20190866 Ver 1_100123_Huntsman_MY1_2022_20230206

ID#* 20190866
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 02/06/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/6/2023
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
ID#:* 20190866
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Huntsman Mitigation Site
County: Wilkes
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: 100123_Huntsman _MY1_2022.pdf 87.78MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature: *

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Stream Photographs

Monitoring Year 1

Photo Point 1– NL Hunting R1, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 1 – NL Hunting R1, view downstream (10/11/2022)
Photo Point 2– NL Hunting R1, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 2 – NL Hunting R1, view downstream (10/11/2022)
Photo Point 3– NL Hunting R1, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 3 – NL Hunting R1, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 4– NL Hunting R1, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 4 – NL Hunting R1, view downstream (10/11/2022)
Photo Point 4 – UT1 Reach 3 view upstream (10/11/2022)
Photo Point 5– NL Hunting R2, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 5 – NL Hunting R2, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 6–NL Hunting R2, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 6–NL Hunting R2, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 7– NL Hunting R2, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 7 – NL Hunting R2, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 8 – UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 8– UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 9–UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 9–UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 10– UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 10 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 11– UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 11 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 12–UT1 Reach 2, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 12–UT1 Reach 2, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 13– UT1 Reach 2, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 13 – UT1 Reach 2, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 14– UT1 Reach 3, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 14 – UT1 Reach 2, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 15–UT2 Reach 1, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 15–UT2 Reach 1, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 16– UT2 Reach 1, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 16 – UT2 Reach 1, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 17– UT2 Reach 2, view upstream (11/23/2022)Photo Point 17 – UT2 Reach 2, view downstream (11/23/2022)

Photo Point 18–UT2 Reach 2, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 18–UT2 Reach 2, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 19– UT2 Reach 3, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 19 – UT2 Reach 3, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 20 – UT2 Reach 3, view upstream (10/10/2022)Photo Point 20 – UT2 Reach 3, view downstream (10/10/2022)

Photo Point 21–UT2 Reach 4, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 21–UT2 Reach 4, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 22– UT2 Reach 4, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 22 – UT2 Reach 4, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 23 –Rifle Trib, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 23 – Rifle Trib, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 24–Rifle Trib, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 24–Rifle Trib, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 25 –Rifle Trib, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 25 – Rifle Trib, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 26 – Trapper Trib, view upstream (10/11/2022) Photo Point 26 –Trapper Trib, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 27 –Old Bus Branch, view upstream (10/11/2022)Photo Point 27 –Old Bus Branch, view downstream (10/11/2022)

Photo Point 28 –Barn Branch, view upstream (10/10/2022)Photo Point 28 – Barn Branch, view downstream (10/10/2022)

Vegetation Plot Photographs

Monitoring Year 1

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 1 (10/11/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 2(10/11/2022)

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 3 (10/11/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 4(10/11/2022)

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 5 (10/10/2022) PERMANET VEGETATION PLOT 6 (10/10/2022)

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 7 (10/11/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 8(10/11/2022)

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 9 (10/10/2022) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 10 (10/10/2022)

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 11 (10/10/2022)PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 12 (10/11/2022)

PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 13 (12/08/2022)

MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 1(10/11/2022) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 2(10/10/2022)

MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 3(10/10/2022) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 4(10/10/2022)

