20091105 Ver 1_401 Application_20091009

fhZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
4011 WESTCHASE BLVD., SUITE 500
RALEIGH, NC 27607
[phone] FAX: [phone]
To: Raleigh Regional Office
NCDENR-DWQ-401
Oversight Permitting Unit
2321 Carbtree Blvd, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
? ATTACHED ? UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA
? SHOP DRAWINGS ? PRINTS
? SAMPLES ? CHANGE ORDER
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 10/15/2009 H&SJOBNo.: 3ZtOM
ATTENTION: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
RE: 401 Water Quality Certification Application
Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina

? PLANS
171 -
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
? SPECIFICATIONS ? COPY OF LETTER
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
5 10/15/2009 1 401/404 Pre-Construction Notification Submittal
2 10/15/2009 2 Full sized Construction Plan Sheets
1 10/15/2009 3 Review Fee Check - $240.00 r-" rh T% fir= r-\
1 10/15/2009 4 Electronic Copy of Submittal p

0 T 16 2009

STORNMIATER BRANCH

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
? FOR APPROVAL ? FOR YOUR USE ? AS REQUESTED ? FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
? FURNISH AS SUBMITTED ? FURNISH AS CORRECTED ? REVISE AND RESUBMIT ? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
? RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ? SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ? RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS
? FOR BIDS DUE ?
REMARKS
COPY TO: SIGNED: 17,37), ta
[E MICHAEL SANTOWASSO, PE]
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
RA-ZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
October 15, 2009
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
Re: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina
H&S Project No. 32039
401 Water Quality Certification Application
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find enclosed in the following submittal package, the Pre-Construction Notification
(PCN) Application, supporting documentation, forms and reports, calculations, maps, and
related site plans for the above referenced project. For convenience, two (2) full size sets
and three (3) 11x17 sets of the site plan drawings are provided. A copy of the submittal
package has also been provided on disc. A check for the amount of $240 is enclosed to
cover the permit application fee.
The proposed project for which this submittal package has been prepared is for the City of
Sanford's Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 12 MGD (million gallon per day)
Expansion Project. The facility, which was placed in operation in 1974, is an advanced
secondary wastewater treatment facility serving the City of Sanford, North Carolina and
serves portions of Lee County. The plant has undergone several upgrades in the 1990s and
has a current capacity of 6.8 MGD. The proposed expansion project will allow the facility to
operate at 12 MGD in order to meet anticipated capacity needs through the year 2030.
The expansion project will include modifications to existing components of the process train
as well as the addition of new facilities and structures. Included in the construction will be
upgrades to the aeration basins for nitrogen and phosphorus removal, new secondary
clarifiers, new denitrification filters, new ultraviolet disinfection facilities and effluent flow
measurement, new aerobic digesters and improvements to existing digesters. Additionally, a
new administration and control building will be constructed.
Based on a review of available data from the most current US Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic map and the NCDENR Division of Water Quality, there is one identified surface
water body on the Big Buffalo WWTP site. This surface water body, which receives
stormwater discharge from the property, is an unnamed tributary to the Deep River located
on the western portion of the Big Buffalo WWTP site.
New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Greensboro, NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Baltimore, MD • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Sarasota, FL • Miami, FL
H9EN AND SAWYER
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
October 15, 2009
Page 2
In August 2008, personnel from Withers & Ravenel conducted a detailed jurisdictional area
delineation of the project site to identify the presence of unknown surface water bodies
and/or wetlands and verify potential impacts as a result of the proposed expansion project.
The survey conducted by Withers and Ravenel found no wetlands within the project
boundary but did identify potential intermittent and perennial stream reaches of 213 feet and
132 feet, respectively. Hazen and Sawyer personnel accompanied a representative of the
US Army Corps of Engineers and Axiom Environmental, Inc. on a site visit to verify the
results of the Withers & Ravenel findings on September 16, 2009. The Corps representative
verified a 213 linear foot reach of intermittent, unimportant stream and a 132 linear foot reach
of perennial stream, which includes previous impacts resulting from the installation of a 36"
CMP culvert in the perennial stream bed at some point in the past. A 63 foot section of
perennial stream identified in the 2008 report was determined to be a man-made drainage
feature with no contributing drainage area of its own and no ability to support aquatic flora
and fauna and was therefore removed from consideration. The Corps also determined at that
time that the intermittent stream reach did not support viable habitat and was therefore
considered unimportant and would not contribute towards the 150 linear foot threshold
regulated by Section 404 Permitting. As a result of the Corps' determination, impacts to the
132 linear foot reach of perennial stream will be regulated under Section 404, Nationwide
Permit No. 39.
As part of the requirements of the Nationwide 39 Permit, a Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP) has been prepared for applicable drainage areas onsite that are greater than 24
percent impervious. Per NCAC 2B 15A 02H.1000, only drainage areas which were found to
discharge to a single point were evaluated for percent impervious. Of these, only one (1)
drainage area (Drainage Area E - See Drawing SMP-1 E) was found to be subject to the
requirements of SMP development. Other drainage areas greater than 24 percent impervious
which do not fall under the requirement for development of a SMP include drainage areas
where no construction is planned, drainage areas where all stormwater is routed back to the
head of the plant for treatment, and drainage areas which discharge stormwater via
sheetflow.
Several stormwater BMP options were evaluated for Drainage Area E; however, due to a
variety of constraints, a sand filter was the only potential treatment option. During the course
of designing this BMP, several limiting factors were discovered that limit the practicality of
this BMP installation. These limitations include:
• Limited area available for BMP construction due to an existing channel,
proximity to the 100-year floodplain, and grading limitations;
• Utility conflicts with influent and effluent stormwater pipes require a sand filter
depth much greater than typical designs and present significant
constructability concerns;
401 -Cove rLetter DWQ
HaEN AND SAWYER
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
October 15, 2009
Page 3
• Additional problems associated with the utility conflicts and large sand filter
depth include:
o Sand filter effluent would be discharged into the 100-year floodplain
and installation of the effluent pipe may require disturbance of the
nearby stream;
o The seasonal high water table is at a higher elevation than the base of
the structure, presenting floatation and water quality concerns;
o The cost of the structure would exceed that of typical stormwater
BMPs substantially;
In addition to the concerns regarding construction and maintenance of the proposed sand
filter, the net change in impervious area resulting from construction activities is relatively
minimal, increase from 43 to 45 percent impervious. As a result of these issues, we are
requesting a waiver from implementation of BMP measures for Drainage Area E.
Please call me if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
Z. 9d, .t ,LZ - "qx
L. Michael Santowasso, P.E.
Senior Associate
LMS/bpr
Enclosures
cc: Raleigh Regulatory Field Office - US Army Corps of Engineers
Victor Czar, Public Works Director, City of Sanford
James A. Cramer, VP Hazen and Sawyer
File
401 _CoverLetter_DW Q
HAZEN AND SAWYER Hazen and Sawyer,
4011 WestChase Blvd.
vd.
Environmental Engineers & Scientists Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
October 15, 2009
Mr. Monte Matthews
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Re: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina
H&S Project No. 32039
Section 404 Permit Application
Nationwide Permit No. 39
Dear Mr. Matthews:
Please find enclosed in the following submittal package, the Pre-Construction Notification
(PCN) Application, supporting documentation, forms and reports, calculations, maps, and
related site plans for the above referenced project. A copy of the submittal package has also
been provided on disc.
The proposed project for which this submittal package has been prepared is for the City of
Sanford's Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 12 MGD (million gallon per day)
Expansion Project. The facility, which was placed in operation in 1974, is an advanced
secondary wastewater treatment facility serving the City of Sanford, North Carolina and
serves portions of Lee County. The plant has undergone several upgrades in the 1990s and
has a current capacity of 6.8 MGD. The proposed expansion project will allow the facility to
operate at 12 MGD in order to meet anticipated capacity needs through the year 2030.
The expansion project will include modifications to existing components of the process train
as well as the addition of new facilities and structures. Included in the construction will be
upgrades to the aeration basins for nitrogen and phosphorus removal, new secondary
clarifiers, new denitrification filters, new ultraviolet disinfection facilities and effluent flow
measurement, new aerobic digesters and improvements to existing digesters. Additionally, a
new administration and control building will be constructed.
Based on a review of available data from the most current US Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic map and the NCDENR Division of Water Quality, there is one identified surface
water body on the Big Buffalo WWTP site. This surface water body, which receives
stormwater discharge from the property, is an unnamed tributary to the Deep River located
on the western portion of the Big Buffalo WWTP site.
New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA - Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Greensboro, NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Baltimore, MD • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Sarasota, FL • Miami, FL
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Mr. Monte Matthews
October 15, 2009
Page 2
In August 2008, personnel from Withers & Ravenel conducted a detailed jurisdictional area
delineation of the project site to identify the presence of unknown surface water bodies
and/or wetlands and verify potential impacts as a result of the proposed expansion project.
The survey conducted by Withers and Ravenel found no wetlands within the project
boundary but did identify potential intermittent and perennial stream reaches of 213 feet and
132 feet, respectively. Hazen and Sawyer personnel accompanied a representative of the
US Army Corps of Engineers and Axiom Environmental, Inc. on a site visit to verify the
results of the Withers & Ravenel findings on September 16, 2009. The Corps representative
verified a 213 linear foot reach of intermittent, unimportant stream and a 132 linear foot reach
of perennial stream, which includes previous impacts resulting from the installation of a 36"
CMP culvert in the perennial stream bed at some point in the past. A 63 foot section of
perennial stream identified in the 2008 report was determined to be a man-made drainage
feature with no contributing drainage area of its own and no ability to support aquatic flora
and fauna and was therefore removed from consideration. The Corps also determined at that
time that the intermittent stream reach did not support viable habitat and was therefore
considered unimportant and would not contribute towards the 150 linear foot threshold
regulated by Section 404 Permitting. As a result of the Corps' determination, impacts to the
132 linear foot reach of perennial stream will be regulated under Section 404, Nationwide
Permit No. 39.
As part of the requirements of the Nationwide 39 Permit, a Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP) has been prepared for applicable drainage areas onsite that are greater than 24
percent impervious. Per NCAC 2B 15A 02H.1000, only drainage areas which were found to
discharge to a single point were evaluated for percent impervious. Of these, only one (1)
drainage area (Drainage Area E - See Drawing SMP-1 E) was found to be subject to the
requirements of SMP development. Other drainage areas greater than 24 percent impervious
which do not fall under the requirement for development of a SMP include drainage areas
where no construction is planned, drainage areas where all stormwater is routed back to the
head of the plant for treatment, and drainage areas which discharge stormwater via
sheetflow.
Several stormwater BMP options were evaluated for Drainage Area E; however, due to a
variety of constraints, a sand filter was the only potential treatment option. During the course
of designing this BMP, several limiting factors were discovered that limit the practicality of
this BMP installation. These limitations include:
• Limited area available for BMP construction due to an existing channel,
proximity to the 100-year floodplain, and grading limitations;
• Utility conflicts with influent and effluent stormwater pipes require a sand filter
depth much greater than typical designs and present significant
constructability concerns;
404_Cove rLette r_C orp s
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Mr. Monte Matthews
October 15, 2009
Page 3
• Additional problems associated with the utility conflicts and large sand filter
depth include:
o Sand filter effluent would be discharged into the 100-year floodplain
and installation of the effluent pipe may require disturbance of the
nearby stream;
o The seasonal high water table is at a higher elevation than the base of
the structure, presenting floatation and water quality concerns;
o The cost of the structure would exceed that of typical stormwater
BMPs substantially;
In addition to the concerns regarding construction and maintenance of the proposed sand
filter, the net change in impervious area resulting from construction activities is relatively
minimal, increase from 43 to 45 percent impervious. As a result of these issues, we are
requesting a waiver from implementation of BMP measures for Drainage Area E.
Please call me if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
Z- vd'otf AaAW
L. Michael Santowasso, P.E.
Senior Associate
LMS/bpr
Enclosures
cc: NCDENR DWQ 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
Victor Czar, Public Works Director, City of Sanford
James A. Cramer, VP Hazen and Sawyer
File
404_CoverLe tte r_Corp s
Big Buffalo %
12 MGD Expar
5327 Iron Furnace Road,
astewater Treatment Plant
ion Project
nford, North Carolina
US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit Application - Nationwide Permit No. 39
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
401 Water Quali
Certification Application
Submitted by:
ffiZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
October, 2009
Table of Contents
Pre-Construction Notification Form
(For coverage under Nationwide Permit No. 39 - Commercial and Institutional Developments)
Appendices
Appendix A Stormwater Management Plan
- Narrative
- Delineation Maps
- Design Calculations
- S&ME Soils Report
- BMP Supplements and Required Checklist Items
- Notarized Operation & Maintenance Agreement
- Detailed Construction Plan Sheets
Appendix B Stream/Wetland Determinations
- September 2009 Site Visit Memorandum
- DWQ Stream Identification Forms
- USACE Stream Quality Assessment Sheets
- Withers & Ravenel Wetland Delineation Report
Appendix C Figures
- Figure 1 USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Map
- Figure 2 General Vicinity Map
- Figure 3 NRCS Soils Map
Appendix D Constructioi
- C-10
- C-20
- C-21
- C-22
- C-23
- C-24
- D-01
i Plan Sheets
Overall Existing Conditions
Overall Proposed Conditions
Proposed Conditions -Area 1
Proposed Conditions -Area 2
Proposed Conditions -Area 3
Proposed Conditions -Area 4
Sand Filter Sections & Detail
Appendix E Draft Environmental Assessment Submittal Letter
Appendix F Agent Authorization Form
Q?0F WATEgg G
Y
o ?
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes N No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
2b. County: Lee
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Sanford
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: City of Sanford, North Carolina
3b. Deed Book and Page No. D.B. 111, Pg. 164; D.B. 232, Pg. 333
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Victor Czar, Public Works Director
3d. Street address: Sanford Municipal Bldg., 225 E. Weatherspoon Street
3e. City, state, zip: Sanford, North Carolina 27330
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page I of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ® Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: City of Sanford, North Carolina
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Public Works Department
4d. Street address: Sanford Municipal Bldg., 225 E. Weatherspoon Street
4e. City, state, zip: Sanford, North Carolina 27330
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.: [phone]
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: L. Michael Santowasso
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
5c. Street address: 4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27607
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 9635-44-1546-00/7290-00; 9635-33-7772-00/6835-00
Latitude: 35.546296
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Longitude: - 79.217312
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 48 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Big Buffalo Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Cape Fear
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Municipal wastewater treatment plant. Based on land cover data set (1996) available via NC OneMap
(http://www.nconemap.com), the site is -8% developed (med-high intensity); 16% unmanaged herbaceous; and 76%
deciduous/evergreen forest. Existing conditions are consistent with land cover data set. The site is developed as a
municipal wastewater treatment plant and is surrounded on all sides with undeveloped forested area.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.3
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
345
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing wastewater treatment facility to a tertiary treatment facility.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Heavy equipment will be used to excavate, fill, and regrade the site for construction of new buildings, structures, and
roadways.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other: Withers & Ravenel
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
September 16, 2009. Documentation is included in Appendix B.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Fill Unnamed ® PER
? I NT ® Corps
? DWQ 3 132
S2 ®P ? T Fill Unnamed ? PER
® I NT ® Corps
? DWQ 3 213
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? I NT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? I NT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? I NT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? I NT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments: Unnamed tributaries were not identified on the USGS 1:24,000 Colon Quadrangle Topographic Map.
Additionally, GIS data obtained from NCDWQ (classified/unclassified stream layers) did not identify the unnamed tributaries.
August 2008 delineation performed by Withers & Ravenel identified these reaches as perennial/important and
intermittent/unimportant. * -- During an on-site meeting on 9/16/09, intermittent streams were determined by the USACE to be
"unimportant". Additionally, the USACE has waived the 300 foot limit for intermittent stream beds for this project.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
K Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary (T) impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B3 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Alternative locations were evaluated for proposed buildings and structures necessary for upgrade to a tertiary treatment
facility. However, final locations were chosen based on existing site layout, operational constraints, and topography.
Construction, excavation, and grading will be minimized to the extent possible.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be installed prior to or in conjunction with the proposed grading associated
with the facility. These measures will be utilized during construction to prevent discharge of sediment-laden runoff into
existing surface waters and to minimize impacts to downstream waters. The contractor will designate a qualified person to
inspect the erosion and sedimentation control measures at least once every week and within 24 hours after any storm event of
greater than '/ inch of rain per 24-hour period. If erosion and/or sedimentation is found during the inspection, immediate
repairs shall be made. Cut and fill slopes are as steep as practical to minimize disturbance limits. Stormwater discharge
locations remain the same, so as to create no additional discharge points.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a . What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 21 %
2b . Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
A Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) has been prepared for applicable drainage areas onsite that are greater than 24
percent impervious. Only drainage areas which were found to discharge to a single point were evaluated for percent
impervious, and only one drainage area of the site is subject to the requirements of SMP development. For this area, a
sand filter was the only potential treatment option. During the course of designing this BMP, several limiting factors were
discovered that limit the practicality of this BMP installation. These limitations are discussed in the cover letter that
accompanies this submittal.
? Certified Local Government
2e . Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
® DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
3b . Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a . Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b . Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments: The Environmental Assessment for this project was initially prepared in
2008. The Environmental Assessment was revised to address agency review ? Yes ® No
comments and to document a site visit by Corps personnel and incorporated into
the Engineering Report, which was resubmitted to the State for review on 9/30/09.
A copy of the transmittal letter that accompanied the Engineering Report appears in
Appendix E. A hard copy of the Engineering Report can be provided upon your
request.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project does not include the construction of any new infrastructure in order to get flow to the plant. With or without
this project, growth will continue to occur in this area. Secondary and cumulative impacts due to growth and development
in the project service area will be mitigated through a series of City, County, State, and Federal policies. The City of
Sanford, the Town of Broadway and Lee County have adopted a joint Unified Development Ordinance which includes
control measures for the protection of water quality throughout the County. The City of Sanford is also a member of the
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association and is participating with other municipalities and counties to work together on
water resources planning, management and protection issues of mutual concern in the uppermost part of the Cape Fear
River Basin.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
TheBig Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is an advanced secondary treatment facility currently permitted at 6.8
MGD under NPDES Permit No. N00024147. The facility will be upgradd to a tertiary treatment facility with a capacity of 12
MGD.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
15. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?
®
Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The Deep River is known to provide aquatic habitat for endangered, threatened, or rare aquatic species, including the
Federal and State endangered Cape Fear shiner and the Federal species of concern and State significantly rare Carolina
redhorse. A portion of the Deep River has been designated as critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(NCDENR DWQ "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan", October 2005). The discharge from this project is into
an unnamed tributary of Big Buffalo Creek. The distance from the westernmost property boundary to the confluence of
Big Buffalo Creek and the Deep River is approximately 1450 feet.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
An interactive mapping site for essential fish habitat (http://ocean.floridamarine.org/efh_coral/ims/viewer.htm.) was
accessed. No designated essential fish habitats were found to be located near the project site.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Communication from the N.C. Division of Cultural Resources, Division of Historical Resources in the Office of Archives
and History states that there are no historic resources that would be affected by the project.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Map 3710963500K
L. Michael Santowasso, P.E. 10/15/09
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applican Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.).
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Appendix A
Stormwater Management Plan
Narrative
Delineation Maps
Design Calculations
S&ME Soils Report
BMP Supplements and Required Checklist Items
Notarized Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Detailed Construction Plan Sheets
Narrative
As part of the requirements of the Nationwide 39 Permit, a Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP) has been prepared for applicable drainage areas onsite that are greater than 24 percent
impervious. Per NCAC 2B 15A 02H.1000, only drainage areas which were found to discharge to
a single point were evaluated for percent impervious. Of these, only one (1) drainage area
(Drainage Area E - See Drawing SMP-1E) was found to be subject to the requirements of SMP
development. Other drainage areas greater than 24 percent impervious which do not fall under
the requirement for development of a SMP include drainage areas where no construction is
planned, drainage areas where all stormwater is routed back to the head of the plant for
treatment, and drainage areas which discharge stormwater via sheetflow.
Several stormwater BMP options were evaluated for Drainage Area E but due to a variety of
constraints, a sand filter was the only potential treatment option. Please refer to Construction
Plan Sheets C-23 and D-01 for the location and specific details of the sand filter, respectively.
During the course of designing the sand filter, several limiting factors were discovered that limit
the practicality of this BMP installation. These limitations include:
• Limited area available for BMP construction due to an existing channel,
proximity to the 100-year floodplain, and grading limitations;
• Utility conflicts with influent and effluent stormwater pipes require a sand filter
depth much greater than typical designs and present significant constructability
concerns;
• Additional problems associated with the utility conflicts and large sand filter
depth include:
o Sand filter effluent would be discharged into the 100-year floodplain and
installation of the effluent pipe may require disturbance of the nearby
stream;
o The seasonal high water table is at a substantially higher elevation than
the base of the structure, presenting floatation and water quality
concerns;
o The cost of the structure would exceed that of typical stormwater BMPs
substantially;
In addition to the concerns regarding construction and maintenance of the proposed sand
filter, the net change in impervious area resulting from construction activities is relatively
minimal, increase from 43 to 45 percent impervious. As a result of these issues, we are
requesting a waiver from implementation of BMP measures for Drainage Area E.
Delineation Maps
SMP-1 Overall Site Delineation
SMP-1Aa Drainage Area Aa
SMP-18 Drainage Area 8
SMP-1C Drainage Area C
SMP-1D Drainage Area D
SMP-1E Drainage Area E
SMP-1 F Drainage Areas F & L
SMP-1 G Drainage Areas A, G - K

