20190922 Ver 1_As-Built Report - field walk meeting notes_20210330

Strickland, Bev
From: Emily Reinicker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Steve Kichefski
Cc: Andrea Eckardt; Davis, Erin B; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim
Browning; Leslie, Andrea J
Subject: [External] RE: Critcher Brothers As -Built Report Submittal - field walk meeting notes
Attachments: Critcher_IRT AsBuiltWalk_2021-03-23.pdf
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 Spam.
Steve,
Here are the meeting notes and action items that we had from the as -built field walk on 3/23. Please let me know if you
have any additions or revisions.
At the IRT's request, I did check in with our stewardship team on invasive treatments to date at the site. There was a
multi -day treatment on most reaches across the site that addressed privet, tree of heaven, and princess tree in
November 2019. Invasive vegetation on or near restoration reaches was mechanically removed with equipment during
construction. Please let me know if you would like me to document this effort as a comment response to the as -built
package review, an addendum to the as -built report, or just include in the MY1 package. We will continue invasive
treatment throughout the site with particular attention to the areas noted by the IRT during our as -built site walk.
Emily G. Reinicker, PE, CFM I Director of Operations and Design, Ecosystem Restoration Team
0: 704.332.7754 x106 M: 704.965.7834
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 4:38 PM
To: Emily Reinicker <[e-mail]>
Cc: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Andrea Leslie ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Critcher Brothers As -Built Report Submittal - Draft
Emily,
It looks like Todd Tugwell, Erin Davis, Andrea Leslie and myself will be representing the IRT at Critcher. I have not
received any initial comments to provide you at this time. See you at 8:30 on Tuesday. Feel free to call my work cell if
any issues arise after Monday morning since we will be at field visits most of Monday as well.
Regards,
1

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
(828)-933-8032 cell
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.
From: Emily Reinicker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 9:06 AM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Critcher Brothers As -Built Report Submittal - Draft
Steve,
We are looking forward to the IRT's as -built walk at the Critcher Brothers Mitigation Site on Tuesday, 3/23 at 8:30
AM. We will meet you on the west side of the site, an address for navigation is 800 Robin Hill Road, North Wilkesboro,
NC. Turn onto Robin Hill Road from Speedway Road and park at the end of Robin Hill Road.
I wanted to check to see who all will be attending from the IRT. Also, let me know if any questions came up during your
initial report review that I should be prepared to address at our meeting.
Thanks,
Emily
Emily G. Reinicker, PE, CFM I Director of Operations and Design, Ecosystem Restoration Team
0: 704.332.7754 x106 M: 704.965.7834
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
From: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:45 PM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Emily Reinicker <[e-mail]>; Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Critcher Brothers As -Built Report Submittal - Draft
Steve
Kim was able to get me authorized for the Western banks, so I just uploaded the Draft As -built Report for the Critcher
Brothers Mitigation Site (SAW 2017-01913) to RIBITs.
2

The document has been uploaded to the DWR Laserfiche system as well.
Please let us know if you have any issues with the PDF or need anything else prior to the site visit on the 23ra
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Ecological Assessment Team Leader
0: 704.332.7754 x101 M: 704.560.2997
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
3

