NC0063096_Environmental Assessment_19960209

NPDES DOCV BENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0063096
Holy Springs WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Meeting Notes
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
`'
Document Date:
February 9, 1996
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
ca intent on the reYerse side

/t/Cc0 3o9�
Town of Holly Springs
Februaiy 9, 1996
Mr. David A. Goodrich, Water Quality Chief
State of North Carolina DEHNR-DEM
P O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-05 3 5
Re. Proposed Utley Creek WWTP Expansion
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Mayor
Gerald W. Holleman
Commissioners
Parrish Womble
Ken Martin
George Kimble
Bob Kapel
Edison Perkins
Please find the following information in application for a 4.38 mgd wastewater treatment
plant expansion for the Town of Holly Springs:
Throe copies of an NPI)ES application;
* Three copies of an Environmental Assessment, including required
Engineering Alteratives Analysis: and
A $400.00 permit application processing fee.
Thc aappiiCation and suppo titig ir.Formation has been prepared in accordance with !guidance \k hic-n
was pio ided by you and your staff F.ubsequent to our initial application in late 1994. The Town
of Holly Springs retained the services of The Wooten Company in order to supply The requested
Envirnomental Assessment.
Holly Springs has experienced very rapid growth over the past four years and is currently
in a critical position, needing to expand wastewater treatment facilities as quickly as pnsibie.
appreciate your assistance obtaining a p. mit for us as quickly as possible.
128 South Main Street • Post Office Box 8 • Holly Springs, NC 27540 • 919/552-6221

Should you or your staff require any additional information in order to process our
application, please contact Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E., Town Engineer at 919-557-3935.
Sincere
Gerald W. Holleman, Mayor
GWH/dh
cc: Ford Chambliss, The Wooten Company
Stephanie L. Sudano, Town Engineer
Steve Tedder, NCDEHNR-DEM

?57
4 641(oz1prehoezi( AllergiteciAlt
Altit-1 MC/
•I r t
ViArk.ro.b.4
cfrA ,
• 1,R
1-t iliy, te,KM eTir, frt./ fferric47'11,7 •
i /) amder 717`,,Xi
4/11,--10friirlir 71)4vOrtIllext1 ,
fran:tioff AAA teeki
7'frW$ ient e
• r
1.
g-co(viric
• -
a' di... WV •
r-,
t
cot/
44
Xe7 e 7{), 4A.1
410 A -a
/te --A
, ,,//eczt?rn
"
'71 '
,v('r1.0
4) riki
,01
r(fitidi--
I vii, el
J

)
it,c10 , Jc(it._ • ( LA r„ 14_
ck.
tiot#1 U-11cy 0. 3
tjiti
%S (tie
ki)
Liej aktot. avte0+ /le : crt cc4---i rye% c.•
CuriNwitt 0-co et- ; VI • 1 C' »t l'›_ty v. et eadi),-0
vA-h'm ivitA4rN'4 1
YhtneL k ./w (
145p;/516e144 (4 444,
".-6 -om 1/7‘774
LA 5ED 25( C700 u (+. kV". 1.-2(eGyt f'vl,
,") 1, I/01 f(*( e^ g- A f 6/ /c.%,
Itsifligr A (A4itv0(7 (A. /0
14 11-6(16 'Me piPt6t,e-6otolnks vf fi,cuj ?
ify:54-e-14.41 •

441. 5c�c,�u ri o,
t'' p !( vvecrtZ you yrel i / y l6
fr
(e,t)
Noe.kfri)
V,Dype. ( 11 2 s s U
74 rf
it`1'1cv«l J 2i
st(\e. '''�,2 f r� wa:f*C r,b -61 t
11910
0(. ,)14, in
'k , [4\ b 'i 4 f I rlr-19- // *,r2 b
cam)
#63,-/A-
q API -r. frs
r
A.t /44kotfk PvA4'4. 7?1°'
C
M -,r /4 £- /tfff) CUi 4-e."1-$ (. i' A41 7
ly f�
5 -to fir ' (17 A`( ., ate,.4;"-vi4( e - 5 i'169pt Sri/ mi /r/;74/- rinify? / C�' 7 9r)
/Vew k/ 07- (12) �- a 7,
�,gz '&so 7
Oul�ill yr,�..
cni r040
r
L.7tiM(9
ree
ft "%-- Ql ;r,t��;�tr t hor

Town OF HOLLY SPRINGS
NORTH CAROLINA
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
LONG RANGE WASTEWATER FACILITIES
PLANNED INCLUDING INTERCEPTOR
OUTFACE AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
JANUARY, 1996
+ttwit'Hui'',
11,
Q 4,.: ,
• SEA
r •• •
G1 9792 •
'
"''; 'et HO
•
c1t
t+ I// f /
EVERETFE L. CHAMBLISS, P.E.
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
Engineering • Architecture • Planning
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Crt
rn
en

Table of Contents
°*"1 1.0 Summary Of Project 1
1.1 Project Overview 1
1.2 Need for Project 1
1.3 Expected Time Frame for Project 1
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 2
2.0 Description Of Present Environment 4
2.1 General Overview 4
2.2 Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction 4
2.3 Land Use 4
2.4 Topography 5
2.5 Climate 5
2.6 Geology, Soils & Agricultural Resources 7
2.6.1 Geology 7
2.6.2 Soils 7
2.6.3 Agricultural Resources 9
2.7 Cultural Resources 10
2.8 Energy Supply 10
2.9 Air Quality 10
2.10 Hydrology 11
2.10.1 Groundwater Resources 11
2.10.2 Surface Water Resources 12
2.10.3 Existing Water Quality 12
Neuse River Subbasin 030403 12
Cape Fear River Subbasin 030607 14
2.11 Vegetation and Wildlife 15
2.12 Conclusion 17
3.0 Alternative Analysis 18
3.1 Overview 18
3.2 Population Projections and Wastewater Flow Projections 18
3.3 Wastewater Treatment And Outfall System Expansion Scenarios ▪ • 22
3.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives 23
3.5 Wastewater Outfall System Alternatives 25
3.6 Construction Timing 26
3.7 Cost -Effective Analysis 28
3.8 Land Application 28
3.9 Golf Course Irrigation 29
3.10 Other Beneficial Reuse 30
3.11 Interceptor System Construction 30
3.12 Alternative Interceptor Consideration 37
4.0 Environmental Consequences 41
4.1 Overview 41
4.2 Changes in Land Use 41
4.2.1 Wetlands 41
4.2.2 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 41
4.2.3 Public Lands 42
4.2.4 Scenic and Recreational Areas 42
4.2.5 Areas of Archaeological and Historic Value 42
4.3 Air Quality and Noise Levels 42
4.4 Water Quality 42

4.4.1 Groundwater Quality 42
4.4.2 Surface Water Quality 43
4.4.3 Drinking Water Supplies 43
4.5 Wildlife Resources 44
4.6 Introduction of Toxic Substances 44
4.7 Summary 44
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures 45
5.1 Overview 45
5.2 Mitigation of Primary Impacts 45
5.2.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Sewerline Construction 45
5.2.2 Construction Inconveniences and Annoyance 45
5.2.3 Wastewater Disposal 45
5.2.4 Sewerline Construction 46
Middle Creek Basin 47
Basal Creek Basin 47
Norris Branch Basin 47
Utley Creek Basin 48
Little Branch Basin 48
5.3 Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 48
5.3.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Development 48
5.3.2 Water and Air Quality 48
5.4 Summary 48
References 50
ii

1.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT
1.1 Project Overview
Growth, changing regulatory requirements, and the general aging of the Town of Holly
Springs' existing wastewater collection and treatment systems will all influence the actions the
Town will need to take in the coming years. It will be necessary for the Town to address
wastewater collection issues, wastewater treatment needs, and changing regulatory requirements.
Growth and regulatory requirements are expected to exert the greatest influence on wastewater
treatment needs. Growth alone will require that the Town take an active role in constructing a
network of interceptor and outfall sewers to which the collection sewers being built as part of new
developments can be connected. The Town may be successful in arranging to have much of the
interceptor and outfall network constructed by private developers. The Town will need to take a
more direct role in arranging and financing facilities needed for wastewater treatment.
1.2 Need for Project
The need for these wastewater system improvement is summarized in the following
conclusions that have been reached with regards to the Town of Holly Springs sewer system.
A. The Town is the fastest growing community in the area and this growth trend is
expected to continue for several years.
B. Current wastewater infrastructure is not adequate for dealing with the growth.
D.
Additional wastewater treatment plant capacity will be necessary within the next 5-8
years, possibly sooner with the addition of any wet industry.
E. A master plan for the wastewater interceptor and outfall system is necessary so that
sewer infrastructure built as part of individual developments will be compatible with
and an integral part of a system that best suits the needs of the Town as a whole.
1.3 Expected Time Frame for Project
The implementation of a long-range wastewater plan is expected to be not a single project,
but rather a series of publicly and privately funded projects. Interceptor and outfall system
improvements are expected to be built as a series of sub -projects tied to the time at which individual
land areas are developed. Wastewater treatment improvements are expected to be implemented in
fewer projects of greater scope. The most cost effective wastewater treatment plan is for the Town
to continue to operate its wastewater treatment plant discharging into Utley Creek. Sometime
around the Year 2007 it will be necessary to replace the existing plant with a 1.3 mgd tertiary
wastewater treatment system capable of nutrient removal. Prior to that time it would be advisable to
1

construct a pump station and force main to transport wastewater originating in the Middle Creek
watershed portion of the Town to the South Cary Wastewater Treatment Plant, subject to the Town
of Holly Springs being able to reach an agreement on reasonable terms with the Town of Cary.
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
A. The Town should arrange for construction of a network interceptor sewers as
described in Section 3.11 of this document. Timing of construction of individual
system components can be made dependent on the timing of development of the areas
served by those components. Where actual design and construction is undertaken by
private developers, the Town should ensure through its development review and
approval process that line sizes, capacities, and locations are consistent with those
system described in Section 3.11.
B . When constructed, the outfall and interceptor system alignments should be developed
consistent with the recommendations given in Section 5.2.4 so that adverse
environmental impacts resulting from construction can be minimized.
C. Alternative interceptor/outfall line arrangements are possible in the Bass Lake and
Sunset Lake area. These alternatives are described and compared in Section 3.12.
There is no compelling environmental reason to select either one of the two available
alternatives over the other. It is suggested that when the time approaches for
completing the sewer outfall work in this area that the Town conduct one or more
public meetings for the purposes of explaining to the public the trade-offs involved
when selecting one alternate over the other, and for the purpose of soliciting the views
of the public on their preferences with regards to the available alternatives.
D. The Town should pursue making provisions to meet its project 20-year wastewater
flow needs of 2.4 MGD. The provisions that would be most cost-effective would
include making arrangements with the Town of Cary by which the Town of Cary
would agree to accept and treat up to 1.1 MGD of wastewater from the Town of
Holley Springs, with the objective of having the required connection in place by 1998.
Wastewater from the Middle Creek drainage portion of the Town of Holley Springs
would be treated by the Town of Cary, while the Town of Holley Springs would
continue to treat and discharge into Utley Creek all other wastewater. The facilities on
Utley Creek would need to be expanded to 1.3 MGD. Timing of this expansion would
be dependent on growth but it is expected that this expansion will need to begin no
later than the year 2007. The facilities required to implement this recommendation are

those described as Alternative T-3 (treatment components) and 0-3 (outfall system
components) in Section 3.6.
E. Negotiations with the Town of Cary may not be successful, or may require a
protracted time period to complete. The Town of Holley Springs is presently issuing
new residential building permits at a rate of 50 per month. This growth rate if it
continues can be expected to increase the Town's wastewater flow by or as much as
162,000 gallons per day per year. At this rate, the Town's 0.500 MGD plant could be
fully utilized in little more than 2 years. Industrial growth would result in the plant
capacity being consumed even more quickly. Accordingly, it is recommended that the
Town, concurrent with entering into negotiations with the Town of Cary, pursue
alternative arrangements as described in Alternative T-6 in Section 3.4. This
arrangement would consist of applying for an increased discharge permit capacity into
Utley Creek. It is recommended that the Town request a permit for the full
development, ultimate expected flow from the Town (4.88 MGD) and but plan to
expand its facilities, by the addition of a second package treatment unit, by only 0.500
MGD immediately. Should any problems develop in the negotiation with the Town of
Cary, or any delays be experienced with the preferred alternative, including delays the
Town of Cary may experience in its planned wastewater treatment expansion, or
should negotiations with the Town of Cary be unsuccessful, this will position the
Town to proceed with construction of an additional 0.500 MGD of treatment capacity
in time to prevent any moratorium on new connections being required as a result of
limited wastewater treatment plant capacity. Securing a permitted discharge capacity of
4.88 MGD will give the Town assurance of a means for dealing with its projected, full
development wastewater flows. The existence of such a permit will also provide some
measure of protection against undue pressure being applied to the Town in any
negotiations with other governmental entities for joint treatment arrangements.
3

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT
2.1 General Overview
The environment in and around the Town of Holly Springs is characteristic of many areas in
the Piedmont Region of North Carolina. There are two lakes and many creeks and water courses in
the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). There are some wooded areas remaining, but much of the
land has been developed for residential and commercial use. This section of the report identifies the
environmental conditions and resources of the area as they currently exist. Environmental aspects
discussed in this section include Geography, Geology, Soils, Air Quality, Hydrology, Wetlands,
and Endangered and Threatened Species.
2.2 Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction
Located in southwest Wake County, the Town of Holly Springs is bordered on the north by
the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) area of Apex, on the south by the Fuquay-Varina ETJ, and
on the west by lands owned by Carolina Power and Light (CP&L). There is a large acreage east of
the Town ETJ that is not presently within any municipal planning jurisdiction. The land is expected
to eventually be divided between the ETJ's of Holly Springs and the Town of Cary.
The political entity of Holly Springs is organized as a governmental unit under the authority of
its charter from the State of North Carolina. The Town of Holly Springs is governed by the
"mayor -commissioners" type of government; the Mayor and five Commissioners are elected for
two-year terms. As a local government in North Carolina it is empowered to perform acts such as
levy taxes, borrow money, and pass and enforce local ordinances. Among the powers authorized
to the local government is the ability to provide wastewater collection and treatment systems for the
residents both within and adjacent to its corporate boundaries and to levy user fees and taxes
necessary to support these systems. The Town of Holly Springs has the necessary legal, financial,
institutional, and managerial resources to construct, operate, and maintain a wastewater collection
and treatment system.
2.3 Land Use
The area east of the Holly Springs eastern most ETJ line is expected to eventually fall into the
paramunicipal jurisdiction of either Holly Springs or the Town of Cary. The Town is experiencing
rapid residential growth, with the largest concentration being on the eastern side of Town, most
notably the Sunset Ridge subdivision near Sunset Lake with approximately 615 lots.
Areas north and west of Town are considered suitable for predominantly commercial and
industrial development, with some residential development. The proposed Wake County Outer
Loop will lie approximately three miles north of Town and will likely spur more commercial
4

development in this area. West of Town, the potential growth area extends up to the property
owned and controlled by Carolina Power and Light Company which operates the Shearon Harris
Nuclear Plant on this property. The land between CP&L property and the Town is a logical and
practical area for expansion, especially for industrial customers.
South of Town, where the Holly Springs and Fuquay-Vagina ETJ's often share a common
boundary line, is an expanding area of single family residences. Collinswood subdivision with 194
lots is the most substantial development planned for this area at present.
2.4 Topography
The Holly Springs ETJ lies entirely in Wake County, which is located in the east -central part
of the State of North Carolina. The topography of the area in the east section of the ETJ is
characterized by steep slopes, especially along water courses. Travelling to the east the slopes
become more gradual, but the land may still be considered hilly, with some small areas of level
ground. Generally, elevations range from 200 to 550 feet above mean sea level. Figure 1 is a
topographic map of the ETJ.
2.5 Climate
The Holly Springs area enjoys a temperate climate with cold, but not severe, winters and
moderately warm summers. The mean annual temperature and rainfall are approximately 700 F and
47 inches, respectively. The rainfall is typically adequate with respect to agriculture, but is not
always well distributed throughout the various growing seasons. Precipitation during an individual
storm may also vary quite a bit. Generally, the heaviest rainfalls occur during the summer months.
Snowfall is very light and of short duration, posing very few problems. Seasonal temperature and
rainfall data obtained from weather stations in Wake County are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Weather Data
Month
Average Daily Maximum Average Daily Minimum Average Total
Precipitation (inches)
Temperature (°F) Temperature (°F)
January 51 33 3.3
February 53 34 3.5
March 61 41 3.7
April 71 49 3.8
May 79 58 3.8
June 86 66 3.9
July 88 69 5.9
August 87 68 5.4
September 82 63 4.6
October 72 52 2.8
November 61 42 3.0
December 52 34 3.2
Annual 70 51 46.9
Data taken from the USGS Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
5

Ed
o
�- -� t✓ /1 1 11 Y
� r
JS\
(6‘-'
ETJ
J
11 ._ `- '
1 — a,i ..., � .,
-fir 5- •``a -__.. r.,
To Apexr
440•
•'1
J5�
1/II 1 \1 • \5
FIGURE 1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Scale: 1 in.=2000 ft.
')ik To Fuquay-Varina 3
att
v
-sty° . 1,
•

2.6 Geology, Soils & Agricultural Resources
2.6.1 Geology
The Holly Springs area is located in a transitional zone between the Piedmont Physiographic
Province and the Coastal Plains region of the State. The western region of the area lies in the
Durham -Sanford Triassic Basin, with its characteristic U-shaped valleys and wide flood plains.
The Raleigh Belt topographic region is located to the north east of Town, and the Sandhills is the
prevalent physiographic province to the southeast. Each of these definitive topographic regions
comprise about one third of Holly Springs and its Extra Territorial Jurisdiction.
According to the Wake County Soil Survey (USDA), there is no existing danger from natural
landslides due to the relatively moderate topographic conditions. The nature of the surficial sands
and clays often requires that excavations have slopes of less than 6 percent (without erosion
control) to prevent slides due to manmade conditions.
2.6.2 Soils
Soils have been an important factor in determining the extent of past development and will
influence the future growth. Figure 2 shows a general soil map of the Holly Springs Extra
Territorial Jurisdiction and Table 2 gives an interpretation of the general soil map. A brief
description of the soil associations in the Holly Springs area and their limitations for different types
of use, as interpreted from the USDA's Soil Survey of Wake County, are given below.
Creedmoor-White Store: This association consists of moderately well drained soils that have a
very firm clayey subsoil derived from sandstone, shale and mudstone. The association is made up
of 50 percent Creedmoor Soils, 30 percent White Store Soils, and 20 percent minor soils. The
Creedmoor Soils are well suited for use in general agricultural, woodlands and pasture, rated
severe when used in conjunction with sewage systems, septic tank filter fields, and light industrial
development, and rated moderate to severe for recreational development. White Store Soils are
well suited for use in general agriculture, woodlands and pasture, rated severe for sewage systems,
septic tank filter fields and light industrial development and moderate to severe for recreational
development. A small section of Creedmoor-White Store soils may be found in the south western
most corner of the ETJ. Because of the limitations of these types of soils with respect to septic tank
absorption fields, this area cannot be developed to any degree without central sewer lines.
Mayodan-Granville-Creedmoor. This association consists of well drained and moderately well
drained soils that have subsoils ranging from friable sandy clay loam to very firm clay that is
derived from sandstone, shale and mudstone. The association is made up of 55 percent Mayodan
Soils, 15 percent Granville Soils, 15 percent Creedmoor Soils and 15 percent minor soils. The
Mayodan Soils are well suited for use in general agriculture, woodlands and pasture, rated
moderate to severe for sewage system usage and for use as septic tank filter fields, slight to severe
for recreational development and slight to moderate for light industrial development. The
Creedmoor Soils are as described above. There is a large grouping of Mayodan-
Granville-Creedmoor soils in the north west corridor of the ETJ.
7

Table 2
Soil Associations
Map Number
Soil Type
1 Creedmoor-White Store; Gently sloping to hilly
2 Mayodan-Granville-Creedmoor; Gently sloping
to moderately steep
3 Herndon-Georgeville; Gently sloping to
moderately steep
5 Cecil-Appling; Gently sloping to steep
8 Appling; Gently sloping to moderately steep
9 Wagram-Norfolk: Nearly level to sloping
Information taken from USGS Soil Survey of Wake County (Issued
November 1970).
ri
. . , / - i _.
Jl
(
-T.� I 1
\cs\-9 )
kit << -
I elp
I.
/ •
1- / 'rnNhr �.� / 111..4•
rt��
C \ j
r•
New 1t1II
111illrtnnn
c.v.' 'Cr('
.1
Line `
• i, I r
•
Z3/41k I
,c`Aavillr
Six -
Forks
��• 64
iCa G
J.rtke .l..l1n+t.nr
111nrrrlr.nln
8
�- J.nL•r tl'b re tI
")
emit
-crk
(
•••r�` Kitttphpr
( ". l
F1( I IIIE 2
GENERAL SOILS NMI'
Scale: 1 in. = 21120 ft.
rr.
• � 1
▪ 7)0
1)Purnrll i
6 f�
t•� _ '•.\fit J:rkc
1trrl Fmot
y'' W1111nntrt
0
avr.tnrla _-•r::-
•
1
v.
k�

Herndon-Georgeville: This association consists of well drained soils that possess a friable silty
clay loam to clay subsoils that are derived from phyllite. The association is made up of 45 percent
Herndon Soils, 40 percent Georgeville Soils and 15 percent minor soils. The Herndon Soils are
well suited for general agriculture, woodlands and pasture, rated moderate to severe for septic tank
filter fields and sewage system usage, slight to severe for recreational development and slight to
moderate for industrial development. The Georgeville Soils are well suited for general agriculture,
woodlands and pasture, rated moderate for sewage system usage and septic tank filter fields, slight
to moderate for recreational development and slight for light industrial development. A grouping of
Herndon-Georgeville soils is found in the north central corridor of the ETJ.
Cecil-Appling: This association consists of well drained soils that possess a firm clay loam to
clay subsoil derived from granite, gneiss and schist. The association is made up of 35 percent Cecil
Soils, 30 percent Appling Soils and 35 percent minor soils. The Cecil Soils are well suited for
general agriculture, woodlands and pasture, rated moderate to severe for septic tank filter fields,
sewage systems and recreational development and rated slight to moderate for industrial
development. The Appling Soils are well suited for use in general agriculture, woodlands and
pasture, rated moderate for sewage systems and septic tank filter fields and slight to moderate for
recreational and industrial developments. Cecil and Appling soils make up the majority of the
eastern half of the ETJ. Soils in these areas have been able to support moderate density
development without the use of septic tanks. Where more dense development is desired, use of
centralized wastewater facilities is still required.
Appling: This association consists of well drained soils that have a firm clay loam to clay
subsoil derived from granite, gneiss and schist. The association is made up of 70 percent Appling
Soils and 30 percent of remaining soils. The Appling Soils are well suited for use in general
agriculture, woodlands and pasture, rated moderate for sewage systems and septic tank filter fields
and slight to moderate for recreational and industrial developments. Appling soils are abundant in
the eastern section of the ETJ. The land in this area is steeply sloped, making land application
difficult and impractical.
Wagram-Norfolk: This association consists of somewhat excessively drained and well -drained
soils that posses a friable sandy loam to sandy clay loam subsoil derived from Coastal Plain
sediments. The association is made up of 30 percent Wagram Soils, 25 percent Norfolk soils, and
45 percent minor soils. The Wagram Soils are suited for general agriculture, woodlands and
pasture, rated slight for sewage systems, septic tank filter fields and industrial development and
slight to moderate for recreational development. The Norfolk Soils are suited for general
agriculture, woodlands and pasture, rated slight for sewage systems, septic tank filter fields and
industrial development and slight to moderate for recreational development. There are a few small
patches of Norfolk soils within the Holly Springs area. The areas have all been either developed or
subdivided for development. The use of septic tanks on these soils is technically possible.
However, these soils are found in a area where development more dense than that sustainable with
on -site systems is desired. Wagram soils were not found within the ETJ.
2.6.3 Agricultural Resources
Development pressure has resulted in the loss of much land formerly used for agricultural
purposes. Much of the better land, because it was suitable for use with on -site systems, was the
first developed in the Holly Springs area. Development is expected to continue to put pressure on
the remaining agricultural land. Property values are expected to continue to increase as a result of
this development pressure, making it progressively more difficult to justify continuing agricultural
land uses.
9

