19970722 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Review_20011016

W AT �9pG
r
October 16, 2001
Dr. Gerald McCraln
EcoScience
1101 Haynes St., Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ms Andrea Spangler
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
Wilmington Building
2216 W. Meadowvlew Rd, Suite 204
Greensboro, NC 27404
Dear Dr. McCraln and Ms Spangler
Michael F Easley
Governor
William G Ross, Jr ' Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dr Gregory Thorpe, Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
We have completed our review of the compensatory wetland mitigation plans for
the construction of Randleman Reservoir These plans addressed efforts to promote
wetland ecosystems at Edgar Branch, Sophia Branch and Bob Branch (all In Randolph
Co.) Your patience during our review process Is appreciated greatly as these plans
were reviewed by other staff within the NC Division of Water Quality In addition to
myself. All concerns are conveyed In this letter.
Overall there has been considerable discussion on these plans The foremost
Item that has received attention Is the amount of maintenance that will be required
Some reviewers have expressed whether the concepts presented represent wetland
restoration or wetland creation. In addition, all who have seen the sites have expressed
concern on potentially flooding mature forested communities resulting in tree mortality
and replacing those communities with Immature trees.
Clearly the plans represent an Innovative approach to compensatory wetland
mitigation, and one in which the outcome Is dependent on the skill and experience In
managing water levels. We are optimistic that water quality benefits will result from the
type of mitigation proposed
dfi�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Wetlands /401 Unit
NCD EP;a
1650 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd , Raleigh, NC 27604 - 2260
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone] �.
http / /h2o enr state nc us /ncwetlands

DRAFT
For all plans, including those that have already been submitted, specific items
that will need to be addressed include
1) Details on how aquatic life will be allowed to pass through the weir structures
2) The development of a detailed management (operation and maintenance)
plan for managing water levels, and training /education for those responsible
for operating the weirs
3) Details on conservation easements.
4) A discussion on how mitigation activities may conflict with restrictions within
the 200 foot buffer for the reservoir
5) The success criterion for hydrology should be modeled from a reference
wetland. A better description of the success criterion for wetland hydrology is
needed
6) Compare and contrast the costs and benefits between stream restoration and
the ideas presented your proposal
7) A synopsis of efforts elsewhere in the US that resemble your proposal.
Again, thank you for your patience. If you have any questions please contact me
Cordially,
Steven Kroeger
cc Peter Colwell, MRO
Jennifer Frye, WSRO
Jeff Jerek, Wetland Restoration Program