20070573 Ver 1_Emails_20070322

Stream/wetlands delineations for The Glens streams
Subject: Stream/wetlands delineations for The Glens streams
From: Cynthia Rylander Crossen <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:03:33 -0500
To: John Domey <[e-mail]
CC: Catherine Deininger <[e-mail]>, HRA <[e-mail]>, Allison Weakley <[e-mail], Kevin Barnett
<Kevin.Bamett@ncmaiLneV, lauren.cobb@ncmaiLnet, Eric Kulz <Eric.Kulz@ncmaiLneV, Tom Reeder <Tom.Reeder@ncmaiLneV, John Runkle
<[e-mail]>, Carl Thompson BOC <[e-mail], George Lucier <[e-mail], Patrick Barnes BOC
<[e-mail], Mike Cross BOC <[e-mail]>, Tom Vanderbeck BOC <[e-mail]>, County Manager Office
<marilyn.collins@ncmaiLneV, Lynn Richardson Planning Board <lynn.richardson@ncmaiLneV, Keith Megginson <[e-mail]>
Dear John,
I think it is a fine idea to offer an educational opportunity to the Chatham County planners to better understand how DWQ and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
make determinations on stream and wetlands delineations. But this in no way addresses the issue I raised concerning the delineation of the streams on the McBane property
(The Glens) that were determined by S&EC, and confrmed by the Army Corps of Engineers to be not streams but "drainage easements". My understanding is that the NC
Division of Water Quality uses different definitions of streams and wetlands than the Army Corp of Engineers, and has a responsibility to citizens of the state to make sure
our streams are protected. My request to you, from the beginning, is to look at the three streams on the McBane property, using DWQ criteria to determine their
delineations.
The initial delineations presented at sketch design did not consider any of these three streams anything more than drainage easements and were not required to have
buffers. Since July of 2006 when I raised concerns about the correctness of these delineations, two of the three streams have now been afforded some buffers by the
developers.
To summarize the status of The Glens/Crossen creeks:
Creek A (far southwest corner of the development): There will be a 50 foot buffer on the northeast side of this creek. I believe that the southwest side of the creek will
not be buffered. (I would like to see the revised plat to check this.) I would like to see both sides of this Creek A be buffered, leaving an undisturbed, native vegetative
buffer of 50 feet on either side of this creek, which S&EC (and the Army Corps?) has determined to be an "intermittent channel."
Creek C, the farthest easterly creek that flows onto my property: The developers have agreed to provide 50 foot buffers on either side of this blue-line stream I call
Creek C, although they are not required to do so under the delineation confirmed by USAGE (unless this creek were to be re-designated "intermittent"). I would like to see,
indicated on the revised plat, that undisturbed, native vegetative buffers of 50 feet are to be left on either side of this creek, except for the section where the road crosses the
stream, where sediment and stormwater control structures need to be installed. Once these are in place, this area too will be left to grow up in vegetation--though I
understand this may be only grass.
1 am still confused as to why Creek C does not fall under the requirement for 50 foot buffers under the current Chatham Subdivision Ordinance. The ordinance defines
"Water Hazard Area- The area adjacent to continuously flowing waterways and intermittent streams as designated on the most recent USGS quadrangle sheets which due to
its proximity to the waterway, soils and/or other topographic information is deemed not suitable for structures or septic fields due to potential water pollution." I was told
by Lynn Richardson that the developer does not have to buffer a blue line stream that is not designated as such by its consultants and the Army Corps. She also told me that
in the instance that the developers' consultants do designate a stream as intermittent (as they have for my Creek A), they do buffer it. Given this, 1 would like to see both
sides of Creek A be buffered, leaving an undisturbed, native vegetative buffer of 50 feet on either side of this creek, since they have determined it to be an "intermittent
channel."
Creek B (lying between Creek A and Creek C, and indicated as a "drainage easement") is currently unprotected by any buffers. Commissioner George Lucier asked
the developers to provide the information on how much acreage this stream drains, to see where it would fit into the watershed protection ordinance being developed.
Under consideration in the new ordinance is a required buffer of 25 to 30 feet for streams draining 10 to 25 acres. I would like to see this creek be buffered along with the
other two that flow onto our property. This is the creek in which Allison Weakley found the plant Sphagnum moss, which indicates a wetlands area. I would like to see the
Army Corps information on this creek before its fate is decided.
1 am interested particularly in a second opinion on these creeks, because they are admittedly by S&EC, very close in points to being deemed "intermittent". I am asking the
State DWQ to be the final authority on these particular stream delineations. We have a process whereby developers (through their hired consultants) have designated a
USGS map blue-line stream as "not jurisdictional per field review by U.S.ACE along with S&EC". What is the mechanism for citizens to gamer a second opinion on these
delineations, if DWQ will not do this? What is the mechanism for citizens to get access in a timely fashion to the original field assessments for these determinations? (As
you know I have made a FOIA request to USAGE on these streams, and that request has been delayed by the FOIA Exemption 4 "trade secrets" process.) In addition, I
cannot hire an independent consultant to offer me this second opinion, unless I am given permission by the developers to walk on The Glens property. (I have asked for this
permission, and have not gotten a response as yet.)
1 was very heartened by your original offer to give me a second opinion on these streams, a role that seems appropriate for DWQ to play in these cases. I am now
discouraged, and not sure how to proceed.
Cynthia Crossen
1116 Marshall Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919-967-2500 (w)
919-542-3827 (h)
John Domey wrote:
Okay I'd like to summarize where we are with these site visits since so much has happened recently.
I just heard from Kevin Martin and he will find a site with their (S and EC) delineations and the Corps confirmations that we can all visit (that is we all have trespass
rights to) for the visit on the afternoon of April 20. I can be somewhere in Chatham County by 1 noon (I have a 9 am meeting that I will make sure ends by ] 1:00 am)
once Kevin confirms the exact location. I think the April 3 visit is off since site access is an issue. Please advise if that is not the case.
Kevin will invite Keith Megginson, etc. to attend as well - my thought is that if Chatham County is pondering buffer roles (which is a good thing!) that having an
understanding of what a stream is (or isn't) may help them with those rules.
Does that about summarize where we are? Please advise. Thankx.
Cynthia Rylander Crossen wrote:
Thanks, John. Allison told me we are scheduled to have you look at The Glens' streams, for April 3 at 1 pm. This email serves to confirm that date and time. I
have called Robbie Swain (the developers) and talked with Kathy Smith about getting permission for several of us to join you [hat day. I should hear from her by
1 of 2 4/2/2007 10:33 AM

Stream/wetlands delineations for The Glens streams
• w
this Monday, whether we have permission to join you. If so, it will be a great educational opportunity for us to learn more about stream and wetlands delineations.
When I talked with Kathy Smith this morning, she told me that the developers will provide 50' buffers on the one stream that they have delineated as an
"intermittent channel" on their plat. This is the stream on their southwest corner. (I have included a link to the plat for reference, below.) The other two streams in
questions are also in the western section of the development, on the border with our property. You can somewhat locate them because (I believe) they are the
"Public Drainage Easements" that are marked out. The stream to the farthest east, in that western section of the development, is the stream that is indicated on the
1968 (and most recent) USGS topo map as an intermittent blue line stream. These three streams join on my property, where the USGS blue line intermittent stream
continues, flowing across the Cheek property and into Dry Creek. Earlier this week I tamed over a few rocks in this stream and found a stonefly and caddisfly.
Preliminary Plat for "The Glens":
US Army Corps of Engineers Site Report, from S&EC:
Thank you for agreeing to do this. I really appreciate it.
Plann
Cynthia
919-967-2500 (w)
919-542-3827 (h)
John Domey wrote:
sorry but April 2 is now full. April 3 is still open and I have blocked off the afternoon tentatively.
Cynthia Rylander Crossen wrote:
Dear John,
1 am working on choosing a date for wetlands/stream delineations for The Glens. We had talked about April 2 and 3. I am waiting to hear from one
more person, and will let you know definitely by tomorrow.
Thanks again,
Cynthia
919-967-2500
919-5423827
2 of 2 4/2/2007 10:33 AM