The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19970616 Ver 3_Email_20110510Euless, Amy From Dagnino Carla S Sent Tuesday May 10 2011 1 38 PM To Euliss Amy Subject FW R 529 Mitigation Amy Please see the email from Marissa ( NEU s onsite Group) below She has captured what has happened with the mitigation requirements and what we succeeded with onsite Basically onsite mitigation totaled 5137 Linear feet Please let w know if you have questions concerning the below breakdown of onsite and offsite mitigation for this project Thanks Carla From Rodman, Marissa K Sent Tuesday, May 10, 2011 11 31 AM To Dagnino, Carla S Cc Moore, Byron G, Riddick, Thomas L Subject R 529 Mitigation Carla Per your email /questions to Lindsey Facts • R 529 original pernut application required mitigation for 13,461 if • NCDOT performed 6,0541f onsite via stream relocations (see permit summary sheets) • NCDOT requested the remaining 7,407 if from WRC at a 21 ratio (14,814 If) • Due to continued failure at one of the stream relocations NCDOT reduced our on site mitigation by 918 4 if • Successful on site stream relocations for mitigation = 5137 if • NCDOT requested the additional 918 41f from EEP (1837 if at a 2 1 ratio) • EEP letter dated March 28 2011 states that they are providing us with a total of 16,6511f of stream mitigation The 166511f is 7407 x 2 = 14,814 (original WRC commitment) +1837 (permit mod for 918 4 if of stream relocation failure @ a 2-1 ratio) In the letter there is a table of completed mitigation sites from WRC that total 4387 if EEP has already committed via the 3/28/11 letter to perform mitigation for the remaining 12,264 If (16651 4387) Marissa P X04 — Xa1u*„r Vm,- -VL,, (979) 707 6753 97ax (979) 272-5785 V..I� C.f..k* Can 17 7020 ,-ft A Dk. rR .L.m k .MC 23670 7kaLL Euliss, Amy From Euliss Amy Sent Monday April 25 2011 2 00 PM To Dagnino Carla S Subject RE R 0529 Can you find out the total for the onsite mitigation2 Thanks Amy From Dagnino, Carla S Sent Thursday, April 21, 20119 29 AM To Euliss, Amy Subject RE R 0529 Amy I checked with the folks who are reviewing these projects for mitigation needs The onsite mitigation succeeded for all but 914 8 feet I double checked with the Division (Frank Gioscio (Resident Engineer 828 265 5088) and he confirmed that the remaining onsite was all OK Frank is willing to go out there with you if you wish Let me know if you have any additional questions Thanks Carla From Euliss, Amy Sent Tuesday, April 19, 20112 04 PM To Dagnino, Carla S Subject RE R 0529 Carla I ve attached a copy of one of the conditions pages from the original 401 DWQ s permit stated that there were 13 461 linear feet of impacts Of those 6054 were to be relocated in the right of way So our permit only required off site mitigation at 1 1 for the remaining 7 407 linear feet So if the 6054 linear feet were in fact relocated in the right of way then I can only require mitigation for the 7 407 If you subtract what you have (4387) from the 7407 then DWQ can only require mitigation for 3 020 linear feet Can you find out if the 6 054 linear feet were in fact relocated within the right of way2 I know the USACOE require mitigation at a higher rate so our requirements should be different Amy From Dagnino, Carla S Sent Tuesday, April 19, 2011 142 PM To Euliss, Amy Subject R 0529 Hi Amy I am trying to get in touch with the person who prepared the letter My involvement was basically dust to send it out to who it needed to go to We recently had a few projects where the mitigation failed and we had to get EEP to cover the balance and modify the permits This is an old project — but I am thinking you may need to see the permit to be able to send a modification ?? Carla Carla Dagnino Project Management Group Natural Environment Unit NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Voicemad 919 707 6110 FAX 919 212 5785 Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties Euliss, Amy From Dagnino Carla S Sent Thursday May 05 2011 10 10 AM To Euliss Amy Monte Matthews (Monte K Matthews @usace army mil) (Monte K Matthews @usace army mil) Subject FW R 0529 Amy and Monte I am sorry it took so long to get back to you on this I have been trying to track down answers — so please see some clarity below I will contact you to discuss Thanks Carla From Riddick, Thomas L Sent Tuesday, May 03, 20118 48 AM To Dagnino, Carla S Subject RE R 0529 I put the file back in the stacks The original permit is in the file I never found the mod I only found our letter requesting the mod I don t know what was actually built on site nor do I know how to find it without calling the Resident Engineer The offsite stuff is 2 1 13 461 feet of original impact minus 6 054 feet of on site relocation = 7 407 feet of impact to be mitigated off site @ 2 1 = 14 814 feet of off site mitigation Later a stream relocation had to be re designed b/c of continued failure This modification reduced the length of on site