WI LDLAND S
ENGINEERING
MEETING NOTES
MEETING:
IRT As -Built Site Walk
CRITCHER BROTHERS MITIGATION SITE
Yadkin Valley Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Yadkin 03040101; Wilkes County, NC
Wildlands Project No. 005-45005
DATE: Tuesday, March 23, 2021
LOCATION: Robin Hill Road
Roaring Springs, NC
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Andrea Leslie, USFWS
Erin Davis, NCDWR
Steve Kichefski, USACE
Emily Reinicker, Wildlands
Christine Blackwelder, Wildlands
Mimi Caddell, Wildlands
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Critcher Brothers Site As -Built Plans (03-08-2021)
• Wildlands Engineering Critcher Brothers Site Mitigation Plan
• Critcher IRT Walk Meeting Minutes (12-04-2017)
Meeting Notes
The meeting began at 8:30 am. Emily presented a brief overview of the project at the parking location. From
there, the group proceeded to walk the entire site in the following general order:
Ironwood Tributary, WF Fishing Creek, Shew Ridge Tributary, Magnolia Tributary, Timber Tributary, SF Fishing
Creek, Oak Tributary, Robin Hill Tributaries, Antioch Tributaries, Critcher Tributaries, and Chicken Tributary 1A.
At the end of the walk, the IRT had several items they would like follow-up on. These are presented in a bullet
point list at the end of these minutes. IRT discussed that, given the scale of the project and the small percentage
of areas that require follow up, they agree to a full as -built credit release at this time. Credit adjustments for
additional credits proposed for additional E2 work on Magnolia to be presented in the Monitoring Year 1 (MY1)
report. Todd requested email communication only if action items discussed were not going to be accomplished
before MY1 report submittal.
In general, the group noted that the project had turned out well and had varied habitats. The preserved
floodplain wetlands and sloughs on WF Fishing and the constructed floodplain pools were favorite habitats. The
group appreciated the BMPs and the consensus was that the Ironwood BMP, which provided sediment storage
between steps, was the favorite. Fences were well constructed, and signage correctly installed. Steve noted
that, after reading the as -built plan, he was concerned the site would be too armored, but did not feel that way

after the site walk. Erin noted several wet areas throughout the site and suggested different vegetation species
may be needed in these areas. If supplemental planting becomes necessary to add different vegetation species
to these areas due to low performance of original plantings, Wildlands will communicate this to the IRT in the
annual monitoring reports.
On future projects, the IRT would like to see: single barrel culverts (no HDPE pipes), buffers wider than 30 feet in
the mountain counties particularly on larger systems, and buffer above the upstream terminus on project
reaches.
The meeting concluded at 4:00 PM.
For organizational purposes, the meeting notes are arranged by stream reach, from upstream to downstream,
east to west.
1. South Fork Fishing Creek
• Reach 1— Enhancement II
o Not field reviewed.
• Reach 2/3 — Restoration
o Overall looks very nice.
o Group reviewed, some discussion over BMP in right hand floodplain. Outlet was shifted during
construction. BMP was intended to capture runoff from eroding gully further up valley.
Functionally, gully drainage spays onto vegetated floodplain before BMP captures runoff.
Vegetated floodplain interception of gully runoff is serving intended purpose.
• Reach 4 — Enhancement II
o Trout lilies and bloodroots in bloom along this reach.
• Reaches 5 - 8 - Restoration
o Overall looks very nice.
o Large storms during construction in fall 2020 resulted in some deposition in some reaches (SF
Reach 9-11) and stripped topsoil from SF Reaches 6-7 where grass was not yet established. 10-
year-old chicken litter from old onsite chicken houses applied on portions of SF Fishing Reaches 6
and 7 floodplain to amend the soil.
o Boulder toe bank viewed (first curve downstream of steel bridge), Todd said armoring like this is
acceptable when limited, like in this instance. Diversity of bank treatments desired and
acceptable.
o Group liked the log vane structure where Chicken Trib joins SF Fishing — deep pool habitat
provided. Chicken Tributary flows into SF Fishing over log structure.
• Reach 9 — Enhancement II
o Culvert crossing (existing) at the upstream end of this reach was reviewed. IRT would like right
bank scour repaired here and the large privets on the left bank mechanically removed.
o This reach has a lot of sand on its bed. Emily stated that she thinks this material will flush out over
time. IRT asked that this area be watched. A photo point (PP15) was installed along the right
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CRITCHER BROTHERS MITIGATION SITE- Yadkin Valley UMB
March 23, 2021 IRT As -Built Site Walk Meeting Notes
page 2

