20050732 Ver 01_Hearing Officer Report_20060509

~.•
t
Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 May 9, 2006
2
3 Memorandum,
4
5 To: Alan Klimek
6 From John Dorney for Rick Shiver ~~k
7 Subject: Hearing Officer's Report
8 Briar Chapel development, Chatham County
9
10 It is my recommendation that the Division issue the 401 Water Quality Certification for this project with
I 1 the following non-standard additions to the Certification. These conditions will supplement the standard
12 conditions in 401 Certifications. The draft Certification (Appendix One) is attached to this report.
13 1. A final mitigation plan for the Harpers Crossroads site must be submitted to DWQ for approval
14 before any stream or wetland impacts occur on the site.
15 2. Water Quality Monitoring -Additional written approval shall be required for a water quality
l6 monitoring plan for streams before any stream or wetland impacts occur on the site.
17 3. Written Stormwater Management Plan - A final stormwater management plan shall be required for
18 each phase of the project for written approval from DWQ before any stream or wetland impacts occur
19 on that phase.
20 4. Continuing Compliance - A Continuing Compliance condition shall be added to the Certification to
21 allow DWQ to revisit the Certification if water quality standard violations are found.
22
23 At your request, Rick Shiver functioned as the Division of Water Quality's hearing officer for a proposed
24 Briar Chapel residential development in Chatham County north of Pittsboro. The hearing was conducted
25 on Tuesday December 13, 2005 starting at 7:00 pm in the Chatham County Courthouse, District Court
26 room at 12 East Street in Pittsboro. This hearing was public noticed with a notification in the Chatham
27 News on November 10, 2005 (Appendix Two). Approximately 70 people were in attendance and 21
28 people spoke at the hearing. John Dorney of the Wetlands/401 Certification Unit provided staff support
29 and prepared the hearing record. This has been a controversial 401 application. There are a significant
30 number of residents (especially downstream or adjacent neighbors) who are opposed to the project. There
31 are also a significant number of project proponents. A summary of the comments is attached at Appendix
32 Three to this report.
33
34 The project is located on 1,589 acres of land west of US 15-501 and north of SR 1528 in Chatham County
35 north of Pittsboro, NC. The final project plan proposes to impact 1,864 feet of stream (1,653 feet of
36 permanent impact and 21 l feet of temporary impact) and 0.807 acres of wetlands (0.67 acres of permanent
37 impact and 0.137 acres of temporary impact) in order to construct a mixed use residential development with
Page 1 of 23
Memorandum: John Dorney for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

r
Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 two areas of commercial development. Most of these impacts are from road crossings for the project.
2 Stream mitigation is proposed to be done using on-site preservation of about 63,4121inear feet of streams
3 and off-site restoration of 2,200 linear feet of streams at Harper's Crossroads in southwestern Chatham
4 County. Wetland mitigation is proposed to be handled via payment to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
5 Program. Stormwater management is proposed throughout the project.
6
7 The hearing was well attended. A power point presentation was made by staff concerning background
8 information on the project. This presentation is attached as Appendix Four to this report. Listed below are
9 the main issues raised concerning this project. My recommendations on how to address these issues are
10 listed after the list of issues. In response to these issues, Division staff prepared on-hold letters (dated
11 January 18 and January 27, 2006) to request written responses to many of these questions. Response was
12 received from the developer on February 24 and February 28, 2006 with a final clarification received on
13 March 27, 2006. Therefore the application was complete on March 27, 2006.
14 1. Endangered species - A concern was expressed about endangered species (Cape Fear shiner)
15 especially in the area between Bynum and Jordan Lake.
16 a. Response -The US Army Corps of Engineers is required by federal law to address
17 any concerns regarding federal endangered species including the Cape Fear Shiner.
18 In the past, DWQ has relied on this agency for this responsibility and there is no
19 compelling reason to change this approach at this time. I propose that staff formally
20 remind the Corps about this concern in writing so it can be addressed by that agency
21 during their deliberations for the Individual Permit.
22 2. Stream Mitigation -Concern was expressed that the mitigation proposal did not meet the
23 adjacent Cataloging Unit guidance of the Corps of Engineers and DWQ. In addition, the
24 ratios did not reflect stream quality as noted in that guidance document.
25 a. Response - With respect to the stream mitigation, DWQ will requires 1:1 mitigation
26 for the proposed 1,653 linear feet of permanent stream impact. The proposed offsite
27 mitigation at Harper's Crossroads of 2,200 linear feet of streams exceeds this
28 requirement in order to meet the Corps regulatory needs. In addition, the on-site
29 preservation of 63,412 linear feet of streams is also part of the mitigation proposal.
30 With the offsite mitigation and onsite preservation, the requirements of the joint
31 Corps and DWQ stream mitigation guidelines are met for DWQ. A final mitigation
32 plan must be approved by DWQ to help ensure that it will be successful mitigation.
33 3. Wetland Mitigation -Concern was expressed that payment into the Ecosystem Enhancement
34 Program for wetland mitigation would not guarantee that the mitigation would be done near
35 the site
36 a. With further reductions in wetland impact near the commercial center of the project,
37 wetland impacts are less than one (1) acre. Since DWQ only requires wetland
Page 2 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4.
5
6.
7.
8.
9
Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
mitigation for impacts greater than one acre, the Division will not require wetland
mitigation. Therefore, the proposal to pay into the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program for wetland mitigation exceeds the requirements of the 401 Certification
Program. DWQ staff will inform Corps of Engineers staff of the wetland mitigation
concern as outlined above since the Corps will still require wetland mitigation.
Water Quality Monitoring - A water quality monitoring report should be required for the
Certification.
a. Response -This should be a condition of the 401 Certification.
Stormwater Management -Concerns were expressed about on-site stormwater management
from this development.
a. Response -This should be a condition of the 401 Certification with additional
written approval for plans for each phase of the project. The 401 should be
conditioned to require stormwater BMPs that are best at removing nutrients (such as
bioretention areas or constructed wetlands) since the downstream waters are
classified as NSW.
Flooding -Concerns were expressed about possible downstream flooding from the
development especially from the commercial area near US 15/501 and near the Fearrington
development.
a. Response -This issue has traditionally been addressed by local governments.
DWQ's 401 rules do not mention flooding as within the purview of the 401
Certification. Staff should inform appropriate Chatham County staff in writing of
the concern so it can be handled by them in the appropriate manner.
Cumulative impacts -The project does not address cumulative impacts.
a. Response -The amended application does address cumulative impacts. Essentially
that response shows that the project will not result in additional growth but is being
built in response to the demand for residential development and associated
commercial development in northern Chatham County.
Road crossings -Are all the road crossings perpendicular and are all of them needed for this
project?
a. Response -Staff have carefully reviewed the need for and design of each road
crossing and are convinced that the planned crossings are all needed for a project of
this size.
Erosion and sedimentation control -Concerns were expressed about downstream
sedimentation from possible failure of on-site erosion and sedimentation control measures.
Apparently when US 15/501 was recently widened, a considerable amount of sediment
entered nearby streams.
Page 3 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 a. Response -The 401 Certification should require enhanced BMPs for sediment and
2 erosion control (along the lines of HQW BMPs) to address this concern.
3 10. Spray irrigation of treated wastewater -Extensive concerns were expressed by numerous
4 individuals about the spray irrigation permit issued by the Division in terms of contamination
5 of nearby wells and spraying near residences. The issue was also raised whether a wastewater
6 treatment system that discharged treated wastewater would be better than anon-discharge
7 system for this project. Given the extensive concerns expressed about this issue, the
8 following extensive response is below:
9 a. Response -DWQ staff have issued a valid non-discharge permit under the Express
10 Review program for this project before the hearing for the 401 Certification. Before
1 l that non-discharge permit was issued, the Division conducted an extensive analysis
12 to address these issues as follows:
13 i. Why does DWQ allow irrigation of reclaimed water to the property line?
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Regulation 15A NCAC 2H .0219(k)(1)(C)(i)(III) states that treatment and
irrigation systems meeting the State's reclaimed water standards for non-
discharge systems are not required to maintain a buffer between application
areas and property lines. Since Briar Chapel meets the State's reclaimed water
standards, the Division of Water Quality does not require a buffer between
irrigation fields and property lines. Any buffer between the irrigation area and
the property line would be voluntary by the Permittee.
ii. Is there odor from the irrigated reclaimed water?
Based on the extensive treatment and anticipated high quality of the effluent, the
Division of Water Quality believes that excessive odor will not occur. However,
the permit does require that in the event that nuisance conditions develop, the
Permittee shall take immediate corrective actions.
iii. What are the impacts of weather on irrigation?
The issued permit expressly prohibits the irrigation of reclaimed water during
inclement weather conditions. As a safeguard, the permit also requires that the
electronic irrigation system be wired to a precipitation/soil moisture gauge that
prevents irrigation when the condition of the ground surface is unsuitable for
assimilation of irrigated water.
iv. What impacts does reclaimed water irrigation have on Jordan Lake?
It is the Division's position that non-discharge reclaimed water irrigation
systems have a negligible impact on Jordan Lake when constructed and operated
as permitted. Reclaimed water irrigation systems are barred from discharging to
surface waters of the State and are prohibited from causing runoff or ponding on
the irrigation fields. In addition, this wastewater treatment system is utilizing
nutrient removal technology which reduces the amount of Nitrogen that is being
irrigated to below Division standards. Furthermore, a majority of the nutrients
that are irrigated are both volatilized and assimilated by the cover crop.
Page 4 of 23
Memorandum: John Dorney for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 v. What impacts does reclaimed water irrigation have on downgradient
2 water supply wells?
3
4 Due to the extensive nutrient removal process designed for this system, the
5 Division does not foresee groundwater violations. The permitted wastewater
6 treatment system is reducing the level of Total Nitrogen in the effluent less than
7 the State's Groundwater Standards. In addition, the nitrogen that is not removed
8 will mostly be removed by volatilization and plant assimilation.
9
10 vi. Why isn't Point Source Discharge considered?
12 Regulation 15A NCAC 2B .0201(c)(1) requires that wastewater treatment
13 systems pursue non-discharge as an alternative disposal method to point source
14 discharge. This is especially important in Nutrient Sensitive Waters (like
I S downstream Jordan Lake) where a point source discharge would result in
16 additional nutrients from treated wastewater flowing into the lake.
17
18 vii. Why doesn't the Division of Water Quality notify the public about non-
19 discharge projects?
20
21 In a proactive response to public concerns, the Land Application Unit (formerly
22 Non-Discharge Permitting Unit) has recently created an email list serve
23 notifying people of future Express Review Projects. In addition, all applications
24 and permit statuses are listed for public notification. Please visit
25 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/lau/expressreview.html for more information.
26
27 11. Reporting and coordination with local citizens.- Several citizens expressed their request to
28 require coordination with local citizen groups and the developer in the 401 Certification.
29 a. Response - I believe that this issue is not pertinent for the 401 Certification since it
30 does not directly involve water quality standards. However, the company has agreed
31 to meet regularly with local citizens and DWQ should encourage that process via a
32 letter from staff to the developer..
33 I believe that a water quality certification can be issued for the proposed project However, a number of
34 recommendations are made for your consideration. These recommendations could be addressed through a
35 conditional certification.
36
37 The Water Quality Certification Rules for reviewing this project can be found in I SA NCAC 02H .0500.
38 After a review of the pertinent information, I offer these observations to assist you and the staff of the
39 Wetland Program Development Unit in your decisions related to the issuance of the 401 water quality
40 certification. I have met with DWQ staff and the applicant at the development site. I have reviewed the
41 application; newspaper articles, maps, reports, and the hearing record and new plan submittals by the
42 applicant. The number of pages and files are substantial and have been created and appeared in an
43 evolutionary fashion making the project review a challenge. It is my understanding from staff that this is
44 not unusual for controversial projects.
45
46 I would like to organize my observations based on 15A NCAC 02H .0506, the criteria for certification.
Page 5 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 (1). NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE, CONSIDERING CHANGES IN DESIGN AND A POTENTIAL FOR
2 REDUCTION IN SIZE, THE BASIC PURPOSE CANNOT PRACTICALLY BE ACCOMPLISHED TO AVOID LESS
3 ADVERSE IMPACT TO SURFACE WATERS OR WETLANDS.
4 The applicant has further reduced wetland impacts to site "N" (the commercial site) based on staff and
5 public comment after the hearing. Wetland impacts are now down to 0.807acres which is less than DWQ's
6 mitigation threshold for wetlands. Staff have also carefully reviewed all of the proposed road crossings and
7 received further clarification for the need for and design of several road crossings on the project site. Given
8 the size of the development, staff believe that further minimization of wetland or stream fill is not
9 practicable and still accomplish the basic purpose of the development -namely, construction of a
10 residential subdivision with associated commercial and institutional uses.
11
12 RECOMMENDATION:
13 THE 401 CERTIFICATION BE ISSUED TO REFLECT THAT LAST VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN AS PROVIDED
14 BY THE APPLICANT ON MARCH 27, 2006
15
16 (2). MINIMIZES ADVERSE IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS.
17 The applicant has further reduced wetland impacts to site "N" (the commercial site) based on staff and
18 public comment after the hearing. Wetland impacts are now down to 0.807 acres which is less than
19 DWQ's mitigation threshold for wetlands. Staff have also carefully reviewed all of the proposed road
20 crossings and received further clarification for the need for and design of several road crossings on the
21 project site. Given the size of the development, staff believe that further minimization of wetland or stream
22 fill is not practicable..
23
24 RECOMMENDATION:
25 THE 401 CERTIFICATION BE ISSUED TO REFLECT THAT LAST VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN AS PROVIDED
26 BY THE APPLICANT ON MARCH 27, 2006
27
28 (3) THE PROJECT DOES NOT RESULT IN THE DEGRADATION OF GROUNDWATERS OR SURFACE WATERS.
29 The project contains provisions for significant minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams as outlined
30 above with legal protection mechanisms to provide long-term protection of these sites. In addition, the
31 project proposes to install on-site stormwater management measures at 37 sites throughout the project.
32 These measures will prevent the degradation of surface waters as a result of the project. In order to protect
33 groundwater, the non-discharge permit issued by the Division of Water Quality contains provisions for
34 monitoring the treated effluent which will thereby prevent degradation of groundwater on the site
35
36 RECOMMENDATION:
Page 6 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 THE 401 CERTIFICATION BE ISSUED TO REFLECT THAT LAST VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN AS PROVIDED
2 BY TIIE APPLICANT ON FEBRUARY 24 AND MARCH 27, 2006.
3
4 (4) THE PROJECT SIIOULD NOT RESULT IN CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TIIAT CAUSE DOWNSTREAM
5 VIOLATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
6 This project will not result in additional impacts to streams or wetlands on the site since the remaining
7 wetlands and streams on the site will be protected with conservation easements or similar provisions. The
8 Division's Draft Cumulative Impact policy has been met by this project since the project itself will not
9 result in additional growth either nearby or within the project boundaries.
10
11 RECOMMENDATION:
12 THE 401 CERTIFICATION BE ISSUED TO REFLECT THAT LAST VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN AS PROVIDED
13 BY THE APPLICANT ON FEBRUARY 24 AND MARCH 27, 2006.
14
15 (5). PROVIDES FOR PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THROUGH THE USE OF
16 ON-SITE STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES.
17 This project has been subdivided into 37 subbasins with specific on-site stormwater management measures
18 for each subbasin. Additional written approval from DWQ will be required for the stormwater
19 management device planned for each location. In addition, the 401 Certification will require that these
20 BMPs will need to be designed to remove soluble pollutants due to the designation of waters on the site
21 being NSW. Therefore, wet or dry detention ponds (by themselves) will not be sufficient. Rather devices
22 such as constructed wetlands or bioretention areas will be needed which are more effective at removing
23 nutrients from stormwater runoff.
24
25 RECOMMENDATION:
26 THE 401 CERTIFICATION BE ISSUED TO REFLECT THAT LAST VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN AS PROVIDED
27 BY THE APPLICANT ON FEBRUARY 24 AND MARCH 27, 2006.
28
29 (6). THE PROJECT PROVIDES FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING USES THROUGH WETLAND MITIGATION
30 UNDER USACOE REQUIREMENTS. MITIGATION SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR IMPACT'S TO WETLANDS
31 LESS THAN ONE ACRE. WETLAND MITIGATION SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF A 1:1 RATIO. OTHER
32 RATIOS ARE REQUIRED FOR SPECIFIC WETLANDS.
33 The on-site preservation and restoration of the Harper's crossroads site will more than adequately satisfy
34 DWQ's stream mitigation requirements. Since wetland impacts are now less than one acre, DWQ will not
35 require wetland mitigation for this project. It should be noted that wetland mitigation will be required by
36 the US Army Corps of Engineers for this project through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The
37 applicant has provided sufficient documentation to staff to demonstrate that stream mitigation within the
Page 7 of 23
Memorandum: John Dorney for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
immediate cataloging unit is not practical. The higher ratios for stream mitigation reflect the stream
mitigation site's location in the adjacent Cataloging Unit. The 401 Certification contains a condition for
additional written approval from DWQ for the final mitigation plan at the Harper's Crossroads site to
ensure that the final mitigation plan will replace the lost uses of streams as a result of the development.
