20050732 Ver 01_Public Comments_20051213

~; , S
+-°'"
aw l~ive~ .Assembly
P. O. Box 1 ~ 7 Byti utn, NC 2 7228
(9.19) 542-5790 [e-mail]
December 13, 2005
TO:
Hearing Officer
North Carolina Division. of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
RE: Newland Communities Application for Certification under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act for the Briar Chapel development
(Chatham County, North Carolina PL 92-5000).
Comments for the Division of Water Quality Public Hearing
The Haw River Assembly is anon-profit organization, working since 1982 to protect the
Haw River and Jordan Lake. Our membership includes many residents who are adjacent
to the proposed Briar Chapel development or who will be impacted by any degradation of
the waters this development will affect. The Haw River Assembly wishes to comment on
the Newland Communities Application for Certification under Section 401 for the Briar
Chapel development. This is an enormous development project with a total proposed
build-out of 2,389 units, larger than any existing town in Chatham County. We believe
that there are many unanswered questions concerning the effects of this project on water
quality and the aquatic ecosystems
A. The streams and water bodies that will be impacted by Briar Chapel include:
Pokeberry Creek
Bush Creek
Haw River
Jordan Lake
B. We request that DWQ consider the cumulative impacts of this development on
Pokeberry Creek where another development, Williams Pond, has been approved
to be built at the confluence of Pokeberry Creek with the Haw River. DWQ has
issued a 401 certification on the Williams Pond development.

`~
»'-
C. We urge DWQ to consider the additional loading of nutrients that this enormous
development will add to the Haw River and Jordan Lake where a Nutrient
Management Plan and TMDL to REDUCE nutrients is currently being developed
by DWQ. All of Jordan Lake has been listed as "impaired waters" for chlorophyll
a, due to excessive nutrients, in the draft 2005 Cape Fear Basinwide Plan. The
Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Act, which is nearing passage by the General
Assembly this week, will mandate a cap on nutrients from wastewater treatment
plants in the entire Jordan Lake watershed. We do not believe that the waste water
system with spray fields for effluent proposed for Briar Chapel is truly anon-
discharge system, and we fear that it will result in new nutrient loading into Jordan
Lake, as will the amount of polluted run-off from stormwater leaving the site. We
would argue that the number of housing units and the total impervious surface
proposed for this site is too high for adequate protection of the streams
D. We do not believe that this development can be built as proposed without
tremendous erosion of the clay soils into Pokeberry, Wilkerson and Bush creeks.
We have seen this problem repeatedly with new developments in Chatham County
and we consider the level of constant very high turbidity from clay particles in
streams to be unacceptable. We fear that the size of this development could result
in actual sedimentation in the streams - a fear grounded in the several recently
issued Notices of Violations for new development projects in Chatham.
E. We ask that you adequately consider the impact of this development on the habitat
of the federally listed endangered species, the Cape Fear Shiner, which is known to
inhabit the Haw River in the area of the Lower Haw River State Natural Area
where Pokeberry Creek meets the Haw River. Any stream disturbance that creates
turbid conditions in these creeks will end up in this area of known habitat for the
Cape Fear Shiner in the Haw River.
F. We are very concerned that mitigation for stream crossings for Briar Chapel has
been proposed to be carried out on a stream in the Deep River basin (Harpers
Crossroads). Although this is within the same larger Upper Cape Fear River basin
that the Haw River is part of, we believe that it is not a suitable site for mitigation.
It will result in a loss of total functioning stream miles in the Jordan Lake
watershed at a time when the state of North Carolina is attempting to find solutions
to reducing nutrient pollution here. We strongly urge that mitigation for this
project be carried out in within the Haw River watershed in order to correctly
mitigate for the damage that will be done

~ -.
,~~
We continue to ask the Division of Water Quality to look at the total cumulative impact
that all of these developments being built in Chatham County aze having on water quality
in the Haw River and Jordan Lake. How can we begin to improve water quality in Jordan
Lake and to remove it from the EPA's Impaired Waters list if we are continuing to add
new development projects that will increase pollution?
Recommended Conditions for Certification
We recommend that you place the following conditions on certification the Newland
Communities Section 404 permit. Similar conditions have been placed on Chatham
County developments with concerns for water quality protection of streams and wetlands,
including their impact on endangered species in the Haw River.
1. Sedimentation and Erosion Control measures designed to meet High Quality Water
standards must be designed, constructed and maintained properly for the entire
site;
2. Tree removal within 30 feet of stream channels shall be restricted to road crossings
in order to protect the temperature water quality standard;
3. Written DWQ approval is required for a water quality monitoring plan for water
chemistry, macrobenthos, and physical pazameters directed at TSS, temperature
and dissolved oxygen for all perennial streams at the site boundaries where
channel flow is present. This monitoring plan must continue for at least five (5)
years after all construction is completed at the development. Three copies of the
annual monitoring reports must be sent to DWQ by April 1St of each year.
Remedial actions to correct any identified exceedance of water quality standards
must be proposed by the applicant in these reports and, when approved by DWQ,
implemented by the applicant;
4. Anon-discharge permit for the wastewater application must be received from the
DWQ before construction begins;
5. Mitigation under the Wetland Restoration Program (EEP) in order to compensate
for impacts to wetlands and or streams must be made in the sub-basin watershed of
the Haw River that flows to Jordan Lake, in order to compensate for any increased
nutrient loading these impacts may cause;
6. Instream work shall be prohibited from March 15 through June 30 to minimize
impacts to spawning fish, including the impact of any pollution or turbid waters on
spawning fish in the Haw River, downstream of the this development, and
particulazly the Cape Fear Shiner;

t
{
7. The culverts for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original
stream profiles are not altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross
section dimensions, patterns and longitudinal profile) are to be maintained above
and below locations of each culvert. The culverts shall be designed and installed
to allow for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent head-cutting of the
streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate stream
grade shall be re-established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the
pipes shall be removed and re-installed correctly.
8. The establishment of native, woody, vegetation and other soft stream bank
stabilization techniques must be used where practicable instead of rip-rap or other
bank hardening methods; if rip-rap is necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream
bed, unless specifically approved by DWQ.
9. Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and
be designed to adequately accommodate, high water or flood conditions.
We would like to confirm that you have made note of the following stream crossing that
may have been missed in the original 404 application for Briar Chapel and was brought to
our attention by a local soil scientist. The new road as currently planned will cross the
stream at an approximate angle of 35 degrees. Although it is not shown as a blue line
stream on the USGS topo quad, we believe that the stream will meet the criteria for an
intermittent stream. It had awell-defined stream channel. Also the soils along it appeared
wet (possibly hydric) with some possibility that the area may contain small amounts of
wetlands.
Thank you for your full consideration of this information.
Sincerely,
Elaine C. Chiosso
Executive Director

.~
r-
G,~~~6 COA4MUN~~l~
w~~~ ,~ti
Q. Q
~O
2~'
CCEC
L
6
~.xfiowe/is~ Ccfilen~ to ~ntiw+ce Ctiutka..a j fufin/e December 13, 2005
y
J
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Attn: John Dorney
Gentlemen:
Good Evening. I am Loyse Hurley, President of Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities
(CCEC). I live at 16 Matchwood, Pittsboro N.C.. First of all, I and CCEC want to thank you for
holding this hearing and considering the comments of Chatham county's citizens. It is
appreciated more than you can imagine.
I also happen to be an abutting property owner so I am personally in accord with the comments
of the Fearrington Homeowners Association, but my comments tonight are focused on the
general concerns of CCEC about this development and its impact on this County and its
resources. CCEC is a 501( c)(3) and (c)(4) non-profit citizens group that informs, educates, and
advocates the issues in Chatham County that are relative to its best future. We represent
approximately 3,000 Chatham County citizens.
There are numerous development activities ongoing in this immediate watershed area. While
Briar Chapel is only one of these developments, the overall impact must be considered. The
effect of this one development is only part of the overall picture. Impacts are not measured
solely by boundary lines established on a map. Nature doesn't recognize these lines. The
impact on this watershed, from over 19 square miles of land disturbing activity from new
development, all in this one area, will be significant. This has to be considered by the State.
Briar Chapel proposes to retain the first 1 inch of rainfall and release or infiltrate it over a 2 toy
day period. This is the State minimum standard for retention ponds. During the aftermath of
Hurricane Fran we had substantial rainfall. Fran dropped about 10 inches of rainfall in less than
2 days on top of the 5 inches the previous week. Normally, we have several annual rainstorms
that bring 2-3 inches of rain per storm. Just within the past 60 days this has occurred. Is the
retention of the first inch of rainfall and a release over a 2-5 day period, adequate retention
considering these types of storms? Furthermore, they plan to add to this vol~me of water their
spray application of treated effluent onto peripheral property buffers. There ~ senous concerns
about ground saturation and flooding. This issue is very personal also, my property is down hill
from Briar Chapel according to the topographical maps. These minimum standards need to be
increased.
P.O. Box 236 Bynum, NC 27228
www.chathamcitizens.org 919.542.0382 info ~~ chatamcitizens.org

Additionally, appropriate monitoring of the stormwater controls, discharges from the wastewater
treatment plant and its piping, and run off from construction activities need to be part of this
certification, to prevent additional damage to the area. If it is possible, under this certification,
please prevent the spraying of effluent onto the peripheral buffer areas which abut residential
properties. This idea not only goes against the very concept of a buffer, but it also adds to the
volume of water and potential pollution flowing into our streams and waters and ultimately into
our drinking water. Additionally, we request that temporary wetland protective fencing be
employed to identify all wetlands located within 20 feet of any development activity, including
clearing of vegetation, grading, excavating, etc. associated with the project. You have had
occasion to cite other developments for violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
because of lack of proper practices. Strict erosion control during the construction of Briar
Chapel is needed. Our recommendation for detailed inspection and erosion control during
construction should be included by DWQ as a condition of this certification.
We must question 13 stream crossings in one development. That's an inordinately large number.
Surely, these could be reduced. Eight crossings might be a good number. We recognize that
Newland Communities have reduced their proposed crossings by 2 from their original 15, but we
are still left with a very large number and some redesign, specifically in the area of the Village
Center, could further reduce these crossings and thus reduce some of the adverse environment
damage.
Newland Communities continually cite that they are in full compliance with the Chatham
County Compact Communities Ordinance. And that is a true statement. However, the
conditions in Chatham County necessitate that we rely solely on the State for the issuance of
these certifications and permits, the appropriate conditions attached to them, and any necessary
monitoring. The County covers some 700 square miles and has only 5 people in their Planning
Department. Development activity within the northeast area alone, poses major problems and
the County continually refers to you as the lead agency in both the wastewater and stormwater
areas. The Compact Community Ordinance, as thorough as it is, does not address, in detail, all
the specifics that you do. Hence, the ball is in your court.
The impact of Briar Chapel on the streams and wetlands of the northeast section of the County
which drains into Jordan Lake, a source of our drinking water, are significant. Yet, the proposed
mitigation site is in another watershed area. We strongly recommend that mitigation be
conducted here in this area of the watershed. This has precedent within North Carolina. You
have already allowed this in High Point back in 1992 in connection with a road improvement on
Highway 301 By Pass. I quote from a report from Mr. A Preston Howard Jr. to Mr. George
Everett dated May 7, 1992:
Substantial alteration ... of natural wetlands in the ... watershed will
almost assuredly have detrimental impacts on water quality.... ?'Here is increasingly
concern at both the State and national levels about the loss of valuable wetlands and
the associated impacts on water quality. However, the loss of valuable wetlands and
the water quality protection that they afford is particularity troublesome when the
impacted watershed is a water supply watershed ... Protection of tftese waters is

