20091105 Ver 1_More Info Received_20091105

HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
November 4, 2009
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Director
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
.? Re: Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
D C` [A0 12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina
NOV 5 2009 DWQ Project #09-1105
Request for Meeting to Review Application of
DENR wa1ERQUAI:Tr Stream Mitigation Rules Effective
,,r?us?u?osTO?MwA,r?esw,?cH through October 15, 2009
Dear Ms. Sullins:
This letter is to request a meeting with DWQ concerning the application of Stream
Mitigation rules effective through October 15, 2009 for review of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application for the above referenced project. Hazen and Sawyer submitted
the application by hand at 8:00 a.m. Friday, October 16 to DWQ rather than submitting
the application to DWQ by mail for delivery prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 15 as intended
for the application to -be reviewed according to the rules effective through October 15,
2009. The end result however is the same: DWQ had our submittal prior to the start of
business on October 16, 2009. This letter is to request that DWQ accept the application
for review according to rules effective through October 15, 2009 to avoid possible delays
in constructing the improvements at the Big Buffalo Plant and making water quality
improvements in the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers.
This is a second request for DWQ to review the application for the above referenced
project according to rules applicable through October 15. See the attached letters dated
October 22, 2009 to Ms. Cyndi Karoly with DWQ's Oversight/Express Permitting Unit and
Ms. Karoly's response dated October 26, 2009 concerning application of stream
mitigation rules effective through October 15, 2009 for review of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application for the above referenced project.
All of the required information was collected and a site visit made by the Corps of
Engineers necessary for submittal of the application for review by rules applicable
through October 15, 2009. The Corps of Engineer and Sandy Smith, Biologist with
Axiom Environmental Inc., visited the site on September 16, 2009. The Corps findings
are summarized in an attached memorandum prepared by Mr. Smith, dated
September 17, 2009. Based on the field survey by the Corps of Engineers, the 213 feet
of intermittent stream was determined to be "unimportant" and was understood not to
count toward the 150 foot mitigation limit. The 401 Water Quality Certification
Application was submitted with the intent of receiving a Nationwide Permit (39) per rules
effective through October 15, 2009.
New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Greensboro, NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Hampton Roads, VA • Baltimore, MO • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Miami, FL
LIVEN AND SAWYER
Ms. Colleen Sullins
November 4, 2009
Page 2
The request for DWQ review of the application based on the rules applicable through
October 15 is to avoid a potential year or longer delay in the schedule for construction of
the proposed project at Sanford's Big Buffalo Plant. The project will provide much
needed replacement of aging equipment at the plant. The project includes redundant
force mains and improved electrical and standby power facilities to substantially improve
plant reliability and reduce the risk of discharge of inadequately treated wastewater. The
project includes new facilities to provide nitrogen and phosphorus removal to protect
water quality in the Deep and Cape Fear River and to help control chlorophyll
concentrations downstream of the discharge. Any delay in the schedule for this project
will delay the benefits that will be provided by this project including better protection of
the environment by improved reliability of the treatment facilities and improved water
quality in the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers. A minor and insignificant technicality should
not delay urgently needed improvements at the Big Buffalo Plant and delay the
improvement to water quality in the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers.
Please call me at 833-7152 or e-mail me at rdifiore(_)hazenandsawyer. com to schedule a
meeting to review the 401 Water Quality Certification Application for the above
referenced project. Hazen and Sawyer appreciates an opportunity to meet with DWQ to
discuss the 401 Water Quality Certification Application for this important project.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.

Robert S. DiFiore, P.E.
Vice President
RSD/bpr
Attachments
cc: Victor Czar
Mike Santowasso
Jim Cramer
Ian McMillian
Cyndi Karoli
Sullins 11.04.09 Itr.
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
October 19, 2009
DWQ Project # 09-1105
Lee County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Hazen and Sawyer P.C.
Mr. L. Michael Santowasso
4011 Westchase Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Subject Property: Big Buffalo Creek WWTP Expansion
Permitting Fee
® PERMITTING FEE MISSING/INCORRECT
Dear Mr. Santowasso:
On October 16, 2009, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated October 15,
2009 for the above referenced project. The DWQ has determined that your application was incomplete
and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. Please provide the following so that we may
continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
® DWQ permit fees encompass all impacts whether temporary or permanent, intermittent or
perennial, important or unimportant. For projects impacting one or more acres of wetland or
150 or more than 150 linear feet of streams the fee is $570. You may submit the original
check along with another check for $330 or submit one check for the full amount.
Please contact the DWQ within three weeks of the date of this letter to verify that you have received this
letter and that you remain interested in continuing to pursue permitting of your project and will be providing
the DWQ the requested information at a later date. Please contact this office in writing. If we do not hear
from you within three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will
consider the project as returned.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd.: Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
NorthCarolina
Naturallrf
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
? ?
City of Sanford: Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
PCN ApplicationTimeline
• Prior to submission of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) application to the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Annette Lucas had been discussing the
stormwater management plan (SMP) with Liane Morgan of Hazen & Sawyer.
• Hazen & Sawyer submitted their PCN application for the above-referenced
project on Friday, October 16, 2009.
• On Monday, October 19, 2009, Laurie Dennison of the DWQ 401
Wetlands/Permitting Unit spoke with Ian McMillan of the DWQ 401
Wetlands/Permitting Unit regarding the PCN application for the above-referenced
project. The applicant had submitted an application fee of $240, yet impacts to
streams were: 132 linear perennial stream and 213 linear feet intermittent stream,
for a stream impact total of 345 linear feet, and therefore the application fee
should have been $570. The applicant had incorrectly stated on their PCN
application that because the stream was determined by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to be "unimportant intermittent", that it was not considered a stream by
the DWQ. Laurie emailed the "Request For More Information" letter regarding
the aforementioned application fee to Michael Santowasso of Hazen & Sawyer
and explained to him that the application fee for the above-referenced project
would be $570. Later that morning (October 19, 2009), Michael Santowasso
called Laurie Dennison upon receipt of the aforementioned email to ask if the
applicant would also be required to provide stream mitigation for the proposed
impacts as outlined in the PCN application. Laurie Dennison again spoke with
Ian McMillan regarding whether stream mitigation for the proposed impacts as
outlined in the PCN application would be required. Ian McMillan stated that yes
because the PCN application was received on October 16, 2009, stream mitigation
for the proposed impacts would be required. Michael Santowasso told Laurie
Dennison he was going to lose his job because of this.
• Again on Monday, October 19, 2009, Michael Santowasso called Ian McMillan to
ask if there was any way to get out of the requirement for stream mitigation. He
stated that they had had the PCN application ready to go for three weeks, but
screwed up and submitted it on Friday, October 16, 2009. Ian McMillan stated
that the Public Notice that was published August 14, 2009, clearly stated that any
applications received on or after October 16, 2009, would be subject to the
Intermittent Stream Mitigation Policy. Michael Santowasso also told Ian
McMillan that this mistake would cost him his job.
• Again on Monday, October 19, 2009, Michael Santowasso called Ian McMillan
again to tell him that he intended to call Cyndi Karoly to plead his case and would
that be okay with Ian McMillan. Ian McMillan told him that would be fine.
• Again on Monday, October 19, 2009, Michael Santowasso called Cyndi Karoly to
plead his case and also her told that this mistake would cost him his job. Cyndi
Karoly told him that she would think about his situation and get back to him.
• On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the DWQ received correspondence from Hazen
& Sawyer stating again that they did not understand that because the stream was
determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be "unimportant
/ -)It

