20200021 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20211221

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] FW: [Non-DoD Source] Re: SAW-2020-00650 Bull Chute (DMS) Project - Crossing & Groundwater
Wells
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 9:30:26 AM
Laserfiche Upload: Email
DWR#: 20200021 v.I
Doc Type: Mitigation Information
-----Original Message -----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:Kimberly.D.BrowningC&usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:43 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <erin.davis&cdenr.gov>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Casey.M.Haywood(ousace.army.mil>
Subject: [External] FW: [Non-DoD Source] Re: SAW-2020-00650 Bull Chute (DMS) Project - Crossing &
Groundwater Wells
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:rel2ort.sl2am(onc.gov>
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: Kevin Yates<clearwatermitigation(ogmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning(ousace.army.mil>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Grant Lewis<glewis(oaxiomenvironmental.org>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: SAW-2020-00650 Bull Chute (DMS) Project - Crossing & Groundwater Wells
Hey Kim,
Sorry for the fragmented response on this, but needed to confirm a few things on our side. Thanks for your feedback
on these proposed changes. Per your last email:
1) We will ensure the channel banks have proper slope/dimensions and are appropriately stabilized under the
bridges.
2) Noted, upstream and downstream pictures of crossings will be included.
3) The internal easement preference is noted for future reference. I'm hoping the bridges will be less maintenance
and have fewer debris jam issues than a traditional culvert, but comments are noted. In speaking with the land
owners they much prefer the bridges and are willing to properly care for them.
4) Regarding the groundwater gauges/wells, we are just going to keep the same number of wells as proposed in our
mitigation plan.
Have a great holiday!
-Kevin
Kevin Yates

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
919-624-6901
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:34 PM Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Kimberly.D.Browning(ousace.army.mil <mailto:Kimberly.D.BrowningCa)usace.armv.mil> > wrote:
Thanks Kevin. I discussed this with Travis and would offer the following comments on the bridge design,
based on past experience with these types of crossings:
1. The channel under the crossing needs to be designed with structure/rock to retain the appropriate channel
dimensions otherwise the banks will erode to the bridge supports due to the lack of vegetation.
2. You still need to include upstream and downstream photos of the crossing during monitoring to assure bank
stability at the bridge ends is not an issue.
3. I know it's likely too late on this one if we didn't make the change prior to final mitigation plan approval, but
these really need to be internal easements moving forward. As much as spanning structures are preferred, they will
likely require more maintenance overtime. Wooden decking will need to be replaced, the flat edge of the bridge
"girder" can be more susceptible to trapping debris or causing hydraulic issues during high flows, and landowner
repair could easily default to replacing with a culvert.
Regarding the wetland gauges, let me know how you propose to move forward. Looking back at the mitigation
plan you stated that " Groundwater saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12 % of the growing season for
reestablishment and improvement of hydrology in rehabilitation areas." So technically, you should also be
monitoring the rehabilitation area as well.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: Kevin Yates <[e-mail] <mailto:clearwatermiti atg ion �a)gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2021 7:45 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:Kimberly.D.BrowningC&usace.army.mil> >
Cc: Reid, Matthew <matthew.reid&cdenr.gov<mailto:matthew.reidnncdenr.gov> >
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] SAW-2020-00650 Bull Chute (DMS) Project - Crossing & Groundwater
Wells
Hey Kim,
Attached is a zip file with examples of the flat rack container bridge. Sorry didn't go through, had to resize one
of the bridge photos. Sure thing, we will document and justify in as -built.
Thanks for the thoughtful input on the monitoring wells. There was no pre -data collected for this site. Grant
was thinking we could reduce the number of monitoring wells, but let me share your thoughts with him and we'll get
back to you on this.
Appreciate it,
Kevin
Kevin Yates

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
919-624-6901
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:48 PM Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail] <mailto:Kimberly.D.Browning�&usace.anny.mil>
<mailto:Kimberly.D.BrowningC&usace.anny.mil > > > wrote:
Hi Kevin
I didn't get the Pictures of the bridges you referred to, only the monitoring map was attached. In general,
the preference is for a span -type crossings (e.g._ bridges_ bottomless arch -spans) if site constraints allow_ as these
tykes of crossings generally result in higher quality bed features that promote fish passage_ have increased flood
canacity_ and a reduced chance of perched outlets. I don't see an issue with replacing the 1iped crossings with
bridges as long as you include the design in the as -built, and document the changes and why they were made. In
addition to cost and availability_ I would suggest justif.�in,g the change based on the reasons I stated above.
Without knowing which monitoring wells you plan to omit_ I'm hesitant to agree to this. Are there existing
wells that collected pre -data? Since the wetlands are all spaced apart_ I'm not sure how you intend to show that
you're meeting hydroperiod performance standards without monitoring. Based on Figure 9_ I would support
removing one of the gauges along UT4 and the one just below the confluence of UT4B and UT4A (see the attached
highlighted map ... sonv if it looks like a kindergartner did that). But I feel like the rest of the gauges will provide
necessary documentation of hydrologic uplift.
One thing to consider is whether the final mitigation plan stated that functional uplift would be achieved
through wetland enhancement and rehabilitation by increasing hydrology. If so_ I noticed that none of the
enhancement or rehab areas are being monitored. This may be a situation where the IRT will request a verification
of jurisdictional features prior to close-out.
Feel free to send me a mock-up of your proposed monitoring changes with justification.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager,Re ug latory Division I U.S. Army CoLps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: Kevin Yates <clearwatenniti ation,a gmail.com <mailto:clearwatenniti ation,a gmail.com>
<mailto:clearwatermiti ation,a„gmail.com > > >
Sent: Tuesday. December 07.2021 9:53 PM
To: Browning_ Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly. D.Browning�a.usace.army.mil
<mailto:Kimberly.D.BrowningCq)usace.anny.mil> <mailto:Kimberly.D.Browning�a)usace.army.mil > > >
Cc: Matthew Reid <matthew.reid(a)ncdenr.,gov <mailto:matthew.reid(a-)ncdenr.gov>
<mailto:matthew.reid(a)ncdenr.,gov > > >
Subiect [Non-DoD Source] SAW-2020-00650 Bull Chute (DMS) Proiect - Crossing & Groundwater
Wells
Hem
Hope you are doing well. We are well underway with construction at Bull Chute (DMS project 100137 -
Yadkin 03 in Randolph Co.) and have couple questions for youregarding , crossings and ,groundwater monitoring
wells.
1) We are currently 1212roved for traditional 1iped crossings (mickey mouse design)_ however the cost and
availability of our 1ipe materials is like never before to say the least. Given the bridges are close in cost to our
proposed culvert crossings we'd like to install bridges in lieu of culverts at all (4) crossings. Attached are some pics

of the bridge we're looking in to, which is a steel frame with wooden timbers across the steel beams (re -purposed
flat rack container). They would be approximately 16-ft wide by 40-ft spans across streams, and stabilized banks
within or less of an impact footprint than our proposed pied crossings' fill and side slopes. KBS (contractor) has
installed several of these in the past. Historically. the IRT/Corps has had a preference for bridges over pipes, but
know that wasn't part of original mit plan, so wanted to run this by you and get your thoughts.
2) We included 9 groundwater monitoring wells for wetland hydrology on our monitoring Man figure e for
Bull Chute (figure attached), and are under contract for 1 WMU. I'd like to reduce the number of groundwater wells
down to 3 or 4 and to save some cost and monitor for (1) WMU, and like to know if this is possible?
Let me know your thoughts when you get a chance. Thanks. Kevin
Kevin Yates
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
919-624-6901