20130739 Ver 1_IRT site meeting minutes and comments_20190531

Strickland, Bev
From: King, Scott <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 12:10 PM
To: Kim Browning; Schaffer, Jeff, Dow, Jeremiah J; Allen, Melonie; Dunn, Maria T.; Wilson,
Travis W.; Davis, Erin B
Cc: McKeithan, Katie; Powers, Andrew
Subject: [External] St Clair IRT site meeting minutes and comments
Attachments: StClair_IRT_SiteMeetingMinutes_2019May16.pdf, St Clair -Flow Success_YR6
_March20l9.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Good morning folks,
Please find attached the meeting minutes from the May 16th IRT field day at St. Clair, along with the most recent CCPV
map as a helpful reference. Please let us know if you have any comments on the minutes. I'm sorry I missed the fun
that day but did have a few comments of my own after discussing the visit with Katie and Drew.
-Regarding the discussion of flow in upper UT2, the uppermost section generally has a primary shallow channel in the
middle of the valley/swale that becomes noticeably more braided with multiple channels forming between flow gauges
4 and 3. Flow gauge 7 was installed at the start of this transitional area. As I'm sure you noticed, the channels are
shallow and easy to miss visually with a casual viewing as the entire area is generally covered in dense herbaceous veg,
but they are present. Visually, the group seemed to think that gauges 3 and 7 were different from one another, and
thus questioned the similarity of the flow numbers between those two flow gauges. While it's true that the veg is
generally taller in the upper section around gauges 4 and 7 (which certainly catches one's eye), the shallow channel
braiding developing near gauge 7 apparently aligns it hydrologically more closely with the downstream gauge 3, as their
consecutive flow days have been very similar for the past two years (though not for cumulative flow days, where it was
closer last year to gauge 4, befitting a middle -gauge located between those two!). Please see attached flow success
table (partially updated through March 26) for more details there.
-Flow events on this site are fairly slow moving. By disturbing sediment on the bottom during events you can clearly see
flow during events but it doesn't appear to have the scouring ability required to carve out substantial channels, just the
shallow ones observed. There is moss, algae crusts, staining, and/or hydric soils present in the channels. I haven't
observed much in the way of rack -line debris to show high water marks, even when I have been there during flow
events. I suspect there isn't much flow power present to push, carry, and deposit much in the way of debris, especially
in the uppermost sections.
-As for the accuracy of the flow gauges themselves, the water depths are manually measured whenever significant
water is present and compared with the gauge -recorded depths after download back in the office. The comparisons
have consistently shown that the gauges are accurately measuring water depth. Also, the flow response curves
correlate with storm events very well. So we have no reason to believe the gauges aren't recording correctly.
-As was discussed in the field, these coastal plain headwater systems were designed using unique standards. Based on
field comments, I am concerned that the USACE will be strictly looking for a more usual stream JD call at closeout with
classic bed/bank formation, etc. that aren't appropriate for the uppermost portion of these headwater systems (though
I believe it would certainly pass using the criteria of OHWM features). Instead, our project success criteria as explained

in the mitigation plan were based on the establishment of an appropriate vegetative community and the presence of
seasonal flow (albeit more diffuse flow from this braided system). A general description of methodology behind the
design goals and the project success criteria can be found in the following document (see relevant text cited below).
INFORMATION REGARDING STREAM RESTORATION IN THE OUTER COASTAL PLAIN OF
NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By:
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
And
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
November 28, 2005
(relevant text from page 2, italics mine)
Often however, unaltered riparian headwater systems with smaller watersheds and less definite topography
possess a braided, diffuse flow pattern across a narrow floodplain of riparian, wooded wetlands. Stream
restoration involving the development of pattern, dimension, and profile, in these instances, would not be
appropriate and these sites would likely not support engineered stream channels due to the lack of slope and
sandy terrain. Restoration of these riparian headwater systems could still be accomplished to provide both
stream and wetland mitigation credit without physically constructing a distinctive stream channel.
Zero to first order headwater streams: Restoration of stream pattern, dimension and
profile is often not appropriate in features appearing as zero to first order, headwater
streams in the outer coastal plain. Projects constructed in these areas may still qualify for
stream restoration even though they may not include construction of an actual channel.
These projects should include success criteria commensurate with the restoration of a
bottomland riparian (wetland) community. Additional considerations for success criteria
may include documentation of diffuse flow and inundation of adjacent wetland. Credit
will be calculated based on the length of the valley rather than an exact length of the
channel.
Please let me know if you have any other questions for me about this.
Thank you very much,
Scott
Scott King, LSS, PWS I Soil Scientist - Ecosystem Restoration Group I Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518 1 [O] 919-481-5731
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
Michael 1tVe Moke a Difference
INTERNAT10NAL IV
Cw*� r vA(hus: min*1az

N t e x x I We Mokeo Differenre

Table 11. Flow Gauge Success
St. Clair Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteriat
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
Year 1
2014
Year 2
2015
Year 3
2016
Year 4
2017
Year 5
2018
Year 6
2019
Year 7
2020
Year 1
2014
Year 2
2015
Year 3
2016
Year 4
2017
Year 5
2018
Year 6
2019
Year 7
2020
UT2 Flow Gauges (Installed March 21, 2014)
SCFL1
71
43
83
63
152
84
-
206
224
328
363
SCFL2
64
43
84
60
121
84
-
201
232
204
270
SCFL3
61
25
86
35
63
84
-
174
203
287
328
SCFL4
24
j 17
j 46
29*
20
T 59
-
118
124
j 86
j 146
UT3 Flow Gauges (Installed July 17, 2015)
SCFLS
57
44
62
30
57
74
NA
174
162
79
214
SCFL6
5
42
62
30
35
60
NA
116
180
191
214
UT2 Flow Gauge (Installed June 6, 2018)3
SCFL7
NA
NA
NA
NA
60
84
NA
NA
NA
NA
162
Notes:
'Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
*SCFL4 also recorded a 28 -day consecutive flow event in 2017, in addition to the 29 -day flow event shown above.
3SCFL7 was installed June 6th 2018 to gather additional flow data for upper UT2.
Success Criteria per St. Clair Creek Mitigation Plan: "A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days. Two surface water flow events
must be documented within a five-year monitoring period; otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in separate years. The automated gauges should
document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow.."
Note: MY6 2019 results are just preliminary through the most recent March 26 download date.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

INTERNATIONAL
Meeting Minutes
St. Clair RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS Project ID. 95015
DWR Project# 13-0739, Beaufort County
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Tar-Parmlico River Basin: 03020104-040040
Date Prepared:
May 20, 2019
Meeting Date, Time,
May 16, 2019, 10:30 am
Location:
On-site (Beaufort County, NC)
USACE — Kim Browning
DMS —Jeff Schaffer, Jeremiah Dow, Melanie Allen
Attendees:
DWR — Erin Davis
WRC—Travis Wilson, Maria Dunn
Baker— Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan
Subject:
Credit release site walkover with IRT
Recorded By:
Drew Powers
An on-site meeting was held on May 16`", 2019 at 10:30 am to discuss St.Clair Restoration Project (Full
Delivery) in Beaufort County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Discuss credits to be released and to get ready for project closeout; and
2. Identify and discuss potential concerns/issues based on field observations.
General recent weather conditions have been hot and dry in the area.
UT2
The group met at the entrance of the path leading to the site off Peoples Road in Bath, NC. A general
site overview and map orientation was provided and discussed. The group then started walking into the
site near monitoring well 5 where Melanie and Erin took a soil sample within the wetland boundary. The
soils showed mottling and developing hydric features. The group walked upstream.
Both Kim and Erin questioned if the site had previous supplemental planting due to the height of some
of the trees they encountered. Katie replied that there had been supplemental planting (40
containerized plants were installed in early 2019). Erin mentioned that the vigor of the trees looked
good for the most part and noticed an effort to control the pine tree population. Kim mentioned, with
the surrounding pine tree population, that the elimination of all pine trees is inevitable but was glad to
see that efforts have been made. Another soil sample was taken near monitoring well 2. Melanie and
Erin both were more pleased with the results of this sample as it showed more distinct hydric indicators.