intermittent", that it was not considered a stream by the DWQ. However, in their
PCN application submission, Hazen & Sawyer included NC-DWQ Stream
Identification Forms completed by Sandy Smith of Axiom Environmental (one of
their environmental sub-consultant), which rated the onsite, reviewed streams as a
33.5 (which is a perennial stream according to the DWQ with 30 points
constituting a perennial stream) and 26.5 (which is an intermittent stream
according to the DWQ with 19 points constituting an intermittent stream). Hazen
& Sawyer also stated the following in the October 22, 209, correspondence:
"Hazen and Sawyer was aware that the policy for review of this application was
going to change, and prepared the application with the intent of submitting before
the new policy was effective. We understand the new policy is intended to protect
the propagation of aquatic life. Towards this point, we hope for consideration of
the findings of our biologist and the USACE that the intermittent stream is
"unimportant in terms of aquatic life. " And: "There is concern that if the new
policy applies to the review of the above application an Individual Permit may be
required which would delay the construction of the proposed Treatment Plant
improvements by a year or more. " This is not a possibility since as stated in the
PCN application at the bottom of page 5 of 12, "... the USACE has waived the
300 foot limit for intermittent stream beds for this project. "
On Friday, October 23, 2009, Cyndi Karoly told Michael Santowasso that the
stream mitigation requirement would stand.
On Monday, October 26, 2009, the DWQ sent a Request For More Information
correspondence to Victor Czar, Public Works Director with the City of Sanford.
Specifically, the letter requested the following:
This Office believes that the proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion
can be moved or reconfigured to avoid and/or minimize the impacts to the
stream. Please revise the plans to avoid the impacts.
2. Per the requirements of GC3705, this project is subject to Stormwater
Management Plan (SMP) Requirements for Applicants Other Than the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (see
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/). Drainage areas B, C, D and E are
considered to be high density by the DWQ. For each proposed BMP, please
provide a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items (see
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/su/bmp forms.htm).
345 linear feet of compensatory stream mitigation is required for this project.
Please provide a compensatory mitigation plan. The plan must conform to the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and must be appropriate to the type of
impacts proposed.
r -?
Note: Hazen & Sawyer had only acknowledged Area E as needing a
Stormwater Management Plan, and in their PCN application requested
DWQ waive the requirement for implementation "of BMP measures for
Drainage Are E".
On Wednesday, November 4, 2009, the DWQ received correspondence from
Hazen & Sawyer requesting a meeting with Coleen Sullins, Director of the
DWQ.
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
? Yes ? Corps
W1 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W3 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W4 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W5 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W6 ? P ? T ? 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. 39•
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
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 3 132
S2 ®P ? T Fill Unnamed ® NT ®? DWQ 3 213
S3 ? P ? T ? PER
? INT ? Corps
? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER
? INT ? Corps
? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER
? INT ? Corps
? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER
? INT ? Corps
? 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
intermittentlunimportant. ` -- 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
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?
1b. 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, narrative 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
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.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -- Stream Identification Form;
----------- - -
Date: ' Ct Project ?y Latitude
d.-.t
Longitude
Evaluator wv Site,
?eft, ,t? ) I
Total Points:
is at lt3asl 1nrnrm4t0r1t
'9 or Derennral d , 30
County: w P,,
Version 3.1
7 + i 1
Other _
CIo: , Nar-e: t;,?} y+

A Geon20T logy (Subtotal_-_ }', ) __
1 Absent Weak
_ Moderate
------ - - Strong
1° Continuous bed and bank
- 1 j 2 3
y
2 sinuosity
3 In-ct)annel si ucture riffle-pool segUenCe n
U 1 -- _-... 2. .. .._.;_. ?-._ ,
-1 S d texture or stream substrate sorting
5 Acuvelrellc floodplain _ 0 i ?? I
f , Depositional bars or benches
v 3 1 2
- ---
7 Braided channel

_
tai
1
1
2
3
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits ?
? 0
C ?
2 3
levees
9 Natural (/ 2
10 Headcuts
l 0
0 1
0 9 - - `"
s
11 Grade contro
11 Natural valley or or draina9eway 0 O a 1
13 Second or greater order channel on existinc
)
No
; Yes = 3
USGS or NRCS map or other documented ?
evidence.
?Mar.-made d t.hrs arc n i ra:cd, sc ail; rssii n+ m manual
6 HydrologyjSubtatal
. _.
_

