20071995 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20120706

Homewood, Sue
From:
Homewood, Sue
Sent:
Friday, July 06, 2012 2:45 PM
To:
'SCOTT DINGUS'
Cc:
andrew .e.williams2 @usace.army.mil
Subject:
Hartley Dr.
Scott,
As you know, I've met with Bill and Richard twice this week to review the stream relocation /mitigation channel. The
channel construction looks good so far, but while we were out there we discussed some concerns /issues:
The permit issued by DWQ required "Channel relocations will be completed and stabilized, and must be approved on
site by DWQ staff, prior to diverting water into the new channel. Whenever possible, channel relocations shall be
allowed to stabilize for an entire growing season. Vegetation used for banks shall be native species. A transitional phase
incorporating coir fiber and seedling establishment is allowable..."
Although we wrote that matting and temporary seeding is acceptable, it is the least preferable situation in the case of
new stream channels, however talking to Bill and Richard it sounds like the rest of the project will be held up until the
stream can be turned into the new channel. I'd like to know if this is a situation that was avoidable with better planning.
Also, the stream relocation is the mitigation for this project. That means that we will be holding this stream channel
success to a higher standard than a typical relocation for road construction. The soil material that the channel is being
constructed in does not appear to have much stability and very little nutrient quality. Most stream designers these days
strongly recommend soil amendment and preparation as the fastest and safest means of a successful mitigation project
(in fact, some now state that it's the number one item that should be tended to during a stream design and
construction). The stream channel will require monitoring for 5 years AFTER the Division has determined that the site is
stable. If the stream requires repairs, replanting, or other attention, we typically restart monitoring at that time. If at
some point it is determined that the site was inappropriate for mitigation and cannot be successful then the City will be
responsible for paying into EEP for mitigation of the impacts and the payment will be at the rates at that future time, not
at the rates from the permitting or installation date.
Based on my experience with similar roadway projects and stream channels adjacent to roadway projects and similar
soil conditions I am concerned about the probability of success for this stream and adjacent wetland. I would suggest
that the City look carefully into any action that can be taken at this time to improve the chances of success. Bill pointed
out to me that access to this site for future repairs, maintenance, etc will be difficult once the roadway is built which
may be another complication you will want to look into early rather than later.
If you'd like to discuss this any further, please feel free to contact me.
Ps: I've copied Andy Williams, he'll be back from his assignment in DC later in July and will be taking over compliance of
this project again at that time and will most likely be involved if we have future problems with the mitigation success.
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston -Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston - Salem, NC 27107
Voice: (336) 771 -4964
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.