Initial Evaluation Letter_WEI Lower Catawba UMBI_Bootstrap-ProctorDairy_SAW-2021-20691_SAW-2021-20693

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

December 7, 2023

Regulatory Division

Subject: NCIRT Initial Review of the Wildlands Lower Catawba Umbrella Mitigation
Banking Instrument Bootstrap (SAW-2021-02691) and Proctor Dairy (SAW-2021-
02693) Mitigation Site Prospectuses

Wildlands Holdings IX, LLC
Attn: Mr. Shawn Wilkerson
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Dear Mr. Wilkerson:
This letter is regarding your prospectus document dated January 19, 2023, for the
proposed Wildlands Lower Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and
associated Bootstrap (SAW-2021-02691) and Proctor Dairy (SAW-2021-02693)
Mitigation Sites. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a private
commercial umbrella mitigation bank, and two mitigation sites totaling 52.8-acres, located
near Bessemer City in Gaston County, North Carolina. The proposed mitigation sites
would include stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities within the
South Fork Catawba River Basin (8-digit hydrologic unit code [HUC]: 03050102).

The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N
# SAW-2021-02691 and SAW-2021-02693) on January 30, 2023. The purpose of this
notice was to solicit the views of interested State and Federal agencies and other
parties either interested in or affected by the proposed work. Incorporated in this email
and attached are comments received in response to the public notice from the North
Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation
Office and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Also attached are the emailed
comments and requests for a public hearing by four local citizens, the comment
response to these concerns by the sponsor and the public hearing denial by the
USACE.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

The USACE has considered the comments received from members of the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site
review on March 14, 2023 (see attached minutes). The USACE also has considered the
PN comments received and the Sponsor’s response to those comments (see attached).
Although concerns remain, we have determined that the proposed umbrella mitigation
bank appears to have the potential to restore aquatic resources within the 8-digit HUC
03050102 of the South Fork Catawba River Basin; however, we request that you
address the enclosed agency concerns in the draft mitigation plan.

Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft mitigation plan
submittal. We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United
States. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [phone]
or by email at [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Steve Kichefski
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division - Wilmington District

Enclosure

cc (by email):
NCIRT Distribution List

Memorandum to the Record
December 4, 2023

Agency Comments for the Bootstrap (SAW-2021-02691) and Proctor Dairy (SAW-
2021-02693) Prospectuses Associated with the Wildlands Lower Catawba
Umbrella Mitigation Bank in Gaston County, North Carolina.

Bootstrap Mitigation Site (SAW-2021-02691)

USACE comments:

1. As more detailed information is gathered and incorporated into design, make sure the
concerns expressed by the public notice commentors are addressed within the draft
mitigation plan. Particularly the seven main points summarized in the USACE public
hearing response, such as concerns over flooding or the potential presence/disturbance of
polluted sediment by this project.
2. The USACE has concerns that if a participating project landowner is no longer
supportive of the project, there is increased risk for conservation easement violations and
long-term project failure. In the draft plan please address what continued coordination
efforts have occurred, whether any project landowners are in opposition to the project and
why. Please also comment on why this will or will not be a project concern to the IRT
moving forward.
3. With some new IRT project reviewers from USACE and NCDWR, if there is an
opportunity to visit both sites at the draft plan stage it would be helpful.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898
March 3, 2023

Steve Kichefski [e-mail]
Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Re: Bootstrap mitigation site, 35.340407, -81.299174, Gaston County, ER 23-0387

Dear Mr. Kichefski:

Thank you for your letter of January 30, 2023, regarding the above-referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898
March 3, 2023

Steve Kichefski [e-mail]
Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Re: Proctor Dairy mitigation site, 35.339649, -81.240793, Gaston County, ER 23-0388

Dear Mr. Kichefski:

Thank you for your letter of January 30, 2023, regarding the above-referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.

We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

October 2, 2023

Regulatory Division

SUBJECT: Response to Public Hearing request for the WEI Lower Catawba UMBI –
Bootstrap Mitigation Site, Action ID SAW-2021-02691

Chelsey Hoyle
767 Horseshoe Lake Road
Lincolnton, NC 28092

Dear Ms. Hoyle:

Reference is made to your email request received on March 2, 2023, for a public
hearing regarding the WEI Lower Catawba UMB – Bootstrap Mitigation Site prospectus
submitted by Wildlands Engineering Inc., for the establishment of a compensatory
mitigation bank in the Lower Catawba Basin (HUC 03050102), near Bessemer City,
Gaston County, North Carolina. The project proposes to generate mitigation credits that
may be used to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to streams
and wetlands associated with Department of the Army permit authorizations pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. We are in receipt of your written comments
regarding the proposed project and assure you that they have been fully considered
during our review of this project.

In accordance with 33 CFR Part 327.4(b) “requests for a public hearing shall be
granted unless the district engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial
or otherwise there is no other valid interest to be served by a hearing.” It is important to
note that State and Federal review agencies have already extensively reviewed this
project and provided their comments. Moreover, the general public has also been
provided the opportunity to provide written comments to this office for consideration.
Accordingly, it has been determined that a public hearing would not likely reveal any
additional information regarding potential impacts to waters and wetlands on the project
site. Therefore, we are hereby denying the request. A summary of the evaluation of
comments submitted in the hearing requests is attached for reference. While the

-2-

comments raise relevant and important information, they relate to information already
identified as part of the analysis.

Please note that this electronic copy provided to you via email is your offici al
copy. Should you wish to receive a paper copy of this correspondence, please contact
us. Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please
contact Mr. Steve Kichefski by email at [e-mail] or by phone
at [phone].

Sincerely,

Tommy Fennel
Chief, Regulatory Division

Enclosure

cc (by email):
Eric Neuhaus – Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Maria Polizzi - NCDWR

Bootstrap Mitigation Bank Public Hearing Evaluation

Public Hearing requests were made by four people via email to the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) in response to the public notice for the potential Wildlands Engineering
Inc. (WEI) Bootstrap Mitigation Bank. The USACE has reviewed the information provided and
evaluated the main concerns as summarized below. While information relevant to the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) evaluation of the mitigation project’s potential was
submitted, the USACE has determined there is no valid interest to be served by a public
hearing as requested.
Main Points presented by the public hearing requests:
1. The project stream named Black Bear Creek runs through the former Hallman Beam
Lithium Mine Lagoon which presents potential water quality issues.

Evaluation: The Bessemer City, Hallman-Beam mine was active between 1969 and 1990,
but that production ceased in the 1990’s. The adjacent quarry is currently operated as an
aggregate facility by Martin Marietta. Based on mapping provided in the NCDEMLR
Permit No. 36-12, a tributary to Black Bear Creek is routed through perimeter ditches
and not through previous settling ponds used by the Hallman Beam Lithium Mine.
Martin Marietta has indicated to Wildlands Engineering that currently only Lagoon A (as
shown in google maps) is impounding water at the quarry. Lagoon A discharges into
Black Bear Creek, just upstream from Dameron Road, via an installed discharge structure
(riser and barrel) in an area not part of the proposed project. Martin Marietta also noted
that the plan is for continual operation of the mine as an aggregate facility. Based on the
information provided by Martin Marietta, there is no potential for major and immediate
changes in the watershed, and as such, the quarry is not considered a threat to the
project. No construction activities that are part of the proposed project will include
those ponds or current mine property. The stream restoration area proposed
downstream from the confluence of the Lagoon A outlet is proposed to be constructed
mostly in a new location outside of the existing channel and includes adjacent floodplain
to be protected within the conservation easement (CE).

A potential mine or pond with potential contaminants, adjacent to a mitigation bank is
relevant information for the IRT review of project potential and success and will be
considered during both the initial project evaluation and the more detailed project
evaluation (draft plan review) prior to project approval. Since this information is known
by the USACE and will be reviewed and validated as part of the approval process, there
is no valid interest being served by a public hearing on this matter.

2. Martin Marietta currently leases land adjacent to the proposed project property and has
in the past notified community members of the possibility of mining previously
undisturbed property.
Evaluation: Based on information provided by Martin Marietta to the bank sponsor,
there is no potential for major and immediate changes in the watershed. The bank
sponsor has stated that none of the project CE area includes Martin Marietta property.
A real estate review, including title opinion, would be done confirming this prior to any
credit being released for this project. The design and restoration associated with the
proposed project would likely improve the stream’s ability to handle increased flows
coming from the current or a potentially expanded mine. A potential mine adjacent to a
mitigation bank is relevant information for the IRT review of project potential and
success and will be considered during both the initial project evaluation and the more
detailed project evaluation (draft plan review) prior to project approval. Since this
information is known by the USACE and will be reviewed and validated as part of the
approval process, there is no valid interest being served by a public hearing on this
matter.
3. A subdivision development was approved in 2022 adjacent to the proposed project
which includes two drainage pipes into one of the named project streams.
Evaluation: This is relevant information for the IRT review of project potential and
success and will be considered during both the initial project evaluation and the more
detailed project evaluation (draft plan review) prior to project approval. The project
applicant responded that no pipes from this development will discharge directly into the
project area based on their investigation. Since this information is known by the USACE
and will be reviewed and validated as part of the approval process, there is no valid
interest being served by a public hearing on this matter.
4. There may be a pre regulatory landfill adjacent to the project that lies within the
floodplain.
Evaluation: This is relevant information for the IRT review of project potential and
success and will be considered during both the initial project evaluation and the more
detailed project evaluation (draft plan review) prior to project approval. The bank
sponsor reports that no part of this landfill is within the project’s boundary and the
project is not proposing grading, disturbing, or entering the Biggerstaff Landfill. The
state would evaluate under their 401 water quality certification prior to permit
authorization. Since this information is known by the USACE and will be reviewed and
validated as part of the approval process, there is no valid interest being served by a
public hearing on this matter.

5. Concern over potential flooding of land or homes on adjacent property as a result of this
project. Also concern over the potential for sediment movement/deposition in adjacent
property caused by the project.
Evaluation: This is relevant information for the IRT review of project potential and
success and will be considered during both the initial project evaluation and the more
detailed project evaluation (draft plan review) prior to project approval. As part of the
review process applicants are asked to evaluate the risks including the potential for
hydrologic trespass. There are no structures or agricultural areas present within the CE
and the project will tie into existing elevations at the beginning and end of the project
area. The applicant indicated that a FEMA no rise certification is being obtained for the
downstream extents where flood elevations will be confirmed to be maintained within
regulatory floodplains and floodways. Since this information is known by the USACE and
will be reviewed and validated as part of the approval process, there is no valid interest
being served by a public hearing on this matter.

6. Cumulative effects of the project such as removal of food and fiber production (food
security), creating flood hazards and destroying wildlife habitat were brought up as
project concerns.
Evaluation: This is relevant information for the IRT review of project potential and
success and will be considered during the initial project evaluation, the more detailed
project evaluation (draft plan review) and permit issuance prior to project approval. This
bank would involve issuance of a Nationwide Permit #27 where NEPA review for
cumulative effects was already considered. The bank sponsor has addressed potential
flood hazards, noting there are no structures or agricultural areas present within the CE
and the project will tie into existing elevations at the beginning and end of the project
area. The applicant indicated that a FEMA no rise certification is being obtained for the
downstream extents where flood elevations will be confirmed to be maintained within
regulatory floodplains and floodways.
In general, the project is designed to improve and protect wildlife habitat with restored
stream habitat and protected, replanted, native buffers. Flood hazards are considered
by the bank sponsor as part of FEMA coordination, IRT evaluation and legal concern for
the sponsors project liability. While the project would put approximately 33 acres into a
CE a portion of which is currently in agricultural production, this is small in consideration
of overall cumulative effects to the watershed. Further, the project is located in a
watershed identified as high priority for land protection in the Catawba River Basinwide
Restoration Priorities Plan. Since this information is known by the USACE and will be
reviewed and validated as part of the approval process, there is no valid interest being
served by a public hearing on this matter.

7. Given that Gaston County is below the State median for income, this could create an
increased burden on taxpayers and the State.

Evaluation: This comment seems close to raising Environmental Justice issues and will
be addressed both by WEI in their project response and the USACE in their project
evaluation and MFR. Based on the CEQ Climate and Economic Justice Screening tool this
project is not located within an EJ community, however, is located ~0.75 mile from one.
This project may remove a small portion of tax revenue to the county or local
municipality; however, it will bring in income to the landowners under contract to
include their land as part of the project, which would likely be taxable. Overall, this
would likely change the tax status of ~33 acres in a county of ~ 364 square miles. Since
this information is known by the USACE and will be reviewed and validated as part of
the approval process, there is no valid interest being served by a public hearing on this
matter.

August, 14, 2023 
Revised August 24,2023 

Mr. Steve Kichefski  
Mitigation Project Manager 
United States Army Corps of Engineers  
69 Darlington Avenue 
Wilmington, NC 28403‐1343 

Subject: Response to Public Notice Comments Received via email on 8/9/2023 
WEI Lower Catawba UMBI – Bootstrap Mitigation SIte  
USACE #SAW‐2021‐02691 
Steve, 

Below find the compiled comments to the Bootstrap Mitigation Site (SAW‐2021‐02691) public notice 
and our associated responses. Please advise if you require additional information.    

