20230890 Ver 1_Big Alamance_IRT Initial Site Visit_7-13-2023

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 S.E. Maynard Road , Suite 140
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone]
www.EPRUSA.net

Providing Ecosystem Planning and Restoration Services to Support a Sustainable Environment

July 18, 2023

Ms. Emily Dunnigan
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603

RE: Field Meeting Notes - IRT Initial Site Visit on 7/13/2023
Big Alamance Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project # 100655
USACE Action ID#: SAW-2023-01071
NC DWR #: 20230890
NC DEQ Contract #: 563635464-01

Dear Ms. Dunnigan,

This letter is being provided as meeting minutes to a field meeting that occurred at the Big
Alamance Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project (Site) on July 13, 2023. The site is
currently in the Mitigation Plan development process. The meeting was conducted to review the
current Site conditions, discuss proposed actions, and confirm necessary data to capture for
implementation and monitoring. The Site is located at 2225 Herron Rd, Whitsett NC in Guilford
County and is proposed to provide 3,880 stream mitigation credits and 3.9 wetland mitigation
credits within the Cape Fear River Basin 03030002.

Attendees:
Emily Dunnigan – NCDMS
Kim Browning – USACE
Casey Haywood – USACE
Olivia Munzer – NCWRC
Emmett Perdue – EPR
Ellery Alkotob – EPR

The meeting began at approximately 9:00 AM. There was a brief introduction to the Site and of
the anticipated restoration approaches. The group agreed to move from the top of the site down
and chose the area downstream of the pond to investigate first. Stopping at the downstream end
of this linear wetland as it confluences with UT1, the gr oup discussed a valley restoration
approach that would raise the feature up to the historic valley elevation. There was concern about
the upstream pond so the group moved to review the dam. Concerns were raised about the
primary outlet pipe being perched, the lack of a secondary spillway, and the numerous trees
growing along the downstream side of the dam. A request was made to discuss clearing the
downstream face of the dam, ensuring an appropriate secondary outlet to minimize a breach, and
improving the primary outlet’s dissipation mechanism through grading and vegetation (not
hardened enough to qualify as a BMP in a jurisdictional resource). Additionally, a discharge
analysis, and volume and regularity, should be included in the mitigation plan. In addition to the
discharge analysis, a future use of the surrounding properties was requested to be included in
the mitigation plan. At a minimum, this should include the landowner’s intended future use –
development, agricultural, or livestock operation – and how the Site will be protected.

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
Page 2

The group moved downstream to the only crossing on the project and discussed the purpose and
type of crossing. At this time, the crossing is intended to be utilized for agricultural access and
will be a culverted crossing. However, the easement cut out i s large enough to accommodate a
future road if development were to be pursued. The group moved upstream to evaluate the
enhancement reach proposed along UT1. The group looked at the eroding banks and discussed
the bank grading approach to accommodate the appropriate entrenchment ratio. At this time, the
group brought up federal and state listed endangered species. The Site does not appear to have
habitat for any state listed species, however an official report to be conducted by WRC staff will
be provided.

The group then proceeded downstream to the wetland area on stream left directly across from
UT1B. The accuracy of the soils report developed by Ground Truthing and verified by EPR’s
Scott King was discussed along with its alignment with the proposed wetland rehabilitation and
reestablishment areas. It was recommended that the PJD documentation be submitted as soon
as possible as wait times are increasing due to staff workload. Additionally, the inclusion o f any
wetland nomenclature or naming be added to all mitigation plan documentation for ease of
identifying features in all phases of the project. It was asked if the wetlands had buffers
incorporated around them. Though they are all contained within the easement and have some
space around them, buffering the wetlands was not incorporated into the design. The group noted
that 50-foot buffers are likely to be required in the future. The question of whether the easement
would be fenced was discussed along with the need for future use planning. EPR answer ed that
the easement would be fenced. **Correction** - The current proposal is for the easement to be
marked with witness posts, not fenced. Landowner has stated that they do not intend to put
livestock back on the Site if the restoration project is conducted.

The group proceeded to cross UT1 and walk up UT1B. The intermittent status and small
watershed size (7 acres) concerned the group. The installation of flow monitoring gauges along
with motion activated trail cameras was recommended to document presence a nd duration of
flow.

The group then proceeded downstream to the relic pond/breached dam area along UT1. A
request to increase the buffer to include the trees on the stream left was made and the discussion
of using the buffer tool to evaluate the Site ensued. EPR agreed to run to the tool to see if it
provided any additional value to the Site. With the number of larger trees in this area, a discussion
of floodplain complexity and inclusion of scattered wood over the floodplain occurred. EPR
agreed a “clean” grading of the area is not a recommended end point for the restoration that will
occur in this area and that roughness and wood will be included. As the group moved to the dam,
the inclusion of a grading figure to outline areas of less than 6in of cut, 6in to 12in of cut, and more
than 12in of cut be included to help identify wetland functional uplift and treatments .

The group proceeded to UT1C, in particular to look at the section of enhancement called out in
the middle of the reach. This was a bedrock-controlled area that provides a good representation
of what the restoration should look like when completed. A discussion of regional curves, the use
of local and watershed size appropriate reaches, was discussed. EPR stated that they utilize a
catalogue of reference reaches that we have reduced down to design criteria based on watershed
size and stream slope.

The group moved back down UT1C and crossed UT1 onto the stream left floodplain. This section
of UT1 is highly incised and channelized therefore it was pointed out that the stream will most
likely be relocated in this section to the historic low point in the valley.

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
Page 2

Continuing downstream, the group came to the confluence with UT1D and proceeded to follow it
upstream. Along this reach the discussion moved back to the wetland treatments and the need
to justify the functional uplift in each case. In addition, having an appropriate vegetation plan (not
a generic bottomland hardwood forest) to provide zones for all vegetation communities is
necessary. EPR indicated that their staff biologist does a thorough job of determining the correct
species and at a minimum includes zones for stream side, riparian, wetland, and upland
communities. A recommendation of including pollinator species such as buttonbush and golden
rod was made and to look at the Wits End Plan on the DMS website as a go by. The treatment
of pasture grass and microstegium within the buffer came with the recommendation to go at it
early and aggressively. EPR agreed, however the mechanized clearing would be balanced with
the overall disturbance to the large trees and established communities already present. The
presence of walnut and a request to thin this species was made as they limit the growth of other
vegetation in the surrounding area. And finally, a discussion about the possibility of including the
crossing (middle of project) into the easement to make the easement a continuous polygon was
had. EPR was not sure that could be accommodated as the landowner has been reluctant to
change the easement at this time. **Correction** - Upon further discussion with EPR’s land agent,
EPR will review this option for the easement and include an update in the mitigation plan.

The group walked up a little more of UT1D before cutting across the ag field and returning to their
cars. The meeting ended at approximately 10:50AM.

Questions Received from Casey Haywood via Email on 8/9/2023

• USACE requested a map of existing conditions in the prospectus that shows locations of
any headcuts, cattle wallows, mass wasting, eroding banks etc.
• A map of existing conditions has been added to the document. Mass wasting and
cattle wallows were not present on Site and have not been included in the figure.
• Noted section of UT1D easement was not 50ft. USACE will need to know if it’s less than
5% of the entire project. A credit reduction was proposed in the plan, but may not be
necessary if showing uplift and the total area that is less than 50ft is less than five
percent.
• Based on the total length of sub-50 foot buffer width of the conceptual design
alternative, the amount of stream length in question is just below 5% of the total
project length. Throughout detailed design of the project, adjustments to the
meander bend alignments throughout that area will help lower the percentage
even more. EPR will plan to remove the credit reduction stated in the proposal
due to meeting the sub-5% requirement and showing functional uplift in the area.
• IRT also requested a flow gauge on UT1D to document flow duration during monitoring.
• A flow gauge will be added on UT1D and UT1B to document flow during
monitoring.
• When selecting locations for veg plots, please capture old dams, pond beds, wetland
areas, and various soil types etc.
• Vegetation plots will be placed at the requested locations to monitor success in
various areas of the project.

61
61
W
in
d
fiel
d
R
i
d
g
e
D
r
Reece Ln
HerronRd
W
i
n
d
f
i
e
l
d
R
i
d
g
e
Dr
FIGURE 1
DATE:
August 2023
Property Easement
Existing Streams
Existing Wetlands
Old Dam
Bank Erosion
Headcuts
Bedrock
Farm Road Crossing 0 250 500
Feet
³
So
u
r
c
e
s
:

E
S
R
I

A
e
r
i
a
l

I
m
a
g
e
r
y

2
0
1
7
;

O
p
e
n

S
t
r
e
e
t

M
a
p
;

T
I
G
E
R

R
o
a
d
s

2
0
1
5
Pa
t
h
:

R
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
D
U
0
1
9
0
_
N
C
D
M
S
_
B
i
g

A
l
a
m
a
n
c
e
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
B
A
C
_
B
C
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
\
B
A
C
_
B
C
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
.
a
p
r
x

|

D
a
t
e
:

8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3

|

T
i
m
e
:

1
1
:
0
3

A
M

|

U
s
e
r

N
a
m
e
:

a
d
o
m
i
a
n
o
Guilford County, NC
Existing Condition Map
Big Alamance Creek
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
De
e
p
R
i
v
e
r
49
A s h e b o r o
B u r l i n g t o n
G r e e n s b o r o
H i g h P o i n t 36.025
-79.567 Prepared By:
PROJECT LOCATION³
1:6,200
Farm Path Crossing
Old Dam
UT1A
UT1
UT1B
UT1C
UT1
UT1D