Annie Rose Prospectus Site Visit Summary

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
Annie Rose Mitigation Site

MEETING SUMMARY

MEETING: IRT Prospectus Site Visit
Annie Rose Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002; Rockingham County, NC
USACE ID: SAW-2023-02155
NCDWR ID: TBD

DATE: On-site Meeting: Monday December 15, 2023
Meeting Notes Distributed: Monday, January 8, 2024

Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Casey Haywood, USACE
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands Engineering

Representatives of Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) met with representatives of the North Carolina
Interagency Review Team (IRT) to walk the Annie Rose Mitigation Bank. The purpose of the field meeting was to
present the site to the IRT members and get their input into the management/mitigation options proposed for
the site and determine next steps in the process. During the tour, the group discussed the stream and wetland
approaches proposed by Wildlands and the manner that they felt would be most appropriate to enhance and
restore onsite streams and wetlands. The following notes provide a summary of these discussions by stream and
adjacent wetland area.

General Notes
1. The IRT generally agreed on the stream restoration approaches for the project streams. There is some
potential that Priority 2 restoration will be needed at the upstream and/or downstream ends of Rose
Creek. While not the best scenario, the IRT indicated that, if necessary, these approaches may be
acceptable.
2. Some changes to wetland approaches were discussed as described below.
Hopkins Branch
1. There is a pond at the upstream end of Hopkins Branch. The IRT asked that Wildlands ensure that the
drain(s) from the pond remain functional and that there is room left for maintenance of the dam outside
of the easement.
2. Wildlands said that the proposed easement could be widened as needed (compared to what is shown
on the concept map) to accommodate a full buffer width.
Rose Creek

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
Annie Rose Mitigation Site
1. John explained that, unless Wildlands can get the upstream landowners on board to grant a
construction easement to raise the stream on their property, Wildlands would have to design a portion
of Reach 1 (downstream to the proposed crossing) as a Priority 2 restoration.
a. Todd said that Priority 2 restoration might be acceptable for this reach.
b. Todd also added that draining/excavation of adjacent wetlands due to Priority 2 might be a
problem. He indicated that a wetland delineation and consideration of proposed stream
alignment would be necessary to judge this impact.
c. Todd also said that wetland enhancement might not be appropriate for the right floodplain if
Priority 2 stream restoration becomes necessary due to increased drainage.
d. IRT would also like baseline data on wetland hydrology in this area for one growing season (to
be submitted with mitigation plan).
e. Replanting for the wetland enhancement area will likely be required if there is significant
grading in this area.
f. The IRT will not be able to fully evaluate this situation before seeing the draft mitigation plan.
2. The IRT agreed with the stream approaches proposed for Rose Creek Reach 2 and that wetland
reestablishment generally seems appropriate for the Rose Creek corridor.
3. Casey mentioned that the easement would likely need a setback from the edge of wetlands mitigation
based on new requirements in forthcoming guidance.
4. John explained that Wildlands will attempt to work with DOT so that the stream bed of Rose Creek
Reach 2 could be raised through the existing bridge. If Wildlands can get this approved by DOT, the tie-
in to existing bed grade would occur downstream of the bridge and have less impact on wetland
mitigation. However, if DOT will not allow this, the tie-in would need to occur above the bridge and
Reach 3 downstream of the bridge would not be included in the project.
5. John also explained that there is potential for work on Rose Creek to extend further downstream if
Wildlands can get the additional landowners onboard. John said that the condition of Rose Creek
downstream is similar to Reach 3. Todd replied that he did not see a need to extend the project further
based on conditions of Rose Creek Reach 3.
6. Casey said that she thought the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) would request mussel surveys to
be performed on Rose Creek. WRC was not present at the site visit.
Martin Branch
1. The group walked Martin Branch from downstream to upstream and encountered a new beaver dam
near the break between reaches 1 and 2. There was no way to continue walking upstream. Reach 1,
which is proposed as stream preservation and the adjacent wetland preservation could not be observed.
2. The group agreed that the break between Reach 1 and 2 should be moved downstream to the location
of the new beaver dam.
3. There was a discussion of on-going beaver management on the site. It was agreed that nothing more
could be done outside of the typical beaver management but that it would be necessary long-term.
4. The IRT agreed with the stream restoration approach for Martin Branch Reach 2.
5. Todd said that the wetlands along Martin Branch seemed to be functioning at some level and that the
approach might need to change from enhancement to preservation.
a. This will depend on an approved delineation.
b. The ratio for this wetland area would depend on anticipated functional uplift and could be as
low as 5:1 (but likely not 3:1).
c. IRT would like to see gauge data for at least one growing season for this area before ratio can be
decided.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
Annie Rose Mitigation Site
Jaleb Branch
1. The IRT agreed with the restoration approach to Jaleb Branch.
2. The IRT requested a gauge be installed to demonstrate hydrology on this stream.
3. Casey asked if a BMP could be installed above the jurisdictional extend of Jaleb Branch and John said
that seemed appropriate and Wildlands would evaluate that.
Green Branch
1. The IRT generally agreed with the stream restoration approach to Green Branch.
2. John explained that Green Branch would be moved away from the DOT right of way to provide room for
the buffer.
3. John explained that the upstream end of Green Branch would end at an existing knickpoint and that,
above the knickpoint, the stream was in reference condition.