20190495 Ver 1_IRT Site Visit Notes_20190610

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
TO: Lindsay Crocker, DMS
FROM: Brad Breslow, RES
DATE: June 6, 2019
fires
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
RE: Cowford Post -Contract IRT Site Visit Minutes
CU: 03030001
DEQ Contract No: 7746
DMS Project ID: 100095
County: Onslow
DMS Project Manager: Lindsay Crocker
Meeting Details
Date/Time: April 17th, 2019, 10:00 AM
IRT Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Mac Haupt (DWR), Erin Davis (DWR), Travis Wilson (WRC)
DMS Attendees: Lindsay Crocker (DMS), Jeff Schaffer (DMS), Jeremiah Dow (DMS)
RES Attendees: David Godley (RES), Jeremy Schmid (RES), Frasier Mullen (RES), George Lankford (sub)
General Summary
IRT members agreed that the Cowford Site (the "Site") is acceptable for compensatory mitigation after
some of their concerns are addressed. While the Site poses many challenges and associated risks, the Group
agreed that the proposed project has the potential to provide functional uplift to the New River watershed.
General discussion with IRT members included voicing their concerns over the lack of drainage area and
slope in the upper end of the stream reach. IRT suggested that a headwater valley approach could be used
in this section, but RES would still need to provide documentation of flow.
Main concerns discussed include:
• The IRT recommended relocating the stream crossing proposed at the middle of the project to the
upstream end if possible;
• RES should consider including a wider buffer around the proposed wetland to prevent outside
ditching effects;
• RES will need to ensure drain tiles are removed from inside the easement;
• There was discussion of the stream design approach at the upper end where 3 ditches confluence
to drain approximately 78 acres. The IRT expressed concern about the lack of fall across the reach
and the resulting Priority II needed to achieve flow and prevent hydrologic trespass. Both Priority
II and headwater valley approaches were discussed for the upper reach above the wetland, and
Priority I below the wetland;
• RES will need to document flow within the upper reach through gauges if designed as a headwater
valley. The use of cameras, video, and gauges to help substantiate flow was recommended;

There was discussion that trees planted in the CRP easement could be used for in -stream
structures. The group also discussed the possibility of leaving desirable species but also felt it
would be ok to remove them pending WRC input at mitigation plan;
The IRT would prefer to see a single thread channel proposed in drainage areas larger than 100
acres.