20000464 Ver 1_Complete File_20000606

ID fj p4 13 4
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION
r
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 39
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION C7
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT C m
rn z
SEND THE QRIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD ?
? CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET} SEVEN (7) COPIES
V TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET)_ PLEASE PRIN'T'.
1. OWNERS NAME: Meadowmont Development Company
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 6900 Slade Hill Road
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27615
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): Meadowmont, Chapel Hill, NC
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENTS NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS, PHONE
NUMBER: George Krichbaum
(Same as above)
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Durham and Orange NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Chad Hill
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): North of NC 54 between Barbee
Chapel Road and BurninWee Drive in the new Meadowmont development
SUBDIVISION NAME:
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Little Creek (not impacted)
RIVER BASIN: Cane Fear
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [ X ] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [ X ]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF COASTAL
COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION:
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [ X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT
AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION):
8b_ ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO [ X ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9A. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 435
9B. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE: 28
All proposed impacted areas have been classified as insignificant waters by USACOE.
IOA. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: .0705
FLOODING: _ 1170
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION: .0682
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: .2602
IOB. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 1271 FT AFTER: 0 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): T-11'
WIDTH AFTER: 0
FT
FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 3 FT AFTER: 0 FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: [ ] PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:[ X ]
CHANNEL ELEVATION:[ X ] CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING: [ X ]
OTHER: Fill upstream of water quality retention pond-
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? Total 75 acres
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? 3 acres
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8'/" x I V DRAWINGS ONLY): (A) a water quality retention
pond. Site requires a combination of fill excavation and flooding- Primary equipment will be track mounted
backhoes, loaders and dozers. (B) same as A. (C) a road crossing using a span-arch pipe Although pipe will not be
placed in the channel, some excavation and armoring of the channel is required Equipment same as A and B
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To provide required water quality facilities and one road crossing
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
Water quality ponds must be located in impacted areas in order to meet regulatory requirements for capturing runoff.
Road crossing required for adequate circulation and alternate access by emergency vehicles etc A span arch pipe is
used to limit channel impact. This is the only crossing of jurisdictional waters on the 435 acre site
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING
THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR
THREATENED SPECIES OR CIRTICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED PROJECT. (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
DATE CONTACTED: Not Required - Performed by the Corps of Engineers
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO) (SEE
AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE
PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: Not Required - Performed by the Corps of Engineers
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND?
YES[ ] NO [ X ] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES[ ] NO[ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES I ] NO[ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT,
DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116
WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES AND PONDS ON
THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14,18,21,26,29, AND 38)_ ALL
STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE
MAP. SCALES SHOULD BE I INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR
EQUIVALENT. (Surveyed delineation on file with COE. Addendum from Eric Alsmeyer attached)
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT. (Not available)
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Will become hieh-density mixed use development
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED BY AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THAT THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS
CONSISTENT WITII THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
3121/00
George W. ichba , Jr. Vice President Date
East Wes Partners anagement Company, Manager
Meado t opment Company, a North Carolina
Joint venture.
r:ALEIGH REGULATORY
1 I , '
r.'11 ?h?r i
I
. o?...•u r: iFlr?
,, !? ^rrrrr.ry?n
F•' ?
:i
kc-y
7giri sUims',a) WKlrrs PF
NOTE: fEaMS NOT DRAWN TO ME BUT REPRESENT
9FNF?Al inrann?i aun rnnmmiu

f '
. ,1
Hoop IP"UNDINENrARFA
- 0RROVE
j COO RHODODENDRON
POW
i ;
k• _
FARNBNtLIN1i4S
r n.
i
f
r
i
... f
'rs -
?us? WYsf Pf
SITE FEATURES
n
9-
i?
w ?? r 4 C
77
u
t"4 ?^ ?^l?! -'rt?'tca?;tt r* fJ 1 , '' r??i`Sj #• u _ A? "??s
70
a i \ :V i F''- t 4 7l
NHS- - __ _ _ -_-i-0?'; ?.-> -'``?'.?' ?t.ib--' t ;R• ;_.,
--
• Cd r I ???a 1
l+ f c t -- yti_ g- p `
?. 4 i • r? ? "7 .??? ? rte` ? ? ,.`,?+ .. .. ? , _? M -
r ?. " amt +aa l f °?t
46,
Eq.
