20001427 Ver 1_Complete File_20010601

Meuse River Foundation., Inc.
• serving the river and all its tributaries •
P.O. Box 15451 220 South Front. St. Voice [phone] marioneneuseriver.org
New Bern, NC 28561 New Bern, NC 28560 Fax [phone] www.neuseriver.org
Bill Moore May 30, 2001
DENR Division of Water Quality
942 Washington Square Mall JINN
Washington, NC 27889
SUBJECT: Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association Stormwater Permit Application
Dear Mr. Moore,
We feel that the permit request is, in general, a serious attempt to address stormwater
management along Northwest Creek in Fairfield Harbor. We also appreciate the difficulty facing
the POA in developing such an innovative system. However, we request that some concerns be
addressed before issuance of a stormwater permit:
1. Existing drainage patterns have not been provided by the applicant (15A NCAC 02H
.1003(g)(4)).
2. Deed restrictions and protective covenants have not been provided (.1003 (d) (1)). While
newly developed lots can be managed according to the plan, existing development has been
required, through protective covenants, to manage drainage flow away from where proposed
practices will be placed. How will existing property owners be expected to comply with this
plan, or will they?
3. There is no data provided for the practices proposed for areas lA and 113. DWQ will be
unable to evaluate these designs without supporting data.
4. The proposal asserts that roadside ditches are to be converted to "linear wetlands". This is not
a standard practice, and we feel that evaluation of this practice be conducted by specialists
experienced with the design needs.
5. We have no water quality concerns with an over-designed system. Providing extra protection
is not being criticized by the Neuse River Foundation. However, we will point out that
several areas have intercepting practices larger than necessary. For example, the systems
treating areas D 1 through D4 are 2.4 times the required treatment area. That for 2A is 2.6
times the needed area. While this poses no water quality concerns, should this raise questions
in your mind regarding potentially unnecessary habitat destruction?
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Jones, Neuse Riverkeeper
cc Jim Mulligan
Deborah Sawyer
Bob Zarzecki
UPPER NEUSE OFFICE
112 South Blount St., Raleigh, NC 27601 • Voice [phone] • Fax [phone] • email:[e-mail]
Sponsor of the Neuse RIVERICEEPERJ Tom Jones • [phone] 0 email: [e-mail]
Fairfield I Harbour
d e.
Property Owners Association
August 23, 2001
Mr. Danny Smith
Environmental Specialist
NCDENR, DWQ, Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1650
902 Coral Reef Dr. New Bern, NC 28560
office:252.633.5500 fax:[phone]
email:jhpoa@&coastalnet.com
Subject: DWQ Letter of August 6, 2001 Requesting Additional Information.
(Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Craven County, N.C.)
Dear Mr. Smith:
On April 16, 2001, the Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association (POA) after
conferring with DWQ and other State experts submitted to your office a comprehensive
Redesigned Stormwater Plan (RSP) with specific details, drawings and exhibits as well as
a request for "No Practical Alternatives" and a Stormwater Permit Application (modified)
accompanied by a Wet Detention Basin Supplement.
Upon receipt of your August 6, 2001 letter requesting additional information, we
promptly set about preparing a reply within the 15 days allotted time. In response to the
first bulleted item, please find enclosed detail maps with lot numbers depicting the
location of vegetated swales and other stormwater control structures. We presently do not
have a map or plan delineating the jurisdictional wetlands in and around the proposed
project areas that has been affirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). As of
this writing we are continuing our attempts to reach appropriate COE personnel
responsible for our area to solicit their assistance about what work will be needed to
prepare a suitable map showing the location of any wetlands such that we can estimate its
potential cost. Given the POA's limited funds and cash flows, we are extremely
concerned that such an undertaking may become cost-prohibitive depending on the scope
and detail of work required by the DWQ. Thus, after we make appropriate contact with
the COE, we will call you to discuss this item further. We also ask that you again refer to
a COE "No Department of the Army Authorization Required" letter of August 11, 2000,
(copy enclosed) first submitted to DWQ August 16, 2000, which states "The proposed
project does not have a regulated impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands."
In response to the second bulleted item regarding minimization/avoidance of impacts to
wetlands, we have exercised great care in designing our RSP to avoid impacting areas
with suspected wetlands. An example of this is Watershed No. IA where an existing
tennis court has been proposed" for conversion to a created wetland to avoid the nearby
suspected wetland areas. Other examples are the circuitous route planned for drainage
swales in Watersheds No. C3 to avoid the existing mature cypress pond, and 2A to avoid
a suspected wetland area in adjacent POA common property. Additional specific
information on this item may develop if Corps wetland information is available.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The following implementation plan is submitted in response to the third bulleted item of
your August 6, 2001 letter. The proposed POA stormwater plan is a comprehensive plan
intended to improve the stormwater infrastructure in the Gondolier peninsula in a manner
compatible with the applicable environmental regulations for the Neuse River Basin. All
proposed stormwater construction is located on POA common property. Due to the size
of the proposed plan, and the uniqueness of each watershed area, it is convenient to
consider and prioritize the construction elements on a Watershed area basis. An important
factor influencing our priority selection is the addressing of those areas that were the
focus of our initial construction efforts. We would proceed with construction based on
our priority list. The priorities and our timing objectives are outlined below. Reference to
our submitted RSP is recommended to aid understanding.
Priority One
Our first task will be to modify the existing roadside ditches along Gondolier Dr./Trade
Winds Rd.Bucco Reef Rd. of Watershed areas IB,2B,A2,B2,C3,and D5. Modifications
will be the installation of shallow weirs and planting of additional wetland vegetation,
with a limited amount of ditch extensions. These modifications will, in effect, change
these existing vegetated ditches into Linear Wetlands. This will enhance the stormwater
treatment of the water flowing out of the existing outfalls to meet water quality standards
for total nitrogen (TN) and sediment. Supporting data is included in the Interim Measures
section of this response.
Priority Two
Watershed IA (Hurricane Court area) has severe trapped stormwater problems that
resulted in large numbers of dead trees. It will involve completion of roadside ditches
leading to a created wetland in an area now occupied by a POA tennis court. This project
will provide a model for the remaining created wetlands scheduled for the plan.
Priority Three
Watersheds D1,D2,D3,&D4 (Navidad Bank Court/Caracara Dr.Bucco Reef Rd.) is the
largest project and our proposed plan includes all elements of stormwater treatment,
including grassy swales, and created wetlands.
Priority Four
Watershed B 1 (Helm Drive/Black Swan Rd.) The 20 ft. wide grassy swale to relieve
trapped stormwater that has killed many mature trees. It will be one of the smaller
construction jobs.
Priority Five
Watershed Al (Trade Winds Rd./Lanyard Ln./Port Dr.) The construction here includes a
large wet detention stormwater basin which will be a major task to complete.
Priority Six
Watershed 2A (Barbary Coast Dr./Port Dr./Lanyard Ln.) Construction includes Roadside
ditches, grassy swales, and culverts leading to a large created wetland constructed where
another POA tennis court is now located.
Priority Seven
Watersheds C 1 &C2 (Gondolier Dr./Helm Dr.) Recent investigations have led us to
consider postponing indefinitely the work in this area, pending evaluation after future
storms and experiences with other project work. If implemented, the project would
include grassy swales and created wetlands ponds.
Timing Estimate Summary
Our ability to complete the project within the estimated time frame set forth below will be
dependent upon several factors, including some that are beyond the POA's reasonable
control such as weather delays, the specific conditions that DWQ elects to impose on the
work through any final permit(s) and approval(s), and on the responsiveness and
capabilities of potential contractors. Until we enter the bid process and actually begin
work, the accuracy of these estimates cannot be determined. Therefore, we request that
any permit condition setting forth an implementation schedule also include built-in
extensions for delays beyond the POA's reasonable control which may occur.
The POA has been budgeting for drainage and stormwater improvements since 1997.
Cash reserves are accumulated based upon our projected revenue. Our plan groups
together priority projects in a manner that allows us to balance construction costs with our
limited revenue flow. We are also pursuing sources of matching fund grants, and if
available to us, they would accelerate completion dates significantly.
Note: All estimates are taken from the POA's receipt of Permits applied for in our RSP.
GROUPING BIDS COMPLETE CONS'T COMPLETE
(From Receipt of Permit) (From Receipt of Permit)
Priority One 6 Months 15 Months
Priority Two
Priority Three 20 Months 30 Months
Priority Four
Priority Five 48 Months 60 Months
Priority Six
Priority Seven 72 Months 84 Months
INTERIM MEASURES
The action taken in our Priority One task will assure that water quality standards will be
met during construction of the other priority tasks which will follow. As stated earlier,
the watersheds currently discharging to Northwest Creek via the six outfalls are identified
in the RSP as 113, 213, A2, B2, C3 and D5. As proposed in the RSP, these watersheds all
include roadside ditches which meet the requirements of linear wetlands, roadways and
their rights-of-ways. Table 9: Treated Summary By Watershed," on pages 26 and 27 of
our RSP, indicates that the TN discharges associated with the watersheds as described are
as follows:
Watersheds 1B, 2B, A2, B2, C3 and D5, without applying any reduction, export 4.65,
4.58, 5.0, 4.98, 4.39, and 5.0 lb/ac/yr, respectively as theoretical maximums (calculations
and summary on pages 19-24 and 26-27 of the previously submitted RSP, specific page
copies attached). However, in their existing configurations, watersheds 1 B, 2B, A2, B2,
C3 and D5 contain only roadside ditches and the rights-of-way they serve. The portion of
the lots that front the ditches are ignored in the calculations owing to the berms present
along the front of most adjoining lots. In their present condition, they also contain many
of the proposed innovative linear wetland configurations in that considerable wetland
vegetative cover and rock check dams are present. Because of this, we believe the
theoretical maximums of the calculations do not realistically represent the actual TN of
any discharge.
When the proposed weirs and decant orifices are constructed within the existing devices,
the TN discharge from these specific watersheds is expected to be less than 3.5 lb/ac/yr.
Watersheds 1 B, 2B, A2, B2, C3 and D5. with the proposed improvements to the linear
wetlands are expected to export 3.25, 3.21, 3.5, 3.49, 3.08, and 3.51b/ac/yr, respectively.
Again referring to Table 9, all proposed watershed's discharges individually meet the
DWQ nitrogen export criteria. Consequently, any combination of the individual
watersheds created by construction sequencing will also meet the criteria. Accordingly,
nitrogen export is independent of the sequencing or timeline for construction.
Interim Measures Summary
The water treatment provided by Priority One construction safeguards the use of the
existing outfalls yet will work in concert with all remaining stormwater priorities in the
project area. Only as other priority tasks are completed will new watersheds be connected
to the outfalls, thus assuring continued proper treatment of stormwater exiting the
property. We believe that completion of the interim measures described in Priority One
should resolve outfall violations detailed in the January 16, 2001 Notice of Violation.
DWQ Responsiveness
The POA had hoped that an early response from your office would have allowed the plan
to be permitted thus allowing us to start construction of structures to protect our
members' homes and property from stormwater in an environmentally sound manner.
We are extremely disappointed that there has been no official DWQ communication to us
until we received your letter August 9, 2001, asking for more information. Nor has there
been any acceptance by DWQ to our prior invitation to meet with us concerning our
applications. It was our hope that our RSP would have been received in a manner that
would either have resulted in a permit being issued promptly or a formative dialogue
initiated to move forward in a constructive manner to resolve all issues and allegations
arising from DWQ's January 16, 2001 Notice of Violation.
Although we have responded in a timely fashion to all previous DWQ directives, we are
becoming increasingly frustrated by a process where, for a second time, we have not
received any formal response from DWQ for over three months after submittal of our
application materials. In particular, DWQ did not respond within 60 days of its receipt of
our written request and application for a "No Practical Alternatives" determination that
was hand delivered to DWQ on April 16, 2001. We believe that DWQ's delay is contrary
to both the intent and spirit of the procedure set forth in 15A N.C.A. 2B .0233(8).
Moreover, these periods of lost time due to DWQ's continuing delays do not serve our
community, interested third parties, or the environment well.
As requested in our April 16 submission, the POA again suggests a follow-up meeting
with appropriate DWQ regulators as a means of addressing any of DWQ's questions or
comments. Mr. Bob Brown, POA Manager, is our contact person. He can be reached by
phone [phone]. All technical design questions will be directed to Mr. Brown, who
will forward them to our consultant, Mr. Bob Chiles.
Sincerely,
POA Board
Jim Scharbrough,
Board President, Fairfi d Harbour Property Owners Association
Cc: William Moore, DWQ WaRO
John Dorney, DWQ 401/Wetlands Unit
POA Board
Robert Chiles
Enclosures:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers letter of August 11, 2000
Fairfield Harbour RSP copies of pages 19-24, and 26-27
RSP drawings Fairfield Harbour POA Improvement Sites:
Revised drawing Sheet No. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
SECTION 4 - TOTAL NITROGEN DATA
The group of tables that follows indicates the amount of total nitrogen that will potentially be
discharged from the individual watersheds within this project if the discharge is entirely untreated. The
calculations assume that all lots within the watersheds are built upon. A table that summarizes the
same information by outfall follows that data.
The untreated summary table by outfall is followed by the amount of reduction expected to be
realized from each of the best management practices utilized and a narrative description of the
application of these reductions by outfall. That data will be followed by two treated summary tables,
one by watershed, and one by outfall. The outfall table indicates the maximum amount of total nitrogen
that is expected to be discharged after applying the minimum amount of reduction anticipated.
The calculations contained in the following tables utilize Method 1", from Section 2-C of the
NCDENR Division of Water Quality booklet entitled Neuse River Basin: Model Stormwater Program for
Nitrogen Control, dated August 30, 1999.
Method 1 distinguishes four types of land cover and assigns each an export coefficient. Two are set
at 0.6 and 1.2 and the others vary according to conditions appropriate to the project. The applicable
conditions are indicated within parenthesis.
Permanently Protected Undisturbed Open Space: 0.6
Permanently Protected Managed Open Space: 1.2
Right of Way (33% Pavement): 5.0
Lots (3.15 Dwelling Units Per Acre, Average): 4.4
For the purposes of these calculations, the four types of land cover were determined as follows;
• Undisturbed open space: Assumed to be zero.
• Managed open space: The remaining surface area of the watershed, primarily POA
controlled areas, determined by subtracting the right of way and lot surface areas from the total
watershed area.
• Right of Way: This is either one-half (30 feet) or all of a 60-foot wide right of way centered
on the roadway centerline, as applicable to the watershed.
• Lots: The sum of all or part of the complete lot areas indicated in the Quibble and
Associates subdivision maps for those lots contained within the watershed.
Table 7: Nitrogen Load For Untreated Discharge By Watershed
WATERSHED: 1A Total Watershed Area (acres): 11.23
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 1.67 1.2 2.00
Right of Way 1.34 5.0 6.70
Lots 8.22 4.4 36.17
Total: 44.87
4.00
19 4/16/01
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
WATERSHED: 1B Total Watershed Area (acres): 1.30
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year.
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.12 1.2 0.14
Right of Way 1.18 5.0 5.90
Lots 0.0 4.4 0.0
Total: 6.04
4.65
WATERSHED: 2A Total Watershed Area (acres): 8.73
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 1.83 1.2 2.20
Right of Way 1.56 5.0 7.80
Lots 5.34 4.4 23.50
Total: 33.50
3.84
WATERSHED: 213 Total Watershed Area (acres): 1.01
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year.
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.11 1.2 0.13
Right of Way 0.90 5.0 4.50
Lots 0.0 4.4 0.0
Total: 4.63
4.58
20 4/16/01
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
WATERSHED: Al Total Watershed Area (acres): 3.71
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year.
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.71 1.2 0.85
Right of Way 0.0 5.0 0.0
Lots 3.00 4.4 13.20
Total: 14.05
3.79
WATERSHED: A2 Total Watershed Area (acres): 0.73
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.0 1.2 0.0
Right of Way 0.73 5.0 3.65
Lots 0.0 4.4 0.0
Total: 3.65
5.00
WATERSHED: 61 Total Watershed Area (acres): 3.68
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.33 1.2 0.40
Right of Way 0.0 5.0 0.0
Lots 3.35 4.4 14.74
Total: 15.14
4.11
21 4/16/01
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
WATERSHED: B2 Total Watershed Area (acres): 2.01
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/Yr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.01 1.2 0.01
Right of Way 2.00 5.0 10.00
Lots 0.0 4.4 0.0
Total: 10.01
4.98
WATERSHED: C1 Total Watershed Area (acres): 10.40'
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/vr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 1.00 1.2 1.20
Right of Way 2.00 5.0 10.00
Lots 7.40 4.4 32.56
Total: 43.76
4.21
WATERSHED: C2 Total Watershed Area (acres): 5.70
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.99 1.2 1.19
Right of Way _0.83 5.0 4.15
Lots t
3.88 4.4 17.07
Total: 22.41
3.93
22 4/16/01
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
WATERSHED: C3 Total Watershed Area (acres): 1.18
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year.
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.19 1.2 0.23
Right of Way 0.99 5.0 4.95
Lots 0.0 4.4 0.0
Total: 5.18
4.39
WATERSHED: 131-133 Total Watershed Area (acres): 23.50
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year:
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.40 1.2 0.48
Right of Way 4.07 5.0 20.35
Lots 19.03 4.4 83.73
Total: 104.56
4.45
WATERSHED: D4 Total Watershed Area (acres): 4.71
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef Lb/yr pounds/acre/year.
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.78 1.2 0.94
Right of Way 0.42 5.0 2.10
Lots 3.51 4.4 15.44
Total: 18.48
3.92
23 4/16/01
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
WATERSHED: D5 Total Watershed Area (acres): 1.18
THEORETICAL MAXIMUMS
Average Nitrogen Load in
Surface Type Acreage Coef. Lb/yr pounds/acre/year.
Undisturbed 0.0 0.6 0.0
Managed 0.0 1.2 0.0
Right of Way 1.18 5.0 5.90
Lots 0.0 4.4 0.0
Total: 5.90
5.00
24 4/16/01
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
OUTFALL A: Watershed Al will generate 14.05 Ib/yr to be treated by a wet detention basin
and reduced by 25%, yielding 10.54 Ib/yr or 2.84 lb/ac/yr. Watershed A2 will produce 3.65 Ib/yr to
be treated by roadside ditches and reduced by a minimum of 30%, yielding 2.55 Ib/yr, or 3.50
lb/ac/yr. The total for this outfall becomes 13.09 Ib/yr, or 2.95 lb/ac/yr.
OUTFALL B: Watershed B1 will generate 15.14 Ib/yr to be treated by a grassed swale and
roadside ditches, and reduced by 30% and 30% respectively, yielding 7.42 Ib/yr or 2.02 lb/ac/yr.
Watershed B2 will produce 10.01 Ib/yr to be treated by roadside ditches and reduced by a minimum
of 30%, yielding 7.01 Ib/yr, or 3.49 lb/ac/yr. The total for this outfall becomes 14.43 Ib/yr, or 2.54
lb/ac/yr.
OUTFALL C: Watershed C1 will generate 43.76 Ib/yr to be treated by a grassed swale and
constructed wetland, and reduced by 30% and 40% respectively, yielding 18.38 Ib/yr or 1.77
lb/ac/yr. Watershed C2 will produce 22.41 Ib/yr to be treated by a constructed wetland and reduced
by 40%, yielding 13.45 Ib/yr, or 2.36 lb/ac/yr. Watershed C3 will produce 5.18 Ib/yr to be treated by
roadside ditches and reduced by a minimum of 30%, yielding 3.63 Ib/yr, or 3.08 lb/ac/yr. The total
for this outfall becomes 35.45 Ib/yr, or 2.05 lb/ac/yr.
OUTFALL D: Watershed D1-D3 will generate 104.56 Ib/yr to be treated by two constructed
wetlands in series, and reduced by 40% twice, yielding 37.64 Ib/yr or 1.60 lb/ac/yr. Watershed D4
will produce 18.48 Ib/yr to be treated by a constructed wetland and reduced by 40%, yielding 11.09
Ib/yr, or 2.35 lb/ac/yr. Watershed D5 will produce 5.90 Ib/yr to be treated by roadside ditches and
reduced by a minimum of 30%, yielding 4.13 Ib/yr, or 3.50 lb/ac/yr. The total for this outfall
becomes 52.86 Ib/yr, or 1.80 lb/ac/yr.
This project is located in Fairfield Harbour. Being in Craven County, it is not subject to the 3.6
Ib/ac/yr restriction contained within the urban areas subject to regulation under NCDENR's urban
stormwater management strategy for the Neuse River Basin, as set forth in 15A N.C.A.C. 213.0235.
That regulation specifically names 15 jurisdictions to which it applies, and this project site is not
located within any of them. Nonetheless, we have used the standards contained in NCDENR's
model urban stormwater program as a benchmark for our design criteria. We believe that our
redesigned stormwater plans will meet or exceed the NCDENR's model stormwater standards.
Table 9: Treated Summary Table By Watershed
WATERSHED UNTREATED
NITROGEN
LOADING Ib/ac/ r REDUCTION
PROVIDED,
% TREATED
NITROGEN
LOADING Ib/ac/ r
1A 4.00 40 2.40
1B 4.65 30 3.25
2A 3.84 40 2.30
2B 4.58 30 3.21
Al 3.79 25 2.84
A2 5.00 30 3.50
B 1 4.11 51 2.02
B2 4.98 30 3.49
26 4/16/01
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR REDESIGNED STORMWATER PLAN
Table 9: Treated Summary Table By Watershed (Continued)
C1 4.21 58 1.77
C2 3.93 40 2.36
C3 4.39 30 3.08
D1-D3 4.45 64 1.60
D4 3.92 40 2.35
D5 5.00 30 3.50
Note 1: See narrative descriptions for breakdown of reductions provided.
Table 10: Treated Summary Table By Outfall

OUTFALL TOTAL
NITROGEN
(lb/yr) ACREAGE NITROGEN

(lb/ac/yr)
1 31.15 12.53 2.49
2 23.34 9.74 2.40
A 13.09 4.44 2.95
B 14.43 5.69 2.54
C 35.45 17.28 2.05
D 52.86 29.39 1.80
ALL 170.32 79.07
Total: 2.15
27 4/16/01
15;08 2529151399 USACS WASH e0b #13 4 P.331JJJ1
:1`2000
(037-3100 -ion.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGKEEM
WILMINGTON DISMCr
county CRAIrfa& Quad Lidooz ie k
NO DEPARTtMENT OF THE ARMY AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED
owrwr_ ?,??i'F.'t? _ ?a,il0'f?,?..?+?t?5 Ascx.?.?'a., ??o K,?/?' ?????5
Z
Z
w
UTtW,rt.ATJIANG /V a!jjRa :00 SlaS570 Zama 19
Sind Location of ptvjec! ( ,road nameJnumoer, lawn, eta) ?Lg?c?' . 's l a a
4tod
_
0 1
Des4bon Of Activity i. i c.c. -ian A G .J I ,".• 18
'j? -1 `1 a
Yocr as described above does not regWm Deparunent of the Army autho tzation forthe Wttowing reason(s)'
Thom are rte jcr'isdietionai waters Orwetiands within the boundsrles Or Me project as ctesiuibed above.
This determination is effective for five years tom the date of ttvs document.
The proposed Project does not have a regulated impact on jurisdt bonat waters or wetlands.
TM proposedp?roject is exe 1mpt frorn Department of the regulatiottii.
Any es in the described work resulting in impacts to jurisdiMonat waters orwetiands or any now wotfc
in j ionat waters or wetlands outside ttte area described above must be ccordinaW with ttw Corps
of prior to cornmencemenL Please contact the R"ub tory Official specified below.
For xtivity *Ath n the t11rwq ooostal Mounties, before begin" work, you nest contact the N.C. Division
of t 1tl avoement at telephone [phone] to discuss any mlvited State permit authorization.
This wtnent or the deterrnington does not relieve the to obtain -AnM al f
State, or local ep rM011l lperMrts.
oats R I,. I z a..

otfaial Telephone ?Z52 7S- ? f
$UR PLATS, FIELD SKETCK W LAND DELINF-ATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST
BE A ACFIED TO THE YELLOW (FILL) COPY OF THS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE-
SA . 654
Fft?jUAA 109
ADDENDUM
to the
Fairfield Harbour Redesigned Stormwater Plan Drawings
as requested in the August 6, 2001 letter from
Mr. Danny Smith, NCDENR, DWQ
Reduced versions of Sheets 7-9, 11-15, 17, and 18 of the Fairfield Harbour
POA Improvement Sites of the FY2000 Drainage Improvements drawings,
prepared for the redesigned stormwater plan and originally submitted April 6,
2001, are attached.
These drawings now include the subdivision lot numbers, and annotations
indicating stormwater best management practice locations in response to
Bullet 1 of Mr. Smith's letter. The drawings are otherwise unchanged except for
scale. Sheets indicating 1" = 100', and 1" = 50' are actually plotted at 1" = 200',
and 1" = 100', respectively.
Presented for inclusion in the Fairfield Harbour POA response to Mr. Smith's
letter, Tuesday August 21, 2001. -r
Robert M. Chiles, P. E
Fairfield Harbour POA 982580rawingAddendum
OOF W AT FRQG willism G. RosC*Nernor
s Jr.. Secrulary
North Carolina DeparRnent of Environment and Natural Resources
40 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
> Acting Director
O .? Division of Water CkWity
August 6, 2001
ce-11 d Midi
Rdum BSON ReausAW
Fairfield Harbour POA
Attn: Mr. Bernie Teubert, Board President
902 Coral Reef Dr.
New Bern, NC 28560
Subject: Additional Information Request
Fairfield Harbour
Craven County
Dear Mr. Taubert:
Tfie Washington Regional Office and Central Office Wetland 401 Unit are both reviewing the'No Practical
Alternatives' request and Stormwater Management proposals provided by Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association
in an effort to resolve concerns detailed in the January 16, 2001 Notice of Violation. Accordingly the following items detail
additional information necessary in order for this office to affect a complete review.
• Please provide a map/plans that depicts the following: 1) the location of the vegetated swales and all other proposed
stormwater control structures: 2) the lot locations; and 3) the location of all wetlands as affirmed by the Corps of
Engineers. This is necessary to help complete the review of the stormwater proposal and to consider whether the
installation of these structures may change the hydraulic gradient such that the proposal may inadvertently affect
adjacent wetlands.
• The above mentioned map will also enable staff to consider whether wetland standard concerns are an issue and if a
401 Water Quality Certification will be required for the proposed activity. Further, this determination will enable staff to
determine whether minim ization/avoidance of impacts to wetlands merits consideration. Accordingly, please provide
any additional information that you feel should be included on the above mentioned plans.
Discussions between Regional Office and Central Office staff regarding this project have included concerns regarding
a constructionrmplementation timeline. It is staffs opinion that an implementation schedule, to be included as a
permit condition, is appropriate to help affect a final resolution to concerns that stemmed that January 16, 2001 Notice
of Violation. Accordingly, this office requests that you provide an implementation schedule for staff consideration.
This schedule should Include the following: 1) a time window (days after receipt of necessary approvals) of when
constriction will start; 2) when installations of each of the proposed structures will be completed; and 3) 6
implementation is proposed to phased, please provide satisfactory interim measures that you propose install to
resolve the violations detailed in the January 16, 2001 Notice of Violation.
This Office requests that you respond to this letter, in writing, within 15 days of receipt of this correspondence. Your response
should address each of the above mentioned bulleted items. Please provide 2 copies of your response to the DWQ Washington
Regional Office (Attention Bill Moore) and two copies to the 401 Wetland Unit (attention Danny Smith) at 23_21 CmbtreeBlyd.,
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Bill Moore at [phone] ar
Danny Smith at [phone]-
Sincerely,
Jl/in Zith
Darcy EnvtronmenW Specialist
cc: WaRO-Division of Water Quality
WaRO-Land Quality Section
Corps of Engineer
Danny Smith, Central 401/Wetlands Unit
Central Files
Robert M. Chiles Engineers, P.O. Box 3496,
New Bern, NC 28564
N_ C. DMsion of Water Quality 18t Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27MO-1617 [phone]
.I
CusDomter Servica
1 800 623.7748,
NOV-27-00 08:38 AM DICK GOODWIN
252 633 7873 P.01
FAX COVER SHEET
FAX for delivery to: g Z05w EG'XG
From: Dick Goodwin
phone [phone]
fax [phone]
e-mail [e-mail]
Date: /l- 0?
Number of sheets, including cover:
NOV-27-00 08:39 AM DICK GOODWIN 252 633 7873 P.02
i
f
Richard D. in
2217 Caracara r.
New Bern, NC 360
25233-7873
REGISTERED MAIL
and FAX
November 27, 2000
Mr. William Moore
NC/DENR 1
Stormwater Group/Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: Fairfield Harbour Stormwater Perrhit Application, May 9, 2000
1900/2000 Drainage Improvemers, Property Owners Assn.
References: (a) Stormwater permit application Gated May 9, 2000, submitted by
Robert M. Chiles, Engineers i
(b) Robert Chiles letter to Willia Moore dated August 16, 2000
and all enclosures
(c) 15A NCAC 02H.1000 Storm?Nater Management
i
Dear Mr. Moore: t
You may recall from our past telephone convei eons and brief meeting on June
6, 2000 at the Washington office, I am a volunt; Creek Keeper for the Neuse
River Foundation and have the assigned respomsttwity for Creek Keeping
activities for Northwest Creek, thus my interest ?n any impacts the subject project
may have on pollution of the Creek's waters and the Neuse River. I am also a
resident of the Fairfield Harbour community anc# the Property Owners
Association. '
I have been told that the stormwater permit application for Fairfield Harbour dated
May 9, 2000 seeks project approval under the ow Density Option. Assuming
that this is true, I wish to let you know that this rt of the application is incorrect
and inaccurate. Under the requirements of 0 .1005 (3), the Fairfield Harbour
project, as mapped out and described in Chilesi Engineering application
supplement dated August 16, 2000, does not et the Low Density Option
criteria. Instead, it qualifies as a High Density rroject thus requiring structural
stormwater management measures-
NOV-27-00 08:40 AM DICK GOODWIN i 252 633 7873 P.03
1
V
The August 16, 2000 submittal from Chiles Engineering includes maps that
describe the project boundaries inclusive of a 1 8 acre watershed area. Within
this defined area there are +1- 346 subdivided s. The lots and project area is
further detailed on the original plats produced Quibble & Associates,
Engineers and Land Surveyors, Chase City, V ia. These plats were produced
in 1972 and are on file with the Craven CountyItmegister of Deeds along with the
project Declaration of Restrictions. The plats show the square footage area of
each lot within the 128 acne watershed. Of the 1- 346 lots in the project, the
average area is .285 acres per lot. 342 (99%) a under the 113 acre threshold
and average .288 acres. Three lots (1%) sligh exceed the 1/3 acre threshold
and average .360 acres. In summary, the is too dense and falls 15%
short of meeting the 113 acre threshold that qualify it as a Low Density
development.
Neither I nor the Neuse River Foundation have interest in opposing a
properly permitted stormwater management pr at Fairfield Harbour.
However, as I explained to you during our June th meeting, I have a continuing
concem about inaccurate and/or incorrect infomhation being misleading to State
officials involved in the various permitting In the near future I will also
forward additional details and comments about , project.
I trust that you will find this new information to helpful in your review of the
permit application. If I can assist in any way in future please let me know.
Very truly yours,
cc: Tom Jones, Riverkeeper, Neuse River Foundation
Deborah Sawyer, Washington office
Bob Zarzecki, Raleigh 1
Todd St. John, Raleigh
Danny Smith, Raleigh
r

