19970893 Ver 4_Staff Comments_20071130

Shotwell Impact Revisions
Subject: Shotwell Impact Revisions
From: "Phil May" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:14:59 -0500
To: "'Ian McMillan"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Shern, James F SAW"' <[e-mail]>, "'Stacey Smith"'
<[e-mail]>, "'Amy Chapman"' <[e-mail]>
Ian,
Per our conversation yesterday, the attached file is intended to clarify the buffer impact calculations
associated with the above referenced project. As you noted, there was some inconsistency between the
cover letter and supporting documentation. The following impact calculations were made via Autocad
and checked with ArcView GIS software. The attached Impact Summary sheet replaces the one
submitted with the permit application. The only changes are to the Zone 1 buffer impacts in the
summary to match the Zone 1 impacts in the Buffer Impact Details section at the bottom of the page,
and Table 4 in the cover letter.
In addition, per conversations with Jamie Shern, the stream channel at Site 1 is considered part of the
wetland system that is a result of the beaver impoundment along the drainage. The US Army Corps of
Engineers is not requiring mitigation for the impacts to this stream channel due to the lack of stream
function. Beaver impounding begins just above the perennial stream point, but the channel was
present during the recent drought. The stream footage was included in the impacts to correspond with
earlier submittals for the Major Buffer Variance. Amy Chapman concurred that the stream within the
beaver impoundment is intermittent, and agreed with the point the channel turns perennial (call made
on biological indicators including crayfish presence below this point and absent in the upstream
channel except for dragonfly larvae where the water was impounded). The impacts were designed to
avoid the perennial segment of the channel. The PN for the project stated it is perennial stream, but
without the effects of the beaver activity it is questionable if water would be in the channel at all
during the dryer season. Let me know if you need more information regarding this or talk to Amy and
Jamie directly.
Please contact me at your convenience if you have any questions or require further information.
Thanks
Phil
Phil May
CAROLINA ECOSYSTEMS, INC.
8208 Brian Court
Garner, NC 27529
[phone] Cell
[phone] Fax
www.carolinaeco.com
Content-Type: application/pdf
Shotwell impact revised.pdf'
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 11/30/2007 8:33 AM

Shotwell C&D Landfill Expansion
4041401 Individual Permit Application
Impact Summary
Revised 11/29/07

Site Number Wetlands (acres)
Perm. Temp. Streams (linear ff)
Perm. Temp. Open Water (acres)
Perm. Temp. Buffers
Zone 1 Zone 2
1 1.09 0 467 0 0.55 0 89,733 59,677
2 0 0 0 50 0 0 1,500 1,000
Total 1.09 0 467 50 0.55 0 91,233 60,677
Wetland Impact Details
Site Number Type Purpose Impact loodplain Area
1 Forested Landfill Liner Fill No 1.09
2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0
Total 1.09
Stream Impact Details
ite umber ame urpose Impact Per nt engt
1 UT -Marks Cr. Landfill Liner Fill Int 467
2 UT -Marks Cr. Temp Crossin Fill & Culvert Per 50
Total 517
Open Water Impact Details
ite um er mpact ype rea
1 Drain/Fill Pond 0.55
2 n/a n/a 0
Total 0.55
Buffer Impact Details
Site 1
Zone 1 Zone 2 Total Site 2
Zone 1 Zone 2 Total Project
Total
Impact 89,733 59,677 149,410 1,500 1,000 2,500 151,910
Wetlands in buffer 30,927 4,269 35,196 0 0 0 35,196
Net Buffer 58,806 55,408 114,214 1,500 1,000 2,500 116,714
Required Mitigation* 176,418 83,112 259,530 0 0 0 259,530
' gone ~ x s; [one z x ~.5

Ian
I don't know what you found out from Dave Davis, but if we are denying amenity ponds we are
either doing it through a tough minded attitude, which I doubt, or we are relying on the following:
Statutes:
§ 62.1-44.5. Prohibition of waste discharges or other quality alterations of state waters except as
authorized by permit; notification required. A. Except in compliance with a certificate issued by
the Board, it shall be unlawful for any person to:
1. Discharge into state waters sewage, industrial wastes, other wastes, or any noxious or
deleterious substances;
2. Excavate in a wetland;
3. Otherwise alter the physical, chemical or biological properties of state waters and make them
detrimental to the public health, or to animal or aquatic life, or to the uses of such waters for
domestic or industrial consumption, or for recreation, or for other uses.
Interpretation: One cannot discharge fill or dredge a wetland to make a pond without a permit
and furthermore such activity can not alter the physical, chemical or biological properties to the
detriment of aquatic life, therefore we have jurisdiction unless they are excavating in an upland.
§ 62.1-44.15:21. Impacts to wetlands.
A. Permits shall address avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts to the maximum extent
practicable. A permit shall be issued only if the Board finds that the effect of the impact, together
with other existing or proposed impacts to wetlands, will not cause or contribute to a significant
impairment of state waters or fish and wildlife resources.
Interpretation: One has to avoid impacts, 1 guess with an amenity pond we think there is no true
purpose, so the impact is avoidable.
I had thought that we had adopted by reference the EPA 404(b)1 guidelines requiring sequencing
but I think in so reiteration of regulation revision that got taken out.
Joe Hassell
Division of Water Resources - DEQ
P. O. Box 1105
Richmond, VA 23218 [phone]

