20211706 Ver 1_IRT Prospectus Site Visit Minutes 20220111_REV_20220125

From: Davis, Erin B
To: Baker, Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Four Hills Mitigation Site: draft prospectus site walk minutes
Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:08:03 AM
Attachments: Four Hills IRT Prospectus Site Visit Minutes 2022.01.11 REV.pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20211706 v.I
Doc Type: Mitigation Site Visit
-----Original Message -----
From: Aaron Earley [mailto:aearley&wildlandsen,g com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:59 PM
To: Kim Browning <Kimberly.D.Browningga usace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B <erin.davis&cdenr.gov>; Tugwell,
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood(ousace.army.mil>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Wilson,
Travis W.<travis.wilson(0ncwildlife.org>
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Christine Blackwelder <clackwelder(owildlandseng.com>
Subject: [External] RE: Four Hills Mitigation Site: draft prospectus site walk minutes
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spam. <mailto:report.spam(q_)ac. go
Attached are revised minutes that include the WRC comment about pond dewatering process
We are installing flow gages and game cameras next week. We anticipate submitting final prospectus after the JD
site walk in March/April.
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
-----Original Message -----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:37 PM
To: Aaron Earley <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <erin.davis&cdenr.gov>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia<olivia.munzer&cwildlife.org>;
travis.wilson&cwildlife.org
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Christine Blackwelder <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Four Hills Mitigation Site: draft prospectus site walk minutes
Thanks Aaron. The site visit summary looks good. The only addition to mention is that WRC would like the pond
dewatering process detailed in the mitigation plan, to include preventing the downstream release of aquatic
organisms. I know you all are still considering whether to include restoration through the ponds, but wanted to make
sure that comment was included. I assume you'll be looking at installing gauges on the tributaries before you submit
a final proposal.
I didn't receive any further feedback from the IRT after our site visit, so we'll wait to hear from you on how you plan
to proceed with the final prospectus.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

-----Original Message -----
From: Aaron Earley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Davis, Erin B <erin.davis&cdenr.gov>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia<oivia.munzer&cwildlife.org>
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>; Christine Blackwelder <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Four Hills Mitigation Site: draft prospectus site walk minutes
Attached are minutes from our site walk last week. Please let me know if you have comments.
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM I Senior Water Resources Engineer
0: 704.332.7754 x109 M: 704.819.0848
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: Prospectus Review IRT Site Visit
Four Hills Mitigation Bank
Yadkin River Basin 03040105; Anson County, NC
USACE ID: SAW-2021-02387
DATE: On -site Meeting: January 11, 2022
Meeting Notes Distributed: January 18, 2022
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC
Kim Browning, USACE
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering
Casey Haywood, USACE
Christine Blackwelder, Wildlands Engineering
Erin Davis, NCDWR
Aaron Earley, Wildlands Engineering
Meeting Materials
Four Hills Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus (November 4, 2021)
Georeferenced Figures 4 and 9 from Draft Prospectus
Meeting Notes
The meeting began at the barn, where Aaron provided an overview of the Four Hills Mitigation Site (Site) to the
group. Several IRT members had upfront questions about the Site from their review of the draft prospectus:
1. Casey asked if the location of the UT3 crossing could be moved or eliminated. Wildlands explained that is an
existing crossing that must be left in place so the farmer can access the pastures around UT3 and UT1.
2. Erin asked about the buried creosote poles mentioned in the prospectus. Wildlands explained that was an
old NRCS practice alternative for drain tiles. Wildlands will remove all creosote poles found within the
easement.
3. Erin asked about wells mentioned in the prospectus. Wildlands confirmed that the wells are outside of the
proposed easement and will provide water to livestock.
4. Question came up about Little Creek where the channel borders the property boundary (between UT4 and
UT6). There is currently a fence up along this reach, and Wildlands intends to place an easement. IRT asked
if the easement will provide a greater buffer than the current fence line, and Wildlands indicated that it's
still being assessed and has to be negotiated with the landowner.
5. In general, the IRT expressed that they would like to see buffers that extend beyond the required 50-foot
width. The buffer tool could be used to receive additional credits for wider buffers.
6. Kim noted that flow is a concern on many of the tributaries. Erin noted that some of the streams only
scored 19-22. Kim noted that gaging streams ahead of further project work is a way Wildlands can gather
more information in advance of jurisdictional determinations. Erin noted that cameras to document flow
conditions is also a good tool.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
Four Hills Mitigation Bank

