SW8040919_Historical File_20060801

g 01 06 10:40a
CrystalCoastEngineering
910-025-0060
3817-3 Freedom Way
Hubert, N.C. 20539
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
To: Linda Lewis From: David K. Newsom
Fax: Pages:
Phone: Date: 8/1 /2006
Re: Morada Bay CC:
0 Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
As requested in your email of today.
RECEIVED
AUG 01 SM
DWQ
PAW #.

Aug 01 Q6 10:40a CrystalCoastEngineering
910-325-0060 p.2
Swale Calculations
Project: Morada Bay - All Sections Per Field Changes (delete Swales 1. 2 & 5)
By: DKN
Procedure:
Adjust y until za„ = z„q
Where: Lei:
B = bottom width n = 0.03
y = trial depth
A=By+My2 M=5
P = B + 2y(1 +Mz)lr,
R=AIP
zav = ARM
Use:
n = .02 for earth lined
n = .03 for mowed grass
n = .05 for unwowed grass
n = .013 for concrete lined
Location
010
S
+Zraq
B
y
A
P
R
zav
VEL
�l4
6A Veo Swale 3-
�;.�. eg.Gw�`r
&I VegSwale-5
5:1 Veg Swale 6
5:1 Veg Swale 7
5:1 Veg Swale 8
5:1 Veg Swale 9
5.:1 Veg Swale 10
5:1 Veg Swale 11
4i:7e7
a4s
4,43
�4-7
1.05
1.05
1.21
0.91
0.77
1.37
br,-�r�.a7dk't
9-0.1 LEA
�c1�1o1-1�V
0 0959
0.0050
0.0050
0.0100
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
:.' '�.
-4 4
- 0 0=1
:: 0 30_
0.30.
„ -0
0=2
0.19.
3
3
3
3
3
3
; 3
3
3
UI:ffilo
li':tl�
�S4
�
4.49
5.35
5.35
5.08
5,14
4.99
5.67
6�i'tlE
8.1-
04$
E4-6
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.20
_
.::'
�,� .�, l/49;
`. JIS ,
:4 ,` Q.31'
- '0.26
- 021
` 030
ki:-I-�
Z-2-9
4-64
1,10
1.10
1.46
1.07
0.9'
1.2'
tl@�
Q.46
2-.�40
0:24
GFOd
A:�A
0.23
0.95
0.23
0.95
0.20
0.82
0.21
0.85
0.20
0.78
0.26
1.13

Aug 01 96 10:41a CrystalCoastEngineering
jj5:1 Veg Swale 12 5.221 0.00501" AA4
New Swale #3 6.881 0.01001 -F:
m
New Swale #4 2.401 0.01001: G'Ao
910-325-0060 p.3
31 0.63 2.97 8.371 0 1.761
31
0.51 2.83
13.201
0.35[m..:
t
-AP.'i
2.431
31
0.30
1.32
65.01
0.221%::_!.
1.821

Aug 01 06 10:41 a CrystalCoastEngineering
910-325-0060 p.4
David Newsom
From:
Linda Lewis [[e-mail])
Sent:
Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:20 AM
To:
Subject:
Dave Newsom
Morada Bay Plan Revision SW8 040919
Dave:
Just one small change to note. Based on the swale inverts shown on the
revised plans, the slope of Sxgales 3 & 4 is l%, not 0.5%. This increases
the veloiity, but not beyond the permissible max --'mum.
please fax me revised swale velocity ca_culations noting the change in
slope.
Linda
i

re+-S.e l4 coca
Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
3817-3 Freedom Way
Hubert, N.C. 28539
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: crystakpasteng@b¢ec.rr.com
May 7, 2006
Ms. Linda Lewis`` _.Fh
ty ,
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 your Request for Additional Information dated April 18, 2006 for the referenced
project. We provide the following information to allow you to continue the stormwater review (item
numbers correspond to your original Request):
1. The owners of the referenced project elected to make some minor field modifications to the
approved stormwater plan. Specifically, the owners deleted Vegetated Swales 1, 2 & 5 due
to their depths (and extreme widths). The stormwater flow for which the swales were
originally intended is now diverted to Swales 3 & 4 as follows:
Swale 3
Original Swales 1 and 5 are deleted and now flow to Swale 3...
"Revised "Swale 3 now carries flow from "previous" Swale 3
+ flow from "Deleted" Swale 1
+ flow from "Deleted" Swale 5
Total "Revised" Swale 3
C factor for Swale 3 computed as follows:
Use C=0.9 for Impervious & C=0.2 for grass
Q10 is computed as follow:
Ccum =
Drainage
Imperv.
Grass
Area ac
Area ac Area ac
1.38
0.66
0.72
0.11
0.09
0.02
0.13
0.11
0.02
1.62 0.86 0.76
(0.86 x 0.9) + (0.76 x 0.2)
1.62
0.57
Q10 =CIA
= (.57)(7.5x1.62)
= 6.9 cfs

• Page 2
Swale 4
Original Swale 2 is deleted and now flows to Swale 4...
"Revised "Swale 4 now carries flow from "previous" Swale 4
+ flow from "Deleted" Swale 2
Total "Revised" Swale 4
C factor for Swale 4 computed as follows:
Use C=0.9 for Impervious & C=0.2 for grass
Q10 is computed as follow:
Ccum =
May 7, 2006
Drainage
Ir nperv. Grass
Area ac
Area ac Area ac
0.25
0.20 0.05
0.16
0.14 0.02
0.41 0.34 0.07
(0.34 x 0.9) + (0.07 x 0.2)
0.41
0.78
Q10 =CIA
= (.78x7.5x0.41)
= 2.4 cfs
2. Revised drainage area map attached showing drainage areas for Swales 3 and 4.
3. Swales 3 and 4 are completely encompassed within the 25' drainage easements.
Easement widths have been added to drawings.
We are hopeful that this response addresses all concerns. Should you have questions or additional
concerns, please feel free too-cQntact me.
David-K. Newsom, PE
CRYSTAL COAST ENGINEERING
cc: Inland Properties Group, LLC

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
April 18, 2006
Mr. Travis Tyndall, Manager
Inland Properties Group, LLC
2894 Belgrade-Swansboro Road
Maysville, NC 28555
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 040919
Morada Bay Subdivision
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Tyndall:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a Stormwater Management Permit Application for
Morada Bay Subdivision on February 8, 2006. A preliminary review of that information has
determined that the application is not complete. The following information is needed to
continue the stormwater review: .
Please specify how you arrived at the Q10 values reported for revised swales 3 &
4. This will require you to report the drainage areas and Rational coefficients for
those swales.
2. Please provide a new swale drainage area map, showing the unchanged swale
drainage areas plus the new ones for Swales 3 & 4.
3. Please show swales 3 & 4 within a labeled drainage easement, and specify the
width of the easement.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review.
The requested information should be received in. this Office prior to May 18, 2006, or the
application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resu bmittal of
all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time
extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The
request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit the required information. The
Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an
approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject
to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any original
documents that need to be revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All original
documents must be returned or new originals must be provided. copies are not acceptable. If
you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone].
t
Carolina
ur,711Y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Intemet: www.ncwaterquality.org Fax [phone]..623-6748
An Equal OpportunkylAf irmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Tyndall
April 18, 2006
Stormwater Application No. SW8 040919
Sincerely,
l�
Linda Lewis
Environmental Engineer
ENB/arl: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\ADDINFO\2006\040919.apr06
cc: Dave Newsom, P.E., Crystal Coast Engineering
Linda Lewis
Page 2 of 2

RE: SW8 040919 Morada Bay
Subject: RE: SW8 040919 Morada Bay
From: "David Newsom" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:31:40 -0400
To: "'Linda Lewis"' <[e-mail]>
Will provide ASAP.
May not be able to respond prior to 5/18. Is that a problem. Can I request
a time extension??
My father is dying of brain cancer and I am spending a lot of time at Duke
Hospital.
My mother in law in undergoing treatments for a brain tumor and I am
spending quite a bit of time in Chapel Hill Hospital.
As a result, I have fallen somewhat behind in my work and I am trying
desperately to reduce workload that I have committed to.
-----Original Message -----
From: Linda Lewis [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:03 AM
To: Dave Newsom
Subject: SW8 040919 Morada Bay
Dave:
Please find attached the stormwater review comments regarding the plan
revision for the subject project.
Linda
i of 1 4/20/2006 3:32 PM

