20061804 Ver 2_Emails_20070725

[Fwd: Re: Flowers Plantation' DWQ# 2006-1804]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Flowers Plantation' DWQ# 2006-1804]
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:58:45 -0400
To: Laurie J Dennison <[e-mail]
Subject: Re: Flowers Plantation' DWQ# 2006-1804
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 25 Ju12007 11:49:55 -0400
To: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
CC: "Tom.Reeder" <Tom.Reeder@ncmaiLneV, Amy Chapman <[e-mail]
Kevin - please note, you are requesting a formal modification of a previously issued Neuse Buffer
Authorization. Your modification package arrived, and includes your cover note/summary table, and a
single drawing of the referenced crossing. Your letter notes that the crossing is at "approximately" the
same location, but there is not a revised overall site plan. It's great that the impact has been reduced
a bit but we're not sure if this crossing was shifted ten feet or a hundred feet, or rotated at the
existing location. Please note that for compliance purposes our records must indicate precisely what is
eventaully constructed. That is in everybody's best interest as it precludes problems later on during
inspections. A formal modification request should include a revised PCN form, revised site plan, and
drawings of the specific impact revisions, and any other materials which may be relevant to your
modification request. Our technician Laurie Dennison must filter all application materials in accordance
with our RIMS database requirements. Please note that it is our policy not to issue verbal or a-mail
authorizations for anything requiring written authorization. This project does require written buffer
authorization, and as such, your client should be aware that the written buffer authorization will be
required before proceeding with construction of the portion of the project they propose to revise. (They
could proceed with other work not under revision, or in uplands not involving buffers.) You should also
note that any modification request will re-open your application. In this case, we should have
scrutinized the bottomless culvert more carefully for technical details, specifically depth to bedrock and
long-term stream sustainability.
Laurie has prepared a letter returning the modification request pending receipt of the full application
sets as described above. We have not mailed it yet, pending your decision as to whether you wish to
proceed with the mod request. Please advise.
Kevin Martin wrote:
**
Cyndi, I am sending your office hard copies to request a revision to a previous DWQ approval for a
stream crossing buffer approval. Basically the impacts have been reduced below mitigation thresholds so
that is the only revision requested to the previous approval (details below). Question is can the go
ahead with construction since they have the approval and do not need to mitigate or do they have to
wait until they received your revised Buffer approval stating no mitigation is required, Thanks Kevin
please find attached a revised impact map and a request that written concurrence from the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ) be provided that revises the previously approved Neuse River
Riparian Buffer impacts (DWQ #2006-1804). Specifically we request that the Approval be modified to
omit the requirement for buffer mitigation since the impacts have been reduced below mitigation
thresholds. Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or require additional
information.
# Our revised total buffer impact is 0.215 AC, which is less than the 0.33 AC threshold for mitigation
# This alignment represents a slight shift from the original permitted alignment, to lessen the buffer
impact.
# Actual Zone 1 impact = 4890 SF (0.112 AC)
# Actual Zone 2 impact = 4464 SF (0.103 AC)
# We are utilizing the original level spreader design from Andrew Hodge
Re: Flowers Plantation' DWQ# 2006-1804'.
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Encoding: 7bit
1 of 1 7/25/2007 12:30 PM