20140332 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20140623

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 10:19 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Browns Summit post June 6 site visit with ACOE (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: BrownsSummit_ Pro posed MitigationStreams _postIRT_20June2014.pdf;
BrownsSummit_ Pro posed MitigationWetlands _postIRT_20June2014.pdf;
BrownsSummitCreek_ IRTpreContract_ SiteMeetingMinutes _20June2014.docx
14 -0332
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:08 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Cc: Melia, Gregory; Schaffer, Jeff; Scott Hunt; Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Wilson, Travis W.; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Bailey,
David E SAW; Kulz, Eric
Subject: RE: Browns Summit post June 6 site visit with ACOE (UNCLASSIFIED)
Todd and IRT members -> Attached are updated minutes and maps for the Browns Summit Creek project site in Guilford
County.
NCEEP has reviewed them. One change that we haven't discussed is to include a second BMP for mitigation credit along
Reach R4. That is further explained in the minutes.
Please let us know if you have questions or comments. Thanks very much, Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 919.481.5737 (direct) 1 919.624.0905 (cell) 1919.463.5490 (fax)
croessler @mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 4:01 PM
To: ' Tugwel I, Todd SAW'
Cc: Melia, Gregory (gregory.melia @ncdenr.gov); Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wicker, Henry M
JR SAW; Travis Wilson (travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org); Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Bailey, David E SAW
Subject: RE: Browns Summit post June 6 site visit with ACOE (UNCLASSIFIED)
OK, Todd, we'll go with E2 at 5:1 in that roughly 1,000 foot section and stick to only fencing and planting. I'll include that
in the update to the minutes and get those out within the next couple days. Thanks for getting back to us. - Chris
- - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:43 AM
To: Chris Roessler
Cc: Melia, Gregory (gregory.melia @ncdenr.gov); Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wicker, Henry M
JR SAW; Travis Wilson (travis.wilson @ncwildlife.org); Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Bailey, David E SAW
Subject: RE: Browns Summit post June 6 site visit with ACOE (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE
Chris,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I think the main concern I have about the approach you describe is that it
involves manipulation of the channel when I think it's not necessary. I guess I don't know that the spoil piles are that big
an issue or that different from natural levees in that area, and in fact may be helping support the wetlands within the
floodplain. Given that the assessment of the IRT members that looked at the site was that the channel was not in that
bad condition, I just don't think it makes sense to mess with it.
Let me know if you would like to discuss further.
Thanks,
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:22 AM
To: TugwelI, Todd SAW
Cc: Melia, Gregory (gregory.melia @ncdenr.gov); Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Browns Summit post June 6 site visit with ACOE
Hi Todd -> I know you're very busy, especially without Tyler, but if you could give this Browns Summit mini proposal I
sent last week a bit of thought, we could wrap up the minutes and be on our way. If a brief conference call with EEP
would help to work through any issues you might have, I'd be happy to facilitate that. Thanks and have a good week,
Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 919.481.5737 (direct) 1 919.624.0905 (cell) 1919.463.5490 (fax)
croessler @mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com <http: / /www.mbakerintl.com />
Cyan_Baker Logo Centered -01
cid: i mage006. png @01CF83F1.2E000390
From: Chris Roessler
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 3:29 PM
To: todd.tugwell @usace.army.mil
Cc: Melia, Gregory (gregory.melia @ncdenr.gov); Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: Browns Summit post June 6 site visit with ACOE
Todd -> Following up on our field meeting on Friday, I went through the GIS exercise to redo the stream credits. There is
one credit ratio difference that I'd like to propose from what we talked about. For lower Reach R3 (below the crossing)
and Reach R2, we will fence out the cattle, install grade control structures (which will provide insurance against incision
if the sediment supply is reduced, as expected), and make one > 90 degree bend less acute. The grade control structures
can be installed at approximately 250 -foot intervals where there is easy access (no tree removal) and the banks have

some erosion. We can target cross vanes /grade control J hooks that provide pool habitat, which is generally lacking in
these reaches. This whole area will require fencing and most of it will require planting. In the lowest section of Reach R2
(downstream from the last fence, in wooded area), Scott Hunt suggests we could remove the berm atop the bank in
several locations without disturbing trees. The easement will also be at least 175 feet wide in this area. You had
mentioned a 5:1 credit ratio for this area (lower R3, all R2) but, given what we propose, I suggest 2.5:1 is more
appropriate. Does that sound acceptable to you?
I've also attached the proposed wetland mitigation areas with the credit ratios included. Wetland types 2 and 3 will
require planting. All of the wetland areas will have improved soil structure and consequently hydrologic function after
we remove the cows and install wetland vegetation.
Thanks for considering this while it's still fresh in your mind. With your input, I'll write up another draft of the minutes
for everyone's review. Questions /comments are welcome. Thanks very much, Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 919.481.5737 (direct) 1 919.624.0905 (cell) 1919.463.5490 (fax)
croessler @mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com <http: / /www.mbakerintl.com />
Cyan_Baker Logo Centered -01
cid: i mage006. png @01CF83F1.2E000390
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Meeting Minutes
BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5792
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Date Prepared:
June 20, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
Location:
June 6, 2014, 1:00 pm
On -site (Guilford County, NC)
Attendees:
USACE —Todd Tugwel I
NCEEP —Greg Melia
Baker —Scott Hunt, Chris Roessler
Subject:
Second of Two Post - Contract Site visits w/ NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
A second on -site meeting was held on June 6th, 2014 at approximately 1:00 PM to discuss the Browns
Summit Creek Restoration (Full Delivery) Project in Guilford County, NC. A meeting was previously held
on April 14th with other members of the IRT— the unchanged results from that meeting are included in
this memo. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Determine the credit ratio for the BMP- approach on non - jurisdictional Reach R6;
2. Reach agreement on mitigation approaches and credit ratios for the wetland areas that were
further delineated by Baker;
3. Identify and discuss potential concerns /issues based on field observations.
The site visit began at the upper end of the site on Reaches R5 and R6 and proceeded downstream
through the project area. Observations and conclusions for each reach and area are noted below.
Note: separate maps for the stream and wetland components following this visit are included with this
memo.
Reach R5 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
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.
Baker will try to include as much as the channel as possible and still allow cattle to move around the
head of the reach.
Reach R6 (updated from the previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
The Corps and Baker have concluded that this is not a jurisdictional channel but rather a livestock
watering pond in an upland setting. The group has decided that a water quality BMP will be more
appropriate for the replacement of the pond. In effect the pond will be converted to a wetland -type
feature with a low- maintenance weir outlet. It is possible that there will be several tiers of wetland cells
because the Corps recommended that the work extend as far upstream as possible in order to exclude
cattle from the eroded channel. The area included in the project will be planted and placed within the
conservation easement. A cattle crossing will be constructed immediately above the easement.
The credit ratio for developing a BMP channel for Reach R6 was agreed upon at 1.5:1 for the valley
length of the BMP. Under this approach, the existing spillway channel below the pond, which is actively
eroding and filled with concrete debris, will be filled and stabilized.

Reach R4 (notes are from previous meeting on April 14, 2014 except that credit is proposed for a
second stormwater BMP — see fourth paragraph in this section)
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 from a 30 -inch
culvert located just above and beyond the right bank. The culvert discharges runoff from much of Broad
Ridge Court, a newly developed subdivision. Baker proposes 1.5:1 credit ratio for the valley length of this
BMP, similar to the BMP along Reach R6. The valley length of this BMP is estimated to be 60 -75 feet. The
outlet is currently causing a major headcut that will continue to migrate. To correct this, a rock -lined
step -pool channel will be constructed to bring the stormwater runoff from the outlet to the floodplain
elevation. Next, a properly -sized basin will capture the runoff, diffuse its energy, and allow water to
spread across the vegetated floodplain, promoting nutrient uptake within the buffer. A stable outlet
channel will be constructed to deliver the runoff to the project reach.
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 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
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 (includes a change on the lower part of the reach from restoration to E2)
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.
Below the stream crossing, the approach will change to Enhancement Level II at a 5:1 credit ratio, per
Todd Tugwell's request. The work will be limited to livestock exclusion fencing and supplemental
planting. No work will be done in the channel below the stream crossing.
Reach T2 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
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. A grade control structure will be added to stop the headcut.

Reach R2 (includes a change from restoration to E2)
Reach R2 begins at the confluence of Reaches T2 and R3. Spoil piles are evident in the middle of the
reach beyond the right bank in the middle of the reach. The spoil piles will be removed as discussed in
the wetland mitigation section below.
Following this second meeting, Todd Tugwell requested Enhancement Level II at a 5:1 credit ratio for
this reach. The work will be limited to livestock exclusion fencing and supplemental planting. No work
will be done in the channel.
Reach T1 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
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 (notes are unchanged from previous meeting on April 14, 2014)
Reach R1 begins at the confluence of Reaches R2 and T1. The bank height ratios are not particularly
high, though there is some 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 IRT accepted this approach because the impacts from implementing it will not be as
high as the reach upstream, which has more mature vegetation.
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 re- establish and rehabilitate the wetlands in this section.
Wetland Mitigation
The previous iteration of the minutes explained that Baker would map the wetlands to divide them into
different categories according to their existing condition in terms of vegetation and hydrology. This was
done in preparation for the June 6t" meeting with Todd Tugwell.
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 Reach R1. The hydrology and vegetation are present but in many areas cattle trampling
has impacted the soil structure and ability to percolate water.
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. The federal definitions for wetland restoration and enhancement are listed below.
At the June 6t" meeting, Todd Tugwell expressed that any wetland mitigation would appear to be linked
to changes to the stream channel. Consequently, the wetland mitigation along Reaches R3 (lower) and
R2 will be removed, with the exception of the wetland re- establishment along Reach R2 where spoil
piles will be removed and hydric soils will be at the ground surface.
The credit ratios for the four types of wetland areas are proposed as follows:
1. "Functioning" wetlands —the Corps suggested credit ratios of 3:1.

2. Degraded wetlands — Baker proposes 1.5:1 credit for rehabilitation in these areas. The hydrology
would be improved, as well as the vegetation.
3. Partially- functioning wetlands — Baker proposes 1.5:1 for these areas. 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 — Baker proposes 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.
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 Steos
• Project Schedule — A separate meeting will be held to conduct the jurisdictional determination
with the Corps. Baker will update NCEEP separately on the expected stream and wetland
mitigation credits following the changes recommended by the IRT.
• 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,
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: croessler @mbakercorp.com