14 Groundwater flow/discharge t) t 2 3
_ _
15Water in channel and > 48 hr-1 since rain, or j 2 3
Water in channel - dry or growing season
11
0
5
0
16 l.eaflitter 1 ^
1' Sedimem on plants or debris 0 0-5

0
5
1
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
1 0
N ,
u _ 1
Yew
5
19 Hvdrlc oils redoximo hoc teatures) presert o
C B ology (Subtotal
`'
20Fibrous roofs in channel ?
t 3 ( ti
_ Rooted plants in channel
21 - -
_-
_ .
22 Crayfish n) - 5 1 1.5
23 Bivalve p,
G 1
1
5 2

1
29 Fish ? - }
--
25 Amphibians 0
26 Nlacrobenthos incite diversity and allutidance) fT) .5 1 5
2I Filamentous algae. PenPhYton Ott

G 7 0.5

t7 5
1

1
1 5
Ir m oxidizing b 3cronalfuhr)us I
d I
' FAC = F Ar W - 0 75: 5 SAV = 2.0,
OBL 1- Other, - 0
and plants in streambg
Wnt tit _.
-
r
liar ..(land 7. fours on tnc pn.xi,cc o` ,.rpl,.;rJ plants, ltcrn t uus?, ? 6 Ow tn,sr uer .+t aqu..tic "r " ell.1nd p l ant,
Stketc h
N;?tes Lisa trii:k side o` this formff tar additional notes t
??? f?y}/,?1f? ) _ (,"?J'Y jf1 ;'/16tt1ytC?

P
t
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date J 3 ( Project Latitude: 7 i, ? 471)+ q
Evaluator: ,yv1 (/ ,im Site >t1P,? Longitude j/P9
Total Points: Other ?f td
Strearn 1s at least moromranr t COUnty: E,) Oii d Mit,,u: lphw r l 6
1 ? 19 or perennial f L, 30 - -- -
A. Geomon?hology (Subtotal - i Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1' Continuous bed and bank ( 1 2
2 Sinuosity 1 2 3
n-t hannel structure riffle poul sEqueHCt' 1 L" ?
?? - _ -
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 f 3
1'2) J
5 Artivelrelic floodplain
0 1 (
_ .. _ ,
f 6 Depositional bars or benches 3
- - -
7 Br -aide-d channel 1 2 3
8 Recent alluvial deposits I g f1 3
- 1}
9 Natural levees C -
10 Meadcuts 1 2
05 L5
11 Grade controls
12 Natura' valley or dralnageway C) --
13 Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented ? No Yes _ 3
evidtricL
`tat -t adc Ltg1.0' arc of rated, sc, di.Lu;s1 ns mant.al
B Hydrology (Subtotal
( 14 Groundwater flowldischarge 0 2 3
-
15 Water in channel and > 48 firs since rain, or 0 2?
Mater in channel - d or- rowing seasnn
05 0
16, Leaflitter 1 " -
17 Sediment on plants or debris j
18 Organic debris I nes or piles (Wrack I-nee) U ' 0 F 1
Ii) Hydric soils (redoxirnorphic features) present" No C) ,) Yes 1.5
r
Biology (Subtotal
?DI` Fibroub roots u, cnannel (3> 1 C
- 1 0
21` Rooted,).ants in channel _ :S' _
?.
?' . Crayflsti /•g o `.a 1 5
23 Bi,alv0s
1
11-2-4 Fish -. C) U,
25 Amphibians (' S 1
- - /
26 Macrobonthos (note diverbrty and at)undanee) I 0 5
2 1 Fi;amea ous algae penphyyton 0 L
>u Ion oxidizing bacterialfunrg,as o b ? 1 '5
20'. Wetland plants in streambed - FAG = 0.5 FAC'W - U 75: OUL = 1 5 SAV _ 20: Other 0 --
lu-rns 21 ml . focus on the prr.rcce W upland pl,u t., I.Q1': + tut uses s i it.: prescm c of aquatic or ssctlard
Sketch
N .tr.s use b ,ck side o' Ihis form r')r additional notes I

V rl ,
(, r
WITHERS c.` RAVENEL
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 #: 02o8o6i8
Dear Mr. Roach:
On August 6, 2oo8, 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
USACE 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
Soo 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 150 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: 914.469,3340 fax: [phone]oo8 i www.withersravenel.com
7040 Wrightsville Avenue i Suite ioi i Wilmington, NC 28403 1 let: 910.256.9277 fax: 910,256,2584
Brunswick Surveying 1027 Sabbath Home Rd, SW i Supply, NC 28462 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.

Todd Preuninger
Senior Biologist
Attachments:
1) USGS Quadrangle Map
2) Lee County Soil Survey
3) Wetland Sketch Map
4) Upland Data Form
Luke Tuschak
Environmental Scientist

