File
NPDES Permit File/NC0063096
Email Cony:
USFWS
NC WRC
DWR Raleigh Regional Office/Danny Smith
DWR Planning/Kathy Stecker, Pam Behm, David Wainwright, Nora Deamer, Tom Fransen
DWR Permitting/Jeff Poupart
CH2M Hill/Bill Kreutzberger, Klaus Albertin
Holly Springs/Kendra Parrish
NPDES Server/Spec Limits

THE TOWN OF
[jolly
Springs
P.O. Box g
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
w .hoIlyspringsnc.us
[phone]
October 23, 2014
Mr. Tom Behuck
Supervisor, Point Source Branch
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
OCT 2 4 2014
Water Quality
Pennftttng Section
AN f } �-It NC,V L3 o9b
Subject: Request for Speculative Limits for Town of Holly Springs Water
Reclamation Facility
Dear Mr. Belnick:
The Town of Holly Springs is requesting that Division of Water Resources
(DWR) consider the issuance of speculative permit limits to retain the existing
Utley Creek discharge location at 150 Treatment Plant Road, Holly Springs,
North Carolina. A technical memorandum (TM) that evaluates a discharge at
the current location and to a location below Greentree Reservoir is currently
under review by the Modeling and Assessment Branch. The following
paragraphs provide background and summarize the results of the TM related
to this request.
The Town of Holly Springs has been working for many years with Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), our neighboring communities, and consultants to meet
the needs of the Town for increased wastewater treatment capacity. In 2011, we
received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from DWQ to increase the
NPDES permitted capacity of our wastewater treatment facilities and now have
an NPDES permit with future permit capacity of 6 million gallons per day
(mgd) and 8 mgd for a discharge to a location on Utley Creek below Greentree
Reservoir and above the White Oak arm of Harris Lake. The relocation of the
discharge was required because of previously identified adverse effects of
eutrophication in Thomas Millpond attributed to the discharge. However, the
conditions under which the FONSI was prepared and this permit was issued
have changed in two significant ways:
Improvements in the treatment process used at the WRF have resulted
in effluent quality that is significantly better than in the past.

Mr. Belnick
Page 2
October 22, 2014
• Thomas Millpond is now much smaller and shallower, as a result of a
partial dam break, than in the past when eutrophication and poor water
quality conditions were first identified.
We also have a concern regarding a relocation of the outfall: a reduction in
flow to the upper section of Utley Creek due to relocation of the outfall could
have impacts to the aquatic habitat and biota in the creek and adjacent wetlands
and to water quality in Thomas Millpond.
For these reasons, the Town of Holly Springs further evaluated the potential
water quality effects of its discharge location on Utley Creek and two small
impoundments of Utley Creek (Thomas Millpond and Greentree Reservoir)
prior to proceeding with permitting and implementation of a pipeline to the
new discharge location. As part of this study, new physical and water quality
data for the creek were collected and a water quality model was developed to
evaluate current and future water quality conditions with the discharge
remaining in its current location or relocated, as required in the NPDES permit.
The following are key findings and conclusions from this analysis
• Thomas Millpond is now much smaller and shallower than in the past
when eutrophication and poor water quality conditions were first
identified. This change is a result of a partial dam break that apparently
occurred between 2003 and 2005 as well as continued sedimentation from
the upstream watershed. The current pond/wetland complex has a surface
area of 4.5 acres (historically, the pond was more than 6 acres in surface
area) and an estimated storage volume of 2.1 million gallons based on a
2014 bathymetric survey of the pond.
Water quality monitoring of Thomas Millpond and Utley Creek indicates
that the current pond still exhibits some signs of eutrophication with some
measurements of elevated chlorophyll a and supersaturated dissolved
oxygen (DO) conditions. However, these conditions are much less severe
than measured during similar monitoring conducted in 2009 and 2010 as a
result of improved performance of the WRF (especially for nutrient
removal), increased effluent flows, and reductions in the resident time of
water (primarily effluent) in Thomas Millpond.
• Water quality modeling performed with a calibrated/validated QUAL2K
model under various discharge location scenarios indicates:
- That as effluent flow increases towards permitted levels with the
WRF discharge remaining at its current location, water quality
conditions improve through the pond (as a result of further reduced

41
Mr. Belnick
Page 3
October 22, 2014
residence time) and the DO conditions are maintained above the
water quality standard.
- DO conditions are also maintained above the standard if the
discharge is moved to immediately below Greentree Reservoir as
required in the current NPDES permit. However, chlorophyll a
levels are greatly increased in Thomas Millpond as a result of the
lower flow and longer residence time. Another concern that the
steady-state model DO calculations are also not likely to be
indicative of is the wide -swings in DO that could result under these
low flow, eutrophic conditions.
• The water quality monitoring and modeling shows that there is significant
assimilation of nutrients in Utley Creek and Thomas Millpond. Nearly all of
the effluent phosphorus is in the form of ortho-phosphorus (OP) and the
monitoring data show an almost complete reduction of effluent OP to total
phosphorus (TP) through adsorption to sediment or organic material and
biological uptake. There is also a slight reduction in TP levels as water
moves through the Utley Creek system.
The Town of Holly Springs is respectfully requesting speculative permit limits,
similar to the limits in the current NPDES permit for future capacities of 6 mgd
and 8 mgd but with the discharge at the current location. The previously
submitted monitoring and modeling analysis strongly indicates that water
quality will be protected by retaining the discharge at the current location. The
analysis also shows more adverse water quality and environmental impacts on
Thomas Millpond from moving the discharge than keeping it at the current
location.
In addition, we would like DWR to reconsider the necessity of an OP limitation
of 0.27 mg/ L for the effluent in addition to the TP limitation of 0.5 mg/ L. While
this may have been warranted for a discharge in close proximity to Harris Lake,
we believe that the Utley Creek monitoring data show that these separate limits
are not necessary and would like to review this data in more detail with you.
We understand that the OP limitation was not a focus of the previously
submitted TM and may require more study by DWR. Since the Town wants to
proceed with an EA amendment as soon as possible to retain our present
discharge location, we would appreciate receiving the speculative limits for the
current discharge location and DWR can consider the need for the OP
limitation when the permit is renewed. The Town is facing very near -term
decisions to access our additional treatment capacity to support rapid

Mr. Belnick
Page 4
October 22, 2014
development pressure, and thus does not want the OP issue to delay a decision
regarding the discharge location.
If you have a need for additional information or other questions, please do not
hesitate to call me at [phone]. We appreciate your consideration of our
request.
Sincerely,
LJ �
Stephanie Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
cc: Tom Fransen/DWR
Kathy Stecker/DWR
Danny Smith/DWR
Pam Behm/DWR
Bill Kreutzberger, Ch2MHiH
Seann Byrd, Public Utilities Director
Chuck Simmons, Town Manager
Kendra D. Parrish, PE, Senior Engineer
13762

Tti�� io/iy/�o�y z�� �cw63a96 /0/wY
9elniek, Tom
Subject: Holly Springs / Utley Creek Discharge Location
Location: Archdale 1106Z-South
Start: Tue 10/14/2014 2:00 PM
End: Tue 10/14/2014 3:30 PM
Show Time As: Tentative
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Not yet responded
Organizer: Behm, Pamela
Required Attendees: Stecker, Kathy ([e-mail]); Tom Belnick ([e-mail]); Smith,
Danny; Rodriguez, Teresa
Hopefully, everyone has had a chance to take a look at the Technical Memorandum submitted by CH2 for Holly Springs.
I'd like to discuss the findings and talk about next steps.
Utley Ck QUAL2K
rM 9-24-14 DWR..
Pam
�►�S��SuJ — ql�o�/ clis�ii,{ ¢� i�►�a�►� �� ��.r�� �k/f�ll
/oCa7�01, Stello,4V L) lmodll f-eJulb.
jChl�J(, Z ire' C
c�A06laK-j s�•.1�� ,�Clk�ii.( v/ /
Jo Je

•8einick, Tom
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 4:23 PM
To: Behm, Pamela
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Jaime. [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Smith, Danny
Subject: RE: Update on Utley Creek Modeling and request for a Meeting
Hi Pam — Thanks for leaving Klaus the voice message. He forwarded it to me since he is traveling today.
Regarding the letter from Duke — here is the status of our efforts to get the letter.
• 1 have been interacting with Louise England since she coordinates environmental issues for the
nuclear facilities for Duke. Previous contacts that we had for Duke were also contacted but indicated
that since Duke has put their application for expansion of the Harris Plant into an "inactive" (not the
term they used) status, we needed to work with Louise since it was an operational issue. All parties we
talked to confirmed that there were no plans to repair the dam at Thomas Millpond.
• 1 did receive feedback that Duke's attorneys were not likely to agree to send any correspondence to
DWR so we drafted a letter for Duke to send to the Town of Holly Springs. I had a discussion with Tom
Fransen and he indicated a letter to the Town would be adequate. He sent me an email to this regard
which I forwarded to Louise.
• Last response that I received from Louise England was that the letter was at the Harris Plant for
signature — but I still don't know whether we will actually get one.
I have had a discussion with Tom Fransen and indicated we may require a contingency plan for the event we
cannot get a letter. I also wanted to point out that Duke will require approval from the Corps including a
potential 404 permit (which would also require a 401 certification from DWR) for repair of the dam at this point
since it has been breached for about 10 years (2 years is the threshold for coverage under Nationwide Permit
3 from the Corps). While we continue our efforts to pursue this letter, we have other options including sending
them a draft EA for comment once it is prepared.
In summary, we have made significant effort to obtain a statement regarding Duke's lack of plan's to restore
the dam and do not believe Duke's unwillingness to send us or DWR a letter should impact DWR's decision
regarding retention of the current discharge location. As we discussed back in March, this letter would not be
binding on Duke in any way.
That is the long answer to your short question in the voicemail.
Please advise if you have any questions
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] lOffice (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger0ch2m.com
From: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:02 PM
To: 'Roddy, Jackie'; 'Belnick, Tom'; 'Stecker, Kathy'; Transen, Tom'; 'Reid, Dianne'; 'Behm, Pamela'; 'Smith, Danny'
Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'sea [e-mail]`;
Robinson, Jaime/CLT; Albertin, Klaus/RAL
Subject: RE: Update on Utley Creek Modeling and request for a Meeting

Hi everyone — Attached is our draft Technical Memorandum presenting the monitoring and modeling results for
Utley Creek as I had indicated below. We would like to meet with you to go over the results as soon as possible.
Our preference would be to meet at 1:30 or 2 PM the afternoon of Oct. 2. If this does not work, please suggest 2
or three times the following week. Klaus will be following up with Jackie or Pam to try to lock down a meeting
date.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] (Office (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill, kreutzberger0ch 2m.com
From: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:33 AM
To: 'Roddy, Jackie'; 'Bel nick, Tom'; 'Stecker, Kathy; 'Fransen, Tom'; 'Reid, Dianne'; 'Behm, Pamela'; 'Smith, Danny'
Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
Robinson, Jaime/CLT; Albertin, Klaus/RAL
Subject: Update on Utley Creek Modeling and request for a Meeting
Hi everyone — I wanted to give everyone a status update on our efforts for the Town of Holly Springs. We plan
to send you a draft technical memorandum (TM) sometime next week presenting results of the QUAL 2K
model development, calibration and scenario analysis for Utley Creek. This will include the results of the
weekly stream monitoring, time -of -travel (dye) study, and bathymetric survey of Thomas Millpond as requested
by DWR (although some of the chemical analysis results may be lagging a bit on samples collected in
September but we have all the field data).
We would like to suggest a meeting to present our results the following week. Our preference would be at 1:30
or 2 PM the afternoon of Oct. 2. Alternatively — we could also do the 1" at the same times. I am aware that Tom
Fransen is off that week but believe that at this point we want to dig into the results with Pam B, Tom B and
Danny Smith in particular and discuss implication for the EA Amendment with Jackie — and then we can
follow-up with others as needed if they cannot make the meeting.
Please let us know if these dates can work for a meeting or suggest alternatives the following week. Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] lOffice (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger0ch2m.com
From: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:56 PM
To: 'Roddy, Jackie'; 'Belnick, Tom'; 'Stecker, Kathy'; 'Fransen, Tom'; 'Reid, Dianne'; 'Behm, Pamela'; 'Smith, Danny'
Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
Robinson, Jaime/CLT; Albertin, Klaus/RAL
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Hi everyone — As follow up to my email below, I wanted to send a PDF of some pictures that were taken during
the initial field work for determining cross -sections for model development and for collecting information for
use for the functional assessment and/or permitting for the effluent pipeline. These pictures illustrate the
changes that are occurring in Utley Creek as a result of the dam breach that occurred some 10 or so years ago.
I understand that Danny Smith is working with the Town to set up a site visit in a couple weeks. These pictures
will give you a preview of what you will see. Please reply with any questions.

`Just as a note — I am going to be on vacation from July 3rd to July 18th — so please contact Klaus Albertin with
any questions while I am gone.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] (Office (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger0ch2m.com
From: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:10 PM
To: 'Roddy, Jackie; Albertin, Klaus/RAL; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela;
Matthews, Matt
Cc: [e-mail]: kendra.parrish@hollysprin s� nc.us; seann.byrd@Hollysprin s� nc.us: Robinson,
Jaime/CLT
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Jackie — We appreciate the quick response and believe it is appropriate to provide some more context to our
approach that includes the functional assessment injunction with the requested water quality monitoring and
modeling as well provide you our reaction to the request for a dye study.
The Town's current NPDES permit requires the relocation of the discharge downstream below Green Tree
Reservoir. This represents the base alternative in our EA Amendment. This relocation will impact established
stream and wetland hydrology and the functional assessment will allow us to assess these impacts. Even if we
were not doing this EA Amendment, we would require the data to support this assessment to proceed with
404/401 permitting of the pipeline to relocate the discharge. We do not believe the information is optional but
we do need to do it a bit earlier as a result of pursuing this EA Amendment. We have already initiated this data
collection as discussed below.
Our approach to the field studies to support the functional assessment of Utley Creek is also integrating the
collection of information required on channel geometry, stream bottom conditions, riparian and transitional
wetlands (in Thomas Millpond), as well as pond bathometry required for development of the water quality
model. We have field measured channel geometry (as well as habitat characteristics) at four representative
locations from upstream of the current discharge to below the Green Tree Reservoir control structure and the
proposed outfall location. This integrated approach has provided us more detailed information than we would
typically have for development of the channel geometry for the water quality model. We also have estimated
channel bankfull flows and velocities using the channel geometry and other stream characteristics as a way to
cross-check our other assumptions. Because of this detailed mapping of the channel and pond characteristics, it
was our view that a simple approach to determining stream velocities is sufficient for model development. Most
of the stream is shallow with a low flow depth of about 6 inches, except for the transition area into Thomas
Millpond so the statement regarding the variability in the water column is not very applicable. The float method
can also be done quickly and repeated as necessary and has been used for numerous modeling efforts.
A dye study provides valuable velocity definition when there is a "coarser" characterization of the stream
geometry to be modeled and is also typically conducted more for evaluating dispersion than for verifying stream
velocities. Historically, the WQ program has not included dispersion in their water quality models as a
"conservative approach" which has been the case for the stream models that CH2M HILL has developed in NC.
We do recognize that a dye study would aid in documenting and developing a better understanding of how the
flow is slowed within the low -slope area of the original Thomas Millpond footprint and as the flow enters
Thomas Millpond. There is heavy sediment deposition in the upstream end of the pond and it appears there is
short circuiting of flow through what remains of Thomas Millpond (as a partial result of all of the sedimentation

and the current, lower dam elevation). Therefore, the dye study would tell us how bad some of our mixing
assumptions were in the pond.
We have discussed this with the Town and Klaus will contact Pam Behm to discuss further. The effort clearly
does not seem necessary to support the model development but we will discuss it further.
We believe the assumption that the results of the functional assessment would be over -ruled by the water
quality modeling results would be more appropriate in the case of a new discharge rather than the relocation of
an existing discharge. Our experience tells us that the water quality monitoring/modeling results will potentially
identify water quality benefits and detriments to both maintaining the discharge at the current location and
relocation of the discharge. For example, if the outfall is relocated we expect the Thomas Millpond to become
stagnant as a result of little or no inflow under low flow conditions and the resulting water quality to be quite
poor in and immediately downstream of the pond especially in summer months. Our assessments to date have
also identified several acres of riparian and emergent wetlands that we believe will be eliminated if the
hydrology of the stream is altered by removing the discharge. Certainly, clear modeling results documenting
water quality conditions outside the water quality standards (such as dissolved oxygen) would over -rule other
factors. Our professional view is the modeling results are typically more "grey" for this type of situation
involving a highly treated effluent and are best viewed in the comprehensive context of other wetland,
hydrological and stream function impacts — especially since the information is also required for the pipeline and
outfall construction permitting.
We hope this provides some more context to our approach and would be happy to discuss this further with you.
Klaus will be following up with Pam regarding the dye study. Please let me know if you would like to discuss
this further.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] (Office (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger0ch2m.com
From: Roddy, Jackie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:37 PM
To: Albertin, Klaus/RAL; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT;
[e-mail]; Robinson, Jaime/CLT
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Klaus,
DWR remains unsure about the value of a functional assessment. Though a functional assessment might yield
information that would support an updated environmental assessment, DWR cautions investment of time and resources
in such a study, since its findings would be overruled by results of the water quality model. If Holly Springs and CH2M Hill
are committed to conducting a functional assessment, DWR suggests that the study occur after water quality modeling
has proven the current discharge location to be a viable option.
The proposed float method for time travel assessment will not accurately assess how pollutants would behave in the
system and therefore is not acceptable. Creek velocities can vary depending upon distance from banks. Further variation
occurs within the water column. A dye study more closely mimics the behavior of pollutants, and is thus the preferred
method.
Thank you for the monitoring plan submitted today. We will get comment to you as soon as possible.

