20140866 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes IRT Post Contract 20140813_20140825

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:31 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Flea Hill_ IRTpostContract_ SiteMeetingMinutes _13Aug2014.docx;
Flea Hill_ Pro posed MitFeatures _postIRT_13Aug2014.pdf,
Fig6A_FleaHill_ Pro posed MitFeatures _OptA_rev2.pdf
Another for 14 -0866
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Scott Hunt; Wes Newell (newel I @ backwater. biz); Wilson, Travis W.; Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
Putting a BMP on an existing channel is definitely frowned on (or worse by EPA), but in this circumstance you would
effectively be routing flow through a wetland, rather than putting the wetland on a stream, which is different. I also
think that we have some latitude to do this kind of thing for restoration projects since you will have to relocated the
larger ditch anyway. NW 27 has some language that talks about conversion of one aquatic resource into another, but in
this case you will gain wetland without losing stream, which is the key.
With regard to providing credit for the BMP, are you talking about just the BMP at the end of R2b, or all the BMPs that
receive flow from the fields (I thought there were more than one)? And what is the difference? We have had other
projects where we have given credit for wetland BMPs that were designed to an appropriate standard, but those were a
little different in that the BMPs were on non - jurisdictional drainages that were going to be excluded from the project if
we did not find a way to provide credit. Also, the stream restorations on those projects were more traditional in the
sense that the BMPs were providing their own function on top of what the stream restoration was doing. In this case, I
think it was the concept of the BMPs and associated wetland /floodplain function that ultimately convinced the IRT that
the project was providing any uplift to begin with, otherwise you are just relocating a ditch. So now to award additional
credit for the BMPs themselves seems to be further watering down the amount of functional uplift the project will
provide. I think we also agreed to a better credit ratio on the trib coming in from the west, as well, which should help
you out with the overall amount of credit to be produced by the project.
Based on the above, I don't believe additional credit is warranted in this circumstance, but I would like to hear from
other IRT members who were at the site meeting. I've copied Travis Wilson and Maria Dunn with the WRC since I don't
think they were included in the original email. (Travis and Maria, please read from beginning. I've attached the
referenced minutes as well.)
Todd
- - - -- Original Message - - - --

From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks, Todd. Your description of the location is correct. That's interesting - I didn't realize that you could essentially
impound a jurisdictional stream by creating a wetland along it as long as no stream length is lost.
I thought low flow must be maintained at all times through a jurisdictional channel (whether it is new or existing).
So, in light of your explanation, I agree that a wetland between the culvert and the restored channel is appropriate.
Since this particular outlet is a larger system that will require more study, grading, etc., would it be acceptable to
propose valley length credit for this wetland only? -Chris
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks for the explanation, Chris. With regard to Reach R2b, are you saying can't do any wetland treatment /BMP on
that channel because it is jurisdictional or because of the size of the watershed? My recollection is that the tributary in
question picks up drainage from a field ditch to the east and also from a tributary in the cutover area, and then flows
through a culvert directly into the ditch (the tributary to be restored). If you put a wetland bmp between the outfall of
the culvert (which is not proposed to be replaced) and the restored channel, you would not be losing any jurisdictional
stream, just adding a wetland between the two. I think the IRT emphasized during the meeting that the treatment
resulting from the constructed floodplain and wetland BMPs that treat the field runoff is really going to be the primary
source of functional uplift with this project, so if you construct another short stream segment, you will be bypassing any
treatment. Any thoughts on this?
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:40 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
OK, Todd et al., back from vacation. Please see my responses below your comments starting in CAPS (not for emphasis,
just to distinguish my comments from yours;).
Please let me know if you're OK with adding this email (including my comments) to the files or would like me to update
the minutes. No problem either way.
Thank you, 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, August 21, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks for the prompt comments, Todd. I'm on vacation today and tomorrow and will provide a response to the
questions you raised on Monday. But basically, I think we're on the same page, just explaining our perspectives. - Chris
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
I have a couple comments on the minutes you prepared:
* One of the things we discussed on the site was making sure that the new channel is small and that you try to get a
lot of floodplain access since that is really where any uplift will occur, with the possibility of adding some sinuosity to the
stream, at least alternating the channel to opposite sides of the constructed floodplain.
AGREED. I thought I captured that with this sentence "Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes Priority Level II
restoration with an emphasis on frequent overbank flooding to increase floodplain contact. Similarly, the width and
extent of the restored floodplain will be maximized to the greatest extent feasible to provide greater contact area with
overbank flows."
I'D LIKE TO ADD that we'll work out the channel dimension and sinuosity in the mitigation plan after further research,
including a study of reference reaches. We'll definitely include pools and target alternating the channel to opposite sides
of the floodplain. But I think we'll also want to maximize floodplain LENGTH because if we build a smaller channel that
increases overbank flooding frequency then braiding is more likely, which could lead to only getting valley length credit
for restoration. If we have low sinuosity then there shouldn't be a problem if there is limited braiding because the valley
length and restored channel length will be close.
* I believe we discussed the idea of including some vernal pools in the floodplain, if possible.
AGREED.
* Your notes reference reach R2b, and the possibility of getting credit for any channel constructed. I don't recall if we
discussed /agreed to that - my recollection was that there would be some type of treatment downstream of the culverts
draining the field, not necessarily channels connecting the culverts to the reconstructed stream, since the idea was to try
to treat the runoff that was concentrated trough the culverts, not channel it directly to the stream. Please address this
in the mitigation plan.

