20010550_Email_20090105

FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
Subject: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
From: "Bob Zarzecki" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:03:02 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Brian:
Thanks for sending me your stream determination on the DOT 98-bypass job in Wake
Forest. As we discussed our client (Priscilla Rolls) previously had stream calls
made on her property. The stream of concern was previously labeled as "C" and is
identified as "Site 1" in your reports. Attached are copies of all three DWQ
letters that pertain to this stream.
October 14, 1999 - Steve Mitchell's letter from the RHO which exempted the.
stream as "ephemeral". This letter does not have an expiration date on it.
October 22, 2004 - Your letter for DOT that considered the stream subject as
"intermittent". It has a 5-year expiration and will expire in October 2009.
You noted that it rained the night before and that water flow disappeared
further downstream. The total points were 19 just (barely an intermittent
stream). Just taking away the 0.5 points for water in the channel during dry
or growing season (which doesn't exist from our observations), would move it
into the "ephemeral" stream classification. Your letter did not reference
Steve Mitchell's previous determination.
July 26, 2005 - Debbie Edward's appeal letter from the Central'Office. She
was asked to evaluate Stream "B". She exempted it as did you in your report
(you called it "Stream 2). However, her report shows "C", doesn't reference
your letter and therefore continued to consider it as an "exempt" ephemeral
stream consistent with the 1999 letter. This determination did include an
expiration and doesn't expire until July 2010.
I assume that you where unaware of Steve Mitchell's previous letter when you made
your determination and Debbie was unaware of your letter when she did her appeal.
As it turns out, this is causing Ms. Rolls serious issues on her property in her
negotiations with DOT and affects the layout of the septic system and potential lot
configuration. Ms. Rolls would likea clarification letter from DWQ confirming that
the stream is "ephemeral" and "exempt" from the Neuse Buffer Rules (consistent with
the 1999 and 2005 letters). I wanted to send this request to you first to get your
recommendation on how to proceed with it. Ideally it would reference all three
letters and include a statement that the stream is exempt, at least as it pertains
to the development and septic system layout of Ms. Rolls property.
Please contact me as soon as possible regarding this as I need to report back to Ms.
Rolls.
Thanks for the help.
F)A Zarzecki
tovlronn,cntai E„t D v 5ioll h411111l<"er
r ncironmentai Constl to n;5; FA
raven R ;?e r.,,,<i
raicii;il, NC L'<14
(? I )? 84o-5 yJJ Office Fhone
(4191 S-1C-T':o7j as
I?Lal"Le.G?IC _l t'¢9 C.c.CO rtt
W W R'. 5ano, Lc.com
1 of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM
FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
lu.??g.,i au.cnn eni. f?.--he f?.."hrr, ?!,_"..
Content-Description: 3016_DWQ_Buffer letter.pdf
6_DWQ Buffer _letter.pdf? Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Content-Encoding: base64
Content-Description: 3016-Buffer Determination DOT.pdf
3016-Buffer Determination DOT.pdfi? Content-Type: application/octet-stream
i.
Content-Encoding: base64
?2 of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM
RE: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
Subject: RE: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
From: "Bob Zarzecki" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:04:39 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Hey on another note, I looked at the plans provided by DOT in the public notice and
application and if stream "C" were considered buffered there would be an issue with
direct discharge of stormwater (no level spreaders, etc.).
From: Bob Zarzecki
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:03 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
Importance: High
Brian:
Thanks for sending me your stream determination on the DOT 98-bypass job in Wake
Forest. As we discussed our client (Priscilla Rolls) previously had stream calls
made on her property. The stream of concern was previously labeled as "C" and is
identified as "Site 1" in your reports. Attached are copies of all three DWQ
letters that pertain to this stream.
October 14, 1999 - Steve Mitchell's letter from the PRO which exempted the
stream as "ephemeral". This letter does not have an expiration date on it.
October 22, 2004 - Your letter for DOT that considered the stream subject as
"intermittent". It has a 5-year expiration and will expire in October 2009.
You noted that it rained the night before and that water flow disappeared
further downstream. The total points were 19 just (barely an intermittent
,stream). Just taking away the 0.5 points for water in the channel during dry
or growing season (which doesn't exist from our observations), would move it
into the "ephemeral" stream classification. Your letter did not reference
Steve Mitchell's previous determination.
