SW8040434_HISTORICAL FILE_20050126

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW
DOC TYPE
El CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
YYYYMMDD

Oyster Creek boat ramp for NC Wildlife Resources Commission
F�
V
f Wildlife Resources Subject: Oyster Creek boat ramp or NC d e esou ces
From: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:09:05 -0500
To: Linda Lewis <Linda.Lewis@ncmail. net>
CC: Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>, Bethany Georgoulias
<[e-mail]>, Jonathan Diggs <Jonathan.Diggs@ncmai].net>
Subsubject: Voluntary monitoring program development meeting, SW8040g3q
Linda,
As we discussed by telephone, we met this morning with Dan Cabe and Mark Cooney.
They asked yesterday afternoon for a meeting today to get our input on what
stormwater monitoring program might be acceptable to the DWQ. Bethany and
Jonathan sat in. Dan and Mark reminded us that the permit itself contained no
obligation for monitoring, but that during the application process they committed
to execute an unspecified monitoring program for two years. I relayed your quick
comments this morning (quarterly for pH, N, P, and O&G). Based on a proposal from
the Rose Group they had in mind a considerably more intense sampling program. We
started with three different perspectives on the program: a) according to the
permit, no sampling is required; b) the program you and I discussed this morning;
and c) the much more extensive program that the Rose Group proposed in response to
the Wildlife Resources initial directions to provide a "Cadillac" sampling
program. They began the meeting by asking what audience would their sampling
efforts have. During the meeting that question was rephrased as, "What decision
does each sampling parameter support?", and ,What are we trying to evaluate with
this particular parameter?", etc. At the end of the meeting, they agreed to
propose for your review a sampling program that featured, more or less, the
following elements.
Quarterly for two years, samples from 3 groundwater wells (one background well, one
well underneath the pervious pavement, and one well down gradient between the
parking area and the open water):
Total nitrogen, reported as TKN + (NO3 + NO2)
Dissolved phosphorus
pH
O&G
BTEX
Plus an enlarged suite of baseline groundwater analyses, approximating the
original Rose Group "Cadillac" approach from the same three wells, for most of the
following parameters. monthly for the first quarter, and then annually for one more
year:
Total nitrogen, Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus
Hydrocarbons
TSS
TDS
Zn, Cu, Pb
Fecal coliform
one additional concept was discussed: a re-evaluation after two years to see if
there would be any purpose in continued sampling, and if so, for what parameters.
On a related issue, I asked that they consider if the cost savings from the
significnt reduction to the Rose Group sampling proposal might allow WRC to extend
their committment beyond two years. They agreed to consider it. Our interest is
that we get an idea of how performance changes with age for this system. Again,
the permit does not mandate any sampling program, so I guess we'll see just what
they wish to do on this point.
Again, the tone of our discussion with them was not definitive, since the permit
doesn't provide for a sampling program. We tried to agree on general guidance as
to what might be actually useful down the road. In that respect, three general
objectives of the sampling were identified:
1 of 2 1/26/2005 5:45 PM

Oyster Creek boat ramp for NC Wildlife Resources Commission
a) Will the data collected will help us with an early evaluation on whether or not
the features of the site are successful as a stormwater control system? (Primarily
a DWQ objective) Note that the samples collected are groundwater samples, and our
usual frame of reference is to surface runoff.
b) Will the data collected allow DWQ to build up a sort of generalized confidence
in this type of system, and similarly engineered proposals from Wildlife, so that
we can expedite future submittals? (A shared objective).
c) will the data collected substantiate that similar WRC projects are likely to be
environmentally responsible on the part of a natural resource agency charged with
protecting the environment? Or, said another way, will the data collected serve to
support a defense against accusations of environmental irresponsibility?
(Primarily WRC objectives)
So, Dan and Mark will construct a sampling proposal that resembles that outlined
above. I volunteered to give it a once-over before they submit it to you for your
review. They understand clearly that our discussion up here might be called
"technical assistance", and that the review and approval responsibility lies with
WiRC.
Ken
2 of 2 1/26/2005 5:45 PM

State Stormwater Manaqement Systems
Permit Number SW8 040434
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Oyster Creek Boat Access Area
1300 US Highway 70, Davis, Carteret County
FOR THE
redevelopment of existing impervious surfaces and treatment of the runoff in a pervious
concrete pavement system in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H.1000
(hereafter referred to as the "stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater
management plans and specifications, and other supporting data as attached and on
file with and approved by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this
permit.
The Permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until November 30, 2014 and
shall be subject to the following specific conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
The proposed built -upon area is 23,875 square feet, which is less than the
27,272 square feet that previously existed. Additionally, the post -construction
peak flow from the 1 year-24 hour storm is less than or equal to the pre -
construction peak flow.
2. To the extent practicable, the project has provided stormwater control measures
in accordance with the stormwater rules. Those control measures are:
a. Installation of 6,500 square feet of 8" deep pervious concrete pavement.
b. A 30' vegetated buffer between the Mean High Water line andimpervious
surfaces (except for the immediate boat ramp area).
3. Approved plans and specifications for projects covered by this permit are
incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of the permit.
4. The stormwater treatment device consists of 6,500 square feet of 8" concrete
porous pavement laid flat. The site is graded such that the proposed built -upon
area will drain across the porous pavement, down into the pore spaces, and will
then infiltrate into the ground underneath, eliminating a direct discharge to SA
ORW waters.
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The permittee shall at all times provide adequate erosion control measures in
conformance with the approved Erosion Control Plan.
2. The permittee shall submit all information requested by the Director or his
representative within the time frame specified in the written information request.
2of6

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit Number SW8 040434
3. The permittee shall construct the stormwater control measures as shown on the
approved plans.
4. The permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance
necessary to assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum
in
cluding, ncluding, but not limited to:
a. Semi-annual scheduled inspections t
ery 6 months).
b. Sediment removal via vacuuming of pore spaces in the porous
pppvement.
C. Mowing and revegetation of the vegetated areas.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Repair of porous pavement areas to maintain pore space and structural
integrity.
5. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to the approved plans, regardless of size.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, or sale of the project area. The project
area is defined as the property, in whole or in part, owned by the
permittee, for which either a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan
approval was sought or which required a CAMA Major permit.
6. The Director may determine that other revisions to the project should require a
modification to the permit.
7. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit mayy
subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality,
in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
2. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
3. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
4. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit
as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H.1000; and North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
5. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for an
additions, deletions or redesign of the previouslyy permitted amount of built -upon
area proposed regardless of the size of the modifcation.
3of6

w
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit Number SW8 040434
6. The permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and
approval by the Director. The Director may require modification or revocation and
reissuance of the permit to change the name and incorporate such other
requirements as may be necessary. A formal permit request must be submitted
to the Division of Water Quality accompanied by the appropriate fee,
documentation from both parties involved, and other supporting materials as may
be appropriate for the type of permit being transferred. The approval of this
request will be considered on its merits, and may or may not be approved. The
permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such time
as the Director approves the transfer request.
7. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state and federal) which have jurisdiction.
8. The permittee grants permission to DENR Staff to enter the premises during
normal business hours for purposes of inspecting the facility.
9. The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing address
changes within 30 days.
10. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
Permit issued this the 30th day of November 2004
NORTH AROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
----- - ---- -----< cJ/�-
------------------------------------------
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit Number SW8 040434
4of6

