20161239 Ver 1_Mallard Water Quality Site Visit Notes 012417_20170130

Mallard Water Quality Site Visit Notes 1/24/2017
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Mac Haupt (DWR), Alan Johnson (DWR), Daniel Ingram (RES),
Brad Breslow (RES), Cara Conder (RES), Dani Wise (Blueline Contracting)
Notes:

Stream Outside easement boundary
Stream outside of easement boundary will be diverted and RES has an agreement with
o
the landowner to divert the stream.
Elevation of existing stream bank is above the wetland area within proposed project area.
o

Livestock
Cows and other livestock currently have total access to the site.
o
The adjacent landowner will be responsible for the livestock and the RES easement
o
language will exclude livestock.

Stream Diversion
Question was asked if diverting stream will drain the wetland – hydrology adjacent to the
o
restored channel was discussed.
The current channel is dredged periodically to remove sand because the road overflows.
o
Todd has concern that new channel could aggrade and become a braided system, Dani
o
Wise discussed the design addresses this with lower sinuosity to maximize slope and
structures designed to transport sediment.
Can add ditch as stream enhancement area with plantings and livestock exclusion.
o

NWP 27
Permit can be used if uplift is provided.
o
Must address any loss of wetlands (no net loss). The abandoned channel will be
o
filled/restored to create jurisdictional wetland.
DWR noted stream loss and impacted wetlands above mitigation threshold for streams.
o

Dredge piles
If site is a violation (to be determined by USACE/Todd Tugwell/David Shaeffer),
o
USACE can’t issue permit. Need to determine and/or address potential violation first.
This site has likely been dredged for decades by the sand dredging operation down the
road.
If old channel is a violation, RES will add how to address the potential violation area in
o
an amendment to Mallard Mitigation Plan and update PCN application.

Summary
Project has merit overall.
o
USACE needs to determine status of potential violation.
o
RES will submit a revised/amended Mallard Mitigation Plan (stream length to be
o
reviewed again).
The issue with the stream length was that the current restoration approach

demonstrates an overall loss in stream length, even though the group agreed there
was an overall increase in ecologic function. There is specific language in NWP
27 that covers such instances without mitigation. The group agreed one potential
approach is increasing the linear feet of the proposed UT1 tie into UT2 further
downstream. This approach will bring the stream “loss” below the 150 foot
mitigation threshold. Additionally, UT2 will extend further upstream than
currently shown and treated as enhancement II in the mitigation plan.

Per today’s site visit and discussion, PCN application (USACE and DWR) on hold until
o
potential violation addressed.
PCN application letter from David Shaeffer dated 1/13/17 says the comments need to be
o
addressed within 30 days. Is this still the case?