20140332 Ver 1_IRTpreContract_SiteMeetingMinutes_22Apr2014_20140422

Meeting Minutes
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5792
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Date Prepared:
April 15, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
April 14, 2014, 1:45 pm
Location:
On -site (Guilford County, NC)
USACE —Tyler Crumbley, David Bailey
NCDWR — Eric Kulz, Ginny Baker
Attendees:
NCEEP —Guy Pearce, Jeff Schaffer, Greg Melia
Baker —Scott Hunt, Chris Roessler, Scott King
Subject:
Post- Contract Site visit w/ NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
An on -site meeting was held on April 14th, 2014 at approximately 1:45 PM to discuss the Browns Summit
Creek Restoration (Full Delivery) Project in Guilford County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Familiarize the NCIRT with the stream and wetland restoration project and discuss basic
concepts for the proposed mitigation plan;
2. Reach agreement on mitigation approaches and credit ratios for each project reach and section;
3. Identify and discuss potential concerns /issues based on field observations.
After introductions, Chris Roessler provided background approaches for the project. Essentially, Baker
proposes a watershed -based approach to include nearly all of the intermittent and perennial reaches on
the properties. Primarily restoration, but also enhancement approaches are proposed to provide
functional uplift. The site visit began at the upper end of the site on Reaches R5 and R6 and proceeded
downstream through the project area. All of the project stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,
T1, T2, and T3) and wetland restoration areas were observed and discussed. Observations and
conclusions for each reach and area are noted below.
Note: maps from the proposal and following this visit are included with this memo.
Reach RS
The group walked along Reach R5 below the spring and agreed with the proposed Enhancement Level II
approach at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. Livestock will be excluded and the buffer will be planted. A gradient
control structure will be installed to prevent the headcut located just below the spring from progressing.
Reach R6
Baker proposed to remove the pond at the head of Reach R6 and stabilize the channel below it with
essentially Priority I restoration, though Enhancement Level I with a credit ratio of 1.5:1 was specified
since this is not a perennial reach.
The Corps concluded that this is not a jurisdictional channel but rather a livestock watering pond in an
upland setting. Consequently, the group decided that a water quality BMP might be more appropriate
for the replacement of the pond. In effect the pond would be converted to a wetland -type feature with
a low- maintenance weir outlet. The area would be planted and placed within the conservation
easement.

Below the pond, the Corps appeared to consider that the channel is still non - jurisdictional, though this
determination was less definitive than upstream from the pond. If the Corps considers the entire Reach
R6 channel to be non - jurisdictional at this stage, then the BMP and a short channel will be constructed
to quickly connect into Reach R5 and begin Reach R4. If a jurisdictional determination must still be
made, the mitigation approach should be postponed. Baker requests the Corps' input on the
jurisdictional determination at this stage.
The credit ratio for developing a BMP and outlet channel for Reach R6 was not agreed upon. Instead, it
will be up to Baker to provide performance standards or measures tied to functional uplift in the
mitigation plan which will help to determine the credit ratio. Generally, the valley length of the BMP at a
1.5:1 or 1:1 credit ratio, similar to the original Enhancement Level I approach, was discussed as potential
mitigation compensation. Under this approach, the existing spillway channel below the pond, which is
actively eroding and filled with concrete debris, will be filled and stabilized. Baker requests the IRT's
input at this stage on how it intends to assign credit for the BMP.
Reach R4
This reach will begin where the future Reach R5 and R6 join. Presently, this confluence is located on the
delta at the head of the second pond. It is anticipated that this confluence will be moved upstream and
to the southwest from the existing confluence as part of the Reach R6 proposed mitigation (see above).
The pond at the head of Reach R4 will be removed and replaced with Priority I or shallow Priority II
restoration. This approach will continue downstream to the property line, at which point the incision
and channel erosion become more pronounced.
Once past the property line, the channel will be re- routed slightly to the northeast to line up with the
low point of the valley. The floodplain in this section will be leveled to fill in the existing eroding channel
and remove the relic pond dam. A second BMP feature will be created on the new floodplain to treat
runoff discharge by a 30 -inch culvert located just above and beyond the right bank.
The Corps acknowledged that some of the mature trees toward the lower end of Reach R4 would be
need to be removed for construction but that tree removal should be minimized.
Reach T3
This reach enters the mainstem from the right bank and forms Reach R3 below it. The channel is overly
deep and wide in this location due to a headcut progressing from the mainstem. However, the channel
is also barely intermittent above the headcut.
Baker proposes to remove the headcut and raise the stream to tie in to the Priority 1 restoration on the
mainstem. The reach length in the proposal of 102 feet will be shortened to 50 feet, which should be
within the area of the higher water table created by restoration of the mainstem.
Reach R3
Reach R3 begins at the confluence of Reaches T3 and R4. The upper section is currently backwatered
due to a farm pond just downstream. The pond will be removed as part of the Priority 1 restoration of
this reach. Tyler noted the narrow valley width in the lower part of the reach and the need to switch
sides of the channel to save some of the mature trees along it. Chris commented that the assumed
sinuosity is about 1.15. It's actually 1.18 but this can be worked out in the design process.
Reach T2
The group didn't discuss Reach T2. Most of this reach is covered by low vegetation. A headcut has
migrated slightly upstream from the mainstem and then it's a small ditch flowing from a pond above.

The proposed work is Enhancement Level II at a 2.5:1 credit ratio to plant and remove livestock from
this reach.
Reach R2
Reach R2 begins at the confluence of Reaches T2 and R3. It is eroding and fairly incised initially but the
bank height ratios tend to decrease moving downstream. Spoil piles are evident in the middle of the
reach beyond the right bank. The spoil piles will be removed and stable channel pattern will be restored
following a Priority I approach.
The wetlands proposed for mitigation are located along much of Reaches R2 and R1. These will be
discussed in the following section of the meeting minutes.
Reach T1
Reach T1 enters from the east on the downstream most property. It has a drainage area of 62 acres and
144 feet of Priority I restoration are proposed. As with all reaches, Baker will describe the functional
uplift that will be attained through restoration in the mitigation plan.
Reach R1
Reach R1 begins at the confluence of Reaches R2 and T1. The bank height ratios are not particularly
high, though there is channel erosion on the upstream and middle sections. The channel has been
straightened in the past so Priority I restoration is proposed to reestablish natural pattern and eliminate
bank erosion. The downstream end of Reach R1 has been previously manipulated and spoil piles remain
in this area. These will be removed as part of an effort to rehabilitate the wetlands in this section.
Wetland Mitigation
In the proposal, Baker lumped all of the areas mapped as hydric soils as candidates for wetland
rehabilitation. The Corps noted that some splitting of these areas into more specific categories should
be done because there are several different circumstances present, which would result in varying
approaches for functional improvement. The different areas may be generally categorized as follows:
1. Functioning wetlands — forested areas with hydrology and hydric soils, such as along the right
bank of Reaches R1 and lower R2.
2. Degraded wetlands — areas with no wetland vegetation and some hydrology such as along the
corrugated metal pipe at the beginning of Reach R1.
3. Partially- functioning wetlands — mucky areas along the left bank of the middle of Reach R1 that
lacked wetland vegetation.
4. Filled wetlands — areas where spoil has been placed on top of presumed hydric soils, such as
upper Reach R2 and the downstream end of Reach R1.
NCEEP explained that it is important for all wetland mitigation to be used by this project be in the
restoration category (re- establishment or rehabilitation), otherwise it cannot be used according to the
RFP. He emphasized that the credit ratios were certainly up for discussion. The federal definitions for
wetland restoration and enhancement are listed below.
The Corps suggested we break out the four areas above and make a case for an appropriate credit ratio
based on functional uplift and the federal definitions. Baker will make another site visit to delineate and
map these different areas and then schedule for a return visit to the site with the Corps to go over the
mapping of the different areas and determination of appropriate credit ratios. Initial thoughts on credit
ratios, from both the Corps and Baker are provided herein:

1. Functioning wetlands — the Corps suggested credit ratios in the range of 2:1 to 3:1. One
comment about these is that this is a wetter time of year and some of the areas may be drier
much of the year.
2. Degraded wetlands — the Corps suggested possibly 1:1 credit for rehabilitation in these areas.
The hydrology would be improved, as well as the vegetation.
3. Partially- functioning wetlands — the Corps suggested possibly 2:1 for these areas with the idea
that hydrology is present and may be adversely affected by Priority I restoration. Baker proposes
1.5:1 for these areas because we believe that livestock trampling has adversely affected
hydrology and soil structure in these areas. Baker believes that a compacted layer is promoting
surface ponding and preventing suitable /natural drainage. By removing the livestock and
planting appropriate wetland vegetation, Baker believes the soil structure will be rehabilitated
and wetland function will significantly improve.
4. Filled wetlands — the Corps didn't specify but this appears to be suitable for wetland re-
establishment at a 1:1 credit ratio. By removing the spoil, hydric soils will be exposed and
wetland hydrologic function will be re- established. Wetland planting will complete the picture.
Thus it appears that the partially- functioning wetlands (Item 3.) are where there is slight disagreement
between the Corps and Baker. This and other credit ratio details can be finalized after further mapping
and the follow -up field meeting with Todd Tugwell.
Federal wetland definitions in 33 CFR PART 332:
Enhancement means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an
aquatic resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement
results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other
aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Re- establishment means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of returning natural /historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re- establishment
results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and
functions.
Rehabilitation means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of repairing natural /historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation
results in a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Contacts
• Jeff Schaffer will serve as the NCEEP Project Manager for this project with and Greg Melia will
provide technical assistance during project development and in review of deliverables. Chris
Roessler will be the Baker Project Manager and coordinate /submit project deliverables directly
with Jeff for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Steps
Project Schedule — Baker will map the four different wetland areas and conduct their
jurisdictional determination of the streams and wetlands in the next two weeks. In the
meantime, a follow -up meeting with the Corps and NCEEP will be scheduled to review the
results of Baker's wetland mitigation mapping. A separate meeting will be held to conduct the
jurisdictional determination with the Corps.
After the jurisdictional determination has been conducted, any wetland areas that will be
impacted by the proposed work (filled or drained) will need to be identified and functional
replacement for those losses should be proposed and discussed in the draft mitigation plan.

• USACE requires Jurisdictional (JD) stream /wetland calls for the project. Baker will coordinate
with David Bailey for on -site JD verification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation easement areas.
This represents Baker Engineering's interpretation of the meeting discussions. If you should find any
information contained in these meeting notes to be in error and /or incomplete based on individual
comments or conversations, please notify me with corrections /additions as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
e
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: croessler @mbakercorp.com