K
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
September 16, 2004
Ms. Linda Lewis
N. C. Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RECEIVED
SEp 17 2004
DWQ
PROJ#aAJ6°;0 �3¢
Re: Stormwater Permit Application Package- Project No. SW8 040434 Oyster Creek
Boating Access Area, Carteret County
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Please find the enclosed Stormwater Management Plan Application Package for the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Oyster Creek Public Boating
Access Area Project on Core Sound in Carteret County. The application package
includes 2 sets of plans, completed application form, documentation of electronic permit
application fee transfer, and supporting technical design documentation.
The NCWRC would like to request permit application review under redevelopment
project criteria. Dr. Rooney Malcom, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Technical Advisor of The Rose
Group Engineering Consultant Firm, provided technical assistance in the design and
preparation of the Oyster Creek Boating Access Area Stormwater Management Plan. A
LAMA major development permit application was submitted to the Division of Coastal
Management on March 23, 2004.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at
[phone] x295 or [phone] (mobile) or via email at
mark.cooncy rr,ncwildlife.orgt,. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Mark E. Cooney,
Facilities Engineer
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
DIVISION OF ENGINEI RING SERVICES
Mailing Address: 1720 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1720
Office Location: 512 N. Salisbury Street • Raleigh, NC • Telephone: [phone] • Fax : [phone]

Re: Oyster Creek
Subject: Re: Oyster Creek
From: Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:39:42 -0400
To: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
Ken:
Yes, the process -you describe will be the way it should happen. Thanks for all your
help Ken.
Linda
Ken Pickle wrote:
Linda,
Based on your report that you think they've done the best they can with this
site, and that you're willing to permit this project under the redevelopment
option, I've communicated vebally this morning with Mark Cooney of NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and relayed the following three points.
a) It appears that DWQ can permit the design you've shown us as a redevelopment
project, '.
b) contingent upon our review of the design bases, and our conclusion that the
design indeed minimizes the paved area necessary to meet the project objectives.
DWQ has chosen minimizing the paved area as the criterion by which to measure
whether or not the project "meets the requirements of this section to the maximum
extent practicable...." as required by our regs at 2H .1003(d)(3)(B).
c) NC Wildlife will submit an abbreviated design narrative that speaks to the
selection of turning radii, road width, and similar paving design features. It
may also include identification of the target vehicle and boat trailer turning
radius, the target number of vehicles, the road width necessary for safe
operation of the facility, and other NC Wildlife facility design standards as
they may apply to the paved areas.
It seems to me that the anticipated sequence from here on is as follows: Wildlife
submits a design narrative to WiRO (to you, right, Linda?), DWQ reviews it and
finds that the paved area -has been minimized, DWQ notifies Wildlife it's ok,
Wildlife proceeds with completion of the design drawings and submits them as part
of a permit application, DWQ conducts the official review of the whole submittal
package and requests any minor changes, Wildlife makes the minor changes and
submits revised drawings or specs or operating plans, and DWQ issues the
permit. Linda,- if you want me to help in any way, I'll be glad to.
Thanks,
Ken Linda Lewis wrote:
Ken:
The site proposes to sheet flow all the runoff away from surface waters and into
the porous pavement area. Under redevelopment, I' leaning toward considering the
porous pavement as a "passive" control mitigation area to keep the project low
density. Since there is no runoff from the porous pavement area, we can easily
say that they have provided equal or greater stormwater control. And they have
reduced the amount of BUA, also a key component of redevelopment.
The marsh grass area they propose to plant isn't even part or their property. I
just love it when people propose to do something to "help" the environment on
property they have absolutely no control over. The marsh grass planting used as
mitigation is out unless they propose to create new marsh ON their property.
I like the idea of spreading out the BUA a little more to the west, creating as
much grassed buffer between the MHW line and the BUA as possible. However, I've
used a few boat ramps in my life- and traffic management is the name of the
1 of 2 8/18/2004 3:56 PM

Re: Oyster Creek
game. The layout is a large loop. You don't want to have to turn left across the
stacking area with your empty trailer to park, that's why they are located on
the right side as you leave the ramp area. ideally, the parking spaces would be
angled so that one could just slide right in, but that would reduce the number
of spaces. I think they've done the best that could be done with this site.
I'd still like to see their design criteria for turning radii, acces road width,
number of spaces, etc. If the radius of the maneuvering area and the width of
the access road were reduced by 51, I can eliminate almost 1500 sq ft. of BUA.
Each parking apace takes up 500 sq. ft. Eliminating just one along with the
previous 5' reductions, is a savings of 2,000 sq. ft.
I'd also like:to see some sort of parking barrier along the west side of the
access road to prevent parking on the grass.
Other than the aforementioned items, I'm willing to permit this as low density
under the redevelopment option.
Linda
Ken Pickle wrote:
Linda,
I have been fiddling with the Oyster Creek layout this morning. I think they
can extend the parking area three more spaces to the southwest (new total of
16 spaces). That would put the utility pole in a new island, and move the
drive southwest about 301. Their new total impervious area would be around
32.6% (rather than 29.6W) and they would increase their total paved area to
26,275 sf (up from the current design of 23,875 sf), but still below the
previous impervious area of 27,000+ sf under its previous usage. So, they
would still:kqualify for redevelopment based on reducing the impervious area
from the pievious site usage.
I realize it's not our job to design for them, but this does seem to improve
the site utilization, while still allowing us to permit it. It also raises
the overrun above 25% from +4.6t to +7.6%. Is that outside our comfort zone
at this site? Your reaction?
Ken
2 of 2 8/18/2004 3:56 PM

�!THE !�
NIGROUP
Letter of Transmittal
Client:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Project
Oyster Creek Boating Access Area
Project Number:
04085.100
Date:
08-13-04
To: Linda Lewis From:
NC Division of Water ualit
Wilmington Re Tonal Office
Enclosed Please Find:
Otv. Date
Descrintion
1
08-13-04
Conceptual Plan for Stortnwater Management Oyster Creek Boating
Access Area (Report) and Plan Sheets (3)
Transmitted Via
❑ Mail ® Overnight ❑ Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other:
For Your
❑Approval ❑ Review & Comment ® Use ❑ Other:
Remarks:
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions at 919-829-0555. Thank you.
Copy To:
621-101 Hutton Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
www.ro,,egrp.com

i
�Rov�
ENGINEERS • MANNERS • SURVEYORS
Conceptual Plan for Stormwater Management
Oyster Creek Boating Access
Carteret County
NC Wildlife Commission
Prepared by H. Rooney Malcom, P.E.
Senior Technical Advisor
The Rose Group
Raleigh, NC
Preliminary concept
Revised and extended 12 Aup-ust 2004
Introduction
The NC wildlife Resources Commission seeks to establish a new boating access facility alongside of US 70 at,
Oyster Creek in Carteret County. The Commission staff are very sensitive to water quality issues in adjacent waters,
and they seek to include innovative stormwater quality protective features in the project to include long term
monitoring of water quality indicators in and around the site.
The existing site
Over many years, the existing site has been occupied by shellfish processing facilities, commercial boat repair
facilities, a menhaden processing plant, and most recently a de facto junkyard. The site has been cleared of debris.
Tests conducted under direction of the Commission staff have not detected any residual pollutants associated with its
commercial history. Such tests are being repeated and/or augmented now.
Subsurface investigation
At this writing, the subsurface investigation is in process. Field work has been completed. The investigative report
is expected shortly, but it is not available for the presubmittal meeting. However, tentative results were reported
verbally by Mr. Walter Cole of Soil and Environmental Consultants. The following are important findings:
1. To the extent of the boring depths, the subsurface materials are almost entirely sand strata. There is
no evidence of dredge spoil or extensive clay seams.
2. Hydraulic conductivity is expected to exceed 6 inches per hour.
3. There is no evidence of offending pollutants resulting from historical land use at the site.
4. Observed water table was 18 to 36 inches below ground surface, subject to further study to place the
water table relative to the datum.
The tentative findings support previous reports of studies by Commission staff.
Page] of 5

The proposed plan
The Commission seeks to establish a boating access facility with care taken to preserve the surrounding waters from
any degradation brought by its existence. Accordingly the plan includes two features designed to intercept all
stormwater from paved surfaces and pass the drainage to a pervious pavement section, likely concrete, for vertical
drainage to the soil below. Lateral drainage would pass through a constructed marsh situated between the parking
lot and the estuarine waters. The system relies on the natural processes of sand filtration and marsh -plant uptake for
removal of suspended solids and other pollutants from the stormwater. The pervious concrete is a hydraulic feature
that serves to collect stormwater from the entire pavement area and pass it to the sand below. A site plan and
analysis of performance of the pervious concrete feature are attached.
Because of the innovative nature of the interaction of the pervious concrete and the constructed marsh, it is proposed
to establish a long term monitoring program to observe the behavior of the system through time. Inspection and
maintenance are to be integrated with the monitoring program.
The treatment system is proposed under the rules, Paragraph (h), providing for Alternative Design Criteria.
Demonstration project
The stormwater management features envisioned are innovative applications applied to a highly constrained site.
They are designed to employ natural processes to protect the surrounding waters. Because of the nature of the
facility, we propose to treat the system as a demonstration project. While we are confident in the design, we propose
to monitor its behavior over time to demonstrate its effectiveness.
The system is designed to provide significantly better treatment than other measures such as those that would limit
impervious area by locating intensively used parking on less robust surfaces. Although imperviousness nominally
exceeds 25%, runoff from the entire paved area, excluding the downsiope of the boat ramp, is captured for treatment
by natural processes.
Monitoring includes inspection, sampling, testing and occasional corings and borings of the pavement and
subsurface material. We are investigating the benefits of installing water level recorders to provide base data from
which to estimate lateral subsurface flow from the parking area toward the sound.
An inspection and maintenance specification will be provided to include schedule and procedures.
An alternate plan based on the GeoWeb system permitted elsewhere will be prepared for implementation should the
performance of the proposed system deteriorate over time to become unsatisfactory.
Benefits sought in stormwater management
In order to achieve the overall recreation benefits and regional economic benefit of the boating access facility,
special stormwater management features are necessary. The use of the interactive features of the pervious concrete,
sand filtration and constructed marsh are expected to produce effective protection of the surrounding waters from
stormwater pollutants. If demonstrated to be effective, these treatments will likely add to the diversity of practices
for future application elsewhere in the coastal region.
Status of development of the stormwater management plan
Subsurface investigation
A detailed subsurface investigation is being conducted by Mr. Kevin Martin and his associates. Results of his study,
and his recommendations, will be incorporated in all components of the plan.
Page 2 of 5

Site plan
The current site plan is attached. Details are still in development. Proposed locations of observation wells are
shown. Further details, such as pavement edge features will be forthcoming.
Deuce of imperviousness
The boating access facility as configured consists of 23,875 square feet of impervious area in a total property area of
80,586 square feet. The degree of imperviousness is 29.6%.
The plan is to substitute 6500 square feet of pervious concrete for conventional pavement in the parking lot. The
pervious concrete can accept all of the 2-year, 24-hour runoff (4.5 inches) from nearly 24,000 square feet of the
paved area with zero runoff escaping the pavement surface.
Deducting the 6500 square feet of pervious concrete from the overall impervious area yields 17,375 square feet of
net impervious area from which the runoff is captured and treated. The effective degree of imperviousness is-22%.
It is emphasized that the 17,375 square feet of impervious area, permissible in a typical project on this property, is
not allowed to flow directly to the estuary. Rather it passes through two stages of treatment that closely mimic the
natural processes.
Monitoring plan
The monitoring plan is in preparation. Observation wells are to be placed in pairs, two each in the pervious
pavement area, the impervious pavement area, an adjacent open area typical of pre-existing conditions, and in the
edge of the marsh. These are expected to provide comparative data on the behavior flow and quality under the
various elements of the facility.
The list of water -quality constituents to be measured is under development, but it will include those of common
interest. Tentatively, constituents to be evaluated include total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, biochemical
oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total and dissolved phosphorus, total nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
selected metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and fecal colifor n.
The inspection and monitoring program will be coordinated with the maintenance program. Some tests will be
regularly scheduled, perhaps biweekly early on -and monthly later on. Some inspection and sampling ought to take
place soon after significant precipitation events.
The pervious pavement will be cored periodically to determine its condition with respect to clogging by sediments or
oils/greases.
This concept will be developed and presented in a formal program to include record keeping and analyses to be
conducted.
Inspgction_and Maintenance program
The facility will be inspected and maintained in a formal program closely coordinated with the monitoring program.
Inspection and indicated maintenance will be conducted at regular intervals, with special inspection after significant
precipitation events.
Condition of the pervious concrete should be noted at each visit with follow-up cleaning. While the edge treatments
of the pavement should prevent off -site runoff, it will likely be difficult to prevent deposition of blowing sand. The
pavement should be maintained so as to be free of sand deposits. Oil and grease deposits in parking spaces would
occupy less than 15% of the area, and pervious concrete has a very high surface infiltration rate. Oils and greases
would not be expected to limit hydraulic capacity.
Page 3 of 5