mitigation by 918 4 feet and increased the off site mitigation need by 1837 feet (918 4 of impact x 2 for 2 1) = 1 837 feet 1 837 added to the original 14 814 off site requirement means that the final off site requirement was for 16 651 feet (918 4 +7 407 @2 1) 1 can only assume that 5135 6 feet of relocated channel was successfully mitigated on site (6 054 — 918 4= 5 135 6 feet) The only way to know for sure would be to either ask the Resident Engineer or go out there and look at it This is all I know From Dagnino, Carla S Sent Monday May 02 2011 5 09 PM To Riddick, Thomas L Cc Lusk, Elizabeth L Subject FW R 0529 Lindsey As you can see from Amy s email below the number the DWQ needs to request for mitigation for 11 not 2 1 therefore she needs the final impact number and what was successfully mitigated for onsite Is the 16 651 the total stream impact? —And do you know or know where to find the onsite mitigation amounts? In addition to Amy s inquiry I received a phone call from Monte Matthews asking for the original permit I have not found a permit with the mod — therefore the numbers are not matching up Thanks Carla From Riddick, Thomas L Sent Wednesday, April 20, 20119 52 AM To Dagnino, Carla S Cc Cashin, Gordon E Subject RE R 0529 Carla I really don t know much about what happened on this during construction A quick scan of the file shows a modification from 2002 pushed the total mitigation required to 16651 feet The mod resulted from a shortened on site relocation So I have to assume that 918 4 feet (the amount the new stream design was shortened) was not built 918 4 x 2 (for 2 1 mit) _ 1837 feet 1837 +14814 original USACE required off site mitigation = 16651 Just a side note I have a bunch of cost estimates to do right now so my time to dig through old files is pretty limited If further questions arise 111 be happy to bring the files to you or deliver them to whomever you chose to asign it to Thanks 11111C7 From Dagnino, Carla S Sent Tuesday, April 19, 20113 09 PM To Riddick, Thomas L Subject FW R 0529 Lindsey Will you please shed some light on Amy s question below? Thanks Carla From Euliss, Amy Sent Tuesday, April 19, 20112 04 PM To Dagnino, Carla S Subject RE R 0529 Carla I ve attached a copy of one of the conditions pages from the original 401 DWQ s permit stated that there were 13 461 linear feet of Impacts Of those 6054 were to be relocated in the right of way So our permit only required off site mitigation at 1 1 for the remaining 7 407 linear feet So if the 6054 linear feet were in fact relocated in the right of way then I can only require mitigation for the 7 407 If you subtract what you have (4387) from the 7407 then DWQ can only require mitigation for 3 020 linear feet Can you find out If the 6 054 linear feet were In fact relocated within the right of way? I know the USACOE require mitigation at a higher rate so our requirements should be different Amy Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties Euliss, Amy From Dagnino Carla S Sent Thursday April 21 2011 9 29 AM To Euliss Amy Subject RE R 0529 Amy I checked with the folks who are reviewing these projects for mitigation needs The onsite mitigation succeeded for all but 914 8 feet I double checked with the Division (Frank Gioscio (Resident Engineer 828 265 5088) and he confirmed that the remaining onsite was all OK Frank is willing to go out there with you if you wish Let me know if you have any additional questions Thanks Carla From Euliss, Amy Sent Tuesday, April 19, 20112 04 PM To Dagnino, Carla S Subject RE R 0529 Carla I ve attached a copy of one of the conditions pages from the original 401 DWQ s permit stated that there were 13 461 linear feet of impacts Of those 6054 were to be relocated in the right of way So our permit only required off site mitigation at 1 1 for the remaining 7 407 linear feet So if the 6054 linear feet were in fact relocated in the right of way then I can only require mitigation for the 7 407 If you subtract what you have (4387) from the 7407 then DWQ can only require mitigation for 3 020 linear feet Can you find out if the 6 054 linear feet were in fact relocated within the right of way2 I know the USACOE require mitigation at a higher rate so our requirements should be different Amy From Dagnino, Carla S Sent Tuesday, April 19, 2011 1 42 PM To Euliss, Amy Subject R 0529 Hi Amy I am trying to get in touch with the person who prepared the letter My involvement was basically dust to send it out to who it needed to go to We recently had a few projects where the mitigation failed and we had to get EEP to cover the balance and modify the permits This is an old project — but I am thinking you may need to see the permit to be able to send a modification ?? Carla Carla Dagnino Project Management Group Natural Environment Unit NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Voicemail 919 707 6110 FAX 919 212 5785 Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties