20141259 Ver 1_Email_20141208

Baker, Virginia
From:
Johnson, Alan
Sent:
Monday, December 08, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Baker, Virginia
Subject:
RE: town creek
|n the restoration section Reach 3, 1 imagine they are raising the channel, thus using parts of the old channel won't
work. Look at sheet 6. |t looks like they could utilize some of the old channel, but like | said, if they are raising the new
channel, then the only way toisdoa full blown restoration.
As always, | think rock riffles are dominant. However, | would suggest adding quarry "screenings"(~2to3mm
diameter) . Smaller than 57 stone, but much larger than sand particles. This may help with filling the voids in the riffles
and would probably aid in filling the voids in the cross vanes (the sediment is too small and the 57 stone is too big, thus
leading to piping through rock vane)
I can't say I have an overriding issue with the plan
From: Baker Virginia
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:07 AM
To: ]nhnson,Alan
Subject: RE: town creek
Hi Alan,
There is just one channel for Town Creek and no trib. The upper part is intermittent and lower part perennial, 5 reaches.
| had some question from reviewing the plan asto whether the upper Reach 1 (intermittent) needed P1 restoration as
opposed toEl. Do you have a copy of the plan? | see a soft copy is not on the EEPportal.
Ginnv
From:]ohnson Alan
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:55 AM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: RE: town creek
Ok two different sites??? If so, I have made comments of "TOWN creek"
Yep, I have other notes
1\ | asked myself (for the main channe|[ifitis worth restoring. |t looks "good" compared to bad channels. But itis
straight asa board and very rectangular. Plus a sewer line runs parallel to the channel. Would this bea
problem.
2\ The trib to the channel, some parts I think enhancement would work fine (lower half), other parts restoration
streams appropriate (upper section). You could make an argument on the lower half to some degree for
restoration.
So I guess you say ... it depends

From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Subject: RE: town creek
Ok so these are the same comments you had for "UT to Town Creek" (35.431179,- 80.246643, EEP94648, 20141024).
Were any of these specific for Town Creek (35.431179, - 80.246643, EEP95026, no project # I think) ?
Ginny
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:26 AM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: town creek
I went out in October, these were my comments. You may have them.
I went out to the site with Christi Suggs. I had been to the initial visit when it first came up as a possible site, but
haven't been involved with it since that time.
Overall, no changes to the plan, but some minor comments (below):
-They have two "water quality' ponds at the upper end of two tribs to the main branch, that catches and "treats" the
run off from the surrounding pasture.
- Unlike most stream plans they have a good bit of wetland creation /restoration along the main branch. It will be
interesting to see how this goes. The main branch is pretty beat up from cattle
-They propose the use geo -tech fabric for soil lifts and for grade control /cross vanes etc. This is standard practice. I did
mention to Christi about the possible use of "burlap" or similar material. A more natural material that over time would
degrade, while the stream and vegetative growth matures.
-1 mention the use of "screenings" from rock quarry for use in riffle pools and backfilling cross vanes etc. This material
fills the gap between #57 stone and sand /soil mediums. This work extremely well at a DOT site where a culvert had to
be backfilled and created a very natural looking stream substrate.
-1 mentioned the potential to limit the final grub and grading which removes all stumpage from the site. It may be
better to leave stumps so that the roots remains and a quicker regrowth may occur from the stump rather than
counting on plantings.
Alan