20201654 Ver 1_Summary of Mulberry November 2020_20201105

Summary of pre -application meeting
11.12.20
Regulatory Attendees: Brandee Boggs (Corps), Andrea Leslie (WRC), Andrew Moore (DWR),
Applicant Attendees: Jessica Hahr, Joel Osgood, Jim Cutler, Philip Ellis, Clement Riddle
Corps - Brandee Boggs indicated early in the meeting that the Corps thinks this would be an Individual
Permit (IP). The Corps is worried about the precedent this project could set, incentivizing other
applicants to propose BDA's in order to obtain amenity ponds.
Corps/WRC/DWR — most of negative comments were about the agri-drain and having an actively
managed/maintained design feature associated with a proposed "restoration project". The DWR
explained that approved restoration projects are designed so that they don't need actively managed
devise/programs.
WRC — asked to see proposed microtopography upstream of the BDA's, and specifically what is the
acreage breakdown between wetland and open water and what are the depths of the open waters.
Corps/DWR-The application must have an Operation and Maintenance program written out.
Corps/WRC - Does Mulberrry have the option to phase in several of these at a time?
Corps/WRC/DWR - Agencies asked us to propose a monitoring plan, factors to be monitored. These
factors could include photo documentation, dam stability assessment, maintenance activities,
vegetation/riparian growth. Could add temperature and/or aquatic life, macrobenthos studies?
ClearWater asked — Would the Corps view the permits available differently if the project can be
redesigned to reduce stream impacts associated with the road culverts, stream relocation, and TB4 A-B
to get stream impacts to 500 linear feet (and under (0.02ac)? This would meet the thresholds for
Nationwide permit 39. Impacts under the NWP 39 may require some mitigation. The remaining BDA's
would still be reviewed as Nationwide Permit 27.