'.Jackie Roddy, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
NEW NUMBER Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Klaus.AlbertinODCH21VI.com[mailto:Klaus.Albertin(&CH2M.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Roddy, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Cc: stephanie.sudano(0)hollyspringsnc.us; kendra.parrishCc hollyspringsnc.us; Bill. KreutzbergerOCH2M.com;
seann.byrd0Hollyspringsnc.us; Jaime. Robinson(XH2M.com
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Jackie,
Thank you for your comments on the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Location
Alternatives workplan. We understand the concerns that you've stated and want to provide you with some
clarification and respond to your suggestions.
We feel that the functional assessment is a critical component in the discharge location evaluation since it will
help define whether Thomas Mill Pond functions as a lake or as a wetland. These two types of water bodies
support different biological communities and have different physical and chemical characteristics. We
recognize the interest in water quality but thought it best to determine what the function of Thomas Mill Pond,
and therefore the appropriate water quality, was before performing an assessment of the systems water quality.
Based on your comments, we will develop a monitoring plan and provide it to DWR. Our intention is to have
monitoring proceed as soon as possible and ending in August so that we capture the critical summer period. We
also propose to develop a Qual-2k water quality model of Utley Creek from the current discharge to Harris
Lake. This will allow us to evaluate the nutrient, algal, and dissolved oxygen response of the system under the
different alternatives. Thomas Mill Pond will be a discrete segment in the model. This is similar to what we did
to evaluate the effects of algal productivity behind the Lock and Dam structures on DO conditions in the Middle
Cape Fear River in about 2005 for a permitting decision for another client.
Flow through the system is a critical factor affecting water quality. We propose to do simple time of travel tests
by floating an object in the stream and timing its progress through different sections of the system. While this
method is technically simple, it provides accuracy similar to a die study and has the benefit of being easy to stop
and start and is not dependent on complicated equipment. This information would be used to support the
development of the Qual-2k model. A water balance of the system will also be developed to quantify the
approximate flow rates and, water levels under the different discharge location alternatives.
We hope that these additional analyses meet your requirements for assessing the system. If you have any
questions, you can call me directly at [phone] or we can plan a meeting to sit down and discuss these
additional analyses. Once you are satisfied that the analyses will answer your questions, we will assume that we
will have approval to proceed but will revise the workplan'to reflect the additional analyses and will provide
you a final workplan for your records.
Klaus

Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
Watershed/Water Quality Modeling
CH2M HILL Water Market
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com
From: Roddy, Jackie fmailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:34 PM
To: Albertin, Klaus/RAL; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Robinson,
Jaime/CLT; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Klaus,
See attached for comments from the Division of Water Resources on the proposed work plan. Let us know if you need
clarification on anything.
Thanks,
Jackie Roddy, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
NEW NUMBER Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail][mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Roddy, Jackie; Fransen, Tom; Bill. KreutzbergerCciCH2M.com;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; seann.byrdaHollysprin_ snc.us;
Jaime. [e-mail]; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Hi everyone,
It's been a few weeks since we met to discuss the options for the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Discharge location
and we've been working on our action items. I'm attaching our minutes from the meeting for your review. We have
been in contact with Duke Energy and the USGS and hope to have a response on those two action items soon. I've
attached a proposed workplan which we feel will evaluate the different environmental considerations related to the
potential discharge alternatives. Please let me know if you have any questions. We looking forward to discussing next

steps with you soon. With temperatures on the rise, we hope to plan our assessments in the near future so that we can
13e in the field during the critical spring and summer months.
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com

Ccro 630� prarf 9 0/y
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (Draft) CH2MHILL
Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Evaluation
PREPARED FOR: NC Division of Water Resources — tv fie% ��)n & 4 M) j � /dw
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL Bh lle vlj / Al4 �+/All lyale//�j) &/nll
COPIES: Stephanie Sudano\Town of Holly Springs IV
Kendra Parrish\ Town of Holly Springs
Seann Byrd\ Town of Holly Springs
, (dv Tetk Memo
DATE. September 24, 2014 7. "
Executive Summary "
The Town of Holly Springs (Town) is further evaluating water quality effects of its discharge location on Utley
Creek and two small impoundments of Utley Creek prior to proceeding with permitting and implementation
of a new outfall from the Towns Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The currentNationalPollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires relocation of the discharge because of previously identified
concerns regarding eutrophication in Thomas Millpond attributed to the discharge. As part of this study, new
physical and water quality data for the creek were collected and a eater quality model was developed to
evaluate current and future water quality conditions with the discharge remaining in its current location or
relocated, as required in the NPDES permit.
The following are key findings and conclusions from this analysis:
• Thomas Millpond is now much smaller and shallower, than in the past when water quality concerns were
first identified. This change is a result of a partial dam break that apparently occurred between 2003 and
2005 as well as continuedsedimentation from the upstream watershed. The current pond/wetland
complex has a surface area of 4.5 acres and an estimated storage volume of 2.1 million gallons based on a
2014 bathymetiic survey of the pond. The reduction in size significantly reduces the residence time of
water (primarily) effluent moving through the pond.
• Water quality monitoring of Thomas Millpond and Utley Creek indicates that the current pond still
exhibits some signs of eutroplucation with some measurements of elevated chlorophyll a and
supersaturated dissolved oxygen (DO) conditions. However, these conditions are much less severe than
measured during similar monitoring conducted in 2009 and 2010 as a result of improved performance of
the WRF (especially for nutrient removal), increased effluent flows, and continued reductions in pond
volume reducing the residence time of water (primarily effluent) in Thomas Millpond.
• Water quality modeling performed with a calibrated/validated QUAL2K model under various discharge
location scenarios indicates:
- That as effluent flow increases towards permitted levels with the WRF discharge remaining at its
current location, water quality conditions improve through the pond (as a result of reduced
residence time) and the DO conditions are maintained above the water quality standard.
- DO conditions are also maintained above the standard if the discharge is moved to immediately
below Greentree Reservoir as required in the current NPDES permit. However, chlorophyll a levels
are greatly increased in Thomas Millpond as a result of the low flow and long residence time. The
steady-state model DO calculations are also not likely to be indicative of the wide -swings in DO
that could result under these low flow, eutrophic conditions.

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION V•
• The water quality monitoring and modeling shows that there is significant uptake and assimilation of
nutrients in Utley Creek and Thomas Millpond including an almost immediate reduction of effluent ortho-
phosphorus through adsorption to sediment or organic material. Although the nutrient assimilation in
Thomas Millpond will diminish as effluent flows increase and residence time decreases, relocation of the
discharge to below Greentree Reservoir will clearly deliver more nutrients directly to Harris Lake than a
discharge at the current location.
This monitoring and modeling analysis strongly indicates that water quality will be protected by retaining the
discharge at the current location. The analysis also shows more adverse impacts on Thomas Millpond from
moving the discharge than keeping it at the current location.
Background
The Town is evaluating wastewater treatment and disposal options to meet its growing demands and protect
the environment while trying to be fiscally responsible to its customers. The Holly Springs Water Reclamation
Facility (WRF) currently discharges to the headwaters of Utley Creek, a tributary to the White Oak Creek arm
of Harris Lake. The current monthly average is approximately 1.6 million gallons per day (mgd). The Towri s
NPDES permit specifies moving the discharge location of the WRF to a location on Utley Creek below the
Greentree Reservoir when the Town moves from the permit pages with a maximum monthly discharge
capacity more than 2.4 mgd (permit pages based on 6 mgd or 8 mgd capacity). The Town is investigating the
alternative option of keeping the discharge location at its current location since it is believe there are changed
conditions from when this was previously considered. The Town has initiated the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) environmental review process to evaluate the location of the WRF discharge under future permit
pages through an amendment to its previous environmental assessment (EA).
The Town and CH2M HILL had a meeting on March 31, 2014 with the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (DWR) to present an analysis approach for the alternate discharge location scenario that would be
incorporated as an amendment to a prior 2010 Environmental Assessment (EA). A study plan was submitted
to DWR on April 16th, 2014 and DWR responded to the analysis approach on May 14th, 2014. While the DWR
agreed with what was proposed, it also requested that an assessment of water quality impacts be performed
including the development of a water quality model. DWR further requested that the model development be
supported with:
• 10 to 12 weeks of ambient stream monitoring on Utley Creek similar to what was conducted in 2009
and 2010
• A bathymetric survey of Thomas Millpond
• A time -of travel study of the creek downstream of the WRF discharge
An approach to address these items was discussed with Pam Behm of DWR on May 28, 2014 and a monitoring
plan describing these efforts was submitted to DWR on June 17, 2014. This technical memorandum (TM)
describes the assessment performed to meet the State's requests and includes results of these field efforts.
Approach
DWR requested that a nutrient response model be developed for Utley Creek from the WRF down to Harris
Lake. CH2M HILL discussed the modeling options with DWR and obtained approval for use of the US EPA's
QUAL2K model (Chapra et al, 2006). QUAL2K is a steady-state stream water quality model designed to
evaluate changes in instream water quality during critical conditions, making it is widely applied to support
this type of evaluation (Chapra et al, 2006). To better characterize the current conditions in Thomas Millpond,
CH2M HILL proposed that Thomas Millpond be simulated as a wide segment in the model, similar to what
had been done in modeling of the Cape Fear River to support expansions for Fayetteville Public Works
Commission (PWC) and the new Western Wake Regional WRF, and DWR approved of this approach
(personal communication with Pamela Behm, DWR, June 2014). Since Greentree Reservoir is only impounded
by Duke Energy during late fall and winter, this area was considered as a stream segment in the model.

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
However, as described later, the modeling does reflect slow velocities resulting from debris that were partially
blocking the Greentree control structure during the summer of 2014.
The QUAL2K model was used to evaluate the potential changes in DO and chlorophyll a concentrations that
may occur under two scenarios: keeping the WRF discharge at the existing location upstream of the Thomas
Millpond or moving the discharge to a future location immediately below the Greentree Reservoir.
The existing discharge location is approximately 3.4 miles upstream from Harris Lake (Figure 1). The future
permitted discharge location is directly below Greentree Reservoir and approximately 0.7 miles upstream from
the lake (see Figure 1). CH2M HILL set up a QUAL2K model for Utley Creek from the WRF to Harris Lake and
calibrated it to evaluate changes in water quality as a result of a WRF discharge at the two locations. Extensive
physical and chemical data were collected in 2014 to support the development of the model. These data
included weekly water quality monitoring at 6 locations for 10 weeks beginning June 24, 2014, cross-section
surveys at 4 locations, a bathymetric survey of the Thomas Millpond, and a time -of -travel study for the Utley
Creek system.
FIGURE 1
Discharge and monitoring locations on Utley Creek
Data Collection
Based on discussions related to the discharge evaluation, DWR recommended specific monitoring
requirements in a memo dated May 14Ni, 2014. These data included weekly water quality monitoring at 6
locations, a bathymetric survey of the Thomas Millpond, and a time -of -travel study for the Utley Creek
system. CH2M HILL also performed cross section surveys at 4locations to better parameterize the geometry of
the stream channel in the model.

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION ?
Flow
A mass balance based on conductivity was used to estimate natural streamflow since Utley Creek is not
permanently monitored for flow. Conductivity measurements for the WRF and at locations on the creek were
collected during each monitoring event. These data, along with the reported flow for the WRF, provide
sufficient data to solve for the upstream flow using the following equation.
Q1C1 = QPCP + Q1AC1A
Where Q1=upstream flow, Cl=upstream conductivity, Qp=WRF flow, Cp=WRF conductivity Q1A=downstream
flow, ClA=downstream conductivity, and Q1A=Qp+Q1. These calculations provide a fairly accurate estimate of
flow since conductivity is conservative and background conditions are significantly lower than that in
wastewater. For the hydraulic and water quality calibration periods, this method estimated the upstream flow
to be 0.290 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 0.135 cfs, respectively. Plant flow on these dates were 1.76 mgd (2.72
cfs) and 1.42 mgd (2.2 cfs) respectively.
Tributary inflows were estimated based on drainage area and geology. The upper section of the watershed is
in the Raleigh Belt characterized by A and B soils with a moderate baseflow contribution. The lower part of the
watershed lies in the Triassic Basin which is primarily made up of C and D soils with very low baseflow
contributions. The area ratios used for the tributaries are provided in Table 1.
Table 1
Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Evaluation
Tributary Characteristics
Section
Area (ac)
Area Ratio
Estimated
Flow —
Hydraulic
Calibration
(cfs)
Estimated
Flow — Water
Quality
Calibration
(cfs)
Comment
Above WRF
505.5
-
0.135
0.290
Raleigh Belt
Tributary 1
180.2
0.36
0.048
0.103
Raleigh Belt
Tributary 2
226.7
0.45
0,060
0.130
Raleigh Belt
Tributary 3
430.0
0.85
Transitions from
Raleigh Belt to
0.115
0.246
Triassic Basin
Tributary 4
117.1
0.23
Triassic Basin
0.031
0.067
(lower contribution)
Tributary 5
207.6
0.41
Triassic Basin
0.055
0.119
(lower contribution)
Based on communications with USGS, the latest estimate of 7Q10 flow is 0.01 cfs (Attachment A), the
conditions selected for calibration and validation are reflective of effluent dominated instream conditions and
appropriate for evaluating future permit conditions.
Water Quality Monitoring
To meet the water quality monitoring requirements, CH2M HILL contracted with Meritech (which also
performs monitoring for several of the basin monitoring coalitions) to perform the water quality data
collection. Monitoring occurred at eight locations, beginning below the wastewater treatment plant and ending
at the White Oak Arm of Harris Lake (Figure 1). Six locations were monitored for field measurements as well
as lab analyses per the monitoring plan submitted to DWR. Two additional locations were monitored only for
field measurements needed to parameterize the model. Monitoring for field parameters and laboratory

v
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
analysis of water chemistry were performed for 10 weeks on a weekly basis from June 24, 2014 through
September 10, 2014. The parameters collected at each station are listed in Table 2. The data are tabulated in
Attachment B.
Table 2
Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Evaluation
Water Quality Monitoring Station Description
Station Parameters Comment
UTC-1
Field parameters', chemical
parmeters2
UTC-1A
Field parameters'
UTC-4
Field parameters', chemical
parmeters2
UTC-4A
Field parameters', chemical
parmeters2
UTC-5
Field parameters', chemical
parmeters2
UTC-5A
Field parameters'
UTC-7
Field parameters', chemical
parmeters2
UTC-8
Field parameters', chemical
parmeters2
Directly above WRF
Directly below WRF
Above Thomas Millpond
Thomas Millpond
Directly below Thomas Millpond
Above White Oak Creek Arm of
Harris Lake
Temperature, DO, pH, Conductivity
2 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Ammonia Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN), Nitrate -nitrite, Total Nitrogen, Orthophosphate, Total Phosphorus, Alkalinity, Chlorophyll a, Turbidity
Bathymetric Survey and Stream Cross Sections
The bathymetric survey was performed on June 27, 2014 using a Trimble RTK Base and Rover Global
Positioning System and a Hydrolite Sonarmite Depth Sounder. These pieces of equipment were mounted on a
jon boat and used to measure depth and record locations along approximately 16 transects of Thomas
Millpond. Over 3,100 data points were collected to generate the map of pond bathymetry shown in Figure 2.
5

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUAI
FIGURE 2
Bathymetric Map of Thomas Millpond
The bathymetric survey verified that Thomas Millpond is fairly shallow across most of the 4.5-acre surface
area. While the original pond may have been deeper, the failure of the dam and ongoing sedimentation have
resulted in a pond with a depth of less than 2 feet across most of its area. The deepest section is in the
southwest corner of the pond, likely the borrow pit used in constructing the impoundment, and is on average
less than four feet deep. The deepest measured point at 4.63 feet was in this area. The bathymetric survey data
were used to parameterize the pond section in the QUAL2K model and also to estimate residence time. The
volume of the pond, calculated using ArcGIS, is approximately 2.1 million gallons.
Stream cross sections were measured at the four locations shown in Figure 1. These measurements provided
representative stream widths and depths for sections between the impoundments and were used to specify
stream geometry in the QUAL2K model.
Dye Study
A dye study was also requested by DWR in order to provide better estimates of the time -of -travel through the
system. To meet this request, dye studies using Rhodamine TM dye and YSI Rhodamine probes were
performed on August 19th and 20th. The study was first scheduled for August 11th and 12w but high rainfall
over the previous four days resulted in instream flows that were not considered representative of conditions
that would be used in the evaluation. A 0.75-inch rain event did occur on the evening of the 18w but stream
levels dropped rapidly over the night, before the study began. Based on flow estimation using conductivity as
described in the flow section above, flow above the WRF during the event was approximately 0.29 cfs.

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
The Utley Creek system was split into three sections to facilitate field activity completion during daylight
hours. Rhodamine dye was first released on the morning of August 19ei directly below the Thomas Millpond
and instream Rhodamine concentrations were measured at time -of -travel stations ToT-3, ToT-4 and ToT-5 as
shown in Figure 3. The travel times to the locations are provided in Table 3. Dye was released at the WRF on
the afternoon of the 19th and measured at stations Tot-1 and ToT-2. A dye study of Thomas Millpond was
performed on August 2011, by releasing dye at the upstream end of the pond (station ToT-2) and measuring dye
concentrations at the pond spillway (station TMP).
FIGURE 3
Dye Study Time -of -travel Measurement Locations

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Table 3
Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Evaluation
Time -of -travel Study Results
Section
Travel Time
Estimated Velocity
(MIS)
Date
WRF to ToT-1
0 hours, 54 minutes
0.23
August 19th
ToT 1 to ToT-2
3 hours, 47 minutes
0.14
August 19th
ToT-2 to TMP
3 hours, 11 minutes
0.02
August 20th
TMP to ToT-3
1 hour, 52 minutes
0.10
August 19th
ToT-3 to ToT-4
3 hours, 43 minutes
0.08
August 19th
ToT-4 to ToT-5
1 hour, 5 minutes
0.11
August 19th
Total
11 hours, 7 minutes
These measurements show the highest instream velocity in the initial section below the WRF with moderate
velocities in the section above Thomas Millpond. Th__e AY2 fim +hroug_Thomas Millpond was faster than
expected. The estimated residence time based on the volume and inflows is approximately 1 day. A preferred
flow path was evident after the dye release with much of the flow short circuiting the pond an flowing in a
fairly direct path from the point where Utley Creek enters the pond to the dam, mostly likely along the
original stream channel pathway. Rhodamine concentrations at the dam were much lower than at the release
point which suggests that even though short circuiting occurs, there is significant exchange with the pond
itself. The section below Thomas Millpond had much lower velocities than stream section between the WRF
and the millpond. Part of this is due to the smaller change in elevation in this section.
During field visits, it was noted that a log jam is present at the Greentree Reservoir control structure. While
only a temporary obstruction, it has resulted in a backwater forming and further slowing flow in the section.
The stream below Greentree Reservoir is free of obstructions but the elevation gradient is low as the stream
approaches Harris Lake, resulting in low stream velocities.
Model Setup and Flow Calibration
The model requires stream geometry, meteorological inputs, inflow information, instream observations and
point source characteristics to calculate instream water quality. The QUAL2K model was first setup to
represent the Utley Creek system for August 19t1, corresponding to the time -of -travel study. This run was used
to test the assumptions and hydraulic parameters by comparing model calculations with the data from the
time -of -travel study.
Geometry
The Utley Creek system was represented in the QUAL2K model using nine distinct sections described in Table
4. These sections represent stream segments between tributary inflows, a section for Thomas Millpond, and a
section for Greentree Reservoir. The stream was walked on June 501, 2104 from the WRF 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. More precise measurements were performed at the four
cross section locations described above. The creek's geometry is highly variable with sections changing from
wide, straight, shallow areas to meandering, narrower, pooled sections. Elevations for each section were
derived using the USGS StreamStats program (Weaver, 2012) which tabulates elevation along a selected flow
path. Weir heights and widths were specified for Thomas Millpond and for the obstruction observed at the
gates for Greentree Reservoir. The characteristics as generalized in the model are provided in Table 4.

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
TABLE 4
Utiev Creek Reach Characteristics in the QUALM Mode!
Model Reach Segment
Length
(km)
Slope
Manning's In
Type
WRF to 1 st Tributary
0.63
0.008
0.075
Relatively wide and straight. Clear
with pools and riffles
1 st Tributary to 2nd Tributary
1.08
0.003
0.075
Meandering with a few deeper pools
2n1I Tributary to Thomas
0.07
0.003
0.085
Meandering with a few deeper pools
Millpond
Thomas Millpond
0.10
0.003'
0.065
Wide, shallow pond. Short circuit
flow path
Thomas Millpond to 3rd
0.20
0.003
0.050
Meandering with pools and eddies
Tributary
3rd Tributary to Greentree
0.65
0.006
0.085
Relatively wide and straight. Cobble
Reservoir (4th Tributary)
and bedrock with small waterfalls.
Greentree Reservoir
0.82
0.008 2,1
0.065
Slow velocity, backwater due to log
jam
Greentree Reservoir to 5th
0.15
0.002
0.090
Meandering with a few deeper pools
Tributary
5th Tributary to Harris Lake
1.68
0.002
0.090
Meandering but wider with fewer
pools. Backwater near confluence
with Harris Lake
1Slope is negated by weir in model.
2 The QUAL2K model was
modified to reflect the logjam noted in the field visit by specifying a low
weir in the model.
Flow
Headwater flows for the model calibration efforts were estimated based on the conductivity balance method
described in the flow section above. Incremental flows associated with tributaries were estimated by scaling
the headwater flow by the respective drainage areas. Inflows for tributaries below Thomas Millpond were
adjusted lower to account for the'reduced flows associated with Triassic Basin soils.
Meteorology
Temperature, dew point and wind speed data was obtained for August 19th, 2014 from the Main Street Holly
Springs meteorology station for use in the model.
Model Adjustments
The initial assumptions and hydraulic parameters gave a reasonable overall approximation of stream velocity
but velocities in individual sections needed refinement. For the most part, travel times were lower than
calculated by the model. The stream profile as represented in the model has a steady grade, allowing for
unimpeded flow and moderate velocities. However, the stream has numerous minor obstructions, pools and
eddies. In addition, the stream tends to have a more gradual slope with occasional small cascades. To reflect
these conditions, the Manning's coefficient and slopes were adjusted so that the modeled velocities more
closely matched the observed.
While the time -of -travel data suggested that a relatively direct flow path exists through Thomas Millpond, a
majority of the pond volume is outside this path. An exchange of nutrients, dissolved oxygen and algae likely
occurs between the direct path and the main body of the pond. For this reason, the travel time in the pond was
9

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
not set strictly to what was observed in the time -of -travel study. As shown in Figure 4, the model was adjusted
so that a "net travel time" of approximately 1 day was achieved. This recognizes the longer residence time of
some portions of the pond and approximates the residence time based on pond volume and inflow. The
adjusted Manning's n and slope values are provided in Table 4.
1.6
1.4
1.2
� 1
.a
2.0.8
E 0.6
0.4
0.2
0
utloyck (8120120,1)
Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
Existing Discharge
■
■
6 6 4 3 2 1 0
--trav time, d ■ Travel time data (d)
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 4
Time -of -travel Comparison for August 20th Time -of -travel Monitoring Event
Model calculations of velocity provided in Figure 5 show very good agreement between the observed and
estimated velocities in the calibration. As discussed, the velocity through Thomas Millpond is lower than
observed to account for the interchange between the flow path and main body of the pond.
10

9
c
0.3
0.25
0.06
0
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Ut/eyCk (012012014)
Thomas Millpond Greentree. Reservoir
1-w
Existing Discharge
6 6 4 3 2 1 0
—U, Mips • U:d to mis
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 5
Velocity Comparison for August 20th Time -of -travel Monitoring Event
Water Quality Calibration
The QUAL2K model was next configured to represent the Utley Creek system for a calibration period that is
close to critical conditions. The July 7, 2014 monitoring event was selected since it occurred during the driest
period of the 2014 summer. The model was set up using the geometry information described above and
includes the hydrology adjustments made as a result of the time -of -travel study. Water quality characteristics
for the WRF are based on data collected by the WRF staff on July 7th or during the week of July 7th depending
on the WRF monitoring schedule. Headwater and tributary water quality are based on the data measured at
UTC-1 on July 7th.
The focus of this model run was to adjust the model parameters so that dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a
concentrations in Utley Creek and in Thomas Millpond would be calculated in agreement with the data. The
model was run in steady state mode for temperature, nutrients and dissolved oxygen.
Water quality related parameters were, in general, left at default values that are in the distributed version of
the model. Adjustments made to refine dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a calculations were within
acceptable literature values. The values for key parameters and inputs are provided in Tables 5 and 6.
m

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
TABLE 5
Headwater InDuts
Parameter
Value
Comment
Headwater Characteristics
Flow (mgd)
2.2
Estimated watershed flow
CBOD, 5-day (mg/L)
1.0
Assumed since measurement was
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
7.2
below detection limit
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
0.02
Nitrate (mg/L)
0.28
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.038
Ortho-phosphorus (mg/L)
0.025
Assumed since measurement was
below detection limit
TABLE 6
Values for Key QUAL2K Settings and Parameters
Parameter
Value
Units
Reaeration Model
Thackston-Dawson
-
Algal Simulation Model
Smith
-
Organic-N Hydrolysis Rate
0.2
/day
Ammonia Nitrification Rate
1.6
/day
CBOD Deoxygenation Coefficient
0.25
/day
Nitrate Denitrification Rate
5
Iday
SOD Coverage in Thomas Millpond
50
percent
SOD Uptake
1.07
gm/m2/day
Maximum Phytoplankton Growth Rate
7.5
Iday
Flow
Headwater flows for the model calibration efforts were estimated based on the conductivity balance method
described in the flow section above. Incremental flows associated with tributaries were estimated by scaling
the headwater flow by the respective drainage areas. Inflows for tributaries below Thomas Millpond were
adjusted lower to account for the reduced flows associated with Triassic Basin soils.
Meteorology
Temperature, dew point, and wind speed data was obtained for July 7th, 2014 from the Main Street Holly
Springs meteorology station for use in the model. Stream shading and cloud cover was specified based on field
observations. Shading estimates were adjusted downwards to provide better agreement with measured stream
temperature. The results of the temperature calibration are shown in Figure 6.
12

Utley Creek (717120f4)
40
35
30
25
U
E 20
�15
10
5
0
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
Existing Discharge
--Temp(C) Average ■ Mean Temp -data ---Temp(C) Minimum
---Temp(C) Maximum o Minimum Temp -data O Maximum Temp -data
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 6
Temperature Comparison for July 71h Calibration Event
Conductivity was then reviewed to assess the estimation of tributary inflows. The initial conductivity increases
significantly just downstream of the WRF discharge and then should gradually decline as incremental flows
with lower conductivity levels enter Utley Creek. The model accurately represents this behavior as shown in
Figure 7. A greater flow than estimated may be entering just about Thomas Millpond but the estimated flows
were not modified.
13

0
s
800
700
600
500
400
2 300
u
V
0 200
u
100
0
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Utley Creek (71712014) Malnstem
Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
0­0
■
Existing Discharge
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
—cond (umhos) ■ Cond (umhos) data — -cond (umhos) Min
— -cond (umhos) Max E3 Minimum cond-data E3 Maximum cond-data
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 7
Conductivity Comparison for July Th Calibration Event
The calibration efforts next focused on nutrient calculations. Of primary interest are ammonia, nitrates and
inorganic phosphorus. Organic nitrogen and phosphorus are calculated in the model but are not readily
utilized by algae and are contributed in significant amounts from detritus in the watershed.
The model calculations for ammonia had only fair results as shown in Figure 8. Much of the discrepancies
between the modeled and monitoring data are a result of the precision of the laboratory analyses and low
levels of ammonia that are observed instream. The WRF monitoring and analytical staff use an analysis
methodology which has a higher detection limit (0.5 mg/L) compared to the instream monitoring (0.025
mg/L). The WRF concentration was set to one-half the detection limit (0.25 mg/L) but this was still
significantly higher than the instream data. The excess of ammonia is calculated to be taken up in Thomas
Millpond where it is utilized by algal populations. While the model is over -calculating ammonia due to the
assumption for the WRF discharge load, it can be seen that ammonia concentrations are maintained at very
low levels throughout the system.
14

250
200
^ 160
2
a 100
it
E
a
60
0
6
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Utley Creek (7/7/20M) Mainstem
Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
Existing Discharge
S 4 3, 2 1 0
■ NH4 (ugN/L) data—NH4(ugNiL) —-NH4(ugN/L) Min
—-NH4(ugN/L) Max 0 Minimum NH4-data 0 Maximum NH4-data
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 8
Ammonia Comparison for July P Calibration Event
The model calculations for nitrate showed good results when compared to monitoring data as shown in Figure
9. A small discrepancy is seen at the initial station. This may be a result of the differences between WRF and
instream monitoring analytics or from a higher than estimated load from the first tributary. The expected
uptake of nitrate is reflected in the model calculations in Thomas Millpond.
15

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
r�
z
1000
500
0
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Utley Creek (71712014) Mainstem
Greentree Reservoir
Existing Discharge
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
■ NO3 (ugN/L) data—NO3(ugN1L) —-NO3(ugN1L) Min
—-NO3(ugN/L) Max ❑ Minimum NO3-data ❑ Maximum NO3-dat;
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 9
Nitrate Comparison for July Th Calibration Event
The model calculations for ortho-phosphorus follow a similar pattern as those for ammonia. The WRF
contribution, measured at 0.28 mg/L by the WRF, appears to be greater than what was measured instream.
This may be due to rapid binding of phosphorus to suspended sediment and organic matter not reflected in
the model. The WRF concentration was set to 0.28 mg/L as reported by the WRF but this is still significantly
higher than the observed instream data downstream of the VVRF discharge. The excess of ortho-phosphorus is
calculated to be taken up in Thomas Millpond where it is utilized by algal populations. If the inaccuracy of the
initial conditions did not exist, the calculated concentrations would better simulate the observed data. The data
show that ortho-phosphorus concentrations are very low throughout the system.
16

300
250
200
00
0 150
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
UdeyCk (7/7120M) Mainstem
Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
Existing Discharge
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
■ Inorg P (ugPIL) data —Inorg P (ugPIL) -- -Inorg P (ugP/L) Min
— -Inorg P (ugPIL) Max 0 Minimum Inorg P-data 0 Maximum Inorg P-date
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 10
Ortho phosphorus Comparison for July 71h Calibration Event
CBOD was also evaluated but proved of limited value since all instream data were below the detection limit of
2 mg/L. Model calculations are shown in Figure 11. The model calculates moderate decay up to Thomas
Millpond when much of the remaining oxygen demand is exerted.
17

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
In
00.6
ca
0.4
0.2
0
6
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION •
Utley Creek (71712014) Mainstem
Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
Existing Discharge
1
t
5 4 3 2 1 0
--CBODf (mgO21L) ■ CBODf (mg021L) data — -CBODf (mg021L) Min
— -CBODf (mgO2/L) Max ❑ Minimum CBODf-data ❑ Maximum CBODf-data
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 11.
CBOD Comparison for July Th Calibration Event
Nutrient concentrations are of primary interest since they provide the necessary components, along with light
and heat, for the growth of algae. Excessive nutrients result in algal blooms which are characterized by wide
fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentrations. The QUAL2K model was calibrated to calculate the algal
populations, as measured by chlorophyll a, of the Utley Creek system. The primary adjustment was
specification of a high potential algal growth rate in Thomas Millpond. A growth rate of 8.5/ day results in
good agreement with observed data. The results of the calibration are provided in Figure 12.
18

160
140
120
100
00
80
s
a
O 6o
l
U
40
20
0
6 6 4 3 2 1 0
—Phyto (ugA/L) ■ Phyto (ugA1L) data — -Phyto (uglL) Min
— -Phyto (uglL) Max ❑ Minimum Phyto-data ❑ Maximum Phyto-data
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Utley creek (7/7/20fa)
Thomas:Millpond Greentree Reservoir
.Existing Discharge
r ..r
1 ■
FIGURE 12
Chlorophyll a Comparison for July Th Calibration Event
The observed data reflect the algal blooms which occur in Thomas Millpond as a result of low inflow, warm
temperatures and abundant sunshine. The model accurately calculates this peak but does not calculate the die -
off and settling which may occur downstream. Settling rates cannot be specified for individual segments. A
higher settling velocity was tested but resulted in settling out of algal in both the stream and pond sections.
DO is the final water quality component considered in the calibration but is a primary evaluation metric. There
are two components of DO calculations in the Utley Creek system model. The first component is reaeration
that either increases DO if instream concentrations are below saturation or decreases DO if concentrations are
above saturation. The QUAL2K model includes seven reaeration models. The Thackston-Dawson model was
chosen because it is a refinement of earlier methods, such as O'Connor -Dobbins, designed to provide better
reaeration estimates for small streams such as Utley Creek. The remaining models tended to raise DO levels
towards saturation too quickly.
The second DO component in the system is related to algal growth. Algal blooms such as the one seen on July
7w cause a peak in DO concentrations during daylight periods due to photosynthesis and often exceed
saturation. During dark periods, the process is reversed and low DO concentrations can occur as a result of
respiration. Accurate calculations of chlorophyll a levels discussed above resulted in accurate DO calculations
for Thomas Millpond. However, QUAL2K does not simulate respiration. A small sediment oxygen demand
(SOD) is specified in the model for the pond to somewhat simulate respiration that occurs but the effects of
this cannot be directly separated from the impact of the algal bloom since the DO measurements reflect the net
impact. The DO calibration is shown in Figure 12. The model accurately calculates the gradual increase
towards saturation between the WRF and Thomas Millpond and also shows the results of the algal bloom with
19

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION •
supersaturated conditions. The model calculates the return to saturation albeit a little more slowly than
observed and also calculates a secondary bump in DO at Greentree Reservoir.
20
18
16
14
�12
00
710
a�
8
O
'8 6
2
4
0
2
0
Utley Creek (7/7120M) Mainstein
Existing Discharge Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
6 6 4 S 2 1 0
DO(mgO21L) ■ DO (m9021L) data ---DO(mgO21L) Min
—-DO(mgO21L) Max O Minimum DO -data O Maximum DO -data
---DO sat
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 12
DO Comparison for July Ph Calibration Event
Model Validation
While the dry weather conditions such as those used in the calibration are closest to the critical conditions of
interest, a check on the water quality calibration for other periods provides a check on model robustness. The
model originally set up to adjust the hydraulic parameters was updated with the water quality parameters
developed as part of the model calibration. The model was re -run for August 20th (to correspond to the water
quality monitoring) as a check on the model performance. Results for DO and chlorophyll a are provided in
Figures 13 and 14. As expected, chlorophyll a concentrations are significantly lower than during the July 7th,
2014 event and are within the model estimates. This reflects the reduced residence time in Thomas Millpond,
when compared to the residence time during the dry weather conditions, and overcast conditions.
6 6 4 S 2 1 0
DO(mgO21L) ■ DO (m9021L) data ---DO(mgO21L) Min
—-DO(mgO21L) Max O Minimum DO -data O Maximum DO -data
---DO sat
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 12
DO Comparison for July Ph Calibration Event
Model Validation
While the dry weather conditions such as those used in the calibration are closest to the critical conditions of
interest, a check on the water quality calibration for other periods provides a check on model robustness. The
model originally set up to adjust the hydraulic parameters was updated with the water quality parameters
developed as part of the model calibration. The model was re -run for August 20th (to correspond to the water
quality monitoring) as a check on the model performance. Results for DO and chlorophyll a are provided in
Figures 13 and 14. As expected, chlorophyll a concentrations are significantly lower than during the July 7th,
2014 event and are within the model estimates. This reflects the reduced residence time in Thomas Millpond,
when compared to the residence time during the dry weather conditions, and overcast conditions.

0-%12
bo
10
a
0
u 6
4
2
0
6 S
-Phyto (ugA/L)
-- -Phyto WalL) Max
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
utl yck (&242Of4)
Thomas Millpond
_ Greentree Reservoir
'00—
Existing Discharge
IL
4 3 2
■ Phyto (ugAIL) data
O Minimum Phyto-data
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 13
Chlorophyll a Comparison for August 201n Calibration Event
1 0
— •rnyto jug
O Maximum
Model estimates for dissolved oxygen are generally good. The model correctly estimates the initial drop in DO
and increase towards saturation levels. However, a discrepancy in Thomas Millpond and Greentree Reservoir
is observed. As noted earlier, the QUAL2K does not accurately calculate the impact of algal respiration on DO.
It is expected that algal populations did not grow significantly on August 20th, 2014 partly due to cloudy
conditions and high turbidity. The model reflects the decrease in chlorophyll a due to these factors along with
the shorter residence time in the pond but does not show the corresponding DO deficit.
21

12
10
Ell
J
to
6
7 4
0
2
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION v
l/t/eyCk (8120120f4) Mains tem
Existing Discharge Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
ter'
0
6
6 4 3 2 1 0
—DO(m9021L) ■ DO (mgO21L) data —-DO(mgO21L) Min
---DO(m9021L) Max 0 Minimum DO -data 0 Maximum DO -data
---DO sat
Distance Upstream to Downstream (km)
FIGURE 14
DO Comparison for August 20th Calibration Event
Scenario Evaluation
The calibrated model was used to evaluate the potential discharge scenarios of 6 mgd and 8 mgd at two
discharge locations: the current location and the future permitted location below Greentree Reservoir. The
scenarios were evaluated against the current NPDES permit pages of 6 and 8 mgd. This effort was conducted
to determine what water quality impacts each discharge scenario would have on nutrients, chlorophyll a, and
DO. The environmental conditions modeled reflect summer meteorology and low flow (7Q10) conditions.
Headwater and tributary water quality conditions were maintained at the same values as in the model
calibration run.
Effluent Characteristics
Table 7 shows the measured effluent quality during the stream monitoring conducted between June and
September 2014 in comparison with NPDES permit limits used for modeling scenarios.
22

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
TABLE 7
Current and Permitted Hollv SDrinos WRF Discharae Characteristics
Parameter
Calibration
Characteristicsa
Current
Average°
NPDES Permit Limit°
LFGNe4
Flow (mgd)
1.42
1.66
6.0, 8.0
CBOD, 5-day (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen
2.0
8.1
2.6
8.1
5.0
6,p qj el
(mg/L)
SCBvt�k✓ t 0�
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
DL
DL
1.0
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
3.43
4.37
5.0
Nitrate (mg/L)
2.58
3.53
3.9
Total Phosphorus
0.3
0.40
0.5
(mg/L)
Estimated Ortho-
0.27
0.36
0.27
phosphorus (mg/L)
a 7/7/14
Based on DMRs for June —August 2014
° For future discharge
DL — detection limit (0.5 mg/L for ammonia)
Evaluation Scenarios
Four model runs were developed to represent the NPDES permit limits at 6 mgd and 8 mgd at each of the two
discharge locations. The information in Table 7, based on the current permits limits for capacities of 6 mgd
and 8 mgd, were used to characterize the proposed effluent water quality characteristics.
The DO calculations and chlorophyll a results for the two 6 mgd scenarios are shown in Figures 15 and 16,
respectively. The DO results for the two 8 mgd scenarios are shown in Figure 17. The chlorophyll a results for
the 8 mgd scenarios are shown in Figure 18.
Significant differences between the two different potential discharge locations are seen in instream water
quality calculations. For discharge scenarios at the current headwater location, DO is initially set at a
concentration of 7.1 mg/L as seen in the headwater on the July 7w, 2014 monitoring event but the DO is
calculated to drop to approximately 6 mg/L since the effluent dominates the instream flow and is set to 6
mQ/L ver the permit. As the flow approaches Thomas Millpond, reaeration is more sr cant
deoxygenation with the higher stream velocities at a 6 mgd discharge. Here, DO increases towards saturation.
There is then a drop in DO with low velocities, low reaeration and decay of organic material (primarily algae)
in Thomas Millpond, and then downstream of the pond the DO levels continue to increase towards saturation
via reaeration.
For the discharge scenario below Greentree Reservoir, DO is calculated to quickly rise to saturation due to the
numerous riffle areas in this section followed by a drop in Thomas Millpond. DO is drawn down in the pond
by decay of natural organic matter and through the influence of SOD. DO is calculated close to saturation
downstream of Thomas Millpond but shows a sharp peak to supersaturation conditions at Greentree Reservoir
due to an algal bloom as a result of low flows and the slow velocities observed during calibration conditions as
a result of debris. The DO concentrations then drop due to the addition of the 6 mgd discharge at 6 mg/L
immediately below Greentree Reservoir. It is important that flows are extremely low in the upper portion of
the creek (above the Greentree discharge point) and these are substantially changed conditions from those
used to calibrate the model.
23

E
E
c
u
m
T
X
0
U
O
N
N
0
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
—6mgd current location —6 mgd below Greentree —DO Saturation
I
12.0
11.0 Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
10.0
9.0
8.0
2.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Existing Discharge Future Permitted Discharge
c n W 0 — N m e m m n m N am. m 0, 0 Cn o, m m v , I n w rn N r
Ji Q m N N ti O ON IR m n o IR R 0) n m IR q n JI ti c1 n I0 C o
Stream Distance (knt)
FIGURE 15
Comparison of DO Concentrations for a 6 mgd Discharge at the Current and downstream of Greentree Reservoir Locations
For a discharge at the current location scenario, chlorophyll a concentrations are calculated to remain near zero
since the higher flow increases velocity in the system and reduces residence time in Thomas Millpond to less
than-6 hours. For the discharge scenario downstream of Greentree Reservoir, upstream chlorophyll a
concentrations are calculated to rise in Thomas Millpond and remain elevated until the effluent is introduced.
While the calculated chlorophyll a levels in Thomas Millpond are high, supersaturation is not calculated
because the SOD in the pond counteracts the increase from the algal growth at the extremely low flow rates
and increased residence time. This is probably more predictive of average conditions and in reality there
would be significant day and nighttime swings in DO.
24

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
J
t
M
L
v
-6 mgd below Greentree
80.0 Greentree Reservoir
70.0
60.0
5aO
qv.O
30.0
2aO
10.0
0.0
V r` W O► .-t N M v w w r` 01 " .ter t9 W e% O m 4m w tD -W&n r+ w m "4 N M to
to et Mf N N " O C! %q M O rl to 14t " 01 n to M1 0! r` Ln 'i rl C1 n %q nt N O
Ln N to to %A to to Q Q v qr M M1 m M N " N N fV .-t .i .4 .-4 C O O C C C
6rrtgd current location
Stream Distance (km)
ge
FIGURE 16
Comparison of Chlorophyll a Concentrations for a 6 mgd Discharge at the Current and downstream of Greentree Reservoir Locations
The same two effluent locations and -permit concentrations were also evaluated for an 8 mad WRF discharge
flow. The calculations, shown in Figures 17 and 18, are nearly identical to the 6 mgd calculations. A small
numeric difference is seen in the calculations due to the different flows.
Under all scenario runs, once the discharge enters the stream, virtually all of the stream flow is from the WRF.
At this point, the instream DO is controlled by the DO concentration of effluent but is quickly dominated by
reaeration associated with the additional flow from the WRF. The same pattern of a jump in DO due to
reaeration from the increased flow, followed by gradually decreasing DO is calculated for both locations. It is
important to note that under the discharge below Greentree Reservoir, the baseflow for most of the length of
Utley Creek is very low.
25

J
E
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION u
--8nd current location -8 mgd below Greentree DO Saturation
12.0
11.0 Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
10.0 4---*
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 Existing Discharge Future Permitted Discharge
ao
V N 00 C% 4-4 N en V W 00 r` C1 N +-1 1D 00 C1 O M CS W 0 qr to N 00 C1 rl N rn 1A
'H It "i N fV rl O C1 t0 'i O r: tD tt -1 Cf r` 1D ri 9i 01. r N M 1 Q! r` %q I' N O
Yy to MI N1 in vi Y1 v Q m' w M en en rA N N N N rV P4 *4 ri v-1 r4 O C C C O O
Stream Distance (km)
FIGURE 17
Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations for an 8 mgd Discharge at the Current and downstream of Greentree Reservoir Locations
8rngd current location -•8 mgd below Greentree
80•0 Greentree Reservoir
70.0
60.0
Sao
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
V n 00 M ..1 N M et W = n M N r1 %D O M O M M 00 %D V Ln r` 00 M �-1 N M 6M
61 Q M N N �-e O C1 ID Ci O r% ID et " C1 r% 1D ni " C1 r% vt Ci r1 C1 r� {D Q N O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1f1 � N'1 61 i!1 Lf! LA Q Q tr V M M M M N N N N N 9-1 rl .-1 .-1 .y O O O O O O
;e
Stream Distance (km).
FIGURE 18
Comparison of Chlorophyll a Concentrations for an 8 mgd Discharge at the Current and downstream of Greentree Reservoir Locations
26

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Discussion
The Town of Holly Springs has been continuously upgrading their WRF, improving effluent quality. A major
improvement occurred when the WRF expansion was completed after the monitoring was performed in 2010.
As a result, downstream water quality has steadily improved. Construction was occurring during the time of
the 2009 to 2010 monitoring efforts and the previous EA development, so these improvements were not
captured at that time. These improvements are reflected in ammonia, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a data
listed in Table 8.
The 2014 data shows that ammonia levels in Utley Creek are frequently below detections limits and total
phosphorus concentrations are approximately half of the historic levels (2009 to 2010). Chlorophyll a levels are
approximately a quarter of historical levels and dissolved oxygen concentrations are approximately 1 mg/L
better than historical levels.
TABLE 8
Utley Creek Historical and Current Instream Conditions
Parameter
Historical°
Current" Comments
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
0.08
0.03 Includes values below detection limit
of 0.02 mg/L
Nitrate (mg/L)
1.59
2.32
TKN (mg/L)
0.73
0.83
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
2.31
3.15
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.65
0.29
Estimated Ortho-phosphorus (mg/L)
0.19
0.22
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
39.5
8.9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
6.2
7.3
a 6/2009 — 9/2009, 6/2010 — 9/2010
b 6/2014 — 9/2014
Table 9 provides a summary of the effluent characteristics which were measured during the 2009-2010
monitoring and current stream monitoring periods. The future permit limits evaluated for this effort are also
provided in Table 9. As is shown in Table 8, the WRF has been significantly improved and frequently exceeds
the performance required by the NPDES permit.
y

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
TABLE 9
Holly Springs WRF Current and Permitted Discharge Characteristics
Parameter Historical Average Current Average NPDES Permit Limit°
Flow (mgd)
1.21
1.66
6.0, 8.0
CBOD, 5-day (mg/L)
2.3
2.63
5.0
Dissolved Oxygen
8.0
8.1
6.0
(mg/L)
Ammonia-N (mg/L)
0.36
<0.5
1.0
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
7.38
4.37
5.0
Nitrate (mg/L)
6.17
3.53
3.9
Total Phosphorus
2.41
0.40
0.5
(mg/L)
Estimated Ortho-
No data
0.36
0.27
phosphorus (mg/L)
a 5/09 - 9/09, 6/10 - 9/10
b 6/14-9/14
For future discharge
DL - WRF detection limit (0.5 mg/L for ammonia)
The location of the discharge will also have an implication on the availability of instream flow to support
biological communities. While biological integrity is more a focus of the functional assessment which will be
discussed in the EA, the QUAL2K provides flow estimates which can be readily evaluated. A comparison of
instream flows in Utley Creek during a 7Q10 period for the two discharge locations with 6mgd and 8 mgd
flows are provided in Figures 19 and 20, respectively. For a discharge at the current location, instream flows
increase from the 7Q10 flow of 0.01 cfs to flows of approximately 6 mgd (9.28 cfs) and 8 mgd (12.37 cfs). For the
discharge below Greentree Reservoir, flows will remain at 0.01 for approximately 3.78 km (2.35 miles) before
increasing to flows of approximately 6 mgd (9.28 cfs) and 8 mgd (12.37 cfs). Thomas Millpond will also see
minimal inflows under a discharge below Greentree Reservoir. The model reflects some of the water quality
impacts in Thomas Millpond but may not fully capture the impacts to the pond since it is a steady state model
with limited capabilities regarding lake processes.
m

3
ti
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
6nigd current location 6 mgd below Greentree
i
20.0
1&0 Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
16.0
14.0
12.0
Future Permitted Discharge
/
10.0 ,l
8.0
Exlshq
Distfarge
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
V
LA
r%
v
W
m
0
N
V4
N
N
vq
to
O
V
m
to
tD
W
M
fl.
O
M
f`
fV
O
wl
V
W
r1
W
M
0
N
O
%0
0
m
0
r/
O
M
O
N
V
Ln
%n
M
r-
"4
O
M
0
N
V4
O
N
Q
to to
N O
%A to W to LA A ui v m m m N f V N N .. .-i
I
Stream Distance (km)
FIGURE 19
Comparison of lnstream Flow for a 6 mgd Discharge at the Current and downstream of Greentree Reservoir Locations
8mgd current location 8 mgd below Greentree
20.0
1&0 Thomas Millpond Greentree Reservoir
16.0 Future Permitted Discharge
14.0
12.0
M M ri O O O O
10.0
8.0
_. .
si
arje
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
V
m
w
m
rr
N
m
v
w
w
N
m
N
rl
O
w
o O
m
m
w
to
v
Ln
f%
w
m
"i
N
min
IA
Q
M
N
N
O
Q1
to
M
O
f%
IR
"t
rl
Q1
r` IR
PA
"
G1
n
Ili
'i
"
C1
f`
to
Q
N O
O O
N tI! 1f1 to to N') 1l'1 � eT � Q M M N N N N N rl r� .1 ri
Stream Distance (km)
FIGURE 20
Comparison of lnstream Flow for an 8 mgd Discharge at the Current and downstream of Greentree Reservoir Locations
29

HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Conclusions
The model calculations indicate that the proposed discharge scenarios (6 mgd and 8 mgd) at the current
location will not adversely impact and may potentially improve water quality conditions in Thomas Millpond
and the lower section of Utley Creek. Flow from the WRF currently enters upstream of Thomas Millpond,
which is now smaller and shallower following the partial dam break and subject to algal blooms. While
significant algal growth does occur under the current flows, the 6 and 8 mgd flow scenarios at the existing
location are expected to significantly reduce residence time in Thomas Millpond resulting in much lower algal
concentrations. The pond will still act to remove nutrients and oxygen demanding constituents.
A discharge location below Greentree Reservoir will also maintain DO concentrations above the water quality
standard in most of the stream but a significant diurnal DO swing is expected in and below Thomas Millpond
which is not fully calculated by the steady state model. In addition, a discharge below Greentree Reservoir will
deliver nearly all of nutrients in the discharge to Harris Lake without the benefit of assimilation/ reduction in
the creek and reaeration prior to discharge to the lake.
The current discharge location maintains high quality flows in Utley Creek at future permitted flows and any
adverse impacts on Thomas Millpond will diminish as WRF flows increase.
References
Chapra, S.C., Pelletier, G.J. and Tao, H. 2008. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for Simulating River and
Stream Water Quality, Version 2.11: Documentation and Users Manual. Civil and Environmental Engineering
Dept., Tufts University, Medford, MA.
Weaver, J.C., Terziotti, Silvia, Kolb, K.R., and Wagner, C.R. 2012. StreamStats in North Carolina: A water -
resources Web application: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2012-3137.
30

V
�J
HOLLY SPRINGS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DISCHARGE EVALUATION
Attachment A
31

Albertin, Klaus/RAL
From: Weaver, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:36 PM
To: Albertin, Klaus/RAL
Cc: Jeanne Robbins; Rose Pinnix; John Weaver
Subject: Low -flow characteristics for USGS Sta. 0210217945 Utley Creek at headwaters at Holly
Springs, NC, in Wake County
PAV�_ USGS
=W=&,Vd%WftV"
U.S. Geological Survey North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Date: May 12, 2014
Mr. Klaus Albertin, Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Albertin,
In response to your request for a formal determination of the low -flow characteristics for USGS Sta.
0210217945 Utley Creek at headwaters at Holly Springs in southwest Wake County, the following
information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center (NC WSC) indicates
several previous determinations of low -flow characteristics for this site on Utley Creek. The most recent formal
estimates were completed in February 1993, based on transfer of low -flow characteristics at three USGS partial -
record sites located in North Raleigh. Miscellaneous measurements at these three sites were collected in the
1950's and 1960's, likely reflective of basin conditions more rural prior to urbanization and development in later
years.
A drainage -area delineation completed using the USGS StreamStats application for North Carolina
(http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north carolina.html) indicates the drainage area upstream from this site
is 0.79 sgmi. This site is located immediately adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at Holly
Springs.

