NC0063096_Environmental Assessment_19960913

NPDES DOCYHCNT !;CANNIN11 COVER SHEET
NC0063096
Holy 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:
September 13, 1996
Thin document iot printed on ire -mope paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerise aide

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
September 13, 1996
Ms. Stephanie Sudano, Town Engineer
Town of Holly Springs
125 North Main Street
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
F
Re: SCH File #97-E-4300-0006; EA-FONSI
Engineering Evaluation and EA for Long -Range WW Facilities
NPDES No. 0063096
Holly Springs, Wake County
Dear Ms. Sudano:
On September 3, 1996 the State Clearinghouse deemed the NCEPA review on the above
project complete (see attached letter and additional comments made by NC DOT). It is now
acceptable to proceed with your permit applications through the Division of Water Quality
(formerly Environmental Management) for the components of the proposed. project.
As you may have heard, I have taken the position vacated by Monica Swihart. If there is
anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at [phone],
ext. 567.
attachments/map
Sincerely,
l
Michelle
/
7)
erkrubbe, AICP
Environmental Specialist
cc: Ford Chambliss, Wooten Company (w/ attachments)
Coleen Sullins, Permits and Engineering Unit (w/ attachments)
Melba McGee, DEHNR (w/ attachments)
Judy Garrett, DWQ-RRO (w/ attachments)
mis:\holly_lt.doc
P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10 A post -consumer paper

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 3, 1996
Mr. Alan Clark
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Dear Mr. Clark:
Re: SCH,Fi1e #97-E-4300-0006; EA/FONSI - Engineering Evaluation and Environmental
Assessment for Long Range Wastewater Facilities Planned for the Town of Holly
Springs
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Because of
the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review
action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
c,�`_
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
CB/jf
Attachments
cc: Region J
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

STATE Of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
July 25, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clear
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Liz Babso
Statewide "Pl`a
ghouse
:'
State Clearinghouse 97-E-4300-0006
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
ansportation Engineer
ing Branch
I have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for Long Range
Wastewater Facilities for the Town of Holly Springs. I contacted
Stephanie Sudano, Holly Springs Town Engineer, to discuss this in
more detail.
I have enclosed a copy of the Thoroughfare Plan for the Town of
Holly Springs. This map should be used to coordinate any proposed
expansion of wastewater facilities with long range transportation
planning issues. Early involvement in the planning process will
greatly reduce conflicts as the project progresses.
If you have any questions or need further information, please call
me at 733-4705.
enclosures
cc: Deborah Hutchings, P.E., Thoroughfare Planning Engineer

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Engineering Evaluation and Environmental Assessment for
Long Range Wastewater Facilities Planned Including
Interceptor, Outfall and Treatment Systems
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, for a proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion and
proposed outfall and interceptor lines for the Town of Holly Springs in southwestern Wake
County. The project is located in and around Holly Springs in the Cape Fear River Basin. The
wastewater treatment plant discharges to Utely Creek which flows into Harris Reservoir. The
project would involve the construction of:
1) a 1.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant expansion which, when added to the existing 0.5 MGD
plant, would give the town a total 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment capacity. The 1.0 MGD
expansion is to be designed to meet advanced tertiary waste limits. It is also to be designed to
be easily retrofitted to accomodate nutrient removal, as needed, in the future.
2) 93,900 linear feet of gravity sewer line ranging in diameter from eight to 24 inches.
Construction would be in three phases per section 3.12 of the environmental assessment.
3) approximately 27,100 feet of force main interceptor, mostly along highway rights -of -way
(note: total length may vary when project plans are fmalized);
4) a minimum of two new pump stations.
The proposed work is being done in order to accomodate the wastewater collection and treatment
needs of this rapidly growing municipality. The EA also includes discussion of the projected need
for a total wastewater treatment capacity of up to 4.88 MGD within 20 years. However, expansion
beyond the 1.5 MGD capacity discussed in item 1, above, will require additional water quality
monitoring and modeling to assure that the water quality standards and uses in Utely Creek and
Harris Lake can be protected. An expansion would also require additional review under the NC
Environmental Policy Act as either an addendum to this EA or as a new EA.
This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are prerequisites for the issuance of an
NPDES permit for the wastewater treatment plan expansion and for nondischarge permits by the
Division of Water Quality for the interceptor and outfall components of the project.
It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to the environment
provided that it is carried out in accordance with the impact avoidance/mitigation measures
contained in the EA. This includes conducting instream nutrient monitoring below the plant and
designing and building the wastewater treatment plant expansion so as to allow it to be easily
retrofitted to accomodate nutrient removal facilities as needed in the future. Pending approval by
the State Clearinghouse, the environmental review for this project will be concluded. An
environmental impact statement will not be prepared for this project.
North Carolina
Division of Water Quality
(Formerly Division of Environmental Management)
June 28,1996

Pal
.al
poi
N EI
O il
Town OF HOLLY SPRINGS
NORTH CAROLINA
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
LONG RANGE WASTEWATER FACILITIES
PLANNED INCLUDING INTERCEPTOR
OUTFACE AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
JUNE 1996
,S4'. rsicreS7..e./..--,-
',j11lflfllfQ�j�1J
r
r
• SEAS
2; 9792 •c'• E
TF
EVERET"TE L. CHAMBLISS, P.E.
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
Engineering • Architecture • Planning
120 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary Of Project 1
1.1 Project Overview 1
m▪ ' 1.2 Need for Project 1
1.3 Expected Time Frame for Project 1
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 2
1.1
2.0 Description Of Present Environment 5
2.1 General Overview 5
2.2 Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction 5
MR
2.3 Land Use 5
2.4 Topography 6
2.5 Climate 6
"`' 2.6 Geology, Soils & Agricultural Resources 8
2.6.1 Geology 8
2.6.2 Soils 8
mil 2.6.3 Agricultural Resources 10
2.7 Cultural Resources 10
2.8 Energy Supply 11
2.9 Air Quality 11
'.' 2.10 Hydrology 12
2.10.1 Groundwater Resources 12
2.10.2 Surface Water Resources 13
Pr 2.10.3 Existing Water Quality 13
2.11 Vegetation and Wildlife 16
2.12 Conclusion 19
3.0 Alternative Analysis Z0
3.1 Overview 20
3.2 Population Projections and Wastewater Flow Projections 20
p▪ ' 3.3 Wastewater Treatment And Outfall System Expansion Scenarios 24
3.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives 25
3.5 Wastewater Outfall System Alternatives 27
GM 3.6 Construction Timing 28
3.7 Cost -Effective Analysis 30
3.8 Land Application 30
„NI, 3.9 Golf Course Irrigation 32
3.10 Other Beneficial Reuse 32
3.11 Preferred Alternative 32
3.12 Interceptor System Construction 33
mil
3.13 Alternative Interceptor Consideration 41
4.0 Environmental Consequences 44
,m 4.1 Overview 44
4.2 Changes in Land Use 44
4.2.1 Wetlands 44
4.2.2 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 44
4.2.3 Forest Resources 45
4.2.4 Public Lands 45
4.2.5 Scenic and Recreational Areas 45
"`+ 4.3 Air Quality and Noise Levels 45
4.4 Water Quality 46
4.4.1 Groundwater Quality 46
Mr
i

w 4.4.2 Surface Water Quality 46
4.4.3 Drinking Water Supplies 48
4.5 Wildlife Resources 48
4.6 Toxic Substances 49
"m 4.7 Summary 49
5.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures 50
mil 5.1 Overview 50
5.2 Mitigation of Primary Impacts 50
5.2.1 Sewerline Construction 50
PM5.2.2 Construction Inconveniences and Annoyance 52
5.2.3 Wastewater Disposal 52
5.3 Mitigation of Secondary Impacts 54
5.3.1 Erosion and Sedimentation from Development 54
" 5.3.2 Air Quality 55
5.3.3 Wetlands and Surface Water Quality 55
5.3.4 Prime Farmlands 56
i, 5.3.5 Forest Resources 56
5.3.6 Wildlife Resources 56
5.4 Summary 57
`"m References
59
Appendices
P' Appendix 1 Environmental Surveys
Appendix 2 Engineering Calculations and Cost Projections
Appendix 3 Agreement with Wake County
pm Appendix 4 Excerpts from the Town of Holly Springs 2001 Comprehensive Plan
Appendix 5 Memorandum on Potential Surface Water Quality Impacts
Pal
MR
MI
MI
PM
WM
Pol
ii
Pil

P�9
Pig
Fait
1.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT
1.1 Project Overview
Growth and changing regulatory requirements will influence the actions the Town of Holly
Springs will need to take in the coming years regarding its wastewater system. It will be necessary
for the Town to address wastewater collection issues, wastewater treatment needs, and evolving
State and Federal environmental policies and regulations. Growth alone is expected to exert the
greatest influence on wastewater treatment decision making. Growth will require that the Town
take an active role in arranging for the building of a network of interceptor and outfall sewers to
which the collection sewers being built as part of new developments can be connected. The Town
is expected to continue to be successful in arranging to have much of the interceptor and outfall
network actually constructed by private developers consistent with the Town's plans. The Town
will need to take a more direct role in arranging for the financing and construction of wastewater
treatment facilities.
1.2 Need for Project
The need for wastewater system improvements is demonstrated by the following observations
regarding the Town of Holly Springs and its sewer system.
A. The Town is the fastest growing community in the area and this growth trend is
expected to continue for several years.
B. The current wastewater infrastructure is not adequate for dealing with the growth.
D. Additional wastewater treatment plant capacity will be necessary within the next 5-8
years, and if growth continues at the rate experienced over the last 18 months
additional capacity may be needed in less than 3 years.
E. A master plan for the wastewater interceptor and outfall system is necessary so that
sewer infrastructure built as part of individual developments will be compatible with
and an integral part of a system that best suits the needs of the Town as a whole.
1.3 Expected Time Frame for Project
The implementation of a long-range wastewater plan is expected to be not a single project,
but rather a series of publicly and privately funded projects. Interceptor and outfall system
improvements are expected to be built as a series of sub -projects tied to the time at which individual
land areas are developed. Wastewater treatment improvements are expected to be implemented in
fewer projects of greater scope. The most cost effective wastewater treatment plan is for the Town
to continue to operate a wastewater treatment plant discharging into Utley Creek that would treat
1

IMO
wastewater originating from those portions of the Town that are within the Cape Fear River Basin
while arranging for the Town of Cary to treat that portion of the Town's wastewater that originates
from developments within the portion of the Town within the Neuse River Basin. If long-term
arrangements can be made for treatment of a portion of the Town of Holly Springs' wastewater by
the Town of Cary it will still be necessary to expand the Utley Creek plant to a 1.5.-MGD facility.
' Either this expansion must be completed in the next 24 to 36 months or the Town must complete
arrangements with the Town of Cary and construct a pump station and force main to transport
wastewater originating in the Middle Creek watershed portion of the Town to the South Cary
Wastewater Treatment Plant in the same time period. If arrangements with the Town of Cary
.• cannot be satisfactorily concluded, then an additional expansion of the Utley Creek plant,
preferably to,_a capacity of 4.88 MGD, will need to be constructed before the end of the current 20
year planning period. The timing for this second expansion will be dictated by the Town's actual
rate of growth, but most likely be needed around the year 2012.
M-
r
1
r
r
1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
A. The Town should arrange for construction of a network interceptor sewers as
described in Section 3.12 of this document. Timing of construction of individual
system components can be made dependent on the timing of development of the areas
served by those components. Where actual design and construction is undertaken by
private developers, the Town should ensure through its development review and
approval process that line sizes, capacities, and locations are consistent with those
system described in Section 3.12.
B . When constructed, the outfall and interceptor system alignments should be developed
consistent with the recommendations given in Section 5.2.4 so that adverse
environmental impacts resulting from construction can be minimized.
C. Alternative interceptor/outfall line arrangements are possible in the Bass Lake and
Sunset Lake areas. These alternatives are described and compared in Section 3.13.
There is no compelling environmental reason to select either one of the two available
alternatives over the other. It is suggested that when the time approaches for
completing the sewer outfall work in this area that the Town conduct one or more
public meetings for the purposes of explaining to the public the trade-offs involved
when selecting one alternate over the other, and for the purpose of soliciting the views
of the public on their preferences with regards to the available alternatives.

- D. The Town should pursue making provisions to meet its project 20-year wastewater
flow needs of 2.74 MGD. The provisions that would be most cost-effective would
include making arrangements with the Town of Cary by which the Town of Cary
would agree to accept and treat up to 1.26 MGD of wastewater from the Town of
Holly Springs. Wastewater from the Middle Creek drainage portion of the Town of
Holly Springs would be treated by the Town of Cary, while the Town of Holly
Springs would continue to treat and discharge into Utley Creek all other wastewater.
The facilities on Utley Creek would need to be expanded to 1.5 MGD.The facilities
required to implement this recommendation are those described as Alternative T-3
(treatment components) and 0-3 (outfall system components) in Section 3.6.
IMO
E. It has not been possible to date to negotiate a satisfactory agreement with the Town of
.. Cary. The Town of Holly Springs is presently issuing new residential building
permits at a rate of 50 plus per month. This growth rate, if it continues, can be
— expected to increase the Town's wastewater flows by as much as 162,000 gallons a
day per year. At this rate, the Town's 0.500 MGD plant could be fully utilized in little
more than 2 years. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Town implement
alternative T-6 described in Section 3.4. This alternative would involve the Town
proceeding immediately with expansion of its Utley Creek facility to a capacity of 1.5
MGD. If arrangements with the Town of Cary for treatment of a portion of the
Town's wastewater, as called for by Alternative T-3, can be successfully concluded,
further expansions of the Utley Creek program can be avoided in the foreseeable
future, although a future upgrade to add nutrient removal capability may be necessary.
.., If arrangements with the Town of Cary cannot be successfully concluded, the Town
of Holly Springs will need to expand the Utley Creek plant again, preferably to a
capacity of 4.88 MGD. Based on projected growth rates for the Town, this second
expansion will be needed around the year 2012. If growth continues to accelerate as it
has in 1995 and 1996, this second expansion could be needed even sooner than the
year 2012.
_ F. The Town of Holly Springs should apply for a NPDES permit modification to allow it
to expand its wastewater system capacity. The minimum discharge amount requested
should be 1.5 MGD. Since the need to construct a 4.88 MGD plant may materialize
within the next twenty years (actual wastewater flows would not be expected to reach
the 4.88 MGD level for 30 or more years), a NPDES discharge permit allowing for a
4.88 MGD discharge would be preferable. If, however, the NC-DEM feels studies
requiring extensive time to conduct would be needed before a 4.88 MGD permit could

NMI
IMO
NMI
IIMI
A.
be issued, the Town should amend its permit application to a lessor amount so that it
can proceed with the 1.00 MGD expansion (total discharge capacity 1.5 MGD) needed
immediately to accommodate growth.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT ENVIRONMENT
2.1 General Overview
The environment in and around the Town of Holly Springs is characteristic of many areas in
the Piedmont Region of North Carolina. There are two lakes and many creeks and water courses in
the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). There are some wooded areas remaining, but much of the
land is either used for agriculture or has been developed for residential and commercial purposes.
,,,i,, This section of the report identifies the environmental conditions and resources of the area as they
currently exist. Environmental aspects discussed include Geography, Geology, Soils, Air Quality,
Hydrology, Wetlands, and Endangered and Threatened Species.
2.2 Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction
P•, Located in southwest Wake County, the Town of Holly Springs is bordered on the north by
the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) area of Apex, on the south by the Fuquay-Varina ETJ, and
on the west by lands owned by Carolina Power and Light (CP&L). There is a large acreage east of
the Town ETJ that is not presently within any municipal planning jurisdiction. The land is expected
to eventually be divided between the ETJ's of Holly Springs and the Town of Cary.
Pw
The political entity of Holly Springs is organized as a governmental unit under the authority of
its charter from the State of North Carolina. The Town of Holly Springs is governed by the
"mayor -commissioners" type of government; the Mayor and five Commissioners are elected for
two-year terms. As a local government in North Carolina it is empowered to perform acts such as
Pal
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.
'a' 2.3 Land Use
The area east of the Holly Springs eastern most ETJ line is expected to eventually fall into the
1.' paramunicipal jurisdiction of either Holly Springs or the Town of Cary. The Town of Holly
Springs is experiencing rapid residential growth, with the largest concentration being on the eastern
Pal side of Town, most notably the Sunset Ridge subdivision near Sunset Lake with approximately
615 lots.
Areas north and west of Town are considered suitable for predominantly commercial and
industrial development, with some residential development. The proposed Wake County Outer
5

Loop will lie approximately three miles north of Town and will likely spur more commercial
development in this area. West of Town, the potential growth area extends up to the property
owned and controlled by Carolina Power and Light Company which operates the Shearon Harris
mil
Nuclear Plant on this property. The land between CP&L property and the Town is a logical and
practical area for expansion, especially for industrial customers.
furl
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. Collinswood subdivision with 194
pm
lots is the most substantial development planned for this area at present.
r, 2.4 Topography
The Holly Springs ETJ lies entirely in Wake County, which is located in the east -central part
P, of the State of North Carolina. The topography of the area in the ETJ is characterized by steep
slopes, especially along water courses. Travelling to the east the slopes become more gradual, but
the land may still be considered hilly, with some small areas of level ground. Generally, elevations
wv
range from 200 to 550 feet above mean sea level. Figure 1 is a topographic map of the ETJ.
PM2.5 Climate
The Holly Springs area enjoys a temperate climate with cold, but not severe, winters and
rim 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
mg
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.
Table 1 Weather Data
gm
Average Daily Maximum Average Daily Minimum Average Total Precipitation
Month
Temperature (°F) Temperature (°F) (inches)
PA January 51 33 3.3
February 53 34 3.5
March 61 41 3.7
April 71 49 3.8
faml May 79 58 3.8
June 86 66 3.9
July 88 69 5.9
August 87 68 5.4
0111 September 82 63 4.6
October 72 52 2.8
November 61 42 3.0
December 52 34 3.2
RIR Annual 70 51 46.9
Data taken from the USGS Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
gm
6

L
yai
JT
c.i F....„...:J''Im---.
;-...... ,,c;-------7---:41,--_--
4if.,,,-.- __L-=-;-----2,. ,,L• .,.1 IBC - • i/
:
tam, To Apex
<
k*: •/
\V'tio•
\.-- • '(
:41
as-7
pp- .
• \;:k
, 7 • \
7 (
•
I f,
1) t —
FIGURE 1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Scale: 1 in.=2.000 ft.
-
To Fuquay-Varina
•
tMg1,.•c"
if ce-1--
: •
Cer7
L..,„
— • .1,
= • a
= ---
c
•
0

WI
2.6 Geology, Soils & Agricultural Resources
fml
2.6.1 Geology
WI
leal
WI
WI
r"
WI
mq
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
w 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.
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 located to 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
m' 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
1.+ severe when used in conjunction with sewage systems, septic tank filter fields, and light industrial
development, and rated moderate to severe for recreational development. White Store Soils are
well suited for use in general agriculture, woodlands and pasture, rated severe for sewage systems,
,,.,, septic tank filter fields and light industrial development and moderate to severe for recreational
development. A small section of Creedmoor-White Store soils may be found in the south western
most corner of the ETJ. Because of the limitations of these types of soils with respect to septic tank
absorption fields, this area cannot be developed to any degree without central sewer lines.
""' 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
c+ 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,
,E, 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.
PM
8
FM

Table 2 Soil Associations
Map Number Soil Type
1 Creedmoor-White Store; Gently sloping to hilly
2 Mayodan-Granville-Creedmoor; Gently sloping
to moderately steep
3 Herndon-Georgeville; Gently sloping to
moderately steep
5 Cecil-Appling; Gently sloping to steep
8 Appling; Gently sloping to moderately steep
9 Wagram-Norfolk; Nearly level to sloping
Information taken from USGS Soil Survey of Wake County (Issued
November 1970).
r•r
r
f 1 I � 1 hit l{
oh -it
C,I1n Ilemnst
(•ru
la)
r r
5.
.oQRvitlt•
1.4&•r irti rr
of rtl}
--Qe•k
" How .. rifle
FIGURE 2
GENERA I, SOILS MAI'
Scale: 1 in. = 21120 ft.
Six
f nrk4
•
I'urttrll
,•tft• Ik� ,41,
:•
Nh/ • Pm
WHOA
'1 •.4V II.H.10
1!
kT
friir {
a
8 /
/

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
,••, 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.
imp
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
10

PEI
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
,o, 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 µm), Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone as adopted by the State and Federal Agencies are
listed as follows:
1•1 Table 3 National & State Ambient Air Quality Standards
limi
• Pollutant
Type of
Average
Standard Level Concentrations
Primary
Secondaryb
NC Regs.
PM10
24-Hour
AAMI
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 p.g/m3
50 p.g/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
SO2
3-Hour2
24-Hour2
AAMI
N/A
365 14/m3
80 µg/m3
1300 µg/m3
N/A
N/A
1300 µg/m3
365 p.g/m3
80 p.g/m3
03
Max. Daily
1-Hour Avg.
0.12 ppm
235 µg/m3
0.12 ppm
235 µg/m3
0.12 ppm
235 µg/m3
1 Annual Arithmetic Mean
2 Not to be exceeded more than once per year a Primary Standards are set to protect the public health.
b Secondary Standards are set such that they protect the public well-being (ie
to prevent damage to crops, ecosystems, materials, etc.).
Because there are no monitoring stations in the immediate area of the Town of Holly Springs,
the data from monitoring locations in the surrounding area must be used to evaluate the air quality
in the Holly Springs area. The recorded ambient air quality data for the years 1992 and 1994 at the
Air Quality Monitoring Surveillance Stations in the region are summarized on the next page. It
should be noted that the data for Ozone was collected during the annual ozone season of April 1 to
October 31. A review of the existing ambient air quality data in the area indicates that the annual
mean concentrations of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and ozone, as well as the smaller time unit
maximums, have not exceeded the established National Ambient Air Quality Standards and are
therefore in compliance with State and Federal regulations.
11

10.9
�gri4 9WFtlliki 4
ImPI
Table 4 Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant
Location
Year
Max 24-Hour
Max 3-Hour
Max 1-Hour
AAM
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
SO2
Chatham Co.
Moncure Plant
199
2
64
µg m
48
µm
131
µgm
1
30
µg/m3
2
93
µg/m3
2
72
µg/m3
9
ggfin3
Valid Daily 1-Hour Maximum
Values
Measured
> 0.125
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
03
Chatham Co.
Moncure Plant
1992
0.085
ppm
0.082
ppm
0.080
ppm
0.075 ppm
0
Wake Co. 201 N
Broad
1994
0.117
ppm
0.111
ppm
' 0.106
ppm
0.101 ppm
0
Maximum Values
AAM
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
PM10
Chatham Co. Rt.. 4
Box 62 Pittsboro
1994
45 µg/m3
34 µg/m3
34 µg/m3
33 µg/m3
21 µg/m3
Wake Co. Fire Sta.
#9 Six Forks Rd.
1994
48 µg/m3
38 µg/m3
37 µg/m3
36 µg/m3
22 µg/m3
2.10 Hydrology
2.10.1 Groundwater Resources
The Town of Holly Springs currently obtains a portion of its water supply from 2 active
wells. The first well (Well #4) is 260 feet deep and produces 40 gallons of water per minute. The
second well (Well #5) is 405 feet deep and produces 125 gallons of water per minute. The first five
months of 1994 saw an actual average water production of 3,635,060 gallons per month, requiring
the wells be pumped more than the desirable average of 12 hours per day. This production rate is
for January through May. Water usage rate typically increases with temperature. The overall yield
from both wells is not always sufficient to meet the demands of the Town, and water must be
�.., purchased from the Towns of Fuquay-Varina and Apex. Expected future growth in the region will
increase the demand on the water supply, resulting in the need for further supplementation from
surrounding towns or the development of other options. A new well (Well #6) is under
construction in the Sunset Ridge area, and is expected to produce a maximum of 90 gallons per
minute. This should temporarily help reduce the need to purchase water from outside sources.
Groundwater resources alone are not expected to be adequate to meet the long term growth needs
12
Imf

of the Town and direct or indirect use (through agreements with other units of government) of
PM
surface water sources will be required in the long run.
Pml 2.10.2 Surface Water Resources
The waters in the Holly Springs ETJ drain to both the Neuse and Cape Fear Rivers. About 60
'" percent of the ETJ lies in the Neuse River Basin to the east; the remaining 40 percent lies in the
Cape Fear River Basin to the west. The Middle Creek watershed is the major Neuse River sub -
Pal 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):
mi
PM
PEI
llal
full
Table 5 Surface Waters
Stream Segment
River
Basin
Hydrologic Data
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi.)
Average
Discharge
(cfs)
7110 Low
Flow (cfs)
Middle Creek at Cary WWTP
point of Discharge
Neuse
32
85
0.3
Headwaters of Utley Creek at
Holly Springs
Cape0.73
Fear
0.82
0.11
2.10.3 Existing Water Quality
,.., The North Carolina Department of Environmental Management -Water Quality Section
(NC-DEM) has published Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans for both the Neuse and
Cape Fear Rivers. Each river basin is divided into numerous subbasins so that evaluation of
pin
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
lial
River Subbasin 030403 and the Cape Fear River Subbasin 030607. These subbasins are described
as follows:
lug
Neuse River Subbasin 030403
This subbasin covers parts of Wake and Johnston Counties and contains Middle Creek and its
Ma
tributaries. There are 18 permitted dischargers in this subbasin with a total discharge capacity of
16.8691 MGD. The two largest discharges are the Apex WWTP (treatment capacity= 3.6 MGD)
P" 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 subbasin).
pm Both of these wastewater treatment plants discharge directly into Middle Creek.
Pal
13
Pal

