NC0063096_Environmental Assessment_20090831

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:
August 31, 2009
Thies document is printed on reuse paper - igmore arty
content on the r►eYerne aside

Vinzani, Gil
From: Haynie, Jennifer
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:46 AM
To: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Vinzani, Gil
Cc: Blaisdell, Daniel; Colson, Kim
Subject: FW: EIS response related to Holly Springs
Attachments: Holly_Springs_FNSI.pdf
Importance: High
Matt, Jeff, and Gil,
Good morning) I wanted to send this e-mail to you regarding a comment that the USACE received on the Western Wake
EIS. Here's our initial reaction to this, but I think that what we need is input from you all since this is more of a
compliance issue in the end. I've attached the Holly Springs FONSI for reference.
Essentially, an additional alternatives analysis is not needed, (see paragraph below comment). Regarding the date, we
here at CG&L see it as a reference date. In essence, they need to remove their discharge when the WWRWRF becomes
operational (see Exhibit 1 of FONSI/EA). Here's where we need your input in a big way. Since the WWRWRF obviously
won't be ready by 1/1/11, then I assume that there are several ways to skin the cat. The only one that I can come up
with is an SOC. Please let us know what other ways you would handle Holly Springs's compliance issue.
Thanks!
Jennifer
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:40 AM
To: Haynie, Jennifer
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: FW: EIS response related to Holly Springs
Jennifer — In our call yesterday, I mentioned a comment we are responding to related the Holly Springs that we wanted
input from the Town and DWQ. Here is the comment —
Comment 11.12: The DEIS also indicates that Iolly Springs must cease discharge to Utley Creek in the purpose
and need section. Based on the current project timeline, Holly Springs cannot fulfill its obligations to cease
discharging into Utley Creek by January 1, 2011. No alternative means for Holly Spring to cease discharging
into Utley Creek are discussed in the DEIS. For example, it has no analysis of whether the Utley Creek WWTP
could utilize advanced technologies to address its contribution to nutrient enrichment in Utley Creek.
Similarly, the DEIS does not analyze whether land use planning could be employed to reduce the nutrient flow
into Utley Creek. Without consideration of such alternatives, the DEIS is deficient.
We will have a fairly detailed response to this. We do not think an additional alternatives analysis is required to address
the comment because the HS expansion has already been approved through a SEPA process. However, we are
concerned with the reference to the date and how to respond. In another comment and response, we explain that
Cary/Apex/Morrisville/Wake County are complying with Condition 1 of the IBT Certificate (which includes a reference to
returning water after 2010 — not January 1, 2011) through an interconnection with Durham County and we will
reference that response. We also plan to indicate that the actual driver for removal of the discharge is a condition in the
1

• .
FONSI associated with the Town's SEPA EA which indicates "Any Authorization to Construct or other necessary permits
(orders, etc.) for expansion of the Utley Creek WWTP will include a condition stating that the treated effluent must be
removed from Utley Creek by the date established in the Certificate
We believe a way to respond to this comment is to indicate something like — "The Town of Holly Springs will be
discussing a modification to the FONSI/EA and/or other remedy to address the delay in the Western Wake facilities with
DWQ and DENR." We could also indicate that the intent of this condition was for it to occur when the Western Wake
facilities were in place and the link to the "date in the Certificate" was a convenient reference and not a regulatory
necessity. We do think this part of the comment needs to be addressed and would like to include a response that
addresses the comment that both the Town and DWQ are comfortable with.
We have discussed this issue with the Town and are interested in your thoughts. We will be discussing your (and the
Town's) input with the USACE in finalizing responses to comments. Thanks
Bill
Bill Kreutzberger I CH2M HILL] Charlotte Office' Direct Phone (new) [phone] !Mobile [phone]'Email -
bill.kreutzberaer@ ch2m.com
2

