SW8040919_Historical File_20050919

I•
�1~ rl
.,C
Mr. Travis Tyndall, Manager
Inland Properties Group, LLC
2894 Belgrade-Swansboro Road
Maysville, NC 28555
Dear Mr. Tyndall:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 19, 2005
Subject: Permit No. SW8 040919.Mod
Morada Bay Sections I, II, III
Low Density Subdivision with a Curb Outlet
System Stormwater Permit
Carteret County
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit Application for
Morada Bay Sections I, II, & III on September 19, 2005. Staff review of the plans and specifications
has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in
Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8 040919.Mod, dated September 19,
2005, for the construction of the project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be subject to the
conditions and limitations as specified therein, and does not supercede any other agency permit that may
be required.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to
request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this
permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447,
Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please contact either
Gary Beecher or me at [phone].
Sincer ,
r
Edward Beck
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
EB/:ghb S:\WQS\STOWvIWAT\PERMIT\040919.Mod
cc: David Newsom (Crystal Coast Engineering)
Carteret County Inspections
NCDOT district engineer
Gary Beecher (DWQ)
Central Files
Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone [phone] Customer Servicel-877-623-6748 One
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845 FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us NorthCaIolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recyded/10% Post Consumer Paper Naturally

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North
Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Mr. Travis Tyndall, Manager
Inland Properties Group, LLC
Morada Bay Sections I, H,, & III
Carteret County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a 25% low density subdivision with a curb outlet
system in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (hereafter referred to as the
"stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater management plans and specifications, and
other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by the Division of Water Quality
and considered a part of this permit.
The Permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be subject to the
following specific conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. The project is permitted for 51 lots, each limited to a maximum of 4,633 square feet of
built -upon area, as defined by the stormwater rules, and as indicated in the approved
plans. CAMA regulations may reduce the built -upon area for those lots within the AEC.
2. The overall tract built -upon area percentage for the project must be maintained at 25%,
per the requirements of Section .1005 of the stormwater rules.
3. This project proposes a curb outlet system. Each designated curb outlet swale or 100'
vegetated area shown on the approved plan must be maintained at a minimum of 100'
long, maintain 5:1 (H: V) side slopes or flatter, have a longitudinal slope no steeper than
5%, carry the flow from a 10 year storm in a non -erosive manner, maintain a dense
vegetated cover, and be located in either a dedicated common area or a recorded drainage
easement.
4. No piping shall be allowed except those minimum amounts necessary to direct runoff
beneath an impervious surface such as a road or under driveways to provide access to
lots.
Runoff conveyances other than the curb outlet system swales, such as perimeter ditches,
must be vegetated with side slopes no steeper than 3:1 (H:V).
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Curb outlet swales, vegetated areas and other vegetated conveyances shall be constructed
in their entirety, vegetated, and be operational for their intended use prior to the

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 040919.mod
construction of any built -upon surface, per the approved plans
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of the
swales or other vegetated conveyances will be repaired immediately_
3. The permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to
operate the permitted stormwater management systems at optimum efficiency to include:
a. Inspections
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing, and revegetating of the side slopes.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of side slopes in accordance with approved plans and specifications.
f. Cleaning and repair of catch basin grates, flumes, piping, and the flow spreader
mechanism..
4. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for revised
plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any modification to the
approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed below:
a. Any revision to the approved plans, regardless of size.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the drainage
area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition or sale of the project area. The project area is
defined as all property owned by the permittee, for which Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan approval was sought.
f. Filling in, piping, or altering any vegetative conveyance shown on the approved
plan.
5. The Director may determine that other revisions to the project should require a
modification to the permit.
6. The permittee is responsible for verifying that the proposed built -upon area does not
exceed the allowable built -upon area. Once the lot transfer is complete, the built -upon
area may not be revised without approval from the Division of Water Quality, and
responsibility for meeting the built -upon area limit is transferred to the individual
property owner.
7. The permittee must certify in writing that the project's stormwater controls, and
impervious surfaces have been constructed within substantial intent of the approved plans
and specifications. Any deviation from the approved plans must be noted on the
Certification. The permittee shall submit the Certification to the Division within 30 days
of completion of the project.
8. The permittee shall submit all information requested by the Director or his representative
within the time frame specified in the written information renne-d
9. Each lot in the subdivision covered by this permit will maintain a minimum 30 foot wide
vegetative buffer between all impervious areas and surface waters.
1.0. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or more
of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in the notice,
the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director for modifying the site to
meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide copies of revised plans and
certification in writing to the Director that the changes have been made.
11. Deed restrictions are incorporated into this permit by reference and must be recorded with
the Office of the Register of Deeds prior to the sale of any lot.
3

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SWS O4091.9.mod
12. The permittee shall submit a copy of the recorded deed restrictions within 30 days of the
date of recording.
13. Recorded deed restrictions must include, at a minimum, the following statements related
to stormwater management:
a. The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with State
Stormwater Management Permit Number 040919.Mod, as issued by the Division
of Water Quality under NCAC 2H.1000.
b. The State of North Carolina is made a beneficiary of these covenants to the extent
necessary to maintain compliance with the Stormwater Management Permit.
C. These covenants are to run with the land and be binding on all persons and parties
claiming under them.
d. The covenants pertaining to stormwater may not be altered or rescinded without
the express written consent of the State of North Carolina, Division of Water
Quality.
e. Alteration of the drainage as shown on the approved plans may not take place
without the concurrence of the Division of Water Quality.
f. The maximum built -upon area per lot is 4,633 square feet. This allotted amount
includes any built -upon area constructed within the lot property boundaries, and
that portion of the right-of-way between the front lot line and the edge of the
pavement. Built upon area includes, but is not limited to, structures, asphalt,
concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate, coquina, driveways, and parking areas, but
does not include raised, open wood decking, or the water surface of swimming
pools.
g. Filling in, piping or altering any 3:1 vegetated conveyances (ditches, swales, etc.)
associated with the development except for average driveway crossings, is
prohibited by any persons.
I Lots within CAMA's Area of Environmental Concern may have the permitted
built -upon area reduced due to CAMA jurisdiction within the AEC.
i. Filling in, piping or altering any designated 5:1 curb outlet swale or vegetated area
associated with the development is prohibited by any persons.
j. A 30' vegetated buffer must be maintained between all built -upon area and the
Mean High Water line of surface waters.
k. All roof drains shall terminate at least 30' from the Mean High Water mark.
T his project proposes a curb outlet system. Each designated curb outlet swale or
100' vegetated area shown on the approved plan must be maintained at a
minimum of 100' long, maintain 5:1 (H: V) side slopes or flatter, have a
longitudinal slope no steeper than 5%, carry the flow from a 10 year storm in a
non -erosive manner, maintain a dense vegetated cover, and be located in either a
dedicated common area or a recorded drainage easement.
14. All roof drains must terminate at least 30' from the Mean High Water mark.
15. Prior to transfer of ownership, the swales must be inspected and determined to be in
compliance with the permit. Any deficiencies will be repaired or replaced prior to the
transfer.
II

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 04091.9.mod
16. All curb outlet swales and 100' vegetated areas must be located in recorded drainage
easements or dedicated common areas. The final plats for the project will be recorded
showing all such required easements and common areas, in accordance with the approved
plans.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the
Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in accordance with
North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
2. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
3. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of
a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance, or termination does not
stay any permit condition.
4. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and modifying
the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the
laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative
Code, Subchapter 2H.1000; and North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
5. The permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and approval
by the Director. The Director may require modification or revocation and re -issuance of
the permit to change the name and incorporate such other requirements as may be
necessary. A formal permit request must be submitted to the Division of Water Quality
accompanied by the appropriate fee, documentation from both parties involved, and other
supporting materials as may be appropriate. The approval of this request will be
considered on its merits, and may or may not be approved. The permittee is responsible
for compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit until the Division approves
the permit transfer.
6. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and
all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by other government
agencies (local, state and federal), which have jurisdiction. If any of thosc per�ritS result
in revisions to the plans, a permit modification must be submitted.
7. The permittee grants permission to DENR Staff to enter the property during business
hours for the purposes of inspecting the stormwater control system and it's components.
8. The permittee shall notify the Division of Water Quality of any name, ownership or
mailing address changes within 30 days.
9. Approved plans and specifications for projects covered by this permit are incorporated by
reference and are enforceable parts of the permit.
Permit issued this the 19th day of September 2005.
NOR CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
_ ' ------------------------
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit Number SW8 040919.Mod
5

OFFICE USE ONLY
Date R,eceived
Fee Paid
Permit Number
06 -,2,LO5
I v vq A 00
SAJ D �i ,D
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Applicants name (specify the name of the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Inland Properties Group, LLC
2. Print Owner/Signing Official's name and title (person legally responsible for facility and compliance):
Travis Tyndall, Manager
3. Mailing Address for person listed in item 2 above:
2894 Belgrade-Swansboro Rd.
City: Maysville _ State: NC Zip: 28555
Telephone Number: ( 910 ) 743-6070
4. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Morada Bay Sections I, II & III
5. Location of Project (street address):
Intersection of NC 24 and J Bell Ln.
City: White Oak
6. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
County: Carteret
From intersection of NC 24 & NC 58, east on NC 24 approx. 4.7 miles to J. Bell Lane, right on J. Bell Lane.
7. Latitude: 340 42' 03" N Longitude: 760 57' 49" W of project
8. Contact person who can answer questions about the project:
Name: David K. Newsom, PE (Crystal Coast Engineering, PA) Telephone Number: ( 910 ) 325-0006
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. Specify whether project is (check one): New Renewal X Modification
Form SWU-101 Version 3.99 Page 1 of 4

2. If this application is being submitted as the result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit, list the
existing permit number SW8 040919 and its issue date (if known) Jan. 25, 2005
3. Specify the type of project (check one):
X Low Density ____.___High Density Redevelop ., ...,,.,.General Permit Other
4. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks):
CAMA Major X Sedimentation /Erosion Control X 404/401 Permit _NPDES Stormwater
Information on required state permits can be obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at
1-877-623-6748.
III. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, summarize how stormwater will be treated. Also attach a detailed narrative
(one to two pages) describing stormwater management for the project.
Project is Low Density (25%). Streets have curb and gutter with curb outlets. Collected water is diverted to 100' min.
length vegetated swales.
2. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak
3. Total Project Area: 38.46 total/35.98 net acres
5. How many drainage areas does the project have? 1
River basin.
4. Project Built Upon Area: 25.00
6. Complete the following information for each drainage area. If there are more than two drainage areas in the
project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area provided in the same format as below.
Basin Information
Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2
Receiving Stream Name
Sikes Branch
Receiving Stream Class
SA•HQW
Drainage Area
1,567,309 sf (35.98 ac)
Existing Impervious* Area
-0-
Proposed Impervious*Area
391,827 sf (9.00 ac)
% Impervious* Area (total)
25.00%
Impervious* Surface Area
Drainago Area I
Drainage Area 2
On -site Buildings
236,290- sf
On -site Streets
130,241 sf
On -site Parking
-0-
On-site Sidewalks
24,669 sf
Other on -site
627 sf
Off -site
Total: 391,827 sf (9.00 ac)
Total:
* Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
Form SWU-101 Version 3.99 Page 2 of 4
ova

7. How was the off -site impervious area listed above derived? N/A
IV. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS — 5&9 ��e�4
The following italicized deed restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded for all
subdivisions, outparcels and future development prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly, a table
listing each lot number, size and the allowable built -upon area for each lot must be provided as an attachment.
1. The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with state stormwater management permit number
N/A as issued by the Division of Water Quality. These covenants may not be
"'<ehanged or deleted without the consent of the State.
2. No more than N/A square feet of any lot shall be covered ructures or impervious materials.
Impervious materals include asphalt, gravel, concrete, brick, stone to or similar material but do not include wood
decking or the water surf'caca. f swimming pools.
3. Swales shall not be filled in, piped, or altcre exc pt s necessary to provide driveway crossings.
4. Built -upon area in excess of the p mra ted amount requi er s-a-.s ate stormwater management permit modification prior to
construction.
5. All permitted runof from outparcels or future development shall be directed into-t a permitted stormwater control
system. Then connections These to the stormwater control system shall be performed in a an er that maintains the integrity
and pgr ormance of the system as permitted.
By your signature below, you certify that the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants for this project
shall include all the applicable items required above, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons
claiming under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the State, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each
BMP specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status
and availability of these forms.
Form SWU-102
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-104
Low Density Supplement
Form SWU-105
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106
Off -Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-108
Neuse River Basin Supplement
Form SWU-109
Innovative Best Management Practice Supplement
Form SWU-101 Version 3.99 Page 3 of 4

VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DWQ Regional Office.
1. Please indicate that you have provided the following required information by initialing in the space provided
next to each item.
Initials
• Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form DKCIV
• One copy of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP
• Permit application processing fee of $420 (payable to NCDENR)
• Detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management /C✓l/
• Two copies of plans and specifications, including: 4 /
- Development/Project name
- Engineer and firm
-Legend
- North arrow
- Scale
- Revision number & date
- Mean high water line
- Dimensioned property/project boundary
- Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
- Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
- Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures
- Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
- Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations
- Drainage areas delineated
- Vegetated buffers (where required)
VII. AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If you wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide information on your
behalf, please complete this section.
Designated agent (individual or firm): Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
Mailing Address: 3 817-3 Freedom Way
City: Hubert
Phone:[ 910 ) 325-0006
VIII. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
State: NC
Zip: 28539
Fax: ( 910 ) 325-0060
I, (print or type name of person listed in General Information, item 2) —rr'41%Is �� ti e 1
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my lmowledge, correct and
that the project will. be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be record e t the proposed project complies with the requirements of 15A
NCAC 21-1.1000.
Signature:
Form SVU-101 Version 3.99 Page 4 of 4
Date: 4�'

3817-3 Freedom Way
Hubert, N.C. 28539
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I Iii, 11111F� ii 11 �11� i I al
ZI
To: Gary Beecher
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ree Morada Bay Sections 1-III
PIVIC'MV'ED
SEP 1 6 2005
BY:
From: Jeanie Clinkinbeard for David K. Newsom
Date: September 13, 2005
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Attached:
One (1) copy Drainage Area Supplement for each section
Comments:
Per your emailed request dated September 9, 2005.
No lots have been sold, and the previous deed restrictions have not been recorded.
Station 0 + 00 — Station 11 + 50 is 20' wide strip pavement with roadside swales (3:1),
Station 11 + 50 — End is 20' pavement with curb and gutter and curb cuts.
(See Street Cross Sections Details on Sheet 1/5)

