20140334 Ver 1_2014-04-14 REVISED Candy Crk IRT Field Walk_20140424

kt�
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
MEETING MINUTES
To: Jeff Schaffer
Company: NC EEP
Address: 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Candy Creek IRT Site Walk
Contract No. 5794
Meeting Attendee Agency
From: Shawn Wilkerson
Date: April 17, 2014
Cc: All meeting attendees
(list provided below)
Contact Email
Guy Pearce
NC EEP
Ruy.pearce @ncdenr.gov
Jeff Schaffer
NC EEP
jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov
Greg Melia
NC EEP
gregory.melia @ncdenr.gov
Sue Homewood
NC DWR
sue.homewood @ncdenr.gov
Ginny Baker
NC DWR
virginia.baker @ncdenr.gov
Eric Kulz
NC DWR
eric.kulz @ncdenr. &ov
Tyler Crumbley
USACE
tyler.crumbley @usace.army.mil
David Bailey
USACE
david.e.bailey2 @usace.army.mil
Shawn Wilkerson
Wildlands Engineering
swilkerson @wildlandseng.com
Christine Blackwelder
Wildlands Engineering
cblackwelder @wildlandsen,.com
The meeting began at 9:00 am on Monday, April 14, 2014 at the Friendship Church parking lot in
Brown Summit, NC. Shawn began with introducing the Candy Creek project and providing a
brief overview of the existing conditions and design concepts. The project captures the majority
of tributaries to Candy Creek and will focus on treating the watershed as a whole. There is a
great deal of sand moving through the main stem of Candy Creek and potential aquatic habitats
are limited. Wildlands believes the sand originates from severe headwater tributary erosion as
well as bank erosion on Candy Creek. There are old road beds or pond embankments on the
majority of the tributaries. Where the old beds /embankments have failed, they have become a
sediment source to the overall stream system.
Eric asked if any restoration is proposed on intermittent streams. UT1d, which is intermittent, is
proposed for full restoration. Shawn explained that UT1d is currently suffering from a massive
valley failure, which in part is attributed to an old dam across UT1d that is now breached. Due
to the extent of the impairment, full restoration is warranted to correct the system wide
instability. Tyler asked if there was any preservation proposed on the project. Preservation is
proposed on UT5a, upstream UT5, upstream UT3, upstream UT4, and downstream UT1c (all
perennial). Preservation reaches will be surveyed for reference as appropriate. Shawn noted

that Wildlands was proposing 5:1 credit on preservation reaches as they are part of the
watershed wide management that this project is undertaking.
The group traveled first to the top of the project, to the pond outlet at the top of Candy Creek.
Shawn discussed how Candy Creek will be tied in to the stable channel just downstream of the
pond. Candy Creek is connected to the floodplain here, but quickly incises. This stable tie -in
point will allow for Priority 1 restoration on Candy Creek. The existing stream channel is much
larger than the design channel will be so Wildlands plans to balance cut and fill requirements by
creating vernal pools in and around the existing channel and borrowing soil from the adjacent
farm fields. Discussions with the landowner about potential borrow areas are underway. The
proposed design will meander through the existing trees to the greatest extent possible, but
there will be some tree loss for construction access and in areas where the old channel needs to
be filled. Tyler asked if Wildlands is concerned about planting a site that is largely shaded.
Shawn said no — Wildlands has recently planted the Little Troublesome site, another EEP Full
delivery project which is largely shaded, and is seeing great vegetative success particularly with
late successional species such as oaks.
The group walked down Candy Creek Reach 1, along UT5, along UT3 (both the downstream,
incised section below the old culvert, and the preservation reach above the culvert), UT4, and
walked back out along UT5a. The group agreed that restoration as proposed in the conceptual
plans is the appropriate level of intervention. In reviewing the preservation reaches on both
UT3 and UT5a, the group was able to see an appropriately sized channel for the headwaters of
this watershed (approximately 1 foot deep, top width of 7 -8 feet), which framed the extreme
level of incision and degradation present on the restoration reaches. Shawn pointed out that,
along a portion of the UT3 preservation reach, the existing river left forested buffer width is less
than 50 feet. Wildlands will plant additional bare roots in this area to provide a 50 foot forested
buffer. Wildlands will also remove the existing trash heap present in this area.
The group returned to the trucks and drove around to the field upstream of UT2. The group
review began at the pond located midway through UT2. This pond, which is covered in algae
during the summer, will be removed as part of restoration. The stream will be restored through
the old pond bed. Tyler and others inquired about how the grade through the pond will be dealt
with during design, and what will be done with the sediment that has accumulated behind the
dam. Shawn explained that, until the survey is complete, Wildlands doesn't know exactly how
much sediment or drop will need to be addressed. The pond will be surveyed using a boat to
get accurate pond bottom elevations. Shawn said that on past projects, Wildlands has
dewatered the pond ahead of construction and pushed accumulated sediments onto the side
slopes to dry before they are worked. There are seams of exposed bedrock along the sides of
the pond, and there is a chance that bedrock may be encountered in the pond bottom.
Upstream of the pond, the group reviewed the section of UT2 that extends into the woods. The
stream here has nice bedform, but is deeply incised with extreme erosion. Wildlands has
proposed a Priority 3 approach where a bench will be excavated to allow floodplain access, and
a very few structures will be placed as needed, for Enhancement Level I credit. Tyler suggested
stockpiling and replacing topsoil due to the low quality of sub soils. UT2b, which joins UT2
Candy Creek IRT Site Walk Page 2 of 4
Meeting Date April 14, 2014