Richard D. Goodwin
2217 Caracara Dr.
New Bern, NC 28560
ssz-633-78"
REGISTERED MAIL
and FAX
November 27, 2000
Mr. William Moore
NC/DENR
Stormwater Group/Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: Fairfield Harbour Stormwater Permit Application, May 9, 2000
1900/2000 Drainage Improvements, Property Owners Assn.
References: (a) Stormwater permit application dated May 9, 2000, submitted by
Robert M. Chiles, Engineers
(b) Robert Chiles letter to William Moore dated August 16, 2000
and all enclosures
(c) 15A NCAC 02H.1000 Stormwater Management
Dear Mr. Moore:
You may recall from our past telephone conversations and brief meeting on June
6, 2000 at the Washington office, I am a volunteer Creek Keeper for the Neuse
River Foundation and have the assigned responsibility for Creek Keeping
activities for Northwest Creek, thus my interest in any impacts the subject project
may have on pollution of the Creek's waters and the Neuse River_ I am also a
resident of the Fairfield Harbour community and the Property Owners
Association.
1 have been told that the stormwater permit application for Fairfield Harbour dated
May 9, 2000 seeks project approval under the Low Density Option_ Assuming
that this is true, 1 wish to let you know that this part of the application is incorrect
and inaccurate. Under the requirements of 02H.1005 (3), the Fairfield Harbour
project, as mapped out and described in Chiles Engineering application
supplement dated August 16, 2000, does not meet the Low Density Option
criteria. Instead, it qualifies as a High D n "i project thus requiring structural
stormwater management measures.
The August 16, 2000 submittal from Chiles Engineering includes maps that
describe the project boundaries inclusive of a 128 acre watershed area. Within
this defined area there are +/- 346 subdivided lots. The lots and project area is
further detailed on the original plats produced by Quibble & Associates,
Engineers and Land Surveyors, Chase City, Virginia. These plats were produced
in 1972 and are on file with the Craven County Register of Deeds along with the
project Declaration of Restrictions. The plats show the square footage area of
each lot within the 128 acre watershed. Of the +/- 346 lots in the project, the
average area is .289 acres per lot. 342 (99%) are under the 1/3 acre threshold
and average .288 acres. Three lots (1%) slightly exceed the 1/3 acre threshold
and average .360 acres. In summary, the project is too dense and falls 15%
short of meeting the 1/3 acre threshold that would qualify it as a Low Density
development.
Neither I nor the Neuse River Foundation have any interest in opposing a
properly permitted stormwater management project at Fairfield Harbour.
However, as 1 explained to you during our June 6th meeting, I have a continuing
concern about inaccurate and/or incorrect information being misleading to State
officials involved in the various permitting processes. In the near future I will also
forward additional details and comments about the project.
I trust that you will find this new information to be helpful in your review of the
permit application. If I can assist in any way in the future please let me know.
Very truly yours,
00?*V?6?
cc: Tom Jones, Riverkeeper, Neuse River Foundation
Deborah Sawyer, Washington office
Bob Zarzecki, Raleigh
Todd St. John, Raleigh
Danny Smith, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NCDENRJames B. Hunt, Jr., Governor / Bill Holman, Secretary / Kerr T. Stevens, Director
MEMO
DATE: 12-20-00
TO: File
FROM: Bob Zarzecki, ESIII
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
[phone]
THROUGH:
RE: Fairfield Harbour Photos 12-13-00
Sediment in CAMA Wetland at end of Outfall Ditch

401 WETLANDS CERTIFICATION UNIT
Telephone [phone] / FAX # [phone]
Mailing Address:
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
A X- "re
t f
Location:
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Outfall Ditch
• Page 2
Ditch connecting Interior 404 Wetlands to Ditch System
T
?a
7•_ ?F
r?
December 20, 2000
....,M... W ,. .? 3 ,,..
Ditch or Erosive Gully through CAMA Wetland
Aw-
-?
•
-- -
y . _
-gt
§-. .?" __.. :+?"? -.?;?_ __ '?1 .. -tea .-??'- -?-°°-- • (IcIf Course
-low
?-
,? r 0 'Alp
t
._ t - 5. ?t + • .-' +e ?? . . GEC E.
x 3."
Fai
ir ,I
•
.yam `',? ? .?-???'??` +• . 4 ??? • s t+w; ,t?+' +??,.. ? ., s ? ?? ? ;?.: ? s .w.,...rJ.tr? '1
-?'°' -,jam... _ '"_•.} i.. - 3 . , a;[?_?•` ?! ? ; ` ' • • • , /! +s,f ?''? • ? ?? -? k ' `-et1` jY , ,rd ? •
+?? 1T?? FEF\,J 4
z, a
+
11 •
F
,.. °''yait_. -. ,,,gam,. ? - a ? ,. a `,Z,• • ,//. ?•??i • ,- 1 •
46- -
y
.dam -
_ r
ti 1411
..?
?' • t , fr f s !}...
4-
-4ii
.
f-
._x r r V • )
1 !?
7, 4
? _.--- -wait- ?..._ - ? ? • • f • • t ,
y ;
A
.1_ - -4?ii? _ r+r - a .P --~ -,?s- '` Marina
? ?-' ?`r?••? ?? + ,4.
°" -?+i{aw- _.•?r•. '°,?`'-' ?? _ ,?,_ - max. `Ff 4 ???r
s
. , .. gym... ._. _,?.? ?
µ6+i",- ......- -°'`•'": -,.., ."•'-._ M _,. / ?.k ,...?:-
Nit
-
4-1
Name: UPPER BOARD CREEK Location: 035° 04'30.5" N 076° 58'30.3" W
Date: 12/20/100 Caption: Fairfield Harbor Violation
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet Ditch 1, 2, A, B, C, D
Northwest Creek
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc
Mu Se
I Ln _
Ag
Ln
r
Ln CnB? L
Ln M ?Se \ _Ln ?J p Tm
1 'i
M. AP
Ag Li
fi 6??q
n Mu
Se
CnB r LF
" . BB ? \I.~
Mu Ln
Mu Mu Ln Se Ju LF
BrB
Se ,I
BrB ?
DA Ln
Ap
cnB Se Ap f
Mu
u
DA M i Tm )V
Ln f
r
?60o LF r
Ln Se
O /J H
Mu DA I
Ap
Ln Mu
- Ku8 Ln LF
Ln Cna DA
OA Mu tl ?
Se j,
Ln
Ln Ln Ln Mu ?
DA DA
DA LF ? I
Mu Mu C'•-„I
$e
CF ? w % ?V
l Mu O
emu' / _i
Se Se Ln ?-?
? j
Mu DA M u DA Mu t ,4
H?
Ap Ln Mu
/
W/? Ln CnB Ln
u Mu Se Ln LF
M u DA
Mu
Ln /
y? \ Mu Mu BrB Mu
LF ) 1
LF Ln Mu Mu Se
\ J? Se B
AP ° Se u) wafer ivlu Mu Ln Ln
Ln fie Ln ?i Cn6
Mu Pr 5' Mu
LF Se
r #
CnB \ Ln Se // ( Se y Mu Se Mu
O? Mu Ln
LF TaB LF
d
TaB Ln L j
Bay Point l Ln I
Mu
r Mu
pp TaB
Ln Ln mu / J
Mu
Ln m TaB Mu
Am ?
LF Mu Ln
600
MM Ln LF %
LF
0
LF
\ LF Se
McCotter Point Rowland Point
.'w cl V
W W
Wm W 4
s?l i N Off. ??} r
Lli IV
' d .Vra, to d N
h
" n
CL aa.
o "
C%A
c 0 - W
f'? ` ' G1 W 3 \`
LL y
I1 Q a 0
n \ ?, ?o r poi
a
It cl)
t `
'II ? ? E y
i w LL
N
70
G n
u
W ? W CD ?t .
X 6 Oy d a m' 1
,3w
1?a i. W _ +i, , a h
3
i. At a aI , W . 7
fit
IL
I C', CID
3S 11 b59S N m
l

,"T"I
Ir I
?.
4
.Ar

v -r. ,iS a
1
' ?'r

. ?, . - . S.

{/J^/ A"PAP?
CA-
C.GLC:?fC. -G7V ? iNG" id2
q
Y

tz?
I
C
`? l
?? _ :?.} • ? "£ ? Irk ,i? ?__ ? '? ? 1 ." ? ?fi? -
1
I ?
! ' 4
?y? \J o r .{.4
1 331 ., ? ,? '?,? /?? ITI. i ` ,?? ?,` ` `,1` t? ?? ?'? '? ? ??? ,111?---z 1 ?? •?? 1a.
t u 4t 1
91 a?
•1 t I I?fQ` l I ? 'ry i t t - / ?•..i A1 T `6 J ?? ?f 'T
-9 e Q j ? / b1 l?? i } ?Y u p
32A y ?SZ t v rcr , 1??'? Lr? t', ??L
DUP ?, G 1 1 A :. • - ;'y W I /I l.
326
ZZ SZ ,' Z} iy
325 g4 ?? £Z z bSZ 2.31
o?` ?fl ?'A'
324 1 _ v ESrt v eo m _ %'?%' N s, ?
95? b o Z N ?° ' ?A l h l' _'v `? sue, , r
32 96 i W ZSZ
?l? SZ a 0 a v ?. ?3 - t ra -i
322 \? ` CC _ b W P
I si I ISZ ? ,?1 Oy °y ?6 ? p?'PP \°e v 2? ?3' ? 0 '142 ? ? 0 /Sfl ?. ' T? ,S•:
321 97 ?0 g?i ?` 92 OSZ / 2 0 's ?? °a eh 16 ?a 9'•,c L? pOp Fa Opc o o kg(, c „ 6
• 320 99 ?? ?` tZ ? ?? ?a A? i 16? ? m s ? '? `?? ? e``? e S Sg ' ? ? obi T ° Ss
249 ?S? c'a 4" m r r. ?. , a° y ?a? s 9? F r p a a 3 .
319 M 5p O? ?? 248 Oa is o '63 6` ,o _ r? F S ?? o' FS F
41 W6 162 ? y2 ti6 ( ? ?' s a? ?' s 9F P _, ? ° ?? ? s a?F.
317 ?? \? 0 2 m d8 ; s i a 9 vv`' ds a S?,
F
316 136 ?h2 \ \Oh d \ ??\ 2 F ?a2 s? 0? a ? h ,' \0 ?? ,n?•s _ ? 6? ^ ? `?F '`'? ?0 6ti e a a1 c yF d
I t m S d rS S
•
\3 ?Q ? a ? ? i? d rn ry ha ? t ? 'S/ ? QOP 0 6,? ? a` ) / dt s?. 'r.
315 137 ?h \ph a2 !F 2S ° o °- 0 0 h! \ ?$? ° m 0? S ??
314 138 \2g `Q6 9sa? ? ??FS .'?` ? ? ? `? g F6 t5;{ a 6 ? ? r? F N ? ?°, Y
\20 0? acs SF bS. peg 0? 9 1; ?Z ?6 r n 4 '
313 139 1 Q a S Oi g? i?5 a c a
14Q / O 9 r / 0 ." A? ° a g 7"\h f' rn r D c^
• 314 S2! > s, . ? '' o *? + ? ?, ai,: ? ?/ :: ? ? `.
31Q Q ? do :" ?'?* °,+ -a,S` ? ?`?: A• ?°o r?? ?? ,?:? Y„ 6`? 9??' ?h? • ?9 0 `?,? ?`? ??'y_ ?
' 309 ?` 0 0 .P =s,," .? i3. ? ,?,• ? ° , g6 ,.t? .5. ?, r ?, I, ? }. ,
17
N ti? Z Zd . 6Z \20 _ n , d _ 1,
306 PIECE AND PLENTY 21 Ig .91
• 305
I ,? 0 214 r4 2 0 1 s? ° 1
304
CO )49
• 03 2 5 ay / V
302 ?n?>` 15 22 22 6 /err \ t?'
301 - --_- r 9 <s; F
A 9 ?' f
, C- ? 0
z BLAC BEARO.4 ? iL6 A 4 u f
Z 5 ?? ?apOE ?
299 a - 0. m en X76 ° t ?29
_ N n ?• ? '?
I °D aD 244 T 0
1751 ; lE' ?28 r c? a '
10
297 183 a t a ??, 1
tJ4 m/ 1 S " r/'
• 29C
11' 1
I 2 y5 185 ! 0 0?? n ° ?t /? } F
1
1
i
I
j
(r
294 IJ 9 0? N N 1 r -`
C?l
18? 0? rl w\0 `,`
M
F 9 ??
\v / / !7 Jac ^'?!
2 1 0 Igl j ?OZ PE f od 69 9?? •' /?L I v !
8,)ccO a ' r
2 ?`? 1 ti? ? ?•
1 20 ? ct N ? 1.i 1r•
C(9 ` (:p t? N V ° J
41
I
p?{?OJ Jac' t
-77
,n a F? ? ? ? ?t 1
SIERRA
CLUB
I Ot'? DI D 18a2
JAN 3 0 2001
John Domey, Supervisor Neuse River Buffer Rules
\OIt, I I c_uouv\ NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
C i i w l „z 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
"g" "'``I Mr. Bob Zarzecki, Neuse River Program Coordinator
(irrni??
NC DENR
l uk. rider Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
t;;ilx Pr:u
Mr. Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality
942 Washington Square Mall
1'irdr11mt Washington, NC 27889
Ms. Deborah Sawyer, Region Engineer
cclxrs.ti NC DENR
Division of Water Quality
Poothills 943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Wednesday, January 24, 2001
?j
"a" Iii` t1 Re: Unpermitted Discharges at Fairfield Harbour
frad?? titers Dear Sirs and Madam:
The Sierra Club has an interest in preserving water quality, the aquatic ecosystem, and
Mydoc wildlife in Northwest Creek near New Bern. Northwest Creek is classified as nutrient
sensitive and is subject to the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy.
Oran,?r-Chadlam
We understand that Fairfield Harbour has started a stormwater drainage construction
Pirdmont Plateau project without applying for required permits and have been cited for violations of
CAMA, Stormwater Management, and Neuse Riparian Buffer requirements. We further
understand that in response to these violations Fairfield Harbour Property Owners
I'is}ah Association, through its agent Chiles Engineering, has requested the State to consider the
project to be compliant as it exists, without revisions or modifications, and without
south Mountains incorporating any of the nitrogen reductions BMPs cited in the April 14th Notice of
Violation and as agreed during a meeting with State permitting authorities on July 24,
2000. Chiles Engineering made this request by letter on August 16, 2000 and it is our
WENoCA understanding that the State still has it under consideration.
Chapter Office 112 S. Mount Street • Raleigh \C 2-001 • Tel: [phone]t6- • Fax: [phone] • info;?,irrracluh-nc.or? ???
S
On September 1, 2000, Northwest Creek experienced a fish kill involving an estimated
1700 fish of five species. The location of this fish kill was along the area west of
Fairfield's shoreline where the stormwater outfalls are located. According to the State's
report of this incident there was information suggesting that low oxygen effluent from the
Fairfield stormwater system contributed to the kill. This was the first recorded fish kill in
the Creek and the first in the memory of local residents.
The North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club supports North Carolina's Stormwater
Management and Neuse River Buffer Protection Rules. Therefore, we oppose the
issuance of any permits to Fairfield Harbour until the applicant fully and completely
complies with the spirit and intent of these Rules. We support full compliance in order to
protect the water quality and the life dependent on a healthy Northwest Creek.
I appreciate your consideration of our concerns on this matter.
Sincerely,
7T- -PMo
Paul H. Pittman III
Clean Water Campaign Coordinator
cc: Dick Goodwin
Tom Jones, Neuse River Keeper

Fairfield I Harbour
Property Owners Association 585 Broad Creek Road New Bern, NC 28560
J nub y '001 office:252.633.5500 faz252.635.2154
t MOf [e-mail]
Jim v wligan
Water Qua- iw Regional Sup€r3,?sos_'
Dridsion of Water Quahly
Lubiect: Ni at cw Of D-attd 3ani arrv 16, 001
Dear ?vYr. .Jig iliaan:
M;?.-3irfield 11?arbou 'S,'ropelTy O rwners s-socia[ion (IDO ;A ) is coriL-r- ied to i3rGTTli7'rd
resolve all compliance issues raised in the subject ?NTOV and desires to At orx with i_.WQ to
End a rnutuall4i accepta?tiie solution.
The first, sentmce of paragraph h ee cn pie d- wee of sabjec notic;, reads ""his cfLe
requires i" m viclatioi-s as detailed above, be abated irnr«ediately." DiscassiGns r i h Bill
.
I%,!- of- of D'a'? I tm J anuan, 3 {r, 20011 'mqueste int'i ;are ta- vior'a of tffis stcai`T.IIlm . Vi'--
anderstar-d ,tat wig :tem nt ii°,' ?nnmediute vaclicU or f'9231'v' Of dit Gll 3i Icava o"_ ",
?wit?'tLr tic j?rtliI- I ?els and l(}! a1?1G4t l resaf ;L?v3 s;r3s ?lti£ n?quirp-'a? during tht intelim
Fie item. in pa-mzraplh- cur on ;gage T.,inz are tir J ad iessrd. Please ,'.mice us
?tea-I,Ik diat,?t v ? '.t''ur imuderstan aw' Ig IJ rim corr ;ct.
Wt
ti i?aa%t Ci3?153i>ci'r:,. a r:iiige ?:,? aCt.i?%S to uc%o?- crJmuiiarii ?'ii:,r:di=i `ix ilo ?t_
camp etei-y ry$iomina ?jl th? , draL"I'a-e fii mg only dic L3 ralh Air3u'?'n Tile
;,r3iii?an .uifen :,a3a-.Lmz 11he roadway culverts ieading to thie outt" f;:=, and repal-i-
a `lr czit tirie:l-
da=j 1?fells ddilL at?didor-, .l cresion,,`s%-.dimer%t corirrD! G'evi--,es. We rtco2 LLe that r s trim
d:(: riparxa-zi of tfails mould 1Pi ely re-move d-.e violiiiion, but if =:ve were to do so E w- Owa
have urpac.s or, the drainage system, intended to Prot:, :t residents am"I. the
envlrc-ti .ent trom. the ravages of flood, waters, h7ar manes. and heavy ralraaii. T-';-,.,= ar
abo :iuestiors on 7_ow immediately t s could be ;done re„tsgaizing the reed for pen- its and
rt uired otifieador+-:. Capping, il'ie out3atis wouid it"r21 dliateiyy' ceas , how ibrough tht .
Oud]Als but wouid not r move The buffer iioladori, protect our residents fiom stormwaier
events, or prey :,ct the li stalled roadside s7wales Hum erosion. Capping outwsills will aise
cause des-a ucticn ofv?;g tatit;n. in roadside swales due to the -ming depth of waled water.
mppv,d sail mater -d-om.narnicai?i; s and storms prior to cW-vert and Outhail ins-t,aRaIdons
ti.a 'ell teri acres of mature trev's to die in the prQject ar-ra.
die Tr a teas Jhe- duciag i re$pcrosibullitW to Fnetwer amt± prot-nl 7c : '.;CT TIU-r3 % a siC? Tt
also deer-ly acids a sense of dupsy , protect c ?,itvimm_T3'3.erit. Our goal is to do both.. M'l w
-S I laF i tii; cox be most t'easo ably dons, ?v 3umm-ediatel improving the e
7c1?ev1c
Ol t_a 15 and ?snst g e ,53siTtd, eonnaits while itr`-titptil de?veioping and L-ista la a
draii t sysie ni al-a- 'r°lil >ompi"1 ,,- ith the ' untie-m ..Crane-ag-e i mt plm`-- a-nd Coasml
Jfonnvafer -per-Inn iwtiii3? er42e:ty, 'Tlis avenue of action Forms the basis of our reRpcp C.

Responses the specific her=s idenr ed On Page thr- ib; in Your notice " i
iv3li36iJ ;
Efflo To Remove Sediment
h1 accordance with DrNQ pidanc , the P OA l'?;i-ve rur NL-intena nc=-
DPpa£tr e it or a conti act©r remove sediment which has been discharged 7 o the
stream. 7thds pidance was rvccim, ended to be cbtaaled:.orn vour
Offi'?,c-- in the??? NOV. i?'?e? grade such af, request ?Jan..y: x7v -15?,g200 -, Danny Undtshy?
b arene y :..Lind Jim. Nlulhaa- nos off= by Si.?i ?W]1LSil3? A). We are avvadLing 'vrinen
guidance, and upon receini. wz1_ take recommended action promptly.
Additional,; all check dams iluat were imp-pere_d idh have been restored.
contractor is scheduled Febrtaw ?. '2001 to install innproved erosion cont-roi
.=Ln res at sediment producing locations outside of the bufftr area.
"i a - ae nt of ?:cY't63L.r3 Dit'-hes 'Impactin-g A-Wiflannds
Lle SitL
tt'lY"ee ;G€SciieS and d£3iite oLetB sTLvtesdwing 'I 'e side T?wii. of
Dt Gcz ai ber 133, 20,04), plus 111re t :;c .t k5r sir lLLar breach=s iater iCienti*get '%_ ; W . 3+eL
_' rare r;' I- ZU' ? l and vszor--d = befor' and af?v"_' h-otlos, t` sib,-- B" ? :`ems y
o de iwere file results o? : 'iaulhe ized tx npenng. Tine PGA i'S
in??ec :il
-,
Al! stalled dvrmage s nac-tares ;: 'e : '. nd-- a nevji?v s!reng iZened :{x ain
te?IFnGd
orOU`"ii1311 t 3 Eli d dro Z. ' 7 ?.w.5 urL ?1 ui; breaches. in ad.!'
zitLG_l, :s j OP_'ic:
yidule was -Dubfish-ed in the cmil .rtilwa'A' ne wslletter war'nm C?i3drty --w-rie = o
the serioustnes4 of ianipeiing with illy drainage syste"a (Beacon r y"''j',
plan tr) 01-nPly
7,0f-, redesiv- ed n tnyGn> inana??iTeY t Plan for d h"- rq'llect vxill i ncil-ade cons t>i.%v'.
°Levr edards_ pi-ket wetlands- an Vass uned sv ales ' ietdhig a tmizmum_ :0.=
red'a[S ifJ >r3';tal !"JLtroge-n { 11* i .Ascharged to Spring Creel,. -and
t.. reek. the crL Anal plan Lncludcd grass lined C3.1`v swal.es in per-- vvidi G.ssi.ing
bdgh `- cand wafer iLwls that -ould cvn ??77t°W'Y'a?ii,i`se the 1?-xpectedi 1-eduction.
hest art-as will now include iunear v eLlands.
ie prcgpos ed rcuesign Tart was
V . iedd dd on ui`LG by Bill X'1G0?`;z: of Tli$ 'YVQ
'Washwngior? Regional Office on Lnuant 2.4, 001 in ?:rder to ga-?e that the
prpposed nutrient plan could n eet the -''oagtid ?t?_a fro tier _Ptr-t it 2' e;Ll
Additi-orzal on site consultadcgi is scheduled for i`ev? 2001 with N-ir,
4 Earn F. (UM B am of 11-aortt Caro&ut Sta-lw . n ve=sit'y amid ,fL3. ? 3s37j1d it bt o-
1-1 - dit; NorA ;Cary iina A-ppcuh ral Extension , ci' 4ce. -t'tiiut ftor Zvir. Niwre, ;fur-L
and L Ary and Other Conisl7.i€mi viifl be u,.d d'?3s1y ai prepar'a:ion iii
_;`Ased -oand speUthc dons fbo nutr?en? ter runoff
Tr+o--n the dranLa fd p£i.je°=. 2:r. olyn Sch-icier o Ehe C;.rnei for A1Y atei lde4
is'C? ado u'-celsi cc L_ c¢?"is > ssuv:; f6 yi5 . Bob "Chiles our
_ swi?u?ns:2`va? .
csiimates that gmd d.e:skn 7w-I be i'en:C y for sil-brini-s-semen Apt-il 1, 20 L
We la3ge the ...?? ,-VQ not 7',?u:. matter. e r T °L.'Y}.?3_? is i {?s £2
.. ?.+ I.?.e.. or ?eri;.LrJ1 for:: err l..r?t... 1L a c ?.?alf.?l t'..L`+..
-e.solring corn fiance issues, as c-videnced by the corrective actions taken since DWQ s
December 13, 22 000 inspection. We w1 continue to keep the DVVQ wised of c-t
con-spliance efforts and await fir er ©uidance ftom Q-- on Elie buffer abatement and
mmovai issues pre-viously discussed. The POA point of contact is Bob Brown.
Sincvreb
AXI-z
PO A Board
Bernie Teubert
Board. President
Fair-field Harbour P_ropei-tf -bars _AssocieuO _
cc;: PO A Board
Danny Srnit kVQ,,R.a-1ei?b
Robert Chiles
E:d, bits (4)
r Caw= 3IECTi
=o:
FAX: ( ) C1'?-?' b ?'. 1
mm: c )
F2M: X30 Ux to
( )
FAX-
M.- ( )
- ?s

Exhibit A
?'
s
::
w
_x
?'
a
0
?'
z
l
ro
i
.?
C
.?
y .?
?;
_?«

?a :x?,?.?'
,

.
`
M. ?
.
°'?.. ?„?
?.: ? ,
?. a

? .'?
?
M ?
?
?t-?`?
' _. .
f
?::..
?
?
?"'
°f
'
a t
:1 ^?
G" -? ?"_i .e_..._

.._} ":fit `•+` -yS - � � - .. ' � r�
4
' �� - � `•f`� - -- - " ray,
' -��?a•" ,.�-�,".'�; � '� 1 � maw
-`4'� C`�r'� q. r "awl. _ � 4- • . � : - \ _ - _ "
-a-- r
P
Lr -
�l �('d�'l� �'ljZ�t� -_,�� _^�e' �' S2r' _ Yf"t'F'?•�.�-r�• -
< � � Thr; �s. i -- .ems -a _ - �;; },r. �• ""t. J ^j .. rl� ��.. ' _ - _
>t'`,,.yit ►�.N <- f '+._) -'15 j. � - 3' � -..+.� � � � 'Gam ..

fikf%eld. I Harbour
roaa careen xoaa New Bern, NC 28560
off ice252.633.5500 f=252.635.2154
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
January 11, 2001
Ditch/Swale/Culvert Maintenance Plan
All ditches, swales and culverts throughout the Harbour need periodic
maintenance to ensure proper control of sedimentation and erosion as
well as proper flow. The main purpose of this plan is to describe the
regular maintenance necessary on newly or recently constructed/cleaned
out /regraded ditches and swales; however, applicable parts may be
used for other ditch maintenance in the Harbour.
Until such time as new or cleaned out ditches have become stable with
a well established ground cover, it will be necessary to inspect them
weekly and immediately after any major rain event that causes high
flow rates or flooding. The POA Maintenance Department will be
responsible for these inspections and any repairs/maintenance within
their capabilities.
Attachment A entitled "Fairfield Harbour POA Drainage Improvements
Erosion & Sedimentation Control Specifications" dated April 6, 1999
and provided by Robert M. Chiles, P.E. is to be used as a reference
for ditch/swale maintenance. Additionally, Attachment B entitled
"Fairfield Harbour Ditch/Swale Maintenance Log" will be completed by
the POA Maintenance Department every time a ditch is inspected.
Attachment C is a map of Fairfield Harbour for ditch/swale, outfall,
and check dam location/identification.
It is important to inspect all areas where culverts are installed
because these areas are highly susceptible to erosion plus debris and
sediment build up. This includes driveway culverts as well as regular
road culverts. They must be kept free of large accumulations of
debris and sediment and repaired if erosion occurs. POA Maintenance
will be responsible for the majority of this work; however, work
beyond their capability will.be completed via contract maintenance.
It is imperative that all required maintenance be completed as soon as
possible after any discrepancies are discovered. Any modifications to
this plan must be approved via the POA Manager or as directed by
higher authority.
Lo?;.ew?v
Exhibit C
. Ir
o $: j ? ? ° e j o 5 i
°-aF w.b P 3a biip b ES °k°- : T 'e g x E• 8 ca 5 • ,!f °aav °°5 ?./?`
iE ••5' i °„5 w .°
s ? E. o g- 3 s c } _b p c s?'8° ?a s 5° TC YOa fi
Z PeS ?s a, o a 5 Sapp ?°° a $T7{8 i 5 a?Sa•4o=i °i `5°$357 8•°.. ? q av g? oe ±' tea, ec° C,°??
-•y g_• •vo
=> ?. 85! i YE b3 • fiE bfii $ 5y El b s °F b °E e68$4S3 g
Z 31 T . a 5 §$ d• ff a ?.
o: s.o °b? t $9 $ E ¢b° 1 ° a•E n 3 C a od$°_ tb: G..t•` ^5308-• 3 a va •+aP°
a• t s o Y = $- 5O $ b :• EF gP?aiE ti a Ens y b - _31a,Y
.4 S E E fieb 5 a ,i=7at _Psi a oT oT sE Ey ,° F g a5- E 3eC° ` Y°° ° L j 0 a 'o _ Sg°xn
9 i?E^s ? fia-as .b °isi:4E° - a c im i E 3 P 83 s5 5 sbo¢¢aE.6 $F{ d55`oBP°_S Ei i6?€6c$' YSa ?t5?a '•s •Eltit?
•5O E-• .-8 - ±8• s1_eTb i v v v ??g• e_ Yi _ i ., i 65r.,E a a E 5 2?II o$- $ •a= a $0i$8l ?ie3aS• 5 $asd SE t°°''e•:o fi 1 fE4?;°• a.
8fii: $ e_ E, 00 of £ 5F o? z N e a •M-•F, < a 2 4>.i •F.O2s? Scie' Fau $ •• °S• $E S l:
P i 4 b,< 7 co q f F`° •• p z $ E
eynce` Eg5E, a. i?
53d ho Cai• `a E° LS iei bi ?`v ; Ea_ ,a ° s5 b 3`6:'oE 5i?o s8=$- g •
` _ aY
!? F F 6` s a6Eoi°s 2a ea a$ •gfi aK E `o g. 'of° ! •5 S°-o°E ?j° i Y$ =a`vE E$g Ey ce b_- a;-:S• ¢S'En3 PoE 3f •° ac fi
7 `a5 i a •1q qn i c E c° T pp i •.- b i y E ao'8i 9
Y °"T a a5$ • bf s6 4 id . $e-8-o ST °5 3 ab°•°• s
$?_3ig-e o s e 6i °? ia4_• a° ET s ° i` a, a p aeP o5 3 i o 5
E •C• $fi sE; ,mt sF_ ws sb 5efiy o$ eo °a fa`=°33 ° rs Q E h t E fi - 6a-gg `? ie°.a i `Y a s ?i5 ?E tB as C
yif g.p;45F0 'Safi :F°'•? E3?E=
a°d5'o t?$ib 4Y m
$Y ??9P :Boof :g E
e$ EaOw ye$ «L`5 iE E•#y=ice j :8 seSsyS•?r??t•d a ? L b„ i E 5•j E- E as- sge$H`?°•? `•'=y8 a •8° E•e? s ifi $5. i '
ib§i•ok>a 6a i6 E .zi g& b sk ad bo $ 4€rEE 2j 1 =-i- ¢: a g'aE6$5L ierP¢ a 5? d 'f- "*-s 4 t3?oea $sg$ a P g ?g SE
°cte 84: a6U ebfi <E38 °
4 ?i5
5 •° efiog •.. ase•js? L? °o? i?• ps iMal
4`a `o a$4 3n •? a e?-aEE a vi ?a i Y • g 8 ?? x 4 ° a- fi -• $ 7 g
R - -°
Y ta: o -4° { 'sb- 5 1, a ° o a s o 3S 5 d• g__e 9 ss_ 4Ps°5 . _ ^F' 75 a E °. s an al W: En$S Rs $ a.. °£ ` ?$5°? 141. ge8i§o 54. i
s • efi$ !•°li •fi
i - Z- s 5 aE au' i wE•i •fig f i• 5o $b ag`- Y5__•°d»ege» .. 6s-ice: $ $ E?e•I
MIA °g5e b i $
Y $a sg b?g° 6 Ss $i E^et j-a°s?•. es Ss$5g¢ y'i: 8$ ?5 $ ?OC gi d? 6w bEva :€oe iFB•4j{j bE?$i a ?5£s°?B3 Spa EToa??$ -asi6 $`°§;a 5$?? •7' °'a -a is V 3$w 55 - is 4a 713 € E: Elo: ?- b 5- efi b a•Y Ed 5° Ex Ce= _-°w a - •°-a ! io
att•:E_•81:$ iPb 3?$§$ C s ° 5;E€ a a b`eu d a a aaE ii? s`88 j3c9a:$•fi s $?•E5 3,,: ?,icb-5• 8-S eaFn*Oc `SEfii i ¢=oE a 3'
g a1 gg aS ?° pp b E 5=F Y$-s. b 3 Yga f• $- vi all
E
a CET`•E'<3s$Eae.bu <? t'otFf <s: w °$: a. E`sv i4S8$i°•?4ya$g?°¢ ss.?i'6; £y.va68QSQ- i8OF FE8°EL " $'54A ` a g}? Y ?n a8
i EELi€ '° ... 'ri33t .SfEe: i e i 1E6. dnaaES I HN 1gigs^31 ¢ni aF9a 'o?$3$° Al co:a° C£$ EiE3iDEie tae 3uE
• Qo de
i
a
u
$
i
3
4
1 4*
4c
n
i
k
S
9
gEve00
rya Y
p
Hal
.7°d i
?O `oa• S•S$Se
SI? ? e_c
i
%r
X$
ki
t
< i o
n
u ?
i,
as
i4€
3S
bs
E? =ie y
' i
bSF? `;y.y 5:
;¢b g$iE
s?
=o
a b e
n > E i
3§3?i ? ! } E pgp
• i z E
.E-•• i •3 ?c uE?
V
a?
4

:,
5a 'a
° o.$ ! o? 4so 9 fi.EE
8q 3Cg a o? 5_
sy? S y T o 3« o
T o
g $" a 355 6 s8 E? $Y'- `50€ YF8E
E ab E sE± 8 Ebs ° aE € °3a yy .•$3r
$g •TS F$ z 8•> 8 a o;sy__? =?g?ayn -E
53 Y o5• S S'EE . 3- fib LI$$3$ 1E
E 6 ae.S3°Y`
g °? Z'`° 3 Sao 5 =jfi $ Y_ -Y`g
3
a
? a
Q W
N
q

U
2 a„ar
?!
W ar
2
4
?. Z z
E z
z

c

Z
a
?
. b-4
Uz° o

e W cl
f? w
z
N C)
a

t
-+
H Ji1 i
2i
2

a a. ,

< 1
l 1

?

W 2 j

o m
c o <
N
5; 6 fi o - S E
E;5"?8r6 5..i6$E Y iG n +^ aab s iSsa -aa aaa:i•i? an 5. 8?
• on9$• Ea =ih 3 o?rpOOROO.VNt1.j
52- $ 3$$? 3`=59E ES a3b55a by a, ??6Y: a¦ o
e8 5o
$h°OS4E„ Ea E$
3
-€tE 'fi i cP$°?$EE °? ?:5 -FiEbfi bfii C5 ye:a"fi..r po=i 5}a a o
L'•S?s?r : e°e c# 8a °_ $'g tai °? $S53?:S ?d°P?efs;2 wf•g s aE`ga 3 a
>6 xEsS Le *A&2Ec v;^i"3 ;g?i^ 8j5Ea "? Yf?L ES:b ? ?i fi 5o b° 8
a. c 9 aBbsrY 3 3gE ° ? $o EyEbfiS -4 E.-6zipyxs ?•3e?6}e-'• ;€ L°'o 6? °oya?o's5 _6
a. k `_4 ,.?goronn•oaeo g°« 84 a:F ss? °5 =$ t
o 'Sa." o °f E s o3 S--?NNriw•idoow hs$'oa0 °p- n • ?°wE E« b N a$-•E' SA
S?cc •5<
a`#o6A.E5i iYEsyE h o5aDe5 b-gfj ¢8-522 aiaa°°:: -°?EEa TLiab 9€d«P?`.a °41 Utz
$R Y °5b ?. h$ 3 t gi 6 .8 'y,i3•_ $° alraE; A Ns 0.5 za it S °$ q a
s $ i, o'oto• tg ee°O `= .2? hi 5 ° 'o 3_E°Y.oC ° ?o
A t i-_ °*bh35 w =S}'u ft "?2$3ya € _cE asjo« ° Eo
E b b€o , , 6a? In av u $b i =68E5
3e a- t 43 jdo0°$•
9?li i• y' °a o i. €-Y?? 35 •?F6-5 f?$ Ez E5"t ° $ n8e'o
12
=h" o:$ •? 3 cgr_woanar°an_ :h58 E o o? g° ?'E •°?5:... ;i $ !fib°° : $¢?E.S?E •i
ha -:::I. •: b a d. i g ba s- No E t
• `a ° fia ' E°E;? 6- F S •ob fid E. ° 5E - 5• acs Egg Uae• o r -kfiE
•L s . s••E,_a; fiF'SEe: a4 •So#5 a€oS ¢•j3 E YSw`oSEI ^6ed yi Sba oaa
$'• •Y D ^$:s3
•i_be s of fix =. _. a _ 3b-

(b o
nb3 t p gg EE b
His AEI°e3s•j5 i6g:a:e'ude <o3E°sa3 ao a EaBriaa bc$ 5• $S ?$
&°5'y:a g :5i
¢
s-
b3
b ° p S°'?`O °s5g°°2`E
3V` 3••5E<3 '•E5$b •_ a: e
E

i
e
o
a a S
ESata a`e73', •
w
i> 15 58-'bE: o'2s°n:t: ;•3i -a
yy
C
¢' w?

°
b
o=??
b
i
1 id g gggg gQQ
< $8R8$S$Soaoii
g¢ obe-
`9.
C
' .
s
°
z n u
<
s u -
°
ba?-
? Nu€s
. a E SEES S E. -4 ! 5• S 5d-, E 3;
t°s - 5
1SU sa i
?'i5e•=
.0 w T.::a ssa <°b • :$e` F? j:, i4 a q Al. '• r i Ee 6 i CP j : y 4 °e
E ?E esae _ e.ep E°y- i6
€ `s a •• eos»
0
'-°
?t Sf 8 g5 P° fi -6$ • $E $fiE sao 3e •b° g 5 is 6 c°P•c oe 3 0 $ .5 e •e 5 a`i i- a 5 o° i s
oo:'a'fisg ?ba?ea so{_3E5 $7eC• ?A3 i_a yi_ tEEE iCaaab-a8 ? ° ° •s<pe` 1a 8o $o bab P 6a eeaoSS S°a a€a5`$:.°• ;? 2l ¢? §w i$ -E°- °t `°$ a°SagSf?? 5?
E° 6 E73 i 4b_ • at 4 ° • 8 0
iyne.`?tEa i d48agg a E-bb.s 3E= F°g_o °sEp g?s°vi6os$ a•;ga E Y
ErEi oaE; tlO'E yei s ig iiYSgEes $o e•5YS-Sc? o.E d a'O°• 8e'Sy Y?°
?i< Ej5• 5YS-^ Tn t t•b skw hi 3 w, 3 °5?i F-E 5$S°T Ei1Eb2 a- 5sa 15" a aY° °a=iat?? b bi E.
_ 3_i EE?1? o '?5°a? 3 f°? $.s: °s"•°'=•4YEC n•t
`'eae -6e3ialn ?$i°aeo• -4 ss8 Sif 6- i .o j=°SRite° °ti 8 s'ysepg =3 1-4 Id .:E e c?t?nEE :`a a _?0 8 8e` _ n ? d; T•` iba" 'b. •a_ °a Eric n7 $sc $t°=
aT 6.c5$- E=Eas E€e p4E 3as"$ sEi°E ??°+ $a<•gS° E-?°`.^$3 °Sa°8.gig;e •$ si ?.eh3i F1_1, Sa?E. 5?? -P 8e$ <:fi °P`o; !2 Eg$g$t.$ .,; 8•t Yee Ea.$ ESQ«6e e=: fi?
$ ; 6 y S a° s _.§.: CC 8 g ° a9. -So• •$6g $
win ig %a8 11 , of
so S?y •V aeacb $s?°, ??d 55 bi a c:Ai E¢ Eg iwE =$fiba°2a eb;5 .vya : ° yo r`is °OEe?=.a,aa ?o ?5E ?E:4i8 ?:
g,. t?B6a °• jif ?b 3:i ;Y.:nta ;ee•.
a ° 3T a - e" a b?3 t ;"d E 5_ i a2' ii: s°° `i fi 5
° ° s <TT?j € 5 _° • 3 S. ae
is e L She • a°°e _$a .5t-°,: °e°s
b°Yee iQO`j' ii aa E bg° Eia= 5-a 3:obnE ES ?a# e_' <eEEE sse°O?° ae< a aoE a St °: Yi, p€gs`y3 fi g$8fia• $s 0.55 FYEas<5°aaS jf 5335 °?E fiwa Eeo ?SStd E5 ,yf 6Eg °°
SSbr ':i
cco F§anii _Le•e?
he E6 e° 3 5 E'°-°45 5 h, S@ oi? 6 ?E i °?szSa !53b 29, Y i$VO `ES` sgjE •3a t; 5 fibgs $E9 4?oi3 u: a s5?ebe5E ioto ?E
Ss. . e £fi? ay o s4 E-y?•i. -`o3 C [E`eT°: Esc-
d33E'.S?a fi S.: p.
79 _ E b - $fi 9 8 •? b 1E2
o s
. •s ce1 fi .ae.ya: a iAab g s _- o ° a 5-a i ?. 5.
E'^$i = 4w• to atE• E• e - i :C ?' e • 0 8e•s a •3•
< ¢
o E - . < y o?•c$ ,• a •,E a3 05••'• t `a g F '? ib ,a« = c x
5e ES 5 sa° n° $3 5 ES•y-aw•a4F
E 3a t:fi? S a3$ '! o 04 ?_ 5• Pa e a• a '6. ice` cE°`' 8s ion s a E• iE o a 3
• € p° Y$bEE5°- s 3 •a °6 i s<e°6et=•? E aTy
3 Yg'..Z, ?FS ' Y.: _.. s.° 8. 8 E ea.?5`-Eb.e S,a Y''i 5 C'• o? $• d'da $ vi s 33$ 5?•+1 ?•?t 8° q at.Sig 5
i i
ova § bi afi ° E$ " <- 30 3 Eys S e e .. i cs
- b°• a 3" se r ib 3 s 8
g 3 $o .. S. c .a °yyo $$ °az i 5• j° -•
. Ej i F6 .< 2M41 b5,5a' a. .
E 5 5 E,ye F _ E Ss o
$ 3 : g pE•$ Ei - t
68 35 $ a s.. 8. b ..3 aq. - : E° °^ I .-I - w 4 4 c zEaE o ` $c s • IL
$i3 S ° a °as . i rs e pi i < ° SF5 6°PES =E a_ fi - a fi we p.._
b Y'. ++° w e s s a g.?
fi- j: 8S° ep? S_ 347os cc j4 C,
4
x:`sa3i«=? <E$aEEa o`._L. -.i` csa>e t $>E° EE5?3h-e 75 o Sim Ss8Oes;ge E?°8€ evcsx,eo bge a•3A€€:- S <sYe ME-4 °?O 53=° fiya;?E3° o EaES34?c' a s6! i`o oYEC? s? a2b. aco a$$5 °55?°
E
. ESn. E¢.•3 ?'z 8°• ab3Te: #8 EE •S$ °`SE •? :s=Ys. _ F• e8§e-g a q
y mcE_ <o_. fiEYo ;So 58S Pta ¢z?S3 ?9P i3a55 iSs••ePs ^ b i
3g - ? -
as va
12
aE °:ya
ooi Wg 6"
S;
6?QQ
_ iY1
safi5
2M=?
s 83 6
89.E . .4
ib?$s8
tfi_
i? ?u 4
1n;
e d$ge
fiv?T`Ea
ee8E6
. ¢.Ia!
'?Csb
4= d;
8e¢44
i•: E`?
$? §a8 p•
t;s§aE:
E
g
S } I e o5 i° ba le ;? ° 6sa 2 !I_ ° s A d:$
y !! s ° _
u• a _ w o° ° $ _ e E i° b?<B8 4
3
• <_ r 3iE 4.oi:- •!f+Y <5 5 6i$a g <a§E g5=bla ° li' 88d< HIS.* -3 °?58 i6.??jig fi:5 S< °s?c• t?yfr.. t. •e '? h:
!!$ $8 g:s 3? ; ad. °7sL t F. E is .°.. a o Eii ; Y $n 1 •EE:- ° «i ° §.Sc_gi•E 8 ;a• !>•33s -a -'S 6-
gii o °°SOfr s,j F'SS8'gig$ i.xa a§_ of ?'.Ldgg ap8;3Ygis ! Se ncF ° bap4:; igg<• y g ;fi €°biifas $s sss?3 s'sss ''jLa;S e g
S;s a szYyeE °S
$a`-'3' w° a ;s ail .:3 '. Eisf° E: r= Elio: $ &8 --s: c ;" as s,3e?h !S :- a1ia3rs°e 8 F 8` S%?i
a^t $ n €e5,w aih$4 !:°O?o fire isi t i 5`0 !sS£ °c°o 8a YF °c LbA°oi - seoe
$e°c.s 8 Sra 8 48t ;y ipr9at s _$i S-'a =p9: =: i $e h'' 3i °g=a as ? frt?sa:$ ;_$ 8 a°:as' es €ib" g 4 °E`9ag yh saeA V1 -j s an
e po Es - °$Yi s5 4 ,y d3° $ gi tsi E ld.j I§ a iO gE s •eisd?r $ - -t •E 3 s'h?tsc °E- °i8 i ?sa sigh
,.$ L a ° •h he ..• ec$ 9fi "IEc 9 Sam °_$: _a °OO ° 0 8° ° $2b S: Es.6 •n °n4° $.. h -ijo
s 8 :!! s ., t o g S .c gee > g? b'v
oYgg o •... 'd.t8.. E' o°?°s oviih 6 SE s3
< <" °. : l TA z bE f Is ° :8 °mjis i y s is CEO ° ° 4-
s s pp55 °b aSfi s$M+P B $ai_ fi-.
!g b C,ES !y 3 c° : h? r? € E3`:•dej o s i e• k-r 2 °`b ?° °
s •£ c S€!! I ° T? a ?}?°•??6E$- a _°g$
a ME O', as `o $T i L e :e3 pea• I eh E z_
P 3:2 3' a S is <f2 = E t aa3=i 3 e.b b e t ei°SS SSS
a ie• .3?ffi f Ea o° =S Ye
^ EY is5T _ gof 53 '' _
.a1 e i lSCr a?8 eeft Ego e3?i 8 i y ?E3-e ?E:it•e7? .. $fiE - °?•? So5-o °•F ii:°° f. ?'° ?$fie?E
-SdS° r yy 3{. •¢ p ryS$ . ti.q•? ° .oi o.68s s+ Fa 6 z
a '? i • < + g E in F $O°° 'i wA a? E Y: 8 Oee ° 5 b Al
9
HE =a n o
N
die ' $ E= u° °5 ; ' < vTi `? 8^ ii5>3 Wjk cY o 5•i ° . °e aL 3K a: °a •$d6i€a. tk it a$ 3• i`o 55 a"?i °.E ?° zoe od ge
a3 ?3sE 1 e••v „w og Stir' I v ° ° °L• ks •? °'? a- .,•e a i+ S a°° : _ = 5-° u" F.°,q °{c '?yy _ a- '? F:_ x!•
ay figs ei>e ?a,3CO oo•e n=•:°4 m' ?c °? . 8i <ja SS a8 '!-ce:w i- g;i?Yy °° y °$h j_ ° pe°-s w s?o i s; Zs°yt !eO a3Ea sy - °f-'i $?, gas • z _g
.!-7 >S- ! !e zaz6$ in6 11a° t a gg? 2 a as,e d •!•E y P 8 !es¢ ° i s??;i i
t -4 6 EE5Efr:$- i zEsS;i?frB in' H. ao383 ?;fr °diE'o:3°05 2s8 ?5-0.3s:S2a6s°E3? s?aaEa_.; a'o3u: .9! C•33•4u'
cg.s a?z alas-°° $?i#h ayii€ea i8= a• ?$%vsi$s° s'38y's xg Zrc -a-
§ Y
6 $g ?' °Sfi6e
6
i
3 s a# ee s
hp
aShba
,
3 SE b ;
:E a=g:_
f fr9
3 ?5 o'p - 5jl?a
i8,8 :? Ea r8
3 •
si °fr 53?f° , = k
n+:

