20181349 Ver 1_IRT Site Review Meeting 7-25-2016_20181220

KCI
Memoranda
ENGINEERS ♦ SURVEYORS ♦ SCIENTISTS ♦ CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
LANDMARK CENTER II, SUITE 220 ♦ 4601 SIX FORKS ROAD ♦ RALEIGH, NC 27609 ♦ 919-783-9214 ♦ (FAX) 919-783-9266
TO: Matthew Reid, DMS PM
Todd Tugwell, ACOE
FROM: Tim Morris, KCI
DATE: July 25, 2016
SUBJECT: Mill Dam Creek Stream Restoration Project
IRT Site Review Meeting
KCI Project Number: 201601703
Attendees:
Sue Homewood, NC DWR
Todd Tugwell, ACOE
Paul Weisner, DMS
Matthew Reid, DMS
Tim Morris, KCI
Steve Stokes, KCI
Adam Spiller, KCI
An IRT field review was conducted for the above referenced project on July 19, 2016 starting at
9:00 am. Weather was partly sunny. According to Weather Underground approximately 1.16"
of rainfall had fallen in West Bend in the previous 14 days and 2.50" had fallen since the
beginning of July. All project streams (UTHC and Tributaries 1 -9) were reviewed. Tributary 1
and the upper portion of Tributary 6 were dry. All other streams exhibited flow at the time of the
site visit. Tim Morris and Adam Spiller from KCI presented the project to the attendees. The
following issues and concerns were documented at the meeting and will be addressed in the
future development of the site.
T1A — IRT generally OK with approach. Consider adding easement to cover eroding ephemeral
drains and for BMP development. Must monitor channel carefully to ensure there is no stream
loss associated with bringing the stream bed up. IRT suggested a stream gauge to monitor flow
during monitoring period.
T 1- Dry at the time of site visit. Corps indicated that they probably would not require mitigation
if they were permitting an impact to this stream. Seemed OK with it in the context of the entire

Memorandum
Page 2of3
July 25, 2016
project since this was the only restoration reaches on an intermittent (dry) stream. Suggested a
stream gauge here to monitor flow during monitoring period.
T2 — IRT was OK with R (lower) and E2 (upper) approach. IRT discussed possibly doing more
R in the upper section in the woods but ultimately backed off that thought. KCI would consider
doing more R in the woods if the IRT would grant R credit. The spacing of the trees would allow
KCI to do construction with minimal damage to the existing canopy. Additional feedback on T2
approach is appreciated.
T3 — IRT was OK with approach, including doing wetland rehabilitation within the emergent
seep at the head of the stream. KCI would need to provide a pre -con well if trying to claim
wetland credit via rehabilitation. KCI won't likely have all of this data for inclusion in the
Mitigation Plan (MP) plan, but the IRT said it's fine to keep recording until construction is
started as long as in the MP we explain how it will be used once it's collected (compare to post
construction monitoring). DMS does not know at this point if wetland credits will be
needed/contracted.
T4 — IRT suggested Restoration instead of E2 on this reach (approximately 200'). KCI will
modify approach to R.
T5 — IRT generally agreed with our approach. Similar to any other "light touch"/E2 reaches, we
need to make sure that we quantify the amount of work that's being done on the stream to
illustrate that we're doing enough work for it to be called E2. For TSA, need to clarify that this
isn't just from a leaky well, but is from an actual spring/seep.
T6 — IRT agreed to approach but expressed reservation about E2 on T6 (because it was dry) and
questioned the feasibility of removing the dam. KCI to provide detailed justification of E2 on
upper portion of T6. KCI intends to remove the dam in its entirety, not just notch the dam.
T7 — IRT generally agreed to the R/E2 approach here. The wetland in this area was largely
functional and the IRT indicated that it would not be a candidate for rehabilitation.
T8 — IRT asked KCI to remove E2 from the beginning of TBA. Because of the presence of the
toe -drain, KCI will consider wetland rehab here if DMS is contracting credits. IRT generally OK
with the approach for the rest of T8 and TBA.
T9 — IRT recommended a 5:1 ratio for the E2 section. Restoration section was OK. KCI will
eliminate E2 section as it does not make sense financially (credits do not justify cost).
UTHC — IRT generally OK with all calls until Mathis property although the IRT expressed

