20140129 Ver 1_IRT Closeout Site Visit Meeting Minutes & FD Provider Questions_20200807 (2)

Strickland, Bev
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 4:39 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul; Davis, Erin B; Munzer, Olivia; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Kim Browning
Cc: Horton, Jeffrey; Hajnos, Edward A; Phillips, Kelly D; Allen, Melonie; Becker, Jonathan
W.; Samanns, Edward; Holthaus, Matthew
Subject: [External] RE: IRT Closeout Site Visit Meeting Minutes & FD Provider Questions: Little
Buffalo Creek_DMS#94147; SAW#2014-00386; DWR# 20140129
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Paul,
I don't really have any comments to add to the minutes. I appreciate the photos, particularly of UT2 as we
were not able to assess that during the site walk. I will note that the E2 and preservation reaches of UT2
appeared to have similar conditions to those we noted on UT3, which is concerning. With regard to the
questions, below are responses that I have already run by the IRT. The questions are restated for reference
below, followed by the response.
Following review of the responses, please let me know if you have any additional questions. Otherwise,
please indicate the proposed approach to address these concerns with an adaptive management strategy that
outlines how the provider intends to prevent further livestock access, and what repairs and replanting are
planned for the site.
Thank you,
Todd Tugwell
1. Cattle Encroachment: We understand the IRT expectation, as expressed during the site inspection, is that
we should demonstrate zero cattle encroachments into the easement for a full year. Since we nor the
landowners can control natural events that may cause a temporary break in the fence such as severe weather,
flooding, and tree falls, we would like to propose an alternative performance standard that we think is more
attainable. We propose a success criteria based on minimizing the potential for cattle to impact the easement
should they get through a fence break as a result of a natural event or accident outside of our reasonable
control. Since the damage to the easement is due to the duration and number of cattle within the easement,
we would propose to set a maximum duration of "X" days to completely remove cattle and repair the point of
access should an incident occur. Please note that our intention is to work with the landowner and the cattle
rancher, in coordination with DMS, to establish additional measures to reduce the likelihood of cattle
encroachments for the long term, and to increase the frequency of fence inspections and response time
should an encroachment occur. Please let us know your initial thoughts on this approach.

IRT Response: The proposed approach seems to assume that future encroachments will occur, which is a
major concern. Our standard for fencing livestock is zero encroachment. For projects such as this, the cattle
impacts are the primary reason that they projects were degraded in the first place, so fully removing that
stressor is a mandatory condition. As we discussed during the site review, once the project has been
transferred to long-term stewardship, the provider is no longer accountable for the project, and we want to
ensure that we do not pass on a problematic project to the state stewardship program. If the project cannot
be completely free of livestock encroachments for a year, how can we assume that future encroachments will
not continue, especially once the provider is no longer around? We continue to feel that the project must
have a minimum of a year free of cattle encroachment before we are willing to close the project and send it to
long-term stewardship, so we cannot accept the proposed method. We recommend working with the
landowner to ensure that fences are replaced or improved as necessary, that snags or other trees that pose a
risk to the fence are removed, and that pasture improvements are made to reduce pressure on the fences
(i.e., watering devices, shade, etc.). Ultimately this is the landowners responsibility, but as we have seen from
the condition of the project, even limited cattle access can cause significant damage.
2. In terms of close-out and credit release, what would be the consequence of cattle accessing the easement
again, even for a short duration (further delayed closeout, additional monitoring, credit reduction, etc.)?
IRT Response: Again, this is concerning because it suggests that the sponsor will not be able to prevent cattle
access. Given the history of the project and damage that has already be done to streams on the site,
continued encroachments would require additional monitoring until it can be demonstrated that the livestock
are effectively prevented from accessing the site, and I don't believe we would agree to closeout the site if
there is evidence of any continued cattle access. Credit could also be affected if the resources and functions
of the site are degraded (assuming that the existing degraded conditions on the site are addressed, specifically
UT 2 and 3), but at this point I don't think we can predict the credit implications if there is continued cattle
access.
3. Do you have any examples from previous projects where cattle encroachments were an issue and what
measures proved successful?
IRT Response: Many DMS projects were constructed on farms that have continue to have livestock within
pastures adjacent to the project. Livestock access in these situations is always a concern, and there are many
projects where livestock encroachments occurred but were then effectively remedied. Many projects have
also never had any encroachments, despite active pastures being adjacent. We cannot discuss other projects,
but I'm certain DMS can provide examples if they choose. I recommend working with DMS to develop
strategies, but I believe working with the landowner and livestock manager (if different) is the most critical
part of any approach. They are responsible for the livestock and will likely be the first to know if there are
access points along the fences. They are also responsible for repairing the fences, providing watering devices,
shade or other resources for the livestock that can help reduce pressure on the fence. Perhaps working with
the landowner to address these issues, along with ensuring the fences are in good condition and removing
snags that threaten to fall on the fence would be the best approach; however, please note that it is not the
responsibility of the IRT to fix this issue. Ultimately the landowner (who agreed to the easement restrictions
and was compensated) is the responsible party for preventing encroachments, and it is the sponsor's (and
provider's) responsibility to address this concern.
4. For UT-3, we have concerns with bringing mechanical equipment into the site to restore the channel
because of the damage it would cause to the established riparian vegetation. Given the small size of the
N

channel we may prefer to complete the work with hand tools. If this approach is used would a permit still be
required?
USACE/DWR Response: Yes, a permit authorization is required regardless of how the work will be
accomplished. Because this type of work cannot be done without discharging fill into waters of the U.S., it will
always require proper authorization.
5. If we find that the uppermost portion of UT 3 within the seep area will no longer support a defined channel,
would the IRT still consider providing some credit for this area based on the water quality benefits and
restored habitat? In the MY5 report, we report 185 feet of stream exhibiting signs of previous aggradation.
Our gages have documented sufficient stream flow data, but without channel modification, the current
vegetation and soil disturbance may not support a channel with obvious bed and banks. See recent photos,
highlighting the condition of UT-3 prior to the significant cattle damage (attached to meeting minutes).
IRT Response: In cases where channels cannot be maintained, credit for the affected reaches is typically lost
or reduced because there is no stream present. In some cases, the IRT has agreed to wetland credit where
wetlands have formed instead of streams, but that may not be possible in this case as no wetland credit was
proposed. In some instances, the IRT may agree to reduced credit if the functions provided by the resource
(e.g., water quality improvements such as sediment and water storage capacity, nutrient filtration, etc.) can be
demonstrated; however, in the current condition of UT3, there has been so much damage due to cattle access
that even these functions have been seriously compromised. An alternate stream crediting approach (e.g., a
reduced ratio based on valley length) may be acceptable to the IRT, but this approach must include adaptive
management activities such as replanting with appropriate vegetation (including wetland species in areas that
have converted to wetland), and is contingent upon demonstrating that cattle access has been fully
prevented.
6. The monitoring report and closeout documents demonstrate that UT-2 has met the performance standards
for vegetation, flow and channel stability along the majority of the channel length with the exception of an
approximately 85 to 90 ft. segment that has not maintain a well-defined bed and banks (see photos attached
to meeting minutes). The cattle have not caused significant damage to this tributary and easement, and UT-2
does not exhibit the conditions observed in UT-3. We plan to provide only periodic inspection and seasonal
photographs of UT-2 and would like concurrence that this would be acceptable. See recent photos,
highlighting the condition of UT-2 (attached to meeting minutes).
IRT Response: As noted earlier, photos of UT2 still show areas where it appears that the stream has converted
to a wetland and lacks any bed and bank. It is not clear from the photos that this is a result of cattle access,
but there is still the concern that system does not support a channel throughout. In areas where there is no
channel on the site, an alternative approach (see response to 5 above) may be acceptable.
-----Original Message -----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2020 10:41 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Horton, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>; Hajnos, Edward A <[e-mail]>; Phillips,
Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>; Becker, Jonathan W.

<[e-mail]>; Samanns, Edward <[e-mail]>; Holthaus, Matthew
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] IRT Closeout Site Visit Meeting Minutes & FD Provider Questions: Little Buffalo
Creek_DMS#94147; SAW#2014-00386; DWR# 20140129
BE
Please find attached the meeting minutes from the July 27, 2020 IRT closeout site visit at Little Buffalo Creek in
Cabarrus County.
Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns and WSP will update the meeting
minutes accordingly.
Also attached is a list of follow up questions for the IRT (provided by WSP). IRT folks, please discuss and
provide IRT responses at your earliest convenience.
DMS and SPO can provide support and will enforce the terms of the conservation easement as requested.
Once the meeting minutes are final and the questions for the IRT are addressed, I will set up a meeting with
WSP, DMS, DEQ Stewardship, and SPO to establish a plan of action for the mitigation site and easement
encroachment issues.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

Western DIMS 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.