20190869 Ver 1_Post-Contract site notes for review_20190729

Strickland, Bev
From: Crocker, Lindsay
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 10:51 AM
To: Kim Browning; Wilson, Travis W.; Haupt, Mac; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Davis, Erin B
Cc: Smith, Christopher; Smith, Ryan ([e-mail]); Furr, Benjamin
Subject: Morton Farms Post -Contract site notes for review (#100117)
Attachments: 2019_07_29_MortonFarm_IRT_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
IRT members present at the Morton Farms post -contract site visit:
Please review the attached minutes from the site walk. Let us know if we can save these in the project files as final or if
you have any additional comments. Thanks,
Lindsay
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603
Office 919.707.8944
Cell 919.594.3910
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
1

Meeting Minutes
Project: Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS # 100117)
Subject: IRT Post Contract Site Visit
Date: Monday, July 29, 2019
Location: On -Site, Granville County
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE) Kim Browning (USACE)
Travis Wilson (WRC) Erin Davis (DWR)
Mac Haupt (DWR) Lindsay Crocker (DMS)
Jamie Blackwell (DMS) Michael Foster (HDR)
Ryan Smith (HDR) Ben Furr (HDR)
Chris Smith (HDR)
The IRT Post Contract Meeting for the Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site was held at
1:30 PM on Monday, July 15, 2019 at the project site in Granville County. The following represents
highlights of discussions that occurred during the site visit:
1. Chris Smith gave a synopsis of the project site to begin the meeting.
2. The IRT indicated the drainage areas for some of the tributaries are small. However, as HDR
pointed out, two of the small DA tributaries are spring fed (UT 3 and UT 5).
a. During site visit UT Fox Creek, UT 1, UT 3, UT 4 and UT 5 had either flowing water or
standing water in the channels. Temperatures have consistently been in the 90's with
low rainfall leading up to the site visit.
3. The IRT requested if the landowner would consider changing the proposed ford crossing
replacements into culverted crossings to keep the cattle out of the channel. HDR explained that
this had been discussed with the landowner, however there was long term maintenance
concerns with the owner, therefore the owner required a ford crossing.
a. IRT asked if cattle would have open access to the ford crossings. HDR answered that
gates will be installed at the crossings to keep cattle out of stream.
4. The IRT mentioned that the site proposal indicated a 5% hydroperiod for wetland restoration
(rehab and re-establishment). IRT indicated that hydroperiods should be based on 2016
guidance for soils.

S. If buffers are going to be proposed on this Site, the IRT prefers that the buffer plan be submitted
in conjunction with the mitigation plan. HDR and DMS indicated that there is no guarantee for
buffer credits to be produced on the site, therefore there is no guarantee that a buffer plan will
be in place at the point at which the site mitigation plan is submitted.
6. Todd and Mac asked why the project does not extend all the way to the upstream property
boundary. HDR indicated that this would be preferred, however the credit requirements for the
DMS RFP were not large enough to include all stream footage within the site.
Site Walk
7. Travis requested that special attention is paid to the sediment and erosion control plan during
construction in an effort to protect the many listed species on Fox Creek.
8. UT2 Discussion: HDR has proposed that the channel is at least intermittent. The IRT expressed
concerns over the jurisdictional status of UT 2. HDR will obtain a PJD on UT 2 (and all
streams/existing wetlands on site). If the PJD verifies that the channel is at least intermittent,
then stream enhancement will be proposed for UT 2. Appropriate enhancement measures were
discussed amongst all during the site walk. Potential enhancement measures discussed included
the following ideas:
a. Establishing bedform diversity,
b. Inclusion of woody materials (i.e. woody riffles),
c. Exclusionary cattle fencing,
d. Buffer plantings,
e. Establishment of in -channel BMP's (i.e. stormwater wetland). However, there is a
discussion of if the channel is intermittent, could a BMP be placed in-line.
9. W3: Mac suggested HDR consider plugging a drainage swell at the downstream extent of W3 in
an effort to increase surface water retainage within UT Fox Creek's floodplain, which could be a
functional lift when compared with existing conditions.
10. W4 and W5: Mac and HDR took soil plugs between UT 2 and W4. Mac agreed that soils in this
area were hydric and could be considered for restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation).
Further detail of soil boundaries will be provided in the mitigation plan.
11. Currently the upstream most ford crossing is higher than UT Fox Creek's stream grade, which is
causing a significant backwater effect in the channel. Mac asked if this problem would be
addressed. HDR confirmed that a new ford crossing at stream grade would be installed which
would remove the current impediment to natural flows.
12. Mac and Todd suggested installing gauges in areas of proposed wetland re-establishment and
rehabilitation. These gauges could be installed at a depth of 24"-30".
a. HDR noted that the timeframe of data collection prior to the submittal of the mitigation
plan will be limited.
13. W9: Mac and HDR took soil plugs between UT 3 and W9. Mac suggested that there is the
potential that wetland restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation) may be argued for in the
mitigation plan for this area.
14. Was a discussion between many IRT members and HDR that there is a significant amount of
sweetgum within the proposed easement. HDR indicated that there may be several sweetgum
removed during construction in an effort to thin the sweetgum stands out and use the woody
material in stream structures.

15. UT 5: there was a discussion that UT 5 may warrant some form of restoration or EI within the
easement. HDR indicated that UT 5 may be modified (i.e. channel raised/stabilized) during
construction to meet the invert elevation of the restored (Priority 1) channel of UT Fox Creek.
16. Was a general discussion at the end of the site walk that there are many opportunities for water
quality uplift within both streams and wetlands at the Site.
17. Members of the IRT agreed with the overall mitigation approach and ratios for the project.
Details will be presented and finalized in the Mitigation Plan.