The group continued up UT2 towards flow gauge 3. As a group, we inspected the stream area looking at
signs of water, flow, veg, and overall conditions of the stream. The stream was dry but had evidence of
water and the group all agreed that water flows in this area. Katie shared all the flow gauges have
already met 30 days of continuous flow this year (2019) and the Mitigation Plan's success criteria calls
for two years with 30 consecutive days to be accepted. At this time the group separated and headed up
to the main area of concern flow gauges 4 and 7. Along the way, Jeff referenced the coastal headwater
streams guidance and how bed and bank formation is not the design for this Rosgen DA stream type.
Kim seemed to recall the Mitigation Plan stating that and agreed with the design. She said she was more
concerned with the flow of the water and amount of water that was moving through the system. Jeff
mentioned that he has visited the site on many occasions and it typically has wet channel conditions
with water up to his ankles. As the group made it to flow gauge 7 they noticed a small hole in the ground
about 1" in diameter about 6" downstream of the gauge, that some believed could be tampering with
the results. Both Kim and Travis questioned our results of 84 consecutive days as of March 26th this year
considering how different flow gauge 7 and 3 were from each other. Travis mentioned that it might be
appropriate to check the gauges and confirm that the gauges are reading properly. The group then
headed to flow gauge 4 still looking at veg and channel condition. Melanie and Erin took another soil
sample right by the gauge and confirmed the hydric soils and could see a difference in the wetland soils
compared to the stream soils. Out of curiosity Erin took a soil sample on the floodplain outside of the
Swale. This confirmed that these soils were upland and much different than both the stream and
wetlands previous. This concluded the UT2 portion of the walk through and the group decided to
continue to UT3.
UT3
The group congregated at the top of UT3 at monitoring well 8 to orient themselves with the map and
discuss the area. Erin mentioned that the veg looked good and could notice pine and sweetgum
removal. Maria and Travis began looking at the ditches in the easement and outside the easement while
Jeremiah, Erin, and Melanie took a soil sample by monitoring well 7. The soils were dry but showed good
hydric indicators throughout the soil. After this the group fast tracked to the culverts at the bottom of
UT3 to look for flow and culvert placement. On the way, Erin asked Drew if invasive have been treated
and he replied that no invasive species have been an issue on this site. Once the group got to the culvert
they made there way in the stream towards flow gauge 5. Kim saw no issues with the gauge or stream
and Travis was fine with the culverts. This concluded the UT3 walk through.
This concluded the walkover and below are a few notes that were discussed back at the vehicles before
departure.
Erin summarized soils:
- soils look better than expected, seeing hydric indicators except near veg plot 5 which was
showing mottling and developing hydric indicators.
- dark surface soil
- wetlands were a sandy/loam and the reach turned silt
- stream soils differed from the wetland and upland soils
Travis commented:
- flow gauges should be checked for proper installation and maintenance to make sure they
are accurately matching the onsite evidence of flow
Kim's summary:

USACE will be looking for a stream JD at close out. UT3 looks OK; however, the upper
section of UT2 is questionable.
- Ditch manipulations from the adjacent ag fields (currently drained and being maintenance)
may not be helping the site.
- Vegetation along UT3 does not look like a wetland with evidence of black berry and ant hills.
Soils do appear to be wetting.
- Some of the vegetation onsite is a little short. There is a strong pine seed source, but
Michael Baker has worked on the population on-site.
- Release:
o At risk at top of UT2, recommend holding.
o Wetlands held at MY 3 and 4, OK with releasing this year.
o Melanie will make a recommendation for release.
This represents Baker Engineering's best interpretation of the meeting discussions. If anyone 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.
Most sincerely,
Andrew Powers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Conservation Easement
Drainage Modification Installed 2016 (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale)
Drainages Filled (March 2016)
Drainage Not Filled
A Photo Points
O Groundwater Monitoring Wells (All Passed)
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria (with MY5 Stem Densities)
Temporary Vegetation Transects (with Stem Densities)
Wetland Restoration Areas (2.87 acres total)
Potential New Wetland Restoration Areas (1.05 acres total)
Veg Plot 1:
567 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
653 stems/ac
UT 2
Veg Plot 2:
647 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
653 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
435 stems/ac
The potential wetland areas shown here are not being
requested for credits at this time and were not originally
provided in the mitigation plan. Baker is conducting
exploratory monitoring in these areas only.
Survey / Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2018 & Jan 2019
Aerial Photo Date: 2016
Veg Plot 5:
567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 3:
688 stems/ac
0.26 acres
O Flow Gauge Meeting Criteria
• Flow Gauge Not Meeting Criteria
As -Built Streams
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Credit
Buffer Zone A: 0-50 ft (226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio = 226,002 BMUs)
Buffer Zone B: 51-100 ft (137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio = 137,575 BMUs)
UT 3
Veg Transect:
580 stems/ac
Veg Plot 9:au
Ga #6
688 stems/ac scAW�4 9 Veg Plot 8:
486 stems/ac
Veg Plot 4:PP21
647 stems/ac O Y Veg Transect:
Veg Plot 7: scaw7 471 stems/ac
890 stems ac
Veg Plot 6:
364 stems/ac
0.13 acres
0.66 acres
0 250 500 Figure 2
BakerMichael Feet ACurrent Conditions Plan View: MY5
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services St. Clair Creek Site
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Project # 95015 N Beaufort County, NC