20190846 Ver 1_20190710 IRT Memo_20190717

M E M O R A N D U M
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
TO: NC IRT
fires
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
FROM: Jamey McEachran (RES)
DATE: 7/10/2019
RE: Cairo IRT Site Visit Minutes
Attendees:
NCDWR: Mac Haupt, Erin Davis
USACE: Todd Tugwell, Sam Dailey
RES: Brad Breslow, Frasier Mullen, Jamey McEachran, David Godley
Date: July 10th, 2019
General Summary
Overall it was agreed that the project was a viable mitigation project that would have value at
protecting a stream wetland complex in a rapidly developing area. The overall concerns
expressed about the project were whether flow will be obtainable in all reaches and whether
wetland enhancement can be adequately justified in the mitigation plan. RES will make minor
updates to the prospectus and submit to Sam Dailey to put on public notice as Final. Due to the
urban nature of the site, DWR recommended that RES reach out to the city or county about the
longterm plans for the area and whether there were any plans for a greenway or stormwater
infrastructure in the area. RES will do this outreach during the mitigation plan phase of the
project.
UT1 (upstream)
• The design approach will be Priority I restoration to address vertical and lateral instability
and assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features.
• DWR stated that although there are localized areas where the stream is not as incised, and
the bed has nice substrate, the reach would benefit from restoration.
• The group agreed that it would be beneficial to grab the other side of UTI even with the
addition of two crossings, due to the sewer easement, as well as including the larger
tributary (shown as UT6 on the updated figures) that abuts Johnson Pond Road. There
may not be the 50 feet buffer for the non-standard buffer credit but would most likely be
able to obtain stream credit. The group agreed that UT6 was likely a low-level
enhancement or preservation reach with a ratio between 5, 7.5, or 10:1 based on the level
of intervention needed to tie in to the rest of the project.

UT2
• The design approach will be a mix of Priority I and 2 restoration to address vertical and
lateral instability and improve habitat features. The group agreed that restoration was an
appropriate treatment and that heavy invasive treatment was needed.
UT3
• The approach is to enhance the headwater wetlands and then stabilize banks, plant the
buffer and exclude livestock along UT3-A and transition into traditional restoration
further downstream.
• DWR brought up the concern over maintaining hydrology if lifting the stream channel.
• It was suggested that restoration could be done at the top of UT3 (UT3-A) if restoring the
floodplain to keep elevation at the top of the Reach.
• It was also suggested to talk to developer and see if a wetland BMP or retention pond at
the top of UT3-A could be integrated into their development plan so that water will be
retained in the watershed.
• In the flat area along UT3-B/UT3-C, USACE suggested to propose an adaptive
management plan in the mitigation plan to say that if the stream does splay out and form
a wetland, it would be left alone and no manipulation to remake a channel would be
conducted.
o RES brought up that there is significant drop and that flow will be able to be
maintained if slope is maintained. However, it was agreed that slope will be an
issue on this reach.
UT4/UT5
• The design approach is to restore the stream channel within the cattle pasture (UT4-
A/UT5) and tie into an existing relic channel within the forested area (UT4-B). This
would bring the current channel away from abutting several properties.
• USACE stated that this approach for the bottom of UT4-A would potentially impact the
current wetland by relocating the stream through the wetland and that the current channel
along the parcel boundary is functioning. While this might be the most ideal design
approach, Todd discussed that there was a limited potential for functional uplift on this
short section of the reach, so it might be best to propose restoration at a lower ratio to tie
into the preservation section.
TC1/Wet1and
• Group agreed that this was a high -functioning stream system that was appropriate for
preservation. Wetland area in prospectus was based on LiDAR/NWI and will be
delineated during the Mitigation Plan phase of the project. Mostly preservation, but some
areas might be enhancement based on planting of trees, etc.