Parson's Mill/Action ID SAW-2004-01067-065
Subject: Parson's Mill/Action ID SAW-2004-01067-065
From: "Frye, Jennifer S SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:30:22 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>, "Jim Spangler" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: "Chad Coburn" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]
Mr. Sanders,
Per our conversation last Friday, the following is a list of the information we still need in order to process your
request for NWP verification:
1. Itemization of impacts. Please ensure that for each impact area (1-14), the impacts are noted by
type (temporary/permanent), ecosystem (stream, non-riparian, riparian), and acreage or linear
footage. For example:
Impact area #1: temporary non riparian 0.0117 ac.
Impact area #14: permanent riparian 0.0895 ac.
permanent stream 60 linear feet
(#14 was noted as 52' on the PCN, but the plans depict 60' -please make
certain that the plans and impact tally sheet match)
2. Please submit detailed cross-sections for each of the impact areas, to scale, that clearly depict the
culvert installation, rip rap, swales, utility lines, etc. Not just "typical" cross-sections.
I continue to have concerns regarding the temporary impacts; specifically, do any/all of the
drainage/utility easements include swales, mowed maintenance corridors, rip-rap on stream banks?
We consider swale construction and rip rap permanent fill. For conversion of a forested wetland to
an herbaceous, mowed wetland we require compensatory mitigation. Is the City or County requiring
drainage easements in the JD areas? If so, we have language that we developed with the City -
and have used with the County as well -which clarifies the type of maintenance activities we allow
in JD areas with respect to drainage and flow. It is always better to ensure that your authorization
accounts for all impacts -instead of facing a permit non-compliance issue later on.
4. For impact areas 2, 3, and 5: at-grade equalization pipes needs to be included for hydrologic
connectivity of the wetland systems.
5. Mitigation: we will require compensatory mitigation for all permanent impacts to wetlands and
streams as well as the permanent vegetation conversion in temporary impact areas. We highly
encourage and support the combination of on-site preservation and EEP. That said, your EEP
acceptance needs to reflect both riparian and non-riparian and warm water stream channel
impacts. According to the most recent PCN and plans, you are proposing (at least) 0.14 acres of
non-riparian wetland impact, 0.29 acres of riparian, and 264 linear feet of stream impact. If you wish
to propose EEP payment for all wetland and stream impacts, you will need to submit a revised
request to EEP. If you are amenable to on-site preservation of the remaining JD areas (in addition
to EEP), I would be willing to accept a 1:1 EEP In-Lieu-Fee payment for all wetland and stream
impacts. Please keep in mind that the preservation must be one of our approved legal mechanisms
(Conservation Easement, Declaration of Restrictions or Restrictive Covenants). See the attached
document. Also, be aware that any drainage, utility easements within the Preservation areas must
either be in accordance with our approved language (see 3. above) or removed from the
preservation. If you do not have any issues with the preservation language, I have the option of
issuing the Verification with a condition that states that one of the three mechanisms must be
recorded. I will also need a draft recordable preservation map, which clearly identifies the surveyed
boundaries of the preserved areas as well as a total amount of preserved wetlands (non-riparian
and riparian) in acres and linear footage of preserved tributaries.
Please be aware that we now condition our permits and verifications to require as-built surveys be submitted to
this office for any temporary impacts (to ensure that the areas have been returned to wetland grade).
] oft 1 1/19/2007 1 1:18 AM

Parson's Mill/Action ID SAW-2004-01067-065
Finally, I am willing to meet with you all to discuss any of these items if this email is not clear. It is my hope that
we can all get on the same page and get this one processed; however, please keep in mind that we now start
another 30-day time clock. If we do not receive the above information within 30 days (basically, by Christmas),
we will consider the application withdrawn and close the file.
Thanks for your attention,
Sincerely,
Jennifer S. Frye
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
PO Box 1890 (Mail)
69 Darlington (Location)
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Office: 910-251-4923
Fax: [phone]
Wilmington District Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property.doc
Wilmington
District Process for
Content-Description: Preservation of
Mitigation
Property.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
2 of 2 11/19/2007 11:18 AM

[Fwd: Lake RToxaway Downstream Odor Study]
Subject: [Fwd: Lake RToxaway Downstream Odor Study]
From: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:45:52 -0500
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
FYI
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Subject: Lake RToxaway Downstream Odor Study
From: Debra Owen <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:21:35 -0500
To: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Hi Eric,
Enclosed is a study we did in response to public complaints of odor in water
immediately downstream of the Lake Toxaway dam. Lake Toxaway is in the Savannah
River Basin in the NC mountains. It was determined that the source of the odor
problem was due to the release of bottom water from the lake which had elevated
levels of manganese released from the bottom sediment.
I'm continuing to look for additional info regarding downstream water quality
issues related to impoundments.
Debra
Debra A. Owen
Environmental Biologist
NCDENR-ESB-ISU
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Phone: [phone] ext. 210
e-mail: [e-mail]
Lake RToxaway Downstream Odor Study.eml
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
Lake Toxaway Bottom Metals Sampling Results.doc 'Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 11/19/2007 11:23 AM

