SW8060238_HISTORICAL FILE_20090724

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 O�9Q12bV
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
® HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
200g0`121
YYYYMMDD
I

r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
July 24, 2009
Dennis Sullivan
Maco Road Partners, LLC
7101 Creedmore Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27613
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
Subject: NOTICE OF INSPECTION and APPROVED PLAN REVISION
Grayson Park Phases 1A and 1B
Stormwater Project No. SW8 060238
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On May 18, 2009, the Wilmington Regional Office received a plan revision for Stormwater
Management Permit Number SW8 060238. This followed an April 30, 2009 Plan Revision
Request Return and Notice of Inspection. In this letter, the Division told you to inform this Office
in writing before May 30, 2009 of the specific actions that would be undertaken and the time
frame that will be required to correct the deficiencies found during an inspection conducted on
April 23, 2009. Specifically, the April 30, 2009 letter required you to address the following items:
1. The site must be constructed per approved plans.
2. The ponds should have been completed prior to constructing any impervious area in the
drainage area. The ponds must, be completed.
3. Engineer certifications must be submitted certifying that the construction matches the
approved plans and is in accordance with all permit conditions`.
4. Recorded deed restrictions must be submitted.
'The April 23, 2009 inspection report included with the April 30, 2009 letter cited that Ponds 1,
5, and 6 did not have forebay berms or baffles visible during the inspection and that all ponds
must be constructed to meet all of the requirements of the permitted plans including the side
slopes, length/slope of the vegetated shelf, forebay berm (or baffle), etc.
A meeting was held to discuss a modified outlet design on May 27, 2009, but a plan of action
was not received by May 30, 2009, as was required. A follow up inspection was conducted on
July 17, 2009 and the site was found to be in violation of permit conditions. A formal Notice of
Violation will be issued on August 7, 2009 if you fail to inform this Office in writina before
close of business August 6, 2009 of the specific actions that would be undertaken and the
time frame that will be required to correct the deficiencies found during an inspection conducted
on July 17, 2009, as described below. Please note that failure to provide the requested
information, when required, may initiate enforcement action including the assessment of
civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day. And, by copy of the potential August 7, 2009 letter to
the Brunswick County Building Inspection Office, NCDENR will request that the Building
Inspector consider withholding building permits and Certificates of Occupancy for this
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: vnvw.ncvvaterquality.org
North Carolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

SW8 060238
July 24, 2009
Approved Plan Revision
On May 28, 2009, the Wilmington Regional Office received a plan revision for Stormwater
Management Permit Number SW8 060238.
The following revisions have been approved
1. Pond 1: Removal of the clay key.
2. Pond 4:
a. Removal of the wooden baffle to be replaced by an earthen berm with a weir
between the forebay and the pond.
b. Installation of an 8" PVC orifice pipe with a 2" drilled orifice cap instead of the
concrete outlet box structure originally proposed*.
3. Pond 5: Installation of an 8" PVC orifice pipe with a 2" drilled orifice cap instead of the
concrete outlet box structure originally proposed*.
4. Pond 6: Installation of an 8" PVC orifice pipe with a 2" drilled orifice cap instead of the
concrete outlet box structure originally proposed*.
*Additional conditions of the modified outlet structure:
1. The permittee will monitor the stability of the structures quarterly for two years in order to
determine if the outlet structures function properly, and if the berm has settled. The
permittee will maintain logbooks for Ponds 4, 5, and 6 documenting the following:
Date of inspection for each quarter beginning in 4Q09, which will be defined as
October through December 2009, (4Q09, 1Q10, 2Q10, 3Q10, 4Q10, 1Q11,
2Q11, 3Q11). If the outlet structure(s) are not installed prior to October 2009,
then inspections for those pond(s) will be delayed until first quarter after
installation and will continue quarterly for two years for a total of at least eight
inspections. Any delay of installation must follow the plan of action required in
response to this Notice of Inspection.
b. Time of inspection
c. Inspector name
d. Inches of rainfall within 48 hours prior to the inspection. (The inspections must
take place within 48 hours of rainfall that would result in visible elevation of the
temporary pool of the ponds, and must take place before the temporary pool is
drained from the pond in order for the inspector to witness the outlet structure's
functionality. If there is not a storm large enough to raise the elevation of the
pond within the quarter, the permittee will document this circumstance in the
logbook, and then conduct that quarter's inspection within the next quarter so
that at least eight inspections are done for each pond within the two year period.)
e. Approximate depth of the temporary pool above the invert of the permitted
temporary pool drawdown pipe at the time of inspection.
f. Notes regarding the ability of the structure to drawdown the temporary pool within
2-5 days.
g. Notes regarding the stability of the outlet structures both for each inspection and
relative to the previous inspection. These notes shall be detailed enough to track
the stability of each outlet structure over time.
Page 2 of 5

SW8 060238
July 24, 2009
h. Notes regarding any maintenance done to the pond(s) to improve the outlet
berm's stability if such maintenance is found to be necessary.
2. After two years:
a. The permittee will submit copies of the logbooks and a summary report of each
outlet structure's functionality to the Division. If the outlet structure(s) are
determined by the Division to be stable and functional, then they will be permitted
to remain in place and no further monitoring will be needed in excess of the
normal Operation and Maintenance agreement(s).
b. If the outlet structure(s) are determined by the Division NOT to be stable and
functional, then they will be removed and the original concrete box structures
approved in conjunction with the September 21, 2006 permit will be installed.
c. If the outlet structure of any pond is not installed prior to October 2009, in which
case inspections for that pond would not begin until the first quarter after
installation as discussed above, the permittee will provide the logbooks and
summaries discussed above as separate installments to the Division as the data
becomes available for each pond.
3. The approval of the modified outlet structure as a pipe through a berm without a
concrete outlet box does not constitute general approval of this type of outlet
structure for any other current or future projects. At a meeting on May 27, 2009
representatives of your engineering firm agreed that they will not propose any
future outlet structures of this design, and they understand that if they do propose
these types of outlet structures in the future they will not be permitted.
It has been determined that a formal permit modification is not required for the proposed
changes. We are forwarding you an approved copy of the revised plans for your files. Please
replace the old approved plan sheets with the new ones.
Please be aware that all terms and conditions of the permit issued on September 21, 2006,
remain in full force and effect. Please also understand that the approval of this revision to
the approved plans for the subject State Stormwater Permit is done on a case -by -case
basis. Any other changes to this project must be approved through this Office prior to
construction. The issuance of this plan revision does not preclude the permittee from
complying with all other applicable statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances which may
have jurisdiction over the proposed activity, and obtaining a permit or approval prior to
construction.
Page 3 of 5

SW8 060238
July 24, 2009
Notice of Inspection:
Please find attached a copy of the completed form entitled "Stormwater Compliance Inspection
Report". The report summarizes the findings of a recent inspection of the project's stormwater
controls conducted on July 17, 2009 to determine compliance with stormwater permit SW8
060238.
On July 17, 2009, an inspector of the Wilmington Regional Office performed an Inspection to
determine the status of compliance with Stormwater Permit Number SW 060238 issued to you
on September 21, 2006 for the subject project, located at off of Maco Road in Leland in
Brunswick County, North Carolina.
The following deficiencies were noted
1. Engineer's Certification: There is no Engineer's Certification on file for Ponds 1, 4, 5, or
6.
2. Forebay Berms: Berms were not installed in Ponds 1 or 5.
Outlet Structures: The outlet structures designed for Ponds 1 and 5 are not serving as
the primary outlets. The permanent pool elevations of the ponds, as they are functioning
today, are the elevations of the line between the grass and the earthen non -vegetated
area, which is also the invert elevations of the corrugated pipes that are serving as the
primary drawdown devices for both ponds. This is evident in the attached inspection
pictures. The permanent pool elevation should be at the drawdown orifice of the outlet
structure. However, the outlet structure of Pond 1 is significantly below the elevation of
the grassed edge. The outlet structure of Pond 5 was not visible. If it is present, it is
below the elevation of the grassed edge. Both Ponds 1 and 5 were inspected on April
23, 2009 and during both inspections both ponds had earthen non -vegetated area below
their corrugated pipes, which appear to be serving as the primary drawdown device in
each pond rather than the intended drawdown pipes.
Required Response
Please respond to this letter in writing to the address listed at the bottom of the letterhead by
close of business on August 6, 2009. The response shall provide a written "Plan of Action"
which outlines the actions you will take to correct the following deficiencies and a time frame for
completion of those actions. All actions must be taken within ninety (90) days. (The ponds
should have been completed before constructing any impervious area in the drainage area.)
Engineer's Certification: Submit an Engineer's Certification for Ponds 1, 4, 5, and 6.
This certification shall indicate that all 15 certification requirements listed on page 8 of
your permit have been met for each pond.
Plan Revision: The plan revision, as listed in this letter, approves the removal of
a clay liner in Pond 1, the removal of a wooden baffle and replacement by a berm
in Pond 4, and the installation of a "pipe through berm" outlet structure for Ponds
4, 5, and 6. The certification shall indicate that the site is in compliance with its
permit, which will include the items Plan Revisions approved by this letter.
b. Side Slopes: The presence and/or slope and length of the vegetated shelf and
the slope of the vegetated sides have not been specifically listed as deficiencies,
Page 4 of 5

SW8 060238
July 24, 2009
but it does not appear that they have been installed correctly. In your
certification, please ensure that the slopes have been installed correctly.
Forebay Berms: As a response to the deficiency that the berms are not installed, install
berms in Ponds 1 and 5, as required by your September 21, 2006 permit. As a
response to the approval of a berm installed rather than a wooden baffle, install the berm
in Pond 4 that is approved by this letter if it has not already been installed.
3. Outlet Structure: As a response to the deficiency that the outlet structures designed for
Ponds 1 and 5 are not the primary outlets, raise the outlet structures of Ponds 1 and 5 to
their correct elevations. As a response to the approval of modified outlet structures for
ponds 4, 5, and 6, install the "pipe through berm" outlet structure approved by the plan
revision in this letter if they have not already been installed.
Deed Restrictions: Though it is not listed as a deficiency above, recorded deed
restrictions are required before a plan revision is issued. Because this plan revision had
to be issued in conjunction with this Notice of Inspection so that all of the latest permit
requirements could be certified in your response to this letter, this plan revision was
issued without recorded deed restrictions on file. Therefore, you are also required to
submit recorded deed restrictions because you have received this plan revision.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (910) 796-
7215 or [e-mail].
qJoSincerI2
Environmental Engineer
GDS\KPJ: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\PERMIT\060238rev.ju109
S:\WQS\Storm Water\INSPECT\060238.j u109
enc: Inspection pictures
Inspection report
cc: Greg Presby, Cape Fear Engineering
Noelle Winstead, Cape Fear Engineering
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
Page 5 of 5

Johnson, Kelly
From: Greg Presby[[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:47 PM N
To: Johnson, Kelly
Cc: Noelle Winstead -*Ndl Move �OnNp f-)
Subject: RE: Grayson Park 1 A & 1B
5ptWw�
Kelly:
The spillway is remaining in the same location as shown on the plans. I apologize for the confusion.
Thank you for getting back to this permit. Any idea of when I can expect the modified permit to be released?
Thanks.
Greg
From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:40 AM
To: Greg Presby
Cc: Noelle Winstead
Subject: Grayson Park IA & 1B
Greg,
I am finally getting back around to this. One of the requested items for pond 4 is to move the emergency spillway. Both
the approved and proposed plans show it in the same place. Did you intend to move it, or does it not need to be
moved?
Thanks,
Kelly
*** My email has changed to [e-mail]
KCI.L f0hK,S0W
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.

VCAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
151 Poole Road. Smte 100
BoWle, NC 23 51
TEL [phone]
FM (910) 38 IN5
www.capefearengineering.com
To:
INCDENR
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn:
Ms. Kelly Johnson
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files
❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier
RECD MAY 2 8 2009
Transmittal
Date: I May 28, 2009
File: 820-OlAl "36"
subject: Grayson Park Phase — 1A / 1 B
Project No. SW8 060238
Brunswick County, NC
❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval
II Quantity I Drawing No. I Description II
1 1 Original I Letter for Plan Revision Request and Approval
11 1 1 Copy I Sample NPDES Stormwater Permit Inspection Form 11
REMARKS Attached, please find the above information for your approval. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 910-383-1044. Thank you.
C e Fe r ngineering, Inc.
Cc: File: 820-01A1 "36"
Signed:
Gre ory J. Presby
Received By: o�
r)ata, (6'71
9
• on

CAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
May 28, 2009
Ms. Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Plan Revision Request and Approval
Grayson Park Phases — 1 A and 1 B
Stormwater Project No. SW8 060238
Brunswick County
Dear Ms. Johnson:
L-W
MAY 2 8 1009
Thank you for meeting with Perry, Noelle and me on May 27, 2009 at your office to
discuss and resolve the Plan Revision Request for the above referenced project. I am
glad that we were able to come to an agreement concerning the revision requests.
As we agreed, Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. will conduct periodic inspections of the
stability for the stand alone outlet structures for pond no.'s 4, 5 and 6. The inspections
will be conducted once a week as part of the NPDES Stormwater Permit inspection for
Phases 1 A and 1 B. A line item will be added to the inspection form to include the orifice
of each pond (see attached example inspection form). The inspections will continue until
the Phases are permanently stabilized and the NPDES inspections are no longer required.
A copy of the most current stormwater plans was submitted to your office on May 18,
2009 for your approval and files. Please note that there is one more sheet in this plan set
(sheets SW-1, SW-2, SW-3 and SW-4). Sheet SW-4 was added to keep the
miscellaneous details separate from the plan views and outlet structure details.
I trust this information will enable you to approve the requested revisions. If you should
require any additional information please contact me.
Thank you for your time on this matter.
Sincerely,,
2"ry- - -
Greg Presby
Cape Fear Engineering, Inc.
Attachment: Example NPDES Stormwater Permit Inspection Form
Cc: 820-OIAI "36"
151 Poole Road, Suite 100 • Belville, NC 20451 • TEL: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
www.capefeamngineering.com

�gg
CAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
151 Poole Road, Suite 1W
BeNllle, NC 28451
TEL [phone]
FM (9 10) 383- 1045
www.capefearengineering.com
To:
INCIDENR
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn:
Mr. Rick Shiver
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files
❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier
RECD MAY 18 2009
Transmittal
Date: May 18, 2009
File: 820-01
Subject: Grayson Park Phase 1A/1B
Plan Revision Request
SW8 060238mod
❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval
Quantity
Drawing No.
Description
1
Original
Letter — Plan Revision and Meeting Request
1
Copy
Original SW permit plans (sheets SW-1, SW-2 and SW-3); yellow highlighted
revisions
1
Copy
Revised SW permit plans (sheets SW-1, SW-2, SW-3 and SW-4); orange
highlighted revisions
1
Copy
Revised SW permit plans (sheets SW-1, SW-2, SW-3 and SW-4) for approval
and files.
MAY 1 S 2009
BY:
REMARKS Attached, please find the above information for your review and approval. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 910-383-1044. Thank you.
Cc: File: 820-01 "36"
Fear Engineering, Inc.
regory
Received By:
Date:

CAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
May 18, 2009
Mr. Rick Shiver
DWQ Surface Water Protection Supervisor
NCDENR
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Plan Revision Request and Approval
Grayson Park Phases — 1 A and 1 B
Stormwater Project No. SW8 060238
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Shiver:
M.
C , rvFxD
MAY 1 8 2009
Maco Road Partners, LLC received an approved stormwater permit for the above
referenced project dated September 21, 2006. In December 2008 Cape Fear Engineering,
Inc. (CFE) made a request to revise the permit. The requested permit revisions included:
1. Pond #1:
a. Removal of the proposed clay key.
2. Pond 94:
a. Removal of the proposed wooden baffle and adding an earthen berm with
a weir between the forebay and the pond. This will ensure the minimum
flow path ratio of 3:1 is met.
b. Using an 8"- PVC orifice pipe with a 2" drilled orifice cap instead of the
concrete box outlet structure.
Relocation of the emergency spillway from the north eastern side of the
pond to the northern bank. WeMOQWa kaoxf,-f I/IWIu9
3. Pond 45:
a. Using an 8"- PVC orifice pipe with a 2" drilled orifice cap instead of the
concrete box outlet structure.
4. Pond 96:
a. Using an 8"- PVC orifice pipe with a 2" drilled orifice cap instead of the
concrete box outlet structure.
CFE has received requests for additional information from the NCDENR office which
have been provided. To our knowledge all revision requests have been accepted except
the use of the orifice pipes and drilled orifice caps being used instead of the originally
permitted concrete box outlet structures.
On April 30, 2009 CFE was informed by a letter from NCDENR that "the Division does
not support permitting outlet devices that consist of a pipe through a berm. The Division
has concerns that this design is not structurally sound or easily accessible for
maintenance".
151 Poole Road, Suite 100 • Oelville, NC 25451 • TEL: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
www capefearengineering. cam

m
The attached revised plans illustrate CFE's solution for the stability issue. There is an
"Outlet Pipe Support Detail" which will be installed where there is an orifice pipe being
used as the outlet structure (Pond No's: 1, 4, 5 and 6).
CFE has used stand alone orifice pipes as outlet structures on previous projects with
NCDENR's approval. There was no reason for CFE to believe that the use of such
orifice pipes would not be accepted by NCDENR and therefore the construction of the
orifice pipes was completed.
CFE respects NCDENR's current position on not using stand alone orifice pipes and will
design all future outlet structures utilizing an outlet box or other approved structure.
At this time CFE is requesting that the current plan revision request be granted so that the
ponds can be certified.
To better assist you in your review of this application I have provided the following
information:
■ Copy of the original approved permit plans (sheets SW -I, SW-2 and SW-3) highlighted
in yellow where the requested revisions are located.
■ Copy of the most current plans with the requested revisions highlighted in orange.
Please note that there is one more sheet in this plan set (sheets SW-1, SW-2, SW-3 and
SW-4). Sheet SW-4 was added to keep the miscellaneous details separate from the plan
views and outlet structure details.
■ Copy of the most current plans for your approval and files, with no information
highlighted.
Perry Davis, PE and President of CFE and I would like to schedule a meeting with you to
discuss and resolve this situation as soon as possible. 1 will be contacting you to schedule
the meeting.
1 trust this information will enable you to approve the requested revisions. If you should
require any additional information please contact me.
Thank you for your time on this matter.
Sincerely,
4;4��
Greg Presby
Cape Fear Engineering, Inc.
Cc: 820-OIAI "36"

MA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
April 30, 2009
Mr. Dennis Sullivan
Mglco Road Partners
7101 Creedmore Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27613
PLAN REVISION REQUEST RETURN and NOTICE OF INSPECTION
Grayson Park 1A and 1 B
Stormwater Project No. SW8 060238
Brunswick County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Your site was inspected on April 23, 2009 in support of a plan revision request that you
submitted to the Division. Your plan revision request is being returned because it does not
contain all of the information necessary to process the request. This letter summarizes events
related to this revision request, and explains necessary actions to be taken as a result of the
recent inspection including the need to respond by May 30, 2009.
PLAN REVISION REQUEST RETURN:
If you wish to continue to pursue any or all of the items discussed during this revision request in
the future, please resubmit. In your resubmittal, please list and clearly explain the specific items
to be changed. Please also provide all supporting data including plans reflecting the proposed
change(s) and all necessary supporting data. If the changes have already been constructed,
please ensure that your resubmittal matches what has been constructed or be prepared to
change what has been constructed to match either the current approved plans or plans that
have yet to be approved. If the change will require a permit text change or if it will require a
change to the BMP design (even a slight change), it will be considered a permit modification.
For modification changes please provide calculations supporting your assertion that the change
will result in maintaining or improving the functionality of the permitted BMP. The calculations
should quantitatively compare the permitted BMP design to the proposed BMP design. A
summary of the events related to this revision request is provided below:
1. December 18, 2008: The Division received a plan revision request for various items
associated with this project.
2. January 2, 2009: The Division returned the plan revision request. Several of the
requested changes were modifications (which require permit text or BMP design
changes and the application review fee) as opposed to plan revisions (which do not
require permit text or BMP design changes or the application review fee).
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: vrvra.nmaterquality.org
\\) An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

SW8 060238
April 30, 2009
3. January 23, 2009: The Division received another plan revision request for this project.
Some proposed changes were plan revision items such as removing.a clay liner, moving
a spillway, and reducing/relocating built upon area in one drainage area. Some items
were modifications such as removing a baffle, replacing outlet boxes with pipes, and
adding earthen berms. I exchanged several emails with representatives of your
engineering firm about the details of these requests, particularly about the outlet
structures. I also requested technical documentation such as calculations related to
adding the berms to Ponds 4 and 6.
4. January 28, 2009: The Division received a revised revision request letter for this project
addressing the berms issue, and continued to exchange emails with your engineering
firm about the details of these requests, particularly about the outlet structures.
5. March 20, 2009: The Division received the response to the request for additional
information including a cover letter, wet pond supplements, pond calculations,
construction drawings for Pond 6, and supporting pictures.
6. April 3, 2009: 1 mailed a request for additional information regarding correcting
conflicting numbers in the data submitted on March 20`h, details related to revising the
outlet structures, information related to the topography and associated water level
around Pond 1 where the key was requested to be removed from the plan but the
request did not match the proposed plan, information regarding the requests of
relocating the spillways as the requests did not match the plans submitted, and adding
the clubhouse to the plans.
April 2, 2009 (1 emailed an advance copy of the above -referenced letter to your
engineering firm on April 2, 2009 and they responded the same day.):
a. Ms. Noelle Winstead of Cape Fear Engineering stopped by office to discuss the
conflicting numbers, provide revised supplements, and provide revised plans.
b. At the meeting we discussed that several of the items originally requested were
either no longer needed or would not be requested. The items that are still of
interest in revising are:
i. Removing the clay key from Pond 1.
ii. Adding exact clubhouse data to the plan.
c. The change in the outlet structure design was still of interest, but will not be
addressed in this plan revision request. Ms. Winstead indicated that the
engineers at Cape Fear Engineering would discuss the outlet structure and
would handle its revision in a separate request. I indicated at the meeting that
the outlet structure proposed must be both structurally sound and accessible for
maintenance.
During the week of April 13'h: Mr. Greg Presby of Cape Fear Engineering stopped by my
office to request a quick meeting to discuss the outlet structures issue. In general, the
proposal involved using an 8" Schedule 40 PVC Pipe through the berm, which would be
stabilized with a 3-ft square concrete support on either side of the berm. The pipe would
extend approximately 10 feet into the pond. I agreed to discuss Cape Fear's ideas with
staff.
Page 2 of 4

' r SW8 060238
1� `April 30, 2009
9. April 15, 2009: 1 received revised plans showing the wetland ground elevation shots
adjacent to Pond 1. The status of the two items still under plan review are:
a. Removing the clay key from Pond 1: There are three approved plans on file
(Sheets SW-1, SW-2, and SW-3). SW-1 is titled as the Stormwater Management
Plan, and shows the entire site with each pond's drainage area. Sheet SW-2 is
titled as the Stormwater Management Details and shows the outlet structures,
cross -sections, etc. Sheet SW-3 shows plan views of Ponds 1-6. The plan
received on April 151h (also titled SW-2) shows plan views for only Ponds 1-3
(and other details for Pond 1). While the April 15`h plan shows updated
topography for the wetland around Pond 1, which was the intention of the
submittal, it cannot replace the approved Sheet SW-3 on file because it does not
show all of the ponds. In order to approve a plan revision, all supporting
documentation must be provided. If the Division were to approve the April 15th
plan, then the previously approved SW-3 plan would contain some approved
information (Ponds 4-6) and some old information that had been revised (Ponds
1-3). This is not an acceptable means of submitting information for a plan
revision. Please either submit an updated SW-3 (showing Ponds 1-6) or submit
the April 151h SW-2 with another sheet showing Ponds 4-6.
b. Adding exact clubhouse data to the plan: The plans received on April 2, 2009
show the exact location of the clubhouse but do not show the correct topography
around Pond 1. Please submit a full set of plans containing consistent data on all
plan sheets.
10. April 29, 2009: The Division discussed the outlet structure design at a standing meeting
between the Wilmington Regional Office, the Washington Regional Office, and the
Central Office. It was determined that the Division does not support permitting
outlet devices that consist of a pipe through a berm. The Division has concerns that
this design is not structurally sound or easily accessible for maintenance. Though one of
the four permitted ponds on site was approved with such a design several years, this
should not have been considered as precedent setting for blanket approval of future
design changes. The Division continually gains "lessons learned" through the permitting
and inspection process, and continually works to incorporate these lessons into the
process. Any deviations from the permitted plan were required to have been approved
prior to their construction. The permitted outlet structures must be constructed.
NOTICE OF INSPECTION:
Please find attached a copy of the completed form entitled "Stormwater Compliance Inspection
Report". The report summarizes the findings of a recent inspection of the project's stormwater
controls conducted on April 23, 2009 to determine compliance with Stormwater Permit Number
SW8 060238 issued on September 21, 2006.
The required actions that are necessary to bring this site into compliance are noted on the
attached inspection report. Please inform this Office in writing before May 30, 2009, of the
specific actions that will be undertaken and the time frame that will be required to correct the
deficiencies. Failure to provide the requested information, when required, may initiate
enforcement action including the assessment of civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day.
Page 3 of 4

SW8 060238
April 30, 2009 t
The following items must be addressed:
1. The site must be constructed per approved plans.
2. The ponds should have been completed prior to constructing any impervious area in the
drainage area. The ponds must be completed.
3. Engineer certifications must be submitted certifying that the construction matches the
approved plans and is in accordance with all permit conditions. -b.- -.n5
4. Recorded deed restrictions must be submitted. - 5,de stop
-swf
-vvTuc'7
Please be reminded that if any ownership or name change has occurred it is the permittee's
responsibility to notify this office in writing. If you have any questions please contact me at the
Wilmington Regional Office, telephone number [phone].
Sincer y,
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
GDS/KPJ: S:\WQS\StormWater\RETURN\060238.apr09
S:\WQS\StormWater\INSPECT\060238.aprO9
cc: Ms. Noelle Winstead, Cape Fear Engineering
Mr. Greg Presby, Cape Fear Engineering
Wilmington -Regional _Office
Central Files
Page 4 of 4

Grayson Park I A & 1 B
Subject: Grayson Park IA & 1B
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:28:39 -0400
To:Noelle Winstead<[e-mail]>, Greg Presby
<greg. presby@capefearengineering. com>
Noelle & Greg,
The Central Office, Washington Office and Wilmington Office met yesterday to
discuss several items including the proposed outlets for this project. The
Division does not support a "pipe through berm" design. The attached letter will
be mailed today. It is a plan revision request return and notice of inspection
(NOI). The inspection report is also attached, but the pictures are not due to
file size.
Please be aware that I was directed by my supervisor to send an NOV for this
project, but I convinced her that this course of action was appropriate. The site
will be reinspected, and if it is not in compliance I will issue an NOV.
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
i; Content -Type: applica
Park Letter.pdf
�j Content -Encoding: base64
SW8060238 pdf Content Type application/pdf
Content Encoding: base64
1 of 1 4/30/2009 11:28 AM

l

v
g MT

IT
SW8 060238, Grayson Park Phases I & 1 B, 4/23/09 Inspection, K. Johnson
ind #4
Drainage
Area

C.
r SW8 060238, Grayson Park Phases I & 113, 4/23/09 Inspection, K. Johnson
'on
12'
ege
de'
Slo
Veget
Sh(
Leng
Slo1

0 23/2009

7
moot,,-

� 1M,
CAPE FEAR
j
Engineering, Inc.
151 P.1e Ro ,, Smle 100
BaNdle, NC 28451
TEL [phone]
FAR [phone]
www.capefearengineering.com
To
NC DENR DWQ
Surface Water Protection Section
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn:
Kelly Johnson
Transmittal
Date: April 14, 2009
File: 820-01 "36"
Subject: Grayson Park Phase 1A/!B
Stormwater Permit Revision
SW8 060238
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval
❑ Sent via Mail ® Sent via Courier
Quantity
Drawing No.
Description
2
SW-2
Revised plan sheet w/ wetland ground elevation shots adjacent to Pond #1
,n_
Min
2009
REMARKS
CC: File
File: 820-01 "36"
Cape ngi eying, Inc.
Signed:
o�c J
Received By:

RE: FV/: Orifice through berm issue
Subject: RE FW: Orifice through berm issue
From: "Noelle Winstead" <noclle.winstead a@capefearen6�ncering.com>
Date: Tuc, 14 Apr 2009 14:46:07 -0400
To: "Kelly Johnson" <kelly.p.johnson@ncmaiLnct>
CC: <[e-mail], "Greg Presby"<greg.presbv@capefearengineeringcom>, "Comer Lyons" <comer.lyuns n capefearengineering.com>
Kelly,
As I thought, the plans only reflect the lidar topo, not the ground elevations shot by survey.
The ground shots demonstrate that the pond does drawdown and will not drain the wetlands. Revised pond
details sheet for pond #1 showing the actual elevations will be sent your way tomorrow.
Noelle
From: Kelly Johnson[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:14 PM
To: Noelle Winstead
Cc: [e-mail]; Greg Presby; Comer Lyons
Subject: Re: FIN: Orifice through berm issue
Noelle,
I haven't gotten back around to this yet. Also, what did you all decide about the water levels of the
wetlands and the request to remove the keys?
Kelly
Noelle Winstead wrote:
Kelly,
Hope you enjoyed the holiday.
Any chance you have had a chance to consider the proposal below?
As you know, the contractors are preparing the ponds for certification and we appreciate your assistance on this
matter.
We will send in revised plan sheets but want to know if this sounds reasonable.
Our engineers have met to discuss the matter and general and all agree that we will not design the orifice
through berm in future unless conditions demand, and then we will make sure we have DWQ's concurrence on
design prior to submittal for permits.
Noelle
From: Noelle Winstead
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Kelly Johnson
Cc: Linda Lewis
Subject: Orifice through berm issue
Kelly,
As I promised I am leaving to the engineers; however, I have a received a call from an engineer who is in the
field with a contractor. They have come up with a possible solution to the stability issue and would like to know if
DWQ may be receptive to the idea. The idea is pouring concrete encasements with rebar at least T thick (like
footings but completely encased) around the where the pipe enters and exits the berm.
1 of 4/15/2009 1:55 PM

RE: FW: Orifice through berm issue
6
If this sounds like a possible solution, an engineer will prepare a sketch and send for your review tomorrow.
Thank you,
Noel le
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
2 of 2 4/15/2009 1:55 PM

