20050732 Ver 01_Restoration Plan Review_20060707

comments on Harpers Crossroads Stream Restoration Plan
Subject: comments on Harpers Crossroads Stream Restoration Plan
From: Larry Eaton <[e-mail]>
-Date: Fri, 07 Ju12006 12:01:24 -0400
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
John,
I had a chance to look through the restoration plan submitted nearly a year ago
(Sept 2005). It is a 2000 foot restoration project through a cow pasture just north
of Siler City. I started getting excited by it when, in the fourth paragraph of the
executive summary they wrote: "The proposed plan will provide important benefits by
improving the biological integrity of the stream and wetland system...and moderating
water temperatures of the stream through shading by the surrounding wooded buffer."
I thought this might mean that they would monitor the aquatic community and plant
larger trees than bare root seedlings so shade might happen in under 10 years.
Alas, I was mistaken.
I considered seeing if we should require them to do some biological monitoring of
the project, but decided that it probably wouldn't be worth it. They stated that
the stream upstream of the restoration was equally unstable as the restoration
reach, suggesting that the project could suffer continued sedimentation in pools and
burying of riffles from upstream erosion/sedimentation. They also pointed out that
with Siler City growing, and the watershed upstream of the restoration located
between two major secondary roads, the probablility of upstream development
destabilizing the stream is not negligible. If the stream is so unstable all the
way to the headwaters, would it be worth the effort to suggest that further
restorations in the area be located in the same watershed in an effort to stabilize
enough of the stream to give the restorations a chance to work?
Larry
1 of 1 7/7/2006 12:01