20021105 Ver 1_Email_20100727

z-
,i /NCDWQ permit modification discrepancy
Subject Re NCDWQ permit modification discrepancy
From Sue Homewood <Sue Homewood @ncmail net>
Date Mon 03 Oct 2005 14 11 10 0400
To Susan Thebert <sthebert@dot state nc us>
Susan
I tried to do some research on this situation I couldn t find any history that
indicated why the DWQ permit writer at the time used the condition they used But
I have to assume they had reasons Although DWQ and the USACE try to do our best
in writing permits that coincide there are times where the agencies each feel
something different is needed In those cases NCDOT will have different permit
conditions to adhere to between the two permits This is dust one of those times
You can see if the USACE will accept the more stringent and detailed report that
DWQ requires to satisfy their condition but I am not comfortable modifying this
condition in the DWQ issued permit
Please keep in mind for the future that it never hurts to ask and that I try to
look at each and every project individually
If you find out any more detailed information from Eric when he returns feel free
to let me know
Sue
On 9/23/2005 7 36 AM Susan Thebert wrote
Sue
I am out in the field today (Fri 9/23) I have a question about
the permit modification issued by NCDWQ on Mar 4 2003 for the
Proposed upgrade and connector to Cook Rd (SR1311) from US 70 to
NC 100 in Alamance County WQC Project No 021105
My question concerns item no 13 From the permit modification it
reads as
13) The relocated stream from Station L 12 +20 to Station L 13 +80
shall adhere to the following monitoring protocols (listed
below) until NCDWQ approves the submitted monitoring reports and
releases the site from the monitoring requirements
Stream Geomorphological Assessment
The stream shall be monitored for a duration of 5 years from the
end of construction (channel modifications and vegetation
planted)
The data shall be collected and submitted to the NCDWQ and the
US Army Corps of Engineers in the 1st 3rd 5th years after
construction
I stopped here but the permit conditions continue
The US Army Corps of Engineers permit requires us for the same
project to
d The permittee shall visually monitor the vegetative plantings
on all mitigation stream banks to assess and insure complete
stabilization of the mitigation stream segments This monitoring
shall include adequate visual monitoring of planted vegetation
quarterly for a minimum of 2 years after final planting
The NCDWQ requires monitoring for 5 year and the US Army Corps of
Engineers requires 2 year Is it possible to do one of these
conditions to satisfy both agencies?
I talked with Todd Tugwell with the US ACOE and he told me it was
Eric Alsmeyer s project Todd would not change his agencies
1 of 2 10/3/2005 2 11 PM

Re NCDWQ permit modification discrepancy
position right now and said he would leave him (Eric) a message
about the discrepancy for him to review when he returns What is
your position? Would the NCDWQ change their requirements to match
the USACOE requirements?
I will try to call you on Monday I 11 be back in the office
then
Thank you so much
Susan Thebert
(919) 715 -1461
Sue Homewood <Sue Homewood(a,NCmail net>
W SRO
NC DENR
2 of 2 10/3/2005 2 11 PM

RE U 3110 (Cook Road Alamance County) mitigation discrepancy
Subject RE U 3110 (Cook Road Alamance County) mitigation discrepancy Action ID 199700602
From "Alsmeyer Eric C SAW <Eric C Alsmeyer @saw02 usace army mil>
Date Mon 24 Oct 2005 11 09 30 0400
To Susan Thebert <sthebert@dot state nc us>
CC "Thomas John T JR SAW" <John T Thomas JR @saw02 usace army mil> "Sue Homewood
\(E mail \)" <Sue Homewood @ncmail net> "Tugwell Todd J SAW"
<Todd J Tugwell @saw02 usace army mil>
Susan John Thomas has been handling permit compliance issues for this
project and will continue to do so so I talked to him about this
The required monitoring in my permit was the standard that I was requiring at
the time Soon after I issued that one our stream mitigation guidelines
came out which have much more intensive requirements (still quarterly) for
five years Neither John nor I think it is appropriate to change the
mitigation monitoring requirement particularly since the required quarterly
monitoring will catch any stabilization problems that develop within a
3 -month period and give the opportunity to deal with them before they cause
mayor changes to the stream form
As Sue H mentioned in her e -mail we try to be consistent with DWQ s
requirements when we can but sometimes we are just looking for different
things
Please call if you have any other questions or need clarification
Eric Alsmeyer
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Tel [phone] ext 23
Fax [phone]
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From Susan Thebert [mailto sthebert @dot state nc us]
Sent Friday October 07 2005 10 09 AM
To Alsmeyer Eric C SAW
Subject U -3110 mitigation discrepancy
Eric
I talked with Todd Tugwell while you were out about the
mitigation discrepancy between the USACE and the DWQ requirements
for stream mitigation of U -3110 Action ID 199700602 He said
that it was your project and to ask you about it when you
return I also talked with Sue Homewood from DWQ about the
discrepancy I have sent an attachment with Sue s response to
this question
Please let me know why the USACE has different conditions for
stream mitigation than the DWQ My specific question is why the
USACE requires quarterly monitoring for 2 years and the DWQ
requires 1st 3rd and 5 yr monitoring? Would your agency be
willing to change their conditions to match the DWQ conditions?
Please let me know
Thank you
Susan Thebert
1 of 3 11/2/2005 3 27 PM