20140866 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20140828

Meeting Minutes
FLEA HILL RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP Contract No. 5998
IN- 0866
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Cary. North Carolina 27518
Phone, 919.463.6488
Fax: [phone]
Date Prepared:
August 13, 2014; updated August 28, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
August 12, 2014, 10:00 am
Location:
On -site (Cumberland County, NC)
USACE —Tyler Crumbley, Todd Tugwell
NCDWR — Eric Kulz
Attendees:
NCWRC —Travis Wilson, Maria Dunn
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 12`h, 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 small
single- thread channels and 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 9S.9 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.
The channel dimension and sinuosity will be presented in the mitigation plan after further research,
including a study of reference reaches. The channel will include pools and Baker will target alternating
the channel to opposite sides of the floodplain. The design will also seek 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. Vernal pools will be incorporated in the floodplain.
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. In all cases, the wetlands
may impound flow through them because no jurisdictional stream length will be lost. The wetlands will
be added to the existing stream length, effectively routing the flow through the constructed wetlands.
Baker does not plan to seek mitigation credit for the wetland cells below the three of the four culverts.
The NCIRT views the wetland cells as an integral part of the stream restoration, not separate
components. Baker will likely not propose credit for the fourth culvert (labeled Reach R2b in the
accompanying map) per NCIRT recommendation. However, this tributary drains approximately 150
acres and if the level of effort (i.e. , engineering and construction) needed to create a functional wetland
turns out to be substantial Baker may propose valley - length credit for this wetland cell in the mitigation
plan.
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. 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).
Reach R2 will continue the Priority Level II restoration described above.
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.
Contacts
• 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 Steps
• 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

m- O&1