'IT
Gknaod y c ; d r flQ ` -
...+..' J ?ei ? :a • ' . ? ? ?, Sri k" ' "E r ' ?? ?. .? s" ? ? ?? ,, ? '
ce • i
IGos.
Course
s ; fi t I + ? -
may. ? \ .a\ `- ...---• I i ? t r ? ? .? J - - r -
- ..j
1
xv iupqj? Copyright 6 im Lmmm? 7am=, m 44696 sow oars: usss !---??900 ft Scale: 1 : 22,400 Detail: 13-2 Datm: VGSM
3-D TM Qsads Comet o 1595 Deiane 2aaonth, ME 04056 Somm Data: DS65 F-----Jgpp ft $=Is: 1 : 22,400 Detail: 13-2 Dato WW-
RECORD OF
JRPOSES- THIS
-EES_
z
i V
;f

?la W,
t
p,; ,_ f? Z
Q
PH
PH. iG O?
pie:
POND 1B ??ljyy Q
U`0
fr
00
1
t
,PH. IF -PH. tB
x
e
4-O
PH. I A
O
NI'S

t
A r i
lW ';�'iLL .yI:9:�'v«'t.l.xa/ral%15tlt
%Mmmlfilk-
TM i
40 00,- A,
i.invi
/A lZ
TM i
40 00,- A,
i.invi

= CI % ' ? rte! /?1l
=L:` 1 ? Ew
I
ARItAz
IX J1
{
Planned
Community Development,
1W
69oo Slade Hill Road
Raleigh, N( ti615
:
June 27, 2000
Mr. John R. Dorney
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
n?
1621 Mail Service Center b
Raleigh, NC 27669-1621
Dear Mr. Domey:
The following is in response to your letter of June 6 regarding DWQ Project #000464, a 401
Certification application on behalf of the Meadowmont project in Chapel Hill.
Specifically, you have asked for additional information to establish that there are no "practicable"
alternatives to the proposed stream impacts. We believe that regulations actually require that
we establish no "practical" alternatives, a subtle but significant difference. We would also note
that your letter references a "discharge of fill material into 1271 linear feet of streams". Our
actual discharge of fill material is in less than 300 linear feet of streambed, comprising the dams
of the two water quality ponds. The remaining impact is from excavation and flooding.
Let me begin by answering question #2 in your letter regarding the possibility of additional
stream or wetland impacts beyond those in the application. We are aware of nor do we
contemplate any such impacts beyond those in our application. Our planning has been done,
we believe, avoid these areas if at all possible. Of the delineated wetlands and streams on the
project, our impact anticipated impact is on less than 1% (.26 acres). Most of that figure results
from our need to satisfy the water quality regulations of the State and the Town of Chapel Hill.
My June 12 letter to you covered our response to your question #3 regarding the construction of
the pond in advance of certification (item "A" in our application). I will not restate that
information here except to note that we continue to believe that, given its temporary erosion
control purpose, this construction was allowable under state regulations.
Since your letter did not reference the road crossing (item "C" in our application), we are
assuming that there are no questions or issues in regard to it. As the application points out, we
are using a span arch pipe for this crossing to limit impact. We believe that Town of Chapel Hill
public safety requirements mandates at least on crossing of this stream. We have done this in
the most practical way to limit impact to the channel. These impacts to the streambed result
from limited excavation and armoring required by the Town of Chapel Hill in order to pass the
100-year storm through the structure and prevent channel erosion.
Now, with respect to your question #1 regarding the practicality of locating the water quality
ponds outside of the streams, we would respond that we do not believe there to be practical
alternatives to the situation.
Inc.
office (qlq) q81-60 Fax (q1q) q81-6S7q [e-mail]
The reason for this lies in the fact that all runoff from the eastern 1/3 of the project and
additional acreage offsite runs to these two areas (75+/-acres to pond "A" and 37+/- acres to
pond "B"). As you can see from the attached topographic map, drainage converges at these
locations from multiple directions and significant elevation change. Even if ponds could be
designed to fit into the uphill areas with sufficient surface area to meet regulatory requirements,
retaining this runoff in each drainage feature would require construction of 6-10 ponds rather
than two. While this may be "practicable", it is simply not practical by any reasonable standard
and would have negative impact on the efficiency of long-term operation and maintenance and
the ability to perform the desired downstream water quality function.