July 26, 2005 - Debbie Edward's appeal letter from the Central Office. She
was asked to evaluate Stream "B". She exempted it as did you in your report
(you called it "Stream 2). However, her report shows "C", doesn't reference
your letter and therefore continued to consider it as an "exempt" ephemeral
stream consistent with the 1999 letter. This determination did include an
expiration and doesn't expire until July 2010.
I assume that you where unaware of Steve Mitchell's previous letter when you made
your determination and Debbie was unaware of your letter when she did her appeal.
As it turns out, this is causing Ms. Rolls serious issues on her property in her
negotiations with DOT and affects the layout of the septic system and potential lot
configuration. Ms. Rolls would like a clarification letter from DWQ confirming that
the stream is "ephemeral" and "exempt" from the Neuse Buffer Ru:1es (consistent with
the 1999 and. 2005 letters). I wanted to send this request to you first to get your
recommendation on how to proceed with it. Ideally it would reference all three
letters and include a statement that the stream is exempt, at least as it pertains
to the development and septic system layout of Ms. Rolls property.
Please contact me as soon as possible regarding this as I need to report back to Ms.
Rolls.
Thanks for the help.
gob Zarzepcki
[ "11-01 IentAl L "tJ:)iVi"coil p
'lanaScr
1 of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM
IRE: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
i
Soil 11 1 =nvirUnmenl'a? C.ansu?tvnts: FA
11010 ?\:aven \ic'? e rO:, A
Kalc.i,?,k, NC. 2,'01 •1
;919) s?E-990?? 0Ihc? Fh<,,,e,
k9 1 9)'-J 0--fi 5 1 ' Dir,:& Lioc
(.? I o.) 2,'o-Zod,4 Moh ie
(rzarzccL [e-mail]
www.5:a n,IF C.com
_ol?,..,o .....,?„i,..t .I?d,,G ,II tt 6,•,-,ts, r.?_c..?,..1, +?::h?o_,•.<?.-a:c._cc t-: :e..:. rtn ...,f`. ,. t.:,l ,In, m.a.,,T s?1?. r..cc
rn,t h„-,: c,1bh'?""I,,
,,,.,Ucc J1, ..?,... ;..?,, hcu. dL, f, J<;..- It L, t ?t4c :,•„s It-,t„'4,,:1- . t .c .,,a ,L I„,.,. :, -r
,m.kr_ , .. ?, s) o1n,c ur>c o.,t? A,,r ! -, 61, t?.,. tk.,
b.i,q r6c y,,.,.
1
2 of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM?
RE: FW: 98 Bypass -'Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
Subject: RE: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
From: "Bob Zarzecki" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:13:14 -0400
To: "Brian Wrenn" <[e-mail]>
Great! Thanks Brian. Feel free to call me if you want the three of us
to talk it thru. I realize it's not run-of-the-mill. PS, I'm trying to
finish up something hear to bring by this afternoon and expect that I'll
be meeting with Lia for 15 minutes or so tomorrow, so you may see me
over there.
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental East Division Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Wrenn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:00 PM'
To: Bob Zarzecki
Subject: Re: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
Bob,
I'll get back with you on this once I speak to Cyndi. Should be before
the end of the week.
B
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
I Brian:
Thanks for sending me your stream determination on the DOT 98-bypass
job in Wake Forest. As we discussed our client (Priscilla Rolls)
previously had stream calls made on her property. The stream of
concern was previously labeled as "C" and is identified as "Site 1" in
your reports. Attached are copies of all three DWQ letters that
pertain to this stream.
* -October 14, 1999 - Steve Mitchell's letter from the RRO which
exempted the stream as "ephemeral". This letter does not have an
expiration date on it.
* -October 22, 2004 - Your letter for DOT that considered the stream
'subject as "intermittent". It has a 5-year expiration and will expire
in October 2009. You noted that it rained the night before and that
water flow disappeared further downstream. The total points were 19
just (barely an intermittent stream). Just taking away the 0.5 points
for water in the channel during dry or growing season (which doesn't
exist from our observations), would move it into the "ephemeral"
stream classification. Your letter did not reference Steve Mitchell's
previous determination.
