20021217 Ver 1_IRT Meeting Minutes-Summary_20030403

Backwater Environmental, Division of Osborne Company, In . [e-mail]
2312 New Bern Ave. Raleigh N.C. 27610 [phone]
27 March 2003
Mike Bell
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers APR 3 nu
u
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000 WATER QUALM SECTION
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Re: Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank, Lenoir County North Carolina
Mitigation Banking Review Team Meeting Minutes/Summary, March 11, 2003
Dear Mike:
On behalf of Restoration Systems (Sponsor), thank you for holding the Mitigation Banking Review
Team (MBRT) site visit on 11 March 2003 for the Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank in
Lenoir County. The meeting minutes/summary of discussions are attached for review. As discussed
during the meeting, we understand that the MBRT will provide comments concerning the Mitigation
Plan and meeting minutes. Subsequently, the Mitigation Plan will be revised to address MBRT
concerns.
Due to site conditions, we hope to begin construction in June of 2003, prior to signing of the
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). The Nationwide Permit (NWP) #27 issued for this project
contains a condition requiring approval of the Mitigation Plan prior to impacting wetlands. We
anticipate that a letter would be issued by USACE that approves the revised Mitigation Plan and/or
activates the NWP#27, once edits are incorporated.
We understand that USACE will determine the MBI format for this project. The existing MBI for the
Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank may be modified to include this abutting, Sleepy Creek
project. Alternatively, a separate MBI would be prepared. Please let us know how to proceed with
development of the Mitigation Banking Instrument for the Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact George Howard (919-755-9490) or Wes Newell (919-
523-4375) at yqd[ convenience.
AL
a
Wes Newell, NCRCPS; PWS
Division President
cc: MBRT members identified in attached minutes
Attachments
MEETING MINUTES/SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)
March 11, 2003
1.0 MBRT MEMBERS
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Mike Bell / Bill Bittlecombe
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: Michael.F.Bell.Ausace.arm
Travis Wilson
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: Travis.Wilson&ncwildlife.org
Jerry McCrain
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Phone: 919-82$-3433
FAX: [phone]
email: McCrain&ecosciencenc.com
George Howard / John Pryer / Worth Creech / Joe Carroll
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: GeoMeArestorationsystems.com
Wes Newell
Backwater Environmental
2312 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh N.C. 27610
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 6
ABSENT MBRT MEMBERS
Gary Jordan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office, Raleigh Field Office
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh N.C. 27606
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Kathy Matthews
Wetlands 15th floor
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
John Hennessy
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Phone:[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Newell prepared a handout for MBRT use that included an outline of potential topics for discussion (attached as
Appendix A). The major headings (ex: 2.0 Reference Wetland Review) follow this outline; the minor headings
(ex: Beaver) follow actual topics discussed during the meeting.
2.0 REFERENCE WETLAND REVIEW
Reference Wetlands
Newell indicated that the MBRT had the option to visit the steady state forest reference on the Neuse River at Hardy
Bridge Road, approximately 10 miles from the Site. The reference includes riverine swamp forest and bottomland
hardwood forest similar to conditions on-site. The MBRT decided to postpone the off-site reference wetland visit
during the current meeting due to rain and river flooding.
Newell indicated that the auxiliary watershed flowing into the reference swamp forest encompasses approximately
one square mile of land area. However, swamp forest watersheds on river floodplains are hard to quantify because
significant flows migrate down-valley, paralleling river flow direction along the outer edge of the floodplain (i.e.
never reaching the river).
Howard showed photographs of the steady state swamp forest reference wetland along the outer edge of the Neuse
River floodplain.
Bell stated that cypress-tupelo swamp forest restoration has not had much success in North Carolina.
The MBRT visited the early successional, on-site reference wetlands comprising the Bear Creek-Mill Branch
Mitigation Bank located immediately south of and adjacent to the Sleepy Creek site, on the opposite side of
Washington Street.
Howard stated that the Bear Creek-Mill Branch mitigation bank was constructed in the fall and winter of 2001.
Page 2 of 6
Newell stated that the Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Plan followed the same format as the Bear Creek-Mill
Branch Mitigation Plan.
Mitigation Bauldng Instrument
McCrain asked if the Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank would require a separate Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) or if the Bear Creek-Mill Branch MBI could be modified to include Sleepy Creek.
Bell stated that he would discuss modifying the existing MBI with Brooke Lamson and would get back to the
Sponsor on this issue.
Preyer indicated that the N.C. Coastal Land Trust will hold one conservation easement and management fund for
one site (both projects), so final disposition remains the same on one manageable land area.
Carroll indicated that Restoration Systems would prefer to modify the existing MBI because of the site's abutting
proximity and similar features.
Beaver
Newell pointed out the location of early successional, bottomland hardwood forest and cypress-tupelo swamp forest
habitat within the reference areas of the Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank. The impact of beaver and
potential beaver management options were discussed.
Preyer stated that beaver trapping results in a variety of other mammals being killed with associated
impacts to habitat and that this problem was only getting worse.
Newell stated that these types of ecosystems commonly support beaver. Beaver destroy large quantities of planted
seedlings/saplings and vegetation success criteria may need to be changed. Beaver also induce hydrologic changes
in the landscape that make differentiation between cypress-tupelo swamp forest and bottomland hardwood forest
areas difficult in the early years. Beaver may cause areas of emergent wetlands behind dams and where tree
seedlings are destroyed. Newell suggested that the MBRT needed to look at finding a way to co-exist with
the beaver.
Bell indicated that beaver are a part of the habitat and that it is very unlikely that beaver could ever be removed from
a riverine swamp forest.
The MBRT needs to evaluate beaver management, primarily concerning tree seedling survival / success criteria, in
swamp forest restoration, where seasonal to semi-permanent inundation is a mitigation objective.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Newell indicated that success criteria in the mitigation plan differs between bottomland hardwood, swamp forest,
and emergent wetland areas. Bottomland hardwood forest typically supports a diversity of tree species. Swamp
forest is typically dominated by either cypress or tupelo in a clumped distribution. Emergent wetlands support few
trees, primarily due to removal by beaver. Success criteria is 5 tree species in bottomland hardwood, 1 tree species
in swamp forest, and no tree species in emergent wetlands. This level of tree species diversity has been quantified
in the reference wetlands.
Travis stated that tree planting in swamp forest should include cypress, swamp tupelo, and water tupelo (not only
one species) but that establishment may occur in a clumped distribution over time.
Bell agreed that swamp forest typically exhibits low tree species diversity due to long term inundation. Emergent
wetlands/beaver impoundments can only be used to mitigate for similar wetland impacts.
Page 3 of 6
Newell stated that the location of bottomland hardwood forest, swamp forest, and emergent wetlands is difficult to
predict due primarily to beaver and flooding impacts on the landscape. The areas mapped within these three
communities will change over the 5 year monitoring period. The general areas identified in each community is
depicted in Figure 9 of the mitigation plan. Accurate land classification into bottomland hardwood, swamp forest,
and emergent wetlands would be performed during each monitoring year.
Riverine Wetland Classification
Bell asked how the site is classified as riverine.
Newell stated that auxiliary watersheds are being diverted into historic backwater sloughs within the river
floodplain. These auxiliary watersheds have been diverted into canals through cropland under existing conditions.
The Sleepy Creek site supports a watershed of approximately one square mile. The Mill Branch Site supports a
watershed of approximately 3.5 square miles. The reference swamp forest supports an auxiliary watershed of
approximately one square mile. These auxiliary watersheds will induce seasonal to semi-permanent inundation
within riverine wetland restoration areas. In addition, Bear Creek is projected to flood onto the site at a 5-year
return interval.