DRAINAGE AREA B
16% IMPERVIOUS
(BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
SEE SHEET SMP-113)
0

N

DRAINAGE AREA G
O% IMPERVIOUS ?
(BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
SEE SHEET SMP-1G)
CLARIFYER
....
DUMP
PS STATION

DRAINAGE AREA F
FILT
ERS
?ECUILIZA710N TANK
62% IMPERVIOUS CLARIFYER
(NO DISTURBANCE PLANNED
FOR THIS DRAINAGE AREA
BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
SEE SHEET SMP-1F)
C LAB GEN 3 DRAINAGE AREA Aa
FIL S Dc BLDG A
UM WER

BLO
17% IMPERVIOUS
CARB N BLDG ? (BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
SEE SHEET SMP-1Aa)
DRAINAGE AREA E WASNWATE R RAS
45% IMPERVIOUS RECLAIM
(POTENTIAL BMPs REQUIRED- SLUDGE BNR BASIN i

SEE SHEET SMP-1E) STORAGE
TANK 3
CLARIFIER 1
BNR BASIN 2
AE R0 IC
DIGESTER 1
A
DM
I DRAINAGE AREA A
SLUDGE
STORAGE B
D
G
31% IMPERVIOUS
TANK 4 (STORMWATER IS
AEROeIC DISCHARGED VIA
DRAINAGE AREA 1 SLUDGE D ICEST R 2 BNR BASIN 3 SHEET FLOW.
0% IMPERVIOUS STORAGE CLARIFIER 2 BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
(BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED- GEN,i ANK1 SEE SHEET SMP-1G)
SEE SHEET SMP-1 G) BNR BASIN a
ELEC 2 SLUDGE
THICK.
SLUDGE
STORAG
4 CLARIFIER 3
1 TANK

DRAINAGE AREA L GEN
ELEC 1
33% IMPERVIOUS DRAINAGE AREA J
(ALL STORMWATER RETURNS 0% IMPERVIOUS
TO HEAD OF PLANT." (BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED- SEE SHEET SMP-1G)
SEE SHEET SMP-1F)
DRAINAGE AREA C DRAINAGE AREA D DRAINAGE AREA H
23% IMPERVIOUS 23% IMPERVIOUS 15% IMPERVIOUS
DRAINAGE AREA K (BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED- (BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED- (BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
0% IMPERVIOUS SEE SHEET SMP-1C) SEE SHEET SMP-1D) SEE SHEET SMP-1G)
(BMPs ARE NOT REQUIRED-
SEE SHEET SMP-1G)
OVERALL SITE PLAN
V =100
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED BLR CITY OF S A N F O R D THE SCALE BAR DATE OCTOBER 2009

DRAWN WAM HAZENAND SAWYER NORTH CAROLINA SITE WORK SHOWN BELOW N
32039-000
MEASURES ONE M R
NUMBER
CHECKED BLR Environmental Engineers & Scientists
BIG BUFFALO CIVIL INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING

PROJ.ENGR. JAC
4011 Westchase Boulevard, Site 500
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OVERALL SITE DELINEATION THE ORIGINAL
DRAWING. NUMBER
1 NUMBER
SfdP-1
Raleigh, North Carolina 276m
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE .
DRAINAGE AREA Ac
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 6,980
IMP. AREA (ft 2) 1,191
% IMP. 17
Cw 0.45
Q1 (cfs) 0.37
Q10 (cfs) 0.56
NOTES
RATIONAL METHOD USED TO
CAL CULA TE RUNOFF. RA TIONAL 'C'
VALUES (WEIGHTED) USED:
GRA VEL/ASPHAL T 0.95
GRASSED/OPEN AREAS 0..35
RAINFALL INTENSITY USED (in/hr):
lyr, 24 hr 5.1
10yr, 24 hr 7.7
(Rainfall data obtained from
h ttp: //hdsc. n ws.noa. go v/hdsc/pfds/)
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS WAS
CAL CULA TED B Y DIVIDING IMPER VIOUS
AREA BY TOTAL AREA.
(TOTAL AREA CALCULATIONS EXCLUDE
OPEN TANKS AND BASINS).
,E AREA - Ac
GE POINT FOR BD 40 o 80,
;E AREA Aa i..=80.-O"
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION

DESIGNED CITY OF S A N F O R D THE SCALE BAR GATE October 2009
DRAWN
? NORTH CAROLINA
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL
SHOWN BELOW
H&S JOB
??
lj
11t1LlEN?
DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP
MEASURES ONE 32039
NUMBER
CHECKED Environmental Engineers 6 Scientists BIG BUFFALO INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING
DRAINAGE AREA A THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR. 4011 WestChase Boulevard, suite 500 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT O DRAWING.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 SMP-lAa
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE

d.
DRAINAGE AREA B
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 1,003,162
IMP. AREA (ft 2) 156,817
% IMP. 16
Cw 0.44
Q1 (cfs) 52.2
Q10 (cfs) 78.7
NOTES
RA TIONAL METHOD USED TO
CAL COLATE RUNOFF. RATIONAL 'C
VALUES (WEIGHTED) USED:
GRA VEL/ASPHAL T 0.95
GRASSED/OPEN AREAS 0.35
RAINFALL INTENSITY USED (in/hr):
lyr, 24 hr 5.1
10yr, 24 hr 77
(Rainfall data obtained from
http://hdsc.nws.noo.gov/hdsc/pfds/)
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS WAS
CALCULATED BY DIVIDING IMPERVIOUS
AREA BY TOTAL AREA.
(TOTAL AREA CALCULATIONS EXCLUDE
OPEN TANKS AND BASINS).
80 10 0 80'
-0' 1
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED CITY OF S A N F O R D THE SCALE BAR DATE October 2009
DRAWN H
S NORTH CAROLINA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SHOWN BELOW
JOB
H&S
AZENAND
AWYER
DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP
MEASURES
ONE NU
M
32039 BER

CHECKED
Environmental Engineers 8 Scientists
BIG BUFFALO INCH
LONG ON
CONTRACT
CONTRACT DRAWING
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
NUUBER
PROJ.ENCR. 4011 Westchose Boulevard, Suite 500 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE AREA B DRAWING.

Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 SMP-1B
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FlLE
DRAINAGE AREA C
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 126,215
IMP. AREA (ft 2) 28,983
% IMP. 23
Cw 0.49
Q1 (cfs) 7.2
Q10 (cfs) 10.9
NO TES:
RA TIONAL METHOD USED TO
CAL COLATE RUNOFF. RATIONAL 'C
VALUES (WEIGHTED) USED:
GRA VEL/ASPHAL T 0.95
GRASSED/OPEN AREAS 0.35
RAINFALL INTENSITY USED (in/hr):
lyr, 24 hr 5.1
10yr, 24 hr 77
(Rainfall data obtained from
http://hdsc.nws.noo.gov/hdsc/pfds/)
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS WAS
CALCULATED BY DIVIDING IMPERVIOUS
AREA BY TOTAL AREA.
(TOTAL AREA CALCULATIONS EXCLUDE
OPEN TANKS AND BASINS).
80 ?O D W.
T.,80,-0' 1
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED CITY OF S A N F O R D THE SCALE BAR DATE October 2009
DRAWN H
S NORTH CAROLINA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SHOWN BELOW H&S
JOB 32039
AZENAND
AWYER MEASURES
ONE
BD2
NU
MBER
CHECKED Environmental Engineers & Scientists BIG BUFFALO DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR 4011 Westchose Boulevard, suite 500 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE AREA C DRAWING.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 SMP-1C
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLATHtE

DRAINAGE AREA D
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 20,396
IMP. AREA (ft 2) 4,655
% IMP. 23
Cw 0.49
Q1 (cfs) 1.2
Q10 (cfs) 1.8
NO TES:
RA TIONAL METHOD USED TO
CAL COLATE RUNOFF. RATIONAL 'C
VALUES (WEIGHTED) USED:
GRA VEL/ASPHAL T 0.95
GRASSED/OPEN AREAS 0.35
RAINFALL INTENSITY USED (in/hr):
lyr, 24 hr 5.1
10yr, 24 hr 77
(Rainfall data obtained from
http://hdsc.nws.noa.gov/hdsc/pfds/)
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS WAS
CALCULATED BY DIVIDING IMPERVIOUS
AREA BY TOTAL AREA.
(TOTAL AREA CALCULATIONS EXCLUDE
OPEN TANKS AND BASINS).
BD 4O D BD'
-0' 1 -1
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED
CITY OF S A N F O R D
THE SCALE BAR
DATE OCTOBER 2009
DRAWN M
S NORTH CAROLINA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SHOWN BELOW N JOB
ZENAND
AWYER
MEASURES ONE 32039
NUMBER
CHECKED Environmental Engineers & Scientists BIG BUFFALO DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ..ENGR. 4011 Westchose Boulevard, Solve 500 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE AREA D DRAWING.
SMP
1D
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 -
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT HLE

DRAINAGE AREA E
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 43,903
IMP. AREA (ft 2) 19,672
% IMP. 45
Cw 0.62
Q1 (cfs) 3.2
Q10 (cfs) 4.8
NO TES:
RA TIONAL METHOD USED TO
CAL COLATE RUNOFF. RATIONAL 'C
VALUES (WEIGHTED) USED:
GRA VEL/ASPHAL T 0.95
GRASSED/OPEN AREAS 0.35
RAINFALL INTENSITY USED (in/hr):
lyr, 24 hr 5.1
10yr, 24 hr 77
(Rainfall data obtained from
http://hdsc.nws.noa.gov/hdsc/pfds/)
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS WAS
CALCULATED BY DIVIDING IMPERVIOUS
AREA BY TOTAL AREA.
(TOTAL AREA CALCULATIONS EXCLUDE
OPEN TANKS AND BASINS).
Bo o Bo.
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED
CITY OF S A N F O R D
THE SCALE BAR
DATE OCTOBER 2009
DRAWN H
S NORTH CAROLINA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SHOWN BELOW H4S JOB
AZENAND
AWYER
DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP
MEASURES ONE 32039
NUMBER
CHECKED Environmental Engineers & Scientists BIG BUFFALO INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR 4011 Westchose Boulevard, Solve 500 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE AREA E DRAWING. SMP
1E
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 -
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT HLE

DRAINAGE AREAS
DRAINAGE AREA F
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 34,731
IMP. AREA (ft2) 21,368
% IMP. 62
(Percent impervious reflects
pre-construction conditions. NO
DISTURBANCE IS PLANNED FOR THIS
DRAINAGE AREA).
DRAINAGE AREA L
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 130,113
IMP. AREA (ft2) 42,841
% IMP. 33
(ALL STORMWATER FROM THIS DRAINAGE
AREA IS ROUTED TO THE HEAD OF THE
PLANT. NO STORMWATER DISCHARGE
OCCURS FROM THIS DRAINAGE AREA).
Bo 4O o Bo'
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF S A N F O R D
DESIGNED
THE SCALE BAR
DATE OCTOBER 2009
DRAWN H
S NORTH CAROLINA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL SHOWN BELOW H4S JOB
AZENAND
AWYER
DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP MEASURES ONE NUMBER 32039
CHECKED Environmental Engineers & Scientists BIG BUFFALO INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAPING
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR 4011 Westchose Boulevard, Solve 500 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE AREAS F & L DRAWING. SMP-1F
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE

DRAINAGE AREAS

D
SAGE AREA - A
DRAINAGE AREA A
TOTAL AREA (ft 2) 71,767
IMP. AREA (ft2) 22,139
% IMP. 31
(Sheet flow discharge)
DRAINAGE AREA G
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 324,100
IMP. AREA (ft2) 0
% IMP. 0
(Sheet flow discharge)
DRAINAGE AREA H
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 63,571
IMP. AREA (ft2) 9,801
% IMP. 15
(Sheet flow discharge)
DRAINAGE AREA I
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 50,118
IMP. AREA (ft2) 0
% IMP. 0
(Sheet flow discharge)
DRAINAGE AREA J
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 56,568
IMP. AREA (ft2) 0
% IMP. 0
(Sheet flow discharge)
DRAINAGE AREA K
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 18,821
IMP. AREA (ft2) 0
% IMP. 0
(Sheet flow discharge)
100 sD D 100
V=100'-O" I
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
ITY
A N F
R D
F OCTOBER 2009
DESIGNED C
O
S
O THE SCALE BAR DATE

DRAWN
H
S
NORTH CAROLINA
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL
BELOW
SHOWN
NAB
JOB
AZENAND
AWYER MEASU
MEASURES ONE R
NUMBER 32039
CHECKED Environmental Engineers & Scientists BIG BUFFALO DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROd.ENGR. 4011 Westchase Boulevard, Site 500 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE AREAS A
G - K DRAWING.
S
G
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 , M-1
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE
Design Calculations
Drainage Area Calculations
BMP Design Calculations
Drainage Area Calculations
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA A
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information Peak Flow Calculation
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 71766.6
Total Drainage Area (ac) 1.6
Impervious Area (ftz) 22138.7
Pervious Area (ftz) 49627.9
% Impervious 30.8%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 22138.7 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 49627.9 0.35

CW 0.54
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.54
Q1o (cfs) 6.79
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.54
Q1 (cfs) 4.50
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA Aa
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information Peak Flow Calculation
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 6980.4
Total Drainage Area (ac) 0.2
Impervious Area (ftz) 1190.9
Pervious Area (ftz) 5789.5
% Impervious 17.1%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 1190.9 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 5789.5 0.35

CW 0.45
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.45
Q10 (cfs) 0.56
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.45
Q1 (cfs) 0.37
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA B
Date:10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 1003162.2
Total Drainage Area (ac) 23.0
Impervious Area (ftz) 156816.9
Pervious Area (ftz) 846345.3
% Impervious 15.6%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 156816.9 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 846345.3 0.35

CW 0.44
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.44
Q1o (cfs) 78.70
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.44
Q1 (cfs) 52.12
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA C
Date:10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information Peak Flow Calculation
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 126215.0
Total Drainage Area (ac) 2.9
Impervious Area (ftz) 28982.6
Pervious Area (ftz) 97232.4
% Impervious 23.0%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 28982.6 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 97232.4 0.35

CW 0.49
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.49
Q1o (cfs) 10.88
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.49
Q1 (cfs) 7.21
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA D
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information Peak Flow Calculation
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 20395.7
Total Drainage Area (ac) 0.5
Impervious Area (ftz) 4654.8
Pervious Area (ftz) 15740.8
% Impervious 22.8%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 4654.8 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 15740.8 0.35

CW 0.49
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.49
Q1o (cfs) 1.76
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.49
Q1 (cfs) 1.16
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA E
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information Peak Flow Calculation
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 43902.6
Total Drainage Area (ac) 1.0
Impervious Area (ftz) 19671.8
Pervious Area (ftz) 24230.7
% Impervious 44.8%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 19671.8 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 24230.7 0.35

CW 0.62
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.62
Q1o (cfs) 4.80
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.62
Q1 (cfs) 3.18
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA F
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 34730.6
Total Drainage Area (ac) 0.8
Impervious Area (ftz) 21367.7
Pervious Area (ftz) 13362.8
% Impervious 61.5%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 21367.7 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 13362.8 0.35

CW 0.72
THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE SCHEDULED FOR
DRAINAGE AREA F. PERCENT IMPERVIOUS
REFLECTS PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.72
Q1o (cfs) 4.42
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.72
Q1 (cfs) 2.92
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA G
Date:10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 324099.8
Total Drainage Area (ac) 7.4
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0
Pervious Area (ftz) 324099.8
% Impervious 0.0%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 324099.8 0.35

CW 0.35
THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE SCHEDULED FOR
DRAINAGEAREA G. ALL STORMWATER
RUNOFF IS DISCHARGED VIA SHEETFLOW.
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.35
Q1o (cfs) 20.05
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.35
Q1 (cfs) 13.28
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA H
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information Peak Flow Calculation
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 63571.4
Total Drainage Area (ac) 1.5
Impervious Area (ftz) 9801.1
Pervious Area (ftz) 53770.3
% Impervious 15.4%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 9801.1 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 53770.3 0.35

CW 0.44
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.44
Q1o (cfs) 4.97
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.44
Q1 (cfs) 3.29
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA I
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 50118.3
Total Drainage Area (ac) 1.2
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0
Pervious Area (ftz) 50118.3
% Impervious 0.0%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 50118.3 0.35

CW 0.35
THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE SCHEDULED FOR
DRAINAGEAREA I. ALL STORMWATER RUNO
IS DISCHARGED VIA SHEETFLOW.
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.35
Q10 (cfs) 3.10
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.35
Q1 (cfs) 2.05
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREAJ
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 56567.9
Total Drainage Area (ac) 1.3
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0
Pervious Area (ftz) 56567.9
% Impervious 0.0%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 56567.9 0.35

CW 0.35
THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE SCHEDULED FOR
DRAINAGE AREA J. ALL STORMWATER RUNO
IS DISCHARGED VIA SHEETFLOW.
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.35
Q10 (cfs) 3.50
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.35
Q1 (cfs) 2.32
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA K
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 18821.1
Total Drainage Area (ac) 0.4
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0
Pervious Area (ftz) 18821.1
% Impervious 0.0%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 0.0 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 18821.1 0.35

CW 0.35
THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE SCHEDULED FOR
DRAINAGEAREA K. ALL STORMWATER
RUNOFF IS DISCHARGED VIA SHEETFLOW.
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.35
Q10 (cfs) 1.16
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.35
Q1 (cfs) 0.77
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP (Sanford, NC)
Project Number: 32039
Description: DRAINAGE AREA L
Date: 10/1/2009
Designed by: LRM
Checked by:
ALL STORMWATER FROM DRAINAGEAREA L
RETURNED TO THE HEAD OF THE PLANT FOR
TREATMENT. NO STORMWATER IS
DISCHARGED TO SURACE STREAMS.
Drainage Area Information Peak Flow Calculation
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 130112.9
Total Drainage Area (ac) 3.0
Impervious Area (ftz) 42841.3
Pervious Area (ftz) 87271.6
% Impervious 32.9%
Weighted 'C'Values
Area C
Impervious Area (ftz) 42841.3 0.95
Pervious Area (ftz) 87271.6 0.35

CW 0.55
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 7.7
CW 0.55
Q1o (cfs) 12.59
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
1-yr Intensity (in/hr)* 5.1
CW 0.55
Q1 (cfs) 8.34
*Rain intensityfrom NOAAs National Weather Service -
HDSC PFDS (based on Google Earth coordinates)
BMP Design Calculations
Sand Filter Design
Project Name: Big Buffalo WWTP Expansion
Project Number: 32039-000
Description: Sand filter to treat runoff from drainage area E
Date: 10/07/09
Designed by: mpj
Checked by: Ims
Drainage Area
Total (ft') 43903
Total (ac) 1.01
Pervious (ft') 24231
Impervious (ft') 19672
% Impervious 44.8%
Water Quality Volume
Precip. (in) 1
Rv 0.453
WQV (ft3) 1658
WQVadj (ft3) 1244
Underdrain Design
Soil Ksat (in/hr) 3
Afilter (ft') 132
Peak Soil Q (cfs) 0.01
Factor of Safety 4
Design Q (cfs) 0.04
Pipe Slope (ft/ft) 0.005
Manning's n 0.013
Pipe Diameter (in) 4
Pipe XC Area (ft') 0.09
Pipe Hyd. Radius (ft) 0.08
Pipe Capacity (cfs) 0.13
iwaximum heao on th e bans rutei
hmaxfilter (ft) 4.75
havgfilter (ft) 2.38
Atotreq (ft') 261.84
Ased (ft') 132
Afilter (ftz) 132
Minimum Sedimentation Basin Surface Area
Ased (ftz) 109.6
Minimum Sand Filter Bed Surface Area
Filter Depth (ft) 1.5
ksand (ft/day) 6
Drain Time (day) 1.66
Afilter (ftz) 64.45
Water Quality Volume Check
WQVcheck (ft3) 1254
Adequate? Yes
Drawdown Calculations
Drain Invert (ft) 226.5
Sand Surface (ft) 228.5
Max WSE (ft) 233.2
Sand Ksat (in/hr) 3
Timestep (min) 5
Routed Drainage Times
Surface Drained (hr) 8.5
Soil Drained (hr) 20.3
Simple Drainage Times
Surface Drained (hr) 18.8
Soil Drained (hr) 26.8
* "Routed drainage" accounts
for increased head associated
with ponding over the sand,
while "simple drainage"
assumes a unit hydraulic
gradient
SWE Soils Report
tS&ME
October 12, 2009
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 Westchase Boulevard
Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Attention; Mr. Michael Santowasso
Reference- Stormwater° BMP Soil Testing
City of Sanford WWTP
Lee County, North Carolina
SAME, Inc. Project No. 1588-09-051
Dear Mr. Santowassw
SAME, Inc. (S&ME) has conducted a Soil Scientist Evaluation per S&ME Proposal No.
1588-09-PO68 and Letter of Authorization No. 1-09 dated September 28, 2009 to provide
information for a new Stormwater Management Permit Application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). A soil scientist investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil
properties of three (3) proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) areas to
determine suitability for Stormwater management systems. The soil scientist
investigation was conducted to evaluate in-situ soil type (soil series), in-situ soil
infiltration rate (in-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity testing), and seasonal high water
table (SHWT) elevations. In-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity testing was performed
to determine the permeability of soils below the proposed stormwater management
systems.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The subject property is the City of Sanford Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located
on the west side of Iron Furnace Road in Lee County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The site
consists of the existing WWTP.
S&ME soil scientists conducted an evaluation of the soils within 3 areas identified by
Ms. Liane Morgan with Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. (Hazen and Sawyer) for proposed
stormwater management systems. The soil scientist evaluation was conducted to evaluate
the suitability of the soil properties relative to Stormwater Management permitted by the
NCDENR-D WQ ,
SWE, INC. / 3718 Old Battleground Road / Greensboro, NC 27410 / p 336.288.7180 f 336.288.8980 / www.smeinc.com
Stormwater BMP Soil Testing
City of Sanford WWTP
SWE Project No. 1588-09-051
October 12, 2009
Maps were prepared using Areview 9.2 a Geographic Information System (GIS). Base
maps were generated using information from the following sources: ESRI, Inc. and a site
map provided by Hazen and Sawyer (Figures 1-2).
FINDINGS
In-situ Soil Type (Soil Series)
S&ME conducted 3 hand-auger borings (HAB) to characterize the soils within the
proposed areas for Stormwater Management (Soil Profile Descriptions Appendix 1) at
the locations shown on Figure 2. Detailed soil profile descriptions were made to a depth
of approximately three to eight feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) or until
seasonally high soil wetness conditions were encountered at each location to characterize
the soils potential suitability for stormwater management systems. The soil scientist
evaluation includes field descriptions for soil texture; color; structure; depth, and
thickness of soil horizons. The field evaluation also includes identification of the
thickness and type of any restrictive horizon(s) if present; depth of seasonal high water
table (if present). The soils evaluated were described to the series level using current
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resource Conservation
Service (Io1RCS)-Soil Taxonomy. The soils evaluated were most similar to the Pinkston
soil series at HAB#3, Udorthents/Pinkston soil series at HAB#4 and Udorthents/Fill at
HAB # 5.
Constant Head Permeameter Testing and Seasonal High Water Table
Determinations
S&ME performed the in-situ soil permeability testing by using a compact constant head
permeameter. S&ME performed two (2) in-situ permeability tests at each HAB location.
Site plans were provided by Hazen and Sawyer identifying the potential stormwater
management system areas to be tested (Figure 2). These locations were approximated in
the field based on the plans provided.
For the in-situ permeability testing, hand auger borings were advanced to depths ranging
from approximately 22 inches to 100 inches bgs with a 2-inch and/or 23/4-inch diameter
bucket. A planer auger was used to clean the bottom of the auger holes and give them a
cylindrical shape. The water dissipating unit was lowered to the bottom of the holes and
water was dispensed from the permeamete;r. The water was allowed to tiovc; through tile,
unit until steady-state flow was achieved and then flow rates were recorded. The last
three measurements were averaged to achieve the most representative value to express
the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The depth interval of the test corresponded to a
layer of material approximately o inches thick at the selected testing depth. The soils at
the test locations were observed to range form silty clay loam to silty clay textures. The
permeability rates were calculated as ranging between 0.008 to 0.015 inches per hour.
Reference the table below for the in-situ hydraulic conductivity rates for each test
location.
Stormwater BMP Soil Testing S&ME Project No. 1588-09-051
City of Sanford WWTP October 12, 2009
The seasonal high water table evaluations were performed by advancing hand auger
borings to a depth of six to eight feet bgs at each of the permeability test locations. The
locations of the seasonal high water table evaluations were approximated in the field.
During the hand auger advancement, soils were evaluated by a Licensed Soil Scientist for
evidence of seasonal high water table influence. This evaluation involved looking at the
actual moisture content in the soil and observing the matrix and mottle colors.
Depending on the soil texture, the soil color will indicate processes that are driven by
seasonally high water table fluctuations, such as iron reduction and oxidation and organic
matter staining.
Please note that these seasonal high water table evaluations are based on secondary
evidence and not on direct groundwater level measurements. Groundwater levels
fluctuate for numerous reasons and these findings do not indicate that groundwater levels
have not or will not rise above the noted depths.
See Figure 2 for the approximate test locations, and the table below for the soil series,
calculated permeability rates, and approximated seasonal high water table depths.
City of Sanford WWTP

