20211471 Ver 1_Agency Meeting Notes_2-12-2021_20210212

`_YEQUINOX
��balance through proper planning
February 12, 2021
Bartlett Glen Cove Development (Swain County, NC)
Client/Agency Meeting
Attendees: David Brown (USACE-Wilmington, AVL), Andrew Moore (NCDEQ-DWR), Chester Bartlett
(landowner), Owen Carson (Equinox, landowner's consultant)
Meeting Notes:
Meeting began @ 1:00pm
-OC facilitated introductions
-DB summarized the situation starting with Nov 2020 UA and subsequent requests:
1) Summary of Impacts (2006-present) and preexisting impacts; official response to UA
2) JD (underway, not completed)
-DB: Path forward involves removing/restoring pipes where feasible and After -the -fact NWP 29
-DB: This and other projects will fall under the March 2021 NWP 29, which differs from the 2016 version
in the following ways:
NWP 2016
NWP 2021
Permits up to 300 LF of
Permits up to 0.05 acres
stream impacts (linear)
(=2178 ftz) of
streambed impacts
Mitigation cap: 150 LF
Mitigation cap: 0.02
acres (=871.2 ft2)
-DB: so, at Bartlett Glen Cove, stream area at impacts needs to be determined;
-Owen needs to revisit piped/impacted locations, and based on the piped footage, assess the
according length of stream both up- and downstream of the impacts and average to develop a
width parameter;
-If sum total of impacts < 871.2 ftz, then the Corps will not require mitigation;
-AM: Discussed state approach:
-NC issues standard water quality certifications that correspond with the Corps NWP.
-State's job is to ensure that discharge into waters of NC will not degrade or impair those waters
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100 Asheville NC 28801 828.253.6856 www.equinoxenvironmental.com

P
Oa-P., E Q UINOX
'ZINOW balance through proper planning
-State's WQ certs are updated according to the Corps schedule, but AM does not expect much
substantive change to the cert despite the major change to NWP.
-AM: WQ Certs allow up to 300 LF of impacts to perennial streams, after which a 1:1 mitigation
applies; DB asked whether there will be a consideration of higher ratios and AM said no, 1:1 is
going to be the mit rate;
-Stream requires perennial determination, linear footage is summed
-OC asked if there is wiggle room in the 300 LF threshold, AM said there is not. There is
wiggle room in the NWP/IP discussion, but not for mitigation triggers.
-DB: So, OC summed and submitted 650 LF of impacts at BCG, and also 150 LF of preexisting impacts, so
a net 500 LF of impacts have occurred; to reduce mitigation responsibility and achieve avoidance and
minimization standards for the NWP, Chester will have to remove/replace/restore/abandon impacts
where possible;
-OC: proposed restoration measures are feasible at IMP-1 and IMP-3, which are adjacent and
are in the front of the development and on low slopes and under minimal fill; 55 LF can be
regained:
-daylight and stabilize piped perennial stream at IMP-3 (+30LF)
-replace 24" CPP at IMP-1 with bottomless culvert, feed IMP-3 stream under road (+25
LF)
-OC: secondary area of potential restoration is at IMP-7 and IMP-8, which occur very close by
and which DB had suggested might could be combined to eliminate the pipe at IMP-8.
-AM asked initially if the road could cross the drainage below the confluence of the two
streams so as to create only one impact (this would have been requested during the
normal PCN process and discussions re: avoidance and minimization)
-OC: don't think that would work
-CB: would not work based on road location, lot layout, and topography/grade
-Based on past discussion between OC and DB, it was proposed to feed stream at IMP-8
into roadside ditch (would need to be enhanced/protected) and downslope into IMP-7
pipe; (+65 LF)
-Stream flows are perennial but small such that both could easily be combined
into the 24" pipe without risk of overdoing the volume
-AM: expressed concern about this causing the downstream end of IMP-8
stream channel to go dry to its confluence with IMP-7, would not approve a
dewatering in exchange for combining pipes;
-DB suggested we could go block the IMP-8 pipe and wait a reasonable
amount of time for hydrologic recharge and see what kind of baseflows
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100 Asheville NC 28801 828.253.6856 www.equinoxenvironmental.com

r
Ona.g E Q UINOX
' balance through proper planning
end up filling the lower IMP-8 channel; if baseflows seems ample, Corps
would not consider a loss, but if it goes dry, that approach should be
abandoned;
-AM: not having any visual point of reference would need to go onsite to see what we're
discussing and if it seems feasible;
-DB, the math: 650 LF —150 LF preexisting = 500 LF (-55 LF @ IMP-1/IMP-3 restoration — 65 LF @
IMP-7/IMP-8 combination) = 380 LF, which is > 300 LF state WQC threshold, so mitigation at 1:1
= 380 credits needed
-DB: okay, next steps:
1) OC evaluate stream widths at impacts and add a column to the submitted impacts table that
includes square footage of streambed impacts;
2)CB/OC develop rough draft design and narrative for restoration activities at IMP -1/IMP-3;
-design can be—30-40% level in terms of detail, does not require seal/stamp of
engineer;
-"greater than conceptual" but not as detailed as construction docs
3) CB/OC develop rough narrative describing proposed combining of IMP-8 and IMP-7 and any
other locations where restorative actions may be deemed appropriate
4) Once these items are submitted to DB and AM, CB/OC can setup an on -site meeting to review
proposed restoration activities and other areas where restoration may be achievable;
Meeting ended @ 1:40pm
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100 Asheville NC 28801 828.253.6856 www.equinoxenvironmental.com