20200775 Ver 1_IRT Post Contract Meeting Minutes and Landowner Contact Info_20200706

Strickland, Bev
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
All,
Reid, Matthew
Monday, July 6, 2020 8:43 AM
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B; Munzer, Olivia; Wilson, Travis
W.
Bryan Dick; Ian Jewell; Wiesner, Paul; Phillips, Kelly D; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA)
RE: [External] RE: Middendorf Post Contract Meeting Minutes and Landowner Contact
Info
Middendorf Springs_IRT Post -Contract Site Visit Meeting Minutes_6-25-20
_rev7-02-20.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Please find the revised meeting minutes from the Middendorf Springs post contract site visit. Freese &
Nichols have revised the minutes to reflect Todd's comments.
Thanks,
Matthew Reid
Project Manager — Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
828-231-7912 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 1:25 PM
To: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>
1

Cc: Bryan Dick <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Middendorf Post Contract Meeting Minutes and Landowner Contact Info
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Thanks Matthew. I have a couple comments related to the minutes:
Item 8: please note that the potential compliance issue is not related to water quality rules, but rather a
potential unauthorized activity under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, specifically associated with possible
discharges of dredged and/or fill materials into Waters of the US, including both wetlands and streams. As I
mentioned on site, we need to determine if this is an unauthorized action prior to having any further
communication with DMS or the site provider. I have forwarded this information to Scott Jones with the
Asheville office who will be communicating with the landowner soon.
Item 13: Related to the concern with a channel being maintained within the floodplain, the minutes should
reflect that we cannot agree to stream credit within areas where streams transition to a wetland system, and I
believe that the bottom ends of the tributaries on this site all have this risk due to their relatively small
watersheds and lower slope within the floodplain of South Fork Jones Creek. I also think I mentioned that it
may be acceptable to maintain streams during the first few monitoring years by cleaning out accumulating
sediment, but after year 2 or 3, the streams should not be maintained so any conversion to wetlands becomes
evident prior to project closeout.
Item 13: While discussing the lower end of Tributary 6,1 believe that it was noted that a ditch had been
excavated by the landowner during clearing of the site to route flow from several of the tributaries into Jones
Creek. This is important as it may be a consideration related to the potential unauthorized actions that may
have occurred on the site. This also applies to any potential drain tiles that may have been installed during the
land conversion process to drain the wetlands along South Fork Jones Creek.
Item 23: Note that installation of gauges and/or cameras to document streamflow will be a requirement for
any mitigation proposal on the stream systems.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment,
Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone] ext. 58
-----Original Message -----
From: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>

Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<travis.wilson @ ncwild life.org>
Cc: Bryan Dick <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Post Contract Meeting Minutes and Landowner Contact Info
WH
Attached are the Post Contract Meeting Minutes for the Middendorf Springs Restoration Site from June, 6,
2020. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns with the meeting minutes.
Also, below is the land owner contact information for referral to the Charlotte USACE office:
Owner Name: RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC
Address: 28838 Kendalls Church Rd
Richfield, NC 28137
Representative: Aaron Burleson
Phone #: [phone]
Thank you,
Matthew Reid
Project Manager - Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-231-7912 Mobile
3

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Western DIMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

PROJECT: Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
NAME OF MEETING: Post -Contract IRT Site Visit
RECORDED BY: Ian Jewell, Bryan Dick
DATE: June 8, 2020
LOCATION: Middendorf Springs Site, Anson County, NC
ATTENDEES: Todd Tugwell (USACE) Erin Davis (NCDEQ-DWR)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC) Olivia Munzer (NCWRC)
Pau Wiesner (NCDEQ- DMS) Matthew Reid (NCDEQ-DMS)
Kelly Phillips (NCDEQ- DMS) Bryan Dick (FNI)
Ian Jewell (FNI)
The following reflects our understanding of the items discussed during the subject meeting.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
1.
DMS started with introductions and overarching description of site.
FNI provided detailed overview of site, including description of underlying geology. Noted
that the site sits at the intersection of sandhills Middendorf formation and slate belt meta-
argillite formation, which is hypothesized to be the cause of numerous springs and seeps on
2.
site and presence of perennial flow in relatively small headwater streams. Option B in
proposal is selected Option, which represents 13,000 stream mitigation units and 5 riparian
wetland mitigation units. Described current impairment and impacts to streams and water
quality.
3.
DMS opened up discussion to general questions before site tour began.
NCDWR asked why one option listed restoration for all streams while another option listed
enhancement for all streams. If enhancement is possible why restore? FNI indicated that the
restoration approach to the streams was considered the best approach for full ecological
4'
uplift of the site, due to current level of degradation. Enhancement option was provided
because it was uncertain whether IRT would agree with full need for restoration, so the
option was given to provide flexibility in viewpoints. However, FNI believes based on its best
scientific judgement and analysis of current conditions, that restoration on all reaches (with
exception of Tributary 1B and 1C) is necessary.
Question was asked by DWR as to why only one side of Tributary 1A(upper) was being
proposed for protection in the Conservation Easement. Bryan responded because landowner
5.
only owns one side of the stream and because FNI wanted to provide connectivity between
the restored reach of Tributary 1A(lower) and Tributary 1B and 1C. No credit is being
proposed for the connecting reach on which only one side is available.
USACE and NCDWR stated there was confusion in proposal about what the proposed
wetland saturation/hydrope riod threshold would be for the project. In one place the
6'
proposal indicated 5% but the established threshold in the 2016 "Wilmington District Stream
and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" is 10% to 12% for Chewacla soils. FNI
indicated that they intent is to follow the 2016 guidelines for the threshold, so the 5% is
incorrect.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Post Contract IRT Site Visit
June 8, 2020
Page 2 of 3
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
Question was asked by DWR about the width and number of proposed crossings. They would
like to only see one crossing and indicated that it must be less than the proposed 80'. They
�'
would like to see it get down to 30' to 40' in width. Bryan (FNI) explain that the crossing was
made this wide due to past experience with farmers not being able to get large combine
headers through a crossing without impact to conservation easement. However, FNI will
discuss with landowners about reducing the width down to 40' to 60'.
USACE indicated that they need to further investigate potential discharges of dredged
and/or fill materials into Waters of the US, including wetlands and streams. Such discharges
8'
may be an unauthorized activity under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Information related to the site investigation has been forwarded to Scott Jones with the
Asheville USACE office. They asked for contact information for the landowner. FNI will
provide this.
9.
DWR indicated that they would like to see a buffer on South Fork Jones Creek if possible.
10.
For the sake of time, it was agreed that tour of the site would look at representative reaches
and wetland areas rather than all streams on the site.
Tour began at upstream end of Tributary 6. Based on review, USACE agreed that restoration
approach could be justified here based on level of impairment. USACE asked about the
11.
transition from upstream where the tributary begins to the start of proposed restoration,
and how the transition to a raised streambed would occur. FNI indicated that a flatter slope
would be designed in the channel from the start of restoration until the Priority I elevation
was achieved, which would require a short stretch of Priority II.
DWR indicated that wood structures would be preferred. Bryan explained that wood sills
12.
would be the primary form of structure used for grade control and to create dynamic
bedform in the channel.
Tour continued to downstream end of Tributary 6. USACE noted that the flattening of the
slope at the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain might create a challenge for maintaining a
defined steam channel for the restored tributaries and may result in reduction of stream
credits where the stream transitions into a wetland system. The relatively small watersheds
and low slope within the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain may be problematic regarding
sediment accumulation in the lower reach. It may be acceptable to maintain streams during
13.
the first few monitoring two monitoring years but should not be maintained after this time
to allow for evidence of wetland conversion prior to project closeout. DWR asked if similar
systems/reference systems could be examined across South Fork Jones Creek or elsewhere.
Bryan indicated that there are likely similar systems nearby both in North and South Carolina
and FNI will examine these during design for reference conditions. In addition, the ditches
observed at the lower end of Tributary 6 and associated drain tiles may be a potentially
unauthorized activity under Section 404 of the CWA.
Tour continued upstream along Tributaries 5 and 4 and stopped at upstream end of
Tributary 4b. Question was asked by DWR and NCWRC about why restoration started
downstream of road when defined channel continues upstream of road. FNI explained that
the channel upstream was dry when investigated in the fall of 2019 while the baseflow
14.
indicators seemed to start immediately below the road. USACE indicated a jurisdictional
determination will be important to establish the origin point of jurisdictional status for all
tributaries and help define appropriate starting point for restoration. USACE was concerned
about impacts on restored channel if upstream channel left unprotected. DWR indicated
that a wetland or marsh treatment could be used to help treat and filter nutrients prior to
entering conservation easement and should be considered.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Post Contract IRT Site Visit
June 8, 2020
Page 3 of 3
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
15.
Tour continued to upstream end of Tributary 1 and followed downstream to proposed
wetland restoration area.
16.
Question was asked by USACE and DWR about widening the buffers due to numerous seeps
and side springs adjacent to the stream. They would like to see buffer widened if possible.
At proposed wetland restoration area, USACE indicated that they would like to see a buffer
17.
of the wetland, rather than wetland being the edge of the easement. Also should connect
easement of wetland area to stream easement, rather than it being disconnected.
USACE indicated that jurisdictional determination of wetlands on site will be needed to
establish rehabilitation versus reestablishment approach to the wetland restoration. If
18.
significant impact is shown to wetland from tiling and draining and re-establishment is
proposed, then will need gage data and establishment of water budget to show restoration
of hydrology.
DWR indicated that with rehabilitation, will need to see description of existing function and
proposed function. Pre -construction function will need to be established with gage data. Any
19.
areas proposed for possible alternative wetland restoration areas would also need
establishment of function through gages as well, so should install gages wherever we want
to have option to propose wetland restoration.
Todd with USACE indicated that he thought wetland restoration area would be majority 1:1
20.
credit ratio however any wetland areas upstream of Tributaries 4 and 5 would be a lower
credit ratio. USACE felt downstream wetland areas have a lot of potential for uplift.
Tour continued to Tributaries 113 and 1C, which are upstream of Tributary 1A. After viewing
these streams, USACE and DWR were concerned that Enhancement Level I wasn't fully
justified for these reaches but indicated that FNI would need to provide good
21.
documentation and justification of proposed approach. USACE indicated that at tie-in point
of Tributary 113 with Tributary 1A, 1B should not run parallel with 1A since this approach has
created problems in the past. Both USACE and DWR indicated that minimal sinuosity would
appropriate for these reaches.
WRC asked where material to fill abandoned channels would come from. FNI indicated that
22.
material would be found on -site, primarily from areas lateral to the channel and from
excavation of new channels. FNI will examine the fill and determine if it suitable for this use.
DWR and WRC encourage monitoring of streamflow on site. USACE will require
23
documentation of streamflow by gages or camera. WRC suggested using game cameras as a
visual monitoring device for presence of baseflow. FNI indicated they had a couple of these
at the site and would likely add more.