bg
?^ o: °nbos a
- ff

t
4$.•
e
ayL ° g}
h4 o;6 a
a.. iefi
43b
41

K
4

5

fr s< 3 $ 3

g-
-sea
ig vv5 35
zl
$ 8?$ •.° o-? 0,005$,
$
a
SE ?o k'a as =
°
?
=s
i
°
i
a`? r4E
a ?E
i oe
° fia
nY$ °•SSa ?'sia55-wE ?
a
§
a '
o moo -
IS sr $" °e a.. .5s3'a
8 9 i • I e ' Ini h I • ° nEa- o s= b he $ ? '
° ii ! e,$ealia: " Sj ^ye..- ?e tI _? k -e ° a as
•?'a 5§a$} yEBe°' :6 Om 5: 'is .12 f i•e4$ ids<b6 a?EA i j ?„ :i-o? ! BheiY i
?•I:i' Eew~° ?iae+°$ 9 bi !^h6 g iw•fi"e
i . iw•d '$EL$ b•E' E:B? a `° • °°?• Zjt Zde
?:sF 'M-i.fi i-s a5 '• 'voZa!°•'°g' s 117,11112
efrT jereoe9h Z;ESyEYz y ; ia'$5 o, % 8.as °i €a oSa5glL Ee o a?$- f :Sa 6 g`? °$' a It
O°3 ?ve ssE a<a
`cal8
d53 $•=$°? •! s.:8 :ic3!°:'is E° yT? so=•.fr; E3Qia6fo yh6g:E°r, _ o,?C? s : S! bei5=E 1 i °3 ec. .°°'63 g e'9 l• ? fiuo= EEi6r •g?-?' ?C•, fi d; 6 a ! ? i s is
e e
1 - aY
!s9 ! g'nyye•E6 'o E- ° EE°- °••! $ •°i s sc .1 a: °$ Is g g $ i4
CS.yv6 bay "?Y'easF? u Es 6 5d .:YL a E: Se°FbLhfi 9aE?g9aa -EE-4 4 0} =<Y OO v ca ?SoSp: e3e 41.& E` i; 6$gs Lis3 °a ;s •:Ie$ 2a?g3 :L:: -
S s h 88 . et~ $" Sho
° o ° a• $ -ifh ° _ •a-
a - eoa a °- Lw3 k£heia +ic i k8 eo =i s. - 3_ci° •so• e° - Eis s
fSa,e k 5??bd .. afro a h°o °OSeF y .. h-Lg fr-d a {
c ay` fi°• cv Y.Y 8• c °s ° <°+ b-i°.°.oEf _ E e ° a;-w $o $ ° •
a$Y _ga fF_•E. 'e5>°s: ?a:si?e$ :a$aa•ccE:?? _£s?=$a ?a°"E<°a E•i "ae 142 Nil cjo8<ei bpei2 fr= °E$ eo$i 'S•E xve•• ei ?>° ! 6 e 3 ° j+EgE?y 3•_
. j:_ •9^Y °° :.,e p s a.E; av i 5•:Y es y
Eiw io$e !. !<+E9S°o 6a-` E?6bb$`oS-13?_.i bebEd.•??:$s e'3o$£'I eao.s_-sEE a H =.: 'iS`aS 8°eltF i c a. $ ?:s?°. .n.=c°e °' as •°a a o:3? c b 3";.?d $•.b •i?. ! Y $! e- 8b£ ?•• a=E
g ?r g pp F E
as,
3 '3= 6.1.55°LB ! so j°gd +. i _ 3s,agab $iESbjS?{ a .aeY=asS'a fit$ $?sa • •3
sEb? 5o iifr 6°2a -Th$8 vqE" 1}oge h $ fifi = boil o.• ° i YE au ?o?eii v i to E k° $•? oaa5 <E?8
?,'. Y •e=Ea•••si Rioac -e3.- Y._"ES av Es Y Y o.55s•? _ sL°-. ?.y Is $ e..eE5 ° E .. S_ ai °c$ p Yw
" fr--e E? 6 ° g !_Ee b8os . •E ?.$O°°.?° =c•
. sge :frE
oY p- .a wE:W VS:•i$?E'- a=fr f`iESe$FoB F? eBi.y°h $•! faE l ° _ ,cs ic. •°$E.... s ° 8_°?' e33o! s', ie?s ° $°?° ?o'u eb S u5 fr t
$_°e b ?E oS •s°? fr•b°e' i, ° ' i
` >a ?i3 yiO• °ba
s• tsf? ry6y5? ;a ss.-% 8gy 3i5s'S.EB:?? SEra i $.f a° €ifr^ 5=ys•o: F--B - a°E2efr ! ?5 ig• g ,s°.+ i?oa A.
zZi'S°°:•jg5• °•° e5sj;i+°eEs6$ e-i5.li.3 ??gYfi.",$ii $`,5j? @ iI i
°i S°• gf Y HN> e ?a E. i, La3• g SS ° c'e gg$_? _o °..E pa ° I °i
rmc
?g$ °Y;s •>ZS - E°,•` vS •Y;Se ,° c°° •° fr:?o•oe 3• ?i d a .ga 3g E $o°: s• tl e • °I Le°<° aisb E ?? t E ° ?• ?v ^3b O.
ei - ?sv•S v- $ y z•? -g' Ec8 a
vE! •s z•°krOO la x°•$ sd =i?8 v=a=e??ads aa•••-'?E• $e6o: ag; ?+ °' $ 2 i;• S SEES EE t is Yse33 of 6- 46 E°•„ a: ei ?_ s:
-b CB E
;•y° e. EEx• ¦aE fr 4s `ss ^b55eiicS>_ y hbams2i 8d• f§ ?i E•y•t5 tE ? gg:l3; x'$: $i_ .'i°ej--.° .off ??6 - r`` •i- $ 3 5e"?e age• t-
e'eos c 8ga "' f=.Y s- ` ° c. '. iE. i• $ $° e• °> yySg '$ 6•vi•• EE ! o ° ??= e j .61
fi ?? fi F"6?re vv !V r•?i of - o h:Sa - _- .Lb frl 8 .1.1. d5:: •G ?°. -abE:$ n55E 9 ie$SY n '" e3f S Sc6L °=ei- x'_90
`-6696+E 4E35 Eao°b <e-!: of :5a£ `:oe P:- iev 8 f j-0°ia E5
Siv oB a:c aO3 °a-?s$sL bE5a of. oil
nZ
O
F
0
I I Ei°
o -cJ 66 I ? • ? 6 g ! + a "a ° 9 S i I 3• ? 33 °z8'
'o s b ° ; d•
• iE• a y6• :! ° 5 a s E is ?8 a + s cg E.j E&b; 'g aeE ' i btu€.i I +$ s" 2 is
f i a ie 05 :? a $° E 3 •ao6 :?h< n§5e 3 i- b<°j i °+ ?• y 9" b' E• _ e a °r g
° u 3.t cc°9• E3 g • 0 ,°1L°",•Ze io Eo i to e j •`e ac S ' Li-
?_ada6 ge _ 8 i i ?stSe ?°e -6?° E L bs S.L E?3 ?• 4+ es °i ?b #8 S ij a$ g5? E=b. sa& TE`5
L $ hi a ; iE 5 a is a' ?? a
.{fi b E g a r-e :p ° f.. ?i i iore > ° p 6°0 3• • °c=a< •. gj E•°
g ES a : o>-,? jS° a 3 6s 3 0 . °e T ste,d• E.i S° 8 ;--A s8 °i ° - E 6l' a °b E S 3s 3ep• W1 4E E`gg6 ss?
jB :S', s fiE.;dfrt sFd` n 05 $`° 9? ss ! 92a?e`gi £ab1m jaabY ;°wZ%;g: !a a ? +- E- as i °s -o ! a q -`g €ie Ea€
Y SyyBc !•i ga' 3° a a 2€° 3a sa - -3s b a ofir_tg .yei S'F 6*- $E? 4s $i it n? ahss 5 ;=S a °9- $ la.s
5 ss b e- !rT •i °S° 6b S o
av 8s b ?g?'i6 X° 6- {i Efi s$a' E 54 - a$j _° Sa8 S? iYg°i a i.i °til 5 io
is d t?s b a _ T t ffs e6e ?a 3 0 3'8-• g1. •k .8 Al :a at g '0 3Sn
<$• •°
!z •? ° $ gob°°Sy $ •5a 6$$n 6Ew, a: Safi o..- 5 _i Eve E iFs .°b o ??! va iIE As
P • a $ L evi °" 3° 'b'i. 5 oa 8LS 5 h % A51 Si8 5 i 8°E---14 e a< o g_g ? • n • t € S 3'°1. eE°s us
SP ?gE b E a° b f$ .: < gg 41
3 k•3 6E °s5.°5._ -s-' b:: '?1a 1° 8? ad - ?e g 8 r8g a"g b °5 a
i - o
° = e• °e • • SE g 3 3 o.$w $$ BE-2 4e ° •? $ - E b? a E °! 8
a y'gg`o°8ebaao sl3S ii. =4 ?i bs qs ?j,! E g
i$vy8; -.2 SS $bs. ° ab
;aaSgE S oisyg" ° .s`=: fi 5 ,05 aY sE 4 e S+,?. =?8?g?ab.Dg dzE ?a-°sa I$g$ -j E
Ib. fi
-b -big
'a fi 'f a=Yifi _Eea 86 ';o a a a5 ?! t=sbat?sib a?: I_ U-6 y'a ??:. 8• fi6a =?°b i's? LESvS 'Y E
es? :1? s3'6E ae 8Y€+ via
ig$s
-5 r? a?8i DZa:
2 41
sa E4¢ °gb-5i :=e 5° $'• `?i :ib CgR :S ES
! 5gsfi;g6 Y ib=ESdw3 3' E 8?gg is oZO m°C-? Si:
s ?g5= as s?
:E ° aLe 'bey 9: $E '?-e i• sb B $ • ° .e
"°
5 g y a of °j-e ,a E•. °. Sce Sv8 £ €i I° s°5fia-ot .5;a E °d sj'i-- ° Ee i 3•?6. p'-
eE aygk of SS?is3 Li g •,° :. ai. •.•Lgg ; E°,?sL°• rb;8i3 g 3 dPa P w6 .is :ai eSE.ee Ss°E
tIa e°EE t3 ug .t$zO'4j ut2 .•.:?3 :E3 gE $[g3 s S-f v3E °a-$BtSfr
Sa5n ° ? ?O r
< V
b a
°
e I I g?a$ .
yas gi s`
s ? ss? E
"afr b..
e Ea?3sl°
L
M. •E<,.:
g9- tl I asv
$°e p , is g.s ";sia
:Au-- b>hy
c? s<8`°t
uS? Se°'?b
'_• s
6 5 i °
aV E8 -•-s
.Edh
H?Iflzr cc
s:$!:$air,I
e ?
5 ti=E afpb,y_° a° za°E
?• is
1, lb -xx3:g s
s ?•x° sa3aB FRE- fi°
5E¢` E 6 ! S°
. ° b
a3 La yI 8s3?° v
yfr $_= a z
fr' a s'- €vito'S*6 g•-: s•
3 get +-a? =s;?as i•'"a.€ l b 9a's
Ysaa?;a. ?M°° 7 y' § !
ae e9si fsg s
6e i.°yyS 8 = "s i
6n labfiE s ;va ?h$ Bysal g s dC 8s
,8 a
U =aE3 ao8 ?abt°i a€8-o.j 4 , °€ t
??h e.aga" "? sat ;; ay e!
°$ysT °o°.$ Sg' °'° gEi4
?? •sa g$g s'y . E ?SSE? i °
oi$ '°'+glid ;:he 1E-yU0.no Ese nas
{
u ZO
?• ` e y?
o F
IN ??
Fairfield Harbour Ditch/Swale Maintenance LOOT
Area Condition:. Date/Repair Date Repairs
Outfall 1
Outfall 2
Outfall A
Al
A2
A3
Outfall B
B2
B3
Outfall C
C1
C2
C3
Outfall D
D1-
D2
D3
Dit.ch/Swale
Exhibit C
i
Attac ent

6

f ! a -'?? w !, 9 '? - .u
p y f ?` 1 ?V .? ,x ?, 76 W h 2
i2l

I?

Exhibit C
HAR"LIR
POA Manager Bob Brown and Board President Bernie Teubert show off the new entrance to the
Harbour.
POA Board nominations close
February 15
The terms of Bernie Teubert and Roy Hathaway
will run out in 2001. Two new Board members are
sought to fill three-year terms lasting until May
2004. Become directly involved in decisions that
impact the future of Fairfield Harbour by making a
decision to run for the Property Owners Board of
Trustees.
Requirements are simple. The nominee must be a
property owner in Fairfield Harbour and a member
in good standing of the POA. The payment of 2001
POA dues must be made in full prior to the election.
Results of the election will be announced at the
Annual Meeting on May 6.
In addition, the nominee should have a desire to
further the community's interests by working to-
gether with other Board members to meet objec-
tives and when appropriate introduce new ideas.
Background in certain areas may be helpful but is
not a requirement.
If you would like more information or want to
become a candidate, call Nominating Committ
ee
Chairman Avis Brown, 637-7585.
February Meetings
The next POA Board meeting will be held Wednes-
day, February 7, 9 am, in the Community Center.
An Incorporation Information meeting will be held
Saturday, February 17, 9 am, in the Community
Center. Sign up at the POA office.
t
RZaret headline
Deadline for the 11e,xq,is6ue of the Beacon is
N,;gnda} noon. February 12. Please deposit
,-,yb6ir organization's dews at the -Beacom office
located n the no%v POA huilding.
Unauthori A drainage
tampering is problematic
It is a fundamental principle of the POA drainage
improvement program to move storm water off
property in an environmentally sensitive manner.
Incorporation to be discussed
at February meeting
An Incorporation Information meeting will be held
Saturday, February 17, at 9 am, at the Community
Center. The purpose of the meeting is to provide
answers to questions that remain after you have read
the full Incorporation Report. Questions will be in
written form. It is important that you are familiar with
the report since there will ,not be a presentation that
reflects pros and cons. You must decide your position
for yourself.
Please call the POA office to get your name on the list
of attendees to ensure that there will be adequate room
at the meeting. If considerable interest is shown,
additional. meetings will be scheduled.
A recent inspection by the State Division of Water
Quality of the installed drainage system in the
Gondolier peninsula section found several mainte-
nance problems with the existing system. Unautho-
rized drainage ditches have been dug from standing
water areas on certain lots over to the POA installed
ditches that eventually lead to Spring Creek and
Northwest Creek. This action is considered by the
State to be draining wetlands without approved
permits or plans and requires filling. These ditches
also subject responsible parties to civil penalties.
The POA Board is making a special appeal to
property owners to not dig any drainage ditch
leading into POA property without first checking
with the General Manager, Bob Brown. He is able
to assess whether the ditch may be dug:
Another problem observed during the State in-
spection was the migration of sediment into the
drainage system passing into outfalls on Spring and
Northwest Creeks. Sediment is a water pollutant.
Much of this sediment has made its way to the
creeks because rip rap check dams that are designed
to filter it have been knocked down or removed.
Property owners taking it upon themselves to tamper
with the drainage system are putting themselves
and the POA at risk of civil action from the state and
are endangering the POA's Gondolier peninsula
drainage project. Please leave all rip rap as placed
by authorized personnel.
? Al Merino
Exhibit D
Pr?S D

CG

The FHYC annual food drive volunteers Paul Martin, Dave Little, Delle and Sam Curry, Naomi
Little and Garrett Snedeker niled the hnro c hioh in - of -- r-A- d W,I. - -. A
REDUCED
e ,? .?'-ICI»,.;»I:I»IY,»! :. °!?' ":"??!?"."I" !i' •. :? ._
Pe ," I :" .Imwlol-i. •."t"Ii i:i: Y{o'I.
aI. I • 41r'• ?.l"g?.I-I `Ii"? ?" ? "Id":" i" • I I I I I I 1 I I ? \
Iml-.: : le ei 7 .a c.r,r I"• I: l"I°• IYIw I°I: I". Iblwlm"_. I , e..
.a• •• I? al" 2 11 ? • r7 - `I MY Y,uI°.NO I. •:wu!yl"?".I. •O I. ? R
I,
.lal" L? wa-I,;li•'v 5 t I I'I"1°I«ml ??1"I"NI °I «I`I? f??I1 Iv `IiiYla• Z. .1
ti • t J`.I :i e w 7f 1? Lt ; 'e?fT? a _ !'?"I« . of +ii :I:I°°?I,', • • o + I a?. I°
-'-"?^?. •',,1 "a,?1 w ?' 162 d7 17i a7 .°j S• J a +Iw ? - e ° wI°Iw "I" - .1-1-1
``
_ 2r ?. ? .? `"` n1 ? 1R7 l?? wf a7 a,'? ? ? aoi +. ~ _ _ _ •? » -I wl . °Inl . ? R RtiR 1 •\
^' ?, r :` \??, ?.,1• n7 f\I.f ,Lt; '?° co'o '`.,??4'.lr?:?rt' p+ h? "V" " ?? ??.pa .
' ? 167 2 >•'- J ~_ "'_ J r "O "? O eli ? ' ?9\
• ¢• I:+?w,,.,, e j'e? /? , ,?? `r ,• - J''?`s:-4'. , .J J1 a ?•.• .+° J ,rt a b ¢ t
•-,0 1t r3t IaISii?f.?,' I r?e`?/ -:? NI« °,•I ?? m`?>? ; g ? ?? ?'?cfi+1J?J ,?Jim°J °?L S ol=?«I'?'I+j°I? • a ??Y? ?'e..T\•\
tTa •rRC Lp.pR a' ? e Ylm _ Iwi nl."?;,",?? M1I° °I.I°I ?5,?• ?? r, i "? •pf m ?a J''? iTS _?...:? ? .Y•
°2F •b9 ?f , ' \ : ue ?,2 a u:." `f- :I. h?N S° , •.r •• "cc'f ? 1" i ° 3 a °+ _ • _ a;
tJt N13 7
t "I w
t• " , ?; c ? ? ?a ?Iwal*1«L".in°
?+ `?1aJ"• a?::R?C''. Rf 1`ly'?t?lnw??RbR?R,seb'r,'':?='?':?o,\s,?l°!°?; $cc?t'1'1V.mTra?3` JJp?Jel?eF?nh?,op Y?,.` ??t\
• ?„ , of .? 'ti.? • Ry ` J,J,, . ;? 31 ?? ?a?n?? ..• . ; = J, I° , R?,y, . °',t ?', \
L? "' O" ?P. 1• N -j R of - • T • s ?r °V J J J %Irai?w? N.« / ?) YRa
?,, w o 2' a,° ti ? RM1• J SIVw ?lil i•1? `+1' f•J + tj ^?`R?? ?R%'(17 ??`• J,•\
? ° ,•r?a„` a ?• ^ y? RR7R •?. •7. 1' . 7 +J'a ? 7 I ,• ijlo 1J '1••' °j _. _ w. ? ?R
;!t' ?. wl" c ??J ro4 ? +j" R NR ,,?a '? ?r yyf '01 y+/? '?
Lea' i w.,oJ'• T, •.' RP `4 '37 Rti%• ` ? - ? ? mm vm 7?Jit f.?/`^??\
.,g Q • • :;?aJ c°? eA R' ,R J - a ? 1e?1 ? +.'.y 'St 7x7 IY1w v i „', R? V
C at of ° ., 'S ''o A . ` ? e sti r' bf ,,,9 ac ,L '+. f1 • 1' :?
>9 J f 2 ,??' a ;? la R?; aM1' ? i>??t ? ? 1+lf III F?. 2' 9 J' pr ': ?. p V J A b
.t+ ` + Ic• • a? '•S Re 117 ° i w Iti - •3' 1 .7a 'JT2 ?` s,u „ I ? w ? • ti ? ? ? j
.p ,I w ly " © :m ?R n a ? xw ?.: vy •7. s' ? J ? °?M11R RR > e7 •Flff _ 'u ?_
,t .7 •, a a c`i .67 . .p, u2°/h ,t' n c•'?d?• J ,12 1 a1 ! .se', ?Tf :? ;?:5 „ k O a e?Aa •i{?w ?? ?wl -° ..
.L 2 J •• ? ? • .R
? • .I• aT 3, It1 'a ? ` ZII •?' I Se l? J `?? .. \ \
r s a ? +G ,, ,j, a ? ?a? "'..1 'Lti•; ._ r i ? '? ?+ ? .t° "m a
aJ ?r .a
9f•`°°° JP '.•; \RO t 2Po J?J??i. '?Iq ,h1L /. :?``R st+
S J J •J a ? L.77 ? _ ? 4.1`T>•F r• 0 ?9R 1 .,_
r .f o JJ er`' 'fJ 'ss •''> "qtr d +d•2 p°J6 `a VV ./?? ??,a fi• 9? iq ??e •7 '..
a r J J J J ?' ?" ? i 'f+ Cf '7 \
, ? i a i ,•S.7' TJ ? .e 21a , `h ly5 iJ Rr. .9 tI? ` 7. J J
}••'r i°J 1 T^.L' J2i°IY N?tl 1? m ?R? ??2. A, .N°m +JT d• e'Rp •C 1? f• w?RR w ` i 1 ?
•' + a1 , :1 OJ 'i• .Ra ,ee, •'4YJ_ 7p9 t??7f7 !7' a ? a J ,a J27! =-'.Y n e!- " - 2M / 9 .? Ir 97- ',f 'ppa 1 ' +\' UlM
?', 97 '? R?,P • ?'? 7'.,1 'r` ?J•,J 'S .?7 J}J. 9J ••t'`?`_;.0'•' 231: J ati ? -.?, ?a? a TJ ^I1 ,?, •`? 4N e7 , ?a ° ?•/.?
,•b ,9e R? ? +.• `S y J 9s =9. .4 2x1 f ? fi 2p1 : RO
1 ,q1 R•' 1 7b 29 ? '< _ ?` 2,1 71 • , 9 '• ? ? ? . .. `1 ?.
• 97? '??a, : 79,: ? , Ta ,y'4 , • '' .9• o: ? ",3+,•,.? 37 ,Y h1 •` i°`'oa .I R t'e ffe, ?% 'J , y y?•;°'•.
Rt 7 t ?• J N 0 ]e '?•.n`: 22•: i G •.0 "•' 9
a+ U. ?° R9 9e n G ,N• , 7,. ?''. a'?o° c J •.a' ? 7 17 w 2h I •r • i • ?j ' 9 t p °oa 'T ` ? _ 1,? , 4 V. r. •..
7t, ? d = a. ,+t y a yRl : ?, •7 a of e' '° _ , i i ??
7Me 7t, .,• f:..-fi •7/ ?. ?' ? ? -'e ',7 y1. ? 4, Ri 'f? ?" a , \ `? ./'?
7? ,7a , yp ?' ,e ,.? R I" of 7' s• ao ,, 3?,1 %\/
ON
7b ? G f, ,;? ' ° ? ; '.a,, ' ?? f • ep • R9 e7 J, ~ '' 3 : ? 1 m
.r 7 '!+7 '°' r'?u. ,a ,A ? ,r' y •4, v t .9 ? :L J7 • ,} "'? 'i 2
.:7 J? ,'p7 O?1?i •I91:?yN,7a 2 Jl ''p It 1" ?\.J 7: . Tae : ? JJj y'/ : +,? ?IT ? 1 ac .
•R:• 1 >s t hr ' \/:1 c,:7.:.-rw, e'° ?P ty? ? - ,?1 6 e 71 ' / a 3 "';?\ . ??
.? ; .a S, }?. Rr •. y s „f 1'° V 72 %Y; a ?' °! p ?J r ? ? ? Yy ,? .
A ep 9 ?7 ,>9e •02 . ? „, ,m j •?77?1 I7p Ta "I" 7 1J ?, t ? b Jr I`\ ?a „? ' \'•'1n?
7+e eL' !?^ I$?o aex v 7xf . ` •e a ;\ 7- J a M1 ry ; .. ?> °? - ----- __. __....
yr J, ry2 ?".ya '1 Jf d '9 J 7 J ? Z 'h/? SSl ?' 7°'•? .
?t } •7 > x'' a m.. •1• G a 'a / J JJ 4°.n =? 'LJ •, ? •r Y 1" " yr J % .?? ? R? 4 4/R d I O Y? ' i ?
2 Y 7' I i I N a J J ?T ?f? f_ Jm ? ? ? M1 q ?i ? Z, I
'? ", °! • n?y\JJ •y of e' '=1: a T . 'a . - a
n ?nl I? M? .aT1' M?m'7 _a ? 11,•4"4?•}•?•
?y r ? 77
... R•':.._.. ?"^^br•v'. 9 1\ 7e ! 97 cl i7a . ?J , ?1tf / l a :_ ?xy ;'1r1.-.'I ,... _ .,.IriL OFFICE
r
J O Jr v li
a
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR POA
DRAINAGE IIIPROM"EN9S
a xs urar?r,u
r
%
MMU Z
W9E11 WIMTf, 0.C
u,)y- 1;R WID 99p I O? Pn•SS
OWL f'JJ??C p^_-`s• 9o 0.
iv f 31 , ? .,.``
:I4 Vi,` Jo???._ IJGDOM AA1VD
/!JI/'/21tl

APPROXIMATE EDGE OF
' NORTHWEST CREEK
If II ` I
AL
CORNER MARKER NOT FOUND
1, II
I

L
±N

I

CORNER MARKER NOT FOUND
ACTUAL ELEVATION AND POSITION NOT DETERMINED
r, _ FV APPROX 1.5' 1
EXISTING SECTION
I IN. = 10 FT.
EXSISTNG ORADE? CL GONDOLIER DRIVE
ELEV. 6.28'
PROPOSED OUTFALL CHECK DAM
ELEVATION 1.70'
PROPOSED GRASSLNED SWALE PROPOSED INVERT
AVG WL 0 +1.0 FT. SLOPE • 0.162 (1.0 N/50 FT) ELEVATION 2.00'
300'f
EXISTING SECTION W/ CULVERT AND OUTLET SWALE ADDED
1 IN. = 10 FT.
5.00' AT 5:1 SIDESLOPE LEGEND
3:1 SIDESLOPE TO EXISTING GRADE
L TOP OF BANK/EXISTING GRADE ® CHECK DAM
CULVERT OUTLET
EROSION CONTROL LAYER
(SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT)
TYPICAL SECTION FOR OUTLET SWALE AT "A" ® PERMANENT SEEDING
1 IN. = 20 FT. ® RIP RAP
® LOT NUMBERS
29.3 INCHES COVER t
1 i-EDP
DRIVEWAY PIPE
N IL SET IN EDGE OF PAVEMENT
E?EV. 6.81'
17?I
18• CMP 40' LENGTH
Wi7H STD FLARED ENDS
CENTERED UNDER ROADWAY
+--TEXT T NG SEWER UNE
40' 0 0.52% - -- ?PROPOD INVERT
7' 3'
1 0 ,
ELE%; n0N 2
21'
? .
EaSTNC WATER SYSTEM 55nn G
T-1?1 r5lt tt7illl, I/
I'al9N E VAnTO

LOCAIEO 75 FRCM ROAD CENTERJE
REF. •DUIBLE AND ASSOC.' MAP I
p I
TOBAGO SECTION 7 PART 1
uu' J` •?
's?
;
e
y
•
o a
c
q
'Sj I
d
N
11
f PIPE f"{'ifNs ::?, fat
SECTION
1' J 157 STONE
W/ FILTER FABRIC
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR PO.
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
AIMAG131fWA'T *A'
TOWNSHIP MN18ER 2 CRAVEN COMITY, N.C.
DAE: APRIL 6. 1999 ROBERT ICI. CHILES, P. B.
.IOe No: 982" ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE Ac M ATtO NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
DRIVE
EXSISTNG
31,111
DITCH
CL ELEV 7.28-
ELEv 6.36' ELEV 1.15' ELEV 6.96'
DCL ELEV 5.21' OCL ELEV i17
'LAGERFELD' PROPERLY
® ToB
3:1 SIDESLOPE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SJDESLOPE
TOB
"MURPHY" PROPERTY a-J
CORNER MARKER NOT FOUND I
PLAN VIEW
1 IN. = 20 FT. R W
TOB DITCH EDP GONDOLIER DRIVE EDP
NAIL IN EDGE OF PAVEMENT
R ELEV. 6 8
REDUCED, EXISTING SEWER LINE ?AA
ROAD I ? NOS ROAD
® "(4rCh LSE A
r IRON PIPE
R I ro
708
IRON PIPE 9
..?;1.SIQESLQP?.-.... - a
9?i SIDESLCPE._.- -I -- ' --•®5 , n D EXISTING
a > g. TCM z
4a
18' CLP 40' LENGTH SEWER UNE
7F PF
- m - ?J 5' 1 SIDESLOrE
UkE A o
- WITH STD FLARED ENDS
CENTERED UNDER ROADWAY
a
`4TCk
a, TOB R LSE A
tL I
aL FAIRFIELD HARBOUR POI RESPONSIBLE
FOR PURCHASING 30' EASEMENT FROM
CURRENT OWNER OF LOT 137 PLAN VIEW R
I IR
Akw, -* % 1 IN. = 20 FT.
APPROXIMATE EDGE OF GREAT INACUA COURT A L
NORTHWEST CREEK IRON PIPE
IRON PPE AT CREEKS EDGE TOG DITCH EDP TRADE YMDS ROAD EOP DITCH
PIPE RI WATER'S EDGE EXSISTNNG GRADE
ACTUAL ELEVATION AND POSITION NOT DETERMINED
ELEV 6.06' CL ELEv 6.33' ELEV 619'
?
Y APPROX 1.6' i\ , ?. ELEY 462'
DM ELEv 396' DCL ELEV S.DS'
EXISTING SECTION
1IN.=10 FT.
AVG WL 0 +1.0 FT.
EXIITTNG
PROPOSED CRASSLMIED SHALE _J
SLOPE • 0.25% (1.0 N/33.3 FT)
200'1
EXISTING SECTION W/ CULVERT AND OUTLET SWALE ADDED
1 IN. = 10 FT.
5.00' AT 5:1 SIDESLOPE
3:1 SIDESLOPE TO EXISTING GRADE,
TOP OF BANK/EXISTING GRADE
TYPICAL SECTION FOR OUTLET SWALE AT "B"
1 IN. = 20 FT.
LEGEND
®
10 CHECK DAM
CULVERT OUTLET
I ROSION CONTROL A R
SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT
® PERMANENT SEEDING
® RIP RAP
® LOT NUMBERS
CL TRADE WINDS ROAD
ELEV. 6.2W
COVER 4
- -EOP
?--y W 4 0.6..X --^^ -----?-
I -r PROPOSED INVERT
PM
D
'
I O
ELE
N 221
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM Vtt
??
LOCATED IV FROM ROAD CENTERLINE
'
' VV
?,? ° n r,
/i
REF.
OIBLE AND ASSOC.
MAP
70BAOD SECTION 7 PART 1 `E765TNG SANITARY Cs<^i"r,;
IRVERT ELEVATION -4
T t
' 1
.
I

PLAN

T

0 3' -r-PIPE
-
rLTlal;tTS?...

1 FAIRFIELD HARBOUR POA
DW,VAGE IA PROVEME1VTS
AIPAGYZMW T'
3' -'
T TOMNSWR NUMBER 2 CRAVEN COUNTY. M.C F
ION
SEC F
GATE: APRIL 6. 1999 p?p? ry?
ROBE K CHILM. P.