o
?
3 R
W
°z
??? ??? CS I
uu{]
11hR
?Y ?[
q }{
? ? I I?
?
? ?
y • ¦ ? '? I
y
T
}
?
{
fl 1 I I Iy C
? ?
y
L17 1
? '-
j5s 9
z=z s
a
j k
a
xxq
?l
Lr v
z
a
J
d
V g
fn ^
J n
d'
O
in
Egg:
RIM
c0?
7
In
U
F
W
U
Z
yy
(... Ui W
Z
Z
3
cl
0
gr
3
J
W
Q
a
0 3
cc LLo
O? 0 2
Z00 <22?
< LL
Q LL w 0,
U ?ccz
m,
LL I 0 ¢ 2CC U)
O mQa
?z
0 a
3
o?
?o xoo
E u _
3 E;
leg g
?a?a? s
A ILFWYW?
J'fA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
August 14, 2009 (with edits made August 18, 2009)
TO: 401 Water Quality Certification Mailing List
FROM: John Dorney, Program and Policy Development Unit
Cyndi Karoly, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Brian Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit
John Hennessy, Non-Point Source Assistance and Compliance Unit
Dee Freeman
Secretary
RE: Update on permitting programs for Waters of the State administered by the Division of
Water Quality
The purpose of this memo is to inform you of several items in relation to surface water programs
administered by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). For details regarding specific topics, please follow
the appropriate web links or contact the staff members referenced within each heading. Note that where
deadlines are posted for submission of written comments, comments sent by regular mail must be
received by DWQ staff contacts by the posted date, not mailed by the commenter by that date.
Therefore, last-minute submittals should be relayed by email rather than regular mail.
1. Description of Proposed Changes for NCDWQ Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
Manual Version 4.0
The purpose of this memo is to inform you of several proposed revisions to the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Manual. These proposed changes reflect the past experience in using the Manual across
the state as well as questions raised in training sessions over the past several years. Staff believe that
the overall score (19 points for an intermittent stream and 30 points for a perennial stream) will not
change as a result of the proposed revisions but we intend to collect field data across the state for the
next several months to be certain.
Proposed manual changes are described below. The Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
Manual Version 4.0 can be found on our website at:
htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/documents/StreamIdentificationManualDRAFTAuaust 2009.odf
(note there is not a period at the end of this web site address). If you need a hard copy (black and white)
mailed to you, please contact Periann Russell as noted below. Comments related to the proposed
manual revisions should be sent to
NC Division of Water Quality, Program and Policy Development Unit
Parkview Building
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Attn: Periann Russell
919-715-6835
Or emailed to Periann.Russell(d-?ncdenr.gov, please identify Stream ID v. 4.0 in the subject line.
Comments must be received by the DWQ office in writing via regular mail or email by Wednesday,
November 11, 2009 (90 calendar days from the date of this memorandum).
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
NorthCarolina
,/ at lt"l Ay
,,n Egaal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
Public Memorandum
Page 2 of 13
August 14, 2009
August 18, 2009 edited version
Description of Proposed Changes to the NCDWQ Stream Identification Manual
MANUAL TEXT
Descriptions of absent, weak, moderate and strong were previously explained only in the geomorphology
and part of the hydrology sections. These descriptions are now also in the biology section of the Manual.
Additional explanations were made throughout the document for the purpose of clarification.
Literature citations were added throughout document
The Hydric soils indicator and description was changed based on numerous comments and suggestions
from the soil science community. The changes are intended to more accurately reflect the intent of the
indicator; the language of the indicator is now "Evidence of a seasonal high water table."
In order to maintain the simplicity necessary in completing a rapid assessment of stream determination,
the use of chroma rather than redox better explains the presence or absence of a seasonal high water
table and varying saturated conditions. However, redoximorphic features are also important in
identification of seasonal to permanent saturated conditions and are more readily recognizable to those
not as well versed in the soil sciences. Therefore the use of redoximorphic features/hydric soils in the
scoring of the indicator was replaced with a two-tiered decision using chroma as the main descriptor and
the presence of redoximorphic features as a supplementary descriptor.
Please see the Manual text for additional information.
DWQ encourages comments and suggestions regarding the changes to the soils indicator in order to
further clarify and explain this indicator.
FORM
• Removed "levees" as a category from the form since levees are rarely (if ever) present on small
streams.
• Separated soil texture and streambed sorting into separate factors and score each from 0 - 3 points
• Change language for groundwater flow/discharge to "groundwater flow or discharge."
• Removed "water in channel in dry or growing season" from indicator leaving language as "water in
channel and > 48 hours since rain."
• Added mollusks to bivalve indicator.
• Changed scoring for macrobenthos from 0 - 1.5 to 0 - 3.
• Changed scoring for algae/periphyton/aquatic mosses from 0 - 3 to 0 - 1.5
• Hydric Soils Indicator:
o Changed hydric soil indicator language to "Evidence of seasonal high water table"
o Changed scoring for hydric soil/redox from yes or no, to 0 - absent, 1 - weak, 2 - moderate,
3 - strong.
Intermittent Stream Mitigation Policy
As was presented to the Water Quality Committee of the Environmental Management Commission on
November 12, 2008, intermittent streams support aquatic life, and thus they fall within the Division of
Water Quality's (DWQ) mission to protect the propagation of aquatic life. Reflecting this improved
understanding, DWQ will require mitigation for impacts with a cumulative total of greater than 150 linear
feet of intermittent and/or perennial streams. This policy shall be applied to all streams including those not
subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 (such as isolated streams). This threshold will apply to the
project-wide total for all projects except linear public transportation projects (such as NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) roads). For linear transportation projects, the policy will be applied on a per-
stream basis for each project. The applied mitigation ratio will be 1:1, the same stream mitigation rate
historically applied by DWQ. Mitigation may include a combination of restoration, enhancement or
Public Memorandum
Page 2 of 13
August 14, 2009
August 18, 2009 edited version
Description of Proposed Changes to the NCDWQ Stream Identification Manual
MANUAL TEXT
Descriptions of absent, weak, moderate and strong were previously explained only in the geomorphology
and part of the hydrology sections. These descriptions are now also in the biology section of the Manual.
Additional explanations were made throughout the document for the purpose of clarification.
Literature citations were added throughout document.
The Hydric soils indicator and description was changed based on numerous comments and suggestions
from the soil science community. The changes are intended to more accurately reflect the intent of the
indicator; the language of the indicator is now "Evidence of a seasonal high water table."
In order to maintain the simplicity necessary in completing a rapid assessment of stream determination,
the use of chroma rather than redox better explains the presence or absence of a seasonal high water
table and varying saturated conditions. However, redoximorphic features are also important in
identification of seasonal to permanent saturated conditions and are more readily recognizable to those
not as well versed in the soil sciences. Therefore the use of redoximorphic features/hydric soils in the
scoring of the indicator was replaced with a two-tiered decision using chroma as the main descriptor and
the presence of redoximorphic features as a supplementary descriptor.
Please see the Manual text for additional information.
DWQ encourages comments and suggestions regarding the changes to the soils indicator in order to
further clarify and explain this indicator.
FORM
• Removed "levees" as a category from the form since levees are rarely (if ever) present on small
streams.
• Separated soil texture and streambed sorting into separate factors and score each from 0 - 3 points.
• Change language for groundwater flow/discharge to "groundwater flow or discharge."
• Removed "water in channel in dry or growing season" from indicator leaving language as "water in
channel and > 48 hours since rain."
• Added mollusks to bivalve indicator.
• Changed scoring for macrobenthos from 0 - 1.5 to 0 - 3.
• Changed scoring for algae/periphyton/aquatic mosses from 0 - 3 to 0 - 1.5
• Hydric Soils Indicator:
o Changed hydric soil indicator language to "Evidence of seasonal high water table"
o Changed scoring for hydric soil/redox from yes or no, to 0 - absent, 1 - weak, 2 - moderate,
3 - strong.
II. Intermittent Stream Mitigation Policy
As was presented to the Water Quality Committee of the Environmental Management Commission on
November 12, 2008, intermittent streams support aquatic life, and thus they fall within the Division of
Water Quality's (DWQ) mission to protect the propagation of aquatic life. Reflecting this improved
understanding, DWQ will require mitigation for impacts with a cumulative total of greater than 150 linear
feet of intermittent and/or perennial streams. This policy shall be applied to all streams including those not
subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 (such as isolated streams). This threshold will apply to the
project-wide total for all projects except linear public transportation projects (such as NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) roads). For linear transportation projects, the policy will be applied on a per-
stream basis for each project. The applied mitigation ratio will be 1:1, the same stream mitigation rate
historically applied by DWQ. Mitigation may include a combination of restoration, enhancement or
Public Memorandum
Page 3 of 13
August 14, 2009
August 18, 2009 edited version
preservation as described in the interagency Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003 or subsequent
versions) and approved by DWQ.
This policy will take effect for all new applications received by the DWQ Central Office via regular mail
on or after Friday, October 16, 2009 (60 calendar days from the date of this public memorandum).
Applications will not be accepted by email for the purposes of beating this deadline, as all applications are
required to be sent via regular mail in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0502(a). All projects received by
the DWQ Central Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit prior to the effective date of the policy
will not be subject to this new policy. As of Friday, October 16, 2009, all new applications for projects or
modifications to existing 401 Certifications/non-404 Permits will be subject to the Intermittent Stream
Mitigation policy. This policy was also discussed in a memorandum dated December 4, 2008, and
remains posted on the DWQ web site at the following address
http://h2o.enr.state,nc,us/ncwetiands/rd pub not.html.
NCDOT projects reviewed through the Clean Water Act Section 404/ National Environmental Policy Act
Merger 01 Process (Merger 01) or Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act; A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, published by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Highway
Administration, 2003) or its immediate successor, and that have reached agreement with Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on avoidance and minimization (Concurrence Point 4A) prior to the
effective date of this policy are not subject to the new intermittent stream mitigation policy. Furthermore, if
a project is not reviewed by the Merger 01 process or SAFETEA-LU or its immediate successor but has
an issued Finding of No Significant Impact and has the written approval of the NC Division of Water
Quality prior to the effective date of this policy, then it is not subject to the new Intermittent Stream
Mitigation Policy.
The following examples are provided to address questions related to the new policy as it applies to
phased projects, modifications, or other projects with prolonged regulatory processes:
For phased non-DOT projects, newly proposed intermittent and perennial stream impacts shall be
added to previous perennial stream impacts, but not previous intermittent stream impacts, for
mitigation purposes. In other words, prior intermittent stream impacts will be grandfathered as
long as the 401 Certification/404 Permit has not expired. We will not add intermittent stream
impacts covered under an existing (unexpired) permit to the required mitigation total for a new
phase. For example, a 401 Certification was issued for Phase A of a 2008 project that included
impacts to 100 linear feet of intermittent streams and 100 linear feet of perennial streams. Since
the total perennial stream impacts fell below 150 feet in 2008, the mitigation requirement was not
triggered at all. The application for Phase B of the project will be submitted on December 1,
2009, and includes 100 linear feet of perennial streams and 100 linear feet of intermittent
streams. The 200 linear feet of additional intermittent and perennial stream impacts will be added
to the 100 linear feet of perennial stream impacts associated with Phase A for a required total of
300 linear feet of stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. The intermittent stream impacts associated with
Phase A did not require mitigation under the original permit, and will not be added to the
mitigation total for the permit associated with Phase B.
In some cases, an applicant may have received a 401 Certification, but the project was never
actually built before the 401 Certification/404 Permit expired. If the applicant never pursued
renewal of an issued Certification/Permit before it expired, then it is simply no longer in effect.
For example, a 401 Certification was issued for Turkey Creek subdivision in 2002, but it was
never built before the 404/401 expired in 2007, and a permit renewal was never requested. The
2002 Certification included 100 feet of intermittent and 100 feet of perennial stream impacts (200
feet of streams total). No mitigation was required in 2002 since the impacts to perennial streams
did not exceed 150 feet. Now, Turkey Creek no longer has a 401 Certification. If the developer
wishes to proceed with constructing Turkey Creek in 2009, a new application for 401 Certification
will need to be submitted. Since the total intermittent plus perennial stream impacts exceed 150
feet, the new application will need to include a mitigation plan for 200 feet of stream impacts.
• For NCDOT linear projects, mitigation is determined on a per stream basis. If the original 401
issued prior to the effective date of the intermittent stream mitigation policy has less than 150 feet
Public Memorandum
Page 4 of 13
August 14, 2009
August 18, 2009 edited version
of intermittent stream impacts on any one stream, but a modification is requested after the
effective date of the new policy, and the modification would result in intermittent stream impacts
greater than 150 feet on any one stream, then mitigation would be required for the additional
intermittent stream impacts requested in the modification.
Ex. In Figure 1 below, the original 401 (issued prior to the new policy) authorized impacts at two
streams, a perennial stream (100' of impact) and an intermittent stream (100' of impact). A
modification is requested (after the effective date of the new policy) that would increase the
impacts at the intermittent stream by 60' (160' of total impact). Therefore, the modified 401 would
require mitigation for 60' of intermittent stream impacts at the intermittent stream.
Figure 1
U
r
I m .?. I
p
Yi
?? ?G C?1
o .=
- - - - - - - - - - Initial Fill Sloe - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t
?E

