20180182 Ver 1_DRAFT IRT Meeting Minutes - March 23 2021_20210326

Strickland, Bev
From: Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:20 AM
To: Leslie, Andrea J; Davis, Erin B; Steve Kichefski
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Wilson, Travis W.; Cidney
Jones; Jake Byers
Subject: [External] DRAFT Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2021
Attachments: Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes 20210323_draft.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Please see attached for draft meeting minutes from the IRT visit to our Red Barn Bank Site in Surry County on
Wednesday of this week. Please let me know if you have any comments/additions that should be made. Thanks — have
a great weekend!
-Kevin
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
R ESTORATION
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Vice President
Principal Water Resources Engineer
1150 SE Maynard Road
Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
919-388-0787 (office)
919-999-0262 (cell)
919-388-0789 (fax)
Blockedwww.eprusa. net
1

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Red Barn IRT Meeting Minutes
Date: March 23, 2021
Time: 3:00 — 5:10 PM
Location: Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site; Mount Airy, NC
Attendees: Steven Kichefski - USACE
Todd Tudwell — USACE
Erin Davis - NCDEQ
Andrea Leslie — NC WRC
Jake Byers - EPR
Kevin Tweedy— EPR
Minutes:
• Minutes recorded by Kevin Tweedy and Jake Byers.
• Kevin and Jake started the meeting with a brief overview of the site conditions at the end of
Year 1 monitoring, and concerns/issues that were raised in the Year 1 monitoring report,
which included:
o Most groundwater wells did not meet wetland hydrology criteria. Group discussed
options of changing the wetland crediting for the site, or possible abandoning
wetland credits all together. EPR is going to evaluate in the future and decide, and
until that point will not request further wetland credit releases.
o Update on easement encroachment issues.
o Stream flow in UT1 and possible relocation of stream gage SG2.
o Replanting of some areas with higher tree mortality.
• The group walked north and started the site walk approximately 400 feet downstream of
the start of UT1. The following notes are in regards to discussions during the walk of UT1:
o Corps commented that some of the planted stems were very small. EPR attributes
some of the higher mortality to the size of the stems that were planted and is one of
the reasons supplemental planting is proposed.
o Group inspected the conditions of Wetland WA in the vicinity of WG1, above the UT1
culverted crossing. EPR explained that the pre -restoration wetland hydrology
appears to have been driven by perched water, and a depressional landscape. After
restoration, the stream is providing some drainage of the valley, and there appears
to be no connection between the local water table and the stream water level. Group
agreed that hydrology in this area will be hard to obtain except for some isolated
pockets, without a complete redesign and reconstruction. EPR is evaluating options
for this area.
o Group crossed the culverted crossing to the downstream reach of UT1. Group
inspected the location of stream gage SG2. After discussion and review of the rest of
UT1, Group agreed to leave SG2 in its current condition.
o Corps noted that there was vegetation in lower end of UT1 and that flow as obviously
reduced. Corps mentioned that they allow providers to remove vegetation from the

channel during the first 3 monitoring years with no penalties to allow the stream to
stabilize. Any "cleaning" should not be done right before a scheduled IRT field visit.
o Group discussed performance of wetland gages WG4 and WG5, near the confluence
of UT1 and UT2. Discussed poor performance of gages, and EPR's belief that the
situation could be improved by cutting off some surface drainage that appears to be
occurring.
• Group then walked to the upper end of UT2. Concern as expressed about the sand load in
the middle of the reach, but conditions appeared better at the top of the reach. EPR
explained that while the sand load is high from offsite, the stream appears to be processing
the sand without aggradation of the stream.
• Group briefly looked at wetland WB in the vicinity of gage WG7 on the south side of UT2
and noted it had hydrology and standing water.
• Group continued down UT2. EPR noted the wet floodplain that has formed along much of
UT2 from approximately the culverted crossing downstream. Corps confirmed that any
wetland credits developed from these areas would be at a "creation" ratio, due to the depth
of cut.
• Group inspected the foot bridge on lower UT2. No concerns were expressed.
• Group continued up UT3. Group noted the wetland around well WG8 appeared much
wetter than others, and it was the one well that met criteria during the previous year.
• Group looked at location of well WG9 which was mistakenly installed just outside the
proposed wetland line. EPR explained that they planned to move well WG9 downstream
slightly to get away from the ATV crossing. Corps suggested to relocate this well to the south
side of UT3.
• Group discussed the ATV crossing. EPR explained that they plan to lay the left bank back
slightly and install stone, so that an ATV can cross easier. EPR also explained that they
expect very little is any ATV traffic in the future.
• Tour concluded around 5:10. Steve said that he would issue the credit release letter for Year
1 (which will be stream credits only) later that week. EPR will evaluate options for the
wetland on the site and notify the Corps of any plans before any actions are taken.
• Corps confirmed that if EPR determined that wetland assets were not viable or they did not
want to pursue, only a delineation at close out would be required to ensure that the total
wetland area was not reduced. The Corps would also take into account that the pre -
restoration wetlands were generally low quality.