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, 4-13),pH, and
temperature. The three monitored freshwater segments in the Middle Creek Subbasin have been
classified and evaluated as follows:
MEI
1101
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
ranprotected 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,
4.+ 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.
14

Prl
The Use Support Rating is an evaluation of how well the stream segment is fulfilling its
MI
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
1.4 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
MI 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
Mil
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
mn
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
far treatment requirements." Due to the current status of the waters in the Middle Creek watershed and
subbasin, the Neuse River Water Quality Plan calls for no new permits to be issued for discharge
pm into Middle Creek, except for the case in which an existing permit has decreased discharge
limitations upon renewal.
rim Cape Fear River Subbasin 030607
This subbasin is in the Upper Cape Fear River watershed in the segment from the confluence
rat
of the Haw and Deep Rivers to Lock and Dam #3. The streams of concern in or near the ETJ are
Utley Creek, Little Branch and Norris Branch. Holly Springs wastewater treatment plant
`"' discharges into Utley Creek, in which occasional DO levels as low as 4.8 mg/1 have been noted
below the plant's point of discharge. DO levels in excess of the saturation concentration of oxygen
r■+ 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
p., 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
WI
classified and evaluated as follows:
MI Classification: C
Chemical Rating: S
Problem Parameter: Sedimentation
Overall Use Support: S
Pal
Explanations for these ratings are the same as have been described above.
mi
15
Pr

Prior to expansion of the Holly Springs wastewater treatment plant discharging into Utley
Creek, the Cape Fear River Water Quality Plan calls for a survey of the water quality below the
point of discharge, due to high instream waste concentrations. Pursuant to this plan in -stream
monitoring of Utley Creek has been increased. Based on the data gathered from this monitoring
and preliminary modeling, the Instream Assessment Unit of the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management has concluded that Utley Creek could accept 1.5 MGD of wastewater
treated to meet advanced tertiary limits. Additional modeling work will be needed to determine if
larger, treated wastewater flows can be accepted without instream dissolved oxygen level water
quality problems. The additional monitoring of Utley Creek has also indicated that there is a
potential nutrient loading problem. Additional monitoring information will need to be collected by
the NC-DEM before firm conclusions can be drawn, but the NC-DEM has alerted the Town that
future nutrient limitations are a possibility for discharges into Utley Creek. (See June 19, 1996
Andrew McDaniel memorandum to Alan Clark in Appendix 5).
2.11 Vegetation and Wildlife
A Jurisdictional Wetlands and Protected Species Survey was conducted by Robert J.
Goldstein & Associates, Inc (RJG&A) (included as Appendix 1), as a part of this study. There are
many areas in the Holly Springs ETJ that have disjunct populations of plants that are typical of
both mountain and coastal plain habitats as well as a diverse community of species typical of the
^ Piedmont area. This region may generally be described as a broad floodplain containing high
quality mesic hardwood forests of sweetgum, loblolly pine, oaks, beech and tulip poplar trees,
with seeps and floodplain pools creating a mosaic of jurisdictional wetland and non wetland areas.
Wetlands in the ETJ consist of wooded swamps which cover the low-lying areas bordering the
streams and water courses. They serve as a refuge area for a variety of wildlife and are excellent
areas for growing certain types of timber.
MEI
INN
Table 7 Protected Animals and Habitat Availability in Wake Co.
Scientific Name
Common Name
State Federal
Protec- Protec-
tion tion
Status Status
Habitat Requirements
Habitat
Avail-
ability
in ETJ
VERTEBRATES
Aimophila aestivalis
Ambystoma tigrinum
Coragyps atratus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hemidactylium scutatum
Lampetra aepyptera
Lanius ludovicianus
Bachman's sparrow
Tiger salamander
Black vulture
Bald Eagle
Four -toed salamander
Least brook lamprey
Loggerhead shrike
SC
T
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
16
C2
E
C2
open, mature pine forest
sandy forests near vernal pools
hollow trees or rock crevices
mature trees along rivers & lakes
ponded seeps with mossy Togs
streams
open grassland, farms

Common Name
Scientific Name
State Federal
Protec- Protec-
tion tion
Status Status
Habitat Requirements
Habitat
Avail-
ability
in ETJ
Myotis austroriparius Southeastern bat SC C2
Myotis septentrionalis Keen's (n. long-eared) bat SC
Necturus lewisii Neuse River watcrdog SC
Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom SC
Picoides borealis Red -cockaded woodpecker E E
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 slabshcll T
Fusconaia masoni 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
17
hollow trees or buildings, near rivers
hollow trees or caves, extensive forests
streams
streams
open, extensive, mature pine forests
bottomland forests with vine thickets
++
streams ++
streams ++
streams ++
streams +
streams ++
streams +
streams +
mesic and floodplain forests +
streams ++
pools on granite flatrock

Scientific Name Common Name
State Federal
Protec- Protec-
tion tion
Status Status
Habitat Requirements
Habitat
Avail-
ability
in ETJ
Monotropsis odorant Sweet pinesap - C2
Portulaca smallii Small's portulaca E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E E
Rueilia humilis Low wild -petunia T
Trillium pusillum Carolina least trillium E C2
upland hardwood/pine forests +
sandy/rocky woodland edges
dry, open, basic woods +
calcareous seeps, streambanks +
E= Endangered; T Threatened;SC=Special Concem;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 surveyed the biological environment along the routes of potential interceptor
and outfall lines in the Holly Springs area. The Survey has shown that a portion of Middle Creek
supports the federally endangered dwarf wedge mussel as well as four mussel populations
protected by the state (triangle floater, yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe, and squawfoot). Two state
protected fish populations (Carolina madtom and least brook lamprey) and a state protected
salamander, the Neuse River waterdog, have also been known to live in Middle Creek. The
floodplain pools of Middle Creek are also the breeding ground for the state threatened tiger
salamander. The adult tiger salamanders are thought to live in the upland forests of the area. The
Holly Springs area has also been known to support Didiplis diandra, Nestronia umbellula,
Cypripedium calceolus, and Hexastylis lewisii . These four plant species are considered rare, but
are unprotected by both the state and federal governments. Table 7 provides a detailed list of
candidates and species that may be found in Wake County and are found on either (or both) the
state or federal register of protected species. The table also shows habitat requirements and
availability in the County for each species. More detailed information may be found in Appendix 1.
RJG&A, Inc. identified nine registered species as being found in or near the Holly Springs
area. Of these species, only one is considered Federally Endangered - the Dwarf Wedge mussel.
There were two other species found that are listed on the Federal Register as Category 2
Candidates. These are the yellow lance and the Atlantic pigtoe. The yellow lance is considered
Endangered by the State, while the Atlantic pigtoe, as well as the tiger salamander, triangle floater,
and the squawfoot mussel are listed as Threatened by the State. The least brook lamprey, the
18

[�I
Rol
mpg
mit
0.4
Neuse River waterdog, and the Carolina madtom are under Special Concern in the State, but are
not listed on the Federal Register of Endangered Species.
2.12 Conclusion
The Town of Holly Springs, in the Central Piedmont Region of North Carolina, is a growing
area for commercial, industrial and residential development. The use of land for agriculture is
becoming impractical as land values increase. There are few areas left undeveloped within the ETJ
with adequate soils for use with on -site treatment systems, and a central wastewater collection
system will be needed to serve nearly all of the area. Air quality conditions are well within the
Federally established standards, however water quality in some waters in the area is threatened.
The Town of Holly Springs does not currently have a sufficient supply of water to support the
projected population, and any growth in the Town will further tax the supply. This situation is
remedied with the purchase of water from neighboring Towns, and the development of an
additional well. An analysis of vegetation and wildlife in the area did reveal the presence of a
federally endangered species, the dwarf wedge mussel. This species was found in Middle Creek,
causing concern for the future possibility of discharging treated wastewater effluent into this
Creek. Eight additional species of concern were also found within the Holly Springs ETJ.
19

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. The wastewater collection and transportation
systems will also have to be expanded to accommodate Town growth. Wastewater interceptors and
outfall routes are largely dictated by topography. However, construction of these facilities can also
have an impact on the environment and, where appropriate, alternative outfall line routes have been
developed.
1.1
wastewater flows. The Town's historical population trends provide only limited information in this
regard. The Town's population remained relatively stable in the 1960's, 1970's and much of the
1980's. However, beginning in the late 1980's the Town's population began to expand rapidly,
and its population as estimated by the North Carolina Department of Administration in 1992
(1,382) was 52% greater than the 1990 population (908). The 1990 population was in turn 32%
greater than the 1980 population (688). Growth from 1980 to 1990 proceeded at a compounded
con annual average rate of 3 percent (roughly 1/2 percentage point lower than Wake County as a
whole), while between 1990 and 1992 growth occurred at an annual rate of 23%. This rate, if
continued, would result in the Town having a population in excess of 90,000 within the next
1.4
twenty years. However, the Town has a finite geographic area in which to expand, and this area is
simply too small to support such a large population. At any rate, a sustained annual growth rate of
23% per year would be unprecedented in Wake County.
3.2 Population Projections and Wastewater Flow Projections
Identifying the existing and future service area population is a key factor in projecting
The amount of area available for Holly Springs development is finite, and at full development
Holly Springs and its current ETJ would be expected to have a population of approximately 25,000
people. Reaching this population within a 20-year planning period would require a sustained
average annual growth rate of 16%. If the Town were to sustain the 23% annual growth it
experienced between 1990 and 1992, it would reach full development in 13 years (the year 2008).
'a' It appears more likely that the Town, while continuing to grow rapidly, will not reach full
development in even 20 years. Perhaps the best model by which to predict long-term Holly
Springs growth is the experience of the Town of Cary.
20

•
I47(
I�
= - PROPER � OF L , r,; i
• PO Wgg & LIGET �' = � 1 it
rss
:
Y
• . Ns' o 1+41SOartdOA RR
• i f �ti4�n�„rs,• a
A1ghw y 53 -
dmul
li►frty �. ..
i.
'cm
• •j . • -
SR 1115 Z.:,s� i�C'_, a'
NORTH
FIG I'R F. 3
DRAINAGE AREA SUB -BASINS
I.et�en d
111111111111, Sub -Basin Boundary
Drainaie Flow Path
Prepares! B.
.
The
Wooten
Company
Enameenno

The Town of Cary grew at an average annual rate of 7% during the 1980's, and during the
1970's grew at an even higher 9% per annum. Even allowing for a full percentage point more in
growth for Holly Springs than the highest rate experienced in Cary, (i.e. 10%/year versus
`.' 9%/year), the Town of Holly Springs would not reach but 50% of its full development population
by the year 2015. It would therefore be conservative for long range planning purposes to assume
population in the year 2015 of 12,500, and a full development population of 25,000.
Design wastewater flow projections account for three types of usage: (1) domestic, (2)
commercial, industrial, and institutional, and; (3) infiltration and inflow. Wastewater flow
projections are used in planning both collection line improvements and in planning for wastewater
treatment facilities. Treatment facilities are typically designed based on 10 to 20 year planning
periods, while collection facilities are usually designed for much longer periods (30 to 40 years).
,.., Treatment systems are typically designed based on average daily flows. Collection systems must
be designed based on peak instantaneous flows.
rem The projected average daily wastewater flows for the Town in the year 2015 (50%
development), the year 2016 (20 year design year) and at full development are projected below:
Year 2015 20-Year (2016) Full Development
Domestic Use* 0.875 MGD 1.003 MGD 1.750 MGD
Commercial/Institutional** 1.340 MGD 1.537 MGD 2.680 MGD
Infiltration/Inflow*** 0.135 MGD 0.150 MGD 0.400 MGD
Wake County Landfill**** 0.050 MGD 0.050 MGD 0.050 MGD
Total 2.400 MGD 2.740 MGD 4.880 MGD
rem * Based on average wastewater generation of 70 gals per capita per day, year 2015
population of 12,500, full development population of 25,000.
** Based on 2000 gallons per acre of development. 670 acres developed in the year 2015,
1340 acres developed at full development.
*** Projected based on 10 gallons per capita per day for the year 2015, and 15 gallons per
capita per day at full development when the average sewer line age will be much greater
and leaks more prevalent.
'"' **** The Town of Holly Springs is 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
r•q assist the Town in developing a State approved pretreatment program. (See Appendix 3
for agreement)
Peak flows at full development will be used to size gravity collection lines and interceptors.
Figure 3 shows the Town of Holly Springs divided into drainage areas that would be tributary to
particular existing and planned sewer lines. Table 8 shows the expected land uses and peak flows
Forl
from each of these areas at full development. Land uses within each area were determined using the
22

Town of Holly Springs Land Use Plan. The flow projections in Table 8 are those used in planning
wastewater collection lines, including interceptor and outfall lines.
Table 8
DRAINAGE BASIN LAND USE AND PROJECTED FLOWS
(see Figure 3)
mitDrainage Area of # People Average
ak
Sub -Basin Zoning Type Sub -Basin per Flow Pa (gpd)Flo
gpd) w
(Acres) Sub -Basin (gpd)
Poi
Residential .4 . 2.500 183.101 457.753
Total 711 2,500 323,101 807,753
1.1 Commercial/Industrial 70 N/A 140,000 350,000
PR 1.2 Commercial/Industrial 442 N/A 884,000 2,210,000
Residential 133 602 45.125 112,813
mil Total 575 602 929,125 2,322,813
1.3 Commercial/Industrial 85 N/A 170,000 425,000
Residential 2.2 1.858 139.336 348.340
mill
Total 367 1,858 309,336 773,340
2.1 Commercial/Industrial 300 N/A 600,000 1,500,000
film Residential 441 1.759 131.974 329.935
Total 741 1,759 731,974 1,829,935
r*n
2.2 Commercial/Industrial 75 N/A 150,000 375,000
Residential 2&1 BM 60.021 150.053
Total 282 800 210,021 525,053
rum
3.1 Commercial/Industrial 212 N/A 424,000 1,060,000
Residential 794 2.158 161,822 404.555
rim Total 1,006 2,158 585,822 1,464,555
3.2 Commercial/Industrial 12 N/A 1,944 4,860
Residential 9. j 2.275 170.667 426.668
t+m
Total 963 2,275 172,611 431,528
3.3 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
mai Residential 665 3.214 241.088 602.720
Total 665 3,214 241,088 602,720
3.4 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Pr
Residential 389 $4Q 63.018 157.545
Total 389 840 63,018 157,545
mil
3.5 Commercial/Industrial 62 N/A 124,000 310,000
Residential 433 235 70.146 175.365
PM Total 495 935 194,146 485,365
4.1 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
23

PngI
Residential 520 2.280 170.975 427.438
MI
Total 520 2,280 170,975 427,438
4.2 Commercial/Industrial 46 N/A 92,000 230,000
a•m Residential 675 2.602 195.178 487.945
Total 721 2,602 287,178 717,945
Post 4.3 Commercial/Industrial 39 N/A 78,000 195,000
Residential 621 2.1_26 159,505 398.763
Total 660 2,126 237,505 593,763
4.4 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential 326 717 53.784 134.460
m Total 326 717 53,784 134,460
4.6 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential 84 136 10.206 25.515
mg
Total 84 136 10,206 25;515
4.7 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
con
Residential 119 121 14,459 36,148
Total 119 193 14,459 36,148
cim 4.8 Commercial/Industrial 0 N/A 0 0
Residential 197 312 23.936 59.840
Total 197 319 23,936 59,840
Psi
rwri
Total Commercial/
Industrial 1,343 N/A 2,663,944 6,659,860
rail Total Residential 7.478 25.314 1.894,341 4.735.853
Grand Total 8,821 25,314 4,558,285 11,395,713
Landfill Allowance 50.000
run
TOTAL 8,821 25,314 4,608,285 11,395,713
Fi,, 3.3 Wastewater Treatment And Outfall System Expansion Scenarios
In order to determine the probable least life cycle cost wastewater treatment solution, a number
of alternatives were evaluated. The Water Quality Basin Plan for Neuse River Basin developed by
PRI
the State of North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NC-DEM) calls for no new
discharges into Middle Creek. Informal contacts with NC-DEM staff indicated that this portion of
P�1
the plan would likely be enforced as long as reasonable alternatives to creating a new discharge into
Middle Creek existed. Discharge to a regional system (assuming arrangements for such a discharge
could be made at an affordable cost), increasing the permitted capacity of the existing plant
discharging into Utley Creek, and, if economical, land application of wastewater would all be
considered by the NC-DEM as reasonable alternatives. Given these constraints, three different
treatment scenarios exist:
24

PEI
Owl
Case I: The Town of Holly Springs relies on a single wastewater treatment plant
to meet all its projected 20-year needs. Wastewater treatment having a
capacity of 2.74 MGD per day is provided.
Case II: The Town of Holly Springs relies on its existing wastewater treatment
plant to continue to provide 0.500 MGD of capacity. Additional
wastewater treatment capacity of 2.24 MGD is provided by alternative
means.
Case III:The Town of Holly Springs makes arrangements for treatment from
wastewater originating in the portion of Town within the Cape Fear River
watershed separate from the arrangements made for treatment of the
portion of Town within the Neuse River portion of Town. This would
result in the provision of 1.2 MGD of wastewater treatment plant capacity
for the Neuse River watershed portion of the Town and the provision of
1.5 MGD of wastewater treatment plant capacity in the Cape Fear
watershed portion of the Town.
Alternative treatment system configurations also require alternative outfall line and interceptor
configurations. Transporting all of the wastewater to a single point within the Town would be
required within the Town with any alternative formulated to satisfy Case I. Case II would require
that only 2.2 MGD transport capacity be required, while Case III would require that a transport
system capable of handling at least an average data flow of 1.2 mgd be provided on the Neuse
River watershed portion of the Town, and that a transport system capable of handling at least 1.5
mgd be added for that part of the Town within the Cape Fear River watershed.
A substantial amount of the wastewater originating within the Town must be pumped to a
treatment site under any possible scenario. The growth rate within the Town is such that the design
flow for any pump station and force main system will be much greater than actual flows expected
upon construction completion. In order to avoid excessive retention time within the force main and
disproportionately high peak flow to average daily flow ratios during the earlier portions of the
design period, it is necessary to provide for phased force main construction. Smaller diameter force
mains and lower capacity wastewater pumps would be installed initially. After sufficient growth
occurred, second, larger diameter force mains would be installed parallel to the first force mains.
Larger capacity pumps would be brought into service, and the smaller diameter force mains would
be temporarily removed from service. As growth within the service area continued to increase, the
smaller diameter force mains would be brought back into service on a permanent basis.
3.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives
Six different alternative long-range wastewater treatment systems were developed for dealing
with the Case I, Case 11, and Case III scenarios. These alternatives are described as follows:
Alternative T-1: The Town would construct a 2.7 MGD treatment plant on Utley Creek. This
plant would be capable of serving the projected 20-year needs for the entire Town, including that
25

PIP
part of the Town within the Neuse River (Middle Creek) watershed.The treatment plant would be
designed for biological nutrient removal and would be capable of meeting effluent BOD5 and
ammonia limits of 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively.
Alternative T-2: Under this alternative the Town would abandon its existing plant, and convey
all of its wastewater to the Town of Cary wastewater treatment plant on Middle Creek.
Arrangements would be made to purchase the rights to 2.7 MGD capacity within that plant.
,.I Alternative T-3 : Under this alternative the Town of Holly Springs would make arrangements
with the Town of Cary to treat the projected 1.2 MGD 20-year wastewater flows from the portion
of the Town within the Neuse River watershed, while constructing a 1.5 MGD treatment plant
rem
discharging into Utley Creek to meet the projected 20-year needs for wastewater treatment of that
portion of the Town within the Cape Fear River watershed. The 1.5 MGD plant would be capable
of biological nutrient removal and of meeting effluent BOD5 and ammonia limits of 5 mg/L and 2
mg/L, respectively.
Alternative T-4: Alternative 4 would be identical to Alternative 3 except that rather than
constructing a 1.5 mgd treatment plant on Utley Creek, the existing 0.5 MGD package plant would
remain in service as a complete treatment system, and would be supplemented by purchase of an
additional 1.0 MGD package plant to be installed adjacent to the 0.5 MGD plant. At the time the
1.0 MGD plant was added, provision would be made for chemical removal of phosphorus.
fail
service indefinitely, while arranging for the remaining 2.2 MGD of the Town's projected 20-year
needs to be met by treatment of the Town of Cary's Middle Creek Treatment Plant.
Alternative T-5: Alternative 5 would include keeping the existing 0.5 MGD package plant in
Alternative T-6: Alternative T-6 has been developed to position the Town to deal with a
possible scenario not directly addressed by other alternatives. The scenario Alternative T-6 is
designed to address encompasses two (2) potential developments: (1) the Town's growth
continues to accelerate, forcing the provision of additional wastewater treatment capacity sometime
in 1997 or 1998, and; (2) negotiation with the Town of Cary for treatment of all or a portion of
Holly Springs wastewater is either unsuccessful or so protracted that an interim solution must be
p.m implemented to avoid a moratorium on new sewer connections. Alternative T-6 would involve the
Town immediately installing a 1.0 MGD plant expansion. No provision for nutrient removal would
be made at the time of initial construction, since nutrient limitations have not yet been required
within the Cape Fear River Basin. However, the 1 MGD plant expansion would be designed to
allow future modifications to be made to add biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal
capabilities. Should negotiations with the Town of Cary not ultimately prove successful, the
existing 0.500 MGD package plant component of the 1.5 MGD expanded wastewater treatment
26

facility would eventually be replaced as part of a major wastewater treatment system expansion and
upgrading. This construction would most likely be required around the year 2012 or 2013. It
would involve construction of a plant capable of biological nutrient removal and of releasing an
effluent with BOD and ammonia levels of 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L respectively. For purposes of this
analysis it is assumed the expanded plant would be designed to serve the full development needs of
the Town, which are projected to be 4.88 MGD. Alternative T-6 then has a single, initial treatment
plant cost component, but has two different possible other cost components that would depend on
.. the outcome of negotiations with the Town of Cary. For cost identification purposes, these will be
referred to as Alternative T-6A (involving the ultimate treatment of a portion of Holly Springs
wastewater by the Town of Cary as in Alternate T-3) and Alternative T-6B (involving the
continued treatment of all of the Town's wastewater by a plant discharging to Utley Creek).
.. 3.5 Wastewater Outfall System Alternatives
The location and sizing of wastewater outfall lines (including pump stations and force mains)
will necessarily vary depending on the selected wastewater treatment plant alternative.
Accordingly, to allow a complete analysis of long-range wastewater facilities options for the
,., Town, four different outfall system alternatives were formulated. These alternatives are described
as follows:
"'" Alternative 0-1: This alternative would be used in conjunction with treatment plant Alternative
T-1 and possibly, Alternative T-6. A lift station would be constructed on Middle Creek, just
., downstream of Sunset Lake, to convey all of the wastewater originating within the Neuse River
Basin watershed to a gravity line leading to the Utley Creek treatment plant. The pump station
.. would have an initial capacity of 525 gallons per minute (gpm) and would discharge through a 10-
inch diameter force main. Later, 1,250 gpm pumps and a second, 12-inch diameter force main
_ would be installed. The existing Utley Creek outfall line would remain in service, but would be
paralleled with a 24-inch diameter line.
.., Alternative 0-2: This outfall system alternative would be used with Alternative T-2. Two major
lift stations would be constructed, one at the site of the present Utley Creek wastewater treatment
plant, and the other on Middle Creek just below Sunset Lake. The Utley Creek lift station would
have an initial capacity of 525 gpm and would discharge through a 10-inch diameter force main. As
growth occurred with the Town, 1,390 gpm pumps and a 14-inch force main would be added. The
IMO
Middle Creek pump station would have an initial capacity of 350 gpm and would discharge
through an 8-inch force main. As growth in the Town warranted, 1,180 gpm pumps and a second
12-inch diameter force main would be added. The Utley Creek and Middle Creek force mains
would be joined together at the intersection of SR 1301 and SR 1390, and from there wastewater
27

would be conveyed to the Town of Cary Middle Creek wastewater treatment plant. This force main
PER
would run along SR 1390, then along Camp Branch Outfall to the Town of Cary plant. Initially, a
single, 12-inch force main would carry the flows from the single 10-inch Utley Creek and 8-inch
Middle Creek force mains to the Town of Cary plant. When these force mains were paralleled with
14-inch and 12-inch force mains respectively, a second, 16-inch force main would be added to
'"`' convey the combined flows to the Cary plant. The existing Utley Creek outfall line would remain
in service, but would be paralleled with a 18-inch diameter line.
P OI
rim
Alternative 0-3: This outfall system alternative would be used with treatment plant alternatives
T-3, T-4, and possibly T-6. Under this alternative, a pump station having an initial capacity of 350
p.9 gpm would be built on Middle Creek just downstream from Sunset Lake to convey wastewater
through an 8-inch force main to the Town of Cary plant. As growth warranted, 1,180 gpm pumps
r., would be added, and a second, 12-inch force main discharging to the Cary plant would be added.
The Utley Creek outfall line would eventually be paralleled with an 18-inch diameter line.
Alternative 0-4 : This outfall line alternative would be used in conjunction with treatment plant
alternative T-5. A pump station would be built on Middle Creek just downstream of Sunset Lake.
,., Initially, 350 gpm pumps discharging through an 8-inch force main to the Town of Cary plant
would be installed. Later, a 525 gpm pump discharging through a 10-inch force main would be
installed at the Utley Creek treatment plant. The Utley Creek and Middle Creek force mains would
be joined together at the intersection of SR 1301 and SR 1390, and a 12-inch force main would
convey the combined wastewater flows to the Town of Cary's Middle Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant. As growth continued, 1,180 gpm pumps would be added to the Middle Creek
pump station and a 12-inch discharge force main would be constructed parallel to the 8-inch force
main. At the Utley Creek pump station, 1,380 gpm pumps would be added and a second, 14-inch
diameter force main constructed. The 12-inch force main leading from the confluence of the Middle
Creek and Utley Creek force mains would be parallel with a 16-inch force main.
3.6 Construction Timing
It would not be necessary to construct all improvements initially under any alternative. Based
on the projected growth rates, the following is the projected time table for wastewater treatment
plant construction improvements for each alternative.
Alternative T-1:
Alternative T-2:
Alternative T-3:
Alternative T-4:
Alternative T-5:
Begin construction
Begin construction
Begin construction (tie to Cary)
Build 1.5 mgd plant on Utley Creek
Begin construction (tie to Cary)
Buy 1.0 mgd package plant
Begin construction (Middle Creek Basin (tie to Cary)
28
- 1998
- 1998
- 1998
- 2007
- 1998
- 2007
- 1998