est Location

In-situ Soil Type
(Soil series)

In-situ testing
depth (inches bgs)
In-sites Soil
Permeability
(in/hr) Seasonal High
Water Table
(SHWT below
ground surface)
Hand Auger Boring 3 - Test 1 Pinkston 17 to 24 0.013 30 inches
Hand Auger Boring 3 - Test 2 Pinkston 17 to 24 0.013 30 inches
Hand Auger Boring 4 - Test 1 Pinkston/Fill 16 to 23 0.009 32 inches
Hand Auger Boring 4 - Test 2 Pinkston/Fill 12 to 22 0.008 32 inches
Hand Auger Boring 5 Test I Udorthents/Fill 91 to 100 0.012 44 inches
Hand Auger Boring 5 Test 2 Udorthents/Fill 80 to 88 0.015 44 inches
3
Stormwater BMP Soil Testing
City of Sanford WWTP
SWE Project No. 1588-09-051
October 12, 2009
CLOSING
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide these services to you, If you have any
questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.

Paul Penninger, L.S.S. Rob Willcox, L.S.S.
Senior Soil Scientist Natural Resources Department Manager
Attachments: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Hand Auger Boring and Ksat Location Map
In-Situ Constant Head Permeameter Calculations
Hand Auger Boring Profile Sheet
SA1588\1588 REPORTS\Reports.09\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. -
Stormwater BMP Soil Report.doc
4
r
ob
O
?} m
N m o
?Z Y
5 U
Q K Z
0 O U
(9
Lo I A
0 C)
r.- {
WASHWATER RA5 FUME A_ _ _ o0
L0
I sA?ar
TANF; f' (I(( II ±t I x ) '? ! Ill ?/ U K
I / lr mom
AFRA'ID' BASIN 1 II?i?
???
AEROBIC
v DICE TER 1 _I
1''
f ?. 1 1
if W
?' I ( f
&V
"IN-SITU" ?E ,p ?? p, erg p, A? ?y /?t? / ?p ?g ?! ?, CONSTANT
HEAD 1{ EAY1?11HiAM S1?pdy? ETER
Date: 10,19/2009
Location: Hand Auger Boring #3 - Test 1
Horizon: Bw
Client: Hazen and Sawyer
]Project Dame: City of Sanford WWTP - BMP
Project #: 1588-09-051
Ksat = CQ/(2PiH2)
C = sinh-' (H/r) - [(r/H)2 + 41112 + r/H
Hole Depth: 2.00 Feet
Hole Radius (r): 0.08 Feet
Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.25 Feet
Reference Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 2.25 Feet
Water Depth in Hole (H): 0.63 Feet
CHT Tube(s) Setting (hl): 1.63L _12 et
Chamber- Used: 0.11 ® Ft2
Initial Water in Hole: 0.63 Feet
Final Water in hole: 0.63 Feet
sinh-t = inverse hyperbolic sin of a number
H = Height of water in hole (cm)
r = radius of hole (cm)
Q = Constant Flow Rate (Gal/day)
= Cross Sectional Area of Resevior x Length of Drop in Water Column over Time
Time Drop in Water Column (ft) Time (min) _
r= 0.08 ft ('ft) (cm) 15
H = ® 0.63 ft 0-15 min. 0.007 0.20
® 15-30 min. 0.010 0.30
C = 1.87 30-45 min. 0.003 0.10
Q= 0.26 Gallons/Day 45-60 min. 0.003 0.10
60-75 min. 0.003 0.10
Cross Sectional Area = 0.11 ft2
Length of Drop in Water Column = 0.30 ft/day
Avg. 0.003
sat - 0.19 Gallons/Day/ft2
Inches/Hour = 0.013
Note: Ksat calculations are based on average drop in 'dater Column (ft) after equilibrium is reached.
adjustable
air tube
constant-head
tube flow measuring
ht level

d?
constant water level D
H
B
r s
"ERNMABLE LAYER
5:`•1588\1588 REPORTS\Repons.09\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. - Stonnwater BMP Soil Report Ksat 10-7-09.xls 10/12/2009
S^ ?rlE
7?'g 7? gyg?g??@,p p ?g? ?,+
"IN-SITU"
CONSTANT gYEAD Il LA®lO'AEtH17? ETER
Date: 10/9/2009
Location: Hand Auger Boring #3 - Test 2
Horizon: Bw
Client: Hazen and Sawyer
Project Name: City of Sanford WWTP - BMP
Project #: 1588-09-051
I6sat = CQ/(2PiH2)
C = Binh-1 (H/r) - [(r/H)' + 111/2 + r/H
Hole Depth: 2.00 Feet
Hole Radius (r): 0.08 Feet
Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.25 Feet
Reference Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 2.25 Feet
Water Depth in Hole (H): 0.63 Feet
CHT Tube(s) Setting (h1): 1.63 Feet
constant-head
flow measuring
T reservoir
Chamber Used:0.11 7iFt2
son.
Initial Water in Hole: 0.63 Feet SURFACE --
Final Water in Hole: 0.63 Feet
Binh-1= inverse hyperbolic sin of a number
H = Height of water in hole (cm)
r = radius of hole (cm)
Q = Constant Flow Rate (Gal/day)
= Cross Sectional Area of Res evior x Length of Drop in Water Column over ,rime
Time Drop in Water Column (ft) Time (min) _
r = 0.08 ft (ft) (cm) 15
H = 0.63 ft 0-15 min. 0.003 0.10
15-30 min. 0.000 0.00
C = 1.87 30-45 min. 0.003 0.10
Q = 0.26 Gallons/Day 45-60 min. 0.003 0.10
60-75 min. 0.003 0.10
Cross Sectional Area = 0.11 ft2
Length of Drop in Water Column = 0.30 ft/day
.avg. 0.003
sat - 0019 Gallons/Day/fl2
Inches/Hour= 0.013
Note: Ksat calculations are based on average drop in Water Column (ft) after equilibrium is reached.
level
constant water level D
H?
W s
` IM°ERNMABLE LAYER
S:\1588\1588 REPORTS\Reports.09'•11588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer. P.C\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. - Stonnwater BMP Soil Report Ksat 10-7-09.xis 10/12/2009
gS&M7? E
"IN-SITU" 7p /{(g+ p ?q, g?
CONSTANT HEAD PERl'd11&` E$METER
Date: 10/9/2009
Location: Hand Auger Boring #4 - Test 1
Horizon: Fill/Bw
Client: Hazen and Sawyer
]Project Name: City of Sanford WWTP - BMP
Project #: 1588-09-051
Ksat = CQ/(2f'iHz)
C = Binh-' (H/r) - J(r/H)2 + 111/2 + r/H
Hole Depth: 1.91 Feet
Hole Radius (r): 0.08 Feet
Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.25 Feet
Reference Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 2.16 Feet
Water Depth in Hole (H): 0.63 Feet
CHT Tube(s) Setting (hl): 1.54 Feet
adjustable
air tube
constant-head T i
flow measuring
reservoir
Chamber Used: 0.11 ®?Ft`
son.
Initial Water in Hole: 0.63 Feet s mF?cE
Final Water in Hole: 0.63 Feet
Binh-' = inverse hyperbolic sin of a number
H = Height of water in hole (cm)
r = radius of hole (cm)
Q = Constant Flow Rate (Gal/day)
= Cross Sectional Area of Res evior x Length of Drop in Water Column over Time
Time Drop in Water Colurrm (ft) Time (min) _
r. = 0.08 ft (ft) (cm) 15
11 = 0.63 ft 0-15 min. 0.007 0.20
15-30 min. 0.007 0.20
C = 1.87 30-45 min. 0.000 0.00
Q= 0.17 Gallons/Day 45-60 min. 0.003 0.10
60-75 min. 0.003 0.10
Cross Sectional Area = 0.11 ft2
Length of Drop in Water Column = 0.20 ft/day
Ksat = 013 Gallons/ ay/ft2
Inches/Hour = 0.009
Avg. 0.002
Mote: Ksat calculations are based on average drop in Water Column (ft) after equilibrium is reached.
H
r
` IlvIPERMEABLE DYER
level
constant water level ?
D
4
S:\1588\1588 RBPORTS'',Reports.09\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer. P.C\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer. P.C. - Stonnwater BMP Soil Report Ksat 10-7-09.xls 10/12/2009
S&ME
"IN-SITU" CONSTANT HEAD PERMEAMETER
Date: 10/9/2009
Location: Hand Auger Boring #4 - Test 2
Horizon: Fill/Bv
Client: Hazen and Sawyer
Project Name: City of Sanford WWTP - BMP
Project #: 1588-09-051
Ksat = CQ/(2PIH2)
C = sinh-1 (H/r) - [(r/H)Z + 11112 + r/H
Hole Depth: 1.83 Feet
Hole Radius (r): 0.08 Feet
Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.25 Feet
Reference Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 2.08 Feet
Water Depth in Hole (H): 0.83 Feet
'HT Tube(s) Setting (hl): 1.25 Feet
Chamber Used: 0.11 ® !Ft'
Initial Water in Hole: 0.83 Feet
Final Water in Hole: 0.83 Feet
Binh-1 = inverse hyperbolic sin of a number
H = Height of water in hole (cm)
r = radius of hole (cm)
Q = Constant Flow Rate (Gal/day)
= Cross Sectional Area of Res evior x Length of Drop in Water Column over Time
Time Drop in Water Column (ft) Time (min) _
r = 0.08 ft (ft) (cm) 15
H = 0.83 ft 0-15 min. 0.007 0.20
15-30 min. 0.007 0.20
C = 2.13 30-45 min. 0.003 0.10
Q = 0.26 Gallons/Day 45-60 min. 0.003 0.10
60-75 min. 0.003 0.10
Cross Sectional Area = 0.11 ft 2
Length of Drop in Water Column = 0.30 May
Avg. 0.003
sat - 0.13 Gallons/Day/ft 2
Inches/Hour = 0.008
Note: Ksat calculations are based on average drop in Water Column (ft) after equilibrium is reached.
adjustable
au tube
constant-head
to
F h+t
flow measuring
SA1588\1588 REPORTS\Reports.09\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.011588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. - Stormwater BMP Soil Report Ksat 10-7-09.xls 10/12/2009
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
S&ME
"IN-SITU" CONST'ANT HEAD PERMEAMET'ER
Date: 10/6/2009
Location: Hand Auger Boring 95 - Test 1
Horizon: Fill
Client: Hazen and Sawyer
Project Name: City of Sanford WWIP - BW
Project #: 1588-09-051
Hole Depth: 8.33 Feet
Hole Radius (r): 0.11 Feet
Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.25 Feet
Reference Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 8.58 Feet
Water Depth in Hole (H): 0.67 Feet
CHT Tube(s) Setting (hr): 7.92 Feet
Chamber Used:: 0.11 ® Ft2
Ksat = CCU/(2PiH2) Initial Water in Hole: 0.75 Feet
Final Water in Hole: 0.75 Feet
C = Binh-r (H/r) - [(r/H)2 + 11 I2 + r/H
sinh-1 = inverse hyperbolic sin of a number
H = Height of water in hole (cm)
r = radius of hole (cm)
Q = Constant Flow Rate (Gal/day)
= Cross Sectional Area of Resevior x Length of Drop in Water Column over Time
r = 0.11 ft
H = 0.75 ft
C = 1.72
Q = 0.38 Gallons/Day
Time Drop in Water Column (ft) Time (min) _
(ft) (cm) 10
0-10 min. 0.013 0.40
10-20 min. 0.003 0.10
20-30 min. 0.003 0.10
30-40 tnin. 0.003 0.10
40-50 min. 0.003 0.10
50-60 min. 0.003 0.10
60-70 min. 0.003 0.10
Avg. 0.003
Cross Sectional Area = 0.11 ft2
Length of Drop in Water Column = 0.45 ft/day
sat = 0.19 Gallons ay/ft2
Inches/Hour = 0.012
Dote: Ksat calculations are based on average drop in Water Column (ft) after equilibrium is reached.
au
constant-head
tube '
flow measuring
h, reservoir
SOIL
level
constant water level ? 6
H?
`NPERNMABLE LAYER
S:\i 588\1588 REPORTS\Reports.09\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer. P.C. - Stotmwater BMP Soil Report Ksat 10= -09.xls 10/12/2009
S&ME
"IN-SITU" CONSTANT HEAD PEItMEAMETER
Date: 10/6/2009
Location: Hand Auger Boring #5 - Test 2
Horizon: Fill
Client: Hazen and Sawyer
]Project Dame: City of Sanford WWTP - BMP
Project #: 1588-09-051
Hole Depth: 7.33 Feet
Hole Radius (r): 0.11 Feet
Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.25 Feet
Reference Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 7.58 Feet
Water Depth in Hole (H): 0.50 Feet
CRT Tube(s) Setting (hr): 7.08 Feet
Ft
Chamber Used: 0.11 ® '
Ksat = CQ/(2PiH2) Initial Water in Hole: 0.67 Feet
Final Water in Hole: 0.67 Feet
C = sink-t (H/r) - I)(r/H)2 + 11 1/2 + r/H
sink-t = inverse hyperbolic sin of a number
H = Height of water in hole (cm)
r = radius of hole (cm)
Q = Constant Flow Rate (Gal/day)
= Cross Sectional Area of Resevior x Length of Drop in Water Column over Time
r = 0.11 ft
H = 0.67 ft
C = 1.62
Q = 0.38 Gallons/Day
Time Drop in Water Column (ft) Time (min) _
(ft) (cm) 10
0-10 min 0.010 0.30
10-20 min. 0.003 0.10
20-30 min. 0.000 0.00
30-40 min. 0.003 0.10
40-50 min. 0.003 0.10
50-60 min. 0.003 0.10
60-70 min. 0.003 0.10
70-80 min. 0.003 0.10
Avg. 0.003
Cross Sectional Area = 0.11 ft'`
Length of Drop in Water Column = 0.45 ft/day
sat = U2 Gallons/Day/ft 2
Inches/Hour = 0.015
Note: Ksat calculations are based on average drop in Water Column (ft) after equilibrium is reached.
constant-head
flow measuring
level
d
constant water level D
H?
i
r2P
s
9,TERMEAELE LAYER
S:\1588\1588 REPORTS\Reports.09\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer. P.011 588-09-051 Hazen and Sa%vyer. P.C - Stonnwater BMP Soil Report Ksat 10-7-09.a1s 10/12/2009
S&ME, INC.
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
Project No. 1588-09-051 _ Phone No. Date: 10/6/09
Location Cif of Sanford WWTP Pin County: Lee Property Size

Proposed Facility: Water Supply: On-Site Well ? Evaluation: Auger Boring X
Community ? Pit ?
Described By: Rob Willcox, Paul Public ? Cut ?
Penninger
Weather: Cloudy, Rain Antecedent Moisture Surface Water:

FACTORS PROFILE 43 PROFILE 44 PROFILE 95 PROFILE
Landscape Position %
Horizon Depth I 04" 0-6" 0-44"
Color Munsell Brown Brown/Reddish Br.
Texture cl siel/sic sc/scl
Structure wsbk fill fill
Consistence ss sp fr

Boundary
Horizon Depth 11 4-22" 6-30" 44-100
Color - Munsell Yellow Brown Yellow Brown
Texture siel siel sc/c
Mottles f/c - 2 chroma
Structure wsbk fill fill
Consistence ss sp vfi
zones of mixed min.

Boundary
Horizon Depth III 22-30" 30-50"
Color - Munsell Yellow Brown Yellowish Red
Texture sic/sicl sicl/sic
Mottles f/c - 2 chroma
Structure wsbk/massive wsbk
Consistence ss sp fi ss sp fi
mixed min. pockets

Boundary
Horizon Depth IV 30-36"
Color-Munsell red
Texture sicl
Mottles few-2 chroma
Structure massive
Consistence fi/vfi

Boundary
Soil Wetness 30" 32" 44"
Restrictive Horizon
Saprolite
LTAR
Classification
Pinkston Pinkston/Fill Fill

LEGEND
LANDSCAPE POSITION
R Ridge Interfluve
S Shoulder
L Linear Slope
FS Foot Slope
N Nose Slope
H Head Slope
Cc Concave Slope
CV Convex Slope
T Terrace
P Flood Plain
TEXTURE
s sand
Is loamy sand
sl sandy loam
I loam
si silt
sit silt loam
sicl silty clay loam
cl clay loam
sel sandy clay loam
sc sandy clay
sic silty clay
c clay
CONSISTENCE WET
Ns non-sticky
Ss slightly sticky
S sticky
Vs very sticky
Np non-plastic
Sp slightly plastic
P plastic
Vp very plastic
MOIST
vfr Very friable
fr friable
ti firm
vfi Very firm
STRUCTURE
sg single grain
m massive
cr crumb
gr granular
sbk subangular blocky
abk angular blocky
pl platy
BMP Supplements and Required Checklist Items
Sand Filter Supplement Form
Required Items Checklist
Required Items Justification Letter
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
? O? W kTFR
w 6? ? =a
NCDENR Y
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
SAND FILTER SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out on line, printed and submitted with all of the required information.
Make sure to also fill out and submit the Required Items Checklist (Section Ill) and the l&MAgreement (Section 10
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Contact name Michael Santowasso
Phone number 919-833-7152
Date October, 2009
Drainage area number DA-E
Site Characteristics
Drainage area (AD)
Impervious area
% Impervious (IA)
Design rainfall depth (RD)
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth
1-yr, 24-hr intensity
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control
Storage Volume
Design volume (WQV)
Adjusted water quality volume (WQVAdi)
Volume contained in the sedimentation basin and on top of the sand filter
Top of sand filter/grate elevation
Weir elevation (between chambers)
Maximum head on the sedimentation basin and sand filter (hMaxFilter)
Average head on the sedimentation basin and sand filter (hA)
Runoff Coefficient (Rv)
43,903.00 fe OK
19,672.00 fe
44.8%%
1.00 in
s.uu in
0.13 in/hr
2.68 ft3/sec
3.18 fe/sec
0.50 fe/sec
1,658.00 fe
1,243.50 fe OK
1,520.00
244 ft amsl
228.5 ft amsl
4.75 ft OK
2.38 ft OK
0.45 (unitless)
Type of Sand Filter
Open sand filter?
SHWT elevation
Bottom of the sand filter elevation
Clearance (dSHVV-r)
Closed/pre-cast sand filter?
SHWT elevation
Bottom of the sand filter elevation
Clearance (dSHWr)
If this is a closed, underground closed sand filter: The clearance between
the surface of the sand filter and the bottom of the roof of the underground
structure (dSpace)
N Yor N
ft amsl
ft amsl
Y Y or N
240.00 ft amsl
226.00 ft amsl
-14.00
15.50 ft
Form SW401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Sept17 Parts I and 11. Project Design Summary, Page 1 of 3
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Sedimentation Basin
Surface area of sedimentation basin (AS)
Sedimentation basin/chamber depth
160.00 fe OK. Meets minimum, but may need to be increased to
2.00 ft
Sand Filter
Surface area of sand filter (AF)
Top of sand media filter bed elevation
Bottom of sand media filter bed/drain elevation
Depth of the sand media filter bed (dF)
Coefficient of permeability for the sand filter (k)
Outlet diameter
Outlet discharge/flowrate
Time to drain the sand filter (t)
Time to drain the sand filter (t)
Additional Information
Does volume in excess of the design volume bypass the sand filter?
Is an off-line flow-splitting device used?
If draining to SA waters: Does volume in excess of the design volume flow
evenly distributed through a vegetated filter?
What is the length of the vegetated filter?
Does the design use a level spreader to evenly distribute flow?
Is the BMP located at least 30ft from surface waters (50ft if SA waters)?
If not a closed bottom, is BMP located at least 100ft from water supply wells?
Are the vegetated side slopes equal to or less than 3:1
Is the BMP located in a recorded drainage easement with a recorded access
easement to a public Right of Way (ROW)?
What is the width of the sedimentation chamber/forebay Aed)?
What is the depth of sand over the outlet pipe (dpipe)?
Figure 1: Open Sand Filter
Sedmiewatiou Saud Filter
'hauiber (Amulber
Ior Forebavi
160.00 fe OK. Meets minimum, but may need to be increased to
228.50 ft amsl
226.50 ft amsl
2.00 ft
6.00 (ft/day)
4.00 in
0.01 Osec
27.00 hours OK. Submit drainage calculations.
1.13 days
Y Yor N OK
Y Yor N OK
Y or N
ft
Y or N
Y Yor N OK
Y or N
Y Yor N OK
N Y or N Insufficient ROW location.
4.00 ft OK
1.00 ft OK
('Pipe (IF
(6Wr
Figure 2: Closed Sand Filter
Form SW401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Septl7 Parts I and 11. Project Design Summary, Page 2 of 3
Iu-Sitar Soil: Sea ouablgE M221L Wale; Table
.................................
_ VsS d
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Weir
Overland Flow
Concrete Chamber
I%A)'
Sedimentation Chamber (Fbrebay
(Deposition of Heavy sediments, Qlrganics, I
WSed
Grates
dSpace, hMaxFilter
clPipe d
F
dSHWT
Sand Filter Chamber
(Filtration of solids)
Form SW401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Sept17 Parts I and 11. Project Design Summary, Page 3 of 3
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal
package will result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial
in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the
agent may initial below. If a requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Initials Pagel Plan
Sheet No.
LMS C-23 1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site with labeled drainage area boundaries
SMP-1 - System dimensions (length, width, and depth) for both the sedimentation chamber and the filter
SMP-1 E chamber,
- Maintenance access,
- Flow splitting device,
- Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
- Design at ultimate build-out,
- Off-site drainage (if applicable), and
- Boundaries of drainage easement.
LMS DD01 2. Plan details (1" = 30' or larger) for the sand filter showing:
- System dimensions (length, width, and depth) for both the sedimentation chamber and the filter
chamber,
- Maintenance access,
- Flow splitting device,
- Vegetative filter strip dimensions and slope (if SA waters),
- Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
- Design at ultimate build-out,
- Off-site drainage (if applicable), and
- Boundaries of drainage easement.
LMS DD01 3. Section view of the sand filter (1" = 20' or larger) showing:
- Depth(s) of the sedimentation chamber and sand filter chamber,
- Depth of sand filter media,
- Connection between the sedimentation chamber and the sand filter chamber and weir elevation,
- SHWT elevation,
- Outlet pipe, and
- Clearance from the surface of the sand filter to the bottom of the roof of the underground structure (if
applicable).
LMS App. A 4. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. The
results of the soils report must be verified in the field by DWQ, by completing & submitting the soils
investigation request form. County soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information.
LMS Ap . AA 5. Supporting calculations (including drainage calculations)
LMS AppTA 6. Signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement
7. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
Form SW401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Sept17 Part III, Page 1 of 1
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
October 15, 2009
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Raleigh Regional Office
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
Re: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina
Sand Filter Required Items Justification
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Due to unique conditions at the Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant site in
Sanford, North Carolina, there are several items listed on the "required items checklist"
within the DWQ sand filter design supplement which are not included.
Because the proposed sand filter discharges to a creek located within the parcel
boundary, no drainage easements have been recorded.
• Due to the large extent of the project area and associated drawing scale,
system dimensions, maintenance access, and the location of the flow
splitting device are included on the sand filter detail drawing, but not the
overall site plan.
• This project is located on municipal property; therefore, no easements for
maintenance access have been recorded.
• No deed restrictions are anticipated for this project.
If you have any questions or require any additional clarification, please don't hesitate to
contact us.
Very truly yours
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
e. NAM?,4?
L. Michael Santowasso, P.E.
Senior Associate
LMS/bpr
Sanford-Sand Filter Req Justification
New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Greensboro, NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Baltimore, MD • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Sarasota, FL • Miami, FL
Notarized Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Detailed Construction Plan Sheets
(Attached under Appendix D)
Appendix 6
Stream/Wetland Determinations
September 2009 Site Visit Memorandum
DWQ Stream Identification Forms
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Sheets
Withers & Ravenel Wetland Delineation Report
September 2009 Site Visit Memorandum
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
20 Enterprise Street, Suite 7
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
919-270-9063
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Santowasso, Hazen & Sawyer
FROM: Sandy Smith P, Y4
DATE: September 17, 2009
RE: Meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland 09-015
Regulator at the Sanford wastewater treatment plant
This memo is intended to record my memory of our meeting with Monte Matthews (USACE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at the Sanford Wastewater Treatment Plant yesterday - and to
provide some recommendations. Also, please find attached scanned versions of completed
USACE stream quality assessment worksheets for the perennial and intermittent reaches of the
unnamed tributary (UT) to Big Buffalo Creek and completed NCDWQ Stream Identification
Forms for the same reaches.
You, Monte, and I met at the WWTP around 3:30 pm. We walked down to the regularly
maintained site runoff discharge ditch, saw where the discharge ditch flows into the perennial
stream, observed the culverted crossing of the perennial stream, and walked up the intermittent
stream to its source at the head-cut, and continued upstream to see the stormwater drainage
feature above the intermittent channel.
Monte agreed that the UT to Big Buffalo Creek was perennial from an uppermost point at its
confluence with the discharge ditch. Monte agreed that the perennial stream was of low quality.
The only invertebrates observed in this reach were leeches. Monte agreed that the reach of
intermittent stream will be considered by the USACE to be "unimportant" in terms of aquatic
value.
We had a discussion of permit options. Monte suggests that impacts will likely be authorized
under Nationwide Permitting. NWP 39 (Commercial and Institutional Developments) is the
preferred NWP. "Commercial and institutional developments" includes public works projects.
NWP 39 authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the U. S. for the
construction or expansion of commercial and institutional building foundations and building
pads and attendant features that are necessary for the use and maintenance of the structures.
Attendant features may include, but are not limited to roads, parking lots, utility lines, storm
water management facilities. The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 0.5 acre of
non-tidal waters of the U.S., including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed,
unless for intermittent and ephemeral stream beds this 300 linear foot limit is waived in writing
by the district engineer. The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Mr. Mike Santowasso
September 17, 2009
Page 2
engineer prior to commencing the activity. Monte stated that he will waive the 300 linear foot
limit for intermittent stream beds for this project because he has determined that the intermittent
stream does not exhibit important aquatic functions and the loss of the intermittent stream will
result in minimal individual an cumulative adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
The NCDWQ Water Quality Certification used with NWP 39 is WQC No. 3705. This WQC
requires written notification for, among other things, impacts to perennial streams. The
NCDWQ currently requires mitigation for impacts exceeding 150 linear feet of perennial
streams. The NCDWQ Public Memorandum entitled "Update on permitting programs or Waters
of the State administered by the Division of Water Quality" and dated August 14, 2009 states
that NCDWQ plans to begin requiring mitigation for impacts with a cumulative total of greater
than 150 linear feet of intermittent and/or perennial stream. This new policy will take effect for
all new applications received by the NCDWQ Central Office via regular mail on or after Friday,
October 16, 2009.
Section C3 of the PCN form is where stream impacts are enumerated. The table asks whether
streams are perennial or intermittent, but not if intermittent streams are "important" or
`unimportant." I recommend that you state clearly in both the cover letter and in the
"Comments" portion of Section 3C that project intermittent streams were determined by the
USACE to be "unimportant" and that the USACE has waived the 300 foot limit for intermittent
stream beds for this project.
DWQ Stream Identification Forms
1hievy")1 PC-*'
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: l? Vt Project: 54iJ Latitude:
Evaluator: Sri I ?N lpm Site: jyt ytnl' ? v!It Longitude: -tj'?? ,22? 3y
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent a?j t County: e.g Quad Name: t /VC
it z 19 or perennial if 2 30
1
A. Geomor holo Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate
- ) _
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
-- -1
2. Sinuosity 00
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 i
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 -
-6 -Depositional bars or benches
7. Braided channel 0 1
-
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1
--
- --
9" Natural levees -
10 Headcuts 0 1
11 Grade controls 0 0.5 -
- I II d ewa - -------- 0 0.5
12. Natura va ey or ratnag y
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No # Oj
evidence.
aMan-made ditches arc not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrolo Subtotal=
14 Groundwater-flow/discharge 0
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0
Water in channel - dry or growing season
16 Leaflitter 1.5
-2 T_
_2
-- -1
Yes = 3
?r
3
---3 -
- 3
3
1 -.._ 2 - -
?1} 2 3
- -- - - - 0.5 - --- 0
17 Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1
----- -------
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes - 1.5 - -
C. Biology (Subtotal
- b- 3 - 2 0
20 Fibrous roots in channel ---?
1
216. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 0
- - -0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ---- - 0 1 - - -- 2 - -3 --
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) _5 1 _ 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton U 0.5 1 1.5
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0.5 1 1.5
--b--
29 .Wetland plants in streambed FAC = .5 FACW = 0 75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0, Other = 0
- - --- - -
It side 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29focuses on e presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes l
---- - ---------------- -
/rG k'v)i(3 j?P ?ti?l lt1 tA V1ytG?
• , jAkillIt}?-4
?- hIR?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 251 - Project: s??d y?yvp Latitude: ?sts?t7y?`?
Evaluator: syvl! 1 ? XIGkn3, Site: PST-hAr1JA) 5 1r Af j Longitude: U'JJ, Z20S1o3
Total Points: r?p Other
Stream is at least intermittent d County: ,
e. g. Quad Name:
If z 19 or perennial if 2 30
_
A. Geomor hology (Subtotal=
18. Continuous bed and bank - -
2. Sinuosity
3 In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence _
4 Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
5. Active/relic floodplain _
6. Depositional bars or blenches
7. Braided channel
8. Recent _alluvial deposits
9a Natural levees
10. Headcuts
11 Grade controls
--Absent Weak Moderate Strong
0 2 11
0 ?- 2 3
0 - - 1 2 3 - --
-- - 0 - - - --1 2 3
0 1 3
0 1
2 3
- - ---
0 1 2 3
--
0 2 ----- 3
0 1 2
0 0.5 -- -- 1.5 --
- - - -
15
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
Yes = 3
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No
evidence.

ussions in manual
Man-made ditches are not rated, sec disc
cu
H drolo Subtotal
B
. 0 1 2
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
or
ter in channel_and > 48 his since rain
15
W

2 3
O
,
a
. 0 1
Water in channel - dry or growing season
-- - -
Leaflitter
16
_T
1
-
1

0.5
0
.
17 Sediment on plants or debris _ 0 0.5 1
anic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
18
Or 0 0.5 1 1.5
g
. -
dric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
19
H No - Yes = 1.5
.
y

C. Biology (Subtotal = )
-
- _.
20 Fibrous roots in channel 0
216 Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 - -1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
------- --- -- --- ------ ----
24. Fish
0.5
1
1.
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) - 0 _ 1 1.5
-- - -- --
27. Filamentous algae, periphyton
0
0.5
1 5
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ro) 0.5 1 5
and plants in streambed
29 . FAC = 0.5, FACW_= 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0, Other = 0_
l
1 2t sine tine 0 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 tixuses un the presence of agtnahc or wetland plants,
Sketch:
Notes (use back side of this form for additional notes l
---- -------

r7110M A
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Sheets
1t)Al W
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
FE-11 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: So ll j j i v? V) f 2. Evaluator's name: ?jr?71 t SAX 'i
3. Date of evaluation: -? 2S UC1 4. Time of evaluation: 1]w A M
5. Name of stream )fl lxy^ , 6. River basin: e
7. Approximate drainage area; tl S ftnt <; 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: NYC rId. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ? Y?) V 1
Y
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -35 Longitude (ex. -77-556611):. - {J t?
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhotoIGIS Other GIS Other ) )CA
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying strea (t^ i sX ) location):
ylthmj ff ?ovv
I C,
14. Proposed channel work (if any):- P) 1
15. Recent weather conditions: -744 ' ffl 1M >? )VMi
16. Site conditions at time of visl
r+o wp"6-1 in
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known; -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed 0-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES if yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 24. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: =% Residential _% Commercial -% Industrial % Agricultural
?°% Forested ?% Cleared 1 Logged A-)% Other (..Ynli
22. Bankfull width: W 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): I
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) ,Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous ,Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g_, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): _ Comments: X,0 0 1A Y* k s
Evaluator's Signature _ V fJ `7 _ hate 1
T7)0
his channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the united States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAC:E approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 46103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
..._ ? r.:rF'?.s`.+?, -+iCr px P`?..-.,=r' t - ,'. ?, 7. r?='rC' tr.a 4,,'?-?"' .. t ? .,dlr. ?."` 1ti:3i .. _ - .•;o - r
Y .r
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

CaREC
Ia-N POIN
f A_NGE

f2fr:
SCD
CHARACTERISTICS e0astal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of fln?+ + lpersistent pools in stream _ q it - 4 0 - 5
1 (no flow or saturation {}; stt•on? flow == max points)
Evidence of past lturnzin alxerution 10-6 0-5 0-
2 (extensive alteration = 0; tic) alte?r-alion = max points) - -
1 ? -- -
Riparian zone 6 0_4 0- 5
(no butfa - t): contiguous, wide butter = mwx points)
Fridenee of nutrient or chemical discharges 0 $ p _ i 0' •l
$ (C,k ?;ve discharges •r- 0: no discharges - max points)
?- Groundwater discharge 0 - 3 q - ? 0 4
. 1 (nn d>tscltar}r _ tl. sp; in see(?swetlands, et:.. -.max paints)
Presence of ad .acrnt floeldpfain 0-4 0-4 0 - ? 2-
to (no floodplain =- 0: extcnsiv'e tloodplain -- lnax points) _ ? ?
._1- ... - _ __
I':ntrenellmenF i flondplaltl a4i CtiS d _ 3 (? -
4 t3 _ 7 ]
(?
-
0: frequent flnvding max point`)
(deepiv etimniciied
--
Presence ?f adjacent wetlands
- - -- - 0 {,? 0 - 4 0 +Q
j tnu wetlan& -- L7: Woe adjacent ?,vetlanas - inax poilltS]
- chanl silluositY 0. 5 0- 4 0- 3
nv'e channelization - 0; tiaturul meander max paints)
diment input 0- 4 t3 - 4 0- 4
tie{lositinn 0; little or do sediment tnax points) - - -f-- -- - -- ----? - -
Siu[: & dWe s tr of channel lied substrate * 0 . 4 0- 5
1 1 fine, homogenotis - 0• large diverse sires ? max pninta)
E? idencc of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 _ 4
0 -
12 ? (deeply' incised = 4; siahle bed shanks '- max points) --
r Presence of major bank failures {? . 5 0 S {k 5
?r I
(severe erasion a 0; no erosion, stable banks -• max points)

---F---
I2not depth antl tlensitk' tin hHl}l;s

0 _ a

0_1

i 0 .5 +L
T

(1147 YlS]hle CCiiatti - f1: dcil5e roots lllrl?tlgllOllt = n't3x }1QI.ITtS}
14
hnp:act by agriculture, livestock. or timber production D_ 5 0-4 0-5
V

__ _ ce niax points)
{su(stunsial iinpa4l Q: liv 4 _ T`

y
- - Presence of riffle-?p©oi/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
1
tG
Ina ritfles.'ripplus or poets {,}; well-deve:lopcd ittil.Y points)
+
laabttat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
!
E
r" l' (little or no habitat 0; frequent, varied liabituts max points)

{
---

{}
5
Lr
,.• Canopy CoE?Crag4 over streamUcd
-- ---
-- 0- S {? _ 5 _ v
(no shading vet etatiatt :_ 0; continuous canopy %- max paints.)
l I
,
_ - Substratc embvildednes5 Nr'1r 0_4 ?'
l? (deeply embedded 0; loose struciurc niax) ^? -?_----- -
? -•
Presence of str@am inveriebratess. (sae page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
[rf
20
(no evidence ° 0; ceimmnn. Iiull7Cmt1S [VACS = max ptflnt5} P . ___-_•
J-? pragence of arnptaihtRns 0-4 0- 4 0- d
3 l
(nn evidence = 0: cnlatilion, nutlaeraus types max points)

?

--- -
`

_
-
.? Presence of fists 0.4 0
- 4
T 0 l
I ?,
(no eti,idcnee = 0; •:omntcin. aiunterous ty s -Soak paints}
Evidence of %vildfife Ilse 0-6 0_ 5 I 0-5
73 l
j (no evidence = 0: abundant evidence =--.m -3x points) j --
?_
Total Points Possible
100
I 100
100
J --- TOTAL, SCORE, (also enter can first page) ?
' 1 hcsr characteristics are not assessed in coastal strearns.
2
fry" Yt)kI
USACE AIDS
DWQ # Site # _ (indicate on attached map)
FO-1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: e-?A n 1' Y? P") -' 1 r 2. Evaluator's name: A'XL' .'y'?7
3. Date of evaluation: ? zvpi tt 4. Time of evaluation: JJ ?6? A^t
5. Name of stream: '?{. 1 -h! Bib ? [b l?re? 6. River basin: (fit f fL?? !n
7. Approximate drainage area:- 2V Lai )f-8. Stream order: q
9. Length of reach evaluated: Cpp 14 10. County: 2-
11. Site coordinates if known : refer in decimal degrees, 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex- 34.872312): 1 i? rr r_ 4 t
{' C longitude (ex- 77-556611): -b -71, x20 S-h,'" 13
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S Other GIS Other 6pp4t r
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying strea (s) location):
br6vt? yanf -rd ?vw-d
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: 1I
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
1 hers
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters ?Fssential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters `Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ;'IVV J 1f yes, estimate the water surface area:
14, Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES TAO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: `% Residential _% Commercial `fu Industrial O'o Agnc i- Ifurai
?,6 ?% Forested
22. Bankfull width:- 3 ?
?% Cleared f Logged I% Other ( PA
4 pdkY t'nld )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): , S
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _r-Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander `Very sinuous -Braided charmel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ! r Comments: Ult at el f ; ? tA nj I4
Pltrd PY
Evaluator's Signature t f j ?I Date f ???
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as -9 guide to assist landowners an cnvtronmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-576-8441 x 26.
L
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
?r--- - _ - - --? . ?_-?._
C HARACTERISTICS tC-OR
Coastal LION l OIN
Pie?intont T RANGL
mountain SCORE
Presence of low i persistent p?nlS in Stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - s
I
(net llOW nr saturatitzn -' 0: strrtno flow max points)
?
- Evidence of past I,nrnflri atceration
a-6
a-
a-5
1 ` (extensive alteralion = 0; no alteration = max pa{nts} - - -
- _- - _ - _ _ -
- - - Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 Z
(no buf?ter - 0 Wntiguous• wide buf•ter - ntax dints)
Fvidente of nutrient or the=meal tiischas?es 0 - 5 0 _ 4 U - l
I (extensive rlischan± cs L 0; net discharges - max oints)
? C,round?vater discharge a-; j 0- 4 a J
"1r
' S
(no discharge = tl: s r4ig', seeps. wedands, etc. _ max points3

j
Presence ?f rtd?accnt lla?tidpl;tin
0- 4
0- 4
0 J
_
f (Ito floodplaln = 0, e.)CtCnSIVC: tloodpIaiit - nta pO1r1t5} -
-
4
4 k .. - -.._ - --
t,nircncltmcni I fl,iodplain a?crss
0- 5
0- 4
0 -? i
j
alV cn=?Cfailt?d- ICCittaetlt tl(rUCIlt1?. max points)
~ j (dCe - -?-
-
p
-i - - - Presence of adjacent wetlands ? o _ ?; 0 _ 4 a '_ Q
ti j
I 4eta evCtlanCla - tJ, lark adjacent tti?e:tlablds ? itt3x l)OilatS)
Channel sinuosity 0_ i 0_ 4 D- 3 D
g
(extensive citannelitatiatt '- 0; natural meander -= ntsx points)
sediment nlrtit {5 _ 0 - 4 0 - 4
lt1 (exlensiVC tiepc+sitint: 0; little O 110 Sedi.mcitt m:tx points)

- -? -- __-_--
_
- rr.
5i, ai??t?et or cltonnel bed snstratc ?? a _ 4 0 5 Z
(fine, homogenous T 0; lark, diverse stres ? max paints)
Fvidencc +of channel incision or widening 0 _ ; !} _ 4 0 - 5
1_ (deeply' incised = 0_ stable bed & banks _, max points) -
r -t _ Prescnre of major banl? fsttures t7 _ i 0 - 5 j 0 - S
r
? 1 ?
(sevrrc cra5lOtl ° U: ns? c.rosinn, stable banks = max points)
-J ??
_ _
- Root depth and density' nn hanks 0 _ 3 0 - 4 0 - , !?
t.! to vi JbL, roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
r )(apace by ' ahriculture, livestock, or timber production a 0 _ ?} 0 - 5
l s
itfenc'e tttax paints)
lsubstuntial inipaO {): ttv et
_
I'resetter of riffle-pooilripple-•pnol complexes 0- 3 D_ 5 0- 6
l [i
(no rit'fleslripplt:s or peals 0; Vveil-cic4'lUpcd tttesx pair7ts}
}lstbital car+tpiexity ?_ 6 0- 6 0- 6
1
(little or no habitat U: frequent, varied habituts max points)_
Canopy coverage over streambed 0_ 5 0- 5 0- 5 S
I
(no Shadingg Vegetation ? 0; continuous canopy : max paints) __ -
"?"" -._.. Substrate embeddedness 1v}r1•* a ^ ° A G•
19 (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure == znax]_ -- - __-_- - -_?- ,.._.._- - e
presnaace of streant invertebrates (see page 4)
? 0 _ 4 0 - S 0 5
? f
0
1 (no evidence 0-, cntatntnn, numerous types = max paints) - - _ _-
-.- --
.' Presence of amphibians U _ t 0 _4 0 - 4
no evid.nce = 0: cnn,ittc}n, mumerott5 types = max points)
?1 - -_
(
Presence of fish -
0- 4 0- 4 0. 4 (7
? ? (no evidence 0. common, numerous tyr s = max points)
Evidence of wildlife t,se.
0- 6
1 0- 5 1 0- 5 ,
k '3 1
(no evidence == fl; abundant e idence _ etas oints} --
Total Points Passible t40 100 100
- - -- TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
'l he se charactr risties are not assessed in coastal streams.

