20141166 Ver 1 - Roanoke04_Brandon_approaches_postIRTvisit_17Oct2014 - 10/28/2014

Strickland, Bev
From: Sullivan, Shelton
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:22 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Cc: Baker, Virginia; Homewood, Sue
Subject: FW: Roanoke 04 minutes and Browns Summit request
Attachments: Roanoke04_ Brandon_ approaches _postIRTvisit_170ct2014.pdf,
Brandon Bra nch_ Roanoke04_ IRT_ SiteMeetingMinutes _200ct2014_v2.docx
« 4
0:
Shelton Sullivan
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR I Division of Water Resources I Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Seivice Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1617
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: shelton.sullivan @ncdenr.gov
Website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/sLAT/ws/webscape
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may be disclosed to
third parties
m��„ i�llc�b�� a�oIl��o�Noa ~tl��: a:o�vIl: ~��o�o�mcIl�t b�:V�oa ~a: pia ~fibntIlO�gt1�IlS�:o�m�bIln.
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:33 AM
To: Sullivan, Shelton
Subject: FW: Roanoke 04 minutes and Browns Summit request
Shelton, bit confusing here as the project in the subject is not the same as the attached. The project in the subject has a
already. Brandon is a new bank.
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:39 AM
To: Sullivan, Shelton
Subject: FW: Roanoke 04 minutes and Browns Summit request
Hi Shelton,
Did you get a chance to put a DWR # on this one in Bims?
Thanks, Ginny
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:57 PM
To: Sullivan, Shelton
Subject: FW: Roanoke 04 minutes and Browns Summit request

Hi Shelton,
Here is the soft copy of a new EEP project. Site map and field notes from a preliminary visit that Sue was on. A follow up
visit is scheduled next week. Sue said she did not know of a project number being assigned and I did not see it in the
mitigation database.
sm
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:07 PM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: FW: Roanoke 04 minutes and Browns Summit request
Please note my new contact phone number
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston -Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs
Voice: (336) 813 -1863
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Roessler, Chris [ mai Ito: Croessler(a)mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:07 PM
To: todd.tuawell(a)usace.army.mil; Bailey, David E SAW ( David. E.Bailey2(a)usace.army.mil); Homewood, Sue
Cc: Vanstell, Kayne; Hunt, Scott
Subject: Roanoke 04 minutes and Browns Summit request
Hi Todd, David, and Sue -> Thank you very much for taking the time to meet us in Caswell County and consider the
Brandon Branch site. It's a tricky one given the issues involved and we really appreciate your input on how to approach
each reach. I tried to document our discussions in the attached minutes. Feel free to make corrections if you remember
anything differently.
Second item of business, would you please let me know your availability for a brief return meeting to Browns Summit to
look at the segment we brought up on Friday? I looked back at the minutes from the first meeting with the IRT
(everyone but Todd) and we were set to do restoration there with no comment to the contrary from the IRT. I'm happy
to provide those minutes. Regardless, we really think it is a good area to do Priority I Restoration to reconnect the
stream channel with a wide and active floodplain. Secondly, from a channel evolution perspective, we believe the
channel is headed for a widening stage and may not be done with degradation. There are no active headcuts in this
segment but there is also no grade control and we will be reducing sediment supply. The existing bank height ratios are
around 1.8 to 1.9.

At any rate, we appreciate your willingness to take another look. We will definitely not make a habit of it. Thanks again,
Chris
Chris Roessler I Technical Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., a unit of Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 [O] 919 - 481 -5737 1 [M] 919 - 624 -0905
croessler @mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com
1 N TER N A T1'0NAL
3

