20190866 Ver 1_Post Contract Site Visit - July 24 2019_20190805

Strickland, Bev
From: Reid, Matthew
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 8:54 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Wiesner, Paul; Ullman,
Kirsten J; Russell, Periann; Davis, Erin B; Haupt, Mac; Shawn Wilkerson; Christine
Blackwelder; Daniel Johnson
Subject: RE: Meeting Minutes - Huntsman Site - DMS#100123 - Post Contract Site Visit - July
24, 2019
Attachments: Huntsman_100123_Post Contract IRT Visit_2019.pdf
Attachment was not included with first email.
Matthew Reid
Project Manager —Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-231-7912 Mobile
matthew.reid(a)ncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
x this Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Reid, Matthew
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 8:49 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>; Ullman, Kirsten J <[e-mail]>; Russell, Periann
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Mac Haupt ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Christine Blackwelder
<[e-mail]>; Daniel Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meeting Minutes - Huntsman Site - DMS#100123 - Post Contract Site Visit - July 24, 2019
0
Please see attached meeting minutes. Please let us know if you have any additional comments or concerns.
The final memo will be included in the mitigation plan for IRT review.
Thanks,
Matthew Reid

Project Manager —Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-231-7912 Mobile
matthew.reid cni ncdenr.aov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
0 .....u,......�u,... ...
....
e...m�,wm, .,.....
w.......uoo...... ...
m,,...A....,.00�
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING NOTES
MEETING: Post -Contract IRT Site Walk
HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040102; Wilkes County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7891
DMS Project No. 100123
Wildlands Project No. 005-02183
DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2019
LOCATION: Ingle Hollow Road
New Castle, NC
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Kirsten Ullman, DMS Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands
Kim Browning, USACE
Periann Russel, DMS Christine Blackwelder, Wildlands
Paul Wiesner, DMS
Erin Davis, DWR Daniel Johnson, Wildlands
Matthew Reid, DMS
Mac Haupt, DWR
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 3/6/2019 in response to DMS RFP 16-007728
Meeting Notes
The meeting began at 12:30 pm. Shawn presented an overview of the project at the parking location. From
there, the group walked across Little Hunting Creek to the headwaters of UT2, retraced steps and reviewed the
piped portion of UT1 and Pond 3. The meeting concluded at 2:00 PM.
1. Overall comments
• Todd asked if the project team would pursue additional credits for wide buffers via the GIS buffer tool.
He encouraged the team to run the tool since the project captures headwater drainages on UT1 and
much of UT2 and provides wide buffers on Little Hunting Creek.
• The project does not currently include wetlands for credit. Todd mentioned that the JD will be
important for quantifying existing resources on the site, and that it is likely that there will be a net gain
of wetlands.
• Kim noted that it would be helpful to receive any available information on onsite culverts in advance
of site visits in the future.
2. Little Hunting Creek
• Little Hunting Creek has a drainage area of 2 square miles. The stream has eroded banks but is not
deeply incised due to bedrock, which will facilitate a Priority 1 design.

HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site — IRT Meeting Notes
• Group agreed that restoration is appropriate on Little Hunting Creek.
• Shawn explained that a restrictive covenant will be used to exclude cattle from a ditch joining Little
Hunting Creek at the upstream property boundary. IRT saw this as favorable and supportive to the
project.
3. Old Bus Branch
• Shawn walked through the I/P calls made in February during our proposal investigation. The
intermittent stream call began at the 3 -foot headcut and perennial began at the bottom of the 10 -foot
headcut. The group agreed the JD will be important for this tributary, and that stabilization of the
headcuts with a BMP would be beneficial if the stream is not jurisdictional up to those points.
Wildlands agreed.
• The IRT members requested that Wildlands include a note regarding this discussion in the Mitigation
Plan so that this reach and the proposed design approach can be reviewed at that time.
4. Trapper and Rifle Tributaries
• These two streams flow through wet, headwater seep areas. IRT would prefer to see Enhancement 2
of these tributaries, to include excluding cattle and treating invasives.
• Wildlands foresees the need to install several log sills on Rifle Tributary to prevent headcutting into the
wetland complex.
5. UT2
• The group reviewed UT2. At the upstream extent of UT2 within the Enhancement 2 section of stream,
Todd suggested the alignment be pulled off the left toe of slope for approximately 50 LF where there is
some stream bank erosion. This additional effort, combined with the channel work proposed upstream
of the culvert crossing, would be worthy of 2.5:1 credit as opposed to the 3:1 credit presented in the
proposal.
• The group agreed that restoration of UT2 was appropriate given the incision and erosion observed
downstream of the culvert crossing and the obvious ditching within the floodplain of Little Hunting
Creek.
Kim asked if Wildlands was concerned with loss of hydrology when UT2 is raised. Shawn said that there
have been no site indications to date that hydrology would be lost, and that the stream has had strong
flow during all site visits.
6. Barn Branch
• The disturbed feeding lot area upstream of Barn Branch appears to be a wetland now. Todd suggested
eliminating the BMP proposed here and widening the conservation easement to protect the headwater
wetland instead.
7. UTI (upstream of road)
• The group reviewed the drop structure at the road crossing. There are three culverts contributing flow
within the drop structure (one from the north, two from the east) and one which outlets under Ingle
Hollow Road. UT1 currently drops in the top of the structure through a grate.
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site — IRT Meeting Notes
o Group asked if this culvert and drop structure will be revised. Revising the culvert is not part of
the restoration plan. The structure is likely within the DOT right of way, but we won't know for
sure until the survey is complete.
o The culvert from the north and one from the east were flowing. Wildlands does not currently
know where the culvert flow originates from.
• Pond 3 has large headcuts totaling over 10 feet in height approaching the dam. The wetted width of
the pond is approximately 300 feet. Erin expressed concern that removing the dam could result in
functional loss of open water habitat and that the buffer won't extend to the original wetted pond
width. The group asked how the pond bottom will be restored. Wildlands needs to complete a
topographic survey of the embankment and pond bottom to inform the design, but it is likely that the
excavated pond embankment material will be used to rebuild the approximate original valley in the old
pond 3 pond bed. Shawn reminded group that advancing headcuts will eventually result in dam failure,
and loss of the normal pool is inevitable.
• UT1 is buried within 300 LF of pipe upstream of pond 3. The group reviewed the pipe inlet. Mac
commented that the restoration of UT1 will require major earth moving. Wildlands is aware and
Periann commented that the project scored well because of the removal of barriers.
• Group requested inclusion of a good discussion of existing condition topographic/soil surveys done
along UTI and the design decisions made regarding stream and valley restoration in the mitigation
plan.
• Shawn suggested that a design memo may need to be developed in advance of the mitigation plan for
the area to ensure that the IRT is on board with design decisions on this reach. Substantial changes to
proposed buffer widths or pond removal considered as an impact would need to be considered before
the project is too far along. Wildlands will discuss this further with DMS.
These meeting minutes were prepared by Christine Blackwelder on July 25, 2019, and reviewed by Shawn Wilkerson on July
31, 2019, and represent the authors' interpretation of events. Please report and discrepancies or corrections within 5
business days of receipt of these minutes.
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
HUNTSMAN Mitigation Site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk