The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20150416 Ver 1_Post Contract IRT Field Meeting_JB_Memo _20170117I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Memo Regarding Russell Gap Post Contract IRT Field Meeting Memo Date: 1/13/17 This memo will be included in the Mitigation Plan to serve as a record of field discussions including crediting ratios and approaches. Meeting Held: 11/28/16 from 12:00 to 5:00 Attendees: Scott King and Jake Byers (Baker); Todd Tugwell, Andrea Hughes, and Kim Browning (Corps of Engineers); Paul Wiesner and Matthew Reid (DMS), Mac Haupt and Ginny Baker (DWR). General Notes: • Scott initially commented that Alexander County is 19.89" below normal rainfall. • As discussed and agreed upon in the field, areas where buffers are in excess of the required 50' will be submitted for additional credit using the methodologies described in the October, 2016 Mitigation update and documented in the mitigation plan. The "Revised Credits" shown in the tables below do not yet account for the potential additional credits. This will be documented in the mitigation plan. • Please note that while the October 24, 2016 guidance can be used for implementation of the project, it is not a requirement of the applicable RFP or DMS contract. This DMS project was instituted on 10/6/2016. • Existing wetlands within the current conservation easement may be submitted for wetland enhancement credit at a 2:1 ratio and documented in the mitigation plan as discussed in the field. • All pipe removals will be considered restoration at 1:1 along proposed reaches as measured by the existing length of pipe as discussed by Todd and Jake. The originally proposed approaches and ratios for each Reach are provided in the following Tables in addition to the revised approaches and credits as applicable. Any modifications and discussions are noted in the text below. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R1 R 1975 1:1 1975 N/A N/A Group consensus was to accept proposed approach and ratio Jake inquired about the possibility of increased credits for the wider than required buffer widths along this Reach. Todd said he would be OK with this using the new guidance if presented in the mitigation plan. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Revised Credits Approach Revised Credits R2 EI 180 1.5:1 120 N/A N/A Notes: Beginning credit where CE is wide enough. Very little comment made for this short reach — Group consensus of approach is accepted as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R3 EI 395 1.5:1 263 N/A N/A Notes: Short reach — very little comment made. Todd asked to if the same type of work proposed to be done here is what was proposed for R4. Jake confirmed that yes it was. Group consensus of approach is accepted as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R4a Ell 299 2.5:1 240 N/A 120 Notes: Length has been revised to reflect the subtraction of the section adjacent to R4 After discussion, the group consensus was that the lower section of R4a could just be lumped into the rest of R4 at a similar E1 approach at 1.5:1 credit ratio (assuming the same type of work will be done as for R4), while the upper section of R4a was accepted as proposed as E2 at 2.5:1 ratio. The group understands that the lower section of R4a being added to R4 will only have a 50' buffer, not the wider buffer that R4 has proposed. Todd also found another tributary flowing into R4/R4a from the north (R27) at the fence line along the property boundary. He was OK with including it as another E2 reach and Baker said they would investigate further and include in the mitigation plan if applicable. At a minimum, the length of R4b included inside the conservation easement (50 feet) will be added to the mitigation plan at 2.5:1 ratio. The group also noticed a wet area between R4a and R26 with the potential for wetland enhancement. Baker will investigate further and include in the mitigation plan to ensure adequate wetland credits are provided. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R4 EI 2032 1.5:1 1233 N/A 1355 Notes: Length has been revised to reflect the addition of the section adjacent to R4 previously identified as part of R4a. The group debated the merits of Restoration (either P1 or 132) versus an E1 approach for this reach. Todd said that 50-60% of the banks seemed OK and was initially reluctant to go with E1. Mac commented that he felt the reach could be proposed for restoration, and that he was OK with E1 approach as proposed. Jake noted the areas of bank scour and commented that benching will be included with the proposed E1. Jake also noted the much wider than required buffers for this reach, especially along the right bank. The group had a final consensus of accepting E1 at 1.5:1 ratio as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R5 Ell 270 2.5:1 108 N/A N/A Notes: This uppermost section of stream on the Southern portion of the site was accepted as proposed as E2 at 2.5:1 ratio without much comment. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R6 R 752 1:1 752 N/A N/A Notes: stream moved to side of valley. Incorporate remnant channel. Todd commented that normally returning a stream back into its original channel from a dug ditch is normally considered a Restoration approach by definition. He noted that the original channel here has some water in it and is currently a JD stream. But while expressing concerns, did not reject the proposed approach outright. Mac was OK with the approach as proposed. Group consensus was to be accepting of the Restoration approach at 1:1 credit as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R7a EI 155 2.5:1 103 Ell 62 Notes: This reach is a new reach designation due to an approach discrepancy as described in R7b below. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R7b EI 1285 1.5:1 1000 N/A 917 Notes: The reach has been renamed R7b and accounts for the reduction of R7a from the original reach of R7 and the inclusion of the 2 culvert removals as restoration at 1:1 as discussed below. This was a heavily discussed/debated reach. Mac said a mix of R or E1 work seemed appropriate to him. He wants to see good channel bed and bank work for full credit though. Todd wants to see priority I floodplain reconnection for R credit and noted you wouldn't get that with E1. Mac noted with this slope the floodplain wouldn't be too wide here anyway. Mac and Paul then suggested we walk the entire reach length as well as the two upstream reaches first to consider the stream as a whole before reaching any further conclusions. So the group walked up to see all of R7, and then R5 and R6. Later discussion centered on the appropriate approach to be used here. Mac said again he wants to see more bed form, more pools (few currently exist in stream), good grade control, some structures, good bank work, etc. But that if that was provided in an E1 approach he was OK with 1.5:1 credit ratio. Todd and Andrea are inclined to believe that E2 would suffice for much of R7. So, after further discussion, the group assessed the upper section of R7 (now labeled as R7a) as being more appropriate for E2 at 2.5:1 ratio. Scott marked the location of this breakpoint with blue flagging and paced off its location. Upstream of the break (R7a) is E2, while the remaining downstream section (R7b) is accepted as proposed as E1 at 1.5:1. Todd stated that the two culvert removals within the lower section of R7 can be counted as restoration at 1:1. Those 2 culvert lengths total approximately 60 feet and are accounted for in the revised crediting table above though not broken out as separate reaches for simplicity. Footnotes will be added to mitigation summary tables in the mitigation plan and monitoring reports to document the increased credits. He and Jake later discussed using the new mitigation guidance document to increase potential credits. For example, through increased buffer widths and water quality or benthic sampling efforts. Todd was agreeable to those being proposed in the mitigation plan. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R8 Ell 481 2.5:1 192 N/A N/A Notes: Scott noted the privet here. Mac said he's seen worse but was OK with the approach considering the cattle access here. No other comments were noted. Consensus was to agree with approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R9 R 463 1:1 463 N/A N/A Notes: Group thought that raising the channel up and utilizing the two adjacent linear wetland features (plugging the end of each perhaps?) should raise the surrounding water table and increase flooding throughout the floodplain area, which has hydric soils and could count for wetland restoration credit if properly monitored. Baker will investigate this possibility. Consensus seemed to accept Restoration approach as proposed. At the small pond at the upper end of one of those linear wetlands, options for a potential BMP were discussed. The group seemed to agree that leaving the wetlands mostly alone but for plugging the ends should improve the adjacent wetland function (along with the R9 restoration work). Cattle will be fenced out of the existing pond/wallow area. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R10 EI 400 2:1 267 Ell 200 Notes: Andrea suggested we add wetland enhancement to this section. Todd initially thought E2 would be more appropriate, while Paul felt that E1 was warranted here. Scott suggested that the functional uplift potential for both stream and wetlands here justified a higher ratio, noting that the easement protects a large seep at the top that helps feed to stream. Mac thought the upper section (above the rock head -cut) was more E2 worthy, while the lower section that has to be stepped down to the main stem of R1 would require more E1 level work. In the end, the group consensus was to accept an E2 approach at a 2:1 credit ratio including stabilizing headcuts. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R11 EI 500 1.5:1 333 N/A 340 Notes: The removal of the existing culvert of approximately 20 feet in length will be included at a 1:1 ratio though not broken out as a separate reach. Starting at the top of the reach, Ginny said she thought it certainly looked perennial (it was flowing up in this section). Given its incision here, there was some discussion about whether a restoration approach or a greater ratio could be justified. But as the group walked downstream, the reach became dry and less incised. Mac commented that if we're raising the bed we need to install gauges to show that proper flow is present. He also suggested that less work was needed in the middle section, which the group agreed with. Jake and Todd concurred that there is a concern about losing flow if any channel fill is conducted. Jake noted the lower culvert would be removed as well. Consensus was to agree to the E1 at 1.5:1 approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R12 R 90 1:1 90 N/A N/A Notes: A short reach but Scott noted it has a surprisingly large drainage area. Work will be done up to the road but credits only count from the easement boundary which will abut the power line easement. The group agreed with the approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Revised Credits Approach Revised Credits R13 EI 125 1.5:1 83 N/A N/A Notes: Jake noted that the long existing pipe, which is clogged, will be removed for this section. The I/P break is where the reach divides from R13 to R14. Few comments were made about this reach. The group accepted the approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R14 R 525 1:1 525 N/A N/A Notes: Mac strongly suggested flow gauge installation at the top and bottom of R14 to demonstrate flow post construction. Not too much discussion here. Andrea commented that a few folks had looked closely at the bottommost section of the reach earlier in the day. The group accepted the approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R15 Ell 92 2.5:1 37 N/A N/a Notes: Todd questioned whether or not the stream would qualify as jurisdictional. If not, then he doesn't think it should be included. It wasn't currently flowing and he thinks it could just be petering out before it reaches R4. Mac thinks its more 'at -risk' than previous tributaries we saw but says it really just depends on the JD call. This reach will be left in at the current approach unless it is determined to be non - jurisdictional. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R16 Ell 140 2.5:1 56 Removed 0 Notes: Todd is concerned that the headcut is stable enough, and thinks this upper section is more preservation worthy. Mac agreed. Todd noted that preservation ratios start at 5:1 but did not suggest a specific, appropriate ratio. This reach will be removed from mitigation potential. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Revised Credits Approach Revised Credits R17 Ell 110 2.5:1 44 N/A N/A Notes: The reach is not currently flowing and the group is concerned about whether the reach is jurisdictional or not. Todd said that provided it gets called as such in the JD, he would be OK with approach as proposed. Mac agreed and again recommended that gauges be installed to document flow. This reach will remain at the current approach unless it is determined to be non -jurisdictional. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R18 Ell 170 2.5:1 68 N/A N/A Notes: Water flowing in this trib. Very little discussion made. Group quickly agreed to the approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R19 EI 480 1.5:1 320 N/A N/A Notes: Reach starts at deeply incised headcut. Few comments made on this section — group appears to accept the approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R20 R 225 1:1 225 N/A N/A Notes: Reach not currently flowing. Mac concerned about flow here. Says the headcuts make him OK with a Restoration or E1 approach, but must have gauges to document flow. He said this seems like a more risky reach. No other comments were overheard here. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R21 Ell 70 2.5:1 28 N/A N/A Notes: Little discussion about this short reach — group accepted approach as proposed. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Revised Credits Approach Revised Credits R22 Ell 232 2.5:1 81 N/A 93 Notes: Length has been adjusted to include the additional 30 foot section of channel and spring head. Mac said he thought the approach was fine and he thought the group agreed. Later commented that we could add the additional —30 foot section at the top to the reach total provided we adjust the easement accordingly. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R23 Ell 375 2.5:1 150 None 0 Notes: Reach not currently flowing. Mac and Todd felt this was more a linear wetland than stream. A seep drain that's been dug out — a wet area, not a stream. Andrea noted small drainage area and flat slope. Mac suggested that with proper gauge monitoring to document flow, it might be demonstrated to be a stream. Todd is reluctant and would have to see the results of the JD call and the mitigation plan discussion before accepting as proposed. Reach will be removed from mitigation potential. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Revised Approach Credits R24 Ell 169 2.5:1 68 N/A N/A Todd reluctant on this reach. It's not currently flowing and he says he's not sure it's jurisdictional. He noted the small drainage area. Mac recommends gauging the stream to document flow. Scott noted the huge rainfall deficit in the county and noted that the cattle like to wallow in the seep head and drink from the small channel. The the functional uplift would be substantial, certainly greater than many E2 projects. Jake mentioned the photo documentation of flow, sorting, etc in this reach before the drought. Group consensus ultimately remarked that if the JD doesn't call it jurisdictional, then it shouldn't be included at all. R24 will remain in as proposed unless it is determined to be non -jurisdictional. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R25 R 460 1:1 460 EI 313 Notes: A 20 foot section of culvert to be removed and counted at 1:1 though not broken out as a separate reach. The revised credits reflect this. Some discussion here on this reach. Jake noted it keyed out to a strong perennial score, though it is dry now. Scott again noted that Alexander County is 20" below normal rainfall for the year. Todd initially inclined to push for Enhancement work here. Mac suggested E1 like for R11 and Ginny agreed. Jake noted we were going to remove all the headcuts, remove the clogged culvert that's causing bypass flow, perform benching in spots, banks pulled back, etc. Andrea commented that the channel bed wasn't well formed in the lower section, but Scott scattered the leaves to reveal a clear sand and gravel bed with small cobbles present. After continued debate, the group consensus was for an E1 approach at a 1.5:1 credit ratio. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R26 Ell 600 2.5:1 240 N/A N/A Notes: Little discussion on this section, the group agreed to the approach as proposed. Group also commented about the wetland enhancement potential for the wet area between R26 and R4a. Baker will investigate further. Reach Name Original Approach Length Ratio Original Credits Revised Approach Revised Credits R27 N/A 50 2.5:1 N/A Ell 20 Notes: See R4a for discussion. Comments from IRT members on the above minutes were received on 12/19/16. These comments are shown below and addressed as needed by Baker. DWR Comments: 1. R1 -agree Baker Response: N/A 2. 112 -we really did not discuss this are much, I see this area as a EI/R or R reach Baker Response: Proposed as El at 1.5:1. If during analysis design and mitigation plan stage, R2 is determined to warrant more intervention, Baker may propose a restoration level approach. 3. 113 -This whole area at the end of the project, R2 -R3 -R4 is as I stated above more of an EI/R or R reach, what I am getting at here is I think there is opportunity to do a fair amount of work to the channel (bed and bank). I am fine with EI. I would rather see the work that needs to be done, which in my view approaches a Restoration approach. Baker Response: Proposed as EI at 1.5:1. If during analysis design and mitigation plan stage, R3 is determined to warrant more intervention, Baker may propose a restoration level approach. 4. R4- their comments reflect my view. I can live with EI. Baker Response: N/A 5. R4a- ok with their comments Baker Response: N/A 6. R5- ok, don't think we looked at this too much or had any concerns Baker Response: N/A 7. R6- ok with the comments Baker Response: N/A 8. R7a-b, I think they captured what we discussed here... Baker Response: N/A 9. R8- Actually what I said to Jake was, "...it looks like someone came and opened up the fence and put some hay down and now the cows are in ... looks very recent and the stream was essentially untouched..." Jake said it has been like that for at least 2 years... I can go with Ell but that's essentially a compromise. Baker Response: Since Baker has been visiting this site since 2014, cattle have had access to this reach and use it for shade and feeding. Baker agrees that Ell is the correct approach. 10. R9- their comments captured the discussion Baker Response: N/A 11. R10- don't remember that we resolved it at 2:1 but I am ok with that. Baker Response: N/A 12. R11- ok with their comments Baker Response: N/A 13. R12- ok with comments Baker Response: N/A 14. R13- I said that I wanted a gauge just below the relict dam feature in the EI section and then lower down (midway) in the R reach Baker Response: Baker will propose to install a flow gauge(s) in this reach as part of the mitigation plan's monitoring requirements. 15. R14- ok with comments here, looks like they included my above comment in this section... Baker Response: Baker will propose to install a flow gouge(s) in this reach as part of the mitigation plan's monitoring requirements. 16. R15- their comments are accurate, this reach probably should not be included, will have to keep watch on this one Baker Response: As stated in the minutes above, Baker will leave this short reach in the project as a credit generating reach at an Ell (2.5:1) ratio unless it is determined to be non jurisdictional during regulatory review. If it is determined to be non jurisdictional, this reach will be removed. 17. R16- agree with their comments, removed Baker Response: N/A 18. R17- ok with comments Baker Response: N/A 19. R18- ok with comments Baker Response: N/A 20. R19- ok with comments, need a gauge in this one as well Baker Response: Baker will propose to install a flow gauge in this reach as part of the mitigation plan's monitoring requirements. 21. R20- ok with comments, as long as they have flow Baker Response: Baker will propose to install a flow gauge in this reach as part of the mitigation plan's monitoring requirements. 22. R21 -don't recall this reach Baker Response: N/A 23. R22- ok with comments Baker Response: N/A 24. R23- at the end of the discussion, the IRT agreed is was a wetland feature draining to the stream. I may have mentioned about a gauge but in the end I said this was a wetland feature. Baker Response: Reach has been removed from mitigation potential. 25. R24-1 thought on this one we recommended this be another wetland drainage feature. I would suggest that this be removed from stream credit and be wetland. Baker Response: If this reach is determined to be non jurisdictional by regulatory agencies this reach will be removed from mitigation potential. If is considered jurisdictional, this reach will remain in the project at Ell (2.5:1). 26. R25- agreed with the comments Baker Response: N/A 27. R26- agreed with the comments Baker Response: N/A 28. R27- ok with comments, should name it Todd Branch... Baker Response: N/A We did not really look at the wetland a lot along Davis Creek, probably because it was so dry. I would urge them to use more than less gauges. Baker Response: Baker will propose a sufficient amount of monitoring gauges in W1 in the Mitigation Plan's Monitoring Requirements. We also talked some about the concern that the proposed re-establishment W1 area might not be entirely successful which was part of the reason Baker was encouraged to add the wetland enhancement areas. Baker Response: Baker will complete additional hydric soils investigations and include the wetland enhancement areas along R9/R4, R26, and any other areas where hydric soils are present and wetlands can be enhanced (as determined by Baker and approved by the IRT) in order to provide the contracted amounts of wetland credits in case areas of wetland along Davis Creek (W1) do not meet the success criteria. Any additional wetland areas being sought for wetland credit will be included and documented in the Mitigation Plan. Corps comments: Kim Browning: My notes reflect DWR's for the most part. I noted a few differences: 138 -The only evidence of cattle was at road crossing, and this was recent access. Planting not needed in this stretch except at crossing. Proposed E 11. Baker Response: Supplemental planting will be installed outside of the existing wood line to ensure the entire conservation easement contains native tree and shrub species unless it is determined that the existing established woody buffer extends outside the conservation easement. R10 -We agreed on E II (2:1) Baker Response: N/A R13 -Andrea noted very little evidence of flow or hydric indicators in the soil in the channel. Baker Response: Noted. This reach was determined to have a score of 27.75 using NCDWR's stream classification system. This reach both upstream and downstream of the clogged culvert show strong indicators of flow, bed and banks, etc. R23-Wetlead feature. No stream credit. Baker Response: N/A R4A-The area above the barn, Ell should be only option here. This isolated section breaks up the project and being isolated limits what you can do here. There was a discussion about the hayfield near R26 and R4A, possibly being added as wetland. Baker Response: Baker is proposing Ell at 2.5:1. The wetland enhancement along R26 and R4a will be included in the mitigation plan if it is determined that these areas are appropriate for enhancement or restoration. R24 -This was a springhead drainage feature that was completely dry with no evidence of flow or hydric features in the soil. Mac recommended installing a gauge to record flow. It was reported that cattle wallow in this area. From an agricultural standpoint, this areas should be graded, piped into a watering tank and install a heavy use area for cattle access to the tank. Baker Response: This reach is a spring fed reach that flows seasonably. Regarding the use of spring fed gravity boxes for livestock watering —wells and waterers will be installed on site. Gravity boxes are notoriously undependable and can dry up. If this reach is determined to be non jurisdictional by regulatory agencies this reach will be removed from mitigation potential. If is considered jurisdictional, this reach will remain in the project at Ell (2.5:1). No other comments were received by the IRT. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this memo. Sincerely, Jake Byers, PE NC Ecosystem Services Manager rev: 5Dec2016 Byers, Jake From: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:56 AM To: Byers, Jake Cc: Reid, Matthew Subject: FW: IRT site visit memos - Russell Gap Jake, Todd has no additional comments for Russell Gap. Please send Matthew and I the final memo and I will send out the final e-mail to the IRT. Thanks Paul Wiesner Western Project Management Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 828-273-1673 Mobile paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov Western DMS Field Office 5 Ravenscroft Drive Suite 102 Asheville, N.C. 28801 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. -----Original Message ----- From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:Todd.Tugwell@usace.army.mil] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:52 AM To: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: IRT site visit memos - Fletcher; Harrell; Russell Gap Paul, I have no comments other than those provided in Andrea's emails on these projects. Thanks, Todd -----Original Message ----- From: Wiesner, Paul [mailto:paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 3:57 PM To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.Tugwell@usace.army.mil> Subject: [EXTERNAL] IRT site visit memos - Fletcher; Harrell; Russell Gap 1 Hey Todd I just want to double check to make sure you don't have any additional comments for these memos. I agree with Andrea; I believe Mac, Ginny, and Kim captured everything. I would like to get these finalized this week. Let me know and I will have Baker and EW Solutions finalize accordingly. Thanks Paul Wiesner Western Project Management Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 828-273-1673 Mobile paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov Western DMS Field Office 5 Ravenscroft Drive Suite 102 Asheville, N.C. 28801 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. -----Original Message ----- From: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:Andrea.W.Hughes@usace.army.mil] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 3:49 PM To: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: Response to site visit notes Thanks Paul. I believe Mac, Ginny, and Kim captured everything - Kim took detailed notes. I don't want to speak for Todd but I'm fine with the comments submitted. -----Original Message ----- From: Wiesner, Paul [mailto:paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 2:41 PM To: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Andrea.W.Hughes@usace.army.mil> Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Haupt, Mac <mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov>; Baker, Virginia <virginia.baker@ncdenr.gov>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Kimberly. D. Browning@usace.army.miI> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Response to site visit notes Thanks Andrea. I have forwarded these initial comments to the providers. Once Todd is back in the office and you have had time to review the memos provided, please let us know if there are any additional comments. We will revise the memos and finalize them as necessary. Paul Wiesner Western Project Management Supervisor North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 828-273-1673 Mobile paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov Western DMS Field Office 5 Ravenscroft Drive Suite 102 Asheville, N.C. 28801 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. -----Original Message ----- From: Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:Andrea.W.Hughes@usace.army.mil] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 1:12 PM To: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Haupt, Mac <mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov>; Baker, Virginia <virginia.baker@ncdenr.gov>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.miI> Subject: Response to site visit notes Importance: High Hi Paul, See below for responses to the provider's notes that we have received so far. I have been out of the office so I haven't had a chance to review the provider's notes yet but I believe DWR and Kim captured any concerns/discrepancies in their comments. Todd is out of the office until January 3 but may have additional comments when he returns. Please call if you have questions. Andrea Fletcher Site: DWR Comments: I have reviewed Steve Melton's site notes and in general agree with the site minutes. It was interesting that I must have missed two discussions, first, the Weston Creek low slope discussion, which I am ok with, and secondly, where he stated the IRT indicated that removal of overburden is typically considered creation, which I am not completely on board with (in some cases yes, however, if you can show a complete buried profile then I think that would warrant restoration). Harrell Site: DWR Comments: 1.They should install gauges for this growing season in both areas they expect to receive wetland credit (rehab, re- estab.). 