upstream of the pond, is proposed for Enhancement Level II to include spot stabilization,
planting, and cattle exclusion. The group agreed on these approaches for the streams.
The group then moved below the pond to review the rest of UT2. The stream here is deeply
incised, but regains some stability as it approaches Candy Creek. UT2 will need to be raised to
meet the invert of the restored Candy Creek, which will also be raised as part of the design. The
group also looked briefly at UT2a. There was some discussion as to whether an Enhancement
Level I or Level II approach is more appropriate for this length of UT2. Shawn agreed that
Wildlands will assess the approaches to these reaches more closely during design.
The group then reviewed Candy Creek Reach 2. This length of Candy Creek is still incised and is
actively traversed by cattle, but exhibits a single row of mature trees on both banks. The group
noted the absence of bed habitats on this reach. Wildlands proposes full restoration of Candy
Creek to restore appropriate habitats, but will preserve some of the mature vegetation by
bringing the new channel in and out of the old channel. An old concrete dam will also be
removed on this reach. The group agreed on this approach.
While walking back out to the trucks, the group reviewed the upstream extents of UT2a at the
edge of the field. Two headcuts, one which drops 3 -4 feet, are present near the upstream
extents. Wildlands will begin Priority 1 restoration at these headcuts and carry the design down
to meet the invert of the new UT2 channel (below the old dam location). Above the existing
headcuts, Wildlands proposes cattle exclusion, fencing, and planting (similar to Enhancement
Level 11). Wildlands has proposed the entire length of UT2a be considered for Enhancement
Level I credit, which averages the design approaches that will be used. The group agreed that
this is an appropriate level of credit given the amount of work proposed and the potential
ecological lift.
The group drove around and accessed Candy Creek Reach 4. Tyler expressed concern over
potential wetland impacts associated with design, and particularly referenced potential wet
areas along river right on Candy Creek Reach 4. Shawn assured that the design will minimize
wetland impacts as practical and that the easement boundaries will extend to the toe of the
valley in areas where wetlands exist between the stream and valley walls. Wildlands will not
knowingly exclude a valuable wetland from the easement even though wetland credits are not
proposed as part of this project. This will provide a buffer in excess of the required 50 feet. The
group traversed up Candy Creek Reach 4 and into the woods to Candy Creek Reach 3. Reach 3 is
proposed for Enhancement Level 11, which will include some well - placed structures to raise the
bed slightly to lessen incision as well as treatment of invasive species in the existing buffer and
spot treatment of erosion. As Reach 3 approaches Hopkins Road, the stream becomes more
incised, and an Enhancement Level I approach is proposed here, which will include more profile
work to continue to raise the stream bed as well as substantial bank grading with possibly some
benching near the bridge at Hopkins Road. The group agreed this was the best approach for
these reaches.
There is an old USGS gage on Candy Creek just upstream of Hopkins Road that has 7 years of
data. Wildlands is in discussions with USGS to see if the gage can be reinstated. The group
discussed that the bridge may be on DOT's list for replacement. David confirmed via email on
Candy Creek IRT Site Walk Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date April 14, 2014

April 15 that the bridge on Hopkins Road is scheduled for replacement. Wildlands will
coordinate with DOT to ensure the stream and bridge design work well together.
The group did not see UT1c and UT1d for lack of time. UT1c is mostly being preserved with a
small degraded impoundment being removed at its headwaters (restoration) and UT1d is having
an impoundment removed and failing valley walls stabilized (restoration).
Overall, the Corps expressed concern over the amount of invasive species work on the site.
Tyler noted that multiflora rose is extremely prevalent throughout the project and total
eradication may be difficult. Shawn assured that measures will be taken to combat the invasives
throughout the monitoring period. Specifics on performance measures will be provided in the
construction documents.
The meeting concluded at approximately 12:45 PM.
Meeting minutes compiled by Christine Blackwelder and reviewed by Shawn Wilkerson on
411512014. Minutes were issued for comments on 411712014. Comments from Tyler Crumbley
(received 411712014) are incorporated in this document.
Candy Creek IRT Site Walk Page 4 of 4
Meeting Date April 14, 2014