Further, in both cases the affected areas were at the very heads of the defined "streams" (as
opposed to areas where there are defined streams above the impoundment area). These
streams are intermittent at best and do not appear on USGS maps, a copy of which
accompanied our original application. We suggest that the presence of multiple (6-10) ponds
would have also degraded streambeds by intercepting and reducing flows that were previously
coming to it from surrounding acreage and in effect drying it up.
As we understand 15A NCAC 2H .0507(f), it asks if we can reduce the size, configuration or
density of the ponds or use practical alternative designs for the purpose. We believe that we
cannot. The ponds are designed to meet DWQ water quality requirements in complex drainage
areas. While we regret that stream impacts are necessary, we feel that our plan best serves the
overall intent and objective of the States water quality program.
We hope that, upon consideration of the information provided, the Director will concur with our
conclusion and issue the requested 401 Certification. Please let me know if you require
additional information.
Sincerely,
(/'
e-?d" tA.) X-,?z "-t
GeoZth . richbaum, Jr.
Cc: B es
Perry
Jim Wiley
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. George Krichbaum
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Planned Community Development, Inc.
6900 Slade Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Dear Mr. Krichbaum:
1 17k?W'A •
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 6, 2000
DWQ Project # 000464
Orange/Durham County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for the discharge of fill material into 1,271
linear feet of streams located in Orange/Durham County for construction of retention ponds at meadowmont
development as described in your application dated March 23, 2000. Insufficient evidence is present in our
files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters and/or wetlands in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H .0506. Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described below, we
will have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0507(e) and will
place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information, we are requesting (by
copy of this letter) that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers place your project on administrative hold.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be
constructed as planned and that you have no practicable alternative to placing fill in these waters and/or
wetlands. Specifically can you 1.) Explain whether these ponds could be located outside of the streams?, 2.)
whether other streams or wetland impacts are likely for this project, and 3.) why the impacts occurred
before written approval was written. Please be aware that a Notice of Violation will likely be forthcoming
from our Raleigh Regional Office for the latter issue. Any documentation such as maps and narrative that
you can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401
Certification.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information to
me and to the Beth Barnes, Raleigh Regional Office at [phone]. If we do not hear from you in three
weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn. I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
s
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
rR.
Wetlands/401 Unitl621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone]FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
509c recycled/10% post consumer paper
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200020750 County: Orange/Durham
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property
Owner Meadowmont Development COmDan
Attn: George Krichbaum
Address 6900 Slade Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone Number 919-981-6577
Authorized
Agent
Address
Telephone Number.
Size and Location of Pro a waterbod Hi hwa name/number, town etc.: The property is
located northwest of the intersection of NC 54 and Meadowmont Lane in Chapel Hill, Durham and
Orange Counties, North Carolina. The site is adjacent to Little Creek, above headwaters, in the Cape Fear
River Basin.
Description of Activity: This permit authorizes mechanized landclearing, excavation, the installation of
culverts, and the placement of fill associated with the construction of a water retention pond and a road
crossing for Meadowmont Subdivision. Impacts to wetlands and waters authorized by this permit total
0.2602 acre.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number
39 Nationwide Permit Number
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit verification does not
relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Todd Tugwell at telephone number (919) 876 - 8441 extension 26
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Date June 19, 2000 Expiration Date June 19, 2002
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CF:
Planned Community Development, Inc.
1W
6goo Slade Hill Road
Raleigh, K 21615
June 12, 2000
Mr. John R. Dorney ?! •?x
Wetlands/401 Unit
NCDENR Ail
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27669-1621
Dear John:

I wish to provide some additional information in response to your letter of June 6, 2000.
First, let me apologize for any misunderstanding of your procedure regarding my March
23, 2000 application to your office. Given the visibility and notoriety of the Meadowmont
project, we have tried to very judicious in our compliance with all environmental
regulations. I am virtually nonplused to receive word of an impending Notice of
Violation. I hope that you might reconsider.