INTERNATIONAL
Meeting Minutes
BRANDON BRANCH RESTORATION PROJECT
Date Prepared:
October 20, 2014
Meeting Date, Time,
Location:
October 17, 2014, 10:00 pm
On -site (Caswell County, NC)
Attendees:
USACE —Todd Tugwell, David Bailey
NCDWR — Sue Homewood
Baker —Scott Hunt, Kayne VanStell, Chris Roessler
Subject:
Pre- prospectus mitigation banking meeting w/ NCIRT
Recorded By:
Chris Roessler
An on -site meeting was held on October 17th, 2014 at 10:00 AM to discuss the Brandon Branch
Restoration (potential mitigation bank) Project in Caswell County, NC. The purposes of this meeting
were to:
1. Familiarize the NCIRT with the stream restoration project and discuss general approaches for
the proposed mitigation plan;
2. Receive and discuss input on mitigation approaches and credit ratios for each project reach and
section;
3. Identify and discuss potential concerns /issues based on field observations.
After introductions, Chris Roessler provided background approaches for the project. Baker had proposed
this site as a full delivery project in 2013. It was the only site submitted in the Roanoke 04. NCEEP
decided not to pursue the project because they thought the upper reaches did not warrant restoration
and Baker did not provide an option where they could be switched to enhancement and still meet the
request in the provided easement areas.
Baker proposes a watershed -based approach to include all of the intermittent and perennial reaches on
the property, as well as natural drainages that may be considered non - jurisdictional. A combination of
water quality BMPs, enhancement, and restoration approaches are proposed to provide functional
uplift. The site visit began at the upper end of the site on Reaches R2 and proceeded downstream to
Country Line Creek before returning via Reaches R3 and R6. Nearly all of the project stream reaches
(Reaches R1, R2, R3, and R6) were observed and discussed. Reaches R4 and R5 were similar to Reaches
R2 and R6, so they were not included in the interest of time. Observations and conclusions for each
reach and area are noted below.
A potential wetland mitigation area to the east of lower Brandon Branch was also considered during the
site visit. The NCIRT and Baker agreed that this was not a feasible wetland area for thee reasons. The
topography is not conducive to turning Brandon Branch into this relic floodplain terrace and the soils did
not appear to be hydric. Finally, there is limited evidence that the stream channel once flowed through
this area.
Note: a map including the proposed approaches following this visit is included with this memo.

Reach R2
The group walked along Reach R2 below the house and observed several headcuts and channel incision.
Below this area is a flat segment where David Bailey considered the channel likely to be non -
jurisdictional. The site is such that headcuts have formed deep, incised channels near the headwaters,
but where headcuts have not migrated, the drainage areas are small enough that there is limited
channel definition.
After some discussion, Baker and the NCIRT agreed that the non - jurisdictional segment might be used as
a water quality BMP to capture sediment delivered from the upstream, incised segment. The upstream
incised segment might be included in the project by stabilizing the headcuts and grading banks where
feasible. It may also be possible to create tiered water quality cells in the upper reach. Trees should be
protected unless they are at imminent risk.
Below the non - jurisdictional segment is another area of deeply incised channel followed by a second
segment lacking defined bed /bank features. This area may be treated similarly as above, with a water
quality BMP in the non - jurisdictional area and stabilization measures in the incised segment.
Below the second stable section the channel is extremely incised and narrow with widening expected to
be next in the channel's evolution. The NCIRT agreed that restoration was permissible, but cautioned
that intermittent flow should be documented so that the channel did not become non - jurisdictional if
the bed is raised. Baker may conduct flow monitoring this winter to assess the existing hydrology to see
if it meets the criterion of 30 days of consecutive flow.
The credit ratio for developing Reach R2 was not agreed upon. Instead, it will be up to Baker to provide
performance standards or measures tied to functional uplift in the mitigation plan which will help to
determine the credit ratio. Generally, the valley length of the BMP at a 2.5:1 or 1.5:1 credit ratio was
discussed as potential mitigation compensation.
Livestock will be excluded and the buffer will be planted on this reach and all others.
Reach R1
At the confluence of Reach R2 and R3, the group briefly looked upstream (along Reach R3) before
proceeding downstream along Reach R1. The channel in this area, both upstream and downstream from
the confluence, is incised but appears to have reached bedrock in most places except where sediment
plugs have formed. The sediment plugs are typically being held back at headcuts, which are currently
stationary because of woody debris or tree roots. The headcuts generally drop two (2) feet in a short
distance (e.g., less than five horizontal feet). Much of the streambank in this segment has mature trees
with little to no buffer width.
Todd Tugwell thought that this section did not warrant restoration because the existing condition has a
relatively high functional level due to adequate bedform diversity and generally stable side slopes. He
suspected that the benthic rating would be fairly high. Chris Roessler agreed with this on sections that
were not covered by the sediment plugs; however imbedded areas covered by sediment plugs would
probably have impaired benthic ratings. The conceptual approach for this segment that was agreed
upon by the NCIRT and Baker was to do spot fixes on the streambanks where mature vegetation would
not have to be sacrificed, as well as installing grade control below the sediment plugs to prevent the
head cuts from progressing and releasing the plugs. A credit ratio on the order of Enhancement Level 1
(2:1 or 1.5:1) was generally discussed for this reach; justification through functional uplift and level of
effort should be provided to determine the final credit ratio.
Further down Reach R1, where the valley begins to widen, the channel incision becomes more
pronounced. Here, Todd thought that raising the channel bed from six feet deep to something closer to
the existing floodplain was warranted. If this is feasible, restoration credit would be warranted. If
sediment is harvested from upstream enhancement activities as well as the base of the surrounding

