20080229 Ver 2_Year 6 Monitoring Report Buffer_20131030

0,RANGI-,,'COUN7'Y, NORTH CAROLINA
R1010MOMAYMYN
October 29, 20 13

Table of Contents
LOIntroduction .............. .. ...... ...........—........._..............~~,,~,~,,,.,,,,,,^^,~,~^,_,,,,,,.,,,,.'^~,^2
1.l Project Location and Description ........ ............ ............................................. ,,~,^_,.,~^~~~,2
1.2 Proiect Goals and O�jectives . ............. _.....~.- ......... ^............ ~.,^.,.-,,..,,,~,.,~~__,~'~,.3
2.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison .. ... .~._........................ ..... ..... ... ... ... ... .... ......... .....A
3J0... ...... .......... ........................................... ............ --- ... ...... ... .......... .... ......4
3 � I Vegetation Monitoring P] ots...... ....... .....^'.. .,~. —.^.A
4.0 References— ...... ...~...^^........ ._^......... ....~.~^^. ......... ........ ~..^^..-^.^.`^.'~'^~~^^^~ ...... ^'^-^^^^`-6
Firg—ure 1, Site Location Map
FVTTCSt Creek Restoration Conservation Easement As-Built Exhibit I through 5\
xam'�/� v���x�zmm�mmnurm Success Summary
'Fable 2: Stenis per Acre by Plot and Year
Appendix 11):_Vegetation Monitoj®r,igi&jP21goLtUDjatMa Sheets
AWNjdiy-_E. Correspondence

1.0 Introduction
LI Prqiecl Location and DeserilVion
The Forrest Creek Stream Restoration Site (Site) of the Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank
(Bank) is located in Orange County North, Carolina within land owned by Milton A. Latta
and Sons Dairy Farms, Inc. A permanent conservation casement covers the restored strearn
and sun-onrlding riparian buffer. ']'his casement defines the Site' s boundaries, The Site is
located approximately seven miles northeast of Hillsborough and six miles northwest of
Durham in northeastern Orange County, North Carolina (see Figure 1, Appendix A), The
streams lie within USES hydrologic unit 03020201020020 in the Neuse River Basin. The
North Carolina Division of Water Quality NCDWQ) classifies the main reach, Forrest Creek,
as a WS -11 (water supply 11), HQW (high quality water), and NSW (nutrient sensitive water),
The Site includes two strearns. The larger reach (Forrest Creek) flows through the property
from north to south and drains a 3. 6 square mile area consisting of predominantly forest and
pasture land. "rhe smaller tributary (UIT 1) flows from west to oast before joining with Forrest
Creek and drains a 0.1 square mile area consisting of predominantly pasture land. Located in
Appendix A is the Forrest Creek Restoration Conservation Easement AS-Built Exhibit
(Sheets I through 5).
'The stream restoration work is regulated under the Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) signed by the Sponsor and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the NC Division of Water
Quality (now hereby referred to as Division of Water Resources [DWRI), and the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). These agencies comprise the Interagency
Review 'ream (IRT), formerly the MBRT, in accordance with Federal guidelines and
regulations including the Compensatory Mitigation losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule,
33
CF R Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR Part 230. Restoration work resulted in the restoration
of 6, 825 linear feet, endiancernent (Level 1) of' 325 linear feet, and preservation of 3,005
linear feet of stream. With the restoration, water quality has been improved due to a decrease
in nutrients, turbidity, and moderation in water temperature, Biochemical oxygen demand has
been reduced through filtering in the riparian buffer and riverine wetlands. Potential habitats
have been added through the creation of bed features and the reestablishment of riparian
vegetative community.
The annual monitoring work assesses the Site's strearns, the Forrest Creek main channel and
the Unnamed Tributary to Forrest Creek, to determine restoration success, The monitoring
plan has been set up based on guidance provided by The Stream Mitigation Guidelines
developed by the thifted States Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District (McLendon, et a].
2003), version 1. 2 11/ 16/ 2006) of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP') document entitled Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring
Reports "', version 2.0 (3/27/2008) of the EEP document entitled "Mitigation Plan Document
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance ", and the Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Plan (May 2008).
Monitoring has occurred annually for five years and reports have been submitted. Annual
monitoring work has included reference photographs, vegetative stein Counts, materials
sainpling, site survey,, bankfull event documentation, and visual assessment and mapping of
significant features. Year 5, 2012 monitoring was completed on September 18 -19 and
October 16, 2012 with the submission of Year 5 Monitoring Report for the Forrest Creek
Buffer Mitigation Bank on December 4, 2011 Members of the IRT, more specifically
representatives from DWR and USACE, met with EBX-EM, LI...0 (EBX) on-site to evaluate
the success of the riparian buffer restoration. Based on the results of the on -site meeting,

