20091105 Ver 1_401 Application_20100810

ffiZENAND 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 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
® ATTACHED
? SHOP DRAWINGS
? SAMPLES
? UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA
? PRINTS ? PLANS
? CHANGE ORDER ?
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
? SPECIFICATIONS ? COPY OF LETTER
COPIES DATE No. DESCRIPTION
5 8/6/2010 1 401/404 Pre-Construction Notification Submittal
2 8/6/2010 2 Full sized Construction Plan Sheets
1 8/6/2010 3 Electronic Copy of Submittal
a

AU 0 9 2010

WMM me AWABRANCH

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
® FOR APPROVAL ? FOR YOUR USE ? AS REQUESTED
? FURNISH AS SUBMITTED ? FURNISH AS CORRECTED ? REVISE AND RESUBMIT
? RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ? SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ? RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS
? FOR BIDS DUE ?
REMARKS
COPY TO: SIGNED: ? ??,?[?/,?
[L. MICHAEL SANTOWASSO, PE]
C? ? - ? I bS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 8/6/2010 H&S JOB No.: 32039
ATTENTION: Mr. [an McMillan
RE: 401 Water Quality Certification Application
Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
12 MGD Expansion Project
City of Sanford, North Carolina
? FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE.

SAWYER
H Hazen and Sawyer,
AZEN AND 4011 WestChase Blvd.
vd.
Environmental Engineers & Scientists Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
August 6, 2010
AUG
b ° @?? V
Mr. Ian McMillan AUG U 9 2010
Acting Supervisor ?u14I)S >Mm - ,
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit A / MIDSWIR wAIRSPA"M
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
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 Mr. McMillan:
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.
This application was initially submitted on October 16, 2009, and revisions to the submittal
package have been made to address DWQ comments obtained in correspondence and
meetings since that date. The initial request for additional information, dated October 26,
2009, resulted in significant changes to the submittal, including revisions to the stormwater
management plan and provisions for compensatory mitigation for the 345 linear feet of
stream impacted by this project. Specific changes to the stormwater management plan are
described in the narrative. Compensatory mitigation will be achieved through a fee-in-lieu
agreement with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
The proposed project for which this submittal package has been prepared is 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
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
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
H9EN AND SAWYER
Mr. Ian McMillan
July 23, 2010
Page 2
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.
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. On September 16, 2009, 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. 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 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.
According to DWQ's Intermittent Stream Mitigation Policy, compensatory stream mitigation is
required for both the perennial and intermittent stream segments impacted by this project.
The mitigation for 345 linear feet of stream impacts will be achieved through the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (EEP) stream enhancement in-lieu fee
mitigation program. An approval letter from EEP is included with the submittal.
As part of the requirements of the Nationwide 39 Permit, a Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP) has been prepared for the project. Per NCAC 2B 15A 02H.1000, only drainage areas
which were found to discharge to a single point were evaluated for percent impervious.
Several drainage areas were found to have impervious areas in excess of or near the 24
percent limit above which structural measures are required. Structural BMPs are proposed
for two of these drainage areas, and a waiver is being requested for one of the areas. The
letter requesting a waiver is included with the SMP. 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
401 CoverLetter DWQ resubmittal.docx
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Mr. Ian McMillan
July 23, 2010
Page 3
stormwater is routed back to the head of the plant for treatment, and drainage areas which
discharge stormwater via sheetflow.
Please call me if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
?. *d h4ueao
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 DWQ resubmittal.docx
astewater Treatment Plant
ion Project
nford, North Carolina
US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Perm,it Application - Nationwide Permit No. 39
NCDENR Division lof Water Quality
401 Water Qua14 Certification Application
Stormwater Ma
ment Plan
Submitted by:
fWEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
October, 2009 -- Rev. August, 2010
Table of Contents
Pre-Construction Notification Application
(For coverage under Nationwide Permit No. 39 -Commercial and Institutional Developments)
Pre-Construction Notification Form
Appendix A Stream/Wetland Determinations
- September 2009 Site Visit Memorandum
- DWQ Stream Identification Forms
- USACE Stream Quality Assessment Sheets
- Withers & Ravenel Wetland Delineation Report
- Letter of Acceptance from North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP)
Appendix B Figures
- Figure 1
- Figure 2
- Figure 3
- Figure 4
USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Map
General Vicinity Map
NRCS Soils Map
Water Resources & Wetland Areas
Appendix C Finding of No Significant Impact Letters
Appendix D Agent Authorization Form
Stormwater Management Plan
Stormwater Management Plan
Narrative
Waiver Request
Peak Flow Calculations - Pre-Development and Post-Development
Appendix A BMP Documentation
- Bioretention Area A
o Bioretention Cell Supplement
o Required Items Checklist
o Design Calculations
o Bioretention Operation & Maintenance Agreement
- Bioretention Area B
o Bioretention Cell Supplement
o Required Items Checklist
o Design Calculations
o Bioretention Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Sand Filter
o Sand Filter Supplement
o Required Items Checklist
o Design Calculations
o Sand Filter Operation & Maintenance Agreement
- Bioretention and Sand Filter Required Items Justification
S&ME Soils Reports
a October 12, 2009
o April 21, 2010
Appendix 8 Stormwater Management Plan Maps
- SMP-1 Sitewide Sub-Drainage Area Map
- SMP-2 Drainage Area A
- SMP-3 Drainage Area B
- SMP-4 Drainage Area C
- SMP-5 Drainage Area D
- SMP-6 Drainage Area E
- SMP-7 Drainage Areas F & L
- SMP-8 Drainage Areas G - K
Appendix C Construction Drawings
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
C-25 Erosion Control -Area 1
C-26 Erosion Control -Area 2
C-27 Erosion Control -Area 3
C-28 Erosion Control -Area 4
D-1 Bioretention Sections & Details
D-2 Sand Filter Sections & Details
Stormwater Management Plan
(Duplicate)
Pre-Construction Notification Form
(For coverage under Nationwide Permit No. 39 -
Commercial and Institutional Developments)
oae wArFRq?
r
i E ? =i
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 ®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 h
below. ? Yes ® No
' h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
2b. County: Lee
2c. Nearest municipality 1 town: Sanford
2d. Subdivision name: NIA
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: NIA
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 1 of 13
PCN F=orm - 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:
V 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 2of13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
9. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
- - 9635-44-1546-0017290-00; 9635-33-7772-0016835-00
Latitude: 35.546296
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Longitude: - 73.217312
(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 currently 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 acres. Wetland data was obtained from NWI (National Wetland Inventory). Wetlands were delineated only in portions
of the site affected by the plant expansion. No wetlands were observed in the area evaluated. See Water Resources &
Wetland Areas figure in Appendix B.
,c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
The total estimated linear footage of the one stream that traverses the 48-acre property is 1050 linear feet. The proposed
expansion affects only a portion of the site, and only this area was assessed for stream impacts. The area impacted by
the expansion has 213 LF of intermittent stream and 132 LF of perennial stream (Corps and DWQ determination). The
stream was not identified on the USGS 1:24,000 Colon Quadrangle Topographic Map or in GIS data on
classified/unclassified stream layers obtained from NCDWQ.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing wastewater treatment facility to a tertiarytreatment 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 1 ® 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 & Rave nel
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 A.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
;b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
I C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
I. Impacts Summary
°I a. Which sections were completed below for vour oroiect (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
? No ?Corps
? DWQ
W2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No ?Corps
? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T -? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T - - - ? Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
mm
W6 ? P ? T ?Yes
? No ? Corps
? DWQ
_
7n Tnhol wn4lnn? imn?nfc?
'h. 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
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 3 132
S2 ®P ? T Fill Unnamed ®NPER
T Z Corps
?_DWQ 3
--_ 213
-^^?
S3 ? P ? T ? PER
? INT ?Corps
? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ?Corps
? INT _? DWQ
--
S5 ? P ? T - ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps I

? INT
? DWQ - - --
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts I 345
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.
wgust 2008 delineation performed by Withers & Ravenel identified these reaches as perennial/important and
termittentlunimportant. * -- During an on-site meeting on 9116109, intermittent streams were determined by the USACE to be
"unimportant". Additionallv, the USACE has waived the 300 foot limit for intermittent stream beds for this project.
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Stream/wetland documentation is included in Appendix A.
4. Open Water Impacts
if there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
he U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
T
02 ?P?T
03 ? PEI T
04 ? P FIT
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Fond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below._
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose 5c. _
Wet€and Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
?P1
P2
A. Total

_?-....__
?g. Comments: ._._..?.__
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No if yes, permit 1D no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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 an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
oa.
? 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)
Tem ora T? impact required?
B1 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No

-

f
B3 ? PEI T ? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
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, and reconfiguration of the initial site layout resulted in reduced stream impacts. Final locations were chosen based on
existing site layout, operational constraints, and topography.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
..rosion and sedimentation control measures will be installed prior to or in conjunction with the proposed grading associated
rith 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. Construction limits, excavation, and grading will be
minimized to the extent possible. Best management practices will be strictly adhered to during construction, and revegation of
all disturbed areas will occur in a timely manner.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ® Yes ? No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
®Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:

3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) T ype Quantity
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Comments:
t. 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: 345 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: EEP acceptance for 345 If of stream impacts was received on May 18, 2010. A copy of the acceptance letter
is in Appendix A.
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.
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.

,one 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 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified [l 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 E] No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 16%
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 the site, Only drainage areas which were found to
discharge to a single point were evaluated for percent impervious. Several drainage areas were found to have
impervious areas in excess of or near the 24 percent limit above which structural measures are required. Structural
BMPs were proposed for two of these drainage areas, and a waiver is being requested for one of the areas. Other
drainage areas found to be greater than 24 percent impervious which do not fall under the requirement for structural
BMPs 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 sheet flow. The drainage areas
for which stormwater BMPs are proposed include Areas A and B, and a waiver is being requested for Area E. In Area A,
a bioretention area will be used to provide water quality treatment for the "first flush" rainfall, It has been sited to
maximize the amount of runoff from new impervious surface (resulting from construction of the new Administration
Building) treated by the BMP. The area treated by the bioretention area is approximately 11,000 square feet,
approximately 90 percent of which is impervious. The surface area of the bioretention area is 1,400 square feet. In Area
B, a bioretention area will be located north of the new pavement below the proposed Septage Dumping Station. The
bioretention area was sited with the intent of capturing runoff from as much new pavement as feasible. The area treated
by the bioretention area is approximately 16,000 square feet, approximately 99 percent of which is impervious. The
surface area of the bioretention area is 1,650 square feet. For Area E, a sand filter was the only potential treatment
option. During the course of designing this BMP, several inhibiting factors were discovered that limit the practicality of
this BMP installation. These limitations are discussed in a stormwater BMP waiver request 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?
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
,+a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management prog.rams apply ? Coastal counties
Page 9of13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
(check all that apply): ? HQW
? ORW
? 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
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)?
1c. 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.)
® Yes ? No
Comments: The FONSI was received on July 20, 2010. A copy of the final approval
letter is in Appendix C.
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, iviore aetaiied intormauon regarding qualitative and quantitative cumulative impacts analysis can be found in
the Environmental Assessment. The FONSI was received on July 20, 2010.
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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.
The Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is an advanced secondary treatment facility currently permitted at 6.8
MGD under NPDES Permit No. NC0024147. The facility will be upgraded to a tertiary treatment facility with a capacity of 12
MGD.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. 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?
USFWS Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat listing by county, NC Natural Heritage Program database
and correspondence, NCDENR DWQ "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, October 2005.
The Deep River is known to provide aquatic habitat for the Federal endangered Cape Fear shiner and the Federal
species of concern Carolina redhorse.
The project is not expected to adversely affect the Cape Fear shiner or the Rocky River/Lower Deep River and Upper
Cape Fear River Significant Aquatic Habitats because of strict adherence to erosion and sediment control measures
during construction. The increased wastewater flow is not expected to adversely affect the Cape Fear shiner because
there will be a reduction in nutrient loadings for the expanded plant. Beneficial effects on shellfish and fish would occur
from the change from chlorine to ultraviolet light for disinfection.
The harperella, a Federal endangered plant, has been identified in the vicinity of the project service area. No habitat or
record for threatened or endangered wildlife or plant species has been identified in the proposed project area. The
project is not expected to have any significant direct impacts on the endangered harperella plant in the vicinity of the
project site.
NC Natural Heritage Program correspondence dated 8108108 indicated that no impacts would be expected to natural
areas or conservation areas as a result of the project.
A Finding of No Significant Impact for the proposed project was received on July 20, 2010. A copy of the approval letter
is in Appendix C.
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_corallimslviewer.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. A Finding of No Significant
Impact for the proposed project was received on July 20, 2010. A copy of the approval letter is in Appendix C.
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

v i
B. 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.
l 7123110
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name A plican&Agenfs Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
_ is provided. Date
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Appendix A
Stream/Wetland Determinations
September 2009 Site Visit Memorandum
DWQ Stream Identification Forms
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Sheets
Withers & Ravenel Wetland Delineation Report
Letter of Acceptance from North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
20 Enterprise Street, Smite 7
Raleigh, North Carolina 27507
919-270-9063
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Santowasso, Hazen & Sawyer
FROM: Sandy Smith
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, Inn.
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 intertittent, but not if intermittent streams are "important" or
`unimportant." I recommend that you state clearly in both the cover letter and in the
"Continents" 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.
1- t r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

Gate: Pro cct
r Latitude:

- `
Site: "'+ t
1 ! -1
Evaluator: ?I 1?J(1J'1'1'k } Longitude
Total Points: I-
Srrearn is or lpasr rrrorm,rfenr l
County:
{ P (i. Other `
a g o5d Narnc: lam, t )~ i
/ * l-..•
J z 19 or rerenn+ar it 2 30 _- -------°----

A Geomor holo9.Y [Subtotal = I
Absent Weak
Moderate i
-
Strong
1 Continuous bed and batik
-- - 0 l 1 2

3
2 Sinuosity
3 In-darnel structure: riffle-pool sequence
2

3
3
4 Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 l
5 Actlveirefic floodplain
_.__
16. t7epositional__bar .s or benches 0

U j 1 I
....
1 2f -

2 -!
3
€ 7 Braided channel
a Recent alluvial deposits 0 1
U i 1
1 ,
?} 3
-._..._..........

--
S Natural levees
-_-. _ . -.
- .
_..
i c
l

_
1

1

2

2

-

3
C
u
eac 0
11 Grade controls '
1
50)
12 Natural valFe or drains ewa 0 0 5
13 Second or greater order channel on existir
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
No
Yes =
3
i evidence. -----
d;tchcs arc nor rawti. we &.%rmmon> m mongol
. -
...___
14 Groundwater flow/discharge 1 j
'--
15 Water in channel and 4$ hrs sme rain. or 2 3
i Water in channel dry or growing season i l
-
1
- -i

©5 ----
i6 Leaflitter 5 #?! 1 .
17 Sediment on plants or debris
}} (? 0 5
0 5
1
1$. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
k_- - 0

N __
Yes
= -- -
1 5
19 Hydric soifs (redoximorphic features) present? a t- _- -- _
1 G BIDlD- (Subtotal s 2 i ? 1 p
?Ot Fibrous roots in channel
- 1 0
21 Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Crayfish ?? - -[3 1 1.a
i 23 Bivalves --
_ - 15
14 Ish --
I
25, Amphibians U / i 1
1
26- Macrobenthos (nose diversity and abundance) _.._. _ W
21- Filamentous algae periphyton 1 t'
28 Iron oxidizing bacteria fun us 0 5 I 1 e 5 _
29 ?Wolland plants in strewn bed I FAG 5 i Fr> 41r = 4 750131- 1 5 5AV 2.D; Other 0
_.0.
we•Ila,.d ;?!?n!s
licmn 20 and "11 fcws on )tic preicucc of uplemd plops, Ili nt . fir.use, .11-111C pic'enw e of nquanc 01
Sk,aIdl
Notes fuse bast; side o' this fora) for a0di110nal'1010S 1
14;
a
r `
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Farm; Version 3.1
Date:
Fvaluator: 5"4Y /Axio"I
Total Points:
Stream is at least rntemlifWnr
z 19 or nerenmal it z 34
Project
Site:
C o un ty: W
Latitude: >S r ` ?}r >
Longitude:
Other
Ne -
A. Geors of?r polo.9y Subtotal Absent Weak i Moderate I Strang
1" Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 '
._
2 Sinuosity
3 In-channel structure riffle -pool scc ut r;LE, tt 1 (" 3
t _ .. _.- - .. 4 ?-
3 Soil texture or strearn substrale sorting 01 2
I Activelye€ic flcodp€ain ...... 0 3
1 _ -----------
6. Depositbriat bars or benches c
7 Braided channel _,..-----. 1 ? _. __----• 3
8 recent alluvial deposds I? 2...
--- ..._-
93Natural levees 0? 1 2 .....-._ _-- -...._._ ._ _ ,
10 Headculs _ _?
11 Grade conirols^
f 12 Natura€ valley or drama ewa 0 0 5 1 1
'f 3 Second or greater order channel on exrstmc
USGS or NRCS map or other documented Nn 0 Yes 3
j ?
%-lml-wade d;(d1U% are ,wt rased, scc ditian+?nn, ui ;Mmual
L
13 HydrologY?Subkotal = ? ? ......
14 Groundwater flowldischarge 0 2 3
15. Water m channel and > 48 firs since rain. or 0 1 2 j
Water ;n channel - dry or growing season --
1n. i_eaflliier -- - I -
17 Sediment on plants or debris ! 0 {} 5 1 ,
118 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0 1 ! 1 5
__ -
19 H dric soils redoximo h e features esent? 1 No 0 yw1 5
C Biology (Subtotal = T' ?..... _ -
....... - - '?)
2011 Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
211' looted plants in channel 3 2
--
22 Crayfish 0 0.5
------ - ----- -
23 Siv alves 1 _. 0?.,-,..... 1 2 3
-
24- Fish 0 f '
--- -- ----------
1 --5
-
25 Amphibians
20. M_aCrobeniho5 (note tlwerslly and abund?anc,e)
. Filamentous algae ; pertphyton - {? L b 1 1 5
27
28 Iron oxidizing baMnalfunqus. C?t?J 0 , 1 -
__ .._ .._...__.--- - E .. .M_...
W FAC: w 0.5; FACW .µ 0-75; [BBL 1.5 SAb 2.0. Other 0
-
23 Wetland plants an streambed I ._ _ _.-
??IrrntS ?f? and 21?facus on the presc3ac o1 upland {?I:!!:15. irirei _'7 {nn!cc, n?ti the prrsuxc i?t a?lu::'r or wc!I .rd ry'ans,
Sketcts
wAes ;use ba<.k Side o' Phis form 1Or pddihnn:r} nnlE,s )
_ r
- ............ - J
?? ,fix ?'r?•?s s}
f
? j
%
; j r,, `I
USACF: All
DWQ #_
Site # (indicate on attached reap)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: }44,`J
_ 2. Evaluator's Warne:
3. Date of evaluation:-_ 7 25 1? '1 4. Time of evaluation: +.U(? AM S. Name of stream: ,4Y 1 tc Ic [,u+ 6. River basin: L A
7. Approximate drainage area: J S P4 )7 $ 8. Stream order: 5
9. Length of reach evaluated: ]!'f' 10. County: 1t>?
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees 12. Subdivision name (if any): Sun rg)
Latitude (ex 34.872312): 3j ? ?017 ? 0 Longitude (ex. -,77.55661 1):. -.P-)l 1?1?D3g1P
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial)photo?GIS Other GIS Other L" "Ja
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying strea (i?{ s) location):
M114 ?44. 01,11 f
14. Proposed channel work (if any): )J
15. Recent weather conditions: l?,lrtti ?r. iii' frt? Z`? f?ibltJ
16. Site conditions at time of visit:--- hVaiw^ I . Pi,
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -'T'idal Waters -Essential fisheries habitat
.-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (MV)
IS. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES CO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (O) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: --___% Residential -% Commercial % Industrial %I Agricultural
J% Forested `% Cleared I Logged P % Other( y? Ahd
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: X Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) ,,,,,,,,Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -X-Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous ,-----,Braided channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located an 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 streanr 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): ,2J Comments ,)b 1y7 P4x/
Evaluator's Signature ' pate
This channel evaluation farm 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 USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please calf 919-876-8441 x 2-6.
STREAM QUALM A$SE$$MENT WORKSHEET
EC
[ 1IAIiACI'LI2ISTIGS SCOW",
Coastsil Piedmont Mountain
PresOnce of flow !persistent pools in sttri'tm 0. 5 0. 4 U 5 Q
_ _
s) ,
(no flow or saturation '= 0; strong flc?sv - max Point
s Evidence of post human site;anon 0 - G 0 . S 0 }
J
- (extensive alteration .. 0; no alteration may inn) I J
Rtparitin zone p_ h 0- 4 0? J
(no butler contiguous, wide bufter."Kt ,Dints) --
`? " Evidence of nuErient ar clremsCul d#sGtiiit(;q 0 - 5 0-4 0-4
t (extensive discharges - 0; no discharges-- fnax pn'snts)
?.......__ ; ?'
i ? Groundwater discharge . ; t) 4
nts) 1_ _- {--- 0 -`
(tic) discharge - 0. s rings, seeps, wetlands, etc. max poi fl
v _._..------ Preccuce of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4
L
(no floodplain - 0; extensive floodplain = max points) [ ntreitchtnent / flnodplaln access 0- , 0-4 0 ?
= (dee h, entrenched - 0, frequent Awding--^max points)__
_ --.-'Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 _ i, 0 ! 0 '
, {nu wetland; - U; large adjacent wetlands _max poin(s} - -??---_?. -
Chanucl sinuosity 4 0_31
I,
---- 1
(extensive channelization 0; ttaturat meander = max points)
sediment input 0- 5 0-4 0-1 (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment ° max points)
Site & diversity of channel bed substrate 1?A* I 0 4 I 0
l I (fine, homogenous 0; iargp. diverse sixes -max points)
Evidence of chan.ncl tncision.,or ts'l;dening. 0 . ; t} - 4 { U
(deeply incised - 0-, stable bed & banks - tnax points}
?- i
P ----.._..._.. 1 0_ 5
r
- it 5 rt S
l?
severe erosion - 0; no erosion, stabir banks - max points}
Roo
rc depth and density [i fn dais E _.. ---- -., -
0 i) a U. t-
x
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout wax points)
f i 5 impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber roduction 0-4 0-5 i 2 i
(substantial impact -'0; no evidence -° imai points) _
i
Presence of riffle-poallrippie pool camisleXeti 0-3 U- 5 0 G
4 (nn ri.f7les?ripplcs orpools 0; welk-clt:vs:lgpUd inax visits?
p 0-b 0-f i 0-6
Hnbitat. con; lenity I
(little or no litjbitat ' Ol frequent, varied liubi#ats max points) _
5
18 i Canopy cavcrugc tiyc r xirxam#t£d O- S 0- 5 I 0-5
y
w (no shading vegetation ° 0; continuous caito .y m Max paints)
Sutislratc cn?bcdclcdi?ess NA' 0 - 4 0-4
li
(deeply einbcdded 0; toase stnaGttirc -. tna{x,) - ? .. _ _.._..-.; _._ .._
_ ._?.._
Prrscrtce of stream invsrtcb?ates sae page 4) 0-4 0.5 0 - 5 ()
.U ;
? (no evidence = D; common, nun7orous ty G a max points)
n a O
Presence of amphib}ens 0 4 0-4
v;
i .. it ?I (nn evidence = 0', cnnimon, niinterous t)pe5 @ max points} --- -- --- ____. ?-- -----.- -
.: i resenee of fish 0.4 0-4 ' ' j
! a_
(no evidence = 0; common. numerous types ° max points)
Evidence of wildlife use 0_6 0-5
!
!-3
(no evidence = 0, abundant evidence - max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 IN
,... _. _ _
TOTAL SCORE (tllsa enter Oil first Page) - i ?
are not assessed in coastal streatns.
7
?i.:?I? t i't 1 !t I
USACE AII]1t_
DWQ
Site 8 (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: S,S)lt j? MUVII
3. Date of evaluation: I 1/ -? _ 4. Time of evaluation: jj 'dP AP "I
5. Nance of stream: W A, Aj W (-, U f>?[ 6. River basin: &q t )lA( ,A1w?l
7. Approximate drainage area: i 1P ..p j)?, 8. Stream order.
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known):
prefer in decimal dogrocs- 12. Subdivision name {if any}:
l.atiludc(cx_34.872312):
Longilude(ex. 77.55661[):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial)Photo/GIS Dther GIS Other- P R?! t
13. Location` of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying strea (s) lootion);
br?`i
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
I5. Recent weather conditions: )i
16. Site conditions at time of visi
1
`) )VuyS
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters ----,-Essential fisheries habitat
-1 rroul Waters ,Outstanding Resource Waters ^ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-) V)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ItV(J/ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES Nta 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use; _% Residential _% Commercial -% Industrial _% Agricultural
?L% Forested -% Cleared / Logged J- D% Other (IPAJ d ZkAY f'141 )
22. Bankfull width: ?, 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank);--J, $- Tao
24. Channel slope down center of stream: K Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _,L-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 ecorefion. 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: vnj`1 j('td- ? r - t'"tCJt
Evaluator's Signature f + c?'?? Date G l7 ?? -
This channel evaluation Wm Is intended to be used only as a gulde to assist landowners an environmental rofesslonals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of strearn
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 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 -,26.
STREAM QUALITY AsSWMENT WORKSHEET

- ,-
GOQ1NT HAI?]Cs-E --?
ECUItk ---
? -

' CHARACTERISTiICS -
Coa0.stRt .
_
Pledtn6nt
MPUnlsin SCORE
-Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in stream 0-5 0 '
- S
11
(no low or saturation - A; strong flow -- max points)
Evidence of past tluman 1111WS00111L 0.6 0-5 0-
5
(extensive alteration =- 0; no alteration - max points)
. _
..
Riparian zone 0-4 0- i
(n(> buffer - 0; contiguous, wide buffer tRa? .ci?nts) - i-- -- -
- Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischmirgim 0 . 5 E 0 - q 0 • -t ;
k (extensive discharges °- 0: no disdiarges" inttx o'snts)
--

---- _-------
Grauadrvatiar discharge 0 . a 1 0- 4 ! (3 t
E
i ?
` {ii() Ci15Cfii3rz;e = O'. springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. =max points) _- _•i .-
?. f'rccencc of adjacent floodplain 0 _ ,y 0 - 4
J (no flood;slain =0-, extensive tloodplsin ? max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0 0-4 0 • _
(deeply entrenched -: 0; frequent flooding x- max points) ..... ... -_- __?.- .. __..._ ..-..
- - Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 • G 1 () t

ti Tito %Yt•dands -- 0; large adjacent %vetlands = max poinis) - --
_
--•: _ ? .._-._-

I Si3r11QSit)'
I 0-4 11
!
? ?J ' -
1 (extensive c.hannelimtion -? 0; natural meander max points) _O.._..?..__ _.....
.---
r-- - --- ---Sediment input 0. 5 t3 4 0- a
E
(cxlcmivi; deposnton=- 0; little or no sediment :r max ninth - 1
'Size & diversity of channel bed xttib5trata NA'
0 - 5
0-4
1
j (fins, homogenous 0; large, divcrsc sizes --mlix point's)
Evidence of channel ittci5aop.or ti3'tde.#ting
0
.,
0- i
0-a
I
I
(deeply incised = 0; stable: bed & }ranks = max points) ............ ...
..._._.,-....?.-•.?--
Prestnce of major bank failures
h
r. l .S
(severe arosion - 0; no arosian, stt3ble banks - max points) . - ._....- .. l
-..-. r- -- -
Root depth and densit}' on banks
0? 0 _ .t C j

l•t
'
ilo visible roots'-- 0; dense roots throu-9bout' max points) 1
r E _ s
i Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 5
1 0.4 () - 5
IS
(substantial 3u3paGt --O: no e:vtdencc - tntlN paints) ..

--

- -
- -1'resenCt of rifll3? oP1/3 i lc- ool com ilexes s 0.6
(no riiflcs.1ripples or pools 0; well-developcd nwx painls) __-
___ Habitat complexity
t]
- C)
f
little or not habiw " 0: frequent, varied habik4ils ` max points)
Canopy covcruge pvcr altrtufnl??
5
t) . _ U 5 0- 5
l
1 (na shading vegetation - 0; conttnti3atis caner,y i?aax points ?

r I
I l4
_,
Sobs#r.tlc entbetldedness
'
'
)
= 'NA
0 4 Z
0-4
?
? ttCtttre
ataax
(deep)y emlfedcied w o:,loose stt __.--..- . . ... ,- .
Presence of stream invertebrates s>~t page 4)
0-4
4 0-5
0 5

,o

(no evidence = 0; Common, nutntrous, ty fi ttiA!Y polnCS) _
-

? Presence of amphibians
0.4
0-4
, y ? l
.-. = points}
?. (no evidence = 0; c-oninioa, numerous typee max
-..
- i _ 1.-. _.. ?..
- - M Presence of fish 0-4
Q
0-4
22
M I
(ii0 evidence - 0; cosnnsan, numerous tl s tttati points)
1 --
-------------
_..,

i _- t.
-...Eiaenee of *f ilcillfc use
s

0-6

0-5 Ct-i
I (no evidence == 0; abundant evidene e _ ma c points} .. j - - --
>
Total Points Possible
100 1
l00 IN

TOTAL SCORE (also enter wi r 4st p4gQ)

' 'I hose characteristics e ot assessed in coastal streatils.

RTES (-,\,.
NGlhli': t: RS . PLANNE RS I SURVi?YORS
August 19, 2008
Hazen and Sawyer, PC
Attn: Mr. Benjamin Roach, PC
+011 Westchase Blvd
Raleigh, NC 276x7
Re: Detailed Wetland Delineation
Sanford Waste Water Treatment Plant , Sanford, North Carolina
W & R Project #: 02080618
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 rnobilizing 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/imporlant stream and one
intermittent/t.tnimportant stream were observed during our field evaluation. Streams
identified as important by the USAGE" and perennial by the NC-DWQ typically require
compensatory mitigation for impacts in excess of 1.5o 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 o.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 nol:ification and approval from
the USAGE 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, 1'?Ie
USACF. has a review period Of 45 days, and the NC-DWQ has a review period of 6o
days, if either agency requests additional infarmation, 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.
7i2 Wlldw l'w 06ve + Cary, Ndc flax: g19,116y.6n,08 > t?nvr:.?;=iE€urSravtnc+t.cpm
7o ,,o VvrighisviRe Avent Suite so! lrJi€rniavicua, K Mijo3 ; tel: 9jo.a56.p2>/ : fax: tj1C.2°3G.r;f y
f?['tf Y}SlVI(aS Swr eyiirg ; 76e7 sabhatr-' Home Rd, 5'd•; ; Sui?hty, N' ,8/,6, (0: yao.8ry2.9392 fax: gio.8/i2.80!9

o s ,

W ?
Q

}
{ r;Y
S1
z M-
#, ??
SOW
JAN-
*.f'' ^? Y' '?'- ? S? ? fir- ??•??r ? ?y4.t
4
T
T ?} p.
S •
?t>sr - ??==- - -?' mom. ----° ? ?•,
in-
low
.??a rl 1
mo = _;
ilq,
v
??? g, ? ? fcl { o
?? ,? .? +r?. fir; ,?
?i
h ?
<?ern ?f , Y 9 i ?L N
W
Cti ,
- (ff 7h AN
Sit,
t
r• Evaluated Boundary
.y.
r
r
!• 1
r.

p'l

1

i err ? }

r 1 f7
WITHERS RAVENEL
E N[, Nt t P .S " FNN{ RS SUP VF YOF. S
111 1vlacKcnan Drive Cary. North Carolina 27511
tet. 919-469-3340 fax [phone]
wWW.

FIGURE 1: USGS
QUADRANGLE
Sanford WWTP
Sanford, North Carolinci
Colon Quadrangle
Brawn Fay: Scale: Figure No
LT I"= 2,000' 1
Date: Job Number:
6--")-08 02080618
Tab 3aF
1 CA TaD ,
ch cp?__ .00Y_ ?.
I WWB cp '
x Stir
TOO C h TaE .f.atl
1 t9 CP
ToQ ToCi WWB Ww8 Wx'B '/ -
ToR
Ro Tac
o StA
Ro Q C ya Nas
WWB A s` e M£f3
MfD O _ ? WB - Ro
Ch Cj
ToB - . A I
MfD TOB
f
. Ro StA W .. .o f
Ch - p
_ T013
w Boa PSB
PfF Cr.B T48 00 StA Ch GP op
- '?
CP Q Cumnn[ic MfD pfF / n s? m CP
? PfD •MfB ..Otv? ??
Pfd ., ?Cp PfF- P.f6 PfF
Rk . f €F M€D
eiHlf$f -'fvlf8 PfD Cp A9i6
Cp t p ? F.
pf6, P7F
C PfD PtB ??ff Ch P3F ° -
_`JJ Mf6 .. PfF PfD ++?? MfB
j
Mff3 . To8 C p '?.7. fF Pf8
?f] Mff3 MrB - '
MfB Mf6' Af3 PfD
A
?rF PfB MfB ?f
PfD p
Ch' To8 Ch -.PfD. ?_. `. ._.?.
N1f6 Mf. PfF Cfgek PfF
lyfb r °rO uhf PfB PfD MfS
?Pf6'
???:U 13r?y o PfF
4 PfF % a
p f'fD
fF Gi,. Pff3? Pff)
'.. / PfB PfF PfS mfa
Ch Pf6
. ' \t
Mf$
PfF,.Ch PfF ' PfF 'P€D PPF
PfF Pf8 I,PffJ I i
?Pf{l j . r PfD Mf8 1 Y Mf8 Pf8 PfE
l PfD - r?
/ PfD _ 1 PtD
Ch r PfU
Ch. 'PfFgA 0 .. Pff-, PtD
PfF MfB PfD
?.?.. Ton MfB PfF
PfB
PfB - PfD Mf8 MfD .
HD _C17 MB MfD -_ N Mf$ Pf8 Mf6' 1
1 o't
PfD'. P#D? c C Cr8
rB
M#D ' NifE o? y CrD
MfD o TOB m 1Q
w fvif6 Ch ¢ Q? ?_l r Mf8 00r
PfD CrB /" oolWr
.. PfB Mfs
PfD..' a?
2% MfB Ch PfB Q Cr$ A
R..,-.... ,_...... _..-. _.. _u .
1+1r1T H E Ft.'C RAV N E L. FIGURE 2: NRCS Drawn By: Scale, Figure No.:
ENGINEERS I PEANNCRS i SURVEYORS SOIL SURVEY LT 9"=2,000` 2
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 Sanford WWTP
Sanford, North Carolina Date: Job Number
tel.- 919-469-3340 fax: [phone] 02080618
www. withersraveneL com
Upland DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project 1 Site: W&R Project # - 02080618.Sanford _W WTP Date: 8-14-08
Applicant 1 Owner: Cit of Sanford County: Lee
State: 1?iC:
Investigator:_ Withers & Ravene] Luke Tuschak)
-
-
--no,r-- - -- _._-._..._-_
Do --
normal circumstances exist on the site?-,--,-
ite? Yes

g( No ?

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

Is the area a potential problem area? Yes
? No Mixed PlnelHWll

(explain on reverse if needed) Transect ID;
PlotID: unslope of stream
on in
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Eulalia viminea fferb FAC+ 9.
2.. Frax7')1y perLgs lea -l-ree FACW 10.__.__?

3. Smilax rotundi olia
Vine
FAQ -- -
11.___-_
4. Ilex opaca mm v_ Tree FAC- 12.

5. N ssa s lvatica
Tree
FAC - - --
13.
6. Acer ruhrum 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
D Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
0 Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other Q Inundated
[Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
F ? Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: _ NA (in.)
Secondary Indicators;
Depth to Free Water in Pit: X12 (in.) L] Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil:_ >12 (in.) E] Local Soil Survey Data
n FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydrology Indicators Absent
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): PfD Pinksion silt loam Drainage Class: well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):__ Ruptic-Ulric nvstrocfue is _ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes n Nof 1
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
(inches) Horizon Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munseil Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc.
0-4 _ ..__7.5YR 4/3 _l,oam
4-10 7.5Y1t_5/6 _ Loam
_ 10-12 - --_.10YR 6/4__..? Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[( Suffidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Love-Chroma Colors E] Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric Soils Absent
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No [[
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes j] No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes II No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? YesE] NoM
Remarks:
co stem
.r_ x ?`k ? t. _z •,.
YRQGRAM'
May18, 2010
Victor Czar
City of Sanford
Sanford Municipal Bldg.
114 W. Weatherspoon St.
Sanford, NC 27330 Expiration of Acceptance: February 18, 2011
Project: Big Buffalo Creek WWTP Expansion County: Lee
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts, It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved, You must also comply with all other state federal or local
government erniits re ul ti'ons or orizations associated with the ro osed activi including-S4 2009-337: An Act to Promote
Com ensa or Mitigation b Private Mitigation Banks
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable, If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work, The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at wwwmoeep.net,
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Cape Fear 03030003 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0
Credits Cape Fear 03030003 0 0 690 0 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, E1P will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to, be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998,
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone],
Sincerely,
Wil ' D, Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Ian McMillan, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Monte Matthews, USACE-Raleigh
Michael Santowasso, PE- agent
File
prot°P.G?I.l2? Our f-tatt?
Ad--h
CC©ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Appendix B
Figures
Figure 1- USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Map - Colon Quadrangle
Figure 2 -General Vicinity Map
Figure 3 - MRCS Soils Map
Figure 4 - Water Resources & Wetland Areas
i r
W +z e. e SSS
e4 ? ?
1
r
.
CO ,
Ilso Big Buffalo
Wastewater Treatment Plant
f-
Or.?._ ,r ? r 5 3 ' 1,
1 !
ti ? jJ{1, r ? ,• a
?? ??? ? r +1 ,mss •? t?'m `-?}}}0.
1 /
y
--
Y' I
_ 1 inch =1,000 feet
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 '7 1 0-76 , 1 j f+
4
Miles '
FIGURE 1 SOURCE. MAPTECH Terrain Navigator Pro®
1:24,000 USGS Topographic Map AND SAVER
,olon Quadrangle (Map Ref No. 35079-E2-TF-024) HAZEN AND October 2009 Environmental Eng neer$ & Scientists
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Sanford, North Carolina
N
S
W AT
r y COL a?
Big Buffalo t : o
Wastewater Treatment Plant G?
LO CIYOI RHYN
c
c3
60,
v LL
z
1._ \
_ GOTTEN'r \ ??f
BRA CH Z d t '_ _ 1 O_
? a i \
Cc,
O
,. z d r z 13
D HOLLY 1 ` ?_; I, Gv
A ILD FOREST
p4AP5 0 1 C_ I _JG?
Y
- ?? GOL COURSE
GLENNJOOD ?
ION A
?,?N !LL
U tswR 4GS o00
r' j 12 Cfiss
u,
v *` r_ NNIE V T 1 > o
c? m BdR o J
BURNS
REYNX*D VISTA ?OXLS\1 N IELD
OK 1000 tFp Li K
0 0.25 0.5 1- ? ?'1.5 2 ° l 1
INE j O !
FIGURE 2 LEGEND
feral Vicinity Map - -- Hydrology County Boundary Streets Sanford Service Area fhZEN AND SAMER
October 2009 State Highway' Development Zone Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Sanford, North Carolina SOURCE NCDOT; SANFORD
r NO
I
R
L/ f_ _ P f B
C -?---??
)PfF P f
ToB j.
M r'B
fB
PfB
c h ToB X11 M
P f F lit
Big Buffalo
t Wastewater Treatment Plant
f F, ,
PfB P f F
FIGURE 3 SOURCE, Soil Survey: US Deparimerrl at Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
(SopSurvey of L Coy ty North Carolina - 7989) ? EN AND S.AA ER
Soils Map Property City of .(-??? I L
October 2009 Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant - City of Sanford, North Carolina
Wetland Types
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater
CIO
P?
?G

?i
W Big Buffalo
0G? Wastewater Treatment Plant
0
011
Approximate location of
jurisdictional stream identified
by Withers & Ravenel
Approximate location of
site improvements that
will impact -345 If of stream
(-132 If perennial +
-213 If intermittent)
0
O
0
w
U
o?
!x
N
0 0.05 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
FIGURE 4
er Resources & LEGEND
Vvetland Areas -Streets County Boundary
Hydrology H AND SAWYER
--
July 2010 C3WWTPParcel Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Sanford, North Carolina SOURCE: NcoENR; NWT; Ncoor
Appendix C
Finding of No Significant Impact Letters
01 q_N?s
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Moses Carey, Jr., Secretary
July 20, 2010
Ms. Jennifer Haynie
DENR, Water Quality
Construction Grants & Loans
1533 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1633
Re: SCH File # 10-E-4300-0436; EAXONSI; Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
expansion from 6.8 million gallons per day to 12,0 million gallons per day; upgrade of
existing facilities to provide biological nutrient removal & convert from chlorine to
ultraviolet light for disinfection
Dear Ms. Haynie:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the nature of the
comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on your part is
needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached comments
should be taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region J
Mailing Address: Telephone: {979}807-2425 14cation Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] Wrest Jones strut
Ralciglt, NC: 27599-3301 Slaw Courier #51-01.00 Ralragh, ]North Carolina
e-mail.sLUte,cle(tringhouse@&)(. nc.gov
An Equal Opporrroury/Affirmative Acfion Finployer
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: LEE NO2; WAS'FEWAT'ER TREATMENT STATE NUMBER: 10-E-4300-0434p
FACILITIES DATE RaGF.rz'-V'D: 06111f2010
AGENCY RESPONSE: 0'111912010
REVIEW CLOSED: 0"1/19/2010
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLATN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
JUN 201(y
MSC # 9719
RALEIGH NC
:REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRIANGLE J COG
PROJECT 114FORMATION
APPLICANT: DENR, Water Quality
TYPE: State Environmental. Policy Act
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
DESC: Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion from 6.8 million gallons per day
to 12.0 million gallons per day; upgrade of existing facilities to provide
b.ioloy.ical nutrient removal & convert, from chlorine to ul.trav.iolet light for
disinfection
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State clearinghouse for
intergovernmenLa.l review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Ralc.i.gh NC 27699-1301.
if additional review time is needed, please: C:Ontact this office at (919)£307---2925.
AS A RESULT OF THIS EVIEW '1'lI' L' iLOWING IS SUBMITTED: 11 NO COMMENT X COMMENTS AT` ACHE-D
SIGNED BY: - ` DATE: tL

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMEN'T' OP ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY: H02:14ASaEWATER TRE7?T jF'Ni' STATE NUMBER: iO--E_" n.? i3u
MCILITIES DATE RECEIVED: 0fj11i::J`i)
AGENCY RESPONSE: 0-i. iiCWC:
REVIEW CLOSED: 11: 3;i
MS MELBA MCGEE
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
ARCEDAL,E BLDG - MSC ? 1601
RAT E GH NO
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC,4PS -- DT OF EMERGENCY t?1rJAGF.:?` \i'
7ENtt 1.' GISLA` I'V AFFAIRS
DEFT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
-R=ANGLE: „ COG
RROJECT INE'OR.MATIOR
Environmental Assessment/Finding of Ncs Si.gni'ict,nt Impact
DES`:,: Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant C."mansion from 6A gallons pOr
to ;.2.0 million gallons per day, upgrade of ex:z3tl?'IC
b.i_ological nutrient remove! & convert from chlorin(, '_v tz ._.ravir) c s: 1i 91V- for
disinfection
pro,?c' ha:. beef. rE.F±......`HC; to t-?'.c Iti. F_ ., ..a .._C'...._. '.:J°,,.,.. ?.?1..
...n?=c::.C3pv?Y.'nlElGl}t2e' rovi"'W. P]rasc: rcvi@S.' and by '•'I', t= a ovc
.i.na...cated date to 1-301 Vai Service Center, Raj.eigh ?dC ?.-? °, 1?;?l.
If additional review time is needed, please ccntect Chia office at ('?19;?3Cr-: i2?.
AS A RESULT OF THIS R?4I1?sr' IiE FOLLOWING S SUBMIT^_?;._. NO
Appendix D
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 Sant owasso 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.
Authorize Signature
Date: l b • 1 -1;' . d
Stormwater Management Plan
Stormwater Management Plan
Narrative
Waiver Request
Peak Flow Calculations - Pre-Development and Post-Development
Narrative
As part of the requirements of the Nationwide 39 Permit, a Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP) has been prepared for the Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
project. Per NCAC 2B 15A 02H.1000, only drainage areas which were found to discharge to a
single point were evaluated for percent impervious. Several drainage areas were found to
have impervious areas in excess of or near the 24 percent limit above which structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are required. Structural BMPs are proposed for two of these
drainage areas, and a waiver is being requested for one of the areas. Other drainage areas
found to be greater than 24 percent impervious which do not fall under the requirement for
structural BMPs 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 sheet flow.
Hazen and Sawyer met with DWQ personnel on January 13, 2010 to discuss the SMP,
particularly Drainage Areas A, B, C, D, and E. The original SMP, submitted with the PCN
application dated October 15, 2009, was revised to address the issues discussed at this
meeting. In the revised SMP, bioretention areas are proposed for Areas A and B. For Area C, a
flow splitter was suggested by DWCf but existing underground utilities in the proposed location
of the flow splitter make it problematic from a construction standpoint. Further investigation,
including a site visit by DWQ personnel, revealed that Area D could remain with no further
improvement to stormwater drainage. A sand filter was proposed for Area E, but a waiver is
being requested due to the difficulty of construction beneath existing process piping, a ground
water table higher than the invert of the filter, a small increase in impervious surface in the 1-
acre drainage area, and the extremely high cost of the measure.
In Area A, a bioretention area will be used to provide water quality treatment for the "first
flush" rainfall. It has been sited to maximize the amount of runoff from new impervious surface
(resulting from construction of the new Administration Building) treated by the BMP. The area
treated by the bioretention area is approximately 11,000 square feet, approximately 90 percent
of which is impervious. The surface area of the bloretention area is 1,400 square feet. Please
refer to Construction Plan Sheets C-24 and D-1 for the location and specific details of this
bioretention area, respectively.
In Area B, a bioretention area will be located north of the new pavement below the proposed
Septage Dumping Station. The bioretention area was sited with the intent of capturing runoff
from as much new pavement as feasible. The area treated by the bloretention area is
approximately 16,000 square feet, approximately 99 percent of which is impervious. The
surface area of the bioretention area is 1,550 square feet. Please refer to Construction Plan
Sheets C-22 and D-1 for the locations and specific details of the bioretention area, respectively.
In Area C, H&S investigated the placement of a flow splitter in the existing Swale adjacent to the
railroad R.O.W. to divert the "first flush" runoff under the railroad and downhill to the Influent
Pump Station for treatment with the process flow. The increase in impervious area in Area C is
2550 square feet, resulting in an increase in impervious percentage from 17% (pre-
development) to 19% (post-development). The threshhold for requirement of structural BMPs
is 24%, and the post-development impervious percentage is below this level. Additionally, the
increase in impervious area resulted in very small increases in stormwater flow -- 0.2 cfs for Q1
and 0.3 cfs for Q10. Careful examination of the existing utilities in the area adjacent to the
proposed flow splitter showed that construction of the measure would be substantially
inhibited due to the location of existing underground plant piping and the need to cross an
existing raliroad right-of-way. H&S concluded that installation of a flow splitter, although
possible, would be problematic. Considering the relatively small increase in impervious area, an
impervious percentage below the threshhold for requirement of structural measures, expected
construction difficulties, and raliroad coordination issues, we are not recommending a
structural BMA for this drainage area.
Several stormwater BMP options were evaluated for 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-2 for the location and specific details of the sand filter, respectively. During the
course of designing the sand filter, several inhibiting factors were discovered that limit the
practicality of this BMP installation. These limitations include:
• Restricted 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
and maintenance 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 substantially exceed that of typical
stormwater BMPs;
Aside from 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 this BMP for Drainage Area E. A waiver request follows.
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
August 6, 2010
Mr. Ian McMillan
Acting Supervisor
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
Stormwater BMP Waiver Request
Dear Mr. McMillan:
As part of the requirements of the Nationwide 39 Permit, a Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP) has been prepared for the Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
project. The initial submittal dated October 15, 2009 was reviewed by DWQ staff, and
concerns about the SMP were relayed to Hazen and Sawyer in a letter dated December 21,
2009. Hazen and Sawyer met with DWQ personnel on January 13, 2010 to discuss the
SMP, including Area E, a 1-acre drainage area located in the southwestern portion of the
site. A sand filter was proposed for this area, but a waiver is being requested due to the
extremely high cost of the measure, the difficulty of construction beneath existing process
piping, a ground water table higher than the invert of the filter, and a minimal increase in
impervious surface in the drainage area.
Several stormwater BMP options were evaluated for Area E, but due to a variety of
constraints, a sand filter was the only potential treatment option. During the course of
designing the sand filter, several inhibiting factors were discovered that limit the practicality
of this BMP installation. The area available for BMP construction is restricted 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 of nearly 18
feet. This is much greater than typical designs and presents significant constructability
concerns.
Additional problems are associated with the constructability of the sand filter. The sand
filter effluent would be discharged into the 100-year floodplain, and installation of the
effluent pipe may require disturbance of the nearby stream. Additionally, the seasonal high
water table is nearly 14 feet higher than the elevation of the base of the structure, and this
presents floatation and water quality concerns.
New York, NY • Philadelphia. PA • Raleigh, NC -Charlotte, NO • Greensboro. NC - Charleston, SC Atlanta. GA • Fairfax, VA- Hampton Roads, VA • Baltimore. MO • Cincinnati, 4H - Hollywood, FL • Baca Ratan, FL • Miami, FL
HAVEN AND SAWYER
A rough cost estimate indicates that construction costs are expected to be at least $70,000
and could exceed $100,000. This cost is extremely high given the relatively small drainage
area treated by this BMP.
As a result of these issues, we are requesting a waiver from implementation of BMP
measures for Drainage Area E. 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.
?, -V&rkd baa)kgo
L. Michael Santowasso, P.E.
Senior Associate
LMSlbpr
C
a)
E
CL
0
()
R ?
ro
o a
? s= o
u v CL
E c a
a) _0 0
a 0 ? cu
Y
Z C -co
ro v
•'.: w u fl-
? a; o
ro 0
>
3 0 E
a)
m u V,
N n CO +--? N O lC) N N Ln
C7 u t, ci v N Ln m m i

.? cn o0 O N N n O M V N o0 M
U U 00 ?--I m rV fn N N 0 00

3 Ln o LD m r,4 ?-i Ln V o Ln Ln :n
u In "t 'T I-q r` m v m M M LO

Y 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
E Ln o o° %-i Ln n i j t.!) M
Q O lp LO M LO Ln ko o n o Ln N a)
O N ?i O
> N a) c1' m 11 -1 N -i ? Ln Ln m co or,
O r?
to
a,
Q
CO -1 m
0
O
a o
v m
Cf
N O? O O O M ?

L a' rq
4 N-T I-i
a
a CL
N
o
C14 ID 0 m r r,4
LA
a Ln O co O O O mmm co
w
CL v w
't
N Ln N .4 r-4
1-1 H m c1' 0
E
c ?
67 O
0

M v 0 0 00 n O
C14 I'D Ln 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
ro
C
?oN

N d0 lD r-i .--1 N O to N N m

u tof oO'i r-, t-, mss -1 oOm
m 'I' r-- -i r-4 N m rte{ (V o n
3 H 00 Ln Ln N rw m ct LO Ln Ln N
-
u )
v m v m t- sn cr m m m U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
E
O N 0) m N 0 0 m n H in
n w
O
r.
o n o m N m
n N tp
n r.
OQ '? rn N N oo V m ,4 n o0 It co ?r -i
d a -1 ro
? rq -i m -i m Lmn LA m H rn w
j

o
?
c o
O O O N
O
n
Ln
N W
v -i
e I
L
n
Q
a E
C ^
o +
Ln v Ln LD m
n
i ro ? 00 v fn ° LLnn Q 00 0 0 0 m n
Q rl- LNn N m 1N'f ? m
E ¢
Qj n 0? v Ln 0 0o rn Ln m r cr o

to Q_ r i N m 0 1i o r r i ri o m
m C-4 r, 0 Ln r- 00
1-4
Q ro ^
w O?k.D rV N r, O n 0 Ln N
O m r4 O 00 N Ln W -zt 00 u7
ro Q --- n 01 V Cl rl_ r4 r14 a Ln L00 Nn ? N a)
C
r-I
d7 c-I ro
e-i

D J
¢
0 ¢ CD U l? Ll3 Li- C7 M
0
H
u
C
v
V
a
O
U
0
c
7
-a
w
an
3
u
..c c
Ln Ln
0 o ri n
Lri n
E U
U
in
v
O
z
u
E
ro

v
ra

0

r]D
ro

u
w
Ln

3

0
Y

7 a
z
? Y
L
rv

? Y
ro

v +' a
o
D N
O ra
C
a
=-
Q s
s
ro
ra a - N
co
v
^
o
`
0. -0 m ro
r
L
-
x
W 0) 0
5
0
4
'a
) 3
0
a zs R W C o
o a,
0 Q v ro a
O O
O_ O_ ti
N E u 0

