20120747 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20120910

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:28 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Devil's Racetrack IRT Meeting (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Meeting Summary.docx; AGENDA - DRC Meeting 9- 12- 12.docx; Channel Formation
Graph.pdf; DR Site Map West.pdf
For Laserfiche 412 -0747. I have already printed.
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Program Development Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone] Please note this is a ne,,N- phone number effective May 10, 2012
Fax: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records La-w and may be disclosed
to third parties
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crumbley, Tyler SAW [mailto: Tyler. Crumble< a'usace.army.mill
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:58 AM
To: Crumblev, Tyler SAW, Garnett.Jeffre< <iepamail.epa.QoN , Karoly, Cyndi, Kulz, Eric, Jones, Scott SAW, Marella Buncick
( Marella Buncich a'fiN- S.Qoi) McLendon, Scott C SAW, Mcmillan, Ian, Cox, David R., Jurek, Jeff, Pearce, Guy; Ellis, Eric,
Sollod, Steve, Kemp, Jessica, Gibby, Jean B SAW, Mike Wicker arf- ws.Qoi Bro- wn, Thomas L SAW, Matthe- ws, Monte K
SAW, fritz.rohde ;a'moaa.goi Smith, Danny; Steffens, Thomas A SAW
Cc: Tug-well, Todd SAW
Subject: FW: Devil's Racetrack IRT Meeting (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Kemp, Jessica [ mailto :iessica.kemp ;a'mcdenr.QoivI
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:53 AM
To: Crumbles, Tv ter SAW
Cc: Pearce, Guy; Schaffer, Jeff, Tug-well, Todd SAW
Subject: FW: Devil's Racetrack IRT Meeting
Tv ler,
Supplemental information Wildlands put together in preparation for the Devil's Racetrack meeting next Wednesday is attached.
Please distribute to IRT members prior to the meeting.
Thanks,
Jessica

From: John Hutton [ mailto :lhuttonci; «- ildlandsena.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:54 AM
To: Kemp, Jessica
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff
Subject: Devil's Racetrack IRT Meeting
Jessica,
Would you mind forwarding this email out to the IRT in preparation for our 9/12 meeting regarding the Devil's Racetrack
project? I have attached a preliminary agenda for the meeting as Nvell as some background information. The meeting -will
generally follow along the lines of the meeting -,ve had -with Todd in March of this year. I have attached the summary meeting
notes from that meeting for everyone's review. We discussed a number of the items that I believe are of concern to IRT
members so I think this -will be helpful.
I have also attached a map shoeing LIDAR based contours for the -western side of the site. I understand there -was some
concern about topography -when looking at the color ramp LIDAR maps. The problem -with color ramping in this area is that
there is a significant amount of fall so the color ramp has to be spread over several hundred feet vertical as opposed to 20 -30
feet vertical that everyone is used to looking at in the outer coastal plain. Color ramping with that amount of topography shows
no definition. It is much more clear to look at contour intervals based from LIDAR as you can see in the attached map.
I -will review all of the background data on the project at our meeting next -week. We all (Todd included) had the same
questions that I'm sure a lot of the IRT has about this site originally. We have spent a lot of time collecting floe- data on the
project streams and analyzing local drainage area/slope combinations that result in stream channel formation in this area. I
think it -will make more sense once -,ve revie-w all of the supporting analysis.
Thanks and I look forward to meeting -with everyone next -week.
John Hutton
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: 919- 851 -9986
Cell: 919- 723 -8203
«--,N- «- . «- ildlandsena.com < http : / / «- «-iN- .«- ildlandseng.com />
Description: Description: cid:image005.ipg ci'OICCA2FI.2CCAD490

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

(i} /}}) adols
O
a1
E
O
LL
n
�
N
N
�
N
'a
a)
a1
E
U
c6
s
S
U
0
U
E
`p
LL
N
O
N
i
O
LL
>.
O
U
Z
m
0
o
o
U
a
7-
L
LO
i
i
i
O
0
V
3
N
GC
t
0
v
++
a, iu
a�
i
U
N
f0 t
N
/1 L
i�
f V .fu
L
C
(p
a,
w O
of
o >
v7
y
0
u; U
tko
0
-0
a/ N f0
4
C
n a/
L C: LX w
(�
o t U c
ai t -o .2
V
0
io
W
O Y
- f0
H fo _00
U
c:
E
N
�
CL
C
f6
m
0
pia
fu
t
W
41
V
t
N
Q
14-
0
3 a,
c
O
4
D
W
cn
C
v GC
r
fJ
Y
a 3
O O L
H
D\
�
x
a GU
GU
a
C v
Q f0
4
t
-°
v
t o.
fu
1A
�Y CC
� f0 Y C
f
d
q
47,
..
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
(i} /}}) adols

