20130412 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20130513

-Ot�
13 May 2013 -Notes for Hoosier (Woody) and Lower Swepsonville Dam Removal Projects
Present -Todd Tugwell, Jean Gibby, Andy Williams, Monte Matthews -USACE
Kathy Matthews, Emily Jernigan and Sarah McCrae - USFWS
Shari Bryant & Travis -NCWRC
Eric Kulz and Sue Homewood -NC D W Q
Wildlands Engineering -John Hutton & Mike Fowler
Delores Hall -SHPO
Todd Bowers - EPA - online
Monte opened the meeting mentioning that John will review the two draft proposals and
hopefully today will provide a venue in which to discuss issues and concerns.
Monte passed around the mitigation banking rule timelines -this stage (draft) allows us to look at
the project and the next big decision point is Point 2 to modify and send out the Prospectus, then
we will get comments back from the IRT to decide whether the mitigation proposal is acceptable
to offset 404 permit impacts.
Chair -Monte for the Hoosier Dam
Delores Hall -both banks; Eric Kulz -NCDWQ -will be involved with both and Sue will be
primary for Alamance -copy both though please; Travis Wilson -here on the statewide
consistency -Shari main POC; John Hutton - primary POC -but Mike is also POC; Shari Bryant -
both projects; Todd Tuggwell- consistency; Jean Gibby- consistency -Andy Williams -Chair for
Swepsonville -Kathy Matthews - Swepsonville; Emily Jernigan- Swepsonville; Sarah McCrae -POC
with USFWS for ES
Rosemary Hall -dam removal specialist for NC -Todd Bowers mentioned that she might be as
much as a POC as Todd will be.
John Hutton -plan for today - background on the company- presentation is split into two - Hoosier
and then Lower Swepsonville
With the dam removal guidance having been rescinded, looking at being on their own, no
preconceived notions on credit determination and look forward to

2007 - formed- offices in Charlotte, Raleigh and Charlottesville; EEP full delivery- 78,000 stream
mitigation units; 110 wetland mitigation units, 25 buffer units
Hoosier (Woody) Dam - Chatham County - upstream of confluence with the Deep River, dust south
of Siler City /Pittsboro area, constructed of concrete slab and buttrice dam constructed in the
early 1900 - 1910 +s, run of river and has an active power generation -FERC licensed surrendered
in 2012 Working with Chatham 132 is the sponsor on this project.
- Reeves Lake - impounds about 1600- ft of the Rocky River and 6,365 ft on six perennial streams -
verified with canoe trip - visual assessment was a bit further upstream than what was depicted by
lidar. Going forward into the project, is actually nailing down the elevations FWS knows that
Cape Fear Shiner is just below the dam in Bear Creek and there is a population upstream of the
dam. Pittsboro /Goldston Road is critical habitat -edge is very close to critical habitat Reeves
Lake is 303(d) listed due to Chlorophyll a Lots needs to be done to look as sediment volume,
toxicity, etc They know that there are a number of things to deal with
If you looked as lidar, you went from the top of the dam to and lidar can't penetrate through
much water. Elevation seemed to cross at a reasonable elevation with lidar and went about
another 1000 foot upstream where water was free flowing above a rocky outcrop. Crest of the
dam (25') on the downstream and ran that point across the waterbody until it was noticed where
there was flowing water Critical habitat is upstream and downstream of the dam and it matches
closely with 303(d) listed in the GIS layer Eric -how does it list -lists in acres -may have been
listed in river miles, but John would have to verify. Andy -crest of the dam or crest of the
spillway -this one was the crest of the dam and not the powerhouse John looking for the edges of
impoundment
Pink area on map is the USFWS is critical habitat and yellow is mapped critical habitat Reeves
Lake separates two critical habitat areas for the federally endangered Cape Fear Shiner and the
critical habitat ends at the Pittsboro /Goldston Road, 2012 303(d) list of impaired waters for
chlorophyll a
Sarah open water habitat would extend about a kilometer from the known critical habitat (as how
Heritage Program would establish)
Eric K. -Are the tributaries perennial based upon drainage areas - looking for 20 acres or greater
and looked at tributaries during field reconnaissance. Recommend that the IRT review the
streams to ensure that they are intermittent /perennial and when do folks want to see the limits of
the extent of the impoundment Monte and Andy would like to field verify prior to the final
submittal of Corps comments on the Prospectus. Late June- possibly-

