20131305 Ver 1_Closeout Buffer Summary_20200615

ID#* 20131305 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 06/15/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/15/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Melonie Allen
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20131305
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Agony Acres
County: Guilford
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Closeout Report
File Upload: Agony Acres Buffer Summary.pdf 11.71 MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Melonie Allen
Signature:*

NC DMS Closeout Report Project
Type: Buffer Mitigation
Closeout Year: 2020
Project Name Agony Acres Mitigation Site
DMS Project ID 95716
Full Delivery Contract # 004949
Institution/Contract Date 12/4/2012
Basin Cape Fear
8-digit CU 03030002
County Guilford
Memo or W.S. calculation
Date Planted 12/2014
Date of Supplemental Plant 12/2016
Protection mechanism Agony Acres Property Portfolio
Easement Acreage 30.77
Stewards DEQ Stewardship
Encroachments & Resolution 2018 NCDOT Sockwell Bridge replacement;
no impact to buffer credits
Accepted for transfer to
stewardship
Y – 3/12/2018
Applicabl Buffer Rule (s) CF02: 15A NCAC 02B.0267
NaNon-Diffuse Flow Area Removed
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 6,107.3** 361 N/A N/A N/A N/A 130,680 N/A
As-Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach Mitigation
Ratio
Credits (SMU/
WMU/BMU)
100+00 to 100+14 40** EII --- ---
100+14 to 103+62;
103+93 to 111+24 1,053** EII 2.5 421.2**
103+62 to 103+93 31 EII --- ---
111+24 to 122+38 1,039 P1 1 1,114
122+38 to 123+31 93 EI 1.5 62
123+31 to 128+50;
129+06 to 137+37 1,350 5 270
128+50 to 129+06 56 --- ---
137+37 to 140+92 355 EII 2.5 142
140+92 to 142+66;
143+20 to 144+06 260 EI 1.5 173
142+66 to 143+20 54 EI --- ---
144+06 to 149+65;
150+20 to 158+94 1,355 P1/2 1 1,433
149+65 to 150+20 65 P1 --- ---
200+00 to 200+05 5 P1 --- ---
200+05 to 202+64;
203+04 to 208+49 738 P1 1 804
202+64 to 203+04 32 P1 --- ---
208+49 to 211+41 292 EII 2.5 117
211+41 to 215+98 457 5 91
215+98 to 216+28 30 EII --- ---
216+28 to 222+78 461 P1 1 650
300+00 to 302+19 243 P1 1 219
400+00 to 404+16;
404+67 to 410+23 975 P1 1 972
404+16 to 404+67 53 P1/2 --- ---
--- --- ---1 130,680
Buffer
(acres)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
- -3.0 -
- -- -
- -
- --
- --
N/A: not applicable
**Values updated during MY4 to account for DOT culvert replacement project.
* Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines as stated in the approved Mitigation Plan for
Monitoring Year 3 after discusions with NC IRT.
