20051457 Ver 1_Cyndi Karoly Emails_20090112

Strickland, Bev
From: Karoly, Cyndi
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 2:10 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: Request]]
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Cyndi Karoly [mailto:cyndi.karoly @ncmail.net]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Chuck Wakild
Cc: Alan Johnson
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: Request]]
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withdrawn.)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.
1 Topographic map of the project area
1 Vicinity map of the area (street map)
1 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.
1 Please clarify the impacts. Impacts may include flooding of
1

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.
1 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 states you are
requesting 500 (lf) of mitigation, but state there is 625 if of fill. Please clarify.
1 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" <elizabeth.biser @ncmail.net>
> Date:
> Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:01:19 +0000
> To:
> chuck.wakild @ncmail.net
> To:
> chuck.wakild @ncmail.net
> 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 BlackBerry
> - - - -- Original Message---- -
> From: Jessica Miles <jessica.miles @ncmail.net>
> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:50:42
> To: Elizabeth Biser<Elizabeth.Biser @ncmail.net>
> 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
N

> 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) <JenniferM @ncleg.net>
>> To: Elizabeth Biser <Elizabeth.Biser @ncmail.net>
» 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