No site -specific USGS discharge records sufficient for low -flow analyses are known to exist for any sites on
Utley Creek.
In the absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis, estimates of low -flow
characteristics at ungaged locations are determined by assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as
flow per square mile drainage area, of cfsm) at nearby sites where estimates have been determined.
Previously published low -flow information for streams in your area of interest
The most recent low -flow information published for streams in southwest Wake County is in a basinwide low -flow report
completed in 2001. It is USGS Water -Resources Investigations Report 01-4094, "Low -flow characteristics and discharge
profiles for selected streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998 " (Weaver and Pope, 2001). An
online version of the report is available at httr):Hnc.water.usQs.Qov/reports/Wd014094/. The report provides the low -flow
characteristics (based on data through 1998) for continuous -record streamgaging stations and partial -record sites within
the Cape Fear basin. The report also provides low -flow discharge profiles (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, and 7Q2) for the
Cape Fear River and selected tributaries within the basin.
Please note the low -flow characteristics in the above -referenced low -flow report are based on data ending during the late
1990's and do not reflect the occurrence of recent droughts, which have resulted in decreased low -flow statistics at some
USGS streamgaging stations.
Sta. 0210217945 Utley Creek at headwaters at Holly Springs, NC
Location: Immediately adjacent to WWTP, and 1 mile west-southwest of Holly Springs
Lat/long ==> 035d 38m 41.24s // 078d 51 m 03.25s (referenced to NAD83)
County: Wake County
Drainage area = 0.79 sqmi
HUC: 03030004
Map: Apex [E-23-NE]
Tributary to: White Oak Creek
There are five nearby USGS continuous -record streamgages with varying periods of record (POR) at
or near Raleigh and Apex that were considered as index sites for this assessment:
Sta. 0208732534 Pigeon House Creek at Cameron Village at Raleigh (drainage area 0.27 sgmi contributing,
POR October 1996 to current year)
Sta. 0208732885 Marsh Creek near New Hope (drainage area 6.84 sgmi, POR January 1984 to current year)
Sta. 0208735012 Rocky Branch below Pullen Drive at Raleigh (drainage area 1.17 sgmi, POR October 1996 to
current year)
Sta. 02087359 Walnut Creek at Sunnybrook Road at Raleigh (drainage area 29.8 sgmi, POR May 1996 to
current year)
Sta. 02087580 Swift Creek at Apex (drainage area 21.0 sgmi, POR March 2002 to current year)

Basin characteristics were compiled for the 5 streamgages using the StreamStats application, and the percent
impervious area 2006, percent developed area 2006, and percent of area with soils in the "B" hydrologic soils
group were examined. Comparisons were completed on these basin characteristics with those for the Utley
Creek basin upstream from your point of interest.
Based on those comparisons, three of the 5 nearby streamgages with the basin characteristics most closely
similar to those for the Utley Creek basin were selected for use as index sites in this low -flow analysis (Sta's
0208732885, 02087359, and 02087580; listed above in blue font). Selection of the 3 streamgages not only
allowed for use of basins with the characteristics most similar to those for the Utley Creek basin, but also
allowed use of continuous discharge records that include flow conditions observed during recent droughts since
the late 1990's.
Low -flow characteristics were determined at the- three streamgages based on available periods of
record through the end of the 2012 water year, which results in records through the end of the 2011
climatic year (or March 31, 2012) being used in the analyses. A range in low -flow yields was
compiled and an average low -flow yield was determined for each flow statistic. When applied to the
drainage area for your point of interest (0.79 sgmi), the estimated flows based on these yields were
determined.
The range and average low -flow yields along with corresponding estimated flows are provided in the
table below:
Range in
Average
Range in
Average
low -flow
yield
low -flow yield
estimated low -flow
estimated
low -flow
(cfsm)
(cfsm)
(cfs)
(cfs)
Annual 7Q10
0 to
0.037
0.018
0 to 0.03
0.01
==> (rounded to
zero flow)
Annual 30Q2
0.071 to
0.23
0.17
0.06 to 0.18
0.13
Winter 7Q10
0.038 to
0.15
0.11
0.03 to 0.12
0.
Annual 7Q2
0.019 to
0.13
0.087
0.02 to 0.10
Average Q
1.05 to
1.39
1.21
0.83 to 1.1
0.95
Please note the estimated flow estimates reflect "natural -flow" characteristics with no diversions or regulation known to
occur upstream of the request site, but do reflect the presence of developed conditions in the upstream basins arising
from effects of urbanization.
Concerns arising from identification of underlying geologic unit for Utley Creek basin
Low flow, also referred to as base flow or sustained fair-weather flow, is composed largely of groundwater discharge from
aquifers into streams. Groundwater discharges have large spatial and temporal variations that are highly dependent
on topographic, geologic, and climatic conditions. The high variability of such conditions across North Carolina — and
sometimes even within a drainage basin or along the same stream — results in complex low -flow hydrology (Weaver and
Pope, 2001).
As discussed in previous weeks, part of the uncertainty surrounding the determination of low -flow characteristics for this
site on Utley Creek arises from the identification of the geologic unit that underlies the basin upstream from this site.
As plotted on Plate 1 of the most recent statewide low -flow report (Giese and Mason, 1993; available online
at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2403/report.pdD, the basin upstream of this site is within the Hydrologic Area 5, which is

.•` referred to as the Raleigh Belt hydrologic area (HA5). In terms of low -flout characteristics, streams within HA5 are
characterized as having relatively higher low -flow values than those in the nearby hydrologic areas for the Coastal Plain
as well as eastern and central Piedmont (Giese and Mason, 1993).
However, as plotted on Plate 1 of the most recent basinwide low -flow report for the Cape Fear River basin (Weaver and
Pope, 2001; available online at http://nc.water.usgs.aovlregorts/wri014094n, the basin upstream from this site is underlain
by the Triassic basin. Streams with basin underlain by the Triassic basin have long been recognized as having very little
potential for sustained base flows during extended dry periods. Soils in the Triassic basin are for the most part poorly
drained and do not allow for the storage of water in shallow aquifers for later release during extended periods of base flow
(Weaver and Pope, 2001).
Inspection of the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985, available online
via http:/�geology.enr.state.nc.us/maps/GeoloaicMaps/500k 1985 Geo Map.html) indicates the
basin upstream from the Utley Creek site is underlain by the Triassic basin, but is located very close
to the transition between the Triassic basin and Raleigh Belt units. This is consistent with the map
depiction shown in the Cape Fear River basinwide low -flow report (Weaver and Pope, 2001).
Because the location of the boundary between the Raleigh Belt and Triassic basin geologic units relative to the Utley
Creek continues to remain unclear, site -specific streamflow data is needed to better understand the low -flow
characteristics in this watershed. Therefore, it is the position of the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
that further determinations of low -flow estimates can only be completed with the collection of site -
specific discharge records. No further analyses can be completed for streams within the Utley Creek
basin pending future collection of site -specific discharge records.
Notes:
(1) The climatic year is the standard annual period used for low -flow analyses at continuous -record streamgages and runs
from April 1 through March 31, designated by the year in which the period begins. For example, the 2011 climatic year is
from April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.
(2) Estimated flows are provided in units of cubic feet per second (cfs).
Invoice information:
A charge of $250.00 for accessing and processing information has been assessed to partially offset these
costs. An invoice covering the processing costs for these data will be sent via regular mail from the U.S. Geological
Survey to the billing address shown below. Instructions for sending your payment will be shown on the invoice.
Mr. Klaus Albertin, Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Basis for charge: Low -flow characteristics for USGS Sta. 0210217945 Utley Creek at headwaters at
Holly Springs, NC, in Wake County
This information is considered preliminary and subject to revision pending further analysis as further data were to become
available, and is made available through our cooperative program of water -resources investigations with the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Hope this information is helpful.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at the phone number or email address listed
below.
Thank you.

r
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address -- http://nc.water.usgs.gov/

Attachment B
Utley Creek Monitoring Data
33

EVER
JTC-1
6/24/2014
2
4
0.02
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.05
0.02
27
1
13.2
20.7
7.8
6.7
66
UTC-1A
6/24/2014
25.11
7.4
7.3
597
UTC-4
6/24/2014
2
2.5
0.02
0.55
2.8
3.35
0.08
1.1
99
1.44
2.2
25
8
7.8
494
UTCAA
6/24/2014
2
4
0.02
1.44
2.4
3.84
0.1
0.13
87
1.51
5.4
25
8
7.8
494
UTC-5
6/24/2014
2
16
0.18
1.15
1.22
2.37
0.08
0.14
91
16,7
131
27.7
6.91
7.4
527
JUTC-5A
6/24/20141
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28.1
7.2
7.31
519
UTC-7
6/24/20141
2
5
0.05
0.721
1.28
21
0.141
0.18
82
1.4
4.9
27.9
8
7.6
50-8
UTC-8
Mo
6/24/2014
21
61
0.031
0.69
1.3
1.99
0.17
0.19
861
11
4.7
25.9
6
7.4
498'
UTC-1
7/l/2014
2
4
0.02
0.29
0.29
0.58
0.05
0.046
27
1
6.3
21.1
7.7
6.6
66
UTC-1A
7/1/2014
25
6.8
7.3
621
UTC-4
7/l/2014
2
2.5
0.02
0.76
2.92
3.68
0.08
0.135
100
1.32
1.9
24.9
7.8
7.6
608
UTCAA
7/1/2014
2
6
0.02
0.63
2.56
3.19
0.09
0.138
95
1.54
4.5
23.8
7.4
7.7
548
UTC-5
7/l/2014
3.8
10
0.15
1.71
2.51
4.21
0.05
0.168
98
36
16
26.6
7.81
7.8
600
UTC-SA
7/1/2014
27.1
7.7
7.8
SOD
UTC-7
7/l/2014
2
22
0.02
0.92
2.45
3.37
0.09
0.141
94
1.84
5
28.5
5.7
7.4
585
6 UTC-8
7/l/2014
3.6
2.5
0.03
0.941
1.95
2.89
0.11
0.155
91
1
3.6
26.2
5.9
7.4
565
UTC-1
7/7/2014
2
4
0.02
0.2
0.28
0.28
0.05
0.038
28
1
5.2
20.6
7.2
6.4
52
UTC--lA
7/7/2014
25
7.1
7.3
738
UTC-4
7/7/2014
2
2.5
0.02
0.66
3.41
4.07
0.1
0.177
108
1.27
1.5
25.1
7.5
7.8
741
UTC-4A
7/7/2014
2
6
0.02
0.83
2.71
3.54
0.13
0.199
102
1.65
3.1
24.3
8.4
8.1
653
UTC-5
1 7/7/2014
7.31
22
0.02
2.13
0.77
2.91
0.05
0.217
113
105
13.7
26.5
13.41
8.8
668
UTC-5A
7/7/2014
1
27.7
8.8
8.8
676
UTC-7
7/7/2014
4.61
2.5
0.02
1.64
0.43
2.071
0.05
0.194
106
101
8.7
27.6
10.7
0
662
UTC-8
No
7/7/2014
2
30
0.03
1.29
0.47
1.761
0.09
0.198
105
44.5
5.9
25.1
6.7
7.6
651
C-1 UT
7/16/2014
2
20
0.02
0.61
0.26
0.87
0.05
0.068
20
1
75.5
22
7.4
6.1
44
UTC-1A
7/16/2014
25.6
7.3
7.3
642
UTC-4
7/16/2014
2
4
0.02
1.24
3.21
4.45
0.13
0.156
98
1
10.7
25.2
7.5
7.5
612
UTCAA
7/16/2014
2
18
0.02
0.76
1.45
2.21
0.1
0.137
58
3.74
32.1
24.5
6.9
7.1
358
UTC-5
7/16/2014
4.6
52
0.021
1.08
0.5
1.58
0.07
0.175
371
38.1
81.7
25.6
6.41
6.7
205
UTCZA'.
7/16/2014
1
25.8
7.41
6.8
199
UTC-7
7/16/2014
2.1
23
0.02
0.8
0.49
1.29
0.11
0.159
371
7.71
45.3
25
6.9
6.7
208
UTC-8
7/16/2014
2
30
0.02
0.67
0.51
1.18
0.11
0.147
371
5.59
42.4
24.4
6.4
6.8
224
UTC-1
7/21/2014
2.8
3
0.02
0.23
0.27
0.5
0.05
0.041
24
1
9.4
21.3
6.9
6.1
54
IJTC'U.'
7/21/2014
25.4
7.2
7.3
680
UTC-4
7/21/2014
2.4
2.5
0.02
0.68
4.39
5.07
0.6
0.635
107
1.02
1.8
25.1
7.4
7.4
673
UTCAA
7/21/2014
2.6
3
0.02
0.88
3.27
4.15
0.59
0.631
93
1.71
4.1
24.1
6.8
7.4
560
JUTC-5
7/21/20141
5.2 1
301
0.021
1.461
1.91
3.361
0.391
0.5361
961
27.11
22.81
24.8
74
7.51
5781
1 VTC-5A
7/21/2014
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. I
I 1
1
24.8
. 81
7.51
582 I

UTC-7 1
7/21/2014
3.21
10
0.02
0.87
.1.77
2.64
0.38
0.43
96
10.5
9.6
25.1
5.7
7.1
491
TC-8
i66
7/21/2014
3.1
18
0.02
0.75
1.48
2.23
0.32
0.371
- 88
4.47
16.2
25
5.6
7.2
479
UTC-1
7/30/2014
2
2.5
0.02
0.2
0.2S
0.25
0.05
0.041
27
1
5.7
19.9
7.9
6
60
7/30/2014
25.6
7.6
7.3
714
UTC-4
7/30/2014
2
2.5
0.02
0.86
3.4
4.26
1.12
1.21
113
1
1.5
25
7.3
7.6
700
UTC-4A
7/30/2014
2
3
0.02
0.93
2.8
3.73
1.06
1.1
105
1
2.8
23.2
6.5
7.7
641
UTC-5
7/30/2014
2
17
0.021
1.42
1.73
3.15
0.66
0.845
107
2.22
12.61
25.6
10.7
8.2
642
11;TC 5A
7/30/2014
25.5
7.9
8
648
UTC-7
7/30/2014
2
6
0.02
0.95
1.84
2.79
0.69
0.76
102
1.7
4.7
25.4
5.9
7.4
631
UTC-8
661
7/30/2014
2
2.5
0.02
0.79
1.84
2.63
0.66
0.728
100
1
3.4
24.3
5.3
7.3
577
UTC-1
8/11/2014
2
11
0.02
0.39
0.27
0.66
0.05
0.043
24
1
28.4
20.8
7.2
6.7
55
UT_C=aA_
8/11/2014
24.5
7.4
7.5
583
UTC-4
8/11/2014
2
2.5
0.02
0.51
5.72
6.23
0.18
0.217
97
1
4.4
24.3
7.4
7.6
569
UTC-4A
8/11/2014
2
10
0.02
0.66
2.85
3.51
0.17
0.195
60
1.01
13.8
22.9
6.3
7.4
310
UTC-5
8/11/2014
2
22
0.211
1.05
3.38
4.43
0.18
0.246
71
5.55
22.91
23.3
4.7
7.1
40
UT,C:_SA:..•
8/11/2014
23.71
6.91
7.2
415
UTC-7
8/11/2014
2
6
0.06
0.91
2.97
3.88
0.2
0.218
63
1.73
12
24.6
6.4
7.2
352
UTC-8
8/11/2014
2
4
0.05
0.62
3.02
3.64
0.18
0.209
57
1
11
23.5
5.8
7.1
264
UTC-1
8/20/2014
2
3.6
0.02
0.2
0.22
0.22
0.05
0.044
26.5
1
9.3
21.7
7.6
6.7
64
UTC 1A,;_;,'
8/20/2014
25.9
7.4
7.5
713
UTC-4
8/20/2014
2
2.8
0.02
1.25
4.8
6.05
0.21
0.271
111
1
1.8
25.8
7.3
7.7
560
UTC-4A
8/20/2014
2
6.8
0.02
0.78
5.09
S.87
0.17
0.227
87
1
5.4
25
6.4
7.7
533
UTC-5
8/20/2014
4
2S.6
0.131
1.42
4.1
5.52
0.1
0.232
84
17.1
20.2
26.5
8.21
7.4
484
UTC SA''"
8/20/2014
27
7.2
7.4
490
UTC-7
8/20/2014
2
5.2
0.03
0.87
3.84
4.71
0.12
0.183
76
1.19
6.8
27.2
8.1
7.5
459
UTC-8
8/20/2014
2
IS
0.03
0.47
4.22
4.69
0.12
0.188
78
1
7.3
2S.8
5.7
7.2
266
UTC-1
8/27/2014
UTC-iA•
8/27/2014
UTC-4
8/27/2014
UTC-4A
8/27/2014
Data pending
completion of lab analyses
UTC-5
8/27/2014
UTC-SA
8/27/2014
UTC-7
8/27/2014
UTC-8
8/27/2014
UTC-1
9/3/2014
UTC 1A`__
9/3/2014
UTC-4
9/3/2014
UTC-4A
9/3/2014
Data pending completion of lab analyses
UTC-5
1 9/3/2014
UTC=SA`'`1
9/3/2014

i3elnick, Tom
From: Behm, Pamela
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:19 AM
To: [e-mail]; Roddy, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom;
Reid, Dianne; Smith, Danny; Kane, Evan
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Jaime. [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Update on Utley Creek Modeling and request for a Meeting
Hi Bill,
We'd like to have some time to review the technical memorandum, there may be no need for everyone to come in for a
meeting at this time. (By the way, I'm including Evan Kane on this thread as Jackie's supervisor, Jackie has put in her
notice that she's leaving DWR Sept 30).
Thanks,
Pam
From: [e-mail][ma ilto:Bill. [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:02 PM
To: Roddy, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Smith, Danny
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Jaime. [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Update on Utley Creek Modeling and request for a Meeting
Hi everyone — Attached is our draft Technical Memorandum presenting the monitoring and modeling results for
Utley Creek as I had indicated below. We would like to meet with you to go over the results as soon as possible.
Our preference would be to meet at 1:30 or 2 PM the afternoon of Oct. 2. If this does not work, please suggest 2
or three times the following week. Klaus will be following up with Jackie or Pam to try to lock down a meeting
date.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] lOffice (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger(ach2m.com
From: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:33 AM
To: 'RoddyJackie''Belnick Tom'; 'Stecker Kathy• 'Fransen Tom''Reid Dianne''Behm Pamela''Smith Danny'
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
Robinson, Jaime/CLT; Albertin, Klaus/RAL
Subject: Update on Utley Creek Modeling and request for a Meeting
Hi everyone — I wanted to give everyone a status update on our efforts for the Town of Holly Springs. We plan
to send you a draft technical memorandum (TM) sometime next week presenting results of the QUAL 2K
model development, calibration and scenario analysis for Utley Creek. This will include the results of the
weekly stream monitoring, time -of -travel (dye) study, and bathymetric survey of Thomas Millpond as requested
by DWR (although some of the chemical analysis results may be lagging a bit on samples collected in
September but we have all the field data).
We would like to suggest a meeting to present our results the following week. Our preference would be at 1:30
or 2 PM the afternoon of Oct. 2. Alternatively — we could also do the 1st at the same times. I am aware that Tom