2. There was also a brief discussion about the possibility of preserving the stream up to the headwater. They will need a stream call for the top of the preservation reach. 3. For item numbers 8 and 9 1 have some discrepancies in my notes. I know we talked about adding wells (and a rain gauge which was not mentioned) to collect baseline data for the coming growing season up to construction time. My notes say that we requested that data in both the enhancement area and the re-establishment areas. The re- establishment area would be considered rehabilitation (hydrology and veg improvement) if found to be jurisdictional. don't have anything in my notes about calling the forested enhancement area re -habilitation, although I may not have been present for that discussion. Russell Gap: DWR Comments: 1. R1 -agree 2. R2 -we really did not discuss this are much, I see this area as a EI/R or R reach 3. 113 -This whole area at the end of the project, R2 -R3 -R4 is as I stated above more of an EI/R or R reach, what I am getting at here is I think there is opportunity to do a fair amount of work to the channel (bed and bank). I am fine with EI. I would rather see the work that needs to be done, which in my view approaches a Restoration approach. 4. R4- their comments reflect my view. I can live with E1. 5. R4a- ok with their comments 6. R5- ok, don't think we looked at this too much or had any concerns 7. R6- ok with the comments 8. R7a-b, I think they captured what we discussed here... 9. R8- Actually what I said to Jake was, "...it looks like someone came and opened up the fence and put some hay down and now the cows are in ... looks very recent and the stream was essentially untouched..." Jake said it has been like that for at least 2 years... I can go with Ell but that's essentially a compromise. 10. R9- their comments captured the discussion 11. R10- don't remember that we resolved it at 2:1 but I amok with that. 12. R11- ok with their comments 13. R12- ok with comments 14. R13- I said that I wanted a gauge just below the relict dam feature in the EI section and then lower down (midway) in the R reach 15. R14- ok with comments here, looks like they included my above comment in this section... 4 16. R15- their comments are accurate, this reach probably should not be included, will have to keep watch on this one 17. R16- agree with their comments, removed 18. R17- ok with comments 19. R18- ok with comments 20. R19- ok with comments, need a gauge in this one as well 21. R20- ok with comments, as long as they have flow 22. R21 -don't recall this reach 23. R22- ok with comments 24. R23- at the end of the discussion, the IRT agreed is was a wetland feature draining to the stream. I may have mentioned about a gauge but in the end I said this was a wetland feature. 25. R24-1 thought on this one we recommended this be another wetland drainage feature. I would suggest that this be removed from stream credit and be wetland. 26. R25- agreed with the comments 27. R26- agreed with the comments 28. R27- ok with comments, should name it Todd Branch... We did not really look at the wetland a lot along Davis Creek, probably because it was so dry. I would urge them to use more than less gauges. We also talked some about the concern that the proposed re-establishment W1 area might not be entirely successful which was part of the reason Baker was encouraged to add the wetland enhancement areas Corps comments: Kim Browning: My notes reflect DWR's for the most part. I noted a few differences: R8 -The only evidence of cattle was at road crossing, and this was recent access. Planting not needed in this stretch except at crossing. Proposed E 11. R10 -We agreed on E II (2:1) R13 -Andrea noted very little evidence of flow or hydric indicators in the soil in the channel. R23-Wetlead feature. No stream credit. R4A-The area above the barn, Ell should be only option here. This isolated section breaks up the project and being isolated limits what you can do here. There was a discussion about the hayfield near R26 and R4A, possibly being added as wetland. 9 R24 -This was a springhead drainage feature that was completely dry with no evidence of flow or hydric features in the soil. Mac recommended installing a gauge to record flow. It was reported that cattle wallow in this area. From an agricultural standpoint, this areas should be graded, piped into a watering tank and install a heavy use area for cattle access to the tank.