Begin construction (Utley Creek Basin tie to Cary) - 2007
Alternative T-6A: Begin construction (1.0 MGD Expansion of Existing Plant) -1996
Begin construction (Middle Creek Basin (tie to Cary)) -1998
Alternative T-6B: Begin construction (1.0 MGD Expansion of Utley Creek Plant) -1996
Begin construction (3.38 MGD Expansion of Utley Creek Plant) -2012
The projected time table for outfall system improvements is as follows:
Alternative 0-1 Construction 525 gpm Pump
Station and 10-inch Force Main - 1998
Add 1,180 gpm Pumps and Constructed
12-inch force main - 2007
f**' Alternative 0-2 Construct 350 gpm Middle
Creek Pump Station and 8-inch force main - 1998
Construct 525 gpm Utley Creek Pump
Station and 10-inch force main. - 1998
Construct 12-inch common force main
,., to Cary treatment plant - 1998
Add 1,390 gpm pumps to Utley Creek pump
station and construct 14-inch force main. - 2007
Add 1,180 gpm pumps to Middle Creek
pump station, and construct 12-inch
Middle Creek and 16-inch common
p.1 force mains - 2007
Alternative 0-3 Construct 350 gpm Middle Creek
Pump Station and 8-inch force main - 1998
Ion
Construct 12-inch outfall line parallel
to Utley Creek outfall line. Add 1,180
gpm pumps. - 2007
Alternative 0-4 Construct 350 gpm Middle Creek pump
station and 8-inch force main tie-in
to Town of Cary plant. - 1998
Construct 528 gpm Utley Creek pump
station and 10-inch force main tie-in
,o, to Town of Cary plant. - 2007
Add 1,180 gpm pumps to Middle Creek
pump station, construct 12-inch Middle
,., Creek force main, and 12-inch common
force main to Town of Cary plant. - 2007
Add 1,380 gpm pumps to Utley Creek
rim pump station and construct 16-inch force
main - 2007
woo
paq
29

3.7 Cost -Effective Analysis
In order to determine the most cost-effective alternative, a 20-year present worth life -cycle cost
., analysis was prepared for all alternatives. This analysis was prepared using the 1995 Federal Water
Quality Council interest rate (7.75%). Costs for alternatives involving tieing into the Town of Cary
system used capital charges from the Town of Cary system and projected annual operating charges
supplied by the Town of Cary staff. It should be emphasized that these costs are initial projections
only, not firm commitments, and could be subject to change during any negotiation. Detailed
OM
MIN
breakdowns for all life -cycle cost projections may be found in Appendix 2. The results of that
analysis are summarized as follows:
Alternatives
T-1 & 0-1
T-2 & 0-2
T-3 & 0-3
T-4 & 0-3
T-5 & 0-4
T6A & 0-3
T6B & 0-1
Total Present Worth Cost
$12.424,000
11,866,000
$9,356,000
$9,985,000
$10,686,000
$10,638,000
$10,611,000
The above analysis shows the least life -cycle alternative to be construction of Alternative T-3
.. and Alternative 0-3. This would result in the Middle Creek basin wastewater being transported to
the Town of Cary's wastewater treatment plant located on Middle Creek, while the wastewater
originating within the Cape Fear River watershed portion of the Town would be treated by the
Town of Holly Springs and discharged into Utley Creek. The tie-in to Cary would be targeted for
completion sometime in 1998. The Town would continue to use its existing wastewater treatment
plant on Utley Creek until around the year 2007, at which time a new, 1.5 mgd advanced
wastewater treatment plant capable of achieving nitrogen and phosphorous removal would be
- constructed adjacent to the existing plant. The existing plant would at that time be converted to
sludge digestion and holding.
3.8 Land Application
Land application of wastewater is sometimes a viable alternative to a direct discharge type
treatment system. The NC-DEM often requires that this type of system be utilized in lieu of
expanding an existing or creating a new point source of treated wastewater. Considering these
factors, the costs for constructing land application treatment systems were projected for
comparison with surface water discharge plants. Soils within and near the Holly Springs area are
30

min not generally conducive to spray irrigation (see description of area soils in Section 2.6.2). The
most favorable soils available in any sufficient quantity are the Mayoden and Pinkston soils,
present in the Carolina Power and Light property west of HollySprings. Appling, Cecil and
mil
g P P Y
Norfolk soils found within the Holly Springs area are all actually better soils for spray irrigation
than Mayoden and Pinkston soils. However, these soils are found in the areas of Town and in the
PM portions of the ETJ that have either been developed or are now developing. Norfolk soils would be
the best of all the available types, but only a small acreage of Norfolk soils exist within the Holly
Springs ETJ, and a major subdivision is planned for this area. Appling and Cecil soils are available
in greater acreages, but sufficient soils could only be acquired by relocating residents, an expensive
and undesirable undertaking. Soil types and acreage were determined by careful study of the
detailed soils maps prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for Wake County. The
Mayoden and Pinkston soils are projected as only having a loading capacity of 0.4 inches per
week. The limited permeability of the soils is the primary factor in establishing a loading rate.
Costs for land application are generally prohibitive at this low of a hydraulic loading rate.
However, in order to verify this, costs for land application systems having capacities identical to
the various treatment capacities identified as being required in Section 3.3 were projected. These
capacities, as outlined in the description of Case I, Case II, and Case III are, in ascending order,
1.00 MGD, 1.2 MGD, 1.5 MGD, 2.2 MGD, and 2.7 MGD. Appendix 2 contains the detailed cost
projections and present worth analysis for the land application treatment systems corresponding to
each of these design flows. These costs are compared to the construction cost for the lowest cost
alternative surface water treatment plant of the same capacity. Costs of transporting wastewater to
the treatment plant are ignored for simplicity's sake in making this comparison. Since
transportation costs would in all likelihood be much greater with a land application system (due to
the need to have the treatment system spread out because of the large acreage involved) neglecting
transportation costs does not materially effect the outcome of the analysis. The analysis also
assumes the Town could acquire the land it needs from Carolina Power & Light. This might not be
the case. At any rate, in all cases, land application is not only more costly than surface treatment,
but more costly by a wide margin. This is demonstrated by the following tabular summary of the
least costly land application alternative:
Design Flow
Construction Cost of
Land Application
Treatment System
Construction Cost of Least Cost Surface
Water Discharge Alternative
1.000 mgd
1.200 mgd
1.500 mgd
2.200 mgd
2.700 mgd
$10,000,000
$12,100,000
$15,100,000
$19,000,000
$26,500,000
$3,937,000 (Alt. T-4)
$2,328,000 (Alt. T-4)
$5,938,000 (Alt. T-3)
$4,268,000 (Alt. T-5)
$8,836,000 (Alt. T-2)
31

IMO
3.9 Golf Course Irrigation
The NC-DEM has adopted regulations that will expand the opportunities to reuse treated
wastewater. The type of treatment systems under consideration by the Town of Holly Springs
would provide the requisite treatment to allow the effluent to be used for golf course irrigation with
only minimal restrictions under the proposed regulations. However, even under the most favorable
conditions, golf course irrigation would not allow the elimination of a discharge. During the warm
summer season, a typical 18-hole golf course will have irrigation water demands of around 2
million gallons per week. During much of the year a golf course will require little or no irrigation
water. Therefore, golf course irrigation cannot serve as an alternative to a surface discharge. The
.. Town of Holly Springs should, however, consider such potential reuse as a means of reducing
potable water demands. As an aid to understanding the potential cost of implementing a reuse
system, a cost projection for installing a system capable of supplying irrigation water to the Sunset
Ridge golf course has been developed, (See Appendix 2). This cost is $600,000.
.. 3.10 Other Beneficial Reuse
Regulations recently adopted by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NC-DEM) will open up new opportunities not only for such things as golf course and residential
irrigation, but also opportunities for industrial reuse. Industrial water users often use potable water
for purposes where lessor quality water would be sufficient. The existing and planned areas for
industrial development are much closer to the Utley Creek plant site than are any golf course sites
or major new subdivisions and therefore reuse for industrial purposes is potentially less costly than
reuse for irrigation purposes. The Town should aggressively pursue opportunities for industrial
reuse of treated wastewater. Such a reuse program would allow the discharge to Utley Creek to be
reduced, and would reduce the demand on the Town's potable water supply. The Town presently
has minimal industrial usage, and industrial reuse can therefore have no immediate impact on the
., Town's discharge. In the future, with industrial growth, industrial reuse could reduce the amount
of wastewater discharged into Utley Creek. Actual treatment plant capacity requirements would
not, however, be reduced, since the same volume of wastewater would still require treatment.
3.11 Preferred Alternative
ima The least cost alternatives are the combination of wastewater treatment alternative T-3 and
wastewater treatment outfall alternative 0-3. These alternatives would involve the Town of Holly
Springs treating and discharging up to 1.5 mgd of wastewater into Utley Creek, while arranging
with the Town of Cary to treat up to 1.3 MGD of its wastewater at the Cary facility discharging
into Middle Creek. These alternatives would depend on long-term agreements being successful
negotiated between the Towns of Cary and Holly Springs. At the time of this writing, there
appears to be no prospect for any such agreements being successfully negotiated in time to allow
32

the Town of Holly Springs to meet the wastewater treatment needs being imposed upon it by its
explosive growth rate. Accordingly, it will be necessary to implement Alternative T-6. Alternative
T-6 was formulated to position the Town where it could still take advantage of the cost-
effectiveness of Alternative T-3 even if an intermunicipal agreement cannot be reached with the
Town of Cary for a number of years. Alternative T-6 involves the Town building a 1.0 mgd
expansion of its existing facility (increasing the total capacity to 1.5 mgd). Should negotiations
with the Town of Cary ultimately prove successful, the Town can, in the future and if required by
., Water Quality considerations, upgrade the 1.5 MGD facility to provide nutrient removal while
relying on the Cary wastewater treatment facilities to provide the same level of treatment for the
remainder of the Town's wastewater. Should negotiations with the Town of Cary ultimately prove
unsuccessful, the Town can, in the future, further expand the Utley Creek facility up to as much as
4.88 MGD of capacity while adding, if required by water quality considerations, nutrient removal
capability. It is expected that either an agreement with Cary will need to be reached or a second
plant expansion be under construction by the year 2012. Alternative T-6 therefore addresses the
Town's immediate needs, maintains compatibility with the preferred long-term alternative, and can
be integrated into a sub -optimum long-term solution should the intermunicipal agreements needed
PIM for the least life -cycle alternative prove unattainable.
3.12 Interceptor System Construction
The Town's first central wastewater collection and treatment system was completed in 1987.
This initial layout covered the downtown Holly Springs area, areas north of Town to the
intersection of Highway 55 and Southern Railroad, and western sections within the Holly
Springs/New Hill Road area. In 1992 the wastewater collection system underwent improvements
•• with the addition of sewer line extensions and a pump station. These improvements mainly covered
areas along Bass Lake Road to the southeast of town. With the addition of new subdivisions, other
wastewater collection system components were installed by developers, and tied in with the
Town's system through the use of pump stations. A summary of all pump stations within the
present collection system can be found in Table 9.
OR
The initial system constructed in 1987 consisted of approximately 48,000 linear feet (LF) of
8" gravity collection and interceptor lines, 5,000 LF of 12" outfall line, and four (4) pump stations.
The eastern part of town, just south of Holly Springs Road, had its sewer drain into a 250 gpm
pump station (PS #1 near Remington subdivision). This pump station has just recently been taken
off-line and a new outfall line constructed, which conveys wastewater to PS#10, in the Dogwood
Road area. Areas north of Town along Highway 55 are served by gravity sewers which flow to a
110 gpm pump station located at the intersection of Highway 55 and Southern Railroad (PS #4). A
4" force main from this pump station carries wastewater to the 12" gravity line along Holly Springs
33

„,q Road. A small area in southeastern downtown has its sewer drain to a 80 gpm pump station located
just off Maple Street (PS #2), which is connected by a 4” force main to the downtown gravity line.
Areas along New Hill Road, west of the wastewater treatment plant access road, are served by
Rol
gravity lines flowing to a 180 gpm pump station (PS #3 at the intersection of New Hill and Apex
Road) which is connected by a 4" force main to the gravity line along New Hill/Holly Springs
Road.
r■a
PPM
PEI
TABLE 9
PUMP STATION INFORMATION
PS #
Pump
Station
Name
Pump Station
Location
Pump
Station
Capacity
(gpm)
Pump Station
Receives
Pump Station
Discharges
To:
1
Remington
PS
- Remington Subdivision
250
Residential WW
Holly Springs
Road gravity line
2
Maple St.
PS
- In Town Off of Maple
Street
80
Residential WW
Maple Street
gravity line
3
New Hill &
Apex PS
- Off New Hill Road Near
Intersection with NC 1153
(Old Apex)
160
Residential WW
New Hill Road
gravity line
4
55 &
Southern PS
- On Highway 55 Just North
of Town Near Intersection
with Railroad
110
Residential WW and
PS#7 (Easton Street)
New Hill Road
gravity line
5
Industry PS
- Industry Pump Station
West of Town Near Thomas
Mill Pond
210
Meritt Truck
Washing, Warp
Technology, and
Residential WW
Directly to WWTP
6
Easton North
PS
- North end of Easton Acres
Off Katha Drive Off Easton
Street
97
Residential WW
PS#7 (Easton
Street)
7
Easton
South PS
- South end of Easton Street
80
PS#6 (North end of
Easton Acres)
PS#4 (Hwy 55 &
Southern Railroad)
8
Sunset North
PS
- Sunset Ridge Northwest of
Sunset Lake
420
Residential WW and
PS#7 (Base Lake
Road)
Holly Springs
Road gravity line
.
9
Sunset
South PS
- Off Bass Lake Road
Southwest of Sunset Lake
210
Residential WW and
PS#10 (Dogwood
Road)
PS#8 (Sunset
Ridge)
10
Dogwood PS
- Off Dogwood Road (Off
Bass Lake Road)
330
Residential WW
PS#9 (Bass Lake
Road)
The Town of Holly Springs collection system is less than 10 years old and thus all pipes meet
current regulations and should be in overall good condition. However, there are physical
34

PM
P,,, limitations that the Town must address. The main problem facing the present collection system is
possible system overload due to future flows being higher than present line and pump station
capacity. The main physical deficiency in this area is the apparent unmatched flow capacities of
WI
existing pump stations. There are several instances in which lower capacity pump stations are
receiving flow from a higher capacity pump station. For example, the Dogwood PS(330 gpm)
am
discharges to the Sunset South PS (210 gpm). As future flows increase, these pump stations,
along with associated gravity lines, run the risk of surcharging, and possibly even overflowing.
rim All flows to the east of Highway 55 and south of State Road 1115 could be intercepted by
new gravity lines. Construction of such interceptor lines could benefit the Town by eliminating all
pm existing pump stations located in the eastern area. All flow would be directed to one central location
in the Middle Creek area for transport to a treatment facility.
All areas west of Highway 55, up to the CP&L property, could be served by another set of
fill
proposed interceptor lines. Due to the terrain in this area, the west system can not be arranged to
direct all flow to a single location. However, the proposed alignment would eliminate three existing
PM pump stations while adding two pump stations in the remote western side. It is expected that
CP&L will allow the Town the right-of-way needed to lay the needed lines.
p+ A phased program for construction of the interceptor system needed to handle all future flows
is recommended. Construction of the entire system in three (3) phases is practical. These phases
WI would be described as follows:
Phase One
ram
Phase one (Figure 4) will consist of placing lines to accommodate the extensive
development in the Sunset Ridge area, as well as laying the outfall lines into which future
pin
phases will tie. All flow east of Highway 55 will be diverted to one central location in the
Middle Creek area.
1.1
Phase One will consist of the following:
mil • Outfall lines will be placed around Sunset and Bass Lakes. These lines will
eventually handle all eastern flows south of Holly Springs Road, including areas
that are presently on septic systems. Due to the limited elevation drop resulting in
PM deeper line cuts, these outfalls will be the most expensive to build. These lines
will allow the Sunset South Pump Station to be eliminated.
mm • An interceptor line will be installed from Stephens Road, south of Town, to the
foot of Bass Lake. This line will allow the pump station off Maple Street to be
retired.
c.' • The downtown interceptor will be constructed from the Dogwood pump station to
the vicinity of Bass Lake. This line will allow the Dogwood pump station to be
eliminated.
PM
35
1.1

N., • The last interceptor line is the lower section of Sunset Road Interceptor and will
run south of Holly Springs Road to the head of Sunset Lake. This line will allow
Sunset North pump station to be retired.
PE"• Wake Outfall and Eastern Interceptor will receive wastewater in the Easton Acres
area and also areas north of New Hill Road. Wake Outfall discharges into a pump
station now under design. This system will allow for the elimination of Easton
North and Easton South pump stations.
The following Phase I cost estimates are presented in 1995 dollars:
Quantity Description Cost
6,000 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $144,000
6,300 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $158,000
2,800 LF 12" Gravity Sewer $100,000
5,000 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $185,000
3,000 LF 18" Gravity Sewer $168,000
13,300 LF 24" Gravity Sewer $798,000
202 EA Manhole $404,000
Sub -Total $1,957,000
Engineering and Contingency (30%) $587,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $330,000
Surveying and Miscellaneous $50,000
Land Acquisition $20,000
Legal and Administrative (2%) $39,000
TOTAL PHASE ONE ESTIMATED COST $2,983,000
USE $3,000,000
36

Norris
Branch PS
I
g
Industry PS
SR 1116
New Hill &
\r\- evr Eft
Sunset
South South PS
24" ,
Sunset
Lake
.\'-r•••/'Th
NORTH
FIGURE 4
PROPOSED
PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS
LeEenq
• Existing Pump Station
D Proposed Pump Station
OA Proposed Gravity Line
lb Line Size Change
• Manhole
um Existing WWTP Outfall
'41111-- Direction of Flow
Prepared E.
The
Wooten
Company
Engineering
Planning

ing
PPM
PEI
PEI
Fog
PEI
IBM
Phase Two
The last sections east of Highway 55 and an area west of Highway 55 zoned mostly
industrial are covered by the improvements in Phase Two (Figure 5). This phase
consists of the following:
• The upper section (north of Holly Springs Road) of Sunset Road
Interceptor is completed. This line placement will allow the pump
station at the intersection Highway 55 and Southern Railroad to be
eliminated.
• East Sunset Interceptor will run just south of Holly Springs Road to
the present location of the of Sunset South pump station. This line will
discharge to the Sunset Lake Outfall.
• The longest line in this phase is the Basal Creek Outfall. Although this
line runs south of the Town's ETJ it will only collect wastewater from
the southeastern area of the Town zoning, just below SR 1115.
• The final line in this phase is the Utley Creek Outfall which will serve a
mostly zoned -industrial section east of the existing wastewater
treatment plant (bordering CP&L). This line will allow for industry
buildup in this area. Since this is a remote area draining toward the
west, a pump station must be built. A 6" force main will run parallel to
the gravity line and then run cross-country to the existing wastewater
treatment plant outfall.
The following Phase II cost estimates are presented in 1995 dollars:
Quantity
Description Extended Cost
28,800 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $691,000
2,200 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $55,000
2,700 LF 12" Gravity Sewer $97,000
5,200 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $192,000
235 EA Manhole $360,000
1 EA Pump Station $100,000
9,600 LF 6" Force Main $96.000
Sub -Total $1,591,000
Engineering and Contingency (30%) $477,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $350,000
Surveying and Miscellaneous $25,000
Land Acquisition $20,000
Legal and Administrative (2%) $32,000
TOTAL PHASE 2 ESTIMATED COST $2.495.300
USE $2,500,000
38

r Industry PS r
SR 111i -f•
:Idly•
5-prima Remington ~pS •" Ron East Sunset•
"''
Sunset i
South P5 (1
Sunset
Lake
SR 1115
NORTH
FIGURE 5
PROPOSED
PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENTS
Leend
Existing Pump Station
Proposed Pump Station
Previous Phase Gravity Li:
Proposed Gravity Line
Line Size Change
Manhole
Existing WWTP Outfall
This Phase Force Main
Direction of Flow
Pre,,a,-edRti:
Wooten
Company
Engineering
P/annino

P�1
Phase Three
INN
Pol
fonq
PEI
MEI
The final phase of construction (Figure 6) will serve areas west of Town. This phase will
consist of the following:
• Norris Branch Outfall, which will serve the extreme southwestern corner of
the study area. This line will be able to accommodate industry as well as
residential areas such as Avent Ferry Road subdivision and proposed
housing around the Shelba airport. Again, due to westward slopes a pump
station will be located on CP&L property. A 6" force main will be installed
from this pump station, up SR 1115 to a gravity line in Town.
• The next system section is in the northwestern part of the study area. Draw
Interceptor and the southern part of Little Branch Outfall collect wastewater
for the area immediately north of New Hill and Old Apex Roads and will
allow for the retirement of the New Hill and Apex pump station. The upper
portion of Little Branch Outfall will discharge into a pump station on Wake
County land which is presently in the design stage.
The following Phase III cost estimates are presented in 1995 dollars:
Quantity Description Extended Cost
11,700 LF
3,600 LF
3,300 LF
73 EA
1EA
17,500 LF
Sub -Total
8" Gravity Sewer
10" Gravity Sewer
12" Gravity Sewer
Manhole
Pump station
6" Force Main
Engineering and Contingency (30%)
Easements ($9.00 per LF)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Land Acquisition
Legal and Administrative (2%)
TOTAL PHASE THREE ESTIMATED COST
40
USE
$281,000
$90,000
$119,000
$131,000
$100,000
$175,000
$896,000
$270,000
$168,000
$15,000
$20,000
$18,000
$1,387,000
$1,400,000

MI
3.13 Alternative Interceptor Consideration
Interceptor routes alignments are largely directed by topography, and use of gravity sewer
interceptors to eliminate or minimize the number of wastewater pumping stations is accepted as
sound engineering practice. Gravity sewers require less maintenance than pump stations, and are
less prone to failures that could result in the discharge of raw wastewater to the environment.
MR
However, in the case of the Sunset Lake outfall described in the Phase I improvements it is
anticipated that there will be some members of the public that will prefer the risk of pump station
PM failure to the impacts of interceptor system construction. Bass Lake is a nature preserve overseen
by The Nature Conservancy and a non-profit organization of local residents. These groups are
PE+ concerned about the potential disruption of the existing environment that would be caused by
construction of the segment of the outfall line that would skirt the perimeter of Bass Lake. Property
owners along the southern perimeter of Sunset Lake may object to the installation of the line
MI
around the southern edge of Sunset Lake. Alternative arrangements that would avoid the potentially
controversial interceptor sections has been formulated. These alternative arrangements would
Pal
require the construction of two new pump stations and result in the existing Dogwood pump
station remaining in service. Therefore, from a reliability and annual operation and maintenance
"'' cost standpoint, these arrangements would be undesirable. However, the use of such arrangements
would avoid a potential controversy, and avoid disturbing the high quality mesic hardwood forest
M+ bordering the southern shore of Sunset Lake. Cost projections for both a gravity sewer line
running the entire length of the Lakes, as is shown in Figure 4, and for alternate arrangements
involving pump stations and force mains as is shown in Figure 7 have been prepared. Either
alternative would have an initial cost of approximately $2,000,000.
WI
MI
Mil
41
MI

Little Branch
• Outfall
Old Aptx
Road
;Oda Pi
Industry PS ..
rUWER&I. n =
12'`
Little
_ Branch PS
ROad
r • \
5
Southe1.8:71:S '� �;r:-..-'-'".
�1��i:' c— :...
�. � � � . � �` Sunsetr �� ' '' t�L North PS•,�•. Hasa e `�:.?Sa .Remington ~PS ,Roa:� ..��--`-
Sunset
South PS (•'
SR 111S
Creek PS
NORTH
FIGURE 6
PROPOSED
PHASE THREE IMPROVEMENTS
Legend
• Existing Pump Station
D Proposed Pump Station
G--€ Previous Phase Gravity Line
Proposed Gravity Line
• Line Size Change
• Manhole
1" Existing WWTP Outfall
This Phase Force Main
— Previous Phase Force Main
Direction of Flow
Prepare(' .
WThe
ooten
Company
Engineering
Planni.ra
Architecture