a o
Y v
E
a CL rs a .
L
o a -a 0 '? c 3
?i m .--

r4 co ris
11 L6
ro ar m
o a, ro
o
v z o )
a; L ? ? ? ? ro

a u
v Y

0
?
Q
0 E
m z ? _ ? o
co 0 'ro
=
0? a
¢ U L LL C7
c
LI) L
...)
-1
c ? w N troll v
`
a¢ ato
Q?a
Appendix A
BMP Documentation
Bioretention Area A
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Required Items Checklist
Design Calculations
Bioretention Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Bioretention Area B
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Required Items Checklist
Design Calculations
Bioretention Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Sand Filter
Sand Filter Supplement
Required Items Checklist
Design Calculations
Sand Filter Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Bioretention and Sand Filter Required Items Justification
S&MF Soils Reports
Bioretention Area A
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Required Items Checklist
Design Calculations
Bioretention Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWO)
oac4 WATER
F-MMA
7
p 'c
N+CDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
SIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT
This form must be tilted out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part III) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
Project name
Contact name
Phone number
gate
Drainage area number
Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Michael Santowasso
919-833-7152
July, 2010
Drainage Area B
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 16,000 flz
Impervious area 15,800 ftz
Percent impervious 98.8% %
Design rainfall depth 1.0 inch
Peak Flow Calculations
Is prelpost control of the 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow required? N (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth in
1-yr, 24-hr intensity in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow ft3isec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow ft3lsec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control 1t31sec
Storage Volume: Non•SA Waters
Minimum volume required
Volume provided
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5" runoff volume
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Minimum volume required
Volume provided
Cell Dimensions
Ponding depth of water
Ponding depth of water
Surface area of the top of the bioretention cell
Length:
Width:
-or- Radius
Media and Solis Summary
Drawdown time, ponded volume
Drawdown time, to 24 inches below surface
Drawdown time, total:
In-situ soil:
Soil permeability
Planting media soil-
Soil permeability
Soil composition
% Sand (by volume)
% Fines (by volume)
% Organic (by volume)
Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media
Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.8
1.- 09 9Mn
1,252.0 fl3
1,327.0 ft3 OK
ft3
ft3
ft3
0 ft3
ft3
12 inches OK
1.00 ft
1,641.0 ft? OK
62 fi OK
25 It OK
ft
7.2 hr OK
19.2 hr OK
26.4 hr
0.06 inihr Insufficient. Increase infiltration rate or include underdrains.
2.00 in/hr OK
85% OK
10%o OK
5%o OK
Total 100%
10 (unitless) OK
Parts I and 11. Desian Summarv, Paoe 1 of 2
Permit
(to be provided by D WO)
Basin Elevations
Temporary pool elevation 245.00 fmsl
Type of bioreteniion cell (answer "Y' to only one of the two
Vowing questions):
Is this a grassed cell? Y (Y or N) OK
Is this a cell with treesishrubs? N (Y or N)
Planting elevation (top of the mulch or grass sod layer) 244 fmsl
Depth of mulch 0 inches Insufficient mulch depth, unless installing grassed cell.
Bottom of the planting media soil 242 fmsl
Planting media depth 2 ft
Depth of washed sand below planting media soil 0 ft
Are underdrains being installed? Y (Y or N)
How many clean out pipes are being installed? 2 OK
What factor of safety is used for sizing the underdrains? (See 4 OK
BMP Manual Section 12.3.6)
Additional distance between the bottom of the planting media and 1 ft
the bottom of the cell to account for underdrains
Bottom of the cell required 241 fmsl
SHWT elevation 238.83 fmsl
Distance from bottom to SHWT 2.17 f1 OK
Internal Water Storage Zone (IWS)
Does the design include IWS N (Y or N)
Elevation of the top of the upturned elbow fmsl
Separation of IWS and Surface 244 ft
Planting Plan
Number of tree species 0
Number of shrub species
Number of herbaceous groundcover species
Additional Information
Does volume in excess of the design volume bypass the Y (Y or N) OK
bioreteniion cell?
Does volume in excess of the design volume flow evenly distributed N (Y or N) Excess volume must pass through filter
through a vegetated filter?
What is the length of the vegetated filter? ft
Does the design use a level spreader to evenly distribute flow? N (Y or N) Show how flow Is evenly distributed.
Is the BMP located at least 30 feet from surface waters (50 feet if Y (Y or N) OK
SA waters)?
Is the BMP located at least 100 feet from water supply wells? Y (Y or N) OK
Are the vegetated side slopes equal to or less than 3:1? Y (Y or N) OK
Is the BMP located in a proposed drainage easement with access N (Y or N) Insufficient ROW location.
to a public Right of Way (ROW)?
Inlet velocity (from treatment system) ft/sec
Is the area surrounding the cell likely to undergo development in N (Y or N) OK
the future?
Are the slopes draining to the bioreteniion cell greater than 20%? N (Y or N) OK
Is the drainage area permanently stabilized? (Y or N)
Pretreatment Used
(Indicate Type Used with an "X" in the shaded cell)
Gravel and grass
X
(81inches gravel followed by 3-5 ft of grass)
Grassed swale OK
Forebay
Other
Form SW401-Bioreteniion-Rev.8
.-')F Oran Parts I and II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2
Permit No.
(to be provided by BW4)
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal
package wfli 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-24 1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
SMP-1 - Design at ultimate build-out,
SMP-2 Off-site Drainage (if applicable),
Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Cell dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Flow splitting device,
Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Clean-out pipe locations,
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
LMS DD=1 2. Plan details (1" = 30' or larger) for the bioretention cell showing:
- Cell dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Design at ultimate build-out,
Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Clean-out pipe locations,
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
Indicate the P- Index between 10 and 30.
LMS D_1 3. Section view of the bioretention cell (1" = 20' or larger) showing:
- Side slopes, 3:1 or lower,
Underdrain system (if applicable), and
Bioretention cell layers [ground level and slope, pre-treatment, ponding depth, mulch depth, fill media,
depth, washed sand, filter fabric (or choking stone if applicable), #57 stone, underdrains (if applicable),
SHWT level(s), and overflow structure)
LMS SMP 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 DWO, by completing & submitting the soils investigation
request form. County soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information. All elevations shall be in
feet mean sea level (fmsl). Results of soils tests of both the planting soil and the in situ soil must include:
Soil permeability,
Soil composition, (% sand, % fines, % organic), and
P-Index.
LMS 0-1 5. A detailed planting plan (1' - 20' or larger) prepared by a qualified individual showing:
- A variety of suitable species,
Sizes, spacing and location of plantings,
Total quantity of each type of plant specified,
A planting detail,
The source nursery for the plants, and
Fertilizer and watering requirements to establish vegetation,
LMS D_1 6. A construction sequence that shows how the bioretention cell will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
LMS SMPApp. A 7. The supporting calculations (including underdrain calculations, if applicable).
LMS SMP App. A 8. A copy of the signed and notarized inspection and maintenance (AM) agreement.
9. A copy of the deed restriction.
Porn; SVV401-Bioretention-Rev.7 Part III, Page 1 of 1
m
4-
0
4,
Q
'U
Q1
L
V

Q
C
co
?} Q
m
L
X
LU
¢
U
N
N
O
4a O O Q

d

m O o
O
0 0

00 r

o
m
N
L +
f0
L 0 0

• A
• O
• O
•
3 ? ? ? L L L
41
L
u cam..
C .. Q
E
L 4J
6
Y It C N
O
a o 'kn ;D a

o H
a
0
d) o
?
Co o
C4 C;
t m cv

m L
o

o u
iii
E
E co
c r
ran -,
m 3 p o
Z z
i •C ° c a
V
CIl ai V ? ?

LL L1. (.? D O U
Bioretention Design
Project Name: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Project Number: 32039-000-104
Description: Bioretention Design for Administration Building -- Area A
Date: 06/03/10
Designed by: JPC
Checked by:
Drainage Area Information
Total Drainage Area (ftZ) 11,000
Total Drainage Area (ac) 0.25
Impervious Area (ftZ) 10,200
Pervious Area (ft') 800
% Impervious 92.7%
Water Quality Volume (Simple Methodl
Precip. Depth (in) 1
Rv 0.884545
WQv (ft3) 811
Req. Bioretention Bottom Surface Area
Ponding Depth (in) 12
Req. Surface Area (ftZ) 811
Water Quality Volume (NRCS Method)
Precip. Depth (in) 1
Impervious
CN 98
S 0.20
Runoff Depth (in) 0.79
WQv (ft') 672
Pervious
CN 69
S 4.49
Runoff Depth (in) 0.00
WQv (ft3) 0

Total WQv (ft') 672
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr) 7.7
C 0.91
Q (cfs) 1.76
Elevations (ft)
Max Allowable WSE 267
Overflow 266
Soil Media Surface 265
Soil Media Bottom 263
Underdrain Invert 261.67
Excavation Bottom 261.67
Outlet Invert 261.67
Storage Volume Check
Elev. (ft) Area (ftZ)
Soil Surface 265 615
Overflow 266 1390
Upland 267 2040
Design Volume (ft3) 1003
Req. Volume (ft3) 811 OK
10-yr Routine Results
Peak Inflow (cfs) 1.76
Peak Outflow (cfs) 1.73
Peak WSE (ft) 266.15
Drawdown Time
Surface Drained (hrs) 4.2
Top 24" Drained (hrs) 16.2
Req. Bioretention Bottom Surface Area
E Ponding Depth (in) 12
Req. Surface Area (ftZ) 672
Underdrain Design
Soil Ksat (in/hr) 2
Peak Soil Q (cfs) 0.10
Factor of Safety 4
Design Q (cfs) 0.39
Pipe Slope (ft/ft) 0.005
Manning's n 0.013
Pipe Diameter (in) 6
Pipe XC Area (ftZ) 0.20
Pipe Hyd. Radius (ft) 0.125
Pipe Capacity (cfs) 0.40
# of Pipes Required 1
Underdrain Connection Pipe
Peak Soil Q (cfs) 0.05
Factor of Safety 4
Design Q (cfs) 0.19
Pipe Slope (ft/ft) 0.005
Manning's n 0.013
Pipe Diameter (in) 8
Pipe XC Area (W) 0.35
Pipe Hyd. Radius (ft) 0.166667
Pipe Capacity (cfs) 0.85
00
u1 n
N 00
O 00
0 m
r-i
N
? Y -0
7
Q
C

O

Gy9

?
M
vim--

U c_ C

L Q
m
E m
v Qi
rn
m tD
r a,
i
L
r1
:3
Z
41)
U O ?7 ¢

F

ro

Y

E a
N C
d
U

E .
Zil I I I a?? ?IL-j I--
N L
L
? I r-I
CIl ?
Q
m z u
U
L
a
O
N
C
Q
c?^v
m
d
iL4
O
41
U?
m
? d
O a
o O O
?. N O r N

ti 0
rn

O O
m Lf1

c s Ql ?l
UD r
of
_
N
O
> Ln I_n
C
+ N r
+ G d Q t
..{
O r--
?
U -1 N
a
0
m 7 N

u 0

r .

L O O
N
O
m
cD r-i N
C

O
U

LA-1
LM lD !'
o lD ?D tiD
N N N

d

e E 0 3
O p
0 >
Q' o v
U co on a
ai o 0
p ?
Lf?
LD m r+ O W 0 Q
0
0
CD y O O O
N

W Q O O

2
-2 lD Lfl LD
-
? Y N N N
? Sp
O v
m n
M as
tm
0

w 0
0
O O O
a

? w
C) C) 0
O
O O
Q 0 0
V O O O
? ? O O O
E ?j O O
Q O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
0)
O
00
O
CD CD C) O 00 c9 ? O O 00
CV r a^ c O
Q1
Z?
i (D
I ?
s
3
0
I?
0
m
0
N
4
O
O O O O
C4 N O
Q O O 0
(??) af??S
d' QN Q 00 CO0 ? N
?- O O O O
Bioretention Drawdown Calculations
Elevations Time min WSE ft A WSE ft Condition
Soil Media Bottom (ft) 263 0 266.00 0.04
Soil Media Surface (ft) 265 10 265.96 0.04
Overflow (ft) 266 20 265.92 0.04
30 265.88 0.04
Ksat (In/hr) 2 40 265.83 0.04
Timestep (min) 10 50 265.79 0.04
60 265.75 0.04
Drainage Times (Manually Update) 70 265.71 0.04
Surface Drained (hr) 4.2 80 265.67 0.04
Drained 24" Below Surf. (hr) 16.2 90 265.63 0.04
100 265.58 0.04
110 265.54 0.04
120 265.50 0.04
130 265.46 0.04
140 265.42 0.04
150 265.38 0.04
160 265.33 0.04
170 265.29 0.04
180 265.25 0.04
190 265.21 0.04
200 265.17 0.04
210 265.13 0.04
220 265.08 0.04
230 265.04 0.04
240 265.00 0.03
250 264.97 0.03 Surface Drained
260 264.94 0.03 Surface Drained
270 264.92 0.03 Surface Drained
280 264.89 0.03 Surface Drained
290 264.86 0.03 Surface Drained
300 264.83 0.03 Surface Drained
310 264.81 0.03 Surface Drained
320 264.78 0.03 Surface Drained
330 264.75 0.03 Surface Drained
340 26432 0.03 Surface Drained
350 264.69 0.03 Surface Drained
360 264.67 0.03 Surface Drained
370 264.64 0.03 Surface Drained
380 264.61 0.03 Surface Drained
390 264.58 0.03 Surface Drained
400 264.56 0.03 Surface Drained
410 264.53 0.03 Surface Drained
420 264.50 0.03 Surface Drained
430 264.47 0.03 Surface Drained
440 264.44 0.03 Surface Drained
450 264.42 0.03 Surface Drained
460 264.39 0.03 Surface Drained
470 264.36 0.03 Surface Drained
480 264.33 0.03 Surface Drained
490 264.31 0.03 Surface Drained
500 264.28 0.03 Surface Drained
510 264.25 0.03 Surface Drained
520 264.22 0.03 Surface Drained
530 264.19 0.03 Surface Drained
540 264.17 0.03 Surface Drained
550 264.14 0.03 Surface Drained
560 264.11 0.03 Surface Drained
570 264.08 0.03 Surface Drained
580 264.06 0.03 Surface Drained
590 264.03 0.03 Surface Drained
600 264.00 0.03 Surface Drained
610 263.97 0.03 Surface Drained
620 263.94 0.03 Surface Drained
630 263.92 0.03 Surface Drained
640 263.89 0.03 Surface Drained
650 263.86 0.03 Surface Drained
660 263.83 0.03 Surface Drained
670 263.81 0.03 Surface Drained
680 263.78 0.03 Surface Drained
690 263.75 0.03 Surface Drained
700 263.72 0.03 Surface Drained
710 263.69 0.03 Surface Drained
720 263.67 0.03 Surface Drained
730 263.64 0.03 Surface Drained
740 263.61 0.03 Surface Drained
750 263.58 0.03 Surface Drained
760 26356 0.03 Surface Drained
770 263.53 0.03 Surface Drained
780 263.50 0.03 Surface Drained
790 263.47 0.03 Surface Drained
800 263.44 0.03 Surface Drained
810 263.42 0.03 Surface Drained
820 263.39 0.03 Surface Drained
830 263.36 0.03 Surface Drained
840 263.33 0.03 Surface Drained
850 263.31 0.03 Surface Drained
860 263.28 0.03 Surface Drained
870 263.25 0.03 Surface Drained
880 263.22 0.03 Surface Drained
890 263.19 0.03 Surface Drained
900 263.17 0.03 Surface Drained
910 263.14 0.03 Surface Drained
920 263.11 0.03 Surface Drained
930 263.08 0.03 Surface Drained
940 263.06 0.03 Surface Drained
950 263.03 0.03 Surface Drained
960 263.00 0.03 Surface Drained
970 262.97 0.03 24 in. Drained
980 262.94 0.03 24 in. Drained
990 262.92 0.03 24 in. Drained
1000 262.89 0.03 24 in. Drained
1010 262.86 0.03 24 in. Drained
1020 262.83 0.03 24 in. Drained
1030 262.81 0.03 24 in. Drained
1040 262.78 0.03 24 in. Drained
1050 262.75 0.03 24 in. Drained
1060 262.72 0.03 24 in. Drained
1070 262.69 0.03 24 in. Drained
1080 262.67 0.03 24 in. Drained
1090 262.64 0.03 24 in. Drained
1100 262.61 0.03 24 in. Drained
1110 262.58 0.03 241n, Drained
1120 262.56 0.03 24 in. Drained
1130 262.53 0.03 24 in. Drained
1140 262.50 0.03 24 in. Drained
1150 262.47 0.03 24 in. Drained
1160 262.44 0.03 24 in. Drained
1170 262.42 0.03 24 in. Drained
1180 262.39 0.03 24 in. Drained
1190 262.36 0,03 24 in. Drained
1200 262.33 0.03 24 in. Drained
1210 262.31 0.03 24 in. Drained
1220 262.28 0.03 24 in. Drained
1230 262.25 0.03 24 in. Drained
1240 262.22 0.03 24 in. Drained
1250 262.19 0.03 24 in. Drained
1260 262.17 0.03 24 in. Drained
1270 262.14 0.03 24 in. Drained
1280 262.11 0,03 24 in. Drained
1290 262.08 0.03 24 in. Drained
1300 262.06 0.03 24 in. Drained
1310 262.03 0.03 24 in. Drained
1320 262.00 0.03 24 in. Drained
1330 261.97 0.03 24 in. Drained
1340 261.94 0.03 24 in. Drained
1350 261.92 0.03 24 in. Drained
1360 261.89 0.03 24 in. Drained
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number: A
Bioretention Operation and Maintenance Agreement
I will keep a maintenance record on this BMl'. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient BMP elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity
of structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
Important maintenance procedures:
- Immediately after the bioretention cell is established, the plants will be watered
twice weekly if needed until the plants become established (commonly six
weeks).
- Snow, mulch or any other material will NEVER be piled on the surface of the
bioretention cell.
- Heavy equipment will NEVER be driven over the bioretention cell.
- Special care will be taken to prevent sediment from entering the bioretention cell.
- Once a year, a soil test of the soil media will be conducted.
After the bioretention cell is established, I will inspect it once a month and within 24
hours after every storm event greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a Coastal
County). Records of operation and maintenance will be kept in a known set location
and will be available upon request.
Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall
be repaired immediately.
BMP element: Potential problems: How I will remediate the problem:
The entire BMP Trash/ debris is resent. Remove the trash debris.
The perimeter of the Areas of bare soil and/or Regrade the soil if necessary to
bioretention cell erosive gullies have formed. remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
one-time fertilizer a hcation.
The inlet device: pipe, The pipe is clogged (if Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
stone verge or swale a licable . sediment off-site.
The pipe is cracked or Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged (if
applicable)
Erosion is occurring in the Regrade the Swale if necessary to
swale (if applicable). smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
Stone verge is clogged or Remove sediment and clogged
covered in sediment (if stone and replace with clean stone.
applicable).
Bioretention O&M Page 1 of 4
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number: A
BMP element: Potential problems: How I will remediate the problem:
The pretreatment area Flow is bypassing Regrade if necessary to route all
pretreatment area and/or flow to the pretreatment area.
gullies have formed. Restabilize the area after grading.
Sediment has accumulated to Search for the source of the
a depth greater than three sediment and remedy the problem if
inches. possible. Remove the sediment and
restabilize the pretreatment area.
Erosion has occurred. Provide additional erosion
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present. Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand.
The bioretention cell: Best professional practices Prune according to best professional
vegetation show that pruning is needed practices.
to maintain optimal plant
health.
Plants are dead, diseased or Determine the source of the
dying. problem: soils, hydrology, disease,
etc. Remedy the problem and
replace plants. Provide a one-time
fertilizer application to establish the
ground cover if a soil test indicates
it is necessary. If sod was used,
check to see that it was not grown
on clay or impermeable soils.
Re lace sod if necess
Tree stakes/wires are present Remove tree stake/wires (which
six months after lantin . can kill the tree if not removed).
The bioretention cell: Mulch is breaking down or Spot mulch if there are only random
soils and mulch has floated away. void areas. Replace whole mulch
layer if necessary. Remove the
remaining much and replace with
triple shredded hard wood mulch at
a maximum depth of three inches.
Soils and/or mulch are Determine the extent of the dogging
clogged with sediment. - remove and replace either just the
top layers or the entire media as
needed. Dispose of the spoil in an
appropriate off-site location. Use
triple shredded hard wood mulch at
a maximum depth of three inches.
Search for the source of the
sediment and remedy the problem if
possible.
Bioretention O&M Page 2 of 4
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number; A
SMP element: Potential problems: How I will remediate the problem:
The bioretention cell: An annual soil test shows that Dolomitic lime shall be applied as
soils and mulch pH has dropped or heavy recommended per the soil test and
(continued) metals have accumulated in toxic soils shall be removed,
the soil media. disposed of properly and replaced
with new lantin media.
The underdrain system Clogging has occurred. Wash out the underdrain system.
if applicable)
The drop inlet Clogging has occurred. Clean out the drop inlet. Dispose
of the sediment off-site.
The drop inlet is damaged. Repair or replace the drop inlet,
The receiving water Erosion or other signs of Contact the NC Division of Water
damage have occurred at the Quality 401 Oversight Unit Q 919-
outlet. 733-1786.
Bioretention O&M Page 3 of4
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number:
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify the NC DWO
401 Oversight Unit at [phone] of any problems with the system or prior to any
changes to the system or responsible party.
Project name: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
BMP drainage area number: Area A
Print name: Victor Czar
Title: Public Works Director
Address: Sanford Municipal Buildin 225 E. Weathers oon Street Sanford NC 27330
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
I, Vt1?t?1 f"? • V?M?S , a Notary Public for the State of
, ),dk CLI.iQ. I YYA , County of 4A%Z-n?- 4- , do hereby certify that
V ic- -o (L personally appeared before me this '?Q ru4--
day of 1 and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing bioretention maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official seal,
Notary
Public
Co.
SEAL
My commission expires ?9 - a- I - /
Bioretention O&M Page 4 of 4
Date: -
Bioretention Area B
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Required Items Checklist
Design Calculations
Bioretention Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
O??F WAT?poG
r
ICDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
BIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part 111) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
Project name
Contact name
Phone number
Date
Drainage area number
Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
Michael Santowasso
919-833-7152
June, 2010
Drainage Area A
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 11,000 ftz
Impervious area 10,200 ft2
Percent impervious 92.7%
Design rainfall depth 1.0 inch
Peak Flow Calculations
Is pre/post control of the 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow required? N (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth in
1-yr, 24-hr intensity in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow W/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow Wisec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control ft3isec
Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
Minimum volume required 811.0 ff3
Volume provided 1,003.0 ft3 OK
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5" runoff volume ff3
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required 0 ft3
Volume provided ft3
Cell Dimensions
Ponding depth of water 12 inches OK
Ponding depth of water 1.00 ft
Surface area of the top of the bioretention cell 1,390.0 ft2 OK
Length: 95 ft OK
Width 18 ft OK
-or- Radius it
Media and Soils Summary
Drawdown time, ponded volume 42 hr OK
Drawdown time, to 24 inches below surface 16.2 hr OK
Drawdown time, total: 20.4 hr
in-situ soil.
Soil permeability 0.11 in/hr Insufficient. Increase infiltration rate or include underdrains.
Panting media soil:
Soil permeability 2.00 in/hr OK
Soil composition
% Sand (by volume) 85% OK
% Fines (by volume) 10% OK
% Organic (by volume) 5% OK
Total 100%
Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media 10 (unitless) OK
Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.8
,- of 'nin
Parts I and IL Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Basin Elevations
Temporary pool elevation
Type of bicretention cell (answer "Y" to only one of the two
following questions):
Is this a grassed cell?
Is this a cell with trees/shrubs?
Planting elevation (top of the mulch or grass sod layer)
Depth of mulch
Bottom of the planting media soil
Planting media depth
Depth of washed sand below planting media soil
Are underdrains being installed?
How many clean out pipes are being installed?
What factor of safety is used for sizing the underdrains? (See
BMP Manual Section 12.3.6)
Additional distance between the bottom of the planting media and
the bottom of the cell to account for underdrains
Bottom of the cell required
SHWT elevation
Distance from bottom to SHWT
Internal Water Storage Zone (IWS)
Does the design include IWS
Elevation of the top of the upturned elbow
Separation of WS and Surface
Planting Plan
Number of tree species
Number of shrub species
Number of herbaceous groundcover species
Additional Information
Does volume in excess of the design volume bypass the
bioretention cell?
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 30 feet from surface waters (50 feet if
SA waters)?
Is the BMP located at least 100 feet from water supply wells?
Are the vegetated side slopes equal to or less than 3:1?
Is the BMP located in a proposed drainage easement with access
to a public Right of Way (ROW)?
Inlet velocity (from treatment system)
Is the area surrounding the cell likely to undergo development in
the future?
Are the slopes draining to the bicretention cell greater than 20%?
Is the drainage area permanently stabilized?
Pretreatment Used
(Indicate Type Used with an "X" in the shaded cell)
Gravel and grass
(flinches gravel followed by 3-5 ft of grass)
Grassed swaie
Forebay
Other
266.00 fmsl
Y (Y or N) OK
N (Y or N)
265 fmsl
0 inches Insufficient mulch depth, unless installing grassed cell.
263 fmsl
2ft
0.33 ft
Y (Y or N)
2 OK
4 OK
1ft
261.67 fmsl
259.67 fmsl
2ft OK
N (Y or N)
fmsl
265 ft
0
Y (Y or N) OK
N (Y or N) Excess volume must pass through filter.
f1
N (Y or N) Show how flow is evenly distributed.
Y (Y or N)
Y (Y or N)
Y (Y or N)
N (Y or N)
ft/sec
OK
OK
OK
Insufficient ROW location.
N (Y or N) OK
N (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
X
OK
Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.8
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
til. RE, 00 ' . S CHECK, $T
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 foifowing 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-22 1. Plans (1" 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
SMP-1 - Design at ultimate build-out,
SMP-3 Off-site Drainage (if applicable),
Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Cell dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Flow splitting device,
Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Clean-out pipe locations,
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
LENS D_1 2. Plan details (1" = 30' or larger) for the bioretention cell showing:
- Cell dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Design at ultimate build-out,
Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Clean-out pipe locations,
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
Indicate the P-Index between 10 and 30.
LMS DD1 3. Section view of the bioretention cell 0" = 20' or larger) showing:
Side slopes, 3:1 or lower,
Underdrain system (if applicable), and
Bioretention cell layers [ground level and slope, pre-treatment, ponding depth, mulch depth, fill media,
depth, washed sand, filter fabric (or choking stone if applicable), #57 stone, underdrains (if applicable),
SHWT level(s), and overflow structure]
LMS SMP 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. All elevations shall be in
feet mean sea level (fmsl). Results of soils tests of both the planting soil and the in situ soil must include:
Soil permeability,
Soil composition, (% sand, % fines, % organic), and
P-Index.
LMS D-11 5. A detailed planting plan (1" . 20` or larger) prepared by a qualified individual showing:
- A variety of suitable species,
Sizes, spacing and location of plantings,
Total quantity of each type of plant specified,
A planting detail,
The source nursery forthe plants, and
Fertilizer and watering requirements to establish vegetation.
LMS DD=1 6. A construction sequence that shows how the bioretention cell will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
LMS SMP App. A 7. The supporting calculations (including underdrain calculations, if applicable).
LMS SMPApp. A $. A copy of the signed and notarized inspection and maintenance (1&M) agreement.
9. A copy of the deed restriction.
Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.7 Part !H, Page 1 of 1
m
a-
m
C
d
4-
[O
U
Q1
L
Q.
L
a
H
C
O
_O

r-
m
rn
r?
ai
z
OD
Ln
,Zt
LJD
Lri
m
N
Q
Q
Q
0
Z
O
yL`
Q7
C
0
O
V)
C
m
r-L
X
LW
t
c
?D
a-
++
C
a
E
ro
a
L
a
r?
3
a
V)
rp
a?
L-
U O
O p
? rn
m
? o
m N
? m
GJ
G7 ?
E E
Z Z
44
u ?
D O
co
ro
a
L
Q
i
m
a
Q
ro
O
0-
LA
a
n4
O
0
c
O
C
?r
a
L
O_
L1L1
O
C.
.L
u
V1
t?l
O
r-I
m
O
0
ti

0
U
a
a (U
t
to u
D V

U M M O
? O d d
O O

$
C
co d
C
00
lQ Lr'j N CO
r-I c-I ?
m C
O
O O O
Q #
-`
>
L >
L >
L
Q 0. Q
V
E E

R

1- n-
Bioretention Design
Project Name: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Project Number: 32039-000-104
Description: Bioretention Design for Sludge Disposal Area -- Area B
Date: 06/03/10
Designed by: JPC
Checked by:
Drainage Area information
Total Drainage Area (ftz) 16,000
Total Drainage Area (ac) 0.37
Impervious Area (ftz) 15,800
Pervious Area (ftx) 200
% Impervious 98.8%
Water Quality Volume (Simple Method)
Precip. Depth (in) 1
Rv 0.93875
WQv (ft3) 1252
Req. Bioretention Bottom Surface Area
Ponding Depth (in) 12
Req. Surface Area (ft') 1252
Water Quality Volume (MRCS Method)
Precip. Depth (in) 1
Impervious
CN 98
S 0.20
Runoff Depth (in) 0.79
WQv (ft3) 1041
Pervious
CN 69
S 4.49
Runoff Depth (in) 0.00
WQV (ft3) 0

Total WQv (ft3) 1041
Peak Flow Calculation
Tc (min) 5
10-yr Intensity (in/hr) 7.7
C 0.94
Q (cfs) 2.67
Elevations (ft)
Max Allowable WSE 245
Overflow 246
Soil Media Surface 244
Soil Media Bottom 241
Underdrain Invert 239.67
Excavation Bottom 239.67
Outlet Invert 239.67
Storage Volume Check
Elev. (ft) Area (ft2)
Soil Surface 244 1013
Overflow 245 1641
Upland 246 2166
Design Volume (ft') 1327
Req. Volume (ft3) 1252 01
10- r Routin Results
Peak Inflow (cfs) 2.67
Peak Outflow (cfs) 2.64
Peak WSE (ft) 245.20
Drawdown Time
Surface Drained (hrs) 7.3
Top 24" Drained (hrs) 19.2
Req. Bioretention Bottom Surface Area
Ponding Depth (in) 12
Req. Surface Area (ft') 1041
Underdrain Design
Soil Ksat (in/hr) 2
Peak Soil Q (cfs) 0.13
Factor of Safety 4
Design Q (cfs) 0.51
Pipe Slope (ft/ft) 0.005
Manning`s n 0.013
Pipe Diameter (in) 6
Pipe XC Area (ft2) 0.20
Pipe Hyd. Radius (ft) 0.125
Pipe Capacity (cfs) 0.40
# of Pipes Required 2
Underdrain Connection Pipe
Peak Soil Q (cfs) 0.06
Factor of Safety 4
Design Q (cfs) 0.25
Pipe Slope (ft/ft) 0.005
Manning's n 0.013
Pipe Diameter (in) 8
Pipe XC Area (ft2) 0.35
Pipe Hyd. Radius (ft) 0.166667
Pipe Capacity (cfs) 0.85

O
C _c c
E

?

E

U v
N

a rn

cn

a ?

c

U
c
c

a

°

d

E

v
?
c
C
0
o
d
E

u
z p H
L L
6J L
L
ca C G
00
rn
Z V
v V
L
m
Q
U
N f1'
rn
r-i
N
t
N
C
0
ro
a?
r+
N
Q1
IC
r.+
° ° Q
v o
O o
O c
N 0 ri N

O ?
C 0 ?
o d
n ct
v, 0 0

- m
r1 00
0
r oC
v
m O N
cn
O
> n
° m

U
Q
C) n
U m

a?

M r1 l0

O
0 ?t
LO i.D
tH
` P
I N
3
O
V

LL.!
L
0
a
d
d
`--' N N N
C

0
V
C 0 > O
Q V L 0 Q)
CO Ir
0 O
0 V)
0 0 0
O O O
0 0 0
0 0 0
? ? `rtv
N N N
O O
0 0
Q O O
0 0 0
0 0 O
O 0 O
0 0 0
ri N
p C). C.
O O
O
Q
O
O
Q
O O O O O O
O Lq O LQ O LSD
? N N r r p
(SIO) MOI-A
4
O
O
00
d
ti
I ?
US
CD ?
? I
QI
O
i
I
i
O
co
O
N
O
r
0
O
O
41) e6els
NO O ? ljL VO ON
?- r r O O O O
Bioretention Drawdown Calculations
Elevations Time min WSE ft ? WSJ ft
Soil Media Bottom (ft) 241 0 246.00 0.05
Soil Media Surface (ft) 244 10 245.95 0.05
Overflow (ft) 246 20 245.91 0.05
30 245.86 0.05
Ksat (in/hr) 2 40 245.81 0.05
Timestep (min) 10 50 245.77 0.05
60 245.72 0.05
Drainage Times (Manually Update) 70 245.68 0.05
Surface Drained (hr) 7.3 80 245.63 0.05
Drained 24" Below Surf. (hr) 19.2 90 245.58 0.05
100 245.54 0.05
110 245.49 0.05
120 245.44 0.05
130 245.40 0.05
140 245.35 0.05
150 245.31 0.05
160 245.26 0.05
170 245.21 0.05
180 245.17 0.05
190 245.12 0.05
200 245.07 0.05
210 245.03 0.05
220 244.98 0.05
230 244.94 0.05
240 244.89 0.05
250 244.84 0.05
260 244.80 0.05
270 244.75 0.05
280 244.70 0.05
290 244.66 0.05
300 244.61 0.05
310 244.56 0.05
320 244.52 0.05
330 244.47 0.05
340 244.43 0.05
350 244.38 0.05
360 24433 0.05
370 244.29 0.05
380 244.24 0.05
390 244.19 0.05
400 244.15 0.05
410 244.10 0.05
420 244.06 0.05
Condition
430 244.01 0.05
440 243.96 0.03 Surface Drained
450 243.94 0.03 Surface Drained
460 243.91 0.03 Surface Drained
470 243.88 0.03 Surface Drained
480 243.85 0.03 Surface Drained
490 243.82 0.03 Surface Drained
500 243.80 0.03 Surface Drained
510 243.77 0.03 Surface Drained
520 243.74 0.03 Surface Drained
530 243.71 0.03 Surface Drained
540 243.69 0.03 Surface Drained
550 243.66 0.03 Surface Drained
560 243.63 0.03 Surface Drained
570 243.60 0.03 Surface Drained
580 243.57 0.03 Surface Drained
590 243.55 0.03 Surface Drained
600 243.52 0.03 Surface Drained
610 243.49 0.03 Surface Drained
620 243.46 0.03 Surface Drained
630 243.44 0.03 Surface Drained
640 243.41 0.03 Surface Drained
650 243.38 0.03 Surface Drained
660 243.35 0.03 Surface Drained
670 243.32 0.03 Surface Drained
680 243.30 0.03 Surface Drained
690 243.27 0.03 Surface Drained
700 243.24 0.03 Surface Drained
710 243.21 0.03 Surface Drained
720 243.19 0.03 Surface Drained
730 243.16 0.03 Surface Drained
740 243.13 0.03 Surface Drained
750 243.10 0.03 Surface Drained
760 243.07 0.03 Surface Drained
770 243.05 0.03 Surface Drained
780 243.02 0.03 Surface Drained
790 242.99 0.03 Surface Drained
800 242.96 0.03 Surface Drained
810 242.94 0.03 Surface Drained
820 242.91 0.03 Surface Drained
830 242.88 0.03 Surface Drained
840 242.85 0.03 Surface Drained
850 242.82 0.03 Surface Drained
860 242.80 0.03 Surface Drained
870 242.77 0.03 Surface Drained
880 242.74 0.03 Surface Drained
890 242.71 0.03 Surface Drained
900 242.69 0.03 Surface Drained
910 242.66 0.03 Surface Drained
920 242.63 0.03 Surface Drained
930 242.60 0.03 Surface Drained
940 242.57 0.03 Surface Drained
950 242.55 0.03 Surface Drained
960 242.52 0.03 Surface Drained
970 242.49 0.03 Surface Drained
980 242.46 0.03 Surface Drained
990 242.44 0.03 Surface Drained
1000 242.41 0.03 Surface Drained
1010 242.38 0.03 Surface Drained
1020 242.35 0.03 Surface Drained
1030 242.32 0.03 Surface Drained
1040 242.30 0.03 Surface Drained
1050 242.27 0.03 Surface Drained
1060 242.24 0.03 Surface Drained
1070 242.21 0.03 Surface Drained
1080 242.19 0.03 Surface Drained
1090 242.16 0.03 Surface Drained
1100 242.13 0.03 Surface Drained
1110 242.10 0.03 Surface Drained
1120 242.07 0.03 Surface Drained
1130 242.05 0.03 Surface Drained
1140 242.02 0.03 Surface Drained
1150 241.99 0.03 24 in. Drained
1160 241.96 0.03 24 in. Drained
1170 241.94 0.03 24 in. Drained
1180 241.91 0.03 24 in. Drained
1190 241.88 0.03 24 in. Drained
1200 241.85 0.03 24 in. Drained
1210 241.82 0.03 24 in. Drained
1220 241.80 0.03 24 in. Drained
1230 241.77 0.03 24 in. Drained
1240 241.74 0.03 24 in. Drained
1250 241.71 0.03 24 in. Drained
1260 241.69 0.03 24 in. Drained
1270 241.66 0.03 24 in. Drained
1280 241.63 0.03 24 in. Drained
1290 241.60 0.03 24 in. Drained
1300 241.57 0.03 24 in. Drained
1310 241.55 0.03 24 in. Drained
1320 241.52 0.03 24 in. Drained
1330 241.49 0.03 24 in. Drained
1340 241.46 0.03 24 in. Drained
1350 241.44 0.03 24 in. Drained
1360 241.41 0.03 24 in. Drained
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number:. B
Bioretention Operation and Maintenance Agreement
I will keep a maintenance record on this BMP. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient BM' elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity
of structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
Important maintenance procedures:
- Immediately after the bioretention cell is established, the plants will be watered
twice weekly if needed until the plants become established (commonly six
weeks).
- Snow, mulch or any other material will NEVER be piled on the surface of the
bioretention cell.
- Heavy equipment will NEVER be driven over the bioretention cell.
Special care will be taken to prevent sediment from entering the bioretention cell.
- Once a year, a soil test of the soil media will be conducted.
After the bioretention cell is established, l will inspect it once a month and within 24
hours after every storm event greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a Coastal
County). Records of operation and maintenance will be kept in a known set location
and will be available upon request.
Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall
be repaired immediately.
BMP element: Potential roblems: How T will remediate the roblem:
The entire BMP 'T'rash debris is resent. Remove the trash debris.
The perimeter of the Areas of bare soil and/or Regrade the soil if necessary to
bioretention cell erosive gullies have formed. remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
one-time fertilizer application.
The inlet device: pipe, The pipe is clogged (if Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
stone verge or swale applicable). sediment off site.
The pipe is cracked or Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged (if
applicable)
Erosion is occurring in the Regrade the swale if necessary to
swale (if applicable). smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
Stone verge is clogged or Remove sediment and clogged
covered in sediment (if stone and replace with clean stone.
applicable).
Bioretention O&M Pagel of 4
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number: $
BMP element: Potential problems: How I will remediate the problem:
The pretreatment area Flow is bypassing Regrade if necessary to route all
pretreatment area and/or flow to the pretreatment area.
gullies have formed. Restabilize the area after grading.
Sediment has accumulated to Search for the source of the
a depth greater than three sediment and remedy the problem if
inches. possible. Remove the sediment and
restabilize the pretreatment area.
Erosion has occurred. Provide additional erosion
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
revent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present. Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand.
The bioretention cell: Best professional practices Prune according to best professional
vegetation show that pruning is needed practices.
to maintain optimal plant
health.
Plants are dead, diseased or Determine the source of the
dying. problem: soils, hydrology, disease,
etc. Remedy the problem and
replace plants. Provide a one-time
fertilizer application to establish the
ground cover if a soil test indicates
it is necessary. If sod was used,
check to see that it was not grown
on clay or impermeable soils.
Re lace sod if necesLag.
Tree stakes/ wires are present Remove tree stake/wires (which
six months after planting. can kill the tree if not removed).
The bioretention cell: Mulch is breaking down or Spot mulch if there are only random
soils and mulch has floated away. void areas. Replace whole mulch
layer if necessary. Remove the
remaining much and replace with
triple shredded hard wood mulch at
a maximum depth of three inches.
Soils and/or mulch are Determine the extent of the dogging
clogged with sediment. - remove and replace either just the
top layers or the entire media as
needed. Dispose of the spoil in an
appropriate off-site location. Use
triple shredded hard wood mulch at
a maximum depth of three inches.
Search for the source of the
sediment and remedy the problem if
possible.
Bioretention O&M Page 2 of 4
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number: 8
BMP element: Potential problems- How I will remediate the problem-
The bioretention cell; An annual soil test shows that Dolomitic lime shall be applied as
souls and mulch pH has dropped or heavy recommended per the soil test and
(continued) metals have accumulated in toxic soils shall be removed,
the soil media. disposed of properly and replaced
with new planting media.
The underdrain system Clogging has occurred. Wash out the underdrain system.
if applicable)
The drop inlet Clogging has occurred. Clean out the drop inlet. Dispose
of the sediment off-site.
The drop inlet is damaged. Repair or replace the dro inlet.
The receiving water Erosion or other signs of Contact the NC Division of Water
damage have occurred at the Quality 401 Oversight Unit @ 919-
outlet. 733-1786.
Bioretention O&M Page 3 of 4
Permit Number:
Drainage Area Number: 8
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify the NC DW
401 Oversight Unit at [phone] of any problems with the system or prior to any
changes to the system or responsible parry.
Project name: Big Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
BMP drainage area number: Area B
Print name: Victor Czar
Title: Public Works Director
Address: Sanford Municipal Building, 225 E. Weathersnoon Street, Sanford NC 27330
Phone: [phone]
Signature:
Date: -G -Z?7 - ;,r,
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
-,a Notary Public for the State of
on?f`IiGr County of L11`1 f do hereby certify that
personally appeared before me this ??Ab-tA day of + , j1 D and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing bioretention maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official seal,
Notary
hblic
tt Cq;
My commission expires " ,-?2_ -
Bioretention O&M Page 4 of 4
•
0

Sand Filter
Sand Filter Supplement
Required Items Checklist
Design Calculations
Sand Filter Operation & Maintenance Agreement
Permit Number:
(to be provided by D WQ)
NCDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
SAND FILTER SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out on fine, printed and submitted with all of the required information.
Make sure to also rill out and submit the Required Items Checklist (Section Ill) and the i&M Agreement (Section IV)
Project name
Contact name
Phone number
Date
Drainage area number
Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant Ex
Michael Santowasso
C?
C t
919-833-7152
October, 2009
DA-E
Ill. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area (AD) 43,903.00 ftz OK
Impervious area 19,672.00 ft2
% Impervious 0A) 44.8%%
Design rainfall depth (RD) 1.00 in
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth 3.00 in
1-yr, 24-hr intensity 0.13 in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff 2.68 ft3lsec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff 3.18 ft isec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control 0.50 ft3lsec
Storage Volume
Design volume (WQV)
Adjusted water quality vciume (WQVAdI)
Volume contained in the sedimentation basin and on top of the sand filter
Top of sand filterlgrate elevation
Weir elevation (between chambers)
Maximum head on the sedimentation basin and sand filter (h,MaxFlner)
Average head on the sedimentation basin and sand filter i
Runoff Coefficient (Rv)
Type of Sand Filter
Open sand filter?
SHWT elevation
Bottom of the sand filter elevation
Clearance (dsHwr)
Closed/pre-cast sand filter?
SHWT elevation
Bottom of the sand filter elevation
Clearance NSHWr)
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 i
1,658.00 ft3
1,243.50 ft3
1,520.00
244 ft amsl
228.5 ft amsl
4.75 ft
2.38 ft
0.45 (unitless)
YorN
ft amsl
ft amsl
Y YorN
240.00 ft amsl
226.00 ft amsl
-14.00
15.50 ft
OK
OK
OK
Form SW401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Sept17 Parts 1 and 11. Project Design Summary, Page 1 of 3
Permit Number:_
(to be provided by D WQ)
Sedimentation Basin
Surface area of sedimentation basin (As) 160.00 ft2
Sedimentation basin/chamber depth 2.00 ft
Sand Filter
Surface area of sand filter (AF) 160.00 ft,
Top of sand media filter bed elevation 228.50 ft amsl
Bottom of sand media filter bedldrain elevation 226.50 ft amsl
Depth of the sand media filter bed 1 2.00 ft
Coefficient of permeability for the sand filter (k) 6.00 (ft/day)
Outlet diameter 4.00 in
Outlet dischargelflowrate 0.01 ft'Isec
Time to drain the sand filter (t) 27.00 hours
Time to drain the sand filter (t) 1.13 days
Additional Information
Does volume in excess of the design volume bypass the sand filter? Y
Is an off-line flow-splitting device used? Y
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? ft
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)? Y
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 Y
Is the BMP located in a recorded drainage easement with a recorded access N
easement to a public Right of Way (ROW)?
What is the width of the sedimentation chamberlforebay (Wald)? 4.00 ft
What is the depth of sand over the outlet pipe (dpipe)? 1.00 ft
Figure 1: Open Sand Filter
:, , ItutrLItRll nll S,nrri F t llct
hauthrr
Flnc?' ++utlet I'y,e
e-;
1 2- tr
In-;tt?t 4+,t1' fii•a ,nnhf?i Iltslt Wolrk T:d,le
..........
R-:d
Figure 2: Closed Sand Filter
h?
OK. Meets minimum, but may need to be increased to
OK. Meets minimum, but may need to be increased to
OK. Submit drainage calculations.
YorN OK
YorN OK
YcrN
Yor N
Yor N OK
Yor N
YorN OK
Y or N Insufficient ROW location.
OK
OK
rlt,+Fr tIF
Is -4 V17
Form SW401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Sept17 Parts I and 11. Project Design Summary, Page 2 of 3
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
1
Weir
Flow
Concrete Chamber
Sedimentation Chamber
(Deposition of Heavy sediments,
Form SW401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Sept17
Wsed
Grates
dspace, hMaxFilter
€ dr,pe d
E dsyvvr
Sand Filter Chamber
(filtration ofsolids)
Paris I and II. 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 Page/ 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-6 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 D-01 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 DD=01 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 Alp, A 5, Supporting calculations (including drainage calculations)
LMS App. A 6. Signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement
7. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
Form 5W401-Sand Filter-Rev.5 2009Septl7 Part III, Page 1 of 1
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 (ft2) W 43903
Total (ac) 1.01
Pervious (ft2) 24231
Impervious (ftz) 19672
% Impervious 44.8%
Water Quality Volume
Precip. (in) 1
Rv
_.., ?.W..,?. 0.453
WQV (ft3) 1658
WQVadj (ft3) 1244
Underdrain Design
W WSol] 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
nnaximum neap on the
.,,.,... hmaxfilter (ft) bang rntei
4.75
havgfilter (ft) 2.38
Atotreq (ftZ) 261.84
Ased (ftZ) 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
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ
Drainage Area Number: F
Sand Filter Operation and Maintenance Agreement
I will keep a maintenance record on this BMP. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient BMP elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity of
structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
Important maintenance procedures:
The drainage area will be carefully managed to reduce the sediment load to the
sand filter.
Once a year, sand media will be skimmed.
The sand filter media will be replaced whenever it fails to function properly after
vacuuming.
The sand filter will be inspected quarterly and within 24 hours after every storm event
greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a Coastal County). Records of operation and
maintenance will be kept in a known set location and will be available upon request.
Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall be
repaired immediately.
BMP element: Potential problem: How I will remediate the problem
The entire BMP Trash/ debris is resent. Remove the trash/debris.
The adjacent pavement Sediment is present on the Sweep or vacuum the sediment as
(if applicable) pavement surface. soon as possible.
The perimeter of the Areas of bare soil and/or Regrade the soilzf necessary to
sand filter erosive gullies have formed. remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
one-time fertilizer application.
Vegetation is too short or too Maintain vegetation at a height of
long, a roximatel six inches.
The flow diversion The structure is clogged. Unclog the conveyance and dispose
structure of an sediment off-site.
The structure is damaged. Make any necessary repairs or
replace if damage is too large for
repair.
The pretreatment area Sediment has accumulated to Search for the source of the
a depth of greater than six sediment and remedy the problem if
inches. possible. Remove the sediment and
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Erosion has occurred. Provide additional erosion
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problem.
Weeds are present. Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If a pesticide is used, wipe it
on the plants rather than s ra 'ng-
Form SW401-Sand Filter O&M-Rev.3 Page I of 3
BMP element: Potential problem: How I will remediate the roblem:
The filter bed and Water is ponding on the Check to see if the collector system
underdrain collection surface for more than 24 is clogged and flush if necessary. If
system hours after a storm. water still ponds, remove the top
few inches of filter bed media and
replace. If water still ponds, then
consult an expert.
The outflow spillway Shrubs or trees have started Remove shrubs and trees
and pipe to ow on the embankment. immediately.
The outflow pipe is clogged. Provide additional erosion
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problems.
The outflow i is damaged. Repair or replace the i e.
The receiving water Erosion or other signs of Contact the NC Division of Water
damage have occurred at the Quality 5401 Oversight Unit at 919-
outlet. 733-1786.
Form SW401-Sand Fitter O&M-Rev.3 Page 2 of 3
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any
problems with the system or prior to any changes to the system or responsible party.
Project name:Bi Buffalo Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
BMP drainage area number:E
Print name:Victor Czar
Title:Public Works Director
Address:Sanford Municipal Building 225 E. Weathers oon Street Sanford NC 27330
r
Date: JAP • 1' n 47 --
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
A A, Q , a Notary Public for the State of
I,
&AdirUz,, County of J&!g rGf?- & , do hereby certify that
personally appeared before me this
day of f?,b+e*12 and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing sand filter maintenance requirements, Witness my hand and official seal,
My commission expires A- Q L- gal
Form SW401-Sand Filter O&M-Rev.3 Page 3 of
Bioretention and Sand Filter Required items Justification
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
August 6, 2010
Mr. Ian McMillan
Acting Supervisor
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27644
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4611 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
Bioretention and Sand Filter Required Items Justification
Dear Mr. McMillan:
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 design supplements which are not included.
Because the proposed bioretention areas and sand filter discharge 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.
Z, N&uf bakwA-?
L. Michael Santowasso, P.E.
Senior Associate
LMS/bpr
Sanford-Bloretention and Sand Finer Req Jtastification.doc
New York. NY • Philadelphia. PA • Raleigh, NG o Charlotte, NG • Greensboro. NC • Charleston, SC • Atlanta. GA • Fairfax, VA < Hampton Roads, VA • Baltimore, MD • Cincinnati, OH • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL Wami, FL
•
0

S&ME Soils Reports
October 12, 2009
April 21, 2010
fS&ME
October 12, 2009
Hazen and Sawyer; P.C.
4011 Westchase Boulevard
Suite .500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Attention: Mr. Mlchae] Santowasso
Refereilce, Storm-wafer 13AIP Soil Testing
City of Sanford WW`FP
Lee County, North. Carolina
S&.ME, Inc. Project No. 1588-09-051
Dear Mr. Santowasso-
S&.ME, Inc. (S&ME) has conducted a Soil Scientist Evaluation per S&JAF Proposal No.
1789-09-PO68 and Letter of Authorization No. 1-09 dated September 28, 2009 to provide
information for a new Stormwater Management Kermit Application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources QI CDENR) - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). A soil scientist investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil
properties of three (3) proposed Stormwater Kest klanagement Practices (BN4p) areas to
determine suitability for stortnwater 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 (SHE,/T) elevations. In-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity testing was performed
to determine the permeability of soils below the proposed storrnwater 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 I). The site
consists of the existing WWTP.
S&ME soil scientists conducted an evaluation of the soils within 3 areas identified by
Ms. Liaiie 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-DWQ
S&ME, 1NC. / 3718 Old Battleground goad / Greensboro, NC 27410 / p 336.288.7180 ,' 336.288.89801 www.smeinc.com
Storrntroater BIAP Soif Testing
City of Sanford VAVTP
SWE Project No. 1588-09-081
October 12; 2009
Maps were prepared using Arcview 9.2 a Geographic Information System (GIS). Base
naps 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 (Sail Series)
S&ME conducted 3 hand-auger borings (I-IAB) 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 approxiniatel.y 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
thiclcness 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 (MRCS)-Soil `T'axonomy. The soils :valuated were most similar to the Pinkston
soil series at HABO, Udorthents/Pinkston soil series at HAB94 and Udorthents/Fill at
HAB 4 5.
Constant Head Permeameter Testing and Seasonal Riga Water Table
Determinations
S&.ME performed the in-situ soil permeability testing by using a compact Constant bead
permeameter. S&MI 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 oil 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%-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 permearneter. The water was allowed to clove through the
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 5 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 WVVTP 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 to 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 oil 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

Orr-34" Soil Type
(Soil Series)

11"-situ testing
depth (ir-iches bgs)
M-situ Soil
Permeability
(in/fir) seasonal ffigh
Water Table
(SHWT tic€'ow
ground sui,face)
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 inclies
Hand Auger Boring 4 - Test ! Pinkston/Pill 16 to 23 0.009 a 32 inches
Eland Auger Boring 4 - Test 2 Pinkston/fill 12 to 22 0A08 32 inches
Nand Auger Boring 5 Test l Udorlhents/Pill ss 91 to 100 0.012 44 inches
Hand Auger Boring 5 - Test 2 Udorthents/kill 80 to 88 0,01,5 44 inches
Stormurater BMP Soil Testing
City of Sanford VIMITP
SWE Project No. 1888-09-051
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&M E, lneo
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
S 1158811,588 REPORTS%Reports.09\1588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C11588-09-051 Hazen and Sawyer, P C.
Stownwater BMP Soil Report.doc
Y
i'
Deep River .
�I
'•a
1i
SITE
F
i 421
II
IF
i
4z nford
a
42 4Y ti
Source: Basernap provided by SSRI, Inc. ,
SCALE 111 = 1 mile FIGURE
DATE: 10-08-09 VICINITY MAP NO DRAWN BY' JE3P S&ME CITY
OF SANFOR©
PROJECT NO: VVWW.SMEINC.COM WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
1588-09-051 1 LEE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

s ?
v s
a
0
m
s?
0
0
g
A
d
a
a
y

A
K
l9
O
s

r4

111
n !r fr 'J,` /' ?. z
.
C

?
j-
s
---'----- _..__-. ------ ? -- I _

x
D ? I ; i
? I v I A f i
_ f I' Ili' v1
.Y .1 \ ?Ir it ii
a'yls nhN ? r ? / - '
HAND AUGER BORING SCl LE:
*S&ME N nt To scale oxre 10-08-09
& KSAT LOCATION MAP PROJSCTNO' ?RAmaY ABP
o CITY OF SANFORD 1588-09-451
WASTE f ERTREATMr: j %NT 'H'i3'Y1SMEIIIN C0114 cNEc.cEOer RPW
t,
6
O
O
fal
q?q
}}1?+1
Yb[
LL?
l"

CL
C
?z
G?
M
L
.a
[9
G
8
N
I"? N
an 3
al
n 3' 'rs
m tl
rn 0 a ro Q
r
4 y? P
L7 y O pp
.- ? w o0
? O tl w
in7 u C ? ? O
.a
v
4
H?
N

I1 161
0

a
G Jj ?
u v

?r
w
w_
C
O
k
4 u
v
II °
u-
:? C,J
I
!w
?n
v
i,
o v
C u O C ti o ri
U U U
t/ p}
G C o n m m to
' xnoo°o,°o
c h"o taco be
Q H
4-+
O
all r ?
ci r? ? o ?n c? ?n
? C ?n to cP ? t?
v. F ?g wi o
0
a? o
c ;; b
0 o C7 0
C L w w
r 4> U
U f"4 N
O ? dl ? O O? G
? t o U ^w P O
o p G Ei ? ?
ro
i2 Rp i lH 11 off
w a> b {O C?
? ? ro
1? 11 'I II
E
II II
K?
N

? w

do ? ?
GVJ M

?
E

a

C ? M L
O a.
U c ?
? r
?
D
:a Ctl
Q Q
4
.
O
re

aU
? li w

:]
?- ,w
N Fr
:S
O
cNi
a
u Aj
>W O
t>.
7
v?
a
h
OJ
c
O
to
0
0
?Y
?i
?r
bw
L?
r

U
aQ A I

3
0

a
0
U
N (?
7 ?
=i!
W
A
CD CIE
CD r
? flY ? U,
b W
OO
.p
k
F•t
M M
Q? Iq
4{
'cy u d
? O O
s. C C
d v
R W
ro
3 ?
3
C
O
N w
C1 W
?i
?i
El
F
1-
c?
G
? t7 O Cp CS 6
? ? t. O O O G7 C?
O p
u
N'
O C •--. C? O T C a
-- w O G O C3 C7
p o V G P? 4 Q
R ?
O
O C P 11, Q kr,
-!
6., sh
X ? d in M] `r'! V6J
O
w
,D
m Q^
C ? -Ly
W A
. A a?.n V
Y m'
t Y
L o E?'. hiiw oro, H
Gi C1 "? C .Li rt C?
1? II ? E?
C
II {{
u Ol
rl)
Q
u
w N
-? CV
b G:3 ? 6
M
rAl o
II E1 ? ??
M ? ? a
Q O C.
U etl H
Q !9
R o
o iv
s
co II u
MF ro b ?'
C4
d
G
iw A
T.
r
c?
r
Y
r
i
M1i
0
Ci
`L
0
a
N
O
hex
con
r.R
F
G
8
QO
F
F3 ?
h - l? ----mm-i

r u

_

J
ct
to
0 5 '?
m
V) 40-
rn ??1 o
a C ro?o+
m .^ ? «>•' Dora.,
y; C - ci
N ? V
V b U ? •`•
y ?
.Q
L
n
C
in
'-a
N ate/ ??

to <n
O U
G

N ? C ? v
M

?
C C

.-
_ ao orb nc
? C rv N q

,O

?

v c "o occjc?

u
? J
C jj
T "? 48
R

Q g q R
ID
0 o p p p
0 0 6 6,6
66
Q p

c:
c

x o !!? GM k
a
a,
ex

_ h

? v
v C

o
a p
U A O
p m

o r
o w I!
Jr,
m
? C7

? ue
.
'"i ? ? ? ?O -.-. +•r C
s
U ? ilit
?
f
IE 1

II
.. ?
I
qq
p
?
A r+d °° W
H €f s:

31 E€W
0
a0
a
?% w N
P4
O 6
II If
L?
? O
U ?
U ? ? c5
0
.tz
t ?? I!

H to p a•,
(
l? H+e m
v
?
y
4I ,
ad

'd u
C
Sir M
O
y
y
O
N
n!
O
?t
t?
V 1
b
d
C
O
u
eA
C

o

w c
?
N?t V
i
r ?
?t {1r
oA i
.o z ro
VJ4. O
.. w Cl
O Cl
n! ° p
N W
00
?^ .-4 lL a+w U 12
u
.p
L
Gae
II
,n
e? es a?

r? m
O O U
a 3 I^
^p v c?
v
O O G7 :
?
tq
u ? ?,

' ti" N N
O O66cD
.S7 L
L
y
« O O

?y m
el
e7
R

HE
S en m
C
^ O o C Z> C
y,y C', ?
O O cp 1w C
u
i
p ?
o ca G+ e
F.

n

v C7 !r
o to
,...) v
,
,n t-
?'
yC v) C t!1 O
f"' P ? f? `?P V^
C
d
?i
w
'tU O
1] m

Imo.. C E •p `?