Allowance is made in the design for some loss of capacity of vertical flow without causing ponding on the parking
lot.
Summary of performance of pervious concrete
The pervious concrete section is currently planned to consist of 8 inches of pervious concrete placed directly on the
sand. Indications are that in the design storm the water level under the pavement will remain well below the
pervious concrete. An 8-inch layer of clean gravel may be placed under the pervious concrete if it is needed for
structural reasons.
A pervious concrete area of 6500 square feet will accept runoff from the conventionally paved area in a storm of
4.5 inches of rainfall in 24 hours, the two-year storm. There will be no surface runoff to the estuary except from the
portion of the boat ramp that slopes to the water. Lateral subsurface movement of runoff thus captured will'move
through the constructed marsh before entering the estuary.
The pervious concrete will likely have a porosity of 20%. Vertical flow in the pervious concrete is very rapid,
having been measured in the lab at greater than 30 gpm/ftz, 2900 in/hr. The pervious concrete provides a cover over
the sand that is relatively easy to maintain, possesses a very high hydraulic capacity, and provides a good parking
surface. The hydraulic capacity is so high that performance is virtually unaffected by clogging by oils and greases or
sediments in normal operation. It is of considerable interest in this demonstration project to evaluate the effect and
extent of clogging.
Expected performance of the underlying sand as a filter
It is useful to estimate the average surface loading rate of flow through the sand prism below the pervious concrete
area from precipitation over the entire paved area in the design storm. The 24-hr volume of precipitation is 4.5
inches over 23,875 sq ft, or approximately 9000 cubic feet of water. This volume passes through 6500 square feet of
pervious pavement to the sand below in a 24-hour period, seeping in at an average vertical velocity of 0.69 in/hr,
equivalent to a surface loading rate of 0.0072 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sq ft).
The 24-hour storm is conventionally center weighted. The precipitation in the maximum hour of the design storm of
interest is 1.92 inches. The surface loading rate for the proposed system during the maximum hour is estimated at
0.073 gpm/sq ft.
Sand filters in a conventional water plant are operated in the range of 3 to 5 gpm/sq ft.
The very low surface loading rates in the proposed system support the expectation that the system will remove at
least 85% of TSS. Lateral movement of water in the subsoil enhances the expectation.
Performance of the constructed marsh in pollutant removal
The constructed marsh serves as a vegetative buffer and as an aesthetic feature at the shoreline. Marsh grasses are
expected to bind up contaminants that reach the marsh through the subsoil. Nutrients, metals and other contaminants
would be removed to a degree similar to other vegetative buffers required along waterways.
Alternate measure to be implemented if the systemproves to be unsatisfactory
Should the pervious pavement perform inadequately, we propose to replace it with a GeoWeb system such as the
system permitted at the Straits Landing Boat Ramp, Carteret County.
Page 4 of 5

Conclusion
The project as conceived will provide good protection from stormwater runoff. Attendant benefits justify
experimental installation of these features. The monitoring and maintenance programs will demonstrate the extent
to which the design proves out. Useful information in the findings can support further development of the concept
and evolutionary variations.
Page 5 of 5

H.R. Malcom, P.E. Study Pig 111
Pervious conic model v. 1.5r�4
vr"
Subject: -...
Pervious concrete analysis and design ..
-.
Ob)eot
To extand study cf Oyster Creek pk lot
Dated
2 Jun-04 Extended: 12 Aui
Preaced by- _
H.R. Moir -am, P.E.
Configuration --
.
Pervious concrete
Thickness
Win
Surface area
6,500-sq ft
Porosity -
20 %
Sand depth to water table
Thickness
16: in
Porosity
40 %
Ponding limit
0 in
ExUItration rate
6.0 in/h
Impervious surface
Surface_: area
17,375 sq ft
Off -site drainage
Area
0_sq ft
CN'
Summary of results
Effective CN
3
Estimated runoff (5 days):
::. 0.00`:.in :,...
- Available storage used
13% --
Number:df hours of ponding -
,., 0 -
Max pending depth
-21 A'. in ..
Available storage after 24 hr
100 % _
- - Available storage after5days - ...
1000/ -
Stage after 5 days
0.0' in -
Additional time to drain completely
0 hr
Intermediate results
`- Total drained surface area
23,875 sgft.,
Storage capacity, pervious concrete
- 867 tuft
Storage capacity, gravel base
3,467 tuft
.`.. Storage capacity, pending.
0 cuff
- Total stormwater storage
4.333 Cuft
. - Total procip volume
8.953 adt .
5-day exhitration volume
8.953 ntft
Total runoff (overflow)
'- -`0 tuft
Water stored after 5-days
0 Cult
`Water balance error
0.0 CUR
4—
Project . .::.Wildlife Resources Commission-- Oyster Creek
Preliminary design::',.
Refined areas
RUtI data Values shown in blue are user inputs.
Valdes shown in red are computed results.
'i 2-AU 04= See caution note at cell B60, below.
F__Reference preclp dai Wilmington
Return period 2yr See simulation sheet
- and Storm data sheet.
1:24-hr rea =: 4.5.in
Cesign aim
. Target CN'r na` -
Allowable runoffna in
-- --_' ---
Po,dng-
InBltr-. a
,
zone -
rat4s-:
Par"vious'-
�`"
Concicte:
'
e4
Y
�
a
Gravol
.;
y�-Fa
4rw..5.R.
se
Can trolling
ez_filtraLion ..::
Soil
,rate
-
ru F1�7Ge'
General definition sketch for model
Wildlife Resources Commission-- Oyster Creek —
40 ...._ _. - - - -- 0.0:
35. 1.0 -..
Pervious concrete
,• 30 20:
0
0
6 25 3.0
E g
o +
's
e _
t 15 AL5.0 _
C -
P
10 6.0
Depth of sand to water table
5 7.0
0 . 8.0
0 6 12 18 24' 30 ' 36` 42' 48 54- 6D 66 72 78 84 :91 - 97 '103 1091 --115
Elapsed time (hr)
..... ........�� _.
�Pretlp ( (in} Stage (in) � � Top gravel {in) Top Pavement (in} -f—Pond limit (in) -
Wildlife Resources PervMod v1.5 AsOt 040812xbb.xls Printed Bf1312004

