20160849 Ver 1_Site Visit Mtg Minutes_20190627

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Meeting Minutes
Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Upper Rocky Mitigation Project
USACE Action ID#: SAW -2015-01816
Subject: NCIRT Post -Prospectus Site Meeting
Date Prepared: June 26th, 2019
Meeting Date and Time: June 24th, 2019 10:30 am — 2:30 pm
Meeting Location: On-site (Mecklenburg County, NC)
Recorded By: Cara Conder
Attendees: USACE: Todd Tugwell, Steve Kichefski and Bryan Roden -Reynolds
NCDEQ DWR: Mac Haupt and Erin Davis
WLS: Kayne Van Stell, Adam McIntyre, Chris Tomsic, and Cara Conder
Sub -consultant: George Lankford
These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Post -Prospectus Site Meeting for the Upper Rocky Mitigation Project (Yadkin River
Basin, CU 03040105, Warm Water Thermal Regime). Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) submitted a
prospectus on April 12th, 2017 and the initial evaluation letter for the Upper Rocky Mitigation Project was
received on September 25th, 2017. WLS is planning to submit a draft Mitigation Plan for this project by
September 2019 and will provide the revised mitigation assets based on IRT comments and proposed
design elements.
The meeting began with a general summary of the overall project concepts that were discussed in the
prospectus and watershed changes since the initial pre -prospectus IRT site meeting held in June 2015.
After the site overview, attendees toured the project site to review existing conditions and proposed
mitigation types, restoration approaches, and design concepts. These meeting minutes proceed in order
of each reach. The attached mitigation site map provides updated mitigation types and design approaches
based on guidance and recommendations from the IRT site visit.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
General
1. USACE asked if the wooded area on R1 and R10 is dedicated as the neighborhood greenspace.
Adam confirmed that it does and that WLS purchased an easement covering the entire floodplain
(more than required for a typical restoration project) in order to provide additional protection
over the project. USACE requested to verify who owns the land on the underlying easement. WLS
will provide this information in the draft mitigation plan.
2. There were discussions on whether the project would need to be put back on a public notice given
the delay from the initial site visit and potential site changes. The conclusion was if a draft
mitigation plan is submitted by September 25th, 2019 (two years after the initial evaluation letter)
that a new prospectus would not be required. However, if any additional tributaries or parcels
were to be added to the project, a new prospectus would need to be submitted for review and
public notice.
3. A greenway trail will be installed along the easement boundary of R1 as has been required since
the beginning of the project by Town of Cornelius. USACE prefers to place the greenway trail
outside the conservation easement. Adam noted that WLS has flexibility with the trail alignment
and will coordinate with the Town and developer to keep the trail located as far from the stream
as physically allowable.
4. USACE asked if the upstream portion of R3 (between the existing residential subdivisions) would
be pursued. WLS is interested in extending the functional uplift of the project, but this reach will
not be proposed in this mitigation plan in order to avoid additional project delays. It may be added
as a future phase after the initial Upper Rocky UMBI is approved. This area was not visited during
this meeting.
5. Cara Conder asked about monitoring requirements for vegetation because most of the project is
mostly forested. Todd Tugwell said to address that in the mitigation plan.
6. DWR asked about the agreement on Reaches R3, R5, and R6 that say they are managed under a
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Agreement in the prospectus. Adam provided information
concerning the program which seeks to identify landowners that manage their landholdings for
the purpose of wildlife habitat. This agreement does not require recordation of a conservation
easement and does not place any restrictions on the property. Additional information concerning
the program will be included in the mitigation plan.
Stream Reaches
1. R1: This reach will remain Restoration (PI upper/PII lower). The attached site map shows existing
stream channels and wetland areas with proposed mitigation types. Todd Tugwell noted that there
could be a lot of trees taken down for Restoration work. Chris Tomsic noted that on the lower reach
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
section this is possible, but the upper section canopy/understory is more open on the floodplain. Any
large canopy or significant trees would be avoided, and the design would work around existing trees.
2. R2: Part of this reach is near the subdivision entrance and is already within a conservation easement.
Adam inquired about credit potential for this upper section since it has minimal buffer and an
encroachment, but could be proposed for stream mitigation credit. Todd said that it seemed unlikely
the minimal buffer requirement would be met. WLS has decided to keep the upstream portion in
easement, but not propose any stream credit. The section of R2 downstream of the subdivision
entrance crossing was not visited during the IRT site visit, but is proposed as Enhancement I (vs.
Restoration in prospectus) since most of the proposed work will consist of floodplain bench
excavation, bank stabilization, invasive species control and in -stream structures.
3. R3: DWR and USACE had a question about where R3 should tie into R6. They asked if it should tie into
R6 either slightly above or below R6B since the channel has been moved to the edge of the valley. The
concern is that R3 does not appear to tie-in at the appropriate valley location and whether stream
credits should be reduced. Chris Tomsic and George Lankford commented that the tie-in for R3 would
be dictated by topography as well as design approach. Chris Tomsic showed Mac Haupt in field where
he believed there were natural topographic breaks and valley signatures between R3 and R6, which
hydrologically separates them. Additional topographic and LIDAR data in these areas will support the
design approach. The IRT also encouraged WLS to pursue the upstream section for potential stream
mitigation.
