20090633 Ver 1_DRAFT 10_13_15 IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes_20151029

Meeting Minutes: 10/13/15
IRT Site Visit Ut West Fork Deep River
CU 03030003
IMS # 442
Meeting Attendees:
Todd Tugwell-USACE, Andrea Hughes-USACE, John Thomas- USACE, Ginny Baker- NC DWR, Katie
Merritt- NC DWR, Marissa Cox- NC DOT, Brad Chilton- NC DOT, Periann Russell- NC DMS, Melonie
Allen- NC DMS
Meeting Location: 1609 Squire Davis Road, Kernersville NC (Forsythe & Guilford Co.)
A meeting request was submitted to the IRT (see request memo attached) by DMS for a site visit to the
Ut West Fork Deep River. The intent of the request was to seek IRT input early in the re -design phase
of the project, prior to the redrafting of the mitigation plan. DMS had re-evaluated the site and decided
to scale back the originally submitted design to address concerns relating to existing constraints and site
potential. The currently proposed plan for the Royle parcel, the furthest downstream reach of the project
extent, is enhancement II. The remaining upstream project extent is proposed as preservation.
Enhancement II Reach(s):
DMS had previously contracted with Guilford Soil & Water to design agricultural BMPs, cattle exclusion
fencing and two alternative watering stations, for this reach. The BMPs were installed by DMS through an
informal contract in 2011. DMS has contracted to plant the entire easement area (5.14 ac) of the Royle
parcel. The planting will consist of under and over story species. The planting specifications have been
adapted for the site to require a minim of four sub -canopy species and two canopy species in areas where
the canopy is approaching full coverage. Invasive species will also be treated in this area for a minimum of
three years with a 95% eradication guarantee per the executed contract.
Preservation Reach(s):
This preservation reaches will not be planted or treated for invasives. Buffer preservation on these
reaches will be sought pursuant to the temporary consolidated rule. The project is non -urban and all
reaches are subject, credit will be sought on reaches with buffer widths of 30 feet or greater and
associated credit ratios applied. Buffer credits will be refined and detailed in the mitigation plan.
Field Meeting Outcome:
The IRT was receptive to the scaled back approach for the EII reaches. However, given the current
channel condition on the EII section, the common mitigation ratio of 2.5:1 was deemed inappropriate. A
reduced ratio of 5:1 was agreed to for the EII reach. There was an adjustment of approximately 95 If on
Ut C based on stream origin call performed on site (located on attached map). The stream preservation
reach will be credited at a ratio of 5:1.
Visual monitoring (established photo points) will be required for a minimum of five years. Buffer mitigation
will require the collection of vegetation plot data annually; this data will be included in the annual stream
monitoring reports as an auxiliary appendix but not tied to stream project success. Due to the lack of site
disturbance no 404/401 permit will need to be issued for site work. It is anticipated that although

monitoring reports will be submitted annually for post planting years 1 through 5, an IRT closeout site
visit will likely not be necessary for this site.
The project is located within and subject to the Randleman Watershed Buffer Rules and grandfathered to
enable eligibility of buffer mitigation out to 200 feet from top of bank (TOB). Eligibility for buffer
restoration and/or buffer enhancement adjacent to EII reaches had been verified by NC DWQ
(correspondence attached). Buffer restoration or enhancement will be assessed out to 200 feet at ratios of
1:1 and 2:1 respectively. Areas with buffer in excess of 200 ft. and buffer preservation will be subject to
the Consolidated Buffer Rule effective 11/01/15.

Attachment 1. IRT Site Visit Request for 10/13/15 Meeting
Project Summary/Site Visit Request
TO: Interagency Review Team (IRT) members
FROM: Melonie Allen, DMS Project Manager
RE: Request for Establishment of Stream Enhancement and Preservation Mitigation Ratios
UT West Fork Deep River
CU 03030003; Forsythe & Guilford Counties
IMS # 442
Fund Code 2984
DATE: 10/01/2015
The Ut to West Fork Deep River is a DMS DBB stream mitigation project transferred to EEP in 2005 by
NCDOT. There were a number of delays associated with the project including property acquisition
(completion of original DOT acquisition held up by easement expansion), limited construction access and
design concerns. The project was dropped by DMS in 2011 and resurrected in 2014 (see timeline below).
Brief Project History
Task
Date Completed
Project Transfer from NC DOT
? (2005)
EEP PRC Presentation
3/2007
EEP Project Designer Assigned
3/2007
Conceptual Plan
8/2008
Draft Mitigation Plan Submitted
9/2008
Final Mitigation Plan Approved
3/2009
404/401 submitted
4/15/2009
401/404 issued
11/24/2009 (expired
11/24/2011)
Draft Construction Plans Submitted
Project on hold/dropped 2010
Project resurrected
? 2014
Ut to the West Fork Site had a number of factors that resulted in a re-examination of the project's
viability. The concerns associated with the site are:
1. Lateral constraint - the easement limits the belt width of the project
2. Vertical constraint - the existing conditions resulting from historical land use and ongoing
stressors in the watershed have resulted in a channel that is both incised and entrenched through
a combination of downcutting and aggradation of legacy sediment.
3. The project reach is located in a FEMA regulated zone.
These constraints have limited the design options for the site. Priority I restoration is not possible due
to easement width as well as the length of the reach being insufficient to accommodate the profile
adjustment that would be necessary to restore floodplain functionality. Priority II, the original design for
the site, is also not a suitable solution for this reach in particular given that the site is currently
functioning as a sand bed system. The long-term stability of the site would require that the sediment
transport analysis be accurate not only for current conditions but also for future conditions in a

developing watershed. A priority II restoration would entail the typical concerns associated with bank
stabilization and vegetation establishment associated with working in subsoil as well as an added risk of
potential for deposition on benches; which could ultimately re-create a stream system resembling the
current condition. Stream enhancement I accomplished through dimension adjustment would have a
similar risk. In lieu of the limited design options subject to uncertain success, planting the easement and
treating the invasive species would benefit the site. DMS has funded the design and construction of
agricultural BMPs on site. Fencing and alternative watering structures were designed by Guilford Soil &
Water District and installed by DMS contractor in 2011. Given the work proposed; planting, invasive
species treatment, cattle exclusion fencing and alternative watering, DMS is proposing a combination of
stream enhancement and preservation on Ut West Fork of Deep River. Given the level of channel
impairment, DMS is seeking IRT input on steam enhancement and preservation mitigation ratios.
UT West Fork Deep River - Asset Summary
Type of Asset
Original Assets
Original Credits
Revised Assets*
Estimated
Revised Credits
Stream Restoration (10
2201
2201
0
0
Stream Enhancement 1 00
990
660
0
0
Stream Enhancement 2 00
0
0
2456
?
Stream Preservation 00
2040
408
2775
?
Buffer Restoration & Enhancement (sq. ft
237837
237837
242,372
*Buffer assets were revised to reflect the 2014 Consolidated Temporary Buffer Rules, will be re-evaluated
and verified at mitigation plan stage; stream assets to be determined.
Project Location: 1609 Squire Davis Rd Kernersville, NC 27284

Attachment 2. DVVQ Buffer Correspondence
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Monday September 26, 20119:39 AM
To: Allen, Me|onie
Subject: RE:
Perfect. I would leave it exactly as you have in this map. Since the enhancement area is both sideso/that DTand 5U
feet wide then I think it's worth calling them out as a separate area.
Sue Homewood
NCDENRWinston-Salem Regional Office
Division o/Water Quality
585 YVmgktow/n Street
Winston-Salem,l4C27lU7
Voice: [phone]
FAX: (336)77l -463U
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be

From: Allen, Melonie
Sent: Monday, September26,2O119:]5AM
To: Homewood, Sue
Subject: RE:
This may help clarify, the red cross hatched areas are the areas that qualified for buffer restoration (as measured on the
Dtuod the downstream reach o/the main stem bythe plot data from plots 3,4,5)the green simple hatch uJthe top o/the
Dtiathe area that qualified for buffer enhancement (inchxl dplotsl&2)
K4e|mnieA||en
NCEEP
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may bedisclosed hzthird parties.
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Monday, September 26, 20119:20 AM
To: Allen, Me|onie
Subject: RE:
Cali you draw that inonuozap7That's not quite making sense nome, I'm sorry.
Sue Homewood
NC DEN|lWinston-Salem Regional Office
Division o/Water Quality
585 YVmigktow/n Street
Winston-Salem,l4C27lU7
Voice: [phone]
FAX: (336)77l -463U
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Allen, Me|onie
Sent: Monday September 26, 20119:17 AM
To: Homewood, Sue
Subject: RE:
D does, we were trying to be conservative and measuring areas along the DTwhich had the max. mirnbcx of trees and
were surprised to find that the only area that gnuUDcd for enhancement was the area that the four of tis were standing at
uaw/cdiscussed the buffer. The tipper section o/the Dt(plots l &c2onatrcmnleft and right) were enhancement and all
other plots downstream and along the main stem were restoration. I didn't think that it would be prudent to categorize
the entire reach uarestoration given the tipper areas stem counts but dia usmall area (about 50 l/along the channel) that
qualified for enhancement. Inthis case, what would you rccoononcnd7
Thanks,
Mclonic
K4e|mnie4J|en
NCEEP
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may besubject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may bedisclosed to third parties.
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Monday, September 26, 20119:08 AM
To: Allen, Me|onie
Subject: RE:
Amy's last name is Etiliss.

