20090198 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20090522

Mcmillan, Ian
From: Hennessy, John
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 1:15 PM
To: Witherspoon, Lauren; Sullivan, Shelton; Smith, Danny; Mcmillan, Ian; Karoly, Cyndi
Subject: Adcock
O.k, I have reviewed the Adcock stream restoration plan. I agree with Eric. It is less than below average. I think we
need to do a site visit. I think we can accomplaish a couple of things with the site visit. One, we can look at the stream,
wetlands, and buffers. This will enable me to better draft a letter for what is needed in the stream restoration plan.
However, I would prefer another approach to writing yet another letter. Understanding that the stream restoration is all
I was asked to do, I think the site visit can serve another function. I have read Barrett's last several submittals and I think
we should stop the back and forth. That only serves his interests. I say we use the site visit and subsequent internal
discussion to develop the necessary 401 conditions. As I see it, we can either continue the back and forth. Or, we can
seize the situation and authorze this 401 with all manner of conditions that require them to do what we need them to
do. We will likely need to write some very specific conditions, but I think that is preferable to the back and forth. Just a
thought. Like I said, my role is strictly stream restoration. Let me know what you think. I can do a site visit and then
draft a letter for more information if that is the prferred approach. After reviewing the dates that Lauren has available, I
have May 28, June 4, and June 11 & 12. Frankly, 11 and 12 are better. But, from what I can tell the date of last
submittal from them was 4/30/09. So, if we need to do one of the earlier (which I think we do), then let's do it then.