_•
Pal
■
1
•
� �-
Easton
'South PS •
r
•
•
„*1
.• ••
•\
55 & .� ✓%% ,..,";
• •.
�:' . Southern PS r?;``�
,►- sit • • . f1 •� w
...•' .. N%
. •• . _a �•. Hau Lake -•
Remington ~PS ' ���^--�•-
• •" � itoad
•1 — —
- Dogwood PS • - ==ti ▪ ' z., k.. � Outfall
_Q
• c 7 �� : _.
Lake
w
Stephens ens Road
i• . Interceptor
-
\r//(tV)
STUDY � ♦WA
tTOWNn
J)
r
• :Hol••� Sprmga
ans
Maple
keg.
•
; ' •
Legend
Existing Pump Station
Proposed Pump Station
ONO Proposed Gravity Line
Line Size Change
• Manhole
•
r�1lr.�•
w � _
G�•--a; •
Sunset
Lake
Sunset
Lake PS
�J��� r" Sunset 124.4
�� Bass • South PS ' \ r
l ri.,4,1 ,
„,,
,,,----
Bass ` . ' ..___,, ....„ , , ; �• ., ,. v ,. „\_.:::
Lake PS '' �' �r �'
•14_,*..
•
FIGURE 7
ALTERNATE CONFIGURATION
SUNSET LAKE OUTFALL
•r
Prepared By:
The
Wooten
Company
Engineering
Planning
Architecture
•
1
•
Haien/h. t•t ('
r;reenv,lie. V.(,

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
.1111,0
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
system and collection improvements 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 will have both beneficial and adverse affects. 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 Wetlands
Both primary and secondary adverse impacts on area wetlands will result from construction of
the wastewater facilities and development in the area. The construction of proposed interceptors
and outfall 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; the 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 wetlands, the changes may subtly alter the manner in wetlands function. The natural interaction
between wetlands and adjoining upland ecosystems will certainly be disrupted by urban
development.
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. The largest single tract of prime farmland left undeveloped a large
grouping Norfolk soils south of Town, is scheduled for development as a subdivision. Given the
44

Poll
present growth rate, 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, since the land expected to be used in treatment plant expansions has been cleared.
Interceptor system construction will involve some clearing of forest land, in some cases involving
construction corridors as wide as forty feet. Secondary impacts due to growth and development
will have a much larger impact on forest resources than will direct impacts from wastewater system
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. These areas are expected to be unaffected by the Town of Holly Springs growth.
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 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.
45

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
•a
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 new parts of the area.
4.4.2 Surface Water Quality
„r A secondary long-term adverse impact on surface water quality from the development of the
Town will be decreased 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
Pa' constituents of urban runoff may lower the dissolved oxygen contents of streams by adding
oxygen demanding materials to the waters, and inhibit the biological activities in streams by adding
high concentrations of heavy metals to the waters.
The Neuse River Water Quality Basin Plan calls for no new discharges into Middle Creek as a
water quality protection measure, and all alternatives have been formulated to be consistent with
this requirement. Some increase of treated wastewater to Utley Creek can be expected, and, under
the preferred alternative, there will also be some increases in treated discharges to Middle Creek.
Any Middle Creek discharges would occur through the Town of Cary Middle Creek wastewater
plant, and the discharge of the treated wastewater would not result in any increase in the permitted
capacity of that plant considered in development of the Neuse River Water Quality Basin Plan.
1'' Increased discharges of wastewater to Utley Creek will be mitigated by treating wastewater to
the standards required by theNorth Carolina Division of Environmental Management through the
1•1 NPDES permitting program. In projecting alternative costs, it was assumed that all plants of any
capacity discharging into Utley Creek would be required to achieve an effluent BOD5 of 5 mg/L or
,.., less, and an effluent ammonia of 2 mg/L or less. It is hoped that negotiations with the Town of
Cary will be successful, and that discharge into Utley Creek can be limited over the next 20 years
to not more than 1.5 MGD. If, however, these negotiations are not successful, it is expected that it
will ultimately be necessary to construct a 4.88 MGD plant discharging into Utley Creek. Such a
plant would not likely be needed before the year 2013. If required, the plant would be designed to
46

achieve biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal and to release an effluent meeting BOD5 and
ammonia limits of 5 mg/L and 2 mg/L respectively. 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. There is, however, some concern that the present downstream monitoring location is less
than optimal for measuring the plant impacts. Recent representative data from upstream and
downstream monitoring are shown below. The discharge does seem to increase the instream
nitrogen levels, and possibly the phosphorous levels. Neither nitrogen nor phosphorous are
inherently harmful at the concentrations measured, and the elevated concentrations measured are
., not necessarily significant from a water quality standpoint. The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management's Instream Assessment Unit has cautioned that the potential for local
nutrient loading related water quality problems exists within Utley Creek and within an arm of
Harris Lake. The instream monitoring program has been stepped -up to allow a better evaluation of
the situation. While the NC-DEM is not mandating nutrient removal at this time, additional
monitoring data could conceivably lead to nutrient limits being imposed on the plant in the future.
(See June 19, 1996 memorandum in Appendix 5). Downstream dissolved oxygen levels measured
as part of the increased instream monitoring program often exceed saturation concentrations. These
elevated DO levels may be indicative of excellent instream reaeration capacities, photosynthetic
activity from aquatic plants, including algae, or both. The Instream Assessment Unit has concluded
that the discharge flow can be increased to 1.5 MGD without creating DO problems, but that
.. additional modeling will be needed to assess the impact of larger discharges on DO.
PIM
-
Upstream
Downstream
Date
Dissolved
Oxygen
Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Total
Nitrogen
Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Total
Phospho-
rous
Concentra-
tion (mg/L)
Dissolved
Oxygen
Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Total
Nitrogen
Concentra-
lion (mg/1)
Total
Phospho-
rous
Concentra-
tion (mg/L)
7/5/95
6.2
-
-
8.2
-
-
7/8/95
-
0.45
0.064
-
3.48
0.406
6/12/95
6
-
-
5.6
-
-
6/13/95
-
1.2.
0.1
-
2.2
0.3
6/18/95
8
1.19
0.065
10
2.61
0.334
6/26/95
7
2.4
0.8
13.8
5.5
0.5
7/3/95
7.2
0.2
0.02
6.4
3.32
0.396
47

Mil
MEI
MI
F,
MI
fool
PM
MI
Pal
Upstream
Downstream
Date
Dissolved
Oxygen
Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Total
Nitrogen
Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Total
Phospho-
rous
Concentra-
tion (mg/L)
Dissolved
Oxygen
Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Total
Nitrogen
Concentra-
tion (mg/1)
Total
Phospho-
rous
Concentra-
tion (mg/L)
7/10/95
7.2
0.9
-
11.2
3.2
0.3
7/17/95
7
0.21
-
12
4.72
0.39
7/24/95
7
0.8
-
11.5
7.5
-
8/7/95
5.8
0.3
0.1
6.2
7.1
0.7
8/14/95
6.2
0.14
0.02
14.8
6.82
0.786
8/21/95
7.2
0.5
0.1
7.2
8.8
0.9
8/29/95
6.8
1.6
0.1
7.6
10.2
1
8/30/96
-
0.6
0.1
-
16.4
1.2
9/5/95
6.2
0.5
0.08
12.9
8.75
0.92
9/11/95
11.9
0.6
0.1
12.1
9.9
1.11
9/18/95
7.2
0.5
0.05
9
10.7
1.11
2/25/95
7
1.1
0.1
9.4
10
1.1
10/2/95
6.8
0.5
0.1
13
9.7
1
10/9/95
7.5
0.5
0.037
11
3.18
0.009
10/16/95
8.4
1.4
0.1
6
7.7
0.6
10/23/95
9
0.5
0.058
7
5.69
0.622
10/30/95
10.2
0.7
0.1
6.6
5.7
0.5
4.4.3 Drinking Water Supplies
Neither the construction of the proposed sewer lines nor the development should have any
significant impact on the quality of the Town's drinking water supply. There will be additional
stress on the drinking water supply due to the increased demand associated with growth. As a
result of this stress, additional drinking water sources will be located. It is expected that additional
drinking water supplies will be attained from either Harnett County, the Apex -Cary consortium, or
"" the City of Raleigh.
PEI
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. Development of the
48

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.
4.6 Toxic Substances
The Town of Holly Springs will develop an industrial wastewater pretreatment program when
the need arises. This program will control the release of potentially toxic material from the Town's
treatment plant on Utley Creek. The introduction of toxic substances in the Holly Springs area
environment could still occur through the use of pesticides and from the use of cleaning agents at
residential, commercial and industrial developments within the Town. However, the amount of
Pm toxic substances that would actually reach the environment in measurable amounts form such uses
would be small, and the impact from such discharges on the area ecology is expected to be
mi negligible.
4.7 Summary
pm Environmental impacts will result from proposed wastewater facilities expansions and from
development in the Town of Holly Springs. Although the majority of these impacts are negative,
I., the magnitude of the impacts will not 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
1.1
those adverse impacts which can not be avoided will be offset by the benefits expected to accrue
from the provision of adequate wastewater facilities and the growth those facilities will make
M,
possible. For example, the collection system expansion will bring adequate wastewater treatment
service to a larger number of individuals, and the subsequent growth and development of the Town
WI
will result in more capital income for the community. The geographic location of the Town is such
that it will be subject to intense development pressure. The provision of adequate wastewater
i, collection and treatment facilities will allow denser development, thereby relieving some
development pressure from more rural areas in Wake and surrounding counties.
49

pri
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
r•,
reduce the magnitude of the impacts.
PER
5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
5.1 Overview
There are some unavoidable adverse environmental disturbances that will result from
im
construction of the proposed project and development of Holly Springs. The primary impacts
�, which cannot be avoided are erosion and sedimentation from sewerline construction, construction
inconvenience, and wastewater disposal. The secondary impacts which cannot be avoided are
erosion and sedimentation from developmental activities in the Town, loss of farm land,
5.2 Mitigation of Primary Impacts
5.2.1 Sewerline Construction
General mitigation measures that may minimize unavoidable primary impacts due to erosion
and sedimentation are provided by the State of North Carolina's "Rules and Regulations for
pm Erosion and Sediment Control." The provision of a sufficient vegetative buffer between the edge of
construction sites and stream banks in accordance with the "Rules", should adequately mitigate the
major affects during construction. Special site specific erosion control efforts may be required for
m
stream crossings, steep banks, and other cases which require disturbance of natural stream banks.
mi
guidelines established by the Wildlife Resource Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Management for minimizing adverse impacts to the environment. These guidelines
pm include avoiding protected jurisdictional wetlands whenever practical, crossing bodies of water at
narrow points perpendicular to the channel, maintaining forested buffers along streams, avoiding
rm mature forests and high quality natural communities, and avoiding fragmentation of large habitat
areas. The following is a summary of the preferred routes for placing sewer lines and pump
PM stations in the proposed project area so as to incur the least impact to the surrounding environment.
MI Biologists with the firm Robert J. Goldstein and Associates (RJG&A) have evaluated the
proposed path of the sewer lines and provided their recommendations for routing the sewer lines
along the path of least impact. In making these recommendations, RJG&A have incorporated
Middle Creek Basin
,,., Impacts on the unnamed tributary of Middle Creek that lies between NC 55 and Middle Creek
may be minimized by placing the sewer lines along the NC 55 right-of-way (ROW) northward to
the abandoned railroad ROW. As the tributary turns eastward, the waterway is bordered on both
sides by high quality habitat. The alternative of least impact is to place the sewer lines on the south
FM side of the tributary midway between the base of the slopes and the stream bank.
The north bank of Middle Creek from SR 1152 to Sunset Lake is the preferred route of the
sewerline because it is bordered by a broad floodplain that will allow for a wide forested buffer.
Foni
50

There is also a golf course nearby that may be bordered to further minimize impacts to wetlands
and protected species in the corridor.
In the section of Middle Creek below Sunset Lake, a wide forested buffer should be maintained
along Middle Creek and the pump station should be located on the south side of the creek as close
as possible to SR 1301.
Providing sewer service to the areas immediately south of Sunset Lake could be accomplished
by running a gravity sewer along the lake southern shore. In order for such a line to be
economically feasible, it will be necessary for the upstream end of the line to be laid along the
ground slope above the lake shore and for the line to be constructed so that it is progressively
lower on the slope as it progresses in an easterly direction. This construction would involve
disturbing a portion of the high quality mesic hardwood forest now present on the slope. This
would be an unavoidable adverse environmental impact.
Basal Creek Basin
The northwestern bank of Basal Creek in the corridor from SR 1393 to Sunset Lake is the
preferred route for laying the sewer lines because these areas have been previously developed.
However, impacts along the southeastern shores can be minimized by routing the sewerline along
the edge of the floodplain to preserve a forested buffer whenever it may be necessary to install the
sewerline on the southeastern shore of the Creek.
The corridor along the Basal Creek Tributary north of Bass Lake is traversed by a golf course
�■+ and therefore contains almost none of its natural vegetation. It is suggested that the sewerline be
constructed as close as possible to the perimeter of the golf course to minimize the impact on any
remaining natural vegetation.
+61+ There is an overhead power line ROW along the section of Basal Creek between Bass Lake
Dam and SR 1393 which may be followed to minimize impact to this area.
The sewerline should be routed through mowed areas of the Bass Lake shoreline so as to
preserve the forested fringe along the lake. Impacts on the northern tributary west of Bass Lake
may be minimized by routing the sewer lines along the north side of the stream as far upslope as
possible. The recommended project alignment is to place the sewerline as far upstream as possible
from the north side of the southern tributary to Bass Lake.
The section of Basal Creek that stretches from NC 55 to Bass Lake is home to a very large
population of the rare plant species Hexastylis Lewisii. The preferred route begins on the west side
�+ of the creek, crosses to the east side approximately 2000 feet northeast of NC 55, and crosses back
to the west side near the backwaters of Bass Lake. The north side of Basal Creek in the lower
section of the corridor that stretches from SR 1115 to NC 55 is the preferred route because it is the
�., most disturbed. In the upper section of the same corridor either side of the Creek is suitable.
Norris Branch Basin
The Norris Branch Basin is in the Cape Fear River watershed portion of the planning area.
1-1 Norris Branch from SR 1115 to about 1500 feet upstream is bordered on the east bank by a field,
which is the least impact location for the pump station and sewerline route. Farther upstream both
banks are suitable for sewerline installation, however the west bank is more accommodating for a
wide forested buffer. The proposed site for the force main along SR 1115 poses very little danger
of disrupting the environment.
Utley Creek Basin
The pump station and sewerline along Utley Creek from the proposed pump station site to
Pond Dam should be located as far north as possible, with the suggested path for the sewerline
along an existing property line. Following the pond shoreline, the route of least impact upstream
from the dam is on the north side of the pond. There is an existing sewerline ROW in this area
which may also be used. There are two acceptable routes along the force main corridor from Irving
Parkway to the wastewater treatment plant. The first route crosses on an east -west upland route
from the Parkway to Treatment Plant Road. The other route follows the upland ridge from the
51

Parkway southward, and then turns southeastward to the wastewater treatment plant.
INA
Little Branch Basin
The segment of Little Branch west of SR 1153 would be impacted the least if the sewer lines
were constructed 100 to 400 feet from the bank. The lower 1500 feet of the tributary west of SR
"" 1153 would be least impacted if the sewerline were routed along the northeastern side. However,
the remaining section of the tributary would feel the least impact with the sewer lines constructed
on the southwestern side. Wide buffers should also be provided to minimize impact to the
surrounding environment. The route of least impact in the corridor of Little Branch east of SR
1153 is along the north side of the stream because this area has been previously disturbed, there is
ample floodplain available to provide a wide forested buffer, and there are existing sewer lines.
The southern tributary is least impacted when the sewer lines are routed along the west side of the
1.' stream, thus avoiding fragmentation of the natural habitat.
Whenever any sewer collection and interceptor lines pass through potentially environmentally
sensitive areas, certain common mitigative measures can be taken. Construction corridor width
should be limited to the minimum practical, and, wherever possible, steps taken to protect
extraordinarily large trees within the construction corridors. Construction specifications should
establish protective measures to prevent mechanical scarring of trees scheduled to be preserved,
and to prevent construction traffic within the root zones of those trees. Where cleaning of mature
trees is unavoidable, contractors should be required to harvest the timber for sale so that a valuable
resource is not wasted. Where construction through wetlands (statutory and otherwise) cannot be
avoided, care should be taken to restore the ground to its original contours to facilitate wetland
recovery from construction damage. Once construction is completed, the permanent right-of-way
1.1 maintenance corridors should be kept to a minimum width (10-12 feet). Mowing activities should
be avoided during the spring nesting season. Late summer, and, where ground conditions permit,
,r, winter mowing and right-of-way maintenance should be preferred over spring and early summer
maintenance.
5.2.2 Construction Inconveniences and Annoyance
Primary inconveniences during construction due to disruption of traffic flow can be minimized
by proper planning of construction activities. The noise effect during construction can be
minimized by operating equipment during daylight hours and installing muffler systems on all
machinery.
5.2.3 Wastewater Disposal
Disposal of 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. Creation of another point source discharge on
Middle Creek will be avoided as a means to protect that stream. Under the preferred alternatives
ri, (Alternative T-3 and 0-3) and under the fallback treatment alternative that will actually be
implemented (Alternative T-6, either T-6A or T-6B) treated wastewater discharges would be
52

increased to Utley Creek and possibly to Middle Creek. Any increased discharges to Middle Creek
would be made through the Town of Cary plant without increasing the permitted capacity of that
plant. The potential impacts on water quality of increased discharges into the Middle Creek plant
therefore have already been taken into account during the permitting of the Town of Cary plant.
The Utley Creek plants would be designed, as is the existing 0.5 MGD facility, to achieve an
effluent BOD5 of 5 mg/L and an effluent ammonia of 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. Alternative T-6B, which would be employed only if
satisfactory long-term arrangements could not be reached with the Town of Cary, would involve
the eventual construction of a 4.88 MGD plant on Utley Creek, probably around the year 2013. If
required, this plant would be designed to achieve biological nitrogen and phosphorus removals in
addition to meeting stringent BOD5 and ammonia limits. The 1.00 MGD plant expansion that
would be installed initially under alternative T-6A or T-6B would not be designed for nutrient
removal, since there is no present indication that the Cape Fear River Basin is nutrient sensitive. A
potential for localized (Utley Creek and a portion of Harris Lake) nutrient related water quality
problems has been identified by State officials. Additional monitoring will be required to determine
if this potential for problems will warrant imposition of nutrient limitations at some point.
Therefore, the 1.00 mgd expansion would be designed to allow nutrient removal facilities to be
easily added in the future, 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
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.
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.The Standby power would be provided
(just as is provided now) to improve plant reliability. The 1.00 MGD Utley Creek plant expansion
(to bring the total treatment plant capacity to 1.5 MGD) proposed by the Town would have a single
aeration basin, but would be designed so that it could still function with one aerator out of service.
53

The 1.00 MGD plant expansion would also be designed with a single clarifier, but piped so that
effluent from the aeration basin could be diverted to the existing two, 540 sq ft surface area
clarifiers if the new clarifier needed to be temporarily removed from service for maintenance
purposes. Similar arrangements will be made with the filtration and UV disinfection equipment that
will be installed as a part of the proposed 1 MGD expansion, so that facilities associated with the
existing treatment plant can be used as back-up units for the units installed as part of the 1.0 MGD
expansion.
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
roil 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. Appendix 3 contains
the agreement whereby Wake County agrees to participate in the financing of the pretreatment
program development and agrees for the leachate discharge to be regulated under the pretreatment
program.
Water quality monitoring is not an exact science, and additional information may be needed to
better model the impact of increased wastewater dischargers on Utley Creek. The North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NC-DEM) has been working with the Town of Holly
Springs to select downstream monitoring points that will better enable the NC-DEM to assess
instream conditions as wastewater flows discharged from the Town increase. This program should
provide information that will help the State establish treatment requirements should discharge into
Utley Creek at rates greater than 1.5 MGD eventually be required.
PM' 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.
1.4
54

1.4
Localized air quality degradation due to particulates may occur from development related
PEr, 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
5.3.2 Air Quality
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
A•► region during non -attainment periods for air quality standards.
PIM
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. The Town now requires that every residential development have a 5% open space
dedication, that Planned Unit Developments (most developments in Holly Springs are P.U.D.'s)
have a 10% open space dedication and a stream buffer dedication, and that industrial development
not exceed 40% site coverage, (commercial developments are allowed up to 80% site coverage).
Greenways required under the Town's Master Greenway Plan are required to include undisturbed
buffers along creeks and streams. All development plans are required to incorporate revegetation
and tree preservation plans. Fifty feet wide undisturbed or landscaped buffers are required along all
thoroughfares and hundred feet wide undisturbed or landscaped buffer will be required along the
Outer Loop of the beltline. All of these measures should contribute to reducing urban runoff and
thereby should reduce pollutant loads onto area wetlands. These protective measures adopted by
the Town of Holly Springs are consistent with the goals established by the Holly Springs Town
Board as a part of its 2001 Comprehensive Plan. (Appendix 4 contains copies of the goals and
policies adopted by the Town that pertain to environmental issues). The cumulative effect of all of
these measures will minimize adverse impacts on wetlands and surface water quality.
55

5.3.4 Prime Farmlands
WM
Essentially all prime farmland within the Holly Springs ETJ is expected to be eventually lost to
,.1 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.
mn 5.3.5 Forest Resources
Many of the Town policies discussed in Section 5.3.3 and more formally stated in the
Mil
documents found in Appendix 4 will 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
pri requirements requiring undisturbed buffers along creeks, open space requirements for P.U.D.'s
and residential development, site coverage limitations on industrial development, buffer
pm 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.
ran
Low lying wooded areas adjoining area streams are expected, for the most part, to remain intact.
PRI 5.3.6 Wildlife Resources
The Town of Holly Springs' continued growth will put increased stress on the area wildlife
i.^ 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 Board in
^, its 2001 Comprehensive Plan (Environmental Element) has explicitly stated that one of the Town's
objectives is "to ensure adequate natural areas to both wildlife and recreation". Town requirements
for stream buffer dedication from P.U.D.'s, and requirements that greenways along creeks include
min
undisturbed buffers, will help to preserve natural wildlife corridors along drainageways. The
Town Floodplain Ordinance provisions and State and Federal wetland protection requirements will
w
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
OM 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
,m community now in progress cannot take place without some alterations and loss of wildlife
habitats.
Fm
56
MN

5.4 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.
(The Town of Holly Springs may eventually have a portion of its wastewater treated by the Town
of Cary at its plant on Middle Creek and industrial wastes discharged to that facility would be
regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Town of Cary's pretreatment program). A
program of monitoring Utley Creek downstream of the Utley Creek treatment plant discharge will
be developed in conjunction with the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management so
that if any water quality problems should begin to develop due to the Town's discharge, these
problems can be promptly detected and appropriate additional treatment measures implemented.
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 25,000 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 developments 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
57

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.

