20200017 Ver 1_Post Contract IRT Site Review meeting_20210730

Strickland, Bev
From: Tim Morris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 3:23 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Adam Spiller
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Yarbro Stream and Wetland Project
Attachments: KCI Post Contract IRT Review Meeting Minutes - Yarbro 1-14-20.pdf; Yarbro_Fig08
_Mitigation.pdf; Yarbro_Fig11_Mitigation.pdf
Hey Todd and Kim,
I wanted to reach out to both of you prior to Mitigation Plan submittal on the Yarbro project. We are nearing
completion of the mitigation plan and concurrently have our easement documents (deeds, plat and title work) being
reviewed by State Property Office. The main reason that I am reaching out is there have been some adjustments to the
proposed easement presented to you at the post contract review meeting. These changes were necessary based on
feedback received at the 1-14-20 site review meeting (minutes attached) with the IRT. The two attached figures show
the changes. Figure 8 is a draft of what will be proposed in the upcoming Mitigation Plan submittal and Figure 11 is
what was in our original proposal to DMS as well as what you evaluated in the field. The changes are located around T4
and the associated wetlands located just south of T4. As we discussed in the field the IRT believed that the soils did not
support a re-establishment call. KCI did go out to do more soil borings in that area and although there were some areas
that contained suitable soils, the more detailed analysis concluded that the re-establishment area was significantly
smaller than depicted at the proposal stage. Additionally, the IRT felt that filling the shallow ditch along the T4 existing
wetland would not provide significant uplift to this wetland. The general consensus was that the wetland was
functioning well (even if partially drained) and since it was already forested, rehabilitation and even enhancement would
be a stretch here. The IRT did recommend however that KCI consider creation in the open field area below the
confluence of Buffalo Creek and T4. We have evaluated that potential and agree that creation is a suitable approach,
especially if designed to receive both overbank flow and contributions from the T4 wetland system that are currently
short circuiting through the aforementioned ditch.
As a result, KCI has modified our design to shorten the E1 section on T4 and exclude the original wetland area from the
project/easement. The reduction in easement acreage along T4 allowed us to expand our easement in other portions of
the project slightly and also allows us to fund the substantial earth moving operation that will need to occur along the
creation area of Buffalo Creek. We are also exploring the potential of some additional wetland creation along Buffalo
Creek between T2 and the HWY 27. We will still be doing E1 work at the confluence of T4 and Buffalo Creek, where T4 is
particularly unstable, however the upstream areas of T4 that were more stable were eliminated from the project.
I hope you find these modifications consistent with the recommendations given at the time of the site visit. If you have
concerns, please let me know. We will not be recording the easement until we get some feedback from you on the
changes, however we would like to close on the easement prior to full mitigation plan approval if possible.
Thanks in advance for your feedback. I have copied Paul Wiesner on this email as well.
Regards,
Tim
Timothy J. Morris
KCI Technologies, Inc./KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction Inc.
4505 Falls of Neuse Road — Suite 400
1

Raleigh NC, 27609
919-278-2511 (Office)
919-793-6886 (Mobile)
2

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Date: January 14, 2020
Attendees: Paul Wiesner, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Harry Tsomides, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Kirsten Ullman, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Tim Baumgartner, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Casey Haywood, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Mac Haupt, NC Division of Water Resources
Erin Davis, NC Division of Water Resources
Alan Johnson, NC Division of Water Resources
Olivia Munzer, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
TR Russ, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers
Tim Morris, KCI Technologies, Inc.
Adam Spiller, KCI Technologies, Inc.
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Technologies, Inc.
Subject: Yarbro Stream Restoration Site
Post Contract IRT Site Review Meeting
Broad 05
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Contract No. #7874-01
An IRT field review was conducted for the above referenced project on January 14th starting at
approximately 9 am. Weather was overcast with periods of heavy rain during the site visit. All project
tributaries that were evaluated were flowing during the meeting. High, turbid flows in the streams during
the site visit did make it difficult to evaluate bed condition during the site walk. Annotations based on the
site walk have been made to the Mitigation Figure 11 that was included in the proposal. The revised
Figure is attached.
The comments follow the order of the site walk. There was overall agreement on the proposed levels of
intervention and the proposed credit strategy unless specified below. All project reaches and approaches
will need to be justified in the mitigation plan; project reaches, including adding any creditable reaches
upstream, would be contingent upon an approved jurisdictional determination.
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM www.1CC1. COM

T1
- No changes or concerns were noted on T1 above the farm road.
- The T1 section below the farm road that is proposed as El was discussed along with the E1
section Buffalo Creek in this area. KCI recognizes that there were bed features in this area that
were providing stability and function to these reaches and initially had considered a lighter
touch in this area that would involve primarily bank grading and floodplain work. Since it was a
relatively short section of El KCI asked if the IRT would consider allowing KCI to modify the
planform so as not to constrain the design of the areas upstream and downstream of this El
area. If KCI elected to modify the planform to more of a restoration approach, a higher ratio
(1.25:1 was mentioned) would be more appropriate. There would also need to be justification
of the approach in the Mitigation Plan. The IRT also indicated that they would be more
receptive to this approach if the downstream crossing could be eliminated. This was discussed
with the landowner after the meeting and the downstream crossing will be eliminated from the
project.
Buffalo Creek (Top of Project to T2)
T2
- No changes to the approach were noted above the road crossing.
- See note in T1 section for the proposed E1 section of BC.
- All debris along the channel would be removed, including the house trailer.
- Proposed easement crossing below El section will be removed from the project
- No changes to the conceptual approach were noted on T2
- IRT recommended BMP's in areas where overland flow was concentrated. These areas were
evident during the site walk due to the heavy rains. KCI will GPS these locations and add BMP
features to the project to pre -treat runoff prior to discharging to the stream.
- For the Wetland at the top of T2 — IRT requested pre -restoration hydrology gauges to compare
with post -restoration hydrology to assist in substantiating the rehabilitation call.
- Upstream extent of T2 will be determined by the JD. KCI believes the stream stops near the
bottom of the seep wetland that will be protected and rehabilitated as part of the project. The
JD may dictate changes to the design approach if the stream extends upstream into the wetland
further than currently proposed.
- IRT requested more soil boring points be added as part of the mitigation plan.
Buffalo Creek from T2 to T3
T3
- No changes were noted to the stream approach here
- Stream hydrology would need to be monitored on this reach due to the small drainage area
- Concerns were expressed by the IRT regarding the lower section of T3. Specifically, whether the
channel would maintain bed and banks or become a wetland feature. Stream credits could be
lost if this section of channel becomes a wetland.
- IRT recommended cleaning up debris (recycled concrete, etc.) above the proposed BMP.
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\\\V\V.k( I.CONI

Buffalo Creek (T3 to NC 27 HWY)
- IRT requested that additional soil borings be conducted to determine if more wetland
restoration could occur along the floodplain of Buffalo Creek in several areas. These areas are
noted on the attached Figure 11. This would require the addition of easement acreage in some
areas.
Buffalo Creek (NC 27 HWY to T4)
T4
- No changes to the stream restoration approach were noted in this area.
- No changes to the stream enhancement approach were noted in this area
- The wetland rehabilitation/re-establishment area just south of T4 was questioned by the IRT. The
wetland re-establishment area did not appear to have the hydric soil characteristics to justify
restoration. The IRT believed that the rehabilitation area was functioning well in its current
condition and did not believe that removal of the existing channelized drainage ditch would justify
rehabilitation, especially considering the lack of vegetation improvements proposed in this area.
Enhancement was a more appropriate call for this area given the current condition and the work
that was proposed. More discussion of improvements to this wetland will be provided in the next
section.
Buffalo Creek (T4 to end of project)
- The IRT did not object to the stream restoration approach for the lower portion of the project.
- The IRT requested that KCI consider wetland creation in this area since the channel would be
relocated as part of the project.
- Wetland creation that could make use of the hydrology of the T4 wetland area to extend the
flowpath of that water through the floodplain was thought to be a viable approach for this area.
Filling a toe drain along the southern boundary of the field would also likely augment hydrology
in this creation area.
- KCI has completed a preliminary evaluation of this concept and believes that we can design a
solution to create a functional stream/wetland complex in the lower portion of the site. The
exact acreage of creation will be determined and documented in the mitigation plan.
Attachments:
Figure 11 (with edits)
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\1\C\V li( I.CONI

Q Easement Option A (19.35 ac) — Stream Restoration (5,153 If / 5,153 SMC)
L ' Easement Option B (15.82 ac) — Stream Enhancement I (404 If / 269 SMC)
Proposed Water Quality Cells - - - Additional Stream Restoration (2,188 If / 2,188 SMC)
- Additional Stream Enhancement I (839 If / 559 SMC)
Wetland Reestablishment (0.97 ac / 0.97 WMC)
Wetland Rehabilitation (0.86 ac / 0.57 WMC)
Additional Wetland Reestablishment (1.85 ac / 1.85 WMC)
Additional Wetland Rehabilitation (2.27 ac / 1.51 WMC)
0 300 600
Feet
FIGURE 11. PROPOSED MITIGATION
TYPE AND EXTENT
YARBRO STREAM RESTORATION SITE
LINCOLN COUNTY, NC
A
Sources: NC Statewide
Orthoimagery 2015

Buffalo Creek
II Project Easement (33.06 ac)
Proposed BMP
Wetland Reestablishment (2.17 ac / 2.17 WMC) — No Credit (379 If)
Wetland Rehabilitation (0.86 ac / 0.39 WMC) Stream Enhancement I @1.25:1 (466 If / 373 SMC)
Wetland Creation (3.53 ac / 1.18 WMC) Stream Enhancement I @1.5:1 (315 If / 210 SMC)
— Stream Restoration (7,630 If / 7,630 SMC)
0 275 550
Feet
FIGURE 8. PROPOSED MITIGATION
TYPE AND EXTENT
YARBRO STREAM RESTORATION SITE
LINCOLN COUNTY, NC
A
Sources: NC Statewide
Orthoimagery 2015
XX

Q Easement Option A (19.35 ac) — Stream Restoration (5,153 If / 5,153 SMC)
L ' Easement Option B (15.82 ac) — Stream Enhancement I (404 If / 269 SMC)
Proposed Water Quality Cells - - - Additional Stream Restoration (2,188 If / 2,188 SMC)
- Additional Stream Enhancement I (839 If / 559 SMC)
Wetland Reestablishment (0.97 ac / 0.97 WMC)
Wetland Rehabilitation (0.86 ac / 0.57 WMC)
Additional Wetland Reestablishment (1.85 ac / 1.85 WMC)
Additional Wetland Rehabilitation (2.27 ac / 1.51 WMC)
0 300 600
Feet
FIGURE 11. PROPOSED MITIGATION
TYPE AND EXTENT
YARBRO STREAM RESTORATION SITE
LINCOLN COUNTY, NC
A
Sources: NC Statewide
Orthoimagery 2015