20081203 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20090126

RE: Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
200 1203
Subject: RE: Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
From: "O'Rourke, Michael" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon 26 Jan 2009 15:06:18 -0500
To: "Tammy.L.Hill" <[e-mail]>, "Tim Baumgartner"
<T i m . B aum gartne r@nc m ai 1. ne t>
CC: "Guy Pearce" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]. mil>
Thanks Tim & Tammy,
I guess I was clumsy at explaining everything the way we discussed it,
but I agree with both of your clarifications. Thank you.
We are above 320 stems in each plot although some are closer than we had
originally planned. Of course we expect to be above the 320 and 260 at
each date even starting with fewer plants.
What I was trying to express was that while we may be closer to the
thresholds than anticipated, we would hope that the overall functioning
of the site would be strong enough to not merit supplemental planting.
In some cases we may only be a plant or two above the thresholds in each
plot, but because of our care in protecting the roots of the existing
vegetation, we are already seeing two to three times as many volunteers
(and expect several times more) so even if we were to drop below the
threshold by a plant, we would like to think that it would not require
additional planting, but it sounds like that might not be an option. I
was unclear about that point, I thought if the numbers were
overwhelming, as we are expecting in this case, that we might be able to
be flexible about meeting the standard 1000. I guess we'll cross that
bridge when we come to it.
I hope this helps as well. I would like to echo Tammy's sentiments in
thanking everyone for the open communication and cooperation, it is
greatly appreciated. After all, we all want what is best for the site,
but we also realize that we need to meet certain obligations as well.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Tammy.L.Hill [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:41 PM
To: Tim Baumgartner
Cc: O'Rourke, Michael; 'Guy Pearce'; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Hi, all!
Thanks to Tim for the clarification regarding planted vs. volunteer
stems. He is correct, and I apologize to Mike if I didn't make that
clear during our discussion. It's my understanding that:
1) The planting density, although lower than originally planned, is
still slated to meet at least 320 stems per acre.
2) If necessary due to unforeseen mortality issues, and approved through
the EEP FD process, older trees will be planted in order to meet
targeted densities.
3) Volunteer stems will be counted separately from planted stems, and
both will be reported annually. This will be helpful in evaluating the
overall performance of the project.
I really appreciate this communication and cooperation. Looking forward
to working together to achieve a successful restoration project!
I of4 1/26/20093:30 PM
RE: Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Have a good week,
Tammy
Tim Baumgartner wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for your email. Let me clarify my position a little however. We
did discuss that the current guidelines (which I agree are most
associated with streams) state that the site must maintain 320
*_planted_* stems per acre by year 3 and 260 *_planted _*stems per
acre by year 5. This being said, if we receive a mitigation plan that
shows a site and their associated plots less than 320 *_planted
_*stems per acre, we will request that planting a least meet the 3
year threshold. I remember specifically discussing this in our
conversation.
That being said, if there are regulatory guidance documents that
provide something other than this position on planted stems, please
provide the reference to those and we will consider them when
reviewing the mitigation plan. As we also discussed, I don't disagree
that a 5-year old volunteer is just as good as a 5-year old planted
stem. However, the only regulatory guidance that I am aware of
considers only planted stems. The mitigation plan is designed to
layout the measurement methods and criteria for judging the success of
the project. We try to ensure that mit plans follow regulatory
guidance as close as possible.
I would be glad to discuss this further if needed. Tammy or Sarah - if
I am off base, please let me know.
Thanks
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* O'Rourke, Michael (mailto:[e-mail]]
*Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2009 1:59 PM
*To:* Guy Pearce
*Cc:* Tim Baumgartner; Tammy L Hill; [e-mail]
*Subject:* Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
Guy,
We are currently preparing the Mitigation Plan for the Plum Creek
Wetland Restoration FDP.
Prior to its submittal, I wanted to give you a little advanced notice
that when planting occurred, one species - sweetbay magnolia -
suffered an illness and the nursery was unable to provide the number
of plants we ordered. We were still able to reach the minimum number
of plants necessary to meet our first success (survival) criteria.
Since it was less than the number originally stated (to be planted) we
wanted to be forthcoming and bring it to your attention. Prior to our
removing the pines on site we made some measurements in pre-veg-plots
we set up and we found there to be well more than required number of
stems in each plot. We took great care to protect the source material
and fully expect volunteers to spring back in great force. In fact, we
2 of4 1/26/2009 3:30 PM
RE: Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
were seeing it already in our first few visits before, during, and
after planting.
I spoke briefly with Tammy Hill and asked her if she would be
concerned with our possible shortcoming given the fact that we expect
large numbers of volunteers. I told her that I thought we would
restore absolutely all of the function proposed in the Restoration
Plan although as much or more of it might come from regeneration as
newly planted material given the reduction in planted material. She
mentioned that woody stems should be 5-years old in the final count to
I be considered fully and I relayed to her that we cleared last July and I
have seen some considerable regeneration prior to this planting this
winter. She conveyed the fact that she felt pretty comfortable at this
point with her knowledge of the site and the activities that we ought
not to have a problem barring some unforeseen event, but that it
sounded like we might be more likely to have an issue with meeting our
EEP contract specifics. She suggested I speak with EEP about it at
this point and keep her and Liz in the loop.
When I called to speak with you, I missed you, but I called Tim as he
had been on the site with Tammy and me on an earlier trip. He had
similar advice in that we should just be sure to document everything
for EEP and the regulators. That way if everyone is comfortable today,
but one or more people aren't in the same chair in 5 more years, we
will have something in writing that we can all review.
We will have all of the final numbers in the Mitigation Plan, but we
wanted you to know that we acknowledge the situation and are taking
the proper steps to make sure that it is not a problem for any of the
parties involved. If you, Tammy, Liz, or Tim would like further
explanation or have concerns prior to the receipt of the Mitigation
Plan please let me know and I can further expound on the specifics.
Michael
Michael O'Rourke
Senior Environmental Scientist
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Ave.
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone] Direct
[phone] Main
[phone] Fax
[phone] Cell
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
www.berger-nc.com <http://www.berger-nc.com>
3 of 4 1/26/2009 3:30 PM
RE: Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Plan
www.berger.com <http://www.berger.com>
Tammy Hill
Environmental Senior
NC Division of Water
2321 Crabtree Blvd.,
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-715-9052 (voice)
919-733-6893 (fax)
Tammy.L.Hill@ncmail.
Specialist
Quality (401/Wetlands)
Suite 250
net.
4 of 4 1/26/2009 3:30 PM