Withers & Ravenel Wetland Delineation Report
WITHERS R"ENEL
ENGINEERS i PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
August 19, 2008
Hazen and Sawyer, PC
Attn: Mr. Benjamin Roach, PE
4011 Westchase Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Detailed Wetland Delineation
Sanford Waste Water Treatment Plant - Sanford, North Carolina
W & R Project #: 02o8o618
Dear Mr. Roach:
On August 6, 2008, Withers & Ravenel completed a detailed wetland delineation on
a portion of the Sanford Waste Water Treatment Plant. The area evaluated is
indicated in red on the wetland sketch map (Figure 3) and is located west of the
terminus of Iron Furnace Road at Latitude: 35.5483738°N and Longitude:
79.2192494°W in Sanford, North Carolina. Surface waters onsite flow into Buffalo
Creek which is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Before mobilizing to the site, a
preliminary assessment was completed by compiling topographic base maps, county
soils maps, color aerial photographs, and USGS topographic base maps.
Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation
Potential wetland areas were evaluated based on the protocols set forth in the 1987
USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual. No wetlands were observed within the
evaluation boundary. However, one perennial/important stream and one
intermittent/unimportant stream were observed during our field evaluation. Streams
identified as important by the USACE and perennial by the NC-DWQ typically require
compensatory mitigation for impacts in excess of 150 linear feet. Wetland data
forms, in support of our findings, are included with the attachments.
Permitting
The current NWP's have a maximum allowable impact of 0.5 acres of wetlands and
300 linear feet of important/perennial channel per project. In addition, any impacts
to jurisdictional waters or wetlands will require prior notification and approval from
the USACE and the NC-DWQ. Mitigation will likely be required for any wetland
impacts or if the perennial channel impacts exceed 15o linear feet per project. The
USACE has a review period of 45 days, and the NC-DWQ has a review period of 6o
days. If either agency requests additional information, the clock `re-sets' when the
applicant responds to the request. As with any permit request, the applicant must
be able to demonstrate that the proposed impacts cannot be avoided and that the
wetlands/stream impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent possible.
iii MacKenan Drive i Cary, NC 27511 1 tel: [phone] fax: [phone]oo8 i www.withersTavenet.corn
7040 Wrightsville Avenue i Suite xox i Wilmington, INC 28403 1 tel: [phone] fax: [phone]
Brunswick Surveying 1 1027 Sabbath Home Rd, SW i Supply, NC 28462 1 tel: [phone] fax: [phone]
Withers & Ravenel can offer input during site plan design in order to reduce the
amount of processing time if a Nationwide Permit is required.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
WITHERS & RAVENEL INC.
-'?/ t a U-??

Todd Preuninger
Senior Biologist
Attachments:
1) USCS Quadrangle Map
2) Lee County Soil Survey
3) Wetland Sketch Map
q) Upland Data Form
Luke Tuschak
Environmental Scientist
-259 23, 0
I
Ol
t , I
"Mat �MIIF
tS
OR •
i6-38
35
238.86
k
0
A AL& jLA,
H E E
18
00,
25 86
5-1
0
o"

{;r f, I . f .3 Z k CO
l ?, "? `Y111N i
s? 7
?A ` r T rW' ry e ,?1??' •ti r1 P 5
i .• ?. ? 3 t -?,, !fir ?? - I ? ?' r ?? r ? ..t -? .?
A
r? tI _
I
/?; ?'?1id33llf}C}S 0. :e!1 ?? ?.. ` r •? ? ? ! r? ??r?- -"'-"~ -_}_, - (/ -?"' ? I r' f ??^ •
?'Irl: ..y f :.. `? ??:? .? ? `lr ?, i V ?? r - ? 1 ? r t ..Ji ? ?.,. ??+ '. i1 ? ?L •
p?f r`4 i
•1D
a ? oLe- r Evaluated Boundary
?..( < .
!o` st 'Ila al. U&
Z4 I[ L ( 1
y ?- 1 ! ?? '! { „r 1?...V
4• ?r sl tl
?,. '? ? ???$p? ? it ' ?•??. ?! fj T y' ?I a ^ : ?f ? i . r"
711
.:r _ Il yr? 1 •? k ?•+? ? ?. ll???,? p ? •?.'?` r ? r?' rj ? ? f. \ J????y?
11 „I..j,r`A . ` - """''''''fl???+ ti v j"? , fCb' i I - .. ? ' 1` ?? '?. j ! l`' t ... ? _ `' . r? •
173, ;? ?r •?, ??L \--? r, ?t ? •?? LJ•5 l 3 ?A kl?? 4? ??- ?.? ??,t?f( ??."s-? •f
? i
I/ k
u l t (.?I#y,e t 1 ?` / iQ ?s;t ii jt 1?1 r- tin tl t
50 -1
I It
- }-
71 t `?..a ' r , ?. .. r ?•_ r y _ 300 1 / fr ,
. -_'? • ? * r te?a. _ 1 _ j_ ? ??
I 1. ti_ - - >?' If- ?. li ?• f t // { _ •
FIGURE T: U$G5 Drawn By. Scale: Figure No.:
WITHERS RAVENEL
ENGINEERS PLANNERS I SURVEYORS QUADRANGLE LT 1"-2,000' 1
111 MacKer+an Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 Sanford WWTP
Sanford, North Carolina Date: Job Number-
te1:919-469-3340 fax: [phone]
Colon Quadrangle 8-14-08 02080618
www. withersravenel.cona
0R
--?--- TaE
TaD
J l>
,
rr
cn Cprt7N T??
WWB Cp _ 6
I 'S+ StA ? ??
-TOP R o TaE
Ch TaB
WWB Cp
TOP ToS WW8 WWB P
ToB
TaE
C? StA -
Ro O c ryde NaB
WwB MfB
Ch MfD o WwB Ro UQ A
It,
W n
ToB MfD ToB T
Ro StA w
To8 Ch PfB O
PfF C \To8 ' "00 StA Ch Cp" 'n Cp
rB
CP Q Cumnock MfD PfF CP {E
? e
1 PfD / MfE PfB
PIB i F, PfF PfiF,
NIM
Q{F MfD MfB FfD CP` MfB
MfB
\\ t
C CP t?_
PfB P IF
fvifB PfD PfF
PfB Ch PfF 1 `--
?f PfF PfDY MfB
FOB AM Zd f PfB
?tv7 f _
? --
d Cp
CtJ MfB " e t 1rC; PfD
Mf8 1 MfB p - --? PfB
f
PIF l / MfB ?m
PfD Ch -
C O PfF Ch To8 11 %
J , 0e?PfD
MiB
t Mt! MfB PfB`IPfF PfD/?
d a{ICt -
U
:MfB
Ch ° PtF'
r
PfF O a G -
B PfF Pi8 / MfB
r Pf \/ ( `\
PfB l?
MfB
? J
PfF ?? PfF D PfF
PfF PfB ', - -
ptD
PfD PfD` MfB , MfB PfB
PfB fv PfF ( PfiF Pf
l\Pr PfD
PfD Ch pfF _ PfD
PfF Ch PfF PtD ?\ -- - -?„ MfB / PfD
/t a
ToB Y MfB PfF
P"B
pfe PfD ifB ? WD
MfD
PfD/' Ch , MfB MfD ??? MfB PfB MfB
?PfD PfD CrB CrB
MtD MfE r, ? CrD I
MfD °T o ToB m ?0 ?0 '` MiB
MfB Ch z e Q ?_ a o Lf?
PfB PfD CrB o MfD
PfB Mf8 PtD
WE \ o
PfB
Q Cr8 Joo
MfB ?:.-- Ch ( MfB
?` FIGURE 2: NRCS Drawn By: Scale: Figure No.:
WITHERS
RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS SOIL SURVEY LT 1"=2,000' 2
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 Sanford WWTP
Sanford, North Carolina Date: Job Number:
tel:[phone] fax: [phone] 02080618
www.withersravenel.com
Upland DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: W&R Project # - 02080618 Sanford WWTP Date: 8-14-08
Applicant / Owner:
City of Sanford County: Lee
_ State: NC
Investigator: Withers & Ravenel (Luke Tuschak)
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes M No ?

Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes
?
No Community ID

Is the area a potential problem area? Yes
?
No Mixed Pine/HWD

(explain on reverse if needed) Transect ID:
PlotID: upslope of stream
on in
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Eulalia viminea Herb FAC+ 9.
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica _ Tree FACW 10._ _
3. Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC 11. _
4. Ilex opaca Tree FAC- 12. _
5. Nyssa sylvatica Tree FAC 13.
6. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 14. _
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 83
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
0 Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
j] Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other 0 Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) ? Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.) ? Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydrology Indicators Absent
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): PfD Pinkston silt loam Drainage Class: well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ruptic-Ultic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? YesR NoEj
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 _ 7.5YR 4/3 Loam
4-10 _ 7.5YR 5/6 Loam
10-12 _ 10YR 6/4 Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol ? Concretions
II Histic Epipedon II High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Q Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric Soils Absent
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No M
Hydric Soils Present? Yes F1 No E
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes? NoO
Remarks:
Appendix C
Figures
Figure 1 - USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Map - Colon Quadrangle
Figure 2 - General Vicinity Map
Figure 3 - MRCS Soils Map
N
f .
I1
W E
- - r
x.. ??? Gw - r Big Buffalo
Wastewater Treatment Plant
.-? ; ka f`? yy t
r _
-
??. I'• N S 5 _ ? • ?? ??+
1 inch ,/= 1 000 feet f y '
0 - 0.125 0.25 0.5 !+p '-I 0.75" ;"9 1 l
Miles ` ca
FIGURE 1 SOURCE: MAPTECH Terrain Navigator Pro®
1.24,000 USGS Topographic Map
Colon Quadrangle (Map Ref No. 35079-E2-TF-024) fhZEN AND SAWYER
October 2009 Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Sanford, North Carolina
i, N
W ` E
S
LA WAT S
v COLO/
Big Buffalo o
MPN Wastewater Treatment Plant SA�
b �MME� � KGs
oo
jd P
C' CLYDE RHYN
O �
6,
Q. 4Cr
v LL
z
0
0
COTTEN
BRA CH --
o14,
of
y�, zO mag
cP 1� m �'
G v PE NS m
z
z
o Er�" �o� w
o _
P 0
v
00 �
D HOLLY R
LD FOREST
OM PSW\VV�P F�
GLENWOOD GOL COURSE
NIXON N ILL A A
Cp0`SPRVNGS 0E� 000 C
Lu
0 = NNIE O
o
-D ¢ a
c� m H R
z o 0 = BURNS
~ REYNVISTA w o y NFIELD
w ` OK OOD ti�c�, — E LI K
0 0.25 0.5 1 X1.5 2� a 1 INE ae
Y
Miles vrrRTM At,
L OUGq
FIGURE 2 LEGEND
General Vicinity Map Hydrology =County Boundary
Streets 0 Sanford Service Area IWEN AND SAWYER
October 2009 State Highway ODevelopment Zone Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Sanford, North Carolina SOURCE: NCDOT; SANFORD

FIGURE 3 SOURCE Soil Survey: US Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service (Soil PrSurvey of operty Lee County North Carolina - 1989) HAZEN AND SAWYER
Soils Map Property Boundary: City of Sanford, North Carolina
October 2009 Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant - City of Sanford, North Carolina
Appendix D
Construction Plan Sheets
C-00 Cover
C-10 Overall Existing Conditions
C-20 Overall Proposed Conditions
C-21 Proposed Conditions -Area 1
C-22 Proposed Conditions -Area 2
C-23 Proposed Conditions -Area 3
C-24 Proposed Conditions -Area 4
D-01 Sand Filter Sections & Details

?ygR1ERED ?Bi
CITY OF SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
BIG BUFFALO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 12 MGD EXPANSION
US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit Application - Nationwide Permit No. 39
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
401 Water Quality Certification Application

1
"I yb
1,110
7 o' cy9?

BIG BUFFALO
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT IRON EueAACE eo
87 42
m?
CAPE a
R
421 AP
CDTTEN RD
eEACR7REE ore g3P
?-

i
i
42 J
42 /

?
?
0?
r G

?? WFF 78 421
ook SANFORD
"
y
00
P? J? ?
sa
co Go
l
G
1
r
1 ? s t a

SCALE N MILES r s a
LOCATION MAP
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
4011 WeslChose Blvd, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
NOTES
1. THE ORIGINAL STREAM DELINEATION BY WITHERS & RAVENEL
IS BEASED ON A REPORT ISSUED ON AUGUST 19, 2008 USING
DATA GATHERED DURING A SITE VISIT ON AUGUST 6, 2008.
2. PERENNIAL, INTERMITTENT/UNIMPORTANT STREAM
DETERMINATIONS ARE BASED ON A SITE VISIT WITH ARMY
CORPS PERSONNEL AND A REPRESENATIVE OF AXIOM
ENVIRONMENTAL ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2009.
INTERMITTENT/UNIMPORTANT STREAM - 213 FT.
(SEE NOTES 1 & 2)
NON-404 DRAINAGE DITCH.
(SEE NOTE 2)

LEGEND
NEW EXISTING
PERENNIAL STREAM - 59 FT.
(SEE NOTE 1)
BUILDING/STRUCTURE
PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED PERENNIAL STREAM - 73 FT.

