[External] RE: Annie Rose Prospectus Site Visit Meeting Summary

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home
tab.

Jeff,

Thank you for the meeting minutes. I did not make any changes to them; however, below are a couple additional comments from our field notes that should be considered/addressed in the
final prospectus. I have also included comments we received prior to the site meeting from both DWR (Maria) and WRC (Travis) below – please be sure to consider these comments as well.
I have copied DWR and WRC with this email so they have both your field notes and our additions.

Todd Tugwell/Casey Haywood, USACE:

1. Hopkins Branch:

* Please include discussion about possible water withdrawals from the upstream pond and how it may affect the stream hydrology.
* Flow gauge needed on this stream.

2. Rose Creek:

* Crossing of Rose creek is external, for potential future development.
* Recommended buffers be extended to incorporate hillslopes adjacent to wetlands.
* JD will be important for wetlands along Rose Creek, esp. Reach 1.
* Hydrological monitoring of wetland along PII cut (if required) would be necessary to see if there is a drainage effect.
* Beaver dams located upstream would stay intact.
* Some wetland areas along this reach are already forested and providing decent function. There are concerns about clearing these areas for stream restoration. If this were required,
ratio for wetland work may have to be adjusted. There also could be a functional loss due to work (i.e., wetland functions in these areas would be set back) in which case the overall
lift of wetland functions across the site would have to be considered with ratio adjustments.

3. Martin Branch:

* Important to consider existing wetlands, use small equipment for work.
* The approach and ratio will be very dependent on existing wetlands and functions to be gained (hydrology increases, if appropriate and monitored to demonstrate performance).
* Existing beaver will continue to be a major concern. How to manage beaver but not cause loss of existing, intact beaver systems at the same time? The beaver have been migrating downstream,
and will likely continue to do so. Stream credit would likely not be an option in beaver impounded reaches.

4. Jaleb & Green Branch: OK with approaches.

Maria Polizzi, DWR

1. DWR appreciates the inclusion of the LSS report at this stage. Although not necessary until the draft mitigation plan, it makes a lot of sense for a project with so many wetland credits
proposed and allows for a better review of the project. In the future, it would be helpful if the soil boring points are shown in either red or green to denote which borings are hydric
vs. non-hydric. Also please be sure to expand the soils investigation to the area north of Candy Creek Rd.
2. In the future, please show the CE boundary on historical aerials.
3. Please describe the threat to the preservation areas. Is conversion to agricultural or development anticipated?
4. It appears that some areas proposed for wetland reestablishment on the Concept Design Map are shown as non-hydric on the LSS report. For example, boring numbers 11 and 22 are shown
as non-hydric. All non-hydric areas must be limited to creation credit.
5. Based on the photos and descriptions DWR see potential for restoration to provide uplift for project streams.

Travis Wilson, WRC:

1. It appears this entire site except for Green Branch has been impacted by decades of evolving beaver impoundments. That brings up a few questions for me:

* Typically that means the stream is not disconnected from the floodplain particularly in a watershed this size and with the flooding impacts that are evident on satellite. So I question
what are they doing to justify the wetland re-establishment areas.
* Beaver impoundments have resulted in some braiding and anastomosed channels over time, worth conversation if the stream has already adjusted and stabilized.
* If it’s agreed beaver are the main cause of the impairments, beaver are likely still in the system and will move back in after monitoring.

2. Between old beaver impacts and the recent logging from 2016 I’m sure parts of the site will look bad, but what will be the realized uplifts from the proposed work?
3. Also, this project is only about a 3/4 mile from the confluence with the Haw River where we have records of state listed mussels. It does not appear we have surveys for Rose Creek.
However, the drainage area at the downstream end of the project is over 5 square miles, sizeable enough to support those mussel species. If the project moves forward a mussel survey
in Rose Creek should be conducted.

If you have any other questions as you prepare your final prospectus, please let me know.

Thanks,

Todd Tugwell

Chief, Mitigation Branch

Regulatory Division

Wilmington District, USACE

[phone]

From: Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:52 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Annie Rose Prospectus Site Visit Meeting Summary

Folks – The meeting summary for the Annie Rose site walk is attached. Please let us know if you have any questions or revisions. Thanks.

Jeff Keaton, PE | Senior Water Resources Engineer

O: 919.851.9986 x103 M: 919.302.6919

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <http://www.wildlandseng.com/>

312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225

Raleigh, NC 27609

ngton District

[phone] work cell

ualLicense", "V" : "std::wstring|0" }, { "F" : "Microsoft.Office.Segmentation.Segment", "V" : "std::wstring|NONFRDC" }, { "F" : "Microsoft.Office.Segmentation.VersionPartition", "V"
: "std::wstring|Win32AndroidHot" }, { "F" : "Microsoft.Office.Segmentation.WordCopilotDogfood", "V" : "bool|0" }, { "F" : "Microsoft.Office.Shared.CrcBasedUid", "V" : "bool|1" }, {
"F" : "Microsoft.Office.WhatsNew.ECSDataLoaded", "V" : "bool|1" } ] }

Maria Polizzi, DWR
1. DWR appreciates the inclusion of the LSS report at this stage. Although not necessary un?l the dra? mi?ga?on
plan, it makes a lot of sense for a project with so many wetland credits proposed and allows for a be?er review
of the project. In the future, it would be helpful if the soil boring points are shown in either red or green to
denote which borings are hydric vs. non-hydric. Also please be sure to expand the soils inves?ga?on to the area
north of Candy Creek Rd.
2. In the future, please show the CE boundary on historical aerials.
3. Please describe the threat to the preserva?on areas. Is conversion to agricultural or development an?cipated?
4. It appears that some areas proposed for wetland reestablishment on the Concept Design Map are shown as
non-hydric on the LSS report. For example, boring numbers 11 and 22 are shown as non-hydric. All non-hydric
areas must be limited to crea?on credit.
5. Based on the photos and descrip?ons DWR see poten?al for restora?on to provide upli? for project streams.
Travis Wilson, WRC:
1. It appears this en?re site except for Green Branch has been impacted by decades of evolving beaver
impoundments. That brings up a few ques?ons for me:
 Typically that means the stream is not disconnected from the floodplain par?cularly in a watershed this size
and with the flooding impacts that are evident on satellite. So I ques?on what are they doing to jus?fy the
wetland re-establishment areas.
 Beaver impoundments have resulted in some braiding and anastomosed channels over ?me, worth
conversa?on if the stream has already adjusted and stabilized.
 If it’s agreed beaver are the main cause of the impairments, beaver are likely s?ll in the system and will
move back in a?er monitoring.
2. Between old beaver impacts and the recent logging from 2016 I’m sure parts of the site will look bad, but what
will be the realized upli?s from the proposed work?
3. Also, this project is only about a 3/4 mile from the confluence with the Haw River where we have records of
state listed mussels. It does not appear we have surveys for Rose Creek. However, the drainage area at the
downstream end of the project is over 5 square miles, sizeable enough to support those mussel species. If the
project moves forward a mussel survey in Rose Creek should be conducted.

If you have any other ques?ons as you prepare your final prospectus, please let me know.

Thanks,

Todd Tugwell
Chief, Mitigation Branch
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, USACE
[phone]

From: Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:52 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hutton <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] Annie Rose Prospectus Site Visit Meeting Summary

Folks – The mee?ng summary for the Annie Rose site walk is a?ached. Please let us know if you have any ques?ons or
revisions. Thanks.

2

Jeff Keaton, PE | Senior Water Resources Engineer
O: 919.851.9986 x103 M: 919.302.6919

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

3