20140334 Ver 1_IRT Credit Release Site Walk Minutes_20210816

Strickland, Bev
From: Aaron Earley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Allen, Melanie; Phillips, Kelly D; Crocker, Lindsay; Munzer, Olivia; Davis, Erin B; Kim
Browning; Todd Tugwell; [e-mail]
Cc: John Hutton; Kristi Suggs; Jeff Turner; Andrew Radecki
Subject: [External] FINAL Candy Creek: IRT Credit Release Site Walk Minutes
Attachments: 2021-07-07 Candy Creek IRT Site Walk.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.
Attached are the FINAL minutes for the July 7 Candy Creek IRT credit release site walk.
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM I Senior Water Resources Engineer
0: 704.33 2.7754 x109 M: 704.819.0848
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
1

11.1]1.:\N IJti
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: IRT Credit Release Site Walk (MY4)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
MEETING DATE: July 7, 2021
LOCATION: Browns Summit, NC
Participants:
• Aaron Earley, Wildlands Project Manager
• Andrew Radecki, Wildlands Stewardship Lead
• Erin Davis, NC IRT for DWR
• Jeff Turner, Wildlands Monitoring Lead
• John Hutton, Wildlands Principal
• Kelly Phillips, NC DMS Project Manager
• Kristi Suggs, Wildlands Monitoring Supervisor
• Lindsay Crocker, NC DMS Eastern Regional Supervisor
• Melonie Allen, NC DMS Closeout & Credit Release Coordinator
• Olivia Munzer, NC IRT for WRC Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
1. Met at the Hopkins Road crossing between Candy R2 and R3.
2. Introductions
3. Walked to the encroachment area of Candy R3 ("'STA149+50)
a. The area was evidently not being mowed as the grass was tall.
b. Tree and/or shrub plantings should be scheduled for this winter.
4. Walked downstream along Candy R3
a. Erosion along the inside bend of a pool ("STA150+00)
i. Well vegetated and naturally stabilized. It is developing into more of a point bar.
IRT agreed that this area was no longer of concern.
b. Erosion along outer bend of a pool ("STA151+50) where stream repair work is planned
for the fall/winter of 2021.
i. Discussed installing a brush toe and perhaps some live stakes. It was thought
that this might also help allow for a better bar development on the inside bend.
5. Walked to UT1D where there are a series of failed structures that are piping underneath
a. Piping structures (—STA-253+00); repair work is also planned for the same period of the
fall/winter of 2021.
1

11.1]1..1NIM
i. Suspected cause is the increased elevation change where the flatter headwaters
ties into the lower elevation of the main channel. The steeper grade likely
undercut the structures.
ii. No main concerns were raised.
6. For #4b and #5a, IRT was concerned about access to conduct the repairs so that vegetation
damage would be minimized during the repairs.
a. WEI noted that the site would be accessed by the internal crossing located just
downstream of UT1D.
b. It was also discussed at the end of the meeting that if the repair work is completed after
the current monitoring year (MY5) report has been submitted then the repair items
should be highlighted in a photolog and sent to DMS for inclusion into the monitoring
report prior to the credit release meeting as there will likely be a discussion about it.
The work is planned for the fall/winter so would most likely occur during MY6 and be
submitted with the MY6 report.
7. There is a dead snag along Candy R3 that needs to be monitored. It is somewhat near a
neighbor's structure for which it could possibly damage if it were to fall.
8. Walked upstream to Candy R2.
a. Looked at manual repair area from 2019/2020. Herbaceous vegetation was well
established and was obscuring any substantial view of the bank. No concerns were
raised.
9. Walked to UT2.
a. Looked at the bare area along UT2 R2 (—STA315+00); discussed giving one more
attempted treatment to improve the bare area and keeping the lespedeza at bay but it
is a minimal problem given the total area of the project and because there are still trees
both along the fence line and the stream in that area.
b. Looked at the area where the dam was removed ("'STA310+00-311+00)
i. No concerns were raised. The process of removing the dam constructing the
channel in the pond muck was discussed. It is still maintaining a single -thread
channel.
10. Drove upstream to Candy R1 and UT5.
11. Walked part of UT5 (—STA604+00-608+00).
a. The aggradation on this channel and how to report it was discussed in detail. The main
take away is that the aggradation and sedimentation in the channel that was observed
was not negatively impacting the overall structure or function of the stream.
b. The sedimentation was mostly within the banks, but some was also on the floodplain.
Its structure was coarse sand. The source is suspected to have come from off -site as no
erosive areas have been observed within the easement. There are several farm ponds
upstream of the project (above UT5-preservation) that drain a large agricultural tract
and could have provided the sediment load, as could have an overflowing or breached
pond dam (although no direct source has been confirmed).
c. For the effects on the stream, it was noted that while the pools are filling with some
sand, the stream is functioning more like a sand -bed stream. The pools are present but
shallow, and the sediment is not collecting or burying the riffles as noted by the
macroinvertebrates present today on the riffle substrate.
d. It was discussed how this stream is geographically positioned in a transitional area of
the piedmont and the slate belt and that some watersheds have soils with a greater
2

I)S
sand load. The sand load in the watershed was not expected during the Mitigation Plan
stage but isn't unexpected given the geographic location.
e. How to report the aggradation changes was discussed. The official DMS guidance should
be followed; however, the following ideas were mentioned and could be considered if
given approval:
i. Getting photographs early in the year (prior to leaf -out) would be beneficial.
ii. Survey is still desired later in the year to capture changes that occurred during
the monitoring year, but it was noted that even if the survey occurs early, the
profile will still capture 12 months of change from the last survey period.
iii. Using a 360-camera is an idea to show the streams, although the vegetation
would be a problem. Using a story map and drones are also ideas, but the latter
are better for early projects, or showing vegetation change from year to year.
This idea may not be an option for this project, especially within the next few
years.
12. The general idea was that the aggradation should continue to be shown and reported, and it
should be discussed in the narrative of the text. (It was noted that any area of concern should be
discussed in the narrative.) However, the discussion can cover how the aggradation (or any
issue) is being reported but is not a substantial cause for concern because of X, Y, or Z.
13. Walked to Candy R1
a. Encroachment area ('STA101+00)
i. The area is being encroached upon by an adjacent landowner who is not part of
the project. He has been contacted and asked to stop mowing the area.
ii. Horse tape is being used as are additional easement markers.
iii. Trees and/or shrubs should also be planted in this area.
14. Action items:
a. Use the narrative portion of the report to discuss areas of concern; use the text to
convey the level of concern about it and if any action is needed. For example using UT5,
continue to report its presence but provide information about whether the aggradation
is/is not getting worse and if any action is/is not needed.
b. Continue to report the current aggradation on UT5 but currently it is not a substantial
concern making sure to discuss its current state and to refer to the discussion we had
on -site. Include the meeting notes in the monitoring report appendix.
c. Look into giving one more attempted treatment to improve the bare area along UT2 R2
and keep the lespedeza at bay. However, don't go overboard with trying to establish
vegetation because it is a minimal problem given the total area of the project and there
are still trees both along the fence line and the stream in that area.
d. Repairs planned for items #4 and #5. In the MY5 report, discuss the areas of concern in
the narrative, provide photos if available, and discuss the repair plan documenting if it
has been completed or when it is to be completed. If the work is done prior to the
submittal of the MY5 report to DMS, include photos of the repair area. If it is done after
the submittal to DMS, send a photolog of the repairs to DMS for inclusion in the report
prior to the credit release meeting.
e. Encroachment areas should include supplemental plantings of trees/shrubs.
f. The next IRT walk is not expected until the final close-out. At that point, any
continuing/new encroachment areas could be an issue in getting the final credit release.
3