Fransen is off that week but believe that at this point we want to dig into the results with Pam B, Tom B and
Danny Smith in particular and discuss implication for the EA Amendment with Jackie — and then we can
follow-up with others as needed if they cannot make the meeting.
Please let us know if these dates can work for a meeting or suggest alternatives the following week. Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] (Office (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger0ch 2m.com
From: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:56 PM
To: 'Roddy, Jackie'; 'Belnick Tom; 'Stecker, Kathy'; 'Fransen Tom; 'Reid Dianne'; 'Behm Pamela'; 'Smith Danny'
Cc: 'step [e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
Robinson, Jaime/CLT; Albertin, Klaus/RAL
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Hi everyone — As follow up to my email below, I wanted to send a PDF of some pictures that were taken during
the initial field work for determining cross -sections for model development and for collecting information for
use for the functional assessment and/or permitting for the effluent pipeline. These pictures illustrate the
changes that are occurring in Utley Creek as a result of the dam breach that occurred some 10 or so years ago.
I understand that Danny Smith is working with the Town to set up a site visit in a couple weeks. These pictures
will give you a preview of what you will see. Please reply with any questions.
Just as a note — I am going to be on vacation from July 3rd to July 181h — so please contact Klaus Albertin with
any questions while I am gone.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] lOffice (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger(ach2m.com
From: Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:10 PM
To: 'Roddy, Jackie; Albertin, Klaus/RAL; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela;
Matthews, Matt
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; sea nn.byrd@Hollysprin sg_nclus: Robinson,
Jaime/CLT
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Jackie — We appreciate the quick response and believe it is appropriate to provide some more context to our
approach that includes the functional assessment in junction with the requested water quality monitoring and
modeling as well provide you our reaction to the request for a dye study.
The Town's current NPDES permit requires the relocation of the discharge downstream below Green Tree
Reservoir. This represents the base alternative in our EA Amendment. This relocation will impact established
stream and wetland hydrology and the functional assessment will allow us to assess these impacts. Even if we
were not doing this EA Amendment, we would require the data to support this assessment to proceed with
404/401 permitting of the pipeline to relocate the discharge. We do not believe the information is optional but

we do need to do it a bit earlier as a result of pursuing this EA Amendment. We have already initiated this data
"collection as discussed below.
Our approach to the field studies to support the functional assessment of Utley Creek is also integrating the
collection of information required on channel geometry, stream bottom conditions, riparian and transitional
wetlands (in Thomas Millpond), as well as pond bathometry required for development of the water quality
model. We have field measured channel geometry (as well as habitat characteristics) at four representative
locations from upstream of the current discharge to below the Green Tree Reservoir control structure and the
proposed outfall location. This integrated approach has provided us more detailed information than we would
typically have for development of the channel geometry for the water quality model. We also have estimated
channel bankfull flows and velocities using the channel geometry and other stream characteristics as a way to
cross-check our other assumptions. Because of this detailed mapping of the channel and pond characteristics, it
was our view that a simple approach to determining stream velocities is sufficient for model development. Most
of the stream is shallow with a low flow depth of about 6 inches, except for the transition area into Thomas
Millpond so the statement regarding the variability in the water column is not very applicable. The float method
can also be done quickly and repeated as necessary and has been used for numerous modeling efforts.
A dye study provides valuable velocity definition when there is a "coarser" characterization of the stream
geometry to be modeled and is also typically conducted more for evaluating dispersion than for verifying stream
velocities. Historically, the WQ program has not included dispersion in their water quality models as a
"conservative approach" which has been the case for the stream models that CH2M HILL has developed in NC.
We do recognize that a dye study would aid in documenting and developing a better understanding of how the
flow is slowed within the low -slope area of the original Thomas Millpond footprint and as the flow enters
Thomas Millpond. There is heavy sediment deposition in the upstream end of the pond and it appears there is
short circuiting of flow through what remains of Thomas Millpond (as a partial result of all of the sedimentation
and the current, lower dam elevation). Therefore, the dye study would tell us how bad some of our mixing
assumptions were in the pond.
We have discussed this with the Town and Klaus will contact Pam Behm to discuss further. The effort clearly
does not seem necessary to support the model development but we will discuss it further.
We believe the assumption that the results of the functional assessment would be over -ruled by the water
quality modeling results would be more appropriate in the case of a new discharge rather than the relocation of
an existing discharge. Our experience tells us that the water quality monitoring/modeling results will potentially
identify water quality benefits and detriments to both maintaining the discharge at the current location and
relocation of the discharge. For example, if the outfall is relocated we expect the Thomas Millpond to become
stagnant as a result of little or no inflow under low flow conditions and the resulting water quality to be quite
poor in and immediately downstream of the pond especially in summer months. Our assessments to date have
also identified several acres of riparian and emergent wetlands that we believe will be eliminated if the
hydrology of the stream is altered by removing the discharge. Certainly, clear modeling results documenting
water quality conditions outside the water quality standards (such as dissolved oxygen) would over -rule other
factors. Our professional view is the modeling results are typically more "grey" for this type of situation
involving a highly treated effluent and are best viewed in the comprehensive context of other wetland,
hydrological and stream function impacts — especially since the information is also required for the pipeline and
outfall construction permitting.
We hope this provides some more context to our approach and would be happy to discuss this further with you.
Klaus will be following up with Pam regarding the dye study. Please let me know if you would like to discuss
this further.
Thanks
Bill

Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone]Office (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger0ch2m.com
From: Roddy, Jackie[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:37 PM
To: Albertin, Klaus/RAL; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT;
[e-mail]; Robinson, Jaime/CLT
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Klaus,
DWR remains unsure about the value of a functional assessment. Though a functional assessment might yield
information that would support an updated environmental assessment, DWR cautions investment of time and resources
in such a study, since its findings would be overruled by results of the water quality model. If Holly Springs and CH2M Hill
are committed to conducting a functional assessment, DWR suggests that the study occur after water quality modeling
has proven the current discharge location to be a viable option.
The proposed float method for time travel assessment will not accurately assess how pollutants would behave in the
system and therefore is not acceptable. Creek velocities can vary depending upon distance from banks. Further variation
occurs within the water column. A dye study more closely mimics the behavior of pollutants, and is thus the preferred
method.
Thank you for the monitoring plan submitted today. We will get comment to you as soon as possible.
Jackie Roddy, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
NEW NUMBER Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Klaus.Albertin@)CH2M.com[mailto:Klaus.Albertin(.a- CH2M.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Roddy, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Cc: stephanie.sudano(&hollyspringsnc.us; kendra.parrish(&hollyspringsnc.us; Bill. [e-mail];
seann.byrdCalHollyspringsnc.us; Jaime.Robinson@)CH2M.com
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Jackie,
Thank you for your comments on the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Location
Alternatives workplan. We understand the concerns that you've stated and want to provide you with some
clarification and respond to your suggestions.
We feel that the functional assessment is a critical component in the discharge location evaluation since it will
help define whether Thomas Mill Pond functions as a lake or as a wetland. These two types of water bodies
support different biological communities and have different physical and chemical characteristics. We

recognize the interest in water quality but thought it best to determine what the function of Thomas Mill Pond,
0and therefore the appropriate water quality, was before performing an assessment of the systems water quality.
Based on your comments, we will develop a monitoring plan and provide it to DWR. Our intention is to have
monitoring proceed as soon as possible and ending in August so that we capture the critical summer period. We
also propose to develop a Qual-2k water quality model of Utley Creek from the current discharge to Harris
Lake. This will allow -us to evaluate the nutrient, algal, and dissolved oxygen response of the system under the
different alternatives. Thomas Mill Pond will be a discrete segment in the model. This is similar to what we did
to evaluate the effects of algal productivity behind the Lock and Dam structures on DO conditions in the Middle
Cape Fear River in about 2005 for a permitting decision for another client.
Flow through the system is a critical factor affecting water quality. We propose to do simple time of travel tests
by floating an object in the stream and timing its progress through different sections of the system. While this
method is technically simple, it provides accuracy similar to a die study and has the benefit of being easy to stop
and start and is not dependent on complicated equipment. This information would be used to support the
development of the Qual-2k model. A water balance of the system will also be developed. to quantify the
approximate flow rates and water levels under the different discharge location alternatives.
We hope that these additional analyses meet your requirements for assessing the system. If you have any
questions, you can call me directly at [phone] or we can plan a meeting to sit down and discuss these
additional analyses. Once you are satisfied that the analyses will answer your questions, we will assume that we
will have approval to proceed but will revise the workplan to reflect the additional analyses and will provide
you a final workplan for your records.
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
Watershed/Water Quality Modeling
CH2M HILL Water Market
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com
From: Roddy, Jackie [mailto [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:34 PM
To: Albertin, Klaus/RAL; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; seann.byrd@Hollvsprin s� nc.us; Robinson,
Jaime/CLT; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Klaus,
See attached for comments from the Division of Water Resources on the proposed work plan. Let us know if you need
clarification on anything.

0
Thanks, °
Jackie Roddy, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
NEW NUMBER Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail][mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Roddy, Jackie; Fransen, Tom; Bill. [e-mail];
stephanie.sudano@)hollyspringsnc.us; kendra.parrish(&holiysprin_ sq nc.us: sea nn.byrd@)Hollyspringsnc.us;
Jaime. Robinson(WI-12M.com; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Hi everyone,
It's been a few weeks since we met to discuss the options for the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Discharge location
and we've been working on our action items. I'm attaching our minutes from the meeting for your review. We have
been in contact with Duke Energy and the USGS and hope to have a response on those two action items soon. I've
attached a proposed workplan which we feel will evaluate the different environmental considerations related to the
potential discharge alternatives. Please let me know if you have any questions. We looking forward to discussing next
steps with you soon. With temperatures on the rise, we hope to plan our assessments in the near future so that we can
be in the field during the critical spring and summer months.
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com

.. I�Ct�b6309� -tbll y
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
Monitoring of Utley Creek to Support Analysis of
Potential Discharge Locations
PREPARED FOR: Town of /
Holly Springs ring s Thfj � D 41.b /63 b he -
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
w Q Aw, -tpv,/y," 0 -
COPIES: Jackie Roddy/ DWR AWU01101))%le vfea
Tom BelnickDWR l/ I
/ 9-e y �� ! �i�•4� lem*
Kathy Stecker/DWR j� Q
Pam Behm/DWR pq CA fl 0 ✓1.
Stephanie Sudano/Town of Holly Springs
Kendra Parrish/ Town of Holly Springs /� y
Seam Byrd/ Town of Holly Springs
DATE: June 16 2014 7/1 t/wi 4n �' k mOdelsp� rlj W
ref
Background
The Town of Holly Springs (Town) would like to investigate the alternative option of
keeping its Utley Creek discharge at its current location for all discharge flow conditions in
its NPDES permit due to the potential negative environmental impacts and high cost of a
pipeline. This option was not thoroughly evaluated in the prior Environmental Assessment
(EA) because of Water Quality Program (WQP) concerns regarding water quality in Thomas
Mill Pond and Greentree Reservoir.
Two alternatives have been proposed for the discharge: a discharge below Greentree
Reservoir and maintaining the current location. To evaluate these two options, a better
understanding of hydrology, impacted biology, ecological function of the system, and water
quality is required. The tasks described below highlight CH2M HILUs best estimation of the
data and analyses needed to provide a defensible evaluation of the direct environmental
impacts associated with the potential discharge location alternatives.
CH2M HILL developed a workplan on April 15th, 2014 and submitted it to the NC Division
of Water Resources (DWR) for review. DWR provided comments on May 14th, 2014.
Included in these comments was a request for development of a nutrient response model
including monitoring of Utley Creek and Thomas Mill Pond. CH2M HILL discussed these
comments with the Town and DWR and will be developing a QUAL-2K model which can
simulate nutrient response effects on dissolved oxygen. This document describes the
monitoring that will be undertaken to support the request for development of a nutrient
response model.
UTLEY CREEK MONITORING PLAN 6.10-14.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Monitoring Plan
The DWR comments requested three specific monitoring efforts:
• Weekly monitoring of Utley Creek and Thomas Mill Pond for field and chemical
parameters during summer low flow conditions.
• Time of travel study to estimate flow velocities
• Bathymetric survey to characterize depths within Thomas Mill Pond
Each of these efforts is described in more detail below.
Weekly Monitoring
The proposed monitoring program is based on the monitoring program currently used by
the MCFRBA in the middle portion of the Cape Fear River basin. This monitoring will occur
on a weekly basis beginning as soon as the monitoring contract can be established and
completing at the end of August. Six primary stations will be monitored for field parameters
and chemical analyses. Two additional stations will be sampled for field parameters only.
The program will last a minimum of 10 weeks.
Sampling Stations
The Town of Holly Springs will proceed with monitoring of Utley Creek at eight locations
as described below and -shown on ExhibI ? -- —_ .
• UTC-1.-- Utley Creek upstream of WWTP
• UTC-1A -- Utley Creek immediately downstream of WWTP (Field parameters only)
• UTC-4 -- Utley Creek between WWTP and Thomas Mill Pond
• UTC-4A -- Utley Creek above Thomas Mill Pond
• UTC-5 -- Thomas Mill Pond
• UTC-5A -- immediately downstream of Thomas Mill Pond (Field parameters only)
• UTC-7 -- Utley Creek near Greentree Reservoir Dam
• UTC-8 - Utley Creek above White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake
Stations UTC-1, UTC-4, UTC-5, and UTC-7 are existing monitoring locations and provide a
basis for characterizing the system. Stations UTC-4A and UTC-8 are added to provide data
at locations not previously monitored but that may be important in the modeling effort.
The two additional stations are intended to provide supplemental data for use in the
modeling. The station immediately downstream of the Utley Creek WWTP (UTC-1A), in
conjunction with flow and specific conductivity data for the WWTP and at the upstream
station on the day of sampling, will allow for an estimate of stream flow. Station UTC-5A
will be used to help quantify the reaeration associated with the Thomas Mill Pond spillway.

Ex)
10 'J411 Tlav*2 w
N ..........
AC'
... � , FdCm, 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9
Kilos
Exhibit 3 below summarizes the proposed monitoring parameters for the eight stations in
the Utley Creek watershed.
EXHIBIT 3
Proposed Utley Creek Watershed Monitoring
Parameter Method Frequency
Field Data
Temperature, DO, pH, and specific YSI Field Meter collected at surface Weekly
conductance for all stations except UTC-10A (1
meter depth increments)
Laboratory Data
BOD, 5-day SM 5210B Weekly
Total suspended solids Standard Methods 2540D Weekly
Total nitrogen Calculated Weekly
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Standard Methods 4500 Weekly
3

EXHIBIT 3
Proposed Utley Creek Watershed Monitoring
Parameter Method Frequency
Ammonia-N
EPA 350.1
Weekly
Nitrate+nitrite-N
EPA 353.2
Weekly
Total phosphorus
EPA 200.7
Weekly
Ortho-phosphate
SM 4500 PE
Weekly
Chlorophyll a
EPA 445.0
Weekly
Turbidity
EPA 180.1
Weekly
Alkalinity
SM2320-B
Weekly
Monitoring will begin in June 2014 and continue through August 2014.
Time of Travel Study
Flow through the system is an important factor .which can affect water quality. We propose
to do simple time of travel tests by floating an object in the stream and timing its progress
through different sections of the system. While this method is technically simple, it provides
accuracy similar to a dye study and has the benefit of being easy to stop and start and is not
dependent on chemicals and complicated equipment. This information would be used to
support the development of the QUAL-2K model.
Bathymetric Survey
A bathymetric survey of Thomas Mill Pond will be performed to characterize the bpttom
surface and water depths. Site visits have shown that the pond water level is fairly static due
to the wide spillway created by the partially breached dam and moderate flows in the creek.
It is therefore expected that the data collected would be representative for normal
conditions. If possible, the data will be collected using an automated depth finder tied to a
global positioning system which would allow for a detailed characterization of the bottom.
The shallow depth and turbidity may cause problems with this method. Simple manual
depth measurements will be used as an alternative approach, if necessary. The depth data
will be imported into a geographical information system to generate a bathymetric map of
the pond.
Summary
Weekly field and chemical measurements, a time of travel study, and a bathymetric survey
will be performed for the Utley Creek/Thomas Mill Pond system. This monitoring program
is designed to meet DWXs request, provide the data needed to develop a QUAL-2K model,
and is consistent with the current MCFRBA monitoring program. These data should
provide useful base information for decision making by the Town of Holly Springs and their
consultants and DWQ.

