20180182 Ver 2_IRT Meeting Minutes - June 10 2020_20200611

Strickland, Bev
From: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 4:28 PM
To: Steve Kichefski
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Leslie, Andrea J; Davis, Erin B; Haupt, Mac;
Kim Browning; Wilson, Travis W.; Cidney Jones
Subject: [External] Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes - June 10, 2020
Attachments: Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes 20200611_Post-Construction.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Good seeing everyone yesterday.
Attached are draft meeting minutes for review/comment. We'll be working with Steve over the next few weeks to get
everything buttoned up on the site.
Thanks!
-Kevin
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING
RESTORATION
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Vice President
Principal Water Resources Engineer
1150 SE Maynard Road
Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
919-388-0787 (office)
919-999-0262 (cell)
919-388-0789 (fax)
Blockedwww.eorusa. net
1

ECOSYSTEM Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
PLANNING & Cary, NC 27511
RESTORATION Phone: [phone]
Ira www.eprusa.net
Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes
Date: June 10, 2020
Time: 10:00 AM —12:00 PM
Location: Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site; Mount Airy, NC
Attendees: Steven Kichefski - USACE
Todd Tudwell — USACE
Kimberly Browning - USACE
Mac Haupt — NCDEQ
Erin Davis - NCDEQ
Travis Wilson — NCWRC
Andrea Leslie — NC WRC
Kevin Tweedy— EPR (recorded minutes)
Minutes:
• Kevin started the meeting with a brief overview of the site and its credit components
(streams and wetlands).
• Kevin and Steve summarized identified issues that had arisen since the MBI was approved
and construction of the site was completed. These included:
o Easement modifications, including two pedestrian crossings (UT2 and UT3) being cut
out of the easement (were originally proposed to be left in), and shifting part of the
easement line slightly along UT1 to deal with potential for encroachment from
neighbors.
o Culverted crossing and some fencing on UT3 need to be fixed because it was
determined after as -built that they are in the easement slightly.
o Discussed changes in design during construction (i.e. bedrock on UT2, reduced
length of UT4) that had affected credits somewhat.
• Kevin asked about the ability to claim additional wetlands in areas that are now showing
wetland hydrology after construction. IRT said that this can be claimed, but gages should be
installed for proposed wetlands, and will need to justify any changes to credits. Kevin stated
that EPR will be assessing potential wetlands and making a determination at the final as -
built submittal regarding whether there will be any additional wetland areas proposed (may
not be worth it if not enough potential credits).
• Corps requested that a formal letter be submitted with the final as -built that described the
changes to credits, and officially asking for the credit tallies to be changed going forward.
The IRT prefers to address credit changes up front, not at the end of the project.
1 1 P a g e

ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
' RESTORATION
• Erin noted that DEQ was concerned about the removal and replacement of some wooded
structures from the design that was approved for the Mitigation Plan. Kevin explained why
the changes were done.
• Erin asked if there had been any substitutions in the planting plan during construction. Kevin
said he didn't think there were, but would double check and if there were these would be
documented in the final as -built report.
• Group then started the site walk at the top of UT1 and following UT1 to its confluence with
UT2:
o Andrea expressed concern that cattle may loaf at the upper end of UT1 along the
fence, causing a source of sediment and waste that could drain directly into the
stream. Kevin said EPR would monitor the area and if this became a problem, EPR
would work with the landowner to resolve (perhaps a new line of fencing).
o It was noted that there was an area of bamboo along the northern fence line along
UT1a. EPR will address as part of their invasive control plans during monitoring.
o Andrea and Travis noted that smoothed walled culverts like those used on Red Barn
are not preferable from a wildlife standpoint, because it makes passage through the
culverts more difficult. Not as big of an issue on low gradient streams.
o IRT requested the addition of another stream gage at the bottom of UT1, below the
culvert, since this section was not flowing during the site visit, and there were
questions about appropriate stream hydrology. EPR will install the gage as soon as
possible.
• Group then walked up UT2 to the start, and then back down the entire length of UT2:
o There was concern expressed about the sediment load coming into UT2. Kevin said
EPR would continue to monitor the situation, but was encouraged by how the reach
was moving the sediment load from some very large storm events that had occurred
during/since construction.
o IRT commented that additional gates should be incorporated to improve site access.
o Group stopped at the proposed pedestrian crossing near the bottom of UT2. Kevin
described that the proposed bridge would be 4 feet wide, no rails, and anchored to
the floodplain to prevent floating away. For foot traffic only.
o IRT asked about rill erosion at the easement crossing — Kevin said that would be
addressed during the bridge installation.
• Group then walked up UT3 to the proposed lower easement crossing.
o Kevin described the alignment and noted that easement signs had not been
installed yet — language waiting for approval from Corps. Kevin described that it was
unlikely that the crossing would see much use, since there are two different
landowners on each side, and no real reason to cross now.
o IRT requested that trail cams be installed on the two pedestrian crossings to record
how they were used over the monitoring period. Kevin said this would be done.
o Group headed back to the cars in the interest of time and another scheduled
meeting.
• Kevin to coordinate with Steve on finalizing easement changes, and submitting a final as -
built report and modification letter once final items have been resolved.
21