NC0063096_Environmental Assessment_20011101

NPDES DOCUMENT :SCANNING; COVER SHEET
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Meeting Notes
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
(
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 1, 2001
This document is pririted on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse side

Michael F. Easley
Govemor
William G. Ross Jr.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 6, 2001
Stephanie Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
128 South Main Street
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Re: Town of Holly Springs VVVV P Expansion
Dear Ms. Sudano:
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Department) has reviewed the revised
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed expansion of the wastewater treatment facility for the
Town of Holly Springs. The Division and Department recognize the Town's critical need for wastewater
treatment capacity and recognize this project as a short-term solution to ongoing expansion issues. The
Division encourages the Town to continue to participate in exploration of regional wastewater management
opportunities into the future.
The Department is concemed with the potential secondary and cumulative impacts caused by the project
expansion and the effect on habitat associated with Middle Creek and other water bodies in the area and
feels that the document does not sufficiently address these issues. Additionally, the Division continues to
hold that increased flows will have adverse effects, though minimal on nutrient levels in Utley Creek, a
creek that has measured high levels of nutrients in the past with lower flows. The Division recommends
that instream sampling to monitor the conditions of the receiving stream should be integrated into this
project and discussed in the environmental documentation. Additionally, because of the presence of the
endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel and associated habitat, it is imperative that the document address
impacts to this resource in more detail.
The existing draft must be revised to meet the expectations of the Department as identified in the attached
letters. Once the issues have been satisfactorily addressed, and letters of concurrence have been filed by
commenting agencies, please submit one copy for final review. Upon completion of that review, when the
document has addressed all issues raised during Departmental review, I will issue a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), and request an additional 7 copies for circulation in the State Clearinghouse.
However, recognize that if these issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed, it will be necessary to complete
an additional departmental review prior to further action regarding this project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-733-5083 ext. 366.
Interim DWQ SEPA Coordinator
cc. Dave Goodrich, NPDES permitting unit w/o attachments
N DENR
Customer Service
[phone]
1-877-623-6748
Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
http://www.enr.state.nc.us

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Milt Rhodes
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Melba McGee 1,6
fr
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: # 1152 EA Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Holly Springs,
Wake County
DATE: November 1, 2001
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has completed its
internal review of the proposed project.
The attached comments identify a number of concerns that will need to be
addressed before concurring with the proposal. In response to the level of
concerns raised, it is felt that the Environmental Assessment (EA) has not
evaluated the significance of secondary and cumulative impacts nor offered
appropriate mitigation measures. At this point, the department does not believe
that the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act would be fulfilled
through the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). It is our
recommendation that the applicant work directly with agencies in addressing their
concerns and consider whether the issues raised can be adequately addressed to the
extent of a FONSI. An Environmental Impact Statement would give a more
accurate picture of secondary and cumulative impacts.
As the lead state agency for this proposal, the Division of Water Quality is
responsible for seeing that the issues identified are addressed and appropriate
changes are incorporated in the document. The applicant is encouraged to develop
a solution to the issues raised that assures impacts are avoided, minimized or .
mitigated. This approach yields the best opportunity for this department to
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
u Eu a O000nway aw.e A xr £ln ,3 e • 5O Rec,rur 1( Past :.onsume Paw

approve a FONSI: After revisions have been made, I recommend that the revised
document be circulated again through our internal review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Please let me know if I can be of
further assistance.
Attachments
•

orth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton, Chief Deputy Director 0,• 1 _ . dam,,,, ij0"
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission i"` �w�
DATE: 30 October 2001
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for the Town of Holly Springs Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion, Wake County, DENR Project No. 1152
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the subject document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed project consists of expanding the capacity of the Holly Springs Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) from 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 2.4 mgd. The need for the
expansion stems from the Town experiencing an extraordinary growth rate, which it expects will
continue until it reaches full build out. Holly Springs just completed an expansion from 0.5 mgd
to 1.5 mgd, and the present expansion is expected to serve as an interim solution to meet
expected demands for the next five to ten years. The Town has indicated that this additional
expansion is needed so that the Town can keep pace with the demands of its growth. Regional
planning efforts are looking at a new discharge on the Cape Fear River, with one configuration
consisting of utilizing a common effluent line from one or more tertiary plants. The plant
presently discharges into Utley Creek a tributary of Harris Reservoir in the Cape Fear River
Basin. The Town intends to eventually eliminate any discharge into Utley Creek, and if the
development of a common effluent line cannot be accomplished in a regional context, the Town
will investigate this option unilaterally. The Town indicates that there is no other short-term
alternative available and it "hopefully" will not need to increase its discharge to Utley Creek
further.
Historically, the land was dominated by forest and agriculture, but is now urbanizing at a
rapid pace. Long-range wastewater plans now include development of land owned by Carolina
Power and Light along Harris Reservoir, which was not included in earlier plans. Sixty -percent
of the Holly Springs extra -territorial jurisdiction lies in the Neuse River Basin and 40 percent in
the Cape Fear River Basin. Streams in the area include Middle Creek, Buckhorn Creek, Utley
Creek, and Norris Branch. Middle Creek (Neuse River Basin) supports many rare aquatic
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
30 October 2001
Holly Springs WWTP Expansion
DENR Project No. 1152
organisms, including the federally and state endangered, dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon). The Cape Fear River Basin also supports rare aquatic organisms, such as the
federally and state endangered, Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). In addition to many
resident warm water stream fishes in these systems, there are spawning runs of anadromous
fishes, such as blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), and striped bass (Morone
saxatilis). At the point of Holly Springs WWTP discharge into Utley Creek (Cape Fear River
Basin), DO levels have been reported as low as 4.8 mg/L, however, the applicant indicated that
DO levels in excess of the saturation concentration have been noted downstream of the plant.
Concerns by NCDWQ personnel about nutrient loading on Harris Reservoir were also reported
in the document. The Town has expressed difficulty in meeting Nitrogen limits set by NCDWQ
and has requested a reevaluation of the limits and a conversion to mass limits.
To alleviate impacts, the Town has committed to providing reuse water for a planned new
golf course and residential subdivision, is looking into using treated wastewater for irrigating an
existing golf course, and has developed a long range reuse master plan that calls for irrigation of
area schools and planned parks. The Town actively encourages water conservation, and the
program consists of requiring low water using fixtures, a rate structure based on usage, and a
policy to recruit only "clean" industries that have minima water needs. NCWRC commends the
Town for its reuse and water conservation programs and encourages the continuation and
expansion of these programs. Suggested examples of additional water conservation practices are
retrofitting existing indoor plumbing fixtures to save water, promotion of xeriscape landscaping,
and education about water use habits.
.
Direct impacts as a result of this project are relatively minor, however, secondary and
cumulative impacts from development facilitated by the proposed project may likely be
significant. The applicant suitably identified secondary and cumulative impacts and indicated
that the expansion will allow planned residential, commercial, and industrial development in the
area to continue. Holly Springs offers some measures as mitigation to secondary and cumulative
effects such as dedicated stream buffers and open space requirements for most of the new
development, a floodplain ordinance, and they have plans to implement a Town -administered
Erosion Control Program and Stormwater Program within the next two years. If and when these
measures are implemented, they should help reduce effects on fish and wildlife and their habitat.
However, it is unclear how unmitigated adverse environmental impacts will be offset by the
growth that the wastewater facilities will make possible, as indicated by the applicant. This
appears to be comparing two very different issues. In addition, we disagree with the applicant's
statement that there will be few, if any, direct impacts on wetlands from increased development,
since wetlands are protected through the 404 permitting process. NCWRC biologists continue to
see the request for 401/404 permits to impact wetlands at an alarming rate.
NCWRC is very concerned that without progressive mitigation measures, secondary and
cumulative impacts associated with increased development in these river basins could result in
significant degradation or extirpation of listed species. We anticipate that cumulative and
secondary impacts of development, including impacts from increasing numbers of bridges and
culverts and numbers of wastewater spills, will result in stream bank instability and other stream
morphology changes, increased sediment loading, changes in substrate characteristics, modified
aquatic food resources, changed stream temperatures, increased nutrient loading, increased
toxicant loading, changed fish communities, and reduced complexity of benthic habitats. These
anticipated changes are known threats to sensitive aquatic species. Based on our years of
experience working with freshwater mussel populations, we believe that cumulative and

Page 3
30 October 2001
Holly Springs WWTP Expansion
DENR Project No. 1152
secondary impacts resulting from the expected development are likely to extirpate dwarf
wedgemussel and other rare aquatic species if major protective land and water use policies are
not implemented in the Holly Springs area.
NCWRC in conjunction with the NC Natural Heritage Program and US Fish and Wildlife
Service (McBride to Morris, Director of Division of Water Resources, 1 August 2000) developed
recommended mitigation measures to protect a population of the federally and state endangered,
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) in the Goose Creek drainage of Mecklenburg and
Union Counties. We recommend that similar measures be developed and adopted in the Neuse
River and Cape Fear River basins, particularly in the Middle Creek watershed. In addition, these
measures may help prevent occurrences such as the recent installation of a sewer line through a
breeding pool for the state threatened, tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) in the Holly
Springs area.
1. Local governments should adopt development policies that focus on the pre and post
development hydrographic and stream temperature conditions and current flow regimes
within each watershed. Policies should require that new developments maintain
predevelopment hydrographic conditions, including flow volumes, within a range
reflecting no more than 7% imperviousness. This means new developments can build
using traditional designs at a level of 7% imperviousness, or build more densely, but use
dedicated open space and other stormwater practices to mimic the hydrograph, which
would occur at only 7% imperviousness.
2. For streams with rare species, a 200-foot naturally forested buffer on perennial streams
and a 100-foot forested buffer on intermittent streams should be required for new
developments. For all other streams, a 100-foot naturally forested buffer on perennial
streams and a 50-foot forested buffer on intermittent streams and wetlands should be
required for new developments. If wooded buffers do not exist, then these areas should
be revegetated to allow development of a naturally forested buffer. (Knutson and Naef
1997; 200-foot buffers associated with protection of aquatic endangered species habitats
required for Buckhorn Reservoir Expansion Project in 1995). Wide, contiguous riparian
corridors have greater and more flexible potential than other options to uphold biological
integrity (Horner et al. 1999) and could ameliorate many ecological issues related to land
use and environmental quality (Naiman et al. 1993). As urbanization continues in Wake
County, wildlife habitat is rapidly disappearing. These buffers would provide travel
corridors and habitat areas for wildlife displaced by secondary development, in addition
to protecting water quality, stabilizing stream banks, and providing habitat for aquatic
and fisheries resources.
3. Infiltration practices (e.g., reduced road widths, rain gardens, parking lot bioretention
areas, increased sheetflow instead of ditching, and disconnect impervious areas) should
be emphasized over detention ponds to maintain predevelopment hydrographic
conditions, including base flow during low flow conditions.
4. Mandatory curbing and guttering requirements should be eliminated, and the use of
grassed swales should be required, except in areas with >5% slope.

Page 4
30 October 2001
Holly Springs WWTP Expansion
DENR Project No. 1152
5. There should be no direct discharges of stormwater to streams, and ditching or piping of
stormwater should not be allowed in the buffer.
6. In new developments, use of Conservation Reserve Program lands and restoration of
prior converted wetlands should be encouraged to help manage overall stormwater
impacts.
7. Local governments should encourage new developments, including residential, to use the
planning method for stormwater control outlined by the EPA in their Low Impact
Development manual (EPA Document # 841— B-00-002 and 841-B-00-003) and reduce
impediments to implementing strategies promoted by the EPA in this manual.
8. Developersand builders, including land -clearing operators, should be required to
participate in a Town of Holly Springs stormwater education program.
9. Prior to water and wastewater line construction associated with this upgrade, Holly
Springs should develop and implement, spill and emergency management procedures for
the removal and clean up of any spills and similar situations (e.g., runoff from efforts to
control residential, commercial, or industrial fires) instead of utilizing "hosing down" or
flushing practices.
10. For sewer lines closest to streams, public and private sewer lines should parallel streams
and be at maximum distances from streams and tributaries. Between sewer lines and
streams with rare species, a minimum 200-foot natural buffer should be provided for
perennial streams and a 100-foot buffer for intermittent streams. Between sewer lines
and all other streams, a minimum 100-foot natural buffer should be provided for
perennial streams and a 50-foot buffer for intermittent streams, using criteria defined by
the US Army Corps of Engineers or other regulatory authorities, including the Division
of Water Quality. Farming, silviculture, and other uses which maintain pervious surface
areas (e.g., parks, game lands, greenways, and other similar uses) should be recognized as
acceptable uses of the landscape within the buffer areas between the sewer lines and
streams.
11. No new sewer lines or structures should be installed or constructed in the 100-year
floodplain nor within 50 feet of wetlands associated with the 100-year floodplain.
12. Sewer lines closest to streams should be constructed of ductile iron.
13. Efforts should be made to avoid removal of large trees at the edges of the construction
corridors. Re -seed the disturbed areas with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife.
Fescue based mixtures should be avoided because fescue is invasive and provides little
benefit to wildlife. Native, annual small grains appropriate for the season are preferred
and recommended. Where feasible use woody debris and logs from corridor clearing to
establish brush piles and downed logs at the edge (just in the woods) of the cleared right-
of-way to improve habitat for wildlife. Allowing the corridor area to develop into a
brush/scrub habitat would maximize benefits to wildlife. Minimize corridor maintenance
and prohibit mowing between April 1 and October 1 to minimize impacts to nesting
wildlife. We suggest a maintenance schedule that incorporates a portion of the area (e.g.

Page 5
30 October 2001
Holly Springs WWTP Expansion
DENR Project No. 1152
1/3) each year instead of the entire project every 3 or 4 years. Herbicides and pesticides
should not be used in wetland areas or near streams.
14. Only aerial or directional boring stream crossings should be allowed, and the placement
of these crossings will be limited to major stream or creek confluences. Manholes or
similar access structures should not be allowed between linked sewer lines. Stream
crossing areas should be monitored once a quarter for potential maintenance needs.
Sewer lines associated with crossing areas should be maintained at the highest standards
possible.
15. To prevent direct impacts to important aquatic habitats, all underground utilities should
follow requirements associated with sewer line placements.
16. Stream crossings should be the minimal number necessary to deliver electricity,
telecommunications, etc. to the service area.
17. All utility crossings should be perpendicular to stream flow.
18. Pesticides (including insecticides and herbicides) should not be used within 200 feet of
streams or floodplains and wetlands associated with streams.
19. Native forested plant communities should be maintained within 200 feet of streams or
floodplains and wetlands associated with streams. A closed canopy will be maintained
over streams. Emphasis will be placed upon trimming trees (instead of tree removal)
within 200 feet of streams or floodplains and wetlands associated with streams.
20. Wake County and the Town of Holly Springs should solicit assistance and concurrence
from resource agencies at the state and federal level (including NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, NC Natural Heritage Program, and US Fish and Wildlife Service) during
the assessment and implementation of best management practices for stormwater
management, sediment and erosion control, utility placement, etc.
21. Maps of the anticipated construction of utilities, including sewer lines and water lines,
associated with the expanded water supply should be developed. This information should
become part of a GIS database housed and maintained by the Town to include locations
of anticipated water and sewer lines. Surveys or reviews should be accomplished
utilizing maps and field determinations, when necessary, in conjunction with delineation
criteria utilized by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water
Quality for wetlands and waters. As infrastructure or development is being developed or
planned, field surveys should be conducted to assess impacts or avoidance of impacts.
Field surveys (delineation) or intensive map reviews (including soil surveys, National
Wetland Inventories (NWI) maps, USGS maps, watershed protection maps of all
wetlands and waters) should be completed and mapped (using GIS technology). All GIS
.databases and associated files should be provided to state and federal agencies upon
request.

& Page 6
30 October 2001
Holly Springs WWTP Expansion
DENR Project No. 1152
22. Wake County and the Town of Holly Springs should develop and implement stringent
erosion and sedimentation control requirements for all construction. The development of
these requirements should be fully coordinated with the state and federal agencies
involved in rare species protection. These measures should be state-of-the-art and
significantly exceed state minimum requirements for sediment and erosion control. Local
ordinances should prevent developers from utilizing "forestry exemptions" during
deforestation activities that ultimately become development sites.
23. Fill or buildings should not be allowed in the 100-year floodplain.
24. Wake County and the Town of Holly Springs should adopt and implement an
environmental check off that has redundant controls so that any development within the
cluster area goes through a stringent review process to insure protection of aquatic
habitats (including proper 401 certifications and 404 permits). This should preclude the
issuance of any building and utility permits without inclusion of pertinent protective
measures.
25. A cooperative oversight group should be considered that would review projects within the
area for compliance, preview infrastructure and development plans, and cooperate in
seeking funding for conservation initiatives.
26. The document is somewhat difficult to read. There are several places where incomplete
sentences and odd word placement occurs. We recommend that the document be edited
more carefully. In section 5.6 (Summary), there is mention of routes of planned major
interceptor and outfall sewer lines. If there are new sewer lines planned as result of this
expansion that have not yet been reviewed, these plans should be included in this
document.
Without the implementation of strong mitigation efforts, we cannot concur with the
project as currently proposed. If an acceptable mitigation plan that will reduce impacts to a level
below the threshold of significance cannot be agreed upon, we recommend that an
Environmental Impact Statement be developed to address the issues of secondary and cumulative
impacts and appropriate mitigation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages of this project.
If you need additional information, please contact Franklin T. McBride, Manager, at (252) 451-
2534.
Literature cited:
City of Wilson. 1995. EIS for the Buckhorn Reservoir Expansion.
Horner, R.R., C.W. May, E.H. Livingston, and J. Maxted. 1999. Impervious cover, aquatic
community health, and stormwater BMPs: is there a relationship? Proceedings of the
Sixth Biennial Stormwater Research Conference, Tampa, Florida.

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
October 24, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: EA — Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Holly Springs
REFERENCE: 1152
We concur that the direct impacts of increasing discharge into Utley Creek are likely to be minimal,
at least in terms of effects on rare species or significant natural areas. However, we are highly
concerned about the potential secondary and cumulative impacts associated with this project.
The document acknowledges that this project is intended to keep pace with the demands of explosive
growth within the service area of the Town's wastewater system. In fact, this project is seen only
as a short-term solution, with construction of a new regional plant needed fairly soon. Also
acknowledged is the fact that the 60% of the lands currently within the service area are located
within the Middle Creek watershed, draining into the Neuse River rather than the Cape Fear (p. 10).
While there are no records for Utley Creek, there are a large number of rare species documented
from Middle Creek, including the federally and state Endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon). The presence of these species in Middle Creek is discussed on pp. 15-16 of the
document.
We regard all of the populations of the dwarf wedgemussel and associated state -listed species
occurring in the Neuse River basin as at high risk of extirpation from the cumulative effects of urban
growth. Given the severity of the risk to these species, only thorough environmental assessments
are acceptable for projects intended to supply the infrastructure needed to accommodate or facilitate
urban growth within areas where these species are known to occur. In particular, we expect these
assessments to provide a thorough evaluation of direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts specific
to these species and their habitats.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper

Melba McGee
Page 2
October 24, 2001
The evaluation presented in this EA does not meet this standard. Although the document lists the
rare species known to occur within the Middle Creek watershed, it does not discuss the potential
effects on their populations due to urban growth within that portion of the service area. Most
importantly, it does not evaluate the potential for these species to become significantly degraded or
even completely lost from this watershed as a consequence of the proposed project.
While helpful, none of the measures proposed in the document to offset the effects of stormwater
runoff, including the Neuse River rules, were intended or consequently designed for the protection
of rare species. A similar conclusion was reached by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) regarding mitigation proposed by the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department
(CMUD) to offset secondary and cumulative impacts associated with a large interbasin water transfer
project. Of maj or concern were possible impacts of the urban growth resulting from this project on
a population of the federally Endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona subviridis). In order to
obtain a FONSI for this project, CMUD presented a mitigated EA, but claimed that existing or, in
some cases, proposed ordinances and voluntary measures, would be sufficient to offset these
impacts. DENR, however, acknowledged that concerns about impacts to the mussel were real and
needed to be addressed more specifically. The two choices offered to satisfy the requirements for
a mitigated EA were to either remove the the drainage occupied by the heelsplitter from the service
area of the project or to provide migitative measures more effective for the protection of the
endangered species. A set of measures developed by the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
was offered as part of the second solution. If agreement couldn't be reached on either of these two
solutions, a third choice was to deal with these issues as part of an EIS instead of an EA.
Based on the likelihood of similar, growth -related impacts resulting from this project, we
recommend that the same two alternatives be considered in order to allow a FONSI to be issued.
Our preference is for strong mitigative measures to be developed specifically for the protection of
the populations of dwarf wedgemussel and other significant aquatic species in Middle Creek. In
particular, we recommend that measures similar to those proposed by WRC for the protection of the
Carolina heelsplitter be considered. These include preservation of 200 ft. buffers of natural
vegetation along perennial streams in this drainage, 100 ft. buffers along intermittent streams, and
setbacks of sewer line from these streams of at least 200 ft. Alternatively, we would support a
moratorium on all sewer line construction -- including tie-ins of privately built lines into the public
system — in these drainages until appropriate mitigation can be achieved.
Without such an agreement, we cannot support a FONSI for this project and recommend that these
issues be addressed in a full EIS.

AVA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
John N. Morris, Director
October 17, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Sydney MillO
RE: Environmental Assessment Update for Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Town
of Holly Springs
Please consider the following comments. Relevant sections from Holly Springs' Application for
Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation (May 2001) are attached.
1. p.l Need for Project
The document states that the full development population is expected to be over 43,000
people. According to Holly Springs' Application for Jordan Lake Water Supply
Allocation, their planned buildout population is 124,489 (see Table 1-1, p.4). This
comment also applies to pages 18-20.
The document states that full development capacity requirements are expected to be in
the 4.9 to 5.1 MGD range. According to Holly Springs' Application for Jordan Lake
Water Supply Allocation, their full development raw water demand will be 16.1 MGD
or 15.3 MGD with water conservation (see Table 2-1, p.15). In 2000, their raw water
demand was 0.929 MGD on an annual average daily basis and their wastewater
discharge was 0.676 MGD on an annual average daily basis (see Local Water Supply
Plan for Jordan Lake Allocation Application 2000-2001). Applying this ratio to their
projected full development raw water demand we obtain a projected full development
wastewater capacity requirement of 11.7 MGD or 11.1 MGD with water conservation.
This comment also applies to pages 18-20.
Based on the raw water demand projections in Holly Springs' Application for Jordan
Lake Water Supply Allocation, 2.4 MGD of treatment capacity would satisfy their
capacity needs for the next 5 to 10 years. This comment also applies to pages 18-20.
2. p.l Conclusions and Recommendations
The document states that the current 1.5 MGD facility will soon be inadequate. Based
on the raw water demand projections in Holly Springs' Application for Jordan Lake
Water Supply Allocation, the current facility will be inadequate before 2005.
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncwater.org
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer - 50% Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper

s.
FINAL
Application for Jordan Lake Water
Supply Allocation
Submitted By _ t:
The Town of Holly Springs:
Submitted to
North Carolina Division of Water. Resources
May 2001
Prepared by
CH2MHILL
3125 Poplarwood Court
Suite 304
Raleigh, NC 27604
TONS JORDALAKEAPP•FINALDOC

SECTION 1
WATER DEMAND FORECAST
TABLE 1-1
Planned Buildout Population for Town of Holly Springs
Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation Application
Class
Acreage' Housing Units Persons per Population
per Acre2 Housing Unit3
High Density Residential 2,404 5-10 2.5 21,036
Moderate Density Residential 11,875 2-5 2.5 72,734
Low Density Residential 8,020 <2 2.5 14,035
Rural Preservation Area 2,491 53 2.5 6,539
Commercial 1,040 0 0 0
Industrial 1,674 0 0
CP&L Property 5,798 r1 2.5
Public Open Space 304 0 0
Wake County Property 803 0 0
0
10,146
0
0
TOTAL
34,409 124,489
Population Density (people per sq. mi.) 2,315
1. Based on expected Future Service Area at buildout assuming that 70 percent of the total acreage is
developable to account for streams, buffers, roads or other property not suitable for development.
2. Housing density from Town of Holly Springs 1998 Ten -Year Comprehensive Growth Plan
3. Projected persons per housing unit from CAMPO Transportation Analysis Zone data
This buildout population results in a planned density of 2,315 persons per square mile at
buildout. This density is similar to the planned population densities for other local
municipalities, particularly Cary and Apex (Table 1-2). Raleigh has a higher population
density currently, and Morrisville is planning for a density of 2,784 at buildout.
TABLE 1-2
Planned Population Densities for Municipalities in Wake County
Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation Application
Municipality
Current Population Density Planned Population Density
(persons per square mile) (persons per square mile)
Cary 2,238 2,141
Apex 2,124 2,226
Raleigh 2,445 N/A
Source: Planning Departments for Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and Raleigh
4

SECTION 1
WATER DEMAND FORECASTS
TABLE 1-10
Projected Average Daily Water Demand - Holly Springs Service Areal
Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation Application
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Residential 0.69 1.61 2.80 4.07 5.36 6.54 7.79 8.61 9.17 9.38 9.38
Commercial 0.09 0.22 . 0.37 0.54 0.71 0.87 1.04 1.15 1.22 1.25 1.25
Industrial 0.06 0.39 0.73 1.06 1.39 1.73 2.06 2.40 2.73 3.06 3.06
Institutional 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.19
Process Water (6%) 0.05 0.14 0.24 0.35 0.45 0.56 0.66 0.74 0.80 0.83 0.83
Unaccounted -For Water 0.09 0.23 0.40 0.58 0.76 0.93 1.10 1.23 1.33 1.39 1.39
(10%)
Total Service Area Demand 0.99 2.61 4.58 6.67 8.78 10.76 12.82 14.30 15.43 16.10 16.10
1. • All data in million gallons per day (mgd)
.12

1
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN for JORDAN LAKE ALLOCATION APPLICATION 2000-2001
Part 1: Water Supply System Report for Calendar Year 2000
Completed By: CH2M HILL
Date: 5/24/2001
r
1-A. Water System: Town of Holly Springs
SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
1-B. PWS Identification #: NC03-92-050
1-C. River Sub-Basin(s): Neuse and Cape Fear
1-D. County(s):
1-E. Contact Person:
1-F. Mailing Address:
1-G. Phone:
Wake
Stephanie L. Sudano, PE
Title: Director of Engineering
PO Box 8
CITY Holly Springs ZIP 27540
919.557.3935
1-H. Fax: [phone]
1-1. E-mail: stephanie.sudano©ncmail.net
1-J. Type of Ownership (Check One): ® Municipality F County F Authority F District F Non -Profit Association F For -Profit Business
F State F Federal F Other
SECTION 2: WATER USE INFORMATION
2-A. Population Served in 2000 Year -Round 9.192
Seasonal (if applicable) N/A For Months of
2-B. Total Water Use for 2000 including all purchased water: 321.8 Million Gallons (MG)
2-C. Average Annual Daily Water Use in 2000: 0.926 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
2-D. List 2000 Average Annual Daily Water Use by Type in Million Gallons per Day (MGD): *
Type of Use
(1) Residential
(2) Commercial
(3) Industrial
(4) Institutional
'Estimated
Metered Connections
Non -Metered Connections
Total
Number
Average Use (MGD)
Number
Estimated Average Use (MGDI
Average Use (MGD)
5013 .
0.507
0.507
285
0.044
0.044
13
0.028
0.028
10
0.006
0.006
(5) Sales to other Systems
(6) System Processes
(7) Subtotal [sum (1) thru (6)]
0
0
0.585
(8) Average Annual Daily Water Use [Item 2-C]
(9) Unaccounted-for water [(8) - (7)]
0.926
0.341
NC Division of Water Resources, Water Supply Planning Section, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1611 [phone] Pari 1 Page 1