1 GS NCe9
J ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
W/
FILTER FABRIC SCALE- AS MINCATEO NEW BERN. NORTH CAROI]NA
IL
31CL
3111E ??
I ?1JL '?-•;1f•.
?, alb 1 • , IRDII PIPE
l ,I I b
AIL
,111.
REDUCED °w
TOB
"MARKS" PROPERTY
TO SWASHBUd LE COU
RWI I
' IRO PIPE
-
Sn Sl
E
`
EXISTING TREELINE `'`'•
al
,I}, t
TO REAWN INTACT

la
dy lip. TO EXTENT POSSIBLE TOB I
APPROXIMATE EDGE Of
iL NORTHWEST CREEK R
"GUNSSER" PROPERT'
PLAN VIEW
1 IN. = 20 FT,
I dj
I
IRON PIPE AT
TOO NEAR CREEK
ELEV 1.97
AVG WL A +1
T
?F
-
_ GRD EIEv 2.0' /

1
EILSISTING
EXISTING SECTION
1 IN. = 10 FT.

ELEV 4.70' ELEV 6.01' a Luv a.25-
DCL ELEV 4.21'
EXSISMNG GRADE
PROPOSED OU7FALL PROPOSED INVERT
ELEVATION 1.50' CHECK DAM ELEVATION 2.00'-
PROPOSED CRASSLNED SWALE
SLOPE - 0.30% (1.0 M/27.5 ?
765't
EXISTING SECTION W/ CULVERT AND OUTLET SWALE ADDED
1 IN. = 10 FT.
5.00' AT 5:1 SIDESLOPE
3:1 SIDESLOPE TO EXISTING GRADE
TOP OF BANK/EXISTING GRADE
TYPICAL SECTION FOR OUTLET SWALE AT "C"
1 IN. = 20 FT.
CL SUCCO REEF ROAD
ELEV. 6.26'
It
EOP DITCH
ELEV 6.O l
DCL ELEV 3.75'
25.5 INCHES COVER f EDP
I+L-140'00.52%- I " ELEVSEOINVERT
I I [LEVA710N 221'
E7IS7tIG 51tp1ARY NE)?nNC WATER SYSTEM L---?? It7VERi ELEVATION _13144t,
LOCATED 15' FROM ROAD CENTERUNE
REF. •Ot)W AND ASSOC." MAP
MONTEGO SECTION 6 PART 7
.Vysf!!I!X;!!!!
s
W
t t ?3
r1
9 r
- o FAIRFIELD HARBOUR POA
E DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
AlP11GIl7aNT 'Y`"

TOWNSHIP NWW 2 CRAVEN COUNTY, N.C.
F

,, !!!vlTll; iiS°'1
DATE APRIL 6, 1999 p? pp Lr t? p? p
ROBERT IL CHILES. P.G
.

im NR 96258
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANIB ,
SCALE- AS INDICATED NEW BERN. NORTH CAROLINA ?
5.7 TO ILL
IRON PIPE I+
R
1013 DITCH EOP
11 EXISTING SEWER LINE LEGEND
® CHECK DAM
CULVERT OUTLET
BUCCO REEF ROAD EROSION CONTROL LAYER
(SEE DETAIL BELOW)
® PERMANENT SEEDING
RIP RAP
1 R LOT NUMBERS
PLAN
l }
_ NAIL IN E OF PAVEMENT , 3' t PPIIPE_
EL. 6. t' 7
I
aEY 66•
?'° R r0
fti?A? + 3' SECTION
18' CMP 40' LENGTH /57 STONE
WITH STD FLARED ENDS W/ FILTER FABRIC
w• CENTERED UNDER ROADWAY
4
SUCCO REEF ROAD
,L
04, ,

1
aI
flu, IL
a
TOB
1?1?1? ? >m1 I:•••:•??
JILL ? ??
AI ,
IRON PIPE AT
TOB NEAR CREEK
ELEV 1.09'
?AVG WL 0 +1.0 FT.
Y 9
I
PROPOSED OU
ELEVATION I
PLAN VIEW
1 IN. = 20 FT.
3:1 SIDESLOPE
5:15IDESLOPE ,.?..?.?.?.?.?..-.?•?•.-•....?'.'_
5:1 SIDESLOP
a 3:1 SIDESLOPE
CHECK DAM
TOB
IRON PIPE
?D
A
F
PROPOSED INVERT
ELEVATION 2.00"
ExSrSTING

R I
I
u
I BUCCO REEF ROAD
1
1 ' CUP 40' LENGTH
PIP4 TH STD FLARED ENDS
` NTERED UNDER ROADWAY
?kw
I V
19 9'
TO CL
' q0 Q?
N L SET Ii E OF PAVEMENT
E . 5.90'
It `Z
R
WILD W -i
DITCH EDP SUCCO REEF ROAD EDP
III
LEGEND
CHECK DAM
CULVERT OUTLET
EROSION CONTROL LAYER
SEE DETAIL BELOW
® PERMANENT SEEDING
® RIP RAP
® LOT NUMBERS
4'
PI AN
PIPF
I
SECTION
1' J }57 STONE
W/ FILTER FABRIC
DITCH
ELEV &3a- -? ELEV 5.90' V. LLLV 6..N ELEV 5.90'
OCL ELEv 172' DCL ELEV 3.99'
EXISTING SECTION
1 IN. = 10 FT.
E1WSTING
CL 60000 REEF ROAD
ELEV. 6.31'
25.61 INCHES COVER
!// / 0 0.523 PROPOSED INVERT
/4V
PROPOSED GRASSLINED SWALE ? ?`_ C3EVAIKW 2.21'
SLOPE • 0.273 (1.0 IN/30.6 FT) EXISTING WATER SYSTEM
L_._.J LOCATED T6' FROM ROAD CENIEAONE
185'1 REF. •OUBLE AND MAP IM T SEW It
MONTEGO SECTION 6 PART 1 INVERT GELEVATION IMTERUI.ED
EXISTING SECTION W/ CULVERT AND OUTLET SWALE ADDED
1 IN. = 10 FT.
5.00' AT 5:1 SIDESLOPE
. I}121IiItDD,Dt
3:1 SIDESLOPE TO EXISTING GRADE
? (4?`?oy9Bi00apa ifl?/`,
TOP OF BANK/EXISTING GRADE ass/??; a
f " FAIRFIELD HARBOUR POA
5365
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
rG
?' ? , . aa+?nMSavrxr v'
TYPICAL SECTION FOR OUTLET SWALE AT "D" I',, I Ile GTOMNSW NUMKR 2 CRAVEN COUNTY. N.G E
1 IN. = 20 FT. ,`?4DDi11ili11S OATS: AML 6.1999 ROBERT K CHILES, RE.
JOB NR 96258 ENGDOERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCAU: A9 MDICAYED NEU BERN. NORTH CAHOLDU 3
APPROXIMATE EDGE OF
NORTHWEST CREEK
RED OUR Cw"" E D
REDU
w.rr..YrlilYa YI Qi r6? rr.l _ YI f ? I..IYII lY mum
?r •w lY?riI YISn.YI\.r `r r.I?LW.Y?y rYM I...Y4 M rYrNr.WY Yr YN
..r .rF.r wYY.w r pMYYi M[ YY IyYrIYr 1...rL.r?.Yrrl

Y.Iw .r r.r.rr rY n...
Mr ?..w W.IIIIr4Wwr.
.rR Y Y rO. w ?`tw., y rYY Yb.r?rrr
/... rY A.M.' .Y.Y YN W
YY. N r+..w r .Ili. M?rr NY .Yrr YI.1.4
wl rp Y.MYrrYYwr Y.Irr AI.?.
Y N N.rI Ii...?YYi W F p
wr ~
r
r
om
Y

Mrs rtlrl\.r ? ..b.,Y
Irwr•Y`?. YY...`Yr`r ?n?li Y.hw .. pr
.
Y
wP/ :
r
I".. Yr..w...Yrr r
mbYYtl tlot a?M.rarb.l r. rr«
Y osfn
rol` Y+r.rrwwr rwn rrrrY
YUa YYA wYl
bfIW.IW YtlI?Y.N YW pY S. Nn YY N r
+. y.
ra
?Y Y.Y YIYWI Yxr
?Yp? Iy f..Y? r..r
???NYw YIp-IFOW Y t«bY . Yrr r.?rrpr. .rl
lOfmlLAtl Y Yr WYr. Y ?
rIr rY w ? Y
Yr rYrr
rYy n.al..Irrl ? W
wY.In rww rrrrlw w '. .?prlw rN. lY R IA11011
fm.Y InrrMlM lta • ? M ?tFlfpiti.Y F I
Yr Yr r.lll..rr YrYIN
..p
r
i
Y

? Y.rr rYr IYII r nrr
=w.tl sYrr r.ww YY
m ?
r
...
l«
rww
r?'

rrrrr. r. ..-
?=Yr Yrr.aM. p.
rwYyrYrr r.Yr
? w
w`
`w
`?`? n Itl[r ttllil wsr IISN
wY`Hw«rb
:Y?: w rr k
rw .i w? r
.w. riwrlw Yra

y rwrYmYr YrYr r ..
p.l r
i.+
r ww iww+ r P.W
? wrA. ?.r..r.YYYr. b.+.Y.ww
r.?.l. blr, Yw r N lw-
...Yr\.\e b\rr rr r..b r Ya r
Yrr r W W ur Y Y r
..r/wi. rNi .wl`?N M Y Y I .rr rr «..YYYr r nw. rr..Ilr ?• w
W

.wr

Y? •Y ww.lr b

W r \. rwr F YwYI
?
?`
`
°`

M W w w.?Y.ub r`?w ?.Y?i. .w
.++tl r N .w
r?..rr r r. wr .rrr
pwr wrw Y W f.r...Ytl i Y
r
• W
r?1 r
YYW Yr WY.W.rr Yp.
I .i.r
wY ?
rnr. r YYW r w f.N
rW. ` r.4 SA III. YY
Wrrn rc rr Y?Y YY
.II?bM w.YrrtM Y
iarwlWY iMj
?rwyIyyY.4WYYrWW Yrr
?ri
rr..M r.tlYlry .

YY p
.w.
.
YrY?.Y
-
rr
EKE l?ptl i? Yr.
rY Y. i
N
rY :?
?
YI. Yr.wr` .wL,Y w r
Y

Y
.w
' w..?Wwwrri.YJ?iI Tr .
ly,
e .
.?I IY"`.tl4? Y..IYY YN-
r1?L:. ?r
wr
Y?Y ?
s t
r
. lrll.
YYYW
...17 .tlrl Mr r wY Y 1.I•
r r..r..+erY? ..
.I
Y Y.Y..I.Y.Yr
ww
r`r`
r+ai
w

. W ti I.1\.

rN.r. wIM. .
r
YI.N?`rYMrNYI..W.Iw .?
r.MYr
.
w.r
r.
Yr Y.r `rW.? wlw+.wA
Yrr r Yn? r IY..
.Y
tl1Yr r
r
. r
Y
.
Yr..wl r.?w.rl..W r

`?«NS. r.
.
?
r
w.\I
frwYY+.w
? Y
rT?.1Wr
rrlf.tl?.lwwYwlY%...b
a? 4 r. w W Y
l Y
ph Y Y4YrIY W1
I.Y•r.rr?wY.. Y.«
?
V tlr r ? M i ?1
r. YM. ..I. i..
.
.YllrlllM Y I.YYY 1PY
rtl.1 Ywr 4w11 r .r
.
.I Y.r.rY\..r p1 r W Y.. tl YrI ItI.Y
I....\rr I rw
r"
`
.rY.

Yr ..Y.YIYY r... NYr rwr .r

Yw.r.r rw..4 Flrrr
Rwrr wW W r
? rlYmf®rl...r
[.YYI W Y rd f Yr
?. Fr•/?WM? r?l ^lr YI.
i.Y
r rr.r r.1.I.
Ybw. W . rr r rr
/r.NwYYY.prYw rw
MIwM..lrw
fw Fer rrh r r W.+
W ..I..Y ..Y.Ir rrY r
r ?
.
t
W ` ? q 6r.? fir. r Yr

Y.?wI N. ?rW"IYwYN.w?r?r. .. I
..
w
wW Y..I Y
Ww
w.l""•...r w .W?.
~ Ywr/YrI4
r?i.. N..n r..w .Nr W NI.N°aY Ir r?Y.YrY`nl M-
r! lr .+.jrwr

? Y•Yr.YYr lr A r Y
r. Y
.
.
?
. r rr Y r.
iwYY.
MWYbYewM.r yrp.
`r
W
`" wrV Iw..1. N ne Y r.r p

II.?t rrYYr 'Y+Irf r
y
?r.M..r rr a. rrr:
r.rrMlr YY
\
MF y
Y
rY.
NI
Yrb WIYy
wYwr...r?YY wY.Yr+N'?r
.
`i
? WW
YYY4[rYr®rr7rrw' rr Yr MrnYr rN. M r
.
`
?
r..•.w
r
?
t®rM.W
0 YY.MMYYIn M r
?Y.rrl rr..
k r
µ
pI. w
4r rYN).w . Il.wl Y.Y. Yr• Y
r?. ? YY P. 4rrr ..Y
M
l
N Fr r r r.
?
r
~ r N Y.wr?.k Y
? Y wail rrr,. W •Xrpr/wYY wr
YWY Y M rY IY.I Y.r
x
i
r
+Y r
..rY .Wnw. YYYbJ Y

v MI.Mr.III... Y.1., Yr W rr MYr rMV r .r\
YIYY.?•
Yw YYrr
l.. bl'.01YMI"'M ?b?... Nrrrw?;Ir1rN y ? j4 y?wi/fr 14i.YY?wW .
1ww.N w...rNMNYw?
`r .q wN rn riW Y«w Yrwlrr-YW YYrr.-
r YM4 rwY\YWrYY.. wy W..I.Y`.wrY.w
?
?YW -kr M\r. r w tlY ?FrYY YYIW.YW rM
.
Mw ??? NY .rYY.
= III
In r..IYYNy °rrrwlYw
..Yr. W YYr.
YM 1MYw.rtYY.YM • b../L. W.
. Y =
•+.. rrlrrrr wYr 1
r W w4r?
M

YwIY.Y.pwb WYN YYr
Y.Mr rY. YFrnYY
Y..nN I.Y Wr. b
?YYYY brw YY.?

./?rff llrrw W Yrrq ..YI r13 wIIrtlY'Ytl
rllY I wrr.F r?I W Y
r 4. rw prl
r YYY4 - Pr IM r w ..YYr
? Yn.. Yrr
/MI?
i Yrr b.s?.
rr « r..Yw Yry YY?r
? Y y..rY Y r r.. ?yr?
r
..
l lr ? r
w r?.? wr ?
r +
.mow ww.r+r r.r .Ir•r.w...4r wY.wl ? 'wr.rwr`..I`+r..l'Y. «Y

Yrr.rrYYy..I r4 Y.nr, Y
` rwl
Y Y.IY -a
Y
r
.r Yr YY4r rw Yr.wY

?? Artl.rw Yry 2.Y.? i w+r w.r r

ny?M
bl..lh w p r w
r ?wywl.? Y'14. wN n. Y w.. W rwY . r

wYY S+Yr'?.rPr?YL w
rNrYIi YF WIr YwW
w.
M
w
ww YYYIIY WL w.YYM T
r.r. r bw.r
F Ir• flm iOE rY.W.Y.r?YT Mr ?r FYI r. N.YIYY =Y
`
l..M .YYx
T rr.YriYww I.r w
w+r..w...r.r.
.? .raL.
..
.r wo yWeM
.I rrr+nw.aFYr Wi
"Nr `IYYw..r1r `

r?wl
w
?wrrrY`w.
i r
r
rrrYr
Yh
?Y~Y .? ?
yrYW r
Y
.?+.11rr N.?...p:w11?`?w
Y.YM rw.YY tlr«r Yr WM)..rrY Wr
by Yr 21W V.w p
l
CAwklb kr . Ir w Yw
~
-
NY.
.
II.v fl+.'A Yr YN«?wrr=`
Y..r\
4
Y
l
l
I? Y..w. r YYYYYY .Mlr ;
rw.wrww..wr

Y Y M r.rl. Wi.w I..I.YYr r.r Mr.
..\Wr w..r.rr

M ?? w+.r.wY«.Y.r
Y-
MbYWN.rrl WIYr
..wwrrrw..rrw....
.r
?
..MI-
br
rillrM
i
"
RR
Y
Yi
W
'
r I?Y-
? W ~
W
`I
A .I
I?l w.W r rN
a
..p
w
rri.
.
.
.WWIr \..I YYw I
rMrY
Y
r
rb
bII
p`~
Y W b
.W MY
M I
wI?`
.Y.N Ir Y
?wY.
r Y
w
Y. Yrr
l rrr NMI e1S

Yfr tlYp. w
? w
"•`
r
~`
? .
W
Yr.I
Y b
w
? e l l..tl •
'ir
? Mi
N
..w
?
Yw
...
.
Ir rr w tr Y r
IYIw
? M N.Ywr M rM Y.. ww? r.lir rw r W ..IC•
...Y. r.. w tlr Y..rr .
?~ r Y.Illn Iil"I.. 4 W
Y}MY YNY .
.r
?. r .Y.YI.Yr p . `YI\YI
IYw. Y \ ir. A w IY. w ..r« . W r . b.wYr
.w M.q r ?. ra

•yY.rr.w.rrr.
Y rrr orr . rr
YYY
...r YY.rrnNl.wp.rw b.IY.
""P'
`"r
Y
'mo' rrwYgr pwa r o\r
r
rl. rr
.w
..
r Yw
i.
.l? :.I
'
•, r r+.
wrYww.4.
?
r
°ir «"
M c wr
wMww
Y
r..?r?
°jYk
,
..
r
Mw
.MY?r?r.YrY`Y.Y?`WY.rrr Y
?..r wMW Y YYr
p ..
N?+.uY
YY.
YI
rMr1YrN AW r..Ya Y+
.I
IYI
r
Y.M.W n
F IM IW
V
+
.wN?IF WrYrY.r .
Y
IX
r.t ar Mrw ...? P Iw .Ny?r?? •`YyMi`?yYnIw?? .IY+Yw Y
n
y
bW.M . Yr
? Y'r'
r
W tiY.....rlw YIl
I
.\?
r
r
r Yw r2!)Y.IY? .rYr
rw r
r n.r Y
NIN Y M4I YwrrYYrw r
W
b w r.
Y
r.l Y wYrrWFYMi.YY Y`
...
w
..
Y
M
. l
w
w ?? YIwM
l
w.l WYE. YwYr..w??Y??ilgtlr/..IrIIY«w
prrry? g014b
II...M rY.Y MYr IY? tl Wtl0 w •w
I.IrYry
.
r wY. YYY-Yp Y.Y P 4IM
`?
Iw by Y.r
r
?IY IY"`wYw `ri.Y.w
`N`lWl- ?
rlr. W Y
•Yq
?.IY1°w? ilYwwY Yw Iltrtl Y.llrHYY. Y. NfIM
? Yn?rtf ll.nSYl..rw _
M?? ??,
? YY
w
Y4 wYr r• .tl wrrY I.n W Y .wr M
w «. Yw w Yr

`r wrtlYrrY • r.
r p Y. I.Y.r Y N .
..
4 rr?wr rNYpYYYY r YIItlbY w.. Y N..w« nl. Y.
r rYN1YrYrM ..6
w.YY tlrYY Y wWb

srFYr.r.r
roM r?W?WW r.. M.Nr.rr.Yr/Y. r
bI1.w41I.YI 1rYYrIW
Ol11tlIYld L YA I.Y. Y...IY rr Y
f r11rYr r ?y??SYY.w. ?
m. Atl rM.I rr rprr Ir Y Y
rY.r
y.Y
j YY Ir
Y
?
W
`?
^
?r
?
YI YS.Y..rr
_
?;. MYW wYYr n
r
.
WW
?wltl.? a..r?
r`?+mt.liwr YIFYYYU wMr Wrw.4
i.
irw
Y
IM
r.N
l°ww i`I?Y.I YYwIr`Y'IYM F. ?
IW I wI. Y. Y rNr N SI
W rr?Y.l
T
Y Y?'M` r r? .IY.Y W ?
?r
M Y4 rY N .a
?r Mr MrY rWr W w YIY.IM tlIY YIw.4r ..?w .
?p. Fpr?Y W.rN Y Y?
..14 w.YYN .n.wY. Yww SL Ilwxyn W YwY Mb.
o.r e.r.rrr.
? b W Yr wM«L wr..r ..YL•
4I.a. \Yn rrrrrr
prYY4?r YN ..Y?i Y?Y N Y w.P . rr
?.rYr r rr
wY4?rYYrw.rYYY
Y
?
` W Yr
\.r YYI.Y nrrY
?
wr?NM. .rirr ry1yr?.I
.I?.r rY. Y..wrY w~jY?Yr`iW.

l Y.4.rW rl...r.. Y Yy
ii iw M.r
i
iI Y
IWY ?Y? 4?
rrwN.Y V. r
.Wtl
r. wr?F.
ip lYY IYY•N?i.l r?tl
?MYrr.pY r.MY
Nwr?wYfYYMiIF r
Iu.W MYr.4 Y.l ..k rY1 r.
r
I..tlY.Q
?.YY Y.YW .rr .Y.. wrW1?
F rr.6. Miw rn I Y.l
YFYrYYwr? l?l .Yr
.rr"rilVwrr.. Yri. /.?i Y.rrY Y/w. MY\.Ih rY

tlrt.1Q FYY Y...r.w.W.Y YY.YI INr Y. Y?Y YrY Y.Y? FYM MY..Yb rrNW rY-
Ylt
?
YMwq 4r.l ri wwrr ...I.
r.rbW YrMb. Y. rY..Y..IrY w r
r
l
?
w
Y
?Y ? wrN rl.b. Yr Y.w r
`Y? i. ?
..

MirubYYYY??rY4.rr S
l.
ir
Y
MI.Wr
n
rYY
r
1mI16-I..NrY.4.Y«.r
r Awl. SN.\Y.w.YwI.MY
.Nrbw rw.}kW w..+r.
r rYtl N.IY .? fr
r4 r.rY it p+r
nI1Y M
w Y
wM r. Y.
tl rrrNYYrwwYr
tiY? Ywr.'M • WMrw ? rNrlw.
. r+r+ r M
t..lYr
p..?YrY Y Y
PW r..I ?.MIr.Yy
wW YA. Y YrYI w. Y.YY 41
r
w
I.I 4..YM bYI.r..W Y MrrYr.W wrM y
F r rS Y..YW r YMwr wr
r.YlwrYYYY4r
.wr r.w..rY.. ur. Yr.
Y.wr YI\.. r ror r
r YY+.br\IIY .rY YMy..? •WIlMY.1 «.I.r
?
?0
?
b
wl I
ill tR IY.wbY I «IIYr W Y Yw, r r r Yr
YYr
l
l w w
i.r.
'ir, r
iwlii w
rw0

?r YYrrI rYM Yw rr
N W. r ..w
k 4Y.nYY IY{Y. / YYrI
.Yr.YrY.r rlw.Y r.r
M Y .Yr r I..Y.r..r .b M .M
w
q r.Yr YHrr Y
...\r
ItrrbY P Y b
r rYY >R rW r.wYMY.YY r
NrN«r YYb

rw? r.I..YrFn lf
YYw ..rI r. WYYYy .4r
nwrY..r Wwlrrr ...
?? M.w.rNr4F .
h
??w~?W?
\YwN Iw.l Yr Mr
w rr.. rYrr? 4
?'
pNYgCYllrrMlrl
Y.W `MIr.IY ...Yr?r

q
t
.y.wyY?
y.rwy r
i..Y
M
?Y rld• wr.Wwbwwr r
.YMI..YYW wY.wrY
l« y
..
?
?
I IIi.YY
..IN M.I : tll.r
r"
`N
w i
w
u
u
IOrb erlrrrw4r.YYW ... .
W I.w-r rr .4 w r
w.IIrNWYrFbr. rlYrY tYlf llM lArYO IY
iW
Y
.Y
.
Y ry
..
b .Y.Y.I P.w ..wlr. w M Y4l..r Yr w.s ?.rtllt t blpy rYI.W rK.Yr
r YN•rWrYY..Y.r I?r 10•Y YM1r..I?. r •w`.wYrYNrr
YY? YrW wrN Ywrwb.IY4 w`w Y°IrVt I.Y4.Y.Y N r «
.IY.(. Lr/Y. IIr.I.) w ?Yr.Njy?r
Y..r. W Y r..Y? N.r Y
r`YJr r
M tllrY wf•Yr vrY
4 mtM' f Y
Ni
wlr? ttl
? Y
Y.r.YM+r.
b
Yf. Jtl tlilt rliwl.lr w..YY I..w.i r
•Y .ww
Yr
N..rtll «r.. r w I.i1Y rM M r... r Y
r4 "~
? r
l.
4
wwrI1r.
r?YY'WWl+lf«rY`rM`Ww.r"
T
YYCO.TO Y.YYrr?? YY.r wbY . r
rr..rWYYY.NMr Y..>•
? AwrW? ? 4 r r w rY-I.Ir
W
tl \OP9lf IlYlltl rYr-rY Y.. N
YYy WIY YYFYYYr.IY I.Y YM
F4r7
RL?y MY.
°~YrM l ?rnYrbMrw r..

?M r r r l w Yw
.
rYYYLYW I.. b
I}r.w
tlYt-.rI.?NY.Y.YWw
..IYY ..Iw Mr M 4Y r r
\W Yw/r Y-Iw6

f°`Y .4w YY ry.ww i
?tr lI11.YW tW

Y mNNr.rf .InY Y
IYU YYYrr«rlrwYt wYlrw 4Fwr.MrYrr Irr
'
r"' Y,
. w.Irwr.vav..r r.r yYrrow M3rrYM w
Yr.Y arr rY
?
Y M'"`
Yw
?+?` ? fi
'
`r
?° Y.r.. FV..wbr ? MNIIY Y.II..Y .Ir Yr
r
?
M f
`4
`?

1q?r
.
..
•
?YI\q W..I... WY. .rrb IYri1 Yw
lb®O
tr
r
I
r v
u.
!wYroa?nlpp Rr.
Yy Y rrr..r prr. pYl IMI. NMMHPr.W W3° sn

rr. r4.r iE rYY+YY w j w
PY
MY
M1
iY Y.
Y
i .•wiA pr .rr
F
Y
r
r
.. YFI. 1.r rb ^MI
r.rYpN rwYlrlr4 W w r.Y. M w .rr.r
? W^mt•4pi1 Mai Yr M W r
YMI.Pr

Y r.rw Nrr?/r.\Y .IW Yq
.i
Y0I0 MOWlbI Yr
rrr N•f F..«rMlw M
rI1Y r w1. r l Y?rrr r.Na ?wM
Y NrYrr w.Yrr Y
FI Y..Y rYb ww \? r
YYr Y ?w.rY. Y
Y.IWr. NYI YraIY 4r
M
.W I.I.wi .Ybi wl
W«Yl/w.rtlYYYY.W PY
wTl r 4N N.eb

qK Y .w r YF«r r ..r Y
..mow YrW Y tl W lY
. rY. Y.. W rl N I.J.
r4 Y wY Y Y.IIMYI. r ..y
wllar¢ Yr. Y rr wrra N rr Yr
Y.aI Y.I.
. I.Y.If rw4 YrltlYr.Yl..l

