20161077 Ver 1_RE Response to site visit notes_20161219

Strickland, Bev
From:Wiesner, Paul
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 2:41 PM
To:Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haupt, Mac; Baker, Virginia; Browning,
Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:RE: Response to site visit notes
Thanks Andrea. I have forwarded these initial comments to the providers.

Once Todd is back in the office and you have had time to review the memos provided, please let us know if there are any
additional comments.

We will revise the memos and finalize them as necessary.

Paul Wiesner
Western Project Management Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services

828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]

Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 1:12 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>;
Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Response to site visit notes
Importance: High

Hi Paul,

See below for responses to the provider's notes that we have received so far. I have been out of the office so I haven't
had a chance to review the provider's notes yet but I believe DWR and Kim captured any concerns/discrepancies in their
comments. Todd is out of the office until January 3 but may have additional comments when he returns. Please call if
you have questions.

1

Andrea

Fletcher Site:

DWR Comments:

I have reviewed Steve Melton's site notes and in general agree with the site minutes. It was interesting that I must have
missed two discussions,

first, the Weston Creek low slope discussion, which I am ok with, and secondly, where he stated the IRT indicated that
removal of overburden is typically considered creation, which I am not completely on board with (in some cases yes,
however, if you can show a complete buried profile then I think that would warrant restoration).

Harrell Site:

DWR Comments:

1.They should install gauges for this growing season in both areas they expect to receive wetland credit (rehab, re-
estab.).

2. There was also a brief discussion about the possibility of preserving the stream up to the headwater. They will need a
stream call for the top of the preservation reach.

3. For item numbers 8 and 9 I have some discrepancies in my notes. I know we talked about adding wells (and a rain
gauge which was not mentioned) to collect baseline data for the coming growing season up to construction time. My
notes say that we requested that data in both the enhancement area and the re-establishment areas. The re-
establishment area would be considered rehabilitation (hydrology and veg improvement) if found to be jurisdictional. I
don't have anything in my notes about calling the forested enhancement area re-habilitation, although I may not have
been present for that discussion.

Russell Gap:

DWR Comments:

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. I can live with EI.

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...
2

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

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...

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.

We 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

3

Corps comments:
Kim Browning:

My notes reflect DWR'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.

4