20061048 Ver 1_Emails_20060802

summaries of July WQC presentations
Subject: summaries of July WQC presentations
From: adriene weaver <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:43:17 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Adriene Weaver <[e-mail]>
FILE COPY
Cyndi,
Please review for content and clarity the following summaries of two items that you
presented at the July WQC meeting. Thanks
*_Request for Delegation of Authority of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Riparian_
* Area Protection Rules to Pitt County, NC - (Action Item) (Cyndi Karoly)*
*_Description:_*
DWQ recommended that the WQC send to the full EMC in September for approval of a
request for the Delegation of Authority of the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection
Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0233) and the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Area Protection Rule (15A NCAC
2B .0259) to Pitt County per 15A NCAC 2B .0241 and .0261, respectively 1. If
delegated, Pitt County will be responsible for implementing the riparian area
protection programs as described in 15A NCAC 2B .0233 and .0259 for the Neuse and
Tar-Pamlico River Basins, respectively. The Pitt County Board of Commissioners has
adopted a "Pitt County Riparian Buffer Protection Ordinance", and the Pitt County
Planning Department staff and Pitt County Technical Review Committee will administer
the program, if delegated.
* *
* Discussion:
* *Mr. Westall asked what standards in terms of staff support, resources training, or
background does DWQ staff evaluate when considering delegating the implementation and
enforcement of Neuse River Basin and Tar Pamlico River Basin riparian buffer rules to
a local government. Ms. Karoly said Pitt County has three backup staff available to
administer the programs. The program administrators would participate in DWQ training
as required by DWQ rules. Mr. Martin asked whether the whole program or just the
stream determination is being delegated to Pitt County. Ms. Karoly said that the
county wants responsibility for administering the entire riparian buffer protection
programs; however, the county would not review projects (federal, state, county) or
variances. Mr. Martin also requested that staff address, prior to this delegation
request going to the full EMC in September, the following issues: identify if the
Pitt County Natural Resources Conservation Service employee is a county or USDA NRCS
employee; change the major variance definition to explicitly state that the EMC has
the authority to issue major variances; research .the whole variance language; find
out where all fines assessed go; and state how often DWQ will inspect Pitt County
programs into the ordinance. Chairman Peterson asked whether there is a formal
procedure to assess the performance of the Pitt County in applying the rules. Ms.
Karoly said that staff would work closely, specifically in the first year of the
programs, with Pitt County to see if the programs are being handled properly. He also
asked staff to confirm that Pitt County municipalities are not incorporated under
this unless they choose to be. Ms. Karoly said yes. DWQ staff was asked to research
the above-mentioned matters and report to the EMC in September 2006.
* *
*Motion:*
Forest Westall made a motion to send the request to the full EMC in September 2006
and to address Mr. Martin's concerns prior to that meeting. Mr. Ellis seconded the
motion and the WQC approved it.
* Request for Site-Specific Variance from Wetland Standards for Kinnakeet Sand Mine
1 of 2 8/10/2006 4:16 PM

summaries of July WQC presentations
- (Action Item) (Tom Reeder/Cyndi Karoly)*
* *
Description:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff stated that Avon/Kinnakeet Mine, LLC
currently is seeking permission from the North Carolina Division of Land Resources
(DLR) to expand their existing permit to include additional wetland areas for sand
mining excavation. Sand from the proposed expansion area is approved by the US Park
Service and located in wetlands on a property known as Kinnakeet on Hatteras Island,
NC. The sand would be used only by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
for maintenance and emergency situations such as a hurricane. Staff believes that
this project meets a public need. To further the DLR mining permit process, the
applicant must obtain a variance from the state's wetland water quality standards
contained in 15A NCAC 2B .0231. Through an extensive review of the sand mine project,
DWQ staff found that no Section 401 permit application can be reviewed or accepted
for the project because no section 404 permit is required by the United States Army
Corp of Engineers (USAGE) for the proposed excavation. Furthermore, since the wetland
is subject to USAGE jurisdiction and not considered an isolated wetland, DWQ cannot
request an isolated wetland permit for the project. Therefore, an exemption from the
wetland water quality standards would have to be requested pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B
.0226. Staff's interpretation of this rule is that the EMC has the authority to grant
variances from site- specific standards. Staff asked the WQC to form a recommendation
regarding the site-specific variance to the wetland standards for consideration by
the EMC in September 2006. There will be a joint WQC/DLR public meeting on the sand
mine issue and the meeting comments will be evaluated by the full EMC.
* Motion:
Mr. Green made a motion to grant the variance on the following conditions: the use of
the sand shall be restricted to the Outer Banks for DOT projects; no conflicts with
the existing non-discharge permit for the land application of wastewater be verified;
within the area to be mined there shall be no lots or roads and it will be in the
perpetuity of the ponds; and the WQC has the potential to condition further the
variance after receiving input from a joint Water Quality Commission/Division of Land
Resources public hearing on the sand mining project. Mr. Westall seconded the motion
and WQC approved it.
2 of 2 8/10/2006 4:16 PM

