HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071830 Ver 1_Approval Letter_20071210Yage 1 oT L
1. IVo additional impacts shall occur in the, buffer including the removal of trees and soil
disturbance. Any trees (> 3") removed from the buffer to gain access to the shoreline shall
be replaced with similar sized trees.
2. The top of riprap shall not exceed 5 ft. (See attached photo). It is strongly recommended
that the segment of shoreline that has totally collapsed not be impaired. The trees should
be cut at the stumps thus maintaining the integrity of the bank (see diagram).
3. Staging shall occur, and any spoil shall be stockpiled, outside of the buffer.
4. All storm water shall be directed as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities through the
protected lake/stream buffer and will not re-concentrate before discharging into the
lake/stream as identified within 15A NCAC 26 .0243(5).
5. Upon completion of all work approved by this 401 Water Quality Certification, and any
subsequent approved modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
Certificate of Completion form to the 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. If you do not accept any of the conditions of
this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or stream impacts), you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To
ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes, to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-6714. This Certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
Any disputes over determinations regarding this Authorization Certificate (associated
with the approved buffer impacts) shall be referred in writing to the Director for a decision. The
Director's decision is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of G.S. 1506.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act and the Catawba Riparian Buffer Rule as described within 15A NCAC 2B
.0243. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly at 919-733-1786 or Alan
Johnson at 704-663-1699.
Sincerely,
for Coleen H. Sullins
Enclosures: Certificate of Completion
cc: Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
Duke Power Lake Management, PO Box 1006, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Central Files
Triage Check List
Date: 11/14/07 Project Name: SE Miller Construction
DWQ#: 07-1830
County: Mecklenburg
To: Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
60-day Processing Time: 11/13/2007 -1/12/08
From: Ian McMillan
Telephone: (919) 715-4631
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
Stream length impacted
Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
Minimization/avoidance issues
Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
Ditching
Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
Cumulative impact concern
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!