The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201841 Ver 1_Mitigation Site Visit_20210113Strickland, Bev From: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mil> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:27 AM To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Davis, Erin B Subject: [External] Bridgefork Dairy 2020-01962 Site Notes Attachments: Bridgefork Dairy -Site Notes 20210112.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam. Hi Todd and Erin, Site notes have been saved on the Y:Drive (and are attached). If I missed anything, just let me know. Below are the main points from yesterday- more detailed notes are in the attached document. IRT Requests/Overview: -UT4A, UT6A, UT2 all intermittent. IRT requests that gauges be placed on these intermittent channels to show 30 consecutive days of flow. -Reach 1A in good condition (short reach above the utility). 2.5:1 proposed however, IRT discussed changing the credit ratio here due to the good condition of the reach. Wildlands will only be fencing out cattle here and treating invasives as necessary. It was also noted that due to the loss of credit on the 100ft overhead powerline that the credits would balance out if kept at Ell. -Ell Section below the second power -line crossing on Reach 2: Todd discussed benching the left bank (left side- looking upstream) for the length of this section through the power -line break. Right side steep but overall the section wasn't in horrible condition. Mature veg in this area. -R2-R3 transition- Wildlands proposed a ford crossing for horse farm. Todd stated that it may not be necessary because it is a recreational use (not ag) and also the streambed is bedrock here. Landowner just wants the ability to cross. Wildlands will discuss further with the landowner. -UT4: IRT questions whether this Ell reach will remain stable after the extensive removal of invasives and requests cross sections on this reach. -UT4A BMP: Wildlands discussed creating a BMP that hold water- stormwater/wetland type of approach. IRT requests further detail to be provided in MP. -UT5 Preservation reach: Wildlands requesting 5:1 preservation. IRT noted that this area (145 LF) was not 5:1 quality. Wildlands proposed to drop the credits for the preservation area but requested 10-30 LF of restoration where they would tie UT5 into Bridgefork Creek. IRT agreed with this approach but requests a gauge in this area to monitor flow. If Wildlands moves forward with this approach, IRT requests that this be discussed in the MP. -UT6/UT6A: Wildlands will confirm if fencing will be in this area -Wetlands: Some areas of wetland could be expanded. Ultimately this will be driven by the JD, it will also determine what will be reestablishment and rehabilitation. IRT also discussed with Wildlands the potential to add wetland pockets after the project has been constructed but also stated it could hold up monitoring by a year. It was recommended that if Wildlands anticipated an area to be a wetland pocket and wanted to request credit, to determine the soil type and put in gauges to help monitor- this will help determine if wetland is possible and the mitigation type. If additional wetlands are requested an amendment to the MP would be required. -Erin requested treatment of fescue Thanks and see you Thursday Casey Casey Haywood Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1 BUILDING STRONG Mitigation Site Meeting Notes Date: January 12, 2021 Project Name: Bridgefork Dairy Prepared By: Casey Haywood Type of Site: NCDMS Stream and Wetland Site Meeting Type: Prospecus Site Review Sponsor/Provider: Wildlands Engineering USACE AID: 2020-01962 County: Cleveland *Denotes County w/ 30-foot Buffer NCDWR ID: HUC and Basin: Broad - 03050105 Weather: 48 F Sunny Coordinates: ON °W Attendees: USACE, Todd Tugwell USACE, Casey Haywood DWR, Erin Davis DMS, Paul Wisner DMS, Matthew Reid Wildlands, Eric Neuhaus Wildlands, Shaun Wilkerson Project Review Checklist - (provide additional detail in notes section on next page) General Site Issues/Concerns: ❑ Vegetation Composition or Density ❑ Inappropriate Credit Ratio Proposed ❑ Planted Stem Vigor (due to soil, browsing) I@ JD Needed to Confirm Approach ❑ Invasive/Exotic Species ❑ Continuity/Fragmentation ❑ Beaver/Feral Hogs (management plan) ❑ Easement Issues (existing farm, CE, NRCS funding) ❑ Soil (manipulation, compaction, fertility) ❑ Easement Encroachments (livestock, clearing) ❑ Livestock Present/Evidence of Livestock Access ❑ Easement Marking/Signage ❑ Crossings or Utility Lines ❑ Insufficient Project Size ❑ BMPs or Alternate Approaches ❑ Adjacent Property Owner ❑ Fencing Issues or Fencing Needed ❑ T&E Species ❑ Ponds Within Project Area ❑ Section 106 (historic listing/tribal issues) Stream Issues/Concerns: ❑ Incised/Entrenched ❑ Insufficient Stream Drainage Area ❑ Headcuts Present/Forming ❑ Insufficient Hydrology (if raising channel bed) ❑ Stream Structures Failing/Piping ❑ Vegetation in Channel (stream vs wetland) ❑ Excess Sediment/Aggradation ❑ Flow Obstructions (undersized pipes, fords) ❑ Cross -Sections Missing/Indicate Problems ❑ Substrate Concerns (embeddedness, particle size) ❑ Bank Instability/Failure ❑ Live Stakes Absent/Failing ❑ Bench Rills/Erosion (constructed bench or P2 valley) ❑ Evidence of Water Quality Issues ❑ Excess Sinuosity (lack of flow) ❑ In -stream Habitat Weak/Missing ❑ Braided/Anabranch Channel ❑ Stream Buffer Width Inadequate Wetland Issues/Concerns: ❑ Evidence of Excessive Hydrology ❑ Missing Gauge Data (preconstruction or monitoring) ❑ Evidence of Insufficient Hydrology ❑ Gauge Location/Placement ❑ Hydric Soil Indicators/Soil Series ❑ Gauge Maintenance ❑ Surface Roughness or Bedding ❑ Drainage Ditches/Swales Present ❑ Channel Relocation/Riparian Connectivity ❑ Field Tiles/Subsurface Drainage ❑ Hydroperiod Length or Start/Stop Date ❑ Continued Ag Use Adjacent to Wetland Page 1 of 2 Date: January 12, 2021 Project Name: Bridgefork Dairy Notes, Sketch, Action Items, etc.: IRT Requests/Overview: -UT4A, UT6A, UT2 all intermittent. IRT requests that gauges be placed on these intermittent channels to show 30 consecutive days of flow. -Reach 1A in good condition (short reach above the utility). 2.5:1 proposed however, IRT discussed changing the credit ratio here due to the good condition of the reach. Wildlands will only be fencing out cattle here and treating invasives as necessary. It was also noted that due to the loss of credit on the 100ft overhead powerline that the credits would balance out if kept at Ell. -Ell Section below the second power -line crossing on Reach 2: Todd discussed benching the left bank (left side- looking upstream) for the length of this section through the power -line break. Right side steep but overall the section wasn't in horrible condition. Mature veg in this area. -R2-R3 transition- Wildlands proposed a ford crossing for horse farm. Todd stated that it may not be necessary because it is a recreational use (not ag) and also the streambed is bedrock here. Landowner just wants the ability to cross. Wildlands will discuss further with the landowner. -UT4: IRT questions whether this Ell reach will remain stable after the extensive removal of invasives and requests cross sections on this reach. -UT4A BMP: Wildlands discussed creating a BMP that hold water- stormwater/wetland type of approach. IRT requests further detail to be provided in MP. -UT5 Preservation reach: Wildlands requesting 5:1 preservation. IRT noted that this area (145 LF) was not 5:1 quality. Wildlands proposed to drop the credits for the preservation area but requested 10-30 LF of restoration where they would tie UT5 into Bridgefork Creek. IRT agreed with this approach but requests a gauge in this area to monitor flow. If Wildlands moves forward with this approach, IRT requests that this be discussed in the MP. -UT6/UT6A: Wildlands will confirm if fencing will be in this area -Wetlands: Some areas of wetland could be expanded. Ultimately this will be driven by the JD, it will also determine what will be reestablishment and rehabilitation. IRT also discussed with Wildlands the potential to add wetland pockets after the project has been constructed but also stated it could hold up monitoring by a year. It was recommended that if Wildlands anticipated an area to be a wetland pocket and wanted to request credit, to determine the soil type and put in gauges to help monitor- this will help determine if wetland is possible and the mitigation type. If additional wetlands are requested an amendment to the MP would be required. -Erin requested treatment of fescue Project Information/Background: 43 acre CE 10,994 warm SMU; restoration, enhancement and preservation 2.103 WMU rehab and re-establish Located in all 3 TRAs; 13,000 LF stream, 2.2 acres floodplain riparian wetland 10 parcels, 5 property owners DA 1 sq mile at top 7 internal easement breaks, 1 external which is Dylan Rd. UT4A, UT6A, UT2 all intermittent. 4A and 6A, begin as Ephemeral and transition to perennial. Chew- Soils relic hydric tnma tiles rlmin- rnmina frnm hank - Credit Release/Site Closeout Information (for monitoring or closeout reviews only) Stream Credits Wetland Credits Warm Cool Cold Riparian Riverine Riparian Non-Riverine Non -Riparian Coastal Requested Approved* Result of Monitoring Report or Closeout Review Project Manager Signature Date *The updated credit ledger for the project, which includes this release, must be approved by the Project Manager. Page 2 of 2 Form Updated 03/20/2019 r � 1 1 wr-r• i J � *' 1 4 �. �� - i- —a. ! l I JHe� L • a t 49 Aeria. .. _ , , F' ! Proposed Conservation Easement Restoration Ditches (to be filled) Project Parcels Enhancement II 81 Crossings Wetland Rehabilitation (0.11 Ac) Preservation Stormwater Outfall ® Wetland Re -Establishment (2.03 Ac) Restoration - No Credit O Utility Poles Utility Easement (100') Preservation - no credit ReachBreaks Kings Mountain Water Easement (-20') Non -Project Stream Proposed BMP Utility Lines m�1 . N, 70 .. er� O 411, • y +i � �w � �,� y40 7 Y i 44 - � f ' Remove Existing Pond r = 860 I � 4.y Reach Figure 6 Concept Map W I L D L A N D S Bridgefork Dairy Mitigation Site E N G I N E E R I N G 0 400 Feet Broad River Basin 03050105 1 1 1 Cleveland County, NC Looking down into UT1 Natural Valley- can see some water still remains but is fairly stagnant. R m 1. j 6 p,--4w4- Outfall from pond into UT1