'I R requested additional vegetation monitoring for a period of 3 years (DWR Additional
Monitoring Required letter, May 3, 2013, I "G R Project # 08 -0229, Appendix E). More
specifically, DWR had the following comments,
"Significant areas within Zorn l of the riparian buffer along the entire reach of the
Forrest. Creek mitigation site appeared to lacy adequate stern couonts most likely due
to sail type and hydrology issues. Steers that were present in gone I were mostly
small, indicating they may have been part of supplemental planting performed in
010 required by DWQ and ACOE,
Action R urrred EBX shall reevaluate Zone l throughout the entire mitigated
portions of Forrest. :reek and provide a reraaediation plan sufficient to provide
adequate vegetation in Zone 1, Sufficient ground cover should be reestablished in all
bare areas and„ where adequate stern counts are absent., EBX shall plant trees that are
desirable for that specific soil type and hydrology. l " +Q reconrnrerrds larger trees be
planted in some of the most problematic areas along time reach. Modifications to the
approved buffer mitigation plan are allowed to provide EB,X with the flexibility of
choosing; tree species and vegetation that are more likely to survive and reach.
maturity. EBX may make additional recommendations to promote site success.
Monitoring reports shall be submitted for 3 more years (2013, 2014, and lll) and
shall record only the vegetation conditions along Zone L "
This Monitoring deport addresses buffer restoration areas between Stations 214+00 and
232+00, which includes Vegetation Plots 2, 3, and 4.
.2 Project Goals and Objectives
I'he goals of the project relate to providing ecological improvements to the Site" s streams
and riparian buffers through beneficial modifications of °hydrology, water quality, and
habitat,
Goals, related to hydrology include:
• Re- establishing floodplain connection by raising; lied elevations (l:..h'H) or
lowering adjacent floodplain (Forrest Creek)
• Increasing flood storage by re- establishing floodplain connection
Goals related to water duality include:
• Deducing turbidity and pollution by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs cattle
exclusion)
• Deducing water temperatures by providing shading
• Increasing / stabilizing oxygen levels by reducing BBD /COIF and increasing
rcoxygenating turbulence
Goals related to habitat include:.
• Improving in stream bed habitat by increasing riffle pool diversity, reducing
sediment deposition, and improving low flow water depths
• Improving, bank habitat by increasing; stability and woody biomass
• Improving; floodplain habitat by establishing inicrotopography and hydrology,
removing; invasive vegetation, and increasing habitat diversity
• Improving food web dynamics by adding, biornass (such as detritus, coarse woody
debris, and leaf matter) and re- establishing floodplain connection
The restoration achieves these goals through the following objectives:

