HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171295 Ver 1_Yadkin 01 Bank 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 1St, 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 sheet(s) 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.