bank of this reach at as -built and will be taken once a year to visually document stability during
the seven-year monitoring period.
o As IRT requested in 2017, the farm road was removed and a floodplain bench was constructed.
Erin asked for a vegetation monitoring transect in this bench area to document shaded planting
species survival, separate from the vegetation plot success criteria. Please add short discussion in
monitoring report about how shaded planting is performing over the years.
• Reach 10-11 - Restoration
o Emily stated a higher riffle width to depth ratio was chosen on this section to minimize bank
erosion risk and to provide sediment storage/deposition zones. Point bar slopes in pools were
also designed with a lower slope.
o IRT asked that deposition downstream of WF Fishing confluence be watched to see if a mid -
channel bar develops.
2. Critcher Tributary Watershed
• Critcher Tributary, Critcher Tributary C, Critcher Tributary D — Restoration
o Wetland areas establishing in old pond bed. IRT noted that after observing wetlands developing
on several areas in the floodplain throughout the project, wetland credits can be requested after -
the -fact at creation mitigation ratio (3:1). Wildlands could review grading model and request
credits in areas with less than 12" of cut or fill. Groundwater gages would need to be installed.
Emily said she will consider this back in the office and follow up further if makes sense for
Wildlands to pursue.
o The BMP joining from the right bank is entirely silted in. IRT asked if Wildlands could maintain this
one more time (scoop out accumulated sediment from step pools) before vegetation fully
establishes.
o Bare areas on right hand floodplain need to be amended/reseeded to get ground cover vegetation
established.
• Critcher Tributary A - Restoration
o Not reviewed beyond the downstream -most 100 LF due to a nesting killdeer along the reach.
3. Antioch Tributary Watershed
o IRT asked Wildlands to watch deposition in Tributary B at the valley slope change. Silted in during
large storm events before floodplain was vegetated after construction, but Emily believes the slug
of sediment may wash through over time.
o IRT had concern over Antioch Tributary culvert and aquatic organism passage. Wildlands will work
on crossing retrofit.
4. Chicken Tributary Watershed
• Chicken Tributary 1 Reach 1 and Chicken Tributary 1A — Enhancement II
o Left fence line of Chicken Tributary 1A was walked. IRT felt that stream was in worse condition
than in 2017. Steve noted additional buffer around the terminus would have improved the reach.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CRITCHER BROTHERS MITIGATION SITE- Yadkin Valley UMB
March 23, 2021 IRT As -Built Site Walk Meeting Notes
page 3

• Chicken Tributary 1 Reach 2- Restoration
o Andrea/Erin stated that culvert crossings, as constructed, were potential aquatic species migration
barriers due to slick bottoms and no rock material in the bed of the culverts.
• Chicken Tributary 2- Restoration (no credit)
o Group appreciated this work. Noted low flow despite jurisdictional status.
5. Robin Hill Tributary Watershed
• Robin Hill Tributary, Robin Hill Tributary A, and Robin Hill Tributary B— Restoration
o Streams vastly improved from existing condition.
o WRC and DWR did not approve of plastic net matting used on the left valley wall and require its
removal. Erin and Andrea disliked the amount of quarry riprap used on this reach. Steve
commented that this reach seemed to have a lot of armoring field changes. Emily acknowledged
that the slope was a concern during construction, so more rock was added during construction.
Logs were minimally used due to rotting concerns.
o Gully stabilization on the right side of Robin Hill functions like a riprap lined ditch. Steve asked
that this area be reworked to increase storage in a series of check dams or step pools, since this
area intercepts sediment from the upstream pasture.
o Slope drain discussed. Inlet is outside the easement and, due to elevation change on the hillside,
was one of the few options for minimizing hillside erosion in this area.
6. Oak Tributary
o Reviewed briefly, looks good, no comments.
7. West Fork Fishing Creek
• Reaches 1 and 2 - Restoration
o Emily highlighted the brush sills in the floodplain to provide roughness.
• Reach 3, 4, 5, and 6 — Enhancement I
o Emily highlighted areas where the existing channel was used as requested during the initial IRT
site walk, and features such as backwater sloughs were preserved. The IRT appreciated these
habitat features.
o Extended discussion on the 3-barrel culvert crossing, which is located in an internal easement
break. IRT unsure of stability of armored spillway. Andrea and Erin expressed concern with
species passage through HDPE pipe. Steve and Andrea discussed disadvantages with having all
three culverts at the same elevation and suggested a design alternative would be to raise the two
side culverts (i.e., "Mickey Mouse ears"). Emily stated that the HDPE was a landowner
requirement and that Wildlands thought goals was consistent water flow in the culvert pipe to
provide passage. Andrea stated that a 48" culvert should have 12" of material in the bottom of
the pipe to be considered partially buried, and smooth HDPE is too difficult for many species to
navigate.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CRITCHER BROTHERS MITIGATION SITE- Yadkin Valley UMB
March 23, 2021 IRT As -Built Site Walk Meeting Notes
page 4

o Lots of sand deposition noted in the floodplain. Andrea pointed out existing sycamore and tulip
poplar. Andrea pointed out invasives were present in the undisturbed right bank riparian area.
Trout lilies also noted.
o At downstream end of West Fork, Steve asked for a rough estimation from Emily of what
percentage of the Enhancement I reaches were worked on and to what extent. Offhand, Emily
roughly estimated 70% was restoration, 20% light touch, and 10% relatively untouched.
8. Magnolia Tributary
• Reach 1— Preservation
o IRT would like the enhancement work to extent approximately 50 more feet upstream to the
existing right bank boulder to address the right bank erosion. Andrea did not like the day lilies
present in the floodplain. Existing fence in this area is within the CE and needs to be removed.
IRT said they would approve additional E2 credits (2.5:1) in this area. Wildlands will complete this
work and request credits in the MY1 report.
• Reach 2 — Enhancement II
o Adjacent landowner backed out of project after the mitigation plan was approved, and an
approximate 130 LF length of stream that was shown in the mitigation plan was excluded from the
project. Reach 2 was originally designed with an enhancement I approach but was changed to
enhancement II. Change is recorded in the as -built and captured in the credit release memo.
1. Emily asked if this should have been presented as a mitigation plan
modification. Todd said that since the project is 26,000 LF, a 130 LF change
does not warrant a modification. An email/memo may be appropriate in the
future on similar changes. 5% of project length or greater decrease in work is an
informal rule of thumb threshold for a mitigation plan modification. Any
increase in work that includes a request for credits needs to be submitted as a
modification. Steve asked that items like this be brought to the IRTs attention
during the easement review stage in the future.
9. Shew Ridge Tributary Watershed
• Shew Ridge Tributary Reach 1 and Shew Ridge Tributary A — Preservation
o Group walked a portion of this reach and noted the adjacent landowner had recently logged.
Steve noted a barrel that needs to be removed.
• Shew Ridge Tributary Reach 2 - Restoration
o Emily noted the floodplain pool, which the group appreciated. Floodplain pool is expected to dry
out in summer and it was dry during July 2020 after this area's construction.
o Emily discussed some tie-in changes that were made. Todd commented on where Shew Ridge ties
into West Fork Fishing's alignment at the end of a meander was interesting and probably the best
solution given the valley orientation.
10. Ironwood Tributary
• Reach 1— Restoration
o BMP upstream of Reach 1 was well liked by IRT.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CRITCHER BROTHERS MITIGATION SITE- Yadkin Valley UMB
March 23, 2021 IRT As -Built Site Walk Meeting Notes
page 5