• Belnick, Tom
From: Behm, Pamela
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:06 PM
To: Stecker, Kathy; Belnick, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Matthews, Matt; Fransen, Tom
Subject: FW: Monitoring plan
Attachments: Utley Creek Monitoring Plan 6-16-14.pdf
I just saw that this was not sent to everyone... I don't have any problems with it except for the proposed method for the
time of travel study.
From: [e-mail] fmailto:Klaus.AlbertinoCH2M.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:32 PM
To: Behm, Pamela
Cc: Stephanie.sudanoC&hollyspringsnc.us; [e-mail]; Roddy, Jackie
Subject: Monitoring plan
Pam,
As we discussed last month, the Town of Holly Springs has agreed to do the additional water quality evaluation that
DWR requested including the water quality monitoring. The attached monitoring plan follows DWR's recommendations
but I wanted you to have a copy for your records. We have Meritech lined up to do the work and plan to start next week
so that we are out there during the critical period. Please forward this on as you see fit.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
Watershed/Water Quality Modeling
CH2M HILL Water Market
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com

Obb3i�
-Belnick, Tom
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Roddy, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela;
Matthews, Matt
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Bill. [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jaime. [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Jackie,
Thank you for your comments on the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Location
Alternatives workplan. We understand the concerns that you've stated and want to provide you with some
clarification and respond to your suggestions.
We feel that the functional assessment is a critical component in the discharge location evaluation since it will
help define whether Thomas Mill Pond functions as a lake or as a wetland. These two types of water bodies
support different biological communities and have different physical and chemical characteristics. We
recognize the interest in water quality but thought it best to determine what the function of Thomas Mill Pond,
and therefore the appropriate water quality, was before performing an assessment of the systems water quality.
Based on your comments, we will develop a monitoring plan and provide it to DWR. Our intention is to have
monitoring proceed as soon as possible and ending in August so that we capture the critical summer period. We
also propose to develop a Qual-2k water quality model of Utley Creek from the current discharge to Harris
Lake. This will allow us to evaluate the nutrient, algal, and dissolved oxygen response of the system under the
different alternatives. Thomas Mill Pond will be a discrete segment in the model. This is similar to what we did
to evaluate the effects of algal productivity behind the Lock and Dam structures on DO conditions in the Middle
Cape Fear River in about 2005 for a permitting decision for another client.
Flow through the system is a critical factor affecting water quality. We propose to do simple time of travel tests
by floating an object in the stream and timing its progress through different sections of the system. While this
method is technically simple, it provides accuracy similar to a die study and has the benefit of being easy to stop
and start and is not dependent on complicated equipment. This information would be used to support the
development of the Qual-2k model. A water balance of the system will also be developed to quantify the
approximate flow rates and water levels under the different discharge location alternatives.
We hope that these additional analyses meet your requirements for assessing the system. If you have any
questions, you can call me directly at [phone] or we can plan a meeting to sit down and discuss these
additional analyses. Once you are satisfied that the analyses will answer your questions, we will assume that we
will have approval to proceed but will revise the workplan to reflect the additional analyses and will provide
you a final workplan for your records.
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
Watershed/Water Quality Modeling
CH2M HILL Water Market
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building

Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com
From: Roddy, Jackie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:34 PM
To: Albertin, Klaus/RAL; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; sea [e-mail]; Robinson,
Jaime/CLT; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Klaus,
See attached for comments from the Division of Water Resources on the proposed work plan. Let us know if you need
clarification on anything.
Thanks,
Jackie Roddy, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
NEW NUMBER Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Klaus.Albertin(.aCH2M.com[maiIto: Klaus.Albertin(&CH2M.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Roddy, Jackie; Fransen, Tom; Bill. [e-mail];
stephanie.sudano@ hollyspringsnc.us; kendra.parrish0hollyspringsnc.us; seann.byrdCa)Hollyspringsnc.us;
Jaime.Robinson@)CH2M.com; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Hi everyone,
It's been a few weeks since we met to discuss the options for the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Discharge location
and we've been working on our action items. I'm attaching our minutes from the meeting for your review. We have
been in contact with Duke Energy and the USGS and hope to have a response on those two action items soon. I've
attached a proposed workplan which we feel will evaluate the different environmental considerations related to the
potential discharge alternatives. Please let me know if you have any questions. We looking forward to discussing next
steps with you soon. With temperatures on the rise, we hope to plan our assessments in the near future so that we can
be in the field during the critical spring and summer months.
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building

Raleigh.. NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com

F I -
IV CVQ &3 Oq G
North Carolina
Pat McCrory
Governor
NOMA
A 4' A
NCDENR
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
May 14, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Klaus Albertin, CH2M HILL
CC: Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs
Kendra Parrish, Town of Holly Springs
Seann Byrd, Town of Holly Springs
FROM: Jackie Roddy, P.E., Division of Water Resources
SUBJECT: Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Location Alternatives
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
Thank you for providing the Division of Water Resources (DWR) an opportunity to comment on the Workplan to
Evaluate Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility Discharge Location Alternatives, dated April 15, 2014. DWR
believes Water Quality modelling to be the most crucial element to evaluate whether the discharge can be maintained at
its current location. While DWR is able to critique the habitat and functional assessments if supplied, DWR is uncertain
how this information will be used to provide tangible support for the current discharge location. The Water Quality
portion of the Workplan implies that information from the functional assessment is needed to proceed with the water
quality model. Modeling does not typically involve results from such an assessment, so DWR is unclear how CH2M Hill
intends to integrate that information into the modeling.
Expansion of the existing Qual2e model as proposed in the workplan will not address the concerns DWR has regarding
water quality conditions in Utley Creek. As described below, a more complex model is needed for this analysis.
DWR's decision to evaluate the request to keep the discharge in the current location is based on the assumption that there
has been a change in how the creek functions due to the breaching of the Thomas Millpond dam. However, there is
significant uncertainty due to the lack of regular monitoring or an existing flow gage. Given the past history associated
with Utley Creek, DWR needs to clearly understand how the creek is functioning now (with Thomas Millpond dam
breached, but with significant ponding remaining), especially with regards to nutrient response and dissolved oxygen
availability. Therefore, DWR recommends a nutrient response model be developed for Utley Creek (from the location of
the current discharge to Harris Lake) to predict dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll -a responses. Dissolve oxygen is the
water quality standard of primary concern.
This will require additional monitoring that should be performed during summer, low flow conditions. The Town should
develop a monitoring and modeling plan and submit to DWR for approval. The study could take place over a relatively
short period, 8-12 weeks if supported by weekly monitoring and appropriate weather conditions. In addition to the
standard physical (pH, DO, and temperature) and chemical (nutrients, TSS, chlorophyll -a, and BOD) parameters, the
monitoring should also include the following components:
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal opportunity%Affirrnative Acton Employer

CH2M HILL
May 14, 2014
Page 2 of 2
• A time of travel study during low flow conditions to reduce uncertainty in the modeling (especially given the
lack of a representative USGS flow gage) with regards to flow velocities and to show how the system is
behaving with the breach in the millpond.
• Bathymetric surveys that are detailed enough to support representation of the millpond in the model.
DWR has required similar approaches for discharges in areas that had the potential for localized impacts and lacked
ambient monitoring and USGS gage information.
While there are no objections to the non -modeling elements of the work plan, the Town of Holly Springs must be aware
that investment in these studies may be a risk if the Water Quality model does not ultimately support the current
discharge location.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail]. Thank you.

FP HoI�.S�rr�� N�W63ogL 4�20/y
MEETING SUMMARY CNYINHILL.
Discussion of Potential Evaluation of Alternative Discharge
Locations
ATTENDEES: Tom Fransen/DWR Kendra Parrish/Town of Holly
Pam Behm/DWR Springs
Jackie Roddy/DWR Seann Byrd/Town of Holly
Tom Belnick/DWR Springs
Stephanie Sudano/Town of Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
Holly Springs Jaime Robinson/CH2M HILL
Klaus Albertin/CH2M HILL
I
3elltl)j SeeKiss Co A J i
PREPARED BY. CH2M HILL
� X l�hG��1C arl a �t�! .� QXi� nH �OG4
DATE: March 27, 2014 ✓
PROJECT NUMBER: 489778 S OA. L* a pt av W e> p mi I owl ®wrm ke v"
PICA h;m . 7g 5/7/1Y
A meeting was held at the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) offices to discuss potential evaluation of
alternative discharge locations for the Town of Holly Springs Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The Town
would like to investigate the alternative option of keeping the discharge at its current location for all
discharge flow conditions in its NPDES permit. This option was not thoroughlyevaluated in the prior
Environmental Assessment (EA) because of Water Quality Program (WQP) concerns regarding water quality
in.Thomas Millpond and Greentree Reservoir.
The meeting was attended by staff from DWR, the Town of Holly Springs, and CH2M HILL. The main topics of
discussion were the following:
Current NPDES Permit Requirements
Brief history of the Holly Springs WRF NPDES Permit
Considerations for location of discharge
The meeting began with Bill Kreutzberger giving a presentation covering the topics above. The slides are
attached to these notes. Discussion on specific points occurred throughout the presentation and are
described below.
Bill Kreutzberger described the history of the Holly Springs WRF NPDES permit from the original permit for
the package plant in 1993 to the 2012 permit for the advanced nutrient removal configuration. The history
also included discussion of the proposed connection to the Western Wake WRF and the current permitted
discharge location below Greentree Reservoir.
The first issue discussed was the need for estimating flow in Utley Creek to ensure compliance with
regulation 15A NCAC 02B.0206. Bill provided a history of flow estimates for Utley Creek. Estimates from the
1980's were zero but were based on regression estimates from stations in the Triassic Basin. Flow estimates
were completed in 1993 following the release of the statewide low flow report (Giese and Mason, 1993).
These estimates correctly used data for the Raleigh belt, which includes Utley Creek. The estimates were
0.08 cubic feet/second (cfs) for 7Q10 and 0.23 cfs for 30Q2 (note: 7Q10 on Holly Springs WRF NPDES permit
is 0.11 cfs). Bill presented maps from the Giese and Mason report and MRCS to show why the 1993 estimates
were appropriate. Tom Belnick asked about the discussions that were held with USGS in 2010.i Klaus
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL. INC. •

DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
responded that those discussions had led to USGS concluding that since there wasn't actually gaging
information, the 1993 Giese and Mason study was valid. Tom indicated that all new permits or permit
renewals required updated flow estimates to include recent drought events. CH2M HILL will contact USGS to
request a revised flow estimate.
Discussion then focused on the desire of the Town to revisit the proposed discharge location. Bill noted that
the function of Thomas Mill Pond had likely changed over time especially as a result of the dam breach. This,
along with the current Duke Energy management of Greentree Reservoir in accordance with the NRC
management plans, makes re-evaluation of discharge location alternatives worth considering in light of the
potential environmental direct impacts and significant cost of the proposed pipeline.
Pam Behm discussed Thomas Millpond and historic water quality concerns as noted in the 2010 letter from
Matt Matthews/DWR. Bill acknowledged that DWR had concerns but noted that Thomas Mill Pond is less
than 10 acres and falls below the threshold for applying the chlorophyll a standard. He also suggested that a
more in depth evaluation of these concerns was warranted due to the change in Thomas Mill Pond
bathymetry and the potential for increased flow through to improve water quality.
Pam also had a question about Duke Energy's plans for Thomas Mill Pond. Bill stated that he had talked with
Louise England (Duke Energy) and she had said that Duke does not currently have management plans or
plans for utilizing Thomas Mill Pond for mitigation credits since plans for the nuclear plant expansion had
been shelved. Bill said Louise had also indicated that Duke Energy is managing Greentree Reservoir as
originally designed (as a water fowl impoundment flooded during the winter only). Tom Fransen indicated
that the letter to that effect would be beneficial. Bill responded that he would contact Duke Energy and felt
that an informal response might be obtained in the short term but that a formal letter could take a while
due to Duke Energy's bureaucracy. Tom also asked if any of the Duke Energy land along Utley Creek is
designated as Game Lands. None are present along Utley Creek.
Pam Behm asked what analyses were being considered. CH2M HILL responded that one objective for the
meeting was to get ideas from DWR on what would be required but that the preliminary ideas were a flow
frequency analysis, functional assessment of Thomas Mill Pond, biological survey of the pipeline corridor,
review of available water quality data, and extension of QUAL-2E water quality modeling. Pam Behm and
Tom Belnick said that they would need to discuss requirements internally before providing guidance. Bill
said that CH2M HILL would provide a workplan to DWR describing the proposed analyses and that DWR
could use it as a basis for discussion. Stephanie Sudano stated that the Town of Holy Springs was willing to
work with DWR on the identification of appropriate analyses. She reiterated that the Town recognizes that
these analyses may not necessarily provide sufficient justification for modifying existing speculative limits
but that as a public entity they were obligated to investigate options that would have significant financial
implications.
Bill described the Town's action items as being:
• Contact USGS for a revised flow estimate for Utley Creek
Contact Duke Energy to verify that they have no current plans for Thomas Mill Pond and ask for a
letter response
• Provide a workplan to DWR describing the Town's and CH2M HILL's initial ideas for assessing the
environmental benefits and impacts of the different alternatives.
The Town of Holly Springs and CH2M HILL thanked the DWR staff for their time and the meeting adjourned.
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. •

Wo well revit� 144/M �
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM C142MHILLe
Workplan to Evaluate Holly Springs Water Reclamation
Facility Discharge Location Alternatives
PREPARED FOR: NC Division of Water
Resources
COPY TO: Stephanie Sudano/Town of Seann Byrd/Town of Holly
Holly Springs Springs
Kendra Parrish/Town of Holly
Springs
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
CH2M HILL
April 15, 2014
489778
The Town of Holly Springs (Town) would like to investigate the alternative option of keeping its Utley Creek
discharge at its current location for all discharge flow conditions in its NPDES permit due to the potential
negative environmental impacts and high cost of a pipeline,. This option was not thoroughly evaluated in the
prior Environmental Assessment (EA) because of Water Quality Program (WQP) concerns regarding water
quality in Thomas Millpond and Greentree Reservoir.
Two alternatives have been proposed for the discharge; a discharge below Greentree Reservoir and
maintaining the current location. To evaluate these two options, a better understanding of hydrology,
impacted biology, ecological function of the system, and water quality is required. The tasks described
below highlight CH2M HILL's best estimation of the data and analyses needed to provide a defensible
evaluation of the direct environmental impacts associated with the potential discharge location alternatives.
Hydrology
A key component to the viability of maintaining the current discharge location is whether USGS estimates
show that Utley Creek meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 0213.0206. CH2M HILL will request a formal
estimate from USGS of 7-day,10-year minimum (7Q10) and 30-day, 2-year minimum (30Q2) flow, using a
dataset that includes recent drought periods. These minimum flow calculations and other hydrology data
are also important to the aquatic habitat assessment of Utley Creek and its impoundments.
Habitat Assessment M
CH2M HILL staff will perform a habitat assessment of Utley Creek using a modified version of the US EPA's
habitat assessment protocol originally developed in coordination with the then NC Division of Water Quality
for watershed assessment use in Mecklenburg and Wake Counties. This assessment will evaluate habitat in
Utley Creek from directly above the current discharge to the confluence of the creek with Harris Lake. The
results of the assessment will help form an understanding of the conditions that exist in Utley Creek and the
study area. This effort will not include formal surveying or habitat modeling but basic channel/riparian area
measurements and assessments at key locations to support analyses such as wetted -perimeter calculations
and habitat ratings.
Habitat assessment will also include the proposed pipeline route and any streams or wetlands that are
within the route. The approximate alignment of the discharge pipeline will be assessed in the field to ensure
that data collected for the previous EA is applicable for comparison of the impacts of the proposed
alternatives. Extensive field work was conducted in 2010 including use of the North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NC WAM), stream identification and forest mapping.

WORKPLAN TO EVALUATE HOLLY SPRING$ W/LATER RECIAMATiON FACWtt DISCHARGE LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Functional Assessment F
CH2M HILL will conduct field investigations to better understand the functional role of Thomas Millpond,
Greentree Reservoir, and the types of habitat found along the proposed pipeline route. A partial dam failure
at Thomas Millpond has altered hydrology patterns and retention time within the pond and siltation over
time has decreased the footprint of the pond. The functional assessment will determine identify whether or
what portions of Thomas Millpond are functioning as wetlands. This will help determine what needs to be
considered regarding support of its function, e.g. wetlands are not as sensitive to moderate nutrient loads as
lakes or ponds and rely on different hydrologic patterns. Wetland functions such as uptake of nutrients by
vegetation are different processes from how nutrients in ponds and lakes can drive excessive algal growth
and eutrophication. The assessment will include a survey of existing vegetation, use of NC WAM, and a basic
measurement of Thomas Millpond size and depth for use determining wetland portions and in assessment
of retention time during a range of hydrologic conditions. Based on discussions with Duke Energy, the
Greentree Reservoir is flooded only during the winter and will not likely be flooded during the time of
analysis suggested here. Detailed bathymetric surveys will not be performed.
Water Quality
As part of the 2010 speculative limits request, a QUAL2E model was developed for Utley Creek from
Greentree Reservoir to Harris Lake. This model will be modified to evaluate the entire segment from the
current discharge location to Harris Lake. Since QUAL2E does not model pond sections effectively, two
separate models will be developed. The first model will run from the current discharge location to Thomas
Millpond. The second QUAL2E model will run from the outlet of Thomas Millpond to Harris Lake. Thomas
Millpond will be the headwater input for the model and will include a reduction in nutrients from Thomas
Millpond due to plant uptake and settling based on past studies. Based on discussions with Duke Energy, the
Greentree Reservoir is flooded only during the winter. For this reason, the Greentree segment of the creek
will be considered as free flowing during the critical conditions represented in the model (summer, low -
flow). Once the function assessment has been performed in Thomas Millpond and we have a better
understanding of its function as a wetland or pond, an appropriate method to evaluate water quality
response will be selected in coordination with NC DWR.
Path Forward
These analyses will provide an assessment of factors which should be considered when weighing
environmental impacts of the proposed discharge alternatives in the EA Amendment. The Town and CH2M
HILL welcome the opportunity to discuss with DWR whether these analyses are considered sufficient or
what other types of assessments are required.

(Belnick, Tom
From:
Matthews, Matt
Sent:
Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:38 PM
To:
Roddy, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Behm, Pamela
Subject:
RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Attachments:
Matt Matthews2.vcf
Bill K. has confirmed that Holly Springs will be getting a written commitment from Duke as to what they'll be doing with
Greentree Reservoir in the future.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
Matt Matthews:
Department of E tvir4nmentand IMturat.R...
wafer -Quality Perm 'ing Section; Chief
(9191801-6384 Work.
Matt .matthewst� ncdenr gov
51 .N. SaEisbury;Siieet.
27604
http:jlportal ncdinr.orgY*Ob/wC0Wp:
From: Matthews, Matt
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:06 AM
To: Roddy, Jackie; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Behm, Pamela
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
I apologize for my tardiness on this.
I spoke with Bill Kreutzberger of CH2MHill this morning. They are working with Duke -Progress to get the commitment
we need to move forward.
Matt
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
Matt;:Matthews_
Department: of Environment and Natural.R...
WaterQuaky Permitting Section Chief
(919) 807=6384 Work.
!mattmatE1hewS6 0denr.gov
51 —N Salisbury Stieet
27604
iittp; /po.rEat:ncdenr:arg�'urebJ�wOWP
From: Roddy, Jackie
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:01 AM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Fransen, Tom; Behm, Pamela; Matthews, Matt
Subject: FW: Holly Springs EA Addendum

Did the conversation/e-mail discussing the necessity of a letter from Duke Energy happen?
Jackie Roddy, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
NEW NUMBER Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Klaus.Albertin@)CH2M.com[mai Ito: Klaus.AlbertinC)CH2M.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Roddy, Jackie; Fransen, Tom; Bill. [e-mail]
stephanie.sudano(&hollysprin-snc.us; kendra.parrishCa)hollyspringsnc.us; seann.byrdHollysprin-sq nc.us;
Jaime. [e-mail]; Reid, Dianne; Behm, Pamela
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Hi everyone,
It's been a few weeks since we met to discuss the options for the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Discharge location
and we've been working on our action items. I'm attaching our minutes from the meeting for your review. We have
been in contact with Duke Energy and the USGS and hope to have a response on those two action items soon. I've
attached a proposed workplan which we feel will evaluate the different environmental considerations related to the
potential discharge alternatives. Please let me know if you have any questions. We looking forward to discussing next
steps with you soon. With temperatures on the rise, we hope to plan our assessments in the near future so that we can
be in the field during the critical spring and summer months.
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com

Selnick, Tom
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:00 PM
To: Roddy, Jackie; Behm, Pamela; Belnick, Tom
Cc: [e-mail]; Jaime. [e-mail]
Subject: FW: Update on Holly Springs discharge
I should have copied you all on this e-mail I sent to Tom. Sorry for the oversight.
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com
From: Albertin, Klaus/RAL
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 201411:22 AM
To: Fransen, Tom
Cc: '[e-mail]'; Stecker, Kathy; 'matt. m atthews@ ncde n r.gov'; Stephanie Sudano; Kendra Parrish; 'Seann
Byrd'; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT
Subject: Update on Holly Springs discharge
Tom,
It's been a few weeks since we met to discuss the options for the Holly Springs Water Reclamation Discharge location
and I wanted to give you an update on our action items.
Bill Kreutzberger has been in touch with Duke Energy. Louise England confirmed that Duke -Energy has no
plans/intensions of repairing the dam on Thomas Millpond and that Greentree Reservoir is seasonally flooded during
late fall to winter (typically late October through February). She also confirmed that there is a stream restoration project
that has been identified for this segment that is tied to mitigation required for the Harris plant expansion. Since the
application to the NRC for expansion of the Harris facility has been suspended, this project is not being pursued — but it
is not inconsistent with leaving the discharge in its current location. We are working on getting all this in writing but
Louise had to run things by their staff first. This will likely be in a letter to the Town or CH2M HILL since a letter to DWR
would be more difficult for them.
We've contacted USGS regarding the flow estimate. As we knew, there is some uncertainty related to the flow estimates
since there isn't a gage on Utley Creek. Curtis Weaver at USGS reviewed the maps and data that are available to make an
estimate. He provided a preliminary estimate showing positive 30Q2 and 7Q10 and noted the uncertainty of the
estimate due to the proximity to the Triassic Basin. We've requested an official estimate from him and expect the results
within the next two weeks.
We sent the meeting minutes and workplan to DWR on April 21st. Do you or your staff have any issues or concerns with
the workplan? We would like to begin the additional studies soon so that we can perform our field visits during the

important spring and summer period. If you have any questions, we can set up a conference call or meeting in the next
few weeks to discuss. Y
Thanks for your time,
Klaus
Klaus Albertin
Senior Technologist
CH2M HILL Water Business Group
3120 Highwoods Boulevard
Suite 214 - Magnolia Building
Raleigh, NC 27604
Direct 919.760.1748
Fax [phone]
www.ch2mhill.com

A eeW4 o ( rVo /z //) Jlei
Y
iyi
'j A U Ovi C4
1. Submit documentation from Duke Energy that the Thomas Millpond downstream reservoir will
remain unimpounded into the future. We will also need documentation regarding operation
and maintenance of the Greentree Reservoir. We understand that Duke Energy owns and
operates these assets and they must agree to this condition.
2. If documentation from Duke Energy is submitted confirming Thomas Millpond will remain
unimpounded, then the Town will need to obtain updated flow statistics from USGS for Utley
Creek.
3. If updated flow statistics support the continuing discharge, the Town should develop a
monitoring and modeling plan and submit it to DWR for approval to ensure the resulting model
will be appropriate to use for decision making.
4. The Town will need to perform water quality monitoring during summer, low flow conditions
from the current discharge to below the Greentree Reservoir, to support updated water quality
modeling.
S. The Town will need to use the monitoring to develop a water quality model that will be able to
represent Utley Creek as it is currently functioning (with Thomas Millpond breached, but with
significant ponding remaining) and can predict dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll -a responses.
The Town will need to show that water quality standards will be maintained throughout Utley
Creek with the expanded discharge at the current location.
se
wn

Belnick, Tom
From:
Stecker, Kathy
Sent:
Monday, March 31, 20141:36 PM
To:
Brady, Harold M.; Behm, Pamela; Fransen, Tom; Belnick, Tom; Roddy, Jackie; Matthews,
Matt
Cc:
Poupart, Jeff
Subject:
RE: Holly Springs outfall wrap-up
�v
needs for utley
creek relook.d...
Matt, see if this is sufficient. Thanks, Pam!
Kathy Stecker
NCDWR
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
919-807-6422
NOTICE: Emails sent to and from this account are subject to Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
-----Original Appointment -----
From: Brady, Harold M.
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:00 PM
To: Brady, Harold M.; Behm, Pamela; Fransen, Tom; Belnick, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Roddy, Jackie
Subject: Holly Springs outfall wrap-up
When: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:30 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 11th Floor South meeting room
After speaking with Pam yesterday we felt it best to have a short meeting to discuss what specifically the Town of Holly
Springs would be expected to provide DWR regarding their request to avoid moving the existing wastewater discharge
outfall per the conditions of the NPDES permit. I apologize for missing the meeting earlier this week, but it sounds like it
was a fruitful discussion.

�10�1�1a�� 2y2o�L ��I
Holly Springs EA Amendment Meeting
Utley Creek WRF Discharge Location
Archdale Building Conference Room 1109 (north end
March 24, 2014 a@ 2:00 PM
1. Introductions
2. Purpose of the meeting
3. Current NPDES Permit Requirements
4. Brief history of the NPDES Permit
5. Key issues for consideration
Meeting Agenda
T1v6elsvlq(
3/7.;0IY
AlY,
SP,
111" floor).
M 63'zq b
o ypll
%1
voi L(� xPa�s�an�
Cire 7/.TJ U Ib
• Low flow estimates
• Retain Discharge location
— Assimilative capacity of Utley Creek including nutrient reductions to Harris Lake
— Ecological functions of Thomas Millpond and Greentree Reservoir
— Water quality responses in Thomas Millpond and Greentree Reservoir
— Habitat responses to future flows h C IP
• Relocate Discharge _ .4o b-e 4w&Y'e,,Pl krt ���r�ie"r 0 3
— Wetland and other direct impacts along pipeline route
— Flow loss along Utley Creek and to ponds ,
— Habitat responses to future flows I,f CW s soh
— Increased nutrient loading to Harris Lake , ,%
6. Discussion and Next Steps
M,/1 OJV4
6-feet4ke-e le-Av
Wh,kc�Ka»1
Op 116yo tt
) VleolOW low*
3�W A � eVadwgrho4l
OtP(1 A Ae &&--\ v
4) 01,04 JO
6 Al,,4 3 .3
AAL 3
M, 0 V., IT
Ilf.oX b,#.e /�ll�

'Belnick, Tom
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:53 AM
To: Brady, Harold M.; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
Jaime. [e-mail]; Belnick, Tom; Fransen, Tom; Stecker, Kathy; Behm, Pamela;
Roddy, Jackie
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Attachments: HS EA Amendment DENR Meeting Agenda_03-24-2014.docx
Hi everyone — Attached is an agenda for Monday's meeting. If you want to see anything else, please let me know. We
will have some slides to guide our discussion.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I Vice Presidentl CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office I US Mobile [phone] lOffice (704) 543-32691 Email -
bill.kreutzberger@)ch2m.com
-----Original Appointment -----
From: Brady, Harold M.[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 201410:29 AM
To: Brady, Harold M.; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT; [e-mail]; Albertin, Klaus/RAL;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Robinson, Jaime/CLT; Belnick, Tom; Fransen, Tom;
Stecker, Kathy; Behm, Pamela; Roddy, Jackie
Subject: Holly Springs EA Addendum
When: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:00 PM-4:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Archdale 1109 North Conference Room
Meeting with the Town of Holly Springs regarding a proposed addendum to their WWTP EA document (FONSI 2011).
The meeting will be held on Monday, 24, 2014 from 2:00 to 4:00 in the 111h Floor conference room (north end of the
building) of the Archdale Building (downtown Raleigh).

✓Belnick, Tom
Subject: Holly Springs EA Addendum
Location: Archdale 1109 North Conference Room
Start: Mon 3/24/2014 2:00 PM
End: Mon 3/24/2014 4:00 PM
Show Time As: Tentative
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Not yet responded
Organizer: Brady, Harold M.
Required Attendees: bill. [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Jaime. [e-mail]; Belnick, Tom; Fransen, Tom;
Stecker, Kathy ([e-mail]); Behm, Pamela; Roddy, Jackie
Meeting with the Town of Holly Springs regarding a proposed addendum to their WWTP EA document (FONSI 2011).
The meeting will be held on Monday, 24, 2014 from 2:00 to 4:00 in the 11th Floor conference room (north end of the
building) of the Archdale Building (downtown Raleigh).

Belnick. Tom
qD
Eli 77 h4l mcerryi fyY-S11
From: Brady, Harold M.
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 2:18 PM
To: Belnick, Tom
Subject: FW: Holly Springs EA Nc"630%
Tom, r
/3s �C4 y/s/w O.
elylle 7/31/Za1 b
o ���, cod Aa^
U44-9 Owl-
Holly Springs has recently contacted the DWR Water Planning Section about having a meeting regarding their.AafLEA
document for the proposed wastewater ro'ect. Please let me know who would be best to represent the
-NTUES program at this meeting.
Thank you, �t � �ri Z.Yq � 6/16NO
f
cr
1
Harold M. Brady
River Basin Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
phone:[phone] fax:[phone]
email: Karol d. m. bradynao,ncdenr. gov
www. ncwater. ors
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Fransen, Tom
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Brady, Harold M.
Cc: Roddy, Jackie; Bill Kreutzberger
Subject: Holly Springs EA
d-A g1281Zo1'
Harold, //0
I had call from Bill Kreutzberger (CH2M Hill)&thee ready to meet with us again about the Holly Spring's
EA. They would like to meet either Wednesdahursday 3/27, or Friday 3/28. Can you please coordinate
setting up this meeting. We are probably going to need you and/or Jackie, a WQ modeler, and someone from
permitting.
Thanks
Tom
Tom Fransen, Water Planning Section Chief
Division of Water Resources, NC DENR
1611 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
Main - [phone]
Direct - [phone]
Mobile - [phone]
Fax - [phone]

Email - [e-mail]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

S /-7/40),y
Permit
Facility I
Activity
Assigned
Received
Description
Completed
NCO063096
Holly Springs WWTP
EA review
Rodriguez
5/28/2001
interim expansion plans
7/13/2001
NCO063096
Holly Springs WWTP
EA Scoping
Rodriguez
2/15/2002
scoping for outfall line
3/12/2002
NCO063096
Town of Holly Springs - Utley Creek
Major Mod
Rodriguez
10/9/2002
request for expansion to 2.4 MGD
1/31/2003
NCO063096
Town of Holly Springs
Major Mod
Jackson
10/24/2002
add weekly amonia limits
2/21/2003
NCO063096
Town of Holly Springs
EAA review
Rodriguez
9/29/2006
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
10/13/2006
NCO063096
Holly Springs WWTP
Spec Limit
Vinzani
12/22/2009
Request for Spec Limits
2/23/2010
NCO063096
Holly Springs WWTP
Spec Limits
Belnick
6/21/2011
Spec to discharge 6 and 8 MGD to Utley Creek
below Greentree Reservoir
6/24/2011
NCO063096
Holly Springs WWTP
EA
Vinzani
8/22/2011
Request for EA
9/20/2011
NCO063096
Holly Springs WWTP
Major Mod
Vinzani
11/21/2011
Relocate outfall to a downstream location on
Utley Creek; expand flow from 2.4 MGD to 8
MGD
4/5/2012

n ,
DRAFT Holly Springs Timeline
September 4, 1997
Tedder to Holly Springs:
"Careful consideration has also been given to the potential relocation of the
discharge to the mouth of White Oak Creek. This option does not provide any
significant advantages over the existing discharge location in Utley Creek."
"A relocated discharge to the main body of the lake... may be a viable long term
solution..."
"One long term option, preferred by DWQ, that should be given careful
consideration is the potential elimination of the discharge altogether and
cooperation in a regional wastewater management system."
July 2000
Cape Fear basin plan: "DWQ recommends Holly Springs explore other means of
sewage disposal..."
March 26, 2004Letter
from Alan Klimek to Mayor Sears: "...need to eliminate the discharge to
Utley Creek completely and find a different solution to the town's wastewater
treatment needs. The continued discharge to Utley Creek — any discharge — is not
a long term solution." (the sentence was underlined in the letter)
April 26, 2005
Letter from Alan Klimek to Mayor Sears acknowledges and endorses Holly Springs'
plan to join "Western Wake group."
October 2005
Cape Fear basin plan: "DWQ continues to recommend that Holly Springs find
another wastewater disposal alternative."
February 6, 2007
Letter from Holly Springs town manager to Coleen: "...confirmation from the
Town of Holly Springs that we will relocate the treated effluent discharge from
the Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Cape Fear River (via the
Western Wake Regional Project)..."
February 16, 2007
FNSI for expansion of Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant "for use when the
WWWRF eventually accepts its treated effluent."
July 31, 2007
A to C: "...the treated effluent must be removed from Utley Creek..."
December 21, 2009
Holly Springs requests spec limits for discharge to White Oak arm of Harris Lake.
February 23, 2010
Spec limits issued by DWQ for Holly Springs discharge into White Oak arm of
Harris Lake.
July 2010
Western Wake ROD.
September 2%
Letter from Holly Springs mayor to Cary mayor: Holly Springs withdrawing from
2010
Western Wake partnership.
October 22, 2010
Letter from Matt Matthews to Stephanie Sudano:
"...continued discharge to Utley Creek is not an option."
October 25, 2010
Memo from Hannah Stallings to Melba McGee: SEPA document is for a different
discharge location than spec limits were given for. Also refers to October 22
letter.
October 28, 2010
Holly Springs requests spec limits for Utley Creek discharge immediately below
Thomas Mill Pond.
January 2011
DWQ agrees to consider information about a new discharge location in Utley
Creek (below Thomas Mill Pond), according to an email from Matt.
March 8, 2011
Email correspondence between Bill Kreutzberger and Tom Belnick. Utley Creek
7Q10 below Thomas Mill Pond estimated to be 0.02 cfs.
TB: 7Q10 <0.05 considered to be zero. "If both 7Q10/30Q2 are zero, no
expansion (additional) discharge of oxygen consuming waste is allowed, per 15A
NCAC 2B.0206."
Current: Permit expires in July 2011. NPDES staff working on renewal.

DRAFT Holly Springs Timeline
September 4,1997
Tedder to Holly Springs:
"Careful consideration has also been given to the potential relocation of the
discharge to the mouth of White Oak Creek. This option does not provide any
significant advantages over the existing discharge location in Utley Creek."
"A relocated discharge to the main body of the lake... may be a viable long term
solution..."
"One long term option, preferred by DWQ that should be given careful
consideration is the potential elimination of the discharge altogether and
cooperation in a regional wastewater management system."
July 2000
Cape Fear basin plan: "DWQ recommends Holly Springs explore other means of
sewage disposal..."
March 26, 2004
Letter from Alan Klimek to Mayor Sears: "...need to eliminate the discharge to
Utley Creek completely and find a different solution to the town's wastewater
treatment needs. The continued discharge to Utley Creek — any discharge — is not
a long term solution." (the sentence was underlined in the letter)
April 26, 2005
Letter from Alan Klimek to Mayor Sears acknowledges and endorses Holly Springs'
plan to join "Western Wake group."
October 2005
Cape Fear basin plan: "DWQ continues to recommend that Holly Springs find
another wastewater disposal alternative."
February 6, 2007
Letter from Holly Springs town manager to Coleen: "...confirmation from the
Town of Holly Springs that we will relocate the treated effluent discharge from
the Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Cape Fear River (via the
Western Wake Regional Project)..."
February 16, 2007
FNSI for expansion of Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant "for use when the
WWWRF eventually accepts its treated effluent."
July 31, 2007
A to C: "...the treated effluent must be removed from Utley Creek..."
December 21, 2009
Holly Springs requests spec limits for discharge to White Oak arm of Harris Lake.
February 23, 2010
Spec limits issued by DWQ for Holly Springs discharge into White Oak arm of
Harris Lake.
July 2010
Western Wake ROD.
September 23,
Letter from Holly Springs mayor to Cary mayor: Holly Springs withdrawing from
2010
Western Wake partnership.
October 22, 2010
Letter from Matt Matthews to Stephanie Sudano:
"...continued discharge to Utley Creek is not an option."
October 25, 2010
Memo from Hannah Stallings to Melba McGee: SEPA document is for a different
discharge location than spec limits were given for. Also refers to October 22
letter.
October 28, 2010
Holly Springs requests spec limits for Utley Creek discharge immediately below
Thomas Mill Pond.
January 2011
DWQ agrees to consider information about a new discharge location in Utley
Creek (below Thomas Mill Pond), according to an email from Matt.
March 8, 2011
Email correspondence between Bill Kreutzberger and Tom Belnick. Utley Creek
7Q10 below Thomas Mill Pond estimated to be 0.02 cfs.
TB: 7Q10 <0.05 considered to be zero. "If both 7Q10/30Q2 are zero, no
expansion (additional) discharge of oxygen consuming waste is allowed, per 15A
NCAC 2B.0206."
Current: Permit expires in July 2011. NPDES staff working on renewal.