The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20051457 Ver 1_Reservoir update.msg_20120511Strickland, Bev From: Wes Westmoreland [wes @westmorelandprinters.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:16 PM To: Warren Daniel; Tim Moore; Mike Hager; Kelly Hastings; Butch Smith Cc: Lynn Tennant (Sen. Westmoreland); Jeff Warren (President Pro Tem's Office); tom.reeder @ncdenr.gov Subject: Reservoir update Please forgive my tardiness, I wanted to update everyone on the meeting this week with Jeff Warren and Butch Smith, as well as share an email thread from Jeff Warren's follow - up; copied below. I have ordered the emails so you can read from top to bottom. Jeff informed us on Wednesday that in finalizing the previously discussed legislation, the decision had been made that the Senate would not move forward with a bill that would take all of the Army Corps options off the table, as we had discussed initially. So, I am unable to move forward on that angle. The mitigation issue will be handled in the 2013 long session as part of a broad overhaul already in the works, which cannot be handled during the short session. Our conversation turned to the possibility of pressing DENR to issue the 401 permit that Butch had initially asked that we do. As requested, Jeff looked into that, a discussion of which is covered in the email thread below, but essentially it is off the table from the Senate side also. I highlighted in bold type a paragraph from Tom Reeder's response below, and agree with Tom's assessment that the water board should move forward with a meeting with the corp, and make the strongest statement of need possible. Given that both options appear to be off the table on the Senate side, maybe Kelly will have better luck in the House. I am available to assist in anyway that I can. Thanks, El Wes Westmoreland El 2020 E. Dixon Blvd. Shelby, NC 28152 704 - 482 -9100 westmorelandprinters.com Follow Us: FFTq As per my conversation with Sen Westmoreland this afternoon, I ran the question by Div of Water Resources and our central Research staff regarding compelling State to move forward with 401 permit. Responses are below. 1 Jeff Warren Tom and Jeff (Hudson), Has GA ever directed DWQ/DWR to move forward with the 401 permitting process on a specific project? Is it feasible and are there any potential federal issues with a directive such as this? Jeff Warren Jeff, I've done several searches of our computerized legislative records and haven't found any evidence of a legislative directive on the issuance of a 401 permit. Tom and his staff would probably have direct experience with implementing such legislation if it had been enacted. I'm not sure that such an act at the State level would really address the underlying issue, which is federal /Corps approval of the project. In fact, this kind of action at the State level (a legislative directive that takes a permitting decision away from the agency experts) might prejudice the feds against the project. Tom and his folks might have a better feel for this as well. Jeff Hudson Jeff— I would agree with Jeff H's answer. To our knowledge the GA has never directed DENR to issue a 401. One thing to remember is that a 401 is basically a State certification that allows a project to proceed provided that the project complies with a set of conditions in the 401 certification that will ensure the protection of State water quality standards. So, a 401 Certification is much more than a yes or no decision. It is a decision that allows a project to move forward provided that a number of conditions to protect State water quality standards are complied with. If the GA did mandate the issuance of a 401 certification, I think that there is a good probability that this action would have the unintended consequence of directly bringing EPA into the process to heavily scrutinize the project and also become directly involved with the federal 404 permitting decision. This would, in all likelihood, be counter - productive to the intent of moving the project forward and would exacerbate the situation with federal regulatory authorities associated with the proposed project. If this is about Cleveland County, I wanted to mention to you that I went down to Cleveland County and met with Butch Smith and his water board in March. After listening to their concerns I advised them that, in my mind, the only chance that they had to get this project permitted by the Army Corps was to convince Colonel Baker and his staff in Wilmington of the necessity of the reservoir and the fact that the other proposed alternatives would not be suitable. To this end, I communicated with Colonel Baker and he said that he would be happy to meet with the Cleveland County folks and hear them out. They haven't met with the Colonel yet, but are planning to. Just so you know, I still believe what I told the County in March in that they need to convince the Colonel. I advised Butch Smith today at an EMC Committee meeting that they should be concentrating and putting their efforts into that end. Just let me know if you need anything else. Thanks. Tom Reeder Jeff, I thought we were going to have a bill not to direct the issuance of the permit, but to make this a regional water supply, which would change the criteria of approval to make it more lenient and move it forward b/c the approval process for regional water sources is different, more streamlined than for a county water supply. Alsc the bill would need to cap the amount of money that would be required for the footprint of the dam so that it's not a ridiculous amount that basically kills the project. The DENR info below doesn't seem to me to indicate a department that wants to help the citizens of this district move forward with a much needed project. I am copying this to Butch for his input. Sincerely, Warren T. Daniel A lot of my comments below came out of today's meeting with Butch and Sen. Westmoreland (Andy was there, too) dealing with forcing USACE's priority list for least damaging enviro alternatives. One thing we are not able to do is outlaw other options to make reservoir only allowable option for USACE (this was discussed about 6 weeks ago with DWR director Tom Reeder as a potential strategy but we have since hit dead ends following this up with Research et al.). Another thing we are unable to do (in this session) is address wetland mitigation /impact fees (long story — but there are multiple mitigation issues throughout State and multiple EEP issues as well —we will work on a complete overhaul of this stuff in 2013). The third strategy (direct State to issue 401) also does not have former precedent and could have federal implications so there is a lack of comfort there at this juncture. One thing I had not researched, although it was briefly discussed at our original meeting, is to set up a regional water authority (similar to Neuse basin authority) that might influence USACE's position. My initial thoughts are that there are multiple water issues that House is not wanting to run this session but would rather run them as a compilation of a larger water strategy plan for State in 2013. One concern about a regional water authority is that all parties have not been brought to the table related to these most recent discussions, and pushing legislation in short session with regional water use implications (and increasing regulatory oversight —which is contrary to many of our initiatives this biennium) without this input might create unintended consequences and political fallout. One thing | have learned throughout this process is that people have been trying to move this reservoir in Cleveland County along for more than a decade to no avail, and I have run into many of the same walls trying to come up with guidance and strategy. Tracy or I are more than happy to discuss the with you further.