07-1245 Poston Park
Subject: 07-1245 Poston Park
From: Alan Johnson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:39:49 -0500
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
IP..comments in Bims.....recommend planting along shelf to promote diversity of
wetland species that may naturally propagate.
No negative comments. Answered in response and on site visit
Alan Johnson - Alan.JohnsonGzncmail.net
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
610 E. Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 11/19/2007 l 1:23 AM

[Fwd: [ncgis] Be the First to Experience GTG's New Training Center!]
Subject: [Fwd: [ncgis] Be the First to Experience GTG's New Training Center!]
From: Amy Keyworth <Amy.Keyworth@ncmailnet>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:29:57 -0500
To: Joan Schneier <Joan.Schneier@ncmaiLneV, Carrie Chapman Stone <Carrie.Chapman.Stone@ncmaiLnet>, Amy Keyworth <amy.keyworth@ncmaiLnet>, BRUCE
PARRIS <BRUCE.PARRIS@ncmaiLnet>, CHARLES STEHMAN <CHARLES.STEHMAN@ncmaiLnet>, "Miressa D. Gamma" <miressa.garoma@ncmaiLnet>, ART
BARNHARDT <ART.BARNHARDT@ncmaiLnet>, DAVID EUDY <DAVID.EUDY@ncmaiLnet>, DAVID MAY <DAVID.MAY@ncmaiLneV, evan kane
<[e-mail]>, Geoff Kegley <GeoffKegley@ncmaiLneV, DAVID GOODRICH <DAVID.GOODRICH@ncmaiLneV, Jason Bochert
<Jason.Bochert@ncmaiLnet>, JAY ZIMMERMAN <JAY.ZIMMERMAN@ncmaiLnet>, andrew pitner <andrew.pitner@ncmaiLneV, Jesse Wiseman
<Jesse. Wiseman@ncmaiLnet>, Harry Messenger <Harold.Messenger@ncmaiLneV, Mike Cunningham <Mike.Cunningham@ncmaiLneV, Zinith Barbee
<zinith.barbee@ncmaiLnet>, Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, Samuel Watson <[e-mail]>, Sherri Knight <[e-mail]>, Ted
Campbell <Ted.Campbell@ncmaiLnet>, Thomas Slusser <Thomas.Slusser@ncmaiLnet>, Todd Bennett <Todd.Bennett@ncmaiLnet>, Walt Haven
<Walt.Haven@ncmaiLnet>, Julia Harrell <julia.harrell@ncmaiLnet>, Cam McNutt <Cam.McNutt@ncmaiLneV, Patricia Hughes <Patricia.Hughes@ncmaiLnet>, Chris
Greene <Chris.Greene@ncmaiLnet>, Derek.Denard@ncmaiLnet, ERIC RICE <ERIC.RICE@ncmaiLneV, Jeff Sawdy <Jeff.Sawdy@ncmaiLnet>, Jim Bushardt
<Jim.Bushardt@ncmaiLneV, Jimmie Greer <jimmie.greer@ncmaiLnet>, John.Hunt@ncmaiLnet, Kevin.Bubak@ncmaiLnet, Landon Davidson
<Landon Davidson@ncmaiLnet>, Linda.wiggs@ncmaiLnet, Marlene.Salyer@ncmaiLnet, Mary Harrill <Mary.harrill@ncmaiLneV, Melissa.Rosebrock@ncmaiLnet, Peggy
Finley <[e-mail], Qu Qi <Qu.Qi@ncmaiLneV, Robert.Tankard@ncmaiLnet, Ron.Taraban@ncmaiLnet, Samuel Watson <SamueLWatson@ncmaiLnet>,
Jennifer Haynie <jennifer.haynie@ncmaiLnet>, wanda.frazier@ncmaiLnet, wayne.bryant@ncmaiLnet, will.burke@ncmaiLnet, Myrl Nisely <myrl.nisely@ncmaiLnet>, Ray
Milosh <ray.milosh@ncmaiLnet>, Barry.Herzberg@ncmaiLnet, Pam Behm <pamela.behm@ncmaiLnet>, narayan rajbhandari <narayan.rajbhandari@ncmaiLnet>, Adugna
Kebede <Adugna.Kebede@ncmaiLnet>, Jennifer Everett <JennifecEverett@ncmaiLneV, Samuel Watson <SamueLWatson@ncmaiLnet>, Michelle Raquet