UT2
UT2
(Easement Break)
N/A
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Enhancement
UT1-Reach 1
(Easement Break)
UT1-Reach 2
UT1A-Reach 3
(Easement Break)
Reach ID
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
51
Preservation
Enhancement
(No Credit)
Enhancement
Enhancement
(No Credit)
COMPONENT SUMMATION
UT1A-Reach 1
(DOT ROW)
UT1-Reach 4
(Easement Break)
UT1A-Reach 1
(Easement Break)
UT1-Reach 2
UT1-Reach 3
UT1-Reach 4
UT1-Reach 4
UT1-Reach 5
-
Restoration
Preservation 1,807 -
Enhancement
(No Credit)
Restoration
UT1A-Reach 4
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
Enhancement I 353
Enhancement II 1,700**
--
Creation
Restoration 5,192
Enhancement
-
-
UT1A-Reach 2
Restoration
Restoration
(No Credit)
Restoration
(No Credit)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non-Riparian Wetland
(acres)
UT1-Reach 5
(Easement Break)
Restoration
Restoration
Enhancement
(No Credit)
Restoration
(No Credit)
UT1B
Enhancement
UT1A-Reach 3
Restoration
Restoration
(No Credit)
260
54
1,433
55
5
292
Enhancement
40
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.95716)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
MITIGATION CREDITS
STREAMS
PROJECT COMPONENTS
40**
Preservation
(No Credit)
Enhancement
1,053**
Restoration or Restoration
Equivalent
UT1-Reach 1
(DOT ROW)
UT1-Reach 1
457
30
804
31
1,114
355
93
Riparian Buffer Area Restoration 3.0 (130,680 ft2)
1,350
UT1-Reach 3
(Easement Break)
UT1A-Reach 1
56
972
219
650
RW2RW1RW3RW4
UT1B
Reedy Fork
S oc kw e l l R o a d
U
T
2
UT1AReach 1
UT1AReach 2
UT1AReach 3
UT1AReach 4
UT1Reach 1
UT1Reach 2
UT1Reach 3
UT1Reach 4
UT1Reach 5
2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Buffer Restoration
Stream Restora tio n
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Stream Restora tio n - No Credit
Reach Break
Figure 2. Project Com ponent/Asset MapAgony Acres Mitigation S iteDMS Project No. 95716Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
Guilford County, NC
¹0 500250 Feet
RW2RW1RW3RW4
UT1B
S oc kw e l l R o a d
215+00
Sheet 3
Sheet 1
Sheet 2
UT1Reach 1
UT1Reach 2
UT1Reach 3
UT1Reach 4
UT1Reach 5
UT1AReach 4
UT1AReach 3
UT1AReach 1
UT1AReach 2
U
T2
Reedy Fork
101+00400+00150+00220+00210+00205+00200+001 5 9 +0 0
1 5 5 +0 0
405+00145+00140+00
135+00
130+00125+00120+00115+00110+00105+00410+002018 Aerial Photography
Cros s Section (XS)
Reach Break
Stream Re storation
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Stream Re storation - No Credit
Conservation Easement
Buffer Restoration
Vegetation Plots
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View(Key)Agony Acres Mitigation S iteDMS Project No. 95716Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
Guilford County, NC
¹0 500250 Feet
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
RW2RW1RW3RW4
UT1B
S oc kw e l l R o a d
UT1
XS1
X S 3
XS14 UT1Reach 2
UT1Reach 3
UT1Reach 4
UT1Reach 1
101+00145+00140+00
135+00
130+00125+00120+00115+00110+00105+00PP42
PP30
PP32
PP31
PP29
PP28
PP27
PP26
PP25PP21
PP24
PP23
PP22
PP19
PP20
PP18 PP17 PP16
XS4
X S 2
X
S
1
3RG & BT
4
3
2
5
1
2018 Aerial Photography
!A Crest Gage
!A Stream G age
!A Rain Gage & Barot roll (RG & BT)
^_Photo Point (PP)
Cross Sect ion (XS )
Rea ch Break
Stream Restorat ion
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Stream Restorat ion - No C redit
Conservatio n Easem ent
Buffer Restoration
Vegetation Plots
Criterion Not Met
Criterion Met
Multiflora Rose Rem oved (4 .0 9 ac)
Japanese Honeysuckle Rem oved (2 .0 8 ac)
Callery Pear Removed (0.42 ac)
Chinese Privet Removed (3.49)
Figure 3.1. Integrated C urrent Condition Plan View(Sheet 1 of 3)Agony Acres Mitigation S iteDMS Project No. 95716Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
Guilford County, NC
¹0 500250 Feet
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
RW2RW1RW3RW4
U
T
2
215+00
XS5
XS8
XS10
XS11
X S 15UT1AReach 1
UT1AReach 2
UT1AReach 3
UT1AReach 4
R
eedy Fork
UT1Reach 4
UT1Reach 5
400+00150+00220+00210+00205+00200+00159+001 5 5 +0 0
405+00145+00140+00 410+00PP9
PP8
PP5
PP4
PP3
PP2
PP1
PP42 PP41
PP40
PP39
PP38
PP37
PP36
PP35
PP34
PP33
PP17 PP16
PP15
PP14
PP13
PP12
PP11
PP10
XS6XS7XS9X S 1 2
XS16
FG 5
FG 4
FG 3
FG 2
FG 1
9
6
87
12
14
16
13
15
2018 Aerial Photography
!A Crest Gage
!A Stream G age
!A Rain Gage & Barot roll (RG & BT)
^_Photo Point (PP)
Cross Sect ion (XS )
Rea ch Break
Stream Restorat ion
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Stream Restorat ion - No C redit
Beaver Dam Rem oved
Conservatio n Easem ent
Buffer Restoration
Vegetation Plots
Criterion Not Met
Criterion Met
Multiflora Rose Rem oved (4 .0 9 ac)
Japanese Honeysuckle Rem oved (2 .0 8 ac)
Chinese Privet Removed (3.49)
Sweet A utumn Virginsb ower Rem oved (1 .4 5 ac)
Japanese Hops Rem oved (1 .7 3 ac)
Figure 3.2. Integrated C urrent Condition Plan View(Sheet 2 of 3)Agony Acres Mitigation S iteDMS Project No. 95716Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
Guilford County, NC
¹0 500250 Feet
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
!A
RW2RW1RW3RW4
Reedy Fork
XS8
X S 15UT1Reach 5
UT2150+00159+001 5 5 +0 0 410+00PP9
PP8
PP7
PP6
PP5
PP12
PP11
PP10 XS7XS16
9
87
11
10
162018 Aerial Photography
!A Crest Gage
!A Stream G age
!A Rain Gage & Barotroll (RG & BT)
^_Photo Point (PP)
Cross Sect ion (XS)
Rea ch Break
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Stream Restoration - No Credit
Beaver Dam Removed
Conservatio n Easement
Buffer Restoration
Vegetation Plots
Criterion Not Met
Criterion Met
Multiflora Rose Removed (4.09 ac)
Japanese Honeysuckle Removed (2.08 ac)
Chinese Privet Removed (3.49)
Sweet A utumn Virginsbower Removed (1.45 ac)
Japanese Hops Removed (1.73 ac)
Figure 3.3. Integrated C urrent Condition Plan View(Sheet 3 of 3)Agony Acres Mitigation S iteDMS Project No. 95716Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
Guilford County, NC
¹0 500250 Feet
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Agony Acres Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95716)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
13 Y
16 Y
10 N
11 Y
12 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
Tract Mean
1 Y
94%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
14
15
Y
Y
Plot Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
5 Y
6 Y
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all TAcer negundo boxelder TreeAcer rubrumred mapleTreeAilanthus altissimatree of heavenExotic6Alnus serrulatahazel alderShrub111Betula nigrariver birchTree111222333Cornus amomumsilky dogwoodShrubDiospyros virginianacommon persimmonTreeFraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ashTree555444333224222Gleditsia triacanthoshoneylocustTreeIlex opacaAmerican hollyTreeJuglans nigrablack walnutTreeJuniperus virginianaeastern redcedarTreeLiquidambar styracifluasweetgumTree17211Liriodendron tulipiferatuliptreeTree116Nyssa sylvaticablackgumTreePlatanus occidentalisAmerican sycamoreTree3334444413222Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oakTree111111111555Quercus pagodacherrybark oakTree222333111222Quercus phelloswillow oakTree222111222111111Quercus rubranorthern red oakTreeQuercus velutinablack oakTreeRhussumacshrubRhus copallinumflameleaf sumacshrubUlmuselmTree12 12 40 10 10 12 14 14 14 13 13 41 10 10 104465567776684454864861,6194054054865675675675265261,659405405405Color Coding for Table Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in totalPnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,T: Total StemsTable 9. Planted and Total Stem CountsAgony Acres Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95716) Monitoring Year 5 - 20190.0210.02Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.0210.0210.021VP 3 VP 4 VP 5Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)Scientific Name Common Name Species TypeVP 1 VP 2
Acer negundo boxelder TreeAcer rubrumred mapleTreeAilanthus altissimatree of heavenExoticAlnus serrulatahazel alderShrubBetula nigrariver birchTreeCornus amomumsilky dogwoodShrubDiospyros virginianacommon persimmonTreeFraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ashTreeGleditsia triacanthoshoneylocustTreeIlex opacaAmerican hollyTreeJuglans nigrablack walnutTreeJuniperus virginianaeastern redcedarTreeLiquidambar styracifluasweetgumTreeLiriodendron tulipiferatuliptreeTreeNyssa sylvaticablackgumTreePlatanus occidentalisAmerican sycamoreTreeQuercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oakTreeQuercus pagodacherrybark oakTreeQuercus phelloswillow oakTreeQuercus rubranorthern red oakTreeQuercus velutinablack oakTreeRhussumacshrubRhus copallinumflameleaf sumacshrubUlmuselmTreeColor Coding for Table Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in totalPnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,T: Total StemsTable 9. Planted and Total Stem CountsAgony Acres Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95716) Monitoring Year 5 - 2019Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREScientific Name Common Name Species TypePnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T2 2 18 44443333331112223335555521223136944582224533566666141112224441111111111111111111714 14 152 13 13 36 13 13 19 13 13 59 5 5 106694494464464455675676,1515265261,4575265267695265262,38820220240510.0210.0210.0210.0210.02VP 7 VP 8 VP 9 VP 10VP 6Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)