I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AFTER OUR MEETING AND MY REASONING FOLLOWS. Reach R2b is the continuation of a
jurisdictional channel (this is the bigger tributary coming from the west) so we won't be able to do a detained wetland
cell below the culvert. Instead, we'll construct a floodplain for it (same as the rest of the project streams), which will
need to cross at least the 50 feet of buffer before tying into the main channel. All of this points to the idea that this will
also be a restored channel and deserving of credit to compensate construction cost. I'm thinking it will only be about 60
feet or so of channel length. I will also address this in the mitigation plan.
* Lastly, I wanted the record to note that the IRT felt that the location proposed for the new channel is not what we
believe to be the historic condition on the site, and that the preference would have been to try to reconnect the channel
to the existing, sinuous drainage to the east of the current ditch, but that due to limitations caused by upstream
flooding, the alternative is to dig a new channel through a upland ridge (IRT's interpretation).
AGREED.
I don't think you need to update the memo if you don't want to, as I will include this email in our file for our records.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office: 919 - 846 -2564
Mobile: 919 - 710 -0240
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:26 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flea Hill meeting minutes
Hi Todd -> Would you please review these minutes and forward them to the other members of the IRT? Thanks for
meeting us out there and considering the site. It sounds good to target multiple overbank flows per year.
We'd appreciate any comments you might have by the end of August, even if it's just an OK. Thanks a lot, 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< mailto :croessler @mbakerintl.com> I www. mbakerintl .com <http: / /www.mbakerintl.com>
<http://www.mbakerintl.com/>
Cyan_Baker Logo Centered -01
cid: i mage006. png @01CF83F1.2E000390

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Meeting Minutes
FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5998
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Date Prepared:
August 13, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
August 12, 2014, 10:00 am
Location:
On -site (Cumberland County, NC)
USACE —Tyler Crumbley, Todd Tugwell
NCDWR — Eric Kulz
NCWRC —Travis Wilson, Maria Dunn
Attendees:
NCEEP —Jeff Schaffer, Heather Smith, Anjie Ackerman
Backwater Environmental , Inc. — Wes Newell, Doug Smith
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. —Scott Hunt, Chris Roessler
Subject:
Post - contract Site Visit with NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
The post- contract on -site meeting was held on August 12th, 2014 for the Flea Hill Restoration (Full
Delivery) Project in Cumberland County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Familiarize the NCIRT with the stream 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 by participants at the
meeting.
Before introductions, Chris Roessler provided background on the project and the rationale for the
selected mitigation approaches. The driving purpose of this project is functional uplift via water quality
improvement through the removal of nutrients and possibly pesticides. Benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring has demonstrated that low dissolved oxygen (DO) is apparent, probably because nutrient
loading is causing abundant algal growth, and consequent diurnal DO fluctuations, in the channel. The
benthic surveys also suggested that pesticides may be a problem.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes Priority Level II restoration with an emphasis on
frequent overbank flooding to increase floodplain contact. Similarly, the width and extent of the
restored floodplain will be maximized to the greatest extent feasible to provide greater contact area
with overbank flows. Ramial wood chips will be placed below coir fiber matting on portions of the
floodplain to promote growth of beneficial saprophytic and mycorrhizal fungi, which will improve
pollutant removal and enhance vegetative growth.
Observations and conclusions for each reach are noted below.
Note: figures from the original proposal and edited versions following this visit are included with these
minutes.
Reach R1
The group began at the downstream end of the project area and walked upstream along Reach R1.