RE: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase IA/I B, 4/2 Meeting]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase lA/1B, 4/2 Meeting]
From: "Noelle Winstead"<noelle. [e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:36:58 -0400
To: "Kelly Johnson" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Greg Presby"<[e-mail]>
Kelly,
I will also have Greg address this. I know that I have seen the ground
shots that show the lower elevations and can not understand why the
plans do not reflect the correct elevations unless the plans show topo
that is only approximate (county) versus true ground topo.
As you can tell, the staff that worked on this project is not with us
and we are struggling through putting the pieces back together on this
one.
Thank you for your patience regarding this matter and for taking the
time to see me yesterday.
Noelle
-----Original Message -----
From: Kelly Johnson[mailto:kelly.p.johnsononcmail.net]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:12 AM
To: Noelle Winstead
Cc: Greg Presby
Subject: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase lA/1B, 4/2 Meeting]
Noelle,
Your 12/18/08 letter originally requesting to remove the clay key from
Pond 1 says that the permanent pool is at 50.0 msl and that the adjacent
wetland ranges from 48-49.0 msl. The plans show that the adjacent
wetland ranges from 52-54.0 msl. Was this another issue with the
various versions of the plans or do you still want to maintain the
request to remove the key? If you still want to remove the key, we will
have to look more closely at the potential to drain the wetland.
Just let me know what you decide, and we will go from there.
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
I of 1 4/15/2009 1:56 PM

RE: Structural integrity of outlet structures
Subject: RE: Structural integrity of outlet structures
From: "Noelle Winstead"<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:32:39 -0400
To: "Linda Lewis" <[e-mail]>, "Greg Presby"
<greg.presby@cape fearengi neering.com>
CC: "Kelly Johnson" <[e-mail]>, "Georgette Scott"
<[e-mail]>
Thank you, Linda for taking the time to clarify. As you know, this is
only an issue with modifications where a typical outlet box will may not
work.
As far as Grayson Park, I only stated that they are in the process of
making any corrections to the ponds necessary for the ponds to be
certified. I do not know the exact status of construction but believe
that they are in the process of installing some of the new outlet pipes
as well as making sure required volumes are met, etc.
CFE engineers will find a method to ensure that DWQ's concerns are
addressed. I am sure that there is a solution that will satisfy all
parties. I will have Greg and Comer determine the best engineered
solution and they will contact Kelly next week.
Noelle
-----Original Message -----
From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:38 PM
To: Noelle Winstead; Greg Presby
Cc: Kelly Johnson; Georgette Scott
Subject: Structural integrity of outlet structures
Noelle:
Just a short note to make sure we are all on the same page regarding
these outlet structures.
The Division has an obligation to permit designs that not only meet the
rules, but which do not create nuisance conditions that may affect the
function and long-term viability of the project. While we admit and
acknowledge that we have in the past permitted outlet structures that
are no more than a small pipe stuck through the pond berm, it has been
observed that this design is flawed and will no longer be permitted
without modifications, for the following reasons:
1) the berm settles over the years and the orifice elevation is.not able
to be maintained.
2) neither the inspector nor the responsible maintenance personnel can
access the end of the orifice without some physical assistance, because
it is too far from the shore.
We are under no obligation to continue to permit outlet structure
designs that create a nuisance condition. At some point down the line,
the developer will be transferring the permit for these ponds to an HOA
or other entity that will be required to maintain these ponds. Continued
use of this type of outlet structure just makes it that much more
difficult for an HOA to maintain a system that in general sees very
little maintenance from the developer in the first place. with an outlet
1 oft
4/6/2009 10:51 AM

RE: Structural integrity of outlet structures
setup as a small pipe through the berm wall, maintenance becomes that
much more difficult when it doesn't have to be. The Division is in the
business of eliminating nuisance conditions that make it easier to,
maintain, not more difficult.
Please make the design engineers at Cape Fear aware that outlet designs
of this nature for new or modified projects will be permitted only if
they demonstrate that unassisted access to the end of the orifice in the
water is provided and that the orifice's elevation can be maintained via
some type of structural support system that doesn't rely solely on the
weight of the berm. We recommend that the structural framework used to
provide support to the orifice include a walkway above that can be used
to access the end of the orifice.
Modifications to permits open up the permit to scrutiny. Where
modifications to projects with multiple ponds having this type of
previously permitted outlet structure are submitted, but only 1 or 2 of
those ponds are being modified, please anticipate that the reviewer will
be requesting that the previously permitted outlet structures for those
1 or 2 modified ponds, be modified such that we can say that a nuisance
condition has not been created.
Please make sure that all previously permitted pond designs have the
outlet setup they were permitted for. Any changes to the outlet
structure design will need to be approved by the Division prior to
making the changes. It is my understanding that the outlet structure for
Grayson Park was permitted as the typical box / standpipe structure we
normally see, but was modified without approval to a long pipe struck
through the berm. In this case, I think the Division is completely
justified in requiring that the new setup be modified such that is does
not create the nuisance conditions of poor structural integrity and poor
access for maintenance.
If you have any other concerns regarding this matter, please feel free
to contact me to discuss.
Linda
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2 of 2 4/6/2009 10:51 AM

RE: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase 1A/1 B, 4/2 Meeting]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase 1 A/1 B, 4/2 Meeting]
From: "Noelle Winstead"<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:36:58 -0400
To: "Kelly Johnson" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Greg Presby"<[e-mail]>
Kelly,
I will also have Greg address this. I know that I have seen the ground
shots that show the lower elevations and can not understand why the
plans do not reflect the correct elevations unless the plans show topo
that is only approximate (county) versus true ground topo.
As you can tell, the staff that worked on this project is not with us
and we are struggling through putting the pieces back together on this
one.
Thank you for your patience regarding this matter and for taking the
time to see me yesterday.
Noelle
-----Original Message -----
From: Kelly Johnson[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:12 AM
To: Noelle Winstead
Cc: Greg Presby
Subject: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase lA/12, 4/2 Meeting]
Noelle,
Your 12/18/08 letter originally requesting to remove the clay key from
Pond 1 says that the permanent pool is at 50.0 msl and that the adjacent
wetland ranges from 48-49.0 msl. The plans show that the adjacent
wetland ranges from 52-54.0 msl. Was this another issue with the
various versions of the plans or do you still want to maintain the
request to remove the key? ,If you still want to remove the key, we will
have to look more closely at the potential to drain the wetland.
Just let me know what you decide, and we will go from there.
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
1 of 1 4/6/2009 10:52 AM

Strucnlral integrity of outlet structures
Subject: Structural integrity of outlet structures
From: Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:37:38 -0400
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>, Greg Presby
<greg.presby@capefearengi neering. com>
CC: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>, Georgette Scott <[e-mail]>
Noelle:
Just a short note to make sure we are all on the same page regarding these outlet
structures.
The Division has an obligation to permit designs that not only meet the rules, but
which do not create nuisance conditions that may affect the function and long-term
viability of the project. while we admit and acknowledge that we have in the past
permitted outlet structures that are no more than a small pipe stuck through the
pond berm, it has been observed that this design is flawed and will no longer be
permitted without modifications, for the following reasons:
1) the berm settles over the years and the orifice -elevation is not able to be
maintained.
2) neither the inspector nor the responsible maintenance personnel can access the
end of the orifice without some physical assistance, because it is too far from the
shore.
We are under no obligation to continue to permit outlet structure designs that
create a nuisance condition. At some point down the line, the developer will be
transferring the permit for these ponds to an HOA or other entity that will be
required to maintain these ponds. Continued use of this type of outlet structure
just makes it that much more difficult for an HOA to maintain a system that in
general sees very little maintenance from the developer in the first place. With an
outlet setup as a small pipe through the berm wall, maintenance becomes that much
more difficult when it doesn't have to be. The Division is in the business of
eliminating nuisance conditions that make it easier to maintain, not more
difficult.
Please make the design engineers at Cape Fear aware that outlet designs of this
nature for new or modified projects will be permitted only if they demonstrate that
unassisted access to the end of the orifice in the water is provided and that the
orifice's elevation can be maintained via some type of structural support system
that doesn't rely solely on the weight of the berm. we recommend that the
structural framework used to provide support to the orifice include a walkway above
that can be used to access the end of the orifice.
Modifications to permits open up the permit to scrutiny. where modifications to
projects with multiple ponds having this type of previously permitted outlet
structure are submitted, but only 1 or 2 of those ponds are being modified, please
anticipate that the reviewer will be requesting that the previously permitted
outlet structures for those 1 or 2 modified ponds, be modified such that we can say
that a nuisance condition has not been created.
Please make sure that all previously permitted pond designs have the outlet setup
they were permitted for. Any changes to the outlet structure design will need to be
approved by the Division prior to making the changes. It is my understanding that
the outlet structure for Grayson Park was permitted as the typical box / standpipe
structure we normally see, but was modified without approval to a long pipe struck
through the berm. In this case, I think the Division is completely justified in
requiring that the new setup be modified such that is does not create the nuisance
conditions of poor structural integrity and poor access for maintenance.
If you have any other concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact
me to discuss.
Linda
I oft 4/3/2009 1:17 PM

Structural integrity of outlet structures
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2 of 2 4/3/2009 1:17 PM

Grayson Park Phase 1 A/1 B, 4/2 Meeting
Subject: Grayson Park Phase IA/1B, 4/2 Meeting
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:56:34 -0400
To: Noelle Winstead<[e-mail]>
CC: Greg Presby<[e-mail]>, Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Nestle,
I just wanted to follow up from our meeting yesterday about the items still
requested in this revision. We discussed this yesterday, but because this has been
a dynamic revision request I wanted to document the requested items for the file:
Pond 1: Request to remove clay key
Pond 5: Add exact clubhouse data to the plan
We also discussed yesterday that the request to replace the outlet boxes for Ponds
4, 5, and 6 with pipes through the berm will not be approved in the revision. As
we discussed, I have had lengthy discussions with staff about this issue and we
need to ensure longterm viability of the design in terms of both structural
integrity and accessibility for maintenance. I understand that some, perhaps all,
of these pipes have already been installed in the manner that you have proposed for
this revision, which is not in accordance with the approved plans.
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
l of] 4/3/2009 1:02 PM

[Fwd: Grayson Park Phase 1A/1B, 4/2 Meeting]
Subject: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase IA/1B, 4/2 Meeting]
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:11:59 -0400
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
CC: Greg Presby <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
Your 12/18/08 letter originally requesting to remove the clay
that the permanent pool is at 50.0 msl and that the adjacent
48-49.0 msl. The plans show that the adjacent wetland ranges
Was this another issue with the various versions of the plans
to maintain the request to remove the key? If you still want
will have to look more closely at the potential to drain the
Just let me know what you decide, and we will go from there.
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
key from Pond.1 says
wetland ranges from
from 52-54.0 msl.
or do you still want
to remove the key, we
wetland.
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.
Subject: Grayson Park Phase 1A/113, 4/2 Meeting
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:56:34 -0400
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
CC: Greg Presby <[e-mail]>, Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
I just wanted to follow up from our meeting yesterday about the items still
requested in this revision. We discussed this yesterday, but because this has been
a dynamic revision request I wanted to document the requested items for the file:
Pond 1: Request to remove clay key
Pond 5: Add exact clubhouse data to the plan
We also discussed yesterday that the request to replace the outlet boxes for Ponds
4, 5, and 6 with pipes through the berm will not be approved in the revision. As
we discussed, I have had lengthy discussions with staff about this issue and we
need to ensure longterm viability of the design in terms of both structural
integrity and accessibility for maintenance. I understand that some, perhaps all,
of these pipes have already been installed in the manner that you have proposed for
this revision, which is not in accordance with the approved plans.
Kelly
I of 2 4/1/2009 9:12 AM