7. Olivia noted there is state -listed mussel in Anson County, and she would look for potential habitat during the
site walk.
8. Olivia said that she would like to see the pond dewatering process in the mitigation plan, including how to
prevent downstream release of aquatic organisms.
9. Todd asked if there were substantial land use changes in the watershed recently. Wildlands noted that
there was recent clearing and creation of a work area to support the landowner's fencing business at the top
of the UT4/UT4A watershed; otherwise, the land use has been consistent.
10. IRT members noted that a goal of the site visit was to understand the different ratio approaches presented
in the prospectus. John reviewed the general concepts with the approaches, stating that enhancement at
2.5:1 was proposed in areas that had cattle access, lacked riparian buffer on one or both sides, and needed
consistent spot channel stabilization; 3.5:1 was proposed in areas that had cattle access, lacked riparian
buffer in just a few spots, and needed some spot channel stabilization; while 4:1 was proposed in areas with
cattle access, consistent buffer, and very few areas of proposed channel work.
The group proceeded to travel to the upstream end of the Site. Site notes are organized by major stream and
wetland features.
Little Creek
11. Todd and Kim both felt upstream end of Little Creek was in good shape. John explained restoration of Little
Creek is shown up to the culvert to catch grade, allowing for a full Priority 1 approach without a transitional
Priority 2 section. Restoration of Little Creek is intended to support floodplain wetland development. Kim
agreed that discussion in the mitigation plan around wetland restoration will be needed to justify Little
Creek's restoration. Kim suggested restoration begin where the group crossed Little Creek, just downstream
of where Little Creek begins to pull away from the left valley wall, approximately 400 LF downstream of the
road culvert. Todd felt this first 400 LF does not seem restoration worthy, but would like to see an existing
condition cross section through this section.
a. Erin pointed out that the privet was well established on the banks of Little Creek. Todd
suggested cut and paint for treatment in this area to retain the root mass.
b. The group agreed that a quick transition from enhancement 2 immediately below the culvert to
enhancement 1 to hold the grade needed for priority 1 restoration would be appropriate for the
upstream 400 LF. This reach would transition to priority 1 restoration downstream to the point
where the stream exits the property.
12. John showed soil cores throughout the wetland restoration areas. Todd reminded Wildlands of difficulties
with Chewacla soils.
13. Erin mentioned she would like to see easement extend to the top of the left valley slope at the upstream
end of Little Creek.
UT1
14. No flow in UT1 during site visit. John noted that this was a surprise, and that Wildlands assumed more flow
would be present during the winter months. The current drought conditions were noted; however,
antecedent moisture conditions in the area should be reviewed.
15. Todd noted that UT1 seemed like a historic drainage that incised to bedrock.
16. Kim noted a flow gage should be installed on UT1.
17. The IRT did not see the need for restoration. If the channel is jurisdictional, a low-level enhancement would
be appropriate. If it is not jurisdictional, a BMP such as an RSC could help stabilize the headcuts and prevent
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
Four Hills Mitigation Bank