With your stem count plots, it looks like you have a combination of restoration and enhancement. One thing I don't
think DWQ would want to see is lots of individual plots that vary between restoration and enhancement. If that area can
reasonably be broken up into two sections, then that would be fine, but if it goes back and forth between restoration and
enhancement every 50 or so feet, that would probably be problematic. Does that make sense'?
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Allen, Melonie
Sent: Friday, September 23, 20113:59 PM
To: Homewood, Sue
Cc: Corson, Kristie
Subject:
Sue,
Thanks again for meeting Kristie and I on Monday at Ut West Fork of Deep River, your input was very helpful. I've
attached my meeting notes which includes a summary of the plot data collected after you and Amy left and a map of the
plot locations. I'm not sure yet when this site will be submitted for permit since we are still seeking construction access.
Sorry about omitting Amy's last name.
Have a great weekend,
Melonie
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: Melon ie.Allen(cDncdenr.gov
Melonie Allen
Central Project Manager
NCDENR- Ecosystem Enhancement Program
919-368-9352 (p)
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.

Ut West Fork Deep River Buffer Clarification Meeting
On site- Royle Parcel: 9/19/2011
Attendees: Sue Homewood, Amy ?: DWQ
Kristie Corson, Melonie Allen: EEP
This meeting resulted from a request by EEP to DWQto meet on site to discuss three points:
1. Clarification on best approach on method of measurement of potential buffer restoration/enhancement for
the Ut West Fork Deep River EEP Stream restoration & enhancement project which lies within the Randleman
Reservoir watershed and is subject to the Randleman Buffer Rules.
• Site visit began by walking the upper reach (stream right, west of the existing ford crossing) of the main
stem of the Ut W. Fork of Deep River on the Royle parcel to see a representative reach that was proposed
for buffer restoration. This reach was deemed applicable for buffer restoration*.
• The site visit continued by walking to 'UT D' which is the tributary north of the main stem downstream of
the ford crossing. Discussion on this reach resulted in guidance to divide the buffer mitigation areas by
number of existing trees and establish vegetation plots in areas where restoration/enhancement breaks
may exist. These plots were established by the following method:
o Plots representative of the existing vegetation in the vicinity were established.
o Each plot measured 50 If (length along existing thalweg as measured along Top of Bank) by 50 If
(measured from Top of Bank perpendicular to channel) for a total of 2,500 sq. ft = .05739 ac.
o All trees with DBH (measured at 4.5 ft) equal to or greater than 5 inches were tallied within each
plot.
o The number of trees within each plot was then extrapolated to yield a stems/acre tally (break
point for 50 ft x 50 ft plots for restoration (0-100 tpa/enhancement (100 — 200 tpa) is 5.7 for
restoration and 11.5 for enhancement).
Plot data for attached map:
■ Plot 1= 10 trees = 174 TPA; enhancement
■ Plot 2 = 9 trees = 156 TPA; enhancement
■ Plot 3 = 5 trees = 87 TPA; restoration
■ Plot 4 = 5 trees = 87 TPA; restoration
■ Plot 5 = 4 trees = 69 TPA; restoration
• This concluded the buffer mitigation restoration vs. enhancement discussion as the two reaches visited
represented the buffer mitigation reaches to be proposed.
2. Clarification on 'potentially allowable' temporary access road through existing mature buffer on upstream end
of project site.
• Temporary access road may be allowable if is the only viable access route to complete the project.
Documentation to support all other alternative routes sought must be submitted with application to allow
construction of the road and the road must be designed to minimize impacts. All impacts associated with the
road must be restored and the restoration efforts monitored to ensure success.
3. Verification that buffer mitigation would not be allowable on main stem of Ut W. Fork of Deep River absent
stream work.
• Main stem of Ut West Fork is not eligible for buffer credits without stabilizing the stream; Ut D may be eligible
for buffer without associated stream work.
* All proposed buffer restoration and enhancement will be re-evaluated to ensure buffer widths and
other criteria are met post construction.

125 250 900