[rwd:Grayson Park Phase lAJ|D`4/2Meet inQ]
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
mc Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
ailmiog"nu, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
E-mail oncceapoudeuoe to and from this address may be subject to the wnztb Carolina
Public Records La* and may be disclosed to third parties.
Content -Type: message/rU22

Re: FW: Orifice through berm issue
Subject: Re: FW: Orifice through berm issue
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:14:01 -0400
To: Noelle Winstead<[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], Greg Presby <[e-mail]>, Comer Lyons
<[e-mail]>
Noelle,
I haven't gotten back around to this yet. Also, what did you all decide about the water levels of the
wetlands and the request to remove the keys?
Kelly
Noelle Winstead wrote:
Kelly,
Hope you enjoyed the holiday.
Any chance you have had a chance to consider the proposal below?
As you know, the contractors are preparing the ponds for certification and we appreciate your assistance
on this matter.
We will send in revised plan sheets but want to know if this sounds reasonable.
Our engineers have met to discuss the matter and general and all agree that we will not design the orifice
through berm in future unless conditions demand, and then we will make sure we have DWQ's
concurrence on design prior to submittal for permits.
Noelle
From: Noelle Winstead
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Kelly Johnson
Cc: Linda Lewis
Subject: Orifice through berm issue
Kelly,
As I promised I am leaving to the engineers, however, I have a received a call from an engineer who is in
the field with a contractor. They have come up with a possible solution to the stability issue and would like
to know if DWQ may be receptive to the idea. The idea is pouring concrete encasements with rebar at
least S thick (like footings but completely encased) around the where the pipe enters and exits the berm.
If this sounds like a possible solution, an engineer will prepare a sketch and send for your review tomorrow.
Thank you,
Noelle
Kelly Johnson
1 of 2 4/27/2009 10:00 AM

Re: FW: Orifice through berm issue
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.795.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
2 of 2 4/27/2009 10:00 AM

[Fwd: Grayson Park Phase IA/1 B, 4/2 Meeting]
Subject: [Fwd: Grayson Park Phase IA/113, 4/2 Meeting]
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:11:59 -0400
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
CC: Greg Presby <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
Your 12/18/08 letter originally requesting to remove the clay key from Pond 1 says
that the permanent pool is at 50.0 msl and that the adjacent wetland ranges from
48-49.0 msl. The plans show that the adjacent wetland ranges from 52-54.0 msl.
Was_thi�scanother_i-ssu_e-with_the- various -versions _of-the�plaiis_ or do you s£i-1-l—want'
to_maintain_the..request-to-remove- the -key? If you still want to remove the key, we
will have to look more closely at the potential to drain the wetland.
Just let me know what you decide, and we will go from there.
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
Subject: Grayson Park Phase lA/1B, 4/2 Meeting
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:56:34 -0400
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
CC: Greg Presby<[e-mail]>, Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
I just wanted to follow up from our meeting yesterday about the items still
requested in this revision. We discussed this yesterday, but because this has been
a dynamic revision request I wanted to document the requested :items .for -the _file:
r-Pond-1:- Request to remove clay keys
(Pond 5: Add exact clubhouse data to the plane
We also discussed yesterday that the request to replace the outlet boxes for Ponds
4, 5, and 6 with pipes through the berm will not be approved in the revision. As
we discussed, I have had lengthy discussions with staff about this issue and we
need to ensure longterm viability of the design in terms of both structural
integrity and accessibility for maintenance. I understand that some, perhaps all,
of these pipes have already been installed in the manner that you have proposed for
this revision, which is not in accordance with the approved plans.
Kelly
I of 2 4/27/2009 10:08 AM

[Fwd: Grayson Park Phase 1 A/1 B, 4/2 Meeting]
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 284n5
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
Park Phase 1A/1B, 4/2 Meeting.emi j Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Encoding: 7bit
2 of2 4/27/2009 10:08 AM

North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
April 3, 2009
NC®ENR
Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Dennis Sullivan
Marco Road Partners, LLC
7101 Creedmore Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27613
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Grayson Park — Phases 1A & 1B
Stormwater Project No. SW8 060238
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Natural Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On March 20, 2009, the Wilmington Regional Office received a plan revision request for
Stormwater Management Permit Number SW8 060238. The revisions requests and responses
are listed below:
Remove baffle and add berm (Ponds 4 and 6): 1 received the calculations that you
provided. However, there are discrepancies between the supplements submitted, the
revised plans submitted, and the permitted data. For instance, the temporary pool
elevation of Pond 6 on the supplement is 54.2ft and on the most recent plan (received
1/23/09) it is 54.4ft. The temporary pool elevation of Pond 4 on the supplement is 58.5ft
and on the most recent plan (received 3/20/09) it is 58.2ft. Also, the permitted
permanent pool surface area for Pond 4 is 10,972ft2, and the March 20'h supplement has
a permanent pool surface area of,12,243ft2 and neither of the forebay volumes listed in
the March 201h supplements of Ponds 4 and 6 matches the permitted volumes. Permit
revisions are appropriate when the text of the permit does not change. If the permit text
is affected, then a permit modification is required. The permanent pool surface area and
forebay volumes are examples of permit text changes that would be required for this
proposal. Therefore, removing the baffle and replacing it with a berm cannot be handled
as a plan revision. If you would like to pursue these changes, please apply for a permit
modification through the standard permit application process.
2. Replace outlet structure with pipe through berm (Ponds 4, 5, and 6): DENR is charged
with the responsibility of ensuring that the permitted conditions are sufficient to ensure
long-term functionality of the system. The developer, and eventually the HOA, has the
responsibility of maintaining the system in accordance with the permitted conditions.
DENR may have permitted outlets of pipes through berms in the past. However, that
does not entail that such designs have become standard practice. Traditional outlet
structures are the preferred method for stormwater discharge. I have discussed this
issue with Division staff. The long-term functionality of the pipe -through -berm outlet
structure design is unknown, and general application of this practice is therefore not
advisable.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer service:1-877-623-6748 North Caronn l
Internet: v .ncvvaterquality.org - N [`UU atzmall y
An Equal Opportunity lAffrmative Action Employer

SW8 060238
April 3, 2009
Revisions previously discussed for this revision:
a. Remove clay key (Pond 1): Permanent pool is 50.0' msl and the wetland
elevation is 48.0-49.0' msl. I discussed this with Noelle Winstead on January 15'
and we decided that this could be a plan revision. Since going back through this
I have realized that the revision request discussed the "wetland elevation", which
can be different than the seasonal high water table (SHWT). We typically
compare the permanent pool elevation to the SHWT rather than the wetland
elevation in these requests. Where is the SHWT in relation to the permanent
pool?
b. Relocate the 30' emergency spillway on the northeastern side of the pond to the
northern bank (Pond 4): There is no issue with the relocation. Although, the most
recent plan for pond 4, which was submitted on January 23rd, shows the overflow
in the same location as in the permitted plan. Please submit a revised Pond 4
plan, and please also ensure that the overflow elevation is on the revised plan.
c. Adding clubhouse to plan (Pond 5): There is no issue with this change, as it
does not conflict with what was originally permitted.
4. Please ensure that changes in the plans submitted contain only the proposed changes.
Notes or other clarification items can be added, but the substantive changes to the
permitted plans should reflect only the proposed changes.
Please address the issues listed in items 3 and 4 above by May 4, 2009 or the revision request
will be returned. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at
[phone] or email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely
e Johnson
Environmental Engineer
GDS\KPJ: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\PERMIT\060238PR.apr09
cc: Mr. Greg Presby, Cape Fear Engineering
'Wilmington Regional Office j
Page 2 of 2

����, CAPE FEAR
Engineering, In
151�� APR
Poole Road, Suite 100
Be&dle,NC2S51 Air< iLUU� TEL [phone]
FAX �7
(910) M8 10a5
www.capefearengineering.com L
j
To:
JNCDENR
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, INC 28405
Attn:
Ms. Kelly Johnson
Transmittal
Date: I April 02, 2009
File: 1 820-01
2 2009
Subject: Grayson Park Phase 1A/1B
Additional Information Request
SW8 060238mod
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval
❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier
II Quantity I Drawing No. I Description 11
II 2 I Copy I Storm Water Permit Plan Drawings (sheets SW-1 — SW-4) II
REMARKS Attached, please find the above information for your approval. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 910-383-1044. Thank you.
Received By: ,f 4
Date: fJl 02' 9 I

,;
�`
-�
-�
✓
Y
�
C%'

2oo���
CAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
151 Poole Feed, Sod. 1W
Behelle, NC 28451
TEL (910) W8 1044
F 0 (810) 3831045
www.capefearengineering.com
To:
JNCDENR
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
-TRn--j
Ms. Kelly Johnson
REM MAR 2 0 2009
Transmittal
Date: I March 20, 2009
File: 1 820-01
Subject: Grayson Park Phase IAMB
Additional Information Request
SW8 060238mod
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval
❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier
Quantity
Drawing No.
Description
1
Original
Response to Request for Additional Information email
1
Copy
Wet Detention Basin Supplement for Pond #4
1
Copy
Pond Calculation for Pond #4
1
Copy
Wet Detention Basin Supplement for Pond #6
1
Copy
Pond Calculation for Pond #6
2
Original
Pictures of pipe accessibility
2
Copy
Sheet C-2, Construction Drawings for Pond #6
I
MAR 2 0 2009
REMARKS Attached, please find the above information for your approval. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 910-383-1044. Thank you.
e Fe Engineering, Inc.
Cc: File: 820-01 "36"
Signed:
Gre r
ry J. Presby
Received By:
Date:

