20180063 Ver 1_IRT Memo_20180205

M E M O R A N D U M
fires
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: North Carolina Interagency Review Team
FROM: Brad Breslow, RES
DATE: February 5, 2018
RE: RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Bank IRT Site Visits
Dates: January 30' and 3111, 2018.
Day 1- January 30th, 2018- Dead oak and Puncheon Fork Sites
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Steve Kichefski (USACE), Mac Haupt (DWR), Zan Price (NC
DWR), Andrea Leslie (WRC), Brad Breslow (RES), David Godley (RES)
Day 2- January 31St, 2018- Commercial Hill and Big Willow Sites
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Steve Kichefski (USACE), Andrea Leslie (WRC), Brad Breslow
(RES), David Godley (RES)
Dead Oak Site
IRT members agreed that the Dead Oak Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation pending some
additions/changes to the overall approach in the Mitigation Plan. Final credit ratios will be determined in
the Approved Mitigation Plan. Main concerns expressed by the IRT included lack of easement connectivity
from the side drainages (FC3, FC4, and FC5) to the main stem (reach between FC2 and FC6) along the
eastern property boundary and the lack of buffer along the northern property boundary that abuts the Sandy
Mush HQP property. The IRT also expressed that this project would benefit greatly from wider buffers on
some of the reaches. RES is confident that easement can be placed on all of these areas on existing property
and is already pursuing these updates with landowner(s). The group also discussed the high density of
invasive species throughout the project area; treatment goals and objectives for invasive management which
will be incorporated into the mitigation plan. WRC also noted many individuals of spicebush (Lindera
benzoin) within the project area and the group agreed that this species should be incorporated in the planting
plan. RES agrees to send a letter outlining easement updates/additions for the IRT to use in its initial
evaluation of the Prospectus. Reach specific comments and action items for the Dead Oak site are below.
FC1- RES originally proposed restoration for this reach. The group agreed that Restoration is
appropriate treatment for the upper end, but IRT recommends transition to a mixture of
Enhancement I and II further downstream. RES agrees to this approach and will refine treatment
breaks during data collection and design phase of the project.
FC2- Group agreed that Restoration is appropriate treatment on this reach and approach would be
a hybrid between P 1 and P2 Restoration. Approach would be to raise bed elevation, address active
erosion, and improve bedform diversity with structures. IRT mentioned that Enhancement 1/II
approach might be more appropriate closer to tie-in with FC3. RES agrees to refine approach on
lower end of FC2 with further data collection.

FC3- Group agreed the Enhancement II was an appropriate treatment on this reach, but had
concerns over the condition of the channel (very incised and actively eroding) and the size of the
watershed (-10 acres). RES agreed that watershed size was a concern and that is why Enhancement
II was proposed over a Restoration approach that would raise bed elevation and likely remove
hydrology from the channel. Enhancement measures will include removing large amounts of debris
from the channel, planting the buffer, and permanently excluding cattle.
FC4- Group agreed with the treatment of Enhancement II for section A and Restoration along
section B. Similar to Reach FC2, the restoration approach would be a hybrid between P1 and P2
Restoration. Approach would be to raise bed elevation, address active erosion, and improve
bedform diversity with structures.
Reach FC5 was proposed as Enhancement 11 which would largely be dictated by fixing/removing
the farm road that crosses the middle of the reach. Hydrology is severely impaired due to the highly
eroded roadbed and the lack of connectivity between the upstream and downstream portion, but
otherwise the downstream section is fairly stable. Group agreed to approach, but IRT members
commented that they had concerns with the condition of the road and potential sediment inputs to
channel. The Enhancement II approach on this reach would include restoring the hydrology via
road removal, planting the buffer, and excluding livestock.
Reach FC6- RES originally proposed preservation for this reach, but the group agreed that the
upper 200-300 feet would be a better candidate for Enhancement III because of the need for buffer
improvements and minor bank stabilization in a few areas.
FC7- RES originally proposed Restoration for this reach, which in general was agreed upon by the
group. The major concern on this reach was the size of the easement break and the Restoration call
on the reach behind the existing house. RES agrees that behind the house, Enhancement 11 is a
more appropriate crediting ratio. Restoration above the easement break would be a hybrid between
P1 and P2 Restoration. Approach would be to raise bed elevation, address active erosion, and
improve bedform diversity with structures. The restoration approach on the lower half would be
Priority 1 which would include relocating the channel to the center of the valley away from the
road and raising the bed elevation. The upstream extent of the Restoration would be determined by
finding an appropriate tie-in point, such as a bedrock outcrop in the Enhancement 11 section. The
group also discussed the tributary that entered the project area towards the bottom of this reach.
Because the Restoration approach in this area is to raise the bed elevation, the design will have to
incorporate some additional work on this channel to tie-in downstream of existing culvert.
Puncheon Fork Site
IRT members agreed that the Puncheon Fork Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation and final credit
ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Overall, it was decided that the site would benefit
from refining site treatments and ratios based on the discussions had in the field. The site has a substantial
amount of existing wetlands and there are also multiple seeps/springs located within, or just outside, the
easement. The IRT would like these seeps/springs to be included/incorporated into the project in some
way. Most notably one feature between the confluence of JB4 and JB5 had the most prominent stream
characteristics and may be viable for stream credit pending more detailed functional assessment. Reach
specific comments are below.
• JB1- Group agreed that Enhancement II is the appropriate ratio for this reach. Above Hoot and
Holler Lane, a perched culvert will be removed. Proposed treatment activities include: minor bank
grading, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. WRC recommended incorporating some
improvements to bedform, such as constructing pools, as the majority of the reach was a long
shallow run. RES agreed that this would be valuable to add to the overall design in addition to the
proposed bank work.
• JB2- Group agreed that Enhancement II is the appropriate treatment for this reach with the
exception of the top 200 feet of the reach near the existing ford driveway crossing. Based on the

instability of the current ford crossing, and the proximity to the road, the group agreed that
Restoration would be an appropriate treatment to relocate the channel through the valley before
tying back in with the Enhancement II reach. Enhancement II approach will include minor bank
grading, removal of two culverts and one bridge, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. WRC
recommended improving bedform with log structures.
• JB3- Group agreed to similar Enhancement 11 approach for section A and C with the exception of
the stretch of Enhancement I along section B that would stabilize the large headcut. RES explained
that exact limits of Enhancement I would be determined during design phase with more detailed
data collection.
• JB4-A- Enhancement II treatment was agreed upon as appropriate crediting approach. IRT
commented that it would be ideal to work with landowner to address excessive erosion on barren
hillside of the left bank, and/or incorporate this area in easement to limit sediment inputs from this
problem area. RES agreed to pursue this area and potentially explore wider buffers along this
reach.
• JB4-B/C- Enhancement I approach which would mostly include heavy benching on the left bank,
culvert replacement, and bedform improvements was agreed to be appropriate strategy for JB4-B
USACE recommended the benching to alternate between banks based on existing vegetation in
some areas which RES agreed would be better approach. IRT expressed that Enhancement 11 was
potentially too light of a touch for Reach J134 -C based on the active erosion present on the banks.
RES agreed to likely pursue Enhancement I as the better approach especially at the tie-in with J135 -
A.
• JB5-A- Group agreed that Enhancement II is the appropriate ratio for this reach. Proposed
treatment activities include: minor bank grading, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. IRT
commented that large easement gap between J133 and J135 -A was a concern. RES explained the
size of this gap is to facilitate existing landuse for the landowner, primarily logging operations, and
that cattle would be excluded from the crossing in the easement break.
• JB5-B/C- RES originally proposed a combination of Enhancement III that would transition to a
small stretch of Priority 1 Restoration to tie in with J136. The proposed restoration would relocate
the channel to the low spot in the valley through an existing patch of wetlands. The IRT agreed
that the proposed re -alignment was likely the original channel location, but because the channel
has appropriate substrate and healthy bedform, an Enhancement I treatment is a better strategy to
maximize functional uplift. Enhancement I approach would leave channel in place and mostly focus
on shaping and protecting the left bank and improving floodplain connectivity to the existing
riparian wetlands. Brushtoes and log structures would be incorporated to aid in bank protection
and reduction of erosion and sediment loading to the channel.
• J136- The group agreed that an Enhancement I approach similar to the approach on J135 -C was
appropriate treatment for this reach. IRT recommended an Enhancement II approach below the
last crossing because the channel was in better shape in this location. RES agrees to this update.
Commercial Hill
IRT members agreed the Commercial Hill Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation and final credit
ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. The plan is to have buffers of 150 feet or greater
throughout the entire project when feasible. Reach specific comments are below.
• UT1-A- RES originally proposed Enhancement II with approach of cattle exclusion, minor bank
stabilization, and buffer planting. IRT recommended approach of Enhancement I based on level

of erosion and channel incision. RES agrees to this approach and treatment will include bank
grading and stabilization, bedform improvements, cattle exclusion, and buffer planting.
• UT1-B/C- Group agreed to proposal for restoration.
•
UTI -D- Group agreed Enhancement III approach at 5:1 was most appropriate. This approach
would include stabilizing one large erosional area and planting the buffer along the right bank.
USACE recommends potentially realigning the channel slightly, instead of stabilizing the one
tortuous bend that is likely to fail again in the future. IRT recommended removing the reach below
the existing gas easement.
• UT2- RES originally proposed Enhancement II at the top (UT2-A) transitioning to a treatment of
Enhancement I towards the confluence with UT 1. In the field, the group agreed that Enhancement
I for the entire reach was more appropriate. The main focus on the enhancement would be raising
the bed elevation and stabilizing banks with structures and sloping/benching.
• UT3- Group agreed to Enhancement II approach which would include removing debris from
channel, stabilizing headcut, and planting the buffer.
Big Willow
IRT members agreed the Big Willow Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation and final credit ratios
will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. During the field visit many changes to the conceptual
plan were discussed, such as: including upstream parcel to carry restoration/enhancement measures to
perched culvert, including the reach that drains to reach D2, changing treatment on reach D3 to restoration,
and including expected wetland restoration credits. Based on the level of expected changes, IRT
recommends that RES removes Big Willow from the current prospectus to better refine the approach and
re -submit as a modification to the UMBI or as a standalone bank site at a later date. RES agreed to this
approach and will send letter requesting removal from prospectus submittal. Reach specific comments are
below.
D 1- Overall the group agreed that Priority 1 Restoration was the best approach. This would include
relocating the channel to the natural valley away from the DOT road, filling adjacent ditches, and
harvesting native bed material from the existing channel. Group agreed that in some places along
the channel where erosion was not as evident that enhancement measures would be more
appropriate, but based on the proximity to the road and the hydric soil in the valley, relocation is
still likely best option. RES agreed to refine approach based on more detailed functional
assessments and soil investigation. Currently, one upstream parcel owner has not agreed to project,
but RES is actively pursuing with goal of carrying project all the way to existing perched culvert
which would be addressed in design. Group agreed that including this upstream end was the most
ideal scenario, but the project still has merit if this upper section cannot be included.
• D2 -A- Group agreed to preservation at 10:1.
D2-B/C- Group agreed to Enhancement II along section B and Restoration along section C. Main
change was to bring the Restoration up farther past the proposed crossing based on the level of
bank erosion and poor bedform in the channel. Restoration measures would include bank
stabilization, installing structures to raise bed elevation, removal of drain tiles along the right bank,
and improving channel pattern. Enhancement II above the restoration would include spot
stabilization along the banks and riparian buffer plantings.
D3- RES originally proposed Enhancement III based on healthy buffer along right bank and the
varying levels of instability. Based on level of incision, lack of pattern, and stretches of active
erosion, IRT recommended exploring Priority 1 Restoration approach that would relocate channel

to the natural valley and raise the bed elevation. RES agreed that this would be ideal approach, but
this would require tying to pond outlet up above and likely relocating existing crossing that was
proposed to stay in place for landowner.