20060452 Ver 3_Complete File_20030529

e4
?ai1?3s?r?bn??,
Meeting Minutes eooz s
4089 ?(?b
Valley Fields Farm Site Mitigation Feasibility Study I` 00713/I
TIP # R2568WM
On-Site. Agency Field Review Meeting
Meeting Attendees
• NCDOT - Phillip Todd and Gene Nocerino
• Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Eric Alsmeyer
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Chris Militcher
• North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) - Cynthia van der Wiele
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) - Marla Chambers
• Kimley-Horn & Associates (KHA) - Andrew Kiley, Chad Evenhouse, and Will Wilhelm
The following people received an agency packet for the site, but were not present during the field visit:
• NCDWQ - Beth Barnes
• EPA - Kathy Matthews
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Marella Buncick
Time / Date: 11:30 am - 2:00 pm / May 13, 2003
Meeting Summary
A meeting was conducted at Valley Fields Farms with the referenced attendees on May 13, 2003. The
meeting was hosted by NCDOT with KHA providing technical assistance. An agency packet prepared by
KHA was distributed to the meeting attendees prior to the meeting.
The sequence of events for the field meeting is as follows:
1. Meeting began near the Dave Phillips residence. Will Wilhelm (KHA) introduced the meeting
and provided background information leading to the development of the preliminary mitigation
concept plan.
2. The group traveled to the confluence of Rich Fork (labeled reach A-2 on figure 2 of the agency
packet) and its primary tributary (labeled reach B-1 on figure 2 of the agency packet). The group
discussed wetland and stream restoration.
3. The group traveled upstream along Rich Fork to a secondary tributary of Rich Fork (labeled reach
E-1 on figure 2 of the agency packet) to evaluate the tributary for a discussion of the value of
preserving secondary streams within the project area. Chris Militcher (EPA) and Cynthia Van der
Wiele (NCDWQ) departed after this portion of the field meeting.
4. The remaining group visited two streams to determine their ecological significance/function.
5. The group traveled to the downstream end of the project (labeled reach A-1 on figure 2 of the
agency packet) to observe the condition of the reach A-1.
6. The group drove around the upper watershed of the project area to the confluence of the primary
tributary to Rich Fork and its tributary (labeled reach B-1 and D-1 on figure 2 of the agency
packet). During this part of the meeting the group discussed: development of the watershed;
stream and wetland restoration; and applicability of a water quality BMP near reach D-1.
7. The group traveled to the secondary tributary of Rich Fork located in the northeast section of the
property (labeled reach C-1 in figure 2 of the agency packet). The group discussed stream
restoration and applicability of a water quality BW in the upstream section of reach C-1.
During the introduction, Mr. Wilhelm stated that the property owner, Dave Phillips, was willing to
participate in NCDOT's mitigation program. Mr. Phillips was interested in restoring the streams and
adjacent riparian areas within his property to a more natural and stable condition.
T:\pn\011700018\agency_meeting\agency-meeting-minutes_final.doc
,4
The potential mitigation proposed for the site includes the following:
• Approximately 9,880 linear feet of stream restoration
• Approximately 9,600 linear feet of stream preservation
• Approximately 5± acres of wetland enhancement/restoration
• Approximately 4± acres of wetland preservation
Additionally, KHA proposes the creation of two water quality BMP's to treat stormwater runoff entering
the project area.
Discussion
Stream Mitigation
• Chris Militcher (EPA) noted that EPA recently settled a court case with Colonial Pipelines (a
Colonial pipeline stretches across the project area and crosses Rich Fork in two locations)
concerning leaking pipelines. Mr. Militcher stated that the EPA found that many Colonial
pipes, especially their older spurs, had leaked. NCDOT responded that they will coordinate
with Colonial Pipeline and all the other utilities during the mitigation planning phase to better
define potential issues / constraints regarding the utilities.
• Referring to the section of Rich Fork labeled reach A-2 on figure 2 of the agency packet,
Chris Militcher (EPA) asked if the existing woody vegetation located near the banks of the
streams proposed for Priority I restoration would either be saved or used for mitigation
plantings. KHA responded that the priority in the stream restoration is to create"a referenced,
stable cross-sectional dimension, pattern, and profile. Stream restoration design using the