Re: Inland Properties Group, LCC: SW8 040919
Subject: Re: Inland Properties Group, LCC: SW8 040919
From: "Todd Miller" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:31:10 -0400
To: "Linda Lewis" [e-mail]>
CC: "Ed Beck" <Ed.Beck [e-mail]>, "Tom Reeder" <tom.reeder [e-mail]>
Linda,
Here-s a picture of one of the "non -discharging swales" that is being constructed as allowed by the permit issued to Inland Properties Group,
LCC: Sw8 040919.
I understand that work is underway to amend the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan since part of the road was being built on someone
else's property and parts of the new roadbed has to be relocated. Also, existing J. Bell Lane was not where it was shown on the permit
applications making installation of the sediment basin next to the road impossible as authorized. I believe there has been an NOV issued by
the Division of Land Quality. It would appear to me that the project is out of compliance with the coastal stormwater permit as well as the
NPDES Phase II construction stormwater permit as well.
We have serious concerns that the swales authorized by the coastal stormwater permit (issued pursuant to the nondischarge laws and rules of
the EMC) are in fact discharging systems. Such atormwater outfalls should be regulated as a "point source" of pollution under the NPDES
program. I-ve talked with Tom Reeder about our concerns with discharging swales and gave him a heads up that we plan to file a declaratory
ruling request with the EMC about this issue later this summer or fall. we will be asking the Commission to clarify that swales that
discharge to surface waters should be regulated as "point sources" under the NPDES program and not authorized as non -discharging drainage
systems. Of course, we would like to see this practice stopped or at least these discharging swales placed under an NPDES permit prior to
having to go to the Commission if DNQ agrees with our legal reasoning on this issue.
Approving these discharging swales has been standard operating practice based on policy that was adopted.by DNQ over the years, and I know
that you are just implementing that policy. However, I wanted you to be aware that we're planning to seek clarification of this practice in
terms of consistency with the requirements of the federal Clean water Act.
Since a permit modification should be forthcoming on the existing permits issued to Inland Properties, I would encourage DWO to find that
these swales are discharging drainage system and require the applicants to apply for and receive an NPDES stormwater permit.
with best regards,
Todd
Todd Miller
Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 2R570
[phone] [phone] (fax)
www.nccoast.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Lewis" <linda.lewiswncmail.net>
To: "Todd Miller" < toddm®nccoast.org>
Cc: "Ed Beck" <Ed.Beck®ncmail.net>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Inland vropertiee Group, LCC: SNB 040919
Todd:
I have not been informed about that situation. I will be requesting that the permittee seek either a plan revision or a permit modification
for the project.
As far as I can remember, low density swales have never been considered a discharging stormwater treatment system under the stormwater
rules. However, I will verify this with legdl counsel as soon as counsel becomes available.
Linda
Todd Miller wrote:
Dear Linda,
You may know that Inland Properties was forced to stop work on their road because of a property dispute with the adjacent landowner who
originally sold them their right-of-way. From new survey stakes that have appeared along the new road alignment yesterday, it appears
that they intend to move the road to the east (around 5 feet or so). This is because they were building the new road and drainage
swales on property they did not own.
I don't know if your office has been notified of this situation, but I would expect that they need to amend the stormwater permit they
were issued to reflect the change in design. The location of the proposed roadside swales and how they intend to maintain the required
minimum of a 3-to-1 slope is of particular interest to me.
Although I know swales that discharge to waters of the state are routinely approved, I would like to request that you ask your legal
council whether or not such designs can be legally authorized under the coastal stormwater rules. The North Carolina stormwater
Management Policy and ensuing rules governing permits for "low density" developments in the twenty coastal counties are set forth in
accordance with N.C. Gen Stat. 5143-215.1(d), which applies only to -Applications and Permits for Sewer Systems, Sewer System Extensions
and Pretreatment Facilities, Land Application of waste, and for wastewater Treatment Facilities Not Discharging to the Surface waters of
the State", and Section 2H.0200 of Chapter 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, entitled "waste Not Discharged to Surface
Waters-, and which refers specifically to "stormwater management system[s]... which [do] not discharge to surface waters of the State.-
N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, 2H.0202. Discharging systems that contain outfalls to waters of the state, such as the swales designed for
this road, should be reviewed and regulated as a "point source" and "stormwater outfall" and not as a non -discharging system. In fact,
when this road is accepted by NC DOT, these Swale outlets will then be defined as "outfalls,^ and regulated pursuant to NC DOT-s Phase 1
NPDES Stormwater permit. At that point, I'm concerned that NC DOT will have stormwater outfalls with discharges that will be violating
water quality standards (at least for fecal coliforms).
With beat regards,
Todd
Todd Miller
Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
[phone] [phone] (fax)
www.1 coast.2
----- Original Message ----- From: ^Trentt James" <Trent.Jameswncmail.net>
To: "Todd Miller" <toddm®nccoast.or >
Cc: "Dan Same" <Dan. Bamsancma l.net>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9.44 AM
Subject: Re: J. Bell Lane
Todd Miller wrote:
l of 4 8/9/2005 9:21 AM

Re: Inland Properties Group, LCC: SW8 040919
Trent,
I didnIt take another picture, but the sediment basin constructed by inland Properties is again eroding into the J. Bell Lane
right of way. Our neighbor Alton Rouse has worked to fix this problem to keep J. Bell Lane functional, and not the developers.
Alton is keeping the road passable on his own initiative and at his own expense --maintenance that I think should be the
responsibility of the developers.
You probably know that work on the road has stopped as a result of a property dispute. It appears that the road was constructed
to far to the west on Julian week's property. There was a meeting of all these parties on site yesterday, and there are now new
survey stakes that indicate the road will be moved further east by about 5 feet or so. I don't think this realignment is
consistent with the approved sedimentation and erosion control plan. As for the sediment basin constructed next to J. Bell Lane,
it is already substantially further east (by 10 feet or so) than showed on the plans and the approved intersection with J. Bell
Lane can not be built as shown on the approved
plans.
will you require an amendment of your approved plan prior to continued construction of the road? And if so, will there be an
opportunity to address the fact that the sediment basin is eroding into the J. Bell Lane right of way that is used by dozens of
existing property owners? If we have a big storm, I'm afraid J. Bell Lane will be made impassible by the current design.
Thanks for your help on this.
with beat regards,
Todd
Todd Miller
Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
[phone] [phone] (fax)
www.nccoast.ora ehttpe//www.nccoast.org>
Todd,
It is my understanding that a plan revision is already in the works in part because of the sediment trap location and the proximity
to the road. I was not aware of the meeting on -site yesterday but I would not be surprised if this was the subject of the meeting.
I was not aware that Alton Rouse had done the work to repair the gullies at J. Bell Rd. I had contacted Sunland about it and they
said they would take care of it, so I just assumed it was them. The developer is responsible for the maintenance of the trap.
As far as what is taken into account in the approval of plane or a revision, I will let Dan respond to you on that matter. He is out
of the office today but I will cc him on the email.
Thanks
Trentt
2 of 4 8/9/2005 9:21 AM

