20011670 Ver 1_Emails_20011204

401 review
Subject: 401 review
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 18:20:41 -0500
From: Megan Owen <[e-mail]
Organization: NC DENR, DWQ .
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]
Cyndi:
I didn't send this email message to anyone else, so let me know if I
still need to continue sending these review messages to Todd & John D.
011675 (Edward Ristaino, Mecklenburg Co_) -Property in WS-IV.
Shoreline stabilization project and rebuilding of dock .for single family
residential using masonry and rock. As far as the WSWP Rules as
concerned it is a water dependent activity and therefore allowed.
Disturbed vegetation will need to be replaced. Catawba Rules also apply
and he.e it's an allowable use but, no avoidance and minimization was
given or practical alternative_ Conte Lea that the 'masonry and rock"
will not allow for percolation.
011609 (James Mitchem, Gaston Co.) - ?r~erty in WS-IV. Shoreline ~~
stabilization project for sincle family =esidenLial using riprap. As
far as the-WSWP Rules as conce=ned it is a :cafe= dependent activity and
therefore allowed. Disturbed vegetation ;Dill need to be replaced.
Cataw:~ Rules also apply, mind avoica`oe ann minimization given, but
no practical alternative. An allv:ed ~,=e_
011378 (Robert Wilson, Lincoln Ca.) - ?=o/arty in i~JS-IV. Shoreline
stabilization project for singe E=mily __sid~tial using riprap. As 'SS.I~
far as the WSr7P Rules as conce_-ned it is a a2te= dependent activity and
there.c.e allowed. Disturbed ve;etativa ;rill nod to be replaced. But
the Ca:.~aba Rules also apply, ~nri ro p c=i cal alternatives language
desc=i:~d in the packet I was giver_ ~ 311fl-.~ed use. There was a very
'-+:n:r~~istic summary of how tb; v.-per zoo-.a1d try to keep the damage to a
minir. --~. I think he should go fisr`~e_T, ~ d I Biggest making him replant
as m~-rf trees as he removes.
011670 (Panther Creek - Raleig i.~, ~ria~ Co.) - Twat a monster of a
proj~-t! ! ! This project is in h'5-337-PP tea= Gordan Lake. Neuse Rules ` __
don't a=ply. The Wake County.:ci31 Wean tD =e-ri~J project for BUA, ~/1l~Vl
sto~.a.er, buffer requirements. ~j gnu is that it's a high density
projer-t, «-hich will require starter ~ s aYd 300' buffers. They're
loofa-,.- to have another 5 stre~:Ja~=faz ~ossincs for access around the
site. 7 crossings were allo-~3 e--s=s.- a 3:_e-rious permit. WSWP Rules do
not ally these crossings since it's a :rate project. Of course we
can't ceny access to a site, bct they ~-~.~ay have 7 and I don't think
they ~~d all 5 of the ones tbPf're asr;-*~ for no-a. Strict adherence to
the K~d2 ?.ales would say deny `..~.+e r'--~?t_ $1t 1f we have-to allow it,
the cxssings must minimize ELTA, dives-~t ~flfi ~.~y from surface waters,
use~'u'-s, and show no practical. alte*-~~~--±7e. ire was no summary -
incl - "~ an hv+~ there was no pr~`~ica~l. a3`,~Tnative summary given for the
5 aces crossings they're req•~stir~g ID~LC. Plus they don't want to pay
for uitigation for 4 of the 5 mints sip they already paid for them in
the prFrious permitting process. it's n~ tsar vault.their permit ran
out :syfore they built them. It's a n~c ~rmit rand I think they should
hale :.fl pay again - but WSYJP Psales d.^~'t. r„a-~e c..--ything to say about
that.
0116?? (Yvan o= Hillsborough, bra: ce Cfl.~ - T1Sn? and Neuse Rules apply. ~/n
Fs f~ as 4lSrTP Rules are conce:..ed, it's a pu3lic project and therefore )~V
ally to cross the buffer. Site 1 is ~t in Tz~ anyway. Site 2 is in
iiS-.--Cr. At site 2, if the buffer is disturbP3 they need to replant.
1 0(? 1 JS/01 9:00 ~