20201357 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20201006

Strickland, Bev
From: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 11:58 AM
To: Todd Tugwell; Steve Kichefski; Davis, Erin B; Munzer, Olivia
Cc: Kim Browning; Daniel Ingram; Erin Bennett
Subject: [External] Meeting Minutes- Starker Mitigation Site Visit
Attachments: Draft Prospectus IRT Site Visit -Meeting Min.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hello,
Attached are the meeting minutes from the September 30t" draft prospectus meeting at the Starker Mitigation Project.
It was nice to see everyone!
Thanks,
Catherine A. Manner
Project Manager
Water & Land Solutions
www.waterlandsolutions.com
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Direct [phone] 1 Office [phone] 1 Email [e-mail]
r
in
u
1

WATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS
Meeting Minutes
Starker Mitigation Project
Subject: NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
Date Prepared: October 1, 2020
Meeting Date and Time: September 30, 2020 @ 11:00 am
Meeting Location: On Site (Catawba County, NC)
Attendees: USACE: Todd Tugwell, Steve Kichefski (NCIRT)
NCDEQ DWR: Erin Davis (NCIRT)
NCWRC: Olivia Munzer (NCIRT)
EPR: Erin Bennett, Jake Byers, Amy James
WLS: Daniel Ingram, Catherine Manner
Recorded By: Catherine Manner
These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Draft Prospectus Site Meeting for the Starker Mitigation Project (Catawba Basin, CU
03050101). The project site is located in Catawba County, near Claremont, North Carolina. The meeting
began at 11:OOam with a general summary of the overall project concepts. After the site overview,
attendees toured the project site to review existing conditions and proposed mitigation types, restoration
approaches, and design concepts. In general, the project site review notes are presented below in the
order they were visited.
Group started on the south side of Interstate 40
5100 (End of Reach)
• Meeting started at the bottom end of 5100 at the crossing.
• Discussed how the culvert would be an agricultural culvert. Steve noted that at the permitting
stage to make it clear that is an agriculture crossing.
• IRT noted a lot of Black Walnut species and to avoid planting that species, and remove existing
black walnut as needed (do not avoid).
• WLS stated that we were unsure of continuing the project past the crossing, Todd was concerned
that if we didn't it might cause stability issues upstream.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
• Restoration design approach was thought to be the correct approach for the reach.
S101
• Group walked up to 5101.
• Steve/Daniel walked up to the origin point. Origin point was located at the end of the conservation
easement for that section.
• Discussion on how the elevation of the channel needs to be brought up correctly to connect into
5100 and intermittent stream flow might be affected
• Group agreed on the restoration approach.
5100 (Below Interstate-40)
• Group drove to the culvert output below Interstate-40 and hiked down the hill to the stream.
• Discussed restoration approach and raising the bed to match culvert elevation. Talked about how
even with raising the streambed elevation not much aquatic passage would result because of how
long the culvert is under the interstate.
5200 (above crossing)
• Group drove across field to 5200 and walked from the crossing up to the culvert under Interstate
40.
• Daniel explained that enhancement II was proposed in the section between the culvert and the
crossing below.
• Group discussion on the amount of sediment that appeared to be moving through the channel as
well as the lack of vegetation on the banks which might lead to stability issues.
• Discussed that restoration could be proposed in this area if justified in the mitigation plan.
• Group walked down the stream below the culvert. Discussion on if restoration approach was used
above the crossing then the elevation could be set for the crossing culvert and the entire reach in
the design.
• Group continued to walk 5200 below the crossing. Todd stated that there were some areas that
looked okay and others that were not, Erin Davis stated that the vegetation was not ideal.
• Group agreed that restoration was the best approach to the section below the crossing.
5200 (North of Interstate-40)
• Group drove to the north side of the project and started on 5200.
• Walking downstream on 5200 group discussed restoration approach and what elevation this
section would be brought up too. Todd suggested placing a bmp in areas where run off is coming
into the easement if possible.
5100 (North of Interstate-40)
• Group drove over to 5100 and started at the wetland area. Erin Davis stated that rehabilitation
would be a good approach up until the wood line and then inside the wood line enhancement
would be a better approach.
• IRT suggested adding a wetland gage now in order to document existing conditions and
demonstrate functional lift.
• Erin Davis inquired about the target hydroperiod and WLS responded we would follow the current
2016 IRT guidance.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
5102
• Walked upstream to S102. Group looked at origin point.
• IRT stated that if the restoration approached was used that WLS would have to show that it was
still jurisdictional.
S103
• Group had similar concerns about 5103 as they did with 5102. WLS would have to show that it
was still a jurisdictional feature after the bed elevation is brought up.
Overall Notes
• Steve suggested starting the easement about 15-20ft off the ROW of the interstate in case of
future expansion. WLS/EPR will coordinate with NCDOT during design phase regarding culvert
capacity and extra ROW width.
• After seeing above and below the interstate the IRT thought that a restoration approach for the
section of 5200 south of the interstate would be appropriate if clearly justified in the mitigation
plan.
• Erin Davis noted that WLS should clearly state what the target community is in the mitigation plan.
• Overall the IRT members agreed the project is suitable to provide compensatory mitigation,
provided it is properly justified in the mitigation plan.
• WLS will provide a "Final Prospectus" and table of adjacent owners for public notice.
The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions' interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five (5) business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111