Crystal Coast Enaineerina, PA
3817-3 Freedom Way
Hubert, N.C. 28539
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] 111, -. 7,, TV, 7-1
v.✓ _� ,:. .,ems
JUN 2 4 2005
June 22, 2005
'Ms. Linda Lewis
N.C. Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
Re: Stormwater Project No. SW8 040919
Morada Bay Sections I, II & III
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Lewis,
We are in receipt of questionstcomments emailed to us on June 15, 2005 for the
referenced project. We provide the following information to allow you to continue the
stormwater review (item numbers correspond to your email):
1. Color coded Drainage Area Map enclosed (3 sheets).
2. Revised covenants. Copy of proposed covenants attached. If acceptable, I will forward
these covenants to Owner's attorney for signature and adoption.
3. Feel free to consolidate plans into single set. Had we known of developer's expedited
development schedule, we would have prepared as single plan set instead of 3 as we
did.
4. Your assumption is correct. BUA listed does include all (house, driveways, etc)
surfaces. We have revised Sheet 2 as suggested.
5. No lots have been sold. Covenants have not yet been recorded.
We are hopeful that this response addresses all concerns and that the permit can be
issued in the near future. Should you have questions or additional concerns, please feel free to
contact mew. _
truly,
yid ewsom Z01�1
CRYSTAL COAST ENGINEERING
cc: Inland Properties Group, LLC

Morada Bay Sections I, II & III Modification
Subject: Morada Bay Sections I, II & III Modification
From: Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:25:45 -0400
To: Dave Newsom <[e-mail]>
Dave:
The Morada Bay modification received on June 15, 2005, is incomplete. Please
provide the following information prior to accepting the application for review:
1. Provide a swale drainage area map. Delineate the one drainage area for each
proposed swale.
2. Add one more statement to the proposed covenants regarding the curb outlet
swales, as attached.
3. FYI- I will be consolidating the 3 plan sets into one approved plan set.
Duplicated sheets will be removed to reduce the bulk.
4. The BUA breakdown section on page 2 of the application notes that the drives for
11 lots are included in the "buildings" total. What 11 lots are you referring to?
It is assumed that the BUA per lot will cover all of the built -upon area on that
lot, including house, patios, driveway, walks, outbuildings, etc. There is no need
to note this on the application.
5. Please verify that no lots have been sold in any of these phases and that the
previously permitted deed restrictions have not been recorded. If any lots have
been sold under the previously permitted BUA amounts, you will need to amend the
application and the deed restrictions to specify those lots.
Linda
...... __................................................................................................__._....................._..............._._._._.................................._...._.............................._..........__.._..... ..... ... ... ... ... ..._................. .......... .....
T-LDCG.doc
1 of 1 6/15/2005 5:26 PM

3817-3 Freedom Way
Hubert, N.C. 28539
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
r-111� ►.`' r
To: Linda Lewis
ft Morada Bay Sections I, II & II I
From: Dave Newsom
Date: June 12, 2005
JUN 1 5 2005
BY:
I I-
D�� 2
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Attached:
Two (2) copies of revised Construction Drawings
One (1) original and one (1) copy Stormwater Permit Application w/ Supplements
Check in the amount of $420.
Comments:
Per our recent conversation, this project has previously been permitted (low density) under three
separate permits. The developer has decided to install curb and gutter and sidewalks. We desire
to modify the permit such that all three sections are under a single permit. You may rescind the
two remaining permits.
'bIe
(� GG 501 i d e. pi al5
�S
I�N
Z Z
t-�'l (�
V4Q - (( (v%) in GIU t�-
.IM �- I t 5WO
SecIT e 6psO
& ma`s l, rec 2
� (Vv f�-Es ai�

