20101017 Ver 1_RE schedule office meeting on couple of DOT mitigation sites etc_20160609

Strickland, Bev
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 4:27 PM
To: Elliott, Jason C
Cc: Barnett, Kevin; [e-mail]; Griffin, Randy W
Subject: RE: schedule office meeting on couple of DOT mitigation sites etc
Attachments: East Prong Hunting Mitigation U-2550Bjpg
Hi Jason,
Thanks again for calling earlier, I just wanted to summarize what we talked about for the record on Site 3 at East Prong
Hunting Mitigation. Ultimately we decided not to set up a meeting at this time based on our discussion (any our very
busy supervisor's schedules).
Jason said that 3-4 lines of trees have been planted on the left buffer (last winter) and he is aware of the problems with
the Lezpedeza. DOT understands that 30 feet of buffer is needed on both sides of the stream for full credit and that he
believed there was —15' of buffer on the left currently. He did say there were repairs done to the lowest vane last year
and was not aware of any other stream issues. The site boundary with the planted buffer on the left side needs to be
redrawn/corrected, so what was submitted in the monitoring report does not show the 30 foot buffer on both sides of
the stream. Jason pointed out that the lower part of Site 4 is no longer being used for mitigation.
I told Jason that Kevin and I were out on the site two weeks ago, we did see where the mitigation started and stopped
and were not considering the lower section that has been removed from the original Mit plan. DWR noted issues with
the buffer on both the right and left side in the lower 70% (see attached drawing - blue poly, the black poly is the Mit
boundary from the monitoring report roughly and has not been updated). On the left buffer, we thought it was —8' wide
and we not realize it had been planted. The right buffer seems fairly bare along that same section. Adjacent to the
stream the willows are doing well and there are a number of volunteer tag alder. Also we did see some active down
cutting in the lower part (maybe lower 30-40%?), although this was not a significant concern at this time.
Also, I had talked to Jason about communication prior to permitting of DWR's concerns with the narrow buffer proposed
in the mit. Plan (Brian Wrenn) and what our permit conditions stated. Jason thought there were some emails additional
communication from Mike Parker, he is going to look for them.
One thing Kevin and I did talk about, which I did not mention is the possibility of getting trees to grow on that left steep
slopped buffer that would not normally be planted in a buffer, like additional willow trees. Even pine trees, in a rocky
area might work.
Jason, please feel free to add anything here.
Ginny
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:09 PM
To: Elliott, Jason C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barnett, Kevin <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Griffin, Randy W <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: schedule office meeting on couple of DOT mitigation sites etc

Hi Jason,
Okay, in re -checking June 161", that does not seem to be available now and yes I did mean June 241", Friday. That is still
open according to calendars. Let's tentatively say 10am? Although I do want confirmation from Amy and Kevin. Kevin
will be back next week.
I had talked to Amy about these sites before the monitoring meeting and it did not make sense to either of us to bring
up these questions/ issues at the meeting.
Here are comments for UT to Hominy I had in my first draft of monitoring report comments.
UT to Hominy Creek — The NCDWR June 13t", 2012 approval required mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for 392'. Condition 4
stated that "compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional streams shall be provided by on -site stream
"restoration" for 584 If to two UTs (Stream SA and SE) to Hominy Creek. The onsite stream restoration shall be
constructed in accordance with the design submitted in the mitigation plan dated April 26, 2012. The April 26, 2012
mitigation proposed in the plan seems to be "Enhancement Level 1" work that includes bank grading and the installation
structures where necessary to 584 If. Was mitigation ratio 1:1.5? Why did the stream footage change from 584' in the
mitigation plan to 615' in the monitoring report when the pattern was not altered and this was essentially E1 mitigation?
The as -built shows buildings were removed, no structures were added as proposed and one boulder -toe installation was
done.
Jason, I might be just missing some info on this site like an email or site visit discussion that happened before I started.
This is probably an easy answer but I figured since I had questions on East Prong Horn I would just ask at this meeting
and ended up pulling these comments out of the monitoring letter.
As for East Prong Horn, that's a little more involved and I think it would be best to discuss options for this site in person.
Basically, DWR's permit conditions and the documented communication prior to permitting did not approve the very
narrow buffers that are on 70% of the right buffer of Site 3. We did approve Site 4. 1 would like to discuss some options
for improving this site and meeting somewhere in the middle on our concerns.
Thanks much!
Ginny
From: Elliott, Jason C
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 2:03 PM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Barnett, Kevin <[e-mail]>; Griffin, Randy W
<rgriffi n @ ncdot.gov>
Subject: RE: schedule office meeting on couple of DOT mitigation sites etc
Hi Ginny,
We'd be glad to meet with you all regarding the projects in your email. Quick question, can you remind me of any
particular issues on these sites so that I can pull any necessary info that may help you prior to the meeting? It may be
helpful for us to review permit/mit plan etc. to answer any questions that come up. As for the dates you proposed,
Randy and I are both available June 16 or July 25t" (you said the 24t" but that's a Sunday so I'm assuming the 25t") so let
me know if one of those would work. Thanks and we look forward to discussing these projects with you.
Jason C. Elliott

PDEA - Natural Environment Section
Natural Environment Engineering Group
NC Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
}:'k othin g Compares.-.
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:59 AM
To: Elliott, Jason C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Barnett, Kevin <[e-mail]>
Subject: schedule office meeting on couple of DOT mitigation sites etc
Hi Jason,
I wanted to find out if I could schedule an office meeting with you sometime in the next couple weeks on a two of the
Division 14 mitigation sites which I had mentioned I wanted to do during the monitoring report review meeting.
Primarily I wanted to talk to you about East Prong Hunting Creek (U-2550B), but I also had a few questions on UT to
Hominy Creek (1-5402).
In checking Amy and Kevin's schedule's it looks like the afternoons of June 13, 16, 17, 27, 29, 30, July 1, morning of June
14t", or any time on July 241" are open at this time.
Also, do you have an updated version of the attached table you had sent me back in 2014?
Thanks much!
tinny B, lke,-
Ti-w5pot-t�&on Permitting Volt
NCDFQ-PIV151on ofw,�tei-Resoui-ces
�650 M�//5e,vice Cente,-
R,�leigh, NC27699465O
Phone-(W9) 707-8788, Fix-(W9) 755-�290
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

East Prong Huntinc� Greek Mitigation U-2550B
�� -
' , �
£.
> y 1��, . .:> '� � A � . : , c\ ,
``` "`� � ' .�;
F � ,� � ,�.
� � , �" ,, , ,
�,`� s. �� �
,a � `�'' ,�'+ ,
\ ` -.`*� � �
A �y,p.,:s", . — ,,„,..::.<�� . �`-
A,�.... ,a .
� _ n
' ; f �� r.x �'-`�^�� - _
/ i��a��.w, � . 1.�= _Y __. "
�\ `'8��.—.�;F - ' '� rao ; .:.3 i
- � .�� X —_— � . dt _
p� q 6
'�o- .a �.`' r.
\ _ ' � .� .�y . iRi
' .! '.� �� i - 'd� .._ _ . .._ � �.
..�✓ 'n
.�NCh '-i _�:�'+'Ry •/... ,., ...,
ta ' �.
�-; .�� �. _.
4 �� � ��.� �y � , �
� •Y
Y�� �.. � „ � � � � � � ' �
� �... . - _ - �"
��, — — 3]5 � 150 . �—�2zs ' 300 �.
,
�.r Faa� E
_...\ � � � + ,
'a� .