o Group noted poor vegetative growth in right floodplain. A rill from roadside runoff is forming due
to lack of grass cover. Wildlands to install a coir log across the rill and reseed the area.
o At the downstream end of Reach 1, the IRT had concerns about the log sill installed and whether it
would remain stable in the long term after transfer to land steward to prevent a headcut from
forming and migrating upstream. Wildlands to retrofit last log sill structure- either by spreading
drop over two logs, replacing with rock sill, or adding rock stabilization at this location.
• Reach 2 - Preservation
o Multiflora rose and forsythia noted in this area — needs treatment. Emily stated initial treatment
was made, but follow ups needed.
o Todd mentioned that, if invasive treatment is not performed, project construction (as -built) may
be considered incomplete for credit release. For future projects, please document initial invasive
treatments in as -built monitoring report.
11. Timber Tributary Watershed
• Timber Tributary Reach 1 and Timber Tributary A— Preservation
o Group reviewed a short portion of the downstream extent of Reach 1. Emily mentioned that
Wildlands used a reference reach from this watershed.
• Timber Tributary Reach 2 - Restoration
o The culvert crossing was reviewed, good material accumulated in the culvert and should provide
aquatic passage.
Action Item List
▪ Undisturbed Buffer Throughout Site — Treat invasives. Present information on this in MY1 report.
▪ Bare Areas Within Buffer — Spot areas throughout buffer with poor vegetative cover — of note on
Critcher Tributary.
P1 Remaining Barrels/Trash/Existing Fence in Easement - The IRT noted existing fence within the
easement that had not been removed on Magnolia and downstream end of WF Fishing, as well as piles
of fence debris along Magnolia. Several barrels were noted on Shew and Timber.
P1 Additional Photo Points — Please establish downstream looking upstream photo points at all culvert
crossings. Please establish an additional photo point at the Critcher Trib BMP.
▪ Ironwood Tributary — Replace last log sill on restoration reach with rock structure due to concerns of log
rot. IRT recommends splitting drop over two log structures or replacing with one or two rock structures.
▪ West Fork Fishing Creek Culvert Crossing— Wildlands to review the potential future plans for the solar
farm, which may necessitate upgrading the triple barrel culvert, and communicate this back to the IRT.
One solution may be to replace this crossing with a ford crossing, which the IRT was open to for a
temporary condition (few years), in tandem with potential retrofits to the culvert to make it more
conducive to aquatic species passage. Wildlands to install retrofit feature(s) that address concern for
embedment and roughness in culvert bottom.
P1 Magnolia —Extend stream bank work approximately 50 LF upstream, stabilize and replant disturbed
areas. Remove old fence inside easement. Submit for E2 credit in MY1 report.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CRITCHER BROTHERS MITIGATION SITE- Yadkin Valley UMB
March 23, 2021 IRT As -Built Site Walk Meeting Notes
page 6

South Fork Fishing Creek Reach 9 (E2) — Conduct a vegetation monitoring transect on the shaded
planting in MY1.
▪ South Fork Fishing Creek Culvert at Reach 8/Reach 9 Break — Repair erosion on right bank downstream
of the single barrel culvert. Mechanically remove privet on the left bank.
Robin Hill
o Remove all synthetic matting along left valley wall.
o Adjust gully from right bank, currently a rip rap ditch, replace with check dams to provide
sediment storage.
▪ Antioch Tributary Reach 4— Wildlands to review IRT concerns with aquatic species passage on the
culvert crossing and install retrofit feature(s) that address concern for embedment and roughness in
culvert bottom.
▪ Chicken Tributary 1 Reach 2 Culvert- Wildlands to review IRT concerns with aquatic species passage on
the double barrel culvert crossing and install retrofit feature(s) that address concern for embedment
and roughness in culvert bottom.
These meeting minutes were prepared by Christine Blackwelder March 25, 2021 and reviewed by Emily Reinicker and Mimi
Caddell on March 26, 2021, and represent the authors' interpretation of events.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CRITCHER BROTHERS MITIGATION SITE- Yadkin Valley UMB
March 23, 2021 IRT As -Built Site Walk Meeting Notes
page 7

L_,_J
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
Internal Crossing
Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Non -Project Stream
Not For Credit Stream
BMP
® Reach Break
-; _ > -
ibt Jl /
r
•
A f La
1
2018 Aerial Photography
OZWILDLAND
ENGINEERING
0 400 800 Feet
l 1 1 1 1
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Critcher Brothers Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01913
Monitoring Year 0 - 2021
Wilkes County, NC