The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140869 Ver 1_RT Meeting Minutes _20140827IRT Field Meeting Summary — Vile Creek August 27, 2014 Meeting Attendees Todd Tugwell /USACE Andy Williams /USACE Tasha Alexander /USACE Marella Buncick /USFWS Eric Kulz /NCDWR Sue Homewood /NCDWR Ginny Barker /NCDWR Paul Wiesner /NCEEP Harry Tsomides /NCEEP Tim Baumgartner /NCEEP Shawn Wilkerson /Wildlands John Hutton /Wildlands Jeff Keaton /Wildlands Shawn Wilkerson of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) led the group on a tour of the proposed mitigation site on August 20, 2014. The purpose of the tour was to present the site to a group of IRT members and to get input into the management /mitigation options proposed for the site. During the tour, the group openly discussed the condition of the stream channels and wetland areas on the site and the design options they felt would be most appropriate to enhance and restore the streams and wetlands on the site. Vile Creek The tour began with Vile Creek at the upstream end of the project near NC -18. The group walked along the stream in the downstream direction as Shawn explained that the creek was likely relocated away from the center of its valley and is laterally unstable and trampled by cows. He pointed out sections where banks are severely eroded and /or sloughing and explained that restoration is proposed for this reach. A member of the group asked if all the restoration would be Priority 1 or 2. Shawn responded that it's all planned to be Priority 1 except as necessary for the transition zones to make grades work. Shawn described the restoration work as constructing a new channel to reconnect the stream with its floodplain, create stable banks, plant the buffer, and fence out cattle. A question was raised about using the existing bed material in the new stream and Shawn replied that Wildlands would absolutely use this material. He also mentioned that the stream will be tied into existing features where possible. Shawn also discussed the wetland restoration zones adjacent to the stream (discussed in more detail below). The group toured the lower section of Vile Creek after looking at UT1, UT1b, and UT1c (described below). Stream restoration and wetland restoration continue along Vile Creek downstream of the confluence with UT1. The stream restoration continues to a point at which the channel is less incised and more stable but cattle still have access to the stream. From this point to the confluence with Little River, the proposed plan is to plant the buffer and fence out cows as enhancement ll. Shawn pointed out that a short section of this reach would have only a 27 foot wide buffer due to the location of the adjacent property line. The group agreed that the proposed approaches for Vile Creek were appropriate. UT1 UT1 flows into Vile Creek approximately one -third of the way to the confluence with Little River. The lower half of this stream on the project site is very incised and is proposed for restoration while the upper half is proposed for enhancement 1. Shawn explained that the treatment for the restoration reach will be to reconstruct a new channel through the valley, crossing the existing channel in locations. He pointed out that Wildlands is placing areas that would be landlocked between a standard 30 foot conservation easement and the adjacent property under the easement as well, creating a very wide easement for most of UT1 and a significant portion of Vile Creek. He said that the plan for this additional easement acreage is to plant it with the same species as the rest of the easement. Shawn also mentioned that a short section (approximately 63 feet) of the creek will be on an adjacent landowner's property and that the landowner will not sell a conservation easement on the property and that the stream cannot be relocated from his property. This will result in this short section not being buffered on the left side and Wildlands is not claiming credit on this section. Shawn explained that the landowner has signed a temporary construction agreement allowing Wildlands to reconstruct the channel at this location providing an appropriate connection between the up and downstream reaches. Shawn also showed the group the upper portion of UT1 which is less incised than the lower section and is proposed for enhancement 1. He stated that the plan for this reach is to correct channel dimensions, repair trampled banks, plant a buffer, and fence out cows. Shawn also pointed out that the only crossing /easement break within the project boundary is a proposed ford crossing on UT1. The group agreed that the approaches proposed for these two reaches were appropriate. IJT1 r and HT1 In Shawn showed the group two small tributaries to UT1 referred to as UT1b and UT1c. The plan for these two short reaches is to plant trees in the buffer zone and fence out cattle, which currently have access to the streams. A small section of the lower end of UT1c is currently unstable and the banks will be laid back and planted to improve stability. Little River The group toured a short section of Little River within the project area. Shawn explained that the