20040313 Ver 2_Staff Comments_20080620

TI
AASL7
3bb' ,vt?,v?y?Jr?J - iMP?a- ?m
(?OA,167, ?JFTIM?5- I?T
Ab of Pfl? a? D) TOIE-s
2??03 ?3
M?er?l vo?A- FFJ?
,T£Ff'seKA{bt
?IM Srnp)u FOP
141 G'NAPM4jl ?1 wC?
Mrs &iti PC
SIA b r9p- kc, - A A
#FOMA,pXO,Dvn L, gp- No C'R? ?FS 7?/[a,?1 ?iY1? w ,$v?2 0?
9Mw
ze* I-T -
(5 -0)
-Ce?AiT AvX .?L?L r41NQ5 S'71d

Try1 ?s O1.1 v? ?l10. vw
-- l//??t/ cS?/S7rM rR??U?1
BMPs in the stream buffer: Town of Cary's SW Maynard Stree Wide...
f
Subject: BMPs in the stream buffer: Town of Cary's SW Maynard Stree Widening Project
From: Michi Vojta <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:48:21 -0400
To: [e-mail], Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>, Amy Chapman
<Amy. [e-mail]>
Hello again, John, Eric, and Amy. I wanted to touch base and see if we would be able to
discuss this project and its potential for generating stream restoration AND nutrient offset
credits. The consultant (Stantec and Brad Fairley) are interested in proceeding with the
design of Phase II and is waiting for EEP to comment on funding the BMPs--which of course
we only can commit to doing if we have a likely expectation of receiving mitigation credit for
them. Again, several of us from EEP would be happy to meet you onsite or at one of our
offices to discuss, and Brad asked that he have the opportunity to attend as well.
Please let me know what you think, and I will do what I can to make any meeting times work
for EEP staff.
Thank you, and have a great week.
Michi Vojta
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
919.715.5590
www.nceep.net
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:BMPs in the stream buffer: Town of Cary's SW Maynard Stree Widening Project
Date:Tue, 20 May 2008 19:32:25 -0400
From:John Dorney <john.dorney(a,ncmail.net>
To:Michi Vojta <Michi.Vojta(ancmail.net>
CC:Mac Haupt <Mac.Haupt(ancmail.net>, Jeff Schaffer <Jeff.Schaffer(a,ncmail.net>, Eric
Kulz <Eric.Kulz(aOncmail.net>, Amy Chapman <Amy.Chapman(a,ncmail.net>
References: <4832DA70.9020101(ancmail.net>
I'll need to discuss with Eric
and get back to you. thankx
Eric - please see me to discuss
Amy - if you have any thoughts,
Michi Vojta wrote:
Kulz and Amy Chapman (or Cyndi Karoly)
thankx
please email Eric and myself. thankx
> Hi, John, I hope the close-outs are going well.
> I am a Project Manager for EEP, and I have a situation in Cary that
> I'd like your clarification on, since I'm told you were at this site
> several times, including once back in 2004, when the project was
l of 2 6/5/2008 8:59 AM
BMPs in the?tream buffer: Town of Cary's SW Maynard Stree Wide...
> beginning to be planned and contracted.
> The Town of Cary BMP (restoration in conjunction with the SW Maynard
> Street widening) is a large, ambitious stream restoration and nutrient
> offset project that the Town is doing. The Town will use the stream
> restoration credits; EEP is funding the BMPs / nutrient offset as part
> of our nutrient offset strategy. As you know, Phase I is almost
> complete, and the Town and designer are anxious to move on to Phase
> II, in which there are also to be similar BMPs that will also lie
> within the 50' stream buffer.
> The contract for this Phase I of project was signed in late 2004, and
> per the designer (Stantec), you and the Corps were out there onsite
> beforehand, with praise for the project. Stantec reports that you as
> the regulators knew that EEP would be expecting BMP credit for BMPs
> within 50' of the stream for which the Town would also be seeking
> restoration credit; Stantec states that DWQ/you had no problem with
> the double function / dual crediting. However, we currently operate
> under the understanding that this cannot be the case, that nutrient
> offset credits must be stand alone.
> SO, I am requesting some clarification in writing from DWQ, so that
> the Town and EEP can be in agreement about what can and cannot be
> credited, both in the already installed Phase I, as well as the
> pending Phase II. EEP would also need this information for future
> nutrient offset projects involving stormwater and wetland BMPs. The ?? Q V T7
> (three) scenarios as I see them are:
> 1. that DWQ agrees that it is okay for nutrient offset BMPs to lie fjJ
> within the 50' stream buffer while getting credit for both N.O. and
> stream restoration within that same reach;
> 2. that this project is grandfathered (we can get dual credits for
> Phase I), but from so-and-so date forward, it will no longer be the
> case (In this scenario, we would like a determination as to whether O
> the currently in design Phase II will get such credit or not.); or
> 3. that no project in which this is a factor--even Phase I--can get
> dual credit. if this is the case, it obviously affects the
> contractual agreement between EEP and the Town, as the Town is to
> ensure a certain number of pounds of nitrogen reduction. We'll need
> to know how to redetermine the credits; will DWQ allow a slight C
> reduction of the stream credit based on a sqft / percentage of the
> buffer in which the BMP lies? (As Stantec put it the other day in a
> /hypothetical/ example, a wetland BMP impacts 1000 if of stream
> length, which has 10,000 sqft of stream restoration buffer. The
> linear BMP has a footprint of 100sgft. If we choose to use the buffer
> credit, does that mean the entire 1000 if of stream cannot be counted, (,
> /OR/ does it mean that the stream rest. credit is reduced by to
> [100sgft BMP/10,000sgft buffer]?)
> If you would like, we would be happy to meet with you and Stantec to
> discuss this. We can meet onsite, in your office, here at
> EEP--whatever works best for you. Please let me know what works best
> for you.
> Thank you,
XD Uli cldllcs?
?L?M?j
AMP 3v(Y)-wru. 1- . {a?z AMP ? ???b ,8
)m
?JL alp ?i?2?r??`lI?EN f?? M 17;
? ??20088:59 AM
2of2 NUT O ?/?r V?L'?
?S? ??jl P I- --
IN STRzAj -Nf??7D %?TGJ/?y£ uA77f/c5}Yrb
j7R
?P
[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer m...
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer mitigation]]]]]]
From: Michi Vojta <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:01:49 -0400
To: "Eric Kulz, DWQ" <[e-mail]>, Jeff Schaffer <[e-mail]>, Kristin
Miguez <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]
Whoo-hoo! Suzanne came through with it!
Jim got a copy already as well.
Happy weekend.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer mitigation]]]]]
Date:Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:53:56 -0400
From:Suzanne Klimek <Suzanne.Klimek(a-),ncmail.net>
To:Michi Vojta <Michi.Vojtana,ncmail.net>
--- Original Message --------
Subject:Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer mitigation]]]]
Date:Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:49:35 -0400
From:Tom Reeder <tom.reeder(ancmail.net>
To:Suzanne Klimek <Suzanne.Klimek(a,ncmail.net>
CC:Rich Gannon <rich.gannon(Dncmail.net>, Kelly Williams <kelly.williams(a ncmail.net>,
Jim Stanfill <iim.stanfill([e-mail]>
References: <466ED3AE. [e-mail]>
Suzanne - You are right. Your memory was better than mine. Buffers
with streams can be used for buffer mitigation and buffers that are not
associated with stream restoration can be used for both buffer
mitigation and/or nutrient offset. Sorry that I was confused about that
this morning. Thanks.
Suzanne Klimek wrote:
> Well -- I found it. Looks like John D said buffers with stream could
> not be used for No. And then Tom, you sort of said maybe they could
> (basically what you said today). And then you and I talked, and I
> said they couldn't. Sooooo -- I don't know if there was something in
> my conversaition with Tom that had me present that conclusion (I don't
> have another email indicating that we heard back that I had it
> wrong). If the policy should be that we can use buffers associated
> with stream projects for nutrient offset as well as buffer mitigation
> (but not for both at the same time), well, that's an important input
> into our overall dialogue on program delivery.
> I remember this being very confusing at the time and I'm sorry if I
1 of 4 6/20/2008 2:05 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer m...

have had us applying an inappropriate policy. I don't think it has
hurt us as all, but if we change the policy we are applying it will
feed in to how we move forward.
Suz
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer mitigation]]]
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:46:01 -0500
From: Suzanne Klimek <[e-mail]>
To: Jim Stanfill <[e-mail]>, Marc Recktenwald
<[e-mail]>, David Robinson <[e-mail]>
CC: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
> I spoke with Tom today and think we've about got this straight (Tom,
> feel free to chime in if any of this differs from our discussion).
> Buffers built in conjunction with stream restoration can be used for
> buffer mitigation. Buffers that we've built straight-up (not
> associated with a stream project) can be used for nutrient offset.
> As we prepare for the letter that we will submit as part of the
> hearing record (I am the lead and hope to have something for y'all to
> review by early next week), I think we should do a recalculation that
> will allocate buffers associated with our stream mitigation to offset
> our buffer needs and use the buffers we've done on their own to handle
> our nutrient offset requirements (per a formula Jim says we have).
> David, can you take the lead on this number crunching? In the end I
> want to show our buffer requirements as compared to our buffer assets
> and our nutrient offset requirements as compared to assets in that
> program. The focus of my letter for the hearing record is on nutrient
> offset, but we have to do the other calculation on buffers to derive
> what we can allocate to that program.
> Clear as mud, right?
> Thanks.
> Suzanne
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer mitigation]]
> Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:56:51 -0500
> From: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
> To: Suzanne Klimek <[e-mail]>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer mitigation]
> Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:40:36 -0500
> From: Tom Reeder <[e-mail]>
> To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
> CC: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, John Hennessy
> <[e-mail]>, Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
> References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>I think they could only use the restored stream buffers for nutrient
>credits if the new buffers are not being built to replace impacted
>buffers. If they are building the new buffers to mitigate existing
>buffers that have been impacted then the nutrient offsets associated
>with the new buffers must be used to offset the original buffer that has
>been impacted. If they are building new buffers that are not
>specifically mitigating for some impacts to buffers elsewhere then the
>nutrient offsets associated with the new buffers are not already
> Suzanne - I think the following answers are the ones that you needed
> on your question about the use of the credits. Please let me know if
> you have any questions. Coleen
2 of 4 6/20/2008 2:05 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer m...
>accounted for and then these would be "new" offsets that they could take
>credit for. I am not sure that explanation is too clear, but that is my
>understanding. Thanks.
>John Dorney wrote:
>> i answered Suzanne's first question in the affirmative last week (that
>> is, you can "double count" buffer and stream mitigation). the other
>> question is more for Bradley (I suspect) or someone else. we do not
>> deal with the nutrient offset payments but my understanding is that
>> the answer to that question in no (but again, it is not really my
>> question).
»
>> Coleen Sullins wrote:
>>> I asked you guys this question earlier, and got an answer that I
>>> think may be altered by the discussions we had over the buffer
>>> litigation on the RDU case. Anyway, I need to pose it again and
>>> think we probably need to meet to discuss. Let me know what you
>>> think (see also message below). Coleen
>>> The question:
>>> Essentially, as you know, EEP takes responsibility for specific
>>> mitigation requirements associated with streams, wetlands and
>>> buffers. When we do a stream restoration project, we build at least
>>> a 56' buffer on either side of the restored stream. The question is,
>>> in areas where DWQ requires buffer mitigation (Neuse, T-P, etc) can
>>> the buffers that have been built in conjunction with a stream
>>> restoration project be used as assets to compensate for impacts
>>> accepted into our program for buffer mitigation. Similarly, if a
>>> buffer is a recognized method of nitrogen reduction for nutrient
>>> offset, could those buffers be used to count as reductions for
>>> nutrient offset requirements we have accepted. Obviously, we would
>>> use them for one or the other (nutrient offset or buffer) not both.
>>> Thus far EEP has not accounted for buffers associated with streams in
>>> the manner described above. We'd like to know what you think about
>>> our doing so.
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: old memo re: buffer mitigation
>>> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:06:59 -0500
>>> From: Suzanne Klimek
>>> To: Coleen Sullins
>>> On the work side, my colleague Marc dug up an old memo dated Oct. 23,
>>> 2002, from John D. through you (as section chief) regarding "Interim,
>>> Internal DWQ Guide for the Calculation of Riparian Buffer Mitigation
>>> Credits and Criteria for Riparian Buffer Mitigation Projects". It in
>>> part states that "Mitigation credit can be given for riparian buffer
>>> restoration that is done in conjunction with a stream restoration
>>> project as long as the riparian buffer restoration meets the minimum
>>> criteria found in....".
>>> This directly addresses the question that we have posed to you except
>>> that it doesn't address nutrient offset. Just thought I'd pass that
>>> on in case it might be helpful...
>>> Suz
>
3 of 4 6/20/2008 2:05 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: old memo re: buffer m...
Michi Vojta
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
919.715.5590
www.nceep.net
..
4 of 4 6/20/2008 2:05 PM