20200998 Ver 1_SAW2020-00801 Pre-Prospectus Site Visit Meeting Minutes_20200810

Strickland, Bev
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Catherine Manner; Kayne Van Stell
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haywood, Casey M CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd
Subject: [External] SAW2020-00801 / WLS Yadkin 201 / Fezzik Mitigation Site / Pre -Prospectus
Site Visit Meeting Minutes
Attachments: Pre Prospectus IRT Site Visit -Meeting Min.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Greetings,
On August 5, 2020, members of the IRT and WLS conducted an on -site field visit. Attached are the meeting
minutes provided by WLS regarding the above referenced site. WLS captured most of the discussion regarding
the site; however, the USACE has a few additional comments to add and/or reiterate:
1) UT3: The biggest concern for this reach is if PI/PII restoration is appropriate. This reach has a moderate
level of function as it stands, with an established buffer on either side of the channel. The reach also contains
bedform and sinuosity. There is a disconnect between the channel and the floodplain; however, it is difficult
to justify the PI/PII restoration approach here. Even with PI/PII restoration, a lower ratio may be more
appropriate (1:5:1 or greater). There needs to be greater justification if PI/PII restoration is the approach for
this reach.
2) BC-R2 wetland re-establishment: The IRT requests the hydric soil areas vs. the non-hydric soil areas be
broken out into restoration and creation, respectively. Transects should be conducted in order to obtain this
information and accuracy.
3) BC-R2: This reach had some floodplain connectivity, but not over the majority of the reach. Establishing
floodplain connectivity in this lower system would provide hydrology to adjacent wetland areas that are
currently marginal. After looking at the 13C-R1 preservation reach, which is also the reference reach, there is
opportunity to improve BC-R2. As stated above in number 1, there needs to be greater justification if PI/PII
restoration is the approach for this reach.
4) UT2b-R1: Preservation in this reach is not high quality, especially as proposed with only 50-foot buffers.
The IRT believes that expanding the buffer and planting would allow for Ell with a higher ratio. Justification
should be provided either way; preservation or Ell.
5) BC-R1: Expanding and planting the buffer on this preservation reach (perhaps Ell) could allow for a 5:1 or
7.5:1 ratio.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best Regards,
Sam
Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone], Ext. 22
[e-mail]