sediment from being washed into wetlands in the floodplain of Little Creek. Wildlands will adjust the
approach based on JD call.
18. IRT noted that UT1 may not maintain form through wetland. John noted that Wildlands was open to
allowing UT1 to splay through the wetland to increase wetland hydrology.
UT2
19. IRT agreed with approach presented in the prospectus.
20. Kim asked Wildlands to review the easement and see if the easement boundary could be taken to the ridge.
She suggested running the buffer tool to obtain additional credits.
UT3
21. IRT encouraged gaging UT3 and including cameras. It was noted that Travis with NCWRC is interested in
flow data to correlate periods of dryness with benthic survival.
22. Todd noted the pasture grasses and encouraged Wildlands to treat the grasses prior to restoration.
23. IRT asked if the existing perched smooth -walled culvert could be replaced with a more appropriate culvert
to allow for AOP. Wildlands will ask the landowner about replacing the culvert.
24. IRT suggested E2 at 8:1 in lieu of preservation on Reach 1 and would like to see invasives treated and
supplemental planting in the buffer. Supplemental planting needs to be monitored.
25. IRT also recommended extending the easement on UT3A to the property line.
26. IRT would like to see a cross section on UT3 restoration in the Little Creek floodplain to make sure it
maintains dimension. It is important to note in the adaptive management sections of the mitigation plan
that while some maintenance is acceptable in the first year or two post -construction, by year three the
channel should be self -maintaining.
UT4 and Tributaries
27. UT4 and UT4A
IRT advised Wildlands to check on water rights at the UT4 and Little Creek confluence. The prospectus
currently shows UT4 being relocated off of the adjacent landowner. Wildlands will check on water
rights at the confluence.
b. IRT asked Wildlands to move start of restoration on UT4 Reach 2 downstream approximately 250 LF to
a knickpoint where the grade is shallow allowing for Priority 1 restoration below. Wildlands and the IRT
agreed that the first 250 LF of this reach should involve stabilizing the headcuts at the upstream end
and limiting spot bank erosion and should be credited as an Enhancement 2 approach.
c. IRT felt that the preservation reaches (UT4 Reach 1 and UT4A Reach 1) are not jurisdictional and
suggested BMPS to stabilize the headcuts and extending the easement upstream to protect from future
development. This would help justify E2 to a point where restoration would begin.
i. Olivia noted some recent logging at the top of UT4 Reach 1. John explained this clearing was
likely done at the same time the fence yard was developed.
28. UT413 and UT4131
a. UT413 Reach 2's bed was noted as stable; however, restoration of the portion of this reach with a wider
valley to the center of the valley could be justified, particularly in support of the wetland restoration
and given the ongoing floodplain erosion.
i. If UT413 Reach 2 is restored, IRT asked for a wide left buffer extending to the top of the valley.
John explained that can likely be achieved, but since the right buffer is usable pasture, the
landowner will likely only allow us to extend to the toe of the valley and partially up the valley
slope.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
Four Hills Mitigation Bank

ii. Kim asked for a detailed, reach -specific discussion of this area in the mitigation plan. There
needs to be justification for restoring a vertically stable section of stream.
b. IRT asked Wildlands to investigate BMP creation at the top of UT413 to treat pasture runoff.
c. IRT concerned that a restored channel through the UT4131 pond bed would not meet flow
requirements. The IRT said if the pond were to be excluded from the easement, the easement should
begin far enough downstream of the pond to allow for dam maintenance. Wildlands will investigate
whether to include the pond area in the project.
i. Kim noted that Wildlands should see if the channel upstream of the pond is jurisdictional and
gage it.
ii. Erin asked for pond risks to be outlined in the mitigation plan.
29. UT4C
a. The IRT was concerned that the channel would not score as jurisdictional. If that turns out to be the
case, a BMP could be installed to capture sediment from the upstream gullies.
UT5
30. UT5 has several areas where spot stabilization is needed and a few areas of buffer restoration.
31. Erin noted that if the easement is taken to the ridgeline, she feels a higher ratio (2.5:1) could be justified on
this reach.
32. The IRT is okay with lumping different approaches on the same reach under one credit ratio but would like
to see locations and lengths of the different approaches
UT6 and Tributaries
33. Lots of discussion on different ways to approach restoration on UT6A. Todd suggested restoration through
pond bed, then enhancement in incised but stable section, then picking up restoration at the active headcut
halfway down reach. John was concerned that this approach will result in excess Priority 2 earthwork and
lose Priority 1 benefit of lighter impact to existing trees
a. John noted that Wildlands will review UT6A in more detail before submitting the revised
Prospectus.
34. Existing culvert on UT6 field reviewed. This will be rebuilt to encourage AOP.
35. IRT generally in agreement on approaches proposed for the remainder of UT6.
UT7
36. Cattle have access to this reach from the northern pasture.
37. IRT in agreement on proposed approaches and ratios.
Closing Thoughts
38. The IRT was very concerned about channel flow with this Site being in the slate belt and with several reaches
scoring as weakly intermittent. The IRT strongly encouraged flow gages and cameras, analyzing precipitation
data, and macroinvertebrate collection now to support jurisdictional calls.
39. Throughout the site visit, the IRT encouraged wider buffers and use of the buffer credit calculation tool to
gain additional credits given lower credit ratios. Wildlands will discuss capturing wider buffers within the
conservation easement with the landowner and implement where feasible. This will be particularly
necessary where the easement needs to capture the entire floodplain or where the current easement
boundaries will be difficult to fence due to topography.
40. The IRT encouraged Wildlands to prepare mapping similar to those presented in Dynamite Creek to support
design approaches for enhancement reaches or reaches involving multiple approaches credited under a
single ratio.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 4
Four Hills Mitigation Bank

41. Wildlands' path forward is to install gages, collect flow for several months then submit a revised Prospectus
that presents data findings to the IRT.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 5
Four Hills Mitigation Bank