Hunters Moon Post Contract IRT Site Visit Summary 12-1-22

W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING NOTES
MEETING: IRT Post -contract Site Walk
Hunter's Moon Mitigation Site
Cape Fear Basin CU 03030003; Chatham County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 452048014-07
USACE No.: 2022-02397
DWR No.: 20221567
DATE: On -Site Meeting: Monday December 14, 2022
Meeting Notes Revised: Thursday, December 1, 2022
LOCATION: Poplar Trail
Siler City, NC
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Lindsay Crocker, DMS
Meeting Notes
Kim Isenhour, USACE
John Hutton, Wildlands
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands
The primary purpose of this site visit was to provide an opportunity for the IRT members to see the site and for
Wildlands staff to explain the various components of the project. The site is on an active cattle farm and will
include stream restoration, stream enhancement I, stream enhancement II, wetland re-establishment, and
wetland rehabilitation. This meeting summary is organized by stream reaches, rather than chronological order
of the discussions, to make review more efficient. A concept is attached to help with review of this meeting
summary.
Quaker Creek Reach 1
• Quaker Creek Reach 1 is proposed for enhancement 1. John explained that there is bedrock feature in
the channel at the upstream end that the raised bed of the enhancement 1 would tie into.
• Raising the bed of Reach 1 through enhancement 1 will allow for Reach 2 to be Priority 1 restoration for
its entire length.
Quaker Creek Reach 2
• Quaker Creek Reach 2 is proposed for restoration. Priority 1 restoration will be achieved for the entire
reach.
• Kim stated that Reach 2 does not look like it is actively eroding. Todd also mentioned that the existing
bed along the reach is in good condition.
• John indicated that Wildlands is open to suggestions on how to handle Reach 2.

• There is a potential existing wetland on the Reach 2 floodplain that Todd suggested may be eligible for
wetland mitigation credit. This area was initially not considered since it may have been recently
managed based on aerial photo review. John explained that the area would be captured in the
easement. Wildlands will discuss with the landowner the potential to expand the easement to the top
of the treeline (near the top of the steep valley slope) and will add this additional area to the easement
if it is agreed to.
• Todd said that raising the stream bed and meandering the stream closer to the wetland area could
justify restoration on Reach 2. There was also discussion of removing the spoil berms along this reach
which cause the existing channel to be more incised.
• Kim stated that if Wildlands chose to pursue restoration on Reach 2 and wetlands mitigation in the
adjacent floodplain that the details should be explained in the mitigation plan.
• Groundwater gauges should be installed soon if Wildlands plans to pursue wetland mitigation adjacent
to Reach 2.
Quaker Creek Reach 3
• Quaker Creek Reach 3 will be Priority 1 restoration for its entire length.
• There are remnants of an old stone mill dam on both the right and left floodplain near the upstream end
of Quaker Creek Reach 3. The IRT expressed concerns that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
would want the remaining dam structure to be preserved. John indicated that Wildlands plans to leave
the remaining dam structure in place and would meander the restored stream through the existing
channel location through the existing gap in the dam. Wildlands will ensure that SHPO is notified of the
structure and will follow their guidance on how to deal with it during design and construction of the
project.
Quaker Creek Reach 4
• Quaker Creek Reach 4 is proposed for Priority 1 restoration.
• The powerline that crosses Quaker Creek Reach 4 was shown on the proposal concept map as staying in
it's current location. John explained that Wildlands will attempt to relocate it through crossing #5.
• John pointed out a linear wetland feature that drains to Quaker Creek Reach 4 and noted that it will be
preserved in the conservation easement. Kim indicated that it could be a jurisdictional stream feature
and be used for credit. The final determination will be made by the USACE during the JD site visit.
• Todd briefly mentioned the amount of existing privet on the site and John said it would all be removed
within the easement.
Quaker Creek Reach 5
• Quaker Creek Reach 5 is proposed for enhancement II. Work performed will include bank repairs, full
restoration of a short section to move the channel away from the left valley wall, invasive treatment,
and livestock exclusion.
• It was noted that the enhancement II at the lower end of Quaker Creek will include fixing cattle slides.
• John explained that the break point between the restoration reach (Reach 4) and the enhancement
reach (Reach 5) was located lower on the channel so that the channel could be moved farther away
from the base of the pond dam. This approach would provide a fifty -foot wide buffer on the right
floodplain plus leave 20 feet of open pasture between the buffer and the base of the dam. The IRT
members commented that the lower portion of the restoration reach looked stable and had good bed
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
HUNTER'S MOON Mitigation Site
December 1, 2022, IRT Post -Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes

form and it might be better to move the breakpoint between enhancement and restoration further
upstream and allow a portion of the enhancement reach to have a narrow buffer on the right. The ratio
for the enhancement with a narrow buffer would be reduced to account for the buffer. Todd asked that
Wildlands look at the channel and consider whether to leave the reach break location or move it.
Wildlands will consider both options and provide justification in the mitigation for the chosen option.
Wetlands Adjacent to Quaker Creek
• There is a large area of wetland restoration along Quaker Creek Reach 4, mostly on the left floodplain.
John explained that this area is currently wetter near the toe and that was the reason Wildlands
proposed wetland rehabilitation in that area while the areas farther from the toe of slope would be
reestablishment. John explained that the ditch at the toe would be removed and the rehabilitation area
should get slightly drier while the re-establishment area will get wetter. The ratios proposed for this
wetland restoration area are 1:1 for re-establishment and 1.5:1 for rehabilitation. Kim stated that the
ratios should be based on the level of uplift and that the approach and resulting uplift should be clearly
explained in the mitigation plan to justify the ratios. Wildlands agreed to include a narrative to explain
that in the mitigation plan.
• John explained that the only grading necessary for this area of wetland restoration would be to remove
a few spoil piles left on the floodplain. The rest of the restored areas will remain at current grade.
• Todd asked if the wetland restoration areas would be ripped and John said they would.
Northeast Trib
• Restoration is proposed for the lower reach (Reach 2) of Northeast Trib below and existing knickpoint.
Above the knickpoint (Reach 1), enhancement II is proposed. The restoration will be Priority 1 for all of
Reach 2. The enhancement II will include cattle exclusion, planting, privet removal, and bank repairs in a
few locations where needed. Todd asked that Wildlands describe the enhancement II work in the
mitigation plan to justify the ratio.
• Todd requested that Wildlands add structures to increase large woody debris in the channel and create
bedform diversity.
North Trib
• North Trib is proposed as enhancement I for its entire length. Work performed on the channel will
include raising the streambed in its current location, treating invasive species, and planting a buffer
along a portion of the right bank.
• John indicated that North Trib may not be called jurisdictional by the USACE. Todd stated that, if it is
not jurisdictional, the lower end of North Trib would be an excellent place for a BMP due to the amount
of drainage it gets.
Rock House Branch Reach 1
• Rock House Branch Reach 1 is proposed as restoration for its entire length. Reach 1 of the stream will
be moved to the center of its valley and wetland re-establishment will be performed on the floodplain
on both sides of the stream.
• Todd stated that the approach seemed straightforward.
• Todd asked that a gauge be placed on Rock House Branch to evaluate the effect on hydrology created by
the pond that is upstream and off the property.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
HUNTER'S MOON Mitigation Site
December 1, 2022, IRT Post -Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes

Rock House Branch Reach 2
• Rock House Branch Reach 2 is also proposed as restoration.
• The sparsely -wooded, wet area on the right floodplain will be included in the easement and will be
wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation.
• John explained that there is an issue that will affect the stream alignment at the downstream end of
Reach 2. The adjacent landowner that owns the property that the receiving stream is on would not
participate in the project. Therefore, to connect the lower end of Reach 2 to the point where it can flow
into the receiving stream will require aligning a short section of the new channel so that it crosses an
area that is slightly higher than the natural valley of the stream. This area would be graded down
slightly to create a floodplain.
• There is another lower draw area to the left of the existing channel that Reach 2 could be moved to that
would eliminate the need to route the channel through the higher area. John said that it would be more
difficult to move the entire channel from its current valley and that to do this would move the restored
channel away from the wetlands restoration areas. Todd asked that the options for alignment of Reach
2 be thoroughly considered once the topo survey is performed.
• Todd mentioned that if the connection point that Reach 2 will tie into is an isolated channel, it may not
be jurisdictional. It does not look like that's the case but the determination will be made during the JD
site visit.
• Portions of Rock House Branch will flow through areas that are currently pasture and Kim asked that
Wildlands state in the mitigation plan how the pasture grasses will be dealt with so that they don't
interfere with the planed trees.
Summary
At the conclusion of the site visit a few summary comments were made. Kim stated that gauges should be put
on all project streams except for Quaker Creek. John stated that Wildlands would install soil temperature
probes and try to document an earlier start to the growing season for this site. The growing season selected and
justification for that will be explained in the mitigation plan and the growing season will not change for the life
of the project. Kim indicated that if the growing season was extended on the front end that it should be
extended on the back end as well. Unless otherwise noted, the IRT members agreed with the proposed
mitigation approaches. Another topic of concern is the presence of black walnut trees on the site. In the fairly
low densities observed onsite, Wildlands prefers not to remove them since we do not think they will interfere
with other tree growth. Most of the trees that Wildlands will plant are tolerant of the allelopathic chemical
(juglone) that black walnut trees produce.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 4
HUNTER'S MOON Mitigation Site
December 1, 2022, IRT Post -Contract Site Walk Meeting Notes