RECOMMENDATION:
THE 401 CERTIFICATION BE ISSUED TO REFLECT THAT LAST VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN AS PROVIDED
BY THE APPLICANT ON FEBRUARY 24 AND MARCH 27, 2006.
(7) OTHER ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY DWQ ADMINISTRATION
One issue that was raised repeatedly by the public at the Public Hearing related to land application of
wastewater. For instance, many citizens expressed concern about spray application of wastewater to sites
near homes and within the property buffers. As you know (and as was stated at the Public Hearing), the
Division has issued anon-discharge permit for the spray irrigation under the Express Review Program.
Therefore, these issues have been considered by staff during the issuance of this permit. However, I
believe that DWQ Administration needs to address whether it is appropriate to issue anon-discharge permit
under the Express Review Program (or otherwise), when high levels of public concern are likely. A
detailed response to this issue is listed on pages 4 and 5 of this report.
Page 8 of 23
Memorandum: John Dorney for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
APPENDL~ ONE -DRAFT 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
May 9, 2006
Mr. Mitch Barron
Newland Communities
31 Hillsboro Street
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Re: Briar Chapel development, Orange County
DWQ #2005-0732; USACE Action ID. No. 200121252
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Barron:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3567 issued to Newland Communities, dated May 9, 2006.
In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non-
discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/jrd
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: Todd Tugwell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Eric Kulz, DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office
John Holley, DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Sean Clark, Soil and Environmental Consultants
Pete Colwell, Stantec, 801 Jones Franklin Road, Raleigh, NC 27606
Elaine Chiosso, Haw River Assembly, P.O. Box 187, Bynum, NC 27228
William Sommers, 1067 Fearrington Post, Pittsboro, NC 27312
Attendees of Public Hearing who requested 401 decision
Leah Friedman, Chapel Hill Bureau, Raleigh News and Observer
20050732BriarChapel(Chatham)401
Page 9 of 23
Memorandum: John Dorney for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500
and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Newland Communities to permanently 6110.67 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 1,412 linear feet of streams along with temporary impacts to 0.137 acres of
wetlands and 21 I linear feet of streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, associated with the construction of
Briar Chapel development in Chatham County, North Carolina, pursuant to an application filed on the 17th
day of June of 2005, the Public Notice issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers on June 14, 2005 and a
revised applications dated December 12, 2005 and February 24,
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302,
303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the supporting
documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a change
in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in writing and
a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid, compliance with the
conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount A roved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream - ermanent 1,653 feet Site Ian
Stream - tem ora 211 feet Site lan
404 Wetlands - ermanent 0.67 acres Site lan
404 Wetlands - tem orary 0.137 acres Site lan
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the
proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order
to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion
control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified
in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and
Page 10 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits
associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. Sensitive Watershed Erosion and Sediment Control Practices
The Division of Land Resources' Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B
.0124) must be adhered to throughout the life of this project.
4. ~ No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401 Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
5. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
6. Construction Stormwater Permit NCGO 10000
Upon the approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan issued by the Division of Land
Resources (DLR) or a DLR delegated local erosion and sedimentation control program, an
NPDES General stotrnwater permit (NCG010000) administered by DWQ is automatically issued
to the project. This General Permit allows stormwater to be discharged during land disturbing
construction activities as stipulated by conditions in the permit. If your project is covered by this
permit [applicable to construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acres], full compliance
with permit conditions including the sedimentation control plan, self-monitoring, record keeping
and reporting requirements are required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may
be found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/Forms Documents.htm.
Continuing Compliance:
Newland Communities, shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent with State
water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and federal
law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the
failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that
further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify
this Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and
requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before modifying the Certification, the
Division shall notify Newland Communities and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public
notice in accordance with ISA NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to
Newland Communities in writing, shall be provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers
for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also
become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Page 11 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 4 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
2 Mitigation:
3
4 8. Compensatory stream mitigation shall be done through a combination of on-site preservation of
5 approximately 63,412 linear feet of stream and off-site restoration of 2,229 linear feet of streams
6 at the Harpers Crossroads stream mitigation site. Both of these mitigation efforts shall be protected
7 through use of conservation easement written to satisfy the US Army Corps of Engineers. Uses
8 which may be allowable in the protected stream buffers include water dependent activities and
9 greenway trails upon additional written approval of the Division of Water Quality and US Army
10 Corps of Engineers. These provisions should be explicitly reflected in the conservation
11 easements.
12
13 A final compensatory mitigation plan for the Harpers Crossroads site must be approved in writing
14 by this Office before any of the impacts approved herein are conducted. Additionally, the
15 compensatory mitigation plan must be completely constructed and implemented according to the
16 plans approved by this Office before any permanent building or road associated with the project is
17 occupied or opened. The mitigation must be maintained according to the approved plan and
18 permanently protected by the use of conservation easements or similar protections. Any repairs or
19 adjustments to the mitigation site must be made according to the approved plan or must receive
20 .written approval from this Office to make the repairs or adjustments.
21
22 Road Crossines:
23
24 9. Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream
25 profiles are not altered. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions,
26 pattern, and longitudinal profile) must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert.
