20201841 Ver 1_Post Contract IRT Field Meeting Minutes_20210122

Strickland, Bev
From:
Eric Neuhaus <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Friday, January 22, 2021 8:46 AM
To:
Reid, Matthew; Wiesner, Paul; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Davis, Erin B; Tugwell,
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:
Shawn Wilkerson
Subject:
[External] Bridgefork Dairy Post Contract IRT Field Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
Bridgefork Dairy -Meeting Minutes -Post Contract IRT Walk_1.12.2021.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.
on
Attached are meeting minutes from the Bridgefork Dairy Post Contract IRT field review on 1/12/2021. Let me know if
there are questions or comments. Even if there are no major comments, please confirm that these minutes cover major
discussions outlined during the field review.
Thanks!
Eric Neuhaus, PE I Water Resources Engineer
0:828.774.5547 x105 M: 865.207.8835
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
1

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit
BRIDGEFORK DAIRY Mitigation Site
Broad River Basin 03050105: Cleveland County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 0301-01
Wildlands Project No. 005-02190
DATE: On -site Meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 11:00 am
Meeting Notes Distributed: Friday, January 22, 2021
LOCATION: 321 Patterson Road
King's Mountain, NC 28086
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Casey Haywood, USACE
Erin Davis, NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Matthew Reid, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Project Manager
Paul Wiesner, NCDMS
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering Project Manager
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated March 26, 2020 in response to NCDMS RFP #16-
20190301
Meeting Notes
1. Wildlands gave a brief site overview before the walk which discussed overall site conditions, general
stream and wetland approaches, site constraints, and watershed classifications. It was noted that the
project is within catchment 12034601 which is identified as a Targeted Resource Area (TRA) for
hydrology, habitat, and water quality by NCDEQ.
2. NCDEQ noted that current available planning documentation within the project watershed should be
investigated and discussed within the mitigation plan to identify major potential stressors to the project.
3. Wildlands was asked about the discussion within the proposal regarding sand load within the existing
streams and if streams (particularly UT6) would be designed as sand bed channels. Wildlands explained
that streams will be designed as riffle/pool systems with designed rock riffle habitat, but that
anticipated sand loads within this region of the Broad River Basin are higher than what is typically seen
within Piedmont streams. Wildlands will consider the sediment regime as part of the design and
monitoring and include discussion within the mitigation plan around anticipated gradation of project
streams post construction and through the monitoring period.
4. Wildlands was asked about timber practices noted in the proposal between LIT4 and LIT4a. It was
explained that the high terrace between the two streams was timbered in 2016, but that stream buffers
were left intact as can be seen in the included aerial photos. Wildlands noted that there were no known
definite plans to timber this area again in the future based on discussions with the property owners.
5. Table G.1 within the proposal was recognized as very helpful for communicating site stressors, goals,
objectives, and corresponding uplift potential. It was also noted that fully populated NC DWQ stream ID
forms and the detailed mapping are helpful with project evaluation at the proposal stage.
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
BRIDGEFORK DAIRY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

6. The walk began at the upstream extent of Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a (upstream extent of the project).
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a was proposed for an enhancement II approach at 2.5:1 credit ratio. The IRT
noted that the credit ratio may need to be adjusted based on the existing condition of Reach 1a and the
associated proposed work. Wildlands noted to ensure the 2.5:1 credit ratio is adequately justified within
the mitigation plan or is adjusted to reflect minor work (cattle exclusion, planting) if proposed.
7. Along Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a, and generally across the project, it was noted that fescue treatment
will need to be addressed as part of the mitigation plan and proposed planting.
8. Proposed Crossing 1 for an existing over utility line was observed in the field. Wildlands noted that the
stream will be restored through the internal crossing, but no credit will be claimed. The IRT inquired
about coordination with the utility on vegetation and general management and Wildlands noted that
they will attempt to contact the utility to discuss management schedules, but that many times utilities
are unresponsive and difficult to coordinate with.
9. Continuing downstream, the group walked Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b and observed the area proposed
for wetland re-establishment in the Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b floodplain. Generally, the group agreed
with the approach along the reach. It was noted that areas of the wetland re-establishment along the
right floodplain of Bridgefork Creek 1b upstream of the UT1 confluence will likely jurisdictionally
delineate based on field conditions. It was also noted that while these areas will likely delineate, cattle
impacts, vegetation management, and current stream conditions have heavily reduced wetland
function. It was generally agreed that a wetland rehabilitation approach with a corresponding credit
ratio between 1:1 and 1.5:1 is appropriate for these areas based on the current lack of wetland function.
10. The walk continued up the UT1 tributary where the group observed the existing pond, the relic valley in
the left floodplain of the existing channel, and the upstream series of stormwater outfalls, active
headcuts, and previously ditched streams. NCDEQ noted that Wildlands needs to discuss the pond
dewatering activities within the mitigation plan and ensure dewatering techniques are coordinated to
reduce risk of sedimentation in downstream channels.
11. The group then continued downstream along Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a towards UT2. UT2 enters the
project from an existing stormwater outfall and is actively eroding and headcutting upstream. A
restoration approach was generally agreed on for this channel.
12. Continuing downstream, the wetland rehabilitation/re-establishment area in the left floodplain of
Bridgefork Creek Reach 1b was investigated. While some of this area was shown as potential delineation
in the proposal, it was noted that the delineated boundary would need to be verified and the current
wetland condition and function may be more appropriate for an enhancement level approach with an
increased ratio compared to the proposed rehabilitation at 1.5:1. Wildlands confirmed that they would
evaluate wetland function using the NC Wetland Assessment method, and adjust the wetland approach
and associated credit ratio within the mitigation plan based on the results of the detailed investigation.
13. The group observed UT3 and it was noted that the IRT would like to see a stream gage placed
approximately halfway up the project reach to ensure adequate flow regime during monitoring.
14. The area in the right floodplain of Bridgefork Creek Reach 1a proposed for wetland rehabilitation/re-
establishment was observed next. Generally, potential hydric soils within the area looked adequate to
support wetland conditions and the lack of vegetation, along with agriculture and hydrology impacts
confirmed this area as appropriate for wetland restoration.
15. It was noted that woody vegetation along Bridgefork Creek reaches proposed for restoration where
streams are being significantly raised will need to be evaluated during design and construction to
determine potential impacts from increased water table elevations across the Site.
16. The walk continued downstream to Bridgefork Creek Reach 2. The proposed crossing location and was
observed before the group headed up the UT4 tributary.
17. The downstream extent of UT4 was more impacted than a typical enhancement II approach, however,
after continuing upstream and understanding the general overall approach of treating large amounts of
invasive vegetation as well as addressing some minor erosion issues, it was generally agreed that an
enhancement II approach was appropriate for UT4 based on the extent of overall proposed work. It was
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
BRIDGEFORK DAIRY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