2.7 Cultural Resources
Historic and archaeological interests are the sites of past events and structures that are of
significance in attracting people wanting to learn and observe their background and heritage. It is
necessary for an Environmental Assessment to note any areas of significance that may lie in the
path of a project so that the project may be structured to avoid these areas as much as possible.
According to Mr. David Brook at the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, there are
no properties of architectural, historic or archaeological significance recognized by the State in the
proposed project area. No local areas of cultural interest are expected to be adversely impacted by
the proposed wastewater facilities.
2.8 Energy Supply
Carolina Power & Light Company supplies electricity to the Holly Springs Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction, and Public Service of North Carolina supplies natural gas to the ETJ. The energy
resources available are adequate to meet the present and future energy needs of the area.
2.9 Air Quality
The State of North Carolina is divided into eight Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) for the
purpose of monitoring the State's compliance with the established State regulations and the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS for Particulate Matter (diameter
greater than 10 gm), Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone as adopted by the State and Federal Agencies are
listed as follows:
Table 3 National & State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Type of
Average
Standard Level Concentrations
Primary
Secondaryb
NC Regs.
PM10
24-Hour
AAM1
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
SO2
3-Hour2
24-Hour2
AAMI
N/A
365 µg/m3
80 µg/m3
1300 µg/m3
N/A
N/A
1300 µg/m3
365 µg/m3
80 µg/m3
03
Max. Daily
1-Hour Avg.
0.12 ppm
235 µg/m3
0.12 ppm
235 µg/m3
0.12 ppm
235 µg/m3
1 Annual Arithmetic Mean
2 Not to be exceeded more than once per year a Primary Standards are set to protect the public health.
b Secondary Standards are set such that they protect the public well-being (ie
to prevent damage to crops, ecosystems, materials, etc.).
Because there are no monitoring stations in the immediate area of the Town of Holly Springs,
the data from monitoring locations in the surrounding area must be used to evaluate the air quality
in the Holly Springs area. The recorded ambient air quality data for the years 1992 and 1994 at the
Air Quality Monitoring Surveillance Stations in the region are summarized as follows:
10

Table 4 Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant
Location
Year
Max 24-Hour
Max 3-Hour
Max 1-Hour
AAM
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
SO2
Chatham Co.
Moncure Plant
1992
64 µg/m3
48 µg/m3
131
µg/m3
130
µg/m3
293
µg/m3
272
µg/m3
9
µg/m3
Valid Daily 1-Hour Maximum
Values
Measured
> 0.125
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
03
Chatham Co.
Moncure Plant
1992
0.085
ppm
0.082
ppm
0.080
ppm
0.075 ppm
0
Wake Co. 201 N
Broad
1994
0.117
ppm
0.111
ppm
0.106
ppm
0.101 ppm
0
Maximum Values
AAM
1st i
2nd
3rd
4th
PM10
Chatham Co. Rt. 4
Box 62 Pittsboro
1994
45 µg/m3
34 µg/m3
34 µg/m3
33 µg/m3
21 µg/m3
Wake Co. Fire Sta.
#9 Six Forks Rd.
1994
48 µg/m3
38 µg/m3
37 µg/m3
36 µg/m3
22 µg/m3
It should be noted that the data for Ozone was collected during the annual ozone season of
April 1 to October 31. A review of the existing ambient air quality data in the area indicates that the
annual mean concentrations of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and ozone, as well as the smaller
time unit maximums, have not exceeded the established National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and are therefore in compliance with the State and Federal regulations.
2.10 Hydrology
2.10.1 Groundwater Resources
The Town of Holly Springs currently obtains a portion of its water supply from 2 active
wells. The first well (Well #4) is 260 feet deep and produces 40 gallons of water per minute. The
second well (Well #5) is 405 feet deep and produces 125 gallons of water per minute. The first five
months of 1994 saw an actual average water production of 3,635,060 gallons per month, requiring
the wells be pumped on average more than the desirable average of 12 hours per day. This
production rate is for January through May. Water usage rate typically increases with temperature.
The overall yield from both wells is not always sufficient to meet the demands of the Town, and
water must be purchased from the Towns of Fuquay-Varina and Apex. Expected future growth in
the region will increase the demand on the water supply, resulting in the need for further
supplementation from surrounding towns or the development of other options. A new well (Well
#6) is under construction in the Sunset Ridge area, and is expected to produce a maximum of 90
11

gallons per minute. This should help reduce the need to purchase water from outside sources.
Groundwater resources alone are not expected to be adequate to meet the long term growth needs
of the Town.
2.10.2 Surface Water Resources
The waters in the Holly Springs ETJ drain to both the Neuse and Cape Fear Rivers. About 60
percent of the ETJ lies in the Neuse River Basin to the east; the remaining 40 percent lies in the
Cape Fear River Basin to the west. The Middle Creek watershed is the major Neuse River sub -
basin within the ETJ, while the Cape Fear River Basin portion of the Town consists of the
Buckhorn Creek, Utley Creek and Norris Branch watersheds. The major surface waters in the ETJ
are summarized as follows (Mangles):
Table 5 Surface Waters
Stream Segment
River
Basin
Hydrologic Data
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi.)
Average
Discharge
(cfs)
7/10 Low
Flow (cfs)
Middle Creek at Cary WWTP
point of Discharge
Neese
32
85
0.3
Headwaters of Utley Creek at
Holly Springs
Cape
Fear
0.73
0.82
0.11
2.10.3 Existing Water Quality
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Management -Water Quality Section
(NC-DEM) has published Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans for both the Neuse and
Cape Fear Rivers. Each river basin is divided into numerous subbasins so that evaluation of
current surface water quality, trends, goals and mitigation plans may be localized in an attempt to
pinpoint major causes of water quality degradation. The Holly Springs area is in both the Neuse
River Subbasin 030403 and the Cape Fear River Subbasin 030607. These subbasins are described
as follows:
Neuse River Subbasin 030403
This subbasin covers parts of Wake and Johnston Counties and contains Middle Creek and its
tributaries. There are 18 permitted dischargers in this subbasin with a total permitted discharge
capacity of 16.8691 MGD. The two largest discharges are the Apex WWTP (permitted flow = 3.6
MGD) and Cary South WWTP (permitted flow = 6.4 MGD), having a total design flow of 10.0
MGD (59.3% of the current total design discharge in the entire subbasin). Both of these
wastewater treatment plants discharge directly into Middle Creek.
The NC-DEM has established an ambient monitoring system to collect data in stream segments.
12

The water quality assessment evaluates the following parameters: dissolved oxygen (DO), DO
percent saturation (April through October), conductivity, total phosphorous, total nitrogen,
chlorophyll a (April through October), turbidity and salinity,(Neuse River Plan, 4-13),pH, and
temperature. The three monitored freshwater segments in the Middle Creek Subbasin have been
classified and evaluated as follows:
Table 6 Stream Monitoring Data
Station Location
Classifica-
tion
Chemical
Rating
Biological
Rating
Problem
Parameters
Use Support
Rating
Source of
Pollution
Middle Creek at SR
1374, Wake Co.
C NSW
Good Fair
ST
NP,P
Middle Creek near
Clayton, Hwy 50
Johnston Co.
C NSW
S
Good -Fair
Sed
ST
P
Middle Creek at SR
1504 Johnston Co.
C NSW
G/Ex (Fish)
S
The classification of C NSW indicates that the best usage for which these waters must be
protected includes fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, agriculture, and other uses
requiring waters of lower quality. These waters are nutrient sensitive and require limitations on
nutrient input (nitrogen and phosphorus). The only segment that was monitored for chemicals was
at the Ambient Monitoring Station near Clayton. A chemical rating of S indicates that the stream
segment is supporting the vegetation and wildlife living in the stream at the current (1991 data)
chemical composition. The Biological Ratings are based on benthic macroinvertebrate sampling,
which monitors the number, type, and diversity of organisms that may be sensitive to pollutants,
phytoplankton sampling, which may be used as an indicator of eutrophication that may be a result
of excess nutrient loading, aquatic toxicity monitoring, and fish tissue analysis, which may serve
as an early warning indicator of contaminated sediments and surface waters. These analyses are
rated individually and then combined for an overall rating of Poor to Excellent. The only segment
that was monitored for problem parameters was again the Ambient Monitoring Station near
Clayton. There is a problem with sedimentation in this segment.
The Use Support Rating is an evaluation of how well the stream segment is fulfilling its
designated use. A rating of ST means that the segment is support -threatened while a rating of S
means that the stream is supporting its designated use. The two locations that are closest to the ETJ
show a rating of ST. This indicates that these segments are currently supporting the vegetation and
13

wildlife living in them, but an increase in pollution or nutrient loading may decrease the ability of
the stream to support life. The source of pollution to a body of water may be either point or
nonpoint. Point source pollution is that pollution which is directly discharged into a body of water
such as wastewater from a treatment plant. Nonpoint source pollution is that which indirectly
enters a body of water, such as runoff from agriculture and urbanization. The Clean Water Act of
1990 requires dischargers to obtain permits before they are allowed to discharge, in an attempt to
monitor and maintain water quality. According to the NC-DEM (Neuse River Plan, 6-15), the
assimilative capacity of Middle Creek is depleted. Planned mitigation in the Creek will include
removal of several small package treatment plants, removal of discharges into Middle Creek
"except for the Cary and Fuquay-Varina plants, which will be required to meet advanced tertiary
treatment requirements." Due to the current status of the waters in the Middle Creek watershed and
subbasin, the Neuse River Water Quality Plan calls for no new permits to be issued for discharge
into Middle Creek, except for the case in which an existing permit has decreased discharge
limitations upon renewal.
Cape Fear River Subbasin 030607
This subbasin is in the Upper Cape Fear River watershed in the segment from the confluence
of the Haw and Deep Rivers to Lock and Dam #3. The streams of concern in or near the ETJ are
Utley Creek, Little Branch and Norris Branch. Holly Springs wastewater treatment plant
discharges into Utley Creek, in which occasional DO levels as low as 4.8 mg/1 have been noted
below the plant's point of discharge. This information was obtained from facility self -monitoring
data because there are no ambient monitoring stations in the area. The other two streams have not
been evaluated by the NC-DEM, however, Buckhorn Creek (near Corinth), into which Utley
Creek, Little Branch and Norris Branch flow prior to entering the Cape Fear River itself, has been
classified and evaluated as follows:
Classification: C
Chemical Rating: S
Problem Parameter. Sedimentation
Overall Use Support: S
Explanations for these ratings are the same as have been described above.
Prior to expansion of the Holly Springs wastewater treatment plant discharging into Utley
Creek, the Cape Fear River Water Quality Plan calls for a survey of the water quality below the
point of discharge, due to high instream waste concentrations.
14

2.11 Vegetation and Wildlife
A Jurisdictional Wetlands and Protected Species Survey was conducted by Robert J.
Goldstein & Associates, Inc (RJG&A) (included as Appendix 1), as a part of this study. There are
many areas in the Holly Springs ETJ that have disjunct populations of plants that are typical of
both mountain and coastal plain habitats as well as a diverse community of species typical of the
Piedmont area. This region may generally be described as a broad floodplain containing high
quality mesic hardwood forests of sweetgum, loblolly pine, oaks, beech and tulip poplar trees,
with seeps and floodplain pools creating a mosaic of jurisdictional wetland and non wetland areas.
Wetlands in the ETJ consist of wooded swamps which cover the low-lying areas bordering the
streams and water courses. They serve as a refuge area for a variety of wildlife and are excellent
areas for growing certain types of timber.
Table 7 Protected Animals and Habitat Availability in Wake Co.
Scientific Name Common Name
State Federal
Protec- Protec-
tion tion
Status Status
Habitat Requirements
Habitat
Avail-
ability
in ETJ
VERTEBRATES
Aimoplula asstivalis
Ambystoma tigrinum
Coragyps atratus
Haliasstus lsucocephalus
Hsmidactylium scutatum
Lampetra aspyptsra
Laaiur ludovicianus
Myotis austroriparius
Myotis septsntrionalis
Necturus lewisii
Noturus fusiosur
Picoides borealis
Vermivora bachmanni
INVERTEBRATES
Alasmidoxta heterodox
Alasmidoxta undulata
Elliptio laxcsolata
Elliptio roaxoksxsis
Fusconaia mason
Lampsilis radiata
Lasmigora subviridis
Spsysria diana
Strophitus uxdulatus
PLANTS
Isostes pisdmontana
Bachman'a sparrow
Tiger salamander
Black vulture
Bald Eagle
Four -toed salamander
Least brook lamprey
Loggerhead shrike
Southeastern bat
Kecn's (n. long-eared) bat
Ncusc River waterdog
Carolina madtom
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Badunan's warbler
Dwarf wedge mussel
Triangle floater
Yellow lance
Roanoke slabahcll
Atlantic pigtoe
Eastern lamprs reset
Caro= floater
Diana &itillary
Squawfoot mussel
Piedmont quillwort
SC C2
T -
SC
E E
sc -
SC
SC C2
SC C2
SC
SC
SC -
E E
E E
E E
T
E C2
T -
T C2
SC
E C2
- C2
T
open, mature pint forest
undy forests near vernal pools
hollow trees or rock crevices
mature trees along rivers & lakes
pondcd seeps with mossy logs
streams
open grassland, fames
hollow trees or buildings, near rivers
hollow trees or caves, extensive forests
streams
streams
open, extensive, mature pine forests
bottomland forests with vine thickets
streams
streams
streams
streams
streams
IMAMS
streams
mesic and floodplain forests
strums
T - pools on granite flatrock
•
15

Common Name
Scientific Name
State Federal Habitat
Protec- Protec- Avail -
Habitat Requirements
tion ties ability
Status Status in ETJ
Momwtropsis odorata Sweet pincsap - C2
Portulaca small Small's portulaca E
Rims michauxii Michaux's sumac E E
Rusllia humnilis Low wild -petunia T
Trilliums pis:iliumss Carolina least trillium E C2
upland hardwood/pine forests
sandy/rocky woodland edges
dry. open. basic woods
calcareous seeps, streambanks
E. Endangered; T-Threstased;SC-Special Coaccrn cb1 Categeny 2 Candidate
+-Suitable habitat present, species not found in or near ETJ
++:.Suitable habitat present, species occurs in or near E17
--Suitable habitat not present
RJG&A, Inc. has surveyed the biological environment along the routes of potential interceptor
and outfall lines in the Holly Springs area. The Survey has shown that a portion of Middle Creek
supports the federally endangered dwarf wedge mussel as well as four mussel populations
protected by the state (triangle floater, yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe, and squawfoot). Two state
protected fish populations (Carolina madtom and least brook lamprey) and a state protected
salamander, the Neuse River waterdog, have also been known to live in Middle Creek. The
floodplain pools of Middle Creek are also the breeding ground for the state threatened tiger
salamander. The adult tiger salamanders are thought to live in the upland forests of the area. The
Holly Springs area has also been known to support Didiplis diandra, Nestronia umbellula,
Cypripedium calceolus, and Hexastylis lewisii . These four plant species are considered rare, but
are unprotected by both the state and federal governments. Table 7 provides a detailed list of
candidates and species that may be found in Wake County and are found on either (or both) the
state or federal register of protected species. The table also shows habitat requirements and
availability in the County for each species. More detailed information may be found in Appendix 1.
RJG&A, Inc. identified nine registered species as being found in or near the Holly Springs
area. Of these species, only one is considered Federally Endangered - the Dwarf Wedge mussel.
There were two other species found that are listed on the Federal Register as Category 2
Candidates. These are the yellow lance and the Atlantic pigtoe. The yellow lance is considered
Endangered by the State, while the Atlantic pigtoe, as well as the tiger salamander, triangle floater,
and the squawfoot mussel are listed as Threatened by the State. The least brook lamprey, the
16

Neuse River waterdog, and the Carolina madtom are under Special Concern in the State, but are
not listed on the Federal Register of Endangered Species.
2.12 Conclusion
The Town of Holly Springs, in the Central Piedmont Region of North Carolina, is a growing
area for commercial, industrial and residential development. The use of land for agriculture is
becoming impractical as land values increase. There are few areas left undeveloped within the ETJ
with adequate soils for use with on -site treatment systems, and a central wastewater collection
system will be needed to serve nearly all of the area. Air quality conditions are well within the
Federally established standards, however water quality in some waters in the area is threatened.
The Town of Holly Springs does not currently have a sufficient supply of water to support the
projected population, and any growth in the Town will further tax the supply. This situation is
remedied with the purchase of water from neighboring Towns, and the development of an
additional well. The analysis of vegetation and wildlife in the area did reveal the presence of a
federally endangered species, the dwarf wedge mussel. This species was found in Middle Creek,
causing concern for the future possibility of discharging treated wastewater effluent into this
Creek. Eight additional species of concern were also found within the ETJ.
17

3.O ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
3.1 Overview
Alternative means for meeting the long term wastewater treatment needs of the Town of Holly
Springs have been formulated and evaluated. This required identifying expected wastewater flows
throughout the planning area, estimating the projected rate of wastewater flow increases over time,
and devising alternative means by which the Town could have adequate wastewater treatment
capacity available throughout the planning period. The wastewater collection and transportation
systems will also have to be expanded to accommodate Town growth. Wastewater interceptors and
outfall routes are largely dictated by topography. However, construction of these facilities can also
have an impact on the environment and, where appropriate, alternative outfall line routes have been
developed.
3.2 Population Projections and Wastewater Flow Projections
Identifying the existing and future service area population is a key factor in projecting
wastewater flows. The Town's historical population trends provide only limited information in this
regard. The Town's population remained relatively stable in the 1960's, 1970's and much of the
1980's. However, beginning in the late 1980's the Town's population began to expand
rapidly,and its population as estimated by the North Carolina Department of Administration in
1992 (1,382) was 52% greater than the 1990 population (908). The 1990 population was in turn
32% greater than the 1980 population (688). Growth from 1980 to 1990 proceeded at a
compounded annual average rate of 3 percent (roughly 1/2 percentage point lower than Wake
County as a whole), while between 1990 and 1992 growth occurred at an annual rate of 23
percent. This rate, if continued, would result in the Town having a population in excess of 90,000
within the next twenty years. However, the Town has a finite geographic area in which it can
expand, and this area is simply too small to support such a large population. At any rate, a
sustained annual growth rate of 23% per year would be unprecedented in Wake County.
The amount of area available for Holly Springs development is finite, and at full development
Holly Springs and its current ETJ would be expected to have a population of approximately 25,000
people. Reaching this population within a 20-year planning period would require a sustained
average annual growth rate of 16%. If the Town were to sustain the 23% annual growth it
experienced between 1990 and 1992 it would reach full development in 13 years (the year 2008). It
appears more likely that the Town, while continuing to grow rapidly, will not reach full
development in even 20 years. Perhaps the best model by which to predict long-term Holly
Springs growth is the experience of the Town of Cary.
18

•
PROPER OF
1S
SR 1101
Soorthyt RR_
N
zjk _ \ k.71
f Its!=�r
t_i
STUDY AREA
(TOWN ETJ)
iw)
C
NORTH
FIGURE 3
DRAINA(TE AREA SUB -BASINS
Legend
rrrr..rrri Sub -Basin Boundary
Drainage Flow Path
Prepared B.
The
Wooten
Company
Enaineertna
Planning
Architecture
Kalden. N.C.
1 ireensnile. 's ('

The Town of Cary grew at an average annual rate of 7% during the 1980's, and during the
1970's grew at an even higher 9% per annum. Even allowing for a full percentage point more in
growth for Holly Springs than the highest rate experienced in Cary, (i.e. 10%/year versus
9%/year), the Town of Holly Springs would not reach but 50% of its full development population
by the year 2015. It would therefore be conservative for long range planning purposes to assume
population in the year 2015 of 12,500, and a full development population of 25,000.
Design wastewater flow projections account for three types of usage: (1) domestic, (2)
commercial, industrial, and institutional, and; (3) infiltration and inflow. Wastewater flow
projections are used in planning both collection line improvements and in planning for wastewater
treatment facilities. Treatment facilities are typically designed based on 10 to 20 year planning
periods, while collection facilities are usually designed for much longer periods (30 to 40 years).
Treatment systems are typically designed based on average daily flows. Collection systems must
be designed based on peak instantaneous flows.
The projected average daily wastewater flows for the Town in the year 2015 (50%
development) and at full development are projected as follows:
Year 2015 Full Development
Domestic Use* 0.875 MGD 1.750 MGD
Commercial/Institutional** 1.340 MGD 2.680 MGD
Infiltration/Inflow*** 0.135 MGD 0.400 MGD
Wake County Landfill**** 0.050 MGD 0.050 MGD
Total 2.400 MGD 4.880 MGD
Based on average wastewater generation of 70 gals per capita per day, year 2015
population of 12,500, full development population of 25,000.
Based on 2000 gallons per acre of development. 670 acres developed in the year 2015,
1,340 acres developed at full development.
Projected based on 10 gallons per capita per day for the year 2015, and 15 gallons per
capita per day at full development when the average sewer line age will be much greater
and leaks more prevalent.
The Town of Holly Springs is committed to accepting up to 50,000 gallons per day of
leachate from a Wake County landfill.
Peak flows at full development will be used to size gravity collection lines and interceptors.
Figure 3 shows the Town of Holly Springs divided into drainage areas that would be tributary to
particular existing and planned sewer lines. Table 8 shows the expected land uses and peak flows
from each of these areas at full development. These flows should be used in planning wastewater
collection lines, including interceptor and outfall lines.
20

Table 8
DRAINAGE BASIN LAND USE AND PROJECTED FLOWS
(see Figure 3)
Drainage Area of # People Average
Sub -Basin Zoning Type Sub -Basin per Flow Peak Flow
# (Acres) Sub -Basin (gpd) (gpd)
1.1 Commercial/Industrial 70 N/A 140,000 350,000
Residential A41. 2.500 183,101 457.753
Total 711 2,500 323,101 807,753
1.2 Commercial/lndustrial 442 N/A 884,000 2,210,000
Residential 1n fig2 45.125 j12.813
Total 575 602 929,125 2,322,813
1.3 Commercial/Industrial 85 N/A 170,000 425,000
Residential 2$2 1.858 139.336 348.340
Total 367 1,858 309,336 773,340
2.1 Commercial/Industrial 300 N/A 600,000 1,500,000
Residential 4.41 1.759 131.974 329.935
Total 741 1,759 731,974 1,829,935
2.2 Commercial/Industrial 75 N/A 150,000 375,000
Residential 222 .QQ 60.021 150.053
Total 282 800 210,021 525,053
3.1 Commercial/Industrial 212 N/A 424,000 1,060,000
Residential I.94 2.158 161.822 404.555
Total 1,006 2,158 585,822 1,464,555
3.2 Commercial/Industrial 12 N/A 1,944 4,860
Residential 2..l. 2.275 170.667 426.668
Total 963 2,275 172,611 431,528
3.3 Commercial/lndustrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential ft.6.1 3.214 241.088 602.720
Total 665 3,214 241,088 602,720
3.4 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential$Q $a 63.018 157.545
Total 389 840 63,018 157,545
3.5 Commercial/Industrial 62 N/A 124,000 310,000
Residential 43.1 Eli 70.146 175.365
Total 495 935 194,146 485,365
4.1 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential 552o 2.280 170.975 427.438
Total 520 2,280 170,975 427,438
4.2 Commercial/Industrial 46 N/A 92,000 230,000
21

Residential ft7i 2.602 195.178 487.945
Total 721 2,602 287,178 717,945
4.3 Commercial/Industrial 39 N/A 78,000 195,000
Residential b.2.1 2.126 159.505 398.763
Total 660 2,126 237,505 593,763
4.4 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential 316 211 53.784 134.460
Total 326 717 53,784 134,460
4.6 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential $4 Ilk 10.206 25.515
Total 84 136 10,206 25,515
4.7 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential 112 L91.14.459 36.148
Total 119 193 14,459 36,148
4.8 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential 191 3.12 23.936 59.840
Total 197 319 23,936 59,840
Total Commercial/
Industrial 1,343 N/A 2,663,944 6,659,860
Total Residential 7.478 25.314 1.894.341 4.735.853
Grand Total 8,821 25,314 4,558,285 11,395,713
Landfill Allowance 50.000
TOTAL 8,821 25,314 4,608,285 11,395,713
3.3 Wastewater Treatment And Outfall System Expansion Scenarios
In order to determine the probable least life cycle cost wastewater treatment solution, a number
of alternatives were evaluated. Water Quality Basin Plans for Neuse River Basin developed by the
State of North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NC-DEM) calls for no new
discharges into Middle Creek. Informal contacts with NC-DEM staff indicated that this portion of
the plan would likely be enforced as long as reasonable alternatives to creating a new discharge into
Middle Creek existed. Discharge to a regional system (assuming arrangements for such a discharge
could be made at an affordable cost), increasing the permitted capacity of the existing plant
discharging into Utley Creek, and, if economical, land application of wastewater would all be
considered by the NC-DEM as reasonable alternatives. Given these constraints, three different
treatment scenarios exist:
Case I: The Town of Holly Springs relies on a single wastewater treatment plant
to meet all its projected 20-year needs. Wastewater treatment having a
capacity of 2.4 MGD per day is provided.
22