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

0000000000
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
% Invasives
5869798
101111
# Species# Species# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot 3 FVeg Plot 6 FVeg Plot 9 F
Veg Plot 12 F
2222222222
Veg Plot Group 2 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
445567364567445567445607364607
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
000000000000
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
76988786969
10
# Species# Species# Species# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot 2 FVeg Plot 5 FVeg Plot 8 F
Veg Plot 11 F
223222322222
Veg Plot Group 1 RVeg Plot Group 4 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
486607445567648648526607283567364526
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
00000000000
% Invasives
% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives% Invasives
896967567
1010
# Species# Species# Species# Species# Species# Species
Veg Plot 1 FVeg Plot 4 FVeg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 10 FVeg Plot 13 F
22322222222
Veg Plot Group 3 R
Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)Av. Ht. (ft)
567607486607364607405567405445526
Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.Stems/Ac.
Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year
1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring
Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0Monitoring Year 7Monitoring Year 5Monitoring
Year 3Monitoring Year 2Monitoring Year 1Monitoring Year 0
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Data Huntsman Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 100123 Monitoring Year 1- 2022
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Huntsman Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100123
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
DESIGN
CONDITIONS(MY0)
North Little Hunting Creek Reach 1
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
22.022.1
Bankfull Width (ft)12.416.321
78.1
Floodprone Width (ft)17.044.0248.0220.01
1.31.3
Bankfull Mean Depth1.61.721
2.02.2
Bankfull Max Depth2.12.321
2
29.228.6
20.625.821
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
16.617.1
Width/Depth Ratio7.510.321
3.5
Entrenchment Ratio1.42.722.210.01
1.0
Bank Height Ratio 2.02.321.01.11
15.00--64.0
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
G4C4C4
Rosgen Classification
100-110100.090.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.31.3
Sinuosity
2
0.00730.00490.0053
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
North Little Hunting Creek Reach 2
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
23.027.9
Bankfull Width (ft)12.416.321
61.2
Floodprone Width (ft)17.044.0251.0230.01
1.41.4
Bankfull Mean Depth1.61.721
2.02.3
Bankfull Max Depth2.12.321
2
31.137.8
20.625.821
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
17.020.5
Width/Depth Ratio7.510.321
2.2
Entrenchment Ratio1.42.722.210.01
1.0
Bank Height Ratio 2.02.321.01.11
15.00--105
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
G4C4C3
Rosgen Classification
100-110110.0114.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.21.2
Sinuosity
2
0.00730.00660.0061
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
(---): Data was not provided, N/A: Not Applicable

Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Huntsman Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100123
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
DESIGN
CONDITIONS(MY0)
UT1 Reach 1
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
Bankfull Width (ft)10.213.724.55.74.85.22
41.343.8
Floodprone Width (ft)23.035.0210.057.02
Bankfull Mean Depth0.70.820.30.40.30.42
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth1.31.720.50.62
2
8.29.821.52.32
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)1.41.9
12.318.8
Width/Depth Ratio12.719.1213.513.92
Entrenchment Ratio2.22.52>1.4>2.28.09.12
1.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.01.821.01.12
27.00--
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull39.543.22
E4/C4C4 & B4C4b
Rosgen Classification
7-117.03.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.2
Sinuosity1.11.3
2
0.02960.0243
0.01900.0595
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
UT1 Reach 2
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
6.26.2
Bankfull Width (ft)10.213.721
42.3
Floodprone Width (ft)23.035.0211.025.01
0.40.8
Bankfull Mean Depth0.70.821
0.61.5
Bankfull Max Depth1.31.721
2
2.65.2
8.29.821
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.67.4
Width/Depth Ratio12.719.121
6.8
Entrenchment Ratio2.22.521.84.01
1.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.01.821.01.11
27.00--39
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
E4/C4C4bC4b
Rosgen Classification
7-1110.031.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.21.2
Sinuosity
2
0.02960.03800.0399
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
2. Channel slope for UT1 Reach 1 is calculated from the surface of the channel bed rather than water surface.
(---): Data was not provided, N/A: Not Applicable

