20211422 Ver 1_Mitigation Site Visit_20210616

_ LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEYI company
Meeting Minutes
Project: Dutch Farms Mitigation Bank
Subject: IRT and LMG Prospectus Level On -site Meeting
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021
Location: 6711 Fields Farm Rd., Climax, NC 27233
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Sam Dailey (USACE)
Erin Davis (DWR)
Olivia Munzer (WRC)
Travis Wilson (WRC)
Ben Furr (LMG)
Ryan Smith (LMG)
1. Ben began with site overview.
2. IRT indicated that LMG should expect substantial comments if prospectus level crossings
remain.
a. LMG gave explanations for crossings due to property boundaries, amount of
owners and the fact that one owner uses each property for grazing of cattle.
b. IRT urged that the design reduce amount of crossings.
c. IRT also suggested that crossings be integrated into easement to afford greater
control of crossings.
3. IRT noted that amount of required bankfull events for performance standards should be
changed to 4 over the 7-year monitoring period (currently shows 2 events).
www.lmgroup.net • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3101 Poplarwood Court — Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27604

_ LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEYI company
4. LMG asked if baseline hydrology data would be required for areas proposed as wetland
restoration. IRT indicated that potential wetland mitigation areas would be based on
hydric soil boundary and Jurisdictional Determination mapping. IRT noted that
groundwater gauges would be required in wetland restoration areas during the
monitoring period. There was a discussion about the number of groundwater gauges that
may be required given the small amount of wetland credits being generated on -site. IRT
did not specify a definitive number of gauges that would be required but stated that it
would be up to LMG to propose gauge locations with the understanding that fewer gauges
mean increased risk for potential "data gaps" and delayed credit releases.
5. UT 1— EII Area:
a. IRT noted existing channel has a small buffer and wetland vegetation.
b. LMG noted that the buffer is very minimal in width from channel, and is dominated
by young, early successional hardwoods (i.e. sweetgum, maple and black willow).
c. IRT questioned how often cattle access the channel and buffer (i.e. no existing
noticeable cattle impacts).
d. LMG noted that cattle have been in the channel during site visits. Owner rotates
grazing and cattle have not been in this section of UT 1 recently. LMG noted
maintenance of the buffer and hotwired fencing adjacent to channel.
e. IRT noted that fescue adjacent to channel is a concern.
f. IRT questioned if credit ratio of 3:1 is appropriate in this section. IRT noted that
level of degradation in the channel is minimal. LMG requested a suggested credit
range to be used at this location. No range was settled on during the discussion.
g. IRT noted that if LMG were to request a 3:1 (or greater ratio) that they would
suggest including additional uplift such as wider buffers. Removing fescue was also
discussed as an argument for uplift. BMP's were discussed as a way to increase
functional uplift but LMG noted that the area above UT 1 was an existing
headwater wetland so BMP's were not feasible at this location.
h. IRT requested NCSAM on each reach of stream/wetland at the site. LMG noted
that NCSAM and NCWAM were completed on each stream and wetland type, but
LMG may need to add additional NCSAM forms for each specific stream mitigation
unit reach.
6. UT 1— Restoration:
a. IRT agreed with approach of Prospectus.
www.lmgroup.net • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3101 Poplarwood Court — Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27604

_ LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY#— company
7. UT 2 — Restoration Area:
a. No comments from IRT on this short stretch.
8. UT 3 — Restoration Area:
a. No comments from IRT on this short stretch.
9. General Note: LMG notified IRT that the site is within the Southern Outer Piedmont
Ecoregion, NOT the Carolina Slate Belt as was noted in the Prospectus. This will be
modified within the final Prospectus.
10. UT 4 — Ell Area:
a. IRT noted that channel flow may need to be documented. Suggested flow gauges
or cameras.
b. Sam noted that soils in channel are hydric.
c. It was noted and discussed that there was a discernable top of bank and bed
throughout the proposed mitigation area. No vegetation was within the channel
and flowing water was present throughout the majority of channel (with adjacent
riparian wetlands).
d. IRT noted that mitigation ratio here should be a higher ratio than UT 1— Ell reach.
IRT noted that inclusion of grade control in this reach could be useful to arrest
potential future incision due to valley/stream slope. Could warrant increased
credit ratio if structures placed in proper areas.
i. Restoration not warranted, but profile stabilization is warranted.
e. IRT noted to check buffer widths on UT 4 to ensure they are minimum 50'. Would
need to note where the buffer is less than 50 (if its less).
i. IRT noted that its not appropriate to move channel in order to get 50'
buffer.
ii. LMG noted that if its less than 50' that it is in a minimal length.
iii. IRT noted that buffer width may play a factor in overall credit ratio
(assuming that there is an area where the buffer is less than 50'). Increasing
buffer on opposite side from any potential area that is less than 50' may
assist in credit ratios.
www.lmgroup.net • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3101 Poplarwood Court — Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27604

_ LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEYI company
11. UT 4 —Restoration:
a. No comments from IRT on this reach.
12. UT8 —Ell:
a. Long discussions and study of this reach in the field.
b. IRT concerned that this is a linear/headwater wetland. LMG believes this reach to
be a stream.
c. IRT leaning towards this being a wetland and not a stream. Noted that if LMG
wanted to continue to pursue it as a stream then they would need to include
reasoning/data proving why (i.e. Stream Identification Form, channel cross
sections, benthics, etc.).
IRT would suggest that this whole reach be used for wetland mitigation and
no stream.
13. UT 8 —Restoration:
a. Agreed with approach in Prospectus. IRT agreed that beginning of restoration
could be slightly moved up valley to where the property boundary/crossing is
currently.
14. Area adjacent to W8 (between UT 1 and UT 8 Restoration reaches):
a. Currently the prospectus shows some wetland restoration. IRT noted that there is
the potential that this area may show evidence of wetland hydrology in areas
outside of the proposed wetland restoration areas (i.e. drained hydric soils) in the
post -construction condition. If LMG is noticing areas of wetland hydrology in
portions of the site that were not noted as wetland restoration/hydric soils in the
MBI, then there is the possibility that an instrument modification could be
completed in an effort to capture areas of wetland creation. Wetland monitoring
and success parameters would have to be established in created wetland areas
within the modified instrument. Wetland creation is typically at a 3:1 ratio. If an
instrument modification is requested, it should be requested as early in the
monitoring timeframe as possible.
15. UT 7 — Restoration:
a. IRT noted that it appears feasible to increase restoration upstream to the tree line
(i.e. where the Prospectus currently shows beginning of Ell).
www.lmgroup.net • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3101 Poplarwood Court — Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27604

_ LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEYI company
16. UT 6 —Restoration:
a. IRT agreed with approach in Prospectus.
17. UT 5 —Restoration:
a. IRT agreed with approach in Prospectus.
18. LIT 9—Ell:
a. IRT noted that existing vegetated buffer may warrant a ratio above 4:1 (as is
currently shown in the Prospectus). However, it was agreed that the downstream
most—30-40' of channel may require channel stabilization and raising invert (i.e.
grade control), which would warrant a ratio closer to 2.5.
www.lmgroup.net • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3101 Poplarwood Court — Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27604

61—
1 T' �_ Legend
@F'.
Downstream Extent of Project
. Proposed Culvert Crossings
_ Proposed Easement
r • 1 �'
Property Boundary
- i
Streams
AF#Enhancement II (3:1)
Enhancement II (4:1)
�. - - - - - Abandoned UT 6 (No Credit)
t a Preservation (10:1)
Restoration (1:1)
` Wetlands
•* �',;. Enhancement (2:1)
Enhancement (3:1)
��` _ ,YY •� '� '���� Restoration (1:1)
} •Z�a'
it
AL
LMG
[ A
r`I NCC«GIA, NC911 Bo rd
N Dutch Farms Figure: 12
Feet LAND ti�[ANAGFMF.IVT GROUP 0 200 400 800 Mitigation Site Proposed Mitigation Features Map
a DAVEY#. company Guilford County, North Carolina
3101 Poplarwood Ct, Suite 120 Map Date: 05-11-2021
Raleigh, NC 27604

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] Dutch Farms IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
Date: Monday, November 1, 2021 12:28:57 PM
Attachments: 2021 06 10 IRT LMG Onsite Meeting Minutes.pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20211422 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Site Visit
From: Furr, Benjamin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin
B <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>; Ryan Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Dutch Farms IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
I have attached meeting minutes from our site visit last week for your review. Please provide
any comments you may have and I will incorporate them into the minutes and redistribute for
everyone's records.
Thank you,
Benjamin N. Furr I Senior Consultant
Land Management Groupl Environmental Consultants
3101 Poplarwood Court, Suite 120 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
Cell: 919.588.9663 1 www.lmgroup.net
R-1