Priority I or II approach would require removal of woody vegetation located on stream banks.
In cases where the design plans do not relocate the channel, but reshape the existing channel
(e.g. Priority III approach); the mitigation design will take care to avoid woody vegetation on
the bank opposite the reshaped bank. KHA led the group into the stream channel to observe
the existing erosion and noted that many of the existing trees near the stream bank would
likely fall under current conditions as the stream banks continued to erode. The new channel
would be designed to avoid the loss significant trees where possible. NCDOT did not
recommend transplanting existing vegetation because of the lack of past success and seasonal
considerations.
• KHA noted that stream preservation within the project area would benefit the overall
watershed. KHA showed the group a proposed preservation reach (labeled E-1 on figure 2 of
the agency packet) that flows into Rich Fork. The group acknowledged that the stream was in
stable/referenced condition but at risk of degradation due to a head cut forming near the
confluence with Rich Fork. The head cut was held in place by a culvert. If the culvert was
removed, the group agreed that the head cut would likely move upstream if another form of
grade control (e.g. rock vanes or step pools) was not provided.
• NCDOT requested clarification on which streams within the property were considered
"ecologically significant". KHA showed Eric Alsmeyer (USACE) two streams located near
the Phillips residence (labeled as reaches I-1 and M-1 on figure 2 of the agency packet) that
required clarification. The streams were determined to be intermittent streams but NCDOT
will need to verify their ecological significance / function during the mitigation planning
phase. The remaining streams proposed for preservation and restoration showed stronger
stream features and the group agreed that these streams are ecologically significant.
• KHA asked Eric Alsmeyer (USACE) and Marla Chambers (NCWRC) for comments
concerning stream restoration options for a reach located in the northeastern portion of the
property (labeled C-1 on figure 2 of the agency packet). The proposed restoration for the
reach would reshape the multiple channels into a single, stable channel. Ms. Buncick was
concerned that restoration activities in the upper portion of reach C-1 would damage the
existing woody buffer that is currently providing good habitat function. KHA noted that
reshaping the channel within the upper section would impact the existing buffer, but would
also reduce transportation of sediment downstream that is currently produced from the
actively migrating channels. Reducing sediment transport would improve water quality in
T:\pn\O l 1700018\agency-meeting\agency_meeting_minutes_final. doc
A
reach C-1 and Rich Fork. Further downstream, the agency representatives agreed that the
ditch cutting across the petroleum easement should be plugged and stream flow routed into
the relic channel near Rich Fork.
There were concerns about the possibility of hydraulic trespass that would result from raising
the base flow elevation of some of the streams. KHA responded that the proposed stream
would be designed to avoid hydraulic trespass by using Priority II restoration approach near
the property boundaries.
Wetland Mitigation Discussion
• Chris Milithcer (EPA) asked why a rectangle appeared to be cut out of the delineation for the
wetland located in the open field near the confluence of Rich Fork and the primary tributary.
KHA responded that there was an upland mound located in middle of the northern portion of
the field. The group suggested that the mound resulted from the alteration of topography to
improve drainage for crop production. Further investigation of the soil profile of the mound
should determine if the mound has restoration potential.
• Chris Milithcer (EPA) asked how NCDOT would quantify wetland hydrology inputs and
determine hydrological restoration in the wetland areas. KHA responded that existing
wetland areas are maintained by groundwater/slope seepage and ponding of surface flows in
the terrace. The design approach would call for raising base flow elevations of the stream that
in turn would raise ground water/seasonal hydroperiod. Wetland restoration/enhancement
would be determined by soil delineation, vegetation plots, and monitoring gages (as needed).
• Eric Alsmeyer (USACE) asked how NCDOT would determine the presence of drain tiles
within the farm fields. NCDOT/KHA responded that Ground Penetrating Radar and test pits
could be used to locate drain tiles. NCDOT would locate the drain tiles during the mitigation
planning phase.
• Eric Alsmeyer (USACE) asked if NRCS soils mapping had been confirmed for restoration
