The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19970616 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan Review_20010731?0F WAr??p oG Michael F. Easley • Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Department of Environment and Natural Resources WO? I t, Ifill', MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr., NCWRC Stream Mitigation Coordinator Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quali From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Jennifer Frye Dave Penrose Todd St. John Kerr T. Stevens Division of Water Quality t22?01 n °"7t { ,11 1. ---------------------- Subject: Comments on Stream Restoration Plan for Bare Site, unnamed tributary to Peak Creek, Ashe County, in association with the US 421 NCDOT Project R-529, Watauga County. DWQ No, 97- 0616. The above referenced project plans were reviewed by NCDWQ personnel. The Bare Site appears to be a very good stream enhancement proposal. The approach seems to be valid for an enhancement project. The proposal noted that stream pattern will not be changed, but that a floodplain bench would be constructed to allow the stream to access a floodplain. Also, in-stream structures are proposed. Such structures should be placed to aid in re-establishing a proper profile. Thus, the dimension and profile should be adjusted. NCDWQ anticipates proceeding with the Water Quality Certification. The following comments are offered: • The width and location of the conservation easements should be shown on the site plan. DWQ requests a copy or draft copy for our files. • The typical diagrams are not specific to the size of the rock to be used in the structures. Rock sizes and footer depths should be appropriate for the amount of scour predicted to occur behind the structures. DWQ recommends that the rock sizes be indicated. • The site plan indicates the potential use of rootwads, rock vanes, rock weirs and step pools. However, no mention is made of which structures are to be used at which location and why. DWQ would like to see more detail and description of what structures are anticipated and why. Additionally, a typical drawing was not provided for the step pool. • Biological Monitoring: Since this is not a Priority I restoration project, biological monitoring will not be required. However, Dave Penrose would like to collect samples for his own research and use the data to compare to Level T restoration projects. • Mitigation Ratios: The riparian area and streams are proposed to be preserved with a conservation easement. As such, the project should qualify to obtain 3:1 credit. North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address) 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, INC 27604-2260 (Location) 919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733.6893 (far.), http://h2o.enr,state.nc.us/ncwetiands/ A Conservation Easement must be signed prior to iss'4ce of the §401 Water Quality Certification. You are reminded that seven (7) copies of a complete Pre-construction Notification Application and a fee of $475 made payable to NC Division of Water ?uality wlk be;required: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your project. Pc: Jennifer Frye Dave Penrose Todd St. John Cynthia Van Der Wiele File Copy 0 i 1 8/02/01 - 1715 hrs Frank, I'm faxing you Dorney's response to th Bare and Wild sites. DWQ had more concerns with the Wild site in their response, but right now fih more concerned with the Bare site since we hope to begin construction in a few weeks. As I mentioned, I sent the plans to them in advance to try to get approval to do the project before the easement is signed. Giving approval does not mean that we will do the job if an easement is not signed, I know we can't do that. I was trying to save time in delays in getting DWQ permission to do the project once an easement is signed. We can get DWQ the signed easement and map right after it is signed or when we send them the as-built survey. To me, it makes more sense to get approval to do the project from DWQ, do the project and include the CE in with the as-built plans. If we wait to submit plans after we get an easement, then we are delayed another 60 days or more before we can put a project out for bid. This could be a problem if it is late in the fall when we finally get DWQ approval. That can delay the project until the next spring, a situation we are getting into this year. For example, we sent the Wild and Bare plans to DWQ on 4/6/01, they were received by DWQ on 4/10/01. We got a response from Dorney on 7/31/01. His letter was written on 6/29/01. I don't know why it took so long to get here. I'm going through the trash tonight to see if I can find the envelopes it was mailed in to see the postage date. However, before receiving his 6/29/01 letter, I got an email from Cynthia Van Der Wiele on June 13, 2001 noting that the Bare project was fine and we could go to work (Faxed to you). Getting negative feedback from Dorney on 7131/01 over three months after submittal is a major concern, especially after we had the go ahead to do the work. Dorney in his memo notes that we need to submit 7 copies of the plan, a Pre-Construction Notification Application and a fee of $475 to DWQ. In reviewing the DWQ letter to David Robinson, NCDOT, on 4/20/98 (faxed copy to you) issuing DWQ Certification No. 3185 to NCDOT for the TIP R-529 project, condition 6 noted that WRC needed written approval for our mitigation plans. Noting is mentioned about 401 certification. It appears to me that since our WRC/DOT agreement was part of the 401 permit for R-529, then our plans should not have to go through more 401 permitting. This delays the process. Also, we should not have to pay $475 for permits since 401 certification has been given to the R-529 project. However, if we need to, then so be it. We did not have to do this for the Carp and Racey sites completed last year. Second, condition 6 notes that we are to do 1:1 restoration for 7,407 feet of stream mitigation. As you know, we are having a very difficult time in finding sites that landowners are willing us to do a Priority I restoration on (new channel construction). At most sites we can only hope for stream bank stabilization with some change in channel dimension and profile, but usually not pattern. Last year DWQ gave us 1:1 credit for the Racey site, which was a bank stabilization project. This year DWQ has given us 3:1 credit for the Bare and Wild sites. There is an inconsistency here, especially when the Bare site is far more degraded than the Racey site.