SW6100902_COMPLIANCE_20191203

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO. SW lQ��� =�a
DOC TYPE ❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
❑ HISTORICAL FILE
[COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATElq`�j
YYYYM M D D

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
December 3, 2019
Thomas Family Business, Inc.
Attn: R. Carroll Thomas, President
PO Box 43036
Fayetteville, NC 28309
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
State Stormwater Management Permit SW6100902
Wedgefield
Hoke County
Dear Mr. Thomas:
On November 26, 2019, a Compliance Evaluation Inspection was conducted at the Wedgefield development located off
Carolina Drive in Hoke County, North Carolina. The purpose of the inspection was to ensure compliance with State
Stormwater Management Permit SW6100902 that was originally issued on October 19, 2010 and subsequently
modified/reissued on September 14, 2011 and January 16, 2014. A copy of the Compliance Inspection Report is enclosed
for your review. As a result of the inspection and subsequent file review, it has been determined that the facility is
compliant with the conditions of the subject permit and approved plans.
Please refer to the enclosed Compliance Inspection Report for additional comments and observations made during the
inspection. If you have any questions or this office can be of any assistance, please contact me at [phone] or via
e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Michael Lawyer, CPSWQ
Environmental Program Consultant
DEMLR
Enclosure: Compliance Inspection Report
cc: Scott Brown, PE — 4D Site Solutions (via e-mail)
FRO — DEMLR, State Stormwater Files
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Energy. Mineral and Land Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office 1 225 Green Street. Suite 7141 Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301
wmH cwa
�TM•�^^r^^'^"'^^�•'"^"� 9104333300

Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: SW6100902 Effective: 01/16/14 Expiration: 01/15/22
Project:
Wedgefeld
Owner:
Thomas Family Business Inc
County:
Hoke
Region:
Fayetteville
Contact Person: Raymond Carroll Thomas
Directions to Project:
Type of Project: State Stormwater - HD - Detention Pond
Drain Areas: 1 - (Stewarts Creek) (03-06-15 ) (C)
On -Site Representative(s):
On -site representative Raymond Carroll Thomas
On -site representative Scott Brown
Related Permits:
Adress: 386 Carolina Dr
City/State/Zip: Raeford NC 28376
Title: President Phone: [phone]
910-864-0864
910-426-6777
Inspection Date: 11126/2019 Entry Time: 09:45AM
Primary Inspector: Mike Lawyer / "
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for Inspection: Routine
Permit Inspection Type: State Slormwater
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
■ State Stonnwater
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 11:05AM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
page: 1

permit: SW6100902 Owner - project: Thomas Family Business Inc
Inspection Date: 11/25/2019 Inspection Type Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Met with R. Carroll Thomas and Scott Brown at the permitted detention pond to determine compliance with State
Stormwater Management Permit SW6100902. Permit was originally issued on October 19, 2010 for the initial phase of
the development and subsequently modified/reissued on September 14, 2011 to incorporate a portion of the drainage
area from Phase III. The permit was again modified/reissued on January 16, 2014 to incorporate the entire drainage area
from Phase II. Please note that due to this latest modification, Permit SW6111101 that was issued on December 16,
2011 for Wedgefield Subdivision Phase II may be rescinded upon request.
At the time of inspection, the permitted built -upon area (BUA) as well as the dimensions, forebays, inlet structures and
outlet structure of the permitted detention pond appeared to have been installed per the permit and approved plans. Small
pine trees were observed growing on the interior slopes of the pond, which are not allowed. Mr_ Thomas was advised to
flush -cut the trees and remove them from the site. One of the inlets at forebay #2 appeared to be without the appropriate
amount of rip rap protection underneath the flared -end section of the pipe. Mr. Thomas was advised to place additional rip
rap underneath the inlet pipe in order to help prevent undercutting. Subsequent to the inspection, the aforementioned
items were addressed as evidenced by photos of the completed work being sent via e-mail to the inspector on December
2, 2019. Also provided with the same e-mail were copies of the recorded restrictive covenants and easements with
correction to the Stormwater Permit Number as well as the deed transfer for the retention pond area.
page: 2

