20161239 Ver 1_comments on Duke settlement site_20170130

Strickland, Bev
From:Haupt, Mac
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2017 10:59 AM
To:'Cara Conder'; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Johnson, Alan; Shaeffer,
David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (US); [e-mail]
Cc:Daniel Ingram; Brad Breslow
Subject:RE: Mallard Site Visit Notes
Cara,

I reviewed your notes and they are good for the most part, however, I want to add and emphasize a few items that were
discussed on site:

1.Beaver sign was seen on-site and DWR expects beaver to be managed during the monitoring period, (you did

state this in Table 10),
2.The placement of gauges on-site was discussed, this information would assist in the review for two

reasons:
a.Review of hydrologic uplift, currently on-site the area is a wetland, mostly a marsh-like wetland with a

prominent ditch and beaver present, therefore to show even a moderate functional uplift there should
be efforts to maintain a forested wetland ecosystem throughout the monitoring period. That will entail
three major efforts; one, good site prep for the trees and two, maintenance of the beaver on-site, and
analysis of the hydro data.
b.Review of hydrologic impact to the adjacent stream channel

3.Extending the enhancement portion of the stream above the tie-in. This would alleviate the stream loss

issue. In addition, I mentioned to Dani on-site that a tie-in would be necessary anyway (and shown on the
plans), given the hydrologic input into the stream. DWR believes this enhancement (above the tie-in) would be
necessary to offset the stream loss potential of the project.
4.The typical monitoring period for forested wetlands is 7 years. DWR believes that these projects, even though

termed, “water quality improvement projects” should be subject to the same standards as” typical wetland
mitigation”, and therefore DWR requires a 7 year monitoring period for forested wetlands.
5.Stream violation on-site: If RES works with the landowner to enhance the areas that had been “dipped out” and

return these areas to wetlands, and the site is developed as per the mitigation plan with some of the items
included from the above comments, DWR can move forward with the 401.

If you have any questions or concerns, give me a call…

Thanks,
Mac

From: Cara Conder \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:27 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>;
Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>; Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mallard Site Visit Notes

Good morning,
1

Please find attached notes from the Mallard Water Quality Improvement project site visit on January 24, 2017. Can the
USACE confirm that our revisions to PCN application are extended past 2/13/17 due to determining status of potential
violation on site?

Thanks,
Cara

Cara Conder|NC Project Manager|Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 | Raleigh, NC 27605

Direct: 919.209.1052 | Cell: 843.446.2312

2