A
v

s. CL o o
_

N N I
E3
v,
Y N 'a 4 y
N
o.i, H o
C? G .'rt ? U
? ? If II II
1] r.. I ? ya e?

? stn
II EE
U Cy
t)
A
b
L`4
u

1 ?
q G ? C

UP)
11 A b,
v ? rya a+
o ?
0U

U y

U O © P
O
O is
?
r7"
II a
v
V

.? ro

U
w
K
w
u fj
O
k !
0
h
C I
O
S
1
VU`.
0.
f4
u
d i
v
;r
P
n
N
G
rYr-?Y?
?+I
L4 ed
t?
w
OP
F
7 O
V
k
a?
0 5' ?
O
Vl 4-: •-
O•. OI] ? ? O
O G
M C ? a 3Y
ro d O u
? ? .o J T o
d 6
"? ? V Ss+1
.y
O
L

p
u
s.
L
J
V
U
:-4 W
?rl in
i? C•
Q C?
a? u
vW
w+ ?
U
U
3
°u
W
L"
t
W
w
? 1!
I?
? O
U
k•r
U
C
U
O ?.
F 4 O O O O C7 O
? ? U 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
V ? 4-
ro ?
w o p O p tl??
w? 0 0 0Q) Cl p p
a o`?a o 0 oc? c5 c? ?
L] ?j
ti
o ?p
ej W ? 4 P 0 0 0 O
„? o cv cn er n ?? n
x ooooc)o
H o [V r? <Y v? ?
`o
v
0.'
ai o
C:
G
O ? C? O cL W
V V ''
.? o o c II C?
W 41 'L7 O ? r-e Q
? a, v U
II II 11 II
.y
u rm
ra
a?
c? ca
rAi
! all
m
o L
ro
N ON
N
O cy Wed ?
0
L
N
d
f
V
C
0
U
0
N
N
Q
?Mi
°2# E-4
r?
bM
I
Iwi
C
? O
d eJ
F
d
U
N pt
bll
? a O
[C
CN nu '?+ cue b
C?
n ¢ C O
40
u o V'?'o
° u L
u A4
O
b
s.?
E
Sr. I u.
it 1`
? a
d d
w u
0 0
.? W
L L
? u
J d
.. a
3
u
u

T
I
i?, z
u r?
V
I?
G
W
H
O 4V
Q O Qd Q U O O C7
? V- O 4 0 Q o O Q Q
U
u y
ro ?
r ° o a c o o c n
? '- 4=• 0 0 0 0 0 C9 O O Q
p C v d Cl d c7 d Cd O CJ CJ
w
p
s ? ?_ >~ >? s~ c ? ac
v u C o 0 o c Q c o
a N rn 'T ?. f r• 00
y O O Q O 0 0 0
H o N rh `cY V1 ? F'
O
N
10
E? E n `L
ro ?, ? ns
o Cv
n 1 II It
iA M
N O L p r?. C
c m V
IE IE !?I II
c7
r
N
IE It
p'

b
N W ,

G Q ?
?

€4 !I N1
? Bl
?[
h`
v C
bV ?
? O

U {? Jai
U7 '.` ,C
N f q kf) G
?ql 1.1
Ctl

C]
w
O
?
?p
c II r
n
w su
•? ci
'.f
°o.
x
y
a
in
'o
C
S&ME, INC.
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
'roject No, 1588-09-051 ]Tone No. Date: 10/6/09
Location Ci.ty of Sanford WWTP Pill County: Lee Property Size
Proposed Facil ity: ....-___....... Water Supply: On-Site Well ? Evaluafion: Auger Boring X
Community ? Pit ?
Described By: Rob Willcox, Paul Public ? Cut ?
ennin€;er
_
Weather: Cloudy, Rain _.._- antecedent Moisture Surface Water:
FACTORS PROFH.1 43 PROFILE, 94 PROFILE #5 PROFILE
€,andscalle Position %
_
-
] rclrizon O) Ftr, I 0-4" ()-6" 0-44"
Color Munsell Brown Brown/Reddish Bl•.
rex1W't; Gl S:CIIStC SG/SCl ?
Structure wsbk ___
E l l fill ------..
?

ss sp fv -----
-
y
Horizon Depth II 4-? 6-3U" 44 IUO
Color - Mtlnscll Yellow Brown Yellow Brown
Texture slcl SICI SC/c
Mottles f/c - 2 chroma
Structure
Consl$tence ??sblc
SS 5 Vfl fill fill

zones of mixed 111111.

Boundary
Iiolizon Depth ill 22-30" _ 30-50"
Color- Munscil Yellow Brown Yellowish Red -_--
Texture sIC/S1Cl SICI/SIC

Mottles ._.._..._.
----
Re -- 2 chroma
---------
Sla'uclurc
wsbk/massive
wsbk
Consistence ss sp ti ss, .1 fi
_- mixed mitt. o

l3olsndary -_??
Horizon Depth IV
u - 30-36"
Color-- Multsell red
TextLil'C SICI
Mottles few-2 chroma --

Structure _

massive

Consistence
fi/vfi _......__.... - _.__-.... W-. - -.-

Boundary
Soil Wietnes5 3n"
-- 32"
--- - 14"
Restrictive liorizon ---
Saprolite -----
L`r? rz
Classification i ?
Plltkston P-mkstoj Fill

LEGEND
LANDSCAPE POSITION
R Ridge Inlerlluve
S Shoulder
L Local- Slope
FS foot Slope
N Nose Slope
1-l Bead Slope
Cc Conave Slope
Cv convex Slope
1( Terrace
P Hood Plain
l'lsXTURE
S sand
IS loamy sand
sl sandy loam
I loam
si silt
sil slllloaln
sic# silly clay tonal
cl clay loam
sel Sandy clay loam
sc sandy clay
sic silty clay
c clay
CONSISTENCE WFT
Ns non-sticky
Ss sliphtly sticky
S sticky
Vs very sticky
Np 11011-plastie
Sp slightly plastic
P plastic
Vp very plastic
A101ST
yfr Very friahic
fir friable
ii fuln
vfr Very firm
STRUCTURE
sg snlglo grain
?, massive
Cr crumb
91' t.ramilar
Sbk subangular blocky
alrk angular blocky
pi platy
S&ME
April 21, 2010
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
S&MF, Inc. Project No. 1588-10-016
Dear Mr. Santowasso:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has conducted a Soil Scientist Evaluation per S&ME Proposal No.
1588-09-PO68 and Letter of Authorization No. 1-10 dated April 6, 2010 to provide
information for a new Stormwater Management Permit Application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDFNR) - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). A soil scientist investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil
properties of four (4) proposed Storrnwater 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 4 areas identified by Mr.
Michael Santowasso 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
NCDFNR-DWQ.
SWE, iNc. 13718 Old Battleground Road I Greensboro, NC 27410/p 336.2881180 f 336.288.8980 / v,+wKSM8+nc.com
Stormwaler SMP Soil Testing S&ME Project No. 1588-10-016
City of Sanford VV TP April 21, 2010
Maps were prepared using Areview 9.3 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 4 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 (NRCS)-Soil Taxonomy, The soils evaluated were most similar to the Pinkston
and/or Mayodan soil series at all HAB locations.
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 one (1) in-situ permeability test 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 33 inches to 55 inches bgs with a 2-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 permeameter. The water was allowed to move through the 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 6 inches thick at the selected testing depth. The soils at the test
locations were observed to range from silty clay loam to silt loam textures. The
permeability rates were calculated as ranging between 0.055 to 0.149 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. 1588-10-016
City of Sanford VAWP April 21, 2010
The seasonal high water table evaluations were performed by advancing hand auger
borings to a depth of three 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-situ Soil
Permeability
(in/hr) Seasonal High
Water Table
(SHWT below
ground surface)
Hand Auger Boring I Mayodan 33 to 39 0.109 52 inches
I-land Auger Boring 2 Pinkston 27 to 33 0.109 43 inches - Cr
Hand Auger Boring 3 Mayodan 34 to 40 0,055 55 inches
Hand Auger Boring 4 Mayodan 49 to 55 0,055 68 inches
Stormwater BMP Soil Testing
City of Sanford WWfP
CLOSING
SWE Project No. 1588-10-016
April 21, 2010
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide these services to you. If you have any
questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Martin Mabe XPpW Rob Willcox, L.S.S.
Project Manager/Agronomist Natural Resources Department Manager
Attachments: Figure 1 --Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Hand Auger Boring and Ksat Location Map
In-Situ Constant Head Permeameter Calculations
I-land Auger Boring Profile Sheet
SA158811588 REPORTS1Reports.1 011 588-1 0-01 6 Hazen & Sawyer11588-10.016 Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. - Stormwater
SMP Soil Report.doc
4
0
0
N
O
?i
W
izl
[x]
a
A
Q'
Q
U

yC ti V
o
c w
[Gi G
41
p o
I)[ C, 161 1 C51 C-4 ?- c c
011
C ?
? + o
o it
to 7
?m
C c w It
0. 2 ,V E U
K
C C S? Z p
"'G u
? 0.
D
L
a
y m
_ G
t?
N
U

u ?
.8 ?
g
a

w
E
F

E-
c ?
G
c
n o o O 0 0 4 O O C G
G E o 1+, N N N N N N N h N
p ?. m o p p P W p Q G O C C
`u
y
00
' o p p p
o o p G O O C
CL ^
p
4=n cannoc CJC 0C: n
a v C C7 O O CD C C o o Ca C C O
0

? C ? ? ? ? ? ? E c £ E E C
? ? ? 4?no soma Inp??
X

O F C h C O Q
N M a v
U

O

»r ttf
? V
t o W
n ?' J o
....
N = o l
p
O O
U C n

!{ I! N !I
A-- CV
V
U
d
II II ?.
ca G Q
N G
D y
V ?p
? R
ca Q .-?
O
nL I'
?yy
0
GS
D
h
.c
ti
O
z
G
m
U
v
m
4
O
U
C-
c
c
M

e ? 3
.._ 3

I'r
c
W
[r]
Q
fl
4
5 ?
U

0.
C?
pp ?3
Gt3 ? 'a
N y.
N ¢ ? ` Q
.d o
W
w C C ? ai
W a G C
A n .W m a
r V ?
V ?
L
a
u

b O ?
O 6
f^
U
O O
C o C o o p c>
P 0 4 4 G
M N N N N N N N N N
'
' C O v c`1 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 c. G C? G
y
?

33

=° E ?
3

C c

p, _ npt?t?nr nr nnnn
CD
C T -CJ C5C C>b bO© G
CC?, C?, o CoC p, 00
? p v b b O C 6 C Gib p P 4 4 Q
w
O
.?'
C G C C G G C F C: C
>" E E 8 E E E E E E??
o o o M o o b
E ?. IT 4 ` l
x
0 F- c no?nrq mm°aa

d' O
L
rs

* cf ?Vi A IC
r o ?? C7 0

U C R N
h N
t7
? .C f+, U

N I: II

V ? •IE a I? 11

II 11
V p'
R'O
? Ct? N
C ?
li S! ?
`? U (}
C
O W
V R
N C
q
U s0 r-S
O 11
A 1?
C
a
0
C
E1
i
0
L
V
O
r
r
0
a
9
0
v.
L
n
Q
fs7
A.
W Q
Q
0
U

ao
0

G
LL
a
4!
It G as
N u
0 0 ?
D h - ?
.o

t

ir

I!
V V G
F-
C>
h C
h
v
c ri E

V 6 O
G T ? V
d
= G ?, _
CE S- C C C 4 C? p CJ _O C _C tl 1
? ? <+t O O O ©b O c o C c5 O F
m ?
m
`° W ?

? to
.y
G ? ? P O Om O C b? o o P P 4 C ?
? Si '
vC] ©b bCCC P PDOpG
C ?
O O o C p Q c. Ct O c G G G
Q
O
C F C Cr? C C y
?_ E E E E E E E E E E Q
? ??? O N O m 0 v'+ O H O
? r' ^
'
'
?
o
?
x
` c r
?d ?n
ov
i
veo
E- 4 gyn.---NN men t'v?n .n E
o
? e
? L

'
' ? [0 G C7 G ? O
,.L O
II I€ a
? y
V ? 0 u
p« -
i
.a A v o p x p
C ?? E
L L:. ?.1 4 Q O L? F
F w
L G p C II ?
? p U ? O

Y L+' v o
, II
w ? fl fl
,r
,,
GJ V ? ? L V

d
d
o

v
v
c°n
0
U
6
o_
U
f?
fs7
d
r?
G,
A
? d
z
f-?
Q
l?
yf
F
F
3
C
0.
t?
3
C r b
0
? mxv?
?a Q H v E v
A ? .O U ? w
V
t
: E
ar ?
i
m
N
a
II
a

I

F
E
E=
c e
a E E ? ooc?ooo oonnc>
c ° 0 6 66666 c c c c
U
as ?
C ?' QryM
c 1 MMMm!' m m
s_ -aao o CDooccaoa
? ? a o o
a
0 ?
ca o 0 0 o n n n n
0 oacaoooooeccrid

G
'
Q
c c_?
EEEEE EEE E
as ? ovooNO?nrC 9' ? na
'
d v d no nov,ov
?
O
V 1-^ 4 vs -- .. N N M m y y kn kn
H
O
E T v
C E 4
+
O

? ?? U 3 c o vn'• ?

w,? 11 II
lz?

•? 'll I; u u
A L d
,
II ?
U
R I.
Ud
b
4-i
O G
71 it ?
?E O
c
R
c3 N
0
?o
P
II
r
y
O
a`3
w
0
0
c
1x"
r
i
0
V
E
S
S&ME, INC.
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
Zject No. 1 J'f -/o - Phone No.
,cationt_2?tJ...._(7._. Pin
Proposed Facility:
County:
Date: q-14- /
-Le'r - Property Size
Water Supply: On-Site Well
Coa"As,unity
Described By: ; i 1c x r ;? r? t•? Public
-
Weather: "?2°...." -? Antecedent Moisture
? Evaluation. Auger Boring Q
? Pit ?
? Cut ?
Surface Water:
FACTORS PROFILE PROFILE PROFILE 3 PROFILE
Latndscape Position /
L Y 3 /a
f ??` r?
1t Tsif?r
Horizon Depth! -?Z
Color Murise] I Q 11 4 Y,11 f SJ
Texture _
Structure r -
.
:r .
Consistence r )
r rC. ,7 S l r o
y, r1f ,P ,

--
Boundary - _---
Horizon Depth II
6-13
Color - Munsell ,5 D Y
Texture r
'S i
Y,
-

-- ?'' -
Mottles
Structure S bk k n?
Consistence
Y • Y4

ndary
._,,rizon Depth Ili
Color - Munsell Y IC, e4_ to - • 37 L11/A_
Texture , G . , f ?Q
Mottles A.-. kd

Consistence ff?? i? 7
{7?
' 1pY '/lr 1 5•;

Boundary
Horizon Depth IV J IT
?1 -
Color -- Munsell j L( p y Tf? K ?/ Q e2 `??/
Texture
-
Mottles
T IV I',JD?7J4 ;..5 >?,' S r
Structure i u, ty? a ?, IJ
Consistence V
I

Boundary
Soil Wetness ` L ?- l Cb/t .n
Restrictive Horizon A lp c! G
Saprolite [
L'TAR re? 5 -----
Classification

ji4
>?s bk
l!,
41
'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
sil silt loam
sicl silty clay loam
cl clay loam
set sandy clay loam
se sandy clay
sic silty clay
c clay
CONSISTENCE VET
Ns non-sticky
Ss slightly sticky
S sticky
Vs very sticky
Np non-plastic
Sp slightly plastic
JkA plastic
Vp very plastic
MOIST
vfr Very liiable
fi friable
fi finn
vii Very firm
STRUCTURE
sg single gain
in massive
cr crumb
gr granular
sbk subangular blocky
abk angular blocky
pl platy
pr prismatic
S&ME, INC.
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
,oject No. 'hone No. Date:
cation Lj
_u.7-ice? Pin __ County: - ?.t? Property Size
Proposed Facility: Water Supply: On-Site Well ? Evaluation. Auger Boring

Described By:? ) Jc x i
f 1?t..L- Community ? Pit
Public ? Cut ?
?
Weather, /p,?rJ ?- Antecedent Moisture Surface Water:
FACTORS PROFIL PROFILE PROFILE PROFILE
Landscape Position %
1? ?oYS
Horizon Depth I 9 .-.._.
Color Munsell
Texture
Structure -?
Consistence S -
' : ? f' sly I~P

Boundary
1-iorizan Depth [I
Color-- Munsell J C.
Texture
Mottles ,
Structure
Consistence

ndary
,izon Depth III -
Color - Munsell 1 }
Texture ?w
I Mottles ,..? ;
Structure
Consistence F?r 2 .S 3ra

Boundary
Horizon Depth IV
Color-- Munsell
Texture
Mottles
Structure
Consistence

Boundai},
Soil Wetness )I
Restrictive Horizon
Saprolite - --
LTAR
Classification -

LEGEND
LANDSCAPE POSITION
R Ridge Interfluve
S Shoulder
L Linear Slope
S Foot Slope
N Nose Slope
H Head Slope
Cc Concave Slope
Cv Convex Slope
`f Terrace
P Flood Plain
TEXTURE
s sand
Is loamy sand
sl sandy loam
I loam
si silt
sit silt loam
sic] silty clay loam
cl clay loam
scl sandy clay loam
sc sandy clay
sic silty clay
c clay
CON SISTENCE 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 Vciy friable
fi fiiable
ti Irnn
vfi Very firm
STRUCTURE
sg single grail}
Y11 massive
cr cntmb
Or granular
sib subangularblocky
ab angularblocky
pi platy
pi prismatic
S&ME, INC.
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
.oject No. ) b'-1C?-r f? _ Phone No.
- Date: Z-i-IJ-LL;
-jeation C
rip Pin ounty: 1-,f r Property Size .- --
Proposed Facili ty: Water Supply: On-Site Well ? Evaluation: Auger Boring

Described By: 1
(J; ))cox . l t^L- Community ?
Public ? Pit
Cut ?
?
Weather: ? p j Antecedent Moisture Surface Water:
FACTORS PROFILF49 PROFILE PROFILE PROFILE
Landscape Position °/a
Horizon Depth I c?
Color Munsell
Texture
Structure ?i
Consistence

Boundary
Horizon Depth 11
Color - Munsell
Texture
Mottles
Structure •'
Consistence p?;
_
f?
l
9'
t
-
?
1 {

undary
,xorizpn Depth Ill
Coior-Munsell
Texture
Mottles 1
Structure w ,k?,
Consistence twy 3Ds