Case II: The Town of Holly Springs relies on its existing wastewater treatment
plant to continue to provide 0.500 MGD of capacity. Additional
wastewater treatment capacity of 1.9 MGD is provided by alternative
means.
Case III: The Town of Holly Springs makes arrangements for treatment from
wastewater originating in the portion of Town within the Cape Fear River
watershed separate from the arrangements made for treatment of the
portion of Town within the Neuse River portion of Town. This would
result in the provision of 1.1 MGD of wastewater treatment plant capacity
for the Neuse River watershed portion of the Town and the provision of
1.3 MGD of wastewater treatment plant capacity in the Cape Fear
watershed portion of the Town.
Alternative treatment system configurations also require alternative outfall line and interceptor
configurations. Transporting all of the wastewater to a single point within the Town would be
required within the Town with any alternative formulated to satisfy Case I. Case II would require
that only 1.9 MGD transport capacity be required, while Case III would require that a transport
system capable of handling at least an average data flow of 1.1 mgd be provided on the Neuse
River watershed portion of the Town, and that a transport system capable of handling at least 1.3
mgd be added for that part of the Town within the Cape Fear River watershed.
A substantial amount of the wastewater originating within the Town must be pumped to a
treatment site under any possible scenario. The growth rate within the Town is such that the design
flow for any pump station and force main system will be much greater than actual flows expected
upon construction completion. In order to avoid excessive retention time within the force main and
disproportionately high peak flow to average daily flow ratios during the earlier portions of the
design period, it is necessary to provide for phased force main construction. Smaller diameter force
mains and lower capacity wastewater pumps would be installed initially. After sufficient growth
occurred, second, larger diameter force mains would be installed parallel to the first force mains.
Larger capacity pumps would be brought into service, and the smaller diameter force mains would
be temporarily removed from service. As growth within the service area continued to increase, the
smaller diameter force mains would be brought back into service on a permanent basis.
3.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives
Five different alternative long-range wastewater treatment systems were developed for dealing
with the Case I, Case II, and Case III scenarios. These alternatives are described as follows:
Alternative T-1: The Town would construct a 2.4 MGD treatment plant on Utley Creek. This
plant would be capable of serving the projected 20-year needs for the entire Town, including that
part of the Town within the Neuse River (Middle Creek) watershed.The treatment plant would be
23

designed for biological nutrient removal and would be capable of meeting effluent BOD5 and
ammonia limits of 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively.
Alternative T-2: Under this alternative the Town would abandon its existing plant, and convey
all of its wastewater to the Town of Cary wastewater treatment plant on Middle Creek.
Arrangements would be made to purchase the rights to 2.4 MGD capacity within that plant.
Alternative ?-3 : Under this alternative the Town of Holly Springs would make arrangements
with the Town of Cary to treat the projected 1.1 MGD 20-year wastewater flows from the portion
of the Town within the Neuse River watershed, while constructing a 1.3 MGD treatment plant
discharging into Utley Creek to meet the projected 20-year needs for wastewater treatment of that
portion of the Town within the Cape Fear River watershed. The 1.3 MGD plant would be capable
of biological nutrient removal and of meeting effluent BOD5 and ammonia limits of 5 mg/L and 2
mg/L, respectively.
Alternative T-4: Alternative 4 would be identical to Alternative 3 except that rather than
constructing a 1.3 mgd treatment plant on Utley Creek, the existing 0.5 MGD package plant would
remain in service as a complete treatment system, and would be supplemented by purchase of an
additional 0.8 MGD package plant to be installed adjacent to the 0.5 MGD plant. At the time the
0.8 MGD plant was added, provision would be made for chemical removal of phosphorus.
Alternative T-5: Alternative 5 would include keeping the existing 0.5 MGD package plant in
service indefinitely, while arranging for the remaining 1.9 MGD of the Town's projected 20-year
needs to be met by treatment of the Town of Cary's Middle Creek Treatment Plant.
Alternative T-6: Alternative T-6 has been developed to position the Town to deal with a
possible scenario not directly addressed by other alternatives. The scenario Alternative T-6 is
designed to address encompasses two (2) potential developments: (1) Town's growth continues to
accelerate, forcing the provision of additional wastewater treatment capacity sometime in 1997 or
1998, and; (2) negotiation with the Town of Cary for treatment of all or a portion of Holley
Springs wastewater is either unsuccessful or so protracted that on interim solution must be
implemented to avoid a moratorium on new sewer connections. Alternative T-6 would involve the
Town installing a second 0.5 MGD package plant similar to the one it recently installed as an
interim measure. No provision for nutrient removal would be made at this time. Should
negotiations ultimately be successful with the Town of Cary for treating the Middle Creek portion
of the Town's wastewater flows, then the 1.0 MGD in treatment capacity would ultimately be
expanded by an additional 0.5 MGD, late in the 20-year planning period, allowing the Utley Creek
facility to extend its life beyond the 2015 planning period. Should negotiations with the Town of
Cary not ultimately prove successful, the two package plants would eventually be replaced with a
24

new wastewater treatment system. This construction would most likely be required around the year
2007 or 2008. It would involve construction of a plant capable of biological nutrient removal and
of releasing an effluent with BOD and ammonia levels of 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L respectively. For
purposes of this analysis it is assumed the replacement plant would be built to serve the full
development needs of the Town, which are projected to be 4.88 MGD. Alternative T-6 then has a
single, initial treatment plant cost component, but has two different possible other cost components
that would depend on the outcome of negotiations with the Town of Cary. For cost identification
purposes, these will be referred to as Alternative T-6A (involving the ultimate treatment of a
portion of Holley Springs wastewater by the Town of Cary) and Alternative T-6B (involving the
ultimate treatment of all of the Town's wastewater by a plant discharging to Utley Creek).
3.5 Wastewater Outfall System Alternatives
The location and sizing of wastewater outfall lines (including pump stations and force mains)
will necessarily vary depending on the selected wastewater treatment plant alternative.
Accordingly, to allow a complete analysis of long-range wastewater facilities options for the
Town, four different outfall system alternatives were formulated. These alternatives are described
as follows:
Alternative 0-1: This alternative would be used in conjunction with treatment plant Alternative
T-1 and possibly, Alternative T-6. A lift station would be constructed on Middle Creek, just
downstream of Sunset Lake, to convey all of the wastewater originating within the Neuse River
Basin watershed to a gravity line leading to the Utley Creek treatment plant. The pump station
would have an initial capacity of 525 gallons per minute (gpm) and would discharge through a 10-
inch diameter force main. Later, 1,250 gpm pumps and a second, 12-inch diameter force main
would be installed. The existing Utley Creek outfall line would remain in service, but would be
paralleled with a 24-inch diameter line.
Alternative 0-2: This outfall system alternative would be used with Alternative T-2. Two major
lift stations would be constructed, one at the site of the present Utley Creek wastewater treatment
plant, and the other on Middle Creek just below Sunset Lake. The Utley Creek lift station would
have an initial capacity of 525 gpm and would discharge through a 10-inch diameter force main. As
growth occurred with the Town, 1,390 gpm pumps and a 14-inch force main would be added. The
Middle Creek pump station would have an initial capacity of 350 gpm and would discharge
through an 8-inch force main. As growth in the Town warranted, 1,180 gpm pumps and a second
12-inch diameter force main would be added. The Utley Creek .and Middle Creek force mains
would be joined together at the intersection of SR 1301 and SR 1390, and from there wastewater
would be conveyed to the Town of Cary Middle Creek wastewater treatment plant. This force main
25

would run along SR 1390, then along Camp Branch Outfall to the Town of Cary plant. Initially, a
single, 12-inch force main would carry the flows from the single 10-inch Utley Creek and 8-inch
Middle Creek force mains to the Town of Cary plant. When these force mains were paralleled with
14-inch and 12-inch force mains respectively,, a second, 16-inch force main would be added to
convey the combined flows to the Cary plant. The existing Utley Creek outfall line would remain
in service, but would be paralleled with a 18-inch diameter line.
Alternative 0-3: This outfall system alternative would be used with treatment plant alternatives
T-3, T-4, and possibly T-6. Under this alternative, a pump station having an initial capacity of 350
gpm would be built on Middle Creek just downstream from Sunset Lake to convey wastewater
through an 8-inch force main to the Town of Cary plant. As growth warranted, 1,180 gpm pumps
would be added, and a second, 12-inch force main discharging to the Cary plant would be added.
The Utley (meek outfall line would eventually be paralleled with an 18-inch diameter line.
Alternative 0-4 : This outfall line alternative would be used in conjunction with treatment plant
alternative T-5. A pump station would be built on Middle Creek just downstream of Sunset Lake.
Initially, 350 gpm pumps discharging through an 8-inch force main to the Town of Cary plant
would be installed. Later, a 525 gpm pump discharging through a 10-inch force main would be
installed at the Utley Creek treatment plant. The Utley Creek and Middle Creek force mains would
be joined together at the intersection of SR 1301 and SR 1390, and a 12-inch force main would
convey the combined wastewater flows to the Town of Cary's Middle Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant. As growth continued, 1,180 gpm pumps would be added to the Middle Creek
pump station and a 12-inch discharge force main would be constructed parallel to the 8-inch force
main. At the Utley Creek pump station, 1,380 gpm pumps would be added and a second, 14-inch
diameter force main constructed. The 12-inch force main leading from the confluence of the Middle
Creek and Utley Creek force mains would be parallel with a 16-inch force main.
3.6 Construction Timing
It would be necessary to contract all improvements initially. Based on the projected growth
rates, the following is the projected time table for wastewater treatment plant construction
improvements.
Alternative T-1: Begin construction - 1998
Alternative T-2: Begin construction - 1998
Alternative T-3: Begin construction (tie to Cary) - 1998
Build 1.3 mgd plant on Utley Creek - 2007
Alternative T-4: Begin construction (tie to Cary) - 1998
Buy 0.8 mgd package plant - 2007
Alternative T-5: Begin construction (Middle Creek Basin (tie to Cary) - 1998
Begin construction (Utley Creek Basin tie to Cary) - 2007
Alternative T 6A: Begin construction (2nd 0.5 MGD package Plant) - 1996

Begin construction (Middle Creek Basin (tie to Cary)) - 1998
Begin construction (3rd 0.5 MGD Package Plant) 2012
Alternative T-6B: Begin construction (2nd 0.5 MGD Package Plant) - 1996
Begin construction (4.88 MGD Treatment Plant) - 2007
The projected time table for outfall system improvements is as follows:
Alternative 0-1 Construction 525 gpm Pump
Station and 10-inch Force Main - 1998
Add 1,180 gpm Pumps and Constructed
12-inch force main - 2007
Alternative 0-2 Construct 350 gpm Middle
Creek Pump Station and 8-inch force main - 1998
Construct 525 gpm Utley Creek Pump
Station and 10-inch force main. - 1998
Construct 12-inch common force main
to Cary treatment plant - 1998
Add 1,390 gpm pumps to Utley Creek pump
station and construct 14-inch force main. - 2007
Add 1,180 gpm pumps to Middle Creek
pump station, and construct 12-inch
Middle Creek and 16-inch common
force mains - 2007
Alternative 0-3 Construct 350 gpm Middle Creek
Pump Station and 8-inch force main
Construct 12-inch outfall line parallel
to Utley Creek outfall line. Add 1,180
gpm pumps.
Alternative 0-4 Construct 350 gpm Middle Creek pump
station and 8-inch force main tie-in
to Town of Cary plant.
Construct 528 gpm Utley Creek pump
station and 10-inch force main tie-in
to Town of Cary plant.
Add 1,180 gpm pumps to Middle Creek
pump station, construct 12-inch Middle
Creek force main, and 12-inch common
force main to Town of Cary plant.
Add 1,380 gpm pumps to Utley Creek
pump station and construct 16-inch force
main
- 1998
- 2007
- 1998
- 2007
- 2007
- 2007

3.7 Cost -Effective Analysis
In order to determine the most cost-effective alternative, a 20-year present worth life -cycle cost
analysis was prepared for all alternatives. This analysis was prepared using the current Federal
Water Quality Council interest rate (7.75%). Costs for alternatives involving tieing into the Town
of Cary system used capital charges from the Town of Cary system and projected annual operating
charges supplied by the Town of Cary staff. It should be emphasized that these costs are initial
projections only, not firm commitments, and could be subject to change during any negotiation.
Detailed breakdowns for all life -cycle cost projections may be found in Appendix 2. The results of
that analysis are summarized as follows:
Alternatives
T 1&0-2
T-2 & 0-2
T-3 & 0-3
T-4 & 0-3
T5&0-4
T6A & 0-3
T6B & 0-1
Total Present Worth Cost
$11,514,000
$10,794,000
$8,767,000
$9,368,000
$9,795,000
$11,538,386
$11,628,209
The above analysis shows the least life -cycle alternative to be construction of Alternative T-3
and Alternative 0-3. This would result in the Middle Creek basin wastewater being transported to
the Town of Cary's wastewater treatment plant located on Middle Creek, while the wastewater
originating within the Cape Fear River watershed portion of the Town would be treated by the
Town of Holly Springs and discharged into Utley Creek. The tie-in to Cary would be targeted for
completion sometime in 1998. The Town would continue to use its existing wastewater treatment
plant on Utley Creek until around the year 2007, at which time a new, 1.8 mgd advanced
wastewater treatment plant capable of achieving nitrogen and phosphorous removal would be
constructed adjacent to the existing plant. The existing plant would at that time be converted to
sludge digestion and holding.
3.8 Land Application
Land application of wastewater is sometimes a viable alternative to a direct discharge type
treatment system. The NC-DEM often requires that this type of system be utilized in lieu of
expanding an existing or creating a new point source of treated wastewater. Considering these
factors, the costs for constructing land application treatment systems were projected for
comparison with surface water discharge plants. Soils within and near the Holly Springs area are
28

not generally conducive to spray irrigation (see description of area soils in Section 2.6.2). The
most favorable soils available in any sufficient quantity are the Mayoden and Pinkston soils,
present in the Carolina Power and Light property west of Holly Springs. These soils are projected
as only having a loading capacity of 0.4 inches per week. Costs for land application are generally
prohibitive at this low hydraulic loading rate. However, in order to verify this, costs for land
application systems having capacities identical to the various treatment capacities identified as being
required in Section 3.3 were projected. These capacities, as outlined in the description of Case I,
Case II, and Case III are, in ascending order, 0.800 MGD, 1.1 MGD, 1.3 MGD, 1.9 MGD, and
2.4 MGD. Appendix 2 contains the detailed cost projections and present worth analysis for the
land application treatment systems corresponding to each of these design flows. These costs are
compared to the present worth cost for the lowest cost alternative surface water treatment plant of
the same capacity. Costs of transporting wastewater to the treatment plant are ignored for
simplicity's sake in making this comparison. Since transportation costs would in all likelihood be
much greater with a land application system (due to the need to have the treatment system spread
out because of the large acreage involved) neglecting transportation costs does not materially effect
the outcome of the analysis. The analysis also assumes the Town could acquire the land it needs
from Carolina Power & Light. This might not be the case. At any rate, in all cases, land application
is not only more costly than surface treatment, but more costly by a wide margin. This is
demonstrated by the following tabular summary of the least costly land application alternative:
Design Flow
Construction Cost of
Land Application
Treatment System
Construction Cost of Least Cost Surface
Water Discharge Alternative
0.800 mgd
1.100 mgd
1.300 mgd
1.900 mgd
2,400 mgd
$ 8,500,000
$ 11,400,000
$ 13,400,000
$ 19,200,000
$ 24,100,000
$ 3,647,000 (Alt. T-4)
$ 2,134,000 (Alt. T-4)
$ 5,397,000 (Alt. T-3)
$ 3,686,000 (Alt. T-5)
$ 4,656,000 (Alt. T-2)
3.9 Golf Course Irrigation
The NC-DEM has proposed regulations that will expand the opportunities to reuse treated
wastewater. The type of treatment systems under consideration by the Town of Holly Springs
would provide the requisite treatment to allow the effluent to be used for golf course irrigation with
29

only minimal restrictions under the proposed regulations. However, even under the most favorable
conditions, golf course irrigation would not allow the elimination of a discharge. During the warm
summer season, a typical 18-hole golf course will have irrigation water demands of around 2
million gallons per week. During much of the year a golf course will require little or no irrigation
water. Therefore, golf course irrigation cannot serve as an alternative to a surface discharge. The
Town of Holly Springs should, however, consider such potential reuse as a means of reducing
potable water demands. Reuse of treated wastewater for some industrial purposes is also a
possibility under the proposed new rules. As an aid to understanding the potential cost of
implementing a reuse system, a cost projection for installing a system capable of supplying
irrigation water to the Sunset Ridge golf course has been developed, (See Appendix 2). This cost
is $600,000.
3.10 Other Beneficial Reuse
Draft regulations proposed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NC-DEM) will, if adopted, open up new opportunities not only for such things as golf course and
residential irrigation, but also opportunities for industrial reuse. Industrial water users often use
potable water for purposes where lessor quality water would be sufficient. The existing and
planned areas for industrial development are much closer to the Utley Creek plant site than are any
golf course sites or major new subdivisions. Should the draft regulations pass, the Town should
aggressively pursue opportunities for industrial reuse of treated wastewater. Such a reuse program
would allow the discharge to Utley Creek to be reduced, and would reduce the demand on the
Town's potable water supply. Actual treatment plant capacity requirements would not, however,
be reduced, since the same volume of wastewater would still require treatment.
3.11 Interceptor System Construction
The Town's first central wastewater collection and treatment system was completed in 1987.
This initial layout covered the downtown Holly Springs area, areas north of Town to the
intersection of Highway 55 and Southern Railroad, and western sections within the Holly
Springs/New Hill Road area. In 1992 the wastewater collection system underwent improvements
with the addition of sewer line extensions and a pump station. These improvements mainly covered
areas along Bass Lake Road to the southeast of town. With the addition of new subdivisions, other
wastewater collection system components were installed by developers, and tied in with the
Town's system through the use of pump stations. A summary of all pump stations within the
present collection system can be found in Table 9.
The initial system constructed in 1987 consisted of approximately 48,000 linear feet (LF) of
8" gravity collection and interceptor lines, 5,000 LF of 12" outfall line, and four (4) pump stations.
30

The eastern part of town, just south of Holly Springs Road, had its sewer drain into a 250 gpm
pump station (PS #1 near Remington subdivision). This pump station has just recently been taken
off-line and a new outfall line constructed, which conveys wastewater to PS#10, in the Dogwood
Road area. Areas north of Town along Highway 55 are served by gravity sewers which flow to a
110 gpm pump station located at the intersection of Highway 55 and Southern Railroad (PS #4). A
4" force main from this pump station carries wastewater to the 12" gravity line along Holly Springs
Road. A small area in southeastern downtown has its sewer drain to a 80 gpm pump station located
just off Maple Street (PS #2), which is connected by a 4" force main to the downtown gravity line.
Areas along New Hill Road, west of the wastewater treatment plant access road, are served by
gravity lines flowing to a 180 gpm pump station (PS #3 at the intersection of New Hill and Apex
Road) which is connected by a 4" force main to the gravity line along New Hill/Holly Springs
Road.
TABLE 9
PUMP STATION INFORMATION
PS #
Pump
Station
Name
Pump. Station
Location
Pump
Station
Capacity
(gpm)
Pump Station
Receives
Pump Station
Discharges
To:
1
Remington
PS
- Remington Subdivision
250
Residential WW
Holly Springs
Road gravity line
2
Maple St.
PS
- In Town Off of Maple
Street
80
Residential WW
Maple Street
gravity line
3
New Hill &
Apex PS
- Off New Hill Road Near
Intersection with NC 1153
(Old Apex)
160
Residential WW
New Hill Road
gravity line
4
55 &
Southern PS
- On Highway 55 Just North
of Town Near Intersection
with Railroad
110
Residential WW and
PS#7 (Easton Street)
New Hill Road
gravity line
5
Industry PS
- Industry Pump Station
West of Town Near Thomas
Mill Pond
210
Meritt Truck
Washing, Warp
Technology, and
Residential WW
Directly to WWTP
6
Easton North
PS
- North end of Easton Acres
Off Katha Drive Off Easton
Street
97
Residential WW
PS#7 (Easton
Street)
7
Easton
South PS
- South end of Easton Street
80
PS#6 (North end of
Easton Acres)
PS#4 (Hwy 55 &
Southern Railroad)
8
Sunset North
PS
- Sunset Ridge Northwest of
Sunset Lake
420
Residential WW and
PS#7 (Base Lake
Holly Springs
Road gravity line
31

PS #
Pump
Pump Station
Pump
Pump Station
Pump Station
Station
Location
Station
Receives
Discharges
Name
Capacity
To:
(gpm)
9
Sunset
- Off Bass Lake Road
210
Residential WW and
PS#8 (Sunset
South PS
Southwest of Sunset Lake
PS#10 (Dogwood
Ridge)
Road)
10
Dogwood PS
- Off Dogwood Road (Off
330
Residential WW
PS#9 (Bass Lake
Bass Lake Road)
Road)
The Town of Holly Springs collection system is less than 10 years old and thus all pipes meet
current regulations and should be in overall good condition. But, there are several other physical
conditions that the Town must address. The main problem facing the present collection system is
possible system overload due to future flows higher than present line and pump station capacity.
The main physical deficiency in this area is the apparent uneven flow pattern of existing pump
stations. There are several instances in which lower capacity pump stations are receiving flow from
a higher capacity pump station. For example, the Dogwood PS(330 gpm) discharges to the Sunset
South PS (210 gpm). As future flows increase, these pump stations, along with associated gravity
lines, run the risk of system surcharge.
All flows to the east of Highway 55 and south of State Road 1115 could be intercepted by
new gravity lines. Construction of such interceptor lines could benefit the Town by eliminating all
existing pump stations located in the eastern area. All flow would be directed to one central location
in the Middle Creek area for treatment or diversion to a treatment facility.
All areas west of Highway 55, up against CP&L property, could be served by another set of
proposed interceptor lines. Due to the terrain in this area, the west system can not be arranged to
direct all flow to a single location. However, the proposed alignment would eliminate three existing
pump stations while adding two pump stations in the remote western side. It is expected that
CP&L will allow the Town the right-of-way needed to lay proposed lines.
A phased program for construction of the interceptor system needed to handle all future flows
is recommended. Construction of the entire system in the three (3) phases is practicable. These
phases would be described as follows:
Phase One
Phase one (Figure 4) will consist of placing lines to accommodate the extensive
development in the Sunset Ridge area, as well as laying the outfall lines into which future
phases will tie. All flow on east of Highway 55 will be diverted to one central location in
the Middle Creek area.
32

Phase One will consist of the following:
• Outfall lines will be placed around Sunset and Bass Lakes. These lines will
eventually handle all eastern flows below Holly Springs Road, including areas
that are presently on septic systems. Due to the limited elevation drop, resulting in
deeper line cuts, these outfalls will be the most expensive to build. These lines
will allow the Sunset South Pump Station to be eliminated.
• An interceptor line will be installed from Stephens Road, south of Town, to the
foot of Bass Lake. This line will allow the pump station off Maple Street to be
retired.
• The downtown interceptor will be constructed from the Dogwood pump station to
the middle of Bass Lake. This line will allow the Dogwood pump station to be
eliminated.
• The last interceptor line is the lower section of Sunset Road Interceptor and will
run south of Holly Springs Road to the head of Sunset Lake. This line will allow
Sunset North pump station to be retired.
• Wake Outfall and Eastern Interceptor will receive wastewater in the Easton Acres
area and also areas north of New Hill Road. Wake Outfall discharges into a pump
station now under design. This system will allow for the elimination of Easton
North and Easton South pump stations.
The following Phase I cost estimates are presented in 1995 dollars:
Quantity Description Cost
6,000 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $144,000
6,300 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $158,000
2,800 LF 12" Gravity Sewer $100,000
5,000 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $185,000
3,000 LF 18" Gravity Sewer $168,000
13,300 LF 24" Gravity Sewer $798,000
202 EA Manhole $404.000
Sub -Total $1,957,000
Engineering and Contingency (30%) $587,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $330,000
Surveying and Miscellaneous $50,000
Land Acquisition $20,000
Legal and Administrative (2%) $39.000
TOTAL PHASE ONE ESTIMATED COST $2,983,000
USE $3,000,000
33

Old Apex
Road
SR Ili;
, .
L---,
.)J
"C„.._,...
,s „0 , .
� L
may,
-, ov Easton 1
-_ -7 f North PSI.
Wake Outfall-. _ ;
Little ■
Branch PS
w'
�15 Easton
South PS
Eastern �r�
Interceptor r -
of
$$ &
y_ �% •CCU -
Southern PS f����;��11'
,, wort
Bass Lake
Road
•
� Bass Take
4 — Dogwood );/-•. _
PS Outfall
;bi " r � .�: --
e. 1899 -
Maple St. PS.L.-Fete-
10" J
'T. • T.. Downtown . —.
t — "' Tntercentor ��
NORTH
FIGURE 4
PROPOSED
PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS
Leeend_
• Existing Pump Station
Q Proposed Pump Station
O. Proposed Gravity Line
Line Size Change
• Manhole
unli Existing VVWTP Outfall
Direction of Flow
Prepared By:
The
Wooten
Company
Engineering
Planning
Architecture
flreth,ille. N.C.