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions
Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Utley Creek WWTP.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The Town of Holly Springs proposes to upgrade and expand
the current Utley Creek WWTP from 1.75 million gallons per day (MGD) to a capacity of 6.0
MGD. The expanded and upgraded WWTP will produce reuse quality effluent. The existing
NPDES permit for the Utley Creek WWTP limits the discharge capacity to 2.4 MGD. However,
the Town has elected to upgrade and expand the facility to be capable of treating 6.0 MGD. The
proposed facilities improvements include abandoning the existing headworks and constructing
new headworks consisting of a Parshall flume, two mechanical bar screens, one manually
cleaned bar screen, two grit removal units, and an influent pump station that will also pump
return activated sludge; modifying the existing 1.2 MG oxidation ditch and constructing two new
2.4 MG oxidation ditches to obtain a five -stage biological nutrient removal with a 6.0 MGD total
capacity; constructing three new clarifiers; converting the existing clarifier and an existing 0.5
MGD extended aeration system for sludge treatment; replacing the existing traveling bridge
effluent filters with disc filters; replacing the existing low-pressure/low-intensity ultraviolet
disinfection system with a new low-pressure/high-intensity ultraviolet disinfection system; and
replacing the existing aerobic digestion and liquid land application sludge disposal system with a
solids reduction process, which consists of aerobic digestion, solids reduction, and disposal by
landfill and land application of Class B sludge.
The October 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan continues to recommend that
the Town of Holly Springs remove its effluent discharge from Utley Creek, and the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) concurs with the need to eliminate this discharge. In a letter from the
Town to the Deputy Director of the DWQ (Exhibit 1), the Town has committed to sending its
treated effluent to the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility (WWWRF) for discharge into
the Cape Fear River below Buckhom Dam when the WWWRF becomes operational. Any
Authorizations to Construct or other necessary permits (orders, etc.) for expansion of the Utley
Creek WWTP will include a condition stating that the treated effluent must be removed from
Utley Creek by the date established in the Certificate Authorizing the Towns of Cary, Apex, and
Morrisville and Wake County to Increase Their Transfer of Water from the Haw River basin to
the Neuse River basin under the Provisions of G.S. 143-215.221.
B. Existing Environment
Topography and Soils. The Town of Holly Springs lies in the Piedmont physiographic province
of North Carolina. The project service area lies within three major geologic regions: the
Durham -Sanford Triassic Basin in the northwest, the Raleigh Belt in the northeast, and the
Sandhills in the south. Elevations at the Utley Creek WWTP ranges from 305 to 360 feet.
Predominant soils in the project area are the Mayodan-Granville-Creedmoor and Creedmoor-
White Store associations. The Mayodan-Granville-Creedmoor association is a soil that is
derived from sandstone, shale, and mudstone that is gently sloping to moderately steep, deep or
moderately deep, well -drained and moderately well -drained soils that have a subsoil of friable
sandy clay loam to firm clay. The Creedmoor-White Store association is a group of soils that are
1

also derived from sandstone, shale and mudstone that are gently sloping to hilly, deep and
moderately deep, that are well drained and that have a very firm, clayey subsoil.
Surface Water. This project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin. Utley Creek forms the
southern boundary of the WWTP site and varies in width from 10 to 20 feet. There is an
unnamed stream which ranges in breadth from 2 to 8 feet that flows from north to south across to
the WWTP site. The subbasin of Utley Creek (03-06-07) into which the WWTP discharges is
classified as a Class C surface water and is not listed as impaired. Although this stretch of the
creek is not listed as impaired, there have been numerous concerns regarding local water quality
such as algal blooms and fish kills attributed to discharge from the Utley Creek facility that have
led DWQ to recommend that Holly Springs ultimately remove its discharge from this water
body.
Water Supply. The town of Holly Springs obtains its potable water from the city of Raleigh and
Harnett County.
C. Existing Wastewater Facilities
Holly Springs' Utley Creek WWTP was constructed in the mid-1980s with a treatment capacity
of 0.25 MGD and provided secondary treatment. The treatment process included a dual train
rectangular package plant, each with its own bar screen, an aeration basin, and two hopper
bottom clarifiers. The effluent was disinfected with chlorine prior to discharge.
In 1996, the facility increased capacity to 0.50 MGD with the addition of a circular package
treatment unit that consisted of a singular circular steel tank with two aeration basins, two
secondary clarifiers, and an aerobic digester. A traveling bridge -type filter and an ultraviolet
disinfection system were also installed.
In 2000, an oxidation ditch and secondary clarifier were added that allowed the WWTP a total
treatment capacity of 1.5 MGD. Also added at this time were an influent flume, a mechanical
screen, an aerated grit removal system, an additional traveling bridge filter, and an updated low-
pressure ultraviolet disinfection system. Biosolids at the WWTP are stabilized in 300,000 gallon
holding tanks, and stabilization is accomplished via aerobic digestion. The town contracts with a
private hauler for land application of the biosolids following the addition of lime prior to land
application, per 40 CFR-Part 503 regulations. Utley Creek's collection system has been in
service since 1985 and is comprised of approximately 71 miles of collection lines and 21 sewer
lift stations. Most of the major force mains are made of ductile iron, and the smaller mains are
made of PVC.
The NPDES permit limits for the Utley Creek WWTP are:
Parameter
Flow
BOD5 (monthly average Summer -Winter)
NH3-N (monthly average Summer -Winter)
TSS (monthly average)
Fecal Coliform (monthly average)
Total Residual Chlorine
2
Limit
2.4 MGD
5.0 mg/land 10.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1 and 2.0 mg/1
30.0 mg/1
200.0 Count 100 ML
17 µg/L

Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
43,800 lbs/year
3,653 lbs/year
D. Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions
Located in southwestern Wake County, the Town of Holly Springs has a population of
approximately 15,000 persons. Currently, the Town is experiencing significant growth at a rate
of over 10 percent a year and projects that the population in 2030 will be over 60,000 persons.
This rate of growth strains the existing wastewater infrastructure and requires continued attention
to its facilities.
In 2002, the Town, along with the Town of Cary, Town of Morrisville, Town of Apex, and
Research Triangle Park (South) agreed to jointly participate in the planning for the WWWRF,
which is anticipated to be operational by 2011. The WWWRF could provide an adequate, long-
term solution to wastewater disposal needs for Holly Springs. However, it does not address
Holly Springs' wastewater treatment in the short-term.
Due to the growth rate in Holly Springs, the need for more wastewater treatment capacity will
outstrip the current capacity (1.75 MGD) of the Utley Creek WWTP by 2010 based on flow
projections in the 201 Facilities Plan Amendment. The Town's 20-year flow need is 6.0 MGD.
Therefore, the Town will expand the Utley Creek WWTP from the current 1.75 MGD to 6.0
MGD for use when the WWWRF eventually accepts its treated effluent. The Town will relocate
the treated effluent discharge from the Utley Creek WWTP to the Cape Fear River (via the
WWWRF) at such time that the regional project outfall to the Cape Fear River is available, as
stated in the letter in Exhibit 1.
E. Alternatives Analysis
An alternatives analysis was performed on various ways to expand the capacity of the Town's
wastewater treatment facilities. These alternatives were as follows: (1) No -Action Alternative,
(2) Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities, (3) Land Application, (4) Harnett County Regional
Interconnection, (5) Western Wake Regional Treatment, (6) Effluent Reuse, and (7) Utley Creek
WWTP Expansion.
No -Action Alternative: This alternative would result in no improvements or expansions to the
existing sewer system. Though the system is in good condition and will continue to operate,
flow violations and capacity shortcomings will occur in the future as the Town's population
outgrows the current capacity of the system. The No -Action Alternative was deemed infeasible
because it does not provide the necessary capacity for future growth and does not eliminate the
discharge to Utley Creek, which is one of the desired goals.
Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities Alternative: This alternative is essentially the same as
the No -Action Alternative, as records indicate that the Utley Creek WWTP is operating
efficiently. The required increase in wastewater treatment capacity cannot be met under this
alternative. Furthermore, it does not eliminate the discharge into Utley Creek, which is one of
the desired goals.
3

Land Application Alternative: Using spray irrigation as an alternative to surface water discharge
was analyzed. Because the quantity of well -drained soils in the Holly Springs area is highly
limited, the Town would have to purchase land outside of its jurisdiction. Furthermore, if the
5,200 acres that would eventually be needed to apply 6.0 MGD of effluent were available, the
total capital cost (not including the needed WWTP expansion) for the land purchase and
construction of the land application system would be a minimum of $104,000,000. Therefore,
the high cost of land, limited suitability of area soils, and the cost of treatment facilities make
this alternative not cost efficient.
Harnett County Regional Interconnection Alternative: Holly Springs has examined the option of
a partnership with Harnett County in the Fuquay/North Harnett County Regional Project. As
part of this alternative, the Town would expand the Utley Creek WWTP to the already -permitted
capacity of 2.4 MGD and construct a raw wastewater transmission system to the proposed
Harnett County WWTP at Lillington. This alternative would provide an interim solution until
the WWWRF became operational. Substantial improvements to the Harnett County interceptor
system would be required to handle the additional 3.5 MGD average flow, as would retrofits and
enlargements to major pump stations and force mains in the Middle Creek watershed. Also, the
Harnett County wastewater improvements have been designed and permitted with construction
already underway. Therefore, this alternative was not deemed feasible due to timing and cost
issues.
Western Wake Regional Treatment Alternative: When completed, the proposed WWWRF could
provide Holly Springs with the additional wastewater capacity needed for continued growth.
However, the WWWRF is not scheduled to be operational until 2011, and the Town will need
additional capacity at the Utley Creek WWTP much sooner than that. Though full participation
in the WWWRF remains a viable, long-term solution for the Town, it does not address the
immediate needs of the Town and was therefore rejected as the Preferred Alternative.
Effluent Reuse Alternative: The Town would reuse the treated effluent as a way to relieve the
quantity of wastewater discharged into Utley Creek. While the reuse water system will help the
Town with the overall goal of reducing the volume of wastewater discharged to Utley Creek as
well as annual pollutant loading of the receiving stream, its initial customer base will consist of
only residential seasonal users and irrigation systems. Therefore, implementation of the Effluent
Reuse Alternative will not alleviate the need for the WWTP expansion and increased NPDES
discharge. It is not a viable alternative and remains a separate, independent project.
Utley Creek WWTP Expansion Alternative: Under this alternative, the Utley Creek WWTP cf
would expand its capacity from 1.75 MGD to 6.0 MGD for use when the WWWRF eventually
accepts its treated effluent. Expanding the existing facilities would occur on the existing plant 'bqe y
site and disturb approximately nine acres. This alternative is the Preferred Alternative because it
addresses the short-term wastewater treatment needs of Holly Springs in the most timely, cost-
efficient manner.
F. Environmental Consequences and Mitigative Measures
Topography and Soils: The Utley Creek WWTP upgrade and expansion will occur entirely on
the existing WWTP site and will not impact the topography of the site. The upgrade and
expansion of the WWTP may impact portions of the 100-year floodplain. Sediment and erosion
4
Gt tic„

control practices will be compliant with the North Carolina Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual.
Land Use: The expansion and upgrade of the Utley Creek WWTP will not impact current or
future land use patterns.
Wetlands: The project will affect a small perennial stream that has a length of 806 feet on the
WWTP site. The stream will be rerouted to allow for the placement of facilities involved in the
expansion and upgrade. This stream will be filled in, and the natural drainage will be redirected
by a 60-inch storm drain that will relocate this tributary to Utley Creek. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) will require a Section 404/401 Individual Permit (Action ID #200420744).
The Town of Holly Springs has entered into an agreement with the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The EEP will
mitigate the stream impacts related to this project.
Important Farmlands: No prime or unique agricultural lands exist within the project area.
Public Lands, and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas: No public lands or scenic,
recreational, or state natural areas will be impacted by the upgrade and expansion of the Utley
Creek WWTP.
Cultural Resources: In a letter dated October 6, 2005, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that no historic resources would be impacted by the proposed
project (Project No. ER 05-2065).
Air Quality: The operation of the upgraded and expanded WWTP will not adversely impact air
quality. However, there will be short-term construction impacts associated with dust and minor
burning during site clearing. Construction will comply with local buming ordinances as well as
dust control measures as prescribed in the North Carolina Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual;
Noise Levels: Construction activities will temporarily increase noise levels, which should return
to normal once construction is complete. The operation of heavy construction equipment will be
limited to the hours specified in the Town's Noise Ordinance and other standards. Mufflers on
all equipment will be checked to ensure that the noise generated is not excessive.
Water Resources:. Groundwater resources will not be impacted due to the upgrade and expansion
of the Utley Creek WWTP. According to modeling done by Tetra Tech, Inc., operation of the
upgraded and expanded Utley Creek WWTP will not negatively impact water quality within
Utley Creek in the interim before shifting its treated effluent to the WWWRF. Based on the
recommendations made in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Water Quality's October 2005 Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Plan,
it is recommended that Holly Springs shift its wastewater discharge from Utley Creek to the
WWWRF when it becomes operational, which will improve water quality. During construction,
degradation of water quality will be minimized by the Section 404/401 permit, Sedimentation
and Erosion Control permits, and local ordinances.
5

