20181033 Ver 1_01-08-2020 IRT Meeting Minutes_20200115

Strickland, Bev
From: Furr, Benjamin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:18 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac;
Davis, Erin B; Leslie, Andrea J
Cc: Miller, Vickie M. (Raleigh); Ryan Smith
Subject: [External] Owen Farms 01-08-2020 Meeting Minutes
Attachments: 2020_01_08_IRT Meeting Minutes.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
W
Thank you again for attending the meeting to discuss the Owen Farms Mitigation site. I have attached the draft
meeting minutes from last week's meeting for your review and comment. Please provide comments prior to
January 22, if possible. I will incorporate comments received and submit the Final Meeting Minutes along with
the revised Project Asset Map and Response to IRT Comments to DMS and the IRT.
Thank you,
Benjamin N. Furr I Senior Consultant
Land Management Groups Environmental Consultants
3101 Poplarwood Court, Suite 120 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
Cell: 919.588.9663 1 www.lmgroup.net
4LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY —paoy
1

Meeting Minutes
Project: Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS # 100064)
Subject: IRT Meeting to Discuss Comments on Mitigation Plan
Date: Wednesday, January 08, 2020
Location: USACE Office, Wake Forest, NC
Attendees: Ryan Smith (LMG)
Paul Wiesner (via phone, DMS)
Mac Haupt (DWR)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Ben Furr (LMG)
Vickie Miller (HDR)
Erin Davis (DWR)
Andrea Leslie (via phone, WRC)
The IRT meeting to discuss comments on the Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan was held
at 10:00am on Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at the USACE Office in Wake Forest. The following
represents highlights of discussions that occurred during the meeting:
1. Mac Haupt began by reviewing DWR comments, specifically regarding DWR concerns about
bench width on West Fork French Broad River (WFFBR). DWR stated that they are concerned
bench width is too narrow and may result in stream bank erosion, particularly through the reach
depicted on plan sheets 5 and 6. HDR understands concerns voiced by DWR and assured all in
attendance that proposed conditions models and previous experience have been reviewed to
determine bank stress on proposed conditions.
2. Mac also discussed concerns about UT 3 originating in a headwater wetland and whether it will
maintain single channel flow throughout the monitoring period. LMG explained that the
enhancement work on UT 3 is simply being done to stabilize UT 3 as it converges with WFFBR
and that there should be enough slope through the enhanced reach of UT 3 to maintain single
channel flow. LMG stated that additional discussion will be added in the mitigation plan to
explain why enhancement 1 is necessary on UT 3.
3. USACE questioned why some of the ratios and proposed mitigation approaches were changed
between the proposal phase and the mitigation plan phase. LMG explained that additional data
was collected during the design phase that led to revisions in mitigation approach in certain
areas.

4. Mac questioned the floodplain interceptors and associated typical in the design sheets.
Specifically, DWR wants to make sure that mitigation credit is not being granted to reaches with
large portions of rip -rap along the stream banks. LMG explained that floodplain interceptors are
typically small (i.e. — 5 feet wide) and intended to stabilize the bank in areas where concentrated
overland flow enters the stream channel. LMG also stated that the intent is to use native
material from on -site to construct the floodplain interceptors where material is readily available.
LMG will add a statement on the typical, detailing use of native material.
5. Todd Tugwell asked a question about why an impervious channel plug was shown overlapping
the wetland enhancement area on plan sheet 5, near the confluence of UT 5 and WFFBR. LMG
noted that it appears to be a mistake and that it will be corrected on the plan sheets and credit
tables to ensure that wetland enhancement credit is not being generated where channel plugs
and/or floodplain interceptors are being installed. Wetlands that are currently shown as
enhancement where UT 5 will be filled will be changed to wetland restoration since that area is
not an existing wetland but will revert to wetlands once construction has been completed. DWR
also mentioned that the area near the confluence of UT 5 and WFFBR may be a weak point in
the left bank of WFFBR given the close proximity of W3 to the stream bank. LMG explained that
soil lifts with toe wood and impervious channel plugs would be installed along the left bank at
this location to promote bank stability.
6. USACE and DWR also have questions concerning the limits of construction lines shown on plan
sheet 11 and why they extended into wetland re-establishment/re-habilitation areas. LMG
explained that restoration of UT 5 at this location was a Priority I restoration and that there
would not be a bench cut to the limits of construction as there is on WFFBR. The limits of
construction lines on UT 5 will be revised to more accurately depict where grading will occur.
7. Andrea Leslie explained that WRC wanted language added to the Mitigation Plan stating that
some amount of herbaceous dominated coverage within wetlands on -site was acceptable and
appropriate based on reference bog complexes in the area. LMG agreed to add language to the
performance standards section and adaptive management sections of the Mitigation Plan to
discuss the potential for herbaceous dominated areas within wetlands on -site. WRC also
requested that additional shrubby species be included with the planting plan for W3 to improve
diversity (swamp rose was mentioned as an example). LMG stated that additional shrubby
species could be added to the planting plan but questioned how that would affect performance
standards (i.e. would areas planted with mostly shrubby species still be held to the same vigor
standards as tree species). USACE stated that the Swamp Forest/Bog complex communities are
naturally dominated by shrubby and herbaceous species and would not be held to the same
vigor standards as communities dominated by tree species. Everyone agreed that there are few,
if any good reference Swamp Forest/Bog complex communities in the vicinity of the project and
WRC suggested using Schafale and Weakley as a reference for potential vegetation that could be
added to the planting plan to improve diversity. WRC also asked if herbaceous species would be
planted in the wetlands. LMG explained that the existing wetlands already exhibit a variety of
herbaceous wetland species but that any disturbed and/or restored wetland areas would be
planted with a native riparian seed mix. LMG will add the native seed mix to the planting plan
within the Mitigation Plan.
8. Credit Ratio Discussion:

a. LMG explained that tributary reaches were lumped together from a crediting standpoint
to avoid having too many small reaches with different credit ratios (as was discussed
during the initial IRT site walk). DWR and USACE agreed with this approach but
disagreed with some of the credit ratios allocated to certain tributaries.
b. Following discussion about the varying degrees of cattle impact across the site, buffer
widths, and opportunity for functional uplift at each tributary, the following credit ratios
were agreed upon for each tributary (ratios that were changed from what was proposed
in the Mitigation Plan are highlighted):
i. UT 1 (4:1)
ii. UT 2 (3.5:1)
iii. UT 2A (2.5:1)
iv. UT 2B (2.5:1)
v. UT 3 (1.5:1)
vi. UT 4 (2.5:1)
vii. UT 4A (2.3:1)
viii. UT 4B (4:1)
ix. UT 5 (1:1)
x. UT 6 (10:1)
xi. UT 6A (10:1)
xii. UT 7 (R = 1:1, E2 = 3.5)
xiii. UT 7A (10:1)
xiv. UT 7B (2.5:1)
xv. UT 8 (1:1)
c. LMG will update the Mitigation Plan to reflect the credit ratios listed above. Kim
Browning requested a more detailed discussion on how HDR determined ratios for each
stream reach. LMG agreed to add language to the Mitigation Plan to provide more
explanation on how some stream reaches are lumped together to determine credit
ratio (for example UT 4). LMG will also add discussion in the Mitigation Plan to explain
that the beaver dams on UT 2 appear to be relic (i.e. not active beaver dams).
9. Utility Lines:
a. LMG explained that there is an existing utility easement overlapping the conservation
easement.
b. USACE explained that an exception for utility maintenance will need to be included in
the stewardship transfer document and requested that language also be added to the
Mitigation Plan discussing this issue.
c. LMG clarified that no stream or wetland credits were being generated within the utility
easement.
d. USACE suggested using a different stream centerline color for portions of streams within
utility easements that are not generating credits. LMG will modify Project Asset Map
(Figure 17) accordingly.
e. Line style on plan sheets for utility lines needs to be changed from "existing" to
"proposed". LMG will modify plan sheets accordingly.

f. IRT requested that shrubby species be planted in the wetland rehabilitation area within
the utility easement. LMG will update the Planting Plan to include the area within the
utility easement.
10. USACE questioned the extent of grading that would occur within wetland restoration areas.
LMG explained that restoration of W3 would require grading to a depth of less than 11 inches
and that grading within W5 restoration areas would consist of removing distinct spoil piles
adjacent to UT 7. USACE suggested adding language to the Mitigation Plan describing that
distinct spoil piles will be removed as part of W5 restoration.
11. DMS asked what the IRT needed to move forward with approval of the Mitigation Plan. The IRT
requested that HDR submit the following items for review and final approval of the Mitigation
Plan:
a. Revised Response to IRT Comments
b. Revised Project Asset Map (Figure 17)
c. Final Meeting Minutes from 01-08-2020 meeting