4
a
. � e
CAPE FEAR
V Engineering, Inc.
9 9, .,
MAR 2 0 2009
March 19, 2009
Ms. Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Grayson Park Phase IA/1B
Response to "Request for Additional Information' per email dated February 23, 2009
SW8 060238mod
Dear Ms. Johnson:
In response to your email request for additional information dated February 23, 2009 for the
above referenced project I offer the following:
1. As maintenance of the ponds is the responsibility of the Developer, as recorded in the
"Wet Detention Basin Operation and Maintenance Agreement", maintenance of the draw
down pipes is not the responsibility of NCDENR. For your file, I have enclosed a
photograph of myself in one of the ponds illustrating that the outlet is comfortably
accessible with a pair of waders while the pond is functioning. This picture was taken by
the developer ensuring that he is aware of the situation and that decking is not necessary.
As previously offered, I think a meeting at the site will help clarify the current design and
construction of the pipes. The offer still stands and I would be more than willing to meet
with you.
When the ponds are constructed, any fill is compacted with the equipment used to
construct the berm. The machine that is placing the fill material to create the berm is
running back and forth over the berm thus compacting it. The draw down pipe is then cut
in after the berm has been established. Therefore not much, if any, settling is likely to
occur. Also, per the pipe specifications, for trafficked areas, a minimum of twelve (12)
inches of material (compacted earth) to cover the pipe is specified. Note that these ponds
are not in trafficked areas however the pipe coverage is at or exceeds twelve inches.
It should also be noted that the design and installation of the draw down pipes in the
manner that is shown on the plans has been approved by NCDENR on numerous ponds
in the past. As-builts that have been performed on the ponds for certification have
151 Poole Road, Suite 100 • 8elville, NC28451 • TEL: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
ww w capefea rengineering. com

verified that the inverts of the draw down pipes has matched, or been within hundredths .
of, what the design invert was.
2. I noticed during my review of this project that a superseded design for Pond 46 was
illustrated on the plans. There had been talk of altering the design, but alternate layouts
were abandoned and the revision shown on CFE's previous submittal should have been
deleted. Our apologies for the confusion. The revised plans that are included in this
submittal package illustrate the original pond design as approved by your office. I have
also enclosed copies of the calculations for Ponds 4 and 6 as you requested.
I trust that the responses given will satisfy your request for additional information and will allow
for the approval of the permit for the above referenced project. If you should have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact me at 910-383-1044.
Thank you for your time on this matter.
Sincerely,
<51-;9
Greg Presby
Cape Fear Engineering, Inc.
Cc: File 820-01 "36"

0
f
~

a ,
� l
a'
BDUQ�t4.�DQQDtlD44D�64flD fl8D4�4�4D D �''``T ���tC����s�1C���.
�Dfl8fl8 ���1

1,•s:iy+'r�." LII i �. '�`•-' ' my �-�=*r-b�-'�"�®� -b a�a�.,l a"0��§'�r��� _. •,y�m:: - � ,a
®b�
- Y
4 W�
• w, 4 a�'wM+em�,„'„� �.wi roi xn Irv, orwu�v Ir'i'�.-^�S.er-�..-�..� �,S ^'—�.�"� ,�, -.. u _ r=uf'r`'�• 4== 7
P'�' - • . .fig'- - � _ _ ,.
_ a
y..� �•. .... �. _1:... •� O _Z.. i; _:x .:r: �' �.�7�..t .c��Y= �h� ���� � f�'' fla �,✓'w"t'� ���....y?�,y:��•'��1`1�«»'",. i�'-'.�•
..� .. -.I�r4 ir_+'s�a..3rti�l^•2-�L�..n,'��a�'.IS �w ��.w._.

raM
�.
.-,
r�.
`.

,�Fwd:'ye-. [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1A/1B & 2B]]]
. y a
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/113 & 2B]]]
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:40:34 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
Greg,
What is the nature of the proposed meeting? I have attached the email previously
sent to Noelle. The two issues are providing a stable and readily maintained
outlet structure and ensuring that the volume that is currently permitted is being
maintained in the revision. Did you have a specific question about either of these
items?
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/1B & 213]]
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:57:08 -0500
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
I still have a few issues with this proposal.
1.) Removing the outlet structures and replacing them with 8" pipes in Ponds 4, 5,
and 6: The pipe is only supported by the weight of the berm. When the berm settles,
there is nothing keeping the pipe from settling with it. Also, the pipe goes too
far into the pond to be readily maintained. The pipe must be sturdily supported,
and the end of it must be easily accessible. I have discussed this with Linda, and
the current design does not allow for these requirements. Please either stabilize
the pipe and provide access through a decking or other means, or continue to use
the permitted outlet structures.
2.) Removing baffles and adding berms in Ponds 4 and 6: I had previously requested
calculations describing how the volumes of the forebay and the main pond would be
maintained. I do not have such calculations. For Pond 4, the basic design has not
changed so I can see that the volumes will probably stay the same. But, written
calculations are still required. For Pond 6, there is no baffle labeled on the
previous plan? And, the forebay has changed considerably. It was previously
rectangular, and now it is triangular. Please submit calculations that the volumes
will not change for Ponds 4 & 6.
1 of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/1B & 2B]]]
r
Please respond within 30 days.
Thanks,
Kelly
Noelle Winstead wrote:
Kelly,
Yes, Linda did those reviews in the past and then I know there was a
period when they did not get a preliminary review. It does make sense.
Now I must apologize. When the letters were revised, I failed to catch
that the discussion about "adding earthen berms" was not revised.
Attached is a revised narrative letter. A forebay berm was always
included for ponds 44 and #6; we have simply added a weir in the berms
to increase the flow path. I have clarified this in the letter and you
will see that the approved plan set clearly shows forebay berms. The
proposed plan set just shows the weirs within the existing berms.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for the e-mail.
Noelle
-----Original Message -----
From: Kelly Johnson(mailto:[e-mail]) Sent: Wednesday, January
28, 2009 12:13 PM
To: Noelle Winstead
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/lB & 2B11
Noelle,
I have received the revision submittals for these projects. For Phase 1A/13, I
do not have calculations for adding the berm to Ponds 4 & 6. Was this an
oversight? Please submit those calculations. (Via email is
fine.)
I am doing the "completeness review" (I am not sure if that was done when you
were with DWQ? This is only done for the regular program.) But, the policy is
to determine if all of the necessary documents are in
the submittal within the first few days of receiving the application/revision
letter. Then, request missing documentation that can be submitted within 24
hrs. If it can not be submitted within 24 hours, then to return the package.
So, please submit these calculations
ASAP.
Thanks,
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
2 of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

r wd:;Pje: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/1B & 2B]]]
Fax: [phone]
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.
Content -Type: message/rfc822'.
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1AAB & 2B]].eml!
j Content -Encoding: 8bit
3 of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

io
m

1

'%} wd:" , [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/IB & 2B]]]
. 'r a
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/1B & 213111
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:40:34 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
Greg,
What is the nature of the proposed meeting? I have attached the email previously
sent to Noelle. The two issues are providing a stable and readily maintained
outlet structure and ensuring that the volume that is currently permitted is being
maintained in the revision. Did you have a specific question about either of these
items?
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/1B & 2B]]
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:57:08 -0500
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
I still have a few issues with this proposal.
1.) Removing the outlet structures and replacing them with 8" pipes in Ponds 4, 5,
and 6: The pipe is only supported by the weight of the berm. When the berm settles,
there is nothing keeping the pipe from settling with it. Also, the pipe goes too
far into the pond to be readily maintained. The pipe must be sturdily supported,
and the end of it must be easily accessible. I have discussed this with Linda, and
the current design does not allow for these requirements. Please either stabilize
the pipe and provide access through a decking or other means, or continue to use
the permitted outlet structures.
2.) Removing baffles and adding berms in Ponds 4 and 6: I had previously requested
calculations describing how the volumes of the forebay and the main pond would be
maintained. I do not have such calculations. For Pond 4, the basic design has not
changed so I can see that the volumes will probably stay the same. But, written
calculations are still required. For Pond 6, there is no baffle labeled on the
previous plan? And, the forebay has changed considerably. It was previously
rectangular, and now it is triangular. Please submit calculations that the volumes
will not change for Ponds 4 & G.
I of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1A/1 B & 2B]]]
r
Please respond within 30 days.
Thanks,
Kelly
Noelle Winstead wrote:
Kelly,
Yes, Linda did those reviews in the past and then I know there was a
period when they did not get a preliminary review. It does make sense.
Now I must apologize. when the letters were revised, I failed to catch
that the discussion about "adding earthen berms" was not revised.
Attached is a revised narrative letter. A forebay berm was always
included for ponds 44 and 46; we have simply added a weir in the berms
to increase the flow path. I have clarified this in the letter and you
will see that the approved plan set clearly shows forebay berms. The
proposed plan set just shows the weirs within the existing berms.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for the e-mail.
Noelle
-----Original message -----
From: Kelly Johnson [mailto:kelly.p.johnson®ncmail.net] Sent: Wednesday, January
28, 2009 12:13 PM
To: Noelle Winstead
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1A/1B & 2B]]
Noelle,
I have received the revision submittals for these projects. For Phase lA/19, I
do not have calculations for adding the berm to Ponds 4 & 6. Was this an
oversight? Please submit those calculations. (Via email is
fine.)
I am doing the "completeness review" (I am not sure if that was done when you
were with DWQ? This is only done for the regular program.) But, the policy is
to determine if all of the necessary documents are in
the submittal within the first few days of receiving the application/revision
letter. Then, request missing documentation that can be submitted within 24
hrs. If it can not be submitted within 24 hours, then to return the package.
So, please submit these calculations
ASAP.
Thanks,
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
2 of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

'F' �vd:'P : [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/1B & 2B]]]
Fax: [phone]
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.
Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1AAB & 2B]].eml Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding:8bit
3 of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

�RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IAAB & 2B]]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1A/1B & 2B]]
From: "Greg Presby" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:07:27 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
Ms. Johnson:
Good afternoon:
My name is Greg Presby and I am one of the Engineers / Designers at Cape
Fear Engineering. I have become involved with the Grayson Park project
recently. I would like to meet with you and Linda to discuss the issues
that you have been going back and forth with Noelle of our office.
Will you please let me know when a good time would be for you and Linda
to meet with me at your office?
Thank You for your time on this matter.
Sincerely,
Greg Presby
Cape Fear Engineering
-----Original Message -----
From: Noelle Winstead
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 6:08 PM
To: Greg Presby; Comer Lyons; Matt Haley
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/1B & 2311
-----Original Message -----
From: Kelly Johnson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Noelle Winstead
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/lB & 2B]]
Noelle,
I still have a few issues with this proposal.
1.) Removing the outlet structures and replacing them with 8" pipes in
Ponds 4, 5, and 6: The pipe is only supported by the weight of the berm.
When the berm settles, there is nothing keeping the pipe from settling
with it. Also, the pipe goes too far into the pond to be readily
maintained. The pipe must be sturdily supported, and the end of it must
be easily accessible. I have discussed this with Linda, and the current
design does not allow for these requirements. Please either stabilize
the pipe and provide access through a decking or other means, or
continue to use the permitted outlet structures.
2.) Removing baffles and adding berms in Ponds 4 and 6: I had previously
requested calculations describing how the volumes of the forebay and the
main pond would be maintained. I do not have such calculations. For Pond
4, the basic design has not changed so I can see that the volumes will
probably stay the same. But, written calculations are still required.
For Pond 6, there is no baffle labeled on the previous plan? And, the
forebay has changed considerably. It was previously rectangular, and now
it is triangular. Please submit calculations that the volumes will not
change for Ponds 4 & 6.
1 of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/1 B & 2B]]
Please respond within 3D days.
Thanks,
Kelly
Noelle Winstead wrote:
Kelly,
Yes, Linda did those reviews in the past and then I know there was a
period when they did not get a preliminary review. It does make
sense.
Now I must apologize. When the letters were revised, I failed to
catch
that the discussion about "adding earthen berms" was not revised.
Attached is a revised narrative letter. A forebay berm was always
included for ponds 44 and 46; we have simply added a weir in the berms
to increase the flow path. I have clarified this in the letter and
will see that the approved plan set clearly shows forebay berms. The
proposed plan set just shows the weirs within the existing berms.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for the e-mail.
Noelle
-----Original Message -----
From; Kelly Johnson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:13 PM
To: Noelle Winstead
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1A/1B & 2B]]
Noelle,
I have received the revision submittals for these projects. For Phase
lA/IB, I do not have calculations for adding the berm to Ponds 4 & 6.
Was this an oversight? Please submit those calculations. (Via email
is
fine.)
I am doing the "completeness review" (I am not sure if that was done
when you were with DWQ? This is only done for the regular program.)
But, the policy is to determine if all of the necessary documents are
the submittal within the first few days of receiving the
application/revision letter. Then, request missing documentation that
can be submitted within 24 hrs. If it can not be submitted within 24
hours, then to return the package. So, please submit these
calculations
ASAP.
Thanks,
Kelly
2of3 3/3/200912:41 PM

RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/IB & 2B]]
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 26405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
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.
3 of 3 3/3/2009 12:41 PM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1 A/1 B & 2B]]
� 2T
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/113 & 213]]
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:13:09 -0500
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
I have received the revision submittals for these projects. For Phase lA/l B, I do
not have calculations for adding the berm to Ponds 4 & 6. Was this an oversight?
Please submit those calculations. (Via email is fine.)
I am doing the "completeness review" (I am not sure if that was done when you were
with DWQ? This is only done for the regular program.) But, the policy is to
determine if all of the necessary documents are in the submittal within the first
few days of receiving the application/revision letter. Then, request missing
documentation that can be submitted within 24 hrs. If it can not be submitted
within 24 hours, then to return the package. So, please submit these calculations
ASAP.
Thanks,
Kelly
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/]B & 213]
From: Kelly Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:39:47 -0500
To: Noelle Winstead <[e-mail]>
CC: linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
If you can provide calculations/details that the addition of the earthen berms will
not change the permanent pool volume, then we can consider it as a revision.
Noelle Winstead wrote:
Thank you for your assistance.
If we can demonstrate that there is no change in volume for the addition
of earthen berm versus baffle, can it be a revision? I believe that
that the use of the word earthen berm is causing some confusion. I
believe it is simply a forebay berm with weir. By adding a weir and/or
moving the outlet, the flow path is met. We had a baffle happy engineer
at one time.
Also, I understand that DWQ does not support the idea of a stand alone
orifice versus an outlet box; however, these types of outlets have been
allowed and permitted until now. If DWQ is going to discontinue
allowing these types of outlets, I recommend making an official
announcement instead of waiting until the design work is done. We will
1 of 3 1/28/2009 12:15 PM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park I A/1 B & 2B]]
include some type of screen.
Noelle
-----Original Message -----
From: Kelly Johnson fmailto:kelly.p.johnson®ncmail.net] Sent: Thursday, January
15, 2009 7:53 AM
To: Noelle Winstead
Cc: linda Lewis
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park lA/lB & 2B]
Noelle,
Linda and I have discussed these two projects.
Grayson Park Phase 2B: Potential Revision, see below
1.) Remove clay liner from Pond 1: Can be handled as a revision
2.) Consolidate two forebays in Pond 1: This could affect the total forebay
volume, and therefore is technically a modification item. But, if you can
re -submit this package with further documentation that the forebay volume will
be maintained we will accept that as a "revision"
item.
3.) Remove emergency spillway from Pond 1: There is not DWQ requirement
preventing this, but you may want ensure that the same is true for local
permitting.
4.) Remove a baffle and move the outlet structure from Pond 2: This is also a
revision item. But, you must provide a method of maintaining the
outlet structure if a person can not easily access it from the side of the pond.
A wooden structure or other access mechanism is necessary.
5.) Remove clay liner from Pond 2: Can be handled as a revision
Grayson Park Phase lA & 1B: Modification
1.) Remove clay liner from Pond 1: Can be handled as a revision
2.) Remove the baffle and add an earthen berm in Pond 4: We need to verify that
the volumes are maintained. This is not a revision item. It is a modification.
3.)Replace the outlet box with pipes in Pond 4: We do not support this idea
because of the risk of clogging.
4.) Move the spillway in Pond 4: Can be handled as a revision.
5.)Replace the outlet box with pipes in Pond 5: We do not support this idea
because of the risk of clogging.
6.) Reduce or relocate previous permitted BUA in Pond 5: Can be handled
as a revision
7.) Replace a weir with a weir on a berm in Pond 6: we need to verify that the
volumes are maintained. This is not a revision item. It is a modification.
8.)Replace the outlet box with pipes in Pond 6: we do not support this idea
because of the risk of clogging.
If you would like to pursue Phase IS as a revision, please submit the
appropriate supporting documentation for each revision item. In particular,
please be sure to include specific volume information about consolidating the
forebays in Pond 1. If you would like to pursue changes in Phases lA & 1B, it
will be a modification due to the issue of
replacing a baffle with an earthen berm in Pond 4. However, some of the
1A/12 items can be handled as a revision as indicated above.
I do not think that a meeting is necessary to discuss this because these
are fairly simple items, so we will save you the trip. Please call if you have
questions.
Kelly
2 of 3 1/28/2009 12:15 PM

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Grayson Park IA/1B & 2B]]
1.
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Office: 910.796.7345
Fax: [phone]
[Fwd: Re: Grayson Park 1A/1B & 2B].eml. Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Encoding: 7bit
3 of 1/28/2009 12:15 PM

CAPE FEAR
: Engineering, Inc.
JAN 2 8 2009
January 28, 2009
M5. Kelly Johnson
NCDENK-DWO
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Grayson Park — Phase I A !- I E3
Permit No. 5W8 000238
Plan Revision — Wet Ponds
Ms. Johnson:
Please find attached for your review and approval a plan revision for the above aforementioned project.
Please accept this letter as the narrative to describe the proposed revision. The following paragraphs
detail the revisions made to each pond:
POND N I
Pond # I was originally designed and permitted with a clay key (clay trench) around the pond to prevent
the pond from draining the adjacent wetland area. The pond is currently de5mgned with a permanent pool
elevation at 50.0' msl. The pond is located adjacent to wetlands, however; the permanent pool is set
above the wetland elevation which ranges between 48.0' msl and 49.0' msl. This plan rew51on proposes
removing this clay key from this pond. Please note that this pond outlet discharges into the adjacent
wetlands.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged frorn that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond a5 originally permitted are still met for this pond.
POND N4
When pond N4 was originally designed and permitted, a wooden baffle was added to this pond in order to
ensure a minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 . This plan revision proposes removing this wooden baffle and
adding a weir in the forebay berm. This will ensure that the minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 will be met.
This pond was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan
revision proposes removing this structure and replacing it with an 8" pvc pipe with a 2" orifice cap at the
inflow end that 15 turned below the water surface. The 8" pvc pipe extends through the berm of the pond.
There is also a 1 2" HDPE outlet pipe, with a trash rack at the inflow end that extends through the berm of
the pond at the temporary pool elevation.
This pond was originally permitted with a 30' emergency spillway on the north eastern side of the pond.
This plan revision proposes relocating this spillway to the northern bank.
151 Poole Road, Suite 100 • Belville, NC 25451 - 7-M (910)3B3-1044 • FAX.• [phone]
www.capefearengineering.com

It should be noted that all other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally
permitted. All physical components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With
these proposed revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for
this pond.
POND #5
Pond N5 was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan revision
proposes removing this structure and replacing it with an 8" pvc pipe with a 2" orifice cap at the inflow
end that is turned below the water surface. The 8" pvc pipe extends through the berm of the pond.
There is also a 1 2" HDPE outlet pipe, with a trash rack at the inflow end that extends through the berm of
the pond at the temporary pool elevation, A clean out has also been added along the 8" pvc line due to
the length of the pipe.
The location of units has changed; however, the total number of units remains the same. The clubhouse
amenity has been added to the plan. This area was originally proposed at 85% impervious (3.6 I acres
or] 57,252 square feet). The actual clubhouse, parking, associated buildings, and tennis court account
for approximately 1 ,48 acres OR 64,460 square feet of impervious area.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for this pond.
POND N6
When pond #G was originally designed and permitted, a wooden baffle was added to this pond in order to
ensure a minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 . This plan revision proposes removing this wooden baffle and
adding a weir in the forebay berm. This will ensure that the minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 will be met.
This pond was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan
revision proposes removing this structure and replacing it with an 8" pvc pipe with a 2" orifice cap at the
inflow end that is turned below the water surface. The 8" pvc pipe extends through the berm of the pond.
There is also a 1 2" HOPE outlet pipe, with a trash rack at the inflow end that extends through the berm of
the pond at the temporary pool elevation. A clean out has also been added along the 8" pvc line due to
the length of the pipe.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for this pond.
Included with this submittal are updated detail sheets with revised pond Sections. I trust this information
to be sufficient for your review and approval. Should you have any questions, comments, or require
additional information regarding this matter, please call my office at (91 O) 353-1044.
51ncerely,
�� 4 /'Ow .
Noelle Winstead
Cc: file (520-01 A "36")
(620-01 B "3G")