Table 8c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Huntsman Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100123
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
DESIGN
CONDITIONS(MY0)
UT1 Reach 3
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
6.66.3
Bankfull Width (ft)10.213.721
18.4
Floodprone Width (ft)23.035.0212.026.01
0.50.5
Bankfull Mean Depth0.70.821
0.80.9
Bankfull Max Depth1.31.721
2
3.03.4
8.29.821
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.311.7
Width/Depth Ratio12.719.121
2.9
Entrenchment Ratio2.22.521.84.01
1.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.01.821.01.11
27.00--53.7
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
E4/C4C4bC4b
Rosgen Classification
7-1111.015.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.11.1
Sinuosity
2
0.02960.03100.0366
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
UT2 Reach 2
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
3.55.05.1
Bankfull Width (ft)11
5.018.2
Floodprone Width (ft)17.012.01
0.80.30.3
Bankfull Mean Depth11
1.00.50.5
Bankfull Max Depth11
2
2.61.61.4
11
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.715.418.0
Width/Depth Ratio11
1.33.6
Entrenchment Ratio11.42.41
2.81.0
Bank Height Ratio 11.01.11
0.90--44
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
A6B5aB4a
Rosgen Classification
7.07.06.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.11.1
Sinuosity
2
0.07910.08300.0856
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
2. Channel slope is calculated from the surface of the channel bed rather than water surface.
(---): Data was not provided, N/A: Not Applicable

Table 8d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Huntsman Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100123
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
DESIGN
CONDITIONS(MY0)
UT2 Reach 3
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
3.06.67.5
Bankfull Width (ft)11
10.023.0
Floodprone Width (ft)19.016.01
1.10.40.5
Bankfull Mean Depth11
1.40.50.8
Bankfull Max Depth11
2
3.22.63.4
11
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.917.116.3
Width/Depth Ratio11
3.23.1
Entrenchment Ratio11.42.41
2.31.0
Bank Height Ratio 11.01.11
0.90--33.7
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
E5bB5C4b
Rosgen Classification
9.09.013.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.11.1
Sinuosity
2
0.02540.03000.0319
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
UT2 Reach 4
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
3.08.46.0
Bankfull Width (ft)11
10.021.3
Floodprone Width (ft)118.084.01
1.10.50.4
Bankfull Mean Depth11
1.40.80.6
Bankfull Max Depth11
2
3.24.52.2
11
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.915.816.3
Width/Depth Ratio11
3.23.6
Entrenchment Ratio12.210.01
2.31.0
Bank Height Ratio 11.01.11
0.90--31
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
E5bC5C4
Rosgen Classification
9.09.04.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.31.3
Sinuosity
2
0.02540.07000.0128
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
2. Channel slope for UT2 Reach 3 is calculated from the surface of the channel bed rather than water surface.
(---): Data was not provided, N/A: Not Applicable

Table 8e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Huntsman Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100123
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
DESIGN
CONDITIONS(MY0)
Old Bus Branch
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
4.13.03.7
Bankfull Width (ft)11
7.06.4
Floodprone Width (ft)14.07.01
0.80.30.3
Bankfull Mean Depth11
1.20.50.4
Bankfull Max Depth11
2
3.40.91.0
11
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.910.313.7
Width/Depth Ratio11
1.71.7
Entrenchment Ratio11.42.41
6.31.0
Bank Height Ratio 11.01.11
0.10--47.3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
G5A5B4a
Rosgen Classification
4.04.04.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.11.01.0
Sinuosity
2
0.02840.09000.1030
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
Barn Branch
Parameter
Riffle OnlyMinMaxnMinMaxMinMaxn
3.84.38.4
Bankfull Width (ft)11
9.040.1
Floodprone Width (ft)16.010.01
0.90.30.7
Bankfull Mean Depth11
1.20.51.1
Bankfull Max Depth11
2
3.31.45.6
11
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.313.212.7
Width/Depth Ratio11
2.54.8
Entrenchment Ratio11.42.41
2.51.0
Bank Height Ratio 11.01.11
0.10--52
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull1
B5aB5aB4a
Rosgen Classification
6.06.030.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1.01.11.1
Sinuosity
2
0.04350.05200.0388
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
------
Other
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
2. Channel slope for Old Bus Branch is calculated from the surface of the channel bed rather than water surface.
(---): Data was not provided, N/A: Not Applicable

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

Precipitation (in)

