20090751 Ver 1_Field Notes_20090701

Beamon's Run site visit —DWQ buffer review, 07/01/09
DWQ staff: John Dorney, Chris Pullinger (WaRO), Kyle Barnes (WaRO)
EEP staff: Jessica Kemp, Kevin Miller
We met at the site access road on Speights Bridge Road at 9:30 am. Kevin oriented DWQ to the
site, describing project history and showing aerial photos with overlays of included and excluded
buffer areas ( "greene_planting_revised2.pdf "; attached). He described his approach for
determining which areas to include or exclude, which were based on three criteria: 1) within 20C
ft of a GPSd top -of -bank line; 2) planted in areas without existing veg (areas shown on as
planted the as -built but obviously not planted were excluded); and 3) not encroached (by either
mowing or farming.
2. We discussed whether 50 ft or 200 ft is the appropriate buffer width, pointing out that although
the project had not been grandfathered, it should have been (having been planted in 2000).
DWQ said they would take it under advisement.
3. We went to the end of the parcel along Contentnea Creek and looked at the baldcypress
wetland. John made a soil boring but it was not clear whether the soil was hydric. The
boundary between two soil types, one hydric (KN: "Kinston loam, frequently flooded "), one not
(Ke: "Kenansville fine sand ") is in or near the wetland. The wetland has not been monitored for
hydro or veg. DWQ said that if we expect to get wetland credit, we would probably have to
install a gauge and monitor for 5 yr. Baldcypress planted in 2000 were over 7 feet tall and on
average 1.75" DBH.
4. We had a discussion of the circumstances under which credit might be allowed on the
Contentnea Creek parcel, looking at a strip of planted oaks between encroachment from both
mowing and farming (NOTE: Kevin did not count any of the area along Contentnea Creek in
initial buffer acreage calculations because of extensive encroachment, except two small areas of
river birch that should not have been counted because they are too narrow). DWQ said that
credit would be possible if: 1) width requirements are met (i.e., there is a minimum of 50 ft of
uninterrupted buffer); and 2) encroachment areas are planted (or regenerate to acceptable
density —some oak regeneration is apparent since mowing ceased last fall); and 3) monitoring is
done (probably for 5 yr). DWQ also said: 1) credit would be given only for planted area beyond
existing mature vegetation; 2) if encroachment occurs with buffer zone 1 and 2, there would be
no credit; and 3) if planted area extends beyond 50 ft and encroachment occurred there, credit
would be given for planted area up to 200 ft minus encroached areas (assuming they accept this
as a grandfathered project).
5. We walked about half the length of the Beamon's Run parcel, from the farm road to the
confluence of Beamon's Run and Contentnea Creek (along the mowed path, which has grown up
considerably since mowing ceased last fall, with some oak regeneration). DWQ expressed
concern about the way we had chosen to draw the 200 ft line (from top -of -bank of existing
stream; actually, the top -of -bank of the beaver ponds since Beamon's Run is impounded along
almost the entire length of the easement). DWQ noted that the top -of -bank was likely not in
the same place when the site was planted and we will have to re- establish that line. Kevin
suggested we could do so either by: 1) using the property boundary, which is really near mid-
stream, as top -of -bank; or 2) drawing a top -of -bank line using aerial photos from 2000 when the
site was planted (more accurate).
6. Kevin pointed out a few places on the Beamon's Run parcel where he believes minor errors
were made in the GIS work Stantec did. He will see that those are corrected.
Kevin described the present strategy to monitor veg once and then close -out the project. EEP
believes this is sufficient because 2009 condition reflects the cumulative effect since planting.
DWQ said this would not be acceptable; we would have to monitor for a minimum of 5 yr.
We left the site around 12:30 pm.