By way of background, I met on site over a year ago with Todd Tugwell of the USACOE
to review the streams affected by this permit application. They were clearly wet-
weather intermittent and were of low value by COE definition. I was informed that
since the water quality pond (shown in the application as "A") was below the threshold
of impact requiring a pre-construction notification under then NWP #26 and since we did
not have designs of the other water quality pond ("B") and the proposed road crossing
("Cn) sufficient to accurately measure the total combined impacts, we could proceed
with construction of pond "A" and apply for overall permitting once total impacts could
be determined. That information was finalized in March of this year and I submitted
applications to your office and to the COE immediately thereafter.
Further, the entirety of pond "A" was required to be constructed as a part of the
approved erosion control plan for the site. I assumed, apparently in error, that since
there was a temporary erosion control function involved, we could proceed with
construction under state regulations. I recognize that this presumed a future issuance
of the 401 Certification for the "permanent" water quality pond. I did, in fact, make such
a presumption given the purpose of the pond, the nature of the impact and the factors
influencing its location.
I would also note that the pond was built nearly a year ago and that I noted its existence
in my letter to you of March 23. We have not made nor would we make any attempt to
Office (919) 01-60 Fax Nq) q81-6S19 [e-mail]
"hide" it, especially when we thought, and still think, our activities were allowable under
existing regulations.
I was contacted by a voice mail message from Beth Barnes on May 31St requesting that
I call her to discuss the Meadowmont situation. Her message indicated that based on a
site visit she would need additional information and that the existence of pond "A" would
complicate the certification process. I was in transit from Washington, D.C. when I
received her message and could not respond until the following day. On June 1St, I was
placed on her voice mail and left a message for her indicating my desire to respond to
her questions/concerns. Having received no response, I placed an additional call to her
on June 6th and left another voice message to confirm my original message. Your letter
of June 6th is the only response I have received. I recognize that a direct conversation
may not have forestalled the issuance of a NOV but I do feel that I was responsive to
the issue and that it was reasonable to expect the opportunity to provide information
that might have bearing on that determination.
In closing, I would note that I will be providing additional information within the three
weeks prescribed that I hope will be sufficient to prompt issuance of the 401
Certification. In the interim, however, I would be pleased to discuss the matter in
person with you and/or Beth Barnes. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Georg rich um
Cc: R ger P
T ugwell
Jim Wiley
P.01
TRANSACTION REPORT
JUN-27-2000 TUE 04;57 AM
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
JUN-27 04;56 AM 95714718 35" 3 SEND OK 981 K
Pbnned Communiy Development, int.
- - IV
Fax -?
To: John Dorsey
From: George Krichbaum
Fax M 733-9959
Date: June 12, 2000
Re: Your letter to me of June 6th
Pages including cover sheet: 4
Phone [phone] Fax [phone] [e-mail]
Comments:
In respect for your time and schedule, I am faxing this to you rather than attempting to
call. I would, however, appreciate a response if you are able. I regret that we are in a
position of getting a "black hat" when we thought we were "doing right". Hard copy of
my letter will come by mail.
Too'd det:zT cz._. 6439-T86(6T6) IQ:Dd
Planned Community Development, Inc.
°yo
6goo Slade Hill RW
Bkgh, IK z76k
June 12, 2000
Mr. John R. Domey
Wetlands1401 Unit
NCDENR
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27669-1621
Dear John:
I wish to provide some additional information in response to your letter of June 6, 2000.
First, let me apologize for any misunderstanding of your procedure regarding my March
23, 2000 application to your office. Given the visibility and notoriety of the Meadowmont
project, we have tried to very judicious in our compliance with all environmental
regulations. I am virtually nonplused to receive word of an impending Notice of
Violation. I hope that you might reconsider.
By way of background. I met on site over a year ago with Todd Tugwell of the USACOE
to review the streams affected by this permit application. They were clearly wet-
weather intermittent and were of low value by COE definition. I was informed that (a)
since the water quality pond (shown in the application as W) was below the threshold
of impact requiring a pre-construction notification under then NWP #26 and since we did
not have designs of the other water quality pond ('B") and the proposed road crossing
("C") sufficient to accurately measure the total combined impacts, we could proceed
with construction of pond "A" and apply for overall permitting once total impacts could
be determined. That information was finalized in March of this year and I submitted
applications to your office and t.- .- ?-' = .r ediately thereafter.
Further, the entirety of pond "A" was required to be constructed as a part of the
approved erosion control plan for the site- I assumed, apparently in error, that since
there was a temporary erosion control function involved, we could proceed with
construction under state regulations. I recognize that this presumed a future issuance
of the 401 Certification for the "permanent" water quality pond. I did, in fact, make such
a presumption given the purpose of the pond, the nature of the impact and the factors
influencing its location.
I would also note that the pond was built nearly a year ago and that I noted its existence
in my letter to you of March 23. We have not made nor would we make any attempt to
Fitt (q4) gl-65T W (qiq) gHgq I di>K@mindi ftam
ZOO'd d6t:ZT 00/ZT/90 64S9-T66<ST6) IQod
"hide' it, especially when we thought, and still think, our activities were allowable under
existing regulations.
I was contacted by a voice mail message from Beth Barnes on May 31St requesting that
I call her to discuss the Meadowmont situation. Her message indicated that based on a
site visit she would need additional information and that the existence of pond "A° would
complicate the certification process. I was in transit from Washington, D.C. when I
received her message and could not respond until the following day. On June lot, I was
placed on her voice mail and left a message for her indicating my desire to respond to
her questions/concerns. Having received no response, I placed an additional call to her
on June a and left another voice message to confirm my original message. Your letter
of June 6"' is the only response I have received. I recognize that a direct conversation
may not have forestalled the issuance of a NOV but I do feel that I was responsive to
the issue and that it was reasonable to expect the opportunity to provide information
that might have bearing on that determination.
In closing, I would note that I will be providing additional information within the three
weeks prescribed that I hope will be sufficient to prompt issuance of the 401
Certification. In the interim, however, I would be pleased to discuss the matter in
person with you and/or Beth Barnes. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
M
Jim Wiley
eoe'd detlzT 00lzwso 6459-186(616)
IQ3d

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James S. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. George Krichbaum
CERTIFIED MAIL-RE'T'URN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Planned Community Development, Tnc.
69W Slade Hill Ruad
Raleigh, NC 27615
Dcar Mr. Krichbaum:
1 ? •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DFl=ARTTMEN^r Or
E:NvIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 6,20W
DWQ Project # 000464
Orangc/Durham County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for the discharge of fill material into 1,271
linear Ieet of stt'eams located in Orange/Durham County for construction of retention ponds at meadowmont
development as described in your application dated March 23, 2000, Insufficient evidence is present in our
files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters and/or wetlands in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H _0506. 'Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described below, we
will have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification ;0; required by 15A NCAC 21H .0507(c) and will
place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information, we are requesting (by
copy of this letter) that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers place your project on administrative hold.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must he
constructed as planned and that you have no practicahlc alternative to placing fill in these waters and/or
wetlands. Specifically can you 1.) Explain whether these ponds could be located outside of the streams?, 2.)
whether other streams or wetland impacts are likely for this project, and 3.) why the impacts occurred
before written approval w.s written. Please be aware that a Notice ol'yiolation will likely be forthcoming
from our Raleigh Regional Office for the latter issue. Any documentation such us maps and narrative that
you can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be. helpful in our review of your 401
Certification.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sanding a copy of this information to
me and to the Beth Barnes, Raleigh Regional Office at [phone]. If we do not hear from you in three
weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn. T can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Oil-ice
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
Filc Copy
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Ccnicr Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
'relcptionc 919-733-178GFAX M 733-9959
Air Equal Opportunity Afrinnative Action 1irnpluycr
50% recycled/i (M post cuusutncr paper
ti00'd dEbtZT 00/ZT/90 64S9-T86(6T6) Iaod
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. George Krichbaum
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Planned Community Development, Inc.
6900 Slade Hill Road
Raleigh. NC 27615
Dear Mr. Krichbaum:
Ooftft
Al?
