20140486 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20140603

MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT. Hollowell Mitigation Site DATE/TIME: June 3, 2014
PURPOSE: Pre -Application Meeting LOCATION: Near Goldsboro
ATTENDEES: Ward Elis, Worth Creech, Raymond Holz (Restoration Systems)
Todd Tugwell, William Westcott (USACE)
Anthony Scarbraugh (NCDWR)
Kevin Tweedy (EPR); Michael Wood (Catena Group)
The field visit began at the road crossing on UT2. The group discussed the planned restoration of
a small coastal plain headwater stream within the open field areas of UT2, below the confluence
of UT2 and UT2A. UT2A would most likely be restored as a braided system, while the majority of
UT2 would be restored as a small single thread channel (preliminary design concept). The group
followed UT2 upstream into the woods and viewed the headwater wetlands and channels that
drain into UT2. The group discussed that including these headwater wetland areas as part of the
project would be beneficial to the overall project. Todd and William mentioned that the
headwater wetlands could be counted for wetland preservation credit (somewhere between 10:1
and 5:1 ratio most likely), and that inclusion of the headwaters could provide justification for
slightly higher ratios for the downstream work. No concerns were raised regarding the technical
restoration approach for the cleared areas of UT2 and UT2A.
Group then walked the wooded reach of UT2 proposed for enhancement credit. Because of the
presence of mussel communities in the reach, the group agreed that minimal disturbance
enhancement approaches that arrest any future incision of channel deepening would be
appropriate, and that 2:1 crediting would be appropriate for the work when justified by the
presence and protection of the mussel communities.
The group then walked to near the powerline crossing on UT2 and discussed the timber harvest
that had occurred. Anthony said that the clearing is considered a violation of the Neuse buffer
rules, and that this area of UT2 on the downstream end, and portions of the UT1 channel, were
active violation sites. The group discussed whether the cleared buffer areas could be used for
buffer mitigation crediting as part of the project. In general, Todd, William, and Anthony said it
would be difficult to allow any credit for the areas that were in violation of the Neuse buffer rules,
and that remedial action may be required for these areas. Todd also expressed concern with the
clearing of the bottomland hardwood areas along the Neuse River that were proposed for
wetland enhancement. Although the areas were cleared legally, there was concern about setting
a precedent for clearing land and then getting mitigation credit for restoring it. The group
discussed the merits of replanting the site back to a hardwood climax community, and providing
some hydrologic improvements, versus allowing the site to be replanted and colonized with pines
(the landowner's current plan). Todd said he would like to consider this more and discuss with
others at the Corps. The regulatory representatives all acknowledged the increased benefit and
functional uplift that would be provided by the upland areas that would be replanted and
protected along the Neuse River as part of the proposed project.

While the majority of the group continued on to UTI, Raymond and Anthony walked the cutover
area along the Neuse River to evaluate several small drainages within the area for jurisdictional
status. One of the drainages (GPS'd by Anthony) was considered to be jurisdictional channel for
approximately 1,000 feet of its length.
The group (minus Raymond and Anthony) walked the majority of UTI and discussed the
restoration concepts to be used. There was agreement that restoring the historic flow path of
UT1 (which is currently short-circuited) would be beneficial. Kevin described that the restoration
approach for UT1 would be very similar to UT2, with most likely a single thread approach for the
middle and lower portions of the stream, and a braided headwater approach for the upper
portion. Concern from Todd and William was expressed again for the cleared buffer areas along
the middle portion of UT1 that were in violation.
Raymond, Anthony, and Worth later walked the upper portion of UT1 to evaluated jurisdictional
status. Anthony reduced the jurisdictional length of potential Neuse Buffers on UT1, but also
identified a second small tributary to UT1 that could possibly be added to the project (less than
1000 ft). The group discussed evaluating this reach further to determine if it could be included as
part of the project.