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Information

APPENDIX F. Agency Correspondence

To:DMSTechnicalWorkgroup,DMSoperationsstaff
From:PeriannRussell,DivisionofMitigationServices(DMS)
RE:Pebblecountdatarequirements
Date:October19,2021
TheDMSTechnicalWorkGroupmetSeptember29,2021todiscussInteragencyReviewTeam(IRT)and
monitoring(MY0MYx).Agreementwas
DMSrequirementsforcollectingpebblecountdataaspartof
reachedbetweenallattendingpartiesthatpebblecountdatawillnotberequiredduringthemonitoring
periodforallfutureprojects.
Sedimentdataandparticledistributionwillstillberequiredforthemitigationplanaspartofthe
proposeddesignexplanationandjustification.
Pebblecountsand/orparticledistributionscurrentlybeingconductedbyprovidersforannual
monitoringmaybediscontinuedatthediscretionoftheDMSprojectmanager.Ifparticledistribution
waslistedasaperformancestandardintheprojectmitigationplan,theproviderisrequiredto
communicatetheintenttoceasedatacollectionwiththeDMSprojectmanager.Theabsenceofpebble
countdatainfuturemonitoringreportswherepebblecountdatawaslistedaspartofmonitoringinthe
mitigationplanmustbedocumentedinthemonitoringreport.TheSeptember29,2021TechnicalWork
Groupmeetingmaybecitedasthesourceofthenew
policy.
TheIRTreservestherighttorequestpebblecountdata/particledistributionsifdeemednecessary
duringthemonitoringperiod.

KristiSuggs
From:Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday,October27,20211:26PM
To:KristiSuggs
Cc:MimiCaddell
Subject:
RE:\[External\]FW:PebbleCountDataRequirements
IamabsolutelyOKwithnotdoingpebblecountsanymore!
Asstatedinthememo,pleaseaddastatementinthemonitoringreportscitingthepolicy.
Thanks!
Matthew Reid
Project Manager Î Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-231-7912 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:KristiSuggs\[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent:Wednesday,October27,20211:24PM
To:Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>
Cc:MimiCaddell<[e-mail]>
Subject:\[External\]FW:PebbleCountDataRequirements
CAUTION:Externalemail.Donotclicklinksoropenattachmentsunlessyouverify.SendallsuspiciousemailasanattachmenttoReport
Spam.
Matthew,
JasonLorchinourRaleighOfficeforwardedthismeetingmemotome.ItsaysthatconductingpebblecountsforDMS
monitoring(MY0ΑMY7)projectsisnolongerneededaslongasithasbeenokayedbytheDMSPM.Movingforward,areyou
goingtoallowustostopdoingthemonyourprojects?Ifso,willDBBprojectsbetreatedthesame?Pleaseletmeknow.Thank
you!
Kristi
KristiSuggs|SeniorEnvironmentalScientist
O:704.332.7754x110 M:704.579.4828
1

WildlandsEngineering,Inc.
1430S.MintSt,Suite104
Charlotte,NC28203
From:JasonLorch<[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday,October25,20219:05AM
To:KristiSuggs<[e-mail]>
Subject:FW:PebbleCountDataRequirements
FYI!
JasonLorch,GISP|SeniorEnvironmentalScientist
O:919.851.9986x107 M:919.413.1214
WildlandsEngineering,Inc.
312WestMillbrookRoad,Suite225
Raleigh,NC27609
From:Russell,Periann<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday,October21,202110:05AM
To:King,Scott<[e-mail]>;CatherineManner<[e-mail]>;Tugwell,ToddJCIV
USARMYCESAW(US)<[e-mail]>;[e-mail];BradBreslow<[e-mail]>;Davis,ErinB
<[e-mail]>;[e-mail];grantlewis<[e-mail]>;JeffKeaton
<[e-mail]>;katiemckeithan<[e-mail]>;KayneVanStell
<[e-mail]>;KevinTweedy<[e-mail]>;Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>;Ryan
Smith<[e-mail]>;Melia,Gregory<[e-mail]>;Allen,Melonie<[e-mail]>;
Famularo,JosephT<[e-mail]>;[e-mail];BryanDick<[e-mail]>;RyanMedric
<[e-mail]>;KimBrowning<[e-mail]>;KayneVanStell<[e-mail]>;
WorthCreech<[e-mail]>;JasonLorch<[e-mail]>
Cc:Crocker,Lindsay<[e-mail]>;Wiesner,Paul<[e-mail]>;Tsomides,Harry
<[e-mail]>;Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>;Dow,JeremiahJ<[e-mail]>;
Horton,Jeffrey<[e-mail]>;Ullman,KirstenJ<[e-mail]>;Ackerman,Anjie
<[e-mail]>;Blackwell,JamieD<[e-mail]>;Xu,Lin<[e-mail]>;Mir,Danielle
<[e-mail]>;Corson,Kristie<[e-mail]>;Russell,Periann<[e-mail]>;
Sparks,KimberlyL<[e-mail]>
Subject:PebbleCountDataRequirements
Pleasereviewtheattachedmemodocumentingtheagreeduponpolicyforpebblecountdatarequirements.
Pleasereply(meonly)tothisemailifacceptthatthismemorepresents(ormisrepresents)ourdiscussiononSept29.
Thankyou.
Periann Russell
Geomorphologist
Division of Mitigation Services, Science and Analysis
NC Department of Environmental Quality
919 707 8306 office
919 208 1426 mobile
[e-mail]
Mailing: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Physical: 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603
2

MEETING NOTES
MEETING: MY0/MY1 (2022) IRT Site Walk
HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040102; Wilkes County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7891
DMS Project No. 100123
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00836
DWR Project No. 20190866
Wildlands Project No. 005-02183

DATE: Thursday, October 13, 2022

LOCATION: Ingle Hollow Road
Ronda, NC

Attendees
Kim Isenhour, USACE Melonie Allen, DMS Aaron Earley, Wildlands
Erin Davis, DWR Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands
Paul Wiesner, DMS Kristi Suggs, Wildlands
Matthew Reid, DMS Emily Israel, Wildlands

The meeting began at 9:30 AM. Attendees discussed the site conditions and issues noted in the MY0 report as
well as the IRT comments and Wildlands responses. From there, the group walked up UT1, down to the repair
section on North Little Hunting Creek, over to Old Bus Branch, Rifle Trib, and UT2 headwaters, and ended along
Barn Branch. The meeting concluded at 11:30 AM.
1) Meeting Notes
a)Attendees viewed the sill on UT1 downstream of the culvert under Ingle Hollow Road. Aaron explained
that the sill was designed and installed 6” higher than the culvert invert but has failed since
construction. Water is piping around the end of the sill, which lowered the baseflow elevation.
Wildlands plans on repairing the sill to the design elevation.
b)On the UT1 riffles within the old pond bed, Kim noted that the riffle material could be embedded more
to encourage baseflow over the stone instead of under. Kim also suggested that the saprolite riffle near
the chicken houses be repaired with stone and grade control. Wildlands agreed that the section through
the pond needs work. Wildlands plans on adding and embedding riffle material, planting supplemental
live stakes and herbaceous seed, and installing sod mats on the stream banks to get that section back to
restored conditions. Kim pointed out that the hillside slope used for repair access should be stabilized.

c)Attendees observed the riprap ditches on the terrace slope near the chicken houses, which were not
included in the approved mitigation plan. Aaron explained that the riprap ditches were added during
construction once Wildlands saw the amount of runoff coming from the chicken houses during storm
events. Kim and Erin said they weren’t opposed to using riprap in those situations but suggested that
the riprap be embedded and planted. They also suggested to end the riprap and the base of the terrace
slope to allow water to flow through the planted buffer before entering the stream. Erin asked that a
narrative of justification for adding riprap stabilization measures be included in the MY1 report.
Wildlands agreed with Kim and Erin’s suggestions and will take them into consideration for future
projects.
d)Kim asked that photos of the riprap ditches and BMPs be included in future MY reports. Wildlands
agreed.
e)Paul and Kim asked about supplemental live stake planting on the upstream section of UT1 and
suggested using willow whips to establish shade quicker. Wildlands plans to supplementally plant live
stakes along most of UT1.
f)Kim asked if there are plans for in-stream vegetation treatment on UT1. Emily replied that in-stream
treatment was done this past summer and will occur again next year.
g)Outside of the easement near the chicken houses, Erin suggested that riprap be added to the
concentrated flow areas along the farm passageway. Wildlands plans on working with landowner to add
stone ford type crossings on each of the ditches along the fence line. Wildlands will add a permanent
photo point at each ditch.
h)Near the repaired section on North Little Hunting Creek, Erin suggested that flatter terrace slopes be
used to avoid the formation of rills. Wildlands agreed that flatter slopes are better, but earthwork and
topsoil impacts must be considered during design.
i)Kim questioned the placement of VP1 along North Little Hunting Creek. She was wondering about the
performance and level of saturation of the plot because on the aerial map it looks like the plot is located
where the old channel used to be. Kristi visited the veg plot during the meeting and said that plot looked
good overall. There were a few saturated areas, but it was mostly just damp from the recent rainfall,
and all 15 planted stems were viable and doing well.
j)Kim asked whether the overhead electric line crossing North Little Hunting Creek was an internal or
external break. Wildlands confirmed that it is an internal crossing with no credit.
k)Erin asked if this was a site where wetland gages were requested. Aaron replied that wetland gages
were not installed nor required on this site. Since there were no wetland gages on the site, Kim
requested that site’s wetlands be re-verified before close-out. Wildlands agreed.
l)Attendees viewed the BMPs at the top of Old Bus and Rifle Trib. Kim and Erin inquired about the
deviation in BMP type, on Rifle Trib, from the approved mitigation plan. Aaron explained that the steep
slope at the upstream end of Rifle Trib was not conducive to a pocket pool with rock outlet weir so a
step pool conveyance was installed instead. The step pool conveyance appeared stable with no
sedimentation issues.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site
MY0 IRT Site Walk

m)Kim requested that a mobile veg plot be added in the wetland at the headwaters of Barn Branch and
near photo point 19. Wildlands will relocate one mobile veg plot in each requested wetland and will
report the collected vegetation data MY2.
n)Kim requested that a discussion be included in the MY1 report about the maintenance work that has
been completed and will be completed, as well as mapping their locations on the CCPV maps.
o)Kim and Paul stated that MY0 credits have already been released.
These meeting minutes were prepared by Aaron EarleyonOctober 18, 2022,and represent the authors’ interpretation of
events. Please report and discrepancies or corrections within 5 business days of receipt of these minutes.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site
MY0 IRT Site Walk

October6,2022
ATTN:Ms.KimIsenhour
MitigationProjectManager,RegulatoryDivision
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers
69DarlingtonAvenue
Wilmington,NC284031343
RE:HuntsmanMitigationSiteMY0ReportComments
YadkinRiverBasinΑCU#03040102,WilkesCounty
USACEActionIDNo.SAW201900836
NCDWRProjectNo.20190866
DMSProjectIDNo.100123,Contract#7891
DearMs.KimIsenhour,
ThankyouforyourcommentsintheemaildatedSeptember14,2022referencingthe
HuntsmanMitigationSiteMonitoringYear0(MY0)Report.WildlandsEngineering,Inc.
(Wildlands)hasreviewedthesecommentsandourresponsesarenotedbelow.A
georeferencedCCPVmaphasbeenincludedwithourresponsesasrequested.Aphotologhas
alsobeenincludedtoaidyourreview.
KimIsenhour,USACE:
1. Inadditionto5‘w͸ƭconcerns,pleaseconfirmwhatsizerockwasusedintheconstructed
rifflesonUT1.AsIrecall,therewasdegradationonasteepsectionnearSTA210+50(?).
DWRexpressedconcernsaboutthesizeofthematerialused;andquestionedwhetherusing
largerrockintheserifflesandembeddingsomeClassIandonlytopdressingwithany
remainingonsitesmallermaterialmayhavebeenmoreappropriate.Pleaseprovidemore
detailonthisrepair.
WildlandsResponse:Displacedrifflematerialwasremovedfrompoolsandlargerstone
wasembeddedintotheaffectedriffles.Furthermore, Wildlands plans on installing larger
sized stone as a coarse base with smaller stone used to cap and fill in the voids of the larger
stone.
ErinDavis,NCDWR:
1. ThePP14photoshowstheIngleHollowRoadculvert.Inresponseto‘w/͸ƭdraftmitplan
reviewcommentregardingtheperchedculvertbeinganaquaticpassagebarrier,asillwas
tobeaddeddownstreamsettingtheelevationtosubmergethepipeoutletsixinches.Based
onthephotoźƷ͸ƭdifficulttoseeifwaterisbeingbackedupintotheculvert.Pleaseconfirm
thatthestructurewasinstalledasnotedandthebarrierhasbeenabated.

