20170887 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report Comments_20200106

Strickland, Bev
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 1:59 PM
To: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) ([e-mail])
Cc: Mac Haupt ([e-mail]); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
([e-mail]); Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
([e-mail])
Subject: Cane Creek UMB MY1 Report Comments - Bethel Branch, UT to Pine Hill & South
Fork
Hi Sam,
Happy New Year!
Please find DWR comments below for the Cane Creek UMB Bethel Branch, UT to Pine Hill, and South Fork Year 1
Monitoring Reports.
Bethel Branch
• UT3 having only 3 days of consecutive flow and 19 days of flow total is concerning. Wildlands started data
recording in May, so next year may be a different story but definitely something we will want to monitor closely.
• Wildlands reported low density and invasive areas, but have plans to supplement plant and conduct treatments.
So, ok with veg for now.
• Regarding as -built comments, Wildlands reseeded bare areas and plan to install another wetland gauge before
MY2 starts.
• One frustration is that there was no mention in the report regarding flow issues in the perennial reaches. But
when we did the as -built walk UT2 Reach 2 was dry. It would have been nice to have this observation recorded
in the report, even if it's explained away by low monthly rainfall data.
UT to Pine Hill
Overall it appears the site is off to a good start. Wildlands plan to treat the small amount of Tree of Heaven
onsite and assess/remediate 1 piping in -stream structure in 2020. 30-day flows and bankfull events were
recorded.
Veg was noted in the channel at cross-section 4 and the July photo log shows veg in the several enhancement
reach channels (UTC, UT1Ca, UT1Da, UT1Fa). It's early but this is something we'll want to watch and possibly ask
Wildlands about proposed maintenance activities (if any).
• Nitpicky request for Wildlands — In Section 2.5, please identify the number of installed flow gauges and crest
gauges.
South Fork
• Scour areas from 2018 hurricanes on SF4A Reaches 2 and 4 were identified as stabilized in Section 2.4, but then
only Reach 4 is mentioned in Section 2.6 and only Reach 2 is mentioned in Section 2.7. It's a bit confusing.
• Overall veg appears ok with 8 of 9 plots meeting criteria. One patch of Chinese privet is being monitored. 30-day
flows and bankfull events were recorded.

• A few observations from the photo log:
o Photo point 10 (SF4A R4) downstream — left bank veg appears patchy for over one year growth.
Something to check.
o Photo points 13 (UT1 R2) and 19 (UT4 R2) - log sills appear to possibly be piping. Something to check.
o Multiple photo points along SF4 R2 and UT2 - veg appears to be within the channel. Something to
watch/manage in MY2.
General request for future Wildlands monitoring reports — Please include a sentence or two summarizing annual visual
assessments of the site boundary (and crossings) and confirmation of no encroachments.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Many thanks!
Erin
D, E �}
�rtl��• ayw��
Erin B. Davis, PWS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Specialist
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919.707.3684 (Office)
[e-mail]
G4��� ' ; • ,x;L f13 � c :.0 :hc.klrca:>.::.��t�j�e.L2 :� tr a; iVkh'1r r i�.�#113 F2.rF.�Nc: Fi�;i:dt7lS L �4Y 7f�7
maybe d ;4ti rc7lfafdpWr �:.