Y. utrlotmwrw YrMYly
r Yr rrM.wJwN r r
..w brrY b.Y p.WY M
.Yr r
Y
r tlwoY¢
rYw ? bVr w.A F
wpYpM.r rl\IIr.Y sll
YYY. YIM.e YYw Y.r r. wFw,Ywrw.
lY.. 'Y.. r.M Yrrwry r
wrw YrrY S\A/NMI
w
yY
.M_kra
w w+•
? .
Dorn I
?r. Y.
r
rrJ r
« wP nAt Y rr rw.
YY.>r. wLLN1.rr Y W r?
MrYrJ.rrrY rY- .YY I/W161.Yw YY.
r°AimY ..Ipl r
i .
I.
+Y
. r
.
`MY.YSM WWII
Y"
? W'

trwN . rM .rln ..Y I..N r...Y. Yw.? ?-
r rYW
Y r
. Yr.
il
4w
.1rDI
?N +
?
r
b rw.N w r.Ir YrIrIVW r Yn. r
.+.rrr N..rr N. Y.r.
r r
u
in\ i..w..N .YYw YwNr
wtl r... ? .
e??Y W ?
?r
atl? rN.b w Y rw Yvq.
r1 LN .brYY.grf r YIIIl1r bA
bt A AM IYYF M
owes
lI'w Nr rrrW
Y}wM? W
ws r
YW4aW
MM IbIW YYn44Y
rr?
.w.Y ?rr
h ?YY
Yfw W r w`rrlY.wi...p
Yll.r
Mwtl
[trrR
Wr frr tl?.? ..? r.rr
M Ip Iw wl AYN UIS•
_+A
pr
IaYY bwr
Ir by
Uf w_m
arY> •??Y ?Yr+r rY.r.
I.Pri I. r.YY r r rr+ .r. ?.I
.tlICC R tlYY\rYrYYY\wY.r
Yrd t .Y.?rY. pYNI? ?.
Yl?•lrr.l Y qn..n
Ywr 4.YYr YIAY
YrI Y..YM wIY..Iir.
Ilw+rw WY..Y.
. .rllr riY Y.. r.Y
RWC YIY Y .MYr Yb ..wrwrW
OROJIbI r iM.4 Y ?\?
ltlYti y.YYpY ¦IYI
6 1 M YYY rr?iYln, « Yr
IMY 4.r wiI.YYM ..w
r?lYYr FYI. Y`Y... `Y.Yi
M.rrr....l
IrYMI?WIY. r r ?. .I.. w?•
m. YIW.r Yw
?y .Yr14 Yr r n.w
w\`?pr?Y rY?M «..
yr ? ? 4..u rn Iypi.
?Y.r ?w rbxYlr+
Y.Y14k «IrY.WM1M?
YN Wr I?MIM\r WI.\.x«
SY"Y. ~Sw.Yr wMrMr Il G
Yi fAO I.IY
>Y\Y Pl rrltll W? M+VIU
m u u u
m u Y
w v u u
? L ll V
IM Y N SY
YruYy u y
Y YMIr .SbY. w. YY.L
? W.rY r..W nF. N
u.. Mw.Y.? MY.1.r 1..•
.wYY ww.Iw.r wr
Yr YF.YW r..r Y?\r.
rl.. M Y r Yrr w.rr•
...?Y..rr.• Wrr Yw.Y Y
IYry.?r IMi. Y?wr.Yjw?
YMYr ..M\rrrY rrY
WYbi YYr. w?i.l`? Y?Y
Ilw In.. M W ..Y.r
OmlOtllb• IYb rr M. r'Y.YI ..r.
YrbwM.I. ?!?M «wY
Y rYrrrr
rY.YrrYSr 4 4
M..r. Y. Y.p Yw YIM
M r YYYr IiIII . ?nM rwl
MIAMI Y4 MYIIY r I..w.
.r YYi rp«W r IYY Y
Y.`r..w...4.W F M wtM I`r
Y wYY Y.IYr`Y4 w.+r .«I
Y... Y..YYrr..W w.
wrr w r r YFrw w Yr•
Y Yn YW r rYrYY\YY. K-
M W`i"IA.NIr~Y r Y
wrwr..?rr1b.
WV JYr?r rr..r r
W YN.r.rwr ?«wYYY M
Yr .yYY4.rlrl r r
,IY P..w..«rWw1r. •.Y..?YAIIr
Yr MY\? yYN IrW
r lfl.tr WYr. WrM
w4?w.w b I.YY r .Mk
rrrrrrrb.F+r«L M
r
rrtl r Y.W Y r Yr 4YYl
w w.M laYrrr rt
YMrM r4.4
tiiGG ilr..J llb
Yw.l.r?.Ylx M ? o.1Yu
1 f i i
f blr• N.3"o frf fw
meY`w w? r:I II?
ys? Ye? r
\.Y Yri rri.r prYY°YOYririW. Y
Ww..rY ? K w iw`I
r?i. Mrr r W4 YYY°wi
.°`iYr wrwlr"wM Lr w Ytlr
. 4r Yr.w•rM rpr YaI
M N YY.YI Y Y.r. «M
M. Y...Y.w.iY rr w rn•
?;YYY Y4PY Y.rr
i.?-e+I?rwi?rx
.rl.w..YY Y.r
Y
M rYl• tr YYr
M.. Y
..YYYr 1%rY r
Ir. r r r... r .w. rY
.r
rMYM .IyYY
YM Yr•1?YI.Y?Y•YIY tlr
YR MI.Y r r..w M^
YIP Y.1rNY4«Y.r. YI
p r.rW i. YJpI pY
r rr.W r..r Yw. r
Yri. Y. AIIIY W W Y ..4
. YN Yr YwY Irl rY YYrI
" if I.Wi . M
Y.ri. l e.
.rM.Y.?r W N. Y N wr.
I....ry.r fr nYY.Yr r W
Yr. YI..Y.IIrYW Ww
Y YNYW rI.wY Y.rN r
iYYYw"Y.YI i ? M wrY
nYYrr w rri?l Yr. `
M Yr Y.\.. r ? wr.
wY. rwr.? r r r b) ww0
Y N pr Y fYr.
Ae ISSY wq
? rY ti.r M
wa
. .YY IYY ....1 .Y..Y
• tlT?Yn? Y4w. >A
• Yr w. Y il\ wW M
...1 Ir
Y?Y..?44 Yww Y .
k YI. Yr Yw W w r. r
rr rY?..w Y. Y
yWl rl Yrwr.« ` YYk
rwW rr«rr Yr
M k wYY w. s rA.wl
r Y..Yr rYr.n r...
\rlww.
Mw`il.w ? F•NY.41Y Y.tf
rl.Iww..4.tl.?..w r
IP.rM\ r Ml4 Y w kw^ Y
s°p°tva?iYtl nr`?"rw.Y.ri.: •ws?il r w w?l. r
._.wV?.Y o.r w. rr w
.YI.r.. YY,b?w Y? w?Y r`YY.
Y.Y N.W ..p.\Wr aN
..S.Y.tlll.b M r Y YW pY
..YYY w rPw Y.Y rr J Y.
?r W WJIMM.? w?
?M YYMr .F. rYlw-
rw«YrYWyIw N N
Y. YYr.NYYwI r.l
tY/YY..YY.Ir.M
ww w ` ?IMirlYwu P.I.pY
Yr ?\rM `tl` .?T Y Y
rYW Ybi. XY?.I41 n... r
MY M YrYJY..1YiY? J
Y4`~ rwW .?W N rw Y?.r.
NY
M Yw.l.w w W . w.Y.Y..YyrY..W
WYyY ?.Y "i14 rtlI.M
Yw Iln..r- r....M J M.I.. W
.r..?. rr M Y..?'. wYYryWM
YYr Y ? r rr
?'1.\Y«41. Y.wllwl YMn.1 r
i+.l.l i.~IMYMLMrM1Ni
r YY Y.r.rtl.Yw?
Yw Myr rr r..
Wr4YYI.IY?rM wMtIY?
Y h.r rIY\ r Yr
?rrr ?w Yw Wr rrwY.
FW YYYr Y
W`"rY Ir .nll rlrr
Y YYr.N wYYr rr .Y Y
YY «w.W.Mr. Yr r
Mw? r..arYr\. Y .F
«M..r Y«+w rliw
°..M Yr.. Wr 1.xw wYJ
NMwwr MY..rwr.r
??r ..IYr.Y M Yr M
tlWl°II.1 F I.r r.MY«Yr r MY
Y rwY r..r.tlriY .N
GnY 1.Nw r.I..Y?..r Yww .
p°? tlY.r?.l r.r .r
h1Y I.IIYr
l0. br YY.Rw YwNY
I+ I7rlrrrrr;r;
51
CAP ly
°
`Al i
e JCJ
7 Y
w e Y ?
FAIRFIELD HARBOUR POA
DRAINAGE IMPR0MV N9S
lRb WN k 9dAAIf AMA COMMM VXWXAMM
TOTIN" M WER 1 CRAYEt COLWY. R.C'.
oA,< ??? a. +sss ROBERT 1I. CHILM. RE]
9
? Pease ENCINUR9 AND CONSULTAM i
SCML. Y!«e NEIL BERN, ROM CARDUNA ?
u xarrat
ee+us r 4ww•r r rw.r r .
NOr Y w .... Y•?r?wr M T
rrlM 6lOO/?Yrw«l
lrrtlli r4
1•ICC rR?S A\tir «rMr ..r«rr1• w-
?? V prRO? blot Y ?
OM_r4;?+yYMl w1 Y
Y a?i/rYaAY M PY1
I.M?r irir?
µ YrrhYYY.Y. Y rr«.
nr
aYfiOOOlA6 Orr«. rlr wY r.YMy
rb1 ? WW M.y .s?
? nY?r rr?rOr
Yr+.ywr?..x.:: yry
? rrr'w??lrxY?x?."rrr:.r?
w ..ri YMwyNw?•.?r?Y
.... Mr.yYw.
?rb• r llurl4 M MI ?.«l
VI« M ?Wr rrr• rM.
w nw w.
wwrY.?r.wriyr
omirmu rYr?. ? r?w.. rr
H•
ir.w rw,l....wr w
r .r«rxw
a.rr«.w+t..r w
V YrrlMr r. r I
MMwr«A M
«Ir MV
?r W r. r ?.. a N
fw r r•. pl Fr r
YrMY~M«rr r.?.I.
rr?MY?w•r
rar/..rway?lw M
+Yt r IO r «a
. ••.rr y.,. YY«r w.l
wr w .w.wrw•..
?r M •.1• ..r 4
rl?vrw r. wyrr.rrwr
`Y r w.• Ar uY r•ra
µow r..r u. rrr
w Ir/.r~rlr •Y •/r w
l/Yr?Wlarid ernY• k W iV
rtMrY?•\MM w M 4
iw+?.M?..?i. raw r r-
On y wr. rn r l.nn r
w r.l..r a_.?r..r w
...rW a.«.1..?.«.P
.?« ? a..ww lNl? r .
M Ir«IYN rM r«nr
r w«r 4N YwM?ln rf
Ynlr1Y «Ip a?y wY1.lYn .r
m
J V r
Incorrect
Fig- O.Ms arnr raldaieYlbr/wdip MllO«orurdn ImodO.dlnrn xn.
np..aosetnm em .A..aa ..u a

Tree wound Trim and taper
Ong-adk Prue. axmadaa brvrmn
M-a6am PwYq Dark Imn
ew ow ?Ywa.

Couar
r
REDUCED
L . The distance such that points
A and a are of equal elevation
O .,
I?llr?o I,??
i`l u aai. Si- Ends dyn in a rwyt w tatW t rdi-ii-dM Srvi-r ft paOil OAM 4M
A
1.5'
9 min ?`
l min
Filter
fabric
A
Class A or B
-ros?an Control
Slane
Filter ?'t 24'max
fabric at center
i Section A-A
Flpun 6.lib Sxwa.q 1m?lrrr YnWd 4 Pi.udavr yr err.l r4 bY.pwPrr Y.n aiYiq rwq M oM
,?tlii; 31?•
'2Jr?
t°??•T ' ?•Aif ?I
' 1? • ,;A..Y, .Age (`.4j f1
\ ' f a
,r t ^ rg , ? `\\
CIA'
Correct
vrelex tr'.�r �' a L f •
Or
ce
,.F
N.
r
r"
s
y-

Mr. Bob Brown -2- April 14, 2000
4. The drainage design shown on the enclosed drawings includes flat ditch slopes, swale
cross sections, rock check dams and seeding in order to minimize the sediment,
nutrients and other pollution that might convey to Northwest Creek.
5. During the design phase of this project, alternative means of drainage of impounded
stormwater north of Gondolier/Trade Winds/Bucco Reef Road was considered prior to
developing the final construction drawings and no practical alternative was available.
The construction was limited to the high ground adjacent to North West Creek in order to
minimize disturbance of aquatic life and habitat and to protect the adjacent water quality.
6. The use of multiple drainage outfalls to Northwest Creek as constructed along
Gondolier/Trade WindsBucco Reef Road reduced the necessary size of each outfall,
and therefore minimized the impact of the disturbance at any single point. T D2 multi le
outfalls minimize concentration of discharge, reduces velocity and therefore protects
water qua i y.
7. The sedimentation and erosion control measures shown on the drawings and the
avoidance of disturbance of wetlands at each outfall were included in the project in
order to minimize the impact of the construction on water quality in Northwest Creek.
Conclusion:
The purpose of the drainage project as shown on the drawings is to provide outfall of
tidal saltwater from storms that are impounded on the interior of the residential
development. The damage to vegetation from such previous impoundment of salt
water is witnessed by enclosed photographs taken in April 2000. It is anticipated that
natural regeneration of vegetation within these damaged areas will provide a significant
reduction of nutrients by uptake to the vegetation.
The recently completed improvements to the existing stormwater outfalls to Northwest Creek
located along Gondolier/Trade Winds/Bucco Reef Road and shown on the enclosed drawings included
Best Management Practices designed to minimize sediment, nutrients and other pollution discharging to
Northwest Creek. According to Table of Uses, Paragraph (6) of Reference (b) existing drainage ditches,
road ditches, and stormwater outfalls are exempt provided that they are managed to minimize the
sediment, nutrients, and other pollution that convey to waterbodies. It was our understanding, prior to
receipt of reference (a) letter, that the work completed along Northwest Cree,lot, exempt from the
Neuse River Buffer Rules.
Very truly yours,
Robert M. Chiles, PE
RMC:jrf rA 'Enclosure

9/brownletter
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS
8
MARINE SURVEYORS
417-A BROAD ST.
P.O. BOX 3496
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28564-3496
April 14, 2000
Mr. Bob Brown
Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association
585 Broad Creek Road
New Bern, N. C. 28562
Subject: Neuse River Buffer Rules
BUSINESS: 252.637.4702
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]
Ref: (a) NC DENR "Notice of Violation" dated April 11, 2000
(b) 15 NCAC 2B.0233 - Neuse River Basin:
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and Maintenance
of Riparian Buffers:
Enclosures: (1) RMC Drawing Titled "Fairfield Harbour POA Drainage Improvements"
RMC #98258 Set of (6)
(2) Photographs of Damaged Vegetation on Gondolier Road April 2000
Dear Mr. Brown:
We have reviewed the NCDENR letter, reference (a) and the rules, reference (b) applicable to
the drainage work recently completed along Gondolier/Trade Winds/Bucco Reef Road at Fairfield
Harbour and have the following observations:
The drainage construction along the northern side of Gondolier/Trade Winds/Bucco Reef
Road consisted of reworking, clean out and otherwise restoration of the roads side
ditches to function as originally intended. The drainage construction to the south side of
Godolier/Trade Winds/Bucco Reef Roads consisted re-working, clean out ditching and
otherwise restoration of drainage flow through the stormwater outfalls located within
drainage easements. These drainage easements were established at the time of
development of the area or were located along a lot line through agreement by adjoining
landowners and were in existence prior to July 22, 1997. These drainage easements
were located at the places where the stormwater outfalls for the area along Northwest
Creek historically discharged.
2. During the hurricanes experienced in 1996 (Bertha and Fran) and again in 1999 (Dennis
& Floyd) high storm tides pushed saltwater over Gondolier/Trade Winds/ Bucco Reef
Road. With the receding tide, the saltwater was trapped on the north side of the road
due to restrictions within the existing stormwater outfalls preventing water from
returning to Northwest Creek.
3. The drainage improvements constructed during 1998 and 1999 as shown on the
enclosed drawings removed flow restriction from within the drainage easements such
that future upland tidal flooding would be allowed to return to Northwest Creek through
the stormwater outfall located within the easements..
MECHANICAL, CIVIL, AND MARINE ENGINEERING MARINE HYDROGRAPHIC AND LAND SURVEYS
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MARINE AND RAILROAD FACILITIES DESIGN
FORENSIC ENGINEERING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS BOUNDARY SURVEYS AND MAPPING SERVICE
Property u ers Assoctiaraon x
1,\ ? x
April 18, 2000
Mr Jim Mulligan
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
NC DENR
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington NC 27889
Subject: Neuse River Buffer Rules
Ref: (a) Your letter "Notice of Violation"
dated April 11, 2000
585 Broad Creek Road New Bern, NC 28560
office:252.633.5500 fax:[phone]
email: fhpoa@coastalnet. com
A `: 1
WASH':hG Gh: _
Enclosure: (1) Robert M Chiles, PE letter
dated April 14, 2000 w/enclosures
Dear Mr. Mulligan:
In response to reference (a), our engineer, Robert M Chiles,
PE has prepared enclosure (1) for your review. We concur with
his comments and would only add that our intentions were to
improve the environment and prevent further destruction of
our wooded 'Lots as shown in enclosure (2).
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Chiles or
myself at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Brown
Manager
RDB/vc
B43-6
b?,d
?•?? o CD
O CD
?. ? ?
??+ 0 0 v?
CD
CD
d d
O
CD
?D
CD
C ?
CD n
V
e~i-
? b ? n
? n
NO??
?NLo?
aLA
b?CDqQ
b?CD
tz)
V

CD e--r

n
n

r-L

C

CL-t?
CD
n O?
0

Memo
To: Bob Zarzecki
401 Wetland Unit
From: Brad Shaver ke
4C?
NCDENR
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Washington Regional Office
Date: April 27, 2000
Re: NOV, Fairfield Harbour
Craven County

Attached is the response from Fairfield Harbour concerning drainage ditches
which, were excavated through the riparian buffer. They have provided some
information describing the construction of the ditches but I am unclear whether or not
these plans show adequate reduction in nitrogen. I would appreciate it, if you and
Todd could review the plans and give me an opinion of whether or not Fairfield
Harbour met the required nutrient reduction outlined in the Buffer Rules.
Also attached are digital pictures taken at the six sites. In the cover letter the
engineer claims that the these ditches were existing but it has already been pointed
out to him that the ditches did not meet the existing criteria. True the subdivision did
have easements for these ditches but they well exceeded the footprint by deepening
and widening the pre-existing swells.
Let me know about the nitrogen target and whether, you feel the engineer
designed an acceptable stormwater control mechanism. I need this information to
proceed forward.
Thanks!
Cc: WaRO,
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity A1firmaheAction Employer 50% recyded/10"/o post-consumer paper
0? vv h rFR
2? QG
O -?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross,Jr.Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Location: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: General 919-733-1786 Fax: [phone]
Fax To: Er^?----;? Fax Number: X33 -ZY`?
Company: DI-Dca Date:
From: 306 ZGr?? Phone: X33-?C?zto
No. Of Pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instructions: L
t'??i 1?Z,.'[J ?Tt`tGg b Q ? 1 O l.?T 1 QI/J
NCEIEN-R
Division of Water Quality 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Wetlands/401 Unit: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
wo-NO
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 11, 2000
Division of Water Quality
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Property Owners Association - Fairfield Harbor
Attn: Bob Brown
585 Broad Creek Road
New Bern, NC 28560
1 • •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Notice of Violation
Neuse Basin Buffer Rules
Craven County
Dear Mr. Brown:
On April 7, 2000, Brad Shaver of the Washington Regional Office investigated a buffer
violation in the Fairfield Harbour Subdivision. Mr. Shaver observed five drainage ditches excavated
to the edge of the Coastal Marsh, as identified by Mr. Scott Jones with the Division of Coastal
Management. These ditches as well as the temporary sediment and erosion control devices require
notice to the Division of Water Quality, through a determination of "no practical alternatives", prior
to construction. The drainage ditches are constructed through the buffer and therefore require a
stormwater management facility to control nitrogen and attenuate flow before discharge through the
riparian buffer. All five of these drainage ditches are along Gondolier Drive within the subdivision.
The impacts to the riparian buffer referenced above constitutes a violation of the Neuse River
Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy; Protection and Maintenance of Riparian
n n amirio4rotiw-Ge -0733-which states the following,
"This Rule shall apply to 50 - foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to surface waters
in the Neuse River Basin (intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries),
excluding wetlands .... For surface waters within the 20 Coastal Counties within the
jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal Management, Zone 1 shall begin at the most landward
limit of the normal high water level, the normal water level, or the landward limit of coastal
wetlands as defined by the Division of Coastal Management and extend landward a distance
of 30 feet, measured horizontally on a line perpendicular to the surface water." Zone 2 would
be measured landward of Zone 1 an additional 20 feet, the combination width would be the
required 50 feet.
"Uses designated as allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there are
no practical alternatives to the requested use pursuant to Item (8)...These uses require
written authorization from the Division or the delegated local authority."
The disturbance within the buffer along Gondolier Drive constitutes a violation of this Rule
promulgated under .0233 (7)(b). The drainage ditch construction and the placement of temporary
sediment erosion control devices are considered allowable if constructed according to the Rule and
properly noticed. The Division of Water Quality requires after the fact notification as described in
.0233(8) for both activities. The design and drainage area of the drainage ditches needs to be shown
along with calculations justifying the 30% reduction in nitrogen required in the Rule for an allowable
drainage ditch through the riparian buffer. If this reduction is not met, the drainage ditches would be
considered prohibited and abatement to the buffer would be required.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and be advised that the Washington Regional
Office is considering recommending that an enforcement action be pursued for these violations.
Please thoroughly address the above mentioned issues in your response and provide any additional
information that you wish to provide within fourteen (14) days. If you have any questions
regarding this Notice or need additional information you may contact Brad Shaver of this office at
P2 C11% r%AC CA 01
Sincerely,
Jim Mulligan
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
cc: VWaRO
401 Wetlands Group
Bob Chiles, P.O. Box 3496 New Bern, NC 28564-3496
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501% recycled/101/6 post-consumer paper
Memo
To: Bob Zarzecki
401 Wetland Unit
From: Brad Shaver 0
Washington Regional Office
Date: April 27, 2000
Re: NOV, Fairfield Harbour
Craven County
A M&I
NCDENR
NORTH CARouNA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Attached is the response from Fairfield Harbour concerning drainage ditches
which, were excavated through the riparian buffer. They have provided some
information describing the construction of the ditches but I am unclear whether or not
these plans show adequate reduction in nitrogen. I would appreciate it, if you and
Todd could review the plans and give me an opinion of whether or not Fairfield
Harbour met the required nutrient reduction outlined in the Buffer Rules.
Also attached are digital pictures taken at the six sites. In the cover letter the
engineer claims that the these ditches were existing but it has already been pointed
out to him that the ditches did not meet the existing criteria. True the subdivision did
have easements for these ditches but they well exceeded the footprint by deepening
and widening the pre-existing swells.
Let me know about the nitrogen target and whether, you feel the engineer
designed an acceptable stormwater control mechanism. I need this information to
proceed forward.
Thanks!
Cc: WaRO, J
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Atfirmative Action Employer 500/6 recycled/10% post-onsumer paper
Subject: Re: Fairfield Harbor
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:37:22 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: Brad Shaver <[e-mail]>
I'm out tomarrow, so getting a formal review in writting this week will be
difficult. However, I have pinned down Todd regarding this project. He has
agreed with me that the ditches were not constructed to be "stormwater
management facility... to control nitrogen and attenuate flow". Therefore,
they can not use this interpretation and are in violation of the buffer
reuulations. Even if they constructed the ditches for this purpose it would
have required our review prior to installation, so they are in violation for
not notifying us. Todd did say however that it may be possible to retrofit
the ditches to properly control nitrogen and attenuate flow. III try to
call you tomarrow to work out Thursday and Friday. - Bob Z.
Brad Shaver wrote:
> Bob,
>
> If you could get an answer from Todd concerning the Fairfield Harbor
> NOV, I would appreciate it. I have a gentleman that continues to call
> requesting the results of the Central Office review. I have no yes or no
> answer from Todd. If some other correspondence needs to be written I
> need to get it clear before I leave. If the grass swale is sufficient I
> need to know this as well so I can answer a resident concerned with the
> project.
> Brad
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzecki @ ncmail. net>
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1621 Mail Service Center Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Work: 919-733-9726
NC
27669-1621
Additional Information:
Last Name Zarzecki
First Name Bob
Version 2.1
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1621 Mail Service Center Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Work: 919-733-9726
NC
27669-1621
Additional Information:
Version 2.1
Subject: [Fwd: Fairfield Harbor]
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:04:20 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: deborah sawyer <[e-mail]. nc.us>
CC: Danny Smith <[e-mail]>,[e-mail]
Deborah,
I've received several calls regarding this project. The WaRO issued an
NOV, a response was prepared by Bob Chiles, his response was sent to the
CO for comment, I sent this e-mail to Brad before he left. CO opinion
is that the ditches are not an "allowable" use. Todd believes that it
may be possible to retro-fit the ditches, but no one has contacted him
regarding this.
Please let me know if you require additional help with this violation.
Ill be out Thursday and Friday and will discuss it with Danny.
- Bob Z.
Subject: Re: Fairfield Harbor Fw: Status of Water Quality Violation
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:01:06 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: Al Merino <[e-mail]>
CC: deborah sawyer <[e-mail]. nc.us>,
Danny Smith <[e-mail]>,
Brad Shaver <[e-mail]>
Al,
Per our conversation today, I would recommend that we have a meeting
regarding the outstanding violation at Fairfield Harbor. Potential days for
this meeting are 7/21, 7/24, 7/31, 8/1, 8/3 and 8/4.
Deborah, Danny & Al, Please let me know which of these work for you.
Thanks, Bob Z.
Al Merino wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Merino <[e-mail]>
> To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 7:49 AM
> Subject: Status of Water Quality Violation
> Bob,Please call me concerning status of Violation and other items. We
> spoke June 26 on phone and you suggested I call you today on this
> subject. My phone is [phone]. Al MerinoFairfield Harbour, NC
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1621 Mail Service Center Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Work: 919-733-9726
NC
27669-1621
Additional Information:
Version 2.1
Subject: Re: Fairfield Harbor Fw: Status of Water Quality Violation
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:59:45 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <bob. zarzecki @ nc mail. net>
To: Al Merino <almerino @coastal net.com>
CC: Danny Smith <[e-mail]>,
deborah sawyer <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Everyone,
Ok, lets shoot for 7/24, 1 lam @ Fairfield Harbor. Let me know if this works
for everyone. Please bring any and all information that you have regarding
this project.
Al, Please provide everyone with directions and exact meeting location.
Also, please contact Bob Chiles and inform him of this meeting.
See ya then,
Bob Zarzecki
Al Merino wrote:
> Bob,All dates except 7/31 are OK, but prefer 7/21 if possible.A1 Merino
> -----Original Message-----
, From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
> To: Al Merino <almerino@coastal net.com>
> Cc: deborah sawyer <deborah-sawyer @ waro.enr. state. nc. us>; Danny
> Smith <danny.smith@ ncmail. net>; Brad Shaver
> <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Fairfield Harbor Fw: Status of Water Quality
> Violation
> Al,
> Per our conversation today, I would recommend that we have a
> meeting regarding the outstanding violation at Fairfield
> Harbor. Potential days for this meeting are 7/21, 7/24, 7/31,
> 8/1, 8/3 and 8/4.
> Deborah, Danny & Al, Please let me know which of these work for
> you.
> Thanks, Bob Z.
> Al Merino wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
, > From: Al Merino <al merino @coastal net.com>
> > To: Bob Zarzecki <bobzarzecki @ ncmail. net>
> > Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 7:49 AM
> > Subject: Status of Water Quality Violation
> > Bob,Please call me concerning status of Violation and other
> > items. We spoke June 26 on phone and you suggested I call you
> > today on this subject. My phone is [phone]. Al
> > MerinoFairfield Harbour, NC
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
Subject: Re: Robert M. Chiles, P.E. letter of April 14, 2000.
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:16:00 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: "Robert M. Chiles, P.E." <[e-mail]>
CC: Al Merino <[e-mail]>
Bob,
The 401 Wetlands Unit was presented with a copy of your response and has
sent comments to the Regional Office. I have been contacted by Mr. Al
Merino regarding the project. We have decided that it would be best to
conduct a meeting to discuss the status of the outstanding violation. This
meeting has been tentatively scheduled for 7/24, 11 am at Fairfield Harbor.
Please contact Mr. Merino or myself if you plan to attend.
- Bob Zarzecki
"Robert M. Chiles, P.E." wrote
> Mr Zarzecki; The Division of Water Quality issued a Neuse River
> Buffer Rules Notice of Violation to our client, the Fairfield Harbour
> Property Owner's Association on April 11, 2000. Their office contacted
> us and we provided a written response to Mr. Bob Brown, Manager of the
> POA, dated April 14, 2000 explaining our understanding that the project
> was exempt. We would like to confirm that you have received a copy of
> that response, and would like a status update regarding any decision that
> your department has issued regarding the same. Please contact us at you
> convenience at (252) 637 - 4702. Thank you, Michael L. Rice, E.I.
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1621 Mail Service Center Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Work: 919-733-9726
NC
27669-1621
Additional Information:
Version 2.1
Subject: Re: Water Quality Meeting at Fairfield Harbour
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:36:21 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: Al Merino <almerino@coastal net.com>
Al,
The scheduled meeting time and date is fine. III plan to meet you at the
POA office at 1 lam. I'll check with the regional office regarding a
possible contact to Mr. Chiles on June 1. It would help if I knew where you
got the June 1 date from. III try to have this information to you by the
7/24 meeting date. - Bob Zarzecki
Al Merino wrote:
> Bob,Please advise me if proposed mtg. agenda suits you.Also, have you
> info. on the questions I asked you about when Bob Chiles was verbally
> informed by DENR concerning disallowance of our outfalls as vegetative
> buffers and possible remedies'? I have been told that this occurred June
> LA1
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1621 Mail Service Center Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Work: 919-733-9726
NC
27669-1621
Additional Information:
Version 2.1
Subject: Re: Water Quality Meeting at Fairfield Harbour
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:27:20 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: Al Merino <[e-mail]>
Al,
Brad Shaver and myself reviewed several sites in Craven, Lenoir and Pamlico
Counties on June 1. I was working with Brad to finalize some projects prior
to his departure from the Division. We reviewed two sites with Mr. Chiles.
Brad reminded me that we did briefly mention to Mr. Chiles that the ditches
were not in compliance. A formal response will be sent once we work out all
of the details on 7/24/00. Please let me know if you require additional
information prior to our meeting. Sincerely, Bob Zarzecki
Al Merino wrote:
> Bub,Please advise me if proposed mtg. agenda suits you.Also, have you
> info. on the questions I asked you about when Bob Chiles was verbally
> informed by DENR concerning disallowance of our outfalls as vegetative
> buffers and possible remedies'? I have been told that this occurred June
> LA1
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1621 Mail Service Center Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Work: 919-733-9726
NC
27669-1621
Additional Information:
Version 2.1
Subject: Re: Fairfield Harbour Water Quality Meeting
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:12:56 -0400
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: Al Merino <almerino @coastal net.com>
Al,
Myself and Deborah Sawyer will attend from the DWQ. Brad Shaver and
possibly someone else will attend from DCM. I beleive that you can reach
Ted at "[e-mail]". Hope this helps.
- Bob
Al Merino wrote:
> Bob.I met Ted Tindell of DCM at a meeting on Coastal Shoreline Rules July
> 12, 2000. Our Fairfield Harbour meeting of July 24 was mentioned to him
> and he said he would like to be represented at the meeting. Brad Shaver
> was mentioned by Ted as one he would like to attend and perhaps one other
> staff person. Can you help me with Ted's e-mail address'? Please also
> confirm who will be attending meeting from Water Quality.Al
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENRI DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1621 Mail Service Center Fax: [phone]
Raleigh Work: 919-733-9726
NC
27669-1621
Additional Information:
Version 2.1
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division or Water Guaiity
James S. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Qiii Hciman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
49
Allaboldhodw Ewa
D E N R
fV?-v
FAX TO:
FAX NUMBER:
Division of Water dueiity
Envirenmentai Sciences Brcnc,h & Werlends/401 Unit
Lcccticn: Reeuy Creek Recd
Rcleich, N.C. 27607
Moiling Address: 1621 %,lcii Service Censer
Rcieic N.C.276y(?
FAX:
V V v V