27 Culverts shall be designed and installed to allow for aquatic life movement as well as to prevent
28 head cutting of the streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate
29 stream grade shall be re-established or, if the pipes installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall
30 be removed and re-installed correctly.
31
32 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands must be placed below
33 the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
34 and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
35 low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
36 including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
37 in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
38 of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
39 maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
40
41 Other conditions:
42
43 10. Written Stormwater Management Plan (Final Plan Needed)
44
45 A final, written stormwater management plan for each of the 37 identified subwatersheds
46 discussed in the February 24, 2006 letter (including signed and notarized Operation and
47 Maintenance Agreements) shall be submitted to the 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
48 (2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC, 27604) within 60 days of the issuance of the 401
49 Water Quality Certification. The stormwater plans shall utilize constructed wetlands, bioretention
50 areas, wet ponds followed by forested filter strips and similar best management practices designed
51 to remove nutrients. Finally, treated stormwater shall be directed to flow into remaining wetlands
52 on site at non-erosive velocities in order to maintain the hydrology of these wetlands.
53
54 The stormwater management plan may be submitted to DWQ in phases for written approval as
55 long as no impact to wetlands or streams occur in that phase until written approval is received
6 from DWQ. You have the option of using the Express Review Program for expedited approval of
Page 12 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 these plans. If you propose to use the Express Review Program, remember to include the
2 appropriate fee with the plan. The stormwater management plan must include plans,
3 specifications, and worksheets for stormwater management facilities that are appropriate for the
4 surface water classification and designed to remove at least 85% TSS according to the most recent
5 version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. These facilities must
6 be designed to treat the runoff from the entire project, unless otherwise explicitly approved by the
7 Division of Water Quality. Also, before any permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the
8 facilities (as approved by this Office) shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater
9 management plan (as approved by this Office) shall be implemented. The structural stormwater
10 practices as approved by this Office as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity.
11 No changes to the structural stotmwater practices shall be made without written authorization
12 from the Division of Water Quality.
13
14 11. Water Quality Monitoring
15 Additional written approval is required for a water quality monitoring plan for this project.
16 This plan shall be designed to determine whether there are any water quality impacts from this
17 project and shall include physical, chemical and biological monitoring. Written approval from
18 DWQ for this plan shall be received before any streams or wetlands are impacted on this site.
19 This plan shall be for a minimum of five (5) years during and immediately after construction.
20 DWQ will then evaluate whether monitoring is required beyond this five (5) year time period.
21
22 12. Downstream stability - On-site stormwater management and the monitoring program shall be
23 directed at ensuring that streambanks downstream of the development remain in a stable
24 condition or that additional instability not be induced as a result of this project.
25
26 Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
27 depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
28
29 If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
30 request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
31 written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
32 Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If modifications
33 are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the modifications
34 upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are
35 made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
36
37 This the 9th day of May 2006
38 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
39
40
41
42 Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
43
44 AWK/jrd
45

Page 13 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006
r'~

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 APPENDIX TWO -PUBLIC NOTICE FOR HEARING
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
November 2, 2005
Chatham News
303 West Raleigh St
Siler City, NC 27344
Attn: Legal Ad Department
Dear Sir:
Re: Public Notices
Please publish the attached Public Notice one time in the sections set aside for
Legal Advertisements in your newspaper. The publication should run on or before
November 10, 2005. Please send the invoice for the publications and three copies of
the affidavit of publication to the address given below. Payment cannot be
processed without the affidavit of publication.
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Attn: John Dorney
Water Quality Section
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
If you have any questions, please telephone me at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
JRD/bs
cc: Todd Tugwell, Raleigh Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers
Eric Kulz, Raleigh Regional DWQ Office
Central Files
File Copy
Mitch Barron, Newland Communities, 31 Hillsboro Street, Pittsboro, NC 27312
Elaine Chiosso, Haw River Assembly, P.O. Box 187, Pittsboro, NC 27228
Loyse Hurley, President, Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities, Inc., P.O.
Box 236, Bynum, NC 27228
Mary Britain, Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities, Inc., P.O. Box 236,
Bynum, NC 27228
Page 14 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006
.~

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
2 William Smomers, Fearrington Homeowners Association, Fearrington Village, 29
3 Fearrington Post, Pittsboro, NC 27312
4 Sean Clark, Soil and Environmental Consultants
5 Mark Bowers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office, P.O. Box
6 33726, Raleigh, NC 27635-3726
7 Representative David Price, Congress of the United States, House of
8 Representatives, 2162 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
9 Representative Joe Hackney, North Carolina House of Representatives, State
to Legislative Building, Raleigh, NC 27601-1096
11
12
13
14
I S PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
16 NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
17
18 PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that Newland Communities, c/o Mr. Mitch Barron has
19 applied to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for a Water Quality Certification
20 pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Water Quality Commission
21 rules in 15A NCAC 2H 1300. The activity for this Certification is sought to construct the
22 Briar Chapel Residential Subdivision in Chatham County. The proposed development
23 would permanently impact 1,645 feet of stream channel and 1.188 acres of wetlands as
24 well as temporary impacts to 224 feet of stream channel and 0.1437 acres of wetlands for
25 utility line construction. The applicant proposes to conduct 2,229 feet of stream
26 restoration at Harpers Crossroads stream mitigation site as well as provide payment to the
27 NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program for an additional 29 feet of stream mitigation and
28 2.128 acres of riparian wetland mitigation.