Memorandum
Page 3of3
July 25, 2016
concern about the approach from T6 to the Mathis Property. Mathis property is the second
crossing downstream of T61UTHC confluence. Strong justification for R approach will need to
be provided in the MP. IRT requested changing R to E 1 on the Mathis Property, then E2 from
bottom of Mathis Property to the next crossing, then E1 from that crossing to the powerline
crossing, then E2 to the bottom of the project. (see attached mitigation type and extent map) for
final changes.
Assuming agency concurrence with this memo, this approach will result in the deduction of
approximately 675 credits from the initially proposed 11,000 credits.
Meeting adjourned @ approximately 1pm.
Key:
R — Restoration
E 1 — Enhancement 1
E2 — Enhancement 2
UTHC — Unnamed Tributary to Hall Creek

.. 4
1 .� r +' • Project Parcels
1 r • f - Mitigation Type
- Restoration (7,295 If / 7,295 SMCs)
- Enhancement 1 (2,068 If / 1,379 SMCs)
- Enhancement 2 (4,127 If/ 1,651 SMCs)
No Mitigation
Proposed BMP Locations
Proposed Easement (36.9 ac)
Begin T8 !
T6 �.
■. Begin T7
Begin
T5
T6A s: . •. ,
T5
=s' Begin T5B
C G Begin T5A
a �
H Begin T4 n
r
Begin T5
Begin T2
Begin T3
:w
MOM
FIGURE 11. PROPOSED MITIGATION N
0 350 700 TYPE AND EXTENT Source: NC Statewide
Feet MILL DAM CREEK RESTORATION SITE Orthoinnagery, 2014.
YADKIN COUNTY, NC Updated 7126/2016

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
ISO 9001:201 S CERTIFIED
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd., Suite 400 • Raleigh, NC 27609 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Date: 9/26/2018
To: Matthew Reid, Project Manager
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Subject: Mill Dam Restoration Site
Draft Mitigation Plan Review
Yadkin River Basin - 03040101
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Contract No. #6898
DMS Project #97136
Dear Mr. Reid,
Please see below our responses to your comments from August 7, 2018 on the draft of the Mill Dam
Mitigation Plan. We have addressed your comments in the final report and have outlined our changes
below. Following your acceptance of these changes, we will submit 3 hard copies of the final report along
with a flash drive or CD with an electronic copy.
• Page ii: There are two tables labeled Table 6 in the document. One is the Local Curve Bankfull
Determination and the second is Sediment Results and Shear Stress Comparison. Please update
document.
Corrected.
• Page 6: The Slate Belt reference (possibly from a relic document) needs to be corrected. The
project appears to be in the Sauratown Mountains Anticlinorium. Please verify the geologic
setting and provide an updated description.
We corrected it to the Sauratown Mountains Anticlinorium, although the Metagraywacke and
Muscovite -Biotite Schist formation is correct.
• Page 6: Last paragraph references (see Figure 3). This reference should be (see Figure 4).
Corrected.
• Page 8: Second paragraph references (Figures 5a and 5b). This reference should be (Figures 6a
THE MOST INCREDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW.KCI. COM

and 6b).
Corrected.
• Page 13: Second paragraph states UTHC3 begins after T6 confluence. According to plan sheets,
asset table and figures, this confluence is before T6 confluence. Please update text.
This has been corrected as UTHC3 beginning approximately 70 linear feet upstream of the
confluence with T6.
• Table 4: Please add the thermal regime to the attribute table.
The regime "warm" has been added to the attribute table.
• Figure 7: One XS on UTHC3 does not seem adequate coverage for making the R justification
based on IRT concerns during the Post Contract Site Meeting. Please include more robust
documentation of the dominant condition of that reach to satisfy IRT concerns. Field
observations on 7/26/2018 indicate poor floodplain connectivity and bank erosion as per KCI
assessment. There was evidence of some sediment sorting and minimal habitat, but the channel
is largely oversized in that reach. DMS recommends adding cross sections and/or providing the
proportions of incision/erosion for the reach. Please elaborate as necessary in plan to justify the
R approach.
We added two more cross-sections along UTHC3 that are included in the morphological data
tables and the existing conditions data in Section 12.2. In addition, we have added more
description to Section 3.1.3 in the UTHC3 paragraph.
• Figure 8: UTHC4 start location is shown at utility break. According to asset table and plan sheets,
this section is in UTHC3. Please update start location of UTHC4 for clarity. Also, symbolizing culverts,
bridges and utility crossings would be beneficial for reviewing since there are many breaks in the
easement.
The start of UTHC4 has been corrected in this figure, and we've added the locations of the different
types of crossings on Figure 8.
• Page 21: Photo 17 refers to UTHC5 and Photo 18 refers to UTHC- . Please update.
These have been corrected to UTHC4 (however, since 6 new photos of T5A and UTHC3 were added,
these photos are now 23 and 24).
• Page 23: It is advisable to provide an actual proportion of the drainage network captured by the
project given how high it is. This combined with the implementation of RSC on ephemeral sediment
sources needs to be emphasized given that some of the E2 on the project consists of planting and
cattle exclusion only with some of the E1 limited to benching and planting at normal credit ratios.
Making the system wide benefits of the percentage of watershed capture and RSC implementation
will help allay some of the reach by reach concerns expressed by the IRT in the memo regarding the
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM \N NV% . r., 1. (_()nt

level of intervention, uplift and crediting.
In the last paragraph in Section 4.0, we have added that approximately 89% of the jurisdictional
features within the project watershed are protected. In addition, another 1,852 linear feet of
ephemeral features are protected in the project easement, of which 3 RSCS are included to improve
water quality.
• Page 25: Typo end of second sentence.
Corrected.
Page 26: T2 and T4 both have RSCS at the top of the reach. According to the Project Asset Table and
plan sheets, credit is being requested for these areas. Please verify ALL RSCS on the Site are not
being installed in jurisdictional streams and credit calculations do not include RSC length.
We have removed the RSCS from T2 and T4, but left the remaining three. The treatment for the tops
of T2 and T4 will still involve stabilizing the stream bed and banks, but will no longer include the water
quality treatment cells found in RSCS. The credit table has been kept the same assuming the level of
treatment corresponds to the previously proposed credit ratios.
• Table 21: Please create discrete Reach IDs in the table for any current reach where restoration levels
or ratios vary throughout reach (ex: break T2 up into T2R1 and T2R2 for the El and R sections).
These have been added to the mitigation plan and to the construction plans.
• Table 21: T5A is an ephemeral feature. Credit will likely not be granted for work on this channel.
Please provide justification and IRT concurrence that this reach has been approved as a creditable
reach. Please update plan as needed.
T5A was flowing strongly at the time when the original stream form was completed, but scored lower
due to other soil and biological elements and valley grade not being included at the time in January
2016. A new stream form was completed in August 2018 based on further observations of the stream
and it scored a 19.25.
T5A also had flow at the time the IRT conducted the post -contract site visit in July 2016. The Corps
had a concern that the flow could be from a leaky well, but upon checking with the landowner and
opening the spring box KCI confirmed that the flow emanates from a strong artesian spring that
initiates the channel flow. Because the stream originally scored below 19, it was initially categorized
as ephemeral, however, the stream contains perennial flow and always has. The IRT was comfortable
with the call of E2 for this channel if the well issue was reconciled. Additional photos have been
included in the mitigation plan.
Page 44:
o Stream Hydrologic Performance: Please elaborate on baseflow criterion referencing 3 out
of first 4 years. Given some of the elevation changes planned for some of these tribs it might
be better to indicate 3 of the last 4 years instead. Where did this criterion come from?
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
var.( 1.(OM

The 3 out of the first 4 years came from a DWR comment on a different mitigation plan. We
have removed this reference, and will see if the IRT has additional comments on this section.
o Geomorphology Performance: Recommend adding a sentence after the BHR criterion
indicating that annual success will be an overall assessment for the reach to distinguish local
from systemic concerns. Also, there are other criteria in the 2016 IRT guidance not
addressed here.
We have added a sentence after the BHR stating "There will be an overall assessment for each
reach to distinguish localized versus systemic concerns for that stream." We state at the
beginning of the section that the Geomorphology Performance will follow the 2016 IRT
guidance and as such have not listed all the parameters.
Page 45:
o Veg Monitoring top paragraph: This statement seems to be in error "In all plots exotic and
invasive species will be included in the stem count". Please clarify to make sure the reader
understands that they will be counted, but excluded from success densities. Please indicate
whether fixed plots will be CVS plots.
We intended to state that we would be counting exotic and invasive stems, but not including
them in the performance criterion. This has been reworded to "In all plots, invasive stems will
also be recorded to determine the percentage of invasive stems present." The fixed plots will
not be CVS plots, but will follow the guidelines in the 2016 IRT guidance.
0 Geomorphology: Given the restrictive geomorphology success criteria and nearly 10,000
feet of R/EI spread over about 15 reaches DMS recommends having more riffle cross sections
over pools.
We have changed the distribution of cross-sections to 24 riffles and 8 pools instead of 16 of
each. They are distributed as: UTHC1 Top (2 riffles and 1 pool), UTHC1 Bottom (1 riffle and 1
pool), UTHC2 (2 riffles), UTHC3 (2 riffles and 1 pool), UTHC4-1 (1 riffle), UTHC4-3 (2 riffles),
T1 (1 riffle and 1 pool), T1A (2 riffles), T2-2 (1 riffle and 1 pool), T3 (1 riffle and 1 pool), T4 (1
riffle), T6-2 (1 riffle and 1 pool), T6A-2 (1 riffle), T7-2 (1 riffle and 1 pool), T8-2 (2 riffles), T8A
(2 riffles), and T9 (1 riffle). We added a statement saying "More riffle cross-sections will be
used given the amount of Enhancement 1 reaches on the project."
• Credit Release Schedule: Typo in bullet c.
Corrected.
• Maintenance Plan: Please add beaver control to Planned Maintenance.
We added a beaver control section that states that "The site will be monitored for the presence of
beaver. Adaptive management approaches will be used to evaluate whether or not beaver or their
structures should be controlled at the site."
• Jurisdictional Determination: The Preliminary JD material included in the draft plan does not
THE MOST IN{REDIRLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\N \V%V. R, 1.( ()%I

include all the information submitted to the USACE. Maps, figures and tables are missing. Please
include entire JD submittal package in the Mitigation Plan.
These materials have been added to the appendix.
• Please include Post Contract Site Meeting Memo in appendix.
The meeting minutes from 7/19/16 are included now in Section 12.11 Agency Correspondence in
the appendices.
Plan Sheet Comments:
Step Pool Detail: Consider angling head sill to direct flow away from outer bend. DMS will defer
to KCI experience with prior performance of this design.
The detail has been updated to show an angled sill at approximately 8 degrees to direct flow
away from the outer bank.
• Typical Sections: XS appear to be for P2 designs. How much P2 is in the design as a proportion?
We generally show a typical cross-section that shows a potential tie -out for P2 approach if needed;
assuming there is a floodplain present for a P1 approach, the grade can simply be tied out at the
existing elevation. There are floodplain extents shown in the planview that outline where the
stream floodplain narrows or widens fora P2 versus P1 approach. Below is the approximate break-
down of Priority 2 areas. Over all of the 13,506 If of proposed stream channel, Priority 2 will occur
on approximately 3,028 If, or 22%.
Reach
Begin
End
Description
UTHC 1
10+00
11+50
tie-in
UTHC 1
24+50
27+39
tie -out
UTHC 3
42+30
44+00
tie-in
UTHC 3
53+50
55+57
tie -out
Trib 1
100+00
101+80
tie-in
Trib 1
105+20
107+51
tie -out
Trib 1A
150+00
157+95
all
Trib 2
200+00
207+63
all
Trib 3
varies throughout
Trib 9
900+71
901+29
tie -out
RSC Detail: DMS has noted on some other RSC designs that a clay layer between the media and
the next cascade has been used to promote saturation of the media and make certain that flow
is restricted to the sill elevation and not piping beneath. Given how much reach 1A for example
will have to be raised as part of the restoration DMS wants to make sure that everything possible
is being done to maintain RSC flow elevation as high as possible from the outset. DMS will defer
to KCIs expertise if their experience with this design leaves them confident that the fabric will do
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM
\NWW' K( 1.com4

the job.
We have modified the RSC detail to show the addition of a V -thick layer of clay behind the boulder
sill. There is also a layer of geotextile fabric in between that layer and the boulders.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
Sincerely,
Tim Morris
Project Manager
THE MOST IN{REDIBLE THING WE'VE ENGINEERED IS OUR TEAM WWW. KCI. COM