20011381 Ver 1_Email_19981119

From: "John Dorney" < john _ [e-mail]...- ,-ate.nc.us>
To.
"' Ron_ [e-mail] 'lI <[e-mail]
Subject: RE: Rocky Carter, Patterson Ave Dev. in W -S, NC (Mobile Hom
Date sent: Ts -h:u; .` 19 _Nov, 1998__ 08:29 :32 -0800
Stream mitigation ratio is 1:1 and only when fish, crayfish, etc are
present. If commercial they will need stormwater pond as well. Also
dust because the stream is piped doesn't mean it can be unpiped. Put
them through the normal minimization process. Pipes can be pulled and
we have had them pulled in the past (especially for illegal activities
that we would not have permitted). We need to be cautious of the old
saying "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission ".
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: James Ronald (Ron) Linville
[SMTP:RON LINVILLE @wsro.enr.state.nc us]
Sent. Wednesday, November 18, 1998 3:44 AM
To. John Thomas
Cc. John Dorney
Subject: Rocky Carter, Patterson Ave Dev. in W -S, NC (Mobile Home
Sales)
Just got a copy of plans. Project is almost complete. They did a
temporary stream diversion, then piped stream and rediverted into
pipes (looks like 620' of blue line stream disappeared). Guess we
would have preferred a stream relocation and not any piping. What
ratio do you use for streams with fish? 2:1'� or what? WRP may be
available but we require (normally) wet detention ponds for commercial
sites requiring 401s so we might need a retrofit unless we only do
that for wetland impacts. I need to check this out.
Please let me know what you ascertain from COE viewpoint. Mike,
Jennifer and Eric found fish in this stream (Leak Fork Creek, Class C
waters).
Let the stormwaters roll!
Ron
******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
In the end, we are reminded of the lesson of
Vietnam. The sorry, infuriating, bewildering
reality that the best and the brightest can
still succeed brilliantly at analysis and fail
utterly at understanding
- Al Hemingway
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08.06:05