Chris Roessler explained that Priority Level II, rather than Priority Level I, restoration is needed for two
reasons: 1) the upstream culvert at Swamp Rd. has an invert elevation of 95.8 feet AMSL; 2) the existing
land (presently inaccessible floodplain) to the west of the Flea Hill ditch has elevations that range
between 99 and 96 feet AMSL (i.e., the elevation decreases slightly from south to north). Thus, the
restored channel will need to begin with an invert elevation of approximately 95 feet AMSL to prevent
unacceptable backwater conditions in the existing Flea Hill ditch to Swamp Rd. Secondly, the proposed
channel will be less than 1 foot deep and will need to maintain a slope of about 0.0015 ft /ft, which will
require earthwork to construct a floodplain at the proposed elevations.
The restored channel will begin at elevation of approximately 95 feet AMSL and need to connect to the
existing culvert at the downstream end, which has an elevation of 91.6 feet AMSL. Thus, the channel will
be necessarily flat, with an average slope of approximately 0.0015 ft /ft. The riffles will be steeper while
flat pool slopes will be targeted.
Culverts draining the agricultural fields to the west were noted. Below these culverts Baker will design
stable outlets as well as wetland cells before connecting flows with the main channel. The first two
culverts (i.e., northernmost) drain non - jurisdictional areas, while the third drains a jurisdictional
channel. The southernmost channel will require a jurisdictional determination. The wetland cells
draining non - jurisdictional channels will not require passage of low flow and may essentially impound
the first flush of runoff behind a log weir. The wetland cells draining jurisdictional channels will require
passage of low flow and will not be impounded, though a pool feature with a littoral shelf will be
designed.
Baker does not plan to seek mitigation credit for the wetland cells below the non - jurisdictional channels,
but will seek restoration credit for the connecting channels within the project area that are jurisdictional
(i.e., large tributary draining from the east into the lower- middle section of Reach R2, labeled as Reach
R2b in accompanying figure).
Reach R2
The NCIRT considered the possibility of re- routing the restored channel along what appears to be its
historical path as shown in aerial photography, but accepted Baker's proposal to build the restored
channel in the agricultural fields to the west.
Reach R2 will continue the Priority Level II restoration described above. Also as described above, a short
additional reach will be added where the jurisdictional tributary enters Reach R2 from the east. This
restored channel will be at the same floodplain elevation as Reach R2 and will be called Reach R2b.
Reach R3
This reach encompasses the only tributary ditch draining from the west into the project area. Baker had
proposed Enhancement Level 1 credit for essentially implementing Priority Level II restoration. The
NCIRT recommended calling it restoration if that is what Baker proposes to actually implement. Eric Kulz
requested that a pressure transducer be installed where the design stream bed is elevated above the
existing bed to demonstrate that jurisdictional status is maintained.
Summary
The NCIRT accepted Baker's Priority Level II approach with the idea that frequent overbank flooding (i.e.,
multiple times per year) should occur. Baker will target reference reaches that demonstrate this
condition. The NCIRT also recommended that pools with log structures be included even if the design
sinuosity is kept low to maintain channel slope and prevent braiding.
C'nntarts