floodplain and hillslopes, it is likely that raising the channel will be feasible. If not, a similar enhancement
approach may be continued from above.
Livestock will be excluded and the buffer will be planted.
Reach R3
As discussed above, the lower segment of Reach R3 will be targeted for enhancement activities.
Above confluence with Reach R4, a segment of restoration is feasible provided the jurisdictional status is
maintained. Restoration may extend from the confluence with Reach R4 upstream to several headcuts,
which are in the vicinity of the confluence of Reaches R5 and R6.
Reach R4
The group didn't walk Reach R4, but conditions are similar to upper Reach R2 in that the drainage area is
small, though headcuts have migrated through the reach and it is moderately to severely incised. Baker
proposed to treat this area as a water quality BMP, where the headcuts will be stabilized and wetland
cells will be created along the channel path. This may be accomplished by leaving the channel at its
current elevation and installing grade control features or weirs to slow runoff and trap sediment.
Reach R5
The group also did not walk this reach which emanates below the existing farm pond. An Enhancement
Level II approach is proposed where grade control, planting, and livestock exclusion are the
recommended measures. A 2.5:1 credit ratio is suggested, but should be supported by functional uplift
and level of effort. Baker believes this channel would be considered jurisdictional. If not, a water quality
BMP approach would be applicable, as with upper Reach R2, and Reaches R4 and R6.
Reach R6
The group walked this reach and David Bailey considered it likely to be non - jurisdictional based on weak
channel definition at the downstream end. The wider floodplain and less- pronounced incision on this
reach suggest that it would be well- suited for a water quality BMP type of approach that incorporates
weirs for sediment trapping and runoff detention. Headcut and bank stabilization would also be
incorporated in this approach. Todd Tugwell suggested that the buffer should extend to the lesser of the
toe of the valley slope or 100 feet. Also, hydrology should be measured, but not for performance
standards. Vegetation monitoring should be conducted. Credit may be awarded by valley length at an
approximately 2.5:1 to 1.5:1 ratio.
Action Items and Next Steps
• Project Schedule — Baker will meet with NCEEP to see what their intention is for meeting credit
needs in the Roanoke 04 basin and how Brandon Branch may meet those needs. It appears that
the project may be able to meet all of NCEEP's stream needs, but that leaves unmet wetland
needs.
• If NCEEP appears to be willing to contract the credits generated from Brandon Branch, Baker will
proceed with developing a mitigation prospectus.
• USACE would require Jurisdictional (JD) stream /wetland calls for the project. Baker will
coordinate with David Bailey for on -site JD verification prior to MBI submittal.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation easement areas.
This represents Baker'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

!"� 9
y �+
Reach R2
r A.
Reach R5
4� ,.
Reach R4
ftR3
Draft Conservation Easement
- Streams
Approach
Level I Enhancement
------ Level 11 Enhancement »
Restoration
WQ BMP
Reach R1
N 0 125 250
IV
Brandon Branch
500 Feet Restoration Site
0 Roanoke 04