Just immediately upstream of the dam, it extends into the areas outside of the run of the river and
about 1000 feet upstream gets back into the river run.
In working through the purchase of the dam, coordinated with the owners and were able to look
at when site was dewatered for repairs during and can see old top of surface bank -way that they
see the phasing - dewatermg- revegetating and with working hydro - gates -get good seed and trees
vegetated along areas following dewatering. Once dewatered, lost of potential for bank
sloughing
With Hoosier Dam, with what was conveyed with that property is another dam 4,000 feet
upstream of the existing dam - essentially rubble and it was exposed during dewatermg and repair
work When Hoosier Dam was built, the older dam was conveyed as part of it Believe it was an
old mill dam, but John doesn't know for sure and they would be doing a Phase I Survey for this
Goals of Bank
- Restore passage for aquatic species
- Restore natural flow regime
- Restore currently inundatd shallow water habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner and other aquatic
species
- Restore sediment supply and transport
- Improve water quality on 303(d) listed river reach
The owner will be working on preserving land along the river for conservation purposes and will
be working along areas outside of the Rocky River proper
John asked Sarah about habitat for the shiner and she mentioned that sediment might not be
issues with regard to sediment starved situations versus ensuring that sediment Monte
mentioned that our scope of analysis will likely increase to a distance downstream
Eric K - concerns would be with fines
Monte -know that we don't have the dam removal guidance directly since it has been rescinded,
then we hate to abandon it altogether John Hutton primarily focused on the ES habitat. Monte
summarized to recouch the goals to similarities from the old guidance
Eric K -to be consistent would there be other research pertaining to functional uplift with
macrobenthos -John what do we want to see - particular guidance -know that they will have to deal
with aquatic fish and mussel surveys and looking forward to the team

Monte -need to do the JD upstream -John wanted to get the project in front of the team -full
topographic survey in the impoundment to determine level of sediments -Tier 1 and 2 for toxicity
in the sediments, restore appropriate habitat, reference condition up and downstream of dam,
early phases of the stream removal, John mentioned looking at rocky, boulder habitat
downstream - topographic issues and where can these areas be mimicked upsteam. Travis
mentioned that they might have some habitat John hasn't done the Tier 1 for contamination and
they will coordinate with Tom Ausberger and he can contract out for other work and John will
have to investigate how to engage Tom and the USFWS. Doesn't appear to a large sediment
wedge, but considering the time, there is bound to be some sediment accumulating
-John
Restoration Activities
1. Dewater Reeves Lake
2 Implement Sediment removal plan
3 Stabilize and restore historic floodplain and river banks
4 Remove Hoosier Dam, powerhouse facility., and historic rock dam (approx. 4,000 ft )
upstream of Hoosier Dam
5 Restore shallow water habitat
6 Continue efforts to protect and restore riparian buffer
-John would like to put it into an Umbrella Bank-
Travis questioned about the dewatering and replanting -timing -might end up with lots of water if
structure in place and could wind up with a considerable amount of woody debris John might let
herbaceous veggies establish and then remove dam Those that have been removed previously -
have had a considerably number of invasive and this project proponent has a considerable
amount of staff dedicated to invasive removal
Service Area -Cape Fear 03030003 -would like to extend to Cape Fear 03030004
(downstream) little development in the 03 -John does it seem like a reasonable proposal at this
point Sue mentioned that below Randleman might would be more appropriate; Eric Kulz right at
the bottom of the watershed What did you use to draw the line -Level 3 Ecoregion -not
necessarily a lot of projects. Monte - typically, we do it on a case -by -case basis, Todd - anytime we
go outside of the 8 -digit HUC, we would have to offer it to other developers -lots of other
providers should be allowed to go to a secondary service area (logistical issues and laws that
interfere) We don't have anything that currently services Cape Fear 04 Todd -not a simple
decision to make for one bank. John is putting that out as their proposal and if USACE choses a

different route, then we will work through those issues Service areas is justified by ecological
uplift and not necessarily by HUCs, etc. for purposes of USFWS.
Possible credits -total 22,425 with 16060 on the Rocky River -Trib. 1 -680, 2; 1,345, Trib. 3- 1,130,
Tnb 4 -1375, Trib 5 -1230; Trib 6 -605 all at 1.1 ratios with a 15% reduction (3,360)= 19,065
SMU
Emily concern with main river getting the same credits are the main river -photo came from the
larger tributary -some tributaries are so small that they would be an incised cut Travis an
important issue to capture and don't make the assumption that the tributary will perform as the
river once restored Past projects have had difficulty with this issue.
- Concern don't drain wetlands systems -Jean Gibby recommended that the delineation be
performed prior to IRT JD review is to delineate the wetlands up and downstream of the dam, as
well as what is in the impoundment to know where the wetlands are; assign credits to each
benchmark to receive credits.
With a project with ES, the project can still be authorized by a NWP, provided the ES
consultation is complete and resolved.
Recommend following the MBI as your template for your Prospectus and recognize that if your
document is prepared well enough, then you would be able to utilize the document for both your
PN for Prospectus and for your IP application, if needed.
Likely to have a formal consultation -Sarah and Emily stated yes, most likely -BA and then BO-
might can work on some ideas -work on preparing for the worst, but hope for the best
Owner of Lower Swepsonville, Alamance County, NC
Swepsonville- intercepted level was less on this project than LiDAR, down in Feb 2013 Limits
of impoundment