20080879 Ver 2_VB Email Comments_20170113

Baker, Virginia
From:Wiesner, Paul
Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2017 4:52 PM
To:Baker, Virginia
Cc:Haupt, Mac; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:RE: Logan Creek
Hi Ginny,

This project site has an interesting past with both EEP/DMS and the USACE. It is a good project but some regulatory
constraints were discovered during the mitigation plan stage. It is pre-instrument so the IRT did not review the
mitigation plan prior to implementation.

I am going to have Baker address your questions directly as it is a FD project. We will get you this info to you all
quickly.

If you have additional questions or would like to visit the site please let me know.

Thanks

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.

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 4:38 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Logan Creek

Hey Paul I was just cleaning up some loose ends form last’s year’s monitoring reports/as-builts before next year’s arrive.

1

I had a question for you on Logan Creek MY0 (DWR# 20080879 and DMS 92515) and changes that were made from the
mit plan proposal (see attached).

The main thing was that two streams UT7 and UT8 were added, these are short segments, but there was no DWR
stream rating or baseline information of any kind provided (not sure about a JD) in the MY0 report. I see that Baker
asked to include these streams for credit so DWR would want more information on them (DA etc).

Also the proposed preservation was changed from 560 to 287 and UT1, UT2,UT3R1, UT4 were changed from EI to EII
with minor changes in stream length. I see the reasoning for the approach change from EI to EII given in the report and
reduction of the preservation reach due to issues with the CE. I know there were permit conditions regarding credit
adjustments for narrow buffers so there may be potential concern for credit loss by Baker?

Ginny Baker
Transportation Permitting Unit
NCDEQ-Division of Water Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone-[phone], Fax-[phone]

2