* -July 26, 2005 - Debbie Edward's appeal letter from the Central
Office. She was asked to evaluate Stream "B". She exempted it as did
you in your report (you called it "Stream 2). However, her report
shows "C", doesn't reference your letter and therefore continued to
consider it as an "exempt" ephemeral stream consistent with the 1999
letter. This determination did include an expiration and doesn't
expire until July 2010.
I assume that you where unaware of Steve Mitchell's previous letter
when you made your determination and Debbie was unaware of your letter
I of2 1/5/20093:23 PM
jRE: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
when she did her appeal. As it turns out, this is causing Ms. Rolls
serious issues on her property in her negotiations with DOT and
affects the layout of the septic system and potential lot
configuration. Ms. Rolls would like a clarification letter from DWQ
confirming that the stream is "ephemeral" and "exempt" from the Neuse
Buffer Rules (consistent with the 1999 and 2005 letters). I wanted to
send this request to you first to get your recommendation on how to
proceed with it. Ideally it would reference all three letters and
include a statement that the stream is exempt, at least as it pertains
to the development and septic system layout of Ms. Rolls property.
Please contact me as soon as possible regarding this as I need to
report back to Ms. Rolls.
Thanks for the help.
**Bob Zarzecki**
Environmental East Division Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Direct Line
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
www.SandEC. com <http://www.SandEC.com>
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended
only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential
information. This electronic communication may not have passed through
our standard review/quality control process. Design data and
recommendations included herein are provided as a matter of
convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on
final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature
and seal. If you are not the named addressee (s), any use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in
error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the
original communication from your system. Thank you.
2 of 2 1/5/2009 3:23 PM I I
RE: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
1,
f
Subject: RE: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
From: "Bob Zarzecki" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:28:58 -0400
To: "Brian Wrenn" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Amy Chapman" <[e-mail]>, "Cyndi Karoly" <Cyndi.Karol y@NCMai).Net>
Thanks folks. I know you guys are busy and two weeks is reasonable, but
(as you would expect) the earlier the better for my client, so if you
can meet next week that would be outstanding. Just call me if you can
squeeze it in. I may go.there tomorrow (not far from my folks place)
and take recent photos and complete a current stream form and email it
to you.
(PS ... Amy or Cyndi - John and I discussed the old buffer letters w/o
expiration dates. I think he had some ideas on these.)
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental East Division Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Wrenn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:33 PM
To: Bob Zarzecki
Cc: Amy Chapman; Cyndi Karoly
Subject: Re: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
Bob,
as we discussed earlier today, Amy, Cyndi, and/or myself will set up a
site visit for early Aug. to take a look at the stream in question.
We'll make a call on it and go from there. i will be out of the office
from Aug. 4-8, but will agree with whatever Amy and Cyndi decide on.
Hopefully we can resolve this at the site visit. I would coordinate
with Amy and Cyndi on a date and time. thanks.
Brian
ps can you forward this to Jason? I can't find his email address.
Bob Zarzecki wrote
Great! Thanks Brian. Feel free to call me if you want the three of
us
I to talk it thru. I realize it's not run-of-the-mill. PS, I'm trying
to
finish up something hear to bring by this afternoon and expect that
I'll
be meeting with Lia for 15 minutes or so tomorrow, so you may see me
over there.
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental East Division Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Wrenn [mailto:brian.wrennC-ncmail.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:00 PM
To: Bob Zarzecki
Subject: Re: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC
3016)
1 Bob,
1 of 4 1/5/2009 3:24 PM
.RE: FW: 98 Bypass -Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
I'll get back with you on this once I speak to Cyndi. Should be before
the end of the week.
B
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Brian:
Thanks for sending me your stream determination on the DOT 98-bypass
job in Wake Forest. As we discussed our client (Priscilla Rolls)
previously had stream calls made on her property. The stream of
concern was previously labeled as "C" and is identified as "Site 1"
in
your reports. Attached are copies of all three DWQ letters that
pertain to this stream.
* -October 14, 1999 - Steve Mitchell's letter from the RRO which
exempted the stream as "ephemeral". This letter does not have an
expiration date on it.
