The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20231146 Ver 1_CampCreek IRT Site Visit Summary MEETING NOTES MEETING: IRT Draft Prospectus Site Walk Camp Creek Mitigation Site Neuse River Basin CU 03020201; Durham County, NC USACE Action ID: SAW‐2023‐01616 DWR# TBD DATE: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 LOCATION: Isham Chambers Rd. and Range Rd. Rougemont, NC Attendees Todd Tugwell, USACE Casey Haywood, USACE Julia Tillery, USACE Laura Myer, USACE Maria Polizzi, NCDWR Katie Merritt, NCDWR Kaitlyn Hogarth, Wildlands John Hutton, Wildlands Chris Roessler, Wildlands Materials  Wildlands Engineering Camp Creek Mitigation Site Draft Prospectus  Maps of existing and proposed conditions for the site and proposed conservation easement Meeting Notes The primary purpose of this site visit was to provide an opportunity for the IRT members to see the site and for Wildlands staff to explain the various components of the project. The site is on an active row crop farm and will include stream restoration and enhancement, and wetland re‐establishment and enhancement. There may also be preservation components of streams and wetlands. Riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits will also be developed. Wildlands will coordinate with NCDWR separately on that. The draft mitigation plan for stream and wetland mitigation should include a draft of the riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation plan in the appendix, as well as a map that shows all credits sought. This meeting summary is organized by stream reach. A concept map with comments added from this site visit is attached. T1  Wildlands proposes E1 on T1, beginning below the power line crossing. Berms along the stream will be removed and the profile will be stabilized to remove the incision that increases as the channel Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2 Camp Creek Mitigation Site September 12, 2023 IRT Draft Prospectus Site Walk Meeting Notes approaches Camp Creek. The IRT requested a streamflow gage and cross section on this reach to show that the channel remains a stream after construction.  The group also discussed T1 at the power line and upstream. The IRT views it as a linear wetland while DWR considers it to be an ephemeral stream. Either way, stream mitigation will not be proposed above the point at which the stream is considered intermittent. If the power line and utility easement can be moved upstream to Isham Chambers Road, NCDWR believes it would be feasible to get nutrient offset credit along the channel. Ellis Branch  The IRT agreed with Wildlands proposal to do Priority 1 restoration following the path shown in the draft Prospectus. This is intended to follow the path of the existing stream above Bahama Road and where it appeared to be before 1972.  Wildlands will work with DWR to determine what to do with the ditch that runs across the field south of Ellis Branch in the mitigation plan phase.  On Site areas west of Range Road, Wildlands does not plan to seek wetland credits. Instead, they will propose buffer and nutrient offset credits. The BPDP will be included with the mitigation plan as an appendix. Camp Creek  Camp Creek Reach 1 (between Bahama Rd and Range Rd) has a bank height ratio of 1.4 but little erosion is visible because the reach is backwatered by a relic beaver dam. The beaver dam is located immediately upstream from Range Rd. Wildlands proposed E2 at 4:1 because the plan is to set grade with a constructed riffle based on the elevation of the relic beaver dam. Instead, the IRT prefers an E1 approach to Reach 1 that adds constructed riffles; this will lower the bank heigh ratio and create a riffle pool sequence. Wildlands proposes to do this at a 2:1 credit ratio.  Downstream from Range Rd, the IRT agreed with stream restoration on Reach 2 of Camp Creek. Wildlands proposes to do this at a Priority 1 elevation until Priority 2 is required at the downstream end to tie to existing grade. The group decided this is preferable to requesting a TCE from the downstream landowner, which would extend Priority 1 on the Site and Priority 2 on the adjacent property.  The IRT would like to see additional soil mapping by an LSS. One area that will require more attention is the proposed wetland enhancement area in the southwest corner near Range Rd. This will help to characterize the different soil conditions across the Site and inform which wetland approach is appropriate.  The IRT and Wildlands agreed that pre‐construction wetland gages should be installed soon. This will be important to show hydrologic uplift, which is a primary wetland function objective of the project.  Kudzu was observed around the margins of Range Road. This will need to be eliminated to meet the IRT’s zero tolerance requirement for kudzu. Other invasive species, including multilfora rose and privet, will be controlled.  The Corps will conduct Section 408 research to determine what past projects related to Camp Butner have been done in the area. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3 Camp Creek Mitigation Site September 12, 2023 IRT Draft Prospectus Site Walk Meeting Notes TLC Branch  Wildlands proposed TLC Branch for preservation in the draft Prospectus. Upon further discussion and seeing the channel in the field, the group agreed that restoration with an alignment that takes the branch more directly to Camp Creek would be most beneficial for re‐establishing wetlands on the Camp Creek floodplain. It appears that TLC Branch was initially created as a toe slope ditch but it has evolved into a jurisdictional channel. A cross section and flow gage should be included in the monitoring phase to show that TLC Branch remains a jurisdictional stream.  Wildlands will contact Triangle Land Conservancy, owner of the parcel immediately south of TLC Branch and the Camp Creek floodplain, to gain their acceptance of potential hydrologic trespass resulting from this project, as well as moving (and filling) TLC Branch. Copley Branch  Wildlands proposed restoration on all but the upper 250 feet of this stream. Priority 2 restoration will be required at the downstream end to tie to Priority 2 Camp Creek, but the rest will be Priority 1 restoration.  The upper approximately 250 feet of Copley Branch will be E2 at a 7:1 ratio. Most of the work is related to planting a riparian buffer but some spot channel fixes may be done.  As with the Camp Creek floodplain, more detailed soil mapping should be done to characterize the various hydric soil areas. General Discussion  JD wetlands should be shown on the existing conditions and concept maps in the mitigation plan.  Priority 1 and 2 restoration should be shown on the concept map in the mitigation plan by different line types.  Any intermittent reaches on the project should have flow gages, and cumulative and consecutive flow data should be provided in the monitoring reports. Summary At the conclusion of the site visit the IRT indicated that they approved of the site and had no issues with the proposed approaches and had no objections to the minor changes to the plan discussed. These meeting notes were prepared by Chris Roessler on September 14, 2023 and reviewed by John Hutton on September 15, 2023 and represent the authors’ interpretation of the visit.