20140422 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20220603

From:
Davis. Erin B
To:
Baker. Caroline D
Subject:
FW: [External] RE: Withhold Hudson MY6 Credits
Date:
Tuesday, June 7, 2022 3:45:37 PM
Laserfiche Upload: Email
DWR#: 20140422 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Information
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 9:27 AM
To: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>;
Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Withhold Hudson MY6 Credits
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
I'm fine with waiting until close-out for a site visit and a report. For a site like that, it's probably best
to see it in winter anyway. There were just so many issues with that report. The cross -sections on
those streams were also a concern. I know Ed is unique with words, but perhaps you can assist him
with word-smithing the lower "swamp run" section. It behaves more like a headwater system, but
it's not in the headwaters, and he said it was a single channel swamp run. (V The flow data was
definitely a red flag for me. I agree that holding credit this year is the best option.
Kim (Browning) Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107
-----Original Message -----
From: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2022 8:19 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browningla�usace.army.mil>;
Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Casey.M.HaywoodCa�usace.army.mil>
Cc: Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Withhold Hudson MY6 Credits
Good morning,
Regarding the Hudson MY6 report that was to be revised and re -submitted prior to a credit release
site visit, I wanted to propose just withholding the MY6 credits until closeout next year. By the time
the report gets revised and a site visit scheduled, it's likely to be well into the fall and only a few
months out from a potential early closeout site visit anyway.

As far as the problems with the report, the confusing inclusion of data from the prior year (2020 veg
data, 2020 cross section data, MW 10 due to logger malfunction) shouldn't be an issue in MY7. I
think the biggest concern with the report was that a number of flow gauges were questionable
regarding whether they actually had 30 days of flow based on how the calculations were done, i.e.,
they counted days where the flow dropped below the thalweg for a part of the day. My proposal for
this is that they add a cumulative flow table with correctly re -calculated flows for every year in the
MY7 report.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thank you,
Jeremiah
Jeremiah Dow
Project Manager — Eastern Region
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.