20140194 Ver 1_IRT Credit Release Meeting (MY4)_8_27_19_20190913

�D-

Meeting Minutes
Project: Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site (DMS # 96309)
Subject: IRT Credit Release Meeting
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Location: Burke County
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Mac Haupt (DWR)
Paul Wiesner (DMS)
Tim Baumgartner (DMS)
Joe Famularo (DMS)
Chris Smith (HDR)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Erin Davis (DWR)
Harry Tsomides (DMS)
Melonie Allen (DMS)
Ryan Smith (HDR)
The IRT Credit Release Meeting for the Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site was held at 9:00 AM on
Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at the project site in Burke County. The following represents highlights of
discussions that occurred during the site visit:
1. Chris Smith provided a synopsis of the project site to begin the meeting.
2. The IRT expressed concern over the following items at this stage in monitoring (year 4):
a. Vegetation.
i. 2 vegetation plots along UT 1 are not currently meeting success criteria
1. Supplemental planting occurred during 2018.
ii. Invasive Plants: Privet has been treated along UT 1 multiple times this year but
no measures were taken prior to 2019.
b. Repair areas along Roses Creek.
c. Tributary discharge and maintenance of single thread channel as opposed to wetland
complex.
Site Walk
1. Discussion regarding the current condition of the tributaries. UT 2 and UT 3 are the tributaries
of concern:
a. HDR observed that the monitoring cross sections for the tributaries do not show
aggradation or significant alteration in cross sectional dimension.

b. HDR observed that the flow gauge data indicates all the tributaries meet performance
standard requirements.
c. There is flow through the restored channels, however, there is also water flowing in the
floodplains of UT 2 and UT 3.
d. Dense, low growing vegetation (juncus/carex/salix/polygonum) is prevalent along
several reaches of UT 2 and UT 3's channel side slopes and floodplain. The IRT
expressed concern that vegetation is constricting channel flow and could in the future
cause enough aggradation within the channels to the point that they function as a linear
wetland rather than the channel functioning as a stream. HDR reiterated that
monitoring cross-sectional data confirms that the channel is maintaining its dimension
even though the vegetation is admittedly dense which restricts the ability to visually
identify sections of existing bed and bank within some restored channel reaches.
e. Some sediment entered the upstream extent of UT 2 due to a soil access road that had
not been stabilized immediately following construction completion. The road is now
stabilized, however there is still sediment that is slowly being mobilized downstream.
f. The IRT indicated that stream reaches proposed for stream mitigation credit should
function as streams and be considered jurisdictional streams by the regulatory agencies
at project closeout. The IRT noted that stream channels that are determined to be non -
jurisdictional will not be eligible to receive stream mitigation credit. The IRT suggested
documenting stream conditions with photos and videos during winter when plants are
dormant in an effort to more clearly identify the channel bed and bank. The IRT noted
that there has been allowances for providers to maintain vegetation on channel banks
through the first two monitoring years. They did not recommend this for this site during
the visit, but noted it as a potential tool for future sites.
g. There was discussion during the site walk on if flow gauges should be moved further
upstream compared with their current locations. At the end of the walk it was
determined that the tributaries appear to display sufficient flow and that it may not be
necessary to relocate flow gauges.
2. Continued treatment of invasives including but not limited to privet and multi -flora rose is
necessary though project closeout.
3. Vegetation on UT 1 was a concern prior to the site walk due to low survival rates within
monitoring plots as noted in the monitoring report. However, during the site walk woody
vegetation was noted to be dense along UT 1, displaying healthy vigor and survivability. HDR
will review monitoring plots to determine if monitored vegetation within the plots is accurate
and/or if vegetation with the plots is representative of survivability along UT 1 and will detail the
information in the MY4 (2019) report.
4. Beaver have entered the site near the downstream terminus of restoration on Roses Creek
(have built one dam and began a second). The IRT noted that beaver management should begin
and removal of the dam is necessary. Beaver inspection, management and dam removal should
be completed until project closeout.
a. NOTE: As of September 11, 2019 the beaver dams have been removed and an
eradication program has begun through a contract with the USDA APHIS.
5. The IRT noted that overall the site is functioning well (both streams, repairs from storm events
and vegetation). The IRT noted issues on both UT 2 and UT 3 that have potential credit

implications. The IRT was willing to release stream credits for MY3 (2018) as long as the
remaining amount of unreleased credits exceeded the potential stream credits associated with
both UT2 and UT3. The IRT indicated that they would review the MY4 report and any
supplemental data provided and discuss the project and additional project credit release at the
2020 IRT credit release meeting.
6. The IRT noted that HDR should document any adaptive management measures and discuss
measures during the credit release meeting in April 2020. Any significant adaptive management
must be pre -approved by the IRT before implementation.