The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140129 Ver 2_IRT CO Meeting Minutes & FD Provider Questions_20200807Strickland, Bev From: Wiesner, Paul Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 10:41 AM To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); 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: IRT Closeout Site Visit Meeting Minutes & FD Provider Questions: Little Buffalo Creek_DMS#94147; SAW#2014-00386; DWR# 20140129 Attachments: Little Buffalo Creek_94147_IRT Closeout Site Walk_07-27-2020.pdf; Little Buffalo Creek_94147_Closeout Site Walk -Follow -Up Questions.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 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 Pau l.wiesner(cancdenr.gov Western DMS Field Office 5 Ravenscroft Drive Suite 102 Asheville, N.C. 28801 D- E Q F��` Nle� Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. MEETING NOTES PROJECT NAME Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation PROJECT NUMBER WSP #LE2000992 NCDMS ID #94147 DATE 27 July 2020 TIME 10:30pm — 2:00pm VENUE Onsite (Little Buffalo Creek, near Old Mine Road) SUBJECT IRT Site Review/Recommendation and Closeout Discussion CLIENT NC Department of Mitigation Services PRESENT NCDEQ: Paul Wiesner, Kelly Phillips, Melonie Allen, Jeff Horton, Ed Hajnos IRT: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Erin Davis (NCDEQ), Olivia Munzer (NCWRC) WSP: Jon Becker, Ed Samanns Meeting Minutes 1.0 INTRODUCTION Prior to beginning the site walk, Paul, Ed S., and Jon introduced the project and distributed handouts including a site map, agenda for the site walk, and credit table. Paul and Ed S. shared a few of the project issues, as well as highlighting repair measures and improved management strategies to limit future cattle encroachment. Prior to beginning the site walk, Todd mentioned they were not likely to recommend closeout without additional monitoring to ensure the cattle encroachment issues would not continue. Additionally, Jeff and Ed H. decided that they would walk separately from the rest of the group to check on the easement condition along the east side of the stream, from Klutz Road up to the stream crossing between Reach 5 and Reach 6. 2.0 SITE WALK a) After the brief introduction, everyone started by walking downstream along UT 7. Ed S. and Jon pointed out the previous locations of beaver dams, in -stream structures, restoration of fish passage at road culvert, additional easement land conserved, and establishment of shallow ponded wetlands in former channel. b) The IRT commented on the drop height at one of the cross vanes. Ed S. mentioned that due to high flow rates during flood events the large stone washes out to form a pool on two of the structures. Otherwise, structures are stable. WSP USA Suite 1500 434 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27601 WsP.com MEETING NOTES c) The IRT inquired if the pond feature (abandoned channel section) dries out seasonally. They noted that this would be preferred. WSP indicated that the area remains wet for most of the year. This is not a project asset issue and should not be a major concern at closeout. d) After reaching the bottom of UT 7, everyone turned around to return back to the vehicles, except for Jeff and Ed H. who continued up along the east side of the easement. e) After leaving UT 7, everyone drove up to the upstream end of UT 3, parking near Allen's barn. Ed S. again addressed the group regarding previous concerns along UT 3, the history of cattle encroachment, and the recent presence of cows in the easement. f) In response to an inquiry about the stability of the culvert and roadside cattle crossing, Ed S. mentioned that the area is no longer contributing sediment to the channel. g) The group then walked down UT 3, toward the mainstem. Several issues were noted, including low density/vigor of vegetation, poorly defined channel features, and damage caused by cattle. The IRT noted the issues were serious concerns. h) After reaching the bottom of UT 3, the group turned upstream, and walked along the mainstem and a small section of UT 4. Again, damage caused by cattle was a common, observed issue. One cow and a calf were seen in the easement. i) After reaching UT 2, the group tried to progress up the channel of the tributary, but turned around before long, due to thick vegetation. No specific issues were noted along the small portion of UT2 which was observed. j) Everyone returned to the mainstem and continued upstream, under the bridge along Old Mine Road and up along Reach 1. Signs of cattle encroachment were limited. No specific issues were noted during this portion of the walk. 3.0 WRAP-UP DISCUSSION After conclusion of the site walk, the I RT gathered to develop their expectations for the site and shared those expectations with NC DMS and WSP. a) Todd began by highlighting the major issues which included the current condition of UT 3 and the prevalent/frequent damage caused by cattle encroachment. b) The IRT asked for an additional 1 year of monitoring without cattle encroachment. i) Ed S. asked if 6 months might be acceptable. ii) The IRT reiterated that 1 year is the minimum that they would like to see. c) Additionally, they requested that WSP develop an adaptive management plan for UT 3, including a mixture of the following: i) Re -planting ii) Re -development of channel features iii) 1 year of monitoring after any conducted repairs d) The IRT stated that they would not feel comfortable allowing any credit for UT 3 in its current condition. e) The IRT did note that the site was benefiting from wetland areas developing within the easement, and that WSP had done a good job treating invasive vegetation. This invasive treatment should continue through closeout. f) Paul offered the help of the State department to deal with cattle encroachment. i) Additional pressure on the landowners may be required to ensure effective cattle exclusion. g) Additional minor concerns include the drop height at the cross vane in UT 7, continued management of invasive species, and removal of wire/trash onsite. None of these items would be expected to delay closeout but should be a secondary focus moving forward. h) The IRT recommended careful evaluation in UT 2. Jon offered to provide the IRT with recent photos of UT 2, and the IRT concurred it would be helpful since they were unable to access that reach during the site walk. The IRT noted that if similar issues exist on UT 2 as observed on UT 3, WSP should develop a similar remediation plan moving forward to ensure acceptance of UT2 for full credit. i) WSP asked for clarification, and the IRT confirmed that visual monitoring would likely be sufficient, and limited to trouble areas (UT 3, Reaches 2-4, and potentially UT 2). j) Paul offered to send examples of "adaptive management plans" to WSP for their use. Page 2 MEETING NOTES i) The plan would be submitted to DMS for review then to IRT. ii) Any required permits should be fairly quick to attain. k) If work is done quickly (this fall), IRT would return to the site during the fall of 2021 for a second evaluation. 4.0 ACTION ITEMS Action Item Responsible Party Develop and distribute meeting minutes to attendees WSP Include any additional questions, and site photos with the meeting minutes* WSP Develop a response to the IRT's requests/recommendations WSP Determine and share WSP's approach to rectifying the major issues noted by the IRT WSP Schedule a follow-up meeting between DMS and WSP WSP/DMS *Photos of UT2 and UT3 are included in this PDF memo (See below) Page 3 �y f r n : •.r i �11 Y �:, n�A: Y S � •. P- �ti: .,.'i• if �. i ^ l , , ,. �;; ; � I: ` iIF � ;1}�� is •: �' , : ' ' f f .ti! r 4 .�� :'�f �. � '�,.:•.;.' ' : iGS'- k•.:. �:,�., rs- , yj- ,l,s;�; . re �:. ��,y� r .•:�,. a-%r^ y • �. i - i I ,.r. 31. i'i.f .i.'rl� iq+ • �'. ..yyam�' rl s .................... .................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .............. ............... I 40 46* . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... _-'Af Li_wu it t ° .ter' .;�1;.�',�ti�• !'�. ;i, s r _ -�' _ ��N - + "sue'` ;►.3 - n ip Is .10 i1 _ a .+��Ir 7iY�K .� .A�l �•� {:` l�. -- .. v 1 F 1 ` f' i �; �¢,a..t i�; irk' .:. � � �•. r-! - .„; ;. A NI -�' 71 ., .6i ,; .•, .C� f . � -'.-p � "'�,, jt. ;�- � � �..�i�,; ''• t.; ,y„i • 5 � w'.:V�.F�jPAr;.• �{' h ,gip: •.'' .. r =�"�;. �'�`°�. r �' LO .l r vik-SST .f:d .•..*`.:. i'f '},'i-,�i•+ ri' (. �}- : I� '>''.: 1,, 1 , �" ' ,� '� •s r� �..�� ., rtr�Efa� •�p� 1 - ti � ' it �� I:r r��. '.1 ,-5'". � � �- ,� �7 �.e; .•�' •r.� ' ,' Yi �:.. + r � � — *F 7 r _ _ 't� n. _d. aiL:-ti: _;W.f'L C .1 �a�.. �. _ -itn � ��•• ••+ - _ 1RMtYJ !17V 1 r.frfq.� isy f6•r ,fs`.` ''f i i - •y L. I. ��'��.• F� r �'��{I� L�-.i��'��r �� .I ��A � � - ..�,,. .. k as s .•� �5 � �� , �� .�i. .,Sr��'A '" r� � . 1. �•. s � ��u ; I. � i+� �},i•y ;.r.'R-.: ��,fT.��.n ..1�q,i`.' �� - - kj j: ��ti ��.[� \I' �.sYl � F Ir. 4 .°• ...Fy �, .I• �^r.•�A :,, , ��•�,, ,,.. ; � .I • - - �` • 3�_ _ ,iy, � � �I+.,.(� � • •y: �•. �;`.' !�� 1 i� � is7. =• r I'I �, � � +�h, yr ,; -+:�r �,: - -- - - ;,y� � ,- 1. ,�: - , ' �-t: Lr, � ,k• �� _ _ - - �� ,i II Lr r ,� I � • .�1 - - � - � . ►mot y _ ''. ar ;•.,- _ '�- � ,rp.,.! taw ,�n• ''1:;� �`1` ;py{1� _ 2:':?e. vw Irk `�, 4'"•�. � Wit: � ..r M: e, ':�• kY:t s low,:. ' -='OW 1 - °i' � "•r�ti' �r -h a_ i -�,VO•� '.gip .� i�. I - - � fir' S•�'i +h, r ` � � `� iR^� 'i - � _ _ S. Tl _may' � ` � �•:•. tiA-a; . . I f*• f ••L i �h- 111 40 IP "f f� �,� � :" -:li: ` __ �•;!�:'� ^Ci�- •�I. .i... - ': i•S '� _ jam' . J .� - zT,�, AOF .s�•. �� i ` r.ij _:.:;•�: "•fir, • � � r.�' - . " i • _ ,:i�._. ... ., Fps .!' _ . 1.Oy, F • � .-.. '. k � - mow,•- - ' •.,i � �1.: � �--�. PZL --�/ Ar w 71 YT, - .. ' � �; . .F �•�� •�,��}�, `•till ply. - -'1i ��' � —d �� i�r �t �� .li. ` -- -fir 4• do ' � :!'� I. 1� '. � �' 7T �'••� • l��' I -A� }TIC }i I � 1 Il �� '• .�� I �'' � � � �-�� ` � � i i � • �:•1! fir. � , tip' , +.. ;'�•' '�; .{,: • �: • " Le end �. OJT 3 9 l,. 2017 - Defined channel present 3 years post -construction ,_ .. - ... , - .'fir f - A. ,!•_� . S .. r,ti .. Avi PP If Af', t4 P MOW '-• - .yam . -, •1.-� - - � , { . '• UT 3 1 2017 - Defined channel present 3 years post -construction t ,y. f�; � ,- r 'fit .•� �, •► • PP OP i .� •F4',=.fit ,.s �� '. • p [F �`yrY r fir.• .;�� ^�:' '. ' F • Legend 4 +,ram. -: •*;.. 1. � 7 V{ � 1 r. }� • �� .•T Legend . � -M '+ t. Y' SS I � ! � � 5 4 is � : � #,�''�(i • UT 3 2017 - Defined channel present 3 years post -construction ' : •,, ?�4�r; ;,' :, ;�::� .� S ti 1' 74 � r� � a� , ; 7" � � •� -10 AW 44. Oq Art t -- .+ '! t '. f; �. f/_ FF•• f� �-t. �{;�a i r � • 1�15�7,;+1 y�'+• ,�` � /��ti i1�:=fff �T :�.: '; 1 / �( a 4; + , 1 #94147 — Little Buffalo Creek 2020/08/06 Follow -Up Questions FOR IRT: 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. 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.)? 3. Do you have any examples from previous projects where cattle encroachments were an issue and what measures proved successful? 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 channel we may prefer to complete the work with hand tools. If this approach is used would a permit still be required? 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). 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). FOR DMS: 1. Since Stewardship conditionally accepted the easement, can DMS begin enforcing the easement conditions with the landowners as if the project has closed? We are unsure if encroachment can truly be avoided without the backing of more meaningful consequences from the state. We anticipate that we will need this form of motivation to get the landowner/rancher cooperation required to establish a workable cattle/fence management plan. WSP USA Suite 1500 434 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27601 WsP.Com