29
3o The Division has scheduled a PUBLIC HEARING to review public comment and
31 additional information related to the 401 Certification for this project on Tuesday
32 December 13, 2005 starting at 7 pm in the Chatham County Courthouse, District Court
33 room at 12 East Street, Pittsboro, NC 27312. The record from this hearing shall remain
34 open for one (1) month after the hearing date for additional written public comment. The
35 public is invited to comment on the above-mentioned application to the Division of
36 Water Quality. Comments shall be in writing and shall be received by the Division no
37 later than January 13, 2006 and can also be provided at the Public Hearing. Comments
38 should be sent to the N.C. Division of Water Quality, Wetlands and Stormwater Branch,
39 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, NC 27604, Attn: John Dorney (919-733-9646 Fax:
40 919-733-6893). A copy of the application is on file at the Division office at 3800 Barrett
41 Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 (Raleigh Regional Office fax [phone])
42 during normal business hours and may be inspected by the public.
43
44 Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
45 N.C. Division of Water Quality
46
47 DATE: November 2, 2005
48
Page 15 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1
2 APPENDIX TIIREE -SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC HEARING
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED
5 Briar Chapel Residential Subdivision, Chatham County
6
7 Chatham County Courthhouse, District Court room, 12 East Street, Pittsboro, NC
8 December 13, 2005
9
10 Summary prepared by John Dorney
11 Approximately 70 people in attendance
12
13 Rick Shiver, after introducing himself, called the hearing to order. Mr. Shiver recognized staff members
` 14 Tom Reeder, John Dorney, Cyndi Karoly, Ian McMillan and Amy Chapman. He then asked elected
15 officials to stand and identify themselves. Mr. Shiver then explained the purpose and procedures of the
16 hearing.
17
18 Mr. Shiver stated that the purpose of this hearing was to solicit water-quality related comments from all
19 interested parties regarding the proposed fill of 1,653 linear feet of jurisdictional streams and 1.06 acres of
20 jurisdictional wetlands to construct the Briar Chapel Residential Subidivsion in Pittsboro, Chatham County,
21 North Carolina. Mr. Shiver indicated that the CWA 404 permit application (and subsequent need fora 401
22 water quality certification) for this individual project was put in Public Notice by the US Army Corps of
23 Engineers on June 14, 2005.
24
25 Mr. Shiver indicated, that after initial review of the project application materials, the Division of Water
26 Quality placed the project on hold on August 8, 2005, pending additional details on proposed impacts and
27 to allow time for a meeting of interested stakeholders to this project. The applicant was notified on October
28 18, 2005 of the need for a public hearing for this project since Mr. Alan Klimek -the Director of the
29 Division of Water Quality -had determined that it was in the public's best interest to have a public hearing
30 on this matter in order to review public comments and gather additional information.
31
32 Mr. Shiver, acknowledging the audience, expressed his awareness that this was an important issue for those
33 in attendance. As hearing officer, he was particularly interested in any comments that were directly related
34 to potential water quality impacts or wetlands impacts expected to result from this project. He explained
35 that there would be no opportunity for debates, or questions to be addressed to individual speakers. Mr.
36 Shiver then introduced John Dorney to explain the 401 Water Quality Certification Process.
37
Page 16 of 23
Memorandum: John Dorney for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 Mr. Dorney indicated that any project which adds fill to waters or wetlands of the United States requires a
2 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project required an Individual Permit since the
3 applicant proposes to impact more than 500 linear feet of streams. The Corps of Engineers issued a Public
4 Notice for this project on June 14, 2005. According to the Clean Water Act, each federal permit must have
5 a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality. A 401 Certification is a
6 Certification by the Division of Water Quality that the project will not violate any relevant water quality
7 standards and regulations.
8
9 According to Mr. Dorney's presentation, the basic review process is that DWQ must determine:
10 1). Whether significant existing uses are present in the waters or wetlands and whether the project would
11 remove or degrade those uses.
12 2) If there is a practical alternative to the project,
13 3) Whether the impacts can be further minimized,
14 4) Whether the project will result in degradation of groundwaters or surface waters,
15 5) Whether the project results in cumulative impacts,
16 6) Whether the project provides for protection of downstream water quality standards through stormwater
17 controls,
18 7) Whether the wetland and stream mitigation plans (where required) will replace the existing uses of
19 impacted streams and wetlands.
20
21 Mr. Dorney indicated that for Individual Permits, DWQ's rules require that DWQ will not duplicate the
22 site-specific application of any guidelines used for review by the Army Corps of Engineers. DWQ rules
23 also state that mitigation required by the Corps will be that required by DWQ as long as there is at least a
24 1:1 replacement of wetlands acres through restoration or creation. Mr. Dorney then gave a brief
25 PowerPoint presentation on some of the proposed impact, design and mitigation for this project (see
26 Appendix Four of this report).
27
28 After Mr. Dorney's presentation, Mr. Shiver then recognized William Sommers from the Fearrington
29 Homeowners Association (FHA). Mr. Sommers provided written comments in addition to the following
30 oral comments. He recommended that 1) no development occur in the 100 acre commercial parcel adjacent
31 to the Fearrington development until the Briar Chapel developers discuss issues with the Fearrington HOA
32 and erosion control measures are in place, 2) the FHA receive quarterly reports including baseline data, 3)
33 treated spray irrigation not be allowed to be applied to buffer areas especially near the Fearrington HOA
34 due to flooding and health concerns, and 4) the developers agree to meet quarterly with the HOA and Haw
35 River Assembly to discuss the project as it develops.
36
Page 17 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 Steve Metelitis then spoke. He was concerned that the buffer between the development and the
2 surrounding neighborhoods could be used for spray irrigation and expressed concerns regarding odor and
3 mist. He stated that restrictions are needed on this spray irrigation to take weather into account (especially
4 heavy rain and wind).
5
6 Rita Kay Spina then spoke for the Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities (CCEC). She was
7 concerned about the recent large number of large developments in Chatham County as well as the impacts
8 on nearby streams from construction of 15/501. She stated that past discussions with developers have been
9 useful. She was concerned about runoff from the site impacting adjacent homes and well as Notice's of
10 Violation for other developers from past water quality impact. She was concerned about water quality
11 impacts on Jordan Lake from stormwater and spray irrigation. She stated that some locations in
12 Fearrington are not suitable for septic tanks and wastewater.
13
14 John Heuer then spoke. He was concerned about development in the area especially regarding the spray
15 irrigation and commercial development along 15/501. He questioned the need for setbacks from the spray
16 areas as well as location of spray fields in the buffers. He was concerned about protection of groundwater
17 quality from the development and spray irrigation. He had three questions for DWQ - 1) will
18 environmental regulations guide development?, 2) what enforcement resources exist within DWQ to ensure
19 compliance with any permit conditions, and 3) what is the recourse for local individuals if the development
20 causes damage to their property?
21
22 Scott Ferguson then spoke. He expressed concerns about the local County approval process during which
23 the number of homes and size of the development increased. He was also concerned about downstream
24 water quality impacts and impacts to beaver ponds. Finally, he stated that buffers should not receive spray
25 of treated wastewater.
26
27 Mary Bostin then spoke for the Friends of the Rocky River, Cape Fear River Assembly and Fearrington
28 HOA. She believes that the Cape Fear River Basin Plan presents an excellent process to develop a plan to
29 protect the area. She stated that good stewardship was needed to protect water quality in Chatham County
30 and that a plan was needed to bring stakeholders together. She stated that the local citizens looked to
31 DENR to protect water quality and the environment and that piece-meal development will destroy any
32 efforts to implement the basinwide plan.
33
34 Rich Mogensen then spoke for MidAtlantic Mitigation. He stated that his company did an extensive search
35 for stream and wetland mitigation areas in Cape Fear 02 for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's
36 recent Request for Proposals. He stated that mitigation areas are difficult to find in this area. They visited
37 12 potential sites but could not find willing landowners. The Harpers Crossroads site that they did find a

Page 18 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1 perennial stream with extensive cattle grazing impacts. His company plans an extensive mitigation plan
2 with five years of monitoring.
3
4 Francis DiGiano then spoke for the Fearrington HOA. He addressed the spray irrigation issue and asked
5 DWQ to consider alternatives to spray irrigation. He believes that point source (NPDES) discharges are
6 more reliable and will provide better treatment than spray irrigation. He mentioned membrane bioreactive
7 technology which can lead to wastewater reuse as a better alternative. He also stated that DENR will need
8 to be diligent with monitoring during wet and dry periods if the development is permitted.
9
10 Elaine Chiosso then spoke on behalf of the Haw River Assembly. She thanked DWQ for having this
11 hearing. She stated that the Haw River Assembly had submitted four pages of comments earlier. In
12 summary, she stated that this was an enormous project with impact on the Haw River and Jordan Lake.
13 She had several specific issues for the 401 Certification to address - 1) cumulative impact from additional
14 development, 2) minimize the impact by reducing the number of houses, 3) federal endangered species -
15 Cape Fear Shiner from Bynum to Jordan Lake, and 4) mitigation must be in the same watershed as Jordan .
16 "
17 Loyse Hurley then spoke for the Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities (CCEC). She also thanked
18 DWQ for having this hearing. Her specific issues were - 1) the need for strict sediment and erosion
19 control, 2) spray areas in buffers, 3) that there were too many stream crossings in the development, 4) could
20 the village center be redesigned to reduce impacts?, and 5) that mitigation was in a different area from the
21 impact. She stated that DWQ had required mitigation for a High Point, N.C. project in 1992 in the water
22 supply watershed. Finally, she stated that the Newland developers had been cooperative in the past.
23
24 Robert Eby then spoke for the CCEC and FHA. He also thanked DWQ for having this hearing. He
25 expressed concerns about spray fields especially in the perimeter buffers. The Chatham County ordinance
26 does not say that spray is allowed in these buffer areas. He was concerned about flooding in adjacent
27 property during rains and recommended that spray not be allowed within 100 feet of residential property.
28
29 Sally Erickson then spoke. She stated that this was the largest development in Chatham County's history.
30 She used the analogy of an alien race developing the area and then spraying their wastewater adjacent to
31 homes. She asked that DWQ be very careful and watchful when environmental monitoring was concerned
32 and asked staff to be responsible for Chatham County needs and future generations.
33
34 After a short break, Kay Gundlach spoke. She expressed concerns regarding the Clean Water Act and
35 requested conditions to the 401 Certification to protect water quality. Her specific concerns were 1)
36 stormwater runoff from Fearrington from the US 15/501 construction, 2) the impact of area L (commercial
Page 19 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Heazing Officers Report
1 area) on Fearrington, 3) and that there were no clear development plans in the commercial area concerning
2 how to handle runoff. She stated that her backyard had been ruined by runoff.
3
4 Tom Hauck then spoke. He expressed concerns regarding spray irrigation in the perimeter buffer and
5 stated that this plan was never presented to residents. He stated that DWQ should have notified adjacent
6 landowners of plans to spray wastewater nearby. He stated that a December 12 letter from the developer
7 needs careful review by local citizens and that DWQ should not respond to the letter until DWQ receives
8 local responses.
9
10 Sonny Keilser then spoke for the Friends of the Rocky River. He stated that DWQ should be as tough as
11 nails in writing and enforcing permits He believed that good developments can occur with high
12 environmental standards and challenged Briar Chapel to meet these criteria.