4. R4: Reach remains Restoration. There was a brief discussion about chasing the upstream landowner
of Reach 4 now that the watershed is undergoing more change. Like extending R3, this would have
to be done as an additional phase to the project to avoid more delays in UMBI approval.
5. R5: Concerns from USACE and DWR about restoration approaches on lower R5 where channel looks
relatively stable. This is the area where WLS believes the channel had previously degraded and
sediment had been deposited (embeddedness) from upstream eroded reaches. The group later
revisited the upper reach section and located the active headcut and degraded channel segment.
Based on the discussion and IRT feedback, WLS has split up this reach into Restoration (PI), and
Enhancement II. Exact locations will be based on the detailed topographic survey and described in the
draft mitigation plan. USACE commented that the preservation ratio for wetlands would be higher
than 5:1 and to justify in the mitigation plan.
6. R5A and R513: these reaches remain Enhancement II.
7. R6: The section of this reach begins immediately below the beaver complex and is now proposed as
Enhancement II for approximately 200 feet, then will then transition to Restoration (PI) at an active
headcut. Exact locations will be based on detailed survey and shown on the draft mitigation plan.
8. R6A and R613: these reaches have been removed.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
9. R7 from prospectus (Beaverdam): Adam suggested that approach for R7 (prospectus) was to breach
the first beaver dam and create a higher functioning stream/wetland complex. The upper section of
this beaver dam complex is currently active as indicated by more recent changes in vegetation and
hydrology. Todd commented that this approach would likely impact existing jurisdictional wetlands
and was not receptive to this approach. Per IRT feedback, these reaches have been removed for
stream mitigation since they are functioning more as a wetland system. This lower section of (R7) is a
stable beaver wetland complex with established vegetation. The group generally agreed that this large
beaver wetland complex is providing a water quality benefit to the project watershed. This area was
renamed as W1 (Wetland 1) and is being proposed for wetland preservation credit. All beaver dams
will remain in place and no beaver removal treatment is proposed for this area. Mac suggested he
would support stream preservation through this reach and additional data collection would need to
be conducted (i.e. drone footage, flow monitoring) to determine if this area is functioning more as a
stream/wetland complex. If that is the case, WLS will propose stream preservation in the draft
mitigation plan and describe the long-term management plan for beaver during the monitoring
period.
10. R9 (prospectus): This reach remains Restoration and is now labeled R7 on the updated mitigation site
map. DWR asked if this reach was incised all the way up the channel and WLS confirmed that it is.
11. R7A: This reach remains Enhancement II, but was not labeled in the prospectus.
12. R10 (prospectus label): This is now labeled as R8 and remains Restoration.
Wetland Areas
1. George Lankford performed the wetland delineation and detailed hydric soils evaluation. All potential
wetland acreages and areas will be updated in the draft mitigation plan along with a detailed hydric
soils report.
2. All wetland areas have been renamed from the prospectus and will be included in the draft mitigation
plan.
3. W1 (beaver complex) is being proposed for wetland preservation credit. As described above, all
beaver dams will remain in place and no beaver management/removal is proposed for this area.
Additional data collection will be conducted (i.e. drone footage, flow monitoring) to determine if this
area is functioning more as a stream/wetland complex. WLS will likely propose stream preservation
in the draft mitigation plan.
4. W2 is being proposed as wetland re-establishment. This was labeled W7 in the prospectus and was
also proposed as wetland re-establishment. Mac raised questions about the actual amount of wetland
area that will be restored on site and would like to review the wetland hydrology data and hydric soils
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
report. Adam commented that WLS and George Lankford will provide justification and hydroperiod
rationale for restoration and appropriate hydroperiods in the draft mitigation plan. Due to the
complexities of this system and specifically determining the wetland area that will be reestablished,
Todd suggested we claim the highest amount anticipated and utilize long term groundwater gauge
data to determine the final footprint.
5. W3, W4, and W5 are being proposed as wetland preservation. These were labeled W4, W6, and W5
respectively in the prospectus. Prospectus W5 was initially proposed as wetland enhancement, and
W4 and W6 were preservation. Final wetland credit types will be justified in the mitigation plan based
on the final jurisdictional determination and hydric soils report.
Final Comments Summa
• The NCIRT expressed that overall they accepted the proposed mitigation approaches for the
project reaches as shown on the attached site map.
• USACE and DWR noted that the entirety of the comments discussed during the site visit should
be addressed and incorporated into the mitigation plan.
The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions' interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error or incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or
additions within five (5) business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

N
0 375 750
A
oy
4
"Alk
"00
1,500
= Feet
v
13
Upper Rocky Mitigation Project WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
Existing Conditions Map 7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
Yadkin 03040105 (919) 614 - 5111 1 waterlandsolutions.com
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina