20140090 All Versions_FW U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft_20140715

Baker, Virginia
From:Wanucha, Dave
Sent:Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:15 AM
To:Chapman, Amy
Cc:Baker, Virginia
Subject:FW: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft
Hey,
See DOTs comments relative to draft mitigation success monitoring condition. Not sure what changed their minds
because earlier they would be happy to count them if they could be used as part of the success equation, which we
hinted that they could. They would like to see it removed or elevated.

Dave

Dave Wanucha
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

-----
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.

From: Price, Gregory W
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:50 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave
Cc: Beauregard, Rachelle; Mellor, Colin
Subject: FW: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft

Dave,

Below are responses sent internally throughout NCDOT regarding the vegetation monitoring. Roadside Environmental
who actually performs the monitoring is opposed to having to count volunteers (see email below). Is it possible to
change the condition to not require counting volunteers. If not, Roadside Environmental has informed me that they will
elevate the issue if necessary. Thank you for looking into this.

Greg

From: Green, Matthew L
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:58 AM
To: Euliss, Amy; Price, Gregory W; Moore, Byron G
Cc: Harris, David B
Subject: RE: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft

Greg
1

DOT has never had to count volunteer species on any of our mitigation sites before. The condition states, “
If a plot/site
is failing in stem counts because it is overrun with privet or sweet gum this would show in the monitoring report
There are multiple times when we spray invasive species on a site and that specie would
why the plot/site is failing.”
not show up within the vegetation plot. Roadside disagrees with this condition and would like to see it removed from
any permit language. This will add multiple hours to our monitoring efforts and show no data towards the success of the
site.
Matt

From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:06 AM
To: Price, Gregory W; Green, Matthew L; Moore, Byron G
Subject: RE: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft

I think it’s a change from how the DOT conditions were written. If the mitigation folks aren’t okay with it, then I would
suggest getting LeiLani involved, because DOT is probably going to see this new condition used in all of their mitigation
sites. This language came from the Central Office.

Its not a problem for me, but I’m not the one doing the counting.

From: Price, Gregory W
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:35 AM
To: Green, Matthew L; Euliss, Amy; Moore, Byron G
Subject: RE: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft

Any comments about below paragraph that Dave sent? It sounds like this is DWR’s standard for vegetation monitoring.

Greg

From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:47 AM
To: Price, Gregory W
Cc: Euliss, Amy; Moore, Byron G; Green, Matthew L; Baker, Virginia
Subject: RE: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft

Hey Greg,
Please review our response below related to your concerns with woody stem counts and let us know if there are further
questions/clarifications needed. Thanks.

DWR requires all other mitigation providers (EEP, Banks and permittee responsible other than DOT) to
provide woody stem counts of all volunteers (native and invasive) along with counts of planted species and
total counts of all woody stems (planted and volunteers) for each plot and average for the entire site. DOT is
being requested to provide this information to be consistent with what is required of other providers. This
information shows what the ratio is of planted stems to volunteers is. Volunteers may be counted on a case by
case basis toward success, but typically they would not be counted toward the 260/ac success requirement.
However, if there are volunteers from the planted list they can be counted as planted, it seems it would be too
hard to differentiate what was planted and what volunteered. If a plot/site is failing in stem counts because it is
overrun with privet or sweet gum this would show in the monitoring report why the plot/site is failing. However if
a site simply has poor soil quality and supplemental planting/re-plants have not resulted in the 260/stems per
acre yet there is still good diversity of native woody plants then that plot/site could potentially be considered
successful.

Dave W.
2

Dave Wanucha
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

-----
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.

From: Price, Gregory W
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave
Cc: Euliss, Amy; Moore, Byron G; Green, Matthew L
Subject: RE: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft

Dave,

Below are minor revisions that NCDOT would like you to incorporate/address:

-Page 2 top paragraph: Please include both the original application date and permit modification application

date.
-Page 2 Wetland impact table: for footnote, insert NCDWR after USACE. That way it shows that NCDWR is also

requiring 2:1 mitigation.
-Page 6 Specific Condition No. 1: Please remove the sentence “NCDOT shall consult with NC

Wildlife….species”. There are no known Federally T&E aquatic species in Forsyth County. Also the NC Nat
Heritage Program database was reviewed and showed no federal or state listed rare species within one mile of
project study area.
-Page 6 Specific Condition No. 12: Please change the January 22, 2013 date to January 22, 2014.

-Page 6 Specific Condition No. 12c: Comments from Roadside Environmental: Why do volunteer trees need to be

counted? If volunteers are counted, can they be counted towards the vegetative success of the site? What
volunteers can be counted? Only the volunteer tree species that were from the planted list or any volunteer
tree that is growing like pine, sweetgum, red maple, black willow, tag alder, wax myrtle, etc? These are just a
few volunteer trees that can be found in any of our mitigation sites and we will be glad to count these toward
our vegetative success of 260 trees per acre at year 5 for this site. This needs to be clarified if volunteer trees
have to be counted.
-

From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Price, Gregory W
Cc: Chapman, Amy; Baker, Virginia

Subject: U-2579B Revisions_Rough Draft

Hey Greg,
Please review the attached rough draft of Individual Permit 401 Certificate at your earliest convenience and provide
comments by July 2. This version includes the suggested revisions in your May 6 email along with modifications per your
June 10 application. Keep in mind this is a rough draft and we welcome further discussion if necessary.

3

Thanks.

Dave W.

Dave Wanucha

NC Division of Water Resources

Transportation Permitting Unit

585 Waughtown Street

Winston-Salem, NC 27107

Voice: [phone]

FAX: [phone]

[e-mail]

-----
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.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4