critical to their continued use as a source of drinking water for the city.
The recommendation on this project was to purchase sufficient acreage suitable for wetlands
creation within the watershed to provide at least 100% mitigation of the wetlands lost due to the
project. That recommendation was honored and the 401 certification was granted with that
condition.
There are streams and areas such as Polkberry Creek, Beaver Creek and Beaver Pond which
have been damaged due to other operations and need significant clean up. It is more logical to
add, as a condition of this 401 certification, that mitigation measures must be conducted in the
same watershed area where the damage occurs. Newland Communities claim that they have
been unable to identify any stream mitigation sites where they could obtain conservation
easements or the outright purchase of the property. As a result, they can not mitigate the damage
within this watershed area. There must be a way to work this out and make remediation in this
area of the watershed part of this certificate.
The proposal calls for additional payment into a State fund for mitigation elsewhere in the State.
This area has limited financial resources and will be required, in the near future, to expend
monies to reduce the nutrient levels in Jordan Lake. We recommend that a fund be established
here in Chatham for the express purpose of clean up of Jordan Lake and Newland Communities
pay into this fund. Once again, keeping the mitigation measures in the area where the damage
will occur. We request that mitigation payment be made to this local area, as part of the
conditions for this certification.
CCEC also fully agrees with the recommendations of the Haw River Assembly and the
Fearrington Homeowners Association on their recommendations for conditions associated with
this certification.
In conclusion, l would like to complement Newland Communities. They precipitated the
formation of CCEC. They have been responsive to citizens' requests and have accommodated
many ideas and recommendation into their plans. However, they are profit motivated and
primarily a large development corporation. We, the citizens, are counting on you, the Division
of Water Quality, to make sure our irreplaceable environment is not irreparably damaged by this
very large development.
Thank you,
Loyse Hurley -President

December 13, 2006
North Carolina. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands and Storm-water Branch
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Attn: John Dorney
Gentlemen:
Good evening. I am Robert Eby. I live at 19 East Madison, Pittsboro, NC. I am a member of
Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities (CCEC) and the Fearrington Homeowners Association
(FHA.) Many of us greatly appreciate your taking time to receive comments from Chatham County
citizens on this important subject.
While there are a number of aspects regarding waste water and storm water management to be
considered, and about which you will hear tonight from other citizens, I would like to focus on one
specific topic: Spray fields for effluent from the waste water treatment plant (WWTP} planned for
Briar Chapel.
In the County's Compact Community Ordinance (CCO), under which ordinance Briar Chapel was
approved, there aze very detailed descriptions of buffers and uses permitted and prohibited in them.
One such type of buffer is described under "Riparian Buffers." These riparian buffers are established
at a minimum distance of .I00' from each side of a perennial stream and 50' from each side of an
intermittent stream. Further, use of these buffers for spraying effluent from a WWTP is prohibited.
Additionally in the CCO, "Perimeter Buffers" are defined for various types of properties abutting the
compact community. For residential properties the buffer is established as being a minimum of 200'.
The CCO is, however, silent on the issue of whether spray irrigation of effluent from a WWTP is
permitted.
Presumably spray irrigation could thus take place in these perimeter buffers up to the property lines of
abutters. I ask you, "Is this reasonable?"
Current storm water regulations require only that one inch of rainfall be held in storm-water retention
ponds. Even if the buffer areas were dry, heavier rain storms (we usually get several of 2" - 3"
annually) threaten impairment of near-by streams and over flow onto abutting properties. If the
perimeter buffers are already saturated via spray irrigation at the time of these rain storms, the potential
damage to streams and neighbors is that much greater.
I would ask that, as a condition of certification of Briar Chapel, you prohibit spray irrigation of effluent
from the WWTP on the 100' of the perimeter buffer that abuts neighboring residential property. If it
makes sense to prohibit spraying in riparian buffers, it would seem logical to do so also in perimeter
buffers.
Thank you.
Robert Eby