• Stabilizing channel bed and banks through modifying dimension, pattern, and
profile using natural channel design
• Installing in_ streani structures such as rock vanes, log vanes, and constrUcted
rif'fTes
• Raising stream bed elevations or lowering f7oodplains
• Restoring soils in riparian buffer by excluding cattle and adding organic
components
• Removing invasive vegetation
• Irlanting native vegetation in riparian buffer
• Fencing out livestock.
Together, these improvernents have provided functional uplift For the watershed as a whole,
'rhe dimension, pattern, and profile were restored. using, Rosgen priority l and 11 restoration.
approaches (Rosgen, David I..,. 1997). The Priority 1 approach was used on the UT to Forrest
Creek to raise bed elevations and reconnect the stream to the abandoned floodplai.n. "The
Priority 11 approach was used on Forrest Creek to reestablish an active fToodplain at the
existing Merl elevation, These n- rethods have decreased stream bank erosion, establish an
active fToodplain, reduce channel stress during floods, improve aquatic habitat, and reduce
fine sediments, A portion of'Forrest Creek immediately above the restoration reach was
enhanced by modifying a downstream crossing that had created ponding upstream of it. The
crossing modification reestablished natural flow and will create a natural channel profile.
Above the enhancement area, a section of Forrest Greek: has been placed under conservation
easement to preserve a f`frnctionat stream channel and riparian buffer..
The remaining impaired riparian buffer was planted as four (4) zones. Zones 1 and 2 are the
stream channel and bank zones consisting of tree and shrub species and native herbaceous
seeding typically found along stream banks in the region. Live stares comprised the hulk cif'
installed species within these crones, .done 3 is the riparian zone consisting of selected tree
and shrub species with a range of tolerances to inundation and saturation. Zone 4 is the
transitional zone that includes the buffer areas (subject of a separate report prepared for
DWR) See Tables l -11T for more information regarding project structure, activity, history,
and contacts.
.tf �'e etatirrrr rmrrrditiarrr rrrarl !l�rrrrr rar�risrrrr
Current stem counts (i,e. stem is defined as ,single living tree species) were calculated using
vegetation plot monitoring Plata. Success will be defined as the survival of a rnfninnrm density of
320, trees and shrubs per acre, As for Monitoring Year ti, monitoring was conducted ,for three (3)
vegetation plots (Vegetation plots 2, 3, and 4) located between Stations 214400 and 324 -00.
Monitoring Year Cr field activities were conducted on October 10 and October 74, 2013. The
planted vegetation survival threshold was met for vegetation plot 2, while it was not met for
vegetation plots 3 and 4, The pla nted and volunteer survival threshold was net for all three ()
vegetation plots. Sunimary tables of the data collected are provided in Appendix B.
.fl Methrrdolo
3. 1 Vegetation Monitoring 111oft
Baseline eline vegetation monitoring was conducted in accordance to C;V -EEP Protocol 'for
� f All monitoring nethod ) e follow
templates a and provided by bp(Ep T 20 10; ln', 01 1)�. All three(3) vegetation
plots that were installed were located in Monitoring Year Cr, Sheets l through 5 of the Forrest
Creek Restoration Conservation Easement As-Built Exhibit (Appendix A) depict location of the
vegetation plots. Table 1 (Appendix X) provides a success summary ary for° each vegetation
is

monitoring pilot. lased on the vegetation monitoring, the survival threshold was rnet; for
vegetation plot 2 when for both planted vegetation survival and planted and volunteer survival.
For vegetation plots 3 and 4, the survival threshold was not met for the planted vegetation
survival but it was tnet for the planted and volunteer survival. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a
summary of sterns per acre by vegetation plot and by monitoring year.
"'vegetation nionitoring plots were photographed and are located in Appendix C. Vegetation
Monitoring Plot Data Sheets are provided in Appendix D. Each Vegetation Monitoring Plot
Data Sheet provides rneasurenients, location, and vigor of each planted sppe ies within a
respective vegetation rnonitoring plot.

4.0 References
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2012. Forrest Creek Mifi mition an -, Forrest Creek Sweam
Restoration a Site Annual AM46niforin Re)or1-,Yeur5
Kiniley-Horn and Associates, Inc, 2012, Forrest Creek J?i7arianll By
O�n ugion Bank
Forrest Creek Stream Rownryirfini,? Ri7p �Aorrwd A,,fim;1nri*"er /,)/I 1 17 1
Lee Michael T,, Peet Robert K,, Robert-, Steven D,, and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEII
Version 4.2
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) October 2004. Guidelines fin- Rinarian
Az_i r Restoration.
Available at internet site: hit U!L�vv v.r�ccc r. rest /ne Ls/reL)orts/buff cr,9,pdf,
_—
North Carolina Ecosystem ]`,nhancernent Program (]-,.EP) January 15, 201 O. &Ocedural G'uielanee
and (",ontentR,, uiremew err -EETAlonito)
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) November 7, -2011. Monitoring
Reauirem,ents and Perfbrmance .9andards car ,stream andlor Welland I
Schafale MP and AS Weakley, 1990, (71assij-1cation o(the Matural Commi nit es ol',Norlh
–j 4 i
Faro inn: Third Approxintation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural ReSOUrces, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
M

