20200855 Ver 1_Prospectus Site Visit Summary Notes_20200618

Strickland, Bev
From: Katie Webber <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 8:58 AM
To: Davis, Erin B; Steve Kichefski; Kim Browning; Wilson, Travis W.;
[e-mail]
Cc: Megan Engel; Bradley Breslow
Subject: [External] Cardinal Prospectus Site Visit Summary Notes
Attachments: Cardinal prospectus site visit summary.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
Good morning,
Thank you for your time last week to review our prospectus for the Cardinal Mitigation Site. We are grateful we
were able to get together virtually and share this site with you.
I have attached a copy of our notes from this meeting. Please review and let us know if you have anything to
add or change.
Sincerely,
,atie Webber,' PSS, CPSS
Project Manager
RES I res.us �
Office: 984.275.3483
Cell: 410.279.5741
**We moved on March 2ndl Our new office is located at 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27612.
1

MEMORANDUM pres
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT and NCDMS
FROM: Katie Webber — RES
Brad Breslow — RES
DATE: June 16, 2020 (discussion held on June 11, 2020)
RE: Summary of prospectus virtual site visit for Cardinal Mitigation Project, Lenoir, NC
Project ID Not Yet Assigned
Attendees
Steve Kichefski, USACE
Kimberly Browning, USACE
Casey Haywood, USACE
Date & Time
June 11, 2020 @ 8:30am.
Project SummarX
Erin Davis, NCDENR Megan Engel, RES
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Katie Webber, RES
Brad Breslow, RES
The Cardinal Mitigation Project proposes to provide approximately 7,936 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and up to
3 wetland mitigation units (WMUs).
Site Visit Discussion
General topics discussed with the IRT include flow regime, the size of the watershed, getting JD on intermittent flow
streams, and the potential for wetland restoration or creation on -site.
Flow Regime:
- The slate belt is known for intermittent streams like the ones at Cardinal.
- Consensus from IRT that for restoration on intermittent streams, need to document flow.
- RES installed four stream gauges on -site to monitor flow in early April, 2020. We will have at least
12 months of data to support the mitigation plan.
- Erin asked if we would consider documenting 90 days of flow instead of 30, as part of general
mitigation plan changes the IRT is considering.
- Travis brought up the definition that intermittent streams are seasonally dry, not rainfall driven.
That's where the 30-day/90-day discussion is coming from for IRT.
Size of the watershed:
- Likewise, to the discussion around flow regime, the IRT expressed concern about the ability of the
smaller drainages on -site (i.e. CT-2) to provide flow sufficient to meet intermittent stream criteria.
- Brad shared some unofficial data that we have collected on nearby sites that document a 50-acre
drainage area that had flow for 120 days.
Getting a JD on intermittent flow streams:
- On the same topic, Steve recommended that we conduct an informal site visit in the Summer of 2020
and perform a JD site visit in the late winter/early spring, to observe the site in multiple seasons
and evaluate flow.

- Erin asked if we had sampled benthics during our stream assessments. After speaking with Jeremy
Schmid, our Senior Ecologist, we confirmed that he did not sample for bugs. He typically does not
sample for bugs at this stage of project development unless he needs the additional information to
help inform his call. In this case, the streams on -site all met the intermittent call without including
benthics or flow data (since it had rained within 48 hours of the site visit). We will sample for bugs
in the future when we are on -site again.
The Potential for Wetland Mitigation on -site:
- RES is interested in exploring wetland restoration or creation on -site at the bottom of the
confluence of CT1 and CT3.
- There is significant aggradation in this area due to a check dam at the bottom of the site.
- There are some existing potentially jurisdictional features in the vicinity and indicate that we could
potentially produce wetlands here.
- Erin would like to see photos of soils in the area.
- Steve has worked with Cid soils in the past and they tend to stay yellowish. We may want to reach
out to the local soils district folks to get a better idea of Cid soil implications for wetland restoration.
- We will have a licensed soil scientist on -site to evaluate the potential for wetland mitigation.
- We will need to justify how and why the restoration or creation work is appropriate and how it will
be done during construction (excavation, micro depressions, etc.). Base decision on soil info.
- Photos taken on April 30, 2020 of the current depressional wetland features are shown below.
Other items:
- One area on CT4 looks like a drainage but isn't included in the project thus far. RES has so far left
this area out of the project; however, will continue to evaluate it in conjunction with the IRT.
- We should evaluate if the crossing on CT3 could be moved to the top of the reach at the property
line.
- More photos and documentation of CTS will be beneficial for the mitigation plan stage.
- We may want to consider a BMP at the top of the property on CT3 if we are unable to acquire the
upstream portion of the project.
- Construction materials and balance of cut/fill were discussed. RES expects to bring materials on -
site for structures and stream restoration. RES intends to balance cut/fill as possible on -site.
- We will need to include a plan for herbaceous vegetation control in intermittent channels, especially
as a Persicaria sp. was observed on -site and they tend to grow voraciously.
- Consider the impact of upstream ponds on flow regime.
- Having reference communities is positive for this project.
- Ratios will not be finalized until after the draft mitigation plan has been reviewed.
- Ensure a redline is included in as built that includes changes to planting plan.
Regarding the StoryMap:
- The IRT appreciated the StoryMap and found it to be thorough and well -organized.
- The up- and down -stream footage was very helpful.
- Including soils photos will be beneficial for any areas slated for wetland restoration
- It would be helpful if the level of incision of the streams could be visually conveyed with photos.
- An inset map showing which areas refer to which written descriptions would be helpful to orient
the user.
Next steps:
The IRT agrees that this site is appropriate to provide compensatory mitigation credit.
RES may proceed to a final prospectus.
An informal site visit will be conducted Summer 2020 by Steve and Erin, when timely. RES will
coordinate with them.

Lim A-
. 1F

�. Fes__ _ M1 _• ryry f f `
+ x }Yr:
•ate
� � j.Y: 4.
�'lr'
J
�
Soil DP 1 Description:
This point was collected in the very bottom of the delta at CT1-CT3. There is a lot of accumulated sediment sitting
on the soil surface here. The accumulated sediment is undergoing transformation and redox features (mottles) are
forming in the sediment. There was a shallow water table at the time of our site visit.
0-16" 10YR 5/4 with 2% 10YR 3/6 and 5% 7.5YR 5/8
16-24" 10YR 5/6 with ped faces slightly duller, 10YR 5/4. Common Mn concretions.
Water table at 9" during site visit.

k J(.
.mot
Soil DP 2 Description:
This point was collected to the east of the confluence of CT1-CT3 and slightly uphill. This area is tilled, as evidenced
by the corn stubble, bare soils, and 10" surface horizon (typical of tilled soils to homogenize to depth of plow).
0-10" 10YR 6/4 with 5% redox
10-21" 2.5 Y 6/6 with 20% 10YR 6/4 and 15% 7.5YR 5/8.
Water table present at 12". Charcoal throughout lower horizon representative of ancient landscapes (see photo).