FEAR
TCAPE
Engineering, Inc.
151 Poole Road Smfe 100
BeMBe, NC 28451
TEL [phone]"
FAY [phone]
www.capefearengineering.com
To: NCDENR — Water Quality
Attn: Ms. Kelly Johnson
Transmittal
01 /22/09
Subject: Grayson Park -Phases 1A & 1 B
Express Permitting
Brunswick County
Permit No. SW8 060238
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval
❑ Sent via Mail ® Sent via Courier
Quantity
Drawing No.
Description
3 -
Revised Stormwater Control Plan Set
1
Cover Letter / Narrative
z15
JAN 2 3 2009
BY:
REMARKS If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact this office.
CC: FILE
(820-01 A "36")
(820-01 B "36")
Cape Fear Engineering, Inc.
Signed AL.CG_
oelle Winstead
\ TRANS-NCDENR-Johnson-22JAN09
L Y

CAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
January 22, 2009
Ms. Kelly Johnson
NCDENR-DWO
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Grayson Park — Phase I A 4� 113
Permit No. SW8 000238
Plan Revision — Wet Ponds
BY:
Ms. Johnson:
JAN 2 S 2009
Please find attached for your review and approval a plan revision for the above aforementioned project.
Please accept this letter as the narrative to describe the proposed revision. The following paragraphs
detail the revisions made to each pond:
POND # I
Pond # I was originally designed and permitted with a clay key (clay trench) around the pond to prevent
the pond from draining the adjacent wetland area. The pond is currently designed with a permanent pool
elevation at 50.0' msl. The pond is located adjacent to wetlands, however: the permanent pool 15. ,et
above the wetland elevation which ranges between 48.0' msl and 49.0' msl. This plan revision proposes
removing this clay key from this pond. Please note that this pond outlet discharges into the adjacent
wetlands.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for this pond.
POND #4
When pond #4 was originally designed and permitted, a wooden baffle was added to this pored in order to
ensure a minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 . This plan revision proposes removing this wooden baffle and
adding an earthen berm with a weir between the forebay and pond. This will ensure that the minimum flow
path ratio of 3: 1 will be met.
This pond was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan
'evasion proposes removing this structure and replacing it with an 8" pvc pipe with a 2" orifice cap at the
:inflow end that is turned below the water surface. The 8" pvc pipe extends through the berm of the pond.
There is also a 1 2" HDPE outlet pipe, with a trash rack at the inflow end, that extends through the berm
of the pond at the temporary pool elevation.
This pond was originally permitted with a 30' emergency spillway on the north eastern side of the pond.
This plan revision proposes relocating this spillway to the northern bank.
151 Poole Road, Suite 100 • Belville, NC 26451 • TEL: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
www. capefearengineering. com

It should be noted that all other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally
permitted. All physical components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With
these proposed revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for
this pond.
POND #5
Pond #5 was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan revision
proposes removing this structure and replacing it with an 8" pvc pipe with a 2" orifice cap at the inflow
end that is turned below the water surface. The 8" pvc pipe extends through the berm of the pond.
There 15 also a 1 2" HDPE outlet pipe, with a trash rack at the inflow end, that extends through the berm
of the pond at the temporary pool elevation. A clean out has also been added along the 8" pvc line due
to the length of the pipe.
The location of units has changed; however, the total number of units remains the same. The clubhouse
amenity has been added to the plan. This area was originally proposed at 85% impervious (3.6 I acres
or157,252 square feet). The actual clubhouse, parking, associated buildings, and tennis court account
for approximately 1 .48 acres OP 64,460 square feet of impervious area.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for this pond.
POND #6
Pond #6 was originally designed and permitted without an earthen berm with a weir between the forebay
and pond. This plan revision proposes adding an earthen berm with a weir between the forebay and pond
to ensure that the minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 will be met.
This pond was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan
revision proposes removing this structure and replacing it with an 8" pvc pipe with a 2" orifice cap at the
inflow end that is turned below the water surface. The 8" pvc pipe extends through the berm of the pond.
There is also a 1 2" HDPE outlet pipe, with a trash rack at the inflow end, that extends through the berm
of the pond at the temporary pool elevation. A clean out has also been added along the 8" pvc line due
to the length of the pipe.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for this pond.
Included with this submittal are updated detail sheets with revised pond sections. I trust this information
to be sufficient for your review and approval. Should you have any questions, comments, or require
additional information regarding this matter, please call my office at (9 1 0) 363- 1 044.
Sincerely
Noelle Winstead
Cc: file (820-01 A "36")
i\ (620-01 B -36")

�OF W ATF' o Michael F. Easley, Governor
�Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O Y Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
January 2, 2009
Mr. William Bradley
Cape Fear Engineering
151 Poole Road
Suite 100
Belville, NC 28451
Subject: Application Return
Project Name: Grayson Park Phase 1A and 1B
County: Brunswick County
Project Number: Not assigned (would be SW8 060238mod)
Dear Mr. Bradley:
Your recent NPDES Phase II Post Construction Permit Application is being returned because the application
lacked the necessary basic elements to accept it for review. The plans and any other documentation that were
submitted have been discarded or recycled, as appropriate. Please address the following noted deficiencies and
provide the requested information:
❑ Two sets of plans.
❑ A completed and signed permit application with an original signature.
❑ The appropriate supplement form required for all projects.
❑ Sealed design calculations.
❑ A signed Operation and Maintenance Plan.
❑ The required permit fee of $505.00.
❑ The results of a soils investigation, reporting the Seasonal High Water Table elevation for all projects, and
in addition for infiltration projects, reporting the soil type, and expected infiltration rate.
Specifically, this project contains the following deficiencies:
• The fee for permit modifications is $505. Please include a check with your re -submittal.
• Please include the application form and all applicable supplement forms including the wet pond
supplement for any pond where any parameters may change the previously permitted volumes.
Replacing baffles with earthen berms, relocating spillways, and reconfiguring outlet boxes may change
previously -permitted volumes.
• Please reflect any proposed changes to previously -permitted impervious areas on your application form,
supplements, and deed restrictions.
Please resubmit the permit application package to the address below. Note that the 90-day statutory permit
review time begins upon receipt of a complete application. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call me at [phone].
ML
cc: [Wilmington -Regional Office .3
GS/KJ: S:\WQS\STORMWAT\RETURN\Grayson Park Phase 2B
N''on��Carolina
dvaturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone]
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: w�,vv.ncwaterquality ore Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748

VCAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
151 Poole Hoeg Surte 100
9eNdle, NC 28451
TEL [phone]
FAX (910) W8 1045
www.capefearengineering.com
I To I NCDENR — Water Qualitv I
�. TA max
DEC,, R �a08
BY:—_—___ _-
Transmittal
File: 820-01
Subject: Grayson Park -Phases 1A & 1 B
Express Permitting
Brunswick County
❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval
❑ Sent via Mail ® Sent via Courier
Quantity Drawing No. Description
3 Revised Stormwater Control Plan Set
1 Cover Letter / Narrative
REMARKS If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact this office.
CC: FILE
(820-01A "36")
(820-01 B "36")
Cape Fear Engineering, Inc.
Signed
Will Bradley
TRANS-NCDENR-BARTLETT-18DEC08.doc

CAPE FEAR
Engineering, Inc.
December 18, 2008
Mr. Paul Bartlett, P.E.
NCDENR-DWQ
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Grayson Park — Phase I A E 15
Permit No. 5W8 000238
Plan Revision — Wet Ponds
Mr. Bartlett:
cJ'IVED
DEC 1 8 7008
10
Please find attached for your review and approval a plan revision for the above aforementioned project.
Please accept this letter as the narrative to describe the proposed revision. The following paragraphs
detail the revisions made to each pond:
POND # I
Pond # I was originally designed and permitted with a clay key (clay trench) around the pond to prevent
the pond from draming the adjacent wetland area. The pond is currently designed with a permanent pool
elevation at 50.0' msl. The pond is located adjacent to wetlands, however; the permanent pool is set
above the wetland elevation which ranges between 48.0' msl and 49.0' msl. This plan revision proposes
removing this clay key from this pond.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as ongmally permitted are still met for this pond.
POND #4
When pond #4 was originally designed and permitted, a wooden baffle was added to this pond in order to
ensure a minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 . This plan revision proposes removing this wooden baffle and
adding an earthen berm with a weir between the forebay and pond. This will ensure that the minimum flow
path ratio of 3: 1 will be met.
This pond was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan
revision proposes removing this structure and replacing it with a 2" pvc orifice pipe through the berm of
the pond and a 1 2" HDPE outlet pipe through the berm of the pond at the temporary pool elevation.
This pond was originally permitted with a 30' emergency spillway on the north eastern side of the pond.
This plan revision proposes relocating this spillway to the northern bank.
151 Poole Road, Suite 100 •,Oelville, NC28451 • TEL [phone] • FAX: [phone]
wwwcapefearengincering. com

It should be noted that all other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally
permitted. All physical components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With
these proposed revisions, all components of a water quality pond as onginally permitted are still met for
this pond.
POND #5
Pond #5 was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan revision
proposes removing this structure and replacing it with a 2" pvc orifice pipe through the berm of the pond
and a 1 2" HOPE outlet pipe through the berm of the pond at the temporary pool elevation.
The location of units has changed; however, the total number of units remains the same. The clubhouse
amenity has been added to the plan. This area was originally proposed at 65% impervious (3.61 acres
or1 57,252 square feet). The actual clubhouse, parking, associated buildings, and tennis court account
for approximately 1 .48 acres OP 64,460 square feet of impervious area.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for this pond.
POND #6
Pond #6 was originally designed and permitted without an earthen berm with a weir between the forebay
and pond. This plan revision proposes adding an earthen berm with a weir between the forebay and pond
to ensure that the minimum flow path ratio of 3: 1 will be met.
This pond was originally designed and permitted to have a concrete box outlet structure. This plan
revision proposes removing this structure and replacing it with a 2" pvc orifice pipe through the berm of
the pond and a 1 2" HDPE outlet pipe through the berm of the pond at the temporary pool elevation.
All other aspects of this pond remain unchanged from that which were originally permitted. All physical
components (pond geometry, surface area, volume, etc.) have not changed. With these proposed
revisions, all components of a water quality pond as originally permitted are still met for this pond.
Included with this submittal are updated detail sheets with revised pond sections. I trust this information
to be sufficient for your review and approval. Should you have any questions, comments, or require
additional information regarding this matter, please call my office at (9 1 0) 383- 1 044.
sincerely,
William f3radley
Cc: file (820-0 1 A " 36")
(820-0115 " 36")