Site Maps

x 9
l
b � r � Mry ,in•�
Al
�.
u
jf '� a
1
1,
A, "
y.✓+� pp
✓
✓e
emr
IU [ ✓ J p�
C
fi F r w ..w �� b��a ^4''� ✓y �� ✓�I�r�' yld,
YJ
��;'0Y ,� ''µ11V1 ,J`'�k �i` w rr,rvin ✓,auU n I1�`
v wp
r,
m � !
u ,
y
d
r �
Groh e. +. .. �t ✓
I
�ry
1
{Iy'aA r k rr ta.
I"A 14
9 ry µ + yy
Yi bd r
✓, r i
r
an
Iq� I� � QQjj
Q
44II
✓ � Y
a 1z
f y
,.
iv
�,✓ � � ., ���; pia
n
A Wad �° ,✓ � �
�*
r d
,
USGS 7.5 MINUTE °6"'1P a , NC- OJADRANGLE, 196!1.
36-14356551N, 79.0943321'

u� � .2oexi w�,nwn.tlaw..r� Nb IX0.b dry%uµv ': My xs�wnrw.
u ens +wMmw mvm. µw�imnMl
uN4 vN4knNS!}l'�',�Nrc�wl.
raw • ..
r
r umF wWa w wn
.. .w.

,, �, r r
,,

Mr:

.eNU 616 ! U1XM' �i
,wwunwwwwmwu�W��u� "w� XrxMnu "'X"^"''"h W* �rvMxa wdekmxa�.Mx p>TA f6 nM ^^-
1N�. """'"""""'"'d"�Y"%.i�' ��M W4 4A+�'XUuw,Xa�mvrMWM �tl iOGM 0.'h k^1 �s4�.".
�bhb+�elF,titM
jFqR&M' CREEK
�..... ar..n •�'�` CAN NMAA.ryF: JIMItl9krw 1dC

1! !
.... .. .... .... .. .. .. ...
777,

I�i , M �;

PLANTED STEMS PER ACRE
Vegetation Threshold
Vegetation Plot ID Met ?* Tract Mean
2 Yes
3 No 33%
4 No
* Target density is a minimum of 320 trees and shrubs per acre according to the "Forrest Creek Mitigation
Bank - Forrest Creck Sh-cam Restoration Site: Annual Monitoring Report Year 5 ", 2012,

V)
a
0
.40
o
m
0
m L
.9 0 c
0
:e
c
0

ax

LWm

IR

Al
E
ca CD a Ni 0 m (0
0)
'1" 0
CC6, 6
Vla
C) v CN
E
0) C)
m
E
CO CIO
0 LO
IN-
W, LO
E
+
(n
E —N
ai 0)
a)
U
r
I
0
> IST IF am 0) 01
>
C',
S
CL
0
CL M r
>
m co w En
0
V)
(D
0 W
IM
ry,
a) a) U)
m ca 2
af
CR
E .4
E
.9a
E
(o
z
-c r -a
m 5
-,e -0
CL OL
0 m
< (D a o (D
m 0 0
'a
C
E
w a)
0 j=
W W 0) (D 4) 0 w a)
0) cL a) (D 0
E
0
75 -5
0
cm
fa
(n (n
a r- a a c
14 i17 i17
E
>
.9
4
m
0 0
75
a
OL E fx
0 co 2 m m
CL r- c
0
75
:3
CL
'n 'o
v -0
(n 0) U)
U)
E E
U)
5�00aaxxxxxx:jro,:3=
Lo IT F2 2 IM 0
.0.0
U- U. LL
U-
UL U- U- U. U- LL -i -j
E
fJY
C)
x
10 w
19 V7 0) m
CN CV — 0Y C m co
v
E
C5
m
Lp
r_
L:
]S
C*? (P (P Ci
OR co 0) 0), 0)
CO CO W to M -q 'r- 0 M
CO N
"
x
CL a
z ca
0

A
VIII
E
CV2 qp
LO
+
42
(C? t-. cq (Q 'q 9 n (P 1
'7
m
V)
E
C) � CD V- 0 — — 0 1
0 Q CIS)
VIII
E
CV2 qp
LO
+
42
E
m
V)
E
E
a CL
10-1 2-
0
0
m
C)
,r In
CN
(D
0 0 0 0
0 W 0 V) 0
I=
'm > >
0
.52!
11
E
6.
cti
4�
So- '0, 0 E
E E
m
3
d n < <
46
0
(1)
0
C: C C a C: C 0
C
a o, a)
01
'a
2
E
0 0 0 (1) --v
IV
E
E E E
0 (9 (9 0 (D (D (D 0
0
(0
0
0
E E E
0 0 0 Yoh
w
=3
(D
N 3 m m
>
IS
E m m cc - 5 m
4a A A ,, > >
'5�
E E
(ii m w M M Q) 0) (D d) a), a) u).B M M r-
G
w 0 M a M a a CL n '10
n CU
- -5 :3 zs m 5 -z :3 .0
3
E E m
m m
0 0
x x x x x D
12 Lu 2 12 2
a)
E
C�
w
x
0) m m cq (0 cq m co 0, C> 0 m
Iq 'l, V-
E
a)
0 m 0) LO (0 0) m
06
00
>
.?S
E
0
IE c,) cw� 0� r--� -q 0) 1-- cN to — q to r" C) 0
r-
w
z
may,

E >
w 0
M In z 0 0
LO LO C) 00 U)
0) 1010,
m 0
t
I � I 1 1 I I -� 9 1 1-7
ci CD � C� 0— 0
]E
E, 0)
a
CL CL CL a 0. a
c
.2 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
ua c�a 0 m
0
se
< < < < < < < R: (,n A 0 o a
C 0 000 0 0
E 0 9) a) a) a) S o) a) 8 ,
. 9 l g g 0
C) �s
E E .
OE000000000"OE
0
0
M M M M Q (D ..do)
• 0 0
a a a a a a q c a a (1) 0. ca. CL
CL CL 0. A. a) 9 w a) w (u a) w (n In wi
CL CL L CL CL a • CL CL C, 2 R 0) w m
SE E
19! 2 Z t 20 2 2
L a) w 5 5 n a) w a)
C c. :J =3
— a
2 s -OCYOCOOD 00 0
T i La 'm" Ou M
U- U- LL LL IL LL U- LL LL LL LL
(D CY)
M r" N � " to CY} (0 U) rl- 0 LO W
C14
co
E
.2
(n
C)
m
E
+
4!
V)
E
M
E
0
U
to
cis
rl- 0
co
C14
E
E
it
>
0
ID
V
N
0
0
E6
0)
C2
cm
wi
X
.�e
E
E
z'
L) CD
x
14)
p
0)
0 0
0
0
J- ,
>
ol
E >
w 0
M In z 0 0
LO LO C) 00 U)
0) 1010,
m 0
t
I � I 1 1 I I -� 9 1 1-7
ci CD � C� 0— 0
]E
E, 0)
a
CL CL CL a 0. a
c
.2 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
ua c�a 0 m
0
se
< < < < < < < R: (,n A 0 o a
C 0 000 0 0
E 0 9) a) a) a) S o) a) 8 ,
. 9 l g g 0
C) �s
E E .
OE000000000"OE
0
0
M M M M Q (D ..do)
• 0 0
a a a a a a q c a a (1) 0. ca. CL
CL CL 0. A. a) 9 w a) w (u a) w (n In wi
CL CL L CL CL a • CL CL C, 2 R 0) w m
SE E
19! 2 Z t 20 2 2
L a) w 5 5 n a) w a)
C c. :J =3
— a
2 s -OCYOCOOD 00 0
T i La 'm" Ou M
U- U- LL LL IL LL U- LL LL LL LL
(D CY)
M r" N � " to CY} (0 U) rl- 0 LO W

