20081849 Ver 1_Public Comments_20090115

Re: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: Request]] Cleveland County
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: Request]] Cleveland County
From: Chuck Wakild <Chuck,[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:09:23 -0500
To: Elizabeth Biser <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Alan Johnson <[e-mail]>, Matt
Matthews <[e-mail]>, Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>, Rob Krebs
<Rob. Krebs@ncmail. net>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Elizabeth,
See Cyndi's detailed status for the Cleveland County Raw Water Reservoir project.
The shorter version is that the application was received on December 19th and is
incomplete and may be returned. The amount of mitigation which ultimately may be
required appears substantial and I expect costly but until the application is
completed correctly, the exact amount can't be determined. Call if you have
questions.
Cyndi Karoly wrote:
The 401 application for the Cleveland County Raw Water Reservoir was received by
DWQ on 12/19/08 (BIMS number 2008-1849). (An earlier application for this
project from 2007 was withdrawn.) Impacts listed on the PCN form include 1485
feet of dam impacts (985 feet of intermittent streams, and 500 feet of perennial
streams). Elsewhere on the application, it shows 860 feet of stream impacts
associated with flooding, and 625 feet of stream fill (yes, those add up to
1485). That's a big dam. During pre-application site visits and meetings in
2007, MRO staff confirmed the location of intermittent and perennial streams
throughout the project area. The application contains no site plan, no plan
drawings, no dam details, or even a vicinity map. The consultant verbally
advised MRO that the prior design was modified, but with no site plan it is
impossible for us to determine where the proposed impacts and mitigation
requirements are in relation to the calls made in the field. Also, a stream
relocation was discussed in prior meetings, but is only vaguely discussed on the
application. Currently DWQ does not require mitigation for impacts to
intermittent streams, or flooding of any streams, but fill in perennial streams
would always require mitigation once our 150-foot mitigation threshold is
triggered. The applicant (Cleveland County Sanitary District) requested that
EEP provide an acceptance letter for 500 feet of stream impact. Based on my
discussion with Alan Johnson in the MRO, this application does not adequately
describe the impacts or capture the pre-application discussions among the
applicant, DWQ and the Corps. Until we have a better quality application, we
cannot give you an accurate number regarding the mitigation requirement. From
DWQ's perspective it would be the footprint of the dam/spillway in perennial
streams, whatever that number turns out to be. There is no way we can waive this
requirement and remain in compliance with the 401 rules. MRO has drafted a
"hold" letter which should be on its way to the applicant shortly. The current
application deficiencies are :itemized below.
Topographic map of- the project area
Vicinity map of the area (street map)
Diagram of the pond/construction proposed and construction details
This should include an overlay of the streams proposed to be impacted. Please
identify the stream type (intermittent or perennial) on a map or overlay.
§ Please clarify the impacts. Impacts may include flooding of stream,
loss of flow to existing channel, excavation of channel, and dam construction
(fill). DWQ does not require mitigation for just "flooding" a channel.
However, the Army Corps of Engineers may.
§ Based on the previous submittal in January 2007, and subsequent site
visit, DWQ determined that below the confluence of two intermittent streams,
mitigation was required for 975 linear feet (lf) of stream. The application
1 of 3 1/15/2009 10:43 AM
Re: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: Request]] Cleveland County
states you are requesting 500 (lf) of mitigation, but state there is 625 if of
fill. Please clarify.
§ Be advised that your acceptance from the EEP expires on January 9,
2009.
Chuck Wakild wrote:
Cyndi - can you provide some details on this please?
Subject:
Fw: [Fwd: Request]
From:
"Elizabeth Self Biser" <[e-mail]->
--------------------------
Date:
Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:01:19 +0000
To:
[e-mail]
To:
[e-mail]
Chuck,
Can you look into whether or not DWQ is requiring mitigation for the Cleveland
County permit referenced below?
Thanks,
Elizabeth
Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessica Miles <jessica.miles(a)ricmaii.net.>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:50:42 To: Elizabeth
Biser<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Request]
Elizabeth,
I don't know anything about a charge, and it is not ours.
Our rules require pre treatment reservoirs when water quality dictates,
under .0601 and .0403. I do not think we would weigh in on where the
system places the pond. Just that it be there.
Jessica
Elizabeth Biser wrote:
Jessica,
Can you provide me with the details of the situation explained below
(Cleveland Co. Water District)?
Thanks,
Elizabeth
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Request
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:15:25 -0500
From: Jennifer McGinnis (Research) <JenniferMe?ncleg.net>
To: Elizabeth Biser <[e-mail]>
2 of 3 1/15/2009 10:43 AM
Re: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: Request]] Cleveland County
Elizabeth,
Received an inquiry from a member concerning the Cleveland Co. Water
District. As I understand it, PWS is requiring the district to build
an off stream storage pond in order to expand their plant. I have
been told that in order to get their permit (they mentioned both a 404
and 401), "another agency" wants money ($240,000) because they are
damming a small (intermittent) stream.
I gather this a charge for required compensatory mitigation. Can you
find out the details on the situation and inquire as to whether there
are any options to avoid the additional cost (placing the pond
elsewhere, etc.).
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer L. McGinnis
Attorney and Senior Legislative Analyst
Research Division, North Carolina General Assembly
545 Legislative Office Building
300 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-5925
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 1/15/2009 10:43 AM