20180196 Ver 1_Catfish IRT minutes_20180302

Strickland, Bev
From:
Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Friday, March 02, 2018 7:38 AM
To:
Haupt, Mac; Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US); Merritt, Katie; Wilson, Travis W.; Todd
Tugwell; [e-mail]
Cc:
John Hutton; Schaffer, Jeff, Melia, Gregory
Subject:
[External] Fwd: Catfish IRT minutes
Attachments:
23Feb2018_IRT Field Meeting -Catfish Pond.pdf,
Catfish_concept_dg n_ma p_IRT_site_visit.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi IRT members. Attached are the meeting minutes and map from last Friday's meeting at the Catfish Pond full delivery
site. Please let me know if you have comments on them.
Thanks and have a great weekend, Chris
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:05 PM
Subject: Catfish IRT minutes
To: Schaffer, Jeff <[e-mail]>
Hi Jeff-> Attached a draft of the meeting minutes for the Catfish Pond site. Please let me know if you'd like any changes
or would like me to forward to the IRT.
Thanks a lot, Chris
Chris Roessler I Senior Scientist/ProjectManager
0: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
1

Meeting Notes
Date: February 23, 2018
Type of Site: NCDMS Stream Site
Prepared By: Mac Haupt
Sponsor/Provider: Wildlands Engineering
Meeting Type: Field Site Review
NCDMS ID Number:
Project Name: Catfish Pond
County: Durham
USACE Action ID Number:
HUC and Basin: Neuse - 03020201
NCDWR Project Number: 20180196
Coordinates: 36.1583 `N -78.9073 `W
Attendees:
WEI- John H., Chris R.
W RC-
DWR- Katie
COE- Ross S.
DMS- Jeff S., Greg M.
Notes, Sketch, etc.:
UT1-R1 - proposed E2, narrow single tree buffer on both sides. Cattle access, pasture in good shape. There was a
very nice wetland seep/flow coming into stream left about halfway down this reach, but they were not pursuing at this
time. Approach here ok.
UT1-R2- proposed R, was more of a wetland, John H. stated cows had not been in it lately, but pointed out they were
presently in the section just below a fence/forest line break. That stream was heavily impacted and you could see how
cattle trampled all stream -like features. At first was concerned about building a channel through wetland but see the
connection with the other portion of the heavily impacted reach, ok with approach.
UT1-R3- E2 proposed, heavy cattle access, ok with approach
UT2- R6 - E2 proposed, heavy cattle access, buffer not wide, stream has alot of rock, step pools, approach ok
UT2-R5 - R proposed thru pond, ok
UT2-R4 - E2 proposed, this section had a fairly wide buffer and cattle access not as much but fields were adjacent, no
fencing, was ok with approach
UT2-R3 - R proposed in short area above crossing, ok with approach
UT2- R2- E2 proposed, not as much cattle access here, some sign, buffer mostly ok, some patchy areas needed
planting. This area and remaining areas below were similar...
UT2 upper, Reach 1 a (not sure about map labeling), basically, y -branch, this area proposed E2, not many cattle up
here, again some sign, but not much. I was not entirely excited about giving 2.5:1 here for E2. Discussed at the end...
Mountain Trib- very similar to y -branch of UT2 and Reach 1 a, not much cattle sign, buffer good. Also, reach is
disconnected. There was some cattle evidence just not very much...
In summary, was ok with most of their calls until the last several reaches. Proposed that if they include the nice wetland
area along UT1 R1, I would feel better about allowing 2.5:1 on the upper y of UT2 and the Mountain Trib., they stated
they would try and get the wetland area included. I think a deal was struck...
Action Items:
Page 1