iii �

Mr. Thomas Rinker
131113X-Elml LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3 1 OlO
Raleigh, IBC 27606
Re: Additional Monitoring Required
Forrest Creek Buffer Bank Parcel
Dear Mr, Rinker.
Julio E Skyalla, III
I
S"felary
DWQ Project IV 2008�0229
Orange County
On December 4, 201.2, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received a Year 5, Monitoring Report for time
Forrest Creek Buffer Mitigation Bank and a request forcloso-ollt, On April] 5, 2013, Katie Merritt and
Jennifer Burdette with tile Division of Water Quality (DWQ) visited the site along with TOMMY COUsills
and Noilon Webster from EBX-EM, LIX (EBX) to evaluate (lie success of tile riparian buffer restoration.
Eric Kulz from DWQ and Monte Matthews with the Army Corps of 11-jigineers (A OE) were also present
to evaluate the success of the strealli mitigation. During the site evaluation for riparian buffer restoration,
Ms, Merrill noted the following:
1. Significant areas, within Zone I of" the riparian buffer along tile entire reach of the Forrest Creck
alitipition site appeared to lack adequate stern counts most likely due to soil type and hydrology
issues. Stem ns that were present in Zone I were mostly suntan, indicating they may have been Part
ofstippleiiieiii,alpinjititigperfori,ned inn 2OlOi°equiredbyDWQaiidACOE,
ct igg u1i : EBX shall reevaluate, Zone I throughout the entire mitigated porlions of
;A— _Rg-Alrd
Forrest Creek and provide a remedialion plan sufficient to provide adequate vegetation in Zone I
Sufficient ground cover should be reestablished in all bare areas and, where adequate sterill counts
are absent, EBX shall plan( trees that are desirable for that specific soil type and hydrology.
DWQ reconuncods larger frees be planted, in some of tile i'most problematic areas along the reach,
Modifications to the approved buffer mitigation plan are allowed to provide EBX with tile
flexibility of choosing tree species and vegetation that are amore likely to survive and reach
maturity, EBX may make additional recommendations to promote site success,
Monitoring reports shall be submitted for 3 more years (2013, 2014 and 201 ) and shall record
only tile vegetation conditions along Zone I .
2. Zone, 2 of the riparian buffer along the mitigation site was deviled successful and no additional
monitoring in this area is require&
&tjon_ Inc %iHair gd: None
Waftods, Buffers, Stourmajer, Compliam and PoinAmi Unft
1650, Mad SerVwe Center, Moo. FOW) CafflW 2M-1650
LocAn: 512 N. Sabbury St., Raleigh, Nodh Cmdm 27604 19x, Flow)
Now 919-807-63011 FAX [phone]
Internet: hOp:lodal,ned(�nrmgNieb%v4%wPM$Msbscare
An CquA Oppoflun4 k Affir Ac*n CnV"
NNOcaa"tht Cawo I in �i

EBX-EM, LLC
Forrest Creek Buffer Bark
Page 2 of 2
May 3, ,2,013
3, Cattle fencing was down 1,11, Illany areas along the mitiption site, Also noted was that cattle had
beers present Within the buffer mitigation art ms and along the stre, am banks,
Aqj:p-jjAqqLjr4' Replacc or restot"e all fencing where necessary
4 DWQ noted that the presence of beavers is still posing a problem on this site.
&AptLRqo mit vjM: Place meshing material around the bottoins, of larger trees in Zone l that
may he more prone to beaver activity®
5, The existing conservation easement has yet to be transforredlassigned to an approved land trust or
stewardship, Please note: that this action must be completed Prior tsar final credit release.
A retmediation plan with dates provided for implementation shall be provided to DWQ no later than July
1, 2013 addressing the actions listed above, Pictures showing site conditions before the remediation are
requested to be included in the rernediation plan. me remaining credit release for (his site is 10 percenc
However, this remaining credit release is intended for the close out of the buffer mitigation bank, It is
anticipated that the credit release of 10% will be provided when all monitoring, as indicated above, has
proved that the riparian buffer restoration is successful and that Item (5), above has been completed,
Please feel free to contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
I
Wetlands. MOO-& StOr"IMICL COU"Uharice HW
3=
CC' FIle copy (Katie Merritt)
Tomnly CoAlsins - E.BX (via electronic mail)
Monte Matthews — Arimy Corps of F17ngincers (via electronic mail)