20201384 Ver 1_Initial Site Visit Meeting Notes_20201009

Strickland, Bev
From:
Jamey Mceachran <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Friday, October 9, 2020 10:21 AM
To:
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis
W.; Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); [e-mail]
Cc:
Kenton Beal; Bradley Breslow; Merritt, Katie
Subject:
[External] Bobs Branch (RES CF 03) Initial Site Visit Meeting Notes
Attachments:
10 7 2020 Site Visit Notes BobsBranch.docx
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]
Hello everyone,
Thank you all for the site visit and in field discussions on the proposed Bobs Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project.
I have attached the Site Visit Meeting Notes for your review. Please let me know you have any comments or revisions.
Thank you again,
Jamey
Jamey Redding McEachran
Ecology Team Lead
RES I res.us
Mobile: [phone]
1

MEMORANDUM fires
3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 1919.209.1055 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT
FROM: Jamey McEachran — RES
DATE: October 7, 2020
RE: Summary of Site Visit to Proposed Bobs Branch (RES Cape Fear 03 UMBI)
Mitigation Project, Randolph County, NC
CU: 03030003
County: Randolph
DWR ID: 2020-1384
USACE ID: TBD
Attendees:
Sam Dailey, USACE Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Jamey McEachran, RES
Todd Tugwell, USACE Olivia Munzer, NC Wildlife Kenton Beal, RES
Erin Davis, DWR Brad Breslow, RES
Attendees met on -site on October 7, 2020 to discuss the Proposed Bobs Branch Mitigation Project, which
will be the second project in the RES Cape Fear 03 UMBL The weather was sunny and the temperature
in the mid 70's. Livestock presence was evident throughout the site.
Overall, the IRT felt that the project presented a good opportunity for a stream and wetland mitigation
project, and although small, would provide functional uplift to the streams and wetlands onsite to warrant
stream restoration and wetland rehabilitation and reestablishment. RES understands that the final design
approaches and crediting rationale must be fully justified in the mitigation plan.
The IRT made a few reach -specific recommendations, noted below by stream:
BS2
• The IRT felt that the origin point for the intermittent stream would begin further downstream than
presented on the prospectus concept. The group agreed the origin point would most likely begin at
the culvert crossing as hydric soils were not strongly evident upstream from this point and water
flow was much more evident below this point.
• Upstream of this intermittent point, the channel seems to be formed from stormwater drainage and
therefore some form of a sediment control measure could be beneficial just upstream of this point
to control for the flashiness of the water coming into the channel.
• Overall, the IRT agreed with a Restoration approach and agreed that the channel would have
historically tied into Bobs Branch across the Valley instead of being ditched along the side of the
pasture.

Bobs Branch
• The IRT agreed with the Restoration approach for this stream and the approach of offline
restoration and bringing the stream to the center of the valley through the ditched/wetland feature
in the middle of the valley. The IRT felt that the stream has been incised, lacks bedform diversity,
and has minimal sinuosity; restoration would provide functional uplift to the stream and wetland
complex.
• The IRT felt that BB1-A, in addition to BB1-B, would benefit from restoration, rather than the
proposed enhancement II treatment, as it lacks the bedform diversity, has minimal sinuosity, is
over widened and would need grading and stabilizing of banks and has minimal function at this
time.
• RES would like to add an additional feature that flows south into Bobs Branch just downstream of
the confluence with BSI but is still discussing the possibility with the adjacent landowner.
BSI
• The IRT agreed with the Restoration approach on this reach.
Wetland Areas:
• Overall, the IRT felt that wetland rehabilitation and potentially some areas of wetland re-
establishment was a good approach for this area. The wetland re-establishment areas will be easier
to determine once feedback from a licensed soil scientist is provided.
• The IRT also felt that it could be helpful to add wetland gauges out here to get a baseline of the
groundwater in this area before restoration work is conducted.
In summary, RES will submit a final prospectus once the additional feature has either been added or it has
decided to not be included. We hope to submit a final prospectus in the next couple of months with the
intention of public notice in January or February. We intend to complete the JD in the winter/spring, and
to submit the draft mitigation plan in the fall or winter of 2021 and construct the following year. We look
forward to working with you on this project.