20100362 Ver 1_Email_20100819

Wainwright, David
From: Merritt, John S
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:17 AM
To: Wainwright, David
Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: U 4007
Here is the break down. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.
John
Section C: 197 feet of Intermittent stream.
Section D: 613 feet of intermittent and 129 feet of perennial streams.
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:35 AM
To: Merritt, John S
Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: U 4007
John,
Thanks for the additional information. Any chance you could break the stream impacts into intermittent/perennial? ' -
Thanks.
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Devid. W a inwriRht@ ncdenc.Rov
,
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
A Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Merritt, John S
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:20 PM
To: Wainwright, David
Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Sollod, Steve
Subject: FW: U 4007
David, please find the attached potential impacts from U-4007 C and D as requested.
Stave, please read the email chain below; we have made one change to the riparian/nonriparian calls after a site visit with
Brad that is detailed below. It will require you to make a change in the mitigation.
Thlanks to everyone for all the help and patients.
1

n: Rivenbark, Chris
t: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:24 PM
Merritt, John S
iect: FW: U 4007
I spoke with Brad about this and am sending a revised request to EEP for the additional non-riparian mitigation. We'll
handle SA 12 after the permit.
Chris Rivenbark
PDEA Natural Environment Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
[phone] office
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:33 PM
To: Rivenbark, Chris; Merritt, John S
Cc: David Wainwright
Subject: U 4007
John/Chris,
Now that I am well into the writing of my decision document I will likely be asking for more information to
support my writing. I apologize in advance for multiple emails but as I stumble across items I will askffor them.
I was just working on the mitigation section and where as I see what you would like to use for mitigation, I do
not see the acceptance statement from NCEEP for the'stream and wetland impacts. It's important;to'*now , a
whether they can in fact provide mitigation at a 2:1 ratio since it will come from offsite sources but nowhere is
this confirmed from NCEEP. Obviously they have shortfalls within the 03030001 HUC (riparian mitigation) so I
want to make sure that a 2:1 ratio is not a problem. Please forward something•from NCEEP to this effect.
Also I will be requesting a different amount of mitigation than DWQ. At the conclusion of the site meeting held
during the public notice period, I noted that WA 14 is not a riparian wetland but non riparian. I will ask that
NCEEP assure that they can accept responsibility for this additional 1.52 acres at 2:1 as well. I also will differ in
the ratio of mitigation from Clay Hill Farms. I understand that DWQ is tied to policies which require them to
request 3:1 out of HUC but I don't. Basically, after reviewing the resources with John I don't see any reason to
require 3:1 when most the riparian resources have either been impacted by ditching or severely impacted
from stormwater.
The following is my summery of impacts and required mitigation as I have tabulated, please review and see if
you agree;
U 4007A&B - stream impact 3039 - mitigation from NCEEP at a 2:1 ratio
Riparian impact 2.5 acres - mitigation from Clay Hill Farms at a 2:1 ratio
Non-riparian impact 5.76 acres - mitigation from NCEEP at a 2:1 ratio
_.r L
I will also point out something David and I have already spoke about and that is SA 12. When John and I visited
the site, I realized I had made a private call on the same feature and did not call the feature a stream. It was
difficult to tell exactly which part of the feature was going to be impacted but I would suggest we revisit this
feature (with DWQ) after permit issuance and possibly change the mitigation requirement as i don't believe
the entire feature is a stream. This could be done easy enough with a permit modification but needs to be
completed to better address the impact to mitigation proposed.
Well enough babble but these are some of the things I am currently working on and wanted each of you to be
in the loop. Please confirm that NCEEP could accept the amounts and ratios described above.
Thanks,
Brad
cBrad E Sfiaver
Project Manager
US Army Corp of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
(910) 25174611
Fax# [phone]
The Wilmington District is commited to providing the highest level of support to the:public:.To help us ensure"-,.,:.,
we continue to do so, please complete the Custdmer Satisifaction Survey located at our website at ' . i.
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.htmi to complete the survey online.
E-mail correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3
Wainwright, David
From: Paugh, Leilani Y
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 401 PM
To': Merritt, John S, Rodman, Marissa K
Cc: Wainwright, David
Subject: - RE: U-4007 mitigation
Ok as I told lolin, was ??-rcnl?. Fair sonic rcasun I was thinking Cruatan was in ihL: White tlak, nur;bc bcc:wsc we initially
proposed it as the service arco)IiLlt it is in the 03020204. So Nv-c should propose the CI;Iyhill Farm site, which is in .loves
:0`fI Ia(i V i.. .i. ,iii (-W "M
asa.sincn.:n,...err..,.. '.„ncncic,
had concems with the riparian wetland credit along the creek, Which is having some issues bMILISC of the Iloodplain cut
required during construction.
However, there are about 30 acres of riparian wetland in the headwater forest wetland community outside the Iloodplain
cut that is meeting hydrologic and vegetation success criteria, and rated well on the NCWAM assessment.
So if this is acceptable to DWQ and the USACL, I will provide John a description of the site and a copy of the debit
ledger. I am proposing a 2:1 ratio since the site is in the ground and successful; but in the adjacent hydrologic unit.
Leilani
-----Original Message-----
From: Merritt. John S
Sent: Thursday. July 01 n 2010 11:38 AM
To: Paugh, Leilani Y; Rodman, Mai issa K
Subject: U-4007 mitigation
I spoke with D\VQ (David Wainwright) and he indicated that our use of the Croalan tolitigation Site hor the riparian
impacts (4.01) is not in the same river basin and that they would not be able to approve this. 1Ic mentioned the Clay Farm
site and I did not know/remember why we did not use that one. Get with me when you have a moment so we can figure
this out. Thanks once again for the help.
John
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
Revised Debit Ledger for Clayhill Farm
River ,
Site Name Basin HUC Mitigation Type TIP Debit
Clayhill
Farm White Oak 3020106 U-4007
Riverine Wetland
Restoration 12.06