Local Water Supply Plan — Part 1: Water Supply System Report for Calendar Year 2000 — Page 5
Weak *4 rat
t
s-J. VV H 1 Cn
1 ncH 1 MC!'J 1 rLAIV I Llsi an vv I rs, incivams
any unaer construction, as or 1 L:31I UOo. Marx and label locations on the System Map.
Water Treatment Plant Name
Permitted Capacity
MGD
Source(s)
N/A
3-K. What is the systein':; finished water storage capacity?
1.3 Million Gallons
SECTION 4: WASTEWATER INFORMATION
4-A. List Average Daily Wastewater Discharges by Month for 2000 in Mill
Average Dzt:iy Discharge
Average Daily Discharge
Average Daily Discharge
Average Daily Discharge
Jan
0.693
Apr
0.632
Jul
0.654
Oct
0.668
Feb
0.767
May
0.623
Aug
0.737
Nov
0.654
Mar
0.632
Jun
0.661
Sep
0.738
Dec
0.647
4-B. List all Wastewater Discharge and/or Land Application Permit
1
1 i 2
NPDES I Permitted Capacity
or Land Application I Dec. 31,2000
Permit Number MGD
3
Design
Capacity
MGD
- - ---- --i --- --
4
Average Annual
Daily Discharge
MGD
- ----- ------ -- --— --...--,....� .... ............,.. .+..v
5
Name of Receiving Stream
.-.rr.w-arrt...vwa.v.I -7ISGJ 411I
6
Sub -Basin
uw 17y.lc!!l Map.
7
Maximum Daily
Discharge
MGD
0063096 i 1.0
1.0
0.676
Utley Creek
Cape Fear
E4
I
.
O
SYSTEM N:,,ivME Town of Holly Sarinos PWSID NC03-92-050
NC Oivision of Water Resources, Water Supply Planning Section, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1611, [phone] Part 1 Page 5

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name //� :% ' 4i) 'w
i l c�i�� f ^ Type of Project_ 4,".'�-
Comments provided by
Project Number
f/5 4
County
❑ Regional Program Person
jkr. Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
❑ Central Office program person
Mtc,tka
Name: -Q.i t_711) sly
Telephone number: 0. let) 5/ t - 4-7 U 0
Progr, m within Division of Environmental Health:
Public Water Supply
❑ Other, Name of Program:
Date:
T •
•1
ryci/4
Respo a (check all applicable):
No objection to project as proposed
❑ No comment
❑ Insufficient Information to complete review
❑ Comments attached
❑ See comments below
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health

1
AAA State of North Carolina
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
f p1, R-)
Reviewing Office:
i (52- r;
Due Date: f ', ���f � ii
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
•Er
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contracts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
Q
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters.
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection preapplication
conference usual. Additionally,obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDE5 permit -whichever is later.
90 -120 days
(N/A)
Water Use Permit
Preapplication technical conference usually necessary •
30 days
(N/A)
ca
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
7 days
(15 days)
u
Dredge and Fill Permit
•
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
55 days
(90 days)
CI
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(20.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
.
N/A
60 days
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
N/A
60 days
(90 days)
0
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
LI
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
IRThe
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan fled with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30
days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
20 days
(30 days)
CI
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
30 days
Mining Permit
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
30 days
(60 days)
0
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
El
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
in coastal N.C..with organic soils.
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required if more than five
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.`
1 day
(N/A)
0
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90 -120 days
(N/A)
ci
Dam Safety Permit
•
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
30 days
(60 days)

r+'
•
. 477rA
.. 4! State of North Carolina
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: I (52 Due Date: t 11/54 / �1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
— to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
, P-D
Reviewing Office:
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Umit)
er
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contracts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
El
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters.
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection preapplication
conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time,30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDES permit -whichever is later.
90 -120 days
(N/A)
CI
Water Use Permit
Preappfcation technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
El
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C.Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
55 days
(90 days)
ID
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
.
N/A
60 days
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
N/A
•
60 days
(90 days)
0
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
20.0800
4
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30
days before beginning activity. A fee of S40 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
20 days
(30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
30 days
(i
Mining Permit
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
30 days
(60 days)
DNorth
Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
El
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
in coastal N.C..with organic soils.
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
1 day
(N/A)
CI
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90 -120 days
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit
.
•
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C.qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of S200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
' -- 30 days -.-.
(60 days)

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
Geophysical Exploration Permit
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according
to DENR rules and regulations.
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application
by letter. No standard application form.
Normal Process 9me7
(Statutory Time Limit)
10 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
15 - 20 days
(N/A)
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A
55 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
S250.00 fee must accompany application
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
850.00 fee must accompany application
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. if any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
60 days
(130 days)
22 days
(25 days)
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if"orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
45 days
(N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C. 28801
[phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 3reen Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301
[phone]
❑ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone]
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.Q. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
[phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C. 27889
[phone]
❑ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
[phone]
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
[phone]

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross Jr.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
August 23, 2001
Stephanie Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
128 South Main Street
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Re: Town of Holly Springs WWTP Expansion
Dear Ms. Sudano:
The Division of Water Quality (Division) has finished the review of the revised Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed expansion of the wastewater treatment facility for the Town of
Holly Springs. The Division recognizes the Town's critical need for wastewater treatment capacity
and recognizes this project as a short-term solution to ongoing expansion issues. The Division
encourages the Town to continue to participate in exploration of regional sewer authority
opportunities into the future.
The Division is concerned with the potential impact increased flows will have on nutrient levels in
Utley Creek, a creek that has measured high levels of nutrients in the past with lower flows. The
Division is recommending that the facility should perform instream sampling to monitor the
conditions of the receiving stream.
The Division requests that the EA be revised to address the items identified in the attached letters
from Teresa Rodriguez, NPDES Permitting Unit, and Eric Fleek, Biological Assessment Unit.
Once these items have been satisfactorily addressed in the document, please send me eight
copies of the revised EA.
Upon submittal I will then distribute the document through the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources for departmental review.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-733-5083 ext. 366.
Sincerely,
Milt Rhodes
Interim DWQ SEPA Coordinator
cc. Dave Goodrich, NPDES permitting unit
FICI5ENR
Customer Service
[phone]
1-877-623-6748
Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
http://www.enr.state.nc.us

July 18, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jimmie Overton
THROUGH: Trish MacPherson
FROM: Eric Fleek
SUBJECT: Holly Springs WWTP Expansion —Environmental Assessment Comments
The Town of Holly Springs has submitted an update to DWQ regarding its intent to again
expand its WWTP, which discharges to Utley Creek (NPDES Permit #0063096). This
WWTP has just completed a recent expansion from 0.5MGD to 1.5MGD. To
accommodate anticipated rapid growth, the Town of Holly Springs is requesting another
expansion —this time to 2.4MGD. The following comments should be addressed in an
amended EA:
1) Expansion from current levels of 1.5MGD to the requested 2.4MGD may not be a
viable option since the water quality on Utley Creek and its two impoundments
(Thomas Mill Pond and Green Tree Reservoir) are already severely impaired with
high levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, and ammonia. In a Memorandum dated
November 3, 2000 from DWQ's Intensive Survey Unit (ISU), it was noted that under
normal low flow summer conditions, Holly Springs WWTP effluent accounts for
approximately 91% of the total stream flow, 98% of total nitrogen load, and 99.5% of
total phosphorous load. With an additional 0.9MGD expansion, these problems will
likely be worsened. In addition, the already eutrophied conditions on Utley Creek,
Thomas Mill Pond, and Green Tree Reservoir will likely be further exacerbated with
the increased effluent load.
If there are any additional comments or questions regarding this memo please contact Mr.
Eric Fleek at 919-733-9959, or at [e-mail].

MEMORANDUM
To: Milt Rhodes
Thru: Dave Goodrich 01
From: Teresa Rodriguez
Date: July 13, 2001
Re: Holly Springs Environmental Assessment
I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment submitted by the Town of Holly
Springs for an interim expansion of their Utley Creek WWTP to 2.4 MGD. The
water quality in the receiving stream, including the two impoundments downstream
from the discharge and Harris Lake, is the main concern when evaluating an
expansion from this facility. The Division has gathered data upstream and
downstream of the discharge to assess the conditions of the stream and the effect
of the discharge. The latest water quality study was performed by the lnstream
Assessment Unit in the summer of 2000. This study measured high levels of
nutrients in the receiving stream and the two impoundments downstream from the
discharge. The waste water treatment plant effluent appears to be the major
source of nutrients since there is no other discharge above the Holly Springs outfall
and the land surrounding the area is not developed. An increase in nutrient
loadings would prove detrimental to water quality. Nutrient loadings should be
maintained as specified by the July 13, 1998 letter to Ms. Stephanie Sudano
transmitting speculative limits for 2.5 MGD.
The Town of Holly Springs is experiencing rapid growth and this tendency is
expected to continue until the available territory is fully developed. The 2.4 MGD
flow seems to be an appropriate flow to satisfy the needs of the Town for waste
water treatment for the next 5 to 10 years but should only be considered an interim
'solution. The Division has expressed to Holly Springs that the expansion to 2.4
MGD would only be supported as an interim solution while plans for a regional
system are developed and implemented.
The Town is pursuing various alternatives to reduce the amount of wastewater
delivered to the treatment plant. They are considering wastewater reuse,
participation in a regional system and sharing a common effluent line to the Cape
Fear River. Spray irrigation was evaluated but it was deemed not feasible due to
the lack of availability of suitable soils. A new residential development and golf
course is in the design phase incorporating irrigation of green areas with reuse
water. The Town is also looking at other reuse opportunities and is developing a
Long Range Reuse Plan. Reuse is a positive approach and will help the town
reduce the amount of wastewater discharged, but in itself will not be sufficient to
eliminate the discharge. The Town has approached other regional governments for

t•
possible partnerships to deal with wastewater. Although no partnerships have been
solidified, Holly Springs started discussions with the Town of Apex and is
participating in the Wake County Water and Sewer Task Force with the intent of
achieving a regional solution to the wastewater treatment needs. The Division
encourages Holly Springs to continue its efforts towards a regional solution for
wastewater treatment. Recently the Board of Commissioners proclaimed a
resolution to support and commit resources for the participation in a regional
authority facility or similar solution for the treatment of wastewater.
The NPDES Unit finds the environmental assessment for the expansion to 2.44
MGD acceptable provided that the project is an interim solution while a regional
system is developed. Currently the receiving stream is not being monitored,
therefore we recommend that the facility should perform instream sampling to
monitor the conditions of the receiving stream.

THE TOWN OF
Iiolly
rin
P g
S s
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
April 11, 2001
Mr. Tommy Stevens, Director
of North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
tvd,t,4
4pi
RAC"°Rs''QOA
RE: EA for Interim Expansion Holly Springs WWTP
Dear Mr. Stevens:
v1
Please find enclosed several documents that are being submitted
in follow-up to our February 28th meeting with you and your staff. You
will find that the documents are consistent with the discussions that
occurred at that meeting, and include the following:
a) four (4) copies of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for an interim
expansion of our wastewater treatment plant to a capacity of 2.4 mgd,
which we hope will be sufficient to meet our needs for a 5 year
period;
b) four (4) copies of a resolution recently adopted by our Town Board, in
response to your staff's request, at it's March meeting; Overall, the
resolution documents the Town's commitment for participating in
regional wastewater planning and is consistent with the discussions
we had with you and your staff at the February 28, 2001 meeting.
The Environment Assessment is similar to the one submitted to your
office for consideration last fall. However, after our meeting, over
engineer did make miscellaneous wording changes to make it more
explicitly clear that the Town considers the expansion of its discharge
into Utley Creek an interim measure, not a long term solution. In
addition, the discussions on wastewater reuse in the Environment
Assessment have been updated to reflect the latest progress in this
area made by the Town.
In addition, we have included a draft outline of the Town's
proposed "Green Plan" which is currently being prepared by the Town to
summarize and emphasize the Town's commitment environmental
protection. The Green Plan document may be helpful to you in
understanding the Town's continued efforts to address the various
cumulative and secondary impacts from growth. These concerns are
shared by the Town, and as part of the 10 Year Comprehensive Growth
Plan prepared in 1998, the Town adopted five policies explicitly aimed at
11491

mitigating adverse environmental impacts associated with growth. We
thought that knowledge of the plan, while not required for this submittal
to you, may be helpful information. We anticipate completion of the plan
within 60 days.
I understand that the next step in this process is for the
Environmental Assessment to be submitted by your office through the
clearinghouse process. As I discussed with Colleen Sullins at the end of
our meeting, a schedule from your staff with anticipated benchmark dates
for the various steps in the permitting process would be very helpful. We
could actually handle this by telephone if you or your staff would prefer.
Please telephone me at [phone]. The Town would appreciate this
information as quickly as possible so that we can continue with our
planning efforts.
I am hopeful that, per our meeting, the information included with
this letter will clear the way for the Town to proceed with obtaining a
permit as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the Town will continue
with it's efforts at effecting a regional wastewater treatment solution.
Stephanie L. Sudan, P.E.
Director of Engineering
CC: Carl Dean, Town Manager
Ford Chambliss, P.E. The Wooten Company
11491

a.
/?cv.b 3/-zgo1 '
Environmental Assessment Update
for
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
c.Aitok,
/s"%'z.oiettp
q MAIR11.2
#4**.e, Z. Cii
W
EVERETTE L. CHAMBLISS, P.E.
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
Engineering • Architecture • Planning
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

SIMI
1.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT
1.1 Project Overview
Rapid growth in Holly Springs is the single biggest factor influencing all of the Town's
planning. The extraordinary growth rate that it began experiencing in the late 80's accelerated
throughout the nineties, and is expected to continue until the Town approaches full build out. One
major challenge facing the Town is providing wastewater treatment capacity equal to the demands
of its service area. The sewer collection system has already been greatly expanded and is still being
added to when needed at new developments and where failed existing septic tank systems are being
replaced. The long term plans for the Town's interceptor system have been formulated and are
being implemented as growth continues. Holly Springs has just completed the expansion of its
wastewater treatment plant from 0.5 MGD to 1.5 MGD. An additional expansion is needed in the
immediate future if the Town is to keep pace with the demands of its own growth. This will be an
interim solution solving the Town's needs only for the next 5 to 10 years. The long term solution /
is most likely to be the result of regional planning efforts that have not yet fully matured, but to
which the Town is fully committed. Continued discharge into Utley Creek will be necessary in the
short term, but the Town Commissioners are committed to finding an alternate discharge point in
the long term, preferably in the context of a regional solution.
1.2 Need for Project
As the population grows, the Town must work hard to be able to keep up with the rising
volume of wastewater requiring treatment. The facilities that are sufficient now will soon be unable
to handle the increased flows from a larger population. The Town must start planning to expand
the treatment plant again in the future. With the full development population expected to be over
43,000 people, Holly Springs will require a facility considerably larger than its present 1.5 MGD
facility. Full development capacity requirements are expected to be in the 4.9 to 5.1 MGD range.
2.4 mgd of treatment capacity will be needed for the near term (5 to 10 years).
1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Town should take immediate steps towards arranging for a plant expansion since the
current 1.5 MGD facility will soon be inadequate for the flow. There is no short term alternative
.. available to the Town other than to expand and continue to discharge at its present location. The
Town should continue its efforts to have the State's proposed nitrogen and phosphorus
concentration limits changed to mass limits. The plant expansion should be designed for biological
nitrogen and phosphorous removal, with a supplemental chemical feed system for back-up
1

phosphorous removal. Should the Town not be able to change the nitrogen limits to mass limits,
•• the Town should be prepared to spend an additional $1,400,000 for supplemental nitrogen removal
facilities (effluent denitrification filters with methanol feed). Once flows reach the 2.4 MGD level
the Town will need to spend at least another million dollars to expand the denitrification filtration
system. Operating expenses are also expected to be dramatically increased by the use of the
denitrification filters needed to meet a 2.2 mg/L total nitrogen limit, both in terms of chemicals, and
in terms of additional skilled labor. Holly Springs should continue to investigate regional
alternatives and hopefully, will never need to increase its discharge into Utley Creek to more than
2.4 mgd. However, due to the increasing population, an expansion to 2.4 mgd should be
undertaken as an interim measure.
Holly Springs' efforts to develop a reuse program for treated wastewater are bearing fruit.
Holly Springs is looking into using treated wastewater for irrigating an existing golf course using.
an abandoned forcemain that runs near it to transport reuse water to the course. The Town is also
committed to provide reuse water for a planned new golf course and residential subdivision. The
.. new golf course is expected to have, during its "grow -in" period, irrigation demands that may
actually exceed the total volume of wastewater produced by the Town. The Town should continue
to seek means to allow as much of its wastewater as is practical to be reused, rather than
discharged to Utley Creek. The Town has contracted for the development of a long range, reuse
water distribution plan that is expected to, among other things, include irrigation of area schools
and planned parks.
Preservation of existing capacity will also be critical for maintaining adequate wastewater
treatment capabilities. The Town should continue its water conservation and infiltration and inflow
abatement programs.
Regional alternatives involving the creation of a new discharge on the Cape Fear River and
the elimination of one or more discharges into the Neuse River Basin are being discussed on a
number of levels. A shared, common effluent line from one or more tertiary plants is one
configuration often discussed. Under such an arrangement, the Town's investment in wastewater
treatment facilities, and any future investments it makes in reuse facilities, will be preserved.
Accordingly, the Town should continue its efforts to be a part of the regional solutions under
consideration, recognizing that expanding its current plant does not preclude nor substitute for
participation in a regional solution.
0111
2

The Town's governing body has, through resolution, expressed its intent to eventually
eliminate any discharge into Utley Creek, with participation in a regional system being its preferred
long term wastewater solution.
3

IMII
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT
OM 2.1 General Overview
The area within the Town Limits and the surrounding lands that make up Holly Springs
•i. and its current and expected future utilities service area is urbanizing at a rapid pace.Understanding
the Town's plans for providing wastewater service to this area and mitigating the adverse
mils environmental impacts associated with that service requires some understanding of existing
conditions. Existing conditions are described in this section.
09
2.2 Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction
Holly Springs is located in southwest Wake County and shares ETJ borders with the
ma
Towns of Apex to the north and Fuquay-Varina to its southeast. The planning area the Town is
now using is further defined by US 1 to the northwest, Basal Creek and Pierce -Olive Road to the
ow east, and Rex Road to Holleman's Crossroads to the southwest.
Holly Springs is organized as a governmental unit under the authority of its charter from
ail the State of North Carolina. The Town of Holly Springs is governed by the "Council -Manager"
type of government. 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
„q 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
am
collection and treatment system.
2.3 Land Use
Historically, agricultural and forested land uses have dominated the area. However, this
0.4 pattern has changed because of the growth patterns spawned by the economic growth of the
Triangle Area. Land use is now largely determined by the land use plans and zoning requirements
of the Town. The land uses allowed under these documents is in turn determined by location with
AM
respect to natural and manmade features of the land. For instance, the area in the west, around
Harris Lake, is planned to be developed as low density residential to preserve much of its natural
A" character. Other areas that are near major crossroads are zoned for businesses and industries and
will have higher density development. The proposed Wake County outer loop will run north of
mi town and will likely spur high density residential as well as commercial growth in its immediate
vicinity. Most of the current developments are moderate density. Holly Springs wants to include
WA
4

PA
•
smaller shopping centers around residential areas that will serve the local populations and allow
ow larger shopping facilities that attract regional business to build near the major thoroughfares and
intersections. Also, there are plans for building a more centralized and traditional downtown area,
,�, and a desire to have both recreational and natural parks available to area residents. The
Comprehensive Plan Development Committee for Holly Springs working with M. Joseph Hakan,
a design consultant from Chapel Hill, have prepared a Ten -Year Comprehensive Growth Plan that
sets forth the long term plans for Holly Springs in some detail.
,,,., South of Town, where the Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina ETJ's often share a common
boundary line, is an expanding area of single family residences. Ownership and control of much of
the land in this area has been consolidated by real estate developers, and its development is
s•
expected to take place in the form of large, planned subdivisions. The proposed Highway 55 by-
pass, which runs roughly north -south, and is located west of existing Highway 55, will serve as
the eastern boundary of an industrial area located south of New Hill Road. The proposed Southern
Wake Expressway (outer loop) is expected to eventually serve as a physical barrier separating the
i► Towns of Apex and Holly Springs. Southern Wake Expressway interchanges are expected to serve
as nodes for employment centers and retail centers. Some of the land adjoining the roadway is
..., designated to serve as high density residential, buffering the expressway from moderate density
residential land uses.
2.4 Topography
The Holly Springs ETJ lies entirely in Wake County, which is located in the east -central
p► part of the State of North Carolina. The topography of the area is characterized by steep slopes,
especially along water courses. Travelling to the east the slopes become more gradual, but the land
,,,,N 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.
la.► 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 70° F and
47 inches, respectively. The rainfall is typically adequate with respect to agriculture, but is not
MI always well distributed throughout the various growing seasons. Precipitation during individual
storms is also variable. Generally, the heaviest rainfalls occur during the summer months.
Snowfall is light and of short duration, posing few problems most years. Seasonal temperature and
0.4
rainfall data obtained from weather stations in Wake County are summarized in Table 1.
0114

/ 1
•.. ^_:1 1
29?
c-5
— •
7
s •••
k • /
. • -
• "N1,•-•
ire • To Ap ex
A1 I320--- •
FIGURE 1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Scale: 1 in.=200() ft.
\- To Fuquay-Varina
I
-st rati,* .\
**_•.1
1.4-17.-r-4
NV
• i.;393 •

Table 1 Weather Data
om Table 1 Weather Data
Month
Average Daily Maximum Average Daily Minimum Average Total Participation
,d Temperature °F Temperature °F (inches)
January 51 33 3.3
February 53 34 3.5
+m March 61 41 3.7
April 71 49 3.8
May 79 58 3.8
June 86 66 3.9
OR
July 88 69 5.9
August 87 68 5.4
September 82 63 4.6
'"t October 72 52 2.8
November 61 42 3.0
December 52 34 3.2
_ Annual 7 0 51 46.9
Data taken from the USGS Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina
,,m 2.6 Geology, Soils & Agricultural Resources
2.6.1 Geology
'°k 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 part of the area lies
,I► 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 northeast of Town, and the Sandhills
MA
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.
2.6.2 Soils
Soils have been an important factor in determining the extent of past development and will
influence 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
op 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
0.4 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
6

Table 2 Soil Associations
. • ii.1
•
r��tt
•
l•4
r•a
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).
i
i:t.rrk»
,I r.
pie) ts.. I I .r
1 r'
I I/ •
'� �It.monl
ti
( •nrprftirr
oP
nndnhi\ 2
I - \`f ``rto; de __._._•
1'3y\ p� !lnllrmnn
twat
,>a
•
M..rrjR
rib
.y 6
/f_
Orr
A49 Ivillr
Lake ./.,1tt*f,tf
111nretlnnln
•
8 "
l.nkr Hi rr • lj
1n Koitneber.
FIGt1RI? 2
(:ENE,RA1, SOILS MAP
Scale: 1 in. = 21120 ft.
Six
Fork.
•rr
Mi. i'IPnanttl y
t
1...... r
5U•-•... i : '•
-0l'urnril, �t/ �.
JJ/ E
etf.• j k 4.,ti
f • cVnM
Vie% • Fnr^
r:rrrk
tett
Nit
�al
Nrttv.`
't nmarf.•••la
I;r (I)
%1•t�HiC If1»fl
r '1 it � `•
/

Oa
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
0.4 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
0`' 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.
Herndon-Georgeville: This association consists of well drained soils that possess 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
gag 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
0.4 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 with the use of septic tanks. Where more dense development is desired, use of
centralized wastewater facilities is 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 other 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.
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 an area where development more dense than that sustainable
with on -site systems is desired.
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.
fam 2.7 Cultural Resources
Historic and archaeological sites are those sites of past events and those structures that can
be studied to gain insight on mankind's historical 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 adverse impacts on these areas if at all 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. Therefore no local areas of cultural interest are expected to be adversely
impacted by the proposed wastewater facilities.
AMR
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 m), Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone as adopted by the State and Federal Agencies are
listed as follows:
8

PO
IONI
PIP
AM
Oa
MI
Table 3 National & State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Type of
Average
Standard Level Concentrations
Primary
Secondaryb
NC Regs.
PM 10
24-Hour
A AM1
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
SO2
3-Hour2
24-Hour2
A AM1
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
0.0 Springs, the data from monitoring locations in the surrounding area must be used to evaluate the air
quality in the Holly Springs area. A review of the existing ambient air quality data in the area
gm indicates that the annual mean concentrations of air pollutants generally do not exceed the
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. However, as growth in the Triangle
continues, air quality is becoming a greater concern, particularly with regards to ozone. Holly
mak
Springs will likely be impacted by any general degradation of air quality in the Triangle area.
ala 2.10 Hydrology
OA
2.10.1 Groundwater Resources
The Town of Holly Springs formerly relied on groundwater to supply its potable water
needs. The growth of the Town exceeded the capacity of the wells, and the Town now relies on
purchases of surface water sources from other units of government for 100% of its potable water
needs.
9

Mit
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. Long term plans call for extending the ETJ further to the west,
and it is expected that eventually the majority of the enlarged Town will actually be within the Cape
Fear Basin. 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:
Table 5 Surface Waters
Pollutant
River
Basin
Hydrologic Data
Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
Average
Discharge
(cfs)
7/10 Low
Flow (cfs)
Middle Creek at Cary WWTP
point of Discharge
Neuse
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 sub -basins 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 Sub -basin 030403 and the Cape Fear River Sub -basin 030607. These sub -basins are
described as follows:
Neuse River Sub -basin 030403
This sub -basin covers parts of Wake and Johnston Counties and contains Middle Creek
and its tributaries. There are 18 permitted dischargers in this sub -basin with a total discharge
capacity of 16.8691 MGD. The two largest discharges are the Apex WWTP (treatment capacity=
3.6 MGD) and Cary South WWTP (treatment capacity= 6.4 MGD), having a total design treatment
capacity of 10.0 MGD (59.3% of the current total design treatment capacity installed in the entire
sub -basin). Both of these wastewater treatment plants discharge directly into Middle Creek.
10

014
The NC-DEM has established an ambient monitoring system to collect data in stream
segments. The water quality assessment evaluates the following parameters: dissolved oxygen
(DO), DO percent saturation (April through October), conductivity, total phosphorous, total
,,M) nitrogen, chlorophyll a (April through October), turbidity and salinity,(Neuse River Plan, 4-1
3),pH, and temperature. The three monitored freshwater segments in the Middle Creek Sub -basin
have been classified and evaluated as follows:
Table 6 Stream Monitoring Data
Station
Classification
Chemical
Biological
Problem
Use Support
Source of
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
wildlife living in them, but an increase in pollution or nutrient loading may decrease the ability of
11

Sal
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
aga
"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
{°'o sub -basin, 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
PIA
OBI
OKI
below the point of discharge. Pursuant to this plan in -stream monitoring of Utley Creek was
limitations upon renewal.
Cape Fear River Sub -basin 4'64
This sub -basin 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/I have been
noted below the plant's point of discharge. DO levels in excess of the saturation concentration of
oxygen have also been noted downstream of the plant, indicating that this section of Utley Creek
has excellent natural reaeration capacity. 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 to 1.5 mgd, the Cape Fear River Water Quality Plan called for a survey of the water quality
12

•
increased. Based on the data gathered from this monitoring and preliminary modeling, the Instream
OP Assessment Unit of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality concluded that Utley Creek could
accept 1.5 MGD of wastewater treated to meet advanced tertiary limits. Continued monitoring of
Utley Creek now indicates that there is a potential nutrient loading problem. NC-DWQ officials are
also concerned about nutrient loading on Harris Lake. While CP&L monitoring data actually
indicate that Harris Lake water quality has improved in recent years, NC-DWQ officials are not
convinced that this is a long term trend, and remain concemed with any developments or plans that
could increase nutrient discharges into either Utley Creek or Harris Lake.
2.11 Vegetation and Wildlife
A Jurisdictional Wetland and Protected Species Survey was conducted by Robert J.
Goldstein & Associates, Inc (RJG&A) in 1996. 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. Wetland 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.
Scientific Name Common Name
VERTEBRATES
sat
Aimophila aestivalis
Ambystoma tigrium
Coragyps altratus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
MIA
Hemidactylium scutatum
Lampetra aepytera
Lanius ludovicianus
Myotis austroriparius
Myotis septentrionalis
Necturus lewisii
agt
Noturus furiosus
Picoides borealis
Vermivora bachmanni
Bachman's sparrow
Tiger salamander
Black vulture
Bald Eagle
Four -toed salamander
Least brook lamprey
Loggerhead shrike
Southeastern bat
Keen's (n. long-eared)
bat
Neuse River waterdog
Carolina madtom
Red-cokaded
woodpecker
Bachman's warbler
State
Protection
Status
SC
T
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
E
E
13
Federal
Protection
Status
c2
c2
C2
Habitat
Habitat Requirements Availability
in ETJ
open, mature pine forest
sandy forests near vernal pools
hollow trees or rock crevices
mature trees along rivers and
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

r
OM
INVERTEBRATES
_ Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E E
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle floater T
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance E C2
a% Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke slabshell T
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T C2
Lampsilis radiata Eastern lampmussel SC
iGra+ Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E C2
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary C2
Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot mussel T
am PLANTS
Isoetes piedmontana Piedmont quillwort T
Monotropis odorata Sweet pinesap C2
pri
Portulaca smallii Small's portulaca E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E E
Rhellia humilis Low wild -petunia T
orq
iliEl
streams ++
streams ++
streams ++
streams +
streams ++
streams +
streams +
mesic and floodplain forests +
streams ++
pools on granite flatrock
upland hardwood/pine forests
sandy/rock woodland edges
dry, open, basic woods
calcareous seeps, streambanks
Trillium pusillum Carolina least trillium E C2
E = Endangered; T=Threatened; SC= Special Concern; C2 = Category 2 Candidate
+ = Suitable habitat present, species not found in or near ETJ
++= Suitable habitat present, species occurs in or near ETJ
- = Suitable habitat not present
+
+
+
RJG&A, Inc. 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
pp
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 caiceolus, 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.
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
a, 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,
MA
14

and the squawfoot mussel are listed as Threatened by the State. The least brook lamprey, the
�► 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 Wastewater Treatment
Few septic tank systems and drain fields remain in the Holly Springs area since most of the
Town is being served by a central wastewater treatment facility. The Town of Holly Springs Utley
Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant is located off NCSR 1115, southwest of Holly Springs, in
Wake County. The plant is permitted under NPDES Permit No. NC00630096 and was last
renewed in March 1997. Discharge from this WWTP is into Utley Creek, a Class C water body
located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Effluent limits are summarized below:
Effluent Limitations for Town of Holly Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Parameter Summer Limit * Winter Limit **
Flow 1.500 MGD 1.500 MGD
BOD5 5.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30.0 mg/L 30.0 mg/L
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH -N) 2,0 mg/L 4.0 mb/L
Fecal Coliform 200/100 ml 400/100 ml
Summer seasons extends from April 1 - October 31.
Winter seasons extends from November 1 - March 31.
2.13 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
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 generally within the
Federally established standards, however water quality in some waters in the area is threatened. An
analysis of vegetation and wildlife in the area did reveal the presence of a federally endangered
species, the dwarf wedge mussel in Middle Creek. Eight additional species of concern were also
.444
found within the Holly Springs ETJ.
15

3.0 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. While the Town would prefer that its wastewater
be handled in the context of a broad based, regional solution, such a solution will not be available
in the near term. The Town must therefore look to expand its existing plant while continuing to
discharge at its present location while the work continues on a broad based regional solution.
3.2 Population Projections and Wastewater Flow Projections
Population growth trends from past decades show no resemblance to the current and
expected future growth rates. In the 60's, 70's, and much of the 80's, the population remained
relatively stable. However beginning in the late 80's and throughout the 90's the population has
increased dramatically in Holly Springs and the surrounding areas. According to the North
Carolina Department of Administration, the 1992 population of 1382 was 52% greater than the
1990 population of 908. In 1998, the population reached an estimated 6,632, more than seven
times the 1990 population and nearly five times the 1992 population. These numbers translate to an
annual growth rate of about 30% between 1992 and 1998.
If the 30% annual growth rate continued, the population in 20 years would be
astronomical. However, due to the finite geographic area available to the Town, only a limited
population can be reached. It is expected that the annual population growth increase will stabilize,
which will result in a drop in the Town's growth rate as a percentage of the base population. Put
another way, the Town growth pattern now appears to have become linear rather than geometric.
Assuming a linear growth pattern, the Town's 10 year plan predicts the 2005 population to be
ilfirgesiNand the 2010 population to be 20,452. It is expected that a full development the Town and
its projected ETJ will reach a maximum population estimated as 43,000 people.
In order to keep pace with the growing number of people moving into the Holly Springs
— area, water and sewer services must also be expanded. The Town in 1999 expanded its 0.500
Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) WWTP to 1.5 (MGD) and will shortly need additional capacity.
16

The capacity of the expanded WWTP must be able to handle the future flows coming from
-� three types of usage: (1) domestic, (2) commercial, institutional, and industrial, (3) infiltration and
inflow. All three must be taken into account during the design of the plant expansion to assure
adequate sewer services will be provided. In the previous long range wastewater plan completed in
June of 1996, no allowance was made for development of land owned by Carolina Power and
Light on the western side of Town. It now appears that much of this land will be developed. The
Town in 1998 adopted a new "Ten -Year Comprehensive Growth Plan". This plan differs in many
ways from the plan under which the Town was operating in 1996, showing less acreage being
developed for commercial, institutional, and other higher density, more water/wastewater intensive
usages and more land being developed as low density residential. The total land area which the
., Town plans to serve has however increased, largely by the extension of the planning area into land
now owned by Carolina Power and Light. The increase in projected residential usages has
decreased the amount of land projected as being used for commercial and industrial means but has
also caused the expected full development population to increase from the 25,000 expected in 1996
to over 43,000 people, The increased full development population has also caused the projected
waste water handling treatment capacity to increase to 5.01 MGD. This projection is however, only
2.4% greater than the 4.88 MGD projected in 1996, and is not considered to be significantly
greater than the earlier 4.88 MGD figure.
Domestic Use* 3.03 MGD
Commercial/Institutional** 1.28 MGD
Infiltration/Inflow*** 0.65 MGD
Wake County Landfill**** 0.05 MGD
Total 5.01 MGD
Based on average wastewater generation of 70 gals per capita per day using population of 43,344.
Based on‘2000 gallons per acre of development using 637 acres at full development...,
Projected based on 15 gallons per capita per day for full development.
The Town of Holly Springs is contractually committed to accepting up to150,000 gallons per day of leachate
from a Wake County landfill. Leachate must be pretreated to meet the Town's standards, an aceCounty is
continually obligated to financially assist the Town in developing a State approved pretreatment program.
Given the Town's rapid growth rate, it is difficult to project just when it might reach full
development. 20 years would not be an unreasonable assumption. Certainly, in the next 5 to 10
4.4 years, half of this flow could be realized. Since a logical and economical expansion increment
would take the plant to a capacity of 2.4 mgd, 2.4 mgd would be an appropriate short term to
intermediate term (5-10 year) expansion.
17

a
AI
Infiltration and inflow flows used for planning purposes are a much smaller percentage of
Rim total flow than is typically seen in municipal systems. This is possible due to the relatively young
age of the Holly Springs system. The oldest portion of the Holly Springs system was constructed
as recently as 1986, and much of the system has been constructed in the 1990's. The system
should therefore be much less prone to infiltration and inflow than are older systems constructed
with shorter pipe joint lengths and with jointing materials not as leak resistant as those used in
CM
modern construction.
0.4 The distribution of flow within the different drainage basins within the Town is shown
below.
aq EXPECTED ACREAGE, POPULATION,
AP
OM
111121
IA
AND SEWER FLOWS BY BASIN
BASIN
ACREAGE
POPULATION
USAGE (MGD)
White Oak Creek
4041
19,471
2.93
Sunset Lake
1520
7796
0.69
Middle Creek
750
4325
0.37
Cary Branch
1405
5005
0.43
Bass Lake
1439
6748
0.59
TOTAL
9155
43,345
5.01
A.,3.3 Wastewater Treatment System Expansion
The Town of Holly Springs would prefer that its wastewater treatment problems be
o m handled in the context of a regional solution. Officials of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality have advised that because of nutrient concerns in the Neuse River Basin, in B. Everett
Jordan Lake, and in Harris Lake, such a regional solution would best look at placing the discharge
in the Cape Fear River, downstream of both Harris and Jordan Lakes. The Town is actively
pursuing some form of regional solution that would make such a configuration economically
`i IR feasible. Talks are being held on both a formal and an informal basis by a number of municipalities
AM
18

in Wake County, and in some cases also including Chatham County, in an effort to effect just such
a solution. However, these types of cooperative agreements, even when successful, can require
years to work out the administrative details before any design or construction can begin. It is clear
that no regional solution can materialize before the Town's growth will exceed the capacity of the
existing wastewater treatment plant. Accordingly, the Town will pursue expanding its plant at the
present location. On February 2, 1999 the Town received speculative limits for a 4.88 MGD
discharge at its present location. These limits would require that the Town produce a highly treated
wastewater with extremely low nutrient levels. Nutrient limits given in the speculative limits are
total phosphorous, 0.2 mg/L, and total nitrogen, 2.2 mg/L. The phosphorus limits are difficult to
achieve, but within the range of what is technically achievable. The nitrogen limits are arguably
below what can be technically achieved. However, with an interim expansion to only 2.4 mgd, and
holding the same mass loading, the nutrient limits would become much more manageable. Mass
limits would allow the Town more flexibility and would encourage reusing a portion of the treated
wastewater flow. As of the date of this writing, the NC-DWQ has not acted on the Town's request
for mass limits.
3.4 Alternatives to Expanded Discharge at the Present Location
-- Alternatives to any expansion and alternatives to an expanded discharge at the present
location have been evaluated. Alternatives considered in lieu of an expanded treatment plant
discharge are: (1) Water Conservation; (2) Inflow and Infiltration Reduction; and (3) Wastewater
Reuse. Alternatives to an expanded discharge at the present location are: (1)Use of Spray Irrigation
as the Treatment System; (2) Participation in a Regional System; and (3) Sharing a common
effluent line to the Cape Fear River.
Water Conservation: The Town now actively encourages water conservation. The Town
though its building code requires the use of low water using fixtures. The Town water rate
structure is an "increasing block" structure, with the unit cost of water rising with increased usage.
Finally, the Town has made it a policy to recruit only "clean" industries that have minimal water
needs. However, all of these measures have been in effect for several years, and while the
measures may have reduced wastewater generated from what it might have otherwise been,
wastewater flows have continued to increase. Water conservation is therefore simply not a viable
alternative to a wastewater treatment system expansion. The Town will, however, keep its water
conservation requirements in effect, even after a plant expansion is completed, so that the quantity
of wastewater generated will be at least minimized.
19

Wastewater Reuse: The Town is actively pursuing a wastewater reuse program, and in
fact has committed itself to supply reuse water to a new large (27 hole) golf course and residential
development. The golf course irrigation system is being designed consistent with reuse water
regulations, and a "purple pipe" water distribution system will be installed in the residential
development by the developer at the same time potable water and gravity sewer collection lines are
installed in that development. The Town has also entered into discussions with another golf
course, and with the Wake County School System, regarding irrigation with reuse wastewater.
Wastewater force mains that are no longer needed have been left in place by the Town for future
incorporation into a reuse line network, and the Town has commissioned preparation of a Long
Range Reuse Plan, which it expects to have completed during calendar year 2001. Industrial reuse
will be considered by the Town as opportunities rise, but at present there is no industrial customer
base for reuse. During the "grow -in" period, the new golf course is expected to consume virtually
all of the wastewater the Town can produce, but during the cool seasons, and after grow -in, during
the irrigation season, demand is expected to fall to less than average daily wastewater production.
An expanded plant will be needed in any case, as wastewater must be treated to reuse quality
before being used for irrigation or other reuse purposes, and even during warm weather months
some wastewater discharges are likely to be necessary when natural rainfall is high. A viable reuse
program is expected to allow the Town to reduce its stream discharge, but it is not expected to
allow its complete elimination, and in no circumstances can reuse act as a substitute for plant
expansion.
Inflow and Infiltration Reduction: The Holly Springs wastewater collection system, like
virtually all collection systems, has had some problems with inflow and infiltration, and
particularly with inflow. Activities associated with new construction are the suspected cause of
most of these problems, since all of the Town's collection systems is relatively new. The Town is
diligent in trying to track down and eliminate these problems, and its building inspectors have been
made aware of the need to be vigilant in checking new construction to prevent new inflow sources
from being created. However, even under worst case scenarios, infiltration and inflow appears to
account of at most less than 200,000 gallons per day of the Town's monthly average daily
wastewater flow figures (and, in most months, not even a fraction of this amount). Therefore
inflow and infiltration control, while it will remain a high priority item for the Town, can not act as
a substitute for a plant expansion.
Spray Irrigation: Using spray irrigation as a non surface water discharge alternative was
examined in the 1996 long range study. The conclusions of that study are still valid. The high land
20

costs coupled with the limited suitability of area soils make land application infeasible as an
alternative. The Holly_Springs area has only a limited amount of even moderately well drained
slot surprisingly, these lands are the ones most in demand for development. The remaining
large tracks of land that could be used for land treatment are poorly drained, and often have steeper
IAA
slopes than is desirable for land treatment systems. The 1996 study examined treatment costs
(excluding the cost of transporting wastewater to a treatment area) for plants with capacities of 1.0
MGD, 1.2 MGD. 1.5 MGD, 2.2 MGD, and 2.7 MGD, and found these to be EMilli4;gi$12.1
million, $15.1 million. $19 million, and $26.5 million respectively. Land application is then
clearly not an economically viable alternative for the Town.
Participation of in a Regional System: Officials of the Town, both elected and staff, have
expressed their preference for the Town of Holly Springs solving its wastewater problem in the
context of a regional solution, provided of course that the Town could be treated equitably in a
regional context. There are, however, several barriers to the Town solving its more immediate
problems with a regional solution, not the least of which is that there is at present no regional
system in place. The Town is an active participant in the Wake County Water and Sewer Task
Force, and is actively pursuing a regional solution in that context. The Town has also, thorough
informal contacts, made the Towns of Cary and Apex aware of its potential interest in any joint
venture those two communities might propose. In informal contacts, Holly Springs has also made
Apex aware that if a three party arrangement with Cary proved impractical, the Town would still be
interested in investigating joint Apex -Holly Springs initiatives. Holly Springs also has held a
number of discussions with the Town of Cary regarding the feasibility of having its wastewater
treated at Cary's plant discharging into Middle Creek. These latter discussions were unsuccessful,
and since then the State has adopted a number of measures designed to protect the Neuse River,
that also, unfortunately, making it more difficult to effect regional solutions within the Neuse River
Basin. The State rules now, in effect, place a value of approximately $7 per gallon of treatment
capacity in the Neuse, meaning that any capacity Cary gave up in one of its treatment plants would
AMR
eventually have to be replaced at a cost of $7 per gallon in addition to actual construction cost.
Under these circumstances, it seems unlikely that any long term solution involving one of Cary's
existing wastewater treatment plants will be available to the Town of Holly Springs. The Town is
committed to finding a viable long term solution, with a strong preference towards a regional
solution.
MAI
Sharing a common effluent line to the Cape Fear River: One alternative the Town of
Holly Springs is actively considering sharing a common effluent line leading to the Cape Fear
21

River. Considering the considerable investment that communities in western Wake County have in
�► treatment systems, it is quite possible that any regional solution developed will involve sharing
effluent lines rather than sharing treatment facilities. Treated effluent is more economically
,mb transported than is raw wastewater, and treated effluent lines are less likely to be objectionable to
those who live along the route of such lines than would be lines transporting raw sewage. The
environmental consequences of a line break would also be less serious with treated wastewater
than would be the case with raw wastewater lines. Another advantage of a system involving
dispersed, smaller wastewater treatment plants sharing a common effluent line is that such systems
are more economical from a reuse standpoint. Disbursed, smaller treatment plants are more likely
to be closer to the potential reuse customers, reducing the cost of reuse water transportation. The
cost of constructing such a line alone is more than the Town of Holly Springs can afford at the
present time. The Town of Holly Springs has made the Towns of Apex and Cary aware that it
would consider participating the funding of such a line if either of those communities were to
pursue construction of such a line. However, in the short term, as with a regional treatment
solution, there is no regional discharge line in which the Town can participate. The Town is
committed to relocating its discharge to a point downstream of Harris Lake, and, if doing this
cannot be done in a regional context, as the Town prefers, the Town will investigate doing this
unilaterally.
3.5 Summary
At present there is no realistic alternative to an expanded discharge at the present location.
Water conservation and infiltration/inflow control programs are in effect now, but can not serve as
.NA a substitute for a plant expansion. Wastewater reuses will not avoid a plant expansion, but at least
offers the potential to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged, particularly during the warm,
irrigation season. The Town is working towards developing a reuse program, and is hopeful to
have at least some reuse in effect before the end of the year 2001. However, a much longer time
period will be needed before reuse can play a significant role in the Towns overall wastewater
disposal plans, and an increase in permitted discharge capacity to at least 2.4 mgd is needed as an
interim measure.
A plant expanded at the present location should be designed not only to meet reuse water
quality standards, but also to meet the most stringent nutrient limits technically achievable.
Assurrung the NC-DWQ approves mass nutrient limits, the Town will need to carefully monitor
actual plant performance for nutrient removal as loading increases. The success of Town reuse
efforts will materially decrease its nutrient discharge to Utley Creek, and the combination of reuse
22

IR
imq
oth
OKI
PIA
ABM
tart
and state of the art treatment technology should allow an expanded discharge with no increase in
permitted nutrient loading into Utley Creek.
23

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Overview
The availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities in the Town of Holly Springs
will allow planned residential, commercial and industrial development in the area to continue.
Therefore both the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed
wastewater treatment plant expansion and the environmental impacts from resulting growth and
development should be considered as a part of the planning process. Environmental impacts can be
classified as primary or secondary, and as beneficial and adverse. Primary impacts are those that
would directly result from construction of proposed wastewater facilities. Secondary impacts are
those environmental effects resulting from the development and population growth made possible
by the provision of adequate wastewater treatment facilities. Identifying primary and secondary
adverse impacts is necessary so that mitigative measures to minimize those impacts can be
formulated.
fan
RNA
4.2 Changes in Land Use
4.2.1 Wetlands
No primary impacts on wetland are expected as a consequence of expanding the wastewater
treatment plant. Some secondary adverse impacts on area wetlands could result from development
in the area. The construction of interceptors and collection lines through wetland areas will result in
short-term adverse impacts on water quality in the form of increased siltation and turbidity, a result
of erosion during and immediately following construction. Mechanical damage will also occur
from the actual construction process. However, this is only a temporary problem; and wetlands
will have a chance to restore themselves once the sewer lines are in place and natural revegetation is
allowed to occur. Erosion and increased siltation impacts will be seen during construction of
houses, office buildings, shopping centers, etc., upstream of wetland areas. These impacts may
have a more lasting effect on the environment. Growth and development of Holly Springs will alter
natural water flow patterns, and result in increased urban runoff in wetland areas. While these
changes are not expected to actually destroy any wetland, the changes may subtly alter the manner
in which some wetlands function. The natural interaction between wetland and adjoining upland
ecosystems will certainly be disrupted in places by urban development, as uplands are converted to
urban uses.
24
MIR

4.2.2 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
OM 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. There are no "unique" agricultural lands within
aip the Town and its ETJ. Much of the land that could otherwise be considered prime farmland has
been converted to urban purposes. Given the present growth rate, it is reasonable to expect that
004 over the next twenty years agricultural land uses within Holly Springs area will essentially cease to
exist.
_+ 4.2.3 Forest Resources
Construction of wastewater treatment facilities is expected to have minimal impact on forest
op resources. It is expected that 2 to 3 acres of land will need to be cleared for the expansion of the
wastewater treatment plant. Secondary impacts due to growth and development will have a much
owlarger impact on forest resources than will direct impacts from wastewater treatment construction,
as woodlands are converted to subdivisions and commercial and industrial developments. The
largest forest stands in the Holly Springs area are those owned by Carolina Power and Light.
ge
While some of these lands will be left undeveloped, low density residential development is
expected to occur in those Carolina Power and Light owned lands adjoining the northern half of
pm Harris Lake.
WA
INIIR
4.2.4 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. Open space and greenway requirements
associated with development requirements are also expected to add to the total acreage of public
land.
4.2.5 Scenic and Recreational Areas
,m 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, greenways, etc., will be planned and developed for the growing residential
OM
population.
„m 4.3 Air Quality and Noise Levels
The construction of proposed sewer facilities will result in short-term impacts on air quality
as construction equipment and other mechanized construction traffic increase the pollutant levels in
the area. Development in the area will increase traffic volumes in general which may increase
He
25
III

•
alb
ambient concentrations of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter
o., in the 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 a
mt
given area has been completed, but will remain higher than the current level as more people, with
their cars, lawn mowers, etc., migrate to the Holly Springs area.
OR
4.4 Water Quality
gp 4.4.1 Groundwater Quality
Primary and secondary impacts on groundwater are expected to be minimal. Lawn
*a fertilization at residences and parks may affect the quality of groundwater in the surficial aquifer,
and the increased impermeable surface coverage associated with urban development will reduce
,M groundwater recharge rates somewhat. One long-term secondary impact of wastewater collection
system expansion is actually beneficial. Present and future septic tank operations in the area, which
could be a significant source of pollution problems if the tanks malfunction and/or are not properly
PR
maintained, will be eliminated as the collection system expansions reach unsewered developments,
allowing septic tank operations to cease.
OM
4.4.2 Surface Water Quality
pa A secondary long-term adverse impact on surface water quality from the development of
the Town will be decreased surface water quality as increased urbanization leads to increased
runoff. 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
oft 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
oft adding high concentrations of heavy metals to the water. Run-off containing herbicides and
pesticides applied to house yards and gardens may have difficult to detect, but detrimental impacts
on water quality.
am
The Neuse River Water Quality Basin Plan calls for no new discharges into Middle Creek
am 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.
,1.►
OR
26
facl

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 less than 2 mg/L. The plant would be designed to achieve
biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal. Total phosphorus and total nitrogen will also be
removed with the objective of limiting total nitrogen loads to not more than an average of 89.5
pounds per day, and total phosphorus loads to an average of not more than 8.1 pounds per day; A
program for reusing as much of the wastewater treated at the Utley Creek facility as is practical 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.
The Utley Creek treatment plant appears to be having minimal impacts on receiving water
quality from the standpoint of dissolved oxygen levels and other more conventional levels of
pollutants. Officials of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality have expressed their belief
that the treated Town wastewater is the source of nutrients that are causing algae blooms in a small
impoundment downstream of the Holly Springs plant, and that it may be contributing nutrient that
could eventually cause problems in Harris Lake. While the present plant permit does not have any
nutrient limits, NC-DWQ warned that such limits could be imposed in the future, and the present
plant has been designed to achieve biological nitrogen and phosphorous removal. These
improvements only became operational in December of 1999, and so it is to early to tell what
impacts the improved nutrient removal capabilities of the plant will have on algae build-ups
downstream of the plant.
4.4.3 Drinking Water Supplies
Construction of an expanded wastewater treatment plant will have no immediate impact on
the Town's drinking water supply. There will be additional stress on the drinking water supply due
to the increased demand associated with growth. As a result of this stress, additional drinking
water sources will be located. The Town has made arrangements with the City of Raleigh and with
the Harnett County water system to meet its short term and intermediate needs. The Town is
exploring the feasibility of various long term solutions, including the purchase of additional
capacity from Harnett County and the development of its own water treatment system utilizing the
Cape Fear River as a water supply source.
27

4.5 Wildlife Resources
°`' Impacts on wildlife resources will largely be secondary, i.e. attributable more to
development than to direct construction of wastewater facilities. Disruption to the soil and water
�► from erosion and turbidity due to construction may adversely affect area aquatic species. For
example, increased turbidity in streams may inhibit the photosynthetic activity of aquatic flora.
0.4 Run-off containing trace amounts of herbicides and pesticides could have subtle impacts on aquatic
species, particularly lower life forms. Development of the Town of Holly Springs will also disrupt
terrestrial wildlife habitats as land is cleared and water courses rerouted to allow for construction.
The area is expected to become fully urbanized, and as a consequence its value as a wildlife habitat
will be diminished. Construction of new developments alters existing habitats, and can create gaps
tip between similar habitat types, with difficult to project impacts on wildlife. Natural wildlife travel
corridors can be interrupted, and the potential value as a wildlife resource of remaining undisturbed
land diminished due to the lack of contiguous boundaries with similar habitat types.
4.6 Summary
Environmental impacts will result from proposed wastewater facilities expansions and from
development in the Town of Holly Springs. Direct impacts from plant construction will be
minimal. Secondary and cumulative impacts from urbanization will be more significant. These
types of impacts are occurring throughout the Triangle Area, and Holly Springs will not be unique
�► in this regard. Although the majority of these impacts are negative, the magnitude of the impacts
will not necessarily be great. Unavoidable adverse impacts, once identified, can be mitigated.
Section 5 describes the specific mitigation measures that will be employed by the Town of Holly
Springs. Mitigation measures will not entirely eliminate all adverse impacts, but those adverse
impacts which can not be avoided will be offset by the benefits expected to accrue from the
Aft
provision of adequate wastewater facilities and the growth those facilities will make possible. The
geographic location of the Town is such that it will be subject to intense development pressure. The
provision of adequate wastewater treatment facilities will allow denser development, thereby
relieving some development pressure from more rural areas in Wake and surrounding counties.
28

5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures
5.1 Overview
There are some unavoidable adverse environmental disturbances that will result from
construction of the proposed project and development of Holly Springs. The primaryimpacts
which cannot be avoided are erosion and sedimentation from wastewater treatment plant
0.4 construction, construction inconvenience, and wastewater disposal. The secondary impacts which
cannot be avoided are erosion and sedimentation from developmental activities in the Town, loss of
farm land, diminished forest resources, diminished wildlife habitats, 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.
5.2.1 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.
5.2.2 Wastewater Disposal
Disposal of effluent into the receiving streams is not expected to have a significant 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. Nutrients will, however, remain a concern in
Utley Creek, or more exactly, in the small impondment on Utley creek in which algae blooms have
been a problem. The State remains concerned with conditions in Harris Lake, although data
collected in recent years by Carolina Power and Light at least suggest that water quality is
rglia
anne
improving in that Lake. At any rate, the larger volume of Harris Lake compared to the small pond
in which actual algae blooms have been documented is such that any impacts from the Holly
Springs plant nutrient content will be proportionately much smaller in the lake than in the pond.
The Utley Creek plant expansion would be designed, as is the existing 1.5 MGD facility, to
achieve an effluent BOD5 of 5 mg/L and an effluent ammonia of less than 2 mg/L to 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. Biological nutrient removal
will be incorporated into the treatment plant expansion design, as it was in the most recent plant
expansion to a 1.5 mgd facility. Denitrification filters will be added to the plant to allow extremely
low levels of total nitrogen to be achieved, if necessary.