Phase Two
The last sections east of Highway 55 and an area zoned mostly industrial are covered by
the improvements in Phase Two (Figure 5). This phase consists of the following:
• The upper section (north of Holly Springs Road) of Sunset Road
Interceptor is completed. This line placement will allow the pump
station at the intersection Highway 55 and Southern Railroad to be
eliminated.
• East Sunset Interceptor will run just south of Holly Springs Road to
the present location of the of Sunset South pump station. This line will
discharge to the Sunset Lake Outfall.
• The longest line in this phase is the Basal Creek Outfall. Although this
line runs south of the Town's ETJ it will only collect wastewater from
the southeastern area of the Town zoning, just below SR 1115.
• The final line in this phase is the Utley Creek Outfall which will serve a
mostly zoned -industrial section east of the existing wastewater
treatment plant (bordering CP&L). This line will allow for industry
buildup in this area. Since this is a remote area draining toward the
west, a pump station must be built. A 6" force main will run parallel to
the gravity line and will run cross-country to the existing wastewater
treatment plant outfall.
The following Phase II cost estimates are presented in 1995 dollars:
Quantity Description Extended Cost
28,800 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $691,000
2,200 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $55,000
2,700 LF 12" Gravity Sewer $97,000
5,200 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $192,000
235 EA Manhole $360,000
1 EA Pump Station $100,000
9,600 LF 6" Force Main $96,000
Sub -Total $1,591,000
Engineering and Contingenc (30%) $477,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $350,000
Surveying and Miscellaneous $25,000
Land Acquisition $20,000
Legal and Administrative (2%) $32,000
TOTAL PHASE 2 ESTIMATED COST $2.495,300
USE $2,500,000
35

Branch PS
•
•-• ..\C
- •- ;AT,
•,."N
• •
•
-`7:„.,;:•:,
Utley
/ Creek PS -F
lIC "
I/ ,.......,
A \....... -•-re7
7:-•\_._.-i::,-fr,-•
PROPERTY OF
CAROLINA It?'
.POWER & LIGHT
SR 1116
r 55
• S.••••••,.._
•
North PS •,-"5:,
•••
•
..»A •
- 15'4 Stialtg:a Late k_--7.>
.,: 1.,,04":11.--7, ..177:7,11....1:111)te'ns'r:-etplitoo'ra-jd ,....,,,-. 7 U....., IL---.‘":" r;Ldflt...1-7±,-:,t,. )
-- e • -' ...:••-^ il. )1 .
. .V.....j \ e.' k.....':,..•/r,...01.1:1-1.....,.
„- -0
JSprings IF
Road .
t"--""-----., )
. i ,-.....„..-.!‘ %sr' - .c.I.,.-._:_,..::, .
. . Southern PS 3-:-•••'Ic-' \.\-1S(7•
la
.'7'.- T---------:-. • /;;' ..4-/7 . ..... .- • ....
- wi - •
— -
• 6. m. ..4v
-••••. North PS
..
<1, •
•
•-• 'k
• .
I • - '—' 4 A. •1 —
/ay S 4-- ourthern RR Basal Creek -
,. ; •r -
%. _ e(
/1/4 Outfall
fr. i"'• if %. r\\
_ -t. -
ititef•-• •77
SR 111S
NORTH
1111
FIGURE 5
PROPOSED
PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS
D
0-0
•
mr
Leeend
Existing Pump Station
Proposed Pump Station
Previous Phase Gravity Line
Proposed Gravity Line
Line Size Change
Manhole
Existing WWTP Outfall
This Phase Force Main
Direction of Flow
Prepared By:
The
Wooten
Company
Engineering
Planning
Architecture
N t"
lieenviile. N.

Phase Three
The final phase of construction (Figure 6) will serve areas west of Town. This phase will
consist of the following:
• Norris Branch Outfall, which will serve the extreme southwestern corner of
the study area. This line will be able to accommodate industry as well as
residential areas such as Avent Ferry Road subdivision and proposed
housing around the Shelba airport. Again, due to westward slopes a pump
station will be located on CP&L property. A 6" force main will be installed
from this pump station, up SR 1115 to a gravity line in Town.
• The next system section is in the northwestern part of the study area. Draw
Interceptor and the southern part of Little Branch Outfall collect wastewater
for the area immediately north of New Hill and Old Apex Roads and will
allow for the retirement of the New Hill and Apex pump station. The upper
portion of Little Branch Outfall will discharge into a pump station on Wake
County land which is presently in the design stage.
The following Phase III cost estimates are presented in 1995 dollars:
Quantity Description Extended Cost
11,700 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $281,000
3,600 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $90,000
3,300 LF 12" Gravity Sewer $119,000
73 EA Manhole $131,000
1 EA Pump station $100,000
17,500 LF 6" Force Main $175.000
Sub -Total $896,000
Engineering and Contingency (30%) $270,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $168,000
Surveying and Miscellaneous $15,000
Land Acquisition $20,000
Legal and Administrative (2%) $18,000
TOTAL PHASE THREE ESTIMATED COST $1,387,000
USE $1,400,000
3.12 Alternative Interceptor Consideration
Interceptor routes alignments are largely directed by topography, and use of gravity sewer
interceptors to eliminate or minimize the number of wastewater pumping stations is accepted as
sound engineering practice. Gravity sewers require less maintenance than pump stations, and are
less prone to failures that could result in the discharge of raw wastewater to the environment.
However, in the case of the Sunset Lake outfall described in the Phase I improvements it is
anticipated that there will be some members of the public that will prefer the risk of pump station
37

12"\ Little
" Branch PS
ram
Little Branch
Outfall
Utley
!Creek PS
PROPERTY OF } j
CAROLINA 7,
;POWER & LIGHT =.
art -
In Mr Mt
NORTH
FIGURE r�
PROPOSED
PHASE THREE IMPROVEMENTS
Leend
® Existing Pump Station
O Proposed Pump Station
0--0 Previous Phase Gravity Line
41.0 Proposed Gravity Line
• Line Size Change
ID Manhole
Existing WWTP Outfall
This Phase Force Main
— Previous Phase Force Main
�••—� Direction of Flow
Prepared By:
The
Wooten
Company
Engineering
Planning
Architecture
i •
tireenvilfe. N.C;.

failure to the impacts of interceptor system construction. Bass Lake is a nature preserve overseen
by The Nature Conservancy and a non-profit organization of local residents. These groups are
concerned about the potential disruption of the existing environment that would be caused by
construction of the segment of the outfall line that would skirt the perimeter of Bass Lake. Property
owners along the southern perimeter of Sunset Lake may object to the installation of the line
around the southern edge of Sunset Lake. Alternative arrangements that would avoid the potentially
controversial interceptor sections has been formulated. These alternative arrangements would
require the construction of two new pump stations and result in the existing Dogwood pump
station remaining in service. Therefore, from a reliability and annual operation and maintenance
cost standpoint, theses arrangements would be undesirable. However, the use of such
arrangements would avoid a potential controversy, and avoid disturbing the high quality mesic
hardwood forest bordering the southern shore of Sunset Lake. Cost projections for both a gravity
sewer line the entire route, as is shown in Figure 4, and for alternate arrangements involving pump
stations and force mains as is shown in Figure 7 have been prepared. Either alternative would have
an initial cost of approximately $2,000,000.

V Subset Lake
lead
•1)ri
•
ikaii.. • . - �~ JY Springs _ • tt p.
.g.n' • ' i Road ~• Cu• .
•
.Southern PS ��Y�'f 4�`�•� r„.•
-
N.`
:r�ilww •
..: Remin
go2.2 ' p—s-1/.:.. BasistoaLakd e it,::1:...........:, —
•
f ,� Li. .... \ Sunset Lake `Nem
.•.
Sunset .
North PS
Legend
■ Existing Pump Station
Q Proposed Pump Station
1'1''11 Proposed Gravity Line
y Line Size Change
• Manhole
Sunset
South PS
1 �J�
Bass
Lake PS
�1liill,
rr
FIGURE 7
ALTERNATE CONFIGURATION
SUNSET LAKE OUTFALL
Prepared By:
The
Wooten
Company
Engineering
Planning
Architecture
t' C
ireenviiie. V (.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Overview
The availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities in the Town of Holly Springs is
projected to encourage planned residential, commercial and industrial development in the area. The
proposed wastewater treatment system and collection improvements, and the resulting growth and
development must be addressed. The consequences of development include changes in land use,
increased air pollution and noise levels, possible water quality degradation, impacts on wildlife,
and the possible introduction of toxic substances to the surrounding environment. However, these
impacts will have both beneficial and adverse, primary and secondary affects on the environment.
Primary impacts are a direct result of the construction of a project. Secondary impacts are indirect
or induced changes in the patterns of land use and population growth and other environmental
effects resulting from changes in land use and population growth. Once the primary and secondary
adverse impacts have been identified it is necessary to recognize the mitigative measures that must
be taken so as to minimize the impacts of the proposed project and development to the
environment.
4.2 Changes in Land Use
4.2.1 Wetlands
Both primary and secondary adverse impacts on the area's mosaic of wetlands will result from
construction of the proposed project and development in the area. The construction of the proposed
collection system expansion in wetland areas will result in a short-term adverse impact on water
quality in the form of increased siltation and turbidity, a result of erosion during and immediately
following construction. However, this is only a temporary problem; the wetlands will have a
chance to restore themselves once the sewerlines are in place and the vegetation and water courses
return to normal. The same impacts will be seen during construction of houses, office buildings,
shopping centers, etc., however these impacts will have a more lasting effect on the environment.
The growth and development of Holly Springs will alter the natural water flow patterns, and
therefore diminish the functioning wetlands in the area.
4.2.2 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
As the Town of Holly Springs attracts an ever growing number of residents, the value of the
land becomes too great for use in agriculture. Also, construction and development of the land has
adverse secondary impacts on the soil that carry over to become water quality issues. Soils
exposed during and after construction of sewerlines will be subject to erosion. This loss of top soil
is not only a waste of valuable natural resources, but it will also create an undesirable sediment
41

deposition in the stream beds. The increased sedimentation will affect the water -carrying capacity
of stream channels and will also result in increased flood stages.
4.2.3 Public Lands
• The total acreage of public lands in the Holly Springs area will increase as the demand for
parks and recreational facilities grows with the population.
4.2.4 Scenic and Recreational Areas
An increase in the development of scenic and recreational areas will be seen with the growth of
this community. More public parks and recreational facilities, such as basketball courts, soccer
fields, etc., will be planned and developed for the residents.
4.2.5 Areas of Archaeological and Historic Value
These areas are more likely to be preserved and restored as the growing population will bring
concern for the attractiveness of such sites in their Town. The wastewater collection system
expansion will not disrupt any sites of archaeological or historic value.
4.3 Air Quality and Noise Levels
The construction of the proposed sewerlines will result in short-term impacts on air quality as
construction equipment and other traffic increase the pollutant levels in the area. Development in
the area will increase the traffic volume which may increase the concentration of pollutants such as
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter in the ambient air. Inconveniences from
increased noise levels from use of construction equipment will be an additional short-term adverse
impact. The inconvenience of noise pollution will also increase during the construction phase of
development. Noise levels will decrease after construction in the area has diminished, but will
remain higher than the current level as more people, with their cars, lawn mowers, etc., migrate to
the Holly Springs area.
4.4 Water Quality
4.4.1 Groundwater Quality
The impacts on groundwater due to development are minimal. Lawn fertilization at residences
and parks may affect the quality of the surficial groundwater, but the concentration of this pollution
is so small, it may be disregarded. The long-term secondary impact of wastewater collection
system expansion is actually beneficial. The present and future septic tank operations in the area,
which could be considered as a significant source of pollution problems if the tanks are
malfunctioning and not properly maintained, may be eliminated as the collection system expansions
reach new parts of the area.
42

4.4.2 Surface Water Quality
A secondary long-term adverse impact on the quality of surface waters from the development of the
"own will be the decreased water quality as increased urbanization leads to an increased amount of runoff.
The urban runoff from built up areas is comprised primarily of soluble and suspended matter which come
from the degradation of asphaltic and concrete pavements, various contributions from automobiles, fallout
from the atmosphere, vegetation, litter, spills and other sources. The oxygen demanding constituents of
urban runoff may lower the dissolved oxygen contents of streams by adding oxygen demanding materials
to the waters, and inhibit the biological activities in streams by adding high concentrations of heavy metals
to the waters. The Neuse River Water Quality Basin Plan calls for no new discharges into Middle Creek as
a water quality protection measure, and all alternatives have been formulated to be consistent with this
requirement. Some increase of treated wastewater to Utley Creek can be expected, and, under the preferred
alternative, there will also be some increases in treated discharges to Middle Creek. The Middle Creek
discharges would occur through the Town of Cary Middle Creek wastewater plant, and the discharge of
the treated wastewater would not result in any increase in the permitted capacity of that plant considered in
development of the Neuse River Water Quality Basin Plan. Increased discharges of wastewater to Utley
Creek will be mitigated by treating wastewater to the standards required by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management through the NPDES permitting program. In projecting alternative costs, it was
assumed that all plants of any capacity discharging into Utley Creek would be required to achieve an
effluent BOD5 of 5 mg/L or less, and an effluent ammonia of 2 mg/L or less. It is hoped that negotiations
'rith the Town of Cary will be successful, and that discharge into Utley Creek can be limited over the next
20 years to not more than 1.3 MGD. If, however, these negotiations are not successful, it is expected that
it will ultimately be necessary to construct a 4.88 MGD plant discharging into Utley Creek. Such a plant
would not likely be needed before the year 2007. If required, the plant would be designed to achieve
biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal and to release an effluent meeting BOD5 and ammonia limits
of 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L respectively. Should proposed NC-DEM regulations be adopted, a program for
reusing as much of the wastewater treated at the Utley Creek facility as is possible will be pursued. If
successful, this program would reduce the actual volume of wastewater discharged to Utley Creek to a
level lower than the treatment plant capacities discussed in this document.
4.4.3 Drinking Water Supplies
Neither the construction of the proposed sewerlines nor the development should have any significant
impact on the quality of the Town's drinking water supply. There will be additional stress on the drinking
water supply due to the increase in new customers. As a result of this stress, additional drinking water
sources should be located.
43

4.5 Wildlife Resources
Disruption to the soil and water from erosion and turbidity due to construction may adversely
affect the biological species in the area. For example, increased turbidity in streams may inhibit the
photosynthetic activity of aquatic flora and fauna and significantly change the established
predator -prey relationships. Development of the Town of Holly Springs will also disrupt wildlife
habitats as land is cleared and water courses rerouted to allow for construction.
4.6 Introduction of Toxic Substances
The introduction of toxic substances to the surrounding environment would be from the use of
pesticides and other household cleaners. However, the amount of toxic substances that would
actually reach the environment in measurable amounts is small, and the impact from such
concentrations is negligible.
4.7 Summary
The impacts that may result from the proposed wastewater collection system expansion and
development in the Town of Holly Springs may be seen in all aspects of the environment.
Although the majority of these impacts are negative, the benefits to the Town are incalculable. For
example, the collection system expansion will bring adequate wastewater treatment service to a
larger number of individuals, and the subsequent growth and development of the Town will result
in more capital income for the community. Some of the impacts to the environment may be
avoided, and those which cannot may be minimized through the implementation of certain
mitigative measures.
44

5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
5.1 Overview
There are some unavoidable adverse disturbances of the environment that will result from
construction of the proposed project and development of Holly Springs. The primary impacts
which cannot be avoided are erosion and sedimentation from sewerline construction, construction
inconvenience and wastewater disposal. The secondary impacts which cannot be avoided are
erosion and sedimentation from developmental activities in the Town and changes in water and air
quality. Even though these consequences are inevitable, there are certain measures which may be
taken to reduce the magnitude of the impacts.
5.2 Mitigation of Primary Impacts
5.2.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Sewerline Construction
General mitigation measures that may minimize unavoidable primary impacts due to erosion
and sedimentation are provided by the State of North Carolina's "Rules and Regulations for
Erosion and Sediment Control." The provision of a sufficient vegetative buffer between the edge of
the construction site and stream banks in accordance with the "Rules", should adequately mitigate
the major affects during construction. Special, site specific erosion control efforts may be required
for stream crossings, steep banks, and other cases which require disturbance of natural stream
banks.
5.2.2 Construction Inconveniences and Annoyance
Primary inconveniences during construction due to disruption of traffic flow can be minimized
by proper planning of construction activities. The noise effect during construction can be
minimized by operating equipment during daylight hours and installing muffler systems on all
machinery.
5.2.3 Wastewater Disposal
Disposal of effluents into the receiving streams is not expected to have a significant primary
impact on the receiving streams as treatment plants will be designed to meet effluent limits
formulated by the State of North Carolina to protect water quality. Creation of another point source
discharge on Middle Creek will be avoided as a means to protect that stream. Under the preferred
alternatives (Alternative T-3 and 0-3) and under the fallback alternatives (Alternative T-6, either T-
6A or T-6B) treated wastewater discharges would be increased to Utley Creek and Middle Creek
both. The increased discharges to Middle Creek would be made through the Town of Cary plant
without increasing the permitted capacity of that plant. The potential impacts on water quality of
increased discharges into the Middle Creek plant therefore have already been taken into account
during the permitting of the Town of Cary plant. The Utley Creek plants would be designed, as is
45

the existing 0.5 MGD facility, to achieve an effluent BOD5 of 5 mg/L and an effluent ammonia of 2
mg/L tp help protect water quality in that creek. Ultraviolet disinfection is used, and would
continue to be used, to avoid the aquatic toxicity problems sometimes associated with chlorine.
Alternative T-6B, which would be employed only if satisfactory long-term arrangements could not
be reached with the Town of Cary, would involve the eventual construction of a 4.88 MGD plant
on Utley Creek, probably around the year 2007. If required, this plant would be designed to
achieve biological nitrogen and phosphorus removals in addition to meeting stringent BOD5 and
ammonia limits. The 0.500 MGD plant expansion that would be installed initially under alternative
T-6A or T-6B would not be designed for nutrient removal, since there is no present indication that
the Cape Fear River Basin is nutrient sensitive. If draft regulations governing reuse of treated
wastewater are adopted, another potential additional avenue for mitigating the effects of the
increased discharge will be created. Industrial development, both existing and planned, is located
in relatively close proximity to the Utley Creek plant. A separate, industrial reuse water system that
would allow the volume of wastewater discharged to Utley Creek system to be reduced may, under
the proposed regulations, prove practicle. Implementation of such a system would be dependent
not only on cost but also on the adoption of the proposed regulations by the State and acceptance of
a reuse program by the Town's industries. The existing industrial base provides only a limited
potential reuse base, and, without some industrial growth, the amount of water which could be
recycled would be small. Industrial reuse is therefore only a potential mitigation measure. If a
wastewater treatment plant should become inoperational due to power or major mechanical system
failure, it might, depending on stream flows at the time of the failure, significantly affect the water
quality of the receiving streams for a short time period. Provision of standby power and the use of
multiple units will mitigate this potential problem.
5.2.4 Sewerline Construction
Biologists with the firm Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) have evaluated the
proposed path of the sewerlines and provided their recommendations for routing the sewerlines
along the path of least impact. In making these recommendations RJG&A have incorporated
guidelines established by the Wildlife Resource Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Management for minimizing adverse impacts to the environment. These guidelines
include avoiding protected jurisdictional wetlands, crossing bodies of water at narrow points
perpendicular to the channel, maintaining forested buffers along streams, avoiding mature forests
and high quality natural communities, and avoiding fragmentation of large habitat areas. The
following is a summary of the preferred routes, as suggested by RJG&A, for placing sewerlines
and pump stations in the proposed project area so as to incur the least impact to the surrounding
environment.
46

Middle Creek Basin
Impacts on the unnamed tributary of Middle Creek that lies between NC 55 and Middle Creek
may be minimized by placing the sewerlines along the NC 55 right-of-way (ROW) northward to
the abandoned railroad ROW. As the tributary turns eastward, the waterway is bordered on both
sides by high quality habitat. The alternative of least impact is to place the sewerlines on the south
side of the tributary midway between the base of the slopes and the streambank.
The north bank of Middle Creek from SR 1152 to Sunset Lake is the preferred route of the
sewerline because it is bordered by a broad floodplain that will allow for a wide forested buffer.
There is also a golf course nearby that may be bordered to further minimize impacts to wetlands
and protected species in the corridor.
In the section of Middle Creek below Sunset Lake, a wide forested buffer should be maintained
along Middle Creek and the pump station should be located on the south side of the creek as close
as possible to SR 1301.
Providing sewer service to the areas immediately south of Sunset Lake could be accomplished
by running a gravity sewer along the lakes southern shore. In order for such a line to be
economically feasible, it will be necessary for the upstream end of the line to be laid along the
ground slope above the lake shore and for the line to be constructed so that it is progressively
lower on the slope as it progresses in an easterly direction. This construction would involve
disturbing a portion of the high quality mesic hardwood forest now present on the slope. This
would be an adverse environmental impact.
Basal Creek Basin
The northwestern bank of Basal Creek in the corridor from SR 1393 to Sunset Lake is the
preferred route for laying the sewerlines because these areas have been previously developed.
However, impacts along the southeastern shores can be minimized by routing the sewerline along
the edge of the floodplain to preserve a forested buffer whenever it may be necessary to install the
sewerline on the southeastern shore of the Creek.
The corridor along the Basal Creek Tributary north of Bass Lake is traversed by a golf course
and therefore contains almost none of its natural vegetation. It is suggested that the sewerline be
constructed as close as possible to the perimeter of the golf course to minimize the impact on any
remaining natural vegetation.
There is an overhead powerline ROW along the section of Basal Creek between Bass Lake
Dam and SR 1393 which may be followed to minimize impact to this area.
The sewerline should be routed through mowed areas of the Bass Lake shoreline so as to
preserve the forested fringe along the lake. Impacts on the northern tributary west of Bass Lake
may be minimized by routing the sewerlines along the north side of the stream as far upslope as
possible. The recommended project alignment is to place the sewerline as far upstream as possible
from the north side of the southern tributary to Bass Lake.
The section of Basal Creek that stretches from NC 55 to Bass Lake is home to a very large
population of the rare plant species Hexastylis Lewisii. The preferred mute begins on the west side
of the creek, crosses to the east side approximately 2000 feet northeast of NC 55, and crosses back
to the west side near the backwaters of Bass Lake. The north side of Basal Creek in the lower
section of the corridor that stretches from SR 1115 to NC 55 is the preferred route because it is the
most disturbed. In the upper section of the same corridor either side of the Creek is suitable.
Norris Branch Basin
The Norris Branch Basin is in the Cape Fear River watershed portion of the planning area.
Norris Branch from SR 1115 to about 1500 feet upstream is bordered on the east bank by a field,
which is the least impacting location for the pump station and sewerline route. Farther upstream
both banks are suitable for sewerline installation, however the west bank is more accommodating
for a wide forested buffer. The proposed site for the force main along SR 1115 poses very little
danger of disrupting the environment.
47