ra
c O
L f o M rlJ
CD Z3
O
O 0) a1 O V
C
1 W
U O
(O
V m
Q N N 1
f0 V >
O N
Q (f) W
> N
a Q Z
N
tp
N
L
U
Q
J
L
Q
f0
N
:h-
Ln
N
N
LL
O
O
LO
O
LO
N
O
F z
Q'
W
z
o
LLJ
Ell

Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Small Stream Hydrologic Assessment Meeting
Meeting Summary
March 15, 2012
Attendees: Todd Tugwell /USACE
Guy Pearce /EEP
Jeff Schaffer /EEP
Jessica Kemp /EEP
Heather Smith /EEP
Wyatt Brown /EEP
John Hutton /Wildlands Engineering
Jeff Keaton /Wildlands Engineering
Meeting Introduction
John Hutton began by discussing the purpose of the meeting. He said that the meeting was intended to
focus on the small streams of the Devil's Racetrack site and to cover four related topics:
1. Would streams form in the watersheds of the small channels on the site? These include
Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, Southeast Branch, and UT to Southeast Branch.
2. Are the small channels jurisdictional?
3. What is the potential for uplift if these small streams are restored?
4. The design approach for small streams.
Topic 1: Would streams form in the watersheds of the small channels on the site?
John showed the group the base map survey of the existing conditions on a plan sheet. He described
the overall site and reviewed the current locations of each of the four small reaches. John then
presented a series of historical aerial photos to illustrate the conditions of the site and the small streams
from 1939 through 1988. He described the changes to the site over time that can be observed on the
aerial photos. He pointed out that the site was wooded in 1939 but that faint signatures of the stream
channels could be seen on the photo. Next he showed the 1949 aerial which still showed the site being
wooded but more clearly showed the alignments of each of the four small streams at that time. John
then showed the 1971 aerial photo which still showed the site being wooded. John pointed out that the
KOA campground had been built by this time and looked like it had been recently completed. It did not
appear that other significant manipulation had occurred at that time. Todd Tugwell pointed out that he
thought the site had probably been cleared at some previous time and that the stream signatures
looked as if channelization had been done at some point in the past. John then showed the 1988 aerial
photo and discussed how during the time between 1971 and 1988 the site had been cleared and the
stream had been channelized and relocated. He stated that the aerials showed major manipulation of
the site between 1971 and 1988 and that Wildlands discussions with the original farmer also indicated
that was true.
1

The next item discussed by John was the reference reaches that had been identified for the site. He
showed the group a map of the area that included the locations of the project site and the reference
reaches. He discussed the similarity between the main reference site — a portion of the Boy Scout camp
near Bentonville that includes four surveyed reference reaches — and the project site in terms of
landscape and size of streams. Jeff Keaton added that the reference site was about 10 miles from the
project site. John also briefly discussed a separate but nearby reference reach that he had used on
previous projects called Johanna Branch. This reference was not discussed as much since it is intended
to provide reference information for the larger streams on the project site. John showed pictures of
three of the reference reaches — Scout West 1, Scout West 2, and Scout East1 and he and Jeff described
the references as the group reviewed the pictures.
Jeff Keaton then discussed an analysis of channel initiation that Wildlands had performed on the
reference reaches. A figure illustrating the results of the study was shown to the group. The figure is a
plot of the slope (y -axis) and drainage area (x -axis) of locations where the reference streams have well -
formed channels, poorly- formed channels, or moderately well- formed channels. Jeff discussed that the
best way to decipher any relations between slope and drainage area was to visually separate the points
to show break lines between slope- drainage area combinations below which no well- formed channels
were observed on the reference sites and above which channels were always observed. The plot also
included slope -area points for each of the design reaches on the small streams. Jeff and John discussed
where these points fell with regard to the break lines. The middle and downstream reaches of
Southeast Branch fell to the right of the break line representing the slope- drainage area combinations
always resulting in channel formation. This indicates that natural stream channels would form in those
watersheds. Two reaches, UT to Southeast Branch and Southeast Branch, fell between the two break
lines indicating that channels would sometimes form in those watersheds. Four of the reaches,
Southwest Branch Upstream, Southwest Branch Downstream, Middle Branch Upstream, and Middle
Branch Downstream, fell on or to the left of the breakline representing slope- drainage area relations
below which no channel formation was observed. This indicates that channels would not form in these
watersheds. Jeff pointed out, however, that the reference reaches on the plot were formed by rainfall -
runoff hydrology. John discussed the fact that Southwest Branch and Middle Branch were actually
spring fed streams and they had very nearly perennial flow. Therefore, even though the plot shown to
the group indicates that streams would not form in those watersheds, the plot does not represent
spring -fed streams and there is reason to believe that streams would naturally form downstream of
springs producing as much flow as the ones at the upstream end of Southwest and Middle Branch. John
also mentioned that there is a pond at the upstream end of Middle Branch that would attenuate flows in
that channel but that the channel was still observed to have constant flow over the period that
Wildlands began observing the streams.
Topic 2: Are the channels jurisdictional?
John then showed pictures of the current conditions of the design reaches and discussed each of these
reaches. He also showed pictures that illustrated flow conditions in each of the reaches over time from
January 2011 through November 2011. John indicated that flow was observed in these channels all
throughout this period. Some of the photographs showed discharge monitoring weirs that Wildlands