and enhancement wetlands. KHA responded that during the wetland delineation that
preliminary confirmation of NRCS soils mapping had been performed to complete USACE
wetland data forms. More detailed soil mapping may be required for the wetland mitigation
plan.
• Chris Milithcer (EPA) asked if NCDOT proposed to restore the wetland that currently exist
within the relic channel of Rich Fork located west of the confluence of Rich Fork and its
primary tributary. KHA replied that the proposed stream would likely be placed near the
existing relic channel. The resulting rise in base elevation of the stream and proximity to the
new channel would restore/enhance the hydrology of the area near the relic channel thus
restoring/enhancing wetland function.
Natural Heritage
• The question was asked if any federally or state listed endangered or threatened species were
located within the project area. KHA responded that a database search of federal and state
databases did not return occurrences of federally or state listed endangered or threatened
species within the project area. Potential habitat may exist within the project area. NCDOT
will perform necessary biological survey for those species that have potential habitat within
the project area during the mitigation planning phase.
END
Cc: Attendees
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Kathy Matthews, EPA
T:\pn\011700018\agency_meeting\agency_meeting_minutes_ lnal.doc
Stream and Wetland Mitigation for the
Valley Field Farm Site in Davidson County
North Carolina
Agency Packet
11
TIP Project No. R-2568WM
North Carolina Department of Transportation
'WETLANDS/ 491 GROUP;
MAY 0 9 2003
t4ATER QUALITY, SECTION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
May 2003
1.0 Introduction
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. performed a stream and wetland mitigation feasibility study of
the Valley Fields Farm Site in Davidson County, North Carolina for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). A vicinity map of the project area is attached as Figure
1. The site contains eight parcels that are all owned by Mr. Dave Phillips. Within the site's
approximately 316 acres are approximately 5,400 linear feet of Rich Fork Creek; 10,450 feet of
perennial tributaries; and 3,300 feet of perennial/intermittent channels. The majority of the 3,300
feet of perennial/intermittent channels are considered to be ecologically significant.
Mr. Phillips has expressed interest in stream and wetland mitigation on his property. He wishes
to return the main valley to a more natural condition.
2.0 Relevant Features
2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The project site, Valley Fields Farm, is located adjacent to Wallburg-Highpoint Road about 1
mile east of the intersection of Wallburg-Highpoint Road and Horneytown Road. Rich Fork and
its perennial and intermittent streams represent the potential mitigation streams for this project.
The project watershed is located in the northern most section of the USGS Hydrologic Unit
03040103030030, which itself is a subbasin of the Lower Yadkin USGS Hydrologic Cataloging
Unit - HUC 03040103. The project watershed is also located in the central western portion of the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources' Division of Water Quality
(NC-DWQ) Yadkin River Subbasin 07 (03-07-07). The NC-DWQ's Basinwide Assessment
Report - Yadkin River Basin - June 2002 indicated that "widespread water quality problems"
exist throughout the basin as indicated by bioclassification studies of macroinvertabrate and fish
samples. Ambient monitoring has indicated high levels of nutrients in Rich Fork. A predominant
cause of the impaired water quality is the multitude of large Waste Water Treatment Plants
(WWTP) located within the basin whose effect has been compounded from non-point source
pollution and sediment inputs. The High Point West WWTP, the nearest WWTP to the project
watershed, is downstream of the project watershed.
The drainage area of the watershed for the project's largest reach, which is located at downstream
It terminus of Reach A-4 at Wallburg-Highpoint Road, is approximately 6.6 square miles. The
watershed has over 55% of the land developed or farmed. Much of the remaining land use is
forested upland. The project watershed is located within the Piedmont - Southern Outer
i2.2 iedmont Ecoregion.
tcta Stream Characterization
Approximately 19,150 linear feet of perennial/ intermittent stream exist within the project area.
Figure 2 shows a conceptual mitigation plan. Table 1 gives a breakdown of mitigation potential
by stream reach. Each reach is identified in Figure 2. The stream mitigation opportunities within
the project area are summarized below:
• Approximately 9,880 linear feet of perennial stream have potential for stream restoration.
• Preserving the remaining 9,600 linear feet of the perennial/ intermittent stream will
prevent further degradation to the watershed.
Stream degradation found within the project area is described as follows:
• Incised Channels (See photo 1)
• Failing Stream Banks (See photo 1)
• Absent or reduced woody buffers (See photo 2)
• Channelization (See reach B-2 on figure 2)
• Alteration of channel due to easement work
• Upstream sediment inflows
2.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Project wetlands are located in the active floodplain, along the top of the slope, or along the
adjacent side slopes to the floodplain. The hydrology of the wetlands varies depending on
landscape position. Areas within the active floodplain received flow from flooding events of
Rich Fork and its tributaries and seepage from groundwater discharge. Wetlands outside of the
active floodplain were dominated by groundwater seepage and run-on.
Vegetation at the site varies based on disturbance history. Seven of the wetlands are forested,
four are herbaceous, and two are a mix of herbaceous - forested and scrub-shrub-herbaceous.
3.0 Mitigation Feasibility
3.1 Stream Mitigation Opportunities
Multiple mitigation opportunities exist for streams, wetlands, and adjacent riparian buffers and
floodplains.
Below is a summary of the stream mitigation opportunities
• Priority 1 Restoration
• Priority 2 Restoration
• Priority 1 to 2 Transition Restoration
• Priority 3 Restoration
• General Restoration Techniques (In-Stream Structures)
• Stream enhancement that include adding in-stream structures for grade control, bank
protection, and habitat. In addition, banks could be stabilized and buffers could be
restored or enhanced to enhance adjacent stream segments.
• Stable stream systems (channels and adjacent riparian areas) exist on the Valley Fields
Farm site. These areas could be preserved to protect from future development pressures.
In addition, these streams may serve as a reference (blue print) for the restoration design
of the on-site degraded stream systems.
Priority 1 and 2 restoration may be constrained by utility easements located throughout the
property. See figure 2 for the approximate location of the utilities.
3.2 Riparian and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Opportunities
Buffer mitigation will improve; water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and stream stability.
The woody buffer will be limited in some areas by utility easements and land-use (agriculture and
hay production). The approximate area of buffer mitigation is as follows:
• 20 acres buffer restoration
• 27 acres of buffer enhancement
• 30 acres of buffer preservation
3.3 Wetland Mitigation
There area several areas of potential wetland mitigation onsite. See figure 2 for locations of the
mitigation wetlands. Additional hydrology data needs to be collected to determine the existing
hydrology. Shallow wells located within and adjacent to the wetland areas need to be installed.
Areas with existing wetland hydrology could be enhanced while other areas adjacent to the
wetlands could be restored by raising the water table and reestablishing wetland vegetation.
Wetland hydrology would be restored by raising the base elevation of the stream channel and
reestablishing the historic topography that was altered to facilitate drainage. If functioning drain
tile is found within an area of influence of a wetland, removal of the drain tile could restore
wetland hydrology.
3.4 Watershed Mitigation(BMPs)
In addition to the mitigation opportunities that exist with the streams, wetlands, and riparian
buffers there exist opportunities to improve water quality with some stormwater BMPs on the
Valley Fields Farm site. The BMPs could treat stormwater runoff from point discharges.
4.0 Summary
The Valley Fields Site consists of Rich Fork and its Tributaries. Approximately 9.0 acres of
floodplain and seep wetlands are located onsite. The primary project streams have been impacted
by ditching, clearing of buffers, and upstream sediment sources that have caused incised channels
and instable banks. Some wetland areas are in agricultural use and may be influenced by
drainage tiles.
Mitigation methods presented in this report propose the following:
• Restore approximately 9,880 linear feet of perennial stream
• Preserve 9,270 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream.
• Restore/enhance approximately 4.2 acres of wetland
• Restore 20 acres of riparian buffer
• Enhance 27 acres of riparian buffer
• Preserve 30 acres of riparian buffer
• Create BMPs to stream point discharges
An approximately 95-acre conservation easement is proposed to surround all mitigation options
on the site.

C O ?? O .oyyN ? 3
? b
YI °I. W l ? .1 ?1 ul a?.,y ? L .iY
l'
•
IS 3
n :<.aw °H Mme.
4 ?
¢
y

w
2
4
?
? }
S
5 .mw5
a?m.S ]i
Il'l?
a1 SI 'S .,y?M
?
IS wry W '
`
? Py
??HU.uvl Su
< 4 e yy e < ?
S u.wU <
?
< a
_
uJ ? i ? P

by 2
' ?, Is ?.w.. I
O
v
Q 'S r,N. r.u yl ,S. ; S .i d = b? ?? ? 6
f? z?
6 - ?n111M < 'S. ? rN
9
7` _ < 41,N L O
P
n.
I-
t
y n 3 a t td ? ?
- q?
3
W
Cyla a•a.'l IS
`•0
?
^
y
?O S
.'lu Suoou t
IS.a N?.w a1N ?U?? T 'S

•
:S I. . fu. n
5:,ww. ? 1
n S v
a`
-
a
ml
sl ?
-•'0 -
'

5
,
sEJm
a
5 opal y .ns` :5 w ,
$1 i
? i
9 SS Aar ; Z j11
? ?_
7.
,un ><W ?
J ? 's i ,? 29 0 ?

?
?
?
?
o ? wy ?uww
? \ Is
v?
rJ.;? M
? s
am",
'
- s vd 's w
? d L
I ' s _
J
`
s
SS
?(
G
?
,
?N? •ti
# ?? 3 i
< ?s°?+?3 ? e? ?
Is
3 ? 4
'
e
we l cby •ib A. g
_ d • 3Q,
S I } ;
s a ? ? ,sue ? s ws S
?
O t _?eN IIrN IS +V ?V
1
? o
b
\.
\
O u4.J ytl
p e .n wow .»'
y J

I
3 ? d
, > 5
_ ? ,s awela d
,,,s ,zelw"r
?? 5 s. '? Isu
,.e
< ?
??
, >1d.oJ
?Q S »ao
?•b? •J'vW'\31 E
3
(
i ' ?? .?? cy J. +N anoS C Q

0

?
I c«n sl z
` ?
a MU ub+W
S ` JO' ? J /? '99?
p > a
w?a b
7
?
t
y 1 ? ? n. ?. as
? of 3
43 i u a
?•
F
I a` ?I 8 ? ?`•M

4.2
grin Itl t
'dl ?
/J

w d

?
C Y b ? ?
q

t
1 5
N?

n - '
w s S
?
r ry q .q I
3 ?

y ] O Y
r
7 %
I

r, N N
r: In
r.
v a

i ? ° ,a ,n N `^ ?. .o q ? ry a n x rn n o ? 3

? 3" S - 3 8 S o 'o 'o 'o 0 0 0 5 3 ? ??_

c'..a a'' y x ::a x ?. y c. a. a.

?
^ a
y
f

'? F
r o0
?

45
>
> T
z

d ?_ T T
Y
A 9
b 'O
L ,? w W W

? OD ` ? ? ? O 8 ? O ? S3 y? O O a3 }3 ? ? T ? ? ? ? .
p N O:

•.• r r r a b ':3 m a z ia a 'ca

•y'
y

2
a
_
a
'a L+

a
a
s
p
= O
a
2
a
?
a 71

a

a
71
a SS

_
6
9 L _ a n C is v °o °a a _
'v o E e c E r?

a
i T L i u Z e
O ?4 w L
O w O ::?
O ? Y j
C
a C
o. C
a v
a

¢ .c ? ? ?n { ry ry m ri m ? a

a a a a a a

Fl
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Project: Valley Fields Farm Site
Client: NCDOT
Prepared by: ARK
Job Number: 011700018
Page 1 of 1