20201989 Ver 1_Prospectus Meeting Minutes_1_14_21_20210122

Strickland, Bev
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 9:42 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haywood, Casey M CIV
(USA); Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd
Subject: [External] FW: East Mingo Meeting Minutes
Attachments: Prospectus Meeting Minutes_1_14_21.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 Report Spa m.<mailto:[e-mail]>
M1
Meeting minutes from our Wildlands Cape Fear 06 UMBI, East Mingo Mitigation Site. Please let me know if
you have anything to add.
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]
-----Original Message -----
From: Angela Allen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 20219:22 AM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] East Mingo Meeting Minutes
Sa m,
It was good to see you out at East Mingo. I'm attaching meeting minutes from our meeting. Please review. Let
me know if you would like me to distribute out to the group or you would like to.
Thanks!
1

Angela
Angela Allen, PE I Water Resources Engineer
0:919.851.9986 x106 M: 703-655-6110
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.<Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING: IRT Site Walk
East Mingo Creek Mitigation Site
Cape Fear 03030006, Johnston County, NC
USACE Project ID: SAW-2020-02093
DWR# 20201989 Version 1
Wildlands Project No.
DATE: Thursday January 14, 2021
LOCATION: Lassie Lane
Benson, NC
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Erin Davis, NC DWR
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Materials
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering Sam Daily, USACE
Angela Allen, Wildlands Engineering Casey Haywood, USACE
• Wildlands Engineering, East Mingo Creek Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus dated November 23, 2020
• Note: Wildlands will be changing the name of the bank from the `Creekside Mitigation Bank' to the
`Wildlands Cape Fear 06 Umbrella Mitigation Bank'.
Meeting Notes
Representatives of Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) met with representatives of the North Carolina
Interagency Review Team (IRT) to walk the East Mingo Creek Mitigation Site. The purpose of the tour was to
present the site the group of IRT members and get their input into the management/mitigation options
proposed for the site and determine next steps in the project process. During the tour, the group discussed the
stream and wetland approaches proposed by Wildlands and the manner which they felt would be most
appropriate to enhance and restore onsite streams and wetlands. The following notes provide a summary of
these discussions.
1. East Mingo Creek
a. The tour began at the downstream end of East Mingo Creek in the area proposed for
enhancement level 2 activities. It was asked what the history of the land was and if it had
sidecast from being ditched. The stream is not incised in this area and there is no evidence
of sidecast beyond the natural levy from bankfull deposition. E2 activities along this reach
include fencing out cattle, planting, and adding wood into the stream. Wildlands said it is

likely that the entirety of East Mingo Creek had previously been impacted by beaver. The IRT
strongly encouraged and supported adding wood into the system to improve instream
habitat and agreed on enhancement level 2 activities with the proposed ratio of 2.5:1.
The potential vegetative community within the emergent wetlands along the enhancement
reaches of East Mingo Creek were discussed with the group. The group agreed that this is
not an area to be proposed as a bottomland hardwood forest, as the water level in the
wetlands is too high. The IRT is okay with Wildlands proposing a community suitable to the
wetter end of the facultative spectrum. This may be a swamp forest or an herbaceous
community where an increase in diversity in the shrub layer is the basis of performance
standards.
c. The IRT discussed that what is labeled as a ditch network on the right floodplain of East
Mingo Creek within the northern forested portion would be considered a jurisdictional
stream. The group discussed that it may be a relic channel from when beaver were active in
the area. If the project proposes a single thread channel through this area the loss of
jurisdictional channel length will have to be considered. It was also noted that the single
thread channel and wetland connection would provide overall functional uplift to the
system. The IRT agreed with this overall restoration approach for the area and noted that
the design decision will need to be discussed in the mitigation plan.
Lamb Trib
Lamb Trib was initially proposed to have restoration activities proposed within the
floodplain of East Mingo Creek and enhancement level 2 activities in the headwaters but to
lump it together as Enhancement level 2 at 2.5:1 because of the high quality of Lamb Creek
within the upper part of the reach. After walking the stream, the group determined it would
be more appropriate to break out the downstream section for restoration credit and the
upstream section should be enhancement 2 using the coastal plain headwater stream
guidance. Valley credit will be given for the upper reach, which varies between a single
thread and multithread channel. No wetland credit will be claimed with a 100 ft corridor
along the stream channel.
b. The floodplain surrounding the confluence of Lamb Trib and East Mingo Creek originally was
not called out as wetlands within the proposal, however soil cores taken by the Corps
indicate that soils are hydric. The area is drier than the emergent wetlands downstream, but
it is likely these will be jurisdictional wetlands.
Wolf Trib and Rabbit Trib
The Corps commented that we should monitor the head of stream JD call on Wolf Trib and
Rabbit Trib. They both originate at headwater seeps and there is concern that the origin
point could change over time during the monitoring period. There is some concern of these
areas transitioning to linear wetlands. Wildlands proposed adding a cross-section in these
reaches despite them being enhancement 2, in order to demonstrate that the streams have
maintained stream channel dimensions.
4. Snake Trib
There are several braids to Snake Creek due to two outlets from the off -site pond. The
majority of flow is currently coming from the emergency spillway (south). Concern was
brought up over the pond being fixed at some point and the majority of flow changing to the
primary outlet (north). Wildlands proposed addressing this through maintaining the two
channels, filling the connection to the ditch network, and only proposing credits on the
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
W EAST MINGO CREEK MITIGATION SITE
page 2
January 14, 2021 IRT Site Walk Meeting Summary