Acer negundo boxelder TreeAcer rubrumred mapleTreeAilanthus altissimatree of heavenExoticAlnus serrulatahazel alderShrubBetula nigrariver birchTreeCornus amomumsilky dogwoodShrubDiospyros virginianacommon persimmonTreeFraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ashTreeGleditsia triacanthoshoneylocustTreeIlex opacaAmerican hollyTreeJuglans nigrablack walnutTreeJuniperus virginianaeastern redcedarTreeLiquidambar styracifluasweetgumTreeLiriodendron tulipiferatuliptreeTreeNyssa sylvaticablackgumTreePlatanus occidentalisAmerican sycamoreTreeQuercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oakTreeQuercus pagodacherrybark oakTreeQuercus phelloswillow oakTreeQuercus rubranorthern red oakTreeQuercus velutinablack oakTreeRhussumacshrubRhus copallinumflameleaf sumacshrubUlmuselmTreeColor Coding for Table Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in totalPnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,T: Total StemsTable 9. Planted and Total Stem CountsAgony Acres Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95716) Monitoring Year 5 - 2019Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREScientific Name Common Name Species TypePnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T961111111111113332223777333222334224100250470432224443315444338711166644422211111122222211111111111111144411512 12 25 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 13 175 11 11 20 11 11 1905575564446685585594864861,0124054055265265265265265267,0824454458094454457,68910.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.02VP 13 VP 14 VP 15VP 11 VP 12VP 16Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)
Acer negundo boxelder TreeAcer rubrumred mapleTreeAilanthus altissimatree of heavenExoticAlnus serrulatahazel alderShrubBetula nigrariver birchTreeCornus amomumsilky dogwoodShrubDiospyros virginianacommon persimmonTreeFraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ashTreeGleditsia triacanthoshoneylocustTreeIlex opacaAmerican hollyTreeJuglans nigrablack walnutTreeJuniperus virginianaeastern redcedarTreeLiquidambar styracifluasweetgumTreeLiriodendron tulipiferatuliptreeTreeNyssa sylvaticablackgumTreePlatanus occidentalisAmerican sycamoreTreeQuercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oakTreeQuercus pagodacherrybark oakTreeQuercus phelloswillow oakTreeQuercus rubranorthern red oakTreeQuercus velutinablack oakTreeRhussumacshrubRhus copallinumflameleaf sumacshrubUlmuselmTreeColor Coding for Table Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in totalPnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,T: Total StemsTable 9. Planted and Total Stem CountsAgony Acres Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95716) Monitoring Year 5 - 2019Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREScientific Name Common Name Species TypePnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T42 1624301068881010111515152626262727271919192121232020202727272828282350507351516752528255555655555511131318512930102017471327474720549492355050115565610156565631313134343435353536363636363616161618181820202025252525252516161616161618181830303030303064010112329187 187 837 199 199 650 210 210 481 255 255 366 257 257 25777167718771377137774734732,1175035031,6445315311,217645645926650650650160.40160.40160.40160.40160.40Annual MeansMY5 (2019) MY3 (2017) MY2 (2016) MY1 (2015) MY0 (2015)
Appendix A: Project Correspondence

Agony Acres Mitigation Site Meeting Notes
12/11/2012 1R site walk, 9:00am
Attendees:
NCEEP Wildlands Engineering
Guy Pearce John Hutton
Perry Sugg Jeff Keaton
Kristie Corson Nicole Macaluso
Jeff Shaffer
DW
USACE Amy Euliss
Todd Tugwell
Tyler Crumbley
John Hutton provided a brief overview of the project and the group began by walking UT1A starting at
the upstream end at the culvert under Sockwell Road (see attached map). The following sections are
listed in the order in which they were reviewed during the site visit.
UT1A - Design approach transitions from restoration to enhancement II to preservation and back to
restoration.
The group began by discussing the perched culvert under Sockwell Road and the restoration
approach. John stated that Wildlands believes a Priority 1 approach will be possible
throughout the first restoration section of UT1A but dependent on the actual culvert
elevation relative to the surrounding floodplain there may be a short Priority 2 transition.
Restoration in this section will also restore numerous side channel seepage wetlands which
are not being claimed for wetland credit. John stated that similar to other projects
Wildlands will save as many trees as possible.
Todd and Tyler were concerned about the jurisdictional call at the very upper end of this
reach but agreed that rainfall had been abnormally low and given the drainage area, this
section would likely be considered jurisdictional. They stated that a jurisdictional
determination would be necessary for this reach. They agreed that restoration was
appropriate for this section dependent on the JD.
Todd mentioned that the crossing on this reach should be located at a straight section in the
stream and not immediately upstream of a bend.
The group discussed the exact location for the break between restoration and enhancement
II. This transition point will be determined based on the final survey.
The group discussed the plan for the enhancement II section which will include cattle
removal, some minor bank grading work, and some minor buffer replanting. Todd, Tyler,
and Amy agreed that enhancement II was appropriate for this section and recognized the
poor habitat quality due to cattle impacts.
The group discussed the preservation section which everyone agreed was high quality other
than some minor cattle access and probable water quality stressors from upstream cattle
impacts. Todd mentioned that cattle should be specified as a demonstrable threat in the
mitigation'plan to justify preservation. Todd also asked that Wildlands try to maximize
buffer width under the easement to provide additional protection. Todd, Tyler, and Amy
agreed that this section would be at a 5:1 ratio due to threat and project continuity,
particularly if buffer widths can be maximized.
The group also noted.that invasives did not seem to be problematic in this reach.
J
The group reviewed the downstream restoration section and agreed that the fact that the
channel had been straightened and was incised with active bank erosion justified
restoration.
Todd asked if the preservation reach would be used as a reference condition and John
stated that while it was very useful for dimension (discharge estimate) the preservation
reach was much steeper and would not provide useful pattern information.
Perry stated that restoring this reach through a Priority 1 approach would be critical and
would reconnect the stream to several floodplain wetland pockets.
UT1 (preservation and enhancement II sections above UT1A confluence)- Design approach will involve
a combination of enhancement II and preservation.
John explained that the enhancement II approach would involve fencing out cattle,
removing invasives which are more prevalent in this reach, planting riparian buffers, and
repairing banks in a few locations. The group discussed whether this section was incised
and could benefit from an enhancement I approach. John stated that Wildlands would
explore this option but generally felt like bank height ratios were close to 1.0. Todd agreed
that he wasn't particularly concerned about frequent out of bank events in that geomorphic
setting.
Perry mentioned that pre- emergent control would likely be necessary to control
competition in that section. Herbicides cannot be used on some portions of the property
which are organic farms but this particular reach is not under that restriction.
The group discussed the preservation section which everyone agreed was high quality other
than an existing road which impacts the riparian buffer. Similar to the other preservation
section, Todd asked that Wildlands try to maximize buffer width under the easement to
provide additional protection. Todd, Tyler, and Amy agreed that this section would be at a
5:1 ratio due to threat and project continuity, particularly if buffer widths can be maximized.
Reedy Fork — Proposed design approach involves buffer restoration.
John explained that the section of Reedy Fork proposed for buffer restoration is a significant
natural heritage area (aquatic habitat). He stated that cattle would be fenced out and the
buffer would be replanted. Amy agreed that this section was appropriate for buffer
restoration.
Y.
UT1 (downstream restoration section) - Design approach involves primarily Priority 1 restoration,
partially through a wooded section, with a short Priority 2 tie in to Reedy Fork.
The group began by discussing the wooded restoration section immediately downstream of
the confluence with UT1A. John gave an overview of the restoration approach which would
involve a Priority 1 restoration while preserving trees to the greatest extent possible. John
described the change in channel dimension at the property line near the confluence of UT1
and UT1A where top of bank cross sectional area increases from 30 ft2 to 130 ft2. Todd
agreed that the reach was incised and overly wide but was concerned about restoration in a
wooded area particularly when the stream bed was in good condition and some minor
bankfull bench features were evident. John agreed that they had the same internal debate
on the appropriate approach but in the end felt that trying to stabilize the channel in place
was riskier, produced less ecological uplift, and disconnected the project in terms of
function.
Todd agreed that this approach would be appropriate if Wildlands surveyed all trees over 6
Alf
inches dbh in this section, designed the channel to avoid tree loss and save the overstory,
highlight the construction approach in the mitigation plan, and conduct macroinvertebrate
sampling pre- and post- restoration. The macroinvertebrate results would not be tied to
credit generation but would be more informational. Todd mentioned that while it wouldn't
apply to this project, the Corps may look at giving less than a 1:1 credit ratio for this type of
restoration in the future.
Todd, Tyler, and Amy all agreed that restoration in the pasture section down to Reedy Fork
was straightforward and the correct approach.
UT2 = Design approach involves Priority 1 restoration.
John reviewed the existing condition of the channel which transitions back and forth from
highly to moderately incised and is excavated along the edge of the valley. The group
looked at the channel above the project property where it is in 'reference' condition and
provides a tie in elevation allowing for an immediate transition to Priority 1 restoration.
Todd, Tyler, and Amy all agreed that restoration was straightforward and the correct
approach and could be accomplished with little to no tree loss. The existing overstory
however would provide good shading for riparian buffer re- establishment.
UT1 (Upstream Enhancement II /Restoration Section) & UT113— Design approach involves enhancement
II transitioning to restoration and then back to the preservation section previously discussed.
John reviewed the enhancement II plan which involves cattle exclusion, a few spots of minor
bank grading, and some areas of buffer restoration. Todd noted that cattle had impacted
the habitat. quality significantly which provided justification for the enhancement II level
credit ratio despite the generally wooded condition.
Everyone agreed that cattle impacts were the only real stressor to this reach as buffer
conditions were generally good, channel dimension appeared to be appropriate, and there
was very little of evidence of erosion other than those areas impacted directly by cattle.
John noted that there were a number of seepage wetland areas that would be captured in
the easement however no wetland credit was proposed.
The group then looked at the restoration section which includes a short section on UT113.
The group agreed that this section was highly incised and exhibited frequent bank erosion.
The stream dimensions up and downstream allow for a Priority 1 approach through this
section of UT1 and UT16.
The meeting adjourned approximately 12:00pm.
Timestamp Project Name Agency Name Reviewer Name
1/9/2014 15:16:48 95715- Foust Creek N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
1/10/2014 15:02:23 95715- Foust Creek U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tyler Crumbley
1/10/2014 8:45:07 95716- Agony Acres N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
Comment(s)
Minutes from a site visit on 12/11/12 indicate that a jd was necessary for the wetlands and
UT1. The mitigation plan indicates that a jd request was submitted to the USACE but there
is no indication that the USACE has determined that the wetland delineation as proposed
was accurate. Therefore a determination of wetland rehabilitation versus wetland re-
establishment and appropriate credit amounts cannot be accurately reviewed /evaluated.
Also, the minutes indicate that there was no flow at the upper end of UT1 and a jd was
necessary
Assuming the jd confirms UT1 is jurisdictional, the plan proposes to restore this feature
using a P1 approach. As has been previously noted, constructing a new channel at a higher
elevation for the purpose of reconnecting the stream to its original floodplain has the
potential to remove the intermittent connection of the stream and groundwater, eliminating
base flow and creating an ephemeral feature. The proposed restoration of UT1 should
include installation of two groundwater monitoring wells within the thalweg of the channel.
One well should be located near the upper end of UT1, and the other should be installed
near the lower end of the reach. The wells should be equipped with continuous -read
gauges that will be able to monitor groundwater levels and demonstrate that the restored
feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the winter /early
spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. Well data should be provided annually
in monitoring reports to demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been maintained
in the restored channel.
American holly and ironwood were identified at most of the vegetative reference sites and
are not noted in the planting plan. These understory species should be added.
As noted by NCDWRs comments and the field discussion held on 11 December, 2012:
There is concern from the NCIRT on the possibility of raising the bed elevation of
intermittent streams (particularly UT1) above the water table thereby degrading it from
intermittent/jurisdictional status to ephemeral.
There is also concern that all of the areas identified as wetland restoration currently
contain jurisdictional wetlands and may be more appropriately categorized as Enhancement,
rather than restoration. As NCDWR pointed out, a jurisdictional determination will be
required in the Final mitigation plan to determine accurate credit potentials.
With regard to the riparian buffer credit - generating areas, the performance standard for
riparian buffer restoration is currently 320 stems per acre at five years. The plan states 260
spa in year 5. While the project is to be monitored for seven years, monitoring and reporting
for the buffer mitigation area can be discontinued at year 5 provided the performance
standard is being met. EEP may elect to close out the buffer portion of the site in year 5, or
wait until year 7 when the rest of the project is scheduled for closeout.
1/9/2014 15:17:50 95716- Agony Acres N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
1/14/2014 10:39:30 95716- Agony Acres U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tyler Crumbley
1/13/2014 9:35:33 94903- Little Pine III N.C. Division of Water Quality Eric Kulz
The plan proposes to restore UT1 B, an intermittent, incised tributary, using a P1 approach.
As has been previously noted, constructing a new channel at a higher elevation for the
purpose of reconnecting the stream to its original floodplain has the potential to remove the
intermittent connection of the stream and groundwater, eliminating base flow and creating
an ephemeral feature. Monitoring of baseflow should be conducted to demonstrate that the
restored feature exhibits base flow for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the
winter /early spring) during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The proposed restoration
of UT1 B should include installation of two groundwater monitoring wells within the thalweg of
the channel. One well should be located near the upper end of UT1 B, and the other should
be installed near the lower end of the reach. The wells should be equipped with continuous -
read gauges that will be able to monitor groundwater levels. Well data should be provided
annually in monitoring reports to demonstrate that intermittent aquatic function has been
maintained in the restored channel.
Minutes from a site visit on 12/11/12 state " (for UT1 downstream reach section) Todd
agreed to restoration if Wildlands surveyed all trees over 6 inches dbh in this section,
designed the channel to avoid tree loss and save the overstory, highlight the construction
approach in the mitigation plan, and conduct macroinvertebrate sampling pre- and post -
restoration." We can find no discussion of this within the draft mitigation plan.
Please provide a discussion on the impacts to and protection measures for existing
wetlands (high visibility fencing, avoidance). Any impacts (eg. filling, draining, converting)
to current waters of the U.S. (streams, wetlands and open waters) must be accounted for
and discussed in the Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) and the loss or conversion of
those waters must be replaced on -site.
The District concurs with the comments provided by NCDWR on 9 -10 January, 2014.
These comments correspond well with our field notes from 11 December, 2012.
The project proposes as one of its stream reference sites the Glade Creek site, which is an
EEP restoration project. We don't feel it is appropriate using a constructed channel as a
reference, particularly one that has been constructed recently and is in year 2 of monitoring.
A portion of UT4 is located on the property line and as such, only has a conservation
easement along one side of the stream. This portion of UT4 should be not receive
mitigation credit. According to the report, a portion of the easement along UT2A has not yet
been acquired. This should be acquired prior to completion of the final mitigation plan and
submittal of 404/401 permit applications.