Utley Creek Basin
The pump station and sewerline along Utley Creek from the proposed pump station site to
Pond Dam should be located as far north as possible, with the suggested path for the sewerline
along an existing property line. Following the pond shoreline, the route of least impact upstream
from the dam is on the north side of the pond. There is an existing sewerline ROW in this area
which may also be used. There are two acceptable routes along the force main corridor from Irving
Parkway to the wastewater treatment plant. The first route crosses on an east -west upland route
from the Parkway to Treatment Plant Road. The other route follows the upland ridge from the
Parkway southward, and then turns southeastward to the wastewater treatment plant.
Little Branch Basin
The segment of Little Branch west of SR 1153 would be impacted the least if the sewerlines
were constructed 100 to 400 feet from the bank. The lower 1500 feet of the tributary west of SR
1153 would be least impacted if the sewerline were routed along the northeastern side. However,
the remaining section of the tributary would feel the Least impact with the sewerlines constructed on
the southwestern side. Wide buffers should also be provided to minimize impact to the
surrounding environment. The route of least impact in the corridor of Little Branch east of SR
1153 is along the north side of the stream because this area has been previously disturbed, there is
ample floodplain available to provide a wide forested buffer, and there are existing sewerlines. The
southern tributary is least impacted when the sewerlines are routed along the west side of the
stream, thus avoiding fragmentation of the natural habitat.
5.3 Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
5.3.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Development
Mitigation of secondary impacts due to expansion and sedimentation should include the
preparation of erosion control plans for any new development and construction activities.
5.3.2 Water and Air Quality
Urbanization of the watersheds will contribute pollutants to water courses. The
implementation of nonpoint source pollution control programs as well as drainage and
sedimentation control ordinances may be necessary in the future to reduce the impacts of non point
sources of pollution by surface runoff.
The secondary impacts on air quality are a result of increased traffic flow. The effects of this
impact are negligible.
5.4 Summary
Any type of development will impact the natural environment in some way. However, it is
important to understand the degree of impact, and whether the benefits from the proposed project
outweigh the negative aspects. With the aid of the mitigation measures described above, the
impacts may be minimized in such a way that the benefits of a dependable wastewater treatment
and collection system sufficiently large enough to treat projected wastewater flows are far greater
than any impacts. Some short term impacts are unavoidable, but the long term improvements to the
environment are more valuable to the community. The increased treatment of wastewater actually
48

lessens adverse impacts to the surface waters and wildlife in the long run, and the improved
treatment and increased capacity will reduce health risks associated with improper treatment.
49

REFERENCES
rook, David. Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History. Correspondence, July 11, 1995.
Cornelius, Wayne L., Ph.D. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Air Quality Section.
1994 Quick Look Reports and Table of Standards.
Mangles, Juan. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Water Modeling Section.
Personal Correspondence. August 8, 1995.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management -Water Quality Section. Cape Fear River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (DRAFT). Raleigh, NC: May 15 1995.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management -Water Quality Section. Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan. Raleigh, NC: March, 1993.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Protected Species Survey - Holly
Springs, NC. 12 July 1995.
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey -Wake County North Carolina. Issued November,
1970.
The Wooten Company. Preliminary Engineering Study. Long Range Wastewater System
Improvements -Holly Springs, NC. August 1994.
50

APPENDIX I
Environmental Surveys

LY,
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
HOLLY SPRINGS SEWER SYSTEM
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RJG&A Project Number 94014
Report To:
Mr. Ford Chambliss
The Wooten Company
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
12 July 1995
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS & CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel: [phone] FAX: [phone]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY 4
2.0. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA 4
3.0. SURVEY METHODS 5
3.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands ... 5
3.2. Protected Species and Natural Areas 5
4.0. SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
4.1. General Recommendations for Minimizing Adverse Impacts 6
4.2. Middle Creek Basin Below Bass Lake Dam 6
4.2.1. Middle Creek Below Sunset Lake 6
4.2.2. Sunset Lake Shoreline 7
4.2.3. Basal Creek from Bass Lake Dam to Head of Sunset Lake 7
4.2.4. Basal Creek Tributary North of Bass Lake 7
4.2.5. Middle Creek from SR 1 152 to Sunset Lake 7
4.2.6. Middle Creek from SR 1 152 to Unnamed Tributary 8
4.2.7. Middle Creek Tributary from NC 55 to Middle Creek 8
4.3. Basal Creek Basin Above Bass Lake Dam 8
4.3.1. Shoreline of Bass Lake 8
4.3.2. Northern Tributary West of Bass Lake 9
4.3.3. Southern Tributary West of Bass Lake 9
4.3.4. Basal Creek from NC-55 to Bass Lake 9
4.3.5. Basal Creek from SR 1 115 to NC-55 9
4.4. Little Branch Basin 10
4.4.1. Little Branch and Tributary West of SR 1 153 10
4.4.2. Little Branch ar d Tributaries East of SR 1 153 10
4.5. Utley Creek Basin 10
4.5.1. Utley Creek from Proposed Pump Station to Pond Dam 11
4.5.2. Pond Shoreline and Tributary Upstream to Irving Parkway . 11
4.5.3. Force Main Corridor from Irving Parkway to WWTP 11
4.6. Norris Branch Basin 11
4.6.1. Norris Branch 11
4.6.2. Force Main Along SR 1 115 11
5.0. CONCLUSIONS 12
5.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands 12
5.2. Rare and Protected Species 12
6.0. LITERATURE CITED 13
2

TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Federally protected, state protected, and federal candidate species
reported from Wake County, N.C. 15
Table 2. Habitat requirements of protected species known from Wake County,
N.C. 16
Figure 1. Holly Springs sewerline project area, showing service area (ETJ), pump
stations, and WWTP location 17
Figure 2. Wetlands, rare species sites, high quality habitats, and recommended
project corridor in the Holly Springs sewerline project area - Middle
Creek basin 18
Figure 3. Wetlands, rare species sites, high quality habitats, and recommended
project corridor in the Holly Springs sewerline project area - Buckhorn
Creek basin 19
3

1.0. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY.
The extraterritorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ) of the Town of Holly Springs, in
southwestern Wake County, North Carolina, contains numerous residential subdivisions each
with a privately installed wastewater pump station. The pump stations and force mains
convey the wastewater to the Town's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on Utley Creek,
1.0 mile west of Holly Springs (Figure 1). The existing facilities provide wastewater service
to only a small portion of the ETJ, which encompasses about 18 square miles.
To accommodate future development and support progressive annexation, the Town
proposes to construct a system of gravity outfalls, force mains, and pump stations throughout
the ETJ. The project will reduce the number of pump stations to four (one for each major
drainage basin), and provide sewer access to nearly all of the ETJ. Wastewater treatment
options under consideration include 1) expansion of the Utley Creek WWTP; 2) construction
of a new municipal WWTP on Middle Creek; or 3) treatment at the Town of Cary's existing
WWTP on Middle Creek.
The Town's consulting engineers, The Wooten Company, contracted Robert J.
Goldstein & Associates, Inc. (RJG&A) to conduct an environmental reconnaissance of the
project area to identify sites that may be of concern to regulatory agencies reviewing the
project plans. RJG&A ecologists surveyed the proposed construction corridors to locate major
areas of jurisdictional wetlands, populations of protected species, and high quality natural
areas. The approximate boundaries of environmentally sensitive sites were mapped on USGS
7.5-minute topographic quadrangles and submitted to The Wooten Company so that project
plans could be altered to avoid these areas to the extent practicable. Environmentally
preferable sewerline alternatives apparent in the field are recommended on the maps in this
report.
2.0. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.
Holly Springs lies at the junctur3 of three major geologic regions; the Durham -Sanford
Triassic Basin to the northwest, the Raleigh Belt to the northeast, and the Sandhills to the
south (N.C. Division of Land Resources, 1984). Each of these geologic regions comprises
approximately one-third of the ETJ. A diabase dike lies diagonally (northwest -southeast)
across the northern half of the ETJ, and mafic amphibolite intrusions occur in the northeast.
Several rare species known from Wake County are associated with these geologic formations.
Holly Springs also lies on the topographic divide between two major river basins, the
Neuse River to the east and the Cape Fear River to the west. The Middle Creek watershed,
which comprises 60% of the ETJ, flows eastward to the Neuse River (Figure 2). The two
major impoundments in this portion of the service area are Sunset Lake and Bass Lake. The
proposed pump station site for the Middle Creek basin is downstream of Sunset Lake. Middle
Creek is designated nutrient -sensitive waters (NSW) by The N.C. Division of Environmental
Management (DEM), and is also known to contain populations of federally and state protected
aquatic animals.
The remaining three pump stations will be Guilt on Little Branch, Utley Creek, and
Norris Branch (Figure 3). These streams drain the western 40% of the ETJ, and flow
westward to Buckhorn Creek, which was impounded in 1983 by Carolina Power & Light
4

Company (CP&L) to create Harris Lake. Buckhorn Creek, a tributary of the Cape Fear River,
is not designated NSW, nor is it known to contain protected species upstream of Harris Lake
dam.
The project area contains commercial, industrial, res. -,gricultural, and forested
land. Commercial and industrial uses are concentrated U+Li.y 4i: 55. Residential use is
expanding throughout the ETJ, and agricultural use is declining. The CP&L land immediately
west of the proposed Utley Creek pump station site is managed as Wildlife Game Lands by
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC).
3.0. SURVEY METHODS.
3.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands.
Jurisdictional wetlands and mosE ics of wetlands and non -wetlands were determined
in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). The hydrophytic indicator status of wetland vegetation was based on
Reed (1988). The approximate boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands or mosaics were mapped
on USGS topographic quadrangles, and illustrated (W) in Figures 2 and 3.
3.2. Protected Species and Natural Areas.
RJG&A consulted with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) for information on protected plant and animal species and rare natural
communities likely to occur in the project area. Sixty rare species have been recorded from
Wake County, of which five are federally protected (E, T, PE, or PT) and another 23 are state
protected (E,T, or SC) or federal candidate (C2) species. These 28 species include 13
vertebrates, 9 invertebrates, and 6 plants (Table 1).
Diagnostic features of each protected or federal candidate species, its habitat
requirements, locations of previous sightings near the project area, and flowering and fruiting
seasons (plants) or breeding seasons (animals) were compiled from LeGrand (1987), LeGrand
and Hall (1995), Radford et al. (1968), Amoroso and Weakley (1995), Schafale and Weakley
(1990), Hooper et al. (1980), Martof et al. (1980), Adams et al. (1990), Potter et al. (1980),
Webster et al. (1985), Rohde et al (1994), NHP records, and personal communication with
agency biologists. Habitat requirements are summarized in Table 2.
RJG&A ecologists Gerald Pottern, Michael Crocker, and Patrick MacMillan surveyed
the project area for protected species and high quality natural habitats during late April
through June, 1995. Potentially suitable habitats for protected species were identified from
soil maps, topographic maps, aerial photographs, and field inspection. For many of the
species, no suitable habitat was present in the proposed construction corridors. For species
unlikely to be detected except by long-term surveys or trapping (e.g., certain birds and
mammals), habitat quantity and quality were assessed, records previous sightings
reviewed, and a professional judgment made of the probability of occurrence of these species
in the project area. Several strearn-dwel!ina protected species have already been documented
from Middle Creek, and the project must include provisions to protect these species.
5

Locations of rare species (numbers) and high quality natural habitats (H) are mapped
in Figures 2 and 3. High quality natural habitats may contain protected species, rare but
unprotected species (federal 3C; state C, SR, or Watch List), regionally disjunct populations
of species that are secure elsewhere in the North Carolina, unusual geologic features, or
unusually diverse, mature, and well preserved communities of common species.
4.0. SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
4.1. General Recommendations for Minimizing Adverse Impacts.
WRC and DEM offer the following guidelines in design of wastewater facilities to
minimize adverse impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat. These agencies may deny
concurrence with a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) if the guidelines have not been
incorporated.
1) avoid jurisdictional wetlands, and cross at narrow points
2) minimize stream crossings, and cross perpendicular to channel
3) preserve forested buffers along streams (100 feet where possible)
4) avoid mature forests and other high -quality natural communities
5) avoid fragmentation of large habitat areas
The following sub -sections describe the important natural features of each segment
of the project corridor, and recommend a route of least impact incorporating WRC and DEM
guidelines above.
4.2. Middle Creek Basin Below Bass Lake Dam.
This portion of the project are 3 includes Middle Creek below Sunset Lake dam, the
shoreline of Sunset Lake, Middle Cree < and its unnamed tributary northwest of Sunset Lake,
and Basal Creek and its unnamed tributary between Bass Lake darn and the head of Sunset
Lake.
4.2.1. Middle Creek Below Sunset Lake.
The floodplain and adjacent slopes along Middle Creek below Sunset Lake (east of SR
1301) has been designated a significant natural area by NHP (LeGrand, 1987). This area
contains disjunct populations of plants typical of both mountain and coastal plain habitats, and
a diverse community of typical Piedmont species. The Neuse River waterdog and several
state protected mussels occur in this segment of Middle Creek, and the federally endangered
dwarf wedge mussel occurs downstream. The state threatened tiger salamander breeds in
seasonally ponded depressions at the edge of the floodplain, and adults live in the adjacent
forested uplands. Two rare but unprotected plants in this area are nestronia (Nestronia
umbellula) and Lewis's heartleaf (HexasiTl.'s
Adverse impacts en the raturai are: and its protected species can be minimized by
preserving a wide forested buffer along Ir,..liddle Creek and siting the pump station south of the
creek as close as possible to SR 1 ?01 .
6

4.2.2. Sunset Lake Shoreline.
The southeast shoreline of Sunset Lake contains steep north facing slopes with high
quality mesic hardwood forest, and yellow lady slipper (Cypripedium calceolus), rare in the
Piedmont. The western shore of the lake is predominantly developed and would be a
preferable route alternative. If the southeast shore must be followed, impacts can be
minimized by siting the sewerline in the shallow edge of the lake, rather than on the sl -:e.
The short-term impact of this alternative includes more wetland disturbance than if the ne
were installed on the slope, but marsh vegetation recovers more quickly than forested slc:.)es,
and long-term impacts will be Tess severe. Corridor maintenance (mowing) will be
unnecessary if the line is installed in the marsh.
The northern shoreline of Sunset Lake is predominantly developed, and no significant
impacts are anticipated along this segment. The line should be routed through existing
mowed areas to avoid the narrow band of natural vegetation along the lake shore.
4.2.3. Basal Creek from Bass Lake Dam to Head of Sunset Lake.
Between Bass Lake dam and SR 1393 is a small but high quality bottomland forest
containing seeps and floodplain pools. Several jurisdictional wetlands 200 square feet or
smaller occur in this area. Impacts will be minimized by routing the construction corridor to
the west of this forest, and utilizing the existing overhead powerline right-of-way (ROW).
From SR 1393 to the head of Sunset Lake is a broad forested floodplain containing a
mosaic of jurisdictional wetland and non -wetland. This segment of Basal Creek has no
perceptible gradient, and broadens into a marsh approximately 800 feet downstream of SR
1393. The northwestern bank of the stream/lake is more developed and is preferable for
minimizing habitat impacts. If the project requires placement along the southeastern bank,
then the line should be routed near the edge of the floodplain to preserve a forested buffer.
4.2.4. Basal Creek Tributary North of Bass Lake.
This segment traverses a golf course. Virtually all the natural vegetation has been
removed. No jurisdictional wetlands, high quality habitats, or rare species remain in this area.
4.2.5. Middle Creek from SR 1 152 to Sunset Lake.
The north bank of Middle Creek is bordered by a broad floodplain, whereas "e south
bank has steep slopes. The north bank is preferred for sewerline construction, • it will
accommodate a wider forested buffer. The north bank floodplain is mostly non-wetl;. 1 near
SR 1152; wetlands are more frequent and larger closer to Sunset Lake. This s -nent
contains young alluvial hardwood forest with pocls that may support the state protect tiger
salamander. One tiger salamander larva was collec-- 'lc •plain pool up. eam
of SR 1152. Adverse impacts on wetlands and prctectea species will be minimized by N. Jting
the sewerline as far north as possible, preferrably along the edge of the adjacent golf course
and other non -forested areas.
7

4.2.6. Middle Creek from SR 1152 to Unnamed Tributary.
The upper portion of this segment of Middle Creek, approximately midway between
NC 55 and SR 1152, contains Didiplis diandra, a significantly rare aquatic pant that had not
been observed in North Carolina for at least 20 years (Amoroso and Weakley, 1995). The
remainder of this segment of Middle Creek contains broad forested floodplains on both sides,
with numerous floodplain pools. One tiger salamander larva was collected and released on
8 May 1995 in a pool 1,300 feet west of SR 1 152 on the north side of the stream.
4.2.7. Middle Creek Tributary from NC 55 to Middle Creek.
An unnamed tributary of Middle Creek arises in a forested headwater seep wetland on
the east side of NC 55 just north of SR 1152. Impacts on this wetland can be avoided by
routing the sewerline along the NC 55 ROW northward to the abandoned railroad ROW. From
this point, the recommended alignment i., adjacent to the railroad bed for approximately 3,400
feet, and then turns eastward, crossing the tributary 500 to 600 feet east of the railroad bed.
East of this point, high quality habitat occurs on both sides of the stream, but the route of
least impact is on the south side, midway between the base of the slopes and the
streambank.
A man-made impoundment colonized and altered by beavers is located just above the
confluence of this tributary with Middle Creek. Both banks are forested, and an extensive
shrub/sapling wetland has developed. Smaller wetlands occur in poorly -drained floodplain
depressions and seeps at the base of north -facing slopes upstream and downstream of the
pond.
An alternative route that would minimize impacts is along the powerline ROW north
of the pond.
4.3. Basal Creek Basin Above Bass Lake Dam.
This portion of the project area includes the shoreline of Bass Lake, nasal Creek above
Bass Lake, and two unnamed tributaries west of Bass Lake.
4.3.1. Shoreline of Bass Lake.
The shoreline of Bass Lake is protected under a conservation easement. Prior to the
present survey, The Nature Conservancy had no records of rare species this preserve.
Most of the western shoreline is developed, and natural vegetation F.!ong the northern
half is limited to a 30 to 75 foot wide band of young mesic slope forest 'mostly sweetgurn
and loblolly pine) and a narrow fringe of marsh herbs and shrubs along the edge of the water.
Both the marsh and slope forest are wider along the southern half of the sr;,reline. Upstream
of the southernmost tributary, the western shoreline at the head of the i=_ke supports high
quality mesic forest containing the rare iexastylis lew:sli. The sewerline should be routed
through mowed areas. preserving the forested fringe a'cng the lake.
8

4.3.2. Northern Tributary West of Bass Lake.
From its confluence with Bass Lake to approximately 1 ,500 feet upstream, this
tributary meanders across a b::,ad floodplain with numerous pools and small wetlands. The
slopes along the southern edge of the floodplain support mesic mixed hardwoods. Those
along the northern edge are more disturbed, and support predominantly yuung ....veetgum and
lobiolly pine. Residential development occupies the upper slopes. The environmentally
preferred route is along the north side of the stream, as far upslope as possible.
The south bank of this tributary contains the oldest mesic forest of the project area.
Many of the oaks, beech, and tulip poplar exceed 24 inches dbh. The diversity of understory
trees, shrubs, flowering herbs, and ferns is unusually high.
4.3.3. Southern Tributary West of Bas:> Lake.
The lowermost 2,000 feet of this tributary includes a wide floodplain containing
jurisdictional wetlands. The south side of the stream is bordered by high quality mesic
hardwood slopes. The recommended project alignment is along the north side of the stream,
as far upslope as possible. Upstream of this segment, no wetlands, rare species, or high
quality habitats occur, and either side of the stream is suitable.
4.3.4. Basal Creek from NC-55 to Bass Lake.
This segment of Basal Creek is bordered by mature mesic hardwood forest in many
areas, and contains a very large population of the rare Hexastylis lewisii. Most known
populations of this plant in North Carolina are clones that reproduce vegetatively and do not
flower. The Basal Creek population is one of very few that reproduces sexually as well as
vegetatively.
Wetlands occur in the Basal Creek floodplain immediately downstream of NC 55 and
in the backwaters of Bass Lake, where an extensive herb/shrub marsh has developed.
The recommended route indicated on Figure 2 avoids and minimizes impacts on
wetlands and Hexastylis lewisii. It begins on the west side, switches to the east side
approximately 2,000 feet northeast of NC 55, and crosses back to the west side near the
backwaters of Bass Lake.
4.3.5. Basal Creek from SR 1 ' 15 to NC-55.
The lowermost 4,000 feet of this stream segment is similar to Basal Creek downstream
of NC 55. Wetlands and high cuality mesic forest containing Hexastylis lewisii occur on both
sides of the stream. The nor:7 side is more disturbed, and the environmentally preferred
route. Upstream of this point. .either side of Easai Creek is suitable.
9

4.4. Little Branch Basin.
This portion of the project area includes Little Branch and three unnamed tributaries
northwest of Holly Springs.
4.4.1. Little Branch and Tributary West of SR 1153.
Immediately west of SR 1153, the Little Branch floodplain is widest on the south side
of the stream, and contains mature mesic hardwood forest. We recommend locating the
sewerline along the 260-foot contour on the south side of the stream, 100 to 400 feet from
the streambank. Some floodplain depressions and an old streambed channel in this section
contain jurisdictional wetlands, although most of the floodplain is not wetland. The floodplain
narrows 1,800 feet downstream of the bridge, where the northwestward -flowing tributary
paralleling SR 1153 empties into Little Branch.
Along the lower 1,500 feet of the tributary, the sewerline should be routed along the
northeastern side. From this point southeastward to the head of the tributary, the sewer
should be routed along the southwestern side. It is important to locate the corridor far enough
away from the stream to avoid multiple crossings of extensive meanders. The tributary
originates on the BFI Holly Springs landfill property, where the channel is shallow and braided.
Hexastylis lewisii is common in this area. Impacts to this rare plant can be minimized by
routing the sewerline to provide a wide buffer along the stream.
4.4.2. Little Branch and Tributaries East of SR 1153.
South of Little Branch is a large forested tract containing high quality alluvial forest,
mesic slopes, upland forests, and the rare Nestronia umbellula. The floodplain is wider on the
north bank, and a wider forested buff€ r can be provided if the sewerline is routed on this side
of the stream. Previously disturbed areas and an existing sewerline are located on the north
side of Little Branch along the upstream portion of this segment, making this the preferred
route. No large wetlands occur on either side of the stream.
The southern tributary parallel to SR 1 153 is bordered by high quality mesic forest on
both banks. Bedrock sills across the stream and several lateral seeps support fish -free vernal
pools that provide high quality amphibian habitat. Adverse impacts will be less if the
sewerline is routed along the west side of the stream, avoiding fragmentation of the habitat
between this tributary and Little Branch.
4.5. Utley Creek Basin.
This portion of the project area includes Utley Creek, its unnamed tributary, and a
proposed force main corridor from the head of the tributary to the existing Utley Creek
WWTP.
10

4.5.1. Utley Creek from Proposed Pump Station to Pond Dam.
The floodplain along this segment of Utley Creek supports a mixture of alluvi vI and
mesic hardwood forest of moderate age with a virtually closed canopy. Steep bluffs loin
the floodplain on the south side; the slope is gradual on the north side. The pump stati and
sewerline should be located as far north (away from the stream) as possible. An r sting
property boundary (trees painted with red bands) along this segment is the recom ,ded
location for the sewerline.
4.5.2. Pond Shoreline and Tributary Upstream to Irving Parkway.
Upstream of the pond dam, the preferred route is on the north side of the pond. An
existing sewerline right-of-way should be used from the head of the pond upstream to Irving
Parkway.
4.5.3. Force Main Corridor from Irving Parkway to WWTP.
From Irving Parkway, the sewerline should be located along uplands. Two alternate
routes are acceptable. The preferred route would cross over on an east -west upland route
from Irving Parkway to Treatment Plant Road, then follow the shoulder of Treatment Plant
Road to the WWTP. The other alternative is to follow the upland ridge from Irving Parkway
southward, then head southeastward to the WWTP.
4.6. Norris Branch Basin.
This portion of the project area includes Norris Branch and the proposed force main
corridor along SR 1115 from the proposed Norris Branch pump station to the existing gravity
outfall in Holly Springs.
4.6.1. Norris Branch.
Norris Branch from SR 1 1 15 to approximately 1,500 feet upstream is forested on the
west bank and bordered by a field on the east bank. The field is the environmentally preferred
pump station site and sewerline route. Upstream of this point, both banks are forested, but
the west bank has a wider floodplain and will accommodate a wider forested buffer for stream
protection. High quality mafic bluffs containing chalk maple (Acer leucoderme, and other
plants endemic to this habitat type occur on the east bank. Upstream of the bi fs (5,000
feet upstream of SR ' 1 15), land on either side of the stream has been recently c: _ cut, and
either side is acceptaole for the sewerline.
4.6.2. Force Main Along SR 1 1 15.
No wetlands, rare species, or high quality habitats occur along this segment.
11