• Heather Smith will serve as the Project Manager for NCEEP and the main point of contact. Chris
Roessler will be the Baker Project Manager and coordinate /submit project deliverables directly
to Heather Smith for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Steos
• Project Schedule — Baker stated they are ready to proceed immediately with the Task 1
deliverable (Categorical Exclusion) and do not anticipate project delays.
• 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 Tyler Crumbley for on -site JD verification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation easement areas.
This represents Baker's interpretation of the meeting discussions. If any meeting attendees should find
any information contained in these meeting minutes to be in error and /or incomplete based on
individual comments or conversations, please notify Chris Roessler 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

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:31 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Flea Hill_ IRTpostContract_ SiteMeetingMinutes _13Aug2014.docx;
Flea Hill_ Pro posed MitFeatures _postIRT_13Aug2014.pdf,
Fig6A_FleaHill_ Pro posed MitFeatures _OptA_rev2.pdf
Another for 14 -0866
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Scott Hunt; Wes Newell (newel I @ backwater. biz); Wilson, Travis W.; Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
Putting a BMP on an existing channel is definitely frowned on (or worse by EPA), but in this circumstance you would
effectively be routing flow through a wetland, rather than putting the wetland on a stream, which is different. I also
think that we have some latitude to do this kind of thing for restoration projects since you will have to relocated the
larger ditch anyway. NW 27 has some language that talks about conversion of one aquatic resource into another, but in
this case you will gain wetland without losing stream, which is the key.
With regard to providing credit for the BMP, are you talking about just the BMP at the end of R2b, or all the BMPs that
receive flow from the fields (I thought there were more than one)? And what is the difference? We have had other
projects where we have given credit for wetland BMPs that were designed to an appropriate standard, but those were a
little different in that the BMPs were on non - jurisdictional drainages that were going to be excluded from the project if
we did not find a way to provide credit. Also, the stream restorations on those projects were more traditional in the
sense that the BMPs were providing their own function on top of what the stream restoration was doing. In this case, I
think it was the concept of the BMPs and associated wetland /floodplain function that ultimately convinced the IRT that
the project was providing any uplift to begin with, otherwise you are just relocating a ditch. So now to award additional
credit for the BMPs themselves seems to be further watering down the amount of functional uplift the project will
provide. I think we also agreed to a better credit ratio on the trib coming in from the west, as well, which should help
you out with the overall amount of credit to be produced by the project.
Based on the above, I don't believe additional credit is warranted in this circumstance, but I would like to hear from
other IRT members who were at the site meeting. I've copied Travis Wilson and Maria Dunn with the WRC since I don't
think they were included in the original email. (Travis and Maria, please read from beginning. I've attached the
referenced minutes as well.)
Todd
- - - -- Original Message - - - --