MI
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.
al 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
AM
Improvements -Holly Springs, NC. August 1994.
AM
Pig
OM
PEI
101.
MI
59

APPENDIX I
Environmental Surveys

MI
P EI
N M
OM
MI
MR
Fal
rn
PM
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
HOLLY SPRINGS SEWER SYSTEM
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RJG&A Project Number 94014
Report To:
" Mr. Ford Chambliss
The Wooten Company
120 North Boylan Avenue
1.' Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
mil 12 July 1995
pim
WI
IMO
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS & CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel: [phone] FAX: [phone]

IMO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY 4
2.0. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA 4
3.0. SURVEY METHODS 5
3.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands .. 5
3.2. Protected Species and Natural Areas 5
4.0. SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
,.., 4.1. General Recommendations for Minimizing Adverse Impacts 6
4.2. Middle Creek Basin Below Bass Lake Dam 6
4.2.1. Middle Creek Below Sunset Lake 6
4.2.2. Sunset Lake Shoreline 7
4.2.3. Basal Creek from Bass Lake Dam to Head of Sunset Lake 7
4.2.4. Basal Creek Tributary North of Bass Lake 7
4.2.5. Middle Creek from SR 1 152 to Sunset Lake 7
ogn
4.2.6. Middle Creek from SR 1 152 to Unnamed Tributary 8
4.2.7. Middle Creek Tributary from NC 55 to Middle Creek 8
4.3. Basal Creek Basin Above Bass Lake Dam 8
l"' 4.3.1. Shoreline of Bass Lake 8
4.3.2. Northern Tributary West of Bass Lake 9
4.3.3. Southern Tributary West of Bass Lake 9
"'' 4.3.4. Basal Creek from NC-55 to Bass Lake 9
4.3.5. Basal Creek from SR 1 115 to NC-55 9
4.4. Little Branch Basin 10
4.4.1. Little Branch and Tributary West of SR 1 153 10
4.4.2. Little Branch and Tributaries East of SR 1 153 10
4.5. Utley Creek Basin 10
4.5.1. Utley Creek from Proposed Pump Station to Pond Dam 11
4.5.2. Pond Shoreline and Tributary Upstream to Irving Parkway 11
4.5.3. Force Main Corridor from Irving Parkway to WWTP 11
1.1 4.6. Norris Branch Basin 11
4.6.1. Norris Branch 11
4.6.2. Force Main Along SR 1 115 11
ism
root
5.0. CONCLUSIONS 12
5.1. Jurisdictional Wetlands 12
5.2. Rare and Protected Species 12
6.0. LITERATURE CITED 13
2

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

FIN
1.0. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF STUDY.
The extraterritorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ) of the Town of Holly Springs, in
southwestern Wake County, North Carolina, contains numerous residential subdivisions each
with a privately installed wastewater pump station. The pump stations and force mains
convey the wastewater to the Town's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on Utley Creek,
1.0 mile west of Holly Springs (Figure 1). The existing facilities provide wastewater service
to only a small portion of the ETJ, which encompasses about 18 square miles.
To accommodate future development and support progressive annexation, the Town
proposes to construct a system of gravity outfalls, force mains, and pump stations throughout
the ETJ. The project will reduce the number of pump stations to four (one for each major
drainage basin), and provide sewer access to nearly all of the ETJ. Wastewater treatment
0.1 options under consideration include 1) expansion of the Utley Creek WWTP; 2) construction
of a new municipal WWTP on Middle Creek; or 3) treatment at the Town of Cary's existing
WWTP on Middle Creek.
The Town's consulting engineers, The Wooten Company, contracted Robert J.
Goldstein & Associates, Inc. (RJG&A) to conduct an environmental reconnaissance of the
project area to identify sites that may be of concern to regulatory agencies reviewing the
project plans. RJG&A ecologists surveyed the proposed construction corridors to locate major
areas of jurisdictional wetlands, populations of protected species, and high quality natural
areas. The approximate boundaries of environmentally sensitive sites were mapped on USGS
7.5-minute topographic quadrangles and submitted to The Wooten Company so that project
plans could be altered to avoid these areas to the extent practicable. Environmentally
preferable sewerline alternatives apparent in the field are recommended on the maps in this
"'" report.
2.0. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.
Holly Springs lies at the junctur3 of three major geologic regions; the Durham -Sanford
PEI Triassic Basin to the northwest, the Raleigh Belt to the northeast, and the Sandhills to the
south (N.C. Division of Land Resources, 1984). Each of these geologic regions comprises
approximately one-third of the ETJ. A diabase dike lies diagonally (northwest -southeast)
�-+ across the northern half of the ETJ, and mafic amphibolite intrusions occur in the northeast.
Several rare species known from Wake County are associated with these geologic formations.
Holly Springs also lies on the topographic divide between two major river basins, the
Neuse River to the east and the Cape Fear River to the west. The Middle Creek watershed,
which comprises 60% of the ETJ, flows eastward to the Neuse River (Figure 2). The two
,.., major impoundments in this portion of the service area are Sunset Lake and Bass Lake. The
proposed pump station site for the Middle Creek basin is downstream of Sunset Lake. Middle
Creek is designated nutrient -sensitive waters (NSW) by The N.C. Division of Environmental
Management (DEM), and is also known to contain populations of federally and state protected
aquatic animals.
The remaining three pump stations will be built on Little Branch, Utley Creek, and
0.1
Norris Branch (Figure 3). These streams drain the western 40°'0 of the ETJ, and flow
westward to Buckhorn Creek, which was impounded in 1983 by Carolina Power & Light
4

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Habitat requirements of protected species known from Wake County, N.C.
Rua
Pal
1101
IBM
Pat
Poi
Scientific Name
Habitat Requirements
Habitat Present
in Project Area
ANIMALS
Aimophila aestivalis
Amb ystoma tigrinum
Coragyps atratus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hemidactylium scutatum
Lampetra aepyptera
Lanius ludovicianus
Myotis austroriparius
M yo tis sep ten trionalis
Nec turus le wisii
No turus furiosus
Picoides borealis
Vermivora bachmanni
INVERTEBRATES
Alasmidonta heterodon
Alasmidonta undulata
Elliptio lanceolata
Elliptio roanokensis
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis radiata
Lasmigona subviridis
Speyeria diana
Strophitus undulatus
PLANTS
Isoetes piedmontana
Monotropsis odorata
Portulaca smallii
Rhus michauxii
Rueilia humilis
Trillium pusillum
open, mature pine forest
sandy forests near vernal pools
hollow trees or rock crevices
mature trees along rivers & lakes
ponded seeps with mossy Togs
streams
open grassland, farms
hollow trees or buildings, near rivers
hollow trees or caves, extensive forests
streams
streams
open, extensive, mature pine forests
bottomland forests with vine thickets
streams
streams
streams
streams
streams
streams
streams
mesic and floodplain forests
streams
pools on granite flatrock
upland hardwood/pine forests
granite flatrock outcrops
sandy/rocky woodland edges
dry, open, basic woods
calcareous seeps, streambanks
— suitable habitat present, species rot found in or near project area
+ suitable habitat present, species occurs in or near project area
suitable habitat not prese-~
16

OW
i .2
:S—
J -
•
i
'u
\� us //�/
Figure 1.
B�.
Holly Springs Sewerline
Project Area, Showing Service
Area (ETJ), Pump Stations,
and WWTP Location.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
oV
L
r

) I ;
• '• l" -(1113',
V . • t , ,
(")
/
!;•
‘,0
e•
;I
' 1,,-:• '.'!!.:„-•,.....::::;;--'..---N---...':.:\,
,••' : V 0 rfi
1 ,- , .:, •.• ,, : - ----v_.-,:_____..
4_:;____ \ .-• _ . !,. - •• , . •.
•
i• . ' ' ' '
Batial Crerk
Ch
•ft
.59
. •
.( .
, • , • \\(,
r „ \ •
--r )
ei•ri\o
1)1 11
.
;443
rr,„, •
I ' • •
r •
(393,
• -
• \
•
z ,', 1 . ')
---..1
---1., '''.• \ . .1, 5- ; / . : 1 (_:,..-%.::
AN
\chiii)
( r II
\ f..
• 1iinnhIT-Teivilt.4--7)11.•,‘:,
400 •'
IV
\ • N
•
•
LEGEND
Recommend Project Line
H High Quality Habitat
W Wetlands
Rare Species:
1 IlexastyAs lewisii
2 Cypripedium pubescens
3 Nestronia umbellula
4 Didiplis diandra
5 Ambystoma tigrinum
SCALE: 1 Inch = 2,000 Feet
Figure 2.
Wetlands, Rare Species Sites, High
Quality Habitats, and Recommended
Project Corridor in the Holly Springs
Sewerline Project Area - Middle Creek
Basin.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

z'o
•
plc
9
•
1
�S (
WWTP,,;1
LEGEND
ay.Recommend Project Line
H High Quality Habitat
W Wetlands
Rare Species:
1 Hexastylis lewisii
2 Cypripedium pubescens
3 Nestronia umbellu/a
4 Didiplis diandra
5 Ambystoma tigrinum
SCALE: 1 Inch = 2,000 Feet
Figure 3.
3 r
0 .
Wetlands, Rare Species Sites, High
Quality Habitats, and Recommended
Project Corridor in the Holly Springs
Sewerline Project Area - Buckhorn
Creek Basin.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
1

APPENDIX 2
Engineering Calculations and Cost Projections

PEI
Description of 2.7 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (Alternative T-1)
The principal components of this alternative are given as follows:
1. Provide a mechanical screen, with 3/8-inch openings and a manually cleaned bypass screen
'm with 5/8-inch openings, to handle the design peak flow of 6.75 mgd.
2. Provide a new influent pump station equipped with three (3) submersible, non -clog
,.., centrifugal pumps each rated at 2350 gpm capacity. The pumps will be equipped with
variable speed drives and controls.
3. Provide a grit removal system designed to handle a peak flow of 6.75 mgd. The grit
''' removal unit will be equipped with a screw classifier for grit dewatering.
4. Provide dual oxidation ditch type aeration basins equipped with mechanical turbine
aeration. The oxidation ditch system will be partitioned such that anaerobic, first stage
anoxic, second stage anoxic and oxic zones can be created for biological nutrient removal
process operation. The design solids retention time for the system will be approximately
,,, 20 days. The design hydraulic retention time for the system will be approximately 30
hours.
5. Provide two 74-ft diameter clarifiers with 15-ft sidewater depth. The design surface
MR overflow rate, weir overflow rate, and hydraulic retention time at average daily flow are
314 gpd/sq ft, 5807 gpd/lin.ft and 8.6 hrs, respectively.
. 6. Provide a sludge recirculation/waste pump station that will include two sludge recirculation
pumps, each rated at 1875 gpm; two waste sludge pumps each rated at 300 gpm; and two
scum pumps each rated at 150 gpm. The pumps will be provided with necessary controls
and piping.
7. Provide back-up chemical feed facilities for phosphorous removal. The chemical feed
facilities will consist of alum or ferrous sulfate and polymer feed systems. The
. alum/ferrous sulfate feed system will consist of a bulk storage tank, two metering pumps,
flow pacing and necessary piping, controls, spill containment and housing. The polymer
feed system will consist of a dry feeder, mixing tank, aging tank, two metering pumps and
.4 necessary piping, controls, polymer storage area and housing.
8. Provide a lime feed system designed to supplement alkalinity for nitrification and to add
adequate lime for sludge stabilization and production of Class B sludge that can be
F. disposed of by land application.
9. Provide a tertiary filtration system. The design filtration rates at average daily flow (2.7
mgd) and maximum daily flow (5.4 mgd) will be approximately 2.0 gpm/sq ft and 4.0
gpm/sq ft.
,.., 10. Provide a UV disinfection system to comply with the effluent Fecal Coliform Limit.
11. Provide a cascade type post aeration facility designed to comply with the effluent Dissolved
Oxygen Limit.
Pr
PM
12. Convert the existing 500,000 gpd package plant to aerobic sludge digestion facilities
equipped with diffused aeration system and decanting equipment. Utilize the existing tri-
plex blower system for air supply. Provide a sludge transfer pump station to transfer

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

ALTERNATIVE T-1
PER Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 2.7 MGD Wastewater Treatment Facility
mg
INFLUENT PUMP STATION $185,000
HEADWORKS $200,000
GRIT CHAMBER $160,000
M" OXIDATION DITCHES $2,587,500
FINAL CLARIFIERS $641,250
RAS/WAS PUMP STATION $175,000
TERTIARY FILTERS $416,250
UV DISINFECTION $253,125
CASCADE AERATION $30,000
PIM CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING $95,000
LIME STABILIZATION $165,000
SLUDGE DIGESTION $175,000
- INSTRUMENTATION $100,000
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $150,000
SLUDGE LOADING $50,000
mm SITEWORK $861,300
FT F,CTRICAL $430.650
SUB -TOTAL $6,675,075
w+ Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%) $2,002,523
Legal & Admin. (2%) $133,502
Survey & Misc. $25.000
"e+ PROJECT TOTAL $8,836,099
USE $8,836,000
DESCRIPTION COST

ALTERNATIVE T-1 PRESENT WORTH COST
O&M Costs
„n, Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salavge Value
Total Present Worth
PW of New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Total Present Worth
$208,500
$97,000
$181,125
$5,000
$25,000
$241.875
$550,000
7.75%
20 Years
$539,757.84
$4,078,118.82
$500,000
$3,828,933
($399,685)
($860,463)
$7,063,238
$539,757.84
$4,078,118.82
($399,685)
($860.463)
$10,420,967

5. Provide two 54-ft diameter clarifiers with 15-ft sidewater depth. The design surface
I., overflow rate, weir overflow rate, and hydraulic retention time at average daily flow are
327 gpd/sq ft, 4420 gpd/lin.ft and 8.2 hrs, respectively.
6. Provide a sludge recirculation/waste pump station that will include two sludge recirculation
mul
pumps, each rated at 1050 gpm; two waste sludge pumps each rated at 300 gpm; and two
scum pumps each rated at 150 gpm. The pumps will be provided with necessary controls
and piping.
7. Provide back-up chemical feed facilities for phosphorous removal. The chemical feed
facilities will consist of alum or ferrous sulfate and polymer feed systems. The
alum/ferrous sulfate feed system will consist of a bulk storage tank, two metering pumps,
flow pacing and necessary piping, controls, spill containment and housing. The polymer
feed system will consist of a dry feeder, mixing tank, aging tank, two metering pumps and
necessary piping, controls, polymer storage area and housing.
8. Provide a lime feed system designed to supplement alkalinity for nitrification and to add
adequate lime for sludge stabilization and production of Class B sludge that can be
op disposed of by land application.
9. Provide a tertiary filtration system. The design filtration rates at average daily flow (1.5
M, mgd) and maximum daily flow (3.0 mgd) will be approximately 2.0 gpm/sq ft and 4.0
gpm/sq ft.
10. Provide a UV disinfection system to comply with the effluent Fecal Coliform Limit.
11. Provide a cascade type post aeration facility designed to comply with the effluent Dissolved
Oxygen Limit.
12. Convert the existing 500,000 gpd package plant to aerobic sludge digestion facilities
equipped with diffused aeration system and decanting equipment. Utilize the existing tri-
MR plex blower system for air supply. Provide a sludge transfer pump station to transfer
Description of 1.5 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (Alternative T-3)
The principal components of this alternative are given as follows:
1. Provide a mechanical screen, with 3/8-inch openings and a manually cleaned bypass screen
with 5/8-inch openings, to handle the design peak flow of 3.75 mgd.
2. Provide a new influent pump station equipped with three (3) submersible, non -clog
centrifugal pumps each rated at 1300 gpm capacity. The pumps will be equipped with
variable speed drives and controls.
3. Provide a grit removal system designed to handle a peak flow of 3.75 mgd. The grit
Pol removal unit will be equipped with a screw classifier for grit dewatering.
4. Provide dual oxidation ditch type aeration basins equipped with mechanical turbine
1.1 aeration. The oxidation ditch system will be partitioned such that anaerobic, first stage
anoxic, second stage anoxic and oxic zones can be created for biological nutrient removal
process operation. The design solids retention time for the system will be approximately
20 days. The design hydraulic retention time for the system will be approximately 30
FM hours.
PM
W I
PM

PM
stabilized sludge to sludge holding facilities.
13. Convert the existing 250,000 gpd package plant to sludge holding facilities utilizing the
existing aeration system for mixing requirements. The sludge holding facilities shall be
used for lime stabilization as required.
p., 14. Dispose the aerobically stabilized or lime stabilized sludges by land application, using a
contracting firm engaged in sludge disposal.
IFNI
mil
1011
fnill
PM
MI
PER
15. Provide a new laboratory/administrative building.

PM
WM
ALTERNATIVE T-3
MR Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 1.5 MGD Wastewater Treatment Facility
PIS
DESCRIPTION
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
HEADWORKS
GRIT CHAMBER
OXIDATION DITCHES
`im FINAL CLARIFIERS
RAS/WAS PUMP STATION
TERTIARY FILTERS
rim UV DISINFECTION
CASCADE AERATION
CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING
'"' LIME STABILIZATION
SLUDGE DIGESTION
INSTRUMENTATION
PM ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
SLUDGE LOADING
SITEWORK
pm, ELECTRICAL
Intl
SUB -TOTAL
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection
Legal & Admin. (2%)
Survey & Misc.
PROJECT TOTAL
USE
Expected Capital Charge from Town Of Cary
COST
$110,000
$110,000
$120,000
$1,569,231
$542,308
$160,000
$216,923
$90,000
$30,000
$95,000
$135,000
$150,000
$90,000
$150,000
$50,000
$578,954
$289,477
$4,486,892
$ 1,346,068
$ 89,738
$ 15,000
$5,937,698
$5,938,000
$2,327,855

ALTERNATIVE T-3 PRESENT WORTH COST
O&M Costs
on Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System $208,500
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries $65,500
Electrical $135,000
poi
Chemicals $9,500
Maintenance & Misc. $15,000
Sludge Disposal $135.000
`o' Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs $360,000
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate 7.75%
''" Planning Period 20 Years
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs $1,591,830.30
PW of New Plant O&M Costs $852,786.16
W Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant $250,000
Salvage Value of New Plant $4,354,533
PM PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value ($102,078)
PW of New Plant's Salavge Value ($978,579)
Total Present Worth
pm PW of New Plant $2,424,560
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant $1,591,830.30
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant $852,786.16
!Nil Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant ($102,078)
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant ($978.579)
Total Present Worth -Holley Springs WWTP $3,788,519
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP $3,752,736
Ing
Total Present Worth of Alternative t-3 $7,541,255

PM
MI
PM
Description of 1.0 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (Alternative T-4)
The principal components of this alternative are given as follows:
1. Provide a mechanical screen, with 3/8-inch openings and a manually cleaned bypass screen
with 5/8-inch openings, to handle the design peak flow of 3.75 mgd.
2. Provide a new influent pump station equipped with three (3) submersible, non -clog
centrifugal pumps each rated at 1300 gpm capacity. The pumps will be equipped with
variable speed drives and controls.
3. Provide a grit removal system designed to handle a peak flow of 3.75 mgd. The grit
removal unit will be equipped with a screw classifier for grit dewatering.
4. Provide an 1,000,000 gpd dual -path, extended aeration package plant with diffused
aeration. The plant will contain two aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, sludge
digester and sludge holding tank. The design solids retention time for the system will be
approximately 20 days. The design hydraulic retention time for the system will be
approximately 30 hours.
5. Provide back-up chemical feed facilities for phosphorous removal. The chemical feed
facilities will consist of alum or ferrous sulfate and polymer feed systems. The
alum/ferrous sulfate feed system will consist of a bulk storage tank, two metering pumps,
flow pacing and necessary piping, controls, spill containment and housing. The polymer
feed system will consist of a dry feeder, mixing tank, aging tank, two metering pumps and
necessary piping, controls, polymer storage area and housing.
6. Provide a lime feed system designed to supplement alkalinity for nitrification and to add
adequate lime for sludge stabilization and production of Class B sludge that can be
disposed of by land application.
9. Provide an additional tertiary filtration system. The design filtration rates at average daily
flow (1.0 mgd) will be approximately 2.0 gpm/sq ft.
10. Provide an additional UV disinfection system to comply with the effluent Fecal Coliform
Limit.
11. Provide a cascade type post aeration facility designed to comply with the effluent Dissolved
Oxygen Limit.
12. Dispose the aerobically stabilized or lime stabilized sludges by land application, using a
contracting firm engaged in sludge disposal.
13. Provide a new laboratory/administrative building.

PPM
ALTERNATIVE T-4
Town of Holly Springs
Preliminary Cost Estimate 1.0 MGD Wastewater Treatment
Facility
DESCRIPTION COST
antINFLUENT PUMP STATION $90,000
HEADWORKS $110,000
GRIT CHAMBER $120,000
.8 MGD PACKAGE PLANT $1,150,122
TRIPLEX BLOWERS $142,908
TERTIARY FILTERS $133,000
UV DISINFECTION $90,000
• CASCADE AERATION $30,000
CHEMICAL FEED BUILDING $95,000
LIME STABILIZATION $135,000
"a' INSTRUMENTATION $50,000
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $150,000
SLUDGE TRANSFER/HOLDING $100,000
▪ SITEWORK $383,365
FT.FCTRICAL $191,682
SUB -TOTAL $2,971,077
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%) $891,323
Legal & Admin. (2%) $59,422
Survey & Misc. $15,000
PROJECT TOTAL $3,936,822
USE $3,937,000
Expected Capital Charge from Town Of Cary $2,327,855

Mg
ALTERNATIVE T-4 PRESENT WORTH
O&M Costs
• Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
„o Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
FMSludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Non -Annual O&M Costs
Paint Existing System in 2004
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2004 Paint Cost
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Calculation
PW of New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
PLus PW of Cost of Painitng Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Total Present Worth of Holley Springs WWTP
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP
Total Present Worth of Alternative T-4
PM
COST
$208,500
$65,500
$158,125
$40,000
$31,250
$162.500
$457,375
$140,000
7.75%
20 Years
$2,157,247
$1,083,453
$71,511
$0
$2,233,002
$0
($501,815)
$1,607,526
$2,157,246.56
$1,083,452.97
$71,511
$0
($501.815)
$4,417,922
$3,752,736
$8,170,658

Alternative T-5
Present Worth of Continuing to Operate Existing 0.500 MGD
WWTP
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
•• Salary $60,000
Electrical $89,500
Chemicals $2,000
.., Maintenance&Miscellaneous $7,000
Sludge Disposal $50.000
Total O&M Costs Exisiting System $208,500
^'M Non -Annual O&M Costs
Paint Existing System in 2004 $140,000
Present Worth Costs
rim Interest Rate 7.75%
Planning Period 20 Years
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs $2,157,247
W* PW of 2004 Paint Cost $71,511
Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant $0
mai
Total Present Worth Calculation
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant $2,157,247
PLus PW of Cost of Painitng Existing Plant $71,511
fell
Total Present Worth - Holley Springs 0.50 mgd
Package Plant $2,228,758
RR
Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP $6.086.101
Total Present Worth Alternative T-5 $8,314,858

1 1 1 )1 1 l 1 1
Year Year
1 1997
2 1998
3 1999
4 2000
5 2001
6 2002
7 2003
8 2004
9 2005
10 2006
11 2007
12 2008
13 2009
14 2010
15 2011
16 2012
17 2013
18 2014
19 2015
20 2016
Assumed Town
of Cary
Treatment
Charge per
1000 gals= $1.40
Expected Total
Average Daily
Wastewater
Flow
0.22 MGD
0.25 MGD
0.29 MGD
0.33 MGD
0.37 MGD
0.43 MGD
0.49 MGD
0.56 MGD
0.63 MGD
0.72 MGD
0.83 MGD
0.94 MGD
1.08 MGD
1.23 MGD
1.40 MGD
1.60 MGD
1.83 MGD
2.09 MGD
2.38 MGD
2.72 MGD
1 1 l
PW Costs for Tie to Cary
Interest Rate= 7.75%
Alternative
Expected Q - T-2
Expected Q - Cape Fear Treatment
Middle Creek Watershed Charge
0.10 MGD
0.11 MGD
0.13 MGD
0.15 MGD
0.17 MGD
0.19 MGD
0.22 MGD
0.25 MGD
0.28 MGD
0.32 MGD
0.37 MGD
0.42 MGD
0.48 MGD
0.55 MGD
0.62 MGD
0.71 MGD
0.81 MGD
0.93 MGD
1.06 MGD
1.21 MGD
0.12 MGD
0.14 MGD
0.16 MGD
0.18 MGD
0.21 MGD
0.24 MGD
0.27 MGD
0.31 MGD
0.35 MGD
0.40 MGD
0.46 MGD
0.52 MGD
0.60 MGD
0.68 MGD
0.78 MGD
0.89 MGD
1.02 MGD
1.16 MGD
1.32 MGD
1.51 MGD
$0
$0
$146,486
$167,213
$190,874
$217,883
$248,713
$283,906
$324,079
$369,936
$422,282
$482,035
$550,243
$628,102
$716,979
$818,431
$934,240
$1,066,434
$1,217,335
$1,389,588
Present
Worth of
Alternative T-
2 Treatment
Charge
$0
$0
$117,096
$124,052
$131,420
$139,226
$147,495
$156,256
$165,537
$175,369
$185,786
$196,821
$208,511
$220,896
$234,017
$247,917
$262,642
$278,242
$294,769
$312,277
$3,598,330
1 1 1 l i 1 1 l
Alternatives T-
3 &T-4
Treatment
Charges
$0
$0
$65,105
$74,317
$84,833
$96,837
$110,539
$126,181
$144,035
$164,416
$187,681
$214,238
$244,552
$279,157
$318,657
$363,747
$415,218
$473,971
$541,038
$617,595
Present Worth
of
Alternatives T- Alternative
3 & T-4 T-5
Treatment Treatment
Charges Charge
Present
Worth of
Alternative
T-5
Treatment
Charge
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$52,043 $65,105 $52,043
$55,134 $74,317 $55,134
$58,409 $84,833 $58,409
$61,878 $96,837 $61,878
$65,553 $110,539 $65,553
$69,447 $126,181 $69,447
$73,572 $144,035 $73,572
$77,942 $164,416 $77,942
$82,571 $187,681 $82,571
$87,476 $214,238 $87,476
$92,672 $294,743 $111,691
$98,176 $372,602 $131,040
$104,008 $461,479 $150,623
$110,185 $562,931 $170,521
$116,730 $678,740 $190,814
$123,663 $810,934 $211,580
$131,008 $961,835 $232,901
$138.790 $1,134,088 $254.860
$1,599,258 $2,138,057

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PW Costs for Tie to Cary
Present Worth Alternative T-2
Capital Charges from the Town of Cary $5,237,675
Present Worth of O&M Costs $3,598,330
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($392,348)
Total Present Worth $8,443,657
Present Worth Alternative T-3 & T-4
Capital Charges from the Town of Cary $2,327,855
Present Worth of O&M Costs $1,599,258
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($174,377)
Total Present Worth $3,752,736
Present Worth Alternative T-5
Capital Charges from the Town of Cary $4,267,735
Present Worth of O&M Costs $2,138,057
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($319.691)
Total Present Worth $6,086,101

ALTERNATIVE T-6A
Town of Holly Springs
am Preliminary Cost Estimate 1.0 MGD Wastewater Treatment
Facility Expansion
DESCRIPTION COST
INFLUENT PUMP STATION $110,000
mil
HEADWORKS $110,000
GRIT CHAMBER $120,000
1.0 MGD OXIDATION DITCH $850,000
pm
CLARIFIER $303,000
TERTIARY FILTERS $167,000
UV DISINFECTION $90,000
pm CASCADE AERATION $30,000
INSTRUMENTATION $35,000
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITY $75,000
'R STANDBY POWER $100,000
SITEWORK $327,400
FTP.CTRICAL $151,200
mil SUB -TOTAL $2,468,600
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%) $740,580
Legal & Admin. (2%) $49,372
""" Survey & Misc. $15,000
PROJECT TOTAL $3,273,552
pmUSE $3,275,000