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 6, 2000
DWQ Project # 000464
Orange/Durham County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for the discharge of fill material into 1,271
linear feet of streams located in Orange/Durham County for construction of retention ponds at meadowmont
development as described in your application dated March 23, 2000. Insufficient evidence is present in our
files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters and/or wetlands in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H .0506. Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described below, we
will have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0507(e) and will
place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information, we are requesting (by
copy of this letter) that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers place your project on administrative hold.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be
constructed as planned and that you have no practicable alternative to placing fill in these waters and/or
wetlands. Specifically can you 1.) Explain whether these ponds could be located outside of the streams?, 2.)
whether other streams or wetland impacts are likely for this project, and 3.) why the impacts occurred
before written approval was written. Please be aware that a Notice of Violation will likely be forthcoming
from our Raleigh Regional Office for the latter issue. Any documentation such as maps and narrative that
you can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401
Certification.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of this information to
me and to the Beth Barnes, Raleigh Regional Office. at [phone]. If we do not hear from you in three
weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn. I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Field Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone]FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Page 1 of 1
Steve Kroeger
From: "Beth Barnes" <[e-mail]>
To: "Steve Kroeger" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Tardy projects
Meadowmont in DENY until the NOV issues have been resolved; will wait
till 4:30 for a response from Marty Bizell (City of Raleigh engineer) on
00-0454.
Beth
Steve Kroeger wrote:
> Any comments on: 00-0454 City of Raleigh, Cynthia Barnett Property
> (Wake Co.) Comments due by 6/100-0464 Meadowmont Development
> (Orange/Durham Cos.) Comments due by 6/2 Thanks. Steve
> Steven Kroeger
> NC DWQ - Wetlands Unit
> 1621 Mail Service Center
> (4401 Reedy Creek Rd.)
> Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 [phone]

5/31/00
Page 1 of 1
Steve Kroeger
From: "Steve Mitchell" <[e-mail]>
To: "Steve Kroeger" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Tardy projects
464 is a mess. pond built w/out permission. NOWstream impact fine. place on hold.
454 1 have not seen.
Steve Kroeger wrote:
Any comments on: 00-0454 City of Raleigh, Cynthia Barnett Property (Wake Co.) Comments due
by 6/100-0464 Meadowmont Development (Orange/Durham Cos.) Comments due by
6/2 Thanks. Steve
Steven Kroeger
NC DWQ - Wetlands Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
(4401 Reedy Creek Rd.)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 [phone]
5/31/00
Planned community Development, Inc.
4 1 ec-0
6goo Slade Hill Road
Raleigh, H( 17615
March 23, 2000
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
NCDENH
401 Wetlands Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Dear John:
7T4 T cE7 ^
Enclosed please find seven (7) copies of a pre-construction notification application for
the Meadowmont project in Chapel Hill. Of the impacted areas, area "A° has already
been constructed due to Orange County erosion control requirements. No work has
been done to date at areas "B" and "CH. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
eorge richb um PAYMENT
RECEIVED
13464
Ofte (qlq) q81-6577 Fax (qlq) q8l-6579 pcdinc@mindspring.=
Planned Community Development, Inc.
April 5, 2000
4?
6goo Slade Hill Road
Raleigh, H( z7615
Mr. John R. Dorney
Wetlands/401 Unit
N. C. Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Dear John:
APR, 6

My apology for the failure to include the appropriate application fee for the attached
permit request. Although we are only impacting .26 acres, I think we exceed the 150
feet of streams depending on how that term is defined. Therefore, to be safe I have
paid the higher fee amount of $475.
Please let me know if there are any questions or problems.
Sincerely,
George Kricf}*rn
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
0()()464
Ofte (qIq) 981-60 Fax (qIq) q81-6519 p(din(@mindspringam
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
George Krichbaum
Planned Community Development Inc
6900 Slade Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Dear Mr. Krichbaum:
A 61LF'MNWAA
•
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 27, 2000
()p®4 6 4
On March 24, 2000, your application for 401 Water Quality Certification on
behalf of Meadowmont Development Company for a project in Orange County was
received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Please note that beginning January 1,
1999, the N.C. General Assembly passed legislation requiring payment of a fee for all
401 applications. Your application is being returned since no payment was received with
the package. The fee for applications is $200 for projects impacting less than an acre of
wetland and less than 150 linear feet of streams. For projects impacting one or more
acres of wetland or 150 or more feet of streams, the fee is $475. In order for DWQ to
review and process your request, you must send a check in the appropriate amount made
payable to the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
Please call Robert Ridings or Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 or visit our web site at
http://h2o.enr.state. nc.us/ncwetlands if you have any questions.
PAYMENT le
RECEIVED M?'
R. Dommey
cc: Central Files
Wetlands/401 Unit 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper