20141024 Ver 1_Site Meeting Minutes_6-11-19_20190621

INTERNATIONAL
Meeting Minutes
UT to TOWN RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS Project ID. 94648
NC DEQ Contract# 003277
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin: 03040105060040
Date Prepared:
June 13, 2019
Meeting Date, Time,
June 11, 2019, 2:00 PM
Location:
On-site (Stanly County, NC)
USACE — Todd Tugwell, Steve Kichefski
DWR — Mac Haupt
Attendees:
DMS — Matthew Reid, Paul Wiesner
Baker— Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan, Scott King
Subject:
Credit release site walkover with IRT
Recorded By:
Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan, Scott King
An on-site meeting was held on June 11th, 2019 at 2:00 PM to discuss UT to Town Restoration Project
(Full Delivery) in Stanly 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 for several weeks in the area apart from a few
recent afternoon showers.
The group met at the entrance of the path leading to the site off Old Salisbury Road (in the middle of the
project) in Albemarle, NC. A general site overview and map orientation was provided and discussed.
Reach 4
The group then started walking into the site towards the top of Reach 4 to discuss the intermittent flow
and overall condition of the wetland BMP. Upon assessing Reach 4 it was noted that there was minimum
vegetation growing in the stream bed and sediment is being flushed out of the system. Mac, Todd, and
Steve discussed with Scott that it will be helpful to install either a flow gauge or flow camera to help
document the flow of Reach 4 and 5, about % of the way up each reach.
We then walked up the reach to look at the BMP. It was commented that the concrete level spreaders
are no longer the preferred method for BMP outlets, but that it appears to be functioning well. There
was a significant amount of clear, standing water present within the deep pool section of the BMP. No
gullies or rills were observed flowing into the BMP, and established vegetation is present all around the
BMP. Upon observation in this low-water condition the group did not feel the functioning of the BMP
was threatened by excess sedimentation and no maintence was suggested. The group did express some

concern that the BMP was fairly deep, and that it may be reducing the amount of water flowing into its
downstream system.
We then walked downstream to the confluence of Reaches 4 and 5 to look at the flow gauge and it the
stream condition. There was no water present in the stream, but staining on the PVC pipe and
streambed along with a general lack of streambed vegetation implies that water is routinely in the
channel.
Reach 6
The group congregated at the pipe crossing where Travis Wilson (WRC) had a concern with the
installation of the pipe. In the as -built plans it was noted that the pipe was installed on top of bedrock;
and therefore the pipe is perched above the downstream water surface. DMS, USACE, and DWR all
agreed that there is not much that we can do about the situation now and that resetting the pipe would
not be needed. It was also commented that for future sites that a bottomless pipe could be a good
option, though the general consensus was that in this specific case it does not appear that would have
helped as the native bedrock in this section appears to be naturally perched in this location. The group
continued down the reach to the confluence of Reach 6 and 3.
Reach 3
When looking at Reach 3 it was commented that the vegetation looked good, especially for the slate
belt region. It was apparent that many of the trees were growing with good height for a 4 -year project
and the smaller trees were ones that were supplemental planted in 2018. A bare area located on the
left bank at the bottom of Reach 3 was noted in the MY3 report shown as a vegetation problem area
(VPA). We commented that we have reseeded and replanted it and will continue to monitor this area.
Mac took a soil sample on the left flood plain in a wetland area upstream of the confluence with Reach 6
and down to —6 inches did not see the expected hydric soils. He commented that we will need to revisit
the site and do a thorough inspection of our wetland boundaries prior to closeout, adjusting the exact,
final boundaries to our field assessments. Mac pointed out that final boundaries may have shifted some
and pointed out areas that looked wetter near where he took his soil boring. Todd then inspected
nearby Well 5 and saw no issues with the installation of the well and measured 11 inches to water
surface in the well. Mac did another soil sample near the well and saw very hydric soils throughout the
sample. Paul stated that the well success criteria is 9% and all wells for this site have met that criteria for
all monitoring years. We then walked upstream to the double culverts located at the break of Reach 2
and 3 where Todd and Mac commented that they did not like how wide the downstream section of
channel was constructed and asked this be avoided in the future. However, we showed that both the
construction and as -built plans indicated it was built as designed and the stream was stable. It was
noted that this section of channel is all bedrock.
Paul Wiesner pointed out that problem areas of invasive species (privet and parrot feather) were noted
in the MY3 report, primarily along sections of the main channel. We replied that two treatment efforts
have been made so far this year starting in March 2019 to address all invasive species throughout the
site, and we plan to continue to monitor and treat these species for the life of the project.
Reach 7
The group then headed to Reach 7 to inspect the intermittent channel and wetland BMP. Towards the
middle of the reach water was flowing in the channel with good vegetation establishing along the banks

and within the buffer. We then walked to the top of the reach to the BMP. Harry had commented on
the MY3 report that he had observed turbid water and potential sedimentation following a rain event
during his winter inspection, and asked how Michael Baker planned to monitor the BMP for any
potential maintenance needs. The group inspected the BMP under the current, low water -level
conditions and noted that the there is only a small amount of sediment (roughly 6" of a primarily
silt/clay material) captured in the deeper pool portion of the BMP. The standing water that was present
at the bottom of the pool was quite turbid. However, after observation in this low-water condition the
group did not feel the functioning of the BMP was threatened by excess sedimentation and no
maintence was suggested at this time. No gullies or rills were observed flowing into the BMP, and
established vegetation is present all around the BMP. Scott explained that both of the project BMPs
were designed to a depth in anticipation of some sedimentation for the period after construction before
vegetation could establish when some amount of erosion can usually be expected. Scott also
mentioned that we will keep an eye on the sedimentation/fill and confirm that ample storage room is
maintained within both of the project BMP's. We can do that through visual inspections in the dry
season when remaining storage capacity can be directly observed. The group also expressed some
concern that the BMP may be reducing the amount of water flowing into its downstream system,
though given the flowing water observed in the channel downstream this was not as much of a concern
here.
Paul brought up that it was noted on the MY3 report that a tree or two was down on Reach 1 and we
confirmed that they have been cleaned up and that all fencing is in good condition.
This concluded the walkover and below are a few notes that were discussed back at the vehicles before
departure.
- Credit release: Todd and Mac agreed to all credits being released for MY3
- A gauge or flow camera should be installed on Reach 4 and 5 (about % of the way up)
- The wetland boundaries need to be re-evaluated to represent the actual boundaries in the
field, particularly with regard to hydric soil formation
- The pipe crossing on Reach 6 is sufficient
- A photo point of each project culvert location will be added to the monitoring report
This represents Michael 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]