noted that if bank work/grading were done as part of the work along UT4, the IRT would require
representative monitoring cross -sections be performed along the reach.
18. The walk continued up UT4a, the profile alteration corresponding to the proposed restoration was
discussed based on the severe downcutting that currently exists at the Site. It was noted that Wildlands
would likely bring the stream profile up approximately halfway depending on earthwork but would not
likely be able to do a full priority 1 approach based on the current depth of the existing channel.
19. The proposed best management practice (BMP) at the upstream extent of UT4A was noted. Wildlands
will confirm the jurisdictional stream call location to ensure the extent/length of the BMP and develop a
design to promote treatment from adjacent terraced agricultural fields.
20. Given that UT4a is a headwater channel that originates on -site, the IRT would like to see a stream gage
placed approximately halfway up the project reach to ensure adequate flow regime.
21. The group returned to Bridgefork Creek and continued downstream. The Reach 2/Reach 3 break,
associated crossing 7 location, and existing bedrock grade control features were observed and generally
it was agreed that this location was appropriate for the crossing and corresponding reach break.
22. UT5 was observed in the left floodplain of Bridgefork Creek Reach 3. UT5 was proposed as preservation
in the proposal at a 5:1 ratio. However, discussions in the field were that a portion of the reach would
likely need to be restored based on an existing headcut and the associated restoration of Bridgefork
Creek Reach 3. Additionally, it was noted that the credit ratio originally proposed (5:1) for UT5 would
need to be increased where no work is being performed on the stream outside of invasive vegetation
management based on the current stream condition. Wildlands agreed and noted that they would
address these issues in the mitigation plan and update the approach and associated credit ratios based
on the discussions in the field. It is anticipated that a very short downstream section of UT5 will end up
as restoration at a 1:1 ratio and upstream of the existing headcut, the ratio will be evaluated and
increased above 5:1 based on the corresponding level of work and discussion with the IRT.
23. It was noted that the IRT would like to see a stream gage placed approximately halfway up the UT5
reach to ensure adequate flow regime during monitoring.
24. The walk continued downstream along Bridgefork Creek Reach 3 towards the confluence with UT6.
Wildlands discussed the downstream tie in of the project and noted that downstream of the UT6
confluence, Bridgefork Creek will likely be built as a priority 2 approach based on the existing channel
grades at the downstream extents.
25. Given the incision of Bridgefork Creek Reach 3, the water table upstream of the UT6 confluence could be
raised significantly via the priority 1 restoration of the reach. While the preliminary soils investigation
did now show current hydric soil indicators, Wildlands noted that wetland creation may be proposed
within floodplain areas along this reach if field data indicates a potential for a dramatic increase in the
water table. If wetland creation is pursued, Wildlands will install existing groundwater gages as well as
address the potential design within the mitigation plan. Wildlands anticipates the wetland creation
would be proposed at a 3:1 ratio if pursued.
26. The walk continued upstream along UT6. The existing Dillon Road crossing was observed and generally
the approach of restoration along UT6 was agreed upon. The IRT noted the existing gravel road within
the right floodplain of UT6 and stated that Wildlands needs to ensure adequate stream buffer along the
right floodplain of UT6 post restoration.
27. The group continued upstream to UT6A, where an existing and relic gully valley was observed. Wildlands
outlined their general approach of returning UT6A to its previous valley and removing the elevated
terrace between the two valleys to create one larger stream valley. It was also noted that a BMP will be
installed at the upstream extent of UT6A. It was noted that the IRT would like to see a stream gage
placed approximately halfway up the project reach to ensure adequate flow regime during monitoring.
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
BRIDGEFORK DAIRY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk