20080879 Ver 2_Mitigation Email_20170123

Baker, Virginia
From:Clemmons, Micky <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:27 AM
To:Baker, Virginia
Subject:RE: Logan Creek - DMS Project # 92515
OK, we will get this info together and look forward to the site visit.
mc

From: Baker, Virginia \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:24 AM
To: Clemmons, Micky <[e-mail]>; 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: RE: Logan Creek - DMS Project # 92515

Hi Micky,
Thanks for the quick follow up to my questions with Paul. I realized and confirmed with Paul that the IRT has not been
out to this site since it is pre-Instrument, so a site visit for the IRT to see these channels and do a general walk around
would be a good idea. Any information you can provide before the site visit on these channels in addition to your
comments below (eg, drainage area, measurements, pictures) would be helpful prior to the site visit.
Thanks Micky

From: Clemmons, Micky \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 1:27 PM
To: Baker, Virginia <[e-mail]>; 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: RE: Logan Creek - DMS Project # 92515

Ginny,
Just to me clear, what I said was that for these very short reaches we could use the existing channels above
the restored reach and our memory. This should not be a problem for UT8 where there is existing channel
upstream of the easement line. UT7 will be more difficult because the restored channel connects directly to
a wetland area. However, we agree that if you have concerns a visit is the best approach.
Micky

From: Baker, Virginia \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:00 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]>; Clemmons, Micky
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Logan Creek - DMS Project # 92515

Hi Paul,
1

I think a site visit is needed here. The accuracy of ratings forms done by memory really aren’t the best. Would it make
more sense to do this site visit during closeouts in August since there are just 6 sites or schedule it in with the credit
release site visits (if there is a western site). You may know of an RFP site visit to be scheduled in that area. I think it will
just be checking on these two UTs…. are there other site issues of concern, aside from buffer widths? I would think
some other members of the IRT would like to see this site as well. Were cross section measurements or longitudinal
measurements taken when designing the channels? What about the drainage area size of the UTs?

I figured there were financial concerns on Baker’s part with this site. Thank you for the explanation.

Ginny

From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 11:15 AM
To: Baker, Virginia <[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]>; Clemmons, Micky
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Logan Creek - DMS Project # 92515

Ginny,
Please see Baker’s response below. Let us know if you have any additional questions.
I would also recommend a site visit since there have been concerns and this is a non-instrument project.
If you can provide me with some dates in May 2017 that work for a site visit, I will set it up with Baker.
Thanks in advance
Paul

From Baker Engineering (Micky Clemmons) on 1/20/17:
I am responding to your request for information to address the questions that were asked by Ms. Ginny Baker
with the Division of Water Resources, a representative on the Interagency Review Team. I understand her
questions to be these:
1.“Is there pre-construction information on the two streams that Michael Baker added to those stream

reaches for which we have requested mitigation credit in the As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report”?
2.It is hard to determine if there was a question associated with the last sentence or if it was only a

statement about project permit conditions. We will assume that she is asking “if we have concerns
about credit loss at closeout of this project”.
Question 1: We do not have pre-construction stream rating forms for these two short segments. The reason is
that originally we did not need to seek credit for these two short segments as we had plenty of longer reaches,
on larger streams to provide the contracted SMUs. However, when our contract with the State was damaged
by the actions of the landowners, as explained in the report, we could no longer meet the requirements of our
contract. We were placed in a situation where we needed to use all streams that were being restored, within
the footprint of the project for credit. This is because we have a specific number of feet of stream that are
available for us to seek credit on. Both of these stream reaches were stabilized and extended to a confluence
2

with the new channel. We are requesting credit based on the extent of restoration work needed on each
channel. If the DWR staff need additional information we can provide this based on our memory of the
preexisting channels and the existing channels upstream of our project. We will produce rating forms for
these two channels and provide them with the next monitoring report, or sooner if DWR desires. If they want
additional information or would like to visit the site and examine these channels, we can meet these desires as
well.
Questions 2: We are always concerned about credit loss associated with buffer widths, particularly on projects
that were established long before the IRT and the present day thinking about buffer widths. Ms. Baker’s
statement pointed out conditions addressing buffer widths that were included on the project 404
Permit. These conditions were issued six years after the easement was recorded, which underlines the
concerns we have regarding the way the IRT considers buffers. However, the buffer widths at this site are
generally greater than 30 feet in width, in some areas much greater. Areas where the buffer is less than 30’
are minimal and would be well less than 4% of the total stream bank length. There is one spot on UT5, the
preservation reach, that has a buffer width well less than 30’ for a short length along one bank. This is
because there is a another easement that requires no buffer disturbance along this area. If the IRT decides
that this is unacceptable we will not seek credit for this length of the channel but utilize other stream length
that is within the easement but for which we are presently not seeking credit. Again, this odd situation is
based on there being a certain number of feet the USACOE allowed us to utilize for mitigation at this site. We
are hopeful that the IRT will consider the entire buffer issue at closeout and in so doing find that there are no
reasons for credit loss.
We would be glad to meet with the DWR staff at this project site to review it, if that would better meet their
needs or if they require further written clarification, let me know.

Micky Clemmons | Project Manager - Ecosystem Restoration | Michael Baker International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 | Asheville, NC 28806 | \[O\] 828-412-6100 | \[M\] 828-734-7445
[e-mail] | www.mbakerintl.com

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: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:06 AM
3

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: RE: Logan Creek

Hi Paul,
Thank you for the quick response. Yes I figured this was pre-instrument with a 2008 proj#, looks like it just took some
years to get off the ground. Thanks for forwarding this on to Baker. I would recommend that we see this site in the next
year or two when we are out that way. Or possibly we could just request a regional staff member check out those add-
on streams. It was not clear why they were not in the original plan.

I reviewed this a while ago when I had made update’s to our records with the all MY0 monitoring plans, this was the only
one I had a question on.

Thanks,
Ginny

From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 4:52 PM
To: Baker, Virginia <[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: 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

4

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.

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]

5