Forest Resources: The upgrade and expansion of the Utley Creek WWTP will impact 8.5 acres
of pine/hardwood forest and 0.45 acre of scrub utility right-of-way. The North Carolina
Department of Forest Resources did not comment on the project.
Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitat: The construction and operation of the Utley Creek WWTP
expansion and upgrade will not impact shellfish or fish and their habitat. The eventual shifting
of the effluent from the WWTP to the WWWRF will improve the habitat of fish and shellfish.
Wildlife and Natural Vegetation: No protected species, neither flora nor fauna, are expected to
be impacted by the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Utley Creek WWTP.
Introduction of Toxic Substances: As part of the construction process, substances such as fuels,
lubricants, antifreeze, etc. will be used and may be introduced into the environment through
spillage or other events. All construction activity will be performed in accordance with Federal,
State, and local rules and regulations to avoid environmental impacts.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the proposed project and concluded that the
requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act have been fulfilled. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office, the Division of
Environmental Health, and the NPDES and PERCS Units concur with the proposed project. The
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources is not aware of any properties of architectural,
historical, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. Other state
agencies did not submit objections to this project
G. Public Participation, Sources Consulted
A public hearing was held on January 17, 2006 on the proposed project. The current user charge
for in -town users for 5,000 gallons per month is $48.00. The proposed project will result in an
increased charge of $7.85 for a total of $55.85 for 5,000 gallons per month for the typical user.
No opposition to the plan was presented at the public hearing.
Sources consulted about this project for information or concurrence included:
1) The Town of Holly Springs
2) North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- Wildlife Resources Commission
- DWQ Raleigh Regional Office — Surface Water Protection Section
- NPDES Units
- PERCs Unit
-Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
3) North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4) North Carolina State Clearinghouse
5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6

LLY SPRINGS
LEGEND
EXISTING
PROPOSED
UTLEY
CREEK
WWTP
dm
P
NORTH
'nlli TOWN OI:
Holly
Springs
CAROLINA
FIGURE I
PROPOSED UTLEY CREEK WWTP
I°=500FT

60.0
50.0
40.0
-J
o) 30.0
E
20.0
10.0
HOLLY SPRINGS WWTP
Total Nitrogen
♦
A
AA A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA A
A
•
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
1 •
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
DIN Limit A Infl TN
• EffI TN
••• • •
•
••• •
le
•
•
• •
• •• •• • • •
• • •• •••••
c5
O
••••
•
• •
••
•• •
• • •
•
• ••
N N N
C7 V' to In
O O O O O
Date

7.0
6.0
5.0
HOLLY SPRINGS WWTP
Total Phosphorus
DTP Limit . Effl TP
• Intl TP
4.0
-J
A
3.0-
2.0
•
■
■
■ ■
■
1.0 •
.
■■
■ II
■
■
•
•
■
•
■
■
■
■
■
■ ;'
•
4
0.0 _
O
•♦ . ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ e ♦ ♦♦e e ♦ •♦♦ ♦♦.♦
e♦♦♦♦ s ♦♦e ♦e♦♦ ♦ •♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ •♦ e
Lf)
C7
rn
N
c)
O
(NI
4
DATE
co0,1
O
d' Ln LC)
O O O

Town of Holly Springs
2.50 -
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
( 1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
co
A
Utley Creek WWTP
Flow Summary
i • Avg Flow
Min Flow
-----Max Flow
®Flow Limit
—Flow Trend
co co co co co co co d- V d' d
O O O O O O O O O O O O
Q U) 0 Z a - IL Q
Month
Davis -Martin -Powell & Associates

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (DRAFTv2) CH2MHILL
Supplemental Monitoring of Utley Creek to Support
Future Analysis
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
COPIES:
DATE:
Town of Holly Springs
CH2M HILL
Stephanie Sudano/Town of Holly Springs
Mike Slusher/DMP
Leila Goodwin/Town of Cary
Kelly Boone/CDM
Kathy Stecker/DWQ
Pam Behm/DWQ
May 13, 2009
Background
In evaluating model calibration and preliminary scenario analyses for the CE-QUAL-W2
model of Harris Lake, it was determined that the model was not very sensitive to whether
the Holly Springs' Utley Creek WWTP was combined with the discharge from the Western
Wake WRF or whether it remained as a separate discharge. The preliminary scenarios
evaluated a combined discharge in the central portion of the lake or retaining the Utley
Creek WWTP discharge at the current discharge location. Work is proceeding on the
finalization of model calibration for Harris Lake.
The issue of whether the Utley Creek WWTP can remain in the present location is more
involved than a modeling evaluation of nutrient response in Harris Lake. DWQ requested
that Holly Springs remove the discharge because of water quality concerns in pond systems,
particularly Thomas Millpond. DWQ has also indicated that they want to delay a decision
regarding what additional information they need to evaluate the Utley Creek/Thomas
Millpond issues until after the CE-QUAL-W2 modeling is completed.
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to describe a monitoring program to be
initiated as soon as possible to collect basic information that can be used to support this
evaluation. This monitoring program is to provide general information to be used for a
subsequent evaluation and to be generally consistent with the on -going monitoring program
of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association, of which Holly Springs is a member.
TM - UTLEY CREEK MONITORINGV2.DOC 1
COPYRIGHT 2009 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Prior Analysis
Tetra Tech (2004) conducted an analysis of Utley Creek and summarized monitoring
conducted by DWQ between May and August 2000. Eight stations were sampled and data
was summarized as shown in Figure 3 and Table 1 from the Tetra Tech report.
Exhibit 1. Utley Creek sampling locations and results summary table (reproduced from
Tetra Tech, 2004)
IP.
4. Green eez Tree Holy Springs
N.
rA i rL Thon.s:Mill P 301
•/- 4.5 acres
•�
Figure 3. NC DWQ Sampling Sites In Utley Creek Drainage
Table 1. Summary of NCDWQ tntensie Survey Unit Sam pling May through
August 31. 2000 (Williams. 2300)
Upstream
WWTP
UTC 01
Down-
stream
WNTP WWTP
UTC 03 i UTC 04
DowM
stream
Downstream Green-
Mils Pond Mill Pond .tree Dam
UTC 05 UTC 06 UTC 07
Harris
Lake
UTC 08
Harris
Lake
UTC 10
Chlorophyll
a (yg7L)
Range
<1 10 14
<1 to 5
l- <1 to 120 <1 to 320 <t tc 27
<1 to 24 a 31
Median
4.0
4.0
22 C 25 5 205
130 14 0
Mean
5.5
3,1
378 753 175
,
133 140
Total
Nitrogen (Ibslday)
Rani
0.5132.7
7.4 to 28.9 to
174.5 128.1
13.7 to
NA 129to89 552
NA. NA
t/:L _,an
1.1
558 I 57,5
NA 53.Cr 400
NA NA
Moan
1 2
134 6 I 71.4
ALA 55 7 37 5
NA NA
Total Phosphorus (tbs►day)
Rama
0.0 b 0.4
2.0to
77.1 14.5 to 29_2
NA
0.5 to 42 <0.G to 21
NA NA
Me'34n
0.1
12.8
10.7
NA
7.2 5.4
NA NA
Fteas
0.1
252
22.3
NA
13.9 B.8 NA. NA ,
'NA - Not ralcuisted.
2

