20190603 Ver 2_Mitigation Information_20210819

From:
Davis, Erin B
To:
Baker, Caroline D
Subject:
FW: [External] RE: Folly status and maps
Date:
Wednesday, November 3, 2021 9:41:16 AM
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20190603 v.2
Doc Type: Mitigation Information
From: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)[maiIto: [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 20218:05 AM
To: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Kim Browning <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Folly status and maps
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Chris and John,
I have reviewed the information you submitted in this email for modifying the
Folly Swamp mitigation plan. While the overall scope of the project has been
reduced you indicate that you would like to move forward with restoring
segments identified as Morgan Branch and Green Branch. Your concept plan
that was attached to this email was reviewed by myself and several other
members of the IRT and mitigation team. Below are comments that resulted
from the conceptual plan.
Morgan Branch:
- The amount of P2 proposed is a concern. The upper reach will not
provide significant functional uplift and will basically still only function as
a ditch. This was identified as a concern by IRT members during the initial
site visit.
- The P1 segment will increase the hydrology in the adjacent agricultural
fields outside of the proposed easement. My rough calculation indicates
approximately 8 acres of adjacent active agricultural field has the
potential to increase the hydo-period that would create a hydraulic
trespass issue. This can be seen in the attached color LiDAR. Wildlands
does not control this area and can not prevent the adjacent landowner

from implementing drainage structures that would remove hydrology
from the mitigation project.
The lower P2 segment carries concern of not providing significant
functional uplift. During the JD for this site there was little to no flow in
this area.
- The bottom of Morgan Branch is concerning because it is controlled by
the Drainage District. Wildlands can not provide long term control
because of this and it poses the same issue as the removed Folly Swamp
segment. The entire Morgan Branch segment flows through a culvert
under the Drainage District maintained access easement. The USACE has
stated our concern about mitigation projects being sited within areas
controlled by Drainage District easements.
Green Branch:
- This segment may have issues with watershed size.
- As stated before on this and other projects, culverts within a restoration
area always cause problems for long-term maintenance.
For the overall project the IRT has stated it's concern about fragmentation and
mitigation sites.
We have set a time to discuss this response tomorrow. Let me know if you
would like to have that discussion or move it to a later date.
Kyle
From: Chris Roessler <croesslerPwildlandseng.com>
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 7:56 AM
To: Barnes, Kyle W CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <KvIe.W.Barnes(@usace.army.mil>; Tugwell, Todd J
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell(@usace.army.mil>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.Q.Browning(@usace.army.mil>
Cc: John Hutton <ihutton(@wildlandseng.com>

Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Folly status and maps
Kyle, Todd, and Kim,
We intended to resubmit the Folly Swamp mitigation plan some weeks ago, but one of the
landowners, Mike Barker, backed out after agreeing to participate in the project. So we are
proposing what's in the attached map and credit table. More details will be provided in the
mitigation plan but we have added buffer area, included biological monitoring, and addressed the
IRT's comments as we have previously communicated.
Would you please let us know if it the IRT would be willing to consider a revised mitigation plan as
we propose? We understand the Greene Branch portion of the project may be unsuitable without
the drainage restriction conservation easement but are willing to follow through if it is acceptable to
the IRT.
There are no changes to the Morgan Branch portion of the project.
Credit totals for the two options would be approximately 5,400 with Greene and Morgan Branches
included and 3,700 with only Morgan Branch. We would submit the Acorn Hill preservation site as a
second site under this UMBI after the initial credit release for the Folly Swamp project.
Please let us know and we will look to submit a revised MP as soon as possible.
Thanks very much,
John and Chris
Chris Roessler I Senior Scientist/ProjectManager
0: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, INC 27609

f