20081047 Ver 1_Emails_20080711

Re: 08-1047 June Thomas Property (Alleghany)
Subject: Re: 08-1047 June Thomas Property (Alleghany)
From: Sue Homewood <$[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:15:02 -0400
To: Laurie Dennison <[e-mail]>
CC: Amy Euliss <[e-mail]>
The USACE will be issuing this under a NW29, the impacts will be less than 1 acre of wetland and less than 150 feet of stream
so the check they sent will be sufficient. I'll correct the numbers in BIMS when I issue the permit. Let me know if this throws
up any other red flags for CO processing, but I think this resolves the hold issues and we can accept the application as is?
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
;'V Q_ e, C ? k 1o

On 7/9/2008 12:40 PM, Laurie Dennison wrote:
That's great. Thanks, Sue
L-
Sue Homewood wrote:
The pond is offline, no jurisdictional impacts that we can document (although they did get into the trout buffer and sort
of made a mess of the stream bank below but that restoration is part of the violation). I'm going out there with the
USACE tomorrow. I will confirm that she's not going to call the pond impacts and what NW she'll put this under and
get back to you. Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
On 7/9/2008 9:03 AM, Laurie Dennison wrote:
Sue - I understand your logic but what about the 1.0 acre pond? Is that part of the restoration of the violation? I've
cc'd Ian for his take & I would just like to run it by him. He is working from home today (sick kid). Also ...what is
the NW # they'll be working under?
Thanks,
L-
Sue Homewood wrote:
Laurie,
This project was put on hold for the wrong fee. This site is a violation site. The permanent final impacts they'll
have will be less than 150 feet of stream. The rest of the project is restoration of a violation. If there were no
permanent impacts we would handle this outside of a 401 issuance, just require restoration through the
violation process. So it seems unequal to require the higher fee for repairing the violation which is what put
them over the 150 feet.
Has this come up before? I know I had another one and we handled it this way but maybe that one was wrong
and I just didn't know it?
Sue
1 of 2 7/1 1/2008 3:02 PM
Re: 08-1047 June Thomas Property (Alleghany)
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
2 of 2 7/11/2008 3:02 PM