Notes, Sketch, etc.:
Page 2

IRT Field Meeting Notes — Catfish Pond February 23, 2018
Meeting Attendees
Ross Sullivan/USACE
Mac Haupt/NCDWR
Katie Merritt/NCDWR
Jeff Schaffer/NCDMS
Greg Melia/NCDMS
John Hutton/Wildlands
Chris Roessler/Wildlands
John Hutton and Chris Roessler of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) led the group on a tour of the
Catfish Pond mitigation site in Bahama, NC. The purpose of the tour was to present the site to a group of
IRT members and to get input on the management/mitigation options proposed for the site. During the
tour, the group openly discussed the condition of the stream channels on the site and the design options
and crediting scenarios they felt would be most appropriate to restore and enhance the channels. The
accompanying map identifies the stream reach names.
The tour began with UT1, then visited Catfish Creek and its headwater reaches, and concluded with
Mountain Tributary. Comments provided during the site visit are listed below by reach.
UT1
Reach 1 includes an enhancement 2 approach to repair eroding banks and exclude livestock. The
existing RCP crossing pipe will be evaluated and replaced if it is deemed to be inadequate. A wetland
area shown on the accompanying map will be added to the project to protect that resource.
The group discussed the restoration approach on Reach 2 and eventually agreed with the proposal. The
drainage area is 77 acres and the channel becomes weakly defined through a wetland area due to
livestock trampling. The downstream end of the restoration reach should stably tie in with the existing
stream channel and remove the perched culvert. Another culvert will be installed where the proposed
crossing is located.
A ditch draining to Reach 2 is eligible for nutrient/buffer credit if it is shown to be at least 1 foot deep
and less than 3 feet deep. The BMP that was proposed for this ditch will no longer be implemented
because that precludes buffer/nutrient credits. The treatment effect of buffering the ditch will also
eliminate the need for the bmp.
Lower Reach 3 is enhancement 2. The IRT agreed with the approaches and credit generation on all
segments of UT1.
Catfish Creek
On Catfish Creek, the group started at Reach 6 and walked upstream. The IRT agreed with the
enhancement 2 approach on Reach 6 and the restoration approach on Reaches 3 and 5. The IRT
expressed some concerns about the extent to which cattle access Reaches 1A, 113, 2, and 4, as well as
UT2. However, after some consideration the IRT accepted an enhancement 2 approach at a 2.5:1 ratio
on these reaches due to the overall uplift provided by the project and the immediate benefit to known

sensitive mussel populations in Mountain Creek. Wildlands also agreed that protecting the wetland
draining into UT1 was an important part of protecting water quality on the site and will add this to the
easement area.
Mountain Tributary
The IRT expressed some concerns on Mountain Tributary similar to the concerns above and due to the
disconnected nature of this reach. However, based on the considerations discussed above, the fact that
the IRT was just now letting providers know about the preference for connectivity, and the fact that the
two drainages were immediately adjacent the IRT accepted Mountain Tributary using an enhancement 2
approach at 2.5:1.
Summary and Conclusion
The IRT generally agreed with the light touch approach by Wildlands for the Site. However, Mac Haupt
said this was a notification that in the future reaches that are either disconnected from the main project
area or focused on cattle exclusion with minimal pressure or erosion would be subject to more along the
lines of a 3:1 or 4:1 credit ratio.
Contacts
Jeff Schaffer will serve as the Project Manager for NCDMS and the main point of contact. Chris Roessler
will be the Wildlands Project Manager and coordinate/submit project deliverables directly to Jeff
Schaffer for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Steps
• Project Schedule — Wildlands is ready to proceed immediately with the Task 1 deliverable
(Categorical Exclusion) and does not anticipate project delays.
• After the jurisdictional determination has been conducted, any wetland areas that will be
impacted by the proposed work (filled or drained) will need to be identified and functional
replacement for those losses should be proposed and discussed in the draft mitigation plan.
• USACE requires Jurisdictional (JD) stream/wetland calls for the project. Wildlands will coordinate
with Samantha Daley (or assigned) for on-site JD verification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation easement areas.
This represents Wildlands' interpretation of the meeting discussions. If any meeting attendees should
find any information contained in these meeting minutes to be in error and/or incomplete based on
individual comments or conversations, please notify Chris Roessler with corrections/additions as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Chris Roessler
[e-mail]
919.624.0905