c l E
y
- c ?
- c
o LL p `:
o
w,

- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - 4nitial Fill Slope - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• In some instances, the intermittent/perennial point of the stream is located within the area to be
impacted. In these cases, if the total impacts are greater than 150' then mitigation would be
required for the length of stream impacted.
Ex. In Figure 2 below, the intermittent/perennial point is located within the fill slopes of the
roadway. The impacts are a total of 200' of stream with 50' of intermittent stream and 150' of
perennial stream. The applicant would be required to submit a mitigation plan for the total
impacts of 200' of stream.
Public Memorandum
Page 4 of 13
August 14, 2009
August 18, 2009 edited version
of intermittent stream impacts on any one stream, but a modification is requested after the
effective date of the new policy, and the modification would result in intermittent stream impacts
greater than 150 feet on any one stream, then mitigation would be required for the additional
intermittent stream impacts requested in the modification.
Ex. In Figure 1 below, the original 401 (issued prior to the new policy) authorized impacts at two
streams, a perennial stream (100' of impact) and an intermittent stream (100' of impact). A
modification is requested (after the effective date of the new policy) that would increase the
impacts at the intermittent stream by 60'(160' of total impact). Therefore, the modified 401 would
require mitigation for 60' of intermittent stream impacts at the intermittent stream.
Figure 1.
CL M
E 9)
1?\\\ c c °U?fed
ale °- C ?j?
Q a) P
b.S
f I b .S •,
- - - - - - - `..- - Initial Fill Sloe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
m m
?
E E

E

N M V)
N
'-
N

`° 'E

c
o o
o r ,
S - - - - - - - - - - - - Initial Fill Sloe - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• In some instances, the intermittent/perennial point of the stream is located within the area to be
impacted. In these cases, if the total impacts are greater than 150' then mitigation would be
required for the length of stream impacted.
Ex. In Figure 2 below, the intermittent/perennial point is located within the fill slopes of the
roadway. The impacts are a total of 200' of stream with 50' of intermittent stream and 150' of
perennial stream. The applicant would be required to submit a mitigation plan for the total
impacts of 200' of stream.
Public Memorandum
Page 5 of 13
August 14, 2009
August 18, 2009 edited version
Figure 2.
__________. _ __. __ ______ FiIlSloe_____________________-
I c ?

I Q) N
a
CS
m E
c as
- a5
in
•-.••-•.?-. hltermittent/Perennial Determination
m
a
E

01
C
n E
E
b
O ?
N
L.. i

N,
I?
T
----------- _____ ____ Fill Sloe _________________-____
• Intermittent stream mitigation credits should be generated through enhancement of existing
intermittent channels (e.g. bank stabilization, planting, livestock exclusion) rather than creation of
a new stream channel. Ratios for enhancement will be as established in the Corps/DWQ Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003) available at
(http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Mitigation/stream_mitigation.htmi). NCDWQ will
also accept perennial stream mitigation for intermittent stream impacts, and vice versa.
• Occasionally project modifications or expansions require a new 401 Certification, but the
applicant previously provided mitigation to meet 404 Permit requirements at a higher ratio than
the 1:1 ratio required by DWQ. In this situation, DWQ will consider applying the past stream
mitigation that exceeded DWQ's 1:1 requirement toward the intermittent stream mitigation
requirement. In order to do so, the application must clearly delineate all previous and newly
proposed stream impacts, and include a clear accounting of compensatory stream mitigation
associated with those impacts.
Other scenarios not described specifically here may arise over time. DWQ staff will be happy to discuss
those situations on a case-by-case basis. If you have questions, please contact DWQ staff in the Central
Office at 919-733-1786, or in the appropriate Regional Office as shown on our web site at
http://h2o,enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands .
III. Proposed Modification of Written Application Thresholds in General Certification 3699 (applied
to Nationwide Permit 12).
Public Memorandum
Page 6 of 13
August 14, 2009
August 18, 2009 edited version
The Division is proposing a modification to the language regarding written thresholds for General
Certification 3699, which can be viewed at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc,us/ncwetlands/documents/WQC3699 001.pdf . The purpose of this modification is
to clarify that GC 3699 may be utilized for permanent impacts proposed from utility line construction
and/or maintenance provided written authorization is sought and received from the Division. The
proposed language for the revision is shown below. Comments related to this proposed revision must be
received by Sue Homewood in the DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office via regular mail at 585
Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107 or email at Sue. [e-mail] by Friday,
October 16, 2009 (60 calendar days from the date of this public memorandum). The proposed revision is
as follows:
Permanent impacts to any wetlands and/or waters, including streams, under this General
Certification requires application to, and written approval from the Division of Water Quality (the
"Division')
Temporary impacts covered by this General Certification do not require written approval from the
Division as long as they comply with the Conditions listed below. Written approval is required if
the maintenance corridor is greater than 15 feet wide. Gas pipelines may have a
maintenance corridor wider than fifteen feet if mitigation is provided for these additional
wetland fills.
IV. Important Updates to EEP's In-lieu Fee and Nutrient Offset Programs
On July 27, 2009 the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program received notification that Gov. Perdue
signed Session Law 2009-337 (Senate Bill 755, An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatory Mitigation
Banks). In anticipation of this development, EEP collaborated with the N.C. Division of Water Quality to
develop procedures to implement SL 2009-337 with a focus on assisting customers, including private-
sector applicants and local governments. SL 2009-337 affects all non-government applicants seeking
mitigation for wetlands or streams, riparian buffers or nutrient-offset credits. Please visit the EEP Web site
at the link below for the announcement of the updated policy and procedures. EEP will continue to
coordinate with DWQ and stakeholders as necessary.
http://www.nceep,net/pages/ILF Program intro.html
(NOTE: The new law also stipulated that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
will study whether the preference for compensatory wetland and stream mitigation banks,
riparian-buffer mitigation banks and nutrient-offset banks established under law in the past two
years "create a likelihood that EEP will be unable to recoup investments made in riparian buffer
mitigation and nutrient offset projects." The report is due to the state Environmental Review
Commission no later than Feb. 1, 2010.)
If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact EEP In-lieu Fee Coordinator Kelly Williams
at [phone] or kelly.williamsCa?ncdenr.gov.
V. Buffer Rule Variance Application Form Revisions
A variance application form for Major and Minor variances from the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules
has been updated. There are separate Minor and Major variance applications that apply only to projects
in the Washington Regional Office's jurisdiction that have been updated as well.
There is also a new variance application for the Goose Creek Buffer Rules.
All of these updated variance application forms can be downloaded from the following website under the
heading "Buffer Variance Forms and Documents":
http://h2o.enr.state,nc.us/ncwetlands/RiparianBufferRules.htm
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
I
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
?? l .19 4011 WestChase Blvd.
lyfi 0 Suite 500
07
W 4, W51 t, R v 2Q?9 Raleigh, 9) 833-7152
T?'?/y RB [phone] (Fax)
October 22, 2009 icy
Ms. Cyndi Karoly Aiq PA In
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
Re: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina
DWQ Project # 09-1105
401 Water Quality Certification Application
Response to Additional Information Requested
Dear Ms. Karoly:
This letter is to request review of the above referenced Water Quality Certification Application
for the City of Sanford based on Stream Mitigation rules applicable through October 15,
2009. We acknowledge the application should have been received via mail by DWQ for
review on October 15, 2009 but was instead hand delivered on the morning of October 16,
2009. We would nonetheless request DWQ proceed with review of the 401 Water Quality
Certification per the policy in place prior to October 16, 2009.
Please note the $240 application fee originally submitted was based on a field determination
by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, during a site visit on September 16, 2009, of the
significance and importance of perennial and intermittent streams in the area proposed for
the Treatment Plant Improvements. The Corps findings are summarized in a memorandum
which can be found in Appendix B of the application package. Based on the determination
by the Corps, the 213 feet of intermittent stream was found to be unimportant, and was
understood not to count towards the 150 foot mitigation limit. Hazen and Sawyer therefore
proceeded with the preparation of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application with the
intent of receiving a Nationwide Permit (39). Please accept the check (Check No. 9685,
enclosed herein) for review of $240 based on the proposed impacts and note a check for an
additional $330 (Check No. 9686) was submitted to your office on October 19, 2009 to cover
the additional permit fee if required.
Hazen and Sawyer was aware that the policy for review of this application was going to
change, and prepared the application with the intent of submitting before the new policy was
effective. We understand the new policy is intended to protect the propagation of aquatic
life. Towards this point, we hope for consideration of the findings of our biologist and the
USACE that the intermittent stream is "unimportant in terms of aquatic life." The full findings
of the field determination can be found in the memorandum noted above.
New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Greensboro, NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta, GA • Fairfax, VA • Hampton Roads, VA • Baltimore, MD • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Miami, FL
IWEN AND SAWYER
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
October 22, 2009
Page 2
There is concern that if the new policy applies to the review of the above application an
Individual Permit may be required which would delay the construction of the proposed
Treatment Plant improvements by a year or more. The proposed improvements have been
mandated by the State to improve the water quality of the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers by
improving plant performance primarily by achieving reductions of effluent nutrients to low
limits. If DWQ has questions regarding the application, Hazen and Sawyer would like the
opportunity to meet with DWQ to review concerns and minimize any potential delay in the
construction of the Treatment Plant improvements.
Please call me if you would like to discuss this further, or if you would like to schedule a
meeting to review. Thank you for consideration of this request to review the above
application based on the Stream Mitigation Rules applicable through October 15, 2009.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
? ? Xkd )44?
L. Michael Santowasso, P.E.
Senior Associate
LMS/bpr