13
14 Mitch Barron then spoke for Newland Communities. He stated that the developer was committed to meet
15 or exceed local and state ordinances. Specifically, he stated that wastewater would be treated above
16 standards, that 900 acres of open space (56%) were provided in the development, stormwater management
17 would meet local ordinances for volume control, sedimentation control would use High Quality Waters best
18 management practices, stream buffers would be protected on site and that spray fields would be at least 50
19 feet from property boundaries.
20
21 Catherine Deininder then spoke for the Haw River Assembly. She discussed the stream mitigation
22 guidelines from the Corps of Engineers and DWQ and stated that the mitigation plan did not comply with
23 that guidance. She stated that Section 5 said that high quality streams should require more mitigation, that
24 Section 6 stated that mitigation sites should be in the same Cataloging Unit (CU) while the Harpers
25 Crossroads site was in an adjacent CU, and that a three year monitoring effort is underway with 319
26 funding in the Pokeberry Creek watershed and that effort will identify mitigation sites.
27
28 Joe Jacob then spoke. He said that this development was an example of incremental decision-making like
29 the decision that lead to New Orleans development decisions. He specifically questioned - 1) the
30 cumulative impact of the development, 2) that mitigation needs to be in the same watershed, 3) courage,
31 and 4) leadership. He stated that the last two issues were a crucial need in this azea.
32
33 Fred Royal then spoke. He had five basic issues - 1) were the road crossings minimized, 2) the Jordan
34 Lake TMDL issue requires higher water quality standards including 150 foot buffers on perennial and 75
35 foot buffers on intermittent streams, 3) the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is a good program but has
36 delays in procuring wetland mitigation sites and he stated that nearby, up-front mitigation was needed due
Page 20 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

Briar Chapel Development
Hearing Officers Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
to the TMDL, 4) stotmwater operation and maintenance is critical for long-term maintenance and
effectiveness, and 5) crossings should consider arched culverts rather than regular culverts.
Ken Boggs then spoke. He stated that this project was a good example of the "ready, fire, aim" approach to
planning with inadequate enforcement and penalties. He expressed concerns about the well water for his
home and whether it would be protected for impact from the Briar Chapel development. He was concerned
about incremental water quality impacts and their long-term consequences.
Beverly D'Aquaani then spoke for the Haw River Assembly. She expressed concerns about the proposed
stream mitigation being within one stream order and nearby as described in the Corps of Engineers and
DWQ mitigation guidance documents. She stated that the Haw River Assembly knew of sites in the
Cataloging Unit that need mitigation.
Conclusion
Rick Shiver asked if there were any additional speakers. Hearing none, he closed the hearing but reminded
those in attendance that the record will remain open until January 13, 2006. He expressed his appreciation
to all present for their respectful attention to both time and for respecting their fellow presenters during this
hearing. After the comment period ends on January 13, 2006, he will make a recommendation regarding
this Certification to the Director of the Division.
Page 21 of 23
Memorandum: John Domey for Rick Shiver to Alan Klinek May 9 2006

~.
__._,m_,._~.~,~__~
Proposed Briar
~> Chapel Development
Background Information
for Public Hearing held on
December 13, 2005
fi' ~..
Application Information (cont.)
• Decision to hold public hearing made on October 18,
2005
• Public Notice to 401 Certification mailing list and in The
Chatham News on November 10, 2005.
-' • Revised impact maps received on December 2, 2005
• Public hearing held on December 13, 2005
• Public comment period open until January 13, 2005
.;''Application Information
• Background information received June 2, 2005
• Application (Individual Permit) received June 17, 2005
• Application placed on hold for more information August
8, 2005
• Partial response from applicant on August 24, 2005
• Public Information meeting held with applicant and
citizens on August 25, 2005
_- -
---..._._._... ___..J
"~ Background Information
~ -Location
1
! • Residential/commercial community in northern
Chatham County
• Size -1,589 acres
• Drains to Jordan Lake through several
tributaries -Pokeberry Creek and Wilkinson
Creek
- Classified as Water Supplies and Nutrient Sensitive
Waters
4 1

Background Information
-Proposed Impacts
• Wetlands -1.06 acres permanent and 0.15
acres temporary (utility crossings)
- mostly for Village Center (commercial)
• Stream crossings -1,653 feet permanent and
224 feet temporary (utility crossings)
r - 13 road crossings (two eliminated on December 2,
~ 2005 submittal)
Harpers Crossroads Site
wr
p
i Background Information
- Wastewater Treatment
• Custom-Designed Conventional Treatment
• Treated to DWQ Reuse standards
• Treatment with chlorine, ultraviolet and then
dechlorination
•Non-Discharge Permit approved by Division of
Water Quality
- Additional monitoring conditions
i
(
(~~Background Information
-Mitigation
• Wetlands
- On-site preservation (60 acres)
-Payment into NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for
2.128 acres of riparian wetland mitigation
~ • Streams
- On-site preservation (about 27 to 40 miles and 243 acres of
buffers)
-Harpers Crossroads site for 2,200 feet of credit (about 28
miles away)
I -EEP for remaining 29 feel of stream credit
~~
Background Information -
StormwaterManagement
• During construction
- Erosion control and sedimentation permit -designed to High
Quality Waters standards
- Approval by NC Division of Land Resources
- Maintain stream buffers (50 feet)
• Post construction
- Wet detention basins and constructed wetlands to manage
runoff in 37 sub-basins
- Designed to meet DWQ standards for Nutrient Sensitive
Waters (NSW)
Additional Public Comment
t
i • Comments to DWQ by 5 pm on January 13, 2005
1 • Mail written comments to:
-j _ Rick Shiver, Hearing Officer
- C/o John Domey
w -Wetlands Program Development Untt
- Parkview Building
j - 2321 Crabtree Blvd
a -Raleigh, NC 27604
{ -Fax [phone]
i - Email Lohn dcmevCrDncma lnet
2