�.�
.fib e a
—_ MAY `' 6 2005
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources'
Division of Land Resources
James D. Simons, PG, PE Land Quality Section
Director and State Geologist
May 24, 2005
NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE
SEDIMENTATION POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 2510 0001 8279 8949
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Inland Properties Group, LLC
Mr. Travis Tyndall
2894 Belgrade-Swansboro Rd.
Maysville, NC 28555
RE: Project Name: Morada Bay Sec 1
Project 1D: Carte-2005-088
County: Carteret
Compliance Deadline: 15 days from receipt
Dear Sir or Madam:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
On May 19, 2005, personnel of this office inspected a project located on J Bell Ln, Ocean in Carteret, County, North
Carolina. This inspection was performed to determine compliance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act (Act) of 1973. The inspection revealed a land -disturbing activity of approximately 7.0 acres being
conducted.
It is our understanding that you and/or your firm are responsible for this land -disturbing activity. The purpose of this
letter is to inform you that this activity was found to be in violation of the Act, G.S. 113A-50 to 66, Title 15A, North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Chapter 4. If you feel that you are not responsible for the following violations,
please notify this office immediately.
The violations that were found are:
b. Failure to conduct a land -disturbing activity in accordance with the provisions of an approved erosion and
sedimentation control plan. 15 NCAC 4B .0113.
Sediment traps 1-4 have not been installed per the approved plan. The 404 wetland and areas at the road
crossing have been cleared and graded without the installation of adjacent traps. Silt fence posts have
been installed but not the fabric in this area. The silt fence should not block the flow of the channel but
rather be installed down to the edge of the channel. The sediment traps should be installed prior to any
additional grading. The 36" RCP and Rip Rap Scour Pad should be installed as soon as possible in order
to limit exposure time.
f. Failure to take all reasonable measures to protect all public and private property from damage by such land -
disturbing activities. 15A NCAC 4B .0105.
Erosive conditions exist now where sediment traps 1 & 4 should have been installed.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845 o Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]

Notice of Violations
Mr. Travis Tyndall
May 24, 2005
Page 2 of 2
To correct these violations, you must:
1. Install sediment traps and any additional erosion control measures per the approved plan. Complete the work at 404
wetland road crossing in a timely manner.
2. Take all reasonable measures to protect public and/or private property from the said land disturbing activity by
installing adequate and/or necessary erosion control measures.
The penalty for an initial violation could be an assessment of up to $5,000.00. A time period for compliance is not
required for enforcement of this violation pursuant to NCGS 113A-61.1(c) and NCGS 113A-64(a)(1). Therefore, the
initial violation may be referred to the Director, Division of Land Resources, for appropriate action.
Please be advised that if these violations are not corrected within 15 days of receipt of this notice whichever term is
longer, the Director, Division of Land Resources, will be requested to take appropriate legal action against you pursuant
to NCGS 113A-64. That action could be the assessment of a civil penalty, and the amount may be up to $5000 per day
for each day of the violation. The penalty may be assessed from the date of the violation, NCGS 113A-61(a)(1). If the
violations are corrected within the time period specified for compliance, no further legal action will be pursued.
Please be advised that any new land -disturbing activity associated with this project should not begin until the area
presently disturbed is brought into compliance with the Act. When corrective actions are complete, you should notify
this office so that work can be inspected. You should not assume that the property is in compliance with the Act until we
have notified you. After installation, all erosion control measures must be maintained in proper working order until the
site is completely stabilized.
We solicit your cooperation, and would like to avoid taking further enforcement action. At the same time, it is your
responsibility to understand and comply with the requirements of the Act. Copies of the relevant statute and
administrative rules may be examined at this office or will be sent to you upon request. Should you have questions
concerning this notice or the requirements of the Act please contact either Trentt James or me at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
Daniel Sams, PE, ME
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Enclosures: Sedimentation Inspection Report
cc: State Sedimentation Specialist
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
WIRO - LQS

Case #
NORTH CAROLINADEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND QUALI7YSECTION.• 127 Cardinal Drive, Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405-3845 [phone]
t
County - � m'�F�. a Project: %`IIC 2A r?f� � AIJ CZ.x ! River Basin
Person Financially Responsible: -'t-u h•€^� "*,-Zt'�rt.r)t!'K 4-td"�-'02'1 LC 'A"W. F.'-Aw , �,r] _d: Pr-ect# a A'a-t .'
Address: - W194 r g as s.F ct�m �3ta a�arr.
1. Project Location '.1•A ". E.L• 4 l.. r� Pictures: No ❑
-'.
Yes t�]' I Prints ❑ Slides ❑ Digital'3 Video ❑
2. Weather and Soil Conditions �7 w.iP-J. { P
3. Is site currently under notice of violation?`'" Yes ❑ Now
4. Is the site in compliance with the S.P.C.A. and the rules?
Yes ❑ No If no, check violations below:
5. Violations:
❑ a. No approved plan, G.S. 113A-57(4) and 15A NCAC 4B.0107(c)
❑ g. Inadequate buffer zone, G.S.113A-57(1)
b. Failure to follow approved planrG:+&44-3A-6,UJ55N€AC. r j , Crt
❑ h. Graded slopes and fills too steep, G.S. 113A-57(2)
❑ c. Failure to submit revised plan, G.S. 113A-54.1(b) and
or 15A NCAC 4B.0124(d)
15A NCAC 4B.0118(a)
❑ i. Unprotected exposed slopes, G.S.113A-57(2)
❑ d. Failure to provide adequate groundcover, G.S.113A-57(3) and
❑ j. Failure to maintain erosion control measures,
15A NCAC 4B.0107(b) or 15A NCAC 4B.0124(e)
15A NCAC 4B.0113
❑ e. Insufficient measures to retain sediment on site, G.S. 113A-57(3)
❑ k. Other (describe)
(Yf. Failure to take all reasonable measures, 15A NCAC 4B.0105
All
6. NPDES Permit Violation? Yes-0 No ❑ Describe C ..
` � .. � :.� � r' t , A Ai r
7. Has sedimentation damage occurred since last inspection? Yes'0 If yes, where? (check all that apply): No ❑
Lake/natural watercourse on the tract 0 Lake/natural watercourse off the tract ❑ Other property ❑
A
Description: ;�_-+,�'t f` "I .�� r"'��: ��t (+Y 4, 1�
Pp
tie TZ,
Degree o£damage: Slight}" Moderate ❑ Severe ❑
8. Contact made with (Name) AJ C,.t
Title
Inspection Report given ❑ or senta to Person Financially Responsible Date given/sent
9. Corrective actions needed:
a` -rc•, r,L ' )ird.. .A i r +.?:� '�$ F m.
a ��;) f' f7 C"E`a L'p`.°-`�l1.�� t : wfQ1 �..
�14� e� e�" "r� P�, t� � i� i?. r 1"�, �f'Z%►;s �n-- � i� s � e_ c. ,� re � : a -,
,�
'J
'"'f44ig - �-'a #.: ' L..-hCIL.
I'"'C r2.titn x.1-F� r"��>s a?us:
���>� +�'$,•i� �-�.',�}'.�iAiy�k,� �:.
V�°'•"a+�:�/1't.•t�•;,
""�Y' ]"'
J"l./tP�,%/ G rf
I�IT/u��""I">r
:.> r -'! t) L 11
10� Comments: L 1 � {r f' i� / i.'f. �P^ 1�, A!P•i` S.M "t trYlf.'.7d L" ryf1.
.. q
.%l}; ?}
Report by: `' Others, present
Date of Inspection: Time arriving at site: �= ' F Time leaving site:
r. I%
cc:

,-Questions Regarding ReClassification of Sikes Branch
Subject: Questions Regarding ReClassification of Sikes Branch
From: "Todd Miller" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:34:54 -0400
To: "Ed Beck" <[e-mail]>
Ed,
I'm still very confused why Sikes Branch is not classified as ORW. Below is 15A
NCAC 213.0300 that says that all the creeks and their tributaries within the area of
Bogue Sound classified as ORW are reclassified as ORW with the exception of Hunting
Island, Goose and Broad Creeks.
(3) Bogue Sound (including Intracoastal Waterway from White Oak River Basin to Beaufort Inlet)
(Index No. 20-36) from Bogue Inlet to a line across Bogue Sound from the southwest side of mouth of
Gales Creek to Rock Point and all tributaries except Hunting Island Creek, Goose Creek, and Broad
Creek were reclassified from Class SA to Class SA ORW
It is my understanding that all these tributaries (even the freshwater segments) take on the
classification of the SA receiving waters. The schedule of classifications published by DWQ
is confusing in this regard. It appears that Sanders Creek and its tributaries was reclassified
in 1990 in one part of the schedule, and but its eastern fork and its tributary Sike Branch
were not updated at the same time. See highlighted sections below. In fact, the
information contained in the schedule conflicts with itself.
Bogue Sound (Including Intracoastal Waterway)
From Bogue Inlet (from a SA;ORW 01101190 20-36-(0.5) line running from the eastern mouth of
Bogue Inlet to SR 1117 on the
mainland) to a line across Bogue Sound from the southwest side of mouth of Gales Creek to
Rock Point
Deer Creek From source to Bogue Sound SA;ORW 01/01/90 20-36-1
Hunting Island Creek From source to Bogue Sound SA;HQW 06101156 20-36-2
Taylor Bay Entire Bay SA;ORW 01101190 20-36-3
Goose Creek From source to Bogue Sound SA;HQW 06101156 20-36-4
Sanders Creek From source to Goose Creek SA;HQW 06101156 20-36-4-1
Archer Creek (Piney Cr.) From source to Bogue Sound SA;ORW 01101190 20-36-5
Sanders Creek From source to Bogue Sound SA;ORW 01101190 20-36-6
East Prong Sanders Cr. From source to Sanders Creek SA;HQW 06101156 20--36-6-1
From source to East Prong SA;HQW 06101156 20-36-6-1-1
Sanders Creek From source to Sanders Creek SA;HQW 06101156 20-36-6-1
Sikes Branch From source to East Prong SA;HQW 06101156 20-36-6-1-1 Sanders Creek
1 of 2 10/27/2005 8:32 AIM

Questions Regarding ReClassification of Sikes Branch
Please help me understand these classifications. Was there some action by the EMC that
undid its ORW reclassication in 1990?
Thanks.
Todd
Todd Miller
Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
[phone] [phone] (fax)
www.nccoast.org
2 of 2 10/27/2005 8:32 AM