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Meeting Minutes
Fezzik Mitigation Project
Subject: NCIRT Draft Prospectus Site Meeting
Date Prepared: August 6, 2020
Meeting Date and Time: August 5, 2020 @ 10:30 am
Meeting Location: On Site (Richmond County, NC)
Attendees: USACE: Todd Tugwell, Samantha Dailey (NCIRT)
NCDEQ DWR: Erin Davis (NCIRT)
GL, LLC: George Lankford
WLS: Kayne VanStell, Daniel Ingram, Catherine Manner
Recorded By: Catherine Manner
These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Draft Prospectus Site Meeting for the Fezzik Mitigation Project (Yadkin Basin, CU
03040201). The project site is located in Richmond County, near Ellerbe, North Carolina. The meeting
began at 10:30am with a general summary of the overall project concepts. After the site overview,
attendees toured the project site to review existing conditions and proposed mitigation types, restoration
approaches, and design concepts. In general, the project site review notes are presented below in the
order they were visited.
UT3
The site visit started at the easement break on UT3. The group walked downstream. Todd questioned
the 'Low' score on the NCSAM form and thought it would be 'Medium' based on the buffer condition.
The group discussed the PI/PII restoration approach and how the corridor would need to be cleared and
graded to complete the work. WLS explained that the goal was to save the desirable trees when
possible, but pines, sweet gum, and maple would be removed and used for structure. The group then
drove up to the confluence of UT3 and UT3a. Todd said it looked like the channel might already have
started to form benches. Kayne expressed how relocating the stream would result in the highest
functional uplift to the system. Overall discussion about how to approach degraded streams that are
downcut, but likely have suitable habitat (i.e. substrate and leaf pack). This lead to a discussion about
assessing the baseline condition compared to overall functional uplift that could be achieved. Discussed
the downside that the same amount of credit is given to a site that is a cow pasture compared to a
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
wooded site. Todd expressed that the buffer below the confluence of UT3 and UT3a was not so bad. The
group split up and Daniel, Erin, George and Todd went upstream. Kayne, Catherine and Sam when
downstream back towards the crossing.
USACE Comments added by Sam Dailey: In addition to the WLS comments, the biggest concern for this
reach is if PI/PII restoration is appropriate. Further, even with PI/PII restoration, a lower ratio may be
more appropriate (1:5:1 or greater). There needs to be greater justification if PI/PII restoration is the
approach for this reach. It must also be noted that the BCR1 preservation reach (reference reach)
contained excellent bedform, channel dimensions, and floodplain connectivity.
UT3a
Daniel, Erin, Todd discussed moving the start of the reach further down because of jurisdictional concern.
Daniel dropped a pin at the location they discussed (approximately 210' upstream of the confluence).
Todd and Erin said WLS needed more justification for the restoration approach and asked Daniel if he was
comfortable with a longer flow duration success criteria and/or benthic criteria. Daniel responded the
WLS is open to more site -specific success criteria than 30-day continuous flow.
BC-R2
The group then drove to the bottom part of BC-R2. The IRT liked the approach and location of where WLS
is proposing the confluence of BC-R2 and UT2-R3 towards the top of the valley. Todd asked George about
the hydroperiod and George responded with 9% or 10-12%. Group discussed plan on grading the bottom
of the valley and how many inches would be taken off the existing soil layer. Kayne expressed that it would
be no more than 12 inches to avoid creation. There was a group discussion on if the current soil was
hydric, to which George said yes, it is based on redox and matrix chroma. Todd questioned how much
uplift the area would receive, George stated that the soils lack wetland hydrology. The function of a soil
fragipan as necessary to sustain hydrology was discussed, especially in regards to the proposed earthwork
potentially disturbing or destroying portions of the fragipan. George stated that the fragipan would
provide perching where present, but the proposed hydrology of this site is not dependent upon the
fragipan. Hydrology from raising groundwater would be sufficient in restoring soil hydrology. Group talked
about if it was restoration or creation, and Todd stated that it wasn't restoration from a crediting
standpoint if over 12 inches of naturally placed or formed soil is removed. Kayne asked if we should clip
out polygons for restoration vs. creation. Todd replied that had been done before. Todd also stated that
he didn't like that we would have to excavate in a wetland restoration area. Erin suggested in our
mitigation plan WLS shows a figure depicting grading from 0-6, 6-12, and >12 inches for the bottom of the
valley. Sam stated the area was very hummocky and looked to have been historically manipulated. There
was a discussion on if these wetlands would be connected to the stream channel. WLS said that the
wetlands would abut the stream channel so that would not be an issue. The group walked to Well 4 and
then looked at the channel in that area (UT2-R3). Todd and Sam discussed if some areas were currently
jurisdictional, but concluded the absence of hydrology indicators prevented them from being
jurisdictional. Todd viewed the Bells Creek as not significantly oversized and Kayne presented data that it
was slightly oversized and incised. Group walked downstream some though Bells Creek (BC-R2), Sam
agreed afterwards that it was incised, but that it was able to get out on the floodplain in some locations
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
but wasn't ideal. Group discussed potential for floodplain connectivity. Todd thought it might score as
FAR on the SQT.
UT2-R2
Running short on time the group rode in the ATV along UT2-R2, WLS explained the Enhancement Level I
approach was to raise channel elevation to tie into BC-R2 reach below.
UT2b-RI
Todd said this reach was not high -quality preservation and would not automatically get a 10:1 ratio. IRT
asked if there was the ability to get a buffer wider than 50ft. Erin agreed that it was not pristine
preservation, but that it still warranted some credit, also stated a wider buffer would be beneficial. Todd
asked if the other preservation was the same, WLS state that the condition and morphology was very
different and BC-R1 is Bells Creek. Todd/Erin stated that if WLS could expand the buffer and plant we
might be able to get a higher Ell ratio, but did not think WLS should be doing anything in the channel.
UT2-RI
IRT appreciates the ratio and approach on this reach. Discussion on hunting risks and long term
maintenance/stewardship. IRT suggest WLS include risks about surrounding land use (timber) and
hunting. Group discussed what temporary hunting stands were appropriate. Conclusion was anything
that you bring in and bring out with you, IRT didn't want anything left permanently in the easement that
would "naturalize" over time. Todd left site at 2:30pm. The rest of the group went to UT2a.
UT2a
This reach had no flow, but Sam thought it was jurisdictional. Sam/Erin like where WLS started the reach
at the drainage intersection above current culvert crossing. Group discussed improving habitat and
bedform features, increasing step -pools, and creating more flow capacity. IRT liked the proposed no
maintenance BMP to treat and attenuate higher flows.
BC-R1
Group drove across the road to preservation section. Erin/Sam discussed how different this preservation
was from UT2b-RI. Erin suggested getting a wider buffer and planting. A ratio of potentially 5:1 or 7.5:1
if wider buffer was obtained and supplemental planting was completed. IRT members also requested
WLS attempt to remove one of the crossings, per upcoming USACE guidance.
UT1
Group drove up to the road shoulder and walked over side of the hill down to UT1. Sam/Erin agreed to
restoration approach. WLS discussed how the stream profile could be raised to the height of road
culvert and plunge pool elevation.
(warnll Nntat
- Before submitting final prospectus, change all reach names to something easier to follow for
permitting.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111

91
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Add wider buffers where possible, especially on preservation reaches.
More vegetation descriptions and include a detailed assessment/inventory in mitigation plan to
justify uplift.
- IRT appreciated that there were few easement breaks given the project size and that WLS
captured the headwaters of the site and included them when possible.
- Try to remove the upper easement break on BC-R1 if possible.
- Keep IRT updated on status of the project. Requested sites not remain inactive for more than 12
months to prevent delays.
The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions' interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five (5) business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.
waterlandsolutions.com 1 7721 Six Forks Rd, Ste 1130, Raleigh, NC 27615 1 919-614-5111