Teresa Falls (Upstream Neighbor): 
Email 3: 
I failed to mention in the last email another big concern for me is the negative impact raising the creek 
bed that flows to my property will have on my property. According to what I know and where my 
property is located there is a high potential of it causing my property to flood during heavy 
rains.  Currently as the creeks are now that does not occur.   
Also,  how can the adjoining creekbeds be raised and it not affect my part of the creek.  The sediment 
that flushes down as they are working is going to settle on my end. I do not understand how it will not 
negatively affect my property and the livestock 

Wildland Response:  
+There are no plans to work on or be on Teresa Falls property as part of the project. At the 
downstream extent of the northern portion of the project, the creek will tie to its current location 
and no changes are proposed downstream of the property line.  
+Changes upstream will be designed to maintain current conveyance and will not change 
flooding regimes downstream.  
+Wildlands will design and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to obtain a 
Certificate of Coverage (COC) under the NCG010000 Construction General Permit granted by the 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality to limit sediment inputs during 
construction and prevent construction sediments from moving downstream. Long Term, current 
sediment inputs from eroding banks and cattle feces from upstream livestock will be minimized 
based on the development of this project. 

Email 2: 
I just wanted upu to know I have concerns regarding the stream project.  The wildcards folks seem to 
think they can get permission from David Stroup regarding the stream that is on my property.  David 
does not have nor will he have the right to say what can occur with my part of the creek.  I do not want 

it touched.  There are currently cows on my property and I intend for them to stay which will mean they 
will be crossing the creek now and in the future. Also there are issues regarding the part of the creek 
that is on land belonging to Marton Marietta. There are also lakes there and who knows what is in them 
or may be in them if Martin Marietta starts mining. 
I ask for an extension as there are things that people aren't aware of with this company and too many 
unanswered questions. Their proposal will negatively affect the creek(s  adjoining property and the 
livelihood of the farmers especially here. 
Thank you kindly. 

Wildland Response: There are no plans to work on or be on Teresa Falls property as part of the 
project. At the downstream extent of the northern portion of the project, the creek will tie to it’s 
current location and no changes are proposed downstream of the property line. The upstream 
reach at present conveys sediment from eroding banks and cattle feces that will be minimized 
due to this project. 

Email 1:  
I am writing to request a public hearing in response to the public notice for Bootstrap Mitigation Site 
SAW‐2021‐02691.  I have concerns that the stream named Black Bear Creek runs through the former 
Hallman Beam Lithium Mine Lagoon.  It is unknown if there are any water quality issues that currently 
impact the stream, to my knowledge no regulatory authority has made any public notice with 
information to that effect. Martin Marietta does currently run a quarry on adjacent property to the 
former mine and also leases land adjacent to the proposed Bootstrap Mitigation project property.  It is 
unknown if they have plans to begin a new mining operation but there certainly is that potential.  

Wildland Response: 
USGS notes that the Bessemer City, Hallman‐Beam mine was active between 1969 and 1990, but 
that production ceased in the 1990’s. The adjacent quarry is currently operated as an aggregate 
facility by Martin Marietta. Based on mapping provided in the NCDEMLR Permit No. 36‐12, Black 
Bear Creek Reach 1 is routed through perimeter ditches and not through previous settling ponds 
used by the Hallman Beam Lithium Mine. Martin Marietta has indicated to Wildlands 
Engineering that currently only Lagoon A (as shown in google maps) is impounding water at the 
quarry. Lagoon A discharges into the proposed project just upstream from Dameron Rd. via an 
installed discharge structure (riser and barrel). Martin Marietta also noted that the plan is for 
continual operation of the mine as an aggregate facility. Based on the information provided by 
Martin Marietta, there is no potential for major and immediate changes in the watershed, and 
as such, the quarry is not considered a threat to the project. The project will be better suited to 
handle increased flows from potential mining operations in its proposed condition. The stream in 
its current impaired condition could see major bank loss from erosion if left in their current 
condition.  

The mainstem of Black Bear Creek does not run through the adjacent mining ponds currently 
owned by Martin Marietta or the previous Hallman‐Beam Mine Lagoon. Stroup Tributary C’s 
(Figure 4 of the Public Notice) headwater begins at the toe of slope downstream from two 
previously utilized Marin Marietta Lagoons, which are currently dry based on aerial 
photography. The proposed stream restoration project will be designed to handle changes in the 
watershed, including influxes of off‐site sediment. While we know of no plans for mining 
operations, the  

Gaston County has issued an approval for a subdivision development in or adjacent to the flood plain 
noted on figure 9 Willow Tributary and Cub Tributary.  This subdivision is named Bennington Estates 
Phase 4 and was approved on 1‐28‐22 as a major subdivision project ID SUB‐22‐12‐05‐00255.  The plan 
allows for two permanent drainage pipes to flow into the flood plain and into Willow Tributary.   The 
same flood plain is adjacent to a pre‐regulatory unlined landfill, Biggerstaff Landfill, that has been 
converted into a remote control airfield, Lewis Brooks Airfield, a private members only use park 
maintained by Gaston County Parks and Recreation.  

Wildlands Response:  
+ Bennington Estates is being developed along Plain Field Drive and Harrogate Drive off Kiser Rd, 
downstream of the project. No pipes from the area directly discharge into the proposed project 
based on the documentation investigated by Wildlands.   
+ Approximately half of the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield drains to Cub Creek in both the existing and 
proposed conditions of the project. Wildlands is not proposing grading, disturbing, or entering 
the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield as part of the project. Given that Biggerstaff Landfill was converted 
to Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield in 1996, and no disturbance is proposed there is no additional threat 
to downstream drainage or property owners.  

It is understood from the notice that the intention of the project is to raise the creek bed even with the 
ground.  It is well known that Black Bear Creek has a high flow velocity during heavy rainfall events and 
in its current high bank state has been known to rise and overflow the banks.  Raising the creek bed will 
make a flood hazard to a much larger scale and has the potential to flood property and homes that 
naturally have never been at risk.  The surrounding land area of creek is currently used for agricultural 
crops, per the notice dating prior to 1950’s.  Flooding this area will remove food and fiber production 
that is essential to this community and the State of North Carolina.   

Wildland Response: The project proposes to restore the stream bed and floodplain to a natural 
condition.  Only areas put into the proposed conservation easement as shown on Figure 9 of the 
Public Notice will see changes in seasonal wetness. None of these areas contain homes, 
structures, or agricultural crops. No increased flooding will occur upstream or downstream of the 
project as stream bed grades will be maintained at all property tie ins. A FEMA no rise 
certification is being obtained for the downstream extents where flood elevations will be 
confirmed to be maintained within regulatory floodplains and floodways. 

The cumulative effects of the multiple projects would destroy the surrounding human community and 
wildlife communities.  Taken in combination these impacts will create flood hazards down stream and 
down land from the immediate project area.  Causing further damage to property, flooding homes, 
removing agricultural land from viable use and destroying wildlife habitat.  I explore you to throughly 
investigate the cumulative impacts of this project in combination of the past, current and future 
development projects planned for this area.  This community has long been neglected and despite 
previous negative impacts they have continued to produce food and fiber for the benefit of the people 
of the United States.  It is my opinion that they have been stewards of the land and they should be 
allowed to continue to do so.  This community provides food and fiber and habitat for wildlife that have 
become displaced by surrounding development.  The wildlife in this area are just beginning to return 
and thrive.  The people working this land have a long history of respect for the land and wildlife and 

have found a way to share the same property they produce food and fiber on with wildlife in a beneficial 
way for both to survive and thrive.  Why should we allow the destruction of both of these benefits and 
place other people, homes, communities and citizens in greater risk of harm from flooding? 

Wildland Response: The Public Notice proposes only two projects, the Bootstrap Mitigation Site 
and the Proctor Dairy Mitigation Site. Both projects are environmental restoration projects 
focused on improving water quality and wildlife habitat while placing a conservation easement 
on acquired properties to protect the natural resources.   

Chelsey Hoyle (lives off Abel Road, North of the Project): 
I am writing you to request a public hearing for Bootstrap Mitigation Site SAW‐2021‐02691. I have 
growing concerns with the approval of a subdivision that can potentially change the flood planes in my 
community which can create issues such as flooding homes, removing agricultural land for viable use 
and destroying wildlife habitat along with damaging crops that feed our community .  Thank you for 
your time on this matter. 

Wildland Response: The Public Notice proposes only two projects, the Bootstrap Mitigation Site 
and the Proctor Dairy Mitigation Site. Both projects are environmental restoration projects 
focused on improving water quality and wildlife habitat while placing a conservation easement 
on acquired properties to protect the natural resources.  There are no plans to work on or be on 
Chelsey Hoyles property as part of the project. The proposed Sites within the Public Notice are 
unrelated to and do not include any subdivision development. There are currently no crops 
planted in the area proposed for Conservation Easement.  

Wendy Helms (no known property near project): 

I am writing to request a public hearing in response to the public notice for Bootstrap Mitigation Site 
SAW‐2021‐02691.  I have concerns that the stream named Black Bear Creek runs through the former 
Hallman Beam Lithium Mine Lagoon.  It is unknown if there are any water quality issues that currently 
impact the stream, to my knowledge no regulatory authority has made any public notice with 
information to that effect. Martin Marietta does currently run a quarry on adjacent property to the 
former mine and also leases land adjacent to the proposed Bootstrap Mitigation project property.  It is 
unknown if they have plans to begin a new mining operation but there certainly is that potential.  

Wildland Response:  
USGS notes that the Bessemer City, Hallman‐Beam mine was active between 1969 and 1990, but 
that production ceased in the 1990’s. The adjacent quarry is currently operated as an aggregate 
facility by Martin Marietta. Based on mapping provided in the NCDEMLR Permit No. 36‐12, Black 
Bear Creek Reach 1 is routed through perimeter ditches and not through previous settling ponds 
used by the Hallman Beam Lithium Mine. Martin Marietta has indicated to Wildlands 
Engineering that currently only Lagoon A (as shown in google maps) is impounding water at the 
quarry. Lagoon A discharges into the proposed project just upstream from Dameron Rd. via an 
installed discharge structure (riser and barrel). Martin Marietta also noted that the plan is for 
continual operation of the mine as an aggregate facility. Based on the information provided by 
Martin Marietta, there is no potential for major and immediate changes in the watershed, and 
as such, the quarry is not considered a threat to the project. The project will be better suited to 
handle increased flows from potential mining operations in its proposed condition. The stream in 

its current impaired condition could see major bank loss from erosion if left in their current 
condition.  

The mainstem of Black Bear Creek does not run through the adjacent mining ponds currently 
owned by Martin Marietta or the previous Hallman‐Beam Mine Lagoon. Stroup Tributary C’s 
(Figure 4 of the Public Notice) headwater begins at the toe of slope downstream from two 
previously utilized Marin Marietta Lagoons, which are currently dry based on aerial 
photography. USGS notes that the Bessemer City, Hallman‐Beam mine was active between 1969 
and 1990, but that production ceased in the 1990’s. The proposed stream restoration project will 
be designed to handle changes in the watershed, including influxes of off‐site sediment. While 
we know of no plans for mining operations, the project will be better suited to handle increased 
flows from potential mining operations in its proposed condition. The stream in its current 
impaired condition could see major bank loss from erosion if flows increase based on upstream 
mining. 

Gaston County has issued an approval for a subdivision development in or adjacent to the flood plain 
noted on figure 9 Willow Tributary and Cub Tributary.  This subdivision is named Bennington Estates 
Phase 4 and was approved on 1‐28‐22 as a major subdivision project ID SUB‐22‐12‐05‐00255.  The plan 
allows for two permanent drainage pipes to flow into the flood plain and into Willow Tributary.   The 
same flood plain is adjacent to a pre‐regulatory unlined landfill, Biggerstaff Landfill, that has been 
converted into a remote control airfield, Lewis Brooks Airfield, a private members only use park 
maintained by Gaston County Parks and Recreation.  
Wildlands Response:  
+ Bennington Estates is being developed along Plain Field Drive and Harrogate Drive off Kiser Rd, 
downstream of the project. No pipes from the area directly discharge into the proposed project 
based on the documentation investigated by Wildlands.   
+ Approximately half of the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield drains to Cub Creek in both the existing and 
proposed conditions of the project. Wildlands is not proposing grading, disturbing, or entering 
the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield as part of the project. Given that Biggerstaff Landfill was converted 
to Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield in 1996, and no disturbance is proposed there is no additional threat 
to downstream drainage or property owners.  

It is understood from the notice that the intention of the project is to raise the creek bed even with the 
ground.  It is well known that Black Bear Creek has a high flow velocity during heavy rainfall events and 
in its current high bank state has been known to rise and overflow the banks.  Raising the creek bed will 
make a flood hazard to a much larger scale and has the potential to flood property and homes that 
naturally have never been at risk.  The surrounding land area of creek is currently used for agricultural 
crops, per the notice dating prior to 1950’s.  Flooding this area will remove food and fiber production 
that is essential to this community and the State of North Carolina.   
Wildland Response: The project proposes to restore the stream bed and floodplain to a natural 
condition.  Only areas put into the proposed conservation easement as shown on Figure 9 of the 
Public Notice will see changes in seasonal wetness. None of these areas contain homes, 
structures, or agricultural crops. No increased flooding will occur upstream or downstream of the 
project as stream bed grades will be maintained at all property tie ins. A FEMA no rise 
certification is being obtained for the downstream extents where flood elevations will be 
confirmed to be maintained within regulatory floodplains and floodways. 

The cumulative effects of the multiple projects would destroy the surrounding human community and 
wildlife communities.  Taken in combination these impacts will create flood hazards down stream and 
down land from the immediate project area.  Causing further damage to property, flooding homes, 
removing agricultural land from viable use and destroying wildlife habitat.  I explore you to throughly 
investigate the cumulative impacts of this project in combination of the past, current and future 
development projects planned for this area.  This community has long been neglected and despite 
previous negative impacts they have continued to produce food and fiber for the benefit of the people 
of the United States.  It is my opinion that they have been stewards of the land and they should be 
allowed to continue to do so.  This community provides food and fiber and habitat for wildlife that have 
become displaced by surrounding development.  The wildlife in this area are just beginning to return 
and thrive.  The people working this land have a long history of respect for the land and wildlife and 
have found a way to share the same property they produce food and fiber on with wildlife in a beneficial 
way for both to survive and thrive.  Why should we allow the destruction of both of these benefits and 
place other people, homes, communities and citizens in greater risk of harm from flooding? 
Wildland Response: The Public Notice proposes only two projects, the Bootstrap Mitigation Site 
and the Proctor Dairy Mitigation Site. Both projects are environmental restoration projects 
focused on improving water quality and wildlife habitat while placing a conservation easement 
on acquired properties to protect the natural resources. The proposed Sites within the Public 
Notice are unrelated to and do not include any subdivision development. There are currently no 
crops planted in the area proposed for Conservation Easement as well as no structures or homes 
within the area proposed for Conservation Easement.  

Lissa Stroup (Property Owner): 

Note: It is relevant to note that Lissa Stroup is a participating member of the project who 
voluntarily signed an option agreement for a conservation easement. Per the executed contract, 
David and Lissa Stroup have negotiated compensation in the form of funds and additional work 
for participating in the project.  

Email 1: 
The issues that I discussed with you yesterday may be more clearly understood in the correspondence 
from Robert Bugg from Wildland’s in his account of the meeting we had last week.  The responses from 
me are identified in text that is bold, italicized and underlined.   

In addition to the below information, it could potentially impact the streams in the Bootstrap Mitigation 
Site that the stream named Black Bear Creek runs through the former Hallman Beam Lithium Mine 
Lagoon.  It is unknown if there are any water quality issues that currently impact the stream but it is our 
belief that there are not since no regulatory authority has made any public notice with that 
information.  However, Martin Marietta does currently lease land adjacent to the proposed project 
property and has in the past notified community members of the possibility that they could being 
mining previously undisturbed property under their lease.   To date we have not received any 
confirmation from them other than they did renew their lease option.  

Wildland Response 
USGS notes that the Bessemer City, Hallman‐Beam mine was active between 1969 and 1990, but 
that production ceased in the 1990’s. The adjacent quarry is currently operated as an aggregate 
facility by Martin Marietta. Based on mapping provided in the NCDEMLR Permit No. 36‐12, Black 
Bear Creek Reach 1 is routed through perimeter ditches and not through previous settling ponds 

used by the Hallman Beam Lithium Mine. Martin Marietta has indicated to Wildlands 
Engineering that currently only Lagoon A (as shown in google maps) is impounding water at the 
quarry. Lagoon A discharges into the proposed project just upstream from Dameron Rd. via an 
installed discharge structure (riser and barrel). Martin Marietta also noted that the plan is for 
continual operation of the mine as an aggregate facility. Based on the information provided by 
Martin Marietta, there is no potential for major and immediate changes in the watershed, and 
as such, the quarry is not considered a threat to the project. The project will be better suited to 
handle increased flows from potential mining operations in its proposed condition. The stream in 
its current impaired condition could see major bank loss from erosion if left in their current 
condition.  

: The mainstem of Black Bear Creek does not run through the adjacent mining ponds currently 
owned by Martin Marietta or the previous Hallman‐Beam Mine Lagoon. Stroup Tributary C’s 
(Figure 4 of the Public Notice) headwater begins at the toe of slope downstream from two 
previously utilized Marin Marietta Lagoons, which are currently dry based on aerial 
photography. USGS notes that the Bessemer City, Hallman‐Beam mine was active between 1969 
and 1990, but that production ceased in the 1990’s. The proposed stream restoration project will 
be designed to handle changes in the watershed, including influxes of off‐site sediment. While 
we know of no plans for mining operations, the project will be better suited to handle increased 
flows from potential mining operations in its proposed condition. The stream in its current 
impaired condition could see major bank loss from erosion if flows increase based on upstream 
mining. 

It has also come to my attention that Gaston County has issued an approval for a subdivision 
development in or adjacent to the flood plain noted on figure 9 Willow Tributary and Cub 
Tributary.  This subdivision is named Bennington Estates Phase 4 and was approved on 1‐28‐22 as a 
major subdivision project ID SUB‐22‐12‐05‐00255.  The plan allows for two permanent drainage pipes to 
flow into the flood plain and into Willow Tributary.   The same flood plain is adjacent to a pre‐regulatory 
landfill that has been converted into a remote control airfield for select members to use but is 
maintained by Gaston County Parks and Recreation.  

Wildlands Response:  
+ Bennington Estates is being developed along Plain Field Drive and Harrogate Drive off Kiser Rd, 
downstream of the project. No pipes from the area directly discharge into the proposed project 
based on the documentation investigated by Wildlands.   
+ Approximately half of the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield drains to Cub Creek in both the existing and 
proposed conditions of the project. Wildlands is not proposing grading, disturbing, or entering 
the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield as part of the project. Given that Biggerstaff Landfill was converted 
to Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield in 1996, and no disturbance is proposed there is no additional threat 
to downstream drainage or property owners.  

Email 2: 
I am writing to request a public hearing in response to the public notice for Bootstrap Mitigation Site 
SAW‐2021‐02691.   

I do have concerns that the stream named Black Bear Creek runs through the former Hallman Beam 
Lithium Mine Lagoon. Martin Marietta does currently run a quarry on adjacent property to the former 

mine and also leases land adjacent to the proposed Bootstrap Mitigation project property.  It is 
unknown if they have plans to begin a new mining operation but there certainly is that 
potential.  Should Martin Marietta begin mining in the future this could have detrimental effects to the 
proposed stream restoration project proposed.  
Wildland Response:  
USGS notes that the Bessemer City, Hallman‐Beam mine was active between 1969 and 1990, but 
that production ceased in the 1990’s. The adjacent quarry is currently operated as an aggregate 
facility by Martin Marietta. Based on mapping provided in the NCDEMLR Permit No. 36‐12, Black 
Bear Creek Reach 1 is routed through perimeter ditches and not through previous settling ponds 
used by the Hallman Beam Lithium Mine. Martin Marietta has indicated to Wildlands 
Engineering that currently only Lagoon A (as shown in google maps) is impounding water at the 
quarry. Lagoon A discharges into the proposed project just upstream from Dameron Rd. via an 
installed discharge structure (riser and barrel). Martin Marietta also noted that the plan is for 
continual operation of the mine as an aggregate facility. Based on the information provided by 
Martin Marietta, there is no potential for major and immediate changes in the watershed, and 
as such, the quarry is not considered a threat to the project. The project will be better suited to 
handle increased flows from potential mining operations in its proposed condition. The stream in 
its current impaired condition could see major bank loss from erosion if left in their current 
condition.  

The mainstem of Black Bear Creek does not run through the adjacent mining ponds currently 
owned by Martin Marietta or the previous Hallman‐Beam Mine Lagoon. Stroup Tributary C’s 
(Figure 4 of the Public Notice) headwater begins at the toe of slope downstream from two 
previously utilized Marin Marietta Lagoons, which are currently dry based on aerial 
photography. USGS notes that the Bessemer City, Hallman‐Beam mine was active between 1969 
and 1990, but that production ceased in the 1990’s. The proposed stream restoration project will 
be designed to handle changes in the watershed, including influxes of off‐site sediment. While 
we know of no plans for mining operations, the project will be better suited to handle increased 
flows from potential mining operations in its proposed condition. The stream in its current 
impaired condition could see major bank loss from erosion if flows increase based on upstream 
mining. 

Gaston County has issued an approval for a subdivision development in or adjacent to the flood plain 
noted on figure 9 Willow Tributary and Cub Tributary.  This subdivision is named Bennington Estates 
Phase 4 and was approved on 1‐28‐22 as a major subdivision project.  The plan allows for two 
permanent drainage pipes to flow into the flood plain and into Willow Tributary, I do not know if this is 
only stormwater or if they propose to connect other phases of this development plan to the same 
discharge point.  The same flood plain is adjacent to a pre‐regulatory unlined landfill, Biggerstaff Landfill, 
that has been converted into a remote control airfield, Lewis Brooks Airfield, a private members only 
use park maintained by Gaston County Parks and Recreation.  
Wildlands Response:  
+ Bennington Estates is being developed along Plain Field Drive and Harrogate Drive off Kiser Rd, 
downstream of the project. No pipes from the area directly discharge into the proposed project 
based on the documentation investigated by Wildlands.   
+ Approximately half of the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield drains to Cub Creek in both the existing and 
proposed conditions of the project. Wildlands is not proposing grading, disturbing, or entering 

the Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield as part of the project. Given that Biggerstaff Landfill was converted 
to Lewis‐Brooks RC Airfield in 1996, and no disturbance is proposed there is no additional threat 
to downstream drainage or property owners.  

It is understood from the notice that the intention of the project is to raise the creek bed even with the 
ground.  It is well known that Black Bear Creek has a high flow velocity during heavy rainfall events and 
in its current high bank state has been known to rise and overflow the banks.  Raising the creek bed will 
make a flood hazard to a much larger scale and has the potential to flood property and homes that 
naturally would not be at risk from flood due to the natural topography of the land.  I am also concerned 
that homes further downstream from the project area that are naturally in low lying areas will be placed 
in greater danger. The surrounding land area of creek is currently used for agricultural crops, per the 
notice dating prior to 1950’s.  Flooding this area will remove food and fiber production that is essential 
to this community and the State of North Carolina.  Food security is a great concern for all US citizens 
and particularly the rural areas of NC.   If NC does not protect and assist it’s farm producers remain in 
production this could cause more food shortages and even higher prices for food than we are seeing 
now.  Given that Gaston County is below the State median for income, this could create an increased 
burden on taxpayers and the State.   
Wildland Response: The project proposes to restore the stream bed and floodplain to a natural 
condition.  Only areas put into the proposed conservation easement as shown on Figure 9 of the 
Public Notice will see changes in seasonal wetness. None of these areas contain homes, 
structures, or agricultural crops. No increased flooding will occur upstream or downstream of the 
project as stream bed grades will be maintained at all property tie ins. A FEMA no rise 
certification is being obtained for the downstream extents where flood elevations will be 
confirmed to be maintained within regulatory floodplains and floodways. 

The cumulative effects of the multiple projects that are currently being developed and planned to start 
developing, as well as the possibility of a new open pit surface mine less than five (5) miles from the 
project site and the possibility of the former mine restarting, would destroy the surrounding human 
community and wildlife communities.  Taken in combination these impacts will create flood hazards 
down stream and down land from the immediate project area.  Causing further damage to property, 
flooding homes, removing agricultural land from viable use and destroying wildlife habitat.  I explore you 
to throughly investigate the cumulative impacts of this project in combination of the past, current and 
future development projects planned for this area.   
Wildland Response: The Public Notice proposes only two projects, the Bootstrap Mitigation Site 
and the Proctor Dairy Mitigation Site. Both projects are environmental restoration projects 
focused on improving water quality and wildlife habitat while placing a conservation easement 
on acquired properties to protect the natural resources. The proposed Sites within the Public 
Notice are unrelated to and do not include any subdivision development. There are currently no 
crops planted in the area proposed for Conservation Easement as well as no structures or homes 
within the area proposed for Conservation Easement. It is the right of the landowners to decide 
the use of their property.  

The farmers working this land and the community members have a long history of respect for the land 
and wildlife and have found a way to share the same property that they live on and produce food and 
fiber on with wildlife in a beneficial way for both to survive and thrive.   

While there is much need and work to be done to protect and preserve our natural resources, I do feel 
that this could be better served and managed if the site were not already at such great risk.  It is possible 
that I do not understand the true intention of this project based solely on the information I have been 
told and provided.  The intensity of the development that has already been approved seems to 
contradict the expense and intentions of this project.  I don’t understand how it would be possible to 
improve water quality in such a small section of streams when it appears there are so many 
development projects planned and being completed that will have negative impacts on them and the 
surrounding current land use.  I am hopeful that a public hearing would address all of these issues and 
show how proceeding with this mitigation site would actually have a benefit for protecting the natural 
resources and the landowners as well as the public.   

Wildland Response: The Public Notice proposes to restore and protect approximately 14,000 
linear feet (LF) of streams and approximately 9 acres of riparian wetland, while protecting 
approximately 58 acres of natural environment in a conservation easement. No additional 
development is proposed as part of the Public Notice. Permits associated with development 
around the proposed projects are unrelated to the proposed bank. The project will be designed 
to address current and future stressors in the watershed and help filter any current water quality 
stressors via the establishment of native riparian vegetation buffers.  

MEETING MINUTES
Meeting:
Prospectus Field Review with IRT
Lower Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Wildlands Project No. W45040
Date: March 14, 2022
Location: Proctor Dairy Mitigation Site – 35.340407°, -81.299174°
Bootstrap Mitigation Site - 35.339649°, -81.240793°

Attendees
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering Principal
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering Bank Manager
Kim Browning, Army Corps of Engineers
Casey Haywood, Army Corps of Engineers
Erin Davis, NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers
Olivia Munzer, NC Wildlife Resource Commission

Overall Notes
• Wildlands Engineering, Inc. submitted a draft prospectus for the Wildlands Lower Catawba
UMBI, in the Catawba River Basin, with two sites located in Gaston County.
• ~ 12,000 SMUs, ~ 7-8 WMUs, > Combined crediting for two sites
• Sites were submitted to NCDMS in response RFP 16-20210102 but were not within identified
targeted watersheds so did not score as well as other sites and were not selected.
• Kim Browning requested that reports be submitted separately, with 1 UMBI, with two separate
site-specific documents.
Proctor Dairy Mitigation Site
• Wildlands gave a general overview of the Proctor Dairy Mitigation Site.
• That site is one landowner with two separate sections of Conservation Easement and two
proposed internal crossings.
• IRT inquired about the wetland crediting ratios proposed. Wildlands explained that Wetland
Enhancement was proposed in areas considered to be jurisdictionally delineated and in current
agricultural fields and ratios were based on anticipated uplift. Hydrologic uplift of wetlands is
based upon the restoration of Big Short Creek, Little Long Creek, and Caterpillar Branch.
o 2:1 for enhancement in fields of current jurisdictional features
o 2:1 for re-establishment in wooded areas lacking current jurisdiction
o 1:1 for re-establishment in non-wooded areas lacking current jurisdiction.

• IRT asked about the landowner downstream of Little Long Creek and if Wildlands was pursuing
as part of the project. It was explained that downstream, land clearing had occurred recently
enough Wildlands did not pursue the downstream portion of the project.
• The IRT asked why wetlands were not pursued on the right floodplain of Little Long Creek.
Wildlands noted that the valley shape was not indicative of historic wetlands but based on
borings taken the day of the site visit, Wildlands would investigate potential of adding wetlands
to the right bank of Little Long Creek.
• The IRT recommended running the latest/greatest version of the Wilmington District Buffer tool
for the Site.
• The IRT asked about the small portion of stream at the upstream extents of Little Long Creek
that is currently not within the project between Puetts Chapel Road and the current
conservation easement. Wildlands noted that they have been attempting to add this portion of
the stream to the project, but that the landowner hasn’t been responsive. Wildlands will
continue to try and add this to the project, but there are no guarantees it can be added.
• It was noted that bed form in Little Long Creek had function, but that overall, the project as a
stream/wetland complex offers a good opportunity for ecological uplift. It was requested that
the functional uplift section of the mitigation plan would need to be utilized to emphasize the
potential of ecological uplift as a system through the restoration of Little Long Creek.
• The walk continued to the southern portion of the Site (Caterpillar Branch).
• IRT asked about the upstream jurisdiction along Caterpillar Branch and how much of the
headwaters would be captured by the CE. Wildlands noted it would extend the CE beyond the
jurisdictional limits of the channel to provide protection to the upstream extents of the reach.
• It was asked if there were concerns about raising the channel and losing hydrology. Wildlands
anticipates transition zone of P2/P1.5 where to help the hydrologic transition of the channel.
• It was noted that jurisdictional limits and the location of Meadow Run needed to be verified.
• The IRT requested that enhancements along Cocoon Creek need to be mapped as part of the
mitigation plan to justify crediting.
• It was requested that Wildlands discuss the potential to eliminate the downstream crossing
along Cocoon Creek. Wildlands agreed to discuss this as an option with the property owner.
Bootstrap Mitigation Site
• Wildlands gave a general overview of the Bootstrap Mitigation Site.
• It was noted that the project contains multiple parcels and that the conservation easement
negotiations may flux depending on landowner and project needs.
• The walk started at the upstream end of the project. It was agreed that Black Bear Creek Reach
1 was incised, straightened, and heavily impacted by current agricultural activities.
• The group took a couple soil borings within the upstream portion proposed for wetland re-
establishment and rehabilitation. Generally, the group agreed with information presented by
the Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS) within the draft prospectus. The borings showed some
overburden material, likely deposited from upslope agricultural fields, but hydric indicators were
observed generally around the 3” to 6” depth.
• Wildlands noted that some grading would be needed within the wetland areas to remove minor
overburden but grading beyond a depth of 8” was not anticipated within wetland areas.
• The IRT asked about including the left floodplain of Black Bear Creek Reach 1 at the upstream
extent of the reach within the project. Wildlands identified that area as a different property
owner but noted that they were in the process of trying to capture this portion of the project
within the conservation easement.

• The group looked at the upstream extent of Stroup Tributary A and generally agreed with
Wildlands’ current jurisdictional terminus point and enhancement I approach.
• Continuing downstream, the IRT inquired about the trash and debris that is within the floodplain
at the confluence of Black Bear Creek R1 and Stroup Tributary B. Wildlands noted that the trash
would be removed from the conservation easement as part of the project.
• The group then walked up Stroup Tributary B and discussed potential work along the channel.
Additionally, the upstream extents were identified and discussion around general risk to the
project upstream was discussed. Overall, it was agreed that an enhancement II approach was
valid for the upstream extents of Stroup Tributary B, but that downstream of the failed culvert
the stream needed to be restored and monitored as such.
• The walk continued down to Stroup Tributary D. It was noted that the reach did not appear
jurisdictional on the day of the site walk and that a large length of this stream would likely not
be included in the project. Wildlands agreed to update the approach, shorten the portion of the
channel proposed for work, and install a BMP where Stroup Tributary D will enter the proposed
conservation easement.
• The IRT inquired about the upstream extents of Stroup Tributary C and downstream extents of
Black Bear Creek Reach 1 not being included within the proposed conservation easement.
Wildlands noted that every attempt would be made to include these sections in the project but
based on discussions with the landowners during the development of the full delivery proposal,
it was unlikely these sections of stream would get added to the conservation easement.
• The group then got into vehicles and drove down to the southern portion of the project that
begins where the stream exits Dameron Rd.
• The IRT inquired about the portion of Black Bear Creek on Martin Marietta’s property and asked
about including this in the project. Wildlands noted that Martin Marietta had been contacted
but that Wildlands had been told there was no option to add this to the project.
• The group looked at the small wet/ponded area upstream of Crossing 3. Wildlands noted this
would be included in the conservation easement, but no credit would be sought for this area.
• It was also clarified that the driveway crossing would be external from the conservation
easement and replaced as part of the project.
• The group walked the Poplar Tributary A, A1, and B portions of the project. Generally, the
approaches were agreed upon, but it was noted that the jurisdictional terminus locations of
these tributaries would be critical in determining conservation easement locations of the
project. It was noted that the IRT preferred the overhead electric line not be included as internal
to the conservation easement.
• The group continued the walk down Black Bear Creek Reach 2 downstream of the Dameron
Road culvert. It was concluded that incision, bank height ratio, and bedform (including bedrock
in the channel), had a current level of function and that a restoration approach was not
necessary. The IRT requested this portion of channel be reduced to an enhancement I approach
within the revised prospectus and mitigation plan.
• The proposed location of Crossing 2 was evaluated. It was determined that the location was
unfit for a crossing, based on the valley width and existing road elevation along Dameron Road.
The IRT requested that Wildlands move this crossing upstream to allow for a better floodplain
connection and a more practical crossing location. Wildlands agreed but did note that it would
need approval from the property owner.
• The walk continued downstream along Black Bear Creek. The restoration approach was
generally agreed with, as was the proposal of moving Black Bear Creek offline to the adjacent
right valley.

• Willow Tributary and Cub Tributary were both walked, and the approaches were discussed. The
approaches were generally agreed upon. It was noted that some length of Willow Creek will be
lost based on the re-alignment of Black Bear Creek Reach 2. It was also noted that the upstream
extents of Cub Tributary would need to be captured as part of the project.
• The walk continued to the downstream extent of Black Bear Creek Reach 2. Wildlands indicated
that this portion of the project would be a Priority 2 approach to tie the stream down at the
property line as well as maintain a FEMA no-rise condition on the regulated portion of the
project.
• The IRT inquired why no wetland restoration was proposed on the right floodplain of Black Bear
Creek Reach 2. Wildlands responded that this area was investigated by the LSS but that there
was a lack of hydric soils or potential hydric soils adequate to support wetland restoration.
• It was noted that the latest version of the Wilmington District Buffer tool should be run on the
project to capture a clear picture of the proposed buffers and crediting at the mitigation plan
phase.

Stroup Tributary C
Str
o
u
p

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

A
Stro
u
p

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

B
Strou
p

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

D
B
l
a
c
k

B
e
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Pop
l
a
r

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

B
Poplar Tributary A
Poplar Trib
u
t
a
r
y

A
1
B
l
a
c
k

B
e
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Cub

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
Willow T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
Bl
a
c
k

B
e
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Reach 1
Reach 2
XS
4
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS INC
3518453678
MARTHA CLARK
STROUP LIFE ESTATE
3518640335
DELISA
STROUP
HARRISON
3518467802
JESSICA CERTAIN
3518379028
DAVID
CHARLES
STROUP
3518472450
BARBARA
STROUPE
LAWING
3518472852
BENITA
STROUPE
KELBAUGH
3518473909
Figure 4 Existing Conditions MapBootstrap Mitigation SiteLower Catawba Umbrella Mitigation BankCatawba River Basin (03050102)
2019 Aerial Photography
¹Gaston County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Cattle Access
Existing Wetlands - Preliminary Boundary
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
Incision
Erosion
Topographic Contours (2')
Utility Lines
!5 Utility Poles
XY Headcut
ÛÚ Existing Culvert
0 400200 Feet
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5 !5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
Stroup Tributary C
Str
o
u
p

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

A
Stro
u
p

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

B
Strou
p

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

D
B
l
a
c
k

B
e
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Pop
l
a
r

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y

B
Poplar Tributary A
Poplar Trib
u
t
a
r
y

A
1
B
l
a
c
k

B
e
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Cub

T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
Willow T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
Bl
a
c
k

B
e
a
r

C
r
e
e
k
Reach 1
Reach 2
¬«1
¬«3
¬«2
Easement Slightly NarrowedDue To Overhead Utility Line
Figure 9 Concept Design MapBootstrap Mitigation SiteLower Catawba Umbrella Mitigation BankingCatawba River Basin (03050102)
2019 Aerial Photography
¹
Gaston County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Internal Crossing
Proposed External Crossing
Proposed Wetland Re-Establishment
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Enhancement I
Proposed Stream Enhancement II
No Credit
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
Utility Lines
!5 Utility Poles
^_Proposed BMP
0 400200 Feet
¬«1
¬«1
Little Long Creek
B
i
g

S
h
o
r
t

C
r
e
e
k
Caterpillar Branch
Mead
o
w

R
u
n
Coc
o
o
n

C
r
e
e
k
Figure 11 Existing Conditons MapProctor Dairy Mitigation SiteLower Catawba Umbrella Mitigation BankCatawba River Basin (03050102)
2019 Aerial Photography
¹Gaston County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Cattle Access
Existing Wetlands - Preliminary Boundary
Incision
Erosion
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
ÛÚ Existing Ford Crossing
XY Headcut
!(Cattle Wallow
!(Bedrock
0 300150 Feet
Little Long Creek
B
i
g

S
h
o
r
t

C
r
e
e
k
Caterpillar Branch
Mead
o
w

R
u
n
Coc
o
o
n

C
r
e
e
k
¬«1
¬«2
Figure 16 Concept Design MapProctor Dairy Mitigation SiteLower Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank Catawba River Basin (03050102)
2019 Aerial Photography
¹Gaston County, NC
Parcels
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Wetland Re-Establishment (1:1)
Proposed Wetland Re-Establishment (2:1)
Proposed Wetland Enhancement (2:1)
Proposed Internal Crossing
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Enhancement I
Proposed Stream Enhancement II
No Credit
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
0 300150 Feet
¬«1