had installed on the four small channels. John discussed the reasons for installing the weirs —to
demonstrate continuous flow in the channels and to assist with design discharge determination. John
showed plots of the discharge data collected at the weirs and asked Jeff to describe the data. Jeff
explained that the plots showed discharge and rainfall over time for the period from early December
2011 through early March 2012. The plots indicated that three of the small streams flowed almost
continually for this time period but that UT to Southeast Branch only flowed in response to rain events.
Jeff also described the rainfall frequency curve Wildlands developed for the nearby Smithfield weather
station. That relation indicates that the one -year 24 -hour maximum rain event for the area is
approximately one and one half inches. Jeff pointed out on the weir discharge plots that the largest
peak on each of the plots was related to a 24 -hour rainfall total of nearly 0.9 inches. Even though this
recurrence is not directly transferrable to a discharge recurrence interval, it provides some insight into
the likely magnitude of bankfull flows for the small streams. John showed and discussed a table of long-
term rainfall averages for Johnston County by month compared to rainfall data collected for several
months (September 2011 - February 2012) by the rain gauge installed and monitored by Wildlands on the
project site. The table showed that rainfall totals were between 0.5 inches and 2.23 inches each month
that data were collected on -site. John indicated that three of the small streams maintained flow during
this dry period and that this was a further indication that the streams were perennial.
At this point, Todd Tugwell offered some comments on the analyses and data that Wildlands had
presented up to this point to the group. First Todd commented that he wanted to consider the weir
data and the implications of the continual or near continual flow in three of the small reaches. He
stated that he was concerned that the data only indicated that the ditches were draining surrounding
wetlands and that if the channel inverts were raised the main source of hydrology might be cut off. He
also discussed that he agreed that channels often form in small watersheds on steep slopes but he has
often seen these channels become wetlands with no channel on the downstream ends when the
channels reach flat areas like the floodplains of larger streams. John replied that the slopes on the
downstream end of the small streams were not flat but in fact between 0.5% and 0.81 %. John also
referred back to the reference reaches and the fact that the slopes of the smaller reference reaches on
the Boy Scout camp site maintained channels when they flattened out before the confluences with the
larger streams. The morphology of these channels changes, becoming more sinuous for example, as
they flatten out. Jeff mentioned that the reference reaches on the Boy Scout camp provided two
examples of this condition.
Topic 3: What is the potential for uplift if these small streams are restored?
John began this discussion topic by showing examples of the existing cross sections of the small streams
overlaid with the proposed design cross section. The design cross sections would be much smaller and
at a higher elevation than the existing channels. Todd stated that the cross section plots illustrated that
there was potential for the raising of the stream bed inverts to cut off hydrology to the streams. John
then described the position of the spring heads on Southwest and Middle Branch relative to the design.
He showed a plot of the proposed profile of Southwest Branch as an example. The profile showed that
the spring head was several feet higher in elevation and upstream of the point where the stream
channel work would begin.

Todd mentioned that the Devil's Racetrack site was not necessarily a typical coastal plain project and
that all of the recent guidance on coastal plain stream restoration may not be applicable to the site. He
then described the criteria discussed in the guidance for identifying small streams including crenulations
in LIDAR topography. He mentioned that he could identify the crenulations on Southeast and Southwest
Branch from the survey base map that Wildlands provided. John responded that color ramping the
LIDAR was not an accurate representation of the site due to the significant amount of fall across the
property. It is more appropriate to look at LIDAR based contour lines and when that is done the stream
valleys are very apparent. Todd mentioned that he would like to see the reference site. He stated that,
for this project, it might be appropriate to build channels for these headwaters streams rather than
letting flow form channels over time. He said that he would consider what the success criteria for the
project would be. He discussed the fact that with small constructed channels it would be difficult to
monitor flow over time. John suggested modifying a typical log weir structure (common in restoration
of small streams) to use it as a measuring device similar to the weirs used on the existing conditions
streams.
John also stated that by raising the channel invert of Devil's Racetrack Creek, the entire water table
would be raised by several feet so that groundwater would still contribute to stream flow in the small
reaches. To illustrate this point, he showed a plot of the preliminary Drainmod model results used to
analyze the wetland hydrology. The plot changes in water table depth over time for both the existing
and proposed conditions. The proposed water table stayed much higher than the existing
demonstrating that the water table would be significantly raised as a result of the project. John also
mentioned that this is one of the key benefits of the project and that significant ecological uplift would
result from the restoration wetland hydrology.
At this point, Todd mentioned that he was interested in understanding how the small streams would be
designed. To begin the discussion of the project design, Jeff then described how the weir data would
also be used to develop design discharges and showed the results of the design bankfull discharge
analysis including evaluation of regional curves, regional flood frequency, and other methods in addition
to consideration of the weir data. Todd asked about the frequency of overbank flooding events on
these streams. John said that the spring -fed streams would not flood as often as those driven by
rainfall- runoff hydrology. He said that the rainfall run -off driven streams would be intended to flood
multiple times per year while the spring -fed stream would only flood one or two times per year. Todd
stated that there would probably be some success criteria for overbank events but said that the criteria
would not likely require multiple out -of -bank events per year.
Todd brought the up the idea of the log weirs again and indicated that he liked the idea. He said there
would be some problems in using these for monitoring, including backing up sediment that should be
transported. John replied that, if used for monitoring, the weirs would need some maintenance. Todd
then discussed the idea of using the weirs in conjunction with a transect of wells along the weir cross
section out into the floodplain. Todd also said that typical channel measurements would probably be
part of the success criteria since well- formed channels are planned for the site.
all

The discussion then turned briefly to UT to Southeast Branch. Todd said that given what has been
presented, he did not believe that UT to Southeast should be included in the project. Guy Pearce
pointed out that UT to Southeast was the only reach that seems to be intermittent on the site (implying
that the other reaches are perennial) and that 20% of the project could be intermittent streams. John
then added that, given the success criteria discussed, he did want to move forward with UT to
Southeast.
Topic 4: The design approach for small streams
John provided an overview of the design approach for the small streams on the site. Todd said that he
felt comfortable with the design approach, especially considering the success criteria discussed. Todd
raised the issue of how wetlands credits would be counted for the project given the well- formed
channel approach. Unlike Coastal Plain projects on small streams where the channels are not
constructed to be well- formed, wetland credits for wetlands adjacent to streams may not be counted all
the way to the streams, so wetland credit totals would have to be recalculated if they were originally
totaled following the Coastal Plain guidance. Todd asked about the type of wetland soils on the site and
John described the soils and types which include Bibb, Rains, and Leaf soils.
Jessica Kemp suggested that the success criteria for the site might include a benthic macro - invertebrate
study. She said that if there was a favorable change in benthic communities after construction that
would be a good indication that the small channels were functioning as streams. She suggested that
Wildlands get a benthic study performed before construction.
The final discussion centered on the downstream end of the project and how it would tie into the Neuse
River. John described the tributary to the north of the project site the flows into the Neuse. He told the
group how the Devil's Racetrack Creek would tie into that tributary which would eliminate a lot of the
drop that would be necessary to tie directly to the Neuse.
A site visit to look at the boy scout camp reference sites was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on April 13tH
The meeting was adjourned.