The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20081832 Ver 1_Emails_20100226Mcmillan, Ian From: Levitas, Steve [SLevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:57 PM To: Mcmillan, Ian; Lucas, Annette; Karoly, Cyndi Cc: 'Allen Pipkin'; Michael Weeks; Travis Crissman; bzarzecki@sandec.com Subject: RE: SE 40 Centre Attachments: 081832_SE40Centre(Wake)On_Hold2.doc All -- My client APMW is in receipt of the attached "Request for More Information" letter of February 24, 2010. We appreciate DWQ's willingness to reinstate APMW's application for a 401 certification for its SE 40 Centre project and it is our intent to respond to your letter within 30 days as requested. APMW and its consultants are in the process of developing a proposed design for a stomwater management feature that will allow the site to achieve non-erosive velocity (2.0 cfs) in the stream below the existing outfall. (There is some question about whether pre-development velocity in the channel in question was greater than 2.0 cfs, in which case we might suggest that pre-development velocity is the more appropriate benchmark.) The original add info request (Jan 2009) included a statement that the project must comply with Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) requirements for Applicants Other than the North Carolina Department of Transportation and then requested a BMP that removes 85% TSS and 30% TN from stormwater generated by the road system. The new add info request renews this request (item 2). In addition, the new add info request renews the request for a conceptual plan for the entire project that addresses volume calculations and proposed BMPs (item 3). The primary reason that I requested a meeting with you when I got involved with this project last summer was because these requirements did not seem applicable. The guidance document in question states that "[i]f the SMP is approved by one of the certified local government stormwater programs, then the approval shall satisfy the stormwater requirements under the 401 Water Quality Certification and isolated Wetlands Permit Programs." In this case, the stormwater management plan for the project was approved by the City of Raleigh's certified stormwater program. I therefore questioned why anything further was being required by DWQ pursuant to the 401. Both Bob Zarzecki and I came out of last summer's meeting with the understanding that you agreed with us on this point and that the only issue that needed to be addressed was achieving non-erosive velocities. We are therefore confused by items 2 and 3 of the new add info request asking that these items be addressed after all. The plan approved by the City of Raleigh requires that upon development each lot within the project must implement stormwater management measures that will achieve the nitrogen export limitation of the Neuse NSW program, based on calculations that include associated road segments. That is the conceptual plan for the site. The City of Raleigh does not require volume control because the project is within the floodplain. Accordingly, and consistent with our understanding of our discussions last summer, we do not believe that anything should be required in connection with the 401 certification other than a response to the first item in the add info request requiring a plan, acceptable to the Division, for achieving non-erosive velocity. I would appreciate clarification from you on this point. Thanks very much for your assistance. Steve Steven J. Levitas Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Suite 400 3737 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612 t 919 420 1707 f 919 510 6145 _ ?p -. _ .. ?> i cauon wci?n t ,r? -ean?n, o . ,e t i_ ?tiocn: (;)m ? is ! vaty.Gr .. _ U t. t ir r e se r this (I-It -'? ;- fries trdansniiasVcr rilld - r .3; Ynt 1rgCenti? 1 a1 a plort , tyir?? , sty ? itic ?r rf,,, ? a o ,., i i Y ?H Y r P N Ease coirtact us n i a_rly t,y ret,.rn e-mvii x at Ij i ? ? „i a e;3t uy tn. n ?.al I 1-1 r iA From: Mcmillan, Ian [mailto:ian.mcmillan@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 1:35 PM To: Lucas, Annette; Levitas, Steve; Karoly, Cyndi Subject: RE: Clarification Steve, I understand that mistakes have been made both internally with us as well as from your client. Therefore, as I said on the telephone yesterday, if you will send us a correspondence (within the next week from the date of this email) requesting we reinstate your application and submit the requested information within 30 calendar days of the day of your correspondence to us, we will keep your application open and not require a new application submittal and new fee. If, however, we do not receive the originally requested information within 30 calendar days of the day of your correspondence to us, the Return Of Application wil stand and your client will need to reapply with us, which includes a new submittal of a new application and a new fee. Thanks, Ian McMillan Ian J. McMillan, PWS, GISP NCDENR/Division of Water Quality Coordinator 401/Wetlands Permitting and Oversight Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604 Office: (919) 715-4631 Fax: (919) 733-6893 Email: ian.mcmillan(a)ncdenr.Pov E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Levitas, Steve [mailto:SLevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 7:10 AM To: Lucas, Annette Subject: Clarification I don't mean to make a big deal of this, but Ian is under the impression that the delays on the SE40 project are the result of my not returning phone calls from you. I am not aware of receiving any calls from you that I didn't respond to. I did call you on several occasions to check on the status of the project and you each time were apologetic that you had not been able to review our submission due to other demands on your time. I decided to stop bugging you and figured you would get to it when you could. If you left me a message that I missed, I apologize, but that would be news to me. Thanks. Steven J. Levitas Kilpatrick Stockton LLP Suite 400 3737 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612 t 919 420 1707 f 919 510 6145 r,,,,uenca?ty Notice .? cony u icaT orI ,oi +t:IE. ; ar r_?. , nr r .:ntn?r n reap; c c, Cl@ E ....,roc . mr,,jsi .,.t o' P vac v A;a o U S C t>! C. a s .;s?_re s Stnril; im iett tte r, d 1,, (!,_ _ der ?s me-s. 7' Th?? ,i a? r; and i, at ac. ru . ts )' to+n a' ?Irk. I .,t I' V; ii ire nip ^lr.liuc' a w ;li "g- ?ii_ ntor ., ;r? ?.' err nr eged ir,`r unction a ?