shortest channel length. IRT agreed this will need to be further assessed in the design stage
and in an adaptive management plan.
5. No Comments on Deer Trib, Frog Trib or Lizard Trib — we did not walk all the way to the northern
end of the project.
6. There is an area between Snake Trib and Mouse Trib within the property limits but outside of the
conservation easement that appears to be jurisdictional wetlands. This should be evaluated and
considered for inclusion in the project.
7. Beaver Trib: It was noted in the field that Wildlands is including more easement than required in
order to protect the headwater wetland that forms Beaver Trib.
8. Additional Vegetation Comments
a. It is noted that in the wooded area where livestock currently have access, that once they are
removed the privet is likely to overtake the understory. The IRT suggested planting
understory species and having a monitoring plan that looks at transects or vegetation plots
for survivability of those plantings.
b. In the areas currently in pasture, the IRT recommended using the published mowing
guidelines during the monitoring years and planting in rows in order to keep pine trees from
overtaking the floodplain.
Overall Wetland comments:
a. There needs to be a more thorough evaluation of on -site wetlands for the submittal of the
draft mitigation plan.
b. For wetlands in the wooded portion of the site where livestock currently have access: gages
should be put in to determine if wetland hydrology is already being met and if raising the
channel is going to have an effect on hydrology in order to ascertain the amount of
functional uplift. If the area is meeting hydrology and it is only livestock access and planting
an understory, a lower credit ratio may be applied.
c. The IRT said the JD should be concluded as early in the project as possible, and prior to the
submittal of the draft mitigation plan.
10. Stream Crossing:
a. The crossing was discussed with the IRT. The IRT brought up developmental pressure
surrounding the site and want to make sure this crossing could not be used in future
development. Wildlands assured the crossing will be an agricultural crossing internal to the
easement and not designed to DOT standards.
b. Wildlands discussed potential culvert sizes and the use of floodplain drains across the wide
valley, as the crossing road will need to be built up.
c. Travis recommended using a large rectangular crossing if possible or insuring there is one
pipe that will take the primary flow to improve aquatic organism passage and limit the
formation of mid -channel bars.
11. Additional comments: The monitoring and success criteria section was missing from the draft
prospectus and should be included in the final prospectus.
Next Steps
The next step will be to submit the final prospectus and public notice the bank prior to continuing on to the draft
mitigation plan.
` Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
W EAST MINGO CREEK MITIGATION SITE
page 3
January 14, 2021 IRT Site Walk Meeting Summary

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 4
W EAST MINGO CREEK MITIGATION SITE
January 14, 2021 IRT Site Walk Meeting Summary