•
Regulations governing reuse of treated wastewater offer a potential avenue for further
mitigating the effects of the expected increase treated wastewater discharge. Industrial
development, both existing and planned, is located in relatively close proximity to the Utley Creek
„a, plant. A separate, industrial reuse water system that would allow the volume of wastewater
discharged to Utley Creek system to be reduced may prove practical. Implementation of such a
system would be dependent not only on cost but also on the acceptance of a reuse program by the
Town's future industrial customers. Existing industrial customers are not a potential reuse base.
Industrial reuse is therefore only a potential future mitigation measure.
sam
Reuse for irrigation purposes is more promising. The Town is now working with a
planned golf course and residential development, and with an existing development on potential
reuse projects. It is also working on means and methods to provide reuse water to meet
contractor's water needs on the Highway 55 by-pass. The Town expects to explore every
reasonable avenue for reuse, and has commissioned the long range planning for a reuse
distribution system.
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 stream for a short time period. Provision of
standby power and the use of multiple units will mitigate this potential problem.
Pass through to the receiving stream of pollutants originating in industrial wastewater is
another long-term concern that can be mitigated. The Town of Holly Springs is prepared to
implement a State approved pretreatment program any time its industrial base grows to the point
where such a program is warranted. The Town is committed to accepting leachate from a Wake
aim County landfill expansion, if that landfill expansion ever materializes. Even if no other industrial
development required it, the actual acceptance of this landfill leachate would require that a
pretreatment program be put into place to monitor and regulate the leachate. Wake County has
agreed to participate in the financing of the pretreatment program development and has agreed for
the leachate discharge to be regulated under the pretreatment program.
01154
5.3 Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
5.3.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Development
Developers generally are required by State statue to prepare and implement erosion and
sediment control plans for new developments proposed for the Town of Holly Springs area. The
Town of Holly Springs plans to implement a Town -administered Erosion Control Program and
30

Stormwater Program within the next two years as a further means to protect the environment. This
41121 program is expected at a minimum to provide for uniform and prompt enforcement of State
required standards. Most of the new development in Holly Springs is in the form of Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.'s). The Town now requires that P.U.D.'s have dedicated stream buffers,
further mitigating adverse impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation.
�► 5.3.2 Air Quality
Localized air quality degradation due to particulates may occur from development related
�► construction in the Holly Springs area. Such adverse impacts will be of short term duration, and
can be minimized by use of watering and other standard dust control measures. Longer term air
quality impacts are expected from automobile use associated with the increased population of Holly
Springs. The area is expected to be developed primarily in single family residential developments,
and air quality problems like those associated with the downtown areas of major urban centers are
faim
not expected. However, Holly Springs can be expected to share in some of the recurrent air quality
problems of the Triangle as a whole. The only practical mitigative measures for these potential air
quality problems are the automobile emissions standards established at the Federal level and the
occasional mandatory use of fuel mixtures higher in ethanol imposed throughout the Triangle
region during non -attainment periods for air quality standards.
5.3.3 Wetlands and Surface Water Quality
Wetlands are protected through the 404 permitting process, and few, if any, direct impacts
on wetlands are expected from increased development. However, wetlands and other surface water
"" bodies can be expected to sustain increased pollutant loads from stormwater runoff of urban
development. The Town has taken several steps to minimize these impacts. The Town plans to
�► have a Town administered Erosion Control Program and Stormwater Program in place within the
next two years. This program is expected to result in the greater use of forested buffers and other
means to reduce pollutant lands from stormwater. Although not primarily focused on wetlands
preservation, these programs should result in at least some incidental protection of wetlands as
well.
Pal
5.3.4 Prime Farmlands
Essentially all prime farmland within the Holly Springs ETJ is expected to be eventually
lost to urbanization. Real estate values within the area have already reached levels that make it
difficult to justify the continued use of land for crop or livestock production. The provision of a
reliable, centralized wastewater treatment system will, however, allow higher density development
31
as

!�1
to take place than would be possible with on -site wastewater disposal systems. The greater density
of development in Holly Springs made possible by a central wastewater system will somewhat
relieve development pressures on more rural areas, thereby contributing to the preservation of
prime farmland located elsewhere in the region.
5.3.5 Forest Resources
Many of the Town policies discussed in Section 5.3.3 tend to minimize the adverse impacts
on forest resources of continued development in the Holly Springs area. The most significant of
these are the Town's requirements requiring undisturbed buffers along creeks, open space
requirements for P.U.D.'s and residential development, site coverage limitations on industrial
development, buffer requirements for thoroughfares and the outer loop, and the requirement that all
development plans have revegetation and tree preservation plans. Some loss of forest resources
will, however, occur due to urbanization. These losses are expected to be proportionally greater in
upland forest areas. Low lying wooded areas immediately adjoining area streams are expected, for
the most part, to remain intact.
gligt
5.3.6 Wildlife Resources
ang The Town of Holly Springs' continued growth will put increased stress on the area wildlife
resources. The measures described earlier for protecting surface water quality from secondary
adverse impacts will also tend to mitigate adverse impacts on aquatic wildlife. The Town
Floodplain Ordinance provisions and State and Federal wetland protection requirements will
further help to preserve wildlife habitats and travel corridors along area streams. Open space
requirements and limitations on site coverage for new developments will also contribute to wildlife
habitat preservation. These protective measures will mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife resources,
but not eliminate them altogether. The transition of Holly Springs from rural community to urban
community now in progress cannot take place without some alterations and loss of wildlife habitat.
Town parks and recreation planners have been made aware of wildlife resources concerns,
particularly with regards to Middle Creek, and will hopefully be able to devise additional means to
protect and preserve wildlife habitats as a part of the Town's overall parks and recreation planning.
5.4 Public Health
Extension of municipal sewer service is expected to eliminate the source of the health
hazard identified by the Wake County Health Department in the Fair Share area, failed septic tanks.
Achieving this will require extension of gravity sewer interceptor and collection lines, construction
of one small pump station, and replacement or major expansion of one existing lift station.
cast
32
emi

011
5.5 "Green Plan"
'm Listed below are the Environmental Protection Policies given in the Town's 1998 10-Year
Comprehensive Growth Plan.
Ant
Policy 1: The Town shall work with State agencies to enforce the Neuse River Basin
development requirements.
�► Policy 2: The Town shall develop standards to protect water quality for areas not covered by
State mandated guidelines.
Policy 3: The Town shall enforce flood plain protection ordinances and amend as needed.
Policy 4: The Town shall encourage multi -modal travel, interconnected streets, and other
transportation practices that reduce automotive congestion and emissions.
fao
Policy 5: The Town shall develop a tree preservation ordinance to protect significant trees or
stands of trees.
Town staff are now working towards creating the rules and enforcement procedures that
will give concrete expression to the adopted policies. These are expected to evolve over the next
several years. Many of the key protective measures, as previously described, are already in place.
ma
However, it is expected that there will be improvements to the Town's existing mitigative measures
in the coming years, particularly with regards to stormwater quality.
On March 6, 2001 the Town Board of Commissioners, by resolution, restated its support
for environmental friendly policies, and directed the Town staff to develop a "Green Plan". This
plan is intended to summarize in a single document the Town's existing ordinances, policies, and
procedures aimed at reducing adverse environmental impacts associated with the Town's
operations and economic growth, and to serve as a basis for further initiatives by the Town to
support environmentally sustainable growth.
5.6 Summary
Provision of an adequate, reliable central wastewater collection and treatment system will
provide both economic and quality of life benefits to the Holly Springs community. The
construction of the needed wastewater facilities, and the development that such facilities will make
am
possible, will, however, create some potential and actual adverse environmental impacts.
Mitigation measures are available to eliminate potential adverse impacts and to minimize the effects
of those impacts that cannot be entirely eliminated. The routes of all planned major interceptor and
outfall sewer lines have been surveyed by professional biologists, and the least impact construction
corridors determined. Wastewater treatment plant discharge impacts will be mitigated by designing
the treatment facilities to conform to State standards, and by designing the facilities so that in the
33

Pal
future even more stringent treatment standards can be achieved if required. The Town is positioned
�► to develop and implement a pretreatment program to protect both its treatment plant and Utley
Creek from toxics associated with industrial waste if an industrial base that warrants such a
program materializes. Indirect environmental impacts and potential impacts from growth made
possible by a reliable wastewater treatment plant are expected to be greater than any direct impacts
from the construction and operation of a wastewater collection and treatment facility. The Town is
in the early stages of a growth cycle expected to take it from its 1990 population of 908 to its
estimated current population of approximately 10,000 to an ultimate full development population
projected to be 43,000 people. This growth rate will result in developments that substantially alter
the character of the existing community. The Town has, however, adopted goals, objectives,
policies, and rules that will minimize the adverse impacts of these changes. Development
restrictions on lot coverage, open space requirements, requirements for dedication of undisturbed
buffers along streams, and requirements for tree preservation and revegetation plans are among the
many tools the Town has selected to help protect the environment as it grows. The Town has
added or will add staff in critical planning, public works, and engineering areas to help develop
and enforce the specific rules and ordinances needed to achieve its goals for environmental
preservation. While the explosive growth in population and resultant development will inevitably
have some adverse environmental impacts, the Town has put into place controls specifically aimed
at mitigating those impacts. The full development of the Town of Holly Springs can therefore be
�• expected to have much less environmental impact than that experienced by communities urbanizing
in the 50's, 60's, 70's and even 80's, since Holly Springs has been able to draw upon the
experience of others, and, as importantly, has been able to adopt needed controls on development
aim
relatively early in its growth cycle.
flari
PRI
34

THE TOWN OF
g6liy 15prings
Resolution No.: 01-08
Date Adopted: March 6, 2001
I certify
ecop
F�~ v
n Clerk Holly Springs, NC
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HOLLY
SPRINGS, NORTH CAROLINA TO DEDICATE TOWN POLICIES, PROCEDURES,
PLANNING AND FUNDING TO REGIONAL SOLUTIONS FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, the Town Board of Commissioners ("the Town Board") of the Town of
Holly Springs, North Carolina ("the Town") is committed to seeking and implementing measures
and to taking actions that promote managed economic and environmentally -sustainable growth
for the community; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to express its position on this matter clearly to the
State Department of Environment and Natural Resources and to other local and county
governmental entities who share the same priorities; and
WHEREAS, the Town is committed to regional planning for utilities and has
demonstrated this commitment by the recently -completed construction of a regional potable water
project in participation with the Town of Fuquay-Varina, Harnett County and southwest Wake
County; and
WHEREAS, the Town is a leader in conservation efforts, having fmancially committed to
the design and installation of a wastewater reuse project that will irrigate a 27-hole golf course
and residential development surrounding the golf course; and
WHEREAS, the Town initiated recent efforts to begin a regional sewer authority, gaining
support and commitments of interest from numerous regional entities;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Holly Springs recognizes
that the continued long-term discharge of an expanded volume of treated wastewater into Utley
Creek is not a viable solution to the Town's wastewater treatment needs; and
OFFICE OF THE NiAlOR
P.O. Box 8. 128 S. Main Street • Holly Springs, N.C. 27540 • [phone]

Resolution 01-08 — Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Holly Springs Town Board of Commissioners
is committed to participation in a regional authority and facility or facilities for the treatment of
wastewater for multiple governmental jurisdictions and is hereby authorizing the expenditure of
15,000 in Town funds to be supplemented by other sources and to be used in pursuit of this
project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board directs staff to proceed with
development of "The Green Plan," an environmental plan for Holly Springs to contain various
existing initiatives, policy statements, ordinances and goals that have been established previously
by the Board for environmentally -sustainable growth as well as further objectives to support this
mission.
Adopted this, the 6th day of March, 2001
arrish L. Womble,
ayor
Powe , + n Clerk

TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INITIATIVE PLAN
"THE GREEN PLAN"
March 2001
DRAFT OUTLINE
SECTION I. Purpose & Scope of Environmental Protection Initiatives
1.0 Introduction
Brief introduction to growth and development impacts
Need for environmental protection regulations & programs
Interface with Federal, NC & County regulations & programs
Goals of the EPI document
2.0 Environmental Setting
Define and map the planning and service areas
Identify lands developed, likely to be developed and protected
Geology and soils
Hydrology and stream classifications
Land use and natural habitats
SECTION II. Environmental Problems and Protection Initiatives
For each topic, explain how development affects the resource, strategies to minimize impacts,
identify applicable Federal, NC and local regulations and programs, explain how the regulations
and programs mitigate impacts. Note: The subsections will be divided into current and
proposed initiatives.
3.0 Land Use Planning and Growth Management
Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Zoning & Development Regulations
Compact Development vs. Sprawl
Density and impervious area limits, cluster development incentives
4.0 Streams, Wetlands and Floodplains
Stormwater Management
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Floodpiain Protection
Stream Channel Protection & Restoration
Wetland and Riparian Buffer Protection
WQ monitoring and stream inventory programs
Public Education — fertilizers, pesticides, oil, stream buffers, etc.
5.0 Forests, Farms, Wildlife, Parks and Open Space
Natural area preservation programs and incentives
Rural land and historic preservation programs and incentives
Parks and greenways

TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INITIATIVE PLAN
"THE GREEN PLAN"
March 2001
Coordination with existing public and private conservation Lands
Coordination with Triangle Land Conservancy and other organizations
6.0 Utilities
Water/Sewer service policies
Well/septic permitting and well head protection
Sewer inflow and infiltration management
Sewer/WWTP emergency response plan and back-up power
Utility corridor design and maintenance
Industrial pretreatment programs
Regulations applicable to water/sewer customers outside Town of Holly Springs
Wastewater reuse strategies
Household toxic collection and public education
Water conservation and demand management
7.0 Air Quality & Noise
Mass transit plans and strategies
Vehicle inspections and air quality monitoring
Ride sharing and bicycle incentives
Noise management
8.0 Public Education — education outreach for all categories listed above
SECTION lll. List of Regulations, Programs, & Contacts
SECTION IV. Cross-reference of Regulations & Programs by Project Type
Residential Development
Non-residential Development
Water & Sewer Extensions
Transportation Projects
Landowner/Homeowner Programs

t'R'
.nni
THE TOWN OF
Ilolty
rin
P g
S s
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
February 9, 2001
r. Tommy Stevens, Director
ivision of Water Quality
NCDENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Permit
Dear Mr. Stevens:
I have enclosed a copy of the full package that the Town submitted to
Department of Environmental Natural Resources in September of last
year. This is in follow up to our telephone conversation last Friday.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding a meeting with you and
your staff sometime during the week of February 12th
Sincerely,
Stephanie . Stidano, P.E.
Director of Engineering
CC: Mayor Parrish Womble
Board of Commissioners
Ricky Blackmon, Inspection Director
Ford Chambliss, The Wooten Company
11430
gig h
F9 1 5 2001 all
DIV. OF WATER QUALITY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE

January 25, 2001
Mr. William J. Ross, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1634 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
Re: Town of Holly Springs Wastewater Expansion Permit Application
Dear Secretary Ross:
Congratulations on your appointment to such a key and crucial position in the new
State administration. Our community looks forward'to the strong and aggressive
leadership in DENR that we anticipate under your and Deputy Secretary Benton's
direction.
I am writing to you in regard to a letter, which was sent from former Secretary Bill
Holman just before he left office to my predecessor, former Mayor Gerald Holleman. A
copy of the letter is enclosed for your reference.
Holly Springs was very surprised to receive such a letter from the former
Secretary. We have been working cooperatively with DENR staff for over 18 months on
this very expansion request, spending the time to fully address each comment and concern
raised by DENR staff. Most recently, the points of discussion were centered around the
actual volume of the permit to be issued and the manner in which the limits were
specified.
Holly Springs believes that we have met all requirements to move forth in the
process and fully expected to receive a permit, based upon our continued discussions with
DENR staff. For your additional information on this matter, I have enclosed copies of
previous correspondence from Holly Springs staff to Director Tommy Stevens. A review
of this correspondence provides a good summary/history of our expansion request and the
efforts Holly Springs has made in addressing all of DENR staff's concerns. Subsequent to
the latest letter included (dated April 11, 2000), Town staff and consultants had a follow-
up meeting with DENR staff, then in good faith completed an Environmental Assessment
update as requested, and submitted it with a complete application to DENR in S
2000.
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
11420 01/26/01 P.O. Box 8.128 S. Main Street •Holly Springs, N.C. 27540 • (9l9) 557 3901 se{` % UAL 1
N
;;; !QT
�� r�R

In follow up to the direction given in former Secretary Holman's letter, our
Engineering Director has contacted both Mr. David Goodrich and Department Director
Tommy Stevens. Mr. Stevens is also being copied with this letter..
Former Secretary Holman's letter cites the need for a "broader regional approach"
to wastewater disposal. Holly Springs could not agree more with this philosophy. It is for
this reason that Holly Springs, after earlier initiatives by others failed to generate any real
broad -based support or momentum, initiated and hosted several meetings of interested
governmental agencies and state officials beginning in the summer of 2000 to discuss this
very issue. After gaining written commitments from ten governmental agencies
committed to embarking on a regional water and wastewater facility, the Town of Holly
Springs invited those entities to meet as a group in Apex on August 22, 2000 with
Secretary Holman and various other officials. In follow up to that meeting, and by
consensus of the interested governments, the Triangle J Council of Governments
(TJCOG) began working with Holly Springs and the other entities in a leadership role on
the project.
I am enclosing, for your information, copies of correspondence that was previously
sent from Dee Freeman, Executive Director of the TJCOG, to former Secretary Holman
asking for his support and seeking input from the department as a stakeholder in such a.
project. Hopefully .you will share our enthusiasm for this effort and will be able, in your
position, to help the governments in this region move forward on a regional facility.
Holly Springs is a small community that is experiencing all of the challenges
associated with growth. However, our Town Board is committed to managing our growth
and needed resources in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner. Therefore,
we have committed the staff resources to initiate and pursue a regional approach to solve
our long-term wastewater needs. However, as we have openly discussed with DENR staff
(and perceived agreement from them), Holly Springs will need expansion of it's existing
wastewater facility before any regional effort can realistically be expected to come to
fruition. I assure you that you will find that Holly Springs is not the only community with
this type of need, as most other entities in this region will have a need for expansion
before a regional system would be available.
In short, Holly Springs is very surprised and concerned over receipt of the former
Secretary's letter. If the matter is not addressed, Holly Springs will be faced in the very
near future with having to impose a moratorium on any new economic development.
11420 01/26/01

This would have a catastrophic effect on our community. We believe that it would
also diminish our credibility and ability to continue as one of the leaders in the regional
system. I would appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter, and in that vein am
requesting a meeting with you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Parrish J. Womble
Mayor
SLS:lrh
cc: Dempsey Benton, Deputy Secretary DENR
Tommy Stevens, Director DENR
Dee Freeman, Executive Director TJCOG
Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E., Director of Engineering, Holly Springs
Ford Chambliss, P.E., The Wooten Company
Ricky Blackmon, Interim Town Manager, Holly Springs
Town Board of Commissioners
11420 01 /26/01

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 5, 2001
Mayor Gerald Holleman
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Dear Mayor Holleman:
I appreciate your continued efforts to plan and manage your wastewater needs in the
face of unprecedented growth. I share with you a sincere desire to make the best decisions for
the citizens of western Wake County, such that we handle development wisely while protecting
our environment.
As you know, I believe that the only successful plannimg efforts in Western Wake
County must include multiple local and regional governments im that area. I tried to make this
clear to all that attended the planning meeting held in Apex on August 22, 2000. Although I am
leaving my current position, I remain most interested in any progress that you are making to
coordinate and participate in a regional solution to wastewater management.
It has come to my attention that you have submitted (om September 22, 2000) an
environmental assessment for expansion of your treatment faciliity to 4.88 MGD. Part of my
staff's responsibility is to evaluate various wastewater disposal options to ensure that the most
environmentally sound of the economically feasible alternatives is selected. While I appreciate
the town's efforts to move forward with the planning process, I cannot ask staff to review this
proposal while advocating a broader regional approach simultaneously. Therefore, I am
returning your project
I am taking this action with the belief that a broader cooperative effort is both possible
and essential to successful and environmentally sound development in this area. If you have any
additional questions, feel free to contact Dave Goodrich (ext. 5117) at [phone].
cc: Kerr T. Stevens
Coleen Sullins
Boyd DeVane
Bill Reid
Sincerely,
Bill Holman
1 i?
JAN 1 0 200j1
I� r
0 1 0 •
1601 MAIL SERVICE CFENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.ENR.STATE.NC.US/ENR/
AN F-DUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYESR - 50% RECYCLED/1 0 o POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Division of Water Quality
November 3, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: Coleen Sullins
Andy McDaniel
Boyd Devane
Ken Schuster
Through: Jimmie O
Jay Saub
From: Ed Williams
Subject: Utley Creek / Holly Springs WWTP Water Quality Study
Cape Fear River Basin
1 5 2000
During the months of May through August, 2000, the Intensive Survey Unit (ISU) performed a water
quality study on Utley Creek in Wake County. The study purpose was to document the impact of
nutrients to Utley Creek from the Holly Springs wastewater treatment facility (NPDES permit
#0063096). Staff from the ISU conducted six site visits and performed in -stream flow measurements,
physical parameter measurements, and chemical sampling.
The nutrient load in Utley Creek is originating from the Town of Holly Springs WWTP. Under normal
summer low -flow conditions, the WWTP effluent provides approximately 90% of the total stream flow
for Utley Creek. On average, during the six sampling events, the WWTP discharged 65 pounds/day of
total nitrogen, 26 pounds/day of total phosphorous and 0.8 pounds/day of ammonia. The two
impoundments on Utley Creek, Thomas Mill Pond and Green Tree Reservoir provide ideal conditions
for algal growth and productivity.
The complete Utley Creek study is attached with this memo. If you have any questions, please contact
Ed Williams at 919/733-6510.
E 6,3 ki I
NOV 7 2000
•
Lii11-R QUiti tTy
Environmental Sciences Branch Water`Qelul/OSection

Utley Creek Water Quality Study
Wake County, North Carolina
Subbasin (03-06-07)
Introduction
At the request of the Water Quality Section Chief, the Intensive Survey Unit performed a study to document and assess the
causes of nutrient enrichment in Utley Creek. This study consisted of six site visits from May 5 to August 31, 2000.
Utley Creek is a small stream in southwestern Wake County near the Town of Holly Springs. It has a stream reach of
approximately four miles. The 4.2 square mile watershed consists of an estimated 25% residential/commercial
development, 10% industrial, and 65% managed forest. The Town of Holly Springs has a 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment
plant which discharges effluent into Utley Creek. Approximately one mile below the WWTP outfall, Utley Creek enters
Thomas Mill Pond, a five -acre (estimated) impoundment. Thomas Mill Pond is owned and operated by the Carolina Power
and Light Company (CP&L). Approximately one mile below the dam on Thomas Mill Pond, Utley Creek enters another
CP&L owned and operated impoundment - Green Tree Reservoir. This reservoir has historically been managed as a
waterfowl sub -impoundment. Utilizing flashboard risers, the impoundment is flooded during the winter months, then
allowed to flow naturally during the summer. Below the Green Tree Reservoir, Utley Creek flows for its final 0.8 miles
before the confluence of Harris Lake. Harris Lake is a 1,680 hectare impoundment constructed by CP&L to provide
cooling water for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The lake, which includes a Wake County public park, is heavily
used for recreation.
In July of 1996, a fish kill and severe algae bloom in Utley Creek prompted DWQ staff from the Raleigh Regional Office
and the Intensive Survey Unit to investigate and assess the cause. The staff documented an extensive algae bloom in
Thomas Mill Pond and Green Tree Reservoir. The cause of the fish kill (approximately 115 fish) was thought to be
associated with strong diurnal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen. Staff from ISU and the TMDL/modeling unit visited the
site again in July of 1997 and documented another algae bloom in Thomas Mill Pond and Green Tree Reservoir. During
the fish kill/algal bloom investigation in July 1996, chlorophyll a values in Thomas Mill Pond were 550 gg/1. Dissolved
oxygen was 16.3 mg/1 (193% saturation), and pH was 9.8 standard units. At the time of the July 1997 algal bloom
investigation, dissolved oxygen was 20 mg/1 (200% saturation), and pH was 10.3 standard units. In July 1996 and 1997,
during the fish kill/algal bloom investigations, the dominant algal species in Thomas Mill Pond was Oscillatoria tenuis.
The filamentous cyanophyte, Oscillatoria tenuis is a blue-green algae widely distributed in N.C. lakes and ponds. It
comprised 95% of the total algal biovolume at the time of the investigations.
Holly Springs increased its population by nearly 500 percent between 1990 and 2000 (US 2000 Census). It was the largest
increase among North Carolina's 537 cities, towns and villages. Holly Springs, which had just over 1,300 residents in 1990,
added 6,844 people in 10 years for an increase of 498 percent, according to Census Bureau estimates. In the past year, the
Town was granted an expansion in effluent flow to allow 1.5 MGD to be discharged into Utley Creek.
1