Rules rationale for Oyster Creek Boating Access stormwater permit
For the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
August 16, 2004
KBP
1. NC rules at 15A NCAC 2H .1000 govern, as provided in .1001, "The rules in this
Section set forth the requirements for application and issuance of permits for
stormwater management systems in accordance with G.S. 143-215.1(d) and 15A
NCAC 2H .0200." We have stormwater, and the question at hand is how/if we will
issue a permit, so it seems we're in the right place in the regs.
2. The elimination of the more common permitting options (low density, high density)
prompts us to investigate if this site may be permittable under .1003(d)(3)(B) which
provides that "(d) Projects subject to the permitting requirements of this Section may
be permitted under the following stormwater management options:...(3) Other
Projects: Development may also be permitted on a case -by -case basis if the project:...
(B) is redevelopment which meets the requirements of this Section to the
maximum extentpracticable..." Further under .1003(d), "Development designed
to meet the requirements in Subparagraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) of this Paragraph must
demonstrate that no areas within the_proiect site are of such high density that
stormwater runoff threatens water quality. So, thus far, there are three
elements to be established in order to permit the Oyster Creek site under
.1003(d)(3)(8): Oyster Creek must be redevelopment; Oyster Creek must meet the
requirements of. 1000 to the maximum extent practicable; and runoff from Oyster
Creek must not threaten water quality.
t:
3. Redevelopment is defined in .1002(14) as "'Redevelopment' means any rebuilding
activity which has no net increase in built -upon area or which provides equal or
greater stormwater control than the previous development (stormwater controls shall
not be allowed where otherwise prohibited)." A) The Wildlife Commission project staff
has presented evidence that the previous use of the property had a greater built -upon
area, so the boat access project is ok on that point. B) The Rose Group has presented
evidence that the boat access project will certainly provide equal or greater
stormwater control than previously, so they're ok on the second point. C) The last
point presents some minor worry. We see no provision in the rules that enunciates a
prohibition of stormwater controls at SA ORW sites, but we do see that development
activities which require a permit, and which drain to SA ORW waters must comply with
the low density option requirements. And, the low density option requirements
include: < 25% built -upon area, vegetated conveyances, and 30' buffer. I would
consider these three requirements to be "stormwater controls" and so conclude that
stormwater controls are not prohibited at SA ORW sites. However, if you consider that
these three are not really stormwater controls in the strictly structural BMP sense, and
that by naming these three stormwater controls specifically, we are prohibiting any
other controls, then, do we think that stormwater controls are prohibited, and
consequently that Oyster Creek doesn't meet the requirement for the definition of
"redevelopment"? I think this is the weaker argument, and so conclude that Oyster i
Creek meets the first two points of the definition of redevelopment, and further, is not
hampered -'by the constraint on stormwater controls, and so the site will be allowed to

install stormwater controls, and so remains permittable on the definition of
redevelopment.
4. Meets the requirements of this Section to the maximum extent practicable.
"Which requirements of this Section?" seems to be one question, and "At what point
has Oyster,'Creek met them to the maximum extent practicable?" seems to be the
second question. I think the language, "to the maximum extent practicable" clearly
implies that the project may still be permitted even if it falls short of to -the -letter
compliance with the eligibility requirements for permitting under other permitting
options. In other words, I think the implication is that if a site can't meet the
requirements for the low density option provided in .1003(d)(1), and it can't meet the
requirements for the high density option provided in .1003(d)(2), and it can't meet the
requirements for the General Permits option provided in .1003(d)(5), etc., it still may
be permitted under the Other Projects option provided in .1003(d)(3), and specifically
for Oyster Creek, the redevelopment basis for Other Projects permitting provided in
.1003(d)(3)(B). At this point, and in the absence of specific BMP-based
redevelopment requirements, the agency's precedents, experience, and judgment
seem to be invited into the permitting deliberations, in addition to whatever portions of
the regs might seem to be helpful. It seems reasonable to use as guidance Section
.1003(a), "The intent of the Commission is to achieve the water quality protection
which low density development near sensitive waters provides. To that end, the
Director... shall cause development to comply with the antidegradation
requirements —by protecting surface waters and highly productive aquatic resources
from the.adverse impacts of uncontrolled high density development or the potential
failure of stormwater control measures."
As designed (preliminary design, 8/13/2004), the Oyster Creek project site is reported
to be 29.2% impervious, considering 6500 square feet of pervious pavement over
highly porous sands as impervious. The 29.2% impervious surface is not allowable
under the low density permitting option for projects draining to SA ORW waters. The
consultant reports that considering the porous concrete as pervious produces an
impervious fraction of 22%, within the 25% upper limit required for low density
permitting of projects draining to saltwater ORW waters.
As designed, the Oyster Creek project site captures rainfall runoff (4.5") in excess of
the maximum design storm amount required for any other project configuration and
location (f, 5" maximum). The proposed design protects water quality by preventing
runoff from the great majority of rain events, up to the 2 year-24 hour storm. This'
degree of control is greater than that present on the site before redevelopment, and is
significantly greater (3x) than that required under other permitting options. Note that
our agency's precedents, experience, and judgment have previously selected this 3x
multiplier in other similar (but not exactly the same) circumstances to provide the
flexibility to permit protective, (but otherwise problematic by the letter of the regs),
projects.
We might consider applying the three SA ORW control requirements of < 25%
imperviousness, vegetated conveyances, and 30' buffer. The 25% is out, since that is
specifically the point that disqualifies the design from consideration of low density
permitting and raises the current question about permitting under the Other Projects
option. However, perhaps the design could be modified to include a vegetated
conveyance (in addition to the marsh grass plantings?) by providing a large storm
(>4.5") vegetated overflow channel on the southwest corner of the bowl. Also, there
}

appears to be sufficient land on the southwest to provide at least a 30' buffer for those
large storm overflows, if we want to require it.
So, going back to our guidance from Section .1003(a), we see that strictly speaking,
Oyster Creek doesn't meet the criterion of low density development (obviously,
otherwise we'd be permitting it under the low density option). However, the Oyster
Creek design can be configured to "protect surface waters and highly productive
aquatic resources from the adverse impacts of uncontrolled high density
development.' And the Commission has provided for permitting under these
conditions,, in part by creating the Other Projects permitting option.
S. No areas within the aroiect site are of such high density that stormwater
runoff threatens water quality.
Although the density is in excess of the 25% low density limit, the fact that the design
will contain and infiltrate 4.5" of rainfall suggests that stormwater runoff will not
threaten water quality nearly as much or as often as it would without redevelopment
of this site. So, it seems that we could consider that Oyster Creek meets this
requirement.
6. Trial balloon Summary
a) We can permit this project under the Other Projects permitting option at
.1003(d)(3)(B).
b) The; project seems to qualify as redevelopment. (Perhaps we want a little more
information about prior site uses from the applicant on this point before we're
sure.)
c) Ourijudgment is that the project meets the requirements of 2H .1000 to the
maximum extent practicable, in that it will "protect surface waters from the
adverse impacts of uncontrolled high density development" by containing and
infiltrating 3x the volume required from any other project. The fact that the
development proposes 29.2% imperviousness, (7.2% of which is really
pervious resulting in an actual impervious area of only 22%), mitigates the
significance of the 4.2% overrun of the 25% imperviousness allowed under the
low density option, and falls within the Commission's intent that the Other
Projects permitting option be applied where beneficial projects don't quite meet
the eligibility requirements for the more common permitting options provided in
.1003(d)(1), (2), and (5).
d) The 3x volume retention without surface discharge, along with the 29.2%
impervious area, is presumptive evidence that no areas within the site are of
such high density that stormwater runoff threatens water quality.
END"
y,

Re: Oyster Creek
Subject: Re: Oyster Creek
From: Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:18:19 -0400
To: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
Ken:
The site proposes to sheet flow all the runoff away from surface waters and into
the porous pavement area. Under redevelopment, I' leaning toward considering the
porous pavement as a "passive" control mitigation area to keep the project low
density. Since there is no runoff from the porous pavement area, we can easily say
that they have provided equal or greater stormwater control. And they have reduced
the amount of BUA, also a key component of redevelopment.
The marsh grass area they propose to plant isn't even part or their property. I
just love it when people propose to do something to "help" the environment on
property they have absolutely no control over. The marsh grass planting used as
mitigation is out unless they propose to create new marsh ON their property.
I like the idea of spreading out the BUA a little more to the west, creating as
much grassed buffer between the MHw line and the BUA as possible. However, I've
used a few boat ramps in my life- and traffic management is the name of the game.
The layout is a large loop. You don't want to have to turn left across the stacking
area with your empty trailer to park, that's why they are located on the right side
as you leave the ramp area. Ideally, the parking spaces would be angled so that one
could just slide,right in, but that would reduce the number of spaces. I think
they've done the, -best that could be done with this site.
I'd still like to see their design criteria for turning radii, acces road width,
number of spaces, etc. If the radius of the maneuvering area and the width of the
access road were*reduced by 51, I can eliminate almost 1500 sq ft. of BUA. Each
parking space takes up 500 sq. ft. Eliminating just one along with the previcus 5'
reductions, is a'.savings of 2,000 sq. ft.
i
I'd also like to see some sort of parking barrier along the west side of the access
road to prevent parking on the grass.
Other than the aforementioned items, I'm willing to permit this as low density
under the redevelopment option.
Linda
Ken Pickle wrote:'
Linda, <'
I have been fiddling with the Oyster Creek layout this morning. I think they can
extend the parking area three more spaces to the southwest (new total of 16
spaces). That would put the utility pole in a new island, and move the drive
southwest about'301. Their new total impervious area would be around 32.6*
(rather than 29'.64C) and they would increase their total paved area to 26,275 sf
(up from the current design of 23,875 sf), but still below the previous
impervious area of 27,000+ sf under its previous usage. So, they would still
qualify for redevelopment based on reducing the impervious area from the previous
site usage.
I realize it's not our job to design for them, but this does seem to improve the
site utilization, while still allowing us to permit it. It also raises the
overrun above 25W from +4.6% to +7.6%. Is that outside our comfort zone at this
site? Your reaction?
Ken
1 of 1 8/17/2004 6:18 PM

THE
130
ROSE
GRovP
ENGUNEERS • 11IA:VNE16 • SURVEYORS
Conceptual Plan for Stormwater Management
Oyster Creek Boating Access
Carteret County
NC Wildlife Commission
Prepared by H. Rooney Malcom, P.E.
Senior Technical Advisor
The Rose Group
Raleigh, NC
14 July 2004
Introduction
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission seeks to establish a new boating access facility alongside of US 70 at
Oyster Creek in Carteret County. The Commission staff are very sensitive to water quality issues in adjacent waters,
and they seek to include innovative stormwater quality protective features in the project to include long term
monitoring of water quality indicators in and around the site
The existing site
Over many years, the existing site has been occupied by shellfish:processing: facilities, -commercial -boat repair
facilities,-a:menhaden processing plant, -,-and most recentlya d yhacto junkyard:9The site has been cleared of debris.
Tests conducted under direction of the Cormnission staff have not detected any residual pollutants associated with its
commercial history. Such tests are being repeated and/or augmented now.
The proposed plan
The Commission seeks to establish a boating access facility with care taken to preserve the surrounding waters from
any degradation brought by its existence. Accordingly the plan includes(two features-desi - i e t:a11Q
Stormwater_from,.paved:surfaces:and:pass-the drainage -to a-pervious-pavement-section,--likely'concrete-for vertical
drainage�to:thesoil below; thence-lateral:drainage_would;pass .through-a-constructed•mars :situated -between they
,parking:lot:and:the.estuarine-waters. A site plan and analysis of performance of the pervious concrete feature are
attached.
Because of the innovative nature of the interaction of the pervious concrete and the constructed marsh, it is proposed
to establish a long term monitoring program to observe the behavior of the system through time.
Benefits sought in stormwater management
In order to achieve the overall recreation benefits and regional economic benefit of the boating access facility,
special stormwater management features are necessary. The use of the interactive features D
and constructed marsh are expected to produce effective protection of the surrounding wattt� �a
JUL 1 5 2004
BY:

