20211285 Ver 1_IRT Post Contract Site Review Meeting_20210730

Strickland, Bev
From: Tim Morris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 4:13 PM
To: Crocker, Lindsay; Dow, Jeremiah J; Wilson, Travis W.; Davis, Erin B; Haywood, Casey M
CIV (USA); Kim Browning; Kenan Jernigan; Adam Spiller; Baumgartner, Tim
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: [External] IRT Post Contract Site Review Meeting - Oakley's Bend Project - Tar Pam 01
Attachments: KCI Post Contract IRT Review Meeting Minutes - Oakley's 07-27-2021.pdf
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.
Attendees - Attached are meeting minutes from the Oakley's Bend site visit on July 27th. If you have additional notes or
clarifications you would like added, please respond to the group.
Enjoy your weekend!
Tim
1

Date: July 28, 2021

Attendees: Lindsay Crocker, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Jeremiah Dow, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Tim Baumgartner, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Erin Davis, NC Division of Water Resources
Casey Haywood, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kim Browning, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kenan Jernigan, Axiom Environmental
Adam Spiller, KCI Technologies, Inc.

From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Technologies, Inc.

Subject: Oakley’s Bend Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Restoration Site
Post Contract IRT Site Review Meeting
Tar Pam 01
Person County, North Carolina
Contract No. #200205-01

An IRT field review was conducted for the above referenced project on July 27th starting at approximately
9:30 am. Weather was warm, humid, and sunny. The project streams of Oakley’s Bend and T1 were
flowing. T2 had intermittent flow throughout the project reach.

The comments were discussed during 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.

T1

- The upstream wooded portion of T1, that is not a project reach was investigated to see that it is
a true single thread stream system to contrast to the heavily impacted reach of T1 below the
wood line that has been degraded to the point of losing bed and banks and appearing as a
swale.
- Because this reach is so impacted and devoid of bed and banks, the IRT would like to see a
constructed channel (pilot channel) connecting the reach in the woods to the reach identified
for restoration. This reach may be a candidate for full restoration credit if during the assessment
and design phase it is determined that approach is in the best interest of the project.

- If the wetlands that are adjacent to T1 are projected to have an increase in hydrology due to the
raising of T1 through Priority 1 restoration, those wetlands may be candidates for Rehabilitation
credit if pre-restoration hydrology data is collected.
- The thin section of wooded wetland enhancement to the east of the downstream part of T1 will
need pre-restoration hydrologic monitoring to document hydrology improvement as a result of
the Priority 1 restoration of T1.

T2

- There was discussion about the restoration approach for this stream and whether restoring the
channel by filling it in place and not creating a new meander pattern may be more appropriate.
During the design phase KCI will consider this approach and justify whatever approach is arrived
at by looking at the valley/floodplain morphology and topography, the potential functional
improvements, and the potential to restore or create riparian wetlands along this reach.
- If trees were to be removed, IRT requested incorporating the wood in the channel design.

Oakley’s Bend

- No changes to the conceptual approach were noted.
- The IRT noted that KCI needed to make sure there was sufficient justification for the Wetland
Reestablishment adjacent to the E2 section of Oakley’s Bend, because the channel is not
proposed to be raised along this reach.

General Comments
- A map without the buffer hatching in the mitigation plan, so the other project elements were
easier to differentiate needs to be in the mitigation plan.
- In the mitigation plan the wetlands should be labeled in a similar scheme as the JD to facilitate
discussion about specific areas of wetland mitigation.
- The IRT requested a figure showing the proposed wetland grading, specifically showing where
grading may be less than 6”, between 6” and 1’, and greater than 1’. IRT mentioned that
grading for wetland restoration could not exceed 1’ in depth.
- There was a question about making sure that there is no planned crossing on T1 upstream of the
road. There is no planned crossing of T1 upstream of the road as the landowner has access to
his fields from Fitch-Oakley Road.
- There was a question about whether the crossing on Oakley’s will be a ford or culvert. The
crossing will be a ford as it will be used very infrequently.
- It was emphasized that there should be pretreatment of all of the pasture grass anywhere inside
of the proposed easement before construction.
- The mitigation plan needs to show a map that depicts the location of all of the soil boring
locations, not just the locations of the soil descriptions.
- The mitigation plan should discuss current vs. anticipated future land uses. Specifically looking at
future risks associated with some kinds of land uses like adjacent logging or development. Then
there should be discussion on how these risks may influence the design approach, adaptive
management, and long-term stewardship.

Please reach out if there are any other specific comments or discussions that occurred during the site
walk that are relevant to this project and are not captured in this memo.