19970616 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20010803

North CarolinaWildlife Resources--Commission,
Charles R, Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: Joe Mickey, NCWRC Stream Mitigation Coordinator
Date: August 3, 2001
Subject: Response to 6/29/01 DWQ comments on the Stream Restoration Plan for Bare
site, unnamed tributary to Peak Creek, Ashe County, in association with the 421
NCDOT Project R-529, Watauga County. DWQ No. 97-0616
This is in response to five issues related to the DWQ review of the Stream Restoration Plan for
the Bare site in Ashe County. The following comments are offered in response to your memo:
The width and location of the conservation easements should be shown on the site plan.
DWQ requests a copy or draft copy for our files. We have attached a plan view map of the
conservation easement and a draft copy of the conservation easement. The conservation
easements average width is approximately 70 feet and encompasses 3.02 acres plus a 20 x
159 foot construction and access easement. Please note that the conservation easetrrent
should be signed by the landowner on August 3, 2001. We will submit a signed copy of the
conservation easement to DWQ with the as-built plans once the project is completed We
will not construct the project without a signed conservation easement.
* The typical diagrams are not specific to the size of rock to be used in the structures. Rock
sizes and footer depths should be appropriate for the amount of scour predicted to occur
behind the structures. DWQ recommends that the rock sizes be indicated. Footer rocks will
be placed approximately 2 feet below the normal stream bottom. :Kock size will vary fiorn
250 pounds (2 cu feet) up to 1000 pounds.
• The site plan indicates the potential use of rootwads, rock vanes, rock weirs and step pools.
However, no mention is made of which structures are to be use at which locations and why.
DWQ would like to see more detail and description of what structures is anticipated and why.
Additionally, a typical drawing was not provided for the step pool. We have updated the
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries a 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
project plan view, Appendix 3, to pinpoint more precisely the exact location of each
structure. This was not done earlier, because once work on a project is initiated, structure
type might be changed in the field since stream conditions could have changed from the time
of the conceptual plan to actual construction. Appendix 3 gives a plan view of each
proposed structure type while the photos of each structure type describes why they are used.
The omission of a step pool drawing was our fault, one has been added Appendix 3.
• Biological Monitoring: Since this is not a Priority 1 restoration project, biological monitoring
will not be required. However, Dave Penrose would like to collect samples for his own
research and use the data to compare to Level Irestoration projects. Mr. Penrose was
notified by email on 8103101 that we hope to begin site construction soon and to notify this
office if he wishes to collect biological data before construction begins.
• Mitigation Ratios: The riparian area and streams are proposed to be preserved with a
conservation easement. A. conservation easement will be signed before any work is dofre at
the project site. As such, the project should qualify to obtain 3:1 credit. Our prefernence
would have been 2:1 based on past DWQ credit issued for a similar site.
The last paragraph of your 6/27/01 memo notes that a conservation easement must be signed
prior to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification. We will not begin construction of the
project without a signed conservation easement. We respectively request that DWQ issue the
401 certification as-soon-as-possible due to the fact that we plan to begin construction on this
site by late August. We were under the impression that we could go to work due to an email
from Cynthia Van Der Wiele dated June 13, 2001 (attached) noting that the Bare plan had been
reviewed and that everything was ok and that we could go to work.
We are concerned about the time it takes to have a project reviewed by DWQ. The Bare and
Wild sites were received by your office on April 10, 2001. We received email approval from
your office on June 13, 2001 that we could go to work, then on July 31, 2001 (postmarked July
27, 2001) we received your memo stating that we could not begin work until a 401 was obtained.
We are concerned about receiving permission to proceed and then receiving notice not to
proceed. Also, there was a month delay between the time the DWQ memo was written on June
29, 2001 and the time it was postmarked on July 27, 2001 and received by this office on July 31,
2001. We are uncertain as to why there was a delay. If we had received your memo soon after
June 29, we could have addressed your concerns before signing of the conservation easement
and putting the project out for construction bids. Due to confusion over DWQ responses, we
will soon be ready to construct the project with out DWQ approval and a 401 permit, however,
we do not want to proceed without proper DWQ approval.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the Bare project as part of the US 421, R-529
stream mitigation program.
Cc: Lindsey Riddick, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Frank McBride, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission