20011381 Ver 1_Email_20010706

RE PTR
Subject: RE: PTR
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13 28.51 -0400
From: "James R. Linville" <lmvillejr @earthlink net>
Organization: NCWRC
To: "'danny smith "' < danny smith @ncmail net >,
"'John dorney @ncmail net "' <John dorney @ncmail.net>
CC: "'Jennifer Frye "' <jennifer frye @ncmail net >,
"'larry coble @ncmail.net "' < Larry coble @ncmail.net >,
"'aleveaux @mailjus state.nc us "' <aleveaux @ mail jus.state.nc us>
I offer the following to John for his consideration as he "generates" a
response:
1. Close coordination of any settlement resolution with the Corps is
essential
2. Removal of pipes down to roughly 400 (or less) linear feet on Leak Fork
Creek should be pursued instead of targeting the removal of only 160 linear
feet. This does not get them below the 500' proposed by the consultant as
they impacted around 850 feet of the main stream, if I remember correctly
3. Who gets the money from the settlement" Instead of a large fine or
settlement amount ($6,592 28) payable to the school system, funds should be
paid (as part of mitigation) to a program such as WRP, CWMTF or the
Piedmont Land Conservancy. Then, they can use the funds for stream and
habitat preservation /restoration purposes in the county or subbasin area.
4. Whatever amount of double piping remains in Leak Fork Creek, ONLY one
barrel should receive base flow. The other barrel should be si.11ed with
adequate floodplain benching, etc. to ensure a single base channel flow
with enough depth for passage. The pipe should not be allowed to have
damming or freefalling waters on either end of the base flow channel unless
bioengineering efforts provide for adequate warm water fish passage
5 Stormwater management and mitigation may need further consideration as
this is a commercial site in a floodplain and the two streams probably had
different types of aquatic communities, albeit both appear to be perennial.
The main (USGS blue line) stem of Leak Fork Creek will lose both fish and
riparian vegetation habitat. The smaller tributary was probably more
bottomland hardwood.
Note I am not sure if you will have enough water to maintain the smaller
stream for a longer distance. It will be essential to know how much water
this stream can provide before deciding to lengthen it considerably. It
should be designed according to accepted bioengineering techniques for the
flow and slope
Later,
Ron
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: danny smith [SMTP:danny.smith @ncmail.net]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 11:08 AM
To John.dorney @ncmail.net
Cc Jennifer Frye; larry.coble @ncmail.net
Subject: Re: PTR
Importance: High
<< File: ATT00002.htm >>
> Hey John
Attached are the comments Jennifer and I came up with after the review
of the PTR settlement draft and the Mitchell and Asscoicate's mitigation
proposal (Note: At this time no response has been forwarded to Anita
1 of 2 7/6/2001 3 07 PM

RE PTR
Our intent is to generate one response from all of us, in an effort to
keep things clear for Anita.) Anyway, please review /make changes and
forward to Antta
ds
> PTR Settlement Comments•
> The Corps of Engineers Public Notice indicated 850 feet of culvert
> impacts
> to Leak Fork Creek and 660 feet to an unnamed tributary of Leak Fork
> Creek Conversely, the settlement offer only proposes to remove
> approximately 160 feet of culvert from Leak Fork Creek and to restore
> the unnamed tributary to a new 1250' channel.
> The settlement agreement should clearly stipulate how much mitigation
> will take place on site and off site for each respective stream
> segment
> impacted. That is, the restoration of the 660 -foot of the culverted
> unnamed tributary to Leak Fork Creek into a new stream channel
> totaling 1250 feet of stream is proposed It is staff's understanding
> that this alternative was chosen
> in lieu of 1:1 off site mitigation for the impacts to this
> unnamed tributary
> The remaining impacts, detailed in a Public Notice by the Corps
> indicates that 850 feet of culverted impacts occurred on the Leak Fork
> stream segment. Accordingly, only 160 feet of the stream will be
> restored by the removal of culverts Therefore, 690 feet of
> restoration
> or mitigation for Leak Fork Creek has not been addressed.
> Compensatory mitigation for the remaining 690 feet is required at a
> 1.1 ratio. The restoration of the unnamed tributary is acceptable
> mitigation for the unnamed tributary .impacts only - not for Leak Fork
> Creek .impacts, as the two stream are not comparable. Further, it was
> staff's understanding that the majority of the culvert on Leak Fork
> Creek would also be removed and only a minimum length needed for a
> single road crossing would remain.
> Settlement offer states that they will implement the "Monitoring and
> Mitigation Plan" to the
> satisfaction of the Corps. The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan must
> also meet with Division approval A detailed stream restoration plan
> and monitoring proposal must be submitted to the Division for review
> and approval
• A Stormwater management plan and implementation schedule should be
• required in the settlement offer. This plan and schedule must also be
• submitted to and approved by the Division. (Note: the settlement
• proposal did not address stromwater management.)
> The settlement offer should require PTR to appropriately modify their
> erosion and sediment control plan.
2 of 2 7/6/2001 3 07 PM