5.0. CONCLUSIONS.
(1‘""5.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands.
f's'
Approximate jurisdictional wetlands in the project area are mapped in Figures 2 and 3.
The largest wetlands are associated with the backwaters and fringes of ponds and lakes,
dominated by typical marsh herbs and shrubs. Sewerline installation in marsh wetlands
creates only temporary impacts (provided the lines do not leak), as the vegetation quickly
recovers and maintenance mowing is unnecessary.
Impacts of sewerline construction in forested floodplain and seep wetlands are
permanent if maintenance corridors must be periodically mowed or bush -hogged. The
recommended project routes mapped in Figures 2 and 3 were selected to minimize clearing
in forested wetlands and to preserve wide forested buffers along streams where practicable.
5.2. Rare and Protected Species.
Middle Creek downstream of SR 1301 contains one federally protected mussel (dwarf
wedge mussel), four additional state protected mussels (triangle floater, yellow lance, Atlantic
pigtoe, and squawfoot), two state protected fish (Carolina madtom and least brook lamprey)
and one state protected salamander (Neuse River waterdog). This unusually high
concentration of rare stream dwelling animals is of concern to federal and state regulatory
agencies, which are likely to request that stream protection measures such as wide forested
buffers be incorporated into the project design.
One terrestrial protected species was found in the proposed construction area during
the field reconnaissance. The state threatened tiger salamander breeds in floodplain pools
along Middle Creek upstream of SR 1 152, and adults probably reside in the adjacent upland
forests. The Wake County population of this animal has declined over the past two decades
as breeding pools near Holly Springs have been drained or filled and upland forests cleared for
development. The recommended route should minimize direct impacts on the tiger
salamander. Secondary impacts of induced development may be more significant than direct
construction impacts.
No other protected species is known to occur in the proposed wastewater service area
(NHP records), and none was encountered along the proposed construction corridors during
this field reconnaissance.
Four non -protected rare plant species occur in the proposed construction area, based
on NHP records and our field survey; Didiplis diandra, IVestronia umbellula, Cypripedium
calceolus, and Hexastylis lewisii. The high quality habitats in which these species occur are
identified in Figures 2 and 3, and project alignments have been recommended to avoid or
minimize impacts on these areas. ;educed development may have significantly greater impact
on these species than will sewer!:ee construction and operation.
12

6.0. LITERATURE CITED.
Adams, W.F., J.M. Alderman, R.G. Biggins, A.G. Gerberisch, E.P. Keferl, H.J. Porter,
and A.S. VanDevender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's
freshwater and terrrestrial molluscan fauna. The Scientific Counr" ^n Freshwater and
Terrestrial Mollusks, Raleigh, N.C. 246 pp.
Amoroso, Jame L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
plant species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation. N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 79 pp.
Burr, B.M. and D.S. Lee. 1985. A final report on the status survey of the Carolina
madtom, Noturus furiosus. Memorandum Agreement No. 14-16-0004-84-932 between U.S.
Fish And Wildlife Service and N.C. State Museum of Natural History. 36 pp.
Clark, M.K. 1987. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part I.
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the N.C. Biological Survey, N.C.
Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, N.C. 52 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss. 100 pp. + appendices.
Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oregon.
1632 pp.
Hooper, R.G., A.F. Robinson, Jr., and J.A. Jackson. 1980. The red -cockaded
woodpecker: notes on life history and management. U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. 8 pp.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A distributional survey of
North Carolina mammals. Occasional F'apers of the N.C. Biological Survey, N.C. Museum of
Natural Sciences, Raleigh, N.C. 72 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 1987. Inventory of the Natural Areas of Wake County. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation. N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 161 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 67 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C.
264 pp.
Moser, G.A. 1991. Dwarf ....,edge :russei recover' Fisn and Wildlife
Service, Annapolis Field Office. Annapolis. '.'arylanc. 22 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and H.P. Teul ngs. 7980. Eii ds of the Carolinas. University
of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 403 pp.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Hales, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 1,183 pp.
Reed, Porter B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North
Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL. (NERC-88/18.33)
Rohde, Fred C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes
of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina - Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NC DEHNR, Raleigh, N.C., 325 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 255 pp.
14

Table 1.
Federally protected, state protected. and federal candidate species reported from Wake
County, N.C.
Scientific name
Common name State star:
-,rinr^r ctatUs
VERTEBRATES
Aimophila aestivalis
Ambystoma tigrinum
Coragyps a tra tus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hemidactylium scutatum
Lampetra aepyptera
Lanius ludovicianus
Myotis austroriparius
Myotis sep ten trionalis
Necturus lewisii
Noturus furiosus
Picoides borealis
Vermivora bachmanni
INVERTEBRATES
Alasmidonta heterodon
Alasmidonta undulata
Elliptio lanceolate
Elliptio roanokensis
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis radiata
Lasmigona subviridis
Speyeria diana
Strophitus undulatus
PLANTS
lsoetes piedmontana
Monotropsis odorata
Portulaca smallii
Rhus michauxii
Ruellia humilis
Trillium pusillum
Bachman's sparrow
Tiger salamander
BlacK vulture
Bald eagle
Four -toed salamander
Least brook lamprey
Loggerhead shrike
Soutneastern bat
Keen's (N. long-eared} bat
Neuse River waterdog
Carc:ina madtom
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Bachrnan's warbler
Dwarf wedge mussel
Triangle floater
Yellow lance
Roanoke slabshell
Atlantic pigtoe
Eastern Iamprrmussel
Green floater
Diana fritillary
Squa•. foot mussel
Pier.: "ant quillwort
Swee: pinesap
Sma portulaca
Mic.7a.Jx's sumac
Lc•.•. ....,id -petunia
Car: _a least trillium
SC
T
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
E
E
E
T
E
T
T
SC
E
E
T
C2
C2
C2
E
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
E = Endangered; T = Threaten :t; c = Epeciai Concern; C2 = Category 2 Candidate
15

Table 2. Habitat requirements of protected species known from Wake County, N.C.
Scientific Name
Habitat Requirements
Habitat Present
in Project Area
ANIMALS
Aimophila aestivalis
Ambystoma tigrinum
Coragyps atratus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hemidactylium scutatum
Lampetra aepyptera
Lanius ludovicianus
Myotis austroriparius
Myotis sep ten trionalis
Necturus le wisii
No torus furiosus
Picoides borealis
Vermivora bachmanni
INVERTEBRATES
Alasmidonta heterodon
Alasmidonta undulate
( Elliptio lanceolate
Elliptio roanokensis
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis radiata
Lasmigona subviridis
Speyeria diana
Strophitus undula tus
PLANTS
Isoetes piedmontana
Monotropsis odorata
Portulaca smallii
Rhus michauxii
Ruellia humilis
Trillium pusillum
open, mature pine forest
sandy forests near vernal pools
hollow trees or rock crevices
mature trees along rivers & lakes
ponded seeps with mossy logs
streams
open grassland, farms
hollow trees or buildings, near rivers
hollow trees or caves, extensive forests
streams
streams
open, extensive, mature pine forests
bottomland forests with vine thickets
streams
streams
streams
streams
streams
streams
streams
mesic and floodplain forests
streams
pools on granite flatrock
upland hardwood/pine forests
granite flatrock outcrops
sandy/rocky woodland edges
dry, open, basic woods
calcareous seeps, streambanks
- suitable habitat present, species r ot found in or near project area
- + suitable habitat present, species occurs in or near project area
suitable habitat not prese-:

/p
•
i
1
•
\/ .7II
Figure 1.
Holly Springs Sewerline
Project Area, Showing Service
Area (ETJ), Pump Stations,
and WWTP Location.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

(1115,7
460
p
-
114,
yr., F
:' .
aa
• 3kadioT
..WAKS `-
7>;n n lHei¢hld_'1'� ---._ 1�� •�l ..,�
13S
,_00,
.�
((:3T1)
1
i
. •/// L
• •
LEGEND
Recommend Project Line
H High Quality Habitat
W Wetlands
Rare Species:
1 Hexastylis lewisii
2 Cypripedium pubescens
3 Nestronia umbellula
4 Didiplis diandra
5 Ambystoma tigrinum
SCALE: 1 Inch = 2,000 Feet
Figure 2.
'• .,'
•
J
(\\-300
,
�-`��-
• Q
Wetlands, Rare Species Sites, High
Quality Habitats, and Recommended
Project Corridor in the Holly Springs
Sewerline Project Area - Middle Creek
Basin.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

7
.)" • -'"
---0- t
. • A/ ((
\ .;
•
( (
05—.-•
- -‘•
ffH)
)
H
- • •-•;::
I • •
1.P-1
• 'S./ I
•
‘) )729
•
•
I -••••• / \
j
•
- • Li5r\
_ •.E•
'
) I • =
\‘\
• . :••••r• • .
' _ •
;•-•'' 5
.• m
I 459
‘‘.
LEGEND
Recommend Project Line
H High Quality Habitat
W Wetlands
Rare Species:
1 Hexastylis lewisll
2 Cypripedium pubescens
3 Nestronia umbellula
4 Didiplis diandra
5 Ambystoma tigrinum
SCALE: 1 Inch = 2,000 Feet
• -
• \\--:•A" J '•
Figure 3.
Wetlands, Rare Species Sites, High
Quality Habitats, and Recommended
Project Corridor in the Holly Springs
Sewerline Project Area - Buckhorn
Creek Basin.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

APPENDIX 2
Engineering Calculations and Cost Projections

Description of 2.4 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (Alternative T-1)
The principal components of this alternative are given as follows:
1. Provide a mechanical screen, with 3/8-inch openings and a manually cleaned bypass screen
with 5/8-inch openings, to handle the design peak flow of 6.0 mgd.
2. Provide a new influent pump station equipped with three (3) submersible, non -clog
centrifugal pumps each rated at 2200 gpm capacity. The pumps will be equipped with
variable speed drives and controls.
3. Provide a grit removal system designed to handle a peak flow of 6.0 mgd. The grit
removal unit will be equipped with a screw classifier for grit dewatering.
4. Provide dual oxidation ditch type aeration basins equipped with mechanical turbine
aeration. The oxidation ditch system will be partitioned such that anaerobic, first stage
anoxic, second stage anoxic and oxic zones can be created for biological nutrient removal
process operation. The design solids retention time for the system will be approximately
20 days. The design hydraulic retention time for the system will be approximately 30
hours.
5. Provide two 70-ft diameter clarifiers with 15-ft sidewater depth. The design surface
overflow rate, weir overflow rate, and hydraulic retention time at average daily flow are
312 gpd/sq ft, 5460 gpd/lin.ft and 8.0 hrs, respectively.
6. Provide a sludge recirculation/waste pump station that will include two sludge recirculation
pumps, each rated at 1700 gpm; two waste sludge pumps each rated at 300 gpm; and two
scum pumps each rated at 150 gpm. The pumps will be provided with necessary controls
and piping.
7. Provide back-up chemical feed facilities for phosphorous removal. The chemical feed
facilities will consist of alum or ferrous sulfate and polymer feed systems. The
alum/ferrous sulfate feed system will consist of a bulk storage tank, two metering pumps,
flow pacing and necessary piping, controls, spill containment and housing. The polymer
feed system will consist of a dry feeder, mixing tank, aging tank, two metering pumps and
necessary piping, controls, polymer storage area and housing.
8. Provide a lime feed system designed to supplement alkalinity for nitrification and to add
adequate lime for sludge stabilization and production of Class B sludge that can be
disposed of by land application.
9. Provide a tertiary filtration system. The design filtration rates at average daily flow (2.4
mgd) and maximum daily flow (4.8 mgd) will be approximately 2.0 gpm/sq ft and 4.0
gpm/sq ft.
10. Provide a UV disinfection system to comply with the effluent Fecal Coliform Limit.
11. Provide a cascade type post aeration facility designed to comply with the effluent Dissolved
Oxygen Limit.
12. Convert the existing 500,000 gpd package plant to aerobic sludge digestion facilities
equipped with diffused aeration system and decanting equipment. Utilize the existing tri-
plex blower system for air supply. Provide a sludge transfer pump station to transfer

stabilized sludge to sludge holding facilities.
13. Convert the existing 250,000 gpd package plant to sludge holding facilities utilizing the
existing aeration system for mixing requirements. The sludge holding facilities shall be
used for lime stabilization as required.
14. Dispose the aerobically stabilized or lime stabilized sludges by land application, using a
contracting firm engaged in sludge disposal.
15. Provide a new laboratory/administrative building.

ALTERNATIVE T-1
Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 2.4 MGD Wastewater Treatment Facility
DESCRIPTION COST
INFLUENT PUMP STATION $175,000
HEADWORKS $180,000
GRIT CHAMBER $145,000
OXIDATION DITCHES $2,300,000
FINAL CLARIFIERS $570,000
RAS/WAS PUMP STATION $165,000
TERTIARY FILTERS $370,000
UV DISINFECTION $225,000
CASCADE AERATION $30,000
CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING $95,000
LIME STABILIZATION $165,000
SLUDGE DIGESTION $175,000
INSTRUMENTATION $100,000
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $150,000
SLUDGE LOADING $50,000
SITEWORK $783,200
ELECTRICAL (8% of Sub less Site) $391,600
SUB -TOTAL $6,069,800
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%) $1,820,940
Legal & Admin. (2%) $121,396
Survey & Misc. $25.000
PROJECT TOTAL $8,037,136
USE $8,037,000

(ah
ALTERNATIVE T-1 PRESENT WORTH COST
/''"L'N O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salavge Value
Total Present Worth
PW of New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Total Present Worth
$208,500
$97,000
$161,000
$5,000
$25,000
$215.000
$503,000
7.75%
20 Years
$539,757.84
$3,729,625.03
$500,000
$3,482,700
($399,685)
($782,655)
$6,424,541
$539,757.84
$3,729,625.03
($399,685)
($782.655)
$9,511,584

Description of 1.3 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (Alternative T-3)
The principal components of this alternative are given as follows:
1. Provide a mechanical screen, with 3/8-inch openings and a manually cleaned bypass screen
with 5/8-inch openings, to handle the design peak flow of 3.25 mgd.
2. Provide a new influent pump station equipped with three (3) submersible, non -clog
centrifugal pumps each rated at 1150 gpm capacity. The pumps will be equipped with
variable speed drives and controls.
3. Provide a grit removal system designed to handle a peak flow of 3.25 mgd. The grit
removal unit will be equipped with a screw classifier for grit dewatering.
4. Provide dual oxidation ditch type aeration basins equipped with mechanical turbine
aeration. The oxidation ditch system will be partitioned such that anaerobic, first stage
anoxic, second stage anoxic and oxic zones can be created for biological nutrient removal
process operation. The design solids retention time for the system will be approximately
20 days. The design hydraulic retention time for the system will be approximately 30
hours.
5. Provide two 50-ft diameter clarifiers with 15-ft sidewater depth. The design surface
overflow rate, weir overflow rate, and hydraulic retention time at average daily flow are
330 gpd/sq ft, 4138 gpd/lin.ft and 8.0 hrs, respectively.
6. Provide a sludge recirculation/waste pump station that will include two sludge recirculation
pumps, each rated at 950 gpm; two waste sludge pumps each rated at 300 gpm; and two
scum pumps each rated at 150 gpm. The pumps will be provided with necessary controls
and piping.
7. Provide back-up chemical feed facilities for phosphorous removal. The chemical feed
facilities will consist of alum or ferrous sulfate and polymer feed systems. The
alum/ferrous sulfate feed system will consist of a bulk storage tank, two metering pumps,
flow pacing and necessary piping, controls, spill containment and housing. The polymer
feed system will consist of a dry feeder, mixing tank, aging tank, two metering pumps and
necessary piping, controls, polymer storage area and housing.
8. Provide a lime feed system designed to supplement alkalinity for nitrification and to add
adequate lime for sludge stabilization and production of Class B sludge that can be
disposed of by land application.
9. Provide a tertiary filtration system. The design filtration rates at average daily flow (1.3
mgd) and maximum daily flow (2.4 mgd) will be approximately 2.0 gpm/sq ft and 4.0
gpm/sq ft.
10. Provide a UV disinfection system to comply with the effluent Fecal Coliform Limit.
11. Provide a cascade type post aeration facility designed to comply with the effluent Dissolved
Oxygen Limit.
12. Convert the existing 500,000 gpd package plant to aerobic sludge digestion facilities
equipped with diffused aeration system and decanting equipment. Utilize the existing tri-
plex blower system for air supply. Provide a sludge transfer pump station to transfer

stabilized sludge to sludge holding facilities.
13. Convert the existing 250,000 gpd package plant to sludge holding facilities utilizing the
existing aeration system for mixing requirements. The sludge holding facilities shall be
used for lime stabilization as required.
14. Dispose the aerobically stabilized or lime stabilized sludges by land application, using a
contracting firm engaged in sludge disposal.
15. Provide a new laboratory/administrative building.

ALTERNATIVE T-3
Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 13 MGD Wastewater Treatment
Facility
DESCRIPTION COST
INFLUENT PUMP STATION $100,000
HEADWORKS $110,000
GRIT CHAMBER $120,000
OXIDATION DITCHES $1,360,000
FINAL CLARIFIERS $470,000
RAS/WAS PUMP STATION $150,000
TERTIARY FILTERS $188,000
UV DISINFECTION $90,000
CASCADE AERATION $30,000
CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING $95,000
LIME STABILIZATION $135,000
SLUDGE DIGESTION $150,000
INSTRUMENTATION $90,000
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $150,000
SLUDGE LOADING $50,000
SITEWORK $526,080
ELECTRICAL (8% of Sub less Site) $263,040
SUB -TOTAL $4,077,120
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection $ 1,223,136
Legal & Admin. (2%) $ 81,542
Survey & Misc. $ 15,000
PROJECT TOTAL $5,396,798
USE $5,397,000
Expected Capital Charge from Town Of Cary $2,133,867

ALTERNATIVE T-3 PRESENT WORTH COST
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salavge Value
Total Present Worth
PW of New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Total Present Worth -Holley Springs WWTP
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP
Total Present Worth of Alternative T-3
$208,500
$65,500
$117,000
$9,500
$15,000
$117.000
$324,000
7.75%
20 Years
$1,591,830.30
$767,507.55
$250,000
$3,957,800
($102,078)
($889,423)
$2,203,662
$1,591,830.30
$767,507.55
($102,078)
($889.423)
$3,571,499
$3,381,127
$6,952,627

Description of .8 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (Alternative T-4)
The principal components of this alternative are given as follows:
1. Provide a mechanical screen, with 3/8-inch openings and a manually cleaned bypass screen
with 5/8-inch openings, to handle the design peak flow of 3.25 mgd.
2. Provide a new influent pump station equipped with three (3) submersible, non -clog
centrifugal pumps each rated at 600 gpm capacity. The pumps will be equipped with
variable speed drives and controls.
3. Provide a grit removal system designed to handle a peak flow of 3.25 mgd. The grit
removal unit will be equipped with a screw classifier for grit dewatering.
4. Provide an 800,000 gpd dual -path, extended aeration package plant with diffused aeration.
The plant will contain two aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, sludge digester and
sludge holding tank. The design solids retention time for the system will be approximately
20 days. The design hydraulic retention time for the system will be approximately 24
hours.
5. Provide back-up chemical feed facilities for phosphorous removal. The chemical feed
facilities will consist of alum or ferrous sulfate and polymer feed systems. The
alum/ferrous sulfate feed system will consist of a bulk storage tank, two metering pumps,
flow pacing and necessary piping, controls, spill containment and housing. The polymer
feed system will consist of a dry feeder, mixing tank, aging tank, two metering pumps and
necessary piping, controls, polymer storage area and housing.
6. Provide a lime feed system designed to supplement alkalinity for nitrification and to add
adequate lime for sludge stabilization and production of Class B sludge that can be
disposed of by land application.
9. Provide an additional tertiary filtration system. The design filtration rates at average daily
flow (.8 mgd) will be approximately 2.0 gpm/sq ft.
10. Provide an additional UV disinfection system to comply with the effluent Fecal Coliform
Limit.
11. Provide a cascade type post aeration facility designed to comply with the effluent Dissolved
Oxygen Limit.
12. Dispose the aerobically stabilized or lime stabilized sludges by land application, using a
contracting firm engaged in sludge disposal.
13. Provide a new laboratory/administrative building.

ALTERNATIVE T-4
Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 0.8 MGD Wastewater Treatment
Facility
DESCRIPTION COST
INFLUENT PUMP STATION $75,000
HEADWORKS $110,000
GRIT CHAMBER $120,000
.8 MGD PACKAGE PLANT $1,006,000
TRIPLEX BLOWERS $125,000
TERTIARY FILTERS $133,000
UV DISINFECTION $90,000
CASCADE AERATION $30,000
CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING $95,000
LIME STABILIZATION $135,000
INSTRUMENTATION $50,000
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $150,000
SLUDGE TRANSFER/HOLDING $100,000
SITEWORK $355,040
ELECTRICAL (8% of Sub less Site) $177,520
SUB -TOTAL $2,751,560
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%) $825,468
Legal & Admin. (2%) $55,031
Survey & Misc. $15,000
PROJECT TOTAL $3,647,059
USE $3,647,000
Expected Capital Charge from Town Of Cary $2,133,867

ALTERNATIVE T-4 PRESENT WORTH COST
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Non -Annual O&M Costs
Paint Existing System in 2004
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2004 Paint Cost
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Calculation
PW of New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
PLus PW of Cost of Painitng Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Total Present Worth of Holley Springs WWTP
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP
Total Present Worth of Alternative T-4
$208,500
$65,500
$126,500
$40,000
$25,000
$130.000
$387,000
$140,000
7.75%
20 Years
$2,157,247
$916,745
$71,511
$0
$2,059,002
$0
($462,712)
$1,489,116
$2,157,246.56
$916,745.12
$71,511
$0
($462.712)
$4,171,906
$3,381,127
$7,553,033

Alternative T-5
Present Worth of Continuing to Operate Existing 0.500 MGD
WWTP
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Salary $60,000
Electrical $89,500
Chemicals $2,000
Maintenance&Miscellaneous $7,000
Sludge Disposal $50.000
Total O&M Costs Exisiting System $208,500
Non -Annual O&M Costs
Paint Existing System in 2004 $140,000
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate 7.75%
Planning Period 20 Years
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs $2,157,247
PW of 2004 Paint Cost $71,511
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant $0
Total Present Worth Calculation
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant $2,157,247
PLus PW of Cost of Painitng Existing Plant $71,511
Total Present Worth - Holley Springs 0.50 mgd
Package Plant $2,228,758
Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP $5.195.279
Total Present Worth Alternative T-5 $7,424,037

Year Year
1 1996
2 1997
3 1998
4 1999
5 2000
6 2001
7 2002
8 2003
9 2004
10 2005
11 2006
12 2007
13 2008
14 2009
15 2010
16 2011
17 2012
18 2013
19 2014
20 2015
Assumed Town
of Cary
Treatment
Charge per
1000 gals= $1.40
Expected Total
Average Daily
Wastewater
Flow
0.19 MGD
0.22 MGD
0.25 MGD
0.29 MGD
0.33 MGD
0.38 MGD
0.43 MGD
0.49 MGD
0.56 MGD
0.64 MGD
0.73 MGD
0.83 MGD
0.95 MGD
1.08 MGD
1.24 MGD
1.41 MGD
1.61 MGD
1.84 MGD
2.10 MGD
2.40 MGD
PW Costs for Tie to Cary
Interest Rate= 7.75%
Present Worth
Present of
Alternative Worth of Alternatives T- Alternatives T- Alternative
Expected Q - T-2 Alternative T- 3 & T-4 3 & T-4
Expected Q - Cape Fear Treatment 2 Treatment Treatment Treatment
Middle Creek Watershed Charge Charge Charges Charges
0.09 MGD 0.11 MGD $0 $0 $0 $0
0.10 MGD 0.12 MGD $0 $0 $0 $0
0.12 MGD 0.14 MGD $0 $0 $0 $0
0.13 MGD 0.16 MGD $147,452 $109,391 $67,582 $50,138
0.15 MGD 0.18 MGD $168,316 $115,888 $77,145 $53,116
0.17 MGD 0.20 MGD $192,133 $122,772 $88,061 $56,270
0.20 MGD 0.23 MGD $219,320 $130,064 $100,522 $59,613
0.22 MGD 0.27 MGD $250,354 $137,789 $114,745 $63,153
0.26 MGD 0.30 MGD $285,779 $145,974 $130,982 $66,905
0.29 MGD 0.35 MGD $326,216 $154,644 $149,516 $70,879
0.33 MGD 0.39 MGD $372,376 $163,829 $170,672 $75,088
0.38 MGD 0.45 MGD $425,067 $173,560 $194,823 $79,548
0.44 MGD 0.51 MGD $485,214 $183,869 $222,390 $84,273
0.50 MGD 0.59 MGD $553,872 $194,790 $253,858 $89,279
0.57 MGD 0.67 MGD $632,245 $206,360 $289,779 $94,582
0.65 MGD 0.77 MGD $721,708 $218,617 $330,783 $100,200
0.74 MGD 0.87 MGD $823,829 $231,603 $377,588 $106,151
0.84 MGD 1.00 MGD $940,401 $245,359 $431,017 $112,456
0.96 MGD 1.14 MGD $1,073,468 $259,933 $492,006 $119,136
1.10 MGD 1.30 MGD $1,226,400 $275.605 $562,100 $126.319
$3,070,048 $1,407,105
Present
Worth of
Alternative
T-5 T-5
Treatment Treatment
Charge Charge
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$67,582 $50,138
$77,145 $53,116
$88,061 $56,270
$100,522 $59,613
$114,745 $63,153
$130,982 $66,905
$149,516 $70,879
$170,672 $75,088
$194,823 $79,548
$229,714 $87,049
$298,372 $104,934
$376,745 $122,967
$466,208 $141,222
$568,329 $159,774
$684,901 $178,697
$817,968 $198,065
$970,900 $218.187
$1,785,605