Crystal Coast Engineering, PA
3817-3 Freedom Way
Hubert, N.C. 28539
Tel: (910) 32r0006 Fax: [phone],],I S\
Email: crystaicoasteng@b¢ec.rr.com KJ 1 � 1CJ
January 29, 2006
r"
Ms. Noelle Lutheran I FEB 0 8 2006
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 Ms. Lutheran,
As you know, the owners of the referenced project elected to make some minor field
modifications to the approved stormwater plan. Specifically, the owners deleted Vegetated
Swales 1, 2 & 5. The stormwater flow for which the swales were originally intended is now
diverted to Swales 3 & 4. We have revised the affected sheets of the Stormwater Plan
accordingly (copies attached). In addition, we have revised the applicable sheet of the Curb
Outlet Supplement (see attached Swale Calculations for confirmation of velocities).
We are hopeful that this response addresses all concerns. Should you have questions or
additional concerns, pleael free to contact me.
Yours
COAST ENG
cc: Inland Properties Group, LLC

November 18, 2005
Mr. Travis Tyndall, Manager
Inland Properties Group, LLC
1
2894 Belgrade-Swansboro Road
�(
Maysville, NC 28555
Subject: Wetlands Ditching
Mcrada Bay
I
1
(}�
Stormwater Project No. SW8 040919
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Tyndall:
The Division of Water Quality conducted an inspection of the project on November 4, 2005,
and has a concern regarding the location and depth of the ditch in Section III of Morada
Bay Subdivision, running along the eastern property line, behind Lots 26-32, and emptying
into an existing 404 wetland. This ditch appears to be excessively deep and has side
slopes that are steeper than 3:1 in places. The depth of the ditch has come into question
because of its proximity to J. Bell Lane, and the possibility that it may drain the wetlands.
The current approved plans show this ditch extending up behind Lots 33, 34 and 35. It is
the Division's understanding that the outfall invert of the ditch near Lot 26 is 13.8, which is
very close to the bottom of the wetland, resulting in an unnecessarily deep ditch.
Additionally, the centerline of the ditch was measured in the field to be approximately 9'
from the property line, while the approved plans scale this distance as 10'.
If the invert of the ditch could be shallowed up a bit such that it was in the neighborhood of
elevation 15.0, the ditch would still direct runoff into the wetland, the centerline could be
moved further away from J. Bell Lane, and the 3:1 slope requirement could be met in all
locations.
The ditch invert leaving the wetland could be set a tenth or two below the incoming invert,
or 14.8 or so, such that the wetland will provide some treatment for the detained runoff,
derive the benefit of being hydrated by the runoff, and still have an overflow for excessive
rain events to help in alleviating flood conditions.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Linda Lewis
Environmental Engineer II
ENB1arl: S:IWQSISTORMWATILETTERS120051040919.nov05
cc: Dave Newsom, P.E., Crystal Coast Engineering
Noelle Lutheran
Linda Lewis

t : .a
.�► X�
Jrm

� -. ;' -
t, , � ;� ¢r,��.
:p - �;
..- w
,.. _ - � _
_}

S: sir �.
'� ,Fs
.�' �

M

1 fr

Re: [Fwd: Re: stormwater and wetland issues in ongoing permitted c...
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: stormwater and wetland issues in ongoing permitted coastal construction]
From: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:32:02 -0400
To: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
CC: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>, Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>, Rick
Shiver <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], Ed Beck
<[e-mail]>
I believe that most of this just reinforces the position we are already preparing
for ourselves, which is that our current low density provisions with their lack of
engineered stormwater controls probably need to be amended.
Coleen Sullins wrote:
FYI - Ed may be needing some assistance in responding to some of the issues in
Pete's email below.
Tom - you might want to be prepared for this at the EMC meeting when dealing
with the USMP. This dives into the wetland issues as well.
Danny - another possible draining case?
Bradley - I see a declaratory ruling request in our future.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: stormwater and wetland issues in ongoing permitted coastal
construction
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:10:27 -0400
From: Ed Beck <[e-mail]>
To: "C. Peterson" <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
References:<[e-mail]>
Dear Pete
I will research your questions and send a response this week.
Thank you,
Ed Beck
C. Peterson wrote:
Dear Ed,
At the request of Todd Miller, I went out and took a look at the Morada Bay
project to see for myself whether or not there are coastal water quality
concerns with how the project is designed, permitted and being constructed.
Looking at the site raised a number of urgent questions in my mind that I
need answered. Please give me your responses to the following questions:
1. Phase I of the project involves the construction by private developer
of a highway within a 60 foot easement that will be given to the State of
North Carolina. A large ditch (called swales) connects NC DOT's MS4
(regulated under an NPDES permit) along Highway 24 to the HQW SA classified
waters of Sikes Branch. This swale conveys water directly from the MS4 to
the surface waters of the creek. How did DWQ conclude that discharges from
this swale would not violate water quality standards? How could this ditch
be approved under non --discharge rules rather than through an NPDES permit? T
assume that once DOT takes over ownership of this road, the ditch will then
be considered part of its MS4 and the outlet to the creek a point source
discharge under its NPDES permit. How can we be approving the construction
of such a "point source discharge" (once it is owned by DOT) through our
coastal non -discharge permit program? Aren't we creating a long-term
liability for NC DOT if it can't satisfy water quality standards at its point
source discharge to the creek?
1 of 2 10/26/2005 9:24 AM

Re: [Fwd: Re: stormwater and wetland issues in ongoing permitted c...
2. Phase I of the project (the building of the road) clearly covered in
excess of 25% of the land area within the right of way controlled by the
applicant with paving. How could this portion of the project be approved as
a "low density" development given that more than 25% of the land area is
being built -upon?
3. DWQ's BMP manual state's that swales remove 35% TSS and cannot be
relied upon to reach the required 85% removal rate. How in Phase I of this
project, did DWQ conclude that the required 85% removal of TSS would be
achieved?
4. DWQ's published document: "Addressing Microbial Pollution in Coastal
Waters: A Reference for Local Governments" states that swales contribute
fecal coliform rather than remove it. How did DWQ conclude that the fecal
coliform standard in the SA waters of Sikes Branch would not be violated by
the direct discharge from the swales that are being constructed given its own
published literature on the effectiveness of swales in removing fecal
coliform?
5. In Phases I, II, and III of the project, very deep swales (I would call
them ditches) are being dug that appear to violate the design requirement in
DWQ's BMP manual that state that swales need to be one foot above the
seasonal high water table, and not carry dry weather flows of water. I
observed dry weather flows, and deep ditches that appear to be dug into the
existing groundwater table. Was there a determination of the seasonal high
water table made by DWQ in approving these swale designs? If so, please send
me the data you used to make this determination. If this determination of
seasonal high water table was never made, how could we be approving such deep
swales that are suppose to be for stormwater treatment and not to drain the
water table and adjacent wetlands?
6. I observed deep ditches that are lowering the normal water level in
protected 11404 wetlands." Please explain to me how we are enforcing our
wetland water quality standards" by allowing construction of these drainage
ditches that are altering the hydrology of these wetlands?
7. Given what we all know about the bacterial levels in stormwater runoff
and the effectiveness of swales and grassed filters in removing fecal
coliform, how can we be approving these types of drainage projects under the
non -discharge laws and rules that we have in effect?
I plan to make this issue an agenda item for future Water Quality Committee
meetings of the EMC. Please provide me the answers to these questions by the
end of next week so I can figure out how best to address these issues with
the EMC.
With best regards,
Pete Peterson
Chair, EMC Water Quality Committee
Member, EMC
2 of 2 10/26/2005 9:24 AM

Morada Bay: Swales Not Constructed in Accordance with DWQ's ...
Subject: Morada Bay: Swales Not Constructed in Accordance with DWQ's BMP Manual and other
Issues
From: "Todd Miller" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:09:18 -0400
To: "Linda Lewis" <[e-mail]>, "Ed Beck" <[e-mail]>, "Bradley
Bennett" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Dan Sams, P.E." <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "Derb
Carter" <[e-mail]>, "Amy Pickle" <[e-mail]>, "Bill Ross"
<[e-mail]>, "C. Peterson" <[e-mail]>, "Trent James"
<[e-mail]>
Dear Linda, Ed, and Bradley,
Please let me know whether or not, in the Division's opinion, the Morada Bay project is being
constructed in accordance with its DWQ stormwater permits?
Some additional observations regarding this project since I sent pictures to you a few days ago:
1. The NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual issued by DWQ in 1999 states that
swales should be one foot above the seasonal high water table, and that they should not carry a
constant flow of water (Page 68). The swales being constructed in this subdivision are dug below the
seasonal high water groundwater level, and as a result are constantly carrying water. Furthermore,
they are draining "protected" 404 wetlands and dug deep enough to accomplish this drainage.
2. "Addressing Microbial Pollution in Coastal Waters: A Reference for Local Governments (2003)
published by NC DWQ and NC DCM states on page 31 that swales "...have proven to be ineffectual in
reducing the quantity of microbes reaching receiving waters, if not contributing to the problem (Table 1,
Table 2). Table 2, page 29, lists swales has having a NEGATIVE 58% effective removal rate of Fecal
Coliform! Many of the swales in this project discharge directly to SA classified waters. This is an
officially approved and funded DWQ document is being used to train local governments.
3. The latest ditch (swale) being constructed under Phase III of the project is not located as shown on
the approved plan. The five foot buffer between the 10 foot wide road called J. Bell Lane and the swale
does not exist. The top of the swale is at the immediate edge of this heavily traveled dirt road: This will
result in constant erosion and maintenance problems for both the road (which is legal access to
numerous private properties and not part of the development) and the ditch. The ditch is so close to the
road it also poses safety concerns should a vehicle run into it.
4. According DWQ's BMP manual, these "swales" cannot be relied upon to provide the required 85%
TSS removal and must be used in combination with other BMPs. However, no other BMPs are being
installed as part of this project to achieve the 85% required removal rate. The required 85% TSS
removal isn't be achieved.
A response to my question regarding whether or not the project is in compliance with its permits would
be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Todd
Copied to: Pete Peterson, Bill Ross, NC Division of Land Qualitv, SELL_ US Army COE, EPA
of 2 10/25/2005 9:37 AM

[Fvd: Morad# Bay, Section III and II (Carte-2005-196)]
Subject: [Fwd: Morada Bay, Section III and II (Carte-2005-196)]
From: Linda Lewis <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:03:37 -0400
To: Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>
Bradley:
More from Todd Miller regarding Morada Bay.
Linda
Subject: Morada Bay, Section III and 11(Carte-2005-196)
From: "Todd Miller" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:51:42 -0400
To: "Trent James" <[e-mail]>, "Linda Lewis" <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
Dear Trent and Linda,
Have there been any recent modifications to the Stormwater Permit and Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Plan for these two sections of this project (since they were issued February)? I'm aware that the
Section 1 Sed. and Erosion Control plan was modified after it was determined that the road was being
built on someone else's land.
Surveying stakes have just appeared along the east side of the property that indicate that swales will be
constructed where they are not shown on the copies of plans or permits I have received. This work will
also be outside the "area of disturbance" on the erosion control plan. Also, there appear to be sediment
basins in locations that are different from the approved plans (unless they have been
recently amended).
If the plans have been amended, I'll have someone come by and get the new ones.
The approved permits and'plans that I have do show a couple of swales are to be constructed to direct
stormwater into jurisdictional 404 wetlands on the property. The 404 permit issued for the project
(Action ID 200500588, dated March 9, 2005) includes special conditions that require that these wetland
not be disturbed and that the applicant has agreed "to restrict and prohibit any future filling or other
detrimental activities in the wetland areas...." The condition also states that "No person or entity shall
fill, grade, excavate, or perform any other land disturbing activities; nor cut, remove, or harm any
vegetation; nor construct any structures, nor allow animal grazing or watering or any other agricultural
use on such conservation areas."
As the subdivision is being designed, these wetlands will be flooded with stormwater. This will change
the "natural" hydrology of this wooded wetland system, harming the natural vegetation, and is counter to
the requirements of the issued 404 permit.
Since the 404 permit was issued after the stormwater and erosion permits were issued, you could not
have known about these federal requirements on the project. The result is that the stormwater permit
and erosion control plan are now inconsistent with the 404 permit. Should these inconsistencies be
resolved?
I of 2 9/22/2005 10:04 AIN4

[Fwd: Morada Bay, Section III and II (Carte-2005-196)]
Thanks for looking into these questions and letting me know your answers.
With best regards,
Todd
Todd Miller
Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
[phone] [phone] (fax)
11 Content -Type: message/rfc822
Bay, Section III and II (Carte-2005-196)
H Content -Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 9/22/2005 10:04 AM