The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20211427 Ver 1_Mitigation Site Visit_20210909Mitigation Site Meeting Notes Date: August 31, 2021 Project Name: NCDMS Haunted Creek Prepared By: Haywood Type of Site: NCDMS Stream Site Meeting Type: Prospecus Site Review Sponsor/Provider: KCI USACEAID: SAW-2021-01273 County: Macon* *Denotes County w/ 30-foot Buffer NCDWR ID: HUC and Basin: Weather: Coordinates: ON °W Attendees: Todd Tugwell, Kim Browning, Casey Haywood (USACE) Erin Davis (DWR) Andrea Leslie (WRC) Paul Wiesner, Matthew Reid (DMS) Adam Spiller (and 2 others) KCI Project Review Checklist - (provide additional detail in notes section on next page) General Site Issues/Concerns: ❑ Vegetation Composition or Density ❑ Inappropriate Credit Ratio Proposed ❑ Planted Stem Vigor (due to soil, browsing) ❑ JD Needed to Confirm Approach ❑ Invasive/Exotic Species ❑ Continuity/Fragmentation ❑ Beaver/Feral Hogs (management plan) ❑ Easement Issues (existing farm, CE, NRCS funding) ❑ Soil (manipulation, compaction, fertility) ❑ Easement Encroachments (livestock, clearing) ❑ Livestock Present/Evidence of Livestock Access ❑ Easement Marking/Signage ❑ Crossings or Utility Lines ❑ Insufficient Project Size ❑ BMPs or Alternate Approaches ❑ Adjacent Property Owner ❑ Fencing Issues or Fencing Needed ❑ T&E Species ❑ Ponds Within Project Area ❑ Section 106 (historic listing/tribal issues) Stream Issues/Concerns: ❑ Incised/Entrenched ❑ Insufficient Stream Drainage Area ❑ Headcuts Present/Forming ❑ Insufficient Hydrology (if raising channel bed) ❑ Stream Structures Failing/Piping ❑ Vegetation in Channel (stream vs wetland) ❑ Excess Sediment/Aggradation ❑ Flow Obstructions (undersized pipes, fords) ❑ Cross -Sections Missing/Indicate Problems ❑ Substrate Concerns (embeddedness, particle size) ❑ Bank Instability/Failure ❑ Live Stakes Absent/Failing ❑ Bench Rills/Erosion (constructed bench or P2 valley) ❑ Evidence of Water Quality Issues ❑ Excess Sinuosity (lack of flow) ❑ In -stream Habitat Weak/Missing ❑ Braided/Anabranch Channel ❑ Stream Buffer Width Inadequate Wetland Issues/Concerns: ❑ Evidence of Excessive Hydrology ❑ Missing Gauge Data (preconstruction or monitoring) ❑ Evidence of Insufficient Hydrology ❑ Gauge Location/Placement ❑ Hydric Soil Indicators/Soil Series ❑ Gauge Maintenance ❑ Surface Roughness or Bedding ❑ Drainage Ditches/Swales Present ❑ Channel Relocation/Riparian Connectivity ❑ Field Tiles/Subsurface Drainage ❑ Hydroperiod Length or Start/Stop Date ❑ Continued Ag Use Adjacent to Wetland Page 1 of 2 Date: August 31, 2021 Project Name: NCDMS Haunted Creek Notes, Sketch, Action Items, etc.: FIELD REVIEW: Background: Land was mainly in pasture and was used for cattle grazing around 10-15 years ago. Utility line will be relocated. The site ties into the reference stream at Trib 2. Preservation goes to the origin. Sediment load is significant on restoration reach and multiple headcuts were found. Landowner wants to eventually sell as a residential development. Macon county is a 30ft buffer minimum- buffers are 50 ft instead of 30 ft. No fencing proposed. Much of the canopy on T2 and T3 were black walnut. All of the buildings will be removed as part of the restoration. Some PI/PII for restoration. Watershed size: 30 acres Recommend Extending out buffer. Started the visit walking up the crossing on T2 & T3. Slopes were very steep. IRT had concern regarding the approach. There was little to no flow in the channel (or lack thereof) and bringing the channel up would add further risk of losing flow. KCI was not sure on the approach at this time. Watershed size for T1=7 acres, T2=24 acres. Veg also in channel. bottom of T2 below the crossing the stream goes subsurface. KCI believes this is due to excessive sediment deposition from logging roads. KCI completed stream forms- T1, 2, 3 all intermittent. *IRT would require multiple gauges for flow. Veg got wetter as we moved up the mountain on T3. Small wetland feature also found, likely jurisdictional. Will have to see what JD will come back as. T3 incised at the lower end. Moving up the trib the stream goes subsurface and pops back out. Top of T2: Ell section- work includes pulling out structure/concrete and clearing out trash. Some invasive work. Existing veg canopy is mature, but will have some supplemental planting. Likely a lower level ratio. Proposing a lower ratio 3:1. IRT believes this is actually high given there is limited functional uplift associated with the work. T1 looks the same as T2 and T3. Haunted Creek: Huge fine sediment bedload but does not dominate. Lower section is Ell- some structures will be added and invasive spp treated, supplemental planting. Preservation is a rhododendron thicket. KCI may use as reference. Some pine were noted but mostly surrounded by hardwood. IRT did not agree with proposed ratios. Concern that there is currently an established buffer that has not been disturbed in the last 10-15 years and not sure how much functional uplift is possible. Agreed that protecting the stream from the future development would be beneficial but may also be too risky, and buffers at 50 ft may not be wide enough. Additionally there is a risk that they will continue to log around the site and sediment loads will continue. WRC believes the project will provide functional uplift and stated that getting sites in this area is challenging. IRT recommends a wider buffer, noting that this would help protect the easement from future development and logging activity. Preservation and Ell credit proposals are also not realistic in additions to asking additional credit for buffer. Would want wider buffers given risk and credit asking. Would not be willing to give additional credit for buffer given the risk. Flow gauges would need to be installed on T1, 2, & 3 to document flow. Credit Release/Site Closeout Information (for monitoring or closeout reviews only) Stream Credits Wetland Credits Warm Cool Cold Riparian Riverine Riparian Non-Riverine Non -Riparian Coastal Requested Approved* Result of Monitoring Report or Closeout Review Project Manager Signature Date *The updated credit ledger for the project, which includes this release, must be approved by the Project Manager. Page 2 of 2 Form Updated 03/20/2019 From: Davis, Erin B To: Baker, Caroline D Subject: FW: [External] Haunted Creek site notes August 31, 2021 Date: Monday, November 1, 2021 2:02:43 PM Attachments: Haunted Field visit 31AUG2021.odf Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment DWR#: 20211427 v.1 Doc Type: Mitigation Site Visit From: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)[mailto:Casey.M.Haywood@usace.army.mi1] Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 6:32 PM To: Kim Browning <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil>; Davis, Erin B <erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil> Subject: [External] Haunted Creek site notes August 31, 2021 CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Reoort Spam. Site notes are attached and saved on the Y And that's a wrap kids, have a great night! Casey Casey Haywood Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG °