The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201865 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_Site Visit Date Tuesday 1 26 2021_20210202Strickland, Bev From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: ME Wiesner, Paul Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:51 PM Davis, Erin B; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Leslie, Andrea J Shawn Wilkerson; Jake McLean; Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Kim Browning Cornbread Valley - DMS#100175_IRT Post Contract Site Visit Meeting Minutes -Little Tennessee 06010202 - Site Visit Date: Tuesday 1/26/2021 Cornbread Valley_100175_Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes_2-2-2021.pdf Follow up Flagged The meeting minutes and map from Tuesday's (1-26-2021) site visit at Cornbread Valley are attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any comments, questions or concerns. Thanks Paul Wiesner Western Regional Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 828-273-1673 Mobile Pau l.wiesnera-ncdenr.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. WILDLANDS ENGINEERING MEETING MINUTES MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit CORNBREAD VALLEY Mitigation Site Little Tennessee River Basin 06010202: Macon County, NC DMS# 100175 NCDEQ Contract No. 0304-01 Wildlands Project No. 005-02191 DATE: On -site Meeting: Tuesday, January 26, 2021, 2:30 pm Meeting Notes Distributed: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 LOCATION: 124 Byrd Farm Rd Franklin, NC 28734 Lat: 35.105460 Long:-83.453633 Attendees Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) Erin Davis, NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) David Brown, US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) Andrea Leslie, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) Paul Wiesner, NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Project Manager Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering, Principal Jake McLean, Wildlands Engineering, Project Manager Materials Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated March 26, 2020 in response to NCDMS RFP #16- 20190304 Wildlands Engineering Figure 6a Concept Map — Revised Option 1 (revised project approach map) Meeting Notes 1. Wildlands gave a brief site overview before the walk which discussed the streams that are being addressed within the project and the site/farm conditions: • The site streams have cattle access throughout, mature vegetation is absent in many of the buffer areas, most streams are small (20-50 acres), some smaller, mainstem 4.5-5 square miles. • Wildlands has worked hard to minimize crossings by proposing powerline relocation and by working with owners to reduce the number needed for rotational grazing. • Wildlands discussed minor modifications based on visits and observations subsequent to the original proposal time period. In general, these modifications lump reaches rather than splitting them. Enhancement 1 (E1) has been eliminated and E1 reaches were changed to either Restoration or E2. Wildlands responded to a question from NCDWR W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1 CORNBREAD VALLEY mitigation site Post -Contract IRT Site Walk about associate modification to proposed activities — Wildlands confirmed that no modification in approach was associated with E1 streams being modified to E2 for crediting purposes (the same activities are proposed per reach as defined in the proposal). • For UT3C, the proposed restoration approach will take the stream offline whereas before it was proposed to be in -channel E2. UT3 Reach 2 below the confluence with UT3A has been affected by recent storms and is thought to be more suitable as a restoration candidate than an E1 candidate as originally proposed. • DMS/Wildlands noted that crediting is Restoration (1:1), E2 (2.5:1) for all streams and that along with this some E2 streams have less work in one area and more work in another. NCDWR noted that the mitigation plan will be used to determine credit and that in concept that don't take issue with 2.5:1 being proposed for a mix of lower and higher level work, but that the presentation of supporting data is key to acceptance of the final ratios proposed. • Wildlands pointed out that the uppermost portion of UT3A is an area that has been typically wet during several visits and which may be a candidate for intermittent stream restoration. Wildlands solicited input from the IRT (discussed below). 2. The walk began at the upstream extent of UT3A (optional portion). The IRT thought the reach could be credited as an intermittent restoration reach if it scored out using forms. Corps requested that some biological monitoring be considered. At meeting wrap-up, Corps indicated that this may entail monitoring for macroinvertebrates with no specific standards or thresholds being required except to report findings to document if the restored stream was supporting macroinvertebrates. It was clarified that livestock would be allowed above UT3A to access adjacent pastures. The restoration approach anticipated would be to create a single thread channel that would be maintained through establishment of canopy and to ensure that the channel stays stable long-term. A head cut was noted as was the steep drop down to the perennial stream start point. 3. UT3A was walked to the confluence of UT3. NCDWR noted that they don't want to miss opportunities for habitat uplift potential and Wildlands indicated that apart from bank grading in the upper area that has erosion, that spot treatment in overly -wide areas would establish a more competent baseflow channel and periodically install structure to help narrow the channel and induce pool formation. However, Wildlands noted that canopy establishment is the primary methods being proposed to increase bedform (by eliminating excessive herbaceous growth). 4. UT3 was walked upstream to UT313. Wildlands indicated that minimal work would occur in the lower half of the reach and in the upper half bank grading and benching, where appropriate, would be implemented, working with the existing bedform with the possibility of a structure or two to help narrow overly -wide channel areas. 5. UT3B was walked up to its origin. The lower part of UT3B will receive some bank treatment or minor relocation off the valley wall. The upper part will receive minimal treatment except invasives treatment, removal of the existing spring box, and efforts to create a buffer from the cattle trail at the top of the slope above the origin points of UT313 and UT3131. 6. UT3C was walked from upstream to downstream. Jake told Erin that UT3C would be credited above the crossing and that this would entail stabilizing an existing knick point to protect the upstream (offsite) crossing. Erin asked if the upstream crossing was undersized and Jake responded that it probably is but is off the project site/parcel. At the bottom of UT3C Wildlands WWildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2 CORNBREAD VALLEY mitigation site Post -Contract IRT Site Walk indicated that it would be taken offline onto the right pasture since it is against the steep left valley wall. 7. The group crossed the existing culvert across UT3 and observed the start of the project on UT3. Wildlands indicated that fencing would be brought from an existing fence on the right side of the UT3 tributary to tie into the right side of the UT3 easement. Wildlands indicated that upstream areas are relatively stable, wooded, and continue for a long ways and that the owner was not amenable to including areas in the project, nor was the project need sufficient to facilitate an easement of this size. 8. UT3 Reach 1 was walked going downstream with Wildlands noting the stream would be relocated off the left hillside to the fall line of the valley. 9. UT3 Reach 2 was walked going downstream from UT3A. 10. Jones Creek was walked going upstream from the lower project limits. NCWRC noted the trout moratorium would likely need to be observed in full as Jones Creek supports both brown and rainbow trout. The exact start point of restoration was discussed as being closer to where it is shown on the map than to the first left meander below the straight-away. NCWRC asked about the concentrated animal area. At the close of the meeting it was agreed that Wildlands would seek ways to treat runoff from the area if possible, but noted the options may be limited to treating what can be captured via existing drainage patterns in the lower portion of the field. Swales or berms were brought up as things to be explored if they made sense. 11. The IRT asked about the location of the crossing and Wildlands indicated the owner was not amenable to adjusting the location closer to the NCDOT ROW along Jones Creek Road. Wildlands pointed out the proposed powerline relocation to eliminate the powerline easement currently in place. 12. The group crossed into the middle field and walked up UT2 above the failing dam outlet to the S-curve in the driveway. Wildlands indicated that UT2 would be restored. Jake indicated that water feeds residence and spring box must remain (noted that it is currently outside of easement). 13. Jones Creek was walked in the middle field from Allison Watts Rd downstream about halfway to discuss the type of work to be performed. Wildlands indicated that spot bank treatment would be pursued in some areas with obvious impending failures. Wildlands noted that there is a large drop in the middle of the reach and a few bank erosion areas that will be proposed for treatment, supported with a couple of in -stream structures. NCWRC noted that undercut bank habitat that is stable is something they would like to see retained and Wildlands agreed. 14. Jones Creek was walked upstream from Allison Watts Road to the top of the restoration reach. 15. UT1 was walked from upstream to downstream. The IRT noted the lack of bedform and incision. Wildlands indicated that in alder thickets the bedform is more pronounced. Wildlands indicated that restoration was considered but that Wildlands didn't want to have the approach appear overly aggressive since the stream is fairly stable and the areas with alders have existing habitat value. The IRT indicated that they would support restoration on this reach and that it would be consistent with how they've viewed other sites. DMS said they will revisit with Wildlands in the near future. It was left off that Wildlands may pursue either approach but that there is a desire to ensure that as a more mature canopy establishes that the creek remains stable, and that maximum uplift potential is pursued where possible. 16. Visit takeaway notes from the group were discussed as follows: • Todd (USACE): UT3A upper portion may require flow monitoring, other UT's no concern. Noted that Wildlands has done a lot of lumping/mashing over splitting and is OK with it provided there is follow-through on areas with higher level of activities within reaches — W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3 CORNBREAD VALLEY mitigation site Post -Contract IRT Site Walk he suggested a site design graphic to show bank treatment areas, structures, etc. (or plans may suffice). Specified that biological monitoring on upper UT3A may entail macro sweeps with no required standard — mainly just to evaluate whether it can support macros and understand what the biological benefits are of restoring this type of system. • Erin (NCDWR): Noted that typically stable wooded areas with minimal activities may not qualify for 2.5:1 ratio, but that paired with other activities in the same reach that the approach proposed is reasonable - subject to minor adjustment to ratio based on final proposed activities and documentation of uplift. Liked the uncredited areas we included to protect stream values. • Shawn indicated Wildlands would take IRT concern about # of crossings to landowner and see if any crossings could be eliminated. Crossing 13 was noted by IRT as seemingly redundant. (As a follow-up to meeting minutes: subsequent to the meeting, Wildlands has brought this concern to landowners and they are considering letting Wildlands do away with crossings 13 or 14 but want some time before fully committing). • Andrea (NCWRC): Preserve habitat in E2 reaches of Jones Creek. Noted the IRT's increasing focus on vegetation and importance of reference sites for vegetation (valley different from headwaters). Noted her concern about the concentrated livestock use at the barn on left floodplain of Jones Creek Reach 3 (see earlier notes about discussion of this). She commented that the project can have a great impact based on its landscape position, and it contributing to improvements in Cartoogechaye Creek downstream. Noted to Jake that yellow buckeye, ironwood, spicebush all good candidate species. Sycamore fine but not so heavy on it. Red maple a volunteer only. • All agencies recognized and supportive of the wetland potential of the site and that these would be a nice compliment and provide further water quality benefits by increasing the buffer. DMS said they would revisit potential to amend the contract for wetland and stream credit in the near future. W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 4 CORNBREAD VALLEY mitigation site Post -Contract IRT Site Walk i Proposed Conservation Easement Optional Conservation Easement Project Parcels Internal Crossing Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I r Stream Enhancement 11 Stream Enhancement 11 - Optional Stream Enhancement 11 - No Credit Reach Breaks Proposed BMP Non -Project Stream ......••• Existing Waterline Utility Line To Remain O Utility Line to Be Removed —0-- Utility Line New Alignment '14 IEta >MWOP ' •s .! r IF ...;� r_ . �S3�ri4+357 WILD LAND S E N G I N E E R I N G 0 300 Feet Scale ear 1" Al 1 > - r% 40_ r r A i~_ u :'. •.;rr is c o. Width (ft) I Location Internal or External Crossing Type 1 40 UT1 Internal Culvert Crossing Unnamed tributary to UTl 2 40 Internal (Existing) Culvert Crossing not for credit Jones Creek Reach 1 mid- i 30 Internal Overhead Utility Easement reach Jones Creek Reach 1 near 4 40 Internal Overhead Utility Easement bridge Jones Creek Reach 1-2 at 5 60 External Road ROW/ Bridge Allison Watts Rd 6 40 Jones Creek Reach 2 Internal Ford Crossing & Overhead Utili Easement 7 40 UT2(Downstream) Internal Culvert Crossing & Overhead UtiIi ty Easement 8 30 UT2/Jones Creek Reach 2 Internal Overhead Utility Easement 9 60 Jones Creek Reach 1-2 at External Road ROW / Bridge N. Jones Creek Rd 10 40 Jones Creek Reach 3 Internal Ford Crossing/ Waterline 11 60 UT3C Internal CulvertCrossing & Overhead UtiIi ty Easement 12 40 UT3 Reach 1 (Upstream) Internal Culvert Crossing & Overhead UtiIi ty Easement 13 40 UT3 Reach 1 (Downstream) Internal Culvert Crossing 14 40 UT3 Reach 2 Internal Culvert Crossing Jones Creek above Reach 1 5 30 Internal Overhead Utility Easement (not for credit) Figure 6a Concept Map - Revised Option 1 Cornbread Valley Mitigation Site Little Tennessee River Basin 06010202 Macon County, NC Revised: January 26, 2021 Figure 6a Concept Map - Revised Option 1 Cornbread Valley Mitigation Site Little Tennessee River Basin 06010202 Macon County, NC Revised: January 26, 2021