From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks, Todd. Your description of the location is correct. That's interesting - I didn't realize that you could essentially
impound a jurisdictional stream by creating a wetland along it as long as no stream length is lost.
I thought low flow must be maintained at all times through a jurisdictional channel (whether it is new or existing).
So, in light of your explanation, I agree that a wetland between the culvert and the restored channel is appropriate.
Since this particular outlet is a larger system that will require more study, grading, etc., would it be acceptable to
propose valley length credit for this wetland only? -Chris
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks for the explanation, Chris. With regard to Reach R2b, are you saying can't do any wetland treatment /BMP on
that channel because it is jurisdictional or because of the size of the watershed? My recollection is that the tributary in
question picks up drainage from a field ditch to the east and also from a tributary in the cutover area, and then flows
through a culvert directly into the ditch (the tributary to be restored). If you put a wetland bmp between the outfall of
the culvert (which is not proposed to be replaced) and the restored channel, you would not be losing any jurisdictional
stream, just adding a wetland between the two. I think the IRT emphasized during the meeting that the treatment
resulting from the constructed floodplain and wetland BMPs that treat the field runoff is really going to be the primary
source of functional uplift with this project, so if you construct another short stream segment, you will be bypassing any
treatment. Any thoughts on this?
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:40 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
OK, Todd et al., back from vacation. Please see my responses below your comments starting in CAPS (not for emphasis,
just to distinguish my comments from yours;).
Please let me know if you're OK with adding this email (including my comments) to the files or would like me to update
the minutes. No problem either way.
Thank you, 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, August 21, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks for the prompt comments, Todd. I'm on vacation today and tomorrow and will provide a response to the
questions you raised on Monday. But basically, I think we're on the same page, just explaining our perspectives. - Chris
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
I have a couple comments on the minutes you prepared:
* One of the things we discussed on the site was making sure that the new channel is small and that you try to get a
lot of floodplain access since that is really where any uplift will occur, with the possibility of adding some sinuosity to the
stream, at least alternating the channel to opposite sides of the constructed floodplain.
AGREED. I thought I captured that with this sentence "Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes Priority Level II
restoration with an emphasis on frequent overbank flooding to increase floodplain contact. Similarly, the width and
extent of the restored floodplain will be maximized to the greatest extent feasible to provide greater contact area with
overbank flows."
I'D LIKE TO ADD that we'll work out the channel dimension and sinuosity in the mitigation plan after further research,
including a study of reference reaches. We'll definitely include pools and target alternating the channel to opposite sides
of the floodplain. But I think we'll also want to maximize floodplain LENGTH because if we build a smaller channel that
increases overbank flooding frequency then braiding is more likely, which could lead to only getting valley length credit
for restoration. If we have low sinuosity then there shouldn't be a problem if there is limited braiding because the valley
length and restored channel length will be close.
* I believe we discussed the idea of including some vernal pools in the floodplain, if possible.
AGREED.
* Your notes reference reach R2b, and the possibility of getting credit for any channel constructed. I don't recall if we
discussed /agreed to that - my recollection was that there would be some type of treatment downstream of the culverts
draining the field, not necessarily channels connecting the culverts to the reconstructed stream, since the idea was to try
to treat the runoff that was concentrated trough the culverts, not channel it directly to the stream. Please address this
in the mitigation plan.

I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AFTER OUR MEETING AND MY REASONING FOLLOWS. Reach R2b is the continuation of a
jurisdictional channel (this is the bigger tributary coming from the west) so we won't be able to do a detained wetland
cell below the culvert. Instead, we'll construct a floodplain for it (same as the rest of the project streams), which will
need to cross at least the 50 feet of buffer before tying into the main channel. All of this points to the idea that this will
also be a restored channel and deserving of credit to compensate construction cost. I'm thinking it will only be about 60
feet or so of channel length. I will also address this in the mitigation plan.
* Lastly, I wanted the record to note that the IRT felt that the location proposed for the new channel is not what we
believe to be the historic condition on the site, and that the preference would have been to try to reconnect the channel
to the existing, sinuous drainage to the east of the current ditch, but that due to limitations caused by upstream
flooding, the alternative is to dig a new channel through a upland ridge (IRT's interpretation).
AGREED.
I don't think you need to update the memo if you don't want to, as I will include this email in our file for our records.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office: 919 - 846 -2564
Mobile: 919 - 710 -0240
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:26 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flea Hill meeting minutes
Hi Todd -> Would you please review these minutes and forward them to the other members of the IRT? Thanks for
meeting us out there and considering the site. It sounds good to target multiple overbank flows per year.
We'd appreciate any comments you might have by the end of August, even if it's just an OK. Thanks a lot, 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< mailto :croessler @mbakerintl.com> I www. mbakerintl .com <http: / /www.mbakerintl.com>
<http://www.mbakerintl.com/>
Cyan_Baker Logo Centered -01
cid: i mage006. png @01CF83F1.2E000390

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Proposed Mitigation Features
Priority 2 Restoration
- - -- Enhancement I
0 Conservation Easement
Reach R3
Note: The available property options
would allow for an extension of the
conservation easement and mitigation
channels for the upper reaches of R2
and R3 if the reviewers so desire.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway 0
Suite 600
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
_ N
Reach R1
�t+ •
Reach R2
Figure 6A
250 500 Option A
Feet Proposed Mitigation Features
Flea Hill Site

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:31 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Flea Hill_ IRTpostContract_ SiteMeetingMinutes _13Aug2014.docx;
Flea Hill_ Pro posed MitFeatures _postIRT_13Aug2014.pdf,
Fig6A_FleaHill_ Pro posed MitFeatures _OptA_rev2.pdf
Another for 14 -0866
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff; Smith, Heather; Scott Hunt; Wes Newell (newel I @ backwater. biz); Wilson, Travis W.; Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
Putting a BMP on an existing channel is definitely frowned on (or worse by EPA), but in this circumstance you would
effectively be routing flow through a wetland, rather than putting the wetland on a stream, which is different. I also
think that we have some latitude to do this kind of thing for restoration projects since you will have to relocated the
larger ditch anyway. NW 27 has some language that talks about conversion of one aquatic resource into another, but in
this case you will gain wetland without losing stream, which is the key.
With regard to providing credit for the BMP, are you talking about just the BMP at the end of R2b, or all the BMPs that
receive flow from the fields (I thought there were more than one)? And what is the difference? We have had other
projects where we have given credit for wetland BMPs that were designed to an appropriate standard, but those were a
little different in that the BMPs were on non - jurisdictional drainages that were going to be excluded from the project if
we did not find a way to provide credit. Also, the stream restorations on those projects were more traditional in the
sense that the BMPs were providing their own function on top of what the stream restoration was doing. In this case, I
think it was the concept of the BMPs and associated wetland /floodplain function that ultimately convinced the IRT that
the project was providing any uplift to begin with, otherwise you are just relocating a ditch. So now to award additional
credit for the BMPs themselves seems to be further watering down the amount of functional uplift the project will
provide. I think we also agreed to a better credit ratio on the trib coming in from the west, as well, which should help
you out with the overall amount of credit to be produced by the project.
Based on the above, I don't believe additional credit is warranted in this circumstance, but I would like to hear from
other IRT members who were at the site meeting. I've copied Travis Wilson and Maria Dunn with the WRC since I don't
think they were included in the original email. (Travis and Maria, please read from beginning. I've attached the
referenced minutes as well.)
Todd
- - - -- Original Message - - - --

From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks, Todd. Your description of the location is correct. That's interesting - I didn't realize that you could essentially
impound a jurisdictional stream by creating a wetland along it as long as no stream length is lost.
I thought low flow must be maintained at all times through a jurisdictional channel (whether it is new or existing).
So, in light of your explanation, I agree that a wetland between the culvert and the restored channel is appropriate.
Since this particular outlet is a larger system that will require more study, grading, etc., would it be acceptable to
propose valley length credit for this wetland only? -Chris
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks for the explanation, Chris. With regard to Reach R2b, are you saying can't do any wetland treatment /BMP on
that channel because it is jurisdictional or because of the size of the watershed? My recollection is that the tributary in
question picks up drainage from a field ditch to the east and also from a tributary in the cutover area, and then flows
through a culvert directly into the ditch (the tributary to be restored). If you put a wetland bmp between the outfall of
the culvert (which is not proposed to be replaced) and the restored channel, you would not be losing any jurisdictional
stream, just adding a wetland between the two. I think the IRT emphasized during the meeting that the treatment
resulting from the constructed floodplain and wetland BMPs that treat the field runoff is really going to be the primary
source of functional uplift with this project, so if you construct another short stream segment, you will be bypassing any
treatment. Any thoughts on this?
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:40 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt; Wes Newell
(newel I @ backwater. biz)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
OK, Todd et al., back from vacation. Please see my responses below your comments starting in CAPS (not for emphasis,
just to distinguish my comments from yours;).
Please let me know if you're OK with adding this email (including my comments) to the files or would like me to update
the minutes. No problem either way.
Thank you, 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, August 21, 2014 12:40 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks for the prompt comments, Todd. I'm on vacation today and tomorrow and will provide a response to the
questions you raised on Monday. But basically, I think we're on the same page, just explaining our perspectives. - Chris
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Chris Roessler; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: RE: Flea Hill meeting minutes (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
I have a couple comments on the minutes you prepared:
* One of the things we discussed on the site was making sure that the new channel is small and that you try to get a
lot of floodplain access since that is really where any uplift will occur, with the possibility of adding some sinuosity to the
stream, at least alternating the channel to opposite sides of the constructed floodplain.
AGREED. I thought I captured that with this sentence "Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes Priority Level II
restoration with an emphasis on frequent overbank flooding to increase floodplain contact. Similarly, the width and
extent of the restored floodplain will be maximized to the greatest extent feasible to provide greater contact area with
overbank flows."
I'D LIKE TO ADD that we'll work out the channel dimension and sinuosity in the mitigation plan after further research,
including a study of reference reaches. We'll definitely include pools and target alternating the channel to opposite sides
of the floodplain. But I think we'll also want to maximize floodplain LENGTH because if we build a smaller channel that
increases overbank flooding frequency then braiding is more likely, which could lead to only getting valley length credit
for restoration. If we have low sinuosity then there shouldn't be a problem if there is limited braiding because the valley
length and restored channel length will be close.
* I believe we discussed the idea of including some vernal pools in the floodplain, if possible.
AGREED.
* Your notes reference reach R2b, and the possibility of getting credit for any channel constructed. I don't recall if we
discussed /agreed to that - my recollection was that there would be some type of treatment downstream of the culverts
draining the field, not necessarily channels connecting the culverts to the reconstructed stream, since the idea was to try
to treat the runoff that was concentrated trough the culverts, not channel it directly to the stream. Please address this
in the mitigation plan.

I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AFTER OUR MEETING AND MY REASONING FOLLOWS. Reach R2b is the continuation of a
jurisdictional channel (this is the bigger tributary coming from the west) so we won't be able to do a detained wetland
cell below the culvert. Instead, we'll construct a floodplain for it (same as the rest of the project streams), which will
need to cross at least the 50 feet of buffer before tying into the main channel. All of this points to the idea that this will
also be a restored channel and deserving of credit to compensate construction cost. I'm thinking it will only be about 60
feet or so of channel length. I will also address this in the mitigation plan.
* Lastly, I wanted the record to note that the IRT felt that the location proposed for the new channel is not what we
believe to be the historic condition on the site, and that the preference would have been to try to reconnect the channel
to the existing, sinuous drainage to the east of the current ditch, but that due to limitations caused by upstream
flooding, the alternative is to dig a new channel through a upland ridge (IRT's interpretation).
AGREED.
I don't think you need to update the memo if you don't want to, as I will include this email in our file for our records.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office: 919 - 846 -2564
Mobile: 919 - 710 -0240
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Chris Roessler [ mailto :Croessler @mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:26 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Crumbley, Tyler SAW; Kulz, Eric (eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov)
Cc: Jeff Schaffer (jeff.schaffer @ncdenr.gov); Smith, Heather (heather.c.smith @ncdenr.gov); Scott Hunt
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flea Hill meeting minutes
Hi Todd -> Would you please review these minutes and forward them to the other members of the IRT? Thanks for
meeting us out there and considering the site. It sounds good to target multiple overbank flows per year.
We'd appreciate any comments you might have by the end of August, even if it's just an OK. Thanks a lot, 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< mailto :croessler @mbakerintl.com> I www. mbakerintl .com <http: / /www.mbakerintl.com>
<http://www.mbakerintl.com/>
Cyan_Baker Logo Centered -01
cid: i mage006. png @01CF83F1.2E000390

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Proposed Mitigation Features
Conservation Easement
Priority 2 Restoration
Reach R3
1
..
�;J' AV
Reach R1
Reach R2
Reach R2b
t
N
/V
I
Elf -4
MEN=_
8 ..
M1
r,
Michael Baker Engineering, inc.
8000 Regency Parkway Post IRT Visit_13August2014
Suite 600 0 250 500
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone [phone] Feet Proposed Mitigation Features
:
Fax [phone] Flea Hill Restoration Site