In reviewing this information, the most significant water quality impairment was in the
Thomas Mill Pond portion of the Utley Creek where chlorophyll a levels well in excess of
the water quality standard of 40 ug/L were observed. Significant effects in the vicinity of the
Green Tree Dam were not observed because this impoundment is quite small with several
of the flashboards having been removed. The Tetra Tech (2004) report concluded that water
quality would improve with improved treatment and increasing flow from the WWTP in
Utley Creek but frequent exceedances of the chlorophyll a standard would continue.
Although the impacts of the delivery of nutrients from Utley Creek on the White Oak Creek
arm of Harris Lake were not analyzed because of the presence of Water Primrose - rather
than excessive open algal populations in this arm - the report also did not recommend
relocating the discharge below Thomas Mil Pond because of increased nutrient delivery to
Harris Lake.
The prior monitoring and the Tetra Tech analysis did not indicate a significant water quality
issue in or around the Green Tree Reservoir because of its small size. A photo in the report
(dated 6/2004) indicated that flashboards had been removed and showed very little
impoundment of surface water.
Proposed Stations
Based on the prior monitoring/modeling information and current conditions, an interim
monitoring approach has been developed. The physical condition of Thomas Mill Pond has
changed in that the dam for the pond has been partially breached. In addition, the Western
Wake Partners and Progress Energy are discussing a restoration project that will restore the
stream channel and riparian wetlands in the area to meet their mutual mitigation needs,
thus eliminating Thomas Mill Pond.
With this information, it seems reasonable to proceed with monitoring of Utley Creek at five
locations as described below and shown on Exhibit 2.
• UC-1 -- Utley Creek upstream of WWTP (Field parameters only)
• UC-2 -- Utley Creek between WWTP and Mill Pond
• UC-3 -- Utley Creek immediately below Thomas Mill Pond
• UC-4 -- Utley Creek near Green Tree Reservoir dam
• UC-5 -- Harris Lake at SR-1127
This clearly addresses the areas with the most observed effects in the prior monitoring. The
low flows upstream of the Utley Creek WWTP do not necessarily warrant sampling;
however, sampling of this location for field parameters will allow evaluation of upstream
conditions, and in conjunction with flow and specific conductivity data for the WWTP on
the day of sampling, will allow for a rough estimate of stream flow.
3

Exhibit2. Proposed Utley Creek Sampling Locations
o'ioo T ie:NI*
;ma pi Ostai: Fth 2005, ' 8V3a,t Or�N 7V5:4iS W .to 337 It
Monitoring Frequency and Parameters
The proposed monitoring program is based on the monitoring program currently used by
the MCFRBA in the middle portion of the Cape Fear River Basin. Currently, the closest
MCFRBA station is on Buckhorn Creek below Harris Lake. It is anticipated that if it is
determined that Holly Springs discharge can remain in Utley Creek or in Harris Lake, that
one of the proposed stations would be retained and incorporated into the MCFRBA
monitoring program.
Exhibit 3 below summarizes the proposed monitoring parameters for the five stations in the
Utley Creek watershed.
4

EXHIBIT 3
Proposed Utley Creek Watershed Monitoring
Parameter
Method Frequency
Temperature, DO, pH, specific
conductance, and Secchi disk
transparency (Secchi disk at lake
site only)
Field Data (UC 1 through 5)
YSI Field Meter collected at surface Monthly — November to April
for all stations except UC 5 (1 (bimonthly May to October)
meter depth increments)
Analytical Data
Laboratory Data (UC 2 through 5)
Total suspended solids Standard Methods 2540D Monthly
Total nitrogen Calculated Monthly
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Standard Methods 4500 Monthly
Ammonia-N EPA 350.1 Monthly
Nitrate+nitrite-N EPA 353.2 Monthly
Total phosphorus) EPA 200.7 Monthly
Chlorophyll a EPA 445.0 Monthly
Fecal Coliform Standard Methods 9222 D Monthly
Turbidity EPA 180.1 Monthly
Note: Metals currently are not being collected by MCFRBA per direction from DWQ but may be added back at
some point in the future
Summary
This monitoring program is consistent with the current MCFRBA monitoring program and
should provide useful base information for decision making by the Town of Holly Springs
and their consultants and DWQ. This monitoring program can be modified after specific
feedback from DWQ or when specific analyses are requested.
5