Pug
ALTERNATIVE T 6A PRESENT WORTH
O&M Costs
a•. Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
,.., Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
pm,Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Non -Annual O&M Costs
Paint Existing System in 2004
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2004 Paint Cost
▪ Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
▪ PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salvage Value
Total Present Worth Calculation
PW of New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
POI Plus PW of Cost of Painting Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Total Present Worth of Holley Springs WWTP
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP
Total Present Worth of Alternative T-6A
COST
$208,500
$65,500
$135,000
$1,000
$8,000
$135.000
$344,500
$140,000
7.75%
20 Years
$2,085,736
$2,829,769
$71,511
$0
$1,310,000
$0
($294,392)
$2,820,829
$2,085,735.61
$2,829,768.50
$71,511
$0
($294.392)
$7,513,452
$1,309,803
$8,823,255

ALTERNATIVE T-6B
Town of Holly Springs
ina Preliminary Cost Estimate 1.0 MGD Wastewater Treatment
Facility Expansion
DESCRIPTION COST
„q INFLUENT PUMP STATION $110,000
HEADWORKS $110,000
GRIT CHAMBER $120,000
1.0 MGD OXIDATION DITCH $850,000
CLARIFIIER $303,000
TERTIARY FILFRS $167,000
UV DISINFECTION $90,000
mq
CASCADE AERATION $30,000
INSTRUMENTATION $35,000
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITY $75,000
p' STANDBY POWER $100,000
SITEWORK $327,400
ELECTRICAL $151,200
SUB -TOTAL $2,468,600
Contingency,Engineering & Inspection (30%) $740,580
Legal & Admin. (2%) $49,372
MR
Survey & Misc. $15,000
PROJECT TOTAL $3,273,552
MI USE $3,275,000

ALTERNATIVE T-6B PRESENT WORTH
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs Exisiting System
Average Annual O&M Costs Proposed System
Salaries
Electrical
Chemicals
Maintenance & Misc.
Sludge Disposal
Sub -Total Annual O&M Costs
Projected O&M Costs for 2012 Expansion
Non -Annual O&M Costs
'N' Paint Existing System in 2004
Present Worth Costs
Interest Rate
^ Planning Period
PW of Exisiting Plant O&M Costs
PW of New Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2012 Plant Expansion
PW of 2012 Plant O&M Costs
PW of 2004 Paint Cost
sal Salvage Value
Salvage Value of Exisiting Plant
Salvage Value of New Plant
,.., Slavage Value of 2012 Plant
PW of Exisiting Plant's Salvage Value
PW of New Plant's Salvage Value
PW of 2012 Plant's Salvage Value
fool
Total Present Worth Calculation
PW of New Plant
PW of 2012 Plant Expansion
Plus PW of O&M for Existing Plant
Plus PW of O&M for New Plant
Plus PW of O&M for 2012 Plant
Plus PW of Cost of Painting Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of Existing Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of New Plant
Less Salvage Value for PW of 2012 Plant
Total Present Worth of Holley Springs WWTP
Total Present Worth of Tie to Cary WWTP
Total Present Worth of Alternative T-6B
COST
$208,500
$65,500
$135,000
$1,000
$8,000
$135.000
$344,500
$668,990
$140,000
7.75%
20 Years
$1,933,994
$2,829,769
$3,398,816
$486,876
$71,511
$0
$1,091,667
$11,962,601
$0
($245,327)
($2,688,314)
$2,820,829
$3,398,816
$1,933,993.82
$2,829,768.50
$486,876.47
$71,511
$0
($245,327)
($2.688.314)
$8,608,154
$0
$8,608,154

Phase 1
— Quantity
7700 LF
39 EA
•• 18500 LF
1EA
PORI
ow
Pwl
Phase 2
PRQuantity
4800 LF
24EA
Rut 18500 LF
2 EA
ALTERNATIVE 0-1
Description
24" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
10" Forcemain
Pump Station (Middle Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Easements ($9.00 per LF)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Land Aquisition
Legal & Administrative (2%)
Total Estimated Cost
USE
Description
24" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
12" Force Main
Pumps
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Legal & Administrative (2%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
USE
Extended Cost
$462,000
$78,000
$407,000
$425.000
$1,372,000
$411,600
$69,300
$5,000
$20,000
$27.440
$1,905,340
$1,905,000
Extended Cost
$288,000
$48,000
$518,000
$90.000
$944,000
$283,200
$1,000
$18.880
$1,247,080
$1,247,000

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

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

Fool
Present Worth Analysis Alternative 0-2
Phase 1 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $729
Phase 2 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $455
Phase 1 Force Main O&M Costs $1,572
Phase 2 Force Main O&M Costs $1,572
,..,, Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $10,000
Electricity $60,000
Maintenance $7,000
Fogl
Odor Control $24.000
Total Pump Station Maintenance $101,000
Total Phase 1 O&M Costs $103,301
Value of Phase 1 O&M Costs as of Year 3 $958,195
Total Phase 2 O&M Costs $2,027
Value of Phase 2 O&M Costs as of Year 11 $12,792
Salvage Value at 2015
Phase I Construction $1,543,154
Phase 2 Construction $1.800,400
Total Salvage Value $3,343,554
Present Worth Calculation
Present Worth of Phase 1 Construction $2,369,334
ma+ Present Worth of Phase 2 Consruction $1,032,578
Present Worth of Phase 1 O&M $765,953
Present Worth of Phase 2 O&M $5,628
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($751.385)
Total Present Worth $3,422,109

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

Present Worth Analysis Alternative 0-3
Phase 1 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $729
Phase 2 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $455
Phase 1 Force Main O&M Costs $606
Phase 2 Force Main O&M Costs $606
Pump Station O&M Costs
fmn
Salary $5,000
Electricity $28,000
Maintenance $3,500
Odor Control $12.000
Total Phase 1 Pump Station Maintenance $48,500
Total Phase 1 O&M Costs $49,835
RIR
Value of Phase 1 O&M Costs as of Year 3 $462,259
Total Phase 2 O&M Costs $1,061
Value of Phase 2 O&M Costs as of Year 11 $6,695
Salvage Value at 2015
Phase 1 Construction $883,129
Phase 2 Construction $872.400
Total Salvage Value $1,755,529
Present Worth Calculation
Present Worth of Phase 1 Construction $1,336,548
Present Worth of Phase 2 Construction $500,231
Present Worth of Phase 1 O&M $369,516
Present Worth of Phase 2 O&M $2,945
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($394.514)
Total Present Worth $1,814,726

Phase 1
Quantity
7700 LF
39 EA
12800 LF
1EA
Phase 2
Quantity
4800 LF
24EA
4800 LF
20400 LF
8000 LF
1EA
2 EA
1EA
ALTERNATIVE 0-4
Description
24" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
8" Forcemain
Pump Station (Middle Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Easements ($9.00 per LF)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Land Aquisition
Legal & Administrative (2%)
Total Estimated Cost
USE
Description
18" Gravity Sewer
Manholes
12" Force Main
14" Force Main
16" Force Main
Generators
Pumps
Pump Station (Utley Creek)
Sub -Total
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Surveying and Miscellaneous
Legal & Administrative (2%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
USE
Extended Cost
$462,000
$78,000
$230,400
$425.000
$1,195,400
$358,620
$69,300
$5,000
$20,000
$23.908
$1,672,228
$1,672,000
Extended Cost
$264,000
$48,000
$134,400
$652,800
$288,000
$100,000
$90,000
$450.000
$2,027,200
$608,160
$1,000
$40.544
$2,676,904
$2,677,000

Present Worth Analysis Alternative 0-4
Phase 1 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $729
ant Phase 2 Gravity Sewer O&M Costs $455
Phase 1 Force Main O&M Costs $606
Phase 2 Force Main O&M Costs $1,572
me Phase One Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $5,000
Electricity $28,000
,nil Maintenance $3,500
Odor Control $12.000
Total Phase 1 Pump Station Maintenance $48,500
Total Phase 1 O&M Costs $49,835
MI
Value of Phase 1 O&M Costs as of Year 3 $462,259
Phase Two Pump Station O&M Costs
Salary $5,000
mg
Electricity $28,000
Maintenance $3,500
Odor Control $12.000
""'' Total Phase 2 Pump Station Maintenance $48,500
Total Phase 2 O&M Costs $50,527
Value of Phase 2 O&M Costs as of Year 11 $318,941
"" Salvage Value at 2015
Phase I Construction $883,129
Phase 2 Construction $2,022 025
p+ Total Salvage Value $2,905,154
Present Worth Calculation
Present Worth of Phase 1 Construction $1,336,548
Pal Posen Worth of Phase 2 Construction $1,177,764
Present Worth of Phase 1 O&M $369,516
Present Worth of Phase 2 O&M $140,320
,.., Less Present Worth of Salvage Value ($652.865)
Total Present Worth $2,371,283

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Case 1 Total Flow goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 2.7 mgd 2700000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (I). 1745 ac
(1)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(2)
(3
4)=(2)+(3
5
WATER BALANCE: Holly Spring
6)=(4)-(5) (7)=Snrav Area*(6
8
9
10
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (s)
Drainage
(inches) (a)
Total Uptake
(inches)
Precip.
(inches) (a)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation Capacity
(gals)
Influent
Wastewater Flow
(gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated (gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
63,935,751
83,700,000
63,935,751
19,764,249
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
7,107,862
81,000,000
7,107,862
73,892,138
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
8,323,929
83,700,000
8,323,929
75,376,071
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
83,700,000
0
83,700,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
65,806,316
75,600,000
65,806,316
9,793,684
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
99,580,818
83,700,000
99,580,818
-15,880,818
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
156,770,163
81,000,000
156,770,163
-75,770,163
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
178,295,058
83,700,000
178,295,058
-94,595,058
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
146,308,454
81,000,000
146,308,454
-65,308,454
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
76,962,432
83,700,000
76,962,432
6,737,568
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
56,995,676
83,700,000
56,995,676
26,704,324
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.24
2.65
125.413.542
81.000.000
125.413.542
-44.413.542
Totals:
75.65
55.00
20.80
985,500,000
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
985,500,000
985,500,000
0
Cumulative
Stora_e :als
19,764,249
93,656,387
169,032,458
252,732,458
262,526,142
246,645,325
170,875,162
76,280,104
10,971,650
17,709,218
44,413,542
0

l l l l 1 l 1 l I l l l 1 l I I I 1 l
Case 2 Total Flow less Existing Flow goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 2.2 mgd 2200000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (1) = 1422 ac
(1)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(2)
(3)
(4)=(2)+(3)
WATER BALANCE: Holly Springs
(5)
(6)=(4)-(5) (7)=Spray Area*(6)
(8)
(9)
(10)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (1)
Drainage
(inches) (1)
Total Uptake
(inches)
Precip.
(inches) (1)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated
(gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
52,095,797
58,900,000
52,095,797
6,804,203
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
5,791,591
57,000,000
5,791,591
51,208,409
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
6,782,460
58,900,000
6,782,460
52,117,540
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
58,900,000
0
58,900,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
53,619,961
53,200,000
53,619,961
-419,961
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
81,139,925
58,900,000
81,139,925
-22,239,925
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
127,738,651
57,000,000
127,738,651
-70,738,651
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
145,277,455
58,900,000
134,531,613
-75,631,613
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
119,214,296
57,000,000
57,000,000
0
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
62,710,130
58,900,000
58,900,000
0
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
46,440,921
58,900,000
46,440,921
12,459,079
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.24
7.65
102,188,812
57.000.000
69.459.079
-12,459,079
Totals:
75.65 55.00 20.80 693,500,000 693,500,000
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
Cumulative
Stora _ e ( als)
6,804,203
58,012,612
110,130,151
169,030,151
168,610,190
146,370,265
75,631,613
0
0
0
12,459,079
0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
WATER BALANCE: Holly Springs
(1) (6)=(4)-(5) (7)=Spray Area*(6)
Case 3 Total Flow from Utley Creek side goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 1.5 mgd 1500000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (')= 969 ac
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(2)
(3)
(4)=(2)+(3)
(5)
(8)
(9)
(10)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (1)
Drainage
(inches) (a)
Total Uptake
(inches)
Precip.
(inches) (m)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated (gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
35,519,862
46,500,000
35,519,862
10,980,138
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
3,948,812
45,000,000
3,948,812
41,051,188
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
4,624,405
46,500,000
4,624,405
41,875,595
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
46,500,000
0
46,500,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
36,559,064
42,000,000
36,559,064
5,440,936
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
55,322,676
46,500,000
55,322,676
-8,822,676
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
87,094,535
45,000,000
87,094,535
-42,094,535
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
99,052,810
46,500,000
99,052,810
-52,552,810
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
81,282,475
45,000,000
81,282,475
-36,282,475
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
42,756,906
46,500,000
42,756,906
3,743,094
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
31,664,264
46,500,000
31,664,264
14,835,736
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.24
2.65
69,674,190
45.000.000
69,674.190
-24,674.190
Totals:
75.65
55.00
20.80
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
547,500,000
547,500,000
0
(11)
Cumulative
Stora a (: als)
10,980,138
52,031,326
93,906,921
140,406,921
145,847,857
137,025,180
94,930,645
42,377,835
6,095,361
9,838,454
24,674,190
0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
WATER BALANCE: Holly Springs
Case 4 Total Flow from Middle Creek side goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 1.2 mgd 1200000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area ")= 775 ac
(1) (2)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(3)
(4)=(2)+(3)
(5)
(6)=(4)-(5) (7)=Spray Area*(6)
(8)
(9)
(10) (11)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (*)
Drainage
(inches) (I)
Total
Uptake
(inches)
Precip,
(inches) (')
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated (gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
28,415,889
37,200,000
28,415,889
8,784,111
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
3,159,050
36,000,000
3,159,050
32,840,950
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
3,699,524
37,200,000
3,699,524
33,500,476
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
37,200,000
0
37,200,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
29,247,252
33,600,000
29,247,252
4,352,748
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
44,258,141
37,200,000
44,258,141
-7,058,141
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
69,675,628
36,000,000
69,675,628
-33,675,628
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
79,242,248
37,200,000
79,242,248
-42,042,248
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
65,025,980
36,000,000
65,025,980
-29,025,980
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
34,205,525
37,200,000
34,205,525
2,994,475
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
25,331,411
37,200,000
25,331,411
11,868,589
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.24
2.65
55,739,352
36.000.000
55,739,352
-19,739,352
Totals:
75.65
55.00
20.80
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
438,000,000
438,000,000
0
Cumulative
Stora a (: als)
8,784,111
41,625,061
75,125,537
112,325,537
116,678,286
109,620,144
75,944,516
33,902,268
4,876,289
7,870,763
19,739,352
0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
WATER BALANCE: Holly Springs
Case 5 Total Flow from Utley Creek less existing discharge goes to Spray Irrigation
Flow Rate, Q = 1.0 mgd 1000000 gal
Available Loading Rate = 1.73 ft/yr
Effective Spray Area (4= 646 ac
(1) (2)
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
(3)
(4)=(2)+(3)
(5)
(6)=(4)-(5) (7)Spray Area*(6)
(8)
(9)
(10) (11)
EvapoTrans.
(inches) (')
Drainage
(inches) (s)
Total Uptake
(inches)
Precip.
(inches) (1)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity
(inches)
Available
Irrigation
Capacity (gals)
Influent
Wastewater
Flow (gals)
Actual
Wastewater
Irrigated
(gals)
Delta Storage
(gals)
2.17
3.28
5.45
4.10
1.35
23,679,908
24,800,000
23,679,908
1,120,092
1.50
3.28
4.78
4.63
0.15
2,632,541
24,000,000
2,632,541
21,367,459
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.04
0.18
3,082,937
24,800,000
3,082,937
21,717,063
0.93
3.28
4.21
4.37
0.00
0
24,800,000
0
24,800,000
1.68
3.28
4.96
3.57
1.39
24,372,710
22,400,000
24,372,710
-1,972,710
2.79
3.28
6.07
3.97
2.10
36,881,784
24,800,000
36,881,784
-12,081,784
3.60
3.28
6.88
3.57
3.31
58,063,023
24,000,000
58,063,023
-34,063,023
4.65
3.28
7.93
4.17
3.76
66,035,207
24,800,000
45,687,097
-20,887,097
5.10
3.28
8.38
5.29
3.09
54,188,316
24,000,000
24,000,000
0
4.96
3.28
8.24
6.62
1.62
28,504,604
24,800,000
24,800,000
0
4.34
3.28
7.62
6.42
1.20
21,109,510
24,800,000
21,109,510
3,690,490
3.60
3.28
6.88
4.24
2.65
46,449,460
24.000.000
27.690,490
-3,690,490
Totals:
75.65 55.00 20.80 292,000,000 292,000,000
(a) Evapo. for tree cover; Drainage for Mayodan (My) soils; Precip. data from Wake County Soil Survey
(1) Spray Area is a function of the Flowrate and the Available Irrigation Capacity.
0
Cumulative
Stora a (als)
1,120,092
22,487,551
44,204,614
69,004,614
67,031,905
54,950,120
20,887,097
0
0
0
3,690,490
0

Construction Cost Data - Spray Irrigation Alternative
Prices (CHANGE VALUES HERE):
Item Unit Cost
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Reinforced Concrete
Case 1 Fiowrate = 2.7 mgd
tern
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Irrigation Pump Station w/ 3 -
10,000 gpm pumps
Cl2 Contact Structure (Concrete)
Cl2 Building and Chlorinators
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Case 2 Flowrate = 2.2 mgd
Ite, e
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Irrigation Pump Station w/ 3 -
8,000 gpm pumps
Cl2 Contact Structure (Concrete)
C12 Building and Chlorinators
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
$3,000/ac
$3,000/ac
$2,500/ac
$2.50/cy
$0.69/cy
$6,500/ac
$500/cy
Unit Cost Quantity
$3,000/ac
$3,000/ac
$2,500/ac
$2.50/cy
$0.69/cy
$6,500/ac
$450,000/LS
$500/cy
$50,000/LS
Unit Cost
$3,000/ac
$3,000/ac
$2,500/ac
$2.50/cy
$0.69/cy
$6,500/ac
$400,000/LS
$500/cy
$50,000/LS
129 ac
2,268 ac
Total
129 ac
295,166 cy
287,557 cy
1,745 ac
otal Cost
$387 ,000
$6.804.025
$7,191,025
$322,500
$737,915
$198,414
$11,340,042
1 $450,000
260 $130,000
1 $50.000
Sub -Total = $20,419,897
$6.125.969
TOTAL = $26,545,866
USE_ $26,500,000
Quantity Total Cost
102 ac $306,000
1,596 ac $4.789.200
Total $5,095,200
102 ac $255,000
237,503 cy $593,758
229,687 cy $158,484
1,228 ac $7,982,000
1 $400,000
220 $110,000
1 $50.000,
Sub -Total = $14,644,442
$4.393.332
TOTAL = $19,037,774
USE_ $19,000,000

Construction Cost
Prices:
!im
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Reinforced Concrete
Case 3 Fiowrate = 1.5 mgd
Item
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Irrigation Pump Station w/ 3 -
6,000 gpm pumps
Cl2 Contact Structure (Concrete)
Cl2 Building and Chlorinators
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Case 4 Flowrate = 1.2 mgd
gem
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Irrigation Pump Station w/ 3 -
5,000 gpm pumps
Cl2 Contact Structure (Concrete)
Cl2 Building and Chlorinators
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Data - Spray Irrigation Alternative
U it Cost
$3,000/ac
$3 ,000/ac
$2,500/ac
$2.50/cy
$0.69/cy
$6,500/ac
$500/cy
Unit Cost Quantity
$3,000/ac 78 ac
$3,000/ac 1,260 ac
Total
$2,500/ac 78 ac
$2.50/cy 183,477 cy
$0.69/cy 169,155 cy
$6,500/ac 969 ac
$350,000/LS 1
$500/cy 190
$50,000/LS 1
Sub -Total =
TOTAL =
USE_
Unit Cost Quantity
$3,000/ac 61 ac
$3,000/ac 1,008 ac
Total
$2,500/ac 61 ac
$2.50/cy 150,145 cy
$0.69/cy 146,069 cy
$6,500/ac 775 ac
$300,000/LS 1
$500/cy 175
$50,000/LS 1
Sub -Total =
TOTAL =
USE_
otal Cost
$234,000
$3.780.014
$4,014,014
$195,000
$458 ,693
$116,717
$6,300,023
$350,000
$95,000
$50.000
$11,579,447
$3.473.834
$15,053,281
$15,100,000
otal Cost
$183,000
$3.024.011
$3,207,011
$152,500
$375,363
$100,788
$5,040,019
$300,000
$87,500
$50.000
$9,313,180
$2.793.954
$12,107,134
$12,100,000

Construction Cost
Prices:
Item
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Reinforced Concrete
Case 5 Flowrate = 1.0 mgd
agm
Land Acquisition
Lagoon Areas
Sprayfield Areas
Site Work (for Lagoon Areas)
Site Clearing
Excavation
Compaction
Piping, Headers and Access
Irrigation Pump Station w/ 3 -
4,000 gpm pumps
C12 Contact Structure (Concrete)
Cl2 Building and Chlorinators
Engineering & Contingency (30%)
Data - Spray Irrigation Alternative
Unit _Cost
$3,000/ac
$3,000/ac
$2,500/ac
$2.50/cy
$0.69/cy
$6,500/ac
$500/cy
Unit Cost Quantity
$3,000/ac 44 ac
$3,000/ac 840 ac
Total
$2,500/ac 44 ac
$2.50/cy 114,423 cy
$0.69/cy 119,691 cy
$6,500/ac 646 ac
$250,000/LS 1
$500/cy 160
$50,000/LS 1
Sub -Total =
TOTAL =
USE_
otal Cost
$132,000
$2.520.009
$2,652,009
$110,000
$286,058
$82,587
$4,200,016
$250,000
$80,000
$50.000
$7,710,669
$2.313.201
$10,023,870
$10,000,000

Poll
The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Pol
Case 1: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 2.7.106• g1
mm day
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D := 10.ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = D t := D + D fb D t = 13 *ft
Width to Length ratio = r := 2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.71• ft
Dike Width = W k := 10•ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De Dk= 11'ft
CMG 11 /20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth):
V :=Q•Td
Length:
V = 81000000 *gal
V = 10828125 ' ft3
Average Area:
A:=V
D
A= 1082813•ft2
L (4•rA— 6•r•(S•D)2 + 2•(S•D)2 ).5 + S•D•(1 + r)
2•r
L = 1501 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb:=L-2.D.S Wb:=W-2•D•S
Lb= 1461'ft Wb=711'ft
Width:
W := L•r
W=751'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Ltb:=L+2•D fb•8
Lfb= 1513'ft
Wfb := W + 2• D fb• S
W fb = 763 ' ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 := L b• W b• D t V 1= 13503339 •ft3
V2 :=2• 2•Dt (S•Dt)•Wfb V2 = 257804'ft3
V3 :=2• 1•Dt (S•Dt)•Lfb V3 = 511553'ft3
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 14272697'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb+2•DeS
L c = 1468'ft W c = 718'ft
Vcl:=Lb•Wb•De
V cl = 1776208 'ft3
Vc2:=2• 12•De(S•De)•Wc+ 12•De•(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 12783eft3
V ct := V cl Vc2 V ct = 1788992'ft3
Volume of Fill:
ufl :=2'(Wk'Dk'1-tb'FWk'Dk'Wfb)
yf2._2 f 2 2 Dk(S•Dk) Wit 2 2Dk(S•Dk) L�J
L
Vft:=Vfl+Vf2 V ft = 1674505'ft3
V fl = 513967 'ft3
V f2 = 1160538 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
A b := L b• W b A b= 1038718 'ft2
,mil Length of Side Walls:
Lw := Dt2-I-(S•Dt)2 LW = 29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•LW)+2.0.5•Lw (LwS))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((Wb•L W)'•I' 2.0.5•Lw•(LW•S))•2
poi
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+AW
A t = 1171766 'ft2
we' A t = 27 'an
mit
Al = 88347 'ft2
A = 44701 'ft2

The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 1: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 2.7.106• 1
"" day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 233356571• gal
Side Slope = S := 2
Eml Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = Dt:=D+Dfb D t = 13'ft
Width to Length ratio = r := 2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.77• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De
Number of Lagoons = N := 4
Dk= 11.23*ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
V Stor+Q.14•day
N A:=V
Length:
V = 67789143 'gal
A = 906209 •ft2
V = 9062090 'ft3
L (4•rA-6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2) 5+S•D•(1+r)
2• r
L = 1376'ft
Base of Lagoon:
wig Lb:=L-2.D.S Wb:=W-2•D•S
L b = 1336 •ft W b = 648 •ft
w
L
Width:
W :=L•r
W = 688 • ft
N

..
11101
Vcl •Lb•Wb'De Vc1 = 1532600'ft3
Vc2:=212•De(S•De)•Wc+ 2 1•De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 1252110
Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L+2•Dfb•S
L fb = 1388 'ft
Wlb :=W+2•Dfb•S
Wfb=700'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt
V2:=2' 2•Dt (S•Dt)•Wfb
V3 :=2' 1'Dt (S.Dt).Lfb
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
1
V 1 = 11256384'ft3
V 2 = 236619 'ft3
V 3 = 469182 'ft3
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 11962185'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb--2•DeS
L = 1343'ft W = 655'ft
Vct:=Vcl+Vc2 Vct= 1545121•ft3
Volume of Fill:
V fi := 2.( k• D k• L fb + W k• D k• W f)) V fi = 469003 'ft3
PoiVf2:=2• 2.2•Dk•{S•Dk)•Wf + 2 1.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Lfb V12= 1053380'ft3
V ft := V f1 + V f2 V ft = 1522382 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
P M
P M
Base of Lagoon:
Ab:=Lb-Wb
A b = 865876'ft2
Length of Side Walls:
wil
LW := JDt2+(S•Dt)2 LW = 29'ft
..
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
mil
Al ((L b•L W) + 2.0.5•L W(L WS) )•2
porn
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
PIP
A :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW•(LWS))•2
pm
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
,.,t At :=Ab-l-Al+AW
A t = 987991 •ft2
'I▪ ' A t = 23 'acre
P M
P R
PI
WI
NM
Al = 81059 'ft2
A W = 41057 'ft2