FROM: ?C-?
PHONE: ,
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
par

If yCU receive this iCX %,,, --c6n cr Wellcrids (9;?• 'z^ 1786.
ueperment ct Environment
and '?GtUral ReSoUrces
Divisicn cr Water Quality
James Hunt, Jr., Gcvemcr
IEHI ;ciman, Secretary
Kerr 'T. Stevens, Direc:ar
D E N R
(I ?I°/n
Division or `Ncter Quclity
Envirenmentcl Sciences Brcnch & Wetiends/401 Unit
Lcccticn: "Cl- i Cie=-k Rocd
Rcieicn, N.C. 2%607
Mciiing Address: 1621 i'vicii Service C:.nler
R^ieic N.C.21
FAX: (9 i c) 733--?clzc
FA-v,, TO: cwdl? FAX NUMBER:_
FROM:
PHONE: ,
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:

If 1CL re..e,Ve ! Y ' /r` : v • C Ivl c 1 e?jC( in ? n? ---;•; i
... \ / IC` , / \.. \.-
STATEMENT OF
WILLIAM COHO
1.
My name is William Coho and I give this statement for use in the matter of the Fairfield
Harbour stormwater drainage project and the application for environmental permits.
I have been a resident of Fairfield Harbour since July 1999 and reside at 1023 Navidad
Bank Court, lot # 121. I am a member of the Property Owners Association and I make this
statement based on personal knowledge and I am competent to testify in regard to the
facts below.
2.
The POA sent me a letter and invited me to attend an informational meeting on
November 5, 1999 about the drainage project. I attended this meeting which was
conducted by Mr. Bernie Teubert, Chairman of the Drainage Committee and there were
additional remarks by Mr. Al Merino, POA president. Mr. Teubert explained the details
and timing of the project and that White Construction was selected as the contractor and
was scheduled to start excavation in about three weeks, the first of December. This
construction included the four new outfalls, a ditch from Lanyard Lane to Caracara Dr.,
and ditches into the interior areas around Blackbeards/Fish Cay and Hurricane Court
area.
3.
Bernie Teubert, chairman, further explained that all of this would be started assuming
that all federal and state permits were granted, if needed. He said that State programs to
improve the water quality of the Neuse River by reducing nitrogen levels were to protect
and expand wetlands and that the State had efforts underway to increase buffer zones and
slow down stormwater runoff. He also said that federal and state programs prevented the
draining of wetlands without permits. All information in paragraps 2 & 3 was in the
hand-out papers covering the meeting and I have them in my possession.
4.
Not long after this meeting, I saw Bernie Teubert and asked him about the project and the
status of the permits. From what I had learned at the November 5th meeting there
seemed to be very little time allowed to obtain permits before starting construction on
December 1st. Bernie told me that since the construction was being done during the
winter there was little chance that anyone would notice and that they were moving ahead
on that basis and without permits.
5.
From what Bernie Teubert told me, it was very clear to me that Mr. Teubert knew that
permits were required. He went on to emphathically state that the project should be
completed before tie Corps of Engineers would be around the summer time and that they
were going ahead with the project without permits.
Wi in Coho
Re: Sam Myers Minor Variance Request `
J?
Subject: Re: Sam Myers Minor Variance Request
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:25:11 -0500 \ ?P i?
From: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <Deborah. Sawyer @ncmail.net>
?CC: Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Lin Xu <[e-mail]> Coleen Sullins <Coleen.Sullins @ncmail.net> (ZZ?a
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>, Scott Jones <[e-mail]>, X21
John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Dear Deborah--I agree with you for two reasons: One, this very site was brought to us by the locals and a
consortium of staff understood the issue of concern and told them essentially, "We hear you," and agreed
that it would be considered for a Minor Variance. Two, the difference between strict compliance and
granting the variance is not just a few feet, but 100 feet, in a market environment where small numbers of
feet are extremely significant. Strict compliance pushes the proposed house completely out of a notch of
the site made by an irregular marsh alignment(due to the extension of the marsh up the north side of the
property) and the associated buffer that would be usable if the variance were granted. Because of the great
depth of the lot, it is possible to push the house back and still fit everything on the property, but to do so
puts the house as close to the frontage road, the less desirable feature, as it does the most desirable feature,
the waters of the creek. So is the house "on the road" or "on the creek"? In a perception driven market,
just to have the question puts it in a different class of property. I would propose a compromise position
keep the house in the "notch", but bring it's alignment closer to the creek, so the creekfacing side is on the
50 foot buffer line with the SW corner still the required 10 feet from the property line, but the NW comer
extending j ust beyond the 50 foot setback line a few feet. This meets the 50 foot buffer on the creekside
and minimizes the amount of the house extending into the northside marsh buffer. This essentially involves
moving the proposed house's location approximately 20 feet closer to the water, fitting it more into the
"notch" made by the 50 foot buffer line. This would require resubmission of the variance request, but with
a proposal that seems to meet most of the needs of both sides. This looks easy to me since I haven't been
on site. Is there an elevation or soils change that might effect foundation stability in going 20 feet closer to
the creek'? Jim Mulligan
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
Dennis,
After I spoke with you on the telephone yesterday about the Sam Myers Minor Variance request in
Pamlico Co., I thought I should send you the reasons (based on calculations and field determinations) for
the recommendation to issue the variance. I am copying the staff members who were present on the field
visit for this site.
• This site is one of the sites we visited (in the rain) with Bob Zarzecki, Lin Xu, Roger Thorpe, Scott
Jones, (me), the Pam. Co. Realtors, 1 Commissioner (?), newspaper, health Dept., (I'm not sure
John Domey was here on this one).
• We told these local representatives that we would consider Minor Variances for sites with a lot of
coastal marsh on the sides which would position a residence further back than the 50 ft. buffer on
the front would normally position it. These considerations would be site specific. The Rules state in
.0233 (9)(a)(i) that a variance may be granted if "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships"
prevent compliance to the buffer requirements. I guess what we have to decide is when does this
occur and under what conditions. Coastal development is different from development in the
piedmont. The lots normally are large, very narrow and contain both 404 and coastal wetlands. The
1 of 2 11/10/00 7:59 AM
Re: Sam Myers Minor Variance Request
appeal to the >$100,000.00 price tags is view and close access to the water.
• This site is 4.75 acres, approx. 133 ft. wide in the frontage at the water, and approx. 100 ft. wide at
the road frontage.
• As the applicant proposed in his Minor Variance request his house would be located 33 ft. from the
coastal marsh at the side of the house, 67 ft. from the coastal marsh in front of the house and 133
ft. fron the NWL (66.7 ft. from the AEC).
• If the applicant is denied the Minor Variance and is required to meet the 50 ft. setback requirement
from the coastal marsh his house will be positioned 166.6 ft. from the coastal marsh line in the front
(from the shoreline) and 50 ft. from the coastal marsh at the side. His house will be located 233.3
ft. from the NWL (133 ft. from the AEC).
I by no measn want to set a bad precedent by granting a Minor Variance when the applicant can
position his construction 50 ft. from the coastal marsh without much difficulty. The way I evaluated this
site is that due to the configuration of the coastal marsh line up the side of the property, the placement of
the house would be severely restricted as to position to the shoreline. Even with the Minor Variance and
a 30 ft. setback the applicant will be 67 ft. from the coastal marsh line in front of his home and 133 ft.
from the NWL. If he is required to meet the 50 ft. setback requirement, he will have to coast. his home
100 ft. further back from the coastal marsh (167 ft.) in the front of the site than with the 30 ft. setback
and a Minor Variance.
I'm going to get "tarred and feathered" down here when I enter this county if we don't get our
guidance straight. I'm in the "trenches" every day and have to address their questions. When we state to
them that we will consider a Minor Variance for sites with coastal marsh on the sides of the sites which
will restrict where they can coast. the homes, I guess we should have come up with some guidance as to
when this will occur. Right now it looks like if they can coast. the home behind the 50 ft. setback, no
matter how far this pushes them back of the shoreline, they must. This is not what we told them.
I have attached the site drawing with some color coding I put in which shows the configuration of the
lot. If we are never going to issue Minor Variances for situations like this, I need to know because this is
not what we discussed. As you know the Pamlico Co. Realtors have the entire coastline stirred up over
this very issue. They want the setback from the NWL not the coastal marsh. They have petitions to try to
get the rules changed. I think the DWQ rules are right in requiring the setback from the coastal marsh
due to tidal influence. I also think that when possible, variances should not be granted for 30 ft. setbacks
if the property owner can go 50 ft.; it is only 20 ft. more and not a severe hardship. I do, however think
we should consider Minor Variance applications which push the coast. back as far as this one does. We
need to meet on this issue with all concerned parties to come up with guidance as to when this qualifies
for a Minor Variance or if it will never qualify we should tell the public that so that we will all be on the
same page.
Thanks,
Deborah
2 of 2 11/10/00 7:59 AM
Project List 11/6/2000 Last
No Recieved Dates New
Project # Facility Name County 401 Date
94 0238 WESTON PUD APARTMENT COMPLEX - WAKE 3/17/1994
94 0439 FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL MECKLENBURG 6/14/1994
94 0998 FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL NORTH CREEK DURHAM 10/21/1994
96 0063 FAIRFIELD P.O.A. RUTHERFORD 1/26/1996
96 0625 FAIRFIELD SUBDIV. PHASE 11 NASH 7/16/1996
98 0109 Fairfield Harbor HOA Craven 4/23/1998
98 1291 Fairfield Harbor HOA Craven 2/3/1999
90 0387 Fairfield Harbor Craven 2/13/1990
89 0390 Fairfield Harbor Craven 4/6/1989
85 0081 Fairfield Harbor Craven 5/2/1985
ISSUE
ISSUE
ISSUE
ISSUE
ISSUE
Issue
Issue
Issue
Issue
Issue WQC
1
N_ of Pages Today's Date, Z Time
From /1 t A t r
Company
Location Dept. Charge
eoo? Telephone # Fax # Telephone #
Call for pickup
ommentr-. ?? \ /?q )o Original Destroy ? Return El
?(JK. I(/lJ/Ci ` Disposition:
G
DRAINAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
Al Merino -Chairman 726 2000
The meeting- with representatives of the North Carolina Department of the Environment and
Natural Resources Water QualitN and Coastal Management divisions took place July 24, 2000.
The meeting objectives were to review the Fairfield Harbour storm water drainage project, the
Notice of Violations. and then determine an acceptable plan which would allow a resumption of
the project. It was concluded that the five drainage out falls and ditches that were previously
constructed without proper permits max remain, but may not be connected to new drainage
ditches without being redesigned in a manner acceptable to all affected regulatory agencies and
issuance of necessan permits. A Coastal Management fine is anticipated. Two possible
redesigns discussed included a system of bio-retention ponds, and created storm water wetland
pools in place of many of the planned ditches. After further examination. it was generally
reco,,mized that due to the lack of adequate space. bio-retention ponds would not be possible in
the project area.
It was agreed that Bob Chiles.. the POA consultant engineer, will resubmit a revised drainage
system desiLgm incorporating created wetland pools and new calculations for nitrogen absorption
of the storm water runoff This redesign will delineate specific drainage basins for each out fall,
note Best Management Practices for each basin- identify areas not available for created wetlands
(such as Red Sail park-),- and incorporate wetland assessments provided by the Corps of
Ens-ineers. Mr. Chiles estimates that he can have a redesign read\ to submit within two to three
weeks after the completion of the review b} the Corps of Engineers.
It must be understood that if the redesign is able to demonstrate an acceptable reduction of
nitrogen from storm water, and if federal wetlands are not impacted, the approval process and
permittina by regulator agencies could take four to six months before work could be resumed,
according to Mr. Chiles. In the mean time, no further drainage work except erosion repair would
be alloyed. Adoption of the redesigned plan may mean that property ovyners will have to accept
wetland pools in common areas behind several lots in the community. A general meeting to
communicate an acceptable redesign plan and assess propert\ o\N-ners reaction will be needed.
. ?7

Richard D. Goodwin
2217 Caracara Dr. New Bern, NC 28560
252-633-7873
dgoodwin@coastalnetcom _
November 28, 2000
Bill Moore Deborah Sawyer Bob Zarzecki/DQW
NCDENR/Div. Water Quality NCDENR/ DWQ Todd St. John/DWQ
Stormwater Group Wetlands Unit Danny Smith/DWQ
942 Washington Square Mall 942 Washington Sq. Mall 4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Raleigh, NC 27607
Ref: Fairfield Harbour Stonmvater Project
Stormwater Permit application dated May 9, 2000
Buffer Rules Notice of Violation dated April 11, 2000
Chiles Engineering Stormwater Permit Application supplement, 8-16-00
Chiles Engineering No Practical Alternatives request for certification
dated 8-21-00 and Chiles letter dated 10-30-00
Gentlemen:
I wish to contribute the following information and comments concerning the Fairfield Harbour
Stormwater project. I have included all of you as addressees because the following information
relates to the Buffer violation issues as well as to the Stormwater permit issues- These two
matters are separate but closely related and intertwined. Since all of you are apparently
involved in the approval processes it is reasonable and important for you to be privy to identical
facts in your evaluation and fact finding processes. All comments have been made under the
assumption that the development is low density. Since it is actually high density, the design
requirements will become somewhat of a "new ball game" for future comment. The following
information is intended to be entirely factual, constructive and helpful.
I believe that most of you know that I am a volunteer Creekkeeper for the Neuse River
Foundation with the assigned responsibility for Northwest Creek. I am also a resident and
member of the Property Owners Association at Fairfield Harbour. As such, I have a dedicated
interest in the environmental well being of Northwest Creek as well as an interest in seeing that
the community where I reside conducts itself as a responsible environmental neighbor and friend
of Northwest Creek and the Neuse River. I do not oppose a stormwater management project at
Fairfield Harbour but I am an advocate for a lawful program that fully meets the spirit and intent
of Neuse River nutrient management strategies for pollutant reduction. It is in the spirit of this
goal that I offer the attached factual information. Complete documentation is on hand and
available for your review.
Very truly yours,
cc: Tom Jones, Riverkeeper
Neuse River Foundation
Brief Summary Of Key Issues
Phase 11 of the Fairfield Harbour Stormwater Drainage Project commenced in January, 2000 with
the disturbance of 3.4 acres of land and construction of two miles of ditches bordering the north
side of Bucco Reef-Tradewinds-Gondolier Rds and into the interior of the "Gondolier Peninsula.
Northwest Creek forms the western border of the project- These ditches flow directly into four
new outfalls averaging 250' each and on to the surface waters of Northwest Creek. USGS maps
show average elevation at 6' and DCM wetland maps show wetlands covering a large portion of
the project area. Construction was completed on the outfalls and approximately two miles of
ditches before Fairfield Harbour was notified by the State of Sedimentation and Erosion Control,
CAMA, Neuse Buffer, and Stormwater Management violations. The project was put on hold in
April, 2000 and permits were applied for in May.
Two key matters are still at issue. Approval of the Stormwater Management permit application
and mitigation of the Neuse River Buffer Violation- Both issues are closely intertwined. The
basic stormwater management system is the key to solving both issues. This single system must
satisfy the State's Stormwater Rules and it must simultaneously satisfy the Neuse Buffer Rules.
The heart of the stormwater system chosen by Fairfield Harbour consists of a network of ditches
(referred to as swales) feeding stormwater through the four outfalls to Northwest Creek. The
problem is this. The project has been designed and a large part of it has already been put in the
ground. Swales, chosen as the key stormwater management component of the system, are
precluded by the Rules from use at the Fairfield site because the seasonal groundwater table
must be two feet below the bottom of the swales and the site does not have adequate hydraulic
conductivity. Swales are classed by the Rules as an infiltration system, one of several that rely
on absorption of the runoff into the surrounding soil. The site consists of wetlands and lowland
ground that averages 6'-7' elevation above the water level of Northwest Creek. The installed
ditches (swales) have their bottom elevations just 2.1' above the surface water level of Northwest
Creek. Two feet below the bottom of the swales is essentially at the same level as the surface
waters of the Creek and below the seasonal water table-
Fairfield Harbour, through its agent Chiles Engineering claims that the Fairfield Harbour ditches
are actually swates, meet all of the design qualifications, meet all of the site qualifications, and
will meet all of the necessary and essential performance requirements.i.e., stormwater
infiltration, 85% total suspended solids removal, 30% reduction of nitrogen, management of
nitrogen export not to exceed 3.6lbs/acre/yr, and no increase in peak runoff from
predevelopment to post-development levels.
The very bottom line is that the so-called swales are not swales. UM are channel ditches
and nothing more. Ditches cannot satisfy the central issue of reducing the level of
pollutants now reaching the surface waters of nutrient sensitive Northwest Creek. A ditch
is a ditch and a Swale is a swale. and it is lust not aossible to make a silk nurse from a
sows ear.
Comments on subject Stormwater Permit application dated 5-9-00
The application as submitted is incomplete and critical information necessary to
thoroughly evaluate the project's compliance to applicable Rules has not been
included. Specifically, the following information mu be submitted with the
application but was not included. Ref: NCAC 2H.1003 (g) (1-9)
1. The application does not include two sets of detailed plans covering the entire
project. There is no way for someone not intimately familiar with the site to
determine where the proposed swales are to be located in relation to
wetlands, elevations, existing drainage flows, etc.
2. There is no map showing existing drainage patterns and contours.
3. The high water table data has been omitted. (This is absolutely essential in
order to evaluate the proposed use of any infiltration BMPs. including swales).
For the purposes of accurate evaluation of the potential effectiveness of the
proposed system of swales the site map should show the water table depth
and hydraulic conductivity at 50' intervals along the pathway of the swale
BMP. This is as recommended in the Maryland Stormwater BMP Manual
which is cited as an acceptable design manual by the Neuse Model
Stormwater Program.
4. Wetlands have been omitted and have not been delineated on any of the
applicant's maps or data. (This information is critical since the applicant
proposes a network of swales that intersect, cut through, and drain
jurisdictional wetlands which do not have the required water table depth and
likely do not have .52°Jhr. hydraulic conductivity).
5. The application does not show runoff coefficients.
6. The application does not show peak runoff volume so that it can be
determined if there is any increase in peak flow leaving the site from the
predevelopment conditions for the 1 year, 24 hour storm.
7. The application does not show runoff depth.
8. The application was submitted under the low density option. It does not meet
the low density qualifications and must revert to "high density" and then
comply with all of the Stormwater Rules applicable to high density
developments.
Comments on Chiles Engineering 8-16-00 letter. This supplements the May
9, 2000 Stormwater Permit Application. (comments below assume that the
project qualifies as a low density development just as submitted)
1. The calculations presented in the proposal do not comply with the Neuse
Model Stormwater program nitrogen reduction goal. NC DWQ personnel
requested the applicant to furnish these calculations per their meeting agreement
on July 24, 2000. Export must not exceed 3.6 Ibs/acretyr. There is an obvious
error in the acreage calculation for watershed #2 which is stated as 25.97 acres
when it is actually 14.44 acres. This changes the watershed #2 "raw" nitrogen
level from 3.41 to 6.13 and the "reduced" level from 2.39 to 4.39. The corrected
total for the entire project is 6.00 Ibs/acre/yr and the corrected reduced total is
4.20 Ibs/acre/yr. Both the original total export calculation of 3.81 Ibs/acre/yr
as well as the corrected export number of 4.20 Ibs/acre/yr exceed the
maximum allowable of 3.6 Ibs/acre/yr per the Neuse Model Stormwater
Program. Furthermore, each of the six individual watersheds also fail this acid
test and exceed the maximum allowable nitrogen export of 3.6lbs/acre/yr by
factors ranging from +7% to +23% per watershed. According to DWQ, the Neuse
Model Program is not a Rule and does not have the weight of a Rule but is
generally acceptable to DWQ as a model when required. Otherwise it is common
practice for DWQ to use the published and generally accepted BMP efficiencies
to determine which BMPs can be used for nitrogen reduction i.e., use of one or
more BMPs to reach or exceed 30% reduction.
Northwest Creek is classified as SB-SW-NSW. According to the publication
Surface Freshwater Classifications Used in North Carolina. "NSW is a
supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation- Management strategies for non-point source pollution
control require no increase in nutrients over background levels". The nitrogen
load being exported by the Fairfield project far exceeds background levels.
2. The project does not meet the requirement for no net increase in peak
flow leaving the site from the predevelopment conditions for the one year,
24 hour storm. This is a requirement of the Neuse Model Stormwater Program
that is important to the Fairfield Harbour project and the determination can be
made per the "rational method". Predevelopment, all stormwater runoff from the
Fairfield site exited the defined watershed by the process of infiltration,
evaporation, and vegetative up-take. Due to the boundaries of roadways around
the site, no stormwater surface flow ever reached Northwest Creek. There was
"0" nitrogen exported since infiltration is considered to be essentially 100%
effective. Substantial runoff, including nitrogen, is now being exported from the
site through the outfalls to the surface waters of Northwest Creek.
Predevelopment nitrogen export was 0 Ibs/acre/yr and will climb to a post
development level of 4.2 Ibs/acre/yr if it is assumed that the ditches/swales in fact
are a BMP with 30% nitrogen reduction efficiency. As the project now exists and
has existed for nearly one year without any buffer mitigation, it is presently
exporting 3.21 ibs/acre/yr or 411 lbs/yr through the buffer without mitigation. This
extrapolates to introducing an additional 411 Ibs of nitrogen per year over and
above background levels to Northwest Creek and the Neuse River. This new load
of pollutants does not seem to comply with the spirit and intent of the Buffer Rules
or Basin Management Strategy. The existing and proposed project does not
have quantifiable TSS reduction capabilities. The total TSS pollutant load from
the defined watershed was removed by filtration and infiltration before the project
was developed. Now the vast majority of this load of pollutants is flowing
unabated through the buffer to Northwest Creek.
3. Maps submitted with this application supplement do not show wetlands and
the location of swales that cut through them and drain them. Shaded areas on
the map which were excluded from the watershed are actually wetlands. Ref:
NCAC 21-1.1003 (g) (1-9)
4. The map fails to show the one mile of new deep ditches that are already in
place along the north side of Bucco Reef/Trade Winds/ Gondolier Road. The
ditches are an important existing element of the system that has been omitted.
Ref: NCAC 21-1.1003
5. The proposal narrative describes the entire watershed as a low density
development. It is actually high density with a built on area of 30% or less with a
residential lot density of .288 acres, -15% below the 1 /3 acre threshold
needed for low density qualification. This has been confirmed through a study
and analysis of the original plats which show the square foot area contained in
each lot. Ref: NCAC 2H.1003 (d) (1) (2)
6. Jurisdictional wetlands border the project's entire western boundary. They are
already being drained by seven other small ditches cut from the wetlands to the
new ditches paralleling the north side of Bucco ReeftTrade Winds/Gondolier
Road. These roadside ditches transport flow directly to the new outfalis and on
through the buffer to Northwest Creek. Although it is not mentioned in the project
narrative, it is clear that the project will provide additional and substantial wetland
draining. The application did not show the location of wetlands nor did it show
the network of existing ditches and proposed swales. Wetland draining is
obvious when this missing information is added to a map of the site. This does
not appear to comply with DWQ Wetlands Draining Policy, July 9, 1999, "Any
new or continued ditching after March 1, 1999 is a violation of State wetland
standards".
7. This permit application proposes the use of grass "swales" as the sole
stormwater management measure (BMP) and also the sole nitrogen reduction
measure for the required Buffer mitigation i.e., 30% nitrogen reduction and
3.6lbs/acre/yr maximum nitrogen export.
The project already employs ditches. not swales. The existing ditches were
specified by the engineer at 2.5:1, and were installed by the contractor at 2.5:1 or
less. The installed ditches have been physically measured at 10 random locations
including all four new outfalls and measured slopes ranged from 1.9:1 to 2.5:1.
(Refer to the Chiles Engineering project proposal dated January 7, 1999, project
Specifications and bid package prepared by Chiles Engineering April 26, 1999,
job #98258, Chiles Engineering letter to Bill Moore dated July 14, 2000, and
photos of the site). Contrary to the applicant's narrative description, the °swales°
are actually channel ditches. They do not comply with the design and
construction requirements for swales set out in the North Carolina BMP
manual and in the North Carolina Stormwater Rules. Swale design must
comply with both but the design requirements in the Stormwater Rule trump the
BMP manual. Per the BMP Design Manual, swale slope must be greater than
3:1, they must have and support dense grass, have no long term presence of
standing water, and soil below the ditches must be suitably permeable. In a test
conducted per the procedure set out in the Maryland BMP design manual,
appendix D.1, the results show inadequate hydraulic conductivity, less than
.52"/hr. Per the NC Stormwater Rules, swales are an infiltration system and their
bottoms must be a minimum of two feet above the seasonal water table. Photos,
records, and actual measurements confirm that the Fairfield ditch bottoms are
approximately at or below the seasonal water table, and are definitely not two feet
above it as required. A series of water table measurements should have been
conducted and submitted with the original application. Further, the ditches do not
discharge into a 30' vegetative filter or the equivalent thereof as required by the
Rule. According to the NC BMP Design Manual, grassed swales have only 35%
TSS removal efficiency, far less than the 85% required by the NC Stormwater
rules. According to the design manual, swales must be used in conjunction with
other BMPs to achieve the required 85%. Therefore the system swales fail to
meet the two specific pQIlutant reduction requirements 85% TSS removal
efficiency and 30% nitrogen reduction efficiency. Ref: Design of Stormwater
Management Measures, NCAC 2H.1008 (a) (c) (d), NCDENR Sormwater BMP
Practices. NCAC 2H.1000 Stormwater Management, NCAC 2B.0232-0239.
8. The existing and proposed system creates a "nuisance" condition that is both
serious, unusual, and detrimental to the water quality of Northwest Creek.
During moderate to strong easterly wind events, Northwest Creek floods the
ditches and backwashes the heavy load of algae growth from the ditches
back into the Creek. The ditches are set at 2.1' invert elevation above the normal
water level of Northwest Creek. Back-flushing with brackish water from the
Creek has killed and/or stunted the growth of grass in the ditches up to the high
water level. Serious back-flooding into the ditches and beyond to the upland
wetlands areas was last experienced during moderate easterly winds on August
29-30, 2000, and again on September 5-7, 2000. (the water rose 3.4'). A fish kill
of an estimated 1700 fish took place in Northwest Creek on September 1, 2000.
This event was investigated and reported by the Neuse River Rapid Response
Team. The kill took place adjacent to the Fairfield Harbour outfalls and it was
noted by the RRT that the ditches may have contributed to the low oxygen levels
suspected of triggering the kill.
It is imperative that this uncontrolled back-flushing characteristic of the system be
addressed and fixed to eliminate this obvious pollution problem. Ref: NCAC
2H.1008 (h)
Comments on Chiles Engineering 8-21-00 letter requesting a determination
of "No Practical Alternatives"
1. A Buffer Notice of Violation dated April 11, 2000 is still outstanding. The
Notice of Violation states that the NPA Certificate must be issued "prior to
construction" and written authorization must be received before proceeding. It
further states that if the 30% nitrogen "reduction requirement is not met, the
ditches would be considered prohibited and abatement to the buffer would be
required". Eight months have passed and the NOV issue has not been
satisfactorily addressed and the issue is still open.
2. According to the applicant's narrative explanation, the "swale system" has
been designed according to NC DENR BMP design standards which satisfies the
requirement for a stormwater management facility to control nitrogen. In actual
fact the swales have not been designed per the NC BMP Design Manual and
they also do not comply with the requirements of 02H.1008, Design of
Stormwater Management Measures. Site conditions at Fairfield Harbour
preclude the use of swales as a stormwater control measure. Stormwater
cannot infiltrate as required. Ref. NCAC 2H.1008 (d) (3) (4) (6)
a) side slopes of existing ditches are less than 3:1, and actually measure 2.5:1 or
less. The engineering specifications and contract documents specifically allowed
side slopes of 2:5:1. Swales must have a slope of 3:1 and preferably flatter.
b) The ditches do not have a "dense growth of hardy grass" as required
c) Swales have only "limited pollutant removal ability" and are not a sufficient
means to reach the 85% TSS removal requirement." "They can be used as one
of a series of BMPs that when combined with other BMPs can provide sufficient
protection to surface waters". Swales only have a 35% TSS removal capability
when employed in North Carolina. "They are generally unable to remove
significant amounts of soluble plant nutrients" i.e., nitrogen among others.
"Thinning of the vegetative cover will reduce pollutant removal and cause the
swaie to fail as a pollutant-removing device". Ref: NC DENR BMP Manual
d. North Carolina Stormwater Management Measures, 21-1.1008 (a) (1) classifies
swales as an infiltration system and thus they must meet infiltration system
requirements. "The bottom of infiltration systems shall be a minimum of 2 feet
above the seasonal water table" and soils must have a hydraulic conductivity of
0.52"/hour to be suitable for infiltration" . Frequent observations, photos, and soil
conductivity testing confirms beyond doubt that the Fairfield project does not and
will not meet these requirements. Because of site specific conditions at Fairfield
Harbour, swales are precluded from use both as a nitrogen management tool for
buffer compliance or as the sole BMP in the stormwater system. If there is any
doubt about the depth of the seasonal water table or hydraulic conductivity the
applicant should be required to furnish certified test results from test borings
throughout the BMP pathways in the project. This procedure is detailed in the
2000 Maryland BMP Design Manual and other sources.
e) Even if swales could be used at the Fairfield site and were designed exactly
per the BMP Design Manual and Stormwater Management Design Rules, the
Nitrogen reduction calculations submitted by Chiles Engineering on 8-16-00
show that a network of "perfect swales" still fail to meet the 30% nitrogen
reduction requirement as required by the Neuse Buffer Rule and by the Notice of
Violation dated 4-11-00. The calculations also fail to meet the the maximum
nitrogen export requirement of 3.6lbs/acre/yr. as required by NCAC 2H.0232 &
NCAC 2H.0235.
f) "Swales" as employed in the Fairfield Harbour project do not meet the Neuse
Buffer Rule requirements for the outfalls to qualify as an "allowable" activity.
According to the nitrogen export calculations provided by Chiles Engineering on
8-16-00, the system will not reduce nitrogen export by 30% because the "swales",
according to the Stormwater Management Rules, are not a BMP allowable for use
at the Fairfield site. Further, the maximum allowable quantity of nitrogen that
would be exported by a "genuine" swale system exceeds the maximum allowable
3.6 Ibs/acre/yr per the Model Stormwater Program. Since the Fairfield Harbour
system of existing and proposed °swales" fail to meet design requirements for
genuine swales, it is impossible for the system to be a "sormwater management
facility" that will deliver any quantifiable control of nitrogen. The system fails to
meet any of the Buffer Rule design/performance requirements to make any
of the outfall penetrations of the buffer "allowable". The system qualifies
as "prohibited".
g) There is no supporting information to indicate that alternatives have been
carefully and judiciously evaluated. Practical alternatives are available. If costs
are considered to be a significant factor they should have been carefully
investigated before construction was initiated without any permits being applied
for. The applicant appears to have commenced construction the "cheapest" way
rather than the right way, per the Rules. One alternative is to simply do what
needs done to make the project compliant and increase the time horizon for
project completion or reduce the size of the project or both. Approximately
$600,000 has been budgeted for the project over a time horizon of five years
(starting in 1999) and cash funds will be available to make the project compliant
without the Property Owners Association needing any outside financing or
increase in annual dues.

