SW8040129_Historical File_20200714

Pusey, Steven
From:
Pusey, Steven
Sent:
Tuesday, July 14, 2020 SA8 PM
To:
donald roe
Cc:
Mark Arcuri; Nick Garner; Johnson, Kelly
Subject:
RE: [External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at
Carolina Place
Mr. Roe:
reviewed the file today and in response to your questions, see below:
1. The results from the soil borings are in the file in a document dated 1-22-04.
2. The details for the Dreamweaver Court bypass structure are shown on the plans dated 2-4-05. This is
for Basin 2A. It's in the file.
3. Recourse to pursue the certifying engineer: Can be reported to the certification board if the error is
bad enough.
4. Recourse to pursue the developer: Generally, a Notice of Violation is issued to them if something is
not built in accordance with the plans. However, this permit has already been transferred to the HOA.
Can you send me some photos by email to show this area you refer to as being the Dreamweaver Court
bypass?
Thanks,
Steve
Steven G.Pusey
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
State Stormwater Program
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive, Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: [phone]
Direct: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
DEQ
Email correspondence to and from this ,:dt,'re s ec: to the
North Carolina PubA. Reoarrs Law and maybe disclosedto th."i'd parties.
From: donald roe <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 1:45 PM

To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Cc: Pusey, Steven <[e-mail]>; Mark Arcuri <[e-mail]>; Nick Garner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at Carolina Place
unless you verify. Send ailaO 5 sp dous -
A�- -
Hello Ms. Johnson, Our engineer, SEPI, is working with Mr. Pusey. I have not yet had opportunity to meet Mr. Pusey but
have had opportunity to review SW8 040129 and completed the review of the entire file on March 9th. Questions
numbered 1 & 2 pertain to documents not in the file. It is hoped that you could point me in the right direction to find
and review those documents. Question 3 is not addressed by the file since it is not in reference to the file
documents but to the State's recourse to pursue parties such as the certifying engineer should the "bypass" not be in
accordance with the Permit. I apologize for any confusion about this matter; in trying to make the email of May 13th
succinct, narrative providing context was deleted. Our Board is very appreciative of the help your Department is giving
to us as we seek resolutions. Thanks, don roe
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 13, 2020, at 11:16 AM, Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Roe,
It looks like you have been working with my co-worker, Steve Pusey (cc'd), on this one. I really do not
know any details. If you would like to schedule a file review to see what we have please let me
know. We schedule those 8:30-10:00 and 2-4:30 (last appointment is at 3pm). I can set that up for you
this afternoon (Monday), tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon, or Thursday afternoon this week.
Here is the standard file review info:
If you haven't reviewed a file with us before, please remember to:
• bring a photo ID
• wear a mask at all times
• limit the number of individuals reviewing the file to no more than 2 people (1 person is
preferred)
• call me when you arrive so I can escort you into the office
• leave all bags in your vehicle
There will be a copier/scanner available for your use. You can bring a USB drive for scanning, use the
email feature on the copier to send the scans directly to your email, or you can bring a check to pay for
any paper copies. If the total number of copies exceeds 100 pages (or $5), each paper copy is $0.05.
The copier is not sized to handle plan sheets; however, you may take pictures of the plan sheets. If
taking pictures of the plan sheets does not fit your needs, we will arrange to have the plan sheets copied
at a nearby copy shop at your expense. To do so, please flag the plan sets/sheets you wish to have
copied / scanned with a post -it note, put the entire plan set (not just the individual page) on the outside
of the file, and include your contact information (phone number and email) on the file review
sheet. The copy shop, Allways Graphics, will contact you for payment.
Thanks,
Kelly

K.eLLWokwsow
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Starmwater Permitting
127 Cardinai Drive Extension
Wilmington, IBC 28405-3843
Phone: [phone]
Note Change in Phone Number
<image002 Jpg>
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be suaject to t e North Carolina Public Records Law
and may .be disclosed to third parties.
From: Sams, Dan
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hall, Christine <[e-mail]>; Hay, Patricia <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at
Carolina Place
Kelly:
When i went to review the file for the questions in this inquiry, the file card has it in your
possession. Would you please respond to Mr. Roe?
Many thanks....
dan
From: donald roe <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Joe Sgro <[e-mail]>; Joe Moraleda <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
Stewart Gillard <[e-mail]>; Stefanie Hubble <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at Carolina
Place
Good Morning Mr. Sams, I am following up to an email sent to Ms. Hay on May 13, 2020. She kindly
offered to forward that email to you. For your convenience it appears below. Our Seaspray BOD
continues to meet to address our Stormwater Management in a cost effective manner as the flooding on
Kona Court continues with heavy rain events. Any assistance your Department could provide is greatly
appreciated and needed. I will communicate your update back to the BOD at our Jul;y 22, 2020
meeting. Thanks, don roe

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: donald roe <uncledon2.1 @sbcglobal.net>
To: Patricia. Hay(aD-ncdenr.gov <patricia.hay(a)-ncdenr.gov>
Cc: biellend (a)-outlook.com <bjellend(aD-outlook.com>; Joe Sgro <Isgro _PeoPIepc.com>; Joe Moraleda
<moraleda84(@yahoo.com>; Stewart Gillard <stewghomes(a-)gmail.com>; Stefanie Hubble
<shubble(oD-camsmgt.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 1:26:12 PM EDT
Subject: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at Carolina Place
Hello Pat, It was in early March that you assisted me with the above file. I hope that you have remained
well during these troubled times and that safer times will return for all of us in the not too distant future. At
that time I did not identify myself as representing an organization. Today I am writing on behalf of the
Seaspray Villas Condominium Association; I am a member of HOA Board of Directors. We are
developing a plan to deal with excessive stormwater that floods Kona Court and threatens homes.
With regard to the above Permit, page 3 shows a chart of permitted design elements. Soil type for Basin
3B is identified as Kureb with an infiltration rate of 6.1"/hr. We now know that there is a silty clay layer
that adversely affects it's permeability/infiltration.
Our questions are:
1) What are the results of the original soil borings, and are they available for viewing?
If yes, how?
2) Where are details for the Dreamweaver Court Bypass for runoff in excess of the volume
design, and are they available for viewing? If yes, how?
3) Does the State have any recourse to pursue the certifying engineer, developer, or builder
if this Bypass was not done in accordance with the Permit? If yes, how would this be
be pursued?
We are working with Nick Garner of Coastal Carolina Resource Group and Mark Arcuri of
SEPI to develop a sound, affordable plan for our community. Any and all help from your Department
would be greatly appreciated as we look to resolve this problem.
Thank you. Stay safe. donald roe, 4917 Dreamweaver Ct. Unit 1, Southport, NC 28461

Pusey, Steven
From: donald roe <uncledon2.1 @sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 1:45 PM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: Pusey, Steven; Mark Arcuri; Rick Garner
Subject: Re: [External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at
Carolina Place
Hello Ms. Johnson, Our engineer, SEPI, is working with Mr. Pusey. I have not yet had opportunity to meet Mr. Pusey but
have had opportunity to review SW8 040129 and completed the review of the entire file on March 9th. Questions
numbered 1 & 2 pertain to documents not in the file. It is hoped that you could point me in the right direction to find
and review those documents. Question 3 is not addressed by the file since it is not in reference to the file
documents but to the State's recourse to pursue parties such as the certifying engineer should the "bypass" not be in
accordance with the Permit. I apologize for any confusion about this matter; in trying to make the email of May 13th
succinct, narrative providing context was deleted. Our Board is very appreciative of the help your Department is giving
to us as we seek resolutions. Thanks, don roe
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 13, 2020, at 11:16 AM, Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Roe,
It looks like you have been working with my co-worker, Steve Pusey (cc'd), on this one. I really do not
know any details. If you would like to schedule a file review to see what we have please let me
know. We schedule those 8:30-10:00 and 2-4:30 (last appointment is at 3pm). I can set that up for you
this afternoon (Monday), tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon, or Thursday afternoon this week.
Here is the standard file review info:
If you haven't reviewed a file with us before, please remember to:
• bring a photo ID
• wear a mask at all times
• limit the number of individuals reviewing the file to no more than 2 people (1 person is
preferred)
• call me when you arrive so I can escort you into the office
• leave all bogs in your vehicle
There will be a copier/scanner available for your use. You can bring a USB drive for scanning, use the
email feature on the copier to send the scans directly to your email, or you can bring a check to pay for
any paper copies. If the total number of copies exceeds 100 pages (or $5), each paper copy is $0.05.
The copier is not sized to handle plan sheets; however, you may take pictures of the plan sheets. If
taking pictures of the plan sheets does not fit your needs, we will arrange to have the plan sheets copied
at a nearby copy shop at your expense. To do so, please flag the plan sets/sheets you wish to have

Johnson, Kell
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 11:17 AM
To: uncledon2.1 @sbcglobal.net
Cc: Pusey, Steven; Mark Arcuri; Nick Garner
Subject: FW: (External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at
Carolina Place
Mr. Rce,
It looks like you have been working with my co-worker, Steve Pusey (cc'd), on this one. I really do not know any
details. If you would like to schedule a file review to see what we have please let me know. We schedule those 8:3C-
10:00 and 2-4:30 (last appointment is at 3pm). l can set that up for you t'-:is afternoon (Monday), tornorrow (Tuesday)
afternoon; or Thursday afternocn this week.
Here is the standard fiie review info:
If you haven't reviewed a file with us before, please remember to:
• bring a photo ID
• wear a mask at all times
• limit the number of individuals reviewing the file to no more than 2 people (1 person is preferred)
• call me when you arrive so I can escort you into the office
• leave all baps in your vehicle
There will be a copier/scanner available for your use. You can bring a USB drive for scanning, use the email feature on
the copier to send the scans directly to your email, or you can bring a check to pay for any paper copies. If the total
number of copies exceeds 100 pages (or $5), each paper copy is $0.05.
The copier is not sized to handle plan sheets; however, you may take pictures of the plan sheets. If taking pictures of the
plan sheets does not fit your needs, we will arrange to have the plan sheets copied at a nearby copy shop at your
expense. To do so, please flag the plan sets/sheets you wish to have copied / scanned with a post -it note, put the entire
plan set (not just the individual page) on the outside of the file, and include your contact information (phone number
and email) on the file review sheet. The copy shop, Allways Graphics, will contact you for payment.
Thanks,
Kelly
KzLLWO vL,sov%,
Kelly :oh son
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Energy, DAnera! and Land Resources
:Starmwater Permitting
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, IMC 28405-33 45
Phone: [phone]
ivote Change;:; Phone fflumber

1W
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Sams, Dan
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hall, Christine <Christine. Ha I I @ncden r.gov>; Hay, Patricia <Patricia. Hay@ ncdenr.gov>
Subject: FW: [External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at Carolina Place
Kelly:
When I went to review the file for the questions in this inquiry, the file card has it in your possession. Would you please
respond to Mr. Roe?
Many thanks....
dan
From: donald roe <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Sams, Dan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Joe Sgro <[e-mail]>; Joe Moraleda <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Stewart Gillard
<[e-mail]>; Stefanie Hubble <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Fw: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at Carolina Place
Good Morning Mr. Sams, I am following up to an email sent to Ms. Hay on May 13, 2020. She kindly offered to forward
that email to you. For your convenience it appears below. Our Seaspray BOD continues to meet to address our
Stormwater Management in a cost effective manner as the flooding on Kona Court continues with heavy rain events. Any
assistance your Department could provide is greatly appreciated and needed. I will communicate your update back to the
BOD at our Jul;y 22, 2020 meeting. Thanks, don roe
---- Forwarded Message -----
From: donald roe <uncledon2.1 sbcglobal.net>
To: Patricia. HayZDncdenr.gov <patricia.hayCa.ncdenr.gov>
Cc: biellend(cD-outlook.com <biellend(ZDoutlook.com>; Joe Sgro <isgro(Qpeoplepc.com>; Joe Moraleda
<moraleda84(d),yahoo.com>; Stewart Gillard <stewghomes _gmail.com>; Stefanie Hubble <shubbleCa.camsmgt.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 1:26:12 PM EDT
Subject: Followup questions to review of Permit SW8 040129 Seaspray Cove at Carolina Place
Hello Pat, It was in early March that you assisted me with the above file. I hope that you have remained well during these
troubled times and that safer times will return for all of us in the not too distant future. At that time I did not identify myself
as representing an organization. Today I am writing on behalf of the Seaspray Villas Condominium Association; I am a
member of HOA Board of Directors. We are developing a plan to deal with excessive stormwater that floods Kona Court
and threatens homes.

With regard to the above Permit, page 3 shows a chart of permitted design elements. Soil type for Basin 3B is identified
as Kureb with an infiltration rate of 6.1"/hr. We now know that there is a silty clay gayer that adversely affects it's
permeability/infiltration.
Our questions are:
1) What are the results of the original soil borings, and are they available for viewing? T4 /t�
If yes, how? tO- l - ?2.0
2) Where are details for the Dreamweaver Court Bypass for runoff in excess of the volume O w (4i�S dQS,/c� Z -�f •off'
design, and are they available for viewing? If yes, how? 13t. S4, 2 A -Q-
r
s` Does the State have any recourse to pursue the certifying engineer, developer, or builder,
if this Bypass was not done in accordance with the Permit? If yes, how would this be �Q,,, •
be pursued? It t^-b r �, s4-e,6 to , can i 5s,-c- IJo J fs r n i j-b4Ld. , - rep l � Ole. 4"
We are working with Nick Garner of Coastal Carolina Resource Group and Mark Arcuri of � Z&%a .
SEPI to develop a sound, affordable plan for our community. Any and all help from your Department would be greatly
appreciated as we look to resolve this problem.
Thank you. Stay safe. donald roe, 4917 Dreamweaver Ct. Unit 1, Southport, NC 28461
� 9
3

ROY COOPER
governor
DIONNE DELLI-GATTI
Secretory
BRIAN WRENN
D rer.1opr
NQRTH CAROUNA
artmmnental Quay
2oz>M
The board has the following questions they would like to discuss during this meeting:
$P1
caH
C-�-Vor-
Seaspray Community Association is the sole holder of Permit SW8 040129. Given General Conditions 1,
5, and 8 of the Permit how is it that the Villas are involved in this project? Can the State make such a
rendering? Has the State been requested to make such a rendering?
r h �1eI
IVIC4 5 ( yAe,.* h 4,Si;rs a
O2Can variances and/or exceptions to State regulations be granted in order to use less costly options to
control flooding? What steps need to be taken to apply for variances?
03.The SEPI proposal gets Kona Court floodwaters to the Villas southern property line abutting Egret
Crossing. Yetto be determined and priced are downstream issues such as easements, permitting,
engineering, construction, and ongoing maintenance. What will the State require for such a project to
proceed given possible impacts to downstream property owners?
What is your hest recommendation for managing the overflow of stormwater onto Kona Court during
(/ periods of heavy rain?
5. Are there any grants dollars for which we could apply? If yes, could you point us in that direction?
L)I i
6. Are you aware of any Lenders that would loan on this project? If yes, could you give us names?
North Carolina ❑enarimern of ErMronmental QLwhty ; Division of Energy. M rural and Land Resoumrs
j��jD E Wilmington Regional Officc 127 CardtnafDrive Extension lWilmingtom.Nonh Carolina 28AC5
���""" mom r ' p14:7�a.7L45

Pusey, Steven
From: Mark Arcuri <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Pusey, Steven
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Inspection report for Seaspray Cove
Steve, hope you are doing well and staying healthy!!!!
Last year, the HOA hired us to look at flooding issues and we recommended a solution, but it is costly, and so the HOA
hired us to look at some other solutions. I'd like to talk to you about these options.
We can meet in person at your office. We can stay 6 feet apart on opposite sides of the table. I would need to print out
some maps to show you.
However, it would probably be easier if we can meet virtually over Zoom. That way I don't have to go into the office and
print everything out. And since all our work is on our server, I can pull up anything we need.
I think we would talk for about 30 to 45 minutes. When is a good time this week to Zoom?
Ihank youllIH
r mil'
{�A
�li/�TK ARton �CY/R# 'IYOeWynvW
1
pL
Q'a^p qv
MY. OWUf1
"!y "Coo" p'ira, SLeft a. wrtrrr. Vtor. YC. 284D_1
r
dike 91a"O_OW$ , Cos: 940.2w.W4 I sync aam
We Are Here
Some Sure
UnMernipled
[sepiinc.com,
[Mfil�nkecrin.coml [twitter.coml OI�[ins-a�ram.corn -} ffacebook.co
Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended only for the designated recipientlsj. It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be
subject to the attorney -client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this
message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
From: Pusey, Steven <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:45 AM
To: Nick Garner <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Cheryl Mitchell' <[e-mail]>; 'Stefanie Hubble' <[e-mail]>; Mark Arcuri
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Inspection report for Seaspray Cove
Nick,
Thanks for your thorough explanation of the problem at Seaspray Cove. Apparently, the dividing line between the
Yaupon and Newhan fine sands lies in between the basin that infiltrates and the messed up basin. Also, I agree that the

system should have some type of bypass for large storms. Let me know if there's anything we can do to help modify the
permit.
Thanks,
Steve
From: Nick Garner <nick ccrgnc.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 6:40 PM
To: Pusey, Steven <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Cheryl Mitchell' <citchell camsmgt.com>; 'Stefanie Hubble' <[e-mail]>; 'Mark Arcuri'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Inspection report for Seaspray Cove
+ not click links or open attAt%rofftlunles.s you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Good Evening Steve,
Thank you for the inspection report. I'm sorry I missed you on the day you visited the site. I wanted to follow up with our
conversation regarding the current state of infiltration 3B. As you may know we have had issues with phragmites in this
basin. We worked for years to chemically treat this vegetation and get it under control. We have added bacteria to help
break down the accumulated organics in the basin and to help re-establish the infiltration. With all the rain we had last
year, this basins lack of performance caused the townhome area to flood numerous times. I started working with the
board to come with solutions.
Our first step was to dredge the basins bottom back to natural soils and remove any remnant phragmite root debris that
may be blinding off the facility. We proceeded with this and had just pulled the machines out of the basin a few days
before your arrival. During our dredging operation we found that all the natural subsoils were composed of a clay loam.
We dug a few eight foot deep test wells and found that the clayey loam was present at a!I depths. The presence of this
clay is restricting the infiltration. I proceeded to the NRCS website and found that this area was mapped as having a
Yaupon silty clay loam. I have attached the soil map and description for your records. Given this situation, we will never
be able to get infiltration in this soil.
Because of the current complexity of this situation, I brought Mark Arcuri with SEPI engineering on board to help
engineer a solution to this problem. During our walk through, Mark has also determined that this basin lacks the ability
to go offline during these large storm events. We are currently working with the board to come up with cost effective
options to resolve these problems. We will keep you informed as we work through this. I assume some additional
permitting will be in order. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Thanks so much;
Nick Garner
CCRG- Stormwater Manager
910.470.4225
ni ck a ccrgnc.com
From: Pusey, Steven[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:24 PM
To: Nick Garner ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inspection report for Seaspray Cove
Nick,
2

Attached is my inspection report for Seaspray Cove in Brunswick County. I assume you will be helping the Association to
develop and submit a formal Plan of Action on this matter.
Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks,
`Ate,� `)UJey
Steve Pusey, El
Environmental Engineer II
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources — State Stormwater
Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7215 office
910 796 7334 direct
[e-mail]
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
:;)Cli "'.-- - - • . i'i ._ tG ... , C i7f fi!'- .SS :;'u- .-A to t, -
SL
AIIIIIIIIIN
Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.
3

Pusey, Steven
From: Jimmy Fentress <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Nick Garner, Pusey, Steven
Subject: RE: Sea Spray Cove infiltration basin lA
The local sand would be better and should meet or exceed the infiltration rate reported by Steve as it is not very high.
would like a sample of the material prior to giving a final approval however. A small bag representative of the material
will suffice. It should be delivered to our office.
Thanks,
Jimmy
James H. Fentress Jr. PE 20643, PLS L-3902
Stroud Engineering, PA
102D Cinema Dr.
AriImington, NC 28412
910.915.0775 x223
www.stroudengineer.com
Click here to upload large files to me securely.
From: Nick Garner [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 12:19 PM
To:'Pusey, Steven' <steve n. p usey@ ncde n r.gov>
Cc: Jimmy Fentress <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Sea Spray Cove infiltration basin 1A
Steve,
Attached are some Level Laser Field Notes I took back on 11-3-16. 1 hope you can read my scratch. The Map on the left
depicts the shot number location with circles 1-21. The elevations for Basin 113, the berm and drainage ditch are
calculated on the right page. Basin 1A elevations are depicted in Red on the left page. Please note that the elevations are
assumed off the Basin 1A inlet pipe invert elevation of 16.41 ft as depicted on a WK Dickson survey from 1-19-161 found
in the SW permit file.
If you look at the notes, the Average bottom elevation for Basin 1B is 19.83 ft and for Basin 1A is 15.62 ft. This is not
considering datum conversions.
The new proposed depressed detail sheet I was provided for Basin 1 A indicates the new proposed basin bottom
elevation is to be 18 ft. Based on a rough GIS measurement on the Basin, I found the basins estimated area to be 8755
sq.ft.
So:
18 ft. (Target Depth) —15.62 ft. (Est. Ave Depth) = 2.4 ft. of material to be added.
8755 sq.ft. (est. Area) x 2.4 ft. (ext. fill depth) 21012 cu.ft. or 778 cu.yds.
Jimmy,

Based on what Steve has provided for infiltration factors, how do you what to handle the material choice? I know I can
get clean Concrete sand from Wilmington materials off Hwy 421. This would be a long haul for approximately 50
truckloads. I contacted a trucking company which informed me of a sand borrow pit somewhere nearby but they said it
is not washed or certified. In order to calculate the infiltration rates of this material, would we need to request a
geotechnical engineer to test the burrow pit in -situ soils to see if it is suitable for you? Or do you have a place already
that has been tested?
I will write my repair proposal based on you recommendations. Thanks!
Nick Garner
CCRG- Stormwater Manager
910.470.4225
nick: h)cc gnccom
From: Pusey, Steven[mailto:steven.pL![e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:31 AM
To: Nick Garner (nick _ ccrgnc.com) <nick@ccr nc.com>; Jimmy Fentress (iferitress ._ stroudengineer.com)
<ifentress2stroudengineer.corri>
Subject: Sea Spray Cove infiltration basin 1A
Nick,
Per our discussion, here are the basic design parameters concerning the seasonal high water table and the bottom of
the infiltration basin. The following information came from the new Design Manual. The lowest point of the infiltration
system shall be a minimum of two feet above the SHWT. However, the separation may be reduced to no less than one
foot if the applicant provides a hydrogeologic evaluation that demonstrates that the water table will subside to its pre -
storm elevation within five days or less. There are two primary reasons for the two -foot separation requirement; the
first is the inherent uncertainty in pinpointing the exact location of the SHWT in the field, and the second is the potential
for mounding of the groundwater table in the vicinity of the infiltration system. If the mounding becomes severe
enough, the infiltration will not function as designed. See Part A-2 of the Design Manual for guidance on what should be
provided in a hydrogeologic evaluation.
Concerning the soil type, theoretically, it should all be in -situ soil below the basin. The soil type for that basin is Yaupon
type with an infiltration rate of 4.6 inches per hour. So, the fill material should be similar to that. The current
drawdown time is calculated to be 0.25 days. Theoretically, it can be up to 3 days drawdown time under the new
rules. So, there may be some leeway on the infiltration rate. If a different soil is used, new calculations would be
required to show that the drawdown time is 3 days or less.
Steve
6te e, Pwei
Steve Pusey
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources — State Stormwater Program
Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7215 office
910 796 7334 direct
steven. puseyCa_ncdenr.gov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405

Pusey, Steven
From: Pusey, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:31 AM
To: Nick Garner (nick@ cc rg nc.co m); Jimmy Fentress [e-mail])
Subject: Sea Spray Cove infiltration basin 1A
Nick,
Per our discussion, here are the basic design parameters concerning the seasonal high water table and the bottom of
the infiltration basin. The following information came from the new Design Manual. The lowest point of the infiltration
system shall be a minimum of two feet above the SHWT. However, the separation may be reduced to no less than one
foot if the applicant provides a hydrogeologic evaluation that demonstrates that the water table will subside to its pre -
storm elevation within five days or less. There are two primary reasons for the two -foot separation requirement; the
first is the inherent uncertainty in pinpointing the exact location of the SHWT in the field, and the second is the potential
for mounding of the groundwater table in the vicinity of the infiltration system. If the mounding becomes severe
enough, the infiltration will not function as designed. See Part A-2 of the Design Manual for guidance on what should be
provided in a hydrogeologic evaluation.
Concerning the soil type, theoretically, it should all be in -situ soil below the basin. The soil type for that basin is Yaupon
type with an infiltration rate of 4.6 inches per hour. So, the fill material should be similar to that. The current
drawdown time is calculated to be 0.25 days. Theoretically, it can be up to 3 days drawdown time under the new
rules. So, there may be some leeway on the infiltration rate. If a different soil is used, new calculations would be
required to show that the drawdown time is 3 days or less.
Steve
Steve ?rgsa�
Steve Pusey
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources State Stormwater Program
Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7215 office
910 796 7334 direct
Steven. Pusey(cDncdenr.aov
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[""'r(tt.
anti tcr�r,' Xy�,�;rrt
Email corres; ondence to and frona this vuure;�s ic:, svbjeot to ram•
1VI,:ah C:aiciiaa Flv fF;: Records La,,,., cwd 11 ay h_- `"3cioset it-) ibird ^cr ies.
Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.