20191132 Ver 1_Mitigation Site Visit_20220303

From:Davis, Erin B
To:Baker, Caroline D
Subject:FW: \[External\] East Buffalo MY1 Site Walk Meeting Minutes
Date:Monday, March 7, 2022 2:56:52 PM
Attachments:East_Buffalo_MY1_IRT_Site_Walk_Meeting _Notes.pdf
Laserfiche Upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20191132 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Site Visit
From: Jessica Waller \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 4:37 PM
To: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jake McLean <[e-mail]>; Joe Lovenshimer
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] East Buffalo MY1 Site Walk Meeting Minutes
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Good afternoon,
I have attached meeting notes from our 2/24 East Buffalo Mitigation Site MY1 IRT site walk. Please
pass along to the appropriate folks and let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jess Waller | Environmental Scientist
O: 828.774.5547 M: 504-913-6238
(Pronouns: she/her)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806

MEETING SUMMARY

Meeting: MY1 IRT Site Walk
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Date: February 24, 2022 at 10:00 am
Location: East Buffalo Mitigation Site

ATTENDEES
Jake McLean – Wildlands Project Manager
Jessica Waller – Wildlands Monitoring Lead
Joe Lovenshimer – Wildlands Stewardship Lead
Steve Kichefski - USACE
Erin Davis – NCDENR

DISCUSSIONS
1. Tree replanting was discussed and is planned for later in the week.
2. Walked along East Buffalo Road and observed English Ivy treatment area (treatment was chemical,
preconstruction).

3. Powerline easement was discussed. Wildlands should plan on coordinating with Duke to make sure
long-term stewardship considerations were understood by all parties. Wildlands suggested that mowing
the travel way along the maintenance corridor every year or two may be one way to provide a “guide”
for Duke and stewardship coordinator. Access needs are very minimal and IRT was reminding Wildlands
to facilitate mutual understanding of long-term use. Wildlands indicated they would reach out to Duke
to discuss this matter further as a proactive way to facilitate appropriate management of the access.

4. Walked old logging roads across UT2 and along UT3 to view a representative section of the condition of
the preservation areas, crossing work (stream restoration), and road decommissioning and erosion
control strategies. Erin & Steve agreed on the value of the preservation areas in protecting the
watershed, providing wide buffers, and preserving mature forest. No concerns were raised about any of
the work completed.

5. Visited forested area between UT2 R2 and UT1 to view mechanical and chemical treatments of dense
privet/multiflora infestations, conducted preconstruction and in MY0 and MY1. Wildlands is continuing
follow-up treatments..

6. Walked through wetland adaptive management section in reestablishment area to observe area that did
not meet wetland hydrology criteria in MY1. Preferred flow paths were present, and water was flowing
from rainfall preceding site visit. Erin and Steve approved of plans to roughen and plug rills to attempt to
increase retention in the lower half of the reestablishment area. Erin and Steve emphasized that any
more invasive measures to address nonperformance should be undertaken early in monitoring process
to minimize impacts to maturing vegetation. They also indicated that at some point efforts would need
to be taken to isolate any persistent non-performing areas (e.g. additional well installation).

7. Visited remnants of the old East Buffalo Creek channel (receives overflow from wetland reestablishment
area). Erin and Steve discussed the possible concerns associated with this feature – that it may pull base
flow from East Buffalo Creek (decided that this is not a big concern given drainage area), that it could
result in avulsion (Jake explained that it is much higher than the stream and that the nature of the
colluvial B-type valley flooding is such that avulsion would be highly unlikely), that vernal pools may be
predated by fish or other wildlife (it was agreed that predation by fish during high flows would not
apply).

Some general concern about the amount of flow entering old channel, but recognition that it had just
rained. Wildlands explained that the water flowing into the old channel remnant is both sheet flow
runoff and also relict hydrology from a stream that likely ran through the reestablishment wetland but
which was previously diverted upgradient. After a limited segment, the old creek bed was plugged to
promote sheet flow across the site and eventually into the new EBC channel.

Everyone recognized that the channel could be affecting drawdown in the downstream part of the
wetland reestablishment area. Wildlands indicated they don’t anticipate doing any channel plugging to
address the issue.

Of the possible concerns, it was generally agreed that most were not major concerns but that it was
rather a review of potential concerns. No actions were requested except to monitor the stability of that
area.
8. Visited UT3 R2 and noticed some excess sediment in pools and riffles. The potential source of this
sediment was discussed, and Wildlands reminded IRT of the higher levels of legacy sediment in the
contributing preservation streams (potentially a result of historic logging and/or landslide activity). Erin
and Steve were not too concerned considering it is MY1 and the reported cross sections showed little
sign of change from MY0 to MY1.

9. Erin suggested looking for and documenting secondary bankfull indicators instead of relying solely on
the automated crest gages. Jess agreed to take photos if indicators were observed during MY2 site visits.

10. The IRT expressed satisfaction with channel design, stability, and functionality in all observed reaches.
The IRT liked the use of more natural rock configurations in structures stating the benefits of irregular
structures for fish passage.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2