Boundary
Horizon Depth IV
Color- Munsell
Texture
Mottles
Structure
Consistence

Boundary
soli wetness
Restrictive Horizon
Saprolite
LTAR
Classification

LEGEND
LANDSCAPE POSITION
R Ridge Interfiuve
5 Shoulder
L Linear Slope
S Foot Slope
N Nose Slope
H Head Slope
Cc Concave Slope
Cv Convex Slope
T Tell-ace
P Flood Plain
TEXTU1tE
S sand
is loamy sand
sl sandy loam
I loam
si silt
sit silt loam
sic) silty clay loam
cl clay loam
scl sandy clay loam
sc sandy clay
sic silty clay
c clay
CON SISTENCE WET
Ns non-sticky
Ss slightly sticky
S sticky
Vs very sticky
Np non-plastic
Sp sligbt)y plastic
P plastic
Vp very plastic
MOIST
vfl' Very triable
lY friable
fi tinn
vfi Very Linn
STRUCTURE
sg single grain
m massive
cr crumb
BY granular
sab subangular blocky
ab angu lar blocky
pl platy
pr prismatic
Appendix B
Stormwater Management Plan Maps
SMP-I Sitewide Sub-Drainage Area Map
SMP-z Drainage Area A
SMP-3 Drainage Area B
SMP-4 Drainage Area C
SMP-5 Drainage Area D
SMP-6 Drainage Area E
SMP-7 Drainage Areas F & L
SMP-8 Drainage Areas G - K
NOTES
DRAINAGE AREA - E
• 16% IMPERVIOUS
• PROPOSED BMP, SEE
NOTE 3.
• SEE SHEET SMP-1G
DRAINAGE AREA - C
• 0% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED
r SEE SHEET SMP-1G
DRAINAGE AREA - F
• 62% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED,
SEE NOTE 7.
• SEE SHEET SMP-1F
DRAINAGE AREA - E
45% IMPERVIOUS
• POTENTIAL BMP, SEE
NOTE 6.
• SEE SHEET SMP-1E
DRAINAGE AREA - I
• 0% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED
• SEE SHEET SMP-1G
DRAINAGE AREA - K
• 0% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED
• SEE SHEET SMP-1F
DRAINAGE AREA - L
• 33% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED,
SEE NOTE 8
• SEE SHEET SMP-1F
UTAt11IVY1VL f11AL/1
• 19% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED
• SEE SHEET SMP-1C
V I A I I N r V L I- I I
• 23% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED
• SEE SHEET SMP-1D

A BIORETENTION CELL IS
PROPOSED ADJACENTLY SOUTH
OF THE PARKING LOT FOR THE
ADMIN BUILDING TO TREAT
RUNOFF FROM NEW IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE IN THIS AREA.
A BIORETENTION CELL IS
PROPOSED NORTH OF THE DUMP
STATION TO TREAT A PORTION
OF THE RUNOFF FROM NEW
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THIS
AREA.
A SAND FILTER HAS BEEN
PRELIMINARILY DESIGNED FOR
THIS AREA. HOWEVER, SITE
CONDITIONS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPACT THE FUNCTIONALITY AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BMP.
THEREFORE, A WAIVER HAS
BEEN REQUESTED THAT IS
OUTLINED WITHIN THE STORM
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
ALL STORMATER IN DA-L IS
ROUTED TO THE HEAD OF THE
TREATMENT PLANT AND
THEREFORE NO BMP SHALL BE
REQUIRED IN THIS AREA.
DRAINAGE AREA - A
34% IMPERVIOUS
BMPs REQUIRED, SEE
NOTE 2.
SEE SHEET SMP-1D
DRAINAGE AREA - H
• 15% IMPERVIOUS
• BMPs NOT REQUIRED
• SEE SHEET SMP-1G
LEGEND
SUB-WATERSHED DELINEATIONS
OPEN AIR STRUCTURES NOT
INCLUDED IN DRAINAGE AREA
CALCULATIONS
100 50 D 100'
I'=loo'-o'
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF S A N F O R D IINE SCALE BAR DAIE JULY 2010
aEyaIED ?r MZENMD SAWYER
NORTH CAROLINA
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL 5"°$" ES ON
ucxwPES os^[ H&ia
ruuaCF 32039
CN[CkFD Environmental Engineers S Scientists
BIG BUFFALO "'-" LOM; Ct1
Nn1
f
1H-Z)ti fo?p Cr
Na4Dra DRawnc,
NDUD[a

?' vlyoi

Id;:?Lr
. -driiroo<r. alf RE=:ue4ir:A_:

? i"r
l
-
i
d1A [us
PRDJ EN¢R
4011 WeslChase Boulevard, Smte 500
i
7 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITEWIDE SUB-DRAINAGE AREA MAP .
i
DRAW.,4
SMP-I
arr ,
e•'. pE W
r
9UB4
1
--:11jED FOP ar ` APPROVED na 2760
Raleigh, North Carol EXPANSION TO 12 MGD rto rit[
,-- "" - uws-r y ur wu IurveaKWioo o , - va n_, _'v -
F-
DRAINAGE AREA A
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 74,005
IMPERVIOUS AREA (ft2) 24,944
% IMPERVIOUS 34

OEARR?
RAS
P;
r¢>ERs
RARdi(R
Vv
Clfk
Fa FCRS EtDC
Pax
BEIR;
DUMP
SFAhgy
IOUr A11&j TAWX
4Ek y.
APUPI/
G.RCPkr BLpA
WASNWAlER
R
I
S
Crp?
Si
`
RECEal4
O
L
gQdC

BdR xASrW 1

S CIARIM? I
SIprALE
IAn' A
AEROBIC BNA BAs'n

•

SLUDGE A'CESiER 1
AERME
MISTER 2

CFW I STORAGE
FANR !
SPEC I
. CLARPER 2 ,
DkA DAyW y
• SLUDGE -
rF
rt ': IMCK OUR SApk ,
(.SIT cplEE0"/EKlSF
4lrl' Eni NqP $FAilCN SLVDCd
ST
ORAGE
70K2 cEaRMe,
DRAINAGE
AREA - A

GAIT Puna SrAHN
E[EC r
OLD WF{UERT CSW 3
CCREENS
rWESCREENS
DISCHARGE
POINT FOR
DRAINAGE AREA - A
ry0f ullom BDi
3
LLGEND
PERVIOUS SURFACE
F NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
:mt (17,209 ft 2}
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
( 7 4,35 ft 2)
eU - ,D D 80'
I•.?q°_d° GNI.S??
PRELIMINARY DRAWING • NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF SA N FO R D IHE sCAU BAR 011E auEY 2010
- ` oESOUEO ?? NORTH CAROLINA ENT PLAN SUBMITFAI
STOPJAWATER MA smvrsE5Ot'
uEAUBESm
E WiM F? 3103"
nuG[P
CRan, . .? lJtSli1311u 11t? RE D
URAIhA GE AREA f}ELINfATIQN MAP °
ONti bx
NH
---
GI+ELkEO
Eaviranmenlel EaglReera } 5cianOsls
BIG BUFFALO I
TFrE 1lA'G4IAl {Rar1AOCT
nUNx[R 1)R6wn4?
nOlylEN

.):I'
nl?ddA F'P +I •!AI(?PI. EN$
Pd 01EkG.R
",:I ? C

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

DRAINAGE i4EA Aa

wnG
1

s,ep-
le11,iTr
- -
ISSUED FOR
BY
APF[1p5C EXPANSiC)N TO 12 MGID rl+p F'a
2=lM N rLEi qN D.57PNP•A?[5lle><i^C^C?C?p>mWDFenW/pJ:lp! W-w A- StrAla.drq t t"r. .COC.
DRAINAGE AREA 13
TOTAL AREA (fta) 995,567
y . .:...:...:.......:._:.., ... ,.y...Y.v.Y._.Y...,._...,. . IMPERVIOUS AREA (ft2) 159,000
.','.'.'.','.','.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.','. ........ IMPERVIOUS. 16
`',. -: -;_: •.
, , . , , ' . , . , . e . • . •hAN11R ..: . .: . . _ . ..i.:.+ . : • • ; , = . . . - . . . , , -
',
1 FGtHL17A1ipk iaryq
DRAINAGE AREA
?......_......
oia
DISCHARGE POINT FOR
DRAINrAGE AREA B
12
IWA PC. Fr
SLUDGE ?s• r _
$Ia?AST . i ''; >: LEGEND
?? ? , ? 6iR BRAN r , . •
Cf -
sLeR,u y 6NR gpq.
ILYK aSA?aYC %?
5 PERVIOUS SURFACE
C!iA5'fR I?. .
f' AEAOBIt ..?d . A
st(jw DUSTER
pFN 1 STBRAVC ) -
CLEC I TAIL"' NEW 'IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
0.aRi[KR a Aplelrl
BHABASLA, eLpc. (106,605 ftz)
St rUO N BUR SASH i fl fn;
c? 1 cLEeupnlExlsr SL;Da EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
WCLIXNT "A STATION
srBRAcr (51, 895 ft 2)
TARN 7
tIAAIfIER 3
GAIT PLnP ssAn%
ULa INFLUENT ELEC 4
f1N 2 _
SCAiENE
FAE SCREENS
80 Ap Q 60'
6SIFBUnD4BUM •8p-U' ?"M1'Y ?
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
-- O:?Gntp ..-?t_ CITY OF S A N F 0 R D Tv1 SCALE BSA CA'E JULY 2010
DRAWN _ PC-- '
??? NORTH CAROLINA
5?GRMWAIER 4Rn;AGE?iE?t1 PLAN Si'Gll?liiAl. sN.;+,r BtLaw F y=.
32039
N,ASpRES V4 nUUeEA
_ CNECAEp T ?a11 i111?J
i11
Envlronmtn1A1 ErFglneArs b ScleRLsfs
BIG BUFFALO ORMAGE AREA DELINEATION MAT: w d LOS+C ON [a;TaA[T pAAawc
oa
uA
p
¢
lp
: NuuBl
UsurdA
_ L' m1a mT AUA T'Egy-aT R[-wayirTAL neoi txcB. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DRAINAGE AREA B p4?•""c slip:-3
IU m 40114N KRNIL 5UMiTA
DATE *WED T iiiWp EXPANSION TO 12 MGD
9J14 12:46 PM 0:A)20]6-RAL\32039-000VEngA0.lin.oli.nAUpCalsa 0minoge Arms Submlllola.g L.slwa6X XON
L
r-
DRAINAGE AREA C
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 147,263
IMPERVIOUS AREA (1t2? 28,024
% IMPERVIOUS 19
CLARxrER
RAS
P5
F47FR5
kAR+fOSR
V4
Rump
SIAPOW
C4AU2•A71CW TAW
DRAINAGE AREA - C
DISCHARGE POINT FOR
DRAINAGE AREA C

init. 7
I nuE•.T Iraua srarau
C511 PIMP STATION
OLD NF4UGI0T
SCRfFrS
?':: S'.Rf[NS
EASIR;RUTr,YT V%
CR11A
TIC if" 92,
LAg
PIRG
WASHWAIFR
RCCLA+AI PAS
s1NRCt
srpgAC,?
TAW J
• C{AhYiFk I
SLURC,E
STORA4' F
TANK A AERLy;C
G:'G SICP I
. • . Slut?Ct'gf CfER?{• y : "P?''n.:w?l "".
Skb?Acf
W;K
SILti'?r, f
;rgRAG,(?...
IAW 3 ??/
. /? CiAgr+{R 3
LL'?--
.• PERVIOUS SURFACE
NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

f l?
(2,550
t ?F1 I
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
_v_.... (25,474 ft2)
a9 +0 0 "O
PRELIMINARY DRAW#NG • NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
n
A
E BAR PIE JLILY 2010
[;Sif;NCO .FC
CITY OF S A I V F O R D
rE SC
L
- - - p.
'
R NORTH CAROLINA STORMWAICR MANACEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL
I CNRW EL[O w
32034
?

D
AWN . J
1 I7tJA7+11? 17? N

uEAS1RC5 OrOf IKFT

uuu[iR
-
?
Cn[Cktp -
EAVlraaminl8l ERgin We[W b 8leltia,s _
BIG BUFFALO [RAINAGE AREA DELINEATION MAP INCH LRNC ON
TRSS+RIoNAt 7G7;RA?T pkxWO+e
wuu5Si7 NHER

6 Aul +nA PERUir RE.,u uiruu

1?..`--
,
;
' - Pan,ENN L°5

- -

+ I. •:• F? :,.,?:.
,, WASTEWATER TREAT MFNT PLANT f7F,'ANAGF AR, f A G

_
ppANN4 r
Se P - A
/ <p,
T
Gai sRR
.

P

Ldl?

i?S,.?L f'-

. EXPANSION ICI '2 MG[)
nAlrA[

NOID9VH 1231 AV C, N3Xld-P.x+A}?plry.Wtl1[w ylwlVpm+ee pro.60r Aral 54D? OW' 4.R rnbt i yy AMP
CEN
41,1
Cl. "LOWER
HIRL
BirR BASF, 7
SNP VASN 2
AWN
SLOG
&YR "ASQO 1 i
ANR 134SV1 4
1

L J
DRAINAGE AREA E
TOTAL AREA (ft2) 44,027
IMPERVIOUS AREA (ft2? 7,067
% IMPERVIOUS 45
CLA91FIER
AF$
PS
DISCHARGE POINT F
DRAINAGE AREA E
DRAINAGE AREA -
CEN I
LtL[ r
i?L3I CCtIEG nCx(Eslst 7a
+RrLUEw. PUMP SIAIIEN
GRrt PUMP S!A!"
OLD rNrtUENT
SCGEiRS
n.RE ;[REINS
C",'u3ullox Box
Fri C€R$
CLARtnf p
I-,,.
S11.11
C41JR+tARg1f Felix
Fjtfm 9iC
LAS
SLDC qq// CEN 3
[ikglEy ROriEA
O.i1C
eASHN'AIER
RECtAIU
SP =E RAS
CIAAIhER I
Af k471C
OIDESLER I
AER[RIIC
so UD"E WESTER 7
5 rCAACr
TANx I
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE
iNICN
5 llCCE
SIARAGC
IANtl 7
CLARI(t[R 3
ELEC I
CEN 2
8Nk EAyR I
OUR 8ASW 2
At)mfr)
Bloc
DNk 8A9x 3
BAR ErAgy ,
L GGLi\D
PERVIOUS SURFACE
NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(7,067 f t ?}
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(12,605 ft 2)
80 AC 4 80'
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
Y
AI[
1
AESIGNE4 __: _
?T
??T `z CITY OF 5A V Fd 3J
Id[N' PLAN LAEV SUBMITTAL
WC
4 ANAG
,f(fRldl','h7F
' ir?E SCa!E OAS
SH4AaNELG? 2{
jUL
O
1
,.itl
b s .
3283°
- - ORAVN.t ?. C_ ,
ENAND AMER NORTH CAROLINA ,
?
,
i1RaP
INFATIQIJ MAP
A
I
AR
A vEAsxris I+w
uF
s -
CHECKED --
Environmen!al En
ineers Sclentisss .
J
E
pG
GE n;r,N 111111, IN aN

1712410
ADI A4/ PL961il AF V h4'I1Ai
-
FRUJEliCk g
.... BIG BUFFALO
FWA rR TREATMENT PI ANT
WAST ort oR?ufal ?imu NuvsER
SIAP-f

1
Riv
ii)/m_9
!,A¢
Pun Aui $D@VlrlF,
/OI 744W
i3SDEII FAkF

E5

APFROV, ,

, i ; ',!,

?~ j

fixi r2E
L_
'Mf;•'>.ld,ry eum17-eµtuau9-e7eW4t0.+?enIh+WMa!sa o-o..eq Am S-11aep lwiw y
DRAINAGE AREA F
TOTAL AREA (ft') 32,876
IMPERVIOUS AREA (ft2) 19,516
% IMPERVIOUS 59
NOTES
NO DISTURBANCE IS PROPOSED

DRAINAGE AREA - F
(SEE DRAINAGE AREA MOTES)
DISCHARGE POINT FOR
DRAINAGE AREA F
DRA114AGE AREA - L
(SEE DRAINAGE AREA NOTES)
ClAfdrkG
WASH IVA TER
SE.Joa RECLAIM PAS
SIG'?w
LANK 3

CueugR I
RUGGE
&F?ACt
IAN51 i AEROg117
9+4FSIEA I
AFRO&C
SLV?[ DIGESTER 1
srm4oE
IARX I
CLARIFIER 2
SfUOGE
11ACx
51V9GE
Slpps?,
ANx ;
CLARIFIER
ELEC I
EEr1 ?
OVIAP
STAllOq
OEM 3
A a 0.v agaR
BAR BASNt F
W 9A&U 1
DRAINAGE AREA ! _
TOTAL AREA (ft') 129,798
IMPERVIOUS AREA (ft) 421303
% IMPERVIOUS 33
NOTES
ALL STORM WATER FROM DA-L IS
ROUTED TO THE MEAD OF THE
PLANT. NO STORM WATER
DISCHARGE OCCURS FROM DA-L,
LL.Gr.1'!J
PERVIOUS SURFACE
AOMiN
Rux.
9NR 9skN
NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
9dSN i
(DA-F 0 ft')
-? (DA-L 5,940 ft2)
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(DA-F 19,516 ft')
(DA-L 36,363 ft 2)
GO 40 0 EO'
PRELIMINARY DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DILIF
Y 2010
- o¢scco P._ CITY OF SANFORD NE SCALE W1 JUL

' SiL'A>P,1`l TET 'AtP,G MENT PLAN SL1'"'ITlrtl EE0w nu5a?a
32039
- Osaµv ?J
?{e
/?{
aaa.?t???czz ++EN U SAM ER NORTH CAROLINA ,
AREA QELINEATIIQN NAP WASURE
N`aw?`-ONE I;uuath
_ CHECwfE` ..?
E AYiF0 AR1EAIB1 EIIQIRlAFB G 9CIe dSidtd C
BIG 6UFFALO 4NCN 103C 0:
7
i'
"
: [(v:IRACi ORAWNG

1
071910
-Ao-l?404 Pfg{rlF-V( BOnFA1 -
_
_
-?'
PRO) ENGR - lui
- -
WA ?F ATF? T??AT1? IT PI
ANT
IRMNAGL AREAS i' & L NE C
G
L
L
EINAN;C N?l00LR uVa16ER
SN+P,-J
I
Rfl' :GIUg
VAt{ 40-1 idi PfA1+1 1 Su
66UAI.
15%EO FOR
Er
APPROVED -
111'' ii E.": i.'I_.
Rai nlf
7WO R1/ti 1:.16 Fu o' "lYAr.Lp3X+59-NGS(^01GeNpienSEyEdIeC 0-V 4m Sy iv a7 kw"> r,, 5)G
EOU"u ANpY FAl
7

Appendix C
Construction Drawings
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
C-25 Erosion Control -Area 1
C-26 Erosion Control -Area 2
C-27 Erosion Control -Area 3
C-28 Erosion Control -Area 4
D-1 Bioretention Sections & Details
D-2 Sand Filter Sections & Details