20150416 Ver 1_Comments on Baker's minutes for site visit _20161209

Baker, Virginia
From:Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, December 09, 2016 12:56 PM
To:Haupt, Mac; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:Baker, Virginia
Subject:RE: Comments on Baker's minutes for Russell Gap site visit
My notes reflect Mac and Ginny's for the most part. I noted a few differences:

R8-The only evidence of cattle was at road crossing, and this was recent access. Planting not needed in this stretch
except at crossing. Proposed E II.

R10-We agreed on E II (2:1)

R13-Andrea noted very little evidence of flow or hydric indicators in the soil in the channel.

R23-Wetlead feature. No stream credit.

R4A-The area above the barn, EII should be only option here. This isolated section breaks up the project and being
isolated limits what you can do here. There was a discussion about the hayfield near R26 and R4A, possibly being added
as wetland.

R24-This was a springhead drainage feature that was completely dry with no evidence of flow or hydric features in the
soil. Mac recommended installing a gauge to record flow. It was reported that cattle wallow in this area. From an
agricultural standpoint, this areas should be graded, piped into a watering tank and install a heavy use area for cattle
access to the tank.

Kim Browning
Mitigation Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone] ext. 60

-----Original Message-----
From: Haupt, Mac \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW
(US) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Comments on Baker's minutes for Russell Gap site visit

Todd,

Went through their letter and here's my take:

1

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...

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

2

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

3

919 807-6476 office

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

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

4