WildlandsResponse:Thedownstreamsillwasinstalledatthecorrectelevation;
however,thestreamflowispipingaroundthesillandloweringthewatersurface
elevationattheĭǒƌǝĻƩƷ͸ƭoutlet.Wildlandswillrepairthisissuebutsinceconstruction
equipmentwillbeneeded,therepairmaybedelayeduntillate2022orearly2023.
Photosareincludedintheattachedphotolog.
2. Thephotoofvegplot2appearstoshowexposedsoilwithnosignsofgerminationorstraw
cover,unliketheothervegplotphotos.Hascover/stabilizationofthisareabeenaddressed?
Additionally,pleasewatchforrillformationandsedimentmigrationalonggradedslopes
thatwerenotmatted(e.g.,PP8andPP9).Betweenworkingwithpondbottomsediments,
areasofpriority2andverysteepsideslopes,DWRisconcernedaboutsedimentmovement
withinandadjacenttothesitebecomingastreampollutantriskbeyondinitialconstruction.
inthephotoforVP2ontheattachedphotolog,
WildlandsResponse:Asshown
herbaceouscoverhasbecomeestablished.WildlandsacknowledgestheLw͸ƭconcern
aboutrillformationandpotentialsedimentloadingandwillmakesuretoinspectthese
areasduringsitevisits.Currently,rillformationinP2areasisoflittleconcernand
ofthewellvegetatedhillslopesinthevicinityofPP8&PP9areincludedinthe
photos
attachedphotolog.
3. ThesteppoolconveyanceBMPphotosforOldBusBranch(PP27)andRifleTrib.(PP23)
appearverydifferent,withRifleTrib.havingsignificantlymoreriprap.Whatfacilitatedthe
RifleTrib.BMPdesignchangefromavegetatedBMPtoariprapsteppoolconveyance
channel?ItseemsthevegetatedBMPwouldoffermorewaterqualitybenefits.
WildlandsResponse:TheapprovedMitigationPlanshowedtheBMPonRifleTributary
asaBMPwitharockweirandariprapoutlinedchannelratherthanaͻǝĻŭĻƷğƷĻķ.atͼ͵
TheBMPwaschangedtoaStepPoolconveyancechannelinthefinaldesignstage.A
copyoftheBMPdetailfromtheMitigationPlanisincludedforyourreview.
andfinal
4. SinceapermanentvegplotwasshownintheUT1lowerpondbottominbothdraft
mitigationplanmonitoringfigures,DWRdidnotrequireoneinourreviewcomments.
However,sincethatvegplothasbeenchangedtoamobileplot,DWRisnowrequiringa
permanentvegplotwithintheUT1lowerpondbottom.
WildlandsResponse:Apermanentvegetationplot(VP13)hasbeenaddedalongUT1in
thelowerpondbottom,andvegetationdatawillbecollectedwithMY1monitoring.See
Figure3.1forthelocationoftheaddedpermanentvegetationplot.
5. IRTmembersexpressedconcernsabouttheproposedbufferwidthsduringthemitigation
planreview.OnereasonDWRwasconcernedaboutnarrowerbuffersalongUT1wasthatit
meantsteepersideslopes,whichastheredlineshowsresultedinmultipleripraplined
ditchesnotplannedforintheinitialdesign.Ofparticularconcernisthatfouroftheriprap
ditchesareinthevicinityofexistingchickenhouses.Pleaseprovidemoreinformationonthe
necessityofaddingtheriprapditches.HowdoesthisaffectthemitigationplanSection3.4
functionaluplifttoͻķźŅŅǒƭĻoverlandnonpointsourcepollutantsfromadjacentlandǒƭĻͼͪ
Additionally,Sheet1.1.5showsaddedriprapcoveringanexistingwetlandarea.Ifthiswas/is
ajurisdictionalfeature,whyǞğƭƓ͸Ʒanonhardenedstabilizationoptionapplied?

WildlandsResponse:InitiallytheterraceslopesintheleftfloodplainofUT1were
implementedasdesigned.(Itwastheintentthattherunoffbetweenthechicken
houseswouldriseandsheetflowdownthehillslopefromtheridgeline.)Unfortunately,
afterafewraineventsitwasevidentthattherunoffwasformingdrainagefeaturesof
concentratedflowandleadingtostabilityissues;therefore,theimplementationofthe
riprappedswaleswasnecessaryforterraceslopestability.Inordertomaintain
functionaluplift,mostoftheswalesendatthetoeofslopetoencouragediffuseflow
beforeenteringthestream.Inaddition,basedonpreviousexperience,itisanticipated
thatherbaceousvegetationwillbecomeestablishedwithinthedrainageswalesover
timeandprovideanadditionalmeasuretodiffuserunoff.
ThewetlanddischargingintoNorthLittleHuntingCreekReach2hadbeenpermittedfor
permanentimpacts.Basedonpastexperience,itwasanticipatedthatfillmeasuresmay
needtoincludesomehardeningmaterialtostabilizetheareaofconcentrateddischarge
fromthewetland.Riprapwaschosentoprovidealongtermstabilizationmeasurethat
wouldpreventbankerosionalongthemainchannelandsubsequentheadcutmigration
acrossthefloodplain.
6. Section3.3notedacouplerifflecrosssectionswerelargerthandesigned.Aretheseareas
shownontheredlinedrawings?Ifnot,canyoupleaseidentifythelocations.
WildlandsResponse:Noneofthenotedcrosssections(XS)wereshownasredlineson
therecorddrawings.ThetwocrosssectionswereXS4onNorthLittleHuntingCreek
Reach2andXS16onBarnBranch.
7. PleaseaddstreamandreachlabelstotheCCPVFigures3.1and3.2.
WildlandsResponse:StreamandreachlabelshavebeenaddedtotheCCPVFigures3.1
&3.2.Copiesoftherevisedfiguresareattached.
Asrequested,WildlandshasprovidedwrittenresponsetotheLw͸ƭcomments,aswellas
th
georeferencedfigures,priortothesitevisitonOctober13.Wehavealsoincludedaphotolog
foradditionalinformation.Acopyofthiscomment/responseletterandassociated
documentationwillbeincludedintheAppendixoftheMY1Report.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,
pleasefeelfreetocontactme.Thankyou!
Sincerely,
AaronEarley
ProjectManager
[e-mail]

IRTMY0CommentsPhotolog

NCDWRComment1(ErinDavis)ΑIngleHollowRoadCulvertΑ Streamflowispipingaroundthesillandloweringthewatersurface
elevationattheculvert'soutlet(09/27/2022).
NCDWRComment2(ErinDavis)ΑUT1Reach1PP8&PP9Α HerbaceouscoverhasbecomewellestablishedonthehillsidesofUT1
(09/27/2022).

NCDWRComment2(ErinDavis)ΑVP2,NorthLittleHuntingCreekReach2Α Herbaceouscoverhasbecomewellestablishedinthisarea
(10/03/2022).