<Michelle.Raquet@ncmaiLnet>, nora.deamer@ncmaiLnet, Kelly Johnson <Kelly.P.Johnson@ncmaiLnet>, Dave Toms <dave.toms@ncmaiLnet>, Peter Caldwell
<Peter.Caldwell@ncmaiLnet>, Brad Connell <Brad.Connell@ncmaiLnet>, Chonticha McDaniel <chonticha.mcdaniel@ncmaiLnet>, Dave.hill@ncmaiLnet, Agyeman
Adu-Poku <Agyeman.Adupoku@ncmaiLnet>, Joju Abraham <Joju.Abraham@ncmaiLnet>, "Kirk.Montgomer" <Kirk.Montgomery@ncmaiLnet>, Todd Bennett
<Todd.Bennett@ncmaiLnet>, peter.pozzo@ncmaiLnet, jaya.joshi@ncmaiLnet, "Miressa D. Gamma" <miressa.garoma@ncmaiLneV, ed.hardee@ncmaiLnet, Will Hart
<William.Hart@ncmaiLnet>, Paul Clark <PauLClark@ncmaiLnet>, Rich Hayes <richard.d.hayes@ncmaiLnet>, Sean Boyles <Sean.Boyles@ncmaiLnet>, [an McMillan
<ian.mcmillan@ncmaiLnet>, Periann Russell <periann.russell@ncmaiLnet>, adriene weaver <adriene.weaver@ncmaiLnet>, David.wainwright@ncmaiLnet, Joe Olinger
<joe.olinger@ncmaiLnet>, Melanie Williams <[e-mail],julie.ventaloro@ncmaiLnet, Ed. Williams@ncmaiLnet, Rick Savage
<rick.savage@ncmaiLnet>, Mark Hale <mark.hale@ncmaiLnet>, eric.newsome@ncmaiLnet, susan.gale@ncmaiLnet, Joseph Gyamfi <[e-mail]>,
virginia.baker@ncmaiLnet, Kipp.Glazier@ncmaiLnet, joanne.steenhuis@ncmaiLnet, Matthew Faerber <Matthew.Faerber@ncmaiLnet>, brett.laverty@ncmaiLnet
more training opportunities. [know nothing beyond what's below.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ncgis] Be the First to Experience GTG's New Training Center!
Date:Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:11:51 -0000
From:Emily Jungblut-Swinarski <ejungblut(c~l;eota.com>
Reply-To:North Carolina Local Government Geographic Information Systems Listserv <ncgis(u~listserv.unc.edu>
To:North Carolina Local Government Geographic Information Systems Listserv <nc];is(cD,listserv.unc.edu'>
Be the First to Experience GTG's New Training Center!
Geographic Technologies Group, Inc. (GTG) will host a Grand Opening and Ribbon Cutting of the new corporate office and training center on Monday
GTG is now offering training courses; courses offered include:
•IntroduCtion to ArCGIS I
--This 2-day course is being offered December 10-11, 2007. The fee is $799 per student.
•IntroduCtion to ArCGIS II
--This 3-day course ~is being offered December 12-14, 2007. The fee is $1,199 per student.
•GIS Manager's workshop
--This course is ideal for GIS Managers and IT Directors. Topics Covered will include: The Business Case for GIs, Managing Enterprise-wide GI:
•ArcGIS Server and the Direction of GIS Technology from ESRI
--The FREE one hour seminar, offered exclusively on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 2 PM will be hosted by ESRI's own Dale Loberger. This semin~
For more information or to register, please contact Jessica Horton at 1-888-757-4222 or traini.nq<ageotg..com.
Space is limited and classes are offered on a first come first serve basis.
To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe ncgis] to jhmidlercaemail ..unc. edu
Amy Keyworth <amy.keyworth rni,nemail.net>
Environmental Specialist
Groundwater Planning Unit
NCDENR/DWQ
1 of 1 11/19/2007 11:22 AM

Lake Glad Commercial Development (07-0241)
Subject: Lake Glad Commercial Development (07-0241)
From: "Jennifer Burdette" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:49:32 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
Ian-
Although the applicant has not yet responded to the Request for More Information letter dated October 12,
2007 regarding the subject project, we have been in communication with Annette Lucas regarding the
developing requirements of the new SW policy. The corrections to the SW Management Plan have been
completed and were submitted to the Town of Creedmoor on November 8th. We originally believed that we
needed an approval from Granville County, which is what delayed the submission to Creedmoor.
We anticipate that it may be December 10th before we have Creedmoor's SW plan approval.
Thanks,
Jennifer Burdette
Burdette Land Consulting Inc
308D W Millbrook Rd Ste 200
Raleigh NC 27609
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax
1 of 1 11/19/2007 11:21 AM

William Ratcliffe--FYI
Subject: William Ratcliffe--FYI
From: "Jim Spangler" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:57:47 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>
Folks,
You have all been working with Will Ratcliffe in our Raleigh office on
various field projects. Will unexpectedly resigned his position to seek
employment in Pennsylvania near his girlfriend. Will wrapped up several
items for us last week, and so you may receive, or have already received,
correspondence signed by Will. Will's projects are now being coordinated by
me, directly, and I am in~the process of getting existing and new folks in
our Wilmington or Raleigh offices up to speed on outstanding fieldwork. As
I am the Agent for the applicant/owner on all matters, please continue to
address all correspondence to me. If you have questions, please contact me.
Thank you, and have a great Thanksgiving Holiday!
Regards,
Jim
James A. Spangler, CEI
President
Spangler Environmental, Inc.
www.SpanglerEnvironmental.com
919-546-0754 Raleigh Office
910-343-9375 Wilmington Office
"Delay always breeds danger; and to protract a great design is often to ruin
it."--Miguel de Cervantes
This e-mail transmission (and any attachments thereto) is confidential and
privileged. It is intended only for viewing by the entity to which it is
addressed. This document and attachments may contain information subject to
attorney work-product doctrines or attorney-client privilege. If you are
not the addressee, your disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
contents of this message for any purpose is prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail.
1 of 1 11/19/2007 2:50 PM

Prosperity Village
Subject: Prosperity Village
From: Annette Lucas <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:16:28 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Kevin,
I am glad we had the chance to discuss Prosperity Village.. It was my understanding
that we agreed on the following items:
1. With the current submittal, the applicant will provide a stormwater management
plan that will treat the stormwater resulting from the rights-of-way on the site.
The stormwater management plan will comply with the current version of the DWQ BMP
Manual. One BMP Supplement Form with all required items shall be provided for each
proposed BMP. (BMP Supplement Forms are available at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp forms.htm.)
2. The 401 Certification will be issued as appropriate for a phased project. The
roadway will be considered the first phase. The apartments will be the second
phase. Before any land disturbing activity may occur on the second phase, a
stormwater management plan for that phase must be approved by the appropriate
authority (Charlotte if it has obtained approval for its Phase II program -
otherwise, DWQ). Before any building on the site may be occupied, the approved
stormwater management plan must be implemented.
Please let me know if I have adequately captured our conversation.
The web site I mentioned above is intended to be a resource to communities
throughout the state - they are welcome to use our BMP Supplement Forms if they
choose. I was not able to get a copy of the letter that recently went out to local
municipalities about the BMP Reviewer Certification - but the general concept of
local government certification is discussed in Coleen Sullins' August 20 memo
(attached).
Have a great holiday,
Annette
Annette Lucas <annette.lucas([e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer III
401 Wetlands Oversight/Express Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
Content-Type: application/acroread
Revised SMP Review Policy.pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 11/19/2007 4:19 PM

Your question about phased developments
Subject: Your question about phased developments
From: Annette Lucas <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:27:49 -0500
To: Jennifer Burdette <[e-mail]>
CC: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Jennifer,
I have spoken to Ian and Cyndi and we have agreed that we will treat the
applicant's situation (providing access to a future commercial site) as a phased
development. Therefore, the applicant can provide stormwater management for the
road only at this point and then provide stormwater management for the buildings,
parking lots, etc. as the site is built out. Stormwater management plans must be
approved before land disturbing activities associated with future phases commence
and must be in place before buildings are occupied. The applicant should be aware
that the DWQ is tracking phased projects and failure to provide an appropriate
stormwater management plan for future phases will result in a Notice of Violation.
Annette
Annette Lucas <annette.lucas(~,ncmail.net>
Environmental Engineer III
401 Wetlands Oversight/Express Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1 of 1 11/19/2007 4:19 PM

the spin
...1
subject: it's all in the spin
From: Chad Turlington <[e-mail]>
)ate: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:28:38 -0400
To: Ken Averitte <[e-mail]>
Land Rights Network
American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400 -Battle Ground, WA 98604
Phone: [phone] -Fax: [phone]
E-mail: alra(c~pacifier.com
Web Address: http://www.landrights.org
Legislative Office: 507 Seward Square SE -Washington, DC 20003
Wetlands Alert -- HR 2421 Hearing Thursday, Oct. 18th.
2167 Rayburn House Office Building - 10 a.m.
You must call your Congressman before 10 a.m. Thursday
-----Urgent Action Required
-----Committee Vote Later This Month Possible.
-----See Action Items Below.
HR 2421, The Clean Water Restoration Act, is really a massive Federal land and water power grab. It
will use "wetlands" to take control over every farm, ranch, and piece of private property with any
water on it or even if you only engage in activities that might affect water.
It expands the authority of the Federal government under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972 to include all waters of the U.S. and activities affecting these waters.
In the words of Reed Hopper of Pacific Legal Foundation, lead attorney in a landmark U.S. Supreme
Court victory, "...this bill pushes the limits of federal power to an extreme not matched by any other
law, probably in the history of this country."
-----Hearing Date Thursday, October 18th, 2007
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
James Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman
The chief author of HR 2421, titled the Clean Water Restoration Act, is Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN). By Oberstar's own admission, the bill is
intended to overturn two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that recently ruled in favor of local
government and local landowners on Wetlands issues.
In both cases, the high court ruled that the federal government exceeded the authority granted under
10/25/2007 11:02 AM

it's all in the spin
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 on Wetlands issues.
In the latest case, a Michigan landowner faced steep fines and a recommended 5-year jail sentence for
moving gravel on his property, located some 20 miles from the nearest navigable water.
Reasons To Oppose Oberstar's Bill (HR 2421):
-----A. Replaces the word 'navigable' waters under the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act with
'waters of the U.S.,' including wetlands, sloughs, ponds, meadows, prairie potholes, sandflats,
mudflats, playa lakes, and intermittent streams. This change vastly increases the land area covered by
this Wetlands legislation.
-----B. Adds the new language 'activities affecting these waters,' essentially athinly-disguised attempt
at national land use control;
-----C. This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Rep. Oberstar is attempting to get his way by using the
popular political appeal of the nice sounding term 'clean water' and by using his newly gained power as
chairman of a major pork committee' to intimidate the bill's opponents, including elected officials in
his own state;
-----D. The bill is intended to overturn two U.S. Supreme Court cases (SWANCC, 2001 and Rapanos,
2006) that ruled in favor of landowners and local government;
-----E. In the later case, a Michigan landowner faced stiff fines and a possible 5 year prison sentence
for moving gravel on his land located 20 miles from the nearest navigable waterway. If you do
anything on your land without permission, you could be facing criminal penalties;
-----F. The bill is an attempt to control 'non-point sources' of water pollution, essentially any type of
significant uses--farming, logging, mining, development of any kind, and even atmospheric
deposition;
-----G. The bill will be also be used by environmental groups to restrict and prohibit uses of Federal
lands and waters, including and especially motorized recreational uses;
-----H. The bill will result in endless litigation, unacceptable permitting delays, and will be a severe
blow to property rights and local control;
-----I. There are serious constitutional concerns with the bill, and states should not relinquish control
of natural resources to the federal government;
-----J. The Transportation Committee has sole jurisdiction of HR 2421, even though it affects all our
natural resources. The House Resources and the House Agriculture Committee should ask for joint
jurisdiction of this massive land and water power grab;
-----K. Many of the 170 co-sponsors of the bill have supported it because of the political appeal of the
term "clean water", and because Oberstar's position as chairman of a powerful pork committee to
intimidate the bill's opponents by depriving them of funding for projects in their home districts; and
-----L. This could be the biggest threat to freedom and property rights ever! ! As Jim Burling, senior
2 of 5
10/25/2007 11:02 AM

it's all in the spin
attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation said recently, "If our constitutional system of limited federal
powers means anything, we have to win on this issue."
Action Items:
-----1. Please call, a-mail and fax your member of Congress and ask him to oppose HR 2421, this new
Federal power grab. You may call any Congressman at [phone]. Ask them to write Members
of the Transportation Committee to oppose HR 2421 and send you a copy.
-----2. The hearing is Thursday, October 18th. You must deluge your Member of Congress with calls
immediately. Get your friends, neighbors and business associates to call.
-----3. Ask your Congressman to insist that HR 2421 Jurisdiction also
be given to the Agriculture Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. Ask him or her to write
a letter requesting this and to send a copy of the letter to you.
-----4. Call, fax and a-mail each Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in
opposition to HR 2421.. We have provided a list below. Any Congressman can be called at (202)
225-3121. This is a lot of work and you don't have much time. But failure to defeat HR 2421 would be
a disaster.
-----5. Ask any organizations or groups you are part of to write a letter opposing HR 2421. Make sure
they send you a copy and if you would, send us a copy too.
-----6. You can send testimony for the record to the following addresses. You have 10 working days (2
weeks) after the hearing date to get your testimony Yn: The deadline for the Committee to receive
testimony is Thursday, November 1st. Send your Testimony to both the Majority (Democrats) and
Minority (Republicans).
-----Alert -- Be aware of the legal concept called "laches" or "sleeping on your rights." You may lose
legal rights later if you fail to comment or testify on HR 2421. So at least send a letter opposing HR
2421. It can be as short as one page or longer.
Address your testimony: (Committee Address)
Honorable James Oberstar (D-MN)
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
US House of Representatives
2165 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515.
[phone]
Because of the Anthrax postal inspections, mail to Congress can be slowed by several weeks. You are
safer to fax or e-mail your testimony. The Committee fax number is [phone].
E-mail: transcomm cr,mail.house.gov
-----7. Call, fax and a-mail James Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee at his personal office. Honorable James Oberstar, House of Representatives, Washington,
3 of 5 10/25/2007 11:02 AM

it's all in the spin
DC 20515. Fax: [phone]. Send e-mail to Rep. Oberstar care of the following staff persons:
bill.richard(a,mail.house.gov
john.schadl(a~mail.house.gov ; chip.gardiner cr,mail.house.gov ; meloday.hamoud(c~mail.house.gov ;
kipp.johnson(a,mail.house.gov ;
jonathan.rucks cr,mail.house.gov .
-----8. Call, Fax and e-mail John Mica (R-FL), Ranking Minority
Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Because the Committee
Chairman, James Oberstar, is also the author of HR 2421 you may not receive favorable treatment of
your testimony from him. Also send Rep. Mica a copy of your testimony.
Address it: Honorable John Mica (R-FL), Ranking Minority Member, House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515. Minority Phone: [phone]. Minority Fax: [phone]. Send e-mail
to John Mika and Don Young (R-AK) at the Committee care of: jon.pawlow(a,mail.house.gov ;
john.Anderson(a,mai..house.gov ; geof£bowman(a,mail.house.gov ; tom.corcoran(a~mail.house.gov ;
timothy.lundquist(a~mail.house.gov
-----9. Send a copy of your testimony to both your Senators. The Senate version is S 1870 and is
worded exactly like the HR 2421. It is sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. By wording
both bills the same, they are looking to ram through this bill fast before you get a chance to get
organized.
----10. Ask organizations or groups in your State to pass resolutions opposing HR 2421. Especially
those involved in farming, ranching, and the ownership of private land. Get copies of all the
resolutions to all the Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee listed below.
Send them to ALRA as well.
----11. Call your local representative of the American Farm Bureau to urge them to go all out against
HR 2421. Ask to be put on any special mailing lists the Farm Bureau may be sending out. Send us the
contact information, phone number and a-mail of your local American Farm Bureau Representative.
----12. No matter where you live, but especially if you live in Minnesota or better still, in Rep.
Oberstar's district, it is critical that you notify organizational leaders as well as regular citizens to have
them send letters and pass resolutions to Reps. Oberstar and John Mica opposing HR 2421. Also
notify your state legislators and local elected officials. You should hold local public meetings and get
as many people in Minnesota as possible informed about HR 2421. Of course you should do this in
other states as well.
There are 300 green groups supporting the HR 2421 and 171 Congressmen are co-sponsoring HR
2421 so far. Oberstar has said publicly that the House will pass the bill. You must help prove him
wrong. He is twisting arms by threatening to withhold pork money for local projects, which he
controls, from each Members district unless they support his bill.
American Land Rights Association is working as a team with the American Property Coalition in
Minnesota and many other organizations across America to defeat HR 2421. You can reach the
American Property Coalition at done cr,americanpropertycoalition.org or mail:
4 of 5 10/25/2007 11:02 AM

it's all in the spin
American Property Coalition
161 St. Anthony Ave., Ste. 935
St. Paul, MN 55103
[phone]
Chad C. Turlington
Environmental Specialist
NC DENR-Division Of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
Fayetteville Regional Office
[phone]
5 of 5 10/25/2007 11:02 AM

Addendum to my comments received in your office re US Army Corps...
Subject: Addendum to my comments received in your office re US Army Corps of Engineers (Action
ID SAW-2007-03170)
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:11:29 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Karoly:
I spoke with a gentleman in your office today and he suggested that I send this addendum to my earlier
letter to you via email and also via hard copy.
I neglected to include these two paragraphs in my letter.
The Marks Creek Rural Lands in Wake and Johnston Counties was designated by Scenic America as a
Last Chance Landscapes in February 2003. This designation was given to ten of the most endangered
landscapes in the United States. Scenic America is an organization dedicated to preserving the natural
beauty and unique/distinctive character of America's communities and countryside.
Also, in my letter I mentioned to you that I had a copy of the Wake County Commissioner's meeting. In my
letter I referenced what I felt were misstatements by Shotwell Landfill Inc. As I only have one DVD of the
meeting, and to obtain extra copies would be an expense of $15.00 and Raleigh TV network would not be
able to provide me with a copy before the end of the comment period (which is tomorrow, October 26),
will be happy to come by your office and let you hear the DVD. As it is my only copy, I did not want to
submit it along with my comments as I need it for my files and documentation.
Attached is my initial letter to you that I dropped off with Marian Davis on Tuesday October 23, 2007.
The gentleman indicated that I did not have to resubmit the two attachments which were the fire report and
the staff packet for the Wake County Commissioners.
Sincerely,
Betty Brandt Williamson
_ __
!: Content-Type: application/octet-stream
!NCDWQ.doc'
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 10/25/2007 4:40 PM

3113 Georgian Terrace
Raleigh, NC 27607
October 23, 2007
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Karoly:
I am writing in opposition to Shotwell Landfill Inc. (SLI) request to the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Action ID SAW-2007-03170) to impact wetlands and perennial
stream channels.
I am opposed to this request for the following reasons:
At the Wake County Commissioner's meeting on OS September 2006, in his appeal for
granting the franchise amendment for expansion of the landfill, Henry Campen, attorney
for SLI stated that the stream buffers would be preserved, representing 12 acres of open
space today and forever. Yet less than 10 months later, a map dated July 2007 shows
where wetlands and streams will be impacted, some permanently. At the same Wake
County Commissioner's meeting, Mr. Campen stated that granting the franchise
amendment would advance the county's goal of protecting water quality. He also stated
that granting the franchise amendment would preserve natural resources as streams would
be preserved with 12 acres of stream buffer. (note that this is a reiteration by Mr.
Campen, as he stated this fact twice for emphasis.) Mr. Campen stated that granting of
the franchise amendment would not materially impact the open space plan for the Marks
Creek Area. He stated that the expansion of the landfill would do more to preserve the
area than a subdivision alternative. (This information was captured by my personal
attendance at the meeting and by an official DVD (video and audio) recording of the
meeting.
The open space program of Wake County has identified the Mark's Creek area as the
Hope Diamond of open space. The open space initiative seeks to ensure the protection of
good water quality, preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources
(forest and farmland), preservation of historic and cultural property, protection of scenic
landscapes and outdoor recreation opportunities, and protection of public health, safety,
and welfare.
This open space program is tied to the Mark's Creek Rural Lands Initiative where Wake
County, in collaboration with Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC), and Trust for Public

Land (TPL) is working "to acquire land and conservation easements for water quality
protection, conservation of privately held working lands and scenic vistas and access for
low-impact recreation in the Mark's Creek watershed. The goal is to protect properties
for water quality, wildlife habitat, rural character, and recreation and trail access."
The above three paragraphs indicate that, in my opinion, misstatements were made by
SLI in order to obtain approval for the landfill expansion.
I, along with family members, have an undivided interest in property that is adjacent to
this landfill. Our property has been identified as a priority tract for acquisition for open
space. Currently, we are in discussion with Wake County and TLC to place a
conservation easement on our property and create a passive recreation park as part of the
Mountains to the Sea Trail project.
In SLI's application to US Army Corps of Engineers, it is stated that there are no
properties registered by the National Register of Historic Places that will be affected by
the proposed work. That is an incorrect statement. Part of our property was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on 06 October 2000. The landfill expansion, with
heights of 440 feet above mean sea level, will reach in the air equivalent to a height of a
20 story building. These mounds will be visible from the National Register District.
This is not protecting the scenic vistas.
The application to the US Army Corps of Engineers states that evaluation will take into
account water supply and conservation, water quality, and needs and welfare of the
people. At the September 5, 2006 Wake County Commissioner's meeting, it was
explicitly stated that Wake County does not have a shortage of C&D disposal capacity.
On 13 October 2007, there was a fire at SLI. I have enclosed a copy of the official fire
report. The majority of North Carolina is in drought conditions. Wake and Johnston
Counties are in exceptional drought status. To remove wetlands and streams will permit
a fire to spread more easily as there is not wetland or stream buffers to stop the fire.
The streams that SLI wants to affect feed into Marks Creek which flows into the Neuse
River. The Neuse River has been named one of the most endangered rivers. The
following statements are obtained from the Neuse River Education website
http://www.neuse.ncsu. edu/geninfo.htm
"The primary pollutants in the Neuse River are sediment, organics, and nutrients,
particularly nitrogen."
"The Neuse drainage basin encompasses all or part of 23 counties (Beaufort, Carteret,
Craven, Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Greene, Harnett, Johnston,
Jones, Lenoir, Nash, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Person, Pitt, Sampson, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson). The basin supports 1.01 million people (14.9% of the state residents), the

majority of whom live in Durham, Raleigh, Cary, Smithfield, Goldsboro, Kinston, and
New Bern."
"Researchers at N.C. State University are currently conducting seven research or
extension projects in the Neuse River Basin. The majority of these projects focus on
preventing agricultural runoff and promoting sustainable farming systems for farmers.
The intent of one project is to protect urban water quality by increasing the ability of
stormwater detention basins."
Wake County is one of the fastest growing counties in North Carolina with
approximately 100 people relocating into the county daily. The protection of our natural
resources is extremely important for quality of life issues. In my opinion it would be
short sighted to allow permanent impacts to the 1.09 acres of wetlands, 0.55 acre of an
open water pond, and 4671inear feet of perennial stream channel.
The basic premise of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is that when you apply for a
permit, you must show that you have taken steps to avoid impacts on wetlands, to
minimize impact on wetlands and provide compensation for any unavoidable impacts.
In the packet of information that was provided to the Wake County Commissioners, the
following statements were made about the landfill.

WETLANDS, STREAM IMPACTS AND BUFFERS:
Development cannot occur within 50 feet of surface water bodies. The expanded landfill
would be surrounded by a 200-foot wide buffer between the property line and the
disposal boundary as required by Solid Waste Division rules. Within this 200-foot
boundary and along the perimeter of the property, a 100-foot wide undisturbed buffer and
transitional buffer yard with Type A opacity along Smithfield road and along the northern
border of the site will be maintained.
There are no wetlands within the proposed developed area. A site map shows perennial
streams on the east and west sides of the two properties and another stream segment
roughly dissecting the two parcels. A site review was made by the landfill's
environmental consultant and staff from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NC-DWQ) to determine potential impacts to streams, wetlands, and buffers.
Based in input for NC-DWQ, the design of the landfill cells was completed to minimize
ecological impacts by centrally locating the landfill, thereby reducing overall impacts to
the streams and buffers. I have enclosed a copy of this staff packet so you can see the
landfill design that was presented to Wake County Commissioners in order to gain
approval for franchise amendment.

For these reasons, I urge you to deny Shotwell Landfill Ines application as it is not
consistent with the Clean Water Act, or with the promises made to county officials.
Sincerely,
Betty Brandt Williamson