Enclosures
cc: Ian McMillan - DWQ 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
Victor Czar, Public Works Director, City of Sanford
James A. Cramer, VP Hazen and Sawyer
File
Karoly_Letter_DW Q_ 10-22-09.docx
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
October 26, 2009
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Victor Czar, Public Works Director
City of Sanford - Public Works Department
Sanford Municipal Building
225 E. Weatherspoon Street
Sanford, NC 27330
Subject Property: Big Buffalo Creek WWTP Expansion
Ut to Big Buffalo Creek [030611, 17-40, C]
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Czar:
DWQ Project # 09-1105
Lee County
On October 16, 2009, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated October 15,
2009, to fill or impact 132 linear feet of perennial stream and 213 linear feet of intermittent stream to
develop the proposed Big Buffalo Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant expansion at the site. The DWQ
has determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed
below. The DWQ will require additional information in order to process your application to impact
protected wetlands and/or streams on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive five copies of the
additional information requested below, we will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive
this additional information. If we do not receive the requested information, your project will be formally
returned as incomplete. Please provide the following information so that we may continue to review your
project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. This Office believes that the proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion can be moved or
reconfigured to avoid and/or minimize the impacts to the stream. Please revise the plans to avoid
the impacts.
2. Per the requirements of GC3705, this project is subject to Stormwater Management Plan (SMP)
Requirements for Applicants Other Than the North Carolina Department of Transportation (see
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/). Drainage areas B, C, d and E are considered to be high
density by the DWQ. For each proposed BMP, please provide a completed BMP Supplement
Form with all required items (see http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp forms.htm).
3. 345 linear feet of compensatory stream mitigation is required for this project. Please provide a
compensatory mitigation plan. The plan must conform to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H
.0500 and must be appropriate to the type of impacts proposed.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
NorthCarolina
Aaturall#
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
City of Sanford - Public Works Department
Page 2 of 2
October 26, 2009
Please submit this information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter. If we do not receive this
requested information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter, your project will be withdrawn and
you will need to reapply with a new application and a new fee.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters or
protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not authorized (at
this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian McMillan at 919-733-1786 if you have
any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
CBK/?m
cc: Lauren Witherspoon, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
L. Michael Santowasso, Hazen and Sawyer, PC, 4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500, Raleigh,
NC 27607
Filename: 091105BigBuffaloCreekWWTP_Expansion(Lee)On_Hold
City of Sanford - Public Works Department
Page 2 of 2
October 26, 2009
Please submit this information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter. If we do not receive this
requested information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter, your project will be withdrawn and
you will need to reapply with a new application and a new fee.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters or
protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not authorized (at
this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian McMillan at 919-733-1786 if you have
any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
CBK/Ym
cc: Lauren Witherspoon, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
L. Michael Santowasso, Hazen and Sawyer, PC, 4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500, Raleigh,
NC 27607
Filename: 091105BigBuffaloCreekW WTP_Expansion(Lee)On_Hold
-HAZEN AND SAWYER Hazen and Sawyer, RC.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
vd.
Environmental Engineers & Scientists Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
November 4, 2009 [phone] (Fax)
Ms. Coleen Sullins, Director
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
??? Re: Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
D 12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina
NOV 6 2009 DWQ Project #09-1105
Request for Meeting to Review Application of
o-W^j?P' Stream Mitigation Rules Effective
ps?asf?wAe?wr? through October 15, 2009
Dear Ms. Sullins:
This letter is to request a meeting with DWQ concerning the application of Stream
Mitigation rules effective through October 15, 2009 for review of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application for the above referenced project. Hazen and Sawyer submitted
the application by hand at 8:00 a.m. Friday, October 16 to DWQ rather than submitting
the application to DWQ by mail for delivery prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 15 as intended
for the application to 'be reviewed according to the rules effective through October 15,
2009. The end result however is the same: DWQ had our submittal prior to the start of
business on October 16, 2009. This letter is to request that DWQ accept the application
for review according to rules effective through October 15, 2009 to avoid possible delays
in constructing the improvements at the Big Buffalo Plant and making water quality
improvements in the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers.
This is a second request for DWQ to review the application for the above referenced
project according to rules applicable through October 15. See the attached letters dated
October 22, 2009 to Ms. Cyndi Karoly with DWQ's Oversight/Express Permitting Unit and
Ms. Karoly's response dated October 26, 2009 concerning application of stream
mitigation rules effective through October 15, 2009 for review of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application for the above referenced project.
All of the required information was collected and a site visit made by the Corps of
Engineers necessary for submittal of the application for review by rules applicable
through October 15, 2009. The Corps of Engineer and Sandy Smith, Biologist with
Axiom Environmental Inc., visited the site on September 16, 2009. The Corps findings
are summarized in an attached memorandum prepared by Mr. Smith, dated
September 17, 2009. Based on the field survey by the Corps of Engineers, the 213 feet
of intermittent stream was determined to be "unimportant" and was understood not to
count toward the 150 foot mitigation limit. The 401 Water Quality Certification
Application was submitted with the intent of receiving a Nationwide Permit (39) per rules
effective through October 15, 2009.
New York, NY - Philadelphia, PA - Raleigh, NC - Charlotte, NC - Greensboro, NC - Charleston, SC - Atlanta, GA - Fairfax, VA - Hampton Roads, VA - Baltimore, MD - Cincinnati, OH - Hollywood, FL - Boca Raton, FL - Miami, FL
AND SAWYER
Ms. Colleen Sullins
November 4, 2009
Page 2
The request for DWQ review of the application based on the rules applicable through
October 15 is to avoid a potential year or longer delay in the schedule for construction of
the proposed project at Sanford's Big Buffalo Plant. The project will provide much
needed replacement of aging equipment at the plant. The project includes redundant
force mains and improved electrical and standby power facilities to substantially improve
plant reliability and reduce the risk of discharge of inadequately treated wastewater. The
project includes new facilities to provide nitrogen and phosphorus removal to protect
water quality in the Deep and Cape Fear River and to help control chlorophyll
concentrations downstream of the discharge. Any delay in the schedule for this project
will delay the benefits that will be provided by this project including better protection of
the environment by improved reliability of the treatment facilities and improved water
quality in the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers. A minor and insignificant technicality should
not delay urgently needed improvements at the Big Buffalo Plant and delay the
improvement to water quality in the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers.
Please call me at 833-7152 or e-mail me at rdifiore .hazenandsawyer.com to schedule a
meeting to review the 401 Water Quality Certification Application for the above
referenced project. Hazen and Sawyer appreciates an opportunity to meet with DWQ to
discuss the 401 Water Quality Certification Application for this important project.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.

Robert S. DiFiore, P.E.
Vice President
RSD/bpr
Attachments
cc: Victor C-2ar
Mike Santowasso
Jim Cramer
Ian McMillian
Cyndi Karoli
Sullins 11.04.09 ltr.