PW Costs for Tie to Cary
Present Worth Alternative T-2
Capital Charges from the Town of Cary $4,655,711
Present Worth of O&M Costs $3,070,048
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($348,754)
Total Present Worth $7,377,005
Present Worth Alternative T-3 & T-4
Capital Charges from the Town of Cary $2,133,867
Present Worth of O&M Costs $1,407,105
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($159.846)
Total Present Worth $3,381,127
Present Worth Alternative T-5
Capital Charges from the Town of Cary $3,685,771
Present Worth of O&M Costs $1,785,605
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($276.097)
Total Present Worth $5,195,279

ALTERNATIVE T-6A
Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 0.5 MGD Wastewater
Facility Expansion
DESCRIPTION
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
HEADWORKS
GRIT CHAMBER
.5 MGD PACKAGE PLANT
BLOWERS
TERTIARY FILTERS
UV DISINFECTION
CASCADE AERATION
INSTRUMENTATION
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITY
STANDBY POWER
SrrEWORK
ELECTRICAL
SUB -TOTAL
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%)
Legal & Admin. (2%)
Survey & Misc.
PROJECT TOTAL
USE
Treatment
COST
$75,000
$110,000
$120,000
$738,000
$90,000
$95,000
$70,000
$30,000
$35,000
$25,000
$75,000
$247,080
$111,040
$1,821,120
$546,336
$36,422
$15,000
$2,418,878
$2,419,000

ALTERNATIVE T-6A PRESENT WORTH
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Projected O&M Costs for 2012 Expansion
Non -Annual O&M Costs
Paint Existing System in 2004
Paint New System in 2007
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2012 Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2012 Plant Expansion
PW of 2004 Paint Cost
PW of 2007 Paint Cost
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
Slavage Value of 2012 Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salvage Value
PW of 2012 Plant's Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Calculation
PW of New Plant
PW of 2012 Plant Expansion
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for 2012 Plant
Plus PW of Cost of Painting Existing Plant
Plus PW of Cost of Painting New Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of 2012 Plant
Total Present Worth of Holley Springs WWTP
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP
Total Present Worth of Alternative T-6A
COST
$208,500
$40,938
$79,063
$1,000
$8,000
$78.000
$207,000
$186,300
$140,000
$140,000
7.75%
20 Years
$2,085,736
$1,700,325
$135,585
$820,617
$71,511
$57,164
$0
$241,900
$2,481,150
$0
($54,361)
($557,580)
$2,083,537
$820,617
$2,085,735.61
$1,700,325.34
$135,585.12
$71,511
$57,164
$0
($54,361)
($557.580)
$6,342,533
$3,381,127
$9,723,660

ALTERNATIVE T-6B
Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 0.5 MGD Wastewater Treatment
Facility Expansion
DESCRIPTION COST
INFLUENT PUMP STATION $75,000
HEADWORKS $110,000
GRIT CHAMBER $120,000
.5 MGD PACKAGE PLANT $738,000
BLOWERS $90,000
TERTIARY FILTERS $95,000
UV DISINFECTION $70,000
CASCADE AERATION $30,000
INSTRUMENTATION $35,000
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITY $25,000
STANDBY POWER $75,000
SITEWORK $247,080
ELECTRICAL $111,040
SUB -TOTAL $1,821,120
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%) $546,336
Legal & Admin. (2%) $36,422
Survey & Misc. $15,000
PROJECT TOTAL $2,418,878
USE $2,419,000

ALTERNATIVE T-6B PRESENT WORTH
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Projected O&M Costs for 2007 Expansion
Non -Annual O&M Costs
Paint Existing System in 2004
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2007 Plant Expansion
PW of 2007 Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2004 Paint Cost
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
Slavage Value of 2007 Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salvage Value
PW of 2007 Plant's Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Calculation
PW of New Plant
PW of 2007 Plant Expansion
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for 2007 Plant
Plus PW of Cost of Painting Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of 2012 Plant
Total Present Worth of Holley Springs WWTP
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP
Total Present Worth of Alternative T-6A
COST
$208,500
$40,938
$79,063
$1,000
$8,000
$78 000
$207,000
$668,990
$140,000
7.75%
20 Years
$1,591,830
$1,209,973
$5,998,794
$1,584,737
$71,511
$0
$1,209,500
$10,773,894
$0
($493,854)
($2,421,180)
$2,083,537
$5,998,794
$1,591,830.30
$1,209,973.30
$1,584,737.26
$71,511
$0
($493,854)
($2.421.180)
$9,625,349
$0
$9,625,349

Phase 1
Quantity
7700 LF
39 EA
18500 LF
1EA
Phase 2
Quantity
4800 LF
24EA
18500 LF
2 EA
ALTERNATIVE 0-1
Description
24" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
10" Forcemain
Pump Station (Middle Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Easements ($9.00 per LF)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Land Aquisition
Legal & Administrative (2%)
Total Estimated Cost
USE
Description
24" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
12" Force Main
Pumps
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Legal & Administrative (2%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
USE
Extended Cost
$462,000
$78,000
$407,000
$425.000
$1,372,000
$411,600
$69,300
$5,000
$20,000
S27.440
$1,905,340
$1,905,000
Extended Cost
$288,000
$48,000
$518,000
$90.000
$944,000
$283,200
$1,000
$18.880
$1,247,080
$1,247,000

Present Worth Analysis Alternative 0-1
Phase 1 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $729
Phase 2 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $455
Phase 1 Force Main O&M Costs $876
Phase 2 Force Main O&M Costs $876
Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $5,000
Electricity $28,000
Maintenance $3,500
Odor Control $12.000
Total Pump Station Maintenance $48,500
Total Phase 1 O&M Costs $50,105
Value of Phase 1 O&M Costs as of Year 3 $464,762
Total Phase 2 O&M Costs $1,330
Value of Phase 2 O&M Costs as of Year 11 $8,399
Salvage Value at 2015
Phase I Construction $1,017,104
Phase 2 Construction $957.650
Total Salvage Value $1,974,754
Present Worth Calculation
Present Worth of Phase 1 Construction $1,522,801
Present Worth of Phase 2 Consruction $548,626
Present Worth of Phase 1 O&M $371,517
Present Worth of Phase 2 O&M $3,695
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($443.780)
Total Present Worth $2,002,860

Phase 1
Quantity
7700 LF
39 EA
4800 LF
20400 LF
8000 LF
1EA
1EA
Phase 2
Quantity
4800 LF
24EA
4800 LF
20400 LF
8000 LF
2 EA
2 EA
2 EA
ALTERNATIVE 0-2
Description
24" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
8" Forcemain
10" Forcemain
12" Force Main
Pump Station (Utley Creek)
Pump Station (Middle Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Easements ($9.00 per LF)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Land Aquisition
Legal & Administrative (2%)
Total Estimated Cost
USE
Description
18" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
12" Force Main
14" Force Main
16" Force Main
Generators
Pumps
Pumps
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Legal & Administrative (2%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
USE
Extended Cost
$462,000
$78,000
$86,400
$448,800
$224,000
$450,000
$425.000
$2,174,200
$652,260
$69,300
$5,000
$20,000
$43.484
$2,964,244
$2,964,000
Extended Cost
$264,000
$48,000
$134,400
$652,800
$288,000
$200,000
$90,000
$100.000
$1,777,200
$533,160
$1,000
$35.544
$2,346,904
$2,347,000

Present Worth Analysis Alternative 0-2
Phase 1 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $729
Phase 2 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $455
Phase 1 Force Main O&M Costs $1,572
Phase 2 Force Main O&M Costs $1,572
Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $10,000
Electricity $60,000
Maintenance $7,000
Odor Control $24,000
Total Pump Station Maintenance $101,000
Total Phase 1 O&M Costs $103,301
Value of Phase 1 O&M Costs as of Year 3 $958,195
Total Phase 2 O&M Costs $2,027
Value of Phase 2 O&M Costs as of Year 11 $12,792
Salvage Value at 2015
Phase I Construction $1,543,154
Phase 2 Construction $1,800,400
Total Salvage Value $3,343,554
Present Worth Calculation
Present Worth of Phase 1 Construction $2,369,334
Present Worth of Phase 2 Consruction $1,032,578
Present Worth of Phase 1 O&M $765,953
Present Worth of Phase 2 O&M $5,628
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($751.385)
Total Present Worth $3,422,109

ALTERNATIVE 0-3
Ph
Quantity Description
7700 LF 24" Gravity Sewer
39 EA Manholes
12800 LF 8" Forcemain
1 EA Pump Station (Middle Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Easements ($9.00 per LF)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Land Aquisition
Legal & Administrative (2%)
Total Estimated Cost
USE
Phase 2
Quantity Description
4800 LF 18" Gravity Sewer
24 EA Manholes
12800 LF 12" Force Main
1 EA Generator
2 EA Pumps
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Legal & Administrative (2%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
USE
Extended Cost
$462,000
$78,000
$230,400
$425.000
$1,195,400
$358,620
$69,300
$5,000
$20,000
$23.908
$1,672,228
$1,672,000
Extended Cost
$264,000
$48,000
$358,400
$100,000
$90.000
$860,400
$258,120
$1,000
$17.208
$1,136,728
$1,137,000

Present Worth Analysis Alternative 0-3
Phase 1 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $729
Phase 2 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $455
Phase 1 Force Main O&M Costs $606
Phase 2 Force Main O&M Costs $606
Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $5,000
Electricity $28,000
Maintenance $3,500
Odor Control $12.000
Total Phase 1 Pump Station Maintenance $48,500
Total Phase 1 O&M Costs $49,835
Value of Phase 1 O&M Costs as of Year 3 $462,259
Total Phase 2 O&M Costs $1,061
Value of Phase 2 O&M Costs as of Year 11 $6,695
Salvage Value at 2015
Phase 1 Construction $883,129
Phase 2 Construction $872.400
Total Salvage Value $1,755,529
Present Worth Calculation
Present Worth of Phase 1 Construction $1,336,548
Present Worth of Phase 2 Construction $500,231
Present Worth of Phase 1 O&M $369,516
Present Worth of Phase 2 O&M $2,945
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($394514)
Total Present Worth $1,814,726

(2111' Phase 1
Quantity
7700 LF
39 EA
12800 LF
1EA
fs1h
Phase 2
Quantity
4800 LF
24EA
4800 LF
20400 LF
8000 LF
1EA
2 EA
1 EA
ALTERNATIVE 0-4
Description
24" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
8" Forcemain
Pump Station (Middle Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Easements ($9.00 per LF)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Land Aquisition
Legal & Administrative (2%)
Total Estimated Cost
USE
Description
18" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
12" Force Main
14" Force Main
16" Force Main
Generators
Pumps
Pump Station (Utley Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Legal & Administrative (2%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
USE
Extended Cost
$462,000
$78,000
$230,400
$425.000
$1,195,400
$358,620
$69,300
$5,000
$20,000
$23,908
$1,672,228
$1,672,000
Extended Cost
$264,000
$48,000
$134,400
$652,800
$288,000
$100,000
$90,000
$450,000
$2,027,200
$608,160
$1,000
$40,544
$2,676,904
$2,677,000

Present Worth Analysis Alternative 0-4
Phase 1 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $729
Phase 2 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $455
Phase 1 Force Main O&M Costs $606
Phase 2 Force Main O&M Costs $1,572
Phase One Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $5,000
Electricity $28,000
Maintenance $3,500
Odor Control $12.000
Total Phase 1 Pump Station Maintenance $48,500
Total Phase 1 O&M Costs $49,835
Value of Phase 1 O&M Costs as of Year 3 $462,259
Phase Two Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $5,000
Electricity $28,000
Maintenance $3,500
Odor Control $12.000
Total Phase 2 Pump Station Maintenance $48,500
Total Phase 2 O&M Costs $50,527
Value of Phase 2 O&M Costs as of Year 11 $318,941
Salvage Value at 2015
Phase I Construction $883,129
Phase 2 Construction $2.022.025
Total Salvage Value $2,905,154
Present Worth Calculation
Present Worth of Phase 1 Construction $1,336,548
Presen Worth of Phase 2 Construction $1,177,764
Present Worth of Phase 1 O&M $369,516
Present Worth of Phase 2 O&M $140,320
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($652.865)
Total Present Worth $2,371,283

Spray Irrigation Present Worth (PW) Analysis
Assume:
1) O&M is paid at the end of the year
Case 1 (2.4 mod)
Interest Rate (i) = 7.75%
Present Year = 1995
Construction Cost = $24,100,000
Construction Year = 1998
Salvage Value = $14,300,000
Salvage Year = 2015
O&M Cost (Annual) = $139,400
Year O&M Starts = 1999
Year O&M Ends = 2016
Construction PW =
Salvage PW =
O&M PW in Year O&M Starts = $1,293,040
O&M PW =
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH =
Case 2 (1.9 mgd)
Interest Rate (i)
Present Year
Construction Cost
Construction Year
Salvage Value
Salvage Year
O&M Cost (Annual)
Year O&M Starts
Year O&M Ends
= 7.75%
= 1995
= $19,200,000
= 2003
= $13,700,000
= 2015
= $110,300
= 2004
= 2016
USE =
$19,264,831
($3,213,590)
$959.274
$17,010,515
$17,000,000
Construction PW = $10,567,275
Salvage PW = ($3,078,754)
O&M PW in Year O&M Starts = $842,105
O&M PW = $430.141
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $7,918,662
USE = $7,900,000

Spray Irrigation Present Worth (PW) Analysis
Assume:
1) O&M is paid at the end of the year
Case 3 (1.3 mgd)
Interest Rate (i)
Present Year
Construction Cost
Construction Year
Salvage Value
Salvage Year
O&M Cost (Annual)
Year O&M Starts
Year O&M Ends
= 7.75%
= 1995
= $13,400,000
= 2007
= $10,800,000
= 2015
= $75,500
= 2008
= 2016
Construction PW = $5,471,387
Salvage PW = ($2,427,047)
O&M PW in Year O&M Starts = $438,018
O&M PW = $165.984
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $3,210,325
Case 4 (1.1 mgd)
Interest Rate (i)
Present Year
Construction Cost
Construction Year
Salvage Value
Salvage Year
O&M Cost (Annual)
Year O&M Starts
Year O&M Ends
= 7.75%
= 1995
= $11,400,000
= 1998
= $6,700,000
= 2015
= $63,900
= 1999
= 2016
USE= $3,200,000
Construction PW = $9,112,825
Salvage PW = ($1,505,668)
O&M PW in Year O&M Starts = $592,720
O&M PW = $439.725
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $8,046,881
USE= $8,000,000

Spray Irrigation Present Worth (PW) Analysis
Assume:
1) O&M is paid at the end of the year
Case 5 (0.8 mgd)
Interest Rate (i)
Present Year
Construction Cost
Construction Year
Salvage Value
Salvage Year
O&M Cost (Annual)
Year O&M Starts
Year O&M Ends
= 7.75%
= 1995
= $8,500,000
= 2007
= $6,800,000
= 2015
= $46,500
= 2008
= 2016
Construction PW = $3,470,656
Salvage PW = ($1,528,141)
O&M PW in Year O&M Starts = $269,773
O&M PW = $102,229
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $2,044,744
USE = $2,000,000

Spray Irrigation Salvage Values
Assume:
1) All salvages in year 2015
2) 30 year life for all equipment
3) Land does not depreciate or appreciate
Case 1 (2.4 mgd)
Year built = 1998
Salvage Year = 2015
Item Original Cost
Total Plant $24,100,000
All Land $6.882.000
Difference = $17,218,000
Total Salvage Value
USE_
Case 2 (1.9 mad)
Year built = 2003
Salvage Year = 2015
Item Original Cost
Total Plant $19,200,000
All Land $5.448.000
Difference = $13,752,000
Total Salvage Value =
USE =
Case 3 (1.3 mgd)
Year built = 2007
Salvage Year = 2015
Item Original Cost
Total Plant $13,400,000
All Land $3.729.000
Difference = $9,671,000
Total Salvage Value =
USE =
Remaining Service
Years = 13
Salvage Value
$6,882,000
$7.461.133
$14,343,133
$14,300,000
Remaining Service
Years = 18
Salvage Value
$5,448,000
$8.251.200
$13,699,200
$13,700,000
Remaining Service
Years = 22
Salvage Value
$3,729,000
$7.092.067
$10,821,067
$10,800,000

Spray Irrigation Salvage Values
Assume:
1) All salvages in year 2015
2) 30 year life for all equipment
3) Land does not depreciate or appreciate
Case 4 (1.1 mad)
Year built = 1998
Salvage Year = 2015
Item Original Cost
Total Plant $11,400,000
All Land $3.156.000
Difference = $8,244,000
Total Salvage Value =
USE_
Case 5 (0.8 mad)
Year built = 2007
Salvage Year = 2015
Item Original Cost
Total Plant $8,500,000
All Land $2.298.000
Difference = $6,202,000
Total Salvage Value =
USE
Remaining Service
Years = 13
Salvage Value
$3,156,000
$3.572.400
$6,728,400
$6,700,000
Remaining Service
Years = 22
Salvage Value
$2,298,000
$4.548.133
$6,846,133
$6,800,000

Case 1 Total Flow goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 2.4 mgd 2400000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area cu = 1551 ac
(1)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
2
3
4 =(2)+(3
5
WATER BALANCE: Holly Spripgg;
6)=(4)-(5) (7)Svrav Area*(6
8
9
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (')
Drainage
(inches) (a)
Total Uptake
(inches)
Precip'
(inches) (')
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation Capad
(gals)
Influent
Wastewater Flow
(gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated (gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
56,831,779
74,400,000
56,831,779
17,568,221
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
6,318,099
72,000,000
6,318,099
65,681,901
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
7,399,048
74,400,000
7,399,048
67,000,952
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
74,400,000
0
74,400,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
58,494,503
67,200,000
58,494,503
8,705,497
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
88,516,282
74,400,000
88,516,282
-14,116,282
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
139,351,256
72,000,000
139,351,256
-67,351,256
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
158,484,496
74,400,000
158,484,496
-84,084,496
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
130,051,959
72,000,000
130,051,959
-58,051,959
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
68,411,050
74,400,000
68,411,050
5,988,950
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
50,662,823
74,400,000
50,662,823
23,737,177
3.60
3.28
6.88
4,2A
2.65
111.478.704
72.000,000
111.478304
-39.478.704,
Totals:
75.65
55.00
20.80
876,000,000
(a) Evapo. for tree cover, Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
876,000,000
876,000,000
0
Cumulative
Stora a als
17,568,221
83,250,122
150,251,074
224,651,074
233,356,571
219,240,289
151,889,033
67,804,537
9,752,577
15,741,527
39,478,704
0

Case 2 Total Flow less Existing Flow goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 1.9 mgd 1900000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (1) = 1228 ac
(1) (2)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(3)
(4)=(2)+(3)
WATER BALANCE: Holly Sprl�
(5)
(6p(4)-(5) (7)=Spray Area*(6)
(8)
(9)
(10) (11)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (4)
Drainage
(inches) (')
Total (inches)
Precip.
(inches) 6%)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated
(gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
44,991,825
58,900,000
44,991,825
13,908,175
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
5,001,829
57,000,000
5,001,829
51,998,171
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
5,857,579
58,900,000
5,857,579
53,042,421
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
58,900,000
0
58,900,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
46,308,148
53,200,000
46,308,148
6,891,852
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
70,075,390
58,900,000
70,075,390
-11,175,390
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
110,319,744
57,000,000
110,319,744
-53,319,744
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
125,466,893
58,900,000
125,466,893
-66,566,893
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
102,957,801
57,000,000
102,957,801
-45,957,801
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
54,158,748
58,900,000
54,158,748
4,741,252
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
40,108,068
58,900,000
40,108,068
18,791,932
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.24
2.65
88,253,974
57,000,000
88,253,974
-31,253,974
Totals:
75.65
55.00
20.80
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
693,500,000 693,500,000
Cumulative
Stara : e (: als)
13,908,175
65,906,346
118,948,767
177,848,767
184,740,619
173,565,229
120,245,484
53,678,591
7,720,790
12,462,042
31,253,974
0

Case 3 Total Flow from Utley Creek side goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 1.3 mgd 1300000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (')= 840 ac
(1)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(2)
(3)
(4)=(2)+(3)
(5)
WATER BALANCE: Ho1laprings
(6p(4)-(5) (7)Spray Area*(6)
(8)
(9)
(10) (11)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) 4)
Drainage
(inches) 4)
Total Uptake
(inches)
Precip.
(inches) (a)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated (gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
30,783,880
40,300,000
30,783,880
9,516,120
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
3,422,304
39,000,000
3,422,304
35,577,696
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
4,007,817
40,300,000
4,007,817
36,292,183
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
40,300,000
0
40,300,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
31,684,523
36,400,000
31,684,523
4,715,477
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
47,946,320
40,300,000
47,946,320
-7,646,320
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
75,481,930
39,000,000
75,481,930
-36,481,930
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
85,845,769
40,300,000
85,845,769
-45,545,769
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
70,444,811
39,000,000
70,444,811
-31,444,811
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
37,055,986
40,300,000
37,055,986
3,244,014
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
27,442,362
40,300,000
27,442,362
12,857,638
3.60
3.28
6.88
4,24
2.65
60,384,298
39.000.000
60.384.298
-21.384,298
Totals:
75.65
55.00
20.80
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
474,500,000
474,500,000
0
Cumulative
Stora: a (: als)
9,516,120
45,093,816
81,385,999
121,685,999
126,401,476
118,755,156
82,273,226
36,727,457
5,282,646
8,526,660
21,384,298
0

WATER BALANCE: Holly Spring
Case 4 Total Flow from Middle Creek side goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 1.1 mgd 1100000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (')= 711 ac
(1)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(2)
(3)
(4)=(2)+(3)
(5)
(6)=(4)-(5) (7)Spray Area*(6)
(8)
(9)
(10) (11)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) 4)
Drainage
(inches) 4)
Total
Uptake
(inches)
Precip.
(inches) 4)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated (gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
26,047,899
34,100,000
26,047,899
8,052,101
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
2,895,796
33,000,000
2,895,796
30,104,204
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
3,391,230
34,100,000
3,391,230
30,708,770
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
34,100,000
0
34,100,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
26,809,981
30,800,000
26,809,981
3,990,019
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
40,569,963
34,100,000
40,569,963
-6,469,963
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
63,869,326
33,000,000
63,869,326
-30,869,326
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
72,638,727
34,100,000
72,638,727
-38,538,727
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
59,607,148
33,000,000
59,607,148
-26,607,148
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
31,355,065
34,100,000
31,355,065
2,744,935
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
23,220,460
34,100,000
23,220,460
10,879,540
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.:.M
2.65
51,094,406
33.000.000
51.094.406
-18.094.406
Totals:
75.65 55.00 20.80 401,500,000 401,500,000
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
0
Cumulative
Stora: a (; als)
8,052,101
38,156,306
68,865,076
102,965,076
106,955,095
100,485,132
69,615,807
31,077,079
4,469,931
7,214,867
18,094,406
0

)
WATER BALANCE: Holly Springs
Case 5 Total Flow from Utley Creek less existing discharge goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 0.8 mgd
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (')= 517 ac
(1)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
2
3
800000 gal
(4)=(2)+(3)
(5)
(6)=(4)-(5) (7)=Spray Area*(6)
(8)
(9)
(10) (11)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (a)
Drainage
(inches) (a)
Total (inches)
Precip.
(inches) (')
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated
(gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
18,943,926
24,800,000
18,943,926
5,856,074
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
2,106,033
24,000,000
2,106,033
21,893,967
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
2,466,349
24,800,000
2,466,349
22,333,651
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
24,800,000
0
24,800,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
19,498,168
22,400,000
19,498,168
2,901,832
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
29,505,427
24,800,000
29,505,427
-4,705,427
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
46,450,419
24,000,000
46,450,419
-22,450,419
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
52,828,165
24,800,000
52,828,165
-28,028,165
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
43,350,653
24,000,000
43,350,653
-19,350,653
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
22,803,683
24,800,000
22,803,683
1,996,317
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
16,887,608
24,800,000
16,887,608
7,912,392
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.24
2.65
37,159,568
24.000.000
37.159.568
-13.159,568
Totals:
75.65 55.00 20.80 292,000,000 292,000,000
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
0
Cumulative
Stora a (_ als)
5,856,074
27,750,041
50,083,691
74,883,691
77,785,524
73,080,096
50,629,678
22,601,512
3,250,859
5,247,176
13,159,568
0

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 1: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 2.4.106. Sl
day
Detention Time = T d := 30. day
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D tb := 3• ft
Total Depth = Dt:=D+Dtb Dt=13'ft
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.71• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De Dk= 11•ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
V:=Q•Td A:=v
D
Length:
V = 72000000 *gal
V = 9625000 •ft3
A = 962500 • ft2
L (4•r•A— 6•r•(S•D)2 + 2•(S•D)2)•5 + S•D•(1+ r)
2•r
L = 1417 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D•S Wb :=W-2•D•S
Lfb
.,,,
L L
Lb
Wb W
Width:
W.=L•r
W=709'ft
Wfb
L b = 1377 'ft W b = 669 •ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
L fb := L + 2• D fb• S
L fb = 1429 'ft
W fb := W+ 2•D fb•S
Wfb=721'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt
V2:=2• 2•Dt (S•Dt)•Wfb
V3._21ZDt(SDt)Lfb1
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 11972103 'ft3
V 2 = 243580 'ft3
V 3 = 483103 'ft3
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 12698786'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•DeS We :=Wb+2•DeS
Lc= 1384'ft W c = 675'ft
V cl := I"b• W b• D e V cl = 1574792 •ft3
Vc2:=2• 12•De(S•De)•Wc+ 12•De(S•De)•Lc
Vct:=Vc1-1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1586837 'ft3
V c2 = 12045 'ft3
V fi := 2.( W k• D k• L fb + W k• D k• W fb) V fl = 485459 'ft3
V@=2'1L2'2'Dg'(S'Dg)'V✓fb'F 2'2Dk'(S'Dg)'LtyJ Vim= 1096165'ft3
Vft:=Vfl+VP2
V ft = 1581624 •ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
Ab:=Lb•wb
Length of Side Walls:
A b = 779512'ft2
LW := Dt24-(S•Dt)2 LW = 29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb.LW)+2.0.5•Lw (Lw S))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((wb.LW)+2.0.5•LW•(Lw S))•2
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
At:=Ab+A1•i-AW
A t = 895754 'ft2
A t = 21 are
A 1 = 77143 'ft2
A W = 39099 'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 1: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 2.4.106
y
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 233356571• gal
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = Dt:=D+Dfb D t = 13 •ft
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.77• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike = Dk:=Dt—De
Number of Lagoons = N := 4
Dk= 11•23'ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
V Stor + Q. 14• day
N A :=—
V
D
V = 66739143 *gal
3 A = 892173 •ft2
V = 8921726'ft
Length:
,5 Width:
L :_ (4•r-A— 6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2) +S•D•(1+ r) W :=L•r
2•r
W = 683 ' ft
L = 1366 It
Lfb
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D•S Wb :=W-2•D•S
L b = 1326•ft W b = 643'ft
-,,
L L
Lb
Wb W
Wfb

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L+2•Dth•S Wfb :=W+2•Dfb•S
Lfb=1378'ft Wfb=695'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt V 1 = 11077992'ft3
V2 :=2• 1•Dt (S•Dt)•Wfbi V2 = 234850'ft3
2
V 3 :=2• 2•D t (S•D t)•L fb V 3 = 465644'ft3
Total Lagoon Volume:
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 11778486'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
L c :=L b + 2•D e•S
L c = 1333 'ft
We :=Wb-i-2•De S
Wc= 650'ft
Vcl :=Lb•Wb•De Vcl = 1508311'ft3
V c2 :z212•D a (S•D e)•W c+ 2•D e•(S•D e)•L c
V ct V cl '♦' V c2 V ct = 1520734 'ft3
Volume of Fill:
Vfl :=2•(Wk•Dk•L fb+Wk•Dk•Wfb)
Vim:=2•�2.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•W�t 2.2Dk(S•Dk)•L�J
Vft:=V f+Vf2 V ft = 1510935'ft3
12423 'ft3
V c2 =
V fi = 465476 ' ft3
V f2 = 1045459 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
A b :=Lb•Wb A b = 920931 •ft2
Length of Side Walls:
LW := Dt2+ (S•Dt)2 Lw = 29•ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al ((Lb.LW)+2.0.5•Lw (Lw S))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(Lw S))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+Aa,
A t = 1046638 •ft2
A t = 24 •aae
A l = 83453 •ft2
A w = 42254 •ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 2: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate =
Q:=1.9.106gl
day
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = Dt :=D+D fb D t = 13•ftk
Width to Length ratio = r .=—
1-�.►
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.89• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De Dk= 11•ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth):
V:=Q•Td
V = 57000000 'gal
V = 7619792 •ft3
Length:
Average Area:
A•—V
D
A = 761979 • ft2
Lfb
L L+
Wb W
Lb
Width:
_ (4•rA— 6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2)•5+S•D•( 1+r) •_
L W.—L•r
2•r
W = 632'ft
L = 1264 'ft
/411DN Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D•S Wb :=W— 2•D•S
L b = 1224 'ft W b = 592 'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L+2•Dtb•S
L fb = 1276 • ft
Wfb :=W+2•Dth•S
Wfb = 644 • ft
Lagoon Volume
3
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt V 1 = 9424993'ft
V2:=2• 12•Dt(S•Dt)•Wfb V2=217727'ft3
V3 :=2• 1•Dt (S•Dt)•Lt V3 = 431398'ft3
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 10074117'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb+2•De0
Lc= 1232'ft Wc= 600•ft
V cl :=Lb•Wb•De Vc1 = 1370249•ft3
Vc2:=2• 1•De(S•De)•Wc-i- 1•De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 13085'ft3
2 2
Vct :=Vc1+ Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V a= 1383334 •ft3
V f1 :=2•(Wk•Dk•Lfb+Wk•Dk•W fb) Vf1 = 426732'ft3
Vf2:=2. 2.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Wth'f' 1.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Li V12=948199•ft3
2
Vft:=Vf1+Vf2
V ft = 1374932 •ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
A b :=Lb•Wb A b = 724999•ft2
Length of Side Walls:
Lw:= Dt2+(S•Dt)2
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Lw = 29•ft
Al :=((Lb•Lw) + 2.0.5•Lw (Lw•S ))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A ((Wb.LW)+2.0.5•Lw•(LwS))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+ A1+ Aw
A t = 837366 •ft2
A t = 19 'acre
Al = 74560 •ft2
A w = 37807 'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 2: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q :=1.9.106• l
day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 184740619• gal
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D tb := 3• ft
Total Depth = D t := D + D fb D t = 13 'ft
Width to Length ratio =
,_ 1
r .--
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.73• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10•ft
Depth of Dike = D k :=Dt—De
Number of Lagoons = N := 3
Wk
tDk
Dk= 11.27•ft
De
Lfb
CMG 11/20/95
Dfb
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
V Stor -!- Q. 14• day V
N A :=—
D
Length:
V = 70446873 'gal
V = 9417377 'ft3
A = 941738 •ft2
L (4•rA— 6•r•(S•D)2 -I- 2•(S•D)2 )•5 -}- S•D•( 1 + r)
2•r
L = 1402 •ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D•S Wb .=W-2•D•S
L b = 1362 •ft W b = 661 •ft
Width:
W .=L•r
W=701•ft
Lfb
L.'
Lb
Wb W
Wfb

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L-I-2•Dth•S
Lfb = 1414'ft
Wfb :=W+2•Dfb•S
Wfb=713'ft
Lagoon Volume
V l := L b• W b• D t V 1= 11708062 'ft3
V2:=2• 1•Dt (S•Dt)•W fb V2 = 241037'ft3
2
V3 :=2• 1•Dt (S•Dt)•L fb V3 = 478017'ft3
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
Vt:=Vli-V2-I-V3
V t = 12427116 'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•De•S We :=Wb+2•Des
L c = 1369•ft Wc= 668•ft
V cl := L b• W b• D e
V cl = 1558073 'ft3
Vc2:=2112•De(8•De)•Wc+ 12•De(S•De)•Lc
vct :=Vc1i' Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1570267 •ft3
Vfl :=2•(Wk•Dk•Ltb+Wk•Dk•Wth)
V f2 •_212.2•D k•(S•D k)•W fb+ —22•D k'(S•D k).L tb
Vft:=vfl+Vf2
V ft = 1560329 •ft3
V c2 = 12194 'ft
3
V fl = 479511 ' ft3
V f2 = 1080818 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
Ab :Lb•Wb
Length of Side Walls:
A b = 900620 •ft2
Lw:= Dt2-i-(S•Dt)2 Lw=29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•Lw)+2.0.5•Lw (Lw•S))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(Lw S))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+ Al+ Aa,
A t = 1025015 'ft2
A t = 24 •awe
A l = 82578 • ft2
Aw=41816'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 3: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q :=1.3.106•
y
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = Dt:=D+Dfb D t = 13'ft
Wk
Width to Length ratio = r := 1 411-111
2
tDk
Depth of Excavation = D e := 2.2• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De Dk= 11*ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
Length:
V •= Q. T d
V = 39000000 'gal
V = 5213542'ft3
A:=V
D
A = 521354'ft2
Lfb
oks
Lb
Wb W
,_(4•rA-6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2) 5+S•D•( 1+r)
L .—
2•r
L=1051'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L— 2•D•S
Wb :=W-2•D•S
Lb=1011'ft Wb=485'ft
Width:
W :=L•r
W = 525 'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
L fb :=L+ 2•D fb•S
L fb = 1063 'ft
Wfb := W+ 2•D fb•S
W fb = 537 'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 := L b• W b• D t
V2 :2. 2'Dt (S-Dt).Wtb
V3 :=2. 2•D t (S•D t).L fb
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 6380090 •ft3
V 2 = 181664 'ft3
V 3 = 359272 •ft3
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 6921026 'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb-f'2•DeS We :=Wb+2•D0
L c = 1020'ft Wc= 494•ft
v c1 :=L b•W b•D e V c1 = 1079707'ft3
1 1
Vc2 :-212•De(S•De)•Wc+ 2•De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 14656'ft3
Vct:=Vc1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1094363 'ft3
V(1 :=2'(WkDk'LfytWk•Dk•Wfb)
V @ :=2•�2�•Dk (S•Dk)•W fb+ 2•Z•Dk•($•Dk)•L fbl
Vft:=V f1+Vf2
V ft = 1092371 'ft3
V fl = 345687 'ft3
V f2 = 746684 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
Ab :Lb•Wb
Length of Side Walls:
LW Dt2+(S•Dt)2
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
A b = 490776 'ft2
LW=29'ft
Al ((Lb•L W)+2.0.5•Lw (L W S))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(LWS))•2
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+AW
A t = 584534 'ft2
A t = 13 'acre
A 1 = 62154 'ft2
A W = 31604'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 3: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q :=1.3.106 al
day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor :=126401476• gal
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = Dt:=D+Dfb Dt= 13'ft
Width to Length ratio =
1
r.=-
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.71• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike = D k := Di —De
Number of Lagoons = N := 2
Dk= 11•ft
Wk
r
Lfb
-L
CMG 11/20/95
De S
ID Lv
Df6
.41---Lb-411,
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
Stor + Q. 14• day
V := V
N A := —
• D
Length:
V = 72300738 'gal
V = 9665203 ' ft3
A = 966520 •ft2
L (4•rA— 6•r•(S•D)2 + 2•(S•D)2 )•5 + S•D•(1 + r)
2• r
L = 1420 •ft
Base of Lagoon:
L b :=L— 2•D•S W b := W— 2•D•S
L b = 1380 •ft W b = 670 •ft
Width:
W .= L• r
W=710'ft
Lfb
L L,W.-'
Lb
Wb W
Wfb

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Ltb:=L+2•Dfb•S
Lfb= 1432•ft
Wfb W+2•Dfb•S
Wfb=722*ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt
V2:=2' 1•Dt (S•Dt)•Wfb
2
V3:=2- 12•Dt (S•Dt)'Ltb
Total Lagoon Volume:
Vt:=V1+V2+V3
V 1 = 12023238 'ft3
V 2 = 244069 'ft3
V 3 = 484082 •ft3
V t = 12751389 'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•De•S
L c = 1387'ft
Vc1:=Lb•Wb•De
We :=Wb+2•DeS
W c = 677 It
Vc1= 1581518'ft3
Vc2:=2. 1•De(S•De).Wc+ 1•De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 12071'ft3
2 2
Vct:=Vc1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1593589'ft3
VP1 :=2•(Wg•Dk•Ltb-F WkDk•Wt-b)
V�:=2•�2.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•W�t �•2•Dk•(S•pk)•Lfb
Vft:=Vf1+V f2
V ft = 1584818 'ft3
V f1 = 486439 'ft3
V f2 = 1098379 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
A b := L b• W b A b= 924864 •ft2
Length of Side Walls:
LW:--j--------
Dt2+(S•Dt)2
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
LW = 29'ft
Al :=((Lb•L W)+2.0.5•Lw (LWS)).2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
Aw :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(Lw S))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+ A1+ AW
A t = 1050824 'ft2
A t = 24 'acre
A 1 = 83621 •ft2
A W = 42338 'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 4: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate =
Detention Time =
Q:=1.1.106 gal
day
Td:=30.day
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth= Dt:=D+Dfb D t = 13•ft
Wk
Width to Length ratio = r := 1 -4-
2
Depth of Excavation = D e := 2.35• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De D k = 11•ft
CMG 11 /20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth):
V:=Q•Td
V = 33000000 *gal
Length:
V = 4411458 •ft3
Average Area:
A:=V
D
A = 441146 • ft2
Lfb
,,,
L Lye-,
--,--
Lb
Wb W
.5 Width:
L (4•r•A— 6•r•(S•D)2 + 2•(S•D)2) + S•D•(1+ r)
2•r W := L•r
W=485'ft
L = 969 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D.S Wb :=W-2•D•S
Lb=929'ft Wb=445'ft
Wfb

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
L fb :=L + 2•D fb•S
Lfb= 981*ft
Wfb :=W+2•D fb•S
Wft) =497•ft
Lagoon Volume
1
V2
3
:=Lb•Wb•D t
:=2• 2•D t (S•D t)•W fb
—2• 1•Dt (S•Dt)•Lfb
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 5369300 'ft3
V 2 = 167832 •ft3
V3 = 331609•ft3
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 5868742 •ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•D0 We :=Wb+2•De S
Lc=938'ft Wc=454•ft
V cl := L b• W b• D e
V cl = 970604'ft3
Vc2:=2• 2•De(S'De)•Wc+ 2•De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 15379'ft3
Vct:=Vc1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 985984 •ft3
V fl :=2•(W k•D k•L fb - W k•D k•W fb)
V@._2I22Dk(SDk)W�i-22Dk(SDk)L�J
L
Vft:=Vfl+V@ V ft = 985125'ft3
V fi = 314737 'ft3
V f2 = 670389 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
Ab:=Lb•wb
A b = 413023 'ft2
Length of Side Walls:
Lw:= Dt2-1-(S•Dt)2 Lw=29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•Lw)+2.0.5•Lw (Lw•S))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
Aw :=((Wb•Lw)+2.0.5•Lw•(Lw S))•2
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
At :=Abe- Ai+ Aw
A t = 499643 • ft2
A t = 11 'acre
Al = 57395 • ft2
A w = 29225 'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 4: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate =
Q := 1.1.106 gal
day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor :=106955095• gal
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = D t := D + D fb D t = 13 'ft
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
Wk
tDk
Depth of Excavation = D e:=1.83• ft x rcuru
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft —
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De D k = 11•ft
Number of Lagoons = N := 2
- Lfb
L
CMG 11/20/95
—41>)\—Th\lif
Dfb
ID List
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
V , _ Stor + Q. 14• day V
N A.=D
Length:
V = 61177548 *gal
A = 817825 ' ft2
V = 8178249 • ft3
L :_ (4•r•A— 6•r(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2)•5+ S•D•( 1+r)
2•r
L = 1309 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L— 2•D•S Wb :=W— 2•D•S
L b = 1269 'ft W b = 614 'ft
Width:
w:=L•r
W=654'ft
Lfb
-„
L Ly'
.„-----`
Lb
Wb W

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Ltb :=L-f-2•Dth•S
Ltb=1321'ft
Wfb : = W -1- 2• D tb• S
W fb = 666 'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt
V 2 :=211•D t (S•D t}•W tb
2
V 3 :=2. 1•Dt (S•Dt�•Lfb
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 10133653 'ft3
V 2 = 225238 'ft3
V 3 = 446420 'ft3
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 10805311•ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+ 2•DeS We :=Wb+ 2•De S
L c = 1276 'ft W c = 622 'ft
V el := L b• W b• D e V cl = 1426507 'ft3
V c2 :=212•De (S•De}•Wc+12•De(S•De)•Lc
Vct:=Vc1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
1439218 'ft
V ct =3
Vfl :=2•(Wk•Dk•Lfb+Wk•Dk•Wft))
y@ ._2 r22 Dk (S•Dk) W �2t 2•Dk (S•Dk) L �l
L J
Vft:=Vfl+V12
V ft = 1435670 'ft3
V c2 = 12711 'ft3
V f1 = 443930 'ft3
Vf2=991740'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
Ab := L b• W b A b= 779512 •ft2
Length of Side Walls:
Lw := Dt2+(7Dt)2 Lw = 29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•L W)+2.0.5•Lw•(Lw'S))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((Wb.LW)+2.0.5•Lw•(Lw S))•2
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
At :=Ab+ A1+ Aw
A t = 895754 'ft2
A t = 21 'acre
A 1 = 77143 'ft2
A w = 39099 • ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 5: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate= Q :=0.8.106•
gal
y
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D := 10. ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth= Dt:=D+Dfb D t = 13•ftk
Width to Length ratio = r := 1 I Lfb
2 J
L
tErk
CMG 11/20/95
!?e
Depth of Excavation = D e := 2.66• ft V' If x le1
'4---L b-
Dike Width = Wk :=10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De Dk= 10*ft
Dfb
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth):
V :=Q•Td
Length:
V = 24000000 'gal
V = 3208333 • ft3
Average Area:
A:=V
D
A = 320833 •ft2
Lfb
L L-'
Lb
Wb W
Width:
L:=(4•rA-6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S.D)2).5+S•D•(1+r)
W :=L•r
2•r
W = 415 'ft
L = 831 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
L b := L— 2• D• S W b := W— 2• D• S
L b = 791 'ft W b = 375 'ft
Wfb

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
L fb :=L+ 2•D fb•S
L fb = 843 It
Wfb :=W+2•D fb•S
W fb = 427 'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 := L b• W b• D t
v2._2 f 2 n� �s•n`)w�,i
V3:=2• 1•Dt(S•Dt)•Lfb
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 3859175 'ft3
V 2 = 144460 ' ft3
V 3 = 284863 'ft3
V t := V 1+ V 2+ V 3 V t= 4288498 'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb+2•DeS
Lc= 801'ft W c = 386'ft
V cl := L b• W b• D e V el = 789647 'ft3
Vc2:=2. 12•De(S•De)•Wc+12•De(S•De)•Lc
Vct:=Vcl+Vc2 Vct=806451'ft3
Volume of Fill:
V c2 = 16804 'ft3
V f1 := 2• (W k• D k• L fb + W k• D k• W fb) V f1 = 262675 'ft3
Vf2 :=2• 2•--•Dk•(S•Dk)•W fb+ 2.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Lfb Vi2= 543211•ft3
Vft:=Vfl+Vf2
V ft = 805886'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
A :=Lb•wb A = 296860•ft2
Length of Side Walls:
Lw :_ D t2+ (s.D t)2
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
L w = 29 'ft
Al :=((Lb.Lw)+2.0.5•Lw (Lw S))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
Aw :=((Wb•LW)-I-2.0.5•Lw•(Lw S))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+ A1+ Aw
A t = 371419 'ft2
A t = 9 'ale
A 1 = 49355 'ft2
A w = 25205 'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 5: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 0. 8.106 • l
day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 77785524• gal
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10•ft
Freeboard Depth = D ib := 3• ft
Total Depth= Dt :=D+Dtb Dt= 13'ft
Wk
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.96• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike = D k := D t— De
Number of Lagoons = N := 2
D k = 11•04'ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
Stor + Q. 14• day
N A
Length:
V = 44492762 *gal
A = 594782 •ft2
V = 5947817 • ft3
L (4•rA-6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2) 5+S•D•(1+r)
2•r
L=1120'ft
Lfb
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D•S Wb :=W-2•D•S
L b = 1080'ft W b = 520 •ft
Width:
W .— L•r
W = 560'ft
L Lam,
Lb
Wb W

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L+2•Dfb•S Wtb :=W+2•Dfb•S
L fb = 1132'ft W tb = 572'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt
V2 211.Dt (S•Dt)'Wfb
V3:=2' 1•Dt (S•Dt)•Lfb
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 7307522 'ft3
V 2 = 193418 'ft3
V 3 = 382781 •ft3
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 7883721 'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb+2•DeS
L c = 1088'ft W c = 528•ft
Vcl :=Lb•Wb•De Vcl = 1101749'ft3
Vc2:=2• 1•De(S•De)•Wc+ 1•De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 12419 'ft3
2 2
Vct:=Vcl+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
1114169 'ft
V ct =3
V fi :=2•(W k Dk•L tbt V✓k•Dk•V✓tb)
Vf2 •-2 [2 2 Dk (S Dk) Wfyt 2 2Dk($•Dk) LtbJ
Vft:=Vfl+Vf V ft = 1207506'ft3
V fi = 376405 'ft3
V12= 831102'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
Ab :=Lb•Wb A = 562117'ft2
Length of Side Walls:
LW:= Dt2- (S•Dt)2 LW=29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al ((Lb.LW)+2.0.5•LW.(LW'S)).2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
AW :=((Wb.LW)+2.0.5.LW.(LWS)).2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Abe- A1+ AW
A t = 661940 'ft2
A t = 15 'acre
A 1 = 66197 'ft2
A W = 33626 'ft2

TOWN of HOLLY SPRINGS
GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION
Quantity Description Cost
14400 LF 8" Force Main $260,000
1 LS Pump Station $100,000
1 LS Storage Lagoon $64,000
1230 LF Chain -link Fence $16,000
Sub -Total $440,000
Engineering & Contingency (30%) $132,000
Easements ($ 9.00 per LF) $2,000
Surveying and Miscellaneous $15,000
Legal and Administrative (2%) $9,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $598,000
USE $600,000

WASTEWATER OUTFALL LINE ALIGNMENTS
BASS LAKE /SUNSET LAKE OUTFALL CONFIGURATION
Quantity
Description Cost
6200 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $174,000
4300 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $146,000
3400 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $153,000
3000 LF 18" Gravity Sewer $168,000
7800 LF 24" Gravity Sewer $468,000
124 EA Manholes $248,000
Quantity
Sub -Total $1,357,000
Engineering & Contingency (30%) $407,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $222,000
Environmental Assessment $25,000
Surveying & Miscellaneous $40,000
Legal & Administrative (2%) $27,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $2,078,000
USE $2,100,000
ALTERNATE CONFIGURATION
Description Cost
6200 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $174,000
1700 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $58,000
1100 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $50,000
3200 LF 18" Gravity Sewer $179,000
5400 LF 6" Forcemain $54,000
1 EA Pump Station (Bass Lake) $100,000
14600 8" Force Main $263,000
1 EA Pump Station (Sunset Lake) $225,000
61 EA Manholes $122,000
Sub -Total $1,225,000
Engineering & Contingency (30%) $362,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $281,000
Environmental Assessment $25,000
Surveying & Miscellaneous $40,000
Legal & Administrative (2%) $24,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,957,000
USE $2,000,000