20220664 Ver 1_Casey Creek meeting minutes_20220824

Hamilton, Ryan
From:Davis, Erin B
Sent:Friday, September 16, 2022 11:37 AM
To:Hamilton, Ryan
Subject:FW: \[External\] RE: Casey Creek meeting minutes
Attachments:CaseyCreek IRT Site Visit Summary_final.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20220664 v.2
Doc Date: 8/24/22
Doc Type: Mitigation Site Visit
Doc Name: General topic of email title

From: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haywood,
Casey M CIV MVP <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: Casey Creek meeting minutes

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Hi all-> Attached are the final site visit meeting minutes for Casey Creek. Kim’s comments are included. Feel free to let
me know if you request any changes. Thanks and have a great day, Chris

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chris Roessler | Senior Scientist/Project Manager
O: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

From: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:37 PM
To: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>; Wilson,
Travis W. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haywood,
Casey M CIV MVP <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: \[External\] RE: Casey Creek meeting minutes
1

Thanks Chris. I don't have anything to add beyond Kim's take-aways. The stream project will also be DWR#
20220664, but Version 2.

Erin B. Davis, PWS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919-817-0360 cell
[e-mail]

From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 2:54 PM
To: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haywood,
Casey M CIV MVP <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: Casey Creek meeting minutes

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>

Thanks Chris. In addition to your notes, here were my take-aways:

1. I recall our discussion about the borrow pond (where we parked) summary to be that you would include the first 50
ft in the CE, and you would fill and plant that area. The rest of the borrow pond would be excluded from the CE, and the
easement signs would be placed frequently along the woodline so that any pond/ditch maintenance would not be
included in the CE.

2. I'd like to know the percentage of PII restoration, since it hopefully reduced from approximately 50% after our
meeting.

3. We'd like to see more wood than rock for structures.

4. Add flow gauges to intermittent reaches, and include cumulative and consecutive flow data.

5. The powerline easement is currently inside the proposed conservation easement. Need to resolve.

6. A BMP may be needed the channel transitions from ephemeral (I think this was on Martha?)

Thanks
2

Kim

Kim (Browning) Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers l 919.946.5107

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 8:24 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Crocker, Lindsay
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[URL Verdict: Neutral\]\[Non-DoD Source\] Casey Creek meeting minutes

Hello Kim, Erin, and Travis. Please have a look at the attached meeting minutes from the initial IRT site visit to Casey
Creek.

I think the DWR Project number is 20220664, but that may be only for the buffer component so please confirm Erin.

Comments on the minutes are welcome. Thanks very much, Chris

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chris Roessler | Senior Scientist/Project Manager

O: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>

312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225

Raleigh, NC 27609
3

MEETING NOTES

MEETING:  IRT Post‐contract Site Walk 
      Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
      Neuse River Basin CU 03020201; Wayne County, NC 
      USACE Action ID: SAW‐2022‐01239 
      DWR# 20220664 v2 

DATE:    Wednesday, July 27, 2022 

LOCATION:  US Highway 13 
Grantham, NC 

Attendees 
Kim Browning, USACE 
Erin Davis, DWR 
Travis Wilson, WRC 
Lindsay Crocker, NCDMS 
Jeremiah Dow, NCDMS 
John Hutton, Wildlands 
Chris Roessler, Wildlands 

Materials 
 Wildlands Engineering Casey Creek Mitigation Site NCDMS Proposal 
 Maps of existing and proposed conditions for the site and proposed easements 

Meeting Notes 
The primary purpose of this site visit was to provide an opportunity for the IRT members to see the site and for 
Wildlands staff to explain the various components of the project. The site is on an active row crop farm and will 
include stream restoration and preservation. 

Riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits will also be developed. Wildlands will coordinate with NCDWR 
separately on that. The draft mitigation plan for stream and wetland mitigation should include a draft of the 
riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation plan in the appendix, as well as a map that shows all credits 
sought.  

This meeting summary is organized by stream reach. A concept map with comments added from this site visit is 
attached.   

Casey Creek 
 The IRT agreed with the stream approaches and had the following comments: 
o Restoration on the upper end of Casey Creek should begin where degradation starts; at the site 
visit, that was about 100 feet above the existing headcut/knickpoint.   

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 2 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
July 27, 2022 IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes 
 Two lower drain tiles will outlet on floodplain. Pools at outlets should be 18” maximum depth and need 
to dry annually. Third drain tile is unknown at this time. Ideally it would be removed but Wildlands may 
need to install it so that it can outlet on floodplain and not directly in restored channel.  
 Different vegetation communities were noted on the upstream and downstream ends of Casey Creek. 
The mitigation plan should note that the upper end is not reference quality because it has too many 
pines. The different vegetation communities on the site should be described in the mitigation plan. 
Wildlands staff will explore the floodplain of Reach 1 to determine whether any reference vegetation 
communities exist and will document the species composition if any are located.  
 Wildlands should install a flow gage in the preservation section of upper Casey Creek. This is mostly for 
reference on flow relative to other reaches/gages on the restored site. 
 Casey Creek Reach 3 (below US Hwy 13) is on bedrock or saprolite. It will be raised using Priority 2 
initially as it transitions to Priority 1. The bed material in the restored channel should not degrade so 
that it returns to bedrock. Pool scour may be dynamic but riffles should hold grade.  
 The group discussed the borrow pond at the bottom of Casey Creek and whether that should be 
included in the conservation easement. The first 50 feet of area beyond the left bank of Casey Creek will 
be filled and planted. The rest of the existing borrow pond will be excluded from the CE. Easement signs 
will be placed frequently around the woodline so that any ditch/pond maintenance would not be done 
within the CE.  
 The group discussed the culvert at the lower end of Casey Creek. It may need to be replaced and set at a 
different elevation to achieve optimal restoration grades upstream. The culvert should not be left 
perched on the downstream end. It may be necessary for Wildlands to obtain a temporary construction 
easement to install structures to stably drop the profile on the downstream end. For permitting 
purposes, the TCE area should be included within the limits of disturbance.  
 Wildlands should coordinate with DOT about the pipe under US Hwy 13. It’s currently slightly perched. 
Travis said that if it was designed and installed correctly it can be backwatered by 20%. Raising Casey 
Creek to this level below the culvert would reduce the stream length needed to attain Priority 1 
restoration. Daniel Taylor from Wildlands knows the DOT District Engineer and can inquire about how 
the culvert was designed and installed.  
Martha Branch 
 Restoration will begin with a short Priority 2 section and transition to Priority 1. The IRT agreed with the 
stream approach and had the following comments: 
o Stream credit should begin where the stream is classified as intermittent. A map from the DWR 
site assessment was delivered to Wildlands on July 26, 2022 showing this point approximately 
150 feet below the upstream property line. Latitude and longitude coordinate were provided 
with the DWR map.  
o Gages will be installed toward the upstream and downstream ends on Martha Branch. Martha 
Branch is the only intermittent reach within the project. Cumulative days and consecutive days 
of flow should be included in the post‐construction monitoring reports.  
o A BMP may be needed as the channel transitions from ephemeral to intermittent flow on upper 
Martha Branch. The BMP will likely not detain flow since there is an existing pond above the Site 
that provides detention. The constructed BMP would likely promote braided streamflow and 
wetland interaction.  

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 3 
Casey Creek Mitigation Site 
July 27, 2022 IRT Post‐Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes 

Afton Branch 
 Wildlands proposed mostly Priority 2 restoration on this reach This should result in similar appearance 
to the nearby Grantham Branch restoration, which has gentle slopes and good vegetation establishment 
and growth. The IRT agreed with the stream approach.  
General Discussion 
 JD wetlands should be shown on the existing conditions and concept maps in the mitigation plan. 
 Culverts preferred in sand bed streams because fords aren’t stable. No smooth inner surface on culverts. 
 Priority 1 and 2 restoration should be shown on the concept map in the mitigation plan by different line 
types. Wildlands will include percentages of Priority 1 and 2 in the mitigation plan text.  
 The IRT would like to see more wood than rock used for structures.  
 Any intermittent reaches on project should have flow gages, and cumulative and consecutive flow data 
should be provided in the monitoring reports. As stated above, it appears Martha Branch in the only 
intermittent reach.  
 Kim reported that Kathy Matthews didn’t see a potential problem with endangered species but will wait 
for the official public notice to comment.  
 Chris should provide proposal parts, including location and existing and proposed conditions, to Kim for 
the public notice.   
 Wildlands should document the 9‐step checklist for ESA in the Categorical Exclusion.  
Summary        
At the conclusion of the site visit the IRT indicated that they approved of the site and had no issues with the 
proposed approaches and had no objections to the minor changes to the plan discussed.   
These meeting notes were prepared by Chris Roessler on July 28, 2022 and reviewed by John Hutton on August 12, 2022 and 
represent the authors’ interpretation of the visit. 

!P
!P
^_^_
^_
Cas
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Casey CreekMartha BranchAfton BranchCasey CreekReach 1
Casey CreekReach 2
Casey CreekReach 3
¬«1
¬«2
Figure 7 Concept Map
Casey Creek Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
2017 Aerial Photography
¹Wayne County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (0-100')
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credit (101'-200')
Riparian Restoration for Nutrient Offset Credit (101'-200')
No Credit
Proposed Internal Crossing
Existing External Crossing
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Preservation
Existing Drain Tiles To Be Removed
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
!P Reach Break
^_Floodplain Pools
0 300150 Feet
¬«#
¬«#