20070245 Ver 2_Staff Comments_20080124

Re: MARSOC 401 Questions
off- oa~5
Subject: Re: MARSOC 401 Questions
From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:30:34 -0500
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Laurie J Dennison <[e-mail]
Cyndi,
Thank you for the information. We will be providing the update information to you shortly.
~ Regards,
Charlie Benton, PWS, PWD
Senior Environmental Scientist
URS Corporation
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel: [phone]
Cell: 919.946.3121
Fax: [phone]
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you
should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the a-mail and any attachments or
copies.
Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Cyndi Karoly To [e-mail]
<cyndi.ka roly@ncm ail.net>
cc Ian McMillan <[e-mail], Laurie J
01/24/2008 04:24 PM Dennison <[e-mail]
Subject Re: MARSOC 401 Questions
Charles - The short answer is, yes, we're going to need to revise this
401 to refine the numerous details that were left open-ended when the
401 was originally issued. This is the reason why we typically require
specific details on impacts and mitigation (especially with private
applicants) at the time of application - it prevents confusion and
wire-crossing later on by all parties involved. Nonetheless, we issued
a rather open-ended 401 at the time for this project given the nature of
the applicant under the circumstances. Following your outline below,
please forward:
1) Updated plans for the first phase, along with the EEP letter. Please
be as specific as possible about the impacts associated with this phase
within the context of the overall project/future phases. Nobody wants
this to turn into an accounting headache. Tables are often helpful in
this regard.
2) Our original 401 used the ratios stated within the original
application materials. if the Corps has provided documentation that
they will use a 1:1 mitigation ratio for portions of the impacts, that
is fine for the 401 with the caveat that the DWQ requirement for 1:1
restoration or creation at a minimum is honored. That change will
involve revising the 401.
3) With regards to the revised mitigation plan, I'm assuming you're
referring to the mitigation plan summary from URS dated November 30,
2007. And yes, DWQ review and approval of this plan is necessary since
it is a condition of the 401. Basically, we can defer the ratio to the
Corps but for our 1:1 restoration requirement, but we don't give away
the whole program to the Corps - we still have to review the plan. If
the plan we have received is not in fact the one you're referring to,
please advise.
So please do provide the updated information to this office so that we
can revise the 401. You can mail 2 copies to my attention, and there's
1 oft 1/25/2008 8:02 AM

Re: MARSOC 401 Questions
not a fee required.
Laurie/Ian - This is a rather unique situation. It's not really a
modification, but rather more of a refinement/follow-up to comply with
conditions. When these materials arrive, give the file to me for
processing. In the interim, I'll put it in the hold drawer rather than
archives pending receipt of these materials.
Charles_BentonC~URSCorp.com wrote:
> Cyndi,
>
> Per your return voice mail, I am writing to ask you a few specific
> questions in regard to DWQ#20070245; USAGE Action ID # 2007-00286-067
> - Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification With Additional
> Conditions, dated May 24, 2007.
> The applicant (U.S. Marine Corps) is finalizing the 1st phase of the
> MARSOC design (HQ phase). An updated detail plan sheet, including a
> stream and wetland impact table, will be submitted to the US Army
> Corps of Engineers (USACE) for their 404 permit approval. The impacts
> are consistent with the preliminary plans submitted previously for
> this phase, albeit somewhat reduced based on consultation with the USAGE.
> 1. Based on your May 24, 2007 approval letter, the applicant
> understands that they need to provide you with the updated plans for
> this first phase, as submitted to the USAGE, and an approval letter
> from the EEP that accepts payment for the specific mitigation provided
> for this first phase. Based on your receipt of the updated plans and
> mitigation letter, will DWQ be issuing a separate approval for this
> phase, or is your May 24, 2007 letter the final approval?
>
> 2. The May 24, 2007 letter references a 2:1 mitigation ratio for both
> riparian and non-riparian wetlands. The USAGE has indicated that it
> would accept 1:1 mitigation for some wetland areas. Is DWQ requiring a
> 2:1 ratio for all wetlands, or will it defer to the USAGE ratios?
> 3. In addition to the Mitigation Bank and EEP compensatory mitigation
> options that are approved in the May 24, 2007 letter, the USAGE has
> requested that the applicant consider on-site mitigation
> opportunities. The applicant will be submitting to the USACE, for
> their approval, an on-site wetland restoration plan for approximately
> 1.5 acres A copy of this plan will be submitted to DWQ. Is USAGE
> approval of the on-site wetland restoration plan as compensatory
> mitigation sufficient for your 401 certification approval, or will DWQ
> need to approve the compensatory mitigation plan as well?
> Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
> Charlie Benton, PWS, PWD
> Senior Environmental Scientist
> URS Corporation
> 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
> Morrisville, NC 27560
> Tel: [phone]
> Cell: 919.946.3121
> Fax: [phone]
> This a-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this
> message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not
> retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you
> should destroy the a-mail and any attachments or copies.
~~Ipic17093.gif Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Encoding: base64
2 oft 1/25/2008 8:02 AM