Bell indicated that the current definition of riverine wetland mitigation typically utilizes placement of a stream gauge
and identification of land surfaces inundated by stream flooding. However, swamp forest restoration (braided
streams) may represent a different case in this instance.
Bell asked how the wells on the Mill Branch did in 2002. Newell stated that wetland hydroperiods ranged from 11 %
to 100% of the growing season with inundation from incoming surface water exhibited on most of the wells.
Bittlecombe stated that the frequency of stream flooding onto the riverine wetland restoration that was typically
required for mitigation varies but may range from several times a year to every 2 years or more dependent upon soil
type and regional physiography.
McCrain stated that this riverine wetland definition was a change relative to past projects. For impacts, riverine
wetlands have been classified based upon floodplain (landscape) position and functional association with the stream
or river, even if flooding occurs infrequently.
Bell indicated that the definition has not changed on any project inwhich he has been involved.
3.0 ON-SITE REVIEW
The MBRT entered the proposed mitigation bank on the west side of Bear Creek at the access road on the creek
levee.
Outf dl Water Control Structures
Preyer pointed out a beaver that had been trapped by the farmer on the outfall canal/culvert to Bear Creek..
The storm water that flows off the site will drop over a -10% slope at low stage in Bear Creek (6-foot drop/60-foot
run). This type of event would most likely occur when an isolated storm covers the mitigation bank watershed but
Bear Creek remains at base flow.
Page 4 of 6
Newell indicated that water control structures would likely be required over this 10% slope into Bear Creek to
prevent significant headcuts' from migrating into the wetland restoration area. Three options were assessed for
water control at these 4 outfalls: 1) step-pool channels; 2) concrete/sheet pile coffer dam; and 3) Terracell channel.
The step-pool channels would be constructed with boulders for energy dissipation, similar to natural channel design
being performed in the Piedmont province of the state. The concretelsheet pile coffer dams would represent vertical
walls immediately un-canal from the existing levee culverts flowing into Bear Creek (with rip-rap at the base of the
wall). The Terracell channel would be constructed with embedded plastic geogrid material, filled with stone, that
may not be entrained as surface water flows over the structure and into Bear Creek. (an example of a Terracell
channel was visited at the reference, Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank later in the day)
Bittlecombe suspects that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel (MBRT member) may have already
commented on the use of water control structures on this project.
Newell's opinion was that surface water would pipe around a step-pool structure through sand lenses in the river-
side levee and that the structure would fail. Parent material is composed entirely of fine marine sediments (no rock).
Newell showed the four locations where control structures are proposed in Figure 8 of the Mitigation Plan
(Drainage Control Outlets # 1, 2, 5, and 7). The current design calls for concrete coffer dams placed immediately
up-canal from the existing levee culvert flowing into Bear Creek. the canal would be backfilled to the elevation of
the coffer dam (slightly higher than the surrounding floodplain surface to promote shallow inundation).
Bittlecombe asked what soil types are present. The location of Pamlico-Johnston and Bibb-Kinston map units was
shown in Figure 3 of the Mitigation Plan. The Pamlico-Johnston map unit is expected to support shallow inundation
for varying periods, dependent upon landscape position
Wetland Restoration Credit
Newell showed the location of the wetland restoration areas depicted in Figure 9 of the Mitigation Plan. The Site
includes 75 acres of wetland restoration in cropland and 21 acres of restoration in clear-cut, early successional
forest. An additional 17 acres of uplands occurs on hydric soils within 300 feet of Bear Creek that are projected
to be support wetland hydrology less than 5% of the growing season due to drainage influences near the river. The
wetland restoration in clear-cut areas is located within 300 feet of the bisecting canal that drains the former
backwater slough.
Bell asked if a jurisdictional wetland determination was performed in the woods.
Newell stated that the wetlands were mapped on aerial photography based on groundwater well locations and the
analyses described in Section 2.5 of the Mitigation Plan.
Bell indicated that additional information on wetland hydrology indicators (i.e. from wetland data forms) may be
required in the Mitigation Plan.
Hydrology Success Criteria
i a head-cut occurs where acceleration of surface water exceeds velocities required to entrain dominant
soil material within the channel. The bed of the channel down-cuts into underlying material and a head-cut
migrates in the up-channel direction. The underlying soils on the Bear Creek floodplain (unconsolidated fine sand
lenses) are susceptible to entrainment and head-cutting, primarily due to piping effects along the sand lenses
(surrounded by less permeable organic layers).
Page 5 of 6
Bittlecombe asked why the hydrology success criteria for the bottomland hardwood forest comprises saturation
within 1 foot of the soil surface for a minimum of 5% of the growing season. Hydroperiods should be established
based on water budgets and targets relative to conditions in reference wetlands.
Newell indicated that the hydroperiods within reference wetlands range from 5% to 100% of the growing season
across a landscape mosaic of bottomland hardwood, swamp forest, and emergent wetland communities (sloughs,
convex hummocks, flats, beaver impoundments, and swales). Therefore, the wetland hydroperiod on the site is
expected to range from a minimum of 5% of the growing season to a maximum of 100% of the growing season
dependent primarily upon landscape position and beaver influence.
Carroll stated that land immediately adjacent to a stream supports the most frequent overbank flooding but wetland
hydroperiods extend for 5% of the growing season due to drainage effects from the channel. Hydrology success
criteria to a minimum of 5% of the growing season should be applied.
Bell agreed that a different success criteria could be applied in this instance.
Vegetation Sampling
Bell asked how many vegetation plots will be established during monitoring (Paragraph 5 on page 32).
Newell stated that 16 vegetation sampling plots will be established; one plot in each of the monitoring quadrants
depicted in Figure 10 of the Mitigation Plan. Paragraph 5 on page 32 will be revised to clarify the number and
location of vegetation sampling plots.
Mitigation Bank Schedule
Howard indicated that the Sponsor hopes to construct this site in June of 2003.
Preyer stated that the Sponsor would like to construct the project prior to signing of the MBI as was done for the
adjacent Bear Creek-Mill Branch Mitigation Bank.
Bell said that the Sponsor was taking a risk by constructing before the MBI is signed.
Newell indicated that the Nationwide Permit (NWP) #27 issued for this project includes a permit condition that
requires approval of the Mitigation Plan prior to impacting wetlands during construction. How will the approval
be issued by the MBRT and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)?
Bell said that the meeting minutes should be distributed for this MBRT meeting. Subsequently, the MBRT would
provide comments to the Mitigation Plan. After MBRT concerns are addressed and the Mitigation Plan revised (if
needed), the NWP#27 permit condition would be fulfilled by a letter from USACE..
Preyer stated that the Sponsor would like to proceed with developing the MBI for this project.
Bell indicated that he would talk to Brooke Lamson about modifying the existing MBI and generating a new
signature page that covers both the previously completed, Bear Creek Mill Branch Mitigation Bank and the adjacent,
Bear Creek-Sleepy Creek Mitigation Bank (possible future name: Bear Creek- Sleepy Mill Mitigation Bank).
The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:00 p.m.
Page 6 of 6
BEAR CREEK - SLEEPY CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
Mitigation Banldng Review Team (MBRT) Meeting Outline
11 March 2003
1.0 MBRT MEMBERS
Introduction
Sign-In List
2.0 REFERENCE SITE REVIEW
Backwater Slough Landscape
Intermittent Streams
Emergent Marsh
Cypress-Tupelo Swamp
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Coastal Plain Levee Forest
3.0 ON-SITE WETLAND RESTORATION SITE REVIEW
Backwater Slough
Drainageways
Floodplain Flat
Outlet Structures
Bear Creek
4.0 MITIGATION BANKING ISSUES
Wetland Restoration Credit
Construction / Monitoring Schedule
Wetland Preservation Areas
MBI Format
Nationwide Permit #27 Activation
Beaver Management / Tree Survival
Page I of I