pollutants. if demonstrated to be effective, these treatments will likely add to the diversity of practices for future
application elsewhere in the coastal region.
Status of development of the stormwater management plan
Subsurface investigation
A detailed subsurface investigation is being conducted by Mr. Kevin Martin. Results of his study, and his
recommendations, will be incorporated in all components of the plan.
Site plan
The current site plan is attached. Details are still in development. Proposed locations of observation wells are
shown. Further details, such as pavement edge features will be forthcoming.
Degree of imperviousness
The boating access facility as configured before the conceptual plan includes 23,700 square feet of impervious area
in a total property area of 80,600 square feet. The degree of imperviousness is 29%.
The plan is to introduce 6000 square feet of pervious concrete in the parking lot. The pervious concrete can accept
all of the 2-year, 24-hour runoff (4.5 inches) from nearly 25,000 square feet of the paved area with zero runoff
escaping the pavement cc, _
Deducting the 6000 square feet of pervious concrete from the overall impervious area yields 17,700 square feet of
net impervious area from which the runoff is captured and treated. The effective degree of imperviousness is 22%.
It is emphasized that the 17,700 square feet of impervious area, permissible in a typical project on this property, is
not allowed to flow directly to the estuary. Rather it passes through two stages of treatment that closely mimic the
natural processes.
MonitorinE plan
The monitoring plan is in preparation. Observation wells are to be placed in pairs, two each in the pervious
pavement area, the impervious pavement area, an adjacent open area typical of pre-existing conditions, and in the
edge of the marsh. These are expected to provide comparative data on the behavior flow and quality under the
various elements of the facility.
The list of water -quality constituents to be measured is under development, but it will include those of cormnon
interest (metals, nutrients, pathogenic organisms, etc.) plus any that emerge as important based on the subsurface
investigation.
The inspection and monitoring program will be coordinated with the maintenance program. Some tests will be
regularly scheduled, perhaps biweekly early on and monthly later on. Some inspection and sampling ought to take
place soon after significant precipitation events.
The pervious pavement will be cored periodically to determine its condition with respect to clogging by sediments or
oils/greases.
This concept will be developed and presented in a formal program to include record keeping and analyses to be
conducted.

— t
Inspection and Maintenance_pr_ogram
The facility will be inspected and maintained in a formal program closely coordinated with the monitoring program.
Inspection and indicated maintenance will be conducted at regular intervals, with special inspection after significant
precipitation events.
Condition of the pervious concrete should be noted at each visit with follow-up cleaning. While the edge treatments
of the pavement should prevent off -site runoff, it will likely be difficult to prevent deposition of blowing sand. The
pavement should be maintained so as to be free of sand deposits. Oil and grease deposits in parking spaces would
occupy less than 15% of the area, and pervious concrete has a very high surface infiltration rate. Oils and greases
would not be expected to limit hydraulic capacity.
Allowance is made in the design for some loss of capacity of vertical flow without causing ponding on the parking
lot.
Summary of performance of pervious concrete
The pervious concrete section is currently planned to consist of 8 inches of pervious concrete over 8 inches of clean
gravel. Indications are that, in the design storm, water level under the pavement will not rise into the gravel. If the
gravel is not needed for structural reasons, it may be eliminated.
A pervious concrete area of 6000 square feet will accept runoff from the parking lot in a storm of 4.5 inches of
rainfall in 24 hours, the two-year storm. There will be no surface runoff to the estuary except from the portion of the
boat ramp that slopes to the water. Lateral subsurface movement of runoff thus captured will move through the
constructed marsh before entering the estuary.
Conclusion
The project as conceived will provide good protection from stormwater runoff. Attendant benefits justify
experimental installation of these features. The monitoring and maintenance programs will demonstrate the extent
to which the design proves out.

2 THE
�4! AR�OiJP
Letter of Transmittal
Client:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Project
Oyster Creek Boating Access Area
Project Number:
04085.100
Date:
07-14-04
To: Linda Lewis From:
NC Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
Enclosed Please Find-
�2ty. llate uescrl ton
1 07-14-04 Copy of Project Description, Spreadsheet Analysis of Pervious System,
and Conceptual Site Plan
Transmitted Via
❑ Mail ® Overnight ❑ Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other:
For Your
❑Approval ❑ Review & Comment ® Use ❑ Other:
Remarks:
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions at 919-829-0555. Thank you.
JUL 1 5 7004
Copy To:
621-101 Hutton Street + Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 * Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
www.rosegrp.com

H.R. Malcom, P.E.
Study
Pg 1r1
Y
Pervious cone model v. 1.5
Subject:
Pervious concrete analysis and design
Object:
7o study Oyster Creek pk lot
Dated:
2-Jun-04 Extended:
Prepared b
H,R.Malcom, P.E.
Configuration
-
Pervious concrete
Thickness
8:in
Surface area
16.000 sq it
Porosity
20 %
Gravetbase
-
-
Thickness
- 8 in
'Porosity
40.%_ --
Pending limit
0'in
F_xUtration rate
6.0 inlhr
Impervious surface
Surface area
18,500 sq fl
OH -site drainage
Area
0 W fl
CN
Juuusraiy m4ujn
Effedive CN
31
Estimated runoff (5 days)
0,00 in
Available storage used
38 %
Number of hours of ponding
0 _ - -
Max pending depth
-11.4 in - -
Available storage after 24 hr
.100 % .;.-
Available storage after 5 days_
' 100.%
- Stage after 5 days
_---
. O.OJn
Additional time to drain complatety
O.hr
0 days
ate results
-
Total drained surface area -
24,500 sgft-
Storage capacity. pervious concrete
800 cuff •. - -
Storage rapacity, gravel base
1,600 tuft
Storage capacity, ponding
0 cufl
Total slommwater.storage •'
' '2,400 cuff'r`
Total precip volume
- S,188 cull -
5-dayexfiltraton volume
9,185 cult -
Total runoff (overflow)
0 crn
Water stored after 5days
0 cult -
Water balance error
0.0 arft -
Pro'ect: Wildlife Resources - ster Creek
Preliminary design
Approximate areas
Run date Values shown in blue are user inputs
Values shown in red are computed results,
1-Jun-04 See caution note at ceF B60, below.
Reference precip data Wilmington See simuiauon sheet
24-hr red 4.5 in Return period 2-_�] and Storm data sheet.
n
Design aim
TargetCN fit
Allowable runoff 1.08 in
s ..
----
_.
Von6ing
"in{nIGYPttO�
,,
Zone
Peri4iaue
-
Gon�retr-
e
C� �t� Tr rfi (?ET'f7ittr
I fiF
�I � h, it ^s �r r
E
• .
Grave3
wrkiItlrY3r
ae:
NVt
:Contro Hang
.
�exfitc aAon.
:
5Pii:
4
Wildlife Resources — Oyster Creek
40 0,0
35
1.0
30
2-0
u
C
P
25
3.0
E
-
F
20
—
4,0
S
�
z
P
c 15
5,0 -_
c
1c
6.0
5
-' ------•--- -- —
7.0
0
6.0
0 5 12 18 24 30 36 42 40 54 60 fib 72 76 84 91 97 lo3 109 115
Elapsed time (hr)
Precip (In) —Stage (in) - - - Top gravel (in) Top Pavement (in)--i--PaW emit (in)
Wildlife Resources PBNMod vJ.5 AsOf 040602xis Printed 7114f2064

OF WArFR Michael F. Easley, Governor
p William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
�fl 0 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co
Alan W. Klimek P.E.,Director
Division ofVVater Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
June 21, 2004
Mr. Mark E. Coonev
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1720 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-1720
Subject: REQUEST FOR STORNI[WATER`
MANAGEMENT
PERMIT APPLICATION
NC)XIRC Oyster Creek Boating Access Area
Stormwater Project No. SW8 040434
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Coonev:
On April 26, 2004, the Wilmington Regional Office received a copy of a
CA-MA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application for the subject project. The North Carolina
Administrative Code requires any project that must receive either Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Plan approval and/or a CAMA Major permit to apply for and receive a Stormwater
Management Permit by the Division of Water Quality. Any construction on the subject site,
prior to receipt of the required permit, will constitute a violation of 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and
may result in appropriate enforcement action by this Office.
Either a Stormwater Permit Application Package including 2 sets of plans, completed
application form, fee, and supporting documentation, or a written response regarding the status
of this project and the expected submittal date must be received in this Office no later than July
21, 2004. Failure to respond to this request may result in the initiation of enforcement action; and
construction may experience a subsequent delay.
The NTDES 010000 Federal Stormwater Permit that accompanies the Erosion Control
Plan approval letter must NOT be considered the Coastal Stormwater Management Permit,
which vrill be signed by the Water Quality Supervisor. Please reference the Project Number
above on all correspondence. If you have any questions, please call me at (910)-395-3900.
Sincerely,
ez'-Iru
Linda Levtris
Environmental Engineer I
RSS/bar: S:1WQSISTORMWATISTORMSUB1040434.Apr
cc: Katrina Marshall, Carteret County Building Inspections
Linda Lewis
Central Files
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone]
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 26405 [phone] Fax
Customer Service
1 800 623-7-748
,&-a
NTDCUR

P. 1
COMMUNICATION'�ESULT REPORT ( APR. 7.2004 11:05AM )
TTI NCDENR WIRO
FILE MODE --------OPTION----------- ---
ADDRESS (GROUP) RESULT PAGE
----------------------------------------------------- --
517 MEMORY TX89197152380 OK P. 1/1
- ------ ---- ------
-------------
-----------------------�--------_------------- -- REASON FOR ERROR � - ------
E--1) }TANG UP OR LINE FAIL E-2) BUSY
E-3) NO ANSWER E-4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION
4 \NA Michael F. Easley, Govemor
Q William G. Ross Jr. Secretary
`0.0 9 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural resources
Alan W.1Climek P.E.,Director
p .� Divisien ofwa, ter Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, t]a uty Direclnr
DNision of Water Quality
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: April 7, 2004
To; Mark Cooney
Facilities Engineer
Company: Wildlife Resources Commission
FAX #: [phone]
DWQ Stormwater Project Number; SW8 nla
Project game: Oyster Creek Boating Access
MESSAGE:
Dear Mark:
No. of Pages: 1 W---
,
From: Linda Lewis
Water Quality Section
Stormwater
FAX # [phone]
Phone # [phone]
i received your request for a preliminary review and comments regarding the
development of the subject project. Based on the information provided to me on March
24, 2004, 1 have the following questions/concerns:

OF WA7-E9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.,Director
p Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: April 7, 2004
To: Mark Cooney
Facilities Engineer
Company: Wildlife Resources Commission
FAX #: [phone]
DWQ Stormwater Project Number: SW8 nla
Project Name: Oyster Creek Boating Access
MESSAGE:
Dear Mark:
No. of Pages: 1 44L"
From: Linda Lewis
Water Quality Section
Stormwater
FAX # [phone]
Phone # [phone]
received your request for a preliminary review and comments regarding the
development of the subject project. Based on the information provided to me on March
24, 2004, 1 have the following questions/concerns:
Only the ramp itself is allowed within 30' of the mean high water line. All other
proposed BUA must be relocated outside of the 30' AEC, to include the handicap
parking spaces.
2. Avoid direct discharges from the built -upon area into SA waters by making the
edge of the ramp the high point and sheet flow the runoff away from the ramp.
3. There is too much proposed built -upon area. For low density projects within 112
mile of and draining to SA waters, the maximum built -upon area is 25% of the site
area, excluding wetlands. The slight reduction in BUA from the exising condition, of
45% impervious to 39% impervious, is not enough to justify allowing this project to
develop as proposed. Additionally, the drainage pattern has not been revised from
the existing condition.
RSSlarl: S:IWQSISTORMWATIADDINF0120041oystercreek.apr04
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service 6rti#-
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] INUM_R

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
March 22, 2004
Ms. Linda Lewis
DENHR- DWQ
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext. 4'71
Wilmington, NC 28405 7MAR $ 4 2004
Re: Oyster Creek Boating Access Area- Carteret County�--�...��_ �
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Per our telephone conversation last week, please find an enclosed copy of the design
drawings for the Oyster Creek Boating Access Area in Carteret County. The proposed
access area is located on Oyster Creek at Core Sound in waters designated as Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW). Your comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated
in preparation of the Stormwater Management Permit Application.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact
me at [phone] x295 or (919) 218-1 120 (mobile) or via email at
mark.cooney pwricwildlife.org. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Cooney, Facilities Engineer
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
Mailing Address: 1720 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1720
Office Location: 512 N. Salisbury Street • Raleigh, NC • Telephone: [phone] Fax : [phone]