The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20171293 Ver 1_IRT Memo_20190717MEMORANDUM pres 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. 919.829.9913 fax TO: NC IRT FROM: Brad Breslow, Kasey Carrere, Matt Butler - RES DATE: 07/17/2019 RE: RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank IRT Site Visits Attendees: Mac Haupt (NC DWR), Erin Davis (NC DWR), Steve Kichefski (USACE), Todd Tugwell (USACE), Bryan Roden -Reynolds (USACE), Brad Breslow (RES), Kasey Carrere (RES), Matt Butler (RES), Brian Hockett (RES) Dates: June 25th and 26th, 2019 Summary: This memo serves as a summary of discussions during the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank's second IRT site visit. The June 25th and 26th site visits were scheduled for Todd Tugwell and Steve Kichefski to view the sites prior to construction and to discuss changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan from the Draft Mitigation Plan Review Comments dated on May lst, 2019. In conclusion, the IRT and RES has agreed all parties will provide feedback from the meeting within 2-3 weeks of the site visit date of June 26th, 2019. The IRT and RES also agreed any changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan and/or PCN applications based on discussions during the site visit and any following correspondence will be documented in site-specific memos and noted as an amendment to the Final Mitigation Plan. Twiman Site — 06/25/19; 8:30-11:30 am IRT agreed that comments from the Draft Mitigation Plan Review were addressed appropriately in the Final Mitigation Plan submittal. Reach specific comments discussed during the site visit are outlined below: TC2-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement I at 1.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and bank stabilization. Based on comments from IRT, RES justified ratio based on level of intervention/design approach. IRT agreed to this approach. TC3-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Based on draft mitigation plan comments, RES changed ratio to 3:1. IRT agreed to this approach. TC5-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and minor spot stabilization. IRT suggested a lower ratio of 3:1 in some areas based on existing buffer condition. RES agreed to lowering the ratio to 3:1. IRT generally agreed to the ratio during site visit but are still determining if this ratio is still applicable for this reach and will contact RES in 2-3 weeks of site visit with a final determination. • TC5-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and buffer planting. IRT agreed that this is an appropriate approach, but RES needs to clearly justify the rationale for the enhancement on this reach. RES has agreed to lower the ratio to 7.5:1. However, IRT is still determining the appropriate ratio for this reach and will contact RES in 2-3 weeks of site visit with a final determination. • TC6-A: IRT agreed that restoration at 1:1 was appropriate as show on design sheets, but group discussed concerns over loss of hydrology from raising the bed on such an incised channel. Action Items: As only potential changes were proposed ratios- no updates to plan sheets or PCN required. Compass Point Site — 06/25/19; 12:00- 2:00 pm IRT agreed that comments from the Draft Mitigation Plan Review were addressed appropriately in the Final Mitigation Plan submittal. Reach specific comments discussed during the site visit are outlined below: • DW2-A: IRT agreed to Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. • DWI -A: RES proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio and IRT agreed with this approach. Group agreed that more active work at the tie-in with DW2-13 (restoration or Enhancement I) would be best approach. • DW2-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. IRT discussed Restoration as acceptable for this reach from the confluence of Reach DW3 all the way to the proposed crossing with measures including a combination of bed and bank work, movement of stream, complete riparian buffer planting, and cattle exclusion. However, this has the potential to change the agreed easement boundary with the landowner, so RES proposes a Enhancement I or inline Restoration for this small section. • DWI -C: RES proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. This reach has patches of high-quality bed material including cobble and bedrock. USACE/DWR is still working to determine final ratio for this reach and will get back to RES within 2-3 weeks of site visit on final ratio determination. • DWI -E — RES changed this reach from Enhancement II at a 5:1 ratio to a 7.5:1 ratio. IRT supports the change in ratio from 5:1 to 7.5:1. Action Items: RES will provide new plan sheet(s) for updated design approaches on DWI and DW2. RES will also provide an updated impact table for the already submitted PCN application. Gideon Site — 06/25/19; 2:40-4:40 pm IRT agreed that comments from the Draft Mitigation Plan Review were addressed appropriately in the Final Mitigation Plan submittal. Reach specific comments discussed during the site visit are outlined below: • JN6- C: Members of the IRT discussed concerns over the passive approach of reconnecting the hydrology to this relic feature without the inclusion of stream structures or any active improvements to the channel bed. RES discussed the concern over impacts to existing mature vegetation but agreed to add structures to the channel between station 20+50 and 25+38. Design plans will be updated accordingly. Also, per DWR comment during the draft mitigation plan review, RES added a drop structure to the confluence of JN6 and MC2. Action Items: RES will provide updated design sheet for Reach JN -6. No updates to PCN. Green Mesa Site — 06/26/19 IRT members agreed the Green Mesa site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below. • FF4-A: RES originally proposed Restoration at 1:1. Per recommendation from the IRT site visit on 10/17/2017, the initial approach of restoration was changed to Enhancement Level I (EI) at 1.5:1. IRT comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan recommended changing the approach to Enhancement Level II (E2) at 2.5:1. RES proposed improvements including adding several in -stream structures and benching the right bank for 474 LF, and planting the buffer. IRT agreed with this approach EI at 1.5:1. • FF4-A: RES and IRT noted the presence of a new lateral ditch that is draining a portion of the farm field adjacent to this reach. RES notified the landowner and leasing farmer to discontinue ditching activities. RES will repair the ditch during construction. • IRT members reiterated that this type of project would likely be rejected in the future due to several characteristics noted in the Draft Mitigation Plan comments. RES recognized that the Green Mesa Mitigation Site falls short on the types of parameters the IRT are looking for when accepting a site. Moving forward, RES ensures that these parameters and any project constraints will be addressed at the initiation of the project. IRT agreed to allow this site to be constructed. Action Items: As only potential changes discussed were proposed ratios and overarching site discussion- no updates to plans or PCN required. Scout Site- 06/26/19 IRT members agreed the Green Mesa site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below. • Reach HO o An unnamed tributary that confluences with the top of the reach (—Sta 2+50) was discussed. This reach was shown on the design plans but did not have a note/detail for tie-in to the proposed alignment, or was it shown on the PCN/JD. o Jurisdictional status of a ditch/channel that ties -in with existing alignment (—Sta 22+00) was discussed in field. This feature was not deemed jurisdictional during site visits with Corps during JD visit. Original design showed plugging this feature. RES and IRT discussed leaving the feature open and designing a tie-in as opposed to plugging. • Potential for existing wetland areas and restoration potential of hydric soils at downstream end of easement were discussed. Action Items: RES will provide new plan sheets) for updated tie-ins at Sta. 2+50 and Sta. 22+ 00. RES staff is currently assessing wetland areas discussed during site visit. RES will provide an updated impact table/aquatic resource table based on the additional field visit/soil evaluation.