The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200002 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Site Visit_20200128Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Davidson Co., Yadkin 03 DWR# 20200002 Site Meeting —January 27, 2020 Attendees: Erin Davis - DWR Kim Browning —USACE Bryan Roden -Reynolds —USACE Travis Wilson — WRC Olivia Munzer—WRC Heather Smith — VHB Lane Sauls — VHB Ryan Perry — EcoTerra Ted Griffith — EcoTerra Scott Fredrick Field Notes: • Discussed road culverts status — DOT was contacted, no culvert replacement is planned, culvert inspection on 2 yr. cycle based on size, easement will be located outside DOT ROW but noncredit work will likely be done to create scour holes. • UT1 Reach 1— Significantly incised, no buffer, lateral instability primarily from cattle access, sand bed system, some clay content in banks, significant sediment loading, bars formed on few meanders, fair slope, Priority 1 planned, discussed relocating crossing to top of reach and using it as grade control at project start, current adjacent floodplain borderline hydric, southern wood buffer understory privet and honeysuckle dominated, Map does not show confluence with trib coming in from south but tie-in stabilization design will be critical (also high sediment loading), same property owner owns southern wooded buffer with wetland and trib (currently not included in project). Trees along channel will be used as in -stream structures and habitat, requested large trees in buffer area to remain (not just cut to allow sun for replanting). Additional drainage appears to be entering from roadside ditch, BMP opportunity? • UT2 — small drainage area (14 acres), good slope, deeply incised, driveway culvert perched 8 feet at top, raise bed, concern about losing flow post -construction, requested flow gauge, mentioned potential linear wetland but likely to much slope to maintain until flat area near confluence with UT1. • UT1 Reach 2 — Again, drainage appears to be entering from roadside ditch, BMP opportunity? Similar conditions as Reach 1 (incised, sediment loading, no buffer, invasives, big system, etc.). Concern with channel filling if too sinuous — will need to check modeling and design in mit plan. Discussed removing one of the two crossings shown. Ditch systems to the north and surrounding area have a wet aerial signature, but soils were assessed and determined to be primarily non-hydric with some pockets of hydric or borderline hydric. But the biggest concern is that hydric indicators in top 6" are from years of compaction, but lower horizons didn't show same high water table indicators and 10% hydroperiod for Chewacla may not be obtainable. Still could be potential for wetland creation with hydro uplift from plugging ditches and raising/shifting UT1 Reach 2. Landowner is interested in expanding waterfowl habitat in this area, but wants to retain access to the area at least part year, he already has a duck pond adjacent to LBF Reach 1. • Wetland Rehab Area — Soil samples are hydric, wet Swale/shallow ditch had standing water & wetland veg, recommended installing gauge to support hydro uplift for Rehab credit; area between delineated hydric soil and stream was borderline hydric (some indicators) recommended adding as restoration and installing a gauge. • LBF Reach 2 — incised, left bank buffer vegetated, lateral instability not significant, currently restoration but may want to consider enhancement approach rather than P2 tie-in at end, tile drain observed that may connect to intermittent stream to the north — should investigate. • Wooded Wetland Area north of LBF Reach 2 — shallow ditch/depression, floodplain wetland, low enhancement discussed to treat invasives and supplemental plant, may continue west adjacent to Reach 1 where traditional enhancement with planting is warranted. • LBF Reach 1— Southern end parallels UT1 Reach 2, reassess tie-in location after survey, if a section remains parallel justification needed in mit plan. Stream condition similar to UT1— sand bed, sediment loading, deeply incised, invasive covered bank, no buffer, large drainage, Priority 1 proposed. Interesting that off line channel will be to the west rather than east, wondering if LBF Reach 1 and UT4 (which runs parallel) were once a single channel set in the vicinity of the existing ditch located between them before being manipulated by farming — would have been pre-1940s. Currently the ditch receives road drainage and has hydric soil, but the surrounding area is either borderline hydric or non-hydric. Wet aerial signature likely from years of compaction. Area was assessed for potential restoration/rehab, but based on soils was determined to not be viable. • UT4 — Discussion of culvert replacement. Still considering enhancement type approach unless take the channel off line. Reach not as incised as others, but has no buffer. Room for functional uplift. • UT3 Reach 2 — small channel present, but surrounded by herb veg, concern about maintain flow and channel features, likely looks like a linear wetland in summer. Requested crossing be removed since such as small reach, but landowner may require it, if so recommend shifting upslope. • UT3 Reach 1— slightly incised, left buffer wooded, either low value enhancement with fencing & 1-sided planting or include in -stream structures and spot bank work for standard 2.5:1 credit. Reach will continue beyond large headcut to JD determination. • Wetland Preservation — Not a high quality forested wetland system, but low enhancement is an option — treat invasives & supplemental plant (7.5:1), some exterior areas can be fully replanted for 2:1 credit, or lump areas for total 5:1 • General comments: mentioned using a lot of wood in channels — good to hear & necessary for bedform diversity/habitat; with drainage area size & sediment loading there is risk involved (bank repairs could be necessary during monitoring), including no maintenance BMPs was also discussed, Kim recommended including an uncertainties discussion section in mit plan (will send example), sediment transport/capacity modeling will be critical IRT Meeting Notes from Draft Prospectus Discussion — December 10, 2019 Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Banks: Draft Prospectus presentation. Davidson County, Off Tom Livengood Road and Norman Shoaf Rd. Eco Terra Partners, LLC out of Atlanta. Proposing 7,000 SMUs and 1.0 WMUs.Discussion regarding F19 and chewacla soils, 10-12% hydro -period, and if ditches aren't present and it's not wet, it's likely not a wetland. Reduce nutrient input, exclude livestock, stream restoration, and wetland restoration. Yadkin 03, Abbots Creek watershed. Little Brushy Fork is main stem of this project, plus 4 unnamed tribs. Drainage areas range from 14 ac to 4.3 sgmi. Two wetland areas. Livestock currently has access. Stream restoration, El and Ell proposed. Wetland rehabilitation (1.5:1) and preservation (10:1) proposed. The preservation area may potentially be better suited for enhancement. Property owner uses adjacent existing wetlands as an impoundment/duck boxes. 6 proposed crossings (widths are mostly 20', one is 30') on approximately 9,000 LF of stream. Recommend pipes rather than ford crossings. Crossings on the main stem may require a bridge due to drainage area. Drone footage was reviewed. Hydric soils in Wetland A, some existing ditches. Discussion regarding minimizing number of crossings, and possibly relocation. The space between UT4 and Reach 1 could be included in the easement, which is a potential wetland. Place wells in questionable wetlands now to establish pre -monitoring data. Run the buffer credit tool if they widen the buffers, or get wetland credit if they include these areas, and this would keep livestock out of the wetland and prevent a source of runoff into the buffer. The majority of the streams are proposed for P1. Most have a high BHR. Perched culvert at Tom Livengood Rd, which will set the grade for P1. Culvert on Norman Shoaf Rd is buried, and is not in great condition. Recommend setting the easement back from the DOT ROW. Areas for potential BMPs where ditches drain into the easement, self-sustaining marsh treatment areas. Intermittent streams would be subject to 30-day flow standard, and restoration may cause loss of flow. Veg standard would need to include vigor. Invasive treatment should be completed annually. Green Ash should be capped at 5%, remove red maple from planting list. No water quality monitoring proposed, despite the goal of removing fecal matter. Additional gauges would be required, depending on soils and topography. A few more soil borings are requested by DWR. Where the steep tribs with small watersheds hit the flat floodplain, they often splay out into a wetland and loose channel characteristics. A lot of sediment input from upstream, so looking at sediment transport is important for habitat. This site was not in the DMS TLW, so they proceeded with a bank. Fence —should meet NRCS standards and please place gates. Maintenance of fence in LTM. Recommend making this an Umbrella bank. Consider a 50' buffer on wetlands. Recommend adding wood to the design.