Sampling Sites
Figure 2 Study Area Map
Green Tree
ilrergre
Thomas Mill Po
+/- 4.5 acres
Holly Springs
WWTP
30
UTC 01 (0.0mi.) This site is located on Utley Creek, 400 feet upstream of the Town of Holly Springs WWTP. The stream
at this site was 8 feet wide, 0.4 feet deep and consistently had very low flow compared to the other study sites. It had 5 foot
high clay banks with signs of significant erosion, and is located in a wooded area just downstream from some new
residential development. The stream substrate consisted of sand and fine silt. A forested canopy of mature hardwoods
completely sheltered this site.
UTC 03 (0.07mi.) The Town of Holly Springs WWTP effluent outfall.
UTC 04 (0.15mi.) This site is located on Utley Creek, 400 feet downstream from the WWTP outfall. The stream here was
10 feet wide, 0.7 feet deep, and usually had good flow due to the WWTP effluent. The stream substrate consisted of
bedrock and sand and the banks are 5 feet high. The stream is completely sheltered by low, dense bushes.
UTC 05 (1.41mi.) This site is located on Thomas Mill Pond. The site on this five -acre pond was located near the dam
outfall. This pond was surrounded completely by woods, with its upper end located in a flood plain. During almost all of
the site visits, the pond exhibited dense floating mats of algae identified to be hydrodictyon.
UTC 06 (1.46mi.) This site is located on Utley Creek, 100feet below the Thomas Mill Pond dam outfall. The stream was
10 feet wide, 0.4 feet deep and has 15 foot high clay banks. The banks here show significant signs of erosion. The
substrate consists of hard clay with some pockets of silt and sand. It has an open canopy with a Loblolly pine forest on
either side of the stream. Thick areas of foam build-up were usually present during sampling. This foam build-up was
located where the stream was being aerated. The foam occured in sections that were about 2 feet high, 5 feet long and three
feet wide.
UTC07 (2.45mi.) This site is located on Utley Creek, 200 feet downstream from the Green Tree Reservoir dam. The
stream is 5 feet wide, 0.5 feet deep, and has 4 feet high clay banks. The substrate consists of gravel and sand. It's located
in a mature, bottomland hardwood forest with a dense canopy.
UTC 09 (3.84mi.) This site is located on the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake, downstream from the confluence of
White Oak and Utley Creek. The lake at this site is heavily populated with hydrilla and nymphacea (common water lily),
which covered about 100% of the site area.
UTC 10 (4.60mi.) This site is located on the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake, 1500 feet upstream from SR 1152. The
lake is 3 meters deep here, making it not a suitable habitat for hydrilla growth. The water was generally clear during all the
sampling events.
2

Stream flow
Stream flow at UTC 01 was generally consistent with a mean average of 0.32 cfs. The effluent flow from the WWTP
varied somewhat, but stayed within the range of 1.0 - 2.0 cfs (0.65 - 1.3 mgd), with the exception of August 8, 2000, when
the outfall was barely flowing (0.15 cfs). The mean outfall flow represented 91% of the mean flow at UTC 07.
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Table 1
Stream flow in Cubic feet/Second
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 06 UTC 07
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G. Tree Res.
0.41
0.30
0.29
0.24
0.34
0.35
1.30
1.09
1.00
2.01
0.15
2.01
1.67
1.17
1.25
2.22
0.61
1.50
0.58
1.21
1.19
2.78
1.37
1.50
0.91
1.20
1.24
1.62
1.64
1.51
Median 0.32 1.19
Mean 0.32 1.26
Nutrient Load
1.37
1.40
1.29
1.44
1.37
1.35
Figure 2 depicts nutrient load in lbs/day for ammonia, total phosphorous and total nitrogen
Figure 2
Nutrient Load (Lbs/Day)
Mean load from six sampling events - May 9 through August 31, 2000
Total Nitrogen
g / Total Phosphorous
Ups WWTP Ammonia
WWTP Dns
Dns T. WWTP Dns G.
Mill Pond
Tree Res.
3

Total Nitrogen
Total nitrogen load from the Holly Springs WWTP ranged from a low of 25 lbs/day on July 17, 2000, to 174.5 lbs/day on
August 31, 2000. The August 8, 2000 sample was not included because there was very little effluent flow at the time of
sampling. On average, the WWTP contributed 98% of the total nitrogen load to Utley Creek. Figure 2 graphically depicts
a reduction of this load by in -stream processes in Thomas Mill Pond and Green Tree Reservoir before Utley Creek empties
into the White Oak Creek Arm of Harris Lake. Table 2 shows values for total nitrogen in lbs/day.
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Table 2
Total Nitrogen (Lbs/Day)
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 06
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G. Tree Res.
UTC 07
1.1 67.3 61.1 12.9 13.7
0.7 56.4 44.8 69.0 27.1
0.5 57.2 53.9 44.2 40.0
1.0 25.0 128.1 99.0 55.2
2.7 7.4 26.9 ns ns
1.1 174.5 113.4 53.5 51.3
Median 1.0 56.8
Mean 1.2 64.6
Total Phosphorous
57.5
71.4
53.5
55.7
40.0
37.5
Total phosphorous load was especially high during two of the sampling events, July 17, 2000 and August 31, 2000. On
July 17, the WWTP discharged 77.1 lbs of total phosphorous into Utley Creek. On August 31, 46.6 lbs were discharged.
On average, the WWTP discharged 26.1 lbs/day of total phosphorous, 99.5% of the total load. This load appeared to be
reduced by 67% before reaching Harris Lake (figure 2). Table 3 shows values for total phosphorous in lbs/day.
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Table 3
Total Phosphorous (Lbs/Day)
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 06 UTC 07
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G. Tree Res.
0.0 4.7 4.5 0.5 0.6
0.0 15.3 12.0 7.2 5.0
0.0 10.3 9.4 6.2 5.4
0.4 77.1 69.4 42.0 21.0
0.2 2.9 9.3 ns ns
0.1 46.6 29.2 13.8 12.2
Median 0.1 12.8
Mean 0.1 26.1
10.7
22.3
7.2
13.9
5.4
8.8
4

Ammonia
Ammonia loads did not appear to be significant during the time of this study. The mean values showed a higher load at the
two downstream stations UTC 06 and UTC 07.
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Table 4
Ammonia (Lbs/Day)
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 06 UTC 07
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G. Tree Res.
0.0 3.4 0.3 1.0 0.6
0.0 0.5 0.4 2.2 2.3
0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1
0.0 0.1 1.3 1.8 1.1
0.4 0.1 0.3 ns ns
0.0 0.4 0.2 2.1 1.4
Median 0.0
Mean 0.1
Self Monitoring Data
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.4
1.8
1.5
1.1
1.3
Self monitoring data from the Holly Springs WWTP indicated a significant nutrient load in the plant's effluent. During
several monitoring events, the load for total nitrogen was near 100 lbs/day or greater. Total phosphorous, and ammonia,
were greater than 50 lbs/day on three occasions. Self monitoring data collected on the same day as DWQ's sampling
showed values for total nitrogen to be 96 lbs/day compared to DWQ's measurement of 57 lbs/day. For total phosphorous
on that same day, self monitoring data showed a value of 4 lbs/day versus DWQ's measurement of 10. lbs/day. These
inconsistencies are probably due to the self monitoring data being collected as a composite sample and DWQ's data being
collected by means of a grab sample. Figure 3 depicts a graph of the self monitoring data for the period of August 1999
through August 2000.
250
200
150
100
50
Figure 3
Holly Springs WWTP Self Monitoring Data
Effluent Nutrient Load in Pounds / Day
I
A
L. .... a ter' Q
-i
p.
ill
lbslday NH3
1bs/day Total P -lbs/day total N
*note: A value of 700 lbs/ day of total nitrogen was recorded on 9/1/1999, but was not included in figure 3. An expansion
in effluent flow became effective on 1/1/2000.
5

Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a values were in the normal range for all stations except Thomas Mill Pond (UTC05) and just below the
Thomas Mill Pond dam (UTC06). On July 5, chlorophyll a in the Thomas Mill Pond impoundment was 120 µg/l, and on
August 8, it was 51 14/1. If the impoundment were greater than ten acres, this would be a violation of water quality
standards. The site just below the impoundment exhibited high values as well, with 62 µg/1 on July 5, and 320 µg/1 on July
17. During almost all the site visits, Thomas Mill Pond had dense mats of filamentous algae, with water that was a brilliant
green. High chlorophyll a values are to be expected under these conditions. Table 5 shows chlorophyll a values in µg/1.
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Table 5
Chlorophyll a µg/1
Ups WWTP Dns WWTP Mill Pond Dns Mill Pond Dns G. Tree Harris Lake Harris Lake
UTC 01 UTC 04 UTC 05 UTC 06 UTC 07 UTC 09 UTC 10
2 4 21 16 18 24 17
1 2 23 31 12 19 13
6 5 120 62 25 13 6
14 <1 11 320 23 13 31
10 4 51 22 27 10 15
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2
Median 6.0 4.0 23.0
Mean 6.6 3.8 45.2
Physical Parameters
Dissolved Oxygen and pH
31.0
90.2
23.0
21.0
13.0 14.0
15.8 14.0
Dissolved oxygen was in the normal to high range for most of the study reach. Most of the higher than normal values were
found in Thomas Mill Pond (UTC 05) and the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake (UTC 09) below the confluence of
White Oak and Utley Creek. The high dissolved oxygen and pH values at Thomas Mill Pond (UTC 05) are consistent with
algae blooms during the time of sampling. Four out of the six sampling events for UTC 05 show a violation of DWQ water
quality standards for dissolved gases greater than 110% saturation. The violations occurred on May 5 - 132%, July 5 -
142%, July 17 - 133%, and August 8 - .135% saturation.
Water quality standard violations also occurred on the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake (UTC 09). On July 5,
dissolved oxygen was 115% saturation, and on July 17, it was 128% saturation. Water quality standard violations for pH
correspond with these two dates as well with a value of 9.3 on July 5 and 17. The August 8 sampling event showed a pH
violation of 9.4. The water at this site on Harris Lake was very clear and did not appear to have any color associated with
algal blooms. Dense colonies of hydrilla occupy 100% of this portion of the lake. Table 6 shows dissolved oxygen values.
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Table 6
Dissolved Oxygen Mg/L
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP T. Mill pond Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G.Tree Res Harris Lake Harris Lake
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 05 UTC 06 UTC 07 UTC 09 UTC 10
8.5
8.0
6.9
8.2
7.6
7.3
8.0
7.9
6.5
7.2
7.0
7.5
7.9
8.0
8.1
7.7
9.3
7.8
11.3
5.8
11.1
10.5
10.2
7.9
8.0
7.0
8.4
7.8
6.3
7.7
5.3
5.6
6.4
7.5
6.4
8.6
7.4
8.1
8.9
9.7
8.3
6.6
8.0
7.9
7.6
8.0
6.2
7.4
Median 7.8 7.3 8.0 10.3
Mean 7.8 7.3 8.1 9.5
7.8 6.4 8.2 7.8
7.5 6.6 8.2 7.5
6

Table 7 shows percent saturation for dissolved oxygen. Violations of DWQ water quality standards for total dissolved
gases greater than 110% of saturation are highlighted in bold.
Table 7
Dissolved Oxygen (Percent Saturation)
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP T. Mill pond Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G.Tree Res Harris Lake Harris Lake
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 05
UTC 06 UTC 07
UTC 09 UTC 10
89% 88% 87% 132% 94% 61% 92% 98%
87% 91% 92% 68% 82% 65% 96% 90%
80% 81% 98% 142% 108% 81% 115% 99%
106% 87% 91% 133% 98% 96% 128% 106%
90% 89% 117% 135% 85% 84% 109% 81%
84% 92% 95% 100% 97% 105% 80% 90%
Table 8
pH Units
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP T. Mill pond Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G.Tree Res Harris Lake Harris Lake
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 05 UTC 06 UTC 07 UTC 09 UTC 10
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.6
7.7
7.0
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.7
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.6
8.8
7.3
8.8
8.7
8.1
8.2
8.7
7.5
8.9
8.4
7.5
8.2
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.2
7.9
6.8
7.6
9.3
9.3
9.4
7.6
5.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.4
Median 7.3 7.6 7.7 8.5 8.3 7.5 8.5 7.8
Mean 7.3 7.5 7.8 8.3 8.2 7.5 8.3 7.4
Conductivity
Conductivity levels in Utley Creek were normal upstream from the WWTP. The rest of the reach below the WWTP
showed highly elevated levels and did not decline significantly until becoming diluted in Harris Lake. The values can be
used to trace the effluent from Harris Lake to the source. The mean conductivity value in the WWTP effluent was 547
µmos. It gradually decreased at each downstream station. The lowest station on the main stem of Utley Creek (UTC 07)
had a mean value of 320 µmhos. The site on Harris Lake UTC 09, had a mean value of 92 µmhos, and the last downstream
station of the lake UTC 10 had a mean value of 90 µmhos. This would suggest that the Harris Lake stations are
experiencing an impact from the WWTP. Table 9 shows conductivity values in µmhos.
May 5
June 6
July 5
July 17
August 8
August 31
Table 9
Conductivity (µmhos)
Ups WWTP WWTP Dns WWTP T. Mill pond Dns T. Mill Pond Dns G.Tree Res Harris Lake Harris Lake
UTC 01 UTC 03 UTC 04 UTC 05 UTC 06 UTC 07 UTC 09 UTC 10
75 524 311 314 315 304 84 86
75 511 465 274 272 280 92 93
79 527 413 352 351 339 95 91
73 640 523 383 377 380 99 90
123 525 434 270 263 246 87 83
76 552 474 360 391 372 97 95
Median 76 526 450 333 333 322 94 91
Mean 84 547 437 326 328 320 92 90
7

Figure 4 depicts the conductivity value gradient in distance from the start of the study reach (UTC 01) to Harris Lake (UTC
10).
Figure 4
600
500
400
' 300
200
b
c '100
0
0.00 0.07 0.15 1.41 - 1.46 2.45 3.84 4.60
Distance in Miles
Algae / Aquatic Plants
During the 2000 study, the dominant algal species in Thomas Mill Pond was Hydrodictyon. Hydrodictyon is a common
filamentous chlorophyte (green algae), and grows in a unique net -like structure. Oscillatoria tenuis, the dominant species
in Thomas Mill Pond present in 1996 and 97, appears to have been replaced by Hydrodictyon.
A vast community of aquatic weeds was present in Harris Lake. Hydrilla and Nymphaea (common water lily) occupied the
entire upper end of the White Oak Creek arm. These aquatic weeds appear to absorb some of the nutrients discharged from
Utley Creek into the lake.
Summary
The nutrient load in Utley Creek is originating from the Town of Holly Springs WWTP. Under normal summer low -flow
conditions, the WWTP effluent provides approximately 91% of the total stream flow for Utley Creek. On average (based
on grab samples), during the six sampling events, the WWTP discharged 65 pounds/day of total nitrogen, 26 pounds/day of
total phosphorous and 0.8 pounds/day of ammonia. The two impoundments on Utley Creek, Thomas Mill Pond and Green
Tree Reservoir provide ideal conditions for algal growth and productivity. A benefit in reducing nutrients to the White Oak
Creek arm of Harris Lake may be seen by having these impoundments in place. They act as polishing ponds to reduce the
amount of nutrients that enter Harris Lake. The load for total nitrogen coming from the WWTP is reduced by 57% before
entering Harris Lake, and total phosphorous is reduced by 67%. The dense colonies of aquatic plants in the White Oak
Creek arm of Harris Lake further serve to assimilate the nutrient content of Utley Creek.
8

Appendix A: Holly Springs WWTP Self Monitoring Data
Date NH3 Total N
mg/1 mg/1
Total P Flow lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day
mg/1 mgd NH3 Total P total N
8/4/99
8/11/99
8/18/99
8/25/99
9/1/99
9/9/99
9/15/99
9/22/99
9/29/99
10/6/99
10/13/99
10/28/99
11/3/99
12/1/99
1/4/00
1/28/00
2/2/00
2/16/00
2/18/00
2/23/00
2/25/00
3/1/00
3/3/00
3/8/00
3/10/00
3/15/00
3/17/00
3/22/00
3/29/00
3/31/00
4/5/00
4/7/00
4/12/00
4/14/00
4/19/00
4/26/00
5/3/00
5/5/00
5/10/00
5/12/00
5/17/00
5/19/00
5/24/00
5/26/00
5/31/00
1.8 25.8
0.2 26.2
19.7 21.1
1.4 10.3
0.1 209.5
1.3 4.7
0.0
1.5
0.0
15.4
4.0
0.4
1.3
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
2.9
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
1.7
4.7
7.2
1.6
0.4
0.1
4.1
4.5
3.7
8.3
13.0
12.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
7.9
19.5
18.8
ns
18.5
15.0
15.3
18.6
4.2
7.9
4.4
2.4
1.6
3.0
3.2
5.1
2.4
3.7
1.8
2.6
3.9
7.6
13.4
2.1
3.3
2.5
6.5
7.0
5.9
13.9
17.3
15.6
14.6
5.9
38.6
15.1
5.8
7.6
8.5
2.4
3.2
2.7
3.4
2.8
1.9
2.1
1.2
2.1
3.5
2.2
ns
4.0
1.9
0.0
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.41
0.42
0.38
0.43
0.40
0.72
0.55
0.56
1.31
0.57
0.50
0.48
0.49
0.53
0.65
0.75
0.61
0.81
0.70
0.64
0.73
0.56
0.58
0.56
0.63
0.60
0.70
0.59
0.60
0.64
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.62
0.65
0.59
0.60
0.64
0.56
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.54
6.1
0.7
61.7
5.0
0.3
7.8
0.0
7.0
0.0
72.8
16.7
1.6
5.3
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
13.6
1.0
0.9
0.0
0.5
9.9
23.0
36.1
8.5
2.0
0.5
21.3
23.0
18.9
42.7
70.4
62.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
8.1
11.1
8.5
12.2
9.4
11.4
9.6
5.6
22.9
16.5
9.2
ns
16.2
8.3
0.0
3.8
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.6
2.2
4.3
2.6
2.2
7.1
2.5
3.6
4.5
87.1
90.6
66.1
37.1
700.1
28.1
36.3
91.5
205.2
ns
77.1
59.4
62.1
81.7
22.8
49.4
22.4
16.3
9.3
16.0
19.5
23.9
11.5
17.1
9.5
13.1
22.8
37.2
67.1
11.1
16.2
12.4
33.7
35.8
30.1
71.6
93.7
76.1
73.5
31.6
178.5
81.9
29.9
39.5
38.2
9

6/2/00 0.0 12.7 1.3 0.64 0.0 7.0 68.1
6/7/00 0.0 6.5 0.7 0.61 0.0 3.5 32.9
6/9/00 0.2 7.5 1.7 0.60 1.0 8.5 37.6
6/14/00 0.0 14.3 2.1 0.71 0.0 12.5 84.8
Date NH3 Total N Total P Flow lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mgd NH3 Total P total N
6/21/00
6/28/00
6/30/00
7/5/00
7/7/00
7/12/00
7/14/00
7/19/00
7/21/00
7/26/00
7/28/00
8/2/00
8/4/00
8/9/00
8/11/00
8/16/00
8/18/00
8/23/00
6/25/00
6/30/00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
14.3
15.3
17.8
7.8
8.9
8.9
11.8
12.0
10.7
5.0
1.8
1.7
7.7
6.2
9.3
9.8
6.1
11.5
11.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.2
0.59
0.62
0.73
0.65
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.63
0.61
0.71
0.67
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.71
0.74
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
4.1
5.5
4.3
5.6
11.6
11.6
10.4
9.6
9.4
10.6
16.6
17.4
10.4
10.1
10.5
12.0
13.1
13.3
12.5
31.2
74.1
93.6
96.0
43.4
49.3
49.3
61.6
60.8
62.9
27.9
13.6
11.4
44.7
36.8
57.7
53.6
33.4
63.7
62.4
10

Appcndix 8: Utley Creek Chemical Data
Sta. # Station Date Time Depth NH3 TKN NO2+ Total N total P Chl a: Chl a: Pheo BOD Flow lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day
Description NO3 Tri Corr sips) NH3 Total a total N
UTC 01 Utley ups WWTP 000509 0910 0.1 0.01 0.30 0.21 0.51 0.02 4 2 2 0.41 0.01 0.04 1.13
UTC 03 WWTP Eff 000509 0910 0.49 1.80 7.80 9.60 0.67 1.3 1.30 3.44 4.70 67.34
UTC 04 Utley dns WWTP 000509 0930 0.1 0.03 0.70 6.10 6.80 0.50 2 4 <1 1.67 0.27 4.50 61.14
UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000509 1046 0.1 0.43 1.80 2.50 4.30 0.13 15 21 <1 0.00 0.00 0.00
UTC 06 Utley dns mill pond 000509 1100 0.1 0.32 1.80 2.30 4.10 0.15 12 16 <1 0.58 1.00 0.47 12.86
UTC 07 Utley dns G.T. Res 000509 1130 0.1 0.13 0.80 2.00 2.80 0.12 21 18 3 0.91 0.64 0.59 13.74
UTC 09 Hams Lake dns cow 000509 1310 0.1 <0.01 0.70 0.02 0.72 0.04 19 24 <1
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns cone 000509 1310 1.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000509 1325 0.1 <0.01 0.40 <0.01 0.00 0.03 20 17 4
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000509 1325 1.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000509 1325 2.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000509 1325 2.7
UTC Ol Utley ups WWTP 000606 1210 0.1 0.01 0.20 0.23 0.43 0.03 <1 1 <1 0.30 0.02 0.05 0.70
UTC 03 WWTP Eff 000606 1225 0.08 0.90 8.70 9.60 2.60 0.9 1.09 0.47 15.26 5635
UTC 04 Utley dns WWTP 000606 1230 0.1 0.07 0.60 6.50 7.10 1.90 <1 2 <1 1.17 0.44 12.00 44.84
UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000606 1010 0.1 0.22 1.00 3.10 4.10 1.00 10 23 <1 0.00 0.00 0.00
UTC 06 Utley dns mill pond 000606 1020 0.1 0.34 0.90 9.70 10.60 1.10 21 31 <1 1.21 2.21 7.16 69.03
UTC 07 Utley dns G.T. Res 000606 1040 0.1 0.36 0.80 3.40 4.20 0.77 12 12 <1 1.20 2.33 4.97 27.13
UTC 09 Hams Lake dns core 000606 0935 0.1 0.02 0.50 0.21 0.71 0.03 8 19 <1
UTC 09 Hams Lake dns con! 000606 0935 1.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000606 0925 0.1 0.04 0.30 <.01 0.00 0.02 10 13 <1
UTC 10 Hams Lake 000606 0925 1.0
UTC 10 Hams Lake 000606 0925 2.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000606 0925 2.8
UTC 01 Utley ups WWTP 000705 1215 0.1 0.01 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.03 4 6 <1 0.29 0.01 0.05 0.45
UTC 03 WWTP Eff 000705 1220 0.04 0.60 10.00 10.60 1.90 1.2 1.00 0.22 10.26 57.24
UTC 04 Utley dns WWTP 000705 1235 0.1 0.01 0.90 7.10 8.00 1.40 4 5 <1 1.25 0.07 9.43 53.87
UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000705 1030 0.1 0.10 0.80 5.80 6.60 0.89 55 120 <1 0.00 0.00 0.00
UTC 06 Utley dns mill pond 000705 1045 0.1 0.04 0.90 6.00 6.90 0.97 29 62 <1 1.19 0.26 6.22 44.23
UTC 07 Utley dns G.T. Res 000705 1100 0.1 0.16 0.70 5.30 6.00 0.81 13 25 <1 1.24 1.07 5.40 40.01
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns coca 000705 0930 0.1 0.01 0.40 <0.01 0.00 0.03 7 13 <1
UTC 09 Hanis Lake dns cone 000705 0930 1.0
UTC 09 Harris Lake 000705 0930 1.5
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000705 0945 0.1 <0.01 0.50 <0.01 0.00 0.02 15 6 11
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000705 0945 1.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000705 0945 2.0
UTC 10 Hanis Lake 000705 0945 2.3
UTC 01 Utley ups WWTP 000717 1030 0.1 0.01 0.30 0.45 0.75 0.28 17 14 4 0.24 0.01 0.36 0.97
UTC 03 WWTP Eff 000717 1045 0.01 1.00 1.30 2.30 7.10 5.1 2.01 0.11 77.06 24.96
UTC 04 Utley dns WWTP 000717 1055 0.1 0.11 0.70 10.00 10.70 5.80 4 <1 3 2.22 1.32 69.44 128.10
UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000717 1215 0.1 0.29 0.90 6.00 6.90 2.60 13 11 3 0.00 0.00 0.00
UTC 06 Utley dns mill pond 000717 1225 0.1 0.12 0.80 5.80 6.60 2.80 120 320 <1 2.78 1.80 41.99 98.97
UTC 07 Utley dns G.T. Res 000717 1300 0.1 0.12 0.70 5.60 6.30 2.40 21 23 <1 1.62 1.05 21.05 55.25
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns colt 000717 1400 0.1 0.01 0.30 0.02 0.32 0.02 8 13 <1
UTC 09 Hanis Lake dns taro 000717 1400 1.0
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns con! 000717 1400 1.5
UTC 10 Hams Lake 000717 1350 0.1 <.01 0.30 0.03 0.33 0.02 14 31 <1
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000717 1350 1.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000717 1350 2.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000717 1350 3.0
UTC 01 Utley ups WWTP 000808 1330 0.1 0.23 0.60 0.88 1.48 0.10 4 10 <1 0.34 0.42 0.18 2.71
UTC 03 WWTP Eff 000808 1340 0.11 0.50 9.00 9.50 3.70 0.5 0.15 0.09 2.90 7.44
UTC 04 Utley dns WWTP 000808 1400 0.1 0.10 0.50 7.60 8.10 2.80 1 4 <1 0.61 0.33 9.28 26.86
UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000808 1230 0.1 0.15 0.50 3.40 3.90 1.20 56 51 7 0.00 0.00 0.00
UTC 06 Utley dns mill pond 000808 1215 0.1 ns ns ns ns 39 22 23 1.37 ns ns ns
UTC 07 Utley dns G.T. Res 000808 1245 0.1 ns ns ns ns 22 27 <1 1.64 ns ns ns
UTC 09 Hams Lake dns tort 000808 0910 0.1 0.05 0.60 <0.01 0.00 0.03 4 10 <1
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns cant 000808 0910 0.9
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000808 0925 0.1 0.08 0.40 <0.01 0.00 0.01 8 15 <1
UTC 10 Hams Lake 000808 0925 1.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000808 0925 2.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000808 0925 3.0
UTC 10 Hanis Lake 000808 0925 3.4
UTC 01 Utley ups WWTP 000831 1325 0.1 0.02 0.40 0.18 0.58 0.06 <1 <1 <1 0.35 0.04 0.11 1.10
UTC 03 WWTP Eff 000831 1340 0.04 1.10 15.00 16.10 4.30 1 2.01 0.43 46.60 174.49
UTC 04 Utley dns WWTP 000831 1350 0.1 0.02 1.00 13.00 14.00 3.60 <1 <1 <1 1.50 0.16 29.17 113.45
UTC 05 Thorns Mill Pond 000831 1210 0.1 0.28 1.10 5.70 6.80 I.60 <1 <1 <1 0.00 0.00 0.00
UTC 06 Utley dns mill pond 000831 1225 0.1 0.26 1.20 5.40 6.60 1.70 <1 <1 <1 1.50 2.11 13.78 53.48
UTC 07 Utley dns G.T. Res 000831 1250 0.1 0.17 0.90 5.40 6.30 1.50 <1 <1 <1 1.51 1.38 12.21 51.27
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns cont 000831 0940 0.1 0.02 0.40 <0.01 0.00 0.03 <1 <1 29
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns coro 000831 0940 1.0
UTC 09 Harris Lake dns cons 000831 0940 2.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000831 0955 0.1 0.06 0.60 <0.01 0.00 0.02 <1 2 <1
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000831 0955 1.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000831 0955 2.0
UTC 10 Harris Lake 000831 0955 3.0
UTC 10 Hams Lake 000831 0955 4.0
11

Appendic C: Utley Creek Physical Data
Distance Stadon # Station Description Date Time Depth Water D.O. Me pH Conductivity Flow (fps) Avg. Flow Flow Avg. Flow
(miles)
Tenn. C (bsl (GPM) (GPM)
0.00 UTC 01 Utley Crk 400' ups of WWTP 000509 0910 0.1 17.5 8.54 7.3 75 0.409
0.07 UTC 03 Holly Springs WWTP 000509 0910 20.2 7.98 7.7 524 1.299 0.893 583 401
0.15 UTC 04 Utley Crk 400' dns of WWTP 000509 0930 0.1 20.0 7.90 7.7 311 1.665
1.41 UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000509 1046 0.1 23.0 11.30 8.8 314
1.46 UTC 06 Utley Crk 200' dns mill pond 000509 1100 0.1 23.4 8.00 8.7 315 0.581
2.45 UTC 07 Utley Ctk 200' dns Green Tree Res. 000509 1130 0.1 22.4 5.25 7.4 304 0.909
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000509 1310 0.1 26.4 7.43 6.8 84
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arts of Harris Lake 000509 1310 1.0 25.1 6.01 6.2 87
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Hams Lake 000509 1325 0.1 25.9 7.38 5.5 86
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk attn of Harris Lake 000509 1325 1.0 25.2 7.86 5.2 86
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk atm of Harris Lake 000509 1325 2.0 24.7 7.81 5.1 85
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000509 1325 2.7 24.4 6.78 5.6 86
0.00 UTC Ol Utley Crk 400' ups of WWTP 000606 1210 0.1 19.3 7.98 7.3 75 0.301
0.07 UTC 03 Holly Springs WWTP 000606 1225 22.4 7.87 7.0 511 1.087 1.005 488 451
0.15 UTC 04 Utley Crk 400' dns of WWTP 000606 1230 0.1 22.3 8.02 8.0 465 1.170
1.41 UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000606 1010 0.1 23.2 5.80 7.3 274
1.46 UTC 06 Utley Crk 200' dns tail pond 000606 1020 0.1 22.9 7.01 7.5 272 1.206
245 UTC 07 Utley Ctk 200' dns Green Tree Res. 000606 1040 0.1 22.4 5.62 7.4 280 1.196
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk ant of Harris Lake 000606 0935 0.1 24.2 8.05 7.6 92
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000606 0935 1.0 24.1 7.89 7.6 93
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ant of Harris Lake 000606 0925 0.1 22.0 7.98 7.5 93
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000606 0925 1.0 24.0 8.14 7.5 93
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000606 0925 2.0 24.0 7.85 7.4 93
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000606 0925 2.8 23.6 4.90 7.4 97
0.00 UTC 01 Utley Crk 400' ups of WWTP 000705 1215 0.1 22.5 6.90 7.4 79 0.289
0.07 UTC 03 Holly Springs WWTP 000705 1220 26.3 6.51 7.7 527 1.000 1.000 449 449
0.15 UTC 04 Utley Crk 400' dns of WWTP 000705 1235 0.1 25.2 8.10 7.9 413 1.247
1.41 UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000705 1030 0.1 28.1 11.10 8.8 352
1.46 UTC 06 Utky Ctk 200' dos mill pond 000705 1045 0.1 28.3 8.43 8.9 351 1.187
2.45 UTC 07 Utley Ctk 200' dns Green Tree Res. 000705 1100 0.1 27.6 6.36 7.6 339 1.235
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000705 0930 0.1 28.4 8.92 9.3 95
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk ant of Harris Lake 000705 0930 1.0 28.2 8.96 9.3 95
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000705 0930 1.5 28.2 8.82 9.3 95
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000705 0945 0.1 28.7 7.88 8.0 91
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000705 0945 1.0 28.6 7.94 8.0 91
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000705 0945 2.0 28.5 7.94 8.0 91
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000705 0945 2.3 28.2 7.92 8.0 91
0.00 UTC 01 Utley Crk 400' ups of WWTP 000717 1030 0.1 28.7 8.21 7.1 73 0.239
0.0'7 UTC 03 Holly Springs WWTP 000717 1045 25.4 7.17 7.6 640 2.010 1.127 902 506
0.15 UTC 04 Utley Crk 400' dns of WWTP 000717 1055 0.1 24.1 7.65 7.7 523 2.217
1.41 UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000717 1215 0.1 27.2 10.52 8.7 383
1.46 UTC 06 Utley Crk 200' dns mill pond 000717 1225 0.1 27.0 7.83 &4 377 2.777
2.45 UTC 07 Utley Ctk 200' dns Green Tree Res. 000717 1300 0.1 28.0 7.48 7.7 380 1.624
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Cris arm of Harris Lake 000717 1400 0.1 30.2 9.65 9.3 99
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000717 1400 1.0 28.5 8.76 9.7 100
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000717 1400 1.5 28.0 8.41 9.5 102
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000717 1350 0.1 29.9 7.64 8.0 90
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000717 1350 1.0 28.0 5.10 8.0 90
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000717 1350 2.0 27.3 1.20 8.0 90
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000717 1350 3.0 26.9 0.18 8.1 92
0.00 UTC 01 Utley Crk 400' ups of WWTP 000808 1330 0.1 24.0 7.60 7.1 123 0.339
0.07 UTC 03 Holly Springs WWTP 000808 1340 27.4 7.03 7.6 525 0.145 1.199 65 538
0.15 UTC 04 Utley Crk 400' dns of WWTP 000808 1400 0.1 27.1 9.30 7.7 434 0.614
1.41 UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000808 1230 0.1 30.1 10.15 8.1 270
1.46 UTC 06 Utley Crk 200' dns tnitl pond 000808 1215 0.1 31.0 6.30 7.5 263 1.367
2.45 UTC 07 Utley Ctk 200' dns Green Tree Res. 000808 1245 0.1 29.9 6.35 7.2 246 1.642
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000808 0910 0.1 29.4 8.34 9.4 87
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000808 0910 0.9 29.3 7.97 9.4 86
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000808 0925 0.1 29.6 &04 8.1 83
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000808 0925 1.0 29.6 8.02 8.1 83
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000808 0925 2.0 29.6 8.02 8.1 83
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000808 0925 3.0 28.6 3.26 6.9 86
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk urn of Harris Lake 000808 0925 3.4 26.7 0.48 6.6 106
0.00 UTC 01 Utley Crk 400' ups of WW1? 000831 1325 0.1 22.2 7.30 7.6 76 0.351
0.07 UTC 03 Holly Springs WWTP 000831 1340 25.7 7.52 7.5 552 2.007 1.181 901 530
0.15 UTC 04 Utley Crk 400' dns of WWTP 000831 1350 0.1 25.1 7.82 7.6 474
1.41 UTC 05 Thomas Mill Pond 000831 1210 0.1 27.5 7.91 8.2 360
1.46 UTC 06 Utley Crk 200' dns mill pond 000831 1225 0.1 27.3 7.71 &2 391 1.501
2.45 UTC 07 Utley Ctk 200' dns Gran Tree Res. 000831 1250 0.1 25.4 8.57 7.9 372 1.507
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000831 0940 0.1 25.5 6.57 7.6 97
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000831 0940 1.0 25.2 5.82 7.6 97
3.84 UTC 09 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000831 0940 2.0 25.0 5.41 7.6 97
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000831 0955 0.1 25.6 6.16 7.4 95
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000831 0955 1.0 25.6 6.13 7.6 95
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk ann of Harris Lake 000831 0955 2.0 25.5 5.98 7.6 96
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000831 0955 3.0 25.6 5.14 7.6 99
4.60 UTC 10 White Oak Crk arm of Harris Lake 000831 0955 4.0 25.6 5.01 7.7 104
12

THE TOWN OF
Iiolly
Springs
P.O. Box 8-1
128 S. Main Street
Flolly Springs, N.C. 27540
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
4Pes-, n'D
NOV () 2 2000
DIV. OF ITY
DIRECTOR'S OFFIR CE
September 28, 2000,----
Glen
Lang, Mayor
Town of Cary
PO Box 8005
Cary, NC 27512-8005
Dear Mayor Lang:
CAI{� 7
OCT 2 , 71OO
L
r- rc
Thank you for your letter this month indicating Cary's willingness to sell wastewater
capacity to the Town of Holly Springs. We continue to be very interested in
pursuing this alternative, as we have discussed this several times over the past
years with you and various members of your Town staff.
Since our initial meeting, the Town staff of Holly Springs has been attempting to
obtain relevant cost data from Cary and have not received the necessary
information as of this date. Please provide cost data relating to purchasing
capacity in the South Cary WWTP or for processing wastewater on a per thousand -
gallon basis.
As you are aware, Holly Springs is very interested in protecting the environment,
not only of Western Wake County, but the entire Cape Fear Basin. This, most
important, includes intergovernmental cooperation in planning and in providing
infrastructures. We no longer have the luxury of looking at our jurisdictions in
isolation and must look at extensive cooperation among local governments
throughout the region and the state. Holly Springs will continue in its efforts to
bring local governments and the private sector together to provide the best
planning and most responsible approaches to regional problems.
I look forward to hearing your response to the information needed to work together
as neighboring governments.
Sincer- y,
Ge ald Holleman
Mayor
cc:
William Holman, Secretary, NCDENR
Bill Coleman, Town Manager, Town of Cary
Richard B. Self, Town Manager, Town of Holly Sprin

THE TOWN OF
IiolIy
P
S ring s
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's office Fax:
[phone]
September 21, 2000
Mr. Milt Rhodes, Community Planner
Planning Branch
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Environmental Assessment Update for Increase in Permitted Flow
Holly Springs, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Rhodes:
Enclosed please fmd several copies of an EA update and
applications for the increase of the permitted discharge of the Town of
Holly Springs from 1.5 mgd to 4.88 mgd. The submittal of this document
is the culmination of a lengthy process involving numerous meetings and
coordination with DWQ staff. The Town has completed the requested
Environmental Assessment amendment and is now very anxious to
proceed with the permitting process.
Please telephone me at 919-557-3926 should you need additional
copies or materials in order to process our request. If you should have
any questions concerning the enclosed material, please feel free to call me
or Mr. Ford Chambliss with The Wooten Company.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E.
Director of Engineering
SLS:paf
Enclosure
----f.' f [Jr . . ? Iii .. ,'f I r
h U
i.' JAN 1 0 2001
DEf1R - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
CC: Ford Chambliss, The Wooten Company
David Goodrich, Division of Water Quality, NCDENR
Tommy Stevens, Director Division of Water Quality, NCDENR
C:IWINDOWS1Desktop\My Documents12000s1s111274.doc
Created on 09/20/00 8:29 AM, Revised 09/21/00

NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with pennitled flows > 1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SECTION 1. APPLICATION AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Unless otherwise specified on ens lam all items are to be conpleled. II an item is not applicable indicate NA'.
North Carolina NPDES Permit Number NCO° 63096 (it known)
1. Applicant and facility producing discharge
This applies to the person, agency, firm, municipality, or any other entity that owns or is responsible for the permitted facility. This may or may not
be the same name as the facility or activity producing the discharge. Enter the name of the applicant as it is officially or legally referred to; do not
use colloquial names as a substitute for the official name.
Name of applicant / permittee: Town of Hol 1 y Spri ngs
Mailing address:
Street address 128 South Mai n St .
City Hol 1y Spri ngs County Wake
Stale NC
Zip Code 27540
JAN 1 0 2001
Telephone Number ( 919 ) 552-6221
Fax Number ( 919 ) 55?-9DENR - WATER QUALITY
e-mail address stephani e. sudano@ncmai )net PO11:1" SOURCE BRANCH
2. Mailing address of applicant's Authorized Agent / Representative:
Complete this section if an outside consulting firm/ engineering firm will act on behalf of the applicant / permillee
Engineer / Company name The Wooten Company
Street address 120 N. Boylan Avenue
City Raleigh County Wake
State NC Zip Code 27603
Telephone Number ( 919 ) 828-0531
Fax Number ( 919 ) 326-0546
e-mail address [e-mail]
certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application and that to the best of my knowledge and belie) such
information is true, complete, and accurate.
Stephanie L.- -Su no Direr^tnr• of"EnginPpring
Title
Prin�tfa?pe of Pe
Signature of Applicant Authorized AgentI ( (a)
Date Application Signed
North Carolina General Statue 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides That: Any person who knowingly makes any lalse statement representation, or certification in any application,
record, report, plan, or other document Ides or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that
Article, or who lalsdies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21
or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing Ihal Article, shal be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a line not 10 exceed $10,000, or by
imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a line or not more Ilan $10,000 or imprisonment not more Than 5
years, or both, for a similar ol(ense.)
1of4

Q
NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows >1 MCI) or with pretreatment programs
3. Permitted Facility Location:
Give the physical location of the facility where discharge(s) presently occur(s) or will occur.
Street address off NCSR 1115
City Hol l y Sp r i ngs county Wake
State NC Zip Code 27540
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
if
4. Municipalities or Areas Served (see instructions
Enter the names of the municipalities or areas served by this facility. For each municipality enter the best estimate of actual population served at
the time of this application.
Name of Community 1 Area
Holly Springs
Actual Po
ulalion
Served
it l
Total Population Served
9600
5. Average Daily Industrial Flow
Total estimated average daily flow from all industrial sources: _0— MGD
Total permitted monthly flow from all industrial sources: —0— MGD
Note: All Significant Industrial Users (as defined in Section III) discharging to the municipal system must be Listed in Section III.
6. Facility Description
• Present Operating Status: Provide a narrative description of installed wastewater treatment components at the facility.
Include sizes & capacities for each component.
• Potential Facility Changes: Provide a narrative description of any planned upgrades / expansions (repairs planned for the
facility during the next five years. Do not include tasks associated with routine operation & maintenance.
• Schematic of wastewater flow: A line drawing of water flow through the facility must be attached to this application. The
schematic should show flow volumes at all points in the treatment process. Specific treatment components should be
identified.
• location map: A map showing the location of each outlall must be attached to this application. The usual meridian arrow
showing north as well as the map scale must be shown. 0n all maps of rivers, the direction of the current is to be indicted by
an arrow. In tidal waters, the directions of the ebb and flow tides are to be shown. All outfalls should be identified with the
outfall number(s) used in Section II of this application. A copy of the relevant portion of a USGS topographic map is preferred.
All sheets should be approximately letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. All pages should include lacility location
and permit number (if available).
ttttttttttttttttttttttttt
2 of 4

f
NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows >1 MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION 11. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION
Complete this section for each present (or proposed) discharge indicated in Section I.
All values for an existing discharge should be representative of the twelve previous months of operation.
(II this is a proposed discharge, values should relied best engineering estimates.)
1. Facility Discharges, Number and Discharge Volume
Specify the number of discharges described In this application and the volume of water discharged or Lost to each of the categories below.
Estimate average volume per day in MGD. Do not include intermittent discharges, overflows, bypasses or seasonal discharges from lagoons, etc.
Discharge To: Number of Discharge Points Total Volume Discharged (MGD)
Surface Water
1
1.5 mgd
Other (describe below) : r
TOTAL
If 'other' is specified, describe:
2. Outfall Number: 001
Assign a three -digit number beginning with 001 for the point of discharge covered by the first description. Discharge serial numbers should be
consecutive for each additional discharge described; hence, the second serial number should be 002 , the third 003, etc.
3. Discharge to End Date
(I the discharge Is scheduled to cease within the next 5 years, give the date (within best estimate) the discharge will end: Unknown; 1 n 7-10 yr s
Give the reason(s) tor discontinuing this discharge in your cover tester. May be relocated as
part of regional solution
4. Receiving Stream Name
Give the name of the waterway (al the point of discharge) by which it is usually designated on published maps of the area. II the discharge is to an
unnamed tributary, so state and give the name of the first body of water fed by that tributary which is named on the map, e.g., UT to McIntire Creek,
where McIntire Creek is the first water way that Is named on the map and is reached by the discharge.
Utley Creek
5. Outtall Structure
Describe the outfali structure and any significant changes since the last permit was issued (repairs, shoreline maintenance, etc.).
Simple headwall and pipe. No significant changes since last permitted.
3 ot 4

NOT APPLICABLE
NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - STANDARD FORM A
Municipal Facilities with permitted flows >l MGD or with pretreatment programs
SECTION Ili. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a separate Section 111 for each Significant Industrial User.
1. Significant Industrial User (SIU)
An SIU has (or could have) significant impact on the POTW receiving the wastewater or upon the quality of effluent from the receiving POTW.
Specifically, an SIU:
• has a flow of 50,000 gallons or more per average workday;
• has a flow greater than 5 percent of the total flow carried by the municipal system m receiving the waste, or
• has a toxic material in its discharge.
It may be necessary to alter these administrative criteria in certain cases, such as an instance where two or more contributing industries in
combination can produce an undesirable effect on either the municipal facility or the quality of its effluent.
.r
Name of SIU
Street address
City County
State Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail address
2. Primary Product or Raw Material
Specify either the principal product or the principal raw material and the maximum quantity per day produced or consumed.
Quantities are to be reported in the units of measurement for each SIC category at the facility. SIC categories should use the units of
measurement normally used by that industry.
Product
Raw Material
Quantity
Units
3. Flow
Indicate the volume of water discharged into the POTW and whether this discharge is intermittent or continuous
MGD
El Intermittent Continuous
4of4

Facility Description
Present Operating Status:
The existing system consists of preliminary treatment facilities, an activated sludge treatment units
designed for biological nutrient removal (BNR), tertiary filters, UV disinfection, and cascade post
aeration. Figure 1 is a schematic of the existing system.Waste bio-solids are aerobically digested
and land applied. Design loading is 1.5 mgd ADF, 3753 lbs/day of BOD-5, 3753 lbs/day of TSS,
438 lbs/day of TKN, and 75 lbs./day of phosphorus. The preliminary treatment facilities include a
Parshall Flume, 1/4 inch mechanical screening with screenings washing and compaction, and
aerated grit removal. The Parshall Flume can accommodate peak flows greater than 12.5 mgd. The
aerated grit chamber and mechanical screens can handle peak flows as large as 4.6 mgd. The
activated sludge treatment units are designed for biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal.
Screened and degritted influent flows into a 0.156 mg anaerobic reactor, which also receives all
return activated sludge. Wastewater is pumped from the anaerobic reactor to a splitter box, where a
portion can be diverted to a 0.5 mgd package wastewater treatment plant plant and a portion sent to
a newer 1.0 mgd-t- type system. The Carrousel dnit/R system consists of a 0.18 mg anoxic reactor
for total nitrogen removal and a 1.15 mg aerobic reactor. Effluent from the reactor is normally sent
to a 70 feet diameter, 15 feet swd center feed, peripheral diameter clarifier. If the clarifier need to
be serviced, flow can be diverted to the clarification segments of the package plant. Settled
activated sludge effluent flow from the 70 feet clarifier and from the package wastewater treatment
plant is sent to two traveling bridge type tertiary filters with a combined filtration capacity of 3.8
mgd at peak flow. Filtered effluent is disinfectedby UV units. The UV unit channels are designed
to accommodate design peak flows greater than 12.5 mgd, but at present bulbs are only provided
to accommodate a peak flow of 3.75 mgd. The cascade post aeration system can easily
accommodate 6.25 mgd. Return activated sludge from the 70 feet clarifier is discharged to the
anaerobic reactor, 0.402 mg of sludge digestion/holding capacity is provided in 3 different
structures.
Potential Facility Changes:
Expansion of the plant will require extensive changes. Figure 2 is a schematic representation of the
plant after the proposed expansion. Design loading is 4.88 mgd ADF, 12200 lbs/day of BOD-5,
12200 lbs/day of TSS, 1425 lbs/day of TKN, and 244 lbs./day of phosphorus. It is expected that
the Town will increase its capacity from the current 1.5 mgd to 4.88 mgd in two increments, but if
Town growth figures do not slow consideration will be given to completing the expansion in a
single project. No changes will be required in the headworks immediately, but as flows approach
2.4 mgd additional screening and grit removal units will be added to accommodate a peak flow of
at least 12.5 mgd. New anaerobic reactors will be built to accommodate the larger design flows.
This construction may be staged in two increments. At least two sets of additional anoxic and
aerobic reactors will be built before the plant is fully expanded to 4.88 mgd. A alum feed system
will be added as a back-up phosphorous removal system, and a polymer feed system will be added
1

to assure maximum clarifier efficiency. In either the 1st of the 2nd phase of the expansion, the
transition will be made form traveling bridge type tertiary filters to deep bed filters. The deep bed
filters will be equipped with a methanol feed system so that the filters can also serve for
denitrification polishing. UV disinfection will continue to be used, with two additional banks of
UV bulbs added into the existing channels. During the second phase of the expansion, a second
cascade aerator will be added. Once the Town is able to develop an effective reuse program,
additional facilities for reuse water will be added. These facilities are expected to include on-line
instrumentation to monitor treated water quality, chlorination equipment (reuse water only to be
chlorinated), reuse water storage facilities, and associated pumping. The existing 0.5 mgd package
will be converted to use entirely as a sludge holding/digestion system. As flows increase, control
of nutrients will become even more critical, and it is planned to add a mechanical thickening system
for treatment of waste sludge flows prior to digestion. This will minimize the amount of nutrient
laden decant water that will be returned to the plant.
Schematic of wastewater flow:
See attached sheet with Figures 1 and 2.
Location Map:
See attached
2

1>,:l
FLOW
METERING SCREENING &
GRIT REMOVAL
ACTIVATED SLUDGE BNR SYSTEM
ANAEROBIC
ANOXIC AEROBIC
CLARIFIER
OPACKAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
H 0 0 0
0 0 0
TERTIARY UV
FILTERS DISINFECTION
FIGURE 1: EXISTING WWTP FLOW SCHEMATIC
CASCADE
AERATION
DISCHARGE
C�-
FLOW
METERING SCREENING &
GRIT REMOVAL
ACTIVATED SLUDGE BNR SYSTEM
ANAEROBIC
ALUM POLYMER
FEED FEED
METHANOL
FEED
ANOXIC
AEROBIC
CLARIFICATION
THICKENING.
1
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
REUSE QUALITY
MONITORING
INSTRUMENTATION,
CHLORINATION AND
REUSE STORAGE
FACILITIES.
DEEP BED UV
DENITRIFICATION DISINFECTION
FILTERS
FIGURE 2:. PROPOSED WWTP FLOW SCHEMATIC
CASCADE
AERATION

on
Environmental Assessment Update
fo r
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
•
•
oe
�sb19191ttf1l�
i \ CA •
SEA 72
C •
•
9792 s
q .;11/21,t
1
111
EVERETTE L. CHA
BLIS
10.0
.E.
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
Engineering • Architecture • Planning
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT 1
1.1 Project Overview 1
1.2 Need for Project 1
1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT 3
2.1 General Overview 3
2.2 Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction 3
2.3 Land Use 3
2.4 Topography 4
2.5 Climate 4
2.6 Geology, Soils & Agricultural Resources 5
2.6.1. Geology 5
2.6.2 Soils 5
2.6.3 Agricultural Resources 7
2.7 Cultural Resources 7
2.8 Energy Supply 7
2.9 Air Quality 7
2.10 Hydrology 8
2.10.1 Groundwater Resources 8
2.10.2 Surface Water Resources 9
2.10.3 Existing Water Quality 9
2.11 Vegetation and Wildlife 12
2.12 Wastewater Treatment 14
2.13 Conclusion 14
3.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 16
3.1 Overview 16
3.2 Population Projections and Wastewater Flow Projections 16
3.3 Wastewater Treatment System Expansion 18
3.4 Alternatives to Expanded Discharge at the Present Location 19
3.5 Summary 22
i

fir
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 23
4.1 Overview 23
4.2 Changes in Land Use 23
4.2.1 Wetland 23
4.2.2 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 24
4.2.3 Forest Resources 24
4.2.4 Public Lands 24
4.2.5 Scenic and Recreational Areas 24
4.3 Air Quality and Noise Levels 24
4.4 Water Quality 25
4.4.1 Groundwater Quality 25
4.4.2 Surface Water Quality 25
4.4.3 Drinking Water Supplies 26
4.5 Wildlife Resources 27
4.6 Summary 27
5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 28
5.1 Overview 28
5.2.1 Construction Inconveniences and Annoyance 28
5.2.2 Wastewater Disposal 28
5.3 Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 30
5.3.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Development 30
5.3.2 Air Quality 30
5.3.3 Wetlands and Surface Water Quality 30
5.3.4 Prime Farmlands 31
5.3.5 Forest Resources 31
5.3.6 Wildlife Resources 31
5.4 Public Health 32
5.5 Summary 32
ii

foal
1.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT
1.1 Project Overview
Rapid growth in Holly Springs is the single biggest factor influencing all of the Town's
planning. The extraordinary growth rate that it began experiencing in the late 80's accelerated
throughout the nineties, and is expected to continue until the Town approaches full build out. One
major challenge facing the Town is providing wastewater treatment capacity equal to the demands
of its service area. The sewer collection system has already been greatly expanded and is still being
added to when needed at new developments and where failed existing septic tank systems are being
replaced. The long term plans for the Town's interceptor system have been formulated and are
being implemented as growth continues. Holly Springs has just completed the expansion of its
wastewater treatment plant from 0.5 MGD to 1.5 MGD. An additional expansion is needed in the
immediate future if the Town is to keep pace with the demands of its own growth.
1.2 Need for Project
As the population grows, the Town must work hard to be able to keep up with the rising
volume of wastewater requiring treatment. The facilities that are sufficient now will soon be unable
to handle the increased flows from a larger population. The Town must start planning to expand
the treatment plant again in the future. With the full development population expected to be over
43,000 people, Holly Springs will require a facility considerably larger than its present 1.5 MGD
facility
1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Town should take immediate steps towards arranging for a plant expansion since the
current 1.5 MGD facility will soon be inadequate for the flow. There is no short term alternative
available to the Town other than to expand and continue to discharge at its present location. The
Town should continue its efforts to have the State's proposed nitrogen and phosphorus
concentration limits changed to mass limits. The plant expansion should be designed for biological
nitrogen and phosphorous removal, with a supplemental chemical feed system for back-up
phosphorous removal. Should the Town not be able to change the nitrogen limits to mass limits,
the Town should be prepared to spend an additional $1,400,000 for supplemental nitrogen removal
facilities (effluent denitrification filters with methanol feed). Once flows reach the 2.4 MGD level
the Town will need to spend at least another million dollars to expand the denitrification filtration
system. Operating expenses are also expected to be dramatically increased by the use of the
denitrification filters needed to meet a 2.2 mg/L total nitrogen limit, both in terms of chemicals, and
t
.:I

in terms of additional skilled labor. Holly Springs should continue to investigate regional
altematives. However, due to the increasing population, an expansion should be undertaken before
any regional action is agreed to.
Holly Springs is looking into reuse options for treated wastewater. One option is the
provision of reuse water for dust control and irrigation for the proposed HWY 55 By-pass that
will pass just west of the Town. Holly Springsis looking into using treated wastewater for
irrigating an existing golf course using an abandoned forcemain that runs near it to transport reuse
water to the course. The Town is also discussing wastewater reuse possibilities with the developer
a planned new golf course and residential subdivision. The Town should continue to look into
these options as well as other possibilities for reusing water in the future.
Preservation of existing capacity will also be critical for maintaining adequate wastewater
treatment capabilities. The Town should continue its water conservation and infiltration and inflow
abatement programs.
Regional alternatives involving the creation of a new discharge on the Cape Fear River and
the elimination of one or more discharges into the Neuse River Basin are being discussed on a
number of levels. A shared, common effluent line from one or more tertiary plants is one
configuration often discussed. Under such an arrangement, the Town's investment in wastewater
treatment facilities, and any future investments it makes in reuse facilities, will be preserved.
Accordingly, the Town should continue its efforts to be a part of the regional solutions under
consideration, recognizing that expanding its current plant does not preclude nor substitute for
participation in a regional solution.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT
2.1 General Overview
The area within the Town Limits and the surrounding lands that make up Holly Springs
and its current and expected future utilities service area is urbanizing at a rapid pace.Understanding
the Town's plans for providing wastewater service to this area and mitigating the adverse
environmental impacts associated with that service requires some understanding of existing
conditions. Existing conditions are described in this section.
2.2 Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction
Holly Springs is located in southwest Wake County and shares ETJ borders with the
Towns of Apex to the north and Fuquay-Varina to its southeast. The planning area the Town is
now using is further defined by US 1 to the northwest, Basal Creek and Pierce -Olive Road to the
east, and Rex Road to Holleman's Crossroads to the southwest.
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 "Council -Manager"
type of government. 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
Historically, agricultural and forested land uses have dominated the area. However, this
pattern has changed because of the growth patterns spawned by the economic growth of the
Triangle Area. Land use is now largely determined by the land use plans and zoning requirements
of the Town. The land uses allowed under these documents is in turn determined by location with
respect to natural and manmade features of the land. For instance, the area in the west, around
Harris Lake, is planned to be developed as low density residential to preserve much of its natural
character. Other areas that are near major crossroads are zoned for businesses and industries and
will have higher density development. The proposed Wake County outer loop will run north of
town and will likely spur high density residential as well as commercial growth in its immediate
vicinity. Most of the current developments are moderate density. Holly Springs wants to include
3

smaller shopping centers around residential area that will serve the local populations and allow
larger shopping facilities that attract regional business to build near the major thoroughfares and
intersections. Also, there are plans for building a more centralized and traditional downtown area,
and a desire to have both recreational and natural parks available to area residents. The
Comprehensive Plan Development Committee from Holly Springs working with M. Joseph
Hakan, a design consultant from Chapel Hill, have prepared a Ten -Year Comprehensive Growth
Plan that sets forth the long term plans for Holly Springs in some detail.
South of Town, where the Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina ETJ's often share a common
boundary line, is an expanding area of single family residences. Ownership and control of much of
the land in this area has been consolidated by real estate developers, and its development .is
expected to take place in the form of large, planned subdivisions. The proposed Highway 55 by-
pass, which runs roughly north -south, and is located west of existing Highway 55, will serve as
the eastern boundary of an industrial area located south of New Hill Road. The proposed Southern
Wake Expressway (outer loop) is expected to eventually serve as a physical barrier separating the
Towns of Apex and Holly Springs. Southern Wake Expressway interchanges are expected to serve
as nodes for employment centers and retail centers. Some of the land adjoining the roadway is
designated to serve as high density residential, buffering the expressway from moderate density
residential land uses.
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 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 70° 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 individual
storms is also variable. Generally, the heaviest rainfalls occur during the summer months.
Snowfall is light and of short duration, posing few problems most years. Seasonal temperature and
rainfall data obtained from weather stations in Wake County are summarized in Table 1.
4