RE: Avon Sand mine variance
Subject: RE: Avon Sand mine variance
From: "Kevin Martin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:44:53 -0400
To: "Cyndi Karoly" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Tom Reeder" <[e-mail]>
Cyndi, the maps given to us at the EMC by Bissell definitely showed lot lines within the mine they were not
topo lines. They run from the edge of the proposed pit towards the center, so it they are topo the elevation
from the pit edge to the pit bottom is the same and there fore there is not pit! However if they add the
conditions that Tom said they would in his previous email, I think we are covered. It is a bit disconcerting if
the applicant and the consultant do not know what the plans they submitted to us actually show. If they
insist these are tope lines the only explanation would be they can't read a site plan or there is some reason
they want to mislead the Division. Remember even if the mine doesn't infringe on the actual line it can't
infringe on the setbacks from open water either! Kevin
From: Cyndi Karoly [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tue 8/8/2006 2:29 PM
To: Kevin Martin
Cc: Tom Reeder
Subject: Re: Avon Sand mine variance
Kevin -The mine won't infringe upon the re-use irrigation fields. 'The
applicant anticipates that this will be a condition of the variance and
has no problem with that stipulation. There is one line in the future
stockpile area, but I understand that it will be removed.
The consultant reports that the lines you questioned are actually not
lot lines. These lines within the mine expansion area are instead topo
lines showing the cut slopes and toe of slope for the proposed
excavation. The roads shown adjacent to the proposed expansion area are
included in the existing mining permit, and are haul roads as well as
subdivision roads to access existing properties to the south and west of
the mine.
I've been to the site and can confirm this. After talking with staff at
Dare County, I've found that you can inspect the lot lines by going
online to perform a parcel inquiry at the Dare County web site at
http:;!daregis.darenc.com . I have a directional sheet if you'd like to
see it.
Kevin Martin wrote:
> Cyndi and Tom, after reviewing the stuff from the hearing I was
> curious if the issue about the lots shown within the proposed mining
> area had been clarified and if the applicant supplied anything to
> document that the proposed pond will be in perpetuity and not future
> lots as shown on the proposed plan? Also has it been verified by the
> applicant and the developer that the proposed mine will not infringe
> on the approved reuse irrigation fields? I did not see anything in
> the new material that was sent to us for the Conference call/meeting
> tomorrow. Thanks Kevin
1 of 2 8/9/2006 9:34 AM

Re: Avon Sand mine variance
Subject: Re: Avon Sand mine variance
From: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:24:49 -0400
To: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Kevin - The variance that will be submitted for EMC consideration tomorrow will have
four conditions attached to it:
1. The sand is for DOT use only.
2. The sand will only be used by DOT on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands.
3. The water feature created by the mining activity must remain in place, in
perpetuity.
4. The mine must be able to fully comply with all permit conditions of its
non-discharge permit at all times during and after completion of the mining activity,
with special attention paid to the requirements you highlighted in Paragraph I.8.
We have discussed these conditions in detail with the consultant, who has discussed
these conditions with the owners and engineers of the mining operation. They have
said that they will be able to meet these conditions of the variance.
Thanks.
Kevin Martin wrote:
Cyndi and Tom, after reviewing the stuff from the hearing I was curious if the
issue about the lots shown within the proposed mining area had been clarified and
if the applicant supplied anything to document that the proposed pond will be in
perpetuity and not future lots as shown on the proposed plan? Also has it been
verified by the applicant and the developer that the proposed mine will not
infringe on the approved reuse irrigation fields? I did not see anything in the
new material that was sent to us for the Conference call/meeting tomorrow. Thanks
Kevin
1 of 1 8/8/2006 2:14 PM

Re: Avon Sand mine variance
Subject: Re: Avon Sand mine variance
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:29:35 -0400
To: Kevin Martin <[e-mail]>
CC: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
Kevin - The mine won't infringe upon the re-use irrigation fields. The applicant
anticipates that this will be a condition of the variance and has no problem with
that stipulation. There is one line in the future stockpile area, but I understand
that it will be removed.
The consultant reports that the lines you questioned are actually not lot lines.
These lines within the mine expansion area are instead topo lines showing the cut
slopes and toe of slope for the proposed excavation. The roads shown adjacent to the
proposed expansion area are included in the existing mining permit, and are haul
roads as well as subdivision roads to access existing properties to the south and
west of the mine.
I've been to the site and can confirm this. After talking with staff at Dare County,
I've found that you can inspect the lot lines by going online to perform a parcel
inquiry at the Dare County web site at http://daregis.darenc.com I have a
directional sheet if you'd like to see it.
Kevin Martin wrote:
Cyndi and Tom, after reviewing the stuff from the hearing I was curious if the
issue about the lots shown within the proposed mining area had been clarified and
if the applicant supplied anything to document that the proposed pond will be in
perpetuity and not future lots as shown on the proposed plan? Also has it been
verified by the applicant and the developer that the proposed mine will not
infringe on the approved reuse irrigation fields? I did not see anything in the
new material that was sent to us for the Conference call/meeting tomorrow. Thanks
Kevin
1 of 1 8/8/2006 2:32 PM