20081462 Ver 1_Emails_20081027 (2)

Re: UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (DWQ#08-1462)
Subject: Re: UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (DWQ#08-1462)
From: "Tammy.L.Hill" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:42:22 -0500
To: Lin Xu <[e-mail]>
CC: Laurie Dennison <[e-mail]>, Alan Johnson <[e-mail]>,
Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Hi, Lin.
Thank you for the information you provided on 10/15 and 10/23/08. I know Bev will
appreciate the electronic format in addition to the written Restoration Plan
corrections. I will add the information to our file with the application materials,
and DWQ will consider the 401 Certification deemed issued.
Best wishes with the project!
Tammy
Lin Xu wrote:
Tammy,
Thank you very much for your follow-up e-mail. I did get your voice mail message
as well. I was waiting to get some information back from our designer before I
call you back. The following are responses (not complete yet) to your questions
or concerns:
1) Total wetland acreage and impacted wetland acreage
The impacted wetland acreage (permanent and temporary) listed in PCN is the
correct one. The impact acreage listed in the restoration plan was primary
since the construction sheets included in the plan are draft. When I was
preparing the PCN, I asked the designer to produce the figure (which included
the application package) and to finalize impact acreage.
For total wetland acreage, the designer is checking the number today. And I will
sent you another e-mail with the correct information when I hear from the
designer.
2) Monitoring frequency
Tammy, EEP is actually already doing what you suggest. The monitoring report
for an project is submitted to EEP annually. However, site visits are conducted
somewhere from three to six times for any giving year between EEP staffs and
monitoring firms. We want to catch any potential problems early, and we feel
that will help us by visiting site more often. By the way, I thought that you
should like beavers as a wetland specialist.
3) Vegetation and education
For vegetation, we will certainly follow what you suggested. Robin Dolin (EEP
project manage for this project) is actively involving to develop education
components of this project with the school. In fact, she and an EEP watershed
planner are meeting with the school to discuss this today.
I will send you the correct total wetland acreage within the project site late.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns about this
project. Thanks again for your help.
Lin
Tammy.L.Hill wrote:
Dear Lin:
The 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit has reviewed the PCN and
Restoration Plan for the UT to Rocky River mitigation project. This email is
a follow-up to the voicemail I left for you on 10/10/2008. Although I
haven't heard back from you yet, I wanted to follow up in hopes that the
project can be deemed issued within the 30-day clock (ending 10/24/2008).
1 of 2 10/27/2008 10:42 AM
Re: UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (DWQ#08-1462)
We have a few concerns with the project. The only one that may impede
issuance of the 401 permit is #1 below. The others are mentioned for future
reference and in hopes that they will contribute to the project's success over
the coming years.
1. Wetland acreage amounts appear to be inconsistent in the PCN and
Restoration Plan. Appendix 4 details a 9.2-acre wetland delineation, but the
PCN describes 6.5 acres of wetland present on the site. The PCN indicates
there will be 0.335 acres of permanent wetland impact, but the Plan discusses
1.05 acres of impact. *Please clarify the beginning and ending wetland
acreage on the site, as well as temporary and permanent wetland impact
acreage.*
2. The level of build-out around the site and beaver activity within the site
may cause challenges for maintaining stability of the stream restoration.
Monitoring more frequently than once per year may be necessary in order to
identify and address problems prior to damage to the restoration effort.
3. Wetland enhancement is tied exclusively to vegetation, and the
performance criteria allow up to 20 percent coverage by invasive/nuisance
species. This is a high percentage of the community composition and should
be considered an absolute maximum for evaluation of the project as
successful. We fully support observation of the project as an educational
component for the adjacent schools as long as such activities do not disturb
the development of the targeted ecosystem.
Thank you for your attention. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on
the Restoration Plan and to work with you toward a successful mitigation
project.
Warm regards,
Tammy
Lin Xu
Environmental Engineer
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1652
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
www.nceep.net
Tammy Hill
Environmental Senior Specialist
NC Division of Water Quality (401/Wetlands)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-715-9052 (voice)
919-733-6893 (fax)
[e-mail]
2 of 2 10/27/2008 10:42 AM