20110410 Ver 3_WB Baily Thompson Ltr_20160825

celebrating 15 Years
ago `11�
111����
~=~ �
August 25,2O1G
E Nw/momm,Na&
Cmw�1m"Cr.Ow
Tim Owens, Town Manager
Town ofWrightsville Beach
1o2SWade Avenue
Raleigh, mC|27ons
321 Causeway Drive
e19.789.9977
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
11020 David Taylor
Subject: CAMA Major Permit Application
o,me | Suite 115
Charlotte, wc(zu262
Bailey @kAssociates, Inc., Applicant
704,714.4880
Grand View Community Boating Facility
202Summer Rest Road, Wilmington, N[
5030 New Centre
Drive | Suite e
Dear Mr. Owens,
Wilmington, NC
28403 1910.523,5715
As requested, SEPI Engineering & Construction (SEPI) has reviewed the comments
10800 Midlothian
which were written in regard to the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter of opinion concerning
Turnpike [ Suite 1m*
the [AMA Permit Application submitted for Bailey and Associates, Inc. The set of
Richmond, ~
23235 804.594181
»
letters contains a letter from Smith Moore Leathenwood (SML) dated August 17 2016
'
with seven (7)exhibits attached as support. The exhibits include letters commenting
on SEPI's letter along with a copy of the Town's Easement Document and a letter
from the Corps ofEngineers,
In general, the SML letter focuses on two primary topics. First, the letter attempts to
illustrate that the size and material of the force main under the AIVVVV is 14 inch
HDPE pipe esopposed toDuctile Iron Pipe (DIP) as stated inthe July 28 SEPI letter.
Second, the letter seems to question the easement documentation for the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIVVVV) where the force main is located.
Prior to addressing the SML letter and attached opinions it is important to reiterate
the primary concern identified in the SEPI letter of July 28, 2016. One intent of the
letter was to describe some of the operational and management challenges which the
Town feces with regard to the sewer system and in particular, the AIVYVV force main
crussing. The information listed some of real world difficulties that the Town faces in
operating the sewer system in order to highlight the importance of unencumbered
access tothe system,
The primary concern stated in the conclusion of the SEPI letter is that the existing
pier and dock, as well as the proposed project, represents an increased exposure to
damage for the force main as well as an encumbrance to the ability ofthe Town of
Wrightsville Beach to properly operate, maintain, and respond to an emergency
associated with the force main crossing of the AIVVVV.
The review and analysis of the existing and proposed project's impact tothe Town's
sewer system was done, in part, utilizing my years of experience in the management
and operation of e public sanitary sewer oyatem. This experience includes the
operation and emergency response needs for a system which was located in a variety
of environmental conditions such as coastal regions and included areas of the County
directly associated with the NEI i"c|md|ng the area near and around the site of the
force main crossing for the Town of Wrightsville Beach.
The SML letter and the supporting opinions written by others did not address the
sepiengineefin0, com
CWSEPIPogineem
conclusion offered in the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter concerning the primary issue of
N

unencumbered access, The SEPI letter was written from an operational perspective
with the intent to give readers who perhaps have little or no experience with
operations, maintenance, and emergency responsei, some insight into what
challenges the Town faces, why some of these challenges exist and what steps or
protections are needed to allow the Town to appropriately operate the system.
Without some general knowledge or experience in the operations of a sewer system it
would be difficult for someone to fully understand what difficulties exist in responding
to an emergency, such as a sanitary sewer spill in a coastal environment, as well as
the logistics, dangers, and realities that must be addressed while responding. With
the exception of Wrightsville Beach, none of the parties involved have provided
comment regarding the sewer system's operational integrity, the Town's need for
unencumbered access for maintenance and emergency response, the protection of
the environment and more importantly the health, safety, and welfare of the general
The SML letter dated August 17, 2016 focuses on the size and material of the force
main crossing the AIWW and the Town's Easement documentation, The letter
provides as an exhibit, Exhibit "A", discussing the size and material issue. This letter
from the Division of Water Resources of the NCDEQ, dated August 5, 2016, states
that a review of the Divisions files and communicating with the original contractor
who installed this portion of the NEI, has created what appears to be an inconsistency
in the material the NEI is made of in the area crossing the AIWW, It is stated that
the SEPI letter identifies the pipe as 14 inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) whereas other
information NCDEQ has indicates the material to be 14 inch HDPE.
Additionally, the SML letter provides two other exhibits, Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C", to
further illustrate that the size and material listed in the SEPI letter is inconsistent with
other information. Exhibit "B" is a copy of an email from Zulu Marine Services which
clearly states "The pipe we inspected was HP plastic pipe," and Exhibit "C" is a copy
of an email from Johnny J. Williams Land Surveying which also clearly states "My best
recollection on pipe material is it's PVC." Note that 'HP pipe", "PVC" and "HDPE"
pipe are not the same material.
The documentation reviewed for the development of the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter
was information from the tirne the force main was constructed. This includes survey
data from 1977, drawings dated frorn 1981, Easement documents from 1982 and
Corps of Engineers documents dated 1978. This represents information that is
approximately 33 to 39 years old, Perhaps due to the long period of time that has
passed since construction, or perhaps due to reasons unknown, the available
documentation that was reviewed is incomplete arid, in some cases, inconsistent,
The inconsistencies in the information utilized for the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter comes
from a number mfsources, The easement documentation which indicates that the
force main crossing the AIVVVV is to be constructed of 14 inch 0Ip. The drawings
review/ed identify two routes for the force main and identify the material to be either
14 inch DIP or 16 inch Polyethylene, Additionally, I have personal experience actually
working with this system and with the sewer system in New Hanover County since
early 2800. During that time, I have had several conversations with numerous
individuals and the general understanding }sthat the AlVVVV crossing was constructed
with DIP,
The 6ML letter describes the inconsistencies and utilizes the NC]EO letter of August
5, 2016 and two letters used esexhibits to further clarify the point. However, even
these letters are inconsistent with regard to each other and with the historic
N

E P I
information referenced above. The force main has been described as 14 inch or 16
inch. The force main material has been described as DIP, HDPE, HP Pipe, PVC, and
Polyethylene. There seems to be no disagreement that an actual force main exists
under and around the existing pier and dock as well as the proposed project. There
does appear to be much inconsistency in the documentation and identification of the
size and material of the force main.
For the purpose of establishing the need for the Town to have unencumbered access
for operation and maintenance, the type of material and size of the force main
crossing the AIWW is less significant than the fact that a force main exists crossing
the AIWW, Whether or not the force main in this area is constructed of HDPE, DIP, or
PVC is not as significant as the Town's ability to appropriately operate and maintain
their system and more specifically, respond to an, emergency situation such as a
sanitary sewer spill.
The second item discussed in the SML letter focuses on the Town's easement
document. The letter describes a missing page and identifies the document as
unrecorded. As a Professional Land Surveyor, it has been my experience that the
recorded status of a document does not diminish the integrity or validity of the
agreement within that document,
The copy of the Corps of Engineers application dated 1978 that SEPI reviewed has
three (3) attached illustrations. Two of these illustrations, sheet 2 of and sheet 3 of
3, seem to contain the same information as the attachments in the easement
document but they are not identical to the illustrations of the easement document.
The Corps illustration identifies Site Ato bethe force main crossing of Banks Channel.
The SML letter also identifies this page as important as it may identify the material
type as there is a reference on illustration sheet 2 of 3 for the AIWW crossing that
states "All other factors and conditions are the same as S�te A crossing," It is not
known if the missing page of the easement document contains the same information
as the sheet 1 of 3 page included in the Corps document. The material reference for
Site "A" identified on Sheet I of 3 in the Corps document is for the force main
crossing the AIWW which is identified to be 14 inch "CIP" which represents another
inconsistency in material as discussed above.
The remaining Exhibit letters supporting the SML letter includes letters from
Intracoastal Engineering, Exhibit°E~, and from Land Management Group, Exhibit"F°
The letter from Intracoastal Engineering focuses on several items including the
material of the force main crossing which were discussed in items 1, 2 and 3 of the
July 28, 2O16SEPI letter,
As discussed above, the type of material is not the significant issue. The July 28m
SEPI letter identified issues with DIP from an operational pecspect|ve. There are other
sections of the force main that are known to be UIP upstream and downstream of the
area where there is confusion associated with the material type crossing the AIVVVV.
Even if the force rnmim crossing the A]VVVV is of material other than DIP, the crossing
would transition from DIP to this alternate material. The areas where this transition
occurs is still located ;n coastal environment and issusceptible tothe same issues as
stated in the July 28m SEPI letter, Additionally, as with DIP, any alternate material
would have operational concerns specific to that material that the Town would need
to address and as result would still need unencumbered access to provide proper
operational management oremergency response,
N

C
1,3' 1
Another stern discussed in the Intracoastal Engineering letter is exposure of the force
main to potential damage. The topic is briefly addressed by indicating that the
"Closest Dredging is proposed at 15 feet from the force main," Also, it is mentioned
that the existing force main was exposed to boat traffic prior to the existing pier and
dock.
The comment with regard to the distance between the target dredge area and the
force main location identified on the LMG drawing does not seem to address the point
made in the July 28, 2016 SEPI letter with regard to equalization through sluffing and
settlement. The target dredge area identified on the LMG drawing represents the
area where dredging is intended to occur however it does not identify the irnpacted
area around the target dredge area. With an anticipated side profile of 5 to I after
equalization, the removal of 2 - 4 feet of material vertically will result in a 10 -20 foot
wide side slope profile. This would be well outside the target dredge area identified
on the LMG drawing and would make the distance from the existing force main to the
area impacted from dredging approximately 7 - 15 feet.
The comment regarding previous boat traffic is a misleading comparison. Any boat
traffic crossing the force main utilizing the AIWW would be crossing in an area where
the force main is located approximately 18 feet below the water's surface or more.
Boat traffic crossing the force main around the existing and proposed pier and dock is
doing so with the force main located approximately 6-9 feet below the water's surface
depending on activity and tide.
The Intracoastal Engineering letter provides a statement that "This proposal should
provide some organization to that traffic and will provide some markers to keep boats
from traveling into areas where the forcernain is shallowest�." This statement is
confusinN as the area where the force main is shalloon
where the boat dock is proposed and any markers prohibiting boat travel would
prohibit use of the dock.
The Intracoastal Engineering letter offers no discussion as to the. Town's ability to
respond to an emergency.
The letter from Land Management Group, Exhibit 7" provides two comments, First
the letter disputes the distance identified in the July 28th SEPI letter of the target
dredge area and t�he exist�ing force main. Second, Land Management Group's
Environmental Consultant offers his legal opinion as to the establishment of Riparian
Corridor boundaries,
The comment with regard to the distance was addressed above. SEPI has no
comment concerning the legal opinion of the Environmental Consultant of Land
Management Group. As stated in the July 28t" SEPI letter, this delineation was
addressed by the Town's attorney and as a legal matter, it would be best to leave
legal opinions to those professionals who have experience in those matters,
The final letter included as an exhibit, Exhibit "G", is a letter from the Corps of
Engineers concerning processing of the Corps permit application, There are no
references to the July 2 Sth SEPI Letter.
To summarize, there are specific legal liabilities and obligations with regard to the
operation of a public sanitary sewer system. Failure to meet these requirements
could be considered a violation of the Town's Operations Permit, One such
M

requirement is that right-of-ways and easements are to be maintained in the full
easement width for personnel and equipment accessibility.
It is common practice within the industry to allow for ternporary use of these areas
for things like traffic as any obstruction or encumbrance to access of this type can be
removed with little time and effort and as such rneets the requirement for full
easement accessibility, Therefore the transient traffic of the AIWW is not considered
in obstruction to access. Permanent structures, Such as the existing pier and doe��
?.s well as the proposed structure cannot be easily removed,
With a flow rate of approximately 54,000 gallons per hour, any delay needed to gain
access, such as the removal of a permanent structure, presents a significant and
unnecessary risk to the environment and more importantly to the health, safety and
welfare of the general public,
For reference, the July 1, 2005 sewer spill into Hewletts Creek which occurred from a
break in a 24 inch force main resulted in an environmental impact due to the
,iischarge of sewage into a coastal wetland. This was a significant event and involved
numerous regulatory agencies, Investigations by NCDENR as well as the State and
Federal EPA ultimately identified the responsibility and consequences for that event.
It would seem that the intentional construction of a permanent structure obstructing
the Town's access for operation and maintenance in this situation would result in an
increase in liability. However, without an official ruling from the regulatory agency
responsible for enforcement of the operations permit, NCDED, as well as the State
and Federal EPA, it is difficult to know if the Town would be protected or what party
would be responsible for that |iabi||ty.
The opinion of SEPI with regard to the existing and proposed structure remains as
stated \nthe July 28m letter, The existing structure, as well as the proposed project,
represents an increased exposure to damage for the force main as well as an
encumbrance to the ability of the Town of Wrightsville Beach to properly operate,
maintain, and respond to an emergency associated with the force main crossing of
the AIVVVV. The Town's need for unencumbered access for maintenance and
emergency response, the protection of the environment and more importantly the
health, safety, and welfare ofthe general public isafundamental responsibility and
requirement of the Town's Operations Permit.
Respectfully Submitted,
SEPI Engineering & Construction, Inc.
Gregory RThompson, PE, PLS
Bite/[ivi|Departmnent Manager
0