20011670 Ver 1_Emails_20011204 (2)

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 ne know if I
still need to continue sending these review messaces to Todd & John D.
011675 (Edward Ristaino, Mecklenburg Co_) - Propern-y in WS-ZV.
Shoreline stabilization project and rebuilding of dock for single family
residential using masonry and rock. As far as the iJSWP E•,a?es as
concerned it is a water dependent activit~,~ and therefore allowed.
Disturbed vegetation will need to be replaced. Ca~wba R,.~ies also apply
and here it's a_*~ allowable use but, no a~~oidance a~ mini-~~zation was
given or practical alternative. Concerned that t~ "mason--y and rock"
will not allow for percolation. .
011609 (James Kitchem, Gaston Co.) - Property in Y.~-IV. Shoreline ~~
stabilization aroject for single family =esidentia_ usinc riprap. Ps
far as the WSW? Rules as concerned it is a water daende=t activity a_*~d
there=ore allc:ed. Disturbed vegetation :-ill n~c =o be =eplaced.
Catawba Rules also apply, minimal avoi~noe and n'-=-nizaticn given, but
no practical alternative. An allowed use_
011378 (Robert iii lson, Lincoln Co.) - P=vperty in i~~5-IV_ ~ oreline
stabilization project for single family r=sidenti~ usyc riprap. ~s ' S SJ
far as tae WSJ? Rules as concerned it is a water ~~endA`y activity a.*~d
there=ore allcr:e-d_ Disturbed vegetation :.11 ne.c ro be .aplaced. But
the Catawba RL?es also apply, and no prctical a1L~-nati:-a~ language
describ=a in tp packet I was given. ~~ allowed tea. Tie was a very
minimzli stic s---rn~ry of how the owner ~~u_d try re keep ~a damage to a
minim. I t :-,k he should go further, a~ Z sanest mz3~-~g him replant
as ma.Tf trees as he removes .
011670 (Panther Creek -Raleigh LP, Wake 1,0.) - "~z a Amster of a
project! ! ! T'b=s project is in WS-IV-PA nor ford` Lake- ~;euse Rules ` ^_
don't arp'_y. ~e Wake County. will need ~ revie-.o ^oject for BUA, `/,~,Yvl
stor.:.«a_er, buffer requirements. My gu°ss is thr:. it's a ugh density
project, ::hic'r will require storII:~rater ~s and 1U~' buif~-s. They're
lookinc3 to haves another 5 stream/buffer t_=Lssincs _or aeon..=s around the
site. 7 cross_^_gs were allowed under a Tr_evious ~~it. h~n`P Rules do
not allc'~J thes? crossings since it's a rr=vate g=v;art. ~ course xe
can't Y access to a site, but they a3zpady ham 7 and 3 don't think
they r~3 all 5 of the ones they're aski~ for ra-,c_ Strict adherence to
the Y7Sr-? Rules would say deny the perm.it_ But if: ~ ha-~a .:,o allo-a it,
the crossings ~!St ninimize BUA, divert S^,._.~ff ~a frCCa "face waters,
use E:~s, and s o~.+ no practical alternative_ 3~~= ;Jas ~ summary -
inclu~~ on hcr~r there was no practical alte_~-nati~Q s~-~ s+ given for the
5 access crossr.as they're requesting r.:rno_ Plus t?Fy don'i want to pay
for mitigation for 9 of the 5 points since they aZ-eady ran for there in
the pr~rious p~-m_itting process. It's ~ our f~~~t their permit ran
out before they built them. It's a ne-,s ~-~it ~^. S this they should
have to gay a~:iz - but WSWP Rules don't lwe a.rf`=~^g to ~y about
that.
01169? (Town o` Hillsborough, Orange Co_- - WSn'? ~.d Ne2x.~ Rules apply. `m
As far as YISrI? ?.ales are concerned, it'.3 v publi` ,:_oje~t and there ore r`~J
allo«~ to cross the buffer. Site 1 is not in 1~ z.-~y~raf_ Site 2 is in _
WS-II-G. At site 2, if the buffer is ~;rturbe3 r:..~ey new to replant.
1 of 2 1J5/O1 9:Q0 r