* October 22, 2004 - Your letter for DOT that considered the stream
I subject as "intermittent". It has a 5-year expiration and will expire
in October 2009. You noted that it rained the night before and that
water flow disappeared further downstream. The total points were 19
just (barely an intermittent stream). Just taking away the 0.5 points
for water in the channel during dry or growing season (which doesn't
exist from our observations), would move it into the "ephemeral"
stream classification. Your letter did not reference Steve Mitchell's
previous determination.
* -July 26, 2005_ - Debbie Edward's appeal letter from the Central
Office. She was asked to evaluate Stream "B". She exempted it as did
you in your report (you called it "Stream 2). However, her report
shows "C", doesn't reference your letter and therefore continued to
consider it as an "exempt" ephemeral stream consistent with the 1999
letter. This determination did include an expiration and doesn't
expire until July 2010.
I assume that you where unaware of Steve Mitchell's previous letter
when you made your determination and Debbie was unaware of your
.etter
I
when she did her appeal. As it turns out, this is causing Ms. Rolls
serious issues on her property in her negotiations with DOT and
affects the layout of the septic system and potential lot
configuration. Ms. Rolls would like a clarification letter from DWQ
confirming that the stream is "ephemeral" and "exempt" from the Neuse
C

2 of 4 1/5/2009 3:24 PM?
RE: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)
Buffer Rules (consistent with the 1999 and 2005 letters). I wanted to II
send this request to you first to get your recommendation on how to
proceed with it. Ideally it would reference all three letters and
include a statement that the stream is exempt, at least as it
:rtains
to the development and septic system layout of Ms. Rolls property.
Please contact me as soon as possible regarding this as I need to
report back to Ms. Rolls.
Thanks for the help.
**Bob Zarzecki**
Environmental East Division Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Direct Line
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
www.SandEC.Com<http//-, SandEC.com>
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended
only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential
information. This electronic communication may not have passed
through
our standard review/quality control process. Design data and
recommendations included herein are provided as a matter of
convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on
final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature
and seal. If you are not the named addressee (s), any use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in
error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the
original communication from your system. Thank you.
3 of 4 1/5/2009 3:24 PM
IRE: FW: 98 Bypass - Thompson Mill Road Buffer Calls (S&EC 3016)

4 of 4 1/5/2009 3:24 PM
memo
H
Subject: memo
From: Amy Chapman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:27:17 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Morning all.
Attached you will find a memo outlining a stream call I performed for clarification purposes. Please let
me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
-Amy
Amy Chapman
NC Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: amy.chapman ancmail.net
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 1/5/2009 3:24 PM
I Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Y Coleen II. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
To: Brian Wrenn, DWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit
From: Amy Chapman, DWQ, 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
Date: August 11, 2008
MEMORANDUM
On August 8, 2008, 1 conducted an unofficial stream call of a feature located at the intersection of the Highway 98 bypass and
Thompson Mill Road in Wake Forest, NC as to whether it was subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233).
I conducted this stream call to clarify the conflicting calls previously performed by DWQ. The feature was previously called "not
subject" by Steve Mitchell of DWQ in his letter dated October 14, 1999 and Brian Wrenn of DWQ previously called the feature
"intermittent" and "subject" in his letter dated October 22, 2004.
Based on DWQ's stream ID form, I observed that the feature, is ephemeral and is not subiect to the Neuse River Buffer Rules.
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: hun://h2n enr state.nc.u?net?etlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10 % Post Consumer Paper

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON
FOSTERING COLLABORATION AND EFFICIENCIES TO ADDRESS WATER
QUALITY IMPAIRMENTS ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS
between the
U.S. Forest Service
and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A. PURPOSE: To establish greater coordination and collaboration between the United
States Forest Service (Forest Service or FS) and the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Water (EPA/OW) to foster efficient strategies to address water
quality impairments by maintaining and restoring National Forest System (NFS)
watersheds.
B. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL BENEFITS AND INTERESTS: The mission of the FS is
to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. To help achieve this mission, the
FS provides leadership in protection, management, and use of the Nation's forests and
grasslands, including aquatic ecosystems. The FS ecosystem approach to
management integrates ecological, economic, and social factors to maintain and
enhance the quality of the environment to meet current and future needs. The EPA's
mission is to protect human health and the environment. To help achieve this mission,
EPA/OW seeks in part to restore and maintain watersheds and aquatic ecosystems to
protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy
habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife. The compatibility of our missions with respect to
protecting the environment and water resources forms the basis for jointly developing
the concepts presented in this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
C. BACKGROUND: Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act),
states, territories, and authorized tribes (hereafter referred to as "jurisdictions") are
required to develop lists of impaired waters every two years (i.e., Section 303(d) list).
Impaired waters are those that do not meet applicable water quality standards (WQS).
The CWA further requires jurisdictions to establish a priority ranking for waters on the
Section 303(d) list and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for them. A TMDL
is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet
applicable WOS with a margin of safety, and an allocation of that amount to the
pollutant's point and nonpoint sources. The CWA requires EPA to approve or
disapprove the Section 303(d) lists and TMDLs. If EPA disapproves the jurisdiction's
submission, then EPA must establish the Section 303(d) list and/or TMDL for that
jurisdiction.
TMDLs are one of many tools in the CWA to help achieve the Act's main objective to
"restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (CWA Section 101(a)). EPA regulations also recognize that alternative
pollution control requirements may obviate the need for a TMDL. Specifically,
tof5
waterbody segments are not required to be included on the Section 303(d) list if
jurisdictions demonstrate that "(o)ther pollution control requirements (e.g., best
management practices) required by local, State, or Federal authority" (see 40 CFR
130.7(b)(1)) are stringent enough to achieve applicable state WQS within a reasonable
period of time. These alternatives to TMDLs are commonly reported to EPA as
Category 4b waters as described in EPA's Integrated Reporting Guidance (IRG) for
Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the CWA.
The FS manages more than 193 million acres in the National Forest System. Although
most forested watersheds are in satisfactory condition, some waterbodies on NFS lands
do not meet state WQS. Year 2005 data show that over 4,300 water quality
impairments (in 2,600 waterbodies on NFS lands) are included on the Section 303(d)
lists in 41 states, representing about 8 percent of all water quality impairments
nationally. Leading causes of the impairments on NFS lands include elevated
temperature, excess sediment, and habitat modification.
The FS has already coordinated and collaborated with states and EPA on many
activities to maintain and restore water quality in the National Forest System. For
example, the FS has supported states and EPA in development of more than 300
TMDLs in more than 30 National Forests. For several National Forests, the FS has
also assisted states' efforts to develop a record that supports placement of waters in
Category 4b.
In addition to these activities, the FS uses a variety of watershed management
techniques to address water resource impairments. The FS Watershed Management
Program includes guidance to inventory and assess watershed conditions; identify and
prioritize improvement needs; restore ecosystem components and functions; apply best
management practices (BMP); implement pollution prevention design strategies;
monitor project success; and adapt management measures. For example, the FS is in
the process of updating national BMP guidance for administering its nonpoint pollution
control strategy on NFS lands. This new FS National BMP Program is intended to meet
or exceed all state BMP objectives as well as simplify and standardize water quality
protection measures and monitoring on NFS lands.
D. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The FS and EPA/OW intend to work to advance a
suite of water quality related actions that are expected to build partnerships between
our organizations and among states, thereby improving NFS watershed conditions and
accelerating the attainment of the objectives in our statutory programs and strategic
plans.
The objectives of this MCA are as follows:
• Identify streamlined approaches for the FS to support the jurisdictions'
development of TMDLs and Category 4b submissions that will accelerate
attainment of state WQS on NFS lands.
• Identify opportunities to implement the FS National BMP Program on NFS lands
2 of 5

to protect and maintain water quality in impaired watersheds.
Identify monitoring efforts and approaches that enhance and further our
understanding of conditions and processes in NFS watersheds.
Identify opportunities to promote development, use, and sharing of watershed
data and information among agencies and the public.
Foster regional or state level MOAs that advance the objectives of this MOA on a
regional or state scale, where mutually desirable.
E. THE FOREST SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: will
strive to achieve the above goals and objectives and, where appropriate, do so in
partnership with interested jurisdictions and other government entities. To that end, the
FS and EPA/OW plan to meet within 90 days of signing this MOA and at least annually
thereafter (annual meeting), to develop joint action items that support achieving the
goals and objectives stated in this MOA. Such action items may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Develop checklists, templates, and documents in cooperation with jurisdictions to
facilitate the use of Category 4b (consistent with EPA's regulations and the
agency's IRG) for impaired waters on NFS lands. Such mechanisms would be
intended to provide straightforward application of EPA's 4b guidance to individual
projects.