Mil
The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 2: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 2.2.106 • l
"N day
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Pol
Side Slope = S := 2
rim Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
um
Total Depth = D t := D + D fb D t = 13 'ft
Width to Length ratio =
llool
._1
r.--
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.89• ft
mn Dike Width = W k := 10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De Dk= 11•ft
rum
CMG 11/20/95
MI Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth):
PM
V:=Q'Td
PEI
Pr
PM
RIM
INNI
Length:
V = 66000000 'gal
V = 8822917 'ft3
Average Area:
A:=V
D
A = 882292 • ft2
L :_ (4•r.A— 6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2) 5+S•D•(1+r)
2•r
L = 1358 It
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L— 2•D•S
Lb = 1318•ft
W b := W — 2• D. S
W b = 639•ft
Width:
W :=L•r
W = 679 eft

PM
Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lf6 :=L-I-2•Dfb•S Wfb :=W+2•Dfb•S
L fb = 1370'ft W fb = 691 'ft
Lagoon Volume
.. V 1 := L b• W b• D t V 1= 10952434 'ft3
V 2 := 2• • D t (S • D t) • W fb V 2 = 233596 'ft3
12
Fr
V3 :=211•Dt•(S•Dt)•L fb V3=463136•ft3
2
non
Total Lagoon Volume:
PIM
A•,
Cmot
PEI
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 V t = 11649166'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•De8 We :=Wb+2•De0
L c = 13261t Wc= 647'ft
Vcl :=Lb•Wb•De
V ci = 1592315 'ft3
Vc2:=2• 1
2•De (S•De)•Wc+ 12•De (S•De)'Lc
Vct := V cl + Vc2 Vct= 1606407•ft3
Volume of Fill:
pm
V fl :=2•(W k•D k•L fb+ W k•D k•W fb)
P•' VP2 :=2• 2.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Wfb+ L 2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Lfb
PM
Vft:=Vfl+V@ V ft = 1475771•ft3
V c2 = 14092 *ft
3
V fi = 458029 'ft3
V P2 = 1017741 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
IMP
Base of Lagoon:
Ab :=Lb•Wb A = 842495•ft2
Length of Side Walls:
om
MI
LW := Dt2- (S•Dt)2 Lw= 29•ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al ((Lb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(LWS))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((wb.LW)+2.0.5•LW(L WS))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At:=Ab-I-Al+AW
A t = 963050'ft2
At = 22•a,cre
A 1 = 80019 ' ft2
A W = 40537 •ft2

MR
The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 2: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 2.2.106 g l
"n day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 184740619• gal
MP
Side Slope = S := 2
mil Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = D t := D -1 D fb D t = 13 'ft
ageR
Width to Length ratio = r .= 1
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.73• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
ewl
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De D k = 11.27•ft
Number of Lagoons = N := 3
CMG 11/20/95
pm Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
"' Stor + Q. 14• day
V := V
N A :=—
D
V = 71846873 *gal
A = 960453 •ft2
V = 9604530 'ft3
Length:
L :_ (4•rA— 6•r•(S•D)2+ 2•(S•D)2) 5+ S•D•(1-I- r)
MI
2•r
L=1416•ft
PR
Base of Lagoon:
"" L b := L— 2•D•S W b := W— 2.D•S
L b = 1376 •ft W b = 668 It
Width:
W := L• r
W = 708 ' ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
L fb := L + 2• D fb• S W fb := W + 2.13 fb• S
Lfb= 1428'ft W fb=720'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt
V l = 11946068 'ft
V2:=2• 2•Dt(S•Dt)•W fb V2=243330'ft3
V3 :=2• 1•Dt•(S•Dt)•L fbV3 = 482604'ft3
2
Total Lagoon Volume:
Vt :=V 1 + V 2 + V 3 V t = 12672002'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•DeS We :=Wb••i 2•De S
L c = 1383•ft W c = 675'ft
V cl := L b• W b• D e V cl = 1589746'ft3
Vc2:=2• 1•De(S•De)•Wc+ 1•De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 12316'ft3
2 2
Vct:=Vc1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1602062 'ft3
ufl'-2'(Wk'Dk-Ltb+wk'Dk'Wtb)
y@._2122 Dk(S•Dk)•Wfbt22Dk(S•Dk)•LfbJ
ft
fl
+ V
f2
V ft = 1575260 *ft3
V f1 = 484099 'ft3
V f2 = 1091160 'ft3

PIM
Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
A b := L b• W b A b= 918928 •ft2
Length of Side Walls:
LW := Dt2+(S•Dt)2 LW = 29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(LWS))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
OMR
A 1 = 83367 • ft2
A :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(LWS))•2 AW = 42211•ft2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+AW
A t = 1044506 •ft2
A t = 24 •acre
PIM

The Wooten Company
up Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 3: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q :=1.5.106• g-
m. day
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Side Slope = S := 2
''' Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3. ft
u m
Total Depth = Dt:=D+Dfb D t = 13•ft
P ,
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
Depth of Excavation = D e := 2.2• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
PM Depth of Dike = D k := D t — D e Dk = 11 *ft
WI
MR
10.1
Pig
POI
PER
MI
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth):
V :=Q.Td
Length:
V = 45000000 *gal
V = 6015625 'ft3
Average Area:
A:=V
D
A = 601563 • ft2
L :_ (4•r•A— 6•r•(S•D)2 + 2•(S•D)2 ).5 -I- S•D•( 1 + r)
2• r
L = 1127'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D•S Wb .=W-2•D•S
L b = 1087 *ft W b = 523 'ft
Width:
W :=L•r
W = 563 • ft

PM
..I
MA
PR
RIR
PR
MA
PIA
PA
PER
AM
INN
on
OM
NM
Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
L fb :=L+2•D fb•S
L fb = 1139 *ft
W fb := W + 2• D fb• S
W fb = 575 It
Lagoon Volume
v 1 :=Lb•wb•Dt
V2 -=2• 1•Dt•(S•Dt)•W fb
2
V3 •-212 Dt•(S )t) Lth J
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 7393254 'ft3
V 2 = 194466 ' ft3
V 3 = 384877 'ft3
Vt:=V1+V2+V3 Vt=7972597'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
L c := L b + 2•D e•S We:=Wb+2•DeS
L c = 1095 It W c = 532 It
Vcl •=Lb.Wb•De Vc1 = 1251166'ft3
Vc2 •=212•De(S•De)•Wc+ 12•De(S•De)•Lc
Vct:=Vc1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1266922 'ft3
V�:=212•�•Dk(S•Dk)•W�t 2.2•Dk•(g•pk)•L�J
V ft := V f1 + V f2 V ft = 1169930 *ft3
V c2 = 15755 'ft3
V fi = 370231 'ft3
V f2 = 799699 ' ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
MR
MI
Base of Lagoon:
Ab : Lb•Wb
OM Length of Side Walls:
MI
PEI
A b = 568712 •ft2
LW := Dt2+(S•Dt)2 LW = 29•ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb.L W)+2.0.5•LW(LWS))•2 Al = 66558•ft2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
A :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW(LWS))•2 AW = 33806•ft2
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
At:=Ab+AI+AW
A t = 669076 • ft2
A t = 15 •acne

PEI
The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 3: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q :=1.5.106 • g/
on day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 145847857• gal
.,
Side Slope = S := 2
c+ Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
PEI
Total Depth = D t := D + D tb D t = 13 *ft
PER
Width to Length ratio =
MP
1
r .--
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.71• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
pig
PE
PER
PEI
PER
MP
PE
PER
PEI
Depth of Dike = D k := D t— D e
Number of Lagoons = N := 2
Dk= 11•ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
V Stor + Q. 14• day
V
N A :=—
D
Length:
V = 83423928 'gal
3 A = 1115216'ft2
V = 11152157'ft
L ._(4•r-A-6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2).5+S•D•( 1+r)
2•r
L = 1523 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
L b := L— 2• D. S W b := W— 2• D. S
L b = 1483 'ft W b = 722 •ft
Width:
W :=L•r
W = 762 'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L+2•Dfb•S Wfb :=W+2•D fb•S
pp Lfb= 1535'ft Wfb=774'ft
I•,
PPR
Lagoon Volume
I.+ V 1 := L b• W b• D t V 1= 13916056 'ft3
V2:=2• 2•Dt(S•Dt)•Wfb V2=261499'ft3
V3 :=2. 2•Dt (S•Dt)•Lfb V3 = 518941It3
pm
Total Lagoon Volume:
Vt :=V1+V2-i-V3 V t = 14696496'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•130 We :=Wb+2•Des
L c = 1490 It W c = 729 'ft
V cl := L b• W b• D e V cl = 1830497 'ft3
Vc2:=2. 12 2•De(S•De)•Wc-1-1De(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 12975'ft3
Vct:=Vc1+Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1843472'ft3
Vf1 •=2•(Wk•Dk•Lfb+Wk•Dk•Wfb)
Vf2 •=2• 2.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Wfb+1.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Lfb
2
Vft: vfl+VP2
V ft = 1698626 'ft3
V fi = 521371 •ft3
V f2 = 1177255 'f13

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
Ab :Lb•Wb
„„ Length of Side Walls:
MO
MI
MI
OM
PM
MI
MI
Pal
A b = 1070466 ' ft2
LW := Dt2+(S.Dt)2 L W = 29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al:=((Lb•LW)+2.0.5•Lw(LwS))•2 A1=89617'ft2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
AW:=((Wb.LW)+2-0.5•LW•(LwS))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+AW
A t = 1205419 'ft2
A t = 28 'acre
A W = 45336'ft2

NMI
.,
PEI
The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 4: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 1.2.106•g l
day
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Side Slope = S := 2
W+ Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
op
Total Depth= Dt :=D+D fb Dt= 13•ft
pan Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
p*+ Depth of Excavation = D e := 2.35• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
peg
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De D k = 11•ft
im
Dimensions
CMG 11/20/95
. a
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
12.1
V :=Q•Td V
D
V = 36000000 *gal
'"'A A = 481250 ' ft2
V = 4812500 •ft3
w
Length:
_ (4•rA— 6•r•(S•D)2 + 2•(S•D)2) 5 + S•D•(1+ r)
new L :
2•r
L = 1011 'ft
pm
Base of Lagoon:
""' Lb:=L-2•D•S Wb:=W-2.D•S
Lb=971*ft Wb=465'ft
Width:
W :=L•r
W = 505 'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L+2.Dtb•S
L fb = 1023 'ft
W tb := W + 2• D fb• S
Wtb= 517'ft
Lagoon Volume
V 1 :=Lb•Wb•Dt
V 2 := 2. 1.D t (S•D t)•W tb
2
V3:=2• 2•Dt (S•Dt)•Ltb
Total Lagoon Volume:
V 1 = 5874362 •ft3
V 2 = 174893 'ft3
V 3 = 345729 'ft3
V t := V 1+ V 2+ V 3 V t= 6394984 •ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc :=Lb+2•De•S We :=Wb+2•De S
L c = 980 'ft W c = 475 'ft
Vcl •—Lb•Wb•De Vc1 = 1061904'ft3
V c2 :=2• 1•D e(S•D e)•W c+ 12•D e(S•D e)•L c V c2 = 16072'ft3
Vct:=Vcl+ Vc2
Volume of Fill:
1077975 'ft
V ct =3
Vf1 :=2•(Wk•Dk•Lfb+ Wk•Dk•Wfb)
V fi = 328084 ' ft3
Vf2 :=2• 2.2•Dle( S•Dk)•Wtb+ 12.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Lfb V f2 = 698819'ft3
Vft:=Vfl+V f2
V ft = 1026903 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
NM
Base of Lagoon:
Ab :=Lb•Wb Ab = 451874•ft2
me Length of Side Walls:
PEI
PM
OR
WM
Mel
WI
fowl
PM
AM
Lw:= Dt2+(S•Dt)2 Lw=29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :_((Lb•Lw)+2.0.5•Lw•(L WS))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
Aw :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•L W(L WS))•2
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+Aw
A t = 542137 'ft2
At = 12•acre
A 1 = 59824 •ft2
A w = 30439 •ft2

The Wooten Company
�, Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 4: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q := 1.2.106•g l
pm day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 109620144• ga1
mg
Side Slope = S := 2
p"+ Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
pm
Total Depth = Dt:=D-+Dfb D t = 13•ft
wt
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
p► Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.83• ft
mi
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt — De Dk= 11•ft
P I! Number of Lagoons = N := 2
Dike Width = W k :=10. ft
CMG 11/17/95
PM Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
pm Stor + Q. 14• day V
V :_
N A :_—
D
V = 63210072 *gal
"M 3 A = 844996 • ft2
V = 8449958•ft
mg
Length:
L _ (4•rA— 6•r•(S•D)2 + 2•(S•D)2) 5 + S•D•(1 + r)
mi.—
2•r
L = 1330 •ft
rim
Base of Lagoon:
''' Lb :=L-2•D.S Wb:=W-2•D.S
L b = 1290 •ft W b = 625 'ft
Width:
W := L•r
W=665'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
mg
L fb :=L- 2•D fb•S W fb •= W+ 2•D fb•S
Lfb= 1342'ft Wft) =677'ft
pm
OM
Lagoon Volume
PM V 1 := L b• W b• D t V 1= 10478656 'ft3
V2 :=2• 1•Dt•(S•Dt)•Wfb V2 = 228799'ft3
2
V 3 :=212•D t•(S-D t)-L fb V 3 = 453543'ft3
mil
Total Lagoon Volume:
PR
PM
PEI
FM
Vt:=V1+V2-f-V3 V t = 11160999'ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb+2•DeS
L c = 1297 It W c = 632 It
V cl := L b• W b• D e V c1 = 1475072'ft3
mil Vc2•=2• l•De(S•De)•Wc+ 1•De(S•De)•Lc
PR
PR
Vct:=VC1+VC2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1487995 It
Vfl=2'(Wk•Dk•LfbtWk•Dk•Wfb)
V@•-2122Dk(SDk)Wfb-F22Dk(SDk)LfbJ
Vft:=Vfl+VP2 V ft = 1458508 'ft3
V c2 = 12923 'ft3
V fi = 450992 'ft3
V f2 = 1007516 'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
NMI
MI
Base of Lagoon:
A b :=Lb•Wb A b = 806050 'ft2
,,.,, Length of Side Walls:
LW Dt2+7Dt)2 Lw=29'ft
NM
linl
Mel
WI
AIM
MI
PM
PIM
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•Lw)+2.0.5•Lw (L0))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
Aw :=((Wb•LW)+2.0.5•LW.(LWS)).2
Total Surface Area of Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+AW
A t = 924131 'ft2
A t = 21 'acre
A 1 = 78369 'ft2
A W = 39712 'ft2

MN
The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 5: Treatment Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q :=1.0.106•
11
Detention Time = T d := 30• day
Side Slope = S := 2
Liquid Depth = D :=10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
Total Depth = D t := D + D fb D t = 13 'ft
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
PM
Depth of Excavation = D e := 2.66• ft
Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
Depth of Dike= Dk:=Dt—De Dk= 10'ft
101.
.q
PR
PM
MR
Ows
PM
.M
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth):
V .-Q•Td
Length:
V = 30000000 'gal
V = 4010417 'ft3
Average Area:
A :- V
D
A = 401042 • ft2
L .=(4•rA-6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2) 5+S•D•(1+r)
2•r
L = 925 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D•S Wb .=W-2•D•S
Lb=885'ft Wb=423*ft
Width:
W .=L•r
W=463'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Lfb :=L+2•Dfb•S
Lfb = 937*ft
Wfb :=W+2•Dfb•S
W fb = 475 *ft
Rog
V3 :=2• �•Dt (S•Dt)•L fb V3 = 316830'ft3
Lagoon Volume
V i := L b• W b• D t V = 4864998 'ft3
V 2 •= 2. • D t• (S • D t) • W fb V 2 = 160443 'ft3
. [ 1
Total Lagoon Volume:
mig V t:= V 1+ V 2+ V 3 V t= 5342272 • ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb+2•De0
Lc=896*ft We=433*ft
Vc1 •=Lb•Wb•De Vc1 = 995454•ft3
1 1
img Vc2:=2• 2•De (S•De)•Wc+ •De (S•De)•Lc Vc2 = 18812'ft3
ism Vct'—VclV c2 Vct= 1014265'ft3
Volume of Fill:
V fi := 2.( k• D k• L fb + W k• D k• W fb) V fl = 292012 •ft3
fog
Vf2:=2• 2.2•Dk-(S•Dk)•Wfb+ 12.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Lfb Vf2=603881*ft3
Vft:=Vf1+Vf2 V ft = 895894'ft3

Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
..
..
Base of Lagoon:
A :=Lb•Wb Ab = 374231'ft2
P. Length of Side Walls:
L= 2-(SD2 LW = 29•ftW:t
PRI
PM
MI
MI
WI
illi
Pr
1.1
ani
PR
mi
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•L W)+2.0.5•LW(L0))•2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
AW :=((Wb•L W)+2.0.5•LW(L WS))•2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At :=Ab+A1+AW
A t = 457038 'ft2
A t = 10 'acre
A 1 = 54853 'ft2
A W = 27954 *ft2

OM
The Wooten Company
Holly Springs - Storage and Treatment Lagoons
Case 5: Storage Lagoon
Variables
Flow rate = Q :=1.0.106 g l
day
Max Cumulative Storage = Stor := 69004614• gal
cm
Side Slope = S := 2
mil Liquid Depth = D := 10• ft
Freeboard Depth = D fb := 3• ft
OMR
Total Depth = Dt:=D+Dfb D t = 13•ft
WI
Width to Length ratio = r := 1
2
Depth of Excavation = D e :=1.96• ft
,,,,A Dike Width = W k :=10• ft
PIM
Depth of Dike= D k :=Dt— De
Number of Lagoons = N := 2
D k = 11.04'ft
CMG 11/20/95
Dimensions
Liquid Volume (Top of Liquid Depth): Average Area:
V Stor + Q.14• day V
N A :_
D
Length:
V = 41502307 'gal
A = 554805 •ft2
V = 5548052 •ft3
L :_ (4•r•A— 6•r•(S•D)2+2•(S•D)2) 5+S•D•(1+ r)
2•r
L = 1083 'ft
Base of Lagoon:
Lb :=L-2•D.S Wb :=W-2•D•S
Lb = 1043•ft Wb = 502•ft
Width:
W .=L•r
W = 542 'ft

Top of Lagoon (with 3 ft freeboard):
Ltb •=Li••2•Dtb•S Wtb •=W+2•Dtb•S
L tb = 1095 'ft W tb = 554 'ft
Lagoon Volume
A., V 1 := L b• W b• D t V 1= 6802373 'ft3
PEI
ISM
PEI
tarl
V 2 :=21—Df(S•Dt).Wfbi
V 2 = 187115 'ft3
V3 :=2• 2•Dt (S•Dt)•Lfb V3 = 370174•ft3
Total Lagoon Volume:
V t:= V 1+ V 2 -+- V 3 V t= 7359662 •ft3
Excavation
Volume of Cut:
Lc:=Lb+2•DeS Wc:=Wb+2•DeS
Lc= 1051'ft
Vcl ••=Lb•Wb•De
Wc= 509•ft
V c1 = 1025588 'ft3
,� 1 1
Vc2:=2• 2•Da(S•De)•Wc+2•Da(S•De)•Lc Vc2= 11989"ft3
Vct •=Vcl+' Vc2
Volume of Fill:
V ct = 1037578 'ft3
V f1 :=2•(Wk•Dk•Ltb+Wk•Dk•Wtb)
Vi2 •=212.2•Dk•(S•Dk)•Wtb+ fb]
2
Vft:=V fl+Vpa
V ft = 1167879 'ft3
V f1 = 364052 •ft3
V f2 = 803827 'ft3

OM
Surface Area (for Slope Protection)
Base of Lagoon:
im A b := L b• W b A b= 523259 'ft2
o.
.. Length of Side Wails:
.a
PM
mg
Piel
WI
MI
LW := Dt2+(S•Dt)2 LW = 29'ft
Wall along Length of Lagoon:
Al :=((Lb•LW)+2.0.5•Lw (Lys S))•2 Al = 64029•ft2
Wall along Width of Lagoon:
AW:=((Wb•LW)•2.0.5•LW•(LwS))•2 AW=32542•ft2
Total Surface Area of each Lagoon:
At:=Ab+A1+AW
A t = 619830 • ft2
At = 14'aa=

TOWN of HOLLY SPRINGS
GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION
mg Quantity Description Cost
14400 LF 8" Force Main $260,000
1 LS Pump Station $100,000
0.' 1 LS Storage Lagoon $64,000
1230 LF Chain -link Fence $16,000
Sub -Total $440,000
me
Engineering & Contingency (30%) $132,000
Easements ($ 9.00 per LF) $2,000
Surveying and Miscellaneous $15,000
Legal and Administrative (2%) $9,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $598,000
USE $600,000

01114
IMO
.•4
PRI
PRI
WASTEWATER OUTFALL LINE ALIGNMENTS
BASS LAKE /SUNSET LAKE OUTFALL CONFIGURATION
Quantity Description Cost
6200 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $174,000
4300 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $146,000
3400 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $153,000
3000 LF 18" Gravity Sewer $168,000
7800 LF 24" Gravity Sewer $468,000
124 EA Manholes $248,000
Quantity
Sub -Total $1,357,000
Engineering & Contingency (30%) $407,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $222,000
Environmental Assessment $25,000
Surveying & Miscellaneous $40,000
Legal & Administrative (2%) $27,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $2,078,000
USE $2,100,000
ALTERNATE CONFIGURATION
Description Cost
6200 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $174,000
1700 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $58,000
PM 1100 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $50,000
3200 LF 18" Gravity Sewer $179,000
5400 LF 6" Forcemain $54,000
1 EA Pump Station (Bass Lake) $100,000
RIR 14600 8" Force Main $263,000
1 EA Pump Station (Sunset Lake) $225,000
61 EA Manholes $122,000
Sub -Total $1,225,000
Engineering & Contingency (30%) $362,000
Easements ($9.00 per LF) $281,000
Environmental Assessment $25,000
ezai Surveying & Miscellaneous $40,000
Legal & Administrative (2%) $24,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,957,000
USE $2,000,000

APPENDIX 3
Agreement with Wake County

NORTH CAROLINA
INTERLO AGREE'M$NT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this the
day of , 1994, by and between the County
of Wake, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY,
and the Town of Holly Springs, North Carolina, hereinafter
P1
referred to as the TOWN.
COUNTY OF WARE
OM
MR
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has purchased approximately 320 acres
mmq for the construction and operation of the South Wake Solid Waste
Management Facility, hereinafter referred to as SWSWMF; and
,., WHEREAS, the COUNTY has submitted a permit application to
the State of North Carolina, to construct and operate said
- facility; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has requested approval from the TOWN and
the TOWN has by Resolution # Q3-18 approved of the construction
and operation of said facility within the corporate limits and
zoning jurisdiction of the TOWN, and has issued a letter of
approval from the TOWN'a Zoning Administrator; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has requested to purchase and the TOWN
has agreed to sell to the COUNTY, 50,000 gallons per day of
mig
$350,000 in funding for the construction of the TOWN's existing
WWTP ; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and TOWN have agreed to certain terms
and conditions relating to the construction and operation of this
facility and to the purchase of wastewater treatment capacity in
mq the existing Holly Springs wastewater treatment plant.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, mutual
covenants, terms and conditions contained herein, the COUNTY and
TOWN do hereby agree as follows:
WITNESSETHt
wastewater treatment capacity in the TOWN's existing wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP}; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and TOWN have previously entered into an
Agreement dated February 26, 1987, whereby the COUNTY contributed
-1-

poi 1. The TOWN does hereby approve the construction and operation
of the SWSWHF within the corporate limits and ETJ of the
TOWN.
2. The TOWN shall reserve for use.by.,the COUNTY, 50,000 gallons
per day of wastewater treatment capacity in the TOWN's
existing wastewater treatment plant, or any future expansion
thereof, for the treatment of leachate generated by the
BMW or other wastewater generated by COUNTY facilities
located on COUNTY property. The TOWN and COUNTY shall
mutually agree upon an appropriate schedule for the use of
the reserved capacity based upon development plane and
schedule for this facility.
3. As compensation to the TOWN for the 50,000 gpd reserve
capacity, the COUNTY shall relieve the TOWN from the payment
of the remaining balance of $298,291 owed to the COUNTY
under the terms of the Agreement dated February 26, 1987.
Should the COUNTY, at some future time, elect not to use the
50,000 gpd, or any portion thereof, the TOWN shall have the
PEI
option to repurchase the remaining' capacity at a per gallon
cost equal to that paid by the COUNTY.
4. The TOWN shall be responsible for having a wastewater
pumping station and force main designed and constructed for
purposes of transporting leachate from the BWSWMF to the
for Holly Springs wastewater system. The location of the
pumping station and route of the force main shall be
mutually agreed upon by the COUNTY and TOWN and constructed
in accordance with the TOWN'e standards and specifications.
5. The COUNTY shall provide to the TOWN, $208,000 plus a
contingency of $20,800 for the design and construction of
the wastewater pumping station and force main. The COUNTY'•
payment to the TOWN shall not exceed $228,800 or the actual
cost of the design and consruction whichever is lees. The
TOWN will be responsible for operation and maintenance of
the System. The COUNTY shall convey to the TOWN all
— easements needed for the construction, ingress and egress
Pon
PRI

and operation and maintenance of these facilities located on
PR
COUNTY property.
6. The COUNTY shall convey to the TOWN upon request, additional
easements needed for the construction of future gravity
■. sewers and force mains across COUNTY property. The location
of these easements are subject to approval by the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -
Solid Waste Management Section. The design plans and
construction schedule for these eewerlines shall be subject
to approval by the COUNTY.
ram 7. The COUNTY shall have the right, now or in the future, to
tap into and/or extend the wastewater lines constructed
PR
under this Agreement for additional CONY owned facilities.
In doing so, the TOWN agrees that no assessments, capital
PR
PR
specified in this Agreement and the COUNTY shall be
responsible for paying for the treatment of wastewater at an
agreed upon rate.
Pal 8. The COUNTY will work with the TOWN and the NCDEHNR Division
of Environmental Management to determine the need for an
industrial pre-treatment program and ordinance. At such
time that a pre-treatment program is required and/or needed,
by the TOWN, the COUNTY will pay its proportionate share of
the initial program costs based upon the 50,000 gpd
allocation and the TOWN's projected total industrial
wastewater volume at the time the program is established.
mm
9. A].1 the agreed upon terms and conditions contained within
this Agreement shall be subject to the COUNTY receiving a
charges, benefit fees, impact fees, or acreage fees shall be
charged to the COUNTY. In allowing these connections, the
PER
TOWN is not guaranteeing any wastewater treatment allocation
to the COUNTY with the exception of the 50,000 gpd as
permit from the State of North Carolina for the construction
of the South Wake Solid Waste Management Facility.
-3

IN WITNESS W ER$OF, the parties hereto have caused this
instrument to be executed by their proper designated officials
and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed on the day and
year first above written.
ATTEST:
erk, Wak County
Board of Commissioners
WAKE COUNTY
BY: 94.
CMA tRMA
Wake County
Board of Commissioners
Approved As to Form:
ounty Attorney
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner prescribed
by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
Pal

ATTEST:
BY
TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
Ge a d -o eman, Mayor
Town of Holly Springs
Approved As To Fo
Atto
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner prescribed
by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
4). 5L-
Finance Director
b,inlothol,agr

WAKE COUNTY
AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
INN
PRI
Pal
NORTH CAROLINA
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the ,_,J,_l '14 _ _ day of fir; 1
1995, by and between the County of Wake, North Carolina, a body politic and corporate
organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY),
and the Town of Holly Springs, a municipal corporation of the State of North Carolina
(hereinafter referred to as the TOWN).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on the first day of December 1994 the COUNTY and TOWN entered into
an Agreement regarding the provision of wastewater services to the South Wake Solid Waste
Management Facility; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY agreed to provide funding in an amount not to exceed Two
Hundred and Twenty-eight Thousand, Eight Hundred Dollars ($228,800) to design and construct
wastewater lines in the TOWN; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement stated that the COUNTY would make those funds available
upon the receipt of a permit from the State of North Carolina for the construction of the South
Wake Solid Waste Management Facility, and
WHEREAS, the TOWN is in a position to construct the wastewater transport facilities
outlined in the agreement prior to the COUNTY receiving this permit; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY wishes to cooperate with the TOWN and meet their
accelerated schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE the COUNTY and the TOWN do hereby agree as follows:
That Section 9 of the Interlocal Agreement be changed to read as follows: "9. All the agreed
upon terms and conditions contained within this agreement shall be subject to the COUNTY
receiving a site plan application approval from the State of North Carolina for the South Wake
Solid Waste Management Facility."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereto caused this instrument to be executed
by their proper designated officials and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed on the day
and year first written above.
MEI
NMI
ATTEST:
WAKE COUNTY
BY,
Clerk to the Board of Co ' issioners Gay H. Pendleton
Chairman, Wake County
Board of Commissioners
(SEAL)
Approved As to Form:
atbril Co Q:. rney
This instrument has been preaudited in the manner prescribed by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act.
ATTEST:
To Clerk
Cam Frazier, Finance Director
TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
BY:
Gerald Holleman, Mayor
Town of Holly Springs
(SEAL) Approved As to Form:
This instivment has been preaudited in the manner prescribed by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act.
4.1 /fed;
ce Director
own of Holly Springs

APPENDIX 4
Excerpts from the Town of Holly Springs. 2001 Comprehensive Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT
PEI
GOAL: TO PROTECT AND MANAGE THE NATURAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF
THE TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS.
PEI
Objective 1 : To encourage development that does not adversely affect
the natural environment.
Policy 1.1: Adopt a tree preservation ordinance in order to protect
mature trees and groups of significant trees.
OPP
Policy 1.2: Developers shall provide the Town with an
�, environmental inventory of all natural features found on each
development site.
Policy 1.3: The Town shall administer soil erosion prevention
programs that will reduce the effects of siltation in the surfaces
waters of the Town of Holly Springs.
Objective 2 : To ensure a high water quality level of the area's surface
waters.
Policy 2.1: Stream buffers shall be required.
Policy 2.2: The development of large impervious areas Mar surface
waters shall be discouraged.
Policy 2.3: Wetlands shall be identified and protected.
Objective 3: To ensure adequate natural areas for both wildlife and
recreation.

Policy 3.1: The Town shall explore creating greenbelts along major
drainage areas in order to preserve corridors for wildlife movement.
mit
Policy 3.2: Areas of natural significance shall be considered for
preservation parks.
Objective 4: To encourage non residential development which is
environmentally sound.
Policy 4.1: Evaluate current ordinances to ensure the high impact
industries are required to go through stringent reviews before final
approval.
Policy 4.2: Development shall make provisions for the preservation
of natural areas on the non residential development site.
ISM
FIER
PEI
PEI
PPR

09
z�l
Owl
PARKS, GREENWAYS, & OPEN SPACE
GOAL: TO ENSURE ALL RESIDENTS WILL BE PROVIDED ACCESS TO
ADEQUATE PARKS OPEN SPACES, AND GREENWAY FACILITIES.
Objective 1: Mini parks shall be provided for residents
Policy 1.1: Developers shall be required to provide both active
and passive recreation facilities when subdividing land.
Policy 1.2: Mini parks shall be located as such to provide safe
pedestrian and non -vehicular access.
Policy 1.3: Mini parks established for use by one particular
development shall be either dedicated to the Town or maintained
by a duly established home -owner's association.
Objective 2 Work with other agencies in order to establish
community parks.
Policy 2.1: The Town shall work with Wake County Schools in
order to create parks which will serve the school as well as the
needs of the community.
Policy 2.2: The Town shall work with Wake County Schools in
order to determine the feasibility of upgrading and utilizing the
existing gymnasium for use by the community for organized indoor
recreational activities.
j Policy 2.3: The Town shall encourage developers to dedicate
useable park land for the purpose of creating public park
facilities in exchange for fee reductions or other cost benefits.
Policy 2.4: The Town shall select public park sites which are
easily accessible by non vehicular traffic.
Policy 2.5: The Town shall seek funding sources for the
1.1 development of a passive recreational facility to be located near
the Historical Downtown District.
'°'' Objective 3: Create a large public active recreational facility
capable of holding several organized recreational events
simultaneously.
Policy 3.1: The Town shall seek funding sources in orer to
build and maintain one centrally located active recreational
facility.
Policy 3.2: The Town shall select a site for the proposed
facility based upon five year population projections and
- construct a facility capable of supporting that projected
population.
Policy 3.3: The Town shall explore the possibility of creating a
,., Parks and Recreation Department charged with maintaining public
park facilities and providing organized activities for the
residents of Holly Springs.

J
Objective 4: Develop an organized public greenway system.
Policy 4.1: The Town shall adopt the greenway corridor plan as
illustrated on the Land Use Design Map for the purpose of
protecting proposed greenway corridors.
Policy 4.2: The Town shall work with surrounding governmental
agencies in order to ensure regional greenway corridors.
Policy 4.3: The Town shall work with the National Flood
Insurance Program to determine the feasibility and affect
proposed greenways will have any flood prone areas.
Objective 5: .Locate greenways in such a manner as to not alter
any natural or built environments and to make maximum use of
proposed corridors.
Policy 5.1: The Town shall explore the use of existing utility
easements for the purpose of constructing greenways.
Policy 5.2: The Town shall designate major drainage areas as
future greenway corridors.
Policy 5.3: When the Town or developer applies for wetland
delineation permits for the construction of sewer lines, the
permit will also include the construction of a greenway strip.
Objective 6: Construct greenways as part of development plans.
Policy 6.1: The Town shall adopt an ordinance requiring
developers to incorporate and construct proposed greenways in
their developments or pay fees in lieu of construction.
Policy 6.2: The Town shall require proposed greenways within a
subdivision (Greenways not indicated on the Town's Greenway Plan)
to be linked to any public greenway proposed by the Town.
Policy 6.3: After construction of greenways within a
ION subdivision which do not join any proposed public greenway
system, the developer shall ensure the maintenance of said
greenways by a home -owners association.
'"PR Policy 6.4: The Town shall require miniparks within
subdivision be accessible greenways.
Policy 6.5: Greenway "stub -outs" within a development will be
required whenever deemed necessary by the Town.
Objective 7: Create passive parks and greenways in order to
preserve and enhance natural areas.
Policy 7.1: The Town shall seek cooperation from public and
�** private organizations for the construction of scenic outlooks
along public greenways
1

PEI
Policy 7.2: The Town shall take inventory of all significant
natural areas and construct greenway or similar paths in order to
provide viewing points for these sites by the public.
Objective 8: Ensure the provision of open space.
Policy 8.1: The Town shall require developers to adhere to the
open space req
uirements quirements as set forth by Town Code.
Policy 8.2: The Town shall review its current open space
requirements and amend as needed.
Policy 8.3: The Town shall require the dedication of
undisturbed open space between areas of dissimilar land use.
Policy 8.4: The Town shall require the dedication of open space
in areas of environmental importance such as flood plain areas.
Policy 8.5: The Town shall require developers to distribute
open space equally throughout their developments.
Policy 8.6: The Town shall require the reservation of "useable"
open space in all new residential developments.
PER
Rml

TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
MI
GOAL: Encourage the development of traditional neighborhoods.
Pr
OBJECTIVE 1: To provide for traditional neighborhood developments in Holly Springs
MR
Policy 1.1 The Town shall create a Traditional Neighborhood
. zoning district.
PM
Policy 1.2 The public shall have input in the planning and review process of
any proposed traditional neighborhood development.
Policy 1.3 Development that occurs within the area designated as traditional
PE+ neighborhoods Land Use Development Map shall be developed as
such.
_ar Policy 1.4 Areas along Holly Springs Road, as identified by the Holly Springs
Road task force, shall incorporate elements of traditional planning
into their developments.
ran
Policy 1.5 Traditional neighborhood developments shall be encouraged to
locate within all land use designations found on the Land Use
F.
Development Map.
pmPolicy 1.6 Commercial and other non-residential portions of traditional
neighborhood developments shall be encouraged to locate within
the development and not along adjoining major thoroughfares.
OBJECTIVE 2: To create pedestrian oriented neighborhoods.
Policy 2.1 Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all interior streets.
Policy 2.2 Non-residential areas within the development shall be located
within close proximity to high density residential areas.
Policy 2.3 Modified grid pattern streets will be required in order to diffuse
traffic flow throughout the development.

gas
OBJECTIVE 3: Create a sense of neighborhood through design guidelines
Policy 3.1 The Town shall adopt street design standards which incorporate on
street parking and smaller paving cross sections in an effort to slow
traffic.
Policy 3.2 The Town shall adopt special setback and site development
guidelines for traditional neighborhood developments in an effort to
allow home to be located closer to the street and sidewalks.
Policy 3.3 Garages will be allowed only in the rear of homes, accessed by
rear alleys.
Policy 3.4 A focal point shall be provided in each neighborhood to serve as
common area for that portion of the development.
Policy 3.5 Inter -connectivity with existing and future developments shall be
�., required.
Policy 3.6 Each traditional neighborhood development shall have a dominant
architectural or historical theme. Amenities and non-residential
development within the development shall also adhere to a certain
design theme.
OBJECTIVE 4: Preserve and incorporate natural elements into the design of the
traditional neighborhood.
Policy 4.1 Significant trees shall be preserved
Pat
Policy 4.2 Large growing shade trees shall be planted in such a manner as
to provide a canopy for all streets within the development.
Policy 4.3 Tree preservation plans must be submitted for every development
within the traditional neighborhood planning area.
Policy 4.4 .Natural buffers shall be maintained or re-created aloft all existing
or proposed major thoroughfares adjoining, dissecting, or interior to
the traditional neighborhood developments.
p* Policy 4.5 Existing topography shall be maintained where possible to lend
character to the development.
'"' Policy 4.6 A one hundred foot stream buffer shall be required on all water
courses to help control storm water run-off, and flooding.
adf

WI
WI
OM
.go,
MIMI
AM
THOROUGHFARE BUFFER/LANDSCAPING ELEMENT
GOAL: TO CREATE A UNIQUE, SMALL TOWN CHARACTER FOR HOLLY SPRINGS
ALONG ITS MAJOR ROADWAYS .
OBJECTIVE 1. To develop thoroughfare buffers based upon land use classifications and
designations.
Policy 1.1 The Town shall use the Land Use Development Map as a guide for determining
the location of land use driven thoroughfare buffers.
PM
Policy 1.2 The Town shall require natural buffers to remain between any residential use and
any thoroughfare.
Inig
Policy 1.3 The Town shall require landscaped buffers to be placed along thoroughfares where
a commercial or office use is planned.
OBJECTIVE 2. To develop standards for natural buffers
L, Policy 2.1 The Town shall require a minimum undisturbed natural buffer to be maintained
-" between a thoroughfare and any residential development.
r, Policy 2.2 The natural buffer shall be dedicated to a homeowners association, and platted as a •
permanent undisturbed area.
AO Policy 2.3 The Town shall require a revegitated buffer to be constructed in areas which have
no existing natural buffer.
gm Policy 2.4 All natural thoroughfare buffers must be illustrated or described in detail on
preliminary site plan applications and sealed by a registered landscape architect
wit
Policy 2.5 The Town may allow no natural buffer to be constructed in areas designated as
Rural Preservation Districts on the Land Use Development Map; When the site
plan proves the development would protect scenic vistas which are essential to
ow
maintaining rural character.
mil OBJECTIVE 3: To develop thoroughfare buffer requirements for the Town's commercial and
office use areas,
ow Policy 3.1 The Town shall develop and require a series of thoroughfare buffer standards for
)
each of the major roadways within the community

Policy 3.2 The thoroughfare buffer shall consist of large growing street trees planted.at given
distances apart.
Policy 3.3 The street trees required shall be planted between the curb and the sidewalk along
the thoroughfare frontage.
.. Policy 3.4 A visual barrier consisting of shrubbery and a wall built of field stone, shall be built
along the back edge of the required sidewalk (along the thoroughfare).
Policy 3.5 All buffers shall be maintained by the property owner and maintained in a healthy
and attractive condition .
'.' Policy 3.6 All required thoroughfare buffers shall be illustrated on the preliminary site plans
and sealed by a registered landscape architect.
d.r
PEI
Pal
IBM
PEI
MIR
.i.

MEI
Village Center Element
Goal: To create a liveable, viable, and sustainable downtown district in the traditional core
of Holly Springs.
OBJECTIVE I: To develop a residential population base which will support non-residential
development.
Policy 1.1: All new residential development (subdivisions) within the village center will be
traditional neighborhood developments.
Policy 1.2: Multi -family developments shall be permitted in the village center district.
Policy 1.3: No lots shall be created in excess of 10,000 square feet
Policy 1.4 High density residential shall be encouraged within one quarter mile of the village
1.' center district.
OBJECTIVE 2: To maintain and create historical character within the village center district.
Policy 2.1: All development in the village center district shall reflect architectural styles and
building materials in use prior to 1920.
�., Policy 2.2: An appearance commission shall be established to develop and enforce design
guidelines for any proposed development within the village center district.
Policy 2.3: On street parking shall be permitted in the village center district.
Policy 2.4: Setbacks, building heights and massing shall be comparable to traditional downtown
standards.
Objective 3: To develop a Village Center Master Land Use Plan.
Policy 3.1: The Town shall design a master subdivision plan for the village center district.
Policy 3.2: The Town shall develop a parking plan for the village center district.
Policy 3.3: The Town shall develop a pedestrian and park plan for the village center district.
Policy 3.4: The Town shall adopt special landscaping and planting plans for the area.

OBJECTIVE 4: To locate civic, cultural, and public facilities downtown.
Policy 4.1: The next Town Hall shall be built within the village center district.
Policy 4.2: The Town shall locate at least on passive recreation facility between the existing park
and the Mims House to serve as a historical and cultural focal point.
.,
Policy 4.3: Small neighborhood parks shall be provided to serve the urban population.
mi Policy 4.4: Libraries, museums, ect. Shall first attempt to locate within the Village Center
District.
W' Policy 4.5 Large civic, religious, or other public places shall be located in pre -determined areas
as indicated on the V.C.D. land use plan.

APPENDIX 5
Memorandum on Potential Surface Water Quality Impacts

Memorandum
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, Instream Assessment Unit
To: Alan Clark
From: Andrew McDaniel
Through: Carla Sanderson
Ruth Swanek 25
.- Don Safrit
Date: June 19, 1996
Subject Holly Springs Environmental Assessment Review Comments
Background Information:
I have reviewed the environmental assessment (EA) for the expansion of Holly
Spring's wastewater treatment capacity. Six treatment alternatives were submitted, with
alternative T-6 being the recommended course of action. Briefly, alternative T-6 involves
keeping the existing 0.5 MGD package plant in operation on Utley Creek. A new 1.0
MGD plant would be built adjacent to the package plant and would treat the waste flow
originating from the Cape Fear River Basin side of town. The new plant would be
designed such that it could be retrofitted for nutrient removal in the future if necessary.
However, the new plant initially would not have nutrient removal capabilities. The EA
recommends that construction of this plant begin this year. In addition, negotiations would
be made for the Town of Cary to treat the waste flow originating from the Neuse River
basin side of town. Alternative T-6 goes on to say if negotiations with Cary fail, the 0.5
MGD package plant eventually would be replaced with another new treatment plant capable
of meeting advanced tertiary limits with nutrient removal. The two plants discharging to
Utley Creek would ultimately have a total treatment capacity of 4.88 MGD.
Preliminary modeling results indicate that Utley Creek could accept 1.5 MGD of
effluent treated to meet advanced tertiary limits without the instream standard for dissolved
oxygen being violated. However, additional modeling work would have to be conducted
to estimate the impact of a 4.88 MGD discharge to Utley Creek. The Instream Assessment
Unit (IAU) is not prepared to comment at this time on the potential water quality impacts of
a 4.88 MGD discharge to Utley Creek.
In the interest of protecting water quality in the receiving stream, Utley Creek, as
well as Harris J akP further downstream, the IAU recommends that Holly Springs design
and build the new plant so as to maintain maximum operational flexibility for biological
nutrient removal. The following data is offered as support for this recommendation:
• From June to November Holly Springs is required as a condition of its NPDES permit
to monitor instream for TN and TP three times per week. High instream nutrient levels
have been recorded by the Town, especially during the summer of 1995. For example,
instream TN levels as high as 16.4 mg/L and TP levels as high as 1.2 mg/L were
reported by the facility during the summer of 1995 (see attached scatter plot of instream
TP concentrations from December 1992 through November 1995). In April 1995 Holly
Springs started up the 0.5 MGD package plant. The elevated TN levels could, in part,
be attributed to plant start up if the old plant had been operated to achieve denitrification.
•- However, elevated TP levels can not be attributed to plant start up since Holly Springs to
my knowledge has not been chemically precipitating out phosphorus.

• On June 13, 1996 Carla Sanderson, Karen Lynch (ESB), and I made a field trip to Utley
Creek to assess the feasibility of relocating the downstream monitoring location closer to
Harris Lake. At present the downstream sampling location is on an earthen dam below a
small pond. During the trip an algal bloom was visible on the pond which is consistent
with what one would expect to see given the high nutrient concentrations measured
instream. Closer to Harris Lake where Utley Creek slows down, additional algal
pm
blooms, which covered the entire surface of the creek for approximately 100 meters of
its length, were observed. Karen took a water sample back to the lab in order to identify
the alga observed in the pond. Numerous algal species were identified including
0. members of the Euglenophyceae which are often found in organically enriched waters.
• Percent dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation was calculated based on instream temperature
m. and DO measurements taken by Holly Springs from the period June to October 1995.
Attached is a scatter plot summarizing these data. Eleven (11) violations of the
instantaneous state standard for super saturation of dissolved gases were reported during
the 1995 monitoring period. Page 46 of the EA mentions that downstream DO levels
'""' often exceed saturation concentrations. The EA attributes the super saturation of DO to
excellent reaeration capabilities of the stream. This statement may mislead the reader to
believe that the super saturation of DO is attributed to riffle or small waterfall areas in the
iial stream. Although Utley Creek near the downstream sampling site does have these
features which do facilitate reaeration to a degree, the super saturation values reported
can in no way be attributed to riffle or small waterfall areas at ambient atmospheric
pressure. The super saturation values are however, strong evidence to suggest that an
algal bloom was present during the 1995 sampling period.
• Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) operates a nuclear electrical generating
'"" facility on Harris Lake. CP&L has established several water quality monitoring stations
in the lake, two of which are marked on the attached map. Station S2 is located
approximately 500 m upstream of SR 1127 in the White Oak Creek arm of the lake.
im Utley Creek feeds into this arm of the lake. Chlorophyll -a measurements taken at station
S2 indicate chlorophyll -a concentrations near or above the state standard of 40 ug/L have
occurred over the past several years. In May 1995 for example, the mean monthly
average chlorophyll -a concentration was 37.6 ug/L based on three samples taken during
''R the month. The data collected by CP&L over the past five years suggests that Harris
Lake may be sensitive to additional inputs of nutrients.
PM Summary
Field observations and instream measurements indicate that Utley Creek is enriched
FM with nutrients. Although further data is needed to pin point the source(s) of the excess
nutrients measured in Utley Creek, it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of
the nutrients is originating from the treatment plant considering, that the watershed below
the discharge is largely undeveloped. Utley Creek feeds into Harris Lake, which the
laa available data suggests could be sensitive to additional inputs of nutrients.
Although additional data is needed before the IAU would recommend nutrient limits
mi in the NPDES permit, the IAU does strongly recommend that Holly Springs closely
evaluate the feasibility of building the 1.0 MGD plant to include nutrient removal from the
start in case nutrient limits are required in the future.
rim
m.
mg
cc: Steve Tedder

1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Percent Saturatton1100
2.00 —
1.80 —
1.60 —
1.40 —
1.20 —
1.00 —
0.80 —
0.60 —
0.40 —
0.20 —
0.00
■
■
■
O O
O O ■ O
O ■
■
Utley Creek
Percent Dissolved Oxygen Saturation
June -October 1995
■
■
■
■
■
110% Saturation-Instantapeous State Standard
■
0 O • O 0 O
O
O O 0
■
• ■
O
■
■
■
0
0 Up % Sat.
II Dwn % Sat.
0
O
O
O • ••
5/31/95 5/10/95 0/20/95 5/50/95 7/10/95 7/20/95 7/30/95 9/9/95 8/19/95 6/29/95 9/0/95 9/18/95 9/26/95 10/8/95 19/10/95 10/28/95 11/7/95
Date

1 1 1 l 1 l 1 l l 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1
5 —
4.5 —
4 --
0
a 3.5
0
M 3
le
a 2.5
TP Conc. (mg/L)
0
2 — o
1.5
Utley Creek Instream Total Phosphorus Measurements
May 1993-November 1995
o Eff. TP
• Dwnstream TP
❑ Upstream TP
x Mon. Avg. Ow
1 — O ■
0
0
o
0.5
0
0
w
c-
c
T.
1
A
o.
0
0
•
,L_D arh"...p,
ipi& •
> X
c_ a
c c
4.
Date
0 Z a C > • a to Z
• �+ • a m
► 4. w cn c• t cmn cm„ cmn

Harris Nuclear Power Plant
1993 Environmental Monitoring Report
PEI
MEI
IBM
11w
ANA
Auxiliary
Reservoir
Little White
Oak Creek
1 `
f„\ M
. Holleman s
Crossroads
Boat Ramp r
M / ry JI—
/ *--i 1,:
1 N. r . —\ H I _...
�l
G
NC 42
Boat Ramp) \ F
.
owl. / - . rJ
:.. — .. )? T
) —13 /
2 ' Buckhom
Creek
IrA
aw
MCI
ww
NORTH CAROLINA
White Oak
Creek
Cary
Branch
Buckhcrr:
Creek
Harris Nuclear e i 2
Power Plant ~" ^1 1
_/ Kilometers
--..t7
'• ti.--• 2
" 0 i
1 1
Miles
Appendix 1. Sampling areas and stations at Harris Lake during 1993.
IMO
Carot:r:a Powt4r & Light Company
A-1