Re' New Direct Storrawater Discharges to SA Waters?
Subject: Re: New Direct Stormwater Discharges to SA Waters?
From: Ed Beck <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:21:32 -0400
To: Todd Miller <[e-mail]>
CC: "C. Peterson" <[e-mail]>
Todd
I understand your concern about development within areas draining to SA waters and will attempt to
respond to your questions. Sikes Branch is classified SA HQW and is tributary to Sanders Creek
which is classified SA ORW. You are correct that it is on the state's impaired waters list, though not
yet approved by EPA. This is based on the fact that the waters are closed for the harvesting of
shellfish, thereby taking away the intended usage. TMDL development will be required.
The Marada Bay stormwater permit was issued for a low density design in compliance with the
requirements within areas draining to SA waters. Vegetated swales and swales stabilized with
armoring are specifically not included in the definition of a Stormwater Collection System, which the
regulation defines as any conduit, pipe, channel, curb, or gutter for the primary purpose of transporting
(not treating) runoff. Therefor, systems designed to comply with the low density requirements for SA
drainagc areas are not considered to have outfalis that constitute point source discharges of
stormwater.
As stated previously, the Division will be required to develop a TMDL and management plan for
dealing with the impaired status of the waters. While the final outcome of this process is not known,
it is my understanding that the requirements contained in the stormwater regulation are considered to
be sufficiently protective for development in SA drainage areas. When the TMDL and management
plan are developed, the resulting requirements could be more restrictive. As you know, the
stormwater program is BMP based and does not require monitoring for bacteria or other constituents.
Intuitively, I would not expect the stormwater outleting from the swales to meet the bacteria criteria
for class SA waters. The design is, however, consistent and compliant with the requirements of the
state stormwater regulations.
I will be happy to discuss this with you further.
Ed Beck
Todd Miller wrote:
Dear Ed,
On January 25, 2005 you signed and issued coastal stormwater permit number SW8040919 to
IVlorada Bay Section I. This permit authorizes the construction of a subdivision road with swales
armored with rip rap that drain directly into Sikes Branch. The permit application notes that this
receiving stream is classified as SA/HQW. It fails to also identify the stream as classified as
ORW as specified in 15A NCAC 02B .0312. In addition, the stream is listed as "impaired" on the
303b list.
Over the past couple of years, you have made excellent written and oral' presentations to a number
of coastal local governments informing them that discharging stormwater directly into SA and SB
10/27/2005 8:32 AM

Re; New Direct Stormwater Discharges to SA Waters?
waters is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act. As you know, this policy has resulted in major
expenditures by some local governments as well as the State of North Carolina to find alternatives
to such discharges — such as the Emerald Isle stormwater infiltration project on Coast Guard Road.
However, as illustrated by this permit, DWQ is sending a conflicting message regarding prohibitions
on stormwater discharges to SA waters by routinely approving new stormwater outfalls directly into
SA waters under the coastal stormwater rules. In this case, new direct discharges were approved
to impaired ORW waters (this portion of Sikes Branch is an unnamed freshwater tributary to
SA/ORW waters). These outfalls take the form of "swales" that convey polluted runoff.
The developers of this subdivision road plan to turn its ownership over to NC DOT. Once DOT
assumes the liability for the road, these discharges will be covered under its Phase I NPDES
Stormwater Permit. The outfalls from these drainage swales fits the definition of "outfall" and "point
source discharge" included in the new NC DOT Phase 1 permit that took effect April 1, 2005. This
permit defines "Outfall" as: "The point of wastewater or stormwater discharge from a discrete
conveyance system. See also point source discharge." "Point Source Discharge of Stormwater" is
defined as: "Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including, but not specifically limited
to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, or discrete fissure from which stormwater is or
may be discharged to waters of the state."
The design of the swales authorized by the permit calls for the installation of geotextile filter fabric
under rip rap. Clearly, the engineer who designed this stormwater drainage system
anticipates rapid movement of stormwater through these swales. They are hardened to try to
prevent scour and erosion. However, we all know that the bacteria levels in the
stormwater discharged from these new stormwater outfalls will consistently have fecal coliform
levels that exceed the water quality standards for the receiving SA waters. There is an abundance
of scientific evidencing documenting this problem, and for that reason, DWQ has informed local
governments that it is illegal to discharge stormwater directly to SA and SB waters.
Our Coastkeeper Program is currently gearing up to begin routine stormwater sampling of fecal
coliform levels in a number of stormwater outfalls. The outfalls approved by this permit will make a
prime candidate for this sampling program since they will easily accessible from a public road. We
are certain that our sampling will clearly document a continuing pattern of water quality standard
violations once this data is collected.
Where we find through our sampling a continued pattern of water quality violations, it is our
intention to seek enforcement actions against point source dischargers who violate water quality
standards pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
I would appreciate written responses to the following questions to make sure that our understanding
of this situation is accurate and that we have not misinterpreted any existing rules, classifications or
DWQ written policies:
1. Is Sikes Branch at the location of the outfalls from these swales classified SA as indicated on
the permit application for the above referenced project?
2. Is Sikes Branch classified as OR'W waters?
3. Is Sikes Branch listed as impaired waters on the 303b list?
4. Will DOT (once it has assumed ownership of the road) have to define the discharge points from
these swale as "outfalls" based upon the definition of "outfall" in its Phase 1 NPDES permit?
5. Will DOT (once it has assumed ownership of the road) have to define the discharge from these
outfalls as "point source discharges of stormwater" based upon the definition of "point sources"
contained in its Phase 1 NPDES permit?
6. Does DWQ have the authority pursuant to the Clean Water Act to allow "point sources of
discharges of stormwater" that violate water quality standards?
2 of 3 10/27/2005 8:32 AM

Re: New Direct Stormwater Discharges to SA Waters?
7. Do you expect the stormwater discharged from the outfalls of these drainage swales to comply
with the fecal coliform standard assigned to SA waters?
8. How is approving permits that add additional discharges of stormwater to an "impaired" stream
consistent with DWQ's obligations to protect and restore water quality under the Clean Water Act?
Your candid and prompt response to these questions would be greatly appreciated.
With best regards,
Todd
cc: Pete Peterson, Chair, WQ Committee, EMC
Todd Miller
Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
[phone] [phone] (fax)
www.nccoast.org
3 of 3 10/27/2005 8:32 AM