permit: SW6100902 owner - project: Thomas Family Business Inc
Inspection Date: 11/26/2019 Inspection Type Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
File Review Yes No NA NE
Is the permit active? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Signed copy of the Engineer's certification is in the file? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Signed copy of the Operation & Maintenance Agreement is in the file? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Copy of the recorded deed restrictions is in the file? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Built Upon Area Yes No NA NE
Is the site BUA constructed as per the permit and approval plans? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the drainage area as per the permit and approved plans? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
Is the BUA (as permitted) graded such that the runoff drains to the system? i ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
SW Measures
Yes
No NA NE
Are the SW measures constructed as per the approved plans?
®
❑ ❑ ❑
Are the inlets located per the approved plans?
M
❑ ❑ ❑
Are the outlet structures located per the approved plans?
e
❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Operation and Maintenance Yes No NA NE
Are the SW measures being maintained and operated as per the permit requirements? M ❑ ❑ ❑
Are the SW BMP inspection and maintenance records complete and available for review or provided to ❑ ❑ ❑
DWO upon request?
Comment:
Other Permit Conditions Yes No NA NE
Is the site compliant with other conditions of the permit? e ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
page: 3

Lawyer, Mike
From:
Diane Loes <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Monday, December 2, 2019 10:07 AM
To:
Lawyer, Mike
Cc:
'Carroll Thomas'; [e-mail]
Subject:
[External] Wedgefield Subdivision - Pond
Attachments:
Deed Transfering Phase 1 Pond and Watertower Parcel.pdf; 1 B Addendum.pdf; 2A
Addendum Signed.pdf; 2A Addendum.pdf; 2B Addendum.pdf; 2C Addendum.pdf; 2D
Addendum.pdf; 2D Not Recorded Yet.pdf; 2E Addendum.pdf; 3A Addendum.pdf; 4A
Addendum.pdf; Amended to Correct Permit Number.pdf; Original Restrictive Covenants
- 1A.pdf; IMG 0855.MOV; IMG_0858jpg; IMG_0859.jpg; IMG_0860.jpg; IMG_0861.jpg;
IMG_0862.jpg; IMG_0863jpg; IMG_0864.jpg; IMG_0866.jpg
Mr. Lawyer,
Mr. Thomas has asked me to send the attached to you. Mr. Thomas meet with you last Tuesday at the site in the
Wedgefield Subdivision. We hope we have done everything you discussed. I have attached pictures of the pond, the
deed transferring the property to the HOA, the complete set of restrictive covenants and the addendum of the
covenants correcting the permit # on the covenants. Please let us know either by email me or calling Mr. Thomas. (910-
476-6000)
Thank You,
Diane Loes

Iry

q
S
3
tl
y3 ♦� � Y
5 � R-.
ZI
F
1.A
J�t
n,
♦
.
I
{
T

W
Lawyer, Mike
From: Scott Brown <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1,15 PM
To: Lawyer, Mike
Subject: [External] Wedgefield wet pond certification
Attachments: Pond certification.pdf
The wet pond certification for the large pond is attached. This is the permit that you emailed me last week. I'm not sure
if the certification needs to go somewhere else. If so, please forward. Mr. Thomas will be transferring the pond to the
HOA very soon. I will complete the transfer agreement for the 0&M.
thanks,
4Dsite
-NIFFsolutions
Scott Brown, PE Professional Engineer
office. 910-426-6777 ext 102 1 cell: 910-489-6731 1 fax: [phone]
409 Chicago Drive, Suite 112, Fayetteville, NC 28306
On time, every time. I w ADsitesolutions.com

Lowther, Brian
From:
Jarrod Hilliard [[e-mail]]
Sent:
Friday, November 05, 2010 3:12 PM
To:
Lowther, Brian
Subject:
RE: SW6100902 Wedgefield
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Brian,
For the Wedgefield Phase 1 project, we have revised our roadway typical section to be 3% instead of 2%, and we added
a note regarding the 0.01 in/hr infiltration to remind the Contractor to have it checked or a liner would be needed. We
also took the stamp off that had" FINAL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION." Nothing has changed on the actual pond itself.
Should we just send these revised plans back to you for your files?
Sincerely,
Jarrod E. Hilliard, PE, CFM - Project Manager
fI�(} Hobbs Upchurch As DENR—FRO
300 SW Broad Street I Southern Pines, NC 28387 NOV 2 2 2010
P: 910, 692.5616
F: 910.692.7342 ®a(j jrl
C: 910.639.7724 a v Q
E: mailto:ihilliard(a)hobbsuochurch.com '
From: Lowther, Brian [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:07 PM
To: Jarrod Hilliard
Subject: RE: SW6100902 Wedgefield
Hey Jarrod,
I have been meaning to respond to your other email. If you were going to change the design and add a liner then you
would want to submit a permit modification which would just update the plan sheets to show this change. The permit
would stay the same in this case but there would be new approved plan sheets. Also, I have issued this permit and sent
it to the permittee. I copied you on it too so you should see it soon.
Brian C. Lowther
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]