(36" CMP CULVERT, SEE NOTE 2)
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONCRETE CURB
AND GUTTER
GRAVEL ROAD
\ ?
. CONCRETE PAD/PAVING
`?? DTI TITr CONCRETE SIDEWALK

LL AB 300 CONTOUR
FILTERS BLDG X302.00 302.00 SPOT ELEVATION
PROPERTY LINE
-- CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PROPERTY LINE. TYP -x-x-x- FENCE
(RESET/NEW)
RECLAIM APPROXIMATE
1 ^ WOODLINE

DRYING CLARIFIER 1 BEDS AEROBIC YARD PIPING
DIGESTER 1
?n NF
SILT FENCE
AEROBIC
SLUDGE DIGESTER 2 SEDIMENT BASIN
STORAGE CLARIFIER 2
TANK 1 PERFORATED
BNR BASIN 3&4 SUBDRAIN PIPE
SLUDGE
THICK. MANHOLE

SLUDGE ¦ YARD INLET
STORAGE CLARIFIER 3
TANK 2 ¦ CURB INLET
1 FLARED END SECTION
.)
TOR
STORM DRAIN LINE
OLD INFLUENT PUMP STATION
GRIT
- - - - -
INTERMITTENT/UNIMPORTANT STREAM
GRIT
?FINE SCREENS I NON-404
GE DITCH,
A LIMIT
COUNTING
PERENNIAL STREAM
SCREENS
PERENNIAL STREAM,
DISTROBUT10N BOX PREVIOUSLY DISTRUBED
DRAINAGE AREAS
IMPERVIOUS AREA
OVERALL SITE PLAN
t"= 100,
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
ITY
A N F
R D
F JULY 2009
DESIGNED BLR C
O
S
O THE SCALE R DATE

DRAWN WAM
MZENAND SAWYER
NORTH CAROLINA SITE WORK SHOWN BELOW H&S JOB
32039-000

l E
E
i
t
i
& S
i
ti
t MEASURES ONE NUMBER
CHECKED BLR ng
nv
ronmen
a
neers
c
en
s
s BIG BUFFALO CIVIL
THE CONTRACT DRAWING

4011 WestChase Boulevard
Suite 500 ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR. JAD ,
Ralei
h
North Carolina 27607 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OVERALL EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAWING.
g
,
NC
Li
C
0381 1 C10
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED cense
- EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE .
TOTAL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 27.20 AC

OVERALL SITE PLAN
V= ,00
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
ITY
A N F
R D
F JULY 2009
DESIGNED BLR C
O
S
O THE SCALE R DATE

DRAWN WAM
MZENAND SAWYER
NORTH CAROLINA SITE WORK SHOWN BELOW HAS JOB
32039-000

l E
E
i
t
i
6 S
i
ti
t MEASURES ONE NUMBER
CHECKED BLR ng
nv
ronmen
a
neers
c
en
s
s BIG BUFFALO CIVIL
THE cGNTRACT DRAWING

4011 WestChase Boulevard
Suite 500 ORIGINAL
NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR. JAC ,
Ralei
h
North Carolina 27607 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OVERALL PROPOSED CONDITIONS DRAWING.
g
,
NC Li
C
0381 1 C20
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED cense
- EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE .
NOTES
1. MAINTENANCE SHALL BE SCHEDULED AS REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR DEVICE
TO MAINTAIN THE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AND INTENT OF THE DEVICE.
MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO 1) THE REMOVAL AND
SATISFACTORY DISPOSAL OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM TRAPS OR SILT
BARRIERS AND 2) REPLACEMENT OF FILTER FABRICS USED FOR SILT FENCES
AND STONE USED IN TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, STONE FILTERS, GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, ETC. MAINTENANCE AS NOTED IN ITEMS 1) AND 2)
ABOVE SHALL BE PERFORMED AS REQUIRED, AND AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 3
MONTHS FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SEDIMENT REMOVED
FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE DISPOSED OF
IN LOCATIONS THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN OFF SITE SEDIMENTATION AS
ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.

RIM 240.50 -
INVERT (IN) 231.10
INVERT (OUT) 230.95
RIM 241.50 -
INVERT (IN) 230.60
INVERT (IN) 232.40
INVERT (OUT) 230.50
RIM 243.00 -
INVERT (IN) 229.95
INVERT (OUT) 229.85
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE, TYP
NEW YARD INLET, TYP
SILT FENCE, TYP
NEW CHAIN LINK FENCE, TYP
NEW TREE LINE, TYP
RIM 237.25
INVERT (OUT) 233.40
RIM 254.00
INVERT (IN) 235.95
INVERT (OUT) 235.80
N
U
LLI
W
U)
UL
Z
J

U
F
Q

RIM 242.60
INVERT (IN) 240.30
INVERT (OUT) 240.20
RIM 244.00
INVERT (OUT) 241.74
MATCH LINE, SEE C23
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, TYP
(228.76 NGVD 29)
EXISTING 36' DIP CULVERT TO REMAIN
INVERT 226.55
PARTIAL PLAN - AREA 1
1'= 50'
YARD INLET SEDIMENT CONTROL, TYP
NEW MANHOLE, TYP
RIM 249.1
INVERT (OUT) 237.60
PLAN KEY
AREA-1 AREA-2
AREA-3 AREA-
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
ITY
A N F
R D
F JULY 2009
DESIGNED LMS C
O
S
O THE SCALE R DATE

DRAWN JG
MZENAND SAWYER
NORTH CAROLINA SITE WORK SHOWN BELOW HAS JOB
32039-000

l E
E
i
t
i
6 S
i
ti
t MEASURES ONE NUMBER
CHECKED LMS ng
nv
ronmen
a
neers
c
en
s
s BIG BUFFALO CIVIL
THE CONTRACT DRAWING

4011 WestChase Boulevard
Suite 500 ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR. JAG ,
Ralei
h
North Carolina 27607 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSED CONDITIONS - AREA 1 DRAWING.
g
,
NC Li
C
0381 2 C21
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED cense
- EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE .
/ RIM 247.50
INVERT (IN) 233.80
(I INVERT (OUT) 233.70
NOTES
1. MAINTENANCE SHALL BE SCHEDULED AS REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR DEVICE
TO MAINTAIN THE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AND INTENT OF THE DEVICE.
MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO 1) THE REMOVAL AND
SATISFACTORY DISPOSAL OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM TRAPS OR SILT
BARRIERS AND 2) REPLACEMENT OF FILTER FABRICS USED FOR SILT FENCES
AND STONE USED IN TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, STONE FILTERS, GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, ETC. MAINTENANCE AS NOTED IN ITEMS 1) AND 2)
ABOVE SHALL BE PERFORMED AS REQUIRED, AND AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 3
MONTHS FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SEDIMENT REMOVED
FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE DISPOSED OF
IN LOCATIONS THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN OFF SITE SEDIMENTATION AS
ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
C
U
U
6
U
i
7
C
F
DEPRESSED CURB TO STORWMATER TO FLOW
TO PROPOSED YARD INLET. SEE SHEET C23
FENCE NTH
.ET CONTROL, TYP
FENCE, TYP
MENT LOG CHECK DAM, TYP
3E INSTALLED FOLLOWING THE
PLETION OF PROPOSED SWALE
POSED SWALE TO
ALLED NTH GEOTEXTILE LINER
'OSED TREE LINE, TYP
ROXIMATE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, TYP
RESSED CURB TO STORWMATER TO FLOW
3TRUC110N ENTRANCE/EXIT
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED LMS
DRAWN JG
CHECKED LMS
PROJ.ENGR. JAC
ISSUED FOR I BY I APPROVED
MZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers 6 Scientists
4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
NC License C-0381
CITY OF SANFORD
NORTH CAROLINA
BIG BUFFALO
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 12 MGD
SITE WORK
CIVIL
PROPOSED CONDITIONS - AREA 2
PLAN KEY
AREA-1 AREA-2
AREA-3 AREA-4
THE SCALE BAR DATE JULY 2009
SHOWN BELOW HAS JOB 32039-000
MEASURES ONE NUMBER
INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
DRAWING. 2 C22
FLAT FILE .
MATCH LINE, SEE C24
PARTIAL PLAN - AREA 2
1'= 50'
i
i
PROPOSED S,
SEE
INVER
100 YEAR FLOODPI
(228.76 I
PROPO!
I
ENGINE GENERI
ELEC
BULL
RIM
INVERT (OUT)
RIM
INVERT (IN)
INVERT (IN)
INVERT (OUT)
RIM
INVERT (OUT)

RIM
INVERT (OUT)
RIM
INVERT (IN)
INVERT (OUT)
S
MAINTENANCE SHALL BE SCHEDULED AS REQUIRED FOR A
PARTICULAR DEVICE TO MAINTAIN THE REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY AND INTENT OF THE DEVICE. MAINTENANCE
SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO 1) THE REMOVAL
AND SATISFACTORY DISPOSAL OF ACCUMULATED
SEDIMENT FROM TRAPS OR SILT BARRIERS AND 2)
REPLACEMENT OF FILTER FABRICS USED FOR SILT FENCES
AND STONE USED IN TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS,
STONE FILTERS, GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, ETC.
MAINTENANCE AS NOTED IN ITEMS 1) AND 2) ABOVE
SHALL BE PERFORMED AS REWIRED, AND AT LEAST
ONCE EVERY 3 MONTHS FOR THE DURATION OF
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL
BE DISPOSED OF IN LOCATIONS THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN
OFF SITE SEDIMENTATION AS ACCEPTABLE TO THE
ENGINEER, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
DEPRESSED CURB TO ALLOW
FLOW TO EXISTING INLET
RIM 246.93
INVERT (OUT) 245.33
ELECTRICAL
BUILDING 2
RIM 218.54
INVERT (IN) 213.94
INVERT (IN) 215.04
INVERT (OUT) 213.84 PLAN KEY

FAREA-IFAREA]-2
PARTIAL PLAN - AREA 3 AREA-3 AREA-4
1'= 50'
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
ITY
A N F
R D
F JULY 2009
DESIGNED LMS C
O
S
O THE SCALE R DATE

DRAWN JG
MZENAND SAWYER
NORTH CAROLINA SITE WORK SHOWN BELOW HAS JOB
32039-000

l E
E
i
t
i
6 S
i
ti
t MEASURES ONE NUMBER
CHECKED LMS ng
nv
ronmen
a
neers
c
en
s
s BIG BUFFALO CIVIL
THE CONTRACT DRAWING

4011 WestChase Boulevard
Suite 500 ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR. JAG ,
Ralei
h
North Carolina 27607 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSED CONDITIONS - AREA 3 DRAWING.
g
,
NC
Li
C
0381 2 C23
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED cense
- EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE .
NOTES
1. MAINTENANCE SHALL BE SCHEDULED AS REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR DEVICE
TO MAINTAIN THE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AND INTENT OF THE DEVICE.
MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO 1) THE REMOVAL AND
SATISFACTORY DISPOSAL OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM TRAPS OR SILT
BARRIERS AND 2) REPLACEMENT OF FILTER FABRICS USED FOR SILT FENCES
AND STONE USED IN TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, STONE FILTERS, GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, ETC. MAINTENANCE AS NOTED IN ITEMS 1) AND 2)
ABOVE SHALL BE PERFORMED AS REWIRED, AND AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 3
MONTHS FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SEDIMENT REMOVED
FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE DISPOSED OF
IN LOCATIONS THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN OFF SITE SEDIMENTATION AS
ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
RIM 250.1
INVERT (OUT) 248.3
RIM 246.9
INVERT (OUT) 245.3
DEPRESSED CURB TO ALL(
FLOW INTO STORM DRAI
INVERT 247.45
PARTIAL PLAN - AREA 4
1'= 50'
RIM 264.42
INVERT (OUT) 262.92
RIM 264.41
NVERT (IN) 262.61
INVERT (OUT) 262.51
YARD INLET SEDIMENT
:ONTROL, TYP
12' RCP
INVERT 259.78
PLAN KEY
AREA-1 AREA-2
AREA-3 AREA-4
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
ITY
A N F
R D
F JULY 2009
DESIGNED C
O
S
O THE SCALE R DATE

DRAWN WAM
MZENAND SAWYER
NORTH CAROLINA SITE WORK SHOWN BELOW HAS JOB
32039-000

l E
E
i
t
i
6 S
i
ti
t MEASURES ONE NUMBER
CHECKED BAR ng
nv
ronmen
a
neers
c
en
s
s BIG BUFFALO CIVIL
THE CONTRACT DRAWING

4011 WestChase Boulevard
Suite 500 ORIGINAL NUMBER NUMBER
PROJ.ENGR. JAG ,
Ralei
h
North Carolina 27607 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSED CONDITIONS - AREA 4 DRAWING.
g
,
NC Li
C
0381 1 C24
REV. DATE ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED cense
- EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE .
SEDIMENT CONTROL, TYP
NOTES:
1. z
TOP PLAN
1/4' = 1'0'
M
a
0
4" PERFORATED
PVC UNDERDRAIN
SECTION 1
1/2' = 1'0' D-01
DESIGNED MPJ
DRAWN MPJ
CHECKED LMS
PROJ.ENGR. JAC
ISSUED FOR BY APPROVED
EL. 244.0
EL. 240.0

FLOW S
EL 233.3
24' RCP OUTLET-
EL. 228.5
EL. 226.5
X/1 X/l
'LITTER WEIR
0
I

4' RCP
iEDIMENTATON
:HAMBER INLET
24" RCP INLET

2411 x 4811
METAL PLANKS
MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
3 D"
SECTION 9-
1/2' _''°' D-°' PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF S A N F O R D THE SCALE BAR DATE OCTOBER 2009
MZENAND SAWYER NORTH CAROLINA SITE WORK SHOWN BELOW Has
JOB
32039-000

Environmental En
ineers 6 Scientists
MEASURES ONE R
NUMBER
g BIG BUFFALO CIVIL INCH LONG ON CONTRACT DRAWING
4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500
THE ORIGINAL
NUMBER
NUMBER
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
NC License C-0381 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SAND FILTER SECTIONS AND DETAIL DRAWING. 2 D-01
EXPANSION TO 12 MGD FLAT FILE
INTERMEDIATE PLAN
z
,? D-01
Appendix E
Draft Environmental Assessment
(Submittal Letter Dated September 30, 2009)
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
September 30, 2009
Mr. Daniel M. Blaisdell, P.E., Chief
Construction Grants and Loans Section
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
Re: City of Sanford
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Engineering Report
H&S Job No. 32039-000
Dear Mr. Blaisdell:
Enclosed are six (6) copies of the Engineering Report for the proposed expansion of the City
of Sanford Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This Engineering Report
addresses a proposed expansion of the Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant to an
expanded capacity of 12 mgd. The Engineering Report has been revised to address
technical and environmental review comments from the Construction Grants and Loans
(CG&L) Section and other comments from Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) agencies. Comments received from CG&L and DENR agencies and
responses to the comments are included in Appendix E. Responses to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission comment regarding monitoring for endocrine disrupting
compounds (EDCs) in the WWTP effluent and downstream in the Deep River (Appendix J)
are currently being prepared and will be submitted within the next week.
Please let us know if you have any questions or comments on this report. Please let us
know if any other changes are required prior to preparation of a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) and submittal of the Engineering Report and FONSI to the State
Clearinghouse.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
Kn G, ez
Robert A. Berndt, P.E.
Senior Associate
RABlmdb
CC' Mr. Vic Czar, P.E.
Mr. Paul Weeks, P.E.
Mr. Jim Cramer
Blaisdell 0930.09 I tr.
New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA • Raleigh. NC • Charlotte, NC • Greenshoro, NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Hampton Roads, VA - Baltimore, MC • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Miai, fl.
Appendix F
Agent Authorization Form
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL ID: 9635-44-1546-00/7290-00
9635-33-7772-00/6835-00
STREET ADDRESS: 5327 Iron Furnace Road
Sanford, NC 27330
Property Owner: City of Sanford, North Carolina
The undersigned, registered property owner of the above noted property, does hereby authorize
L. Michael Santowasso of Hazen & Sawyer, P.C.
(Contractor/Agent) (Name of Consulting Firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of this
permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
Sanford Municipal Building
225 E. Weatherspoon Street
Sanford, NC 27330
Telephone: [phone]
I hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of
my knowledge.
ljjf..<L??-
Authorize Signature
Date: /b • l ?' d f-I