river is generally stable along this reach but that cows have access and the buffer vegetation is not contiguous. The plan for this reach is enhancement II consisting of planting and fencing only. The group agreed that this is the appropriate approach. It was pointed out that the proposed fence between UT3 and the enhancement II section of Little River will not run adjacent to the river but much farther off the top of the bank. While this additional fenced area will not be in the conservation easement, it will result in additional acreage fenced out and protected from erosion from cattle impact. UT3 The group took a fairly quick look at UT3. This reach is stable due to bedrock control but is accessed by cattle. The proposed approach for this reach is enhancement 11 which will consist of fencing out cows and supplementing the buffer with additional planting. The group agreed that was all that would be needed for this reach. UT2 The group walked upstream along UT2. This reach is also accessed by cows and has no buffer. The stream is incised but has stabilized at the lower level. Some areas of minor bank erosion were pointed out but Shawn indicated that those areas would heal over time if cows were fenced out. Shawn explained that the only treatments to this reach would be fencing and planting and that enhancement II is proposed for this site. The group agreed with this approach. UT2a The last section of the project reviewed by the group was UT2a. Enhancement II was originally proposed for this small reach. It was difficult to determine where the channel was located due to trampling from cows and growth of the herbaceous vegetation, although it was classified as intermittent during the initial site assessment. Members of the group believed this reach was ephemeral and suggested that the best use of this portion of the site would be to construct a floodplain wetland feature to treat runoff from the cattle pasture upstream. Shawn indicated that this change would be incorporated into the plan for the site. Wetland Restoration The wetland restoration areas were reviewed while the group was walking Vile Creek and a short section at the downstream end of UT1. Shawn discussed the overall plan for wetland restoration along Vile Creek. He discussed the wide ditches on the north side of the wetland areas and stated that the ditches would be filled to reduce drainage. He discussed which areas would be rehabilitation and which would be re- establishment, based on the amount of fill over the hydric soils. An IRT member asked if the stream levee areas would be left out of the wetland areas for which credit will be claimed and Shawn said yes, they would be left out. A discussion arose about the potential to create bog turtle habitat on the project site. The IRT members generally agreed that this was a worthwhile goal and that some of the wetland area could be used for bog habitat (USACE specified up to 15% to 20% of the wetland area). This would include not planting the bog areas with woody vegetation. Members of the group discussed reference sites nearby for bog turtle habitat including Sparta bog (which is a DOT mitigation site) and others. Marella Buncick of the USFWS stated that she would try to provide Wildlands with the mitigation plan for the Sparta bog site. Wildlands also agreed to perform a bog turtle survey on the site to ensure no existing bog turtles would be impacted. Paul Wiesner of NCEEP located a small broken piece of terra cotta pipe on the site and suggested that old drain tiles may exist. Wildlands agreed to look for a farm plan and /or search the stream channels for drain outlets to identify any tiles that need to be removed. John Hutton of Wildlands held a separate conversation about the wetland zones with certain members of the IRT. During this conversation, John stated that Wildlands would get the groundwater monitoring wells installed as soon as possible — likely within a few weeks of the site visit. John also stated that a jurisdictional determination would be done for the site to determine the extent of existing wetlands. An IRT member pointed out that, for areas that are proposed for rehabilitation, Wildlands must document the degradation on the site including ditching, cattle impacts, and fill over hydric soils. John and Todd Tugwell of the USACE discussed three categories of restoration for the project: • Rehabilitation in zones where there is no fill or where minimal fill has hydric indicators. Possible credit ratio of 1.5:1 (subject to appropriate justification) • Rehabilitation zones where fill over hydric soils is generally 6 to 10 inches deep. Possible credit ratio of 1.25:1 (subject to appropriate justification). • Re- establishment where fill is generally deeper than 10 inches (credit ratio: 1:1). John agreed that Wildlands would take soil cores on a grid (with a grid spacing of approximately 50 feet) and survey or GPS the locations of the cores. The core descriptions and a map of core locations will be included in the mitigation plan for the site. 4 o C -- m 0 0 CL CL CL CF CTS �,,, ore Oil N, ) Cz / \e ali ,Vile Cree -\- NA a ail UT2 n o CD � o / 00 i 3 n Q J X Y 1 l 1 �. UT3