Email: brian.lowthcr(ii.?ncdenr.gov
Website: htgri/Aortal.ncdenr.orh+eb/wq/ws,'su
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Jarrod Hilliard[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:01 PM
To: Jarrod Hilliard; Lowther, Brian
Subject: RE: SW6100902 Wedgefeld
Brian,
We just learned that the Contractor has gotten back into the clay when excavating to final grades at the bottom
elevation of the pond.
Regardless, I'm still interested to know if we are required to submit anything to you after excavation verifying
infiltration.
Thanks.
P.S. I also wanted to check on the overall review of the submittal.
Sincerely,
Jarrod E. Hilliard, PE, CFM - Project Manager
Hobbs Upchurch Associates
300 SW Broad Street I Southern Pines, NC 28387
P: 910,692-5616
F: 910.692.7342
C: 910.639.7724
E: ihilliard(Whobbsuochurch.com
From: Jarrod Hilliard
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:47 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: SW6100902 Wedgefield
Brian,
I received updated information on this project's wet detention basin soil from the Contractor today and he informed us
that he is running into areas of more sandy material outside of the soil bores.
As such, depending upon the quantity of existing clay material, they will first try to re -distribute and compact the clay
over the bottom to maintain the 0.01 in/hr max infiltration. Should they be unable to distribute and compact the clay
material along the bottom, we will be installing a clay liner as necessary from a nearby borrow source. The borrow
source has been used for other pond linings in the area, and it will be evaluated for it's specific use on this project by a
local Geotechnical Engineer for required thickness and max infiltration. I'll keep you updated if necessary on the work.

For this project, and for future reference, after we begin, any wet pond excavation, if we run into non -homogenous soils
and have to use borrow clay soils from another site, how does this affect the original permitting of the Wet Detention
Basin? Should we just submit an additional report to you upon completion of the evaluation if borrow soils are used?
Sincerely,
Jarrod E. Hilliard, PE, CFM - Project Manager
Hobbs Upchurch Associates
300 SW Broad Street I Southern Pines, NC 28387
P: 910.692.5616
F:910.692.734'2
C: 910.639.7724
E: ihilliard(c),hobbsupchurch.com
From: Jarrod Hilliard
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:30 AM
To: 'Lowther, Brian'
Cc: Tom Goodwin; Tom Wanko
Subject: RE: SW6100902 Wedgefield
On SHWT, average soil permeability is well below max (reference geotechnical report). I've also physically seen the soils
from the sediment basin excavation and it's full of clay. '
On the forebay flow path, the outlet location is best suited where it's currently at due to easement, construction and
hydraulic considerations. We are also required to retain the 50-year storm by NCDOT on this project, aside from any
water quality requirements, so the "straight -through" configuration is also being reviewed by them.
I can send a sketch of the estimated flow path in .pdf form for review if that would help.
Sincerely,
Jarrod E. Hilliard, PE, CFM - Project Manager
F Hobbs Upchurch Associates
., , .
300 SW Broad Street I Southern Pines. NC 28387
P: 910.692.5616
F: 910.692,7342
C: 910.639.7724
E: ihilliard(a)hobbsupchurch.com
From: Lowther, Brian fmailto:brian.lowthembncdenr.00vl
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 1:09 PM
To: Jarrod Hilliard
Subject: SW6100902 Wedgefield
Jarrod,
I got a chance to review the plans and additional information that were dated September 29, 2010. Most of it looks
good. I have two comments/concerns on it though. The SHWT is 5 ft lower than the permanent pool elevation. We
usually recommend these elevation to be within a foot. Please provide an explanation why this is not a concern (i.e.
lining the pond or soils information). The second concern is still on the flow path of the forebay no. 2. It still looks like it
is short circuiting the pond. Can the outlet be moved to closer to the middle of the pond or a baffle be added?

0
STEWART
September 3, 2010
(Revised September 13, 2010)
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, PA
300 SW Broad Street
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Attention: Mr. Jarrod Hilliard, PE ([e-mail])
Subject: Infiltration Testing Report
Wedgefield Subdivision Pond
Hoke County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hilliard:
As requested Stewart Engineering, Inc. (Stewart) has completed field testing
services at the above referenced site. This report will summarize our fieldwork,
findings and test results.
1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Based on the information provided to us, it is our understanding that the planned
community will include a wet pond for storm water detention. The pond will be
constructed at the South end of the'development, in an area designated as "Reserved
for Detention Pond - 7.07 Acres'. The total pond area has not been determine at this
time, nor has its footprint; however, the preliminary plans estimate the pond depth to
be 8 feet below the existing grade.
2 SUMMARY OF FIELDWORK & FINDINGS
To evaluate the subsurface conditions within the pond area, a hand auger boring was
performed at two locations, which were determined by Hobbs Upchurch & Associates
(HUA). The locations were established by measuring from existing iron pins as depicted
on a drawing provided to us by HUA; however, one of the test locations (HA-1) was
offset approximately 40 feet east due to a large disturbed (rutted) area that contained
standing water. The ground surface elevation, as provided by HUA, is 259 ft.
The hand auger borings were advanced to 9 feet below the current ground surface. As
the soil cuttings were removed from the hole, they were visually -manually classified by
a geotechnical engineer (see table below). The soil was also checked for indicators of
the seasonal high water table (SHWT) and ground water.
HA-1
HA-2
Depth
ft
Soil Type
Soil Type
0-0.8
Topsoil
Topsoil
0.8-
6.5
Orange -tan, Sandy Clay
P3-7
Tan -gray, Silty Sand
6.5-
7.8
Orange -tan, Silty Sand
Light Brown Clayey Sand
8-9
Orange -tan and gray, Clayey
Sandy Silt
Brown -tan and Orange Sandy
Clay
8-9
Brown, Clayey Sand
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS." 421 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC T 919.380.8750
Suite 400 27601 F 919,380.8752

0
STEWART
No signs of groundwater or SHWT indicators were noted in HA-2. In the lower 1-foot of
HA-1 (Elevation 251 to 250), the relative moisture was slightly elevated and the color
of the soil (silt) was somewhat mottled with signs of gleying. This condition appeared
to be indicative of the SHWT.
Once the boreholes reached 9 feet deep the hand augering was terminated and the
bottom strata were subjected to infiltration testing. This was performed using a Guelph
Permeameter. The tests were performed using a back -pressure of 50 psi due to the
test depth and was recorded for two head heights (5 cm and 10 cm) to allow for
averaging. The results of the infiltration testing are attached.
3 CLOSING
We trust that the information provided in this report is responsive to your needs at this
time. We appreciate you choosing Stewart to assist on this project. If you have any
questions about the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to call the
undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully.
N
y� wo
Q s'�OP 09/13I10
Donald W..'rrMn Jr., PE
Geotechnical Engineering Manager
attachments: Test Location Diagram
Site Photographs
Infiltration Test Results
Page 2 of 2

kDB.1\304,
G. /03 -
I
EX. IRON
26
HA-2 `
N EX. IRON
O
PARKER
494660001015
ZONED RA-20

r

Site Name: Wedgefield Pond (HA-1)
Single Head Analysis: First Applied Head
Cross Sectional Area of Reservoir
2.15
cm2
Auger Hole Radius
8.53
cm
First Applied Head
5.00
cm
First Head Steady R Value
0.10
cm min-1
First Head Fixed Alpha
0.10
in-1
First Head Field Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
3.47 E-05
in min-1
First Head Matric Flux Potential
3.41 E-04
in2 min-1
Single Head Analysis: Second Applied Head
Second Applied Head 10.00 cm
Second Head Steady R Value 0.10 cm min-1
Second Head Fixed Alpha 0.10 in-1
Second Head Field Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 2.42 E-05 in min-1
Second Head Matric Flux Potential 2.38 E-04 in2 min-1
Average Values from Single Head Analysis
Average Field Saturated Hydrualic
Conductivity for Single Head Methods 2.94 E-05 in min-1
Average Matric Flux Potential
for Single Head Methods 2.90 E-04 in2 min-1

Site Name: Wedgefield Pond (HA-2)
Single Head Analysis: First Applied Head
Cross Sectional Area of Reservoir
2.15
cm2
Auger Hole Radius
8.53
cm
First Applied Head
5.00
cm
First Head Steady R Value
1.60
cm min-1
First Head Fixed Alpha
0.12
cm-1
First Head Field Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
2.57 E-03
cm min-1
First Head Matric Flux Potential
2.15 E-02
cm2 min-1
Single Head Analysis: Second Applied Head
Second Applied Head 10.00 cm
Second Head Steady R Value 0.50 cm min-1
Second Head Fixed Alpha 0.30 in-1
Second Head Field Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 2.05 E-04 in min-1
Second Head Matric Flux Potential 6.71 E-04 in2 min-1
Average Values from Single Head Analysis
Average Field Saturated Hydrualic
Conductivity for Single Head Methods 6.09 E-04 in min-1
Average Matric Flux Potential
for Single Head Methods 2.00 E-03 in2 min-1