Richard D. Goodwin
2217 Caracara Dr.
New Bern, NC 28560
252-633-7873
[e-mail]
November 28, 2000
Bill Moore Deborah Sawyer Bob Zarzecki/DQW
NCDENR/Div. Water Quality NCDENR/ DWQ Todd St. John/DWQ
Stormwater Group Wetlands Unit Danny Smith/DWQ
942 Washington Square Mail 942 Washington Sq. Mall 4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Washington, NC 27889 Washington, NC 27889 Raleigh, NC 27607
Ref: Fairfield Harbour Stomi water Project
Stormwater Permit application dated May 9, 2000
Buffer Rules Notice of Violation dated April 11, 2000
Chiles Engineering Stormwater Permit Application supplement, 8-16-00
Chiles Engineering No Practical Alternatives request for certification
dated 8-21-00 and Chiles letter dated 10-30-00
Gentlemen:
I wish to contribute the following information and comments concerning the Fairfield Harbour
Stormwater project. I have included all of you as addressees because the following information
relates to the Buffer violation issues as well as to the Stormwater permit issues. These two
matters are separate but closely related and intertwined. Since all of you are apparently
involved in the approval processes it is reasonable and important for you to be privy to identical
facts in your evaluation and fad finding processes. All comments have been made under the
assumption that the development is low density. Since it is actually high density, the design
requirements will become somewhat of a "new ball game" for future comment. The following
information is intended to be entirely factual, constructive and helpful.
I believe that most of you know that I am a volunteer Creekkeeper for the Neuse River
Foundation with the assigned responsibility for Northwest Creek. I am also a resident and
member of the Property Owners Association at Fairfield Harbour. As such, I have a dedicated
interest in the environmental well being of Northwest Creek as well as an interest in seeing that
the community where I reside conducts itself as a responsible environmental neighbor and friend
of Northwest Creek and the Neuse River. I do not oppose a stormwater management project at
Fairfield Harbour but I am an advocate for a lawful program that fully meets the spirit and intent
of Neuse River nutrient management strategies for pollutant reduction. It is in the spirit of this
goal that I offer the attached factual information. Complete documentation is on hand and
available for your review.
Very truly yours,
its<? J
cc: Tom Jones, Riverkeeper
Neuse River Foundation
if
Brief Summary Of Key Issues
Phase II of the Fairfield Harbour Stonmwater Drainage Project commenced in January, 2000 with
the disturbance of 3.4 acres of land and construction of two miles of ditches bordering the north
side of Bucco Reef-Tradewinds-Gondolier Rds and into the interior of the "Gondolier Peninsula.
Northwest Creek forms the western border of the project. These ditches flow directly into four
new outfalls averaging 250' each and on to the surface waters of Northwest Creek. USGS maps
show average elevation at 6' and DCM wetland maps show wetlands covering a large portion of
the project area. Construction was completed on the outfalls and approximately two miles of
ditches before Fairfield Harbour was notified by the State of Sedimentation and Erosion Control,
CAMA, Neuse Buffer, and Stormwater Management violations. The project was put on hold in
April, 2000 and permits were applied for in May.
Two key matters are still at issue. Approval of the Stormwater Management permit application
and mitigation of the Neuse River Buffer Violation. Both issues are closely intertwined. The
basic stormwater management system is the key to solving both issues. This single system must
satisfy the State's Stormwater Rules and it must simultaneously satisfy the Neuse Buffer Rules.
The heart of the stormwater system chosen by Fairfield Harbour consists of a network of ditches
(referred to as swales) feeding stormwater through the four outfalls to Northwest Creek. The
problem is this. The project has been designed and a large part of it has already been put in the
ground. Swales, chosen as the key stormwater management component of the system, are
precluded by the Rules from use at the Fairfield site because the seasonal groundwater table
must be two feet below the bottom of the swales and the site does not have adequate hydraulic
conductivity. Swales are classed by the Rules as an infiltration system, one of several that rely
on absorption of the runoff into the surrounding soil. The site consists of wetlands and lowland
ground that averages 6'-T elevation above the water level of Northwest Creek. The installed
ditches (swales) have their bottom elevations just 2.1' above the surface water level of Northwest
Creek. Two feet below the bottom of the swales is essentially at the same level as the surface
waters of the Creek and below the seasonal water table.
Fairfield Harbour, through its agent Chiles Engineering claims that the Fairfield Harbour ditches
are actually swales, meet all of the design qualifications, meet all of the site qualifications, and
will meet all of the necessary and essential performance requirements.i.e., stormwater
infiltration, 85% total suspended solids removal, 30% reduction of nitrogen, management of
nitrogen export not to exceed 3.6lbs/acre/yr, and no increase in peak runoff from
predevelopment to post-development levels.
The very bottom line is that the so-called swales are not swales, they are channel ditches
and nothing more Ditches cannot satisfy the central issue of reducing the level of
pollutants now reaching the surface waters of nutrient sensitive Northwest Creek. A ditch
is a ditch and a swale is a swale and it is just not possible to make a silk purse from a
sows ear.

Comments on subject Stormwater Permit application dated 5-9-00
The application as submitted is incomplete and critical information necessary to
thoroughly evaluate the project's compliance to applicable Rules has not been
included. Specifically, the following information must be submitted with the
application but was not included. Ref: NCAC 2H.1003 (g) (1-9)
1. The application does not include two sets of detailed plans covering the entire
project. There is no way for someone not intimately familiar with the site to
determine where the proposed swales are to be located in relation to
wetlands, elevations, existing drainage flows, etc.
2. There is no map showing existing drainage patterns and contours.
3. The high water table data has been omitted. (This is absolutely essential in
order to evaluate the proposed use of any infiltration BMPs including swalesl.
For the purposes of accurate evaluation of the potential effectiveness of the
proposed system of swales the site map should show the water table depth
and hydraulic conductivity at 50' intervals along the pathway of the swale
BMP. This is as recommended in the Maryland Stormwater BMP Manual
which is cited as an acceptable design manual by the Neuse Model
Stormwater Program.
4. Wetlands have been omitted and have not been delineated on any of the
applicant's maps or data. (This information is critical since the applicant
proposes a network of swales that intersect, cut through, and drain
jurisdictional wetlands which do not have the required water table depth and
likely do not have .52"/hr. hydraulic conductivity).
5. The application does not show runoff coefficients.
6. The application does not show peak runoff volume so that it can be
determined if there is any increase in peak flow leaving the site from the
predevelopment conditions for the 1 year, 24 hour storm.
7. The application does not show runoff depth.
8. The application was submitted under the low density option. It does not meet
the low density qualifications and must revert to "high density" and then
comply with all of the Stormwater Rules applicable to high density
developments.
Comments on Chiles Engineering 8-16-00 letter. This supplements the May
9, 2000 Stormwater Permit Application. (comments below assume that the
project qualifies as a low density development just as submitted)
1. The calculations presented in the proposal do not comply with the Neuse
Model Stormwater program nitrogen reduction goal. NC DWQ personnel
requested the applicant to furnish these calculations per their meeting agreement
on July 24, 2000. Export must not exceed 3.6 Ibs/acre/yr. There is an obvious
error in the acreage calculation for watershed #2 which is stated as 25.97 acres
when it is actually 14.44 acres. This changes the watershed #2 "raw" nitrogen
level from 3.41 to 6.13 and the "reduced" level from 2.39 to 4.39. The corrected
total for the entire project is 6.00 Ibs/acre/yr and the corrected reduced total is
4.20 Ibs/acre/yr. Both the original total export calculation of 3.81 Ibs/acre/yr
as well as the corrected export number of 4.20 Ibs/acre/yr exceed the
maximum allowable of 3.6 lbs/acrelyr per the Neuse Model Stormwater
Program. Furthermore, each of the six individual watersheds also fail this acid
test and exceed the maximum allowable nitrogen export of 3.6lbs/acre/yr by
factors ranging from +7% to +23% per watershed. According to DWQ, the Neuse
Model Program is not a Rule and does not have the weight of a Rule but is
generally acceptable to DWQ as a model when required. Otherwise it is common
practice for DWQ to use the published and generally accepted BMP efficiencies
to determine which BMPs can be used for nitrogen reduction i.e., use of one or
more BMPs to reach or exceed 30% reduction.
Northwest Creek is classified as SB-SW-NSW. According to the publication
Surface Freshwater Classifications Used in North Carolina. "NSW is a
supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation. Management strategies for non-point source pollution
control require no increase in nutrients over background levels". The nitrogen
load being exported by the Fairfield project far exceeds background levels.
2. The project does not meet the requirement for no net increase in peak
flow leaving the site from the predevelopment conditions for the one year,
24 hour storm. This is a requirement of the Neuse Model Stormwater Program
that is important to the Fairfield Harbour project and the determination can be
made per the "rational method". Predevelopment, all stormwater runoff from the
Fairfield site exited the defined watershed by the process of infiltration,
evaporation, and vegetative up-take. Due to the boundaries of roadways around
the site, no stormwater surface flow ever reached Northwest Creek. There was
"0" nitrogen exported since infiltration is considered to be essentially 100%
effective. Substantial runoff, including nitrogen, is now being exported from the
site through the outfalls to the surface waters of Northwest Creek.
Predevelopment nitrogen export was 0 Ibs/acre/yr and will climb to a post
development level of 4.2 Ibs/acre/yr if it is assumed that the ditches/swales in fact
are a BMP with 30% nitrogen reduction efficiency. As the project now exists and
has existed for nearly one year without any buffer mitigation, it is presently
exporting 3.21 lbs/acre/yr or 411 Ibs/yr through the buffer without mitigation. This
extrapolates to introducing an additional 411 lbs of nitrogen per year over and
above background levels to Northwest Creek and the Neuse River. This new load
of pollutants does not seem to comply with the spirit and intent of the Buffer Rules
or Basin Management Strategy. The existing and proposed project does not
have quantifiable TSS reduction capabilities. The total TSS pollutant load from
the defined watershed was removed by filtration and infiltration before the project
was developed. Now the vast majority of this load of pollutants is flowing
unabated through the buffer to Northwest Creek.
3. Maps submitted with this application supplement do not show wetlands and
the location of swales that cut through them and drain them. Shaded areas on
the map which were excluded from the watershed are actual wetlands. Ref:
NCAC 21-1.1003 (g) (1-9)
4. The map fails to show the one mile of new deep ditches that are already in
place along the north side of Bucco Reef/Trade Winds/ Gondolier Road. The
ditches are an important existing element of the system that has been omitted.
Ref: NCAC 21-1.1003
5. The proposal narrative describes the entire watershed as a low density
development. It is actually high density with a built on area of 30% or less with a
residential lot density of .288 acres, -15% below the 113 acre threshold
needed for low density qualification. This has been confirmed through a study
and analysis of the original plats which show the square foot area contained in
each lot. Ref: NCAC 2H.1003 (d) (1) (2)
6. Jurisdictional wetlands border the project's entire western boundary. They are
already being drained by seven other small ditches cut from the wetlands to the
new ditches paralleling the north side of Bucco Reef/Trade Winds/Gondolier
Road. These roadside ditches transport flow directly to the new outfalls and on
through the buffer to Northwest Creek. Although it is not mentioned in the project
narrative, it is clear that the project will provide additional and substantial wetland
draining. The application did not show the location of wetlands nor did it show
the network of existing ditches and proposed swales. Wetland draining is
obvious when this missing information is added to a map of the site. This does
not appear to comply with DWQ Wetlands Draining Policy, July 9, 1999, "Any
new or continued ditching after March 1, 1999 is a violation of State wetland
standards.
7. This permit application proposes the use of grass "swales" as the sole
stormwater management measure (BMP) and also the sole nitrogen reduction
measure for the required Buffer mitigation i.e., 30% nitrogen reduction and
3.6lbs/acre/yr maximum nitrogen export.
The project already employs ditches not swales. The existing ditches were
specified by the engineer at 2.5:1, and were installed by the contractor at 2.5:1 or
less. The installed ditches have been physically measured at 10 random locations
including all four new outfalls and measured slopes ranged from 1.9:1 to 2.5:1.
(Refer to the Chiles Engineering project proposal dated January 7, 1999, project
Specifications and bid package prepared by Chiles Engineering April 26, 1999,
job #98258, Chiles Engineering letter to Bill Moore dated July 14, 2000, and
photos of the site). Contrary to the applicant's narrative description, the "swales"
are actually channel ditches. They do not comply with the design and
construction requirements for swales set out in the North Carolina BMP
manual and in the North Carolina Stormwater Rules. Swale design must
comply with both but the design requirements in the Stormwater Rule trump the
BMP manual. Per the BMP Design Manual, swale slope must be greater than
3:1, they must have and support dense grass, have no long term presence of
standing water, and soil below the ditches must be suitably permeable. In a test
conducted per the procedure set out in the Maryland BMP design manual,
appendix D.1, the results show inadequate hydraulic conductivity, less than
.52"/hr. Per the NC Stormwater Rules, swales are an infiltration system and their
bottoms must be a minimum of two feet above the seasonal water table. Photos,
records, and actual measurements confirm that the Fairfield ditch bottoms are
approximately at or below the seasonal water table, and are definitely not two feet
above it as required. A series of water table measurements should have been
conducted and submitted with the original application. Further, the ditches do not
discharge into a 30' vegetative filter or the equivalent thereof as required by the
Rule. According to the NC BMP Design Manual, grassed swales have only 35%
TSS removal efficiency, far less than the 85% required by the NC Stormwater
rules. According to the design manual, swales must be used in conjunction with
other BMPs to achieve the required 85%. Therefore the system swales fail to
meet the two specific pollutant reduction reauirements...85% TSS removal
efficiency and 30% nitrogen reduction efficiency. Ref: Design of Stormwater
Management Measures, NCAC 21-1.1008 (a) (c) (d), NCDENR Sormwater BMP
Practices. NCAC 21-1.1000 Stormwater Management,. NCAC 26.0232-0239.
8. The existing and proposed system creates a "nuisance" condition that is both
serious, unusual, and detrimental to the water quality of Northwest Creek.
During moderate to strong easterly wind events, Northwest Creek floods the
ditches and backwashes the heavy load of algae growth from the ditches
back into the Creek. The ditches are set at 2.1' invert elevation above the normal
water level of Northwest Creek. Back-flushing with brackish water from the
Creek has killed and/or stunted the growth of grass in the ditches up to the high
water level. Serious back-flooding into the ditches and beyond to the upland
wetlands areas was last experienced during moderate easterly winds on August
29-30, 2000, and again on September 5-7, 2000. (the water rose 3.4'). A fish kill
of an estimated 1700 fish took place in Northwest Creek on September 1, 2000.
J?
This event was investigated and reported by the Neuse River Rapid Response
Team. The kill took place adjacent to the Fairfield Harbour outfalls and it was
noted by the RRT that the ditches may have contributed to the low oxygen levels
suspected of triggering the kill.
It is imperative that this uncontrolled back-flushing characteristic of the system be
addressed and fixed to eliminate this obvious pollution problem. Ref: NCAC
2H.1008 (h)
Comments on Chiles Engineering 8-21-00 letter requesting a determination
of "No Practical Alternatives"
1. A Buffer Notice of Violation dated April 11, 2000 is still outstanding. The
Notice of Violation states that the NPA Certificate must be issued "prior to
construction" and written authorization must be received before proceeding. It
further states that if the 30% nitrogen "reduction requirement is not met, the
ditches would be considered prohibited and abatement to the buffer would be
required". Eight months have passed and the NOV issue has not been
satisfactorily addressed and the issue is still open.
2. According to the applicant's narrative explanation, the "swale system" has
been designed according to NC DENR BMP design standards which satisfies the
requirement for a stormwater management facility to control nitrogen. In actual
fact the swales have not been designed per the NC BMP Design Manual and
they also do not comply with the requirements of 02H.1008, Design of
Stormwater Management Measures. Site conditions at Fairfield Harbour
preclude the use of swales as a stormwater control measure. Stormwater
cannot infiltrate as required. Ref: NCAC 2H.1008 (d) (3) (4) (6)
a) side slopes of existing ditches are less than 3:1, and actually measure 2.5:1 or
less. The engineering specifications and contract documents specifically allowed
side slopes of 2:5:1. Swales must have a slope of 3:1 and preferably flatter.
b) The ditches do not have a "dense growth of hardy grass" as required
c) Swales have only "limited pollutant removal ability" and are not a sufficient
means to reach the 85% TSS removal requirement." "They can be used as one
of a series of BMPs that when combined with other BMPs can provide sufficient
protection to surface waters". Swales only have a 35% TSS removal capability
when employed in North Carolina. "They are generally unable to remove
significant amounts of soluble plant nutrients" i.e., nitrogen among others.
"Thinning of the vegetative cover will reduce pollutant removal and cause the
swale to fail as a pollutant-removing device". Ref: NC DENR BMP Manual
d. North Carolina Stormwater Management Measures, 2H.1008 (a) (1) classifies
swales as an infiltration system and thus they must meet infiltration system
requirements. "The, bottom of infiltration systems shall be a minimum of 2 feet
above the seasonal water table" and "soils must have a hydraulic conductivity of
0.52"/hour to be suitable for infiltration" . Frequent observations, photos, and soil
conductivity testing confirms beyond doubt that the Fairfield project does not and
will not meet these requirements. Because of site specific conditions at Fairfield
Harbour, swales are precluded from use both as a nitrogen management tool for
buffer compliance or as the sole BMP in the stormwater system. If there is any
doubt about the depth of the seasonal water table or hydraulic conductivity the
applicant should be required to furnish certified test results from test borings
throughout the BMP pathways in the project. This procedure is detailed in the
2000 Maryland BMP Design Manual and other sources.
e) Even if swales could be used at the Fairfield site and were designed exactly
per the BMP Design Manual and Stormwater Management Design Rules, the
Nitrogen reduction calculations submitted by Chiles Engineering on 8-16-00
show that a network of "perfect swales" still fail to meet the 30% nitrogen
reduction requirement as required by the Neuse Buffer Rule and by the Notice of
Violation dated 4-11-00. The calculations also fail to meet the the maximum
nitrogen export requirement of 3.6lbs/acre/yr. as required by NCAC 2H.0232 &
NCAC 2H.0235.
f) "Swales" as employed in the Fairfield Harbour project do not meet the Neuse
Buffer Rule requirements for the outfalls to qualify as an "allowable" activity.
According to the nitrogen export calculations provided by Chiles Engineering on
8-16-00, the system will not reduce nitrogen export by 30% because the "swales",
according to the Stormwater Management Rules, are not a BMP allowable for use
at the Fairfield site. Further, the maximum allowable quantity of nitrogen that
would be exported by a "genuine" swale system exceeds the maximum allowable
3.6 Ibs/acre/yr per the Model Stormwater Program. Since the Fairfield Harbour
system of existing and proposed "swales" fail to meet design requirements for
genuine swales, it is impossible for the system to be a "stormwater management
facility" that will deliver any quantifiable control of nitrogen. The system fails to
meet any of the Buffer Rule design/performance requirements to make any
of the outfall penetrations of the buffer "allowable". The system qualifies
as "prohibited".
g) There is no supporting information to indicate that alternatives have been
carefully and judiciously evaluated. Practical alternatives are available. If costs
are considered to be a significant factor they should have been carefully
investigated before construction was initiated without any permits being applied
for. The applicant appears to have commenced construction the "cheapest" way
rather than the right way, per the Rules. One alternative is to simply do what
needs done to make the project compliant and increase the time horizon for
project completion or reduce the size of the project or both. Approximately
$600,000 has been budgeted for the project over a time horizon of five years
(starting in 1999) and cash funds will be available to make the project compliant
without the Property Owners Association needing any outside financing or
increase in annual dues.
Fairfield I Harbour
Property Owners Association 585 Broad Creek Road New Bern, NC 28560
office:252.633.5500 fax:[phone]
email.f hpoa@coasta lnet. com
January 9, 2001
,JM 1 2 2001
To: Bob Zarzecki DWQ Raleigh NC -°T,
Deborah A Sawyer NCDENR DWQ Washington NC -
Bill Moore NCDENR DWQ Washington NC
Danny Smith DWQ Raleigh NC
Subject: Fairfield Harbour Stormwater Improvement Plan
I wish to thank you for meeting with representatives of the
Fairfield Harbour Board on December 13, 2000, in pursuit of solutions
to our situation. At that meeting we agreed to reestablish the
initial integrity of the swales by filling any unauthorized side
ditches. We have already completed this step. We have arranged for
additional rip rap to improve the existing check dams in our swales
and outfalls to prevent sediment reaching the creek. Additionally we
have established a weekly maintenance inspection program to assure
integrity of the stormwater control systems.
We have met with our consultant engineer and initiated
development of a new stormwater plan intended to satisfy State
regulations and have NRF support. Our consultant engineer continues
with efforts to make contact with David Hardy, Bill Hunt, Tom
Schueler, Bill Moore and Tom Jones in an effort to design an
innovative hybrid storm water plan.
We also are consulting with our legal council regarding the use
of lots for any purpose other than single family residences as
specified in the Declaration of Restrictions. Our Drainage Improvement
Committee is working on a plan that could possibly convert a tennis
court complex located on POA common property to a wetland park, if
feasible and allowable legally.
As you can see from above we are actively looking for mutually
acceptable solutions to our stormwater improvement challenges.
I would like to address the statement of William Coho dated
11/19/2000 that is in the Raleigh case file. Mr Coho refers to a
Drainage Improvement Informational Meeting for affected property
owners held Nov 5, 1999. My text of the presentation included the
following "to accomplish this (the 1997 stormwater improvements plan)
the engineering company is required to conduct topographical surveys,
establish elevations, prepare design drawings and specifications,
review design with governmental agencies as relates to wetlands,
obtain governmental permits if needed, after POA approval obtain bids
for construction and provide observation and consultation during
construction of the project."
Mr Coho also refers to comments I allegedly made regarding
permits. In reference to the last two paragraphs of Mr. Coho's
statement, I assure you, neither I nor the POA Board intended to
proceed without required permits in violation of applicable State Laws
and rules. I expressly deny making the statements attributed to me by
Mr. Coho. Before construction work started we were notified by the
consultant engineers, after they talked to State agencies, that
permits were not needed; therefore we proceeded. We found out later
that permits were needed and upon notification by the State ceased all
construction work and began efforts to comply with the State's
directives.
In summary, I would like to reaffirm the POA's commitment to
seek a mutually acceptable solution to our storm water problems and
look forward to working with all interested groups.
Respectfully,
Bernie Teubert
POA President
BJT/vc
cc: POA Board
Bob Brown
Al Merino
Mgr
Drainage Improvement Chairman
B45-6
[Fwd: fairfield]
> must be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers and DWQ for any
> necessary written approval, and
> 2) All of the constructed wetlands and all other control structures approved under the coastal
stormwater permit must be installed within one year of
> issuance of this permit or one year of the issuance of any required 404
> or isolated wetland Permit (whichever is later) for- each respeetiv
ditch outlet. If this can not be accomplished, then the respective
> ditches installed through the riparian zone are to be back-filled and
> riparian zone restored through replanting within one year plus two
> months of the date of the stormwater permit.
2 of 2 12/14/014:09 PM
Coastal Stormwater Permit
The POA may leave previously constructed outfalls in place with the following caveats:
1) If wetland impacts are proposed or will occur by the implementation of the plan a
determination of the acreage of impact is necessary and must be submitted to the
r
my Corps of Engineers anADWQ for any necessary written approval, and
2) onstructed wetlands and ch er control structures approved under the coastal
WC
stormwater permit must be in4alled within one year of issuance of this permit or one
year of the issuance of any required 404 or isolated wetland Permit (whichever is
later) f . If this can not be accomplished, then the
respective ditches installed through the riparian zone are to be back-filled and
riparian zone restored through replanting within one year plus two months of the
date of the stormwater permit.
[Fwd: fai>dield]
Subject: [Fwd: fairfield]
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:27:20 -0500
From: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Dear Bill--Danny has proposed some language to get around the problem we
spoke of earlier today. Jim Mulligan
Subject: Re: fairfield
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:23:33 -0500
From: danny smith <[e-mail]>
To: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
hey Jim,
good point! see the below changes (underlines and strike through).
have a good weekend and again thanks for all your help with this!
danny
Jim Mulligan wrote:
Dear Danny--The end of the second condition needs some modification since
the language as written--"for each repective ditch outlet" is tied to the
one year time requirement in a way that may be interpreted as allowwing one
year per outlet consecutively, not our need which is concurrently. Jim
Mulligan
danny smith wrote:
> Coleen and Jim:
> The meeting with Rep. Underhill and previous efforts of RO and CO staff
> resulted in the following solutions to Fairfield Harbour complaints:
> 1) the below mentioned language will be added to the Coastal Stormwater
> Permit for Fairfield Harbour, 2) the Coastal Stormwater Permit will be
> issued by the RO by the end of the first week in January, and 3) if
> questions remain Rep. Underhill will suggest to all parties (Nesue River
> Foundation, Fairfield Harbour, and DWQ) that we meet in January (after
> the issuance of the Permit) to further discus any concerns that may
> persist.
> danny
> Coastal Stormwater Permit language:
> The POA may leave previously constructed outfalls in place with the
> following caveats:
> 1) If wetland impacts are proposed or will occur by the implementation
> of the plan a determination of the acreage of impact is necessary and
1 of 2 12/14/014:09 PM