20211424 Ver 1_Flat Rock IRT Prospectus Review Site Visit_20210811

WI LDLAND S
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING:
Prospectus Review IRT Site Visit
Flat Rock Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002; Guilford County, NC
USACE ID: TBD
DATE: On -site Meeting: August 4, 2021
Meeting Notes Distributed: Tuesday August 10, 2021
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Kim Browning, USACE
Samantha Dailey, USACE
Casey Haywood, USACE
Erin Davis, NCDWR
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering
Angela Allen, Wildlands Engineering
Charlie Neaves, Wildlands Engineering
During the meeting, the group discussed mitigation practices proposed in the Flat Rock Mitigation Site
Prospectus. Notes below are intended to summarize Wildlands' interpretation of topics discussed.
Meeting Notes
1. Todd asked if Wildlands is purchasing an easement or the entire property. John stated Wildlands is
purchasing an easement.
2. Todd provided a brief history of the site's numerous mitigation proposals and prospectuses,
complications due to land use history and manipulation, USACE's decision not to pursue a violation, and
current viability of the property as a stream and wetland mitigation site.
3. Erin asked if the railroad right-of-way shown on the prospectus figures was correct. John stated this was
a GIS approximation and that the true right of way location would be determined with a boundary
survey and deed research.
4. Erin requested a digital elevation model (DEM) be included in the final prospectus.
5. The group had a lengthy discussion regarding likelihood of beaver presence following restoration and
possible beaver mitigation strategies. Wildlands is aware beaver management will likely be required
during the monitoring period and will address this subject in the adaptive management portion of the
mitigation plan.
6. Kim emphasized that they are not requiring providers to design for the potential of beavers accessing
the site after the monitoring period closes out.
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
Flat Rock Mitigation Bank

7. Erin explained that she would like for the mitigation plan to include discussion on expected different
saturation regimes and varying vegetation communities that result including the possibility that the final
vegetation condition may not be forested in all wetland areas.
8. The IRT indicated plan -view grading figures are very helpful. Wildlands anticipates minor wetland
grading will be required to remove spoil piles and berms, fill floodplain ditches, and remove fill for road
crossings.
9. Erin asked if wetland rehabilitation is expected to affect soils, vegetation and hydrology. Wildlands
indicated areas proposed for rehabilitation will experience functional uplift to all three. John explained
that upon further investigation, Wildlands may elect to propose some areas north of the existing
elevated earthen crossing as enhancement. This is because the stream is less incised through portions of
this area and it is currently unknown if a measurable change in hydrology can be achieved.
10. The group recommended placing wells on site as soon as possible to determine potential enhancement
areas.
11. Sam indicated Fall to be the ideal time for a JD walk of the site.
12. Erin asked about the planting approach for the partially forested areas on the northern third of the
project area. Charlie stated that some level of planting will occur in this area and more about planting
intensity will be decided after determining the construction disturbance footprint.
13. John explained that the design approach for the northern reach of South Trib will be to quickly tie
together the multiple channels draining from an upstream, off -property beaver dam into a single thread
channel. Credit will be based on a single thread channel for the entire length. Priority 1 restoration can
be accomplished to the upstream extend of South Trib.
14. Todd commented that invasive plants are present but appear to be in manageable proportions. Erin
added that they may get worse after cattle are removed and pre-treatment may help.
15. Erin asked about maintenance along the extremities of the railroad right-of-way such as spraying. John
explained that Wildlands has not observed any maintenance activities outside of the clearly maintained
corridor immediately adjacent to the tracks.
16. Erin asked if Benaja Creek and Northwest Trib both enter the project area through culverts. Wildlands
responded that Northwest Trib enters through a culvert and Benaja flows under a bridge and over a rip -
rap apron with 1-2' feet of abrupt drop underneath the railroad trestle.
17. Erin inquired about buffer width on Southeast Trib suggesting consideration of capturing wetlands that
may form. Todd also asked if wetland formation was expected when the pond dam is removed.
18. Erin emphasized that the mitigation plan should include more discussion on vegetation community
types and adaptive management. Erin requested that a nearby vegetation community reference site be
used for this project. Charlie shared the opinion that good vegetation reference sites are difficult to find
and piedmont forested wetlands commonly encountered have a high percentage of red maple or green
ash. Erin and Oliva recommended reviewing other providers' mitigation plans for reference sites or
utilized the NHP database.
19. The group agreed with stream and wetland mitigation approaches and ratios proposed, with the
understanding that the wetland approach may be modified to include enhancement in some areas.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
Flat Rock Mitigation Bank