The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20150416 Ver 1_Comments on Baker's minutes for site visit _20161208 Strickland, Bev From:Baker, Virginia Sent:Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:16 PM To:Haupt, Mac; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) Subject:RE: Comments on Baker's minutes for Russell Gap site visit Hi All, I generally also agreed with all of Scott’s detailed notes. For R8 among ourselves we had talked about the high quality of the stream for an EII but we did let that one slide ratio wise. It had been pointed out and should be recorded in the notes, as Mac said, that it looked like the cattle had only recently gotten access to the stream. We had also talked some about the concern that the proposed re-establishment W1 area might not be entirely successful which was part of the reason Baker was encouraged to add the wetland enhancement areas. Ginny From: Haupt, Mac Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 4:09 PM To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Andrea.W.Hughes@usace.army.mil>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil> Cc: Baker, Virginia <virginia.baker@ncdenr.gov> Subject: Comments on Baker's minutes for Russell Gap site visit Todd, Went through their letter and here’s my take: 1.R1-agree 2.R2-we really did not discuss this are much, I see this area as a EI/R or R reach 3.R3-This whole area at the end of the project, R2-R3-R4 is as I stated above more of an EI/R or R reach, what I am getting at here is I think there is opportunity to do a fair amount of work to the channel (bed and bank). I am fine with EI. I would rather see the work that needs to be done, which in my view approaches a Restoration approach. 4.R4- their comments reflect my view, can live with EI, will be interesting to see how much work gets done here… 5.R4a- ok with their comments 6.R5- ok, don’t think we looked at this too much or had any concerns 7.R6- ok with the comments 8.R7a-b, I think they captured what we discussed here… 9.R8- Actually what I said to Jake was, “…it looks like someone came and opened up the fence and put some hay down and now the cows are in…looks very recent and the stream was essentially untouched…” Jake said it has been like that for at least 2 years… I can go with EII but that’s essentially a compromise… 10.R9- their comments captured the discussion 11.R10- don’t remember that we resolved it at 2:1 but I am ok with that… 12.R11- ok with their comments 13.R12- ok with comments 14.R13- I said that I wanted a gauge just below the relict dam feature in the EI section and then lower down (midway) in the R reach 15.R14- ok with comments here, looks like they included my above comment in this section… 1 16.R15- their comments are accurate, this reach probably should not be included, will have to keep watch on this one 17.R16- agree with their comments, removed 18.R17- ok with comments 19. R18- ok with comments 20.R19- ok with comments, need a gauge in this one as well 21.R20- ok with comments, as long as they have flow… 22.R21-don’t recall this reach 23.R22- ok with comments 24.R23- at the end of the discussion, the IRT agreed is was a wetland feature draining to the stream. I may have mentioned about a gauge but in the end I said this was a wetland feature 25.R24-I thought on this one we recommended this be another wetland drainage feature. I would suggest that this be removed from stream credit and be wetland. 26.R25- agreed with the comments 27.R26- agreed with the comments 28.R27- ok with comments, should name it Todd Branch… Ok, in general I think they captured things pretty well. One thing I would add, we did not really look at the wetland a lot along Davis Creek, probably because it was so dry. I would urge them to use more than less gauges. Sometimes Baker tends to be stingy with their gauges. Took me awhile to get thru that… Call if you have questions or comments. Mac Mac Haupt, LSS Stream & Wetland Mitigation Coordinator 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Quality 919 807-6476 office mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov 512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 942-K, Raleigh, NC 27604 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties 2