2. Develop a simplified "decision tree" process in cooperation with jurisdictions for
determining the most desirable course of action for addressing water quality
impairments (e.g., TMDL, other actions that support using Category 4b) on NFS
lands. The purpose would include increasing the resources applied to water
quality improvement and creating an incentive for use of Category 4b in
appropriate circumstances.
3. Identify and implement projects in cooperation with jurisdictions for impaired
waters that promote innovative and cost effective approaches for achieving WQS
on NFS lands.
4. Compile and discuss the agencies' descriptions of the role BMPs play in meeting
state WQS and the intent of the CWA.
F. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
RELATIONSHIP WITH STATES. TERRITORIES. TRIBES AND OTHER
PARTNERS. Both parties recognize the important role states, territories, authorized
tribes and other partners play in maintaining and restoring water quality of the
Nation's waters within NFS lands. The goals and objectives of this partnership are
intended to complement collaborative efforts already underway between and among
both parties, states, territories, authorized tribes and other partners as well as
provide a platform for fostering further collaboration with these entities for
maintaining and restoring water quality. This MCA is designed to support states,
territories, and authorized tribes in carrying out CWA Section 303(d) activities. This
MCA does not remove any existing authority provided to states, territories and
3 of 5
authorized tribes under the CWA, nor is it intended to supersede any existing MOAs
between these entities and the Forest Service.
2. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA). The agencies will comply with the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
3. PARTICIPATION IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. This MOA in no way restricts the Forest
Service or the Environmental Protection Agency from participating in similar
activities with other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.
4. COMMENCEMENT/EXPI RATIONJERM[NATION. This MOA takes effect upon the
signature of the Forest Service and EPA. This MOA may be amended upon written
request of either the Forest Service or EPA and the subsequent written concurrence
of the other. The MOA will remain in effect until one or both parties terminate it.
Either party may terminate this MOA by providing written notice to the other party.
The termination will be effective upon the sixtieth calendar day following notice,
unless a later date is set forth. The parties agree to evaluate the sufficiency of the
MOA during the annual meeting, at which time the parties may agree to continue,
modify, or withdraw the MOA. This MOA may be modified only through written
mutual agreement.
5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES. The Forest Service and EPA and their
respective offices will administer their own activities and utilize their own resources,
including the expenditure of their own funds, in pursuing the objectives set forth in
this MOA. Each party will carry out its activities in a coordinated and mutually
beneficial manner.
6. DESIGNATING PRINCIPAL CONTACTS. The two agencies intend to establish a
framework for coordination and communication pertaining to this MOA and to
promote staff exchange, as appropriate, for improved interagency communications.
Principle contacts will be designated and are expected to participate in regular
meetings to facilitate implementation of this MOA, coordinate research and
technology issues, and avoid unnecessary duplication in order to increase
efficiency.
NON-FUND OBLIGATING DOCUMENT. Nothing in this MOA requires either the
Forest Service or EPA to obligate or transfer any funds. Specific work projects or
activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property among the various
agencies and offices of the Forest Service and EPA will require execution of
separate agreements and be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds.
Such activities must be independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority.
This MOA does not provide such authority. Negotiation, execution, and
administration of each such agreement must comply with all applicable statutes and
regulations. The activities, initiatives, or pilot projects contemplated in this MOA will
be carried out in accordance with existing statutory authorities and nothing in this
4of5
MOA will, in any way, alter the specific statutory or regulatory authorities, rights,
requirements, or responsibilities assigned to the FS, EPNOW, or other agencies.
8. ESTABLISHMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY. This MOA is not intended to, and does
not create, any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or equity, by a party against the United States, its agencies, its
officers,. or any person. This MOA does not direct anyone outside of the Forest
Service and EPA.
9. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. The individuals listed below are designated
as representatives of their respective agencies and are authorized to act in their
respective areas for matters related to this agreement.
--"14VxC"L?
Benjamin H. Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
?gZ C? Ia087
Date ,
R.
Forest Service
Z? 200
Date
5o15