20050661 Ver 1_Emails_20050712

[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Penland agmt]]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Penland agmt]]]
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Ju12005 11:32:57 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
please add to file
.rn
~Y _._ __. ___. ___ _.. _._ _ __ _... _...
I~ Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Penland agmt]]
p From: Mary Penny Thompson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 08 Ju12005 17:03:06 -0400
To: Danny Smith <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Kevin Barnett
<Kevin.Barnett @ ncmail.net>
FYI, comments from the Corps.
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Penland agmt]
From: "McCorcle, Justin P SAW" <Justin.P.McCorcle @saw02.usace.army.mil>
Date: Fri, 8 Ju12005 16:51:51 -0400
To: "Mary Penny Thompson" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Mary Penny and Steve,
Sorry to have not commented on earlier drafts of this agreement. I do have a
few questions/comments:
1. Part II says that "COP agrees to resolve prior unpermitted or unapproved
impacts on the Property by removing impacts, restoring disturbed areas,
mitigating disturbed areas, obtaining after-the-fact permits or approvals,
and/or providing mitigation for impacts in accordance with federal and state
permits and approvals and with this Agreement." Does this mean that any
filling or other "violation" activity that is not eventually permitted will
be restored? If so, what are the parameters for such restoration? What
happens in the event that permits are denied, in full or in part?
2. You mention deed restrictions for buffer areas around the lake, to be put
in place within sixty days. I think that putting real estate restrictions on
the property before permits are issued may be a logistical hassle. It may be
easier to add the restrictions afterward. Additionally, inasmuch as the
restrictions are part of the mitigation for 404 impacts, we would prefer a
conservation easement to restrictive covenants or a declaration of
restrictions, and would prefer the use of our model document, linked here:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/Mitigation/Documents/conservation~20ea
sement~20r8-03.pdf.
3. Finally, I'm assuming that the mitigation ratios outlined in the February
17 mitigation proposal are to compensate for the impacts applied for, and do
not necessarily reflect mitigation for the primary and secondary effects of
the violation, or the effects of the violation on resources before the
temporary cleanup was done. Some impacts to consider include sedimentation of
downstream waters, thermal impacts associated with removal of vegetation,
surface water drawdown associated with pond creation, disruption of aquatic
life movement and organic material processing, and temporal effects on
aquatic resources associated with the violation being allowed to remain in
1 of 2 7/12/2005 11:36 AM

[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Penland agmt]]]
place for some time. If these are not to be addressed in the permit
mitigation plan, they should be addressed in the agreement. Again, if permits
are denied, in full or in part, provisions should be made for addressing this
mitigation component.
Thanks for the chance to provide input. Hopefully we can address these issues
within the appropriate timeframe.
Justin
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Penny Thompson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:44 PM
To: McCorcle, Justin P SAW
Subject: [Fwd: Penland agmt]
Justin,
I'm sorry that I forgot to include you in the original list of
recipients. It is an e-mail to Steve Levitas giving our final
substantive counter-offer. Of course, let me know if you have any
problems with the agreement and I will work with you to iron them out
before July 31st.
Thanks,
Mary Penny
_.
Mary Penny Thompson <[e-mail]>
Assistant General Counsel
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
,._ __
Content-Type: message/rfc822
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Penland agmt]]
Content-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Re: [Fwd: Penland agmt]
Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 7/12/2005 11:36 AM