20201990 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20201103

Strickland, Bev
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:59 AM
To: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Kim Browning; Davis, Erin B
Subject: [External] RE: White Hat Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Kyle,
Sorry not to get you any comments on the updated prospectus yet. Below are some of the main
comments/concerns, which I think go along with the comments we made during the site visit.
1. 1 think the site definitely has potential and I appreciate that RES has updated the plan to address most of
the concerns noted from the initial review. Most notably, I think modifying the approach from a P2 to a P1
makes a huge difference. I also think the wider buffers will help significantly with the stream work and also
add to the benefit provided by the adjacent wetlands.
2. As discussed on site, I still have some questions/concerns about how the transition from the upper reaches
above the site (where RES has obtained hydrologic trespass agreements) to the project streams. There seems
to be the potential for the ditch system above the project to be permanently inundated at a deeper depth
than normal (meaning the depth when beavers are not affecting the drainage). This is an unusual situation. I
assume that this will only result in increased depth of water within existing ditches and not any actual streams
that flow to those ditches. Also, it may be helpfully to verify that this will not inundate any existing wetlands
that could see vegetation mortality. I do think that this will impact the surrounding land use around the
upstream ditches, which is why RES has the trespass agreements, but it does raise the question of how/if
those agreements will need to be reviewed or if they become part of the project documentation. I assume
those are perpetual agreements, and that if landowners are unhappy with the results following construction
there is nothing thing they can do to alter the drainage in such a way that it would affect the project? The
transition from the deeper ditches to the P1 reach at the top of the project should also be shown in the detail
so that we can understand how this will work. What will the method of stabilization be? Is there any
potential for this to cause problems to the stream at the head of the project, especially during high storm
flows? I think these issues need to be addressed in the adaptive management plan as well.
3. 1 think the general approach and ratio for Reaches DC1-A & B are good. Floodplain access through these
reaches is really important and can provide significant functional uplift. I would note that the existing road
along the canal is very high in some places and I would recommend removing as much of the road as possible
to ensure proper access. The roadway may also be an area where vegetation struggles just due to soil
compaction and disturbance, so I would encourage RES to develop a plan to address this up front (e.g., ripping
the finished soil grade, adding soil amendments as necessary, etc.).
4. The draft mit plan should include a detailed discussion of the proposed vegetation planting plan, including
planting zones, appropriate species (based on reference in the area if possible), and a list of alternatives if they
think plant availability may be a concern. There are also a lot of pines within the proposed easement - do they
plan to remove the pines and replant? Regardless, volunteer pines could be an issue.

5. Within Reach DC1-C, I still think that the proposed enhancement is really more about the wetland than the
stream. But I also think the wetlands are already in decent condition, so the overall functional return would
be limited. I understand that the site may be been wetter when we saw it than in normal circumstances, but
this remains a concern. We discussed the possibility of extending stream work down this reach, at least along
the upper half, and I think RES needs to explore different opportunities to provide more stream functional
return here, including efforts to improve the channel condition, bedform, habitat, etc., otherwise think that
stream ratios need to be reduced to account for this. The possibility that this might be a more braided section
of stream should be considered as well.
6. The work done on the lower end also has the potential to impact landowners downstream of the project,
so this should be address in the mitigation plan as well.
Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 3:32 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: White Hat Project
Todd and Kim,
I was checking in to see if any of the IRT sent you comments on the Draft Mit plan for the White Hat project? I
sent out an email asking for comments by the end of October and I've heard nothing from anyone. Matt Butler
sent me an email asking if there was going to be an initial evaluation letter for the revised plan but I haven't
answered him yet.
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
910-251-4584

We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to improving service to our
customers. We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated
Customer Service Survey is located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
<Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_a pex/f?p=136:4:0>
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.