~
•
•
• \ To Apex
!1 l30 `� 7lll
'water
:ank
440.•
Crime.
FIGURE 1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Scale: 1 iri.=2000 ft.
•
)V.L:-A)
•
r r7 --
\ ern
'or"
Tn FY4mii$v- Y�7
arina
\ -St
N .•
rt
•
11�
.�\ ;393
te
[f\

Table 2
Soil Associations
I
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
$ 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).
i
t)111;11rttttttt
(sr- (•ru
Rini vim
• !• .nhr ti'1� rr
•
1(i,ncl+rr
FI(il Jur. 2
GENERAI, SO)1.S 11A1'
Scale: 1 in. = 21120 ff.
Ail _ 1'irn•ttnl Y
•
• :I;ll4144,MA
10
1:

CACI
V ij.
Table 1 Weather Data
Table 1 Weather Data
Month
Average Daily Maximum Average Daily Minimum Average Total Participation
Temperature °F Temperature °F (inches)
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 7 0 51 46.9
Data taken from the USGS Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina
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 part 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 locatedto the northeast 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.
2.6.2 Soils
Soils have been an important factor in determining the extent of past development and will
influence 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
5

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.
Herndon-Georgeville: This association consists of well drained soils that possess 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 with the use of septic tanks. Where more dense development is desired, use of
centralized wastewater facilities is 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 other 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.
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
6

oi
fml
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 an area where development more dense than that sustainable
with on -site systems is desired.
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.
2.7 Cultural Resources
Historic and archaeological sites are those sites of past events and those structures that can
be studied to gain insight on mankind's historical 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 adverse impacts on these areas if at all 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. Therefore 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 m), Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone as adopted by the State and Federal Agencies are
listed as follows:
7

egm
}
run
ralt
Y;
Table 3 National & State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Type of
Average
- '
Standard Level Concentrations
• Primary
Secondaryb
NC Regs.
PM10
24-Hour
A AM 1
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
SO2
3-Hour2
24-Hour2
A AM 1
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 1.1g/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 (le 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. A review of the existing ambient air quality data in the area
indicates that the annual mean concentrations of air pollutants generally do not exceed the
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. However, as growth in the Triangle
continues, air quality is becoming a greater concern, particularly with regards to ozone. Holly
Springs will likely be impacted by any general degradation of air quality in the Triangle area.
2.10 Hydrology
2.10.1 Groundwater Resources
The Town of Holly Springs formerly relied on groundwater to supply its potable water
needs. The growth of the Town exceeded the capacity of the wells, and the Town now relies on
purchases of surface water sources form other units of government for 100% of its potable water
needs.
8

foal
r�o
MEW
fon
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. Long term plans call for extending the ETJ further to the west,
and it is expected that eventually the majority of the enlarged Town will actually be within the Cape
Fear Basin. 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
Pollutant
River
Basin
Hydrologic Data
Drainage Area
(sq. mi.)
Average
Discharge
(cfs)
7/10 Low
Flow (cfs)
Middle Creek at Cary WWTP
point of Discharge
Neuse
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 sub -basins 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 Sub -basin 030403 and the Cape Fear River Sub -basin 030607. These sub -basins are
described as follows:
Neuse River Sub -basin 030403
This sub -basin covers parts of Wake and Johnston Counties and contains Middle Creek
and its tributaries. There are 18 permitted dischargers in this sub -basin with a total discharge
capacity of 16.8691 MGD. The two largest discharges are the Apex WWTP (treatment capacity=
3.6 MGD) and Cary South WWTP (treatment capacity= 6.4 MGD), having a total design treatment
9

fail
PEPI
Mgt
a#
pm 7
capacity of 10.0 MGD (59.3% of the current total design treatment capacity installed in the entire
sub -basin). 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. 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, 4-1
3),pH, and temperature. The three monitored freshwater segments in the Middle Creek Sub -basin
have been classified and evaluated as follows:
Table 6 Stream Monitoring Data
Station
Classification
Chemical
Biological
Problem
Use Support
Source of
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
10

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
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
sub -basin, 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 Sub -basin 939607
This sub -basin 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/I have been
noted below the plant's point of discharge. DO levels in excess of the saturation concentration of
oxygen have also been noted downstream of the plant, indicating that this section of Utley Creek
has excellent natural reaeration capacity. 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.
11

OMR
ran
rmi
fiRsi
Prior to expansion of the Holly Springs wastewater treatment plant discharging into Utley
Creek to 1.5 mgd, the Cape Fear River Water Quality Plan called for a survey of the water quality
below the point of discharge. Pursuant to this plan in -stream monitoring of Utley Creek was
increased. Based on the data gathered from this monitoring and preliminary modeling, the Instream
Assessment Unit of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality concluded that Utley Creek could
accept 1.5 MGD of wastewater treated to meet advanced tertiary limits. Continued monitoring of
Utley Creek now indicates that there is a potential nutrient loading problem. NC-DWQ officials are
also concerned about nutrient loading on Harris Lake. While CP&L monitoring data actually
indicate that Harris Lake water quality has improved in recent years, NC-DWQ officials are not
convinced that this is a long term trend, and remain concerned with any developments or plans that
could increase nutrient discharges into either Utley Creek or. Harris Lake.
2.11 Vegetation and Wildlife
A Jurisdictional Wetland and Protected Species Survey was conducted by Robert J.
Goldstein & Associates, Inc (RJG&A) in 1996. 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. Wetland 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.
Scientific Name Common Name
VERTEBRATES
Aimophila aestivalis
Ambystoma tigrium
Coragyps altratus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hemidactylium scutatum
Lampetra aepytera
Lanius ludovicianus
Myotis austroriparius
Myotis septentrionalis
Necturus lewisii
Bachman's sparrow
Tiger salamander
Black vulture
Bald Eagle
Four -toed salamander
Least brook lamprey
Loggerhead shrike
Southeastern bat
Keen's (n. long-eared)
bat
Neuse River waterdog
State
Protection
Status
SC
T
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
12
Federal
Protection
Status
C2
C2
C2
Habitat
Habitat Requirements Availability
in ETJ
open, mature pine forest
sandy forests near vernal pools
hollow trees or rock crevices
mature trees along rivers and
lakes
ponded seeps with mossy logs
streams
open grassland, farms
hollow trees or buildings, near
rivers
hollow trees or caves, extensive
forests
streams

Arm
OM
Mx)
MO
earl ;
tart
Noturus furiosus
Picoides borealis
Carolina madtom SC
Red-cokaded E E
woodpecker
Vermivora bachmanni Bachman's warbler E E
INVERTEBRATES
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E E
Alasmidonta undulata Triangle floater T
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance E C2
Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke slabshell T
Fusconaia masorii Atlantic pigtoe, T C2
Lampsilis radiata Eastern lampmussel SC
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E C2
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary C2
Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot mussel T
PLANTS
Isoetes piedmontana Piedmont quillwort T
Monotropis odorata Sweet pinesap C2
Portulaca smallii Small's portulaca E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E E
Rhellia humilis Low wild -petunia T
Trillium pusillum Carolina least trillium E C2
E= Endangered; T=Threatened; SC= Special Concern; C2 = Category 2 Candidate
+ = Suitable habitat present, species not found in or near ETJ
++= Suitable habitat present, species occurs in or near ETJ
- = Suitable habitat not present
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
sandy/rock woodland edges
dry, open, basic woods
calcareous seeps, streambanks
RJG&A, Inc. 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 caiceolus, 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.
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.
13

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
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 Wastewater Treatment
Few septic tank systems and drain fields remain in the Holly Springs area since most of the
Town is being served by a central wastewater treatment facility. The Town of Holly Springs Utley
Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant is located off NCSR 1115, southwest of Holly Springs, in
Wake County. The plant is permitted under NPDES Permit No. NC00630096 and was last
renewed in March 1997. Discharge from this WWTP is into Utley Creek, a Class C water body
located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Effluent limits are summarized below:
Effluent Limitations for Town of Holly Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Parameter Summer Limit * Winter Limit **
Flow 1.500 MGD 1.500 MGD
BOD, 5.0 mg/L 10.0 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30.0 mg/L 30.0 mg/L
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH -N) 2,0 mg/L 4.0 mb/L
Fecal Coliform 200/100 ml 400/100 ml
Summer seasons extends from April 1 - October 31.
Winter seasons extends from November 1 - March 31.
2.13 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
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 generally within the
Federally established standards, however water quality in some waters in the area is threatened. An
14

g
"71
analysis of vegetation and wildlife in the area did reveal the presence of a federally endangered
species, the dwarf wedge mussel in Middle Creek. Eight additional species of concern were also
found within the Holly Springs ETJ.
15

farl
Mel
3.0 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. While the Town would prefer that its wastewater
be handled in the context of a broad based, regional solution, such a solution will not be available
in the near term. The Town must therefore look to expand its existing plant while continuing to
discharge at its present location while the work continues on a broad based regional solution.
3.2 Population Projections and Wastewater Flow Projections
Population growth trends from past decades show no resemblance to the current and
expected future growth rates. In the 60's, 70's, and much of the 80's, the population remained
relatively stable. However beginning in the late 80's and throughout the 90's the population has
increased dramatically in Holly Springs and the surrounding areas. According to the North
Carolina Department of Administration, the 1992 population of 1382 was 52% greater than the
1990 population of 908. In 1998, the population reached an estimated 6,632, more than seven
times the 1990 population and nearly five times the 1992 population. These numbers translate to an
annual growth rate of about 30% between 1992 and 1998.
If the 30% annual growth rate continued, the population in 20 years would be
astronomical. However, due to the finite geographic area available to the Town, only a limited
population can be reached. It is expected that the annual population growth increase will stabilize,
which will result in a drop in the Town's growth rate as a percentage of the base population. Put
another way, the Town growth pattern now appears to have become linear rather than geometric.
Assuming a linear growth pattern, the Town's 10 year plan predicts the 2005 population to be
15,652 and the 2010 population to be 20,452. It is expected that a full development the Town and
its projected ETJ will reach a maximum population estimated as 43,000 people.
In order to keep pace with the growing number of people moving into the Holly Springs
area, water and sewer services must also be expanded. The Town in 1999 expanded its 0.500
Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) WWTP to 1.5 (MGD) and will shortly need additional capacity.
16

The capacity of the expanded WWTP must be able to handle the future flows coming from
three types of usage: (1) domestic, (2) commercial, institutional, and industrial, (3) infiltration and
inflow. All three must be taken into account during the design of the plant expansion to assure
adequate sewer services will be provided. In the previous long range wastewater plan completed in
June of 1996, no allowance was made for development of land owned by Carolina Power and
Light on the western side of Town. It now appears that much of this land will be developed. The
Town in 1998 adopted a new "Ten -Year Comprehensive Growth Plan". This plan differs in many
ways from the plan under which the Town was operating in 1996, showing less acreage being
developed for commercial, institutional, and other higher density, more water/wastewater intensive
usages and more land being developed as low density residential. The total land area which the
Town plans to serve has however increased, largely by the extension of the planning area into land
now owned by Carolina Power and Light. The increase in projected residential usages has
decreased the amount of land projected as being used for commercial and industrial means but has
also caused the expected full development population to increase from the 25,000 expected in 1996
to over 43,000 people. The increased full development population has also caused the projected
waste water handling treatment capacity to increase to 5.01 MGD. This projection is however, only
2.4% greater than the 4.88 MGD projected in 1996, and is not considered to be significantly
greater than the earlier 4.88 MGD figure.
Domestic Use* 3.03 MGD
Commercial/Institutional** 1.28 MGD
Infiltration/Infow*** 0.65 MGD
Wake County Landfill**** 0.05 MGD
Total 5.01 MGD
Based on average wastewater generation of 70 gals per capita per day using population of 43,344.
Based on 2000 gallons per acre of development using 637 acres at full development.
Projected based on 15 gallons per capita per day for full development.
The Town of Holly Springs is contractually committed to accepting up to 50,000 gallons per day of leachate
from a Wake County landfill. Leachate must be pretreated to meet the Town's standards, and Wake County is
continually obligated to financially assist the Town in developing a State approved pretreatment program.
Infiltration and inflow flows used for planning purposes are a much smaller percentage of
total flow than is typically seen in municipal systems. This is possible due to the relatively young
age of the Holly Springs system. The oldest portion of the Holly Springs system was constructed
as recently as 1986, and much of the system has been constructed in the 1990's. The system
should therefore be much less prone to infiltration and inflow than are older systems constructed
17

n
with shorter pipe joint lengths and with jointing materials not as leak resistant as those used in
modern construction.
below.
The distribution of flow within the different drainage basins within the Town is shown
EXPECTED ACREAGE, POPULATION,
AND SEWER FLOWS BY BASIN
BASIN
ACREAGE
POPULATION
USAGE (MGD)
White Oak Creek
4041
19,471
2.93
Sunset Lake
1520
7796
0.69
Middle Creek
750
4325
0.37
Cary Branch
1405
5005
0.43
Bass Lake
1439
6748
0.59
TOTAL
‘9155
43,345
5.01
3.3 Wastewater Treatment System Expansion
The Town of Holly Springs would prefer that its wastewater treatment problems be
handled in the context of a regional solution. Officials of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality have advised that because of nutrient concerns in the Neuse River Basin, in B. Everett
Jordan Lake, and in Harris Lake, such a regional solution would best look at placing the discharge
in the Cape Fear River, downstream of both Harris and Jordan Lakes. The Town is actively
pursuing some form of regional solution that would make such a configuration economically
feasible. Talks are being held on both a formal and an informal basis by a number of municipalities
in Wake County, and in some cases also including Chatham County, in an effort to effect just such
a solution. However, these types of cooperative agreements, even when successful, can require
years to work out the administrative details before any design or construction can begin. It is clear
that no regional solution can materialize before the Town's growth will exceed the capacity of the
existing wastewater treatment plant. Accordingly, the Town will pursue expanding its plant at the
18

PEI
present location. On February 2, 1999 the Town received speculative limits for a 4.88 .MGD
discharge at its present location. These limits would require that the Town produce a highly treated
wastewater with extremely low nutrient levels. Nutrient limits given in the speculative limits are
total phosphorous, 0.2 mg/L, and total nitrogen, 2.2 mg/L. The phosphorus limits are difficult to
achieve, but within the range of what is technically achievable. The nitrogen limits are arguably
below what can be technically achieved. The Town has requested that these limits be reevaluated,
and that the limits be converted to mass limits. Mass limits would allow the Town to discharge
wastewater at levels less than 4.88 mgd while using available, proven treatment technology, and,
open the possibility of reaching the 4.88 mgd design flow by reusing a portion of the treated
wastewater flow. As of the date of this writing, the NC-DWQ has not acted on the Town's request
for mass limits.
3.4 Alternatives to Expanded Discharge at the Present Location
Alternatives to any expansion and alternatives to an expanded discharge at the present
location have been evaluated. Alternatives considered in lieu of an expanded treatment plant
discharge are: (1) Water Conservation; (2) Inflow and Infiltration Reduction; and (3) Wastewater
Reuse. Alternatives to an expanded discharge at the present location are: (1)Use of Spray Irrigation
as the Treatment System; (2) Participation in a Regional System; and (3) Sharing a common
effluent line to the Cape Fear River.
Water Conservation: The Town now actively encourages water conservation. The Town
though its building code requires the use of low water using fixtures. The Town water rate
structure is an "increasing block" structure, with the unit cost of water rising with increased usage.
Finally, the Town has made it a policy to recruit only "clean" industries that have minimal water
needs. However, all of these measures have been in effect for several years, and while the
measures may have reduced wastewater generated from what it might have otherwise been,
wastewater flows have continued to increase. Water conservation is therefore simply not a viable
alternative to a wastewater treatment system expansion. The Town will, however, keep its water
conservation requirements in effect, even after a plant expansion is completed, so that the quantity
of wastewater generated will be at least minimized.
Wastewater Reuse: The Town is actively pursuing reuse alternatives. It hopes to have a
bulk reuse program in place before the end of the year 2000, with construction on the Highway 55
by-pass being a prime candidate for reuse. There is a new subdivision/golf course being planned in
an area not too distant from the Town, and the Town is working with the developers to incorporate
19

reuse water into the golf course irrigation system. Discussions are also underway that could lead to
a distribution system for private home irrigation being installed as a part of the sub -division. The
Town has also held discussions with an older golf course in Town regarding its using treated
wastewater for irrigation. These talks have been less fruitful, and while the Town is hopeful that
eventually it will be able to use reuse water on the older golf course, this is not likely to happen any
time in the foreseeable future. Industrial reuse is not practical, simply because the Town does not
have an industrial base large enough to offer any real reuse potential. Ultimately, the Town expects
to be able to dispose of a portion of its wastewater for reuse. However, the reuse is expected to be
in the form of irrigation, which will be a seasonal demand. It is also expected that, at best, reuse
will account for only a fraction of the Town's wastewater (an 18 hole golf course, even in the peak
irrigation season, may use only 0.250 MGD to 0.300 mgd of wastewater). An expanded plant
would be needed in any event. While reuse will potentially allow the Town to reduce its total
annual load to the receiving stream, it can not act as a substitute for an expanded plant.
Inflow and Infiltration Reduction: The Holly Springs wastewater collection systems, like
virtually all collection systems, has had some problems with inflow and infiltration, and
particularly with inflow. Activities associated with new construction are the suspected cause of
most of these problems, since all of the Town's collection systems is relatively new. The Town is
diligent in trying to track down and eliminate these problems, and its building inspectors have been
made aware of the need to be vigilant in checking new construction to prevent new inflow sources
from being created. However, even under worst case scenarios, infiltration and inflow appears to
account of at most less than 200,000 gallons per day of the Town's monthly average daily
wastewater flow figures (and, in most months, not even a fraction of this amount). Therefore
inflow and infiltration control, while it will remain a high priority item for the Town, can not act as
a substitute for a plant expansion.
Spray Irrigation: Using spray irrigation as a non surface water discharge alternative was
examined in the 1996 long range study. The conclusions of that study are still valid. The high land
costs coupled with the limited suitability of area soils make land application infeasible as an
alternative. The Holly Springs area has only a limited amount of even moderately well drained
soils. Not surprisingly, these lands are the ones most in demand for development. The remaining
large tracks of land that could be used for land treatment are poorly drained, and often have steeper
slopes than is desirable for land treatment systems. The 1996 study examined treatment costs
(excluding the cost of transporting wastewater to a treatment area) for plants with capacities of 1.0
MGD, 1.2 MGD. 1.5 MGD, 2.2 MGD, and 2.7 MGD, and found these to be $10 million, $12.1
20

Rint
million, $15.1 million. $19 million, and $26.5 million respectively. Land application is then
clearly not an economically viable alternative for the Town.
Participation of in a Regional System: Officials of the Town, both elected and staff, have
expressed their preference for the Town of Holly Springs solving its wastewater problem in the
context of a regional solution, provided of course that the Town could be treated equitably in a
regional context. There are, however, several barriers to the Town solving its more immediate
problems with a regional solution, notthe least of which is that there is at present no regional
system in place. The Town is an active participant in the Wake County Water and Sewer Task
Force, and is actively pursuing a regional solution in that context. The Town has also, thorough
informal contacts, made the Towns of Cary and Apex aware of its potential interest in any joint
venture those two communities might propose. In informal contacts, Holly Springs has also made
Apex aware that if a three party arrangement with Cary proved impractical, the Town would still be
interested in investigating joint Apex -Holly Springs initiatives. Holly Springs also has held a
number of discussions with the Town of Cary regarding the feasibility of having its wastewater
treated at Cary's plant discharging into Middle Creek. These latter discussions were unsuccessful,
and since then the State has adopted a number of measures designed to protect the Neuse River,
that also, unfortunately, making it more difficult to effecfregional solutions within the Neuse River
Basin. The State rules now, in effect, place a value of approximately $7 per gallon of treatment
capacity in the Neuse, meaning that any capacity Cary gave up in one of its treatment plants would
eventually have to be replaced at a cost of $7 per gallon in addition to actual construction cost.
Under these circumstances, it seems unlikely that any solution involving one of Cary's existing
wastewater treatment plants will be available to the Town of Holly Springs.
Sharing a common effluent line to the Cape Fear River: One alternative the Town of
Holly Springs has considered is sharing a common effluent line leading to the Cape Fear River.
Considering the considerable investment that communities in western Wake County have in
treatment systems, it is quite possible that any regional solution developed will involve sharing
effluent lines rather than sharing treatment facilities. Treated effluent is more economically
transported than is raw wastewater, and treated effluent lines are less likely to be objectionable to
those who live along the route of such lines than would be lines transporting raw sewage. The
environmental consequences of a line break would also be less serious with treated wastewater
than would be the case with raw wastewater lines. Another advantage of a system involving
dispersed, smaller wastewater treatment plants sharing a common effluent line is that such systems
are more economical form a reuse standpoint. Disbursed, smaller treatment plants are more likely
21

to be closer to the potential reuse customers, reducing the cost of reuse water transportation. The
cost of constructing such a line alone is more than the Town of Holly Springs can afford. The
Town of Holly Springs has made the Towns of Apex and Cary aware that it would consider
participating the funding of such a line if either of those communities were to pursue construction
of such a line. However, in the short term, as with a regional treatment solution, there is no
regional line in which the Town can participate.
3.5 Summary
At present there is no realistic alternative to an expanded discharge at the present location.
Water conservation and infiltration/inflow control programs are in effect now, but can not serve as
a substitute for a plant expansion. Wastewater reuses will not avoid a plant expansion, but at least
offers the potential to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged, at least during the warm,
irrigation season. The Town is working towards developing a reuse program, and is hopeful to
have at least some reuse in effect before the end of the year 2000. However, a much longer time
period will be needed before reuse can play a significant role in the Towns overall wastewater
disposal plans.
A plant expanded at the present location should be designed not only to meet reuse water
quality standards, but also to meet the most stringent nutrient limits technically achievable.
Assuming the NC-DWQ approves mass nutrient limits, the Town will need to carefully monitor
actual plant performance for nutrient removal as loading increases, and the success of its reuse
efforts. It may not be possible to discharge the full amount of the minimum 4.88 mgd of additional
capacity .needed without violating the total expected nitrogen load. Reuse will therefore play an
increasingly important role as the Town wastewater flows increase. Nutrient loading concerns will
be allayed if the Town is able to participate in a regional discharge directly to the Cape Fear River.
22

as
fan
ellet
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Overview
The availability of adequate wastewater treatment facilities in the Town of Holly Springs
will allow planned residential, commercial and industrial development in the area to continue.
Therefore both the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed
wastewater treatment plant expansion and the environmental impacts from resulting growth and
development should be considered as a part of the planning process. Environmental impacts can be
classified as primary or secondary, and as beneficial and adverse. Primary impacts are those that
would directly result from construction of proposed wastewater facilities. Secondary impacts are
those environmental effects resulting from the development and population growth made possible
by the provision of adequate wastewater treatment facilities. Identifying primary and secondary
adverse impacts is necessary so that mitigative measures to minimize those impacts can be
formulated.
4.2 Changes in Land Use
4.2.1 Wetland
No primary impacts on wetland are expected as a consequence of expanding the wastewater
treatment plant. Some secondary adverse impacts on area wetland could result from development in
the area. The construction of interceptors and collection lines through wetland areas will result in
short-term adverse impacts on water quality in the form of increased siltation and turbidity, a result
of erosion during and immediately following construction. Mechanical damage will also occur
from the actual construction process. However, this is only a temporary problem; and wetland will
have a chance to restore themselves once the sewer lines are in place and natural revegetation is
allowed to occur. Erosion and increased siltation impacts will be seen during construction of
houses, office buildings, shopping centers, etc., upstream of wetland areas. These impacts may
have a more lasting effect on the environment. Growth and development of Holly Springs will alter
natural water flow patterns, and result in increased urban runoff in wetland areas. While these
changes are not expected to actually destroy any wetland, the changes may subtly alter the manner
in which some wetlands function. The natural interaction between wetland and adjoining upland
ecosystems will certainly be disrupted in places by urban development, as uplands are converted to
urban uses.

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. There are no "unique" agricultural lands within
the Town and. its ETJ. Much of the land that could otherwise be considered prime farmland has
been converted to urban purposes. Given the present growthrate, it is reasonable to expect that
over the next twenty years agricultural land uses within Holly Springs area will essentially cease .to
exist.
4.2.3 Forest Resources
Construction of wastewater treatment facilities is expected to have minimal impact on forest
resources. It is expected that 2 to 3 acres of land will need to be cleared for the expansion of the
wastewater treatment plant. Secondary impacts due to growth and development will have a much
larger impact on forest resources than will direct impacts from wastewater treatment construction,
as woodlands are converted to subdivisions and commercial and industrial developments. The
largest forest stands in the Holly Springs area are those owned by Carolina Power and Light.
While some of these lands will be left undeveloped, low density residential development is
expected to occur in those Carolina Power and Light owned lands adjoining the northern half of
Harris Lake.
4.2.4 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. Open space and greenway requirements
associated with development requirements are also expected to add to the total acreage of public
land.
4.2.5 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, greenways, etc., will be planned and developed for the growing residential
population.
4.3 Air Quality and Noise Levels
The construction of proposed sewer facilities will result in short-term impacts on air quality
as construction equipment and other mechanized construction traffic increase the pollutant levels in
the area. Development in the area will increase traffic volumes in general which may increase
24

ambient concentrations of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter
in the 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 a
given area has been completed, 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
Primary and secondary impacts on groundwater are expected to be minimal. Lawn
fertilization at residences and parks may affect the quality of groundwater in the surficial aquifer,
and the increased impermeable surface coverage associated with urban development will reduce
groundwater recharge rates somewhat. One long-term secondary impact of wastewater collection
system expansion is actually beneficial. Present and future septic tank operations in the area, which
could be a significant source of pollution problems if the tanks malfunction and/or are not properly
maintained, will be eliminated as the collection system expansions reach unsewered developments,
allowing septic tank operations to cease.
4.4.2 Surface Water Quality
A secondary long-term adverse impact on surface water quality from the development of
the Town will be decreased surface water quality as increased urbanization leads to increased
runoff. 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 water. Run-off containing herbicides and
pesticides applied to house yards and gardens may have difficult to detect, but detrimental impacts
on water quality.
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.
25

-
h
r
Gj
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 BODs of 5
mg/L or less, and an effluent ammonialess than 2 mg/L. The plant would be designed to achieve
biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal. Total phosphorus and total nitrogen will also be
removed with the objective of limiting total nitrogen loads to not more than an average of 89.5
pounds per day, and total phosphorus loads to an average of not more than 8.1 pounds per day. A
program for reusing as much of the wastewater treated at the Utley Creek facility as is practical 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.
The Utley Creek treatment plant appears to be having minimal impacts on receiving water
quality from the standpoint of dissolved oxygen levels and other more conventional levels of
pollutants. Officials of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality have expressed their belief
that the treated Town wastewater is the source of nutrients that are causing algae blooms in a small
impoundment downstream of the Holly Springs plant, and that it may be contributing nutrient that
could eventually cause problems in Harris Lake. While the present plant permit does not have any
nutrient limits, NC-DWQ warned that such limits could be imposed in the future, and the present
plant has been designed to achieve biological nitrogen and phosphorous removal. These
improvements only became operational in December of 1999, and so it is to early to tell what
impacts the improved nutrient removal capabilities of the plant will have on algae build-ups
downstream of the plant.
4.4.3 Drinking Water Supplies
Construction of an expanded wastewater treatment plant will have no immediate impact on
the Town's drinking water supply. There will be additional stress on the drinking water supply due
to the increased demand associated with growth. As a result of this stress, additional drinking
water sources will be located. The Town has made arrangements with the City of Raleigh and with
the Harnett County water system to meet its short term and intermediate needs. The Town is
exploring the feasibility of various long term solutions, including the purchase of additional
capacity from Harnett County and the development of its own water treatment system utilizing the
Cape Fear River as a water supply source.
26

OMB
{
Caul
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures
5.1 Overview
There are some unavoidable adverse environmental disturbances 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 wastewater treatment plant
construction, construction inconvenience, and wastewater disposal. The secondary impacts which
cannot be avoided are erosion and sedimentation from developmental activities in the Town, loss of
farm land, diminished forest resources, diminished wildlife habitats, 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.
5.2.1 Construction Inconveniences and Annoyance
Primary inconveniences during constructiondue 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.
5.2.2 Wastewater Disposal
Disposal of effluent into the receiving streams is not expected to have a significant 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. Nutrients will, however, remain a concern in
Utley Creek, or more exactly, in the small impondment on Utley creek in which algae blooms have
been a problem. The State remains concerned with conditions in Harris Lake, although data
collected in recent years by Carolina Power and Light at least suggest that water quality is
improving in that Lake. At any rate, the larger volume of Harris Lake compared to the small pond
in which actual algae blooms have been documented is such that any impacts from the Holly
Springs plant nutrient content will be proportionately much smaller in the lake than in the pond.
The Utley Creek plant expansion would be designed, as is the existing 1.5 MGD facility, to
achieve an effluent BOD5 of 5 mg/L and an effluent ammonia of less than 2 mg/L to 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. Biological nutrient removal
will be incorporated into the treatment plant expansion design, as it was in the most recent plant
expansion to a 1.5 mgd facility. Assuming that mass, and not concentration, limits are given to the
28

Town, denitrification filters will be added to the plant to allow extremely low levels of total
nitrogen to be achieved.
Regulations governing reuse of treated wastewater offer a potential avenue for further
mitigating the effects of the expected increase treated wastewater discharge. 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 prove practical. Implementation of such a
system would be dependent not only on cost but also on the acceptance of a reuse program by the
Town's current and future industrial customers. 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.
Reuse for irrigation purposes is more promising. The Town is now working with a
planned golf course residential development, and with an existing development on potential reuse
projects. It is also working on means and methods to provide reuse water to meet contractor's
water needs on the Highway 55 by-pass. The Town expects to explore every reasonable avenue
for reuse.
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 stream for a short time period. Provision of
standby power and the use of multiple units will mitigate this potential problem.
Pass through to the receiving stream of pollutants originating in industrial wastewater is
another long-term concern that can be mitigated. The Town of Holly Springs is prepared to
implement a State approved pretreatment program any time its industrial base grows to the point
where such a program is warranted. The Town is committed to accepting leachate from a Wake
County landfill expansion, if that landfill expansion ever materializes. Even if no other industrial
development required it, the actual acceptance of this landfill leachate would require that a
pretreatment program be put into place to monitor and regulate the leachate. Wake County has
agreed to participate in the financing of the pretreatment program development and has agreed for
the leachate discharge to be regulated under the pretreatment program.
29

5.3 Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
5.3.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Development
Developers generally are required by State statue to prepare and implement erosion and
sediment control plans for new developments proposed for the Town of Holly Springs area. The
Town of Holly Springs plans to implement a Town -administered Erosion Control Program and
Stormwater Program within the next two years as a further means to protect the environment. This
program is expected at a minimum to provide for uniform and prompt enforcement of State
required standards. Most of the new development in Holly Springs is in the form of Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.'s). The Town now requires that P.U.D.'s have dedicated stream buffers,
further mitigating adverse impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation.
5.3.2 Air Quality
Localized air quality degradation due to particulates may occur from development related
construction in the Holly Springs area. Such adverse impacts will be of short term duration, and
can be minimized by use of watering and other standard dust control measures. Longer term air
quality impacts are expected from automobile use associated with the increased population of Holly
Springs. The area is expected to be developed primarily in single family residential developments,
and air quality problems like those associated with the downtown areas of major urban centers are
not expected. However, Holly Springs can be expected to share in some of the recurrent air quality
problems of the Triangle as a whole. The only practical mitigative measures for these potential air
quality problems are the automobile emissions standards established at the Federal level and the
occasional mandatory use of fuel mixtures higher in ethanol imposed throughout the Triangle
region during non -attainment periods for air quality standards.
5.3.3 Wetlands and Surface Water Quality
Wetland are protected through the 404 permitting process, and few, if any, direct impacts
on wetland are expected from increased development. However, wetland and other surface water
bodies can be expected to sustain increased pollutant loads from stormwater runoff of urban
development. The Town has taken several steps to minimize these impacts. The Town plans to
have a Town administered Erosion Control Program and Stormwater Program in place within the
next two years. This program is expected to result in the greater use of forested buffers and other
means to reduce pollutant lands from stormwater. Although not primarily focused on wetlands
preservation, these programs should result in at least some incidental protection of wetlands as
well.
30
SIR

fwl
r
1
5.3.4 Prime Farmlands
Essentially all prime farmland within the Holly Springs ETJ is expected to be eventually
lost to urbanization. Real estate values within the area have already reached levels that make it
difficult to justify the continued use of land for crop or livestock production. The provision of a
reliable, centralized wastewater treatment system will, however, allow higher density development
to take place than would be possible with on -site wastewater disposal systems. The greater density
of development in Holly Springs made possible by a central wastewater system will somewhat
relieve development pressures. on more rural areas, thereby contributing to the preservation of
prime farmland located elsewhere in the region.
5.3.5 Forest Resources
Many of the Town policies discussed in Section 5.3.3 tend to minimize the adverse impacts
on forest resources of continued development in the Holly Springs area. The most significant of
these are the Town's requirements requiring undisturbed buffers along creeks, open space
requirements for P.U.D.'s and residential development, site coverage limitations on industrial
development, buffer requirements for thoroughfares and the outer loop, and the requirement that all
development plans have revegetation and tree preservation plans. Some loss of forest resources
will, however, occur due to urbanization. These losses are expected to be proportionally greater in
upland forest areas. Low lying wooded areas immediately adjoining area streams are expected, for
the most part, to remain intact.
5.3.6 Wildlife Resources
The Town of Holly Springs' continued growth will put increased stress on the area wildlife
resources. The measures described earlier for protecting surface water quality from secondary
adverse impacts will also tend to mitigate adverse impacts on aquatic wildlife. The Town
Floodplain Ordinance provisions and State and Federal wetland protection requirements will
further help to preserve wildlife habitats and travel corridors along area streams. Open space
requirements and limitations on site coverage for new developments will also contribute to wildlife
habitat preservation. These protective measures will mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife resources,
but not eliminate them altogether. The transition of Holly Springs from rural community to urban
community now in progress cannot take place without some alterations and loss of wildlife habitat.
Town parks and recreation planners have been made aware of wildlife resources concerns,
particularly with regards to Middle Creek, and will hopefully be able to devise additional means to
protect and preserve wildlife habitats as a part of the Town's overall park and recreation planning.
31

5.4 Public Health
Extension of municipal sewer service is expected to eliminate the source of the health
hazard identified by the Wake County Health Department in the Fair Share area, failed septic tanks.
Achieving this will require extension of gravity sewer interceptor and collection lines, construction
of one small pump station, and replacement or major expansion of one existing lift station.
5.5 Summary
Provision of an adequate, reliable central wastewater collection and treatment system will
provide both economic and quality of life benefits to the Holly Springs community. The
construction of the needed wastewater facilities, and the development that such facilities will make
possible, will, however, create some potential and actual adverse environmental impacts.
Mitigation measures are available to eliminate potential adverse impacts and to minimize the effects
of unavoidable impacts. The routes of all planned major interceptor and outfall sewer lines have
been surveyed by professional biologists, and the least impact construction corridors determined.
Wastewater treatment plant discharge impacts will be mitigated by designing the treatment facilities
to conform to State standards, and by designing the facilities so that in the future even more
stringent treatment standards can be achieved if required. The Town is positioned to develop and
implement a pretreatment program to protect both its..treatment plant and Utley Creek from toxics
associated with industrial waste if an industrial base that warrants such a program materializes.
Indirect environmental impacts and potential impacts from growth made possible by a reliable
wastewater treatment plant are expected to be greater than any direct impacts from the construction
and operation of a wastewater collection and treatment facility. The Town is in the early stages of a
growth cycle expected to take it from its 1990 population of 908 past its estimated 1994 population
of 2,800 to an ultimate full development population projected to be 43,000 people. This growth
rate will result in developments that substantially alter the character of the existing community. The
Town has, however, adopted goals, objectives, policies, and rules that will minimize the adverse
impacts of these changes. Development restrictions on lot coverage, open space requirements,
requirements for dedication of undisturbed buffers along streams, and requirements for tree
preservation and revegetation plans are among the many tools the Town has selected to help protect
the environment as it grows. The Town has added or will add staff in critical planning, public
works, and engineering areas to help develop and enforce the specific rules and ordinances needed
to achieve its goals for environmental preservation. While the explosive growth in population and
resultant development will inevitably have some adverse environmental impacts, the Town has put
into place controls specifically aimed at mitigating those impacts. The full development of the
32

Town of Holly Springs can therefore be expected to have much less environmental impact than that
experienced by communities urbanizing in the 50's, 60's, 70's and even 80's, since Holly Springs
has been able to draw upon the experience of others, and, as importantly, has been able to adopt
needed controls on development early in its growth cycle.
Listed below are the Environmental Protection Policies given in the Town's 1998 10-Year
Comprehensive Growth Plan.
Policy 1: The Town shall work with State agencies to enforce the Neuse River Basin
development requirements.
Policy 2: The Town shall develop standards to protect water quality for areas not covered by
State mandated guidelines.
Policy 3: The Town shall enforce flood plain protection ordinances and amend as needed.
Policy 4: The Town shall encourage multi -modal travel, interconnected streets, and other
transportation practices that reduce automotive congestion and emissions.
Policy 5: The Town shall develop a tree preservation ordinance to protect significant trees or
stands of trees.
Town staff are now working towards creating the rules and enforcement procedures that
will give concrete expression to the adopted policies. These are expected to evolve over the next
several years. Many of the key protective measures, as previously described, are already in place.
However, it is expected that there will be improvements to the Town's existing mitigative measures
in the coming years, particularly with regards to stormwater quality.
33

=I
tam
Awl
faq
References
Brook, 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.

t/ir
641 1-1-.
`Cif
451ftlivi
�a5
ri)
/G1k (4biligia ► ,De« ll464 ,4. i
151( Mr ' ?trX4h$1 ► U-He e i.eok . CC/ . co 3
YautnJ s9econa,p/4, ex,f,mnit41014-vt itn&cirs (e7rnfel orilfem 4)
6101-c'gay
• tec-45,.. u
ricpu„4-'s
e;{! r c( trn v, de/ c , +6e) 4 e�C
(I g5 / ptYPI4-.577/era)
a
i'm e.irthic__ mitz-p Jjoutegifi
'We /71'j 0 > Cr t i 1 ij'P iA ew;( '>: j . `7 li r i4 _ pa14 eow, +E rt")
ck_t ,i-V. > 1 coa t /arnimel i , t w► c , '-.
,• 4'
tt
�ot..✓irt •
`z' - eliktspL ,100 I?. milli .tel
l (0 kd h.
K25,T2ir)
UAL i7u46` vliceL/77c? S?b/ tJ1??GCff7
44 i 5 ffr7�2r(/ # 1 " Yil •clad & 0(15,
L leg&e
, 6<C et fief er -"fte-vi e/ ppiacfryike.7116 4,e,Ae-a. ,
ale ri / `I % re-w.- . in rim • 1 * G.ig(/o-L dace
44,44,-- ,16). #1*- 4-eie, rt. eirie- -)
r L
/// _ - .�JI/j�t�t&Y!1
> fora/1 sAis ~ r t t /A late( 4/UC GI I 64071.

> GI/ ,t/xf H (50 7 '43 7 Work 4r
JVCW/WP
hitc free / 41/04f44 ar42, ,
We let ('It / -(hti 'J (live/Ca an, e 44,ineeG. ,
/vv f0
&ekiti.c) jirn.t...tc-A4A7.4
> . evil ' qo Mk/ Jafelkei tech- ?

00
;k C-, ,rie#
r, t<K 7ry
#J PWt—A11-72eS (9/9)77; -, CPS! N , 5-17
,( C-d , 5-2J - ,� 3-3
6(u, s,, \ 1
611) 733 'S2 S
✓o NA/ C.« L.cn 4/1/1 �,� J����s vc-? —s y2 — yzdI
8:11 c 19 CiLAJO0-6--“ ,s•c\ k (i) 6q ) (It
vl��7rZ �Y1 33
tea Aildnel 5 -- (Y1'ek (410 551- ic12(t,
NcP&ae - l c( Sip/
cs nl M.tLL4vt_ AJc 2-
j"lairiC Th. vogc de l I Nc DI,)Rz
yf) Le#A-re.9
_ �eve, *-4-' 61/v i'7
b;,J S�+L
%U N / /Y "//7 r
b
c, 1 Si, .in. CNam II
rQ d_ /70 / )err, 4 r\ fie) I
cie De.cc/t.r2
91q- 7/5'03/0
, 9 7( 36 iYy
91?-715 - a3�6
SS-7- 3F6 Z_
(91c0 7/5 -gm
(cm1?15 - i-1311 Ics_
yf 9 - , 9c /
97g 4'7- 7,e4-
__ IV� MP
WATER
—`l RESOURCES
John L. Tillman, Jr.
Senior Vice President
MP WATER RESOURCES / P.O. Box 609520 / Orlando, FL 32860-9520
Phone [phone] /FAX [phone] /Cell407/810-9395
Email: jtillman@florida-watercom
��AMP
WATER
— RESOURCES
John Cirello, Ph.D., P.E.
President and Chief Executive Officer
MP WATER RESOURCES/P.O. Box 609059/Orlando, FL 32860-9059
Phone [phone] /FAX [phone]
Email: johnc @ florida-water. com

i A ] A A A J ] A ] ) ] A A A A A A A
e

Public/Private Partnership Strategy
for a Regional Water and Sewer
System
August II. 1000
PURPOSE
Why are we here?

Waterrand Sewer Service Iss Qs,'
.Associated with Growth
ate• :, .
• Costs (facilities and O&M)
• Sufficient capacity to meet demands
• Reliability of service
• Institutional agreements
• Regulatory reviews and approvals
• Implementation schedule
• Others
Why gcinsider Re0'`�0 Zit
Cooperation?,;
• Decreasing availability of environmentally. socially.
and technically acceptable facility sites
• Limited capacities of receiving streams to
assimilate increasing volumes of point source and
non -point source pollutant loads
• Trend toward more stringent federal and state
regulatory requirements and treatment standards
• Increasing legal and regulatory delays for facility
development
• Increasing need for highly trained. well -qualified
technical and management personnel
• Increasing capital and operating costs of water
and sewer facilities
• Decreasing federal and state funding assistance
for water and sewer infrastructure
r
riertris,
(�1C4 kco

What is the scope of the project?
roject Overview
• First Priority Facilities
• Second Priority Facilities
• Order of Magnitude Costs
2 -',i first
riority F
cs dies
• Wastewater Conveyance Systems
— Large gravity sewers
- Pumping Stations
- Metering Facilities
• Wastewater Reclamation Facility
- 16 mgd initial capacity
- Tertiary treatment capabilities
• Resource Recovery Facilities
— Sludge disposal
- Methane gas
W W,1,. Of- Syl, ra
i

•
ecor c! Priority Facilities
• Water Treatment Plant
- 16 mgd initial capacity
■ Reclaimed Water System
- Dual distribution system
• Regional Sludge Management Facility
— Thermal drying
:I itt�i#a .1
■ Wastewater Conveyance = S63 million •
■ Water Reclamation = S80 million '
• Water Treatment = S30 million
• Reclaimed Water = S10 million
(Dislribulion. pumping, storage)
• Regional Sludge Management = S15 million
•
`<Y
• TOTAL = S198 million
'Cost are presented from the Wake County Water/Sewer Plan
August 1998
prhe Cope Fear Regional WRrt.
comp arable to bther large
Public/Private Partnership Efi r1 s
Seattle
Phoenix
Auckland
N-.
Houston
Owners
Tolal Procurement Procurement
Scope COST Time Cost
New 100•mgd WTP 5120M 14 mos 51.4M
DB0 delivery
New 80-rngd WTP 51BOM 12 mos S1.5
080 delivery
New 250-mgd WWTP 5300M /f6 mas _) 12M
DBP delivery
New 120•mgd WTP SISOM 12 mos 11 47M
/Nie
5\-1,) 41r'Y!t
(iiiKE A ff-leic,tfo-r—

Is P3 Feasible for the Cape Fear
Regional WRF?
by cnsider Pis versus
conventional project. delive
• Need to reduce facility O&M costs
• Need to reduce delivery time for capital projects
• Need to achieve and/or maintain regulatory compliance
• Political pressure
• Difficulty in controlling or managing resources
• Public perceptions
Faster Delivery Schedule
Alternative Financing (Off -Balance Sheet Funding)
Addresses Institutional Issues of "Control"
eter� ine.P o ct Fe7asibilitY
• Evaluation of legal and regulatory requirements
• Estimate units sales (demands)
• Prepare facility plans and operations plans
• Prepare cost estimates
- Capital
0&M, Legal. Management and Administration
• Develop financing plan and pricing structures
• Develop draft pro forma

lVho are the "players" in
Public Private •,artnerships?
Azunz lEnronl
- Reliant Energy
- United Water (Suez)
- US Filter (Vivendi)
- Heater Utilities (Minnesota Power)
- American Water Works
Aqua Source (Duquesne)
Severn Trent
- Thames
61'
- Duke Water Operations (Duke Energy,
International Water (Bechtel)
- Earth Tech
{ Possible fail _ t ceiaartos'fc
the Cape Fear ° egional WRF /
• 100 percent publicly funded
• 100 percent privately funded
• Combination of public/private funding
innesota Powe
• Diversified Multi -Service Corporation
(Automobile. Water. Investment, and Electric Services)
• Market Capitalization S1.7 Billion
• Revenue of S1.2 Billion 10.0% inc
is Net Income of S104.2 Milliion/� 17.7°-o inc
(ill if. ✓l;cr )
• 39 States and 6 Canadian Provinces
• 9000 Employees
AI i '' t f it ct3'„Q°`"?j
� I ,J
' etFiPrliln -1. vcic.k� �►=
' L.t °' diZyc brw• - (FL.)
3

P W ter Resources Grou
i=
r.�
• Florida Water Services
Largest Investor -Owned Water Utility in Florida
- Serving Over 500.000 People y-Jr�p „116S4 ` 7C (/ irEtZ
- Nationally Recognized Superior Operations
- Industry Leader in Technology ' �' J MC1;7 ; ry •!
• Americas' Water Services
- Provide Customized Operations • Programs Include
Maintenance. Administration and Operation
- Service Both Government and Industry Customers
- Contracts Throughout Midwest & Eastern United States
• U.S. Maintenance & Management
Comprehensive Maintenance Program in
Corrective, Preventive, and Predictive
- Provide Service in 23 States
- Uses Latest Technology
• Heater Utilities
• Largest Investor -Owned Water and Wastewater Utility in
North Carolina
• Serves 32 Counties in the State
■ Serves Over 90.000 People
■ Serves Over 35,000 People in Wake County
• As Part of MP Water Resources, Heater Gains:
- Technology Interlace
- Purchasing Power
- 500 Years of Management Experience Itrt ///��� X
• Outstanding Reputation with North Caro a Utilities
Commission
4

ropa*ed Project Role of
Heate Utilities
■ Financing
- Local Government Sponsored Bonds
- MP Total Finance Program
■ Construction
- Healer is Responsible for Plant Construction
- High Subcontractor Content from Local Service Area
■ Operations
- Heater Operates and Maintains All Plants
- Bulk Provider of Wastewater and Water Service
- Operates as Regulated Utility
- Local Government Maintains Customer Ownership
• Purchase Options for MI Facilities by Local Govemment
at the End of 20 Years.
Regulatory Review and
Approval Considerations
inwircan' mental Effects
■ Direct Effects resulting directly from the
construction or operation of the proposed activity
• Indirect Effects are caused by and result from the
proposed activity although they are later in time or
further removed in distance, but they are still
reasonably foreseeable.
• Cumulative Effects are defined as "resulting from
the incremental impact of the proposed activity
when added to other past, present and future
reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless
of what entities undertake such other activities."

irect:'Effects
• Water quality
• Air quality
• Land quality
• Others
}
ecoradary Effects
■ Water quality and water resources
• Cultural, archaeological and historic resources
■ Fish and wildlife resources
• Wetlands
• Open space - prime agricultural lands, public
and recreational lands and forestry resources
Curet tative Effects
• Transportation
► 1.540 (Outer Loop)
- NC 55 Bypass
• Schools
■ Others
1

... Prop oIsed Regulatory Review
Approial Process
• Prepare Program Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for project
- Water Reclamation Facility
- Water Treatment Plant
- Collection and Conveyance Facilities
- Transmission and Distribution Facilities
■ Prepare NPDES Permit Application concurrent
with Program EIS
• Prepare "Controlled Growth and Open Space
Plan" as part of Program EIS
•
Prepare "Controlled Growth
Open- pace" Plan
■ Development standards
• Stormwater management
• Open space acquisition/preservation
Streams and buffers
- Wildlife habitats and corridors
Greenways
• Water conservation
• Water reuse
■ Biosolids/sludge reuse
Pr, E6MPtXS Pvnn App.utim
.e 01, .m,WC E*«vi.q
]eveto Sena e.e Stnaeve
De.wagvre Sen.e egew,w+
I.Kbirty Stan, Tntin9Ewtnueinn
u ee G.,.vna,drv$veer

nap ed Regulatory Review
Approval Process - Existing j
111111111111111=111111•111111110:1.1.ar.;77:Ages:',;:-;4;1-.. I
,A•Dste.
u Cm` EI
c.c coo..
Dig stalince
Cr. O. (PC a DOA A.K. I igmei
s.n, ,cmcf
NW.*
COMM1011:,'
MIN
---.--•^_•—_• • —• — • — ••
Oct t Jan? Oct
mo MI ... , 4. ..., .... ..... . ... .,.., Mt
•,...c. OS Icosccemi Om...6 .1 MP
--• •••••• ••
,core ,ss O. EA et cut
CP.a. E6 bDIO era..
5,.erm 1ra 16ti Of. Insane. ous
4.c. C. cl CO to o
What's the next step?
4

first e:p
Develop Consensus for Project
16 mqd WTP and 16 mqd WWTP
Apex
Cary Chatham County
(folly Springs Harnett County
Morrisville Wake County
Fuquay-Varina Lee County
Sanford
1)epartment of Environment and Natural Resources
•Division of Environmental Health
•Division of Water Quality
•Division of Water Resources
tt NK.E50.+..,pp..im
rr� �
�1/f be1(C�i[— Cj�l q't �
II s I
Sq!AAA_ a I G#iC +r 11A .y r 7
at ( ! - t4 e:: 1,•/ T EtC_.